DOCSLIB.ORG

Skagit Delta Tidegates and Fish Initiative Implementation Agreement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Skagit Delta Tidegates and Fish Initiative Implementation Agreement Skagit Delta Tidegates and Fish Initiative Implementation Agreement Developed by: Western Washington Agricultural Association NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife May 28, 2008 SIGNATURE DRAFT SKAGIT DELTA TIDEGATES AND FISH INITIATIVE SIGNATURE DRAFT - MAY 28, 2008 PARTICIPANTS Western Washington Agricultural Association Curtis Johnson President Mike Shelby Executive Director Mike Rundlett Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Manager Patty Michak MarineView Fisheries Consulting, Inc. NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service Tom Sibley Branch Chief, Northern Puget Sound Habitat Branch Dayna Matthews West Coast ESA Enforcement Coordinator Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Mike Bireley Special Assistant/Collaborative Issues - Facilitator Bob Everitt Regional Director Brian Williams Area Habitat Biologist U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Randel Perry Project Manager, Application Review Section Washington Department of Ecology Alice Kelly Regional Planner, Northwest Regional Office Governor’s Office of Regulatory Assistance Sheila Hosner Northwest Regulatory Assistance Lead IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT /P ARTICIPANTS i SKAGIT DELTA TIDEGATES AND FISH INITIATIVE SIGNATURE DRAFT - MAY 28, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS PARTICIPANTS ...............................................................................................................................................I TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................II LIST OF TABLES..........................................................................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................1 PART 1: PURPOSE AND INTENT ............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT ............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2 DURATION OF AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................1-5 PART 2: FRAMEWORK FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION ...................................2-1 2.1 COVERAGE AREA FOR TIDEGATE AND FLOODGATE ACTIONS ...............................................................2-1 2.2 RESTORATION AREA ..............................................................................................................................2-1 2.2 CLASSIFICATION OF WATERCOURSES ....................................................................................................2-4 2.3. INFRASTRUCTURE INVENTORY .............................................................................................................2-6 2.3.1 Tidegates by District .....................................................................................................................2-7 2.2.2 Floodgates by District...................................................................................................................2-9 PART 3: PERMITTING – TIDEGATE AND FLOODGATE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT ........3-1 3.1. REGULATORY JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................3-1 3.1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ......................................................................................................3-1 3.1.2 Washington Department of Ecology .............................................................................................3-2 3.1.3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife...............................................................................3-3 3.1.4 Skagit/Snohomish Counties...........................................................................................................3-3 3.2 PERMITTING PATHWAYS ........................................................................................................................3-4 3.2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Permitting Process.......................................................................3-4 3.2.2 Washington Department of Ecology Permitting Process..............................................................3-7 3.2.3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Permitting Process ...............................................3-8 3.2.4 Skagit/Snohomish Counties...........................................................................................................3-8 3.2.5 Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application (JARPA) .................................................................3-9 3.2.6 Tribal Parties..............................................................................................................................3-10 3.3. EMERGENCY TIDEGATE AND FLOODGATE REPAIR /R EPLACEMENT .....................................................3-10 3.3.1 Federal Emergency Protocols.....................................................................................................3-10 3.3.2 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Emergency Protocols .......................................3-11 3.3.3 County Emergency Protocols......................................................................................................3-12 PART 4: RESOURCE PROTECTION AND CONSERVATION MEASURES....................................4-1 4.1 TIDEGATE /F LOODGATE MAINTENANCE ACTIONS – GENERAL DESCRIPTION AND CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCING ...............................