ConservationMooringStudy

January2013

ProducedbytheUrbanHarborsInstitute,UniversityofMassachusettsBoston
WithfundingfromTheNatureConservancyandtheMassachusettsBaysProgram

TABLEOFCONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary.........................................................................................................................1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................2
MooringSystemOptions................................................................................................................2
EcologicalIssues..............................................................................................................................6
FunctionalConcernsandComparison............................................................................................9
EconomicConsiderations..............................................................................................................15
RegulatoryAnalysis.......................................................................................................................19
Recommendations,ImplementationStrategies,andConclusions...............................................28
Resources......................................................................................................................................31

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,butmaybemoreeconomicaloverthelifetimeofamooring.
Conservationmooringsappeartocauseminimalimpactstoeelgrassbeds.
Itislessexpensivetoinstallaconservationmooringinaneelgrassbedtominimizeeelgrassloss
thanitistotrytorestoretheeelgrassofamooringscaronceithasbeenlost.
Thoughtheyarenotappropriateforallharborsduetoharborconditions,conservationmooringsmay
havemanybenefits,especiallywheninstalledonhelicalanchors.Additionally,despitethepotentialto
reduceimpactstoeelgrass,therearemanybarrierstoencouragingtheuseofconservationmoorings.
Someofthosebarriersincludetheupfrontcostsofconservationmoorings,reluctancewithinthe
boatingcommunitytomakechanges,lackofindependentverificationofmanufacturerclaimsregarding
holdingabilities,andinsufficientboatereducationregardingtheimportanceofeelgrassandtheimpacts
ofmoorings.
Thisstudypresentsseveralrecommendationstobetterunderstandandpromotetheappropriateuseof
conservationmooringsinMassachusetts.Morespecifically,thisstudymakesthefollowing
recommendations:

IncludeconservationmooringsinStateapprovedharborplans(310CMR23)sothatState
decisionsareconsistentwithtownvisionsforlowimpactmoorings.
Educateboatersabouttheimportanceofeelgrassandtheimpactsofconventionalmoorings
versusconservationmoorings.
Educateboatersaboutthelongtermcostcomparisonofconservationandconventional
moorings.
Developandsharebetterinformationregardingtheholdingcapacitiesofconservation
moorings.
Identifyand/orprovideincentivesorfundingtooffsetsomeoftheupfrontexpensesassociated
withconservationmoorings.
EnforcecompliancewithArmyCorpsregulationsforactivitiesineelgrass.
Encouragelocalmooringinstallerstoofferservicesforconservationmoorings.
Monitortheinstallationofconservationmooringsineelgrasstoimprovescientificevidence
regardingenvironmentalimpact,andcontinuetosupportprojectsthatalreadymonitorthe
installationofmooringsineelgrass.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page1

INTRODUCTION
MostboaterswhomoortheirvesselsinMassachusettswatershavetraditionallyemployedfree
swingingmooringsthatuseheavybottomchain.Inimportantsensitivehabitatssuchaseelgrassbeds,
thesetypesofmooringsoftenhavenegativeimpactsonthebenthichabitatfromthecircular
movementofthechainaroundtheanchorpoint,and/orfromtheanchoritself.
Thisdocumentobjectivelydescribesthedifferentcharacteristicsofconventionalmooringsversus
conservationmooringsdesignedtominimizedisruptiontothebenthichabitat.Thisreportincludes
discussionsonthefollowingtopics:

Technologiesavailable

Ecologicalimpacts

Functionaldifferences

Economicaldifferences

Regulatoryissues

Thesecomparisons,alongwithconcludingrecommendations,willhelpboatersandcommunitiesdecide
whetherornotconservationmooringsareappropriatefortheirmooringandconservationneeds.

MOORINGSYSTEMOPTIONS
Typically,mooringsystemsaremadeupofananchoringsystemontheseafloor,afloatationdeviceon
theseasurfacewhichconnectstothevessel,andarodemechanismconnectingtheanchor(s)tothe
floatationdevice.Thereareavarietyofwaysthatamooringcanbestructured;andtherearealso
differencesinmooringsdependingonhowtheyfunctionwithregardtothesurroundingenvironment.
Mooringscanbebrokenintotwocategorieswithregardtotheirimpactontheenvironment:
conventionalmooringsandconservationmoorings.
ConventionalMoorings
Conventional,ortraditional,mooringsgenerallyuse
ananchororasystemofanchorsdesignedtosetinto
theseafloor,suchasmushroomorpyramidanchors.
Analternativetothisdragtypeofanchoringsystem
aregravityanchorswherethesheerweightofthe
anchor,(e.g.,aconcreteorgraniteblock)isintended
tokeepmooredboatsinplaceAnchorsdesignedto
setintotheseaflooraremostappropriateforsoft
bottoms,whilethedeadweightanchorsarecommon
inareaswithrockyorhardbottoms.Helixanchors
(alsoknownasauguranchorsorscrewanchors),
provideyetanotheranchoringoption.Usedinboth
marineandterrestrialapplications(e.g.,toanchor
telephonepolesandtransmissiontowers(Sleeman,
1992)),ahelicalanchorisasteelscrewlikeshaftwith
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Figure1:Mushroomanchor,graniteblock,
helix,pyramid.Photofrom:
http://www.coastalbarge.com/products.html
Page2

weldedbearingplateswhichisinstalleddirectlyintotheseafloor.Helixanchorscanbeusedinavariety
ofbottomtypes,thoughtheirinstallationmethodanddesigndifferdependingonthesubstrate.Helical
anchorsarenotsuitedforharborswheresedimentishighlymobileandwheretheanchormaybe
exposedovertime.
Themeansbywhichtheanchorofaconventionalmooringisattachedtothefloatationdeviceonthe
waterssurfacevaries,butisusuallycomprisedofheavybottomchain(whichsitsontheseafloorand
servestodampenthestrainontheanchorascurrents,wind,andwavesexertforceonvessels)attached
tolightchainornylonline.Oneendofthebottomchainattachestotheanchorandtheotherend
attachestoeitheralighterweightchainornylonline(seeFigure2).Thelighterchainorlineisattached
toafloatwhichbringsittothesurface.Theboatisattachedtothemooringbyapennant,typically
madeofline.

ConservationMoorings
Conservationmooringscanbethoughtofasmoorings
designedtominimizehabitatimpacts,primarilybyreducing
contactbetweenthemooringcomponents(i.e.,chainorrope)
andtheseafloor.Someconservationmooringsalsominimize
habitatimpactsbyreducingthescouringcausedbytheanchor
system.Whilesomeboatersusefloatstokeepconventional
mooringchainandropefrommakingcontactwiththeseafloor
(asfoundinshelteredlocationssuchasLittleHarbor,NHand
LakeTashmooonMarthasVineyard(Colarusso,2012)),this
reportfocusesonthoseconservationmooringsthatsubstitute
aflexiblefloatingrodeforthetraditionalheavychain/light
chainrodeofaconventionalmooring.
Elastic/flexiblesystemsinthemarineenvironment,though
relativelynewformooringvessels,havealsobeenusedto
securedocks,wavemonitoringbuoys,andnavigationalbuoys.
Thestretchingfeatureofamooringisusuallyreinforcedwith
sometypeoflineorropetoensurethatthestretching
componentdoesnotexceeditscapacityandbreak.Insome
cases,floatsareusedtokeeptheflexiblelinesuspendedinthe
watercolumnsothatitdoesnotcomeincontactwiththe
bottom.Thestretchingoftheflexiblerodereplacesthe
bufferingfunctionperformedbytheheavybottomchainina
conventionalmooring.

Figure2:AConventionalmooring
thatconsistsofheavyandlight
chain.(Imagefrom:
http://www.lazyemotorinn.com/
docking.htm)

Mostconservationmooringscanfunctiononagravityorhelixanchor,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.
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page3

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
GrassFriendlyMooringSystemusesasteelenclosedshockabsorbingsystemattachedtoascrewedin
mooringpostattheseafloor,andattachedtoalineatthetopwhichrunstothewaterssurface.These
twosystemshavebeenreviewed(DepartmentofEmployment,EconomicDevelopmentandInnovation,
2011),andwhilesometechnicalissuesarosewithholdingabilitiesoftheEzyRidersystem,bothshowed
negligibleimpactstothebenthichabitat.(TheSeaflexMooringisalsobeingtestedaspartofthisstudy,
whichisdescribedingreaterdetailbelow).

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page4

Table1:Descriptionsoffourdifferenttypesofconservationmooringsystems.

System

Anchor

Buoy

Rode

Other

Seaflex
System

Anyanchor
type,buta
helicalanchoror
deadweightare
recommended

Any,however,the
companyisinthe
processoftestinga
surfacebuoy(inLong
Beach,CA)withan
integratedthimble,
withtheintentto
reducethepotential
forhardwarefailure.
Thecompany
anticipateshavingthe
buoyonthemarketin
2013.

Elasticrode(orrodesfor
greaterholdingstrength).The
systemisspecificallydesigned
tobecomestrongerasit
elongates.

Systemoftenincludes
anintegratedbypass
(alinemadeofa
materialcalledSpectra
2000,whichhasa
breakingstrengthof
50,000lbs.).Theby
passsystemengagesas
therodereaches80%
elongation,preventing
theSeaflexsystemfrom
reaching100%
elongation.

Eco
Mooring
System

Variousanchor
typeswillwork,
butahelixis
recommended

Any

Polyfiberropethat
encapsulatesanelasticrubber
component.Astheelastic
componentstretches,the
surroundingrope(wovenina
wayreminiscentofaChinese
fingertrap)alsostretchesand
providesstrengthtoprevent
therubberfrombreaking.

