Jump to main content or area navigation.

Contact Us

Water: Marinas

Clean Marinas Clear Value

           

United States
Environmental Protection Agency		Office of Water
    (4503F)
Washington, DC 20460		EPA 841-R-96-003
August 1996

Environmental and Business
Success Stories

August, 1996

On This Page:

LINK TO THE SEA GRANT NET Exit EPA Disclaimer


This study focuses on the economic benefits realized by marina managers who have implemented management measures at their marinas.

Acknowledgements

While the number of marina facilities nominated and volunteering for this Clean Marinas--Clear Value project far exceeded the scale of this project and not all could be included, Neil Ross Consultants (NRC) recognizes and thanks the following people for helping to identify the best clean marinas in the nation: Duncan Amos, Armin Cate, Al Davidson, Kevin Fitzpatrick, Peter Foote, Ric Golding, Frank Herhold, Clay Huntress, Mike Keyworth, Ted Lotz, Nathalie Peter, Mark Razny, Mike Stenberg, Jay Tanski, Bob White, and Julie Wright.

Funding for this project was made available by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. NRC expresses its thanks to Geoffrey Grubbs and Ed Drabkowski at EPA for their guidance and encouragement, and to Sam Pett at Tetra Tech, Inc., for his calm advice and support.

Any project of this scope always has individuals who give extra cooperation in planning, gathering information, and assisting, and NRC thanks Mark Amaral, Maureen Devitt, Larry Innis, Mike Keyworth, Robert Pacific, Captain Richard Permenter, Tim Tyrrell, and Julie Wright. Cooperating federal agencies included EPA, NOAA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and individual State Sea Grant Programs. Cooperating marina industry organizations included International Marina Institute, Marina Operators Association of America, American Boat Builders & Repairers Association, and Marine Industries Association of South Florida.

Special appreciation goes to all the 25 marina/boatyard managers and owners who endured persistent questions and requests for data, and to those visited for enthusiastically showing their great facilities. Their high level of professionalism and creativity in operating some of the cleanest marinas is exciting. Together, they are truly the bow wave of modern marina management for the 21st Century.

Top of page

Introduction

Marinas and recreational boating are very popular uses of coastal waters. The growth of recreational boating, along with the growth of coastal development in general, has led to a growing awareness of the need to protect the environmental quality of our waterways. Because marinas are located right at the water's edge, there is a strong potential for marina waters to become contaminated with pollutants generated from the various activities that occur at marinas, such as boat cleaning, fueling operations, and marine head discharge, or from the entry of storm water runoff from parking lots and hull maintenance and repair areas into marina basins.

 

When Congress passed the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990, known as CZARA, it required EPA to describe sets of management measures to be used for the control of pollution from various nonpoint sources, including marinas and recreational boating. States will incorporate these measures into their own nonpoint source pollution control programs to help achieve water quality standards. One of the stipulations that Congress made in the law was that the management measures be economically achievable so as not to impose any unnecessary financial hardship on those who will be required to implement the management measures. EPA, therefore, did complete economic analyses that demonstrate the economic achievability of the management measures for marinas and recreational boating in its Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.

This study focuses on the economic benefits realized by marina managers who   have implemented management measures at their marinas. The following sections describe how the study was done, the findings   of the study, and each of the marinas selected to demonstrate how application   of one or more of the management measures can result in economic benefit to   a marina. The study was limited to 25 marinas, but during the course of the   study, many more outstanding examples of how environmentally sound marina   management can result in economic benefits were discovered.

This study focuses on the econonmic benefits realized by marina managers who have implemented management measures in their marinas.

It is noted that many of the marinas discussed in these case studies also have obtained NPDES permits for stormwater discharge management as well as other permits as the individual states may require. The objective of both CZARA and the NPDES stormwater permit programs is the same, which is to achieve improved water quality and a reduction in runoff pollution.

Top of page

Findings of the Study

Every marina has active solid waste management and public education programs.

Clearly, the marina industry has begun to embrace the need to promote clean   boating, clean facilities, and clean operations. The case studies presented   highlight good examples of clean marinas that have found clear value in their   environmental improvements.Each of the 25 case studies in this report illustrate   different lessons learned from implementation of many of the 14 coastal management   measures applicable to marinas, *

* -- US EPA "Management Measures for Marinas and Recreational Boating," chapter 5 in Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters [Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 1993, EPA 840-B-92-002]. The management measure for boat operation, also included in the EPA guidance, is not intended to be applied by marinas


but with interesting variations on best management practices (BMPs).

