NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

Decision Analysis Series No. 25 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

OF SMALL DOCKS & PIERS: 

THEORY AND PRACTICE 

Steve Bliven and Ruth Kelty 

September 2005 
DECISION ANALYSIS SERIES 

The Decision Analysis Series was established by 

NOAA’s Coastal Ocean Program to present documents 

for coastal resource decision-makers which contain 

analytical treatments of major issues or topics. To learn 

more about the Coastal Ocean Program or Decision 

Analysis Series, please write: 

NOAA Coastal Ocean Program 

1305 East-West Highway 

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

phone: 301-713-3338 

fax: 301-713-4044 

web: www.cop.noaa.gov
Science for Solutions 

NOAA’s COASTAL OCEAN PROGRAM 

Decision Analysis Series Number 25 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

OF SMALL DOCKS & PIERS: 

THEORY AND PRACTICE

Steve Bliven 

Ruth Kelty 

September 2005 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), 

Undersecretary for Ocean and Atmosphere 

National Ocean Service 

Richard W. Spinrad, Assistant Administrator 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

Gary C. Matlock, Director 
Acknowledgements: 

Thanks are due to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Centers for Coastal 

and Ocean Science (NCCOS) for funding this project. John Gutwin of Pepperchrome gave of 

his time and expertise to provide background on visualization models. Ms. Allison Castellan of 

NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management (OCRM), Mr. Bill O’Beirne of 

OCRM, and Dr. Richard C. Smardon of SUNY Syracuse reviewed this document and provided 

insightful suggestions. Maronn W. Sternack also reviewed the draft and offered his usual 

cogent comments. 

This publication should be cited as: 

Bliven, S. and R. Kelty. 2005. Visual Impact Assessment of Small Docks and Piers: Theory 

and Practice. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series No. 25. National 

Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, Silver Spring, MD. 42 pp. 

This publication does not constitute an endorsement of any commercial product or intend to be an 

opinion beyond scientific or other results obtained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA). No reference shall be made to NOAA, or this publication furnished by 

NOAA, in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that NOAA 

recommends or endorses any proprietary product mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose 

an interest to cause directly or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchases because 

of this publication. 
Note to Readers 

The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) provide a focal point through which 

NOAA, together with other organizations with responsibilities for the coastal environment and its 

resources, can make significant strides toward finding solutions to critical problems. By working 

together toward these solutions, we can ensure the sustainability of these coastal resources and 

allow for compatible economic development that will enhance the well-being of the Nation now 

and in future generations. 

A specific objective of NCCOS is to provide the highest quality of scientific information to coastal 

managers in time for critical decision-making and in formats useful for these decisions. To this 

end, the Decision Analysis Series was developed by the Coastal Ocean Program to synthesize 

information on issues of high priority to coastal managers. As a contribution to the Decision 

Analysis Series, this report provides a critical overview of the visual impact assessment 

methodology and application. A list of other available documents in the Decision Analysis 

Series can be found on the last page of this report. 

Visual Impact Assessment of Small Docks and Piers: Theory and Practice was developed in 

response to requests from the coastal management community. It is part of a series of products 

produced by NCCOS and other NOAA offices to improve the capabilities of state and local dock 

management by improving science-based decision-making. Related products include the 

following: 

NOAA Small Docks and Piers Web Site – NCCOS and the Office of Ocean and Coastal 

Resource Management (OCRM) maintain a website dedicated to issues related to small dock 

and pier management. The site is located at www.ocrm.nos.noaa.gov/czm/dockpier.html. 

The Science of Assessing Impacts from Small Docks – In January of 2003, NCCOS 

sponsored an invitational workshop to review the state of scientific knowledge related to the 

impacts of small docks and piers. The workshop results are summarized in Environmental and 

Aesthetic Impacts of Small Docks and Piers. Shading, contamination, and boating associated 

with docks are discussed, as well as navigation, aesthetic, and quality of life issues. Copies of 

the report may be downloaded from the web at: 

http://www.nccos.noaa.gov/documents/dockpier.pdf Hardcopies may be requested from Ruth 

Kelty (301-713-3020, Ruth.Kelty@noaa.gov). 

Dock and Pier Bibliography – NCCOS maintains a web-based bibliography of information on 

docks and piers at http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/nccos/docks.aspx. The bibliography is searchable 

by author, title, state, and keywords (i.e. vegetation, shading, contaminants, sediments, 

recreational uses, navigation, zoning, design, visual impacts, etc...) 

Management Tools Related to Docks and Piers – In November 2003, a second invitational 

workshop was sponsored by NCCOS, OCRM, and the Coastal Services Center (CSC) to review 

management options, bothregulatory and non-regulatory, related to small docks and piers. A 

summary of this workshop, Management Tools to Minimize the Impacts of Residential Docks 

and Piers, is available at http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/pdf/TCS_paper.pdf or by 

contacting Allison Castellan (301-713-3155, Allison.Castellan@noaa.gov). 
Data Base of State Programs – OCRM and NCCOS maintain a web-based, searchable, 

database of summary information about how coastal states manage small docks and piers: 

http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/czm/dockpier.html. Information entered by state managers 

can be browsed or queried to allow coastal managers concerned about particular impacts of 

docks or piers (i.e., shading, aesthetics) to find standards other states have developed to 

mitigate that impact and the laws that uphold them. Information in the database can also be 

used to develop new standard operating procedures (SOPs) and support denials when the 

impacts of a proposed project are unreasonable. By linking the science and management of 

residential docks and piers, the database will help state and local managers improve their 

regulations, as well as their permitting and planning processes used to mange dock placement 

and design. For further information, contact Allison Castellan (301-713-3155, 

Allison.Castellan@noaa.gov). 

Inventory of Laws, Regulations, and Policies Related to Residential Docks – The NOAA 

Coastal Services Center (CSC) is compiling information about state dock management 

programs (statutes, regulations, and policies). Summaries for Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, 

and North Carolina are available in hard copy from Melissa Patterson (843-740-1200, 

Melissa.Patterson@noaa.gov). 

Training Materials related to Management of Small Docks – NCCOS and OCRM partnered 

with Bliven and Sternack to develop training materials related to science-based dock 

management. The Powerpoint slide shows and accompanying training workbook introduce 

major issues related to small dock and pier impacts and management, including: environmental 

impacts, impacts to navigation and public access, visual impacts,regulatory and non-regulatory 

techniques that can be used in small dock management, Best Management Practices, and 

sources for additional information and assistance. NCCOS and OCRM are interesting in 

partnering with National Estuarine Research Reserves Coastal Trainers and with Sea Grant to 

offer training sessions. For more information, contact Ruth Kelty (301-713-3020, 

Ruth.Kelty@noaa.gov). 

As with all of its products, the NCCOS is interested in ascertaining the utility of Environmental 

and Aesthetic Impacts of Small Docks and Piers, particularly in regard to its application to the 

management decision process. Therefore, we encourage you to write, fax, call or email us with 

your comments. Please be assured that we will appreciate these comments, either positive or 

negative, and that they will help us direct our future efforts. Our contact information is below. 

Gary C. Matlock, Ph.D. 

Director 

National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science 

1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 

phone: 301-713-3020 fax: 301-713-4353 email: nccos.webmaster@noaa.gov 

web: http://www.coastalscience.noaa.gov/ 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Introduction.................................................................................1 

Legislative Bases..........................................................................2 

Techniques for Management 

Visual Impact Assessment: Theory and Techniques........................5 

Zoning Overlay Districts........................................................11 

Harbor Management Areas...................................................12

Wild and Scenic River Designations........................................12 

Critical Resource Areas........................................................13 

Existing Programs for Aesthetic Reviews.......................................15 

Mitigation for Visual Impact..........................................................18 

Case Studies 

Village of Lloyd Harbor, NY....................................................19 

Somes Sound, ME...............................................................22

Appendix 2. Basic Visual Assessment Form..................................31 

Summary....................................................................................26 

Bibliography and Recommended Background Readings..................27 

Appendix 1. Maine Basic VIA Form...............................................29

INTRODUCTION 

From a manager’s perspective, oftentimes the publicly held concerns related to small docks and 

piers are not really related to the environment. They may be more related to visual impacts and 

aesthetic concerns, a sense of over-development of the shore, or simply change. While 

individuals may hold personal aesthetic values related to small docks in general or an individual 

structure in particular, techniques have evolved that appear to provide reproducible, predictive 

assessments of the visual impacts and aesthetic values of an area and how those might change 

with development, including an increase in numbers of small docks. These assessments may 

be used to develop regulatory or non-regulatory methods for the management of small docks 

based on state or community standards. 

Visual impact assessments are increasingly used in the regulatory review of proposed 

development—although this process is still in its infancy as regards small docks and piers. 

Some political jurisdictions have established visual impact or aesthetic standards as relate to 

docks and others are in the process of investigating how to go about such an effort. 

This paper is intended to provide an overview of 

1. The legal bases for developing visual impact or aesthetic standards, 

2. Visual impact analysis techniques, 

3. Capabilities at the local and state level to develop and implement visual impact or 

aesthetic standards, 

4. Examples of existing management programs that incorporate visual impacts or 

aesthetics, 

5. Types of mitigation available, and 

6. Case Studies of the implementation or judicial review of management decisions based 

on visual impacts. 

