assessment of recreational marinas and marina needs on the Mississippi Gulf Coast

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

AN ASSESSMENT OF RECREATIONAL MARINAS

AND MARINA NEEDS ON THE MISSISSIPPI GULF COAS

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

Prepared for:

BUREAU OF MARINE RESOURCES

DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

COASTAL ZONE
WFORMATION CENTER

Prepared by:

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND AR EA DEVELOPMENT

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI

TC
224
M7
A87 May 1984
1914

AN ASSESSMENT OF RECREATIONAL MARINAS
AND MARINA NEEDS ON THE MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST

PREPARED FOR:
BUREAU OF MARINE RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
LONG BEACH, MISSISSIPPI

MAY 1984

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

PREPARED BY:

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND AREA DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI
S.S. BOX 5051
HATTIESBURG, MISSISSIPPI 39406-5051
(601) 266-4729

This document was financed in part through a
federal grant from the Office of Ocean and Coastal
Resource Management under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, as amended.

THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI

GEOGRAPHY AND AREA DEVELOPMENT

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

MISSISSIPPI BUREAU OF MARINE RESOURCES:

The Department of Geography and Area Development here-
with submits its report on An Assessment of Recreational
Marinas and Marina Needs on the Mississippi Gulf Coast in
accordance with a subgrant agreement between the Bureau of
Marine Resources and the University of Southern Mississippi.

Work on this project was conducted between June 1, 1983,
and May 31, 1984. Unless noted otherwise, data on registered
boats in Mississippi are current through June 30, 1983;
marina inventory data represent characteristics up to August
1, 1983;. user questionnaire data were collected through May
15, 1984; and published reports were cited through May 31,
1984.

This report reflects excellent cooperation from public
agencies, and a number of individuals and groups both inside
and outside the Government deserve special gratitude and
acknowledgment for their assistance. Appreciation is due to
the many marina owners or managers who consented to be inter-
viewed; boat owners occupying marina slips who completed a
mailed questionnaire; Or. Edwin W. Cake, Jr., Gulf Coast
Research Laboratory, Ocean Springs, Mississippi; and Mrs.
Shirley Jordan, Boat Registration, Mississippi Department of
Wildlife'Conservation. We are especially indebted to Mr. W.
Boman Crum, Jr. Env ironmental Assessment Branch, United
States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV, Atlanta,
Georgia, for his help in providing to us'draft- copies of the
following EPA documents: Coastal Marinas Assessment Guidance
Handbook, and Coastal Marinas Assessment: Inventory of Exist-
ing Conditions and Key Factors Task Report. Extensive. use
was made of both documents.

Respectfully,

Robert W. Wales
Principal Investigator

Co-investigators: Research Assistants:
Tim Hudson Jim Morrow
Don Williams Ed Bowles
George Hepner John Wales
Art Kelley John"Breckenridge

Southern Station Box 5051 Hattiesburg, Mississippi 0 39406-5051 o (601) 266-4729

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

SECTION

I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION . . . . . 4

Gulf Coast Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Marina Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Summary of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Marina Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Berthing Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Boat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Boat Lengths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Boating Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Dry Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Dock Facilities and Services . . . . . . 28
Land Facilities and Services . . . . . . 28
Launch Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Tide Depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

III PUBLIC MARINA USER CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . 30

Marina User Profile . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Marina Use and Services . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Spatial Patterns of Users . . . . . . . . 37
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

IV RECREATIONAL BOATING AND BERTHING DEMAND
PROJECTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Mississippi Boating and Berthing Demand . . . 44

V ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IMPACTS ASSESSMENT,
AND PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS IN MARINA
DEVELOPMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Environmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Dredging and Soil Disposal . . . . . . . 59
Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 63
Habitat Loss . . . . . . . . . . 63
Estuarine Impacts . . . . . . . . 63
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Dissolved Oxygen . . . . . . . . 64
Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . 65

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont.)

V ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ... (cont.)

Biological Impacts . . . . . . . . 65
Turbidity . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Siltation Effects . . . . . . . 66
Modification of Habitat . . . . 66
Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Shoreline and Protective Structures . . 67
Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . 67
Chemical Impacts. 68
Biological Impacts 68
Wastewater Discharge and Runoff . . . . 69
Wastewater Discharge from Boats 7 0
Wastewater Discharge from
Shoreside Facilities . . . . . . . . 70
Runoff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Boat Operation and Maintenance . . . . . . . 72
Physical Impacts of Boat Operation . . . 72
Boat Operation and Maintenance
Pollutants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Pollutant Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Impact Assessment Techniques . . . . . . . . 75
Marina Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
General Planning Considerations . . . . 89
Types of Marinas . . . . . . . . . . 90
Marina Access . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Facilities Area Requirements . . . . 90
Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
General Site Locations . . . . . . . 92
Site Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Physical Considerations . . . . . . 92
Weather Conditions.
. . . . . . . 93
Wave Conditions . . . . . . . . . . 93
Site Development . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Marina Capacity . . . . . . . . . . 94
Marina Orientation . . . . . . .. . . 94
Mooring Facilities . . . . . . . 94
Basin Circulation . . . . . . . 95
Entrance Locations . . . . . . . 95
Marina Protection Facilities . . . . 95
Wave Attenuation . . . . . . . . 95
Shoaling . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
Sedimentation . . . . . . . . . 96
Dredging Requirements . . . . . 96
Dredged Materials . . . . . . . 96
Dredging Alternatives . . . . . 97

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont.)

V ENVIRONME14TAL IMPACTS...(cont.)
Layout Criteria for Marinas . . . . . . . . . 97
'Layout Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Boats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Ramps and Hoists . . . . . . . . . . 100
Boat Fueling and Pumpout Facilities . 100
Vehicle Parking . . . . . . . . . . . 100
Boat Repair and Servicing Yards - 100
Dry Storage . . . . . . . . . . . : . 103
Boat Sales and Chandlery Facilities 103
Administrative Complex . . . . . . . . 103
Space Allocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

VI REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Permit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Siting, Design, and Construction Criteria 113
Local Regulations Affecting Marina 118
Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . 122

Siting . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 122
Impact Assessment Techniques . . . . . . . . . 128
Impact Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Regulatory/Planning Processes . . . . . . . . 131

APPENDIX

A Recreational Marina Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
B User Characteristic Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . 139
C Projection Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
D Permit Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

LIST OF TABLES

Table P'aq6

1 Marinas, Mississippi Gulf Coast, 1983 . . . . . 7

2 Marinas, Boats, and Boating Characteristics
by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3 Marina Characteristics and Distribution
by Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4 Mar ina Characteristics and Distribution
by Type . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 16

5 Area of Residence of Respondent... . . . . . . . 32

6 Slip Location Zone . . . . . . . . . . 32

7 Driving Time to Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

8 First Choice of Slip Locations 33

9 Boat Type/Boat Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

10 Yearly Frequency of Use . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

11 Percent of Time Engaged in Each Type of
Activity . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 34

12 Length of Time Renting at Marina . . . . . . . 35

13 National Retail Expenditure and Boat
Estimates, 1961-82 45

14 Registered Boats: U.S.and Gulf Coast.
States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 46

15 Rank in U.S. of Registered Craft and Per-
cent Change 1981 Over 1980 by State . . . . . 47

16 Registered Boats 16' and Over by County . . . . 49

17 Planning Estimates: Projections of 16'+
Boats on Mississippi Gulf Coast . . . . . . . . 51

18 Planning Ranges for 161+ Boat Registrations
on Mississippi Gulf Coast at 68% Confidence
Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

19 Planning Ranges for 161+ Boat Registrations
in 3-County Area at 90% Confidence Level . . . 53

LIST OF TABLES
..(cont.)

Table Page

20 Wet Slips and Potential Demand . . . . . . . . 54

21 Potential Demand as Ratio of Registered
Boats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

22. Potential Demand for Berthing Space . . . . . . 56

23 Major Impact Categories, Specific Impacts
and Source Impacts Relevant to Coastal
Marinas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

24 marina Environmental Impact Matrix . . . . . . 62

25 Impact Assessment Techniques . . . . . . . . . 77

26 Marina Services and Fa.cilities . . . . . . . . 91

27 Federal and State Marina Permitting Agencies
and Evaluation Criteria for Major Impact
Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

28 County and City Ordinances, Regulations,
and Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

29 Coastal Marina Screening Checklist . . . . . . 125

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Mississippi Coastal Counties . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Mississippi Coastal Marinas by Slip
Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

3 Mississippi Coastal Marinas by Type . . . . . . 24

4 Boater Destination Zones originating
from Zone 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5 Boater Destination Zones Originating.
from Zone 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

6 Boater Destination Zones Originating
from Zone 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

7 Total Percent of Trips Made to Each Zone . . . 41

8 Schematic Layout of A Marina Showing
Desirable Interrelation of Facilities . . . . . 98

9 Layout of A Typical Launching Ramp Facility. 101

10 Hoist-Launching Facility with Dry Storage
Yard, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

11 Typical Maintenance Building and Yard
Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

12 Space Allocation for A Typical Marina . . . . . 106

13 Permit Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

viii

I
I
I
I
I SECTION I
I
I INTRODUCTION
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION I

.INTRODUCTION

The intent of this assessment of marinas on the Missis-

sippi Gulf Coast is threefold: first, to characteri ze the

present supply of marina facilities and services and to

examine selected characteristics of boat owners; second, to

project growth patterns for recreational (pleasure) boats

and consequent berthing facility demand; and third, to

provide an overview of environmental impacts and impact

mitigation associated with marina construction and use.

This assessment was initiated to provide Mississippi's

Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR--the state's designated CZM

agency) guidance in insuring that efficient and environ-

mentally sound marina development occurs within its manage-

ment jurisdiction.

Although requested by and designed to meet the needs of

the BMR, this report should also be of interest to the boat-

ing public in general, and of use to local and regional plan-

ning agencies, operators of existing marinas, and developers

who may be contemplating the development of new marinas.

The focus of this report is on recreational boating and

consequent demand for marina facilities and services. For

the purpose of gathering data, this necessitated the need to

clarify the concept of what would constitute a marina.

There exists no commonly accepted definition of a marina.

Numerous definitions are found in literature treating

marinas, but all tend to be based upon utilization classi-

fications--they are pragmatic compromises specific to the

needs of a particular time, place, and research objective.

About the only denominators common to all definitions were

that they included boats, water, and berths.

For the purpose of this study a marina constituted an

operating enterprise providing wet slips for boat berthing,

usually for lease or rent, and catering to the pleasure

boating public. Excluded from the study were marinas

devoted to servicing commercial fishing boats; berthing

areas specifically designated for commercial boats within

dual-purpose marinas; and some enterprises known locally as

"fish camps," where long-term lease or rent of slips to

saltwater boaters was not encouraged or likely to occur

because of the nature of the facility or service. Fish

camps which were renting or leasing slips to boats destined

for ocean waters were included. Also counted in the survey

were all slips in "mixed" marinas (i.e., not having desig-

nated areas for the physical separation of pleasure and

commercial boats) regardless of the number of slips occupied

by commercial boats.

The report is divided into seven sections. Section II,

"Marina Characteristics and Distribution," is a description

and analysis of Mississippi's Gulf Coast marinas. Section

III, "Marina User Characteristics," provides a brief des-

cription and analysis of results from a questionnaire sent

to leasers of boat slips in public marinas. Section IV,

"Recreational Boating and Berthing Demand Projections,"

examines national and regional boating patterns, and projects

boat registrations and berthing (slip) needs on the Missis-

sippi Gulf Coast.

Section V, "Environmental Impacts, Impact Assessment,

and Planning Considerations in Marina Development," examines

environmental problems and issues associated with marinas;.

looks at problems associated with assessing impacts; and

outlines planning and siting considerations in marina

location, design, and operation. Section VI, "Regulatory

Responsibility," outlines federal/state/local agency roles

in the site planning process. Section VII, "Recommendations,"

is intended to provide the BMR,guidance for addressing.

marinas and marina-related problems in its coastal program.

Finally, Sections VIII and IX include the bibliography and

assorted appendices.

I
I
I
I SECTION II
I
I MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION II

MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION

In Junef July, and August 1983 a survey of marinas along

the Mississippi Gulf Coat was undertaken. The purpose of

the survey was to establish an inventory of recreational

marinas to include facilities.and services, berthing capa-

city, and occupancy rates. Berthing capacity and occupancy

figures were to be used to project future demand for wet-

slip berthing (see Section IV for slip demand and boat

projections). Aggregated totals and sub-totals from the

survey of individual marinas are presented in this section.

Gulf Coast Overview

The Mississippi Gulf Coast extends from just east of

Pascagoula, Mississippi, westward for a distance of approxi-

mately 80 linear miles to the mouth of the Pearl River. The

total coastline is approximately 359 miles in length (Fig.

1)., Along this three-county coastline are located nine

incorporated cities. In 1980 the population of Hancock,

Harrison, and Jackson counties was 24,537, 157,665, and

118,015 respectively, for a total of 300,217 which accounted

for nearly 12 percent of the state's total population. The

nine coastal cities had a combined population of 176,869.

This was about 60 percent of the total three-county population.

m M.m-mm m m m m m

Figure 1
Missis'sippi Coastal Counties

i ON 0 1)

IHARRIS6N UNTY +
+
HANCOCK,CQbNTY

J, +

F7`7

-4- J + +
+

S
+ +
LO 1<
ASC 'U
"BEAC. L

----------
WA ELANG.,' - - ----------
------------- ---------

------------ - ------
-J,

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA
bureau of Marine Resources

&Colo
10.00V

The cities ranged in size from Biloxi, the largest (49,311)

to Waveland, the smallest (4,186).

The coast line is bordered on the south by the Missis-

sippi Sound, and forms two large bays (St. Louis Bay and

Biloxi Bay) and a major river mouth (Pascagoula River).

Bordering the Sound on the south are a line of barrier

islands.

The Sound varies in depth from generally less than 10

feet adjacent to the main coast, to an average of between 15

to 20 feet near the barrier islands. Tide variations

average about 1.8 feet for the coast as a whole. Within the

tidal zone are 64,000 acres of tidal marshes.

The major water movement along the coast is a slow

westward longshore current. Winds are generally north-

easterly in January, begin to shift eastward by March until

they become east-southeasterly in May. Throughout the

summer, southerly winds prevail until September when the

shift is back to the east then northerly for the remainder

of the year (Waller, n.d.).

Marina Survey

Forty-five marinas from throughout the coastal zone

comprise the survey list (Table 1). These were chosen

following extensive field reconnaissance. During the field

reconnaissance an attempt was made to view all facilities

meeting Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (1974) defini-

tion of a marina: "a dock or basin providing secure moorings

TABLE 1

MARINAS, MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST, 1983

County Name of Marina Marina Type

Jackson Blue Herron 2
Choctaw 11 2
Choctaw Marina 2
Cochran Z
Ferguson's Fish Camp 2
Fisher 2
Gautier 2
Indian Point 4
Inner Harbor (O.S.) 1
Krebs 4
Lake Yazoo 1
Mary Walker 2
O'Brian's Marina 2
Old Oak 2
O'Sullivan 2
Pack's Marina 2
Pascagoula Yacht Club 3
Riverbend 2
Robert's Fish Camp 2
Shotte's 2
Three Rivers Marina 2
Tiki 4
Tuceils 2

Harrison Anatole Bay 4
Bay View 2
Bayou Bernard 2
Bert Jones Yacht Basin 1
Biloxi Small Craft 1
Biloxi Yacht Club 3
Broadwater 4
Discovery Bay 4
Gulfport Yacht Club 3
Harbour Square 4
Keesler Marina 4
Kremer 2
Long Beach 1
Pass Christian Mun Harbor 1
Pass Christian Yacht Club 3

(cont'd next page)

Types of Marinas: 1 - Public; 2 - Private Profit Recreation;
3 - Private Nonprofit Recreation;
4 - Ancillary

TABLE 1 (cont.)

MARINAS, MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST, 1983

County Name of Marina Marina Type

Hancock Bay Marina 2
Bay-Waveland 2
Bordages 2
Diamondhead 4
Hancock County 1
Joels.Marina 2
La France 2
(Bay Cove)a 41

aBegan a phased opening of slips in early 1984. Data for
this marina are not included in subsequent tables of this
report (see also page 25).

Type or Marinas: 1 - Public; 2 - Private Profit Recreation
3 - Private Nonprofit Recreation'
4 - Ancillary

TABLE 2

MARINAS, BOATS,.AND BOATING CHARACTERISTICS BY COUNTY

Survey Categories Hancock Harrison Jackson Total

Marina Type
Publica 1 14 4 27 2 7 16
Private Profitb 4 57 3 20 17 24 53
Private Non-profitc 1 14 3 20 1 5 11
Ancillary Marinad 1 14 5 33 3 9 20
Total 7 100 15 100 23 100 45 100

Berthing Capacity
Wet Slipse 347 100 1206 100 1215 100 2768 100
Normal occupancy 339 98 1094 91 1144 94 2577 93
Present occupancy f 347 100 1094 91 1011 83 2452 @89
No. on waiting list 122 10 851 70 237 20 1210 100

Boat Typesg
Sailboats 52 15 414 38 119 12 585 24
Recreation powerboats 287 83 664 61 802 79 1753 71
Commercial boatsh 8 2 16 1 90 9 114 5
Total 347 100 1094 100 1011 100 2452 100

Boat Leagthsg
Under 16' 30 9 20 2 273. 27 323 13
161-25 169 49 299 27 250 25 718 29
261-39 120 34 563 52 381 38 1064 43
40' and over Total 28 8 212 19 107 10 347 14 kD
347 100 1094 100 1011 100 2452 100

TABLE 2 (cont.)

MARINAS, BOATS, AND BOATING CHARACTERISTICS BY COUNTY

Survey Categories Ha-ncock Harrison Jackson Total
% % % %

Boating Activityi
Fishing 68 .36 78 61
Sailing 10 40 11 20
Cruising 4 18 5 9
Skiing 18 6 .6 10

Dry Storage Slip Space
Dry-stack 0 0 187 100 0 0 187 100
Pigeonhole 188 29 193 30 273 41 654 100

Dock Facilities & Services,
marinas)

Electric power 5 12 16 33
Water 5 13 15 33
Lighting 5 12 18 35
Fuel Station 7 8 12 27
Public address 1 11 1 13
Phones: at dock 2 6 3 11
in office 6 12 9 27
Sanitary holding tank
pumpout facility 1 3 0 4
Bilge drainage 3 3 4 10
Type of piers: fixed 7 12 19 38
floating 0 2 1 3

TABLE 2 (cont.)

MARINAS, BOATS, AND BOATING CHARACTERISTICS BY COUNTY

Hancock Harrison Jackson Total
Survey Categories % % % %

Land Facilities & Services

Average land area (acres)] 14.6 10.5 15.1 13.3
Average parking spacesk 55 112 105 95
Snackbar 6 10 12 28
Restaurant 4 8 4 16
Bait and tackle 6 6 10 22
Boat rentals 1 4 6 11
Boat sales 0 2 2 4
Boat repair/maintenancel
Sanding 3 5 5 13
Painting 3 3 5 11
Hull & engine repair 3 3 4 10

.Launch Facilities

Ramps 7 16 9 20 19 43 35 80
Hoists 3 7 10 23 9 20 22 50

Average Marina MLT Depth
(feet) 6.0 7.2 5.3 6.2

(source: 1983 Survey of marinas)
Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding
a owned by city or county
b Directly and indirectly dependant upon wet-slips for profit; e.g., slip lease and fuel
sale
c Yacht club or similar venture

TABLE 2 (cont.)

MARINAS, BOATS, AND BOATING CHARACTERISTICS BY COUNTY

Survey Categories Hancock Harrison Jackson Total

dSlips ancillary to shore development; e.g., subdivision, condominium, hotel/motel
restaurant
eDoes not include slips within marinas specifically designated for commercial boats
fApparent high slip surplus in Harrison County (Zone 2) owing to two recently completed
marinas in process of beginning to lease slips
gNumbers equal occupancy rate at time of survey (June/July 1983)
hMainly charters and shrimpers berthed in slips not designated for commercial boats
iMarina manager's estimate of major activity
jAverage based on 33 marinas responding to question
kAverage based on 25 marinas responding to question
1Service provided or allowed at marina

TABLE 3

MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
BY ZONE

Survey Categories Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone.3'. Total

Marina Type

Publica 2 18 3 27 2 9 7 16
Private Profitb 5 46 2 18 17 74 24 53
Private Non-profitc 2 18 2 18 1 4 5 11
Ancillary Marinad 2 18 4 36 3 13 9 20
Total 11 100 11 100 23 100 45 100

Berthing Capacity

Wet Slipse 582 100 971 100 1215 100 2768 100
Normal occupancy f 545 94 888 91 1144 94 2577 93
Present occupancy 544 93 897 92 1011 83 2452
No. on waiting list 162 13 811 67 237 20 1210 100

Boat Typesag

Sailboats 113 21 353 39 119 12 585 24
Recreation powerboats. 419 77 532 60 802 79 1753 71
Commercial boatsh 12 2 12 1 90 9 114 5
Total 544 100 897 100 1011 100 2452 100
Boat Lengthsg

Under 161 30 5 20 2 273 27 323 13
161-25@ 251 46 217 24 250 25 718 29
261-391 221 41 462 52 381 38 1064 43
401 and over 42 8 198 22 107, 10 347 14
.Total 544 100 897 100 1011 100 2452 100

TABLE 3 (cont.)

MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
BY ZONE

Survey Categories Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total

Boating Activityi

Fishing 53 41 78 61
Sailing 28 33 11 20
Cruising 6 20 5 9
Skiing 13 6 6 10

Dry Storage Slip Space

Dry-stack 102 55 85 45 0 187 100
Pigeonhole 242 37 139 21 273 42 654 100

Dock Facilities & Services
marinas)

Electric power 9 10 .13 33
Water 9 11 13 33
Lighting 9 10 16 35
Fuel Station 5 10 12 27
Public address 1 11 1 13
Phones: at dock 3 5 3
in office 9. 10 8 27
Sanitary holding tank
pumpout facility 2 2 0 4
Bilge drainage 4 2 4 10
Type of piers: fixed 10 9 19 38
floating 0 2 1 3

TABLE 3 (cont.)

14ARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTIONS
BY ZONE

Survey Categories Zone-1 zone 2 Zone 3 Total

Land Facilities & Services
Average land area (acres)j 10.7 14.3 15.1 13.3
Average parking spacesk 62 135 105 95
Snackbar 7 9 12 28
Restaurant 5 7 4 16
Bait and tackle 4 8 10 22
Boat rentals 2 3 6 11
Boat sales 2 0 2 4
Boat repair/maintenancel
Sanding 5 3 5 13
Painting 4 2 5 11
Hull & engine repair 4 3 3 10

Launch Facilities

Ramps 9 20 7 16 19 43 35
Hoists 6 14 7 16 9 20 22

Average Marina MLT Denth
(feet) 6.3 7.2 5.3 6.2

(Source: 1983 Survey of Marinas)

percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding
a owned by city or county
b Directly and indirectly dependant upon wet slips for profit; e,.g. slip lease and fuel
sale Ln
c Yacht club or similar venture

TABLE 3 (cont.)

MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
BY ZONE

Survey Categories Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total

d Slips ancillary to shore development; e.g., subdivision, condominium, hotel/motel
restaurant
e Does not include slips within marinas specifically designated for commercial boats
f Apparent high slip surplus in Harrison County (Zone 2) owing to two recently completed
marinas in process of beginning to lease slips
g Numbers equal occupancy rate at time of survey (June/July 1983)
h Mainly charters and shrimpers berthed in slips not designated for commercial boats
i Marina manager's estimate of major activity
j Average based on 33 marinas responding to question
k Average based on 25 marinas responding to question
1 Service provided or allowed at marina

TABLE 4

MARINA'CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
BY TYPE
Survey Categories Publica Private Private Ancillaryd Total
Profitb Nonprofitc

Number of Marinas 7 16 24 53 5 ll 9 20 45 100

Berthing Capacity
Wet Slipse 853 100 1197 100 206 100 512 100 2768 100
Normal occupancy f 851 99 lill 93 206 100 409 80 2577 .-93
Present occupancy 833 98 1007 84 204 99 408 80 2452 89
No. on waiting list 758 63 186 15 55 5 211 17 1210 100

Boat Typesg

Sailboats 300 51 72 12 126 22 87 15 585 100
Recreation power oats 508 29 877 50 78 4 290 17 1753 100
Commercial boat3 25 22 58 51 0 0 31 27 114 100
Total 833 100 1007 100 204 .100 408 100 2452 100

Boat Lengthsg

Under 16' 1 0 292 29 0 0 30 7 323 13
161-25' 218 26 312 31 73 36 115 28 718 29
26'-391 530 64 284 28 113 55 137 34 1064 44
401 and over 84 10 119 12 18 9 126 31 347 14
Total 833 100 1007 100 204 100 408 100 2452 100

TABLE 4 (cont.)

MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
By TYPE
Survey Categories Publica Private Private Ancillaryd Total
Profitb Nonprofitc

Boating Activityi

Fishing 62 76 14 54 61
Sailing 31 3 80 24 20
Cruising 7 9 2 15 9
Skiing 0 12 4 7 10

Dry Storage Slip Space

Dry-stack 0 187 100 0 0 187 100
Pigeonhole 0 480 73 40 6 134 21 654 100

Dock Facilities & Services
marinas)

Electric power 6 17 4 6 3-3
Water 6 17 4 6 33
Lighting 7 18 4 6 35
Fuel Station 5 15 2 5 27
Public address 0 5 4 4 13
Phones: at dock 2 5 2 2 11
in office 8 15 4 6 27
Sanitary holding tank
pumpout facility 1 2 0 1 4
Bilge drainage 1 8 0 1 10
Type of piers: fixed 7 21 4 6 38
floating 0 2 0 1 3
co

TABLE 4 (cont.)

MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
BY TYPE
Survey Categories Publica Private Private Ancillaryd Total
Profitb Nonprofitc

Land Facilities & Services
Average land area (acres)j 19.3 11.6 5.1 21.6 13.3
Average parking spacesk 45 74 154 237 95
Snackbar 6 12 4 6 28
Restaurant 5 7 4 0 16
Bait and tackle 5 12 0 5 22
Boat rentals 2 6 0
Boat sales 2 2 0
Boat repair/maintenancel
Sanding 2 9 1 1 13
Painting
1 .9 0 1 11
Hull & engine repair 1 6 1 2 10

Launch Facilities

Ramps
Hoists 6 14 21 48 3 7 5 11 35
4 9 11 25 4 9 3 7 22

Average_Marina MLT Depth
(feet) 6.1 5.3 7.7 6.0 6.2

(Source: 1983 Survey of marinas)
Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding
a owned by city or county
b Directly and indirectly dependant upon wet-slips for profit; e,.g., Slip lea,,e and fuel
sale
c Yacht club or similar venture

TABLE 4 (cont.)

MARINA CHARACTERISTICS AND DISTRIBUTION
BY TYPE
Survey Categories Publica Private Private Ancillaryd Total
Profitb Nonprofitc

d Slips ancillary to shore development; e.g., subdivision, condominium, hotel/motel
restaurant
e Does not include slips within marinas specifically designated for commercial boats
f Apparent high slip surplus in Harrison County (Zone 2) owing to two recently completed
marinas in process of beginning to lease slips
g Numbers equal occupancy rate at time of survey (June/July 1983)
h Mainly charters and shrimpers berthed in slips not designated for commercial boats
i Marina manager's estimate of major activity
j Average based on 33 marinas.responding to question
k Average based on 25 marinas responding to question
1 Service provided or allowed at marina

for motorboats and yachts and often offering supply, repair,

and other facilities." It quickly became apparent that not

all "marinas" could or should be surveyed, for included in

Webster's definition were numerous private residential slips

and dock facilities, and an almost equal number of "fish

camps."

The final choice of marinas was made on the basis of the

criteria mentioned in the introduction. Arguments could be

made for excluding several of the facilities included in the

report, and perhaps one or two of the excluded ones could

have been included. on the whole, however, the selection was

felt to be a representative cross section of the coastal

marinas. Additionally, because of the number and range in

types of marina facilities, the averages reported here

should not bias one or another class of marinas.

Tables 2, 3, and 4 represent the same data sets in three

different ways. Table 2 shows the survey data by county.

Slip numbers, occupancy values, and waiting list figures

from this table were used in proj ecting demands in Section

IV--county figures were compatible with registered boat

numbers available only by county.

Table 3 shows the survey data by zone. Coastal marinas

tend to nucleate in the Bay St. Louis and Pascagoula River

areas, and form a linear pattern between them. County

boundaries divide these patterns. on the basis of associa-

tions as perceived by an unstructured sampling of the

boating public, three zones of association were established

(Figs. 2 and 3). Zone 1 includes the Pass Christian-Waveland

area; Zone 2 the linear Long Beach-Ocean Springs area; and

Zone 3 the Pascagoula-Moss Point-Gautier area. Data on

these areas should better represent regional inventories.

Table 4 and Fig. 3 represent marinas by type. These

include: (1) Public Marinas (county or city operated);

(2) Private Profit (private marinas operated for profit for

the recreational public); (3) Private Nonprofit (usually

clubs where membership may be restricted); and, (4) Ancil-

lary (the marina is subsidiary to the shore facility; e.g.,

condominium, air force base).

Summary of Data

A summary of data in each of the ten major data cate-

gories follows below. Because of the large number of data

obtained from the surveys, no attempt was made to run

correlations. The data should be of sufficient detail to

.allow the reader to combine sets for a particular purpose.

Marina Types

As might be expected, private profit marinas, numbering

24, or 53 percent of the total, was the largest single type.

Ancillary marinas were second with nine. Three additional

ancillary marinas were in the planning or construction phase

at the time of this survey but not included in it.

By zone, private profit marinas were particularly

prevalent in Zone 3 and numerically significant in Zone 1.

Ancillary marinas led in Zone 2. Public marinas were about

Figure 2

23
Mississippi Coastal Marinas By Slip Capacity

J ON 0

HARRISON UNTY
N +
F-
HAN Om"CQbNTY
k

+
\+
+\

+ +
+

81LOX

GAUT'I KI
L'04
B CA UL
tAC.W 2

..... ........

e
RXV ST
Zone 2
Zon 3
A --------------------
t -----------
[email protected]
---------- ---------

------------
at ------

Zone 1

Qw-
Number Of Slips

less than 15
$Colo MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA
10,000* 0 15-50 Bureau of Marine Resources
051-100
0101-300

Figure 3 24
Mississippi Coastal Marinas By Type

i ON 0

-7-
7"77- k
UNTY

HANCOCK,.CQbNTY

+
\+

F-7
+
+

S I
I<
GAM
+ LON
BEAC U

zone 3
B zone 2

----------
LANQ.,-*' ---------
WAVE
---------------

------------- -------

Zone I

scale Public Marinas misSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA
10,000' Private Profit Marinas Bureau of Marine Resources
Private Non-prof it Marinas
Ancillary Marinas

even between the three zones. Of the planned ancillary 25

marinas, two are to be located in Zone 2, and one in Zone 1.

Berthing Capacity

A total of 2,768 wet slips were inventoried. Jackson

and Harrison counties accounted for 44 and 43 percent

respectively. The low percentage for Hancock County is

deceptive. When consideration is given to geographic

distribution by zone rather than by county, Zone l's per-

centage (21 percent) becomes more meaningful. With comple-

tion of the three planned marinas, totals and percentages

should shift even further to Zones 1 and 2. Hancock County

will receive a 320-slip marina, with the other two, contain-

ing 223 slips, going to Harrison County and Zone 2. In

terms of availability, however, it should be kept in mind

that these three marinas are typed as ancillary (condominium

and subdivision) with limitation as to the number of slips

which will be available to the genera 1 public.

A total of 1,210 names appeared on waiting lists. Care

should be taken when interpreting this figure. First, most

marina operators other than those of public marinas do not

keep waiting lists. Of.the total 1,210 persons listed as

waiting for slips, 62 percent (758) were for public marinas.

Second, some individuals applying for slips are reported to

apply at several marinas and may thus be double listed.

Third, waiting list figures for public marina slips repre-

sent only the demand for that type of marina. Care must be

26
taken when using such figures as those from public marinas

for determining demand for condominium marinas where the

market population may represent an entirely different demand

structure.

Boat Types

Recreational powerboats, including inboard, outboard,

and inboard/outboard, number 1,753 and account for 71

percent of all boats occupying slips potentially available

for recreational craft. Five percent of the total were

commercial vessels, and the remaining 24 percent sailboats.

The number of recreational powerboats was highest in

Jackson County (Zone 3) but so also were the number of boats

under 161 in length occupying marina slips. Sailboats in

Zone 2 were more than double in number those in either of

the other zones.

Boat Lengths

Boat length figures include commercial craft and boats

under 161 in length. This tends to weigh the numerical and

percentage figures toward the upper and lower length cate-

gories. Jackson County, for example, has over a fourth of

its boats in the under 161 length and more commercial craft,

most in the 401 and over category, than either of the other

two counties or zones. marinas servicing boats destined for

open waters of the Sound will seldom berth boats under 161

in length. on the average, marinas will tend to berth a

greater number of boats in the 26'-391 length category. 27

Boating Activity

The figures for boating activity were estimates provided

by marina operators. Fishing is by far the most popular

activity overall. Harrison County, however, with its larger

number of yacht clubs and public marinas, ranks sailing over

fishing as a user activity. Boater destinations are discuss-

ed in Section III.

Dry Storage

Dry storage is a popular alternative to wet-slip berth-

ing. It is less disruptive of the natural environment than

would be the case of a wet-slip marina. Also, because boats

are not continuously emerged in saltwater, they generally

require less maintenance. Lease or rental fees are usually

slightly higher than for wet slips, but the savings in

maintenance can offset the higher costs.

Fees vary from marina to marina, but $45/month for

pigeonhole storage and $50, $45, and $40/month for dry-stack

levels 1, 2, and 3 respectively are about average. These

compare to $1-1.25 per foot per month for wet slips in

public marinas; private profit marina wet-slip charges

average about $40/month or $19/month plus $1 per foot per

month. A limiting feature in the use of dry-stack storage

is that boats generally must be under 241 in length.

Dry storage facilities are generally not available at

public marinas. Dry-stack facilities are limited to private

profit marinas with most storage capacity in Zone 1. The

large number of pigeonhole spaces in Jackson County is

primarily to serve small outboard motorboats.

Dock Facilities and Services

Few of the coastal marinas would classify as full-

service marinas. About a quarter of all marinas have

dockside electric power, water, and lighting. Beyond these,

however, facilities and services are few. Ten of the 45

marinas have bilge drainage capacity and only four have

sanitary pumpout facilities. The lack of these two facil-

ities can pose serious environmental problems. Surprisingly,

only one public marina reported bilge drainage or sanitary

pumpout capacity. As might be expected in an area with a

tide range of less than 2', piers are almost entirely of the

fixed type.

Land Facilities and Services

Of the marinas for which land area could be determined,

the average was 13.3 acres. Parking averaged 95 spaces for

slip users. The large number of parking spaces in Jackson

County is owing to two recreation complexes with outdoor

camping facilities; in Harrison County one ancillary marina

claimed 400 parking spaces thus inflating the number in that

county. Snackbars, and bait and tackle sales were the most

common services provided.

Boat repair and maintenance occurred at about a quarter

of the marinas. It should be noted that far fewer marinas

had proper dry-dock facilities for conducting these activi-

ties. It was not uncommon for marina operators to simply

allow boat owners to work on their boats in areas unprotected

from the elements and without proper protection against

environmental damage.

Launch Facilities

Eighty percent of the marinas have one or more ramps and

50 percent have some type of mechanical hoist. Ramp widths

and entrance angles varied greatly as did hoist capacities.

These facilities were available-in all counties, zones, and

by marina type.

Tide Depth

The average mean low tide depth in berthing areas was

6.2 feet. While this depth is adequate for most recrea-

tional craft, the figure does not represent variations from

entrance to shoreline. maintaining adequate depths because

of siltation was reported a serious problem for many marinas.

I
I
I
I SECTION III
I
I

PUBLIC MARINA USER CHARACTERISTICS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION III

PUBLIC MARINA USER CHARACTERISTICS

A survey questionnaire (Appendix B) was mailed to

persons occupying public marina slips on the Mississippi

Gulf Coast. The questionnaire was designed to elicit

descriptive information profiling the marina users, their

spatial and activity patterns, and their opinions on marina

facilities and services.

The total number of occupied slips on the Mississippi

Gulf Coast is approximately 2450. The name and address

information was most readily available for those 833 persons

in public marinas. One hundred and twenty-seven question-

naires were mailed of which 38 were returned in usable form

(30 percent response rate). Several useful descriptive

statistics and insights can be gained from the questionnaire

results. Although some of the conclusions are intuitively

obvious, this survey provides support data unavailable up to

this time.

The only comparable study was a survey of the slip users

of a single public marina in Gulfport, Mississippi done in

the early 1980s (Harbor Square Study). The results of the

Harbor Square Study are reviewed as the current study

results are presented.

Marina Users Profile

The following tables indicate that most of the residents

live near the coast only a short distance from their marina

slips. The driving time for the majority of the respondents

is less than fifteen minutes. This is comparable to the

Harbor Square Study where 72 percent of the respondents

lived less than 30 minutes driving time from the marina.

Most of the respondents (42.1 percent) reside and have

their slips (44.7 percent) in the Biloxi-Gulfport area.

This is where the larger public marinas are located. The

respondent's first choices of marina sites are in the Ocean

Springs and Gautier areas with a total of 47.4 percent of

the sample citing these locations as preferred sites. These

data support the notion that the majority of marina users

are coastal residents who select marinas close to their

homes. The minimization of automobile travel time to the

marina appears to be a relatively more important factor in

boating as opposed to other recreational activities, such as

camping, where travel time to a preferred area is generally

of lesser importance. The number of noncoastal residents is

too few to allow firm conclusions, but they too probably

prefer highly accessible marinas to minimize driving time

and maximize boating time.

TABLE 5

AREA OF RESIDENCE OF RESPONDENT

Number Percent

Waveland - Pass Christian 2 5.3
Gulfport - Biloxi 16 42.1
Pascagoula - Moss Point 9 23.7
Leaksville - Lucedale 5 13.2
Laurel Hattiesburg 1 2.6
Natchez McComb 1 2.6
Jackson Vicksburg 1 2.6
Meridian - Quitman 3 7.9

TABLE 6

SLIP LOCATION ZONE
(Question 2)

Number Percent

Zone I (Waveland - Pass Christian
. Area) 5 13.2
Zone 2 (Biloxi - Gulfport Area) 17 44.7
Zone 3 (Pascagoula Area) 16 42.1

TABLE 7

DRIVING TIME TO MARINA
(Question 4)

Minutes Number Percent
<15 20 52.6
15 - 29 8 21.1
30 - 60 1 2.6
61 - 120 3 7.9
121- 180 3 7.9
>180 3 7.0

TABLE 8

FIRST CHOICE OF SLIP LOCATIONS
(Question 5)

Number Percent

Waveland 2 5.3
Bay St. Louis 1 2.6
Pass Christian 1 2.6
Long Beach 2 5.3
Gulfport 3 7.9
Biloxi 5 13.2
ocean Springs 10 26.3
Gautier 8 21.1
Pascagoula 6 15.8

Several questions attempted to profile public marina

slip users and their activity patterns. The majority of

respondents are powerboat owners with a boat size ranging

from 16 to 25 feet.

TABLE 9

BOAT TYPE/BOAT SIZE
(Question 1)

Number Percent Number Percent

Sail 8 21.1 <16 feet 1 2.6
16 - 25 feet 20 52.6

Power 30 78.9 26 - 39 feet 13 34.2
>40 feet 4 10.5

Fifty percent of the respondents had an average frequency

of use ranging from 13 to 36. A large portion of the sample

(31.6 percent) used their boats 49 or more times during the

year. The Harbor Square Study found an average use frequency

of 59 times per year.

The primary activity in terms of time spent was fishing,

which accounted for an average of 67.9 percent of the

activity time of the respondents.

TABLE 10

YEARLY FREQUENCY OF USE
(Question 7)

Times/Yr. Number Percent

less than 12 1 2.6
13 - 24 10 26.3
25 - 36 9 23.7
37 - 48 6 15.8
49 - 60 5 13.2
greater than 60 7 18.4

TABLE 11

PERCENT OF TIME ENGAGED IN EACH TYPE OF ACTIVITY
(Question 8)

Activity Average for Sample

Fishing 67.9 percent
Cruising 31.6 percent
Skiing .5 percent

These data indicate that the majority of public marina

users are powerboat owners of medium-sized boats oriented

toward fishing. These user profile and frequency data

can be used to provide insight into the nature of demand for

future marina development and the aggregate demand for boat

fuel, supplies, etc.

Marina Use and Services

In response to the questions related to marina use and

services, the following results were obtained from the

questionnaire.

TABLE 12

LENGTH OF TIME RENTING AT MARINA
(Question 3)

Years Number Percent

less than one 3 7.9
1-2 10 26.3
Over 2 25 65.8

Most of the respondents (65.8 percent) had been in their

marina slip for over two years. This corresponds to the

Harbor Square Study where 64.8 percent had been in their

slips for over two years. This is a reflection of the

demand for slips in public marinas. People who have slips

hold on to them because of the limited availability.

Respondents were questioned about whether they lived on

their boat when at the marina (Question 6). Thirty-four or

89.5 percent responded "No" and 4 or 10.5 percent responded

"Yes." This question is important in estimating the need

for overnight accommodations in or near marinas. Of the 36

thirty-four "No" responses, thirty-two of these people lived

within two hours driving time of the marina. It can be

expected that they return home for the night. The four

persons who live on their boats drive more than two hours

from home to the marina. Thus, the need for overnight

accommodations, such as motels or hotels, associated with

marina users appears very limited. This is reinforced by

the earlier Harbor Square Study which found only 4 percent

of the marina boaters use motels twice a year.

The questionnaire asked for an opinion on whether dry-

stack storage facilities should be given more attention in

the expansion of existing marinas and the designing of new

marinas (Question 9). Fifty percent of the respondents felt

that "Yes," more attention should be given to this type of

boat storage in marinas. Dry-stack storage is used primar-

ily for boats less than twenty-five feet in length. Fifty-

five percent of the sample owned boats less than twenty-six

feet. If these totals are indicative of the entire coastal

marina user population, then the aggregate interest in dry-

stack storage is very high.

Question 10 measured the willingness of these public

marina occupiers to rent slips in private marinas. When

asked if they would rent in a private marina, thirty (78.9

percent) responded "Yes." For the eight (21.1 percent) who

responded "No," five cited the cost of a private slip, two

cited security and one had other reasons for not desiring to

do so. Several of the "Yes" responses stated that the

higher rental fee was a concern even though they were

willing to go to a private marina.

Spatial Patterns of Users

Question 12 of the questionnaire attempted to determine

the boating activity destinations of the respondents. Each

respondent was requested to estimate the percentage of trips

made to each of the seven zones shown on the questionnaire

map.

Figures 4, 5, and 6 show the destination zones of the

respondents disaggregated by their zone of origin. As would

be expected most users concentrate their activities in the

area nearest their marina. Although 30 percent of Zone 1

originated trips stay in Zone 1, a large percentage (33

percent) of the Zone 1 trips go to Zone 5, probably for

fishing. Z one 2 respondents make 35 percent of their trips

within their zone of origin. Interestingly, the percentage

of trips to Zone 4 is nearly equal (34 percent) to the zone

of origin percentage. Those respondents originating in Zone

3 have Zone 4 as their destination for 25 percent of their

trips. They have the open Gulf of Mexico (Zone 7) for a

relatively high 21 percent of their trips as well.

