Conservation Mooring Report

7/25/2019 Conservation Mooring Report

1/39

ConservationMooringStudy

January2013

ProducedbytheUrbanHarborsInstitute,UniversityofMassachusettsBoston

WithfundingfromTheNatureConservancyandtheMassachusettsBaysProgram


2/39

TABLEOFCONTENTS

ExecutiveSummary......................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 2

MooringSystem

Options

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

2

EcologicalIssues.............................................................................................................................. 6

FunctionalConcernsandComparison............................................................................................ 9

EconomicConsiderations.............................................................................................................. 15

RegulatoryAnalysis....................................................................................................................... 19

Recommendations,ImplementationStrategies,andConclusions...............................................28

Resources...................................................................................................................................... 31


3/39

ConservationMooringStudy January2013 Page1

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

EelgrassisacriticalcomponentofMassachusettscoastalhabitat,providingecosystemservicessuchas

shoreandsedimentstabilization,foodprovisioning,andwaterqualityimprovement. Despitethe

tremendousecologicalandeconomicalsignificanceofeelgrass,theStatehasdocumentedwidespread

declinesineelgrassfrom19942007;andthetrendoflossiscontinuinginmanypartsofStatewaters.

Whiletherearemultiplefactorscontributingtoeelgrassloss,thisstudyfocusesontheimpactsofboat

mooringsineelgrassbeds,lookingat(1)theimpactsofconventionalmoorings,whichhavesubstantial

contactwiththeseafloor,andwhichhavebeenshowntocreatedenudedareas,depressionsinthe

seafloor,andimpairedwaterqualityrelatedtoincreasedturbidity;and(2)thepotentialofconservation

moorings,whichreducecontactwiththeseafloor,topreventlossofeelgrassandtorestorebenthic

habitats. Thisstudyalsoconsiderstheeconomic,functional,andregulatoryaspectsofconservationand

conventionalmoorings,makingthefollowingconclusions:

Conservationmooringsmayholdvesselsbetterthanconventionalmooringswhendesignedand

installedproperly.

Conservationmooringsarelikelytocostmorethanconventionalmooringsintermsofupfront

costs,but

may

be

more

economical

over

the

lifetime

of

amooring.

Conservationmooringsappeartocauseminimalimpactstoeelgrassbeds.

Itislessexpensivetoinstallaconservationmooringinaneelgrassbedtominimizeeelgrassloss

thanitistotrytorestoretheeelgrassofamooringscaronceithasbeenlost.

Thoughtheyarenotappropriateforallharborsduetoharborconditions,conservationmooringsmay

havemanybenefits,especiallywheninstalledonhelicalanchors. Additionally,despitethepotentialto

reduceimpactstoeelgrass,therearemanybarrierstoencouragingtheuseofconservationmoorings.

Someofthosebarriersincludetheupfrontcostsofconservationmoorings,reluctancewithinthe

boatingcommunitytomakechanges,lackofindependentverificationofmanufacturerclaimsregarding

holdingabilities,andinsufficientboatereducationregardingtheimportanceofeelgrassandtheimpacts

ofmoorings.

Thisstudy

presents

several

recommendations

to

better

understand

and

promote

the

appropriate

use

of

conservationmooringsinMassachusetts. Morespecifically,thisstudymakesthefollowing

recommendations:

IncludeconservationmooringsinStateapprovedharborplans(310CMR23)sothatState

decisionsareconsistentwithtownvisionsforlowimpactmoorings.

Educateboatersabouttheimportanceofeelgrassandtheimpactsofconventionalmoorings

versusconservationmoorings.

Educateboatersaboutthelongtermcostcomparisonofconservationandconventional

moorings.

Developandsharebetterinformationregardingtheholdingcapacitiesofconservation

moorings.

Identifyand/orprovideincentivesorfundingtooffsetsomeoftheupfrontexpensesassociated

withconservationmoorings.

EnforcecompliancewithArmyCorpsregulationsforactivitiesineelgrass.

Encouragelocalmooringinstallerstoofferservicesforconservationmoorings.

Monitortheinstallationofconservationmooringsineelgrasstoimprovescientificevidence

regardingenvironmentalimpact,andcontinuetosupportprojectsthatalreadymonitorthe

installationofmooringsineelgrass.


4/39


INTRODUCTION

MostboaterswhomoortheirvesselsinMassachusettswatershavetraditionallyemployedfree

swinging

moorings

that

use

heavy

bottom

chain.

In

important

sensitive

habitats

such

as

eelgrass

beds,

thesetypesofmooringsoftenhavenegativeimpactsonthebenthichabitatfromthecircular

movementofthechainaroundtheanchorpoint,and/orfromtheanchoritself.

Thisdocumentobjectivelydescribesthedifferentcharacteristicsofconventionalmooringsversus

conservationmooringsdesignedtominimizedisruptiontothebenthichabitat.Thisreportincludes

discussionsonthefollowingtopics:

Technologiesavailable

Ecologicalimpacts

Functionaldifferences

Economical

differences

Regulatoryissues

Thesecomparisons,alongwithconcludingrecommendations,willhelpboatersandcommunitiesdecide

whetherornotconservationmooringsareappropriatefortheirmooringandconservationneeds.

MOORINGSYSTEMOPTIONS

Typically,mooringsystemsaremadeupofananchoringsystemontheseafloor,afloatationdeviceon

theseasurfacewhichconnectstothevessel,andarodemechanismconnectingtheanchor(s)tothe

floatationdevice. Thereareavarietyofwaysthatamooringcanbestructured;andtherearealso

differencesin

moorings

depending

on

how

they

function

with

regard

to

the

surrounding

environment.

Mooringscanbebrokenintotwocategorieswithregardtotheirimpactontheenvironment:

conventionalmooringsandconservationmoorings.

ConventionalMoorings

Conventional,ortraditional,mooringsgenerallyuse

ananchororasystemofanchorsdesignedtosetinto

theseafloor,suchasmushroomorpyramidanchors.

Analternativetothisdragtypeofanchoringsystem

aregravityanchorswherethesheerweightofthe

anchor,(e.g.,aconcreteorgraniteblock)isintended

tokeepmooredboatsinplace Anchorsdesignedto

setinto

the

seafloor

are

most

appropriate

for

soft

bottoms,whilethedeadweightanchorsarecommon

inareaswithrockyorhardbottoms. Helixanchors

(alsoknownasauguranchorsorscrewanchors),

provideyetanotheranchoringoption. Usedinboth

marineandterrestrialapplications(e.g.,toanchor

telephonepolesandtransmissiontowers(Sleeman,

1992)),ahelicalanchorisasteelscrewlikeshaftwith

Figure1:Mushroomanchor,graniteblock,

helix,pyramid.Photofrom:

http://www.coastalbarge.com/products.html


5/39


weldedbearingplateswhichisinstalleddirectlyintotheseafloor. Helixanchorscanbeusedinavariety

ofbottomtypes,thoughtheirinstallationmethodanddesigndifferdependingonthesubstrate. Helical

anchorsarenotsuitedforharborswheresedimentishighlymobileandwheretheanchormaybe

exposedovertime.

Themeansbywhichtheanchorofaconventionalmooringisattachedtothefloatationdeviceonthe

waterssurface

varies,

but

is

usually

comprised

of

heavy

bottom

chain

(which

sits

on

the

seafloor

and

servestodampenthestrainontheanchorascurrents,wind,andwavesexertforceonvessels)attached

tolightchainornylonline.Oneendofthebottomchainattachestotheanchorandtheotherend

attachestoeitheralighterweightchainornylonline(seeFigure2). Thelighterchainorlineisattached

toafloatwhichbringsittothesurface. Theboatisattachedtothemooringbyapennant,typically

madeofline.

ConservationMoorings

Conservationmooringscanbethoughtofasmoorings

designedtominimizehabitatimpacts,primarilybyreducing

contactbetweenthemooringcomponents(i.e.,chainorrope)

andthe

seafloor.

Some

conservation

moorings

also

minimize

habitatimpactsbyreducingthescouringcausedbytheanchor

system. Whilesomeboatersusefloatstokeepconventional

mooringchainandropefrommakingcontactwiththeseafloor

(asfoundinshelteredlocationssuchasLittleHarbor,NHand

LakeTashmooonMarthasVineyard(Colarusso,2012)),this

reportfocusesonthoseconservationmooringsthatsubstitute

aflexiblefloatingrodeforthetraditionalheavychain/light

chainrodeofaconventionalmooring.

Elastic/flexiblesystemsinthemarineenvironment,though

relativelynewformooringvessels,havealsobeenusedto

securedocks,

wave

monitoring

buoys,

and

navigational

buoys.

Thestretchingfeatureofamooringisusuallyreinforcedwith

sometypeoflineorropetoensurethatthestretching

componentdoesnotexceeditscapacityandbreak. Insome

cases,floatsareusedtokeeptheflexiblelinesuspendedinthe

watercolumnsothatitdoesnotcomeincontactwiththe

bottom. Thestretchingoftheflexiblerodereplacesthe

bufferingfunctionperformedbytheheavybottomchainina

conventionalmooring.

Mostconservationmoorings canfunctiononagravityorhelixanchor,thoughthesmallerfootprintof

thehelixanchorispreferredtothelargerfootprintofthegravityanchorforconservationpurposes.

InNewEngland,atleastthreeofthesetypesofconservationmooringproductsarebeingusedinthe

marineenvironment:theEcoMooringSystem(madebyboatmoorings.com),theHazelettElastic

MooringSystem(madebyHazelettMarine),andtheStormSoftElasticBoatMooringsystem.The

HazelettSystemisinuseinseveralMassachusettsharborsincludingProvincetown,Manchester,

Nantucket,Gloucester,Beverley,andChatham. TheEcoMooringSystemiscurrentlyinusein

Nantucket,Provincetown,Falmouth,Hingham,andBeverly. TheStormSoftsystemisinstalledinLake

Champlain(VT),Dartmouth,MA,andVineyardHaven,MA. Afourthsystem,theSeaflexSystem,is

mostcommonlyusedtosecuredocksintheU.S.,buthasalsobeenusedtosecureboatsonmoorings.

Figure2:AConventionalmooring

thatconsistsofheavyandlight

chain. (Imagefrom:

http://www.lazyemotorinn.com/

docking.htm)


6/39


SeaflexmooringsarecurrentlyinuseintheU.S.inLakeTahoe;YokekoPoint,WA;LongBeach,CA; and

inSantaBarbara,CA,howeverthecompanyisbasedinSwedenwherethousandsofboatshavebeen

usingtheirmooringsystemsomeforasmanyasthreedecades.

HazelettMooringand

SparBuoy

EcoMooringSystem SeaflexMooring StormSoftboat

mooring

Figure3:Imagesoffourtypesofconservationmoorings(Imagestakenfrommanufacturerwebsitesor

providedbymanufacturers)

Whilethegeneralconceptbehindeachofthetechnologiesissimilar,eachdoeshavesomeuniquetraits

asdescribedinTable1.

