Side benefits accruing from an effective FTB were many and included: 



(a) Substantial savings in maintenance to the protected facility; 



(b) increased boat- launching and haul -out periods in the spring 

 and the fall; 



(c) additional dockage, thereby increasing revenues and stimu- 

 lating boat sales and rental of slips; 



(d) fewer broken moorings and runaway boats during severe storms; 



(e) improved public relations for the protected facility; 



(f) improved boaters' comfort; and 



(g) improved boating safety. 



In addition to serving as a breakwater, the Goodyear design occasionally 

 did double duty, functioning in such diverse roles as a pier and dock, a boat 

 traffic controller, a shoreline protection device, a movable breakwater tempo- 

 rarily used for a sailboat show across a bay, and a fish reef. Operators also 

 noted that an FTB is effective in attracting sport fish to the site, preventing 

 shoreline erosion, and drawing waterfowl away from their facilities. Overall, 

 the FTB was seen as having no perceptible effect on sediment movement, unless 

 positioned in very shallow water would it influence littoral transport or water 

 circulation, and was typically viewed as being only slightly detrimental to 

 waterfront appearance. Of the 17 sites surveyed, typical evaluations of the 

 Goodyear design were in the range of moderate to high in terms of the struc- 

 ture's ability to meet design goals, capacity to satisfy the operator's needs, 

 and overall performance. 



III. OTHER FLOATING BREAKWATER DESIGNS 



Five FB designs radically different from the Goodyear concept were uncov- 

 ered in the survey of FBs in the Eastern United States. These designs are the 

 pole-tire FB (Fig. 3), the timber caisson FB (Fig. 4), the steel pipe FB (Fig. 

 5), the steel caisson FB (Fig. 6), and the log boom FB (Fig. 7). In all five 

 cases, only one site was found for each design; consequently, there is no sub- 

 stantial statistical base from which to draw general conclusions. 



The pole-tire FB and the timber caisson FB are both in the prototypal stage 

 as of this writing, with less than 1 year of field experience each. These inno- 

 vative designs certainly bear further scrutiny over the next several years to 

 learn of their long-term problems and merits. The utility of the steel pipe FB 

 appears totally constrained to freshwater sites; even then, its performance 

 is questionable due to basic problems with its mooring system. Likewise, the 

 steel caisson FB appears to be restricted in usefulness to freshwater sites. 

 Also, it has an exceptionally high construction cost. The more historically 

 used log boom FB is certainly a more frequent design than this study would sug- 

 gest, but as testified by many case studies before this report, the log boom's 

 usefulness appears limited to sites with but slight wave problems. In all 

 these cases, readers are directed to the site-specific analyses in the appen- 

 dixes to more fully understand the characteristics of these systems. 



17 



