ASCE 50 Small Craft Harbors

loaded from ascelibrary.org by Shaun McFarlane on 04/30/14. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights res

ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 50
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shaun McFarlane on 04/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Planning and Design

Guidelines for Small
Craft Harbors
Third Edition
Prepared by
the Task Committee on Marinas 2020
of the Coasts, Oceans, Ports, and Rivers Institute
of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Published by American Society of Civil Engineers

1801 Alexander Bell Drive
Reston, Virginia 20191
www.asce.org/pubs
Any statements expressed in these materials are those of the individual authors and do
not necessarily represent the views of ASCE, which takes no responsibility for any statement
made herein. No reference made in this publication to any specific method, product, process,
or service constitutes or implies an endorsement, recommendation, or warranty thereof by
ASCE. The materials are for general information only and do not represent a standard of
ASCE, nor are they intended as a reference in purchase specifications, contracts, regulations,
statutes, or any other legal document.
ASCE makes no representation or warranty of any kind, whether express or implied,
concerning the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or utility of any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this publication, and assumes no liability therefor. This
information should not be used without first securing competent advice with respect to its
suitability for any general or specific application. Anyone utilizing this information assumes
all liability arising from such use, including but not limited to infringement of any patent
or patents.
ASCE and American Society of Civil Engineers—Registered in U.S. Patent and Trade-
mark Office.
Photocopies and permissions. Permission to photocopy or reproduce material from ASCE
publications can be obtained by sending an e-mail to permissions@asce.org or by locating
a title in ASCE’s online database (http://cedb.asce.org) and using the “Permission to Reuse”
link.
Copyright © 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

All Rights Reserved.
ISBN 978-0-7844-1198-8 (paper)
ISBN 978-0-7844-7649-9 (e-book)
Manufactured in the United States of America.
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 1 2 3 4 5
MANUALS AND REPORTS
ON ENGINEERING PRACTICE
(As developed by the ASCE Technical Procedures Committee, July 1930,

and revised March 1935, February 1962, and April 1982)
A manual or report in this series consists of an orderly presentation of

facts on a particular subject, supplemented by an analysis of limitations
and applications of these facts. It contains information useful to the
average engineer in his or her everyday work, rather than findings that
may be useful only occasionally or rarely. It is not in any sense a “stan-
dard,” however; nor is it so elementary or so conclusive as to provide a
“rule of thumb” for nonengineers.
Furthermore, material in this series, in distinction from a paper (which

expresses only one person’s observations or opinions), is the work of a
committee or group selected to assemble and express information on a
specific topic. As often as practicable, the committee is under the direction
of one or more of the Technical Divisions and Councils, and the product
evolved has been subjected to review by the Executive Committee of the
Division or Council. As a step in the process of this review, proposed
manuscripts are often brought before the members of the Technical
Divisions and Councils for comment, which may serve as the basis for
improvement. When published, each work shows the names of the com-
mittees by which it was compiled and indicates clearly the several pro-
cesses through which it has passed in review in order that its merit may
be definitely understood.
In February 1962 (and revised in April 1982) the Board of Direction

voted to establish a series titled, “Manuals and Reports on Engineering
Practice,” to include the Manuals published and authorized to date, future
Manuals of Professional Practice, and Reports on Engineering Practice.
All such Manual or Report material of the Society would have been ref-
ereed in a manner approved by the Board Committee on Publications and
would be bound, with applicable discussion, in books similar to past
Manuals. Numbering would be consecutive and would be a continuation
of present Manual numbers. In some cases of reports of joint committees,
bypassing of Journal publications may be authorized.
MANUALS AND REPORTS
ON ENGINEERING PRACTICE
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE
No. Title No. Title
28 Hydrology Handbook, Second Edition 100 Groundwater Contamination by
45 How to Select and Work Effectively Organic Pollutants: Analysis and

with Consulting Engineers: Getting Remediation
the Best Project, 2012 Edition 101 Underwater Investigations: Standard
50 Planning and Design Guidelines for Practice Manual
Small Craft Harbors, Third Edition 102 Design Guide for FRP Composite
54 Sedimentation Engineering, Classic Connections
Edition 103 Guide to Hiring and Retaining Great
60 Gravity Sanitary Sewer Design and Civil Engineers
Construction, Second Edition 104 Recommended Practice for Fiber-
62 Existing Sewer Evaluation and Reha- Reinforced Polymer Products for
bilitation, Third Edition Overhead Utility Line Structures
66 Structural Plastics Selection Manual 105 Animal Waste Containment in Lagoons
67 Wind Tunnel Studies of Buildings and 106 Horizontal Auger Boring Projects
Structures 107 Ship Channel Design and Operation
71 Agricultural Salinity Assessment and 108 Pipeline Design for Installation by
Management, Second Edition Horizontal Directional Drilling
73 Quality in the Constructed Project: A 109 Biological Nutrient Removal (BNR)
Guide for Owners, Designers, and Operation in Wastewater Treatment
Constructors, Third Edition Plants
74 Guidelines for Electrical Transmission 110 Sedimentation Engineering: Processes,
Line Structural Loading, Third Measurements, Modeling, and
Edition Practice
77 Design and Construction of Urban 111 Reliability-Based Design of Utility Pole
Stormwater Management Systems Structures
79 Steel Penstocks, Second Edition 112 Pipe Bursting Projects
81 Guidelines for Cloud Seeding to 113 Substation Structure Design Guide
Augment Precipitation, Second 114 Performance-Based Design of Struc-
Edition tural Steel for Fire Conditions
85 Quality of Ground Water: Guidelines 115 Pipe Ramming Projects
for Selection and Application of Fre- 116 Navigation Engineering Practice and
quently Used Methods Ethical Standards
91 Design of Guyed Electrical Transmis- 117 Inspecting Pipeline Installation
sion Structures 118 Belowground Pipeline Networks for
92 Manhole Inspection and Rehabilita- Utility Cables
tion, Second Edition 119 Buried Flexible Steel Pipe: Design and
94 Inland Navigation: Locks, Dams, and Structural Analysis
Channels 120 Trenchless Renewal of Culverts and
96 Guide to Improved Earthquake Perfor- Storm Sewers
mance of Electric Power Systems 121 Safe Operation and Maintenance of
97 Hydraulic Modeling: Concepts and Dry Dock Facilities
Practice 122 Sediment Dynamics upon Dam
98 Conveyance of Residuals from Water Removal
and Wastewater Treatment 123 Prestressed Concrete Transmission
99 Environmental Site Characterization Pole Structures: Recommended
and Remediation Design Guidance Practice for Design and Installation
CONTENTS
PREFACE ..................................................................................................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ......................................................................... ix
1 PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND FINANCIAL

CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................... 1
Fred A. Klancnik, P.E., F.ASCE; Patrick L. Phillips; David B. Vine,
P.E., M.ASCE; and Daniel J. Williams, R.L.A., A.S.L.A.
Introduction ........................................................................................... 1
The Planning Process ........................................................................... 3
Market Demand Analysis .................................................................... 5
Marina Location Criteria ..................................................................... 12
Determining Facilities and Amenities ............................................... 18
Harbor Configuration Planning ......................................................... 27
Dockage Layout and Design Considerations ................................... 42
Site Investigation and Analysis .......................................................... 42
Environmental and Land-Use Issues ................................................. 51
Mitigation and Sustainability Practices ............................................. 58
Legal and Regulatory Issues ............................................................... 65
Financial Feasibility Assessment ........................................................ 73
Capital Funding Approaches .............................................................. 79
Economic Impacts of Small Craft Harbors ....................................... 87
References............................................................................................... 87
2 ENTRANCE, BREAKWATER, AND BASIN DESIGN ................ 89
Jack C. Cox, P.E.
Approach to Design.............................................................................. 90
Environmental Specifications.............................................................. 93
Creating the Design Criteria ............................................................... 106
Small Craft Harbor Entrances ............................................................. 108
v
vi CONTENTS
Basin Agitation ...................................................................................... 119

Berthing Tranquility ............................................................................. 124
Breakwaters and Attenuators ............................................................. 132
Harbor Wave Protection ...................................................................... 138
Wave Reflection Control ...................................................................... 148
Basin Hydrodynamics .......................................................................... 164

Sedimentation ........................................................................................ 173
References............................................................................................... 185
3 INNER HARBOR STRUCTURES .................................................... 191
Mark A. Pirrello, P.E., M.ASCE, Timothy P. Mason, P.E., and
Christopher L. Dolan
Shoreline Stabilization.......................................................................... 192
Fixed and Floating Docks .................................................................... 212
Wave Attenuation Systems.................................................................. 278
References............................................................................................... 282
4 LAND-BASED SUPPORT FACILITIES .......................................... 285
Fred A. Klancnik, P.E., F.ASCE; Cassandra C. Goodwin,
P.E., M.ASCE; Timothy K. Blankenship, P.E., M.ASCE;
Bruce E. Lunde, CSI
Site Design ............................................................................................. 286
Utilities and Services ............................................................................ 303
Upland Structures and Equipment .................................................... 307
Dry-Stack Marinas ................................................................................ 326
References............................................................................................... 345
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................. 347

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................ 359
INDEX .......................................................................................................... 361
PREFACE
Marina development has changed significantly since ASCE Manuals

and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 50, “Planning and Design Guide-
lines for Small Craft Harbors,” was last revised in 1994. The demand for
access to our nation’s oceans, lakes, and rivers has steadily increased, but
the maintenance and new construction of harbor infrastructure—such as
breakwaters, dredging, piers, boat slips, and launch ramps—have not
kept pace. Furthermore, public access to the water that was traditionally
provided by older, outdated marinas and boat launches is being lost to
more profitable land uses.
These factors create a demand for new harbors and waterfront facilities.
In many cases, blighted and contaminated waterfront sites are all that are
currently available for development. Collaboration is needed among
many professions during all phases of harbor design and development,
often requiring public-private partnerships to get these projects built. This
revised ASCE Manual 50 final report provides the civil engineer with new,
state-of-the-art guidelines for the planning, design, and development of
small craft harbors. It is not in any sense a “standard,” however, nor is it
so elementary or so conclusive as to provide rules of thumb for nonengi-
neers. This is the work of a technical committee selected to assemble and
convey information on the topic of planning and designing small craft
harbors.
The boating market has become increasingly sophisticated in its
demand for convenient and attractive facilities that not only meet the
functional needs of mooring boats in a safe environment, but also serve
the cultural and social needs of the boating community. At the same time,
the general public wants sustainable waterfront development with both
visual and physical access to the water. Finally, the real estate developer
and marina owner (private or public) require an efficient and profitable
operation. These three general objectives usually shape initial project
vii
viii PREFACE
goals. Every harbor development project presents unique market oppor-

tunities, regulations, land conditions, and financing options. Once clear
objectives are established and all constraints are understood, an optimal
solution can be defined through a sustainable design process that addresses
the important economic, social, and environmental aspects of the project.
This holistic design approach incorporating integrated technical, scien-

tific, and financial analyses results in consensus on the small craft harbor
master plan.
We have learned much about the technical aspects of planning and
designing small boat harbors in the past 18 years. Manufacturers as well
as marine contractors can now provide products that are much more
predictable in their performance and, therefore, more cost-effective.
Thanks to improved design methodologies available to today’s engineer,
the risk associated with capital improvements can be assessed at the
outset of the project. This technical report will give the design engineer a
set of guidelines with which to approach the harbor planning and design
process.
The report is organized into four parts. Chapter 1: Planning, Environ-
mental, and Financial Considerations suggests a logical, analytical plan-
ning process and provides approaches to funding and financing small
craft harbors. Chapter 2: Entrance, Breakwater, and Basin Design covers
the protection of mooring facilities and basin configuration. Chapter 3:
Inner Harbor Structures provides a guide to the design of improvements
along the perimeter of the boat basin and within the harbor itself. Finally,
Chapter 4: Land-Based Support Facilities offers insights into the role and
features of landside facilities such as parking, roads, promenades, and
boater service buildings essential to the successful operation of small craft
harbors and marinas.
This report provides a valuable reference to the professional civil engi-
neer by presenting the factors involved in harbor development and by
providing basic background information needed as design input. Addi-
tional references are listed at the end of each chapter for those readers
who are interested in researching a particular topic in greater detail.
Because this specialized area of civil engineering practice continues to
evolve with time, it is recommended that the harbor designer keep
informed of the state-of-the-art approaches to planning, design, and con-
struction of harbors through continuing education.
Fred A. Klancnik, P.E., F.ASCE

Chairman, ASCE Marinas 2020 Committee
Senior Vice President, SmithGroupJJR, Madison, WI
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Task Committee on Marinas 2020 was formed in 2005 for the
purpose of updating ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice
No. 50, “Planning and Design Guidelines for Small Craft Harbors.” This
Task Committee was chaired by Fred Klancnik, with Jack Cox and Mark
Pirrello serving as Control Group members. The following members
served as chapter editors and primary authors: Fred Klancnik for Chapter
1, Planning, Environmental, and Financial Considerations; Jack Cox for
Chapter 2, Entrance, Breakwater, and Basin Design; Mark Pirrello for
Chapter 3, Inner Harbor Structures; and Cassie Goodwin for Chapter 4,
Land-Based Support Facilities.
Roundtable discussions were conducted on the content of the four
chapters of this publication at the Docks & Marinas National Conferences
sponsored by the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin on
October 17–19, 2005 and again on October 15–17, 2007; at Ports 2007 spon-
sored by ASCE in San Diego, California on March 26, 2007; and at ICO-
MIA’s International Marina Conference in Oostende, Belgium on May
25–28, 2008. Fred Klancnik, Jack Cox, and Coy Butler, the chapter editors
at the time of these conferences, presented the basic information contained
in the chapters and led discussions at sessions dedicated to the planning
and design of small craft harbors. Both written and verbal suggestions
were received from the members at large during and after these
conferences.
A peer review committee of the ASCE Ports & Harbor Committee,
consisting of Doug Sethness, Vice President, Ports & Maritime Group,
CH2MHILL, Houston, Texas; Walt Ritchie, Retired Chief Engineer, Port
of Seattle, Seattle, Washington; Allan Schrader, Retired Chief Engineer,
Port of Tampa, Tampa, Florida; and Varoujan Hagopian, Principal Engi-
neer, Sasaki Associates Inc., Watertown, Massachusetts, reviewed a draft
of the report and contributed commentary, which was incorporated into
ix
x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
this manual during editing. In addition, Jeffrey Layton (President and

Senior Coastal Engineer, Layton & Sell, Inc., PS, Kirkland, Washington)
and Bill Curry (Retired Supervising Engineer, California Department of
Boating and Waterways, Sacramento, California) served as both readers
and sounding board during the writing and editing process. Special
thanks to Terri Severson, Tina Lassen, Julie Self, Barbara Whiton, and
Cheryl Johnson who served as the administrative assistants and technical
writers for this technical document.
CHAPTER 1
PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL,
AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Fred A. Klancnik, P.E.
Patrick L. Phillips
David B. Vine, P.E.
Daniel J. Williams, R.L.A.
INTRODUCTION
In everyday conversation the terms “harbor” and “marina” are often

used interchangeably. For civil engineers involved in the planning, devel-
opment, or operation of such waterfront facilities, the terms have different
meanings. Small craft harbors are defined as basins in a body of water that
provide protection from the elements (waves, wind, tides, ice, currents,
etc.) for a variety of commercial and recreational watercraft. These facili-
ties typically provide boat berthing (docks and moorings), launching and
retrieval capabilities, basic boater supplies, auto parking lots, walkways,
and associated land-based support facilities and services. Full-service
marinas provide additional services and amenities designed to meet the
needs of an increasingly sophisticated boating community. Marina patrons
are typically boat owners who desire safe, comfortable, and attractive
facilities that support recreational boating, including stable and aestheti-
cally pleasing boat berths with utility service, restrooms and showers,
fueling and sanitary pump-out stations, food service, and other amenities.
The boating public is generally willing to pay for the convenience of an
easily accessible and properly appointed “second home” atmosphere,
above and beyond the mere provision of a safe place to store their boat.
Fred A. Klancnik is Chairman, ASCE Marinas 2020 Committee, and Senior Vice-
President, SmithGroupJJR, Madison, WI. Patrick L. Phillips is Chief Executive
Officer, Urban Land Institute, Washington, DC. David B. Vine is President, Vine
Associates, Newburyport, MA. Daniel J. Williams is Principal, Lunde Williams
LLC, Madison, WI.
1
2 PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL CRAFT HARBORS
Providing visual and physical access to the water’s edge is an impor-

tant design consideration for small boat harbors, especially for harbors
located in parks or along public waterfront bicycle and pedestrian trail
systems. Finding ways to both maintain public access to the waterfront
and provide the facilities and amenities of modern small boat harbors is
an achievable goal.
This manual uses the term “small craft harbors” rather than “marinas”
when referring to the boat basins and the landside facilities that
provide the basic support systems necessary to operate the small craft
harbor.
Sheltered boat basins can be natural or constructed; in many cases,
however, breakwaters are typically required at the harbor entrance to
provide a desired level of protection for boats approaching and mooring
in the harbor. The harbor site should be deep enough to provide safe
anchorage, while minimizing the need for expensive protective structures
and dredging. Ideally, a small craft harbor is accessible from land and
water and has the infrastructure required to serve the user of the
facility.
The planning of small craft harbors is a complex undertaking requiring
a careful blending of sophisticated technical analyses and creative design
ideas. Typically, a team of professionals from a variety of backgrounds
assembles at the outset of the planning process. This team often requires
expertise from outside the profession of civil engineering, due to height-
ened interest in environmental issues and increased demand for improved
access to the recreational opportunities that the waterfront affords. A
typical marina design team might consist of such diverse professionals as
civil, structural, and geotechnical engineers, as well as architects, land-
scape architects, planners, lawyers, market and financial analysts, envi-
ronmental scientists, and marina managers.
Many factors can complicate small craft harbor development. Access
can be limited by rail lines and highways, which often run parallel to
the water’s edge. Waterfront sites are typically characterized by poor
soil conditions, deteriorated bulkheads, piers and pile foundations, wet-
lands, and sensitive near-shore environments. The destructive power of
wind, waves, and currents often requires expensive harbor and flood
protection. Varying water levels and tides pose a special challenge in
achieving the desired land–water interface. In addition, overlapping
governmental jurisdictions, a maze of permit requirements, and frag-
mented land ownership patterns all add to developmental difficulties
and costs.
Attractive and cost-effective solutions to address these development
constraints are available. By blending the technical expertise of civil engi-
neers with the experience and skills of the other contributing profession-
als, concepts can be translated into built projects that meet the public’s
PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS 3
and private developer’s goals and satisfy the public’s desire for an
improved waterfront environment. Although these may sometimes seem
like conflicting objectives, a successful development plan can integrate
civil engineering solutions with creative site planning to achieve the objec-
tives of all interest groups.
Because of the high costs and great difficulties associated with water-
front development, public-private partnerships are often formed to share
the financial risks. Public bodies have shown a willingness to invest in
the infrastructure of small craft harbors, recognizing that the economic
impacts of such facilities often benefit a large and broad spectrum of the
community. With government participation, sites once thought to be
undevelopable because of physical or regulatory constraints often prove
to be feasible for development. This joint development approach presents
many ownership and operating options to achieve a successful develop-
ment strategy. In some instances revenue from commercial upland devel-
opment can effectively offset a portion of the debt associated with the
waterside development.
Small craft harbors must be planned on a project-specific basis. What
works for a municipal marina project in Hawaii may fail miserably for a
privately developed Great Lakes yacht club. The purpose of this chapter
is to present basic planning principles and financial considerations in a
logical sequence. It begins with an overview of the planning process, fol-
lowed by a discussion of market demand analysis. The chapter then
progresses through location criteria; environmental, legal and regulatory
issues; and technical considerations. Finally, it addresses a variety of
financing issues and funding methods associated with the development
of successful small craft harbor development.
THE PLANNING PROCESS
The first step in planning a small craft harbor is to determine the goals
of the project and to establish a program for the design, construction, and
operation of the facility. Intelligent programming of the project at the start
can eliminate wasted time and considerable expense. This is especially
true if the project’s sponsor is not experienced with waterfront develop-
ment. Once goals have been established and a preliminary program devel-
oped, it is important to engage in community input, especially if public
approval is required for funding and/or construction permits.
Consensus Building
Identify project stakeholders to define goals and objectives for the
project. Community leaders, city and community staff, marina manage-
ment, marina staff, and marina users are examples of potential partici-
pants in planning for harbor development.
Establishing a project working group that includes stakeholders pro-
vides three important functions: it informs and guides the planning team
in its work; it articulates the issues and priorities of key stakeholder and
community groups; and it provides a conduit of information between the

community and the design team.
Project working groups usually meet periodically throughout the plan-
ning process to review, challenge, and advise the design team on the
market demand analysis, technical and environmental issues, design
alternatives, and conceptual design development. The dialogue con-
ducted through the planning process forms the basis for creating the
vision of the harbor facility. Creating a list of guiding principles is one
way to document project vision that can be referenced throughout the
planning and design process.
For large-scale, highly visible projects it is equally important to provide
open public forums to reach out to the greater community. Milestone
meetings offer the opportunity to showcase the project and to gain added
support.
Physical Planning
The physical planning effort forms the basis for harbor development
recommendations. It serves to document creative design ideas while bal-
ancing the demands of boaters and nonboaters. Concept-level data gath-
ering and technical analysis provides a framework for the final design.
The physical planning approach typically results in an implementation
strategy that includes a concept plan, phasing recommendations, associ-
ated costs, assessment of environmental regulatory permits, and financial
projections for harbor development.
Harbor sites pose specific issues depending upon the particular devel-
opment proposed; therefore, each project requires a set of specific evalu-
ation criteria that define the physical environment, regulatory climate,
public interaction, and private demands for the facility.
Physical planning is a threefold process (See Figure 1-1) beginning with
goals, programming, data gathering, and understanding the opportuni-
ties and constraints of the site while addressing the guiding principles set
Programming Constraints Alternative Master

Goals Strategy
and Data and Concepts Plan
Gathering Opportunities
Fig. 1-1. Planning process diagram

Source: Courtesy of SmithGroupJJR
forth by the planning process. Land-use diagrams can be used to begin

informational sessions with regulatory agencies to solicit recommenda-
tions prior to more detailed analysis of the project. It is equally important
to begin discussions with representatives of potential funding sources at
the project outset.
The second step in developing a small craft harbor is a culmination of

conceptual design elements into alternative concept plans. Concept-level
technical studies of dockage layout/design and harbor infrastructure
blend engineering analyses and creative design within fiscal and regula-
tory realities. Technical considerations include protection from wind and
waves, depth of harbor for safe anchorage, and other factors balanced
against the expense of harbor/shore protection, dredging/disposal, and
environmental impacts. Dock layout balances the need to maximize rev-
enues and minimize annual operational cost of the harbor. Dock design
must address convenience to the boater and benefits to the harbor opera-
tor. Protected harbor space is expensive to create; therefore, providing the
greatest number of slips considering boat length mix, boater safety, and
revenue returns is a major objective. Harbor infrastructure requirements
vary depending upon the land size of a site, number of slips, and pro-
posed site amenities.
The refinement of the concept plan alternatives into a singular illustra-
tive concept plan is the final step of the master planning phase. This is
followed by schematic design, preliminary engineering, and design devel-
opment. The detailed technical analysis and resultant opinion of probable
construction cost generated during this phase of design is at a level appro-
priate for formal submission to regulatory and funding agencies.
Guiding Principles, Goals, and Objectives

All significant planning efforts should be based upon a set of funda-
mental principles that help establish the project’s context and provide the
values under which it is to operate. These principles may also help frame
civic discussion that may be required to support the planning effort itself.
One of the key outcomes of the planning process is confirmation of the
project’s guiding principles and identification of consensus goals and
objectives. These goals and objectives expand upon the project’s guiding
principles and provide a means to evaluate harbor planning options.
MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS
Determining the market demand for any harbor is part art and part
science. The art involves understanding the data accumulated in the
process of reviewing the current market and extrapolating it to the future
market. Comparing the region of concern with similarly developed

markets may provide some insight.
A market demand analysis should be conducted at the outset of a
project to determine the nature and size of the proposed development.
The analysis should assess trends and projections for a region’s economy
and demographics and identify the quality and quantity of the competi-
tive supply of harbor facilities.
By estimating the market demand for project components—in conjunc-
tion with evaluation of the physical, environmental, and regulatory
aspects of a small craft harbor site—the project planners can produce
alternate conceptual plans based on a common development program.
The procedure for analyzing supply and estimating demand for slips,
moorings, and other storage types (such as dry-stack storage) is conceptu-
ally the same. These alternative product types are discussed in greater
detail later in this chapter.
The market analysis deals mainly with the concepts of supply, demand,
and competitiveness. The starting point is establishing the owner’s objectives
and preliminary ideas for the project. These ideas concern the type of small
craft harbor development the owner envisions, the size and character of the
project site, and—if the harbor is not the primary land use—the purpose of
the harbor element as part of the overall project development concept. For
example, the harbor may be intended primarily as an amenity to surrounding
real estate, or the intent could be to develop a harbor that is financially self-
sustaining without regard to other uses. Each strategy has very different
implications for the design of the harbor and marina improvements.
Many larger developments that include a harbor component may also
include primary or vacation homes, as well as commercial elements such
as hotels, retail shops, restaurants, and/or office developments. In other
cases the project may consist of a full-service marina with harbor uses the
primary project elements. The market analysis should consider the rela-
tionship of the harbor to the overall development concept, since there can
be important supporting relationships between a marina and other uses.
Marinas and neighboring facilities interact with each other. The modern
small craft harbor often includes land uses that rely on support from
boaters using the harbor, customers drawn from the surrounding area, or
tourists to the area. It is vital to understand these factors as part of the
market analysis.
A basic approach for determining the market feasibility for a small craft
harbor is provided in the following paragraphs.
Market Trends
Since the 1980s, national trend lengths and widths of both power and
sail boats have been increasing in size. Starting in the mid-2000s the
number of new boats manufactured each year has dipped, although the
number of in-use boats is still rising. The market analysis should include
a review of the competitive regional facilities for insight into the types of
boats and their common sizes. Resources such as the Association of
Marina Industries (AMI) and the Marina Operators Association of America
(MOAA) may provide up-to-date information in researching the market.
Supply Considerations
The foundation of a comprehensive market analysis is a supply inven-
tory identifying and evaluating existing regional competitive facilities. To
conduct a comprehensive supply inventory survey, a questionnaire should
be prepared prior to visiting each of the competitive facilities. These ques-
tions should cover a full description of the physical, financial, and man-
agement/operating aspects of each existing project.
A key element of the supply inventory is the number of berths or slips,
known collectively as wet storage units and dry-stack storage units. Wet
storage spaces are particularly important because they dictate the size of
the berthing basin and the supporting land necessary to serve the basin.
The inventory must include the length distribution of the berths, the
width between the berths, and whether competitive projects feature single
or double slip arrangement (See Fig. 1-15). The availability of other utili-
ties, the type of berth construction, and the age and current condition of
the berths should be also noted.
On-shore facilities related to the berths should also be part of the
supply inventory. The number of formal and informal parking spaces,
men’s and women’s restrooms and showers, on-shore storage, and need
for fuel dock pump-out facilities should be reported.
The secondary portion of a marina supply inventory involves the dry-
storage facilities. Dry-storage facilities usually consist of a paved or grav-
eled fenced surface storage lot, or a stacked dry-storage facility.
In addition to the boat storage considerations, the supply inventory
should include the number, size, and characteristics of residential, com-
mercial, and light-industrial components of the harbor project. The resi-
dential and commercial facilities may or may not be marina-oriented. For
example, some residences in the project may have unused berths available
and thus add to the berth count within the project. Some commercial and
light-industrial uses may focus heavily on boater use within the project.
Light-industrial uses are of special concern when planning a new
project. For example, the project under consideration may rely on existing
marine fueling, boat launching and retrieval facilities, and boat repair
facilities located elsewhere in the market area. A boat repair yard is a spe-
cialized type of facility that is not necessarily appropriate or needed in all
harbors and requires a significant number of vessels for a customer base.
In addition to physical features, it is also important to note ownership,

management/operating policy, historic capital funding, and volume of
historic and current business in use at each facility. It is also appropriate
to review the history of the project to determine how long it took to reach
stable occupancy of wet storage facilities and other elements. Also review
historic slip rental rates charged for facilities and services in the harbor,
with particular emphasis on the boat berths.
The supply inventory should include in-depth interviews with selected
harbor managers to determine whether or not waiting lists for slips exist
at the harbors and the geographic areas where the majority of wet storage
users reside. If the marina serves mainly area residents, most wet storage
users will live within driving or walking distance. If the marina serves
transient boaters, determine where users come from during the peak and
off-peak seasons. Harbor managers also are an excellent source of infor-
mation about proposed new projects and/or expansions of existing facili-
ties in the area. In some cases market information can be obtained from
government planning officials, as well as permit-granting agencies such
as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Defining the Market Area

The primary market area normally includes the geographic area where
90% or more of the harbor users permanently reside. (Obtain this informa-
tion in the supply inventory.) The market area for wet storage boats is
usually the same area as the market area for moorings and for use of the
project’s launching and dry boat storage facilities. Market areas differ
depending on whether the facility is resident- or transient-oriented.
In addition to the boating facilities, it is also important to determine
market areas for ancillary facilities such as marine fueling, boat repair and
service, boat sales, marine chandlery, and food services. The supply inven-
tory will help determine the market area for these uses.
The market area for housing or commercial uses is typically different
than for boat storage, launching, and service facilities. This is extremely
important to consider in large-scale, multipurpose projects where the
harbor is to serve as a recreational amenity within a planned residential
and/or commercial development. This manual is intended for small craft
harbor development, so it does not deal extensively with the market
analysis and financial feasibility of non-boating-oriented residential and
commercial facilities associated with small craft harbors.
Evaluating and Projecting Market Area Demand

The key factors for determining demand are demographics and eco-
nomic characteristics of the market area, as well as current boat ownership
information, including specific boat sizes and characteristics.
Demographic and economic data are usually available from federal,

state, and local government agencies. With this statistical data an analyst
can correlate the demographic and economic factors that determine boat
ownership. If such correlations can be developed using historical data,
they can serve as the basis for projecting future boat ownership and char-
acteristics, which will aid in estimating demand for boat storage facilities.
Ten years should be the minimum projection period.
The most effective correlations for determining boat storage facility
demand is the relationship of boat ownership to the general population,
usually expressed in boats owned per thousand population. The next
most important factor is the number of boats owned in certain size ranges;
the size range distribution provides insights into the number of berthable
versus transportable boats. Portable boats typically use launching facili-
ties and are stored on land at the small craft harbor or elsewhere. If suf-
ficient data are available, linear regression techniques are best for demand
projections, especially in growing market areas, since this method can
respond to changes in the propensity to own boats caused by varying
economic and supply factors.
Boat demographics are typically difficult to determine but are key in
analyzing demand. The three major boat length groupings are
• Boats 8.0 m (26 ft) and longer, which normally require berthing
• Boats 5.5 to 7.6 m (18 to 25 ft), which may be trailered, stored in
dry-stack storage at the marina, or stored in yard-type setting at the
marina or elsewhere
• Boats under 5.5 m (18 ft), which are generally not berthed. Some
exceptions exist at small recreational lakes, where some facilities
provide berths for small recreational boats.
Consideration should be given to the latest trends and advancements

in technology for making placement of boats longer than 9.5 m (32 ft) in
dry racks, up to 15.2 m (50 ft) in length.
To assess and project future market trends in the boating industry,
boating manufacturers should be contacted as well. Boating manufactur-
ers will often perform their own annual research to determine what size
and number of boats they should produce.
Wet Storage If the harbor will primarily serve resident boaters, these
boaters will generally keep their boats in the harbor year-round in warm
climates like Southern California and seasonally in colder climates like
the Great Lakes. In these cases the inventory of berths should be generally
equivalent to the number of berthable boats owned in the market area.
Analysts can corroborate the market with comparative historical data on
boat ownership and berthing demand.
The question of supply availability—or berths available to satisfy effec-

tive and pent-up demand in a market area—is an important element to
consider in the market analysis. Effective demand is the actual number of
boats owned and wet-stored in or outside the area by market-area resi-
dents. Pent-up demand is the propensity of people in a market area to own
boats in certain size categories if berths were available.

Especially in larger metropolitan areas where the supply of suitable
sites is often constrained, pent-up demand can be quite noticeable. If a
comparison of boat ownership per thousand is made for various metro-
politan areas in the Great Lakes region, for example, it is clear that boat
ownership per thousand population in the Chicago metro area is low in
comparison with other areas (See Fig. 1-2). Due to lack of local supply—
institutional factors have constrained the development of wet-storage
facilities—resident boaters have sought wet-storage facilities on Lake
Michigan in southern Wisconsin, northeastern Illinois, northern Indiana,
and southwestern Michigan, or have not purchased a boat at all. These
examples illustrate a case of pent-up demand.
Fig. 1-2. Belmont Harbor, Chicago, Illinois. Belmont Harbor is located in

Lincoln Park in Chicago’s Near North neighborhood, an area of dense
population. The harbor is separated from the residential areas by Lakeshore
Drive, a major Chicago thoroughfare.
Boater registration figures can be helpful in estimating demand. Most

boats in the United States must be registered with a state agency or the
United States Coast Guard (USCG). In addition to state-registered boats,
larger commercial boats (and those engaged in international use) may be
documented by the USCG.
Dry Storage Once wet-storage demand projections are made, similar

projections for dry-storage needs should be made. Primary candidates for
surface or dry-stacked storage are registered boats in the 5.5- to 10.7-m
(18–35 ft) range, whose owners choose not to trailer them to launching
facilities. Surface storage usually serves sailboats, while stacked dry-
storage facilities are appropriate for power boats.
To estimate dry-storage demand at a given harbor, dry-storage units at
competitive harbors should be compared to potential users or through a
detailed survey of boater preference. The latter approach is usually quite
expensive, so most estimates are made on the basis of observing other
facilities and estimating a reasonable proportion of potential dry-stored
boats that can be drawn to a harbor. Stacked dry-storage facilities are
costly and there is a danger of miscalculating the demand for these facili-
ties. Surface storage can often serve an interim use, and can ultimately be
replaced by dry-stacked storage if the demand grows or other uses if there
is no demand.
Boating-Related Goods and Services The number of boats to be wet-

stored, dry-stored, and/or launched at a small craft harbor can substan-
tially influence potential sales of boating-related goods and services. Esti-
mating the buying power using a survey of boater expenditure patterns
at similarly sized harbors is a typical analysis. These business volume
estimates, along with the number of boats expected to use the new facility,
will determine the core buying power of a proposed harbor. Once this
boater-generated buying power is estimated, the proportion of that buying
power that can be captured by retail facilities at the harbor can be
projected.
Once the sales volume figure is determined, building and land require-
ments can be identified. Estimates for eating and drinking facilities, retail
stores, and marine fueling facilities are often made on a sales-per-square-
foot basis. Demand estimates for use of harbor facilities by nonboater
visitors to the harbor should also be determined. The performance of
existing facilities can be a useful benchmark in determining the relation-
ship between sales and facility size.
Boat Sales It is rather difficult to determine the optimal size of new

and used boat sales facilities within a harbor, and not all harbors should
include a boat sales facility. While there are advantages to boat sales
outlets located at a harbor, sales facilities are large space users and some-
times their needs can be better satisfied at a different location. Existing
boat sales outlets serving the market area should first be determined.
Net Demand and Project Absorption

Once the demand for harbor facilities in the area is understood, the
number and types of boats and other desired marine-related recreational/
commercial facilities can be translated into land and water area require-
ments. The following information can be used to search for an appropriate
site or test the capacity of a site that has already been selected.
Approximately six to 10 boats of an average length of 10 to 12 m
(35–40 ft) can be accommodated per hectare (15 to 25 per acre) of water
space. The exact numbers depend on the actual length of the boats, the
shape of the basin, and the amount of maneuvering area provided. Typi-
cally, the land area required for most full-service marinas approximately
equals the water area required for dockage and access channels. If land-
scaped open space and other amenities are kept to a minimum, somewhat
less land than water is needed.
Once net demand, market penetration, and land/water requirements
are determined, project phasing is developed. An important consideration
is the pricing of project components. Pricing must be market competitive;
much of the information obtained in the supply inventory phase of the
market analysis will be helpful for estimating project absorption. Pricing
can require especially careful study. Innovative marina managers often
package or bundle services in creative ways; therefore, getting to an
“apples-to-apples” comparison may pose a challenge.
The study must clearly present the quantity of facilities (in building
and land requirements) that can be successfully sold or leased within the
project’s anticipated development timeframe, so the project designer can
evaluate all potential land-use and phasing alternatives for development
of the harbor and determine the project’s financial feasibility. In addition,
the market study must provide information, such as operating costs, that
will be helpful in preparing the income and expense assumptions for the
financial feasibility analysis.
MARINA LOCATION CRITERIA
It is possible to conduct an initial screening of potential sites by gather-

ing information available from federal, state, and municipal planning
agencies. These agencies often maintain a list of alternative sites suitable
for harbor development. Characteristics of a good small craft harbor site
include access to navigable water, safe mooring (harbor protection) at
reasonable cost, good vehicular and pedestrian access, environmental

sensitivities, proper zoning, and compatibility between the proposed
development and surrounding land uses.
This is the time to identify restrictions and/or incentives resulting from
local, state, and federal policies, rules, and regulations. In some geographic
areas, governments are promoting and subsidizing new harbors as eco-

nomic development tools; in other locations, waterfront development is
prohibited because of environmental concerns. It is important to deter-
mine the permitting requirements for a project and to understand the
attitude of a community toward the development of a small craft harbor.
There are several harbor site classifications. Fig. 1-3 through 1-7 depict
several examples. A natural protected harbor may exist as an estuary,
Fig. 1-3. In the state of Washington, Gig Harbor is a naturally protected

harbor in a highly desirable waterfront community. The town center is located
along the southwestern shore of the natural harbor. High-end housing is
located along the northeastern shore. The town has a huge year-round tourist
trade. During the spring and summer months Gig Harbor is visited by
hundreds of boaters from other marinas located throughout Puget Sound. There
are numerous marinas and moorage facilities located within the harbor, which
provides moorage for hundreds of boats. The harbor is sheltered from wave
attack from Puget Sound by a large and stable sand spit that is located at the
harbor’s mouth. No dredging is required to maintain the entrance channel.
Source: Courtesy of Marinas.com
Fig. 1-4. South Haven Municipal Marina, Michigan, is located at the mouth
of the Black River. South Haven is 2 hours north of Chicago on the east shore
of Lake Michigan. Since the 1970s the community has recognized that the
waterfront along the Black River could be the key element of a revitalized city.
The goal of the Marina Park and Riverfront Improvements Project was to
improve access to the recreation potential of Lake Michigan, enhance the image
of South Haven, and attract visitors and businesses to the area. The centerpiece
of this linear park system is the Marina Park, which includes a 40-slip marina
for transient boaters and a municipal marina on the opposite side of the river
providing seasonal slip rental for more than 100 boats. A shoreline quarry
stone revetment system was used to protect the basins from the wave surge
that approaches the site from Lake Michigan.
behind an island or sheltered by a peninsula. Harbors can be formed by

enhancing natural conditions, such as embayments or off-shore islands,
or by providing artificial protection for an excavated inland basin or an
off-shore harbor. Accessibility is a prime consideration in selecting a
harbor location; not surprisingly, boaters prefer harbors close to their
destination body of water.
Access to the harbor from the landside is equally important. The road-
ways serving the site must be adequate to handle projected traffic result-
ing from harbor development. Also, the availability of utilities and the
Fig. 1-5. Shore parallel breakwater protection at Shilshole Bay Marina, Seattle,
Washington. Shilshole Bay Marina, located on Puget Sound, provides
permanent accommodations for 1,500 recreational vessels up to 40 m (130 ft)
in length and transient moorage for 100 vessels at a guest pier. The marina
includes an administration building that houses two restaurants, a cocktail
lounge, a coffee shop, a marina supply shop, a sailing instruction and charter
service, and the marina office. Other on-site amenities include boater facilities
(restrooms, shower, and laundry), grocery, fueling stations, maintenance
facility, and work areas for boat owners. The marina was built in 1957 and
recently completed major renovations that resulted in the complete replacement
of all moorage facilities. It is owned and operated by the Port of Seattle. The
1,341-m (4,400-ft) breakwater was built by USACE.
Source: Courtesy of Reid Middleton
cost of their extension to the site must be considered. The costs associated
with water, electric power, gas, telephone, cable television, fuel, and sani-
tary sewer development are also important considerations.
Over the past 20 years federal and state governments have expanded
their regulations for maintaining and protecting water resources. The
need to regulate public and private waters is founded on the fragile nature
and great value of these resources. Introduction of new elements into a
water environment can alter natural processes. The impact on existing
habitat balance, water quality, and current users of the site must be
Fig. 1-6. Off-shore harbor construction at Reefpoint Marina, Racine,

Wisconsin. The marina development was a private/public venture which was
completed in 1987. Racine County and the state of Wisconsin sponsored the
harbor improvements, including breakwater rehabilitation which was required
to make the transformation from an underutilized commercial shipping harbor
into a recreational boating harbor. The harbor dredging and disposal into the
specially constructed confinement structure, which formed the outline of the
new land-based marina support facilities and County Park, started in 1985.
This newly created land provides 16 acres for marina administration/service
buildings, parking, and landscaped open space. A marina developer/operator
paid for the dockage, which accommodates 921 boats, and for the buildings that
house marina services. The City of Racine built a Festival Park adjacent to the
existing 12-lane boat launch ramp basin.
considered carefully before making the decision to develop a harbor at a

particular location. As a result, the environmental framework within
which the project is to be constructed and operated is a critical factor in
determining the appropriateness of a site for waterfront development.
The harbor should be located in the area that will best serve its intended
purpose. An emergency harbor of refuge, for example, needs to be sited
at a location with easy access from traveled cruising routes. Commercial
and recreational fishing harbors should be located with reasonable access
Fig. 1-7. Excavated basin (early 1980s) with protected harbor entrance at
Point Roberts Marina, Point Roberts, Washington. The marina was an
excavated basin and channel with a protective outer breakwater. The marina is
a full-service facility with more than 1,000 slips, located within a resort
development.
Source: Courtesy of Marinas.com
to the best fishing areas. Yacht clubs and sailing schools need locations
with wind and challenging, interesting sailing and racing courses. Over-
night convenience harbor facilities are best when sited near attractions
such as restaurants and maritime-related retail.
Once potential sites have been identified, the next step is to prepare
cost estimates as a basis for comparison. Prepare concept-level drawings
for planning purposes and use the generalized opinion of probable con-
struction cost to identify economic advantages and disadvantages of each
site. Match sources of funding with estimated project costs so that any
shortfalls can be identified early. Also, do some projections on operating
income (operating revenues less expenses) to allow the eventual operator
to identify the potential financial viability of alternatives. The financing
of small craft harbor development is discussed in greater detail later in
this chapter.
Generally speaking, the site that requires the least amount of excavation,
dredging, filling, breakwater construction, disturbance of sensitive environ-
mental resources, cleanup of contamination, and changes in local land use

will usually be the preferred site for development. In many cases sites that
have historically been used for maritime activities prove to be the selected
option, if such sites are available. Capital cost requirements and the time and
expense of applying for permits and performing detailed engineering studies
for such a site could be on the low end of the spectrum.

In summary, the model small craft harbor site should have adequate
depth for the boats it will serve, natural protection from wind and waves,
easy access to destination waters, proper zoning, and enough protected
navigable water area and developable uplands to accommodate future
expansion and an acceptable level of environmental impact. It is also wise
to check with local planning officials at this juncture on the planned use
for adjacent or nearby properties, as these may affect the future allowed
uses of the marina parcel. Because few harbor sites possess all of the above
characteristics, a comparative analysis of potential sites—weighing the
benefits and costs of each option—is recommended before choosing a site
for development.
DETERMINING FACILITIES AND AMENITIES
As part of the planning process it is essential to select the facilities to

include in the project and estimate their general size and capacity. This
should be done at the same time the function of the facility and site suit-
ability requirements are determined.
The following facilities and conveniences are normally part of a small
craft harbor. Some of these may be essential to a particular location and
site. Others will be elective, depending on the harbor’s function, user
needs, and the developer’s preference. The design of these facilities is
discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3.
Waterside Program Elements

Administration Building The administration building typically
includes harbor master office, ship’s store, restrooms, showers, and
laundry (See Fig. 1-8).
Anchorage Basin Anchorage basins serving boats on mooring buoys

provide less costly alternatives to wet slips. They are sometimes included
in a harbor design to accommodate certain boat sizes or types, or because
wet slips are not available.
Basin Flushing The basin should be planned to take maximum

advantage of natural currents and water inflows and to inhibit
Fig. 1-8. Marina administration building, Duncan L. Clinch Marina, Traverse

City, Michigan. The facility includes a marina store, boater facilities
(restrooms, showers, and laundry), charter operations, yacht club, and marina
offices.
the circulation of these as little as possible. The objective should be to

preserve, and possibly improve, water quality by preventing stagnant
pools of water within the marina.
Boating School and Boat Rental Many full-service marinas offer

sailing and/or power-boating lessons from a specially designed instruc-
tional facility and provide rental opportunities for properly certified
captains.
Charter Boat Operation Harbors oriented toward recreational fishing

and diving that are located in tourist areas typically provide charter
opportunities from a designated area of the harbor.
Convenience Store Many harbor plans include a small convenience

store offering food, beverages, and ice. It should be sited in an area that
is easily accessible to all user vessels (i.e., adequate channel depths and
maneuvering space). Such facilities are commonly located near the fuel
station.
Covered Wet Slips Depending on the region of the country, covered

wet slips may be desirable. These structures are subject to significant wind
loading and will require substantially more anchorage than open wet
slips. (See Fig. 1-9).
Dock Boxes Nearly everyone who owns a boat collects gear that they
may use only occasionally. As a result, it is common to provide the option
for a dock box for each moorage berth. These may be included with the
berth or rented separately. Another option is to provide shoreside lockers.
(See Fig. 1-10).
Excursion/Festival Piers Many marinas provide piers for dinner

cruises, water taxis, ferry operations, tour boats, and excursion operators.
These facilities are usually oriented toward the nonboating public and
include passenger ticketing, loading, and parking areas.
Fig. 1-9. Covered slips at Clinton Marina, Clinton, Iowa. Many marinas
located in river and inland lake environments throughout the United States
offer covered slips.
Fig. 1-10. Dock boxes at Waukegan Harbor, Waukegan, Illinois

Fire Suppression Fire suppression systems vary in harbor design

based on the local codes and the authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) provides guidance to design
in their standards NFPA 14, “Standard for the Installation of Standpipe
and Hose Systems” (NFPA 2010a); NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible
Liquids Code (NFPA 2012a); NFPA 30A, Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing
Facilities and Repair Garages (NFPA 2012b); and NFPA 303, Fire Protection
Standard for Marinas and Boatyards (NFPA 2011).
Fish Cleaning Fish cleaning stations are popular in several regions

of the country, allowing for disposal of waste in a sanitary manner. Usually
these systems are tied into a larger sanitary system and use industrial-
grade grinders to assist in the disposal.
In-Water Boat Show This is the practice of displaying boats for sale
in the marina setting. Some marinas set aside an area for permanent
moorage of demonstration models, while others have annual in-water
boat shows.
Marine Fuel Station Because most craft (including many sailboats)

use fuel, a fuel station is highly desirable. Typically, fuel stations provide
diesel and regular fuel at dual dispensers. (See Fig. 1-11).
Detailed spill contingency plans and trained personnel should be in
place to handle spill emergencies. Underground fuel tanks need special
leak control and monitoring systems. Discuss these issues early in the
permit process with local regulatory personnel.
Navigation Aids Navigation aids include buoys, markers, and navi-

gation lights.
Open Wet Slips Open wet slips are the simplest and most common
type of slips, whether at fixed or floating piers. Simply stated, a wet slip
is the berthing space on the water in which a boat is moored alongside a
pier, allowing walk-on access to boats.
Other Water-Related Recreation Activities Some marinas offer nearby

accommodations for swimming. However, swimming and moving boats
form a hazardous combination. If swimming is allowed, facilities should be
placed at a location removed from any boat traffic or operations and must
Fig. 1-11. Marina fuel station (fuel dock) at Duncan L. Clinch Marina,
Traverse City, Michigan
include floating markers to separate the two areas. A swimming pool may
better serve the purpose and avoid conflict between boats and swimmers.
Facilities for water skiing should also be located away from small craft
harbors or busy navigation channels, mooring, and swimming areas. Ski
courses should be plainly marked by buoys with controlled speed limits
near any mooring facility. Like swimming and water skiing, any scuba
diving areas should be located safely away from the small craft harbor.
Power Pedestals and Cables Power and water utilities are typically
provided at slips (See Fig. 1-12). Pedestals are used to provide electric and
water connections.
Safety Boating facilities should be cognizant of and provide clear

thoroughfares on head piers and main access piers (See Fig. 1-15) for
emergency access.
Sanitary Station At a minimum, one sanitary pump-out connection

for every 200 berths (or as dictated by state or local ordinances) should
Fig. 1-12. Open wet slips at Duncan L. Clinch Marina, Traverse City,
Michigan. Power pedestals are located with one servicing every two slips.
be provided and a dump station at the service pier for portable toilets
should be included.
Security Some facilities provide security gates at entrance to dockage.

These gateways can be left open during daylight hours and closed for
boaters’ security at night.
Transient Dockage Marinas typically provide facilities for overnight

moorage of visiting craft. These can be set aside permanently or can be
handled operationally by renting out unoccupied slips.
USCG and Marine Safety Accommodations Some larger marinas

provide space for the USCG, USCG auxiliary clubs, and/or local marine
safety staff and equipment at minimum cost.
Wave Protection Protection consists of breakwaters, jetties, bulk-

heads, groins, and revetments.
Commercial Fishing
Another type of a small craft harbor is a commercial fishing harbor (See
Fig. 1-13). Facilities for commercial fishing boats require a variety of
special installations and more rugged facilities than a recreational harbor.
Some small craft harbors include both pleasure boats and commercial
fishing craft and must be designed to effectively separate the two areas.
Many exciting opportunities exist for public access at a commercial fishing
vessel facility. The challenge for the designer is to capitalize on these
opportunities by integrating public access into the harbor design without
intruding into the working element of the facility. The following facilities
are normally included in a commercial fishing harbor.
Dockage Dockage for fishing boats is typically provided on a fixed

structure (as opposed to floating) that is of sufficient strength to allow
access by a forklift or light truck. However, it is possible to design floating
structures to serve certain types of commercial fishing vessels.
Fishing Boat Requirements A commercial fishing boat is a work boat

that is not used for recreation. While in port the operator prepares his or
her craft and equipment for the next trip, makes repairs to boat and gear,
acquires and stores provisions, and repairs nets and tackle.
Fishermen’s Day Room/Laundry/Showers Secured day room lounge/

laundry/shower facilities for fishermen should be included in the harbor
design.
Fig. 1-13. Fisherman’s Terminal at Salmon Bay, Seattle, Washington

Fishing Vessel Fuel Dock, Bilge, and Sanitary Pump-Out Commer-

cial needs are similar to recreational marinas except the design vessel will
typically be larger. Oil recycling facilities are recommended.
Gear Storage Area Many large pieces of gear and equipment (trailers,
net reels, crab pots, palletized fishing nets, etc.) can be stored outside in
the off-season. The gear storage area must be secured with fencing.
Loading/Unloading Area Substantial area should be provided in the

docks to support vessel loading/unloading of gear and equipment, as
well as mobile crane access for vessel repair (See Fig. 1-14). If fish will be
unloaded at the harbor, it is necessary to incorporate special fish handling
equipment into the marina design. The fish receiver will dictate the
requirements; they normally consist of 2-ton hoists to unload skips from
the holds of the boats. The handling of fish waste in an environmentally
responsible manner is also important.
Marina Office An on-site office is needed to house marina manage-

ment and maintenance activities, similar to a recreational marina.
Ice Processing Equipment Ice for refrigeration purposes is provided

as a convenience service for harbor patrons.
Fig. 1-14. Loading and unloading area at Fisherman’s Terminal at Salmon

Bay, Seattle, Washington
Miscellaneous Ancillary functions to support a full-service commer-

cial fishing boat facility include vessel maintenance/repair functions
(machine shop, electronic/instrument/radio, refrigeration); commercial/
retail functions (grocery store, ship parts, fishing gear, banking facility,
fish retail outlet, gift shop); office functions (vessel sales, vessel insurance,
fish brokers, fishing company offices, fishing vessel owner associations);
and food-service functions (restaurant, coffee shop, tavern).
Net Repair Area A clean, open-air asphalt area where fishing nets can
be spread out and repaired prior to the fishing season should be
provided.
Net Sheds Commercial fishing boats frequently have a considerable

amount of gear that must be stored between trips. Many commercial
harbors provide net sheds for this purpose. These sheds are frequently
community buildings divided by wire fencing into lockers varying in size
from 2.5 × 2.5 m (8 × 8 ft) to 5 × 6 m (16 × 20 ft) with 2.5-m (8-ft) wide
doors for equipment handling. Net sheds should be high bay for handling
nets and offer good ventilation for quick drying.
Parking Requirements Parking requirements will vary depending

on the mix of activities provided at the commercial fishing vessel facility.
The demand for parking at a full-service commercial fishing vessel facility
will be substantial and will require comprehensive planning.
Protection A commercial fishing harbor must be safe and calm. A

fishing boat may be at sea continuously for several months or may be tied
up for months waiting for fish runs.
Rental Equipment Vessel owners will typically have the periodic

short-term need to move equipment and/or gear to or from storage to
their vessel. Common-use rental forklift and mobile net reel equipment
furnished by the marina operator provides an economical means of
meeting this operational requirement.
Restroom Facilities Plan for on-site facilities to accommodate tenants.
Vessel Repair Facilities Common-use dry dock facilities should be

available to vessel owners for performing work on their boats.
HARBOR CONFIGURATION PLANNING
Once the site is selected and a basic harbor program has been estab-
lished, the design team can explore alternative configurations for the
required basin and land areas. Each small craft harbor plan alternative
should reflect current market conditions, respect unique characteristics of
the site, recognize historical maritime uses, and demonstrate an under-
standing of the highest and best use of the property. The public interest
must be balanced with the goals of the private developer.
By reviewing existing information, visiting the site, and performing the
appropriate studies and field investigations, the engineer and planner can
gain a thorough understanding of the site. Analyze alternatives based
upon technical, operational, and economic analyses, as well as creative
design. Finally, carry out comparative studies on each option under con-
sideration. Cost estimates and cash flow projections (typically prepared
with the input of an experienced marina manager) will help determine
the financial feasibility of each alternative.
Waterside Arrangements
Marina Siting Considerations The vast majority of naturally shel-
tered locations suitable for small craft harbors have long since been
adapted to that use. Generally, it is preferable to regenerate those sites,
which avoids affecting new areas of shoreline with development; plus,

the sites are typically already serviced with infrastructure.
If existing locations cannot be rehabilitated for marina use, then new
locations for marinas must be found. Siting of the harbor must consider
both land-side and water-side constraints. On the land side, the grades
must be such that easy access can be gained to the water. Proximity to
roads and utilities is important and adequate acreage is needed to support
the operation, as will be detailed later in this chapter. However, waterside
considerations ultimately control the siting of a harbor.
Ideally, the harbor would be sited in a location sheltered from wind
and wave action, or be nested in a location without the effects of strong
currents in a river or stream. Therefore, places where there are natural
promontories along the shoreline, and backwater areas of a river channel,
are prime candidates for a new harbor location. However, these same
sheltered areas may then be subject to shoaling or limiting water depths
for the same reasons that make them desirable as protection against the
harsh environment.
On open bodies of water or on large lakes, it is preferable to situate the
harbor so that the direct wind fetch toward the harbor is less than 1.5 km
(1 mi). Between 1.5 and 5 km (1–3 mi) of fetch, the site can still often be made
usable with the addition of a floating wave attenuator. For locations with
fetches greater than 5 km (3 mi), or in areas that have strong prevailing winds
or large waves, some sort of solid barrier against waves will need to be
added. If the prevailing winds are well understood, a preferred harbor loca-
tion on a lake is typically on the upwind end of the lake so that the winds
and associated waves move away from the harbor rather than toward it.
On rivers and streams the concern is more often the shoaling of the
harbor basin, as well as high-velocity flow in the river, which may make
vessel maneuvering difficult and may also cause very large loads to be
applied on the dock system. Unlike open bodies of water that may experi-
ence winds and waves from many quarters, riverine situations tend to be
more unidirectional phenomena, so a harbor can be situated and aligned
with that in mind. To avoid sedimentation, the harbor is best sited on the
outside bank of a river bend, or nearest the thalweg of the stream; however,
if situated on the inside of a bend, the alignment of the channel centerline
at that point should bend no more than 10 degrees. Other features of the
harbor entrance, discussed later in Chapter 2, should be designed to maxi-
mize its flushing, minimize its internal agitation level, and restrict sedi-
ment accumulation. Further, the harbor entrance should be located at the
downstream end of the basin so that vessels may ingress running against
the current to maximize steerage control at slow maneuvering speeds.
Basin Flushing Flushing can be accomplished by appropriate basin

geometry and by providing protected channels for tidal flushing in salt
water or flow flushing on rivers or lakes. The size and orientation of such
channels or ports will depend on the basin size and rates of flow. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) also provides guidance on
water quality. The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USC&GS) has pre-
pared tidal flow maps of many saltwater localities, which provide suffi-
cient information on direction and rate of tidal flow. Independent studies

of internal mixing and exchange rates, water quality impacts of construc-
tion and operation, and hydraulic performance (verified through model-
ing) may be necessary.
Waterside Access and Approach The general waterside approach to

the harbor should be well marked and as extensive and convenient as
possible. Immediate access to the basin should be protected against
weather and should be wide enough to allow safe simultaneous entrance
and exit of the largest craft anticipated, both sailboats and powerboats.
While the basin traffic will tend to dictate the width of this access to some
extent, a general guideline is that entrance channels have a minimum of
23 m (75 ft) or 3 to 5 times the beam of the largest boats expected to be
berthed in the harbor. The USACE’s “Small Craft Harbors: Design, Con-
struction and Operation” (Dunham and Finn 1974) entrance channel
width criteria for open ocean environments recommends 91.5 m (300 ft)
for the first 1,000 boats and an additional 30 m (100 ft) of width for each
additional 1,000 boats. This rule of thumb has proven to be effective as a
starting point in planning larger new harbors, especially when trying to
accommodate boats under sail approaching the harbor from the open
ocean. It is not applicable for small marinas with somewhat sheltered
entrances. The area within the harbor at the entrance should be sized for
safe and convenient movement of boats to berthing and service areas.
Shoreline Stabilization The interface between land and water is one

of the most important design and environmental planning decisions the
design team will face. The appropriate arrangement of proposed uses will
determine the ultimate configuration of the shoreline. The economics of
land and water construction, the necessity for reclamation and dredging
permits, and required basin depths are also important factors. Options for
shoreline retention and protection are discussed in Chapter 3.
Basin Depths Harbor entrance and mooring basin depths should be

adequate for both power and sailboats and allow for a 0.6- to 1-m (2- to
3-ft) safety clearance under the keel, depending on soft or hard bottom
conditions. In open coast environments, depths should be appropriately
increased for wave trough and vessel squat considerations. Harbors spe-
cifically designed to service power boats only can function with depths
less than those for harbors that will accommodate sail craft. See Chapter
2 for a more detailed discussion. The depths shown in Table 1-1 are
primarily dependent on the wave climate and draft of the boats to be
served.
Wet Slip Construction Wet slips may be generally classed as open

and covered. Open wet slips are exposed to the weather. These may
consist of berths along a pier, individual slips created by finger piers
perpendicular to a main pier, or side berthing to a main pier or
bulkhead.
Covered wet slips provide a protecting roof against sun and rain
and usually provide berths along finger piers perpendicular to a main
pier or float. In places with little change in water elevation, roofs over wet
slips can be supported directly on the pile foundations that support walk-
ways. In basins with a large variation in water levels, the entire system
can be designed to float. See Chapter 3 for a detailed discussion of
this topic.
Vertical Clearance Sail craft participating in world-class yachting

events require vertical clearances of more than 30.5 m (100 ft) to allow
safe passage. Although technically possible, it is not often economically
justifiable to build fixed bridge structures high enough to provide access
to a sailboat harbor. If sailboat moorings are provided upstream from a
proposed channel crossing, such as a highway bridge, a bascule or swing
bridge can be a better solution than to build a fixed bridge.
Table 1-1. Typical Basin Dredge Depths (below Mean Low Water) for
Harbors Serving Powerboats and Sailboats
Dredge Depth
Locations Meters Feet
Main entrance channel 3.0–6.0 10–20

Access aisles 3.0–4.5 10–15
Berth length
Meters Feet Meters Feet
9 30 2.5 8
12 40 3 10
15 50 3.5 12
Maximum 4.5 15
Note: 1 m = 3.2802 ft
Interior Channel The interior channel width is determined by arriv-

ing at a minimum width to safely service two-way traffic for the type of
craft that will use the harbor, taking into account the amount of boat traffic
expected. Although sophisticated traffic models exist based upon auto-
mobile traffic methodology, the following formula is appropriate for the
planning phase of design:
A minimum width of 5 times the width of the average size boat,

plus an increment of 10% of the number of boats served by the
channel in feet (3% in meters).
For example, a channel serving 300 boats (with an average beam of 5 m

wide) would require a width of (5 × 5) + (0.03 × 300) = 34 m. A channel
serving 300 boats (15 ft wide) would require a width of (5 × 15 ft) + (0.10
× 300) = 105 ft. The channel should be somewhat wider at changes of
direction.
Boat Space Demand Determination One of the first tasks in planning

the harbor layout is to determine the number of boats of various sizes and
types that will be accommodated. It is necessary for the harbor developer
to survey the particular locality to determine existing requirements and
to project, as far as possible, future demand. (Market studies are discussed
in more detail earlier in this chapter.) Because demand estimates depend
on many variables, it is wise to build a certain amount of flexibility into
the dockage layout plan.
Aisle and Slip Clearances for Berthing Once you have determined
the number and size of boats the harbor will accommodate, the next step
is to examine the minimum space requirements for satisfactory berthing.
This includes not only the actual space in the berth itself, but also the
maneuvering space necessary to enter and leave the berth without damage
to the operator’s boat, other moored boats, or the structure, and without
undue inconvenience to users.
There is a great variety in the way slips are laid out in different parts
of the world. In the United States the typical berthing arrangement is as
depicted by Fig. 1-15 and described below.
Berth widths should be based on the particulars of the vessels to be
berthed. The minimum width of a berth should be
• Double berth: 2 × beam of the wider vessels served + clearance

for environmental conditions, boater experience, and fendering
system
• Single berth: Beam of the widest vessel served + clearance for envi-
ronmental conditions, user experience, and fendering system.
Fig. 1-15. Typical boat slip arrangement

Typical clearances range from 0.9 to 2.1 m (3–7 ft), being greater for
double berths, for longer berths, and where winds and currents make
berthing difficult. Berth depths should be the same as the fairway depth.
Aisle or Fairway Dimensions An aisle, or fairway, is the unobstructed

waterway between berthing areas (as defined by the end of the boat or
the finger pier, whichever has the smaller clearance) serving as the interior
harbor boat circulation system. Minimum clear aisle widths between ends
of finger piers are established as 1.5 times the length of the largest boat
using the aisle. Yet because operators often allow oversized boats to be
placed in slips, it is recommended that aisle widths be planned based on
a factor of 1.75 times the longest boat served.
General Layout Larger vessels requiring greater maneuvering space

and depth are typically located closer to the entrance to the harbor. This
will reduce both the width and depth of fairways within the marina. If
the larger boat slips are located near shore, a turning basin may be
required. The overall marina facility design should avoid encroaching on
established clearance standards and fairways (especially from federally
designated channels).
Fuel and sewage pump-out piers should be located near the offshore
marina entrance so traffic does not interfere with the everyday activities
within the marina basin. The fuel and pump-out pier should be well pro-
tected from waves to reduce the chance of accidental liquid spillage or
damage to boats.
Transient piers should be located near the marina office so dockmasters

can easily monitor transient activities and provide services. If possible,
transient docks should be located near the marina entrance for easy access
in unfamiliar waters.
Launch and haul-out facilities should be located in quiet water away
from other marina activities. It is also desirable for the holding piers for
rack boats to be in the same part of the marina basin so small boat traffic
does not interfere with normal activities. There should be fueling facilities
for rack storage boats near their holding piers. Larger yachts require large
amounts of power; therefore, if possible, yacht piers should be located as
close to the power source as possible to reduce power transmission costs.
Head piers should be kept less than 180 m (600 ft) in length to make
the slips convenient to restrooms, trash receptacles, parking, and the
marina office.
Slip Layout The slip dimensions will be based on the data on boats to
be accommodated. The input of marina operators familiar with the loca-
tion, site, and approved information on unfavorable wind, weather, or
other conditions that may not be readily apparent is recommended. Strong
currents at river locations will also have an impact on slip orientation. In
general, the size of the boat slip depends on the boat to be served, the
environmental conditions, and the skill of the operator. Clearance allow-
ances increase with boat length.
When planning a marina it is necessary to balance the boater’s desire for
convenient mooring with the objective of maximizing boat slip revenues.
Table 1-2 gives an approximate number of boats and autos per hectare/acre
for planning small craft harbors. The ultimate decisions on marina layout
should be made based upon the benefits to the boater and marina operator.
The developer’s (public or private) objectives should be maximized, while
initial costs and operating expenses should be minimized, within the previ-
ously identified site design constraints. Since the protected navigable water
space is expensive to create, the harbor designer should make every attempt
to arrive at the most efficient layout possible. Boater safety and convenience
must also be considered in master planning the harbor.
The following schedule is an example of recommended berthing
requirements for a modern marina:
• A single loaded slip provides a berth for one boat between two finger
piers. Some single-loaded slips of a given length should be built
Table 1-2. Marina Planning Ratios
Item Density Assumption
Wet slip (in water) 6–10 boats/ Includes entrances, aisles,

hectare turning areas, and

15–25 boats/acre maneuvering 10.5–12 m
(35–40 ft) average boat
length
Dry stack (on land) 32–40 boats/ Includes buildings,
hectare maneuvering, and parking
80–100 boats/
acre
Auto-Trailer 10–12 auto Includes parking,
parking (on land) trailers/hectare maneuvering, and
25–30 auto minimal landscaping
trailers/acre
Auto-only parking 32–40 autos/ Includes parking, aisles, and
(on land) hectare landscaping
80–100 autos/acre
Winter storage (on 22–26 boats/ Includes storage, aisles, and
land) hectare maneuvering 10.5–12 m
55–65 boats/acre (35–40 ft) average boat
length
Note: 0.405 hectare = 1 acre, 0.305 m = 1 ft
slightly wider than others to accommodate the variety of widths of

boats being manufactured.
• A double-loaded slip provides berths for two boats between two
finger piers. The advantage of the double-slip arrangement is that
wider, newer boats can be paired with narrower, older boats if no
mooring pile is provided. Double-loaded slips, having only one
finger pier associated with a boat, are usually less costly than single-
loaded slips and often allow more slips in a given length of walkway.
• Slip widths are normally measured from pier structural frame to pier
structural frame. These clear widths are then reduced with rub rails,
bumpers, vertical rub strakes, fender bumpers, and center piles in
double slips.
Figure 1-15 and Table 1-3 have been used successfully for both single-
and double-loaded slip arrangements. For a more detailed discussion on
slip sizes, refer to the References section at the end of this chapter. Creat-
ing a project-specific schedule is very helpful. With this schedule and
Table 1-3. Typical Schedule for Boat Slip Dimensions
Slip Length Finger Pier Single Slip Clear Double Slip Clear
(ft) Width (ft) Width (ft) Width (ft)
30 3 to 4 14 27 to 29
35 4 15 to 16 31 to 34
40 4 to 5 16 to 18 34 to 37
45 4 to 5 17 to 19 36 to 39
50 5 to 6 18 to 20 38 to 41
55 5 to 6 19 to 22 42 to 45
60 5 to 6 21 to 23 44 to 47
65 6 to 8 22 to 23 45 to 48
70 6 to 8 23 to 26 50 to 54
80 8 to 10 26 to 28 52 to 56
90 8 to 10 27 to 29 54 to 58
100 10 to 12 28 to 30 56 to 60
125 10 to 12 30 to 33 60 to 66
150 10 to 12 33 to 36 66 to 72
200 10 to 12 43 to 46 86 to 92
Note: 1 ft = 0.305 m
Some state standards are based on dockage configurations in existing marinas and
may not meet the needs of boats that are currently being manufactured.
Source: SmithGroupJJR
knowledge of the boats to be accommodated, you can determine the nec-

essary basin size. Conversely, with a given basin size and such a schedule,
you can determine the number of boats of selected sizes that the basin can
accommodate.
The minimum clear width of a head pier or main access pier is 2 m
(6 ft), but 2.6 m (8 ft) is generally preferred to allow room for cleats and
power pedestals. If golf cart access is desired, the pier should be 3.5 m
(12 ft) wide. The width of finger piers is based on structural requirements
(Table 1-3).
Although most finger piers are attached to the head pier at right angles,
there are narrow aisle situations and locations with fast current where the
fingers can be designed to attach at different angles (See Fig. 1-16). The
greater the angle of finger to head pier, the fewer the number of boats that
can fit in a given length of pier. These angled fingers also require special
engineering of the dock system connections to handle the eccentric
Fig. 1-16. Angled slip arrangement, marina at the Renaissance Vinoy Resort
and Golf Club in St. Petersburg, Florida
Source: Courtesy of Moffatt Nichol
loadings. Finger piers widen with added length for structural stability and
to better serve larger boats.
If prevailing wind, current, and wave action is perpendicular to the
aisles, aisles should be widened to accommodate these forces on boats
maneuvering in the aisles. If those forces are parallel to the aisles, then
slip widths should be widened to help offset the loads and side movement
caused by these forces.
Mooring Pile Where double-loaded slip arrangements are used, some

boaters feel more comfortable with a mooring pile (sometimes referred to
as a spring or tie pile) between their boat and their neighbor’s boat. In areas
where there is little change in water elevation, the addition of a pile or
two between the finger piers is sometimes advocated to give four-way
ties for mooring. Where large tidal ranges or other water level changes
exist, this approach is not recommended because of the possible hanging-
up of boats. Such a pile also eliminates the possibility of providing a berth
for catamarans and other wide-body boats that do not fit into a typical
single slip.
Fig. 1-17. Double slips with mooring piles at McKinley Marina, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin
Fig. 1-18. Single slips, Cabrillo Marina, San Pedro, California

Other Mooring Options One berthing arrangement that has low cost
and accommodates a large number of boats is “Mediterranean mooring”
in which the stern of the boat is tied to a main pier and the bow of the
boat is held perpendicular to the main pier by an anchor or mooring in
the fairway or channel. Trends today are to stern-in for convenience. Boats
are placed side-by-side with no walkway between them and are separated
only with their own fender devices. In a variation of this arrangement,
small power boats are backed up to a main pier and attached at the two
outside ends of the stern with boarding plates (See Fig. 1-19).
Another option is a narrow mooring arm or boom about 15 cm (6 in.)
wide, extending at right angles from the main pier, used only for tying
off the outer end of the boat. This boom takes up very little space and is
not designed to be walked on. Although all of the aforementioned arrange-
ments allow maximum use of water at low dockage cost, they do not
provide the safest entry and exit to and from the boat.
Berthing parallel to the main walk pier may be used in a variety of
applications, including narrow channels or rivers where the boat is
moored with its bow into the direction of current flow. Care must be taken
to provide adequate channel width beyond the extreme outside of the
Fig. 1-19. Stern-in mooring (“Mediterranean mooring”) in southern France

Source: Courtesy of Mark Pirrello
boat and to provide enough length along the pier for maneuvering in and
out of each berthing space. An advantage of parallel berthing is that a
variety of boat lengths can be accommodated.
Marine Fuel and Service Station The size of a marine service station
will depend on the size of the harbor and the habits of harbor users. While
boating enthusiasts will be boating at every opportunity in good weather,
weekends are peak-use periods when everyone wants fuel at the same
time.
The marine fuel and service station should be located near the harbor
entrance with adequate space around it so that boats can be serviced
conveniently and where adequate depths exist for all craft needing service.
It should not be so close to the harbor entrance, however, that boats
waiting their turn would block the channel or the harbor entrance.
National Board of Fire Underwriter requirements, and most local ordi-
nances, call for fuel storage tanks and pumps to be ashore with fuel lines
extending from the pier. Where these lines go from fixed to floating struc-
tures, careful design is necessary. Suitable flexible joint connections are
needed; hoses are usually not permitted for these transitions. Sanitary
pump-out facilities also are typically provided at this location.
Refer to the section “Fueling and Oil Storage” found at the end of this
chapter for more information on preparing for response to fuel spills.
Launch Ramp Adequate space is required in water for launch ramp

facilities, especially if located within the slip configuration. Boat queuing
and boarding platforms for staging, launching, and retrieval consist of a
maneuverable area large enough to accommodate a minimum of three
boats per lane.
The boarding platform is a dock that allows boaters to tie up while
moving the trailer out of or into the lane for launching and retrieval.
Mooring Field Some harbors have found that an anchorage area is

desirable for boats that cannot be berthed due to lack of available wet slips
and for short-term guest visits on peak weekends. Unless considerable area
is available for single-point swing moorings, it is recommended that bow
and stern buoys be used to control the swing of boats and to maximize the
efficiency of the protected harbor space. Buoy manufacturers have full data
available concerning the use of their products. Typically, a dinghy storage
area is provided at the shore where mooring buoys are used. In general,
moorings are much less expensive than providing dockage.
Landing and Storage Area for Dinghies When a harbor has mooring,
dinghies are used to transport boaters from land to their boat. The dinghy(s)
requires designated dock space or landing area for boaters to access.
Landside Arrangements
The arrangement of the landside facilities of a small craft harbor affects

administration, simplicity, and economy of operation, landside and water-
side traffic control, maintenance, security and safety, fire protection, and
the aesthetics of the environment. To plan most effectively, it may be desir-

able to segregate landside installations into four user groups: control uses,
common public uses, specialized uses, and recreational uses.
Although the location of some of these use groups will probably
overlap, insofar as reasonably possible the arrangement of facilities should
take the interrelationship between these activities into account to provide
a better-operated harbor. The dynamics of the marketplace may warrant
the inclusion of pedestrian amenities in a planned environment in order
to set a marina operation apart from its competition.
Control Uses Control uses include things like headquarters for admin-
istration, the harbormaster, security personnel, maintenance, groundskeep-
ing, fire, first aid, and other marina services. Facility needs for these uses
will vary with the size of the harbor. From a security and control point of
view, it is best to have only one landside and only one waterside access to
the harbor facilities. Grouping administrative and other control headquar-
ters at these access points allows better supervision of operations and may
improve operating economies. It is desirable for the harbormaster or marina
dockmaster headquarters to be located adjacent to the waterside access.
Common Public Uses These uses include those installations com-

monly used by both boaters and visitors. Examples include auto and
trailer parking; fuel and service stations; restrooms and showers; fish
cleaning stations; boat sales, rentals, and charters; and retail stores. Group-
ing public uses together will centralize the activities of people who do not
have specific reason to be on piers. For example, marina patron toilets and
showers must be located in the vicinity of the boat slips. Public toilets can
be provided at the administration building, restaurants, concession stands,
and the fish cleaning station. Reserved automobile parking for marina
patrons, with controlled access, can be provided at locations convenient
to the boat slips. Public parking should be available near such attractions
as fishing piers, overlook structures, shops, and restaurants. The number
of spaces to be provided for these uses are typically dictated by local
zoning and land-use codes.
Specialized Uses These uses may include a membership yacht club,

commercial fishing operations, boat building and repair, gear lockers, and
dry boat storage. They serve a limited number of people or special groups
and so can be located away from the common public use area.
The membership-type yacht club will, by its designation, be exclusive

and should be separated from other activities unless the whole harbor is
a yacht club facility. Gear lockers should be located at or convenient to
berths. Trailer parking should be located near the launching ramp. Fishing
boat accessory installations should be convenient to fishing boat piers.
Dry boat storage can be at any available location, but should generally be
within a reasonable distance of handling equipment.
Park and Recreation Uses The trend toward public-private partner-

ships in developing harbor facilities brings with it the challenge of balanc-
ing the needs of public enjoyment with private enterprise. Under this
development scenario, the shoreline typically remains open and accessi-
ble to the public with continuous promenades linking pedestrian plazas,
fishing piers, overlook structures, picnic areas, beaches, and other open
spaces.
Although the water and boats are the visual focal point of the marina
development, recreational facilities contained within the complex may
become a landside activity center. Indoor and outdoor tennis courts,
swimming pools, and other recreational facilities add great value for
prospective marina customers. More and more marinas are being
designed with this “country club atmosphere” in mind. The diverse
facilities are typically linked both functionally and visually by using a
common palette of site amenities. The privacy and security of marina
patrons must be respected through careful and creative site planning and
design.
By properly combining interesting views of waterfront activities with
proper operational controls and security measures, the site designer can
create an appealing shared environment that may make the difference
between financial success and failure.
Barrier-Free Access Small craft harbor designers must meet the needs
of the physically impaired. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA) mandates accessibility to commercial facilities and places of public
accommodation by individuals with disabilities. Guidelines for confor-
mance to the Act are contained within the Americans with Disabilities Act
Handbook published by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com-
mission and the U.S. Department of Justice (2004).
The States Organization for Boating Access (SOBA) published Design
Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing Facilities, revised in 2006. This
publication addresses facilities specifically related to recreational boating
that are affected by the Act. Other national and state organizations
and public agencies have standards and codes conforming to the Act;
see Chapters 3 and 4 for examples of practical applications in marina
environments.
DOCKAGE LAYOUT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The complexity of designing and managing major harbor development

projects has increased considerably over the past 20 years. A well-designed
harbor environment needs to be safe and secure for boaters while effi-
ciently meeting operational requirements.