InAustralia,twoadditionaltypesofconservationmoorings,theEzyRiderandtheSeagrassFriendly

Mooringsystems,existandofferalternativeapproachestoelasticmoorings. OntheEzyRidermooring

system,themooringbuoymovesupanddownastainlesssteelshaftwiththewavesandtides. TheSea

GrassFriendly

Mooring

System

uses

asteel

enclosed

shock

absorbing

system

attached

to

ascrewed

in

mooringpostattheseafloor,andattachedtoalineatthetopwhichrunstothewaterssurface. These

twosystemshavebeenreviewed(DepartmentofEmployment,EconomicDevelopmentandInnovation,

2011),andwhilesometechnicalissuesarosewithholdingabilitiesoftheEzyRidersystem,bothshowed

negligibleimpactstothebenthichabitat. (TheSeaflexMooringisalsobeingtestedaspartofthisstudy,

whichisdescribedingreaterdetailbelow).


7/39


Table1:Descriptionsoffourdifferenttypesofconservationmooringsystems.

System Anchor Buoy Rode Other

Seaflex

System

Anyanchor

type,buta

helicalanchor

or

deadweightare

recommended

Any,however,the

companyisinthe

processof

testing

asurfacebuoy(inLong

Beach,CA)withan

integratedthimble,

withtheintentto

reducethepotential

forhardwarefailure.

Thecompany

anticipateshavingthe

buoyonthemarketin

2013.

Elasticrode(orrodesfor

greaterholdingstrength).The

systemis

specifically

designed

tobecomestrongerasit

elongates.

Systemoftenincludes

anintegratedbypass

(aline

made

of

amaterialcalledSpectra

2000,whichhasa

breakingstrengthof

50,000lbs.). Theby

passsystemengagesas

therodereaches80%

elongation,preventing

theSeaflexsystemfrom

reaching100%

elongation.

EcoMooring

System

Variousanchor

typeswillwork,

butahelixis

recommended

Any

Polyfiberrope

that

encapsulatesanelasticrubber

component. Astheelastic

componentstretches,the

surroundingrope(wovenina

wayreminiscentofaChinese

fingertrap)alsostretchesand

providesstrengthtoprevent

therubberfrombreaking.

Theelastic

component

maybeattachedtothe

surfacebuoydirectly,or

chainorlinemaybe

addedtoreachthe

necessarylength.

Hazelett

System

Helicalanchor

ordeadweight

(specificallya

concreteor

graniteblock)

Thecompanyhas

developedaspar

buoythat

can

slip

belowtheiceduring

thewinter. Thisbuoy

isastandardpartof

themooringsystem.

Apolymerelasticrode(or

seriesofrodesforgreater

holdingstrength).

The

rode

systemisheldoffthebottom

withhardtrawlfloats.

Alimitline(the

orangelineinfigure3)

maybe

incorporated

intothesystemto

preventtheelasticfrom

breaking.

StormSoft

SystemVariousanchor

typeswill

work,buta

helixis

recommended

Any Adownlineconsistingof

industrialrubbermultistrand

cordssurroundedbyabraided

polyestershell/rope.A

continuousinnercoreof

braidedpolyestermaintains

theposition

of

the

shock

absorbingrubber.

Thesystemhasavery

tightbraiddesignedto

keepmarinelifeoutof

theinteriorofthe

assemblyandthe

systemhasnocomplex

metalconnections.


8/39


ECOLOGICALISSUES

Eelgrass(Zosteramarina)playsasignificantroleinthehealthofthemarineandcoastalenvironmentin

MassachusettsandthroughoutNewEngland. Animportantspawningandnurseryground,eelgrass

playsacriticalroleinthelifecyclesofmanyfishandshellfishspecies(Heck,etal.,1989;Hughes,etal.,

2002),servingasforaginggrounds,areasofrefuge,settlementsubstrate,andafoodsource.

Fromaneconomicperspective,eelgrasssupportscommerciallyandrecreationallyharvestedfishspecies

inMassachusettsincludingbayscallops,winterflounder,Americanlobster,scup,Atlanticcod,white

hake,cunner,tautog,Americaneel,andstripedbass(Heck,etal.,1989;Hughes,etal.,2002).

CommercialfishingforthesespeciesinMassachusettsin2011broughtinmorethan$100million(see

Table2). Inadditiontothedirectfinancialcontributionfromthesaleofcommerciallyharvested

species,thesefisheriesalsohaveindirecteconomicimpacts(e.g.,employmentforthosewhoservice

andsupplyfishingvessels,andspendingonfishingequipmentbyrecreationalfishermen)whichcan

contributefurthertothecoastaleconomy.

Beyondtheservicesprovidedtofishandshellfish,therootsandrhizomesofeelgrasshelptostabilize

theseafloor,whileitsleavesslowthemovementofwater,trapsedimentanddecreasetheeroding

impact

of

waves.

These

wave

attenuation

and

shoreline

stabilization

features

undoubtedly

save

communitiesandhomeownersmoneybyminimizingerosionanddampeningtheimpactsofstorm

events.

Whilethegeneralimportanceofeelgrassiswellunderstood,studiesshowwidespreaddeclinesin

coastaleelgrassacreagethroughoutMassachusettsfrom19942007(Costelloetal.,2011). Thirtyofthe

thirtythreeembaymentsstudiedshowedlossfrom19942007,withamedianlossrateof2.94%per

year(Costelloetal.,2011).

Someofthestressorsoneelgrassincludeincreasednutrientsinthewaterfromroadrunoffandseptic

systems,disruptionandsedimentationfromcoastaldevelopmentprojects,anddamagefromboating

activities,includingthemooringofboats.

Table

2:

Massachusetts

commercial

fisheries

landing

data

for

2011

indicates

that

commercially

harvested

specieswhichmayutilizeeelgrasshabitatduringtheirlifehistoriesbroughtinmorethan$100million

dollars. (DatafromNOAAOfficeofScienceandTechnologyAnnualCommercialLandingStatistics

(http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercial fisheries/commerciallandings/annuallandings/index).)

Species Landings(lbs.) Value(2011)

Americanlobster 13,717,192 $54,858,962

Scup 1,243,705 $801,05

Bayscallop 157,593 $1,957,430

Stripedbass 1,163,875 $3,188,341

Atlanticcod 15,009,249 $27,580,595

Winterflounder

4,474,275

$7,767,398

Whitehake 5,283,966 $4,809,234

Cunner 960 $937

Tautog 57,788 $179,689

Americaneel 365 $496

Total 41,108,968 $100,343,082


9/39


Eelgrasstendstogrowbestinprotectedquiescentwatersyetthesecalmprotectedconditionsarealso

highlysoughtafterbyboaterslookingtosafelymoortheirvessels. Forthisreason,itisfairlycommon

formooringfieldstooverlapwitheelgrassbeds.

Conventionalmoorings,asdescribedabove,relyonaheavychaintodampentheimpactsofvarious

forces(e.g.,wind,waves,andcurrents)onamooredvessel. Theheavychainmovesalongtheseafloor

asthe

boat

moves,

disrupting

the

living

organisms

in

its

path

(Hastings,

et

al.,

1995;

Betcher,

et

al.,

no

date;MERAssessmentCorporation,2008;TerramarEnvironmentalServices,Inc.,2011). Barespace

aroundatraditionalmooringisreferredtoasamooringscar(seeFigures4and5). Thedegreeof

scarringandtheextentofthescararedependentuponfactorssuchasthelengthandweightofchain

andthenatureofvesselmovement(e.g.,currents,tidalrange,prevailingwind,stormexposure).

Figure4:Closeupofmooringscar.

(ImagefromLefebvre,2008)

In

addition

to

denuding

an

area

of

marine

life,

the

chain

sweep

of

a

traditional

mooring

and

the

vertical

movementofthechainaswaterlevelsriseandfallcansuspendsedimentintheimmediateand

surroundingareas. Thisincreaseinturbiditycanimpairphotosynthesisanddisruptananimalsbehavior

andphysiologicalfunctioning.

Whilethemooringscarfromthechainsweepistheprimaryimpactoneelgrassintermsofarealextent

ofimpact,themethodofanchoringamooringcanalsonegativelyaffecteelgrassbeds. Duringstorms,

anchorssuchasmushroommoorings,canbecomedislodgedfromthesediment,andmaydragthrough

eelgrassbeds,destroyingplantsastheymove. Additionally,thepresenceoflargedeadweightanchors,

suchasconcreteandgraniteblocks,canleadtosignificantscouringaroundamooring;andinthecase

ofconcreteblocks,theymayintroduceanewsubstrateonwhichinvasiveoropportunistictunicatesand

algaemightattach.

Theimpacts

of

moorings

on

eelgrass

have

been

well

documented

in

avariety

of

studies.

In

Massachusetts,theDivisionofMarineFisheriesmeasuredmooringsineelgrassinseveralharborsand

foundarangeinscarsizeof40m2tomorethan200m2(BakerandEvans,2012).InRockyBay,Western

Australia,researcherswereabletoanalyzeaerialphotographsofmooringsineelgrassbeds. Those

researchersfounda13%lossineelgrasscoveragebetween1981and1992. Thislosscorrespondedwith

anincreasefrom81mooredboats(in1977)to191mooredboats(in1992)(Hastingsetal.,1995). A

studyintheSanJuanIslandsinWashingtonStatein1996alsoreportednegativeimpactstoeelgrass

aroundmooringsthatemployedabottomchainorbottomropethatdraggedalongtheseafloor. The

Figure5:Mooringscarsineelgrass.(Imagetaken

fromNOAA,nodate)


10/39


magnitudeoftheimpactinthatstudyappearedtoberelatedtofactorssuchastheweightofthechain

orrope(theheavierthechainorrope,themoredamage)(Betcher,nodate). Thisstudyalsonotedthat

mooringswhichemployedamidlinefloatorsolelyreliedonroperatherthanchainhadtheleastimpact

onnearbyvegetation(assumingthattheweightoftheropewasnotsignificantlyincreasedbythe

colonizationofbarnaclesandmussels).

Mooringscars

increase

the

length

of

exposed

edges

of

eelgrass

beds

in

an

area,

and

those

edges

are

morevulnerabletotheimpactsofcurrentsandscouringthaninteriorareasofeelgrassbeds. Insome

cases,mooringscarscanenlargealongtheiredges,andcombinewithotherscars,causinggreater

fragmentationwithineelgrassbeds(Hastings,etal.,1995). Lossofeelgrassinsemiisolated

embaymentsisofparticularconcernbecauserecoveryintheseareasmaybelimitedasaresultofalack

ofnearbysourcepopulationsandaccesstopropagules(Orth,etal.,2006b;Erftemeijer,etal.,2008 as

citedinCostello,etal.,1995).

Theimpactsofreplacingtraditionalmooringswithconservationmooringshavebeenobservedin

variousplacesonvarioustypesofbenthichabitats,withgenerallyfavorableresults. InManchester

Harbor,theMassachusettsBaysProgramandtheMassachusettsDivisionofMarineFisheriesreplaced8

traditionalmoorings(acombinedimpactedareaofapproximately3,521squarefeet)withconservation

moorings(Baker

and

Evans,

2012).

Four

of

the

eight

mooring

scars

also

received

eelgrass

transplants.

