DOCSLIB.ORG

Disposal of Dredged Material from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Disposal of Dredged Material from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway Disposal of Dredged Material from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway September 2015 i Suggested citation: Myszewski, Margaret A. and Merryl Alber, 2015.Disposal of Dredged Material from the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway. Report prepared by the Georgia Coastal Research Council, University of Georgia, Athens, GA for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Division, 71 pp. Photo Source: Bud Davis, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual Library: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intracoastal_Waterway#/media/File:Hobucken_Bridge_North_Carolina.jpg. About the Georgia Coastal Research Council: The Georgia Coastal Research Council (GCRC) was established to provide mechanisms for improved scientific exchange between coastal scientists and decision makers, and to promote the incorporation of best-available scientific information into State and local resource management. The Council is not a policy organization, but rather seeks to provide unbiased, objective information about scientific issues. Baseline support for the program is shared by the Coastal Resources Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (through the Coastal Management Program) and Georgia Sea Grant, with project-specific support from the National Science Foundation and other agencies. For more information, please contact us at [email protected] or see our website at: http://www.gcrc.uga.edu. This publication was supported in part by an Institutional Grant (NA14OAR4170084) to the Georgia Sea Grant College Program from the National Sea Grant Office, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce as well as a grant award (#NA13NO54190114) to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources from the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. All views, opinions, statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of DNR, OCRM, the Georgia Sea Grant College Program, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. ii Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Part One: Background ................................................................................................................................... 2 Historical dredged material disposal practices ......................................................................................... 2 Current dredged material disposal practices ............................................................................................ 2 Mitigation requirements ....................................................................................................................... 3 Beneficial use ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Confined disposal .................................................................................................................................. 4 Open water disposal ............................................................................................................................. 5 Volume and placement of dredged material ............................................................................................ 5 Part Two: North Carolina, South Carolina, and northeastern Florida .......................................................... 7 Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 7 Funding allocation ................................................................................................................................. 7 Total volume ......................................................................................................................................... 7 Placement ............................................................................................................................................. 8 North Carolina ......................................................................................................................................... 10 AIWW .................................................................................................................................................. 10 Dredged material disposal .................................................................................................................. 11 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................ 13 Recent dredging projects .................................................................................................................... 14 Regulatory summary ........................................................................................................................... 15 South Carolina ......................................................................................................................................... 17 AIWW .................................................................................................................................................. 17 Dredged material disposal .................................................................................................................. 17 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Recent dredging projects .................................................................................................................... 19 Regulatory summary ........................................................................................................................... 20 Northeast Florida .................................................................................................................................... 22 AIWW .................................................................................................................................................. 22 Dredged material disposal .................................................................................................................. 23 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................ 24 Recent dredging projects .................................................................................................................... 24 iii Regulatory summary ........................................................................................................................... 26 References .................................................................................................................................................. 28 Appendix A. North Carolina Dredged Material Disposal Policies ............................................................... 33 Appendix B. South Carolina Dredged Material Disposal Policies ................................................................ 38 Appendix C. Florida Dredged Material Disposal Policies ............................................................................ 43 Appendix D. Land Use Classification of Confined Disposal Areas in North Carolina .................................. 