Table 1 (PDF) (2 pp, 36.7K) shows the management measures used in the marinas reported. Note that the "O"s on the table represent the management measures highlighted in the discussion of each marina. These marinas were chosen for their differences to illustrate the range of approaches to common problems.

     
  • Every marina has active solid waste management and public education programs.  
    •  
  • All but one have pumpout stations and are promoting their use. Most have issued   marina no-discharge regulations. Eight were highlighted here for the way   they promote or use pumpout service.
    •  
  • Nearly 90 percent have been involved in shoreline stabilization, storm water   runoff control, liquid material management, and petroleum control.
    •  
  • Over 70 percent have improved their fuel docks and boat-cleaning practices.  
    •  
  • Four marinas are actively involved in aquaculture or restocking programs --   Cedar Island (scallop farming), Deep River (Atlantic salmon release), Oak   Harbor (Coho and Chinook salmon rearing and release), and Puerto del Rey   (sea turtle rescue). They illustrate the very interesting potential for   widespread habitat enhancement and fish farming in marinas. And they demonstrate   that marina basins can indeed be healthy and productive ecosystems.
    •  
  • Surprisingly, only 28 percent found sport fishing activity high enough to   need cleaning stations.
  • Two marinas met or exceeded the requirements for all 14 of the federal coastal management measures applicable to marinas -- Elliott Bay and the Hammond Marina. Both are America's newest megamarinas, ** opened within the past 5 years, and were required to contend with environmental requirements that did not exist when most of the nation's marinas were built between 1950 and 1980.

** -- Megamarinas are defined by NRC as marinas having 1,000 or more boat slips.


Some of the examples are very simple and inexpensive, whereas others are complicated and costly. All of them, once understood, make common sense. That is not to imply that all will work well everywhere -- because they won't.

Any marina manager who reads this report will find one or several very practical practices well worth trying, perhaps with some adaptation for his or her site and operation.

Marinas Going Clean

Every marina included in this study, as well the many others contacted that do not appear here, is demonstrating innovation, determination, and an almost missionary zeal for clean operations. It seems that once facility owners and managers take the first few steps to protect the environment, they quickly take many other steps toward facility improvement. And the process continues as they strive to become even better after seeing the positive reaction of their customers following environmental progress.

To understand the range of best management practices used by the facilities in this report, look at all of the narratives. Each one tells a different story. Each story describes one major practice in some depth, and mentions others, but this report does not describe everything done in every marina. (If it did, it would quadruple in size.)

Interestingly, the majority of marinas in this report made environmental changes voluntarily because they wanted both to improve their service to boaters and to stay ahead of the regulations. Three marinas, however, did so as a direct result of being told to do so by a local or state regulatory agency, but in every case they exceeded the minimum and went on to make enhancements well beyond their instructions. Not one regretted making environmental changes. All felt good that their business activities were also better, and they have plans to continue making headway toward cleaner marinas and clean boating.

Benefits clear

All of the managers were pleasantly surprised with the results when asked to determine the benefits derived from the environmental changes they have made. Table 2 (PDF) (3 pp, 26K) lists the general benefits from environmental changes.

When asked to describe costs/benefits, some managers easily found accounting figures to demonstrate an economic advantage. For many others, the request required digging, analysis, and in many cases best estimates. When their numbers were set to paper, all were very pleased with their cost-to-benefit comparisons. The case studies in this report make clear that real, measurable bottom-line benefits can result from cleaner operations. Table 3 (PDF) (5 pp, 49K) and Figure 1 show costs/benefits for the clean marina examples.

Clean is not cheap

One caution while reading this report: Do not assume that all environmental improvements and changes result in measurable benefits. They don't, according to the managers. However, each manager quickly added a statement that "environmental protection is just part of the cost of doing business today along the waterfront. We've got to do what we can to have good water quality for the sake of our business."

Many environmental and regulatory compliance costs are not directly billable to boats, such as manager's planning time, staff training, permits, consultants, physical changes, landscaping, restroom modernization, traps, filters, and supplies. To counter those costs, some full-service marinas are adding an environmental surcharge on all sales, slip charges, and billable service work. The rates generally range from 1 to 2.5 percent, with the revenues going into dedicated accounts for environmental improvements. It is particularly noteworthy that both chains in this study -- Brewer Yacht Yards and Westrec Marinas -- are using surcharges. It is likely that similar surcharges will soon be a common practice in the marina industry. Several managers use the income from recycled cans and metals for end-of-year cash bonuses for staff. One boatyard spends that money for landscape flowers.