TheprojectusedtheHazelettconservationmooringsystem,andincludedamixofhelixanchorsand

concreteblocks. Thoughtheconservationmooringshaveonlybeeninplacesince2010,monitoring

showsslightrecolonizationalongtheedgesofsomescars. Seedlingsurvivalwithinthescarshasbeen

limitedbythegatheringofdetritusinthedepressionleftbythepreviousmooring,buttheoutlookis

moreoptimisticinareaswheredepressionsdonotexist(Evans,2012). Thetransplantedshootshadlow

survivalrates(44%)dueinparttostormactivity,andinparttothedetritusinthescars,butresearchers

anticipatethattheareasthatreceivedthetransplantswillrecovermorequicklythanthoseareas

withoutanytransplants(BakerandEvans,2012;Evans,2012). Thatsameprojectalsoinvolvedinstalling

conservationmooringsinProvincetownHarbor,butmonitoringhasnotbeenconductedtodetermine

theimpactsofthenewmoorings. CurrentlytheMassachusettsDivisionofMarineFisheriesisworking

on

a

similar

effort

in

West

Falmouth

Harbor.

To

date,

moorings

causing

scars

in

an

eelgrass

meadow

in

theouterharborhavebeenidentified,andfivemooringsinthesameareawillbechangedoverto

conservationmooringdesignsinthespringof2013.

AnotherstudyinShoalBay,PortStephens(Australia)examinedtheimpactsoftheSeagrassFriendly

MooringSystemintermsofreestablishingseagrass(specificallyZosteracapricorni,andHalophila,and

Posidoniaaustralis)informermooringscars. Monitoringfrom20082010indicatedarecoveryof

ZosteracapricorniandHalophilaspp.tolevelssimilartosurroundingseagrassbeds. Thesespeciesare

relativelyfastgrowingseagrasses. TheregrowthofPosidoniaaustralisinmooringscarswas

inconclusive(therateofregrowthhasbeenshowntotakelongerthanthemonitoringphaseofthe

study)(Gladston,2011).

InMoretonBay,Queensland(Australia),anotherstudytestedthreedifferentconservationmoorings

(theSeagrass

Friendly

Mooring

System,

EzyRider

Mooring,

and

Seaflex

Mooring)

in

four

locations

in

MoretonBay,foratotalof12trialmoorings.TheSeagrassFriendlyMooringusesascrewedinmooring

postasitsanchor;theEzyRidermooringwassetonconcreteblocks;andtheSeaflexMooringswereset

onconcreteblocks(wheresedimentwassilty)andMantaRayanchors(soilanchorshydrolicallydriven

intothesubstrate)insandylocations. Ratherthanplacetheconservationmooringsinexistingmooring

scars,thisstudylookedattheimpactsofplacingconservationmooringsinpreviouslyunusedareas

withinestablishedmooringfields. Researchersfoundnodetectableimpactsofinstallingthemoorings

themselves(DepartmentofEmployment,EconomicDevelopmentandInnovation,2011);andwhile


11/39


monitoringoflongtermimpactshasnotbeencompleted,preliminaryfindingssuggestthatthereisno

differencebetweenthebenthichabitatattheconservationmooring,andbenthichabitatsatsimilar

siteswithinthemooringfield(Skilleter,2012).

TheFriendsoftheSanJuans(inWashingtonState)havealsoengaged10citizenstovoluntarilyswitch

theirexistingblockandchainmooringswithdifferenttypesofmooringtechnologies,includinghelical

anchors(Whitman,

2012).

While

the

Friends

of

the

San

Juans

had

hoped

to

have

multiple

sites

in

close

proximitytounderstandtheimpacts,thevolunteerparticipantswerefairlydispersedandtheimpacts

havenotbeenassessed. Itisworthnoting,however,that75100peoplereachedouttothe

organizationaboutwantingtoparticipateinthestudybutwereeliminatedbecausetheywerenot

locatedineelgrassorwerealreadyemployingrelativelyharmlessmooringdesigns. Manyofthosewho

didnotqualifyforthestudybutwerenotalreadyusingenvironmentallyfriendlymooringshavetaken

theirownstepstoinstallmoreenvironmentallyfriendlymooringtechnology,andprogramsare

underwayintheareatocreatenoanchoringzonesineelgrass.

Althoughtheseprojectswereimplementedusingdifferenttechnologiesindifferentenvironments,they

makeacompellingcasefortheeliminationofchainscourasameanstominimizedamagetobenthic

habitatsresultingfromboatmooringactivities;andsuggestthatanchorswithsmallfootprintscan

furtherreduce

impacts

to

benthic

habitat.

WhetherornotconservationmooringsandanchorswithsmallfootprintscanbeusedinMassachusetts

tohelprestoreeelgrassbedspreviouslydamagedbymooringsremainstobeseen. Factorssuchasthe

extentofdamagetothebenthichabitat,presencesofotherstressors,andadditionaleffortstorestore

eelgrass(e.g.,transplantsandseeding)mayallinfluencethesuccessrateofmooringscarre

colonization.

FUNCTIONALCONCERNSANDCOMPARISON

FunctionalConcernsincludestrengthandholdingcapacityofthevariousmooringelements,

maintenance

of

the

mooring

elements,

life

expectancy,

and

implications

for

mooring

field

design.

HoldingCapacity

Amooringsabilitytosecurelyholdaboatisofupmostconcerntoboatersandharbormasters;and

dependsonfactorssuchastheadequacyofthedeckhardware,thestrengthoftherodes,the

capabilitiesoftheshackles,theresistanceoftheanchor(s),andtheproperinstallationofequipment.

Forpurposesofthisreport,thefeaturesofprimaryinterestaretheholdingpotentialforanchortypes,

andtheholdingpotentialforrodetypes. Mostissueswithmooringcomponentssuchasshacklesand

pennantlinesareequallyapplicabletobothconservationandconventionalmoorings.

Formalandinformaltestshavebeenconductedcomparingtheholdingabilitiesofdifferenttypesof

mooringanchors. InVineyardHaven,MA,apulltestshowedthatthehelixanchorprovidedthegreatest

holdingpower,

followed

by

a3,000lb.

concrete

block.

The

helix

anchor

also

provided

the

best

holding

powerinatestconductedbyBoatUSInsurance(SeeTables3and4).Itisworthnotingthatconditions

(e.g.,sedimenttypeandscope)werenotuniformamongalltestsandtypesofanchors,andmayhave

someimpactontestresults. Additionally,itisimportanttonotethatthenatureofthesetestsdonot

replicatetheactualforcesappliedtoanchorsastheymoorboats. Thatbeingsaid,anecdotalreports

fromboatersandharbormastersconfirmthatthehelixanchor,ifinstalledproperly,isverycapableof

holdingavesselatamooring(Fronzuto,personalcommunication;Cormier,personalcommunication).


12/39


Table3:BoatUSInsurancepulltestresultscomparingfivedifferenttypesofanchorsshowsthatthehelix

anchorhadthegreatestresistingforce. (Source:http://www.boatmoorings.com/hm.php). Itshouldbe

notedthat

the

helix

also

used

the

greatest

scope,

which

tends

to

increase

holding

power.

AnchorType Helix DorMor

Anchor(650

lbs.)

Mushroom

(500lbs.)

SingleBlock

(2,000lbs.)

DoubleBlock

(8,000lbs.)

ResistingForce

(lbs.)

12,000

(didnot

break

out)

4,500 1,200 800 4,000

WaterDepth 20 18 15 14 35

Scope 4:1 3:1 3.5:1 3:1 3:1

Table4:

Results

from

the

Vineyard

Haven

Pull

Test

also

indicate

that

the

helix

had

the

highest

breakout

forceofthoseanchorstested. Itshouldbenotedthatthebottomconditionswerenotconsistentamong

thedifferenttypesofanchors,andadditionaltestingshouldbedonetocomparethecapabililtiesamong

sedimenttypes. (Source:http://helixmooring.com/thebenefits.html).

AnchorType BottomCondition BreakoutForce(lbs.)

350lb.Mushroom 5ft.deepinmud 2,000

500lb.Mushroom Insandbottom 1,700

3,000ConcreteUSCGBlock Setinmud 2,100

6,000lb.CementBlock Onsandbottom 3,200

8/10Helix Insoftclaymud 20,800(didnotbreak

out)

Althoughtheforceappliedtotheanchorisasignificantfactorinananchorsholdingcapabilities,the

angleoftheforceisalsoimportanttoconsider. Mostanchorsaredesignedtoholdbestwhenpulledon

atanangle. Duringstorms,swellsandstormsurgescancausewaterlevelstoriserapidly. Ona

traditionalmooring,aswaterlevelsrise,theboatispulledbacktowardtheanchor,andifthescopeis

shortenoughorthewaterlevelsriseenough,theboatmayultimatelycometobedirectlyoverthe

anchor. Thiswouldcausetheboattopullverticallyontheanchorwhichmaycompromiseitsholding

capabilities. Whilethelineusedonconventionalmooringshassomestretchcapacity,conservation

mooringsarespecificallydesignedtostretch(forexample,theEcoMooringSystemisdesignedto

stretchfrom12feetto19feet,andtheHazelettsystemcanstretchupto200%ofitslength),generating

morehorizontalholdingforceearlierintheboatsmovement.

Inadditiontotheissuesrelatedtotheholdingcapabilitiesoftheanchor,itisalsoimportanttounderstandtheholdingcapabilitiesoftherodesystemitself. Mooringchainstrengthvariesdepending

onfactorssuchasthematerialsusedtomakeit,thesizeofthechain,theconditionofthechain,andthe

gradeofthechain. Onechainmanufacturer(PeerlessAcco)listsvariousworkingloadlimitsranging

from800lbs.(fora3/16BoatmansPrideAnchorLeadChain)to7.5tons(fora3/4LongLinkMooring

Chain)(PeerlessAcco,nodate). Workingloadlimits,whicharetherecommendedlimits,arenotthe

sameasminimumbreakingloadlimits(wheretheappliedforcecausesthechaintobecomedistorted).


13/39


Aworkingloadlimitisusually1/3rdto1/4ththeminimumbreakingloadlimit,meaningthatthe

minimumbreakingloadforachainwithaworkingloadlimitof7.5tonsmightbeasmanyas30tons.

Nostudyexiststocomparetheholdingcapabilitiesofthedifferentconservationmooringtechnologies;

howevermanufacturerclaimsfortheHazelettmooring,theEcoMooringSystem,theStormSoft

mooring,andtheSeaflexmooringarepresentedinTable5. Itisimportanttonotethatsome

manufacturersrefer

to

the

holding

power

as

the

breaking

load

(e.g.,

the

Seaflex

System)

while

others

refertotheholdingpowerasthebreakingload(e.g.,theEcoMooringSystem),andothersrefertothe

holdingpowerintermsoftheweightoftheboatbeingheld,nottheforcebeingapplied(e.g.,the

HazelettMooring)makingitsomewhatdifficulttoaccuratelycomparetechnologyholdingpowers.

Whenaboaterdecidestouseaspecifictechnology,themanufacturerwillworkwiththeboaterto

ensurethathe/shehastheappropriatesystemtosafelysecurehis/hervessel.