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Minor Repair.................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.2 Major Repair.................................................................................................................................4-1 4.1.3 Replacement..................................................................................................................................4-2 4.2 TIDEGATE AND FLOODGATE MAINTENANCE SPECIES IMPACT ANALYSIS ..............................................4-3 4.3 MAINTENANCE - REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT - BMP S ..........................................................................4-5 4.3.1 Cofferdams....................................................................................................................................4-5 4.3.2 Salmonid Removal ........................................................................................................................4-6 4.3.3 General .........................................................................................................................................4-7 4.4 ESTUARY RESTORATION ........................................................................................................................4-8 4.4.1 Target Acreage for Estuarine Habitat Restoration.......................................................................4-8 4.4.2 Priority Estuary Restoration Projects...........................................................................................4-9 4.5 ESTUARY RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTION HABITAT CREDIT ............................................4-13 IMPLEMENTATION AGREEMENT /T ABLE OF CONTENTS ii SKAGIT DELTA TIDEGATES AND FISH INITIATIVE SIGNATURE DRAFT - MAY 28, 2008 4.5.1 Credit Determination and Use....................................................................................................4-13 4.5.2 Operational Improvement Actions Credit...................................................................................4-17 4.5.3 Estuary Restoration Implementation Steps and Credit Allocation..............................................4-21 4.5.4 Credit for Existing Estuary Restoration Projects........................................................................4-22 4.6 CREDIT BANKING AND USE PROCESS ..................................................................................................4-22 4.6.1 Credit Banking Process ..............................................................................................................4-22 4.6.2 Credit Use Process .....................................................................................................................4-24 PART 5: ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT............................................................................5-1 5.1 CREDIT ADMINISTRATOR .......................................................................................................................5-1 5.2 OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ........................................................................................................................5-1 5.2.1 Purpose .........................................................................................................................................5-1 5.2.2 Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................5-2 5.2.3 Management and Supervision.......................................................................................................5-2 5.2.4 Operating Process ........................................................................................................................5-3
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CONTROL of .ALLUVIAL RIVERS by STEEL JETTIES By
    CONTROL OF .ALLUVIAL RIVERS BY STEEL JETTIES by E. 1. Carlson and R. A. Dodge, Jr. A paper to be presented at The First Water Resources Engineering Conference of The American Society of Civil Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, May 14-18, 1962 CONTROL OF ALLUVIAL RIVERS BY STEEL JETTIES by E. J. Carlsonl / and R. A. Dodge, Jr. 2 / SYNOPSIS Both field and laboratory studies were conducted to refine the methods used in the design of steel jetty fields for river aline- ment. A set of dimensionless friction head-loss curves, verified by model studies are developed and described. Using the developed curves and reconnaissance field data, a method is given for predict- ing the changes in a riverbed after the designed jetty field is installed. /Head, Sediment Investigations Unit, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Engineering Laboratories, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. 2 /Hydraulic Engineer, Hydraulics Branch, Division of Engineering Laboratories, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. INTRODUCTION Steel jacks and jetties have been used successfully by the Corps of Engineers, highway departments, railway companies, and others to prevent damage to riverbanks, levees, bridge abutments, and other structures. The Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers are using them to stabilize the channel of the Rio Grande within the floodway in the Middle Rio Grande Valley. (1)1 / The individual jack unit consists of three angle irons, 12 or 16 feet in length placed at 90° angles in three planes and joined at their cen- ters, Figure 1. Wire is laced through the angle irons in a standard pattern to tie them together.