 

Environmental contracts work

Environmental contracts between the marina and its customers, outside contractors, and staff have apparently worked well where they have been used. The contracts were demonstrated to be a key element in the education process and displayed the very serious intention of managers to make their marinas more environmentally compatible. Contract language was consistent with the facilities' best management practices (BMPs) or storm water pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs).

Most of the managers with such contracts have used them to enforce their rules. Many report the loss of a few customers at slip renewal time, but those were soon replaced with customers who supported clean operations. Contracts resulted in tighter control on and reduction in the number of outside contractors doing boat repairs on the marina property. All the managers indicated that their operations are much cleaner after "banging a few heads." The marinas prospered with the customers who remained and were happier with the clean marina philosophy.

Rates higher, occupancy higher

During the interviews, marina managers and owners were asked how their occupancy and rates compared to those of other facilities nearby in their boating market area. All but one said, "Our rates and occupancy are higher."

They generally believed that their visible efforts to operate clean marinas translated into customer confidence that management would also give extra care to the boats. Plus, an increasing percentage of the public today wants to use only nice, clean, service-oriented facilities. And it seems that a growing percentage of the boating public, according to these managers, is willing to pay a higher slip cost for a better and cleaner facility.

Permits easier to get?

"Not so," responded most marina managers when informally asked that question. "But now that we are recognized as an environmentally proactive facility, the regulators are easier to talk with and give us fewer hassles," they usually added. Several managers proudly reported that their facilities have been used by state regulators as showplaces for visitors or for training purposes.

The benefits of becoming environmentally compliant may be somewhat limited, although positive, when it comes to dealing with coastal and environmental regulators.

Marina owner/managers are leaders

All of the owners and managers interviewed strongly advocate environmental protection as an essential everyday part of their boating business. They each started the change process for different reasons over the past 4 to 6 years, but all discovered that successful marinas and clean water go hand in hand. By the range of ways they responded to the clean marina challenge, they illustrated the creativity and problem-solving genius so widely found in the marina and boatyard industry. They were innovators who succeeded.

Nearly all of these owners and managers are active in state and/or regional marine trade association. The majority belong to multiple national organizations that have been proactive on environmental issues, including the International Marina Institute (IMI), Marina Operators Association of America (MOAA), and American Boat Builders & Repairers Association (ABBRA). Several have achieved professional recognition as IMI Certified Marina Managers (CMMs). There seems to be a positive relationship between industry activism and environmentalism.

Recognition spreads the good word

State and federal agencies could develop positive incentives and recognition for those marinas and boatyards that are doing their best to reduce their environmental impacts. Without some clear benefits from the regulations, many other managers will continue to say "What's the use of complying?"

A few federal and state agencies have given public recognition to several of the marinas interviewed, and the certificates are proudly displayed where customers can see them. The boating industry -- particularly national trade associations and magazines -- has started to highlight clean marinas as outstanding examples for others to follow.

Each of the 25 marinas and boatyards in this report have been recognized with a certificate from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a nationally outstanding clean marina.

Job done yet?

Are any of these marinas finished making environmental improvements? Not likely.

"When we started to clean up the yard several years ago," Mike Keyworth (General manager, Brewer's Cove Haven Marina, RI) explained, "our customers gave us many compliments. So we kept on cleaning up and making improvements. And they complemented us more and more, which made us feel good. The thing about this process is that once we started, the more we wanted to do."

Without realizing it, Keyworth spoke for everyone in this report.

Predictions

Considering the relatively short duration of this study, the number and range of cases studied were but the bow of the clean marina movement. There are undoubtedly hundreds of other marinas with stories as good as, or better than, those found in Section III.

It is more than likely that sometime in the future:

     
  • 75 percent of the estimated 8,000 to 10,000 marina facilities in the United   States will make significant environmental improvements, with the rest making   some changes more slowly.
    •  
  • Environmental surcharges will be common nationwide.
    •  
  • Marina professionals will promote national or regional no-discharge adoption.  
    •  
  • Clean marinas will quickly become the norm.
  • Those marinas which do not clean up will probably not be in business as the 21st Century dawns.

