~. icms5.revize.com/revize/floridainland/nassau-duval dmmp... · 2017. 10. 10. · i i i ~. i i i r...
TRANSCRIPT
III~.
IIIrr!
I.
nII
Ii, ,
! I. ,
I
tIIJ
LONG-RANGE DREDGED MATERIALMANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE
INTRACOASTAL WATERWAYIN NORTHEAST FLORIDA
Final ReportSeptember, 1986
Prepared for:
FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
By:
R. Bruce TaylorWilliam F. McFetridgeTaylor & Divoky Inc.
9086 Cypress Green DriveJacksonville, FL 32216
904/731-7040
Ii
.,,
r-:i '
'!I i, '
r, I
I', I
nI it
n
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The identification and permitting of suitable dredged material
disposal sites for the intracoastal waterway in Florida has become
increasingly difficult because of the nature of dredging and disposal
operations and the environmentally sensitive areas in which they occur.
In response to this situation the Florida Inland Navigation District
has initiated a program to demonstrate the feasibility of long term
dredged material management which, it is hoped, will provide a means
for accommodating all maintenance material dredged from the waterway
during the next fifty years and beyond. The first work performed under
this program is documented in this report. It addresses Phase I of a
two-phased effort to develop a long-range dredged material management
plan for 38 miles of intracoastal waterway channels in Nassau and Duval
Counties. The plan, when completed, will serve as a model for similar
efforts addressing the remaining reaches of the waterway south to
Miami.
Work Performed
Engineering records at the Jacksonville District Office of
the Army Corps of Engineers were reviewed and analyzed to develop
estimates for the fifty-year maintenance dredging and disposal
requirements of the 38 miles of channel within the study area. The
analysis showed a projected total maintenance requirement of
5,046,083 cubic yards of bulked material distributed over seven
reaches of the waterway in which historical dredging has occurred.
Corresponding estimates of existing disposal capacity were
obtained from a preliminary assessment of 43 sites for which legal
access is presently available. From this. only four sites we r e
found acceptable for further consideration. Under the assumption
that these four sites could be used to their full potential, a
projectea fifty-year short-fall in disposal capacity of 3,495,797
cubic yards was obtained. Work was then begun to identify and
I'
I
r-I
II
rI. !
evaluate alternative disposal sites capable of satisfying this
need.
A disposal concept, consisting of three basic requirements,
was established to provide an essential focus to the site
selection process. This concept was to become a key element of
the dredged material management plan. The three requirements
constituting the disposal concept are:
(1) All future disposal will be confined to upland
areas.
(2) Sites will be established to provide
centralized disposal in a minimum number of
locations per operating reach of waterway as
determined by the analysis of historical data.
(3) Disposal sites will be operated and maintained
as permanent facilities.
Within this framework a total of 29 sites were identified for
further consideration. These included the four sites with
existing legal access which were retained earlier in the study.
All 29 sites were then subjected to a preliminary evaluation
consisting of an examination of site characteristics using
controlled black and white aerial photography, high altitude color
infrared photography, and wetlands inventory maps. This was
followed by a field inspection of each site. From this, 16 sites
were selected to form a site bank of nine primary, or first
choice, sites and seven secondary, or alternative, sites.
Representatives of all cognizant federal and state agencies
were given an opportunity to review the work performed during a
one day workshop at the DER offices in Tallahassee. In addition,
they were invited to participate in a two day field inspection of
the nine primary sites following the workshop. Comments received
I,
iI
r;I j
from the workshop and the field inspection were used in
combination with a standard set of evaluation criteria addressing
engineering/operational, environmental, and land use
considerations to perform a final site evaluation. Final
recommendations were based on this evaluation.
In support of the sites selected and the disposal concept
which guided the selection process, a set of basic considerations
for the operation and maintenance of disposal sites was also
developed. This was done to provide a basis for the long term
management of maintenance material dredged from the waterway.
Phase II of this study will utilize this information in
combination with specific site characteristics to develop a site
management plan for each of the disposal sites selected.
All work performed under this contract is documented in this
report and a companion set of 64 photo base engineering plans which
summarize pertinent channel and disposal site information.
Recommendations
The coastal area of Nassau and Duval Counties is
characterized by a mixture of heavily urbanized coastal
communities, pristine expanses of salt marsh, upland island areas,
and an extensive state aquatic preserve. In spite of the
difficulties presented by such an area, a workable plan was
developed which has the potential of satisfying the maintenance
material disposal requirements of the waterway in perpetuity.
However, several issues remain to be addressed. These include a
more detailed documentation of on-site conditions, the development
of detailed site plans and preliminary engineering drawings, and
the acquisition of sites for public use. These should be
addressed as expeditiously as possible in Phase II of the study.
A detailed scope of work is proposed for this effort in Section
6.0 of this report.
": I
ii
II
'ii iI
~,
It is also recommended that serious consideration be given to
the establishment of an institutional mechanism for the long term
operation and maintenance of the disposal sites. For this plan to
be successful a continuing commitment of manpower and financial
resources will be required to operate the sites, maintain the
facilities, and provide for the sale and reuse of dredged
material. Without such a commitment the permanent nature of the
sites and the ultimate effectiveness of this plan will be lost.
r!
r!
,-I ', ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
1. 0 INTRODUCTION. •
1.1 Background
1.2 Project Overview
iii
iv
v
1
1
4
2.0 50-YEAR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
2.1 Historical Analysis ....
2.1.1 Material Quantities and Locations
2.1.2 Material Quality
2.2
2.3
EXisting Sites
Projected Disposal Needs
7
7
7
21
26
32
3.0 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
3.1 Disposal Concept
3.2 Identification of Alternative Sites
3.3 Site Inspection . .
33
33
36
38
ESTABLISHMENT OF SITE BANK
4.1 Evaluation Criteria.
4.2 Agency Input
4.3 Site Bank ..
IIj i
r-:i
4.0
4.1.1
4.1.2
4.1.3
Engineering/Operational Considerations
Environmental Considerations
Socioeconomic Considerations
45
45
46
48
51
51
54
II
5.0 DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
5.1 Site Design .
5.2 Site Management During Dredging
5.3 Site Management Following Dredging
i
63
64
66
67
6.0 RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF WORK - PHASE TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 70
REFERENCES . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76
r-rI
r
I
r-r-
i ;I
ni .• I
r-;
j
APPENDIX A:
APPENDIX B:
APPENDIX C:
APPENDIX D:
APPENDIX E:
Agency Contacts
Dike Requirements and Disposal Capacity Analysis
Site Bank: Primary and Secondary Sites
Alternative Site Drawings
Categorization of Vegetation Communities
ii
nl .1
r, I
niCi• I: J
'li I
"! !
rI
II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to express their appreciation to E.
Lynn Mosura and Dr. James Sullivan of Water and Air Research,
Inc. for their assistance in the performance of this project.
iii
Figure C.14a Cabbage Creek (1-11.7 E-SJ3-6)
Figure C.14b Cabbage Creek (1-11.7 E-SJ3-6)
r>
!
~I
!,,I
il, .
r
Figure 1-1
Figure 2-1
Figure 3-1
Figure 4-1
Figure c.i.
Figure C.2.
Figure C.3.
Figure C.4.
Figure C.5.
Figure C.6.
Figure C.7.
Figure C.8.
Figure C.9.
Figure C.10.
Figure C.1l.
Figure C.12.
Figure C.13.
LIST OF FIGURES
Study Area
Definition of Reaches and Identificationof Existing Sites ..
Identification of Alternative Sites
Identification of Sites within Site Bank
Piney Island (A-3.3 W-28-1)
N.E. Black Hammock Island (A-12.4 W-27-3)
Central Black Hammock Island (A-15.2 W-19-4)W. Central Black Hammock lsI. (A-15.4 W-19-5)
West of Sisters Creek (A-20.7 W-5-7)
N. Heckscher Drive (A-21.4 E-2-9)
Bullard Property (1-1.7 W-Du5-1)
Moody Marine (1-5.0 W-Du9-3)
Pablo Creek (1-11.5 W-SJ3-5)
Crane Island (A-3.5 E-28-2)
Cedar Point (A-17.0 W-12-6)
Fanning Island (A-21.3 E-2-8)
DeBlieu Creek (1-3.1 E-Du6-2)
Hogpen Creek (1-5.8 W-Dull-4)
3
14
37
57
C-2
C-5
C-8
C-10
C-12
C-14
C-16
C-18
C-22
C-24
C-26
C-28
C-30
C-33
C-34
iv
Site Bank, ICWW Mile 0.0 to 12.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 61
LIST OF TABLFS
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9
Inventory of Legally Accessible, Useable Disposal SitesICWW Mile 0.0 to 12.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
16
11
19
43
58
41
Summary of Historical Dredging,AIWW Mile 0.0 to 22.02
Intracoastal Waterway
Summary of Historical Dredging,ICW1, Mile 0.0 to 12.05
Inventory of Alternative Disposal Sites,AIWW Mile 0.0 to 22.02 .
Inventory of Alternative Disposal Sites,ICWW Mile 0.0 to 12.5 .
Site Bank, AIWW Mile 0.0 to 22.02
Inventory of Legally Accessible, Useable Disposal SitesAIWW Mile O.a to 22. 02 . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
nn[
Table 2-1
!Table 2-2
I Table 2-3
[Table 2-4
[Table 2-5
[Table 2-6
r---I[
r- Table 3-1,I
r Table 3-2L
r-r-
Table 4-1
I Table 4-2I
[
[
[~
v
I 1.0 INTRODUCTION
r-
I
r:i[
n
II
nn1
J
nl I
r-I
This report documents work performed during the first phase of a
two phased effort to develop a fifty year plan for the management of
maintenance material dredged from intracoastal waterway channels in
Nassau and Duval Counties, Florida. The initial phase of the project
focuses on the development of basic plan concepts, the definition of
short and long-term program needs, and the identification of suitable
disposal sites which satisfy these needs. Phase two of the project
will first address the legal, social, and economic issues of site
acquisition. If acquisition is considered to be feasible, work will
then proceed with the detailed documentation of site conditions
required for preliminary site engineering and permit preparation.
It is hoped that this plan, when completed, will serve as a model
for dredged material management along the remaining reaches of the
waterway south to Miami. The approach developed shows promise of
resolving the increasing difficulty of managing material dredged from
federally maintained channels within Florida. It requires a systematic
documentation of disposal alternatives, and a vigorous pursuit of those
alternatives shown to be the most favorable. If this is done the long
term needs of the waterway and the public will be served.
1.1 Background
Since its formation in 1927 the Florida Inland Navigation
District has served as the state governmental body responsible for
maintaining intracoastal waterway channels along the east coast of
Florida between Fernandina and Miami. The waterway along this
stretch of coast consists of two separate federal navigation
projects. From the southern limits of Fernandina Harbor to
Jacksonville Harbor, the channel is the southernmost part of the
Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) which extends from Norfolk,
Virginia to Jacksonville, Florida. From Jacksonville Harbor south
to Miami, the authorized federal channel is simply called the
During the early years of World War II, 1941-42, the
authorized project depth of the AIWW was increased from 8 to 12
ft. mean low water. Ten years later, in 1951, the Duval County
stretch of the ICWW was similarly deepened. Since that time no
subsequent changes have been made and both stretches of the
channel have been maintained at 12 ft. Prior to 1970, maintenance
of the waterway was relatively straightforward. Growing
environmental concerns related to dredging and dredged material
disposal had not yet been translated into legislative action.
Thus, engineering, cost, and operational considerations were of
paramount importance to the design and execution of channel
maintenance projects. The availability of disposal sites was also
not a problem. An abundant number of perpetual easements had been
granted to the Florida Inland Navigation District by the Trustees
of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (hereafter referred to as
Trustees). The majority of these were located entirely within the
sovereign waters of the State and included both open water areas
and expanses of pristine salt marsh.
Thus,
includes
nnnnrnnnnnn
Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW).
area, as shown in Figure 1-1,
and the ICWW.
the Nassau - Duval study
portions of both the AIWW
rn~
nnrI
With the passing of the 1960's, the situation changed. In
1969, the Trustees adopted a resolution creating the Nassau
River--St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve (Figure 1-1).
Encompassing an area of 57,000 acres between the Highway AlA
bridge to Amelia Island and the St. Johns River, the preserve
brought with it severe restrictions on the placement of dredged
material within its boundaries. Subsequently, other state and
federal legislation specified that all dredging and dredged
material disposal activities satisfy a spectrum of environmental
requirements dealing with water quality, habitat protection
threatened and endangered species, and the filling of wetlands.
The long range implications of these actions have become more
2
>
ILl..J..J
::l'
3
FIGU
RE
[-ISTU
DY
AR
EA
LE
GE
ND
Iff\tmJ-W
AT
ER
WA
Y
ci>..Jm:t:U<[
Wm
PR
ES
ER
VE
AT
LA
NT
ICIN
TR
AC
OA
ST
AL
WA
TE
RW
AY
(A.I.W
.W.)
22
.02
MIL
ES
-------_
..t4---IN
TR
AC
OA
ST
AL
WA
TE
RW
AY
tr.c.w.w
j1
2.5
0MILES-~
11111JJJJ11~1,:>..?
~~
J
tj
<fa
:
'"
JJJJJ
!i
r-!
n
apparent in the ensuing years. Since 1970 the AIWW in Nassau and
Duval Counties has been dredged once, in 1983. The ICWW was last
dredged in 1973; however, a permit application has been submitted
for the maintenance of this part of the waterway later this year
or early 1987. With each of these operations the identification
and permitting of suitable dredged material disposal sites has
become increasingly difficult. Areas in which existing disposal
easements are located have consistently been found to be
unacceptable. Therefore, the Florida Inland Navigation District
(hereafter referred to as FIND) decided that the time had come to
take positive action to secure its ability to maintain the
waterway for future generations within the existing framework of
engineering, operational, and environmental constraints. This
project is a result of that decision.
1.2 Project Overview
The long range dredged material management plan for the AIWW
and ICWW in Nassau and Duval Counties is embodied by the specific
sites selected for maintenance material disposal; the inherent
characteristics of each site resulting from the criteria used in
the si te evaluation process; and the recommended g u i.d e Lf.n e s for
long term operation and maintenance of the sites. Each of these
plan components is documented in this report as well as the
methods used in their development.
A key element in the plan development process was the
participation of cognizant federal, state, and local agency
representatives. Throughout the entire project an advisory
committee consisting of representatives from the FIND, the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), and the Jacksonville
District, Army Corps of Engineers met monthly with the contractor
to monitor work in progress, review technical decisions, and
establish project policy for the execution of future tasks. Input
4
r!l
and guidance received from this group of individuals proved
invaluable to the successful completion of the project.
