[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
CD f-4i= IN Oro m saw 0.2 m Z I gr Ic 0 Pori 5-40 7v o,3 RECREATIONAL BOATING IMPACTS: CHESAPEAKE AND CHINCOTEAGUE BAYS PART 1: BOATING CAPACITY PLANNING SYSTEM PREPARED FOR THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION STATE OF MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES BY ROY MANN ASSOCIATES, INC. COASTALZONE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INFORMATION CENTER CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS NOVEMBER, 1974 Preparation of this report was partially funded by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS* The study could not have succeeded in assembling the needed data without the cooperation and professional courtesy of a great number of individuals and institutions. All have the study's deep appreciation. The following have played a particular role in providing data and materials for the study's use: The Chesapeake Biological Laboratory: Dr. L. Eugene Cronin, Marcia Lippson, and Elgin A. Dunnington (data on locations of aquatic vegetation, clams, and oysters). In the Maryland Department of Natural Resources State Marine Police: Chief Roy Rafter, Inspector Howard Shenton, and Sergeant Earl Drayton (accident data, air and marine reconnaissance); Water Quality Services Section: Paul, Slunt (water basin data); Wetlands Program: William Sipple (wetlands data); Division of Engineering: Marshall Cook (clam and oyster bed locations); Boating Registration: Bess Crandall (boating statistics); Waterways Improvements Board: Alex Sandusky (facility loca- tions and programs); Office of'State Planning: John Antonucci (land use, wetlands locations). The constructive guidance of Craig Ten Broeck, Coastal Zone Management Program Director has been instrumental in the execution of the study. The key contributions and assistance of Anthony J. Abar, formerly head of MDNR Planning and Program Evaluation, Earl Bradley and Tom Chaney have been deeply appreciated. V FOREWORD Recreational Boating Impacts: Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays is a two part report of a study of recreational boating congestion, environmental effects, activity regulation, and facility planning in the tidal waters of Maryland's two great bays. The study was initiated in May, 1974 and is-scheduled for completion in November, 1975. Part One of this report presents the findings of the study's first phase, in which existing boating and V environmental conditions and the literature on recreational boating operational requirements, environmental effects, and :carrying capacity are reviewed, and a boating capacity planning system is recommended. Part Two will present the study's second phase findings on conditions in sub-areas of the Bays, apply the boating capacity planning system to the sub-areas and their subsidiary management units, provide guidelines for boating facility site planning and design, and recommend management measures for optimization of recreational boating need satisfaction and avoidance of environmental disturbances. The study was performed'by Roy Mann Associates, Inc.'under contract to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources Water Resources Administration, Coastal Zone Management Program. Partial funding for the project was provided by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. .0 .0 CREDITS Project Director: Roy Mann Project Manager: Howard C. Ris, Jr. Mapping and Graphics: Robert Sabbatini, Manager Michele McKay .Sara Schneeberg Peter Wells Susan Yaro Peter Thomas Research:, Deborah Ikehara Richard Paris Secretary: Susan Yaro Typists: Elizabeth Bouche Janet Wilson Consultants: John Clark William Niering Special Report: Guy C. McLeod SUMMARY Recreational Boating Impacts Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays, Part I: Boating Capacity Planning System deals with the duallproblems of boating congestionahd environmental effects resulting from recreational,. boating activity and facility construction in Maryland tidal waters. This study has not undertaken original research and has reviewed the literature to determine the state-of-the-art in knowledge of boating effects on the environment, effects of facility construction, and environmental and recreational carrying capacities. Effects on the estuarine environment. identified in the literature are summarized and displayed in chart and check- list format. Reports by contributors on special aspects of the aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems of the Bays, relative to recreational boating are appended to the study*report. An annotated bibliography is included. The study finds, from the reviewed,literature,.that environmental effects of recreational boating activity may reach significant levels, generally., in local aquatic and shoreline areas, particularly where tidal flushing and cir- culation are low,.depth is shallow,, and vulnerable biological and physical resources are within impact proximity.. Such causative factors as engine exhausts, unconsumed or spilled fuel and oil, and toxic metals leached from anti-fouling compounds are among factors identified as affecting biological resources. Boating wake may exacerbate shoreline erosion-whereit exceeds normal or average wave height. Prop wash may cause significant local resuspension of sediments in shallow areas. Coliform counts in the vicinity of marinas on 0 high-activity weekends have been,found to be higher than on normal periods, although insufficient research has been undertaken to isolate waste effects deriving from boating facilities from those deriving from other contributors. The effects.of marina construction on shorel-ine environments are better known; displacement of productive marshes and the introduction of pollutants through surface run-off at marinas and launching ramps are among these. Indicators of biological sensitivity to boating activity and facility development were selected and mapped, along with the locations of marinas and public landings (launching ramps), which serve as loci of activity origin. Indicators of biological sensitivity include oysters, hard and soft clams, spawning areas of white perch and striped bass, rooted aquatic plants and coastal wetlands. Carrying capacity formulae were found to offer promise in establishi,fig management frameworks for accomodating use in estuarine systems, but were also 0 recognized as being potentially disadvantageous where resource utilization may be brought to the brink of capacity and, consequently, to levels of adverse impact. 0 Boating operational requirements were evaluated and generalized norms of spatial use were identified for possible use in boating activity models. Water body types were classified as to size, shape, and shoreline config- uration; water bodies were identified as sub-bay units (estuarine tributaries) and management units (lesser tributaries). The recommended boating capacity planning system,,designed to deal with problems at the management unit level, is a set of eleven steps which modifies provisional activity models (boating "capacities"),according to observable tional and environmental constraints and establish recrea es activity norms safely below user-dissatisfaction and environmental degradation threshholds. The revised activity model, together with water zone delineations, serve as guidelines for activity regulation and facility planning. Actual water zoning, speed and use-intensity regulations, and other measures, or the guidelines alone, may be selected to optimize need satisfaction within the management unit. A recommended monitoring program is intended to alert management officials to the exceeding of the safety margins established by the activity'models below capacity threshholds; this yellow flag status would require the institution of suitable temporary measures (e.g. speed and-activity restrictions) until alleviation of the observed disturbance was secured. A red flag status would. indicate severe disturbance and a need for yet greater restrictions. Needs for further research were identified. Among these, investigation of methods for reliable measurement of boating impacts is foremost. Further research'into the effects of flushing and circulation is also needed. Part II of the study will deal with application of the boating capacity planning system to units of the Bays:, the development of guidelines for boating facility planning and design, and the recommendation of suitable sites for new Maryland boating facilities. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I: RECREATION BOATING IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND . . . . . . . . . . The Boating Situation in Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Problems and Conflicts Associated with Increased Boating Activity 9 CHAPTER II: INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF CARRMING CAPACITY . . . . . . . . 18 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 19 @Criteria for a Boating Capacity Planning System . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 CHAPTER III: BOATING OPERATIONAL AND SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . 25 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Design and Performance . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Shore Access Requirements and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. o. 40 CHAPTER IV: USE CONFLICTS VISUAL AND INTANGIBLE CONSIDERATIONS . . . . . . 48 Introduction ... . . ... . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 49 Use Conflitts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Visual and Intangible Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 CHAPTER V: RECREATIONAL BOATING BIO-PHYSICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . 54. Introduction . . . . . . o. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 The Bio-Physical Checklist. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . 56 Key to the Bio-Physical Checklist . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 58 Physical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. 72 Physical/Chemical Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 CHAPTER,V: RECREATIONAL BOATING BIO-PHYSICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (CONVD) Relative Impacts of Causative Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Summary: Ecosystem Carrying Capacity Constraints . . . . . . . . . . .. . 91 0 CHAPTER VI: BOATING CAPACITY PLANNING SYSTEM . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 The Recommended, System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 0 CHAPTER VII: RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 119 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 A. John Clark: "Potential Ecological Effects Associated with Boating and Support Facilities .. . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected] B. William A. Niering: "Biological Effects of Motorized Boating on the Tidal Marsh Estuarine Ecosystem ... . . . . . . . . . . . b-2 C. Maps: Environmental Constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . c-1 LIST OF FIGURES 1 Location of Boating Accidents, 1973-103, from the Mailne Police boating logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. 2. Relationship of Intensities in the Number of Registered Boats to the Number of Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13. 3. Surface Area Unavailable for Boating Activities . . . . . 39. 4. @Comparison of Carrying Capacity Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . 45. 5. Effect of Mixed Uses on Boating,Capacities . . . . . . . . . . . . 46. 40 LIST OF TABLES 1. Operational Characteristics of Boat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Q 2. Operational Characteristics of Boating Activity Types . . . . . . . . . . .32 3. Survey of Utilized Surface Area Standards by Recreational Boating Activity Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 .4. Derived Carrying Capacity Standards (Acres/Boat) . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 .5. Bio-Physical Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 6. Key to the Bio-Physical Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 7. Relative Impacts of Causative Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 8. Generalized Shoreline.Suitabili.ties for Boating Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 104 40 CHAPTER I RECREATIONAL BOATING IN THE STATE & MARYLAND 2 THLBOAUNG SITUATION IN MARY1 AND Numbers and Distribution Recreational boating activity in the State of Maryland is on the increase. During the past five years, the number of pleasure boats registered in the. state has grown at an annual rate of roughly five per cent, from approximately sixty-two thousand boats in 1968 to over seventy-six thousand boats as of December 31, 1973. During the same period, changes have"be"en taking place in the character of recreational boating activity. For a number of reasons, a higher percentage of Maryland boats are being kept at home and subsequently trailered to given access points every year. A parallel reduction is occurring with respect to the percentages of boats stored on the water during the recreational boating season. Although the absolute number of both trailer- boats and water-stored craft increased during the 1968-1978 period, the p .er- centage of trailerboats grew from 35% of total registrations to 46%, while the percentage of water-stored craft declined from 64.4% to 52.9%. In terms"of distribution of boats registered in the bay area, the most specific figures currently.available are those listed in the DNR Boating Admin istration's 1973 Boating Report (227 ). As summarized in the report, the major concentrations of homeport registered boats are located in the northern regions of'Chesapeake Bay. The counties bordering the bay in this area, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Harford, Cecil, Kent, Queen Annes, and Talbot, serve as the homeports-for almost 40% of the boats registered within the entire state 3 C E I L H A R F 0 R D B A L T I M 0 R E r BALTIMORE K E N T A N N E Q U E E N A R U.N D E L A N N E S WASHINOT 0C P R I N C E 7 A L 8 0 T G E 0 R G E S C A R 0 L I N E C H A R L E S D 0 K L M t b i t R S T W I C 0 N I C 0 M A R Y S W 0 R C E S T E R S 0 M E R S E T 110% 0 5 10 13 V1 JOA MILES @igure 1: Location of Boating Accidents, 1971-1973, from the Marine Police boating logs. 4 of Maryland. This concentration of boating activity is further borne out by the 1973 boating accident data as depicted on the accompanying map (Figure 1). Assuming numbers of accidents should correlate fairly well with levels of boating activity, the map provides an indication of the location of the most heavily used areas of the Bays. In addition to the numbers of boats registered in Maryland homeports, the bay is often frequented by boaters from other states and by boaters using unregistered boats. Results of the 5th district Recreation Boating Population Statistical Information Survey(166), undertaken by the [email protected],s,t-Guard in 1971, indi.cate that 5% of the boaters using the bay area enter the bay from outof- state areas, namely Virginia, the District of Columbia, West Virginia, and Delaware. In addition, the Coast Guard estimates the ratio of numbered and registered boats to total owned.boats-at 82%,.(217). Thus, a significant number of non-registered boats can be expected to be utilizing the bay waters at any one time. As a result of the inadequacies inherent in using boat registration data specific only to county levels, current efforts*are underway by the DNR Boating Administration to develop key-coded maps for identifying specific locations of registered boats. These maps are expected to be available in mid- December 1974, and will constitute an important data source for Phase II of this study. Registrationand Titling Regulations The above figures primarily reflect data on boat registration compiled pri*or to January 1, 1974. Until then', the Federal Boat Safety Act of 19719' 5 all boats had to be registered if: propelled by an engine of more than 7.5 hp or 2) propelled only by sail, and over 25' in length. This data thus excluded, as noted above, highly mobile boats (by trailer) powered by small outboard engines, as well as small sailboats. Given the number of these small, inexpensive boats,' a substantial part of the boat population was not included in the statistics--a major shortcoming, as data of this type is of prime impor- tance relative to the provision of public access sites. The existing law was subsequently modified by the registration authorities, requiring that after January 1, 1974, any boat propelled in whole or in part by propulsion machinery of any type must be registered with the State. This revision alleviates the earlier inadequacies to some extent; however, all small and unpowered sailboats remain unaccounted for. These form an important component of the demand for public launching areas-and for some mooring capacity. Prior to registration, all boats are required to be titled by the State of Maryland. Titling procedures for boats are analogous to procedures used for automobile titling. Once properly titled and registered, boats are issu ed numbers which must be appropriately displayed on the hull. In Part II of this report, boating demand projections for Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays will be presented; the findings will enhance the ability. of the State to plan wisely for both new boating facility construction and the regulation of boating activity. Use Regulations According to the Maryland Boat Act of 1960, amended 1971, Article 14B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, several laws have been passed regulating [email protected] bIoat use. As set forth in Section and Regulations promulgated by the DNR Boating Administration, these regulations cover. a range of boating operational uses including negligent operation, litter probibition, noise muffling and "rules of the road". Of particular importance to the purposes of this study are the sections regulating waterskiing and speeding. Regulation establishes speed limits of 6 knots for weekend and holidays, for various areas where congest4on, erosion resulting from boat wake and other problems exist. The primary criteria in the past for establishing these zones has been navigational safety as determined by the DNR and Marine Police upon receipt of complaint petitions. Future criteria hopefully will include: noise, intrusion of privacy, shoreline erosion, and other factors. Regulation establishes permanent speed limits of 6 knots in other 0 areas as well. Specific locations for the imposition of these speed controls can be found in the Boating Administration's Rules and Regulations and.subsequent amendments. These zones have been mapped by the state planning officelon U.S G.S. maps at a scale of 1:25,000. (Th e maps also include crab lines, oyster bed lines, buoys, etc.) Additional regulations control waterskiing. Under these, the towing boat 0 must maintain a distance of at least 100 feet from shore, and skiing is pro- hibited between sunset and sunrise. (228). 0 Marinas and Other Boating-Related Facilities Associated with the increasing numbers of boats in the bay region are the increasing numbers of facilities providing services for boat launching, storage, and maintenance. T hese facilities include: private marinas offering slips, moorings and other facilities; public marinas operated by town, state-or cbun*@y 7 governments; private docks and ramps; facilities exclusively for sail- boats; and public launching ramps and docks. Some of these larger faciliti-es 0 may also provide boat rentals, food services, shops and other services. As of December 31, 1973, there were over 37,000 registered trailerboats in Maryland, and over 44,000 boats registered and kept in the water. The supply of marina berths has historically been insufficient to accommodate demand, and the gap:.seems tu be widening. Most Maryland marinas currently operate at or near full capacity, with long waiting lists for available berths. There is also a growing shortage of sufficient public access sites. A 1972 survey identified 123 public landings in 11 Maryland Bay shore counties. Of these, 82 had boat launching ramps, 26.consisted only of roadways stopping at the water's edge, 12 were fishing piers, and 2 were relatively sophisticated harbor and/or shop facilities, W91 - With an absolute minimum of 37,000 trailerboats, a shortage of public access sites is clear (as an example, Anne Arundel County, with 5,092 registered trailerboats, has only one public launching ramp). The location of marinas and other boating-related facilities have been mapped by RMA and will be utilized in Phase II of this study. Descriptions and locations of the facilities can be found in the 1974 Boating Almanac (210) and the DNR publication Problems Associated with Public Landings, 1973 (229). Regulations Affecting Marina and Boating-Relatedjacility Construction Prior to construction of marina facilities in the State of Maryland, several licensingand permit requirements of the Federal, State and local levels must be satisfied. These requirements generally fall into four categories: 8 1) Federal permits relating to the obstruction of navigation, 2) State Wetlands Licenses related to the dredging, filling or other alteration of wetlands, 3) State certificates and permits relating to water quality standards and sediment control, 4) Local.,-zontrygm. ordinances and land use-contro.1s. Federal Permits: Under the Federal Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, the Army Corps' of Engineers has responsibility for evaluating requests to make physical alterations in navigable waters. Issuance of such permits is subjec to veto by local and state agencies. In addition, under the NEPA of.1969,.:. the filing of Environmental Impact Statements may be required where the potential. for environmentaldegradation exists. State Wetlands Licenses: Title 9 of the Natural Resources Act of the Revised Code of Maryland requires' that a license be obtained from the Board of Public Works for the dredging, filling or other alteration of state wetlands. State wetlands are defined to include: "any land under the navigable waters of the State below mean high tide." (,.NRS9-IOI(M),,). Guidelines for approval tate and privat wetlands were established in 1973 of activities occurring in s e by the DNR. State Certificates and-Permits Relating to Water Quality and Sediment Control: Pursuant.to-Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Water Resources Administration of the DNR-is, responsible for issuing or denying a Water Quality Certificate where ambient water quality or effluent discharge limitations may be violated. Secondly, under Title 8 of the Natural Resources Article of the Revised Code of Maryland,.grading and sedi- ment control plans must be reviewed and approved by the appropriate soil conser- vation district authorities prior to construction. 'National Environm ental Policy,Act of 1969, PL 91-190. 9 Local Zoning Ordinances and Land Use Controls: Where they exist, local zoning ordinances and controls must be abided by to prevent congestion, viol- ation of riparian rights, obstruction of navigation, or violation of zoning codes. For example, the.Maritime Group A Districts zoning ordinances approved and enacted in 1971 by the City of Annapolis established specific constraints regarding the location and design of commercial marinas, community marinas, and yacht clubs. In addition, riparian rights - access to navigable waters by owners or riparian lands must be adequately considered. An excellent case study of the process involved in obtaining the necessary approval and permits for constructing marinas is presented in the Chesapeake Research Consortium's 1974 Special Report on a Corps of Engineers permit application for Watergate Village, Annapolis. A study of existing and proposed legal regulations on boating and related facilities will constitute a major component of the research reported in Part II of this report where they will be more carefully analyzed and discussed. PROBLEMS AND CONFLICTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED BOATING ACTIVITY Problems Rel.ated to User Satisfaction Subjectively, it is easy to identify the undersirable impacts of increased levels of recreat,ional boating as far as user satisfaction is concerned. As boat numbers grow, boaters suffer losses of satisfaction from being forced to operate on crowded waterways. In addition, access roads and public launchings become crowded, while marina storage and repair services are in even shorter supply. Finally, navigational safety decreases with greater numbers of oper- ating boats. 10 Most instances of boating congestion in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bay systems have been reported in the tributaries of Chesapeake Bay, parti- cularly in the narrower..arms and creeks of the.South, Severn, and. Middle--Rivers and in the nearshore open waters of both Bays. 0 In the tributaries, where most boating facilities.are located, congestion may be due to excessive proximity of marinas to the channel or thread of the waterway, excessive numbers of marinas in low capacity water bodies, under- design of marinas in terms of inadequate.fairway width, lack of expansion space for new berths, 'and poor marine service station location, location of boating facilities [email protected] fixed-mast or high-clearance craft upstream of bridges, -of boating facilitids from targeted boating, sailing and excessive distances fishing waters, inadequate separation of launch-ing ramps and moorings, excessive proximity of recreational boating to commercial fishing and shipping, physical constrictions to the passage of craft--such as at Knapps Narrows--and use re- stricti,ons--such as watersk*in --which tend to concentrate activity i g prohibitions in non-restricted areas. Congestion in nearshore open waters occurs infrequently and may result from combinations of circumstances, such as- the arrival of a large number of small and moderate sized craft at the mouth of a tributary on a fAir-sky day @and the development of moderately rough waters which would,tend to keep them close to shore. As noted earlier, there have been significant increases in [email protected] of boats kept at inland homes and tratipported to the bay shores via trailer or car top carriers. ThIs trend in boat storage and mobility, together with increases in other shoreline recreation pursuits, have subsequently resulted in overcrowding of access roads to public launchings and marinas. The problem 0 is particularly significant in the bay area where there exists a large number of drawbridge river crossings. As boat traffic increases on the rivers and bay tributaries and automobile traffic increases on the bridge crossings and access 0 roads conflict grows between boat and automobile usage of the drawbridges. It is estimated that the increase in auto and boat usage generated by water- oriented activities could result in a 40-50% increase in the number of openings 0 for 8 of the most active bridges over the next 20 years. Thus similar increases in car stoppage can likewise be expected (217). As pointed [email protected] in the 1973 Study_of Problems Caused by Drawbridges to Motor and Water Traffic (217). 41 the location of marinas and launching sites will strongly influence the amount of boat traffic requiring the raising of bridges as well as the amount of automobile traffic utilizing the crossings. These problems will be considered in more depth in;Phase II of this project. The existing shortage of marina and launching facilities-,poses.further problems for boat user satisfaction. At present there are proposals in varying stages of approval for facilities at Sandy Point (proposed storage: 250 boats), Point Lookout, and Rocky Point (proposed storage: 624 boats), but these are of moderate size. The shortage is likely to induce pressure for the develop- ment of large-scale regional facilities, particularly on the western shore of the bay, where only six public launching ramps exist from the Susquehanna to the Patuxent. Large marina facilities, on the order of magnitude of Marina Del Rey in Los Angeles (approximately 6,500 berths in 1974), raise important questions relating to the sacrifice or the spoiling of natural areas 4 12 for the improvement of facility efficiency and boater satisfaction. Marina construction, which may involve [email protected], dredging and bulkheading of wetlands; concentrated sanitation disposal and oil spillage in sensitive ecological areas; and visual and aesthetic intrusions at the shoreline; will have to be planned to provide @.optimized user'-s-atisfaction consist,ent.with- full environ- mental:protection. Future problems may also ensue should an increase in the use of offshore moorings occur. The potential navigational.hazards posed by the use of such moorings, together with the-existing widespread use of individual and-tommuna.] finger piers may further contribute to the crowding and congestion of narrow coves and waterways, although in many cases such structures have not been incompatible with the through passage of boats. Another problem, relating to user satisfaction as boating numbers increase are the use conflicts and decline in navigation safety resulting from congestion and crowding of waterways. The chart below (Figure 2), illustrates the increase in number of boating accidents relative to the increase in boating activity. These figures show an increase in the number of accidents,over the ten-year 0 period from 1%3 to 1973 of about 30%. However, it is,estimated that these figures pepresent only one-fourth of the total number of [email protected] occurring, the remainder having been unreported. As was shown in Figure 1, accident locations over a four year period indicate significant congestion at the South, Severn, Magothy, Miles, and Patuxent Rivers; in Eastern Bay; and in the vicinity of Ocean City at Chinpo teague Bay. These accidents can be largely attrib,ute'd to conflicts 13 225 - 200- Number of Accidents 175 - *40101 1100 150 - 1%01.0 4 80,000 4f 10 10 125 - 75,000 70,000 00 00 4P Number of , 65,000 Registered Boats 4#1 - 60,000 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 YEAR Figure 2: Relationship of Increases in the Number of Registered Boats to the Number of Boating .Accidents resulting from negligent operations of high speed boats and congestion resulting from the use of the same waters by boats of different types:, sail, cruising, fishing, and skiing. Problems related to degradation of environmental quality From an environmental perspective, the operation of large numbers of boats may lead to degradation of water quality under certain conditions; 'more boats 14 operate in a given area, and other boats utilize new water surfaces as they attempt to escape the overcrowded conditions. Specifically, water quality may suffer from the input of engine exhaust gases, from oil and gasoline spills, from the dumping of human waste and other debris, and from turbidity caused by propeller wakes. -In turn, negative changes in water quality levels lead to altered and degraded patterns of aquatic life 'and shoreline vegetation. Similarly, shoreline erosion can be exacerbated by the wakes of boats operating at high speeds. Finally, the construction, maintenance, and operation of shore-support facilities, such as marinas, may create adverse environmental impacts in the form of sedimentation and depletion of marsh biomass. The relationships between measu rable changes in the quality of the environment and the boating-related factors which caused them to occur are quite,complex. However, in general terms, the relevant processes are as follows. At the first level, socio-economic and demographic characteristics of the boating population combine with the available supply of water bodies and required facilities, to determine boating use types and levels for a given area. Then, boating use considerations will mandate specific boating opera- tional parameters. For example, waterskiing demands high speed operation, high power-to-boat weight ratios, operation close to the shoreline, and often a pattern of several outings, each of short duration. Conversely, sport fishing may call for slow to moderate sp eeds and operation further from the shore, while leisurely fishing may involve anchoring of the boat for long periods, or drifting slowly with the current. In turn, the specific operational parameters which result from Use, boat, and engine types determine the absolute amounts of given impact factors. As examples, the amounts of oil, gasoline, and exhaust gas 15 discharges from a particular boat are a direct function of engine type and size, boat type and size, operating fuel/oil ratios, condition of engine tune, .and other considerations. Similarly, the amount of waste and debris discharged by boats is related to the boat's capacity to store the wastes to the availability of proper shore disposal facilities, and to the duration and purpose of the specific outing. Demand, type of use, and operational parameters combine to determine levels of given impact causative factors, however the physiographic and biological characteristics of the receiving water body will determine the susceptibility of water body to degradation. Changes in environmental quality are ultimately determined not by absolute levels of casuative factors, but by their chronic concentrations over time, and by the susceptibility of specific elements in the ecosystem to such levels. Physiographic character- 0 *11 translate an input of x istics, such as tidal flushing rates, wi _ gallons per day of oil into embayment y, into the long term ambient level of-hydrocarbons in that water body. Similarly, the relative presence or absence of species A, B, and C and their specific susceptibilities to oil by-products, will determine the net environmental response in the embayment in question, to the original level of oil spills. Thus the impact on the environmental quality of Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays resulting from recreational boating activities must be viewed in context with the effects produced by other contributors affecting the environmental quality of the bay. Primary among these contributors are the discharge of industrial and domestic wastes, increased runoff and sedimentation resulting from 41 urbanization, and oil spillage from commerical shipping. 16 Dredging for channel maintenance.also may cause significant r6suspension of fine materials and the subsequent smothering of shellfish and shellfish beds. Contributions from industrial wastes may vary from non-toxic rinse water or cooling water to extremely harmful chemicals, heavy metals, and oil and grease. Dishcarge from municipal sewage or individual homeowner septic systems introduce excessive loads of nutrients on the bay system which-may in turn result in algal blooms, decreases in dissolved oxygen, and other alterations affecting the species composition and productivity of the bay waters. The increased percentage of impervioussurface areas and exposed soils resulting from the clearing, cutting, and filling practices associated with urbanization have greatly increased the sedimentation load entering the Elay's tributaries. This increase in sedimentation further induces the need for channel dredging operations which may in some instances adversely affect the water quality of the bay. The shipping activities associated with the Port of Baltimore and other commercial facilities in the bay area additionally affect the water quality of the bay. Oil and fuel spillages and the leaching of heavy metals from anti- fouling paints introduce large concentrations of toxic substances into the harbor water. The circulation of these substances throughout the bay waters will be largely determined by the currents and flushing rates. Removal and. disposal of dredge spoil for channelization-maintenance may produce changes on the topography, current, salinityj tidal volume, sediment load, turbidity, and marina biota and environment, producing significant ecological shifts. All of the above contributors will generally influence the water quality 17 9 of the bay to a much*greater extent than the impact of recreational boating. However, where high concentrations of boating activity exist, there may be significant localized effects such as shoreline erosion resulting from the impact of boat wakes or alterations in marine biota produced by oil spills in the vicinity of marinas. As of the present time, no comprehensive findings exist regarding the complex interrelationships between contributions to the level of water quality from recreational boating and the other above-men- tioned sources. Under the Federal and state water quality acts, the EPA and the State of Maryland Water Resources Administration are undertaking continuous monitoring and assessment of the water quality of the bay region., When the results Df these studies become available, supplemented by further monitoring and research, a determination of the baseline data can be made, and a more fundamental understanding of the significance of recreation boating impacts on water quality relative to other contributors will be possible. 41 CHAPTER II INTRODUCTION TO THE CONCEPT OF CARRYING CAPACITY 19 DEFINITIONS The term "carrying capacity" refers generally to the levelof use or extent of modification an environmental system may bear without experiencing degradation. The term and concept have been most widely employed to define levels' of wildlife populations, grazing, cropping, or change which can be managed without diminishing the sustained yield an environmental system is capable of producing. The concept has been valuable in management practice in preventing over- use of productive environments. It may, however, also lead to inadvertent over-use, if resource utilization is allowed to reach the brink of capacity. At pointed out in the Conservation Foundation Letter of May,1974, "Any identi- fication of an area's carrying or holding capacity is an invitation to use or fill that capacity." This is particularly possible in areas of environmental manage- ment in which reliable scientific data on resource degradation are not easily obtained or field parameters easily monitored. It is also very possible where sensitivities of resources to use and change undergo large fluctuations or differ locally to a great degree. Recreational boating is one such area. It will be clearly valuable to prevent over-use or mis-use of water surfaces in the Maryland Bays, in terms of both user satisfactions and environmental protection, and it will be valuable to provide expanded boating opportunities in sub-areas of the Bays in which an excess capacity exists. Yet the key to environmental'protection in,a carrying capacity ma nagemen.t' 20 framework--monitoring and analysis of environmental responses to identified causative factors (such as the detection of accelerated bank erosion resulting from the wakes of speeding motorboats)--is difficult to achieve in the complex water-land-biota make-up of estuarine systems. And the sensitivities of Bay resources to boating use will fluctuate widely according to season, water temper- ature,.tidal stage, presence of other uses, and many other factors. The aesthetic sensitivities and recreational expectations of Bay users will also vary widely: cruising in the quiet slackwaters of Talbot County in contrast to cruising down the Severn River on a busy weekend day; fishing with a dropline in a small creek in contrast to fishing for rockfish or blues in the open Bay. It is, in fact, this variance of uses, sensitivities, and expectations that sets the stage for the occurrence of over-use and conflict, both among boaters and other aquatic recreationists, and between aquatic recreationists as a group and other users of the waters and land edges of the Bays. Carrying capacity, which may also be termed "holding capacity" or iloptimum use level", can be interpreted to be or implemented in terms of the numbers of users of the resource in question, the uses which may be allowed in a given resource area,- or the intensity of use which may be permitted. Numbers of Users. Regulation of the numbers of users of a given resource is not uncommon. State game managers regularly count deer populations; deer hunt- ing seasons are adjusted or other measures are instituted to reduce excess popula- tions which cannot be supported by the available browse or food supply. Certain public beaches are protected from excessive numbers of users by restricted availability of parking spaces and prohibition of roadside parking. 