Sometime in the future marina managers and coastal authorities will look back at this report, read the examples, and say "What's so different about these practices? Isn't everyone in boating doing these as a natural part of their business?" That's the point.

Remember, in 1995 these marinas were the exceptions. The managers and owners were pushing a new, clean marina bow wave of change. They were the leaders of their time who defined, innovated, and demonstrated practices that would become common in 5 to 10 years.

The recognition that clean water is essential to good boating and profitable marina business is spreading rapidly and will not be turned back. Read the stories of how and why 25 leading managers achieved environmental and business success by demonstrating that clean marinas bring clear value.

Economics Benefits Summary

The magnitude of economic returns that clean marinas and boatyards have realized from their investments is illustrated in Table 3 (PDF) (5 pp, 49K) and Figure 1. By totaling the initial outlays and 1995 net returns according to general types of improvements made, the chart shows that on average, owner investments have more than paid for themselves.

     
  • Hull servicing improvements included investments in the following: a closed-loop   hull-blasting system that reuses plastic pellets; dustless sanders; screen   tarps to catch debris; and installation of filtered pressure wash water   systems away from the shore. Net benefits in 1995 ranged from covering cost   to earning many times their investment by creating new business.
    •  
  • Waste management investments included recycling and/or reuse of trash, milfoil   seaweed (as mulch), wash water, and waste oil. This approach primarily brought   savings from reduced disposal costs. In the case of the Lodge of Four Seasons,   use of waste oil to heat a work building created an additional winter repair   business. Trash recycling typically cost very little to implement, with   significant annual savings particularly for marinas located in communities   with active recycling programs.
    •  
  • All but one of the marinas and boatyards in this study had pumpout facilities   in place. These eight pumpout services had benefits ranging from savings   on sewer fees and additional fuel sales attributed to their convenient pumpouts   to attracting more megayacht visits. Two marinas used the pumpout station   as a competitive incentive program for summer employees. In many cases,   the costs of new or improved pumpout equipment were covered by grants.
    •  
  • Two environmentally sound investments actually saved owners a great deal of   money on the initial outlay. By purchasing inland acres for boat repair   and storage -- away from coastal waters -- Conanicut Marine paid much less   for the land than it would have if the boatyard were shoreside. It also   saved annually on much lower property tax bills. The innovative owner of   Lockwood Boat Works paved the boatyard's parking and work yards with crushed   recycled concrete, saving hundreds of thousands compared to blacktop pavement,   which would also have created a runoff problem.
  • A wide variety of other environmental improvements had been made by the facility owners interviewed. As stated previously, not all changes at each facility were included in this analysis. Some owners and managers had made such facility-wide changes that it was not possible to identify benefits from any one given change. But each of those managers felt strongly that their clean marina efforts had been rewarded by free publicity, recognition, and new business.

As these 25 case studies demonstrate, marinas and boatyards across the United States are voluntarily making environmental improvements to their facilities. These public and private operations have realized that the upgrades are good for both the environment and their bottom line. A variety of operational and physical changes have saved money, brought free publicity, and attracted new business.

As final proof of the clear benefits from clean marinas, all the owners and managers in this study are continuing to make more changes to better their environment, satisfy their customers, and expand their business. They all feel very good about this progress.

Economic analysis: The marina sample--apples, oranges, and coconuts

Marinas that have adopted "best available" environmental measures and practices, and realized positive returns were selected for this study. Every effort was made to represent the widest possible range of marina sizes, geography, operation type, ownership (public and private), and fourteen NPS management measures. However, the set of observations made on these cases did not constitute a random sample, nor was a single statistical population defined. The results could not therefore, be subjected to statistical analysis.

A statistical population can be defined as the totality of all possible observations on measurements or outcomes of an experiment. Like the researcher in physical science, the social scientist would ideally like to generate experimental data. Since experimental data on humans and their business activities is not available, econo-metricians attempt to adjust for uncontrollable (exogenous) factors in carrying out statistical analyses. But there is always a limit to the adjustments that can be made and the range of observations that can be considered part of the same population.

When a person makes numerical measurements of some objects or actions for the purpose of statistical analysis, the investigator does not measure just a conglomeration of them; rather, has at least previously formulated in mind a reasonably homogeneous group to measure in some respect. For this study as many populations as possible were identified. There was no intent to make an overall measurement on an underlying population.