During the physical planning process, harbor wind and wave analysis,
depth of harbor for safe anchorage, and harbor/shore protection are tech-
nical considerations that are the backbone of harbor design. Dock systems
cannot survive the harsh climatic conditions without proper protection
given by harbor/shore protection. Careful and calculated assessment of
wind, wave, and water depths are paramount to provide appropriate
protection.
Optimal dock layout and design balances appropriate slip mix with
maximum use of protected harbor space and revenue generation. As pre-
viously mentioned, a market analysis is an important step to establishing
appropriate boat slip mix. Regional demand for slips provides the base
information that balances provided slips and needs.
Appropriate fairway widths between docks and other harbor struc-
tures affect the maximum potential use of protected harbor space. Every
square foot of water surface in a protected harbor has value, and it is
important to consider relationship of dock lengths, piers, and fairways to
meet the goals and objectives of the project. Fig. 1-20 provides an example
of economic comparison of payback period for 7.625-m (25-ft) and 15.25-m
(50-ft) slips.
Other inner harbor amenities such as fueling docks, pump-out stations,
boat launches, and crane/forklift stations also require water area within
protected harbors. Improved technology is allowing boats to navigate
more efficiently, but adequate, well designed turning basins and opera-
tional areas enhance the safety and experience of the users within the
harbor.
SITE INVESTIGATION AND ANALYSIS
In order to confirm the development suitability of a site, it is customary

to perform a series of site investigations and analyses prior to undertaking
detailed planning and design activities. All available information on the
site, including title, easements, and zoning information; environmental
regulatory reviews; local wind and wave data; topographic, bathymetric,
and other natural features mapping; utilities, streets, and other built
improvements; and subsurface conditions should be collected and orga-
nized. Next, conduct a review to resolve conflicting findings and establish
a set of study issues. Supplementing existing data with additional
Fig. 1-20. Economic comparison of payback period for 7.625-m (25-ft) and
15.25-m (50-ft) slips
investigations helps to develop a thorough understanding of current con-

ditions in the project area.
Once a site is acquired for development, more detailed studies will be
required, including topographic, hydrographic, utility, and boundary
surveys; an archaeological and natural features study; a subsurface and
environmental/geotechnical investigation; an infrastructure capacity

study; wind, wave, and water level analyses; a maritime vessel impact
study; a transportation analysis; and a search for appropriate materials of
construction and cost analysis.
Field Activities
Surveying and Mapping Accurate survey drawings are needed to
properly plan and design a new harbor facility. Once the title search is
complete and all site-related record information is in hand, you can initi-
ate field work to verify property boundaries, rights-of-way, and ease-
ments. Topographic and hydrographic surveys are usually needed to
produce a base map suitable for design drawings. These base maps should
include structures, roads, and other surface features accurately located
Fig. 1-21. Hydrographic survey equipment

and drawn to scale accuracy. Also research and verify utility locations,
conduit materials and sizes, and pipe elevations. The design team will
also need to determine bathymetric profiles of underwater topography to
properly assess dredging and filling impacts and costs.
All field work should be tied to a known horizontal coordinate system
and vertical datum whenever possible. Most waterfront projects are ref-
erenced to a low-water datum as well as to North American Vertical
Datum (NAVD) and to local data. The selection of a planimetric scale and
contour interval depends on the stage of design, size of the site, and level
of accuracy desired. Typically, conceptual planning can be accomplished
at a scale of 1 : 2,400 (1 in. = 200 ft); schematic design and preliminary
engineering at a scale of 1 : 1,200 (1 in. = 100 ft); and final design at a scale
of 1 : 240 (1 in. = 20 ft) to 1 : 600 (1 in. = 50 ft), depending on the proposed
use of the site. The contour interval is directly related to the accuracy and
cost of the surveying methodology.
Environmental Framework Planning

An accurate understanding of the potential environmental issues and
the regulatory review processes associated with proposed marina devel-
opment is necessary in order to determine a project’s viability and the
anticipated development schedule. Knowledge of the existing environ-
mental conditions of the site is critical; in some instances, environmental
issues may deem a proposed project infeasible. Existing wetlands and
other aquatic resources of the site should be defined early in the siting
process to determine whether there are any conditions that would pre-
clude or seriously affect the development potential of the site.
The lead time to obtain environmental permits must be incorporated
into a project schedule. There may be a need to prepare environmental
impact analyses of the project prior to submitting permit applications.
Environmental permits may also include conditions that may affect the
project’s construction schedule. For example, construction activities may
be prohibited during periods of fish migration or spawning activities,
turtle hatching, or bird nesting.
Scientific Surveys and Mapping Depending on the location and

nature of the site, federal and/or state laws may require a study of archae-
ological sites, historic structures, wetlands, aquatic, and other natural
features. Initially, a qualified scientist will perform a record search and
visit the property to determine whether a more comprehensive study is
needed. Field and office procedures should meet standard surveying and
mapping standards so that the resulting map accurately depicts the size,
location, and elevation of these critical features.
Fig. 1-22. The design and construction of the new 31st Street harbor project
was planned to maximize sustainability features and projected to achieve a
LEED Silver Certification upon completion. Features include a parking garage
with harbor services building covered by an accessible green roof that affords
park users enhanced views of Lake Michigan, while reducing impervious
surface. Heating and cooling of the building will incorporate natural
ventilation and reduce energy demand through a geothermal system located
beneath the floating docks in the harbor. Landscape plantings will include
native plants to reduce maintenance and irrigation demands.
Source: Courtesy of Chicago Park District
Technical Analysis
Subsurface Investigation It is wise to conduct geotechnical and envi-
ronmental site investigations before proceeding too far in the design
process. (Geotechnical records from adjacent developments serve as an
excellent source of information for gaining a preliminary understanding
of a site.) The risks associated with unknown subsurface conditions are
high. There have been many cases where the discovery of shallow bedrock
or hazardous waste material has delayed or completely stopped a project.
When this occurs late in design or during construction, costly and time-
consuming design changes and/or change orders often result. The earlier
that existing site conditions and design constraints are established in the
planning process, the more efficient the development process will be.
The objective of the subsurface investigation is to explore the physical
and chemical characteristics of soils in the proposed project area. The
geotechnical investigation should analyze the engineering properties of

the soil as they relate to proposed uses and constructability. The investiga-
tion could address such issues as bottom sediments, liquification poten-
tial, blasting requirements, seismicity, and the stability of any proposed
structures. It is typical to perform soil borings to depths specified by the
geotechnical engineer, collect samples for analysis at a qualified labora-

tory, and conduct soil classification and chemical characterization studies
using standardized testing methodology. The results of the testing program
should be used to formulate technical recommendations for the engineer-
ing design process.
Wind, Waves, Water Levels, Currents, and Tides To prepare a techni-

cally sound and cost-effective harbor development plan, it is necessary to
perform a fairly detailed analysis of the natural forces associated with
wind, waves, and water level changes. This investigation provides design
criteria for the most costly elements of the harbor development program:
entrance channel excavation and protection; breakwaters; shore protec-
tion/retention; and beach retention/sand bypassing systems. One such
investigation is hydraulic modeling, as shown in Fig. 1-23.
Fig. 1-23. Hydraulic modeling provide engineers design criteria for 31st Street
Harbor
Source: AECOM
Wind-wave hindcast studies are needed to establish the wave climate

at the site and destination body of water. A refraction and shoaling study
is also needed to evaluate entrance channel alternatives and establish the
in-shore wave climate. This information, along with water levels, storm
surge, and tides, will help you determine design water levels and wave
heights for the project. Generalized harbor tranquility goals of a range of

0.5 ft to 1.5 ft wave height inside the harbor are described in more detail
in Chapter 2.
At the outset of the planning process, it is also important to determine
the potential for interruption of the along-shore transport of littoral drift,
since mitigation could require large capital and annual maintenance
expenses. This investigation will help to establish design parameters for
coastal structures and will identify the potential impact of proposed con-
struction on the littoral environment. An analysis to determine the poten-
tial for sediment buildup on rivers or major drainage channels that might
affect the proposed marina should be performed. This information is
discussed in great detail in Chapter 2.
Hurricane and Seismic Natural phenomena in regional locations

is an important consideration in small craft harbor design. Hurricane-
force winds and earthquakes affect land and water operations. Properly
designed harbor facilities can lessen the impact of wind, water,
and ground movement but in extreme cases cannot withstand cata-
strophic situations, such as a Category 5 hurricane or high-magnitude
earthquakes. Some steps to consider when designing in hurricane- or
seismic-prone regions are to research historic data (recorded wind and
wave or seismic data), verify Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) records, and review municipal or regional emergency evacuation
plans.
Conducting the technical analyses discussed in the previous sections
(subsurface investigation; wind, waves, water levels; and tides) will
provide valuable information for pile or anchorage systems and structural
foundations. Potential extremes during hurricane-force winds, tidal
surges, or ground movement should be factored into design of the site.
Surface elements such as docks and land-based amenities should meet
appropriate wind ratings designated for hurricane regions and structure
strengths for earthquake regions.
Hydraulic Circulation and Flushing The harbor should be config-

ured in a manner that allows prevailing winds and tidal action to induce
water circulation and exchange. One objective of the design team should
be to eliminate the possibility of stagnant pools of water. In some cases,
mechanical harbor circulation may be required. For additional informa-
tion, refer to Chapter 2.
Other Water-Related Investigations In addition to open water wave

forces, there are many other stresses to which waterfront structures are
subjected. Some are natural and others are caused by human actions.
Again, every site is unique and requires a customized investigation
program. A few of the conditions that may merit study before proceeding
with design include tides, seiche action, currents, flooding, ice, hurricanes,
tidal waves, storm surge, and ship and boat wakes. These will be covered
in more detail in Chapters 2 and 3.
Infrastructure Assessment An analysis of the existing infrastructure

system serving the site should be undertaken as part of the initial
site investigation. This capacity analysis should address traffic, potable
water, fire protection water, sanitary and storm sewers, existing
structures, and electrical systems. Recorded information and up-to-
date maps should be analyzed and interviews with knowledgeable
local government and utility company representatives should be con-
ducted to determine whether any excess capacity exists or if the
current system is already overtaxed. By establishing a baseline position
at the start of the project, negotiations on funding responsibility for
required infrastructure improvements can be based on factual
information.
Conflicts with Maritime Traffic The potential impact of commercial

maritime traffic on a small craft harbor is significant. Many inexperienced
operators of small craft do not appreciate that larger vessels, such as
seagoing ships, commercial barges, ferries, and tugs, have very limited
maneuverability. In addition, marina-generated boat traffic may also
cause increased congestion in waters already being used for recreational
boating. USACE has the responsibility of overseeing the construction
and operation of the nation’s waterway systems. In the event that the
proposed harbor site is located adjacent to marine traffic lanes, local
USACE representatives are sources of information on channel lines
and depths, maintenance schedules, and the effects of wake waves.
Other good references are local pilots, ferry and tug operators, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) charts, and the
USCG.
When a small craft harbor is proposed near commercial shipping chan-
nels, commercial shipping interests may oppose the project. This point of
view should be anticipated in the planning and permitting process; it is
good practice to invite respected representatives of the various commer-
cial navigation interests to participate in the planning process. This kind
of informal, constructive dialogue tends to work better than the formal,
adversarial proceedings that occur once the permit application is submit-
ted and the public interest review process begins.
Transportation Analysis The predominant form of land-based trans-

portation to and from harbors is the private automobile. Although an
increasing number of marinas are being developed in large cities, public
transportation has not been a key criterion in the planning of a small craft
harbor. The reasons for this are many, but primarily revolve around the
boater’s perceived need for independence of someone else’s schedule,

coupled with the necessity of hauling bulky gear and supplies to and from
the boat. Most marinas are much more active on the weekends, so in many
cases may be able to share parking facilities and access roads with other
users whose peak demand periods typically occur during the week.
However, because of the popularity of marinas and the mix of uses they
tend to attract, vehicular traffic and parking issues need to be studied
thoroughly. A transportation analysis should include traffic assessments
performed by qualified traffic engineers, in accordance with accepted
national standards and local methodologies.
Material and Contractor Survey Although there are many items that
can affect the cost of a small boat harbor, it is typically the construction
of water-based facilities that is most sensitive to supply and demand. If
contractors and suppliers are busy, prices tend to be high. When marine-
related construction is down, so are bid prices. For this reason, it is prudent
to check on the availability of materials and marine contractors during
the planning stage of the development process. By interviewing specialty
contractors and material suppliers early, the engineer can take advantage
of unique opportunities presented by local construction practices or the
availability of inexpensive nearby materials.
Such knowledge can affect design decisions in such a way that great
cost savings may ultimately be achieved.
Construction Materials and Methodology

The investigation should include a combination of telephone interviews
and field visits to determine potential sources of appropriate high-quality,
low-cost construction materials. Site visits, material sampling, and a quality
assurance testing program are usually part of this investigation.
Site development materials include the basic materials that the engi-
neer is familiar with in upland site design. Breakwater and shoreline
protection structures are discussed in Chapter 2, and marina dock and
associated structures are discussed in detail in Chapter 3.
Acceptable Risk
Economic evaluations are always essential components of the small
craft harbor business plan. Understanding the cost to construct, annual
revenue, and payback term provide due diligence in determining the

feasibility of a project. As mentioned previously, the layout, number, and
size of slips in the facility can affect cost and return. Defining acceptable
risk, while meeting project goals, is an integral part of the planning
process. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND-USE ISSUES
The intrinsic attraction of the waterfront makes it a prime location for

a variety of land uses and activities. Competing demands for use of the
water’s edge require special care to balance the needs of the natural and
built environment. The public has demonstrated a desire to protect and,
whenever possible, improve our nation’s water resources. The challenge
to the harbor developer is to build and operate an attractive project that
is compatible with the surrounding area while improving, not degrading,
the environmental quality of the harbor setting.
The Clean Marinas program is a process to help protect waterways that
has been developed by NOAA and marina industry. Chapter 4 discusses
Clean Marinas in more detail, as well as other sustainable practices.
The harbor design engineer must have an understanding of the poten-
tial land-use and environmental issues that may affect the planning and
design of a small craft harbor prior to beginning design. Following is a
discussion of the critical land-use and environmental issues facing harbor
developers and designers.
Ownership, Right-of-Way, and Riparian Rights

The ownership of the particular site on both the landside and water-
side, and any existing public or private ownership rights, can place con-
straints on a site’s development potential. By virtue of their waterside
location, marinas inevitably occupy at least a portion of land owned by
the state or federal government.
A proposed project must thoroughly evaluate the riparian rights of
adjacent land owners. Ownership in waterways is not always clear and
the placement of structures in the water body may require the permission
of abutting land owners. Often river bends and angled property lines
make the interpretation of the water ownership and rights difficult, some-
times requiring complex legal resolution.
The public trust doctrine (created in America by British colonists during
the formation of the United States) established a public “ownership” inter-
est in tidelands and bottomlands, and many states have regulations gov-
erning the use of these areas. In most states the upland boundary of the
public trust land is the high water line. During the colonial era some states
relinquished public ownership in the land located between low water and
high water, but retained public rights in fishing, fowling, and navigation.
In addition, some states apply this law to tidelands that have been filled
over time. Public streets or ways may also be on property that must be
kept open unless otherwise allowed by the governing authority.
Additional restrictions on the use of the water area may be dictated by

federal, state, or local authorities. Typical examples include the USACE
division offices having established setback guidelines between adjacent
facilities and property lines, states often establishing setbacks from des-
ignated channels, and local municipalities providing moratoriums on
development, or by limiting additional floats or moorings in environmen-
tally sensitive areas. The ownership and possible regulatory physical
restrictions that can be applied to a proposed development site should be
well established in the early advancement stages of the project.
Habitat Loss/Wetlands/Wildlife/Waterfowl
The design, siting, and operation of marinas should consider the
various wetland and other critical aquatic resources found in the local
area. The federal government and many state governments have adopted
regulations that prohibit or greatly restrict alteration of wetlands and
other aquatic resources. The regulatory framework under which these
resources are protected is complex, and securing the requisite permit
approvals is an expensive and time-consuming project planning element.
The term “wetlands” is not restricted to vegetated areas. In some states,
non-wet resources such as sand dunes, coastal banks, land under the
ocean, shellfish beds, and other types of wetland resources are afforded
protection by regulations. These resources must be protected for the
important natural functions they perform, such as wildlife habitat, flood-
water retention, prevention of pollution, wave attenuation, and so forth.
Alteration of wetland resources should be minimized and avoided where
possible.
Nationally, USACE prohibits the placement of fill in certain waters of
the United States unless it is demonstrated that there is no other practical
alternative. In addition, alterations to certain types of wetlands, such as
salt marshes or tidal flats, will result in the need to provide mitigation, if
such alterations are not prohibited outright. Wetland impacts caused by
the development of marinas occur during both construction and opera-
tion of the facility. In addition to avoiding or minimizing alterations to
wetland resources during construction, the upland portion of the facility
should be designed to minimize operational impacts on wetlands.
Various mitigation measures include stormwater management, spill
prevention techniques, and the proper handling and management of fuel,
oil, and other waste materials. In addition to the construction and
operation of marinas, activities such as dredging and dredge disposal

activities may affect wetland resources.
Aesthetics
Some permitting agencies consider aesthetics in evaluating the overall

environmental quality of the small craft harbor. New facilities should be
designed with due consideration of visual character, visual access to the
waterfront, and compatibility with neighboring facilities.
It is possible to enhance the aesthetic quality of small craft harbor
through architectural treatments and by landscaping shoreside areas.
Compatible on-site passive public recreation activities (picnicking, hiking,
biking, etc.) also add to aesthetic appeal. Work areas, rack storage, fueling
facilities, and other operational activities should be sited to minimize
visual impact and obstruction of important view corridors. Visual buffers
may be required for screening the facility, or portions thereof, from adja-
cent residential areas. These can consist of planted areas and appropri-
ately designed walls or fences.
Permits or licenses are sometimes restricted by maintenance clauses. In
these cases it is incumbent on the marina owner or facility manager to
ensure that repairs are made, the appearance of structures are maintained,
and litter is collected as part of a regular maintenance program.
Water Quality
Water quality criteria and standards have been developed by state and
federal regulatory agencies which may differ depending upon the specific
body of water. The standards are intended to ensure that uses such as fish
propagation or recreation are maintained or enhanced. Criteria violations
of water quality standards, if severe and frequent enough, could result in
adverse impacts to life forms that depend upon the water body. Surface
water quality impacts of marina development and operation may be
assessed using water quality transport models which have been validated
with site-specific data.
Potential causes of water quality impacts include creation of pollutant
sources, modification of water mixing in the harbor, benthic processes,
and dynamic processes within local and adjacent waters.
Pollutant Sources
Pollutants related to small craft harbor development and operation
may enter the site or adjacent waters from several sources. Designers
need to acquaint themselves with specific water quality concerns held
by approval authorities during the earliest stages of planning. In most
instances early action taken to understand such concerns will enable effec-
tive mitigation during design and will reduce schedule delays later in the
project.
Potential pollutant sources include
• Discharges from stormwater collection systems, or sewage from

landside facilities or boats
• Groundwater seepage and stormwater runoff from pervious and
impervious areas
• Fuel leakage
• Boat wash
• Leaching of preservative chemicals
• Weed killers and fertilizers
• Antifouling chemicals and other solvents
• Suspension of silts and other fine particles during construction,
maintenance dredging, or boat movement
• Solid waste discharges
• Careless boaters discharging sanitary or other waste from boats
directly into the water.
Pollutants also may be introduced as a result of adjacent land develop-

ment linked to the marina (a golf course or a housing complex, for
example) or due to loss of adjacent wetlands or other natural features that
naturally filter runoff or seepage before they enter the basin.
Modification of Natural Processes

Water column and benthic processes within the marina site and adja-
cent waters may be modified due to marina construction and operation.
Filling and construction of bulkheads within former littoral waters can
destroy or adversely affect benthic habitat and indigenous life forms.
Dredging may lower dissolved oxygen levels that sustain marine life.
There is also some concern about the impact of shading on biota. On the
positive side, maintenance dredging can also remove existing pollutants
or toxins, permit revival of marine life and habitat, or improve the flush-
ing characteristics of the bay.
Modification of Dynamic Processes

Small craft harbor projects constructed within built or modified basins
in otherwise open waters will change existing dynamic processes such as
circulation, water-column mixing, and wave action. These processes may
directly or indirectly affect water quality, and in beneficial or nonbenefi-
cial manners. Positive impacts include creation of new areas for public
boating or swimming, restoration of beach areas by accretion, or enhance-

ment of marine habitat areas.
Changes in circulation patterns may result in partial isolation of marina
basin waters from large-scale current patterns. The small craft harbor may
then become a trap for pollutants introduced within or outside its con-
fines. Decreased circulation also may result in less water-column mixing.

Consumption of these trapped pollutants by bacteria and algae may result
in depressed dissolved oxygen levels and/or toxic effects to marine life.
Wave-attenuating devices such as breakwaters, revetments, and sea-
walls, and the enclosed configuration typical of marinas, decrease wave
energy. Because waves introduce air and mix water horizontally and verti-
cally, a loss of energy may concentrate pollutants within marina basins.
Therefore, a decrease in wave action within a marina may adversely affect
the life-sustaining qualities of the basin.
Turbulence resulting from boating within a small craft harbor will tend
to offset the loss of wave energy. However, this turbulence may contribute
to the disturbance of unconsolidated bottom sediments. Pollutants previ-
ously trapped may then be reintroduced into the water column. This
concern may be reduced where bottom dredging has removed pollutant-
bearing sediments or where the basin depth is sufficient to buffer the
effects of propeller works.
Soils
Potential environmental issues may exist with respect to the natural or
imposed physical, chemical, and biological (benthic) characteristics of
soils encountered at the harbor site (marine and upland). Knowledge of
site-specific soil characteristics is necessary for the preparation of environ-
mental documentation as well as for siting analyses, the development of
mitigation methods, the consideration of shore protection alternatives,
and foundation design.
Soil sampling and testing should be conducted at the earliest stages of
planning so that the data will be available when first approaching regula-
tory officials. This is particularly important if dredging or filling below
the high water line is anticipated. USACE has many technical papers on
material handling, test criteria, and protocols for off-shore or upland
dredge material disposal. Of particular note is Technical Report EPA/
CE-81-1, Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis of Sediment and Water
Samples (Plumb 1981). Contact a regional USACE office for details.
Noise
Construction noise is a potential short-term impact at small craft
harbors. Existing background noise levels are the yardstick against which
impacts are measured by local or, in some cases, state ordinances and/or
regulations. These ordinances are oriented to the sensitivity of adjacent
land uses (residential, commercial, industrial, open space), with varying
degrees of control depending on the use. The design team may be able to
effectively mitigate impacts through the use of muffling or silencing
equipment and/or erection of noise barriers (structures or berms) and by

limiting construction operations to certain time periods and/or days of
the week.
The long-term operation of a newly constructed facility generates
traffic-related noise impacts that generally are lower than the extreme
peaks created by construction equipment. As a result, day-to-day opera-
tions and maintenance pose less of a problem in conforming to governing
noise ordinances and standards. Outboard motors, however, will be a
source of long-term operational noise. Their noise characteristics may
result in restriction of operational hours adjacent to residential areas.
Clanging masts and halyards of moored sailboats are another source of
noise. Vessel repair operations also generate noise and should be sited
away from residential areas and noise-sensitive commercial/retail activi-
ties. Again, scheduling restrictions may be placed on certain operations.
Air
Although small craft harbor construction and operation will likely have
an insignificant impact on air quality, several minor new sources of pol-
lutants may be introduced. These include exhaust emissions from boats,
autos, and marina equipment; volatilization of solvents, cleaners, and
fuels related to boat maintenance and repair activities; stack emissions
from building heating systems; emissions during charging and repair of
air conditioning and refrigeration equipment; and fuel storage facilities
and fuel docks.
It is likely that these sources will be adequately controlled and that air
quality impacts of a marina project would be minimal. However, the
harbor designer needs to be aware of the impact of the 1990 Clean Air Act
regulations, which are implemented at the state level through the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Those areas of the SIP that generally apply to
marine operations include dust, odor, construction and demolition regula-
tion (covering nuisance dust and odor during construction and operation)
and regulations for fuel storage and handling.
Coastal Processes
Small craft harbor development may result in modifications of factors
controlling coastal processes. Small craft harbors will modify the
local wave climate and, hence, the coastal sediment processes. These
modifications can result in adverse and/or beneficial impacts. Processes

and factor changes to investigate during marina siting design include
sediment sources and sinks; sediment erosion, transport, and deposition;
and beach/shoreline sediment stabilization/destabilization factors.
Small craft harbor development may result in the creation of new, or
the loss of existing, near-shore and upland sediment sources due to dredg-
ing activities and shoreline bulkhead. In addition, the harbor may act as
a sediment sink or trap. The interaction of these source/sink changes may
result in longer-term modification (loss or gain) of adjacent coastal beaches.
Construction of marina and shoreline wave protection structures may
result in decreased wave action within the marina and increased wave
action (due to reflection, refraction, and diffraction) in adjacent waters. The
combined effect of these changes in wave energy, and possible simultane-
ous modification of circulation patterns by marinas, may influence sedi-
ment transport, deposition, and resuspension processes. These changes
may also result in longer-term modification of adjacent shorelines.
Changes in beach/shoreline vegetation (increase or decrease) in the
vicinity of a small craft harbor development may influence the stability
of these active or potential coastline sediment pools, resulting in changes
in wind-induced transport, deposition, and erosion. These sources may
be significant factors controlling changes in coastal dune systems. The
best tools for analysis are a sediment budget (which considers historic
shoreline change rates), a wave hindcast or forecast, and possibly a shore-
line evolution study to help predict the future effect of constructing the
facility.
Traffic
The long-term impacts of increased automobile traffic during marina
operations have the potential to affect adjacent land uses. Design facilities
to provide adequate parking at marinas and prevent spillover onto local
streets. Perform traffic engineering analyses according to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) standards or other local standards to
determine whether the proposed development affects existing and future
traffic operations (levels of service).
During construction, detours or disruption to existing traffic patterns
is a source of potential impacts. Such impacts are short-term in nature but
plans must address the conflict between motorists and pedestrians during
periods of highest use.
Navigation Safety
A primary design objective of a small craft harbor is to promote safe
navigation and provide adequate depth in approach channels and within
the marina. This also is closely assessed by regulatory agencies. Planning

should include boat traffic engineering evaluations to determine the rela-
tive change in boat traffic volume and the potential for congestion. Poten-
tial conflicts that may arise with other waterway users include other
recreational craft, commercial navigation, and port authorities. “Carrying
capacity” analyses are often performed on waterways as part of the plan-

ning process for new or expanded marinas.
Public Access
The provision of public access along the waterfront has become a major
national issue over the past few decades. In most states public access to
or along the waterfront is legally supported based on the public trust
doctrine. In those states where a majority of the shoreline is privately
owned, access to the waterfront may be more difficult. In either case it is
likely that provisions for public access and along the shoreline will be a
condition for new construction or upgrading existing facilities. The design
challenge may then become one of maximizing public access potential
without burdening the private marina with operational, safety, and secu-
rity concerns.
Several effective methods have been employed to satisfy the need to
enhance the ability of the general public to enjoy waterfront resources.
Upland features include public entrances and parking areas, trails, ramps,
stairways, promenades, bikeways, and picnic or playground areas. Street
furniture, such as benches and tables, may draw people and encourage
leisure away from the more active areas. Closer to the shoreline, public
access structures such as fishing piers, viewing platforms, footbridges,
and boardwalks are both attractive and functional. Where possible, public
structures should be made separate and distinct from boat docking and
other areas where loitering may create a problem. Perpendicular as well
as parallel access to the shoreline are encouraged.
MITIGATION AND SUSTAINABILITY PRACTICES
Dredging
Small craft harbor development can require significant dredging of
entrance and exit channels, boat basins, and docking areas. Periodic main-
tenance dredging is usually required to remove sediment accumulations
in these areas. Environmental impacts of dredging occur during and after
the release of sediments if ocean dumping is permitted. A major concern
is the quality of the sediments to be dredged. In areas where existing
bottom sediments are contaminated, dredging and dredged material
disposal are major environmental concerns; suitable sites for deposit or

reuse of material must be identified.
Possible environmental impacts at both the dredging and disposal sites
include increased water column turbidity, direct disturbance or destruc-
tion of bottom habitat and biota (removal or burial), and release of
sediment-absorbed pollutants. These impacts can potentially alter benthic

and/or water column community structure in the site and adjacent waters.
Changes in community structure and water quality may result in adverse
impacts to fisheries, due to disturbance or possible blockage of fish migra-
tion patterns and loss of nurseries for food larval protection spawning
and development.
Although most dredging impacts are short-term and insignificant, a
small craft harbor design should minimize dredging for economic and
environmental reasons. Conditions may be attached to state and federal
permits and licenses for dredging operations which may limit the time of
year during which dredging can occur, the dredging method, and the
disposal site and method. In some areas water disposal sites are limited
or nonexistent and dredged material has to be disposed of in upland sites.
In addition, permitting and testing costs for dredging can be high and will
reduce or negate the economic feasibility of small craft harbor projects.
In addition to federal laws and regulations, several states and regions
are implementing their own regulatory review processes, which follow
entirely new guidelines for dredging and disposing marine sediments. In
some cases the costs of sampling, testing, and permitting approach the
cost of dredging. Refer to Chapter 2 for more detailed information.
Shoreline Structures
Shoreline structures such as bulkheads and revetments retain fill for
upland, protect the shoreline from erosion, and provide access to the
water. Design criteria are included in Chapter 3.
Bulkheads are generally vertical or near-vertical structures composed of
stone, steel, timber, concrete, or aluminum. Revetments are sloped and
generally composed of stone or concrete materials. Recent developments
in shoreline structures include plastic and recycled plastic products and
reinforcement soil methods. Selection of type and limits of shoreline struc-
tures are determined in most cases by cost, necessary draft, environmental
considerations, regulatory laws, and geotechnical conditions.
The impacts of different shoreline structures on the waterfront environ-
ment vary. A vertical wall will reflect waves, resulting in increased energy
on the adjacent habitats and larger waves in the marina basin. This can
result in undercutting adjacent soil and habitat disruption. Abrupt end
conditions at newly placed walls must be designed to prevent detrimental
changes to the coastal processes of adjacent areas.
Fig. 1-24. Armor stone revetment at Harbor Centre Marina, Sheboygan,

Wisconsin
Sloped revetments result in wave runup with less energy on the adja-
cent habitat and smaller reflected waves in boat berthing areas. Wetland
vegetation is more likely to become established adjacent to a revetment
than to a seawall. Stone armor can provide a rocky intertidal habitat and
shallow water protection from predators for small-fish fingerlings. Stone
revetments tend to trap debris between stones. (See Fig. 1-24).
Bioengineered shoreline protection solutions that incorporate natural
plant materials with stone structures offer environmental enhancement
opportunities.
Breakwaters/Wave Attenuation Structures

Construction of breakwaters and wave attenuation structures associ-
ated with marina development may modify processes and factors control-
ling environmental conditions within the marina and adjacent waters.
Chapter 2 has a detailed discussion of this subject.
If designed properly, these structures will result in a decrease in wave
energy within the marina. However, they may increase wave energy in
adjacent waters due to wave reflection and induced changes in diffraction
and refraction patterns.
There are different types of breakwaters and wave attenuating struc-
tures. Rubble mound, bioengineered, and land mass/revetment breakwa-
ters provided habitat creation but require wider underwater footprint.
Fig. 1-25. Outer rubble mound breakwater at Harbor Centre Marina,

Sheboygan, Wisconsin; wave patterns can be seen on the right being dissipated
by the outer breakwater in the center of this photograph
Timber crib, bin wall/crib, and sheet pile cells are vertical, taking less
underwater space but have the potential to create increased wave energy,
as mentioned in the previous “Shoreline Structures” section. Wave attenu-
ators have nominal impact on the environment because they float, but are
only useful in certain conditions where short-period waves occur. Chapter
2 has a detailed discussion of this subject.
Wave protection structures may alter circulation patterns within and
outside a marina, due to blocking, deflection, or channeling of ambient
currents. Within the marina, vertical and horizontal mixing caused by
current shear may decrease, contributing to stagnation and possible water
quality problems. Induced changes in currents within adjacent waters
may result in desirable or undesirable changes in mixing, which must be
considered in the design.
Sediment transport, erosion, and deposition may be modified as a
result of induced changes to wave climate and circulation patterns. Former
erosional areas may become depositional areas and vice versa. These
structures may physically isolate formerly active sediment sources and
sinks required to maintain existing shoreline features, such as dunes,
inlets, and barrier beaches. The combined effect of these structures on
waves, currents, and sedimentation processes may contribute to changes

in indigenous biota due to alteration of habitat (high energy to low energy
in marina, different habitat at structures).
In areas of the country where fish migration occurs, openings in the
breakwater along the shoreline will be required to allow free migration
along the shoreline.
Filling Activities
In recent years there have been significant concern and discussion
related to the placement of fill into lakes and oceans for expansion of
upland facilities to improve the transition from water to shore. This prac-
tice has historic precedent, as many of the nation’s older cities have been
expanded toward the water to accommodate population growth and com-
mercial activities. Early in U.S. history, waterward expansion offered an
inexpensive alternative to inland development and solved the problem of
disposal of solid wastes. Some of the most expensive coastal real estate
tracts in the United States were originally municipal dump sites. In many
cases, coastal fisheries and estuaries were displaced by the process.
In an effort to prevent further loss of wetland habitats, the federal
government and many state agencies have severely restricted placement
of fill waterward of the coastal mean high tide contour or inland ordinary
high water contour. Where such fill is permitted, mitigation is required
such that there is no net loss of wetland. For further information refer to
USACE Section 404 guidelines (USACE 2007).
Consequently, small craft harbor development is restricted by the exist-
ing terrain and features. Construction of new solid-fill structures beyond
existing shorelines is often strongly discouraged and, in some locations,
prohibited altogether. Historic structures for which permits have been
secured may be upgraded, especially for water-dependent uses. If new
construction is required to improve the functional characteristics of
the development, features waterward of the high water mark should
be studied to determine the economic costs, environmental impacts, and
perceived benefits prior to making a final recommendation for the pre-
ferred construction methodology.
Access Structures
Access structures are used as a means of passage between the shore
and the berthing areas and/or are used to provide pedestrian access to
the shore. Piers are typical of the former use, while boardwalks represent
the latter.
Structures that allow access to berthing areas are generally constructed
perpendicular to the shore and may cross beaches, intertidal zones, or
shallow waters. Depending on the physical characteristics of the location,

these structures may be either fixed or floating. Open pier structures that
extend across tidal flats or shallow waters provide an environmentally
preferable alternative to dredging or filling alternatives. Open structures
afford maximum preservation of wave, drift, or current patterns.
Floating structures offer the benefit of flexibility in cases where the

berthing facility location may be relocated to accommodate future expan-
sion and do not create shadows on open water or intertidal habitat areas.
Gangways (or brows) are used to link fixed access or shoreline structures
to floating structures. Practical considerations limit their use to locations
where the access distance is relatively short, as the cost and upkeep of the
gangway can become restrictive.
Boardwalks offer a practical alternative to occupancy of limited upland
areas by pedestrian ways and provide access for shoreline fishing activi-
ties or visual enjoyment. Boardwalks also may accommodate transient
vessel activities. Depending on the specific function and level of activity,
boardwalks may be outfitted with benches, visual scopes, monuments or
hoists, among other features.
Marina Operations
Marina operating procedures and rules should address potential
adverse environmental impacts. Specific community concerns may relate
to solid or liquid waste disposal, boat maintenance operations, vehicular
and pedestrian access or circulation, or commercial activities.
Operational impacts may be controlled by establishing specific policies,
procedures, and rules for marina activities; refer to federal and state regu-
lations. Some operational issues to consider in the development of an
effective environmental protection policy are outlined in the following
sections.
Water and Wastewater Management

An adequate number of well-maintained restrooms should be pro-
vided and connected to municipal sewer systems whenever possible. The
water supply to the site must be installed to avoid contamination. Back-
flow preventers will protect water systems. Local, state, and federal law
dictate requirements.
Boat sewage has a major impact on water quality and public safety.
Many states require marinas to install and maintain approved vessel
sewage pump-out facilities. Others require on-board holding tanks
designed to prevent discharge. USCG standards outline basic requirement
types, certification labels, no-discharge zones, discharge of sewage, and
malfunction complaints. Use of state-of-the-art toilet tank chemical
technology is essential. It is essential that the system be well understood

and maintained by its users. Marinas should post signs to identify proce-
dures and rules for pump-out facilities and to prohibit discharge of waste-
water, dishwater, or graywater.
Stormwater Management
The discharge of stormwater (drainage water)—whether it is a point
source (discharged directly from an outfall or a defined channel) or non-
point discharge (overland flow)—requires permits from the state and
federal agencies. Examples of procedures for stormwater management
include equipping catch basins with hoods and traps to inhibit flow of oils,
greases, and harmful substances and, where possible, grading marina sites
to limit or prohibit surface flow from areas where harmful materials can
enter the water (boat yards, fueling stations, etc.). These EPA/National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) management measures
are to be used by individual states as they promulgate nonpoint-source
regulations as part of their coastal zone management responsibilities. The
EPA website provides up to date information on the program and how
these regulations apply to individual states (USEPA 2009).
Fueling and Oil Storage

Marinas should implement effective fuel spill mitigation and clean-up
programs. Programs that include on-site containment and emergency
response equipment and phone numbers of qualified cleanup firms are
readily available. Fueling should be located in areas to avoid difficult boat
maneuvering. Establish policies and procedures for removal of oil from
bilges.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards for storing and
handling of fuels include NFPA 303, Fire Protection Standard for Marinas
and Boatyards (NFPA 2011) and NFPA 302, Fire Protection Standard for Plea-
sure and Commercial Motor Craft (NFPA 2010b). Underground fuel should
be stored in accordance with NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids
Code (NFPA 2012a), NFPA 30A, Code for Motor Fuel Dispensing Facilities and
Repair Garages (NFPA 2012b), and NFPA 329, Recommended Practice for
Handling Releases of Flammable and Combustible Liquids and Gases (NFPA
2010c). The American Petroleum Institute (API) also publishes standards,
including annual pressure tests and tank replacement.
Boater and marina practices should include providing fuel tank vent
whistles on boats to warn of overflow when fueling up and oil-absorbing
pads in the bilge. These must be maintained and disposed of properly.
Fuel pumps should be equipped with back-pressure automatic-shutoff
nozzles.
Boat Maintenance
Locate boat maintenance facilities so activities that can generate pollution
are on dry land or under roofs. Drains from maintenance areas should lead
to a sump, holding tank, or pump-out facility for proper disposal. Above-
ground waste-oil holding tanks should be provided. Design the stormwater

handling system for proper collection and treatment of pollutants.
Establish policies encouraging environmentally safe methods for clean-
ing and painting boats. Use phosphate-free and biodegradable detergents
for boat washing. (Certain tin paints have been banned in the United
States since 1989.) Paint chips and dust should not be allowed to enter the
water and settle into bottom sediment where it could affect bottom habi-
tats. Sanding and painting waste must be prevented from becoming air-
borne, should be collected, and must be disposed of properly and kept
from the marine environment.
Litter and Refuse

Trash receptacles should be plentiful, placed at convenient locations,
and emptied regularly. Provide one receptacle at each head walk and a
rubbish dumpster/recycling center at a central location. Proper disposal
of kitchen and fish waste must be provided. Many marinas are providing
public fish cleaning stations with appropriately sized grinders and pumps
connecting to public sewer systems. Receptacles should be identified as
being appropriate for such items as solvents, paints, oils, etc.
Auto Traffic
Traffic patterns at marinas fluctuate based on usage that varies by
season and time of day and day of the week. Peak periods for marina
usage occur on weekends when normal workday traffic is not on the
roadways and is magnified by special events. However, during weekend
periods residents adjacent to marinas may be inconvenienced by nearby
marina-oriented traffic. Traffic congestion at marinas can be further com-
pounded by inadequate parking capacity. Recommendations for marina
parking are provided elsewhere in this chapter.
Some mitigation measures that can be planned to address potential
parking problems include sharing parking areas between weekday office
and weekend marina users and providing convenient drop-off points
and/or shuttle service to remote parking facilities.
LEGAL AND REGULATORY ISSUES
The construction and operation of small craft harbors involve a complex

array of legal and regulatory issues. Many land, water, and environmental
regulations will apply to the facility at the local, state, regional, and
federal level. An understanding of the particular site resources and the
regulatory limitations within their protection is necessary in the ultimate
planning of a waterfront facility.
The interdependent nature of these permitting requirements and the
requisite administrative review periods necessitate careful planning and

scheduling. Often, the jurisdiction over certain resources is shared between
more than one agency, and the policies and goals of the respective agen-
cies may differ. This can result in a lack of coordination if not properly
planned and must be considered in the permitting strategy for the facility.
In any case it is recommended that pre-permit meetings be held with the
permitting agencies to identify and resolve issues.
Most of the permits and approvals indicated herein will involve some
form of a public review process where notification of abutters, advertising
of the project in local papers, and the reactions from public meetings and
hearings can have some impact on the eventual approval of a project.
Similar to meeting with agencies, proponents of projects generally do well
to discuss projects with the local harbormaster and nearby property
owners and users prior to initiating the formal permit process.
Federal agencies have jurisdiction over the territorial waters of the
United States and have regulations that govern activities proposed in its
waterways. These regulations typically govern the placement of structure
and/or fill and are designed to protect navigational and certain environ-
mental interests. Other federal laws, such as those under the Americans
with Disabilities Act, can apply to many landside or waterside design
features.
Many states also regulate activities located in the portion of waterways
subject to tidal action (flowed tidelands or lakebeds) and some states also
regulate formerly flowed (filled) waterways (filled tidelands or lakebeds).
Such regulations are based on the public trust doctrine, the legal precept
dating back to the Roman Empire that maintains that tidelands/lakebeds
are held in trust by the government for the benefit of all people (as
described in the previous “Ownership, Right-of-Way, and Riparian Rights”
section). Activities that might affect the public’s rights in these areas—
including fishing, fowling, recreation, and navigation—are reviewed
under these regulations.
Some states have created harbor planning programs to encourage com-
munities to undertake comprehensive planning of their waterfronts on
both the landside and waterside. To implement the harbor plans, there
may be a state and/or a local coastal or harbor commission. These types
of municipal bodies typically review proposed marinas primarily for
navigational, safety, and, in some cases, environmental issues. They also
may review the landside activities including, but not limited to, the provi-
sion of public access and proposed land use. These bodies may be simply
advisory boards or they may have regulatory authority over activities on

the waterfront.
Local governments will also review such activities through land- or
water-use regulations. Land-use regulations may include zoning ordi-
nances, urban design guidelines, harbor plans, historic districts, wetland
and recourses impact guidelines, and more. While such regulations are
typically the concern of the local government, in many states land-use
legislation is under the jurisdiction of the state government.
Access to information on regulatory requirements is generally available
on agency websites, with some references provided herein. These agencies
can often offer descriptive permit information, sources for related studies
and information on potential grants, or certifications for municipalities or
marinas meeting high environmental standards.
The various legal and regulatory interests are further outlined in the
following sections, including some of their typical review processes.
Federal Agencies
The federal government has jurisdiction in navigable waters, wetlands,
and other aquatic resources. Permits and/or approvals need to be secured
from these agencies. Many of the permits are interrelated and must be
obtained in a sequential order. In many states, a USACE Section 404
permit is required for dredging and dredged material disposal and/or
for filling in waters of the United States. This permit is contingent upon
the issuance of a state Water Quality Certificate and a Coastal Zone Man-
agement Consistency Determination, which are typically issued by state
Coastal Zone Management offices.
The most prominent federal agencies involved in the review and/or
permitting of marinas and waterfront facilities are described below.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) USACE is the federal agency

that most often regulates small craft harbor development activities. Gen-
erally, district offices oversee the permitting for the placement of fixed
and floating structures in navigable waters, and require setbacks from
federal navigation projects. USACE also has jurisdictional authority for
the enforcement on projects that are not in compliance with federal permit
requirement. Additional information can be found on their website
(USACE 2012).
Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, USACE regu-
lates all activities that could directly affect the navigability of rivers and
coastal waters used for interstate commerce. In addition, USACE is
responsible for regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material in the
nation’s waters under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. A 401 Water
Quality Certificate is necessary as part of the USACE 404 permit. (In many
cases, states have authority to issue these certificates. (Refer to the “State
Agencies” section.) USACE also issues permits for the transportation and
disposal of dredged material under Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act. Usually, if a project involves all three types
of activities, only one permit application for USACE is necessary (although
other permit applications to other agencies may be required).

USACE consults with other agencies and gives consideration to any
comments and concerns they may have that relate to their specific juris-
diction. These agencies include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), the National Park Service (NPS), USCG, the Department of the
Interior (DOI), state historic commissions, federal and Coastal Zone Man-
agement (CZM) agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and
the National Marine Fisheries Service (a division of NOAA). These agen-
cies do not issue permits but may provide comments and suggestions
pertaining to the enforcement of provisions of various laws (such as the
Marine Protection and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 and the Marine Mammal
Protection Act of 1972) as well as other fisheries programs. In those states
where Native American tribes have legal standing as a result of treaty
provisions, USACE will consult with these entities in developing the
project permit requirements.
The project will be reviewed to address these environmental issues and,
in areas of historic significance, will not experience adverse affects as a
result of the project. If a project’s impact on the environment is judged to
be significant, the permit application can be denied, the project can be
modified to minimize impacts, or the permit applicant can purchase or
restore other wetlands to mitigate project impacts. When compensatory
mitigation is required, USACE policy requires on-site and in some cases
in-kind mitigation if possible, although this is negotiable on a case-by-case
basis. Mitigation policies and legislation are constantly being refined and
changes need to be monitored as part of the planning and design process.
Although the legal requirements for USACE permits are federal, the
actual implementation of the permit process may vary from region to
region. This variation can be due to the different resource conditions of
an area and the regional differences and localized objectives in the admin-
istering of environmental policies and regulations by partner federal
agencies, such as the National Marine Fisheries Services or the state
Coastal Zone Management agency.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) USEPA was created

by Congress in 1970 to provide administration and oversight in the protec-
tion of human health and the environment. It provides regulatory review
within the USACE permit process. As well, it is important to note that
USEPA has veto authority over USACE on the permitting of any sites
where disposing of dredged or fill material is proposed.
In addition to USACE review, USEPA also provides major regulatory

review of their own permit requirements, which come into play for most
waterfront facilities. Marina surface drainage systems that direct storm-
water into a swale, channel, or outfall and then discharges the stormwater
into an adjacent water body will require a National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from USEPA. Such permits are

needed for the use of storm drainage outfalls during construction and for
the operation of new stormwater discharge outlets postconstruction.
USEPA also is responsible for the regulation of nonpoint pollution sources
and boat toilet regulations.
These permits are issued pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and 33 U.S.C. Section 1342, which regulate the discharges of pollutants into
waters of the United States. The regulations are contained in 40 Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 122, 123, and 124. Information on NPDES
permitting requirements and USEPA recommended general operating prac-
tices can be found in USEPA publication EPA-841-B-03-001 (2004).
In order to minimize potential impacts from stormwater discharges
from industrial facilities, the NPDES program includes an industrial
stormwater permitting component. This program is the NPDES Stormwa-
ter Multi Sector General Permit (MSGP). Marina facilities that fall under
the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) of 4493—which conduct vessel
maintenance or equipment cleaning operations exposed to stormwater,
and the stormwater flows through a point source to a water of the United
States—require an MSGP.
Most states are authorized to implement the stormwater NPDES per-
mitting program. USEPA remains the permitting authority in a few states,
territories, and on most land controlled by Native American tribes.
In addition to its regulatory role, USEPA also provides financial assis-
tance on many federal programs. The agency performs environmental
research and sponsors voluntary partnerships and programs with public
and private entities. Additional information may be found on its website
(USEPA 2012).
United States Coast Guard (USCG) The USCG is involved in mari-

time law, mariner assistance, search and rescue, and homeland security.
It was founded in 1790 as part of the Department of the Treasury. USCG
was granted federal oversight of certain water activities in the Harbor and
Waterfront Facilities Ports and Waterways Safety Act of 1972. The goal of
this oversight role is to promote navigation and vessel safety; protection
of the marine environment; and protection of life, property, and structure
in, on, or adjacent to navigable waters. USCG is responsible for regulatory
aids to navigation and spill response.
In most cases USCG does not directly issue permits for marina facilities.
However, the agency does have jurisdiction over certain activities within
waterways, such as provision of aids to navigation and regulating mooring

buoys, oil spills, and boat toilet enforcement. The USCG Marine Safety
district offices also have authority and responsibility for activities con-
cerning ports and waterways safety, and commercial vessel inspection.
USCG has a series of fact sheets describing their policies and has a
nationwide assistance number. Additional information can be found on

their website (USCG 2012).
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) USFWS is the federal agency
that administers oversight for fish and wildlife issues associated with
waterfront projects seeking USACE permits. USFWS was created in 1871
under the Department of the Interior. In addition to this oversight, USFWS
can issue its own permits under various federal wildlife laws. Their stew-
ardship of fish and wildlife includes overseeing the requirements on
resources covered by the Endangered Species Act, the Bald and Golden
Eagle Protection Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Migra-
tory Birds, Essential Fish Habitat, and Bird Treaty Act. Any projects that
are located in designated areas for these species, or that could affect any
of the above species would be under their review. Additional information
on the USFWS can be found on their website (USFWS 2012).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) NOAA

is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NOAA would not normally
become directly involved in the permitting of a waterfront development
project; however, NOAA often administers waterfront-related policies,
grants, and incentive programs which are financed by the federal govern-
ment. The NOAA website provides additional discussion on NOAA and
USEPA and some of their current incentive programs, including Clean
Marinas and low-impact development (LID) programs (NOAA 2012b).
NOAA also provides funding and maintains oversight of the individ-
ual state CZM programs. In conjunction with this role, in 1944 NOAA
established the Coastal Services Center (CSC) to serve state CZM pro-
grams. The CSC provides new sources of expertise, information and tech-
nology training, and a means for sharing this information with other
states and communities facing similar situations. Examples of CSC tools
include modeling programs for storm tracking and forecasting and for the
predicting water quality impacts. Additional information can be found on
their website (NOAA 2012a).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) NMFS was created

under the U.S. Department of Commerce to provide oversight and review
of the nation’s living marine resources and habitats. It is part of NOAA.
The mission of NMFS is the stewardship of living marine resources
through science-based conservation and management through the
promotion of healthy ecosystems. The agency provides review of fish and

associated resources as one of the partner agencies involved in the USACE
permit process. Per the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Reauthorization Act of 2006, NMFS requires projects needing
federal permits to ensure the protection of essential fish habitats. Addi-
tional information can be found on their website (NMFS 2012).
Coastal Zone Management (CZM) The Coastal Zone Management

Act of 1972 (as amended through Public Law 104–150, the Coastal Zone
Protection Act of 1996) established a federal policy to encourage the states
to manage and protect their ocean and coastal resources. This public law
provides some appropriations for states to fund these programs, as well
as guidelines for implementing these policies. The Act is administered
through the U.S. Department of Commerce, through NOAA. State CZMs
often fund and can become the lead agency for technical studies, training
programs, and grants for construction on the local state level.
NOAA’s coastal zone management policies on resource protection are
transferred to the local state CZM in the USACE permit process where
“state consistency” is a requirement for obtaining the permit. The state
requirements propagated from this policy are described further in the
following section. Currently, 35 states have implemented state CZM
programs.
National Park Service (NPS) If a project results in adverse impacts

to significant national historical properties or parklands, certain proce-
dures must be followed as described in the National Environmental Policy
Act 42 U.S.C. and associated regulations. NPS is a branch of the U.S.
Department of the Interior; refer to its website for more information (NPS
2012).
State Agencies
Almost all the U.S. coastal states (including those bordering the Great
Lakes) have programs that directly or indirectly regulate the use of their
coastal areas. Most states require some type of permit(s) to construct
a marina or other waterfront facility and may also require permits to
operate the facility.
The state agencies most likely to be concerned with the development
of marinas include those involved in the protection and use of fisheries
and wildlife habitat, wetlands, tidelands, bottomlands, and water
resources. Some states have adopted environmental policy acts similar to
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) wherein if projects exceed
certain thresholds, the environmental impacts of those projects must be
evaluated before any state permits can be issued. There also may be
historic or archaeological resources in the area that require protection.

Obtaining a federal USACE permit generally requires formal review from
the state Historic Commission that the project will not have negative
impact on any potential historical resources that could be located at the
site.
Many states incorporate the interests embodied in the public trust

doctrine into regulations that govern activities in and along state water-
ways. Under these types of regulations, state permitting agencies may
restrict the uses and density of the marina development. These regula-
tions are particularly concerned with protecting the public’s interest in
fishing, fowling, navigation, and public access.
All of the coastal states have adopted Coastal Zone Management (CZM)
plans. These plans contain policies that apply to activities proposed within
the coastal zone. If federal permits are required for a project, the project
must demonstrate consistency with these policies. Some states also require
consistency with CZM policies in order to obtain certain state permits.
If a state has designated the authority to issue Section 401 Water Quality
Certificates (in accordance with the federal Clean Water Act) to a state
agency, this certificate must be issued prior to the issuance of any permits
by any federal agency. Some states also require issuance of these certifi-
cates prior to the issuance of state permits.
Finally, some states have made major efforts in developing streamlined
or “one-stop-shopping” permitting procedures whereby all required
permits can be applied for in one location. However, most states still
require that individual permits be secured from each individual agency.
Local Agencies
Local government involvement in small craft harbor development is
usually in response to land-use regulations. It is imperative that a project
applicant research local land-use policies and zoning regulations to deter-
mine what types of facilities and uses are allowed. Typically, land-use/
zoning regulations establish standards that provide for homogeneous
growth; lessen congestion in streets; facilitate the provision of transporta-
tion, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and open space; protect aquifers and
watershed areas; reduce flood damage; and promote the general health,
safety, and welfare of the inhabitants.
Most municipalities have zoning maps and ordinances or by-laws that
delineate zoning districts wherein certain uses are allowed, such as resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, recreational, conservation, and municipal.
These requirements generally control building coverage, building heights,
property-line setbacks, percent of lot coverage, impervious surfaces,
lot size, number of buildings, off-street parking, signs, illumination, and
noise levels.
During the 1980s many coastal communities adopted waterfront zoning

designed to retain the “working waterfront” with marine-dependent uses
(such as commercial fishing enterprises, boat yards, and marinas) and to
encourage public access to, from, and along the waterfront. Some munici-
palities also have local conservation commissions that regulate the activi-
ties proposed in or near wetlands and other aquatic resources.

Harbor management plans promote long-term, comprehensive, locally
based planning of harbors, coastal waters, and waterfront areas. The goals
of these plans are to ensure compliance with the federal Coastal Zone
Management Act; to ensure balanced use of water and land resources; to
regulate and manage marine and coastal fisheries resources; to encourage
planned industrial, commercial, recreational, and community develop-
ment within coastal areas; and to promote public access. The development
of a waterfront site for a marina may be encouraged or discouraged
depending on the long-term planning goals established in the commu-
nity’s harbor management plan.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
Selecting the Appropriate Assessment Model

In the United States small craft harbors are owned either by govern-
ment entities, by not-for-profit private organizations that act in the public
interest, or by private firms or individuals. Government agencies include
states, counties, cities, special districts, or port authorities. Private entities
can include both for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, such as yacht
clubs or boating associations.
In some cases a government entity will develop and operate the harbor
berths. In other cases the public sector will grant a lease of land and water
to a private entity that will develop and operate the berths and pay
ground rent to the government owner. In either of these cases, the other
uses (residential, commercial, and/or light industrial) in a government-
owned harbor typically operate on ground or building leases granted to
a private enterprise.
Despite the wide variation, all the financial modeling techniques have
some elements in common: the estimates of operating revenues, operating
expenses, and net operating income. The main difference between govern-
ment and private projects relates to the handling of equity, debt, and the
yield analysis.
Government Projects The most important aspect of determining

financial feasibility of government projects is whether there is sufficient
net operating income to pay back capital debt (principal and interest) used
to develop the harbor over a projection period. Normally, operating rev-

enues must exceed the required debt service by an established target.
In light of increased pressure on government budgets, there is a
clear trend toward revenue-producing facilities—including small craft
harbors—to pay a greater share of their capital and operating costs. Scarce
public resources have eroded the ability of the government to subsidize

these facilities, although they are not routinely expected to be profitable
or even cover their operating costs. In an increasing number of cases, this
means governments are working with private marina developers and
operators, a trend discussed in the later “Public-Private Partnership”
section.
Often governments will include in their financial evaluations the antici-
pated economic and fiscal benefits of a project. In the case of a small craft
harbor, these benefits could include, for example, new opportunities for
water-dependent or marine-related industries, new sales or property
taxes, or the less tangible benefits associated with enhancing a particular
neighborhood or visitor destination.
Private Projects In private projects, yield analysis generally uses a

discounted cash flow (DCF) model, often called a cash flow pro forma. Such
an analysis calculates net operating income over time and compares the
present value of these cash flows to the present value of the total costs—
both debt and equity—invested in the project. Net present value (NPV)
refers to the value today of all the future cash flows less all project costs.
Inherent in the NPV approach is the notion that a dollar of return in the
future is worth less than a dollar received today. This is often referred to
as the time value of money. To account for this view, future cash flows are
discounted. The rate at which they are discounted reflects the investor’s
expectations and objectives and the perceived level of risk associated
with the project. If the risk is high, the higher the discount rate used. For
example, if cost estimates or revenue and expense estimates are prelimi-
nary, the investor may choose to use a higher discount rate to determine
NPV. High interest rates will also mean the analyst uses a higher discount
rate. The NPV approach is commonly used to compare project alternatives
or scenarios.
Another important approach that a private developer may use in eval-
uating the financial feasibility of a small craft harbor is the determination
of project cost versus value. In this instance, appraisal techniques are
used. The most common appraisal method used to value marinas is the
income capitalization approach. Under this approach, estimated net operat-
ing income is capitalized at an appropriate rate to determine the value of
land and improvements represented by the project under a stabilized
operating situation. This value estimate is then compared to the actual
cost (both direct and indirect) of developing the project and reaching a
stabilized level of operation. If the value is higher than the cost, then,
generally speaking, the project is determined to be financially feasible, at
least on a preliminary basis.
Not-for-profit organizations may take a simpler approach to financial
feasibility. These facilities are often financed mainly through equity in the
form of initiation fees or memberships. Also, revenues may not always

offset operating costs and required debt service; shortfalls may be made
up by additional membership contributions.
In summary, there are a number of methods or approaches to use in
determining financial feasibility for a small craft harbor, based on whether
the project sponsor is a government agency or a private party. In all cases,
however, the critical factors are a realistic estimate of capital cost and
development cost, and realistic projections of operating revenue, operat-
ing expenses, and net operating income. All of these factors are addressed
in the following sections.
Determining Capital Costs

This section presents the basic principles of estimating the capital costs
associated with the development of small craft harbors. The procedures
described below are based on techniques that have been used successfully
on many types of marine-based construction projects throughout the
United States. Because capital costs are very dependent on geographic
location and timing, this discussion makes no attempt to offer actual
pricing values for individual budget line items.
The cost estimating responsibility is usually handled by a qualified
person with a background in engineering and some experience with real
estate development projects. In the case of small craft harbors, it is espe-
cially important to have a lead estimator with experience in this highly
specialized area of marine construction. This individual can give direction
to technical staff to perform such tasks as quantity determination and
price research. Have all estimating work checked independently for math-
ematical accuracy and the appropriateness of the sources used for unit
pricing.
Preparing accurate estimates of development costs requires a wide
variety of technical experience and expertise. Depending on the scope and
stage of the project, your team may require real estate appraisers, archi-
tects, environmental planners, as well as engineers. A good working rela-
tionship with marine contractors and suppliers is also extremely helpful
in preparing estimates of small craft harbor construction costs.
It is vital to understand the relationship between product quality and
pricing in assigning the proper cost to budget line items. Unit prices vary
greatly among proprietary products. Ultimately, it is the estimator’s
responsibility to work with the appropriate consultants, contractors,
suppliers, and the project’s designers to prepare an estimate that is both

comprehensive and reflects the intent of the design.
It is important to recognize the effects of sales tax, which can be a con-
siderable expense (up to 10% in those states that charge sales tax on
construction cost).
Because the capital cost estimate is the basis on which all financial
projections and ultimate project feasibility are determined, keep top deci-
sion makers informed on the level of accuracy of the estimate and all
critical assumptions made at each milestone in the development process.
The following definitions will help clarify the cost estimating process.
Probable Construction Cost The probable construction cost is the esti-

mator’s opinion of the cost of construction, including all materials, labor,
equipment, administration, quality-assurance testing, and profit for the
contractor. This cost estimate usually contains a contingency for unknown
or changed conditions. It does not include the cost of land or right-of-way,
permitting, design and other consultant fees, administrative time, or
financing. These items are typically listed as line items in the overall esti-
mate of development costs. It is also appropriate to include an allowance
for price inflation, from the time of estimate to the midpoint of the con-
struction period. Some states apply sales tax on construction, which can
be up to 10% added expense on implementation cost.
Project Budget The project budget represents the funds available for
the development of the project. Line items should include construction
costs (as outlined above), land acquisition, predevelopment costs, and any
costs associated with environmental mitigation, permitting, development
impact fees, and quality assurance programs. Desired project programs
and improvements are typically matched with available funding/financ-
ing sources to arrive at the project budget.
Contingency There are two types of estimating contingency: design

and construction. A design contingency is appropriate for the preliminary
design stages of the project to cover the costs of details of construction
not yet developed. A construction contingency is applied at all stages of the
project as an allowance for unforeseen conditions discovered during con-
struction and which typically result in construction change orders. As the
design becomes more complete, the total amount of design contingency
applied to the estimate can be reduced. However, the construction con-
tingency should be carried forward throughout the estimating process.
Construction Bid Estimate or Engineer’s Estimate These terms refer

to the estimate of construction costs prepared by the design engineer/
estimator just prior to bidding a project. This opinion of cost typically
follows the format of the official bid form and, therefore, does not include
any contingency. However, a construction contingency is often included
as a line item in the overall capital budget termed “Changed Conditions
and Change Order Allowance,” in addition to the engineer’s estimate. As
mentioned previously, keep in mind some states apply sales tax to con-
struction cost.
Depending on the stage of design, it takes varying levels of effort to
achieve the appropriate degree of accuracy. Concept-level plans typically
illustrate a developer’s intent. An initial project budget is often estab-
lished during this design phase. Concept-level estimates are usually based
on past experience with similar projects, and are determined by using
relatively large units of measurement (e.g., number of boat slips, acres of
open space, and lineal feet of roadway). During the schematic design
phase a more detailed list of construction elements forms the basis for the
cost estimate. Units of measurement are smaller scale (e.g., square feet of
dockage, pavement, and buildings) and quantity take-offs are more accu-
rate than those prepared in the conceptual phase. As details become better
defined during the design development phase (also known as preliminary
engineering phase), the accuracy of the cost estimate should also improve.
Quantity determinations are made using more accurate drawings, work
elements are better defined, and unit prices are researched for project-
specific application. Once construction documents are completed, con-
struction quantities can be estimated in a manner consistent with the way
construction pay items would be measured in the field. Unit prices should
be verified by checking with specialized contractors familiar with work
being done in the vicinity of the construction site.
Many items can affect the cost of construction. It is important to focus
on those elements that can have the most impact on the overall feasibility
of the project. In small craft harbor construction, these are typically the
specialized water-based construction items, which seem to be much more
sensitive to the economics of supply and demand than land-based con-
struction operations. There are only a limited number of qualified marine
constructors and suppliers available to perform this kind of construction,
so prices may be highly dependent on workload and inventory. Another
reason for price variability in marine construction is the high risk associ-
ated with the unknown at the time of preparing the bid estimates, such
as weather and subsurface conditions. This is especially true when esti-
mating harbor excavation and dredging costs.
Prior to preparing design phase cost estimates, it is important to under-
stand existing conditions at the site and to perform a preliminary engineer-
ing study that addresses appropriate dredge and disposal practices. The
harbor design engineer also must be familiar with the competitive situation
for qualified suppliers of large quantity bid items (e.g., breakwater stone,
steel sheet piles, and dockage systems) and must know the impact on
construction of the seasonal weather conditions. Finally, local regulations

and labor practices also can have a tremendous impact on costs.
Every project has its own specific development characteristics that pose
both constraints to standard construction techniques and opportunities
for innovative design solutions. The planning and design process needs
to be flexible and responsive to new information. It is important to inte-

grate cost estimating into each phase of the design process and, by so
doing, to verify project feasibility at each stage of small craft harbor
development.
The following list of possible line items may assist in preparing a
capital cost budget for small craft harbor construction
• Land acquisition
• Professional services (planning, engineering, permitting, surveying
and testing, legal, market, economic, etc.)
• Environmental mitigation costs
• Harbor infrastructure costs (breakwaters, jetties, excavation dredg-
ing, shoreline treatment)
• Other infrastructure costs (access roads, utility service)
• On-site improvement costs (drives, parking, landscaping, lighting,
utilities)
• Dockage and service pier (including fueling system)
• Marina administration/boater service buildings
• Boat repair shops and storage buildings
• Dry-stack storage facilities
• Haul-out facilities.
This list should not be construed as comprehensive but, instead, typical
of most new full-service harbor facilities.
Operating Income and Expense Projections

When preparing operating income and expense projections, be sure to
use an appropriate projection period for the projection model. This period
should allow for expenses made during planning and construction and
should be a long enough time period to allow for the project to reach a
fully stabilized situation. Normally a projection period of 10 years from
initiation of project design is satisfactory.
If municipal bonds or long-term private loans are involved, the analyst
often is required to project income and expenses over periods ranging
from 20 to 30 years. Such projections usually merely escalate income and
expenses based upon annual percentage increases from a point when the
project reaches a fully stabilized situation. Long-term projections are very
difficult to make due to unknown future considerations affecting income
and expense changes.
Operating Income The normal components of operating income pro-

jections for a small craft harbor include slip rentals, transient slip rentals,
winter storage, dry storage, service and repairs, marina chandlery, fueling,
boat repair, and other related improvements. It is also common for gov-
ernment entities to make land and/or building leases to private enter-
prises to develop and operate restaurants, retail stores, hotels, apartments,

and other similar commercial and light industrial uses within the project.
Much of the information developed in the market analysis can help deter-
mine proper charges for preparing the income projections, phasing the
development and escalation of prices over the projection period.
Operating Expenses Operating expenses also relate to the method of

operation of the small craft harbor. For example, in a situation where the
harbor developer operates the boat slips, the developer must staff accord-
ingly. If the remainder of the revenue-producing components of the harbor
are marina ancillary facilities of a commercial and light-industrial nature—
and these facilities are to be developed and operated by lessees or conces-
sionaires under land leases or land/building leases—then the harbor
developer merely administers these leases. When this occurs, harbor man-
agement has no cost of sales and other associated expenses related to
commercial and light-industrial uses. These management and operating
distinctions must be considered in the preparation of operating expense
projections. It is important that all start-up costs be included and properly
projected in the small craft harbor financial analysis.
In addition, personnel costs—the largest component of pure marina
operation, as opposed to concessionaire operations—are a key factor. Per-
sonnel costs normally run from 50 to 60% of total small craft harbor
operating expenses. The next most important cost item is utilities and
insurance. In private harbors where slips are sized 10 m (30 ft) and larger,
meters for electricity are the norm. In other cases (usually in older marinas),
utilities are charged as a surcharge or as part of the berth rental rate. Other
operations expenses to include are materials, maintenance, legal and
accounting, advertising and promotion, property management costs,
property taxes (in the case of a private marina), cost of administering
leases, reserves for replacement, and security. Many harbors (government-
run and private) have chosen to privatize the security of their project,
particularly outside normal working hours.
CAPITAL FUNDING APPROACHES
Assembling the financing for a small craft harbor (whether under public
sponsorship or as a private development initiative) is a critical issue to
keep in mind throughout the planning process. This section presents an
overview of the basic approaches to financing the construction and opera-

tion of small craft harbors. It describes the approaches and criteria used in
financing public projects, private initiatives, and the increasingly important
partnerships between the public and private sectors.
General Trends
At the heart of the financing question is a determination early in the
planning process of the fundamental objectives of the harbor itself. This
will provide clues as to the most appropriate financing structure. Essen-
tially, the profile of the facility with respect to risk (the predictability of
cash flow adequate to cover all expenses and service the debt) and the
rate of return on investment must be matched to investment sources with
a similar risk/return profile.
For example, a safe, well-planned harbor in an established market
planned mainly to satisfy demonstrated demand for recreational boating
may well prove less risky than many comparable investments and may
attract sufficient private equity and debt at reasonable interest rates. In
contrast, a facility in a pioneering location such as an urban waterfront or
in a seasonal market, may require significant (or wholly) public financing
in the form of bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the issuing
municipality. Within these extremes, of course, lie innumerable combina-
tions of private and public financing sources.
Over the past 20 years or so, small craft harbors have become increas-
ingly integrated into larger development initiatives. As such, their finan-
cial characteristics are also increasingly intertwined. In many cases,
harbors are seen as “amenities” for various waterfront development pro-
grams centered on multi-use real estate ventures. The physical character-
istics, target markets, and expected financial performance of these facilities
may be quite different from a small craft harbor developed primarily to
serve the boating needs of the public.
A number of factors have combined in recent years to limit the avail-
ability of private capital for harbor investment. Among these are shifting
tax treatment of real estate-related investments, thus limiting the potential
for raising equity capital through traditional syndication or limited part-
nership approaches. Also important is the general flight of conventional
sources of construction financing—banks, savings and loans, insurance
companies, and pension funds—from real estate investment during the
late 1980s and early 1990s. Underpinning this lack of investment capital
is a perception of low returns, volatile cash flow, overbuilt markets, and
other fundamental industry problems.
Sources of Risk
In the real estate context, small craft harbors often are seen as particu-
larly risky, with uncertainty regarding costs, market characteristics, and
operations. Cost risk lies in the difficulty of accurately predicting capital

costs in a highly complex marine environment and the need for appropri-
ately generous contingencies. Specialized construction, uncertain tech-
nologies, and unknown durability of facilities subjected to extreme
conditions are all sources of risk. Also, the labor-intense characteristics of
harbors can make for uncertain operating costs.