The following material is intended to provide an introduction and brief overview of the 

“reasonableness” and techniques for managing small docks; for greater detail, please refer to 

the references and background readings provided in the Bibliography. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 1 
LEGISLATIVE BASES 

Legislation relating to coastal management often incorporates some mention of scenic values, 

aesthetics or community character, either in the body of the statute or in the legislative findings 

related to the statute. The following are examples of the types of language found in coastal 

management laws, statutes, regulations, or ordinances. 

Federal Coastal Zone Management Act 

Section 303 notes that one of the purposes of the Act is “to encourage and assist the states 

to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and 

implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water 

resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and 

esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development...” [Emphasis 

added]. In many instances, states have incorporated this or similar language into their 

coastal management program statutes and regulations. 

Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act (MGL Chapter 91) Regulations (310 CMR 9.01 (2) 

This section of the regulations states that its purpose “includes protecting the public trust 

rights, ensure only water-dependent uses or otherwise serve a proper public purpose, 

protect public health, safety, and general welfare, support efforts to revitalize unproductive 

property in urban waterfronts and foster the right of the people to .... The natural, scenic, 

historic and esthetic qualities under Article XCVII of the Massachusetts Constitution.” 

[Emphasis added] 

New Jersey Coastal Area Facilities Review Act (N.J.S.A. 13:19): 

“The Legislature finds and declares that New Jersey's bays, harbors, sounds, wetlands, 

inlets, the tidal portions of fresh, saline or partially saline streams ... channels, estuaries, 

barrier beaches, near shore waters and intertidal areas together constitute an exceptional, 

unique, irreplaceable and delicately balanced ... natural environmental resource, ... that 

certain portions of the coastal area are now suffering serious adverse environmental effects 

resulting from existing development activity impacts that would preclude or tend to preclude 

those multiple uses which support diversity and are in the best long-term, social, economic, 

aesthetic and recreational interests of all people of the State; and that, therefore, it is in the 

interest of the people of the State that all of the coastal area should be dedicated to those 

kinds of land uses which promote the public health, safety and welfare, protect public and 

private property, and are reasonably consistent and compatible with the natural laws 

governing the ... environment of the coastal area.” [Emphasis added.] 

Maine Natural Resource Protection Act (38 M.R.S.A. §480-A–Z) 

Legislative Findings: “The Legislature finds and declares that the State's rivers and 

streams, great ponds,... freshwater wetlands, ... coastal wetlands and coastal sand dunes 

systems are resources of state significance. These resources have great scenic beauty and 

unique characteristics, unsurpassed recreational, cultural, historical and environmental 

value of present and future benefit to the citizens of the State and that uses are causing the 

rapid degradation and, in some cases, the destruction of these critical resources, producing 

significant adverse economic and environmental impacts and threatening the health, safety 

and general welfare of the citizens of the State.” 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 2 
Standard 480-D of the Act states that “a permit may not be granted for an activity in, on, 

over, or adjacent to protected natural resource when the activity will unreasonably interfere 

with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational or navigational uses.” [Emphasis added.] 

South Carolina Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act (Title 48, Chapter 39) 

In the legislative declaration of findings related to the Act: “The General Assembly finds that 

... [I]mportant ecological, cultural, natural, geological and scenic characteristics, industrial, 

economic and historical values in the coastal zone are being irretrievably damaged or lost 

by ill-planned development that threatens to destroy these values.” [Emphasis added.] 

Nantucket (Massachusetts) municipal wetlands ordinance 

“The purpose of this chapter is to protect the wetlands of the Town of Nantucket by 

controlling activities deemed to have a significant or cumulative effect upon wetland values, 

including but not limited to the following: public or private water supply, groundwater, flood 

control, erosion control, storm damage prevention, water pollution, fisheries, shellfish, 

wildlife, rare species, including rare, threatened or endangered plant species and animals 

and habitats, recreation and wetland scenic views ... This chapter is intended to utilize the 

Home Rule Authority of this municipality to protect additional resource areas for additional 

values, with additional standards and procedures in addition to those of the [state] Wetlands 

Protection Act, MGL c. 131, § 40, and regulations thereunder, 310 CMR 10.00.” [Emphasis 

added.] 

These statutes, ordinances, and regulations describe scenic views, aesthetics, community 

character, or visual impacts, and can provide the legal basis for the development and 

implementation of a management plan for small docks and piers. 

At the municipal level, zoning ordinances provide the opportunity to regulate design, size, or 

appearance of structures to ensure the protection of “community character”. Architectural 

review of proposed structures for building height and appearance, aesthetic zoning based on 

the historic nature of villages, overlay districts, and 

billboard laws are all examples of how municipalities 

regulate based on aesthetics. This process can be Two types of authority applied to private docks as well as to houses, offices, or can be used to manage factories. docks and piers: 

Police powers provide the state or municipality authority • police powers to

to regulate activities for the public good in the protection protect public

of health, safety, welfare, and morals. Rights to regulate health, safety and such activities may be delegated to municipalities, usually general welfare, and by one of two principal methods: 

1. In some states “Dillon’s Rule” prohibits municipalities • rights of ownership. 

from exercising any powers except those expressly 

granted by the legislature, or those which are incident 

to powers expressly granted, or 

2. In “Home Rule” states, municipalities may establish reasonable standards to protect public 

welfare so long as they are not expressly prohibited at the state or federal level and are not 

more lenient than state or federal standards. 

Smardon and Karp (1992) provide a thorough review of the legal underpinnings for these 

statutes, ordinances and regulatory actions. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 3 
The rights of ownership are based on state or local proprietary interest in property and 

associated property rights and are not constrained by the need to link decisions to public health, 

welfare and safety. In the case of tidal waters, large ponds and some river systems, the 

property owner (typically the state or municipality) may make management decisions that go 

well beyond the limits of the police powers. For example, in most coastal waters and many 

freshwater bodies there is a state or municipal obligation to protect specific rights under the 

public trust doctrine. These generally include fishing or hunting in, navigation within, or 

traversing through tidelands. Private activities may be regulated to prevent impairment of these 

public rights. 

Typical challenges to management standards and procedures include claims that: 

• the decisions of the reviewing authority are beyond the scope allowable by the enabling act 

or supporting regulations; 

• the decision has violated a law, either in the substance of the decision, the procedure used 

to reach the decision, or a violation of the public trust obligations of the political entity; 

• the process used to establish the standards and procedures, or the decision rendered under 

those standards is arbitrary and capricious; 

• no substantial evidence has been produced to support the establishment of the standards or 

for the specific decision; 

• the regulating authority has abused its discretion in applying the standards to a particular 

project; and/or 

• the standards, or specific decision, result in a violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. 

Constitution that prohibits taking of land without just compensation. This can include a 

partial taking or a temporary taking. (McGregor, 2004). 

Consequently, management plans or regulatory programs must be carefully crafted and 

implemented to reflect community values and withstand court challenges. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 4 
VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS: 

THEORY AND TECHNIQUES 

Appropriate standards and reproducible means of evaluation of potential impacts are critical 

when basing dock and pier permitting decisions on visual impacts or aesthetics. Visual impact 

assessment provides a process and standards for objective evaluation – thereby removing 

much of the subjectivity from the decision-making process and making the results more 

predictable. The Landscape Institute (Lincoln, UK) and Institute of Environmental Assessment 

(London, UK) have cooperatively prepared Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact 

Assessment (E&FN Spon, 1995) to provide validated methodology for visual impact 

assessments. 

Landscape impacts are defined as changes in “the character and quality of the landscape as a 

result of development” (E&FN Spon, 1995). Consequently, a landscape impact assessment 

evaluates: 

• Direct impacts from specific landscape elements; 

• More subtle, or indirect, effects on the overall pattern of elements that shapes landscape 

character; and 

• Impacts on generally accepted special interests or values such as designated landscapes or 

scenic views, conservation areas, public lands, and historic and cultural sites. 

Visual impacts are a sub-set of landscapes. They relate solely to changes in views of the 

landscape and the resultant effects of those changes on people. Visual impact assessments 

address: 

• The direct impacts of the proposed changes on views of the landscape due to intrusion or 

obstruction; 

• The reaction of viewers who may be affected; and 

• The overall impact on the view (which may range from degradation to enhancement). 

Visual impact analyses grow from comparisons between existing settings and proposed 

changes. This allows individuals to evaluate how much change a landscape can absorb. 

Richard Smardon (1986, 1988) has developed a system of visual analysis based on the 

elements of landscape compatibility, scale contrast, and spatial dominance. The steps in the 

process of landscape and visual impact assessment are very similar to those involved in the 

environmental assessment process as a whole. 

For the analysis, respondents are provided with a series of images showing the existing 

landscape and how it would be affected by the proposed change as seen from a series of 

perspectives. The visual image of the constructed project within the landscape may be 

developed from computer-enhanced images or architectural renderings. Experience with visual 

impact assessments show that, when shown images of shorelines in various stages or 

types of development, the majority of people select the same image as being 

aesthetically preferable—suggesting that results from such a process can be considered 

reliable and repeatable. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 5 
Historic water structures are generally considered 

scenic, tourist-like commercial structures are disliked. 

(Photo credit: J. Gates). 

