C. Habitat Assessment Management Measure

The first step in achieving compatibility between coastal development and coastal resources is to properly characterize the proposed project site. The site's physical properties and water quality characteristics must be assessed. To minimize potential impacts, available habitat and seasonal use of the site by benthos, macroinvertebrates, and ichthyofauna should be evaluated. Once these data are assembled, it becomes possible to identify environmental risks associated with development of the site. Through site-design modifications, preservation of critical or unique habitat, and biological/chemical/physical monitoring, it is possible to minimize the direct and indirect impacts associated with a specific waterfront development (USEPA, 1985a). To properly evaluate development applications for projects at the periphery of critical or endangered habitat areas, it may be necessary to conduct on-site visits and surveys to determine the distribution of critical habitat such as spawning substrate and usage by spawning fish.

Based on data compiled primarily by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) prior to construction, it was concluded that a large proposed marina (Port Liberte) could have a serious environmental impact on resident and transient fish and macroinvertebrates. Loss of unique habitat, water quality degradation, and disturbance of contaminated sediments were some of the more severe anticipated impacts. Following a comprehensive NJDEP review process, the developer modified the site plan and phased construction activities, thereby satisfying the concerns of the various environmental regulatory agencies and minimizing potential direct and indirect impacts (Souza et al., 1990). Follow-up monitoring established that the management practices were effective in avoiding impacts to important fishery habitat.

Proper marina site selection is a practice that can minimize adverse impacts on nearby habitats. For example, the selected site for North Point Marina in Illinois was not a suitable environment for either floral or faunal habitat because of high erosion rates, high ground-water conditions, and the high potential for flooding (Braam and Jansen, 1991). Despite the surrounding environment, this site was thought to be suitable for marina development because the site had been previously disturbed. Within existing urban harbors where the shorelines have been modified previously by bulkheading and filling, there will be many opportunities to site recreational boating facilities with minimal adverse environmental consequences (Goodwin, 1988).

Alternative site analysis may be used to demonstrate that a chosen site is the most economic and environmentally suitable. Alternative site/design analysis has been found effective at reducing potential impacts from many proposed marinas. The proposed Rive St. Johns Canal, Willbrook Island, and John Wayne marinas used this practice and demonstrated the effectiveness of analyzing alternative sites and designs to minimize environmental impacts. For example, eight design alternatives were considered for the John Wayne marina. The selected alternative reduced tideland alteration, biological destruction, and stream diversion. This was accomplished by moving the marina basin nearly 1,000 feet north of the original site and reducing the basin capacity (Holland, 1986). Five alternatives were considered for the Rive St. Johns Canal. The selected site avoided impacts to wetland habitats and has better flushing characteristics. The Willbrook study considered five alternatives, and the site selected successfully minimized impacts to submerged aquatic vegetation and wetlands.

Rapid bioassessment techniques, when fully developed, will provide cost-effective biological assessments of potential marina development sites. Rapid bioassessment uses biological criteria and is based on comparing the community assemblages of the potential development site to an undisturbed reference condition. Biological criteria or biocriteria describe the reference condition of aquatic communities inhabiting unimpaired waterbodies (USEPA, 1992a). These methods consist of community-level assessments designed to evaluate the communities based on a variety of functional and structural attributes or metrics. Rapid bioassessment protocols for freshwater streams and rivers were published in 1989 for macroinvertebrates and fish to provide States with guidelines for conducting cost-effective biological assessments (USEPA, 1989). Development of similar protocols for application in estuaries and near coastal areas is under way (USEPA, 1992a).

Scores from rapid bioassessments may be used to determine the biological integrity of a site. Sites that are comparable to pristine conditions, with complete assemblages of species, should not be developed as marinas because of the unavoidable impacts associated with such development. The level of effort required to characterize a site will depend on the specific protocol (level of detail required and organisms used) employed. The time needed to perform a rapid bioassessment in freshwater streams varied from 1.5-3 hours to 5-10 hours for benthos and 3 to 17 hours for fish (USEPA, 1989).

