PIANC Report n° 98 - 2008

Protecting water quality in marinas

“Navigation, Ports, Waterways”
“Navigation, Ports, Voies Navigables”
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 PIANC “Navigation, Ports, Waterways”
“Navigation, Ports, Voies Navigables”

PIANC REPORT N° 98
RECREATIONAL NAVIGATION COMMISSION

PROTECTING WATER QUALITY

IN MARINAS
2008

PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 PIANC has Technical Commissions concerned with inland waterways and ports (InCom),
coastal and ocean waterways (including ports and harbours) (MarCom), environmental
aspects (EnviCom) and sport and pleasure navigation (RecCom).

This Report has been produced by an international Working Group convened by the
Recreational Navigation Commission (RecCom). Members of the Working Group
represent several countries and are acknowledged experts in their profession.

The objective of this report is to provide information and recommendations on good

practice. Conformity is not obligatory and engineering judgement should be used in its
application, especially in special circumstances. This report should be seen as an expert
guidance and state of the art on this particular subject. PIANC disclaims all responsibility
in case this report should be presented as an official standard.

PIANC Secrétariat Général

Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20, B 3
B-1000 Bruxelles
Belgique

http://www.pianc.org

VAT BE 408-287-945

ISBN 2-87223-164-1

© All rights reserved

PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
MEMBERS OF PIANC WG 98....................................................................................................... 4

1. TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................................................. 5

2. BACKGROUND AND SCOPE....................................................................................................... 5

3. REPRESENTATIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.................................................................. 6

Australia and New Zealand Water Quality Standards.................................................................... 6

South African Water Quality Standards.......................................................................................... 8
UK Water Quality Standards.......................................................................................................... 9
Flemish Water Quality Standards................................................................................................ 10
European Guidelines (cf. guidelines RL 76/464).......................................................................... 13
United States Water Quality Standards for Marinas (EPA, 1985)................................................ 14

4. METHODS FOR DETERMINING AND IMPROVING WATER QUALITY.................................... 14

4.1 Flushing Time.................................................................................................................. 14

4.2 Physics of Basin Circulation............................................................................................ 15
4.2.1 Basin Aspect Ratio.............................................................................................. 15
4.3 The Flushing Coefficient................................................................................................. 16
4.4 Basin Curvature.............................................................................................................. 16
4.5 Relative Entrance Cross Sectional Area......................................................................... 18
4.5.1 Tidal Prism Ratio................................................................................................. 18
4.6 Marina Entrance Location............................................................................................... 18
4.7 Effect of Multiple Entrances............................................................................................ 18

5. EXTERNAL METHODS TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY.......................................................... 20

6. CONCLUDING GUIDELINES FOR HOW TO IMPROVE WATER

QUALITY IN MARINAS................................................................................................................ 20

6.1 Primary Considerations................................................................................................... 21

6.1.1 Good Site Selections.......................................................................................... 21
6.1.2 Increase Tidal Prism Ratio.................................................................................. 21
6.1.3 Improve Planform Geometry............................................................................... 21
6.1.4 Increase the A/a Value........................................................................................ 21