In general, VIA in coastal areas indicate 

aesthetic preferences for historic or generic 

coastal development, water related 

development, open/distance water views, 

enhanced water access, and diverse and 

well-maintained vegetation (see Table 1). 

People disliked development in undeveloped 

coastal landscapes, tourist-like commercial 

development, utilities, shoreline structures, 

and litter and debris (see Table 1). 

When asked about coastal structure 

preferences, the majority of respondents: 

• Indicated that their preference depended 

on whether or not the landscape was 

developed, 

• Were more positive of structures perceived as marine- or water-related, 

• Were more positive of structures perceived as enhancing water access, and 

• Were very positive of structures related to historic or heritage values (Smardon, 2003) 

Preferences about structures also depended on the perspective, i.e., whether seen from the 

shore looking seaward, from the water looking landward, or viewed along the shoreline. Views 

from the shore can offer an open vista, have an edge or visual boundary to the panorama, or be 

filtered. Generally, people disliked views filtered through structures (Smardon, 2003). 

Preparing Comparisons for Visual Analysis 

As mentioned earlier, the typical means of preparing a visual analysis is to show respondents 

side-by-side comparisons of the existing landscape and a simulated version of what the 

landscape would look like if developed. This sort of analysis can be effectively used either for 

case-by-case regulatory review or for area-wide planning programs. For large or complicated 

projects, see Smardon et al. (1988); good background sources are listed in the Recommended 

Background Reading section of the Bibliography (i.e. Sheppard,1986,1989). 

Renderings of proposed structures or landscapes are common tools of architects. In the past 

these were drawn by hand, but photo-imaging software is making increasingly sophisticated 

mock-ups more accessible. Products range from static images of the proposed change to 

complicated images that allow the viewer to see the virtual structure from a continuous series of 

perspectives as if walking or “flying” through the landscape. 

The critical elements that ensure a fair and valid comparison include: 

• Clearly documenting the angle of view for the lens used, 

• Noting the distance between the viewpoint and the object, 

• Providing the aspect or angle of the viewer, 

• Providing the location of the viewpoint from which the picture was taken, and 

• Providing a sufficient number of views (generally six to seven) to ensure that the structure is 

seen in its full context (Smardon, 2003). 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 6 
Methodology Positive Attributes Negative Attributes Source 

Urban respondents from 

LA were shown panoramic 

images and video clips. 

water, activities, beach area inappropriate structures, 

high level of development 

Banerjee 

and 

Gollub 

1976 

Participants sorted photos 

of water resource 

development projects in 

varying stages into piles 

according to scenic quality. 

beaver ponds, lakes, wildlife uncompleted projects, 

pollution, oil tanks, eroded 

banks, excavation 

Gauger 

and 

Wycoff 

1973 

Scenic river boaters in 

Wisconsin were given 

cameras and told to 

photograph positive and 

negative aspects of the 

river visual experience. 

river scenes, trees, houses set in the 

woods, rapids, developed recreation areas 

metal pipes, powerlines, 

bridges, abutments 

Cherem 

and 

Traweek 

1977 

Photos taken by residents 

of Dennis, MA (Cape Cod) 

were sorted by those 

residents into piles 

according to landscape 

type and scenic quality. 

void of humans, habitat degradation, private 

exploitation 

Palmer 

1978, 

1983 

Photos of representative 

coastal areas were used to 

assess perception of 

coastal areas throughout 

NY. 

lack of development litter and debris, erosion, 

water appearance, 

presence of shoreline 

structures 

Neiman 

1987 

North Country residents 

and students rated photos 

of views to the St. 

Lawrence River from Cape 

Vincent to Hammond, NY. 

views or access to water, vegetation, natural 

landscape, rural image, water features, 

views to opposite shore, uniqueness, edge 

variety, superior or elevated views, fences, 

dirt roads 

utilities, trailer parks, 

screening or blocking 

views, signage, excessive 

vegetation, flat 

topography, general 

clutter, boats and docks, 

poorly maintained areas 

Smardon 

et al. 1987 

Students evaluated photos 

and video of views to the 

St. Lawrence River from 

the road and from the 

water from Massena to 

Ogdensburg, NY. 

islands with vegetation, marsh and 

emergent vegetation along the shoreline, 

vegetation rising in steps, dense vegetation 

down to the water, unique tree forms, golf 

course, grass area with grazing livestock, 

boat launch, grassy knoll with little 

vegetation, stone breakwater. 

oil tanks, rocky dike and 

industrial plant, industrial 

plant, power lines, 

shipping lock, dam, steep 

rocky shoreline w/little 

vegetation, causeway, 

power authority dam 

Shannon 

et al. 1990 

Visual perception of views 

taken from the loop road in 

Arcadia National Park in 

Maine was measured by 

asking for positive and 

negative characteristics. 

sense of mystery (they wish to be further 

drawn into the scene), coastal development 

that is generic to the Maine landscape or 

with a distinctly “ historical” character, water 

views, long distance views, “folded” or multilayered landscape (typically mountains and 

islands), diverse and well maintained 

vegetation distribution in the foreground and 

middle ground of the view. 

developed or urbanized 

landscape, evidence of 

crowed use, touristoriented commercial 

development 

Steinitz 

1990 

Table 1. Review of visual perception studies (compiled by R. Smarden, modified from Kelty and Bliven 2003) 

A simple technique for visualization is to “draw” in the structure or structures on an existing 

photograph using a photo-manipulation program such as Adobe Photoshop®. [Note: reference 

to particular computer software should not be construed as an endorsement by either the author 

or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). References are provided 

solely as examples of the possibilities available.] The renderings below (Figures 1 and 2) were 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 7 
prepared by the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office using this technique as part 

of a preliminary planning exercise in the Town of Fairhaven, MA. In this instance, the purpose 

was to provide a sense of what the landscape would look like at “full build-out” occurred, i.e., 

each property facing the embayment had dock. 

Figure 1. Existing Landscape. The coastal shoreline of an embayment in Fairhaven, MA as it presently exists. 

Graphic courtesy of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office. 

Figure 2. The same coastal embayment in Fairhaven, MA if each parcel abutting the water’s edge had constructed a 

private dock, i.e. a “full build-out” of docks. Docks were added to the Figure 1 picture with Adobe Photoshop®. 

(Graphic courtesy of the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office.) 

The comparison between these two photographs (Figures 1 and 2) allowed municipal officials to 

understand the potential visual impacts of a variety of types and numbers of structures and, 

therefore could be used to aid a planning process for the embayment. To be most accurate and 

effective, renderings should show the shoreline from multiple perspectives, e.g., looking from a 

distance toward the shore from the water side, from points on the shore looking seaward, from a 

distance looking along the shoreline (as above), standing near one of the docks looking along 

the shore, etc. 

John Gutwin of Pepperchrome located in Portland, ME (personal communication, 2004) uses a 

more sophisticated process for dock simulations. Using the programs PhotoModeler® and 

LightWave® and the base data of the project design, he builds a virtual 3D model of the 

proposed structure. He then takes a series of photographs, registered to specific locations, and 

links these with the model. His business is not unique (“there is probably one in almost every 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 8 
state—look in the Yellow Pages for Visual Impact Assessment, Visual Impact Simulation or 

Architectural Simulation”). Using this process he prepared the following visuals used in the 

review of a project in Maine (Figure 3, also see the case study on page 18). 

A B 

Figure 3. Computerized images of a proposed dock in Somes Sound, Maine. These images provide examples of the 

way that Visual Impact Simulation can be used to review proposed projects. The dock and float in the center of the 

photographs do not presently exist; they have been superimposed on the existing background through the use of a 

computer program. “A” shows the dock at high tide and “B” shows the exposed cribs at low tide. These images were 

developed by John Gutwin for the using PhotoModeler® and LightWave®, used with permission. 

Gutwin notes that while this is not a trivial job, it is common in landscape architecture. The 

photo-renderings prepared for a visual impact assessment in Maine cost about $ 5,000 for 

views of a single dock. Additional docks, particularly “generic” ones or replicas of the original 

dock, would increase the cost but probably not double it. The PhotoModeler® web site 

(www.photomodeler.com) further explains the software and its capabilities. 

Several variables contribute to the effectiveness of a visual simulation and its appropriateness 

for regulatory evaluation including the viewpoint and the distance from the object. For example, 

the perspective of the view can alter the perceived impacts from structures. In general, photos 

looking along the shore (i.e. Figure 5) suggest greater intrusion than do aerials (i.e. Figure 6). 

A B C 

Proposed 

docks 

Figure 5. Aerial views of docks often suggest less intrusion than do shore or water views. A shows proposed dock 

locations on the Ashley River, SC (photo credit: Richard Chinnis), B shows docks in Maryland, and the green lines in C 

indicate proposed docks along a Massachusetts shoreline (photo credit: MA Coastal Zone Management Office). 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 9 
A B C 

Figure 6. Shore and water views often suggest more intrusion than aerial views. Docks in the Severn River, Maryland 

(A, photo by R. Kelty) and South Carolina (B, photo by R. Chinnis, and C, Photo by D. Sanger). 