Accurateandverifiedcalculationsfortherequiredholdingpowerofmooringsforvesselsofdifferent

sizesunderdifferentconditionsisnotavailable,yetanecdotalreportssuggestthatconservation

moorings,ifadequatelydesignedforvesselsizeandmooringlocationfeatures,havetheabilityto

securelyholdavesselunderextremeconditions.


14/39


Table5:Holdingpowerofvariousconservationmooringtypes,basedonmanufacturerclaims. *Theterm

holdingpowermeansdifferentthingstodifferentmanufacturers,andshouldnotbecomparedamong

thedifferentmanufacturers. Forexample,theHazelettholdingpowerreferstotheweightoftheboat;

theEcoMooringSystemsholdingpowerreferstoitsbreakingstrength;andtheSeaflexSystemsholding

powerreferstoitsworkingload. Allmanufacturerswillworkwithboatownerstodeterminethesystem

mostappropriateforthevesselandsiteconditions.

Manufacturer Description HoldingPower*

HazelettMooring1 8x1.75rode 4tons(boatweight)

10x1.75rode 5tons(boatweight)

Apairof5x1.75rodes 10tons(boatweight)

Apairof8X1.75rodes 15tons(boatweight)

Apairof10x1.75rodes 16tons(boatweight)

Three8x1.75rodes 22tons(boatweight)

Three10x1.75rodes 25tons(boatweight)

Four8x1.75rodes 31tons(boatweight)

Four8x1.75rodes 35tons(boatweight)

EcoMooring

System

2

8

x5/8

5tons

(breaking

strength)

10x3/4 6tons(breakingstrength)

12x1 10.5tons(breakingstrength)

12x1 5/16 16.585tons(breakingstrength)

12X15/8 50,000lbs.

12x2 69,000lbs.

SeaflexMooring3 Anyarrangementwithitsbypass

system

16ton(breakingstrengthofbypass

system).

1rodsystem(2to75long) 1ton(breakingstrength

2rodsystem(2to75long) 15ton(breakingstrength)boatsfrom1

tonto10ton

4rod

system

(2

to

75

long)

15

ton

(breaking

strength)

boats

from

10

tonto40ton


tonto60ton


to100ton


tonto200+ton

StormSoftElastic

BoatMooring4

Approximately10footsystem(5

feetofrubbersurroundedby

onebraidedrope)

912tons(tensilestrength)

1Fromhttp://www.hazelettmarine.com/pdf/HM%20Hazelett%20Elastic%20Mooring%20Systems.pdf 2DatafromMerrill,personalcommunication3DatafromHylland,personalcommunication. ItshouldbenotedthattheSeaflexsystemisdesignedtobecome

strongerasitelongates,andthatthebreakingpointisnotwhatthecompanyadvertisesastheholdingcapacity.

Instead,Seaflexfocusesontheworkingloadandforcetoelongationratiotoensurethatthemooringis

appropriatefortheintendedvesselandconditions.4DatafromLefebvre,personalcommunication


15/39


Anotherpointtoconsideristhat,inadditiontoforce,thesteadypressureappliedtoarodeandanchor,

conventionalmooringscanalsoexperienceshockloadsunlesstheyareequippedwithspecialshock

absorbingcomponents. Aproperlydesignedconventionalmooringwithoutanadditionalshock

absorbergenerallyminimizestheriskofashockloadbyensuringthatthedampeningeffectcreatedby

theweightofthebottomchainisenoughtoabsorbthequickmovementofaboatonitsmooring,but

underextremeconditions,thismaynotbesufficient. Theelasticityofaconventionalmooring,however,isdesignedtominimizeshockloading.

Itshouldbenoted,aswell,thatholdingcapacityisdirectlyrelatedtotheproperinstallationand

maintenanceofatechnologysothatitcanfunctionasintended. IntheresearchprojectinMoreton

Bay,3ofthe12mooringsfailed. Oneproduct(EzyRider)failedattwoseparatemooringsduetothe

failureofshackles. OneoftheSeaflexsystemsusedalsofailedduetoanissuewithaplasticgrommet

onthebuoy,unrelatedtotheSeaflexsystemitself. TheSeagrassFriendlyMooringwastheonlysystem

thatdidnotexperienceanyfailure(DepartmentofEmployment,EconomicDevelopmentand

Innovation,2011). IssueswiththeSeaflexsysteminSantaBarbara,CAhavealsobeennoted,though

theycanmostlikelybeattributedtofailuresnotassociateddirectlywiththeSeaflexSystem(Hylland,

2012),andarethereasonwhythecompanyisintheprocessoftestingabuoytoincorporateintoits

system.

Oneconcernwithregardtomooringsystemswheretheelasticcomponentfloatsnearthesurfaceis

thattherodecouldbedamagedbyboatingactivity,asoccurredwiththeHazelettsysteminChatham

Harbor(MA)(Smith,personalcommunication;Baker,personalcommunication). Thiscouldbeavoided

bymakingsurethattheelasticcomponentissubmergedbeyondthereachofboatpropellers,though

doingsomightrequiresomemodificationstothemooringsystems,suchastheadditionofsubfloats.

Maintenance

Mooringsofanytypeshouldbemaintainedatleastannually;andmosttownsinMassachusettsrequire

mooringinspectionsevery13years,conductedbyatownapprovedinspector. Duringannualand

officialinspections,gear(e.g.,shackles,chain,thimbles,lines,rodes,etc.)mayneedtobereplaced.

Maintenancewillvarydependingonfactorssuchasexposuretocurrentandwaves,biofouling

organisms,highlycorrosiveenvironments,electrolysis,andhighfrequency/intensityofstormevents.

Maintenancewillalsovarydependingonthetypeandqualityofmooringequipmentbeingused.

Helicalanchorsaredrilledintotheseabedwheretheyarenotlikelytocorrode,andmanyhelical

anchorsremovedtenyearsafterinstallationshownosignsofcorrosion(Lefebvre,personal

communication). Whencomparingconventionalandconservationmoorings,therefore,theprimary

differenceintermsofmaintenanceneedsisthefrequencyofhavingtochangeorrepairtherode.

Chains,orsegmentsofchain,requirereplacingapproximatelyeverytwotofouryears(thiswillvary

dependingonfactorssuchasthosementionedabove). ConservationmooringrodessuchastheSeaflex,

EcoMooringSystem,StormSoftmoorings,andHazelettmoorings,ontheotherhand,requirefewer

replacementsoverthelifeofthemooring. Allfourcompaniesnotedthattheirsystemscouldbeinplaceformorethansevenyearswithoutlosingtheirdesigncapacity,butthetechnologyisstillrelativelynew

intheUnitedStates,andexactlifeexpectanciesundervariousconditionshavenotyetbeen

determined.5

5Seaflexnotedthattheyhavehadadockmooringsysteminplaceforapproximately32years,anditstillcontinues

tofunctionasdesigned. Theyhavealsohadboatmooringsystemsinplaceformorethan30yearsinSweden


16/39


MooringFieldDesignandFunction

Thelayoutofmooringsfieldsisdirectlyimpactedbythescoperequiredtosafelymooravessel. For

conventionalmoorings,scopeisgenerallyabout3:1or4:1. Thetechnologyforconservationmooringsis

stillquitenew,andscopelengthshavenotbeenwidelyestablished,butcouldbeasshortas1:1

(HazelettMarinewebsite,nodate),withtheunderstandingthattheelasticcomponentwillstretch,

creatingalarger

scope

overall.

(Scopes

of

flexible

mooring

systems

are

measured

from

the

top

of

the

anchortothetopofthebuoyathightide. Thepennantwillincreasethescopeto1.5:1ormore

(Lefebvre,personalcommunication).) AccordingtoHazelettMarine,theirsystemcanincreasemooring

fielddensityby40%duetothesorterscope,withoutcompromisingholdingpower. Figure6compares

thegriddingofmooringfieldsusingconventionalmooringsandthegriddingofmooringfieldsusing

conservationmoorings,showingthattheuseofconventionalmooringswouldallow36vesselstomoor

safely;whiletheuseofconservationmooringswouldincreasethatnumberto64(HazelettMarine

website,nodate).

Figure6:Theuseofconservationmooringsmaypresentanopportunitytoincreasethedensityofboatsin

amooring

field,

as

demonstrated

by

this

mooring

field

graphic

from

Hazelett

Marine

comparing

densities

(Hylland,personalcommunication). StormSoftproductshavebeenusedformorethan10yearsinFloridawithout

needingtobereplaced(Lefebvre,personalcommunication).Hazelettoffersatwoyearwarranty,butnotedthat

thelifeexpectancyisabouttenyears,withsomesystemsinplacefor20yearswithoutsignificantwearandtear.

Hazelettdidsuggest,however,thattherodebereplacedafterunusuallylargestormeventstoensurethatithasnt

lostitsabilitytostretch. EcoMooringSystemshaveonlybeeninstalledwithinthelastsevenyears,but

inspectionsindicatethattheycontinuetofunctionwell.


17/39


ofamooringfieldusingconventionalmooringsandconservationmoorings(mooringplanonlineat:

http://www.hazelettmarine.com/pdf/Mooring%20Grid%20Plans.pdf).

Thelayoutofmooringfieldsisalsodeterminedbythesizeofthevesselsinthemooringfield. Insome

cases,asboatsizeschangeovertime,anchorsneedtoberelocatedorreplaced. Whileallanchors

requiresomelevelofefforttoremoveandreplace,someharbormastershaveexpressedconcernsthat

helicalanchors

would

be

more

difficult

and

costly

to

replace

than

other

types

of

anchors.

Whileincreasedmooringfielddensitymightbeapracticaltheoreticalapplicationofconservation

moorings,theStateofMassachusettsdiscouragesincreasingthedensityofmooringsineelgrass

becauseoftheimpactsofshadingcausedbytheadditionalboats(Boeri,personalcommunication).

ECONOMICCONSIDERATIONS

Thecostsassociatedwithatraditionalmooringandaconservationmooringvary,andcanbethoughtof

intermsofequipmentcosts,installationcosts,maintenancecosts,andotherassociatedcosts(e.g.,

insuranceandmooringpermitfees).

EquipmentCosts:

Thecostofmooringequipmentdepending,atleastinpart,onthefeaturesofthevesselandthe

environmentinwhichitismoored(presumably,alargerboatindeepwaterisgoingtocostmoreto

moorthanasmallerboatinmoreshallowwater),aswellasthetypeofequipmentbeingused(e.g.,

chainvs.line;typeofpennant,etc.).

Whencomparingthecostofconservationmooringsandconventionalmoorings,theprimarydifferences

areonceagainfoundintheanchorsystemandtherodesystem.