7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 21

3 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 MEMBERS OF PIANC WG 98
Jack C. Cox* HDR/ Shiner Moseley
(chairman) 325 East George Hopper Executive - Export
Road, Ste 201-A
Burlington, WA 98233
Tel.: (360) 588-7000
Fax: (360) 588-7001
jack.cox@hdrinc.coz
Harvey N. Smith* Dept. of Transportation & Mobile: +32 476 49 12 73
Public Facilities
State of Alaska
5800 East Tudor Rd
Anchorage, AK 99519
harvey_smith@dot.state.ak
Alexander F. Nielsen* Coasts & Estuaries Group,
SMEC Sydney
Level 6, 76 Berry Street
North Sydney NSW
Australia 2059
Tel.: +61 (0)2 9925 5578
Fax: +61 (0)2 9925 5566
lex.nielsen@smec.com.au
Mark A. Pirrello* Moffatt & Nichol Engineers
1509 West Swann Avenue, c.mead@hrwallingford.co.uk
Ste 225
Tampa, FL 33606
Tel.: (813) 258-8818
Fax: (813) 258-8525
mpirrello@moffattnichol.com
Steven Desloovere* VVW Nieuwpoort
(ICOMIA) Watersportlaan 11,
8620 Nieuwpoort,
Belgium
Tel.: +32.58.235.232
Fax: +32.58.234.058
steven@vvwnieuwpoort.be
David Dykstra Moffatt & Nichol Engineers
250 W. Wardlow Road,
Long Beach
CA 90807-0707, U.S.A.
Tel.: +1.562.426.9551
ddykstra@moffattnichol.com
PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
Tom Cnudde Technical & Commercial
DEC NV
Haven 1025 Scheldedijk 30
B 2070 Zwijndrecht -
Belgium
Tel.: +32 3 250 55 04
Fax: +32 3 250 52 53
Cnudde.Tom@dredging.com
Jan Rønberg Carl Bro A/S
Grandskoven 8,
2600 Glostrup,
Danmark
Tel.: +45.4348.6500
Fax: +45.4363.6567
jvr@carlbro.dk
Chris Mead* HR Wallingford
Howbery Park, Crowmarsh
Wallingford,
Oxon OX10 8BA, U.K.
Tel.: +44.1491.822489
Fax: +44.1491.832233
Andre van Tonder* Entech Consultants Ltd.
Postbus 413,
Stellenbosch 7599
South Africa
Tel.: +27.21.8839260
Fax: +27.21.8833212
avtonder@entech.co.za
*Contributing authors
4
 1.TERMS OF REFERENCES
The following terms of reference were given to
PIANC WG 98 (formerly known as RecCom WG
16) “Protecting Water Quality in Marinas”:
1. Review requirements with respect to water and
sediment quality as presented in EU and US
Standards, which are suitable for marinas.
2. Review methodologies for identifying, asses-
sing, and managing the problem of degradation
of the water and sediment quality in the mari-
nas.
3. Determine whether supplemental hydraulic
systems such as pipes and culverts, and/or
pumps and mechanical aeration systems, land
runoff control, dredging, etc. can offer significant
improvement to water and sediment quality of a
basin and possible drawbacks.
4. Give an indication of the costs of the possible
measures.
5. Although this report will focus on the situa-
tion, design, and infrastructure of the marinas,
the management of the behavior of the marina
users will be given some attention.
6. Generate guidelines for improvement of water
and sediment quality in marina basins.
2. BACKGROUND AND
SCOPE
Marinas and shallow draft harbors are the primary
portals from the land to the sea for recreational
boating and general public access to the water.
The growth of recreational boating, along with the
growth of coastal development in general, has led to
a growing awareness and sensitivity to the need to
protect the environmental quality of our waterways.
Because marinas are located right at the water’s
edge, there is a strong potential for marina waters
to become contaminated with pollutants generated
from the various activities within the marinas, and
more frequently from events occurring externally of
the marina basin.
5 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
Adverse environmental impacts may result from
the following sources of pollution associated with
marinas and recreational boating:
• poorly flushed waterways where dissolved oxy-
gen deficiencies exist;
• pollutants discharged from boats;
• pollutants transported in stormwater runoff from
parking lots, roofs, and other impervious sur-
faces;
• the physical alteration or destruction of wetlands
and of shellfish and other benthic communities
during the construction of marinas, ramps, and
related facilities; and
• pollutants generated from boat maintenance
activities on land and in the water (USEPA,
1993).
Pollutants generated from these sources can in-
clude:
• BOD (biological oxygen demand) and SOD
(sediment oxygen demand) caused by organ-
ics in sewage, fish cleanings, and food waste
discharged from recreational boats;
• nutrients from sewage, fish cleanings, and
food waste discharged from recreational boats;
• pathogens from sewage discharged from rec-
reational boats;
• metals from several sources, including leaded
fuel additives, lead in bilge from boat ballast;
arsenic from paint pigment, pesticide, and wood
preservatives; zinc from anodes used to deter
metal corrosion; copper and tin from biocidal
antifouling agents; and other metals from boat
and marina construction. Copper is the most
common metal found at toxic concentrations in
marina waters. Both copper and tin (as butyltin)
have been found at toxic concentrations in ma-
rina waters nationwide, deriving from boat hull
bottom paints and scrapings;
• turbidity from sediments suspended by boat
operation and dredging activities;
 • petroleum hydrocarbons from refueling activi-
ties and bilge or fuel discharge from boats.
3. REPRESENTATIVE WATER
QUALITY STANDARDS
While general water quality standards exist in vari-
ous forms throughout the world, most are orient-
ed toward, or adapted from general water quality
standards applied to the receiving waters of near-
shore areas. As such, most include guidelines for
the chemical composition of the water, and are in-
tended more for consumption rather than contact
or impact on the biota. Following are some break-
downs of water quality standards around the world.
Note that in all standards, the commonly presumed
measure for water quality – clarity – is not explicitly
stated. The two most critical measures tend to be
dissolved oxygen level and bacteria level. Both of
these are influenced heavily by the efficiency of cir-
culation and flushing of a marina basin.

Australia and New Zealand Water Quality Standards

Table 5.2.3 Summary of water quality guidelines for recreational purposes: general chemicals
Parameter Guideline values (µg/L, unless otherwise stated)
Inorganic
Arsenic 50
Asbestos NR
Barium 1000
Boron 1000
Cadmium 5
Chromium 50
Cyanide 100
Lead 50
Mercury 1
Nickel 100
Nitrate-N 10 000
Nitrite-N 1000
Selenium 10
Silver 50
Organic
Benzene 10
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.01
Carbon tetrachloride 3
1,1-Dichloroethene 0.3
1,2-Dichloroethane 10
Pentachlorophenol 10
Polychlorinated biphenyls 0.1
Tetrachloroethene 10
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol 1
Trichloroethene 30
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol 1
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 10
Radiological
Gross alpha activity 0.1 Bq/L
Gross beta activity (excluding activity of 40K) 0.1 Bq/L
Other chemicals
Aluminium 200
Ammonia (as N) 10
Chloride 400 000
Copper 1000
Oxygen >6.5 (>80 % saturation)
Hardness (as CaCO3) 500 000
Iron 300
Manganese 100
Organics (CCE & CAE) 200
pH 6.5-8.5
Phenolics 2
Sodium 300 000
Sulfate 400 000
Silfide 50
Surfactant (MBAS) 200
Total dissolved solids 1000 000
Zinc 5000

NR= No guideline recommended at this time; MBAS Methylene blue active substances

PIANC Report 98 6
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 Table 5.2.4 Summary of water quality guidelines for recreational purposes: pesticides

Compound Maximum Compound Maximum

concentration concentration
(µg/L) (µg/L)