On account of this complexity, a general background and understanding of the basics of this 

process are helpful prior to engaging someone to prepare visual modeling or image rendering 

(see Sheppard1986, 1989 in the Recommended Background Readings section). 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 10 
TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGEMENT 

Under the police powers provisions (protecting public health, welfare and safety), states and 

municipalities have a number of options to implement visual impact or aesthetic standards. The 

rights of ownership or public trust offer additional capabilities. In either instance, standards 

must be established for a defined geographic area or resource type – a defined special 

management area. These areas may be large – the State of Maine established standards that 

apply over most of its extensive coastline – or limited to a particular embayment or section 

thereof within a single municipality. Alternately, standards may be applied to specific critical 

resource types (i.e. salt marshes) wherever they are found. 

Special management areas may be defined by states or municipalities under a number of 

options including: 

• Zoning overlay districts; 

• Critical resource areas or types; 

• Wild and Scenic River designations; or 

• Harbor management planning areas. 

Zoning Overlay Districts 

Zoning regulations have been used in coastal and inland areas throughout the country to 

separate different and potentially conflicting activities within a community. Within any given 

zone, standards are established and projects meeting those standards are automatically 

allowable. A variance process is generally established for proposals that do not meet the 

standards but may provide some communal benefit, or in order to avoid hardship for property 

owners. “Prior, non-conforming structures” within the zoning area are typically allowed to 

remain for use by the property owner, but are phased out over time. 

Many municipalities have adopted some form of zoning ordinance that prohibits or limits certain 

uses or types of structures from specific sections of the community. A relatively new concept 

(and one that has had limited testing through the courts) is the extension of municipal zoning 

into waterbodies that lie within the jurisdiction of the municipality—often referred to as 

“watersheet zoning”. The zoning process can be applied to docks in a manner similar to other 

land uses—provided there is a demonstration that the standards bear a rational relationship to a 

legitimate governmental objective. (See Lloyd Harbor, NY case study on page 15) 

Within such a Zoning Overlay District, communities may establish standards addressing visual 

impacts, including the regulations of size, length, or height of docks; depth of water at its 

terminus; construction materials to be used, and/or overall design. In some instances a 

complete prohibition of docks may be warranted. 

Overlay Districts are adopted by a municipality in the same way as any other zoning change. 

However, zoning standards for docks must take into account the riparian rights of property 

owners along the shore. In most cases, riparian rights give waterfront property owners access 

to the water abutting their property—and this often is interpreted as allowing some form of 

structure or dock. However, this does not mean that reasonable standards for dock 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 11 
Figure 7. An aerial view of Blakely Harbor on Bainbridge Island, 

Washington. This clearly shows the small number of docks 

currently along the shoreline. A recently passed ordinance will 

limit further development to two communal docks, one on each 

side of the harbor. 

construction cannot be established—or that docks cannot be prohibited altogether, so long as 

access to the water is not prohibited. There is legal precedent for limiting access to something 

as simple as a dinghy stored on and launched from the shore. 

Harbor Management Areas 

In most harbor plans, the central issue is resolving conflicting human uses within a specific 

geographic area, whether resource-based such as shellfishing; recreational uses such as 

swimming, boating, water-skiing; commercial wharfs and associated uses; or private docks. 

As part of a harbor planning exercise 

on Bainbridge Island, WA, planners 

assessed the potential for visual 

impacts from dock construction (Best, 

2002). A GIS model was created 

showing existing structures and the 

potential for a full build-out of docks. 

There are three existing small piers in 

this generally shallow embayment 

(Figure 7), but there is the potential for 

more than 50. Using these two 

scenarios, the narrowing of views (i.e. 

views unobstructed by the presence of 

docks) was calculated from “select 

public vistas” such as parks and scenic 

roadways along the harbor as well as 

views of the land from the water side. 

Assessments were not done for visual 

impacts on views from private properties. Analysis showed that the view corridors from the 

public land sites would be narrowed between 27% and 58% for projects that had already been 

proposed and up to 78% at maximum build-out. The study acknowledged the likelihood of 

additional impacts from light and noise but did not quantify these. Additional assessments were 

made for impacts to navigation and to natural resources. This methodology offers interesting 

options for visual impact analysis during a harbor planning exercise. Based on this planning 

exercise, the construction of new docks is now limited to two or three communal structures 

within the embayment. 

Wild and Scenic River Designations 

Wild and Scenic River designation provides another framework for visual impact management. 

Rivers and their immediate environments selected for their, “outstandingly remarkable scenic, 

recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values shall be 

preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be 

protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.” (The Federal Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act; P.L. 90-542 as amended; 16 USC. 1271–1287) 

Rivers can be designated either by federal or state legislatures. Many states have developed 

parallel state legislation to designate and manage wild and scenic rivers (e.g., New Jersey’s 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1977; N.J.S.A. 13:8–45 et seq.). Within such designated areas, 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 12 
management plans are developed that may be implemented through either state statutes or 

municipal ordinances. These plans generally include means for maintaining existing scenic 

vistas, providing an opportunity for the assessment from docks and piers and a framework for 

development of management strategies. 

Critical Resource Areas 

Many states and municipalities have the authority to define certain areas as critical to the 

protection of coastal resources. These may be known as aquatic preserves, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern, Areas for Preservation and Restoration, significant wildlife or marine 

resource habitat, etc., but all provide a framework for a dock management plan. In some of 

these areas, scenic resources are a factor in designation, leading to the potential for 

construction standards to minimize or avoid visual impacts. 

Pleasant Bay, an estuary bordering on four towns on Cape Cod, was designated as an Area of 

Critical Environmental Concern by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in 1987. This 

designation precluded state issuance of permits for dock construction until a state-approved 

Resource Management Plan was in place. A resource-based dock and pier management plan 

was submitted for approval in 2000 (Macfarlane et al., 2000). During the development of the 

resource management plan for the Bay, an inventory was taken of existing private piers and the 

potential for further construction of these structures. The planning group developed a matrix 

designed to predict the impacts from individual docks and piers—as well as cumulative 

impacts—and applied this summary to 26 geographic subsections within the Bay. Each 

subsection was rated for susceptibility to impacts. This resulted in a moratorium on dock 

construction in some areas and the establishment of standards for design and construction in 

others. These moratoria and standards were implemented in a similar manner by each of the 

four towns through parallel local ordinances. Macfarlane et al. (2002) noted that, “By eliminating 

the lot-by-lot procedures, we have also eliminated a more subjective approach to the permitting 

procedure.” While the evaluation of the subsection of the Bay’s susceptibility to impacts from 

docks and piers was based primarily on the Bay’s ecosystem (although the state regulatory 

language regarding the resource management plans include “significant scenic sites” as one 

designation criterion), the methodology is instructive and could easily be modified for visual 

impacts. 

Another, albeit non-coastal, example of a critical area management plan may be seen in Lake 

Tahoe. The Lake Tahoe Regional Planning Agency has established regulatory standards for 

construction visible from the lake—the purpose being to “regulate structures in the foreshore 

and nearshore to avoid interference with attainment of scenic thresholds.” Under this program, 

the Agency has established “Shoreline Tolerance Districts” based on proximity to the water and 

geological and topographical conditions. For proposed projects along the waterfront, an 

applicant must provide an inventory of the current scenic conditions and meet standards related 

to color of the proposed structure, nature of the roof, types of fencing, etc. As regards new 

piers, they must meet standards related to location as related to property lines, proximity to 

tributaries, and important fish habitats; length (based on depth of water or a defined pierhead 

line established in the Lake); width; height; and design. Regulation of new piers is designed to 

prevent: 

• Degradation of fish habitat, 

• Creation of navigation hazards, 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 13 
• Interference with littoral drift, 

• Interference with the attainment of scenic thresholds [emphasis added], and 

• Other relevant concerns. 

Regulations pertaining to this program may be found at the Lake Tahoe Regional Planning 

Agency web site (www.trpa.org/default.aspx?tabindex=2&tabid=172). Chapter 30 of the 

regulations describes the Scenic Quality Review Program, C. 53 describes the Shorezone 

Tolerance Districts and Design Standards for structures, and C. 54 contains standards specific 

to new piers. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 14 
EXISTING PROGRAMS FOR AESTHETIC REVIEW 

Several state or local management programs have incorporated – intentionally or otherwise – 

some level of visual impact, aesthetic, or scenic standards. Mississippi, Florida, and Georgia 

have established limits on the height and vertical area of structures on the end of docks. These 

standards are rooted in the protection of lines of sight for navigation, but also directly affect 

visual impacts. Massachusetts prohibits structures on the end of docks that are not “waterdependent” (as opposed to “water-enhanced”) (Figure 8). Again, the intent is to protect 

navigation and manage private use of public waterways, but the prohibition has the secondary 

effect of lessening visual impacts. In the Lloyd Harbor, NY case study (page 15), the Village 

established length limits for docks to 

protect navigation but also to “retain 

community character.” 

Figure 8. This structure on the Magathy River, Maryland is not 

water dependent and would not be permitted in Massachusetts. 

Perhaps the clearest management of 

docks for visual impacts takes place in 

the State of Maine. Maine’s Natural 

Resources Protection Act (Title 38 §§ 

480-A–Z), Standard 1, specifically 

requires an applicant to demonstrate that 

a proposed activity will not “unreasonably 

interfere with existing scenic and 

aesthetic uses.” The Visual Impact 

Regulations at Chapter 315: specify 

State regulatory concerns; define visual 

impacts; establish a procedure for evaluating visual impacts; establish when a visual 

assessment may be necessary; explain the components of a visual assessment; and describe 

avoidance, mitigation and offset measures that may eliminate or reduce adverse impacts to 

existing scenic and aesthetic uses. 

