. _

_
A

 

;_,__:_:_;_ 2:72:22; mwm .

1711283

9000i

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

AN EVALUATION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF MICHIGAN’S
CLEAN MARINA PROGRAM BY HARBORMASTERS
OF MICHIGAN’S STATE HARBORS

presented by

BRENDA S. CLARK

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MS. degree in Fisheries and Wildlife

 

 

///// é) 74:5;

Majorr Professor” 5 Sign ure

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

AN EVALUATION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF MICHIGAN’S CLEAN MARINA
PROGRAM BY HARBORMASTERS OF MICHIGAN’S STATE HARBORS

BY

Brenda S. Clark

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Fisheries and Wildlife

2009

ABSTRACT

AN EVALUATION OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF MICHIGAN’S CLEAN MARINA
PROGRAM BY HARBORMASTERS OF MICHIGAN STATE HARBORS

By

Brenda S. Clark

The goal of this study was to understand the importance of the Clean
Marina Program (CMP), a voluntary program designed to protect coastal water
quality, to the harbormasters of Michigan’s state harbors, as designated by the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources (ONE). A self-administered mail
survey was designed and administered to the 86 harbormasters of the DNR-
designated harbors in September 2007. While approximately 70% of the
harbormasters reported having some knowledge of the CMP, only 10 harbors
had the CMP designation. Overall, harbormasters indicated a strong desire to
have clean water at their harbors and demonstrated an interest in the CMP. To
improve information dissemination to harbormasters, it is recommended that the
DNR harbormaster mailing listed be updated on a regular basis and the Michigan
Boating Industry Association conduct a CMP informational letter writing
campaign to DNFl harbormasters. It is further recommended that the
certification process be available to harbormasters on-line and a CMP advisory

committee be established to help with implementation of the CMP in Michigan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Much appreciation goes to my major professor and mentor, Dr. William
Taylor. His enthusiasm and energy greatly guided this research project, while his
persistence led to its completion. My thanks also go out to the other members of
my graduate committee, Dr. Thomas Coon, Dr. John Schwartz, and Mr. John
Robertson, for their ideas in directing this project.

Staff members of the Michigan State University Land Management Office
deserve recognition for their support and willingness to help with job-related
tasks during my absence from work to attend classes and other activities
associated with this research project and I am also thankful for all the support
from my friends and family. I

Finally, my love and thanks to my husband Steve for his encouragement,
support, and interest during the last five years of our lives while much of my time

was devoted to achieving this goal.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. v

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................. 1

METHODS ......................................................................................... 13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................... 19
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................... 38
CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 4O
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 41
REFERENCES ................................................................................... 59

iv

Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.

Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 1 1.

Table 12.

LIST OF TABLES

CMP-identified environmentally proactive practices that prevent
or reduce pollution created by marina activities and an example
of each practice ................................................................

CMP benefits to marina operators and owners and an example
ofeach ...........................................................................

Blue Flag program focus areas designed to reduce pollution
created by marina and beach activities .................................

Michigan CMP-certified harbors as identified on the Michigan
Sea Grant College Program Clean Marina Website and their
respective locations, as of February 2009 ..............................

Research objectives for determining barriers, perceived value,
and interest and relevant survey instrument question numbers
designed to gather data to meet the objectives of the study .......

Number of harbors per geographic location per designation
(Designated State Harbor, Municipal Harbor, Other) ................

Number of reported CMP-certified harbors per geographic
location .........................................................................

Geographic location of harbors and number of harbormasters
that had some knowledge of the CMP and number of
harbormasters that had no knowledge of the CMP .................

Influence of harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors and
harbormasters with knowledge of CMP of workshop attendance
on CMP participation (No influence whatsoever = 1; A lot of
influence = 5) ...................................................................

Ways in which harbormasters have access to information on the
CMP by geographic location ...............................................

Harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors, level of satisfaction
with the CMP certification process (Extremely dissatisfied = 1;
Extremely satisfied = 7) .....................

Harbormasters (with CMP-certified harbors and knowledge of
CMP) level of agreement with statements related to harbor
management and budget (Totally disagree = 1; Totally agree =
7) ..................................................................................

12

14

2O

2O

22

23

25

26

28

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15

Table 16.

Harbormasters’ level of agreement to statements regarding
stewardship of recreational waters (Strongly disagree = 1;
Strongly agree = 5) ........................................................... 29

Harbormasters’ perceived benefit to participating in the CMP in
order of importance (First choice = 1; Fifth choice = 5) ............. 33

Opportunities for harbormasters to seek out ways to be a better
steward at the harbor they oversee ....................................... 36

Likelihood that harbormasters that had knowledge of the CMP
would pledge to become a clean marina in the next 3 years ...... 37

vi

INTRODUCTION

The Clean Marina Program (CMP) is a voluntary-incentive based program
that encourages marina operators and recreational boaters to protect coastal
water quality by engaging in environmentally sound operating and maintenance
procedures (Cleaning Up Marinas: The Clean Marina Program 2007). According
to Townsend (2008), CMPs can vary from state to state in order to develop
criteria specific to various bodies of water. However, all CMPs must identify
environmentally proactive practices that prevent or reduce pollution created by
marina activities (Clean Marina: Coming to a Harbor Near You 2004), such as
those depicted in Table 1.

Each CMP develops marina best management practices (BMPs) that
need to be implemented by the marina wanting to achieve CMP certification.
The BMPs are intended to control pollution from nonpoint source runoff at
marinas (Shipshape Shores and Waters 2003). Typically, a marina will be
required to implement at least 70-85%, depending on issues identified at the
marina, of the BMPs to receive designation as a clean marina (Clean Marinas:
Coming to a Harbor Near You 2004).

According to a 1996 study by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency, marinas participating in CMPs realized economic benefits by utilizing
business practices such as recycling and full pumpout services (Clean Marina
Clear Value 1996). As an example, Cap Sante Boat Haven in Washington

(publicly owned and operated) initiated a free waste recycling center at the

Table 1. CMP-identified environmentally proactive practices that prevent or
reduce pollution created by marina activities and an example of each practice.

 

Practice

Example

 

Marina siting, design and maintenance

Obtain necessary dredging permits

 

Sewage handling

Provide a pumpout for boaters to
empty boat holding tanks and dispose

of the waste in an acceptable manner

 

Fuel control

Installation of back pressure shutoff

nozzles on fuel pump discharge hoses

 

Solid waste management

Proper disposal of solid waste

produced by marina operations

 

Vessel cleaning and repair

Restriction of boat power washing to

designated areas at the marina

 

Stormwater management and erosion

control

Obtain erosion permits for future

marina construction

 

 

Marina management

 

Training of employees with

maintenance of training records

 

 

marina for boaters and the community at a cost to the marina of $1,200. The
recycling center eliminated $12,000 in waste disposal costs at the marina in the
first year of operation, for a net savings of $10,800 (Clean Marina Clear Value
1996). Also, Kean’s Detroit Yacht Harbor (Detroit, Michigan) realized an
additional annual gross income of $8,400 after the installation of a full-service
pumpout station at its fuel docks (Clean Marina Clear Value 1996). The
availability of a pumpout station attracted new customers who also bought fuel,
thereby increasing revenue (Clean Marina Clear Value 1996). At the same time,
marinas with the CMP designation were able to demand higher dock fees (Clean
Marina Clear Value 1996). Marinas with the CMP designation let boaters know
that the marina adheres to, or exceeds, CMP criteria (Swett, Fann, DeLaney
2005). Many marina owners and managers believed that visible efforts to
operate clean marinas translated into customer confidence and these owners
and managers believe the public is willing to pay a higher slip cost for a better
and cleaner facility (Clean Marina Clear Value 1996), likely due to more
conveniences and services.

The primary reason the CMP was developed was to address needs
associated with the Coastal Nonpoint Control Program (CNCP), administered
jointly at the federal level by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NCAA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
CNCP was established in 1990 by Congress to reduce polluted runoff in coastal
zones through coordinated efforts by state coastal zone managers and water

quality managers. “Because marinas are located right at the water’s edge, there

is a strong potential for marina waters to become recipients of pollutants,
generated not only by boats and the marina itself but also from upland areas in
the watershed” (Shipshape Shores and Waters 2003). The CNCP focuses on
pollution prevention and NCAA promotes CMP as a means for states to
voluntarily comply with marina management measures that are required under
the CNCP (Cleaning Up Marinas: The Clean Marina Program 2007). NCAA
provides federal funds for states interested in starting clean marina programs or
expanding (Mendez 2006). The funds are available to states with approved
coastal zone management programs and can be used for CMP implementation
and/or staff support and other NOAA-approved CMP-related initiatives (NOAA
Funding Opportunities n.d.).

According to NOAA, the CNCP was the driving force behind CMP
development in Michigan as well as 11 other states (Cleaning up Marinas: The
Clean Marina Program 2007). Maryland and Florida had the first certified clean
marinas in the country during the late 1990s (Mendez 2006). Subsequently,
approximately three states began CMPs each year from 2000 to 2005 (Mendez
2006).