48 Appendix E. Land Use Classification of Confined Disposal Areas in South Carolina ................................... 56 Appendix F. Land Use Classification of Confined Disposal Areas in Northeast Florida .............................. 65 iv List of Figures Figure 1. Map of the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) in the southeast .......................................... 1 Figure 2. Confined disposal facility ............................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 National dredged disposal volume by placement option: 2000-2014............................................ 6 Figure 4. Volume of dredged material from AIWW by State: 1999-2014 .................................................... 7 Figure 5. Map of AIWW in North Carolina .................................................................................................. 10 Figure 6. Wanchese Marsh, North Carolina restoration project ................................................................ 12 Figure 7. Map of AIWW in South Carolina .................................................................................................. 17 Figure 8. Trends in borrow areas for beach nourishment in South Carolina: 1954-2009 .......................... 18 Figure 9. Map of AIWW in northeast Florida .............................................................................................. 22 List of Tables Table 1. Current and historic placement practices by state ......................................................................... 8 Table 2. Land use classification of confined disposal areas .......................................................................... 9 Table 3. USACE easements on the AIWW in North Carolina ...................................................................... 10 Table 4. AIWW dredged disposal by type in North Carolina: 1999-2013 ..................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Hydraulic and Structural Design of Navigational Locks
    nvironm E en l & ta Dhanuka et al., J Civil Environ Eng 2018, 8:1 i l iv E C n f g o i n DOI: 10.4172/2165-784X.1000297 l Journal of Civil & Environmental e a e n r r i n u g o J ISSN: 2165-784X Engineering Research Article Open Access Hydraulic and Structural Design of Navigational Locks Amit Dhanuka1*, Shivendra Kumar Agrawal2 and Honey Mehra1 1Howe Projects Engineering Pvt Ltd, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India 2Department of Irrigation and Hydraulics, Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, India Abstract Navigation lock is a structure in the waterway provided to create a safe navigation passage between two water pools which are not at the same level. The reason for difference in water levels can be natural such as tidal variations or can be manmade such as construction of dam or barrage across the river. The main components of Navigation lock comprise of approach channels, lock pit, filling/emptying arrangement. Design of lock depends on lockage time, water level variations, Lock capacity requirements, design vessel size. filling/emptying system shall be designed to work under gravity flow without any pumping requirements. Filling/emptying system is chosen to get appropriate filling/ emptying time. The optimum time for filling and emptying is generally kept between 8.0-10.0 minutes. The size of filling culverts are so computed to attain the optimum time for filling/emptying. Every lock is unique in terms of its geology, location, size, requirements and water level differences. Here typical design aspects of a navigational Lock in inland waterway have been described.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Navigation
    US Army Corps of Engineers NAVIGATION is travel or transportation over water. Many different kinds of boats and ships are used on rivers and oceans to move people and products from one place to another. River Vessels: ACTIVITY Poster Series Navigation was extremely important for foreign and domestic trade and travel in the early Comparing Different Modes of Transportation days of our country before cars, trucks, trains, and airplanes were invented. In those days, The most common way of transporting products on rivers is by TOW. A tow consists of one This poster is the sixth in a series of water-resources education posters developed through rivers were used as "roads" to connect inland settlements to river and coastal ports. Com­ TOWBOAT and one or more BARGEs. Towboats push different kinds of barges, depending on the the Water Resources Education Initiative. The Water Resources Education Initiative is a munities established at these commercial ports became important economic, cultural, and cargo. Three of the four basic types of barges are shown below. The fourth type is a DECK barge, Introduction cooperative effort between public and private education interests. Partners in the program include which carries almost any kind of equipment, materials, or products that can be tied down and do not the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the social hubs in the development of our Nation. Transportation oi domestic cargo by barge is relatively slow, but it is efficient and cost effective Many of the products we use and eat today are still transported by vessels on deep need protection from the weather.
    [Show full text]
  • The Montreal/Lake Ontario Section of the Seaway
    THE MONTREAL/LAKE ONTARIO SECTION OF THE SEAWAY he St. Lawrence Seaway, in its broadest of the deep waterway, the St. Lawrence Seaway sense, is a deep waterway extending some proper extends from Montreal to Lake Erie. 3,700 km (2,340 miles) from the Atlantic T The Montreal/Lake Ontario section Ocean to the head of the Great Lakes, at the encompasses a series of 7 locks from Montreal heart of North America. Strictly speaking, how- (Quebec) to Iroquois (Ontario) enabling ships to ever, within the meaning of the legislation which navigate between the lower St. Lawrence River provided for the construction and maintenance and Lake Ontario. Laker under Mercier Bridge 1 HISTORY he opening of the Seaway, in April of 1959, The building of the Erie Canal, in the marked the full realization of a 400 year-old United States, early in the 19th century, provided T dream. In the early part of the 16th century, the incentive for the construction of additional and Jacques Cartier, the French explorer, was turned deeper canals and locks along the St. Lawrence. back by the rushing waters of the Lachine Rapids, The American waterway, which offered a fast, just west of what is now Montreal, and thus denied uninterrupted link between the growing industrial his dream of finding the Northwest Passage and the heartland of North America and the Atlantic Ocean route to the East. At various times during the inter- through New York posed a serious threat to vening 300 years, canals have been dug and locks Canadian shipping and, in particular, to the develop- built around the natural barriers to navigation in the ment of the City of Montreal as a major port.