In addition, specific activities were conceived and carried
out to inform other agency representatives with a potential
interest in the project of the work in progress, and to solicit
their comments at various stages in the work effort. These
activities included initial telephone and letter contacts followed
by a short presentation in the Tallahassee offices of the DER to
inform all concerned of the impending work and to solicit
pertinent information. Later, following an initial evaluation of
sites, the same individuals were invited to attend a one day
workshop to review the work completed and the specific sites under
final consideration. Agencies were then given the opportunity to
participate in a field inspection of each site to provide the
contractor with additional comments for consideration in the final
site evaluation. A complete list of agency representatives
contacted during the project is provided in APPENDIX A.
Development of the dredged material management plan
consisted of a three-phased evaluation of candidate disposal sites
designed to satisfy projected disposal requirements within the
framework of a controlling disposal concept for the waterway. The
sites finally selected were then assembled to form a site bank of
primary and secondary sites. In addition, considerations for the
long term management of dredged material placed in the sites were
included in the plan, as were recommendations for future priority
actions.
The entire process is documented in the remaining sections of
this report beginning with Section 2.0 which describes the
establishment of fifty year disposal needs for various reaches of
the waterway. This was accomplished by comparing projected
disposal quantities and dredging locations based upon historical
data with the capacities of existing sites with easements.
5
Ii
!
I
!!
,-
i,
Section 3.0 discusses the disposal concept, the initial selection
of alternative disposal sites, and the re-evaluation of all
existing and alternative sites based upon field observations. The
final site evaluation process is described in Section 4.0
including the evaluation criteria used, the incorporation of
agency comments, and the formation of the site bank. Section 5.0
presents a brief discussion of the considerations of dredged
material management recommended for use during the long term
operation of the disposal sites. Finally, Section 6.0 summarizes
the results of this study and presents recommendations for the
future needs of the program.
6
r
II
2.0 50-YEAR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT
2.1 Historical Analysis
2.1.1 Material Quantities and Locations
The establishment of a base line rate of shoaling for
projecting fifty-year dredging and disposal volumes required a
detailed examination of Jacksonville District, Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) archival records and engineering plans related to
AIWW and ICWW maintenance dredging. These records represent the
best available information on patterns of sedimentation within the
project area. Dredging frequency is often dependent on factors
unrelated to rates of shoaling, including the availability of
funding and equipment, contracting procedures, and environmental
and land-use concerns related to the disposal of maintenance
material. Dredging volumes, however, are based on regular and
comprehensive bathymetric surveys of the waterway, and over an
adequate period of record, provide a reasonable and reliable
estimate of existing patterns of shoaling.
Within the Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, all
available sources of dredging information were consulted to insure
accuracy, consistency and completeness. Preliminary sources
included the annual Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE)
Reports, previous COE summaries of maintenance dredging within the
project area, and interviews with COE personnel. Also, specific
District maintenance dredging plans were examined. Only those
maintenance events following the establishment of the present 12
ft. project depth were referenced (i.e., post-1942 for the AIWW-,
and post-195l for the ICWW-segments of the study area).
The compilation of historical
various preliminary sources and its
usable form was a difficult task.
7
dredging information from the
subsequent condensation into a
No single preliminary source
,-!
I,
had complete information, and the resolution of inconsistencies
among the sources was necessary prior to locating dredging plans.
This task accomplished, the records then had to be physically
located under several filing systems within the district office
archives, and missing plans recalled from inter-division loan or
from alternate storage at the Jacksonville District Dredge Depot.
Of those maintenance dredging events referenced in the OCE
reports or other preliminary sources, only the plans for the 1943
and 1945 channel maintenance within the AIWW were unavailable. For
these events the only information available was total pay volumes
for project channel reaches given in the annual OCE summaries.
All other relevant dredging information was verified by reference
to microfiche versions of the original engineering drawings.
Through this procedure, it was determined that maintenance within
the AIWW segment of the study area since the establishment of the
present -12.0 ft. MLW project depth consisted of eight separate
events. Within the ICWW segment, ten events were documented,
including one which is currently planned.
Description of the channel geometry, specifically the
detailed longitudinal stationing information included with the
more recent dredging plans, was used to establish a system for
cross-referencing a particular location along the waterway to both
cut and station, and channel mileage. Within the AIWW segment of
the study area, channel mileage was measured from the southern
boundary of the Fernandina Harbor Project (AIWW mile 0.0). Within
the ICI.JW segment, channel mileage was measured from the southern
boundary of the Jacksonville Harbor Project (ICWI.J mile 0.0).
This system, presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, was used
throughout the remainder of the project. Its adoption also
required resolution of inconsistencies present in the older plan
documents as a result of modifications in channel geometry over
the lifetime of the project. Additional information obtained from
8
nn Table 2-1: ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERI~AY!
~
r ( 1)Cut Length Total Mileage S from FoH.P.
( "'8600' FoHoP. to Cut 34)
r 34 1,226.30 9,826.30 1.86
33 296.86 10,123.16 1.92
n 32 2,025.91 12,149.07 2.30i 31 1,549.87 13,698.94 2.60
r 30 2,615.36 16,314.30 3.09
29 943.14 17,257.44 3.27
28 8,253.73 25,511.17 4.83
n 27T 2,127.35 27,638.52 5.23
27S 923.47 28,561. 99 5.41n 27R 834.10 29,396.09 5.57' ,
27Q 3,578.30 32,974.39 6.25
r 27p 2,289.81 35,264.20 6.68
27N 2,470.13 37,734.33 7.15
r 27M 1,090.80 38,825.13 7.35
2h 1,282.94 40,108.07 7.60
27K 2,889.85 42,997.92 8.14r-r.
[ 27J 642.75 43,640.67 8.27
27H 688.84 44,329.51 8.40,
27C 1,859.05 46,188.56 8.75L •
2,350.67 48,539.2327F 9.19
r 27E 2,535.18 51,074.41 9.67
27n 3,196.52 54,270.93 10.28
n 27C 1,617.13 55,888.06 10.58! :
27B 2,116.25 58,004.31 10.99
27A 3,024.42 61,028.73 11.56
r 27 7,055.72 68,084.45 12.89
26A 622.82 68,707.27 13.01
r 26 505.17 69,212.44 13.11
25 1,143.69 70,356.13 13.33r[
9
n
(1)Cut Length Total Mileage S from F.H.P.
( "'8600' F.H.P. to Cut 34)
(1) Channel Cut Numbered North from Jacksonville Harbor Project
r
I
-I
r,i
IIi
r-'
I
24 1,527.18 71,883.31
23 3,290.80 75,174.11
22 1,037.37 76,211.48
21 1,059.37 77,270.85
20 1,229.08 78,499.93
19 2,889.85 81,389.78
18 1,000.12 82,389.90
17 2,437.83 84,827.73
16 1,713.84 86,541.57
15 799.55 87,341.12
14 720.83 88,061. 95
13 797.90 88,859.85
12 2,653.90 91,513.75
11 2,363.97 93,877.72
10 2,113.39 95,991.11
9 2,287.91 98,279.02
8 2,395.83 100,674.85
7 1,970.48 102,645.33
6 5,222.22 107,867.55
5 2,126.49 109,994.04
4 1,190.50 111,184.54
3 1,045.44 112,229.98
2 1,855.41 114,085.39
1 2,176.61 116,265.00
13.61
14.24
14.43
14.63
14.87
15.41
15.60
16.07
16.39
16.54
16.68
16.83
17.33
17.78
18.18
18.61
19.07
19.44
20.43
20.83
21.06
21.26
21.61
22.02
I
I
10
Table 2-2: INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY
(1) ( 2) (2) (3)Cut Length Total ICWW Mileage Total Mileage
I Du- 1 2,700.0 2,700.0 0.51 22.89
r-r- 2 1,050.8 3,750.8 0.71 23.09
3 2,175.3 5,926.1 1.12 23.50
4 2,529.4 8,455.5 1.60 23.98
I 5 4,733.5 13,189.0 2.50 24.88
6 7,561.5 20,750.5 3.93 26.31
r 7 3,161.0 23,911.5 4.53 26.91
8 1,649.7 25,561.2 4.84 27.22
r: 9 2,948.1 28,509.3 5.40 27.78: i
10 1,830.5 30,339.8 5.75 28.13
r-r- 11 1,005.0 31,344.8 5.94 28.32
12 2,380.0 33,724.8 6.39 28.77
13 3,924.9 37,649.7 7.13 29.51,-
I 14 1,361.0 39,010.7 7.39 29.77
15 2,223.4 41,234.1 7.81 30.19
I" 16 2,215.5 43,449.6 8.23 30.61i
17 3,734.7 47,184.3 8.94 31.32
r: 18 3,700.0 50,884.3 9.64 32.02
19 2,910.7 53,795.0 10.19 32.57
SJ,.. 1 2,165.8 55,960.8 10.60 32.98
2 2,748.6 58,709.4 11.12 33.50,-I
3 3,726.7 62,436.1 11.83 34.21
4 6,662.4 69,098.5 13.09 35.47
I 5 14,193.0 83,291.5 15.77 38.15
~ (1) Channel Cut Numbered South from Jacksonville Harbor Project
(2) Measured south from J.H.P.; does not include ~1920' of ICWW/AIWW within J.H.P.
I (3) Measured south from F.H.P; does include ~ 1920' of waterway within J.H.P.[
r-r- NOTE: Atlantic Blvd. Bridge It @Du- 8 station 10+004.72 ICWW mileage
11
I .
,-!
iI
r-r-,
the dredging plans included shoaling areas and limits of planned
dredging (referenced to the existing longitudinal stationing), the
estimated dredging volume for each shoal, ·and in many cases, the
location of planned disposal. Pay volumes, i. e. volumes actually
dredged as determined by post-project bathymetric surveys, were
obtained where available from preliminary sources already listed.
Within the ICWW segment of the study area, four discrete
shoaling areas were identified. The northernmost, for which there
has only been one maintenance event, extends from ICWW mile 0.67
to mile 0.87, with a total of 15,000 cy of material removed. The
second shoal, located between mile 2.44 and mile 2.64, has also
required relatively infrequent and minor maintenance, totaling
15,100 cy in estimated dredging volume over project history.
Southward, the next area of consistent shoaling was found
immediately south of the Atlantic Blvd. bridge, from ICWW mile
4.76 to mile 5.03, opposite the entrance to Moody Marine.
Although each maintenance event here involved the removal of
relatively small amounts of material (avg. 7,500 cy/event), this
area has required dredging eight times over project history. The
southernmost shoaling area, and the most extensive within the
study area in terms of length and volume, was found to be
continuous across the Duval - St. Johns County line, extending
from ICWW mile 8.94 to mile 12.49. This area has also required
eight separate maintenance dredgings, with an average of 93,000 cy
of material removed per event.
The existence of these discrete areas of recurrent shoaling
suggested that dredging and disposal be considered in terms of
three reaches of the waterway, each encompassing an area where
maintenance dredging has been historically required. The
southernmost reach was extended across the Duval St. Johns
County line by 2.3 miles to include the southernmost shoaling area
described above. The resulting reaches, referenced to channel
12
~I
rI
mile and geographic landmarks, are defined in Table 2-2 and their
approximate limits are shown in Figure 2-1.
Dredging within the AIWW segment of the study area was found
to be more evenly distributed along the length of the channel.
Therefore, delineation of this section into logical reaches was
somewhat arbitrary, based more on operational considerations (e.g.
pumping distance, material characteristics) than patterns of
shoaling. Four reaches resulted from the consideration of such
operational factors. These are shown in Figure 2-1. The
northernmost reach was defined as extending from the southern
boundary of the Fernandina Harbor Project (i.e., the northern
limit of the study area) to the northern edge of Nassau Sound
(AIWW mile 0.0 to mile 10.58), and includes the entire backside of
Amelia Island. The definition of the reach in this manner is the
result of several considerations: (1) the amount of maintenance
dredging required within this area is relatively small (171,601 cy
over project history, or 377 cy/mi/yr); (2) the maintenance which
has historically been required within this area is centralized
(AIWW mile 2.90 to mile 8.48); (3) a centrally located disposal
site would be within practical hydraulic pipeline pumping distance
throughout the reach; and, (4) the extensive marsh and relative
scarcity of available upland sites to the west of the waterway,
and the development to the east on Amelia Island precludes the
reasonable acquisition of more than a single disposal area within
this length of waterway.
The length of channel which crosses Nassau Sound (cuts 27a
and 27b, AIWW mile 10.58 to mile 11.56) was defined as the second
AIWW reach despite the fact that this area has been maintained
only once over the 12 ft. project history (71,000 cy, 1982).
Sedimentary processes and material immediately inside an active
tidal inlet are qualitatively different from those characterizing
the majority of the waterway. Maintenance material from this
reach is suited for beach nourishment, having been used for this
13
-'-' --'
PINEISLAND
REACHllI--
FT. GEORGERIVER
REACH m
JACKSONVILLEHARBOR
REACH I
NASSAUSOUN DREACH ITNASSAUSOUND
FERNANDINAHARBOR
Ce-o.q" RD.,~__-r pOIl-lt'
ATLANTIC B
\_l,
~:~~:.:_~~~ ./
~Sil 200
B(ACH BLVD,BEACH
Ir
• • rmr ITI BLVD.0 G)
ITI 0 I ITIZ rrt rn
·4 •••• Z-; ." X I I 0
~ z en 1TI :Eo -; -; X l> REACH:Iarl> - -I v.lUIl-; 0 'TI
Z en ITI,2 G) -I ;;0
I-' 0 c;j =E~ z 0 c ~ 2 :J>
0 II ::0 -; G) -<1TIII ::0 /TI en~
/TI f\) en:t> . -;
en o JTI JTI:J: r en-; 1TI
~ PALMz en ::u VALLEY
G) » z fTI VALLEY:J> ~en z -l=1 0 JTI Z1TI 0 ITIen 0
I .
purpose in 1982. It should be noted that other reaches also have
the potential to yield beach-quality material; however, in no
other area is direct beach nourishment as operationally feasible.
For a further discussion of dredged material quality, refer to
Section 2.1.2.
Southward from Nassau Sound, historical analysis indicates a
relatively higher maintenance requirement, with areas of shoaling
evenly distributed from AIWW mile 11.56 (the northern end of cut
27, the Sawpit Cut-off) to mile 21.51 (vicinity Sisters
Creek/Heck scher Drive bridge). Because of the volume of
maintenance material involved (907,012 cy over project history, or
2,016 cy/mi/yr), and the channel length of this segment 00.46
miles), its division into two reaches was operationally desirable.
The point of division was set at the approximate half-way point,
at the confluence of the AIWW and the Ft. George River (AIWW mile
17.61). The more northern of the two reaches retains the majority
of the required maintenance (621,541 cy over project history, or
2,389 cy/mi/yr), but also would appear to have the greater
potential for upland disposal, with the proximity of the largely
undeveloped Black Hammock Island to the west. The more southern
reach, however, while historically requiring less maintenance
(285,471 cy, or 1,505 cy/mi/yr) has much less adjacent upland
area. The expansive sal t marsh which extends from the wa t e rwa y
over one mile to the east and over three miles to the west through
most of this area dictates that disposal occur within the upland
regions that exist at the extremes of this reach; that is, the
Cedar Point area to the north, and the disturbed sites along
Heckscher Drive to the south.