In aggregate the results indicate that the most frequent

destination zone is Zone 4 (barrier islands) with 29 percent

of the total trips (Fig. 7). The next most frequently used

area is Zone 2 (20 percent). These results are due, in

Figure 4
Boater Destination Zones Originating From Zone 1

7 it
@'XCKSQ?N@O

r ...... @ARRJSON UNTY +
1+
HANCOCK COUNTY

+
+

-4-

+ +
'17
IT

S I

TIE
LONt GAU
BEACH. Zone 2 -z-OASCA UL

B
ST N.
AY

v
----------
zorilb 3

zone 4
Zone

dw..
Zone 7

VIISSI@SIPPI COASTAL AREA
Suredu of Marine Resources Zone 5

3.3 3
Percent Of Trips
00
@;@NTY
t

Figure 5
Boater Destination Zones Originating From Zone 2

JACKS9 0
@5A@RISON LY
+ @F
HANCOCK,COUNTY

4 + +V

+
+
7- +

+
+
LoNt GAUT iEM`
BEACR
kSCA UL
7
Zone
BAY ST--
5! 3@ OFZone
WMEE-LAND..

Zone
------------ - ----
Zone 1

---- --- ---

A@?

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA
Gureau of Marine Resources Z.one 6 12 7
$Cal 4
0. LOW Percent Of Trips Zone 7
Zone 5

Figure 6
Boater Destination Zones Originating From Zone 3

@A`y4p 0

-7-
4@R I SO +
r N (r Y
4@,

HANCOCK@CGUNTY

-4

+ + + + +

+ + +
-----------
A,

RTInxi S I V
4- ' . - q. I . . - -... r.1, @I*
GAUil,io,
L
PA;CA UL

Zo
t5kf ne 2 4
@,@w AND,
77 L
Zone 3

ne 4 1
Zone 1

MISSISSIPPI COASTAL AREA zone 6 Zone 7
Bureau of Marine Resources 2
Zone 5
scale 21
W- 10,000, Percent Of Trips 14
@NT Y

Figure 7
Total Percent Of Trips Made To Each Zone

--7
VCKSON CO y
HARRISON TUNTY 4.
.4
HANCOCK COUNTY

E
T S I

GAUTIE
LONG
BEACH, Zone 2 PASCA
20
BAY ST
16
WAVELAND, Zone I Zone 3
2
9
H Zone 4

Zone 7
V, ISSISSIPPI COASTAL ARE
Buredu of Marine Resources
0
0 zone 6
Zone 5

.part, to the Gulfport-Biloxi origin of most of the respon-

dents. Zone 6 (Chandeleur Island) is the second most

popular off-shore destination (12 percent) after the barrier

islands of Zone 4.

Conclusions

It is not possible from this survey to determine with

statistical certainty that these are characteristics and

opinions of the majority of Gulf Coast slip users. However,

these questionna ire data taken with the results of the

Harbor Square Study and the additional information contained

in this study form the basis of several conclusions concerning

public marina slip users.

1. Demand for slips is very high.

2. Marina users prefer accessible locations for marinas.

3. Most marina users are coastal residents.

4. Most users own power boats 16 - 25 feet in length with

a significant number of users owning boats in the

26 - 39 feet range.

5. The average frequency use is in the 30 - 40 times per

year range.

6. marina users seldom use motel/hotel accommodations.

7. Many users are interested in dry-stack storage in a

marina.

8. Public marina users are willing to rent in private

marinas but have moderate concerns about cost and

security.

I
1 9. The barrier island area is the most popular off-shore 43
1 destination for Mississippi marina users.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I
I
I

SECTION IV
I
I
I RECREATIONAL BOATING AND BERTHING
I DEMAND PROJECTIONS
I
-I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION IV

RECREATIONAL BOATING AND BERTHING
DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Recreational boating has grown dramatically in recent

years. According to the National Marine Manufacturers

Association (NMMA, 1982),.the number of boats owned in the

U.S. increased from 9,210,000 in 1972 to 12,889,000 in 1982,

a rise of nearly 40 percent (Table 13). During this same

decade the estimated retail expenditure on boating more than

doubled (not adjusted for inflation), climbing above the $8

billion mark in 1982.

Regionally, the growth in pleasure boating has been

equally dramatic. In fact, with the growth in population

and personal income experienced by Southern states in recent

years, the region has consistently outdistanced the remain-

der of the U.S. in figures relating to the increase in the

popularity of recreational boating. From 1980 to 1981, for

example, new boat registrations in the five Gulf South

states increased by nearly 4.4 percent, well above the

national figure of 3.8 percent (Table 14). By 1981, 20

percent of all boats registered in the U.S. were accounted

for by the five Gulf of Mexico states (Table 15).

Mississippi Boating and Berthing Demand

These national and regional trends are also evident in

TABLE 13

NATIONAL RETAIL EXPENDITURES AND BOAT ESTIMATES, 1961-82

Estimated Retail Expenditure on Boating Estimated Recreational Boats

Date $ (billion) % Change Owned % Change

1961 2.340 7,175,000
1965 2.683 7,865,000
1970 3.440 -- 8,814,000 --
1971 3.610 4.9 1.9
1972 3.900 .8.0 9,210,000 2.5
1973 4.245 8.8 9,435,000 2.4
1974 4.607 4.2 9,615,000 1.9
1975 4.800 11.1 9,740,000 1.3
1976 5.333 11.0 10,105,000 3.7
1977 5.920 13.0 10,515,000 4.1
1978 6.690 12.1 11,270,000 7.2
1979 7.500 - 1.7 11,625,000 3.1
1980 7.370 11.9 11,832,000 1.8
1981 8.250 - 1.8 12,495,000 5.6
1982 8.100 12,889,000 3.1

Decade % Change 107.7% Decade % Change 39.9%

(Source: NMMA, 1982)

Mississippi where the number of registered boats rose from

95,521 in 1978 to 117,252 in 1982, an increase of over 22

percent in four years. Such dramatic growth, as might be

expected, has put considerable pressure on the state's

coastal waters where., within the three-county area, 20

percent of Mississippi's boats are reg istered (Boat Regis-

tration, MWCC, 1983).

TABLE 14

REGISTERED BOATS:
U.S. AND GULF COAST STATES

1980 1981 % change

U.S. 8,555,241 8,881,312 3.81

Gulf Coast 1,653,152 1,724,045 4.29

Alabama 222,742 1.90
Florida 497,891 512,551 2.94
Louisiana 283,438 300,000 5.84
*Mississippi 102,543 117,384 14.47
Texas 546,538 567,126 3.77

(Source: Calculated from data in NMMA, 1982)

*Totals differ from those available from the Mississippi
Wildlife Conservation Commission due to time frame in which
data were gathered.

In order to effectively plan for future marina space

demand on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, some reasonable

estimate of the quantity and basic geography of such demand

is necessary. Several methods for projecting slip demand

have been employed in other parts of the"United States.

TABLE 15
47
RANK IN U.S. OF REGISTERED CRAFT AND PERCENT CHANGE
1981 OVER 1980 BY STATE

STATE RANK IN U.S. PERCENT CHANGE

1. Missouri 10 + 34.32
2. West Virginia 39 + 21.29
3. Washington 14 + 18.94
4. Mississippi 28 + 14.47
5. Ohio 8 + 12.88
6. Oklahoma 19 + 11.31
7. Nebraska 36 + 10.54
8. South Dakota 41 + 9.67
9. New Jersey 27 + 8.24
10. Michigan 1 + 7.53
11. Arkansas 12 + 6.62
12. Colorado 35 + 6.56
13. Arizona 31 + 5.86
14. Louisiana 9 + 5.84
15. Vermont 45 + 5.07
16. South Carolina 16 + 4.37
17. Delaware 40 + 3.88
18. Texas 4 + 3.77
19. California 3 + 3.76
20. Utah 37 + 3.40
21. Nevada 44 + 3.07
22. Indiana 23 + 3.01
23. Florida 5 + 2.94
24. Oregon 25 + 2.33
25. Minnesota 2 + 2.24
26. Pennsylvania 18 + 2.19
27. Alabama 13 + 1.90
28. Idaho 34 + 1.54
29. Massachusetts 22 + 1.40
30. Maine 29 + 1.21
31. Iowa 21 + 1.09
32. Virginia 24 + 0.84
33. Kansas 32 + 0.62
34. Tennessee 20 + 0.50
35. Connecticut 33 + 0.35
36. Kentucky 30 + 0.35
37. North Carolina 17 + 0.28
38. Georgia 15 + 0.17
39. Hawaii 50 - 0.32
40. Maryland 26 - 0.46
41. Illinois 11 - 1.36
42. Montana 42 - 2.07
43. Wisconsin 6 - 2.43
44. New York 7 - 3.76
45. North Dakota 43 - 6.09
46. Dist. of Columbia 52 - 7.76
47. Alaska 38 - 8.74
48. Rhode Island 47 -12.29
49. Wyoming 49 -14.39
50. New Mexico 46 -40.24
51. New Hampshire 51 -73.14

Each of these methods has a number of virtues and short-

comings. The method adopted in this study is to relate

marina slip demand to boat registration and to project

future boat registration based on historical registration

data available from the Boat Registration, Mississippi

Wildlife Conservation Commission (Table 16). These data

are preferred as a basis for projecting future ownership

and slip demand levels for several reasons:

1) Registration totals represent actual data, not

estimates;

2 Registration data are periodically gathered pro-

viding a means of updating the projections given

here;

3) The data allow distinctions to be made in boat

types and sizes; and

4) The data are directly comparable to national boat

registration statistics.

Although these data are preferable to other procedures,

some Problems with the data should be mentioned. When a
boat is first registered in a given county it is always

renewed in the same county as long as the boat is registered

in the state. Thus, a boat registered in Wayne County

(noncoastal) could well be owned by someone in coastal

Harrison County. The degree to which this flaws the exist-

ing data is unknown. The assumption is that it probably

leads to an underestimation of the number of boats actually

present in the coastal counties.

These data also lack the historical depth needed for 49

accurate projections. Ideally, to project twenty years into

the future data are needed for at least twenty years in the

past. Mississippi boat registration data in any consistent

and retrievable form are available only as far back as 1978,

making long range projections tenuous and underscoring the

need to update them when new data become available.

TABLE 16

REGISTERED BOATS 161 AND OVER BY COUNTY

Date Hancock Harrison Jackson Tri-County
Actual Actual Actual Actual

11/78 937 3863 3930 8,730
4/79 1003 4035 4098 9,136
1/80 1156 4506 4548 10,210
8/80 1008 3767 3771 8,546
1/81 1102 4016 4046 9,164
9/81 1290 4480 4535 10,305
1/82 1371 4586 4649 10,606
8/82 1218 4096 4092 9,406
11/82 1270 4285 4215 9,770
2/83 1304 4416 4356 10,076

(Source: From unpublished data, MWCC, 1983)

Despite these shortcomings the registration data are

preferred to population, income, or other potential ecologi-

cal correlates. Population as a predictor of boat owner-

ship, and thus slip demand, has been rigorously questioned

in at least one major study (Conner, Metcalf, & Eddy, 1978).

one problem lies in the fact that population is not sensitive

to other changes such as economic cycles. The major objec-

tion to the use of population at the local level, however,

is that the population figures themselves, especially for

future dates, often represent "best-guess" estimates. To

use these estimates to derive estimates of boat ownership

would compound the potential error. A similar critique can

be leveled at income as a predictor.

In order to direct these projections toward the goal of

examining future demand for marina space, baseline data were

limited to boats 16 feet and over. There is no reaon to

believe that boats less than 16 feet in length place substan-

tial pressure on existing marina space. Also, according to

officials at the Mississippi Wildlife Conservation Commission

(Jordan, 1983), data for this size category are liable to be

the least accurate since many owners of small boats never

Noone method of projecting future numbers from past

numbers is universally accepted. This is especially true

when the historical period is short. The strategy adopted

here was to prepare "planning estimates" by obtaining the

mean of results from a series of fifteen different projec-

tion techniques (see Appendix C for formulas). Each tech-

nique was used to project boat registrations in each coastal

county for February 1985, February 1990, February 1995, and

February 2000. These dates were arbitrarily selected to

provide a basis for projecting short, medium, and long term

needs.

Table 17 shows the planning estimates for each county

and for the region as a whole, obtained by adding together

the results for the three counties. By 1985, for example,

over 10,000 boats may be registered in the tri-county area.

This figure is derived from the individual totals for

Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties. It is estimated

that Harrison County will maintain and even extend its edge

in the number of registrations. More important, however, is

the fact that Hancock County is expected to increase its

proportion of the tri-county boat registrations from 14

percent in 1985 to 20 percent in 2000. Thus, relative to

the other two counties, rapid growth in boat registration

can be expected in Hancock County.

TABLE 17

PLANNING ESTIMATES: PROJECTIONS OF 161 + BOATS
ON MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST

Date

2/85 2/90 2/95 2/100

3-Count 1 10,612 11,945 13,266 14,565
Hancock@ 1,452 1,884 4,364 2,941
Harrison 2 4,622 5,151 5,667 6,140
Jackson 2 4,538 4,910 5,236 5,484

Totals of means from separate projections by county from
techniques described in Appendix C.
2
Mean of fifteen separate projections from techniques
described in Appendix C.

When projecting future totals it is statistically more

acceptable to speak of ranges and the confidence one should

place on these ranges. To establish ranges and confidence

levels for projections, a measure of dispersion around the

mean, the standard deviation, was used. The standard

deviation is a measure of the degree to which the mean truly

represents the set of data. Once standard deviations are

derived they allow one to establish ranges to estimates and

rational confidence limits. This is true because from a

statistical point of view it is known how often results

should be expected to differ from established means. The

ranges of estimates here are based on deviations above or

below the planning estimates. These ranges are referred to

as 11planning ranges." Table 18 shows the planning ranges at

the 68 percent confidence level--that is, one can be 68

percent confident that the actual registration figures for

the dates given will fall between the figures. To be more

confident one must allow for more deviation. Table 19 shows

the planning ranges at the 90 percent confidence level for

the tri-county area. Clearly there comes a point where

enormous ranges are achieved and the 100 percent confidence

level reached. This would not be useful, however, as it

would provide no significant insight into the problem.

Indeed, there is some question whether the 90 percent con-

fidence level as illustrated in Table 19 is useful in the

case of these projections. It is also obvious that as one

goes further out in time, range becomes wider, and projec- 53

tions more tenuous and less meaningful. In short, the

reliability of the projection diminishes over the time.

Once again the need to update these projections when new

registration data are available is apparent.

TABLE 18

PLANNING RANGES FOR 161 + BOAT REGISTRATIONS
ON MISSISSIPPI GULF COAST AT 68 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL

Projected Hancock Harrison Jackson Tri-County
Date

2/1985 1355-1549 4515-4729 4379-4697 10,375-10,847
2/1990 1610-2158 4858-5444 4500-5320 11,282-12,608
2/1995 1856-2872 5137-6197 4511-5959 12,043-14,489
2/2000 2078-3804 5330-6950 4402-6566 12,597-16,531

Range = Planning Estimate (from Table 1 7) plus and minus
one standard deviation.

TABLE 19

PLANNING RANGES FOR 161 + BOAT REGISTRATIONS
IN 3-COUNTY AREA AT 90 PERCENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL

Date Tri-CounLy

2/85 10,146 - 11,075
2/90 10,646 - 13,244
2/95 10,869 - 15,663
2/100 10,710 - 18,420

Range = Planning Estimate (from Table 17) plus and minus
1.96 x standard deviation.

The purpose of deriving the planning estimates (Table

17) was to forecast the potential demand for marina space.

Surveys conducted in the summer of 1983 revealed nearly 2800

existing wet slips in the tri-county area (Table 2). In

addition, waiting lists contained over 1200 names. But this

probably underestimates the total number of people desiring

wet slips because many marinas do not compile waiting lists,

and patrons are often discouraged from placing their names

in a queue that could take years to reach.

For the purpose of this study, reliance was placed on

the more conservative, documented waiting list number of

1210 for the tri-county region. When this figure is added

to the number of existing slip spaces we arrive at a measure

of the "potential demand for berthing space." Table 20 shows

the potential demand for berthing space in each county and

in the tri-county region.

TABLE 20

WET SLIPS AND POTENTIAL DEMAND

Existing on Wait- Potential Demand
Wet Slips ing List For Berthing Space
Total

Hancock 347 122 469
Harrison 1206 851 2057
Jackson 1215 237 1452
Tri-County 2768 1210 3978

Potential demand for future dates is projected as a

ratio of existing 161 plus boat registrations to existing

potential demand (Table 21). The ratio is derived by

dividing the potential demand (Table 20) by the actual

number of registered boats in each county in the 161+ class

(Table 16). These percentages are then projected unchanged

into the future and multiplied by the number of projected

boat registrations in each county for the derived dates.

This technique obviously assumes that the ratio of registered

boats to potential demand will remain constant over time.

While this is unlikely, there is presently no evidence to

indicate whether or how this ratio may change.

The potential demand for berthing space projections for

each county and for the tri-county region are given in Table

22. Two points must be remembered when interpreting these

data. First, the waiting lists probably underestimate the

level of unsatisfied demand for berthing space. Thus, when

projected over time, the amount of underestimation increases.

Second, potential demand projections are sensitive to the

boat registration projections and their reliability is based

on the reliability of the registration projections. When

boat registrations are updated, the potential demand projec-

tions should be adjusted as well. one final comment is that

the relationship between demand and availability is poorly

understood. Thus, the existence of new, more accessible

berthing opportunities may, in fact, drive up the demand for

TABLE 21

POTENTIAL DEMAND AS RATIO OF REGISTERED BOATS

Potential Demand Potential Demand
(# slips + as % of 16'+
Waiting Lists) boat registration
as of 2/83

Hancock 469 35.97%
Harrison 2057 46.58%
Jackson 1452 33.33%
Tri-County 3978 39.47%

TABLE 22

POTENTIAL DEMAND FOR BERTHING SPACE

Total
Hancock Harrison Jackson Tri-County

2/85 522 2167 1513 4202
2/90 678 2415 1637 4730
2/95 850 2656 1745 5251
2/100 1058 2878 1828 5764

lPlanning Estimates (Tablel7) for each county X actual
potential demand as % of 161+ registrations on 2/83
(Table 21)

even more resources, making these figures conservative and 57

altering the ratios used to derive these estimates.

In the tri-county region, then, an anticipated demand

for 5764 berthing spaces can be expected by the year 2000.

The number of new berthing spaces required to satisfy the

projected potential demand is 2996. Thus, over 187 new wet

slips a year would be needed to meet the current potential

demand level when that level is projected over the next 16

years.

I
I
I
I SECTION V
I
I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AND
I PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS IN MARINA DEVELOPMENT
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION V

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IMPACT ASSESSMENT, AND
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS IN MARINA DEVELOPMENT

The significance and complexity of the issues surrounding

marina development in environmentally sensitive areas is

apparent from the large volume of recent literature treating

the subject. Prior to the 1960s almost nothing was kn own

about the effects of boating or marinas on marine or fresh-

water ecosystems. Through the decade of the sixties a few

studies appeared which examined impacts from boats and

boating activities. Following enactment of the National

Environmental Policy Act in 1970, the Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Act in 1972, and numerous pieces of companion legisla-

tion during the same period, research began in earnest to

examine a host of environmental issues surrounding boating

activities and marina development. For the most part,

however, these were qualitative discussions of component

boat and marina impacts on the marine ecosystem.

For coastal z one managers and planners in general, and

marina engineers, developers, and operators in specific,

guidance on issues surrounding the permitting, planning, and

development of marinas remained unaddressed. Recognizing

this need, the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) initiated a study in 1982 which assessed environmental

impacts for the purpose of providing "guidance for assuring 59

that coastal marinas are developed and operated in an

environmentally acceptable manner" (USEPA, 1984). Drafts of

the assessment of environmental issues (USEPA, 1983) and the

guidance document for marina development and operation

(USEPA, 1984) hav e been published.

For this report, major concerns, problem areas, and

guidance issues are identified in summary fashion. Those

readers who must deal with marina-related problems in detail

are directed to the two USEPA reports. Unless indicated

otherwise, information contained in this section was obtain-

ed from the USEPA reports.

The discussion which follows examines (1) environmental

impacts, (2) impact assessment techniques, and (3) marina

planning.

Environmental Impacts

Environmental impacts associated with the development of

marinas may be grouped into four major areas of concern.

These include (1) direct habitat alteration, (2) impacts on

natural resources, (3) impacts on water quality, and (4)

socio-economic impacts (Tables 23 and 24). Specific impacts

include those associated with dredging and spoil disposal,

shoreline and protective structures, wastewater discharge

and runoff, and boat operation and maintenance.

Dredging and Spoil Disposal

Dredge and fill projects, involving the excavation and

TABLE 23

MAJOR IMPACT CATEGORIES, SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND
SOURCES OF IMPACTS RELEVANT TO COASTAL MARINAS

WATER QUALITY RESOURCES

Impacts Sources

Turbidity MSD
Dissolved oxygen Bilge water
Coliform (total and fecal) Wastewater disposal
Nutrients Dredging
Metals Pilings
Hydrocarbons Fueling
Other pollutants Boat washing
Boat exhaust

AQUATIC HABITAT RESOURCES

Shellfish beds Dredging and filling
Grass beds Boating activity
Benthos Structures
Nursery areas Water quality
Manatees alteration
Sea turtles Hydrological
Endangered Species modification

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT RESOURCES

Rookery areas Clearing
Endangered species Grading
Turtle nesting areas Fill
Adjacent to wilderness/wildlife spoil
management areas Noise
General.activity

WETLAND HABITAT RESOURCES

All wetland resoruces Dredging and filling
Boat wakes
Hydrological modifi-
cation
Structures

SOCIO-ECONOMIC RESOURCES

Historical Construction
Archaeological Location
Area marina resources Size
Area economic resources Services provided
Land use

TABLE 23 (cont.)