Theelasticcomponent
maybeattachedtothe
surfacebuoydirectly,or
chainorlinemaybe
addedtoreachthe
necessarylength.

Hazelett
System

Helicalanchor
ordeadweight
(specificallya
concreteor
graniteblock)

Thecompanyhas
developedaspar
buoythatcanslip
belowtheiceduring
thewinter.Thisbuoy
isastandardpartof
themooringsystem.

Apolymerelasticrode(or
seriesofrodesforgreater
holdingstrength).Therode
systemisheldoffthebottom
withhardtrawlfloats.

Alimitline(the
orangelineinfigure3)
maybeincorporated
intothesystemto
preventtheelasticfrom
breaking.

Adownlineconsistingof
industrialrubbermultistrand
cordssurroundedbyabraided
polyestershell/rope.A
continuousinnercoreof
braidedpolyestermaintains
thepositionoftheshock
absorbingrubber.

Thesystemhasavery
tightbraiddesignedto
keepmarinelifeoutof
theinteriorofthe
assemblyandthe
systemhasnocomplex
metalconnections.

Variousanchor Any
typeswill
work,buta
helixis
recommended

StormSoft
System

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page5

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
impactofwaves.Thesewaveattenuationandshorelinestabilizationfeaturesundoubtedlysave
communitiesandhomeownersmoneybyminimizingerosionanddampeningtheimpactsofstorm
events.
Whilethegeneralimportanceofeelgrassiswellunderstood,studiesshowwidespreaddeclinesin
coastaleelgrassacreagethroughoutMassachusettsfrom19942007(Costelloetal.,2011).Thirtyofthe
thirtythreeembaymentsstudiedshowedlossfrom19942007,withamedianlossrateof2.94%per
year(Costelloetal.,2011).
Someofthestressorsoneelgrassincludeincreasednutrientsinthewaterfromroadrunoffandseptic
systems,disruptionandsedimentationfromcoastaldevelopmentprojects,anddamagefromboating
activities,includingthemooringofboats.
Table2:Massachusettscommercialfisherieslandingdatafor2011indicatesthatcommerciallyharvested
specieswhichmayutilizeeelgrasshabitatduringtheirlifehistoriesbroughtinmorethan$100million
dollars.(DatafromNOAAOfficeofScienceandTechnologyAnnualCommercialLandingStatistics
(http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/commercialfisheries/commerciallandings/annuallandings/index).)

Species
Americanlobster
Scup
Bayscallop
Stripedbass
Atlanticcod
Winterflounder
Whitehake
Cunner
Tautog
Americaneel

Landings(lbs.)
13,717,192
1,243,705
157,593
1,163,875
15,009,249
4,474,275
5,283,966
960
57,788
365

Value(2011)
$54,858,962
$801,05
$1,957,430
$3,188,341
$27,580,595
$7,767,398
$4,809,234
$937
$179,689
$496

Total

41,108,968

$100,343,082

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page6

Eelgrasstendstogrowbestinprotectedquiescentwatersyetthesecalmprotectedconditionsarealso
highlysoughtafterbyboaterslookingtosafelymoortheirvessels.Forthisreason,itisfairlycommon
formooringfieldstooverlapwitheelgrassbeds.
Conventionalmoorings,asdescribedabove,relyonaheavychaintodampentheimpactsofvarious
forces(e.g.,wind,waves,andcurrents)onamooredvessel.Theheavychainmovesalongtheseafloor
astheboatmoves,disruptingthelivingorganismsinitspath(Hastings,etal.,1995;Betcher,etal.,no
date;MERAssessmentCorporation,2008;TerramarEnvironmentalServices,Inc.,2011).Barespace
aroundatraditionalmooringisreferredtoasamooringscar(seeFigures4and5).Thedegreeof
scarringandtheextentofthescararedependentuponfactorssuchasthelengthandweightofchain
andthenatureofvesselmovement(e.g.,currents,tidalrange,prevailingwind,stormexposure).

Figure5:Mooringscarsineelgrass.(Imagetaken
fromNOAA,nodate)

Figure4:Closeupofmooringscar.
(ImagefromLefebvre,2008)

Inadditiontodenudinganareaofmarinelife,thechainsweepofatraditionalmooringandthevertical
movementofthechainaswaterlevelsriseandfallcansuspendsedimentintheimmediateand
surroundingareas.Thisincreaseinturbiditycanimpairphotosynthesisanddisruptananimalsbehavior
andphysiologicalfunctioning.
Whilethemooringscarfromthechainsweepistheprimaryimpactoneelgrassintermsofarealextent
ofimpact,themethodofanchoringamooringcanalsonegativelyaffecteelgrassbeds.Duringstorms,
anchorssuchasmushroommoorings,canbecomedislodgedfromthesediment,andmaydragthrough
eelgrassbeds,destroyingplantsastheymove.Additionally,thepresenceoflargedeadweightanchors,
suchasconcreteandgraniteblocks,canleadtosignificantscouringaroundamooring;andinthecase
ofconcreteblocks,theymayintroduceanewsubstrateonwhichinvasiveoropportunistictunicatesand
algaemightattach.
Theimpactsofmooringsoneelgrasshavebeenwelldocumentedinavarietyofstudies.In
Massachusetts,theDivisionofMarineFisheriesmeasuredmooringsineelgrassinseveralharborsand
foundarangeinscarsizeof40m2tomorethan200m2(BakerandEvans,2012).InRockyBay,Western
Australia,researcherswereabletoanalyzeaerialphotographsofmooringsineelgrassbeds.Those
researchersfounda13%lossineelgrasscoveragebetween1981and1992.Thislosscorrespondedwith
anincreasefrom81mooredboats(in1977)to191mooredboats(in1992)(Hastingsetal.,1995).A
studyintheSanJuanIslandsinWashingtonStatein1996alsoreportednegativeimpactstoeelgrass
aroundmooringsthatemployedabottomchainorbottomropethatdraggedalongtheseafloor.The
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page7

magnitudeoftheimpactinthatstudyappearedtoberelatedtofactorssuchastheweightofthechain
orrope(theheavierthechainorrope,themoredamage)(Betcher,nodate).Thisstudyalsonotedthat
mooringswhichemployedamidlinefloatorsolelyreliedonroperatherthanchainhadtheleastimpact
onnearbyvegetation(assumingthattheweightoftheropewasnotsignificantlyincreasedbythe
colonizationofbarnaclesandmussels).
Mooringscarsincreasethelengthofexposededgesofeelgrassbedsinanarea,andthoseedgesare
morevulnerabletotheimpactsofcurrentsandscouringthaninteriorareasofeelgrassbeds.Insome
cases,mooringscarscanenlargealongtheiredges,andcombinewithotherscars,causinggreater
fragmentationwithineelgrassbeds(Hastings,etal.,1995).Lossofeelgrassinsemiisolated
embaymentsisofparticularconcernbecauserecoveryintheseareasmaybelimitedasaresultofalack
ofnearbysourcepopulationsandaccesstopropagules(Orth,etal.,2006b;Erftemeijer,etal.,2008as
citedinCostello,etal.,1995).
Theimpactsofreplacingtraditionalmooringswithconservationmooringshavebeenobservedin
variousplacesonvarioustypesofbenthichabitats,withgenerallyfavorableresults.InManchester
Harbor,theMassachusettsBaysProgramandtheMassachusettsDivisionofMarineFisheriesreplaced8
traditionalmoorings(acombinedimpactedareaofapproximately3,521squarefeet)withconservation
moorings(BakerandEvans,2012).Fouroftheeightmooringscarsalsoreceivedeelgrasstransplants.
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
onasimilareffortinWestFalmouthHarbor.Todate,mooringscausingscarsinaneelgrassmeadowin
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
(theSeagrassFriendlyMooringSystem,EzyRiderMooring,andSeaflexMooring)infourlocationsin
MoretonBay,foratotalof12trialmoorings.TheSeagrassFriendlyMooringusesascrewedinmooring
postasitsanchor;theEzyRidermooringwassetonconcreteblocks;andtheSeaflexMooringswereset
onconcreteblocks(wheresedimentwassilty)andMantaRayanchors(soilanchorshydrolicallydriven
intothesubstrate)insandylocations.Ratherthanplacetheconservationmooringsinexistingmooring
scars,thisstudylookedattheimpactsofplacingconservationmooringsinpreviouslyunusedareas
withinestablishedmooringfields.Researchersfoundnodetectableimpactsofinstallingthemoorings
themselves(DepartmentofEmployment,EconomicDevelopmentandInnovation,2011);andwhile
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page8

monitoringoflongtermimpactshasnotbeencompleted,preliminaryfindingssuggestthatthereisno
differencebetweenthebenthichabitatattheconservationmooring,andbenthichabitatsatsimilar
siteswithinthemooringfield(Skilleter,2012).
TheFriendsoftheSanJuans(inWashingtonState)havealsoengaged10citizenstovoluntarilyswitch
theirexistingblockandchainmooringswithdifferenttypesofmooringtechnologies,includinghelical
anchors(Whitman,2012).WhiletheFriendsoftheSanJuanshadhopedtohavemultiplesitesinclose
proximitytounderstandtheimpacts,thevolunteerparticipantswerefairlydispersedandtheimpacts
havenotbeenassessed.Itisworthnoting,however,that75100peoplereachedouttothe
organizationaboutwantingtoparticipateinthestudybutwereeliminatedbecausetheywerenot
locatedineelgrassorwerealreadyemployingrelativelyharmlessmooringdesigns.Manyofthosewho
didnotqualifyforthestudybutwerenotalreadyusingenvironmentallyfriendlymooringshavetaken
theirownstepstoinstallmoreenvironmentallyfriendlymooringtechnology,andprogramsare
underwayintheareatocreatenoanchoringzonesineelgrass.
Althoughtheseprojectswereimplementedusingdifferenttechnologiesindifferentenvironments,they
makeacompellingcasefortheeliminationofchainscourasameanstominimizedamagetobenthic
habitatsresultingfromboatmooringactivities;andsuggestthatanchorswithsmallfootprintscan
furtherreduceimpactstobenthichabitat.
WhetherornotconservationmooringsandanchorswithsmallfootprintscanbeusedinMassachusetts
tohelprestoreeelgrassbedspreviouslydamagedbymooringsremainstobeseen.Factorssuchasthe
extentofdamagetothebenthichabitat,presencesofotherstressors,andadditionaleffortstorestore
eelgrass(e.g.,transplantsandseeding)mayallinfluencethesuccessrateofmooringscarre
colonization.