21 .In terms of recreational boating, some self-regulation exists by virtue of the location and berth capacities of marinas and private facilities. The exercise of marina construction permit approvals and denials by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maryland Department of Natural Resources as well as the state park marina and public launching ramp programs of the latter agency also impose a degree of regulation over the number of users (expressed in terms of boats) originating in given sub-areas of the Bays. However, the a.vailable,data on congestion and accidents, reviewed earlier, indicate that a large part of the capacity problem lies not in the actual location of moorings and launching' ramps, but in the Patterns of passage, activity, and conflict that occur through- out many limited or constricted waterbodies--in which both-Ba-y-s abound. Permitted Uses. The regulation of uses in given areas is a common application of the so-called police powers. Land-use zoning is the most familiar form of this institution. Water-use zoning, although applied in limited instances, is practiced in one form or another in virtually all of the states. The most.common- place example of water-use zoning is the exclusion of water-skiing from certain sections of waterbodies, or entire waterbodies in instances of small size or of other sensitivities. In Maryland, under Regulation of Article 14B of the Annotated Code of Maryland, water-skiing is excluded from certainsmall sub-areas of Chesapeake Bayj for example on Alms House Creek,on,South River. Such use exclusions have been instituted for weekends and State holidays only, or apply at all times. Threinen 092) reports the development of zoning of wild and semi-wild water zones along the near-shore edges of Wisconsin Lakes, within which motorboating is prohibited. Mann (178) proposed water-use zoning of the Charles River Basin in 1967 in order to diminish conflicts between powerboat 22 passage from upstream yacht clubs to Boston Harbor and sailing and crew activity. Water-use zoning is an important potential tool for optimizing user satisfactions but cannot be implemented without the exercise of care in accommodating all user needs wi.th equal, albeit separated, opportunity. Jaakson (194) proposed zoning of Reid Lake into three areas to satisfy the demand range and termed them Shoreline Activity Zone, Open Water Zone, and Wilderness Zone. Intensity of Use. Use intensity is an expression of activity impact. It is congruous with density, or numbers of users, only when all users are at low levels of-action, or moored. As motorboats increase speed, water-skiers take longer and wider runs, or sailboats group into favorable sailing waters, greater potential for conflict, congestion, and impact occur. A common tool for. regulating intensity of use in managing fish and game populations is the pro- hibition of the taking of female (deer, crabs).or undersized specimens (deer, fish, crabs) or of numbers of specimens in excess of a "bagging" limit. In recreational boating, intensity use is commonly regulated through the imposition of speed limits and of rules forbidding high wakes in the vicinity of moorings. Use intensity regulation has potential for further application, particularly in the development of new speed zones in sensitive areas and possibly, new limit categories. Additional potential also exists in the possibility of [email protected] .40 marine police surveillance and in the imposition of temporary separations of use in areas where unusual use-intensity occurs. It is obvious that in terms-of recreational boating in Maryland tidal waters, numerous effective tools presently exist and are being utilized to both extend boating opportunities to optimum levels and prevent over-use or misuse of 41 sensitive areas. Management applications of new carrying capacity determinations, therefore, should as a first step maximize utilization of these tools. What is 23 needed to supplement them is a new mechanism to aid in facility planning, on the one hand, and in use and intensity regulation, on the other, in order to optimize recreational satisfaction while preventing environmental degradation., CRITERIA FOR A BOATING CAPACITY PLANNING SYSTEM In order to meet Maryland's goals. in both recreational boating and en- vironmental protection, such a system would have,to: 1) Identify the presumed recreationall boating carrying capacity of individual sub-areas of,the Maryland-Bays. This initial determination should be made Vi on the.basi.`@6f -boating and user needs. The specific criteria for spatial needs of boating activity are explored in Chapter III of this report. 2) Identify environmental sensitivities and the indicators which reveal the points at which recreational boating may.have adverse effects on them. These are explored in Chapter IV. The identified indicators, shown also on-the report maps, should be.used to trigger alerts to the exceeding of the environmental carrying capacity of the area or areas in question. 3) Set limits of user numbers, permitted uses, or use intensities at levels 0 safely below threshholds of-user dissatisfaction and environmental degrada- tion. In order to prevent inadvertent occurrences of intolerable congestion or of adverse environmental impact, the mechanism should incorporate limits at levels well below dissatisfaction or degradation threshholds. A) Provide for new facilities or suitable locations of excess carrying cap city up to the resumed safe limits. 24 5) Encourage and regulate the lessening of use or intensity in areas or at times of deficit carrying capacity or when environmental degradation attributable to recreational boating may occur. 6) Be flexible, pragmatic, and adaptable for use by public officials responsible for boating activity and facility construction decision- making. -In order to explain the system that is proposed by this report, a review of recreational boating operational and facility requirements, and of bio-physical environmental sensitivities is presented on the following pages. The system itself is presented in detail on page tOO. CHAPTER III BOATING OPERATIONAL AND SPATIAL REQUIREMENTS 26 INTRODUCTION This section. will examine boating operational parameters and related facility requirements as they relate to the determination of carrying capa- city criteria for application in the field of recreational boating resource management. Primary emphasis will be placed' on the design and performance characteristics of the different boat types since these characteristics con- stitute the most significant criteria for planning purposes. Shore access requirements and facilities related to recreational boating will be discussed since the planning of these facilities will greatly affect user satisfaction 0 .and environmentAl quality at the water-land interface. DESIGN AND PERFOkMANCE 10 The specific surface area needs of a given pleasure craft in a partic6lar outing will be a function of three [email protected] sets of factors: 1. boat type, size, and power class 2. activity type and operation requirementS 8. navigational and external constraints The interactions among all these variables are highly complex, but a general ,classification system has been developed-for the purposes of this study. This system will be discussed in the following sections. 1. Boat Type, Size, and Power Class The implications of design and performance specifications can be considered for the five categories of boats established by the State of Maryland Boating Administration for registration purposes':, runabouts, cruisers, auxiliary-sail, sail, and other craft. Runabouts are small, open boats, designed to be used principally with 27 outboard motors. Runabouts are generally not more than 25' in length, are fast and highly maneuvera.ble, and are principally used for racing, day cruising, and waterskiing. In 1973, runabouts accounted for 58.2%.of all registered boats in the State of Maryland. 0 Cruisers have some enclosed cabin area, range from approximately 20' to 501 in length, and constitute the next largest group of registered boats in Maryland --22.0% in 1973. Cruisers generally operate at speeds lower than those of run- abouts; small cruisers tend to use outbaord engines while larger ones tend toward the use of inboard or inboard/outboard drive combinations. Principally, cruisers are used for day and long distance cruising, and sport fishing. V Auxiliary Sailboats are sailboats which are equipped with an auxiliary engine.for propulsion, usually used only when entering or leaving port or under weather conditions unsuitable for the use of sail. In 1973, auxiliary sailboats accounted for 3.5% of all boats registered in Maryland. Few sailboats under 25' are equipped with auxiliary engines, since these craft are mostly used in pro- tected waters and are generally not built for engine adaptation. Sail boats include a wide variety of craft, from small portable boats which may be carried on the top of a car, to large schooners and sloops. Under past and present boat registration procedures in Maryland, accurate counts of sail- boats have not been required. Estimates range from 5,000 to 25,000. Mainly sailboats are used for day cruising and racing. Their lower speeds and lower maneuverability, relative to power craft, grant 'rules of the road' priority to sail under almost all Conditions. V The other boat category includes skiffs, johnboats, rowboats, and other boats often used for leisure fishing, or for maintenance of and access.to other recreational vessels. 28 The table on the following page summarizes generalized use and operational characteristics of the various categori6s. 2. Activity Types Given the great variability among design and performance specifications,. together with the fact that the operational demands of different activity types reduce that variability, it appears that operationally oriented carrying.capa- city criteria should be based on activity type considerations, rather than on specific boat types. Put another-way, there is more similarity between the actual charatteristics of two boats--different in length and'horsepower--which are both engaged in waterskiing, than between two identical !_:iikts: one pulling a,skier and the other out for a day cruise. For this reason, it is critical to examine the relationships between boating operational parameters and various activity types. For analytical purposes, six principal activity types have been identified; speedboating, waterskiing, sportfishing, leisurely fishing, cruising, and sailing. The latter two are subdivided into day cruising and sailing, and long distance cruising and sailing. Speedboating is generally done in relatively high powered runabouts designed for that activity. The principal satisfaction derived from this activity is the sensation of speed and power felt by the boater. Speedboating by its nature, demands high speeds of operation, usually in excess of 20 mph. Speedboats are highly maneuverable, and require relatively large amounts of.water-surface. Speedboating tends to take place from later morning through the mid-afternoon, and is often marked by a complex outing course, since the boater will want to take advantage of the speed and maneuverability of his craft. 4 Waterskiing displays many of the same operational characteristics as 4 0 29 0 0 0 PHOTOGRAPHS 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA (A -0 a) C) (nM V) ;v ca C) C+ m X > 0 0 0 (n c+ -1 M a) m > s -S 'a C+ (D CD m Ql) co CD 00 r- W a 0- m C) LD --j = LO 0 < m ;o I4= > CD WO (D M V) --I 0 ..A. CD ;a -1 U) m 0a 0) 0) r- rD t:r (D @(D -S fM(D 0) -<-, ao 0 V ;o (D CA (D .. = < r- @o fw ..a. c) ;U --I (D (D pi -5 -- IW 0 CD CD :q 0) cr :E a CL CD @w* (D r- 0 C: r- (D = Cl) 0 rD Ct .. :m C+ :E C+ M C7 X 0) pi 0 r- ar, :3 su 0 C+ :m M M M (D -i :E rb . . :K r- 0.. r-L CL r- X < ja.--c CD CD a ro l< -5 c+ v-4 c+ 23 r- r-L rD =-- 0 r- C) (D CA m cr C) C+ 0 (D IW (D -S --h --I (D (AD)-- -0 (D Pi In. M (D :z M IQ CL'O I (D (nM 0 1w C+ (D CD CL ci 0 V) .. @. C+ C+ X to V) 0 a c+-. CD cn (D (0 < :K (D C+ C7 CD -- CL= M 0rl,) CL. no I < M 0 (.0 -1 Ln W fD = = (A .a. 0. --a 0- -j. r- = -1 C+ 0= @, a c fie-ta to 00 aj ;o [email protected] (D M. (D M -S a = > 0. CL = y) a :3 (D 0 X (DMc+ (D CD CD m -1 En r-r En0 11 --q 0 [email protected] = P) < rri 0(D 0) --J (D ;a h :3 11 = l< 00 -5 < C) CD (3) C) (D (A CL Cf. oj 1 1. 1 1 C: @. -S 0) m 0) 1 r1l) (m > C Ln r-n (n 00 c-) -s rs.) CD @Q o 0 0 :3 a 0) La C+ ri- C) C+ C) (A C) (n 1 00 CD 0 C) (D '0 (D La 0- 0 h ri. < CD (D C) (D C) U) + CD pi 0 (a -S < (D CD 0 Gr) -40 > Ln --f )r.:. Ln --j > Lf) V) > --i > CD CO C-) CD ou C+ > Le) 0 = 00 C+ W CD -1 (f) fD OE 31 speedboating, including high speeds (23-30 mph) and the need for a high amount of surface area. However, due to the presence of the skier, the course .of a boat engaged in waterskiing will tend to be more contained and less erra- tic. An open course one half mile.in length and 200 yards wide will be con- sidered satisfactory by most average skiers. The presence of the skier, with his towline, makes the boat-skier combination much less maneuverable than a speedboat alone, and consequently more prone to the occurence of accidents. Sportfishing refers to the use of larger craft, such as cabin cruisers, to catch gamefish in the deeper and more open reaches of the Bay system. Sportfi.shing is done at moderate speeds, and displays long and moderately complex outing patterns, which generally takes the sportfisherman a large distance from the shoreline. A boat engaged in sportfishing requ,ires a moderate amount of surface area, but at the same time seeks to stay as far as possible from other boats engaged in the same activity... Leisurely fishing refers to the use of small boats for slow speed fishing in river and creek areas. The leisurely fisherman will use a small boat, with a low to moderate sized engine (usually less than 25 hp), will require a small amount of surface area on which to operate, and will have a short and localized course pattern. In addition, the leisurely fisherman will spend long periods of time at anchor or just drifting with the current. Cruising, as an activity, has two underlying motivations: the desire to go somewhere, and the fun of getting there. Although there are exceptions to ev ery rule, a boater out for a cruise will have a more clearly defined route objective than a speedboat, and will plot a less random course. Cruisers will tend to operate at lower speeds and be less maneuverable than speedboaters. 32 The distance from the shore,;and the.,overall trip length and complexity of a given cruise will be influenced by whether the given boater is out for a day cruise, or for a. more extended journey. In turn , 'that cruise will be largely influenced by the characteristics and capacity of the individual's cruiser. Sailing is unlike power boating in that a majority of the time is devoted to operating the craft, to the exclusion of most other activities. Consequent- ly, the sailor is normally more concerned with proper operation of the craft than with SLpeed,performance or,destination. Sailboats operate at low' speeds, havellow maneuverability, and display patterns of operation marked by long runs. and.relatively,frequent.changes of course (tacking). With the predominance in .Maryland of.small-, portable sailboats, most of the activity of these boa-ts:.is- of the day sailing variety. The chart below summarizes the important operational characteristics of the boating activity classes just described:@ Table 2 OPERATIONAL CHARACTERIStICS ACTIVITY CLASSES Speed Maneuver- Area Outing Distance Boat ability Req. Range from Size Shore SPEEDBOATING H H H L/M L/M 0-40 WATERSKIING H M H L/M L 0-26 SPORTFISHING L/M M/H L/M M/H L 16-65 LEISURELY FISHING L H L L/M L 0-26 CRUISING (POWERED) A. DAY CRUISING L/M M/H L/M/H L/M L/M 0-65 B. LONG DISTANCE CRUISING L/M M/H L/M/H M/H L/M/H 26-65 SAILING A. DAY SAILING L L L L/M L/M 0-40 B. LONG DISTANCE SAILING JL/M L L/M M/H L/M/H 26-65 LEGEND: L: Low; M: Moderate; H: High 33 Operational Surface Requirements As specified in the preceding discussion, each of the boating activity types have certain boating operational characteristics., These operational characteristics in turn require varying amounts of water surface area to ensure boater satisfaction. The surface area requirements constitute the major carry- ing capacity criteria for planning purposes to be utilized in Phase II of this project. In the past few years, as the management of recreational boating activities has received increased attention, planners have attempted to come to grips with the question of selecting carrying capacity criteria for planning purposes. A thorough review of these presently available standards reveals a wide variation among estimates, a fact reflective of differing planning processes, and to a lesser extent, of different areas of study and concern (lakes versus rivers, for example). The available standards are summarized on the accompanying chart. Despite the variability, some useful trends do appear, especially as regards to both waterskiing and powerboating. With waterskiing, ten acres per boat appears to be a workable minimum, with 20 acres per boat as a very desirable "normal" condition. Turning to powerboating, an acceptable range of densities would seem to run from a low of 3 acres/boat to a desired level ,of 10 acres/boat. It must be kept in mind that any estimates of this type are just planning guidelines which must be further refined to correspond to localized boating use and environmental parameters. In addition, the meaning of a density range must be kept in its proper perspective. To say that waterskiing requires a minimum of 10 acres/boat, and has a "normal" or "desirable" level of 20 acres/boat Table 3 34 Survey Aturrently 'Uti,l I. zed Surface Area Standards "TTY;, - T RkPiftidml [email protected]@'Atfflq Vft ACTIVITY SOURCE FRAME OF DERIVED STANDARD COMMENTS @REFERENCE .(ACRES/BOAT,. EXCEPT WHERE' OTHERWISE NOTED*) WATER' ArnW Corps o Engineersl rivers 1 includes all power boating SKIING N.A.R. [email protected] all 1-1.5 Soil Conservation Service3 all 5 Boating Industries Assoc.4 all [email protected] Ontar*05 lakes 20 based on observation [email protected] .1 akes 20-40 based on observation Louisiana7 all 40 FISHING jArmy Corps of Engineersl rivers .02 Soil Conservation Service3 all .14-.50 Wisconsin6 lakes 8 based on observation SAILING Soil Conservation Service3 all 3 0 Bureau of Outdoor Rec.8 all: 3 N.A.R. study2 all 3-9 POWER A6y corps of Engineersi all 1 includes skiing BOATING Bureau of Outdoor Rec.8 all .1.5 includes non-powered California9 all non-trailer only Study2 all 1-2 under 20 hp 3 Soil Conservation Service3 all includes sail Study2 all 3-9 inboards & outboards>20 hp IPlacer CountyiO lakes/rivers 5 trailer boats OntarioS lakes 10 Wisconsin6 lakes 10-20 Louisiana7 all 20 ROWING IN.A.R. Study2 all .33-1 CANOEING Wisconsin6 streams 1/2 mi/canoe* Louisiana7 streams 1/2 mi/canoe* 1U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Design Criteria for Recreation Requirins Water Surface: Grand Chariton and Little Chariton Rivers Report, Kansas City, Missouri.. N" 'AMnti c Regional Water Resources Study,Appendix M, Outdoor Recreation, May 197-24 .3soil Conservation Service,U. S. Department of Agricul'ture, Recreation Memorandum -3. Supplement.-3 (Re: Ratios and Distances Between Land, People.and Facility, in Rec eation 'Areas), Washington D.C., 1964. 4Personal communication with staff of-Boating Industries Association, 401 N.,Michigan Avenue Chicago Illinois 60611". 5ontario,Ministry of Natural,Resources, Lakealert Phase 2: Methodology, Hough, Stansbury, and Associates, Ltd.. Toronto, Ontario, 19727. Nisconsin Conservation, Department, A Comprehensive Plan-for"Wisconsin, OutdoorRecreation, Madison, Wisconsin, 1966. 7Louisiana'Parks And Recreation [email protected],[email protected]@tewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Supplement 1, Baton Rouge. Louisiana, .1966. SChesapeake Bay Stuly, Demando.3upply, Needs, U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Northeastern Regional office, Philadelphia, Feb. 1974. 9California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan Committee, California Public Outdoor Recreation Llan, Sacramento, California, 19601. .10placer County Recreation-Commission-, Proposed Public Outdoor Recreation Commission Plan: Coun of Placer, California Auburn, California,[email protected] Oft 35 does not-mean that all waterskiing becomes operationally impossible when boat densities reach a level of only 9 acres/boat, but rather, that at a density level which allows for fewer than 10 acres/boat, the satisfaction experienced by the boater.will begin to be substantially reduced, to the point that a significant number of boaters may consider ending the.day's activity, or moving to a less crowded area. In addition, the fi as 11normaill "desir- gure given or able" upper end of the surface area range indicates that at that point, most 41 boaters will feel totally free, in the exercise of their chosen activity, per- ceiving no pressure or conflict from other craft. 3. Navigational and External Conflicts A number of conflicts exist among various types of recreational boating activity. These conflicts are caused to a large extent by the variety of speeds and operational characteristics associated with the different activities and by the physical characteristics of the water.bodies on which they take place. 41 a. Speed/Safety: Primary among the conflicts are those caused by boaters operating their craft at different speeds within the same area. Speedboating and waterskiing-activities require high speeds of operation and intricate course patterns which will conflict with fishing, cruising, and sailing activities over the same water surface. On the lower Chesapeake' Bay, cruising speeds will usually range from 15 to 30 mph, waterskiing speeds will range in excess of 20-25 mph, and sailing speeds will be considerably less. The rules of navigation which give sail the right of way over power recognize the difference in maneuverability between the two types and thus to some extent alleviate this problem. However, as boating activities increase, the potential for collision and other accidents resulting from congestion and overcrowding of water bodies will increase. 36 in the vicinity of some harbors, speed limits have been established to [email protected]@: the conflict between moored craft and the wakes of passing boats. As mentioned in the introduction to this report, speed zones prohibiting speeds in excess of 6 knots have also been established for narrow channel areas where conges- tion or evidence of wake-induced shoreline erosion exist. Effective manage- of boating activities will necessitate that adequate criteria for determining the location of these zones be'further developed to reduce the potential forfuture conflict. Although some user conflicts are always present unless specifically regulated, others may occur at'certain times. While the passing of a nearby speedboat will be upsetting to a slowly drifting angler, the fact that these activities are often carried out during different parts of the day tends to reduce the severity of that particular conflict. As indicated in the 1971 Coast Guard Study A Recreational Boating_Population Statistical Information System (166), the major.peak hours for motorboating and sailing activities appear to be relatively the same,'arouhd midday. However, the sailing activities are concentrated over a shorter time span, and there appears to be a significant early morning peak period for motorboats around 7:30. This peak probably represents a high percentage of motorboats being utilized for fishing activities, while the midday peak represents a higher intensity of waterskiing and cruising activities. In addition, as noted by the report, numbers of fishing boats will tend to exhibit seasonal variations due to the migratory patterns of fish inhabiting the area. Thus the degree of activity conflicts will vary greatly during the day and on a seasonal basis. In addition to temporal separation, such As described above, incompatible types of boating activities will often tend to separate themselves. When 37 available water surface allows, the AL ,powerboater is generally no more anxious to operate while surrounded by a fleet of sailboats than is the sailor to be in the midst of a group of powerboats. In light of the above, noticeable conflicts occur in areas where the overall levels of recreational boating reduces available surface area to the point where boating activity classes can no longer separate themselves adequately without travelling unreasonable distances, or in those areas which must be shared by different boating classes, such as the narrow reaches of rivers and creeks, and the approaches to multi- use marinas and harbors. It is in these areas that formalized temporal, spatial, and navigational-regulations must be used to minimize use conflict types and levels. 38 b. Depth: The exercise of the varying forms of boating recreational act ivities are clearly affected by the depths of the waters in which the craft are being operated. According to the Outboard Motor Club of America, no precise required depth to boat size ratios exist. However, some general criteria can be stated. Most outboard powered boats require at least 3' of water for safe operation, and 4' is considered to be a desirable minimum. Around these figures, there is a range of required depths: manually powered craft and small sailboats can operate in less'than 2', while many other craft, such as the very large sailboats and.cruisers, may require up to 6' for safe operation. It should be noted that because shallow waters constitute a large portion of the waters used by Chesapeake Bay boaters, many boaters use craft which have been specifically designed with shallow draft hulls. The depth patterns within a given area will serve to define the differential amount and configuration of the water surface which is available for the various types of boating activities. The hypothetical chart given below, Figure illustrates how the percentage of total surface area available for boating 0 activity will increase as the size-of the water body increases. This results from the fact that shallow, unusable areas will constitute a larger percentage of the total surface areas of the small, highly indented coves and embayments of the bay region than of the larger open expanses of water. c. Size and Openness of Water Body, Distance from Shore: From an opera- tional perspective, the size and openness of the expanse of water over which boating activities occur will affect the amount of conflict between activities. Speedboating and waterskiing activities are more suitably carried out on long, wide river reaches, or at the outer limits of large embayments, areas which are not well suited for activities such as leisurely fishing or day sailing. 39 Similarly., sport fishing and long distance sailing and cruising are more suited' to large open expanses of water. % 100 80 ,60 40 20 100 200 300 Total surface area of water body Figure 3: Surface Area unavailable for Boating Activities As far as distances from shore are concerned, the proximity to shore within which an activity will occur is pri marily determined by the size of the boat being used. Rarely will motorboats and sailboats under 16' be utilized for activities outside of a one mile range. The 2-5 mile range is used by about 30% of motorboats over sixteen feet, whiletapproximately 50% of sailboats over sixteen feet will be used in this range. Only 12% of motorboats over 16' and.23% of sailboats over 16' will venture beyond the five mile range (166). Thus, leisurely fishing, waterskiing, day cruising, and day sailing will constitute the activities usually enjoyed within close proximity to the shore, while sportfishing, long distance sailing, and long distance cruising will take place at greater distances from the shore. 40 d. Water Body Shoreline [email protected] The presence of complex branches and indentations off principal inlets and embayments will affect the usable water surface available for various boating activities. As an example, a narrow inlet with primary and secondary branches is more suited to activities such as leisurely fishing, and day sailing, than for speedboating or water- skiing. The shelter and visual interest offered by a multiple branched inlet makes for great attractiveness to the leisurely recreationist, while the shallowness and complexity make it difficult and unsafe-for high speed operations. SHORE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS AND FACILITIES- In addition to the boating operational and other factors discussed above, the design and location of boating facilities--marinas, launching ramps, piers, etc.--will affect the levels and patterns of boating activities in given areas. In terms of boating carrying capacity considerations, the primary impact of boating facility factors on boater satisfaction relates to.the levels of con- gesti on and convenience of access to boating activitimes. Since boating facility design constitutes a substantial portion of Part II of,this report, boating facility factors are only briefly discussed below. Facility Ty2es Gener6lly, boating facilities can be classified into five-categories: large marinas, small marinas, owners' association piers, individual owner's 'Piers, and 'launching ramps. Large Marinas will include facilities for storing boats (berths, moorings, dry storage); hoists, cranes or ramps for removing or lowering boats into the water; fueling and boat repair services; miscellaneous services such as 41 restaurants, first aid and navigational information, sanitation and disposal facilities; and facilities related to-automobile use--parking, gas, etc. In C addition, charter boats or power boat rentals may be offered. These public or privately owned marinas (yacht and boat clubs) may contain storage facilities with enough space for two to four hundred boats or more. OR Small marinas will include many of the facilities mentioned above on a smaller scale and will probably not contain extensive facilities for dry C storage. Small sailing clubs and schools will often use these facilities. Owners Association piers are often small-scale docks or piers privately owned by groups of boaters with private access to the waterfront. These will usually not include fueling and repair services nor miscellaneous services such as food, rentals, etc. C Individual owners piers are those belonging to owners of waterfront property for the private storage of their boats. These facilities include the numerous finger piers and docks usually constructed on wooden pilings C wIhich fringe many of the shores of the Bays. Launching ramps and service docks are predominantly state or locally .41 owned and operated, They primarily provide facilities for boaters to launch trailered boats and to park their automobiles while out on the water. In some instances food, fuel, rentals, sanitation facilities, or other services may be offered. Impact of Boating Facilities on Carrying Capacity I Many of the above facilities, particularly the larger marinas, will pro- vide shelter in the form of breakwaters or other structures to protect boats 42 being stored in the water from waves, boat traffic, tidal currents and winds. Channels may also be dredged to provide convenient access from the expanses of water to the more.sheltered areas. In addition, water access to fueling and repair services, as well as to individual storage berths and dry storage 41 loading docks will be provided. The location and design of these facilities will affect the levels of boating congestion at their entrances on the water. Also, the types of facilities available will influence the type of boating activities which can utilize the storage and access points. Thus, their design and location can be an effective factor in bal6incing the distribution of boating activities and reducing congestion on the water. Since a large percentage of boats in Maryland are trailered to these water access points, the location of these facilities can also significantly affect related land use problems such as traffic congestion and conflicts with @other water-oriented forms of recreation. In the Chesapeake Bay area, for in.stake, the location of marinas should be determined with regard to the amount of generated boat traffic requiring the,raising of drawbridges, in order to reduce boating and automobile traffic conflicts. Since there exists a rapid increase in the number of boats transported via trailer or car top to launching points and a steady increase in the number of water stored craft registered in Maryland, sufficient attention must be given in the future to the relation of boating facilities to boating carrying capacity criteria. The above discussion has identified and classified the operational charac- teristics related to boating activities. In order to utilize this information 43- in the boating capacity planning system presented in Chapter VI!-of this reodrt, the RXA. study,ha*s,,[email protected] ized guidelines regarding.,the surface arev.require- ments of boating activities.- Thete-guidelines are gi.ven'in Table 4below. These are preliminary standards for single-use boati ng activities [email protected] out i on a hypothetical water body which present'no intangible, physiographic or ecological constraints. (Subsequent chapters of this report detail the effect of various intangible and ecological constraints on boating activities.) For the sake of analysis, the "normal" standard refers to the amount of surface area.-,considered desirable for the exercise of the particular activity: more area is welcome, less area begins to define congestion. Similarly, the minimum" standard refers to the point at which a significant number of boaters will begin to perceive an unacceptable level of congestion and may decide to remove themselves from the area. TAbl e 4 Derived Cary ing Capacity Standards (acres/boat) Actjvity Normal Minimum Activity Normal Minimum Speedboating 10 5 Day Cruising 10 3 Waterskiing 20 10 Long Distance Cruising 10 5 Sportfishing 10 3 Day Sailing 3 1.5 Leisurely Fishing 5 1 Long Distance Sailing 5 2 Speedboating--the range of 5 to 10 acres/boat reflects the higher maneuver- ability of the speedboat as opposed to a similar boat pulling a skier; being more mobile, the speedboater is less apt to feel himself being pressured by meandering boaters. Waterskiing -The carrying capacity criteria of 10 to 20 acres is perhaps the closest thing to an official standard, having been verified in several field test situations. Given the greatly exaggerated3 length of the boat/skier 44- combination, together with decreased maneuverability, this activity emerges:.as havIng the greatest-demand for water surface. [email protected] sportfisherman prefers an uncrowded area in which to purs,ue the "big one that got away". Otherwise the activity tends to exhibit surface area requirements similar to those of the powered cruisers. Leisurely fishing--Operating quietly at very slow speeds, the casual angler prefers "privacy" when it is available, but can tolerate higher den- sities when necessary. 0 Cruising--Day cruising reflects the. surface needs of powerboats, as out- lined in the current literature, namely, from 3 to 10 acres per boat. With respect to long distance cruising, the minimum standard was revised to 5 acres/ boat to reflect more of a dissatisfaction with crowded conditions on behalf of the @boater. Saili _ng--Discussions with organizations and individuals active in sailing, together with the review of available literature, led to the adoption of a range from 1.5 to,3 acres/boat as the carrying capacity standaed for day sailing, the most common form of sailing. For reasons similar to that dis- cussed above under cruising, the spatial need of long distance sailing has also been revised,upward, to reflect the desire for free and unfettered opera- tion on the part of the long distance sailor.. 0 The chart below, Figure 4 , provides an illustration of how some of the carrying capacity standards compare, relative to each other. From the chart 0 it is evident that waterskiing activities exhibit the greatest demand for water surface area, while day sAiling,and leisurely fishing activities require 0 45 less surface area to provide desirabl!e levels of boater satisfaction. 111-5 113 3M 250 200 150 co 00001:10 100 ow 9AF 50 9P 1-20 'low lit [email protected] 111111 200 400 600 800 1000 WATER SURFACE IN ACRES Figure 4: Comparison of Carrying Capacity Standards The carrying capacity standards presented in Table were derived dnly for single use boating activities over a defined area. Obviously the assumption that only one type of boating activity will occur in a specific area over time is unrealistic. However, the complex task of attempting to develop carrying capacity standards for combinations of the various activities would provide results too cumbersome to be of useful value for planning purposes. At any rate, the figures below-have been prepared to illustrate hypothetically how 46 the carrying capaditysstandards as they were derived can be applied to a fixed surface area. 1200- -200 S B D S S9 W W S WS 0- Waterskiing: Waterskiing: Waterskiing: 10 boats 9 boats. 8 boats Speed Boating: Speed Boating: 8 boats 7 boats Day Sailing: 13boats Figure 5: Effect of Mixed Usage.on Boating Capacity The above graphs illustrate how mixing of competing uses affects user satisfactions and numbers within a fixed acreage of surface. The users of these carrying capacity standards must recognize that they represent only initial estimates of surface area requirements associated with boating activities. Their utility as a planning tool will depend on the degree to which they are validated, revised, and continually updated through 0 47 monitoring of observed actual conditions. In addition, there will be temporal variations around the norms,as both seasonal and daily fluctuations in peak boating activity demand occur. However, Chubb 0'9'5) suggests that it may be advisable to use carrying capacity standards which relate to the ability of a particular area to sustain continuous use over an entire season. The assess- ment of existing and projected boating activity demand in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bay regions which will be undertaken in Phase II of this research will be utilized to refine these figures to ensurethat they accurately reflect actual conditions. .48 CHAPTER IV USE CONFLICTS VISUAL AND INTANGIBLE CONSIDERATIONS 49 INTRODUCTION From the perspective of boater satisfaction, the boating operational andfacility requirements outlined in the previous chapter were considered to be the primary determinants of boating carrying capacity standards. However, the degree to which the spatial characteristics of actual boating activities on the Chesapeake and Chincoteage Bays will correlate with these prelir%inary standards will also depend on the influence of several considerations. These considerations have been generally grouped into two categories - Use Conflicts and Visual and Intangible Considerations and are discussed in the sections below. [email protected],.COMK I CTS Recreational boating activities may often conflict with other man-oriented uses of the aquatic environment. In the case of the Chesapeake Bay region, other uses which may potentially conflict with boating activities are commercial shipping, commercial fishing, vehicular transportation, private shore front property use, and other shore oriented recreational pursuits such as swimming and fi,@hing. 1) Commercial shipping While the actual shoreland facilities - cargo storage, loading docks, etc. associated with commercial shipping consume only a fraction of the total land area bordering the bay, the necessity for deep draft shipping channels and special facilities such as the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal deserve particular consideration in planning boating recreational activities. The large tankers, freighter, and passenger lines traversing shipping channels have limited maneuverability and,thus, pose navigational hazards for small craft. In addition, the location of naval 50 anchorages and commercial harbors as well as the shipping channels should be considered in.evaluating the location and level of boating activities. The [email protected],of:[email protected],channels and moorings are well marked on available maps and will be considered in Part 11 of this study. 2)' Commercial Fishing An important component of the economic activity of the Bay region is the commercial fishing industry. This industry includes commercial. crabbing, clamming, and oyster harvesting as well as the nett.ing of fin fish. [email protected]' are approximately 10,000 commercially licensed oysterboats and clamboats in the state of'Maryland. Boundaries prohibiting upstream or shoreward harvesting of the various species have been set at many of the river mouths and headlands of bays, coves and inlets.. Power recreational boating activities should be regulated in shellfish and fish spawning areas during critical seasonal stages where monitoring and surveillance reveal probWk:boating impacts. 