MAJOR IMAPCT CATEGORIES, SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND
SOURCES OF IMPACTS RELEVANT TO COASTAL MARINAS

NAVIGATION RESOURCES

Impacts Sources

All navigation resources Traffic
Number of slips
Location of structures

AESTHETIC RESOURCES

Noise Boat maintenance
odor Engines
Visual Construction
Pile driving
Dredging/spoil disposal
Structures
Maintenance
Litter
Wastewater disposal

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

Nitrogen Wastewater disposal
Coliform spoil
Metals
Other Pollutants

(Source: USEPA, 1984)

o En
:3,0 0 0 a 1i (D F_ W 0 0 a r_ 00 P't r_ D) 0 H. 0 0
m F3 rt W 0 (D -0 0 r- P1 0 A) (D F1 ti (D i-- a a) rD a) n
0 "0 (A rr H. a. rr g cr (D rt 1- 0 H. 11) 7V :3 rr H r? (D -71
0 ;r- GQ H. (n (A 0 @:) :31 0 (A EA >
H. PC Fl. 0 = rr (A 0 C: (D :3: W (1)
:1 (D 0 0 V) 0 0 UQ 0 0 W 03
@c :1 ink. "a H. GQ 3 (D r_ E/) rT 0, 0
'D H.
0 t, 0 IIJ 0 (D (A OQ P1 CA. H. @J,
P rr :j (D m 010 0 0 (A 0 @j H
(D VoW En n rl 0 X " ch M, rr Ca. H. 0
::) ::1 rt 0) t- (A In En U) rr m 0
:0 0 P_ 0 > 0) CA 0 M
rt H, r_ " W rt r 0
rT (D :3 rt Fj.
Fl- C, rr (n EA En :3:
co -n 0 F-t, CL) CIL P. 0
< ITJa cr 'I) En rD ;j
,D W 0 (D rr 0 ::3 n (1)
cr 0 rr (D 0 rr W
(D rt rD rb LIQ a (D In r1l rD z
:1 0 a U) -9
(D 0 rr rr ri 0 W
11. CL) H. @J, H. @J 0
rr rr 0) (D (D rD 0 (D
:]' rD ri (1) :3 rD U)
(D VQ I--- r-T
0 "a a) (A '.I-
0 r-t II
V.) (D

C-I GQ @3 M (r,
0 r_ :3 0
C 11 @- " :3 1 1 1 1 1 1 IMPACT CATEGORIES
11 H," (D 0
n ::J H. ::1 rr
* GQ0 0 (D Alteration of Natu
W " 0 ;3
* (D :j (D (1) Areas***
P Cr. r)
(D (n (D Alteration of Wate
N 0 W. 0 0 0 0 0 0
m (D 0 J. En Circulation Patter
C: r, rt 1< 0 0 0 0 0 Turbidity
(A 0 H'
m :10
(P :J
(n 0 Release of Sewage
0 1 ::r 0- :3
r_ a <
o 0 0
(D 0 0 0 oil -Spills
0 (D (D
rT W C).
rT Q Land Runoff
(D (D @j
0 0 a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 Erosion
:J, 0

Shoal ng

0 0 ;1 1
0 a 0 0 Dissolved Oxygen D

0 Air Pollution

0 Copper Pollution

relocation of submerged bottom sediment, are common in Gulf

coastal areas where natural shoreline conditions do not

provide deep-water, well-flushed, protected harbors for

larger pleasure boats. The degree of impact from dredge and

fill activities depend upon the quality of site-specific

habitats, existing water quality, and the nature of surround-

ing man-induced activities.

Physical Impacts

Habitat Loss

Of the total dredging activity in coastal areas, marina-

related projects are of relatively minor significance.

Locally, however, the loss of habitat through construction

and dredging can have a disruptive impact on the physical

environment. This includes the destruction of valuable

breeding and feeding areas (Chapman, 1968), and the filling

of submerged and tidal areas (Zieman, 1982).

Estuarine Impacts

Physical alterations in estuarine areas from dredging

activities can have both adverse or beneficial effects on

the local ecology. Potential adverse effects include

habitat loss (Chapman, 1968), the reduction of benthic

resources (Taylor, 1973), and the alteration of estuarine

circulation patterns from spoil disposal mounds (Chapman,

*1968; Taylor, 1973).

Positive or beneficial effects can result in instances

where circulation is improved in brackish water areas

resulting in more productive nursery grounds (Chapman,

1968).

Water Quality

Dredging and soil disposal activities affect water

quality through alterations in turbidity and dissolved

oxygen content, and pollution.

Turbidity

Natural turbidity rates vary in Gulf coastal waters from

highly turbid to comparatively clear. Dredging activities

which result in the suspension of solids in the water column

should be interpreted against ambient turbidity levels

(Strom and Stickel, 1968; Chapman, 1968). Where increase in

turbidity levels are temporary and localized due to dredging,

they are not conceded to have a significant impact because

many organisms can avoid these areas. When suspended solids

settle out, the resulting silt can bury organisms, destroy

seagrass, and change circulation patterns. These impacts

can be serious and prolonged (USEPA, 1983).

Dissolved Oxygen

The values of dissolved oxygen (DO) in water during

dredging is affected by resuspended oxidizable.organic

material, circulation, and ambient Do levels (Taylor, 1973).

Flushing rates in dredged canal s or basins affect DO values

and create or allow anaerobic areas to occur. Finger canals

are particularly prone to low DO levels, and improperly cut

canals and marina basins deeper than entrance channels

result in anaerobic waters. Spoil containing free sulfides 65

occur in poorly circulated areas, and, when dredged and

disposed as spoil, will affect both fauna and flora because

of its toxicity (USEPA, 1983).

Pollutants

Results from studies addressing the release of pollutants

through dredging activities are inconclusive as to the

amount of pollutants produced (USEPA, 1983). It is agreed,

however, that the resuspension of pollutants held in sedi-

ments can occur during dredging (Taylor, 1973; USEPA, 1983)..

These include nutrients, certain organic acids, pesticides,

bacteria and viruses, heavy metals, and hydrocarbons.

Commercial benthic and pelagic fish species with concentra-

tions of these pollutants can affect humans when consumed.

Biological Impacts

Direct impacts from dredging on fauna and flora result

from changes in turbidity levels and siltation. And because

dredging alters habitat, species change may occur locally.

Turbidity

As stated previously, turbidity, as measured by suspended

solids, occurs naturally. As such ambient turbidity levels

are an accepted part of an ecosystem. An increase in

turbidity (i.e., from dredging) above ambient levels can

impact marine animals. Because the quantitative effect of

increased turbidity is dependent upon local conditions,

kinds and numbers of fauna and flora present, and their 66

stage in the life cycle, only qualitative statements on

impacts are possible here.

Research has shown that filter-feeding invertebrates can

be affected by increased turbidity levels, such as in the

case of oysters whose growth may be decreased by reduced

pumping rates (Johnston, 1981). Fish egg development may

also be delayed and mollusc eggs and larvae development

affected (USEPA, 1983). Although motile fish can usually

escape high turbidity levels, it is possible for suspended

solids to clog gill filaments and suffocate fish (Johnston,

1981). Zooplankton populations can be affected through

reduced food intake. Turbidity levels (increased) decrease

the depth of the euphotic zone, reducing plant photosyn-

thesis and thus affect the marine food chain (USEPA, 1983).

Siltation Effects

Effects on marine life of siltation are generally

greater in degree than those associated with increases in

.turbidity levels. Included here is the burial of sessile

organisms, smothering of eggs or larvae, spawning area

eliminated, and the destruction of other habitats, particu-

larly grassbeds (USEPA, 1983). Land habitats and organisms

ate as likely to be effected by siltation through improper

spoil disposal as are water communities.

Modification of Habitat

.Dredging and spoil disposal physically alter the

environment. This in turn can result in the creation of new

and different communities of organisms. Not all habitat

modifications are harmful, however. Fish populations, for

example, are reported to have actually increased in some

canals (Taylor and Saloman, 1968, in USEPA, 1983).

Noise

Equipment used in dredging operations produces noise. A

USEPA study (1978b as quoted in USEPA, 1983) found that

effects categories involved hearing acuity, masking
of auditory signals, behavioral changes, and physio-
logical stress responses. In general, noise at
given levels can reduce wildlife hearing sensiti-
vity; 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 source
and to differentiate dangerous ones from others.

Shoreline and Protective Structures

Jetties, groins, breakwaters, bulkheads, rivetments,

ramps, pierst and piles are common features of marinas.

Alterations of the environment can be expected to occur when

placing these structures. And as long as a marina remains

in operation, alterations are permanent. However, with

proper planning, design, and maintenance, consequent nega-

tive impacts can be minimized and new habitats created which

may prove beneficial to the local marine environment.

Physical Impacts

The physical alteration of shorelines occurs mainly from

the effects of breakwaters, bulkheads, groins, and jetties

on wave action. This, in turn, involves changes in circula-

tion, siltation, erosion, and turbidity.

Solid and shore-attached breakwaters can cause shoreline

sand accretion along the updrift angle of the breakwater and

possible erosion on the downdrift side of the structures.

Groins may also cause scouring of downshore areas which are

deprived of littoral drift sand. Inlet channels protected

by jetties can experience sand accumulation and require

dredging. Finally, foreshore erosion can result from waves

reflected off bulkheads (USEPA, 1983).

Chemical Impacts

Chemical impacts from shoreline structures may involve

toxic and nutrient resuspensions, dissolved oxygen, and

sediment turbidity. Dredging-related chemical alterations

on water quality were discussed earlier. other water

quality impacts may result from chemicals (creosote, copper,

zinc, etc.) which leach into waters from pilings, bulkheads,

and other structures treated with preservatives (USEPA,

1983).

Biological Impacts

Biological impacts from shoreline structures are numer-

ous and complex. Some impacts adversely affect the local

ecology; others may be considered beneficial. Alterations

generally result from changes in turbidity levels, and the

euthophic zone, siltation and erosion, habitat loss or

alteration, air quality, and noise levels.

Turbidity levels can be increased during all stages of

construction. The effects were addressed earlier. Struc-

tures obstruct sunlight which in turn affects the photo-

synthetic processes. Construction activities and in-place

structures may cause siltation and erosion which in turn

alter habitats and otherwise affect marine organisms.

Altered envionments can provide new habitats which may

be more productive than under altered conditions. Struc-

tures can serve as artifical reefs for a variety of organ-

isms, although in the case of some insects, isopod crusta-

cians and borers, some may not be as desirable as others.

Air quality from construction or operation equipment air

emissions and noise from the same equipment may disrupt or

affect nearby bird populations. Terrestrial organisms can

be temporarily affected by pile driving operations (USEPA,

i983).

Wastewater Discharge and Runoff

The contribution of sewage pollution and runoff by

marinas to coastal waters is relatively minor when compared

to the total from all sources. But boats and marinas do

contribute, and on a local basis may reduce water quality to

the extent that marine organisms are damaged, habitats

altered, and human enjoyment of the surroundings impaired.

Provided local waters are not overly polluted from other

sources, small quantities of pollution from boats and

marinas may be acceptable provided water circulation ade- 70

quately disperses the pollutants. The actual or potential

impact on waters will depend upon local conditions: water

depth, circulation, marine organisms present, etc.

Wastewater Discharge from Boats

The discharge of fecal material from boats may cause

significant problems. In addition to being visually repul-

sive (Chmura and Ross, 1978), it can increase biological

oxygen demand (BOD) in receiving waters, and, most serious

of all, contribute disease-causing viruses and bacteria

(pathogens).

Research on the affects of fresh fecal pollution from

boats has yet to conclusively quantify the problem. It is

apparent, however, that fresh fecal pollution from boats may

pose localized environmental problems (e.g., contamination

of shellfish) and that this pollution, regardless of source,

is a hazard to public health (see USEPA, 1983, for a review

of the literature).

Wastewater Discharge from Shoreside Facilities

For marinas served by municipal or rural wastewater

collection and treatment facilities, the potential for

pollution from this source is insignificant. For marinas

and associated developments relying on septic tanks as a

disposal system, the problem is potentially serious. The

effectiveness of septic tanks is dependent upon such local

features as slope, soil depth, soil permability, groundwater

level, and distance to open receiving waters. "Failures of

septic tank systems are generally due to overloading,

characteristics of the soil (either impervious or too

pervious soils) or high groundwater" (USEPA, 1975, as quoted

in USEPA, 1983).

Runoff

Potentially harmful runoff products from marina shore

facilities include: heavy metals, sediment, oil, pesti-

cides, and nutrients. These substances may be toxic to

marine organisms or reduce their ability to reproduce.

Heavy metals are generally not hazardous to marine

organisms in their pure state, but when combined with other

compounds, they can become toxic. Copper, for example, is

used in anti-fouling paints, and when sprayed on or scraped

off boats can enter waterbodies through runoff (USEPA,

1983).

Coast Guard and USEPA regulations prohibit discharge of

oily substances which cause a visible sheen or film on

water. Enforcement is difficult, however, since oily

substances can be traced to numerous sources, e.g., fuel

spills, oil from parking lots, etc.

Pesticides, sprayed to control plant and animal popu-

lations around marinas or other developments, may find their

way into water bodies through runoff. These can be toxic

to, or accumulated by, shellfish, crabs, fish, and shrimp,

all of which may be consumed by humans. They are sublethal

to many other marine organisms although they can affect

maturation, molting, reduce temperature endurance and

salinity changes, etc. Among other potentially harmful

runoff products are detergents, excess nutrients, and

sediments (USEPA, 1983).

Boat Operation and Maintenance

Boat operation and maintenance effect marine life, in

some cases subtly and in others in more obvious manners. of

note here are boat wake impacts; boat and propeller contact

with the bottom or waterborne organisms; impacts of boat

activity on wildlife population; and impacts associated with

outboard exhaust and other associated engine pollutants.

Physical Impacts of Boat Operation

The most serious impact of boats and boat motors on

marine life occurs when direct contact is made between the

two. Damage to seagrass beds (cutting) is the most common

problem in the southeastern United States. Collision with

turtles and manatees occur but mainly in localized areas

(USEPA, 1983).

Boats able to penetrate secluded coastal areas may also

disturb wildlife populations. If sufficiently frequent,

nesting success may be reduced or wildlife may seek--if

available--new locati ons to habitat.

Wave and wake turbulence can impact the environment.

Waves from moving boats may cause shoreline erosion. The

extent depends upon wake magnitude, shoreline soils,

topography, and vegetative cover. Wake turbulence may

affect oyster production, destroy rooted aquatic vegetation,

and increase the amount of suspended sediment (USEPA, 1983).

Boat Operation and Maintenance Pollutants

The quality of pollutant discharge into the water from

boat motors varies with motor features and operating varia-

bles. These include intake and exhaust design, deflector

design, size, recycling apparatus, gas-oil fuel ratios,

tuning and speed of operation. The substances discharged

include hydrocarbons, lead, and carbon monoxide/dioxide.

The release of hydrocarbons can also occur in bilge pumping

and from docks and fuel loading areas.

Detergents from boat washing, and other pollutants from

such maintenance activities as sanding and painting, and

fiberglass repair, may also find their way to the water.

Most major brands of antifouling paints contain low amounts

of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); problems occur in

paints containing high levels of PCBs (USEPA, 1983).

Pollutant Impacts

The introduction of hydrocarbons from nonoperating

outboard motors within marinas is usually not of sufficient

magnitude to cause significant harm to marine organisms,

although they definitely are pollutants (USEPA, 1983).

Motors in operation are the more serious threat to marine

organisms.

Motor exhaust is toxic to zooplankton and small forage

fish, and small amounts of petroleum may adversely affect

mussels and oysters. Fuels may also impart undesirable

tastes and smell in fish, and taint fish flesh. Among the

heavy metals, lead is a significant pollutant as it is very

toxic to most plants and moderately toxic to mammals. The

toxicity of lead in water is affected by organic materials,

the presence of other metals, pH, and hardness of the water.

Detergents introduced into water from boat and cloths

washing affects water quality. Increased nutrient levels

from detergents can decrease DO concentrations and increase

plan kton blooms. Water-based detergent compounds are highly

toxic to fish and shellfish; solvent-based compounds are

toxic to crustaceans. The greater the flushing capacity of

marina waters, the lower the potential of harm from detergents.

The increase in pleasure boating activities in recent

years has substantially increased the amount of associated

litter. Aesthetically, litter is not pleasing to the eye.

Beyond it being an eyesore, litter, particularly plastic, is

ingested by birds, fish, mammals, turtles, and invertebrates.

The effects can be intestinal blockage, reduce hunger

sensations, cause ulcerations, and contribute synthetic

chemicals to body tissues. Finally, plastics, nets, and

monofilament lines can entangle wildlife, leading to drown-

ing, starvation, or strangulation (USEPA, 1983).

Impact Assessment Techniques

Potential environmental impacts from marine construction

and operation were outlined above. From that listing it was

readily apparent that impacts could be complex or simple,

widespread or local. For the developer and regulatory

(permitting) decision-maker there exists the very real

problem of determining data needs on impacts as they relate

to the planning, design, construction, and operation of

marinas. Data needs will usually be a function of marina

type and complexity, site location, and surrounding environ-

metal conditions.

For both the developer and regulatory decision-maker,

the ability to obtain data relevant to a marina project is

limited by both time and cost considerations. In some cases,

data are available through various agencies or organiza-

tions, or can be readily obtained through field investiga-

tions; other data may be beyond the normal expectation and

ability of a developer (or his agent) to acquire or process.

Regulatory agency requirements for information relevant

to marinas must be met. There should be a clear understand-

ing among agencies, and between agencies and developers as

to requirements and responsibilities. As an aid to the

marina developer, design engineer, and agency officials, an

outline of techniques applicable to the assessment of

impacts is included in Table 25. The source for the table

is the USEPA (1984) document, Coastal Marinas Assessment

Guidance Handbook. The document provides textual descriptions

of various methods and models and should be referred to by

interested parties.

TABLE 25

IMPACT ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES

Water Quality Resources measurement Techniques
a b
Impact Assessment Technique Unit of Measurement Reference Time Frame
c
Turbidity Secchl disk Centimeters 1-6 In situ
Jackson candle turbidimeter Jackson turbidity units 1-6 Tn- -sTfu-
Nephelometric turb@dlmeter Nephelometric turbidity units 1-6 T _n -sTt-u-
Quantum photometer peinsteins/m2/see 1-6 Tn' JsT -tu
photosynehetically available
radiation

Dissolved Oxygen Membrane electrode method mg/1 1-6 In situ
(oxygen meter)
Iodometric method mg/1 1-6 in situ
(Winkler) and modifications

Collforms Most probable number technique colonles/100 ml 1-6 1-2 days
(KIN)
Membrane filter technique 1-6 1-2 days

Nutrients Ion chromatography mg/1 In water 1-6 1-2 days
(ntLrogeri/phos-
phorus) Wet chemistry method mg/kg In sediments 1-6 1-2 days

Metals Atomic absorption spectroscopy Vg/1 In water 1-6 2-3 days
(AA)
(all metals) pg/kg In sediments
Wet chemistry methods 1-6 2-3 days
(all metals except barium)
Inductively-coupled argon plasma 1-6 2-3 days
(atomic emission spectroscopy)
(ICAP)
(all metals except mercury)
Ion chromatography (potassium, 1-6 2-3 days
sodium, Iron, copper, nickel,
cobalt, zinc, lead, calcium,
arsenic and magnesium only)

Pesticides/PCBs Gas chromdtrography pg/1 In water 5-7 1-2 days
& Hydrocarbons jAj/kg In sediments
Gas chrOMdtrography/mass 5-7 1-2 days
spectroscopy

Liquid chromatography 5-7 1-2 days

TABLE 25 cont.)

Water Quality Resources Measurement Techniques
Impact Assessment Technique Unit of Measurement Referencea Time Frameb

Oil and Grease Gravimetric method mg/I In water 1-6 1-2 days
mg/kg In sediments

Infrared spectroscopy 1-6 1-2 days

Detergents Colorimetric method mg/1 In water 1-6 1-2 days
(ultraviolet spectroscopy) mg/kg In sediments
Sediments Grain size analyses (mean phi R) units 6,8,9 2 days
grain size, sorting or
coefficient, lim
skewness and Kurtosis of
grain size distribution)

Elutriate analyses 9-11 3-4 days

a
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) Plumbs 1981.
bTime 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.
cThe techniques do not measure turbidity per Le, however, the relative turbidity of two sampling sites may be Inferred through
use of these techniques.

TA13LE 25 - (cont.) 79

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Impact Assessment Technique References a Time Frame

Vegetation Plot, quadrat or transect methods 1-5 4-6 days

Dry matter production (biomass) 6-9 3-5 days

Plotless techniques (closest Indivi- 10,11 2-4 days
dual, nearest neighbor, random pairs,
Bitterlich or quarter methods).

Remote sensing (aerial or satellite 12 10-20 days
photography)

Vegetation mapping 6-11 6-8 days

Birds Territory mapping (spot-mapping) 1-11,12-16 8-10 days
(including (in breeding season)
rookery
areas) Roadside count 1-11,12-16 3-4 days (fall and
winter)

Plot method-winter 1-11,12-16 8-10 days (Dec through
Feb)

Strip census 1-11,12-16 3-4 days (seasonally)

Aerial photos 1-11,12-16 3 days (in winter)

Aerial visual sample census 1-11,12-16 2-3 days (in spring)
Nest counts 1-11,12-16 1-2 days (in spring)'

Mark and recapture 16 2 weeks (approximately)

Auditory Index 1-11,12-16 2-12 days (in spring)

Line transect method (King method) 1-11,12-16 2-3 days (in fall)

Temporal census 1-11,12-16 1-3 evenings per roost

Radar 1-11,12-16 several days In
migrating season

Radio-location I-11t12-16 day and night, all
seasons, up to 1 year

Mammals Drive count (large animals) 1-16 1 day

Temporal census (large animals) 1-16 2-3 days during migration

Total capture 1-16 very time consuming;
varies with area sampled

Strip census (King method) 1-16 3-4 days

Time-Area count 1-16 4-5 days during main
activity periods

Roadside count 1-16 1-2 days

Bounded count 1-16 10-20 days

Pellet count 1-16 3-4 days

Marking 1-16 7-10 days

Mark and recapture 1-16 8-10 days

Reduction of rate of capture 1-16 4-5 days

@Selectlve reduction or Increase 1-16 1-2 days per anlmal

TABLE 25 - (cont.

