Mannas 



marinas have been developed in Class SA waters, the classification has generally been 

 changed to SB in the immediate vicinity of the proposed marina, following a required 

 public hearing process. If marinas are permitted in SA waters, pump-out facilities must be 

 provided. DEM's SC classification provides for boating, other secondary contact 

 recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, industrial cooling, and aesthetic value. 



Section 300.4 of the Coastal Resources Management Program sets out CRMC policy on 

 marinas. With regard to general policy, CRMC encourages developers to use space 

 efficientiy, but favors concentration of slip space in large facilities as opposed to 

 proliferation of small marinas. Municipalities developing harbor management plans are 

 required to obtain council assents to ensure consistency with CRMC policy and state law. 



CRMC policy is to prohibit construction of new marinas in Type 1 and 2 waters, 

 although 25 percent expansion beyond 1981 capacity is authorized. Marinas are allowed in 

 all but one of the remaining CRMC water classifications (Type 3 High-Intensity Boating 

 areas; Type 4 Multipurpose Waters; and Type 5 Commercial and Recreational Harbors. 

 Type 6 Industrial Waterfionts and Commercial Navigation Channel areas are reserved for 

 commercial and industrial use. 



Because CRMCs water use and shoreline categories draw heavily from adjacent 

 shoreland zoning districts established by municipalities, use designations may conflict with 

 DEM designated use classifications. CRMC Types 3,4, and 5 are not infrequendy 

 designated as SA and SB waters by DEM. Faced by the inconsistency, developers and 

 municipalities have repeatedly chaUenged the original DEM designation process, claiming 

 that designations were arbitrarily drawn. 



Basically, the conflict turns on differences between program mandate and on 

 jurisdictional inconsistency. DEM places program emphasis on impacts of discharges to 

 receiving waters, while CRMCs broad resource management mandate encompasses 

 appropriateness of use. CRMC tends to interpret its jurisdiction narrowly, placing heavy 

 emphasis on the need for support from local zoning. 



Neither DEM nor CRMC have sufficient resources to monitor initial or long-term 

 compliance with permit conditions. Once a water quality certification has been issued, 

 DEM has means of monitoring whether illegal discharges are subsequentiy introduced to 

 receiving waters, or whether the number of boat slips or moorings developed conforms to 

 the vessel capacity permitted. 



Mooring fields present special concerns. Although CRMC policy currentiy requires that 

 mooring plans be reviewed, standards for permit review have never been articulated. DEM 

 and CRMC arc presentiy working to adjust regulatory language to specify that mooring 

 fields will be considered as identical to marinas fix)m the standpoint of regulatory review. 



General Recommendations to CRMC and DEM 



**Revise permitting procedures and guidelines relating to marinas and mooring fields to 

 ensure consistency of interpretation between the two agencies. Guidelines developed 

 should include specific standards to govern the siting and design of marinas so as to 

 consider water quality concerns as a basis for siting, operation, and maintenance. 



|***Strictly prohibit marina siting in poorly flushed shellfishing areas. 



174 