3) Vehicular Transportation As a rqult of the large number of drawbridge crossings in the bay area, the effect of increased boat traffic on vehicular traffic flows must be considered. Also, the location of1aunching ramps, marinas, and other facilities can,significantly influence'the utilization of access roads and highways leading to the water's edge., Likewise, the ease with which boaters can get to water access points will determine where concentrations of boating activities will occur. Each of these factors should be carefully considered. 4) Shore Frontage Property Use In order to prevent shoreline erosion of their property resulting from the impact of boat wakes in narrow channels or passageways, shorefront property owners will often construct bulkheads or other coastal protection devices. They may also petition the marine police to establish speed zones restricting powerboatifig and waterskiing activities where noise levels or other factors cause excessive disturbances. Thus, it is important that the uses of privately owned lands along the shoreline be considered in planning boating recreational activities, since the establishment of speed zones, buffer zones, or other restrictions will limit the water surface .area available for boating. 5) Other Recreation 41 Besides boating activity, other recreational pursuits, particularly swimming and fishing from or near the shore, compete for use of inshore waters. Most swimming activity at beaches and suitable shores will be concentrated shoreward of the 5' depth contour and may extend outward to the 10' contour. ( Threinen, 1964 ) Maryland DNR regulations presently exclude water-skiing within 100 feet of swimmers, shores piers, and other appurtenances. Consideration should be given to extending the regulations to prohibit speeds greater than a tolerable maximum ( to be determined for a.11 powerboat use within inshore zones with designated fishing, swimming or similar activity priorities. VISUAL AND INTANGIBLE CONSIDERATIONS Boats of all types and most boating facilities possess aesthetic attributes of great interest and value to the boating, as well as to the non-boating public. Some aspects of boating facilities and activities, however, encompass actual or potential incompatabilities with the landscape, waterscape, or use-environment within which they are found. 52 Wake In additi-on to the potential: shoreline disturbance effects described earlier, the occurrence of high wake which interferes with the recreational enjoyment, of otherso,., jars moored craft, or. creates hazards,,. can be considered an adverse aesthetic factor. 2) Fuel Exhausts 'Although most power boat-users and many sailors are accustomed to escaped engine exhausts, some may be presumed to feel that concentrations of exhaust fumes are aesthetically undesirable. If engine modifications were to be made to reduce the amount of,: unburned and partially consumed fuel in engine exhausts, for reasons of ecological protection, the aesthetic environment would be enhanced at well. 3) Noise Besides wake, engine noise is 'the chief aesthetic irritant of powerboat operation to non-powerboat users. Although little research appears to have been done into the tolerances of users to engine noise, it has been commonly observed -#[email protected]&,, number of.engine-makes,have insufficient,- muffling in relation to horsepower. This is particularly true of certain outboard and'outboard-inboard power systems. Under present MDNR regulations, complaints by frontage property owners may lead to the issuance of citations for excessive engine noise. H owever the origin of the problem lies with engine design and ways to encourage or to require manufacturers to improve muffling characteristics should be explored. 0 4).Facility displacement of valuable natural environment The construction of marinas and launching ramps on filled salt marshes and scenic shorelines proclaims a statt.is of misuse and degradation of 53 socially valuable resources. The scarring of bluffs by access road or facility construction may also be considered aesthetically significant. In addition to this intangible effect, visual impacts WI-1-1 -91-.SD be. 00=5' -at damaged remnants of marshes adjacent to the facility and disharmony or discontinuity between the natural and built area will be apparent. The appearance and design of some marinas, whether built on suitable or unsuitable shorelines may also fail In terms of architectural merit, site layout, or the characteristics of repair yards, dry storage, hoists, sheds, and other features. Critical to the question of appearance is the design of elements at the land edges of the facility, particularly those which abut residential or scenic areas. Appearance and design questions will be treated in depth in Part Two of this report. .55 0 INTRODUCTION A The material presented in this chapter is provided to explain-I.. he rela-- tionships between boating operational and facility factors and the components of the aquatic environments of Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays. The Bio-Physical Checklist, Table 5, is intended to provide a quick reference source for the user to gain a comprehensive view of how boating operational and facility causative factors may potentially produceasubsequent responses in the bay ecosystems. The Key to the Bio-Physical Checklist, Table 6, and its attendant verbal analysis is proVided to facilitate the "tracing through" of the relationships presented in the preceding flow chart form of the Bio-Physical Checklist. The verbal analysis explains how causative factors related to boating activitl.es may induce adverse responses in the aquatic envoronment. The matrix, Table 7, presented at the conclusion to this'section depicts the relative significance of these responses. The final section of this chapter summarizes the environmental constraints to be sonsidered in planning futureboating activity for Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays. the content of this chapter is based primarily on a literature search of .the pertinent available materialand Verbal communication with various experts conducting research in the field. In many cases there are conflicting views or inconclusive results regarding the impact on the aquatic environment caused by-boating operational and facility factors. 10 56 It is probably true that relative to the other factors affecting the overall environmental quality of the bay (e.g. oil spillage from commercial shipping), boating related impacts,have very little significance. Howevers where boating activity is highly concentrated near the.shore or near marihq .or launching ramp facilities, localized effects may be quite significant. In addition, as the numbers of recreational boater's using the waters of the bay continue to rise, the amount of environmental degradation caused by boating realted, activities may become more severe. At any rate, relevant research should be continually analyzed and'the material presented in the following sections should be continually updated.to reflect any conclusive findings. THE BIO-PHYSICAL CHECKLIST The Bio-Physical Chectlist on the following page portrays the general relationships between boating activity and facility construction on the one hand and the estuarine elements typical of Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays on the other. Causative factors associated with boating activity and the construction and operation of short support facilities are arrayed in terms of their potential immediate effects on the environment, the subsequent changes in environmental factors, the biological responses which occur, and finally, the eventual ecosystem response. CHAPTER V RECREATIONAL BOATING BIO--PHYSICAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 58 KEY TO THE BIO-PHYSICAL CHECKLIST The key accompanying the bio-physical checklist was developed.to aid in tracing the relationships presented in the flow chart format. It does not attempt to quantify or to rank identified impacts, but rather to clarify the process of "tracing through" the effects of boating-related causative factors. Rellationships between causative factors, immediate effects, changes in en- vironmental factors,biological responses, and subsequent ecosystem responses are explained in the text immediately following the key. 0 0 0 0 C+ 0 Cl) w 11+ C) al P. w N) (A I w N) -0(0 0 C). @o 00 @4 M 0 @- ro 0 C+ Q. (A -1 C+ 0 C+ -A." C+ -4. M ?A M-cl C+ -h a) "I 1w 0 M cl% r-la 30 0 @. -S 'S = -S -S = @- r- -J- -1 0 -0 (D 9 ;K M -J 0 -S CD -S M CD c C+ 0 (A --An CA 0 C) 0 0 0 -J-0 0 W Uw -J.z 0 0 -j m m on C+ 0 a 0 r_ ;a -5 D V) 0 = C+ 11 ct -S 'S -3 C+ -S C+ -S -5 (A -5 a -- 0 r- m = Is -S m 0 CL -S 0 tw U) t7 M M M M fD (D -J- M m a C+ c 0 0 0 9 0 C+ m m -1 a a m [email protected] n C+ - c+ A) (D s iw -S 0) ai a) 0 iw su a -S -0 c c CA 0) W M c 0 0) w r U) C+ 0 C+ (D ;o C+ 0 0 0 M CD 0 m CD M (D m m -a. C+ -6. 0) iw (D M (D 0) -J. (D = = C+ M M CL Cx. I CL'o a 0.0 m 0 "a (m C+ (+ 0 (A 0. 0. tA C+ < 0. (A 0 C+ 0 0. -5 = -1 0) @- -J. --h r- c 0 -h CD (D C+ c+ C+ C+ -J- c+ 0 CL C+ 0 m 00 (A 0. cr cr 0 C.+'D -h a) X Is 0) s c r- r- r- M r- CL M c 0 0 M C+ -0 -- -S (A -S ct m < -S -5 -S -1 -0 -1 c 0 ms --h -h c 0 m (A CD ir+ (D - M u uucrw t7o -S u 0 0) 0 x (A 0) "S 0 C+.O 0) C+ M -a. cr cr C+ CL = --h -a. 0 7r 0) 0 a (+ cr 9b CL 0 0 M ta. = @ CL C+ (A 0) C+ m (D C+ C+ 0 C+ U) 0 < (D 0 c+ C+ C+ C+ C+ m C+ m C+ C+ -5 a 0 (D -S < <. ID k< 4< l< = l< C+ cx 0 0 C+ m 11 x iw 0. (M 4r+ 0 ID C+ - - 4< 0) m - = 1w =r -S -J. (A 0 = 00 m 0 Eg 0 =r m 0 (D @. to. (A m 23 = -0 fD -So h m 0 Q.X (D cl"o @.(n -0 a 0) 0 M --d (D C+ m m M J. a. to 0 W CD C= 0) CD 0 ;M' C+ i=O W U) 0 0 C) -a -r+ I'.,- fD -S CL & - C=O 0 = C+ m r- (A. =r -J. -S -1 =r 0 (M m A) 0) 4r+ C+ 1 0 -j (M m m m m o C+o 0 0 C7 = & a L*l -h m = 1.0 = 0) 0) -S C+ @. -1 C 0 0. @. Cl+ (D CL(O - r+ (A C+ CA (A C+ o o (a (n 0 0 to CD % -h M =1 m W = 0) = 0 CA -0 cm ;o CL (D M 0 (D CL (D 0- l< 0 M r_ -h m Ln = C) m a 0 4A -h :E n m C+ --h (A 'A E3 --b @o @. -a. m :3 m a tA 0) @ 0 0 C+ c -41-Sto (0 m 105 (D -S C-D. Cr Is 0 = 0) _-T IE W -A (A = 0) zr C+ U). 0) (D 0 l< 0) En = 0 -a. (.0 w iw C+ = C+ m Cl+ [email protected] = (D 0 C V+ ID 0- -1 Ln 0 (A (D C+ C+ M C) pr 0 0 -h tA V+ m CD m iw I 1. :3 :3 Ln 0 m m in. 0 (A (D 0 C) 0 0 a 0 aa qv H a A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4D 69 C-) a 00-4 CA C." 4-16 w r*;) CA -0 00 1-t cyl Un 41-b w N) M 0 0 0 0 ID m a 0 0 0 0. r- 0 C-t -h'a - CL W CLO C'G- -%P) 'S r- cr -4.a -0, -A. V) 'I = 'I 'I = -A. C --" '1 0 -0 (D m = 'S CD = -J. 0 C') pj 0 as C) (A tr W on -.a ;a 0 <c 0 n 0 0 0 -. = 0 0 's C+ -5 C+ -S -S 0 a 0 c m -S lw -S [email protected] -S eg. -3 -S -1 m-3 m -9 M M C C+ ApOns Q) C-0. m m m m m m m m CIC. m C+ m 0 0 Is 0) -S 0 0 0 -1 0 -S 0 0 C+ 0 V+ (D ;a (A w CD (A (A (A cn (A 0) (A Ap V) Z415, (D (D (D -J. CIO- - 0) (D CD (A TD ;% (D m CD (D C"O. CD C+ (D LCL a CL a aQ. 0 m 0 a (a C.O. C+ 0 V) CL w M (D CL CL 0. CL -"- CL"O -- CL = 'S 00 -8. -J. -%,) C 0. 0 -1 0 C+ C+ C+ a 0. 4r+ 0 (D co (A CA 0 (A (D C+ CIO- rt. C+ = C+ 0 = C+' 0 CL M a 0 0 CL-. e+M (D c+ (D -% C c a c c CL c m *1 c 0 -1 c 0 (D = r. L (A -1 11 Is -S 9-S c 0 "S cr tr 0) t7 0 11 tr 0 no 0 x = M tr cr Ol Cr Cr 0 17, - -J- -J- - c+ (D -d- 0' cr C+ m cn -1 -4. -a. -A. -4. -J. -A. C+ CL -0. CL CL 0. a# in. 0 0 m -a. CL 0. CL CL.0 M (D CL J. -J. -a. Ln C-t [email protected] n C+ (A 0 C7 = -J. -4. @. -A. -J. 0 A. M C+ C.O. -S '0 0 cl. 0 C+ Q+ C+ C+ -S CL.. 0 0 C+ (D -1 X no 0) C-0- 0) t< C+ m q [email protected] w m m C+ C+ C+ (A 0 CL -0. 0 -A. 0 0 m @. = oso (D m --A -h -ft m 0CL :E m CL= :3 -in -h m 0. CL CL 0 (D 0 c+ M (D 4x (7 CL (D - -J- ct (D (D C:= (A (A W 0 on C+ @E C+ CL 0 CA 0 a 0 C=D -a. = -4. -S -S =r 0) (D m r_ 0 Is = -S 4M (D CD (D (D OC+O 0) w -S 0 --h (D 0 m U3 (M = 0; 0 -3 ro. --I- -S -.0 a -h m 0) C+ sw -4. C+ (A C+ (A en [email protected] 0 0 (An C+ (D 0 m CL(M (A C/) 0 W 0 -1h m = m (A m -S C-0. -S -J- (D (A .(D h (D M (D M l< -S W = m -ao -cm rL c< rL m U) = 0 m (D :3 CL C+ --h (A -5 0 C+ m CD "a E3 --h U) -h -S cm cm CD "0 --h m cm (D (0 En (D Ml C-01 C+ (D 0) cr (AZ (A pi CIO- (r+ CL "I (A =3 CA 0 C-9. (D 23 CD (A -0 M 7r C+ -b =r 0 -0) -5 C+ (D (D CL of 0 -S --h W CIO- (A 0) iv -6. 0 (D m CMO. 0 CL 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 AIR ink HIP a 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 EF 09 5T Cl) CD C") r) Cl) n m rn C) w r13 [email protected] M t= LO) [email protected] to = "r.0 . m 8 = > .4. M C+ = 0) -n C+ Ln W 0,01, Aj 4c C+ "S CD go 0 CD Di Pi CL -S su -S 0) C-0. 0 4 a al 9D 0 0 =r = -a 0 m m 0 0 cr r_ 0 --d -J. CL a) 0 -J. r- C+ 0 0 0 0 CL Co 0-3 -0 V) 0 "I c 0 m o< = 0 c > c (D c -1 's (A a C -n cr C-0- -S C-,?. 14 1 2 -S (D c+ CA (M 'S a (D CD M a c) W (D CD M M lr+ @ 'a (A -A."O C+ m C w ol r_ [email protected] U) = -S W 0 QF 0 0. 0 @-, = 0 Ln rL -..A C4 w -.0. -4 ". ),-- 0 ---h (A (A .1 -S to -1 0* -0 a) 0 m m = 03 0 nE CD CD CD CD W. E4 0) 0) IV 6-4 C+ C> (A 4r+ CX m C+ = - m CL CL (+ a C+ = 0 C+ r- J. C+ >< r- 0 ". 0 0. (D 0 --J- Cr -j-CL -h --1- 0 r- 0 0- C7 0 CL U "S 0 M c+ Cl+ (D = 0 (A 0 0 -h > = x = (A = -6-11(0 = -3 C Q 0. =.C.+ = 0 -h = m @. Lf) ct (A (D pi 0 NC (A -S -S (D -1 0 C+ M 0 0 -3 0 0 0 0 cr cr 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 0) -h 0 7;r -h 0) -9. Z. (A C+ m C+ -t x C+ -13.0 0 0. CL CL CL CD CD - -0. (r+ r- 0 < 0 C7 C+ (A CD - -2. -J. (D 0 11 C+ 0 Cr Is m a W (D --I M ". C+ rg. C+ -h 0 (A cm CM iw n -S rn CL M X C+ 0) ro* rt, -- (D su 0 0 C+ m iv C+ (n X xm uz M "I (D U:l 0 go a) C+ Q (A (A rr (D -S -3 0 @o 4< CD = (M m CL (D r- (A M cr tw I::, -S 0 C+: (n CD 0 M 0 -S -% 0 -00 (D m M -J. (A -1 (M C+ -J. 0 0 w m CD m CL ".0i M = cm 0 W a --I (D tw m 0 0 (D lw m 5b, (D = -a. su = = 0 =, = C+ CA C+ C+ C+ -4. (a m C+. (n to m cr "3 C+ (A 0 0 m C+ CIO- -S C+ ma... 0 C+ M C7 00 =r 0 0 a MS far t 0 lag 0 19 OF co ca, C) c) c rn C') [email protected] CA) r*) --a P-I 0-4 M [email protected] W PO = = CA C+ 0 &'@ CL al 0) -S 40 n t7 V) "S 0V) 0 C+ 0 C+ --4 -1 -4< 2.0 [email protected]< 0 0 0 iv C+ 0 0 ;+ C+W = p n m w C+O cr Jw 0 ---,o CL;rsw CP 0 -19 0 0 < = 0 c [email protected] 03 0 qr+ C+ C-+ C+ m Q. C+ CD 0 C+,-A' M c+ -s: 0 M -n W M=O 0 fu 'S 0 (D ll (D -2i 0-4, et C "0 (D '0 W -WO c+ M (D (ID M (1) = M = =S --A- C = -$to (@ C --A 0 CL 0 0 --a- 0- CL V) CL cQ (A tM -(A cM (0 0) - W V w = V) 0) -S -1 -5.0 4z >C -J. 0) [email protected] Cm n -Y 4r+ 9+ 0) U) as W IV = CLW 0 -= 0 00 0)0 (A C+ C A. -4. CD C+ C V+ = 0 4r+ a > 0. -h -h iw = -h -J.m 00 -M m M 0 @. C7 -8. CL --h -J. 0 0 W -S -5 IV to 0 CL -M m =3 0 (A 0 0 --b 0 (A - (A cr= =t7o -h 0 in. 0 cu = 0 00 cx = C+ = 0 0 a C+ a -1 "s Is CL (D -a. -5 --1 -1 -r (D 10 0 9U -1 = 0 0) _a _a @@ 10 JW IM r -h -h c 0 0 IZ -n < = 0) - pi w Cu 0-4 Ln -h (+ -h m C+ -h in. C7 a: m m -1 m 0 = cm a -S CL iv cr C+ r- CL m co -S 0 :z M -8. = = -4.01 Cm -J. ma C+ .0 m 0 0 -h 11 C+ 0 = m 0 a m U) M W (A c-+'O CD C+ C+ -A. -h 0 0 V) (A Ox iw C+ Q a a a - -1 -5 4r+ -5 U). (D x W 4 %< Q -S (A Of (A M C+ (A 0 (D - M -J. =' M - -S -4. (M W 0 = -- LA -J- -- = 0 U) C+ OL =* t7 (a m C+ -h D- 0 m CL in Jw (A 0 0-0 IA X C+ 4r+ C+ (D "I no 0 -S 0 CL CL Is CL :3 C 0 0 W (A (Z cn C+ 0 = -a. -a. 0 (D 0 =.a -1 CID 'S 0 - CL .. < tA 0 0 -h cf, -h 40) (A (A (D 0 0 c -S C+ -1 (D Jw V+ 0) C+ c+ CD M 0 CD 0 0 aT a -1 -S --1.0 L (D CD M C+ CL CL -i- to Is C+ C) V+ WO a 0) 0 --h 4r+ 0 (D s M IW -0 to 0 (D (D 0 M c+ (n --J CD -J- = SA -S -A m W -h Z -h 0 Cr 0) M -7 0 (D (D -0 = :9 C+ 3E -S m = = 4< -J. @. aj CD -1 m -S a (A = m r+ Ir+ Jw (A C+ 0 Oj 0), m 0) (1) 0 U) (D C+ C+ (+ (A (A 0 C-+ (A m W J. (D (D --h -J.a C 0 -S 0. 0 = :E (A = .. I -a. (A 0 0 -4. '@a (D Cr 0 (A C+ -S C+ C+ 4r+ =r 0. 0 c (A CL m V+ I 0 C, =r 0 0 0 0 fall," gig w-. FEE 39 Change in Behavioral Habitat Concentration Decreased Reduced lutropkic Change In Means Growth Rates and Alteratioa and Estuarine Assimilative Condition Numbar Of ""Ith Reproductiva Magnification Productivity Capacity Individuals thaard ChOnq2S of TaxIns to Key to Bic-Physical Checklist Food Chain as'pecIn. 3. elimination of vegetation: decreased photosynthesis and primary productivity 0 4. increased turbidity: decreased light pene-. tration - decreased photosynthesis and pri.mary productivity 0 5. increased turbidity: decreased light pene- tration - impairment of sightfeeders (D 6. increased turbidity: fish gill inflamation o - 0 7. increased turbidity: closing of mussels 0 - 0 8. increased turbidity: reduced pumping of oysters 0 - 0 9. increased turbidity. interference with filterfeeders 8 10. sediment resuspension: release of toxins and noxious gasses-.--accumulation of toxins in organisms 11. sediment resuspension: flocculation and precipitation of planktonic algae decreased photosynthesis and.prim4ry productivity (D 0 12. change in water circulation patterns 0 a 0 C Filling and Spoil Disposal 1. elimination of vegetation: decreased photosynthesis and primary productivity e 2.. release of toxic substances: accumulation . of toxins in organisms 3. alteration of the substrate 0 4. restriction of water movement: retention of pollutants - decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations a 0 5. restriction of water movement: reduced m p a e t ne- 0 3. e' im' nat photosyn F4 increase, tra ti on prj mary ion ; je s of h @xj ns oxygenation decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations 9b 0 m 40 CD -4 at p.% w r,3 0 OD -4 (A 106 -9 W 17 (D (A M =(D -htD 0 m CD (DIU (DVV m cn(A 0:9 11 tn "I -& 9D. CD tn =-C a-Is 44-c -S n 13 m 11 19 m -0 = a 4 0 m 0 m IA a C.O. m 0 --u cr dC 0 (A 0 0 0 0 = 00 Q ir+ (A 0 to -1 44 c -C M @L ;0 e+ [email protected] 0 0Ow C.Q. 0 t* 0 0 0 0 m 0-1 C+ @c m C+ C+ 0 W40 00 m = 0 -4 C-0- -A- --I -A- M -4- M - -4 -0- c+ - W c+ -4 M, =r (D -S -1 '1 w m --a m = C-01 --Ob [email protected]="10<0-10-1000'10Q-SO (D= An CL < CL OW=M=-4j=W===W= IW=C,),$ C+OC+C) .+.. n m C+ C+ tn S. 0 X0 S U) 2 A+ r-,0 6' m 04 j -1. c C+ 0 0 11 0 #A (0 0 0 0 SE -6. = m W 0 tn m C+ C+ C+ 0 = C+ & 0 m >C 0) 40 m -h= m 4A ID C+ m -1 c C CLO C -S 0 M -S a to rru -4.0 06 = CL CA *1 ..OD -1 r_ -1c -h = as 0 0 to (A M -9. cr cr cr cr 47 0 0- tr 0 C+ C+ -h m -1 49 0; n 0 OR -5 1 . -A. -a. -" -4. -A. C+ M -a. C+ 47 -S C =C.O. 0 - 323 Ap -C CL M CL CL"a CL 0 M -- a 9b I 3E 0 t+ Ob = --4 a- = m 011:3 -A. -& -J. -a. 00 @. -1 -a. 0C+ C+ (D 9 0 0 0 0 r- -..0 c6to C.O. 0 C+ -A-4q m qq = C+ -A. ct V+ :r 01 0 = (D a m m 00 eg. ix -1 W 0 1 (D m m = a = = 0. a [email protected] & C+ C+ (A s = -3 0 (D n0 & x 3g Is OR -a. -4. a 0 0 1 1 1 m a (A Ck. (D -1 0-,Ob 1 -.4. [email protected] -a. co, 0 0 a CL (D a = a) ap UD = D-4 2 -a. .7 0 -h C+ a 06 3E 0 0 ct C+ a[ C.C. Q2 0 0 m -A - m 10 m (D 11 -C 'S JW ". :E -5 = 0 a C+ 0.0 000 =0 --4 m m V C.G. 0 0 (A Ct CD m r_ tn = -h 11 0-1 --d iw a m C+ m Clo. [email protected] cm tn -S 0 -4.40 tn ct M (D IA (D M 0 m -0 9 -h m = 0 Oj -S m = -S 1% CL C+ to 0 (D jCLIM -a. a. (A tn tn tn CL C+ C+ (D OP 0 CD (D 'S C+ 'S -J(Q m l< m tn CL CA 9w CO. 06 0 =r M V 0 -=M = M UD (D = -5 TD C+ C+ CL m15 0 m -S 0 -A. -h --I = -.8 (D m 0 c-;, Op (D Z M -#- M --J. 0 a. W 0 r- (D CO (A to 0 0 00 < (D to 0 CL = - = -.4 -1 :3 to 4A W m 4r+ V) C+ < m (m m 0 m Di CD UD a I no CL (A 0. M C+ 0 Fill I I r 0 (D 0 @u E:) 0 is H S' 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 (D M 0 Q 0 00 0 Fri t t ago V9 @D w [email protected] m C-70 -3b W N) 'D Na n C.A o o o 0 0 o =0 CLo (A -0b Q.,V CD ap _.0b n AA _S =3 ab "a 0 =r n =r -v m -i m a (D -:@ -I. =r --a -4 --1. -S P M In -4 'S - ap 0 0 (D c- :@c 0. CL - tl (A 0 n n 0 M W 0 -. C-0. 0. 0 CD C+ CL M cl. M su = CL Is n -a. - --a. CC` -S C.Q. 11 _S -S CD _S m Is _S C.O. a m -a. =* w a c m 0 C) 0 [email protected] C M Z M M M M M M [email protected] M c-0- CD = 0 'S 0 cl- -S 0 -1 --a- 4 (D m n a$ tA "3 a# Is AD Ap 0) "S 0) Is _S 0) 'm (A 0) -.0) (D (D "a IW CL (A !x "I CA w 0 0 w 0 4.-. = 0 C-0- 0 C-0- qm 0 C+ a- 0-4. CQ. M C+ C-0. a. [email protected] a+ 6 m M (D M C'O-M rol M -a. @. -S to = .-J- C-0. -. -4 CL ap m'a m a. a. r-L a. -. =--o -. m o ro- c (D -s 0 CA "S t, =om -0. -9 'C 4% 0. 0 7% 0 = =r = CL 0 0 = 0 m a C.O. m 0 3E c+ M M OY! m C19, C+ [email protected] C-0- = C-0- 0 = C+ (D to C-0. --h @ V) J:r -a. W no 4< =r 0 w -3. -S a a r_ = m m = 0 CA 0 -4. _J. -.4 -4. =r (A 0 @6 fm to U) Cli CIS -1 Is a"S 0 0 -S -.0t -. 0 -.h = 0 -- = @E C-0. = t7 0* @7 0* CIO 01 w -.h cm = %U a 00 -'s 0 0 a -4. -4. -8. @. -a. @. M -4. C7 tA --A _.U C.0. 0) 0 CA [email protected] m -4. CA CL CL 0. o- a 0. m 0. 0 a) < a C+ m C-0- -h (9 m n q< = w m -0. -0. .a. -8.,o C.D. n a. [email protected] = M Z7 oo 'S (D Q.U3 -0. = 10 V) elm (+ c-0- c+ rg- 03 c+ -J- -S C-D, rg, CAM (A CD 0 "'S C.O. l< I-C l< [email protected] C-0. m 4< 0 m C.Q. o ap 0 s OP C m IA _S 0 pi 0 -.0 CA (D m [email protected] .A.,:+ C.C. cr a @z W C+ 0 n m CL CL @E m -01 0 0 TD C'@- M M (D -04 _S 0 :5 _lh a M 0 W 0 a 0 -S TD 0 00 -. --d S (D m C V) =r 0 _S =r s -D. M :3 no r_ -A _S 0 --4- -,% (D 0 m m m 0. 0 _m4 M -ot m = (Q Q; C+ 0) -S-0 CL sCL IN0 tla 00 m CL(M -4. Ln tn 0 CA W -S m 0 (D w 10 __4 r_ C69* CA -1 -4. (D V) (D 0 (D (n M n CIO- -S to - [email protected]'. m m -00 um 0. 4<. [email protected] CL 0 0 w r_ C -5 C+ -. 0)W 0 r_ -.h 0-5 0 CL n m m mC-c- 0 0 a c-0, 0 CD 0 to C_V. Qp 113 9 -0. -h m "a a _h -A- = C+ W :3 CD (h -$ 00 0 C --h (D (M m cm (A no il) m w lk< w - m =r w = M CL 06 CL 0 um CA iw c- C+ -a. C+ -1 x m a m 0 0 0 -.0 IN -5 a 4 (A c+ (A 0 m A.- :3 0 0 0 06 0 0 0 0 0 All 0 0 0 0 if I-LEIF 0 CD G) (D 0 0 Q 0 0 _29,- 99 .0 change in Behavioral Habitat Concentration Decreased Reduced Eutrophic change in Human Growth Rates and Alteration and rstuarine Assimilative Conditions *Aftr of Health Reproductive Flagnification Productivity Capacity Individmals Hazard Changes of Toxins In and Key to Bio-Physical Checklist Food Chain W 110. [email protected] release of toxic substances: accumulation of toxins-in organisms 0 3. alteration of substrate 4. restriction of water movement: retention of pollutants - decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations 0 - 0 5. rest?-iction of water movement: reduced oxygenation - decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations -0- 6. restriction of water movement: changed salinity 0 7. restriction of water movement: increased water temperature - decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations a 8. smothering of bottom dwellers C Increased sedimentation I..smothering of bivalves, other bottom dwellers 0 2. altered substrate B BREAKWATERS C Reduced flushing and rnix-ing of waters retention of poll-utants: decreased dis- solved oxygen concentrations 0 2. reduced oxygenation of waters: decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations 3. changed salinity 0 4. increased water temperature: decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations 6 -9 0 5. precipitation of blanket of sludge: altered substrate 1 -0- 0 C Increased sedimentation 1. smothering of bivalves, other bottom dwellers M Cb !"D w r"I g- r4o @-4 cn 4t:b W m 0 @ N [email protected] 0 0 o o 0 o =0 CO. sw Mw 0A ra. - tA iw 0. rr -.,1 00 n0) -1 *A "a CL 0 CL -S W -1 a a) @ --j = =* lwc nm 0 = 0 0 =r - M - -S - =r - M 0 M 0 -0 -a 0 W 0 e+ 0 n= cr n 0 0 n C'@- 0. 0 C.Q. (D 0 0) ro- M (A (n 0) (A a. [email protected] M C--4 Vol C+OMO<=OMWC -S -S t+ -S a a n 0 s a m Qrn m I. -S -1 -S M C+ -S C-01 m m m 0 0 a uz -S m ms -J. 0 (D to 0 041) = ;o -S 0 @o (1) '10 W -j-'O C) -% SU 0 -1 0. [email protected] a M (D CD M. (D 'V - QD CD --A CD CL C+ -,h (A (D C:@) 0CL 0 = 0 W U, W -a. C --9- --A 0 Q.-S -5 M -- < W 0. < CL -J. -J 0 CL s -S U2 -1 C+ iw m m w 0 0 0 -h (A tA e, ro (D m 0 0 a IW (A no W AD m C+ m m C+ = C+ (A CD (A 0 0. M (A M 0 -X Z5 (A :9:D (A C+ a C+ = 0 C+ CA -9. -8. .0. -4. C-0. r- to r- C-0. A. C7, -0. CL -b @. --1 0 0. t7 = 00 0 0 C7 cr ". C) o 4 ('a 0 3 Or mo U) 0 0-0. :5 -J. -% = -h = x M 0 ='I (A 0 >C 0) X U3 (D -Ob (A m = C+ w -h 0 (A (D 0 -6. C+ [email protected] (D C-0. = %< C-0- %< m to C-91 Cl+ 110 1 -A- Pr 0V) OP -S 0 (A 0 = -S = -S (M (D -A-(n = s 0 0) -.4 cn --h 0 7rto -h m 11% UD no t7 C-0- W 0 0 -s C+ m 0 n Ow 1w C+ C+ -h 0. lw @E C+ 0) [email protected] M-h = 4,-= C+ o -0 CID* m (D 0 w C-D. -lh (D Cl+ C-le -4. = o 0 0 -h -S (r+ (D (D'@Z W (M 0 -S --J. cr 0 M 0 00 a (A -4. --h C) 0. t7 0. n m x 0 0 -0 :q 0 = CD C-0- a -.4 (D X -S C-0- w - a = iw = a = 0) .o. 0, CD V) -.00 th M m 0 m n 0 C+ = X (A = a. CL a L4 4 -h -S a) CA 0) cn CD -5 CD -gh -S c+ M ICL = = @fb (A -J. 0; w (D = 0) V) C+ rD- (D -S O(M 0 W -S C+ C+ C-0. C+ C+ :z C+ .. U2 C== CL 0 0 (A V) m -S .. 0' mj. 0 =0 m "a = (M IV a C-Q. 4r+ (A CD cr Al too 6h =r --o) c-o- CD cl. (D 0. -h M 5 (D m C) m 0 0n Q$ (D -S CD @. En @. -1 m -J. C36 CL -i- U) -S C+ 0 0 to r- U) 0 0 (A 0 :E C+ -, ---- tw -0 fm C+ :50 0 0) -4 = =3 .. -S IW r- c 23 a --a (D a) 00 C cr a (A Lo m C+ > W (D (D 0 = sm 3 a M 0 0. CL IW CD C= = -1. -A. o= as c 0' (A (a C-D. to (D M CA 13 M -h C+ C+ go (A C,9* C110, --a -S a c1l, CD 0 m CD (A n m (A U) -S rt 1w --I. (A 'D 0 -S 0 CL M 0; 0) CD C-D. w 9D (D -1 m --9 clt "S -0. -a. iw (D IV C19. -0. U) 0 cr (D 0 (D (A (A 0 C+ -S cn CL M CL 0 (D 0 0 0 00 0 0 E alp A. KR 0 0 0 -:z I s E Eli V3 a 0 0 0 a HIP 0 0 a CD C 0 00 0 0 0 L9 0 change in fthavloral Habitat COnCentr1tiW Decreased Reduced Eut] puma Growth Rates and Alteration and Estuarine Assfella CorArf. He I th Reproductive OniffCOtION Productivity Capacity Individuals HIM Key to Bio-Physical Checklist Changes "; Toxins in and in Food Chain Swig$ Ce""Ition 5. flocculation and precipitation of suspended materialsi adsorption on particles 0 6. coating of organisms: interference with- feeding and respiration of molluscs, crus- taceans, and bivalves -0--e- 0 7. coating of organisms: decrease in photo- synthesis of algae and rooted aquatics a 0 8. coating of organisms: disruption of insu- lation and buoyancy of diving birds 0 0 9. reduced light penetration: decreased photosynthesis and primary productivity 0 10. blocked airborne oxygenation of water: decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations. 1 -11, 0 C Increased freshwater flow into estuary 1. reduced salinity: reduced dissolved oxygen,saturation limit 8 SLIPS AND BERTHS (MARINAS)$ ASSOCIAT ED SERVICES C Reduced flushing and mixing of waters 1. retention of pollutants: decreased d 'issolved oxygen concentrations 9 2. reduced oxygenation of waters: decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations --a. 0 3. changed salinity -0- 0 4. increased water temperature: decreased -dissolved oxygenconcentrations 0 - 0 5. precipitation of blanket of sludge: altered substrate 0 C Increased sedimentation 1. smothering of bivalves, other bottom dwellers 2. altered substrate F 6. C Leaching of toxins from anti-fouling paints Cn 1. accumulation,of toxins in organisms 00 C-) w r%3 0.4 CD kD 00 -4 M UP Pb w ?,,a a) = I a 0 C+ CL W @-w C+ iv C+ V) 0) Ia. C) m 0 0 Is m 0 -h= 0 M cu @< C+ 0 r) :3 CD (7000 C+i=O 0 0 CLC+w = P a M W C+O C+O 0 01= W a -S -S 0, -S r IS 0 C+ a -,. Ct, C+ C+ IA C.,r+ M 0 < 0 CL iw c+ M M tw 0 0 M A' 0 0 0 =r C+ -A- -j- -S -S M C+ -S 0 = -S 0 0 0 CLC+W M W M = M 0) = = M -0 U) -'-'0 C) 0 iw (A w C+ c - U) 0-4< CL un W(M Otato i2l --jc CLO-= 0 m 3:0 C+ 0 m m m n 0m pi -8. M -a no V) -1 U3 "S m m C+MM-% C+= Miw C+-= 0 0 0 w wo 0 C+ C+ a) U) 0) no 0) 0 q:7 -A. -J. "., @. = @. 0. -+, -h = = -h- -J- -h @- c+ C cm+ = 0 c+ LA (A 0 cx 47 lw 00 M -1 m (a 0 (n 0. 0(j) 0 -A. C7 -A. CL -b -J. -.a = -A. -1 = -h -.J. cr (A = cr 0 -h 0 0 0) = m = 0 (A 0 0 J. 0 3E (A M -A. ..(A 0 - C+ C -S -S -S -S CL M = C+ = (n o 0 w w = 0 tn w -S w 0 Un W = 0) M cc (A IW M 0 yr 4)0 M -h 2 0 = a 4< p -0 = w 0 0 = -S 0 wo a -00 --A in. 0 --1 M 0) M AP UZ M'O = -S 0. (A -h c+ -h M -h M CL < 2 -1 t7tw < = = = iw --d- @-Io CL M M m m UM W (M M 0 MM 0 (A M (A Cr -S (A C+'U M 0 0 -h -S C+ DIM=WOMMX c+,<a -S C+ --h 0 0. M = C+ w 4< 'o -I U) 0) (A < C+ (A 0 CD -S M X 00 M . 0 UZ -S W 0 - - = - -0) -A- - -= 0 =r M - (/) X --h -S G) >( M c+ --h M 0 CL ='a l< - 0) l< = - = 0 --% M W -. 0 in 0 W a) -S CM Qj 9b 0 0. CL -S M m Co. C+ M -S = m -S cr MC'+ -S ----0 M(A 0 0 0 V) = (M CU =-.C< < to o 0 -h C+"o 0) -a cr A# to 0 -4. -S C+ Is m no C+ 0 M 0 0 a) m0 = M = a M m -S -S - C+ (ID M 0 (ID 0 m C+ 0 n " 0 -S rL(Q -0 cx 0 0 -h C+ 0' C+ C16 M - (A -S C+ = 0 0 = 00 m C+ V) (D -a. = m -4.0)-O(o on C IM c) -h CL 0 cr - 00 M -1 0 -S 23 - m 0) M a M M C -S -a. C) .0 a m --40 M m --A 0 = JW c cr =:E o (D -i = c - u)= m --h no M = @< -0. (a C+ C+ -S C+ 0) lr+ 0) M 0) 0 0 w qc+ C+ 1w (n ob -S [email protected] -,- -S C+ (A M 0 C+ (Am (A (A A Ap m C+ w 1w M -A.a v o o C+ C+ -5. c-+"-S -.0. 0 =1 X 0 m @. 0 -a... C+ (A 0 -4. -3 0 o k< C+ C+ m cr m :3 (D =r C+ 0- CL (A (A a IA m 0 0 E) 0 0 0 0 a CD 0 rx 0 0 49 .21 A V wil 0 H 69 C-) C-) C-) C-) C-) M (n 4b W r%) -.8 --1 00 @4 ?I @n ;11, @O U) -,J Cl --I r7l CD (A 0 V) (D (D M -0 (D o -a M "a -S U) Cr -h 0 "o m 0) C+ 0 -S -1 S -S -S CD -S 'I M "5 -S CD @M C -A- -a- C< (D -S M c+ rr a 4 (1) (b --4 0 0 0 0 = 0 -J. = 00 m 0"o < 0 --J.O (A 0 0 0 = 0 = 0 0) Is P- fl)) C) C+ (A M (A aCD V) 0- SZ (n -1 W -S c+ -5 c+ -'S -S -S M -S M -S Pi = crto != t- CD -J- C+ -J- 0 C+ -J- C 0 =5 c+ fD (D (D M (D fD (D (D c+ (D C)i c+ (D = - 0- 0) CD 0 M- @D 10 00,10 -S -S 0 0 m I= -S w -S 0 -S 0 0 0 -S 0 -5 0) 0- 0 C+ a w m (A -h (A 0 w w w w (n P) L') 0 C+ -a. P) CD (n (D (D CD (D M CD c+ (D c+ CD LO a CD CA tA @. 'D -A. < T-J [email protected] r-L" M M CL CL CL CL - 0-'a -j- CL C M 0) W -S = 0 -S 0 --j-=, fa. m 0 -S 0 --a = 0 C+ Pi m CD cl, [email protected] C+ c1f. 0 C+ C+ Q (A 0 CA rD (r+ C+ C+ C+ = C+ 0 = C+ --A C+ CA ;a C r_- C ca. a ce, 4-t. r,2 fD r+ (D -S a r_ c a C: m c: l< =r m 5 -a -1a -S (1) CL =1 CL CA -S -S -5 -S a Is a a -S 0 9v :53 :E: cr cr cr Cr C') QL cr Lo (D C7 Cr cr Cr 010 0' (D -h c+ -n -4. C+ M -J. t,4 + -1 F3 C+ M @. -S C4. C+ @t:. 0- _n_,o CL - 0 CL ::3 m CL a- o. rL a aL - FD o. 6 -h a. o m n [email protected] -.:.a) -J. < -S -4. @r-i- cr =5 -A, @. -0 -a.< 0 -4. (/) fD -5 [email protected] ci. C.). -a. rL) Cl+ -.r C) C+ 0 C+ cf, c+ W c+ @- -S c+ - (D C+ w C+ 0) -h c+ (D '< 0 Q. C+ C+ C+ iw -- = -J. CD 0 m 1 (1) 1 .1.0 -J. 0 -J. cn Ef CD 0- 0 a 0 CD CL m @Q 0- :E m -S 0 m 0. 0 -+j = (D m a" C+ c (D -.a m a m 0 C) CX :3. (D --J - c-t- 0 (D 0) 0 0. 0 CA 0 0 = 0 77! -h :z C+ CL 0 (A @% @o 0 CD 0 -S (D CD C W ::r 0 (D =r -S CL 0L C+ ;a 0 m c+ (D 0) CA -S 0 -.h pi 0 m 0 C) ro (a tn Pi 0 w -r3 -r --a a -h m Lo it) C+ 0) e-j- :> [email protected](Q (n (A -S Q c+ fD 0 CD CLCO CA (D 0 V) (D (D C= '< (D _.;. , 1 -1 LO (D (D -1 C+ -4. CA m W v) Ln 0 CL m (D (A (D -00 @La l< 0- C+ -h C+ C-i. 0) m =r 0 a -h =r C+ -S 0 a C+ C+ -.A - P) -a @@i (D (D [email protected]@ -J. -4. m -0 .-21 uj =r -J. (40 < . -b a --h CD La CA Lo to 0 =S -h (D =r (D U3 m ;o CA --j CL =r =r CD Lo :E w - m C+ V) =1 (a CL W ru m C-i- (n [email protected] -a. U3 CA 0) m -4. C+ (D Rl -Is pi 0 0 Cl+ M F3 (1) CA 0 0 A rw (n Pi C+ -h 0 -0) -S a Cl+ -h (A C+ (A oj CL 0 0 0- 0 0 0 cc a so a VIE* I i4 OD Pi CD S a 0 0 0 0 eme 0 9-5 iq I OL charge Intft Behavioral Habitat Concentrati Decreased Beduced Eutrophic Change In am Growth Be and Alteration and tstuarime Assimilative Condition WAdw Of Health Reined tive gnificati Productivity Capacity, Irwividuals N .. d Changes "; To n Jnj In (ey to Bio-Physical Checklist I..d Cohasin MEMO =ties 7. erosion: turbidity interference with filterfeeders 8. erosion: sedimentation - smothering of - bivalves, other bottom dwellers 9. erosion: sedimentation alteration of substrate .72 PHYSICAL IMPACTS Propeller eutting The effects of propeller cutting are discussed by Clark and Niering (239, 240). If power boats are used in shallow areas, destruction of rooted aquatics by propeller action may occur. Zieman reports preliminaryanalyses of experiments undertaken in the Florida Everglades indicate that rooted aquatics may be severely depleted by prop cutting, depending on the tegenerative characteristics of the species and the intensity of power boat activity.* 'The species composition of the estuary may also be narrowed through a decrease in the available herbivore food supply and through destruction of the habitat of various marine organisms (199, 239, 240). The plant debris, if it accumu- lates on the bottom may alter the substrate and consdquently the habitats of indigenous organisms. Dissolved oxy%en concentrations may decrease as the result of bacterial action in breaking down the increased asmunt of organic matter (239, 208). Habitat conditions may be altered, and eventually species composition changed. Eutrophication may be speeded up as the ability of the water body-to,assimilate, wastes is reduced. If washed up on marsh fringes, large amounts of propeller cuttings could interfere with living vegetation and cause a further decrease, albeit a probably insignificant one, in primary productivity, as well as alteration of the marsh edge habitat during the growing season (240). The effects of propeller action depicted above, however, are probably rarely significant. inasmuch as they will be highly localized. In addition, Work in progress, Department of Environmentgl Science, University of Virginia, personal Communication. 73 boaters will tend to avoid shallow areas colonized by rooted aquatics be.cause of the potential for,fouling"pf their,propellers by the vegetation. 'Boat. *ke The principal impact of boat wakes is an increase in localized turbidity, caused by the resuspension of bottom.sediments and any induced shore erosion. Clark and Niering-discuss the relationships in the appendices to this report. Hollis, Boone, DeRose, and Murphy (103) document theritharmful effects of turbidity on fish growth and repvoduction. Anderson (100) has done work on the impact of boat waves in New England tidal flats. Das (101) studied wave characteristics of a cargo ship and a pleasure cruiser, moving at varaiius speeds and in different depths of water, to determine peak wave energies and effects on erosion, moored vessels, and docks. In that study, the speed of the craft was found to be a ..very importafit parameter. The wave energy present in boat wakes and the turbulence resulting from the movement of boats in the water stirs up the unconsolidated sediments of estuary bottoms, which can alter the substrate and the habitat of benthic organisms, and increase ambiek turbidity levels (239,@40). Toxins and obnoxious gases may be released when the sediments are disrupted and may accumulate.in the tissues of marine organisms ( 239, 119). The increased particulate matter in the water may also result in the flocculation and precipitation of planktonic algae (10, 106) which would cause a decrease in primary productivity, since, as the base of the food chain, they play a vital role in the maintenance of estuarine productivity. Primary productivity can be further reduced by the reduction in light penetration caused by increased turbidity (239,240,11.9). Sight feeders [email protected] hindered by the reduced light. Particulate matter can affect not only algae, but mussels, oysters 74 and other filter feeders, and fish must adapt to these conditions (103). Changes in growth rates, behaviovaland reproductive patterns, and conceivably, in their numbers can be expected, depending on impact severity. In narrow water bodies or waterways, the impact of boat wake on the shoreline is likely to cause erosion (240). Depending on whether the existing -rate of erosion in an area is initially high or low', the impact from boat wake may accelerate the natural process of erosion or.have relatively minor effect. A high erosion rate is considered to be a loss of more than 0.2 acres of shore per mile per year (22). Where erosion is already rapid, the impact of the wake generated by high speed cruising or waterskiing can be high; wake caused by fishing, sailing, and other low-speed activities will not cause any sig- nificant erosion of the shore. Prop Wash The turbulence resulting from the action of propellers, referred to as "prop wash", may also be responsible for the resuspension of unconsolidated. bottom sediments. The problem is especially severe when the bottom sediments are fine,.since small particles are more readily resuspended (103). k The actual physical disruption of benthic organisms (amphipods, annelids, 'crabs and shellfish) can be an immediate effect, but in addition, the suspended particles can smother bivalves and interfere with filter feeders (240). Yousef (107) concludes that resuspension of solids from the bottom and aquatic macrophytes can result from boating activity, particularly in shallow areas of less than 5' in depth. The increase in turbidity was generally accompanied by increases in organic carbon and phosphorus concentrations. However, he notes the necessity for further research to determine the s1gnificance of these effects. 75 In areas of bottom sediments of fine particle size, boat wake and propeller wash from boats engaged in cruising or waterskiing may have a relatively high impact in terms of sediment resuspension. The higher speed ranges generally associated with these activities will produce more severe impacts than the wake and wash generated by fishing,wwhich does not require high speeds or constant mov-ement. Ifi addition, skiing., since it occurs nearer shore (where water is shallower and sediments are nearer the surface) a greater percentage of the time, will probably produce more sediment resuspension than other boating activities. If bottom sediments are coarse, however, the likelihood of severe sediment resuspension by any boating activities is minimal. Noise Although the technical appendices do not mention the effects of noise from [email protected]'b,aat:opera.t-idns,',Sorenson-.does cite--noise-Las.being:disruottve-to-wildlife often resulting in an alteration of behavior patterns and possibly in abondon- ment of habitat. However, there is no further discussion of the severity of this impact.- Studies are needed to determine how often wildlife disturbance is directly dependent on noise; whether or not wildlife adapt to certain noise levels; what levels of noise will seriously impair the functioning of organisms. In some respects, airport noise studies may be useful in spite of the differences in decibel levels and other conditions. The recreati,onal boat noise problem is recognized in a study by Magrab (104). Taking measurements of noise from boats with various sizes of motors, he found that most motors emit an unacceptable level of noise to people in the vicinity of boating operations. He does not consider wildlife; instead, he assesses the impact of noise on other recreationists and boat operators; noise can be a safety hazard in times of limited visibility when aural signals are essential, as well as cause permanent hearing damage to individuals. 76 Dredging Dredging, an activity closely associate4 with the construction and main- tenance of channels and marina facilities, is discussed in some detaW in the technical appendices of this report. The removal of materi0s:from-the bottoms of estuaries to increase water depth and facilitate ship or boat handling may have a high impact on the estuarine environment, which can be further intensified by the general frequency andwidespread nature of this practice. The immediate effect of dredging is obviously an alteration of the substrate., Benthic fauna and rooted vegetation are also removed when bottom material is removed (167,234,119). Thus habitat is destroyed, primary producers are eliminated, and the population of benthic fauna is reduced. These changes, depending on the extent of dredging activities, may in turn alter the species composition of the area through the reduction of the available food supply. Fish and other organisms higher in the food chain may emigrate in search of food and may suffer changes in growth rates, behavior, and reproductive patterns, If the reduction in population densities is sufficiently severe, certain species may be eliminated (119). Aside from the material removed, the process itself causes sediment re- suspension and increased turbidity. As discussed previously, trace metals, toxic substances, and obnoxious gases may be released when bottom sediments are disrupted and may be concentrated in organisms, or they may be incorporated into 0 bottom materials again (92).1 Flocculation and precipitation of algae may beanother result (103). Turbidity reduces light penetration and photosynthesis, again possibly affecting primary productivity. Alsc, if nutrients are released, the increased nutrient 77 availability could stimulate algae blooms, hastening the eutrophication process (119). The suspended particles may also interfere with the normal activities of marine animals, as described in the siltation and tur�idity literature review(103). On the other hand, the action of suspended clay particles in "scrubbing" or adsorbing toxins, metals, and other contaminahts may constitute a beneficial effect, . according to Gustafson (102). By deepening water basins and channels,-dredging alters water circulation patterns. This can be a major causative factor in that water circulation affects so [email protected]'habitat [email protected] parameters.. Clark points out that nutrient and 41 pollutant concentrations and retention times, salinity, mixing, sedimentation, and shore erosion are all affected when c irculation patterns change. The impact is inversely proportional th the si.ze of the water body and the flushing IN rate; in other words, the larger the water body and the greater the flushing rate, the milder the impact of a change in circulation. The concepts of "contamination potential" and"turbidity potential" are useful in attempting to predict the impact which a change in circulation will have on a spec-ific water body (239). In general, decreases in circulation are detrimental to water Oody ecosystems, especially if they are receiving high inputs of pollutants and nutrients, since contaminants are not as readily flushed from the system (239). Decreased water movement usually decreases the dissolved oxygen content by reducing oxygenation; water temperature usually rises, which means that less oxygen can be dissolved in the water..., Reductiob.inAissolved [email protected] limits the ability of the water body to assimilate wastes, and leads to the creation of anaerobic conditions., Changes in spectes composition will parallel.these habitat changes (208). 