TERRESTRIAL HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

a b
Impact Assessment Technique References Time Frame

Mammals Radio-telemetry 1-16 up to 1 year
(cont'd)
Infrared scanning (aerial) 1-16 1-2 days

Aerial photos or countsc 1-16 8-10 days

Invertebrates/ Pitfall traps 17-22 2-3 days
Herptiles
Sweep net collections 17-22 2-3 weeks

Light trapping 17-22 2-3 weeks

Malaise trap collecting 17-22 2 weeks

Drop trap (grasslands) 17-22 2-3 weeks

Solis Soil mapping (pits, cores, augers) 1-22 3-4 days

Physical analyses (compaction, 1-22 2 days/sample
porosity, permeability)

Chemical analyses 1-22 2-3 days

Textural analyses (grain size, 1-22 7-10 days
soil type, soil description,
water content)

Endangered Presence of endangered species - -
'Species may be ascertained through the
use of previously cited
methodology

Contact local experts, U.S. Fish Appendix 1 1 or more days
and Wildlife, state agencies'

Reference state and federal - 1 day
endangered species lists

Turtle Nesting Nest counts - 2-4 days
Areas
Nest removal - as necessary

Adjacent Impacts may be inferred -
Wilderness/ from use of previously
Wildlife described techniques
Management Areas

a1) NESP, 1975; 2) States et al., 1978; 3) Henderson, 1982; 4) Husch et al., 1972; 5)
Odum, 1971; 6) Brown, 1954; 7) Cain and Castrog 1959; .9) Phillips, 1959; 9) Curtis
and Cottam, 1962; 10) Greig-Smith, 1964; 11) Ohmann, 1973; 12) Ford, 1979; 13)
Franzreb, 1977; 14) Kendelgh, 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.
bTime frames are estimated based on minimal field time and do not include analysis of data
collected unless otherwise specified.

TABLE 25- (cont.)

AESTHETIC RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Unit of
Impact Assessment Technique measurement Referencea Time Frameb

Visual Data Collection Techniques:

Systematic observer survey - 1,2 in situ

Eye-level photography - 1,2 in situ

Written record of visual - 1,2 in situ
impressions

Remote sensing c - 1-3 10 days

Mapping - 1,2 1 or more days

Evaluation Methods:

Qualitative - 1,4 1 or more days
Classification schemes

Quantitative'
Independent 5-7 1 or more days
Comprehensive 8-11 I or more days

Noise Precision sound level Sound level (L) 12,13 In situ
meters in decibels (dB)

12,13 in situ
Vibration meters

Recorders 12,13 In situ
Computer modeling and 14 several days
analytical techniques once all data
has been
collected

Taste Taste threshold test Rating system 15 1 day
performed by panel
Odor Threshold odor test Rating system 15 In situ
performed by odor
judgement panel

15 in situ
Scentometer

a 1975; 2) Henderson, 1982; 3) Ford, 1979; 4) Litton-et a.,
1) Roy Mann Associates, Inc.,
1974
1974; 5) Burnham, ; 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) Jain,et 61.,1974.
b
Time frames dependent upon availability of data, personnel.

TABLE 25 - (cont)

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

a
Impact Assessment Technique Unit of Measurement Reference
Nutrients Ion chromatography mg/l 1-6
(nitrogen/phosphorus) Wet chemistry methods

Coliforms Most probable number technique (MPN) colonies/100 ml 1-6
Membrane filter technique

Metals Atomic absorption spectroscopy pg/1 1-6
(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)

Pesticides/PCBs Gas chromatography pg/1 5-7
Gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy
Liquid chromatography

Oil and Grease Gravimetric method pg/1 1-6
Infrared spectroscopy

Detergents Colorimetric method pg/1 1-6
(ultraviolet spectroscopy)

DATA EVALUATION TECHNIQUES

Groundwater Contamination Predictive numerical models 8

GroundWater field studies Well monitoring 9-11

d 1)NESP, 1975; 2)States et al., 1978; 3)Henderson, 1982; USEPA, 1979b; 5)APHA, 1980; 6)ASTM, 1980;
1979; 8)Bachmat et al.,1980; Chow, 1966; 11)DaviS and DeW1est, 1966; 11)Soll Conservation Service,
b
Time frames are based on estimated laboratory time to complete one test. Individual laboratories may require
cessing periods.

TABLE 25 - (cont.)

NAVIGATION RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Impact Assessment Technique Referencesa Time Frameb
Circulation Dye and drogue studies/ 1-3,5 in situ
field observations

Aerial photographylground- 4,7 10 days
truthing

Hydrographic study 6 Several days once all data
has been collected

Wave Conditions Field observations - In situ

Wave ray tracing 8 2-3 days

Refraction and diffraction 9,10 1-2 days
diagram analysis

Hydraulic modeling 10 Several days once all data
has been collected

Other Physical Analyze available data - Several days once all data
Factors has been collected

Interview local residents In situ

Diver observation - In situ

Soils/Sedl- Soil investigations - test piles 11,12 2 days
ments - direct soil 2 days
evaluation

Depth Soundings 6 In situ

Wind Anemometer - in situ
Direction/
Velocity

a Weverstein and Selleck, 1963; 2)Wilson, 1968; 3)Scott et al., 1969; 4)Ford, 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
b
Time frame dependent upon availability of data, personnel.

TABLE 25 - (cont.)

WETLAND HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Impact Assessment Technique References a Time Frame b

Vegetation Plot, quadrat or transect methods 1-11 4-6 days

Plotless techniques (closest 1-11 2-4 days
Individual, nearest neighbor,
random pairs, Bitterlich
or quarter methods)

Remote sensing (aerial or 12 10-20 days
satellite photography)

Vegetation mapping 6-11 6-8 days
Dry matter production (biomass) 1-11 3-5 days

Soils Soil mapping (pits, cores, augers) 1,15 3-4 days

Textural analyses (grain size, 1 7-10 days
soil type, soil description, water
content)

Chemical analyses 1,15 2-3 days

Litter loss rates 13 several days once
field data has been
collected

Cellulose decomposition 13

Bacteria 14

Physical analyses (compaction, 1,15 2 days/sample
porosity, permeability)

Erosion Shoreline profiles 16-18 in situ

Boating activity inventory 16-18 In situ

Electronic wave guage 16-18 In situ

Wind speed gauge and compass 16-18 In situ

Empirical, site specific 16-18 In situ
wind wave energy models 'Gn-de-rvarying
wind conditions

Birds Aerial photographs 19-24 1-5 days

Aerial visual sample census 19-24 1 or more days

Nest counts 19-24 1 or more days

Mark and recapture 19-24 1 or more days,
very time consuming

Auditory Index 19-24 2-4 days

Temporal census 19-24 1-3 evenings per roost,
September

Radar 19-24 migratory seasons

Radio-location telemetry 19-24 day and night,
all seasons, to 1 year

TABI@E 25 - (cont.)

WETLAND HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Impact Assessment Technique References a Time Frame b

Mammals Temporal census 19-24 2-3 days during migration
(see also
terrestrial)

Total capture 19-24 very time consuming;
varies with area sampled

Time-area count 19-24 1 hr/count for several days

Mark and recapture 25 2 days minimum

Marking 25 2 days minimum,
no specific time

Reduction of rate of capture 25 2 or more nights

Selective reduction or Increase 25 2 separate samples
(1-2 days/animal)

Radio-telemetry 25 up to I year
Aerial photography/countsc 25 8-10 days

Vertebrates/ Sweep net collections 20-21 2-3 weeks
Invertebrates
Light trapping 20-21 2-3 weeks

Malaise trapping 20-21 2 weeks

General collecting 20-21 6-8 days

Endangered Presence of endangered species - -
Species may be ascertained through the
use of previously cited methodology

Contact local experts, U.S. Fish Appendix 1
and Wildlife, state agencies I or more days

Reference state and federal -
endangered species lists 1 day

a1) 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)
Phillipsonv 1970; 14) Parkinson et al., 1971; 15) ASTM, 1976; 16) labawa and Ostrom,
1980; 17) Sverdrup and Munk, 1947; 18) USACOE, 1973; 19) Kendelgh, 1944; 20) Giles,
1971; 21) NESP, 1975; 22) Frdnzreb, 1977; 23) Parnell and Soots, 1979i 24) States et
al., 1978; 25) Taber and McTaggart-Cowan, 1971.
bTime frames are estimated based on minimal field time and do not Include analysis of data
collected unless other wise specified.

TABLE 25- (cont.)

AOUATIC HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIOUES

Impact Assessment Technique Referencesa Time Frame Per Sampleb

Shellfish Beds Direct counts (no. of Individuals per unit area) or size measurement 1 2-3 days

Size frequency distribution 2 2-3 days

Condition Index 3,4 3-4 days

Flow-through or static bloassays 5-9 7-10 days

Chemical uptake analyses 8-11 4-7 days

Bacteriological quality analyses 8 3-4 days

Grassbeds Aerial photography In concert with groundtruthing 12 3-4 days

Community survey 13-16 3-4 days

Community productivity 17-21 8-10 days

1) measured by uptake of radioactive carbon (14C);
2) measured by marking the blades and measuring the growth Increment after 7-10 days
a growth period of several weeks;
3) measured by statistical estimates based on length and width of the longest 3-4 days
5% of the leaf population of a given area.

Benthos Numerical assessment (quantitative study) 5,22-25 Sampling could take several
days per collection sample
processing; analysis may
take weeks to months per
collection.

Faunal survey (qualitative study) 22-25 Sampling could take several
days per collection. Sample
processing may take several
weeks per collection.

Bioassay (effluent or sediment elutriate testing) 5,6,7,9,26,27 Several weeks for collec-
- tion, testing and data ana-
lysis.

Nursery Areas Numerical assessment (quantitative study) 5,23-25 Sampling could take several
days per collection. Sample
processing and analysis CO
could take several more
weeks per collection.

TABLE 25 - (cont.)

AQUATIC HABITAT RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Impact Assessment Technique Referencesa Time Frame Per Sampleb

Nursery Areas Faunal survey (qualitative study) 22-25 Sampling could take several
(cont'd) days per collection. Sample
processing could take a few
weeks per collection.

Bioassay (effluent or sediment elutriate testing) 5-7,9,26,27 Several weeks for collec-
tion, testing and data
analysis.

Manatees Observation and counts Report observations as
they occur.
Sea Turtles Observation and counts
Report observations as
they occur.

Tangle nets Netting conducted daily or
weekly In frequented areas
Endangered Species Presence of other endangered species may be ascertained through the use of Report observations and
previously cited methodology. disposition as they occur
Contact local experts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, state agencies Appendix 1 1 or more days
Reference state and federal endangered species lists 1 1 day

1) Van Dolah et di.,)1979; 2) Grdy et al:, 1978; 3) Lawrance and Scott, 1982; 4) Scott and Lawrance, 1982; 5) USEPA 1973; 6) Cairns and
Dickson, 1973; Cairns et al., 1978, 8) NAS, 1980; 9) APHA, 1980; 10) SCOHEC, 1981; 11) Pan et al., 1982; 121 Thompson, 1976; 13)
Phillips, 1960; 14) Livingston et al., 1976; 15) McRoy and Helfferich, 1977; 16) Phillips and McRoy, 1979; 17) Patriquin, 1973; 18) Zleman,
1974-75; 19) Penhale, 1975; 20) Capone et al., 1979; .21) Kemp et al., 1981; 22) Holme and McIntyre, 1971); 23) NESP, 1975; 24) USCS, 1977;
25) APHA., 1980; 26) Plumb, 1981; 27) USEPA, 1979b.
b
Time frames are estimated based on minimal field time and do not Include analysis of data collected, unless otherwise specified.

co
_-j

TABLE 25 (Cofit

SOCIOECONOMIC RESOURCES
MEASUREMENT TECHNIQUES

Impact Assessment Technique Referencesa Time Frameb

Cultural Reference the National Register 1 day
Historical of Historic Places

Interview local collectors 2-3 days

Contact appropriate State Historic (Appen 1) 1 day
Preservation Officer

Archaeological Reference the National Register
of Historic Places 1 day

Interview local collectors 2-3 days

Contact appropriate State
Historic Preservation Officer (Appen 1) 1 day

Archaeologicl Survey:
Surface reconnaissance 1,2 several weeks for collec-
tion, testing and data
analysis
Excavation 1,7

Laboratory analysis of artifacts 1,2

Economic *Contact local Planning Board - I day
Resources/
Land Use *Review existing mapped data 5 1-2 days

*Visual site survey - 1-2 davs

Aerial reconnaissance 4 1-2 weeks

Comparative cost analysis I Several weeks for collec-
tion, data analysis
Input-output analysis 1,6-8 Several weeks for colle'c-
tion, data analysis

Spatial interaction analysis 1 Several weeks for collec-
(The gravity model) tion, data analysis

Activity complex analysis 1 Several weeks for collec-
I tion, data analysis

Numerical ecological 1 Several weeks for collec-
classification system tion, data analysis

a 1)Henderson, 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; S)Nissan and
Williams, 1980.

bTlme frame dependent upon availability of data, personnel.

Marina Planning 89

Marina planning, design, construction, and operation

will greatly affect the kind and degree of environmental

impacts which can be expected to occur. Proper considera-

tion to these four procedural steps will also affect the

economic viability of the operation.

Three published works provide considerable details on

these four steps. They include two studies by the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, 1983 and

USEPA,'1984) and one by the United States Army Corps of

Engineers (USACOE, 1974). The USACOE document is oriented

toward engineering features of marinas; the USEPA documents

address issues relevant to resource managers, planners, and

developers.

The following outlines planning and siting considera-

tions relevant to those who may be involved in locating and

designing new marinas. The USEPA (1983) document is the

source for parts 1, 2, and 3; for part 4, layout criteria,

see USACOE (1974). Included are general planning considera-

tions, site investigation considerations, and marina layout

criteria.

1. General Planning Considerations

Here attention is given to the type of marina and

facilities needed, and site location factors if a site

has yet to be chosen.

A. Types of Marinas

This is usually determined in the initial feasibility

study. Type will range from public to condominium-

associated marinas.

B. Marina Access

Regardless of type or location, marinas must have

adequate land access and provide safe boat passage

to open waters. Acceptable travel times from resi-

dence to the marina is important. Winding channels,

and hazardous and long routes to water use areas

are generally considered unacceptable. Availability

of, or accessibility to, such utilities as electri-

city, potable water, telephone, gas, sewer, and

garbage removal is important.

C. Facilities Area Requirements

Area for facilities include both water and land

(Table 26). Water area is dependent on type, number

and size of boats, type of mooring, launching ramps,

maneuvering area, pier services (fueling), etc.

Land area requirements depend upon marina function

and associated services and facilities. These

range from parking areas and security, to motels

and boat sales. See part 4, Layout Planning, for

details on facilities and services.

D. Aesthetics

In addition to clean and pleasant surroundings,

TABLE 26

MARINA SERVICES AND FACILITIES

MARINA SERVICES

Water Related Land Related

Boat launching Boat sales
Mooring service Boat repairs
Water taxi service Marina supply sales
Transient boat service General supply sales
Waste collection Trailer storage
Fueling Parking
Boat towing Overnight
Fire and rescue services accommodations
Navigation and weather Food service
information Concessions
Utility service
Recreational services

MARINA FACILITIES

Water Related Land Related

Open and covered mooring Boat building and
Boat launch ramp repair
marine railway Dry Boat storage
Crane lift Trailer storage
Drydock Restaurant
Fueling pier Motel
Anchorage areas Picnic areas
Marine service station Convenience store
Entrance and exit channels Boat washing
Swimming area Parking
Water skiing course Swimming Pool
Basin flushing system Camping
Storm and wave protection Beach area
Club Room
Marine supply sales
Public toilets and
showers
Recreational facilities

(Source: USEPA, 1984)

also considered are air and water quality, noise 92

and wind conditions.

E. General Site Locations

Marinas are generally located in estuaries, embay-

ments, or riversides, along open shorelines, and

lowland areas above tide zone. Marinas in inter-

tidal lowlands and salt marshes are discouraged.

Areas with maximum natural protection are preferred.

Site locations can affect construction costs in

providing safety and in minimizing environmental

impacts.

2. Site Investigation

Upon narrowing the choice of possible sites, specific

locations are examined for physical and natural condi-

tions as they may influence marina development, opera-

tion, and use.

A. Physical Considerations

Included here are water depth, bottom conditions,

hydrography, soils, and shore conditions. Water

depths adequate to meet boat needs are desired.

Dredging in areas too shallow or placing protective

structures in waters too deep are costly. Natural

depth needs vary with boat types to be served.

Sailboats, for example, generally need greater

channel depths than do powerboats.

Bottom conditions include siltation rates which

in turn are influenced by hydrography and the

nature of underlying soils. Hydrographi c investi-

gations can determine siltation, erosion, marine

clay deposits, and shoaling rates. Soil tests

evaluate pile placement and foundation needs.

Shoreline topography should be suitable to provide

protection from flooding, erosion, strong winds, etc.

B. Weather Conditions

Local weather conditions can be important in marina

location. Precipitation usually presents no serious

problem provided planning is made for adequate sur-

face drainage. Winds, on the other hand, may require

special planning. All structures should be designed

to withstand wind loading. Surface wind velocities

will vary from exposed to sheltered locations.

Marinas handling sailboats must plan for channel

ingress and egress. Where fog conditions prevail,

channels and main fairways must be as straight as

possible.

C. Wave Conditions

Marinas on ocean fronts are subject to sea swells

and must plan for these conditions. Waves should

not exceed 2 to 4 feet in height in entrance channels

or 1 to 1.5 feet in berthing area. Within basins,

where naturally occurring waves or boat-produced

waves may cause problems, the site location should

provide for wave heights to decre ase as they approach

the shore. Tidal conditions seldom render the use

of a marina impractical. However, tide ranges,

particularly low tide (MLT) must be considered in

planning for marinas in shallow water locations.

3 Site Development

Site development information is used to develop project

costs.

A. Marina Capacity

Marina capacity can be determined by marketing

analysis. Answers sought in the market analysis

include boat types, lengths, and numbers to be

accommodated. These will vary by type of marina.

B. Marina Orientation

This includes the layout of the marina. A success-

ful layout provides for good access, services, and

capacity at a low cost by minimizing the need for

protection facilities, dredging, and other struc-

tures which lessen environmental impacts.

(1) Mooring Facilities

Must be planned around their use and function.

Moorings can be fixed or floating, open or

enclosed, or single or double berth. Potable

water, waste removal facilities, and electrical

power may be required. Mooring locations

should allow for easy evacuation, maneuvering,

and protection from waves.

(2) Basin Circulation

Inadequate circulation of water through or

within channels, canals, and basins result in

increased maintenance costs (e.g., dredging

of sediment build-up) and environmental damage

to marine life. Planning should exclude

deadend canals, include two openings for basin

marinas, and basins should be shallower than

surrounding waters.

(3) Entrance Locations

oriented to provide safe passage into and out

of marina. Straight channels following natural

courses when possible. Channel width suffic-

Jent to permit passage of boats in opposite

direction. For sailboats, channels should

be perpendicular to prevailing winds.

C. Marina Protection Facilities

Artificial structures may be needed to provide

protection from wave action, shoaling, and sedimen-

tation. Because of development costs and impacts

of the structures on the environment, detailed

planning is needed to assess their effectiveness.

(1) Wave Attenuation

Breakwaters may be required to provide shelter

for boats when marina sites are located along

open shorelines. Breakwaters can be floating

or solid. The former is less expensive and 96

more environmentally acceptable (allows better

current flow).

(2) Shoaling

Structures which change normal movement of

water and waves along the shore will influence

littoral movement. Site planning should

consider probable effects of structures on

shoaling.

(3) Sedimentation

Planners or engineers must evaluate the marina

site carefully to determine possible extent of

bottom sediment movement which may require

costly maintenance dredging.

(a) Dredging Requirements

once in operation, the most common dredg-

ing practices in marinas is to remove

sediment from problem areas near docks

or in channels.

(b) Dredged Materials

The proper placement of dredged materials

is a concern for existing. marinas and ones

under construction. Usually recommended

that dredged materials be adequately con-

tained above the mean high water level.

Use of dredges for reclamation of wetlands

is restricted, and the disposal of dredges

at sea is discouraged. Properly placed

dredge material to create habitat areas

and new marsh lands is encouraged.

Alternatives to dredging are encouraged.

These consist of expanded use of dry

storage; upland locations with canals to

open water; and the construction of piers

into deeper water.

4. Layout Criteria for Marinas

Proper siting of the various components of a marina will

affect the soundness of the overall plan. The amount

of land and water space available for development will

restrict the number of boats and support facilities

which an area can accommodate.

A. Layout Planning

(1) Boats

Recreational motorboats, sailboats, commercial

craft, charter boats, and rental boats may all

.or in part require berthing in marinas. Berth-

basins will usually be designed to provide

greater depths and maneuvering area near the

basin entrance (Fig. 8). Larger recreational

motorboats should be berthed near the entrance

where greater depths and maneuvering area

Figure 8

SCHEMATIC LAYOUT OF A MARINA SHOWING DESIRABLE INTERRELATION OF FACILITIES

TRANSIENT FRON
SHORE T PARK
HOUSING Y AC H T C L U 8 HOTEL
COMPLEX TRANSIENT HOUSING

FUT. DRY
-:s STORAGE
a LAUNCH

co a
BOARDING DOCKS co z U) tn -m
a- i F- co co
2 WAVE BREAKER U)
< , < a -- a
ca CL 0-
HARBOR MASTER I I co
HH

ADM. BLDG.- WH
15
BOAT W@ - -
r -j FUEL DOCK
VISITOR S DOCK CL

'REPAIRS
L-L-w-cr = - PROJECT DEPTH (TYPA
>
X COAST UARD
iWil
ZZ 0- MARINA
Mi i
C Om M. -,-M Cn- M A I N T.
V,
F IS H. i YARD
ca
I
PROCESSIN`GJ-P -as F,
Z
L)

co co co
Q@ a, ANCILLARY
ANCI 0 CL
CL FACILITIES
F A C I L I T I E S _-D
LLARY

00
PUBLIC ROADWAY
00

(Source: USACOE, 1974)

requirements can be met. Smaller craft should

be berthed in the inner parts of the harbor

where water depths are shallower. Sailboats

with auxilliary power can be berthed in motor-

boat areas; those with greater drafts near the

entrance and those with shallower draft in

inner areas. Sailboats without auxillary power

should be berthed in slips open to leeward of

the prevailing wind. Commercial craft usually

fall in the same category as large recreational

craft with regard to water requirements. How-

ever, the berthing of the two should be sepa-

rated because of different adjacent land use

requirements. Commercial craft require special

hoists and other facilities for moving and

processing fish. The public should be excluded

from these working areas. Charter boats must

have onshore facilities for selling their

service, controlling the boarding and debarking

of clients, and parking cars. Viewing areas

may also be provided, as will fish-cleaning

stations.