The seven channel reaches comprising the AIWW and ICWW study
area and the historical dredging acti vi ty wi thin each reach have
been summarized in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The total volume dredged
within each reach represents the sum of design volumes for each
event, unless only the pay volume was available. The maintenance
15
T~.1?~e 2-3: SilllMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING, AIlM MILE 0.0 TO 22.02(1)FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY, TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY
MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUNHARy(2)
REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vo1/yr 50 yr 50 yrAIl"'. mi. AI1IlI mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol fyear /mile Unbulked Disposal
(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)
30/ 29/Fernandina 2.90 3.17 10+00 5+00 1982 10,500Harbor toNassau 28/ 28/Sound i AIW\v 3.46 3.83 72+50 53+00 1952 11,000Mile 0.0 to10.58 28/ 27Q/
4.76 6.07 4+00 9+00 1982 51,500
27K/ 27G/7.75 8.48 21+00 14+00 1982 68,500
- - - - 1945 19,178
- - - - 1943 10,923 171,601 3,991 377 199,536 429,003
27B/ 27A/Nassau Sound 10.93 11.33 3+00 12+00 1982 71,000AI1IlI Nile10.58 to - - - - 1945 9,621Mile 11.56
- - - - 1943 5,480 86,101 2,002 2,043 100,100 215,215
27/ 27/Nassau Sound 11.56 12.74 70+55 8+00 1982 121,000at SawpitCut-Off to 11.59 11.80 68+66 57+66 1968 8,600Fort GeorgeRiver i AIWto/ 11.59 12.02 69+00 46+00 1962 23,900 52,006Mile 11.56to 17.61 11.66 11.81 65+00 57+50 1957 15,000 15,829
-l--I ~ ~ ..._., ···1 ~
Table 2-3: SUMMARY OF IIISTORICAL DREDGING, Will MILE 0.0 TO 22.02 (1)(cant. ) FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY, TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY
f~INTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMrlARy(2)
REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrAI11l1 mi. AI11l1 mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal
(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)
11. 75 11.91 60+50 52+00 1952 9,000
12.55 12.68 18+00 11+50 1952 16,000
26A/ 26/12.78 12.86 6+00 2+00 1952 6,000
l-' 12.94 13.03 4+00 4+00 1957 6,500 7,417
" 12.94 13.46 4+00 8+00 1982 73,500
25/ 24/13.16 13.46 8+60 8+00 1962 5,300 9,530
13.17 13.34 8+00 14+50 1968 5,200
23/ 20/13.89 14.85 18+00 1+00 1982 43,500
23/ 21/14.14 14.63 5+00 0+00 1952 32,000
19/ H/15.07 17.61 18+00 9+00 1982 139,000
13/ 12/16.83 17.06 0+00 14+50 1952· 4,000
11/ 11/17.37 17.47 21+50 16+50 1968 4,000
1945 69,473
1943 39,568 621,541 14,454 2,389 722,722 1,553,852
.
-.-1 =J -.-I 1 -~ -.-J ~ -:::-1 -.-I .--l ~.-l ~ 1 -1 ~ ~ ~I j ~~
Table 2-3: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING, AIW1, MILE 0.0 TO 22.02 (1)(cant.) FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY, TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY
MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMMARy(2)
REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrAmW mi. AI\<W mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal
(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)
11/ 10/Fort George 17.70 17.93 4+00 13+00 1968 12,200River toJacksonville 11/ 9/Harborj AIWW 17.70 18.20 4+00 22+00 1982 34,000Mile 17.61to 22.02 9/ 7/
18.22 19.33 21+00 6+00 1982 72,500
9/ 8/18.53 18.61 4+00 23+00 1962 7,000 9,260
I-'00 9/ 7/
18.59 19.24 1+00 10+30 1952 13,000
7/ 6/19.40 19.69 2+00 39+00 1982 5,000
6/ 6/19.54 19.65 47+00 41+00 1952 3,000
3/ 2/21.22 21.51 1+65 4+70 1943 20,149
21.22 21.51 1+65 4+70 1952 34,000
21.22 21.51 1+65 4+70 1954 34,537
1943 18,174
1945 31,911 285,471 6,639 1,505 331,943 713,677
(1) AIWW miles measured south from Fernandina Harbor Project (Mile 0.0).(2) Design quantity used if available. Bulking factor equals 2.0. Non-Pay Volume 15% of unbulked volume. Disposal
Volume = Unbulked Volume x 2.15.
I ___ 1 .-1 ·.-l -. J
Table 2~4: SilllMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING, IClIII MILE 0.0 TO 12.5 (1)ST JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY, OAK LANDING, ST JOImS COUNTY
MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMMARy(2)
REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrICW mi. IC\/Il mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal
(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)
Du-2/ Du-3/Chicopit Bay 0.67 0.87 8+50 8+50 1956 15,000to PineIsland: ICW Du-5/ Du-6/Mile 0.00 to 2.45 2.64 44+75 7+75 1956 12,0003.40
2.44 2.53 44+50 1+50 1966 3,100 2,339 30,100 860 253 43,000 92,450
Du-8/ Du-9/Pine Island 4.79 4.89 14+00 2+50 1956 3,000to BeachBlvd.: ICW 4.77 4.90 13+00 3+00 1960 4,000 9,133Mile 3.40 toMile 7.52 4.76 5.03 12+00 10+00 1962 13,100 24,415
4.78 4.98 13+30 7+50 1964 2,700 2,203
4.78 5.01 13+39 9+00 1965 4,600 7,634
4.78 5.03 13+29 10+00 1970 13,700 13,374
4.79 4.95 14+00 6+00 1973 9,000 9,224
4.77 4.97 13+00 7+00 1986 10,000 60,100 1,717 416 85,857 184,593
-] ··-1 -I -1 .-] -1
Table 2-4: SilllMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING. Ic\Il. MILE 0.0 TO 12.5 (1)(cont.) ST JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY. OAK LANDING, ST JOHNS COUNTY
MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMMARy(2)
REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrICW mi. ICW mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal
(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)
Du-19/ SJ-l/Beach Blvd. 10.n 10.30 24+83 6+00 1956to Palm 60,000Valley; ICWI. SJ-2/ SJ-3/Mile 7.52 10.79 11.31 10+00 10+00 1956to 12.50
Du-18/ SJ-3/9.59 11.38 34+35 13+60 1958 77,000 98,630
N SJ-1/ SJ-4/0 10.55 11.83 19+00 0+00 1960 100,000 n4,508
Du-18/ SJ-4/8.94 12.01 0+00 10+00 1962 151,400 218,636
Du-19. SJ-1/10.n 10.28 24+85 5+00 1964
99,300SJ-l/ SJ-4/
10.58 12.01 20+50 10+00 1964
10.57 12.49 20+00 35+00 1965 71,000 101,500
SJ-2/ SJ-3/10.60 n.73 0+00 32+00 1970 42,000 47,912
Du-19/ SJ-1/10.n 10.30 25+00 6+00 1986 4,000 604,700 17,277 3,469 863,857 1,857,293
(1) ICt~v miles measured south from Jacksonville Harbor Project (Mile 0.0).(2) Design quantity used if available. Bulking factor equals 2.0. Non-Pay Volume 15% of unbulked volume. Disposal
Volume = Unbulked Volume x 2.15.
r-I
II
t--:
I
r-
I
volume for the 1943 and 1945 events within the AIW\, segment, for
which only the total pay volume for the waterway was recorded, was
apportioned among individual reaches based on the percentage of
the total maintenance volume historically dredged within a
particular reach. The total volume within each reach was then
divided by the number of years since the completion of the 12 ft.
project (35 years in the case of the ICWW, 43 years for the AIWW)
to yield the mean annual volume of maintenance required by each
reach. Projected 50-year dredging volumes listed for the various
reaches were calculated directly from these numbers. Also given
for each reach is the mean annual volume of maintenance dredging
required for each channel mile, which is an indication of the
relative shoaling rate within each reach.
The 50-year projected dredging volume (i.e. the 'unbulked'
volume) was then multiplied by an effective bulking factor of 2.15
to obtain the 50-year projected disposal volume. This factor is
based on Corps of Engineers' standard practice and recommendation,
and represents an actual material bulking of 2. 0, plus an
additional 15% of non-pay volume, or unauthorized overdredging.
These results are also presented in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.
2.1.2 Material Quality
A dredged material management plan must consider, in addition
to projected material quantities, the chemical and physical
properties of the sediment to be dredged and disposed. Techniques
employed to maintain water quality during dredging and dewatering
are highly dependent on sediment chemistry and the physical
characteristics of the dredged material (i. e., particle size,
specific gravity, etc.). Also, both the chemical and physical
properties of the dredged material determine its potential for
reuse, and therefore, the effective site lifetime. Similar to the
procedure used to establish historical dredging volumes, a
21
r!
n
complete review was made of all available sediment chemistry and
physical data.
Existing sediment and water chemistry data for the project
area are limited to the results of studies done since 1979 by the
Corps of Engineers and the Florida DER. Waterway sediments were
sampled by the DER in 1984, and sediment and water sampl es we r e
taken by the Jacksonville District, COE, in 1979 and 1981. The
resulting data were analyzed utilizing procedures developed by the
DER and described in their "Guide to the Interpretation of
Reported Metal Concentrations in Estuarine Sediments" (DER, 1986),
and their "Deepwater Ports Manual" (Ryan et aI, 1984). A summary
of existing sediment and water chemistry data follows here.
The majority of the sediment chemistry data came from DER
sampling of sediments at four locations within the project area,
with two additional sampling locations (IWW-1 and IWW-2)
immediately to the north of the project area within the limits of
the Fernandina Harbor Project (F.H.P.). The four locations within
the FIND study area are all south of the St. Johns River, with two
sites immediately north and south of the Atlantic Blvd. bridge
(IWW-3 at the entrance to Bellinger Shipyards, and IWW-4 at the
entrance to Moody Marine, respectively); one site immediately
north of the Beach Blvd. bridge (IWW-S at the entrance to Beach
Marine); and one site south of the Duval - St. Johns County line
(IWW-6 at the confluence of the waterway and Cabbage Creek). All
locations were in zones of industrial or construction activity,
and were selected on the high probability of worst-case
contamination. Two sites (IWW-4 and HIW-6) occur in areas
requiring frequent maintenance dredging. Sediments from these six
locations may reasonably be expected to exhibit the highest level
of pollutants to be encountered within the Nassau - Duval section
of the waterway. Analysis based on DER guidelines (DER, 1986) for
the determination of metal contamination indicated the possibility
22
n
n!
i i
i'I
of metals being present at higher than 'natural' levels at t wo
sampling locations (mercury at IWW-4 and arsenic at IWW-6).
Additionally, only at sites IWW-1 and IWW-2 (both within the
F.R.P.) were TKN : TOC ratios found to be above the DER criterion,
indicating that elutriate testing would be appropriate to
determine the possibility of excessive release of nutrients during
dredging or dewatering.
Additional studies, primarily on ambient and elutriate water
quality at four locations within the AIWW segment of the project
area, were performed in 1979 and 1981 by the Jacksonville District
COE. Four locations were sampled. In the 1979 study, analyses
were made on ambient water and elutriate water for ammonia
nitrogen, orthophosphate, oil and grease, lead, zinc, iron,
nickel, copper, manganese, silver, mercury, PCBs, and selenium.
There are no Class III ambient water quality criteria for marine
waters for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, lead, zinc, or
manganese. For the remaining constituents, DER Class III criteria
for marine waters were exceeded in two locations. The criterion
for mercury was exceeded at one location in both ambient and
elutriate waters, and for ambient waters also in the second
location. At the second location criteria for oil and grease and
silver in elutriate waters were exceeded as well.
Additionally, all other mercury analyses were less than 0.5
ug/l. All other silver analyses were less than 0.5 ug/l, and all
PCB results were less than 2 ug/l. Since the detection limits for
these three analyses are above the DER Class III criteria, it is
not clear that these samples exceeded state standards.
In the April, 1981 study, ambient water and elutriate water
analyses were made for aluminum, manganese, mercury, oil & grease,
selenium, silver, PCBs, and zinc. DER Class III ambient water
quality criteria for marine waters was exceeded only for mercury.
At the four sampling locations, the mercury concentrations for
23
ambient water samples ranged from 0.06 to 1.81 ug/l and the
mercury concentrations for elutriate water samples ranged from 0.5
to 1.81 ug/l compared to the DER Class III criteria of 0.1 ug/l.
Interestingly, at three of the four sites the mercury
concentration in the elutriate sample was less than that in the
ambient water sample indicating that the sediment at that location
was absorbing mercury rather than releasing it to the overlying
waters. Additionally, all PCB results were less than 0.1 ug/l
compared to a Class III criteria of 0.001 ug/l. Consequently, it
cannot be said with certainty that these samples did not equal or
exceed criteria for PCBs.
These results indicate no consistent pattern of significant
contamination and particularly do not indicate that dredging would
result in any significant degradation of ambient water quality.
Characterizations of the physical properties of the sediment
deposited within the waterway channel are limited to the results
of single sets of core borings for both the AIWW and ICWW. Each
set of borings was taken by the COE prior to the most recent
maintenance dredging activity in the respective segments of the
waterway; 1982 for the AIWW (borings taken 1979-80), and 1985 for
the currently planned maintenance in the ICWIL The data consist
of individual core boring logs, with qualitative characterizations
of the sediment at elevations referenced to MLW, as well as
gradation or sieve analysis results and suspended sediment-time
curves for each boring. For present purposes, only information
contained in the boring logs was used, and only to a depth of
-14. 0 ft. ML \IT ( i . e ., 12 . 0 ft. pro j e c t de p t h , pLu s 2. 0 ft. 0 v e r
dredging). Total boring depth was typically -17.0 to -20.5 ft.
MLW, and the entire sample over the total boring depth was
compo sited and analyzed to produce representative grain size and
fall velocity curves. This procedure may give misleading results
if the sediment below -14.0 MLW is qualitatively different from
that above, a situation to be expected in the present case, since
24
IIII!
sediment above -12.0 to -14.0 ft. MLW has been deposited since
the last maintenance dredging, while that below reflects in situ
conditions.