78 Research on the effects of dredging has been quite extensive. Information used in the Bio-Physical Checklist comes primarily from the technical appendices and Sorenson (167). Filling and Spoil Disposal Spoil disposal, as oonsidered in the Bio-Physical Checklist, refers only to the deposition of dredge spoil in estuarine waters or-in marshes and wetlands (excluding those sites that may lie inland Spoil disposal is a consequence of the dredging activities previously discussed; wherever channels and marina facilities are being constructed or improved by dredging,.disposal,of the excavated material will be a Problem. Filling is often a means of creating additional area for the development or expansion of boat-related shore facilities, and marsh and,wetland areas are often prime candidates for destruction by filling. Utilization of marshes and watlands for the disposal of dredgd spoil, or the filling of them for marina constructi-on, may result in severe depletion of the marsh vegetation, thus reducing primary productivity, and altering a habitat for numerous organisms.(167, 199, 119). As "filters" of pollutants and 40 suspended sediments, they also affect water quality and turbidity levels (199). Spoil dumped in estuarine waters may smother shellfish and other organisms' (199, 119, 240). However, McLeod (119) points out that recolonization generally takes place on the dredge spoil fairly rapidly. Turbidity may be a problem at the disposal site, since much of the spoil remains in suspension. Coitaminants that may be in the spoil can be released into the water, possibly being accumulated in the tissues of organisms (119). 79 An additional effect may.be an increase in nutrients leached into the waters and a subsequent localized algae bloom (119). Fills and spoil banks in the water restrict its movement, with possible consequent changes in habitat conditions: changes in nutrient and pollutant concentrations and retention times, changes in salinity, temperature, dissolved oxygen, mixing.1patterns. sedimentation, and shore erosion (239). Changes in species composition, usually reduction in numbers of individuals and in diversity and abundance of species, can be induced through the elimination of marsh and wetland vegetation, alteration of the substrate, and decreases in dissolved oxygen concentrati .ons and increases in harmful substances in the water (167,119,240,208). Most of the information presented is found in the Clark and Niering appendices, and additional information comes from Sorenson's work (167). There does exist adequate data on the impacts of filling and spoil disposal on esturaine ecosystems, for future applications to specific locational studies. Channel alterations Clark devotes several pages (239) to an evaluation of the impacts of channels and a4terations made in existing waterways. The realignment, deepening, and widening of channels can cause reduced flushing and mixing of estuarine waters. When severe, this restriction of water circulation can lead to a major change in the dissolved oxygen concentrations of a water body, as well as a degradation of water quality in general, due to the retention of pollutants, increased tempera- tures, changed salinities, and reduced oxygenation of the water (239). Reduced circulation may also induce the precipitation of a blanket of sludge, which makes the substrate unsuitable for benthic organisms and rooted aquatics. 80. Freshwater inflows are often changed when channel alerations are made; if the salinity is greatly increased or greatly reduced, habitats can be altered, organisms can undergo,changes in behavioral and reproductive patterns, and species composition can change (161). For example, anadromous fish migration may be restricted if salinity increases in the upstream areas where they spawn (239). Whenthannel maintenan-ce.necessitate.s periodi'c dredging, additional.impacts may ensue.. "These.have been discussed in prior sections. Circulation.problems can be especially severe in artificial, deep box-cut channels, when inadequate flushing causes stagnation of the water and a reduction in dissolved oxygen (239). As stressed previously, dissolved oxygen concen- trations determine the kinds of organisms that inhabit a particular area, and changes in oxygen concentrations can substantially affect species composition. Encroadhment of structures Clark (199,239) and Sorenson (167) consider the impacts of docks, piers, bridges, causeways, bulkheads, breakwaters, and other structures encroaching in water bodies and waterways. Immediately apparent is the fact that changes in water quality are induced when encroachment substantially restricts flushing and mixing 4. of the waters in bay and harbor areas and in inlets and passes. These can in turn affect the habitats (water quality and substrate conditions) of benthic, littoral, and marine organisms, and induce changes in species abundance and diversity (167 239 9119,208 The influence of such structures on water quality and ecosystems is often overlooked once the initial construction period is over. However, i t should be 81 rewm*ered that flushing rates are vital determinants of water quality and that restriction of waier movement will have far-reaching consequ ences. Further studies would be useful in providing data on the extent of changes in water flow patterns; design of structures should be such that their restriction of water flow is minimal, Information of this kind was not readily available in the literature identified under this study. Navigational aids Little data is available on the effects of navigational aids on wildlife. The types of aids considered in the bio-physical checklist are those that utilize lights or sounds in their warning signals. Responses of organisms to flashing lights or tolling bells are not well known, but it can be assumed that there is some influence,on behavior patterns. Sorenson (167) indicates that navigational aids may cause abandonment of feeding and nesting grounds and inhibit reproduction, all of which, in severe instances, would endanger the survival of rare species. The Present level of knowledge does suggest, however, that this impact is minor and that the beneficial effects of navigational aids outweigh any,ecological di-sadvantages. PHYSICAL-CHEMICAL IMPACTS Disposal of Sewage and Trash The introduction of large amounts of sewage effluent and fore.ign substances into a water body may degrade local water quality, be detrimental to the organisms therein, and ereate human health hazards. Several major problems can be created by the disposal of,sanitary wastes in Bay waters. From a recreationist's 82 standpoint, increases in the coliform content beyond a certain level mean that these waters-must be closed to all water-contact recreation. Shellfish harvesting must also be prohibited, since shellfish are known to accumulate high concentrations of bacteria. In addition, refuse tossed overboard adds organic matter and in some cases, nutrients, and/or unsightly debris (litter) which may slosh around.in the Bays and in harbors, sink to the bottom, or wash-uO on shore.; t4ith regard to the presence of coliforms, Lear, et. [email protected] (15) determined that a slight inc,rease in col-iforms occurred with the congregation of pleasure yachts, in a [email protected] undertaken at Miles River along the eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay. Hopkins and Sanderson (11) noted a significant deterioration in the sanitary quality of the waters of Selby Bay off the South River over the July 4th weekend, 1965, and predicted that health standards could be exceeded if the trends in increase in boating activities continued. Cassin, Smith & Frenke, (3), in a 1971,study of the Great South Bay off the south shore of Long Island, concluded that during the peak Labor Day period, coliforms entrained by clams were in excess of standards impoted by the New York State DeparUient of Environmental Conservation. Also, Seabloom (22) concluded that [email protected] introduction of small boat wastes into two bays in the State of Washington clearly influenced the bacteriological quality of the water. However, while the above studies, together with other research noted in the bibliography, indicate definite relationships between wastes resulting from boating activity and water quality, it.is difficult to assess the contribution of boating,wastes relative to other contributors septic tanks), particularly during peak periods when other re-reatlon activities substantially increase. In addition, Furfari and Verber (7) point out that traditional coliform counts are not good 83 indicators of waste disposal from small boats, as the input is in the form of fresh wastes rather than sewage. An increase in organic matter, such as occurs when garbage is disposed of overboard, can stimulate an increase in the breagdown of such material. The bacteria that do this must consume oxygen in the process, and if the amount of organic matter being broken down requires more oxygen-than is bding replenished by aeration or photosysthesis, there will be a net decrease in the amount of dissolved oxygen available (224, 227)b A major change in the dissolved oxygen concentrations in a water body can alter the habitat conditions, resulting in a change in species composition. Those species [email protected] of low oxygen conditions will proliferate, whereas those species requiring high oxygen concentrations, usually condidered as ahe more desirable species from a fisheries and game biologist's perspective, will diminish or disappear (161, 225, 226, 227). If initial dissolved oxygen concentrations are high, the intensity of impacts resulting from sewage, trash, and debris disposal will not be high; but where dissolved ozygen is low, the introduction of excess pollutants and debris may produce significant deleterious effects. Fourth, an increase in nutrients can result from sewage and trash disposal. A rapid increase in planktonic algae wil.1 most likely occur. The consequences of this so-called algae bloom are unpleasant conditions for swimmers and other recreational users of the water, and eventually, a hastening of the eutrophication 4 @process (119, 2.40). Anti-Fouling Toxins The paints which are used to coat dock pilings and the undersides of boats 84 contain toxic substances to prevent the growth and encrusta tion of barnacles add other organisms- A commonly used anti-fouling agent is copper, whi.ch leaches into the water and which couldreach damaging, levels (119). It has been observed, by McLeod (119) and by Nixon, Oviatt, and Northby (136) that copper accumulates in the tissues of the fouling species but that it does not seem to be concentrated by other organisms inhabiting estuarine waters. 0 Stewart et. al. (90) have further studied the effects of copper from anti- fouling paints; the significance of these effects was noted to be largely de- pendent on flushing rates. Erickson et. al. (57) report an inhibition of growth of phytoplankton in waters of high copper concefitrations. Heavy metals are.!studied by Lloyd (75) in relation to fish. Gas and oil spillage !,-'This:@'is-th'e field in which most boating-related research has been concentrated. @'M'ch'of:the stimulus for such investigation comes from the incidence of oil u .7spi:Us'from.commercial tankers and the widespread and severe consequences of ,such spills to all forms of aquatic life. Several of the references included in the bibliography are directed to this problem, but all are applicable to an analysis of the effects of gas and oil spillage associated with recreational boat- ing. Bell (38) and Clark (46) address, themselves to the overall impact of oil pollution on aquatic life. Studies of a more specific nature are done by Carthy and Arthur (45) and by Cowell (47) in their works on oil pollution in relation to littoral comunities. Brown and Tischer (41).and Blu'mer' (39): are concerned with the decomposition and retention of petroleum products and hydrocarbons in waters and sediments. The effects of oil pollution on 85 vegetatton are considered by Baker (37), while numerou-s.reports-dea-l-with the reactions of animal life to the introduction of hydrocarbons to their habitats: Anderson et al. (35)@, Farrington and Ouinn (58), Hartung and Klinger (62). diames (65)4 Lee, Sauerheber, and Benson (74,1',n., Pickering et al.(82).', and.,' Spooner Moore, Dwyer, and Katz @(88) include tables showing toxic effects of o'll on finfish, shellfish, gastropods, andi-crustaceans. Fuel f-rom outboard motors, discharged into the water forms fine oil-water droplets that can be bound to the surfaces of organic sediments, sand, silt, and debris. In this manner hydrocarbons can be incorporated into the bottom sediments (31,,)#: changing the substrate to an extent, and being taken.up by plants through their roots (30). When the plants die and decay, providing. detrital matter for the consumption of other organisms, hydrocarbons may become concentrated in the food chain (240). Many hydrocarbons have been found to be carcinogenic (31,:32):-and the severity of their impact may be magnified at e c ach trophi level.* -More on carcinogenic hydrocarbons,is found tn Zobell,(98)., Sanders et al. point out, in addition, that oil,.coating algae, marsh grasses, [email protected] invertebrates, and crustaceans, will cause los e -of these organisms (33). s s Lobsters in general appear to be resistant.to petroleum, and fi.nfish, being mobile, can avoid areas where gas and oil spills occur. However, algae and the vascular plants of marshes are not, and when coated,with oil, their photosynthetic processes are greatly reduced, which reduces the primary productivity in that area and possibly the productivity of the estuarine system as a whole. Bottom dwellers, such as bivalves, and littoral species, such as the ga stropodds, barnacles, and tide pool organisms, are severely affected (119). 'Oil spills--,destroy-.thO-habit_ots---of:isopods, amphipids, and crabs. Diving birds 86 are particularly susceptible to oil on the water's surface (167). Food-ghthering activities of many organitms maybe hindered (119). Oil and gas in the water can cause the flocculation and precipitation of suspended materials, and in this, form become adsorbed'by silt and clay particles in the bottom dediments, as described by Harrison (31). Besides being concentrated in plants and detrital matter, hydrocarbons can be accumulated directly by certain organisms, in particular the filter feeders--clams, oysters, and mussels. McLeod stresses that the severity of most of the above-mentioned effects depends on length oU exposure (119). The presence of a flobable scum on the water's surface has two major effects, describedl--by Sorenson (167).. First, the layer of oil and gas can prevent airbbvne oxygenation of the water, as a result of which the dissolved oxy�en concentration gradually decreases as oxygen is used up by organisms. Secondly, the reduced light penetration can effect a decrease in the photo- synthesis of green plants, causing decreased primary productivity and in some cases decreased estuarine productivity. Hydrocarbon pollution from recreational boating activities, though not as potentially damaging on-a large scale as that from commercial tanker spills, may in some areas produce significant adverse environmental effects. In particular, where oil spills occur fairly regularly and at frequent intervals in the vici-nity of marinas and service docks, aquatic Vegetation in the area may be severely damaged through the,introduction of toxins or smothering ,substances. However, MdLeod notes that there is very little information on the long-term sublethal effects associated with chronic, low-volume spillaqe (119)4 87 Exhaust Fumes The effects of exhaust-emissions into Bay waters may be manifested in the tainting of fin- and shellfish flesh, including commercially harvested species (55, 93, 86), and in the degradation of air and water quality by the odou of fuel and exhausli emissions (99, 89)1 Numerous studies have been undertaken on exhaust emissions in general, and with specific reference to tainting of fis h and odor problems. English, Surber, and McDermott (55) determined in laboratory tests that outboard motor exhausts can produce an unpleasant taste and odor in water, resulting in the off-flavoring of fish flesh, if introduced into the water in significant amounts. Stewart and Howard .(89) also report on exhaust induced odors in water samples. Elaborate studies have been conducted by Kuzminski and others (68-72) regarding,various effects caused by the introduction of exhaust emissions into water. Generally, they concluded that unless extremely high levels of fuel were burned and emitted into receiving waters by outboard motors, toxic effects on benthic and algal species were insignificant. Engine exhaust and large scale marina parking facilities may both produce adverse impacts on air quality (99, 89, 167). The exhaust fumes produced by outboard motors have been considered nuisance factors by some critics. Further effects of [email protected] on plants, wildlife, and humans are not fully known. 88 RELATIVE IMPACTS OF CAUSATIVE FACTORS Neither the Bio-Physical Checklist nor the accompanying key attempt to show the varying dJ_-grees of impact of the causative fact.-ors.considered. As discussed in the preceding sections, impacts vary Oth existing conditions in a specific area and with type of boating activity and on-shore facilities. Table.7, Relative Impacts of Causative Factors, has been developed to summarize how the impacts resulting from boating operational and facility factors compare relative to one another. The matriX on page 90 lists bio-physical parameters '[email protected] the top. This list is a condensed summation of the environmental effects, changes, and responses discussed in the previous sections. Causative factors associated with boating operational and facility factors are listed in the left-hand column of the matrix. These cadsative factors are linked to the bio-physical L parameters in the matrix in order to depict the relative intensity of the potential [email protected] of each factor on the environments of the Bay. Potential impacts due to the operation of recreational boats were evaluated as a function of the activity they are associated with. To simplify this analysis, boa-Ling activities were divided into three classes: fishing, cruising, and waterskiing. The impacts of causative factors associated with sailing acti- vities are negligible. Therefore sailing was excluded from the analysis. The potential impact of each causative factor on the bio-physical parameters can be traced through each of the three classes to provide an indication of the relative degree to which each boating activity affects the bio-physical para- meters. The [email protected] into the three classes is intended only, to be representative 89 here. A more specific classification of boating activities was discussed in Chapter -III- 6f**-.1this rep#,t. For analytical purposes, it was assumed that fishing takes place at low speeds, in activity periods averaging 7.48 hours, and within 5 miles of shore, 88.4% of thetttme. (166) There are generally less tha n 4'people/ boat. (166) Cruising, on the other hand, was assumed to.ta,ke place at higher speed ranges, and often in motorboats greater than 16' in length. 88% of cruising occurs within 5 miles of the shore, and the average outing time is 7.77 hours. (166) Third, it was assumed boats used for waterskiing must attain a minimum speed of 20-25 miles per hour. Waterskiing activity occurs with I mile of shore 80% of the 'time, and outi:ngs last an ave rage of 3.06 hours. Impacts of on-shore facilities were broken down into those associated with 4 marinas and those associated with docks and ramp�. The impact of a marina was Assumed to be greater in intensity than that of dock or ramp facilities because boats and related services are more concentrated in marina areas. On the other hand, a launching ramp often is no more than just that, with some parking pro- vided, and in some cases, picnic facilities. Service or mooring docks cannot accomodate the numbers of boats which most marinas can, so a less severe impact can ge predicted. In the Chesapeake B#y area there are many more marinas, public and private, than there are dock and ramp facilities. (210) C) -m C-) -Tj >> V A' M C-) __j (n -0 C:) C:5 :I::- > 1 0 M m Fri (n it 0 m Fish n 27. 0 Iz 1. " :N ,;:! -- -- IN necks Ell i IRmps BRI Tm [email protected], F,:, sh marinas Cruise !yg @?,@N D=ks a HO Y, '5E -ki [email protected],Ias - - - - cruise mom -17. :011 , - r r Ski N Marines Fish Cruise Pecks & Ramg)s Ski Fish Marinas FA. c 7 Docks [email protected], Ramps r, Inas C%- [email protected] 8 Ramp 5 Vmrinas I- Cruise Pecks wr-, T_ U) 4 ED V ;9 Vish LJ .7 t1j.. Cruise Do ks 0 (D 05 Raws S%i 14 Marines i Fish RMN Cruise Dock-, A Fm I I '. ... -0 M Wzr-,na, _-_J__ Cruise !Doc 12 S!(i P-1 1 Ramos Fish ZI EMU Em z. Ramas [email protected] F i sh Marinas Cruise Docks & EME 22 Ranps F_ m, Ski Firh Z,R! @, 7m. 103 3 1., [email protected] c r u i s a ____ @ I P Docks G I Ramps r on, M!Narinas X X 'ish Z. If m X Cruise 0" P, amps S Plari n-gs Ski RaWs Q Marinas Fish ic, IC ruise Doc C s & RanTs WA Ski r f- r- Fish lNrina$ r r Cru se [email protected] w M. IM Ski r ic r I- I- =I Fish ic ic -Z Ic cruise Docks _ff W 4 Ramps r rl Ski c-, _cl C:D > F_ r F sh 10 r "as k I-T 1-111 Ramp ru Doc s S i - s [email protected] ri __s 06 91 SUMMARY: ECOSYSTEM CARRYING CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS The recreational boating carrying-capacity criteria discussed in Chapter III, relate only to the idealized surface area needs of various boating activity types. As such, they are useful as first-round planning tools in the field of boating impact management. However, as the f6cus of inquiry begins to narrow towards the determination of site- specific carrying capacity standards, the planner and the decision maker must modify those standards in light of identified environmental sus- ceptibilities to boating activity and construction.. Specifically, given envi- ronmental-parameters become constratnts. upon boating related activities for either of two reasons; they directly affect the exercise of a given activity within. the geographical area under consideration, or they render that area especially susceptible to adverse environmental impacts from boating activities and related facilities.- .The effects of the former. were discussed in Chapter III. .These primarily include physiographic constraints: depth of the water body, openness of the water body, configuration of the shoreline, and the distance from shore where boating activities can take place free from physiographic constraints. 'These constraints will influence the location of boating activities and will affect the levels of congestdon over the water surface. From an analysis of the material presented in this chapter, key environ- mental constraints to boating activities in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays have been identified as warranting consideration in the planning and regulation of future boating activities within the bay region. These con- straints include: depth of the water body, water body type, shoreline erodibility characteristics, tidal flushing rates and circulation patterns, 92 location.of wetlands and productive marshes, location of rooted aquatics, location of finfish spawning areas and location of shellfish beds. Delineation of these constraints in map form has been undertaken in Part I of this study (see appendix C) and will be used in Part II to identify those areas of the bays especially susceptible toadverse impacts from boating activities and related facilities. A discussion of the ration- ale for selecting these constraints as indicatirs of areas subject to potential adverse impacts follows. A discussion of how the mapping of these constraints will be applied in the Boating Capacity Planning System is included in Chapter VI. 1) Depth Depth is an important parameter with regard to the ecological sensi- tivity of a given area. Shallow areas are more vulnerable to turbidity and sedimentation induced by boating activities than are deeper areas. In Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays this is of particular importande because many of the shallower areas are used as primary spawning areas by sensitive fin and shellfish species. In addition, water depth affects tidal flushing, which is an important determinant of sustained water quality, and thus the ability of a water body to absorb boating impacts. 2) Water Body Type and Width Classification of water body ty es is important in determining an areal.s p ecological sensitivity due to the effects that shoreline configuration, water body size, and water depth have on the locdl flushing rates and circulation patterns. For example, a broad [email protected] reach, or a wide coastal embayment will be tidally flushed in less time thania logoon or embayment made'up of many complex branched inlets. With other1conditions being equal, the former will 93 be less sensitive to boating related impacts than the latter, since potential pollutants will be more rapidly flushed from the area. 3) Shoreline Type and Erodibility As described in earl*er sections of this chapter, soft shorelines are especially vulnerable to boating relative impacts. Specifically, the most pronounced impact may be accelerated erosion of the shore resulting from the constant pounding of boat-generated wake. This-,,prob lem is severe in several areas of the bay region as evidenced @y the numerous requests submitted by property owners to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, asking for the imposit6on of boat speed limits to reduce erosion damage to their water- front properties. In addition to the losses of public and private property, accelerated erosion mayffurther destabilize the shoreline ecosystems and aggravate problems resulting from turbidity and sedimintation. In those Bay subareas where natural processes lead to high rates of shoreline erosion (greater than 0.2 acres/mile/year) careful attention must be paid to endure that boating operations do not exacerbate a currently severe problem. 4) Tidal Flushing The ability of an estuarine water body to adequately cleanse itself of pollutants will be determined to a large degree by tidal flushing rates and circulation patterns. In a well flushed area, impacts resulting ffom=the introduction of low amounts of pollutants, although of potential local signifi- cance may be of relatively short duration. Such areas can be considered to have the ability to support high levels of boating activity, unless the kinds of proximities of sensitive biota are such that even low levels of unaviodable 4 boating pollution threaten serious harm. A poorly flushed area will be 94 especially sensitive to such impacts, and may therefore be unable to support the number of boats suggested by an operationally derived carrying capacity standard. Many larger tributaries of Chesapeake Bay are apparently well flushed by combinations of river inflow and tidal action. However, it is in the smaller tributary, creek, or enclosed estuary, that most boating facilities and activity origins are located at present. For planning purposes, therefore, local flushing rate and circutation pattern data, integrated with. a compre- hensive analysis of ambient water, quality parameters., should be considered in evaluating the capacity of a water body to support given levels of boating activity. The availability of such ifformation will,determine the extent to which these factors can be adequately contidered.. 5) Wetlands and Productive Marshes Wetlands and mardh.es are among-the most important components of any estuarine ecosystem. Marshes provide food and shelter to many species of birds, mammals, fish and shellfish, and other forms of terrestrial and aquatic life. Wetlands and marshes are important sources of nutrient to surrounding water systems. They also function as natural protection against storms and erosion. However, they are parti'cularly sensitive to impacts generated by excessive boat traffic, particularly by oil and fuel spillage. Marsh edges which are soft earth banks or where the highly wave-resistant spartina alterniflora has been stripped away and S. Patens lies exposed, may be particularly vulnerable to aggravated erosion resulting from excessive wake. Such edges should be identified for boating capacity-planning purposes. 6) Submerged Grasses As with wetlands and marshes, submerged grasses are critical components 95 of sound, productive ecosystems (239). They provide feeding and nursery area for a variety of aquatic species, oxyginate the water, provide nutrients, and stabilize bottom sediments. Given their potential sensitivity to propeller cutting, turbidity and sedimentation, and the hazard which they pose in terms of propeller fouling, the presence of submerged grassbeds in shallow depths should be carefully considered in boating capacity planning. 7) Finfish Spawning Areas The Chesapeake Bay region has long been one of the most important and highly valued recreational fishing areas in the nation. The water of the Bay and its tributary river systems abound with a large number of finfish species, including herring, shad, alewife, menbacken, white and yellow perch, bluefish, flounder, striped bass, and more. A number of important species, including herrings and bass, spawn in shallow, low salinity upstream reaches during late winter and early spring. Their eggs and young may be particularly vulnerable to boating-originated toxic impacts. Thus, power boating activity in spawning areas should be restricted prior to and during the spawning season. 8) Shellfish Clam and oyster beds represent one of the most important commercial aquatic resources present in the Chesapeake and Chincoteague systems. Being filter feeders, shellfish are also particularly sensetive to boating related impacts. Thus, the locations of these areas should constitute constraints on boating activity. CHAPTER VI BOATING CAPACITY PLANNING SYSTEM 9.7 INTRODUCTION Earlier, a number of general critieria were cited for ensuring that a carrying 'Capacity management system woul.d be capable of optimizing boating recreational satisfactions while preventing environmental damage. Additional, criteria,,relat-ing to.the workabil-ity of the method, were employed by the consultants in the selection of the recommended system in order to ensure that its use by Maryland's Department of Natural Resources andlother involved agencies would be as effectIve as possible.in achieving the state's objectives. In brief, these critieria required that a boating capacity planning system would: 1) Provide for interrelating environmental sensitivity data'with.boating activity and facility planning.' Without a means for sounding,the alarm when impact occurs and for acting upon recei t of the signal, monitoring P the environment will rema.in an academic exercise. 2) Evaluate the boating resource supply realistically. Consider not juit the theoretical carrying capacity of each water body, but related land. use, community preferences, and landscape and ecosystem qualities as well. 3) Attend to questions of-use peak s as well as.average demand. Average demand will help determine the extent of needed new facilities,'but it is peaking (densities and intensities),which generally contributes to impact on user satisfaction or environmental quality, or both. 4) Be comprehensive, yet simple. The system must consider all aspects of boating and identified environmeh,tal sensitivites, yet it must be simple 98 enough to be easily understood and handled by field personnel, managers, and the general public. 5) Be dynamic. After the baseline studies (including this report) are completed, and projections of needs and plans made, the system should be able to rapidly accommodate data derived from new surveys and on-going monitoring. 6) Provide _quantitative data on all factors where poss'ible, but should also provide means for professional judgment on factors not practicably amenable to quantification. There will.be no practicable way other than professional judgment to determine the scenic value of a given shore area or to,!evaluate the legitimacy of property owners' opposition to the expansion of an abutting marina. Particularly in light of the present poor state of knowledge in the areas of boating user satisfactions and in boating environmental impact, the Maryland official with boating planning or management responsibilities should be supported with a system that can rely on sound Judgment. 7) Consider non-boating aquatic recreational supply, demand, and needs. Swimming, shore recreation, and shore fishing are important factorsIthat interface with boating. 8) Distinguish between water surfaces used for points of departure (e.g. anchorages and launching ramps),-passage (e.g. streams and channels); and destinations (e.g. activity areas). 9) Base use and peaking estimations on measurement field counts by Marine Police boat and plane, as well as by (future) remote sensing systems. 4 99, THE RECOMMENDED SYSTEM The 11-step planning system described on the following pages is desiqned to meet the previously defined criteria. Whether it can be judged as meeting the needs of the Department for a planning framework within which both boating recreational satisfactions and.environmental protection can be accomodatbd will be seen only with the testin of the system planned in Phase II ofthis study 9 (reported in Part Tw o of the report) and with the test of time if the system is adopted for Departmental use. As noted, VOP system design criteria favored the sele,,@'-I.Jon of a simplified approach to enhance its practical use. Nevertheliess, futur e efforts should be undertaken to establish automated, computerized processing and evaluation of data received from the field relative to conditions within management units. Computerized mapping should be considered as future Departmental capabilities permit, to enhance the reliability of representations made of observed or measured changes in sub-bay capacities, boating activity, or environmental quality. Remote sensing systems, utilized on a periodic basis, could fill important roles in the detecting and recording of boating activity and con- gestion, as well as in possibly correlating actilvity patterns with certain environmental effects. For the immediate future, however, the recommended system should meet the Department's objectives with ample effectiveness. 100 -i..'Unit Area Delineation ................. ...... $NX ............ The delineation of management units within sub-areas of Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays is an essential first step in developing a viable boating ,capacity planning system. Delineations of sub-areas of the Bays, which are termed sub-Bay units, and their subsidiary components, the management units, have been made by the consultants and are presented on the county maps. The primary basis of delineation of the sub-Bay units is the location of sub-sub-watershed divides, which in turn are the delineators*of water basin quality management areas under the standard classification system adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Maryland Water Resdurces Administration. This sharing o f a common basis of delineation will be bene- ficial, since water quality monitoring and evaluation can lead d irectly into suitable geographical management frameworks where boating environmental impact is'concerned. The primary basis of delineation of the management units is landform, and allows the identification of water surfaces set off from others by capes, points, spits, bars, and other promontories with navigational or operational significance. The same landforms are also indicative of constrictions in the water system which may act as factors in circulation and tidal flushing. The latter are important influences on ecosystem response to man-made.impacts. 101 2. Water Bodjt Classification W2 N2 The second step in constructing a boating capacity planning system is the classification of the water bodies--sub-Bay units and management units--deline- ated earlier. The purpose of classification is to establish characterization in terms of two morphological parameters important to both boating operations and environmental quality: water body size and shape and qeneralized shoreline configuration. The former will provide a clue as to the general capacity of the unit in question to sustain types ofactivities, numbers of users, and use intensities. The latter will indicate the general extent of the inshore zone which is partially or wholly protected from through speeding by shoreline in- dentedness. The indices which are employed iin this report's county maps are: Water Body Type (Size and Shape) Example A Open bays Upper Chesapeake Bay (Cecil/Harford) B Small bays/river'-inouths/dpen Chester River 1piver reaches (Kent/Queen Annes) C. Moderate width river reaches/ Patuxent River semi-open creeks (Calvert/St. [email protected]) D Upper river and narrow reaches/ Upper Severn River semi-enclosed creeks/[email protected] (Anne Arundel) fined and compound estu- aries 102 0 Sho reline Confi2uration Example 5 Simple (smooth/flat) Holland Point (Anne Arundel/Calvert) M Moderately indented Elk River (Cecil) C Highly indented Choptank River (Dorchester) A third classification parameter, bott om depth, is no less important thah the two described here..,` and will bt:-Jnvestigated and reported in Part Two of this report. Bottom depths and contours are significant determinants of.circulation and flushing, which, together with shoreline configuration, exert a strong degree of control over the disposition of pollutants that enter any given water body. The level of investigation of depth in Part Two-will also necessarily be generalized. It will remain the task of an ongoing research and monitoring effort, under the planning system,'to confirm the location of bottoms supporting sensitive or valuable'environmental features and the shore or water areas where, with tidal inf6eeneegi boating activity or facility development can affect t hese features. 3. Detailed Shoreline and'Nearshore Analysis .4 ".,* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Utilizing 1:24,000 scale topographical maps, nautical charts, the Maryland statutory wetlands maps, and available maps or plans of larger scale, the 10311, planning system will. analyze shorelines and benthic areas in order to determine: a1P the accurate location of existing eroding shorelines b)% the'location of steep shores in'exc4ss of percentages safely below threshbdlds of erosion-proneness c) the accurate location of wetlands d) existing land uses sensitive to boating facility development or expansion e) transportation access f) location of soft bottoms within.'the 6' contour g) location of the 4' contour in.areas of sandy bottoms which are not within impact proximity of sensitive environmental resources This information will allow the planner to delineate shoreareas where boating facility or related development should not take place for reasons of wetland displacement, erosion and resulting sedimentation, and land use, or zones in which prop wash and other factors may.cause significant turbulence, mixing, and @impact on sensitive biot4 (e.g., see Table 6). The use of the 6' contour at this tfine i's;recommended as a ttniinum precautionary depth for planning purposes, although current research (e.g., EPA, 1974, No. 107) has revealed evidence of mixing [email protected] sulting from outboard motor operation to depths of 15 feet. 4. Benthic Life Analysis In addition to the identification of env6ronmental sensitivities in the shallow zones, accurate I-ocation of benthic life sensitive to boating impact factors in the deeper waters should be made. Locations of oyster and clam (hard and soft) beds would be derived from the planned revised mapping of these resources by the Department of Natural Resources. Specific locations of fish spawning areas of indicator species and their seasonal limits should be recorded. Table 8 Generalized Shoreline Suitabilities for Boating Facilities Shoreline --Bl uf f Rising or Flat Marsh Boating pe Shoreland Facili Type High-rate eroding Low rate eroding shoreline shoreline Marinas, Low suitability Low suitability Moderate to high Low suitability Other large Excavations in bluff (critical) suitability. (critical) facilities will tend to cause measures to control or increase erosion erosion, water run- and aesthetic adverse off, and spillage impact is probable. of fuel, oil, and paints on drained surfaces should be adopted Single piers @Moderate suitab.il- Low to moderate Moderate to high Low suitability. ity, depending on suitability. Pier suitability. Pier except where [email protected]!