Rental boats should be berthed in the same area,

not mixed with recreational boats, near office

handling the rentals, and have a car parking

area separate from the slip rental parking area.

100

(2) Ramps and Hoists

Ramps and hoists for launching trailered craft

should be separated from the berthing area as

far as possible. When possible, launching

ramp should have direct access to main water

body, not harbor area (Figs. 9 and 10).

(3) Boat Fueling and Pumpout Facilities

The best location for a fueling dock is near
entrance and in an area'protected from waves.

Land space will be required for buried fuel

storage tanks and these should be accessible

for fuel distributing vehicles. Pumpout

stations should be located in the same area

as the fuel station for management purposes,

but not so near that boat traffic interferes

with the other's operation.

(4) Vehicle Parking

Lots should be located so that no parking space

in any lot is more than 500 feet from the head

of the pier for that particular lot. Parking

for ancillary facilities should be adjacent to

those of slip users. This will allow for over-

flow to be absorbed by one or the other of the

lots.

(5) Boat Repair and Servicing Yards

These should be located in remote parts of the

101

Figure 9

LAYOUT OF A TYPICAL LAUNCHING RAMP FACILITY

P ROT ECTED EmBAYMENT

BOARDING DOCKS

Cr HOLDING SLIPS
0

off
BEACH AREA ANC:LLARY I
FAC LITIES

MANEUV R
AREA

PICNIC AREA

PUBLIC ROADWAY

GAS PUMPS a FIRE
PREVENTION EOUIP'T.

(Source: USACOE, 1974)

102

Figure 10

HOIST-LAUNCHING FACILITY WITH
DRY STORAGE YARD

MOORING PIERS

BOAT HOIST
FUEL PIER

GAS PUMPS

ANCILLARY FACILITIES

BEACH AREA PICNIC AREA. 8
OBSERVATION POINT

SERVICE YARD
REST ROOMS
90A 6a
/ 7Z/, X,
Cr
A

BOAT DRY STORAGE
1111111111 1111MIM
co

P U 8 L I C ROADWAY

(Source: USACOE, 1974)

103

marina harbor, but with adequate access for
larger craft. The yard should be readily acce's-

sible to large tractor-trailers for hauling

boats to be launched (Fig. 11).

(6) Dry Storage

Dry storage facilities should be located in

accordance with criteria that apply to launching

ramps. Launching and retrievals are generally

accomplished by hoist rather than ramp.

(7) Boat Sales and Chandlery Facilities

These should be located along main access

route to the harbor. Although often located

outside the marina proper, they should be

accessible by the walking public.

(8) Administrative Complex

This should be located near the entrance to

the harbor and guest docks. The harbormaster's

office should be part of or close to the adminis-

trative complex and have a good view of boats

passing through the entrance. A good view of

berthing area is also recommended.

B. Space Allocation

The following analysis and description of space

requirements in a marina was extracted in its entirety

from the USACOE (1974) document on design, construc-

tion, and operation of small craft harbors.

Figure 11

TYPICAL MAINTENANCE BUILDING AND YARD LAYOUT

WORK BENCH SPA E PARTS

-X- X- X -At

SIGNS
a PLUMB.
LUMBER, PAINT --:E L PIPE, CONDUIT,
SHOP HICLE
SPARE VE
LIGHT STANDARDS,
FLOATING REPAIR ETC.
Li
COMPONENTS, AREA
OFFICE
ETC.

W A S H

R E' C E I V I N G A R E A
RACK
F I R E
F I G H T I N'G
E G j; P,

F EN C I NIG

7R "i
ETC. Uj

x-x-- -A--X-'A X-X.

(Source: USACOE, 1974)
L,7

@
AS@Hj
RA C K

105

The total area available to the harbor development

often places a restriction on the number of boats

that the harbor can accommodate and on the size

and scope of the ancillary activity it can support.

Several general relationships, found valid for

most harbors, may help the planner to make tentative

allocations of space, which can later be adjusted

to definite dimensions in the final planning stages.

Such allocations are important in making adequate

allowance for future expansion (Fig. 12).

The average harbor with all-slip moorage can berth

about 15 to 20 boats per acre of navigable water

area, including main interior channel, fairways,

and slip area, but not the entrance channel. This

general rule applies only when the average boat

length is 30 to 35 feet and where good basin geome-

try can be obtained. Because of the wider fingers

needed for two-boat slips, they will occupy almost

the same area as that required for single-boat

slips. When bow-and-stern moorings are used in

lieu of slips, about 2 to 4 times as much water

area (depending on the water depth) will be required,

exclusive of fairways and channels. Single-point

moorings required about 6 times the area occupied

by the same number of bow-and-stern moorings if

full-circle clearance is provided.

106

Figure 12

SPACE ALLOCATION FOR A TYPICAL MARINA

"A.

A,
r'111@v 1*

A
A. @7p

;3-f
_4@
i1j"IX
"JiZ

AVGI'lGble AreG 140 Affe5 (71VO gridges tO be ReMCved)
Woo J-LG17e LGU17Ch1','_lq I?GI77,D
PGrkin!; z,3x 1.53.4cre_@ 4 4 cre5
RG1W,0, ROGd,, Wdsh AreG 4 cre
4 vol*IG'ble For Ma-i'17o - 135 A cres
Let W - WdlerlreG of SerM'17g HG51'R5 3 (',@almeI5
Then W -@ 4 -7 /3111 4cre5
W cQ/ 4cres
(Thl'5 LeGV65.54 4cros For Sack -up LG17d to b e Filled)
Approx. Sertl7i'l7g Cqpacity = 81x,"O z 1620 Soc t5
Do1'1yLGunc17117!7CGDcc1'1y= 3x,',Oz 1505out5
11-770
EnlrGnce C12GI717el kllldth - 30C -@ /00 z 400 Ft.

(Source: USACOE, 1974)

107

For the normal distribution of boats, a minimum of

three vehicle spaces in the parking lot will be

required for every four boats in the berthing area.

About 90 cars can be parked in an acre, so that

roughly one-sixth of an acre of parking lot is

required for each acre of water area in the harbor.

Where the average size of the berthed craft is

large"-and many are used for social occasions and

multi-family cruising--the ratio may have to be

increased to a maximum of about three spaces per

berth. An average launching ramp or hoist will

launch and retrieve about 50 trailered boats on

a peak day, and because of staggered usage, car-

trailer parking spaces will be required for only

80 percent of the peak-day ramp or hoist traffic.

About 30 car-trailer units can be parked in an

acre if pullthrough parking at 45 degrees is pro-

vided. This works out to 1.33 acres of parking

lot per ramp lane or hoist.

Land area required for harbor service facilities,

ancillary facilities, and roads varies from one

harbor to another. The minimum requirement is an

area roughly equal to the parking area required

for berths and operational launchings. This will

generally provide enough space only for harbor

support facilities and roads. To obtain a good

108

revenue versus cost balance it is usually necessary

to supplement slip rentals with leaseholds for

ancillary facilities; with the-additional parking

area required, the minimum leasehold and supple-

mental parking area needed for the extra services

that convert a simple smallcraft harbor into a

complete marina, is about twice the area needed

for boatowner parking alone. Thus, once the park-

ing area requirements for slips and launching has

been determined, it should be multiplied by 4 to

obtain the total minimum land area required for

a complete marina. Any additional land that can

be obtained may be put to beneficial use later,

as a good marina will upgrade its surroundings

and attract more revenue-producing ancillary

development.

I
I
I
I
SECTION VI
I
I
I REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION VI

REGULATORY RESPONSIBILITIES

Mississippi administers control over coastal marina

development through authority contained in the Mississippi

Coastal Program. The Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR)

administers the program and implements the requirements of

the Coastal Wetlands Protection law. The wetlands law,

together with several other state laws included in the

program, prohibits the conduct of any regulated activity

(e.g., dredge, fill, and the erection of certain structures)

within the coastal zone unless a permit (see permit appli-

cation in Appendix D) has been issued or the activity is

covered by a valid exclusion.

This section outlines the permitting and review process

and parties involved, examines siting design, and construc-

tion criteria for marina development, and looks at local

regulations which could affect marina development.

Permit Process

In addition to the developer who must initiate a permit

application and the public who may comment upon it, three

levels of government may be involved in the permitting and

review process: federal, state, and local.

Five agencies of the federal government are routinely

involved in the application and review process. These

109

110
include the Department of Army, Corps of Engineers (USACOE);

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); U.S. Department

of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); U.S. Department

of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (USNMFS); and

the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). The USACOE is the sole federal

marina permitting agency. The other four agencies review

applications, although the USEPA holds veto power over

applications on environmental grounds.

In Mississippi, three agencies are directly involved in

the permit process and three agencies in the review process.

The permit process involves the Mississippi Department of

Wildlife Conservation, Bureau of Marine Resources (BMR), the

Bureau of Pollution Control (BPC), and the Secretary of

State when a request is made for a state land lease. The

review agencies include the Mississippi Department of

Archives and History; Department of Health, Shellfish

Sanitation Office; and the Department of Wildlife Conser-

vation, Bureau of Marine Resources, Wetlands Division.

At the local level, the Southern Mississippi Planning

and Development District acts as the "clearinghouse" in the

A-95 review process. Local municipalities are not involved

in permitting insofar as federal and state regulations are

concerned, nor are they usually asked to review permit

applications. Where local ordinances, regulations, or codes

exist, developers must be in conformance with them as they

pertain to all or portions of the marina.

A chart of the permit process as it relates to Mississippi

is shown in Fig. 13, and summarized below.

1. BMR reviews a joint application for completeness

and determines if it is eligible for a waiver or

exclusion.

2. If a wetland permit is required, a public notice

is issued by the BMR and comments invited. This

process is carried out through the A-95 Clearing-

house review process.

3. Following review of the application, a finding

of consistency is made by the BMR and transmitted,

with other state comments to the USACOE.

4. The permit is then either approved, approved with

conditions, or denied.

5. If a revision to the wetland use plan is required,

a separate review process is initiated. Permits

will not be approved when revisions are not granted.

6. An applicant may also be required to obtain a sub-

merged land lease from the Mississippi Secretary

of State in addition to the wetland permit before

a marina can be developed.

7. The issuance of a dredge and fill permit (Section

404) by the USACOE cannot be made until and unless

all other federal, state (include BPC Section 401

certification), and local approvals are obtained.

112

Figure 13

PI=IT PROCESS

BUREAU OF MARINE CORPS OF ENGINEERS BUREAU OF POLLUTION SECRETARY OF STATE
RESOURCES CONTROL
RECEIVE JOINT RECE IVE JOINT ION RECEIVE JOINT REQUEST SUBMERGED]
PERMIT APPLICATION PERMIT APPLICAT PERMIT APPLICATION LANDS LEASE
L

EVALUATE
APPLICATION
F@@NT P@
ELIGIBLE FOR
WAIVER OR PERMIT
EXCLUSION REQUIRED

CONDUCT 401
PUBLIC REVIEW
NOTICE

LOCAL RECEIVE
OFFICIALS COMMENTS A-95

HEARING REQUIRED

HEARING
NOT REQUIRED

PUBLIC

TAFF FI INDINGS AND 401 CERT IFICATION
ECO@
7R.ENDATIONS I EVALUATE Ll BMR
E@W

APPLICATION OF
DECISION FACTORS

NOT CONSISTENT WI
WETLANDS PLAN

CONSISTENT WITH
PLAN CHANGE
P QN'T"
FRLEQIESTED WETLANDS PLAN
YES
NO ONSIDER
CHANGE
REQUEST i
No@
APPROVED LHANGE
APPROVED
STATE IAL
CONSISTENCY AGENCIES 1-1 Cl
C
U 'T @=AGENIES
P@E4MIT

COMMENT
FEDERAL FOT@ER
APPROVE INTERESTS CORPS
APPRO@IE ] I C'MMENTS
WITH I 'T -71!
PERMIT
LOCAL
AGENCIES H INDIVIDUALS
FAPPEALS

OPTIONAL
PUBLIC
HEARING

NECESSARY
ENVIRONMENTJ
PER
Q
jgf@@RE -@f

I APPROVE DEN17
P";,T
PERMIT I F IT

113

Siting, Design, and Construction Criteria

The Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP) has 11 categories

which are used in the evaluation of a marina permit. These

are outlined below. Federal and state evaluation criteria

by agency and major impact category are shown in Table 27.

1. Marinas shall be located in areas where minimal

initial and maintenance dredging will be required.

2. Design shall not disrupt currents or restrict the

tidal flow.

3. Marinas shall be located at least 1,000 feet from

shellfish harvesting areas or seagrass beds.

4. More efficient utilization of existing marina

space is preferable to new marina construction.

Open dockage extending to deep water is preferable

to the excavation of boat basins. Excavation of

basins in uplands is preferable to excavation in

coastal wetlands.

5. Turning basins and navigation channels shall not

be designed to create sumps that would result in

long-term degradation of water quality. For exam-

ple, the depth of boat basins and access channels

shall not exceed that of the receiving body of

water, and shall not be located in areas of poor

circulation.

6. Marinas shall not be sited in areas of known high

siltation and high shoaling rates.

TABLE 27

MISSISSIPPI

FEDERAL AND STATE MARINA PERMITTING AGENCIES AND
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MAJOR IMPACT CATEGORIES

Ageficy

Department of the Army, Department of Wildlife Conser- Department of Natural Resources- Secretary of State-
Corps of Engineers vation Action: Joint permit application Action: Request state land lease;
Mobile District Action: Joint permit application @-ubmittal required; grant or grant or deny lease.
Action: Joint permit appli- su6mittal required; approval or deny water quality certification. When to contact: After site selec-
@_a_H6_n submittal required; denial authority. When to contact: After site selec- tion.
approval or denial authority. Time frame: 90 days. Fl'on.
Time frame: 45-90 days When to contact: After site
V
en to contact: After site selec-
h ! se ectTo-n'
-on-.--

Major Impact Evaluation Criteria
Category

Water 1. Evaluate for compliance with 1. Open dockage extending to deep 1. Marina construction and use must
Quality applicable effluent limit- water is preferable to the ex- not exceed the Department's estab-
Resources ation, water quality standards. cavation of boat basins. lished water quality standards (re-
and management practices during 2. Turning basins and navi- fer to Inventory of Existin Con-
construction, operation and gation channels shall not be ditions and Identitication We- y
maintenance of-the proposed designed to create sumps that Factors for GdTdance Development
f aci I it V. would result in long-term de- -do -cuiii-nt for I i st i ng -of _s_t_a_n_d_a_r_ds
gradation of water quality.
For example, the depth of boat
basins and access channels shall
not exceed that of the receiving
body of water, and shall not be
located in areas of poor circu-
lation.
3. Boat basin st)al) provide for
water circulation by being de-
signed for tidal flushing with
angled sides, or similar means.

AqUdt iC 1. Evaluate potential direct and 1. Marinas shall be located at
Resources indirect loss of and damage to least 1,000 feet from shellfish
fish (aquatic) resources due to harvesting areas or seagrass beds.
the activity proposed. 2. Evaluate for disruption of
currents or restriction of tidal H
flow, changes in salinity regimes Ab
or changes in related nutrient
and aquatic I ife distr ibution
patterns.

TABLE 27 (cont.)

MISSISSIPPI

FEDERAL AND STATE MARINA PERMITTING AGENCIES AND
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR MAJOR IMPACT CATEGORIES

Agency

Department of the Army, Department of Wildlife Conser- Department of Natural Resources Secretary of state
Corps of Engineers vation. Action: Joint permit application Action:Request state land lease;
Mobile District. Action: Joint permit application submittal required; grant or grant or deny lease

Action: Joint permit appli- submittal required; approval or deny water quality certification When to conatct: After site selec-
tion.
cation submittal required; denial authority. When to contact: After site selec-
approval or denial authority. Time frame: 90 days -ion.
Time frame: 45-90 days When to contact: After site
When to contact: After site selec- selection.
tion.

Major Impact Evaluation Criteria
Category

Terrestrial 1. Evaluate potential direct and
Resources indirect loss of and damage to
wildlife resources due to the
activity proposed.

Wetlands 1. The unnecessary alteration or 1. Excavation of basins in up-
Resources destruction of wetlands will be lands is preferable to excava-
discouraged as contrary to the tion in coastal wetlands.
public interest. 2. Location must be consistant
Application will be reviewed with wetland use plan.
to determine whether the coast 3. Statement describing environ-
line or base line might be mental effects, assessing impacts
altered. If so, coordination and describing measures to be
with Attorney General is necess- taken to reduce detrimental im-
ary. pacts to wetlands during and
after activity must be submitt-
ed.

Socia- 1. Probable impact of the pro- 1. More efficient utilization
Economic posed activity and its intended of existing marina space is
Resources use on the public interest (in- preferable to new marina con-
cluding on nearby properties) struction. Innovative Solu-
is evaluated. tions to increased demands for
2. Evaltiate extent of public new mooring, dockage, and
and private need. storage space, including dry
3. Consideration is given to stack storage, alternative
effect the proposed activity may slip mooring configurations
have on the enhancement, preser- are encouraged.
valation or development of his-
toric, senic and recreational
Values.

TABLE 27 (cont.)

MISSISSIPPI

FEDERAL AND STATE MARINA PERMITTING AGENCIES AND
EVALUAIION CRITERIA FOR MAJOR IMPACT CATEGORIES

Agency

Department of the Army, Department of Wildlife Conser- Department of Natural Resources. Secretary of State
Corps of Engineers vation@ Action: Joint permit application Action: Request state land lease;
Mobile District- Action: Joint permit application 's-ub-m-Utal required; grant or grant or deny lease.
Action: Joint permit appli- submiltal required; approval or deny water quality certification. When to contact: After site selec-
Ea-U-65 submittal required; denial authority. When to contact: After site selec- T i -on.
approval or denial authority, Time frame: 90 days- -io n .
Time frame: 45-90 days- WFe-n-l-ocontact: After site
When to contact: After site selec- _s_e_1_ec`F-io_n.

Major Impact Evaluation Criteria
Category

Navigation 1. Evaluate for undue inter- 1. Indented boatslips with
Resources ference with public access to, angled sides shall be used in
or use of, navigable waters. preference to keyhole boatslips.
2. Review for possible inter-
ference with a Federal project
in navigable waters.

Aesthetic 1. Impact on public inLerest 1. Review with respect to pre- 1. Marina construction and use
Resources with respect to consideration servation of natural scenic must not exceed the Department's
of scenic values and wild and qualities. established water quality stan-
scenic rivers is investigated. dard for toxic substances, color,
taste and odor-producing substances
(Refer to Inventory of Existing
Conditions and Identification of
Key Factors for Guidance Develop-
men document for listing of
itandards.

Groundwat er 1. The potential for impacts
Resources to weLland recharge areas and
potable water supplies is con-
sidered.

(Source: USEPA, 1984)

117

7. Permanent spoil disposal sites shall be set aside

in non-wetlands areas for use in initial construc-

tion and future maintenance.

8. Indented boatslips with angled sides shall be

used in preference to keyhole boatslips.

9. Boat basins shall provide for water circulation

by being designed for tidal flushing with angled

sides, or similar means.

10. Innovative solutions to increased demands for new

mooring, dockage, and storage space, including

dry stack storage, alternative slip mooring con-

figurations are encouraged.

11. Bulkheads, seawalls, breakwaters, jetties and

groins, dredged material disposal, and filling

other than dredged material disposal which

pertain to marinas, are addressed under other

headings of the MCP.

The coastal location for a marina must be consistent

with the wetland.use plan. All development of private

marinas is restricted to "C" Districts (Commercial Fishing

and Recreational Marinas) as delineated in the wetland use

plan. Development or expansion of public municipal marinas

is an exception to the permit process and location criteria

stated above.

In drafting the MCP wetland use plan, only those areas

then containing commercial fishing and recreational marinas

were classified as "C" Districts. The significance of this

118

is that any proposal for the development of a marina is

necessarily limited to nonpermitted wetland use areas.

Applicants seeking a permit to construct a marina must

request a change to the wetland use plan. This is not

unlike a variance in the case of municipal zoning ordinances.

As with municipal zoning, the problem of granting is not

in the concept but in the criteria and uniformity by which

variances are granted.

Local Regulations Affecting Marina Development

Regulation and permit requirements originating at local

levels of government are generally intended to complement

state and federal regulations applicable to a given area.

These are generally more broad in scope and detailed in

technical coverage in order to take into account those

characteristics that may have a special impact on local

construction and development. Standards for marina design,

construction, and maintenance may be set forth in these

ordinances, regulations, and codes. For example, zoning for

marina districts, and the specification of minimum deck

loading criteria for fixed structures by a building and

safety agency.

Regulation and permit categories with applicability to

marinas in Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson counties are shown

in Table 28. In research for this study, departments adminis-

tering zoning ordinance were contacted as to whether or not

marinas were specifically addressed in their documents.