The CMP provides states a means to voluntarily comply with CNCP
requirements (Cleaning up Marinas: The Clean Marina Program 2007).
Furthermore, Mendez (2006) stated that one of the greatest assets of the CMP is
that it provides a way for marinas to avoid large fines from the EPA. Table 2
describes other benefits to marina operators and owners (Cleaning up Marinas:

The Clean Marina Program 2007).

Table 2. CMP benefits to marina operators and owners and an example of each.

 

Benefit

Example

 

Reduce waste disposal costs

BMPs will reduce the amount of wastes

produced so disposal costs will be less

 

Receive free technical assistance

BMP guidebooks, training workshops,

on-site visits by CMP representatives

 

Reduce legal liabilities

By participating in the CMP, marinas
can ensure they are meeting all
regulatory requirements and avoid

fines

 

Receive free publicity

States recognize clean marinas
through press releases, newsletters,

etc.

 

Attract knowledgeable customers

Clean marinas are aesthetically
pleasing facilities that can attract
responsible clientele that will follow

good boating practices

 

Improve water quality in and around

the marina

The marina and boating industry
depends on clean waters and a healthy
coastal environment for their continued

success

 

 

Demonstrate marina is a good steward

of the environment by following BMPs

 

Display special burgees and signs for

clean marinas

 

 

Similar to the CMP, the Blue Flag program, developed and operated by

the Foundation for Environmental Education (a non-government, non-profit

organization) in Europe in the late-1980s, is an exclusive eco-Iabel program for

marinas and beaches (Blue Flag Programme n.d.). Some of the Blue Flag focus

areas include environmental education and information, environmental

management, safety and service of facilities, and water quality (Blue Flag Marina

Criteria and Explanatory Notes 2008-2009 n.d.) as described in Table 3.

Table 3. Blue Flag program focus areas designed to reduce pollution created by

marina and beach activities.

 

Focus Area

Example

 

Environmental education and information

information relating to the coastal
zone ecosystem and nearby natural
sensitive land and marine areas must
be available to marina users

 

Environmental management

A marina environmental policy and
plan that includes reference to water,
waste and energy consumption,
health and safety issues, and the use
of environmentally sound products
must be developed

 

Safety and service facilities

Adequate and well signposted
lifesaving, first-aid equipment and
fire-fighting equipment must be
present

 

 

Water quality

 

Visually clean water and marina (no
oil, litter, sewage or other evidence of
pollution)

 

 

One significant difference between the CMP and the Blue Flag program is
the Blue Flag program’s mandatory requirement that marinas hold at least three
environmental education activities for users and marina staff per year (i.e.,
increasing the awareness of and care for the aquatic environment by recreational
users and inhabitants of the marina and coastal zone region) (Blue Flag Marina
Criteria and Explanatory Notes 2008-2009 n.d.). Whereas, Michigan’s CMP
recommends that marinas provide some form of environmental education
opportunities for boaters, staff, and contractors; it is not a mandatory requirement
(Clean Marina Site Visit Checklist n.d.). Another difference is the Blue Flag
designation is awarded on an annual basis (Blue Flag Marina Criteria 2008) while
CMP marinas in Michigan are recertified every three years (Clean Marina
Michigan n.d.). Currently, 36 countries are participating in the Blue Flag program
and over 3,300 beaches and marinas have been awarded the Blue Flag; to date,
the United States is not participating in the program (Blue Flag Programme n.d.).

Michigan’s Coastal Nonpoint Control Program was reviewed by NOAA
and the EPA in 1997 to evaluate the extent to which Michigan’s program
conformed with CNCP requirements. The review findings revealed that Michigan
had numerous laws and programs designed to assure that marinas and boat
operators implemented required operations and maintenance measures (i.e.,
Marine Safety Act, Used Oil Recycling Act, etc.) but did not have rules that
adequately addressed management measures for stormwater runoff, as related
to marinas and recreational boating (Findings for the Michigan Coastal Nonpoint

Program 1997). At the time of the review, a committee identified a number of

problem areas in implementing programs for marina operation and maintenance
and encouraged the State of Michigan to improve outreach efforts and other
programs to better implement management measures for Michigan‘marinas
(Findings for the Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Program 1997).

As a result, Michigan’s CMP was collaboratively developed by Michigan
Sea Grant College Program (MSG), Michigan Boating Industry Association
(MBIA), and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) to
provide a viable voluntary certification process to assist marinas and harbors with
protecting water resources by promoting environmentally sound marina and
boating practices, while providing a vehicle for Michigan to meet federal CNCP
requirements.

As defined by the Michigan CMP, some of these practices include
permitting for construction and dredging, use of non-toxic antifreeze, installation
of automatic back pressure shutoff nozzles on fuel pump discharge hoses, and
posting of emergency numbers to report fuel spills. Other practices meant to
directly benefit boaters, while reducing and eliminating pollution, include pumpout
stations to empty boat sewage holding tanks, access to restrooms to encourage
people not to use their heads while in port, access to dog walking areas, and
outreach activities that include workshops to promote and explain the marina’s
BMPs, facility walking tours, and public relations to demonstrate and promote the
benefits of Michigan CMP compliance to boaters.

In Michigan, self-regulation is the goal for the CMP (Haynes 2006). Both

in Europe and the United States there is growing advocacy for increased ‘self—

regulation’ of businesses for environmental protection and pollution reduction
(Andrews 1998). According to Harrison (1999), mandatory compliance with
regulations is still the norm but regulators in many jurisdictions are increasingly
willing to assist regulated interest by clarifying requirements and providing
technical advice on how to achieve compliance. Andrews (1998) adds that
environmental regulations are increasingly unenforceable, governments
increasingly lack the resources, the political will, and the effective authority to
enforce environmental regulations. Khanna and Damon (1999) suggested that
“voluntary programs for pollution control offer an innovative approach to
environmental regulations.” They went on to explain that participation in
voluntary programs depends to a considerable extent on the existence of a
regulatory framework that would impose penalties on firms (marinas) that do not
undertake proactive measures for self-regulation (Khanna and Damon 1999). An
example of one such program that claimed success was the EPA’s voluntary
33/50 program (created in 1991); a voluntary pollution reduction program that
provided incentives to firms that would implement pollution reduction practices
that would reduce direct environmental releases and off-site transfers of 17
priority toxic chemicals by 33% by 1992, with the ultimate goal of a 50%
reduction by 1995 (Zatz and Harbour 1999). Although the program was
generally considered a success, critics claimed many of the projects
implemented would have occurred without the 33/50 program (Zatz and Harbour

1999).

Similar to the 33/50 program, the CMP falls under the category of
environmental “public voluntary programs” (PVPs). According to Lyon and
Maxwell (2007), PVPs involve government offers of positive publicity and
technical assistance to firms that reach certain environmental goals. These
programs can vary greatly in their form and substance but the two most common
elements of PVPs are: (1) information dissemination regarding abatement
techniques, and (2) providing public recognition to participants that go beyond
compliance with existing regulations (Lyon and Maxwell 2007). Numerous issues
related to energy and the environment have been addressed through the use of
PVPs, including agriculture, air quality, pollution prevention, and water (Lyon and
Maxwell 2007).

To receive the Clean Marina designation in Michigan, a marina must
complete an 11-step program (Appendix A) which includes attendance at a CMP
training workshop, performing a marina self-evaluation, site visit and evaluation
by a Michigan Clean Marina representative, incorporation of recommendations,
and receiving the Clean Marina designation. Following the third year anniversary
of a marina receiving the CMP designation, the marina is required to begin a
process to recertify as a Clean Marina.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) identifies 90
harbors on its Website that are either state-owned harbors, Michigan State
Waterway Commission-sponsored harbors, or recreational harbors/harbors of
refuge (Appendix B). All of these harbors are under the management of some

form of government, including local municipalities, and are considered public

10

harbors. The harbors are located throughout the Michigan waters of the Great
Lakes region and serve transient and seasonal boaters. The census of these
public harbors is the focus of this study; these harbors are not faced with some of
the environmental issues common to commercial harbors, i.e., hull cleaning and
maintenance; therefore, the CMP designation should be more easily attainable
and less costly. The study does not include commercial private marinas and it
should be noted that the findings of this study are not transferable to private
marinas.

In 2007, the DEC and Travel Michigan joined forces to promote Clean
Marinas and encourage Michigan travelers to “think green” by labeling Michigan
Clean Marinas on Michigan travel information Websites. According to Michigan
Sea Grant College Program Clean Marina Website, 12 DNR-identified public
harbors have the CMP designation, as of February 2009. Table 4 identifies
those CMP-certified harbors and their respective locations.

The goal of this study was to understand the importance of the CMP to the
harbormasters listed on the DNR-designated harbors Website. The objectives of
this research were to (1) identify real barriers and harbormasters’ perceived
barriers to participation, (2) identify harbormasters” perceived value and interest
in the CPM, and (3) provide recommendations to assist in the implementation of

the CMP in Michigan.