Acephate 20 Fenvalerate 40
Alachior 3 Flamprop-methyl 6
Aldrin 1 Fluometuron 100
Amitrol 1 Formothion 100
Asulam 100 Fosamine (ammonium salt) 3000
Azinphos-methyl 10 Glyphosate 200
Barban 300 Heptachlor 3
Benomyl 200 Hexaflurate 60
Bentazone 400 Hexazinone 600
Bioresmethrin 60 Lindane 10
Bromazil 600 Maldison 100
Bromophos-ethyl 20 Methidathion 60
Bromoxynil 30 Methomyl 60
Carbaryl 60 Metolachlor 800
Carbendazim 200 Metribuzin 5
Carbofuran 30 Mevinphos 6
Carbophenothion 1 Molinate 1
Chlordane 6 Monocrotophos 2
Chlordimeform 20 Nabam 30
Chlorfenvinphos 10 Nitralin 1000
Chloroxuron 30 Omethoate 0,4
Chlorpyrifos 2 Oryzalin 60
Clopzralid 1000 Paraquat 40
Cyhexatin 200 Parathion 30
2,4-D 100 Parathion-methyl 6
DDT 3 Pendimethalin 600
Demeton 30 Perfluidone 20
Diazinon 10 Permethrin 300
Dicamba 300 Picloram 30
Dichlobenil 20 Piperonyl butoxide 200
3,6-Dichloropicolinic acid 1000 Pirimicarb 100
Dichlorvos 20 Pirimiphos-ethyl 1
Diclofop-methyl 3 Pirimphos-methyl 60
Dicofol 100 Profenofos 0,6
Dieldrin 1 Promecarb 60
Difenzoquat 200 Propanil 1000
Dimethoate 100 Propargite 1000
Diquat 10 Propoxur 1000
Disulfoton 6 Pyrazophos 1000
Diuron 40 Quintozene 6
DPA 500 Sulprofos 20
Endosulfan 40 2,4,5-T 2
Endothal 600 Temephos 30
Endrin 1 Thiobencarb 40
EPTC 60 Thiometon 20
Ethion 6 Thiophanate 100
Ethoprophos 1 Thiram 30
Fenchlorphos 60 Trichlorofon 10
Fenitrothion 20 Triclopyr 20
Fenoprop 20 Trifluralin 500
Fensulfothion 20

Sources: NHMRC & AWRC (1987), NHMRC (1989)

7 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 South African Water Quality Standards
MAINTENANCE OF ECOSYSTEMS:
CONSTITUENT GUIDELINE (TARGET VALUE)

Temperature Should not exceed the mean annual temperature by
more than 1° C (max. annual variation)

pH Within the range 7.3 to 8.2

Where natural circumstances obtain: Variation should

not be more than 0.2 units from the observed natural
extremes

Dissolved Oxygen Should not fall below 10 % of established natural

(West Coast) variation

Dissolved Oxygen Should not fall below 5 mg/ℓ (99 % of time) and below
(South and East Coast) 6 mg/ ℓ (95 % of time)

Salinity (sea) Within the range 33 to 36

Salinity (estuaries) Non-natural influences should not change the salinity
beyond the range recorded for a particular system

Dissolved Nutrients (Nitrate, Total Ammonia, Nutrients levels should not cause excessive or nuisance
Reactive Phosphate) aquatic plant growth or reduce dissolved oxygen con-
centrations below recommended levels.

Toxic Inorganics: Levels should not exceed:

Ammonia 600 µg N/l (NH3 plus NH4+)

20 µg N/l (NH3)

Arsenic (As) 12 µg/l

Cadmium (Cd) 4 µg/l
Chromium (Cr) 8 µg/l
Copper (Cu) 5 µg/l
Lead (Pb) 12 µg/l
Mercury (Hg) 0,3 µg/l
Nickel (Ni) 25 µg/l
Silver (Ag) 5 µg/l
Zinc (Zn) 25 µg/l
Cyanide (CN-) 12 µg/l
Fluoride (F-) 5000 µg/l

Toxic organics / Radio-active substances Refer to Interim Report (mentioned above)

Additional guidelines for PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATION:

CONSTITUENT GUIDELINE (TARGET VALUE)

Fecal coliforms (if limits are exceeded test for Maximum acceptable count per 100 ml:
E.coli using same target values) 100 in 80 per cent of the samples
2000 in 95 per cent of the samples

Additional guidelines for COLLECTION AND CULTURE OF FILTER FEEDERS:

CONSTITUENT GUIDELINE (TARGET VALUE)

Fecal coliforms (if limits are exceeded test for Maximum acceptable count per 100 ml:
E.coli using same target values) 20 in 80 per cent of the samples
60 in 95 per cent of the samples

PIANC Report 98 8
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 UK Water Quality Standards
Parameter Permitted concentration Permitted concentration

Shellfish Waters (79/923/EEC) Bathing Waters (76/160/EEC)*

pH 7 ≤ pH ≤ 9 6 ≤ pH ≤ 9

Dissolved oxygen ≥ 70 % saturation

Total coliforms < 10,000/100 ml

Fecal coliforms < 2,000/100 ml

Salmonella Absent in 1 liter

Entero viruses No plaque forming units

in 10 liters

Color ≤ 10 mg Pt/l variation No abnormal change

Suspended solids ≤ 30 % variation

Salinity ≤ 40 ppt, ≤ 10 % variation

Petroleum hydrocarbons yes

Organohalogen substances yes

Metals yes
(Ag, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn)

Taste-affecting substances yes

Mineral oils No visible film / No odor

Surface-active substances reacting No lasting foam

with methylene blue

Phenols No specific odor,

≤ 0.05 mg/liter

Transparency 1m

9 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 Flemish Water Quality Standards
Parameter

concentration

concentration

concentration

concentration
Permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Basis quality Fish water Drinkwater Swim
Cypriniformes producer water
General parameters

Temperature A ≤ 25 ° C I ≤ 25 (O)
+/- 3 ° C

Dissolved Oxygen A ≥ 5 mg/l M 50 % G > 30 %
≥ 7 mg/l

pH A 6,5 ≤ pH ≤ 8,5 I 6 ≤ pH ≤ 9 (0) I 5,5 ≤ pH ≤ 9 6 ≤ pH ≤ 9

Suspended matter 90 % < 50 mg/l A ≤ 25 mg/l (0) G < 50 mg/l

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) 90 % ≤ 6 mg/l I ≤ 6 mg/l G < 7 mg/l

Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 90 % < 30 mg/l G < 30 mg/l

Ammonia (N-NH4) 90 % < 5 mg/l I ≤ 0,78 mg/l I ≤ 3,1 mg/l (O)

and Gem < 1 mg/l

Kjeldahl nitorgen (N-Kj) 90 % < 6 mg/l G ≤ 3 mg/l

Ammonia (N-NH3) 90 % < 0,02 mg/l I < 0,021 mg/l

Nitrate+Nitrite (N-NO2-+NO3-) 90 % ≤ 10 mg/l

Nitrates (N-NO3-) I ≤ 11,3 (O) mg/l

Nitrites (N-NO2-) I ≤ 0,009 mg/l

Total Phosphate (P-tot) 90 % < 1 mg/l < 1 mg/l G ≤ 0,3 mg/l

and Gem < 0,3 mg/l

Orthophosphate (o-PO4) 90 % < 0,3 mg/l

running water

Orthophosphate (o-PO4) 90 % < 0,05 mg/l

still water

Geleidingsvermogen 90 % < 1000 µs/cm G < 1000 µs/cm

Chloride (Cl-) 90 % < 200 mg/l G < 200 mg/l

Sulfate (SO4--) 90 % < 250 mg/l I < 250 mg/l (0)
and M < 150 mg/l
Chlorophyll a Gem < 100 µg/l

Biotic Index A ≥ 7

Mineral Oils No visible

film, no odour
Odour G verd.factor 20

Transparancy ≥ 1 m (0)
Secchi-disk
Colour I 200 mg/l no
Pt-variation abnormal

PIANC Report 98 10
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 Parameters which indicate

concentration

concentration

concentration

concentration
on substances originating

Permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Permitted
from specific discharging


Basis quality Fish water Drinkwater Swim
Cypriniformes producer water

Heavy metals

Cadmium (total) Gem ≤ 1 µg/l I ≤ 0,005 mg/l

Mercury (Total) Gem ≤ 0,5 µg/l I ≤ 0,001 mg/l

Copper (Total) 90 % ≤ 50 µg/l G ≤ 1 mg/l

Copper (dissolved) I ≤ 0,04 mg/l

Lead (Total) 90 % ≤ 50 µg/l I ≤ 0,05 mg/l

Zinc (total) 90 % ≤ 200 µg/l I ≤ 1 mg/l I ≤ 5 mg/l

Chromium (total) 90 % ≤ 50 µg/l I ≤ 0,05 mg/l

Nickel (total) 90 % ≤ 50 µg/l G ≤ 0,05 mg/l

Arsenic (total) 90 % ≤ 30 µg/l I ≤ 0,1 mg/l

Iron (dissolved) 90 % < 200 µg/l G ≤ 0,2 mg/l

Manganese (dissolved) 90 % < 200 µg/l

Manganese (total) G ≤ 1 mg/l

Selenium (total) 90 % < 10 µg/l I ≤ 0,01 mg/l

Borium G ≤ 1 mg/l

Barium (total) 90 % < 1000 µg/l I ≤ 1 mg/l

Organic micro-contaminants

Monocycl. arom. Hydrocarbons M t ≤ 2 µg/l

M in ≤ 1 µg/l

Polycycl. arom. Hydrocarbons M t ≤ 100 ng/l I ≤ 0,001 mg/l

Dissolved Hydrocarbons I ≤ 1 mg/l

Organochloropesticides M t ≤ 20 ng/l

M in ≤ 10 ng/l
Pesticides-tot. (parathion,HCH,dieldrin) I ≤ 0,005 mg/l

Cholinesterase remming M ≤ 0,5 µg/l

Linuron M ≤ 1

Atrazine M ≤ 2

Simazine M ≤ 1

Dichloorvos M ≤ 0,1

Fenitrothion M ≤ 0,03

Malathion M ≤ 0,1

11 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 Organic

concentration

concentration

concentration

concentration
Permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Permitted
micro-contaminants

Basis quality Fish water Drinkwater Swim

Cypriniformes producer water

Mevinfos M ≤ 0,02

Parathion[-ethyl] M ≤ 0,02

Dimethoate M ≤ 1

Chlorinated biphenyls M t ≤ 7 ng/l

Chlorinated aromatic amines M t ≤ 1 µg/l

M in ≤ 0,5 µg/l

Chlorinated Phenols M in ≤ 50 ng/l

Extractable Organic Chlorines (EOCl) G ≤ 0,005 mg/l

Extractable in combination with CCl4 G ≤ 0,5 mg/l

VOX (volatile organic halogen.) M ≤ 5 µg/l

EOX (extractable organic halogen) M ≤ 5 µg/l

AOX (adsorbable organic Halogen) M ≤ 40 µg/l

Dichloormethane M ≤ 10 µg/l

Anionic detergent M ≤ 100 µg/l G ≤ 0,5 mg/l gn persist.