Anchorsizewillvarydependingonthevesselsize,townregulations,etc.Forthepurposeofcomparing

costs,a30vesselmightrequirea400lb.mushroomanchor,a3,000lb.concreteblockanchor,orahelix

anchorwithaholdingcapacityof5,0007,000lbs. Pricesforthosethreeanchorsystemsvarydepending

onspecific

site

requirements

and

retailers,

but

the

following

prices

were

provided

by

retailers

(these

pricesdonotincludeinstallation):

400lb.mushroomanchor:$500.00(pricefromAnchor,Gear,andLine) $800.00(pricefrom

InlandMarine)

3,000lb.concreteblockanchor: $370.00(pricefromGilbertBlock) $630.00(pricefromWillard

andSons)

Helixanchor=$400700(pricesfromAnchor,Gear,andLine,BurrBrotherBoats,Inc.,and

Baker,personalcommunications)

Thesequotessuggestthat,intermsofanchorcostsalone,aconservationorconventionalmooringthat

usesaconcreteblockwouldlikelybetheleastexpensiveoptionofthethree,whilethecostofa

conventionalmooring

on

amushroom

anchor

would

be

comparable

to

the

cost

of

aconservation

mooringonahelixanchor. (Asexplainedbelow,however,thecostassociatedwithanchorsdiffers

greatlyintermsofinstallation.)

Inadditiontothecostoftheanchor,thereisalsothecostoftherodesystem. Again,forthepurposeof

comparingcosts,a30vesselmooredin15ofwatermightrequire30ofheavy(3/4)chainand15of

light(5/8)chaintoachievea3:1scopeandadequateholdingpower. Priceswillvarydependingonthe

materialsusedandtheretailer,butthefollowingpriceswereprovidedbyDefender

(http://www.defender.com/):


18/39


5/8chain(AccoMooringChain)$8.99/foot=$134.85for15

chain(AccoMooringChain)15.59/foot=$467.70for30

Thechaincostforthisvessel,then,wouldbe$602.55.

Thatsame30vesselin15ofwatermightrequireaconservationmooringcapableofholding4tons.

Dependingonthetypeofconservationmooringused,thecostoftheelasticrodesystemmightrange

from$245(8longEcoMooringSystem)to$1,849(Hazeletts10,5tonmooring). TheHazelettpriceincludestheentiremooringsystem(everythingabovetheanchortothecleatoftheboat). Withthe

EcoMooringSystem,somesortoflineorchainwouldhavetobeincorporatedintothesystemtomake

uptheremainderofthelengthofthesystem(i.e.,ifan8longelasticcomponentwasused,atleast7

feetofchainorlinewouldbeneededtoreachascopeof1:1). Thatextrachainorline,aswellasany

additionalhardware,wouldaddtotheoverallcostoftherodesystem. Assumingthechainwasused

tomakeuptheremainingdistance,itcouldadd$60(again,assuminga1:1scope6),thusbringingthe

rodecostforthatvesseltoapproximately$305(notincludingthecostoftheanchorandanchor

installation,anyshacklesorotherhardware,which,accordingtooneinstaller,mayaddanadditional

$1,300tothecostofasystem(Lefebvre,personalcommunication)).

Table6:Thecostsofvarioustypesofmooringtechnologiesrangesfrom$245$4,223;however,itis

importanttonotethattheSeaflexandEcoMooringSystempricesreflectthepriceoftherodesystemonly. TheHazelettpricesarefortheirwholesystem,includingthebuoyandpennantaswellastherode

system,butnottheanchor;andtheStormSoftpricesareforthewholesystemassoldtotheTownof

VineyardHaven,MA. Pricesdonotincludeinstallation.

ConservationMooringType Cost

Hazelett5tonsystem $1,8497




Seaflex10ft.strand $4568

Seaflex2strand

system

with

by

pass

system

$1,136

EcoMooringSystem 5/8in.dia.X8ft.long $2709

EcoMooringSystem in.dia.X10ft.long $320

EcoMooringSystem1in. dia. X12ft.long $350



EcoMooringSystem 2in.dia.X12ft.long $475

StormSoftsystemforboatsupto25tonor40ft. $1,50010

Thesepricesaredifficulttounderstandintheabstract,especiallywhentakingintoconsiderationthe

factsthat(1)eachconservationmooringisdesignedtomeettheneedsofaspecificboatinaspecific

location;and

(2)

each

system

includes

different

components

(e.g.,

some

include

just

the

rode

while

6Itisimportanttonotethat,whilea1:1scopemightbeappropriateforsomevessels,mostwilllikelyrequirea

scopegreaterthan1:1,thusraisingcostsoftherodesystemforaconservationmooring.7HazelettpricesfromInlandMarine:http://www.mushroommooring.com/index.html(Notethattheweightrefers

totheboatweight,notthebreakstrength)8SeaflexpricesfromManufacturer(Hylland,PersonalCommunication)

9EcoMooringSystempricesfromManufacturer

(Merrill,PersonalCommunication)andwww.boatmoorings.com) 10

StormSoftpricesprovidedbyNewEnglandMarine,LLC(Lefebvre,PersonalCommunication)


19/39


othersincludethepennantandbuoyaswell). Tobetterillustratethetruecostsofconservation

moorings,aseriesofhypotheticalboatandmooringsiteconditions,alongwithpricinginformation,is

presentedinAppendixA.

InstallationCosts:

Oneoftheprimarydifferencesincostbetweenaconservationmooringandaconventionalmooringis

thecost

of

installing

ahelix

anchor.

According

to

estimates,

ahelix

anchor

can

be

hydraulically

installed

byamooringinstallerforapproximately$400$500,dependingonfactorssuchaswaterdepthand

substrate,whichaffecttheamountoftimeittakestoinstalltheanchor(Anchor,Gear,andLine,

personalcommunication;Baker,personalcommunication;BurrBrothersBoats,Inc.,personal

communication). Agravityanchorordraganchorcanbeinstalledinfarlesstimethanahelicalanchor,

andthecostcanbelessthan$100inmanyinstances.

Thecostofinstallingtherestofthemooringvariesdependingonthemooringinstaller. Someseemto

chargeaflatrateforinstallingmoorings,whileotherschargebythehourinwhichcasecostisdirectly

relatedtohowmuchofthemooringispreassembledbeforeinstallation. Thelessassemblyrequiredat

thetimeofinstallation,thelowerthecost. Thisistrueforbothconservationmooringsand

conventionalmoorings,whichcanbothbepreassembledandinstalledforlessthan$100.

Forthoseswitchingaconventionalmooringtoaconservationmooring,theoldtacklecantypicallybe

removedbyaSCUBAdiverinapproximately30minutes(Lefebvre,personalcommunication). Ifcharged

bythehour,theremovaloftheoldmooringtacklemayaddapproximately$50tothecostof

installation.

MaintenanceCosts:

Aswithinstallationcosts,maintenancecosts(andschedules)varygreatlydependingontheequipment

beingusedandtheconditions. Thebiggestdifferenceinmaintenancecostsbetweenconservation

mooringsandtraditionalmooringshastodowithreplacingtherodesystem. Theneedtoreplacechain

willdifferdependingonthesizeofthechainandthewearandtearfrommovementunderwater;butit

seemsthatmanypeopleinMassachusettsreplaceatleastpartoftheirchainevery24years. Usingthe

exampleof

the

30

boat

above,

the

worst

case

scenario

would

be

that

the

owner

of

the

30

vessel

could

spendasmuchas$602.55every2yearstoreplaceallofhis/herchain.

Asmentionedabove,thelifeexpectancyofaconservationmooringinanygivensettingisnotyetwidely

known,butcouldeasilyexceed710yearsinmanycases. Duringatenyearperiod,forexample,aboat

ownerwouldlikelyhavetoreplaceanychainorlineusedinthemooringevery24years,butwould

probablynotneedtoreplacetheelasticcomponentitself.

Theconditionofthemooringismostoftenestablishedduringtheinspection,andwhilemethodsof

inspectionvaryfrominspectortoinspector,thecostsofinspectingaconservationmooringanda

conventionalmooringareroughlycomparable. Theinspectionofaconservationmooringonanytypeof

anchor,andaconventionalmooringonahelixanchormightbeslightlymoreexpensivethanthe

inspectionof

aconventional

mooring

on

anon

helical

anchor

because

adiver

may

be

needed

to

inspect

theconditionoftheanchorconnection,ratherthanbringingtheanchortothesurfaceforinspection.

OtherAssociatedCosts:

Insurancecompaniesdonotseemtoadjustratesbasedonthetypeofmooringtechnologyemployed

(Kilby,personalcommunication). Additionally,nothingindicatedthatmooringfeesinanytownwere

basedonwhetherornotaboatwasonaconservationmooringoraconventionalmooring.

EconomicValueofEelgrass:


20/39


Whenmakingadecisionaboutwhetherornottouseaconservationmooring,boatersand

harbormastersmightalsowanttoconsidertheeconomicimpactsofthedifferenttechnologiesinterms

ofthecostsassociatedwithprotectingand/orlosingeelgrassbeds.

WhilethereisnostudywhichprovidestheeconomicvalueofeelgrassinNewEngland,onestudy

estimatedthevalueofFloridaseelgrass,includingthevaluesofnutrientcyclingandrecreationalfishing,

tobe

$20,500/acre/year

(Seagrass

Recovery,

no

date).

Another

study

more

broadly

estimated

that

the

valueoftheworldsmacrophyte(macroalgaeandseagrasses)ecosystemswasapproximately

$19,000/hectare/year(or$7,692.31/acre/year),calculatingthevaluebasedonnutrientcyclingandraw

materials(Costanza,etal.,1997). AthirdstudyconsideredthevalueofeelgrassinthePugetSound,

basedonthevalueofitsnutrientcycling,tobebetween$5,507and$15,421/acre/year(Batker,etal.,

2008).

Thesizeofmooringscarswillvarydependingonfactorssuchasthechainsizeandscopeandthetidal

range. TheprojectinManchesterHarbor(MA),forexample,dealtwithmooringscarswithanaverage

largestdiameteracrossthescarof6.9meters(22.64feet),meaningtheaverageareaofascarwas

approximately37.38meters2(402.328feet2). Usingtheabovestudiesasaguide,thelosteconomic

valueofamooringscarinManchester,MAmayrangefromapproximately$51/yearto$189/year.

Table7:Giventhevariouspotentialeconomicvaluesofeelgrass,theestimatedeconomiclosscausedbytheaveragemooringscarintheManchester,MAmooringstudyrangedfromapproximately$51/yearto

$189/year.

Estimated

EconomicValue

ofEelgrass

(acre/year)

CostofAverage

ManchesterMooring

(scar/year)

$20,500 $189

$15,421 $142

$7,692 $71

$5,507 $51

Theseeconomicvaluationstudieslikelyundervaluethetrueeconomicsignificanceofeelgrassbecause

theydonotincludethevaluerelatedtofoodproduction,commercialfishing,orstormbuffering. As

mentionedpreviouslyinthisreport(seeTable2),thehabitatservicesthateelgrassprovidessupported

Massachusettscommercialfishingactivitiesin2011inexcessof$100milliondollars,notincludingany

indirecteconomicimpactsofcommercialfishingactivities(e.g.,spendingonboatrepair,fuel,etc.

neededforfishingactivities).

Thesestudiesalsodonotaddressthecostofrestoringeelgrass. Whilerestorationcostswillvaryfrom

projecttoproject,stafffromTheNatureConservancyandEPARegion1suggest$100,000/acre,or

$2.30/squarefoot

(which

includes

some

follow

up

monitoring

and

labor)

as

an

appropriate

estimate

for

theimplementationofonerestorationproject(Kachmar,personalcommunication;Colarusso,personal

communication). UsingtheaveragescarsizefromManchester,MAasanexample,itwouldcost

approximately$925totrytorestoreeachindividualscar. Successfulrestorationcouldrequiremore

thanonetry,thusincreasingthecost.