    [Show full text]
  • Anacortes Museum Research Files
    Last Revision: 10/02/2019 1 Anacortes Museum Research Files Key to Research Categories Category . Codes* Agriculture Ag Animals (See Fn Fauna) Arts, Crafts, Music (Monuments, Murals, Paintings, ACM Needlework, etc.) Artifacts/Archeology (Historic Things) Ar Boats (See Transportation - Boats TB) Boat Building (See Business/Industry-Boat Building BIB) Buildings: Historic (Businesses, Institutions, Properties, etc.) BH Buildings: Historic Homes BHH Buildings: Post 1950 (Recommend adding to BHH) BPH Buildings: 1950-Present BP Buildings: Structures (Bridges, Highways, etc.) BS Buildings, Structures: Skagit Valley BSV Businesses Industry (Fidalgo and Guemes Island Area) Anacortes area, general BI Boat building/repair BIB Canneries/codfish curing, seafood processors BIC Fishing industry, fishing BIF Logging industry BIL Mills BIM Businesses Industry (Skagit Valley) BIS Calendars Cl Census/Population/Demographics Cn Communication Cm Documents (Records, notes, files, forms, papers, lists) Dc Education Ed Engines En Entertainment (See: Ev Events, SR Sports, Recreation) Environment Env Events Ev Exhibits (Events, Displays: Anacortes Museum) Ex Fauna Fn Amphibians FnA Birds FnB Crustaceans FnC Echinoderms FnE Fish (Scaled) FnF Insects, Arachnids, Worms FnI Mammals FnM Mollusks FnMlk Various FnV Flora Fl INTERIM VERSION - PENDING COMPLETION OF PN, PS, AND PFG SUBJECT FILE REVIEW Last Revision: 10/02/2019 2 Category . Codes* Genealogy Gn Geology/Paleontology Glg Government/Public services Gv Health Hl Home Making Hm Legal (Decisions/Laws/Lawsuits) Lgl
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Meeting
    MEETING SUMMARY IRTPO TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE November 8, 2018 Member Attendance List Members not in Attendance Pete Schrum, Island Transit Don Meehan, District 1 Citizen Rep. Connie Bowers, Island County Public Works Alex Warner, City of Oak Harbor Cac Kamak, City of Oak Harbor Christine Boswell-Still, District 2 Citizen Rep. Bob Monize, District 3 Citizen Rep. Beverly Mesa-Zendt, Island County Planning Stan Berryman, City of Langley Ports Representative Elizabeth Sjostrom, WSDOT Brian Tyhuis, NAS Whidbey Island Facilitator Sharon Sappington, Island County EDC Brian Wood, IRTPO Staff Owen Dennison, Town of Coupeville Other Attendees Thera Black Jack Lynch, Clinton Community Council Nick Pinch, Island Transit Stacy Clauson, WSDOT Public Transportation Ronald Still, citizen (Navy employee) Mehrdad Moini, WSDOT Local Programs Meeting began at 1:00 PM Action Items: Prepare draft Bylaws revisions Bring transportation funding presentation to TAC Capture elements of RTP conversation and bring them to the IRTPO Board Actions: Summary from July meeting was approved Updates: IRTPO developments from October TAC meeting were reviewed: The EB cancelled its December meeting. The EB approved the 2019 Regional Transportation Improvement Program and the projects were sent to WSDOT for inclusion in the STIP. o Sponsors will be able to obligate those projects in January. If a project is in the 2018 STIP, sponsors can still obligate this year (but, will be using 2019 funds). The Board approved the consolidated grant rankings/gradings from the Transportation Equity Committee and these were forwarded to WSDOT Public Transportation. o It was noted that the County Connector transit service was among the top ranked.
    [Show full text]
  • Dealing with Erosion: the Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods
    2ND ANNUAL CAPE COASTAL CONFERENCE Linking Science with Local Solutions and Decision-Making Dealing With Erosion: The Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods Greg Berman (Woods Hole Sea Grant & Cape Cod Cooperative Extension) Photo Credit: Ted Keon Climate Change Impacts In Coastal Environments 34 5 12 Coastal Adaptation On Cape Cod we manage at parcel scale http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/regional/index.php?idp=223 The Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods Why protect properties……..? Town of Brewster example The Facts The Implications Value = $333,000,000 (don’t want takings) Only ~1% of properties To keep the same revenue, ~3% of town area the tax rate would go from 8.18 to 9.06 but they make ~10% of the real estate taxes or ~$300 per household The Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods • Do nothing 1. Will system recover by itself? 2. How far is the structure from the water? 3. Grandfathering protects structures (not lawn) before August 10, 1978 Photo Credit: Ann McNichol The Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods • Do nothing • Vegetation Plant Natives: Root systems stabilize. Take up water. Break the impact of raindrops or wave-splash. Slow down runoff Remove Invasive The Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods • Do nothing • Vegetation • Re-grade The Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods • Do nothing Horizontal • Vegetation • Re-grade • Managed retreat V E R T I C A L The Spectrum of Coastal Erosion Control Methods • Do nothing Photo Credit: Ted Keon • Vegetation • Re-grade • Managed retreat • Beach
    [Show full text]
  • Welcome to the Current!