Risk also stems from the difficulties in predicting market performance
and sustainability of project revenues. In many markets, boating is a sea-
sonal activity in which cyclical revenues demand careful budgeting and
management systems. While the supply of new harbors traditionally has
been constrained by difficulties in securing development approval, an
existing harbor always has to face the threat of new competition. Finally,
boating is remarkably sensitive to larger economic conditions, with new
boat sales often dropping sharply during a recession.
Marina operations also can pose risk. In addition to direct labor
and benefits, the cost of insurance, taxes, and other key cost categories
can fluctuate sharply. Because harbor operations are specialized and not
well understood, and because many harbors operate on an extremely
informal basis, management is often suspect—an additional source of
perceived risk. However, in recent years a handful of firms have brought
careful cost controls, management information systems, targeted market-
ing, and other professional management tools to the marina business.
Such an approach can go a long way to help overcome the traditional
image.
All of these sources of risk can translate to financing available only at
very high costs—if, indeed, financing is available at all. In such a case,
often the only recourse is public financing of harbor facilities. Recent years
have seen a spate of large-scale, public small craft harbors, intended less
as real estate amenities than as important civic facilities with widespread
public benefits that warrant public funding—notwithstanding the fact
that such projects often fuel related private investment in housing, retail
shops, hotels, and the like. Traditional public financing approaches—
direct appropriations, general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and inter-
governmental grant or loan programs—remain an important option.
Their use, however, requires substantial political consensus and demon-
stration of clear public purpose and benefit.
The risk and attendant scarce financing associated with private harbor
development, coupled with the political and other hurdles of purely
public financing, have resulted in an increasing reliance on various
forms of public-private cooperation. Essentially, the public sector uses its
resources to reduce risk, by lowering the cost of development, by reducing
the cost of operations, or by guaranteeing payment of the debt or coverage
of any operating shortfalls. The specific form of this participation varies
widely; some of the most successful ventures are the most resourceful,
assembling funding from a wide array of sources.
In return for the use of often-scarce public resources, the private sector
brings to a potential venture expertise in development, construction, and
operations, but must often compromise on issues of public access, opera-
tions, or design. In many cases the public gets a higher-quality facility or
realizes greater cost efficiencies than it would have otherwise, while the
private developer uses the public amenity to add value to adjacent devel-
opment parcels. In other examples, the public also turns to private con-
cerns for operational and management expertise on the harbor itself.
Public-Private Partnership
One of the most significant challenges facing private small craft harbor
development is the lack of financing available from traditional sources.
Although public agencies may be in a position to provide capital funding,
they may not be best suited to manage overall project development, con-
struction, and operations. For many jurisdictions the most satisfactory
approach to small craft harbor development has been to structure partner-
ships between the public and private sectors.
The public sector usually is interested in maintaining or improving
public access and recreational resources, using a harbor facility to help
anchor a redevelopment district, and providing other public benefits. The
private sector is drawn to such opportunities by the opportunity to
develop land adjacent to a marina facility, the presence of which often
enhances the value of such land. Private developers also may be attracted
to these arrangements by the potential to earn development fees. Typi-
cally, the developer is able to develop these facilities more efficiently than
the government. The public sector, in exchange for this expertise, offers
not only financing resources but also various redevelopment powers that
can help make the project work.
In some cases, public involvement in a marina development project can
create a difficult competitive situation for private owner-operators. In the
late 1990s, in an effort to become more financially accountable, most ports
adopted the private sector cost center financial model. Marinas became a
standalone cost center in this business model. While port marinas still
enjoyed low-cost financing, they were now burdened by organizational
overhead that the private sector did not incur. Port marinas were forced
to absorb “their share” of the port’s administrative overhead (human
resources, accounting, information systems, labor resources, public rela-
tions, and the executive departments and port commission).
Moorage rates at port marinas are now set at levels that generate a
small profit. Equivalent rates at similar private facilities generate reason-
able profits. This most often is a problem where demand is weak for slips,
moorings, or storage, and private rates must be set low enough to
maintain their customer base. Where demand is high or where supply is
constrained, some form of public participation may be required to create

additional facilities. In this case the existing private operators will gener-
ally be able to charge reasonable rates and will be less likely to perceive
unfair competition. However, if those who benefit from a publicly subsi-
dized operation are effective in their lobbying, even in areas of high
demand one may see a public facility charging unrealistically low rates
and maintaining long waiting lists.
The form of such public-sector assistance varies widely depending on
the specific techniques used. However, three basic strategies exist in
enhancing small craft harbor development feasibility. First, targeted
public assistance can reduce the development costs of the project. Second,
subsidies can be provided over the life of the project to reduce operating
costs. Third, mechanisms exist that can increase the project’s attractive-
ness to conventional debt and equity funding by reducing the risk of the
overall project.
Development Subsidies The most common form of project develop-

ment incentive is simply to reduce the costs of development. Because of
the nature of the development cycle, development subsidies are most
commonly used to fund the up-front costs of site assembly and acquisi-
tions, infrastructure development, and such predevelopment costs as fea-
sibility studies and other soft costs.
Site assembly and acquisition is a key up-front cost of harbor develop-
ment projects. It also is a stage in the development process that may occur
when risk is substantial, often before development approvals are in place.
One of the most common forms of public development incentive lies in
the public sector’s ability to assemble redevelopment sites. The tools used
in this process include urban renewal statutes and plans and power of
condemnation.
The incentive provided by the public sector’s assembly of redevelop-
ment sites is often enhanced through two techniques: a land-cost write-
down (the below-market sale of land to a development entity), and a land
lease, which can effectively eliminate site-acquisition costs for the devel-
oper. The public sector can provide a great deal of flexibility in the terms
of a land lease, including phasing-in lease payments over time, or in a
fashion that links lease payments to project revenues; subordinating the
lease payments to other financing entities in order to reduce the lender’s
risk; and abating lease payments in early years, in exchange for a stake in
the long-term performance of the project or a share in the refinancing or
sale proceeds.
Grants of various forms are typically used to fund specific project
components or to fund early soft costs such as feasibility studies. Project
funding grants are most likely to originate at the state level, under the
auspices of various programs for infrastructure development, parks and
recreation-facility development, targeted economic development funds,

and other programs.
Many times, grants fund a component of a project that is likely to
produce benefits to the broader public as well as to the specific develop-
ment project. Notable examples include parking facilities and infrastruc-
ture. Recreational facilities such as small craft harbors are often the
recipients of grant assistance. They, in turn, enhance the desirability of a
site for private investment in commercial or housing development.
Public financing also is used to decrease development costs by reduc-
ing the cost of capital. Tax-exempt bonds can be issued to help fund rec-
reational, environmental, or economic development initiatives. Loans
from pools of publicly derived capital are used to provide financing based
on conventional economic development or public benefits criteria (number
of jobs created, potential tax revenues, and so on). General obligation
bonds, revenue bonds, and state-issued bonds of various forms—the
interest on which is usually tax-exempt to the bondholders—are used to
capitalize low-interest rates of conventional financing or taxable bonds.
These often can provide the critical elements of project feasibility.
As traditional sources of financing for real estate development become
increasingly scarce (particularly for unconventional projects), the avail-
ability of capital at any interest rate may become an issue. In such cases,
municipalities can issue taxable bonds to provide project financing.
Although interest rates on taxable securities usually are equivalent to
conventional financing, this technique can provide debt financing that
would otherwise not exist.
Waterfront development initiatives frequently occur in the context of
transitional urban districts, such as industrial areas or older downtowns.
In such areas infrastructure often is a key development hurdle. One of the
most effective forms of enhancing project feasibility is public-sector
financing and construction of new infrastructure. In waterfront areas,
shoreline stabilization and improvements, parks, and parking facilities are
perhaps the most common of these incentives. Similarly, funds for site
clean-up or remediation of hazardous materials problems in transitional
industrial areas can make a key difference in reducing the lender’s risk
and establishing feasibility.
Public financing of major capital, such as railway bridges, flood control
structures, shoreline improvements, and similar facilities, can have a sub-
stantial impact on the feasibility of a small craft harbor development
project. In most cases public agencies commit to such improvements only
if it is clear that these capital improvements will benefit the area as a
whole by encouraging wide-scale private investment in an area, in addi-
tion to enhancing the prospects of the particular harbor project. The
advantage of targeted infrastructure improvements is the range of financ-
ing resources available to cities. These include all the traditional tools,
such as general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, and a wide range of

state and federal infrastructure improvement funds.
Operating Subsidies Although reducing the up-front costs of devel-

opment by holding down debt or equity requirements or by reducing debt
service costs can be seen as an operating subsidy, more direct operating

subsidies also exist. These are intended to reduce the ongoing costs of a
project, which increases the amount of funds available for debt service
and, in turn, the project’s overall debt capacity.
Property taxes form another important operating cost category.
Although sometimes politically difficult, tax abatement or tax exemption
programs are frequent tools used to increase a project’s net revenues. Most
often, tax abatement agreements call for phase-in of property taxes over
time as a project proves successful.
Public agencies also can spread the benefits of various operating sub-
sidies across a wider range of property owners and projects through the
creation of special management and promotion organizations. These orga-
nizations (typically operated as private, nonprofit entities, but also funded
through a combination of public and private revenue) can provide profes-
sional and coordinated special events, promotions, and project marketing,
all of which are functions that would otherwise be borne by the harbor
project’s operating budget.
Risk Reduction Techniques The public sector also can reduce the
risks associated with harbor development projects. One of the most effec-
tive ways is to streamline the development process. This reduces risk
(and, therefore, costs) and increases the attractiveness of the project for
debt and equity financing. For example, projects can receive expedited
treatment through the application of certain development standards and
requirements, such as parking ratio and other factors. The expediency
translates directly to lower early project development costs in the areas
of land carry, interim financing costs, and other areas.
The Developer Recruitment Process

In some cases, a project may be initiated by a prospective private devel-
opment entity. For example, a developer may respond to a particular
funding program or stated public objective. However, in most public-
private partnerships, the public sector takes the initiative.
For the public sponsor of a small craft harbor development project, one
of the most important early challenges is recruiting a development partner.
Numerous variations on the process exist, depending on the particular
local issues and circumstances. However, most successful recruitment
processes follow the general sequence of steps described below.
As the first step in a developer recruitment and selection process, the

preliminary harbor development standards and program identified
through the planning process should be matched to a set of developer
selection criteria. These criteria may include, for example, financial stabil-
ity and access to equity and debt financing; track record of similar projects
(type, size, complexity, and cost); and organizational and management

ability. These standards and criteria should not be so finely tuned as to
dictate the eventual solution or unnecessarily limit the suitable candi-
dates. At the same time, though, these important ground rules should be
stated as precisely as possible to avoid later ambiguities and misunder-
standings in the selection process.
Many options exist for structuring the actual selection process, from
a wide-open request for proposals to a quasi-competition among
prequalified firms. In order to obtain the highest-quality, most-detailed
proposals from the best firms, the latter approach is often best. Selected
advertising in well-chosen industry publications can request statements
of qualifications from interested development firms. These submissions,
while not fully developed proposals, should be detailed enough to allow
the sponsor to judge the candidates against the already-defined selection
criteria.
The sponsor can next choose a set of finalists (typically three to five)
based on these evaluations. The sponsor should interview these firms as
well as visit and closely inspect their earlier projects. In the meantime,
finalists should prepare and submit more detailed plans for the harbor
development project. These submissions may include
• Conceptual master land- and water-use plans, along with prelimi-

nary sections or elevations, and sketches of major buildings and
outdoor spaces
• A traffic circulation and parking plan
• A detailed development program that includes revenue and cost
estimates, and a timing and phasing plan, outlined in 10-year pro
forma statements
• If appropriate, a parcelization plan identifying specific project com-
ponents and detailed information on subdeveloper or joint venture
arrangements
• An outlined marketing and community relations program
• A preliminary management program, including basic reporting
formats and procedures, planned staffing and organization, and
basic management policies
• A statement of how the developer’s proposal fulfills the sponsor’s
objectives, with particular attention to the plan’s economic impacts:
jobs created, public service demands increased, tax revenue gener-
ated, and other expected results.
This selection process usually takes from 6 to 12 months to complete

from the time the sponsor receives the initial statements of qualifications.
The process typically concludes with an executed development agree-
ment between the chosen developer and the sponsor.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SMALL CRAFT HARBORS
Direct income to the marina operator, whether public or private, is rela-

tively easy to account in assessing economic impacts. The indirect impact
of small craft harbors has been the subject of scrutiny by industry advo-
cacy groups such as the Association of Marina Industries (AMI) and
the National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA). In 2007 Ed
Mahoney, Dan Stynes, and Yue Cui of Michigan State University pub-
lished an “Online Boating Economic Impact Model” that may be used to
document economic impact based on a number of variables:
The primary required input for the models is the number of boats
with different types and sizes. The model applies national or regional
averages for (1) the number of days the boats are used, (2) annual
spending per boat on storage, accessories, insurance and other craft-
related expenses, and (3) the average spending per day of boaters
on boating trips for meals, fuel, and other items. When reliable local
spending and boating activity estimates are available, the default
averages built into the model may be modified to fit a particular
local application. For example, in the case of a marina, the marina’s
actual slip or storage fees can be substituted for the regional aver-
ages. (Mahoney et al. 2006)
Several other studies have developed models. Whether a computer-

generated model is used or another analysis method is used, care to use
the appropriate input parameters must be taken.
REFERENCES
Dunham, J. W., and Finn, A. A. (1974). “Small craft harbors: Design, con-
struction and operation.” Special Report No. 2, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Coastal Engineering Research Center, Waterways Experi-
ment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Mahoney, E., Stynes, D., and Cui, Y. (2006). “On-line boating economic
impact model.” Recreational Marine Research Center, <www
.marinaeconomics.com> (Nov. 7, 2011).
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2010a). “Standard for the

installation of standpipes and hose systems.” NFPA 14, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2010b). “Fire protection standard for pleasure and commercial
motor craft.” NFPA 302, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2010c). “Recommended practice for handling releases of flam-
mable and combustible liquids and gases.” NFPA 329, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2011). “Fire protection standard for marinas and boatyards.”
NFPA 303, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2012a). “Flammable and combustible liquids code.” NFPA 30,
Quincy, MA
NFPA. (2012b). “Code for motor fuel dispensing facilities and repair
garages.” NFPA 30A, Quincy, MA.
National Marine Fisheries Service. (NMFS). (2012). “NOAA Fisheries
Service.” <www.nmfs.noaa.gov> (Nov. 16, 2011).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). (2012a).
<www.noaa.gov> (Nov. 16, 2011).
NOAA. (2012b). “Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.” <http://
coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/> (May 17, 2012).
National Park Service (NPS). (2012). <www.nps.gov> (Nov. 16, 2011).
Plumb, R. H., Jr. (1981). “Procedure for Handling and Chemical Analysis
of Sediment and Water Samples.” Technical Rep. EPA/CE-81-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers,
Vicksburg, MS.
States Organization for Boating Access (SOBA). (2006). Design handbook for
recreational boating and fishing facilities, 2nd Ed. Warren, RI.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (2007). “Practices for document-
ing jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
(RHA) of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).” RGL
No. 07-01, USACE, Washington, DC.
USACE. (2012). <www.usace.army.mil> (Nov. 12, 2011).
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). (2012). <www.uscg.mil> (Nov. 16, 2011).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2004). “Ship Shape
Shores and Waters: A Handbook for Marina Operators and Recre-
ational Boaters.” EPA-841-B-03-001, USEPA, Washington, DC.
USEPA. (2009). “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).” <http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/> (May 17, 2012).
USEPA. (2012). <www.epa.gov> (Nov. 15, 2011).
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice. (2004). Americans with Disabilities Act Handbook,
Washington, DC.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). (2012). <www.fws.gov> (Nov. 16,
2011).
CHAPTER 2
ENTRANCE, BREAKWATER,
AND BASIN DESIGN
Jack C. Cox, P.E.
The definition of “what is a boat harbor” geometrically extends well

beyond the bounds of the small body of water in which a boat sits. It
includes the waters outside the harbor, the waters inside the harbor, and
how those waters move or are changed as a result of the harbor being
there. When examined in the context of the needs of small craft, and in
terms of the environmental and aesthetic impact of the use of such areas
by the boating public, special design considerations are required. These
considerations differ significantly from the requirements of larger, deep-
draft harbors intended for commercial use. In fact, designs that are func-
tional for deep-draft commercial harbors may be totally unsuitable and
even dangerous for the small craft harbor. This chapter focuses on the
specific design needs to offer safe navigation, a tranquil berthing, and a
high-quality water environment. The user will find that the guidance is
focused on only those aspects of a design element that are unique or rel-
evant to the small craft harbor. Specific guidance for detailed design of
certain elements, such as how to design a breakwater, is deferred to other
references and sources so that emphasis is placed on the important aspects
of how the design applies to the small craft harbor.
Jack C. Cox, P.E., is Principal/Coastal Engineer, SmithGroupJJR, Madison, WI. The

following people also contributed to this chapter: Harvey N. Smith, P.E., is Techni-
cal Engineer II, Alaska DOT, Anchorage, AK. Ruth A. Carter, P.E., is Professional
Engineer, Alaska DOT, Anchorage, AK. Mark A. Pirrello, P.E., is Senior Engineer,
Moffatt & Nichol, Tampa, FL. Bill Brose, P.E., is Principal Civil Engineer/Vice
President, SmithGroupJJR, Madison, WI.
89
APPROACH TO DESIGN
There are no national building codes that apply to small craft harbor
design, and the design solution for each small craft harbor’s needs is
unique. No two locations have the same climate or geography or geology.
Furthermore, creating small craft harbor design criteria is difficult because

at best, practical and reliable memories of extreme events that will affect
the small craft harbor seem to fade after 5 or so years. So how are criteria
developed?
The fundamental premise of small craft harbor design criteria is based
on acceptable level of risk. Acceptable risk can be interpreted in many ways:
it might be defined in terms of financial loss, but it might also be defined
in terms of concerns over life safety or preservation of irreplaceable value.
Regardless of the interpretation of acceptable risk, creating design criteria
requires (1) defining the intensity of the load or event the small craft
harbor must accommodate, (2) determining how likely that event is to
occur, and (3) estimating the chance that event will occur within a given
time period.
To estimate the intensity of a load or event, small craft harbor designers
look at conditions that have occurred over a known time period. This is
done with actual physical measurements or observations. Because many
small craft harbors are constructed in remote locations, a 20-year record is
about as much data as one might hope to find. When statistically analyz-
ing such data to determine the extreme design condition, extrapolation of
the data is considered valid to about three times the length of the sampling
interval. Thus, designers commonly use a 50-year event for the design
condition that will be experienced at a small craft harbor. In related areas
such as flood hazard mapping, a 50-year, 100-year, or 500-year condition
is typically projected, and is referred to as the 50-year, 100-year, or 500-year
event. These designations do not imply that the condition will occur once
every 50 years, 100 years, or 500 years; rather, they should be interpreted
as having a 2% chance, 1% chance, or 0.2% chance of occurring in any year.
Assessing risk begins with determining the probability that an event
will occur. This probability is typically established by collecting historic
records of actual events (ideally, tangible wave measurements, but if not,
then wind data, from which waves can be estimated). Using statistical
methods, extreme events can be extrapolated for the purpose of design
(Sorensen 2005). The return period (the time interval between storm events)
of any condition is given as:
Tr r = 1 (1 − P( H )) (2-1)
where r is the time interval in years between successive data points, and
P(H) = 1 − (m/(N + 1)), so that:
ENTRANCE, BREAKWATER, AND BASIN DESIGN 91
Tr r = ( N + 1) m (2-2)
where N is the total number of samples to be analyzed, and m is the plot-

ting position associated with the mth sequential value sorted in descend-
ing size (i.e., the largest value is assigned to m = 1, and the smallest to m
= N). If one piece of data was collected every day for one year, then N =
365, and to compute the probability and return period for the largest wave
height tabulated (m = 1),
P ( H ) = 1 − (1 ( 365 + 1)) = 0.9973 and (2-3)
Tr = (1 365) ( 365 + 1) 1 = 1.0027 years (2-4)
What return period event to use in design is based on both regional

preferences and past experience of success. In the Great Lakes region,
20-year return period events are often used for design. In hurricane-prone
areas, a 100-year event criterion is often dictated by regulation. Generi-
cally, a 50-year event is often accepted as the basis for small craft harbor
design when considering the full range of performance and survivability
objectives.
In reality, however, the specifying of a design event alone has little
relevance unless the event is likely to occur during a design lifetime. A
design lifetime might be defined as the life of a mortgage, or the length
of intended ownership, or the lifespan of the docks before they need
replacement due to age. Design for the marine environment also embod-
ies an inherent acceptance of a certain level of risk of failure. Unlike other
disciplines that may be prescribed by a given set of input conditions that
produce a definable outcome, the marine environment is based on the
probability of any event occurring and then an assessment of whether that
event will affect the project within a period of concern.
Another necessary concept is the encounter probability, E. It is insuf-
ficient to specify only a 10-year, 50-year, or 100-year design event without
considering whether that event might reasonably occur during the time
period of interest. For example, a designer may want to assess the prob-
ability of a severe storm occurring during a small craft harbor’s construc-
tion, when incomplete construction might lead to significant losses.
Similarly, an investment decision must be made about whether to build
a facility to a higher, more robust standard because the chance of a failure
is significant, or whether the financial risk of building to a lower standard
can be tolerated. The probability that an event (e.g., a certain wave height
having a return period Tr) will be equaled or exceeded during some other
period of time T, if Tr2/T >> 1 (as is usually the case) is:
E = 1 − exp ( − T Tr ) (2-5)
Figure 2-1 shows the relationship between return period and the
encounter probability of that event occurring during a given time interval.
Often the time interval is defined as the design life of a dock system,
but it could equally be the risk of an event occurring during construction
or some other time when the facility is particularly vulnerable. Note
that when the design lifetime equals the design return period, the risk
is computed to be an approximately 63% occurrence. This suggests
that there is nearly a 2 out of 3 chance that the facility will experience
the design event within the project’s lifetime. A 50-year event combined
with a 30-year project life has a risk of 45%, or about a 1 out of 2 chance
of occurrence. Because 30 years is a standard mortgage length, and
because structurally marine systems have useful lives of 25 to 30 years,
this level of risk is frequently accepted as the design risk, which
then dictates the storm intensity for which the designers should allow.
Of course, if life safety is an issue, much lower risk should be
specified.
Figure 2-1 also indicates the risk of multiple storms of a given return
period occurring within the time interval. This relationship is defined by
the Poisson distribution expression:
P ( x ; λ t ) = e − λ t ( λ t )x x ! (2-6)
Fig. 2-1. Encounter probability of multiple occurrences

where l is the average number of outcomes per unit measure, e = 2.71828,

and t is the number of occurrences of the event.
Note that the same 63% risk of return period event occurrence within
the design life also has a 30% probability of occurring twice, and a 10%
chance of occurring three times.
The decision about acceptable level of risk is the owner’s decision, not
the engineer’s, though the engineer must educate the owner about the
significance of the risk. Further, the same level of risk may not apply to
every element of a small craft harbor. The financial benefit of assuming
more risk is obvious; however, as with any other investment, the down-
side cost may also be greater. The future cost of money should be carefully
weighed in the selection of risk. The owner should consult with his or her
insurance carrier before a decision is made on acceptable risk. The cost of
insurance policies is directly dependent on the level of risk assumed.
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIFICATIONS
Winds
Winds have both direct and indirect impacts on small craft harbor
design. Directly, winds can apply loads to vessels moored at the docks,
which in turn apply loads to the docks and moorings and determine both
how robust a structure needs to be and how to orient channels and berths
for safest navigation in the winds. Indirectly, winds generate storm waves
that also impact the small craft harbor. For structural load considerations,
the peak winds and gusts are of greatest concern. However, for wave
generation, the long-term sustained winds, which are lower than the
gusts, are responsible for generating waves.
Winds are not unidirectional. It is not uncommon for the typical or
daily winds to come from one direction and the storm conditions to come
from a different direction. Figure 2-2 is an example of a wind rose indicat-
ing both the intensity and direction of the winds and the frequency of
occurrence of the wind in that speed and direction combination. The same
data can be analyzed as discussed above to obtain the actual directional
return period of the winds.
If wind data are not available, wind intensity maps such as those used
for structural design of buildings can be used as a first approximation of
the conditions to be encountered (ASCE/SEI 2010). However, these maps
generally present the values for the momentary highest intensity winds
only, and give no information about direction or duration of sustained
winds. Since it is sustained winds, not gusts, that generate waves, these
shorter-duration events must be converted to an equivalent long-duration
wind. Gust and short-burst wind values can be converted to an equivalent
Fig. 2-2. Wind rose example (JFK airport, 1984–2002)

Source: NOAA/NWS (2002)
sustained (1-hour) wind according to Fig. 2-3. In this figure, the ordinate
value is the ratio of any wind of given duration to the hourly wind. The
abscissal value is the actual time duration of the wind. Generally, the gust,
or 3-sec wind, can be taken to be 50% faster than the sustained wind.
Similarly, without directional information (which indicates the direc-
tion that the strongest winds blow from), a design based only on wind
speed will be more conservative because it assumes that all strong winds
will blow at the most vulnerable part of the installation. This ignores
physical realities of certain loading scenarios, which might allow a facility
to be built less robustly.
Waves
Properties of Waves The performance of a small craft harbor facility
is driven by three simple characteristics of a wave: the height, the period,
and the water depth. While wave height is the most commonly considered
characteristic, wave period has the most influence in a small craft harbor
Fig. 2-3. Relation of any duration wind speed to the hourly wind speed
Source: USACE (2002a)
because the motion of a boat or any floating body varies depending on

the wave period. In addition to floating body motion, the wave period
also has bearing on the effectiveness of wave-absorbing structures being
considered. Water depth combines with wave period to define a local
wavelength. Water depth can also influence wave height to a limited
extent.
The general mechanics and properties of waves are discussed in various
references for coastal and ocean engineering (USACE 1984, 2002a) and
will not be repeated here, except to remark that the physics defining the
properties and behavior of waves can be very complicated and sometimes
requires actual field measurements to better understand the complex
interactions. Modeling (numerical or physical) is also used to resolve
these interactions if physical data are not available. Even an expression
for the most basic property, the local wavelength, requires complex math-
ematics. However, because of the singular importance of wave period
(and length) in the evaluation of designs for small craft harbors, a simple
graphic that allows estimation of the wavelength for any water depth
given its period is provided in Fig. 2-4.
The deepwater wavelength, Lo, is computed as gT2/2π, or 5.12 T2 in
English units and 1.56 T2 in metric. Note that the wavelength is constant
until the water depth is less than half the wavelength. At that point the
Fig. 2-4. Local wavelength relationship
wave begins to feel the bottom, the wavelength shortens, and the wave
height changes.
There are also some rules of thumb regarding waves, which are simple
but useful in characterizing the marine environment
• The length of a wave in deep water, in feet, is roughly 5 times the

square of the wave period and half of that in shallow water.
• The height of a wave, in feet, is approximately one-quarter of the
period (seconds) squared. For 2 < T < 5, the height is roughly equal
to its period, in seconds.
• The wave period, in seconds, is roughly one-third of the wind speed,
in knots.
• The wave crest length in deep water, i.e., the breadth of a wave, is
roughly 3 times the wavelength.
In a real wave environment, the water surface is not so easily described

by a simple wave definition. The water surface is usually composed of
multiple waves that may be of different wave heights and lengths and
may combine from different directions, as shown in Fig. 2-5.
Wave Field Categories Real wave fields can be classified into three
categories: wakes, seas, and swells. Wakes are most commonly the product
of a structure disturbing the water surface, as in a moving boat. These
Fig. 2-5. Schematic of the water surface in a real wave environment
waves are usually single-period, dependent primarily on the speed of

movement. Single-period waves, more generally referred to as monochro-
matic waves, may be continuously running if caused by flow past a fixed
structure, or of limited number and duration if caused by the passage of
a boat. Boat wakes are typically of short period, ranging from 2 to 5 sec.
Though of short duration, they may be the dominant design consideration
due to highly repetitive occurrences. This is especially prevalent where
commercial or large pleasure craft are present.
Sea waves are the product of wind blowing across the surface of the
water. Seas are a mixture of wave heights and periods, but are character-
ized by a dominant wave height and period and are directly associated
with the wind speed, water depth, and the fetch (the distance the wind
blows across the water). The common simple descriptor for a sea is the
significant wave height, which refers to a theoretical wave whose magnitude
is equal to the average of the largest one-third of the waves occurring in
the sea. However, its cumulative probability is approximately equal to the
86th percentile wave height in the sea, not the 67th percentile as is often
inferred. The significant wave height also has a physical basis—it is the
reported characteristic wave height of a sea as visually estimated by a
trained observer.
To simplify the computational effort of determining a significant wave
height, the value of the significant wave height, Hs, is often inferred math-
ematically from the total amount of energy in a full spectrum of waves.
The latter calculation is referred to as the Hmo value. In deep water, Hs and
Hmo are numerically equal. However, as waves shoal, or equivalently, if
the wavelength (or its equivalent in period) is large compared to the water
depth, the two values diverge. The ratio of the average Hs/Hmo may
approach 1.5. Therefore, the two numerical descriptors for specifying a
sea can be interchanged only with care, and with proper adjustments.
See Thompson and Vincent (1985) for a more detailed explanation of Hs
and Hmo.
The third form of a wave field is a swell. Swell waves are typically pro-
duced at a distance from the site and are not directly associated with any
local storm event. While swell waves are most often associated with the
U.S. west coast and Hawaii waters, which receive waves first generated
in the western Pacific waters, swells actually can occur anywhere if the
waves have been produced remotely and then propagate to the site.
Because waves of different periods propagate at different speeds, swell
waves tend to be more monochromatic at any instant as components of
distant seas arrive at the shore. Also, longer-period waves contain more
energy, so the waves traveling the longest tend to be only those having
larger wave periods since the shorter waves have dissipated their energy
in transit. Swells have been observed with periods as little as 8 sec and as
great as 25 sec.
Tsunamis, or harbor waves, constitute a different class of waves because
of their source of creation, which is a geological shift in the Earth’s surface.
While viewed as a single wave, they are in fact a train of several waves,
normally preceded by a drawdown of water, or wave trough. Because of
their extremely long period, they are characteristically shallow-water
waves as they propagate across the sea. In the open ocean they are almost
indiscernible, but upon reaching shallow coastlines they can grow in
height to tens of meters. Even the most massive of breakwaters are inef-
fective at stopping a tsunami. Fortunately, the frequency of occurrence of
a tsunami at any location is very small, and small craft harbors do not
include design considerations for protection from their appearance.
Upland areas, however, should still consider safety from tsunami
inundation.
Wave Property Calculations Numerous theories exist for calculating

wave properties based on winds and site conditions, and these theories
are constantly being refined. Predicting wave properties requires com-
puter modeling to factor in the many variables that affect wave growth
and behavior. Particularly for small craft harbor design purposes, a real-
istic and reliable prediction of the wave period, rather than simply the
wave height, is often the more critical parameter, because floating bodies
are sensitive to wave period. Therefore, if comparing the predictions from
various wave theories, the designer must use judgment and adopt a
prediction that is the most pessimistic and adverse on performance in

terms of a combined wave period and wave height criteria. One example
set of relations that seems to reasonably predict the wave climate most
often experienced by small craft harbors is given by the following (Hurdle
and Stive 1989; Silvester and Hsu 1993):
Adjusted Wind Speed (m/sec)
U A = 0.71 (1.1U10 )1.23 (U10 given in m sec ) (2-7)
Significant Wave Height (m)
H s = 0.25 (U A 2 g ) tan h ⎡⎣0.6 ( gd U A 2 ) ⎤⎦

0.75
(2-8)
tan h1 2 ⎡⎣ 4.3E−5 ( gF U A 2 ) tan h −2 ⎡⎣0.6 ( gd U A 2 ) ⎤⎦ ⎤⎦
0.75
Peak Wave Period (sec)
Tp = 8.3 (U A g ) tan h ⎡⎣0.76 ( gd U A 2 ) ⎤⎦

0.375
(2-9)
tan h1 3 ⎡⎣ 4.1E−5 ( gF U A 2 ) tan h −3 ⎡⎣0.76 ( gd U A 2 ) ⎤⎦ ⎤⎦
0.375
Limiting Duration of Wave Growth (hours)
tlim = 65.9 (U A g ) ( gF U A 2 )
0.667
(2-10)
where F is the fetch distance (m), and d is the water depth (m) most char-
acteristic of the last third of the fetch distance.
If t < tlim, i.e., the duration of the wind is insufficient to allow the waves
to grow fully, then the immature wave properties can be estimated
by computing a new F based on t, and substituting in the equations
above.
For the expressions listed above, and for other wave estimation expres-
sions, it is generally assumed that the breadth of the fetch area is compa-
rable to the fetch length. In situations such as rivers and long, narrow
channels or lakes where the fetch width is much less than the potential
fetch length, predicted wave heights and periods will be overestimated,
and when the fetch length is much less than the width, the heights and
periods will be underestimated. For long, narrow fetches, a suggested
empirical reduction in the wave height of 40% and in the period of 20%
has been recommended (Hershberger and Ting 1996). However, to best
determine the expected wave conditions, a full computer model is pre-
ferred that takes into consideration the entire geometry of the site.
The statistics of sea waves is given in Table 2-1. Recognize that the
largest waves in the sea may be nearly 70% bigger than the significant
wave height. It is also important to understand that though there is a
dominant wave period associated with significant waves, there are also
waves in the field of equal height but with up to twice the wave period.
There is a tendency to treat the significant wave height as if it were a

real wave, and the only wave in the wave field, equating the sea to the
monochromatic cases of wake and swell. However, this is incorrect and
produces a wrong estimate of the amount of energy associated with the
waves. The energy contained in a sea characterized by its significant wave
height is only half of the energy in a monochromatic wave of that same
height and period, so for the same amount of energy, Hs = 0.7 Hmonochromatic.
This means that the damage caused by a 0.6-m (2-ft)-high train of boat
wake waves equates to the damage caused by set of storm waves with a
nearly 1-m (3-ft) significant height.
As waves enter shallow water, or, technically, water depths that are half
the wavelength or less, they tend to deform, becoming shorter in length
with crests reaching higher above the still water line. At some critical stage
the waves become so steep from the shoaling that they will break. For
most situations, the breaking occurs when the wave height is 55 to 75%
of the water depth. As a rule of thumb, the maximum size of a wave near
shore could be considered to be two-thirds of the water depth, though
60% is the commonly accepted ratio.
Currents Virtually every harbor site must deal with currents to some
degree. Currents may be tidally driven or caused by wind-driven circula-
tion, or may be river flow or stream discharge. In inland waters, the
current flow is unidirectional, i.e., always flowing out to sea, but in coastal
regimes the currents may experience flow reversal at different stages of
the tide cycle. In large bodies of water, the currents may be omnidirec-
tional, following the directions of the winds. Wind-driven currents
Table 2-1. Statistics of Sea Waves
Wave Probability of Wave H/Hs
Most frequent wave Ĥ 60% 0.50

–
Mean wave height H 50% 0.63
Root mean square wave height Hrms 36.8% 0.71
Significant wave height Hs 13.5% 1.00
(average of highest third)
Average highest 10% wave H10 3.9% 1.27
Average highest 1% wave H1 0.35% 1.68
generally move at an angle of the wind, as much as 45 deg due to coriolis

effects, but the off-angle direction is more typically about 15 deg to the
right of the wind direction. The maximum speed of a current being driven
by wind is generally taken to be about 3% of the sustained wind speed.
Prediction of the magnitude of currents in rivers is dependent on the
gradient of the stream as well as the volume of water being moved. Veloci-
ties in the stream can vary by an order of magnitude between severe
flooding situations and low-flow drought conditions. In riverine situa-
tions, velocities can be computed using hydraulic modeling techniques as
long as the geometric information about the stream can be obtained. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) maintain records of river flowages that can be useful sources in
establishing the expected speeds of currents.
In coastal areas, currents are driven by the rise and fall of the tide. The
rise and fall of a tide alone does not produce a current, but if there are
constrictions that limit the free passage of tidal waters, then strong cur-
rents can form through constricted areas at various times. The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) maintains tide tables,
and for some of the more significant navigation areas, NOAA has com-
puted the expected current speeds associated with the daily tides.
Flow in a river is not uniform across the width or depth of the channel.
Usually the fastest flow is about 10 to 20% of the depth below the surface.
The main channel, referred to as the thalweg, meanders between the
channel banks. At river bends the thalweg moves to the outside of the
bend, where bank erosion usually occurs. The flow of the river current in
the bend becomes rotational and a boater may experience more turbu-
lence in that area. On the inside of bends, shoaling occurs. USACE will
sometimes introduce spur dikes or other structural devices along the
shoreline to control erosion and shoaling, and force the thalweg to remain
in a stable location.
Water Levels The navigability of a waterway, the growth of waves,

and the strength of currents are strongly influenced by depth of water.
With few exceptions, water levels are never constant. On ocean coasts,
tidal response adjusts the water level by as little as a few centimeters to
roughly 10 m (30 ft) daily or even twice daily. In closed hydrologic basins,
ranging from small streams being swollen by rain water runoff after a
local storm, to the Great Lakes that fluctuate seasonally due to evapo-
transpiration, and also over a cycle of a decade due to regional hydrology,
the amount of change may be on the order of a meter or more. Observed
shifts in global climatic behavior also suggest a long-term rising trend in
mean water levels everywhere. Estimates based on present rates of change
are for a rise of 12 to 17 cm (4.5–7 in.) per century (Bindoff et al. 2007) if
present climatic patterns persist. Recent USACE planning policy is to
assume that future sea level rise may be accelerated from the current rates,
following a parabolic rise pattern (USACE 2009). These extrapolations
suggest global sea level rises could reach 0.5 to 1.5 m (1.5–5 ft) by year
2100.
Because the life of a harbor is expected to extend a half-century or more,
the effects of some degree of sea level rise need to be included in the design
analysis. The adjustment should not be considered universal, however, as
different regions experience different rates of change. Most of the U.S.
ocean coastline is experiencing a rise rate generally between 3 and 5 mm
(0.1–0.2 in.) per year. However, in contrast, for the northern Pacific coast,
in Puget Sound, and Alaska, the rate is between −3 and −10 mm (−0.1 to
−0.4 in.) per year. This indicates a trend of virtually no rise to even a falling
sea level (NOAA/NOS 2009) for this part of the coastline. Similar long-
term water level declines are occurring in the Great Lakes, with water
levels on the order of 30 to 60 cm (10–25 in.) below the mean.
In most cases, tidal elevations or other hydrologically controlled water
levels are treated as steady-state conditions, and waves or current effects
are then based on those levels. The concern is both at the extreme high
values and at the extreme low values since both might cause issues for
navigation and navigation structures. At high water levels, waves may be
larger, currents faster, and flooding or overtopping of more concern. At
low water levels, sedimentation and hazards to navigation become a
concern, as well as scour around structures.
Short-term, generally wind-induced, water fluctuations can also occur.
As wind blows across the water, the stress applied to the water surface,
in addition to forming waves, will push the water body en masse toward
an opposing shoreline. This phenomenon is known as storm surge. It is
most exaggerated and extreme in relatively shallow bodies of water. As
winds blow from west to east across Lake Erie, which is generally less
than 33 m (108 ft) deep, the water levels at the west end can rise 2–2.5 m
(6.5–8 ft), while at the west end they simultaneously drop about the same
amount. A secondary effect of storm surge is seiche, which is the sloshing
back and forth of the water in the basin once the wind stops blowing or
changes. The seiche will have a natural period that may range from
minutes to hours with magnitude decimeters or more until it dissipates.
The specific calculation of the magnitude of storm surge, as is done for
hurricane inundation, often requires a numerical calculation based on a
detailed geometric description of the basin and its depth. For most coastal
areas, these calculations are already published as part of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard mapping efforts
done for all the U.S. coastal areas. However, if precise surge values are
required at a given location or for a specific storm condition, a dedicated
surge modeling effort is required. Simple estimates can also be made
applying the following relations:
Δ h d = 2.44 × 10 −5 ( F d )
1.66
(U 2 Fg )
a
(2-11)
and
a = 2.02 × ( F d )
−0.0768
(2-12)
where Dh is the increase in water level, d is the static depth of water (no
wind), F is the fetch distance, U is the sustained wind speed, and g is the
gravity constant (Sibul 1955).
Water levels near shore can also be influenced by the waves as an excess
of wave energy is pressed against the beach, causing the water to rise
hydrostatically against the pressure of the waves. This phenomenon,
referred to as wave set-up, can increase the water level at the shore by 0.1
to 0.3 m (4–12 in.); however, the effect occurs inshore of the wave breaker
line. For this reason, wave set-up is not generally a concern for navigation
because that occurs outside the breaker zone. However, it can affect shore
land areas by increasing the flood levels right at the water line.
Ice In northern latitudes, harbors may be prone to ice formation or

growth during a portion of the year. In some cases the ice growth is so
significant that the harbor ceases to be operational, while in other areas
the conditions may be mild enough to permit continued operations or at
least allow small craft to remain berthed in their slips. The thickness of
statically growing ice may be estimated based on the Stefan equation
(USACE 2002a):
η = α AFDD (2-13)
where h is the ice thickness in inches, a is a coefficient that depends on

the general snow and meteorological conditions, and AFDD is the accu-
mulated freezing degree days in degrees Fahrenheit (summation of
number of days in a season where the average daily temperature is below
32°F multiplied by the average daily departure below freezing). Typical
values for a range from 0.20 to 0.80 depending on the snow and meteo-
rological conditions (USACE 2002a). Larger values of a reflect no snow
cover, while lower values are typical for heavy snow areas. While this
expression may be converted to metric units, it is standardly employed
only in English units because it incorporates empirical unit conversions
in the a coefficient between degrees Fahrenheit and inches. The expres-
sion should be used only as a guideline because significant variability in
snow cover or wide fluctuations in air temperatures above and below
freezing during the observation period can greatly affect the ice growth.
Fresh water bodies demonstrate an unusual characteristic: the warmest
water during the winter is at the floor due to the property of fresh water
that causes it to be most dense at a temperature slightly above freezing.

The warm water therefore sinks, with cooler water backfilling above. This
property is often capitalized on for ice mitigation steps.
Ice may impose loads, affect navigation, or trigger structural deforma-
tions in several ways. Inside quiescent harbors, smooth sheets of ice may
thermally expand, causing crushing loads on walls or floats and hulls.

Static sheets may also experience seiche action from oscillations of the
water level, even with an ice cover present. The ice sheets will typically
be frozen to any hard surface, referred to as adfreeze. In fact, the thermal
conductivity of the hard surface may be greater than that of the ice itself,
so the ice growth around the surface may be thicker than elsewhere. This
strong bond will not fail easily, so the consequence can be jacking of piles
out of the bottom soil as the water level rises and falls.
Ice in unconstrained areas may dynamically respond to winds, waves,
or currents. While a continuously blowing wind or a moving current may
push the ice as a continuous sheet, typically some perturbation—whether
wave action, a thin spot in the ice, a bend in a river, or a hard point pierc-
ing the ice—will cause the ice to break into pieces or floes. Based on the
average value for ice thickness, it is possible to compute the characteristic
maximum dimension of a floating ice piece. The characteristic diameter
of a broken ice piece is:
1
⎡ Eh 3 ⎤4 (2-14)
Lc = ⎢ 2 ⎥
⎣ 12 y(1 − v ) ⎦
where Lc is the characteristic length in feet, h is the ice thickness in feet, y
is the specific weight of water, E is the modulus of elasticity, and v is Pois-
son’s ratio of ice (USACE 2002b). The characteristic length is typically 15
to 20 times the thickness of the ice (the lower value applies to weaker ice,
which occurs as the ice warms). For a 0.9-m (35-in.) ice thickness, the
characteristic dimension of a floe would range between 12 and 16 m
(40–50 ft), as shown in Table 2-2.
If during the process of breakup the ice is relieved of buoyant support,
i.e., pushed or lifted out of the water onto a bank (or another piece of ice),
then the largest size of floe is given by:
1
l ⎛ σf ⎞2 (2-15)
=
h ⎜⎝ ρi gh ⎟⎠
where l/h is the aspect ratio of broken ice, σf is the flexural strength of ice,
and ρig is the specific weight of ice (Cox et al. 1983). The largest dimension
of broken ice is typically 7 to 13 times the thickness of the ice. Based on
a 0.9-m (35-in.) ice thickness, the largest size of these floes ranges from 6.1
to 12.2 m (20–40 ft), as shown in Table 2-3.
Table 2-2. Characteristic Lengths of Ice Sheets for Reported Values of

Ice Modulus of Elasticitya
Modulus of Elasticity, E Characteristic Length, Lc

(MPa/ksi)b (m)
3,447.4/500 12.5
5,171.1/750 13.9
6,894.7/1,000 14.9
8,618.4/1,250 15.8
a
Ice sheets are 0.9 m (1 ft) thick.
b
USACE (2002b).
Table 2-3. Largest Dimension of Broken Ice Floe for Reported Values of
Ice Flexural Strength
Largest Dimension of Broken Ice

Flexural Strength of Ice, σf Aspect Ratio, Floe for 0.9-m (1-ft)-Thick Ice
(kPa/psi) L/H (m)
344.7/50 6.5 5.9

689.5/100 9.1 8.35
1,033.5/150 11.2 10.2
1,379.0/200 12.9 11.8
Source: Cox et al. (1983)
These characteristics of ice are needed to determine ice forces on the

harbor infrastructure as well as to further define the geometry require-
ments of the harbor. Ice force on a pier is given by the expressions:
Fc = Ci mkσ c bh Crushing (2-16)
Fb = C0σ b bh tanβ Bending (2-17)
where
Ci is an indentation coefficient, which is a function of the aspect ratio (b/h
= structure diameter/ice thickness), and varies between 6 for very
small b/h values to an asymptotic value of 1.5 for large aspect ratios
m is a combined shape and contact coefficient with range of 0.4 to 0.9
sc is the compressive strength of ice
sb is the bending strength of ice
C0 is a function of the rack and bevel of the structure ranging in value
from 0.15 for 0.38 for all but very sharp and steeply raked pier noses
(Michel 1978).
For weak spring ice, sc = 100 psi, and generally sb is taken as half that
value. Current design codes in Canada and the United States recommend
using 200 psi < sc < 250 psi for estimating forces. If force is computed for
a mass of rubbled ice rather than a solid ice sheet, then the thrust calcula-
tion should assume an equivalent thickness of ice equal to roughly 70%
of the total thickness of the rubble mass to account for voids in the matrix.
CREATING THE DESIGN CRITERIA
The methods described above allow for the definition of input condi-
tions. Frequently, however, more than one environmental factor may
occur simultaneously, and these may or may not be independent vari-
ables. The combination of winds and waves is generally taken as interde-
pendent, so that wind of a given return period is generally associated with
a wave height of the same return period. (Note that this is not true for
swell that originates from a distant and totally separate wind field.)
However, tides and waves are largely independent of each other, so an
extreme tide does not necessarily occur coincident with an extreme wave.
The most common dependent relationship is between waves and storm
surge since both are produced by the same wind conditions over the same
fetch.
Therefore, when establishing the risk level for design, the composite
probability of occurrence of all the variables that can act together must be
combined to set the single risk level. This compilation of risk is given by
the expression:
P ( a, b ) = P ( a ) × P ( b ) (2-18)
The joint probability of the 1-year event water level occurring with the
100-year wave is 1%, or a 100-year combined event. However, the prob-
ability of the 2-year water level and the 50-year wave is also 1%, or a
100-year combined event. Therefore, the designer must consider all the
combinations of events that produce the same risk and determine which
is the most severe. Shown in Fig. 2-6 is an example of that calculation to
determine which combination of wave and water level produces the worst
wave overtopping of a structure.
The calculation illustrates that the worst transmitted wave height
occurs not at the highest water level or largest wave, but, rather, at the
10-year wave and water level condition (Cox and Pirrello 2001).
A graphical example of final, fully specified design criteria considering
the winds, the inferred wave heights and periods, the water levels, and
the associated probability of occurrence of each, is shown in Fig. 2-7. As
mentioned earlier, the owner uses these criteria along with the risk
Fig. 2-6. Example calculation of joint probability analysis to define highest risk
value
Source: Cox and Pirrello (2001)
Fig. 2-7 Example of fully specified design criteria

analysis to determine the severity of conditions the design must

accommodate.
With changing climate trends, there is some speculation that histori-
cally based statistics may no longer reflect future conditions appropri-
ately. Studies of the probable impact of climate change conducted for the
New York City region extrapolates that, from a baseline situation defined
by the conditions observed between 1971 to 2000, by the year 2020 what
had been considered a 100-year return period event would now only be
a 65- to 80-year event. By 2080 that same 100-year event may equate to an
occurrence of once every 15 to 35 years (Rosenzweig and Solecki 2010).
Therefore, when building a risk-based design criterion, it is important to
incorporate recent history to properly reflect changing trends.
SMALL CRAFT HARBOR ENTRANCES
The next stage of analysis places a bound on the parameters needed to

both operate and survive. These requirements generally address the navi-
gational and maneuvering needs of small craft harbor yachts.
Offshore Approach Corridors

As a boat approaches a small craft harbor entrance, the required lane
width is a function of both the vessel’s ability to maneuver and the sea
state. For pure steerage considerations in ideal conditions, the required
maneuvering lane width is 1.3B, where B is the beam of the vessel. This
takes into account the small perturbations in steering due to hydrody-
namic effects around a boat hull. For a boat with a 15-ft beam, the pertur-
bations amount to yaw of +/− 2 ft about the intended heading. For
moderate conditions, the required maneuvering width increases to 1.5B,
and to 1.8B for poor conditions. Table 2-4 summarizes the navigational
conditions dictating maneuvering requirements (PIANC 1997).
For passing traffic, the minimum recommended clearance between
vessel maneuvering lanes is 1.5B. If the approach channel is laterally
restricted by depth, then the clearance to the bank at navigable depth [i.e.,
at least 1 m (3 ft) deeper than the deepest draft vessel] should be an addi-
tional 0.5B (PIANC 1997). The basic traffic clearance requirements consid-
ering steerage only are shown in Fig. 2-8. The minimum overall approach
channel width for two-way traffic is thus approximately 5B to 6B. Typi-
cally this results in a minimum entrance width of roughly 25–30 meters
(80–100 feet). This requirement increases for a large population of boats
at the marina. If the marina berths are roughly 200 or more boats, the
entrance width should be augmented from the minimum by the addition
of 3 to 10 feet. One-way traffic is generally presumed to be a width of 3B,
Table 2-4. Conditions Dictating Maneuvering Requirements
Additional
Parameter Condition Limit Adjustments
<8 knots
Vessel speed Mild 0

Moderate 8–12 knots 0
Poor >12 knots 0.1B
Crosswinds Mild <15 knots 0
Moderate 15–33 knots 0.4B
Poor >33 knots 0.8B
Crosscurrents Mild 0.2–0.5 knots 0.2B
Moderate 0.5–1.5 knots 0.7B
Poor >1.5 knots 1.0B
Longitudinal currents Mild <1.5 knots 0
Moderate 1.5–3.0 knots 0.1B
Poor >3.0 knots 0.2B
Wave height Mild <1 m 0
Moderate 1–3 m 1.0B
Poor >3 m 2.2B
B, beam (maximum width of a vessel).
Fig. 2-8. Basic traffic clearance requirements for ideal, moderate, and poor
conditions
measured at navigable depth. If turns or bends occur in the channel

course, additional width is required in the bend to account for the skew
in the track of the vessel that occurs as it makes the turn.
If the external effects of the sea acting on the vessel can impinge long
enough to displace the vessel, then the required traffic clearance increases
further. During storms, when waves are between 1 and 3 m (3–9 ft), the
recommended total corridor width increases to 8B. If the waves exceed
3 m (9 ft), the navigational corridor increases to 9B.
For design, the width of the entrance is made equal to the width of the
approach channel. Assuming two-way traffic, the minimum navigable
width of the entrance is typically taken as either 6 times the largest beam
(B) of the fleet that uses the small craft harbor (at navigable depth), or 0.7
to 1.0 times the length of the largest boat. These recommendations are
essentially the same since the ratio of length to beam of a larger ship is
normally in the range of 5 < L/B < 6. Navigable width is the width at lowest
tide where water depth is at least 1 m (3 ft) below the keel of the deepest
draft boat. If navigation through the entrance is expected under storm
conditions, the entrance width should be increased to match the widened
approach channel.
Traffic congestion and the number of vessels using the harbor also
dictate entrance size. Nichol (1985) recommends that the entrance width
be approximately 5 times the largest beam plus 3% of the number of
vessels berthed and/or launched, reported in meters (use 10% if reported
in feet). This guidance gives a similar minimum entrance width to the 6B
guidance previously stated, for small craft harbors of 300 slips or less.
However, it adds width to account for congestion in the entrance for larger
small craft harbors. Therefore, entrance requirements may exceed the
minimums needed just for simple two-way traffic.
The final approach to the harbor entrance should be straight, and the
portion of the straight approach should be at least 3 to 5 times the length
of the largest vessel that uses the harbor. Ideally, the approach to the
harbor should meet currents or winds head-on, but where this is not
practical, the ship drift angle should not exceed 10 to 15 deg, at least where
difficult navigational conditions are expected. The entrance tidal velocity
should not exceed 3.0 knots, or 1.5 knots for crosscurrents and 30 knots
for crosswinds (Tsinker 1997; PIANC 1997). If such conditions are com-
monly expected, the entrance width should be increased by an additional
0.3B minimum.
Boats approaching the entrance will also experience partial to full
reflection of waves from any small craft harbor breakwater wall. This will
cause the waves immediately in front of the entrance to be larger than in
the open water in a zone where boats have poorest maneuvering capacity
due to reduced speeds. This reflection zone of influence extends out from
the breakwater structure at least two wavelengths. For a wave period of
6 sec in 6 m (20 ft) of water, this zone extends at least 75 m (250 ft) seaward.
Design of a proper entrance approach should include wave-absorbing
features to remove reflection effects extending at least this far into the
approach corridor. Recognize that the reflection may be oblique, so the
amount of wave absorber required may be wider than just the width
of the approach corridor. An example of this detail is shown in Fig. 2-9.

Fig. 2-10 shows wave reflection off various types and configurations of
small craft harbor entrance structures.
If a harbor is located in ice-infested waters, additional consideration
needs to be made to ensure that ice rubbling will not occur across the
mouth of the harbor, impeding navigation. If ice floes formed in the open
Fig. 2-9. Extent of entrance wave reflection and control requirements

Fig. 2-10. Wave reflection off various types and configurations of small craft
harbor entrance structures (Bayfield, Wisconsin)
water encounter an opening such as the breakwater entrance gap, then

arching across the opening and rubbling of the ice generally occurs. This
rubbling will occur when the clear span of the opening is less than 4 times
the floe diameter, and even when there is only 30% ice cover outside the
harbor (Calkins and Ashton 1975). If the harbor entrance is maintained
by ice breaking to allow year-round operation, then the entrance also
needs to be made wide enough to accommodate induced rubbling in the
channel. The process of ice breaking, though creating an open water path,
does not remove ice from the channel. Broken ice is pushed under the
adjacent ice sheet by the ice breaker, where it refreezes. This locally thick-
ens the ice. After several passes to clear the entrance channel, the ice
becomes too thick to be broken and a new channel must be cut, requiring
more clearance through the entrance.
Entrance Orientations
The entrance is the most restricted and highest-risk area in the small
craft harbor. The entrance must be narrow enough to prevent wave pen-
etration, but not so narrow that it locally accelerates currents or restricts
circulation and flushing. Entrance orientation is preferentially away from
the dominant storm events and toward more daily breezes and waves. In
general, an entrance should be located as far as possible from a shoreline.
The entrance must be designed so that a vessel does not need to make
any maneuvers at the entrance. The craft can start maneuvers only after
it passes the entrance and enters a more protected area. To avoid the
danger of a boat grounding under the effects of winds, waves, or currents,

the entrance channel should not be placed parallel to the shoreline.
For powerboat maneuvering, the entrance should not cause returning
boats to experience a following sea, because rudder control may then be
lost. The entrance should also not be such that boats approach the small
craft harbor in a beam sea condition, as this may induce broaching of the
boat. Conversely, if sail-powered vessels also use the harbor, the entrance
cannot be pointed directly into the wind because the boats must tack
through the entrance to make headway, and a pure headwind prevents
progress. Generally, a compromise entrance orientation is a quartering sea
based on winds and or waves. For safety, Tsinker (1997) recommends that
the angle of the course heading in or out of the harbor not exceed 30 deg
from the normal to the entrance.
Entrance Channel Depths

The required depths of the entrance channel will depend on various
site and operating factors. The minimum depth of the channel, taken at
the lowest expected water level, should conform to a minimum depth
under the keel of 0.9 m (3 ft) plus an incremental percentage of the deepest
vessel draft to allow for vessel motions. In sheltered waters, the increment
is 10% of draft, increased to 30% in waves up to 1 m (3 ft), and 50% of
draft in higher waves with unfavorable periods and directions (PIANC
1995; Tobiasson and Kollmeyer 2000). If the channel bottom is hard or
rocky rather than soft or sandy, additional allowance should be provided
as protection against grounding damage. If the channel is very narrow as
well as just meeting the guidelines above, then accommodation for vessel
squat and sinkage due to the passage of vessels should be added. Uneven
trim of a vessel will also dictate greater channel depth. If planning a
channel maintenance campaign, the design depth of the channel should
also allow for future sedimentation in the channel. For more detailed
guidance in computing required channel depths considering vessel
hydrodynamics and the effects of wave action, the reader is referred to
Tsinker (1997).
A further consideration is locating the small craft harbor entrance such
that the water depth at the small craft harbor entrance does not fall in the
range of 130 to 160% of the storm wave height. Typically, sediment trans-
port will occur across the mouth of the entrance, forming a sand bar.
During storm events the bar (or any water depth scenario in this range)
will trigger breaking waves, causing a severe navigational hazard. Break-
ing of a wave over a sand bar formed at the entrance to the basin,
as shown in Fig. 2-11, illustrates this type of hazard condition that can
be encountered at small craft harbor entrances when not designed
correctly.
Fig. 2-11. Breaking wave at boat basin entrance (Harbor Creek, Pennsylvania)
Preferably, the entrance should be in a water depth at least twice the

height of a design storm wave to be outside the limit for breaking. Practi-
cally, for most navigable bodies of water a storm wave height of 2.5 m
(8 ft) or more can be expected, indicating that the minimum water depth
for an entrance should be at least 4 m (12 ft). Thereafter, common depths
for little or no movement of bottom sediments by waves is 1.6Hs,12, where
Hs,12 is the significant wave height 12 hours/year, which is nominally also
the breaking wave depth during the largest storms (CUR 1990). An
entrance depth of 4 to 5 m (13–16 ft) is therefore ideal to both minimize
maintenance and provide safety.
Allowable Turns
If a straight approach through an entrance is not possible or desirable,
then the arrangement of overlapping breakwaters should allow a ship to
pass through the restricted entrance and turn and reorient to the sea
before it is hit broadside by the waves. Allowable curvature of the channel
ranges from bend radii of as little as 2 times the vessel’s length to 10 times
the vessel’s length. The larger radii are needed when the turn angle is
greater than 35 deg, or when vessels are traveling faster than 5 m/sec
(10 knots). However, channel turn deflections of greater than 30 deg

should be avoided due to maneuvering and visibility considerations.
For maneuvering speeds less than 5 m/sec, which is typical for small
craft harbor approaches, the turn radius may be 4Lship or less where L is
the length of the vessel. Note: To keep a vessel under control it is generally
necessary to maintain at least a 1.5 m/sec (3 knots) forward speed. In the

most ideal conditions of calm water and no wind, a hard-over turn may
be executed with a radius of 1.8–2Lship, or as little as 1.2Lship if there are
twin reversed screws or assisted bow thrusters. When fairways are narrow
so that a reversal of direction is not possible, a dedicated turning circle
area with a diameter of a minimum of 1.3Lship, but preferably 2Lship, will
generally allow adequate room for the vessel to execute the maneuver
provided thrust assist is available (Tsinker 1997).
Interior Waterways
Similar geometric requirements exist for maneuvering in interior main
fairways. In these cases there are typically no bank clearance requirements;
instead, there are standoff requirements from moored vessels. Presuming
calm water conditions in the basin and low vessel speeds (<5 knots), the
guidelines for safe clearance of two-way vessel passage can be relaxed so
that the minimum separation between tee-heads is 6B (Bberthed + 0.5Bin + Bin
+ 0.5Bin + 0.5Bout + Bout + 0.5Bout + Bberthed). This is shown in Fig. 2-12.
Fig. 2-12. Calm basin fairway dimensions = 6B

If inner basin navigation is more adverse, i.e., heavy traffic density,

higher boat speeds, or vessel maneuvering, the safe maneuvering guide-
lines for approach channels should be extended into the berthing areas so
that the minimum separation should equal approximately 9B (B + 1.5B +
1.3B + 1.5B + 1.3B + 1.5B + B). This increases further to 10B if the basin
interior experiences waves or currents. Using a 15-m (50-ft)-long boat as

a basis, then a typical fairway separation between tee-heads is on the
order of 27 m (90 ft). Separations of less than 24 m (80 ft) would not be
recommended in this example.
If the waterway is a fairway between fingers rather than a main naviga-
tion channel, the fairway’s dimensions should be based on a vessel’s
ability to maneuver into or out of a slip. Fig. 2-13 shows four examples of
the space requirements. In any turn maneuver the boat requires an addi-
tional amount of space. The minimum increase in required maneuvering
room in a turn is given as L2ship/8R, where R is the turn radius (PIANC
1997; Tsinker 1997). For good, unassisted hard-over rudder turns where
R = 1.8 L, the increase in maneuvering width is L/15, or approximately
0.3B for typical beam-to-length ratios. Fig. 2-13(c) shows that the absolute
minimum fairway width is 1.3 L, which requires multiple back and turn
maneuvers, thruster assistance, or other supplemental steps such as
warping around the pier end. In ideal, quiet pool small craft harbors,
widths of 1.5 L are accepted as reasonable, requiring only a single back
and turn maneuver. If the small craft harbor basin suffers from currents
or wind effects such that boat steerage is compromised, a minimum
fairway width of 1.8 L is required. To avoid any back and turn maneuvers,
a fairway width of approximately 2 L is required. Other considerations
also apply to fairway widths. Long-term experience with changing boat
sizes in small craft harbors suggests that the median boat size will grow
10% due simply to owner preference. If there are no constraints on small
craft harbor basin size, it is prudent to design all fairways to 1.8 L such
that as the median size increases 10%, the fairway will shrink to roughly
1.5 L.
If mega-yachts [large recreational vessels usually 30 m (100 ft) or
longer] are to berth on the outside of tee-heads, the fairway must either
be wide enough for the vessels to reverse direction in the width of the
fairway, or a turning circle must be allowed somewhere along the fairway.
Fig. 2-14 shows that with thruster assistance, a mega-yacht can be turned
around in a fairway of width 10Bslip, (turning circle diameter is 1.3Lmega). If
cross aisles align, then the mega-yacht can be spun in a fairway 9Bslip wide.
With no thruster assistance, a full turning circle is needed with a diameter
of at least 3.5Lmega plus clearance from any vessels berthed in adjacent
waters.
A special mooring case, shown in Fig. 2-15 and now becoming popular
with mega-yacht berthing, is to moor vessels side-tied to multiple main
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 2-13. Fairway widths for fairways between fingers; (a) fairway width in
quiet pool; (b) fairway width in winds and currents; (c) minimum fairway
width, requiring thruster assist or pier warping; (d) fairway width for no
maneuvering
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2-14. Minimum fairway widths for tee-head mega-yacht berthing;

(a) minimum fairway width for juxtaposed piers = 10Bslip; (b) minimum
fairway width for aligned piers = 9Bslip
Fig. 2-15. Pitchfork pier berthing = 6B
piers arrayed in a “pitchfork” configuration, rather than in finger slips. In

such arrangements it would be common to find three or more vessels
lying against a main pier, creating a dead-end mooring basin between the
piers. Each basin would hold six or more yachts. The recommended width
of the basin is then 2B + 150 ft (Tsinker 1997). For typical beam dimensions
of mega-yachts, this is essentially the same as the recommendation of 6B
clearance between tee-heads in calm basins.
BASIN AGITATION
Entrance Diffraction Patterns

The opening in the breakwater serving as the entrance to a small craft
harbor is also a point where waves can leak into the small craft harbor.
This leakage process is called wave diffraction. The degree of leakage and
wave penetration is not simply a function of the opening’s width, but
rather how wide it is relative to a wavelength. In nonstorm conditions the
opening may be several wavelengths wide; in a storm, the opening will
be only a couple wavelengths wide because the lengths of the waves are
longer due to the larger wave periods. The entrance configuration shown
in Fig. 2-16 demonstrates ineffective entrance geometry. Waves diffracted
Fig. 2-16. Wave propagation through small craft harbor entrance (Ashland,
Wisconsin)
off the end of the outer breakwater enter the small craft harbor, and the
entrance opening is oriented in a direction that allows unabated waves to
enter the calm water area behind.
Wave diffraction into entrances with very complicated geometries can
be studied only with computer simulations or physical models. However,
basic wave diffraction can be approximated with simplified diagrammatic
graphics based on theory and real measurements. Fig. 2-17 shows three
cases of wave diffraction where the entrance width is equal to twice the
wavelength. Fig. 2-17(a) shows the simplest monochromatic (single wave
period) case and Fig. 2-17(b) represents a situation where the sea is
dominated by long period swell waves. Fig. 2-17(c) is the equivalent case
for a local wind wave environment. In all cases, the peak period of the
sea or swell is equal to the monochromatic period. Note that for the width
of the entrance, waves penetrate into the small craft harbor basin with an
intensity of at least 50 to 60% up to 5 to 10 wavelengths beyond the
entrance.
Also note that the penetration effect appears much greater for a pure
monochromatic wave than for a wind wave. However, the difference can
be partially explained by the difference in the amount of wave energy
contained in the monochromatic wave versus the amount contained in a
wind wave of the same characteristic height; as discussed previously,
(a)
Fig. 2-17. Entrance wave diffraction for monochromatic, swell wave, and wind
wave conditions; (a) the simplest monochromatic (single wave period) case; (b)
a situation where the sea is dominated by long-period swell waves; (c) the
equivalent case for a local wind wave environment
0.707Hmono = Hs. In addition, though the actual gap width is the same, the
effective gap width is different for the various wave periods contained in
the sea state. For some of the waves in the train of waves that make up
the sea state, the breadth of the opening may be only one wavelength
across, and for others it may be more than two wavelengths. The transmis-
sion is the aggregate effect, typically less than the monochromatic case.
The entrance to a small craft harbor or harbor is frequently defined by
a set of parallel jetties extended offshore. The behavior of a wave decaying
down the length of a long, rock-lined entrance channel can be estimated,
at any distance down the channel, to be the same as if the wave were dif-
fracted through an entrance of the same width to that same point (Melo
and Guza 1990). Fig. 2-18 shows the comparison of wave transmission
122
Fig. 2-17. Continued

(c)
(b)
PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL CRAFT HARBORS
Fig. 2-18. Comparison of wave transmission between jetties versus split

diffraction between breakwater heads
between jetties versus split diffraction between two breakwater heads for
a channel and entrance width equal to 2 L.
In general, the attenuation of a wave propagating down the length of
a smooth-walled, deep rectangular channel is given by the expression
(Ursell 1952):
H ( x ) = H o e − Kx (2-19)
where
K = (2k/b)(␯/2σ)1/2
k = 2π/L
b = width of channel
l = local wave length
n = kinematic viscosity
s = 2p/T.
i = wave period
For a channel roughly 5,000 m (3 mi) long, 3.7 m (12 ft) deep, and
120 m (395 ft) wide, a wave with a 1.5-sec period will be attenuated 95%.
There is a companion situation when a wave encounters a deep hole

in the bottom. The waves do not penetrate fully past the hole. The shel-
tered zone behind the hole is effectively the same as if a detached break-
water of the same width was placed in the wave field. This phenomenon
is well known by Gulf of Mexico commercial fishermen, who frequently
take shelter during squalls over known deep spots in the muddy bottom.
Fig. 2-19 shows a comparison of the diffraction patterns behind the barrier
and behind the hole, both for a case where the interference is one wave-
length wide. Though the patterns are not identical, the magnitude of the
diffracted wave heights is similar. Fig. 2-19(c) shows a side-by-side com-
parison of the diffraction behavior.
BERTHING TRANQUILITY
For waves that will penetrate to the small craft harbor basin and
mooring areas, criteria must be established for what is tolerable and when
it is tolerable. A harbor tranquility guideline has been adapted from Pro-
visionally Recommended Criteria for a “Good” Wave Climate in Small Craft
Harbors, prepared for Fisheries Canada (Northwest Hydraulic Consul-
tants 1982). The original criteria were applied to boats ranging in length
from 12 to 61 m (40 to 200 ft) and used as a basis for those conditions
occurring in the small craft harbor that would lead to significant physical
damage to boats or docks, or that represented a life safety concern. Note:
These criteria are far more stringent than those commonly accepted for
craft left achored freely in a protected embayment because the interaction
of the vessel and the dock must also be considered.
The original criteria, presented throughout this discussion in its origi-
nal English units for clarity and consistency, considered berthing of boats
either in a head sea (waves taken on the bow or stern) or a beam sea
(waves taken directly on the side). The criteria also address three “encoun-
ter” scenarios: a 50-year design storm, a 1-year typical storm, and a weekly
environment, which could be interpreted more as the product of boat
wakes rather than wind waves. These criteria are generalized in Table 2-5
for waves approaching moored vessels from any angle.
The guideline dictates two criteria. One criterion is based on wave
height and is most applicable to locally generated wind waves of shorter
wave period. That criterion is given analytically as:
H allowable = ( A − B sin θ) (2-20)
where
A = 0.5 for weekly events, 1.0 for yearly events, and 2.0 for a 50-year event
B = 0.25 for weekly events, 0.5 for yearly events, and 1.25 for a 50-year
event
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2-19. Diffraction behavior behind a barrier and behind a hole;

(a) diffraction behind barrier; (b) diffraction behind hole; (c) barrier/hole
diffraction comparison
Source: McDougal et al. (1996)
Table 2-5. Generalized Harbor Tranquility Goals
Provisionally Recommended Criteria for a “Good” Wave Climate in Small Craft

Harborsa
Direction and
Peak Period Wave Event Wave Event Wave Event
of Design Exceeded Once in Exceeded Once a Exceeded Once
Harbor Wave 50 Years Year Each Week
Head seas These conditions Less than 1-ft Less than 1-ft
<2 sec not likely to wave height wave height
occur during
this event
Head seas Less than 2-ft Less than 1-ft Less than 0.5-ft
between 2 wave height wave height wave height
and 6 sec
Head seas Less than 2-ft Less than 1-ft Less than 0.5-ft
>6 sec wave height or wave height wave height or
4-ft horizontal or 2-ft 1.5-ft
wave motion horizontal horizontal
wave motion motion
Oblique seas Less than Less than Less than
(2 − 1.25 sin θ) (1 − 0.5 sin θ) (0.5 − 0.25 sin θ)
ft where θ is ft where θ is ft where θ is
the wave angle the wave the wave angle
from head sea angle from from head sea
head sea
Beam seas The conditions Less than 1-ft Less than 1.0-ft
<2 sec not likely to wave height wave height
occur during
this event
Beam seas Less than 0.75-ft Less than 0.5-ft Less than 0.25-ft
between 2 wave height wave height wave height
and 6 sec
Beam seas Less than 0.75-ft Less than 0.5-ft Less than 0.25-ft
>6 sec wave height or wave height wave height or
2-ft horizontal or 1-ft 0.75-ft
motion horizontal horizontal
motion motion
a
For criteria for an “excellent” wave climate, multiply by 0.75; for a “moderate”
wave climate, multiply by 1.25.
Source: Cox (2003)
θ = the angle of wave approach relative to a head sea (head sea = 0 deg).
This is graphically presented in Fig. 2-20.
Note that the criterion varies by more than a factor of 2, depending on

the orientation of the boat or slip between heads and beam seas. A single
tranquility value does not exist, contrary to the historic rule-of-thumb

goal of 0.3 m (1 ft). It is most restrictive when wave periods are between
2 and 6 sec, the range of natural roll and heave periods for most small
craft. The criterion has also been restated to address intermediate return
period events in Table 2-6, where the units are given in feet.
Fig. 2-21 illustrates the “tolerance” inherent in the criterion, based on
aversion to risk and also based on perceived quality of berthing in various
settings. Moderate quality is assumed to be 125% greater than good, and
excellent quality is 75% of good. As an example, the criterion suggests
that in a head sea, the goal for addressing a 50-year wave event might be
to limit the wave height to 2 ft as a “good” condition. However, the cri-
terion also allows for up to 2.5 ft for a moderate condition and down to
1.5 ft for an excellent condition.
A special tranquility goal is applied to boat ramp and launch areas
where small trailered or slung craft are to be launched and recovered.
Fig. 2-20. Acceptable “good” berthing tranquility for different wave approach
angles
Table 2-6. Intermediate Return Period Tranquility Criteria
Generalized Agitation Height (ft) for Intermediate Return Periods
Return “Excellent” “Good” “Moderate”

Period Classification Classification Classification
50 years 0.75 × (2 − 1.25 sin θ) 2 − 1.25 sin θ 1.25 × (2 − 1.25 sin θ)