Similarly,theMassachusettsDivisionofMarineFisheries,workingwiththeArmyCorpsofEngineers,has

developedanInLieuFeeHabitatMitigationProgramforprojectswithhabitatimpacts. Basedonthe

costsofotherrestorationprojects,theyhaveestablisheda$10/squarefootbasevalueforhabitat,and


21/39


haveappliedacompensatorymitigationratioofatleast3:1forprojectsimpactingsubmergedaquatic

vegetation(ArmyCorpsofEngineersandMADivisionofMarineFisheries,2011). Applyingthisbase

valueandmultipliertotheaveragemooringscarinManchesterHarbor,thefeeassociatedwitheach

scarwouldbeapproximately$12,069.

Shouldboatersandharbormasterswishtoconsidertheeconomicvalueofeelgrasswhenmakingtheir

decisionsabout

whether

or

not

to

use

conservation

moorings,

the

above

numbers

may

help

put

the

cost

ofconservationmooringsintocontext.

CostConclusions:

Giventhefactthatmanyfactorsplayaroleindeterminingthecostofamooring,itisdifficulttoprovide

specificnumbersforacostcomparisonofconservationmooringsandconventionalmoorings. However,

assumingthataconventionalmooringandaconservationmooringusedthesameanchortype(ahelix

orablockforexample),pennant,andbuoy,thecostofthetwosystems,dependingonthebrandof

conservationmooring, couldbecomparableintermsofupfrontequipmentcosts,installationcosts,and

inspectioncosts.

Maintenancecostsaremoredifficulttocompare. Achainmayneedtobereplacedinpartorinwhole

every24years,

while

it

is

possible

that

aconservation

moorings

rode

system

could

last

more

than

10

years. Assumingthatmorechainwouldneedtobereplacedonaconventionalmooringthanona

conservationmooring(whichmayhavenochainatall)overthelifetimeofamooring(simplybecause

thereismorechainonaconventionalmooringthanonaconservationmooring),theconventional

mooringcouldbethemoreexpensiveoption,longterm.

Inordertounderstandthecostofaconservationmooringrelativetothevalueofeelgrass,anew

conservationmooringinstalledonahelixanchorcouldcostasmuchas$5,523forallequipmentand

installation(or$789/year)11. Comparedtotheannualvaluesofeelgrassnotedabove(which,again,

likelygreatlyunderestimatethevalueofeelgrass),thecostofthismooringisgreaterthantheeconomic

valueofeelgrasswithinthelikelyresultingeelgrassscar. However,theannualcostofthismost

expensiveconservationmooringoptionisfarlessthanthecostofhavingtoreplaceeelgrasslostasa

resultof

impacts

from

the

mooring.

This

suggests

that,

from

an

economic

perspective,

any

mooring

installedineelgrassshouldbeaconservationmooringsoastosavemoneyonhavingtotrytorestore

theeelgrassbedinthefuture.

REGULATORYANALYSIS

ConservationmooringsarenotaswidelyusedinNorthernNewEngland(Massachusetts,New

Hampshire,andMaine)asconventionalmoorings;howevertheiruseappearstobegrowing. The

followinginformationdescribesfederalandstateregulationsrelevanttoconservationmooringsand

theiruse.

Army

Corps

of

Engineers

TheplacementofmooringsintocoastalwatersisregulatedbytheArmyCorpsofEngineers(ACE)under

theRiversandHarborsAppropriationActof1899(33U.S.C.401,403,407). Section10(33U.S.C.403)

prohibitsthecreationofanyobstructionnotaffirmativelyauthorizedbyCongress,tothenavigable

capacityofanyofthewatersoftheUnitedStates. Theconstructionofanystructureinoroverthese

11Thisestimateusesthemostexpensiveoptionofthe35tonHazelettSystem,provinganestimateforthemore

costlyconservationmooring.


22/39


watersrequirestherecommendationoftheChiefofEngineers,asdelegatedbytheSecretaryofthe

Army,intheformofaSection10permit.

TheACERegulatoryOfficeinNewEnglandmakespermittingdecisionsformarinasandmoorings

throughouttheregion. IntheNewEnglandDistrict,theArmyCorpshasinstitutedasystemofState

GeneralPermits(GPs)forminorprojectsofmanyactivities,includingmooringplacement. Thegoalof

thispermit

system

is

to

reduce

duplicative

review

by

the

state

and

Army

Corps

and

to

expedite

the

permitreviewprocessfortheprojectapplicant. TheseStateGeneralPermitsuseatieredstructure,

withdifferentcategoriesforvaryinglevelsofimpactfromagivenproject. Thelevelsofimpactare

basedonspecificcriteriaanddeterminethedegreeofreviewrequiredbytheArmyCorps. TheState

GeneralPermitsaredifferentforeachstate;however,allpermitsincorporatestatespecificcoastaland

wetlandprotectionlaws. TheseStateGeneralPermitsarecurrentlyineffect;however,effortsare

underwaytodeveloponeGeneralPermitfortheentireNewEnglandregion. Draftlanguageforthat

regionalGeneralPermitisincludedinalatersectionofthereport.

MassachusettsGeneralPermit

AllquotedregulatorylanguagebelowcanbefoundintheArmyCorpsofEngineersGeneralPermitfor

theCommonwealthofMassachusetts(ArmyCorpsofEngineers,2011).

UnderthisGP[GeneralPermit],projectsmayqualifyforthefollowing:

Category1:Category1NotificationFormrequired.

SubmittaloftheCategory1NotificationFormatAppendixBtotheCorpsisrequired.

Category2:Applicationrequired.

SubmittalofanapplicationtotheCorpsisrequiredandwrittenapprovalfromtheCorpsmust

bereceived.

ProjectsnotmeetingCategory1requireanapplicationforreviewasaCategory2orIndividualPermit

project. AllCategory1and2projectsmustcomplywithallofthisGPsapplicabletermsandgeneral

conditions.

Category1:

1. New,private,noncommercial,nonrental,singleboatmooringsauthorizedunderMGLChapter

91Section10A. Provided:

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster.

Notassociatedwithanyboatingfacility,includingthoseinaFederalAnchorage.

NotlocatedwithinthebufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.

Nointerferencewithnavigation.

Notlocated

in

SAS.

Prior

to

installation

of

moorings,

asite

specific

eelgrass

survey

shouldbeconductedtodocumentthateelgrassisnotpresent.

2. Minorrelocationofpreviouslyauthorizedmooringsandmooredfloats. Provided:

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster.

CannotberelocatedintoaFederalNavigationProjectotherthanaFederalAnchorage.



23/39


ExistingmooringsnotinSASmaynotberelocatedtoSAS.

WhenexistingmooringsinSASarereplacedorupgraded,lowimpactmooring

technologythateliminatescontactwiththebottomsubstrateatalltides,suchashelical

anchorsandelasticorotherfloatingmooringtackle(i.e.,nodraggingchains),shallbe

employed.

Category2:

1. MooringsthatdontmeetthetermsofCategory1anddontrequireanIndividualPermit.

2. Mooringsassociatedwithaboatingfacility.

3. Mooringslocatedsuchthatthey,and/orvesselsdockedormooredatthem,arewithinthe

bufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.(SeeAppendixG.)Thebufferzoneis

equalto3timestheauthorizeddepthofthatchannel.

4. Mooringsand/ortheirmooredvesselswithinthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannelare

noteligibleforCategory2andrequireanIndividualPermit.

5.

AnyworkintheareaoftheCapeCodCanallocatedwestoftheverticalliftrailroadbridgeis

noteligible

for

Category

2and

requires

an

Individual

Permit.

Note:SpecialAquaticSites(SAS): Includeswetlandsandsaltmarsh,mudflats,rifflesandpools,

vegetatedshallows,coralreefs,andsanctuariesandrefugeswhichconsistofareasdesignatedunder

StateandFederallawsorlocalordinancestobemanagedprincipallyforthepreservationanduseoffish

andwildliferesource. AllSASwithintheprojectareashallbedelineatedontheplansforCategory2and

IPapplications. SASareidentifiedat40CFR230.40230.45anddefinedat40CFR230.4(q1)as

significantlyinfluencingorpositivelycontributingtothegeneraloverallenvironmentalhealthorvitality

oftheentireecosystemofaregion.

OveralltheMassachusettsGeneralPermitprovidesastreamlinedpermitsystemforprivate,nofee,new

mooringsinCategory1. Ifthesemooringsmeetbasicqualifications,suchasreceivingHarbormaster

approval,are

not

associated

with

any

boating

facility,

do

not

interfere

with

navigation,

and

are

not

locatedinSAS,theownermustprovidenotificationonly(noapplication)totheArmyCorps. To

maintainthisbasicnotificationonlyprocessforminorrelocationofanexistingmooring,however,

requiresthatthemooringnotberelocatedintoSAS. Inaddition,ifamooringalreadyexistsinSASandis

replacedorupgraded,lowimpactmooringtechnology,includinghelixanchorsandelasticrodes,are

required.

Incontrast,anownerseekingaCategory2mooringmustsubmitanapplicationtotheArmyCorpsfora

mooringpermit. Category2mooringsincludethosemoorings,usuallycommercial,thatareassociated

withaboatingfacility,orthatinterferewithnavigationinvariousways. Category2includesamooring

thatfailedtomeettherequirementsofCategory1,butdoesnotrequireamorestringentIndividual

Permit. TherearenospecificrequirementsinCategory2fortheuseoflowimpactmooringtechnology,

includinghelix

anchors

and

elastic

rodes,

although

these

may

be

called

for

by

the

Army

Corps

in

the

permitapplicationreview.

NewHampshireGeneralPermit

AllquotedregulatorylanguagebelowcanbefoundintheArmyCorpsofEngineersProgrammatic

GeneralPermitfortheStateofNewHampshire(ArmyCorpsofEngineers,2012).


24/39


ProjectsnotmeetingtheMinimumProjectcriteriamustapply/reporttotheCorpsaseithera

Minor/MajorProjectorIndividualPermitproject. AllMinimumorMinor/Majorprojectsmustcomply

withallofthisPGPs[ProgrammaticGeneralPermit]applicabletermsandGeneralConditions.

MinimumProjects:

Private,noncommercial,nonrental,singleboatmoorings. Provided:

o Proper/ecofriendlymooringsareusedsochainsorotherconnectionsdonotrestonthe

bottominvegetatedshallows.

o Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster.

o Notassociatedwithaboatingfacility.

o MooringsinFederalAnchoragenotassociatedwithaboatingfacility.

o NotlocatedwithinthebufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.

o Nointerferencewithnavigation.

Minor&MajorProjects:

MooringsnotmeetingthetermsofaMinimumproject.

Mooringslocatedsuchthatthey,and/orvesselsdockedormooredatthem,arewithinthe

bufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.

IndividualPermit(IP):

Mooringsand/ortheirmooredvesselswithinthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.