11

Table 4. Michigan CMP-certified harbors as identified on the Michigan Sea Grant
College Program Clean Marina Website and their respective locations, as of

February 2009.

 

Harbor

Location

 

Grant Moore Municipal Marina

Boyne City, Lake Michigan

 

Charlevoix City Marina

Charlevoix, Lake Michigan

 

DeTour State Dock

DeTour, Lake Huron

 

Hammond Bay State Harbor

Hammond Bay, Lake Huron

 

Harbor Springs Municipal Marina

Harbor Springs, Lake Michigan

 

Lexington State Dock

Lexington, Lake Huron

 

Mackinaw Island State Harbor

Mackinaw Island, Lake Huron

 

Manistee Municipal Marina

Manistee, Lake Michigan

 

Port Austin State Dock

Port Austin, Lake Huron

 

Presque Isle State Harbor

Presque Isle, Lake Huron

 

Petoskey City Marina

Petoskey, Lake Michigan

 

 

South Haven Municipal Marina

 

South Haven, Lake Michigan

 

12

 

METHODS

A survey instrument (Appendix C) was developed through interviews
conducted in July 2007 with three individuals responsible for the development
and administration of Michigan’s CMP and analysis of available background
information on the CMP, including information on other states’ CMP programs,
which was primarily available on the Internet and through state’s Sea Grant
College Program offices. The interviewees worked for the Michigan Sea Grant
College Program, Michigan DEQ, and MBIA. Telephone and in-person
interviews were conducted following the approval of Michigan State University’s
Social Science, Behavioral, Education Institution Review Board in the summer of
2007 (lRB#X07 526). The interviewees were mailed a two-page letter inviting
them to participate in the study (Appendix D). Participants were asked to sign
and return the letter to indicate their consent to participate in the study.
Following receipt of their letters of consent, interviews were conducted using the
questions in Appendix E; each interview took approximately 30 minutes. The
questions were designed to better understand Michigan’s CMP; (i.e., is there a
CMP advisory committee; who conducts CMP workshops, etc); and to also learn
what the interviewees thought were potential barriers to participation.

Interview results provided information on how the CMP was implemented
in Michigan and what the interviewees viewed as perceived strengths and
weaknesses of the program. Following the interviews, a survey instrument was

developed to (1) describe harbor demographics, both harbors with the CMP

13

designation and harbors without the CMP designation, (2) identify real and

perceived barriers to participation in the CM P, and (3) identify harbormasters’

perceived value and interest in the CMP (Table 5).

Table 5. Research objectives for determining barriers, perceived value, and
interest and relevant survey instrument question numbers designed to gather
data to meet the objectives of the study.

 

Research Objective - Real and
Perceived Barriers to
Participation in the CMP

Survey Question If

Question Type

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Have you heard of the CMP 1 Simle-response
Workshop attendance 4 Likert-scale

How do harbormasters hear about 2 Multiple-response
CMP?

Satisfaction with certification 5 Likert-scale
process

Supervisor support 8 Likert-scale
Facility may not pass criteria 8 Likert-scale
Budget 8 Likert-scale

Staff 8 Likert-scale
Research Objective - Perceived Survey Question # Question Type

Value in the CMP

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Increased boater use at harbor 9 Forced ranking scale
Increased income 9 Forced ranking scale
Social recognition 9 Forced ranking scale
Regulatory compliance advantages 9 Forced ranking scale
Improved water quality at harbor 9 Forced ranking scale
Being a good steward 11 Likert-scale
Research Objective - Is there Survey Question # Question Type

Interest in the CMP

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is the harbor a clean marina 3 Single-resgmse
What was the motivation to 7 Single-response
participate

Boaters should practice clean 11 Likert-scale
boating practices

Marinas should conserve natural 11 Likert—scale
resources

Do you seek out information on 12 Likert-scale

CMP and other stewardship
programs

 

 

 

14

 

A draft of the survey instrument was pre-tested by two reviewers (a Michigan
State University Extension professional and one harbormaster) to determine the
strengths and weaknesses of the survey instrument regarding question
formatting, wording, and order. A final revision of the survey instrument was then
done, based on the reviewers’ input.

The DNR maintains a list of harbors that are identified as being state
harbors or harbors of refuge, including Michigan State Watenrvays Commission
sponsored harbors. The census of the harbormasters at these harbors was the
focus of this research project. The names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
harbormasters overseeing the DNR-identified harbors was provided in an Excel
spreadsheet directly from DNR staff. After the study was approved (IRB# X07
774) by Michigan State University's Social Science, Behavioral, Education
Institutional Review Board in the summer of 2007, all of the harbormasters on the
DNR list were mailed a one-page letter inviting them to participate in the research
project (Appendix F).

The letter described the project’s goal and objectives, explained the
contents of the enclosed survey instrument, and the approximate time (20
minutes) it would take to complete the survey instrument. The letter also
informed harbormasters that their participation was strictly voluntary and that by
completing and returning the survey instrument, they were giving their consent to
participate. The survey instrument was mailed to the harbormasters in
September 2007; they were asked to return the survey instrument in the self-

addressed, stamped envelope included with the survey instrument. In all cases,

15

harbormasters that had not completed and returned their survey instrument
within 30 days were contacted by telephone to request that they complete their
survey instruments. At that time, an offer was made to mail them another copy,
should they need one.

Harbormasters are widely dispersed throughout the state, making
personal interviews both cost- and time-prohibitive (on-line data collection was
not an option since there were no assurances that each harbormaster would
have access to computers and the Internet). Therefore, the self-administered
mail data collection method was selected for this research project (Alreck and
Settle 2004). When using mail surveys, the day, time, and location where
respondents complete the survey instruments may differ from one respondent to
the next but the survey instruments are identical to one another. As such, each
respondent is presented with exactly the same instructions and tasks, eliminating
the chance of interviewer bias (Alreck and Settle 2004).

To assess harbormasters’ perceived barriers to participation in the CMP,
they were asked if they had heard about the CMP (yes or no) and, if so, how they
had heard about the CMP (multiple-choice questions with an open-ended
response). Next, harbormasters that had knowledge of the CMP were asked,
using Likert-scale (Alreck and Settle 2004) questions whether attendance at a
workshop had any influence on their attitude toward participation in the CMP and
to what level they agreed or disagreed with several statements relevant to

participating in the CMP and the CMP certification process. Harbormasters that

16

had no knowledge of the CMP were asked to proceed to the next section of the
survey instrument.

In order to determine whether harbormasters believed there was value in
participating in the CMP, a series of Likerl-scale questions were asked to learn at
what level harbormasters agreed or disagreed with the importance of
environmental stewardship and who should be responsible for ensuring that
future generations have access to clean recreational waters. A forced ranking
scale (Alreck and Settle 2004) question was used to ask harbormasters to rank
the benefits of participating in the CMP, using a 1-5 scale (1 = First choice, 5 =
Fifth choice).

Harbormasters were asked if the harbor they supervised was certified
under the CMP to help determine if they had an interest in the CMP. To further
assess interest, harbormasters with certified harbors were asked what motivated
them to participate, using a multiple-choice question with one open-ended
response. Using a Likert-scale question, harbormasters were also asked how
likely they would participate or continue to participate in the CMP in the next
three years.

Finally, harbormasters were asked questions that related directly to the
demographics (designation, size, seasonal and transient boater use, number of
employees) of their harbor and the years each harbormaster had overseen their
respective harbor. Harbor demographics could explain why some harbormasters
were more likely to have heard about the CMP and felt the program had value.

As an example, staff at a harbor with heavy transient boat traffic may be more

17

likely to interact with boaters who have knowledge of the CMP. Harbormasters
were asked to identify the geographic location of their harbor by the lake and
location of their respective harbors. In order to learn more about the harbor
location, M-46 was chosen as a dividing point for both Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron. It was the assumption that the harbor’s water quality and concentration
and types of recreational boaters using the harbors could vary, based on harbor
location; hence, M-46 was used as a dividing line to better delineate harbor
location.

The survey data was analyzed using an Independent Samples t-Test to
compare the mean values between harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors
and harbormasters with knowledge of the CMP to test for statistical significance.

Frequency and descriptive analyses were also conducted.

18

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The survey instrument was mailed to 86 harbormasters based on an Excel
spreadsheet mailing list provided by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (DNR). Although the DNR Website identified 90 harbors, the mailing
list provided by the DNR identified 86. It was determined that five survey
instruments had been mailed to duplicate harbors; two harbormasters reported
they did not have a harbor; and one harbormaster refused to complete the survey
instrument. The number of useable survey instruments was thus 79. Of those
79 survey instruments, 52 survey instruments were completed for a return rate of
nearly 66%.

Survey instrument results were divided into three sections: demographic
background on the harbors; barriers and harbormasters’ perceived barriers to
participation in the CMP; and harbormasters’ perceived value and interest in the
CMP.