25 years 0.75 × (1.75 1.75 − 1.05 sin θ 1.25 × (1.75
− 1.05 sin θ) − 1.05 sin θ)
10 years 0.75 × (1.5 − 0.9 sin θ) 1.5 − 0.9 sin θ 1.25 × (1.5 − 0.9 sin θ)
1 year 0.75 × (1 − 0.5 sin θ) 1.0 − 0.5 sin θ 1.25 × (1 − 0.5 sin θ)
1 week 0.75 × (0.5 0.5 − 0.25 sin θ 1.25 × (0.5
− 0.25 sin θ) − 0.25 sin θ)
Fig. 2-21. Tolerance for harbor tranquility criterion
Here both the boat and the launch vehicle, if exposed to any sort of wave
action, are very susceptable to damage or mechanical problems. The rec-
ommended guidance is that the wave agitation level around the launch
area not exceed 15 cm (6 in.) whenever a launch or retreival is occurring
(Tobiasson and Kollmeyer 2000).
Once wave periods exceed 6 sec, a second criterion becomes important:

horizontal movements of the vessel at the dock. This criterion considers
allowable surge, or sway, i.e., motions at the dock when mooring lines
may be strained and significant loads may be applied to the anchor
system. For this case, the concern is longer-period wave action (major
storm and swell). The amount of surge is controlled by the length of the
wave and depth of the water. For this case:
Egoal = (C − D sin θ) (2-21)
where
C = 1.5 for weekly events, 2.0 for yearly events, and 4.0 for a 50-year event
D = 0.75 for weekly events, 1.0 for yearly events, and 2.0 for a 50-year
event
θ = the angle of wave approach relative to a head sea.
The actual amount of boat horizontal excursion is taken as 65% of the

total excursion of a wave particle at the free surface for wave periods in
the range of 5 to 20 sec (Hiraishi et al. 1997), or:
E = ( 0.65) H cos h(2πd L) sin h(2πd L) (2-22)
where H is the total height of the wave, d is the water depth, and L is the
local wavelength. For very long-period waves, typically above 14 sec, this
criterion becomes the control and limits the allowable height to less than
the short-period wave height goals.
Recent research on wave overtopping of walls and breakwaters has
also suggested a different criterion based on the volume of water penetrat-
ing to the basin side (Allsop et al. 2005). The focus in this case is on vessels
moored within 5 to 10 m (15–30 ft) of the lee side of the breakwater. Table
2-7 presents recommended allowable overtopping thresholds.
Table 2-7. Recommended Allowable Overtopping Thresholds
Mean Overtopping Peak Overtopping

Discharge, q Volume, Vmax
(m3/sec/m length) (m3/m length) Consequence
q > 0.01 Vmax > 1–10 Sinking of small boats and

damage to larger yachts
q > 0.05 Vmax > 5–50 Significant damage or
sinking of larger yachts
Harbor Resonance
Interior basin agitation can also be the product of the phenomenon of

resonance. In this case the geometry of the basin is such that the dimen-
sions are multiples of the dominant local wavelength. Fig. 2-22(a) and (b)
illustrate the various modes of agitation that can develop and how they
are computed for various basin shapes. The problem is most prevalent
where swell waves (nearly monochromatic) occur and will generally
occur wherever the wavelengths are long enough to be comparable to the
basin dimensions. However, in areas of only locally generated short-
period waves, even small basins can suffer harbor resonance effects
similar to those that large harbors experience with ocean swell.
Fig. 2-23(a) through (c) illustrate how the amplification can manifest
due to a narrowed entrance width, basin geometry, or changed water
depth. The effect is most pronounced in harbor basins that are very regular
in shape and that have parallel walls.
The previously stated berthing tranquility goals still apply; however,
typical mitigation steps for wave damping, such as sloped rock revet-
ments or other energy dissipaters, are ineffective in reducing the amplifi-
cation. This is because the harmonic reaction is purely geometry-induced,
and the typical thickness of an energy-absorbing surface is very small
compared with the wavelength. The smallest amount of wave energy in
the right geometric conditions can produce very large effects. Eliminating
this phenomenon from the basin usually entails significant changes to the
harbor geometry. This is usually not an option due to property constraints
or functional and navigational considerations. The remaining option is to
prevent the harmonic wave energy from penetrating into the harbor.
Fig. 2-24 shows four harbor entrance configurations and how each of
those configurations influences basin agitation. The comparison is based
on inferred wave behavior for a nearly rectangular harbor with a 16-m
(53-ft) depth and an incident wave period of 16 sec (Morita and Naka-
mura 1999). The configuration in Fig. 2-24(a) shows the agitation that
occurs with a simple opening in a breakwater. The configuration in Fig.
2-24(b) shows the same entrance with a breakwater covering the entrance.
For a long-period swell, adding a breakwater with a width equal to the
entrance width does little to reduce the wave agitation in the basin, and
it also causes problems with navigation. The configuration in Fig. 2-24(c)
shows jetty extensions shaped to produce “resonators.” The resonators do
stop much of the wave energy from entering the basin; however, the jetties
introduce other issues, including disruption of sediment bypassing and
added cost. The configuration in Fig. 2-24(d) shows a final open resonator
scheme that effectively reduces agitation in the basin, but leaves the exte-
rior less disruptive and offers the safest navigation approach and least
impact and cost.
(a)
Fig. 2-22. Natural periods of free oscillations for various semi-enclosed basin
geometrics: (a) Modes of harbor agitation and amplitude effects; (b) resonant
periods for various harbor geometries
Source: Wilson (1970)
(b)
BREAKWATERS AND ATTENUATORS
Achieving harbor tranquility goals typically requires the use of a wave

effects minimizing device. Such devices can be divided into two categories:
(1) fixed structures that do not move relative to the wave or waves and (2)
floating devices that dynamically respond to the hydraulics of the site. In
most situations, the concern in design is how the waves affect the structure
(for example, in defining harbor tranquility goals); however, for designing
harbor structures to support navigation needs, the concern is how the
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2-23. (a) Amplification effects for narrowed entrances; (b) amplification
effects for shoaled basins; (c) amplification effects for slender basins
Source: Wiegel (1964)
structures affect the waves. Whether fixed or floating, all structures located
in waves modify the waves according to the same principles.
Wave–Structure Interaction
Wave barriers need to be at least one-half wavelength wide in order to
generate an area of no or reduced waves. The amount of shadow must be
(c)
sufficient when the intent is to create a sheltered area behind a barrier,

providing a quiet mooring area for boats. Fig. 2-25 shows simple examples
of barriers one-quarter wavelength wide, one-half wavelength wide, and
one full wavelength wide. At the one-quarter wavelength width, no
shadow forms. At the one-half wavelength width, only a slight shadow
is apparent in the wake of the structure. At a full wavelength width, a
stronger reduction in the transmitted wave field is finally apparent.
In terms of real dimensions and common occurrences, at a site in 6 m
(20 ft) of water, the wavelength could range from roughly 24 m (80 ft) for
a 4-sec period, to 73 m (240 ft) for 10 sec. Therefore, 12-m to 36-m (40- to
120-ft)-wide wave barriers would be needed to be of functional value for
even a small part of the berthing area. When there is a chance for oblique
wave action, additional barrier length is needed. Lesser dimensions will
not suffice to offer sheltering to boats. This finding is consistent with
examples of beach shoreline changes behind offshore detached breakwa-
ters. Beach salients (seaward projections of the waterline) form behind
short, stubby breakwaters, while tombolos (beach fully connected to the
back side of a breakwater) form in the shadows of longer detached break-
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2-24. Entrance wave resonator control of harbor agitation; (a) simple
opening; (b) detached opening; (c) closed resonator; (d) open flanking resonator
136

(c)
(d)
PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SMALL CRAFT HARBORS
Fig. 2-25. Wave interaction with detached barriers; (a) barrier width L/4 (left)
and no shadow (right); (b) barrier width L/2 (left) and shadow inception
(right); (c) barrier width L (left) and wake shadow (right)
waters (Hardaway and Gunn 2000). This underscores the fact that large-
breadth dimension structures are needed to influence the wave field.
Structure details must be at least one-half wavelength broad to reflect
the wave field. Fig. 2-26 shows an example of waves impinging on a hori-
zontally stepped or sawtooth-shaped shoreline. The steps’ features range
in size from one-eighth wavelength to one-half wavelength. The simple
monochromatic examples show that reflections back from the steps only
begin to occur once the step features reach the one-half wavelength
dimension. Small features reflect the wave energy as if the wall were
straight, smooth, and oblique. This has major implications for wave reflec-
tions in harbor settings, where safe navigation and berthing is a concern,
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2-26. Wave reflection from stepped walls; (a) step increment L/8 (left) and
90-deg reflection (right); (b) step increment L/4 (left) and 90-deg reflection
(right); (c) step increment L/2 (left) and 180-deg reflection (right)
and along shorelines, where there is a potential to induce erosion on the

opposing shoreline.
HARBOR WAVE PROTECTION
Protection from waves and currents is achieved with the construction

structures generically referred to as breakwaters. These may be fixed to the
bottom or floating, solid or porous, continuous (vertically or horizontally)
or discontinuous, and composed of various materials. More precisely,
the term “breakwater” is reserved for those devices or structures that
effectively block 90% of the wave action, while attenuators serve to only
reduce the agitation to some acceptable level. Most floating structures are
considered attenuators, while those affixed to the bottom are breakwaters
of some sort.
Fixed Breakwaters
Fixed breakwaters typically appear in one of three forms: a rubble
structure constructed of piled rock or its equivalent; a slender cantilever
wall structure generally affixed to the bottom by piles and often only
penetrating to 80% of the water depth or less; or a gravity containment
structure that is a vertical-faced closed cell, and held in place largely by
its own weight. The selection of which type of fixed breakwater to use is
largely based on cost considerations, but operational differences among
the three types may also dictate the selection.
The rubble structure is created by building a mound of earthen material
and covered with an armor against erosion. Because of its trapezoidal
cross section, its footprint increases with water depth, and its cost rises
with the square of the water depth. Its survivability is also dependent on
the availability of suitably sized armor material. The cantilever wall, also
called a breakwall, has the least amount of footprint and so is preferred by
many regulators. However, for loading reasons, its range of applicability
is usually limited to wave height environments of 2 to 3 m (6–10 ft) or
less. The gravity structure generally requires the use of structural panels
or sheets assembled and interlocked together to construct a coffer wall or
bin, so its cost may be prohibitive in some applications. The vertical face
of this style of breakwater offers the greatest utility of both land and water
area, but also causes the most harsh basin tranquility conditions due to
wave reflections.
The most common form of wave protection is the rubble mound break-
water. There are various styles of rubble mounds, and their structural and
geotechnical design details are presented in various references (SPM 1984;
CIRIA 1991; d’Angremond and van Roode 2001). However, for the pur-
poses of navigation and harbor tranquility, wave transmission and wave
reflection characteristics are the primary concern.
To design a breakwater cross section, it is necessary to understand how
a typical breakwater works. The reader is referred to the references above,
and others, for detailed guidance in breakwater design; however, for the
purposes of explanation, the typical breakwater can be assumed to be
composed of multiple layers of graded stone sizes, ranging from small
material in the core to large material on the surface. Each layer is sized
and selected so that the cover layer interlocks with the layer below, and
no material may be leached out as a result of the washing action of the
waves.
In terms of performance, the part of the breakwater that is most visible,

i.e., the large rock outer layer, is not the most critical part, even though it
receives the most attention because it is what holds the structure together.
The impervious (or largely impervious) core of the breakwater is the
feature that prevents wave transmission. If the core is built too low, then
wave action can transmit over the top of the core through the large voids
among the armor rocks that sit on the crest. To function properly, the
core of a breakwater needs to extend at least as high as the static storm-
water level. Fig. 2-27 shows an example of a layered breakwater under
construction.
Fig. 2-27. Example of layered armor breakwater construction

Source: Courtesy of Dan Natchez Assoc.
If the breakwater is founded in deep water, it is not always necessary

to place armor stone to the full depth on the seaward face. Generally,
armor stone weighing half the design size may be placed on the slope
lower than at a depth of 1.5 to 2.0 Hdesign. If taking this economic step, care
is required to check the armored slope area for various water levels and
intermediate wave heights, as these may produce more severe exposures

than the extreme water level and wave height.
If a breakwater overtops, the most common initial failure of the armor
is on the leeward side since the force of the wave and the force of gravity
are no longer opposing on the armor stone. Therefore, the armoring of the
leeward face is very sensitive. However, if little overtopping of the break-
water is expected, it may also be possible to economize on the armor
placed on the leeward face. In this circumstance, experience has shown
that the large armor need only extend to a depth of approximately 1.0
Hdesign below the water level.
Finally, the toe of the breakwater requires special considerations to
ensure that it will not be undercut, allowing the entire slope to slump and
fail. Shown in Fig. 2-28 are examples of four different toe design details
intended for various wave climates and bottom conditions.
Improper execution of a toe detail can lead to serious structural failure.
Shown in Fig. 2-29, toe detail (a) requires preplacement of the toe berm,
which may be a difficult task in open water due to placement control.
Frequently toe (a) gets built like (c) because it allows the contractor to
simply create a pad and then build vertically in layers. Unfortunately, this
Fig. 2-28. Typical breakwater toe details: moderate energy environment (left)
and high energy environment (right), where ds ~ design wave height
Source: (USACE 1995)
Fig. 2-29. Good and bad toe details: a) difficult in open water; b) good detail;
c) poor detail allows undercutting; d) only good for coarse rock bottoms
Source: CIRIA (1991), reproduced with permission
allows undercutting because the bedding layer is too small to resist scour.
The toe (b) detail is better in that it buries the raw terminus of the slope
armor away from scour, and can be executed using either land or marine
construction. Toe (d) should only be used if the native bottom is similar
to the armor in size and texture (CIRIA 1991).
Wave Transmission over Structures The freeboard of a breakwater

needs to be at least as high as the design wave height. If the stormwater
level reaches the crest of the breakwater, half of the wave height will pass
over. If the amount of freeboard above the water level is the same as the
wave height, about 15% will pass over. If the breakwater crest is sub-
merged by a wave height, then about 85% of the wave will be transmitted
(Cox 1991). (Note: This is also consistent with the wave-breaking theory
that suggests that a wave will start to break and become height limited
when the water depth is between 70 and 130% of wave height, depending
on the fronting slope.) Fig. 2-30 shows the actual transmission relation-
ship, which is roughly described by the simple equations:
Kt = −0.3 ( Rc H s ) + 0.5, 1.0 < Rc H s < 1.0 (2-23)
Kt = 0.8 , Rc H s < −1.0 (2-24)
Kt = 0.1, Rc H s > 1.0 (2-25)

Fig. 2-30. Breakwater overtopping transmission

Source: CIRIA (1991)
where Rc is the freeboard at the design water level, and Hs is the significant
wave height. Figure 2-29 applies to a standard trapezoidal layered armor
breakwater with a side slope of roughly 2H : 1V.
The theoretical crest height for a breakwater may be lower than the
initial design crest height. Soft bottom conditions will typically trigger
settlement of the breakwater, lowering the crest height over time. Geo-
technical investigations should be conducted and the amount of antici-
pated settlement computed. A settlement “allowance” should be added
to the theoretical crest elevation to give a construction elevation.
Wave Runup on Breakwater Slope Transmission of a wave over a

breakwater is not equivalent or correlated with the height of wave run up
on a structure, though the driving mechanism is the same. Runup is the
measure of how high a mass of water will reach as a wave crawls up a
surface. Typically, the amount of runup on a rock armored breakwater
slope is only one-half to one-third of the runup on an equivalent smooth
slope. Shown in Fig. 2-31 is a comparison of runup heights for various
slope geometries.
Fig. 2-31. Example wave runup elevations on various slopes

Source: USACE (1981)
The height of wave runup on rough surface breakwaters rarely ever

exceeds the height of the incoming wave, while a smooth surface pro-
duces runup heights reaching twice the incident wave height. Therefore,
rock-armored breakwaters constructed intentionally to present a smooth
surface to the waves for aesthetics purposes should be avoided. Also,
steeper slopes produce greater runup heights. However, as will be dis-

cussed further in the following section, much of this runup is confined to
the seaward face as more of the wave action is reflected and thus does not
evolve into a transmitted wave in the harbor basin. On steeply sloped
breakwaters, the crest will be very wet and may be unsafe for pedestrian
or vehicular use during storm events. Fig. 2-32 suggests guidance on toler-
able overtopping water volumes.
Fig. 2-32. Critical overtopping volumes for various situations

Source: CIRIA (1991)
Alternative Fixed Breakwaters When water depths are excessive or

if large armor rock material is not affordable, minimum footprint and
alternative material breakwaters may be considered. The two basic forms
of minimum footprint breakwaters are (1) simple panel walls, or (2) grav-
ity-stabilized cells or cofferdams. Fig. 2-33 illustrates splash created from
a vertical wall. Fig. 2-34 shows a comparison of the effect of vertical walls
versus sloped walls on wave transmission. Note that the more vertical the
wall, the less the wave transmission because more wave energy is reflected
back to sea. For breakwater construction this may allow a lower structure
to be built; however, it may also affect the navigational safety of the small
craft harbor entrance because it causes adjacent waters to be rougher for
approaching boats. Also, recognize that vertical walls will produce more
splash and, in conjunction with strong winds, this may still place a large
quantity of water over the structure.
Parapet features placed atop a breakwater can contribute significantly
to the reduction of wave overtopping without necessarily adding addi-
tional height to the wall (Li and Hatto 1998). Fig. 2-35, adapted from Li
and Hatto (1998), shows a comparison of the overtopping magnitude
when a parapet wall is sloped back 14 deg, versus a vertical wall, and
Fig. 2-33. Splash created from vertical wall

Fig. 2-34. Effect of vertical walls versus sloped walls on wave transmission
Source: Goda (2000)
Fig. 2-35. Measured overtop volume at different slope geometries

Source: Adapted from Li and Hatto (1998)
versus seaward-facing parapet features. Consistent with Fig. 2-34, the

rear-sloped parapet produces the most overtopping. However, notice that
with as little as a 10-deg seaward batter on the parapet, the overtopping
is reduced by more than half compared with that of a simple vertical wall,
with associated reductions in transmitted wave height. While greater
seaward batter angles on the parapet further reduce overtopping, they do
not proportionately improve performance by the amount achievable in
the first 10 deg. The slight 10-deg seaward batter also limits the added
wave force on the parapet due to the wave uprush, so the improvement
is structurally practical.
Gravity-stabilized cells or cofferdams can be constructed of a variety of

materials. Some of the more popular types are steel sheet-pile cells, timber
crib, and standalone bin wall structures. An example of a bin wall/crib
breakwater structure is shown in Fig. 2-36(a). A similar breakwater, con-
structed of round cells, is shown in Fig. 2-36(b). Note that, as previously
explained, though the bin wall presents a straight seaward face to the waves
versus the curved shapes of the round cells, the reaction of the waves to
the cell shape, in terms of navigational safety and basin tranquility, is the
same unless the wavelength is no more than half the diameter of the cell.
Simple, slender panel breakwalls (Fig. 2-37) are used if the waves are
not too large and if the goal is to also allow a gap near the seafloor for
fish migration or circulation.
The amount of resulting wave leakage, or transmission due to the gap,
is given by the expression (Wiegel 1964; Kriebel and Bollman 1996):
Kt = 2P (1 + P ) (2-26)
where P is the power transmission, defined as:
[ 4π ( d − D) L + sin h 4 π ( d − D) L] [ 4πd L + sin h 4π ( d) L] (2-27)
where
D = draft of the panel
d = the water depth
L = the local wavelength.
The associated coefficient of wave reflection from this partially pene-

trating wall is then computed as:
Kr = (1 − K t 2 ) (2-28)
Frequently, regulatory agencies may seek to make these walls porous

in hopes of improving water quality and circulation behind the walls. For
wave protection, such a step can be very dangerous because even small
openings in the walls can result in significant wave transmission. Figure
2-38 shows the change in wave transmission and reflection as porosity
increases in the face of the wall. Note that 10% porosity (which may result
from something as simple as leaving a 1-in. gap between 10-in.-wide
planks) increases the wave transmission from zero to roughly 50%.
WAVE REFLECTION CONTROL
Wave absorbers need to be at least 10% of the local wavelength. When

the intent of the breakwater is to absorb rather than to reflect wave energy
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2-36. (a) Example of a bin wall/crib breakwater structure; (b) example of a
cellular cofferdam breakwater structure, Fairport Harbor, Ohio
Source of (a): Courtesy of Contech
Source of (b): Courtesy of SmithGroupJJR
Fig. 2-37. Simple panel breakwalls

Source: Courtesy of Bellingham Marine, Inc.
(as is common in a berm-style structure), the thickness of the absorbent

armor layer is critical and the required dimension is not insignificant.
Unless the design situation includes a beach, a typical reflection coefficient
for a layered armor breakwater is 0.6 to 0.7. (It will be nearly 1.0 for a
vertical-faced structure, and can be as little as 0.1 for a beach.) A reflection
coefficient of 0.4 or less is ideal. However, as can be inferred from the
discussion on wave–structure interaction, as wave periods become longer,
the geometry of the breakwater cross section becomes blurred to the wave,
and all structures begin to appear and act as a vertical wall. To restore the
lower reflectivity of the structure, the armor matrix must become thick.
Figure 2-39 shows the requirements for armor layer thickness and armor
size for achieving lowered reflectivity.
The example shown in Fig. 2-40, adapted from Hiraishi (2006), suggests
that an armor layer thickness equal to 10% of the wavelength is needed
to achieve the majority of wave absorption, though additional absorption
occurs as the layer thickness increases. For effective absorption, the
required armor size (or, implicitly, the size of the voids within the armor
matrix) needs to be large, with the armor size equal to at least 0.2% of the
wavelength. In most small craft harbor locations where wave periods
are 6 sec or less, standard layered armor sizing coincidentally achieves
these requirements. However, for locations that experience significant
Fig. 2-38. Wave transmission and reflection versus screen porosity
long-period swell, the required absorbing layer may be 10 to 20 m

(30–65 ft) thick. The berm-style breakwater, which is intentionally
designed with a seaward face that is of smaller material but of thicker
section, is an example of a better breakwater application for controlling
reflections and reducing overtopping.
There have also been attempts to passively absorb wave energy by
creating porous vertical walls surrounding the inside of the harbor basin
area. These include perforated panels with wave-damping chambers built
into the dock face, and vertically stacked artificial armor units such as
“Igloos,” “Neptune,” “Warock,” “Monobar,” “Cross-Hollow,” and “Arc,”
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2-39. Armor layer thickness and size versus reflectivity; (a) absorber layer
thickness versus energy absorption; (b) absorber layer grain size versus
absorption
that create a maze or network of flow paths to dissipate energy. These

have been reasonably effective and are particularly useful in places where
vessels must moor directly against the shoreline dock. However, the
general thickness of the armor stacks, or the recess of the absorbing cham-
bers, still must be 15 to 25% of the local wavelength to be effective (Allsop
and McBride 1994).
Breakwater Armor Design

The size of a stone needed to resist a given wave has a diameter roughly
equal to one-third of the wave height. Quarried stone remains the most
common material for erosion control. The well-known Hudson’s equation
gives a relationship between the weight of a required armor piece and the
wave height, considering the slope of the structure, the relative density
of the material, and a factor that considers the shape/placement and
degree of expected interlock of the stone:
Fig. 2-40. Armor size versus structure slope relationship

Source: Adapted from Hiraishi (2006)
D H = 1 Δ ( K d cot α )0.33 (2-29)
where D is the characteristic dimension of the stone, H is the wave height,

Δ is the submerged density of the rock, and cota is the slope of the struc-
ture with a measured from the horizontal.
Practically, most structures are constructed with a slope near 2H : 1V,
the dry density of rock is commonly near 2,691 kg/m3 (168 pcf), and the
shape/placement factor is taken to be about 4. Working backward to find
the characteristic dimension of the stone, it is apparent that for a perfect
cube, ι = H/3; for a sphere, ι = 0.4H; and for a prismatic shape where the
longest dimension is typically taken to be triple the shortest, the shortest
ι = 0.2H. Figure 2-40 graphically illustrates this relation. Note that as the
stone shape changes, the required size of the armor changes and can vary
by a factor of 2 for the same weight. Also note that the same stability can
be accomplished with smaller material if that size material is all that is
available economically; however, the required structure slope must
become flatter, requiring more physical area and total construction volume.
In the extreme, a beach of sand becomes the breakwater.
More expansive studies of armor stability relationships (Ahrens 1988)
consider the added influence of wavelength:
N s = ( H mo 2 Lp )1 3 [d5 0 (ρr ρw − 1)] < 7 ( for stable cuboids) (2-30)

where
Ns = the stability number
Hmo = wave height of 0th moment
Lp = wavelength calculated from the peak of the energy spectrum
d50 = the 50th percentile rock diameter
rr and rw are the densities of rock and water, respectively.
Using the same rock parameters and assuming a commonly observed

local wave steepness (H/L) of 1 : 25, then the d50 is approximately 0.25Hmo.
Therefore, the theoretical range in size of armor stones falls in the range
of 0.2H < ι < 0.4H. In place, the ratio of the largest to smallest stone diam-
eters in the armor mix, D85%/D15%, will typically range from 1.5 to 2.5,
where Di% is the percentile of the stone size. In some cases rubble mound
structures must be so large or the wave environment is so extreme that
survival is not viable using naturally quarried armor material. In such
cases specially shaped artificial armor systems have been developed that
provide greater stability for less invested mass.
The sizing of the underlayers for the main armor is based on what size
material is needed to provide a good bedding and interlock for the armor
stone, yet also not be leached away by wave action surging through the
outer armor skin. To avoid leaching, the requirement is to have D15% (cover)
≤ 5 D85% (under), i.e., the essentially smallest-diameter stones in the cover
layer should be no bigger than 5 times the biggest stones in the under
layer. This controls the void sizes among the individual stones. The
requirement to ensure good interlock requires that D50%(cover) = (2.2–2.5)
D50%(under). That is, the mean diameter of the cover stone should be
between 2 and 2.5 times the mean size of the underlying material.
Armor Placement and Construction

Armor should be laid to a thickness of two stone diameters, measured
perpendicular to the slope. The common detailing of armor placement on
a slope shows veneers of stone armoring of increasing size placed on the
slope. Usually the presumption is that the thickness of the veneer will be
placed to a depth equal to two stone diameters to achieve interlock
between adjacent stones and to fill the voids among stones. Unfortunately,
graphics and text employ terminology referring to this veneer layer as
“two layers of stone.” Contractors, building to this description, place the
stone on the slope as two separate layers, one on top of the other. This
introduces a potential sliding plane between the layers, reducing the pre-
sumed stability. Proper specification should call for the layer to be built
simply using a certain size (or size range) stone and for the layer to be
constructed to full width starting from the toe, which has been keyed into
the bottom, and working upward. The reader is referred to other resources
on breakwater construction methods for details of anchoring and inter-

locking armor pieces (CIRIA 1991; USACE 1984). If the designer is working
with stone diameters as the metric, then the layer thickness should be
some multiple of (D50 × 1.1) to account for imperfect stacking (USACE
1984).
Armor Stone Shape and Size

The ratio of the maximum dimension to the minimum dimension of
any armor stone should not exceed 3. This standard specification has its
basis in three considerations. First, when a stone becomes very slab-like
in shape, perhaps reaching an aspect ratio of 5, it is subject to breaking in
half once installed, if unsupported. This produces a resulting armor only
half the size needed. Second, long, slab-like stones tend to be placed paral-
lel to the slope, causing a well-developed layering in the armor (layering
the armor is discouraged; see above). Third, slab-like armor produces a
generally smoother surface. Though perhaps aesthetically pleasing, it
increases the amount of wave reflection and runup/overtopping, causing
an increase in toe scour or less tranquil harbor areas.
If the breakwater armor is to be used in an ice-infested area, the armor
stone may need to also function as a method of preventing ice from riding
up, overtopping the breakwater or revetment crest, and damaging harbor
infrastructure. Cox et al. (1983) found that the ice could generally be
forced to rubble and thereby accumulate outside the harbor, provided the
exposed roughness of the armor (i.e., the projection of armor stone off the
face of a breakwater) is at least equal to the thickness of the ice sheet. This
is shown in Fig. 2-41.
To further promote ice rubbling against breakwaters, composite break-
water slopes with benches near the water line, and/or ice breakers that
trigger three-dimensional ice breaking, are effective. Depending on the
anticipated volume of ice needed to trap as rubble, the width of the bench
needs to be at least two ice floe diameters wide, computed as described
earlier in this chapter. Ice breaker devices have been used effectively most
often in riverine settings to prevent formation of ice jams and to reduce
ice loads against piers and other structures. They are typically prismatic-
shaped structures, securely embedded into the bottom. Their application
in open ocean settings is more limited to experiences in the Arctic to
protect high-value coastal installations. These techniques are illustrated
in Fig. 2-42.
There are no explicit formulas for estimating the required size of armor
stones to resist ice damage. Most design guidance is based on local rules
of thumb and experience. The primary mechanism for armor damage
appears to be “lifting” of individual stones, frozen into the ice sheet, rather
than by the shearing or “bulldozing” of individual armor pieces, though
Fig. 2-41. Blockage requirements to trigger ice rubbling by armor
the latter does occur if there is poor interlock between armor stones as
often occurs at corners and on crests. Matheson (1988) recommends that
the minimum D50 of an armor stone be in excess of the maximum winter
ice thickness. In Cook Inlet in Alaska, where maximum ice thickness is in
the range of 0.6 to 0.9 m (2–3 ft), armor stones in excess of 2,700 kg
(6,000 lb) [D50 ≈ 1.2 m (4 ft)] are required to resist ice action, and the New
England Division of USACE opts for a mean size of 0.6 m (2 ft) for riprap
exposed to ice action. Matheson (1988) notes that relatively small riprap,
D50 < than 0.4 m (1.3 ft), has been be damaged by ice shove in Canadian
hydropower reservoirs.
Given this general guidance and the separate criteria to introduce
roughness in the slope comparable to the thickness of the ice sheet to
trigger ice rubbling, the recommendation for armor sizing to resist ice is
for D50 ≥ max ice thickness, and ideally twice the ice thickness. This guid-
ance should be applied independently of the armor sizing required to
resist waves, and whichever D50 is found larger should be used.
Armor Quality
As much as the technical design is paramount to the success of a rubble
mound structure, the selection and quality of stone materials is equally
Fig. 2-42. Ice pile-up on a breakwater bench with 3-D icebreakers

Source: Courtesy of Jack Cox
important. Poor material quality and stone that does not meet a rigid set
of specifications will ultimately fail in the small craft harbor environment.
This failure can prove costly to repair and could be dangerous to users
and tenants of the very small craft harbor the materials were designed to
protect.
Detailed plans and specifications typically specify the exact stone type,
size, gradation, dimensions, and quality. For breakwater construction,
igneous and sedimentary rocks are the two primary types of rock material
typically used. Granite, basalt, and gabbro make up the igneous types of
rock, while limestone, dolomite, sandstone, and quartzite make up the
sedimentary types of rock. Certain types of sedimentary rock (limestone,

dolomite, and sandstone) have restrictions on blasting and curing time in
cold weather, but quartzite and igneous rocks carry no restrictions and
blasting and processing can be carried out regardless of the weather or
time of year.
Quarries that routinely provide stone for use in shore protection struc-
tures will have either been previously approved by USACE or will have
gone through a rigid testing program to ensure that the quarry can produce
stone that withstands the marine environment. Even though a quarry may
have been previously approved to produce stone for the marine environ-
ment, all of the individual stones are not necessarily suitable. During stone
material production at the quarry, including blasting, sorting, and loading
operations, a strict quality control plan should be implemented to ensure
that the specified stone produced in the quarry meets the engineer’s project
specifications. This plan typically details the inspections, approvals, and
markings that must occur to grant approval of the stone.
While it is impossible to inspect every stone in every material classifica-
tion, it is essential to inspect every armor stone and a select quantity of
the underlayer stones. The inspection process includes visible observa-
tions of the stone for blast fracturing, seams, deleterious inclusions, elon-
gation, size, shape, and any other material deficiencies that would result
in stone that was either outside of the specifications or would not with-
stand loading, placing, or longevity in the shore protection structure.
Crest Sizing
Breakwater crests shall be a minimum of three stones in breadth. This
is more correctly stated as a breadth of at least three stone diameters.
Three stones are viewed as the minimum number needed to achieve good
interlocking of the armor across the crest. However, referring to the wave
transmission over structures discussion above, it is apparent that the crest
width needs to be at least equal to the wave height. Some designers apply
a safety factor of 50%, suggesting that the crest width should be 1.5H, or
four to five stone diameters.
If structures or public access will be allowed on the breakwater, some
additional safety considerations apply due to overtopping and the need
to provide a scour apron to control any over-wash erosion. (Note: To
retain the integrity of the original theories, the discussion in the following
two paragraphs is all based in English units of feet).
The splash zone dimension (c), can be defined by the expression (Cox
and Machemehl 1986):
χ = 0.2 (T g )[( Ru − Rc )1 2 − ηt1 2 ] (2-31)

where Ru is the theoretical runup height on the slope, Rc is the freeboard

of the structure, and ht is the height of the resulting overtopping bore. For
erosion control of an unarmored surface in waves, the overtopping bore
height needs to be less than a foot (Schiereck 2001), so the splash apron
needs to be at least 5 m (16 ft) wide to avoid erosion for an overtopping
wave cresting 2.5 m (8 ft) above the berm top and having a period of 8 sec.
For life safety, the (U.S.) Bureau of Reclamation (1988) gives a human
safety factor to avoid toppling (computed as the product of the depth of
flow multiplied by the local velocity) as a threshold value of 4. The speed
of the overtopping bore is roughly (1.1gηt ) , where some standing water
is assumed equal to about 10% of the instantaneous bore depth. This
indicates that the minimum safe splash apron distance is defined when
ht = 0.7 ft. Substituting that value back into the expression above gives,
for the same conditions, a public danger zone of approximately 5.5 m
(18 ft). Ironically, designers have historically guessed a splash apron
width of 20 ft as a default dimension, which now seems to conveniently
match the theory.
Breakwaters and other navigation structures such as jetties are classi-
fied as “attractive nuisances.” Because they offer the public access to
panoramic views and anglers access to excellent fishing sites, it is difficult
to prevent pedestrian use of the structures. A facility owner or operator
should recognize the inherent attraction and associated risk and, if access
is permitted, provide for a safe use by incorporating the considerations
given above into the design.
As a final consideration, breakwaters are commonly constructed using
land-based equipment that must crawl along the crest to advance the
work. The construction roadbed, usually at least 4 m (12 ft) wide for
one-way traffic, is typically the top of the breakwater core, or subarmor
layer. Therefore, the crest dimension may be determined as a consequence
of the need to create a minimum width roadbed for one-way or even
two-way traffic during breakwater construction.
Breakwater Costs
The water depth is the single largest factor in determining the cost of
the harbor protective structures. Figure 2-43 compares the relative cost of
a rubble mound breakwater founded in a water depth of roughly 4 m
(12 ft) as compared with other depths. Note that the unit cost actually can
decrease if the breakwater is built in water slightly deeper than the wave
Fig. 2-43. Cost of a rubble mound breakwater relative to water depth
breaking depth. This is because larger armor stone is needed to resist

waves that directly break on the structure, even more than just larger
waves.
Recognize that the water depth is the water depth assumed for the
design condition. This will include tide, seiche, river flood superelevation,
and storm surge values. However, because tide or flood is an independent
variable from storm surge and seiche, the design water level need not be
the simple sum of all the variables at one time. The probable water level,
as discussed earlier in the chapter, defines the design water level for
setting the breakwater height and therefore the cost.
Constructability and operational factors also affect the cost. Particular
consideration must be given to the geotechnical conditions at the site. The
presence of bedrock could pose an additional cost for removal. If the
harbor is located in an area where there is significant sedimentation, then
regular maintenance dredging may be required. The ongoing dredging
effort could substantially increase the overall life-cycle cost, even though
the first cost of construction may be less. In either of these cases, building
a larger basin in deeper water so that the rock need not be removed, or
away from the sedimentation, may ultimately be less expensive.
Floating Wave Attenuators

Physical, economic, or regulatory conditions frequently preclude the
opportunity to construct a fixed barrier against waves. In such situations
a floating barrier or wave attenuator may be the appropriate solution.
Floating attenuators appear in many forms, but generally work on one of

two theories: reflecting some of the wave energy away, or absorbing some
of the energy passing through the attenuator. The reflecting style may be
either in the form of a fence hanging from a float, or a solid block. The
absorbing type is typically a porous matrix structure through which the
wave must pass or spill over. Figure 2-44 shows a typical attenuator
deployment functioning in a storm. The width of the attenuator is approx-
imately 2.5 m (8 ft). Note that the attenuator effectively blocks significant
short-period wave action, but long-period swell penetrates beyond.
Floating Attenuator Performance

To be effective, floating attenuators need to have a draft at least one-half
the water depth or be one-half a wavelength in breadth. As previously
mentioned in the panel breakwater discussion, Wiegel (1964) developed
the power transmission theory for partially penetrating thin barriers.
Kriebel and Bollmann (1996) extended the theory to account for reflections
Fig. 2-44. Typical attenuator functioning in a storm

Source: Courtesy of Rixo Floating Dock Systems
from that barrier, and Cox (1987) extended the theory to finite width bar-
riers. The composite relationship, as a closed form expression for estimat-
ing wave transmission under a floating attenuator, is given as:
Ct = Cb Kt (2-32)
where
Cb = ⎡⎣ 2 (1 + (2πB L)2 ) ⎤⎦ [2 + (2πB L)2 ]
Kt = 2P/(1 + P)
P = [4π(d − D)/L + sinh4π(d − D)/L]/ [4πd/L + sinh4π(d)/L], with B =
breadth of float, D = draft of float, d the water depth, and L the local
wavelength.
This expression ignores the dynamic movement of an attenuator as it

experiences a wave field, but still reasonably predicts attenuator perfor-
mance, particularly for pile-restrained attenuators. The relationship can
be effectively used for oblique waves by trigonometrically adjusting for
the apparent wavelength.
Figure 2-45 graphically illustrates that transmission of waves past a
floating attenuator is generally 20 to 30%, but only up to a certain point.
Fig. 2-45. Wave transmission of floating prisms

Source: Gaythwaite (1990)
Thereafter, there is an abrupt decrease in wave attenuation. This occurs

when the draft is less than 50% of water depth or the structure breadth is
less than one-half a wavelength. Typical applications in the coastal envi-
ronment are for water depths less than 10 m (30 ft). Practically, the breadth
of a floating attenuator does not exceed 10 m (30 ft), so the effective range
of wavelength is up to 20 m (60 ft). In 10 m (30 ft) of water, this translates

to a wave period of 3.5 sec. This type of wave is observed only in the form
of a boat wake, or in relatively protected waters of limited fetch. Floating
wave attenuators should only be applied when wave periods do not
exceed 4 sec.
Floating attenuators need to be recognized for what they are—floating
bodies that have natural response behaviors; they are not fixed panels,
which is the underlying assumption of Eq. 2–32. Figure 2-46 compares the
real transmission response of a typical floating attenuator to the theory.
Actual response closely corresponds to the theory except at a period of
approximately 4 sec, where the transmission spikes to nearly twice the
theoretical transmission. This is due to the natural period of the floating
attenuator matching the period of the waves. To avoid this occurrence,
PIANC (1981) recommends avoiding systems with natural periods close
to the dominant wave period. The critical natural period range to avoid
harmonic response in the attenuator is roughly from 0.8 Tp to 1.3 Tp,
where Tp is the dominant wave period (Thomson 1972). Unfortunately,
Fig. 2-46. Real versus theoretical attenuator transmission

Source: Cox (1992)
the common natural period for a floating attenuator is in the range of 2

to 4 sec, and this is the most common wave period to be managed by an
attenuator. Therefore, careful attention to attenuator dimensions, geom-
etry, weight distribution, and mooring type is required to tune the float
frequency outside this critical range.
BASIN HYDRODYNAMICS
In addition to the basic harbor tranquility considerations for moorings,

small craft harbor basins respond dynamically to the general hydraulics
of the site, including wind stress, tidal forcing, and current movement.
This hydraulic response influences the health of the basin and the general
perception of a clean facility. To a limited extent, hydraulic behavior also
mimics the tendency for siltation and the need for sediment control.
Water Quality and Circulation

The historic measure for achieving acceptable water quality is the
flushing time. Flushing time is typically calculated as the time required to
reduce initial pollutant concentrations within a semi-enclosed water body
to a prescribed value. The relation for computing the basin flushing time
is given as:
ln D
Tf (tidal cycles ) = (2-33)
⎛ Vt − Vm + 2Vm (1 − ε) ⎞
ln ⎜ ⎟⎠
⎝ Vt + Vm
where
D = the dilution factor
Vt − Vm = the low-tide volume
Vt + Vm = the high-tide volume
2Vm = the tidal prism
Vt = the product of the mean water depth, h, and the basin surface area,
A
e = the fraction of new water added in each tidal cycle, so that (1 − e)
represents the amount of “return flow” (DiLorenzo et al. 1991).
The amount of return flow, i.e., the volume of “dirty” water that gets
drawn back into the basin in each tidal cycle, is very dependent on the
specific geometry of the basin and the harbor mouth and the flow patterns
outside the basin. It can easily be 50% of the discharge, but a return flow
in the range of 30% is commonly assumed unless specific data are avail-
able to prove otherwise. Applying realistic estimates for the return flow
is important to securing permits for small craft harbor construction or

operation.
An alternate measure of flushing time is determined by computing the
E-folding time for an enclosed basin, i.e., the time it takes for a contami-
nant introduced into a uniformly mixed water body to achieve a desired
dilution level. If P is the concentration at any time, then dP/dt ≈ −QP/V,

where V is the basin volume and Q is the exchange water quantity; then
P(t) = P(0) exp (−Qt/V), where P(0) is the initial concentration; and if the
residence time is defined as t = V/Q (for perfect water exchange), then
the pollutant concentration value is 1/e of its original concentration, i.e.,
63% dispersion (Van de Kreeke 1983). For a semidiurnal tide, this can be
estimated analytically (Marine Science Laboratories 1992) as:
v
VL +
2t (2-34)
te − fold = m2
v
where VL is the volume of the basin at low water; v is the mean tidal
volume; and tm2 is the period of the m2 tidal constituent (12.42 hours).
Generally, the goal is to reach the E-folding value in 4 days (8 tidal
cycles). This is consistent with the recommendation of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA 1985). USEPA suggests that a complete
water exchange of a basin in 4 days is “good,” an exchange of water in
10 days is “fair,” and an exchange is “poor” if a longer time is required.
The method discussed above assumes that there is 100% mixing of
“new” water, or ε = 1.0 with each tidal exchange in the basin. Unfortu-
nately, this is generally not seen in the real world. However, a value as
low as 50% new water exchange appears to have limited impact on the
residence time (Van de Kreeke 1983). As a guideline, the goal is now
interpreted as “No more than (5%) of the basin shall have exchange coef-
ficients, as defined in the next section, of less than 0.15 when averaged
over one complete tidal cycle (12 hours)” (Smith et al. 2002).
Nece et al. (1979) performed a series of physical model tests to seek the
most efficient geometries and entrance locations for basin flushing. Figure
2-47 shows a determination of the flushing exchange efficiency of different
rectangular basin length-to-width ratios.
Nece et al. (1979) defined the flushing exchange coefficient as:
E = 1 − ( Ci C o )
1n
(2-35)
where
E = average exchange coefficient
Co = initial concentration
C = concentration after “n” cycles
Fig. 2-47. Flushing exchange coefficient as a function of basin aspect ratio

(L/B)
n = number of cycles (usually at least four)

Ci is the concentration of the marker component at location “i.”
As shown in Fig. 2-47, it is apparent that the peak flushing efficiency

occurs when the L/B aspect ratio is unity. In addition, Nece et al. (1979)
recommend that no more than 5% of the basin shall have exchange coef-
ficients of less than 0.15 when averaged over one complete tidal cycle.
This correlates to a maximum basin aspect ratio of roughly 1 : 4.
However, as basin shapes become more curvilinear or irregular, the
concept of aspect ratio loses meaning. A more generalized description is
the planform factor (PF), similar to a hydraulic radius, given as:
A
PF = 4 π (2-36)
P2
where A is the surface area of the basin at mean tide and P is the perimeter
of the basin.
For a perfect circle, PF equals unity. Basins with numerous arms
typically have low PF values. Regardless of the shape, the lowest
recommended PF value for good flushing is 0.70, and poor flushing is

anything less than 0.4. For a rectangle, this limits aspect ratios to 2 : 1. The
goal is to have the maximum usable area for the least amount of perimeter.
Rounding of basin corners also increases the PF value. For good circula-
tion, the minimum radius should be no greater than one-quarter of the
minimum characteristic dimension of the basin, or 4R, and never more

than one-eighth of the minimum dimension (Smith et al. 2002).
An additional little-recognized but equally significant consideration is
uniformity in the circulation velocity throughout the basin. Consider two
basins having the same average water exchange coefficient, one with half
the basin flushing near 100% and the other half near zero, and the other
with half the basin flushing between 40 and 60%. The first basin would
be considered to have poor flushing, while the second basin’s flushing
would be considered good. If S is the standard deviation of the exchange
coefficient computed at various locations throughout the basin, then E-S
must be >0.1 for acceptable flushing. This is in spite of the fact that, locally,
some velocities are much higher in the first example.
Figures 2-48(a) and (b) show a comparison of the point-by-point water
exchange in a rectangular and a round basin, with a large and small
entrance mouth, respectively. For the same tidal input at the mouth, the
figure illustrates the variability in the exchange coefficient through the
basin. Despite the fact that some coefficients near the entrance are higher
in the wide-mouth rectangular basin, elsewhere there are also areas of
very low exchange values, suggesting poor or no circulation. The ideal is
to have a nearly uniform exchange value throughout the basin, which is
achieved by both a narrowed entrance width and a rounded basin shape.
For good flushing, the tidal prism ratio (TPR), i.e., the volume of water
entering the basin during the flood tide compared with the total basin
volume at high tide, needs to be at least 0.25, and preferably 0.35. There
is also a relationship between the cross-sectional area of an entrance
opening (a) and the area of the basin (A) to be flushed. To hold an E-S
value greater than 0.1, the A/a ratio (area ratio, AR) typically needs to be
greater than 200, and ideally should be at least 400 for good flushing. Tidal
exchange in wide-entrance small craft harbors does not penetrate deeply
or uniformly into a small craft harbor basin. As a result, in these cases the
E-S value is usually <0.1. This suggests that wider entrances do not lead
to better flushing, and narrower entrances actually produce more uniform
and thorough flushing for a basin. For two basins of equal A/a, one square
and the other with rounded corners, both will have approximately the
same E value but the S value will be significantly less for the rounded
corners, indicating a more uniform flushing.
The most classic example of a small craft harbor constructed to enhance
water quality, and which incorporates all these principles, is the Pt. Roberts
small craft harbor in Puget Sound, WA. This design, shown in Fig. 2-49,
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2-48. (a) Flushing deviation (E-S) rectangular basin, spatial variability in
exchange coefficient (left); magnitude variability in exchange coefficient (right);
(b) flushing deviation (E-S) round basin, spatial variability in exchange
coefficient (left); magnitude variability in exchange coefficient (right)
Source: Smith et al. (2002)
features a curvilinear shape and a narrowed entrance to promote the

flushing. These features also result in secondary benefits of reduced sedi-
mentation and a more tranquil berthing area.
A frequent proposal to enhance water quality in a basin is to add cul-
verts through a dike or breakwall in an attempt to introduce more flow
into the basin. Although counterintuitive, there are reasons why adding
small culverts does not help:
• The culvert is added in addition to the navigation channel; therefore,

the effective entrance area (a) increases, and the total energy flowing
into the basin decreases. This degrades the flushing of the small craft
harbor instead of improving it.
• The head drop along the culvert is similar to the head drop through
the entrance, i.e., very small. Considering the relative hydraulic
radii, the flow through a small culvert will be negligible.
Fig. 2-49. Example of a curvilinear small craft harbor basin, Pt. Roberts in
Puget Sound, WA
Source: Courtesy of Washington State Department of Transportation
Consistent with subsequent discussion of the contributions of multiple

entrances, Fig. 2-50 demonstrates the limited contribution of culverts to
basin flushing. In the example illustrated in Fig. 2-50, the culvert size is
not insignificant, roughly 2.5 m × 6 m flowing fully. It is apparent that the
zone of influence of the culvert-added flushing water is very localized
and does not contribute to the overall flushing of the small craft harbor
basin (Cox and Utku 2003).
A summary of these recommended guidelines for good basin hydrau-
lics and water quality is provided in Fig. 2-51. To ensure optimal water
quality, all these aspects need to be examined. Application of only one
characteristic, such as TPR, may give a false sense of basin water quality
and circulation.
Harbor Entrance Location

The Nece et al. (1979) observations were largely based on an offset
small craft harbor entrance location. To assess whether a center entrance
or an offset entrance performs better, a center entrance design must be
viewed as two mirror image offset basins. In this case, both the basin area
(A) and entrance cross section (a) double, so that the A/a ratio stays the
same. The tidal prism ratio (TPR) also stays the same. The only factor that
changes is the aspect ratio, which increases by a factor of 2. For a center
Fig. 2-50. Example of a culvert’s limited contribution to flushing

Source: Cox and Utku (2003)
entrance, the best exchange (theoretically) occurs when two counterrotat-

ing circulation cells of aspect ratio 1 : 1 are set up. Therefore, an optimum
center entrance aspect ratio should be about 2 : 1, compared with 1 : 1 for
an offset entrance. The A/a ratio also improves because a 2 : 1 center
entrance basin is not truly two 1 : 1 offset basins appended with entrances
together; rather, it is a basin with the same total area, but the entrance
width is only half that of the conjoined basins.
Note that the general goal is to create a basin shape and entrance loca-
tion that create offset entrance circulation cells of aspect ratio as close to
1 : 1 as possible. Harbors that are long in the shore-parallel direction benefit
from either a center entrance location or dual entrances at opposing ends.
Harbors that are long in the shore-perpendicular direction benefit more
from an offset entrance location because the location of the entrance jet
defines how the aspect ratio is computed.
Effect of Multiple Entrances The effect of multiple entrances can be

determined by comparing the results of E-S as the aspect ratio increases
for a square basin with a single entrance with a square basin with double
entrances. This comparison is illustrated in Fig. 2-52.
The gross surface areas and entrance areas are essentially the same
(similar A/a values), which means that the width of the entrances in the
Fig. 2-51. Recommended guidelines for good basin hydraulics and water
quality
double entrance example is half that of the single entrance. However,

when computing and comparing the E-S (AveE—StDev) values, the deg-
radation is apparent in flushing efficiency of multiple entrances. The two
entrance flushing jets work counter to each other, inhibiting the formation
of a strong circulation cell and decreasing the volume of the basin that
Fig. 2-52. Multiple entrance efficiencies for small basin aspect ratios
can be flushed as compared with the single entrance case (Smith et. al.
2002). These results suggest that multiple entrances or breaches could
result in a deleterious reduction in water quality. They should be used
with caution for basins that have good aspect ratios and are driven pri-
marily by the tidal exchange.
However, as suggested by the flushing efficiency patterns shown in Fig.

2-53, if the basin shape is elongated such that its aspect ratio is greater
than 1 : 4, then multiple entrances may still need to be considered since a
single entrance jet cannot fully flush the basin, even though the contribu-
tion of each entrance may be less.
While these guidelines illustrate features and elements of a harbor that

produce the best water quality, they alone are not sufficient to ensure good
water quality. Generally, some form of physical and/or numerical model-
ing is required, and justified, to confirm that a particular design will
perform well for water quality enhancement and, as will be shown in the
next section, for sedimentation control as well.
SEDIMENTATION
Sedimentation in and around small craft harbors is a centuries-old

problem. Any breach through a shoreline invites accumulation of sedi-
ment across the harbor mouth and into the basin itself. The phenomenon
occurs in both river settings and along coasts, though driven by different
mechanisms. Sedimentation behavior mimics much of the previously dis-
cussed behavior of water quality and circulation.
Fig. 2-53. Multiple entrance efficiencies for large aspect ratio basins
Sedimentation occurs in two forms: (1) bedload, which is heavier mate-

rial that moves along the bottom; and (2) suspended load, which is material
so fine that it is entrained in the entire water column and may require
days of quiet water to settle out. The discussion of sedimentation here
focuses primarily on effects in and around the harbor entrance, with some
consideration to the diffusion of sediment into the basin.

Flowing water applies stress to any bottom sediment. Whether the
sediment is stable (or accumulates), is transported but the bottom stays
in basic equilibrium with as much sediment coming in or going out, or is
eroded away, is a function of the sediment type, the grain size of the sedi-
ment, and the speed of the water. Figure 2-54 illustrates the stability level
of sediment of various sizes and degree of consolidation.
The response of sediment to wave action is similar. For sands and silts,
the most common bottom material (generally the bed) will be in move-
ment or eroding away if the currents are at least 20 cm/sec, about a half-
knot current.
In theory, the simplest solution to harbor basin sedimentation is to
never allow the material to enter the basin. Krone (1987) emphasizes the
importance of surrounding a semi-enclosed basin with a nonperforated
enclosure. Openwork boundaries may be thought to ensure a through-
flow, thus minimizing slack water areas and periods, but in many cases
these increase turbulent mixing, flocculation, and siltation. Tight enclo-
sures serve to keep sediment out.
Fig. 2-54. Sediment behavior response to near bottom velocity

Source: Postma (1967); Gardner (1978)
Basic sedimentation in a basin is governed by the following simplified

expression:
Siltation Rate = pQca (2-37)

where
p = the basin trapping efficiency
Q = the rate of water exchange between the surrounding water and the
harbor basin
ca = ambient sediment concentration outside the harbor.
In theory, the sedimentation can be diminished by reducing p (the

ability of the basin to capture sediment), or by reducing Q and/or ca (the
amount of exchange that happens with the surrounding water and/or the
amount of sediment available to cause siltation). If a harbor entrance can
be designed so that the sediment will bypass instead of being ingested,
then sedimentation will be reduced. Similarly, if there is no motive power
to force sediment into the harbor, or if there is little or no sediment avail-
able to be ingested, the siltation will also be reduced.
Practically, there is limited ability to control the exchange of water into
a basin, short of locks or gates, because minimum size entrance geome-
tries must be maintained to ensure safe navigation. Similarly, the amount
of sediment available, suspended or bedload, to cause the siltation is site-
controlled and dictated by other external factors that rarely can be throt-
tled. Therefore, solutions to controlling sedimentation tend to focus most
on reducing the trapping efficiency of a harbor, passively or actively.
Rivers
The horizontal exchange rate between a harbor and an adjacent channel
can be approximated as:
QE = f e Aur (2-38)
where
QE = the exchange flow from horizontal entrainment
A = the harbor entrance area
ur = the river or estuarial channel velocity
fe = the exchange coefficient.
The exchange coefficient depends on the entrance geometry and can

range from 0.005 to 0.05, an order of magnitude difference (Kuijper et al.
2005). The most pronounced impact is related to the orientation of the
small craft harbor entrance channel to the flow. Vanoni (1975) and Kuijper
et al. (2005) both present results indicating that the horizontal exchange
coefficient, and the diversion of stream flow and sediment into a harbor
mouth (or branch channel), decrease with increasing downstream branch
angle [Fig. 2-55(b)]. A reverse-oriented diversion flow greater than 90 deg
produces the least amount of sedimentation (least amount of exchange
with the side channel or basin), with the downstream angle of 120 deg
appearing to be the most effective, as illustrated in Figs. 2-55(a) and (c).
The harbor entrance area also controls the extent of horizontal entrain-
ment flow. As the ratio of the harbor entrance width to its basin length
increases, the level of sedimentation into the harbor increases. Based on
measured sedimentation rates observed in several European harbors, per
Fig. 2-56, a basin that is twice as wide as long will suffer roughly 40%
greater sedimentation than one that is twice as long as wide. Therefore,
the entrance needs to be as narrow as possible consistent with navigation
needs. This is also consistent with the requirements for improving water
quality in the harbor basin.
The mechanism of entraining sediment into a harbor is a product of
flow moving past the harbor opening and setting up a circulation eddy
inside the basin, which carries the sediment into the basin. In addition to
sizing and orienting the harbor opening to minimize sediment entrain-
ment, various passive schemes can be applied to disrupt or displace the
basin eddy to limit how much sediment can be carried in. Figure 2-57
illustrates the basic principle. As flow passes an opening, a wake is formed,
which diverts some of the flow into the side basin, creating an eddy. This
eddy becomes trapped, pumping sediment into the basin, where it accu-
mulates [Fig. 2-57(a)]. If a flow diversion structure is introduced, the eddy
is pulled out of the basin, less entrainment of sediment occurs, and a
secondary “internal” eddy may form in long, narrow basins [Fig. 2-57(b)].
Figure 2-58 illustrates some examples of how this understanding can
be used to control sedimentation into a basin. In Fig. 2-58 (left panel), the
addition of upstream and downstream spurs extended out into the main
channel flow can be used to relocate the eddy downstream away from the
harbor basin area. Figure 2-58 (right panel) offers an analogous solution
by creating a secondary sediment trap downstream beyond the harbor
entrance so that the normal siltation in the basin is diverted.
Figure 2-59 suggests other features that can be integrated at or within
the harbor entrance to modify or disrupt the eddy. One technique is to
modify the roughness or geometry of the downstream entrance wall to
modify the entrainment flow pattern. The second is to introduce a coun-
teracting current to break up the eddy. This might be particularly conve-
nient if there is a constant flowing stream or outfall discharging nearby
that could be diverted for this use. The third method is to reduce the
velocity gradient between the channel and the basin by creating a separa-
tion channel, thus minimizing the wake. A porous groyne or an array of
properly aligned piles situated upstream may accomplish this. By
(a)
(b)
(c)
Fig. 2-55. Diversion of sediment into a harbor as a function of entrance

approach angle; (a) a reverse-oriented diversion flow greater than 90 deg
produces the least amount of sedimentation (least amount of exchange with the
side channel or basin), with the downstream angle of 120 deg appearing to be the
most effective; (b) the horizontal exchange coefficient, and the diversion of stream
flow and sediment into a harbor mouth (or branch channel), decrease with
increasing downstream branch angle; (c) another example of a reverse-oriented
diversion flow greater than 90 deg, with the downstream angle of 120 deg
Sources: Vanoni (1975); Kuijper et al. (2005)
Fig. 2-56. Impact of basin aspect ratio on sedimentation

Source: Nasner (1992)
Fig. 2-57. Basic flow entrainment patterns past a basin
Fig. 2-58. Basic flow diversion techniques and stagnation eddy relocation
Source: Röhr (1934)
Fig. 2-59. Example interior basin enhancements to passively reduce

sedimentation
Source: Vollmers (1963); Brinkman (1990)
smoothing the transition in velocity between river and basin, the exchange
coefficient has been shown to be reduced by approximately 50% (van
Schijndel and Kranenburg 1998).
Elements of the concepts described above have been aggregated into
an actual passive sediment control system, and are detailed further in Fig.
2-60. A flow diversion device, commonly referred to as a current deflecting
wall (CDW), a modified downstream wall geometry, and a submerged sill
are combined for a case of bidirectional estuarine flow. The submerged
sill functions similarly to the CDW, but for flow in the reverse and at a
different tide level. Tests of such schemes have shown a reduction of flow
entering the harbor basin of as much as 70%, with an associated decrease
in sedimentation of at least 15% (Hofland et al. 2001).
To keep sediment moving along the bottom when the channel crosses
the current, Krone (1987) recommends that the side slopes of the channel,
or depression, be cut no steeper than 1V : 10H. This can easily be done by
cutting the slope with 0.6-m (2-ft) terraces. This prevents large eddies from
occurring near bottom, and the sedimentation that does occur simply fills
the cuts to a smooth slope. By disrupting the bottom eddies due to flow
separation over the dredge cut, cycle time for maintenance dredging can
be extended.
Coasts
The principles for controlling sedimentation in a coastal setting are
similar to those for a riverine setting, but the processes driving the silt-
ation process are different. While riverine sedimentation is due entirely
to gravity water flow, typically unidirectional on the open coast, the flow
is either tidally driven (and therefore bidirectional), or may be induced
by the pressure of the waves impinging on the beach. The latter is the
Fig. 2-60. Current deflecting wall and submerged tidal sill example
product of the waves reaching the beach at an angle to the shore. Although
much of the energy of the wave is absorbed or redirected by the processes
of wave breaking, wave reflection, and frictional dissipation, a percentage
of the energy remains, applied in the along-shore direction of wave move-
ment. This excess stress applied to the beach both triggers erosion of the
material from the beach face and also induces drift of the beach material
along the shore. The magnitude of the longshore sedimentation rate is a
function of both the size of the waves and the relative angles that the
approaching waves make with the beach. An expression for an estimate
of the total sediment transport potential is given as:
I l ≈ 0.1( ρ gH b 2Cb ) sin α b cos α b (2-39)
where
Hb = the height of the wave at breaking
Cb = the speed of the wave at breaking
r = density of water
g = gravity
ab = the angle the wave makes with the shore at the depth of breaking
(Komar 1976).
Of this volume, approximately 20% is suspended load, i.e., material

being carried in the water column. The remaining 80% is moving along
the bed. Also recognize that this calculation is only instantaneous for a
given wave height and a given wave angle. To determine the annual
impact it is necessary to calculate the movement for every wave condition
and duration, and combine them to give an annual number.
Note that this is a calculation for the potential amount of sediment to
be moved, which may or may not be achieved, depending on whether
there is sufficient sediment available to be moved. The total amount of

transport that occurs, regardless of the direction of the movement, is
referred to as the gross transport, while the offsetting movements of sedi-
ment up and down the beach are considered the net transport. It is very
difficult to actually measure the sediment transport rate. If adequate wave
and bathymetry data are available it is possible to perform reasonable

calculations, though these estimates are often found to vary 50% from
other measures of the transport rate. A commonly utilized estimate for
transport is dredging records. Dredging does give an indication of the
gross transport rate, if surveys carefully record how long it takes for a
previously dredged hole to refill. However, dredging is typically done
based on a preplanned maintenance, an emergency need, or a schedule,
and as such may or may not capture the real time required for sediment
to infill an area.
Although the net transport rate gives an indication of which direction
the majority of sediment moves toward, which helps orient a harbor
entrance, the gross number is a better indicator of the magnitude of mate-
rial that might get captured by a harbor basin and entrance. Harbor
entrances at open water sites have historically been protected against
waves from a dominant storm direction, resulting in asymmetrical break-
waters. If the harbor is located in an area of strong bidirectional tidal
currents or wave directions, this asymmetry can lead to an exacerbated
sedimentation as sediment is driven into the entrance but there is no
reverse flow pattern to transport it back away due to the shadowing effect
of the overlapping breakwater.
In terms of harbor entrances, the greatest concern is for shoaling to
occur across the entrance mouth. Some sediment will be ingested into the
basin area; this was previously addressed in the following riverine discus-
sion on how to minimize those impacts. However, for navigation pur-
poses the concern is maintaining navigable depth during times of most
critical maneuvering control needs. Beyond simply having adequate
water depth to pass, the entrance needs to be protected to prevent sand
bars from forming across the mouth. Sand bars are triggers to cause wave
breaking, a potentially fatal occurrence to an unprepared or incapable
vessel trying to transit through the entrance, as was shown in Fig. 2-11.
Practically, small craft using the harbor, either for berthing or refuge, will
likely avoid leaving the harbor, or will try to get in off the open water, if
waves have built to 2 m (6 ft) or higher. Wave breaking occurs when the
wave height to water depth ratio is 60% or greater (USACE 2002a). To avoid
wave breaking from occurring in the harbor entrance, the minimum depth
anywhere in the entrance needs to be at least 3.3 m (10.8 ft) for safety. Given
that sand bars may easily form 1 m (3 ft) tall or more, then the design water
depth generally should never be less than 4.3 m (14 ft), and greater depth
may be required if shoaling conditions dictate. This can be accomplished
by either locating the entire harbor breakwater outside the breaker zone so
that waves cannot break at the small craft harbor entrance, or jetties may
be extended to deeper water to achieve a similar result.
There is a theoretical depth at which longshore transport ceases in any
wave environment, given by the expression (Benassai 2006):
dLTo = 2.28 HSo − 10.9 ( HSo 2 Lo ) ( units in meters) (2-40)
where the subscripted parameters represent their deep-water values and

an average error estimate of 0.5 m (Birkemeier 1985). To describe a limit-
ing value, the HSo value that is exceeded only 12 hours per year, based on
annual statistics, is typically used. For a 3-m wave of 8-sec period, the
longshore closure depth is approximately 5.9 m. In this example, jetties
would therefore need to extend to at least 6.5 m or greater water depth
to ensure blockage of the sediment. However, in general, it is economi-
cally impractical to build the entrance of a small craft harbor far enough
out to ensure no sediment passage.
The consequence of blocking the movement of sediment along the shore
is typically a growth of the beach width on the updrift side of the harbor
entrance, and a recession of the shoreline on the downdrift side. The latter
is caused by the starvation of the beach of a continuous resupply of sand
resulting from the harbor blockage. Looking along the beach, the shoreline
alignment will be offset by the presence of the harbor. In locations where
there is strong bidirectional wave or current action, growth of the beach
immediately adjacent the harbor entrance on both sides may occur; however,
typically a larger-scale offset will still be observed due to the net drift. In
some very rare situations the harbor entrance might coincidently be located
at a point on the shoreline where there is a net zero movement of the sedi-
ment. In this case the shoreline will not retreat; however, growth of a beach
on either side is likely. If the gross movement is also zero, then the harbor
is truly in an ideal, maintenance-free location.
To address the reality that some sedimentation will occur at the harbor
entrance, various strategies may be employed. Some alignments of the
breakwater flanks to the natural shoreline appear to be beneficial in pro-
moting sediment transport around the harbor versus blockage. As in the
case of flow across a dredged channel, the goal is to avoid “flow separa-
tion” from the flanks of the breakwater. Generally, a gross angle of 20 deg
with the shore or less is best, with the curve tangent never deflecting more
than 6 deg.
Rivers
On rivers, where and how to situate a marina basin or entrance to avoid
or minimize sedimentation is strongly controlled by the behavior of
stream flow. On straight segments of a river, the strongest flowing, and

typically deepest portion of the channel (known as the thalweg) is gener-
ally near the center. However, at bends in the river the channel and higher-
velocity flow shift to the outside of the bend. The flow pattern even
becomes three-dimensional as it swirls, like a screw, as it passes around
the corner. Figure 2-61 suggests this behavior, which is the mechanism for
the outer bank in a curve to always erode away.
The severity of the bend in the river determines whether shoaling and
sedimentation may occur on the inside of the bend where flow velocity
is low. Shown in Fig. 2-62 are four bends with relative turn radius (ratio of
the bend radius R to the width of the channel) ranging from 0.5 to 3.5.
The illustration suggests that when the curve is gentle (R > 3.5d), so
that the flow fully fills the width of the channel, little sedimentation on
the inside of the bend occurs. When the bend becomes more abrupt, the
flow core is squeezed as it tries to turn, and more erosion occurs on the
outside of the bend. Concurrently, large deposition occurs on the inside
of the bend (Vanoni 1975). As general guidance for planning a marina
basin, the basin entrance and approaches should never be located on the
inside of a bend, where sedimentation will occur; also, they need to be
located far enough downstream of the bend so that the flow can re-
establish to smooth and full bank-to-bank.
Sediment Bypassing
If sedimentation cannot be avoided or diverted past the marina, then
the most successful approaches are by active sediment bypassing, i.e.,
Fig. 2-61. Flow pattern of river at a bend

Fig. 2-62. Occurrence of sedimentation on inside flanks of bends
mechanically moving the sediment from one side of the entrance to the
other. This has the added benefit of nourishing the downdrift shoreline,
which is otherwise eroding back. If development exists on the downdrift
shore, this step also protects the areas from erosion-based loss. The addi-
tion of a downstream pointing spur off the downdrift side of an entrance
jetty or breakwater leg also aids in stabilizing that normally sediment-
starved (eroding) shoreline area.
The bypassing of the sand might be performed in several methods.
Land-based excavators can be used to physically dig up a portion of the
beach and then transport the sand by truck to the other side, where it is
then placed. A permanent sand bypassing pump system might be used
to hydraulically collect sand and then pump it to the other side. If the
entrance leaks more sediment, a third option is to use a dredge placed
inside the shelter of the entrance breakwaters, which then captures the
sand and pumps it or barges it out of the entrance. In this approach the
entrance is best designed with an intentional “sediment trap” located out
of the main navigation channel where the dredge can operate without
affecting traffic. The trap area is selected and sized to capture sand moving
around and into the entrance channel. If planning such a strategy, an
extra-wide area needs to be dedicated in the entrance to allow room for
this activity.
With any of the mechanical sand bypassing methods, special provi-
sions need to be made to allow access to the sand removal and transfer
areas. As a word of caution, sediment traps are very inefficient in captur-
ing all the moving sediment, so large accommodation for variability
should be provided. Usually, a moveable versus a fixed dredge or excava-

tion system has proven the most efficient. The location of the discharge
point downdrift is also important. If drift reversals occur, sediment just
removed from a harbor entrance may be carried right back to the entrance
from the opposing direction. Detailed study of the sediment patterns is
required to understand where to best excavate the material and where to

then place it.
The study of sediment behavior, whether riverine or coastal, is a
complex problem and still not well understood in spite of extensive study
efforts. Detailed computer and/or physical models are recommended as
the best means of examining the sediment behavior and developing the
appropriate mitigation for the site.
REFERENCES
Ahrens, J. (1988). “Reef breakwater response to wave attack.” Berm break-

waters, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Allsop, N., Franco, L., Bellotti, G., Bruce, T., and Geeraerts, J. (2005).
“Hazards to people and property from wave overtopping at coastal
structures.” Proc., ICE Conference on Coastlines, Structures, and Breakwa-
ters, Thomas Telford, London.
Allsop, N., and McBride, M. (1994). “Reflections from vertical walls: The
potential for improvement in vessel safety and wave disturbance.”
Proc., International Workshop on Wave Barriers in Deepwaters, Port and
Harbour Research Institute, Yokosuka, Japan.
ASCE/SEI. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
tures.” ASCE/SEI 7-10, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Benassai, G. (2006). Introduction to coastal dynamics and shoreline protection,
WIT Press, Southampton, UK.
Bindoff, N., et al. (2007). “Observations: Oceanic climate change and sea
level.” Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. Contributions of
Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, S. Solomon et al., eds. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK.
Birkemeier, W. (1985). “Field data on seaward limit of profile change.” J.
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Eng., 111(3), 598–602.
Brinkman, B. (1990). “A contribution to determine the water exchange
between river and harbour in tidal areas.” Doctoral thesis, Franzius
Institut, Hannover, Heft 70 (in German).
Bureau of Reclamation. (1988). “Downstream hazard classification guide-
lines.” ACER Technical Memorandum #11, U.S. Department of the Inte-
rior, Washington, DC.
Calkins, D. J., and Ashton, G. D. (1975). “Arching of fragmented ice

covers.” Special Report 222, U.S. Army Cold Regions Research and Engi-
neering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
Centre for Civil Engineering Research and Codes (CUR). (1990). “Manual
on artificial beach nourishment.” CUR Report 130, A. A. Balkema Press,
Rotterdam.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA).
(1991). Manual on the use of rock in coastal and shoreline engineering, A. A.
Balkema, Rotterdam.
Cox, J. (1987). “Breakwater attenuation criteria and specification for
marina basins.” Proc., Marina Design and Engineering Conference, Inter-
national Marina Institute.
Cox, J. (1991). “Reef breakwater design for Lake Michigan.” World marinas,
ASCE, Reston, VA.
Cox, J. (1992). “Design issues in floating wave attenuator applications:
Case studies of innovative solutions. Proc., 3rd Floating Structures Design
Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Cox, J. (2003) “Designing for waves.” Proc., Docks & Marinas 2003, Uni-
versity Education & Training for the Marine Industry, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Cox, J., Lewis, J., Abdelnour, R., and Behnke, D. (1983). “Assessment of
ice ride up/pile up on slopes and beaches.” Proc., Seventh International
Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions, Vol. 2,
971–981.
Cox, J., and Machemehl, J. (1986). “Overland bore propagation.” ASCE J.
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Eng., 112, 161–163.
Cox, J., and Pirrello, M. (2001). “Applying joint probabilities and cumula-
tive effects to estimate storm-induced erosion and shoreline recession.”
American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, Shore and Beach,
69(2).
Cox, J., and Utku, M. (2003). “Conceptual marina design development,
Middle Bass Island, Lake Erie.” Submitted to Ohio Dept. of Natural
Resources, Columbus, OH.
d’Angremond, K., and van Roode, F. C. (2001). Breakwaters and closure
dams, Delft University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
DiLorenzo, J. L., Ram, R., Huang, P., and Najarian, T. O. (1991). “Simpli-
fied tidal flushing model for small marinas.” Proc., World Marinas ‘91,
1st Int’l. Conf. ASCE/Southern California Adv. Grp., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Gardner, W. (1978). “Fluxes, dynamics, and chemistry of particulates in
the ocean.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Woods Hole Oceano-
graphic Institution, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
Gaythwaite, J. (1990). Design of maritime facilities, van Nostrand, New York.
Goda, Y. (2000) Random seas and design of maritime structures, 2nd Ed. World
Scientific, Singapore.
Hardaway, C., and Gunn, J. (2000). “Shoreline protection: Guidelines for

pocket beaches in Chesapeake Bay, USA.” Proc., Carbonate Beaches 2000,
ASCE, Reston, VA.
Hershberger, D., and Ting, F. (1996). “Study of wind waves in the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway at Arkansas National Wildlife Refuge.” ASCE J.
Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Eng., Sept./Oct.

Hiraishi, T. (2006). “Development of long period wave absorber.” Proc.,
16th Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf., ISOPE, Cupertino, CA.
Hiraishi, T., Atsumi, Y., Kunita, A., and Sekiguchi, S. (1997). “Observation
of long period wave and ship motion in Tomakomai-port.” Proc., 7th
Int. Offshore and Polar Eng. Conf., May 25–30, 1997, Honolulu, Hawaii,
ISOPE, Cupertino, CA.
Hofland, B., Christiansen, H., Crowder, R., Kirby, R., van Leeuwen, C.,
and Winterwerp, J. (2001). “The current deflecting wall in an estuarine
harbour.” Proc., XXIV IAHR Congress, Beijing, IAHR, Madrid.
Hurdle, D. P., and Stive, R. J .H. (1989). “Revision of SPM 1984 hindcast
model to avoid inconsistencies in engineering applications.” Coast.
Eng., 12, 339–351.
Komar, P. (1976). Beach processes and sedimentation, Prentice Hall, New York.
Kriebel, D., and Bollman, C. (1996). “Wave transmission past vertical wave
barriers.” Proc., 25th Int. Conf. on Coastal Eng., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Krone, R. (1987) “Reducing sedimentation rates in harbor facilities.” Sedi-
mentation control to reduce maintenance dredging of navigational facilities in
estuaries: Report and symposium proceedings, Marine Board, Commission on
Engineering and Technical Systems, National Research Council, National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Kuijper, C., Christiansen, H., Cornelisse, J., and Winterwerp, J. (2005).
“Reducing harbour siltation. Part II: Application to Parkhafen,
Hamburg.” ASCE J. Waterway, Port, Coastal & Ocean Eng., Nov./Dec.
Li, Y., and Hatto, K. (1998). “Overtopping and splash-up on a model
seawall.” California Institute of Technology: Project to Fulfill the Require-
ments of Course CE113b, March 20, 1998, California Institute of Technol-
ogy, Pasadena, CA.
Marine Science Laboratories. (1992). “Methods for determining pollutant
dispersion in tidal waters.” Report U89-5, II(3), Unit for Coastal and
Estuarine Studies, College of North Wales.
Matheson, D. (1988). “Performance of riprap in northern climates.” Con-
tract Report to the Canadian Electrical Association, CEA No. 625 G 571,
Acres International Limited, London.
McDougal, W., Williams, N., and Furukawa, K. (1996). “Multiple-pit
breakwaters.” ASCE J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Eng., Jan./Feb.
Melo, E., and Guza, R. (1990). “Wave propagation in a jettied entrance
channel.” Scripps Institution of Oceanography Reference Series # 90-1, Cali-
fornia Department of Boating and Waterways, Sacramento, CA.
Michel, B. (1978). Ice mechanics, Les Presses de L’Universite Laval, Quebec.