schuim

Non Ionic and Kationic M ≤ 1000 µg/l

Volatile Phenols (vapour) M ≤ 5 µg/l

Phenols (total) 90 % < 40 µg/l I ≤ 0,1 mg/l ≤ 0,05 mg/l

Free Chlorine 90 % < 0,004 mg/l

Residual Chlorine I ≤ 0,005 mg/l

Fluorudes 90 % < 1,5 mg/l G ≤ 0,7/1,7 mg/l

Total cyanides 90 % < 0,05 mg/l I ≤ 0,05 mg/l

Total colibacteriën 37°C G ≤ 50.000/100 ml ≤ 10.000/100 ml

Fecal Coliforms M ≤ 2000/100 ml G ≤ 20.000/100 ml ≤ 2.000/100 ml

Fecal streptococcus G ≤ 10.000/100 ml

Salmonella 0/l

Virus 0 PFU/10 l

PIANC Report 98 12
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 European guidelines
(cf. guidelines RL 76/464)

concentration

concentration

concentration

concentration
Permitted

Permitted

Permitted

Permitted
Basis quality Fish water Drinkwater Swim

Cypriniformes producer
water

Aldrin Gem ≤ 10 ng/l

Dieldrin Gem ≤ 10 ng/l

Endrin Gem ≤ 5 ng/l

Isodrin Gem ≤ 5 ng/l

hexachlorobenzene (HCB) Gem ≤ 0,03 µg/l

hexachlorobutadiene (HCBD) Gem ≤ 0,1 µg/l

chloroform (HCCl3) Gem ≤ 12 µg/l

1,2 dichloorethane (EDC) Gem ≤ 10 µg/l

trichloroethylene (TRI) Gem ≤ 10 µg/l

perchloroethylene (PER) Gem ≤ 10 µg/l

trichlorobenzene (TCB) Gem ≤ 0,4 µg/l

tetrachlorocarbon (CCl4) Gem ≤ 12 µg/l

DDT (totaal) Gem ≤ 25 µg/l

para-para-DDT-isomer Gem ≤ 10 µg/l

pentachlorophenols (PCP) Gem ≤ 2 µg/l

hexachlorocyclohexane Gem ≤ 100 ng/l

° Besl.Vl.Reg. dd 1/06/95 = VLAREM II

Legenda

A = absolute
90 % = 90-percentile ≤ value + 100-percentile ≤ value x 1,5
Gem = average
M = median
t = total
in = individual
G = European guide number (= 90-percentile ≤ value + 100-percentile ≤ value x 1,5)
I = European imperative (mandatory) value (= 95-percentile ≤ value + 100-percentile
≤ value x 1,5)
(0) = from this value can be deviated at exceptional geographical or weather circumstances
(1) = maximum values depending on the average annual temperature (high temperature and
low temperature)

13 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 United States Water Quality Standards for Marinas
(EPA, 1985)
Parameter Standard
pH 6.5 – 8.5; or < 1 unit from normal or natural value of
water body
Temperature Increase < 4˚ F (Oct – May); < 1˚ F (June-Sept)
Dissolved Oxygen > 5 mg/l except as caused by natural phenomena;
> 2.0 ppm always
Toxic substances < 10 % of 96 hr median tolerance limit of subject
species
Color, Taste, Odor Aesthetic considerations only
Bacteria < geometric mean of 1000/100 ml monthly;
< 2000/100 ml in any sample
Turbidity < 50 nephelometric units above background

4.METHODS FOR
DETERMINING AND
IMPROVING WATER QUALITY
Predicting the likely water quality in a marina is
complicated by the range of pollutants which may
enter the marina, interactions between them, local
meteorological conditions (e.g., temperature and
sunlight), possible impacts on the environment and
how well flushed the marina will be. There are a
range of methods available from calculating the
flushing time to full predictive water quality model-
ing which simulates all the relevant hydrodynamic
and biochemical processes. The approach needed
in a particular situation will depend on a number
of factors including the quality of water outside the
marina, the presence or absence of discharges, the
flushing characteristics and the regulations which
need to be met.
4.1 FLUSHING TIME
The “historic” measure for achieving acceptable
water quality is the flushing time. Flushing times
are typically calculated as the time required to re-
duce initial pollutant concentrations within a semi-
enclosed waterbody to a prescribed value. The re-
lation for computing the basin flushing time is given
as:
ln D
[ ]
Tf(tidal cycles) =
Vt - Vm + 2 Vm (1-e)
ln
Vt + Vm
Where D is the dilution factor, Vt - Vm represents the
low-tide volume; Vt + Vm the high-tide volume. 2Vm
represents the tidal prism. Vt is the product of the
mean water depth, h, and the basin surface area,
A. e represents the fraction of new water added in
each tidal cycle, so that (1-e ) represent the amount
of “return flow” (DiLorenzo, et. al. , 1991).
An alternate measure of the flushing time is to com-
pute the E-folding time for an enclosed basin, i.e.
the time it takes for a contaminant introduced into
a uniformly mixed water body to achieve a desired
dilution level. If P is the concentration at any time,
then dP/dt ≈- QP/V, where V is the basin volume,
and Q is the exchange water quantity. Then P(t) =
P(0) exp (-Qt/V), where P(0) is the initial concen-
tration and if the residence time is defined as t =
V/Q (for perfect water exchange), then the pollutant
concentration value is 1/e of its original concentra-
tion, i.e. 63 % dispersion (de Kreeke, 1983). For a
semi-diurnal tide, this can be estimated analytically
(Marine Science Laboratories, 1992) as:
VL + v
2t
te-fold =
v m 2

PIANC Report 98 14
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 where VL is the volume of the basin at low the L/B aspect ratio is unity. In addition, Nece et al.
water recommend that no more than five percent (5 %) of
v is the mean tidal volume the basin shall have Exchange Coefficients of less
tm2 is the period of the m2 tidal con- than 0.15 when averaged over one complete tidal
stituent (12.42 hours) cycle. This correlates to a maximum basin aspect
ratio of roughly 1:4.
Generally the goal is to reach the E-folding value
in four days (eight tidal cycles) This is consistent
with the recommendation of the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA, 1985), who recommend a
complete water exchange of a basin in four days as
“good”, an exchange of water in ten days as “fair”,
and poor if longer time was required.