FUNCTIONALCONCERNSANDCOMPARISON
FunctionalConcernsincludestrengthandholdingcapacityofthevariousmooringelements,
maintenanceofthemooringelements,lifeexpectancy,andimplicationsformooringfielddesign.
HoldingCapacity
Amooringsabilitytosecurelyholdaboatisofupmostconcerntoboatersandharbormasters;and
dependsonfactorssuchastheadequacyofthedeckhardware,thestrengthoftherodes,the
capabilitiesoftheshackles,theresistanceoftheanchor(s),andtheproperinstallationofequipment.
Forpurposesofthisreport,thefeaturesofprimaryinterestaretheholdingpotentialforanchortypes,
andtheholdingpotentialforrodetypes.Mostissueswithmooringcomponentssuchasshacklesand
pennantlinesareequallyapplicabletobothconservationandconventionalmoorings.
Formalandinformaltestshavebeenconductedcomparingtheholdingabilitiesofdifferenttypesof
mooringanchors.InVineyardHaven,MA,apulltestshowedthatthehelixanchorprovidedthegreatest
holdingpower,followedbya3,000lb.concreteblock.Thehelixanchoralsoprovidedthebestholding
powerinatestconductedbyBoatUSInsurance(SeeTables3and4).Itisworthnotingthatconditions
(e.g.,sedimenttypeandscope)werenotuniformamongalltestsandtypesofanchors,andmayhave
someimpactontestresults.Additionally,itisimportanttonotethatthenatureofthesetestsdonot
replicatetheactualforcesappliedtoanchorsastheymoorboats.Thatbeingsaid,anecdotalreports
fromboatersandharbormastersconfirmthatthehelixanchor,ifinstalledproperly,isverycapableof
holdingavesselatamooring(Fronzuto,personalcommunication;Cormier,personalcommunication).

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page9

Table3:BoatUSInsurancepulltestresultscomparingfivedifferenttypesofanchorsshowsthatthehelix
anchorhadthegreatestresistingforce.(Source:http://www.boatmoorings.com/hm.php).Itshouldbe
notedthatthehelixalsousedthegreatestscope,whichtendstoincreaseholdingpower.

AnchorType

Helix

ResistingForce
(lbs.)

12,000
(didnot
break
out)
20
4:1

WaterDepth
Scope

DorMor
Anchor(650
lbs.)
4,500

Mushroom SingleBlock DoubleBlock

(500lbs.)
(2,000lbs.) (8,000lbs.)
1,200

800

4,000

18
3:1

15
3.5:1

14
3:1

35
3:1

Table4:ResultsfromtheVineyardHavenPullTestalsoindicatethatthehelixhadthehighestbreakout
forceofthoseanchorstested.Itshouldbenotedthatthebottomconditionswerenotconsistentamong
thedifferenttypesofanchors,andadditionaltestingshouldbedonetocomparethecapabililtiesamong
sedimenttypes.(Source:http://helixmooring.com/thebenefits.html).

AnchorType
350lb.Mushroom
500lb.Mushroom
3,000ConcreteUSCGBlock
6,000lb.CementBlock
8/10Helix

BottomCondition
5ft.deepinmud
Insandbottom
Setinmud
Onsandbottom
Insoftclaymud

BreakoutForce(lbs.)
2,000
1,700
2,100
3,200
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,itisalsoimportantto
understandtheholdingcapabilitiesoftherodesystemitself.Mooringchainstrengthvariesdepending
onfactorssuchasthematerialsusedtomakeit,thesizeofthechain,theconditionofthechain,andthe
gradeofthechain.Onechainmanufacturer(PeerlessAcco)listsvariousworkingloadlimitsranging
from800lbs.(fora3/16BoatmansPrideAnchorLeadChain)to7.5tons(fora3/4LongLinkMooring
Chain)(PeerlessAcco,nodate).Workingloadlimits,whicharetherecommendedlimits,arenotthe
sameasminimumbreakingloadlimits(wheretheappliedforcecausesthechaintobecomedistorted).

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page10

Aworkingloadlimitisusually1/3rdto1/4ththeminimumbreakingloadlimit,meaningthatthe
minimumbreakingloadforachainwithaworkingloadlimitof7.5tonsmightbeasmanyas30tons.
Nostudyexiststocomparetheholdingcapabilitiesofthedifferentconservationmooringtechnologies;
howevermanufacturerclaimsfortheHazelettmooring,theEcoMooringSystem,theStormSoft
mooring,andtheSeaflexmooringarepresentedinTable5.Itisimportanttonotethatsome
manufacturersrefertotheholdingpowerasthebreakingload(e.g.,theSeaflexSystem)whileothers
refertotheholdingpowerasthebreakingload(e.g.,theEcoMooringSystem),andothersrefertothe
holdingpowerintermsoftheweightoftheboatbeingheld,nottheforcebeingapplied(e.g.,the
HazelettMooring)makingitsomewhatdifficulttoaccuratelycomparetechnologyholdingpowers.
Whenaboaterdecidestouseaspecifictechnology,themanufacturerwillworkwiththeboaterto
ensurethathe/shehastheappropriatesystemtosafelysecurehis/hervessel.
Accurateandverifiedcalculationsfortherequiredholdingpowerofmooringsforvesselsofdifferent
sizesunderdifferentconditionsisnotavailable,yetanecdotalreportssuggestthatconservation
moorings,ifadequatelydesignedforvesselsizeandmooringlocationfeatures,havetheabilityto
securelyholdavesselunderextremeconditions.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page11

Table5:Holdingpowerofvariousconservationmooringtypes,basedonmanufacturerclaims.*Theterm
holdingpowermeansdifferentthingstodifferentmanufacturers,andshouldnotbecomparedamong
thedifferentmanufacturers.Forexample,theHazelettholdingpowerreferstotheweightoftheboat;
theEcoMooringSystemsholdingpowerreferstoitsbreakingstrength;andtheSeaflexSystemsholding
powerreferstoitsworkingload.Allmanufacturerswillworkwithboatownerstodeterminethesystem
mostappropriateforthevesselandsiteconditions.

Manufacturer
HazelettMooring1

Description
8x1.75rode
10x1.75rode
Apairof5x1.75rodes
Apairof8X1.75rodes
Apairof10x1.75rodes
Three8x1.75rodes
Three10x1.75rodes
Four8x1.75rodes
Four8x1.75rodes
EcoMooringSystem2 8x5/8
10x3/4
12x1
12x15/16
12X15/8
12x2
SeaflexMooring3
Anyarrangementwithitsbypass
system
1rodsystem(2to75long)
2rodsystem(2to75long)

StormSoftElastic
BoatMooring4

HoldingPower*
4tons(boatweight)
5tons(boatweight)
10tons(boatweight)
15tons(boatweight)
16tons(boatweight)
22tons(boatweight)
25tons(boatweight)
31tons(boatweight)
35tons(boatweight)
5tons(breakingstrength)
6tons(breakingstrength)
10.5tons(breakingstrength)
16.585tons(breakingstrength)
50,000lbs.
69,000lbs.
16ton(breakingstrengthofbypass
system).
1ton(breakingstrength
15ton(breakingstrength)boatsfrom1
tonto10ton
4rodsystem(2to75long)
15ton(breakingstrength)boatsfrom10
tonto40ton
6rodsystem(2to75long)
15ton(breakingstrength)boatsfrom10
tonto60ton
8rodsystem(2to75long)
15ton(breakingstrength)boatsfrom10
to100ton
10rodsystem(2to75long)
15ton(breakingstrength)boatsfrom10
tonto200+ton
Approximately10footsystem(5 912tons(tensilestrength)
feetofrubbersurroundedby
onebraidedrope)

Fromhttp://www.hazelettmarine.com/pdf/HM%20Hazelett%20Elastic%20Mooring%20Systems.pdf
DatafromMerrill,personalcommunication
3
DatafromHylland,personalcommunication.ItshouldbenotedthattheSeaflexsystemisdesignedtobecome
strongerasitelongates,andthatthebreakingpointisnotwhatthecompanyadvertisesastheholdingcapacity.
Instead,Seaflexfocusesontheworkingloadandforcetoelongationratiotoensurethatthemooringis
appropriatefortheintendedvesselandconditions.
4
DatafromLefebvre,personalcommunication
2

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page12


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.Allfourcompaniesnotedthattheirsystemscouldbeinplace
formorethansevenyearswithoutlosingtheirdesigncapacity,butthetechnologyisstillrelativelynew
intheUnitedStates,andexactlifeexpectanciesundervariousconditionshavenotyetbeen
determined.5

Seaflexnotedthattheyhavehadadockmooringsysteminplaceforapproximately32years,anditstillcontinues
tofunctionasdesigned.Theyhavealsohadboatmooringsystemsinplaceformorethan30yearsinSweden
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page13

MooringFieldDesignandFunction
Thelayoutofmooringsfieldsisdirectlyimpactedbythescoperequiredtosafelymooravessel.For
conventionalmoorings,scopeisgenerallyabout3:1or4:1.Thetechnologyforconservationmooringsis
stillquitenew,andscopelengthshavenotbeenwidelyestablished,butcouldbeasshortas1:1
(HazelettMarinewebsite,nodate),withtheunderstandingthattheelasticcomponentwillstretch,
creatingalargerscopeoverall.(Scopesofflexiblemooringsystemsaremeasuredfromthetopofthe
anchortothetopofthebuoyathightide.Thepennantwillincreasethescopeto1.5:1ormore
(Lefebvre,personalcommunication).)AccordingtoHazelettMarine,theirsystemcanincreasemooring
fielddensityby40%duetothesorterscope,withoutcompromisingholdingpower.Figure6compares
thegriddingofmooringfieldsusingconventionalmooringsandthegriddingofmooringfieldsusing
conservationmoorings,showingthattheuseofconventionalmooringswouldallow36vesselstomoor
safely;whiletheuseofconservationmooringswouldincreasethatnumberto64(HazelettMarine
website,nodate).