    Welcome to the Current! Well, here comes Fall! Summer is slowing down and the cooler air is coming in. Leaves are starting to change here and there....and the rain is back. Make sure you come and check out the Park during this cool, sometimes wet season - it is a great place to visit rain or shine! This month in the Current learn about the bridge painting project happening now, a recap of our summer programs and some more history of the Park! Across the bridge by Elle Tracy Photo by Cindy Elliser Beginning in August, 2019, the Washington State Department of Transportation began a two-year project to restore and repaint the Deception Pass bridge – the only link for Whidbey Island residents on an off the island, unless, of course, you have a jet at your disposal. The existing paint work was completed more than 20 years ago, and with salt, wind and wear, the corrosion repair and paint work is necessary to support the resident and tourist traffic, estimated to be about 20,000 vehicles daily. Then there’s the foot traffic…. The temporary metal poles you see rising from the exterior barriers, support containment tarps under the bridge that prevent repair debris from dropping into the water. Containment tarps, photo by Cindy Elliser The project will shut down in the late fall for the winter, to begin again in the spring of 2020. Completion of the work is scheduled for fall of 2020. During work periods, you’ll hear unusual noise during the day, and quieter work noise overnight, when the bridge span is reduced to one lane of traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • Beach Nourishment Effects Østerstrand Fredericia - Denmark 2017
    Beach Nourishment Effects Østerstrand Fredericia - Denmark 2017 Juni 2020 Project Building with Nature (EU-InterReg) Start date 01.11.2016 End date 01.07.2020 Project manager (PM) Ane Høiberg Nielsen Project leader (PL) Per Sørensen Project staff (PS) Henrik Vinge Karlsson Time registering 402412 Approved date 26.06.2020 Signature Report Beach nourishment effects – Østerstrand, Frederica, Denmark Author Henrik Vinge Karlsson and Per Sørensen Keyword Beach nourishment, Nourishment design, Coastal protection, Building with nature, BWN, Fredericia, Østerstrand. Distribution www.kyst.dk, www.northsearegion.eu/building-with-nature Referred to as Kystdirektoratet (2020), Beach nourishment effects – Østerstrand, Frederica; Lemvig. 2 Beach Nourishment Effects Contents 1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Description of Study site .............................................................................................................................5 1.2 Division of study stretch..............................................................................................................................7 1.3 Description of Nourishment ......................................................................................................................7 1.4 Research design ..............................................................................................................................................8 1.4.1 Research questions..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • COASTAL HAZARDS Too Many People Living Too Close to the Edge of a Rising Sea
    COASTAL HAZARDS Too Many People Living Too Close To The Edge Of A Rising Sea A Growing Challenge For The 21st Century This Report Is Part Of The Ocean On The Edge Series Produced By The Aquarium Of The Pacific As Products Of Its National Conference—Ocean On The Edge: Top Ocean Issues, May 2009 2 COASTAL HAZARDS Ocean on the Edge: Top Ocean Issues Making Ocean Issues Come Alive for the Public The conference brought together leading marine scientists and engineers, policy-makers, film-makers, exhibit designers, informal science educators, journalists and communicators to develop a portfolio of models for communicating major ocean issues to the public. This report is one of a series of reports from that conference. The reports include: Coastal Hazards, Marine Ecosystems and Fisheries, Pollution in the Ocean, and Critical Condition: Ocean Health and Human Health. There is also a series of briefer reports on film-making, kiosk messaging design, and communicating science to the public. All reports are available at www.aquariumofpacific.org COASTAL HAZARDS 3 4 COASTAL HAZARDS Acknowledgements Support for the “Ocean on the Edge Conference: Issues” held in May 2009, at Long Beach Top Ocean Issues” was provided by NOAA, Convention Center. Participants in the the National Science Foundation, Southern Coastal Hazards workshop session included: California Edison, SAVOR, the Long Beach Dr. Robert Dean, Dr. R. A. Dalrymple, Dr. Convention Center, and the Aquarium of the Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., Dr. Jerry R. Pacific. Schubel, and Dana Swanson. Sandy Eslinger was the facilitator of the session. Leah Young We are grateful to the Conference’s National and Margaret Schubel were the rapporteurs.