The regulations call for an evaluation of each structure for three major criteria and sub-criteria, 

as follows: 

Landscape Compatibility (Severe, Moderate, Minimal, None) 

• Color (whether the proposed structure is a significantly different color, hue, value, or 

chroma) from its surrounding landscape, 

• Form (whether the two- or three-dimensional shape of the proposed structure is 

incompatible with landscape surroundings), 

• Line (whether the proposed structure introduces incompatible edges, bands, or silhouette 

lines), and 

• Texture (whether the proposed structure will produce an incompatible textural grain, density, 

regularity, or pattern). 

Scale Contrast 

• Severe: Major Scale Introduction/intrusion 

• Moderate: One of several scales or major objects in a confined setting 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 15 
• Minimal: Significant object or scale 

• None: Small object or scale. 

Spatial Dominance (Dominate, Co-dominate, sub-ordinate, Insignificant) 

• An evaluation of whether the proposed structure dominates or is prominent in whole 

landscape composition; is prominently situated within the landscape; or dominates landform, 

water or sky backdrop. 

In many instances, the review process requires the applicant to provide a graphic simulation of 

how the proposed structure fits into the landscape setting. Figure 3 (page 5) shows two graphic 

simulations for a dock reviewed under the Maine criteria. 

The evaluation produces a score for “Total Visual Impact Severity”. This score is entered into a 

matrix with the Severity along one axis and the Scenic Significance along the other in order to 

determine which of the following categories the proposed project falls into: Unacceptable; 

Acceptable with Mitigation of various levels; or Has low or no impact. 

As part of the evaluation process, a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for visual 

assessments was developed as a mechanism to promote consistency between decisions and 

provide the ability to document how decisions were made. Additionally it increases the comfort 

level for the staff. Maine’s Visual Impact Assessment Form, definitions of terms, and Visual 

Impact Matrix are found in Appendix A. 

Generally the evaluation addresses impacts to public viewscapes, rather than strictly the 

impacts on neighbors, abutters, or other private property owners. Assessments are done from 

locations where the public could view the project. This is similar to the process used on 

Bainbridge Island, Washington. 

Visual Impact Assessments have been used in Maine since 2000 and have produced a range of 

decisions. In several cases proposed docks were allowed because they didn’t interfere with 

scenic values (i.e. Figure 9). In another situation, the proponent was asked to consider other 

Figure 9. The ME DEP determined that this pier (left) did not interfere with the reason that the view was found to be 

scenic. As is not unusual, the party declaring a scenic impact was a neighbor, whose grandfathered lot potentially 

constituted a larger impact to the visual quality of the north side of the island (right). This project caused the DEP to 

think carefully about whose view they are charged with protecting, and reinforced the concept that it is the public’s 

view that the legislature was concerned with when it adopted the NRPA. (From Kelty & Bliven, 2003. Photos by J. 

Gates.) 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 16 
locations after it was determined that the proposed dock would interfere with scenic views. That 

application was subsequently withdrawn and the proponents are working with neighbors to 

negotiate shared use of an existing dock. In a third case, there were no resource or visual 

impacts but the dock would have been the only one in a natural fjord and would have been 

visible for hikers in a National Park. Consequently the project was denied (see Somes Sound, 

ME case study, Figure 15). 

After approximately five years, Maine’s Department of Environmental Protection (the 

implementing agency) has found that for the most successful management of visual impacts, it 

needs to get involved with the first structure in a newly developing area—and, as noted above, 

they have denied permits for docks proposed in places were there was no previous 

development. 

To date, no municipalities within the state have adopted similar programs at the local level, but 

the process could be adopted as part of an overlay zoning district evaluation process. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 17 
MITIGATION FOR VISUAL IMPACT 

Various forms of mitigation are available, the selection of which depends on the existing setting, 

its “visual character,” plans for the area, and the values of the decision-making body. The 

generic preferences for coastal structures identified by Smardon (2003) can form a basis on 

which to overlay state or local standards. Common mitigation measures include: 

• Reducing the length, height and overall size of the dock or associated structures; 

• Maintaining a minimum distance between structures (this might involve requiring communal 

or shared docks rather than a one-dock-per-lot situation); 

• Enhancing public access to the shoreline adjacent to or waters under the docks, 

• Encouraging the use of “natural” or “traditional” materials and designs typically found in the 

specific type of landscape setting; 

• Reducing the color or shadow contrast between the proposed structure and the surrounding 

landscape; 

• Establishing setbacks along the shoreline for other structures where docks are proposed as 

a way to minimize “visual clutter”; or 

• Establishing associated interpretive sites to related to historic or heritage-related usage of 

the area. 

The use of any of these techniques, or others that evolve during the planning process, will vary 

widely depending on the nature of the existing landscape and the plans for its future. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 18 
CASE STUDIES 

Case Study 1: Village of Lloyd Harbor, NY 

Location: 

Lloyd Harbor, NY—a Village in the Town of 

Huntington on the north side of Long Island 

in New York (Figure 10). 

Background: 

The waterbody known as Lloyd Harbor (as 

distinguished from the Village of the same 

name in which the embayment is located) is 

a long, narrow, relatively shallow 

embayment connected to Huntington Bay 

(Figure 11). The main portion of the water 

body ranges from 400–1,200 feet wide. 

Lloyd Harbor has been designated by the 

State of New York as Significant Coastal Figure 10. Lloyd Harbor is on the northern shore of Long 

Island, NY. The dock was proposed for the south side of the 

harbor, approximately halfway from the opening to Long 

Island Sound. 

Fish and Wildlife Habitat and as a Critical 

Environmental Area by the Village of Lloyd 

Harbor under provisions of New York State 

law. 

The Village of Lloyd Harbor developed 

Coastal Overlay District zoning standards 

with financial and technical assistance from 

the New York Coastal Management 

Program. The standards were designed to 

manage land and water uses in Lloyd Harbor 

and to protect: 

1. the significant natural resources of the 

area, 

2. the relatively undeveloped open space 

and uses along and in the harbor, and 

3. the scenic and visual qualities - 

essentially the community character of Figure 11. An aerial view of Lloyd Harbor showing the 

the waterfront. dock would have extended 115’ into the body of water. 

Lloyd Harbor ranges between 400 and 1,200 feet wide. 

The Overlay District recognizes the riparian 

rights of property owners to access and use waters adjacent to their property including the right 

to a dock subject to “reasonable regulations” to preserve the public right of passage along the 

shore, public use of the harbor, natural resources, safety and aesthetic and scenic views.” 

[Emphasis added.] 

Proposed

dock 

location for the proposed dock. As originally proposed, the 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 19 
Within the Overlay District, dock length is limited to 75 feet from mean high water, or to a depth 

no greater than two feet at the seaward end of the dock at mean low water, whichever produces 

the shortest dock. This reduces encroachments into and minimizes the effects of the physical 

presence and intrusion of docks on the visual quality and character of the area. 

An owner of upland property abutting Lloyd Harbor proposed to construct a dock that would 

extend approximately 115-foot seaward of mean high water reaching a water depth of about 

four feet. The owner sought to berth a 36-foot long, 3.5-foot draft vessel at the dock. At the 

time of the proposal, the boat was moored in another location within the Harbor. The requested 

dock was intended to increase the safety of the boat during storm events; make it safer to load 

and unload passengers, particularly children or handicapped people; and to provide better 

access to electricity and water. The request was denied. 

Issues Raised 

After being denied a permit by the Village to construct a dock longer than allowed by zoning, the 

upland property owner filed suit in US District Court against the Village of Lloyd Harbor 

maintaining that the community’s refusal to approve the application dampened “their legal and 

constitutional rights to own and use their property and its riparian rights” as granted under the 

Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution resulting in a “taking of their property for public use 

without just compensation”. In making this claim, the plaintiffs asserted that the ordinances 

were “unconstitutional, illegal, and invalid” and did “not promote the health, safety, welfare or 

morals of the general public; [were] not enacted in furtherance of a comprehensive land use 

plan; are not rationally related to achieving a permissible municipal goal; and are arbitrary and 

capricious.” 

Witnesses for the defense testified that the overall intent of the Coastal Overlay District was to 

limit the length of docks and depth of water they reach and, among other public interests, “to 

protect the aesthetic physical character of that portion of the area of the village.” 

The Court was asked to decide whether the Coastal Overlay District was constitutionally valid. 

Result 

The case was tried in US District Court in the Eastern District of New York and is referred to as 

Stuchin v. Town of Huntington and Village of Lloyd Harbor. 

In September of 1999, the judge handed down a 68-page decision (71 F. Supp 2d 76, No.CV 

98-3580 (ADS)) finding that the property owners had not been denied their right to access the 

waterway adjacent to their property, but merely had their “mode of access...limited to a dinghy 

launched from the foreshore of their property.” He went on to note that both the right of access 

and construction of a private dock are “subject to general rules and regulations as the 

Legislature may see proper to impose for the protection of the rights of the public, whatever 

these may be.” The Coastal Overlay District was found to be legally valid and that the property 

owner’s constitutional rights had not been violated, upholding the denial of the permit for the 

proposed dock. 