A demographic profile of respondents’ harbors revealed that 9 harbors
were located on Lake Superior, 19 on Lake Huron, 20 on Lake Michigan, and 2
on Lake Erie (Table 6). Two harbormasters did not report harbor locations. Of
the 52 survey instruments returned, less than 20% (n=10) of the harbormasters

indicated their harbor had the CMP designation (Table 7).

19

Table 6. Number of harbors per geographic location per designation (Designated
State Harbor, Municipal Harbor, Other).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of Number of Number
Harbor Location Designated State Municipal of Other
Harbors Harbors

Lake Superior 3 3 3
Lake Michigan - Upper Peninsula 2 3 0
Lake Huron - Upper Peninsula 2 1 0
Lake Michigan — Lower Peninsula 2 9 1
- North of M46
Lake Huron — Lower Peninsula - 4 9 0
North of M-46
Lake Michigan - Lower Peninsula 0 3 0
— South of M-46
Lake Huron - Lower Peninsula — 1 2 0
South of M-46
Lake Erie 2 0 O

 

 

 

 

Table 7. Number of reported CMP-certified harbors per geographic location.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harbor Location A Number of Harbors
Certified as CMP
Lake Superior 0
Lake Michigan — Upper Peninsula 0
Lake Huron - Upper Peninsula 1
Lake Michigan - Lower Peninsula — North of M-46 4
Lake Huron — Lower Peninsula - North of M-46 3
Lake Michigan - Lower Peninsula - South of M46 0
Lake Huron - Lower Peninsula - South of M-46 1
Lake Erie 1

 

20

 

 

The greatest concentration of CMP-certified harbors was in Lake Michigan
(Lower Peninsula — North of M-46) and Lake Huron (Lower Peninsula — North of
M-46). Three of the 10 harbors with the CMP designation were under the
supervision of the same harbormaster, which indicated the number of
harbormasters that have accepted the program may not be as great as it
appeared. it could also be indicative that there was a major proponent of the
CMP, i.e., Sea Grant College Program agent or MBIA member, in those areas
where harbormasters have chosen to be CMP-certified. Interestingly, none of
the Lake Superior harbors have the CMP designation. This could suggest that
Lake Superior waters appeared or are believed to be less polluted to
harbormasters, as such, the CMP designation was not viewed as being
necessary by harbormasters in Lake Superior or that they were not familiar with
the CMP. One Lake Superior harbormaster reported having limited services and
no staff on-site, other than to clean restrooms once a day and maintain grounds,
which could further suggest why some Lake Superior harbormasters do not view
CMP certification as a priority.

To assess harbormasters’ perceived barriers to participation in the CMP
and identify real barriers to participation, harbormasters were first asked if they
were familiar with the CMP. Approximately 70% (n=34) of the respondents
reported some knowledge of the CMP (Table 8). Of the 15 harbormasters that
reported they had no knowledge of the CMP, 6 of those harbormasters
supervised Lake Superior harbors (the greatest concentration of harbormasters

not familiar with the CMP), which adds to the explanation of why none of the

21

Lake Superior harbors have the CMP designation. When evaluating

harbormasters’ knowledge of the CMP with types of harbors, it was determined

that over 66% of those harbormasters were connected to municipal harbors.

Table 8. Geographic location of harbors and number of harbormasters that had
some knowledge of the CMP and number of harbormasters that had no

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

knowledge of the CMP.
Number of Number of
Harbor Location Harbormasters Harbormasters
Familiar with CMP not Familiar with
CMP

Lake Superior 2 6

Lake Michigan — Upper Peninsula 2 3

Lake Huron — Upper Peninsula 2 1

Lake Michigan — Lower Peninsula; 8 4

North of M-46

Lake Huron — Lower Peninsula; 13 0

North of M46

Lake Michigan — Lower Peninsula; 2 1

South of M-46

Lake Huron — Lower Peninsula; 3 0

South of M46

Lake Erie 2 0

 

 

 

22

 

Harbormasters whose harbors were CMP-certified and those with
knowledge of the CMP were then asked how much influence did or does the
CMP’s requirement to attend a workshop have on their participation or plans to
participate in the CMP (Table 9). The influence levels were ranked 1 through 5,
respectively (No influence whatsoever = 1; A lot of influence = 5). Twenty-one
percent of the respondents agreed that workshop attendance had no influence
whatsoever on their decision to participate in the CMP, while 17% agreed that
workshop attendance had some influence on their decision to participate. Only
7% of the respondents said workshop attendance had a lot of influence on their
decision to participate. One harbormaster that had attended the workshop
(harbor has CMP designation) indicated workshop attendance had a lot of
influence on the decision to participate and also stated that the workshop should

be conducted more professionally.

Table 9. Influence on harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors and
harbormasters with knowledge of CMP of workshop attendance on CMP
participation (No influence whatsoever = 1; A lot of influence = 5).

 

Question Score Score
Certified as CMP Knowledge of CMP
but not certified

 

 

Attendance at a workshop is
currently required to begin
the certification process.
How much influence 3.00 2.20
did/does the requirement to
attend a workshop have on
your participation or plans to
participate in the CMP?

 

 

 

23

 

When responses of the influence of workshop attendance on CMP
participation of harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors were compared to the
responses of harbormasters that were familiar with the CM P; an independent
Samples t-Test indicated there was significant difference between the two groups
at the 95% confidence level. A score of less than 3 indicated that attendance at
a workshop had little influence on a harbormasters decision to participate in the
CMP, while a score of more than 3 indicated the requirement to attend a
workshop could influence a harbormasters decision to participate. It is possible
that harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors would have had a different opinion
relevant to workshop attendance resulting from attendance at the workshop, i.e.,
lack of professionalism. Overall, the requirement to attend a workshop in order
to begin the CMP certification process did not appear to be a barrier to future
participation.

To further asses barriers to participation, harbormasters with CMP-
certified harbors and harbormasters that confirmed they had knowledge of the
CMP were asked to identify how they had received information on the CMP—
workshop attendance, word of mouth, Internet, publication, other. The highest
response was through attendance at a workshop (n=13), followed by other (n=9).
The remaining methods were word of mouth (n=7), publications (n=5), and
internet (n=1). Table 10 identifies how harbormasters gained knowledge of the

CMP by geographic location.

24

Table 10. Ways in which harbormasters have access to information on the CMP
by geographic location.

 

Harbor Location

Workshop
Attendance

Word of
Mouth

Internet

Publication

Other

 

Lake Superior

1

O

O

1

O

 

Lake Michigan -
Upper Peninsula

0

1

O

1

 

Lake Huron —
Upper Peninsula

1

O

O

1

 

Lake Michigan —
Lower Peninsula;
North of M46

 

Lake Huron —
Lower Peninsula;
North of M-46

 

Lake Michigan -
Lower Peninsula;
South of M-46

 

Lake Huron -
Lower Peninsula;
South of M-46

 

Lake Erie

0

 

 

Total

 

13

 

 

 

 

 

To learn if the CMP certification process could present a barrier to

participation, harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors were asked to rank their

level of satisfaction with the certification process from extremely dissatisfied to

extremely satisfied with respect to various areas related to the certification

process (Table 11). The satisfaction levels were ranked 1 through 7, respectively

(Extremely dissatisfied = 1; Extremely satisfied = 7). A total score of 4 indicated

that harbormasters were neutral regarding satisfaction, a score of less than 4

denoted an overall tendency to disagree with the satisfaction of the certification

process, while a score of more than 4 indicated an overall tendency to be

satisfied with the certification process.

25

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.6 «one £0: o\omm $0 $0 $0 £8 .33 ogm
o_nm__m>m
8566mm
mad aim as; F $0 $3 oxoo £6 £6 .8352.
@2020
@52an8
Sam o\oo £05m o\oF F o\oNN o\oo $0 $0 .6 3mm
.220 ho
$8.265.
mod o\o_. F £95 o\oNN o\oo o\oo o\oo o\oo mLmEmman.
nocmeoB
nod o\oo oi F «ohm «cum 0on F o\oo o\oo Lo “moo
cosmoo.
and $0 $3 $3 oi F o\oo o\oo $0 329.53
3.335 cocoa—um 33.335 3.3.335
Boom 20503.6 Eo> nozmzom .8502 oozmzummfi Eo> >_oEo=xm 5.50:0

 

 

t u 85:8 26595 x u 33686 2652me
$803 cozmofitoo E20 65 53> cozoflmzmm Lo 65. .2092 umEtoodEO £3, whogmmELontmI .5 cam...

26

Overall, harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors were neutral to
satisfied with the CMP certification process. Approximately 11% of the
respondents indicated their dissatisfaction with the cost of the workshop.