Figure6:Theuseofconservationmooringsmaypresentanopportunitytoincreasethedensityofboatsin
amooringfield,asdemonstratedbythismooringfieldgraphicfromHazelettMarinecomparingdensities
(Hylland,personalcommunication).StormSoftproductshavebeenusedformorethan10yearsinFloridawithout
needingtobereplaced(Lefebvre,personalcommunication).Hazelettoffersatwoyearwarranty,butnotedthat
thelifeexpectancyisabouttenyears,withsomesystemsinplacefor20yearswithoutsignificantwearandtear.
Hazelettdidsuggest,however,thattherodebereplacedafterunusuallylargestormeventstoensurethatithasnt
lostitsabilitytostretch.EcoMooringSystemshaveonlybeeninstalledwithinthelastsevenyears,but
inspectionsindicatethattheycontinuetofunctionwell.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page14

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

Thelayoutofmooringfieldsisalsodeterminedbythesizeofthevesselsinthemooringfield.Insome
cases,asboatsizeschangeovertime,anchorsneedtoberelocatedorreplaced.Whileallanchors
requiresomelevelofefforttoremoveandreplace,someharbormastershaveexpressedconcernsthat
helicalanchorswouldbemoredifficultandcostlytoreplacethanothertypesofanchors.
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
onspecificsiterequirementsandretailers,butthefollowingpriceswereprovidedbyretailers(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
conventionalmooringonamushroomanchorwouldbecomparabletothecostofaconservation
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/):
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page15

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).TheHazelettprice
includestheentiremooringsystem(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
importanttonotethattheSeaflexandEcoMooringSystempricesreflectthepriceoftherodesystem
only.TheHazelettpricesarefortheirwholesystem,includingthebuoyandpennantaswellastherode
system,butnottheanchor;andtheStormSoftpricesareforthewholesystemassoldtotheTownof
VineyardHaven,MA.Pricesdonotincludeinstallation.

ConservationMooringType
Hazelett5tonsystem
Hazelett16tonsystem
Hazelett25tonsystem
Hazelett35tonsystem
Seaflex10ft.strand
Seaflex2strandsystemwithbypasssystem
EcoMooringSystem5/8in.dia.X8ft.long
EcoMooringSystemin.dia.X10ft.long
EcoMooringSystem1in.dia.X12ft.long
EcoMooringSystem15/16in.dia.X12ft.long
EcoMooringSystem15/8in.dia.X12ft.long
EcoMooringSystem2in.dia.X12ft.long
StormSoftsystemforboatsupto25tonor40ft.

Cost
$1,8497
$2,552
$3,453
$4,223
$4568
$1,136
$2709
$320
$350
$375
$425
$475
$1,50010

Thesepricesaredifficulttounderstandintheabstract,especiallywhentakingintoconsiderationthe
factsthat(1)eachconservationmooringisdesignedtomeettheneedsofaspecificboatinaspecific
location;and(2)eachsystemincludesdifferentcomponents(e.g.,someincludejusttherodewhile
6

Itisimportanttonotethat,whilea1:1scopemightbeappropriateforsomevessels,mostwilllikelyrequirea
scopegreaterthan1:1,thusraisingcostsoftherodesystemforaconservationmooring.
7
HazelettpricesfromInlandMarine:http://www.mushroommooring.com/index.html(Notethattheweightrefers
totheboatweight,notthebreakstrength)
8
SeaflexpricesfromManufacturer(Hylland,PersonalCommunication)
9
EcoMooringSystempricesfromManufacturer(Merrill,PersonalCommunication)andwww.boatmoorings.com)
10
StormSoftpricesprovidedbyNewEnglandMarine,LLC(Lefebvre,PersonalCommunication)
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page16

othersincludethepennantandbuoyaswell).Tobetterillustratethetruecostsofconservation
moorings,aseriesofhypotheticalboatandmooringsiteconditions,alongwithpricinginformation,is
presentedinAppendixA.
InstallationCosts:
Oneoftheprimarydifferencesincostbetweenaconservationmooringandaconventionalmooringis
thecostofinstallingahelixanchor.Accordingtoestimates,ahelixanchorcanbehydraulicallyinstalled
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
exampleofthe30boatabove,theworstcasescenariowouldbethattheownerofthe30vesselcould
spendasmuchas$602.55every2yearstoreplaceallofhis/herchain.
Asmentionedabove,thelifeexpectancyofaconservationmooringinanygivensettingisnotyetwidely
known,butcouldeasilyexceed710yearsinmanycases.Duringatenyearperiod,forexample,aboat
ownerwouldlikelyhavetoreplaceanychainorlineusedinthemooringevery24years,butwould
probablynotneedtoreplacetheelasticcomponentitself.
Theconditionofthemooringismostoftenestablishedduringtheinspection,andwhilemethodsof
inspectionvaryfrominspectortoinspector,thecostsofinspectingaconservationmooringanda
conventionalmooringareroughlycomparable.Theinspectionofaconservationmooringonanytypeof
anchor,andaconventionalmooringonahelixanchormightbeslightlymoreexpensivethanthe
inspectionofaconventionalmooringonanonhelicalanchorbecauseadivermaybeneededtoinspect
theconditionoftheanchorconnection,ratherthanbringingtheanchortothesurfaceforinspection.
OtherAssociatedCosts:
Insurancecompaniesdonotseemtoadjustratesbasedonthetypeofmooringtechnologyemployed
(Kilby,personalcommunication).Additionally,nothingindicatedthatmooringfeesinanytownwere
basedonwhetherornotaboatwasonaconservationmooringoraconventionalmooring.
EconomicValueofEelgrass:
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page17

Whenmakingadecisionaboutwhetherornottouseaconservationmooring,boatersand
harbormastersmightalsowanttoconsidertheeconomicimpactsofthedifferenttechnologiesinterms
ofthecostsassociatedwithprotectingand/orlosingeelgrassbeds.
WhilethereisnostudywhichprovidestheeconomicvalueofeelgrassinNewEngland,onestudy
estimatedthevalueofFloridaseelgrass,includingthevaluesofnutrientcyclingandrecreationalfishing,
tobe$20,500/acre/year(SeagrassRecovery,nodate).Anotherstudymorebroadlyestimatedthatthe
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,theestimatedeconomiclosscausedby
theaveragemooringscarintheManchester,MAmooringstudyrangedfromapproximately$51/yearto
$189/year.

Estimated
EconomicValue CostofAverage
ManchesterMooring
ofEelgrass
(scar/year)
(acre/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(whichincludessomefollowupmonitoringandlabor)asanappropriateestimatefor
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
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page18

haveappliedacompensatorymitigationratioofatleast3:1forprojectsimpactingsubmergedaquatic
vegetation(ArmyCorpsofEngineersandMADivisionofMarineFisheries,2011).Applyingthisbase
valueandmultipliertotheaveragemooringscarinManchesterHarbor,thefeeassociatedwitheach
scarwouldbeapproximately$12,069.
Shouldboatersandharbormasterswishtoconsidertheeconomicvalueofeelgrasswhenmakingtheir
decisionsaboutwhetherornottouseconservationmoorings,theabovenumbersmayhelpputthecost
ofconservationmooringsintocontext.
CostConclusions:
Giventhefactthatmanyfactorsplayaroleindeterminingthecostofamooring,itisdifficulttoprovide
specificnumbersforacostcomparisonofconservationmooringsandconventionalmoorings.However,
assumingthataconventionalmooringandaconservationmooringusedthesameanchortype(ahelix
orablockforexample),pennant,andbuoy,thecostofthetwosystems,dependingonthebrandof
conservationmooring,couldbecomparableintermsofupfrontequipmentcosts,installationcosts,and
inspectioncosts.
Maintenancecostsaremoredifficulttocompare.Achainmayneedtobereplacedinpartorinwhole
every24years,whileitispossiblethataconservationmooringsrodesystemcouldlastmorethan10
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
resultofimpactsfromthemooring.Thissuggeststhat,fromaneconomicperspective,anymooring
installedineelgrassshouldbeaconservationmooringsoastosavemoneyonhavingtotrytorestore
theeelgrassbedinthefuture.