In making this decision, the judge found there was a “substantial rational basis for reducing the 

size of docks in these waters including the Village’s ... concerns regarding 1) obstruction to 

navigation, 2) preservation of the pristine natural habitat and precious resources of Lloyd Harbor 

and 3) aesthetics.” [Emphasis added.] The judge dismissed the regulatory taking claim and 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 20 
concluded that the village standards, including those related to visual impacts and aesthetics 

“pass constitutional muster.” 

In making this decision the Court referred to Montero v. Babbitt, (US Eastern District Court NY 

1995) upholding government’s authority to restrict riparian owners’ rights to access navigable 

waters through the use of police powers as a valid use of those powers. In the Montero case, 

the riparian right of access had not been denied entirely—the mode of access had merely been 

limited to a dinghy launched from the shore of the property in question. 

The Court concluded that the Village Lloyd Harbor did not act in an “arbitrary or irrational 

manner” in establishing the Overlay District standards related to dock design, noting that 

“[g]enerally a municipal zoning ordinance is presumed to be valid and will not be held 

unconstitutional if its wisdom is at least fairly debatable and it bears a rational relationship to a 

permissible state objective.” Citing RRI Realty Corp v. Village of Southampton, NY (2d Cir, 

1989) “zoning regulations will survive substantive due process challenge unless they are ‘clearly 

arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or 

general welfare’.” 

The Court also concluded that “aesthetics serve as another rational basis for the decision by the 

Village to limit dock length ... so as to limit human intrusion in this special natural and relatively 

undeveloped wildlife area in the midst of a suburban world.” This decision was based in part on 

testimony that, “In addressing aesthetics and ... in recognizing the character in the area, and 

the intent of the Village of Lloyd Harbor to maintain and protect that character, they developed 

the coastal overlay district.... [The Village] has enacted standards for the types of docks that are 

allowed in the village in order to address aesthetics, in order to maintain and protect the 

character of the village.” 

Accordingly the Court found that the zoning ordinances bore a “rational relationship to a 

legitimate government objective.” 

Lessons Learned 

• The Courts concluded that visual impacts, or aesthetics, are a valid basis for managing docks 

and piers. 

• In the Lloyd Harbor instance, the management structure took the form of a zoning standard 

intended, in part, to maintain the relatively undeveloped character of the municipality’s 

waterfront. 

• Aesthetic values are a valid part of the character of the community. 

• The Court found that standards based on these concerns bear a “rational relationship to a 

legitimate government objective” and therefore are legally defensible. 

• Regulatory standards intended to protect public health, welfare and safety, and the process in 

which they are developed, that are not arbitrary and capricious and that are based on an 

authority that “bears a rational relationship to a permissible state objective”, are defensible and 

have been upheld in court. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 21 
Case Study 2: Somes Sound, ME 

Location: 

The project was proposed for the shore of 

Somes Sound in the Town of Mount Desert, 

Maine (Figure 12). A portion of Acadia 

National Park flanks the Sound. 

Background: 

Somes Sound is the only natural fjord on the 

east coast of the United States. It is used for 

recreational boating and is clearly visible 

from portions of Acadia National Park. 

A resident on the shore of the Sound 

proposed to construct a dock so that friends 

could pick up passengers and launch 

dinghies and kayaks from his residence. Figure 12. Somes Sound is in the Town of Mount Desert, 

The application requested a 160-foot long ME and boarders Acadia National Park. 

wooden pier, six feet wide, with a 48-foot 

long and four-foot wide aluminum ramp 

leading to a 48 foot long and 14-foot wide 

wooden float. Initially the proposed pier 

was to be supported by three granite cribs 

located in tidal waters but, during the review 

process, the property owner offered to 

reduce the length of the pier to 100 feet and 

eliminate one granite support. 

Within the State of Maine, such projects are 

under the jurisdiction of the Natural 

Resources Protection Act (38 M.R.S.A. §§ 

480–A–Z). This Act allows the Maine 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) to review proposed projects for 

impacts to water quality, wetland and 

habitat considerations, erosion, and impacts 

on existing uses including navigation and 

scenic and aesthetic qualities. This Act, its 

standards, and the review process are described earlier in this paper. 

Issues Raised: 

The project was opposed by neighbors and the Town of Mount Desert. Issues raised during the 

review process included: 

• The potential for increased erosion during construction and thereafter, 

• Potential adverse impacts on wetland habitat of intertidal and sub-tidal species, 

• Navigation within the waterway, and 

• Scenic and aesthetic impacts. 

Figure 13. An aerial view of Somes Sound, ME showing the 

location of the proposed 160-foot pier. The proposal 

subsequently was redesigned to a length of 100 feet. A 48­

foot float was proposed to be attached to the pier. (Photo 

courtesy of the Maine DEP, used with permission.) 

Proposed dock 

site 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 22 
Result: 

As a result of the review process the DEP found that the project would not cause unreasonable 

erosion. 

The Coast Guard, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Town Harbormaster testified that there 

would not be significant adverse impacts to navigation. The channel in this area is 

approximately 1,650 feet wide at low water. The proposed pier would intrude only 9.6% of the 

way across the channel in the original configuration and 6.6% in the reduced version. 

Additionally, there are 3–4 docks on the opposite side of the Sound from the proposed structure 

that apparently have not interfered with navigational use of the Sound. 

However, 138 square feet of benthic habitat would be covered by the granite crib and 660 

square feet of coastal wetland habitat would be permanently shaded by the dock. Because the 

proposed structure was for water-dependent purposes, it was considered under the provisions 

of the Natural Resources Protection Act which prohibit loss of wetland area, functions and 

values if there is a practicable, less environmentally damaging alternative to the project. The 

Department suggested several alternatives including the use of slip space and moorings at a 

nearby Town landing (where the applicant had been keeping his 53-sailing vessel). After its 

review, the DEP found that the applicant did not adequately demonstrate that the impacts of 

coastal wetland resources could not be avoided. 

Particularly germane to this paper, the DEP also carefully reviewed the concerns regarding 

scenic and aesthetic impacts. Opponents contended that the proposed dock would 

unreasonably interfere with existing scenic uses by boaters on the Sound and from people using 

Acadia National Park. As part of the visual impact assessment for the project, the applicant 

submitted computerized images of how the proposed dock would look (Figures 3, 14). 

Figure 14. View of the shoreline of Somes Sound with an image of the 100-foot pier, granite supporting cribs, and a 

48-foot float superimposed via a computer program. The color of the proposed pier, here shown in grey-green in the 

computer-generated image, became an issue in the review of the proposal. (Graphics by Pepperchrome, used with 

permission.) 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 23 
Figure 15. Looking toward the shore where the pier was 

proposed, it was easy to determine that the dock would 

not interfere with the visual quality of the shoreline any 

more than the existing development (top right). This was 

not the first pier proposed in the area, and in fact there 

are several along the adjacent shoreline (bottom left). 

Cumulative impact may have been an issue, but in this 

case there is a good distance between the piers and the 

additional direct impacts from this pier were unlikely. 

However, the coastal resource of concern is Somes 

Sound, the only natural fjord on the east coast. The view 

in this photo (bottom right) is from the top of Flying 

Mountain, one of the most popular hikes in Acadia 

National Park. The proposed dock would be clearly 

visible from the trail and summit of Flying Mountain, while 

the existing docks are not. (From Kelty & Bliven, 2003. 

Photos by J Gates ) 

The applicant argued that the Sound is not a pristine undeveloped area, that there are other 

existing docks along its shores (Figure 15), and that the proposed project was “consistent with 

the scenic character of the area.” A consultant for the applicant stated that the proposed 

materials, colors, and form (identified by the applicant on plans submitted during the review 

process) blend will with the existing shoreline. In Figure 14, the dock is shown as green in 

color, based on the applicant’s contention that this is the color of the pressure treated wood to 

be used—wood that he felt would darken over time. 

Opponents argued that the character of the fjord is very important, that there is an absence of 

existing docks on that portion of the shore and that the structure would be highly visible to 

viewers of the area. The opponents contended that instead of darkening over time, the 

structure would weather to a silver gray color and become even more visible and out of 

character for the area. 

The DEP noted that it had a responsibility to consider the impact of this structure both on its 

own and as part of the potential for cumulative impacts on a relatively undeveloped shoreline. 

Again, the DEP considered whether there was a viable alternative and found that the applicant 

had not demonstrated that there was not. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 24 
Consequently the DEP denied the application based on impacts to wetland habitat and scenic 

and aesthetic impacts, noting that there were alternatives available thereby rendering the 

proposal unnecessary and unreasonable according to the rules under the Natural Resource 

Protection Act. 

The applicant appealed the decision to the State of Maine Superior Court arguing that the 

delegation of authority by the Legislature to the DEP is unconstitutional in that insufficient 

guidance was provided as to how the DEP should implement the provisions of the Act that state 

that an “activity will not unreasonably interfere with existing scenic, aesthetic, recreational, or 

navigational uses” or whether the “activity will not unreasonably harm any significant wildlife 

habitat...”. The challenge therefore was to the claimed lack of definition by the Legislature of 

“unreasonably interfere” and “unreasonably harm”. After review, the Court found that “when one 

looks at the delegations in context ... with the entire statutory scheme and procedural 

safeguards, it is clear that the Legislature has provided reasonable guidance. ... In the present 

case, the Legislature’s purpose is clear from the preamble and context of the Act and review 

procedures are built into the statute and regulations.” 