The method discussed above assumes that there

is 100 % mixing of “new” water, or e = 1.0, with
each tidal exchange in the basin. Unfortunately
this is generally not seen in the real world. How-
ever down to 50 % new water exchange appears
to have limited impact on the residence time (Van
de Kreeke, 1983). As a guideline the goal is now
interpreted as “No more than (5 %) of the basin
shall have exchange coefficients, as defined in the Figure 1: Flushing Exchange Coefficient
next section, of less than 0.15 when averaged over as a function of basin Aspect Ratio
one complete tidal cycle (12 hours).” (Smith, et. al,
2002).
As basin shapes become more curvilinear or ir-
4.2 PHYSICS OF BASIN CIRCULATION regular, the concept of aspect ratio looses mean-
ing. A more generalized method of considering the
geometry effects is the Planform Factor, similar to
4.2.1 Basin Aspect Ratio
a hydraulic radius, given as:
Nece et. al. (1979) preformed a series of physical A
PF= 4p
model tests to seek the most efficient geometries p2
and entrance locations for basin flushing. Shown in
Figure 1 is a determination of the flushing exchange
where A is the surface area of the basin at mean
efficiency of different rectangular basin length to
tide and P is the perimeter as shown in Figure 2.
width ratios. Nece et. al. defined the flushing ex-
For a perfect circle, PF equals unity. Basins with
change coefficient as:
numerous arms typically have low PF values be-
cause of the large value of P relative to A. The goal
E = 1 - (Ci/Co)1/n
is to have the maximum usable basin area for the
least amount of perimeter.
Where:
E = average exchange coefficient
It is apparent that circulating flow does not pen-
Co= initial concentration
etrate further than about a 2:1 aspect ratio. This
C = concentration after “n” cycles
implies that once aspect ratios exceed this value,
n = number of cycles (usually at least 4)
flushing efficiency declines rapidly, as multiple cir-
culation gyres form inside the basin and the inner
and Ci is the concentration of the marker compo-
gyre is unable to exchange water back through the
nent at location “i.” As seen in Figure 1, it is appar-
entrance.
ent that the peak flushing efficiency occurs when

15 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 4.3 THE FLUSHING COEFFICIENT
The average Exchange Coefficient (E) by itself is
not a sufficient indicator of flushing, circulation, or
mixing since it does not consider the spatial variabi-
lity of the mixing process. Consider two basins ha-
ving the same average water exchange coefficient,
one with half the basin flushing near 100 % and
the other half near zero, and the other with half the
basin flushing everywhere between 40 and 60 %.
The former basin would be poor flushing, while the
latter would be good. If S is the standard deviation
of the exchange coefficient, computed at various
locations throughout the basin, and defined as:
1
N
s= ∑ (x - x)2
N - 1 i=1 1
Where xi is the E value at any point and x is the
mean value of E, then E-S must be > 0.1 for good
PLANFORM RATIO
Good Flushing
PF > 0.7
Poor Flushing
PF < 0.4
Figure 2: Planform definition
Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 530 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.18 StDev= 0.20
Figure 3: Limit of circulation cell penetration
PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
flushing. This is in spite of the fact that locally some
mixing may be stronger in the first case.
Figure 4 (next page) illustrates the difference in the
exchange values of a non-uniform versus uniform
flushing basin. As shown by the point by point ve-
locity histograms of the exchange coefficient, while
the figure on the left has some exchange values as
much as 50 % greater than the predominant value
on the left, there is more uniformity in the values
throughout the basin on the right. This results in
a smaller value of S, leading to an overall better
water quality.
The effect of aspect ratio on assuring uniform mixing
throughout the basin is illustrated in Figure 5. Note
that the largest E-S value, i.e. the smallest standard
deviation from the mean Exchange coefficient, oc-
curs for an aspect ratio of 1.0. Also note that a nar-
rower entrance produces a better E-S value.
Figure 5: Flushing Uniformity
as a function of Aspect Ratio
4.4 BASIN CURVATURE
Rounding of basin corners also increases the PF
value. For good circulation, the minimum radius
should be greater than a quarter of the minimum
characteristic dimension of the basin, and never less
than an eighth of the minimum dimension. As shown
by the example values in Figure 6 (next page) the
E-S value is larger for a curved corner basin so that
the mixing is also more uniform throughout (Smith
et al, 2002).
16
 Figure 4: Demonstration of a non-uniform (left) versus uniform (right) basin flushing exchange

Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0 Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 515 AR= N/A TPR = 0.32 A/a = 508 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.34 StDev= 0.12 Ave E= 0.36 StDev= 0.05

a) b)
Basin Curvature Effect

Good Circulation
R > min (L,W)/4

Poor circulation
R< min (L,W)/8
c) d)