Sediments within the AIWW are described by the results of 55
core borings taken inside the dredged channel, well-distributed
longitudinally from cut 30 (AIWW mile 2.60) to cut 6 (AIWW mile
20.43). From qualitative descriptions contained in the boring
logs, the sediment within this segment of the waterway may be
characterized as predominantly fine to medium quartz sand,
slightly silty, with fine to coarse shell fragments. Isolated
exceptions to this general characterization include depositions of
silt with significant organic content within cuts 6 (station
46+00, AIWW mile 19.56),13 (station 1+50, AIWW mile 16.80), and
14 (station 2+50, AIWW mile 16.63). The most extensive deposition
of fine silty materials within the AIWW is documented within cut
27 (six borings taken from station 23+00, AIWW mile 12.46 to
station 62+50, AIWW mile 11.71). This artificial cut, also known
as the Sawpit Cut-off, has historically been a high maintenance
area, with dredging requirements of 3,367 cy/mi/yr, apparently a
result of the natural channel of Sawpit Creek retaining the
greater proportion of tidal flushing. Additional isolated
depositions of silt were found in cut 27k (station 13+00, AIWW
mile 7.90) and in cut 27q (station 20+00, AIWW mile 5.87 to
station 25+00, AIWW mile 5.77). From this information it appears
that within the AIWW, only the maintenance material from cut 27,
south of Nassau Sound, may require specialized handling procedures
because of its pronounced silty character and above average
organic content.
Within the ICWW, borings document only the two shoaling areas
currently scheduled for maintenance; the area immediately south of
the Atlantic Blvd. bridge (cut Du-8, station 13+00, ICWW mile
4.77, to cut Du-9, station 7+00, ICWW mile 4.97), and the Palm
Valley area astride the Duval - St. Johns County line (cut Du-19,
25
station 25+00, ICWW mile 10.11 to cut SJ-1, station 6+00, ICWW
mile 10.30). Reference to Table 2-4, Summary of Historical
Dredging, ICWW mile 0.0 to 12.5, will verify that these two shoals
correspond closely to the primary maintenance areas within the
study area of the ICWW over the project history. Again, only
qualitative descriptions of the sediment to -14.0 ft. MLW
contained in the boring logs are referenced. South of the
Atlantic Blvd. bridge, sediments are characterized as fine quartz
sand, while sediments from the high maintenance Palm Valley area
(dredging requirement, 5,010 cy/mi/yr, ICWW mile 8.94 to mile
12.5) are described as fine, brown to dark brown silty sand, with
some clay and organic content, indicating that dredged material
from this area may also require more careful handling.
2.2 Existing Sites
A review of Corps of Engineers' real estate maps yielded a
total of 43 tracts within the project area to which the FIND holds
either an existing easement or ownership. A preliminary
evaluation of each site was then performed using three resources:
black and white aerial photography of nominal 1" = 800' scale,
flown January-December, 1985 for the Corps of Engineers,
Jacksonville District; 1:29,000 scale (1" = 2,417') color-infrared
II .
II
~
,,
I
aerial· photography, flown March, 1983,
Altitude Photography Program of the USGS;
2,000') National Wetlands Inventory maps
from the National High
and 1:24,000 scale (1" =
from the U. S. Fish and
\.Jildlife Service. Consideration of the most basic operational
criteria, combined with the desire to confine disposal to upland
areas, eliminated all but nine of these tracts from further
consideration. These are shown in Figure 2-1. The 34 tracts
eliminated were clearly not feasible from both an environmental
and an operational standpoint, being primarily located in open
water or salt marsh. The few upland areas within these tracts
were limited to previously used disposal areas of low relief and
26
I!
r:,
inadequate acreage for dike construction or efficient utilization.
Thus, a significant majority were found to be unacceptable.
To further evaluate the nine remaining sites, estimates were
made of the usable upland acreage on each site, the volume of on
site dike material available, and the site's potential disposal
capacity. The usable upland area within each tract was determined
from tracings made of the 1" = 800' black and white aerials,
guided by the color-infrared photography and the USFWS wetland
inventory maps. Analysis was then carried out to establish
whether the usable upland area could provide adequate material for
dike construction, and if the resulting capacity within thig area
supported further consideration of the site. A set of
relationships were developed (APPENDIX B) in which the required
volume of dike material, the volume of dike material available on
site, and the resulting disposal capacity are expressed in terms
of independent variables including dike crest elevation above
grade, mean site elevation, depth of excavation, dike gide slope,
width of dike crest, and required minimum freeboard. During the
project design phase, dike geometry will be specific to each site,
and will reflect soil charac~eristics (foundation loading,
resistance to piping, etc.) and other engineering/operational
considerations. However, for the purpose of this preliminary
evaluation, a uniform dike geometry was applied to all sites.
Selected parameter values were within the range of standard
practice for similar sites used for previous maintenance events.
These included a 15.0 ft. crest elevation above grade, a IV: 3H
side slope, a 12.0 ft. crest width, an excavated grade elevation
of +3.0 ft. NGVD., and a minimum freeboard plus ponding allowance
of 4.0 ft. Calculations were based on a rectangular disposal
configuration, of plan area equal to the estimated usable upland
area of each site with a length/width ratio similar to the actual
site dimensions. The mean grade elevation for each site was
estimated from design transects, if available, or from USGS
27
Ii
quadrangle maps.
2-5 and 2-6.
Results of this analysis are presented in Tables
I,
~
I
i
These reveal that of the nine existing sites possessing
reasonable upland area, five are projected to have significant
shortages of dike material. This shortcoming, typically in
combination with other operational difficulties such as no road
access and/or no adjacent upland areas to which a marginal site
could be expanded, effectively eliminated these five sites from
further consideration.
Of the four sites remaining (square designator Figure 2-1),
three (S/A 43-44 within the Fernandina Harbor - Nassau Sound reach
of the AIWW, 400E within the Ft. George River - Jacksonville
Harbor of the AIWW, and MSA 208 within the Beach Blvd. to Palm
Valley reach of the ICWW), also have inadequate dike material on
site. However, these sites were retained as potentially usable
based on two considerations: (1), the dike material deficit
represents a relatively minor proportion of the potential site
disposal capacity (11, 9, and 16%, respectively); and (2), each
site has adjacent upland area to which the existing easement could
possibly be expanded.
Also retained in addition to the above sites was site 300E,
within the Nassau Sound to Ft. George River reach of the AIWW.
This site, in the central region of Black Hammock Island, is
divided into east and west sections by Sawpit Road. Ownership of
the site was obtained by the FIND in 1980, and the western portion
was diked and dredged material was deposited in the 1982
maintenance of the AH1W. Engineering design documents for this
maintenance project allowed the remaining capacity of the existing
dike (crest elevation 25 ft. above mean grade) to be accurately
determined. The eastern portion of the site has not been
disturbed, and therefore received the same analysis as all other
sites.
28
---I -j :-I ~ 1 ~ - ] .~ 1•....~::-1 -I ·--1 1 -l -.1 -l
Table 2-5: INVENTORY OF LEGALLY ACCESSIDLE, USEADLE DISPOSAL SITES, AIWW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA IlARDOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE IlARDOR, DUVAL ·COUNTY
N
'"
DISPOSAL SITES REACH SUMMARY
(1) (1)REACH F.I.N.D. Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available 50-Year
Design- AIWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal Comments Require- Capacity Deficitnation Mile Area vatian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey) ment (cy) (cy)" (ey)
(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)
Fernandina SIA 3.5 25.6 6.5 15.0 1600 86,664 132,557 421,369 East side Crane Es'l ,Harbor to No. 43-44 1697 old spoil sites;Nassau estuarine scrub/shrub,Sound; AIWH but appears as upland;Mile 0.0 expansion of siteto 10.58 westward to island
uplands possible;additional dikematerial required;no road access onexisting site.
S/A-32 2.9 3.4 7.0 15.0 400 4,235 35,847 * 30,816 Inadequate dike1370 material available;
road access. *Siteunacceptable.
Reach Total 429,003 421,369 7,634
Nassau Sound; Maintenance materialAIW\~ Mile predominantly beach10.58 to quality sand; beachMile 11.56 disposal, south end
Amelia Island usedin 1982; continuedbeach disposal likely.
Reach Total 215,215 - 215,215
Nassau Sound 300E 15.2 35.7 18.5 18.5 1300 0 NIA 639,653 F.I.N.D. ownership;at Sawpit (west of 11196 upland site with roadCut-Off to Sawpit Rd) access, wes t portionFort George diked, spoiled 1982;River; AIWlI expansion of siteMile 11.56 possible.to 17.61
---'::-1 ~ =-] ~ --I --I ·-1 ..~ ,._---
I ~ -I ~---I -.l --I -.-, --I ., --~
Table 2-5:(cont.)
INVENTORY OF LEGAu.Y ACCESSIBLE, USEABLE DISPOSAL SITES, AIWW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE IlARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY
9
6
DISPOSAL SITES REACH SUMMARY
(1 ) ( 1)REACH F.I.N.D. Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available 50-Year
Design- AIWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal Comments Require- Capacity Deficitnation Mile Area vation Above (ft) Material Material Vol (cy) ment (cy) (cy)** (cy)
(ac) (ft) Grade (cy) (cy)(ft)
S/A-44 12.9 18.8 8.0 15.0 1800 69,124 129,897 *285,513 Inadequate dike/455 material available;
road access. *Siteunacceptable.
MSA 14.4 17.2 6.0 15.0 1800 35,853 127,427 *226,040 Inadequate dikeDu-3 & 4 /416 material available;
No road access.*Site unacceptable.
Reach Total 1,553,852 639,653 914,19
Fort George 400E 21.4 15.9 10.0 15.0 1385 82,845 106,463 268,571 Generally uplandRiver to /500 site; good roadJacksonville access; notHarbor; AIWW previously used asMile 17.61 as maintenance spoilto 22.02 site.
MSA 19.1 16.5 6.5 15.0 1797 38,060 126,223 *216,893 Small spoil mounds;Du-13 /400 inadequate dike
material available;No road access.*Site unacceptable.
Reach Total 713,677 268,571 445,10
i»o
* Disposal volume not included in existing Reach capacity.** Potential capacity within F.r.N.D. easements.
(1) Dimensions based on tracings taken from black and white aerial photography, with nominal 111 800' scale assumed.
· ._l
Table 2-6:
-.-I
INVENTORY OF LEGALLY ACCESSIBLE, USEABLE DISPOSAL SITES, ICWW MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY PALM VALLEY, ST. JOIINS COUNTY
DISPOSAL SITES REACH SUHHARY
(1) (1)REACH F.I.N.D. Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available 50-Year
Design- ICW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal Comments Require- Capacity Deficitnation Mile Area vation Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey) ment (cy) (cy)** (ey)
(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)
JacksonvilleHarbor(ChicopitBay) toPine lsI;ICWW Mile0.00 to 3.40
Reach Total 92,450 - 92,450
Pine Esl . HSA- 5.04 13.1 8.0 15.0 771 53,317 82,777 *210,380 Site previouslyto Beach 109C /740 diked, spoiled inBlvd: ICW (llOOE-l) 1973, 1970, 1965,Mile 3.40 1964, 1962, 1956:to 7.52 presumed at dike
capacity; additionalwetland area dikedbut apparently unusedand not included incalculations. Noroad access. *Siteunacceptable.
Reach Total 184,593 - 184,593
Beach Blvd. HSA- 11.08 14.0 7.5 15.0 938 51,990 87,653 220,696 Areas of siteto Palm 208 /650 previously diked,Valley, St. spoiled in 1986,Johns Co. i 1970, 1965, 1964,ICWW Hile 1962, 1960, 1958,7.52 to 12.50 1956. Potential
road access.
Reach Total 1,857,293 220,696 1,636,598
~ Disposal volume not included in existing Reach capacity.** Potential capacity within F.I.N.D. easements.
(1) Dimensions based on tracings taken from black and white aerial photography, wi th nominal 11: 800' scale assumed.
n!
;-
!
2.3 Projected Disposal Needs
Estimated fifty-year deficits in existing disposal capacity
were determined for each reach of waterway by comparing the
projected 50 year disposal volumes for the reach with the
potential capacity of the existing usable sites. For reaches in
which no existing site is located, the projected deficit equals
the corresponding disposal requirement. Results are presented in
Tables 2-5 and 2-6.
Wi thin the northernmost reach of the study area, Fernandina
Harbor to Nassau Sound, the existing easements east of the main
upland area of Crane Island almost satisfy the projected disposal
requirements, leaving a deficit of only 7,600 cy. Additional
acreage is required, however, because insufficient material exists
on site to construct dikes adequate for the stated capacity.
South of Amelia Island, in the reach across the open waters of
Nassau Sound, no designated disposal site presently exists.
However, dredged material quality and operational considerations
would indicate that beach disposal on the south end of Amelia
Island constitutes a viable alternative.
The remaining five reaches all exhibit significant short
falls in disposal capacity, with no existing capacity at all in
two of the reaches within the ICWW: Jacksonville Harbor to Pine
Island (disposal capacity deficit, 92,000 cy); and Pine Island to
Beach Blvd (disposal capacity deficit, 185,000 cy). The two
reaches with the highest projected disposal requirements, Nassau
Sound to Ft. George River in the AIWW (disposal requirement, 1.55
million cy), and Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley in the ICWW (1.86
million cy), have the greatest existing capacity, but significant
deficits remain (914,000 cy and 1,637,000, respectively). The
remaining reach, Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor in the
AIWW, also retains a significant shortfall in disposal capacity of
445,000 cy.
32
r 3.0 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
il
r-'
i
I
I
3.1 Disposal Concept
Inherent in every dredged material disposal operation is a
set of guiding principles which reflect the attitudes and
constraints of the project sponsor, the project engineer, and the
contractor. Historically, these principles (i.e., the "Disposal
Concept") have not been explicitly stated, and have evolved
primarily through the desire to maximize operational efficiency
and short-term economy. Thus, minimal consideration was given to
environmental issues or indeed any long-term goals. Within Nassau
and Duval Counties, this approach has resulted in the numerous
small mounds which line the waterway, as the dredge contractor
sought to place the material as close as possible to the area
being dredged. For the extensive salt marsh/estuarine system
which characterizes the AIWW/ICWW in Northeast Florida, this
concept frequently meant disposal in the marsh, with effluent
returning immediately to the receiving waters, its el u tria te and
turbidity loads undiminished.
With increased environmental awareness this approach is no
longer desirable; nor is it possible, given present day agency
reviews and permitting requirements. Concerns about water quality
have led to the disposal of dredged material within diked areas to
increase retention time and insure that return water quality meets
established standards. Wetlands, particularly salt marsh areas
have come to be recognized as among the most biologically
productive of ecosystems, and a resource that must be conserved.
However, preservation of marsh requires that upland sites be
acquired, and in a high growth corridor such as that which exists
along the waterway, developmental pressures and land use conflicts
make such acquisitions increasingly difficult and expensive. It
has become apparent that these conflicts can only be resolved
through long-range planning, and the development of a disposal
33
concept which addresses both environmental and operational
concerns. As such, it constitutes the foundation upon which the
disposal plan is built.
The disposal concept adopted here consists of three
fundamental principles which are identified as follows:
(1) All future disposal will be confined to uplandareas.