Further, the applicant argued that the DEP decision was not supported by substantial evidence 

and was thereby “arbitrary and capricious.” The Judge quoted from a prior case that, “An 

administrative decision will be sustained if, on the basis of the entire record before it, the agency 

could have fairly and reasonably found the facts as it did.” [Emphasis added.] The Judge 

further noted that “the court should not attempt to second-guess the agency on matters falling 

within its realm of expertise.” Consequently the court denied the applicant’s appeal, supporting 

the decision made by the DEP. 

Lessons Learned 

• It is feasible for a state regulatory program to incorporate scenic and aesthetic concerns in a 

similar manner as reviews of impacts on the environment, navigation, or recreational uses. 

• The State of Maine has established a process for incorporation of visual impact assessments 

into regulatory review. 

• The results of such visual impact assessments may, in some cases, be cause for denial of a 

proposed project. 

• The courts have supported legislation that incorporates scenic and aesthetic values and 

visual impact assessments that are used in the regulatory review process. 

• The courts have found that an agency acting within its regulatory authority and if the agency, 

based on the entire record before it, could have fairly and reasonably found the facts as it 

did. So long as the factual determinations of the agency are not “clearly erroneous”, such 

factual determinations should be sustained by the courts. 

• Given the appropriately worded legislation, a clear review process such as that developed by 

the State of Maine DEP can form the basis for visual impact assessments and findings 

based on scenic and aesthetic values in the case of private docks and piers. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 25 
SUMMARY 

There are valid, reproducible techniques for establishing visual standards for shoreline 

structures, including private docks. While property owners should expect access to adjacent 

waters as part of their riparian rights, this does not necessarily mean that a dock over public 

waters should be expected. If permission is granted, it may come with conditions to mitigate 

visual impacts. 

Visual impact assessment techniques allow for quantifiable, repeatable assessments 

appropriate for guiding dock permitting decisions. These include landscape planning for a 

specified area such as an embayment or a community, or a case-by-case review based on 

state-wide standards. Evaluation methods may include analysis of existing landscape views 

and visualizations of how the landscape would look with the proposed structure or structures in 

place. 

As seen in the case studies, there have been legal decisions in which courts have upheld 

standards based on visual, aesthetic, or scenic impacts and their implementation for proposed 

private docks. States or municipalities therefore have the option of managing visual impacts 

through a variety of regulatory or non-regulatory methods similar to those used to manage 

environmental impacts. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 26 
BIBLIOGRAPHY AND RECOMMENDED BACKGROUND 

READINGS 

An extensive bibliography on the impacts of small docks and piers, including visual and 

aesthetic impacts, may be found at http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/nccos/docks.aspx. 

Banerjee, T. and J. Gollub. 1976. “The public view of the coast: Toward indicators for coastal 

planning and management.” Pp. 115–122 in P. Suefeld and J.A. Russell (eds.) The 

Behavioral Basis of Design, Book 1 Selected Papers. Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. 

Stroudsburg, PA. 

Best, P. N. 2002. Blakely Harbor Cumulative Impact Assessment: Working Draft of February 

22, 2002. City of Bainbridge Island, Department of Planning and Community Development, 

www.ci.bainbridge-isl.wa.us. 27 Pp. 

Cherem, G.J. and D.E. Traweek. 1977. Visitor employed photography: A tool for interpretive 

planning on river environments. In Proceedings of River Recreation Management and 

Research (pp. 236-244). USDA Forest Service GTR NC-28. St. Paul, MN. 

Gauger, S. F. and J. B. Wycoff. 1973. Aesthetic preference for water resource projects: An 

application of Q methodology. Water Resources Bull. 9(3): 522-528. 

Gutwin, John. 2004. Telephone communication. Pepperchrome, 21 Summer Place, Portland, 

ME 04103-3314. <www.pepperchrome.com>. < jgutwin@pepperchrome.com> 

Landscape Institute & the Institute of Environmental Assessment. 2002. Guidelines for 

Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment: 2nd Edition. E & FN Spon Press. ISBN 

041523185X. 176pp. 

Macfarlane, S.L., J. Early, T. Henson, T. Balog, and A. McClennen. 2000. “A Resource-based 

Methodology to Assess Dock and Pier Impacts on Pleasant Bay, Massachusetts.” Journal of 

Shellfish Research 19(1). Pp. 455–464. 

McGregor, Gregor. 2004. Workshop presentation. McGregor & Associates, 60 Temple Place– 

Suite 410, Boston, MA 02111. (617) 338-6464. www.mcgregorlaw.com 

Neiman, T. J. 1987. The visual environment of the New York Coastal Zone: User preferences 

and perceptions. In S. Weidermann and J. R. Anderson (Eds.) Part 1 Selected papers, 

Environmental Design Research Conference No. 9 (April 8-11, 1978, Tucson, AZ), pp. 83­

91. 

Palmer, J. F. 1983. Assessment of coastal wetlands in Dennis, Massachusetts. In R. C. 

Smardon (ed.) The Future of Wetlands: Assessing Visual-Cultural Values, Allenheld-Osmun 

Pub., Totowa, NJ, pp. 65-80. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 27 
Palmer, J. F. 1978. Citizen assessment of the coastal visual resource. In Coastal Zone '78; 

Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic and Regulatory Aspects of 

Coastal Zone Management [San Francisco, March 14-16, 1978] ASCE, NY, NY, pp. 1019­

1037. 

Shannon, S.S., R.C. Smardon, A. Rice & G. Jordan. 1990. St. Lawrence River Scenic Quality 

Study; Ogdensburg-Massena. Prepared for Surplus Lands Task Force and NY Power 

Authority by Faculty of Landscape Architecture, SUNY/ESF, Syracuse, NY. 

Sheppard, S.R.J. 1986. “Simulating changes in the landscape. In Foundations for Visual 

Project Analysis, eds. R.C. Smardon, J. Palmer, and J. Felleman, New York, NY: John Wiley 

and Sons, Chapter 11, pp. 187-199. Available for downloading via the Internet at 

www.esf.edu/es/via 

Sheppard, S.R.J. 1989. Visual Simulation: A User’s Guide for Architects, Engineers and 

Planners. Van Nostrand Rhinehold. New York, NY. 

Smardon, R.C. & J. P. Karp. 1992. The Legal Landscape; Guidelines for Regulating 

Environmental and Aesthetic Quality. John Wiley & Sons. New York, NY. ISBN 

0442235364. 350pp. Available for downloading via the Internet at www.esf.edu/es/via 

Smardon, R.C. 1987. “Visual access to 1,000 lakes (islands); Researching and managing 

visual occupancy.” Landscape Architecture 77 (3): 86–91. 

Smardon, R.C. 1988. “Visual impact assessment for island and coastal environments.” Impact 

Assessment Bulletin 6(1): 5–24. 

Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer & J.P. Felleman. 1986. Foundations for Visual Project Analysis. 

John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. AISN 0471881848. 374 pp. Available for downloading 

via the Internet at www.esf.edu/es/via 

Smardon, R.C., J.F. Palmer, A. Knopf, K. Grinde. 1988. Visual Resource Assessment 

Procedures of the US Army Corps of Engineers. Instruction Report 88–1, USACOE, 

Waterways Experimental Station, Environmental Research Laboratory, Vicksburg, MS. 

Available for downloading via the Internet at www.esf.edu/es/via 

Smardon, R.C. 2003. In Kelty, R.A. & S. Bliven. “Environmental and Aesthetic Impacts of 

Small Docks and Piers, Workshop Report: Developing a Science-Based Decision Support 

Tool for Small Dock Management, Phase 1: Status of the Science.” NOAA Coastal Ocean 

Program Decision Analysis Series No. 22. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, 

Silver Spring Md. 69 pp. 

Steinitz, C. 1990. “Toward a sustainable landscape with high visual preference and high 

ecological integrity: The loop road in Arcadia National Park, USA.” Landscape and Urban 

Planning 19: 213–250. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 28 
APPENDIX 1: Maine Basic VIA Form 

VISUAL ELEMENTS VISUAL SUB INDICATORS/CLUES ELEMENT ELEMENT 

ELEMENTS RATINGS SCORES 

Severe 3 

LANDSCAPE Significantly different color, Moderate 2 

COMPATIBILITY COLOR hue, value chroma Minimal 1 

None 0 

Severe 3 

Incompatible 2/3 dimensional Moderate 2 

FORM shape with landscape Minimal 1 

surroundings None 0 

Severe 3 

Incompatible edges, bands, or Moderate 2 

LINE silhouette lines introduced Minimal 1 

None 0 

Severe 3 

Incompatible textural grain, Moderate 2 

TEXTURE density, regularity or pattern Minimal 1 

None 0 

SUBTOTAL 

SCALE CONTRAST Major scale 

introduction/intrusion 

Severe 12 

One of several major scales or 

major objects in confined setting 

Moderate 8 

Significant object or scale Minimal 4 

Small object or scale None 0 

SCORE 

SPATIAL 

DOMINANCE 

LANDSCAPE 

SITUATION 

BACKDROP 

Object/activity dominates or is 

prominent in whole landscape 

composition; or is prominently 

situated within the landscape; or 

dominates landform, water, or 

sky backdrop 

Dominate 12 

Co-Dominate 8 

Sub-ordinate 4 

Insignificant 0 

SCORE 

TOTAL VISUAL 

IMPACT SEVERITY 

DEPLW0541-A2002 

Used with permission 

of R.C. Smardon 

Severe 27-36 

Strong 26-18 

Moderate 17-9 

Weak or Negligible 8-0 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 29 
Definitions associated with Maine Visual Impact Assessment Form 

A. Backdrop. The distant part of a landscape located from 4 miles to infinity from the viewer. 

B. Color. The property of reflecting light of a particular wavelength that enables the eye to 

differentiate otherwise indistinguishable objects. A hue (red, green, blue, yellow, etc.) as 

contrasted with a value (black, white, or gray). 