    [Show full text]
  • Small Scale Dredging of Lakes and Streams
    STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES GENERAL PERMIT FOR SMALL SCALE DREDGING OF LAKES AND STREAMS PERMITTEE: The General Public in Wisconsin PERMIT NO.: GP17-2017-WI (WDNR-GP17-2017) ISSUING OFFICE: Waterways & Wetland Protection Section, Bureau of Watershed Management, Water Division, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR or Department) ISSUANCE DATE: 06/30/2017 EXPIRATION DATE: 06/30/2022 GENERAL PERMIT AUTHORIZATIONS: In compliance with the provision(s) of Wis. Stats. 30.20(1)(b), no person may remove any material from the bed of a natural navigable lake or navigable stream unless an individual or a general permit has been issued under s. 30.20 or authorization has been granted by the legislature. Wis. Stats. s. 30.206(1)(a) requires and authorizes the Department to issue general permits that authorize any person in the State of Wisconsin to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions of the general permit specified below after satisfying all applicable permit terms and conditions. Please refer to the following sections of this permit for the specific eligibility standards, application requirements, certification requirements and responsibilities, conditions, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and definitions required by WDNR-GP17-2017. Note: Projects involving the removal and lease or sale of any material from the bed of any navigable lake or of any outlying waters are ineligible for this general permit and must obtain a contract from the department under Wis. Stats. 30.20(2)(a) and (b). OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS NECESSARY: WDNR-GP17-2017 authorizations are subject to all applicable terms and conditions specified in this permit.
    [Show full text]
  • State Waterway Navigability Determination
    BODY OF WATER & LOCATION NAV CG NON-NAV CG REMARKS yellow highlight = apply to USCG for permit up to RM stipulated Alsea Bay, OR X Estuary of Pacific Ocean. Alsea River, OR X Flows into Alsea Bay, Waldport, OR. Navigable to mile 13. Ash Creek, OR X Tributary of Willamette River at Independence, OR. Barrett Slough, OR X Tributary of Lewis and Clark River. Bayou St. John, OR X Court decision, 1935 AMC 594, 10 Mile Lake, Coos County, OR. Bear Creek (Coos County), OR X Tributary of Coquille River (tidal at mile 0.5) Beaver Creek, OR X Tributary of Nestucca River. Beaver Slough, OR X See Clatskanie River. Big Creek (Lane County), OR X At U.S. 101 bridge (tidal). Big Creek (Lincoln County), OR X Flows into Pacific Ocean. Big Creek Slough, OR X Upstream end at Knappa, OR (tidal). At site of Birch Creek (Sparks) Bridge on Canyon Road near Birch Creek, OR X Pendleton, OR. Side channel of Yaquina River. 3 mi. downstream from Toledo, Blind Slough, OR X OR (tidal). Tributary of Knappa Slough. 10 mi. upstream from Astoria, OR Blind Slough/ Gnat Creek, OR X (tidal at mile 2.0). Boone Slough, OR X Tributary of Yaquina River between Newport and Toledo, OR. Side channel of Willamette River. 3 miles upstream from Booneville Channel, OR X Corvallis, OR. Boulder Creek, OR X 7 miles N of Lake Quinalt. Side channel of Columbia River. 5 miles N of Clatskanie, OR Bradbury Slough, OR X (tidal). Brownlee Reservoir, ID /OR X See Snake River. Also known as South Channel.
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Waterway Transport in the Baltic Sea Region
    Inland waterway transport in the Baltic Sea region Service implementation guideline © HHM © EUREX s.r.o. © RCNK February 2019 CONTENT Introduction 3 Best practices: how to make IWT operationally and economically possible? 5 How to increase Inland navigation in the BSR? 8 How to set-up a new inland waterway service? 12 Business case: Sweden 16 Business case: Lithuania 18 This guideline is part of the Interreg Baltic Sea region project EMMA, work package 4 “Making the market more acquainted with the potentials of inland waterway transport in the Baltic Sea Region”, activity 4.4. For more information please visit www.project-emma.eu. 2 INTRODUCTION Inland waterway transport (IWT) is safe, Small inland ships generally carry up to 500 t of environmentally friendly and economically bulk commodities, whereas medium and large feasible. However, for many decision makers ships carry up to 2 000 t of dry bulk and up to responsible for setting up transport chains in the 3 000 t of liquid bulk. A pusher convoy with two Baltic Sea Region (BSR), IWT is not considered barges can carry over 7 000 t of dry bulk. This as an alternative to rail and mainly road equals approximately 175 railway wagons of transportation. This has also to do with limited 40 t each or 280 road trucks of 25 t payload knowledge about IWT and its integration into each. The largest inland container ships can international transport chains. They see it as too today load over 400 TEUs. Large shipments complicated and too risky. Furthermore, make sense with a deliberate policy of bundling acquisition efforts of inland navigation shipping volumes driven by digitalisation and fed by lines are often weak.