- tao-equacy'--of'Access should carry over should be on pilings structed on pilings A -pi .o -er without shoreline on pilings with minimum marsh 'need to excavate and abut into grade (moderate suitability) bluff-face. at safe distances inland. Public land- Low suitability, Low suitability Moderate to high Low suitability ings (launch- except where*rei- (critical) suitability. Mea..i (critical) ing ramps) stricted parking sures to control spaces may be erosion, run-off, accommodated and spillage of fu6T at bluff base with- and oil should be out need for exca- adopted. vation Shore ine oa t- ng Type c it FFa 1 y i Type CD [email protected]* .106 5. Existing Peaking and Congestion Determination XXX Since the capacity planning system is intended to deal with problems of limits, peak use during peak use periods is of primary importance for determin-. ing whether use is approaching capacity. Important factors are: a), the numbers of boats moored at each boating facility, including owner association and individual finger piers (aggregated for each management unit) b) observed percentages of-boats under way for each facility at peak times during important weekends and seasons (important recreationally or ecologically) 0 the numbers of trailerboat spaces at public landings d), observed percentages of-bo'ats occupied by users at dockside only e) observed aggregated numbers of boats, by type and class, for water surfaces distinguished as to (f): f) differences between areas of origin (moorings, landings), areas of passage, and destinations (activity areas) observed accident occurrences h) other conflicts 6. Use Zone Delineation 4 general activity zones . . . . . . . harbor zones 0 (DX pa ssage zones special activity zones inshore zones Prior to determining general capacities in terms of numbers of boats or Users, individual zones within management areas should be established and should be based on the physical and navi4ational-operational criteria discussed above. This delineation should be made irrespective of policies and priorities for use, in order to establish zone boundaries that reflect basic morphological char- acteristics. In the following step (Step 7), each such zone will be efaluated in terms of boating recreational needs, and environmental, social/land use., aesthetic, and safety considerations. Delineation of zones at this or successive stages need not be interpreted as the establishment of regulatory zones, although this'latter effort,. for specific areas of conflict congestions, is a recommended procedure under Step 7. The proposed harbo t zone.designation would be applied to existing faeilities and approach waters and sites evaluated as suitable for future facilities. Passage zones would include all channels, and where considerable traffic can be kdentified in lateral areas along channels, in the latter as well. In cases where narrow river or credk reaches serve as important and heavily traveled through ways between orig in and destination points, the major portion of the stream's cross-section would be identified as a passage zone. General activity 4 zones would include those water surfaces which are sufficiently large to accomodate most uses with negligible conflict. Special activity zones are water surfaces which are generally smaller in size and which offer opportunities 107 for such activities as water skiihg, rowing, or fishing, but cannot support mixed'use without substantial conflict. Inshore zones' are the shallow ar6as along shorelines dn which lower boating intensities' are indicated as being desirable from the point of view of bottom disturbance, safety hazards, vegetative features, or use conflicts. Th6 inshore zone limits can be deline- ated along the 4' or 6' contours discussed under Step 3 or where additional data can identify a desirable line. 7. Use Priority Do- n at i on examples: 1 - M1. low speed cruising--less than 15 knots general activity C skiing water The establishment of use priorities in the delineated use zones will need to be based on Departmental policies, recreation needs, environmental sensitivity indicators, community- property owner,desires, and other considerations that have been identified through the boating capacity planning process. The priorities established in this step may serve 'either as general policy guides for the Department and county and local officials and the public, or ad. the basis for actual regulatory zoning. Zoning presently exists in Maryland waters de in limited form; power vessels towing water skiers, aquaplanes, or similar devides must keep at least 100 feet from any shore, wharf, pier, bridge structure pr abut- ment, or people in the water (MDNR Boating Regulations, Section 08.04.22), It may be desirable to enlarge this 100 foot zone in certain areas of high sensitivity. High speed power operation in such zones.may also be excluded. The same zones would become more available for other priority uses as a consequence. Dropline 108 fishing or casting, sailingi and low speed cruising are among uses that coulid benefit from'-such zone redefinition. At the same time, in consideration of the need to accommodate the growing interest in waterskiing, water surfaces judged particularly suitable for intensive waterskiing activity could be---zoned for this purpose- Such zones could be marked and identified by buoys as well as on State maps and informational material distributed at marinas and rental facilities. In areas of particular high sensitivity, including undeveloped or Uprimitive" reaches of remote enclosed estuarine waters, more restrictive zones would be established. 8. Development of Boating Activity Models for Management Units In view of the difficulties of constructing fixed standards for boating carrying capacity, particularly for areas in which mixed activity is common,. a desirable management objective would be the development, for each management unit, of a simple base model and a mechanism for its modification with data received from the field on observed problems. The model should identify the peak usage hypothetically possible under .41 both mixed use and single use conditions for open water zones (i.e. excluding inshore and shallow waters where speed and activity regulations should exist). Modification and weighting should then be made in consideration of the following factors: a. function of the open water zone as an origin, passage, or destination (activity) area, or as a combination of these b. observed congestion C. accident occurrence 104 d. proximity to marinas and other points of origin e. observed conflicts with other navigation, aquatic recreation sites f. degree of protection from storms Environmental constraints will be applied to the modified model under Step 9. Specific calculations of boating capacities in Chesapeake and Chincoteague Bays had not been made by recreation investigators as of 1974. The general boating operation spatial and activity requirements presented in Chapter 3, however, may serve as initial guidelines for capacity planning, while testing of the recommended model for key managmement units of the Bays will be found in Part-Two of this report. It should be,borne in mind that the model, as modified, is not to be considered a regulatory. mechanism in itself, but a guideline for a) instituting regulatory measures.such as water zoning, speed limits, and activity exclusions, and b) formulating decisions on permit applications for marina development or expansion, and on boating facility planning for State park and other public areas. (Both a) and b) are acted upon under Steps 9 and 11.) It should belfurther noted that recreational boating user demand patterns are not among the modification/weighting factors to be considered in refining an assessment of capacity. Were demand to be used thus in this step, a self-fulfilling demand and development cycle might be established. The appropriate meshing of demand follows the full definition of constraints, i.e., following capacity guideline refinement and furthermodification relative to environmental sensitivities under Step R. 11.0 The locations of existing marinas and public. landings are identified on the dounty Maps of Part One of this report. Accident loggings for selected years are indicated on page In this Step, the surveillance and field monitoring capabilities of the Maryland Marine Police will be.of prime importance, since it is this professional arm of the Department of Natural Resources that is in closest contact, on a day to day basis, [email protected]@co,ngestion-and accidents. In Part Two, this report will detail recommendations on procedures that will allow the Marine Police, as well as other Departmental officials, to document occurrences of boating activity peaking, congestion, conflict, and user dissatisfaction with greater efficacy. Recommendations will also be detailed as to improved utilization of the data recording and processing capabilities of the Boating Registration Division of the MDNR, to facilitate a better pinpointing of the profile of boating activity potentials in each management unit of the.Bays. Although not practicable at this time, future possible utilization of remote sensing of boating ac tivity patterns and shoreline use, on a periodic monitoring basis, should be carefully considered. 9. Modify [email protected] Models with Data on Environmental Sensitivity and Institute Management Measures The development of a reliable environmental baseline for boating-sensitive biological and physical indicators in the Maryland Bays is far from complete. Yet, while further research is needed and in fact must be acknowledged as a component of any boating management framework for the Bays, the indicatorslof environmental sensitivity ("constraints") displayed in the county Maps of Part One, may be reliably referenced in modifying the boating capacity guidelines developed under 'c'te'n 8. Environmental research on boating impact, as reviewed in the text, appendix, and annotated bibliography of this report, supports their Use as indicators. The principle of restraining boating acitivities to levels safely below those at which serious impact threshholds occur in envirom-iientally sensitive areas of the Bays implicitly requires a good margin of safety where proven impact causative factors arp, operative. patterns, in Two significant sensitivity indicators related to benthir. addition to the factor of depth itself, will need to be carr-Fillly addressed in the eventual plan,,-,@ny system by the Department, and will be-reviewed at a general level in Part Two of this report. Flushing rates, which are a function of the speed at which the water within a portion of the estuary will be replaced through tidal action combined with freshwater inflow, are an important indicator of the degree to which the given estuarine portion can recover from water quality degradation. If the boats moored at a large rparina, on a July 4th weekend,, for example, release a loading of pollutants t-hat might be judged borderline under average circumstances, a high flushing rate would possibly reduce most pollution effects considerably, while a low flushing,rate might ensure a case of appreciable, although possibly transitory, aggravation of pollution effects on water quality. At the time of writing of Part One, flushing rates were being computed by the Department of Natural Resources for the major tributaries of Chesapeake Bay and for Chincoteague Bay. The second significant sensitivity factor is circulation. This factor, because of the intricacy of depth patterns throughout the Bays, can be effectively integrated into a boating capacity planning system only with substantially more research and investigation than have been carried out to date. The studies presently under way by the Department on flushing rates will yield information on overall flushing for the major Bay tributaries, but tt will remain difficult to extrapolate this data to the smaller estuarine reaches, because of depth and circulation vagaries, without. further investigation. -Both latter factors, however, are essential in considering the relation- ships between boating impact and environmental sensitivity indicators. Part Two will explore both in assessing the needed modification of the Boating Activity-Models (Step 8) to meet the constraints of safe level'environmental protection developed here. In practice, modifications to the Step 8 Boating Activity Models would potentially include the establishing of speed and high wake restrictions in proximity to shorelines of high erodibility, the restricting of construction or expansion of marinas in shallow waters where the probability of resuspension, transport, and redeposition of soft bottom sediments or of toxic substances on nearby oyster beds is appreciable, and similar measures. Yellow Flag/Red Flag Management Measures The institution of environment-protective measures described immediatly above is designed to provide the safety margin below threshholds of environmental degradation described earlier as a key criteria to the recommended boating capacity planning system. 113 Areas in which one or more such measures are required may be termed, Yell.ow Flag Areas, to express the need for precautionary actions. An area so designated,should be surveillied and monitored with sufficient frequency to ensure that boating satisfactions are achieved without adverse environmental effects and to record adverse or beneficial changes in the quality of sensitivity indicators., In the event that monitoring of the aquatic environment reveals that the initial conditions have improved, the area can be relieved of [email protected] instituted measures. In the event that the initial conditions become aggravated to the point of inc.ipfent.or actual adverse environmental effects, a Red Flag status may be defined. Under this status, more-serious restridtion*s may be applied until conditions are improved. The specification of.management measures for the control of recreational boating in Yellow Flag and Red Flag areas will be made in Part Two. The underlying.purpose of the Yellow Flag - Red Flag approach is to ensure that a buffering safeguard exists between natural or assigned limits of boating activity and actual capacity, i..e. the threshholds of environmental degradation. 0 10. Determine Existence of Excess orDeficit Capacities for Each Management Unit This '<Step is straightforward: the4difference between the modified activity model capacity (modified for both boating operational and environmental needs) 114 and the observed user numbers or numbers of boats active at peaking periods will provide an indication of whether an excess or a deficit in boating capacity exists for a given management unit within the Bays. Provisional determinations of probable excess or deficit will be :presented-in Part Two. Confirmation or revision must be performed, however, as part of.the continuous monitoring and management program recommended for the Department of Natural Resources. The provisional determinations of Part Two must be checked in the field and from updated information from boating registry-and other:[email protected] on a per-iodic basis to establish whether new users or use intensities have consumed excess capacities or have reversed deficit situations. Environmental monitortng-will also P16Y a continuing role in updating evaluations of the constraints needed to provide safe margins between use and impact threshholO. 11. Develop_Recommended Program for New and Expanded BoatingJacilities Under this Step, planning for new and expanded public facilities as well as guidelines for private facility permit processing, can be undertaken with full consideration of the capacity status of the defined management units of the Bays. Synthesis must be made, of course, of the findings of the antecedent Steps of the boating capacity planning system, with knowledge of important related areas: highway and feeder road access, land.use zoning, community preferences, state and county park and recreation capital programs, state-wide and regional boating demand projections, and other factors. The demand pro- jections and the questionnaire presented in Part Two will help define where unsatisfied demands exist. The boating capacity planning system will help determine where suitable locations exist that can meet these demands. CHAPTER VII RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDATIONS,. 1. -Improve Procedures for Data Collection The boating accident report forms employed by the Maryland Marine Pol'ice should be modified to make possible the recording of the specific location of boating collisions, water skiing accidents, and other congestion related accidents. The specific courses of involved boats should be marked on 8-h x 11" simplified maps of the sub-bay area in which the accidents or collision occurred. Boating registration and renewal and titling application forms should be adapted and supplemented with Ehil x 11" simplified county maps to provide for reliable recording of the specific locations of moorings, preferred launch- ing sites and preferred activity areas. Named identifications of these locations, as well as verbal identifications of preferred activities, times of day, calendar dates, and frequencies should be recorded as well. The data so recorded should be processed and evaluated on a regular (annual) basis or upon need, to improve the Department's knowledge of boating demand, to help determine whether use may be approaching the calculated capacity of given management areas, and to aid in boating facility planning. 2. Adopt a Boating Capacity Planning System The 11-step planning system descr ibed in this report is recommended for adoption by the Department. The proposals contained in the planning system 0 description (Chapter VI) are to beoconsidered integral with th1s Recommendations summary. 117.. 3. Develop Field Monitoring Systems The Department should develop field monitoring systems capable of sur- veilling water quality effects of recreational boating in loci of high intensity. ,Airborne, remote-sensing, and water surface monitoring systems should also be developed for detecting occurrences of repeated boating congestion and activity conflict. 4. Improve Regulation and Control of Adverse Activity Data from both monitoring systems should be evaluated and acted upon to abate detected boating-caused pollution or congestion. The utilization of speed limits, water use-zoning, engine maintenance and muffling requirements, and other measures should be used with greater scope and selectivity to enhance 0 remedial controls. 5. Provide Expanded Opportunities for Boating In Suitable Capacity Areas Construct new large-scale boating facilities in appropriate locations, on environmentally suitable shorelines and easily accessible to water bodies witti excess or unused boating capacities. Locations upstream of low level bridges or inconsistent with regional road access capacities should not be selected. The demand projections and facility site planning and design criteria presented in Part Two of this report should be considered for guidance in facility development. New large-scale facilities should be developed by the Department of Natural Resources to meet a portion of the apparent high unmet demand for access, A 118 berthing, and storage. The additional lauc.nching and berthing capacities, needed in the Bays, and selected recommended facility sites are considered in Part Two of this report. Private facility development should also be encouraged. In both instances, the approval of envi-ronmentally unsuitable sites should be avoided. 6. Extend Research New and expanded research into recreational boating environmental effects, exhaust and waste disposal systems, engine modifications, boating user expecta- tions and preferences, and monitoring and,detection systems should be programmmed by Maryland or by others with the State's support. BIBLIOGRAPHY 120 BIBLIOGRAPHY The references for.this report are organized into ten subject categories. References which apply to more than one category are listed in the category judged to be most descriptive of the contents of the reference. The categories 'are as follows: 1) Boating related impacts -.Biological 2) Boating related impacts Chemical 3) Boating related impacts Physical 4) Boating related impacts General 5) Marina management and operations; related impacts 6) Recreational planning; access considerations 7) Carrying capacities; zoning and other regulatory mechanisms 8) Estuarine processes; disruption and modelling 9) Chesapeake Bay regional background information and existing conditions Recreational boating information and statistics Given the great number of references comprising the product of the literature review, it was decided that-only abstracts of selected references should be included within this report. Selection of these references was done through consultation with the authors who have submitted background papers as appendices to this report., The abstracts include author abstracts as well as those prepared by the Roy Mann Associates Staff. Items for which abstracts are provided,are identified in the bibliography by the symbol preceeding the author listing. Abstracts are grouped sequentially at the end of the bibliography, and reflect the organizational structure used in the literature review. 121 Boating Related Impacts Biological --,r Alig, Craig, ed., " Dispersion of Sewage in Shipg Wakes," report #4914 Annapolis, Maryland: U. S. Navy, Naval Ship Research and Development Center. 2. Alig, Craig and Van Hees, William, Dispersion and Detectability of Sanitary Wastewater from Navy Ships, " ASME paper #74-ENAS-11, New,York: United Engineering Center. 3. Cassin, Smith, and Frenke, " Sanitary Implintions of Small-Boat Pollution in an Atlantic Estuary," in Environmental Letters, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1971 4. Clark, B. D., " Houseboat Waste Characteristics and Treatment," report #PR-6, Corvallis, Oregon: Federal Water Pollution 'Control Administration Pacific Northwest Water Lab, September, 1967. 5. Cl-ark, B. D., " Houseboat Waste: Methods for Collection and Treatment," Corvalis, Oregon: Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, 1967. 6* Furfari, S. A., " A Problem Paper on Boat Wastes and the National Shellfish Sanitation [email protected]' Northeast Marine Health Sciences Laboratory, Narragansett, Rhode Island., 1968. 7. Furfari, S. A., V&ber, J. L., "Boat Waste Survey, Potter Cove, Rhode Island, Summer, 1968," New England Technical Service Unit, Davisville, Rhode Island, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1969. 8. General Dynamics Electric Boat Division, "Storage of Wastes from Watercraft and Disposal at Shore Facilities," Washington, D. C.: Government PrintIng Office, 1970. .9. General Electric Company, " Watercraft Waste Treatment System Development and Demonstration Report," Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1971. 10. Hooper, Mark W., " Disposal of Wastes from Vessels," in Oceanology International, September, 1971, pp. 37-38. 11. Hopkins, Thomas C. Jr., and Sanderson, A. E. Jr., " Report Number Two on Coliform and E. Coli Bacteria Counts at a Major Chesapeake Bay Boating- Bathing Site -During the Independence Day Holiday Period," State of Maryland, Department of Natural Resources, Water Quality Investigation and Analysis Division, 1965. 122 12. Ingram, W.M. and Wastler, T.H. III, "Estuarine and Marine Pollution Selected Studies of Biological, Bacteriological, and Physical Aspects with Major Emphasis on the U.S. Literat 'ure," Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Deprtment'of Health, Education, and Welfare,, 1,561. 13. Ingram, W.T., "Effect of Cabin Cruiser Waste Discharge on Eaton's Neck, Long Island Harbor Waters," Report for the Interstate Sanitation Commission, New York University, College of Engineering, 1953. 14. Kelleher, Thomas F., "Boat & Marina Wastes," in Problems of the Potomac Estuary, January, 1964, pp. 60-63. 15.* Lear, Marks and Sthmincke, "Evaluation of Coliform Contribution by Pleasure Boats," CB-SRBP Technical Paper No. 10, Middle Atlantic Region, FWPCA, 1966. 1.6.* Mack, W.N., and,D'Intri, F.M.,"Pollution of a Marina Area by Watercraft. Use as Indicated by Coliform and Chemical Concentrations," East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, Department of Microbiology, May, 1971. 17. Pratt, 'S.D. Saili, S.B., Gaines, A.G. Jr., Krout, J.E., "Biological Effects of Ocean Disposal of Solid Waste," Marine Technical Report Series No.,9, Kingston, Rhode Island: University of Rhode Island Graduate School of Oceanography Marine Experiment Station, 1973. @18. Public Health Activities Commission, the Sanitary Engineering Division,,ASCE "Coliform Standards for Recreational Water," Journal of the Sanitar Engineering Division, American Society of Civ-1TfM-1ntey:s, 8 August, 1963, p. 57. 19. Roseberry, Dean'A., "Relationship of Recreational Use to Bacterial Densities of Forrest Lake," American Water Works Association Journal, 56 (1) January$ 1964, p. 43-59. 20.* Rosenbusch, J.M.."State-of-the-Art Repo,rt on Marine Sanitation Devices," Silver Spring , Maryland: Automation Industries, Inc., Vitro Labs Division,.June, 1973. 211. Sanderson, A.E. Jr., Hopkins, Thomas.C. Jr., "Coliform and E. Coli F --Uu- Bacteria Counts at a Major Chesapeake Bay Boating-Bathing Site ring the Independence Day Holiday Period, 1964," State of Maryland, Department of Water Resourcesi Water Quality Investigation and Analysis Division. 22.* Seabloom, Robert 14., "Bacteriological -Effect of Small Boat Wastes on Small Harbors," Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, College of Engineering, July, 1969. 23. Smith, K.P., "Implication of Pleasure Craft in the Sanitary Pollution of Estuarine Waters and Shellfish," Master's Thesis, Adelphi University, New York, 1972.: 24. Udell, H.R., "Pollutional Effect on Marine Waters from Waste Discharged by Small Boats," Mimeo Report, New,York Conservation Department, Shellfisheries Laboratory, 1960. 123 25.* Underwater Storage, Inc., and Silver, Schwartz, Ltd., "Collection, Underwater Storage, and Disposal of Pleasurecraft Waste: Feasibility of Connecting Sewage Holding Tanks on Board Recreational Watercraft to a Dockside Collection System and Storage in an Underwater Tank," Washington, D.C.: Underwater Storage, Inc., 1969, FWPCA Water Pollution Control Research Series, DAST-10, September, 1969. Z6. Uniroyal, Inc., "Flexible Holding Tank for Pleasurecraft Sanitary System," Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1970. 27. U.S. Department of.Transportati ion -Coast Guard , "Marine Sanitation Devices, Proposed Certification Procedures and Design Construction Re- quirements," Federal Reqister,.Friday, March.1, 1974. 28. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Wastes from Water- craft," report by the Department of the Interior FWPCA to the Congress of the United States, August 7, 1967, Senate Document #48, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 29. Valiela, I. and Teal, J.M., "Nutrient and Sewage Sludge Enrichment Experiments in a Salt Marsh Ecosystem," International Symposium on Physiological Ecology,of Plants and Animals in Estuarine Environments, Dubrovnik, Yugoslavia., (in press), 1972. 41 Addenda 30. Doerr, R. Alkaloid and Benzopyrene Uptake by Intact Plant Roots Naturwissenschafen, Vol. 52. 31. Harrison, D. E. Oil and Water, Report to E. I. C. Bar Harbor, Maine. Jackson Laboratory,[email protected] 32. Huepon, W C. " Environmental ' Factors in the Production of Human Cancer", ed. R. W. Raven, Vol.l. Butterworth. 33. Sanders, H., J. F. Grassle, and G. P. Hampson, " The West FaImouth Oil Spill T Biology WOH T technical reprint 72-200. 124 II ___,Boatin2 Related Impacts Chemical 34. Alyakrinskaya, 1.:0., "Experimental Data on the Oxygen Consumption of Sea Water Contaminated by Petroleum,." Novorossiysk: Rostov State Uni- vers,ity, V.M. Biologicals Station, July 11, 1964. Anderson, J.W., Neff, J'., Cox,, B., Tatan, H., and Hightower, G.M. "Characteristics of Dispers 'ions and Water Soluble Extracts of Crude and Refined Oils and'their Toxicity on Estuarine Crustaceans and Fi-sh," Ma,nuscript submitted to Marine Biology, 1973. 36. Anonymous, "Reduced Oxygen Tolerance and Toxicity of Petroleum Products to Juvenile American Shad," Chesapeake.Science, 2 (14), March-June, 1961, pp. 65-71a, 37. Baker, Jennifer, "Seasonal Effects'[email protected] Pollution in Salt Marsh Vege- tation," in Oikos,. 22, 1971, pp. 111-113. 38. Bell, D.L., "The.Toxicity and Biological [email protected] Oil Pollution," memo [email protected],EPA Office of Water Programs,- Washington, D.C.: 1971. 39. Blumer, M. and Sass, J., "Indigenous and Petroleum-derived Hydrocarbons in a Polluted Sediment," Marine Pollution Bulletin, 3, (6)9 1972, p. 92. 40. Boating Industry Association/USEPA, "Analysis of Pollution from Marine Engines and their Effects on the Environment," Project No. R801799-02-4. [email protected] 41. Brown, L.R. and Tischer, R.G., "The Decomposition of,Petroleum Products in our Natural Waters," Water Resources Instit0te,mississippi.State University, State College, Mississippi, 1969. 42. Cairns, J. Jr., Dickson, I., and Crossman, J., "The Response of'Aquatic Communities to Spills of Hazardous Materials," Rro ppedings of the 1972 National Conference on.Hazardous Material Spills, Centerfor Environmental Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia. 43. Carpenter, K.E., "Further-Research.on the Action of Metallic Salts on Fishes," J. Exp. Zool., 56 (4), 1930,.pp. 407-422.. 44. Carpenter, K.E., "The Lethal Action*of Soluble Metallic Salts on Fishes," Brit. J.- Exp. Biol._,4,192.7, pp. 378-390. Car,thy, J.D., Arthur, D.R., eds., "The Biological Effects of Oil Pollution on 'Littoral Communities,"supplement to Vol. 2, Field Studies. London: Field Studies-Council, 1968. 46. Clark, R.B., "Oil Pollution and its Biological Consequences, A Review of Scientific Literature." Prepared for Great Barrier Reef Petroleum Drifling Royal Commi'ssions, Department of Zoology, University of Newcastle on Tyne, January 31, 1973. 47. Cowell, E.B. ed., "The Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on Littoral Communities," London: Institute of Petroleum, 1971. 125 48* Cowell, E.B., "The Effects of Oil Pollution of Salt Marsh Communities in 0 Pembroke.shire and Cornwall," in The Journal of Applied Ecology, 6 (2),. 1969, p. 133. 49. Dalby, D.H., "Some Observations on Oil Pollution of Salt Marshes in Milford Haven," Biological Conservationj (4), 1969, pp. 295-296. 50. Davis, C.C., "The Effects of Pollutants on the Reproduction of.Marine 41 Organisms," FAD Technical Conference on Marine Pollution and its Effects on Living Resources and Fishing, Rome, Italy, 1970. 51. Dietrick, K.R., "Investigation Into the Pollution of Water by Two-Stroke Outboard Motors," in Gesund-Leitsingeniew, 85, 1964, pp. 342-347. 52. Eberan-Ebershorst, R., "The Pollution of Water-by Outboard Motors," in Ost. Wasserw., 17, No. 18, 1965. 53. English, J.N. et al.,"Pollutional Effects of Outboard Motor Exhaust: Laboratory Studies," in Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 35,1963, p. 923. 54. English, J.N., et al., "What Does Outboard Motor Exhaust Contribute to Water?". Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, January 17, 1961. 55. English, J.N., Surber, E.W., McDermott, G.N., "Pollutional Effects of Outboard Motor Exhaust - Field Studies " in Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation, September, 1963, p;. 1121-1132. 56. Environmental Engineering, Inc., "Effects of Power Boat Fuel Exhaust on Florida Lakes," distributed by Mar.ine Exhaust Research Council (BIA), Gainesville, Florida, 1970. 57. Erickson, S.J., Lackie, N., and Maloney, T.E., "A Screening Technique for Estimating Copper.Toxicity to Estuarine Phytoplankton," in Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 43, 1970. 58. Farrington, J.W., and Quinn, J.G., "Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Narragansett Bay, Part 1: Survey of Hydrocarbons in Sediments and Clams," Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Contribution No. 2880, 1972. 59. Ferren, W.P., "Qutboard's Inefficiency Is a Pollution Factor," in National Fisherman (4C), April, 1970. 60. Fetterolf, C.M., Jr., "Taste and Odor Problems in Fish from Michigan Waters," Proc. 18th Industrial Waste Conference, 1963, Purdup UnivArsity Engineering Bulletin, Engineering Extension Series 115, p. 174. 61 -# Hare, Charles,,T., and Springer, Karl J., "Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines - Part 2: Outboard Motors," San Antonio, Texas: Southwest Research Institute, January, 1973 62. Hartung, R. and Klinger, G.W., "Fisheries and Wildlife.Sedimentation of 126,. Floating Oils," !n Papers of the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters, Vol... LIII, 196.8, pp. 23-27. 63. -Jackivicz, T.P., Jr., "The Effects of Outboard Motor Subsurface Exhausts on Selected Aspects of Recipient Water Quality and Benthic Invertebrates," PhD. dissertation, [email protected] Massachusetts : U. of Massachusetts: January, 1913. 64. Jackivicz, T.P. Jr., and Kuzminski, L.N., "AReview of Outboard Motor Effects on,the Aquatic Environment," in Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation, 45, No. 8, 1973, pp.1759-1710., 65. James, "Report.to the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries: Preliminary Investigation on Effect of Oil Pollution on Marine Pelagic Eggs,"April, 1925. 0 66. Jones, J.R.E., "The Relative Toxicity of Salts of Lead,.Zinc, and Copper to the Stickle,back(Gaster69gu Aculeatus _L) and the Effect of Calcium on the.Toxicity of Lead and Zinc Salts,"in the Journal of Experimental. Biology, 15, 1938, pp. 394-407. 67. Kempf, Ludemann, and Pflaum, "Pollution of Waters by Motorized Operations, Especially by Outboard Motors,".in Schr. Reiche Ver. Wass. -Boden-U. Lufthyg., #26, 1967. 68. Kuzminski, L.N.,.et.al., "Studies on the Acute Toxicity of Two-Cycle Outboard Motor EkFa-u-sUs-to Selected,8enthic'Ihvertebrates,"Report No. EVE:%43-74-6, Ja__n__uary,_1974,_to Divis-ion of"Wat6r Pollution Control, MassachusettsWater Resources Commission. 69. Kuzmi nski , L. N. , Ghan, H. B. S. , and Robeyts , J. L. ,Studi es on the Acute Toxicity of TwomCycle Outboard Motor Exhausts to Selected Fish Species,." Report No. EVE-28-72-1, Amherst, Massachusetts: University of Massachusetts, Department of Civil Engineering, September, 1972. 70. Kuzminski, Lawrence N., and Jackivicz, Thomas P., "Interaction of Outboard Motors with the Aquatic Environment - Causative Factors and Effects," State of the Art Report for Division of Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, June, 1972. 71. Kuzminski, L.M., Lake, G.A., and Sawyer, F.M., "The Effects of Outboard Motor Subsurface Exhausts on the Sensory Properties of Recipient Water," Report No. EV E-41-74-4, February, 1974, to Division of Water.Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission. 7 Kuzminski, L.M., and Mulcahy, L.T., "A Study of the Fate of Lead Emitted 2. from Two-Cycle Outboard Motor Subsurface Exhausts," Report No. EV E-38-74-1, January, 1974, to Di,vision of Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water Resources Commission. 73. Lagler, K.F., Hazzard, A.S., Hazen, W.E., Tompkins, W.T., "Outboard Motors 0 in Relation to Fish Behavior, Fish'Production, and Angling Success," in 15th North American Widlife Conference Transactions, 1950, pp.280-303. 14. Lee, R.F., Sauerheber, R., and Benson, A.A., "Petroleum Hydrocarbons: Uptake and Discharge by the Marine Mussel MLtilu edul'is in Science, 177 .1972, p. 344. 127, 75. Ll.oyd, R., "Factors that Affect the Tolerance of Fish to Heavy-Metal Poisoning," [email protected] Problems in Water Pollution,. U.S.. Public Health Service, Pu tion NO. 999-WP-Zb. 0 76. Lussier, D., "Contribution of Marine Outboard Engines to.Water Pol.lution , Technical Support Division, Federal Water Quality Administration, September, 1970. 77. Mackin, J.G., and Hopkins, S.H., "Studies on Oysters in Relation to the Oil 0 Industry," Publications of the Institute of Marine Science, University of Texas, 1961. 78* Moore, Stephen F., Chirlin, Gary R., Puccia, Charles,and Shrader, Bradley, "Potential Biological Effect of. Hypothetical Oil Discharges in the Atlantic Coast and Gulf of Alaska," (MITSG pub. 74-19), Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, 1974. 79. Moore, Stephen, Dwyer, Robert,.and Katz, Arthur, "Preliminary Assessment of the Environmental Vulnerability of Machias Bay to Oil Supertankers," Report No. MITSG 73-6, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, January 15, 1973. 80. Moulder, D.S., and Varley, A., "A Bibliography on Marine and Estuarine Oil Pollution," Plymouth, Devon, England: Marine Biological Association, Plymouth'Lab. 81. Mur'atori, A., "How Outboards Contribute to Water Pollution," in The Conser- vationist, June-July, 1968. 82. Pickering, Q.'j,et,al., "Acute Toxicity of Some Important Petrochemicals to Fish," J.Water T-o-ITution Federation, 38 (9); Biological Abstracts,48 (14), Abstract #69694, 1967, pp. 1419-1429. 83- Radcliffe, D.R., and Murphy, T.A., "Biological Effects of Oil Pollution - Bibliography Collection of References, Concerning the Effect of Oil on Bio- logical Systems," Washington, D.C.: FWPCA, 1969. 84. Schenck, N., and Weber, W. Jr., "A Biological Assay of the Effects of Sub- merged Engine Exhaust Emissions,"presented at the fall meeting of the Great 'Lakes Section of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, October 2, 1970, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 85* Shuster, W., "Control of Pollution from Outboard Engine.Exhaust: A Recon- naissance Study," Troy, New York: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Bio- Environmental Engineer *n Control Series, 15020 R Division, September, 1971, for EPA Water Pollution 40 September, 1971. 86. Sidhu, G.S.i "Nature and Effects of Kerosene-like Taint in Mullet Nusil cePh0_uFT7rM0 Conference, Rome, Italy, 1970. 87. Snell, Foster D., Inc., "Outboard Motor Tests Using Petrosave and Kleenzaust Devices," September 20, 1965. 88. Spooner, M.F., "Effects of Oil and Emulsification on Marine Life," in Wadding- ton, J.I. (ed.) Water Pollution by Oil, the Institute of Petroleum, London, 1971. 0 128 89. Stewart, R., and Howard H.H. , "Water Pollution by Outboard Motors," in The Conservationist, June-July, 1968, Also as Final Report #3 Atmospheric Science.Resarch Center Publication #61, August, 1968, pp. 48-52. 90 Stewart, W., et al., "Copper From Anti-Fouling Paints and it's Flushing From Tidally Well-Mixed Embayments," in press, 1974. 91 Stilwell and Gladding, Inc., "Pollution Factors of Two-Cycle Outboard Marine Engines," October 20, 1969. 92. Surber, E.W., "The Effect of Outboard Motor Exhaust Wastes on Fish and Their Environment", Journal, Washington Acade of Science, 61, 2, 120, 1971. 93. Surber, E.W., English, J.N., McDermott, G.N., "Tainting of Fish by Outboard Motor Exhaust Wastes as Related to Gas and Oil Consumption." U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Third Seminar on Biological Problems in Water Pollution, August 13-17, 1962. 94. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, "Investigation of Surface Films Chesapeake Bay Entrance," Gloucester Point, Virginia: VIMS. 95* Walter, Robert A., "U.S. Coast Guard Pollution Abatement Program: A Preliminary Report on the Emissions Testing of Boat Diesel, Engines," Cambridge, Massachusetts: Transportation. Systems Center, November, 1973. 96. Walter, R.A., Broderick, A.J., Sturm, J.C., Klaubert, EX., "U.S. Coast Guard Pollution Abatement Program:. A Preliminary Study of Vessel and Boat Exhaust Emissions," Cambridge, Massachusetts: Transportation Systems Center, November, 1971. 