To determine if harbor management and budgets could pose a barrier to
participation in the CMP, harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors and
harbormasters that had knowledge of the CMP were asked to rank their level of
agreement—totally disagree, moderately disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral,
somewhat agree, moderately agree, totally agree—with the following statements:
my supervisor is supportive of participation, my facility may not pass the CMP
criteria, my budget can support participation, and I have enough staff to
participate. The satisfaction levels were ranked 1 through 7, respectively (Totally
disagree = 1; Totally agree = 7). A score of less than 4 denoted an overall
tendency to disagree with the statement. The overall score (ranking) for
harbormasters with a CMP-certified harbor and harbormasters with knowledge of
the CMP is shown in Table 12. Approximately 54% of the respondents totally
disagreed their facility may not pass the CMP criteria and 31% totally agreed that
participation should be voluntary; while 37% of the respondents indicted total
agreement that their facility had the budget to participate; 31% indicated they
were neutral. Nearly 43% of the respondents totally agreed they had enough
staff to participate in the CMP, with less than 3% totally disagreeing. An
Independent Samples t-Test revealed there was significant difference between
the two groups relevant to the statements: supervisor is supportive of

participation, budget can support participation, and facility has enough staff to

27

participate. There was no significant difference between the two groups
regarding the statements: facility may not pass the criteria and participation
should be voluntary.

Table 12. Harbormasters (with CMP-certified harbors and knowledge of CMP)

level of agreement with statements related to harbor management and budget
(Totally disagree = 1; Totally agree = 7).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement Score Score
Certified as CMP Knowledge of CMP but
not certified

Supervisor is supportive of

6.70 5.87
participation
Facility may not pass the criteria 2.00 2.67
Participation should be voluntary 5.00 4.79
Budget can support participation 6.10 4.75
Facility has enough staff to

6.40 5.00
participate

 

 

 

Finally, all harbormasters were asked to indicate their level of agreement
or disagreement—strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, neutral, somewhat
agree, strongly agree—with a series of questions related to clean recreational
waters and who should be responsible for stewardship of these waters (Table
13). The agreement levels were ranked 1-5 respectively, (Strongly disagree = 1;
Strongly agree = 5). A score of 3 indicated harbormasters were neutral to the

statement, a score of less than 3 denoted an overall tendency to disagree with

28

 

the statement, and a score greater than 3 denoted an overall tendency to agree

with the statement.

Table 13. Harbormasters’ level of agreement to statements regarding
stewardship of recreational waters (Strongly disagree = 1; Strongly agree = 5).

 

Statement

Strongly
Disagee

Somewhat
Disagree

Neutral

Somewhat
Agree

Strongly
Agree

Score

 

Recreational
boaters should
practice clean
boating habits

2%

0%

0%

4%

94%

4.88

 

Marinas should
demonstrate
practices to
conserve
natural
resources

2%

0%

0%

12%

86%

4.81

 

It should be the
responsibility
of state
governments
to provide
clean water

8%

8%

33%

35%

1 7%

3.46

 

 

It is important
to ensure that
future
generations
have access to
clean
recreational
waters

 

2%

 

0%

 

0%

 

4%

 

94%

 

4.88

 

Overall, harbormasters agreed that boaters should practice clean boating

habits and it is important to ensure that future generations have access to clean

recreational waters (score = 4.88); 94% of the harbormasters strongly agreed

with this statement. They also supported the statement that marinas should

demonstrate practices to conserve natural resources (score = 4.81); 86% of the

harbormasters strongly agreed with this statement. Finally, 33% of the

29

 

harbormasters were neutral and 35% somewhat agreed (score = 3.46) that state
governments should be responsible in providing clean recreational waters.

The survey results indicated that real barriers to participation in the CMP
were observed. Currently, approximately 14% of the DNR-identified harbors
participate in the CMP. Evaluating a voluntary program on the basis of
participation alone is inappropriate (Alberini and Segerson 2002) but, in the
absence of any evaluative baseline, participation should be a consideration.

Approximately 30% of the harbormasters that responded to this survey
stated they had no knowledge of the CMP, with the greatest concentration of
those respondents located in Lake Superior. In fact, one harbormaster was
unsure whether the harbor under his supervision was certified or not. Many of
the harbormasters with no knowledge of the CMP managed municipal harbors.
Some of the municipal harbors are actually under the supervision of a city
manager or parks supervisor who are not on-site at the harbor.

Dissemination of information to harbormasters and supervisors regarding
the CMP should be improved. Survey results indicated that two of the most
effective modes of the transfer of information were through representatives of the
MBIA and the DNR Parks and Recreation Division. The harbormaster mailing list
obtained from the DNR was not up-to—date. Many survey instruments were
returned and several hours were spent making phone calls to update the mailing
and contact information. It should also be noted that some harbormasters
indicated that the involvement of state government in the CMP should be

minimal. Townsend (2008) acknowledged that the Oregon Clean Marina

30

program is not viewed as an environmental regulatory agency, which helps with
the program’s credibility and acceptance among harbormasters. Van Snider,
president of MBIA, recently commented that it is important for the industry to
perceive the Michigan CMP as an industry program, not a governmental agency
run program; it is important that the program not be viewed as a mandatory or
regulatory program (Mendez 2006).

In general, harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors indicated they were
satisfied with the CMP certification process. Harbormasters stated they were
most satisfied with the technical assistance provided during the certification
process, the presenter’s knowledge of the CMP during the workshops, and the
ease of filling out the checklist. Approximately 11% of the harbormasters
expressed dissatisfaction with the cost of the workshop. The current cost is $199
or $149 if the marina is a member of MBIA. Overall, the CMP administrators
should be more concerned with funding at the administrative level. For example,
in 2008, the governor of Georgia made budget cuts that eliminated the state’s
CMP coordinator position (Townsend 2008). To help address administrative
funding issues and advance the CMP, MBIA has recently established the
Michigan Clean Marina Foundation to ensure the program’s continuation by
increasing funding opportunities for the program in the form of grants and
contributions (Townsend 2008).

Survey instrument responses indicated that harbormasters believed that
both recreational boaters and marinas should utilize BMPs in order to preserve

recreational water resources. The value harbormasters place on the resource

31

does not appear to present a barrier to participation. According to Videras and
Alberini (2000), the success of voluntary environmental programs depends
crucially on the program appeal to the firms, or in this case, the harbormasters.
The worse the environmental track record of the firm, the more likely the firm is to
participate (Videras and Alberini 2000). If harbormasters do not perceive their
harbors as polluted or activities at the harbors to be damaging to the
environment, the need to participate in the CMP may not be seen as a priority.
The CMP needs to be more widely promoted to all harbormasters with the
message that their participation is proactive behavior and may preempt future
environmental issues and fines at the harbor, even if none are seen to currently
exist.

To assess harbormasters’ perceived value in participation in the CMP,
harbormasters with certified harbors and harbormasters with knowledge of the
CMP were asked to rank the benefits to participating in the CMP in order of
importance to the harbormaster (T able 14). Choices were increased boater use
at the facility, increased income, social recognition, regulatory compliance
advantages, and improved water quality at the facility. The ranking levels were 1

through 5, respectively (First choice = 1; Fifth choice = 5).

32

Table 14. Harbormasters’ perceived benefits to participating in the CMP in order
of importance (First choice = 1; Fifth choice = 5).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score Score
Statement Certified as CMP Knowledge of CMP but
not certified

Improved water quality at

1.50 2.09
harbor
Regulatory compliance

2.00 2.58
advantages
Social recognition 2.67 3.00
increased income 4.83 3.96
Increased boater use at

4.00 3.26
the harbor

 

 

 

The top three benefits common to both groups of harbormasters were
improved water quality at the harbor, regulatory compliance advantages, and
social recognition. Both groups ranked increased income and increased boater
use at the harbor as their fourth and fifth choices.

When all harbormasters were asked if marinas should demonstrate
practices to conserve natural resources, nearly 87% strongly agreed with this
statement. Clearly, improved harbor water quality was seen as a priority to the
respondents. According to Alberini and Segerson (2002), participation in
voluntary programs may be motivated by environmental stewardship, i.e.,
personal satisfaction or utility gained from undertaking activities that protect the

environment. The effectiveness hinges on the existence of a sufficiently strong

33

 

environmental stewardship motivation within the target population (Alberini and
Segerson 2002). Harbormasters appear to be motivated to participate in the
CMP, based on their desire to have improved or sustained water quality at their
harbors.