Washington State issued siting and tidal height provisions (WDF, 1971, 1974) to ensure that bulkheads do not destroy spawning of surf smelt habitat and increase the vulnerability of juvenile salmon. In addition, marina breakwaters may disrupt the migration pattern of migratory fish, such as salmon. The design of marinas should consider the migration, survival, and the harvestability of food fish and shellfish.

A riparian area is defined as:

Vegetated ecosystems along a waterbody through which energy, materials, and water pass. Riparian areas characteristically have a high water table and are subject to periodic flooding and influence from the adjacent waterbody. These systems encompass wetlands, uplands, or some combination of these two land forms. They will not in all cases have all of the characteristics necessary for them to be classified as wetlands.

Riparian areas are generally more productive habitat, in both diversity and biomass, than adjacent uplands because of their unique hydrologic condition. Many important processes occur in the riparian zone, including the following:

• Because of their linear form along waterways, riparian areas process large fluxes of energy and materials from upstream systems as well as from ground-water seepage and upland runoff.

• They can serve as effective filters, sinks, and transformers of nutrients, eroded soils, and other pollutants.

• They often appear to be nutrient transformers that have a net import of inorganic nutrient forms and a net export of organic forms.

Chapter 7 of this document, which also requires protection of riparian areas when they have significant nonpoint pollution control value, contains a more detailed discussion of riparian functions.

One method to avoid new marina development in areas containing important habitat is the purchase of development rights of existing marinas or important habitat. In the case of preserving an existing marina (thus avoiding the impacts associated with developing new marinas), the government pays the difference (if there is one) between the just value and the water-dependent value and owns the rights to develop the property for other uses. This approach provides instant liquidity for the marina owner, who keeps the profits derived from all marina assets even though the government may have paid 80 to 90 percent of the value of the land. This would in theory offset the inability to sell the marina for non-water-dependent activities and decrease marina development in areas containing important habitat. The purchase of development rights and conservation easements for land containing important habitat or NPS control values is discussed in Chapter 4. In the Broward County (Florida) Comprehensive Plan, expansion of existing marina facilities is preferred over development of new facilities (Bell, 1990).

Establishing a marina siting policy is an efficient and effective way to control habitat degradation and water pollution impacts associated with marinas. Creating such a policy involves:

• Establishing goals for coastal resource use and protection;
• Cataloging coastal resources; and
• Analyzing existing conditions and problems, as well as future needs.

A siting policy benefits the environment, the public, regulatory agencies, and the marina industry. Examples of such benefits include:

• Impacts to and destruction of environmentally sensitive areas (such as wetlands, fish nursery areas, and shellfish beds) are avoided by directing development to sites more appropriate for marina development;
• Coastal resources (such as submerged aquatic vegetation and beaches) are protected;
• Cumulative impacts from numerous pollution sources are more easily assessed;
• Coastal development and economic growth are balanced with environmental protection, and the continued viability of water-dependent uses is ensured;
• The needs of the marina industry and rights of public access are accounted for;
• The permitting process is streamlined;
• Regulatory efforts are coordinated; and
• Interjurisdictional consistency is improved.

Many States already address coastal resource and development needs through coastal zone management plans, growth management plans, critical area programs, and other means. The following examples illustrate the high level of acceptance such planning has achieved and the variety of program types upon which a marina siting policy could be built:

• Twelve States have established critical area programs that protect public health and safety, the quality of natural features, scenic value, recreational opportunities, and the historical and cultural significance of coastal areas (Myers, 1991).

• North Carolina has a water use classification system to assist in the implementation of land use policies. Coastal areas are designated for preservation, conservation, or development (Clark, 1990).

• Massachusetts has a Harbor Management Program, wherein municipalities devise specific harbor management plans consistent with State goals (Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management, 1988).

• The Narragansett Bay Project, part of EPA's National Estuary Program, recognizes land use planning as the key to accomplishing many goals, including controlling NPS pollution, protecting and restoring habitat, and preserving public access and recreational opportunities (Myers, 1991).

• The Cape Cod Commission found that unplanned growth over the last several decades has limited public access, displaced marinas and boatyards in favor of non-water-dependent uses, encroached on fishermen's access, degraded water quality, destroyed habitat, and created use conflicts (Cape Cod Commission, 1991).