TABLE 28

COUNTY AND CITY ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, AND CODES

Unit of Zoning Subdivision Flood Building Housing Plumbing Electrical Gas
Government Ordinance Regulation Prevention Code Code Code Code Code
Ordinance

HANCOCK CO. No Yes Yes No No No No No
Bay St. Louis Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Waveland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

HARRISON CO. No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Biloxi Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gulfport Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Long Beach Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pass
Christian Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes -Yes

JACKSON CO. Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Moss Point Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ocean Springs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pascagoula Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

(Source: SMPDD, 1980)

120

All of the cities and one county, Jackson, had zoning

ordinances.

No ordinance had a specific zoning district for marinas.

However, marinas were permitted within a number of districts,

usually as a "permitted conditional use" rather than a

"permitted use." A permitted use must meet the general

requirements for a particular district; permitted condi-

tional use imposes conditions beyond those of a permitted

use.

Typical of the zoning ordinances reviewed was that for

the City of Biloxi. As a permitted use, marina/yacht clubs

were allowed only in the A-1 Agricultural District. As a

permitted conditional use, marina/yacht clubs were allowed

in all districts with the exception of Commercial Central

Business District districts (C-4-CBD-I-III).

Fish camps were allowed as a "permitted accessory use"

in A-1 Agricultural Districts but nowhere else. Fish camps,

but not marinas, were defined in the ordinance: "a camp

providing fishing facilities and overnight accommodations

for guests but does not include permanent residential

dwellings, other than that of the owner or operator" (City

of Biloxi, 1982). It is not known by this definition

whether or not wet-slip berthing is meant to be included as

a "facility." This is significant in that it is not un-

common for marinas to include "camping" facilities.

Clear definitions of what constitutes marinas, yacht

121

clubs, and fishing camps should be included in all zoning

ordinances. An example of a marina definition as it appears

in the New Orleans, Louisiana, zoning ordinance is as

follows (Anderson, 1976):

Marina: a place for docking or storage of pleasure
boats or providing services to pleasure boats and the
occupants thereof, including minor servicing and repair
to boats while in the water, sale of fuel and supplies,
or provision of lodging, food, beverages, and enter-
tainment as accessory uses. A yacht club shall be
considered a marina, but a hotel, motel, or similar
use, where docking of boats and provision of services
thereto, is incidental to other activities shall not
be considered a marina, nor shall boatdocks accessory
to a multiple dwelling where no boat related services
are rendered.

Zoning and other ordinances, regulations, and codes

commonly ighore or attempt to side-step marinas as a land

and water use. Mississippi is apparently no exception.

Because marinas are generally considered a commercial use

for zoning purposes (Anderson, 1977), zoning administrators

should reexamine their ordinances to determine the compati-

bility of marinas (as defined) as a permitted, conditional,

or accessory use within particular zoning districts.

I
I
I
I SECTION VII
I
I
I .RE00194ENDAT IONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION VII

RECOMMENDATIONS

Seven broad areas of concern pose special problems in

assessing and permitting marina development. These include:

(1) the special problems associated with projecting cumula-

tive impacts; (2) direct removal or alteration of wetlands;

(3) the effect of development on aquatic biota; (4) the

alteration of water quality; (5) socioeconomic impacts;

(6) problems associated with effective decision-making

processes; and (7) difficulties in complying with existing

standards and regulations.

In guiding marina development, four broad areas are of

concern to the developer and decision-maker. These include

(1) siting, (2) impact assessment techniques, (3) impact

mitigation, and (4) regulatory/planning processes. These

four are discussed below together with recommendations for

consideration by the Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources

in its management of marina development (for a comprehensive

discussion of guidance development, see USEPA, 1984).

Siting

The development of a marina involves five steps which

typically occur in two phases. The steps include: (1)

market area analysis; (2) market strategy; (3) marina site

identification; (4) feasibility analysis and preliminary

122

123

design; and, (5) final design and marina development. Steps

1-3 generally occur in the initial broad screening evalua-

tion; steps 4 and 5 are carried out as a detailed site

specific evaluation.

A market analysis is usually the first step taken by a

developer to assure the economic success of the proposal

project. Need and demand for the marina, including services

and facilities, are determined through surveys of similar

existing marinas (public marinas, yacht clubs, condominiums,

etc.), boat sales (motorboats, sailboats, size, etc.), and

recreational water use (skiing, fishing, sailing, etc.).

The market analysis is usually followed by a refinement

of the original concept and the formulation of a market

strategy. Included here would be the actual proposed

services and facilities, and number, size, and type of boats

to be accommodated. The identification of a site suitable

for the proposed marina concludes the initial screening

process, but is the crucial step in the development process.

Once a site, or several possible sites, has been identi-

fied, the suitability of the site for a marina must be

undertaken. This involves an in-depth feasibility analysis,

preliminary design outline, and consideration of regulatory

siting criteria. The extent of modifications to the site as

they relate to environmental impacts must be considered. If

mitigative measures are required the developer must be made

aware of them. If these are not practical (i.e., costly),

124

the developer can search for an alternative site or modify

the original design to meet feasible siting criteria. In

general, the environmental/cost limitations associated with

specific sites can be overcome through acceptable design

modifications. A model of an initial screening checklist is

shown in Table 29. If the proposed development and site is

considered to be feasible with regard to need, environmental

issues, cost, and institutional regulations, then the

preliminary screening is finalized and the application

process initiated.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Initiate a mandatory preapplication
conference with the developer.

Prior to the filing of a permit application, the devel-

oper should consult with an agent of the BMR concerning the

proposed development. It is the intent of this requirement

that the developer may familiarize himself with all regula-

tions (federal, state, and local) and be afforded the

opportunity of being advised by the BMR of major areas of

'concern which may arise either with the site or the project.

RECOMMENDATION 2: Divise a comprehensive initial
screening checklist to be completed by the developer
or his agent and submitted to the BMR prior to the
filing of a permit application..

When possible a sketch plan should accompany the completed

checklist. Findings from the developer's market analysis

and strategy are not included in Table 29, but this infor-

mation should accompany or be incorporated into the check

list. Because of the potential environmental consequences

125

TABLE 29
Project Description COASTAL MARINA SCREENING CHECKLIST
1. Location; municipality county

body of water latitude/longitude

2. Type of marina: open water dreaged basin locked harbor

3. Intended use: public private both

4. Size: upland area (acres) submerged area (acres)

number of slips range In slip size (feet)

5. Type of boat : sail power _ both

6. Services and facilities:

A. Services: launching ramp fuel pumpout
engine repair hull rep-M@: propeller repair

B. Other Facilities: ship's store residential
hotel development
restaurant access road/utilities

7. HydrographIc conditions:

A. Tidal Range (feet):

B. Natural depth of waters at site (feet): minimum maximum

C. Completed project depth at marina (feet): minimum - maximum

Screening Checklist

In completing the following chackilst, all aspects of the project as addressed above should be
considered. Checks In the "Yes" column Indicate potential permitting Issues. Cnecks 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?
In open water?

3. Will dredged material disposal at locations other than currently
permitted public disposal areas be required?

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 fall to meet state water quality
standards for existing use classifications?

7. Is the site located within I mile of a designated wildlife refuge,
wilderness area or other area specially designated for the
protection of fish or wildlife?

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 2000 feet of the site or within 1000
feet of access channels?

126
TABLE 29
(cont.)
Screening Checklist
(continued)

Yes No Unknown

10. Are grassbeds located within 1000 feet of the marina or acce ss
channels?

it. Is the site In an area of recognized historic, archaeological or
scenic value? (Contact State Historic Preservation Officer).

12. Are local residents ar 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 locat 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 from a Corps of Engineers
maintained channel or basin with an authorized depth of 21 feet
or greater (a major federal project)?

127

associated with a marina development, plus the fact that

public access may be curtailed, cause of need should be

documented. Care should be taken by the developer to

substantiate need on the basis of data relevant to the type

and size of marina proposed. Data on the demand for slips

(waiting lists) from public marina sources are only indirectly

relevant to demand projections for, say, a marina associated

with a condominium or subdivision.

Upon completion of the checklist, and following a site

visit by an agent of the BMR and the developer or his agent,

approval is made, denied or made pending modification of the

preapplication plan.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Encourage expansion of existing public
marinas with particular emphasis on those in Harrison
County where demand projections indicate the greatest
need.

Although demand appears greatest for berthing in public

marinas, and expansion of these facilities, where feasible,

should be encouraged, needs can also be met through the

development of well-managed private facilities. It should

be noted, however, that private profit marinas generate a

large portion of their profit from gas, and bait and tackle

sales, and owners may discourage the rent or lease of slips

to sailboat owners.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Maintain present policy of allowing
a dispersed pattern of marina development along the
coast.

This is discussed in more detail in Recommendation 12. 128

Alternatives to a dispersed pattern would include: (1)

concentrated centralization involving one huge marina

complex, usually located in the center of a region; (2)

deconcentrated centralization which provides for the develop-

ment of a number of individual marinas in one central

location; and, (3) concentrated decentralization which

incorporates the concepts of 1 or 2 above, but in three or

four distinct locations along the.coast.

Patterns of concentrated development require the avail-

ability of large tracts of land within which marinas can be

developed. These patterns do not appear politically or

economically feasible for Mississippi at this time.

Impact Assessment Techniques

The potential for impacts and the significance of

impacts are a function of the marine location and the design

and operational characteristics of the marina. Impacts will

not be the same for every marina. The denial of a permit

for the development of a marina more often than not is based

on environmental impacts which cannot be cost-effectively

mitigated.

Section 18 of Mississippi's Joint Application and Notifi-

cation form (Appendix D) requires the developer to provide,

as an attachment,

. . an appropriate report or statement assessing
nvironmental impacts of the proposed activity and

129
the final project dependent on it. The project's
effects on the wetlands and the effects on the life
dependent on them should be addressed. Also provide
a complete description of any measures to be taken
to reduce detrimental off-site effects to the coastal
wetlands during and after the proposed activity.

This requirement makes it incumbent upon the developer to

supply decision-makers with information which may be beyond

the ability of the developer to obtain or assess.

RECOMMENDATION 5: Develop a document which identifies
existing sources of environmental data and outlines
methodologies or techniques which can be applied to
identify and secure data pertinent to an adequate
assessment of a marina project.

Developers should not be required to provide an "unreason-

able" assessment of environmental impacts. Data should be

readily available or easily obtainable. When data require-

ments are unclear, sources of existing data unknown, and

methodologies for collecting data and techniques for assess-,

ing them unfamiliar to the developer, the usual result is

the provision of a set of documentations of little use to

the decision-maker. A document such as recommended above

would allow the BMR to develop a "fair" set of impact

requirements and provide the developer with a "reasonable"

expectation of securing the data. An example of a document

of this type was prepared for the USACOE (1983) for Biscayne

Bay, Dade County, Florida.

Impact Mitigation

Impacts may be mitigated through (USEPA,'1984):

1. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain

action or parts of an action;

130

2., Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude

of the action and its implementation;

3. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or

restoring the affected environment;

4. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preserva-

tion and maintenance operations during the life of the

action;

5. Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing

substitute resources or environments.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Compile a list of mitigative measures
as requirements or as acceptable alternatives for the
developer in the design, construction, and operation
of a marina.

Mitigative measures are meant to serve as a guide to

help insure that marinas are developed in an environmentally

acceptable manner. For example, a rectangular basin with a

two-channel entrance (good flushing) preferred over a

rectangular basin with an asymmetrical single entrance

(moderate flushing), and the requirement of silt screens or

similar containment methods during dredging.

RECOMMENDATION 7: Examine the feasibility of a sliding
scale lease arrangement for state submerged land which
encourages public access by providing a discount from
the base leasing fee when public access is part of a
marina.

Such a plan has been recommended for the State of

Florida (1983). Higher lease fees could also be charged for

marina development in designated high use areas (ocean front

locations).

131

Regulatory/Planning Processes

Authority and responsibilities of the BMR are set forth

in the state's Wetland Law and further described by state

regulations in the Mississippi Coastal Program. The overall

permit process for marina development is coordinated through

a joint permit process carried out by the BMR, Mississippi

Bureau of Pollution Control (BPC), and the USACOE. Appli-

cants for marina permits are provided some general criteria

defining the basis of decision-making. Flow charts describ-

ing the permit process are available and applicants are

advised of the time limits for permit review. BMR personnel

assist applicants throughout the permitting process. This

includes site evaluation and recommendations for mitigative

measures. Monitoring and compliance are to be carried out

by BMR field personnel.

As with most of the permitting programs among the

southeastern states (USEPA, 1984), Mississippi addresses

both water quality and wetland impacts. However, only

Mississippi and North Carolina have designed their programs

from a planning perspective to address most of the resources

which can be expected to be impacted by marina development.

Other states regulate development on a case-by-case permit

review procedure. Only in Mississippi have specific use

areas been designated (wetland use plan). This regional

approach does not eliminate the need for site-by-site review

and approval, but it does save time and expense for both

132

developers and the BMR by decreasing the number of applica-

tions for inappropriate sites.

In concept, Mississippi's permit process appears ade-

quate. In fact, as in the case of the wetland use plan, the

state provides an innovative tool in the decision-making

process that other states may find advantageous to imple-

ment. The recommendations which follow are directed more at

strengthening the decision-making process as it now exists

than to the suggestion of major modifications in the Coastal

Management Program.

RECOMMENDTION 8: Modify present permit application
process to allow fast-tracking for "no problem" marinas.

Marinas proposed for less sensitive areas, areas already

significantly impacted, or ones where findings indicate only

minor impact could be fast-tracked. That is, they would

receive faster and less comprehensive review in the permit-

ting process. It is recommended that the determination of

"no problem" marinas be made from, and at the time, the

screening checklist is submitted in the preapplication phase

of the permitting process.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Require detailed site-specific
design plans for those marinas which do not classify
as "no problem" marinas.

As a part of the permit application, detailed plans of

the proposed development should be submitted for projects

which possess the likelihood of significantly impacting the

environment. Technical information required in the plan

should be applicable to all "problem" marina projects. The

133

plan should not be too unlike those found in subdivision

regulations. Although denial of a project could be made on

the basis of the submitted plan, the objective is to provide

an instrument which can be properly evaluated. From the

plan the developer and the decision-maker can work out

acceptable changes or modifications which will mitigate

damage to the environment.

Information required for a permit as outlined in the

Mississippi Coastal Program does not appear consistent with

that required in the application itself. MCP requirements

are the more detailed of the two and should form the base

for the recommendation outlined above. A review of several

recently received applications for marina permits indicate

that the applicants provided only that information requested

on the application form. As a whole, the completed appli-

cations did not contain sufficient information as to provide

for even minimal evaluation.

RECOMMENDATION 10: Provide for follow-up of permits
through monitoring and compliance.

Final approval of a project does not guarantee compliance

with regulatory program objectives. The objective of

monitoring projects through the construction phase and into

operation is to provide a means of effectively assessing the

design and operating scheme as proposed in the permit

application. Monitoring can be accomplished by the regula-

tory agency or the developer. In either case, those features

of the marina to be monitored must be specified.

134

RECOMMENDATION 11: Clearly establish and describe
decision-making criteria to be used to evaluate siting
criteria and mitigation measures associated with marina
development.

In order to establish consistency in the decision-making

-process, criteria upon which decisions are to be based must

be established and described. This is a requirement for any

legally defensible permit decision. Developers will also

have a better understanding of what actions are permittable,

and thus less likely to propose inappropriate actions.

Mississippi's Coastal Program (MCP) document was pre-

pared to fulfill requirements of the Coastal Zone Management

Act of 1972. It is a complex legal document which can be

quite confusing to the general reader. It is recommended

that a short public information type booklet or brochure be

prepared which clearly establishes and describes the decision-

making criteria used in evaluating siting factors and

mitigative measures associated with marina development.

This would include all information pertinent to marina

permitting contained within the present MCP (1980 and 1983

revised) document. It should also contain information which

may help clarify issues or problems surrounding marinas.

.This includes information resulting from any actions taken

on the recommendations suggested in this report. If more

detailed siting criteria are forthcoming and mitigative

measures accepted as policy, appropriate changes to Section

2, Part III.C., Chapter 8, of the MCP (1983 revised) regu-

latory document must be made.

135

RECOMMENDATION 12: Pending implementation of Recommenda-
tions 1, 2, and 9, permit marinas as a regulated activity
in "G" Districts: General Use.

Marinas are currently an allowed use only in "C" Dis-

tricts: Commercial Fishing and Recreational Marinas.

Land/water areas designated as "C" Districts for the expan-

sion of existing marinas or the location of new marinas are

not provided for; i.e., only existing marinas comprise "C"

Districts. A few activities and jurisdictions are excluded

from the need to secure a state permit for regulated activ-

ities. Included here are port authorities and development

commissions and their activities which may include public

marinas. Proposals for new marinas which do not qualify for

exclusion must apply for revision in the wetland use plan to

allow for the siting of the project.

The only consistency in the MCP regarding new marina

projects is that they are not allowed unless they can show

cause for a revision in the wetland use plan. This leads to

consistent inconsistency unless all revision requests are

approved. If the latter is true, then approval should be

made to allow marinas as a permitted use in other districts.

To allow marinas as a permitted use in "G" Districts:

General Use, is not inconsistent with past policy. Provided

need can be shown, public access provided for--or mitigation

required for loss of public access--, and environmental

damage minimized, marinas should be considered a water-

dependent, permitted use.

136

RECOMMENDATION 13: Work with local officials to clari-
fy the definition of marinas as permitted, permitted
assessory, and permitted conditional use within exist-
ing zoning districts.

Municipal zoning ordinances should address the permit-

ting of marinas in zoning districts in more detailed fashion

than is currently the case. A differentiation of types of

marina facilities allowable in designated zoning districts

would provide for greater permitting consistency within a

single municipality, between municipalities, and between

municipalities and the Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources.

RECOMMENDATION 14: Tighten regulations relating to
occupancy and sub-leasing of slips in public marinas.

The perception of present lease arrangements in public

marinas among dozens of persons interviewed during this

research is that sub-leasing is common practice. This may

or may not be fact. Indeed, it may be allowed in some

marinas. Allowing sub-leasing to occur, however, by law or

in practice, discourages individuals from applying for slips

and gives a negative image of management operations.

I
I
I
I APPENDIX
I
I

MARINA SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

RECREATIONAL MARINA SURVEY

Name of Marina:

Location of Marina:

Type of Marina:

Public
Private for profit
Private nonprofit
Ancillary to shore development

Wet Slips:

Total slips
Normal occupancy rate
Current occupancy rate
Number on waiting list

Number of boats in marina by type:

Recreation pow6rboats
All sailboats
Commercial boats

Number of all boats by size:

Under 161
161-25'
261-391
401+

Number of covered slips:

Live-aboards allowed: yes no

Dry Storage:

Dry-stack covered storage capacity
Maximum boat size
Number on waiting list

Pigeonhole capacity
Maximum boat size

Trailered boat capacity

137

138

Marina boating activities (in

Fishing
Cruising
Sailing
Skiing
Other

Wet tie-ups other than slips (type):

Dock facilities and services:

Power supply yes no
Water supply yes no
Lighting yes no
Fuel station, yes no
Public address yes no
Phones: at dock yes no
in office yes no
Sanitary holding tank
pumpout facility yes no
Bilge drainage yes no
Security provided by: city county_ privaE
Garbage collection by: city county private
Type of piers: fixed
floating

Land facilities and services:

Parking (# spaces)
Snackbar yes no
Restaurant yes no
Bait and tackle yes no
Boat rentals yes no
Boat sales yes no
Boat repair & maintenance yes no
Sanding yes no
Painting yes no
Hull & engine repair yes no
Other yes no

Average basin or open marina water depth at MLT:

I
I
I
I APPENDIX B
I
I
I USER CHARACTERISTICS QUESTIONNAIRE
I
-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

USER CHARACTERISTICS QUESTIONNAIRE

The Department of Geography, University of Southern Mississippi, is conducting a surve"
for the Mississippi Bureau of Marine Resources to determine current and future demand
for marina slips on the State's gulf coast. To aid us in this research we are sending
out this brief questionnaire to a sample group of individuals whose names appear on onE
or more marina waiting lists. Your response to the questions will remain confidential.
Any publication of this information will be for the sample group as a whole.

A stamped, return envelop is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for your help.

Residence: City , ; State

1. What type and size of boat do you own? (check one for each)
a. sail 1. <16 ft. 3. 26-39 ft.
b. _power 2. 16-25 ft. 4. 40+ ft.
C. other

2. When not in use, do you usually keep your boat: (check one)
a. at home b. -commercial dry storage site on coast
C. other site on coast d. other site not on coast

3. How long does it take to launch site from where boat is stored? (check one)
a. <15 minutes b. 15-29 minutes C. 30 min.-1 hour
d. 1-2 hours e. 2-3 hours f. 3 hours or more

4. Do you launch your boat at a private or public launch site? (check one)
a. _ private b. _____public

5. At what general locations on the coast do you usually launch your boat? (check two
locations only; use 1 and 2)
a. Waveland b. Long Beach C. Oc ean Springs
d. ___Pay St. Louis e. Gulfport f. Gautier
.9- Pass Christian h. Biloxi i. Pascagoula

6. How long have you been waiting for a marina slip? (check one)
a. < one year b. 1-2 years C. over 2 years

7. If you had your choice, would you prefer@ (check one)
a. wet slip at a marina b. dry-stak storage slip at a marina

8. Would you be willing to rent a slip in a private marina if one was available?
a. ___yes b. no

If no to above, give primary reasons. (check in priority as 1, 2, etc.)
a. rental fee b. boat security c. ____quality of services
d. ___joor locations e. other

9. Average yearly frequency of boat use in Gulf waters. (check one)
a. < 12 times a year d. 37-4u' times per year
b. 13-24 times per year e. 49-60 times per year
C. 25-36 times per year f. over 60 times per year

10. Do you live on your boat while on the coast? (check one)
a. ____yes b. no

11. What percent of your time do you spend in the following use activities while on the
coast? (provide percent)
a. fishing b.. -cruising or sailing C. skiing
12. Which of the following services or facilities would you be willing to do without if
a slip was available to you:
a. -parking e. slip-side water and electric service
b. hoist or ramp f. fuel
C. ramp 9. ice and fishing supplies
d. dry dock and boat repair
13. Would you be willing to buy a waterfront condominium if a marina slip came with it?
(check one)
a. __yes b. no C. not sure

139

140

14. If you had your preference, give top three locations of where you would like to have
a marina slip for your boat. (place numbers 1, 2 and 3)
a. Waveland b. -Bay St. Louis C. -pass Christian
d. Long Beach e. -Gulfport f. -Biloxi
q. ___Pcean Springs h. Gautier i. Pascagoula

15. Would you be willing to occupy a marina slip in:
a. St. Louis Bay .. yes no
b. Back Bay of Biloxi __yes -no
c. In Pascagoula Bay ___yes no

16. On the map below the coast has been divided into zones which indicate boating
destinations. Give percentage of,trips made to various zones (e.g., 70% Zone 1;
30% Zone 2)
a. Zone 1 b. Zone 2 C. Zone 3
d. Zone 4 e. Zone 5 f. Zone 6
g. ____Zone 7

I
I
I
APPENDIX C
I
I
I
PROJECTION TECHNIQUES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

PROJECTION TECHNIQUES

The following fifteen techniques were used to project

boat registrations from historic registration data in each

county.