(2) Sites will be established to provide centralizeddisposal in a minimum number of locations peroperating reach of waterway as determined by theanalysis of historical data.
(3) Disposal sites will be operated and maintained aspermanent facilities in which dredged material willbe actively managed.
These principles provided the basic framework within which various
I,
disposal alternatives and
identified and subsequently
candidate disposal
evaluated. In so
sites
doing,
could be
minimum
acceptance standards were established and a focus was given to the
planning process. Moreover, the early establishment of the
disposal concept facilitated the specification of a meaningful set
of individual site evaluation criteria later in the project.
The first principle of the disposal concept, the exclusive
use of upland sites for dredged material disposal, minimizes the
long term impacts of maintaining the waterway on sensitive wetland
and transitional areas. In some cases the total avoidance of
wetland impacts is impossible without the elimination of a
particular upland site from consideration.
would include the crossing of marsh areas by
Examples of these
pipeline when other
avenues, such as tidal creeks, are unavailable; or a minimal
encroachment of transitional wetland areas to provide realistic
site geometry for dike construction. However, by limiting future
disposal to upland areas the majority of the anticipated impacts
34
,.I1
nI
r:i[
r-'
[
,.ii
to sensitive wetlands have been avoided. This is of particular
concern within the Nassau River - St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic
Preserve.
The second principle of the disposal concept has both
operational and environmental advantages. The centralization of
disposal within fewer sites has the operational advantage of
locating these sites in a logical manner so as to efficiently
serve individual reaches of the waterway as defined by the
analysis of historical data. Moreover, the use of fewer, larger
sites reduces the total acreage required through economies in dike
area requirements. It also eliminates the proliferation of
smaller sites each with their own outlet works and attendant water
quality considerations. Thus, the use of centralized disposal
sites is considered to be an important element of the disposal
concept.
The requirement to manage the disposal sites as permanent
operating facilities complements the two preceding principles. It
also represents a significant departure from historical practice
in which sites were more or less abandoned following a one-time
usage. By operating the sites as continuing facilities a suite of
managemen t procedures and techniques can be implemen ted, all 0 f
which have long term operational and environmental benefits.
Example management measures include improved detention area
design; material handling and processing to increase dewatering
efficiency (e.g. mechanical grading, underdrains, wicks, etc); and
the use of natural buffer areas and the vegetation of dikes to
reduce the visual impact of the site. Most importantly, the
permanency of the sites implies that ways be explored of removing
the dewatered material from the site to be used as fill, or simply
to be stored in less ecologically sensitive upland areas further
inland. Road access, existing or potential, is therefore
essential. By not regarding the sites as one-time holding
facilities, as in the past, but as intermediate processing areas,
35
n
I
I
it is hoped that they will serve the needs of the waterway in
perpetuity. This type of activity in combination with effective
site management measures will establish the long term material
handling facilities required.
3.2 Identification of Alternative Sites
Definition of the disposal concept provided a focus to the
selection of alternative sites which satisfy the disposal capacity
deficits within each reach of the waterway. Preliminary
evaluation of the sites was accomplished through the use of the
black and white aerial photographs (I" = 800' nominal scale
assumed), color infrared photography, and USFWS Wetlands Inventory
maps previously described in Section 2.2.
The process began with the identification of all sites within
reasonable distance of the waterway which had the potential to
satisfy the basic requirement of centralized disposal in an upland
area, with existing or potential road access to meet the demands
of on-going disposal site management. Additional environmental
considerations, such as the quality of existing habitat,
preservation of canopy, or other constraints such as adjacent land
use, were not included in this initial evaluation. However, these
were considered in the final site evaluation, and are discussed in
Section 4.1.1.
Tracings of the identified areas were made from the 1" = 800'
black and white aerials. A total of 25 alternative sites, or
three to five alternative sites within each reach, were selected
for further consideration. These are shown in Figure 3-1. No
alternative sites were identified to serve the Nassau Sound reach,
however, because of the beach disposal option previously
discussed. The total potential capacity of these sites greatly
exceeded the corresponding disposal deficits. As an extreme
example, within the ICWW reach Jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island
36
>W....J....J
~
37
FIG
UR
E3-1
IDE
NT
IFIC
AT
ION
OF
AL
TE
RN
AT
IVE .
SIT
ES
LE
GE
ND
l7%m
@jjj':""W
AT
ER
WA
Y
•-
AL
TE
RN
AT
IVE
SiT
ES
a>....JII)
:I:<>""urII)
tz<5Co.
'.<
;j--':':"':~,&
r-.r
II
~!
n! ',
II
(ICWW mile 0.0 to 3.4), 640 acres were retained during this
initial phase of evaluation even though the existing deficit
within this reach (92,450 cy) could be met by only seven acres of
upland disposal area. These overages in capacity were retained to
provide the greatest flexibility in choice prior to the final site
selection. Also, it was expected that subsequent field inspection
of the sites would result in the total elimination of some sites,
and a reduction in the usable acreages of others. The site
inspection procedure is discussed in the following section.
3.3 Site Inspection
Field inspections of both existing and alternative sites were
performed to refine initial estimates of usable upland areas, to
characterize the ecological communities within each site, and to
identify existing land use conflicts, either on-site or off-site,
which would eliminate all or a portion of that site from further
consideration. Later in the project a second inspection was
carried out to afford interested agency representatives an
opportunity to visit sites under final consideration and comment
on their proposed use as disposal areas. This also provided
contractor personnel with an opportunity to augment and refine
their previous observations. Details of this part of the project
are provided in Section 4.1.2.
Initial field inspections were conducted June 2 - 10, 1986.
Entry to each site was made by four-wheel-drive vehicle, wherever
possible, with access to the site interior gained by following
existing roads, survey trails, fire lanes, or power line
easements. In areas where vehicle travel was no longer possible,
inspection continued on foot. When entry to all or a portion of a
site was physically impossible or ill-advised, access was provided
by boat, or alternatively, the site was observed from afloat or
adjacent locations. By this procedure all significant ecological
communities tentatively identified from aerial photography were
38
r!
IiI
Ii
ground-truthed, and their photographic signature was verified.
Hherever possible, all uncertainties were resolved by physical
inspection on foot of the community in question.
At each of the 25 alternative and four existing disposal
sites, the field inspection concentrated on the identification of
vegetative communities within and adjacent to each area under
consideration. Lists of representative plant species observed in
each community were compiled, and are presented in APPENDIX C.
Qualitative assessments of plant species abundance were also made.
These measures refer only to the relative occurrence within the
communi ty. Designations include abundant (A), locally abundant
(LA), common (C), locally common (LC), occasional (0) and rare
(R). Representative specimens of plants were collected, pressed,
and sent to Dr. David Hall, (Plant Taxonomist at the University of
Florida) for identification. Notations of wildlife sightings were
also made in each community. Direct observation of animals (0)
"as differentiated from sign (S) on the field reports. Hildlife
sign occurrences included animal burrows, browse, scat, footprints
and calls. The location of each described community is depicted
on the corresponding site drawings which are included in APPENDIX
C and D. This information helped identify habitats that might
contain or support protected plant and animal species, or unusual
vegetation assemblages. Furthermore, the survey provided
information that was used to modify the configuration of the
candidate sites to avoid sensitive resource areas.
Following site inspection, the original site tracings were
modified to exclude sensitive areas. The most common modification
was to withdraw from areas possessing wetland or transitional
vegetation, particularly those areas exhibiting salt marsh
characteristics, or wetland/transitional areas contiguous with the
waterway or its tributaries. Because of this, all drainage
features were examined for evidence of this contiguity. In two
cases, however, (the DeBlieu Creek and Moody Marine sites wi thin
39
Ii
iI
.j,
the ICWW segment of the study area) the original site boundaries
were expanded to include areas which had been designated as
wetlands on the USFWS Wetlands Inventory maps (based on aerial
surveys), but were shown by inspection to possess no wetland
characteristics. Isolated drainage features or pocket fresh-water
wetlands were noted where salient, and excluded where feasible,
but not if their exclusion made an otherwise usable site unusable.
Additionally, four alternative sites, originally judged to
meri t consideration, were eliminated as a result of conflicting
land use. Within the AIWW, the site west of and adjacent to
Fernandina Airport was excluded because of municipal ownership and
planned development as an industrial park. West of the waterway,
opposite the airport site, the Pine Grove site was eliminated
because of existing residential/agricultural usage. Within the
ICWW segment, the Davis property site, south of Pablo Creek, was
eliminated, also because of existing residential/agricultural use.
Finally, the site south of and adjacent to Hopkins Creek was found
to contain significant residential development under a high canopy
of trees, and thus was not identified as such by preliminary
inspection of aerial photography.
Following the incorporation of the results of the field
observations a second analysis of dike requirements and resulting
disposal capacity was performed for each site based on the field
verified configuration. As with the previously discussed analysis
of existing site capacities and requirements, a nominal 1" = 800'
scale was assumed. Results of this analysis are presented in
Tables 3-1 and 3-2. In all cases, the potential capacity of the
proposed alternative sites greatly exceeds the disposal
requirement, as well as the disposal requirement deficit, within
each reach. During the final site evaluation, described in the
next section of this report, these parameters were brought into
agreement .
40
-.-1 -.-1 ---I 1 -l --l
Table 3-1: INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, AI\III MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA IlARlJOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE IlARlJOR, DUVAL COUNTY
DISPOSAL SITES
(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available
Location AIWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal CommentsMile Area vat ian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey)
(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)
Fernandina Site No. 1 3.5 74.2 7.5 15.0 4600 354,373 322,937 1,351,126 Upland/Hammock area borderingHarbor to Crane Island /703 existing easement S/A No. 43-44Nassau and previously used spoil areasSound; AIWWMile 0.0 Site No. 2 3.5 120.3 10.0 15.0 4000 N/A N/A N/A Municipal ownership, not toto 10.58 Fernandina /1310 be contested
Airport
Site No. 3 3.3 106.4 8.0 15.0 3200 678,472 281,453 1,917,379 Borrow pits surrounded by woodedPiney Island /1448 upland; good road access
'"I-' Site No. 4 4.3 138.3 7.0 15.0 7532 N/A N/A N/A Residential/Agricultural land use,Pine Grove /800 with scattered wetlands; not feasible
for further consideration
Nassau Sound; Undesignated beach disposal area onAIWW Mile S. Amelia Island used in 1982; future10.58 to beach disposal likelyNile 11.56
Nassau Sound Site No. 1A 12.4 42.5 8.0 15.0 2100 230,538 175,877 771,335 Good upland site predominantly scrub oakat Sawpit N.E. Black /881 and pine with road access, adjacent toCut-Off to Hammock Is. high maintenance areaj wetland buffer toFort George eastRiver; AIWWMile 11.56 Site No. IB 13.6 18.7 8.0 15.0 1400 79,123 112,518 308,456 Similar to 1A; narrow site precludesto 17.61 N.E. Black /581 efficient utilization
Hammock Is.
Site No. 2 12.5 124.0 12.5 15.0 5600 1,382,796 402,834 2,243,881 Good upland site piney flatwoods withN.W. Black /965 road access; pipeline access moreHammock Is. difficult than 1A or IB
.~J -l ~--l
Table 3-1: INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, AIW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,(cont.) FERNANDINA lIAREOR, NASSAU COUlITY TO JACKSONVILLE lIAREOR, DUVAL COUlITY
DISPOSAL SITES
(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available
Location AIWlI Plan Ele- Crest !Width Dike Dike Disposal CommentsNile Area vatian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (cy)
(ac) (ft) Grade (cy) (cy)(ft)
Site No. 3A 15.4 70.8 10.0 15.0 3900 539,391 284,177 1,286,791 Good upland predominantly scrub oak andE. Central /791 pine with road access; ajoins existingBlack Hammock site 300E (east)Island
Site No. 3B 15.4 74.1 10.0 15.0 3800 578,328 281,507 1,343,812 Good upland (predominantly pine) withW. Central /849 pocket wetland; adjoins existing siteBlack Hammock 300E (west); road accessIsland.,.
N
Fort George Site No. 1 17.0 119.3 9.0 15.0 2500 939,966 277,063 2,146,350 Good pine and scrub oak upland site,River to Cedar Point /2079 surrounded by mature hammock; good roadjacksonville accessHarbor; AIHHMile 17.61 Site No. 2A 21.3 114.0 9.0 15.0 2600 892,147 272,713 2,051,982 Disturbed site with isolatedto 22.02 W. Fanning /910 wetland/transitional areas; road access
Island
Site No. 2B 20.7 64.3 9.0 15.0 2800 446,175 227,747 1,165,101 Same as 2AE. Fanning Is. /1000
Site No. 3 20.7 62.3 8.0 15.0 3667 322,718 171,127 851,549 Diked area with isolated wetlandHeckscher Dr. /740 pockets; former J.B.P. disposalat Sister Ck. area; road access
(1 ) Based on survey of black and white aerial photography (Ill = 800' nominal scale assumed),and color infrared aerial photography, with field verification.
.~] mml -1 l
Table 3-2: INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, IC\IW MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVIlLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY PALM VAILEY, ST. JOHNS COUNTY
DISPOSAL· SITES
(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available
Location ICWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal CommentsHile Area vatian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey)
(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (cy)(ft)
Jacksonville Site No. 1 3.4 16.6 7.5 15.0 1200 63,087 101,243 265,870 Inadequate dike material on site;Harbor Pine Island /603 private residential compound: road(Chicopit accessBay) toPine lsI; Site No. 2A 1.7 142.2 12.0 15.0 3600 1,673,347 324,077 2,558,382 Wooded upland; residential developmentleW Mile Bullard Prop. /1721 and major highway connector planned;0.00 to 3.40 (North) good road access
Site No. 2B 2.1 437.4 12.0 15.0 8100 5,564,129 649,040 7,833,153 Same as 2A. with some existingBullard Prop. /2352 residential use
.0- (South)W
Site No. 3 3.1 44.1 9.0 15.0 1477 300,720 162,957 798,634 Wooded upland: road access:DeBlieu Crk. /1300 borders residential/agricultural
area: undesignated dump
Pine Is!. Site No. lA 5.0 31.15 12.0 15.0 1450 286,683 138,130 566,382 Largely open pine/palmetto upland,to Beach Moody Marine /935 adjoins marine/residential area:Blvd; ICWW close to area requiring frequentMile 3.40 maintenance: road accessto 7.52
Site No. IB 5.8 50.0 10.0 15.0 2100 394,408 185,693 905,360 Open pine/palmetto upland: adjoinsHogpen Crk. /1036 residential area: good road access
Site No. 2 6.2 47.0 9.0 15.0 1706 322,718 171,127 851,549 Existing residential development; notHopkins Crk. /1200 feasible for further consideration
Beach Blvd. Site No. I 9.2 35.6 7.0 15.0 1291 156,701 144,843 645,399 Upland site with good road access;to Palm Cradle Crk. /1200 adjoins residential development: containsValley, St. interconnected drainage ditch networkJohns Co.;ICWW HUe Site No. 2 9.8 34.7 7.0 15.0 1700 148,110 150,480 627,867 Disturbed site with borrow pits:7.52 to 12.50 Butler Blvd. /880 connection to salt marsh complicates site
(Borrow Pits) usage
~ --J -l --l -l --I -- I I -l ----I
Table 3-2:(cant.)
INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, lew MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY PAlli VALLEY, ST. JOHNS COUNTY
DISPOSAL SITES
(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available
Location ICWII Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike DisposalMile Area vation Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey)
(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)
Site No. 3 11.5 112.8 16.0 15.0 2400 1,875,378 268,787 2,030,777Pablo Crk. /2048
Site No. 4 11.5 36.7 10.0 15.0 1778 271,827 156,687 667,492Davis Prop. /900
Site No. 5 11. 7 79.2 7.5 15.0 4000 406,296 295,007 1,435,836..,..Cabbage Crk. /862..,..
Comments
Predominantly open pine woodland;pipeline access by way of PabloCreek
Open pastureland; agricultural usage withprivate residential compound
Southerly extension of existing siteMSA-208; hammock/transitional area: roadaccess from south
(1) Based on survey of black and white aerial photography (lit ;: 800' nominal scale assumed),and color infrared aerial photography, with field verification.
4.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF SITE BANK
Final evaluation of the 29 sites listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 was
accomplished by assessing the ability of each site to satisfy a
standard set of evaluation criteria, and by the consideration of agency
comments and suggestions received throughout the course of the study.
From this process a group of 15 sites was selected to form a site bank
serving the seven reaches comprising the AIWW and ICWW channels within
the study area. This site bank consists of 9 primary and 6 secondary
sites which, as their names imply, represent first and second choice
options for the long term disposal and management of dredged material
removed from AIWW and ICWW channels.
A standard set of criteria were used to perform the final site
evaluation. However, no attempt was made to quantify the relative
merits of each evaluation criterion. It was felt that this approach,
sometimes referred to as matrix analysis, often promises more
objectivity than it delivers. This only confuses the evaluation
process and diminishes its value. Therefore, the decision was made to
evaluate the sites using the criteria as a who1istic standard and to
take into consideration specific information pertinent to a particular
criterion when it was available.
The remaining portions of Section 4.0 describe the evaluation
procedure and the results obtained from it, including the criteria
used, the agency input considered, and the primary and secondary sites
comprising the site bank.
4.1 Evaluation Criteria
Each site was evaluated by its ability to satisfy criteria in
three broad areas:
o Engineering/Operational Considerations
o Environmental Considerations
45
this study was to identify suitable
to meet the projected fifty-year
the waterway in the study area.
n
o Socioeconomic Considerations (primarily landuse)
Individual criteria considered in each of these areas are
described below.
4.1.1 Engineering/Operational Considerations
A primary objective of
sites of adequate capacity
disposal requirements of
Therefore, the potential disposal capacity of a site was included
as an evaluation criterion. In keeping with the disposal concept
of centralized disposal, all alternative sites were selected and
existing sites retained based on their ability to provide adequate
capacity with a minimum number of sites. Typically, a single site
within each reach is required, although in two cases (the Nassau
Sound to Ft. George River, and the Ft. George River to
Jacksonville Harbor reaches within the AIWW) the retention of
usable, but smaller existing sites resulted in the recommendation
of more than one site to serve those reaches.
Closely related to site capacity is the availability of
adequate material on-site to construct the standard dike employed
in the disposal capacity analysis (APPENDIX B). It is possible to
circumvent an insufficient on-site supply by trucking in
additional material, or by using dewatered material from a
previous disposal operation to incrementally build the dikes to
design elevation. However, the expense of transporting material
from off-site sources, the uncertainties of dredging and disposal
frequency, and the possible unsuitability of the dewatered dredged
material for dike construction, make a pre-existing adequate on
site supply of material preferable.
46
n) !
1',, ;
r-r-!
rI
Pumping distance from the area to be dredged to the disposal
site is also a criterion affecting site selection. The
availability of add-on boosters can extend pumping distances to
more than 5 miles. However, this increased distance is achieved
through a reduction in dredging efficiency and economy.
Therefore, it is desirable to choose a site which is either
centrally located within the reach it is to serve, or is located
adjacent to the area requiring the highest maintenance.
A site which affords the greatest ease of pipeline access
from the waterway to the disposal area, as well as the return of
effluent to the waterway, is also preferred. Apart from the
environmental concerns which will be discussed later, problems
related to difficult pipeline access, such as extensive marsh
crossings or significant elevation changes, add to mobilization
demobilization costs, and decreased operating efficiency.
Upland access, with existing or potential road service, is
desirable for initial site construction, and is required if the
site is to be managed as a permanent operating disposal facility.
It should be noted that this criterion was a condition for the
original selection of sites. Therefore all sites which remain at
this stage of the selection process satisfy this criterion.
Soil properties (e.g. foundation loading, resistance to
piping, etc.), as well as the depth of the wa t e r table below
grade, are additional factors which should be included as criteria
for site evaluation. However, these determinations require field
testing not included in phase one of the project. Data supporting
site soil properties and geohydrology will be obtained during
phase two. Visual observations made during the field inspections
revealed no obvious areas of concern.
47
~I
i J
,-
Iri
I"!
4.1.2 Environmental Considerations
The environmental criteria used for site evaluation were
intended to minimize adverse impacts to sensitive estuarine and
upland areas, within the constraint of providing adequate disposal
capacity to serve the needs of the waterway. More than the other
two categories, these criteria reflect the interests of the
various agencies contacted during the study, even though these
interests often conflict. The resulting criteria may be organized
under two categories reflecting the desire to restrict disposal to
upland sites only: (1) criteria for the avoidance of wetland
areas to the greatest extent possible; and (2) criteria for
minimizing the unavoidable impacts to upland areas.
Avoidance of wetlands was a primary consideration throughout
the site selection process, and by use of the USFWS Wetlands
Inventory maps and the color-infrared photography this has largely
been achieved. However, where a question remained, or where
avoidance of isolated or transitional wetland areas would have
precluded the use of a site, several specific criteria were used
to weigh the relative success in minimizing wetland impacts.
Salt marsh and all wetland areas exhibiting salt water
characteristics, particularly those judged to be contiguous with
state waters, are recognized by all state agencies to be an
extremely valuable resource. This consideration is inherent in
the permitting process. Moreover, the value of this sensitive
ecological system is reinforced by the designation of the
estuarine waters and adjacent wetlands of the northern portion of
the study area as a state Aquatic Preserve. Therefore, the degree
to which a site succeeds in eliminating the impacts to the salt
marsh is obviously a crucial criterion in site selection. Closely
related to this is the sometimes unavoidable impact caused by
pipeline access to the site. If no other avenue is available
(e. g., floating the pipeline in a tidal creek) this may involve
48
ri
crossing the marsh itself, a practice which should be minimized,
and a necessary consideration in site selection.
Isolated freshwater wetlands are a valuable biological
community, and in addition can afford a system of filtering run
off and recharging groundwater supplies. However, such wetlands
are not consistently recognized in governmental policy as being as
biologically productive as salt marsh areas, and are not given the
same degree of agency protection. The presence of these isolated
wetlands was considered in the evaluation of a particular site,
and their disruption was avoided wherever possible. However,
agency comments received tend to support the position that the
sacrifice of small isolated areas possessing wetland vegetation
may be acceptable if required to provide an adequate disposal
area. Somewhat independent of the areal extent of an interior
wetland is the quality of the habitat which it may afford, or the
unusual vegetation assemblages it may support. Thus, the
'quality' of impacted wetlands was also a criterion of site
selection. It should be noted here that all documented or
observed rookeries were avoided in the initial selection process.
The restriction of potential disposal areas to predominantly
upland sites requires that the existing upland biota within the
diked disposal area be sacrificed. Again, the 'quality' of the
impacted upland communities can vary widely, and therefore
considerations which reflect the existing ecological value of a
potential disposal area are useful site evaluation criteria.
Specifically, those criteria used included the quality of habitat
afforded by a particular site as determined by field inspection
and ecological categorization; the value, uniqueness, maturity,
and aesthetic quality of the existing vegetation (e.g. mature
hardwood canopy vs. second-growth scrub); and the extent to which
a site was disturbed by previous activities.
49
~,
I
i 'i ii..
I
I
,-! II '
,-
!
Also, considered as a criterion was the ability of a site to
provide a buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation outside of the
containment area. The benefits of such a buffer, beyond its
primary function as a visual barrier, include the preservation of
areas of particular environmental value such as maritime hammock
or transitional wetlands. It should be noted that the withdrawal
of a recommended disposal area from adjacent wetland or
transitional areas has a similar effect as a designated buffer,
since future development in these fringing wetlands would be
eliminated.
The presence of a documented archeological site, common to
upland regions within the study area, was an additional evaluation
criteria. To apply this to the disposal sites under consideration
a records search was performed by the Division of Archives,
History and Records Management, Florida Department of State which
identified potential conflicts with documented archeological sites
listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the Florida
Master Site File. Evidence of archeological value does not
prevent the use of a site; however, should any site be considered
for registration, mitigation in the form of testing prior to any
land clearing or ground disturbance would be required.
The final environmental evaluation criterion related to
impacts upon upland areas addressed effects on groundwater
supplies. If there are residential areas adjacent to a potential
disposal site, there exists the possibility of contamination of
residential wells, primarily through saltwater intrusion or
elevated nutrient levels. The potential for such contamination,
as measured by the proximity of residences, was therefore used as
a criterion in the site evaluation.
50
rI
J
[
rI
n
4.1.3 Socioeconomic Considerations
The third major category of criteria has been termed
socioeconomic considerations, and primarily involves consideration
of existing land use. Every attempt was made during the initial
selection of alternative sites to choose areas with no present
development. Subsequent discovery of existing on-site
residential, agriculture, or commercial development resulted in
modifying the configuration of the site, or its complete
elimination from further consideration. Adjacent land use
conflicts were not so easily resolved, and in areas in which there
was limited upland acreage, such conflicts remain. To the extent
possible, these conflicts were mitigated by the recommendation of
a buffer zone to separate the disposal area from residential or
commercial development.
Related issues such as current ownership and land acquisition
costs could not be addressed at this preliminary stage, and will
be addressed in phase two of the project. Consideration was given
to current ownership only in the instance of municipal ownership
of the proposed alternative site immediately west of the
Fernandina Beach Airport. In this case it was decided to
eliminate the site from further consideration.
4.2 Agency Input
Throughout the plan development process, input was actively
sought from all agencies with a potential interest in the project,
and specific opportunities were provided for agency
representatives to review the methodology used for site selection,
as well as the actual sites under consideration. The process by
which agency input was solicited was summarized in Section 1.2.
Specific comments received are discussed below.
51
r-';
i
nI '
!,
!I
II
At the outset of the project a brief presentation was made at
the Tallahassee offices of the Florida DER to state agency
representatives. The expressed purpose of this presentation was
to solicit pertinent background information with which to augment
the planned analysis of historical dredging records, and to
receive comments on the proposed methodology and goals of the
project. Comments received were generally positive, acknowledging
that such a long-term, environmentally sensitive approach to
dredged material disposal was long overdue.
Specific issues were raised by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish
Commission (FGHiFC). Representatives of Florida's DNR stressed
that the relative public benefits of maintaining the waterway vs.
committing 'new' areas to dredged material disposal must be
considered. For this reason, DNR would favor the use of existing
sites over the acquisition of additional or alternative sites. In
response, the present plan does recommend the use of those
existing sites possessing reasonable upland acreage. However, the
restriction of disposal to upland areas eliminates most sites with
existing easements from further consideration. Therefore, new
sites must be acquired. The DNR staff strongly supported the
concept of upland disposal.
Other agency comments expressed at this meeting addressed
habitat; the preservation of existing habitat to the greatest
extent possible, and the creation of new habitat where feasible.
Regarding beach disposal of sand dredged from the waterway, the
DNR, Division of Beaches and Shores, warned against disruption of
sea turtle nesting habitat on the beaches of south Amelia Island.
This can be avoided by the scheduling of disposal activity to not
coincide with the season of nesting/incubation, and by the careful
monitoring of turtle nesting and nest relocation, a practice which
is already actively pursued in the area.
52
n
i!
The representative of the FGFWFC stressed the need to
preserve existing habitat by retaining shrub and tree canopy, and
the desirability to create new habitat for nesting shore birds by
placing dredged material to form a coarse sandy substrate. During
the site evaluation process which followed, careful consideration
was given to the quality of the canopy which would be impacted,
the presence of sensitive rookeries, and the undisturbed/disturbed
nature of the site. Canopy disruption was minimized by the use of
centralized disposal sites and the incorporation of buffer zones
around each site. The creation of nesting shore bird habitat was
not considered feasible outside of the containment areas.
Following initial site evaluation, a workshop was held, again
at DER - Tallahassee, to review the methodology of site evaluation
and to discuss the specific sites under final consideration.
Representatives of state and federal agencies were invited to
attend and comment (APPENDIX A). Again the general response was
positive. However, only a few specific comments were received.
These primarily involved questions seeking clarification of the
site evaluation process or the actual disposal activities planned.
The FGFWFC representative asked about the damage done to the marsh
by the placement of pipeline from the dredge to the disposal site.
He was assured that the evaluation method used sought to minimize
these impacts but in some cases where deep water access was not
available some disruption to small areas of marsh could be
expected. The representative from the DNR, Division of Resource
Management, asked if potential contamination of groundwater was
considered in the evaluation of sites. He was assured that it was
and a specific example was discussed. Several agency
representatives requested that detailed site drawings be provided
in future project documents. These have been included in this
report.
I1
Agency representatives attending the
invited to visit each primary and secondary
53
workshop were then
site included in the
I!
site bank.
Florida DER,
Freshwater
Service.
Only three agencies participated. They were the
Office of Coastal Management; the Florida Game and
Fish Commission; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
[,
Unofficial comments received during the site visits were in
general support of the sites selected as primary choices for
dredged material disposal. One possible exception was the choice
of the site along Pablo Creek to serve Reach VII of the ICWW. The
representative of the FGFWFC indicated that his agency might
prefer 'the Cabbage Creek site as a primary site for this reach
rather than as a secondary site because of its disturbed nature.
He did, however, acknowledge that the use of this site may require
encroachment on saltmarsh contiguous with the waterway, and
therefore its use would prove to be difficult.
The FGFWFC representative also suggested that the proposed
boundaries of the Moody Marine site in Reach VI of the ICWW be
modified to preserve an existing hardwood stand along the eastern
edge of the site. This was accomplished by extending the western
boundary of the site further west, providing a buffer both east
and west of the disposal area. This change is reflected in the
appropriate site description presented in APPENDIX C.