Morita, S., and Nakamura, T. (1999). “Effectiveness of wave resonators for
harbor tranquility.” Coastal Structures ‘99: Proceedings of an International
Conference, Santander, Spain, 7–10 June, 1999, A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
Nasner, H. (1992). Sedimentation in the Tidehafen (Sedimentation in Tidal

Harbours), Die Kuest, Heft 53 (in German).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Ocean
Service (NOAA/NOS). (2009). “Center for Operational Oceanographic
Products and Services.” <http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov> (Nov. 7,
2011).
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Weather
Service (NOAA/NWS). (2002). “National Weather Service.” <http://
www.nws.noaa.gov> (Nov. 7, 2011).
Nece, C. W., Richey, E. P., Rhee, J., and Smith, H. N. (1979). “Effects of
planform geometry on tidal flushing and mixing in marinas.” Technical
Report No. 62, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering,
University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Nichol, J. (1985). “Observations in small boat harbors: Harbor design con-
cepts.” Proc., West Coast Regional Coastal Design Conf., ASCE, Reston, VA.
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants. (1982). “Provisionally recommended
criteria for a ‘good’ wave climate in small craft harbors.” Prepared for
Fisheries Canada. Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Ottawa.
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC).
(1981). “Report on design of breakwaters for yacht harbours.” Supple-
ment to Bulletin No. 38, Vol. 1, PIANC, Brussels, Belgium.
PIANC. (1995) “Approach channels, preliminary guidelines.” Supplement
to Bulletin No. 87, PIANC, Brussels, Belgium.
PIANC. (1997). “Approach channels, a guide for design.” Supplement to
Bulletin No. 95, PIANC, Brussels, Belgium.
Postma, H. (1967). “Sediment transport and sedimentation in the estua-
rine environment.” Estuaries, American Association for the Advance-
ment of Science (AAAS), Washington, DC.
Rohr, F. (1934) “Water and sediment movements in river and sea har-
bours.” Flussbaulaboratorium der Technisschen Hochschule, Karlsrule Pub
I, Verlag von R. Oldenbourg, Munich.
Rosenzweig, C., and Solecki, W. (2010). “Climate change adaption in New
York City: Building a risk management response.” Ann. NY Acad. Sci.,
Vol. 1196.
Schiereck, G. (2001). Introduction to bed, bank, and shore protection, Delft
University Press, Delft, The Netherlands.
Sibul, O. (1955). “Laboratory study of wind tides in shallow water.”
Tech Memo 61, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board,
Washington, DC.
Silvester, R., and Hsu, J. (1993). Coastal stabilization: Innovative concepts,

Prentice-Hall, New York.
Smith, H., Carter, R., and Jones, D. (2002). Achieving and maintaining water
quality in small boat harbors. Prepared for Alaska Department of Envi-
ronmental Conservation, July 2002. ADEC, Juneau, AK.
Sorensen, R. (2005). Basic coastal engineering, 3rd Ed. Springer, New York.
Thompson, E., and Vincent, C. (1985). “Significant wave height for shallow
water design.” ASCE J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Eng., Vol. 111.
Thomson, W. (1972). Theory of vibration, Prentice Hall, New York.
Tobiasson, B., and Kollmeyer, R. (2000). Marinas and small craft harbors,
Westviking Press, Medfield, MA.
Tsinker, G. (1997). Handbook of port and harbor engineering, Chapman &
Hall/Taylor & Francis, New York.
Ursell, F. (1952). “Edge waves on a sloping beach.” Proc., Royal Soc. London,
A(214), 79–97.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1981). Low cost shore protection—
A property owner’s guide, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
USACE. (1984). Shore protection manual, Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC.
USACE. (1995). “Design of coastal revetments, seawalls, and bulkheads.”
Engineer Manual 1110-2-1614, Government Printing Office, Washington,
DC.
USACE. (2002a). “Coastal engineering manual.” Engineer Manual 1110-2-
1100, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
USACE. (2002b). “Ice engineering.” Engineer Manual 1110-2-1612, Govern-
ment Printing Office, Washington, DC.
USACE. (2009). “Water resource policies and authorities incorporating
sea-level change considerations in civil works programs.” EC 1165-2-
211, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (1985). Coastal marinas
assessment handbook, Washington, DC.
Vanoni, V. (1975). Sedimentation engineering, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Van de Kreeke, J. (1983). “Residence time: Application to small boat
basins.” ASCE J. Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Eng., 109(4).
Van Schijndel, A., and Kranenburg, C. (1998) “Reducing the siltation of
the river harbour.” IAHR J. Hyd. Res., 36(5).
Vollmers, H. (1963). “Systematics of measures to reduce sedimentation in
the mouth of river harbours.” Technische Hochschule, Karlsruhe (in
German).
Wiegel, R. (1964). Oceanographical engineering, Prentice Hall, New York
(re-released in 2005 by Dover, Mineola, NY).
Wilson, B. (1970). “Seiches and other causes of the motion of ships already
moored.” Analytical Treatment of the Problems of Berthing & Mooring
Ships. ASCE, Reston, VA.
CHAPTER 3
INNER HARBOR STRUCTURES

Mark A. Pirrello, P.E.
Timothy P. Mason, P.E.
Christopher L. Dolan
Inner harbor structures are the building blocks of the small craft harbor.
These structures define the water–land interface and the berthing areas,
thereby creating a link between humans, vessels, and water. Inner harbor
structures are also the basis for revenue generation—they create an avenue
to lease/sell slips and generate income from utility services and other
concessions.
This chapter discusses the planning and design issues associated with
inner harbor structures consisting of shoreline treatments, fixed piers, float-
ing docks, and wave attenuation systems. The fixed pier or floating dock
may be considered the most essential inner harbor structure since their
singular purpose is to berth one or more vessels—the basis of almost small
craft harbors. Design criteria and the general overview of materials, perfor-
mance, and functionality will be presented. Shoreline structures that define
the perimeter of a small craft harbor will be discussed in terms of materials,
performance, and cost. Outer harbor wave protection and attenuation
systems and structures to dissipate outside wave action from entering small
craft harbors were discussed in Chapter 2, whereas wave attenuation
systems that are incorporated into fixed piers or floating docks to further
reduce wave agitation within the inner harbor are presented in this chapter.
Mark A. Pirrello, P.E., M.ASCE, is a Senior Coastal Engineer with Moffatt &
Nichol, Tampa, FL. Timothy P. Mason, P.E., is Senior Coastal Engineer with
Applied Technology and Management, Inc., St. Augustine, FL. Christopher L.
Dolan is a Marina Design Engineer with Eaton Corporation, Williamsburg, VA.
The following people also contributed to this chapter: Bruce E. Lunde, Principal,
Lunde Williams, LLC, Madison, WI, Gabriel A. Perdomo, P.E., Coastal Engineer,
Moffatt & Nichol, Tampa, FL and Shannon M. Kinsella, P.E., M.ASCE, Waterfront
Group Director with Reid Middleton.
191
SHORELINE STABILIZATION
General Considerations
In many cases facilities sited on coastal bays, lakes, or rivers are exposed
to significant water level changes, currents, winds, waves, and other envi-
ronmental forces. These forces result in shoreline erosion and bank insta-
bility, which reduces the amount of available upland space and may
endanger upland infrastructure (buildings, utilities, roadways, etc.) In
addition, the effects of upland stormwater runoff or drainage can also
negatively impact shorelines.
The selection of shoreline protection alternatives is dictated largely by
the following engineering considerations:
• Erosion control requirements

• Typical and storm waves and water levels
• Amount of wave reflection or dissipation required/permitted
• Stormwater/drainage issues
• Upland and waterside spatial requirements and limitations
• Aesthetics
• Environmental concerns and regulations.
Structural solutions typically protect inner harbor and small craft

harbor basin shorelines from erosion and inundation of the adjacent
upland areas. Shoreline stabilization structures are engineered to protect
embankments from erosion or other damage due to waves and currents
and to retain or prevent sliding failure of land. The most standard methods
of “hard” shoreline stabilization for inner harbors, and small craft harbor
basins in particular, include vertical bulkheads and/or revetment slope
protection. “Soft” solutions include beaches, natural or vegetated slopes,
and geotextile elements. Typical shoreline protection and stabilization
alternatives are presented in Table 3-1.
General Design Process The first step in selecting shoreline stabiliza-

tion measures includes field data collection and assessment of site envi-
ronmental conditions. Basic data needs for shoreline structure design
include
• Site topographic and bathymetric surveys, extending from landward

of the proposed shoreline position to a point well beyond the antici-
pated shoreline position/toe of structure (i.e., to navigable/desired
ambient or dredge depths). Survey transects should be according to
accepted practice and at typically 15- to 30-m (50- to 100-ft) intervals
(depending on project shoreline length).
wnloaded from ascelibrary.org by Shaun McFarlane on 04/30/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserv
Table 3-1. Comparison of Typical Shoreline Protection Alternatives
Footprint Impact for Relative Construction

Alternative Function Storm Protection Shoreline Treatment Costa
Do nothing Preserve existing conditions None—natural No change 0
INNER HARBOR STRUCTURES

erosion
Beach “Soft” aesthetic, dissipate Low-Moderate Wide $
wave energy
Vegetated or geotextile Maintain slope, maximize Low-Moderate Moderate to Wide $
bank protection aesthetic and biological
results
Sloped revetment Stabilize shore and Moderate-High Moderate $$
dissipate wave energy
Bulkhead/wall Retain upland and reflect High Minimal $$$
waves
Gunite/shotcrete slopes Stabilize slope and retain Moderate-High Minimal to Moderate $$$
upland
a
Construction costs are based on typical project requirements, for comparative purposes only. Actual costs will vary based on geo-
graphic location, availability of local materials and equipment, and final design parameters/details.
193
• Oceanographic/environmental data including water levels, winds,

waves, currents, and vessel wakes. This will include both typical
(operational) and extreme (design) conditions. Sediment transport
patterns at the site should also be characterized.
• Detailed soils information. A comprehensive geotechnical investiga-
tion, including soil borings and sediment analysis, is required prior

to final design of the structure. These data are used for foundation
and structural design of project components.
The engineer’s goal is to determine, in communications with the com-

missioning entity, an appropriate design life and risk (that is desired or
acceptable) for the shoreline protection based on site environmental and
physical factors, permitting requirements, aesthetics, and budget. The
level of protection provided to the asset, both on land and in the water,
should also be considered. The Coastal Engineering Manual (CEM) (USACE
2006), Revetment Systems against Wave Attack (McConnell 1998), and
various Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) manuals [e.g., UFC 4-150-06
(NAVFAC 2001)] provide information on the design factors, performance
criteria, and required baseline data (field surveys, etc.) for shoreline sta-
bilization. They also discuss the concept of risk/reliability in project
design in greater detail.
The basic design steps for basin shoreline stabilization can be summa-
rized generally as follows:
• Evaluate site conditions via field surveys.

• Establish design forces and factors (environmental conditions
including winds, water levels, waves and vessel wakes, currents,
and, where present, such forces resulting from seismic action, tsu-
namis, tropical storms, and/or ice).
• Determine stabilization options, including intended function and
required service life.
• With the property owner, select design damage levels and resulting
risks and identify probable maintenance requirements.
• Advance detailed design including economic optimization (where
possible). This stage may involve numerical modeling and/or physi-
cal modeling for large or costly structures. It is important to discuss
with the property owner that additional expenditures associated
with physical model tests will often result in significant construction
cost savings via optimization of the structural design.
Types of Shoreline Treatments Many types of shoreline treatments

(also called edge treatments) are available for stabilization of inner harbor
and small craft harbor perimeters. Since the goal of small craft harbor
basins is to provide a quiescent environment for boater safety and comfort,
INNER HARBOR STRUCTURES 195
with wave conditions within the basin being typically small—less than
0.6 m (2 ft)—most of the alternative methods are viable. When design
waves exceed 0.6 to 0.9 m (2–3 ft), special consideration should be given
to the proposed material for shoreline treatment.
Primary shoreline treatment selection criteria include the following:
material physical properties and strength, durability, adaptability, cost,

availability, handling/constructability, maintenance requirements, and
environmental impact. In addition, the interaction of the shoreline treat-
ment with boats and humans should be considered.
Typical materials used for construction of inner harbor and small craft
harbor edge treatments include sand, rock, concrete, steel, aluminum,
timber, composites, and geotextiles. The type of materials used, in con-
junction with the local existing soils, salinity level, and oceanographic
conditions are important to the life-cycle costs and performance of the
selected alternative. The design engineer should have experience with
material performance on previous, similar shoreline projects. Detailed
information on the materials for shoreline treatment is also found in
Section VI of the CEM (USACE 2006).
Beaches
Applicability/Suitability Creation of beaches within small craft
harbor basins and harbors is an economical and effective method to
dampen local wave action and also provide a recreational/aesthetic
feature. A sloped beach, as depicted in Fig. 3-1, is an ideal wave absorber
as waves will break on the beach and thus the beach dissipates much of
the incident energy and minimizes reflection. In general, the choice of fill
materials should be based on desired slope and incident wave character-
istics. Viability of the use of beach fills within small craft harbors depends
on spatial availability (i.e., available water space to accommodate the
submerged slope), sedimentation and littoral drift, local currents/wave
action, and water quality.
Design Guidance/Criteria Beach slopes vary in proportion to sedi-

ment grain size, with steeper slopes associated with coarser materials.
Typical upper beach slopes (from crest elevations to approximately mean
low water) range from 1V : 7H for coarse materials to 1V : 15H for finer-
grained sands. Cobble or shingle beaches may exhibit slopes as steep as
1V : 5H. Open coast beach slopes below mean low water (MLW) may be
1V : 10H to 1V : 30H or flatter, as typically determined from equilibrium
profile theory and grain size. Underwater stable slopes in harbors and
embayments below about −0.9 m (−3 ft) MLW range from 1V : 4H for cohe-
sionless, fine silty sands to 1V : 1.25H for stiff clays, and 1V : 10H or flatter
for soft muds and silts found in many U.S. harbors and waterways.
Fig. 3-1. Wave-absorbing beach integrated with marina, Port La Napoule,

Côte d’Azur, France
Source: Courtesy of Applied Technology and Management
Another factor that should be considered is the thickness of the sandy

material that covers rock or other undesirable features. The frequency of
storm events and long-term littoral processes will often result in substan-
tial seasonal elevation changes to the beach. This is particularly important
for beach areas in resort and park settings where the beach is a significant
part of the public (and private) amenity and may be required to be main-
tained for public access to the water. Minimum sand thicknesses are typi-
cally determined by beach slope and existing geometry, but in most cases
a 0.5-m (18-in.) sand layer is considered a minimum.
When considering beaches in the implementation of numerical models
for wave dissipation (particularly when beaches are located inside or
adjacent to a small craft harbor basin), reflection coefficients typically
range from 0.15 to 0.3, depending on the beach slope and materials.
Design guidance for beaches is covered extensively in the CEM (USACE
2006) and international guidance such as Construction Industry Research
and Information Association (CIRIA)’s Beach Management Manual (1996).
Materials Most beaches in the continental United States are largely

sandy in nature, with typical grain sizes ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 mm. The
Georgia and South Carolina coasts exhibit finer-grained materials (often

with significant silt and clay percentages), whereas some locations in
the Pacific Northwest and New England may be characterized by cobble
or shingle beaches (exhibiting significant percentages of gravel-sized
material). Materials finer than sand (i.e., <0.0625 mm) are subject to
very flat slopes and increased erosion potential and, therefore, are not
typically desirable as beach materials unless stabilized with locally
appropriate wetland vegetation. Sandy beaches should typically include
less than 10% by weight of materials smaller than sand size, as defined
above.
The majority of sandy beaches consist of quartz particles with varying
percentages of other materials. Most notable is calcium carbonate, which
may form a large part of the overall beach materials in areas with high
shell content and/or in tropical climates. Creation of a beach shoreline
requires identification of a suitable sand source, of which the material
proposed shall be compatible (i.e., of similar grain size and texture) with
the local, naturally occurring beaches and be specified to match the local
wave climate in order to remain stable.
Beach material color varies widely, from near-white along the Florida
panhandle, to tans and grays along many coastlines, and black along
volcanic shorelines such as Hawaii and Central America. Environmental
permitting difficulties may be encountered if sand proposed for a beach
fill project differs significantly from that of local, naturally occurring
beaches.
Interface with Boats and Humans In order to minimize effects on

vessel berthing and navigation spaces, beaches, where utilized, should be
evaluated closely. For practical purposes, beach materials should be
selected that maximize beach steepness (i.e., reach navigable depths
quickly) while not compromising beach stability or user safety where
applicable. Design analysis should include sediment transport modeling
to identify erosion potential and suitability for the beach as well as to
minimize siltation at the harbor entrances and mooring basin from the
beach area. In addition, the recreational use of the beach should also be
considered. Where public access may occur from a beach for kayaking,
swimming, or other uses within a small craft harbor basin, the beach areas
should be properly demarked and offset from vessel traffic lanes to ensure
public safety.
Vegetated Banks
Applicability/Suitability Vegetated banks provide an ecologically
advantageous shoreline treatment solution where environmental mitiga-
tion and habitat creation or enhancement are desirable. This solution is
typically less costly than hard structural solutions, but may also involve
additional risk due to uncertainties in the performance of the planted/
restored vegetation. More frequent monitoring and maintenance may be
required following construction. Selection of proper plant species, design
elevations and slopes, and a clear understanding of the local environmen-
tal conditions are paramount to the success of this shoreline treatment

option. Short-term (daily) and long-term (seasonal and extreme) changes
in water level should be evaluated to determine the appropriate planting
species and their respective water level requirements (partial and full
submergence). Vegetated banks evolve over time as sediment collects and
water levels change, leading to a possible succession in plant types. This
succession in plant types should be considered as it may affect the func-
tionality and aesthetics of the shoreline. In addition, resistance to erosion
is generally more limited than with hard shoreline structures; therefore,
a clear understanding of current speeds, water level changes, and wave
conditions is critical.
Design Guidance/Criteria Vegetated bank solutions may range from

simple vegetated slopes to more complex designs including bioengineering
(implementing live staking, brush matting, wattling, etc.) and biotechnical
solutions (implementing engineered geotextile products or other struc-
tural materials in conjunction with vegetation).
Biotechnical solutions may include such geotextile elements as
• Fiber logs and fascines

• Gabion baskets, mattresses, and geocells
• Filament mats and blankets.
In addition to bioengineering and biotechnical solutions, natural mate-

rial such as crushed oyster shells may be used in conjunction with vegeta-
tion to stabilize banks and slopes. It is recommended that qualified local
biologists/ecologists be involved early in the design process when veg-
etated banks are considered. They can provide site-specific experience and
expertise related to local soils, water quality conditions, and types of
plants to be used. Design for vegetated banks is covered in detail for
freshwater locations (streams and lakes) in the USDA-NRCS National
Engineering Handbook, Part 654 (USDA/NRCS 2007). Vegetated bank
shorelines generally require flatter slopes than hard erosion control solu-
tions, and this should be factored in the design. For biotechnical solutions
in harbors and waterways, PIANC (1996) provides detailed design
guidance.
Materials/Plant Types Soil materials, salinity, pH, frequency of inun-

dation, etc., will all affect the choice of vegetation materials at any site. In
addition, the climatic conditions (including rainfall, temperatures, and

solar radiation) affect plant selection. In general, there are three types of
plants suitable for vegetated banks:
• Woody plants and shrubs: willows, dogwoods, mangroves (Fig. 3-2)

• Grasses: beachgrass, marshgrass, sedges, rushes (Fig. 3-3)

• Submerged aquatic vegetation: various sea grasses.
As described above, involvement by local qualified ecologists and bota-

nists is recommended to identify suitable plant types.
Revetments
Applicability/Suitability The purpose and application of a revet-
ment is to stabilize the shoreline while maximizing wave dissipation
within the small craft harbor via a sloped, rough (and flexible) structure.
Revetments consist of a cover of erosion-resistant material placed on an
existing slope or embankment. The granular nature of a revetment allows
for the release of hydrostatic water pressure through the structure.
Wherever spatial planning permits, revetments are recommended to
minimize wave reflections and basin agitation that may adversely affect
vessel berthing. Revetments are also desirable because many types will
allow for habitat creation via incorporation of plantings within interstitial
spaces or between structural elements.
Fig. 3-2. Natural mangrove shoreline, Marigot Bay, St. Lucia

Fig. 3-3. Precast block wall with marshgrass, Riverwalk at Charleston, South
Carolina
Source: Courtesy of Applied Technology and Management.
The cost of a revetment is typically lower than a bulkhead, although

maintenance can be more frequent due to rock dislocations that result if
waves exceed the design conditions. Revetments, like all flexible struc-
tures, are designed to sustain some level of acceptable damage under
specific wave events. That is, a tradeoff exists between costs of construc-
tion and level of protection/acceptable damage. Regular inspections are
required to maintain the structure and prevent failure.
Design Guidance/Criteria There are three primary features of a

revetment: (1) stable armor layer, (2) filter cloth or underlayer, and (3) toe
protection. Local stone or other prefabricated armor units are placed on
a slope (typically ranging from 1V : 1.5H to 1V : 4H depending on wave
exposure) to increase energy dissipation and reduce wave reflection. A
slope steeper than 1V : 1.5H is not recommended as the stability of the
stone may be compromised. Design requirements include primarily the
sizing and specification of the armor layer, underlayers, and filter layer.
Armor layers are often determined via the classic Hudson formula (which
is related to incident wave height, armor unit density, and structure slope)
or via the Van der Meer formula (USACE 2006). The Van der Meer method
is more rigorous and relates to incident wave conditions as well as the
level of damage that is considered acceptable to the designer. The reader
is referred to the CEM (USACE 2006), which provides revetment design
parameters via both of these methods, or McConnell (1998), who gives a
detailed description of the design factors and procedures for all types of
revetments.
For most state and federal recreational facilities, revetments are typi-
cally designed to withstand a 25- to 50-year recurrence interval design
conditions with little to no damage. The design level for the structure
itself and the associated levels of protection—specifically the crest

height and toe depth—should be determined based at a minimum on
oceanographic conditions, material availability, and cost. Overtopping
and wave runup are primary concerns in the development of revetment
design. The CIRIA Rock Manual (2007) provides guidelines for allowable
overtopping rates with anticipated upland use and damage. For prelimi-
nary purposes, the crest of the revetment in protected facilities may be
taken as a minimum of 0.6 to 0.9 m (2–3 ft) above the anticipated high
water level.
As with all shoreline structures, the toe of the structure is the most
vulnerable to scour and erosion. If scour is significant, the toe may fail
and this can lead to failure of the entire structure. The seaward toe of the
revetment should extend to a depth at least as great as the incident design
wave height, or 0.9 m (3 ft) below extreme low water (whichever is larger).
In cases where the toe depth is less than 1.5 times the incident design
wave height, a toe apron or berm should be considered to reduce chances
of significant scour at the structure toe. Where the slope continues well
below the toe, the toe should be placed on a bench that is wider than the
total stone thickness.
The subgrade under the revetment, especially if a loosely placed fill,
should be compacted properly to minimize risk of settlement and other
geotechnical failures. Geotextile filters are typically used, often in place
of a granular filter layer, to limit soil loss through the revetment while
allowing free drainage.
Revetment Types and Materials

Stone Stone and stone riprap are the most common materials for
revetments in the United States and overseas due to availability, durabil-
ity, and ability to withstand limited damage even if design conditions are
exceeded. Ideally, locally obtained rock is used for construction of revet-
ments to reduce transportation costs; however, many locations do not
have convenient quarries that can produce appropriate stone. In these
cases revetment materials may need to be imported from available sources
via truck, rail, or barge and thus increase costs. A description of types of
stone and their use for coastal projects is provided in Sections VI-4-1 and
VI-4-3 of the CEM (USACE 2006) and CIRIA (2007), and an example of its
use is shown in Fig. 3-4.
When stone of sufficient size to be used for armor layers is not avail-
able, gabions (heavy galvanized and/or PVC-coated wire mesh filled with
Fig. 3-4. Sloped rock revetment, Marina Cabo San Lucas, Mexico
Source: Courtesy of Timothy P. Mason, P.E.
stone), modular concrete block, or natural stacked stone may be used.

Caution should be used when utilizing traditional gabions in saltwater
locations and where wave heights exceed 0.3 m (1 ft). Modular concrete
block retaining wall systems are widely used to retain soil and stabilize
slopes of upland embankments, but have also been applied to stabilize
river and lake shorelines. These walls are generally applied where eleva-
tion differences between the upland and the lake/river bottom is less than
3 m (10 ft). The slope of the wall face varies from 6V : 1H to 8V : 1H and
typically requires a geo-grid system to resist passive soil pressure. A pre-
pared foundation that can support the load-bearing capacity of the wall
system is also critical, as is the use of granular backfill material to relieve
hydrostatic pressure. These conditions generally necessitate installing the
wall “in dry.” These systems are not recommended when wave heights
exceed 0.3 m (1 ft).
Stacked stone walls function in a similar manner to those of modular
concrete block systems in that the weight of the stone resists the passive
soil pressures. The slope of this type of wall ranges from 1H : 6V to 2H : 6V
and requires a minimum 0.3-m (1-ft) embedment into the substrate. The
maximum recommended elevation difference between the upland and
mud line is 3 m (10 ft). Gray and Sotir (1996) provide design guidance for
stacked stone walls. Cox (2009) provides a basis for determining the size
and weight of the stone as a function of the wave height, though it is
recommended that this stacked stone wall system be applied when wave
heights are less than 0.6 m (2 ft).
Concrete Concrete is a predominant construction material for water-

front facilities due to its durability, strength, and economy. In addition,
the basic components of concrete are readily available at most locations
worldwide. Specially designed concrete armor units (dolos, accropode,
cubes, etc.) are an option for revetments where rock is not feasible due to
size requirements or where rock costs are too high. These units exhibit
higher stability coefficients and result in steeper slopes and/or reduction
in capacity of required construction equipment. Poured-in-place concrete
pavements are also an option, but will not provide the level of wave dis-
sipation provided by a structure consisting of armor units. Design of
poured-in-place structures should also consider resistance to sliding
down slope, expansion, and poor water pressure relief. Section VI of the
CEM (USACE 2006) summarizes specific applications of concrete in
coastal construction.
Mats/Mattresses Articulated concrete block mattresses (ABMs), like

the one in Fig. 3-5, or synthetic marine mattresses (a type of gabion) may
Fig. 3-5. Articulated concrete block mattress (ABM) and revetment, Batiquitos
Lagoon, Carlsbad, California
Source: Courtesy of Nicholas DeGennaro, P.E.
be preferred if the wave conditions are not severe [typically wave heights
less than 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft)] and where costs of importing rock or
concrete armor units are excessive. These alternative materials may also
be more favorable from a constructability standpoint, as most of them are
preassembled or assembled on land and installed in sections along the
bank. The size of the prefabricated section is limited to the crane capacity
and the inherent strength of the connection materials. This prefabrication
allows for a more rapid installation.
Geotextiles In recent years geotextiles have increased in popularity.

Traditional usage of woven and nonwoven geotextiles has been to provide
a filter layer between the in situ soils and the revetment bedding/under-
layer. Geotextile applications for revetment armor units include marine
mattresses and gabions, since they are more resistant to long-term corro-
sion than traditional wire/metal mesh gabion structures and exhibit
excellent strength properties. Other uses of geotextiles include mechani-
cally stabilized earth (MSE) walls. These structures use geotextile fabrics
placed in specific layers between soil lifts to provide protection from
sliding failure.
Interface with Boats and Humans The sloped characteristic of a

revetment will reduce the amount of usable water or land space in the
small craft harbor. It will require the docks and piers to be offset farther
into the basin, so that vessels are berthed in adequate depths, and so
that floating docks, if used, do not ground on the revetment at low
water levels. In some cases the revetment may be placed below a
marginal or perimeter fixed walkway, which provides added wave
dissipation capabilities while reducing impacts to the basin size and
aesthetics.
Most codes do not address requirements for handrails associated
with small craft harbor structures, except for Americans with Disabilities
Act accessibility guidelines (ADAAG) (ADAAG 2004) related to fishing
piers and articulating gangways. ASCE (1994) suggests that handrails
should be used on the upland limit whenever revetment slopes exceed
1V : 1.5H. Specific requirements for handrail design, where installed,
should be according to local codes. Handrail types may range from
treated softwood or hardwood timber, to timber or metal posts and jute
or rope rails, to aluminum or stainless steel pickets and stainless steel
cable rails.
In lieu of handrails, some entities have used lighted bollards at regular
(~3-m, or 10-ft) intervals to mark the edge of the bank. A low curb or
seating wall can also be placed along the top edge of the revetment to
provide a safe separation between the revetment and adjacent upland
facilities such as boardwalks.
Bulkheads
Applicability/Suitability Bulkheads and seawall structures are typi-
cally constructed to provide maximum upland protection against wave
attack and to retain backfill. They provide a clean, uniform shoreline
border that may allow for upland development immediately adjacent to

the water and similarly maximize water usage space by allowing dredged
depths in close proximity to the vertical structure.
Typically, bulkheads are the most costly alternative (as compared to
other shoreline stabilization alternatives) and they reflect more than 90%
of incident wave energy. This can lead to uncomfortable conditions for
adjacent berthed vessels. Final selection of bulkhead material will depend
on the upland surcharge loads, exposed height (crest elevation and toe
depth), and existing soil conditions (physical parameters and structural
capacity) in the vicinity of the shoreline.
Design Guidance/Criteria Bulkhead design is governed by the soil

and water level conditions on each side of the structure (i.e., soil and water
pressures), as well as the anticipated vertical loading (surcharge) on the
landward side of the structure. The geotechnical investigation for the
project provides the soil pressures and horizontal load criteria for the
bulkhead. Vertical live loads on the upland side of the bulkhead will range
from typically 4.8 kPa (100 psf) as a minimum (based on standard “assem-
bly load”) to 24+ kPa (500+ psf) where large vehicles (e.g., fire trucks,
emergency equipment) are provided access in close proximity to the bulk-
head. Where construction loads or equipment and buildings are located
within 9 m (30 ft) of the bulkhead, additional analysis should be per-
formed to evaluate any additional surcharge loads that may influence
bulkhead design.
The crest of the structure is established at the maximum desired limit
of flood and/or wave uprush protection, which is always balanced by
economics and risk. Overtopping where upland structures and people
are present is a significant concern and should be addressed via
accepted methods, as found in CIRIA (2007) or CEM (USACE 2006). Toe
protection is essential for vertical bulkheads due to potential for scouring
by waves, currents, and vessel propeller action at the seabed. Preliminary
guidance for crest elevations and toe protection is similar to that for
revetments.
In addition, factors including seismic loads and potential for bollard/
cleat “pull” loads and berthing impact loads should be considered if
vessel berthing is anticipated adjacent to the bulkhead.
Material Types Bulkhead materials vary with site exposure, soils,

load requirements, and desired life span. The costs for each type vary
based on the materials selected—from timber and composites at the lower

end to concrete panels, aluminum sheeting and, finally, steel sheet piles
at the higher end. Correspondingly, timber is generally applied as a
gravity wall where load conditions are less severe, whereas steel sheet
piles or concrete panels are preferred where very large loads are
anticipated.
Steel Steel sheet piles interlock and can be driven into hard, dense
soils, typically in pairs. The interlocking feature of steel sheet piles, as
shown in Fig. 3-6, helps to minimize loss of backfill through the bulkhead.
Prudent design practice also includes installation of a geotextile or gravel
filter between the bulkhead and the backfill to further prevent sediment
loss. The installing contractor and engineer should specify that geotextile
filters are installed above the mud line to minimize potential loss of back-
fill via seepage through the bulkhead (at weep holes) and/or loss below
the sheets. Where significant exposures exist, composite walls of varying
steel sections (i.e., pipes or H-sections) can be utilized with Z-shaped sheet
pile sections to stiffen the structure. In seawater, corrosion will be signifi-
cant in both the intertidal and splash zones, thus protective coatings or
cathodic protection systems are essential. Properly designed, protected,
and maintained steel bulkheads can provide service lives of 50 years.
Aluminum Aluminum sheet piles, like those shown in Fig. 3-7, are
provided in shapes similar to steel and provide good corrosion resistance
Fig. 3-6. Steel sheet pile bulkhead, Sheboygan, Wisconsin

Fig. 3-7. Aluminum bulkhead beneath concrete cap, Ripley Light Marina,
Charleston, South Carolina
in seawater. Care should be taken where steel and aluminum products

are in close proximity and in locations of active soils, as galvanic action
will be increased and cause rapid deterioration. In general, aluminum
sections exhibit lower allowable bending moments than steel and there-
fore are not suitable for high walls, extreme exposures, and extreme
loadings.
Concrete Piles/Panels and Gravity Walls Concrete panels or sheet piles

are used similarly to steel sheet piles, typically with concrete king piles,
as shown in Fig. 3-8. Proper use of geotextile and/or gravel filters at the
joints between concrete panels is critical for minimizing soil loss from
behind the structure. Exposed heights, due to limitations on concrete sheet
pile sections, are more limited than for steel. Marine concrete mixes and
minimum cover should be specified to minimize corrosion of reinforce-
ment. An alternative to sheet piles is the cast-in-place L-shaped wall or
gravity block wall structure. In the northeast United States, granite block
walls are constructed with locally available materials. Precast concrete
block walls, an example of which is pictured in Fig. 3-9, are favored in the
UK, Middle East, and other global areas. In France and Japan, prefabri-
cated concrete units have been designed with internal wave dissipating
chambers (“Jarlan”-type walls). Design guidance for gravity block walls
is covered in detail in BS 6349-2 (BSI 2010). Service lives of properly
designed concrete structures in the marine environment may be 30+ years.
Fig. 3-8. Concrete king pile and panel bulkhead, Boat Harbor Marina Abaco,
Bahamas
Timber Wood and timber members have been used in waterfront con-
struction for many years, due to availability, economy, and ease of han-
dling relative to other construction materials. Their design life is typically
less than concrete or steel products (typically under 30 years), and exposed
heights are more severely limited due to allowable timber bending
strengths. Bulkheads in timber are typically formed using three types of
timber sheet piles: tongue-in-groove, wakefield, or single overlap, with
the latter two designs more representative of freshwater applications. The
sheet pile is connected using a system of walers and/or piles with or
without a tie-back anchoring system. Most wood bulkheads are designed
by marine contractors or marine engineers based on knowledge of local
conditions. General design guidance has been provided by Graham (1987)
and the Southern Pine Council (SPC 2009). Various pine species (Southern
yellow, white, and red pine) and Douglas fir are common in fresh- and
saltwater applications. Marine-grade lumber, as specified by the Ameri-
can Wood Protection Association (AWPA), should be utilized, as should
corrosion-resistant fasteners and connectors such as hot-dip galvanized
or stainless steel.
Fig. 3-9. Precast concrete block wall, Dubai Marina, Dubai, U.A.E.
The cyclic wetting and drying of wood in the splash zone maintains a
moist environment that, in conjunction with warm temperatures, oxygen,
and food/nutrients, favors fungal growth. Fungi growth is prevented by
pressurized impregnation of the wood with preservatives. In saltwater
environments, small invertebrate sea animals, commonly referred to as
marine borers, burrow into wood for food and shelter. Preservatives such
as chromated copper arsenate (CCA) are required to minimize wood
decay from borer activity, though some preservatives are no longer con-
sidered environmentally acceptable. The AWPA has published detailed
preservative standards for wood depending on its application. Exotic
hardwoods such as greenheart are less susceptible to marine borer attack
and may be an alternative to treated wood.
Composite and Vinyl Composite materials have become much more

prevalent in recent years for vertical shoreline structures. This relatively
new field is not addressed in the CEM (USACE 2006). Many of the nation’s
leading research organizations are investigating the use of fiber-reinforced
composite [typically, fiber-reinforced plastic (FRP)] materials for concrete
reinforcement. The use of FRP as an outer casing has been found to

increase the load capacity and durability of marine structures and has
been proposed for use as marine piles and other structural elements. Vinyl
sheet piles have been implemented in marine locations for the past 10
years or so and are generally suitable where timber applies and where
exposed heights are limited. While these composite materials offer dura-
bility/longevity advantages over traditional timber alternatives, a com-
plete understanding of their long-term performance characteristics, both
in structural behavior (e.g., bending strength, potential to creep) and in
exposed marine environments, does not currently exist and is mandatory
before their use is widely accepted.
Design Types (Cantilever, Anchored, Batter Pile) Cast-in-place con-

crete and precast block gravity walls are generally described in the Ameri-
can Concrete Institute’s standard ACI 530-08 (ACI 2008), the Federal
Highway Administration/National Highway Institute’s FHWA-
NHI-00-043 (FHWA/NHI 2001) and more specifically in British Standards
Institute’s BS 6349-2 (BSI 2010), respectively.
In the United States, where soils are suitable for pile driving, the preva-
lent method of bulkhead design involves some form of sheet piles (types
described previously). There are three basic forms of sheet pile bulkheads:
cantilever, anchored, and batter pile.
Cantilever Cantilever walls rely solely on the surrounding soils for

support. They are typically employed where exposed heights are less than
3.0 to 4.6 m (10–15 ft). As a general rule, they should not be installed closer
than 1.5 times the total pile length to any structures.
Anchored Anchored walls are implemented where the exposed height

exceeds that possible with a cantilever (based on soils conditions, expo-
sure, and/or deflection criteria). Anchored walls employ some form
of “tie back” into the soil on the upland side of the wall, which is
typically a steel tie back rod connecting the bulkhead (in or below the cap)
to a deadman lying outside the active zone of the soil. Deadmen may
consist of individual round piles, pairs of Z-shaped sheet piles, concrete
blocks, or continuous concrete beams, as well as more elaborate A-frame
systems, all depending on soil conditions and loads. Soil anchors like
helical screws may also be used as tie backs. Setback distances to the
deadmen will vary based on wall exposed height, loads, and soil
conditions.
Batter Pile In cases where landside space is limited, vertical and/or

battered face piles (on the waterward side of the sheeting) may be used
to support the bulkhead system.
Gunite Slopes
Gunite is a dry mixture of cement and aggregate that is combined with
water and sprayed at high pressure. It is widely used to stabilize bluffs
and embankment slopes along highways and can be finished in appear-
ance to match surrounding geologic features. Gunite has been widely

applied to shore protection projects primarily as a means to stabilize
eroding bluffs, as shown in Fig. 3-10. Gunite is usually applied over steel
mesh or steel rebar to increase its strength and durability. The appropriate
gunite mix should be specified in addition to coverage (thickness). At a
minimum, 4,500 psi concrete mix is recommended. A colorant should be
integrated with the concrete mix to improve the longevity of the
appearance.
Interface with Vessels and Humans A pedestrian promenade around

the perimeter of the bulkhead provides good access to the water in public
facilities. Handrails, like the ones shown in Fig. 3-11, are recommended
where public access occurs along bulkheads that do not need to be unre-
stricted for accessing vessel berths (i.e., where berths lie immediately
adjacent to the bulkhead). Refer to the discussion in the revetment section
(above) for additional details. Access for emergency vehicles should be
Fig. 3-10. Gunite-stabilized revetted slope, Treasure Island, Laguna Beach,

California
Source: Courtesy of Moffatt & Nichol
Fig. 3-11. Timber and steel cable pedestrian handrail, Bristol Marina,
provided at intervals appropriate to suit local codes. In these cases the

bulkhead design should take into consideration these additional live
loads landward of the bulkhead. Waste receptacles should also be pro-
vided at convenient intervals along the bulkhead shoreline to minimize
potential for trash to be thrown into the small craft harbor basin.
Another planning consideration during the design phase includes the
placement and sizing of service penetrations for docks, piers, etc. Typical
requirements include the following utilities routed to docks: electrical
cabling, water pipe, fire suppression and sewer piping, fuel product lines,
and IT/communication service lines. Penetrations, similar to the configu-
ration shown in Fig. 3-12, should be cast into the bulkhead and sealed to
minimize potential loss of backfill. Large penetrations that may require
significant structural design and detailing considerations would include
stormwater outlets and large submerged utility mains.
FIXED AND FLOATING DOCKS
The selection of a fixed pier or floating dock to berth one or multiple

vessels should take into consideration the environmental conditions in the
inner harbor, loadings that may be imposed on the fixed pier and floating
Fig. 3-12. Utility penetrations through bulkhead, Old Port Marina, North
Palm Beach, Florida
dock, operational issues related to access and mooring, and primary and
secondary impacts a structure may have on the environment. One or a
combination of these factors may determine the appropriate structure. In
this section the suitability of a fixed pier or floating dock for berthing of
vessels will be discussed.
Environmental Loads
Meteorological, oceanographic, and geologic conditions impose direct
and indirect forces on fixed piers and floating docks. Direct forces may
include horizontal and vertical loads generated by wind, waves, tidal
currents, rapid water level changes, ice, snow, and seismic activity. Indi-
rect forces are those imposed on the structure by a transfer of force from
the vessel to the fixed dock or structure. A berthing load generated by
winds blowing against the profile of the vessel is an example of an indirect
force on the fixed pier or floating dock.
Water Depth Fixed and floating docks are applicable when water
depths within the inner harbor are less than 6 m (20 ft). Floating docks
are preferred when water depths exceed 6 m (20 ft) because the pier con-
struction becomes less economically feasible due to increasing pile and
pile foundation costs. In reservoirs, lakes, or natural harbors that exceed
6 m (20 ft) in depth, catenary, chain, or winch-type systems are used to
anchor floating docks.
Water Level Fluctuations Operational considerations and storm-

induced effects should be reviewed when determining the appropriate-
ness of fixed or floating structures. Operational considerations include the
height at which boat owners have to embark/disembark from vessels and
how often the boat owner may need to adjust mooring lines during
changes in water levels.

Embarking/disembarking from vessels less than 30 m (100 ft) in length
typically requires stepping from a vessel’s gunwale onto the deck of the
pier or dock. (Passerelles/gangways are typically carried by vessels
greater than 30 m). Research shows that abrupt changes in height greater
than 0.5 m (1.5 ft) can significantly decrease incentive for people to
proceed. Since the minimum freeboard of vessels is typically 0.3 to 0.5 m
(12–20 in.), the recommended maximum height differential between
vessel and deck becomes 1 m (3 ft). This height differential is the basis for
utilizing fixed piers in situations where tidal excursions are less than 1 m
(3 ft). When tidal excursions exceed 1 m (3 ft), floating docks are preferred
because the relationship between deck elevation and vessel remains con-
stant. For a fixed dock where the height differential between boat and
deck may exceed 1 m (3 ft), a ladder may be required to accommodate
the boarding process.
Mooring lines typically require adjustment to maintain tension during
changes in water level. Vessels tied to fixed piers should be provided suf-
ficient slack in the lines to avoid vessels becoming hung up during periods
of low tide or traveling outside berthing areas during periods of high tide,
depending on when the mooring lines were attached. Floating docks
avoid this situation since the vessels and dock maintain a constant rela-
tionship with the changing tides.
Large fluctuations in water level induced by storm events (storm surge,
seiche, etc.) may restrict access to the pier or dock as well as lead to
damage to infrastructure, including utility services. When storm-induced
water level changes exceed 2 m (6 ft) above mean high water (MHW)
level, fixed piers structures in small craft harbors are susceptible to over-
topping. Once overtopped, the substructure and decking of fixed piers
and the associated utility infrastructure may be damaged by wave, cur-
rents, and debris. Electrical service on the docks is especially susceptible
to damage from high water levels, which may lead to corrosion and short-
circuiting of components. Floating docks can better adjust to large changes
in water level when proper consideration is given to the anchorage system
and gangway design.
Wave Loads The structure type (fixed or floating structure) and/or

the system design may be dictated by offshore waves propagating into
the interior basin, local-wind waves generated within the interior basin
during prevailing and storm conditions, and waves generated from
passing boats. The interaction of waves produces horizontal and vertical

wave loads that should be factored into the design of the fixed and float-
ing structures. Vertical loads generated by waves primarily affect the
structural systems and connection points on fixed piers and floating
docks and may result in outright failure or long-term fatigue of the con-
nections. Horizontal wave loads also affect connection points, but primar-
ily on floating docks. On fixed piers, horizontal wave loads exert forces
on the piles as well.
The design wave height is typically defined as Hmax (~2Hs) or H1/10
(1.27Hs) for fixed structures to size structural members, whereas Hs is
applied for motions and cyclic loadings in fatigue analyses on floating
structures. The wave characteristics (height and period) determine the
magnitude and the application point of the load. Wave loads increase
exponentially with wave height, so small changes in wave height can have
a significant impact on structure design. The periodicity of the wave
determines the application point of the load on fixed and floating struc-
tures. Most floating dock systems are designed to act as a contiguous
beam when individual float modules are joined with semi-rigid connec-
tions. Longer wave periods may create a situation where an entire float
section is unsupported by the water surface, resulting in significant forces
and potential failure of the connection point. Based on the observations
of fixed pier and floating dock system performance during extreme
storms, Table 3-2 provides maximum preferred design wave characteris-
tics for fixed piers and floating structures without incurring structural
damage or outright failure.
Lateral Wave Loads Lateral wave loads are applied separately to pile-
restrained and pile-supported structures based on their geometry and
location with respect to the free surface. Therefore, lateral wave load cal-
culations for piles and decks are considered separately. PIANC (1997) and
Table 3-2. Maximum Preferred Design Wave Characteristics for

Structures in Small Craft Harbors
Structure Wave Heightsa Wave Periodsa
Fixed pier Up to 1.75 m (5 ft) —

Floating dock Up to 0.6 m (2 ft) Up to 5 secb
a
Wave height and wave periods that may occur in inner harbors during storm
events. Operational wave criteria for inner harbors are presented in Chapter 2.
b
Floating docks may accommodate longer wave periods depending on dock and
connection systems and frequency/persistence of longer wave periods. An engi-
neer and/or dock manufacturer should be consulted regarding the applicability
of floating dock system in these conditions.
the CEM (USACE 2006) provide a detailed discussion on the methodolo-

gies used to determine these loads.
• Lateral Wave Loads on Piles. Methodology to calculate lateral wave

loads acting on piles differs considerably depending on the ratio of
the pile diameter to the wavelength, D/L. Generally, the ratio of pile
diameters to wavelength for fixed and floating structures in small
craft harbors are low such that D/L < 0.2. The hydrodynamic regime
where D/L < 0.2 is referred to as the drag-dominated regime. Wave
loads for drag-dominated regimes are typically calculated based on
the Morrison equation (USACE 2006).
• Lateral Wave Loads on Fixed Structures. If deck elevation is not suffi-
ciently high, the structures will be subject to wave slamming forces
at the inception of the wave–deck interaction. This short-duration
impact force can be critical, especially for smaller pier structures
where the natural period of the deck structure is also relatively
small. In addition to the slamming force, the deck structure will be
subject to horizontal drag force as the wave train interacts with the
deck. McConnell et al. (2004) introduced several empirical formulas
to estimate lateral wave loads on deck structures.
Vertical Wave Loads Any component of a fixed structure that is sub-

merged during the passage of a wave train will be subject to vertical
hydrostatic forces. These structural members, such as decks, may also
experience dynamic uplift forces as wave crests exceed the member’s
bottom elevation. Vertical wave loads also affect floating structures at
connection points between individual float modules.
Vertical wave loads on fixed structures can be considered as a combina-
tion of impact pressure (air entrapment) and hydrodynamic interaction
due to waves. McConnell et al. (2004) introduced several empirical for-
mulas to estimate vertical wave loads on deck structures.
The direction of the approaching wave should be taken into consider-
ation in evaluating horizontal and vertical wave forces on structures. The
maximum horizontal loads are greatest when waves approach perpen-
dicular to the floating docks, while vertical forces are greatest when wave
crests approach normal to the floating structure.
Wind Loads (Berthed Vessels)

Wind loads on berthed vessels exert forces through the mooring lines
and/or by direct contact to fixed piers and floating docks. The most
widely used method for calculating wind load is based on a wind velocity
pressure developed from a steady wind acting upon the above-water
profile of berthed vessels and the dock system. The wind velocity pressure
is based on the modified dynamic fluid pressure equation that is com-

monly used to evaluate wind forces for buildings and other vertical struc-
tures (ASCE/SEI 2010):
q = 0.00256CdV 2 (3-1)
where q is the unit pressure in psf, V is the velocity in ft/sec, and Cd is

the drag coefficient. Representative wind force drag coefficients for vessels
and structures based on model tests are shown in Table 3-3.
CERC SR-2 (USACE 1974) and the UFC 4-152-07 (NAVFAC 2009) both
include a graph showing the exponential relationship between wind
speed and wind pressure for a flat roof structure and small craft vessels.
By inputting a design wind speed, the equivalent wind load pressure can
be calculated. It is important to note that both methods utilize a wind
speed measured at a specific height of 9 m (30 ft) and a 3-sec gust duration
period. Design wind speeds are typically indicated in local or state build-
ing codes and may have to be adjusted to utilize the aforementioned
methods. The California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW)
guidelines (DBW 2005) suggest a minimum unit wind pressure of 0.7 kPa
(15 psf) regardless of design wind speed or vessel size.
The calculation of the wind load is based on multiplying the wind
pressure by the projected area of vessel (F = qA). The projected area is
commonly calculated using the average profile height of the vessel mul-
tiplied by the vessel’s beam and length. The average profile height for
boats vary by type, with powerboats generally having a larger superstruc-
ture or sail area than that of a corresponding sailboat, as shown in Figs.
3-13 and 3-14. CERC SR-2 (USACE 1984), and Tobiasson and Kollmeyer
(2000) provide graphs of average vessel profile height to vessel length, as
shown Fig. 3-15.
The UFC suggests that the average profile height for the berthed vessels
can be generally assumed as 15% of the berth length, though the manual
does suggest that other rational methods may be applied. Representative
boat dimensions for various vessel lengths are presented in Tobiasson and
Kollmeyer (2000) and other publications.
Table 3-3. Vessel or Structure Drag Coefficient (Cd) for Small Craft
Wind Direction Drag Coefficient (Cd)
Bow wind 0.5–1.2

Wind abeam 0.8–1.5
Wind astern 0.5–1.2
Source: Gaythwaite (2004)
Fig. 3-13. Powerboat showing large surface area

Source: Courtesy of Mark A. Pirrello, P.E.
Fig. 3-14. Sailboat showing small surface area

Fig. 3-15. Comparison of average vessel profile height to length

Source: Tobiasson and Kollmeyer (2000)
The projected area of the boat onto which the wind pushes also depends
on the approaching wind direction. The directionality of wind is implicitly
incorporated into the range of drag coefficient values applied; however,
these values, based on empirical studies, may not properly reflect the area
upon which the wind impacts the surface area of the boat. Typically, the
projected area is based on the assumption that wind approaches normal
or perpendicular to the vessel. Additional studies conducted suggest that
wind approaching the vessel about 75 deg off bow or stern may produce
the largest surface area. A wind direction factor (D) is presented in Tobias-
son and Kollmeyer (2000) to account for different wind approach
directions.
The shielding effect of multiple rows of berthed vessels on the total
wind load should be applied based on evaluation of the dock arrange-
ment and engineering judgment. Vessels berthed on the windward side
(unshielded vessels) would be exposed to the total wind load, with sub-
sequent leeward (shielded) vessels exposed to a percentage of the total
wind load. CERC SR-2 (1984) and the UFC (NAVFAC 2009) suggest that
100% of the total wind shall be applied to the outer range of boats, with
20% of the full wind load applied to all leeward (shielded) vessels. Tobias-
son and Kollmeyer (2000) suggests a shielding factor of 50% of the total
wind load be applied to the second row of vessels on the lee side of
unshielded vessels and 30% of the total wind load for subsequent rows
of vessels. The use of shielding factors is based on the assumption of 100%

occupancy. It is recommended that the engineer evaluate operational
characteristics of the marina to determine the appropriate use of the
shielding factors.
Current Loads
Currents generated by the tides, riverine flow, or rapid changes in
water level (tidal bore) produce horizontal forces that affect pile anchoring
and connections on fixed piers, floating docks, and berthed vessels. The
currents can also scour pile foundations for both structures. Generally, the
fixed and floating structures are designed to withstand tidal or riverine
currents up to 1.5 m/sec (5 ft/sec) without significant design modifica-
tions to the connections. Scour protection at the pile–ground interface may
be required to reduce the potential undermining of piles once current
speeds exceed 0.9 m/sec (3 ft/sec).
The higher horizontal current loads are generated when vessels are
berthed 90 deg to the main current flow, with corresponding lower loads
when vessels are berthed with the bow into the current. Current loads are
calculated using the same methodology as wind loadings; the dynamic
current pressure multiplied by the underwater surface area of the
vessel:
F = qA (3-2)
where q = CdV2. The drag coefficient of the vessel varies with hull type
and shape, with a Cd value of 0.6 applied for a head current and a value
of 0.8 when vessels are moored broadside to the current. An average Cd
of 0.75 is applied if current and vessel directions are not perfectly aligned.
The underwater area of the vessel can be difficult to assess due to varia-
tion in hull characteristics of motor and sail boats. It is suggested that the
current load calculations be based on the largest underwater profile of the
vessel that is anticipated to berth in the marina.
The shelter effect from multiple rows of boats on the current load may
be considered, as discussed in the “Wind Loads” section, depending on
the dock layout and the vessel types to be berthed. The applicability of
shielding factors will depend on the dock layout and type and should be
carefully evaluated during the design process. At a minimum, it is sug-
gested that an unshielded total current load be applied to finger piers.
Current load is typically overlooked in the design of structures but may

be a controlling factor in rivers or coastal regions where rapid changes in
water levels (tidal bores or tsunamis) are more frequent. In addition,
current loads can magnify the horizontal load contributions from wind,
waves, ice, and other floating debris.
Ice and Snow

Dynamic, horizontal, and vertical loads may be attributed to ice growth
and movement. The adhesion of ice to piles at the water line can lead to
vertical lifting forces on the pile foundation, commonly referred to as
jacking of piles. The jacking can pull the piles completely out of the bottom
or reduce the piles’ embedment length, resulting in the loss of lateral load
resistance. Pile connections at the cap can also be damaged by jacking.
Horizontal force due to thermal expansion of the ice sheet or the impact
of flowing ice due to wind or tidal current can induce additional dynamic
pressures on fixed and floating structures. Ice protection measures such
as reducing pile cross-section area, installing ice barriers, removing float-
ing docks from the water, or detaching floating docks from their anchor-
ing system to allow them to move with the ice are commonly implemented.
In lieu of protective measures, ice growth and impact can be controlled
by utilizing bubbler systems, submerged propellers, and pumps to prevent
ice formation around structures (Wortley 1978).
Snow load is a dead load that should be considered in the design of
fixed piers and floating dock systems, especially if covered slips are pro-
posed. Typically, snow loads are estimated based on local building codes.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 also provides minimum design loads for snow conditions
(ASCE/SEI 2010).
Seismic Activity
Fixed piers and floating docks are affected by seismic events due to
liquefaction of soil layers around pilings (fixed or floating) and excitation
of a fixed pier’s substructure. Pile design (fixed or floating) and structural
connections of fixed piers should be evaluated for these conditions. Local
building codes provide design requirements and guidance in the design
of structures subject to seismic events. ASCE is also developing a national
standard for the seismic design of piers that provides guidance on lateral
soil–structure interaction.
Geotechnical Conditions
Subsurface conditions strongly influence the foundation and substruc-
ture design of fixed piers and the restraint system for floating docks.
Geotechnical conditions also factor into the design in active seismic

regions. The geotechnical investigation program should be developed by
the engineer and implemented by a qualified geotechnical engineer. The
program may include the following elements: classification of individual
soil layers by the Unified Soil Classification System, determination of
engineering soil properties at each soil layer, and development of vertical

and lateral capacities for specific pile type versus water depth.
Environmental Impacts
The construction or installation of fixed piers or floating docks typically
requires regulatory approval from local, state, and federal agencies. Envi-
ronmental impacts associated with fixed piers and floating docks are
evaluated as part of the regulatory review process. Potential environmen-
tal impacts may include reduced light penetration (shading) to aquatic
vegetation, water quality degradation due to chemical leaching of mate-
rial, or endangerment to the safety of aquatic species.
A fixed pier and a floating dock are generally considered to have
similar environmental impacts. Shading impacts are one of the primary
concerns raised by regulatory agencies as they affect the health of aquatic
vegetation. Shading can be mitigated by adjusting the height, width, and
deck board spacing or employing grated decking. Shading can also be
minimized if structures are placed farther offshore. USACE and the
National Marine Fisheries Service have developed a set of fixed dock
construction guidelines for structures constructed over submerged aquatic
vegetation, marsh, or mangrove habitats that address these issues. Float-
ing dock manufacturers are also incorporating grating into their systems.
Selection of inert materials such as concrete or steel piles and/or com-
posite decking can avoid leaching of chemicals that may degrade water
quality. In instances where leaching of chemicals from materials may
occur, such as CCA piles, the material may be encased or wrapped in a
protective material or coating.
Design Loads
The following loads should be considered in determining whether a
fixed pier or floating dock is appropriate based on intended uses of the
structure.
Dead Loads The dead load consists of the self-weight of the fixed pier
or floating dock and all permanent attachments, including marina acces-
sories (cleats, dock boxes, lights, etc.), utilities (potable water, firewater,
fuel, and electric/communications), power centers, roof structures, and
fendering systems. The fully charged weight of the potable water,
firewater, fuel, and sewage lines should be assumed. In northern climates,

snow loads should be taken into consideration in the dead load calcula-
tions, especially if covered roof systems are present.
Live Loads (Uniform and Concentrated) Live loads consist of pedes-

trian, vehicular (golf cart, cars, trucks, etc.), and equipment loads that may
traverse the deck of the fixed pier or floating dock. Live loads are uni-
formly distributed or concentrated at a point on the deck surface. If the
fixed pier or floating dock is restricted to limited pedestrian activities, a
lower live load criterion can be applied. When large numbers of pedes-
trians congregate (e.g., boat shows) or vehicular loads are frequent, the
live load criterion is adjusted upward by a factor of 2.
Fixed Pier Tractor-trailer or fire truck access to the pier requires higher,
uniformly distributed loads, which are typically defined by local, state, or
federal guidelines. Other load conditions, such as mobile crane access,
may be required for loading or outfitting of vessels and should be con-
sidered when determining load criteria. Table 3-4 summarizes the live
loads for restricted, unrestricted, and truck access to fixed piers. Each live
load criterion should be evaluated independently to determine the con-
trolling design condition for the pier.
Floating Docks Floating docks in small craft harbors are typically not
designed to support heavy loads without significant geometric and flota-
tion changes to support and distribute the weight accordingly; therefore,
the live load criteria are typically less than for a fixed pier. The live load
criteria presented in Table 3-5 summarize load conditions for various activi-
ties as they relate to freeboard considerations only. The live loads criteria
Table 3-4. Preferred Live Load Criteria for Fixed Piers
Uniformly
Pier Activity Distributed Concentrated Point Loads
Restricted access 2.3 kPa (50 psf) 1.8 kN (400 lb)

(limited pedestrian Placed at any location on
use only) the pier surface, no
closer than 300 mm
(1 ft) from any edge of
the pier
Unrestricted access (golf 4.8 kPa (100 psf) 2.9 kN (650 lb)
cart and car/pickup)
Tractor-trailer/Fire truck 12 kPa (250 psf) 2.9 kN (650 lb)
Table 3-5. Preferred Live Load Criteria for Floating Docks (Freeboard
Considerations Only)
Floating Dock Activity Uniformly Distributed Concentrated Point Loads

Restricted access 1.4 kPa (30 psf) 1.4 kN (300 lb)

(limited Placed at any location on the
pedestrian use dock surface, no closer
only) than 300 mm (1 ft) from
any edge of the dock
Unrestricted access 1.9 kPa (40 psf) 1.8 kN (500 lb)
(pedestrian use
only)
Unrestricted access 2.4 kPa (50 psf) 2.2 kN (650 lb)
(golf cart)
for the deck of the floating dock may be higher and should be evaluated
accordingly. Vertical live loads are divided into uniform and concentration
point loads and are applied to main, marginal, and finger piers.
Vessel Impact Load This load is a function of the vessel weight,

speed, and the approach direction that transfers the kinetic energy of the
vessel to the fixed pier or floating dock:
V2
KE = W (3-3)
2g
For most recreational vessels, the minimum boat weight is represented

as:
W = 12L2 (3-4)
For large custom vessels such as mega-yachts, it is recommended that

the actual weight of the vessel be utilized. The approach velocity varies
with the length, L, of the vessel using the recommended minimum values
as follows:
For vessels with L < 18 m (60 ft ) , v = 0.9 m sec (3 ft sec )
For vessels with L > 18 m (60 ft ) , v = 0.3 m sec (1 ft sec )
The angle at which the vessel approaches the pier or floating dock is
an important consideration in evaluating the load. The general convention
for finger piers is to assume a 10-deg (measured from centerline of finger

pier) approach angle. For vessels approaching a side-tie berth, a minimum
30-deg approach angle is recommended.
Materials for Fixed and Floating Structures

Material Properties Fixed piers and floating docks can be constructed
using a variety of types of materials, the most common being timber,
concrete, and metal (steel or aluminum). The availability of materials in
a region, design and operational conditions, long-term durability, and
material and construction costs are primary considerations in the selection
of material.
Timber Timber such as Southern pine and Douglas fir has been widely
used in fixed pier and floating dock construction for its ease of installa-
tion, recyclability, and cost advantage. A Grade No. 1 or better designation
for dense Southern pine is typically specified for the pier or dock sub-
structure and pile components because of its higher strength properties
and overall finish characteristics. The Southern Pine Inspection Bureau
provides standards and specifications for each grade. The Western Wood
Products Association provides corresponding specifications for Douglas
fir.
Timber is more susceptible to fungal attacks, marine borers, and insect
infestations, especially in a saltwater environment. Pressure treating with
preservatives such as coal tar creosote or chromated copper arsenate
(CCA) has been effective in protecting the wood. The effectiveness of
these preservatives against infestation depends on the type of organism
and the environment in which the timber is placed. The American Wood
Protection Association (AWPA) publishes an annual list of applicable
preservatives and specifications.
In many regions environmental concerns associated with the leaching
of toxins and potential effects on aquatic habitats has led to a ban on
preservative use or the requirement of wrapping or encapsulation on piles
supporting fixed piers or restraining floating docks. Pile wrapping, consist-
ing of an impervious flexible polymer wrap banded at each end to create
an airtight seal, has been shown to be effective in prolonging the life of
timber piles if the seams and bands are properly maintained. However,
pile wrap is susceptible to damage during installation and from boat and
debris impacts. Pile encapsulation is a relatively new technology in which
a continuous polymer membrane encapsulates the entire structural
wooden core. The flexible membrane allows expansion and contraction
of the wood without compromising the seal. Since the membrane encap-
sulates the entire timber member, this system eliminates seams, bands,
and fasteners that are the common failure points with pile wraps. Care
during installation to avoid damaging the membrane, and the relatively

high manufacturing cost, can make this technology more costly than tra-
ditional wraps.
Greenheart, ipe, teak, cumaru, and other exotic hardwoods have
become increasingly popular alternatives to traditional pine and fir
because of their natural resistance to most types of marine borers without

the need for wraps or encapsulation. Most of these woods are now pro-
duced from renewable sources that reduce impacts to ecologically sensi-
tive areas where the timber is grown. The downside is that these woods
are more expensive to purchase and install. In addition, these materials
can be susceptible to marine borers in certain regions, so their perfor-
mance and applicability should be checked with local building officials,
suppliers, and installers.
Greenheart is most commonly used for piling. It is susceptible to check-
ing and end splitting because it dries very slowly. It is recommended that
greenheart be air-seasoned prior to kiln-drying (moisture content between
12 and 17%) and banding be placed on the top of the piles to minimize
these occurrences. Teak and ipe are most commonly used for decking,
though greenheart has also been used in this manner. The texture of the
wood for decking should be fine and uniform and the grain straight to
ropey to provide a finish free of splinters, shakes, and knots. The wood
should also be air-dried or kiln-dried prior to arriving at the project site
and set aside for a few days to acclimate to local conditions before
installation.
Concrete Concrete is typically applied in the construction of fixed

piers that experience harsh environmental conditions or when horizontal
and vertical loads are higher than can be accommodated by timber. Con-
crete is also used to construct monolithic floating dock structures that
integrate structural framing, deck, and flotation as one unit. Concrete can
be cast-in-place or precast, providing flexibility in shape and appearance.
Precast prestressed concrete pilings are used in many fixed pier and float-
ing dock installations but may not be appropriate in locations where
bedrock or other hard subsurface conditions exist.
The strength, permeability, mix portions, use of admixtures, and rein-
forcing steel affect the durability of concrete, with permeability being the
most critical factor. Water intrusion into concrete, especially in colder
climates where freeze/thaw occurs, can lead to spalling and corrosion of
reinforcing members. ACI and ASTM have developed technical specifica-
tions for concrete used in the marine environment. Departments of Trans-
portation in most states also provide technical specifications for concrete
that take into consideration climatic and use conditions.
Type I or II Portland cement is typically used in the marine environ-
ment. Cements may be blended with one or more materials including
pozzolan, fly ash, ground slag, and silica fume to increase durability.

Admixtures that retard or accelerate curing, reduce water content, or
improve air entrainment can also be added to the concrete to promote
workability, density, and consistency requirements. The chemistry of
concrete admixtures requires in-depth knowledge and experience and,
therefore, the selection of an appropriate engineer or contractor is

recommended.
Spalling of concrete due to corrosion of reinforcing steel can be mini-
mized if sufficient concrete coverage is provided. A minimum concrete
coverage of 50 mm (2 in.) should be provided in freshwater, with 75-mm
(3-in.) coverage in saltwater applications. Corrosion of reinforcing bars
can also be mitigated by using corrosion inhibitors in the concrete mix or
substituting the steel bar with an epoxy-coated, stainless steel, or FRP
reinforcing bar. The use of alternative reinforcing should be evaluated in
terms of bonding and its long-term track record.
A broom finish is typically specified for the deck surface of fixed piers
and floating docks because of its general antislip texture and appearance.
Color additives can be added to the concrete during the curing process to
enhance the appearance of the concrete deck, though the long-term dura-
bility is questionable if the deck is exposed to direct sunlight for extended
periods of time or high traffic volumes.
Steel Steel is used in the substructure of fixed piers and floating docks
because of its greater lateral and torsional capabilities. Steel pilings are
also used when fixed piers or floating docks are located at deeper water
depths or when rock or stiff clays are encountered during pile driving.
Steel (standard, galvanized, aluminum, or stainless) is the primary mate-
rial for structural fasteners (bolts, nuts, etc.) between wood, aluminum,
and steel components of a fixed pier or floating dock.
ASTM has published designations for steel based on strength, mechani-
cal properties, and thickness. ASTM A36 is the most common grade asso-
ciated with structural members because of its durability in the saltwater
environment if protected by a proper coating system and/or cathodic
protection. ASTM A252 is the corresponding designation for steel pipe
piles. Stainless steel typically is substituted for standard or galvanized
steel fasteners to reduce the corrosion potential at structural connections.
Type 304 and Type 316 are the two most common grades of stainless steel,
but Type 316 and Type 316 L (low carbon) are primarily reserved for
marine applications due to their high resistance to corrosion. Stainless
steel is susceptible to occasional failures due to pitting and crevice corro-
sion, stress corrosion cracking, and fatigue, but availability of improved
materials, such as duplex stainless steels, and better information on grade
selection for specific operating conditions are recommended to minimize
risk. Stainless steel is more costly than standard or coated steels.
Since corrosion is the enemy of steel, several methods have been devel-
oped to combat corrosion and improve steel’s durability over the long
term. Corrosion of steel is most advanced at the low tide level or in the
splash zone, where wetted surfaces are exposed to high dissolved oxygen.
Brush, spray, or dip-applied coatings are specified by the Steel Structures
Painting Council (SSPC). Coal tar epoxies are among the most common
coatings used for steel. The effectiveness of the coating is highly depen-
dent on the surface preparation of the steel, typically requiring “near-
white” conditions. Other coating types include fusion-bonded epoxy,
polyethylene, and polyurea formulas. Common coatings such as coal tar
break down over a period of 10 to 15 years and can be completely stripped
in less than 5 years if exposed to severe icing conditions. Coatings should
be reapplied above the water line to maintain protection.
Galvanization of steel is an effective coating process, primarily used in
freshwater environments for most structural members or structural com-
ponents and fasteners that lie above the splash zone in a saltwater envi-
ronment. In certain regions of the United States, such as the Pacific
Northwest, galvanized structural members are common due to their
lower corrosion rates. Steel is dipped in molten zinc (“hot-dipped”) that
forces the corrosion to attack the zinc before the steel. Once the zinc is
used up, the steel will be exposed to corrosion. The zinc coat can rapidly
wear if it is located in the water or within the splash zone. The zinc coating
can also be easily nicked or scratched during installation.
In addition to coatings, cathodic protection can be installed on sub-
merged steel components to reduce the rate of corrosion. Cathodic protec-
tion is a technique by which an electrical current is generated from the
chemical reaction between a sacrificial anode (typically zinc, aluminum,
or magnesium) and seawater that converts anodic (active) activity on the
steel surface to cathodic (passive) activity.
Aluminum Aluminum is commonly used in the construction of the

fixed piers and floating dock substructures in many freshwater applica-
tions such as lakes and rivers. The benefit of this high-strength, light-
weight, and corrosion-resistant material is its ability to be formed into
different shapes and sizes, which makes it ideal in the fabrication of box
trusses and C-channel frames for the pier substructures.
The 5000 and 6000 series of aluminum are common in the marine indus-
try, with the 6000 series (6061-T6) of marine-grade alloy used for structures
due to its enhanced rigidity and stiffness properties. Although the corrosion
properties of aluminum are advantageous when compared to other metals,
it is not completely impervious to corrosion. Galvanic corrosion is the most
common cause of aluminum corrosion. Aluminum is typically a reactive
metal in the galvanic series and, when it comes in contact with other metals,
aluminum will act as the anode and may begin to corrode. “Other metals”
are not just confined to steel; concrete and pressure-treated wood may
contain reactive aggregates and embedded copper, respectively. Since alu-
minum structures typically only see peripheral contact with other metals
at fasteners and supporting members, the placement of stainless steel fas-
teners or polymer washers is recommended.
In locations where the aluminum pier substructure may come in contact

with extreme pH levels (greater than 8.5), corrosion may occur. Certain
soils, particularly nondraining clay/organic mucks, tend to be corrosive
to aluminum. The use of aluminum in conditions where it may come in
contact with clay soils should be minimized unless special corrosion treat-
ment measures are instituted.
Composite and Plastic Material Materials such as plastic- and fiberglass-

reinforced polymer (FRP) composite are increasingly applied in the con-
struction of marine structures due to their corrosion resistance. FRP com-
posite material is appropriate as repair or replacement material for piles
and decking due to its strength properties. FRP has been successfully
applied to the repair of existing concrete piles by encasing the existing
piles to prevent further deterioration and maintain or increase their
strength. The limiting appeal of FRP composite in the installation of new
piles has been deflection, which is higher than equivalent steel piles.
Driving of FRP composite piles also requires special consideration of the
allowable tension and compression stresses.
Decking using premanufactured FRP planks provides a stronger and
more durable finish than traditional decking such as wood. The material
is also highly scratch- and impact-resistant and is colored throughout,
which allows it to retain its look without significant UV degradation.
Decks should be designed so that full-width planks are used because the
planks cannot be cut longitudinally to fill in gaps. FRP and plastic gratings
are also used for decking materials to help minimize the environmental
impacts due to overwater shading.
Stone (Fixed Pier Only) Stone masonry such as granite blocks were
widely used during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for pier
and wharf construction. Most stone material is very durable in the marine
environment but availability and transport issues significantly reduce its
appeal. If a quarry lies within close proximity, a pier constructed out of
stone may be cost-effective. A proper foundation is required to prevent
sliding or overturning due to weak soils. Ideally, stone masonry structures
should lie on hard substrate such as bedrock.
The stone should meet minimum physical properties such as density
of typically 256 kg/m3 (160 lb/ft3) or greater and be able to withstand
chemical attack. Tests for abrasion and water absorption should be con-
ducted on the stone prior to selection and transport.
Fixed Piers
Fixed piers provide a stable, durable, and functional platform for the
berthing of small and large vessels and may be selected based on opera-
tional considerations, environmental conditions, and material and instal-
lation costs as follows:
• Daily water level fluctuations are less than 0.9 m (3 ft) and in rivers,
lakes, and other low tidal estuarine environments
• Better suited to withstand higher wave heights or longer wave
periods
• Cost-effective depending on material availability and selection
• Long useful life
• Better accommodates the berthing of larger vessels.
Design Guidance Design guidance related to planning, geometry,

materials, load criteria (environmental and use), and design for construc-
tion of fixed piers is provided by federal, state, or local government, and
by material or marine industries.
• The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC): A Department of Defense docu-

ment that provide planning and design guidance for piers and
wharves for military and DOD ship operations. The document
defines vertical and horizontal loading criteria, load combinations,
and allowable stresses of materials for structures that will berth large
military and government transport ships. Although many aspects of
the document are not relevant to facilities that berth small craft,
those sections related to material use and design guidance associ-
ated with fixed piers are applicable.
• AASHTO: Although not written specifically for over-water struc-
tures, this DOT document may provide guidance related to materi-
als and design for piers that may be used in conjunction with ferry
terminals and/or over-water pedestrian walkways.
• State and Local Building Codes: These codes typically relate to build-
ings but are sometimes applied to over-water structures to meet
local wind load and pile foundation criteria.
• Marine Industry or Material Vendors: For example, the Southern Pine
Council provides planning and design guidance.
Pier Types
Wood Pier Figure 3-16 shows a wood pier design that is common in
small craft harbors and residential piers. Depending on the environment
in which it is installed, the life span of timber fixed piers is approximately
30 years with proper maintenance. Typically, pile/bent spacing is on the
Fig. 3-16. Fixed wood pier at the Ocean Club, Paradise Island, Bahamas
order of 2.4 to 3.7 m (8 to 12 ft), depending on wood type and stringer

size. Pier width varies with user requirements, but spacing between suc-
cessive bays (bay is defined as the space between successive pile/bents in
the transverse direction) is typically 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft). Pile sizes range
from 200 to 355 mm (8 to 14 in.), with a 300-mm (12-in.) pile typically used.
Additional design elements to incorporate into a fixed wood pier
include
• Transverse cross bracing is recommended when water depths exceed

2.4 m (8 ft) or in areas that experience high tidal or riverine
currents.
• Stringer splices should be lapped a minimum of 300 mm (12 in.).
• Hot-dipped galvanized or stainless steel bolts and washers should
be used at connection points.
• Deck boards should be connected with galvanized or stainless steel
spiral shank nails at each stringer.
• Pile caps should be added to minimize water penetration and decay.
• Guardrails should form a protective barrier not less than 1 m (42 in.)
high measured vertically above the pier deck unless the pier is used
for active access to vessels, in which case either no railing or a low

bullrail should be provided.
Concrete Pier When the proper concrete mix is used and applied in
the appropriate manner, concrete structures can have design lives exceed-
ing 35 to 40 years if proper maintenance is performed. Concrete piers can

be constructed using precast and cast-in-place techniques. For ease of
construction, the concrete deck beam is typically precast with a cast-in-
place pile cap. Cast-in-place pile caps are used by some marine contractors
to reduce installation time. The concrete deck beam can consist of a solid
slab; a solid concrete deck with longitudinal fascia; or two independent
longitudinal beams with wood, aluminum, or composite material span-
ning the distance between the two beams. The three variations are shown
here in Figs. 3-17 through 3-19.
These three concrete deck slabs are tied to the pile cap with reinforcing
bars and cast-in-place concrete closure pour. Some marine contractors and
casting yards have developed prestressed pre-cast concrete deck slabs and
pile caps for pier construction. This concrete construction type may not
Fig. 3-17. Fixed concrete pier with fascia, Marina at Atlantis, Paradise Island,
Bahamas
Fig. 3-18. Fixed concrete pier without fascia, City of St. Petersburg, Florida
Municipal Marina
be applicable to extreme marine environments due to the following

reasons:
• Cracking would expose prestressed strands to corrosion.