C. Contrast. Diversity or distinction of adjacent parts. Effect of striking differences in color, 

form, line, or texture of a landscape. 

D. Dominance. The extent to which an object is noticeable when compared to the surrounding 

context. 

E. Form. The structure, mass or shape of a landscape or an object. Landscape form is often 

defined by the edges or outlines of landforms, rockforms, vegetation patterns, or 

waterforms, or the enclosed spaces created by these attributes. 

F. Landform. One of the attributes or features that make up the Earth’s surface, such as a 

plain, mountain, or valley. 

G. Landscape. An area composed of interacting ecosystems that are repeated because of 

geology, landform, soils, climate, biota, and human influences throughout that area. 

H. Landscape Character or Landscape Composition. Particular attributes, qualities, and 

traits of a landscape that give it an image and make it identifiable or unique. 

I. Landscape Compatibility. The elements of color, form, line, and texture that typically 

determine landscape character. 

J. Line. Anything that is arranged in a row or sequence. In landscapes – ridges, skylines, 

structures, changes in vegetation, or individual trees and branches – may be perceived as line. 

K. Scale Contrast. The degree to which an activity or object dominates or intrudes into a 

landscape or confined setting. 

L. Situation. The position of the activity or object within the landscape. 

M. Spatial Dominance. The degree to which an activity or object dominates the landscape; is 

prominently situated within the landscape; or dominates landform, waterform, or sky 

backdrop. 

N. Texture. The grain of a landscape or repetitive pattern of tiny forms. Visual texture can 

range from smooth to coarse. 

O. Visual Elements. The landscape’s components that make up the overall visual character of 

a landscape. 

P. Waterform. One of the attributes or features that make up the earth’s surface, such as a 

pond, lake, stream, river, waterfall, estuary, or ocean. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 30 
Appendix 2: Basic Visual Assessment Form 

(Form DEPLW0451-A2002, used with permission of Terrence DeWan & Associates)

 IMPACT SEVERITY RATING 

High 

Severe 

36-27 

Strong 

26-18 

Moderate 

17-9 

Weak/None 

8-0 

Medium 

Low 

SCENI

Unrated

C SIGNIFICANCE OF VIE

W

Legend 

UNACCEPTABLE. High level of visual contrast in line, form, color, or texture between 

existing high quality landscape and development proposal; view of water or other 

significant visual resource obstructed. May be grounds for project denial. 

ACCEPTABLE WITH MAJOR MITIGATION. High degree of contrast on landscape of 

medium significance; moderate degree of contrast on highly significant landscape. 

Project re-design necessary. 

ACCEPTABLE WITH MITIGATION. Some modification to project siting or design 

necessary to achieve better landscape ‘fit.’ 

ACCEPTABLE WITH MINOR MITIGATION. Relatively minor adjustments to plan or 

siting necessary to achieve a higher level of project compatibility. 

LOW/NO IMPACT. No perceptible change to the visual landscape. No mitigation 

required. 

Chart is recommended method for reviewing visual impacts and determining level of effort 

required for mitigation and/or reconsideration of project siting and design. Application of the 

recommended actions should consider length of view and viewer expectation. 

VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF SMALL DOCKS AND PIERS 31 

OTHER TITLES IN THE DECISION ANALYSIS SERIES 

1. Synthesis of Summer Flounder Habitat Parameters (K.W. Able and S.C. Kaiser, May 1994) 

2. Technology and Success in Restoration, Creation and Enhancement of Spartina Alterniflora Marshes 

in the United States [2 volumes] (G. A. Matthews and T.J. Minello, August 1994) 

3. Bibliography of Synthesis Documents on Selected Coastal Ocean Topics (E.V.Collins, M. Woods, I.C. 

Sheiffer, J. Beattie, October, 1994) 

4. Marine Eutrophication Review (K.R. Hinga, H. Jeon, N.F. Lewis, January 1995) 

5. Economic Valuation of Resources: A Handbook for Coastal Resource Policymakers (D.W. Lipton, K. 

Wellman, June, 1995) 

6. Methodologies and Mechanisms for Management of Cumulative Coastal Environmental Impacts 

(Vestal, B., A. Reiser, et al., 1995) 

7. Forestry Impacts on Freshwater Habitat of Anadromous Salmonids in the Pacific Northwest and 

Alaska - Requirements for Protection and Restoration. (M.L. Murphy, October, 1995) 

8. Watershed Restoration - A Guide for Citizen Involvement in California (W.F. Kier, December 1995) 

9. Atmospheric Nutrient Input to Coastal Areas - Reducing the Uncertainties (R.A. Valigura, W.T. Luke, 

R.S. Artz, B.B. Hicks, June, 1996) 

10. Harmful Algal Blooms in Coastal Waters: Options for Prevention, Control and Mitigation (D.F. Boesch, 

D.M. Anderson, R.A. Horner, S.E. Shumway, P.A. Tester, T.E. Whitledge, February, 1997) 

11. Change in Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems (Edited by G.R. McMurray and R.J. Baily, April, 

1998) 

12. Guidelines for the Conservation and Restoration of Seagrasses in the United States and Adjacent 

Waters (M.S. Fonseca, W.J. Kenworthy, and G.W. Thayer, November 1998) 

13. Bering Sea FOCI Final Report 1998 (Edited by S.A. Macklin, December 1998) 

14. Nutrient Enhanced Coastal Ocean Productivity in the Northern Gulf of Mexico (Edited by Wiseman, 

Rabalais, Dagg & Whitledge 1999) 

15. Characterization of Hypoxia: Topic 1 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of 

Mexico. (Rabalais, N., R.E. Turner, D. Justic, Q. Dortch, and W. Wiseman Jr. 1999) 

16. Ecological and Economic Consequences of Hypoxia: Topic 2 Report for the Integrated Assessment 

on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. (Diaz, R.J., and A. Solow. 1999) 

17. Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi-Atchafalya River Basin: Topic 3 Report for the 

Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. (Goolsby, D.A. W.A. Battalin, G.B. 

Lawrence, R.S. Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper, D.R. Kenney, and G.J. Stensland. 1999) 

18. Effects of Reducing Nutrient Loads to Surface Waters within the Mississippi River Basin and the Gulf 

of Mexico: Topic 4 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. (Brezonik, 

P.L. V. Bierman, Jr., R. Alexander, J. Anderson, J. Barko, M. Dortch, L. Hatch, G. Hitchcock, D. 

Kenney, D. Mulla, V. Smith, C. Walker, T. Whitledge, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 1999) 

19. Reducing Nutrient Loads, Especially Nitrate-Nitrogen to Surface Water, Ground Water, and the Gulf 

of Mexico: Topic 5 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. (Mitsch, 

W.J., J.W. Day, Jr., J.W. Gilliam, P.M. Groffman, D.L. Hey, G.W. Randall, and N. Wang. 1999) 

20. Evaluation of the Economic Costs and Benefits of Methods for Reducing Nutrient Loads to the Gulf of 

Mexico: Topic 6 Report for the Integrated Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. (Doering, 

O.C., F. Diaz-Hermelo, C. Howard, R. Heimlich, F. Hitzhusen, R. Kazmierczak, J. Lee, L. Libby, W. 

Milon, T. Prato, and M. Ribaudo. 1999) 

21. COASTAL: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change. (Edited by D.F. Boesch, 

J.C. Field, and D. Scavia. October 2000) 

22. Environmental and Aesthetic Impacts of Small Docks and Piers, Workshop Report: Developing a 

Science-Based Decision Support Tool for Small Dock Management, Phase 1: Status of the Science. 

(Kelty, R.A. and S. Bliven. January 2003) 

23. Science-Based Restoration Monitoring of Coastal Habitats; Volume One: A Framework for Monitoring 

Plans Under the Estuaries and Clean Waters Act of 2000 (Public Law 160-457). (Thayer, G.W., T.A. 

McTigue, R.J. Bellmer, F.M. Burrows, David H. Merkey, Amy D. Nickens, S.J. Lozano, P.F. Gayaldo, 

P.J. Polmateer, and P.T. Pinit. 2003) 
U.S. Department of Commerce 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Coastal Ocean Program 

1305 East-West Highway

Silver Spring, Maryland 20910