97. Yes, E.E., "Oil Pollution in Marine Waters Bibliography #5," Washington, D.C.: United States Department of the Interior Library. 98. Zobell, C.E., "Sources and Biodegradation of Carcinogenic Hydrocarbons," in Prevention and Control Of Oil Spills, Washington, D.C.: American Petroleum Institute, 1971. Addenda 99. Bancroft, D. A. "The Fate of Organic Compounds Released to a Natural Body of Water as a Result of Outboard Usate." Special Project, Civil Engineering Department, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, Mass. 129 III Boating Related Impacts Physical 100. Anderson, Franz E.,."The Effects of Boat Waves on the Sedimentary Processes of a New England Tidal Flat," Durham, New Hampshire-: UNH Jackson Laboratory. 101.* Das, M.M.,"Relative Effect of Waves Generated by Large Ships and Small Boats in Restricted Waterways," Berkeley, California: University of California at Berkeley, Hydraulic Engineering Lab, November, 1969. 102.* Gustafson, "Supposed Toxicities of Marine Sediments. Beneficial Effects of Dredging Turbidity," World Dredging and Marine Construction, Vol. 8, #13, pp. 44-52, December, 1972. 103. Hollis, E.H., Boone, J.G., DeRose, C.R., Murphy, G.J., "A Literature Review of the Effects of Turbidity and Siltation on Aquatic Life," Annapolis: Department of Chesapeake Bay Affairs, December, 1964. 104.* Magrab, Edward B., "Establishment of Noise Criteria for Recreational Boacts, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, July 20, 1973. 105. Slaughter, T.H., "A Preliminary Report and Summary of National Shore Erosion Programs and Control Activities," Baltimore, Maryland: Maryland Geological Survey. [email protected] at the Annual Meeting of the National Association,of Soil and Water Conservation Districts in New Orleans, Louisiana on February 7, 1966. 106.* Wolman, M.G., "Problems Posed By Sediment Derived From Construction Activities in Maryland," Annapolis: Maryland Water PollutionControl Commission, January, 1964. Addenda 107., Yousef, A. Yousef. Assessing Effects on Water Quality by Boating Activity." Prepared by the National Environmental Research Center, Office of Research and Development, U. S. E. P. A. Cin6inatti, Ohio Oct. 1974. 130' IV Boating.Related Im2acts General 108. Aubrey, W., Lt al., "Inland Water Pollution by Recreational Boating," junior project no. 08-11, Schenectady, New York: Union College, March, 1970. log. Benk, C. John,'i."Partial Recovery, and Subsequent Disturbance of a-Pol.lution Damaged Marsh-9" Smith College.Department of.Biological Sciences, 1973. 1100* B,lumenthal, I.S.,"Positive Pol.lution," Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, March, 1971. lll.* National Industrial Pollution Control Cou ncil, "Land and Water Pollution from Recreational Use," Washington, D.C.: National Industrial Pollution Control Council, December, 1971. 112.* Pacific Northwest Water Lab, "Pacific Northwest Watercraft Pollution Study" and .'.'Appendixo" CorValli,s,. Oregon; Pacific Northwest Water Lab, February, 1967. 113. Sinhor, Evelyn, "Coastal/Estuarine Pollution: An Annotated Bibliography," La Jolla, Cali-Fornia: Ocean Engineering Information Service, 1970. 114. U,.S. Army Corpt Of Engineers and U,.S..'Department of the Interior, Bureau of Recreation, Pacific Northwest Reg ion,",Pleasure Boating Study-Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters,"" Olympia; Washington: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, 1968. U.S. Department of Commerce, National'Technical Information Service, "Coastal and Estuarine Development as Related to Pollution: 'A Bibliography With Abstracts," Springfield, Virginia, August, 1973. 116** U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Water Pollution Caused by the Operation of Vessels,", Washington, D.C.: FWPCA9. December, 1966. 117* Virginia State Water Control Board,' "Staff Opinion and Recommendations for Adoption of Regulation to Control Pollption from Boats and Vessels," Richmond: Water Control Board, January 24, 1973. 11 8. Young, S.L.D., "Prevention and Control of Marine Pollution from Ships, Institute of Marine Engineers, Memorial Building, 76 Mark Lane, London, E C3 7JNEngland. Addenda 119. McLeod, Guy C. Water Quality Impacts of Recreational Boating Staff report prepared for Roy Mann Associates, Cambridge, 1974 131 V Marina Management [email protected] Operations; Related Impacts 120. American Society of Planning Officials, "Recreational Boating Facilities," @Report #147, Chicago: ASPO-, January, 1961. 121. Bowerman, F.R., and Chen, K.Y., "Marina del Ray: A Study of Environmental Variables in a Semi-Enclosed Coastal Water," Sea Grant Publication No. USC-SG-4-71, Los Angeles: USC, 1971. 122. Chaney, Charles'A, "Marinas: Recommendations for Design, Construction and Maintenance," National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., 1961. 123. Cornell,,Howland, Hayes, and Merryfield, "Developing Small Boat Harbors in Six Oregon.Counties," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment Administration, February, 1965. 124. Delaune, Kathryn, M., ed., "Marina Management and Operation Seminar - Proceedings in Arlington, Texas, 1972," College Station, Texas: Engineering Experiment Station, College of Engineering, Texas A and M University, 1972. 125- *Delaune, Kathryn, M., "Proceedings of the Recreational Boating Seminar Held in Galveston, Texas, on December 17, 1971,"Report on Sea Grant Program, College Station, Texas: Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Industrial Economics Research Division, Texas A and M University, January,-1972. 126. Johnson, Reuben J., "Small Boat Harbor Development on the Pacific Coast," American Society of.Civil Enqineers, Waterways Division Journal, 87, February, 1961, pp.'1-14. 127. Lee, Charles E., Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, [email protected] of the American [email protected] @of Civil Engineering, "Small-Craft Harbor Problems," August, 1964. 128- Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., "California Small Craft Harbors and Facilities Plan: Comprehensive Report," Sacramento, California: California Department of Parks and Recreation, Division of Small Craft Harbors, 1964. 129. Lyon, G.H., "An Economic Evaluation of Somers Cove Marina, Crisfield, Maryland," January, 1974. 130.* Lyon, G.H., Tuthill, D.F., Matthews, W.B., "Economic Analysis of.Marinas in Maryland," (MP 679), College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, April, 1969. Mack, Andrew R., "Boat Handling Equipment in the Modern Marina," New York, New York: National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., 1959. 132. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Program Planning and Evaluation, "A Report to the Maryland General Assembly in Response to Joint Resolution No. 14 of the 1972 Sessions: Problems Associated with Public Landings," Annapolis: DNR-PPE, January, 1973. 0 132 133. National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., "Marinas: Operations and Service," New York, New York: National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., 1967. 134. National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, "The Modern Marina: A Guidebook for Community and Private Investors Interested in Marina Development," New York, New York.: National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, Inc., 1963. 135. New York State Sea Grant Program, New York Marina Management Conference, Syracuse, New York, March 28-29, 1974. 136.* Nixon, S.W., Oviatt, C.A., Northby, S.L., "Ecology of Small Boat Marinas, Rhode Island University Graduate School of Oceanography, 1973. 137. Texas A and M University, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, "Port and Harbor Development System - Design Phase I, Guidelines, Work Report," College Station, Texas: Texas A and M University, 1971. 138.* U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Small-Boat Harbor, Mississippi River at Pepin, Wisconsin; Final Environmental Impact Statement," St. Paul, Minnesota: U.S. Amy Engineer District, October, 1971. 139. Whitman, Requardt, and Associates, "Report on Rocky Point Marina", Towson, Maryland: Baltimore County Department of Recreation and Parks, October, 1972. 140. Wilson, Peter M., "Designing a Public Marina," Public Works, 95, March, 1964, pp.111-113. 141. Wilson, Peter M., "Managing a Public Marina," Public Works, 95, April, 1964, pp, 118-120. 142. Wilson, Peter M., "Planning a Public Marina," Public Works, 95, February, 1964, pp. 109-111. 133 VI Recreational Planning 143.* Altouney, E.G., Crampon, L.J., [email protected] G.E.,"Recreatio n and Fishery Values 0 in the San Francisco Bay and Delta," Menlo Park., California: Stanford Research Institute, October 7, 1966. 144. Barker, Mary L., "The Perception of Water Quality as a Factor in Consumer Attitudes and Space Preferences in Outdoor Recreation," Unpublished Research paper, Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, n.d. 145.* Bishop, D.W. and;Aukerman, R.,"Water Quality Criteria for Selected Recreational Usesq" Urbana, Illinois: Water Resources Center, University of Illinois, September'. 1970. 146. Cronin, Eugene, "Developing and Managing Estuaries: A Statement of Policy and Guidelines for Effective Actions," College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, 1966. 147. Dean, R.D., and Wilson, C., "Development Planning for Water Resources - A Bibliography," Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography #162, Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians, December, 1970. 148.* Ditton, Robert B., "The Social and Economic Significance of Recreation Activities in the Marine Environment," Sea Grant Technical Report #11, Green Bay, Wisconsin: -UniversIty. of Wisconsin, January,1-972.- 149. Ditton, Robert B., "Water-Bas ed Recreation: Access, Water Quality, and 40 Incompatible Use Considerations - An Interdisciplinary Bibliography," Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography #193, Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians, June,1971. 150- Ditton, Robert B., "Water-Based Recreation: Supply and Demand Consider- ations - An Interdisciplinary Bibliography," Council of Planning Librarians Exchange Bibliography #159, Monticello, Illinois: Council of Planning Librarians, November, 1970. 151-* Ditton, Robert and Goodale, T., "Marine Recreational Uses of Green.Bay: A Survey of Human Behavior and Attitude Patterns," Madison, Wisconsin: Univers.ity of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, December, 1972. 152-* Ditton ' R.B., and Goodale, T.L., "Recreational Uses of Green Bay: Bay/ Non-Bay Users Compared," in Proceedings of Conference on Great Lakes Research (15th), April, 1972, pp. 729-736. Ditton, R.B., and Goodale, T.L., "Water Quality Perception and the 153- Recreational Uses of Green Bay, Lake Michigan," in Water Resources Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, June, 1973, pp. 569-579. 154-* Francis, J.D., and Busch, L. "Water Recreational Activities in New York State and the Effect on Associated Industries," Ithaca: New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, August, 1973. 155, Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., "California Boating Plan," Sacramento, California: Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., 1964. 134 156. Lifton, Fred B., "Trends in Small Boating and Its Impact on Water Reso .urces Development," in Proceedings of the Second Annual American Water Resources Conference, November 20-22, 1966, Proceedings Series Number 2, Urbana, IIT-inois: American Rater Resources Association, 1966, pp. 182-186. 157. Maryland State Planning Department, "Maryland Water Supply and Demand Study, A Computer Model of Stream Quality," Publication 132C, Baltimore, Maryland: State Planning Department, June 1966. 0 158.* Mechalas, B.J., Hekimian, K.K., Schinazi, L.A., and Dudley, R.H., "Water Quality Criteria Data Book - Vol. 4: An Investigation into Recreational Water Quality," El Monte, California: Envirogenics Co., April, 1972. 159.* Megli, L.D., Long, W.H., Gamble, H.B., "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Stream Water Quality and Regional Income Generated by Water-Oriented Recreation," Research Publication Vol.69, University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Institute for Research and Land and Water Resources, December, 1971. .160.* Menchik, M.D., "Outdoor Recreational Management: A Mathematical Model," Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Institute for Environmental Studies, August, 1973. 161. Onosko, William Robert, "Water Use Criteria for Boatinq - A Case Study of Water-Land Use Conflict in Galilee, Rhode Island,,!University of Rhode Island. 162. Project Potomac, Recreation and Landscape Sub-Task Force, "Land, People, and Recreation in the Potomac River Basin,"U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Interdepartmental Task Force on the Potomac, 1968. 163. Reis, Robert I., "Policy and Planning for Recreational Use of Inland Waters," Reprint from Temple Law Quarterly, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Temple University, 1967, pp. 155-193. 164. Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, "Protection and Control of the Salt Water Shore Area," Technical Paper No. 21, May 1972, Reproduced by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Spring- field, Virginia. 165.* Shane, R.M., Day, H.J., Frenkil, S.M., Ho, P.H.P., "Riverine Recreational Development: Mathematical Modelling," Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Civil Engineering, September, 1973. 166. Smith, Gorman C., and Linsert, Henry, "A Recreational Boating Population Statistical Information System and System Results for the 5th Coast Guard District," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Coast Guard, Research and Development Office, January, 1971. 167. *Sorenson, Jens C..., "A Framework for Identification and Control of [email protected] Degradation and Conflict in the Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone," Berkeley , Calffornia: Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Environmental Design, University of California, 1971. 135 168- Threinen, C.W., Beghin, K., "Some Observations on Levels of Boating Use on Wisconsin Lakes," Report #5',.Madison.; Wtsconsin: Wi5contin "Aservation Departnent,",Fl,sh.-Ma.nagement DIV. p1961. 169.* Tilley, William S., "Planning for North Carolina's Coastal,Inlets: An Analysis ofthe Present Process and Recommendations for the Future," Report No. 73-4, Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina State University, Center for Marine and Coastal Studies, September 12, 1973. 170.* Tybout, Richard A., "Public Investment Criteria for Water Oriented Recreation in the Lake Erie Basin," Columbus,@Ohio: Ohio State University Water Resources Center, December, 1972. 171. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Public Use Plan, Nolin River Lake," Design Memo #16, Louisville, Kentucky: @"U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 172. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Evaluation of Recreation and Use Survey Pro- cedures," Plan Formulation and Evaluation Studies-Recreation, Technical Report 46. 1, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October, 1969. 173. U.S. Department of Agriculture,, "An Econometric Model for Predicting Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation Demand," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, March, 1969, 174. U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Socioeconomic Factors Affecting Participation in Water-Oriented Outdoor Recreation," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, April, 1968. 41 1,75. U.S. Department of the Interior-Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, "Outdoor Recreation,,Chesaoeake Bay: Demand, Supply, Needs," Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, February, 1974. 4 176. Wennergren, E. Boyd, "Value of Water for Boating Recreation," Bulletin 453, Logan, Utah: Utah State Universtiy, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1965. 177. U-niversity of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program,"The Future of Boating on Lake Michigan," Report No. WIS-SG-71-106,-Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Sea'Grant Program, August, 1971. Addenda 178. Mann, Roy, "Boston's Scenic Corridor," prepared for The Boston Redevelopment Authority Planning Dept., Boston, 1968. 136 VII Recreational Carrying Capacity, Zoning and Other Regulatory Mechanisms 179- Anonymous, "Model Evaluation Recreational Boating Capacity of Waters," in Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 8,-No.3,,'June, 1972. 180. Bishop, A.D,, et.al., "The Concept of Carrying Capacity," in National Conference on [email protected]@iing the Environment, EPA, 1973, pp. V-24 to V-37. 181 Fisher, Anthony C. and Krutilla, John V., "Determina-1-tion of Optimal Capacity of Resource-Based Recreatfon Facilities," in Natural Environment, ed. by Krutilla, John V., Resources for the Future, Johns Hopkins Press, 1972. 182. Hough, Stansbuny, and Associates, Ltd., "Lakealert Phase @: Methodology," Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Natural Resources, March, 1972. 183.* Jaakson, Reiner, "Plann.ing for the Capacity of Lakes to Accommodate Water- Oriented Recreation," in Plan, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1970. 184.* Jaakson, Reiner, "Recreation Zoning and Lake Planning,.'.'-in Town Planning Review, Vol,, 43, No. .1, January 19712.- 185. Jaakson,.Reiner, "Recreation Zoning for Lake Management," in Town Planning Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, January',11972. 186. Jaakson, Reiner, "Shoreline Recreation Planning. A Systems View," Occasional Paper #7, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: University-of Waterloo. 187.* Jaakson, Reiner, "Zoning to Regulate On-Water Recreatioh,";in Land Economics Vol. XLVII, No. 4, November, 1971, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. 188. Lucas, Robert C., "Recreational Capacity of Quetico-Superi6r Area," Research Paper LS-15, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964. 189.* O'Connor, Dennis M., "Final'Report of the Task.Force on*Daje County Waterways Regulation," Sea Grant Special Bulletin No. 12, Miami, Florida: Miami University Sea Grant Institutional Program, February,@ 1973. 190.. Schneberger, E. and Threinen, C.W., "Lake Management for Recreation Use," in, Wisconsin Academic.Transactions, Vol. 53, Part A, 1964., 1 191. Threinen, C.W., " An Analysis of Space Demands for Water and Shore," Reprinted from Transactions of the 29 th-North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, March 9-11, 1964,1pp. 353-372. Threinen, C.W., "Some Spatial Aspects of Aquatic Recreation," Miscellaneous Report No. 6 (mimeographed), Wisconsin Conservation Department, Fish Management Division, 1961. 193. Wilson, George T., "Lake Zoning for Recreation: How to Improve Recreational Use of Lakes Through Regulations," Management Aids Bulletin Number 44, Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives, December, 1964. 137 Addenda 194. Ashton, D. G. and Chubb. A Preliminary Study for Determining Boating Carrying Capacity Standards. " Paper given at the Seventh American Water Resources Conference, Washington, D. C. 1971. 195. Chubb, M. Outdoor Planning in Michigan By a Systems Analysis Approach. Technical Reprint #12 prepared for the Recreation Resources Planning Division. Lansing Michigan: Michigan Dept. of Conservation, Dec. 1967. 196. Chubb, M. Proceeding's of the National Forum on Recreation Standards, National Recreation and Parks Assocation, Kansas City. 1969 . 197. Chubb, M. and Ashton, P. G. Park and Recreation Standards Research: The Creation of Environmental [email protected] Controls for Recreation, A report to the National Recreation and Parks Association, Technical Report NOS. Recreation Research and Planning Unit, E. Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State Univ. 1969 138 VIII Estuarine Processes - General 198. Carpenter, J.H., Pritchard, D., Whaley, R., "Observations of Eutrophication and Nutrient Cycles in Some Coastal Plain Estuaries," Baltimore: Chesapeake Bay Institute, The Johns Hopkins University, draft. 199-* Clark, John C., Coastal Ecosystems, Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1974.- 200. Clark, John C., "Fish and Man: Conflict in the Atlantic Estuaries," Special Publication No. 5, Highlands, New Jersey: American Littoral Society, 1967. 201. Fisher, J.S., Ditmars, J.D., Ippen, A.T., "Mathematical Simulation of Tidal Time Averages of Salinity and Velocity Profile in Estuaries," MITSG 72-11, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, 1972. 202. Harleman, D., and Thatcher, M.L.,"Prediction of Unsteady Salinity Intrusion in Estuaries: Mathematical Model and User's Manual, " MITSG 72-21, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT, 1972. 203. Harleman, D., and Dailey, J., "Numerical Model for the Prediction of Transient Water Quality in Estuary Network," MITSG 72-15,.Cambridge, Massachusetts: MITs 1972. 204. Leedy, Daniel L., "Effect of Water Development on Estuarine Area," Water for Texas, Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference, November 12-22, 1966, College Station, Texas: Texas A and M University, 1966, pp. 34-39. 205- Nehman, Gerald, and Whitman, Ira, "Development of Chesappake Bay Estuaries," EPA, Water Quality Office, Technical Support Division, Estuarine Pollution Study.Series 2, April, 1971, Appendix H, h-18, in The Economic and Social Importance of Estuaries. 206. Pomeroy, L.R., et.al., "Nutrient Flux in Estuaries," in Nutrients and Eutro- I phication, ed. Fy--G7. Likeus, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, Vol. 1, 1972., pp. 274-296. 207. Sweet, D.C., The Economic and Social Importance of Estuaries, EPA, 1971. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "National Estuarine Study: A Handbook of Descriptors," Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior, June, 1968. Addenda 208. Odum, Eugene P. Fundamentals of Ecology, 2nd edition, Philadelphia: Saunders, 1959. 139 IX Chesapeake Bay - Background Information 209- Baltimore Regional Planning Commission, "A.Reconnaissance Study of the Ches- apeake Bay," Baltimore, Maryland: Baltimore Regional Planning Commission, 1968. 210- Boating Almanac Co., Boating Almanac, 1974, The Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina, Vol. 4, 197T_. 211- Guide to Cruising the Chesapeake BaX, Vols. 1, 2, and 3, Pasadena, Maryland: Chesapeake Bay Publishers, Inc., 197Zp 1973, 1974. 212- Cronin, Eugene, "The Conditions of the Chesapeake Bay," Solomons, Maryland: Chesapeake Biological Laboratory - Natural Resources Institute, University of Maryland, (not dated). 40 213. Farragut, Paul R., "Chesapeake Bay: Shoreline Utilization in the Baltimore Region," Baltimore, Maryland: Baltimore Regional Planning Commission, 1969. 214- Lippson, Alice Jane, ed., The.ChesaReake Bay in Maryland: An Atlas of Natural. Resources, Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1973. 41 .215. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Program Planning and Evaluation Section, "Chesapeake Bay: InventorY of Potential Shoreline Acess, Recreation and Open Space Areas, Part I: The West Shore, Part II: The East Shore," April, 1973. 4 216. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, "Tidewater Sportfishing Guide," Annapolis: DNR, June, 1973. 217. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Department of State Planning, Depart- ment of Transportation, "A Study of Problems Caused by Drawbridges to Motor and Water Traffic in the State of Maryland and a Recommended Program of 4 Improvements," Annapolis: DNR, DSP,DOT, April, 1973. 218.* Maryland Department of State Planning, "Integrity of the Chesapeake Bay," Annapolis: Department of State Planning, July, 1972. 219. Matthews, William B. Jr., Guide for Cruising Maryland Waters: The Original Small Craft Marine Atlas, Annapolis: Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 220.* Mihursky, J.A., McErlean, A.J., Kennedy, V.S., Roosenbury, W.H.,"Regional Planning and the Chesapeake Bay Environment: An Ecological Approach," presented at New England Coastal Zone Management Conference, Durham, New Hampshire, April 28-29, 1970, Prince Frederick, Maryland: Natural Resources Field Station, University of Maryland. 221. Nichols, Maynard, "Bibliography of Physical, Chemical, and Geological Ocean- ography of Chesapeake Bay," Speci.al Scientific Report:@#34, Gloucester Point, Virginia: Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences j -196Z. 222. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,"Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report, 140 Appendix A The People and the Economy," "Appendix B -Map Folio," Baltimore: Corps of Engineers. 223. U.S. Department of the Interior, "Waterfowl Populations in the Upper Ches- apeake Bay Region," Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Special Scientific Report, Wildlife No. 65, July, 1962. 224. U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Water Quality Survey of Chesapeake Bay in the Vicinity of Annapol-is, Maryland," CB-SRBP, Working Document No. 24, Annapolis, Maryland, Summer, 1967. 225. Wass, Marvin L, et.al., comp., "A Checklist of the Biota of Lower Chesapeake Bay,"Special Scientific Report No. 65, Gloucester Point, Virginia: Virginia Institute of Marine Science, October,.1972. Addenda 227. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Boating Administration, Boating Reports," Annapolis, Maryland: 1965,- 1973. 228. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Boating Adminstration, Rules and Regulation, Section of article 14B, Annotated Code- .,of Maryland. Annapolis: July'l, 1972 229. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Program and Planning and Evaluation Section, " Problems Associated with Public Landings," A report to the Maryland General Assembly, January, 1973. 141 X Boating Data and Operations 230.* Alexandria Drafting Co., comp,, Salt Water Sport Fishing and Boating in 71- Maryland, Alexandria, Virgini exandria Drafting Co., n.d. 231. American Boat and Yacht Council Safety Standards for Small Craft , New York: American Boat and Yacht 6ouncil. 232- Boating Industry of America, "The Boating Business-1968," Chicago, Illinois: Boating Industry of America,. 1968. 233- National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers, "Boating 1970 and Boating 1972, Statistical Report on America's Top Family Sport," Greenwich, Connecticut: NAEBM, 1970and 1972. 234. Outboard Boating Club of America, "Boating.Facilities," Vols. 1-8, 1959-1967, Chicago, Illinois: Outboard Boating Club of America. 235. U.S. House of Representatives, "Study of Recreational Boating Safety," Hearings Before the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, House of Representatives, 84th Congress, 2nd Session, (Part II), Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1957. 236.* U.S. Department of Transportation -U.S. Coast Guard, "Boating Statistics 19739" CG-357. 237.* Wain', Sidney J. Inc., Waterway Guide '74 featuring Chesapeake Bay, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1974. 238-* Watts, Oswald M., ed. consultant, Reed's Nautical Almanac and Tide Tables for 1974, Thomas Reed Publications Ltd., 1-977. XI Background Papers Appearing in the Appendix of Recreation Boatin Im act Study, Part 1: Boatin_q Capa ity Planning System 239. Clark,, John. " Potential Ecological Effects Associated with Boating and Support Facilites ". paper submitted to Roy Mann Associates, Cambridge, Mass. Sept. 1974 240. Niering, William A. " Biological Effects of Motorized Boating on the Tidal Marsh Estuarine Ecosystem ", paper submitted to Roy Mann Associates, Cambridge, Mass. Sept. 1974. 41 142 ABSTRACTS I Boating Related Impacts Biological s Clark, B.D., "Houseboat Waste Characteristics and Treatment," report #PR-6, Corvallis, Oregon; Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Pacific Northwest Water Lab, September, 1967. It was found that the average per capita BOD5, per capita suspended solids, grease, and oil in the houseboat waste is higher than normal domestic sewage and waste from the average land residence. Small extended aeration biological treatment units seem to offer a practical means of economically providing secondary treatment for houseboat wastes. The average daily flow,concentration, and treatment,problems are discussed. E Clark, B.D.,"Houseboat Waste: Methods.for-Collection and Treatment :1 Administration,' Corvallis, Oregon: Federal Water Pollution Contro Pacific Northwest Water Laboratory, 1967. 0 The study area included the States of!Washington, Oregon, and California-which have over 1200 houseboats and many other floating structures requiring sewage collection and treatment facilities. Pverage daily,houseboat wastewater quantities are similar to those for normal land residences with a daily per capita flow of 75 apd. Pumping all wastes to a shore sewer is the least expensive and most practical alternative wherever this is possible. Individual treatment devices including macerator chlorinator toilets, incinerator toilets, septic tanks with soil absorption fields, and aerobic extended aeration units were considered. Lear, Marks, and Schmincke, "Evaluation of Coliform Contribution by Pleasure Boats," CB-SRBP Technical Paper No. 10, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Middle Atlantic Region, [email protected], Va.,1.966. The report describes a sampling program and presents results and analyses of a study to determine the significance of fecal coliform contributed by pleasure boats. The sampling was conducted on the Miles River on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. 0 Mack, W.N., and D'Intri, F.M.,"Pollution of a Marina Area by Watercraft Use as Indicated by Coliform and Chemical Concentrations," East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, nepartment of Microbiology, May, 1971. Samples of water from a marina area in Michigan used by watercraft were tested for the number of coliform organisms. There wag a slight increase in the coliform most probable number of organisms in the slips most frequently used by yachts. nutside sources of contamination probably added to the total number of organisms present in the area. Although an increa--c- in the number of organisms was related to the presence of yachts in the'marina, the concentration was far below the standard of total body contact as established by the Water Ouality Standards for Michigan Intrastate Waters. Chemical analysis of water samples taken at the marina were within the normal limits for the specific area. Other 143 factors contributing to the presence of the coliform organisms in this area were considered. wRosenbusch, J.M.,"State-of-the-Art Report on Marine Sanitation Devices," Silver Spring, Maryland: Automation Industries,Inc., Vitro Labs Division, June 1973. The report describes the problem of disposal of wastewater from recreational, commercial, and military vessels, with particular emphasis on recreational vessels. Contained in this report is a summary of marine sanitation devices wich are commercially available, and a breakdown of marine sanitation device research, development, test and evaluation programs being funded by the federal government and-private agencies. An analysis is made of vessel limitations,and constraints, and the suitability of the various marine sanitation device systems is compared to the vessel requirements. The conclusions note the major problems of wastewater treatment both onboard recreational, commercial, and military vessels and at dockside and the technical and economic factors that must be considered in the selection of a marine sanitation device. 0 Seabloom, P obert W.,"Bacteriological Effect of Small Boat Wastes on Small Harbors," Seattle, Washington: University of Washington, College of Engineering, July, 1969. Since abatement of land-based sources of pollution is beginning to become a reality, pollution from vessels takes on a greater importance. One aspect of this problem is the overboard discharge of wastes from small recreational craft. Many states and other agencies have taken action to prevent toilet waste discharges from boats into recreational waters. federal legi,slation i's needed to provide an effective control of waste from small craft. Data are presented from a study of the small pleasure- craft pollution-of two small bays in the state of Washington. In one, the influence of small boat wastes on the bacteriological quality of fresh water was clearly demonstrated. A review of the present methods for handling sewage from small craft concludes that while additional research is needed to improve the technology, the present systems are considered to be marginally."adequate. m Underwater Storage, Inc., and Silver, Schwartz, Ltd.,"Collection, 'Underwater Storage, and Disposal of Pleasurecraft Waste: Feasibility of Connecting Sewage Holding Tanks On Board Recreational Watercraft to a Dockside Collection System and Storage in an Underwater Tank," Washington, D.C.i Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Water Pollution Control Research Series,, DAST - 10, September, 1969. A pilot plant was designed, constructed and operated to show the feasibility of providing a facility for the collection, storage, and disp?sal of waste from recreational watercraft. An on-board holding tank was installed in each of ten boats for total impoundment of all effluent and -for the connection to a dockside sewage collection system through a qutck,connect coupling. Each boat was provided with a pump, tank, and macerator, At docksi-de, each boat holding tank was pumped directly into a piped collection system. The project demonstrated that on-board storage of watercraft waste and subsequent discharge to an underwater storage tank was effective and economical. This project showed that the discharge of sewage from boats into rivers, lakes, waterways, and estuaries could be eliminated. 144- 11 Boating Related Impacts Chemical s. Hare, Charles T., and Springer, Karl J., "Exhaust Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion Engines - Part 2: Outboard Motors," Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, January, 1973. Exhaust emissions from four 2-stroke outboard motors were measured before and after being bubbled through water, and the constituents measured were: CO, C02, NO, hydrocarbons, NOx, 02, and total aliphatic aldehydes and formaldehyde. The engines tested were a Chrysler 35 hp twin, a Mercury 65 hp in-line four, and OMC twins of 4 hp and 9.5 hp. The engines were operated on stationary test stands with power absorption by electric (eddy current) dynamometers driven from the propellor shafts. Pertinent operating data were recorded along with the emissions, and mass emissions computed from data gathered during this project are used in conjunction with available sales' and usage data to estimate national emissions impact. 0 Moore, Stephen F., et.al.."Potential Biological Effects of Hypothetical .0 Oil Discharges in tNe 7antic Coast and the Gulf of Alaska," M.I.T. Sea Grant Publication 73-6: Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1974. This analysis of the primary biological effect of potential offshore oil spills resulting from hypothetical oil production was commissioned by the Council on Environmental Quality as part of its studies on oil exploration and drilling on the.Atlantic and Alaskan continental shelves. Qualitative predictions of physical, chemical,, and. biological effects of oil on different coastal habitats and natural communities are based on the probability of accidental spills, spill trajectories, and the behavior of oil in marine ecosystems. A spill's initial impacts depends on the amount, composition, and dtstribution of the oil, and the sensitivity of the ecosystem's species to it. To individual organisms,,oil may be toxic or tainting by coating or hydrocarbon accumulation in tissues; alteration of the substrate by oil deposition may exclude species from their normal habitats. Persistence of the oil depends on the physical variables which control the degradation processes of evaporation, dissolution, microbial and chemical or light oxidation. Persistence rates in different habitat types are estimated from documented spills, Biological recovery times for species suffering 100% mortality vary with the species' dispersal strategies and fecundity; anadromous fish may also be vulnerable to oil. Habitat recovery times cannot be accurately predicted because of a lack of data on the recovery times of different species. -0 m Shuster, W.,"Control of Pollution from Outboard Engine Exhaust: A Reconnaissance Study," Troy, New York: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institite, Bio-Fnvironmental Engineering Division, EPA Water Pollution Control Series, 15020 EPA, September, 1971. A reconnaissance study has been made to determine the extent of pollution which results from the operation of a two-cycle outboard engine. Comparisons have been made of engine operation with and without a pollution control device attached. Studies have also been made of the biodegradabi-lity of the fuel and exhaust products. Tests made in a swimming tank with an untuned engine have shown that the quantity of fuel wasted 145 as exhaust varied from about 7 percent of the volume of fuel used at high speeds, to over 30 percent at low speeds. When the Goggi pollution control device was installed, these quantities were Intercepted and collected rather than discharged with the exhaust. Analysis at various depths indicated that nearly all products separated from water in a short time and collected on the surface. Various analytical techniques were studied. Both fuel and exhaust products.are capable of sustaining microbial growth. m Walter, Robert A., "U.S. Coast Guard Pollution Abatement Program: A Preliminary Report on the Emissions Testing of Boat Diesel Engines," Cambridge, Massachusetts: U.S. Department of Transportation, Transportation Systems Center, November, 1973. The exhaust emission concentrations from three GMC-71's and a Cummins VT-350 diesel engine were measured on a dynamometer as a function of engine load. The GMC-71 engines were newl.y rebuilt by the Coast Guard; the Cummins engine was in used condition. The exhaust emission concentra- tions were reduced to mass emissions by the carbon balance technique. Similar levels were obtained from the three rebuilt GMC-71 engines with type HV Injectors. 