4.3 Site Bank
Following the final evaluation of sites and the consideration
of agency comments, a total of 15 sites were selected to form a
site bank. Of these, nine sites represent primary or first choice
disposal options. The remaining six were included to provide
backup secondary disposal options in the event utilization of one
or more of the primary sites proved not to be feasible. As their
names imply, these 15 sites represent the nine best and six second
best disposal options to serve the AIWW and ICWW channels in
Nassau and Duval Counties after the consideration of all
54
~
I
I'I
II
en gin ee ring, operational, en vironmen tal, and socioeconomic (land
use) factors influencing site selection.
Each of the seven reaches defined in Section 2.1.1 has at
Le a s t; one primary and one secondary site assigned to it, except
for the Nassau Sound reach of the AIWW for which future beach
disposal requirements will determine the location of material
placement. Three primary sites were selected for the Nassau Sound
- Fort George River reach of the AIWW. These include one site on
northeast Black Hammock Island, the existing site in the central
part of Black Hammock Island, and an extension of this site to the
south which is referred to as the West Central Black Hammock
Island site. The utilization of three primary sites for this
reach was required to accommodate the high maintenance
requirements of the Sawpit Cut-off while retaining suitable
utilization of the existing site. The Fort George River to
Jacksonville Harbor reach of the AIWW has two primary and two
secondary sites. In this case, two primary sites were selected to
provide additional flexibility in the management of material
d red g e d from the channel near its c o n f Luence with the St. Johns
River. For this reason, the small existing upland site on the
north side of Heckscher Drive at Sisters Creek was retained as a
primary site in addition to the previously diked area directly
across the channel on the west side of Sisters Creek. Two
secondary sites for this reach were retained to provide needed
backup flexi bili ty in the event the primary sites selected could
not be used. The remaining reach of the AIWIIf and all three
reaches of the ICIlfW have one primary and one secondary site each
in the site bank.
The total primary site land area for the 38 miles of channel
is approximately 514 acres. This includes 308 acres of active
disposal area and 206 acres of buffer area outside of the dikes.
It does not include additional buffer zones provided by preserved
transitional wetlands, maritime hammock, and other environmentally
55
Iii :, I
ri
sensitive areas. The corresponding secondary site land area is
379 acres which includes 245 acres of active disposal area and 134
acres of buffer area.
The general locations of all sites in the site bank are shown
in Figure 4-1. Detailed drawings of each site, including specific
location information, are presented in APPENDIX C along with a
summary description of the site's significant characteristics.
Companion narratives and figures in this Appendix describe the
evolution of each site's configuration through the evaluation
process, the vegetative communities found on each site, observed
plant and animal species which typify these communities, and
significant site attributes or shortcomings which were considered.
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the basic physical
characteristics of all sites in the site bank, including required
dis posal area, total area, equi valen t plan dimensions, estimated
mean site elevation, dike material quantities, capacity, and
recommended buffer configuration. The process of site selection
and configuration has guaranteed that all of these sites can
provide adequate capacity to meet the projected fifty-year
requirement of their respective reach when used as recommended.
The standard dike analysis (APPENDIX B), in addition to
determining acreage and capacity relationships, also indicates
that all remaining sites can provide sufficient on-site dike
material. For those sites in which this analysis suggests a
deficit in available dike material, the deficit is not considered
significant, and does not reflect site-specific design
requirements to be addressed in phase two of this project.
Pumping distances and road access for all remaining sites have
also been found to be acceptable.
In addition to the common name given each site, Table 4-1 and
4-2 also list an alpha-numeric site designator which concisely
specifies its position, referenced to both channel mile and cut.
56
17-lrnO-MS'9-I --
---i:::-SnO-3I'£-I
1\B:lI.l.N\fl.l.\f
·--1 --1 --1
Table 4--1: SITE BlINK, AII/W MILE 0.0 TO 22.02FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACRSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY
DISPOSAL SITES
REACH Site DisposalDesignator(l) Area
Location (Acres)
Total (2)Area
(Acres)
LengthIWidth(ft)
MeanGradeElev.(ft)
AvailableDike
Material(cy)
RequiredDike
Material(cy)
DisposalVolume(cy)
Deficit(cy)
Comments
lJlO::J
IFernandinaHarbor toNassauSound: AIWWMile 0.0to 10.58
IINassau Sound;AIWW Mile10.58 toMile 11. 56
. A-3.3 W-28-1 23.62Piney Island (P)
A-3.5 E-28-2 24.62Crane Island (8)
60.22
32.20
12001857
11001975
8.0 116,019 117,382 429,057 1,363 Adequate capacity for 50-yearrequirement, Reach I; bufferon four sirles
7.0 99,414 118,496 429,209 19,082 Adequate capacity for 50-yearrequirement, Reach Ij bufferon south side only
Undesignated beach disposal areaon South Amelia Island used in1982; future beach disposal likely
IIINassau Sound A-12.4 11-27-3 19.80 42.38 1600 8.0 81,891 122,556 322,543 40,665 Maximum capacity of site withat Sawpit N.E. Black 1539 buffer on north, west, and southCut-Off to Hammock Is. (P)Fort GeorgeRiver; AIWW A-15.2 11-19-4 35.7 35.7 1300 18.5 N/A 0 639,653 0 Full utilization of remainingMile 11.56 Central Black /1196 capacity of existing site MSA 300Eto 17.61 Hammock Is. (P) (west of Sawpit Road only)
A-15.4 11-19-5 32.40 54.80 2352 10.0 206,932 174,053 592,599 0 In combination with sites A-15.2 11-19-3,W. Central 1600 A-15.4 W-19-4, adequate capacity forBlack Hammock 50-year requirement, Reach III; bufferIsland (P) on east and south
I . - ] l ----:l -.l -.. 1
Table 4-1: SITE BANK, AIWW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,(cont . ) FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE lIARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY
DISPOSAL SITES
REACH Site Disposal Total(2) Length Mean Available Required DisposalDesignator(l) Area Area /Width Grade Dike Dike Volume Deficit Comments
Location (Acres) (Acres) (ft) Elev. Material Material (cy) (cy)(ft) (cy) (cy)
IVFort George A-17.0 W-12-6River to Cedar Point (S)JacksonvilleHarbor; AHlW Reach III 35.65 78.27 1294 9.0 233,074 145,040 647,018 0 In combination with site A-lS.2 W-19-4Mile 17.61 /1200 adequate capacity for 50-yearto 22.02 requirement, Reach III; buffer on
four sides
V1 Reach IV 28.10 66.94 1200 9.0 173,512 127,680 511,081 0 In combination with site A-21.4 £-2-9-o /1020 adequate capacity for 50-year
requirement, Reach IV; buffer onfour sides
Reach III 60.42 113.94 1900 9.0 433,820 195,143 1,092,228 0 In combination with existing sites& IV /1385 A-15.2 W-19-4, A-21.4 E-2-9, adequate
capacity for Reach III & IV 50-yearrequirement; buffer on all four sides
A-20.7 W-5-7 62.29 62.29 3667 8.0 332.667 266.190 1,133.392 0 Full utilization of existing dikedW. of Sisters /740 area; no bufferCreek (P)
Table 4-1:(cont ,')
.. -=1 .J
SITE BANK, AIW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY
DISPOSAL SITES
REACH Site DisposalDesignator(l) Area
Location (Acres)
Tota1(2)Area
(Acres)
LengthIWidth(ft)
MeanGradeElev.(ft)
AvailableDike
Material(cy)
RequiredDike
Material(cy)
DisposalVolume(cy)
Deficit(cy)
Comments
A-21. 3 E-2-HW. FanningIsland (S)
Reach IV 39.37 83.71 1319 7.0 177,187 152,963 713,925 0 Adequate capacity for SO-year11300 requirement, Reach !Vj buffer on
four sides
Reach IV 28.68 68.09 1300 7.0 119,663 130,276 511,052 10,614 In combination with site A-21. 4 E-2-9(with A-21.4 1961 adequate capacity for 50-yearE-2-9) requirement, Reach IV; buffer on
four sides
A-21. 4 E-2-9 12.45 15.89 1085 10.0 61,383 87,463 202,750 26,080 Maximum capacity of existing site;N. Heckscher 1500 buffer on east side onlyDrive (P)
(1) A (IWW) or I (CWlI) - (AI\IW/IC\IW) Mileage E (ast) or W(est) of WW - Cut - Site Number
(2) Includes Buffer (300' wide) as Specified in Comments
(F) Primary Site(8) Secondary Site
-.-I ---]
Table 4-2: SITE BANK, ICWW MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVILLE llARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY .PALM VALLEY, ST. JOIINS COUNTY
DISPOSAL SITES
REACH Site Disposal Total(2) Length Mean Available Required DisposalDesignator(l) Area Area /Width Grade Dike Dike Volume Deficit Comments
Location (Acres) (Acres) (ft) Elev. Material Material (cy) (cy)(ft) (cy) (cy)
VJacksonville I-l.7W-Du5-1 7.08 31.67 800 10.0 24,042 62,162 92,570 38,120 Adequate capacity for 50-yearHarbor Bullard Prop.(p) /386 requirement, Reach Vi buffer(Chicopit on four sidesBay) to PineIsland; leW 1-3.1E-Ou6-2 6.85 16.47 597 9.0 23,228 56,538 92,667 33,310 Adequate capacity for 50-yearMile 0.00 to DeBlieu Crk. (8) /500 requirement, Reach V; buffer3.40 on east and south
0-f--' VI
Pine Island 1-5.0W-Du9-3 11. 51 31.10 836 9.0 51,618 78,001 184,703 26,384 . Adequate capacity for 50-yearto Beach Moody Marine (P) /600 requirement, Reach VIi bufferBlvdj ICWW on north, east, and westMile 3.40to 7.52 1-5.8W-Dull-4 11.51 23.46 836 9.0 51,618 78,001 184,703 26,384 Adequate capacity for 50-year
Hogpen Creek (S) /600 requirement, Reach VI; bufferon south and west
VIIBeach Blvd. I-ll.5W-SJ3-5 103.15 179.42 2300 16.0 1,694,892 256,475 1,857,430 0 Adequate capacity for 50-yearto Palm Pablo Creek (P) /1954 requirement, Reach VIIi bufferValley, St. surrounding disposal areaJohns Co. iICWlI Mile I-ll.7E-SJ3-6102.58 109.06 4750 6.0 366,857 347,491 1,857,534 0 Adequate capacity for 50-year7.52 to 12.50 Cabbage Creek(s) /941 requirement, Reach VII; buffer
on south only; potential impactto < 7 acres of wetland
(1) A (lWW) or I (CIM) - (AIWW/ICWlI) Mileage E (as t ) or W(est) of 1M - Cut - Site Number
(2) Includes Buffer (300' wide) as Specified in Comments(P) Primary Site
(S) Secondary Site
~! For example, the existing site, Central Black Hammock Island (the
portion of existing site MSA 300E west of Sawpit Road) has been
designated as site A-15.2 W-19-4. The first letter, A, indicates
that the site is to serve the AIWW segment of the waterway.
Obversely, a first letter, I, would indicate a site serving the
ICWW segment. The 15.2 specifies the channel mileage opposite the
northern boundary of the site, as measured south from the southern
boundary of the Fernandina Harbor Project within the AIWW segment.
\·Jithin the ICWW segment, channel mileage is measured south from
the southern boundary of the jacksonville Harbor Project. The
letter following the channel mileage (E or W) indicates whether
the site lies east or west of the waterway. The next number (19
:'1
r:!
I!
in this example) refers to the dredged cut (as designated by the
COE, Jacksonville District), opposite the northern boundary of the
si te. The final number (4 in the example) is a simple north to
south sequential numbering of the sites within either the AIWW or
ICWW segment of the waterway.
r-r-
I
r-r-
II
rrr 62
r!
I'I 5.0 DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
The dredged material management plan presented in this report
consists of three parts; namely, a disposal concept; a group (bank) of
material disposal sites which satisfy that concept; and a set of
fundamental considerations to guide the development of specific
management programs for these sites. In this section, the
considerations of site management will be introduced. It is not
intended that these provide a specific operating plan for each of the
disposal sites selected. This will be addressed during phase two of
the project. Rather, these considerations are intended to establish
fundamental standards and philosophy for the design and long term
operation of all sites within this program.
As presently conceived, the dredged material management plan
represents a departure from traditional approaches to material
disposal. The change is embodied by a revised perception of the value
of dredged material, and the manner in which it is disposed and used.
The considerations discussed reflect this by their recognition of
disposal sites as permanent operating facilities located in close
proximity to environmentally sensitive areas under increasing pressures
of urbanization and population growth. It is hoped that by
implementation of these guidelines the sites described in this report
will serve the needs of the waterway indefinitely. Moreover, the
manner in which this is accomplished will maximize the individual
storage capacity of each site; maximize the recovery of dredged
material for other uses; and minimize the impacts of disposal
operations on the environment.
rI Considerations recommended for inclusion in the management program
are divided into three categories:
(1) Site Design
o External Buffer
o Equipment Ingress and Egress
63
IiI I
l i
r-i
rII
-I
o Compartmentalization
o Spur Dikes
o Dike Vegetation
o Improved Outlet and Inlet Works
(2) Site Management During Dredging
o Outlet Operation and Monitoring
o Inlet Operation and Monitoring
o Ponding Depth
o Material Distribution
(3) Site Management Following Dredging
o Material Treatment/Dewatering
o Surface Water Management
o Material Handling/Re-use
o "Monitoring
These are discussed in the following sections.
5.1 Site Design
Site design considerations impact all aspects of material
management. The provision of adequate buffer zones external to
the dikes creates a needed zone of separation and a visual barrier
between the disposal operation and the surrounding areas. Nearby
environmentally sensitive areas such as transitional wetlands can
also be protected in this manner. Similarly, the use of
vegetation on the dikes themselves serves to reduce the visual
impact of these structures while minimizing erosion during periods
of heavy precipitation. Both practices should be incorporated
into the design of all sites, and, in fact, the use of buffers has
been included wherever practical. Minimum buffer widths of 300
ft. were incorporated in all primary and secondary site
configurations as described in APPENDIX C.
64
jI
r-r-ii
,[
r--:
ii
Compartmentalization of large disposal areas in which
material is deposited continuously or with high frequency provides
greater flexibility in site operation, and increased efficiency in
material handling and removal. For example, the division of a
site into three separate containment areas would permit material
to be discharged into one area, while other material is undergoing
dewatering in the second area, and still other material is being
removed from the third. Use of such an approach may be beneficial
in the high maintenance Reach VII of the ICWW (Beach Blvd. to Palm
Valley) .