Technique 1. Linear regression equation.

B = a + cY where B = estimated number of boats

a = a constant

c = a constant

Y = number of years since data

collection began

Technique 2. Proportional change by time period.

B = (mnR) + R where B = estimated number of boats

m = percent change in registrations

per month during data collection

period

n = number of months in time period

R = registrations at end of

preceding time period

Technique 3. Proportional change for whole time period.

B = (mpT) + T where B = estimated number of boats

m = percent change in registrations

per month during data collection

period

p = number of months since begin-

ning of data collection period

T = registrations at beginning of

data collection period'

141

142

Technique 4. County proportion of total state registrations

by linear trend.

B = rX where B = estimated number of boats

r = mean percentage of state's

boats registered in county

X = total state registrations

estimated from linear regres-

sion equation

Technique 5. County proportion of total state registrations

by proportional change.

B = rU where B = estimated number of boats

r = mean percentage of state's

boats registered in county

U = total state registrations

projected by proportional

change for the whole time

period

Technique 6. Trend in county proportion of total state

registration by linear trend.

B = sX where B = estimated number of boats

s = trend in county registrations

during data collection period

X = total state registrations

estimated from linear regres-

sion equation

143

Technique 7. Trend in county proportion of total state

registrations by proportional change.

B sU where B = estimated number of boats

s = trend in county registrations

during data collection period

U = total state registrations

projected by proportional

change for the whole time

period

Technique 8. County proportion of linear regression equa-

tion for all county boats.

B = dV where B = estimated number of boats

d = mean percentage of, county's

boats over 16 feet iR data

collection period

V = total county registrations

estimated from linear regres-

sion equation

Technique 9. Trend in county proportion of linear regres-

sion equation for all county boats.

B sV where B = estimated number of boats

s = trend in percentage of county's

boats over 16 feet in data

collection period

V total county registrations

estimated from linear regression

equation

144

Technique 10. County proportion of all county boats esti-

mated by relationship to state registrations.

B = deW where B = estimated number of boats

d = mean percentage of county's

boats over 16 feet in data

collection period

e = percentage of all county

registrations to state total

W = state registrations in all

sizes

Technique 11. Trend in county proportion of all county

boats estimated by trend of relationship to state

registrations.

B seW where B = estimated number of boats

s = trend in percentage of county's

boats over 16 feet in data

collection period

e = percentage of all county boats

to state total

W = state registrations in all

sizes

Technique 12. Proportion of boats in county to linear

regression of coastal counties' registrations.

B pL where B = estimated number of boats

p = mean percentage of coastal

counties' boats registered in

county

145

L total coastal county regis-

tration estimated from linear

regression equation

Technique 13. County proportion of coastal counties'

registrations based on relationship to state :@,egistrations

based on relationship to state registrations.

B = pK where 8 = estimated number of boats

p = mean percentage of coastal

counties' boats registered

in county

K = total coastal county registra-

tions estimated from linear

regression on total state

registrations

Technique 14. Trend in county proportion of linear regres-

sion of coastal counties' registrations.

B qL where B = estimated number of boats

q = trend in county registrations

to coastal counti es' registra-

tions during data collection

period

L = total coastal county registra-

tions estimated by linear

regression equation

146

Technique 15. Trend in county proportion of coastal counties,

registrations based on relationship to state registrations.

B= qK where B = estimated number of boats

q = trend in county registrations

to coastal counties' regis-

trations during data collec-

tion period

K = total coastal county registra-

tions estimated from linear

regression on total state

registrations

I
I
I
I APPENDIX D
I
I

WETLAND PERMIT APPLICATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

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 in waters of the United States and 1. Date
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. month day year

2. Applicant (mailing address and telephone) 3. Official use only
COE
BMR
BPC
A95

DATE RECEIVED

4. Project location

Street Address City/Community
Name of Waterway -Latitude - Longitude- (if known)
Geographic location Section Township - Range - County

5. Project description New work - Maintenance work
Dredging
- Channel length width existing depth proposed depth
- Canal length width existing depth proposed depth
- Boat slip length width existing depth proposed depth
- Marina length width existing depth proposed depth
- Other (Explain)

Cubic yards of material to be removed Type of material
Location of spoil disposal area
Dimensions of spoil area Method of excavation
How will excavated material be contained?

Construction of structures
- Bulkhead total length - height above water
- Pier length - width - height
- Boat ramp length - width - slope
- Other (explain)
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.

L page 1

147

148

6. Additional information relating to 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. Project schedule
Proposed start date Proposed completion date
Expected completion date (or development timetable) for any projects dependent on the activity described
herein.

8. Estimated cost of the project

9. Describe the purpose of the project. Describe the relationship between the project and any secondary or
future development the project is designed to support.

Intended use: Private - Commercial Public - Other (Explain)

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.

11. Remarks

page 2

149

12. Provide the names and addresses of the adjacent property owners. Also identify the property owners on the
plan view of the drawing described in Attachment "A".

1. 2.

13. List all approvals or certifications received or applied for from Federal, state or local agencies for any struc-
tures, construction, discharges, desposits or other activities described in this application. Note that the
signature in Item 14 certifies that application 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 Resources
U.S. 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 quality standards or other
environmental protection standards both during construction and after the project is completed. I also
agree to provide entry to the project site for inspectors from the environmental protection agencies for the
purpose of making preliminary analyses of the site and monitoring permitted works. I certify that I am
familiar with and responsible for 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 or Agent Date

18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or
agency of the United States knowlingly and willingly falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme or
devicearnaterial 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.

15. Mississippi Coastal Program Certification (Coastal area only)

I certify that the proposed project for which authorization is sought complies with the approved Mississippi
Coastal Program and will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program.

Signature of Applicant or Agent Date

page 3

150

16. Fees

Payable to State of Mississippi State of Mississippi fee to be included with
$10.00 Application tee Application to the Bureau of Marine Resources for
$35.00 Cost of public notice fee Hancock, Harrison and Jackson Counties only.

Payable to Treasurer of the United States Do not submit fee with application.
$10.00 Non-commercial projects Fee acceptable only at time of issuance of permit.
$100.00 Commercial projects

17. Send 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. 0. Drawer 959 P. 0. Box 10385
Long Beach, MS 39560 Jackson, MS 39205
if project is in Hancock, Harrison or Jackson Counties send one completed copy of this application and ap-
propriate fees listed in item 16 to:

District Engineer District Engineer
U.S. Army Engineer District, Mobile U.S. Army Engineer District, Vicksburg
Attn: SAMOP-S Attn: LMKOD-FE
P. 0. Box 2288 P. 0. Box 60
Mobile, Alabama 36628 Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180

18. In addition to the completed application form the following attachments are required:

Attachment "A" Drawings
Provide a vicinity map showing the location of the proposed site along with a written description of how to
reach the site from major highways or landmarks. Provide accurate drawings of the project site with propos-
ed activities shown in detail. All drawings must be to scale or with dimensions noted on drawings and must
show a plan view and cross section or elevation. Use 81/2 " x 11 " white paper or drawing sheet attached.

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 provided with the application forms. The authorized agent
named may sign the application forms and the consistency statement.

Attachwwnt "C" Environmental Assessment (Coastal area only)
Provide an appropriate report or statement assessing environmental impacts of the proposed activity and
the final project dependent on it. The project's effects on the wetlands and the effects on the life dependent
on them should be addressed. Also provide a complete description of any measures to be taken to reduce
detrimental off-site effects to the coastal wetlands during and after the proposed activity.

Attachment "D" Variance or Revisions to Mississippi Coastal Program (Coastal area only)
If the applicant is requesting a variance to the guidelines in Section 2, Part III, or a revision to the Coastal
Wetlands Use Plan in Section 2, Part IV of the Rules, Regulations, Guidelines and Procedures of the
Mississippi Coastal Program a written request and justification must be provided.

page 4

I
I
I
SECTION VIII
I
I
I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

SECTION VIII

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APHA (American Public Health Association). 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. No. 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.

Anderson, Robert M. 1976. American law of zoning (2nd
ed.). The Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company,
Volume V. Rochester, NY

Andrewartha, H.G. 1971. Introduction to the study of animal
populations. University.of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
283 pp.

Blades, D.A. et al. 1982. A user's guide to LANDSAT satellite
imagery for studying natural resources in Maryland.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater
Administration, Coastal Resources Division, Annapolis, MD.

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.

Brown, D. 1954. Methods of surveying and measuring vegetation.
Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau, Farnham Royal. Bucks,
England. 223 pp.

Burnham, J.B. (Ed.). 1974. Quantification of aesthetic
values. In: A technique for environmental decision-
making usl-ng quantified social and aesthetic values.
Prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories
for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

151

152

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Cain, S.A. and G.M. Castro. 1959. Manual on vegetation
analysis. Harper Brothers, New York, NY. 325 pp.

Cairns, J. and L.L. Dicksen (Eds.). 1973. Biological
methods for the assessment of water quality. ASTM
Sp. Publ. 528, Philadelphia, PA. 256 pp.

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.

Capone, D.G., P.A. Penhale, R.S. Oremland and B.F. Taylor.
1979. Relationship between productivity and N 2 (C H
fixation in a Thalassia testudinum community. LimRoiogy
and Oceanography, 24:117-125.

Carter, Goble and Roberts, Inc., n.d. Development potential
of Habor Square South, Gulfport, MS. Gulfport Community
Development Commission. 219 pp.

Chapman, Charles, 1968. Channelization and spoiling in
Gulf Coast and South Atlantic estuaries. In: S.D.
Newsome (Ed.), Proceedings of the Marsh and Estuary
Management Symposium. T.J. Moran's Sons, Inc. Baton
Bouge, LA. pp. 93-106.

Chmura, Gail L. and Neil W. Ross. 1978. The environmental
impacts of marinas and their boats, a literature review
with management considerations. University of Rhode
Island Marine Memorandum 45. Narragansett, RI. 32 pp.

Chow, V.T. (Ed.). 1966. Handbook of applied hydrology.
McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY. 1477 pp.

city of Biloxi, Mississippi. 1982. Code of ordinances.
Municipal Code Corporation, Tallahassee, FL.

Cochran, W.C. 1953. Sampling techniques. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 330 pp.

Connell, Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1978. Dade County parks and
marinas: marina system plan 1977-1997. Dade County, FL.

Crompton, J.L. and R.B. Ditton. 1975. A feasibility
management and economic study of marinas on the Texas
Gulf Coast. Texas A&M University Sea Grant College.
TAMU-SG-76-201. 51 pp.

153

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Curtis, J.T. and G. Cottam. 1-962. Plant ecology workbook.
Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, MN. 193 pp.

Davis, S.M. and R.J.M. De Weist. 1966. Hydrogeology.
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, NY. 463 pp.

Dee, Norbert et al. 1972. Environmental evaluation system
for water resource planning. Final report prepared
by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories for the U.S. Depart-
ment of Interior, Bureau of Recreation. Columbus, OH.

Department of Wildlife Conservation. Boat registration
division. Jackson, MS, unpublished boat data.

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.

Englund, H.M. and W.T. Beery (Eds.). 1974. Environmental
noise control. APCA Reprint Series. Air Pollution
Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA. 57 pp.

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.

Feverstein, D.L. and R.E. Selleck. 1963. Fluorescent tracers
for dispersion measurements. American Society of Civil
Engineers Procedures, Volume 89, No. SA4, p. 1-21.

Folk, R.L. 1974. Petrology of sedimentary rocks. Hemphill's.
Austin, TX. 64 pp.

Ford, Kristina (Ed.). 1979. Remote sensing for planners.
Center for Urban Policy Research Rtugers, State University
of New Jersey. New Brunswick, NJ. 219 pp.

Franzreb, Kay. 1977. Inventory techniques for sampling
avian populations. U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Land Management. Filing Code 6611. 17 pp.

Giles, R.H., Jr. (Ed.). 1971. Wildlife management techniques.
Prepared by the Wildlife Techniques Manual Committee.
The Wildlife Society. Washington, D.C. 633 pp.

154

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Golden, J., R.P. Ouellette, S. Saair and P.N. Cheremisinoff.
1979. Environmental impact data book. Ann Arbor
Science, Ann Arbor, MI. 864 pp.

Greig-Smith, P. 1964. Quantitative plant ecology, 2nd
edition. Butterworth's, London, England. 256 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.

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.

Holme, N.A. and A.D. McIntyre. 1971. Methods for the
study of marine benthos. IBP Handbook No. 16. Blackwell's,
oxford. 256 pp.

Husch, B., C.I. Miller and T.W. Beers. 1972. Forest
mensuration, 2nd edition. Ronald Press Company, NY.
410 pp.

Isard, Walter. 1972. Ecologic-economic analysis for
regional development. The Free Press, NY.

Jain, R.K., L.V. Urban and G.S. Stacey. 1974. Handbook for
environmental impact analysis. Department of the Army,
Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL).
Technical Report E-59. Champaign, IL.

Johnston, Sam A., Jr. 1981. Esturine dredge and fill
activities: a review of impacts. In: Environmental
Management, 5(5), pp. 427-440.

Jordan, Shirley. 1983. Boat registration. Mississippi
Department of Wildlife Conservation, Jackson, MS.

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.

Kendeigh, S.C. 1944. Measurement of bird populations.
Ecological Monographs, 14(l), 67-106.

155

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Kinsman, Blair, J.R. Schubel, G.E. Carroll and M. Glackin-
Sunde'll. 1979. A suggestion for anticipating altera-
tions in wave action on shores consequent upon changes
in water depths in harbors and coastal waters. Pre-
pared for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Aministration,
office of Sea Grants.. Rockville, MD. 72 pp

Lawrence, D.R. and G.I. Scott. 1982. The determination and
use of condition index of oysters. In: Estuaries,
5(l), 23-27.

Leopold, Luna. 1969. Quantitative comparison of some
aesthetic factors among rivers. United States Geologic
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.

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 macro-
phytes in polluted and unpolluted coastal areas.
Bulletin of marine Science, 26(4):569-575.

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.

MCP (Mis-sissippi Coastal Program). 1983 revised. Mississippi
coastal program--chapter eight and Mississippi coastal
wetlands protection law--rules and regulations. Bureau
of Marine Resources. Long Beach, MS.

McRoy, C.P. and C. Helfferich (Eds.). 1977. Seagrass
ecosystems - a scientific perspective. Marcel Dekker,
New York.

Morris,'R. 19,60. Sampling insect populations. In: Annual
Review of Entomology, 5:243-264.

156

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

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.

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.

NMMA (National Marine Manufacturers Association). 1981.
Boating registration statistics 1981. NMMA. 26 pp.

1982. Boating
1982, a statistical report on America's top family
sport. NMMA. 8 pp.

Nelson, R.G. and W.E. Hardy, Jr. 1980. The economic and
environmental structure of Alabama's coastal region;
part I-economic structure. Mississippi-Alabama Sea
Grant Consortium. MASGP-70-016. 126 pp.

Nelson, R.G., W.E. Hardy, Jr. and J.B. Flynn. 1980. The
economic and environmenta- structure of Alabama':s coastal
region; part II: environmental structure. Mississippi-
Alabama Sea Grant Consortium. MASGP-79-017. 45 pp.

Nissan, E. and D.C. Williams, Jr. 1980. Linkages between
the economy and the environment of coastal zone of
Mississippi. Part III. Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
Consortium. MASGP-70-014/MASCP-79-013. 15 pp.

Odum, E.P. 1971. Fundamentals of ecology, 3rd edition.
W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, PA. 574 pp.

Ohmann, L.F. 1973. Vegetation data collection in temperate
forest research natural areas. North Center Forest
Experiment Station. St. Paul, MN. 35 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.

157

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

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.

Parkingson, D., T.R.G. Gray and S.T. Williams. 1971.
Methods for studying the ecology of soil micro-organ-
isms. Oxford, Blackwell Scientific Publications, IBP
Handbook No. 19. 127 pp.

Patriquin, D.G. 1973. Estimation of growth rate, produc-
tion and age of the marine angiosperm Thalassia testu-
dinum Konig. Caribbean Journal of Sci ce. 13(1-2):
111-123.

Penhale, P.A. 1975. Primary production of eelgrass,
Zostera Marina, and its epiphytes in the Newport
River Estuary. Pages 184-191 in: Annual Report to the
Energy Research and DevelopmenT-Administration. NOAA,
National Marine Fisheries Servicq, 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 dredged material
disposal sites. Prepared by TerEco Corp. for U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 311 pp.

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 dis-
tribution 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.

Phillipson, J. (Ed.). 1970. Methods of study in soil
ecology. Educational, scientific and cultural organi-
zation, UNESCO, Paris. Series No. 2. 303 pp.

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.

138

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

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.

Sargent, Frederic 0. 1967. Scenery classifications.
Vermont Resources Research Center, Vermont Agricultural
Experiment Station. Report 18.

Scott, C.H., V.W. Norman and F.K. Fields. 1969. Reduc-
tion of fluorescence of two tracer dyes by contact
with a fine sediment. U.S. Sediment Survey Profes-
sional Paper 650-B, p. B164-B168.

Shafer, E.L., Jr. and T. Mietz. 1970. It seems possible
to quantify scenic beauty in photographs. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Research Paper
NE-162. Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper
Darby, PA.

Soil Conservation Service. 1972. National engineering
handbook, section 4, hydrology. U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, Washington, D.C. pp. discontinuous.

SCDHEC (South Carolina Department of Health and Environ-
mental Control). 1981. Precedures and quality control
manual for chemistry laboratories. SC Department of
Health and Environmental Control. Columbia, SC.

Southern Mississippi Planning and Development District.
-1980. SMPDD regional inventory: statistical summary.
SMPDD, Gulfport, MS.

Southwood, T. et al. 1966. Ecological methods. Methuen
and Company, Ltd., London, England. 391 pp.

State of Florida. 1983. Final report of the Blue Ribbon
Marina Committee. Department of Natural Resources.
Tallahassee, FL.

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 environ-
ments. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS. 97 pp.

159

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Sverdrup, H.U. and W.H. Munk. 1947. Wind, sea and swell:
theory of relations for forecasting. U.S. Navy
Hydrographic office Publication No. 601. 44 pp.
(cited in Zabawa and Ostrom, 1980).

Taber, D. and I. McTaggart-Cowen. 1971. Capturing and marking
wild animals. In: R.H. Giles, Jr. (Ed.). 3rd Edition.
The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C. 633 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 hydralic dredging and coastal development in Boca
Ciega Bay, Florida. Fishery Bulletin, Vol. 67, No. 2.

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.

USACOE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 1973. Shore protec-
tion manual. 3 volumes. Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Fort Belvoir, VA (cited in Zabawa and Ostrom,
1980).

1983.
Technical report on the availability of aata on
marinas that are located on Bisbane Bay, Dade County
Florida. 168 pp.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1973. Public
health and welfare criteria for noise. USEPA, Office
of Noise Abatement and Control. Washington, D.C.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1978. Draft
environmental impact statement Ideal Basic Industries.
Appendices Volume II, IV. USEPA Regiona IV, Atlanta,
GA. Variously paginated.

1979a.
Chemistry laboratory manual for bottom sediments and
elutriate testing. USEPA Region V, Surveillance and
Analysis Division, Chicago, IL. EPA-905/ 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

1983 (draft).
Coasta marinas assessment, inventory of*existing
conditions and key factors task report. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA.

. 1984 (draft).
Coastal marinas assessment, guidance handbook. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA.

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.

VanDolah, F.R., D.R. Calder, D.M. Knott and M.S. Maclin.'
1979. Effects of dredging and unconfined 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, S.C. 54 pp.

Waller, Thomas H. et al. n.d. Environmental geological
analysis, Jackson County, Mississippi. The Mississippi
Mineral Resources Institute, The University of
Mississippi. University, MS.

Willey, G.R. 1966. An introduction to American archaeology,
volume I: North America. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Wilson, J.F., Jr. 1968. Fluorometric procedures f or dye
tracing, Techniques of Water Resources Inventory of
the U.S. Geologic Survey, Book 3, Chapter A-12, p. 31.

Zabawa, C. and C. Ostrom (Eds.). 1980. Final report on the
role of boat wakes in shore erosion in Anne Arundel
County, Maryland. Prepared for Coastal Resources
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.

zieman, J.C. 1975. Quantitative and dynamic aspects of
the ecology of turtle grass, Thalassia testudinum.
Pages 541-562 in: L.E. Cronin (Ed.). Esturine
Research. Vol. I. Academic Press, New York, NY.

161

BIBLIOGRAPHY (continued)

Zieman, J.C. 1976. The ecological effects of physical
damage from motorboats on turtle grass beds in
southern Florida. In: Aquatic Botany, Vol. 2,
pp. 127-139. (citeT-in Zieman, 1982).

. 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.

Ifluillimm @ 1
3 6668 14103 1924
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 o
I
.d
I I