146 III Boating Related Impacts Physical 0 Das, M.M., "Relative Effect of Waves Generated by Large Ships and Small Boats in Restricted Waterways," Ber-keley,.California: University of California, Berkeley, Hydraulic Engineering Lab, Novembar, 1969. The peak wave energy in a system of waves resulting from the passage of a shfp is important in engineering problems such as bank erosion, the motion of moored vessels, and forces on fixed and floating docks. With respect to bank erosion, the question often asked is whether the single passage of a large ship is more damaging than numerous passages of small pleasurecraft. The study was conducted to determine the relative importance of the peak energy resulting from the passage of a cargo ship AD and a pleasure cruiser. The characteristics of the waves generated by thesevessels moving at various speeds in deep and shallow water were determined from model studies. A numerical example is given in which prototype values of peak wave energy were predicted from the model data, and then ratios of the peak energies computed. The importance of ship speed is evident in these comparisons. W.Gustafson,F. "Supposed Toxicities of Marine Sediments.Beneficial Effects of Dredging @urbidity," World Dredging and Marine Construction, V.8, #13, pp. 44-52, December, 1972. The ability of clay to remove materials out of the water column is considerable. The longer the period of suspension the greater will be the success of removal. Oils, pesticides, sewage pollutants (with the ex- ception of nitrates), and metals are all stripped or scrubbed from the Water by the clay sediments. As the clays fall a 'nd become bottom sediments, the materials which have been stripped out are almost completely isolated.,, The difference in concentrations of metals between sediment and water il- lustrates the adsorptive capacity of the sediments and proves their impor- -0 tance in the removal of these chemicals from the water. An experiment was designed to test the effectiveness and the permanence of the adsorption and the results show that resuspension of bay sediments caused an increased re- moval of the metals from the water. Pesticides and PCE followed the action of the metals. The short-time resuspension of sediments such as might occur during dredging or even during disposal in confirmed areas will not produce an excessive growth of algae. Results indicate that organic mole- cules are not liberated when resuspended in amounts sufficient to cause ecological concern. An experiment to determine if marine organisms could or would digest metals and pesticides from clay particles was conducted using clams. The results were not conclusive. m.Magrab, Edward B., "Establishment of Noise Criteria for Recreational Boats," Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, Department of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, July 20,.1973. The noise emitted by recreational boats presents the following problems: noise pollution to by-standers, communication difficulties on- board, and permanent damage to an individual's hearing. A noise criterion must be determined first in order to solve these problems. A noise analy sis of various common recreational boats and engines was conducted from measurements taken in the field. Standard test procedures for taking sound 0 147 measurements exterior to and on-board recreational boats were established. The mean value of noise from large, small, and all motors were found to be 85.4, 80.2, and 82.9 dBA respectively. A noise level of 65 dBA is con- sidered moderately noisy by most people. Therefore, most all motors emit an unacceptable level of noise to people in boating areas such as lakes, rivers, etc. The problem of.communication among individuals on-board recreational boats may present a safety hazard in a fog situation where is warnings of danger must be spoken or ships' whistles and fog signals must be heard. A high noise level such as 82.9 dBA over a long period of ex- posure may also be damaging to an individual's hearing. Standard test procedures have been established to measure the noise level emitted from recreational boats as a first step to help eliminate the above problems. E.Wolman, M.G., "Problems Posed By Sediment Derived From Construction Activities in Maryland," Annapolis, Md.: Maryland Water Pollution Control Commission, January, 1964. Rare land is subject to rapid erosion by rainfall and runoff. Because construction denudes the natural cover and exposes the soil be- neath, the tonnage of sediment derived by erosion from an acre of ground 41 under construction in developments and highways may exceed 20,000 to 40,000 times the amount eroded from farms and woodlands in an equivalent period of time. The amount of sediment eroded from the site as well as the amount which reaches the stream channel depend upon the coincidence in time of storms and exposure, the season of the year, the geology and topography of the Ote, the layout of the project, and the proximity of the site to a net- work of perennial streams. Deposition of sediment in stream channels may reduce channel capacity and materially alter the flora and fauna. Data are insufficient to assess the permanence of these effects. High sediment yields for periods of short duration fill small ponds and reservoirs to capacity. To date larger reservoirs and estuaries show less cumulative effects presumably due to storage in streams and valleys, to dispersal of development on the watersheds, and perhaps due also to the fact that records are more limited. Problems posed by sediment derived from construc- tion in Maryland are local and of variable magnitude. Because techniques of demonstrated economic practicability, utilizing vegetation and struc- tures, are available for reducing the quantity of sediment, if the sediment load now making its way to the streams of Maryland is to be reduced, effec- tive ways of encouraging more widespread adoption of control practices must be developed. 148. IV Boating Related Impacts - General E Blumenthal, I.S., "Positive Pollution," Santa Monica, California: Rand Corporation, March, 1971. The report is from talk on the results of an investigation in support of the conjecture that there should be something good about pollu- tion. The subject is addressed with particular reference to marine recreation. E National Industrial Pollution Control Council, "Land and Water Pollution from Recreational Use," Washington, n.r.: National Industrial Pollution Control Council, December, 1971. The report presents recommendations on the possibility and. abatement of air and water pollution resulting from recreational equipment such as boats, camping equipment, snowmobiles, etc. w Pacific No 'rthwest Water Lab, "Pacific Northwest Watercraft Pollution Study" and "Appendix," Corvallis, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Water Lab, February, 1967. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent, seriousness and causes of water pollution in the Pacific Northwest attributable to water- craft users; further, to determine what legislation and physical means are presently available to control this pollution; and what additional means and legislation are needed. All data were obtained from existing manuals, reports, and.files; and by correspondence and personal interviews with personnel' of various Federal, State, local governmental, and private agencies. The Appendix presents extensive information on the extent of waterways, recrea- tional watercraft and supporting shore facilities commerce, commercial water- craft and supporting shore facilities, governmental watercraft and support- ing shore facilities, and legislation and regulations. EmU.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, "Water Pollution Caused. by the Operation of Vessels," Washington, D.C.: FWPC Administration, December,,- 1.966. The extent of the problem of pollution from vessels has been reviewed and evaluated, and recommendations for corrective an&preventive action have been developed. All navigable waters of the United States have been considered in the study--coastal waters with their bays, sounds, and inlets and the myriad of rivers, lakes, and 6anals comprising the nation's major inland water resources. This report represents an initial assessment of the degree and magnitude of the problem which may befurther refined by future studies. The great diversity in vessel size, type, usage, and operating conditions is recognized. 149 V Marina Management and Operations; Related Impacts N Delaune, Kathryn M., "Proceedings of the Recreational Boating Seminar Held in Galveston, Texas, on December 17, 1971," Report on Sea Grant Program, College Station, Texas: Texas Engineering Experiment Station, Industrial Economics Research Division, January, 1972. The leisure industry is the third largest in the nation. Of all water-related activities, recreational boating is one of the fastest moving. At the seminar in Galveston, marine insurance, marketing trends, maintenance, repairs and boating safety were discussed. m Lyon, G.H., Tuthill, n.F., and Matthews, W.B., "Economic Analysis of Marinas in Maryland," (MP 679), College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station, April, 1969. The total investment in marinas in 1965 was $35 million for an average investment of $104,272 per marina. The land value of these marinas was $25.2 million, an average of $9,536 per acre. A relatively large number of marinas, 53, had gross incomes of less than $5000; 21 reported gross incomes of over $250,000. Forty-one marinas reported gross incomes of $100,000 to $250,000 in 1965. nuring the peak month of employment in 1965, marinas employed 2200 workers. In that year, marinas operated at about 88.6% of their full capacity. Overall, marina operators reported a strong demand for marina facilities. Operators in some areas reported keep- 41 ing waiting lists of prospective customers. In other areas there were sur- plus facilities. Altogether, marina owners reported they needed 30% more slips than they had on hand in 1965. Marina owners indicated that they in- tended to expand their operations during the next 5 years. Seventeen limited service type marinas were studied to determine their costs, revenues, and net returns: average total costs for the 17 marinas amounted to $155.94 41 per slip annually; the average revenue was $167.53 per slip; and the return to management was only $11.59 per slip. Economies of size analysis was also made for limited service marinas. M Nixon, S.W., Oviatt, C.A., and Northby, S.L., "Fcology of Small Boat Marinas," Rhode Island University Graduate School of Oceanography, 1973. In Wickford Harbor, Rhode Island, a yacht marina area and a salt marsh cove were considered as ecological systems and compared to evaluate biological populations and magnitudes of production and respiration. Volume and flushing-characteristics of both areas were similar. Analyses were made fn each cove on marsh grass production, suspended particulate matter, phyto- plankton, nutrients, bacteria, dissolved organics, copper levels, fish and sediments. giomass and metabolism measurements were made on the fouling communities present on floats and pilings in the marina. Preliminary bio- assays were performed with concentrations of outboard motor exhaust water on several species of estuarine organisms. Some additional comparative measure- ments were taken inside and outside other marinas located in Narragansett Bay. Tn most respects the marina co.ve and the marsh cove appeared to be not only similar, but also compatible, ecological systems. 150 N.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, "Small-Boat Harbor, Mississippi River at Pepin, Wisconsin: Final Environmental Impact Statement," ',t. Paul, Minnesota: U.S. Amy Engineer District, October, 1971. The project provides remedial works to adequately protect from wave damage an existing harbor on Lake Pepin at Pepin, Pepin County, Wis- consin. The harbor will then be more usable and easier to maintain. In addition, docking facilities can be expanded and improved without fear of further damage due to wave action. Construction will cause a temporary in- crease in turbidity which would have minimum impact on the water quality. [email protected] adverse impacts upon fish and wildlife resources will result from the project. AB 151 VI Recreational Planning N Altouney, E.G., Crampon, L.J., and Willeke, G.F., "Recreation and Fishery Values in the San Francisco Bay and Delta," Menlo Park, California: Stan- ford Research Institute, October 7, 1966. The contents of this report are: estimates of recreation use other than hunting and fishing; approach to estimates of recreation use; potential demand of 11-county area residents; potential demand of all other California residents; potential demand of all other U.S. residents; total potential demand of all groups; total expected use in the study area; present recreation use by activity, region, and type of participant; break- down of projections by activity, region, and type of participant; sport fishing; commercial fishing;,waterfowl hunting; method of computation; summary of benefits. 0 Bishop, D.W. and Aukerman, R., "Water Quality Criteria for Selected Recrea- tional Uses," Urbana, Illinois: !,later Resources Center, University of Illinois , September, 1970. Four types of outdoor recreationists were investigated to deter- mine whether they differed in their attitudes, beliefs, and behavior regard- ing various water characteristics at Central Illinois water-based recreation sites. Using an attitude model derived from social-psychological research, the recreationists' attitudes toward the sites were estimated from their attitudes and beliefs about water characteristics. The site attitudes were regarded as indicators of the quality of the respondents' recreation experi- ence resulting from characteristics of the water. The major analyses were comparisons of the recreationist groups' perceptions of the water, attitudes toward water characteristics, the site attitudes'held because of water characteristics, reports of decreased site use because of water characteristics, and reports of probable termination of site use because of water charac- tertistics. The results indicated that the four types of recreationists differed in their perceptions of the water, attitudes toward water charac- teristics, site attitudes, and the reported water characteristics that had caused or might cause decreased site use. In addition to these group differences, there were strong individual differences within the various groups. Site attitudes were not-highly related to reported behavior. 0 Ditton, Robert B., "The Social and Economic Significance of Recreation Activities in the Marine Environment," Sea Grant Technical Report #11, Green Bay, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, January, 1972. Tndividuals, adjacent shoreland owners, businessmen, polluters, etc., must begin to assume responsibility for the sustained yiela of the coastal zones if society is to realize the full social and economic signi- ficance of recreational activities in the marine environment. While sus- tained yield is a socioeconomic concept promulgated by foresters concerned with perpetual production of high-quality timber, resource manaqers have since recognized that it has application to all of our renewable and non- renewable resources. Recause of the undeniable relationship of leisure-man and environment, sustained yield can and should be applied in the recrea- tional development of the marine environment, our goal being continuous availability of satisfying water recreation while sustaining the nonrenew- able natural coastal zone ecosystem. 152 m.Ditton, Robert and Goodale, T., "Marine Recreational Uses of Green Bay: A Survey of Human Behavior and Attitude Patterns,," Madison, Wisconsin: Univ-e-r-sity of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, December, 1972. A survey of 2,174 heads of households in the Green Bay area showed that over two thirds of those interviewed participated one or more times in fishing, swimming or boating during the twelve months prior to the survey. Frequency of participation was highest for fishermen and 'lowest for boaters. The popularity of the recreation facilities of Green Bay is given. A direct relationship between water quality and recreational use is clearly demonstrated. The relationship between education, place of residence, and participation in marine recreation is discussed. Opinions on, bay water quality problems are surveyed. Group (fishermen, boaters, swimmers, and:non-participants) comparisons are made. wDitton, Robert, and Goodale, T., "Recreational Uses of Green Bay: Bay/ Non-Bay Users Compared," in Proceedings of Conference on Great Lakes Research, (15th), April, 1972, pp. 72Y 736. The paper identifies the proportion of a representative sample of heads of households who used Green Bay for recreation and relates their 0 activity and location to their perception of Bay water characteristics. Variables observed to differ between groups included place of residence, years of schooling, willingness to pay for water quality improvement, water quality and physical characteristics described as most bothersome and reasons for not participating more. The data suggests Bay use was related to the participant's perceptions of the Bay's water quality and physical char- atteristics. Compared to non-Bay users, Bay users were more troubled by winds, water temperature and cloudiness; were more deterred from further partici- pation by 'dirtywater' and were inclined to allocate more money for water quality improvement. wDitton, Robert, and Goodale, T., "Water Quality Perception and the Recreational Uses of Green Bay, Lake Michigan," in Water Resources Research, Vol. 9, No. 3, June, 1973, pp. 569-:579. How people perceive Green Bay as a recreation resource, how per- ceptions differed between groups, and how these perceptions related to recreation use patterns, are identified. WhePeas seven of ten household heads interviewed participated in boating, or swimming, only three of the ten used Green Bay during the preceding twelve months, indicating thai Green Bay was not a focal point of water-based recreation among residents of the five-countystudy area. Chi square test groups differed significantly on most comparisons when used to describe the Bay and its most bothersome physical and water quality cha'racteristics. Generally, participants and those who use the Bay were less apt to cite unpleasant-smell and dead fish as major problems and more apt to cite such problems as winds, waves, and cloudiness. Comparisons between three user groups (fishermen, boaters, and swimmers) indicated swimmers and boaters differed most in their perception of the Bay and its troublesome characteristics, with fishermen occupying a position between to two gro",)s. 153 N Francis, J.D., and Busch, L., "Water Recreational Activities in New York State and the Effect on Associated Industries," Ithaca: New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, August, 1973. .Trends in recreational boating and its associated industries-- the boat building and repair industry,,the retail boat dealerships, and the marina industry--are discussed. Sports fishing and its associated industries are the major activity examined. E Mechalas, B.J., Hekimian, K.K., Schinazi, L'.A., and Dudley, R.H., "Water Quality Criteria Data Book - Vol. 4: An Investigation into Recreational Water Quality," El Monte, California:-,Envirogenics Co., April., 1972. A new technique has been developed for establishing firm criteria for health risks associated-with recreational water bodies. The basis of the method is a mathematical treatment of medical dose-response data in conjunction with the probability of exposure over a period of time to a given level of the potentially harmful factor, such that a quantitative risk can be assigned to the recreational activity. Once a public health Jurisdiction has estab.lished an acceptable level of risk, curves produced by electronic data processing equipment can be used to ascertain whether a particular water should be open to the public. m Megli, L.D., Long, W.H., Gamble, H.B., "An Analysis of the Relationship Between Stream Water Quality and Regional Income Generated by Water-Oriented Recreation," Research Publication Vol. 69, University Park, Pennsylvania: Penn State University Institute for Research and Land and Water Resources, December, 1971. The hypothesis tested is- the recreational use of streams and, therefore, the amount of regional income generated by recreation-related expenditures are directly related to stream water quality in the area. Data were gathered about in-stream water quality and recreational use of streams for thirty areas of Pennsylvania. Water quality indicators were dissolved oxygen content, pH value, and the temperature of the stream water. Expenditures by sector within the local area were converted to estimates of regional income generated thorugh the use.of sectoral regional income multipliers adapted from an inter-industry study of a Pennsylvania county. The results indicated a positive correlation between in-stream water quality and the amount of regional income generated by recreation related expenditures. m Menchik, M.D., "Outdoor Recreational Management: A Mathematical Model," Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Institute for Environmental Studies, August, 1973. This paper formulates and evaluates outdoor recreational management policies. The mathematical programming model developed allocates the use of a given system of outdoor recreational facilities so as to maximize a measure of user satisfaction without exceeding site carrying capacities. 154 N!,Shane, R.M., Day, H.J., Frenkil, S.M., Ho, P.H.P., "Riverine Recreational Development: Mathematical Modelling," Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Civil Engineering, September, 1973. A computer simulation model is developed to make water quality projections for planning urban recreation. One of the goals of this research is to evaluate the recreational Dotential of the [email protected], particularly that portion closest to the city of Pittsburgh. The present water quality of the Allegheny River is suitable for boating and general fishing; but it is not suitable for swimming or active game fishing at this time. E.Sorenson, Jens C., "A Framework for Identification and Control of Resource Degradation and Conflict in the Multiple Use of the Coastal Zone," Berkeley, California: Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Environmental Design, University of California, 1971. This thesis is directed to the issues of (1) resolution of conflict among competing uses of resources in the coastal zone, and (2) control of resource degradation. It is organized into five parts: the first part, a brief discussion of resource conflict and degradation, serves to background the idea of developing the framework procedure described in parts two and.three (II - Development of an Impact System Framework, III The Framework Components). Applications of the framework, both as observed and foreseen, are outlindd in part four. The concluding portion cites future tasks for the improvement of the procedure. Several matrices are developed; matrix B analyzes the impacts of recreational activities on environmental, socioeconomic, aesthetic, and health and safety factors. The possible adverse impacts (initial condition, consequent condition, and effect) are balanced against corrective actions/control mechanisms. Tilley, William S., "Planning for North Carolina's Coastal Inlets: An Analysis of the Present Process and Recommendations for the Future," Report No. 73-4, Raleigh, North Carolina: 'North Carolina StateUniversity, Center for Marine and Coastal Studies, September 12, 1973. This study evaluates the present decision-making process for problems involving coastal inlets in North Carolina. The natural processes at inlets are reviewed and man's relationship with inlets explained. The present government decision process is defined ky identifying the partici- pants., their policies, objectives and authority, the factors considered, operation of the process in practice and the part the process itself plays in the result. The process is evaluated by examining government and public satisfaction and by comparing the present process to a rational planning model. Conclusions about the needs of the present process and recommendations for improvements are presented. Tybout, Richard A., "Public Investment Criteria for Water Oriented Recreation in the Lake Erie Basin," Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Water Resources Center, December, 1972. The rese'. .,ch rasults of an attempt to correct several basic flaws in the economic theory rolevant to pricing pollution and other negative externalities are presented. The validity of the theorem concerning the 155 ownership of a polluting factor and its effect on the allocati on of resources is criticized. Comprehensive measurement of the demand for water-based recreation is discussed. Three important effects which must be reflected in shift parameters were noted, and a theoretical model for shift analysis within an econometric framework was developed. 156 VII Recreationa] Carrying Capacity; Zoning and Other Regulatory Mechanisms E-Jaakson, Reiner, "Planning for the Capacity of Lakes to Accomodate Water- Oriented Recreation," in Plan, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1970. All planning and development of natural resources must be based on the concepts that a resource is not inexhaustible, and that.there is a close relationship between the intensity of use of the resource, and the quality 40 of use. A lake as a natural resource falls clearly into this classification. The amount of recreation that it can withstand should be calculated to achieve two aims: 1) to protect the natural environment of the lake; and 2) to allow the recreation milieu to maintain a density of use and activity which will be considered as.attraciive by the recreationists. ,The problem, therefore, of resource development is, distinctly, over use. With an increase of the number of recreationists a larger.segment of demand will be satisfied, but only at the expense of lowering the quality of the recreation experience. The end result often is a rejection, by the recreationists, of.the resource.' The recreation capacity concept may be used by planners as a guide- .line on wftich the land use planning of lakes.may be based, and on which cottage 0. subdivi'sion and the public sector of recreation may be better evaluated. The capacity concept is not a formula or-a blueprint, but rather an underlying principle on which some land use planning.considerations may be made. w.Jaakson, Reiner, "Recreation Zoning and Lake Planning," in Town Planning Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, January, 1972, Liverpool, United Kingdom: Liverpool Un_ir_v_e_rsity Press. This paper presents a framework which incorporates five shoreline land-use zones and three water-surface zones into a conceptual model of lake. planning. The components of this model, the zones, their meaning, nomenclature and suggestions for delineation, are a.general guide; it is the underlying thought processes, and their broad implications to lake planning, which embody'the key concepts. The strategy suggested for lake planning for recreation is that zoning, as one facet of planning, must deal both with the development of the shoreline, as well as with the control of activities on the water. Proposals that are attendant to recreation zoning have been woven into the main theme, and include, in some detail, criteria for the design of holiday home subdivisions, and, in a more general way, notions on public access and public use of lakes. The Canadian, and. particularly the Ontario, socio-economic and physical setting of recreation lakes has been presented as an example.of the implementation of the zoning and planning concepts. u.Ja,akson, Reiner, "Zoni-ng to Regulate On-Water Recreation," in Land Economics, Vol. XLVII, No.4, November, 1971, Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. To meet the need for more effectice control of on-water recreation, it has been argued that activity zones can.be delineated by grouping recreation [email protected] into categories which exhibit similiae density requirements and speed characteris'tics. It has been.further argued that, by Means of activity. zones, incompatible recreation pursuits can.be segregated and their conflict and competition minimized. Measures to protect the ecosystem of a lake from the adverse.effects of recreation activity have been presented and have been 157 incorporated into the concept of onawater spatial organization. Three activity zones have been proposed: a Shoreline Activity Zone, an,*Open Water Zone, and a Wildlife Zone. The performance characteristics of popular recreation activities, and their relationship to the biotic communities,of the lake, constitute the underlying theme which molds the basic zoning concept. The organization of on-water activities within a zoning framework which attempts to facilitate the simultaneous carrying out of a number of recreation pursuits is a general model which demands substantial modification in the process of its application to specific waterbodies. Legislative and administrative constraints may severely restrict the effective implementation of the model; the distinct morphology or ecology of different waterbodies may command a unique arrangement of the zones; adjustments in the model on a temporal basis may also be necessary, as a response to time-variations in recreation activity. It is believed, however, that the model presents a plausible concept for rational planning of the recreation utilization of lakes and, with necessary alterations, of waterbodies in general. 0 O'Connor, Dennis M., "Final Report of the Task Force on Dade County Waterways Regulation," Sea Grant Special Bulletin #12, Miami, Florida: Miami University Sea Grant Institutional Program, February, 1973. The report concerns the need for planning and managerial expertise at the local level in the management and regulation of waterways. Specific recommendations are made on ; watercraft ownership and use; pollution from watercraft; shoreline facilities;enhancement of shoreline use. Appendices contain documentation on Federal, State and local laws and ordinances pertaining to county waterways; recent federal legislation pertinent to waterways management; and authority under State Law for county action on waterways. 158 VITT Estuarine Processes General Cla rk, John C., Coastal Ecosystems, Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation, 1974. Planning requires a system of identification and classification of general areas of environmental concern. These are the areas within which human activities must be controlled, not necessarily prohibited, to protect the environment. Smaller areas that are especially critical ecologically-- vital areas--are to be designated for complete protection within areas of concern. Estuaries and their surrounding tidelands and wetlands are areas of environmental concern. Eleven principles derived from ecology are pre- sented. They underlie the majorManagement Principles developed relative to ecosystem integrity, drainage, drainageway buffers, wetlands and tide- lands, storage, and energy, and the Management Rules developed relative to drainageways, basin circulation, nutrient supply, nitrogen,, turbidity, temperature, oxygen, salinity, and runoff contamination. Because both land and water use controls are necessary for best achievablelecosystem function, which usually means as near to the natural condition as possible, 0 it is necessary to regulate both the location and the design of projects in shoreland and coastal water provinces. Also,@many types of human activities must be controlled to some degree. In addition, the construction of many types of projects and their operations will have to conform to certain per- formance standards. The conclusion reached is that "Whatever its specific goals may be, an environmental management program must embrace whole eco- 0 systems. Any attempt to manage separately one of the many interdependent components of a complex ecosystem will very likely fail. So would any attempt to control any one source of environmental disturbance to the system without controlling others .... Development adjacent to estuarine waters will require exceptionally vigorous management attention." (Clark, p. ix) 159 IX Chesapeake Bay Background Information Maryla*nd Department of State Planning, "Integrity of the Chesapeake Bay," Annapolis: Department of State Planning, July, 1972. This document represents a summary of the major findings and conclusions contained in the "Maryland Chesapeake Bay Study," a report prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Interagency Planning Committee. The Bay Study represents the first comprehensive Maryland,Chesapeake Bay inventory of natural resource.s and economic development problems with suggested mechanisms for management planning. This Summary Report of the Bay Study is divided into 3 major sections. The first describes the general char- acteristics of the Chesapeake Bay including its physical and natural char- acteristics, its commercial value, economic viability, and the population within the Bay region. Eight major problems which have ecological, social, econmic and planning and management significance to the Bay, and goals use- ful in ameliorating the problems are discussed in the second major section of this report. The final section outlines the elements needed to prepare an effective management plan for the Chesapeake Bay. Alternative management institutions which would respond most effectively to the Bay problems are also discussed. [email protected] Ilihursky, J.A., McErlean, A.J., Kennedy, V.S., and Roosenbury, W.H., "Regional Planning and the Chesapeake Bay Environment: An Ecological Approach," presented at New England Coastal Zone Management Conference, Durham, New Hampshire, @.pril 28-29, 1970, Prince Frederick, Maryland: Natural Resources Field Station, University of Maryland. A heavy outpouring of funds, manpower, and coordinated research and management effort in every sector, both public and private, is required to respond to the environmental needs of society. The Chesapeake Bay system is used as an example of an easily definable and describable area from the heavily industrialized and populated northeast coast of the United States. Maryland's economy, style of life, and quality of life are almost entirely dependent upon the specific nature of the Bay and its environmental characteristics and balance. Some examples are presented of ecological consequences of certain decisions which resulted in environmental changes to the system: the proposed widening and deepening ot tne Chesapeake and Delaware Canal will result in a loss of freshwater flow and possible in- creased salinities; steam electric stations are rapidly being located in coastal regions. 160 X Boating Data and Operations S'Alexandria Drafting Co., comp., Salt Water Sport Fishing and Boating in Maryland, Alexandria, Virginia: xandria Drafting Co., n.d. This publication includes complete Tide Tables, Aids to Naviga- tion, and the National Ocean Survey Nautical Chart Index. Also featured is a complete listing of Maryland's many marinas, with chart locations for each. The habits and habttats of many of Maryland's most popular game and 'table' fish are described in an article by Wheeler Johnson. Supplementing the text, the ftshermanmay reference numerous illustrations showing favorite fishing knots, loops, and terminal tackle. Additional pages are devoted to the Salt Water Sport Fishtng Calendar, to Itsti;ng charterboatcaptains and how to contact them, and to listing complete results of the 1971 Maryland Citation Award Program, with the anglers' names., dates, and locations of their catch Probably the single most impressive feature is the 55-page array of muiticolor charts, which cover Maryland's Atlantic Coast and off- shore fishing waters, and 6 pages of special charts that include the entire Chesapeake Bay, from the'Chesapeake and Delaware Canal to the Virginia Capes. These charts Identify natural landmarks, water !depths, channels, oyster bars, danger areas, lights, buoys, wrecks, and 'even bottom quality. High- ways, access roads, campgrounds, fi,shfng streams, p,ubltc clamming areas, and public beaches are just a few of the points of interest marked with descrip tive symbols from the legend. Each,chart pinpoints fishing hotspots, what fish frequent these areas, and when they are most likely to be caught. Of general interest are articles which relate diverse topics from Sport Crabbing in Maryland to the history and activities of the Maryland Marine Police. E U.S. Department of Transportation -U.S. Coast Guard, "Boating Statistics 1973," CG-357. Statistics on boat numbering registration, boating accidents, and certain related activities for the U.S. for the calendar year 1973 are presented in this report. The boat numbering statistics were compiled from official reports received from the 47 states, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam, which have federally approved boat numbering systems, and from the Coast Guard numbering records for other jurisdictions which do not yet have federally approved systems. The accident statistics were extracted from copies of Boating Accident reports submitted to those jurisdictions with approved numbering systems and forwarded to the,Coast Guard; from reports submitted directly to the Coast Guard in those jurisdictions without an approved numbering system; and from reports of Coast Guard investigations of fatal boating accidents that occurred on waters under joint or Federal jurisdiction, and the high seas. m.Wain, Sidney J. Inc., Waterway Guide '74 Featuring Chesapeake Bay, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1974. The Guide is a useful data book for recreational boaters, provi ding charts, tide tables, tidal currents, and lists of shore facilities, as well as information on anchoring, bridges, vital Coast Guard phone numbers, hazards, history of the area, shellfish, weather, and winds. The Chesapeake Bay region is divided into 5 sections: the Upper Eastern Shore - quiet unobtrusi've wealth, gentleman farmers, gracious old-style ways, tranquil villages; 161 the Upper Western Shore with a heavy concentration of boats, much of the 0 Bay's industry, some of its largest cities; Potomac River - winding water road to the nation's capital and dividing line between Maryland and Virginia, each with its own shore and its own particular style; the Lower Eastern Shore - remote and quiet, with Islands and towns largely unaffected by passage of the years; the Lower Western Shore - deep, wide. rivers, leisurely pace, culminating In the hubbub of Hampton Roads. m.Watts, Oswald'M., ed. consultant, Reed's Nautical Almanac and Tide Tables for 1974, Thomas Reed Publications Ltd., 1974. Major topics covered in the Almanac are: navigation and nautical astronomy and radio aids to navigation; safety, distress and rescue, colli- sions; tides and tidal currents; visual navigational aids. Tidal currents in Chesapeake Bay are mapped, and tables of high and low water times and heights at Baltimore and Washington, D.C. are shown, as well as a chart of tidal differences on each port. Visual navigational aids are listed for each state. APPEND71CES A. John Clark: "Potential Ecological Effects Associated with Boating and Support Facili.ties B. William A. Niering: "Biological Effects of Motorized Boating on the Tidal Marsh Estuarine Ecosystem." C. Maps: Environmental Constraints J a-1 APPENDIX A .Potential Ecological Effects Associated with Boating and Support Facilities 0 John Clark* In recent years, agencies of local, state, and Federal governments have expended increasing amounts of effort in the protection of estuarine resources. Although it is not always explicit, these efforts have as a common goal the preservation of ecosystems; that is, an attempt to control the activities of mankind so as to alter the essential components of ecosystems. Out of this effort has arisen an understanding of adverse environmental effects (or impacts) that arise from damaging disturbances to natural estuarine systems, (estuary referring to protected brackish water bodies--bays, creeks, lagoons, tidal rivers and so forth). It is now understood that boating activity has the potential for causing numerous disturbances that can significantly degrade ecosystems and endanqer the productivity of estuarine resources, particularly in confined, shallow waters. ECOSYSTEM COMPONENTS To predict adverse effects, it is necessary to consider the points of vulnerability of the estuarine ecosystem. This is done by separately studying each of the major components of the system, as discussed below: Water Circulation The combined influence of fresh water flow, tidal action, wind, and oceanic forces results in the natural pattern of water movement, or circulaton, found in each estuarine water body. Circulation of water transports nutrients, propels plankton, distributes the tiny young stages of fish and shellfish, flushes the wastes from animal and plant life cleanses the system of pollutants, controls salinity, mixes the water, and performs other useful work. Any activity that significatly alters the natural pattern of circulation .4 must be presumed to be adverse. Major disturbances of the natural circu- lation pattern may be caused by boating or construction of boating or navigation facilities: 1) Altering inlets and passes either by restrtcting them with bridges, causeways, or bulkheads, or by opening them by dredging. 4 2) Water flow blockage caused by spoil banks (deposits of dredged material). 3) Changing water flow by realignment, deepening or widening of channels. 