    [Show full text]
  • Mitigation of Channel Shoaling at a Sheltered Inlet Subject to Flood Gate Operations
    Journal of Marine Science and Engineering Article Mitigation of Channel Shoaling at a Sheltered Inlet Subject to Flood Gate Operations Laura Lemke * , Matthew S. Janssen and Jon K. Miller Coastal Engineering Research Group, Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA; [email protected] (M.S.J.); [email protected] (J.K.M.) * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 30 September 2020; Accepted: 29 October 2020; Published: 31 October 2020 Abstract: A comprehensive case study of Keansburg Inlet (New Jersey, USA) is presented with the objective of evaluating inlet management alternatives and assessing the influence of an operational flood gate on channel shoaling. The goal of the research is determining the most effective strategy for minimizing the frequency of maintenance dredging. This study compares the effectiveness of (1) traditional structural solutions; (2) modified dredging templates; and (3) assesses the influence of the flood gate operations during conditions representative of a typical year. Alternative analysis is completed using a coupled hydrodynamic–wave model (Delft3D-Flexible Mesh (FM)) with Real Time Control to simulate morphological changes. The model was calibrated and evaluated using collected field data. Water levels are reproduced within 6% of the spring tide range with lag times less than 20 min. The model results and observations suggest sediment transport is dominated by wave action with pronounced variations in dominant wave direction. The results indicate that changes to the operational dredging, or what the authors have termed broadly as “adaptive dredging techniques”, appear to deliver the most promising improvement. Model results suggest that the current operational procedures of the flood gate do not significantly alter the channel infilling rates and patterns during typical (i.e., non-extreme event) conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Washington State's Scenic Byways & Road Trips
    waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS inSide: Road Maps & Scenic drives planning tips points of interest 2 taBLe of contentS waShington State’S Scenic BywayS & Road tRipS introduction 3 Washington State’s Scenic Byways & Road Trips guide has been made possible State Map overview of Scenic Byways 4 through funding from the Federal Highway Administration’s National Scenic Byways Program, Washington State Department of Transportation and aLL aMeRican RoadS Washington State Tourism. waShington State depaRtMent of coMMeRce Chinook Pass Scenic Byway 9 director, Rogers Weed International Selkirk Loop 15 waShington State touRiSM executive director, Marsha Massey nationaL Scenic BywayS Marketing Manager, Betsy Gabel product development Manager, Michelle Campbell Coulee Corridor 21 waShington State depaRtMent of tRanSpoRtation Mountains to Sound Greenway 25 Secretary of transportation, Paula Hammond director, highways and Local programs, Kathleen Davis Stevens Pass Greenway 29 Scenic Byways coordinator, Ed Spilker Strait of Juan de Fuca - Highway 112 33 Byway leaders and an interagency advisory group with representatives from the White Pass Scenic Byway 37 Washington State Department of Transportation, Washington State Department of Agriculture, Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife, Washington State Tourism, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and State Scenic BywayS Audubon Washington were also instrumental in the creation of this guide. Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway 40 puBLiShing SeRviceS pRovided By deStination
    [Show full text]
  • Impacts of Long Jetties Construction on Shoreline Change at the Western Coast of the Gulf of Thailand
    Article Impacts of Long Jetties Construction on Shoreline Change at the Western Coast of the Gulf of Thailand Nathamon Phanomphongphaisarn.1,2,a, Chaipant Rukvichai1,b, and Butsawan Bidorn1,2,c,* 1 Department of Water Resource Engineering, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand 2 WISE Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], cbutsawan.p @chula.ac.th (Corresponding author) Abstract. Pranburi Jetties, a pair of long jetties with a length of 800 m and 860 m, have been constructed at the Pranburi River inlet, located on the western coast of the Gulf of Thailand since 1999 to stabilize the river mouth. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the responses of shoreline due to the construction of Pranburi Jetties, and the accuracy of the One-Line model (OLM) on predicting the shoreline change due to construction. Based on the shoreline positions retrieving from aerial photographs and satellite imagery during 1967- 2018, the difference in shoreline evolution before and after the construction of the jetties was evaluated using ArcGIS and Digital Shoreline Analysis System. The predicted shorelines using the One-Line model were compared with the image-analyzed shorelines for evaluating the accuracy of the model. The results indicated that the construction of Pranburi Jetties had caused the shoreline accretion at the vicinity of the jetties with the maximum accretion of up to 300 m in 2018. The land growth of 16.2 and 9 ha took place at the northern and southern coasts, respectively. The percentage of errors between the predicted and the image- analyzed shoreline varied from 2 to 13,000 percent with an average of 250 percent.