    [Show full text]
  • Inland Waterways Audit Techniques Guide
    Inland Waterways Audit Techniques Guide NOTE: This document is not an official pronouncement of the law or the position of the Service and can not be used, cited, or relied upon as such. This guide is current through the publication date. Since changes may have occurred after the publication date that would affect the accuracy of this document, no guarantees are made concerning the technical accuracy after the publication date. Contents Preface............................................................................................................................................. 2 Chapter 1 - Overview of the Inland Waterway Industry................................................................. 3 I. General.................................................................................................................................... 3 II. Economic Impact.................................................................................................................... 3 III. Reporting Requirements ....................................................................................................... 4 IV. Industry Organizations and Trade Associations ................................................................... 4 V. Useful Internet Sites .............................................................................................................. 4 Chapter 2 - Pre-Audit Analysis ....................................................................................................... 6 I. Pre-Audit Planning .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • DESIGN GUIDELINES for INLAND WATERWAY DIMENSIONS by Bernhard Söhngen1, Y
    PIANC-World Congress Panama City, Panama 2018 DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR INLAND WATERWAY DIMENSIONS by Bernhard Söhngen1, Y. Cordier2, J.-M. Deplaix3, K. Eloot4, J. Iribarren5, P.-J. Pompee6, K. Rettemeier7 ABSTRACT The PIANC INCOM WG 141 was founded in 2010 to provide planners of inland waterways with design standards for inland waterways. The report with the title “Design Guidelines for of Inland Waterway Dimensions” will be published in 2018. In 18 meetings and three interim meetings on special questions, the group has undertaken a comprehensive view on guidelines and practice examples as well as methods for detailed design. International standards as well as practice examples show a wide scatter of recommended waterway dimensions. One reason for the differences is the great variety in traffic density but also the tradition of shipping in different countries. Furthermore, especially waterways with significant flow velocities as rivers are a complex system influenced by its varying bathymetry and currents to mention just a few aspects. So it is not appropriate to give just “one” design waterway dimension. Instead a special design method was developed, basing generally on the application of three design methods: “Concept Design Method” (coming from conceptual), “Practice Approach” and “Detailed Design”. Special recommendations will be provided for designing fairways in canals and rivers, bridge opening widths, lock approach length’s and widths and the dimensions of turning basins, junctions and berthing places. The “Concept Design Method” provides basic dimensions for designing the necessary waterway dimensions. The data come mostly from existing guidelines. In a next step, called "Extended Concept Design Method", special aspects as wind or currents will be accounted for by providing formulae, derived from approximations of the driving dynamics of inland vessels.
    [Show full text]
  • System Transportation Marine
    Marine Transportation System Catalogue of Louisiana’s Waterways - 2016 Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development Division of Multimodal Planning Intermodal Transportation Section Marine & Rail Shawn D. Wilson, Ph.D. Secretary— Department of Transportation and Development Dennis Decker Assistant Secretary—Multimodal Planning Phil Jones Deputy Assistant Secretary—Intermodal Transportation Sharon J. Balfour Marine & Rail Administrator 1201 Capitol Access Road Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70802 (Cover artwork is Houma Navigation Canal at crossing of Gulf Intracoastal Waterway) 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Catalogue of Individual Waterways Deep Draft Waterways Mississippi River Calcasieu River Louisiana Offshore Oil Port (LOOP) Coastal Waterways Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW) Bayou Teche Mermentau River Vermilion River Bayou Lafourche Houma Navigation Canal Inland Waterways Atchafalaya River GIWW Morgan City – Port Allen Route Ouachita & Black Rivers Red River (the J. Bennett Johnston Waterway) Shallow Draft Mississippi River (North of Baton Rouge) Current Navigation Deepening Studies Mississippi River Ship Channel Acadiana Gulf of Mexico Access Channel Houma Navigation Canal Baptiste Collette Bayou Navigation Channel Glossary 3 Summary Louisiana is a leader in marine transportation and is number one in tonnage in the nation. The key to Louisiana’s economy is to stay a leader and continue to attract new business to the region. We can do this by keeping our waterways and infrastructure open and accessible to all types of businesses. A key issue for Louisiana’s Marine Transportation System is that deeper channels are needed to the Gulf. Deeper water is needed to move larger projects out to the Gulf of Mexico and keep Louisiana fabricators and the many associated businesses and water transportation companies competitive in the global market.