4 4) Alteration of water flow patterns caused by encroachment of piers of fills into coastal waters. ---------- *Environmental Guidance-Group, Washington, D.. C. a-2 be used as effectively as possible to avoid the discharge of unnatural amounts and types of growth stimulating nutrients, particularly nitrogenous wastes, into coastal waters. Vital Habitat Areas Many components of the coastal ecosystem are of such importance to certain species or to the functioning of the entire ecosystem that they need special protection from alteration and protection from 'pollution and other external sources of disturbances. Fixed vital areas are readily located, surveyed and mapped, and remain constant in location. Transient vital areas, most often water masses of special ecological value, shift position with the wind, tide, river inflow, and so forth. Vegetated tidelands: Paramount among the vital areas are the vegetated tidelands (tidal marshes). They serve as the vehicle for storage and transfer of nutrients into the coastal waters to provide basic nutrient for the estuarine food web. Tidelands vegetation removes toxic materials, excess nutrients, and sediments from estuarine waters and services to stabilize estuarine shorelines, prevent erosion, and slow the surge of flood waters. Its vitality depends upon exposure to tidal flushing, and upon the freshwater inflow. Struc- tures and excavations--bulkheads, canals, foundations--which alter water flow are adverse. And, of course, vegetated tidelands should not be removed, obliterated, or reduced. Wetlands: In the profile of the coastal landscape, wetlands are the areas above mean high tide mark and below the yearly high storm mark. They are naturally vegetated with wet-soil plants-- acombination of salt-tolerant types of grasses and rushes often grading into typical fresh water marsh plants inland. Wetlands serve many of the same functions as the vegetated tidelands in cleansing runoff waters and regulating their flow, in taking up, converting, storing, and supplying basic nutrient to the coastal'ecosystem, and in storm and erosion protection. They also provide essential habitats for various coastal birds and mammals. [email protected] Beds: Submerged grass beds are important elements of the estuarine ecosystem, and in storm and erosion protection. They may supply food to grazing animals, provide detrital food to the water, add oxygen (during daylight hours), and stabilize bottom sediments. They are nursery areas for young fishes and crustaceans and, in general, attract an.abundance and diversity of life. They are vulnerable. to many types of pollution. Turbidity from silt and eutrophication screens out light and prevents growth of the grass. Fine sediments (mud) create unstable bottom conditions in which the grasses cannot anchor their roots. Also,boat traffic through grass beds may compound the pollution problem by stirring up sediments or reduce the beds by cutting off the plants 3 The relevant constraint is to avoid S4gnificant change in the natural pattern of water flow by controlling structures and excavations in the water basin. The ecological disturbance potential increases as the water body becomes smaller or as flushing rate drops (Clark, 1974). Sedimentation The accumulation of sediments on the bottom of an estuarine basin 0 results in shoaling of the basin and has adverse effects on water quality, circulation, and general ecosystem function. 'Fine sediments on the bottom trao,pollutants and when resuspended by wind, currents, or boat traffic caus&oxygen depletion, [email protected], and release of.toxic.-adbstances aM obnoxious gases. A heavy layer of fine sediment prevents occupancy by the normal bottom fauna and the rooting of sea grasses. To prevent sedimentation and its secondary effects of turbidity and so forth, there should be controls on: 1)land clearing in the estuarine watershed, 2)dredging in and around coastal water basins, and, 3)the size, speed, and routing of boat traffic. Fine sediments (less than about 0.1 in. diam.) are of particular concern. Oxygen Of the various gases that are found dissolved in coastal waters, oxygen is of the most obvious importance to fish and other animal life. For animal li-fe to be adequately supported, coastal waters need a high concentration of oxygen--Federal guidelines suggest 6.0 ppm and require a minimum of 4.0 ppm (four parts of dissolved oxygen per million of water, by weight) unless concentrations are naturally lower. Oxygen may fall to unhealthy levels where boat sewage and other wastes with.high BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) pollute coastal waters and induce high bacterial action that is particularly serious in the smallest, shallowest water bodies with poor flushing. The bacteria multiply rapidly to reach enormous abundance and deplete the water of oxygen faster than it can [email protected] by either plants or the atmosphere. Oxygen may be artificially depressed to dangerously low levels in deep box-cut canals around marinas where poor circulation prevents adequate flushing and where fine sediments accumulate--it was estimated that-a half pound of organic wastes per day (for example, grass clippings) would contaminate a 100-foot length of canal reducing oxygen from 4.5 to 3.8 ppm (in southwest Florida). 4 It is most necessary to 4nclude dissolved oxygen controls in the coastal management program. A specific goal should be to maintain the natural oxygen environment--one that will normally be optimum considerably above 4 ppm. Turbidity Sunlf�ht must be able to penetrate the water to foster the growt h of both the bottom plants, such as seagrasses, and the suspended algae 0 a-4 (or phytoplankton). Increased turbidity from the addition of suspended 0 matter to the water reduces light penetration and has a negative effect on plant growth. Increased turbidity may be caused by.excavation in estuarine water basins, by the discharge of eroded soil with shoreland and runoff, or by boats or wind stirring up bottom sediments. Other increases are caused by excess nutrients derived from land runoff, sewage, or other discharges which stimulate algal growth and lead to clouding of the water. Coastal waters have a natural content of suspended organic and inorganic matter and a turbidity that varies with the seasons and with irregular environmental changes, such as freshets, winds, and plankton blooms. 0 Consequently, controls should not prescribe one base turbidity value but rather should permit continuance of the pattern of natural variation that characterizes the ecosystem. Specification of "existing natural amount", for any particular area or time, is so difficult a statistical problem that it would appear more practical to eliminate the source than to regulate the amount of discharge. Salinity Salinity throughout the ecosystem fluctuates with the amount of dilution by river inflow and by the extent of evaporation. There is a gradient in salt content that starts with high values in open waters, decreases inward through the estuary, and drops to zero at-some distance up in the tributary tidal streams. Some coastal species tolerate a wide range of salinities, while others require a narrow range to live and to reproduce successfully. Some require different salinities at different phases of their life cycle, such as are provided by regular seasonal rhythms.in the amount of runoff. As with other controlling environmental factors, coastal species have evolved over the years in harmony with their changing salinity environment and have'adapted to the pattern of natural variation. 0 In the absence of contrary evidence, it must be presumed that this natural, changeable, salinity regime provides for the optimum functioning of the coastal ecosystem. The appropriate m-anagement practice is to avoid any significant change from the natural salinity regime by mafntaining the natural patterns of water circulation. Anything that affects the circulation of confined water bodies and the normal supply and mixing of fresh and salt water can disturb salinity patterns. Any change over ten per cent of pre-existing conditions. is considered adverse (Veri, et. al.. 1973). Toxic Substances 0 Boat and marine discharges are sources of a variety of toxic substances that pollute coastal ecosystems such as heavy metals, chemical wastes, and oil. 0 a-5 The emerging Federal.policy*is to-eliminate the-discharge of all harmful substances into the nation's waters. This policy is most easily applied to activities that produce and release wastes through outfall pipes. It is far more difficult to apply to boating activities that contaminate the water in a broader pattern of discharge. Pollution of estuarine waters by toxic substances will be controlled mostly by an evolving State and Federal management program. Nutrient Supply The animal life of the ecosystem is supported by vegetation including large plants, floating microplants (collectively, "phyto- plankton"), and bottom growing microplants. The plants are nourished by minierals dissolved in the water,, particularly compounds of nitrogen (nitrates, ammonia) and phosphorous (phosphates). This nutrient is provided from within the ecosystem through a continuous. biochemical storage-release-cycling-restorage system. Nutrient continuously trickles out of the system by various processes and is replaced by minerals in the inflow of land runoff and from other sources. Animal life is partly nourished by marsh grass and other leaves that decay rapidly into small [email protected] (qdtritus). These particles, and the colonies of microscopic life on them, are eaten by a wide variety of estuarine species; for example, shrimps, some fishes, and a myriad of small crustaceans that serve as forage for birds and predatory fishes. Disturbances that decrease the natural-supply of nutrients below the optimum level are harmfulto coastal ecosystems. All components of the ecosystem, such as marshes, that supply natural nutrients, convert them to useful form, or provide for their flow to and within the ecosystem need protection from adverse change. Eutrophication An excessive supply of nutrient chemicals leads to eutrophication (over-fertilization) of estuaries, an unbalancing of the natural species mix of the ecosystem, and general degradation of water quality. Rapid "blooms" of phytoplankton lead to wide swings in oxygen concentrations that are ecologically adverse and often are followed by their mass death and decay. Waters-may become turbid, estuarine bottoms fouled, and oxygen depleted. Particularly adverse are nitrogenous chemicals because-these are the nutrients most responsible for trig- gering phytoplankton "blooms" in estuarine waters. Over-fertilization encourages sea nettles and other nuisance species. 4 Chemicals that cause eutrophication originate mostly with sewage effluent or resuspended sediments. As with other ecosystem disturbances, the role of boating is normally minor and the major sources are industrial and domestic wastes, and contamination by fertilizers in land runoff water. These sources must be controlled to protect estuarine ecosystems. There are Federal and State controls on discharges from boats and these should a-6 Breeding and Nursery Areas: Many coastal species concentrate in specifically defined estuarine areas for breeding. Their young may then settle into-special areas called nursery areas when they are several weeks old, areas where the young prosper because the right food is available, predators are in the least abundance, and other ,conditions are.most suitable for their survival. Nursery areas may be tidal creeks, shallows, grass beds, or open flats. Breeding and nursery areas should be protected from environmental disturbance. Feeding Areas: Many of the wading birds have definite and readily definable feeding areas in marshes or coves and fishes may feed in certain areas, such as shellfish beds or grass beds--vital habitat areas previously identified for protection. In addition, there are not-so-well defined places that are important feeding areas, such as inlets and passes or persistent tiderips where baitfish may gather to feed and gamefish come to prey. Adverse alteration of water circulation or degradation of water quality interferes with these feeding areas. Shellfish Beds: Oysters and other valuable shellfish are usually found concentrated in certain flats, banks, bars, or reefs. Oyster beds harbor large communities of other life--crustaceans, worms, etc.-- that make them rich feeding areas for many fishes, birds and mammals in shallow estuaries. Also, large populations of oysters or clams ,filter the water, removing suspended matter and reducing turbidity. Many ecosystem disturbances are harmful to shellfish. Silt laden waters are a harsh environment for their planktonic young states and layers of mud are an unsuitable bottom for many of them. Even a thin veneer of silt over otherwise clean surfaces may prevent oyster larvae from attaching. Shellfish beds are often buried or dismantled by dredging. Bacteria from_sewage may be concentrated in shellfish ti ss ue rMkfn dangerous to eat. IMPACT VULNERABILITY From the preceding discussion it is apparent that there are 0 particular characteristics of aquatic ecosystems that govern their capacity to absorb impacts. Two of these might be specified in quantitative terms: 1)contamination potential, the probability that pollutants discharged into any water body will accumulate to damaging levels; 2)turbidi U potential, the probability that sediments deposited on the bottom will be resuspended by the action of boats (or natural forces) to cause turbidity or eutrophication. The contamination potentialof a water body is a function of its capacity (length, widt , and depth) and the rate of exchange (flushing) of its waters. We suggest expressing this in convenient mathematical form as follows (values are illustrative only). Contamination Potential Index = (depth) x (width) x Flushing rate 1000 (where depth and width are in feet and flushing rate in days) 40 a-7 A contamination index of 10 or less denotes a water body of low capacity that is especially sensitive to contamination. An index of 100 or more indicates a water body of higher capacity that is less sensitive. An index of 50 indicates a water body of intermediate capacity, and so forth. The [email protected] potential. of a water body is a function of its depth (propwash effect), EF-e thickness of the layer of sediments over firm bottom, and the fineness of those sediments. This can be expressed in mathematical form as follows (values are illustrative): (Potential) depth x particle size x 1 Turbidity In7ex layer depth (where water body depth is in inches, particle size or fineness is in millimeters, and layer depth of sediments is in inches) An index of less than 10 indicates a high potential for the resuspension of sediments by boat propwashwhile one of 100 indicates a lower potential for resuspension. A value of 50 indicates an intermediate potential. This index attempts to interpret into a practical format the guidance standards set forth by the Federal Water Quality Agency (NTAC report, 1968) that recommend no discharge of substances that will result in turbidity levels deleterious to biota. Also these standards state that turbidity levels less than a Secchi di,sc reading of 1 meter (3 feet) or equivalent in Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU) "shall be regarded with suspici-on." No standards are available to suggest thresholds for concentrations of nutrients that cause eutrophication, but the Federal critieria recommend "prevention of any releases that cause enrichment leading to any major change in the natural levels of flora (attached or floating plants, including phytoplankton)." CARRYING CAPACITY THRESHOLDS There is not sufficient data for Maryland tide waters with which to establish factethreshold limits; i.e., measurements which could be used gnal the thresholds of environmental limits to boat activity. For example, it would be most useful if one could say with finality that turbidity must not exceed, say, 40 Jackson Turbidity Units and therefore human acitivity, including boating, should be limited to that which would not cause such stirring of sediments as to exceed this amount. Unfortunately, the basis for establishing such standards does not exist. To provide such a basis would require a special research program to analyze existing data and to prepare threshold values for a number-df parameters With it, a team capable of integrating fields of adminstrative law and ecosystems analysis should be able to provide some answers. a-8 It should be 'possible to paramatize some ecological conditions and reachverdicts on the limitations of carrying capacity. it might be done for turbidity, eutrophication, flushing of water bodies, and so forth. With such standards it would be simple enough to establish monitoring programs to determine when the nominal carrying capacity of an ecosystem is close to being exceeded, or has been. A further extension of this would be to develop a predictive capability so that one could estimate, beforehand, the probable limits of loading of the ecosystem in terms of boating activity and other existing activities, perhaps through refined turbidity and contamination indices such as the trial ones we have suggested. INDICATOR SPECIES A recent intensive investigation of the biota of Chesapeake Bay failed to,provide any simple biotic tests of environmental conditions ("Biota of the Chesapeake Bay", Chesapeake Science, Vol. 13 Suppl., Dec, 1972): "simple, unequivocal standards ... are not available." Those that have been used "can be interpreted only by comparative study and experienced judgement." The.idea is that trained scientists who have the opportunity to study and measure a variety of species are able to make a judgement of biotic condition but they can provide no single bellweather species, or set of species, which can be readily inventoried to provide valid diagnoses. We believe a more promising approach is the measurement of physical or chemical conditions of the environment, as previously mentioned, or perhaps the presence and condition of-aquatic plants. For example, the following associations between specific plants and environmental conditions should provide useful indications'(adapted from "Biota of.the Chesapeake Bay"): Plant Condition Widgeon grass (ruppia maritima) Presence may indicate that turbidity conditions are acceptable. Sealettuce (Ulva) Dense concentrations may indicate eutrophication caused by sewage, etc. Watermilfoil (Myriophyllum In fresfier waters, presence is adverse spicatum) (may indicate eutrophication). Wild celery (Vallisneria) or Presence may indicate good conditions. pond weed (Potamo2eton) Eel grass (Zostera maritima) In saltier waters, presence may 0 indicate good conditions. a-9 INTERIM MEASURES Until such time as a program of threshold monitoring is developed it is suggested that planning effort be given to diversion of boating facilities and surface activity away from areas of high ecological sensitivity. The following aspects are of particular relevance: 1) Insofar as water quality is concerned, the most critical factor is volume of the water body. Small bodies can take m6ch less contaminant than larger ones. For example, dissolved copper (from bottom paints) could reach damaging levels in confined basins. 2) Flushing rate.is interactive with water body volume; the higher the rate, the faster the system cleanses itself and the higher is the capacity to absorb contaminants. 3) Both the thickness and the fineness of bottom sediments are important. A water body that has accumulated a thick layer of very fine, and easily suspended, particles is easily contaminated by propwash from passing surface traffic. 4) The ecological characteristics of the shore are important too in relation to facility plans which require shore alteration. For example, any installation of marina or landing ramp facilities in marshes should be viewed with concern. The marshes play an exceptionally valuable ecological role, as previously described. 5) The characteristics of submerged areas are also an important consideration. For example, marine grasses play an important ecological role and boating activity that would seriously reduce their extent should be viewed critically. 6) Any plan to accommodate boating that requires channel, dredging should be viewed seriously. Dredging can be ecologically destructive if not properly planned. It can eliminate vegetation, cloud the water with turbidity, over-fertilize .41 the water, cover marshes with spoil, and erode the shore (see figure below). APPENDIX B b-1 Biological Effects of Motorized Boating on the Tidal Marsh Estuarine Ecosystem William A. Niering* ABSTRACT The tidal marsh-estuarine ecosystem comprises a compl ex set of ecological communities sensittve to impacts generated by excessive motor boat traffic. The impact of prop wake, wash and cutting can res.ult in significantphysical disturbance to intertidal and benthic communities. Oil pollution poses another major and continui,ng threat to marine organisms,,certain of which are extremely sensitive to hydrocarbon residues. Through biological magnification in estuarine food chains the presence of carcinogenic substances also poses a potential health hazard to man. Carrying capacity for motori 'zed craft must be kept below that which'results in tainting of fish. However, further research is needed to determine ecologically safe levels in order to maintain the biological: integrity of the marine,systems involved. THE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE The Chesapeake Bay marsh-estuarine system is one of the most extensive and @roductive along the Atlantic Seaboard (Cronin & Mansueti 1971; Lippson 1973 . This land-water interface is recognized as an invaluable shellfish and finfish resource for both commercial and pri-vate recreational pursuits (Niering 1967). In,addition to its marine productivity, it provides many other recreational benefits to the thousands who live near this liquid asset. Motorized boating is one of these activities whose impact has yet to be fully evaluated and recognized by the general public. The biological system subjected to this technological impact includes the brackish estuarine waters which range from 20-30 o/oo (parts per thousand) at the mouth of the Bay to 3-8 o/oo northward. Within this gradient there occurs a diversity of estuarine communities,, The estuarine phase includes the benthic (bottom) community and the open water (pelagic) component over- lying the bottom sediments. Here a diversity of populations including phytoplankton, amphipods, copepods, annelids, shellfish and finfish represent the important and highly productive component of this system. The marshes represent a contiguous interrelated component of this biological system. The most saline occur near the mouth of the Bay where salt marshes are characteristic. Here the salt water cordgrass Spartina alterniflora dominates the intertidal zone. On the high marsh [email protected] salt meadow E-377g-rass Spartina patens is most important. Within this pattern occurs a .diversity of otFer species tolerant of s&line conditions. Locally, forbs such as sea lavender (Limonium carblinianum) and arrow grass (Triglochin ---------- Professor of Botany, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut. b-2 maritima) may be present. Slight changes in the micro-relief of the peat sur- Ta-cecan also result in floristic changes which favor spike grass (Distichlis spicata) and rushes (Juncus,.gerardi,and J..roemerianus). Thus a mosaic of vegetation occurs alon-g--tYe"ma-j'[email protected],e'Ts Tn7the myriad minor tidal creeks that-form a network within the wetlands. As,one.,;pr.e;eeds up the estuary the increasing amount of fresh water favors brackish estuarine and fresh estuarine bay marshes where narrowleaf cattails (T ha an ustifolia) and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) now become the dominant p ase wit the salt water cord grasses restricted to the creek margins. With increased freshness the typical floating and emergent plants of fresh water marshes may appear. The overall pattern is for the more saline species to occur nearer the edges of the open Bay and the fresh water forms to.predominate farther up the major channels and creeks. Associated animal populations on the marsh include the crustaceans (amphipods and crabs), mollusks and snails. With this biological setting of the resource we shall now turn to the sources of pollution and their potential impacts. SOURCES OF POLLUTION AND POTENTIAL IMPACTS The use of motorized craft can result in two major impacts--physical and biological--in terms of modifying the site conditions of the community and in affecting the populations of organisms within the estuarine environ- ment. These impacts end subsequent interactions on this biological system are shown in Table 1. PHYSICAL FACTORS Motor boats create a wake that transmits energy in the form of waves. These may be dissipated in openwater with minor effects. However, in narrow tidal creeks their impact may impose a severe stress on the intertidal marsh community that has not naturally evolved under these conditions. In the bay front salt marsh intertidal salt water cordgrass zone where severe [email protected]@and wave action is often characteristic, a dense root mat has developed along with a dense ribbed mussel population (Modiolus demissus) which helps to bind this peaty substrate. With excessive e_r_o_s-i`5`nt is-prote tive intertidal biotic association can be destroyed, opening the site to continued erosion. The fine sediments eroded are now carried and deposited elsewhere and in the process in- creased turbidity of the water results. Depending upon the degree of turbidity caused by the suspension of fine organic, silt and clay particles, light pene- tration is lower which in turn lowers photosynthetic rates of the phytoplankton. Since phytoplankton forms the base of the marine food chain this decreases the productivity of the estuarine system. It should be noted that 500 lbs. of 4 phytoplankton from the estuary can have contributed directly through the marine food chain (phytoplankton--zooplankton--copepods--small fish--larger fish--tuna) to the production of 1.5 ounces of tuna. Speed boating in narrow creeks 10-15 feet wide or less may initiate such erosion. In Connecticut there is consider- able evidence that intertidal erosion can occur in much wider areas where water- skiing is continually practiced (Niering and Warren 1974). Increased intertidal erosion can also result in loss of grass productivity and favor the increase of less productive grasses and forbs. b-3 Increased turbidity is also caused by prop wash which in shallow creeks and channels seriously disrupts the bottom sediment dwellers. Amphipods, .annelids, crabs and shellfish are all intricately adjusted to some sediment transport in the normal erosive processes and during periodic storms. However, constant disturbance of the bottom sediments can interfere with the filter feeding organisms characteristic of this environment. Actual smothering of bivalves can occur with increased sediment disturbance as has been documented in dredging operations. Motor boats may also cut off or churn up submerged vegetation such as Ruppia and eel grass in shallow estuarine waters. This material is then washed up mthe marsh and kills the marsh grasses or accumulates in the bottom sedi- ments at such a rate as to favor anaerobic rather than aerobic respiration. The former is usually a.pollution indicator and lowers species diversity (Rhoads and Young 1970). Boating acttvities also necessitate the construction of marinas and the periodic dredging of channels. Both of these activities can be and have been degrading to this environment by smothet-ing shellfish beds and filling produc- tive tidal marshes with the spoil from channel dredging, as well as the filling and dredging of marshland in marina construction. Spoil disposal in other aquatic areas may also be detrimental to benthic forms. CHEMICAL-PHYSICAL FACTORS Another major environm.ental impact of motorized boating is water pollution resulting-from the outboard fuel.' It is estimated that 10-33 percent of the fuel is discharged into the cooling water exhaust stream as, unburned waste products (Stewart & Howard 1968). Data taken at Lake George, New York, where boating pressure is increasing rapidly predict that if the rate of fuel usage continues, the lake water could have a semi-permanent fuel odor within eight years (Stewart and Howard 1968). When oil and water are combined, fine droplets are formed that can be highly dispersed in the water column. When these droplets come in contact with a su.r-. face less polar than water, such as organic sediments, sand and silt or other debris, they are strongly bound to these,materials. Therefore, oil can coat the bottom sediments of a lake or estuary. It should be noted that oil does not harmlessly disappear or evaporate, but-becomes part of the underlying sediments (D.E. Harrison, mimeo report). Although bacterial degradation of-oil may occur it is not a rapid process. For example, bacterial action may not begin until more than eight months after an oil spill and once initiated the least toxic straight chain hydrocarbons are degraded first and the more toxic aromatics re- main in the sediments (Blumer et al 1971). Experiments conducted in fresh water can taint sunfish and other species (English et al 1963a, 1963b). Data from even very minor oil spills have documented the loss of algae (seaweeds) and higher vascular vegetation such as the marsh grasses. Marine invertebrates can also be greatly reduced or eliminated. The crustacea, especially amphipods, are parti- cularly sensitive to oil pollution (Sanders et al 1972). Although it may be argued that the relatively low level pollution from motor boats cannot be equated with major oil spills, it should be realized that b-4 OIL POLLUTION AND BOATING IN RELATION TO.CARRYING CAPACITY Boating must be considered a significant source of oil pollution in the marine environment, especially-since it is a continuously occurring activity during certain seasons. In well flushed bay fronts the dilution or removal of the oil, regardless of its source, is constantly occurring. However, in the more quiescent waters of the small tidal creeks and shallow embayments where motorized traffic is heavy, one can expect higher levels of oil pollution which have an adverse effect upon the benthic and open water animal populations. Areas that are poorly flushed by the tides will tend to concentrate petroleum products which are in turn concentrated at the various trophic levels in the food chain. It would appear that although motorized craft present no dramatic pollution problem such as a major oil spill, their concentrated traffic within a limited area adds a continuous source of oil pollution to coastal water *s that are already under severe stress in most coastal environments (Niering 1970; Ketchum 1972). There is a limited carrying capacity for motorized craft. The level will vary within every aquatic system depending upon the current environmental stresses and the physical and biol-ogical conditions of the system. The following recommendations may provide some guidelines in formulating carrying cppacity limits. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Although the Environmental Protection Agency has been undertaking research on the biological effects of motor boats in aquatic systems, much more data must be derived, especially as related to marine systems. Based on the data available, every effort should be made to minimize boat traffic in the most vulnerable habitats, Speed boating and, waterskiing should be eliminated from narrow shallow creek channels where bottom sediments will be disturbed and the marginal intertidal vegetation subjected to erosive stress. 2. Oil pollution should be constantly monitored in the waters and sediments of estuarine areas where heavy boat traffic occurs. When the source of the oil can be traced to motorized craft a decrease in carrying capacity would be in order, Oil levels should be kept well below those levels which result in tainting of finfish or shellfish flesh. This occurs at a fuel usage of eight gallons of outboard motor fuel per million gallons of lake water. Obviously this formula becomes more complex in the estuarine environment where tidal dilution occurs. Further research in this area is urgently needed. 3. In the context of the potential carcinogenic effects of petroleum products and the energy crisis,, [email protected] will only intensify in magnitude in the future, a public effort should begin to promote the increased use of wind powered craft rather than motorized boats. Although it is realized that there will be a period of transition, to delay initiation of such a step will only prolong the transition 4. Increased public awareness through various media is needed to alert marina and boat owners to the potential environmental hazards of this "recreational" activity. July 1974 Table 1 Physical Factors Effects Boat wake Erosion Loss of intertidal vegetation Accelerated erosion, loss of productivity Prop wash. Turbulence Increased turbidity Decreased light Lowered phytoplankton penetration and productivity and increased silt- smothering of shell- Won fish beds Prop cutting Destruction of Loss of productivity Increased eutrophication eel grass and and waterfowl food Ruppia in shallow water Dredging & Loss of pro- Increased turbidity Lowered phytoplankton productivity filling ductive marsh and smothering of shellfish beds or mud flats Spoil aisposal Increased sites for establishment of Phragmites and lesser desirable estuarine species Chemical-Physical Factors Effects Release of hydrocarbon Introduction of diversity Subtle decrease in residues of petroleum residues population levels Behavior changes Loss of estuarine populations Potential human Carcinogenic effects (PAH) health hazard Release of sewage Nutrient enrichment Increased marsh productivity Switch from aerobic wastes Increased eutrophication to anaerobic system Exhaust fumes Increased air pollution Potential health hazard b-6 low level chronic spills may be equally as dangerous to the stability of steady state marine systems as massive concentrations. The effects of low levels may be so subtle as to almost defy detection and yet food chains or webs may be modi- fied. This rationale was used in the case of banning DDT where marine phyto- plankton productivity was reduced by very low concentrations of this insecticide. It is well known thatlower chain organisms such as the amphipods common in the estuarine system are especially sensitive and excellent indicators of oil pollu- tion. Subtle low level reductions in populations are often extremely difficult to detect, especially in the absence of base line studies for comparative purposes. All data suggest that.oil is toxic to many marine forms or can modify their phy- siology even if'mortality is not a major factor. For example, in the West Falmouth oil spill*considerable areas of S. alterniflora were killed and the fiddler crabs characteristic of this habitat @_ere greatly ced. In addition, behavioral effects were also detected. The animals were readily observable during the day- light hours and failed to seek cover upon the approach of man. This behavior modification would greatly increase their vulnerability to.predation. Hydrocarbon pollution can also result from small oil spills at marinas or by the boat owners themselves. This adds one further source of pollution. The release of sewage from boats into estuaries is a source of nutrient .enrichment. Although regulations are tending to discourage this practice, en- forcement will not be easy. Human sewage may increase tidal marsh productivity, but it also increases the coliform count and eutrophication of adjacent marine waters to the point of altering the floristic and faunistic composition and closing the area to the taking of shellfish. Extremely excessive amounts can tilt the balance from aerobic to anaerobic conditions-where species diversity declines, especially those species beneficial to man. Exhaust fumes add to the air pollution levels in coastal regions where con- [email protected] of people and industry are frequently already stressing the environ- ment. However, an even more subtle effect of oil is its carcinogenic effect on humans (D.E. Harrison, mimeo report). Heuper (1957) has suggested that environ- mental factors (as well as better diagnoses) may be responsible for the large increase in leukemia in the United States. As early as 1910 petroleum oil fractions were found to cause skin cancer. Although only a small group of people exposed to environmental cancer inducers develop the disease, decades of elapsed time may occur between the stimuli and tumor development. Petroleum carcinogens, although water insoluble, are soluble in non polar lipids of living organisms. They can also be biologically magnified in the food chain. Within petroleum the benzine and 3.4 benzopyrene fractions, a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH), are,the most important carcinogens.( Arcos and Argu5, 1968). Oil pollution, with boating as one source, an introduce large amounts of PAH into the marine system, Plant roots can also take up benzopyrene from the sub- strate (Doerr 1965). This same plant material will eventually contribute to the detrital food chain of the estuary upon bacterial decay. That fraction of the carcinogen that will pass on in the food chain is unknown. Tainted finfish and shellfish may contain carcinogens and post a potentially serious health hazard to man. Since PAH is not volatile, even the taste test may not indicate the presence of carcinogens in dangerous amounts. b-7 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arcos, J.C. & M.F. Angus. 1968. Molecular geometry and carcinogenic activity of aromatic compounds. A.D.V. in Cancer research, ed. A. Haddow and S. Weinhouse. Academic'Press. Vol. II, pp._305-471. Blumer, M., H.L. Sanders, J.F. Grassle & G.R. Hampson. 1971. A small oil spill. Environment 13:2-12. Cronin. L.E. & A.J. Mansuet. 1971. The biology of-the estuary. A symposium on the biological significance of estuaries, ed. B.A. Douglas & R.H. Stroud. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C. Doerr, 'R. 1965. Alkaloid and benzophyrene uptake by intact plant roots. Naturwissenschaften 52:166. English, J.N., G.N. McDermott & Croswell Henderson. 1963a. Pollutional effects of outboard motor exhaust-laboratory studies. Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation 35:923-931. English, J.N., E.W. Surber & G.N. McDermott. 1963b. Pollutional effects of outboard motor exhaust - field studies. Jour. Water Pollution Control Federation 35:1121-1132. Harrison, D.E. Oil and Water. Report to EIC. Jackson Lab., Bar Harbor, Me. Hueper, W.C. 1957. Environmental factors in the production of human cancer. Cahp. II in Cancer, ed. R.W. Raven, vol. 1. Butterworths. ketchum, B.H. ed. The water's edge: critical problems 6f--the-coastal zone. M.I.T. Press. 393 pp. Lippson, A.J. 1973. The Chesapeake Bay in Maryland: an atlas of natural resources. Johns Hopkins Press. 56 pp. Niering, W.A. 1967. The life of the marsh. McGraw-Hill. 199 pp. Niering, W.A. 1970. The dilemma of the coastal wetlands: conflict of local, national and world priorities. In The environmental crisis, ed'. H.W. Helfrich Jr. Yale Univ. Press. Niering, W.A. & R. Warren. 1974. Tidal marshes of Connecticut: vegetation, micro-relief and environmental impacts. In Tidal wetlands of Connecticut: vegetation and associated animal populations, Vol. I, ed. W.A. Niering and R.S. Warren. Dept. of.Environmental Protection, State of Connecticut in cooperation with the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. Rhoades, D.C: & D.K. Young. 1970. The influence of deposit feeding organisms on sediment stability and community. Trophic structure. J. Mar. Res. 28:150-'178. b-8 Sanders, H., J.F. Grassle & G.P. Hamps6n. 1972.. The West Falmouth oil spill. I Biology WOH I Tech. Rept. 72-200. Stewart, R. & H.H. Howard. 1968. Water pollution by outboard motors. The New York State Conservationist. June-July. c APPENDIX C MAPS: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The environmental constraints on boating activities which were identified in Chapter IV have been mapped for application in the Boating Capacity Planning System. The base maps were reproduced with permission from the Maryland Geological Survey af a scale of 1:62,500. The following factors have been mapped: 1), Water Body Types: Sub-Bay Udits and Management Units Sources: State of [email protected],_Water Resources Adminstration, Watershed DesigrLations,@ 2) Heads of Tide Sources: Established by Law, Article 66c and 96A, Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 Edition) and by regulation of the Maryland Department of Water Resources. 3) Marinas: Public and Private Source: Mar land Department of State Planning, Maryland Automated Geographic -fdormation astem. Baltimore: May, 1974. 4) Public Landings Source:- Department of Natural Resources, Program Planning and Evaluation., Problems Associated with Public Landinqs, A Report to the Maryland Assembly in Response to To-i-ntResolution No. 14 of the 1972 Session. 5) High Shoreline Erosion: Greater than Ov2 acres/mile/year Source: U.S. Arnly Corps of Eng$neers, Chesapeake Bay Existing Conditions Report, Appendix D Map Folio- Clams: Hard and Soft Shell Source: Boati*ng Almanac Co., Boating Almanac,,1974 The Chesapeak3-Bay and North Carolina, Vol 4. 1974. AM c-2 7) Oyster Beds Source: Maryland Department of State Planning, Maryland Automated Geographical Information System Baltimore, May, 1974. 8) Selected Fish Spawiing:- White Perch, Striped Bass Source: Lippson, Alice J. (Ed.) TheCChesapeake Bay in Maryland, An Atlas of Natural Resources Baltimore: Johhs Hopkins University Press, 1973. 9) Non-Forested Wetlands Source: Maryland Department of State Planiing, MNryland Automated Geographical Information System, Baltimore; May 1974. 10) Rooted Aquatic Plants Source: Lippson, Alice J. (Ed.) The [email protected] Bay in Maryland. An Atlas-of Natural Resources- Baltimore: Johns Hbpkins University Press, 1973. Note: Flushing Rates could not be mapped due to the unavailabifity of accurate and updated information. I I 0 co NST A., I, n TMF -ul I i -CENTER INVORMAT 101i I 11111111011 11 , 3 6668 14100 9797