Increased use at the harbor should generate increased income. These
benefit choices were ranked fourth and fifth by both groups of harbormasters.
This could suggest that harbors have sufficient budgets or are subsidized at a
level that increased income is not a sufficient motivator to participate in the CMP.
Alberini and Segerson (2002) suggested that polluters must perceive that there is
some net benefit or gain that they will realize from participation. In many cases,
firms are motivated to participate in voluntary environmental programs because
consumers demand “green” products and are willing to pay more for them (Arora
and Gangopadhyay 1995). Boaters have suggested that Michigan’s designated
harbors are viewed as second to none in the Great Lakes region (Wisconsin,
Michigan, Minnesota, and Ohio). The Michigan harbors have a reputation of
providing quality service and, in general, users know they are going to a harbor
with clean, adequate facilities. According to Videras and Alberini (2000),
participants in voluntary environmental programs are motivated to participate in
order to gain a competitive advantage over competitors. Survey results did not
support this statement. In fact, in many cases, Michigan’s designated harbors
have very little competition from commercial marinas. In the absence of strong
market incentives to participate, a firm (harbor) may still voluntarily abate if by

doing so it can directly reduce costs and increase profits (Alberini and Segerson

34

2002). Given the current economic climate in the State of Michigan, this
message should be included in a CMP communication piece to harbormasters.

To determine if harbormasters had an interest in the CMP, they were first
asked if the harbor they oversaw was certified. In response, 10 harbormasters
indicated their harbor was certified as a clean marina.

Next, all harbormasters were asked to select how often—always, often,
sometimes, rarely, or never—they communicated or participated in several
practices related to stewardship and clean boating. The levels of activity were
ranked 1-5, respectively (Always = 1; Never = 5); with a score of 3 indicating they
sometimes participated in the statement activity; a score of less than 3 denoted
an overall tendency to participate in the statement activity; and a score of more
than 3 denoted an overall tendency to not participate in the statement activity.

Harbormasters agreed they seek out ways to be a better steward at the”
harbor with a score of 1.96 (Table 15). The word steward was not defined in the
survey instrument; harbormasters responded based on their own understanding
of the definition of steward. They also acknowledged they talked to boaters
about clean boating practices with a score of 2.72 (Often = 22%; Sometimes =
44%). Harbormasters were least likely to discuss best boating practices with Sea
Grant College Program agents with a score of 4.20 (Rarely = 26%; Never =
48%). it is unknown whether harbormasters talked to anyone regarding best

boating practices.

35

Table 15. Opportunities for harbormasters to seek out ways to be a better
steward at the harbor they oversee.

 

Statement Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never Score

 

Seek out ways to be a

 

 

 

 

 

better steward at the 31% 45% 22% 0% 2% 1.96
harbor
Talk to boaters about
. . 14% 22% 44% 18% 2% 2.72
clean boating practices
Practice recycling at
21% 29% 20% 12% 18% 2.75
the harbor
Display signage
describing clean 24% 21% 21% 12% 22% 2.86
boating practices
Discuss best boating
practices with Sea
0% 2% 24% 26% 48% 4.20

Grant College Program
agents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally, to further assess harbormasters’ interest in the CMP,
harbormasters with knowledge of the CMP were asked how likely they were to
pledge to become a clean marina in the next three years—extremely unlikely,
very unlikely, somewhat unlikely, neutral, somewhat likely, very likely, extremely
likely. The ranking levels were 1-7, respectively (Extremely unlikely = 1;
Extremely likely = 7). An overall score of 4 suggested harbormasters were
neutral, an overall score of 1 denoted a tendency to be extremely unlikely to

participate, while an overall score of 7 denoted a tendency to participate.

36

 

Thirty-eight percent of the harbormasters that had knowledge of the CMP
stated they were extremely likely to pledge to become a clean marina with
another 34% indicating they were very likely to pledge. Nine percent of the
harbormasters agreed they were very unlikely to pledge to become a clean
marina and only 3% said they were extremely unlikely to participate. The overall
percentages and scores are depicted in Table 16. Fifty percent of the
harbormasters with CMP certified harbors indicated they were extremely likely to
begin the recertification process within three years. The remainder of the
respondents were either very likely or neutral with respect to beginning the

recertification process.

Table 16. Likelihood that harbormasters that had knowledge of the CMP would
pledge to become a clean marina in the next 3 years.

 

Pledge to Become a Clean Marina

 

Extremely Very Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very Extremely
unlikely unlikely unlikely likely likely Likely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3% 9% 0% 1 3% 3% 34% 39%

 

Harbormasters’ desire to have clean water at their harbor and be a good
environmental steward was a common theme throughout this research project,
which suggested there was ample interest in the CMP by the harbormasters that
responded to the survey instrument; the harbormasters also indicated the CMP
had value. One can only speculate regarding the harbormasters that did not
respond to the survey instrument, i.e., no interest in the CMP, too busy to
respond, felt threatened by survey instrument questions, etc.

37

 

RECOMMENDATIONS

It should be noted again that these recommendations only apply to the
public harbors, as designated by the Michigan DNR. These recommendations
do not apply to private commercial marinas in Michigan.

As previously stated, the greatest barrier to participation appears to be in
informing the harbormasters about the CMP. Therefore, it is first recommended
that the harbormaster/supervisor mailing list be updated on a regular basis and
the MBIA undertake a communication campaign to market the CMP. This could
be the most cost-effective approach and harbormasters indicated they were
pleased with their interaction with representatives of the MBIA. The target
audience has already been clearly defined and a similar approach could be taken
to promote the CMP to commercial marinas. A letter writing campaign could
promote the CMP with a tailored message to appeal to the State’s
harbormasters. Letter writing is one of the most persuasive and powerful forms
of communication (Jurin, Denter, and Rousch Jr. 2000). There is some evidence
consistent with the notion that firms (harbors) value the information and
technology transfer aspect of joining a program (Videras and Alberini 2000).
Harbormasters with CMP-certified harbors were satisfied with the technical
assistance they received as part of the CMP certification process. This message
could be an important component of a letter to harbormasters. An effective
communications campaign with an effective message (tag line) to harbormasters

is needed to further advance the CMP.

38

Next, it is recommended that administrators of the CMP make the
certification process available on-Iine and eliminate the need for workshops. The
Texas CMP has all certification materials available on-line (pledge form,
checklist, CMP guidebook). Once a marina has completed its self-assessment, a
CMP representative visits the marina for an on-site confirmation visit (Clean
Texas Marina Program n.d.). Texas has approximately 350 marinas and in 2008,
71 (20%) had been certified. In comparison, Michigan has approximately 550
marinas with 24 (4%) having completed the certification process (Mendez 2006).
Some harbormasters registered their dissatisfaction with the cost of the
workshop; an on-Iine process would address those concerns. This would also
address program budget cuts that could impact the travel status of individuals
who conduct the CMP workshops. According to Mendez (2006), some CMPs are
not having as much success signing up marinas to the program because they
lack the manpower and resources to get the job done. Processes that can
address this issue are important to the success of the CMP in Michigan.

Finally, it is recommended that the Michigan CMP establish an advisory
committee to gain input from all elements associated with recreational boating.
As an example, the Alabama-Mississippi CMP advisory committee consists of
representatives from the CMP management team (industry, educational, and
agency), department of marine resources, state’s EPA office, Mobile National
Estuary Program, marina operators, chamber of commerce representatives, the
US. Coast Guard, U.S. Corps of Engineers in order to create and sustain a well-

rounded program (Clean Marina: Coming to a Harbor Near You 2004).

39

CONCLUSION

Voluntary, incentive-based environmental programs have merit and have
been proven to be effective for certain environmental issues but, according to
Mendez (2006), “proponents of the environmental movement, some of whom
have been described as having missionary-type zeal for clean marinas, still have
a long way to go to make new converts to their cause.” A broader issue to
consider in evaluating the effectiveness of the CMP is what is the baseline for
measuring success? What would the level of environmental quality be in the
absence of the voluntary approach (Alberini and Segerson 2002)? In the
absence of a baseline measurement, the analysis of this study provides CMP
administrators with suggested ways to improve communication with
harbormasters of Michigan’s public harbors and a more streamlined approach to

the certification process.

40

APPENDICES

41

APPENDIX A: 11-Step Program

42

 

moouoflm udoEowadEmun
.ofioomobms 9:30? .3 8:08 9.6m .

owog «5.32 58—0 05 mafia was mum «5.32
cub—O on“ g .3 dogmas“: 0380M .

«cabana

350m x=8aoEdoEEo $59.66 3 255m
$533 05 8 0925 «35.88 .59» ocean—cm .

533 £33 Ba :8 838m .

$3829 FEM—no.2 v5 v.81..— 330 05 5
.3155 ~82» 26:35 33 cows—don weaved .

cactus. Lou— flaccom

doflndwmmov «EBB duo—u « 9530a
3558 9&3 388a moor: 01.34.8333
concede» «a... 8.62 was 30:83:» 30233
«0 83—8 an... «EA 8 magmas 011538

§o=§§e§3€aa§§e
gagegmggufih

Sta; «— 30:

 

 

autos. .320 con—:25. a oEooom on 3.30

$2.25..
a.» .5 a 32986.3.
w r :80

2r... :36 596.: 8
£35.. 3.3.1
3 a8»

coal-.230 act-I 50.0
o no“

31.5.. as".
c 88

Ear-$55582
088098... 05.3!
n .38

25558.1! act-2 :85
3 5:526 a... an.» a.»

088

53:31:36»
one.»

cot-31.5.3 3.3:. 5.8.3....