Figure 6: Basin Curvature Definition

17 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 4.5 RELATIVE ENTRANCE CROSS
SECTIONAL AREA
There is a relationship between the desirable cross
sectional area of an entrance opening (a) and the
area of the basin (A) to be flushed. In order to hold
an E-S value greater than 0.1, the A/a ratio typically
needs to be greater than 200, and ideally should be
at least 400.
As shown in Figure 7, tidal exchange in wide en-
trance marinas does not penetrate deeply or uni-
formly as for narrow entrances. For all other con-
ditions the same, an entrance mouth four times as
big, results in flow exchange in only the outer half of
the basin. As a result, the E-S value is usually < 0.1
for wide mouth marinas, even though the average E
may be large. Wide mouth harbors will tend to suf-
fer more “dead” zones deeper inside the basin for a
tidally influenced harbor.
In areas with low tidal ranges (especially lakes and
rivers), where currents or wind stress dominate, a
wide entrance may be beneficial (EPA, 1985). How-
ever if the circulation is based primarily on the tidal
prism then the narrow entrance is usually better.
4.5.1 Tidal Prism Ratio
For good flushing, the tidal prism ratio (TPR), i.e. the
volume of water entering the basin during the flood
tide, compared to the total basin volume at high tide,
(Vtide/Vharbor @ high tide) needs to be at least 0.25, and
preferably 0.35.
4.6 MARINA ENTRANCE LOCATION
The Nece et. al. observations were largely based on
an offset marina entrance location. To assess wheth-
Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0 Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 515 AR= N/A TPR = 0.32 A/a = 266 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.37 StDev= 0.10 Ave E= 0.23 StDev= 0.19
Figure 7: Basin area versus entrance area relation
PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
er a center entrance or an offset entrance performs
better, a center entrance design must be viewed as
two mirror image offset basins. In this case, both
the basin area (A) and entrance cross-section (a)
double so that the A/a ratio stays the same. The tidal
prism ratio (TPR) also stays the same. The only fac-
tor that changes is the aspect ratio, which increases
by a factor of two. For a center entrance, the best
exchange (theoretically) occurs when two counter
rotating circulation cells of aspect ratio 1:1 are set
up. Therefore an optimum center entrance aspect
ratio should be about 2:1, as compared to 1:1 for
an offset entrance. Also since it is unlikely that the
harbor entrance will double in width due to wave,
a center entrance is further enhanced by narrowing
the entrance opening.
Note, the general goal is to create a basin shape
and entrance location that creates offset entrance
circulation cells of aspect ratio as close to 1:1 as
possible. Harbors which are long in the shore par-
allel direction benefit from either a center entrance
location, or dual entrances at opposing ends. Har-
bors that are long in the shore perpendicular direc-
tion benefit more from an offset entrance location
because the location of the entrance jet defines how
the aspect ratio is computed.
4.7 EFFECT OF MULTIPLE
ENTRANCES
The effect of multiple entrances can be determined
by comparing the results of (E-S) as aspect ratio in-
creased for a rectangular basin and a rectangular
basin with double entrances. Two examples of mul-
tiple entrances are shown in Figure 10 (next page).
The gross surface areas and entrance areas are es-
sentially the same, (similar A/a values) which means
Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 141 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.12 StDev= 0.17
18
 ENTRANCE
WIDTH
Good Circulation:
A/a > 400
Poor Circulation:
A/a < 200
Figure 8: Relative marina entrance area
the width of the entrances in the double entrance ex-
ample is half that of the single entrance. However
computing and comparing the E-S (AveE – StDev)
values, the degradation of flushing efficiency of mul-
tiple entrances is apparent. Graphically, this is also
shown in Figure 10, illustrating how the two flushing
jets actually work counter to each other, inhibiting the
formation of a strong circulation cell and decreasing
the volume of the basin that can be flushed as com-
pared to the single entrance case.
Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 515 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.37 StDev= 0.10
Figure 10: Multiple entrance efficiencies
Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 530 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.18 StDev= 0.20
Figure 11: Elongated basin flushing with multiple entrances
19
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
Figure 9: Tidal Prism Definition
These results would suggest that multiple entrances
or breaches could have a deleterious reduction in
water quality. They should be used with caution for
basins that have good aspect ratios and are driven
primarily by the tidal exchange. As suggested in
Figure 11, if basin aspect ratios are greater than 1:4,
then multiple entrances may still need to be consid-
ered since a single entrance jet cannot fully flush
the basin, even though the contribution of each en-
trance may be less.
Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 532 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.21 StDev= 0.15
Exchange Coefficient For hour: 48.0
TPR = 0.32 A/a = 547 AR= N/A
Ave E= 0.26 StDev= 0.18
PIANC Report 98
 5. EXTERNAL METHODS TO
IMPROVE WATER QUALITY
A frequent proposal to enhance water quality in a
basin is to add culverts through a dike or breakwall
in an attempt to introduce more flow into the basin.
Although counter intuitive, there are reasons that
adding small culverts does not help:
1) The culvert is added in addition to the naviga-
tion channel; therefore the effective entrance
area (a) increases and the total energy flowing
into the basin decreases. This actually serves
to degrade the flushing of the marina instead of
improving it.
2) The head drop along the culvert is similar to
the head drop through the entrance: very small.
Considering the relative hydraulic radii, the flow
through a small culvert will be negligible.
Consistent with the discussion of the contributions
of multiple entrances, Figure 12 demonstrates the
limited contribution that culverts introduce to basin
flushing. In the example illustrated, the culvert size
is not insignificant, roughly 2.5 m x 6 m flowing fully.
It is apparent that the zone of influence of the cul-
vert-added flushing water is very localized, and does
not contribute to the overall flushing of the marina
basin.
Mechanical measures are also frequently suggested
as a means to increase water exchange. If the ba-
sin is largely enclosed, and the goal is to increase
Figure 12: Example of culvert limited contribution to flushing
PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
dissolved oxygen, this method may be suitable be-
cause the volume of water to be processed is limited,
though still large. If the goal is to reintroduce new
water to flush or dilute contaminants, a mechanical
approach to enhancing circulation by pumping wa-
ter may be very expensive in terms of energy cost
and hardware for the processing of large water vol-
umes.
Ultimately navigation requirements become the
controlling factor for how much an entrance could
be constricted to enhance flushing or how a basin
shape must be conformed to accommodate berth-
ing. Therefore, practical designed basins may not
achieve the maximum water quality enhancing prop-
erties, but efficiencies can be increased by incorpo-
rating these design factors. At some point, the re-
striction would reduce circulation, but this wouldn’t
occur until it was enough to reduce the tidal prism
volume, at which point the velocities in the channel
would make it unnavigable.
6. CONCLUDING GUIDELINES
FOR HOW TO IMPROVE
WATER QUALITY IN MARINAS
Improving the flushing rate of a mooring basin is
based on one simple hydraulic principle – movement
of the water. It is necessary to design the basin and
channel so that the greatest amount of clean ambi-
ent water entering the basin on the flood remains
so that an equivalent amount of basin water is ex-
hausted on the ebb.
20
 If the clean ambient water that enters on the flood
is the same water that is exhausted on the ebb the
exchange and relative flushing will be minimal.
6.1 PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
6.1.1 Good Site Selections
• Locate the basin where clean ambient water will
be drawn into the basin during the flood tide.
Place the entrance near the deepest, seaward
portion of the basin. Avoid water entrainment
from adjacent shorelines; it may be subject to el-
evated temperatures, and may be contaminated
by surface runoff or tidal debris.
• Identify currents near the entrance to carry away
the exhausted water and minimize re-entrainment.
6.1.2 Increase Tidal Prism Ratio
The design engineer cannot control the tidal range,
but there are ways to increase the tidal prism ratio
(TPR) and improve exchange.
• Create an area within the basin that has a bot-
tom elevation near extreme low water. Incre-
mentally this area would have a TPR near one.
It may provide habitat, but it won’t be suitable for
basin or uplands. Also, shallow water absorbs
more thermal radiation leading to increased tem-
peratures. In warm climates this may counter
the benefits of an increased TPR.
• Keep the basin shallow. Make it deep enough
for moorage, but optimized with deeper draft
vessels near the entrance and shallower draft
vessels further into the basin. Stepping the ba-
sin can reduce dredging, thereby lowering en-
vironmental impacts and reducing costs, while
improving the TPR.
Increasing the TPR can have other benefits. If the
channel is subject to shoaling, the higher TPR will
increase the entrance velocities and the rate of
channel sedimentation will be reduced.
If the basin is subject to freezing, increasing the TPR
will heighten the exchange of warmer ambient water
and reduce ice buildup.
21
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
6.1.3 Improve Planform Geometry
• Use round or curvilinear planforms with aspect
ratios of between 0.5:1 and 2:1.
• Avoid rectangular basins with an aspect ratio
greater than 2:1 or less than 0.5:1. Gently round
the corners of rectangular planforms.
The recommendation for round or a curvilinear plan
basin shape needs to be used with some caution.
For small tidal ranges a curvilinear shape with an as-
pect ratio of 2 to 1 does have a comparable perfor-
mance to a rectangular basin with a similar aspect
ratio. This occurs when the momentum is insufficient
to drive a circulation cell.
In cases where tidal prism ratios are small and the ba-
sin is not large enough to produce a large A/a, a near
circular basin will produce the most efficient flushing.
In prototype, the performance predicted by theory
may be more pronounced than observed in the ac-
tual harbor. However as the aspect ratio of a curvi-
linear plan approaches unity (a circle), the exchange
and mixing still improves dramatically.
6.1.4 Increase the A/a value
Increase the basin area (A) or reduce the entrance
cross-section (a). This results in a larger A/a value,
which improves exchange and mixing. The flexibility
in adjusting (A/a) is limited. The basin area (A) is
generally governed by the fleet demand and eco-
nomics, while the entrance cross-section (a) can
only be reduced to the value governed by the beam
and draft of the design vessel.
7. REFERENCES
DiLorenzo, J.L., Ram R, Huang P., and Najarian,
T.O., “Simplified Tidal Flushing Model for Small Ma-
rinas,” World Marinas 91, ASCE, 1991.
DiLorenzo, J.L., Filadelfo, R.J., Surak, C.R., Litwack,
H.S., Gunawardana, V.K., and Najarian, T.O., 2004.
Tidal variability in the water quality of an urbanized
estuary. Estuaries, 27 (5), 851-860.
PIANC Report 98
 DiLorenzo, J.L., Filadelfo, R.J., Surak, C.R., Litwack,
H.S., Gunawardana, V.K., and Najarian, T.O., 2004.
Tidal variability in the water quality of an urbanized
estuary. Estuaries, 27 (5), 851-860.