• Prestressing strands are small and would represent more of a poten-
tial for catastrophic failure should corrosion be present.
Covered Slips Covered slips are preferred by boaters in climates where

excessive rain, snow, or sun exposure can lead to premature deterioration
of marine hardware and boat surfaces. The roof structure is supported by
piles either mounted to or independent of the fixed dock structure. If the
roof structure is integrated with the fixed docks, the roof and fixed dock
should be analyzed as a single structure, taking into consideration the
additional dead and live loads. The roof structure is also subject to lateral
and uplift forces produced from wind; loads that should be taken into
consideration in the evaluation of pile supports and connections. ASCE/
SEI 7-10 (ASCE/SEI 2010) or local building codes provide guidance on
the design of roof structures subject to wind and snow loads. Existing
Fig. 3-19. Fixed concrete pier with integrated utility raceway, Yachthaven
Grande, Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
structures should not be retrofitted with covers unless the fixed dock was
originally designed to accommodate the additional loads from the roof
structure or is retrofitted accordingly to withstand the added loads.
The height of the roof should account for not only variations in water
levels but also trends in vessel height and the profiles of marine electron-
ics such as surface radar, satellite, and communication equipment. Tobias-
son and Kollmeyer (2000) present graphical information on average boat
heights for a range of vessel sizes. For most vessels under 24 m (80 ft),
mounted heights for open-array and closed-dome radars and satellite
communication domes vary from 400 to 600 mm (16 to 24 in.), so the clear
distance under the roof structure should include an additional 300-mm
(12-in.) tolerance in addition to boat and equipment heights.
Utility Integration Utilities such as potable water, fire suppression

systems, electricity, communications, lighting, and sanitary sewer systems
should be routed along the pier to provide service to marginal piers and/
or individual slips. The integration of utilities with the pier should take
into consideration the following issues:
• Dead load of the utilities

• Environmental (wave, water level, temperature, and ice) exposure
• Boat impacts
• Aesthetics
• Access for maintenance and replacement.
Utilities in wood piers are typically routed between stringers with

coring performed to accommodate utility sweeps and penetrations. In
some instances potable water and fire water systems may be routed along
the exterior stringer and anchored with straps; it should be noted that this
arrangement increases the potential for damage due to boat impact. The
utility routing within or along the stringers minimizes potential damage
from wave, storm surge, or ice conditions.
Routing of utilities in concrete piers varies with the design of the con-
crete deck slab. If a solid-slab concrete deck is installed, utilities are typi-
cally routed beneath the slab and through the pile caps. A cutout or
individual conduit spaces are provided in the pile cap, as shown in Fig.
3-20. Utilities can be routed on top of the pile cap with intermediate cross-
beams or cable trays for support if precast longitudinal beams are used.
Fig. 3-20. Utility penetration conduits, Westshore Yacht Club, Tampa, Florida
Access to utilities is greatly enhanced in this latter pier configuration, as

service can be performed top-down versus accessing the utilities from
underneath.
Utility Support Cable trays or individual conduit supports support the

utilities between pile caps. At a minimum, conduit supports should be

placed based on the guidelines shown in Table 3-6.
Vessel and Human Interface Access by vessel owners and operators

from a fixed pier to a vessel can present a challenge during periods of
lower tide when the differential between the vessel’s deck and the deck
of the fixed pier is at its maximum. The potential also exists for vessels to
float underneath the fixed pier or for mooring lines to become frayed due
to this same height differential. Therefore, the calculation of the appropri-
ate deck height of the fixed pier is an important consideration. The fol-
lowing paragraphs discuss selection of minimum deck heights based on
annual (prevailing) water level conditions and do not take into consider-
ation storm surge and other abnormal rises in water level.
In wood pier construction, the combined depth of the deck, stringers,
and split pile cap is a minimum of 406 to 508 mm (16 to 20 in.). An addi-
tional 0.3 m (1 ft) of clearance for utilities or the passage of debris under-
neath the pier is recommended. Therefore, the minimum height differential
between the pier deck and the mean higher high water (MHHW) line
should be approximately 0.8 m (2.5 ft). The Southern Pine Council recom-
mends a minimum difference of 0.9 m (3 ft). The thickness of the deck
slab for concrete pier construction generally varies from 250 to 450 mm
(10 to 18 in.), with the thickness of the pile caps approximately 600 mm
(24 in.). In order to keep utilities out of the water, the minimum height
differential between the deck and the MHW line is approximately 0.9 m
(3 ft), the same as a wood pier.
Freeboards of power and sailboats larger than 6 m (20 ft) in length are
typically 600 mm (24 in.) or greater, resulting in a 150- to 200-mm (6- to
Table 3-6. Guidelines for Conduit Supports
Nominal Pipe Size PVC Pipe Span CU Pipe Span
75 mm (3 in.) 1.2 m (4 ft) 3 m (10 ft)

65 mm (2.5 in.) 1.2 m (4 ft) 3 m (10 ft)
50 mm (2 in.) 1.2 m (4 ft) 3 m (10 ft)
40 mm (1.5 in.) 1.2 m (4 ft) 3 m (10 ft)
25 mm (1 in.) 1.2 m (4 ft) 1.8 m (6 ft)
20 mm (0.75 in.) 1.2 m (4 ft) 1.8 m (6 ft)
8-in.) differential with the deck of the fixed pier. A vessel patron can typi-
cally step down or step up to board or leave a vessel. A ladder attached
to the pier may be required if piers are designed with height differentials
greater than 1 m (3 ft) between the deck and the MHHW line or when
patrons access their boat during periods of lower water.
If the pier design does not include an integrated fascia board or beam,
then a fendering system should be provided to avoid vessels getting
trapped underneath the pier during periods of lower water.
Floating Docks
Floating docks as a means for mooring boats and providing safe, con-
sistent access for slip tenants and their guests to the boats rose in popular-
ity in the early 1970s, in concert with the marked increase in boat
registration in the United States. Prior to that time, most floating dock
systems were constructed by small regional firms or individuals using a
variety of flotation materials that were prone to long-term failure. The
early types of floating docks had air as their primary displacement
medium; therefore, leaks in the containers would lead to failure. Improve-
ments in structural design, materials, and manufacturing techniques
throughout the 1980s and 1990s have resulted in dock systems that can
withstand environmental and operational load conditions commonly
experienced at most small craft harbors and have design lives of 20 to 30
years for timber/aluminum frame floating docks and 30 to 40 years for
modern concrete pontoon structures. Most floating dock systems are man-
ufactured by regional or international-based companies that provide
design, manufacturing, and installation and warrant their systems. This
section will focus on the performance of these systems.
Floating dock design capacities have practical limits. The structural
connections and internal reinforcing of individual float modules in earlier
designs were not sufficient to withstand sustained loadings, especially for
vessels greater than 18 m (60 ft). Lately, designs have improved to allow
mega-yachts to utilize these floating systems; lengths of up to 70 m (250 ft)
have been utilized. As previously discussed, the use of floating dock
systems is generally limited by their ability to manage in the harbor wave
and wake climate. Three examples of floating dock systems are shown in
Figs. 3-21 through 3-23.
Design Guidance Floating docks work by utilizing the displacement

of water to provide consistent flotation; most flotation today is provided
by polystyrene (either open- or closed-cell), though air-encapsulated
systems are still used for lightweight residential applications. Although
the use of unencapsulated polystyrene is no longer considered environ-
mentally acceptable, the use of polyethylene encasement or enclosure
Fig. 3-21. Floating concrete docks, Harbourtown Marina, Jacksonville, Florida

within reinforced concrete is ubiquitous. While relying on displacement

to provide a consistent freeboard, imposed loads like gangways, struc-
tures, and equipment can reduce the freeboard height and should be
incorporated into the design sequence.
Design philosophy has evolved over the years regarding floating dock
structures. Most significantly, the design of connections between the indi-
vidual frames has changed from mostly a pin-connected system to more
of a fixed connection system. This has the effect of using the mass of the
dock system as a wave attenuator transmitting the bending loads from
one frame to the next. Although this means increased stresses in the
system, the frames and connections are usually more than adequate for
the loadings.
In selecting the potential structure types, it helps to understand the
characteristics of various structures and the effect of the water conditions
in the small craft harbor. Saltwater usually precludes galvanized steel
frames from consideration. Major water level fluctuations eliminate spud
piles from the potential options. Average wave heights in excess of 0.6 m
(2 ft) require development of wave-quieting techniques.
Fig. 3-22. Floating aluminum docks, Old Port Cove Marina, North Palm
Beach, Florida
Several international, national, and regional organizations as well as

private individuals have developed guidelines or specifications for the
planning and design of floating dock structures. A few publications
include:
• The Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) “Design: Small Craft Berthing

Facilities”: A U.S. Department of Defense document that provides
planning and design guidance for floating dock structures in small
craft harbors. The document defines vertical and horizontal loading
criteria, load combinations, and allowable stresses of materials. This
document supersedes USACE and U.S. Navy publications of similar
nature. (NAVFAC 2009).
• Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC):
An international organization providing guidance for sustainable
waterborne transport infrastructure for ports and waterways. Sup-
plement to Bulletin No. 93, “Review of Selected Standards for Float-
ing Dock Designs,” (PIANC 1997) provides guidance on floating
dock layout and design.
Fig. 3-23. Floating timber docks, Egg Harbor, Wisconsin

• California Department of Boating and Waterways, Division of Boating

Facilities (DBW): The state of California has published layout and
design guidelines for marinas to assist in the planning, design, and
construction of marina berthing facilities funded by the state (DBW
2005).
• Marinas and Small Craft Harbors: This book authored by Bruce Tobias-
son and Ronald Kollmeyer is another source in the planning, design,
and construction of marinas and small craft harbors (Tobiasson and
Kollmeyer 2000).
Design Considerations
Freeboard and Stability Slip configuration and overall dimensions were
presented in Chapter 1. However, this section provides some general
considerations related to freeboard and geometry since these elements can
affect the stability and structural design of the floating dock system. The
stability of individual float modules is based on buoyancy principles
developed by Archimedes and is a function of the length, width, free-
board, and weight of each module. In general, the ratio of 1 : 3 (width-to-
length) of individual float modules should be upheld to maintain stability.
For cantilevered floating structures such as finger piers that are typically
narrow and long, the minimum width is 1 m (3 ft), while 2 m (6 ft) is
typically considered the minimum width for wider marginal or main
floats. In general, the longer the floating module, the wider the dock
should be to maintain stability unless fingers or outriggers are attached.
The use of more than one module connected side-by-side to attain dock
width is generally not preferred because the connection may not result in
uniform freeboard across the main dock when live loads are applied.
Freeboard, the weight of the float, and its center of gravity also affect
stability. Depending on the dock construction type, greater freeboards
may be offset with wider, heavier docks with deeper drafts such that the
center of weight lies below the center of buoyancy to maintain stability.
For example, for every 25.4 mm (1 in.) of freeboard on a monolithic con-
crete floating dock, 25.4 mm (1 in.) of draft should be assumed.
The selection of the appropriate freeboard height is dependent on the
size of the vessels berthed at the slip and the live loads to be placed on
the structure. Freeboards generally range from 400 to 610 mm (16 to 24 in.)
to accommodate loading and unloading of passengers for boats up to
25 m (80 ft) in length. Vessels in this size range typically have freeboards
similar to that of the floating dock, so boarding only requires a step up or
step down of less than 300 mm (12 in.)—one or two steps. Freeboards from
610 to 915 mm (24 to 36 in.) are generally suited for larger vessels and
mega-yachts up to 75 m (245 ft) in length. Although loading/unloading
of passengers is typically performed using a passerelle, the deck elevation
of swim platforms and side-loading garages are similar to the dock. The
higher freeboards also accommodate foam fenders and reduce wave
splash over the deck. Certain vessel docks, such as those designed for
scull (row) boats and dinghies, require extra-low freeboards of 150 mm to
300 mm (6–12 in.) for loading or launching which can be accommodated
by using special framing and flotation units.
Over the life of the floating dock system, freeboard may be reduced
due to the added weight imposed by environmental loads (oysters,
mussels, etc.) and the potential water absorption of foam. The selection
of the appropriate freeboard should taken into consideration the allow-
able reduction in freeboard over the life of the system.
Design Loads Floating dock systems are multidimensional and multi-

component systems. Loadings are transmitted from the wind, wave, and
current forces on vessels and other attached structures through the dock
frames and connections, through the anchorages, and finally to the basin
floor. One cannot consider the dock system loadings without considering
the anchorage systems, utility loads, the gangway and access systems, the
imposed loads from vessels and environmental loadings, point- and
structural-imposed loads, and the component interaction requirements.
Load cases are typically combined based on their probability of simultane-

ous occurrence and in accordance with applicable codes and guidelines.
General berthing and environmental loads discussed earlier in this chapter
affect the design of floating docks, however, the following are specific
performance criteria for floating docks
Typical imposed load criteria are described in the following sections.
Dead Loads Deadweight load calculations are critical in developing a

dock that has an adequate freeboard. Load calculations need to incorpo-
rate the weight of the dock structure, the permanent utility loads (cabling,
water, and fire protection lines), permanent point loads such as electrical
switchgear and gangway landings, and environmental loads such as
oyster and mussel growth. Fully charged potable water and fire water
systems should be assumed. Optimally, the utilities are located in a bal-
anced manner inside the dock frames to minimize the unevenness of the
freeboard. Imposed point loads from anchoring (including pile guides),
gangways, and structures require special consideration when calculating
flotation requirements. Utilities should remain above water under dead
load conditions except in colder climates where the potable and fire water
supply lines are hung beneath the water to prevent freezing. A typical
design requirement is that freeboard should not vary over the entire dock
system by more than 25.4 mm (1 in.).
Vertical Loads Vertical loads are imposed on the deck of the floating
dock by people walking, loading, and pushing gear on the dock; tempo-
rary static loads such as heavy boat provisions or equipment; and snow
loads. Wave loads also impart a vertical load on the dock, as discussed in
previous sections.
Reduction in available freeboard should be minimized when uniform
and live loads are applied. A 152- to 254-mm (6- to 10-in.) reduction in
freeboard should be anticipated based on the applied uniform live load.
The dock surface should not be within 304 mm (12 in.) of the water surface
when all live loads are applied. For typical floating concrete dock systems,
every 0.24 kPa (5 psf) of uniform load applied to the floating dock is typi-
cally accompanied by a 25.4-mm (1-in.) reduction in freeboard. During
boat shows and other maritime events, large crowds may not be uni-
formly distributed on the floating dock, resulting in a tilting of the dock
surface. Similarly, a heavy piece of equipment resting on the dock may
create the same tilting effect. It is generally preferred that tilting of the
deck in these instances shall not exceed 6 deg from horizontal.
In general, the maximum out-of-level tolerances for transverse and
longitudinal slope are 24 mm per 3.0 m (1 in. per 10 ft) not to exceed
51 mm (2 in.) over the length of the float module. The concentrated live
load applied to the corner of the offshore end of the dock shall not cause
more than a 51-mm (2-in.) freeboard per 1-m (3-ft) width between offshore
corners.
The individual connections between floating modules and the integrity
of the entire floating dock system are subject to fatigue when vertical wave
loads are applied for long durations. These connections should be evalu-
ated over a minimum of 2 million cycles.
Performance Specifications With the proliferation of floating dock

design and associated floating dock manufacturers, it is difficult to
compare the materials, performance (dock and anchorage), and quality of
each system when planning a project. Performance specifications are
developed by consulting engineers on behalf of the owner or are provided
by dock manufacturers to define the minimum material and performance
requirements for the system. This approach allows a variety of dock
manufacturers to competitively bid for the work, with the engineer
reviewing the submittals to obtain the desired final product for the owner.
The performance specifications also allow the owner and engineer to
select a vendor based on performance only or in conjunction with price.
The engineer needs to understand the final uses of the dock facility
and to tailor the specifications to eliminate types that are not applicable
to the project. The qualifications and financial standing of the floating
dock manufacturer and the warranty information for the system should
be incorporated into the performance specification to provide the
engineer or owner with a better understanding of the applicability of
the system to the planned docking facility and the quality of the
workmanship.
Performance specifications used by engineers and manufacturers are
generally modified versions of specification developed by the DOD for
floating structures in small craft harbors. Important elements of the speci-
fication include material and manufacturing references to U.S. and inter-
national standards and a list of submittals to be provided by the dock
manufacturer (product data, shop drawings, design calculations for float-
ing docks, anchor system, and concrete mix if that material is used). The
design calculations for the floating dock system should clearly define the
design conditions, the load conditions evaluated, and the resulting per-
formance measures of the floating dock system. Single design loads and
a combination of design loads should be taken into account, as well as the
dead weight of pile guides and other anchoring components that add
dead load to the docking system.
Construction Types Floating dock systems are generally categorized

by the material used in the structural framing of the system. The three
basic types of framing systems are wood, aluminum or steel, and concrete.
The components of each framing system are generally similar with indi-
vidual floating dock manufacturers modifying materials and/or connec-

tion details to differentiate them from other systems.
Wood Wood was widely used to construct early floating dock systems
because of its ease of manufacturing and assembly. Wood-framed systems,
as shown in Fig. 3-23, are constructed in a manner similar to fixed wood

docks, consisting of stringers and header boards that are nailed, screwed,
or bolted together using galvanized connector plates or angles to form a
frame assembly. In some applications glued joints are used as primary or
secondary connection methods for the assembly. The outer stringers are
typically deeper members to increase torsional rigidity. Internal stringers
and cross and diagonal bracings are also employed for this purpose. A
variation of this frame assembly is to substitute wood members with glue-
laminated wood and attach plywood to the bottom of the frame assembly
to create a rigid system. The flotation system is then attached to the frame
assembly. Rigid or flexible connections are used to mate individual float
units, including finger piers, together. A rigid connection is typically a
bolted connection, whereas a flexible connection may consist of some type
of articulating hinge or rubber or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethyl-
ene (UHMWP) blocks attached with through-bolts.
The wood components are designed to generally remain above water,
though a few manufacturers extend the stringers below water to provide
more protection to the flotation unit. Wood members that are submerged
or experience frequent wet/dry cycles will deteriorate faster than those
above water. The use of pressure-treated lumber for dock construction has
increased the longevity of the framing system. All metal pieces, such as
angles and connector plates, should be hot-dipped or mechanically gal-
vanized, as should all metal fasteners such as bolts, nuts, and washers.
Stainless steel may be utilized for fasteners for greater longevity.
Aluminum and Steel An aluminum or steel frame assembly composed

of angles, rounds, flats, tubing, and channels is the most common system
used in freshwater applications. In saltwater applications, aluminum is
the preferred material given its higher corrosion resistance, while galva-
nized steel is used in situations where larger vessels will be berthed at the
docks or the dock system is exposed to a more energetic wave environ-
ment. In these situations, the greater tensile and compressive strength of
steel is better suited to accommodating larger loads. The galvanization
process for steel can limit the size and length of individual dock units,
whereas aluminum systems can be more readily fabricated in different
lengths, widths, and shapes. Marine-grade aluminum (6000 series, such
as 6061-T6) is recommended for aluminum dock systems.
An aluminum or steel box truss, longitudinal C-channel, or single
planes comprise the primary backbone of most systems. Most connections
within the frame are welded, though a few manufacturers supplement

welds with bolted connections. The welds should meet American Welding
Society (AWS) requirements and be inspected prior to leaving the factory.
Galvanized or stainless steel bolts, washers, and nuts can be used for con-
nections on steel frame assemblies without the use of an isolator because
the galvanic process is very slow. However, some type of nonmetallic

isolator is required to separate aluminum from other metals because gal-
vanic corrosion can be substantial. Similar to wood systems, the flotation
system is attached to the underside of the frame assembly via bolted con-
nections. The individual float units are joined using rigid or flexible con-
nections, such as bolts or a flexible block. Figure 3-22 shows an aluminum
C-channel system.
Concrete A floating concrete system, as shown in Fig. 3-21, is a mono-

lithic structure that integrates the structural framing, deck, and flotation
protection. The concrete is poured around polystyrene foam blocks to
various thicknesses and is usually reinforced with wire mesh or reinforc-
ing bar. A concrete mix for aggressive marine environments, such as Type
II blended Portland cement with an additive such as pozzolan, fly ash, or
a ground iron blast furnace slag is recommended. Another type of con-
crete encapsulation consists of spraying on a polymerized glass fiber-
reinforced concrete (PGFRC) to the desired thickness. Manufacturers
cover a minimum of five sides, with the bottom being left unprotected or
covered with concrete or a resin/elastomer coating. The inclusion of a
protective bottom should be evaluated in terms of the regional aquatic
environment and regulatory context. Thickness of concrete encapsulation
is discussed in the next section.
Depending on the manufacturer, the individual concrete units are pro-
duced in 2.5-, 3-, or 3.6-m (8-, 10-, or 12-ft) increments or in larger units
of 12 to 18 m (40–60 ft). The individual concrete units are typically pro-
duced to full dock widths. Individual concrete units can be joined to create
landing platforms, but joining individual concrete units to create full
width piers for main and marginal walkways is not recommended. The
concrete mix, including aggregate size and the quality of the concrete pour
or spray, is very critical to achieve the desired concrete strength, finish,
and thickness while minimizing consolidation and honeycombing issues.
The location and placement of reinforcing mesh or bar should also be
evaluated thoroughly to avoid units that do not float level.
Floating concrete systems are generally connected using semi-rigid
connections, with the level of flexibility depending on connection detail.
Individual floating concrete units in the 2.5- to 3.6-m (8- to 12-ft) range
are typically mated together with timber walers that are connected with
galvanized or steel rods that run transverse to the main axis of the float
or with pretensioned cables. The larger units [12 to 18 m (40–60 ft)] are
connected using through-bolts that utilize UHWMP, rubber blocks, or

compression members. A pretensioned cable system with compression
members between the individual units is a type of connection system for
large units. A concrete floating dock system should be evaluated on the
whole, especially in terms of its ability to withstand cyclic loading from
oceanographic conditions.
Floatation For most commercial or private marina or docking facili-

ties, there are generally two types of flotation units in widespread use
today:
• Expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam encapsulated in high-density

polyethylene six-sided, rotationally-molded tubs, concrete shell, or
combination of concrete shell with a resin bottom
• Extruded polystyrene (XPS) foam (encapsulated or exposed).
Other types have been used but are generally limited to residential
applications, specific geographic locations, or are now considered
obsolete:
• Air-filled PVC encasements

• Polyurethane blocks
• High-density polyethylene pipes
• Cedar logs (Pacific Northwest).
Expanded polystyrene (EPS) is the most popular type of foam used in

flotation units today. It is made by expanding polystyrene beads into any
size or shape mold or encasement to provide a white buoyant material
with a density of 1.6 kg/m3 (1.0 lb/ft3). EPS foam used in the fabrication
of flotation units should be made from new material and not material
reground from previous applications. ASTM provides guidance on EPS
manufacturing and quality. In general, water absorption should be less
than 1% by volume when submerged for a period of 24 hours. Exposed
EPS foam can erode over time, resulting in beads migrating into the water
column and absorption of water. In the 1990s USACE recommended and
implemented regulations that required encapsulated foam in all marine
installations. Since that time almost all EPS foam is encapsulated in poly-
ethylene molded tubs, concrete tubs or shells, or a combination of
materials.
Extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) has air inclusions that provide the
foam with more flexibility and a lower density. Since it is extruded through
a die, XPS foam is typically formed into rectangular or square shapes,
which reduces flexibility in shaping the foam to specific dock applications.
However, XPS foam does not erode over time and therefore does not have
to be encapsulated. The material can absorb water during freeze/thaw

cycles. Currently there are a few manufacturers, such as Dow, that produce
XPS foam.
Rotomolded polyethylene tubs are the most common foam protection
system and have proven long-term durability. The tubs come in a variety
of shapes, sizes, and wall thicknesses, with admixtures to handle UV

degradation. Minimum wall thicknesses vary from 3 mm (0.118 in.) to
4.7 mm (0.187 in.) and should be selected based on meteorological and/
or oceanographic conditions and debris at the site.
The foam billet can also be encapsulated using an air-entrained rein-
forced concrete or PGFRC. The minimum concrete thickness on the top
of each float should be 60 mm (2 in.) with a minimum side and bottom
thickness of 15 mm (0.5 in.) and 30 mm (1 in.) for reinforced concrete and
PGFRC, respectively. The minimum thickness for a resin bottom is 30 mm
(1 in.).
Decking For many years the predominant deck material was CCA-
treated Southern yellow pine. It was inexpensive, reliable, and easily
replaceable in the event of damage or accident. However, with the envi-
ronmental concerns associated with CCA preservative treatment, alter-
nate treatments such as ACZA, ACQ (either ACQ-C or ACQ-D), and
copper azole type-B (CA-B), have been used as replacements. Special care
needs to be incorporated during the construction process to minimize
reaction of fasteners to the copper content in these alternative preservative
treatments.
Concrete decking is preferred in many locations because it remains
relatively cool to the touch during sunny days, does not splinter or warp,
and is durable for the long term. Many owners realize that its many
advantages are worth the slight increase in cost.
Exotic hardwoods such as ipe are more widely used because of their
advantages in the marina environment: beautiful appearance (lack of
knots) and longevity without warping or checking. Ipe does not require
treatment like other hardwoods, although periodic coating with specialty
oil preservative will maintain the soft brown color longer. Without the oil,
the wood will eventually turn silver gray. Disadvantages include higher
initial investment and difficulty in working—cutting and fastening the
material to the float.
Wood composite is another alternative decking material that has
improved from earlier generations. Improvements in their structural
capacities and UV protection have made this material a viable alternative
to traditional Southern yellow pine.
Plastic decking materials have been tried in many different forms over
the years. There still is concern regarding the use of these plastics and
their long-term durability. Use of these materials should probably be
limited to specialty applications. Decreasing cost and improvements in

durability, UV resistance, and slip resistance may result in increased use
of plastic decking and grating in docks.
Anchorage Anchorage provides the foundation for the floating dock

system. The anchorage is required to resist the wide variety of horizontal

loads and a limited number of vertical loads.
Small-Diameter Pipe Piles (Spuds) and Slides Preferred in lighter-duty

settings, spuds are flexible, easily maintained and replaced, and provide
reliable anchorage for smaller facilities as shown in Fig. 3-24. Spud pile
systems are very common throughout inland lakes and rivers. Their limi-
tations include restricted elevation change capacity and low horizontal
load resistance.
Large-Diameter Piles and Guides Engineered pile systems are com-

monly used in riverine and coastal systems with water elevation vari-
ability up to 12 m (40 ft). These piles can be made of wood, steel, rein-
forced concrete, or exotic composites. They cost more than spuds and
require competent soils to transfer the loads.
Deadmen/Y-Arm Systems Horizontally oriented beams that allow ver-

tical movement while limiting horizontal travel, deadmen are anchored
at the shore to fixed structures. These anchors work well in tight situations
with limited vertical travel. Deadman anchors are only available near to
the shore and do not work except in these limited applications.
Fig. 3-24. Small-diameter pipe pile, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Chain and Anchor Systems These systems work well in deeper applica-
tions or when seasonal water elevation changes require periodic adjust-
ment. These dock systems will move horizontally due to wind loads, and
this horizontal movement must be accommodated in the dock layout and
gangway design. Elastic mooring systems such as “Seaflex” are also used.
Cable and Winch Systems Adjustable winches allow the relatively quick
adjustment to dramatic water elevation changes. At some small craft
harbors in western impoundments, the water elevation variability may
reach more than 30 m (100 ft) and winches are the only practical alterna-
tive. This system requires a trained crew capable of monitoring the condi-
tions and adjusting the winches in a coordinated fashion.
Covered Slips Throughout the central portion of the United States,

the Pacific Northwest, and in parts of the southwest, covered docks
provide relief from sun and rain damage and a cooler spot for relaxing
on boats. Commonly, the addition of these covers to a dock system requires
additional flotation, underwater trusses, upgraded anchorage capacity,
and modified structures to withstand the added loads. Two examples of
covered slip systems are shown in Figs. 3-25 and 3-26.
Fig. 3-25. Floating dock with fabric-covered slips, Stockton Marina, Stockton,
California
Fig. 3-26. Floating dock with metal covered slips, Clinton, Iowa
Fundamental to designing the covered dock system is an understand-

ing of the significant imposed loads from wind, ice, and snow. Roof
slopes generally range from 1 : 12 to 1.5 : 12 to minimize the wind loadings.
ASCE/SEI 7-10 (ASCE/SEI 2010) and local building codes provide guid-
ance on the design of roof structures and associated wind and snow loads.
Snow loading determinations cannot solely use national or local building
code loads without engineering judgment, to avoid the danger of over-
specifying buoyancy requirements. In general, a 10- to 15-psf live load is
a practical limit. If, based on engineering review, a reasonable live load
limit cannot be achieved, covered docks may not be a practical
alternative.
Utility Integration Potable water, fire suppression systems, electric-

ity, communications, lighting, fuel delivery, and sanitary sewer systems
are provided to individual slips or a central location on the dock by
routing the utilities under the gangway and through the main or marginal
walkways of the floating dock system. Routing of utilities through the
dock is typically accomplished in three ways:
• Routing utilities through an internal raceway or conduit system with

access or junction boxes
• Troughs or raceways integrated into deck surface with flush-
mounted but removable covers
• Utility lines that mount on hangers that are attached to the side of
the floating dock.
The selection of the utility routing method depends on the floating

dock system and the environmental conditions at the site. For electrical,
communication, and fuel delivery systems, the preferred routing is
through internal or external (deck surface) raceways or conduits. This
method keeps the utilities above the waterline and prevents damage due
to impacts from boats and debris. The raceways or conduits generally
provide more straightforward access and enhances the aesthetics of the
entire floating dock installation. The covers of the external raceways are
fabricated from UHWMP, metal, or fiberglass materials.
Potable water, fire suppression, and sanitary sewer systems can also be
routed in raceways or conduits when the systems are drained during the
winter months or in regions of the country that are not exposed to con-
tinuous freeze and thaw. In locales where the potable water and firewater
suppression are utilized year-round and subject to freezing conditions,
the lines can be submerged and mounted to the side of the dock using a
J-hanger or metal strap.
An understanding of the weight and location of the utility lines is critical
in the design of a floating dock system in order to achieve the desired free-
board and level flotation of the system. The weight of a fully charged potable
water, fire, sanitary sewer, and fuel delivery system as well as the type [ther-
moplastic high-water-resistant nylon-coated (THWN), G-cable, etc.] and
placement (home run, daisy-chain, etc.) of electrical wiring should be consid-
ered in the floating dock design calculations. It is important to note that
electrical wiring should be placed above mechanical utility systems. Simi-
larly, electrical wiring should be separated from communication equipment
such as cable or telephone systems to avoid signal interference.
Mooring/Fender
Fendering systems are incorporated into fixed and floating dock
systems to minimize damage to the dock or vessel when berthing and, if
designed accordingly, can absorb and distribute the berthing force exerted
on the dock. Fendering systems used in small craft harbors can be catego-
rized into horizontal and vertical systems. Fixed docks utilize horizontal
and vertical fendering systems, while floating dock systems typically
utilize only horizontal systems because the boat/dock interface remains
constant through the range of water levels.
In its simplest form, a horizontal fendering system consists of a wood rub

rail mounted along the outer edge of a fixed or floating dock system. The
rub rail, which is typically treated Southern yellow pine or Douglas fir,
prevents boats from coming into direct contact with the dock. This hori-
zontal member is bolted to a fixed or floating dock or, in the case of certain
floating concrete dock systems, is the wood waler that connects the indi-
vidual floating modules. A vinyl or rubber bumper may be attached to
the rub rail to provide additional cushioning; however, this fendering
system has limited energy absorption capacity. D-shaped UHWMP or
rubber horizontal fenders with and without an O-bore (commonly referred
to as a D-bore) have begun to replace the standard rub rail because this
system provides some energy absorption. Horizontal fendering systems
are less effective in fixed dock applications because they do not provide
a constant dock–boat interface over a range of water levels. In addition,
horizontal systems may not provide effective fendering for various hull
types, depending on boat freeboard and shape.
Vertical fendering is widely used in fixed dock applications because it
provides a continuous interface between vessel and dock over a range of
water levels. The length of the vertical pile above and below the deck
surface of the fixed dock should be sufficient to prevent boat hulls or
appendages from getting lodged underneath the fixed dock during
periods of lower water or losing contact with the boat hull during high
water events. However, it is important to avoid piles extending too far
above the deck surface because the berthing force on the cantilevered pile
can exceed the pile capacity.
The different types of vertical fenders include wood posts attached at
one (cantilever) or more points on the fixed pier, or wood or plastic piles
driven adjacent to or attached to the fixed pier. Cantilevered wood posts
should be connected near the top of the post using through-bolts, with
the top of the wood post mitered to minimize water lying on top. If two
or more additional bolted connections are used, the bolted connections
should not lie below the daily low water level because it becomes difficult
to replace connections if they are well submerged. A wood post fender
system provides minimal energy absorption capacity.
Wood or plastic piles driven adjacent to the fixed dock that are free-
standing or connected at one point to the dock is another common method
of vertical fendering. A freestanding wood pile is partially able to absorb
berthing energy from the vessel without transferring the entire load to the
fixed pier. A D-bore fender attached to the fixed dock behind the free-
standing pile improves the functionality of the pile. A freestanding wood
or plastic pile that is attached at one point on the dock acts similarly to a
wood post.
Vertical fenders placed along main and marginal walkways should be
spaced from 3 to 4.5 m (10 to 15 ft) apart to provide several fendering
points for a range of vessel types and sizes. Ideally, the vertical fender
should be aligned with the pile bent spacing. At finger piers, vertical
fenders are typically placed 1 to 1.5 m (3 to 5 ft) from each end, with
intermediate fenders placed at 3- to 4.5-m (10- to 15-ft) intervals or with
the pile bent spacing.
A combination of vertical and horizontal fendering systems can be

employed to capture the performance attributes of each system. In basic
form, vertical posts or piles are combined with horizontal rub rails. A
cantilevered wave fence is another combination system that affords a
continuous fendering system along the fixed dock. The limitation of this
system or any other cantilevered system is that these systems are more
susceptible to damage because the berthing forces from the vessel can
readily exceed the design capacity of the cantilever.
Cleats and Bollards

Cleats and bollards are the primary attachment points between vessels
and the fixed or floating dock. Unfortunately, there is minimal guidance
related to the appropriate size and holding strength that should be used.
Most cleat/bollard manufacturers do not specify minimum holding
strengths, so determining the appropriate size and corresponding attach-
ment method is largely based on experience. A mooring analysis can be
conducted to determine the peak mooring loads, which can then be used
with individual manufacturer data to determine the appropriate cleat/
bollard size. This type of assessment is highly recommended for facilities
that are subject to extreme wind or wave events. Table 3-7 presents guid-
ance related to cleat sizing from the UFC manual (NAVFAC 2009).
Another general rule for cleat/bollard size is that there should be suf-
ficient room to allow two to four wraps of the mooring line. Cleats are
manufactured from aluminum, cast-iron, and stainless steel, with material
selection based on regional or boat user preferences. The cleats/bollards
should be attached with a minimum of two through-bolts into the
Table 3-7. Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) Cleat Sizing Guidelines
Boat Length Cleat Size

[m (ft)] [cm (in.)]
L < 12 (40) 25 (10)

12 (40) ≤ L < 18 (60) 38 (15)
18 (60) ≤ L < 24 (80) 46 (18)
L ≥ 24 (80) 61 (24)
Source: NAVFAC 2009
structural frame of the pier or dock. Plate washers should be used to

distribute cleat pull-out forces without crushing the structural support.
Bolt heads should be recessed into the cleat so lines do not chafe on them,
and the recess filled to prevent water ponding and corrosion.
A minimum of three cleats should be provided along the finger pier
for boats between 6 and 18 m (20 and 60 ft) in length. The cleats are typi-
cally evenly spaced along the finger pier with the two outer cleats spaced
within 30 cm (12 in.) of the ends. By placing the outer cleats near the ends,
tripping hazards are minimized. If boats are berthed in a double-slip
arrangement, one or two additional cleats or bollards should be placed
on the main walkway at the center of the slip. For vessels between 18 m
and 30 m (60–100 ft), a minimum of four cleats is recommended. Five or
more cleats should be incorporated for vessels larger than 30 m (100 ft),
with input provided by experienced vessel captains and crew.
Accessories
The following are typical dock accessories that are included with rec-
reational and commercial small craft harbor facilities.
Dock Boxes Dock boxes are useful for long-term slip patrons to allow
for storage on, while not cluttering, the docks. Dock boxes are typically
located either on the main walk, adjacent to each slip and between finger
piers, as shown in Fig. 3-27, or on the finger pier triangle frames/gussets
where present. Dock boxes are a preference item and need to be specified
by the small craft harbor owner and/or operator. They need to be main-
tained and monitored to ensure that undesirable items (e.g., flammables)
are not stored by boaters. Some dock boxes also include provisions for
berth utilities, eliminating the need for standalone utility pedestals. In
order to minimize maintenance, dock boxes should be made of fiberglass,
plastics/composites, or sheet metal coated appropriately for marine
exposure.
Life Rings While there are no established federal guidelines for life
rings at recreational small craft harbors, state and local codes may require
them. For example, Washington State code requires a life ring at intervals
not to exceed 60 m (200 ft). However, many facilities provide standard
760-mm (30-in.) life rings at each fire extinguisher cabinet. Where harbor
workers are exposed to potential drowning hazards, 29 CFR 1917 Marine
Terminals (OSHA 2009) requires that a USCG-approved life ring (Fig.
3-23) with at least 27 m (90 ft) of attached line is provided at readily acces-
sible points. According to U.S. Navy guidance (UFC 4-152-01) (NAVFAC
2005), this criterion should be interpreted as one life ring per wharf/pier.
Additional life rings are at the discretion of the small craft harbor owner/
Fig. 3-27. Typical dock box setup along main walk, Indian River Marina,
Rehoboth Beach, Delaware
operator, in accordance with their safety plan, facility usage and users,
and insurance requirements.
Fire Extinguishers Chemical fire extinguishers for small craft harbors

and marine facilities shall be provided as per applicable National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA), state, and local codes and regulations. For
small craft facilities, NFPA 303 (2006a) specifies portable fire extinguisher
requirements (type and locations), which primarily includes provision of
an extinguisher at the head of each dock access point (gangway or pier)
and thereafter so that maximum travel distance to the extinguisher from
any point on the docks does not exceed 23 m (75 ft). Technical require-
ments of portable fire extinguishers are provided in NFPA 10 (2007a). At
marine fueling facilities, NFPA 30A (2008a) includes additional require-
ments. For bulkheads and wharves, NFPA 307 (2006b) provides guidance.
Fire extinguisher cabinets are available from various suppliers and in a
variety of materials, all of which should be specified to be suitable for
marine exposure. Some cabinets include lights, life ring holders, and
alarms (Fig. 3-28).
Fig. 3-28. Fire extinguisher cabinet with standpipe and life ring, Chub Cay
Marina, Berry Islands, Bahamas
Additional fire suppression measures, which may include fixed stand-

pipe systems (dry or wet) (NFPA 14) (NFPA 2007b) with hose reels, large-
wheeled chemical extinguishers, portable fire pump carts that draft water
from the basin and include firefighting foam eductors, and/or other mea-
sures, should be coordinated closely with the local fire marshal early in
the planning and design process. Experience indicates that fire suppres-
sion requirements and applications vary geographically, depending on
availability of local water supply, proximity and capability of local fire
department, and other factors. This early coordination will ensure proper
fire suppression measures are included, since in most U.S. locations the
local fire marshal is responsible for interpretation and enforcement of
NFPA and local guidance.
Mobile Fire Carts Mobile fire carts, as shown in Fig. 3-29, provide
marina staff with the ability to wage an extended response to boat fires
Fig. 3-29. Golf cart–mounted fire suppression system, Yachthaven Grande

Marina, St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
prior to the arrival of the fire department. Mobile fire carts have an inte-
grated pump that withdraws water from the marina basin and discharges
it through a high-pressure nozzle at rates ranging from 375 to 750 L/min
(100 to 200 gpm) at 690 kPA (100 psi). Fire-retardant foam can be mixed
with the discharged water to better combat fires fueled by fuel, plastics,
and fiberglass.
Ladders Ladders are generally provided on fixed and floating docks

to allow emergency access from the water. In addition, where the tide
range and fixed piers may not provide convenient berthing access at all
tidal stages, ladders are also provided adjacent to the berths (from the
finger piers). According to the requirements of UFC 4-152-01 (NAVFAC
2005), ladders to provide access to fixed piers (or floating docks) from the
water should be provided at a maximum spacing of 120 m (400 ft) on
centers or within 60 m (200 ft) of any work area.
Ladders should be a minimum of 406 mm (16 in.) wide and reach the
lowest water elevation anticipated. Retractable or flip ladders may be
used as an alternative to fixed ladders to avoid marine fouling of the lower
steps, but they can be difficult for a swimmer to reach and pull down in
case of an emergency. There are numerous commercially available ladders
made typically of marine-grade aluminum or stainless steel.
Various forms of “lifting ladders” are convenient for floating docks,
where they can be kept in the retracted position until needed. For
recreational small craft harbors, ladders are generally spaced according

to the management’s anticipated needs, clientele usage, and safety plan.
They are often placed at the ends of T-heads of finger piers (so as to not
affect berthing in the slips), in fairways, or adjacent to bulkheads (Fig.
3-30) so that anyone who may fall into the water can easily swim to a
ladder without crossing under or through piers and vessels or across main
navigable waterways.
Accessibility
General accessibility guidelines for small craft harbors were provided
in the Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines, Section 15.2
(ADAAG 2004). ADAAG was republished by the U.S. Access Board in
2004 as the ADA–ABA (Americans with Disabilities Act–Architectural
Barriers Act). Small craft harbors and boat ramps are covered in Chapter
10, Section 1003; recreational boating facilities, fishing piers, and plat-
forms are covered in Chapter 10, Section 1005. Access in small craft harbors
is mainly focused on parking areas, retail/restaurants, restrooms, and the
docks themselves.
Prior to 2002, accessibility for small craft harbors was subject to much
interpretation and debate, as small craft harbors and gangways were not
specifically covered. This led to considerable confusion and, in some
cases, attempts to meet or exceed the upland requirements for access from
Fig. 3-30. Aluminum ladders for access from vessels and water, Lucayan
Marina Village, Grand Bahama Island, Bahamas
land to floating docks—particularly for public boarding facilities associ-

ated with ferry docks and other public transportation docks. While the
ADA-ABA general requirements for accessible routes on land can be
accommodated for structures on the water, in locations where tidal fluc-
tuations exceed about 1.2 m (4 ft), the requirements for multiple short-
sloped ramps, flat rest platforms, etc. result in very expensive and spatially
significant access structures.
As described on the U. S. Access Board website,
The Board’s guidelines are not mandatory on the public, but instead
serve as the baseline for enforceable standards (which are) main-
tained by other Federal agencies. In this respect, they are similar to
a model building code in that they are not required to be followed
except as adopted by an enforcing authority. (ADAAG 2004)
Thus, the enforcement and application of ADA-ABA in any facility is

generally subject to the enforcing authority, which could be the facility
owner (in the case of municipal or federal facility), local governing body,
or regulatory agency.
The state of California (DBW 2005) provides an excellent summary of
the ADA-ABA requirements and guidelines for small craft harbors. Gen-
erally, ADA-ABA guidelines should be applied to all new facilities and
those undergoing alterations. It is also noted that elevators or platform
lifts are an acceptable substitute for gangways. ADA-ABA provides guid-
ance for minimum number and dispersion of accessible gangways based
on number of vessels in any given facility. Other accessibility require-
ments include minimum clear pier widths, edge protection, and clear
spaces for boarding at boat slips.
Gangways Articulated gangways are the most widely used method

of access from land or fixed piers to floating docks. Gangways are avail-
able commercially in varied materials, including fiberglass, aluminum,
steel, timber, or a combination of these materials. Marine-grade aluminum
is most prevalent, as it exhibits advantageous strength-to-weight ratios
and corrosion resistance (Figure 3-31).
Many sources provide guidance on gangway design criteria, and per-
tinent items are summarized herein. Minimum gangway requirements
generally include
• Widths of 91 cm (36 in.) clear; 122 cm (48 in.) preferred.

• Widths of 183 cm (72 in.) for high-traffic areas and where golf cart
access to the docks occurs.
• Accessible gangways, where required per ADA-ABA Chapter 10,
Section 1003, shall have a maximum slope of 1V : 12H. However, the
gangway (or series of gangways) does not have to be longer than

24.4 m (80 ft). Similarly, if a small craft harbor has fewer than 25
slips, the maximum gangway length is 9.1 m (30 ft).
• Design uniform vertical live load of 2.4 kPa (50 psf), or 3.6 to 4.8 kPa
(75–100 psf) where assembly is likely to occur.
• Concentrated live load of 91 kg (200 lb) at any location.

• Deflection of the gangway under live load should not exceed L/180.
• Smooth, snag-free handrails designed to resist 2.4 kPa (50 psf) and a
concentrated load of 91 kg (200 lb) (either one applied in any direc-
tion, not simultaneously).
• Upper/guard rail heights of 107 to 114 cm (42–45 in.) above the deck.
• Handrail height of 86 to 91 cm (34–36 in.) above the deck. In many
municipalities, code requires handrails to have openings that do not
allow the passage of a 10-cm (4-in.) sphere, the nominal size of a
child’s head.
• Maximum slope of 1V : 3H at MLLW in tidal locations, or alternate
design low water in nontidal locations. The state of California (DBW
2005) suggests that for inland waterways a 1V : 3H slope should not
exceed more than 10% of the time.
• Walking surface to be nonskid when wet.
Gangways are typically hinged at the upland connection and include

rollers or skids on the floating pier end. Note that the landside connections
to the bulkhead or fixed pier and the landing float at the waterward end
Fig. 3-31. Typical aluminum truss gangway, Marina Costa Baja, La Paz,
Mexico
should also include consideration of the additional dead and live loads
of the gangway structure. Utilities will generally be routed underneath
the gangway, strapped to at least a portion of the structure before entering
the floating dock. These utilities will typically include some flexible sec-
tions in order to facilitate the motion of the transition from fixed to float-
ing structures. The additional weight of the utility lines in use should also
be considered in the design of the gangway and adjacent pier systems.
Where tide ranges and/or elevation differentials between the fixed pier
and floating docks require, the dockside gangway connection point may
be recessed below the floating dock deck level, as shown in Fig. 3-32. In
some cases it may be advantageous to pin the gangway at the floating
dock (including a recess below the deck where necessary) with a corre-
sponding roller connection on a metal plate at the fixed pier/land side.
Articulated tread plates are generally used to provide a uniform transition
from the gangway’s walking surface to the existing grade on the land and
floating dock. The tread plate and rollers on the free end of the gangway
should rest on metal or UHMW plastic skid plate(s) which allow for free
and silent movement of the gangway with changing water levels.
During design, the changes in extreme water levels at the site, existing
shoreline structures or grades, and the freeboard of the floating docks
should all be considered in conjunction with the gangway structural
geometry in order to ensure that the gangway structure will not bind on
the floating dock or shoreline structure throughout the range of antici-
pated water levels. The gangway landing on the free end (typically on the
Fig. 3-32. Gangway with recessed connection on floating dock, Bristol Marina,
floating dock) should also be located to ensure that the gangway will not
fall off the end of the floating dock during extreme low water levels, or
where perhaps the dock is moored with a flexible mooring system and
extreme wind, wave, or current action displaces the dock substantially
from normal position. It is wise to provide safety chains at the free end.
The width of the floating dock at the gangway landing may need to be
wider than the adjacent main walks in order to facilitate access past the
landing to nearby slips.
Fingers (Sloped Transition or Step-Down) Where changes in dock

freeboard (typically with fixed piers) are required due to vessel size, the
optimal transition is a slope that meets ADA-ABA requirements (i.e.,
short-ramped sections not exceeding 1V : 12H). However, if the facility
already includes sufficient accessible slips based on ADA-ABA guidelines,
then steps down from the main walk to finger piers, like those shown in
Fig. 3-33, are not a problem. However, the step(s) should be dimensioned
according to local codes for stairs on buildings, and minimized to the
extent practical. Steps from a bulkhead promenade to individual finger
piers may not be a problem if the required ADA-accessible slips are avail-
able in other areas of the small craft harbor. Each facility should be ana-
lyzed and designed on a case-by-case basis.
Design Guidance/Criteria Fueling is an amenity provided by larger

marina facilities to service their internal demand, or by marina facilities
Fig. 3-33. Fixed finger piers with step transition from bulkhead, Sailfish
Marina Resort, West Palm Beach, Florida
located along busy waterway routes where there is strong demand for
fuel. Fueling at the marina is not only a convenience to the boaters but is
also a reliable source of revenue for the facility. Fueling facilities at marinas,
as shown in Figs. 3-34 and 3-35, are regulated by NFPA, federal and state
regulatory requirements, and local building codes. The Petroleum Equip-
ment Institute (PEI) has published guidelines to plan, design, and
Fig. 3-34. Floating fuel dock, Palm Harbor Marina, West Palm Beach, Florida
Fig. 3-35. Fixed fuel dock, Gulf Harbour Marina, Fort Myers, Florida
construct safe and reliable fueling facilities at marinas (PEI 2009). These
guidelines provide recommendations on materials, designs, and installa-
tion procedures for fueling facilities in fresh- and saltwater
environments.
Diesel and marine-grade gasoline are typically provided, with tank
capacities of the two fuel types generally dependent on the size and
number of boats that access the facility. Boats less than 12 m (40 ft) in
length generally operate on marine-grade gasoline, while larger boats
(12 m+) more commonly use diesel fuel. Boats larger than 24 m (80 ft)
almost exclusively use diesel. Fuel tank capacity for diesel and marine-
grade gasoline should be assessed based on current and projected market
conditions. Under- or oversizing the fuel capacity can result in frequent
refilling or fuel remaining in tanks for periods longer than one month,
respectively. Ideally, fuel stored in tanks should be turned over in less than
one month.
Gas is administered through marine-grade dispensers, though dispens-
ers used at car service stations are common in facilities that cater to
smaller boats. Gas is typically supplied at lower speeds of 0.5 and 1 liter
per second (L/sec) [8 to 15 gallons per minute (gpm)] due to the lower
capacity of in-tank venting systems in gas powered boats under 18 m
(60 ft). Diesel-powered boats become more common once vessel length
exceeds 15 m (45 ft). Dispenser rates up to 2 L/sec (35 gpm) are preferred
for vessels under 18 m (60 ft). The dispenser rate for vessels between 18
and 24 m (60 and 80 ft) increases to about 3.8 L/sec (60 gpm). For mega-
yachts (30 m and greater) with very large fuel tanks, the rate of fuel dis-
pensed ranges from 3.8 to 5.0 L/sec (60–80 gpm). Recent advances in
dispenser systems for mega-yacht facilities, such as Rybovich Marina in
West Palm Beach, Florida, allow flow rates up to 8 L/sec (125 gpm). A
single nozzle from the dispenser can service up to 150 vessels. Typically,
dual nozzles are provided to allow fueling of several boats at once. Dis-
pensers for diesel and marine-grade gasoline should be separated to
permit fueling of multiple vessels at the same time.
Fuel is stored in single or multiple aboveground (AST) or underground
(UST) tanks and is discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.
Utilities
Electrical Service As modern boats have increased in size, the electri-
cal requirements for these vessels have also increased. The electrical
equipment included on today’s vessels provides a boat owner with many
of the modern amenities found at home. This increase in the electrical
demand for boats has created a more extensive list of characteristics that
should be examined when developing a small craft harbor electrical
system.
Codes and Standards It is important to adhere to the two main electrical

codes used in the United States when constructing a small craft harbor
electrical system. The National Electrical Code (NEC), specifically NEC
Article 555, Marina and Boatyards of NFPA 70 (NFPA 2008b) and NFPA
303 (NFPA 2006a), provide valuable information concerning the rules and
regulations governing electrical design. These codes are changed every

few years and it is important to consult the local authority having jurisdic-
tion (AHJ) as to which edition of these codes is followed locally.
One of the more essential articles cited in the NEC concerns the demand
factor allowed for a marina electrical system. The demand factor is the
allowable percentage that can be deducted from the total electrical load
of a marina. These deductions are based on the fact that not all receptacles
in a marina will be used at one time. The percentage that can be deducted
is determined by the total number of receptacles on a service or circuit
within a design and is applied using NEC Table 555.12. The percentage
of deduction ranges from 100% (a service or circuit having one to four
receptacles should account for all of the total load) to 30% (71 or more
receptacles are required to only account for 30% of the total load).
It is important to note that the demand factors listed within the NEC
are maximum allowable deductions and may not be appropriate for all
locations. Small craft harbors that experience extreme temperatures may
want to avoid using the maximum allowable deductions due to the high
power consumption of heating and air conditioners within the small craft
harbor. Demand factors should also be evaluated when live-aboards
(people who sleep or stay on their boats for extended periods) are present
in the marina.
Another important regulation to follow is the “labeling” or “listing” of
equipment used within a small craft harbor. All equipment used on a
small craft harbor project must be “listed” or “labeled” (NFPA 2006a). The
terms “labeled” and “listed” apply to equipment that has been tested by
a qualified organization and identified as acceptable for use within a local-
ity by the AHJ. Labeled and listed equipment comply with specific manu-
facturing standards and are designed for specific purposes (such as marine
use). Nationally recognized test organizations include United Laborato-
ries (UL) and Interlink Listed.
Distribution The incoming power source is an important starting

point. The local utility or power company can provide valuable informa-
tion about the electrical components available to the small craft harbor.
The voltage provided by the local utility is a key factor in developing an
efficient electrical system. Common incoming voltages provided by the
utilities include 120/240V single-phase, 120/208V three-phase, or
277/480V three-phase power. Most equipment within a small craft harbor
will need 120V, 120/240V, or 120/208V power to operate. If the power
company provides a voltage higher than 120/240V or 120/208V, such as

277/480V, transformers will be required to step the voltage down to a
level that can be used by the boats. The maximum voltage allowed on
docks per the NEC is 600V (NEC 555.4).
The decision between using 120/240V single-phase or 120/208V three-
phase power within the small craft harbor can be complicated. Factors
such as cost, availability, and compatibility with existing equipment
should be considered in consultation with the owner and utility company
when choosing which type of service to provide. Table 3-8 compares the
two options.
Three-phase, 120/208V systems are more readily available and cheaper
than single-phase systems. However, a 120/208V system is not
recommended for use with 120/240V single-phase equipment per
NEC 555.19(A)(3).
The location of electrical equipment can also affect the voltage required
within the small craft harbor. Long wire runs between power sources and
equipment such as panels, transformers, and power pedestals can result
Table 3-8. Incoming Power Source Configuration Comparison
120/240V Single-Phase 120/208V Three-Phase
Basic Utilizes two hot lines, Utilizes three hot lines,

configuration one ground, and one one ground, and one
neutral neutral
Cost Typically more Typically less expensive as
expensive than a the system utilizes three
three-phase system as hot legs, which results
only two hot legs are in more equipment
utilized to power being powered by fewer
equipment cables
Availability Availability depends on Available in almost all
the local utility, but is areas and in large sizes
usually available in (such as 1,200A)
limited sizes (such as
600A maximum)
Compatibility Works well with smaller Compatible with 30A 120V
vessels requiring 30A and 100A 120/208V
120V receptacles and receptacles; not
is recommended for recommended for
all 50A and 100A powering 120/240V
120/240V receptacles equipment due to low
voltage
in voltage loss or voltage drop. Voltage drop is the energy wasted when
heating a wire to load and can affect an electrical system at the utility
supply, at the distribution equipment, or at the power pedestal. It is rec-
ommended that an electrical circuit have no more than 5% of total voltage
drop from the power source. Extreme voltage drops (greater than 5%) can
result in malfunctioning equipment and/or fire due to overheating.
Equipment The equipment supplying power to a small craft harbor is

another important aspect of the electrical system. A vital component of
the system is a “service disconnect” located somewhere on shore. Circuit
breakers and fused switches are common service disconnects used to shut
off power to the small craft harbor. These disconnects are used in case of
emergencies, such as a fire or impending storm, or simply to cut off power
to the small craft harbor for seasonal maintenance.
Distribution equipment, such as panels and transformers that supply
power to utility centers or power pedestals, as shown in Fig. 3-36, can be
located on the dock provided that a service disconnect is present some-
where on shore. This distribution equipment should be located so as to
not interfere with walkway access and should be constructed of appropri-
ate material to withstand the marine environment.
The type of wire used to connect the equipment within the electrical
system should be rated for marine use. Exposed wires used for the small
craft harbor electrical system must be rated for extra-hard usage per NEC
555.13. Wire or conduit flexibility is crucial in areas of high tidal fluctua-
tion and along ramp-to-shore connection areas. Flexible cables with heavy
outer jackets, such as “G” cable and “W” cable, are acceptable for use
within small craft harbors without conduit. These cables can be sub-
mersed in water without conduit protection as long as they are properly
protected from potential damage that may be caused by dock movement.
“G” cable is recommended at gangways and all locations where signifi-
cant movement or rotation may be expected. Regular building wires, such
as THWN, must be used within conduit and need to be listed for use in
wet environments.
Small craft harbors that offer a variety of electrical options can be
attractive to transient boaters. Facilities with receptacles of various amper-
ages and voltages will ensure that any vessel entering the small craft
harbor will be provided with the appropriate power requirements. Table
3-9 provides a general guideline for the power requirements of boats. The
actual receptacles required for different vessels will vary by
manufacturer.
Most boats in the 10- to 21-m (30- to 70-ft) range will use 30A 120V or
50A 120/240V twist-locking receptacles, as shown in Fig. 3-37. Larger
vessels may require 100A or 200A pin-and-sleeve receptacles. Conve-
nience receptacles with ground-fault protection (20A GFCIs) should also
Fig. 3-36. Unit combining a transformer and distribution panel

Source: Courtesy of Eaton Corporation
be placed throughout the small craft harbor for maintenance purposes.

All receptacles should be housed in listed, weatherproof enclosures such
as power pedestals or utility centers. Electrical service in areas near fuel
dispensers need to be designed to explosion-proof standards. NFPA 30A
(NFPA 2008a) provides requirements for electrical services in these
areas.
Power pedestals and utility centers are designed to provide slip owners
with a variety of utilities in a single enclosure. This equipment commonly
includes lighting, electrical receptacles and circuit breakers, telephone,
cable TV, Internet, and water. Power pedestals are typically freestanding
units that can accommodate a large number of receptacles and added
options. Utility centers are smaller, more versatile units that offer fewer
Table 3-9. General Power Requirements for Vessel Size and Type
Vessel Size Sailboats Powerboats
Up to 10 m (~30 ft) One 30A 125V One 30A 125V

receptacle receptacle
10–12 m (~30–40 ft) One 30A 125V Two 30A 125V
receptacle receptacles
12–15 m (~40–50 ft) Two 30A 125V One 50A 125/250V
receptacles receptacle
15–18 m (~50–60 ft) One 50A 125/250V Two 50A 125/250V
receptacle receptacles
18–21 m (~60–70 ft) Two 50A 125/250V Two 50A 125/250V
receptacles receptacles
21–24 m (~70–80 ft) Two 50A 125/250V One 100A 125/250V
receptacles receptacle
24–30 m (~80–100 ft) Two 50A 125/250V Two 100A 125/250V
receptacles receptacles
Fig. 3-37. Common marine twist-lock receptacles

Source: Courtesy of Eaton Corporation
options, but can be located on pilings or in triangle dock boxes. Both

options are depicted in Figs. 3-38 and 3-39.
As a general rule, powerboats will use more electricity than sailboats.
Facilities that hold events for a large number of boaters should consider
this when developing the electrical system. Power spikes for fishing tour-
naments and holidays can be costly if periods of high electrical demand

are not considered.
Electronic metering and wireless remote meter reading capabilities are
also common for both electricity and water to monitor consumption per
boater throughout a facility. The addition of electronic metering can be
used to monitor boat owners and help deter excessive power usage.
Boaters will be less likely to use large amounts of electricity if they are
required to pay for their usage. Many equipment manufacturers offer
electrical kilowatt-hour meters or pay-for-power options that can be used
for both long-term moorage and transient facilities to curb power usage.
Communication and Security The term “communications” encom-

passes voice, data, and television (VDT) communications. The widespread
availability of cellular telephone coverage and usage, cellular Internet,
smart phones, and satellite television makes them attractive to many
marinas that do not find the need to provide VDT services to their clients.
Marinas often find the expense does not increase clientele, nor is there a
return on investment in selling VDT service. However, at larger, more
Fig. 3-38. Typical triangular dock box with integrated utilities, Palm Harbor
Marina, West Palm Beach, Florida
Fig. 3-39. Freestanding power pedestal, Port Louis Marina, St. George,
Grenada
remote and extended-stay marinas, the need for increasing sophistication

of the VDT system is required. While local telephone service to the inland
community has become less of a requirement, phone service to a concierge
or for “room service” may be warranted. Select television service is espe-
cially desirable where international guests are regular clientele. Internet
and Internet Protocol (IP) phone service for international calling is increas-
ingly popular.
Communication Services Since local phone service is often not in great

demand, a minimum of four lines with one additional line for each 10 to
20 slips is recommended. A private branch exchange (PBX) telephone
switch with the capability to “roll over” calls to the next available outgo-
ing line is suggested. One or two direct telephone lines bypassing the PBX
should be provided for emergency service. Internal communications for
marina and concierge services may be necessary, and each slip will require
a telephone connection and a unique number. Depending on the size of
the marina, discussions with a cellular service provider might be a viable
alternative to a wired phone system.
Although most boaters have little use for most broadcast television,
there is a demand for viewing special events and foreign language broad-
casts. Ten to 20 select channels should be adequate, with one or two chan-
nels dedicated to marina news and weather. These channels can be
received via the local cable company or from satellite receivers.
Internet service has become a requirement for large marinas. Adequate

bandwidth should be provided to allow reasonably unfettered access to
websites. A marina home page is certainly advisable with news, weather,
local events, and available services listed or linked to the page. An easy
ordering link to the upland kitchen, stores, golf shop, etc. may provide a
faster return on the investment. IP phone service can be made available

through the Internet connection and is especially beneficial where the
marina is connected with other marinas that may provide a traveling
itinerary for boaters.
Security Services Security surrounding marinas has become more of

an issue in recent years, particularly at upscale facilities. Some form of
electronic access control should be employed wherever an attendant does
not control the access point. Short-term access cards are relatively inex-
pensive and can be easily issued and replaced.
Closed-circuit security cameras (CCTV) should be provided to monitor
the individual piers and waterways surrounding the marina. Care should
be taken to position the cameras properly for the intended purpose.
Cameras employed for general surveillance should be mounted as high
as practical and view not more than 90 m (300 ft) of dock or wharf (people
at the far distance become so small that the camera system cannot ade-
quately display the image). It is also important to make sure the cameras
are not directed into the sun at sunrise or sunset. Cameras used to identify
people entering and exiting the facility should be located close to the entry
point and positioned to view the person’s face in sufficient detail for
future identification. Cameras used to monitor the waterways need broad
coverage since they are generally looking for boats rather than people. It
is wise to consider the use of thermal imaging cameras to account for the
problem of glare from the sun reflected off waves.
Infrared or visible lighting, properly positioned for night, will be
required for successful video image capture. Video analytics, such as
motion detection and action analysis, can be used to enhance the useful-
ness of the system. Newer camera systems are being installed with
network-type IP cameras rather than analog cameras. This allows the
camera system to attach to the Internet cabling rather than a dedicated
wiring system, reducing the overall cost of the system. A network video
recorder (NVR) should be provided to record the images from the cameras.
Connectivity Several options are available for wiring various systems.

Copper wiring in the form of coaxial (COAX) cable and Category 5, 5e,
and 6 ethernet cables have been used extensively and are a viable choice.
Note that ethernet cables should be limited to 100 m (328 ft) in length
without amplification. Radio frequency (RF) interference and corrosion is
a concern for these cables and should be carefully considered.
Fiber optic cables are another option. The choice of fiber will be dictated
largely by the equipment vendor and not the overall system. Fiber is
immune to RF interference and, when properly installed, is very reliable.
The fibers are somewhat fragile and proper care should be taken during
the installation process to avoid damage. Spare cable should be provided
for future expansion; 20% spare capacity is a minimum suggestion.

Wireless network communications (Wi-Fi) can be an attractive alternate
or supplement to a wired system. With sufficient signal strength, a Wi-Fi
system can provide Internet, IP phone, and streaming video for television,
but not analog phone service. The concern with these systems is interfer-
ence from other RF signals, attenuation of the signal from boats and
structures in the signal path, and reflections causing ghosting of the signal.
Proper design, a complete survey of the existing RF signals in the area,
and some final adjustments to access points can mitigate most of the
problems.
Mechanical Utilities Mechanical utilities, including potable water,

fire suppression systems, and sanitary sewer pump-out, have become
fundamental components of small craft harbors. This section provides an
overview of codes and regulations that govern the design of these systems,
as well as general design guidance of flow rates, pipe pressures, and
materials for consideration.
The primary component of any small craft harbor mechanical system
is the piping. Considerations for pipe flexibility and expansion/contrac-
tion due to changes in ambient temperature and sunlight exposure should
be incorporated into the pipe routing, anchoring, and support designs.
These climate effects also contribute to selection of appropriate pipe mate-
rials and movement compensation equipment, such as expansion joints.
Support spacing guidance for securing the utility lines to the dock is based
on code requirements and/or manufacturer’s recommendations. Piping
materials to consider for each type of mechanical system are discussed in
greater detail in later sections.
Mechanical systems for both fixed and floating dock systems are very
similar; however, some differences arise in the upland-to-waterside transi-
tion of the utilities and the location of the utilities on the docks. Floating
dock utility access should incorporate the transition through gangways,
which articulate with the rise and fall of water levels. Hoses or flexible
piping is used to account for this vertical movement and for the relative
horizontal movement of the gangway along the floating dock. Flexibility
between dock segments associated with floating dock system connections
should also be considered for pipes transitioning between floating
pontoons. Any flexible hoses should be food grade with National Sanita-
tion Foundation (NSF) or U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval.
Regarding location, the utility lines in floating docks are typically

placed in service troughs accessible from the deck, through a conduit
within the float core structures, or along the sides of the floating pontoons
(typically below the fender). Floating docks generally have less space or
more complicated utility routes than do fixed dock systems, especially if
routed within the float core structures, which may result in additional
main pier width requirements for floating dock systems to accommodate
substantial utility lines. With a fixed dock system the utility lines are
usually either placed within a service channel or hung below the deck.
For hanging utility lines, consideration should be given to passage of the
lines through the pile bent caps. The location of all equipment and piping
should always be protected from potential impacts with boats and other
watercraft, and the mechanical utility components should be routed above
the water level to the greatest extent possible. Additionally, design and
piping considerations shall be made for winterizing utility systems where
applicable, including drainage of potable water and fire water lines and
flushing and drainage of sewer lines.
Potable Water Design guidance and regulations for potable water and
sanitary sewer pump-out systems are found within local plumbing codes,
state boating laws and guidelines, and the International Plumbing Code/
Uniform Plumbing Code. The local authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ)
should be contacted early in the design process to identify existing potable
water supply and sewer lines or to clarify specific code requirements
associated with the marine, waterfront, and outdoor environment of
docks, piers, and wharves for these systems.
The sizing and flow capacity for the potable water system should be
calculated based on current average and maximum use with a peaking
factor, and also for any future dock expansions. The minimum water pres-
sure delivered at the end of the line (dock hose bib) should be no less than
240 kPa (35 psi); however, the local codes will dictate the design of the
system. The size of the service water line is based on friction head loss (or
the total equivalent pipe length) and design pressure at the end of the
line. For practical purposes, the minimum pipe diameter for the head pipe
serving docks is 50 mm (2 in.).
The water usage is typically calculated per slip and varies based on the
average and peak harbor occupancy rate. As a rule of thumb, water usage
can be estimated as 114 L/day (30 gallons per day, or gpd) per slip for recre-
ational boats and 246 L/day (65 gpd) per slip for commercial boats. Harbors
accommodating large mega-yachts should consult operators of these boats
for specific water supply demands. These boats often have a full-time crew
of 10 or more people. During full wash-downs the larger boats can require
more than 19,000 L (5,000 gal). Mega-yachts also have large water storage
tanks and they will resupply water before leaving the harbor.
Flexible connections on the water line are required at the gangway ends
for floating dock systems. A bulkhead structure is often used at the
gangway connection to provide transition between buried utilities and
utilities on the gangway and dockage. Regarding potable water, required
backflow prevention devices at the docks shall comply with the local AHJ,
and hose bibs at the boat slip inlet supply connection should have a
vacuum breaker.
Materials to consider for potable water systems include
• Copper
• Stainless steel
• Galvanized or epoxy-coated carbon steel (subject to corrosion)
• Epoxy-coated ductile iron pipe with mechanical joints for fixed piers
(subject to corrosion)
• PVC/CPVC (UV stabilizers required if exposed to sunlight)
• HDPE (UV stabilizers required if exposed to sunlight)
• PEX (cross-linked polyethylene).
Note that all piping elements of potable water systems, including hoses
and filters, should have the NSF or FDA label of approval.
Sanitary Pump-Out Sanitary sewage pump-out facilities are com-

monly used at harbors to accommodate boats large enough to have
onboard marine toilets. A rule of thumb is to have 1 pump-out for every
100 slips that are 9 m (30 ft) or greater in length. Depending on the type
of boating uses that predominate at a specific facility, adjustments down
from this rule of thumb may be made. Owners of modern marinas can
take advantage of the Clean Vessel Act grant programs to offset the capital
investment costs associated with these systems. It is recommended to
have at least two independently operated pump-outs in the event that one
needs to be taken offline for maintenance.
Sanitary sewer pump-out systems typically include a pump unit with
a suction line that attaches to a boat’s holding tank and a discharge line
that connects to an upland sewer system. Discharging to a gravity system
onshore, such as a manhole, is preferred. If the small craft harbor system
must discharge to a force main on shore, verification that these systems
are compatible for both pressure and flow rate is required. Upland septic
tanks are discouraged.
The three main sanitary pump-out configurations are remote pump-out
systems, in-slip pump-out, and portable sewage carts. Remote pump-out
systems typically feature the pump station at a service/fuel dock with a
short suction hose that connects to the boat and a longer pump discharge
hose section that ties in to the upland sewer system. Temporary portable
toilet (“porta-potty”) dump stations can be made available at the service
dock and tied to the pump-out unit. Another option is to place the pump
station at an upland location, if sufficient room exists, and have a longer
suction line with a flexible hose connection at the service dock. A rinse-
water connection from the potable water supply should be made available
at the service dock near the pump-out area, but backflow prevention
should be added to this branch line upstream of the service point.