REGULATORYANALYSIS
ConservationmooringsarenotaswidelyusedinNorthernNewEngland(Massachusetts,New
Hampshire,andMaine)asconventionalmoorings;howevertheiruseappearstobegrowing.The
followinginformationdescribesfederalandstateregulationsrelevanttoconservationmooringsand
theiruse.
ArmyCorpsofEngineers
TheplacementofmooringsintocoastalwatersisregulatedbytheArmyCorpsofEngineers(ACE)under
theRiversandHarborsAppropriationActof1899(33U.S.C.401,403,407).Section10(33U.S.C.403)
prohibitsthecreationofanyobstructionnotaffirmativelyauthorizedbyCongress,tothenavigable
capacityofanyofthewatersoftheUnitedStates.Theconstructionofanystructureinoroverthese
11

Thisestimateusesthemostexpensiveoptionofthe35tonHazelettSystem,provinganestimateforthemore
costlyconservationmooring.
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page19

watersrequirestherecommendationoftheChiefofEngineers,asdelegatedbytheSecretaryofthe
Army,intheformofaSection10permit.
TheACERegulatoryOfficeinNewEnglandmakespermittingdecisionsformarinasandmoorings
throughouttheregion.IntheNewEnglandDistrict,theArmyCorpshasinstitutedasystemofState
GeneralPermits(GPs)forminorprojectsofmanyactivities,includingmooringplacement.Thegoalof
thispermitsystemistoreduceduplicativereviewbythestateandArmyCorpsandtoexpeditethe
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.

NotlocatedinSAS.Priortoinstallationofmoorings,asitespecificeelgrasssurvey
shouldbeconductedtodocumentthateelgrassisnotpresent.

2. Minorrelocationofpreviouslyauthorizedmooringsandmooredfloats.Provided:

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster.

CannotberelocatedintoaFederalNavigationProjectotherthanaFederalAnchorage.

Nointerferencewithnavigation.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page20

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
noteligibleforCategory2andrequiresanIndividualPermit.
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,arenotassociatedwithanyboatingfacility,donotinterferewithnavigation,andarenot
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,
includinghelixanchorsandelasticrodes,althoughthesemaybecalledforbytheArmyCorpsinthe
permitapplicationreview.
NewHampshireGeneralPermit
AllquotedregulatorylanguagebelowcanbefoundintheArmyCorpsofEngineersProgrammatic
GeneralPermitfortheStateofNewHampshire(ArmyCorpsofEngineers,2012).

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page21

ProjectsnotmeetingtheMinimumProjectcriteriamustapply/reporttotheCorpsaseithera
Minor/MajorProjectorIndividualPermitproject.AllMinimumorMinor/Majorprojectsmustcomply
withallofthisPGPs[ProgrammaticGeneralPermit]applicabletermsandGeneralConditions.
MinimumProjects:

Private,noncommercial,nonrental,singleboatmoorings.Provided:
o

Proper/ecofriendlymooringsareusedsochainsorotherconnectionsdonotrestonthe
bottominvegetatedshallows.

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster.

Notassociatedwithaboatingfacility.

MooringsinFederalAnchoragenotassociatedwithaboatingfacility.

NotlocatedwithinthebufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.

Nointerferencewithnavigation.

Minor&MajorProjects:

MooringsnotmeetingthetermsofaMinimumproject.

Mooringslocatedsuchthatthey,and/orvesselsdockedormooredatthem,arewithinthe
bufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.

IndividualPermit(IP):

Mooringsand/ortheirmooredvesselswithinthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannel.

OveralltheNewHampshireGeneralPermitprovidesastreamlinedpermitsystemanalogousto
MassachusettsandMaine.All3statesutilizetheIndividualPermitcategory.InsteadofCategory1and
2,however,NewHampshireusesthecategoriesMinimumImpactProjectsandMinor&MajorImpact
Projects.InadditiontomeetingtheArmyCorpsscriteriaforthisGeneralPermit,mooringprojectsmust
alsomeetseveralstateapprovals,including:(1)WaterQualityCertification(WQC)orwaiverunder
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.
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page22

MaineGeneralPermit
AllquotedregulatorylanguagebelowcanbefoundintheArmyCorpsofEngineersGeneralPermitfor
theStateofMaine(ArmyCorpsofEngineers,2010).
UnderthisGP[GeneralPermit],projectsmayqualifyforthefollowing:

Category1:Category1NotificationFormrequired.
SubmittaloftheCategory1NotificationFormatAppendixBtotheCorpsisrequired.

Category2:Applicationrequired.
SubmittalofanapplicationtotheCorpsisrequiredandwrittenapprovalfromtheCorpsmust
bereceived.

ProjectsnotmeetingCategory1requireanapplicationforreviewasaCategory2orIndividualPermit
project.AllCategory1and2projectsmustcomplywithallofthisGPsapplicabletermsandgeneral
conditions.
Category1:
1. Private,noncommercial,nonrental,singleboatmoorings,provided:

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster/town.

Notassociatedwithanyboatingfacility.

BoatormooringnotlocatedinaFederalNavigationProjectotherthanaFederalAnchorage.
MooringsinFederalAnchoragenotassociatedwithaboatingfacilityandarenotforrent.

Nointerferencewithnavigation.

NonewmooringslocatedinSAS.Priortoinstallationofmoorings,asitespecificeelgrass
surveyshouldbeconductedtodocumentthateelgrassisnotpresent.

Whenexisting,authorizedmooringsinSASaregoingtobereplaced,theyshallbereplaced
withelasticmooringsystemsthatpreventmooringchainsfromrestingordraggingonthe
bottomsubstrateatalltidesandhelicalanchors,orequivalentSASprotectionsystems
wherepracticable.

2. Minorrelocationofpreviouslyauthorizedmooringsandmooredfloats,provided:

Authorizedbythelocalharbormaster/town.

NotlocatedinSAS.

Nointerferencewithnavigation.

CannotberelocatedintoaFederalNavigationProjectotherthanaFederalAnchorage.

Category2projectsinclude:
1. Mooringsassociatedwithaboatingfacility.Aneelgrasssurveymayberequired.
2. MooringsthatdontmeetthetermsinCategory1anddontrequireanIndividualPermit.This
includesprivatemooringswithnoharbormasterormeansoflocalapproval.
3. Mooringslocatedsuchthatthey,and/orvesselsdockedormooredatthem,arewithinthe
bufferzoneofthehorizontallimitsofaFederalChannelThebufferzoneisequalto3timesthe
authorizeddepthofthatchannel.
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page23

4. AnIPisrequiredformooringswithinthehorizontallimits,orwithmooredvesselsthatextend,
intothehorizontallimitsofaFederalNavigationProject,exceptthoseinFederalAnchorages.
For14above,sitingofnewindividualmooringsinSAS,includingeelgrass,shouldbeavoidedtothe
maximumextentpracticable.IfSAScannotbeavoided,plansshouldshowelasticmooringsystemsthat
preventmooringchainsfromrestingordraggingonthebottomsubstrateatalltidesandhelical
anchors,orequivalentSASprotectionsystems,wherepracticable.
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
acrosstheNewEnglandregion.TheArmyCorpsisintheprocessofreshapingtheStateGeneralPermit
systemtocreateonestandardizedGeneralPermitforNewEngland,insteadofauniqueStateGeneral
Permitforeachstate.
Thisredraftingprocessisongoingandthelanguagehasnotbeenfinalized.TheArmyCorpsgenerously
sharedthedraftlanguageincludedbelow.Whenthedraftisfinal,theArmyCorpswillissueaPublic
NoticeandallowforpubliccommentonthisGeneralPermit.
Apreconstructionnotification(PCN)isrequiredwhen:

Mooringsinterferewithnavigation.

Mooringsarenotauthorizedbythelocalharbormaster/townwhenapplicable.Lackoflocal
oversightrequiresaPCN.

Mooringsaccommodatemorethanoneboatorhaveanassociatedfloat.

Mooringsareassociatedwithanexistingorexpandedboatingfacility,includingthosethat
extendintoaFederalAnchorage.

Mooringsareassociatedwithaneworexpandedmooringfieldthatisnotaboatingfacility
(e.g.,atownmooringfield).

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page24

NeworrelocatedmooringsarelocatedinSAS.Applicantsmustconsidertheavoidanceand
minimizationsequenceinthenotesbelowandsubmitthatjustificationtotheCorpsalong
withthePCN.(navigablewatersthataretidalonly)

Existing,authorizedmoorings(i.e.,anchorsortackles)inSASarereplacedorupgradedand
donotuselowimpactmooringtechnology[2].Proponentsmustconsidertheavoidanceand
minimizationsequenceinthenotesbelowandsubmitthatjustificationtotheCorpsalong
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
ofamooringmustmeetstateandmunicipalpermitrequirementsandstandardsfoundinlocalmooring
regulations.Duetopracticallimitationsofcontactingallharbormastersinthe3statestudyarea,the
followinganalysisisbasedoninformationfoundintheavailablewrittenlocalmooringregulations,and
supplementedwherepossiblebyinformationfromindividualharbormastersandmooring
manufacturersandinstallers.
Massachusetts

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page25

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
environmentallyfriendlymooringsystemsdesignedtokeepthechainofftheoceanfloor(Townof
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).