1.8»

8:183 2.82 .5 .358.

2.553336
2.8a

28831:...»
«98
. amaze-68»

6.020.! (a! «05:00
_. 38a

 
 

IDMKMEMHID

e

 

 

.aoflflomo «SHE
9539a $8559.15 cow 3.552:
06830 v5 noanoooc mo—«BQ .v

£8825 98 698330
8:88 633 358 08 @5895
_ “nova—awn.— v5 95— 35.5.8169
.33 855968 Dun—63 Boa—ohm .m
down—am 80g; coon Co
«nuance 2% 3 3088.318 «832 £225
in Ana v5 actuate an: 12.088838
62388. Q8 c3828; dog—.2— .
mo nova; ban—3o» 80895 as
695% 338.8% .05 38538.3
canvas .8889“ 88» aha—63 «as:
05 93:8 gram—5588 «33m .—
885 at «.53
86830 aqua—ago» 88 was 83898
2:38. xbnea SEE ca 5:583

Eggageofiufi. ,

BB go:— «382 nub—U Swizz 94h.
«0.50030 E9595

 

 

 

h.ed_u

 

www.miseagantbmic

43

APPENDIX B: Michigan Department of Natural Resources Harbors

 

it Locations of Michigan DNR Harbors

45

APPENDIX C: Survey Instrument

46

MICI-HGAN’S CLEAN MARINA PROGRAM SURVEY

Sponsored by Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey about your Michigan Clean Marina Program
experience. Please read each question carefully before responding. Answer to the best of your
ability and save any additional comments for the end. Your responses will help us evaluate the
importance of the Clean Marina Program to the State of Michigan

THIS FIRST SECTION ASKS ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE CLEAN MARINA PROGRAM.

1. Have you heard of the Clean Marina Program? if no, proceed to Question 10. (Please check one)
D Yes
0 No

2. How did you hear about the Clean Marina Program? (Please check all that apply)
Attended a workshop

Word of mouth
[ntemet
Publication
Other (Describe)

D

DUDE)

 

3. Is the facility you oversee certified as a Clean Marina? (Please check one)
0 Yes
D No

4. Attendance at a workshop is currently required to begin the certification process. How much influence
did/does the requirement to attend a workshop have on your participation or plans to participate in the
Clean Marina Program? (Please check one)

No influence whatsoever

Not much influence

Some influence

Moderate influence

A lot of influence

00000

5. If your facility is certified as a Clean Marina, how satisfied were you with the certification process? If
your facility is not certified as a Clean Marina, please proceed to the next question. (Please pick a number
from the scale for each item)

1. Extremely 2. Very dissatisfied 3. Dissatisfied 4. Neutral 5. Satisfied 6. Very satisfied 7. Extremely
dissatisfied satisfied

Workshop location

Cost of workshop

Presenter’s knowledge on the Clean Marina Program
Ease of completing checklist

Technical assistance available

Site visit

Please go to page two on the back of this page.

47

6. in the next mm years, how likely are you to .....? (Circle a response per line)

 

 

Extremely Very Somewhat Somewhat Very Extremely
unlikely unlikely unlikely Neutral likely likely likely

Pledge to become a
Clean Marina I 2 3 4 5 6 7
Complete the Clean
Marina Program
certification process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Begin the Clean Marina Program
recertification process 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

7. What motivated you most to participate or consider participating in the Clean Marina Program? (Please
check one)
Cl Boater demand
0 Supervisor recommendation
0 Other marinas are participating
Cl Desire to be a good steward
D Other

 

8. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements about participation in the Clean Marina
Program? (Please circle one answer on each line)

 

 

 

 

Totally Moderately Somewhat Somewhat Moderately Totally

disagree disagree disagree Neutral agree agree agree
My supervisor is supportive I
of participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
My facility may not pass
the criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Participation should be
voluntary l 2 3 4 5 6 7
My budget can support
participation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
l have enough staff to
participate l 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Please go to page three on the next page.

48

9. Please rank the benefits to participating in the Clean Marina Program listed below in their order of
importance to you. (Write the number I next to the one you prefer most, number 2 by your second choice,

and so on)

Increased boater use at the facility
Increased income

Social recognition

Regulatory compliance advantages
Improved water quality at facility

THIS SECOND SECTION INCLUDES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO YOU INTERACT WITH AND YOUR
PERCEPTION OF THE FACILITY YOU OVERSEE AND THE BOATERS WHO VISIT THE

FACILITY.

10. How would you describe the water that your facility is located in? (Check the line for each set of

OPPOSITE words that is closer to how you feel)

Very Quite Slightly Neither Slightly Quite Very

Clean
Ugly
Active
Clear

11. Please rate your level of agreement or disagreement with the statements below
for each statement)

Polluted
Beautiful
Inactive
Murky

. (Please circle a response

 

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
disagree disagree Neutral agree agree
Recreational boaters should practice
clean boating habits l 2 3 4 5
Marinas should demonstrate practices
to conserve natural resources I 2 3 4 5
It should be the responsibility of state
governments to provide clean waters 1 2 3 4 5
It is important to ensure that future
generations have access to clean
recreational waters 1 2 3 4 5

 

Please go to page four on the back of this page.

49

12. Please pick a number from the scale to show how often you do each of the things listed below. (Please
pick a number for each item)

1. Always 2. Often 3. Sometimes 4. Rarely 5. Never

Seek out information about the Clean Marina Program
Discuss best boating practices with Sea Grant agents
Seek out ways to be a better steward at your facility
Talk to boaters about clean boating practices

Practice recycling at your facility

Display signage describing clean boating practices

THE FINAL SECTION ASKS QUESTIONS ABOUT GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS RELATED TO THE
FACILITY YOU OVERSEE. THIS INFORMATION WILL BE CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL ONLY BE USED
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SURVEY.

13. The facility you oversee . . . (Please check one)
Designated state harbor

Municipal harbor

Other

Unknown

0

 

DUO

14. Where is the facility you oversee located? (Please check one)
Lake Superior

Lake Michigan—Upper Peninsula

Lake Huron—Upper Peninsula

Lake Michigan—Lower Peninsula; North of M46

Lake Huron—Lower Peninsula; North of M-46

Lake Michigan—Lower Peninsula; South of M-46

Lake Huron—Lower Peninsula; South of M46

Lake Erie

0

0000000

15. How many transient slips does the facility you oversee have? (Please check one)
0 0- 10 Transient slips
0 l l-20 Transient slips
0 More than 2] transient slips

16. How many seasonal slips does your facility have? (Please check one)
0 0-10 Seasonal slips
c1 “-20 Seasonal slips
0 More than 2| seasonal slips

17. How many seasonal boats used the facility you oversee in 2006? (Please check one)
0 0-10 Seasonal boats

c1 “-20 Seasonal boats
0 More than 21 seasonal boats

Please go to page five on the next page.

4

50

18. How many transient boats used the facility you oversee in 2006? (Please check one)
O-lO Transient boats

l l-20 Transient boats

21-50 Transient boats

51-100 Transient boats

More than lOl transient boats

Cl

0000

19. On average, how many staff are employed at the facility you oversee during the boating season?
(Please check one)
D i-5 Staff
640 Staff
I l-20 Staff
More than 2] staff

DOB

20. How many years have you overseen your facility? (Please check one)
l-3 Years

4-l0 Years

More than 11 years

Unknown

0

DOD

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS SURVEY. PLEASE RETURN IT IN THE PROVIDED SELF
ADDRSSED ENVELOPE TO BRENDA CLARK, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, 109 AGRICULTURE
HALL, EAST LANSING, Ml 48824. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, PLEASE
INCLUDE YOUR COMMENTS ON THE BACK or THIS PAGE.

51

APPENDIX D: Letter to Interviewees

52

Dear:

I am writing to ask for your participation in a study conducted by the Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife at Michigan State University to learn more about the development of the Clean
Marina Program (CMP), the procedures used to certify marinas, and the participant recruitment
for Michigan’s CMP. Because you are one of the program contact persons, we are asking that
you participate in this study.

You will be contacted in the near future to arrange an interview time. The interview is expected
to take about 30 minutes. Approximately 10 individuals will be interviewed who have been
identified on the CMP web site as either contact persons or representatives of marinas that
have been certified as a Clean Marina. Please understand it is your decision whether to
participate or not. You may choose not to participate at all or you may choose to skip questions
during the interview, if you wish.

Information gained from the interview is for research purposes but results from this study will
hopefully identify barriers to marina participation in the Clean Marina Program and refine
management needs associated with this program. The information you provide will contribute
to existing knowledge and will help further develop a survey instrument to be used to gain
additional knowledge of CMP from Michigan State Harbors of Refuge.