Furthermore, statistical tests, which are based on the laws of probability, are hard to justify when random samples are not taken from homogeneous populations. Confidence intervals and significance levels have no meaning unless some degree of sample homogeneity can be assumed.

In selecting this set of marina case studies the focus was on non-homogeneity by deliberately selecting illustrations of different practices or variations of them. The only unifying characteristics in these cases were that the businesses were marinas located on recreational boating waterways and earned a positive economic return from new environmental practices. None of these provided sufficient homogeneity to the population.

While one could have calculated means and variances of the economic returns, these results would have characterized only the site-specific cases studied and would not have been easily generalizable to other marinas or other environmental practices. The random sample for these types of findings would have required statistical populations which included marinas where these and other environmental practices were repeatedly tested and those applications which failed to generate benefits.

Further, standardized questionnaires or surveys were not used to gather statistically comparable data for scientific analysis. Mini-case examples were compiled to illustrate how individual marinas were able to adopt environmental practices which also provided positive benefits.

To the degree possible, economic analysis was made within each marina by comparing business cost to benefits with and without the environmental practice adopted. In cases with non-income benefits, such as public education, other types of benefit descriptors were reported. All findings were based on information provided by the facility owner or manager, and where hard numbers were not available, professional estimates were reported.

NOTE: Economic analysis was prepared by Dr. Timothy Tyrrell, Professor of Resource Economics (Coastal Recreation), College of Resource Development, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI).

Top of page

How the Study was Done

The process of conducting this study was simple, as was the goal to find and describe examples of clean marinas with measurable benefits from their environmental improvements.

Purpose and goal

The purpose of this Clean Marinas--Clear Value study was to identify marina and recreational boating operations that have adopted best management practices and programs that have resulted in positive economic benefits. The goal was to produce a document that will help convince many in the marina industry to voluntarily make environmental changes.

Planning the project

A number of marina professionals and technical advisors were contacted for project suggestions, questions to ask, approaches to take, and ways to measure benefits. A program advisory meeting was held in early June 1995 in Washington, DC. It brought together marina industry representatives--MOAA, Boating Industry magazine, Westrec Marinas--and representatives of key coastal environmental agencies--EPA, NOAA, USFWS, U.S. Coast Guard--to launch the project. The participants discussed project purpose, scope, work plan, and selection procedure, and solicited help in promoting clean marina facility nominations. Many excellent suggestions were given and eventually incorporated into the plan.

Publicity

Getting word out about the project and its need to identify clean marinas took several modes:

     
  • Direct contacts were made, via phone, fax, mail, email, and site visits to   facilities known to be using good environmental practices.
    •  
  • Each of the organizations and agencies attending the June meeting followed   up by forwarding a call for clean marina nominations to their members or   regional staff.
    •  
  • More than 120 press releases were sent to all major marina industry publications,   marine trade associations, marinas, boatyards, marina consultants, and Sea   Grant specialists, inviting marina nominations and participation. A copy   of the press release is provided in Appendix E.
  • To solicit case studies and promote good practices, presentations were made at several marina conferences and meetings, including the National Marine Trades Council, June 10, 1995, New Hampshire, and the MRAA/MOAA American Marine Trades Expo, August 18, 1995, New Orleans, Louisiana.

As a result of this effort, more than 75 marinas volunteered or were nominated; several others made contact too late in September to be considered for the project. Clearly, there are many clean marinas around the country with many good stories to be told.

Selecting clean marinas for study

From the large number of facilities identified, about 40 candidate marinas were selected for a wide variety of environmental measures and practices including location, design, operation and maintenance, and special problems that had been overcome. Final marina selection was determined according to these criteria:

     
  • Applied one or more of EPA's 14 management measures and practices for nonpoint   source control applicable to marinas.
    •  
  • Made effective use of best available off-the-shelf pollution control practices,   devices, and innovative technology.
    •  
  • Achieved demonstrated pollution reduction at the facility.
    •  
  • Realized clear economic returns and other benefits that could be quantified   and described.
    •  
  • Was a credible example for other marinas and boatyards facing similar concerns.  
  • Had a good story that differed from others in the study.

Each marina faced a selection triage: (1) appropriate for the study, (2) need more information to be included, (3) inappropriate because it does not meet the selection criteria. In the end, 25 marinas were chosen and appear in this report, 8 were deselected, and 7 others were qualified but were not needed for the study.

Information gathering

A before-and-after comparison of each marina was made to verify any real or perceived economic benefits from environmental improvements. The relationship between environmental improvements and economic benefits was intended to support the premise that "clean" marinas generate clear economic values.