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page26

InChatham,mooringtacklespecificationsincludethefollowing:(1)Nonewconcreteblocksare
permittedinprotectedareas.Existingblockswillbereplacedwithalternativesystemsthrough
attrition;and(2)Allconcretemooringblockslocatedwithinenvironmentallysensitiveresourceareas
shallberemovedandreplacedbyanapprovedalternativeanchorwithin5yearsfromthedatethe
areasisdesignatedandapprovedbytheHarbormaster(TownofChatham,2011).Thephrase
alternativeanchorsystemhasbeenusedinotherprojectsinNewEnglandtomeanthecombineduse
ofahelixanchorandelasticrode;however,thisphraseisnotdefinedformallyintheChatham
regulations.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.DuetothelargetidalrangeinmanyMaine
harbors,installationofelasticrodesystemsischallengingandthisequipmentmaybeexposedatlow
tide(Lefebvre,personalcommunication).Afewmunicipalitiesallowonlyaparticulartypeofmooring
anchor,suchasamushroomanchororgraniteblock,orlistmooringtacklerequirementsonlyforthat
anchortype.Meanwhile,othermunicipalitiesmayexpresslyprohibitaparticularmooringtype.Ifa
mooringanchortypeisspecified,manymunicipalitiesindicatethatanotheranchormaybeusedatthe
harbormastersdiscretion.Inallcasestheharbormastermakesthefinaldecisionwhetheramooring
anchorandrodesystemisadequateforthevesselandlocalconditions.
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page27

Afewmunicipalities,includingBrunswickandSebago(draftregulations),indicatethatmooringsshould
beplacedinalocationthatdoesnotunreasonablyaffectnaturalresources(TownofBrunswick,2012)
ormateriallyadverselyaffectgreatpondvegetation,lakewildlife,oranynaturalaquatichabitat
(TownofSebago,2011).
SummaryofStateandMunicipalRegulations
OverallthelocalmooringregulationsinMassachusettsmunicipalitiescontainthegreatestnumberof
referencestohelixanchorsandelasticrodes,ascomparedtoNewHampshireandMaine.
InMassachusetts,2municipalitiesrequiretheuseofhelixanchorsinspecificcircumstances,16
municipalitiesallowtheuseofhelixanchors,and5municipalitiesincludespecificrequirementsforsize
anduseofhelixanchors.Incontrast,nomunicipalitiesinMainerequiretheuseofhelixanchors,3
municipalitiesallowtheusethehelixanchors,andnomunicipalitiesincludespecificrequirementsfor
sizeanduseofhelixanchors.InNewHampshire,Statemooringregulationsdonotincludehelixanchors
inanycapacity.
InMassachusetts,4municipalitiesallowtheuseofelasticrodesbutdonotrequireit.Incontrast,
neitherMainenorNewHampshireexplicitlyallowtheuseofelasticrodesasstatedintheirlocal
mooringregulations.

RECOMMENDATIONS,IMPLEMENTATIONSTRATEGIES,ANDCONCLUSIONS
Researchhasshownthat,correctlyinstalled,conservationmooringsminimizeimpactstobenthic
habitatsascomparedtotheimpactscausedbyconventionalmoorings;andarelessexpensivethanthe
costassociatedwithtryingtorestoreeelgrass.Furthermore,continuedlocalmonitoringofthere
growthofZosteramarinaisexpectedtoprovidemoreinformationaboutthepotentialforre
colonizationofmooringscarsthroughtheinstallationofconservationmoorings.
Inadditiontotheecologicalbenefitsofconservationmoorings,thereisverylittleevidencetosuggest
thatconservationmooringsareanylesscapableofsecurelymooringavesselthanconventional
moorings.Thefewreportsofconservationmooringfailureshadtodowithimproperinstallationand
parts,possibleinterferencewiththemooringfromdebris(DepartmentofEmployment,Economic
DevelopmentandInnovation,2011;Hylland,personalcommunication),and/orendusermisuse
(Lefebvre,personalcommunication)factorsthatcanalsojeopardizetheholdingcapabilitiesof
conventionalmoorings.
Anecdotalreportsfromharbormastersandmanufacturersofconservationmooringssuggestthatmany
boatersinNewEnglandaregenerallyadversetoadoptingconservationmooringtechnologiesinpart
becauseinformationabouttheholdingcapabilitiesofconservationmooringsisnotwidelyaccessible,in
partbecauseofthepotentialincreasedupfrontcostofconservationmooringscomparedto
conventionalmoorings(especiallywhenboatersortownsalreadyownmooringequipment),andinpart
becausechangingtechnologiesmightrequirerelocatingmooringstoanewlocationinthemooringfield
thatmaybelessconvenientforaboaterthanhispreviouslocation.Additionally,intownmanaged
mooringfields,someharbormastersmaybereluctanttoadoptconservationmooringsbecauseofthe
increasedcostsassociatedwithrelocatingahelixanchor(e.g.,inthecasethatthefleetsizechanges),
thepushbacktheymayencounter(fromthepublicaswellasmooringservicecompanies)ifthey
requireconservationmoorings,thelackofthirdpartyverificationofmanufacturerclaimsregarding
holdingpower,andtheabilitiesoflocalmooringinstallerstocorrectlyinstallthetechnology.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page28

WhiletheArmyCorpsofEngineersalreadyrequiresapermitinMassachusettsforanymooring
proposedineelgrass,andmandatestheconversionfromconventionalmooringstoconservation
mooringswhenmooringsineelgrasschangeownershiporarereplaced,thereisnoinformationonthe
compliancelevelofthisregulationduetoalackofresourcesforadequateenforcement.
RecommendationsforincreasingtheuseofconservationmooringinMassachusettswatersinclude:

WritetheneedforconservationmooringsintoStateapprovedharborplans(310CMR23)so
thatStatedecisionsareconsistentwiththetownvisionsforlowimpactmoorings.
Harborplansaredocumentsproducedbytownstobetteraddressactivities,uses,andnatural
resourcesalongatownscoastandwaterways.Aharborplancontainsaseriesof
recommendationstohelppromoteatownsgoalsandvisions;andwhenaharborplanis
approvedattheStatelevel,Statedecisionswithregardtotheharborplanningareamustbe
consistentwiththetownsharborplan.Forexample,ifatownrecommendsthatanyproject
affectingeelgrassbedsshouldoffermitigationintheformofconservationmoorings,thena
projectrequiringaChapter91licensefromtheStatemustbeincompliancewiththis
recommendationifeelgrassisaffected.
Educateboaters,includingfishermen,abouttheimportanceofeelgrassandtheimpactsof
conventionalmooringsvs.conservationmoorings.
Oneofthebarrierstoincreaseduseofconservationmooringsisalackofboaterawareness
regardingboththevalueofeelgrass,andtheimpactsofmooringsoneelgrass.Increasedboater
education(throughdemonstrationprojects,presentations,posters,andpublications)aboutthe
significanceofeelgrassandtheimpactsofmooringsmayencourageboatersandfishermento
considertheuseofconservationmoorings.
Educateboatersaboutthelongtermcostcomparisonofconservationandconventional
moorings.
Theupfrontcostofconservationmooringscandiscourageboatersfrominvestinginthe
technology.However,overthelifeofamooring,aconservationmooringmaybelessexpensive
thanaconventionalmooring.Realworldexamplesoftheaveragecostsofdifferenttypesof
mooringsinNewEngland(frompurchaseandinstallationtomaintenanceandreplacement)
shouldbegatheredandincorporatedintoapublicationorpresentationthatclearly
demonstratesthecomparativecostsexperiencedbyactualboaters.Thisinformationcouldbe
madeavailabletootherboatersandharbormasterstohelpclarifyactualcostdifferencesover
thelifeofamooring.
Developandsharebetterinformationregardingtheholdingcapacitiesofconservationmoorings.
Oneofthemostsignificantissueswithregardtopromotingtheuseofconservationmooring
technologytothepublicisthefactthattherearenoindependentreviewsofconservation
mooringtechnologies.Theexistinginformationcomesfrommanufacturersandfromanecdotal
reportsofboaters,installers,andharbormastersfamiliarwiththemooringsystems.An
independentthirdpartyevaluationofthecapabilities(e.g.,longevity/lifeexpectancy,holding
abilities,performanceunderstormconditions,ecologicalimpacts)ofconservationmoorings
wouldhelptoalleviatehesitationwithintheboatingcommunitywithregardtotryinga
relativelynewtechnology.Thisthirdpartyreviewwouldalsohelptoclarifyandprovide
uniformitytothedifferentterminologyusedbyeachmanufacturerintermsofholdingstrength.
Asinformationexistscurrently,itisverydifficulttocomparethedifferenttechnologiesinterms
ofholdingpowerandcostbecausetheyareeachusingdifferentlanguagetodescribetheir
productsabilities.Manufacturersshouldplayanactiveroleinworkingtohavethis
comparativeanalysiscompleted(includingprovidingfinancingforthetestofneeded)asitmay
increaseboatersfaithintheholdingpowersofthetechnologies.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page29

Identifyand/orprovideincentivesorfundingtooffsetsomeoftheupfrontexpensesassociated
withconservationmoorings.
Oneofthebarrierstotheuseofconservationmooringsistheupfrontcostassociatedwith
purchasingandinstallingtheequipment.Incentivessuchasreducingmooringfeesor
movementupthewaitinglistmayhelpencourageindividualboaterstouseconservation
moorings.Otherfundingopportunitiesandincentivesmightcomefromgrants,mitigation
funds,orbybuyingmooringtechnologiesinbulk.
EnforcecompliancewithArmyCorpsregulations.
TheArmyCorpsofEngineersdoesnothavetheresourcestoensurecompliancewithall
regulations.They(theArmyCorps)relyontheassistanceofharbormasterstoensurethat
mooringsdonotnegativelyimpacteelgrass.Improvedcommunicationwithharbormasterson
thepartoftheArmyCorpsmayleadtoabetterunderstandingofregulationsandmayassist
harbormastersinensuringcompliancewithArmyCorpsregulations.
Encouragelocalmooringinstallerstoofferservicesforconservationmoorings.
Conservationmoorings,especiallythoseonhelicalanchors,mustbeinstalledbyprofessional
mooringinstallers.Propertrainingandincentivesforinstallerstoworkwithconservation
mooringsmayincreasetheiruseinsensitivehabitatsbyprovidingboaterswithareliable
installerwhocanalsoassistwhenissuesarise.
Monitortheinstallationofconservationmooringsineelgrasstoimprovescientificevidence
regardingenvironmentalimpact.
Someoftheexistingconservationmooringinstallationprojects(e.g.,ManchesterHarborand
ProvincetownHarbor)havedecentinformationregardingsiteconditionspriortoinstallation.
Theseharborsshouldcontinuetobemonitoredtounderstandtheecologicalimpactstothe
eelgrassbeds.Futureinstallations,especiallythoseconductedaspartofamitigationproject,
shouldincludelongtermmonitoringplanstobuildscientificdataregardingtheecological
impactsofconservationmoorings.CreatingpartnershipswithUniversitiessuchasthe
UniversityofMassachusettsBoston,whichhasacademicandstudentresources(includinga
SCUBAdivingclub),mightbeawaytomaintainmonitoringprograms.