In-slip pump-out is another configuration that is more commonly seen
at marinas with larger boats. These systems include a pump station that
is either upland or on the docks, with pump-out connections, or hydrants,
located along the main pier. The pump-out hydrants are usually spaced
so that up to four boats can access the sanitary pump-out system while
docked in their slips, using a portable suction hose.
The three primary pump types are vacuum, diaphragm, and peristaltic.
Vacuum pumps can have multiple collection inlet ports along a dock with
one pump unit. Units can be such that the suction side and discharge to
shore will be continuous, or the unit can collect and store the sewage for
batch discharge. Diaphragm pumps function by using the reciprocating
action of a plunger to create suction and discharge. Peristaltic pumps are
rotating positive displacement pumps that create suction and discharge
pressure by using rollers to compress and relax a tubular hose within the
pump. Equipment selection should consider systems designed specifically
for vessel pump-out service at marinas, and supply considerations should
be given to having equipment provided by one or very few suppliers for
sewage system pumps, pump-out station connections, controls, hose carts,
equipment, and accessories to ensure consistency and compatibility.
Materials to consider for the piping elements of pump-out systems
include
• Copper
• Stainless steel
• PVC/CPVC (UV stabilizers required if exposed to sunlight)
• HDPE (UV stabilizers required if exposed to sunlight).
Portable sewage pump-out carts can be taken directly to the slip, pro-
viding a convenient service without resorting to adding permanent infra-
structure. The cart has a small pump and holding tank. Once the vessel’s
holding tank is emptied, the cart can be rolled back to the discharge
station where the cart’s holding tank is emptied.
Fire Suppression Systems Design guidance and regulations for fire sup-
pression systems are found within the local fire codes typically regulated
by the fire marshal, the International Fire Code/Uniform Fire Code, and
NFPA fire codes, including
• NFPA 14, “Standard for the Installation of Standpipes and Hose

Systems” (NFPA 2007b)
• NFPA 303, “Fire Protection Standards for Marinas and Boatyards”
(NFPA 2006a)
• NFPA 307, “Standard for the Construction and Fire Protection of
Marine Terminals, Piers, and Wharves” (NFPA 2006b).
The local fire marshal, or other AHJ, should be contacted early in the
design process to discuss any specific code requirements, including land-
side requirements for backflow prevention and signage, associated with
fire systems on docks, piers, and wharves in their district. At a minimum,
a landside fire department connection (FDC) is typically required along
with verification of access to a nearby water supply, such as a fire hydrant.
Where an on-dock fire suppression piping system is installed, distances
between adjacent hydrants are limited to 46 m (150 ft). The walking dis-
tance from any point on a dock to a hydrant shall not exceed 23 m (75 ft).
Manual fire extinguishers, where they are installed, have the same spacing
requirements. The decision on whether fire extinguishers are required to
be provided is to be made by the owner and the fire marshal. From a
practical standpoint many harbors try to maintain working fire suppres-
sion system pressures of 410 kPa (60 psi), while the fire department can
require that these pressures increase to 1,380 kPa (200 psi). It is recom-
mended that all the fire piping utilized be rated for a working pressure
of 1,720 kPa (250 psi).
The fittings and valves utilized with the fire suppression system must
be pressure rated according to the pipe itself. All pipe, fittings, and valves
must be fire-resistant material, as approved by the fire marshal. Consid-
eration should be provided for the protection of piping and appurte-
nances from corrosion in saltwater environments.
Materials for consideration for the piping elements of the fire suppres-
sion system include
• Copper
• Stainless steel
• HDPE (UV stabilizers required if exposed to sunlight).
The use of HDPE piping typically requires approval by the local fire
marshal.
Foam fire suppression capability may be considered as auxiliary
systems. Portable carts with a high-pressure, gasoline-driven pump that
can deliver foam might also be utilized. Dry pipe systems using water
directly from the harbor may be used only with the fire department’s
acceptance. A dry pipe system must be able to be pressurized by a pump
either truck-mounted or permanently installed.
Fire alarm systems may be required depending on the harbor facility

size. The local fire marshal should be consulted to review specific
requirements.
WAVE ATTENUATION SYSTEMS
Supplemental wave attenuation beyond the primary harbor protection

structures discussed in Chapter 2 is sometime required to improve berth-
ing conditions in the small craft harbor. This section discusses the perfor-
mance, aesthetics, construction feasibility and costs, and long-term
maintenance costs of wave attenuation system integrated with fixed piers
and floating dock systems.
Panel systems integrated into fixed piers and floating wave attenuation
systems have a smaller footprint, permitting more revenue-generating
slip space in the small craft harbor while minimizing environmental
impacts to bay or harbor bottomlands and water quality and circulation.
These systems are typically less costly to install.
Structure Types
Fixed-Panel Wave Attenuation Systems Vertical, thin, semi-rigid, fixed-
panel barriers are commonly used to attenuate waves in areas where wave
reflection does not compromise navigation or exacerbate shoreline pro-
cesses. The barrier can be open at the bottom to allow water circulation
in and out of the harbor. Their performance is dependent on wave period
and water level. As water levels increase, more of the panel lies in the
water column, providing more wave attenuation. A fixed-panel system
attached to a fixed pier is shown in Fig. 3-40.
Floating Wave Attenuation Systems Floating wave attenuators are

designed and constructed in a variety of materials and sizes (Figs. 3–41
and 3–42) and consist of a floating dock with a deep draft or a floating
dock with single or dual panels attached to the side. The primary benefits
of floating systems are their functionality over a range of water levels,
their tendency to be more economical than fixed-panel systems, and their
reduced interference with water circulation. Their performance is signifi-
cantly dependent on wave period and, because they are articulating struc-
tures, they are prone to damage at connecting points between individual
flotation units during storm events.
Performance Fixed-panel wave attenuators that extend into the water

column and floating wave attenuators generally function based on the
power transmission theory developed by Weigel (1964) and modified by
Cox and Simpson (1993) and Kriebel and Bollmann (1996) to account for
Fig. 3-40. Integrated wave attenuation panel with fixed pier, Westshore Yacht
Club, Tampa, Florida
Fig. 3-41. Floating wave attenuator with side skirts, Rybovich Marina, West
Palm Beach, Florida
Fig. 3-42. Floating wave attenuator system with panel wall, Old Port Cove
Marina, North Palm Beach, Florida
Source: Courtesy of Technomarine
wave reflectivity and breadth of structure. These systems attenuate or

“dampen” waves as opposed to absorbing or blocking waves. The amount
of wave energy reflected or transmitted at the breakwater is a function of
the depth of the structure below the surface and the width of the structure.
In the case of a floating wave attenuator, the mass of the structure also
dissipates the wave energy as the wave tries to lift the structure.
Fixed-panel and floating wave attenuators become less effective as
wave period and associated wavelength increase. Longer-period waves
distribute more of their wave energy lower in the water column. Since the
draft of the structure is fixed, more of the wave energy is transmitted past
the structure (i.e., the transmission coefficient, which is the ratio of trans-
mitted wave to incident wave, decreases as the wavelength increases).
Fixed-panel systems work slightly better as water levels increase because
more of the panel lies in the water column. In general, fixed-panel and
floating wave attenuation system should be used when incident wave
periods (peak) are less than 4 sec. Transmission coefficients are not abso-
lute and are based on empirical wave transmission equations derived
from data collected from physical model tests.
The performance of the wave attenuators is also influenced by wave
approach direction, with improved performance (on the order of 10%) as
the approach angle between the wave and the structure becomes greater.
Wave transmission over the top of the structures should also be taken into
consideration. Floating systems are designed with a fixed freeboard so
wave overtopping is only mitigated by structure width. Wave transmis-

sion over fixed-panel systems is dependent on the ratio of freeboard to
water level.
Wave loads should also be considered when deciding between fixed
and floating systems. For a fixed system, the pile support foundation and
the panel itself should be designed to withstand horizontal wave forces.

The embedment depth of piles is critical to prevent structure overturning.
The panels should also be designed to have minimal deflection. Panels of
steel or concrete are typically used, though vinyl and composite materials
may be employed if wave forces do not exceed the material’s deflection
limits.
The connections between modules of floating wave attenuators experi-
ence more frequent loadings both from horizontal and vertical wave
loads; therefore, the connection size and strength should be designed
accordingly. The anchoring system should also be designed to withstand
these same loadings, generally requiring heavy-duty concrete or steel pipe
piles. Once wave heights exceed 1.5 m (5 ft), the required increase in size
and strength of the connection and anchoring systems rapidly increases
the cost of the structure. Rigidly connecting floating wave attenuator
systems to overall floating dock systems in a small craft harbor should
also be avoided because the two floating systems respond differently to
incoming waves. Flexible or articulating transition ramps may be used
to provide access between inner marina docks and floating wave
attenuators.
Aesthetics Aesthetics of the wave attenuator system can play an

important role in the selection process. Floating wave attenuators are
generally more aesthetically pleasing, appearing as a wider version of the
floating dock. Fixed-panel systems can be less aesthetically pleasing
depending on their exposure over the tidal range. Aquatic vegetation and
animal life in the intertidal zone, such as algae, mussels, etc., may attach
to the panel and become unsightly during periods of decreased water
levels. In some small craft harbors the panels have been painted different
colors or etched with animal or plant patterns, similar to some of the new
sound barriers on local highways, to enhance their appeal when exposed.
Long-Term Maintenance Wave attenuator systems will be subject to

the changing and unpredictable marine environment. In general, fixed
concrete or steel structures that are designed for the marine environment
may not experience significant maintenance issues in their first 10 to 20
years if properly constructed and maintained (i.e., repairs of cracks, reap-
plication of coats). After 20 years, cracking of the concrete could expose
the steel reinforcing bar to saltwater and lead to subsequent corrosion.
Maintenance would be required at this point.
Floating wave attenuators experience cycling loading, which wears con-

nection points between adjoining float modules. This situation can be exac-
erbated if the floating attenuator is moored using elastic or catenary anchors.
If the floating attenuator is restrained using piles, the constant loading can
prematurely wear piles, requiring more frequent replacement.
REFERENCES
ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). (2004). “A guide to the new

ADA-ABA accessibility guidelines.” <http://www.access-board.gov/
ada-aba/summary.htm> (Nov. 10, 2011).
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2008). “Building code requirements
and specification for masonry structures and related commentaries.”
ACI 530/530.1-08, Farmington Hills, MI.
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (1994). “Planning and design
guidelines for small craft harbors.” ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engi-
neering Practice No. 50, Reston, VA.
ASCE/SEI. (2010). “Minimum design loads for buildings and other struc-
tures.” ASCE/SEI 7-10, Reston, VA.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard specification for carbon structural steel.” A36/
A36M, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard specification for welded and seamless steel pipe
piles.” A252, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
British Standards Institute (BSI). (2010). “British standard code of practice
for maritime structures, Part 2: Design of quay walls, jetties, and dol-
phins.” BS-6349-2, Milton Keynes, UK.
California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBW). (2005). Layout
and design guidelines for marina berthing facilities, Sacramento, CA.
Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA).
(1996). “Beach management manual.” Report 153, London.
CIRIA. (2007). “The rock manual: The use of rock in hydraulic engineer-
ing.” Report C683, London.
Cox, J. (2009). “Discussion on the stability of stacked stone walls.” Proc.,
Docks & Marinas 2009, University Education & Training for the Marine
Industry, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Cox, J. C., and Simpson, D. (1993). “Forecasting performance of solutions
for wave attenuation for marinas.” Proc., 8th Symp. Coastal and Ocean
Management. Coastal Engineering Considerations in Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, ASCE, Reston, VA, 65–78.
Federal Highway Administration/National Highway Institute (FHWA/
NHI). (2001). “Mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil
slopes design and construction guidelines.” FHWA-NHI-00-043, Wash-
ington, DC.
Gaythwaite, J. W. (2004). Design of marine facilities for the berthing, mooring,

and repair of vessels, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Graham, J., ed. (1987). Geotechnical special publication No. 7, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Gray, D. H., and Sotir, R. B. (1996). Biotechnical and soil bioengineering slope
stabilization—A practical guide for erosion control, Wiley, New York.
Kriebel, D., and Bollmann, C. (1996). “Wave transmission past vertical

wave barriers.” Proc., 25th International Conference on Coastal Engineer-
ing, Orlando, Florida, ASCE, Reston, VA.
McConnell, K. (1998). Revetment systems against wave attack—A design
manual, Thomas Telford, London.
McConnell, K., Allsop, W., and Cruickshank, I. (2004). Piers, jetties, and
related structures exposed to waves: Guidelines for hydraulic loadings,
Thomas Telford, London.
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). (2006a). “Fire protection stan-
dard for marinas and boatyards.” NFPA 303, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2006b). “Standard for the construction and fire protection of
marine terminals, piers, and wharves.” NFPA 307, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2007a). “Standard for portable fire extinguishers.” NFPA-10,
Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2007b). “Standard for the installation of standpipes and hose
systems.” NFPA 14, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2008a). “Code for motor fuel dispensing facilities and repair
NFPA. (2008b). “National electrical code (NEC).” NFPA 70, Quincy, MA.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2009). “29 CFR
1917, Marine Terminals.” <http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/
owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=12940> (Nov.
10, 2011).
Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI). (2009). “Recommended practices for
the installation of marina fueling systems.” PEI/RP1000-09, Tulsa, OK.
Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC).
(1996). “Reinforced vegetative bank protections utilizing geotextiles.”
Report of Working Group No. 12 of the Permanent Technical Committee,
Supplement to Bulletin No. 91, Brussels, Belgium.
PIANC. (1997). “Review of selected standards for floating dock designs.”
Special Report of the Special Commission for Sport and Pleasure Navigation,
Supplement to Bulletin No. 93, Brussels, Belgium.
Southern Pine Council (SPC). (2009). Aquatic and Wetland Structures: Design
and Construction Guide, Kenner, LA.
Tobiasson, B., and Kollmeyer, R. (2000). Marinas and small craft harbors, 2nd
Ed. Westviking Press, Medfield, MA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). (1974). “Small craft harbors:
Design, construction, and operation.” CERC SR-2, Department of the
Army, Washington DC.
USACE. (1984). “Hydraulic design of small boat harbors.” EM 1110-2-

1615, Department of the Army, Washington DC.
USACE. (2006). “Coastal engineering manual.” EM 1110-2-1100, Depart-
ment of the Army, Washington, DC (in six volumes).
U.S. Department of Agriculture/National Resource and Conservation
Service (USDA/NRCS). (2007). “Stream restoration design of the

National Engineering Handbook.” National Engineering Handbook Part
654, Washington, DC.
U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). (2001). “Military
harbors and coastal facilities.” UFC 4-150-06, Washington, DC.
NAVFAC. (2005). “Design: Piers and wharves.” UFC 4-152-01, Washing-
ton, DC.
NAVFAC. (2009). “Design: Small craft berthing facilities.” UFC 4-152-07,
Washington, DC.
Weigel, R. L. (1964). Oceanographic engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc., New
York.
Wortley, C. A. (1978). Ice engineering guide for design and construction of small
craft harbors, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI (republished in
2002 by Books for Business, Ltd., Toronto).
CHAPTER 4
LAND-BASED SUPPORT FACILITIES

Fred A. Klancnik, P.E.
Cassandra C. Goodwin, P.E.
Timothy K. Blankenship, P.E.
Bruce E. Lunde, CSI
The competitive marina market demands more than breakwaters, navi-

gable water depths, and docks. Small craft harbors should be designed to
be sensitive to their unique coastal or riverside environment while provid-
ing access to the water. Modern standards for small craft harbor develop-
ment call for attractive and functional land-based support facilities that
also minimize negative impacts to the local ecology. In addition to provid-
ing basic roads, parking, utilities, and services, today’s small craft harbors
feature green space, recreation areas, promenades, restaurants, retail,
administration, and maintenance/repair facilities. In most cases, 50% of
a small craft harbor consists of landside support facilities.
A successful small craft harbor provides convenience and accessibility;
levels of service and amenities preferred by the boaters and visitors;
safety, security and privacy; and an attractive atmosphere. The harbor
support system provides a safe, secure environment for boaters and effi-
ciently serves the harbor’s operational requirements, while meeting the
broader needs of the surrounding community and promoting environ-
mental sustainability. These land-based improvements provide boater
benefits and are designed to maximize revenue potential and minimize
installation and operating costs.
Fred A. Klancnik, P.E., F.ASCE, is Chairman, ASCE Marinas 2020 Committee, and
Senior Vice-President, SmithGroupJJR, Madison WI. Cassandra C. Goodwin, P.E.,
M.ASCE, Civil Engineer, Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Timothy K.
Blankenship, P.E., M.ASCE, is Director, Coastal Systems International, Coral
Gables, FL. Bruce E. Lunde, Principal, Lunde Williams LLC, Madison, WI.
285
Typical landside facilities of small craft harbors include roads, parking,

pedestrian walkways, landscaping, boat yards, boat launch maneuvering
areas, site utilities, and harbor administration with restrooms, shower,
and laundry facilities. While these facilities are usually part of a small
craft harbor, the ship’s store, restaurants, and various other shops might
also be provided on a site-specific demand basis. Dry-stack marinas have

become increasingly popular as part of land-based support facilities over
the years due to limited waterfront access and the need for more efficient
land planning The minimum level of upland support facilities provided
with any harbor should be parking, electrical service, water supply, and
sanitary facilities.
There is often a challenge in balancing all of the different land uses
desired at a harbor in the footprint available. Waterfront space is fre-
quently limited and in high demand. An efficient layout on the landside
which accommodates competing recreational and industrial uses at a
harbor can be critical for successful operation.
SITE DESIGN
Site design associated with small craft harbors can have a significant
effect on the successful operation of the facility. Considerations include
vehicular and pedestrian circulation, emergency and service access, and
parking for vehicles only and for vehicle-trailers if a launch ramp is pro-
vided. In addition to these primary site considerations, site design may
also include sustainable elements such as stormwater management to
meet permitting requirements or to prevent runoff into adjacent waters.
Site Access and Vehicular Circulation

The main entrance road not only provides safe access and egress but
also sets the image for the development. Secondary roadways can be used
to carry user groups to defined areas, such as a boat launch ramp. Emer-
gency access should be provided to buildings and high-use areas such as
harbor berths. Accommodations for maintenance vehicles and tour/
shuttle buses should be planned. Horizontal and vertical alignment, road
cross sections, and details of construction should be designed in accor-
dance with state and local standards.
Access Road The small craft harbor facility access roads should be
designed based on the typical average size of the vehicles using the
harbor. The preferred width for an access road is 3.7 m (12 ft) per lane for
a two-way road and 4.6 m (15 ft) per lane for one-way traffic.
LAND-BASED SUPPORT FACILITIES 287
Grade change on an access road should not exceed 10%. A minimum

6.1-m (20-ft) vertical curve should be provided for road grade differentials
of more than 7%. Two-way access roads should be designed with a per-
pendicular intersection (or as close to perpendicular as possible) at the
main road that serves the harbor facility. One-way access road intersec-
tions should be designed with an angle to the main road of less than 90
deg.
Emergency Access It is extremely important to consider the means

of access for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks, ambulances, and
police cars. There should a minimum of at least one ingress and egress
point along a public road (or an equivalent easement) that conforms to
local fire and emergency rescue codes. The local fire marshal or equivalent
authority should be consulted at an early stage in the planning process to
determine the appropriate plan for access. This is important not only for
the harbor facilities such as the docks in the event of a boat fire, but also
for the safety of patrons on the perimeter of the harbor and other build-
ings and facilities. Multiple access points may be provided in lieu of
continuous access around the perimeter of the harbor.
Design aspects most important to consider are the clear, unobstructed
width of the paved surface (or an approved drivable surface adjacent to
pavement), the structural design of the pavement, and the turning radii
at corners and intersections. The minimum recommended clear width for
a fire lane is 4.6 m (15 ft) and 7.3 m (24 ft) for an apparatus lane (where
necessary for overhead ladder rescue). Recommended inside turning
radius for a full-size truck and ladder vehicle is 6.1 m (20 ft). Keeping
Fig. 4-1. Access road at Bender Park, Oak Creek, Wisconsin

overhead obstructions such as trees, light poles, wires, and signs to a

minimum in the clear zone will also provide more flexibility for fire truck
apparatus. Always check with local codes to determine the minimum
design standards.
Service Access It is also important to consider service vehicles during

planning and design of vehicular access around the harbor site. Service
vehicles may range in size from golf carts to larger trucks. These could
include vehicles for maintenance, groundskeeping, repair, restaurants, and
other retail and commercial operations on site. Specialized vehicles such as
travel lifts and hydraulic trailers for retrieving and launching large yachts
for storage or repair may need to be accommodated. The site should be
planned for fuel trucks to provide efficient access to fuel storage on site.
Pedestrian promenades or other paths where golf carts and service
vehicles are driven on a regular basis should be designed to accommodate
the multitude of activities that could occur on the paths. A clear width of
4.6 m (15 ft) should be provided for high-density pedestrian areas where
it is anticipated that service vehicles will need to pass through regularly.
Parking
The types of parking spaces generally needed in a harbor facility are

single-vehicle, recreational vehicle, vehicle-trailer, and recreational vehicle
(RV) with boat trailer. The number of parking spaces for each category
varies considerably based on site conditions such as harbor average and
peak use, the total available upland footprint, and state and local parking
standards.
Boater Parking It is common for small craft harbors to have parking

areas that are designated for slip-holders or other marina users, especially
where there is a mix of public and private usage. It is highly desirable for
slip-holder’s parking to be located as close as possible to the wet berthing
areas they serve, with adequate signage provided. If parking is provided
at a distance from the berthing areas, the harbor operator may choose to
provide a shuttle service or the use of dollies or carts to allow patrons to
easily transport personal items to and from their vehicles and slips. Some
high-end marinas may also provide valet parking.
In general, parking is provided at no charge to the harbor users and their
guests. However, a fee or monthly parking permit might be imposed for
prime parking locations. Controlled parking access through the use of card
keys and automated gates is common, especially for the prime parking
areas. Slip-holder and guest parking is generally separated from lots sup-
porting launch ramp parking or other waterfront-user parking areas.
For the slip-holder parking, the parking space-to-wet berth ratio usually
ranges between 0.5 and 1.0. Research studies suggest that a 1.0 ratio is not
justified for many urban sites because of alternative forms of transporta-
tion available to patrons. A ratio of 0.5 to 0.75 is found adequate for most
urban harbor facilities. Sites that experience peak seasonal usage or are in
remote locations where driving is a necessity should have a higher ratio

than sites that are open year-round or are easily accessible by alternative
means of transportation. Parking ratios for dry-stack marinas are dis-
cussed later in this chapter.
If the harbor plan includes ancillary facilities such as restaurants and
retail shops open to the general public, additional parking must be sup-
plied by the owners or operators of these businesses in accordance with
local zoning ordinances. Guidance from the Urban Land Institute (ULI)
on shared parking should also be consulted. Special events such as yacht
races, fishing tournaments, boat shows, and summer holidays will create
high peak demand for parking, which may necessitate the provision of
shuttles and overflow parking.
Accessible Parking A certain percentage of total parking spaces is

required to be designated as accessible spaces and conform to the
minimum federal standards set by the Americans with Disabilities Act-
Architectural Barriers Act (ADA-ABA) Section 208.2, ADAAG Section
4.1.2 (5), Title 24 Section 1129B. Table 4-1 provides the minimum required
accessible spaces required based on the total number of parking spaces at
Table 4-1. Minimum Required Number of Accessible Parking Spaces
Total Number of Minimum Number of Required Accessible

Parking Spaces Parking Spaces
1–25 1
26–50 2
51–75 3
76–100 4
101–150 5
151–200 6
201–300 7
301–400 8
401–500 9
501–1,000 2% of total
1,001 and over 20 plus 1 for each 100, or fraction
thereof, over 1,000
Source: Dept. of Justice 2010 Standards: Title II and III Table 208.2
the facility. Although not specifically required, it is common to provide

one to four accessible vehicle-trailer parking spaces as part of the minimum
number of accessible spaces, depending on the size of the launch ramp
facility and the size of the parking lot.
Local codes occasionally add to the number of accessible spaces
required, so contacting local building code officials is recommended.

One in every six accessible parking spaces shall be designated as van
accessible. However, if some parking spaces at the harbor are in overflow
or peak demand lots farther from the facilities, the total number of acces-
sible spaces shall be provided in lots nearest facilities of interest such as
launch ramps, restroom facilities, dock access points, and other public
amenities, and the number of accessible spaces should take into consid-
eration the number of spaces in the overflow lots. Accessible spaces need
to be provided adjacent to the facility such that the path of travel between
the parking space and the facility entrance does not cross traffic. Minimum
dimensions for accessible parking spaces and access aisles are shown in
Table 4-2.
As a guideline, accessible parking spaces for vehicles with a trailer
should be 3.0 to 3.7 m (10–12 ft) wide with a 1.5 m (5 ft)-wide access aisle.
Single accessible parking spaces should be 2.7 to 3.0 m (9–10 ft) wide with
a 1.5-m (5-ft)-wide access aisle. Accessible spaces can be grouped together
to efficiently share access aisles (two spaces are allowed to share one aisle).
Vehicle-Trailer Parking For small craft harbor facilities that include

boat launch ramps, a rule of thumb for the minimum number of parking
spaces is 20 vehicle-trailer parking spaces per launch lane (Table 4-3).
Although boat launching and retrieval will vary from harbor to harbor,
approximately six boats per hour can be accommodated per launching
Table 4-2. Recommended Minimum Accessible Parking Space

Dimensions
Recommended Minimum Width

Recommended
Accessible Parking Access Minimum
Parking Space Aisle Drive Aisle Length
Single 2.5 m (8 ft) 1.5 m (5 ft) 4.3 m (14 ft) 5.8 m (19 ft)
passenger
car
Van-accessible 2.5 m (8 ft) 2.5 m (8 ft) 4.9 m (16 ft) 6.1 m (20 ft)
Car w/ trailer 3.0 m (10 ft) 1.5 m (5 ft) 6.1 m (20 ft) 12.2 m (40 ft)
Source: SOBA (2006)
Table 4-3. Recommended Minimum Parking Space Dimensions
Recommended Recommended
Parking Space Type Minimum Width Minimum Length
Single passenger car 2.7 m (9 ft) 5.8 m (19 ft)

Passenger car w/ 3.0 m (10 ft) 12.2 m (40 ft)
boat trailer
SUV w/ boat trailer 3.4 m (11 ft) 15.2–16.8 m (50–55 ft)
Recreational vehicle 3.7 m (12 ft) 18.3 m (60 ft)
w/ trailer
Source: SOBA (2006)
lane. Thus, a 4-hour launching period will accommodate 24 boats per lane.
Once the expected turnover rate is determined for the launch ramp, the
appropriate number of vehicle-trailer parking spaces can be included in
the project plan.
Launch ramp design is discussed later in this chapter. Proper coordina-
tion of ramp access and parking stalls is crucial to the efficiency of the
facility. Parking areas can be paved, unpaved, or a combination. While it
is desirable to have paved and striped parking areas close to the wet
berthing areas, overflow parking is usually provided with a gravel finish
surface. Alternatively, grass pavers or another type of porous pavement
can be used. Paved areas usually have a bituminous or concrete surface.
Stormwater runoff is typically collected in drainage systems, or perme-
able paving can be used to allow natural infiltration to aid in recharging
groundwater.
Based on the site use and the loading criteria, a minimum pavement
thickness of 76 mm (3 in.) is recommended, with a minimum 15 cm (6 in.)
of compacted gravel base. The base course should extend a minimum of
30 cm (1 ft) past the limits of paving with a mild slope (minimum 2 : 1).
Final pavement design should be based on geotechnical analysis of in situ
soil conditions and planned live loads.
All sidewalks provided for pedestrian access adjacent to parking areas
should be minimum 1.5 m (5 ft) wide with no vehicle overhanging
allowed, and minimum 1.8 m (6 ft) if vehicle overhanging is permitted.
The parking lot slopes should be minimum 1% for efficient drainage
with typical design selected slopes between 1 and 2%. The maximum
recommended slope is 5%. The maximum recommended cross-slope is
also 5%. The slope for accessible spaces should not exceed 2% (1 : 50) in
any direction. Grades in excess of 3% at the location of the vehicle-trailer
spaces should be avoided.
Fig. 4-2. Recommended dimensions for vehicle-trailer parking and maneuvering

Source: Adapted from SOBA (2006)
Pedestrians and Bicycles

Design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities should rely on the best cur-
rently available standards and guidelines. Commonly used design guide-
lines and standards are AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle
Facilities (1999), AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and

Streets, and the ITE Recommended Practice Design and Safety of Pedestrian
Facilities. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is the
national guideline for planning and design of bicycleways in the United
States.
When designing for pedestrian and bicycle facilities it is important to
address conflicts with vehicular mobility and safety. Collaboration with
project user groups help to produce plans that balance the mobility and
safety of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular routes.
Waterfront Promenades Many recreational small craft harbors incor-

porate promenades, or pedestrian walkways, around the perimeter of the
basin for circulation, viewing, and atmosphere. It is increasingly common
for the primary waterfront promenade to be accessible to the public and
incorporate amenities such as benches or seat walls, lighting, railings,
banners, or other decorative features. The waterfront promenade often
provides controlled access to berthing areas, restroom/showers, and other
harbor facilities. (See Fig. 4-3).
Promenades close to the water’s edge with an adjacent vertical drop
may require barriers such as railings per building codes if the drop is
Fig. 4-3. Promenade and head walk at Harbor Centre Marina, Sheboygan,
Wisconsin
Fig. 4-4. Promenade in Long Beach, California

greater than 76 cm (30 in.) and the water depth is shallow. Another option
may be to have a sloped edge treatment such as a stone revetment or a
landscaping buffer between the water and the promenade. In areas where
heavy pedestrian or bicycle traffic is anticipated or where crowds could
gather for viewing, railings along the promenade can provide peace of
mind for spectators as well as the harbor operator/owner and can be an
attractive amenity. (See Fig. 4-4).
Promenade widths vary based on the level of pedestrian and other
traffic. A promenade with only pedestrian traffic at a small marina can be
1.5 to 1.8 m (5–6 ft) wide. Where bicycles are allowed, promenades should
be no less than 3.0 m (10 ft) wide. In areas of heavy traffic, where golf
carts or maintenance vehicles will be frequently used, or in front of res-
taurants or vending cart areas, the promenade should be 4.9 to 6.1 m
(16–20 ft) wide. Promenades are also often used by emergency vehicles to
access the harbor area, so widths may be dictated by the local fire marshal.
Additionally, the pavement should be designed for the appropriate
loading criteria if fire trucks, utility trucks, and service vehicles will use
the promenade for access.
Fig. 4-5. Promenade with adjacent picnic area, Clinch Marina, Traverse City,
Michigan
Special Accommodations for Bicycles Bicycle usage can conflict

with the many activities that take place at small craft harbors. Many
harbor operators accommodate bicycles, especially if the site is adjacent
to a regional trail or has visitors who travel to the site via bicycle. Bicycle
rentals may be appropriate at some recreational harbors adjacent to trails
or in urban areas.
Bicycle traffic should be separated whenever possible from pedestrian
and vehicular traffic. Avoid routing bicycle lanes through busy commer-
cial areas, parking lots, or near industrial activities with overhead cranes,
forklifts, or other potentially dangerous equipment. Routes through or
near the harbor should be clearly signed, and areas that are potentially
hazardous should be signed to prohibit bicycle traffic.
In accordance with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials’ Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
(AASHTO 1999):
Bicyclists require at least 1.0 m (40 in) of essential operating space

based solely on their profile. An operating space of 1.2 m (4 ft) is
assumed as the minimum width for any facility designed for exclu-
sive or preferential use by bicyclists. Where motor vehicle traffic
volumes, motor vehicle or bicyclist speed, and the mix of truck and
bus traffic increase, a more comfortable operating space of 1.5 m
(5 ft) or more is desirable (AASHTO 1999, page 5).
Provide bicycle racks in designated areas to prevent bicycles from

being locked up in undesirable locations. The number of racks provided
should be dictated by the accessibility of the site from other trails or
neighborhoods and the number of attractions that draw visitors or chil-
dren such as ice cream vendors or beaches. Additional portable racks can
be provided for special events as needed. (See Fig. 4-6).
Landside Accessibility Requirements Accessibility at small craft

harbors has improved significantly in recent years, primarily due to the
passage of several important laws related to accessibility as well as an
increased awareness and acceptance of people with special needs. Just as
Fig. 4-6. Bicycle racks along the promenade, Clinch Marina, Traverse City,
Michigan
ADA-ABA accessibility guidelines need to be considered on the docks,

the same principles apply on land. An accessible route must be provided
between any designated parking space and accessible facilities such as
restrooms, boat launch ramps, fishing piers and docks, restaurants,
and other harbor buildings open to the public. In addition, all public
facilities must be designed in accordance with ADA-ABA accessibility

guidelines.
Accessible routes consist of a series of appropriately surfaced paths,
walkways, and ramps that meet ADA-ABA accessibility guidelines for
slopes, vertical and horizontal clearances, and incorporation of safety rails
and curbs. In addition to wheelchair access, these accommodations can
be beneficial to other harbor users who use hand carts between their
vehicles and the boat slips.
ADA-ABA accessibility guidelines specific to recreational boating facil-
ities can be found at the U.S. Access Board’s website (U.S. Access Board
2011). In addition, the Design Handbook for Recreational Boating and Fishing
Facilities published by the States Organization for Boating Access (SOBA)
has some specific guidelines for accessibility at boat launch ramps and
fishing piers (SOBA 2006).
Environmental Considerations
Harbors should be designed with a conscious focus on the environmen-
tal impacts on water quality, wildlife, and other natural resources. Regula-
tions at the local, state, and federal levels require new developments or
redevelopments to manage stormwater runoff, mitigate wetland distur-
bances, enhance infiltration and natural recharge, and adhere to stricter
water quality requirements within the harbor. Some areas and facilities
are pursuing “Green Marina” or “Clean Marina” initiatives, which include
everything from infrastructure improvements to day-to-day operations.
Stormwater Management Due to the proximity of harbor develop-

ments along coasts, lakes, and rivers, there is a concerted effort to “green
up” the practices of these types of facilities. A method to improve water
quality is to provide more opportunities for natural filtering, collection,
and infiltration of stormwater runoff from parking lots before discharging
to the adjacent waterway. Vegetated buffers along the shoreline edge
between parking areas help to provide this separation and treatment of
runoff. Grassed swales, rain gardens, and perched wetlands are all tech-
niques that can green up a space, provide an attractive natural feature
around the harbor, and clean up the runoff by filtering out suspended
solids, metals, and other harmful contaminants that would otherwise
wash directly into the harbor. (See Fig. 4-8).
Fig. 4-7. Incorporation of bioswales and natural planted areas for stormwater
treatment in parking lots adjacent to harbors
Fig. 4-8. Parking lot runoff treatment through bioretention and infiltration
devices
For peak parking requirements, some facilities have utilized reinforced

turf parking areas that can also facilitate stormwater management require-
ments. (See Fig. 4-9).
Some municipalities may even require or encourage treatment of
stormwater in end-of-pipe devices such as vortex catch basins and other
proprietary treatment units where natural buffers and swales are not
easily accommodated due to space limitations. Trench drains can be used
on launch ramps to collect sheet flow on the slopes and treat it before it
reaches the waterway.
Fig. 4-9. Reinforced turf parking lot that provides parking for peak boating
days and also facilitates site stormwater management
Source: Courtesy of T. K. Blankenship
Habitat Creation Opportunities Revetments and breakwaters can

provide opportunities for green improvements as well. Biorevetments are
revetments that are designed to protect the shoreline while providing
habitat for aquatic species. Perched wetlands can be designed in areas
where tidal fluctuations allow limited duration inundation and provide
spawning grounds for fish and nesting areas for birds and other wetland
species.
Sustainable Design Rating Systems Many harbor facilities around

the country are deciding to take the extra step and design green, energy-
efficient facilities in recognition of the environmental issues facing the
world today. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)’s rating system
for green buildings Leadership in Education and Environmental Design
(LEED) and other rating systems like it are becoming more widespread.
LEED certification is a worthy goal for some projects, and more green
design in architecture, site planning, and engineering may be the wave of
the future for marinas. For now, however, it is still often a more expensive
endeavor than standard building design, and the process of obtaining
certification is usually cost-prohibitive for many small or private facilities

to consider.
Clean Marina Programs The National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), the National Park Service (NPS), and the marina
industry have created voluntary initiatives that encourage marina opera-

tors and boat owners to protect coastal waters with a series of design
considerations and best management practices. Known as “Clean Marina”
programs, these initiatives are typically administrated at the state level
(although not in all states). Details of these programs are state-specific and
the incentive to the marina operators is the opportunity to be certified as
a Clean Marina. In addition to the design considerations, a typical Clean
Marina program will have components that cover marina management,
emergency planning, petroleum control, sewage and graywater, waste
containment and disposal, stormwater management, habitat and species
protection, and boater education. The NPS Clean Marina Guidebook (NPS
2004) is a thorough resource for best management practices at marinas,
and Sea Grant Northeast’s article on stormwater runoff BMPs (Tanski
1998) describes specific practices for minimizing contaminated runoff at
boat maintenance facilities and other operations at small craft harbors.
The Association of Marina Industries (AMI) has been instrumental in
the implementation and adoption of clean marina programs. The AMI
website (AMI 2011) provides current information regarding the states that
are currently participating in the program.
Image and Atmosphere

Marinas should fit within the context of the adjacent area, whether it
is located in an urban area or a natural setting. At the same time, marinas
often have their own image or atmosphere that sets them apart. To achieve
this, it is often desirable for marinas and the developments around them
to have consistent design elements and details that are easily recognizable
and reflect the unique character of the harbor.
Landscaping and Site Amenities Architectural elements should

express the aesthetic style of the region, with particular attention paid to
scale and form. Successful designs blend with the surrounding environ-
ment while still maintaining a special sense of place. (See Fig. 4-10).
Materials should be locally sourced or native to the area, and plants
indigenous to the region should be used. Landscaped areas add value to
the marina atmosphere and also support environmental stewardship by
absorbing stormwater runoff and reducing impervious surfaces.
Proper placement and maintenance of landscaping and amenities
(benches, trash receptacles, lighting, etc.) are important design elements.
Fig. 4-10. Harbor entry features such as these wave walls and flags can be
used to create a nautical atmosphere. Harbor Centre Marina in Sheboygan,
Wisconsin
Trees probably do the most to create a pleasing environment, along with

occasional groups of flowering shrubs or perennial flowers. Lawn areas
requiring relatively little care create a visual relief from large parking lot
expanses. Automatic irrigation systems reduce long-term maintenance
costs and help keep the grounds looking their best.
It is important to consider views of the water when designing landside
structures and amenities at a marina. This is especially true for recre-
ational and leisure facilities such as resort facilities, restaurants, and club
spaces, whose atmosphere is enhanced by accessible views of the water
and the berthing areas. Off-shore views of the marina from boats as they
approach on the water side are also important considerations.
Security Most harbors have security measures in place to control

access to restricted areas such as leased slips, restroom facilities, club
facilities, and other amenities that require membership or rental fees.
Integrating security features such as gates, fences, bollards, and barricades
in an aesthetic manner can be challenging. Choosing materials or finishes
that match or complement other site amenities, such as light poles and
benches, can help hide security features. Provide decorative or architec-

tural elements to gates to make the experience more pleasant.
Adequate lighting levels in parking lots, along promenades, and at
building entrances should be considered based on the security level
desired and the proximity of the harbor to urban areas.
Many larger harbors have moved to electronic security and monitoring

systems that include key-access cards for buildings, dock–land connection
points, and parking lots, security cameras, and motion-sensor lighting in
key areas. These types of systems are typically monitored at a central
location such as the harbormaster building. The level of security at a given
harbor will depend on many factors, including the expectations of the
boaters, the level of public access, and the level of criminal activity in the
area. Harbors that accommodate boats from international waters, such as
larger mega-yachts, may have to meet certain Department of Homeland
Security regulations. (See Fig. 4-11).
Solid Waste Collection Place trash receptacles and Dumpsters where

they are convenient for users and are easily serviced. In some locations,
solid waste collection facilities include recycling bins for items such as
bottles, aluminum, paper, and waste oil. The style of trash receptacles
should match other site amenities and should be made of durable materi-
als that will keep an attractive appearance.
Fig. 4-11. Security gate at a gangway entrance, Ko’Olina Marina, Oahu,

Hawaii
Fig. 4-12. Security gate at a gangway entrance at Boat Street Marina, Seattle,
Washington
Source: Courtesy of Reid Middleton.
Dumpsters are necessary at marina facilities. They should have enclo-

sures sited for waste truck access, and they need to be located convenient
for use but remote enough so that insects do not become a nuisance to the
public. Waste oil and waste oil filter disposal should be considered at
marinas where the boaters perform oil changes themselves.
Picnic areas should have plenty of trash and recycling receptacles to
prevent littering or overfilling of receptacles, which could cause litter to
blow into nearby waterways.
Providing designated cigarette butt disposal posts or containers can
minimize littering of butts on grounds and in the water. These should be
placed strategically where they are easily accessible to smoking areas or
they will not be effective.
UTILITIES AND SERVICES
Harbors can have special requirements for utilities. An engineer famil-

iar with the demands of modern marinas should be consulted to make
sure facilities are sized adequately for the anticipated facility demands.
Potable Water and Sanitary Systems

Upland potable water supply should be designed to meet the demand
requirements of the marina upland facilities plus the demands of any boat
slips that will have water supply. Most dock water supply systems are
isolated from the upland water supplies by a backflow preventer assem-

bly. The purpose of a backflow preventer is to prevent contamination of
the source water supply. If a fire suppression system is to be installed,
separation of the potable water from the fire suppression system is recom-
mended. Chapter 3 discusses specific recommendations for the sizing of
the water system for docks.
Sanitary sewer service at a small craft harbor typically includes effluent
from upland buildings that have restrooms or other fixtures that produce
sanitary effluent. In some areas fish cleaning stations may need to have a
connection to the sanitary sewer. Other municipalities may require sani-
tary connections to boat wash-down stations if there is a need to keep
wash-down water out of the harbor (such as to prevent invasive species).
Sanitary pump-outs that service vessels and RVs are often connected
directly to a municipal sanitary sewer, but sometimes a holding tank is
provided which is emptied on a regular basis via vacuum trucks (some-
times referred to as “honey wagons”). Sanitary pump-out systems are
discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.
Fire Suppression System

Guidance to harbor fire suppression system requirements may be
found in references such as NFPA 303, Fire Protection Standard for Marinas
and Boatyards (2011a), but ultimately the implementation details must be
coordinated through the local fire department. Landside, the design is
similar to any other upland site; on the docks there are alternatives to a
pipe and hydrant system. Chapter 3 discusses specific recommendations
and requirements related to fire suppression on docks.
Electrical
NFPA 70, National Electrical Code (NFPA 2011a), including Article 555:
“Marinas and Boatyards,” along with NFPA 303, Fire Protection Standard
for Marinas and Boatyards (NFPA 2011a) and NFPA 30A, Code for Motor Fuel
Dispensing Facilities and Repair Garages (NFPA 2012) address significant
marina related electrical issues. Local and state regulations may add to
these requirements.
The typical harbor electrical system provides service to the harbor
buildings, lighting for the water’s edge (bulkheads, piers, boat launch),
lighting for land-based areas (access roads, parking lots, and other public
amenities), equipment-supporting mechanical rooms and various pumps,

maintenance and repair work, and boat slip power.
Chapter 3 describes in detail the specific electrical design consider-
ations and requirements at small craft harbors.
Natural Gas
Natural gas service is typically provided in the parts of the country that
require heat in the winter and where facilities will be utilized year-round.
For seasonal facilities or those that do not require much heat, propane
tanks or other off-grid sources may be more practical than bringing gas
service lines into the harbor.
Natural gas is also used in food preparation facilities for cooking and
grilling and for such things as hard-connected tiki torches, gas fireplaces,
or other site features. Availability of natural gas service near the harbor
site will vary significantly depending on the region and the proximity of
the harbor to other developments and should be considered on a site-by-
site basis.
Communications
Telephone, ethernet, and cable television services have been provided
in the past in many full-service marinas; however, due to the rise in usage
of mobile phones, wireless Internet, and satellite dishes, it may not be
worth the investment to provide these services to individual slips. A land-
line telephone with local service should be located in at least one location
in the harbor for use by boaters in case of emergency (multiple locations
for larger facilities). Alternatively, call boxes that directly dial the fire
department or police department can also be provided.
Secure wireless Internet connection for use by boaters and visitors has
become increasingly popular. The size of the harbor will dictate the
number and strength of wireless signals that will be needed to reach all
slips. Technology is changing rapidly, and higher Internet speeds are
becoming less and less expensive and are reaching more remote locations.
If it is not feasible to provide wireless service to all slips, having it avail-
able in lounges and club facilities is recommended at a minimum.
Upland Fuel Storage

Fuel systems at harbors are regulated by NFPA 303, Fire Protection
Standard for Marinas and Boatyards (NFPA 2011a) and NFPA 302, Fire Protec-
tion Standard for Pleasure and Commercial Motor Craft (NFPA 2010). Chapter
3 discusses fuel docks and fuel dispensing on the waterside, while the
following describes upland fuel storage considerations.
The volume of fuel storage capacity required at a given harbor depends

on the number of motorized boats, the distance to the next harbor with
fuel capacity, the types of fuel used by the boats (diesel versus gasoline),
the amount of land available for storage, and the desired frequency of
refilling. It is best to size the tanks such that they will need to be refilled
no more than once per week and no less frequently than every few
months. Ideally, tanks would be sized to have a fuel turnover of less than
one month. Larger tank capacities may be required if both gasoline and
diesel are required, in areas dominated by motorized boats, or in areas
where transient boaters will make up a large portion of the customers.
Harbors with daily commercial operations may require more fuel storage
capacity; however, these boats may provide their own sources of fuel
rather than depend on the marina fuel system. Each harbor should care-
fully consider the usage rates and then size the storage tanks conserva-
tively. While launch ramp traffic may increase the fuel consumption at
some harbors, many owners of trailered boats will fill up at a local gas
station (if available) rather than pay the higher fuel rates at the harbor.
Upland fuel storage areas need to be carefully sited to minimize the
distance from the fuel pumps while allowing access to the tanks for refill-
ing. The fuel tank area must have adequate spill prevention measures and
explosion-rated electrical components in place per federal and local codes.
Aboveground tanks are typically less desirable than underground storage
tanks (USTs) due to visibility as well as containment requirements.
However, some areas with high water tables or other restrictions may not
allow USTs.
Proper signage, alarm systems, ventilation, emergency shut-off valves,
and proximity to other uses should all be considered when designing a
fuel storage system. The ground above USTs should be graded in such a
way to prevent water from getting into sumps. An experienced engineer
familiar with codes and other safety requirements should design the fuel
storage area as well as the fuel pumping area.
Fuel can be stored in aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) or under-
ground storage tanks (USTs). Single tanks can be partitioned to accom-
modate duel fuel types in one location. Design and installation requirements
are defined separately for ASTs and USTs, but are generally similar to
those of motor vehicle facilities. NFPA 30A (NFPA 2012) discusses storage
of liquids in ASTs and sets a maximum individual tank capacity of 45 m3
(12,000 gal) for Class I (gasoline) and Class II (diesel) liquids, with a
maximum aggregate capacity of 180 m3 (48,000 gal) at the site. Setback
distances for ASTs are typically 15 m (50 ft) from the nearest building or
fuel dispensing device.
A secondary containment system such as the use of double-walled steel
tanks or installation of containment dikes is recommended and is typi-
cally required by most state regulatory agencies.
Placement of USTs is generally less restrictive than ASTs. NFPA 30A

(NFPA 2012) states that USTs must be covered by a minimum of 60 cm
(24 in.) of soil or a minimum of 30 cm (12 in.) of soil with a slab at least
10 cm (4 in.) thick. NFPA 30A also states that USTs can be located below
buildings as long as they meet specific design requirements. State and
local regulations may be more restrictive than NFPA requirements and

should be reviewed during the planning process. In areas subject to flood-
ing, USTs that have more than 70% of their storage capacity submerged
at the maximum flood stage should be anchored, weighted, or secured to
prevent movement. The additional pressure on the tank from floodwaters
should also be taken into consideration.
A consideration in siting the fuel storage location is refueling. NFPA
30A states that delivery vehicles delivering gasoline shall be separated
from any AST by at least 8 m (25 ft), or 4.6 m (15 ft) for diesel, unless the
tanks are filled by gravity. NFPA 30A states that the delivery vehicle
shall be located so that all parts of the vehicle are on the premises when
delivery is made.
The requirements for piping on land are similar to those of motor
vehicle facilities, where double-walled piping with leak detection is rec-
ommended. Double-walled piping with the appropriate valves and fit-
tings should be used for leak detection, maintenance, and safety.
UPLAND STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT
The upland support facilities for the harbor perform functions essential
to the daily operations of the harbor. They can range from a small, one-
lane launch ramp and office to a full-service marina complete with dry-
stack storage facilities, resort amenities, restaurants, and boat sales. As
discussed in Chapter 1, market studies and the success of comparable
facilities help to determine which facilities are warranted at a given harbor
or whether a harbor needs an upgrade.
Boat Launching, Retrieval, and Handling

Launch Ramps Launch ramps are inclined surfaces along a shoreline
used to allow movement of trailer-type boat handling equipment between
the land and the water. Design of most launching facilities includes the
launch ramp structure, boarding docks, and the upland maneuvering
area.
Upland Design Upland design considerations for launch ramps include

space for maneuvering and queuing, the angles of approach and exit, and
grades to accommodate the transition from upland to the launch ramp
slope. The approach area should have adequate space for a vehicle-trailer
combination to maneuver from the queuing area to a position where it
can back down the launch ramp. A good design will provide adequate
queuing space based on the peak traffic time for the launching facility,
keeping in mind that vehicle-trailer launching takes approximately 10 to
15 min per launch per lane. (See Fig. 4-13).

Approach and exit for a launching area can be straight-on or angled to
allow for more efficient maneuvering. A straight-on approach may be
appropriate for a small launching facility (one to two lanes) as long as the
width of the drivable surface is able to accommodate a vehicle with a
trailer turning around 180 deg. For launch ramps with multiple lanes
(three or more lanes), it may be more appropriate to provide a lane that
approaches the launching area from an angle. This can allow easier
maneuverability and shorter queuing wait times, as well as allow for an
angle of approach that provides equal ease of movement into each launch-
ing lane. When possible, it is also desirable to provide an exit route from
the ramp to vehicle-trailer parking that does not cross the launching route,
or minimizes conflict.
The transition between the sloped ramp and the upland grade should
be made with a vertical curve [6 m (20 ft) minimum] or other smooth
Fig. 4-13. Upland layout and parking for a boat launch at Bender Park, Oak
Creek, Wisconsin
transition to avoid scraping of the trailer tongue and hitch as it passes

through the transition area.
Launch Ramp Design The launch ramp surface may be paved or of

naturally deposited competent beach material. In most formal marina-
type applications, launch ramps are constructed and surfaced with con-
crete or occasionally asphalt. (See Fig. 4-14).
Launch ramp slope is an important design consideration. Shorelines
having a naturally occurring slope of 10 to 20% are most suitable for
launch ramp construction. A typical ramp slope for both automobile
trailer and hydraulic trailer use is between 12 and 15%. For steeper slopes,
often a dual-slope ramp is appropriate, with a smaller intermediate slope
above the normal water elevation (for example, 12% above normal water
and 15% below normal water).
Ramp surfaces should provide positive traction for the trailer power
unit. Traction may be enhanced by providing a grooved surface in the
pavement. Grooves are placed at an angle to the axis of the ramp to help
create a self-cleaning ramp surface. One-inch grooves at 60 deg work best.
The grooves are usually troweled into the surface of the freshly placed
concrete. Other ramp construction material may require placement of
cleat strips to achieve a nonslip surface.
Fig. 4-14. Boat launch ramp, Lake Forest, Illinois

The ramp should extend from the upland area to a point below water
level suitable for the type of trailer and boat to be launched. Automobile
trailer ramps will usually require a minimum of 1.2 m (4 ft) of water depth
to launch and retrieve. Ramps used for hydraulic trailer launching should
have approximately 2.4 m (8 ft) of water depth. The recommended clear
width of a single-lane launch ramp for vehicle-trailer use is 3.7 m (12 ft)
with the width increased to 4.9 m (16 ft) if hydraulic trailers are to be
used.
During the design phase of the harbor, special care is required to
provide adequate in-water maneuvering and queuing space. Room for
two or three boats per ramp to queue while waiting for retrieval is recom-
mended. Where courtesy slips are available, these can double as retrieval
queuing spaces.
Where possible, the launch and retrieval areas should not directly
interface with navigation channels.
Boarding Docks Boarding docks or platforms are provided at launch-

ing facilities to tie up boats after launching or prior to retrieval. They also
allow land-to-water connection for boaters returning from parking a
vehicle or retrieving a parked vehicle. Boarding docks can be floating or
fixed. The typical width of a boarding dock is 1.8 m (6 ft), with 0.9 m (3 ft)
being the minimum. One boarding dock should be provided for each
launching lane, or two lanes can share a boarding dock in the middle. At
least one boarding dock shall be accessible for persons with disabilities.
Anchorage for floating boarding docks should be located such that they
do not extend past the outer edge of the dock to provide a straight line
for launched boats to follow along the edge of a lane. Boarding docks
should have side bumpers to protect boats from coming in contact with
the dock, as well as cleats for tying up boats.
Decontamination and Boat Wash-Down Accommodations may be

required for trailered boats to be washed before launching and/or after
retrieval due to regional restrictions or cautions. Where waters are at risk
of invasive species contamination, many harbors are now requiring
boaters to decontaminate their boats and trailers prior to launching. A
designated decontamination area should be provided, with equipment
designed to remove and isolate invasive mussels, vegetation, or other
species. Care must be taken to ensure that wash-down water is not able
to reach the harbor. The equipment may consist of a portable pump and
tank with a high-pressure sprayer and a pad that collects the wash-down
water. The harbor operator may choose to allow frequent users of the
same launch ramp to install a lock on their trailer that, when closed,
means they have not visited any other bodies of water in the period since
the last launch at the facility.
Once a boat has been retrieved, many boaters may wish to wash down
their boats and trailers, either because of invasive species or, in saltwater
regions, to remove salt. The number and type of boat wash-down stations
should be based on the frequency of anticipated use and other require-
ments such as directives from a local or state authority. In harbor environ-
ments where all (or most) boaters will desire to wash their boats after
retrieval, consider providing one wash-down station per launch ramp.
Pull-through designs allow traffic to flow more easily, and queuing lanes
may be required on busy days.
Wash-downs should be designed such that each station or every two
stations has an operable freshwater supply via a hose bib. Some marinas
require boaters to bring their own hoses; some provide them. Wash-down
water where contaminants are a concern should not drain to the harbor,
but should be collected in a sanitary sewer system. Dual drains are avail-
able with integral rain sensors that can drain to the sanitary system when
wash water is in use and to the storm system when during rain events.
Boat wash-down areas should be graded with the higher end at the front
of the vehicle to allow the wash water in open-backed boats to flow out
the back of the boat.
Hose bibs can be fitted with a push button and automatic shut-off
to prevent overuse of water. Signs should be posted with any local or
regional regulations or considerations such as “No dumping, drains to
the lake/ocean/river” or “No car washing” or “Please use water
sparingly.”
Boat Handling Equipment

Marine Straddle Hoists Marine straddle hoists (also referred to as travel
lifts) are mobile structural frames that use fabric slings to support boats
during haul-out, moving, and launching operations. This is the most
common method of transferring small boats from land to water, other
than boat launch ramps. With this method of boat handling, the construc-
tion of a boat well or straddle hoist pier extending into the basin is
required as part of the harbor construction program. The planning and
design of the boat handling well requires special attention to the design
of pile-supported and other associated marine structures such as bulk-
heads. Design coordination is required with the straddle hoist manufac-
turer to confirm the lift and well dimensions, as well as equipment wheel
loads for the pile-supported structures and pavement for boatyard opera-
tions. Consideration should be given to planning for future expansion to
larger equipment. (See Fig. 4-15).
Marine Railways A marine railway consists of tracks extending from a

shore location far enough into the water at a slope to float a boat. The boat
is set by hoist onto a cradle mounted on a rail car operated by cable from
Fig. 4-15. Sixty-eight metric ton (75 ton)-capacity marine straddle hoist in
North Shore, Michigan
Source: Courtesy of Marine Travelift
a power unit on shore. This facility can require a significant amount of

space but remains important at some existing marinas and boat yards.
Hydraulic Trailers Hydraulic trailers use adjustable hydraulic arms

and can launch boats up to 26 m (85 ft) in length via a sloping concrete
ramp (often the boat launch ramp). The trailers are driven by an operator
and some units can be operated via remote control. Newer models can
even accommodate deep-keeled boats by hydraulically lifting the boat
above the surface of the ground. Because of their versatility, flexibility,
speed, ease of use, and ability to transport over roads to off-site land
storage and repair facilities, hydraulic trailers are popular with harbor
operators. For extremely large hydraulic trailers with capacities up to
68 mt (75 tons), the pavement on the launch ramp and upland area should
be designed to accommodate the heavier loads. (See Fig. 4-16).
Marine Transporters Marine transporters are designed to work in

tandem with a boat straddle hoist or other boat lifting equipment. The
transporter is used to transport vessels longer distances to storage loca-
tions, which frees the straddle hoist for additional vessel hoists in the
meantime. Transporters are remotely operated and use hydraulic lifting
supports to lift boats from below. This design allows boats to be stored
closer together than if they were to be transported solely by a straddle
hoist. Transporters can accommodate vessels up to 1,000 mt (1,100 tons).
(See Fig. 4-17).
Fig. 4-16. Hydraulic trailer

Fig. 4-17. Marine transporter

Elevators and Boatlifts The elevator or boatlift consists of a platform

that is lowered and raised vertically with synchronized winches. The
boatlift requires less space than either a launching ramp or marine railway.
Vertical boatlifts minimize the stress on the boat hull and provide the best
access and control during docking. They are commonly used for boats
greater than 227 mt (250 tons) to avoid hull damage from straddle lift
straps. A typical small boat boatlift accommodates a wide range of trans-
fer cradles with adjustable keel and bilge blocks. The platform and cradle
are lowered and raised using synchronized wire rope hoists powered by
6.7 to 10 kW (5–7.5 hp) electric motors. Once raised from the water to yard
level, the boat is then easily transferred to the boat/ship yard for service.
Derrick and Crane Lifts Various forms of crane lifts with booms or
traveling bridges are used for transferring boats between land and water
by means of slings under the boat. (See Fig. 4-18).
Drydocks Drydocks are large floating or stationary docks used for

maintaining, repairing, and altering a ship below the water line. These are
rarely seen at commercial recreational harbors.
Fig. 4-18. Three-ton jib crane, Shilshole Bay Marina, Seattle, Washington
Tidal Grid Tidal grids are fixed repair facilities for small boats relying
on the tidal fluctuation to function. Boats are floated over the tidal grid
at high tide and come to rest on the grid as the tide recedes. Generally,
these grids are used for minimal repairs that can be completed in a single
tidal cycle.
Forklifts Forklifts are power-operated vehicles with a pronged lift

platform to raise and lower boats [usually shorter than 9 m (30 ft)] from
elevated rack storage, as well as into and out of the water. Refer to more
information about forklifts in the “Dry-Stack Marinas” section of this
chapter. (See Fig. 4-19).
Boat Repair and Boat Building

Skilled boat repair services are a decided asset to any harbor installa-
tion and a good source of revenue. They also provide an important service
to harbor users and to the community. While many boat owners love to
putter, most of them are inexperienced at major repairs and must seek
professional assistance.
Fig. 4-19. Marine forklift

Many small craft today are fiberglass, molded steel, or aluminum,

turned out on assembly lines in large plants. However, there still is a place
for the individual boat builder and a market for his or her product.
Because repair work is seasonal in some locations, boat building is an
additional potential profit center that can help to keep a business in opera-
tion year-round. Pay special attention to the nonpoint pollution controls

and stormwater permits for such facilities.
Storage Yards
Storage yards should be planned to maximize use of seasonal wet-
storage parking, portable boat parking adjacent to a launch ramp, and
as a winter element of a boat repair/marina center facility. In the latter
case, the boat repair service provider could use winter-stored boat repair
service business to offset winter slowdown in other sales and service
activities.
Winter storage is most revenue-efficient where a surplus of land exists,
or where parking lots and other areas unused in the colder months can
be used for boat storage. In marinas with scarce land, newer trailering
technology can allow for inland winter storage at lower cost. Also, boat
storage and repair service may saddle the harbor owner with additional
regulatory hurdles related to the handling and disposal of waste materials
or other environmental issues.
Storage yards do not need to be paved but should be adequately
designed to support the loads of the boats and transport vehicles.
Harbor Administration Facilities

Every harbor typically requires at least a small facility for administra-
tion and controls, typically called the harbormaster building, marina
administration building, or harbormaster headquarters. It is desirable that
this facility be located in a central location and adjacent to the waterside
access. From a control and security point of view, it is recommended that
there only be one landside and only one waterside access to the harbor
facilities. By grouping administrative and other control headquarters at
these access points, better supervision of operations is ensured.
Harbor administration facilities vary greatly with the size of the harbor
and the activities and uses of the building. This building can be as small
as a 14-m2 (150-sf) office for the harbormaster or can be a large complex
[280 m2 (3,000 sf)], including staff offices, boater locker rooms and lounge
facilities, a ship’s store, meeting and conference facilities, mailboxes for
patrons, control rooms, janitorial and service storage and supply rooms,
and more. (See Fig. 4-20).
The main function of the harbor administration building is to be a

central hub for the operations of the harbor. For large harbors, facilities
such as restrooms, lounges, and the ship’s store may be located in separate
buildings and the harbor administration building may be limited to staff
and service.
It is common for remote monitoring systems to have control rooms in

the harbor facility, where those are provided. Monitoring for fuel systems,
pump-outs, and security can all be located in one central facility.
Restroom and Shower Facilities

Good planning and management practices can minimize the harbor
operations’ impact on the environment. Pollution prevention, source
reduction, containment, and recovery are typically efficient strategies to
reduce environmental impact. Providing clean and adequately sized rest-
rooms mitigates the boat sanitary discharges and waste by minimizing
the need for pump-outs on docks.
Fig. 4-20. Marina administration building at Silver Bay Marina, Silver Bay,
Minnesota
Restroom facilities should be provided at all boating facilities and must

comply with all applicable local, state, and federal public health and
safety codes. Restrooms can be in a separate standalone building for larger
harbors or incorporated in the harbor administration building for smaller
facilities. A well-run harbor should have a continual restroom mainte-
nance program in place; depending on the size of the harbor and the usage
rate, it may even be necessary to have full-time maintenance staff respon-
sible for keeping the sanitary facilities at a high level of cleanliness.
At least one type of each restroom facility provided at every harbor
should meet all applicable requirements for slopes, door openings, toilets,
urinals, water faucets, toilet paper holders, lavatories with mirrors, and
grab bars for ADA accessibility. Accessible facilities need to be properly
signed.
Types of Restroom Facilities There are three basic types of sanitary

facilities typically used at a recreational harbor: flush toilets, vault toilets,
and temporary portable toilets. Selecting one of these types for a particu-
lar harbor depends on the harbor use, the required maintenance, and the
anticipated life of the facility.
Flush toilet restrooms are the desired type of restroom facility at a
modern harbor, and they are typically easier to maintain. They should
contain lavatories and mirrors, urinals, hand dryers (stainless steel pre-
ferred), and trash baskets. The restroom floor must be adequately pitched
to allow for drainage to a septic system or sanitary sewer system. Drink-
ing fountains might also be provided.
Vault toilets are typically provided with a precast concrete vault and
are primarily seen at low-use rudimentary harbors, typically in remote
locations without utilities (sewer or water). They cost less to install but
are less desirable and may require more maintenance as they need to be
regularly emptied.
Temporary portable toilets are occasionally used at very low-use harbor
facilities, with very limited practical applications. They can be useful in
emergencies and for special events, such as boat shows, where additional
restroom capacity is needed.
Locating Restroom Facilities Restrooms around the perimeter of the

harbor should ideally be located within 300 m (1,000 ft) walking distance
of the most remote boat slip. If the harbor facility has a launch ramp, a
restroom facility is recommended to be located within 60 m (200 ft) of the
ramp. In some cases the restrooms nearest the launch ramp may be public
and restrooms near the dock access points may be exclusively reserved
for the use of members or slip-holders with electronic key-card access.
Members-only restroom buildings can also serve as separation between
public space on land and restricted-access dockage. Typically a card or
key access is required to pass through the facility, serving as a security

point for the docks. (See Fig. 4-21).
The elevation of the harbor restroom finish floor should be a minimum
0.3 m (1 ft) higher than the 100-year floodplain or the “ordinary high
water mark” in a protected harbor environment.
Sizing Restroom Facilities Separate restrooms are typically provided

for men and women, with some smaller harbor facilities having a few
unisex private toilet rooms with lockable doors. The separate restroom
building should be designed barrier-free (fully accessible). The building
needs to be linked by accessible routes to all marina primary function
areas, including parking, restaurants, harbormaster building, etc. The
restroom building needs to be linked to all the harbor accessible facilities
and accessible parking spaces through the use of accessible routes.
Typical restrooms at a harbor facility include toilet compartments, lava-
tories, urinals, showers, drinking fountains, mirrors, benches, lighting,
ventilation, and air conditioning where needed.
For planning-level purposes, a minimum of one toilet or urinal fixture
and one lavatory is recommended for every 50 wet berths. The recom-
mended number of fixtures based on the number of wet berths is shown
in Table 4-4.
Fig. 4-21. Restroom facility that provides secure access to docks at Southport
Marina in Kenosha, Wisconsin
Table 4-4. Recommended Number of Restroom Fixtures Based on

Number of Wet Berths
Toilets and Urinals Lavatories Showers

Number
of Berths Men’s Women’s Men’s Women’s Men’s Women’s
≤25 1 1 1 1 1 1
26–50 2 2 2 2 1 1
51–80 2–3 2–3 2 2 2 2
81–125 3 3 3 3 2–3 2–3
126–200 4 4 4 4 3 3
>201 1 for every 50 1 for every 50 2 for every 3
berths berths toilets
The number of showers in a facility should be based on the harbor

occupancy rates and peak demands (typically between 6 and 10 a.m. and
6 to 8 p.m.).
Controlled access is recommended for shower facilities. A key-card
system is quite popular, limiting access to marina tenants only. Private
toilet-shower combination rooms are amenities that are growing in popu-
larity at higher-end marinas. These all-in-one private rooms include a
toilet, sink, changing area, and shower, and are accessed by key-cards.
These private rooms can be unisex since they are occupied by only one
person at a time, and they can cut down on the total number of fixtures
needed in the marina as the total number of spaces available to an indi-
vidual increases.
Commercial Facilities
Restaurants and Bars Depending on the level of service and usage at
a facility, it may be appropriate and economically viable to provide such
amenities as a restaurant or bar. Sports lounges, cafés, and snack shops
are common in large public marinas, whereas more exclusive restaurants
and destination locations may be appropriate at a private resort marina.
Whether a restaurant or bar should be located at a given harbor is highly
dependent upon market conditions and the clientele.
Supply Store and General Store Particularly at a recreational harbor,

general stores (handling a large variety of merchandise) and specialty
shops (handling boating clothes and souvenirs) are popular with both
visitors and the boating populace. The harbor ship’s store or supply store
is provided as a function of the general harbor conditions. Busy seasonal
or year-round harbors find that a ship’s store can generate enough revenue
to support its staff and other operational expenses. In addition, the ship’s
store provides a convenient location for harbor users to buy products such
as nautical charts; small electrical and engine parts; fishing equipment
and bait; various boat accessories and souvenirs; and food staples, hot
coffee, pastries and sundries, ice cream, cold drinks, and ice.
The ship’s store is usually part of the harbor operations and manage-
ment. However, there are special cases where the ship’s store is privately
managed or even owned.
Vending and Concessions Vending machines near restroom facilities

or other public facilities such as picnic areas are useful in providing such
items as soda, snacks, and other quick food items. Some smaller harbors
use vending machines in lieu of a ship’s store and may sell ice or bait at
the fuel dock or another location, especially at lower-usage seasonal facili-
ties. Larger harbors may also have concessions stands selling things such
as hot dogs, ice cream, and drinks.
Boat Sales Rooms Well-planned and attractive boat sales rooms are
a distinct asset to commercial harbors, where boat displays draw consid-
erable interest and boat sales frequently provide a large source of income.
Boat Rentals Seasonal boat rentals may be provided at a harbor,

especially small sailing craft, kayaks, or canoes, where there is a market
demand and the use is appropriate. Rentals can be a revenue producer
for a harbor if managed properly; however, purchasing and maintaining
the boats requires some investment on the part of the operator or owner,
and dedicated staff may be required at busy locations to administer the
rentals and instruct users on safety requirements.
Other Harbor-Associated Amenities

The number and types of amenities at a given small craft harbor are
dictated by the type and size of the facility and the demands of the boaters
as well as regional practices. A facility that is primarily dedicated to com-
mercial fishing may not have recreational amenities, while a small recre-
ational harbor may not have the room or demand for yacht clubs or
swimming pools.
Members Club or Yacht Club Members clubs or yacht clubs are very
popular in certain regions of the country, and many harbors have special
facilities to accommodate these clubs. Whether a separate lounge or meeting
space, or an entire building devoted to club activities, providing club space
that is inviting and comfortable to members can provide great incentive for
participation in these groups. In addition, clubs sometimes promote and

sponsor youth activities such as junior boating or sailing clubs.
Laundry and Lockers It is common to provide coin-operated or card-

operated laundry facilities for harbor slip-holders, especially at larger
harbors or where live-aboards (people who sleep or stay on their boats

for extended periods) are permitted. These amenities can be provided in
a boater’s lounge, in the restroom or shower facilities, or in the harbor
administration building. Typically at least two washers and dryers are
recommended for every 100 wet berths. Where these facilities are heavily
used, it is recommended to provide multiple units to service the boaters
and provide backup in case of breakdowns or routine maintenance.
Fishing Facilities Typically, the activity of fishing in small craft

harbors is in conflict with boat maneuverability and berthing. However,
in some limited cases it may be appropriate if a designated fishing loca-
tion is provided. Note that fishing may be strictly prohibited in certain
harbors where it is not desirable to attract certain fish into the harbor
basin, or for other reasons. Fishing piers, where deemed appropriate,
should be located an adequate distance away from docks and other facili-
ties such as launch ramps so that fishing lines do not cross in the paths
of boat traffic or get caught on buoys, boat ties, anchor chains, etc.
A fixed pier should be designed to extend out over the water to a water
depth of approximately 0.9 m (3 ft) to allow for a line to be dropped
directly below the pier into water.
Fixed or floating fishing piers must be designed to accommodate indi-
viduals with disabilities. Special railing accommodations should be made
for individuals in wheel chairs. Fishing piers typically have a railing of
various heights to allow standing or seated fishing. As an option, the top
of railings can be designed with a plank arm rest at an angle, and holes
can be provided for resting fishing rods.
Fish Cleaning Stations A designated fish cleaning station where fish

can be cleaned and gutted is not only an amenity to users, but also a way
of keeping water quality in a harbor clean. Just about every harbor has
its share of users who love to fish, and some harbors may be primarily
populated with fishing boats. Blood and guts from fish, if allowed to flow
into the harbor, can create a nuisance, may cause foul odors, and may
even attract predatory fish such as sharks in ocean harbors. Having easily
accessible and functional fish cleaning stations discourages people from
using picnic areas or restrooms to do this activity. (See Fig. 4-22).
Fish cleaning stations are recommended to be open-air facilities to
provide natural ventilation and usually have easy-to-clean surfaces such
as stainless steel. They can include sinks and cutting tables as well as
disposal units. Fish parts are disposed of and contained in tanks, or grind-
ers can be provided on-site. These can be emptied on a regular basis or
sent directly to a sewage treatment facility. Hoses should be provided for
easy clean-up and signs should be posted encouraging patrons to clean
up their stations after use.
It is a good idea to locate fish cleaning stations near public launching

facilities to encourage public users to utilize the stations and not throw
fish waste directly into the water or trash basins. However, care should
be taken to site fish cleaning stations away from areas where odors may
be a nuisance, such as near restaurants or picnic areas.
Weather Stations Weather stations at harbors provide useful weather

information to boaters, including warnings and alerts. Typically, these
stations are operated by a local weather service, or are leased or owned
by the harbor operator at larger harbors.
Upland Recreation Facilities

Picnic and Grill Areas Picnic and grill areas are nice amenities to
provide at harbors. Typically, areas with lawns and trees are attractive
Fig. 4-22. Fish cleaning station at South Pier, Sheboygan, Wisconsin

places for families to gather and have a cookout. They can include signs,
picnic tables, grills, water fountains, and a well or another source of
potable water. Some of the picnic tables must be accessible for individuals
with disabilities. (See Fig. 4-23).
It is typical to site public restroom facilities near designated picnic and
grill areas. It may also be useful to provide bicycle racks or other vehicle
parking near picnic areas to allow for better access to these areas.
Swimming Pools and Beaches Swimming in or near small craft

berthing areas is typically a bad idea. Safety hazards abound in the water
where boats are moving in and out, electricity is present, gasoline and
other hazardous substances may leak into the water, and other conditions
that typically lead to harbor operators posting signs that forbid swimming
in berthing areas.
To prevent swimmers from being tempted to swim into berthing areas,
designated beaches or swimming pools are often provided (where condi-
tions are appropriate) as an amenity to harbor users and the public alike.
Marinas are often places where families spend a lot of time, and a slip-
holder may pay for a membership to use a pool adjacent to the facility as
an added bonus for berthing their boat at the facility. (See Fig. 4-24).
Signs should always be posted at beaches to warn swimmers of poten-
tially dangerous conditions, and facilities should be maintained to prevent
trash and weeds from fouling the beach. “No Lifeguard on Duty” signs
should be posted when a facility does not have trained lifeguards on duty.
Fig. 4-23. Covered picnic shelters and grills at Lake Forest Park Harbor and
Beach, Lake Forest, Illinois
Fig. 4-24. Pool and resort facilities at Bay Harbor Resort and Marina,
Petoskey, Michigan
Fig. 4-25. Small boat beach, Lakeshore State Park, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Where appropriate, sand or rock beaches are also sometimes provided

to accommodate launching of small personal water craft such as kayaks
and canoes. (See Fig. 4-25).
Other Recreation Facilities Other recreation facilities may be provided

at a harbor to enhance the recreational atmosphere and encourage users to

spend time there outside of boating. Typical enhancements include tennis
courts, fitness centers, horseshoe courts, sand volleyball areas, shuffleboard,
lawn games, and golf courses. Memberships may be required or the facili-
ties may be free and open to the general public. Once again, these types of
facilities should be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on the
market, the clientele, and the atmosphere of the marina complex.
Public recreation facilities such as playgrounds, campgrounds, festival
parks, farmers’ markets, and bicycle and recreation trails and paths are
also becoming more common as marinas are developed with private/
public interests in mind. Special care must be taken in planning and
designing public facilities near marinas to maintain the privacy and secu-
rity of marina patrons, while accommodating the public’s desire for access
to the waterfront. Some marinas provide special areas for walking pets,
separate from the other recreational spaces.
DRY-STACK MARINAS
Dry-stack marinas provide solutions to restricted waterfront access,

and significant growth in the number of these facilities is projected to meet
the boater demand. There are many configurations available to the marina
industry, but dry-stack marinas are essentially the vertical storage of boats
in a rack system for launch/retrieval on or near the waterfront. Boats are
typically stored in racks that are two to six boats high. For smaller boats
less than 7.6 m (25 ft) long, dry-stack marinas can provide more than four
times the storage of traditional wet-slip marinas within the same area.
Dry-stack marinas began to gain popularity in the early 1970s, with
early forklifts rated at a 1.4-mt (3,000-lb) capacity storing 6-m (20-ft)-long
boats. (Severance 1991). Today, forklifts are operating with a 26-mt (58,000-
lb) capacity, and automated crane systems are coming on line with essen-
tially no limits to weight or height of boats stored. Waterfront real estate
on lakes and on the coasts is continuing to be developed for residential
or commercial uses, resulting in a loss of waterfront access to boaters.
Rising waterfront real estate values force many existing marinas to be sold
to private developers. Furthermore, boat ramps and public access marinas
are strained due to the increasing demand of boaters on these facilities.
Many natural protected harbors have been developed, and the cost of new
wet-slip marinas combined with stringent environmental constraints
make many new wet-slip projects infeasible.
Some advantages of dry-stack storage include the following:
• Efficient use of waterfront real estate: More dry slips per acre as opposed
to wet slips.
• Less maintenance: Owners of smaller boats [less than 9 m (30 ft) long]
prefer dry-stack storage due to less required maintenance of their

boats.
• Security: Enclosed and secured facilities provide increased security.
• Environmental protection: Fuel spills, litter, and sewage from boats in
dry slips are minimized as compared to boats in wet slips.
• Boat antifouling paint: Not required for dry slips, thereby reducing
environmental impacts from antifouling paint.
• Submerged lands impact: Reduced environmental impact on sub-
merged lands.
• Storm protection: Storm protection of boats in properly designed
buildings.
• Winter storage: Protection in enclosed buildings from winter weather.
• Increased boating activity: Provides boaters an alternative to trailering
boats and associated limited boat ramp access.
• Sale of racks: Attractive to real estate developers for “rackominium
projects” and club memberships.
• Integration with residential units: An increasingly popular amenity for
resort development.
Some disadvantages of dry-stack storage include
• Building/rack height and associated aesthetics.