Marine Science Laboratories, Methods for Deter-

mining Pollutant Dispersion in Tidal Waters, Report
U89-5 (II:3), Unit for Coastal and Estuarine Studies,
College of North Wales, March 1992.

Nece, C. W., Richey, E. P., Rhee, J., and Smith, H. N.

1979. “Effects of Planform Geometry on Tidal Flush-
ing and Mixing in Marinas,” Technical Report No. 62,
Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engi-
neering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Smith, H., R Carter, and D. Jones, Achieving and

Maintaining Water Quality in Small Boat Harbors,
Prepared for Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, July 2002.

USEPA. 1985a. Coastal Marinas Assessment Hand-

book. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Re-
gion 4, Atlanta, GA. April.

Van de Kreeke, J, “Residence Time: Application to

Small Boat Basins”, Journal of Waterways, Port,
coastal, and Ocean Engineering, American Soci-
ety of Civil Engineers, vol. 109, No. 4, November,
1983.

PIANC Report 98 22
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 23 PIANC Report 98
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 PIANC Report 98 24
Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-
 Front cover: Illustrating the sediment laden flow issuing from a
river into a marina, this aerial view of the harbour of
Racine, Wisconsin (USA), is an example of water
quality impact.

PIANC Secrétariat Général

Boulevard du Roi Albert II 20, B 3
B-1000 Bruxelles
Belgique

http://www.pianc.org
VAT BE 408-287-945

ISBN 2-87223-164-1

Purchased by , 657420479@qq.com #4082469-