    [Show full text]
  • Anok" PASS Hr?Rmii.: HAFR No- WA Loi
    :ANOk" PASS Hr?rmii.: HAFR No- WA lOI HSH ;n[T'rK; p ^ " r H9'T At A-"-in ^F^TF' Y >-' r 1 v!F DATA FHOTOGF?AnHS •"■" ic.-> ' cr! ^y^ri^P!^ [■-,;"' T trr; r ; "■' '~ T -'-■ c- 7 ;"-• A >.■• p ::? 7 .-■ -\ ?..) r- f..,_;n '? !•■;r " n \ ;\;_n H L C''! R D f T 1 1 : ".""; ''"U ' "'! PARV:' ^nvvir> ! f ;■>,"" '■'■■.'M"J h-'-'-'i-.' < ""ir" TI :;r y r-.j rrpTPp HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Htefc CANOE PASS BRIDGE HAER No. WA-104 Location: Spanning Canoe Pass between Canoe Island and Fidalgo Island in Skagit County on state route 20, beginning at mile point 42.04 UTM: 10/526300/5361680 10/526380/5361560 Quad: Deception Pass, Wash Date of Construction: 1935 Engineer: Washington Department of Highways, 0. R. Elwell, Bridge Engineer Fabricator: Puget Construction Company of Seattle Wallace Bridge and Structural Steel Company of Seattle, steel fabricator Owner: Washington Department of Highways, since 1977 Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington Present Use: Vehicular and pedestrian traffic Significance: This steel arch and the Deception Pass cantilever bridge (HAER No. WA-103) are examples of advanced steel bridge construction. They also provide motor vehicle and pedestrian access to isolated Whidbey Island. Historian: Robert W. Hadlow, Ph.D., August 1993 CANOE PASS BRIDGE HAER No. WA-104 (Page 2) History of the Bridge The Washington Department of Highways completed the Deception Pass Bridge and its sister structure, the Canoe Pass Bridge, in 1935 as a New Deal interagency project financed through the federal Public Works Administration, the Washington Emergency Relief Administration, and county funds.
    [Show full text]
  • Large Scale Impacts of Jetties and Training Walls - Experience on the Australian East Coast
    LARGE SCALE IMPACTS OF JETTIES AND TRAINING WALLS - EXPERIENCE ON THE AUSTRALIAN EAST COAST Angus Gordon, Coastal Zone Management and Planning, [email protected] Alexander Nielsen, Advisian Worley Group, [email protected] INTRODUCTION The erosion has continued due to both the realignment of Entrance jetties and training walls have instigated the beach and the net loss of sand blown into the dunes fundamental perturbations to coastal and estuary of Newcastle Bight (Gordon & Roy, 1977). This has processes at several locations on the Australian eastern resulted in the requirement to construct a rock revetment seaboard inducing long term changes to foreshore to protect Mitchell Street and the village (Figure 2). More alignments, tidal current velocities, tidal plane elevations recently it has been necessary to undertake beach and marine ecologies with significant consequences, nourishment to offset the on-going coastal recession. some having been realised only recently. This paper presents examples of long-term impacts of entrance jetties and training walls on coastal and estuary processes, gleaned from experience on the NSW coast. COASTALPROCESSES On coastlines with high transport rates of littoral drift, jetties have trapped sand inducing erosion on down-drift beaches at the Tweed River (Delft 1970) and Coffs Harbour (Lord & van Kerkvoort 1981). Another less-appreciated impact of jetties on coastal alignments has been the changes they can induce in near-shore wave patterns that, in turn, will re-align ocean Figure 1 - Left: Entrance to Newcastle Harbour (circa foreshores significantly (Miller & Nielsen 1995, Klein et al. 1850). Right: Present-day entrance with MEPBAY 1850 2003, Gordon 2011).
    [Show full text]