• Limited waterfront experience: Dry-stack facilities are based on the
“launch and go” concept; there is no wet-slip space.
• Visibility: Boats are not seen on the waterfront.
Marina planners and designers will continue to be challenged with

designing dry-stack marinas to meet the growing demand on constrained
waterfronts. The increased size of boats being stored continues to evolve
with the boating market and site-specific demand. The industry trend is
to place smaller boats in dry-stack facilities, while converting the smaller
wet slips into fewer but longer wet slips, thereby increasing the total linear
leasable length of slip space. The marina planner needs to understand that
dry-stack facilities are not just pre-engineered buildings with racks; rather,
they are a type of marina that requires all the amenities of a wet-slip
marina, including some wet slips for staging. Furthermore, dry-stack
marinas should be planned and designed by a multidiscipline team that
includes engineers, planners, operational consultants, and equipment
vendors to ensure a successful, efficient, and profitable marina.
General Site Planning Criteria

Many planning and design criteria for wet slips must also be evaluated
for dry slips, and since most of a dry-stack marina is on land, many tra-
ditional upland site development criteria must also be evaluated.
• Boat slip mix: A market study will determine the optimum slip mix
for dry-stack storage to include identification of boating use (i.e.,
inshore or offshore fishing, cruising, skiing), utilization rates,
phasing, and operational planning. The study should also plan for
future trends and expansion/improvement of the facility.
• Climate: Winter and tropical, types of weather.
• Assessment of existing facilities (if applicable): Condition for reuse.
• Integration with adjacent waterfront development and uses: Creating a
marina experience.
• Area available for staging: Docks and staging slips.
• Land use restrictions (zoning): Building heights, setbacks, and parking.
• Local building codes: Wind, seismic, snow, etc.
• Water levels: Tidal or seasonal/drought in lakes and rivers.
• Topography: Land and boundaries.
• Review of handling equipment: Cycle times.
• Geotechnical: Soils, foundation capacities (building and pavement),
shoreline stabilization.
• Utilities: Stormwater management, water, sewer, electrical, etc.
• Environmental: Permit requirements.
Types of Dry-Stack Storage

Dry-stack storage is generally divided into three categories (Dodson
1991):
1. Open racks: Freestanding, with or without roofs. (See Fig. 4-26).

2. Partially enclosed: These can include
• Three-sided: include by-passing doors for total enclosure
• Gabled storage: two-rack systems aligned parallel to another,
storing boats bow-to-bow
3. Fully enclosed: conventional, double-, and triple-wide.
Dry-Stack Marina Design Considerations

Building Height The most common rack and associated building
design material is pre-engineered steel, and a design-build approach is
generally the industry standard. Significant cost savings in construction
can be realized with the integration of the storage racks with the building
Fig. 4-26. Dry-stack facility with open racks

Source: Courtesy of Roof & Rack, Boca Raton, Florida
Fig. 4-27. Double-aisle fully-enclosed dry-stack marina building

Source: Courtesy of Roof & Rack, Boca Raton, Florida
structure with associated foundations. A common misconception is that

dry-stack storage buildings are constructed using a pre-engineered steel
building, and then boat racks are installed inside later.
The maximum height of the racks must be established early on in the
planning process and is dependent on local building and zoning codes
and the desired handling equipment. The goal is typically to provide the
highest building possible to accommodate the greatest number of boats.
However, operational constraints need to be evaluated, as marina forklifts

are limited to lifting boats to approximately 21 m (70 ft), and crane facili-
ties have been designed to maximum heights of 34 m (110 ft) (VYSS 2006).
Many facilities are designed to accommodate boats on trailers as well as
recreational vehicles, and there is an industry trend toward remote storage
facilities off the waterfront.

As the building height increases, so does the development cost. In tropical
regions, including the east and Gulf coasts of the United States, many newer
dry-stack buildings are being designed for hurricane wind forces up to 250
kph (155 mph) (Sturner 2007). Local building codes should be reviewed, but
designers should consider higher wind speeds than what local codes require.
Fig. 4-28. Dry-stack marina in 27-m (90-ft)-high building with 125-slip

capacity that can accommodate 16-m (52-ft)-long boats; enclosed concrete
building is designed for 250 kph (155 mph) wind speed
Source: Courtesy of Vertical Yachts
Dry-stack buildings designed to recent south Florida building codes per-

formed well during the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005. (See Fig. 4-28).
A balanced design process is required to provide the optimum building
height for the site, taking into account the predicted boating market,
operations, foundations, and building structures. Architectural trim pack-
ages on steel buildings and concrete buildings can be designed to blend

into the surrounding areas and minimize the “barn” look.
Access Doors The access doors should be sized for the handling
equipment and access for boats on trailers for service and delivery. The
doors of the building should be designed consistent with the design cri-
teria for the building. Many modern facilities have access doors that are
electronically opened and closed. Some doors require manual bracing
during major storm events, such as hurricanes. In these instances the
doors are manually braced for high wind speeds by inserting large pins
into the doors that extend into the concrete slab. In addition to the access
doors for boats and equipment, the buildings will need a specified number
of emergency exits to meet life safety and fire protection codes.
Lighting Natural lighting through the use of skylights is the industry

standard. The skylights should be designed to provide ventilation to the build-
ing in case of a fire. Few enclosed dry-stack buildings are designed for forklift
operations at night, although many buildings include high-pressure sodium
vapor fixtures. Refer to the section on fire suppression later in this chapter.
Ventilation Most dry-stack buildings do not have mechanical ventila-

tion systems. Dry-stack building doors are generally open during operat-
ing hours and there are generally no ventilation requirements due to
limited human occupancy. Ventilators are often designed along the build-
ing roof ridge line to release uplift pressures due to wind loads. Some
buildings in tropical or winter climates may be specifically designed for
climate-controlled conditions, but they are rare due to the cost of heating
or cooling the large spaces within the buildings.
Rack Design Dry-stack racks are commonly designed as steel frame

structures subject to local building codes. In addition to the standard
minimum loads applicable to the steel frames, boat live loads (including
fuel and accessories) must be properly estimated, along with loads associ-
ated with fire suppression systems, bunker boards, and other facility
requirements.
Due to the marine environment, hot-dipped galvanized steel is gener-
ally the preferred material. With proper specification and quality control,
these systems can provide a long service life with minimal maintenance.
Maintaining coated steel racks that may have corroded is extremely dif-
ficult with a dry-stack marina full of boats.
Generally, racks are designed as freestanding or integrated with the

building structure. The goal of the rack design is to maximize the volume
of storage of the facility for the desired boat slip mix optimized for the
market. There is a trend in the industry to rent (or sell) dry-stack racks in
terms of volume, as opposed to the traditional boat length. Larger, taller,
and wider boats require more volume and associated structure within a
typical dry-stack marina, and therefore owners of these boats will be
charged a premium storage rate. Future improvements and/or modern-
ization plans for the dry-stack marina must be understood, such as
whether the marina will be enclosed in the near future or if the marina
will relocate or expand. The planning criteria will affect the design of the
rack foundations, spacing, and placement.
Open racks are engineered systems with two to five levels that are
typically available from design-build manufacturers. Columns are gener-
ally spaced on 6.1 m (20 ft) or greater centers, allowing two to three boats
per bunk. These open racks can also be designed to efficiently accommo-
date a large number of personal water craft (PWC). (See Fig. 4-29).
Fig. 4-29. Dry-stack storage facility with open racks specifically designed to
accommodate personal water craft (PWC)
Source: Courtesy of T. K. Blankenship
In some boating markets, enclosed or open-rack systems cannot accom-

modate larger, wider, and taller boats. A potential solution is the installa-
tion of ground stands. However, these stands require sufficient space and
associated forklift operational area.
Racks can also be designed with an angled alignment to the aisle. This
design approach is generally not an efficient use of volume in terms of air

space for open racks or enclosed buildings. Angled racks are available at
an angle up to 30 deg, which will allow a forklift to maneuver in a nar-
rower aisle width. The projected revenue and operational constraints need
to be carefully reviewed based on local market demand. For example, for
some applications two larger boats at an angle may provide more revenue
than three smaller boats.
Many rack systems are adjustable in terms of height. Boats with radar
arches, antennas, etc., are continuing to be stored in dry-stack marinas,
and the required rack heights continue to increase due to the market
demand. Holes are predrilled in rack columns at specified height intervals
[usually 15 cm (6 in.)] and ranges so the racks can be adjusted by the
marina operator to accommodate the desired boat slip mix. For example,
a set of racks originally designed to accommodate four-high boats can be
reconfigured, in some cases by the marina operator, to accommodate
larger boats in a three-high configuration. The structural capacity of the
rack system needs to be maintained, and there may be additional costs
for mounting hardware adjustments as well as costs associated with the
reconfiguration of the fire suppression system.
The industry trend for dry-stack marinas is to design fully enclosed
buildings. These modern buildings generally incorporate columns on 9 m
(30 ft) centers, specifically designed for three boats on the upper racks.
The lower racks are generally utilized for two larger boats due to equip-
ment handling constraints.
Table 4-5 provides general planning guidance for rack heights as a
function of boat length.
Crane systems commonly require specialized rack systems with cradles
for each boat, and these height requirements need to be accommodated
in the planning process for these types of facilities (VYSS 2006).
Interior The interior of the building is a function of the rack footprint

and the aisle geometry. Minimizing the aisle width reduces the overall
footprint of the building and associated construction costs. However, the
aisle width has to facilitate operational efficiency for the dry-stack han-
dling equipment selected. Most facilities operate marina forklifts, and
Table 4-6 provides general guidance for aisle widths for conventional
marina forklifts.
The structural design of the slab should account for the forklift loads
planned for the facility. Consideration should be given to designing the
Table 4–5. Vertical Slip Mix Guidelines
Boat Length Rack Height Rangea
<7.6 m (25 ft) <3.7 m (10–12 ft)b

9.1 m (30 ft) 3.4–4.3 m (11–14 ft)

10.7 m (35 ft) 4.0–4.6 m (13–15 ft)
12.2 m (40 ft) 4.3–5.2 m (14–17 ft)
13.7 m (45 ft) 4.9–5.5 m (16–18 ft)
>15.2 m (50 ft) 5.5–6.4 m (18–21 ft)
a
Clear height includes allowance for bunker boards and fire suppression piping.
b
With top; 2.4 m (8 ft) for runabout without top.
Source: Adapted from information provided by MarinaResource, LLC
Table 4-6. Recommended Dry-Stack Marina Aisle Widths with

Conventional Forklift
Boat Lengtha Recommended Aisle Width
9.1 m (30 ft) 18.3 m (60 ft)

10.7 m (35 ft) 19.8 m (65 ft)
12.2 m (40 ft) 22.9 m (75 ft)
13.7 m (45 ft) 24.4 m (80 ft)
15.2 m (50 ft) 25.9 m (85 ft)b
a
Overall length of boat including outdrives, platforms, etc.
b
Currently for 26.3-mt (58,000-lb)-capacity forklift
Source: Adapted from information provided by MarinaResource, LLC
slab to accommodate larger boats and associated forklifts in the future.

The aisle width for a facility serviced by a crane system is reduced, as are
the slab structural loads (Maffet 2002).
The choice of material is generally concrete for both interior and exte-
rior slabs. The aisle slab must withstand constant heavy loading, includ-
ing forklift turning and associated operational loads during the service
life of the facility. The geotechnical information and associated soil bearing
capacity should be carefully reviewed, and the slab designed in accor-
dance with local building codes and American Concrete Institute (ACI)
standards. Slab thickness is generally not less than 30 cm (12 in.), and for
larger equipment the slab may need to be 46 to 60 cm (18 to 24 in.) thick.
The joint between the interior and any exterior slabs needs to be carefully
designed. For exterior facilities, proper drainage must be incorporated
into the slab design, including drainage structures as required. Interior
slabs also need to be minimally crowned.
Specialized slab finishes such as coatings and specialized white tires

on the marina forklift are often utilized for enclosed buildings to minimize
dust from traditional black tires operating on the slab.
Another interior design approach that is unique to dry-stack buildings
is the design of exterior site grading to direct stormwater runoff into the
building interior. The area underneath the racks is not normally paved,
and only the top of the rack and exterior column footings are exposed.
Therefore, the area in between the column foundations can be filled with
crushed stone to grade. For some sites, the stormwater runoff from the
exterior site can be directed inside these buildings, and the stormwater
can be retained for percolation into the ground, as conditions warrant.
Other stormwater management drainage structures such as trench drains
can be constructed under the racks as long as the design of these systems
is coordinated with the structural design of the footings.
On constrained sites, dry-stack buildings often have to provide interior
space for show rooms, maintenance areas, club houses, offices, and rest-
rooms. These facilities will reduce the dry-stack storage capacity and need
to be accounted for in the design of the building. A balanced design
approach should be taken for sizing these amenities and sizing the boat
storage areas.
Dry-Stack Handling Equipment The planning and design of a dry-

stack marina, whether it is a new facility or an improvement of an existing
facility, needs to account for the boat handling equipment (Severance
1991). The dry-stack industry has evolved considerably over the last 30
years and the equipment has only recently seen significant changes with
larger boats being handled and stored. There are two types of dry-stack
handling equipment: (1) conventional forklifts, and (2) crane systems.
Each system has operational constraints, and a site-specific analysis is
required to determine the optimum handling system. Planning for future
expansion and improvements should be considered to allow for boating
market changes and new handling equipment. A multidiscipline team
approach is recommended with engineers, marina operators, and equip-
ment vendors reviewing the plan for a dry-stack facility.
Forklifts Marina forklifts are the most common system utilized for
dry-stack marina operations. The selected forklift must be integrated with
the dry-stack facility to ensure efficient operations. (See Fig. 4-30).
Dry-stack forklifts are highly specialized forklifts designed for reliable
operations in the marine environment. Continuous operations that consist
of the daily launching/retrieval of boats (fresh- and saltwater applica-
tions) cause extreme wear on the equipment. The average service life of
a marina forklift is generally less than 10 years and is totally dependent
on the maintenance program utilized at the facility. Marina planners
should consider the future replacement in the dry-stack storage design

and the possibility for upgrading equipment as the local marina market
evolves. Dry-stack storage planners should also consider an area specifi-
cally for the maintenance of this equipment.
Design criteria for marina forklifts include
• Capacity: Marina forklifts are currently available from 3.6- to 26-mt

(8,000–58,000-lb) capacity, but 29-mt (65,000-lb) capacity equipment
is being developed. Capacity has historically been rated at 2.4 m
(96 in.) in front of the forklift mast at a height of 1.2 m (48 in.). The
capacity decreases with positive lift height. A detailed understand-
ing of the types of boats to be handled, both in the present and in
the near future, is essential.
• Load center: The load center is the point on the lower surface of the
load beneath the center of gravity of the boat. As this point moves
away from the forklift mast, additional power is needed to make the
lift along with a heavier counterweight. A review of the forklift
capacity versus load center is essential in dry-stack marina design.
• Lift: Marina forklifts require both positive and negative lift. Negative
lift refers to the range of lifting below the ground surface, and positive
lift refers to the range of lifting above the ground surface. Current
equipment can reach −3 m (−10 ft) and +23 m (+75 ft). This informa-
tion is essential for planning rack height as a function of boat size and
for the water levels (tides and lakes) identified for the facility.
Fig. 4-30. Marina forklift operating in boat trailer and RV storage area
Source: Courtesy of Wiggins Lift Company
• Turning radius: Typical operational radii should be simulated for the

full range of forklift equipment and operational conditions. These
simulations should include adjustments for boat accessories, includ-
ing swim platforms, trim tabs, and engine outdrives. The dimen-
sions of the operating aisle, with associated outdoor maintenance
and wash racks, need to be evaluated in conjunction with the forklift

turning radius specifications.
• Ground loading: The operational limits within a dry-stack facility
need to be defined for the proper design of pavements and operating
areas due to the heavy loads associated with this equipment. For the
selected marina forklift, loading diagram information should be
requested directly from the vendor. This information should include
the wheel base, tire contact pressure, and forklift width. If multiple
vendors are being considered, then the worst-case ground loading
requirements need to be considered in the design process.
• Grade: Most marina forklifts are limited to operations on a maximum
grade of 6%. The site design needs to account for the grade from the
finished floor elevation of the building or rack facility down to the
waterfront launching area.
• Number of forklifts: A minimum of two forklifts is recommended for
any dry-stack facility, and the industry trend is to add a forklift for
every 100 to 150 boats stored. Two or more forklifts also facilitate
more thorough preventative maintenance to be performed. Usually
a larger forklift is specified for the maximum-size boats to be handled,
along with a smaller forklift to handle the majority of smaller boats
stored. The number of launching platforms, and the building and
aisle widths, all need to account for the variety of equipment planned
to operate at the dry-stack facility.
Forklift equipment in development includes systems shown in Fig.

4-31, which greatly reduce the axle loads, and typically require an aisle
width of the boat length plus approximately 3 m (10 ft). The reduced axle
loads will thereby reduce pavement and aisle structural design
requirements.
Crane Systems As waterfront real estate becomes more constrained

with development, crane systems have become a creative solution to dry-
stack storage equipment handling. Stacker crane systems are essentially
adopted systems from material handling and warehouse applications.
Significant developments have been made since 2000, and some facilities,
including automated systems, are in operation (VYSS 2006). Some advan-
tages and disadvantages of the crane systems as compared with the tra-
ditional facilities designed for forklifts are listed below. (See Fig. 4-32).
Advantages include
Fig. 4-31. Forklift equipment in development to minimize aisle width and

reduce ground load
Source: Courtesy of Wiggins Lift Company
• Cranes can be used for any building height while forklifts are limited
by reach.
• Cranes are electrically powered, quiet, and clean (no diesel exhaust).
• Crane systems can be automated.
• Automated systems minimize damage to boats.
• Interior launching basins facilitate climate-controlled launching.
• Cranes require minimal aisle width, thereby reducing building foot-
print and structural aisle slab construction costs (Maffet 2002).
• They are not as sensitive to negative lift as forklifts (can accommo-
date large fluctuation in water levels).
• They are can store larger, heavier boats on higher racks.
• They are integrated with river walk-type pedestrian waterfront
promenades.
Disadvantages include
• Typically one crane per building; no redundancy.

• Typically higher initial cost than conventional facility with
forklifts.
• Many systems require a custom cradle for each boat stored, which
is an additional initial cost.
• If building height restrictions are present [generally lower than 14 m
(45 ft)], crane gantry equipment takes up vertical space and will
reduce rack volume.
• Typically do not have dedicated wash/maintenance stands.

• Some crane systems require double handling of the boat.
A few crane systems are in operation in the United States but are typi-
cally handling boats less than 8 m (25 ft) long. Cranes are utilized in
Argentina on the river in the Delta do Tigre region. Most are four levels,
with one facility storing up to 1,100 boats. The average boat length is 6 m
(20 ft), and six lifts launch boats while two internal lifts retrieve boats. The
largest crane system recently opened in 2006 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
The 125-slip facility can accommodate boats that are up to 16 m (52 ft)
long and weigh up to 16 mt (35,000 lb) (VYSS 2006). The building is
approximately 27 m (90 ft) high.
Plans are being developed for larger-capacity facilities to store 46 yachts
up to 27 m (90 ft) long in a 34-m (110-ft)-high building that is climate
controlled. Individual “garages” with suites are planned, and each garage
will have shore power connections for the boats (Sturner 2007).
Other dry-stack facilities in planning also store the boat owner’s car or
the boat trailer in the dry-stack facility while the boat is in use. The verti-
cal racks are separated by screens to protect boats and cars stored in the
lower levels (James 2008).
Plans are also being developed for an underground dry-stack automated
crane facility based on underground car parking technology (Grimont
2008). This system will accommodate both cars and boats, and it eliminates
the aesthetic concerns from traditional dry-stack pre-engineered buildings
that are limited in height due to local zoning restrictions.
Fire Suppression Fire suppression for dry-stack marina facilities is

regulated in the United States by NFPA 303, Fire Protection Standard for
Marinas and Boatyards (NFPA 2011a). The facilities are further regulated
with local building codes and authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) as
referenced in the NFPA documents. The NFPA codes provide guidance
for exterior rack systems in terms of emergency vehicle access, hydrant
location, fire extinguisher location, etc. For interior dry-stack facilities, an
automatic sprinkler system is required for buildings in excess of 465 m2
(5,000 sf).
Most interior dry-stack facilities will require in-rack sprinkler systems.
As mentioned in Table 4-5, the sprinkler system will reduce the clear
height for boat storage in a rack. A concern with the sprinkler systems is
the boats filling with water during the activation of the sprinkler system,
Fig. 4-32. Automated crane dry-stack facility with interior launching basin;
the facility has capacity for 16-mt (35,000-lb) boats that are up to 16 m (52 ft)
long in a 125-slip facility
thereby exceeding the structural load capacity of the rack system. Due to
this concern, along with the class of materials stored (fiberglass boats with
fuel tanks), most modern dry-stack facilities are designed with either
foam-injected or high-expansion foam sprinkler systems (Spinazola 2002).
The foam injection system generally consists of an aqueous film-forming
foam agent (AFFF). The sprinkler systems can further be controlled by
adjusting the temperature setting over the boats and in the roof. The goal
of the sprinkler system is to activate early during a fire. The sprinkler
system controls need to be coordinated with heat detectors for automatic
notification of the fire department to ensure a rapid response (Spinazola
Fig. 4-33. Automated crane dry-stack facility with specialized racks and
cradles specifically designed for each boat
2001). Traditional smoke detectors can trigger alarms due to the operation
of marina forklifts with diesel exhaust.
Fire suppression design needs to address the following in accordance
with the applicable NFPA codes:
• Ventilation for building: to relieve heat and smoke from building

• Electrical design: explosion-proof lights within the building and elec-
trical outlets
• Emergency exit and access doors: spaced accordingly on the ground
floor
• Location of fire hydrants and charged fire water lines: with appropriate
pressure and appurtenances
• Emergency vehicle access
• Fire pumps or fire department connections (FDCs): as required for inte-
rior sprinkler systems.
During the planning and design process, discussions should be con-

ducted with the local fire marshal who has jurisdiction over the dry-stack
facility. These discussions will facilitate the design and permitting of the
facility. Once constructed, marina operators should encourage regular
visits and inspections by local fire department inspectors and conduct
proper training of marina management personnel (Spinazola 2002). Proper

operational management, in addition to the proper engineering design,
of a dry-stack facility can contribute to fire prevention.
Dry-Stack Marina Site Design Considerations

Vehicle Parking Sufficient parking is essential for the efficient opera-
tion of a dry-stack marina. Similar to wet-slip marinas, dry-stack marina
parking requirements are generally specified in local zoning codes as a
function of parking spaces per dry slip. Many local zoning codes specify
parking ratios for wet-slip marinas; however, dry-stack facilities are rela-
tively new to the industry and the available codes may not be applicable.
In general, parking ratios vary from one vehicle parking space per two
slips, to one space for six slips. Depending on the market use study, a
reasonable ratio goal should be between 1 : 3 to 1 : 5. These ratios may
require a variance to the local zoning codes. The ratio is highly dependent
on the market study, which will profile anticipated boater usage of the
facility. Therefore, if a higher ratio is approved as part of the site planning
process, this ratio may not meet the operational requirements of the facil-
ity and may provide a negative experience for boating customers.
The parking should be established to provide ease of access for custom-
ers to the staging area and blended with the required green space
and other amenities. Consideration should be given to off-site parking
for peak operational days, with the marina management providing
valet or concierge service. The lack of available waterfront area for
development, along with the high cost of the real estate, make the
concierge service an attractive option for those few busy boating week-
ends or holidays. The parking requirements may change after the dry-
stack facility opens, so off-site parking provides flexibility in marina
operations.
Many dry-stack facilities are incorporated into a larger waterfront
development with mixed-use development that may include retail, resi-
dential, service/boatyard, and restaurants. Industry-accepted shared
parking planning guidelines should be utilized by a multidiscipline team
of planners, architects, and engineers to optimize the parking for a devel-
opment. Parking garages are becoming increasingly popular in urban
waterfront areas.
Refer to the “Accessible Parking” section earlier in this chapter for
accessible parking space requirements. In many dry-stack marina applica-
tions where waterfront space is limited, users with disabilities are often
dropped off in designated drop-off areas to access the facility.
Staging Area The staging area is generally defined as the waterfront

access area for dry-stack boaters to
• Access the launched boats from the dry-stack facility.

• Return boats to be retrieved by the dry-stack facility.
The marina design principles discussed in both this chapter and in

Chapter 3 also apply to waterfront staging areas for dry-stack marinas.
These principles include the proper planning and engineering design of

fixed and floating docks as well as associated shoreline stabilization.
Environmental constraints also need to be evaluated, including the design
of the staging area within a protected harbor from currents, waves, etc.
The staging area can be compared to a manufacturing assembly line.
During busy days boats need to be launched and boaters need to access
their boats and leave the docks in an efficient, orderly manner. This
process needs to be repeated for retrieval at the end of the boating day.
Dry-stack facilities do not have waterfront space for boaters to congregate
in the staging slips, as opposed to wet-slip marinas (Severance 1991). Any
delays in staging will compound the launching/retrieval operations and
deteriorate the marina experience with increased wait times.
Similar to the vehicle parking discussion in the above section, the
staging requirements are a function of the available waterfront and the
anticipated boating market. There may be waterfront upland area suitable
for a dry-stack building, but without sufficient waterfront area for staging,
the facility will not be operationally feasible. The industry standard is to
plan for a minimum of 10% staging for the capacity of the dry-stack facil-
ity (Tobiasson and Kollmeyer 2000). For a 200-rack facility, this equates to
20 staging slips sized for the boats utilizing the facility. Ideally, the staging
area can be planned as expanding out from the congested forklift launch-
ing area, as space permits. Considerations for the planning and design of
the staging area include
• Pedestrian protection: Provide safe and efficient access from the

upland area to the staging docks to protect marina customers.
• Market study: If the market study indicates a higher utilization of the
facility, then the staging slips should be increased accordingly.
• Provide a drop-off area: To facilitate loading/unloading of boating
equipment from the vehicle parking area.
• Concierge service: Rely on marina management to facilitate staging
operations.
• Barrier-free access: At least one staging dock must be accessible; the
ADA-ABA Accessibility Guidelines must be reviewed and applied.
Staging docks and planning are highly dependent on the planned

operations of a facility. Operators can prelaunch boats if sufficient notice
is provided by customers. Some marina operators have strict policies that
do not allow management to operate customer’s boats. In this case the
launching/retrieval area needs to be adjacent to the staging docks for

marina management to manually “pole” the boat to the specified staging
slip without operating the boat.
Specific Dry-Stack Utility Requirements Dry-stack marinas do not

have the wet-slip requirements for utilities, such as shore power. However,
sewage pump-out and fuel dispensing are essential requirements for a
dry-stack facility. Fuel can either be provided at the staging area, or dis-
pensers can be located upland for marina management to fuel the boats
prior to launching and/or retrieval as part of a concierge service. In addi-
tion to the normal sewage pump-out facilities on the staging docks, con-
sideration should be given to providing a sanitary dump station in con-
junction with the pump-out system. This station will allow boaters to
empty and clean portable holding tanks. The station should be provided
with appropriate freshwater rinsing capabilities. The increasing size of
boats being stored in dry-stack marinas also requires consideration of
potable water service on the staging docks.
Wash/Maintenance Racks Exterior racks are typically required in a

separate area out of the typical boat storage traffic pattern. These racks
are generally required for the following operations:
• Facilitate washing of boats after retrieval: For saltwater boating, boats

often require rinsing and engine flushing prior to being stored in the
rack facility.
• Boat maintenance: Performed by either (1) external contract service
companies, (2) marina management personnel, or (3) boat owners.
• Prestaging or retrieval: To facilitate operations on busy days.
The wash/maintenance racks must be accessible by the marina forklifts

and should have ample work space for personnel to easily access the
boats. The number of necessary racks will be dependent on the opera-
tional requirements of the facility. Ideally, the minimum number of racks
should be at least 5% of the dry-stack marina capacity. Wash-rack areas
will require specialized reclaimed water systems to prevent any runoff
from entering the stormwater management facilities for the upland marina
area. The drainage in the wash-rack area needs to be designed to accom-
modate these systems for both normal operations and for rainfall runoff.
State environmental agencies regulate surface stormwater runoff from
development, and most stormwater regulations do not allow runoff from
boat washing to enter either surrounding areas (off-site) or on-site storm-
water management systems. The reclaimed water systems have a high
installation cost but can provide significant cost savings in water usage
over a period of time.
Forklift Launching Design Considerations Forklift wheel loads and

operational considerations were presented previously in this chapter. The
forklift platform needs to be designed to properly accommodate the fork-
lift loads while launching and retrieving. The platform needs to be sized
to accommodate the launching and retrieval requirements of a facility.
Typically, the platform consists of either an open-piled waterfront struc-

tural pier or a platform integrated with a vertical bulkhead at the shore-
line interface.
Essential design criteria for the forklift platform include
• Forklift wheel loads and operational footprint

• Design water levels for negative lift of marina forklift
• For high water level variations, multiple level platforms may be
required
• Forklift wheel stops, coordinated with forklift manufacturer
• Site grades and stormwater management to prevent runoff into
water body
• Forklift launching/retrieval cycle time
• Adjacent staging docks to facilitate operations
• Allowance for future upgrades for larger equipment or expansion
of dry-stack facility.
REFERENCES
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

(AASHTO). (1999). Guide for the development of bicycle facilities, 3rd Ed.
Washington, DC.
Association of Marina Industries (AMI). (2011). <http://marinaassocia
tion.org> (Nov. 12, 2011).
Dodson, P. (1991). “Rack storage marinas in 1990’s.” Proc., World Marina
‘91, American Society of Civil Engineers, Long Beach, California, ASCE,
Reston, VA.
Grimont, D. (2008) “Clean, versatile, and underground.” Marina World,
48, 8(6).
James, J. (2008) “The benefits of the ‘automated’ option.” Marina World,
48, 8(6).
Maffet, W. (2002). “Adding the vertical dimension.” Marina World, July/
Aug.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). (2010). “Fire protection stan-
dard for pleasure and commercial motor craft.” NFPA 302, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2011a). “Fire protection standard for marinas and boatyards.”
NFPA 303, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2011b). “National Electrical Code.” NFPA 70, Quincy, MA.
NFPA. (2012). “Code for motor fuel dispensing facilities and repair
National Park Service (NPS). (2004). Clean marina guidebook. Washington,
DC.
Severance, D. (1991). “Dry-stack operations.” Proc., World Marina ‘91,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Long Beach, California, ASCE, Reston,

VA.
Spinazola, G. (2001). “The 12 commandments for safe dry storage.” Boat
and Motor Dealer, Dec.
Spinazola, G. (2002). “Fire protection for drystack storage buildings: High,
dry, safe?” Marina Dockage, Sept./Oct.
States Organization for Boating Access (SOBA). (2006). Design handbook for
recreational boating and fishing facilities, 2nd Ed. Warren, RI.
Sturner, A. (2007) “Building a dry storage marina that protects boats from
hurricanes.” (2007). Marina Dockage, July/Aug.
Tanski, J. (1998). Stormwater runoff best management practices for marinas: A
guide for operators. New York Sea Grant, <http://www.seagrant.sunysb.
edu/marina/pdfs/BMPsForMarinas.htm> (Nov. 12, 2011).
Tobiasson, B. O., and Kollmeyer, R. C. (2000). Marinas and small craft
harbors, 2nd Ed. Westviking Press, Medfield, MA.
U.S. Access Board. (2011). “Guidelines and standards.” <http://www.
access-board.gov/gs.htm> (Nov. 12, 2011).
Vertical Yacht Storage Systems (VYSS). (2006). “Scaling the heights.”
(2006). Marina World, 36, 6(6).
GLOSSARY
Abutment—The point where two structures meet; a structure on land

which supports a gangway or fixed dock.
Access Aisle—The designated aisle provided for access adjacent to an
accessible parking space.
Accessible Parking—Parking spaces designated and designed to accom-
modate persons with disabilities in accordance with ADA accessibility
guidelines (ADAAG).
Accessible Route—A route or path of travel consisting of surfaces, ramps,
and other features designed to accommodate persons with disabilities
in accordance with ADAAG.
Accretion—The process of coastal sediments returning to the visible portion
of a beach or shoreline following a submersion event; accumulation of
coastal sediments as a result of a change in shoreline geometry.
Aggregate—Coarse particulate material used in construction, including
sand, gravel, crushed stone, recycled concrete, etc.
Alternative Transportation—A mode of transportation other than via a
single-occupancy vehicle (e.g., transit, bicycle, carpool).
Anchor Pile—A vertically driven or set structural pile made of timber,
steel, concrete, or composite material, which is embedded into the
bottom of the harbor and provides lateral support for a floating dock.
Ancillary Facilities—Facilities at a harbor which are associated with, but
not integral to, the main functional operations of the harbor.
Approach Channel—A navigable channel leading to the entrance of a
harbor.
Apron—The part of a drive or sidewalk that provides a smooth transition
from one grade to another, such as at a curb; a concrete area at the
entrance to a building or garage.
347
348 GLOSSARY
Armor Stone—The outermost layer of stone on a rubble mound coastal

structure which is designed to absorb wave energy and protect a harbor
or shoreline from wave forces.
Asphalt Concrete—Also known as asphalt or bituminous pavement, a
petroleum-based, flexible pavement used commonly for parking lots
and driveways.
Attenuate—To reduce; in this context, the gradual reduction of wave
intensity and energy as the result of interaction with structures and
other influences.
Attenuator—A device, generally floating, to reduce but not totally elimi-
nate the effects of wave action.
Auxiliary Power—Electrical power provided as a backup in the event of
an emergency, or in an area where power is not needed on an ongoing
basis; often provided via generators.
Back-Flow Preventer—A device installed on a potable water line to isolate
the source water supply from a potentially contaminating on-site
source.
Bank—Sloping land, especially the slope beside a body of water.
Barrier-Free—Design of existing buildings or facilities to allow their use
by individuals with disabilities; more commonly referred to in the
United States as “accessible.”
Basin—The harbor, a naturally existing or artificially formed area, typi-
cally characterized by calm conditions and limited water depths.
Bathymetry—The measurement of the underwater depths of an ocean,
lake, or other body of water.
Beam—The maximum width of a vessel.
Bedding Layers—One or more layers of stone or other type of aggregate
used to create the foundation for a breakwater structure or
revetment.
Berth—A designated space to anchor, moor, or tie up a boat when not in
use; also referred to as Slip.
Berthing Area—An area within a harbor designated for the mooring or
berthing of multiple boats.
Bin Wall—One or a series of engineered steel box-like structures that,
when placed side-by-side, create a wall.
Bioengineer—Integration of vegetation or other habitat-enhancing fea-
tures, textures, or plant forms into a site or engineered structure such
as a breakwater or revetment.
Bioretention—A vegetated area graded into a depression with modified
engineered soils to allow stormwater runoff to infiltrate into the under-
lying soils or evapotranspirate.
Biorevetment—Integration of vegetation into shoreline-stabilizing revet-
ment structures to provide riparian habitat or stormwater
management.
GLOSSARY 349
Bioswale—A vegetated swale designed to convey and treat stormwater

runoff; can provide filtration of pollutants, infiltration, and
evapotranspiration.
Boarding Dock—A fixed or floating structure at a boat launch ramp to
provide boater access to and from a boat and land.
Boat Lift—A factory-built device attached to a dock for lifting boats above
the water while berthed.
Boom—A floating structure used for containment of floating material.
Bow Thruster—A transversal propulsion device built into, or mounted
to, the bow of a ship or boat to make it more maneuverable.
Breakwall—A vertical of battered thin profile barrier used to reflect
waves, typically constructed of concrete, steel, or timber that is pile-
supported and frequently is held suspended off the lake or seabed to
allow flushing and fish passage.
Breakwater—A barrier or structure built to break the force of incoming
waves, currents, or ice.
Bulkhead—A soil-retaining structure, typically vertical, at the shoreline;
usually of concrete, steel, or timber.
Bulkhead Line—A line officially set to demark territory to be treated as
dry land in jurisdictional situations.
Bumper Strip—An extruded vinyl strip in floating dock edges used to
provide moderate rubbing protection for boats.
Buoy—A floating navigational device usually used to mark channels or
identify submerged hazards.
Cantilever—A rigid structure supported at one end.
Cap—A fitting at the end of a pile.
Channel—A navigable route, sometimes demarked by buoys.
Clean Marina—A certification program run by states.
Cleat—A horned device on a dock or boat used to tie off mooring lines.
Cofferdam—An enclosure within a water environment constructed for
the purpose of creating a dry construction environment, often by
pumping water out of the enclosure.
Concrete Armor Units—Cast concrete shapes which, when placed
together on a breakwater structure or revetment, interlock to armor the
structure and dissipate wave forces; often used in applications where
Armor Stone is not readily available.
Commercial Harbor—A harbor that primarily exists to serve commercial
vessels such as ships and fishing boats; a working harbor.
Cradle—An upland device for storing boats.
Craft—Boat, barge, or ship.
Crosscurrent—A condition where flow may occur across the path of a
moving vessel or channel alignment.
Crosswind—A wind not in alignment with a vessel’s path of travel.
Current—Water flow direction and speed.
350 GLOSSARY
Davit—A crane-like device aboard a vessel to stow smaller vessels.

Deep Water Wave—A wave condition associated with a wave passing
over water that is at least one-half of the wavelength in depth.
Design High Water—The highest water elevation generally considered
during the design of a marina.
Design Life—In engineering terms, the usable life of a piece of

equipment.
Design Low Water—The lowest water level elevation generally consid-
ered for marina design.
Design Storm/Event—Conditions to be considered during design, usually
a combination of wind and wave impacts.
Design Wave—The combination of wave height and period used in the
development of wave impacts.
Diffraction—The bending of waves around an object in its path.
Diurnal—Once a day; in terms of tide, 24 hours 50 min (most tides are
semidiurnal or 12 hours 25 min).
Dock—An in-water structure for mooring vessels.
Dockside Utility Center—See Utility Center.
Downdraft—A downward current of air.
Draft—The depth of a vessel below the water line.
Dragline—A mechanical dredging device.
Drift Angle—The angle described between a vessel’s heading and its
actual path.
Dry-Stack Storage—An upland racked storage facility for boats.
Dry Standpipe—A fire protection piping system, normally dry.
Duration—Length of time.
Eddy—A small whirlpool or disturbed current.
Egress—The point or act of leaving an area.
Embankment—A linear mound at a water’s edge.
Entrance, Harbor or Marina—The opening of a breakwater or other pro-
tective structure separating the protected small craft harbor from
unprotected waters.
Environmental Stewardship—Consideration of and protection for ele-
ments of the natural environment.
Estuary—Generally a widening of a river discharge channel where it
meets the sea. Fresh water and seawater mingle creating a unique
ecosystem
Fairway—The navigable breadth of a channel, or the distance between
two adjacent docks.
Fascines—Bundled material such as sticks, grasses, or bamboo used for
shoreline protection.
Fetch—The distance that wind and waves can travel to a specified point
across open water relatively unimpeded.
Filament Mat—A natural geotextile fiber matting.
GLOSSARY 351
Filter Fabric—A geotextile matting used for erosion control.

Finger Pier—A stub float perpendicular to the mainwalk allowing access
to the side of the boat.
Floats—Devices that provide floatation to dockage systems.
Floodplain—The area near a river prone to inundation; definitions of the
floodplain line may vary depending on the regulatory agency defining

the plain.
Flotation—The method or material used to provide buoyancy to a floating
structure.
Freeboard—The height above water level to the surface of a dock or boat.
Gabion—A system of stone-filled baskets used as a retaining wall.
Gangway—A bridge from land to a dock or vessel.
Geotextile—A fabric used in erosion control and soil stabilization, usually
of a petroleum-based material.
Green Marina—A concept for developing best management practices
(BMPs) for operations at a marina that promote minimal impacts to the
environment.
Groin—A short barrier that extends from the shore to interrupt the migra-
tion of beach material.
Guardrail—A code-required railing or barrier used where the vertical drop
to another hard surface exceeds 60 cm (30 in.). Load capacity, spacing,
and opening requirements are identified in the applicable codes.
Guide Pile—A floating dock anchoring pile attached to the dock via
hoops, rollers, or boxes.
Habitat—The natural environment for an organism.
Harbor—A protected body of water used for boating and mooring.
Headwalk—A primary access dock that has Finger Piers attached to it.
Hose Bib—Water spigot.
Hydraulic Trailer—A specialty trailer used to haul boats to and from the
water at launch ramp facilities.
Impoundment—A built reservoir.
Incident Wave—The original (incoming) wave that is reflected, refracted,
or dissipated upon hitting a fixed object.
Indemnify—Insure.
Indigenous—A material or plant species that is native to or found locally
in the surrounding area.
Industrial Harbor—A commercial harbor for shipping.
Infiltration—In site design, the act of water penetration of a surface.
Ingress—The point or act of entering an area.
Intertidal Zone—The area along the shoreline between the high tide and
low tide elevations.
Ipe—An extremely hard and weather-resistant exotic hardwood com-
monly used for decking and other applications in environs subject to
harsh weather conditions.
352 GLOSSARY
Jacking, Pile—The action of ice at the water surface forcing a pile upward
as the ice expands and contracts.
Jetty—A fixed pier or structure projecting into the water from shore.
Launch Ramp—An inclined concrete or asphalt-paved surface designed
for launching and retrieval of trailered boats.
Lavatory—Sink, restroom.
Leeward—Downwind.
Littoral—Of or associated with the nearshore (shallow) waters along the
edge of a lake, sea, or ocean.
Littoral Transport—Material, usually sand, moved parallel to shore
caused by currents.
Live-Aboard—An individual who sleeps or stays on his or her boat for
an extended period of time.
Live Load—Superimposed temporary loads on a structure not including
dead loads, which is the weight of the structure and permanent
fixtures.
Longitudinal Current—Current moving in the same direction as a vessel
or channel.
Main Walk—A headwalk, or the principal collector walk of branching
headwalks.
Marginal Walk—An affixed or floating dock that typically wraps the
shoreline edge of a marina basin.
Marginal Walkway—The collector dock for headwalks.
Marina—A commercial or recreational facility designed to accommodate
boats and boating-related facilities.
Marine Borers—Marine invertebrates that bore into and, consequently,
damage timber in salt or brackish water.
Marine Railway—A rail system for launching and retrieval of boats from
the water.
Mean High Water (MHW)—The mean of the higher, e.g. mean of the
highest 10% water elevation expected under normal conditions.
Mean Higher High Water (MHHW)—The mean of the higher high water
occurrence, e.g. mean of the highest 1%.
Mean Low Water (MLW)—The mean of the lower, e.g. mean of the lower
10% water elevation expected under normal conditions.
Mean Lower low Water (MLLW)—The mean of the lower low water
occurrence, e.g. mean of the lowest 1%.
Mega-Yacht—Large recreational vessel, usually 30 m (100 ft) or longer.
Mitigate—For wetlands, to compensate for the loss of a wetland’s carry-
ing capacities due to construction.
Monochromatic—Having a single-wave periodicity or frequency.
Mooring Pile—A pile used to provide an additional mooring point.
Native Plant—A plant species that originated locally and typically thrives
in the local weather climate without the need for irrigation or other
special considerations.
GLOSSARY 353
Navigable—A channel or harbor area that is suitable for boat traffic due
to adequate water depths and above-water height clearances, etc.
Numerical Model—A computer-based model used to simulate the move-
ment of sediment and the impacts of a coastal structure on sediment
accretion and drift.
Ordinary High Water Mark—The point on a bank or shore up to which the

presence and action of the water is so continuous as to leave a distinct
mark either by erosion, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, or other easily
recognized characteristic; often used to define regulatory jurisdiction.
Overflow Parking—A vehicle parking area set aside for peak-demand
events or high-usage periods; often unpaved or located remotely from
the main harbor parking lots.
Overtopping—Flooding or spray of water occurring when a wave height
exceeds the top of a revetment or breakwater structure.
Parking Ratio—The number of vehicle parking spaces provided at a
harbor divided by the number of total wet and/or dry berths.
Passerelle—A ladder or walkway attached to a large boat or yacht used
for accessing adjacent docks or bulkheads when berthed.
Patron—Customer, slip-holder, or visitor; typically an individual who
utilizes a facility or spends money there.
Perched Wetland—A wetland area at a higher elevation than the normal
water table which becomes inundated during high water periods.
Pervious Pavement—A pavement surface designed with the minimal use
of fine aggregates to allow infiltration of surface runoff through the
pavement surface; also known as porous pavement.
Physical Model—A scaled model constructed in a wave tank to simulate
wave dynamics for design and optimization of coastal structures.
Pier— An open legged pile supported structure extending out from shore
for access or vessel mooring
Pile—A wood, steel, concrete, or composite vertical structure used to
support or restrain a dock.
Pontoon—Synonym for Float.
Potable Water—Water that meets quality standards suitable for human
consumption (drinking).
Power Pedestal—See Utility Center.
Profile—In site design, a drawing illustrating the vertical section of a
portion of the site.
Programming—During facilities planning, the act of determining the
various activities that will take place at a harbor and their associated
land-use needs.
Promenade—An upland walkway, usually near and parallel to shore.
Pump-Out Station—A device, usually attached to a sanitary system, for
evacuating boat sanitary holding tanks.
Quay—A shore parallel dock face, wholly solid masonry construction
used for berthing.
354 GLOSSARY
Queuing Area—Where vehicles line up, or queue, while waiting to gain

access to a launch ramp, boat wash-down station, or other facility.
Quiescent—Still, quiet, calm.
Rain Garden—A vegetated depression that collects stormwater runoff
from impervious areas and allows it to infiltrate or evapotranspirate;
typically planted with native plants.

Recreational Harbor—A harbor that primarily serves noncommercial
customers such as recreational boaters, tourists, and other visitors.
Recreational Vehicle—A road-going vehicle that includes sleeping cham-
bers; also called an RV or motor home.
Refraction—The change of direction of a wave caused by a change in
depth of the water.
Retail—The sale of goods to consumers.
Retrieval—The action of taking a boat out of the water by means of a
trailer or other method.
Return Period—The length of time over which a storm event of a certain
size and intensity is statistically likely to reoccur (e.g., 25-year, 100-
year); the inverse of the probability of an event occurring in any one
year (e.g., 4%, 1%).
Revetment—A rock armoring or rubble berm constructed to protect a
shoreline or embankment from erosive forces such as waves.
Riparian—Relating to rights of ownership on a river, as opposed to lit-
toral (lake ownership).
Riprap—Ungrouted stone work usually associated with shoreline protec-
tion or breakwater construction.
Rock Crib—A structure, often wood, with a rock-filled interior for ballast
and wave attenuation.
Rubble—Rough broken stone.
Rub-Rail—A protective rail on a boat or along a dock to mitigate damage
due to rubbing.
Runoff—Stormwater that is not absorbed or infiltrated on the ground
surface but travels across the ground.
Runup—The amount of upwash occurring when a wave collides with a
sloped structure face.
Salinity—Salt concentration in seawater.
Sand Bar—An area where sand has accumulated to create a land mass
visible above water level.
Sanitary Facilities—Facilities associated with the proper handling of
human waste or other organic materials such as fish offal.
Scour—The removal of materials caused by wave, current, or
turbulence.
Seiche—A standing wave in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of
water.
Seismic—Of or caused by an earthquake.
GLOSSARY 355
Service Vehicle—A vehicle used by harbor staff or a utility company for

accessing facilities to be serviced on a routine basis.
Set Up—The super elevation of the mean water surface due to the pile
up of waves against a beach or slope.
Sheet Pile—Steel, vinyl, or fiberglass interlocking sheeting used to
develop an edge at the shoreline or to retain soils.

Ship’s Store—Originally a boat outfitter’s store; more recently, a store that
is often located at a harbor that sells sundries, ice, souvenirs, maps,
snacks, etc.
Shoal—To become more shallow.
Shoreline—The place where the water and the uplands meet; the water’s
edge.
Significant Wave Height—The average height of the largest one-third of
the waves being observed.
Siltation—The deposition of silt and sands.
Slip—Also known as a Berth, typically a defined space along a pier, dock,
or wharf for tying up and mooring a boat when not at sea; usually
accessible by land.
Slip-Holder—An individual who rents a slip or berth for the duration of
a season for mooring of a boat.
Slope—The inclination of a surface expressed in terms of rise/run or
percent.
Small Craft Harbor—A basin in a body of water that provides protection
from the elements (waves, wind, tides, currents, etc.) for a variety of
commercial and recreational shallow draft [less than 6 m (20 ft)]
watercraft.
Solid Waste—Garbage, trash, recyclable items, litter, food scraps, and
other similar disposable items generated by human activities.
Splash Zone—The zone on a vertical wall above the normal water eleva-
tion but comes in contact with water as a result of waves and other
water surface disturbances.
Spud Pile—A small-diameter pile or post used to anchor docks in shallow
water applications.
Staging Area—Also known as a make-ready area, an area near a boat
launch ramp designated for boaters to prepare boats for launching.
Stakeholder—An individual or group that uses a facility or is directly
influenced by the facility in some way, and has an interest in how it is
run and decisions that are made (e.g., a vendor, a regulatory agency, or
slip-holder).
Standpipe—see Dry Standpipe.
Storm Surge—An offshore rise in water elevation; typically caused by
high winds in a storm event pushing on the ocean’s surface.
Straddle Hoist—see Travel Lift.
Stringer—A horizontal structural member used to support decking.
356 GLOSSARY
Suspended Solids—Sediment and other solids of such small size that

they may be carried with the flow of water throughout the water
column.
Sustainable—Environmentally conscious, low-impact, able to be sus-
tained with minimal input.
Swells—Waves that are generated by distant storms and, due to varying

propagation speeds, tend to be longer-period and more monochro-
matic in period.
Tidal Period—In most places a tidal period is semidiurnal, or approxi-
mately 12 hours 25 min from peak to peak.
Tidal Velocity—The speed of the current generated by a tide flow or ebb.
Tie-Downs—Straps used to secure a boat to a trailer.
Timber—Wood used for construction of docks and other marine
structures.
Transient—A patron who temporarily moors at a harbor for a limited
duration (not a seasonal slip-holder); often moves from harbor to
harbor.
Transition Plate—A plate used to eliminate tripping hazards from one
surface to another, such as from a gangway to a dock.
Travel Lift—A mobile, self-propelled boat lift for transporting boats rela-
tively short distances through dockyards.
Tsunami—A very long-period sea wave created by underwater seismic
disturbances, which becomes amplified in shallow bays.
Turning Radius—The minimum arc or area needed to turn a vessel or
vehicle to a new heading.
Turnover Rate—The rate at which new water enters a basin and flushes
out older stagnant water, maintaining water quality within a basin.
Unisex Restroom—A private restroom available to men or women, typi-
cally with key access or other secure entrance.
Upland—The part of the harbor or marina that is on land (typically adja-
cent to the water).
Uplift—Upward external vertical forces.
Urban Harbor—A harbor located near an urban area or large population
center.
Utility Center—Also called a Pedestal, a UL-listed appliance mounted on
a dock or bulkhead near a boat slip that houses circuit breakers, power
receptacles, water hook-ups, and communications utilities.
Vegetated Buffer—A strip of vegetation along a water body used to filter
and absorb pollutants from stormwater; can also provide habitat and
aesthetic functions on the shoreline.
Vehicle—An automobile, passenger car, light truck, sport utility vehicle
(SUV), or recreational vehicle (RV).
Vehicle-Trailer—A vehicle with an attached trailer for the purpose of
transporting a boat.
GLOSSARY 357
Vertical Curve—In site design, the curve transcribed in an elevation

view.
Vessel—A floating transportation device; a boat, yacht, barge, raft, float,
or ship.
Vortex Catch Basin—An underground storm sewer structure that uses
the velocity of the stormwater to “spin” suspended material out of the

flow for disposal.
Wake—The wave generated as a result of displacement of water by a
moving vessel.
Waler—Horizontal structural member used to help anchor retaining walls
or stiffen floating docks.
Warping—The act of physically pivoting a boat around the end of a
Finger Pier or Mooring Pile to position it into a Slip.
Wash-Down Station—An area designated for washing boats with a
source of clean water before launching or after Retrieval for boat main-
tenance or invasive species control.
Waterfront—The upland area immediately adjacent to the water.
Waterline—The intersection of a vessel or structure and the water.
Wave Attenuator—A structure, typically floating, designed to partially
mitigate waves.
Wave, Breaking—A wave that, upon reaching shallow water depths,
slows down such that the velocity of the top of the wave exceeds the
velocity of the bottom of the wave, causing it to topple, or “break,” as
in a surf zone.
Wave Climate—A summary of all waves, their heights, and periods
within an area of interest; usually expressed as a percentage of occur-
rence and by direction.
Wave Crest—The highest point of the undulating water surface.
Wave Direction—The apparent direction of a wave over time.
Wave Force—The strength of a wave as it strikes a structure.
Wave Height—The sum of the wave crest and the wave trough height
about the still-water line.
Wave Length—The distance between two consecutive wave crests.
Wave Period—The time between wave crests.
Wave Reflection—The amount of wave energy deflected back from a
surface.
Wave Train—A series of waves in sequence.
Wave Trough—The lowest point of an undulating surface
Wet Berth—An in-water boat slip; a wet slip.
Wharf—A structure projecting into the harbor that allows mooring of
vessels.
Wind Load—The force of design winds on the docks and the moored
vessels.
Windward—Upwind.
358 GLOSSARY
Winterize—The action of preparing facilities for cold weather and pro-

tecting them against damaging effects such as pipes freezing, ice forma-
tion, etc.
Yaw—Deviation of the vessel direction from the heading.
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASHTO—American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials
ABA—Architectural Barriers Act
ABM—articulated concrete block mattresses
ACES—Automated Coastal Engineering System
ACI—American Concrete Institute
ACQ—alkaline copper quaternary (a chemical used to treat marine timber
to protect it from insects and marine borers)
ADA—Americans with Disabilities Act
ADAAG—Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines
AHJ—authority having jurisdiction
AMI—Association of Marine Industries
AST—aboveground storage tank
ASTM—American Society for Testing and Materials
AWPA—American Wood Protection Association
BMP—Best Management Practice
CCA—chromated copper arsenate (a chemical used to treat marine timber
to protect it from insects and marine borers)
CCTV—closed-circuit television
CEM—Coastal Engineering Manual
CIRIA—Construction Industry Research and Information Association
CUR—Centre for Civil Engineering Research & Codes (Netherlands)
DBW—California Department of Boating and Waterways, Division of
Boating Facilities
FDA—U.S. Food and Drug Administration
FDC—fire department connection
FRP—fiber-reinforced plastic
359
360 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
HDPE—high-density polyethylene
IP—Internet protocol
IT—information technology
ITE—Institute of Transportation Engineers
LEED—Leadership in Education and Environmental Design
MLLW—mean lower low water

MSE—mechanically stabilized earth
NEC—National Electrical Code
NFPA—National Fire Protection Association
NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES—National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS NEH—Natural Resources Conservation Service National Engineer-
ing Handbook
NSF—National Sanitation Foundation
PIANC—Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses
PVC—polyvinyl chloride
RF—radio frequency
SOBA—States Organization for Boating Access
SSPC—Steel Structures Painting Council
SUV—sport utility vehicle
SYP—southern yellow pine
THWN—thermoplastic high-water-resistant nylon-coated (a type of wire
insulation)
ULI—Urban Land Institute
UFC—Unified Facilities Criteria
UHMWP—ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene
USACE—U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USCG—United States Coast Guard
USC&GS—U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey
USGS—United States Geological Survey
USDA—U.S. Department of Agriculture
USDOT—U.S. Department of Transportation
USDOI—U.S. Department of the Interior
USEPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USGBC—U.S. Green Building Council
UST—underground storage tank
UV—ultra-violet
VDT—voice, data, and television
INDEX
Note: Page numbers followed by t indicate a table. Those followed by f indicate

a figure.
access doors, 331 bicycles. see pedestrians and bicycles

access structures, 62–63 boater parking, 288–289
accessible parking, 289–290, 289t, 290t boats: building, 315–316; handling
administration: buildings, 18, 19f; equipment, 311–315, 312f, 313f,
harbor administration facilities, 314f, 315f; maintenance, 65; repair,
316–317, 317f 315–316; sales, 11–12; space
aisle and slip clearances, 31–32, 32f demand, 31
allowable turns, 114–115 breakwaters and attenuators, 60–62,
amenities. see facilities and amenities 61f, 132–138; armor design, 152–154,
armor: design, 152–154, 153f; quality, 153f; armor quality, 156–158, 157f;
156–158, 157f; stone shape and size, armor stone shape and size, 155–
155–156, 156f 156, 156f; costs, 159–160, 160f; crest
attenuators. see breakwaters and sizing, 158–159; fixed, 139–142, 140f,
attenuators 141f, 142f; harbor wave protection,
auto traffic, 65 139–142, 140f, 141f, 142f; wave
interaction, 137f; wave reflection
basin agitation, 119–124, 120f, 121f, control, 138f
122f, 123f building height, 328–331, 330f
basin depths, 29–30, 30t bulkheads, 205–210; aluminum, 207f;
basin flushing, 18–19, 28–29 concrete king pile, 208f; precast
basin hydrodynamics, 164–173; harbor concrete block wall, 209f; steel sheet
entrance location, 169–173, 170f, pile, 206f
171f, 172f; water quality and
circulation, 164–169, 166f, 169f capital funding, 79–87; developer
beaches, 195–197, 196f recruitment, 85–87; sources of risk,
berthing tranquility, 124–132, 125f, 80–82
126f, 127f, 128f, 128t, 129t, 131–132f clean marina programs, 300
361
362 INDEX
cleats and bollards, 253–254 electrical service, 264–270, 271f; dock

commercial facilities, 320–321 boxes, 270f; power source
commercial fishing, 24, 25f configuration comparison, 266t;
crane systems, 337–339, 340f, 341f transformer and distribution panel,
268f; twist-lock receptacles, 269f;
design criteria, 106–108, 107f vessel power requirements, 269t

developer recruitment, 85–87 entrance channel depths, 113–114, 114f
dinghy landing and storage, 39 entrance orientations, 112–113
dockage layout, 42, 43f environmental and land-use issues,
docks, 212–278, 213f; accessibility, 258– 51–58; air quality, 56; coastal
264, 260f, 261f, 262f, 263f; processes, 56–57; dynamic
accessories, 254–258, 255f, 256f, 257f, processes, 54–55; natural processes,
258f; aluminum, 228–229; cleats and 54; navigation safety, 57–58; noise,
bollards, 253–254; communication 55; ownership, 51–52; pollutant
and security, 270–273; composite sources, 53–54; public access, 58;
materials, 229; concrete, 226–227; right-of-way, 51–52; riparian rights,
current loads, 220–221; dead loads, 51–52; soils, 55; traffic, 57; water
222–223; design guidance, 262–264, quality, 53; wetlands, 52–53
262f, 263f; design loads, 222–225, environmental considerations in site
223t; electrical service, 264–270, design, 297–300, 298f, 299f
266t, 268f, 269f, 269t, 270f, 271f; environmental loads, 213–216, 215t
environmental impacts, 222; environmental specifications, 93–106;
environmental loads, 213–216, 215t; waves, 94–106, 96f, 97f, 100t, 105t;
fingers, 262, 262f; fire suppression, winds, 93–94, 94f, 95f
276–278; fixed piers, 230–237;
gangways, 259–262, 260f, 261f; facilities and amenities, 18–27;
geotechnical conditions, 221–222; ice administration buildings, 18, 19f;
and snow, 221; live load, 223–224, basin flushing, 18–19; commercial
223t, 224t; materials for, 225–229; fishing, 24, 25f; covered slips, 20,
mechanical utilities, 273–278; 20f; dock boxes, 20, 21f; fuel
mooring/fender, 251–253; plastic stations, 22, 22f; loading/unloading
materials, 229; potable water, 274– area, 25, 26f; open slips, 22, 23f;
275; sanitary pump-pout, 275–276; upland support facilities, 321–323,
seismic activity, 221; steel, 227–228; 323f
stone, 229; timber, 225–226; utilities, filling activities, 62
264–278; vessel impact load, 224– financial feasibility assessment, 73–79;
225; wind loads on berthed vessels, capital costs, 75–78; operating
216–220, 218f, 219t income and expense projections,
docks, floating, 237–251; anchorage, 78–79
248–249; concrete, 245–246; fire suppression, 276–278, 339–342
construction types, 243–244; covered forklifts: and drystack marinas, 335–
slips, 249–250, 249f, 250f; decking, 337, 336f, 338f, 345; upland support
247–248; design considerations, 240– facilities, 315
243; design guidance, 237–240, 238f, fuel stations, 39, 64
239f, 240f; floatation, 246–247;
performance specifications, 243; gangways, 259–262, 260f, 261f
wood, 244–245 general layout, 32–39
dredging, 58–59 gunite slopes, 211–212, 211f, 212f
INDEX 363
habitat creation, 299 legal and regulatory issues, 65–73;

harbor administration facilities, 316– federal agencies, 67–71; local
317, 317f agencies, 72–73; state agencies,
harbor configuration planning, 27–41; 71–72
aisle and slip clearances, 31–32, 32f; lighting, 331
basin depths, 29–30, 30t; basin litter and refuse, 65

flushing, 28–29; boat space demand, loads: current, 220–221; dead,
31; dinghy landing and storage, 39; 222–223; design, 222–225, 223t;
fuel stations, 39; general layout, environmental, 213–216, 215t;
32–39; interior channel, 31; landside live, 223–224, 223t, 224t; vessel
arrangements, 40–41; launch ramps, impact, 224–225; wind, 216–220,
39; marina siting considerations, 218f, 219t
27–28; mooring field, 39; shoreline
stabilization, 29; slip layout, 33–36; marina location criteria, 12–18, 13f,
vertical clearance, 30; waterside 14f, 15f, 17f, 27–28
access and approach, 29; wet slip marina operations, 63
construction, 30 marina siting considerations, 27–28
harbor entrances, 108–119, 169–173, marinas, drystack, 326–345; access
170f, 171f, 172f; allowable turns, doors, 331; building height, 328–331,
114–115; entrance channel depths, 330f; crane systems, 337–339, 340f,
113–114, 114f; entrance orientations, 341f; design considerations, 328–342;
112–113; interior waterways, 115– fire suppression, 339–342; forklifts,
119, 115f, 117f, 118f, 119f; location, 335–337, 336f, 338f, 345; handling
169–173, 170f, 171f, 172f; offshore equipment, 335–339, 336f, 338f;
approach corridors, 108–112, 109f, lighting, 331; overview, 326–327;
109t, 111f, 112f rack design, 332–333, 332f, 334t; site
harbor wave protection, 138–148; fixed design considerations, 342–345; site
breakwaters, 139–142, 140f, 141f, planning criteria, 328; staging area,
142f; wave transmission over 342–344; types of storage, 328, 329f;
structures, 142–148, 143f, 144f, 145f, utility requirements, 344; vehicle
146f, 147f parking, 342; ventilation, 331; wash
harbors: design, 90–93, 92f; entrance and maintenance racks, 344
location, 169–173, 170f, 171f, 172f; market demand analysis, 5–12
resonance, 133–134f, 135–136f mitigation and sustainability, 58–65,
60f, 61f; access structures, 62–63;
image and atmosphere, 300–303; auto traffic, 65; boat maintenance,
harbor entry features, 301f; security 65; breakwaters, 60–62, 61f;
gates, 302f, 303f dredging, 58–59; filling activities, 62;
interior channel, 31 fuel stations, 64; litter and refuse,
interior waterways, 115–119; fairway 65; marina operations, 63; shoreline
dimensions, 115f, 117f, 118f; structures, 59–69, 60f; stormwater
pitchfork pier berthing, 119f management, 64; wastewater
management, 63–64; wave
landside arrangements, 40–41 attenuation, 60–62, 61f
land-use issues. see environmental and mooring field, 39
land-use issues
launch ramps, 39, 307–311, 308f, 309f offshore approach corridors, 108–112,
layout, 32–39, 34t, 35t, 36f, 37f, 38f 109f, 109t, 111f, 112f
364 INDEX
parking: accessible, 289–290, 289t, systems, 299–300; vehicle-trailer

290t; boater, 288–289; site design, parking, 290–292, 291t, 292f;
288–292; vehicle, 342; vehicle-trailer, vehicular circulation, 286–288, 287f
290–292, 291t, 292f site investigation, 42–51, 44f, 46f, 47f;
pedestrians and bicycles, 293–297, environmental framework planning,
293f, 294f, 295f, 296f 45–46; hydrographic survey

piers: concrete, 232–233, 232f, 233f, equipment, 44f; technical analysis,
234f; covered slips, 233–234; design 46–51, 47f
guidance, 230; fixed, 230–237; utility site planning criteria, 328
integration, 234–237, 235f, 236t; slip layout, 33–36
wood, 230–232, 231f slips: covered, 20, 20f; layout, 33–36,
planning, 3–5, 16f 34t, 35t, 36f, 37f, 38f; open, 22, 23f;
wet, 30
rack design, 332–333, 332f, 334t storage: dry, 11; wet, 9–11, 10f
recreation facilities, 323–326, 324f, 325f storage yards, 316
restroom and shower facilities, 317– stormwater management: mitigation
320, 317f, 320f and sustainability, 64; site design,
revetments, 199–204, 202f, 203f 297–298, 298f, 299f
rivers, 175–179, 177f, 178f, 179f, sustainability. see mitigation and
182–183 sustainability
sustainable design rating systems,
sedimentation, 173–185, 173f, 174f; 299–300
coasts, 179–182, 180f; rivers, 175–
179, 177f, 178f, 179f, 182–183; technical analysis, 46–51, 47f
sediment bypassing, 183–185, 183f,
184f upland support facilities, 307–326;
shoreline stabilization, 29, 192–212; amenities, 321–323, 323f; boat
beaches, 195–197, 196f; bulkheads, building, 315–316; boat handling
205–210, 206f, 207f, 208f, 209f; gunite equipment, 311–315, 312f, 313f, 314f,
slopes, 211–212, 211f, 212f; overview, 315f; boat repair, 315–316;
192–195, 193t; revetments, 199–204, commercial facilities, 320–321;
202f, 203f; vegetated banks, 197–199, forklifts, 315; harbor administration
199f, 200f facilities, 316–317, 317f; launch
shoreline structures, 59–69, 60f ramps, 307–311, 308f, 309f;
site access, 286–288, 287f recreation facilities, 323–326, 324f,
site design, 286–303; accessible 325f; restroom and shower facilities,
parking, 289–290, 289t, 290t; boater 317–320, 317f, 320f; storage yards,
parking, 288–289; clean marina 316
programs, 300; and drystack utilities and services, 303–307;
marinas, 342–345; environmental communications, 305; electrical
considerations, 297–300, 298f, 299f; service, 304–305; fire suppression,
habitat creation, 299; image and 304; fuel storage, 305–307; natural
atmosphere, 300–303, 301f, 302f, gas, 305; potable water, 304; sanitary
303f; parking, 288–292; pedestrians systems, 304
and bicycles, 293–297, 293f, 294f, utility requirements, 344
295f, 296f; site access, 286–288, 287f;
stormwater management, 297–298, vegetated banks, 197–199, 199f, 200f
298f, 299f; sustainable design rating vehicle parking, 342
INDEX 365
vehicle-trailer parking, 290–292, 291t, breakwater armor design, 152–154,

292f 153f; breakwater costs, 159–160,
vehicular circulation, 286–288, 287f 160f; crest sizing, 158–159; floating
ventilation, 331 wave attenuators, 161–164, 161f,
vertical clearance, 30 162f, 163f
waves, 94–106, 96f, 97f, 100t, 105t;

wash and maintenance racks, 344 currents, 100–101; field categories,
wastewater management, 63–64 96–98, 97f; properties of, 94–96, 96f;
waterside access and approach, 29 property calculations, 98–100, 100t;
wave attenuation, 60–62, 61f, 278–282, reflection control, 148–164, 149f,
279f, 280f 150f, 151f, 152f; transmission over
wave reflection control, 148–164, 149f, structures, 142–148, 143f, 144f, 145f,
150f, 151f, 152f; armor placement 146f, 147f; water levels, 101–106,
and construction, 154–155; armor 105t
quality, 156–158, 157f; armor stone wet slip construction, 30
shape and size, 155–156, 156f; winds, 93–94, 94f

ASCE 50 Small Craft Harbors

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASCE 50 Small Craft Harbors

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

loaded from ascelibrary.org by Shaun McFarlane on 04/30/14. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights res

Planning and Design

Published by American Society of Civil Engineers

Copyright © 2012 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.

(As developed by the ASCE Technical Procedures Committee, July 1930,

A manual or report in this series consists of an orderly presentation of

Furthermore, material in this series, in distinction from a paper (which

In February 1962 (and revised in April 1982) the Board of Direction

45 How to Select and Work Effectively Organic Pollutants: Analysis and

PREFACE ..................................................................................................... vii

1 PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND FINANCIAL

Basin Agitation ...................................................................................... 119

Basin Hydrodynamics .......................................................................... 164

GLOSSARY ................................................................................................. 347

Marina development has changed signiﬁcantly since ASCE Manuals

goals. Every harbor development project presents unique market oppor-

This holistic design approach incorporating integrated technical, scien-

Fred A. Klancnik, P.E., F.ASCE

this manual during editing. In addition, Jeffrey Layton (President and

In everyday conversation the terms “harbor” and “marina” are often

Providing visual and physical access to the water’s edge is an impor-

THE PLANNING PROCESS

community groups; and it provides a conduit of information between the

Programming Constraints Alternative Master

Fig. 1-1. Planning process diagram

forth by the planning process. Land-use diagrams can be used to begin

The second step in developing a small craft harbor is a culmination of

Guiding Principles, Goals, and Objectives

MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS

market. Comparing the region of concern with similarly developed

(MOAA) may provide up-to-date information in researching the market.

In addition to physical features, it is also important to note ownership,

Deﬁning the Market Area

Evaluating and Projecting Market Area Demand

Demographic and economic data are usually available from federal,

Consideration should be given to the latest trends and advancements

The question of supply availability—or berths available to satisfy effec-

boats in certain size categories if berths were available.

Fig. 1-2. Belmont Harbor, Chicago, Illinois. Belmont Harbor is located in

Boater registration ﬁgures can be helpful in estimating demand. Most

Dry Storage Once wet-storage demand projections are made, similar

Boating-Related Goods and Services The number of boats to be wet-

Boat Sales It is rather difﬁcult to determine the optimal size of new

Net Demand and Project Absorption

MARINA LOCATION CRITERIA

It is possible to conduct an initial screening of potential sites by gather-

reasonable cost, good vehicular and pedestrian access, environmental

areas, governments are promoting and subsidizing new harbors as eco-

Fig. 1-3. In the state of Washington, Gig Harbor is a naturally protected

behind an island or sheltered by a peninsula. Harbors can be formed by

Fig. 1-6. Off-shore harbor construction at Reefpoint Marina, Racine,

considered carefully before making the decision to develop a harbor at a

mental resources, cleanup of contamination, and changes in local land use

for such a site could be on the low end of the spectrum.

DETERMINING FACILITIES AND AMENITIES

As part of the planning process it is essential to select the facilities to

Waterside Program Elements

Anchorage Basin Anchorage basins serving boats on mooring buoys

Basin Flushing The basin should be planned to take maximum

Fig. 1-8. Marina administration building, Duncan L. Clinch Marina, Traverse

the circulation of these as little as possible. The objective should be to

Boating School and Boat Rental Many full-service marinas offer