To simplify and help standardize the process, three discussion worksheets were used during marina site visits or telephone conversations with managers about their operations. Those discussion worksheets are provided in Appendix D.

To determine economic benefits, information was gathered regarding new income derived from increased sales, services, and slip rentals; cost savings from improved housekeeping procedures; and increased public visitation and participation due to site cleanliness, clean water, and attractiveness. In most cases the marina manager was able to give actual numbers, numbers rounded to the nearest hundred or thousand, or professional estimates.

In a few instances when managers were uncertain what the economic value was, they were asked to compare current business--commonly slip rental rate and occupancy--to that of similar marinas in the same market area that did not make similar environmental changes. In every case the managers estimated that operating as the "competition" did would likely result in lower occupancy rates and income.

Analysis

This project was not a classic economic study because it reported on many marinas with different environmental practices, in sites with wide-ranging sets of variables. Thus each facility's case study had to stand alone economically, but when taken together the case studies did show a definite pattern of positive business benefits from improvements in environmental practices.

To find a way to cope with samples having many variables, NRC asked Dr. Timothy   Tyrrell*

* -- Professor of Resource Economics (Coastal Recreation), College of Resource Development, University of Rhode island, Kingston, RI


to help with economic analysis of the costs/benefits for the individual sites included in this report. (Refer to his recommendations in "Economic analysis: The marina sample--apples, oranges, and coconuts," at the end of Section I.) Dr. Tyrrell recommended doing the economic analysis by comparing each marina's business costs to its benefits, with and without the environmental practice adopted. In cases with non-income benefits, such as public education and publicity, other types of benefit descriptors were identified. All findings reported were based on information provided by the facility owner/manager. When hard numbers were not available, professional estimates were accepted.

The economic benefits in this study included new income derived from increased sales, services, and slip rentals; cost savings from improved housekeeping procedures; costs avoided; improved operation and maintenance procedures; and increased public visitation and participation due to site cleanliness, clean water, and attractiveness.

Writing each case study

This report was written in a common style used in professional marina and boating industry trade magazines. Since the target audience was primarily the owners and managers of marinas across America, a familiar story-telling narrative was used to convey technical information, credible trade logic, and a general positive business sense that "we will do fine" by making environmental improvements. Quotes are used in every case study because the manager's own words do a better job "talking to" other marina managers than could anyone else's. Each of the 25 case studies was reviewed twice by the marina owner or manager for accuracy of data, information, and quotes. Each report was also reviewed to ensure data presentation clarity and economic consistency.

Top of page

Case Study Reports

Order of Presentation

The 25 clean marina environmental case studies in this section are organized alphabetically by facility name, with the two marina chains appearing after the individual marinas and boatyards.

Some early thinking was to organize this section by region, but it was felt that readers might focus primarily on their region and miss the full range of practices highlighted. Actually, very few of the practices described are limited to one or two regions; most can be used in almost all states--perhaps with small climate--and market-related modifications. Appendix C contains the full list of marinas, organized by state.

Also considered was organizing cases by type of best management practice, but with so much overlap that was not possible.

Case Study Report Organization

     
  • Facility name and case study title
    •  
  • Location - address, telephone, fax, person interviewed, owner, waterbody location.   This information was supplied to facilitate communication by others considering   similar improvements.
    •  
  • Environmental change - the practice(s) changed and improved.
    •  
  • The marina - narrative describing the marina business, employment, boat capacity,   and services.
    •  
  • Management measures - list of up to 14 management measures used in the marina.   These are also listed by marina in Table 1 in   Section I.
    •  
  • Costs/benefits (not included in the two chain reports) - comparison of the   initial start-up/construction/purchase costs and annual costs to revenues,   cost savings, avoided costs, or other quantifiable benefits. This comparison   is also summarized in Table 3 in Section I.
    •  
  • Environmental improvements - a detailed description of the selected change   made, reasons, results, and costs and benefits, plus short descriptions   of other environmental practices adopted. These are also summarized in Table 2 in Section I.
    •  
  • Other improvements and benefits - other short stories of programs that demonstrate   additional benefits from operating a clean marina.
  • Equipment sources - name and address for the national supplier of each major product used in the prime enhancement described in the case study.

Top of page

Links to Individual Case Studies

Top of page

Links to Appendices

Top of page

Jump to main content.