OveralltheNewHampshireGeneralPermitprovidesastreamlinedpermitsystemanalogousto

MassachusettsandMaine. All3statesutilizetheIndividualPermitcategory. InsteadofCategory1and

2,however,NewHampshireusesthecategoriesMinimumImpactProjectsandMinor&MajorImpact

Projects. InadditiontomeetingtheArmyCorpsscriteriaforthisGeneralPermit,mooringprojectsmust

alsomeet

several

state

approvals,

including:

(1)

Water

Quality

Certification

(WQC)

or

waiver

under

Section401oftheCleanWaterAct(CWA)(33U.S.C.1341)fromthestatewaterpollutioncontrol

agency(WatershedManagementBureau,undertheDepartmentofEnvironmentalServices);and(2)

CoastalZoneManagementAct(CZMA)FederalConsistencyConcurrenceunderSection307oftheCZMA

(16U.S.C.14511465).

Aprivate,nofee,singleboatmooringmeetstheMinimumImpactProjectrequirementifaneco

friendlymooring(forexample,anelasticrode)isusedtopreventscourdamagetovegetatedareas. In

addition,thisMinimumImpactstandardrequiresthatthemooringbeauthorizedbytheHarbormaster,

isnotassociatedwithaboatingfacility,doesnotinterferewithnavigation,aswellasother

requirements. MinimumImpactProjectsthatmeetallotherstateandfederalrequirementsmay

proceedfollowingapprovalfromtheDESWetlandsBureau.

MinorandMajorImpactProjectsarethoseprojectsthatdonotmeettherequirementsofaMinimum

ImpactsProjectorarelocatedwithinagivendistanceofaFederalChannel. MinorImpactProjectsmay

proceed30daysafteraDESWetlandsBureaudecision,unlessfurtheractionistakenbytheArmsCorps.

MajorImpactsProjectsmayproceedonlyafterwrittenauthorizationfromtheArmyCorps,followingthe

DESWetlandsBureaudecision. TherearenospecificrequirementsforMinorandMajorImpactProjects

touseecofriendlymoorings,althoughthesemaybecalledforbytheArmyCorpsorDESWetlands

Bureau.


25/39


MaineGeneralPermit

AllquotedregulatorylanguagebelowcanbefoundintheArmyCorpsofEngineersGeneralPermitfor

theStateofMaine(ArmyCorpsofEngineers,2010).

UnderthisGP[GeneralPermit],projectsmayqualifyforthefollowing:

Category1:

Category

1Notification

Form

required.

SubmittaloftheCategory1NotificationFormatAppendixBtotheCorpsisrequired.

Category2:Applicationrequired.

SubmittalofanapplicationtotheCorpsisrequiredandwrittenapprovalfromtheCorpsmust

bereceived.

ProjectsnotmeetingCategory1requireanapplicationforreviewasaCategory2orIndividualPermit

project. AllCategory1and2projectsmustcomplywithallofthisGPsapplicabletermsandgeneral

conditions.

Category1:

1.

Private,non

commercial,

non

rental,

single

boat

moorings,

provided:

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster/town.

Notassociatedwithanyboatingfacility.

BoatormooringnotlocatedinaFederalNavigationProjectotherthanaFederalAnchorage.

MooringsinFederalAnchoragenotassociatedwithaboatingfacilityandarenotforrent.


NonewmooringslocatedinSAS. Priortoinstallationofmoorings,asitespecificeelgrass

surveyshouldbeconductedtodocumentthateelgrassisnotpresent.

Whenexisting,

authorized

moorings

in

SAS

are

going

to

be

replaced,

they

shall

be

replaced

withelasticmooringsystemsthatpreventmooringchainsfromrestingordraggingonthe

bottomsubstrateatalltidesandhelicalanchors,orequivalentSASprotectionsystems

wherepracticable.

2. Minorrelocationofpreviouslyauthorizedmooringsandmooredfloats,provided:

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster/town.

NotlocatedinSAS.


CannotberelocatedintoaFederalNavigationProjectotherthanaFederalAnchorage.

Category2projects

include:

1. Mooringsassociatedwithaboatingfacility. Aneelgrasssurveymayberequired.

2.

MooringsthatdontmeetthetermsinCategory1anddontrequireanIndividualPermit. This

includesprivatemooringswithnoharbormasterormeansoflocalapproval.

3. Mooringslocatedsuchthatthey,and/orvesselsdockedormooredatthem,arewithinthe

bufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannelThebufferzoneisequalto3timesthe

authorizeddepthofthatchannel.


26/39


4. AnIPisrequiredformooringswithinthehorizontallimits,orwithmooredvesselsthatextend,

intothehorizontallimitsofaFederalNavigationProject,exceptthoseinFederalAnchorages.

For14above,sitingofnewindividualmooringsinSAS,includingeelgrass,shouldbeavoidedtothe

maximumextentpracticable. IfSAScannotbeavoided,plansshouldshowelasticmooringsystemsthat

preventmooringchainsfromrestingordraggingonthebottomsubstrateatalltidesandhelical

anchors,or

equivalent

SAS

protection

systems,

where

practicable.

SpecialAquaticSites:Includeswetlandsandsaltmarsh,mudflats,rifflesandpools,andvegetated

shallows(predominantlycomprisedofeelgrassinMaine).

OveralltheMaineGeneralPermitprovidesastreamlinedpermitsystemforprivate,nofee,newand

minorrelocationmooringsinCategory1. Ifthesemooringsmeetbasicqualifications,suchasreceiving

Harbormasterapproval,arenotassociatedwithanyboatingfacility,donotinterferewithnavigation,

andarenotlocatedinSAS,theownermustprovidenotificationonly(noapplication)totheArmyCorps.

Tomaintainthisbasicnotificationonlyprocess,however,nonewmooringmaybelocatedinSAS. The

absenceofSASshouldbeconfirmedviaaneelgrasssurvey. Also,ifamooringalreadyexistsinSASand

isreplacedorupgraded,helixanchorsandelasticmooringsystemsthatpreventsubstratedamageare

required.

Incontrast,anownerseekingaCategory2mooringmustsubmitanapplicationtotheArmyCorpsfora

mooringpermit. Category2mooringsincludethosemoorings,usuallycommercial,thatareassociated

withaboatingfacility,donothaveHarbormasterapproval,orthatinterferewithnavigationinvarious

ways. Category2includesamooringthatfailedtomeettherequirementsofCategory1,butdoesnot

requireamorestringentIndividualPermit. TherearenospecificrequirementsinCategory2fortheuse

oflowimpactmooringtechnology,includinghelixanchorsandelasticrodes,althoughthesemaybe

calledforbytheArmyCorpsinthepermitapplicationreview. Inaddition,aneelgrasssurveymaybe

required.

ProposedNewEnglandGeneralPermit(Draft)

Whilethecurrentsystemisfunctional,theArmyCorpsseekstoprovidegreaterregulatoryuniformity

acrossthe

New

England

region.

The

Army

Corps

is

in

the

process

of

reshaping

the

State

General

Permit

systemtocreateonestandardizedGeneralPermitforNewEngland,insteadofauniqueStateGeneral

Permitforeachstate.

Thisredraftingprocessisongoingandthelanguagehasnotbeenfinalized. TheArmyCorpsgenerously

sharedthedraftlanguageincludedbelow. Whenthedraftisfinal,theArmyCorpswillissueaPublic

NoticeandallowforpubliccommentonthisGeneralPermit.

Apreconstructionnotification(PCN)isrequiredwhen:

Mooringsinterferewithnavigation.

Mooringsarenotauthorizedbythelocalharbormaster/townwhenapplicable. Lackoflocal

oversightrequires

aPCN.

Mooringsaccommodatemorethanoneboatorhaveanassociatedfloat.

Mooringsareassociatedwithanexistingorexpandedboatingfacility,includingthosethat

extendintoaFederalAnchorage.

Mooringsareassociatedwithaneworexpandedmooringfieldthatisnotaboatingfacility

(e.g.,atownmooringfield).


27/39


NeworrelocatedmooringsarelocatedinSAS. Applicantsmustconsidertheavoidanceand

minimizationsequenceinthenotesbelowandsubmitthatjustificationtotheCorpsalong

withthePCN. (navigablewatersthataretidalonly)

Existing,authorizedmoorings(i.e.,anchorsortackles)inSASarereplacedorupgradedand

donotuselowimpactmooringtechnology[2]. Proponentsmustconsidertheavoidanceand

minimizationsequence

in

the

notes

below

and

submit

that

justification

to

the

Corps

along

withthePCN.(navigablewatersthataretidalonly).

Notes:

TheTOYrestrictionsinGC19donotapplytothisactivity.

Avoidanceandminimizationsequence:1)avoidSAS,2)helicalanchorwithfloating/buoyant

tackle,3)blockanchorwithfloating/buoyanttackle. SeeFootnote13.

[1]Boatingfacilitiesprovide,rentorsellmooringordockingspace,suchasmarinas,yacht

clubs,boatyards,dockominiums,townfacilities,land/homeownersassociations,etc. Not

classifiedasboatingfacilitiesarepierssharedbetweentwoabuttingpropertiesortownmooring

fieldsthatchargeanequitableuserfeebasedontheactualcostsincurred.

[2]Lowimpactmooringtechnologyeliminatesorminimizescontactwiththebottomsubstrate

atalltides. Thisconsistsofhelicalanchorsinsteadoftraditionalanchors(e.g.,concreteblock)

andfloating/buoyanttackle(e.g.,elastic)insteadofchainsthatdragonthebottomandimpact

SASandthesubstrate. ThePCNreviewprocesscoulddeterminethatatraditionalanchorwith

floating/buoyanttacklemaybeusedifsubstrateconditionsmakehelicalanchorsimpractical.

OveralltheproposedNewEnglandGeneralPermitprovidesamoreefficientandunifiedpermit

systemforallofNewEnglandandeliminatesthepermitdifferencesbetweenstates. Thisproposed

permitincludesrequirementssimilartotheexistingStateGeneralPermits,butexpandsonthese

criteria. ToavoidtriggeringaPCN,amooringmustbeapprovedbytheHarbormaster,unassociated

withanyboatingfacility,providenointerferencewithnavigation,andnotlocatedinSAS.

Inaddition,thisproposedpermitmakesrequirementsfortheuseoflowimpactmooringtechnology,includinghelixanchorsandelasticrodes,moreexplicitandrobust. Bothaneworrelocatedmooring

seekingtolocateinSAS,aswellasanexistingmooringinSASthatisreplacedorupgradedmustconsider

specificavoidanceandminimizationrequirements. Theserequirementsincludeoutrightavoidanceof

SAS,combineduseofahelixanchorandelasticrode,ortheuseofablockanchorandelasticrode. A

projectmustmeettheserequirementsorfacethesignificanttaskofprovidingjustificationtotheArmy

Corpswhytheserequirementscannotbemet. Theuseofexpandeddefinitionsinthisproposedpermit

clarifiesthespecificequipmentthatqualifiesaslowimpactmooringtechnology.