I am writing in advance because we know that peOpIe would like to be contacted in writing
before a phone call. If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study
participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact -
anonymously, if you wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection
Programs (HRPP) at Michigan State University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, email:
irb@msu.edu. or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Other questions regarding this study can be directed to me at: (517) 355-3272, fax: (517) 353-
5406, email: _c_l_arkbr@msu.edu, or regular mail: 109 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824 or
William Taylor, Ph.D., Chairperson of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State
University: (517) 353-0647, fax: (517)432-1699, email: tavloermsuedu. re regular mail: 13
Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824.

53

Your generous assistance will help ensure the success of this research project. Thank you for
your time and consideration. Please sign on the line below and return to me to indicate your
consent to participate in this study.

Sincerely,

Brenda Clark

Graduate Research Associate

 

Signature of Consent

54

APPENDIX E: Interview Questions

55

What is the goal of the Clean Marina Program?

Explain how a marina in Michigan becomes certified as a Clean Marina

How do marinas learn about the CMP? Workshops, tradeshows, trade publications?
Which method generates the most interest?

Do you think that the word is getting out?

What do you see as benefits to participation?

Do potential participants ask what the real benefits to participation are? Would they be
willing to pay for the benefits?

What do you see as barriers to participation?

Does improved water quality seem to be a concern to potential participants?

What do you think motivates a marina to participate?

Are marinas offered any incentives to participate? Would more marinas participate if
incentives were offered? What kind?

What incentive is there for continued certification?

Once a marina is certified, how is future compliance monitored?

Do you think some marinas are more likely to participate than others? Why? What are
the characteristics of marinas that participate?

Has there been any evaluation done to indicate that participation improves water
quality? Is there any measurable criteria or metrics?

Do you see ways that the program could be refined or modified?

What is being done to encourage recreational boaters to want clean marina
certification? What outreach programs are currently being used to inform boaters? Do
you think they are effective? What would make them more effective?

Are there grant dollars available to marinas to help with certification? Who would be
most valuable in assisting marinas in applying for grants?

What kind of technical assistance is available to marina operators?

Do operators from certified marinas assist in mentoring programs for marinas seeking
certification?

When a marina is certified, how is it publicized?

Is there a Michigan advisory committee to offer guidance to the program?

Should the program ever be mandatory?

Would having the Clean Marina designation attract boaters than are good stewards?
Would it help improve individual stewardship?

Do you like the program?

56

APPENDIX F: Letter to Harbormasters

57

Dear Harbormaster or Supervisor:

I am inviting you to participate in a research project to evaluate the importance of Michigan’s
Clean Marina Program. This research project is funded by the Michigan State University
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. Along with this letter is a short questionnaire that asks a
variety of questions about your experience with the Clean Marina Program and your facility. I
would appreciate it if you would complete the enclosed questionnaire and return it to me in the
self-addressed, stamped envelope. The questionnaire should take you about 20 minutes to
complete.

The results of this project will be the completion of my Master’s degree research at Michigan
State University. I hope the results of the survey will be useful in identifying barriers and
opportunities to marina participation in the Clean Marina Program and refine needs associated
with this program. I plan to share the results with the survey respondents and the organizers
and representatives of the Clean Marina Program.

Your participation in this survey is strictly voluntary and you can withdraw from participation or
refuse to answer any question without penalty. I am not aware of any risks to you if you decide
to participate in this survey and your responses will not be identified with you personally or your
facility. Your responses will be strictly confidential. By completing this survey, you indicate your
voluntary agreement to participate. The return envelope has an identification number for
mailing purposes only.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are
dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if you
wish, Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Director of the Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP) at
Michigan state University: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu or
regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Other questions regarding this study can be directed to me at: (517) 355-3272, fax: (517) 353-
5406, e-mail: clarkermsuedu, or regular mail: 109 Agriculture Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824 or
William Taylor, Ph.D., Chairperson of the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife at Michigan State
University: (517) 353-0647, fax: (517) 432-1699, e—mail: Laglorw@msu.edu, or regular mail: 13
Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Your generous assistance will help ensure the success of this research project. Thank you for
your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Brenda Clark
Graduate Research Associate

58

REFERENCES

59

REFERENCES

Alreck, P.L. & Settle, FLB. (2004). The survey research handbook. Third
edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New
York, New York, 10020. ISBN 0-07-294548-6.

Alberini, A. & Segerson, K. (2002). Assessing voluntary programs to improve
environmental quality. Environmental and Resource Economics 22: 157-
184.

Andrews, R. (1998). Environmental regulation and business ‘self-regulation.’
Policy Sciences, Volume 31, Number 3/September 1998.

Arora, S. & Gangopadhyay, S. (1995). Toward a theoretical model of voluntary
Overcompliance. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 28:3.

Blue Flag Marina Criteria and Explanatory Notes 2008-2009. (n.d.).
SzNVOFID/Inter/FGI/Criteria/MAFIINA/MarinaExplanatoryNotes-2008.doc
(accessed February 10, 2009).

Blue Flag Programme. (n.d.). http://www.blueflag.org[. Accessed January 10,
2009.

Clean Marina Michigan. (n.d.). MlCHU-08-713.

Clean Marinas Clear Value. (1996). US. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA 841-FI-96-003.

Clean Marina: Coming to a Harbor Near You. (2004). http://www.oar.noaa.gov/
spotlite/archive/spot cleanmarinashtml (accessed February 9, 2009).

Clean Texas Marina Program. (n.d.). http://www.cleanmarinas.org/program.htm.

Cleaning Up Marinas: The Clean Marina Program. (2007).
http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/arinas.htmI (accessed January 20,
2009)

Findings for the Michigan Coastal Nonpoint Program. (1997).
http://coastalmanagement. noaa.gov/nonpoint/docs/findmi.txt. Accessed
2/22/2008.

60

Harrison, K. (1999). Talking with the donkey: cooperative approaches to
environmental protection. Journal of Industrial Ecology. Volume 2,
Number 3.

Haynes, R. (2006). Self-regulation: goal for clean marina programs. Trade Only
Today — the Boating Business Newspaper. March.

Jurin, R, Danter, K. & Roush, Jr. (2000). Environmental Communication: Skills
and principles for natural resource managers, scientists, and engineers.
Person Custom Publishing, 75 Alrington Street, Boston, MA 02116, ISBN
0-536-60833-4.

Khanna, M. & Damon, L. (1999). EPA’s Voluntary 33/50 Program: Impact on
toxic releases and economic performance of firms. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management 37, 1-25.

Lyon, T.P. & Maxwell, J.W. (2007). Environmental public voluntary programs
reconsidered. Polcy Studies Journal; Vol. 35, No. 4.

Mendez, A. (2006). Exclusive look at ‘clean marina’ programs reveals slow, but
steady growth nationwide. Boat 8 Motor Dealer, December 2006.

NOAA Funding Opportunities. (n.d.). http://coastalmanagement.noaa.
gov/initiatives/funding.html (accessed April 1, 2009).

Shipshape Shores and Waters. (2003). US. Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA841-B-03-001 .

Swett, R., Fann, S., & DeLaney, J. (2005). An assessment of Florida boaters
and their awareness of the Clean Vessel Act and Clean Marina Program.
Florida Sea Grant College Program, Department of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, University of Florida, Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Project Number: 00050357.

Townshend, A. (2008). Boat & Motor Dealer. Clean Marinas continue to raise
environmental standards. December.

Videras, J. & Alberini, A. (2000). The appeal of voluntary environmental
programs: which firms participate and why? Contemporary Economic
Policy. (ISSN 1074-3529) Vol. 18, No. 4, October.

61

Zatz, M. 8 Harbour, S. (1999). The United States Environmental Protection
Agency’s 33/50 Program: the anatomy of a successful voluntary pollution
reduction program. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 7, Issue 1,
February 1999.

62

s
m
R
A
R
m
L
Y
H
s
R
E
w
N
U
E
T
A
T
S
N
A
m
H
m
M

llllllllllll

3

 

 

. .. .. .. .
a .. . . .. ... ..
.
. . . v. — . ..
. . . . _
. I
. . .
.
. .
. . . . .
. .
. .
. . .
. . .
. . ..
. . . . .
. .. . . . .
. . . ..
. . . .
. . . . .
.
. . .
. . . _. .
. . . . .
.. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . ..
. a
. . . r. ...
. . . . . I . . .
. .. .. .
. . . . . .
. . . . .. . . ..
. .. .
. . .. . . . . .
. . . . . . .. . .
. u . .o .
. u .
. . .. . . . .
. .. . .. . .
. . . . . ... .
. .. . . . . .... . .
. . ... .
. 4 .
. . . . . . . c ..
. . . . . v
. a. o
. . .. . .
.
. .
. a
. .
c
.
. . .
4 . V
_ ..
.. . .
. . .
. . .
..
. . .
. u
. . . .
.. .. .
.
n .. .
.
. . . .
o. .
.
. .
, c a
_
. u
. . . .
.
. u
. . . .
..
. ...

. .
.
v
.
o
.
.
u
..
. P
,o
n v
o.
...u.
n . _
.

.
n
.
.
.v
.x. .
....
I.