Somethingsforcommunitiestoconsiderwhenadoptingconservationmooringsare:

Theecologicalbenefitsofconservationsmooringsmaybemostnoticeableinconcentrated
areas,ratherthandispersedthroughoutexistingmooringfields.
Theecologicalandeconomicalbenefitsofinstallingconservationmooringsarelargestwhen
installingmooringsinexistingeelgrass,asopposedtoinstallingconservationmooringsasa
meanstotryandrestorelosteelgrass.
Newboatersorboatersinterestedinnewmooringfieldsmaybemorewillingtoadopt
conservationmooringtechnologiesthanboaterswhohavebeenusingthesamemooringinthe
samelocationforgenerations.
Theremaybeincreasedcostsassociatedwithusinghelixanchorsiftheyneedtoberegularly
relocatedinmooringfields.Ifpossible,initialplacementshouldbepartofalargermooringfield
designeffortasopposedtoopportunisticoradhocplacementinordertoreducetheneedto
relocatehelixanchors.
Townmooringregulationsmayneedtobechangedtoincludeinformationpertainingto
conservationmoorings,specificationsonscope,thetype(s)ofapprovedconservationmooring
technologies,andspecificdetailsabouthelicalanchors(e.g.,holdingcapacitylimits,approved
installationmethods,howtoaddresspotentialconflictswithotherwaterusessuchas
scalloping,howtoinspecthelicalanchors,etc.).

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page30

Intheeventthatconservationmooringsareintroducedintomooringfields,itwillbeimportant
tomakesurethatanyincreaseinboatdensitydoesnotresultinexcessiveshadingofeelgrass
bedsoradditionalenvironmentaldamagestemmingfromincreasedboatingactivity.
Whenplacingconservationmoorings,specialattentionshouldbegiventoensuringthatvessels
onashorterscopewithaconservationmooringdonotrestrictthesafemovementofnearby
vesselsmooredonconventionalmooringswithlongerscopes.

RESOURCES

AmericanBoatandYachtCouncil.2003.Anchoring,Mooring,andStrongPoints.Onlineat:
http://epcomarineproducts.com/pdfs/H40.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Anchor,Gear,andLine.2012.Personalcommunicationregardingtheinstallationofhelixanchors.
ArmyCorpsofEngineers.2010.GeneralPermit:StateofMaine.Onlineat:
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/SGP/ME_GP.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
ArmyCorpsofEngineers.2011.GeneralPermit:CommonwealthofMassachusetts.Onlineat:
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/SGP/MA/Modification_Final_110728.pdf.Lastviewed
01/23/2013.
ArmyCorpsofEngineers.2012.ProgrammaticGeneralPermit.StateofNewHampshire.Onlineat:
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/SGP/NH_PGP.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
ArmyCorpsofEngineersandMADivisionofMarineFisheries.2011.MassachusettsInLieuFee
MitigationProgramFactSheet.Onlineat:
http://www.nae.usace.army.mil/Regulatory/Mitigation/InLieu/MAFactsheet.pdf.LastViewed
1/23/2013.
Baker,Jay,Evans,Tay.2012.NEP/CRPPartnershipProgressReportForm:UseofConservation
MooringsasaComponentofEelgrass(Zosteramarina)RestorationandRehabilitationinTwo
MassachusettsHarbors.
Baker,Tom.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingexperiencewithconservationmoorings.
Batker,David,Swedeen,Paula,Costanza,Robert,delaTorre,Isabel,Boumans,Roelof,Bagstad,
Kenneth.2008.ANewViewofthePugetSoundEconomy:TheEconomicValueofNaturesServices
inthePugetSoundBasin.Onlineat:http://www.floods.org/ace
files/documentlibrary/committees/A_New_View_of_the_Puget_Sound_Economy.pdf.Lastviewed
01/23/2013.
Betcher,Chris,Williams,Brian.Nodate.ImpactofMooringBuoyInstallationsonEelgrassandMacro
Algae.
BoatU.S.Nodate.WhatWorks:AGuidetoPreparingMarinas,YachtClubs,andBoatsforHurricanes.A
MarineInsurancePublication.Onlineat:
http://www.boatus.com/hurricanes/assets/pdf/hurr_prep_guide.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Boeri,Bob.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingfeedbackonthereportandtheStates
perspectiveonconservationmoorings.
BurrBrotherBoats,Inc.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingthecostofinstallingmooringsand
anchorsofvarioustypes.
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page31

CityofGloucester.2012.WaterwaysPolicies,RulesandRegulations,ArticleIV:MooringRegulations.
Onlineat:http://gloucesterma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/457.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Colarusso,Phil.2012.PersonalCommunicationsregardinglocationandvalueofconservationmoorings
andtheanticipatedcost/acreofaneelgrassrestorationproject.
Cormier,Michael.2012.PersonalcommunicationregardingtheTownofMarionsexperiencewithhelix
anchors.
Costanza,Robert,dArget,Ralph,deGroot,Rudolf,Farber,Stephen,Grasso,Monica,Hannon,Bruce,
Limburg,Karin,Naeem,Shahid,ONeill,RobertV.,Paruelo,Jose,Raskin,RobertG,Sutton,Paul,van
denBelt,Marjan.1997.Thevalueoftheworldsecosystemservicesandnaturalcapital.Nature.
Vol.387.May15,1997.Onlineat:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/benefits_conference/nature_paper.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Costello,CharlesT.,Kenworthy,WilliamJ.2011.TwelveYearMappingandChangeAnalysisofEelgrass
(Zosteramarina)ArealAbundanceinMassachusetts(USA)IdentifiesStatewideDeclines.Estuaries
andCoasts.34(2):232242.
DepartmentofEmployment,EconomicDevelopmentandInnovation.2011.Environmentallyfriendly
mooringstrialsinMoretonBay:ReporttoSEQCatchments,Brisbane,Queensland.
Evans,Tay.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingmonitoringatconservationmooringsitesin
ManchesterHarbor.
Fronzuto,Dave.2012.PersonalcommunicationregardingtheTownofNantucketsexperiencewith
helixanchorsandconservationmoorings.
Gladstone,Bill.2011.MonitoringofSeagrassFriendlyMooringsinShoalBay:Reportof2010
Monitoring.
HazelettMarinewebsite.Onlineat:http://www.hazelettmarine.com/.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Heck,K.L.,Jr.,Able,K.W.,Fahay,M.P.,Roman,C.T.1989.FishesandDecapodCrustaceansofCapeCod
EelgrassMeadows:SpeciesComposition,SeasonalAbundancePatternsandComparisonwith
UnvegetatedSubstrates.Estuaries.12(2)June1989.Pages5965.
Hughes,JeffreyE.,Deegan,LindaA.,Wyda,JasonC.,Weaver,MelissaJ.,Wright,Amos.2002.The
EffectsofEelgrassHabitatLossonEstuarineFishCommunitiesofSouthernNewEngland.Estuaries.
25(2).April2002.Pages235249.
Hylland,Brian.2012.PersonalcommunicationregardingtheSeaflexMooringproduct.
Hylland,Brian.2012.ReaderRant:MooringsDidntFailinSantaBarbaraConnectingComponents
Failed.TheLog2/16/2012.Onlineat:http://www.thelog.com/Opinion/Article/MooringsDidnt
FailinSantaBarbaraConnectingComponentsFailed.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
INAMAR.Nodate.Moorings:ImportantrecommendationsforsafemooringsfromINAMAR.Onlineat:
http://ocw.tudelft.nl/fileadmin/ocw/courses/OffshoreMoorings/res00027/Moorings.pdf.Last
viewed01/23/2013.
Kachmar,Jon.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingdocumentreviewandtheestimatedcost/acre
ofaneelgrassrestorationproject.
Kilby,Karlton.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardinginsurancecompanyratesfordifferenttypesof
moorings.(Mr.KarltonworksforSeaworthyInsuranceCompany)