    [Show full text]
  • New Orleans Metropolitan Inland Waterway Container Transport (IWCT) Feasibility Study September 2011
    Gulf Coast Research Center for Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency The LSU / UNO University Transportation Center New Orleans Metropolitan Inland Waterway Container Transport (IWCT) Feasibility Study September 2011 Final Report Stan L. Swigart / James R. Amdal / Tara Tolford Prepared by: Gulf Coast Research Center for Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency Merritt C. Becker Jr. University of New Orleans Transportation Institute New Orleans, Louisiana 70148 Prepared for: Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes 10 Veterans Memorial Blvd. New Orleans, Louisiana 70124 FHWA Contract No. PL-0011(034) State Project No. 736-36-0057 RPC Task A-3.11 UNO Project No. 000010000000854 New Orleans Metropolitan Inland Waterway Container Transport Feasibility Study Prepared for: Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes Final Report FHWA Contract No. PL-0011(034), State Project No. 736-36-0057, RPC Task A-3.11, UNO Project No. 000010000000854 Financial Acknowledgements The preparation of this report has been financed in part by the Regional Planning Commission for Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard and St. Tammany Parishes using Federal Highway Administration annual planning funds (PL) and by the Gulf Coast Research Center for Evacuation and Transportation Resiliency, a University Transportation Center collaboration between Louisiana State University and the University of New Orleans, using U.S. DOT research funds. Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are solely responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the material and information presented herein. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Telematics Solutions in Maritime and Inland Waterway Transport
    Telematics Solutions in Maritime and Inland Waterway Transport For Maisie, my little granddaughter, with hope that humanistic values such as friendship, love, kindness and faith in other people will remain important in your world of augmented and virtual reality, systems of telematics and arti! cial intelligence Telematics Solutions in Maritime and Inland Waterway Transport By Ryszard K. Miler Telematics Solutions in Maritime and Inland Waterway Transport By Ryszard K. Miler Peer-review Professor Andrzej Makowski Translation Małgorzata Wilska Layout, graphics and typesetting Michał Janczewski Front cover – courtesy of Rolls-Royce Ship Intelligence Acknowledgement Author wishes to thank to the Rector and Chancellor of the WSB University in Gdańsk, Poland for internal grant and " nancial support # is book " rst published 2019 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2019 by Ryszard K. Miler All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-3282-8 ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-3282-3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction . 1 Chapter 1. Maritime and inland waterway transport . 9 1.1. A notion of maritime and inland waterway transport . 9 1.1.1. # e domain of maritime transport . 9 1.1.2. # e domain of inland waterway transport . 16 1.2. Taxonomic and morphological elements of maritime and inland waterway transport .
    [Show full text]
  • Design of Locks Part 1
    DESIGNDESIGN OFOF LOCKSLOCKS 1 Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management Civil Engineering Division Directorate-General Public Works and Water Management Design of locks Part 1 Table of contents part 1: Foreword 1. Introduction 1-1 1.1 Locks in the Netherlands 1-1 1.2 Objective 1-2 1.3 Overview of content 1-2 1.4 Justification 1-3 2. Program of Requirements 2-1 2.1 Introduction 2-1 2.2 Preconditions 2-2 2.2.1 Topography 2-2 2.2.2 Existing lock (locks) 2-2 2.2.3 Water levels (approx.) 2-2 2.2.4 Wind 2-3 2.2.5 Morphology 2-3 2.2.6 Soil characteristics 2-3 2.3 Functional requirements 2-4 2.3.1 Functional requirements regarding navigation 2-4 2.3.1.1 General 2-4 2.3.1.2 Lock approaches 2-5 2.3.1.3 Leading jetties 2-6 2.3.1.4 Chamber and heads 2-6 2.3.2 Functional requirements regarding the water retaining (structure) 2-7 2.3.3 Functional requirements regarding water management 2-8 2.3.3.1 General 2-8 2.3.3.2 Limiting water loss 2-8 2.3.3.3 Separation of salt and fresh water or clean and polluted water 2-9 2.3.3.4 Water intake and discharge 2-9 2.3.4 Functional requirements regarding the crossing, dry infrastructure 2-10 2.3.4.1 Roads 2-10 2.3.4.2 Cables and mains 2-11 2.4 User requirements 2-13 2.4.1 Levels 2-13 2.4.1.1 Locking levels 2-13 2.4.1.2 Design levels 2-14 2.4.2 Possible preference for separating different kinds of vessels 2-15 2.4.2.1 Separation in using line-up area, waiting area and chamber 2-15 2.4.2.2 Separation for use of the leading jetty 2-16 2.4.3 Mooring facilities in chamber and lock approach 2-17 2.4.3.1
    [Show full text]