StateandMunicipalRegulations

InadditiontothepotentialrequirementforapermitfromtheArmyCorpsofEngineers,theplacement

ofamooring

must

meet

state

and

municipal

permit

requirements

and

standards

found

in

local

mooring

regulations. Duetopracticallimitationsofcontactingallharbormastersinthe3statestudyarea,the

followinganalysisisbasedoninformationfoundintheavailablewrittenlocalmooringregulations,and

supplementedwherepossiblebyinformationfromindividualharbormastersandmooring

manufacturersandinstallers.

Massachusetts


28/39


PursuanttothegeneralauthorityunderMass.Gen.Lawsch.91,10A;Mass.Gen.Lawsch.102,19et

seq.;Mass.Gen.Lawsch.43B,13;310CMR9.07,andallotherapplicablelegalauthoritythe

Commonwealthhastherighttoconferauthoritytothemunicipalities,andthemunicipalitieshavethe

powertoexercisesuchauthoritytoissuetemporary,annualpermitstothepublicforthemooringof

vesselsandrelatedstructuresundersuchterms,conditions,andrestrictionsthatmaybedeemed

necessary.

TwoMassachusettsmunicipalities,theTownofManchesterbytheSeaandtheTownofMarionrequire

theuseofhelixanchorsincertaincircumstances. IntheTownofManchesterbytheSea,

Massachusetts,a[h]elixtypemooringsystemorothermooringsystemthatwillhavelessimpactoneel

grassfieldsisrequiredforanynewlypermittedmooringsorreplacementmooringtacklelocatedin

eelgrassareas(TownofManchesterbytheSea, 2012). TheTownofMarion,Massachusettsrequires

theuseofhelixanchorsforallboats25feetorlongerandincludeshelixanchorsasadesignated

mooringanchortypeoptionforboatslessthan25feet(TownofMarion,2007). InMassachusetts,

approximately16municipalitiesincludetheuseofhelixanchors(alsocalledscreworaugeranchors)

eitherasadesignatedmooringanchortypeoptionorasallowedatthediscretionoftheharbormasterin

thelocalmooringregulations. Thesemunicipalitiesinclude: Barnstable,Chatham,Dennis,Falmouth,

Gloucester,Hingham,Ipswich,Manchester,Marion,Marshfield,Mashpee,Nahant,NewBedford,

Quincy,Wareham,andWeymouth. Amongthosemunicipalities,approximately5(Barnstable,Dennis,

Ipswich,Marion,Nahant)includespecificstandardsforthesizeandplacementofhelixanchors.

NewBedford,Massachusettsdoesnotrequiretheuseofhelixanchors,butdoesindicatehelixanchors

arepreferredmooringsystems(PortofNewBedford,2010). Incontrast,theTownofTruro,

Massachusettsistheonlymunicipalityfoundtoexpresslyprohibittheuseofhelixanchorsintheirlocal

mooringregulations.

InMassachusetts,theuseofanelasticrodesystemisnotrequiredbyanymunicipality;however,

approximately4municipalities(Falmouth,Hingham,Marshfield,andNewBedford)includetheuseof

theelasticrodeasanoptionorasallowedatthediscretionoftheHarbormasterinthelocalmooring

regulations. Thesesystemsaredescribedinmooringregulationsinvariousways,includingas

environmentallyfriendly

mooring

systems

designed

to

keep

the

chain

off

the

ocean

floor

(Town

of

Falmouth,2007),highperformanceshockabsorbertypesystems(PortofNewBedford,2010),orby

theirmanufacturer,e.g.,HazelettMarine,SynergyMarine. Severalothermunicipalities,including

Chatham,Dartmouth,Nantucket,Provincetown,Tisbury,andVineyardHaven,mayuseelasticrode

systemsinsomelocations,butdonotreferencethisspecificequipmentintheirtownmooring

regulations.

Manyothermunicipalitiesdonotmentioneitherthehelixanchororelasticrodesystemintheir

regulations. Thesemunicipalitieswilloftenallowand/orprohibitcertainanchortypes,oronlylist

mooringstandardsforaparticularanchortype. Severalmunicipalities,includingBourneand

Marblehead,indicatethatalternatemooringsystemsmaybeallowedatthediscretionofthe

harbormaster.

Inaddition,severalmunicipalitiesincludeconservationorientedlanguageintheirregulationsregarding

theplacementofmoorings. InBrewster,allvesselsmustbeproperlymooredwhichincludes

maintainingaminimumof25feetfromallaquaticvegetation,includingbutnotlimitedtosedge

(Spartina)oreelgrass(Zosteria)(sic)(TownofBrewster,2008). Similarly,inEastham,[i]nthewaters

ofCapeCodBayNomooringshallbelocatedsuchthatthevesselwhenagroundatlowtideisa

minimumoftwentyfive(25)feetfromallaquaticvegetationincludingbutnotlimitedtosedge

(Spartina)oreelgrass(Zosteria)(sic)(TownofEastham,2011).


29/39


InChatham,mooringtacklespecificationsincludethefollowing:(1)Nonewconcreteblocksare

permittedinprotectedareas. Existingblockswillbereplacedwithalternativesystemsthrough

attrition;and(2)Allconcretemooringblockslocatedwithinenvironmentallysensitiveresourceareas

shallberemovedandreplacedbyanapprovedalternativeanchorwithin5yearsfromthedatethe

areasisdesignatedandapprovedbytheHarbormaster(TownofChatham,2011). Thephrase

alternativeanchorsystemhasbeenusedinotherprojectsinNewEnglandtomeanthecombineduse

ofahelixanchorandelasticrode;however,thisphraseisnotdefinedformallyintheChathamregulations. Likewise,theGloucesterHarbormastermayrequirealternatemooringspecificationsfor

areasthathavebeendesignatedasenvironmentallysensitive,althoughthesealternatesystemsare

notdefined(CityofGloucester,2012). Asdescribedpreviously,formooringslocatedinspecific

environmentallysensitiveareas,Manchesterrequirestheuseofhelixanchorsorothermooringsystem

thatwillhavelessimpactoneelgrassfields.(TownofManchesterbytheSea,2012). Theelasticrode

systemisnotlistedspecificallyintheregulations,butcouldbeconsideredasanoptionunderthis

definition.

Inallregulations,anyrequiredmooringspecificationsareaminimumstandardandtheharbormaster

mayrequiredifferentspecificationsathisdiscretion.

NewHampshire

PursuanttothegeneralauthorityunderN.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.12G;N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann.270:60;Pda

500MooringsandAnchoragesrules;andallotherapplicablelegalauthority,theStatehastherightto

conferauthoritytothemunicipalities,andthemunicipalitieshavethepowertoexercisesuchauthority

toissuetemporary,annualpermitstothepublicforthemooringofvesselsandrelatedstructuresunder

suchterms,conditions,andrestrictionsthatmaybedeemednecessary.

ThePeaseDevelopmentAuthority,DivisionofPortsandHarbors(PDAPH)isresponsibleforpermitting,

locatingandmanagingmooringsinNewHampshirecoastalwaters. ThePda500Mooringsand

Anchoragerulesincludeonlyablockweightasamooringanchor. Theuseofhelixanchorsoranelastic

rodeisnotmentionedinthePda500rules. Inaddition,thereisnoconservationorientedlanguagein

theseregulationsregardingmooringplacement;however,othernecessaryStateapprovals,suchasby

theDESWetlandsBureau,willincludeenvironmentallybasedrequirements.

Maine

PursuanttothegeneralauthorityunderMe.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.38,113;Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.30A,

3001;Me.Rev.Stat.Ann.tit.12,13072;Me.Const.art.VIII,pt.2,1,andallotherapplicablelegal

authority,theStatehastherighttoconferauthoritytothemunicipalities,andthemunicipalitieshave

thepowertoexercisesuchauthoritytoissuetemporary,annualpermitstothepublicforthemooringof

vesselsandrelatedstructuresundersuchterms,conditions,andrestrictionsthatmaybedeemed

necessary.

Afewmunicipalities,includingBrunswick,Falmouth,andFreeport,specificallyincludehelixanchorsasa

designatedmooringtypeoption;however,helixanchorsarenotrequired. Theuseofanelasticrodeis

notmentionedinanymunicipalmooringregulations. DuetothelargetidalrangeinmanyMaineharbors,installationofelasticrodesystemsischallengingandthisequipmentmaybeexposedatlow

tide(Lefebvre,personalcommunication). Afewmunicipalitiesallowonlyaparticulartypeofmooring

anchor,suchasamushroomanchororgraniteblock,orlistmooringtacklerequirementsonlyforthat

anchortype. Meanwhile,othermunicipalitiesmayexpresslyprohibitaparticularmooringtype. Ifa

mooringanchortypeisspecified,manymunicipalitiesindicatethatanotheranchormaybeusedatthe

harbormastersdiscretion. Inallcasestheharbormastermakesthefinaldecisionwhetheramooring

anchorandrodesystemisadequateforthevesselandlocalconditions.


30/39


Afewmunicipalities,includingBrunswickandSebago(draftregulations),indicatethatmooringsshould

beplacedinalocationthatdoesnotunreasonablyaffectnaturalresources(TownofBrunswick,2012)

ormateriallyadverselyaffectgreatpondvegetation,lakewildlife,oranynaturalaquatichabitat

(TownofSebago,2011).

SummaryofStateandMunicipalRegulations

Overallthe

local

mooring

regulations

in

Massachusetts

municipalities

contain

the

greatest

number

of

referencestohelixanchorsandelasticrodes,ascomparedtoNewHampshireandMaine.

InMassachusetts,2municipalitiesrequiretheuseofhelixanchorsinspecificcircumstances,16

municipalitiesallowtheuseofhelixanchors,and5municipalitiesincludespecificrequirementsforsize

anduseofhelixanchors. Incontrast,nomunicipalitiesinMainerequiretheuseofhelixanchors,3

municipalitiesallowtheusethehelixanchors,andnomunicipalitiesincludespecificrequirementsfor

sizeanduseofhelixanchors. InNewHampshire,Statemooringregulationsdonotincludehelixanchors

inanycapacity.

InMassachusetts,4municipalitiesallowtheuseofelasticrodesbutdonotrequireit. Incontrast,

neitherMainenorNewHampshireexplicitlyallowtheuseofelasticrodesasstatedintheirlocal

mooringregulations.

RECOMMENDATIONS,IMPLEMENTATIONSTRATEGIES,ANDCONCLUSIONSResearchhasshownthat,correctlyinstalled,conservationmooringsminimizeimpactstobenthic

habitatsascomparedtotheimpactscausedbyconventionalmoorings;andarelessexpensivethanthe

costassociatedwithtryingtorestoreeelgrass. Furthermore,continuedlocalmonitoringofthere

growthofZosteramarinaisexpectedtoprovidemoreinformationaboutthepotentialforre

colonizationofmooringscarsthroughtheinstallationofconservationmoorings.

Inadditiontotheecologicalbenefitsofconservationmoorings,thereisverylittleevidencetosuggest

thatconservationmooringsareanylesscapableofsecurelymooringavesselthanconventional

moorings.

Thefew

reports

of

conservation

mooring

failures

had

to

do

with

improper

installation

and

part

Documents

Conservation Mooring Report