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page32

Lefebvre,Jeff.2012.PersonalcommunicationwithJeff(ofNewEnglandMarine)regardingHazelettand
StormSoftmoorings.
Malkoski,VincentJ.2008.GuidetotheMassachusettsInLieuFeeHabitatMitigationProgram(Draft).
MassachusettsDivisionofMarineFisheries.
MERAssessmentCorporation.2008.Feasibilityofmitigatingphysicaldisturbancestoeelgrassin
northernCascoBay:ImpactsandOptions.Onlineat:
http://www.cascobay.usm.maine.edu/pdfs/eelgrass_feasibility_of_mitigating_report_022808.pdf.
Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Merrill,Dave.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingtheEcoMooringSystemandhelixanchors
(www.helixanchors.com).
NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration.NoDate.Protectingeelgrasshabitatthroughthe
useofconservationmoorings.Onlineat:
http://www.atlanticfishhabitat.org/Documents/21981ProtectingEelgrassHabitat2_000.pdf.Last
viewed01/23/2012.
PeerlessAccoChaincatalog.Nodate.Onlineat:http://www.peerlesschain.com/catalogs/catalog
2010/.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
PortofNewBedford.2010.OfficialMooring&AnchoringRegulations.Onlineat:
http://www.portofnewbedford.org/documents/HDC_MooringRegs2010.pdf.Lastviewed
01/23/2013.
SeagrassRecovery.Nodate.Onlineat:http://www.seagrassrecovery.com/resources/floridaseagrass
facts/.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Skilleter,Greg.2012.PersonalcommunicationregardingmonitoringeffortsinMoretonBay,
Queensland.
Sleeman,G.S.1992.BoatOwnersSpritsBuoyedbyNewDevelopment.NewBedfordStandardTimes.
ThursdayOct.1,1992.Onlineat:http://www.helixanchors.com/index.php/HistoricalNews/boat
ownersspiritsbuoyedbynewdevelopment.html.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Smith,Stuart.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingexperiencewithconservationmooringsin
ChathamHarbor.
Swan,BrianM.2012.EelgrassandMoorings.MaineDepartmentofMarineResources.Onlineat:
http://www.maine.gov/dmr/crd/hmo/eelgrassmoorings.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
TerramarEnvironmentalServices,Inc.2011.VesselMooringStudyBocaChicaHarborMonroe
County,Florida.FinalProjectReport.Onlineat:http://www.monroecounty
fl.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1398.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
TownofBrewster.2008.MooringRegulations.Onlineat:
http://www.town.brewster.ma.us/images/stories/mooring_regs_7.29.2008.pdf.Lastviewed
01/23/2013.
TownofBrunswick.2012.Chapter11:MarineActivities,StructuresandWays.Onlineat:
http://www.brunswickme.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/Ch011.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
TownofChatham.2011.RegulationsforMooring,MooringPermitsandAnchoring.Onlineat:
http://www.town.chatham.ma.us/public_documents/chathamma_harbor/regulations/MOORINGRE
GS2011.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page33

TownofEastham.2011.MooringRegulationsandPolicies.Onlineat:http://www.eastham
ma.gov/Public_Documents/EasthamMA_Resources/mooring.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
TownofFalmouth.2007.Chapter269:MooringRegulations.Onlineat:
http://www.falmouthmass.us/harbor/website%20chapter%20269.pdf.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
TownofManchesterbytheSea.2012.ManchesterHarbor:Mooring&WaterwayRegulations.Online
at:http://www.manchester.ma.us/pages/manchesterma_harbor/Amended%20Regs.pdf.Last
viewed01/23/2013.
TownofMarion.2007.WaterwaysRegulations.Onlineat:
http://www.marionma.gov/pages/marionma_harbormaster/waterwaysregs.pdf.Lastviewed
01/23/2013.
TownofSebago.2011.DraftMooringOrdinance.Onlineat:
http://www.townofsebago.org/Pages/SebagoME_Ordinances/mooring?textPage=1.Lastviewed
01/23/2013.
WestMarine.Nodate.WindLoadTables.Onlineat:
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/WestAdvisorView?langId=
1&storeId=11151&catalogId=10001&page=MooringSystems.Lastviewed01/23/2013.
Whitman,Tina.2012.PersonalCommunicationregardingtheworkoftheFriendsoftheSanJuans.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page34

APPENDIXAHYPOTHETICALPRICING
Manufacturersandinstallersworkcloselywithboatownersandharbormasterstoselectthe
conservationmooringsystemmostappropriateforagivenboatinagivenlocation,resultinginaprice
tailoredforeachboat.Whilethisarrangementisimportantforthesafetyofthevessel,itpresents
challengesintermsofunderstandingthecostsofconservationmoorings.
Tohelpclarifythecostsofconservationmooringsfortheboatingcommunity,oneinstallerandthree
manufacturerswereaskedtoprovideestimatesformooringhypotheticalboatsatspecificlocations.
Thewayeachsystemisdesigned,alongwiththeboatspecificandsitespecificnatureofpricing,
preventsatruecostcomparisonbetweendifferenttechnologies;butthefollowinginformationprovides
abettersenseofthepotentialcostsofaconservationmooring.
Themanufacturersandinstallerreceivedthefollowinginformationaboutthehypotheticalboatsand
mooringsiteconditions:

Boat
length/type

12sailboat
18power
boat
30sailboat
30power
boat
55power
boat
55sailboat

Water
depth
(mean
low
water)
8
12

Tidal Maximum Maximum Current Predominant Bottom

range wind
wave
wind
type
speed
height
direction

4
4

50mph
50mph

3
3

1knot
1knot

SW
SW

Sand/silt
Sand/silt

15
15

4
4

50mph
50mph

3
3

1knot
1knot

SW
SW

Sand/silt
Sand/silt

20

50mph

1knot

SW

Sand/silt

20

50mph

1knot

SW

Sand/silt

Itwasassumedthatallmooringswouldbeinstalledonahelixanchor,makingthatelementofprice
uniformamongallvessels.Veryroughestimatesfromoneinstallerofhelicalanchors(JeffLefebvreof
NewEnglandMarine,LLC)suggestedthatthe12and18vesselsmightrequireahelixanchorcosting
approximately$450forpartsandinstallation;the30vesselsmightrequirehelixanchorscosting
approximately$1,200forpartsandinstallation;andthe55vesselsmightrequirehelixanchorscosting
approximately$1,300forpartsandinstallation.Lessexpensiveblockanchoroptionsmayalsobe
available,butpricesforthosearenotincludedbecausethoseanchorswouldnotmaximizethe
conservationaspectofthemoorings.
Pricinginformationforthemooringsthemselves,whichincludeeverythingbetweenthemooringanchor
andtheboatcleat(exceptinthecaseofSeaflex,whichdoesnotincludethependantorbuoy),are
below.

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page35

StormSoftSystem(EstimatesprovidedbyJeffLefebvreofNewEnglandMarineLLC)
Theseestimatesincludeeverythingbetweenthemooringanchorandtheboatcleat.
Boat

StormSoftSystemDescription

Estimate(not
incl.anchor)

12sailboat

Single10ftStormSoft,3ft
connectionline,Gilmandrumbuoy,
X10ftpennant24,000lbtest,
RiggedbyNewEnglandMarineLLC
Single10ftStormSoft,7ft
connectionline,Sparbuoy,
X10ftpennant24,000lbtest,
RiggedbyNewEnglandMarineLLC
Single10ftStormSoft,10ft
connectionline,Sparbuoy,
X10ftpennant24,000lbtest,
RiggedbyNewEnglandMarineLLC
Single10ftStormSoft,10ft
connectionline,Sparbuoy,
X10ftpennant24,000lbtest,
RiggedbyNewEnglandMarineLLC
Double10ftStormSoftassembly,
15ftconnectionline,Sparbuoy,
7/8X12ftpennant35,000lbtest,
RiggedbyNewEnglandMarineLLC
Double10ftStormSoftassembly,
15ftconnectionline,Sparbuoy,
7/8X12ftpennant35,000lbtest,
RiggedbyNewEnglandMarineLLC

$1,500

Costof
installation(not
incl.anchor)
$100

$1,500

$100

$1,500

$100

$1,500

$100

$2,250

$100

$2,250

$100

18power
boat

30sailboat

30power
boat

55power
boat,(non
commercial
vessel)
55sailboat

HazelettSystem(PricesprovidedbyTomHillofHazelett)
SelectingtheappropriateHazelettsystemishighlydependentontheweightofavessel.Sincevessel
weightsvarytremendouslydependingonthetypeofboat(whichwasnotprovidedforthishypothetical
pricingexercise),exactpricescannotbedetermined.Thatbeingsaid,eachofthehypotheticalvessels
wouldusethe10rodesystem(whichincludeseverythingbetweenthemooringanchorandthedeck
cleat).Pricesforthe10systemsareasfollows:
MooringDescription
Single10system
Double10system
Triple10system
Quad10system

Price(equipmentonly)
$1,849
$2,552
$3,453
$4,223

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

BoatWeight
5ton
16ton
25ton
35ton

Page36

SeaflexSystem(PricesprovidedbyBrianHyllandofSeaflex)
TheseestimatesonlyreflectthepriceoftheSeaflexrode.Theydonotincludethepriceofthependant
orthebuoy;andtheyassumea1:1scope.
Boat
SeaflexSystemandListPrice(rodeonly)
12sailboat
1015TS:$449
18powerboat
2020TSBPor1015TS:$1,162or$449
30sailboat
2020TSBP:$1,243
30powerboat
2020TSBP:$1,243
55powerboat
4020TSBP:$1,729
55sailboat
4020TSBP:$1,729

EcoMooringSystem(PricesprovidedbyDaveMerrillofboatmoorings.com)
Theseestimatesincludeeverythingbetweenthemooringanchorandtheboatcleat.
Boat
12sailboat

18power
boat
30sailboat

30power
boat
55power
boat

55sailboat

EcoMooringSystemDescription

5/8in.dia.EcoMooringroderatedat9,900
lbsbreakingload,chain,swivel,shackles,
sizedaccordingly,12in.Carolinabuoy,5/8
in.dia.pendantratedat15,500lbs
Sameasabove

Estimate(not
incl.anchor)
$1,000

1in.dia.EcoMooringroderatedat21,000
lbsbreakingload,chain,swivel,shackles,
sizedaccordingly,18in.Carolinabuoy,3/4
in.dia.pendant,ratedat21,500lbs
Sameasabove

$1,300

$1,850
15/16in.dia.EcoMooringroderatedat

32,800lbsbreakingload,chain,swivel,
shackles,sizedaccordingly,24in.Carolina
buoy,11/4in.dia.pendant,ratedat49,000
lbs
Sameasabove

ConservationMooringStudyJanuary2013

Page37