Another important design consideration is the provision for
equipment ingress and egress both during disposal operations and
after they are completed. It is essential that the containment
area design accommodate the movement of heavy equipment (e.g.
earthmovers, graders, trucks, trenching machines, etc.) into and
out of the diked area on a routine basis. Without such a
provision the treatment and dewatering of material cannot be
readily accomplished; grading cannot be performed; operating
efficiency during disposal will be lost; material cannot be moved
off-site; and the long term capacity of the site and therefore its
ultimate contribution to the success of this plan will be
significantly diminished. To provide this capability it is not
necessary to violate the integrity of the dike system. External
ramps with mild grades can be incorporated into the dike design
without affecting internal storage capacity. To provide equipment
access to the interior basin a similar approach could be taken, or
a ramped spur dike configuration could be introduced. The
incorporation of such a feature would not only provide internal
access for equipment, it would also serve to increase the
detention time of the basin during disposal operations, thereby
improving effluent quality.
The remaining aspect of disposal site design that should be
considered is the improvement and upgrading of inlet and outlet
65
I',
ri
works. To support and complement the permanent operational
capabilities of the site, outlet works should be designed to
provide distributed outflows with increased effective weir lengths
to reduce .v e Lo c t t t e s and provide improved control .over flow
patterns within the basin. Consideration should also be given to
replacing the traditional board and batten weir design with a
continuously adjustable system. Similarly, the design of more
efficient inlet structures with distributed discharge points would
provide greater operational flexibility and a more uniform
distribution of material. Design improvements such as these will
produce significant long term benefits in site operating
efficiency, increased storage capacity, resource recovery, and
improved effluent quality. These benefits should offset increases
in initial cost.
5.2 Site Management During Dredging
During those periods when disposal is in progress the site
should be operated to maximize effluent water quality and provide,
as much as possible, an even distribution of material within the
basin. This can be achieved by means of an appropriate site
design and proper control of inlet and outlet works during
disposal operations.
Weir elevations at each outlet should be continuously
monitored and adjusted to maintain ponding depths at or above two
feet. To achieve required effluent quality standards within the
Nassau River St. Johns River Aquatic Preserve portion of the
waterway, ponding depths of 3 ft. may be required. When multiple
outlet works are provided, weir elevations may be adjusted
individually to re-route internal flows and achieve a more even
dis t rib uti 0 n 0 f mat e ria I the reb y.Lle due i n gpo ten t i a Ish 0 r t
circuiting of the basin. Outlet work design considerations
discussed in the previous section would facilitate the
implementation of these operating procedures.
66
rI
n
nn
ni!
r--
!I
In a similar manner, a more even distribution of material and
increased basin settling efficiency can be achieved from improved
design and operation of inlet works. Multiple inlets or moveable
inlet pipes can be controlled to provide even mounding and a more
efficient bottom slope between inlet and outlet. Consideration of
this during site design and operation will not only provide
benefits during disposal operations, it will reduce material
handling costs following disposal and increase the site's
dewatering efficiency.
Longer term benefits can also be obtained from a properly
conceived and executed monitoring program during disposal
operations. Information obtained will not only serve to satisfy
regula tory req uiremen ts, it will provide valuable feedback for
maintaining and improving site efficiency. Sample data should
include influent and effluent quality and quantity, ponding
elevations, bottom topography, wind conditions, and inlet and
outlet control settings.
5.3 Site Management Following Dredging
Historically, disposal sites have been abandoned following
the cessation of dredging operations and in many cases have
remained unattended for indefinite periods. As a result, dikes
deteriorate from erosion and uncontrolled vegetative encroachment,
surface waters are impounded within the containment area, inlet
and outlet works are rendered inoperable, and vegetation becomes
established within the basin. The implementation of post-dredging
site management measures can prevent this and maintain the site as
a viable facility over long periods.
The
essential
material.
control of surface water on site following dredging is
for proper processing and dewatering of dredged
Slurry waters remaining from disposal operations should
67
,I I, ,
r !
nI j
be drained as quickly as possible from the containment area
without violation of effluent quality standards. Ponding of
precipitation should also be prevented by continued operation of
outlet works with appropriate weir elevation settings. Too often
this has not been done. Outlets have become blocked, weir
elevations have remained too high, and rainwater has slowly
accumulated within the containment area. This should not be
allowed to happen.
Other measures should be considered to ensure that the
material impounded within the site is dewatered as quickly as
possible and put in a form suitable for removal and off-site
usage. These include regular mechanical working of the material,
trenching, placement of drains, wicks, and the use of vegetation.
Of these, the regular working of the material (e. g. plowing,
turnover, grading), the use of trenches, and vegetative
transpiration appear to be the most effective and best understood
methods, and would be appropriate for this project.
Following dewatering and processing, the material is ready
for removal from the site. Provided that the site design
accommodates the routine ingress and egress of heavy equipment,
this can proceed immediately at a rate dictated by market demands
and transportation limitations. The capability to remove material
from the disposal site on a routine basis is essential if the site
is to serve the needs of the waterway indefinitely. This requires
not only a suitable containment area design but also effective
material processing which transforms the dredged material to a
form appropriate for other uses.
To monitor changing conditions on site during this phase of
the operation, and to provide long-term documentation and feedback
on site performance, a monitoring program should be implemented.
Such a program would complement the sampling during dredging
previously discussed. Data collected should be used to evaluate
68
changes in material and effluent chemistry, foundation
consolidation, material consolidation and soil moisture content.
In addition, the dates of dredged material removal and
corresponding quantities should be documented to confirm the
accuracy of volumetric projections, and to detect potential
problems before they occur.
n~
~
~r
I
!
I
~
~69
~
nI . 6.0 RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF WORK - PHASE TWO: !
TASK I: SITE ACQUISITION FEASIBILITY
Establish feasibility of acquiring all primary and secondary
sites (15) in the Phase one Site Bank.
II
A.
B.
Property Ownership/Assessed Value - From county tax
rolls and related records determine ownership,
assessed value .• parcel size, and approximate
boundaries.
Zoning
1. Determine existing zoning classification and
permissible use.
2. Document procedures required for zoning
reclassification.
3. Establish city/county position regarding
intended FIND use of site.
I'I
C.
D.
Other Site Use Restrictions Identify other
restrictions which may preclude use of the site
(e.g. municipal, regional planning concerns. etc.).
Site Access - Establish requirements which must be
satisfied to permit entry on-site for the purposes
of field testing and data collection. Identify
time required to obtain necessary authorizations
and any restrictions imposed.
70
I',
TASK II: SITE CONDITIONS
Obtain necessary engineering and environmental
information required for preliminary engineering design
permitting of primary sites only (as modified by results of
I) .
site
and
Task
rI !
! A. Engineering Topographic Survey Provide site
topographic information necessary for site
planning, permitting, and design purposes.
Horizontal and vertical control of data should
include reference to established bench marks and
all elevations should be referenced to NGVD. This
task will be performed by the Jacksonville
District, Corps of Engineers.
B. Subsurface and Soils Survey
performed by the Jacksonville
Engineers.
- This task will
District, Corps
be
of
!
! :
I'I
1.
2.
Soils Survey - By means of core borings and
analysis, document site soil characteristics
including grain size distributions, organic
content, boring logs, Atterberg limits, shear
strength, compaction, and consolidation.
Groundwater Obtain groundwater table
elevations at a sufficient number of locations
to provide estimates of water table potential
surface elevations on-site referenced to NGVD.
c. Environmental Survey - Perform field survey and
data collection efforts to provide the following:
1. Detailed documentation of site vegetation
communities, including species frequencies of
71
2.
3.
4.
occurrence, and the delineation of wetlands
and transitional areas using state approved
methods.
Detailed documentation of on-site animal
species, including endangered or threatened
species, and pertinent habitat information.
Locations of all wells within a one-half mile
radius of the site.
Documentation of existing vegetation
communities and species habitats along
proposed pipeline access and return drainage
routes.
TASK III: PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Analyze data obtained from Task
documentation, and complete preliminary
prepare permit drawings.
II, develop site
design necessary to
A. Environmental - Using information obtained from
Task II-C prepare the following:
,-!
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Detailed site maps showing vegetation
communities, species locations and habitats,
revised usable boundaries, and wetlands areas.
Detailed written text supporting 1. above.
Specific mitigation measures required.
Archeological site locations as recorded in
published records available from the Florida
Division of Archives, History, and Records
Management.
Recommended pipeline access and return water
routes.
72
B. Engineering - Using information obtained in Task II
prepare the following:
r:1 !
r:I
r-«
1.
2.
3.
4.
Site Capacity Analysis - Recalculate estimated
site capacity and dike material requirements.
Site Topographic Map Prepared by
Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers.
Engineering Report on Subsurface and Soils
Conditions Prepared by Jacksonville
District, Corps of Engineers.
Preliminary design calculations and permit
drawings of:
o Location Map
o Site Plan
o Pipeline Access and Return Routes
o Inlet Works
o Outlet Works
o Dike Section
o Internal Structures
o Equipment Ingress and Egress Features
o Vegetation and Buffer Area Plan
TASK IV: SITE MANAGEMENT PLANS
Prepare a site management plan for each primary site in the
Si te Bank as modified by the results of Task I. Each plan will
address the following:
i,
,!
A. Design Features - Brief description of all site
design features as they relate to the long term
operation of the site and the management of dredged
material.
73
B. During-Dredging Procedures
l.
2.
3.
4.
5 .
Outlet Operation
Inlet Operation
Ponding Depth
Material Distribution
Monitoring
C. Post-Dredging Procedures
l.
2.
3.
4.
Dewatering
Surface Water Management
Material Handling/Reuse
Monitoring
TASK V: COST CONSIDERATIONS
Evaluate cost considerations and potential funding mechanisms
for each primary site:
,I iI
A.
B.
C.
Site Improvement Costs
Site Operations and Maintenance Costs
Funding Mechanisms
TASK VI: DOCUMENTS AND DELIVERABLES
The following project documents will be prepared and
submitted for each primary site:
A. Permit Drawings
B. Subsurface
Jacksonville
and Soils Report (prepared
District, Corps of Engineers)
74
by
nnnnnnnnnI
nnn
n
C.
D.
E.
Environmental Report
Site Management Plan
Cost Considerations Report
75
n
nn
rI
i
II
REFEREt~CES
Nesbitt, S.A., J.C. Ogden, H.W. Kale II, B.W. Patty and L.A. Rowse (1982)."Florida Atlas of Breeding Bird Sites for Herons and Their Allie's:1976-78," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of BiologicalServices. FWS/OBS-81/49.
Ryan, J.D., F.D. Calder, and L.C. Burney (May 1984). "Deepwater PortsMaintenance Dredging and Disposal Manual; A Guide to Planning andEstuarine Chemical Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation,"Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Office of CoastalManagement.
Stemm L.T., H.D. Dollar, D.A. Howell, D.L. Lewis, C.A. Wettstein, and H.Yamataki. 1978. "Soil Survey of City of Jacksonville, Duval County,Florida," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
, (September, 1985). "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms--~---:
Classification System," Florida Department of Transportation, StateTopographic Bureau, The-matic Mapping Section.
, (March, 1986). "Guide to the Interpretation of Reported Metal----"C-o-n-c-e~ntrations in Estuarine Sediments," Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management.
76
I '
~
II .
APPENDIX A
AGENCY CONTACTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (Jacksonville)
3426 Bills RoadJacksonville, Florida 32207
I'! I
!
Jeremy TylerSupervisor, Dredge & Fill
396-6959
n, 'I
n
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (Tallahassee)
Twin Towers Office Bldg.2600 Blair Stone RoadTallahassee, Florida 32301
Louis C. Burney 904/488-4805Office of Coastal Management
Fred Calder 904/488-4805Environmental Specialist
Bureau of Permitting 904/488-0130
David H. BicknerMark Latch
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3900 Commonwealth Blvd.Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Division of Beaches and Shores
Bureau of Historical and Environmental Land ManagementDivision of Recreation and Parks
,-I
I I
Paden WoodruffBrett Moore
Charles B. KnightEnvironmental Specialist
A-I
904/487-4478487-4475
904/488-6242
[
I
Division of Marine Resources
David C. HeilEnvironmental AdministratorRoom 810BTallahassee, Florida
Bureau of Marine Research
904/488-5471
I
I
George Henderson 813/896-8626Assistant Chief100 8th Avenue, S.E.St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
Brad Weigle 813/896-8626Manatee CoordinatorFlorida DNR Marine Research Laboratory
Stuart Field Station
,-[
II
Ross William
Division of Resource Management
Art WildeDirector
Division of State Lands
305/334-1667
904/488-3177
\'I
Casey Fitzgerald 904/488-2297Chief, Bureau of State Lands Management
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Division of Archives, History, and Records Management
The CapitolTallahassee, Florida 32301-8020
Louis Tesar
A-2
904/487-2333
I!
STATE OF FLORIDA GAME AND FRESHWATER FISH COMMISSION
620 South Meridian StreetTallahassee, Florida 32301
Mike AllenBiologistRoom 204
FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT
904/488-6661
II
Col. Sterling K. Eisiminger 305/627-3386General Manager818 U.S. Highway One, Suite 7North Palm Beach, Florida 33408
Nancy BeersAdministrative Assistant
JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
I
I
James GarlandChief, Engineering DivisionP. O. Box 4970Jacksonville, Florida 32232
Don CarterChief, Design Branch
791-2473
~ JACKSONVILLE, CITY OF
Planning Department
John H. Crofts, AICPUrban Planner128 E. Forsyth Street,Jacksonville, Florida
Suite 70032202
633-2266
Department of Public Works - Engineering Division
r
Stan Nodland, P.E.City Engineer220 E. Bay StreetJacksonville, Florida 32202
A-3
633-2920
rr
,,
rr
,-,
r '
Public Health Division
Bill Reese515 W. 6th StreetJacksonville, Florida 32206
NASSAU COUNTY ENGINEERS OFFICE
Nassau County Transportation Dept.Rt. 4, Box l71-BFernanadina Beach, Florida 32034
R. L. "Dick" King, P.E.Nassau County - County Engineer
Jo Ann KirklandSecretary
NORTH EAST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
7933 Baymeadows Way, Suite 6Jacksonville, Florida 32216
633-3910
356-6670 (Jax)
n
I
!,
Brian D. Teeple, AICPDirector of Planning and
Administration
Alfred E. WalkerRegional Planner
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
9450 Koger Blvd.St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
Paul J. LeachAssistant Regional Director
for Fisheries Management
Richard J. HooglandChief, Southeast Region
A-4
737-7311
813/893-3721
I'I
III'
Dr. Edwin KeppnerArea SupervisorHabitat Conservation DivisionNational Marine Fisheries Service3500 Delwood Beach RoadPanama City, Florida 32407-7499
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Joseph Carroll 305/562-3909P.O. Box 2676Vero Beach, Florida 32961-2676
Jacksonville Offices - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2747 Art Museum DriveJacksonville, Florida 32207
r-r-
r
Mr. David WesleyEndangered Species
Don Palmer
791-2580
J1I
~I
STATE OF FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
r· CONFERENCE REGARDING: F Z/Z/ P - 4-.r c. ww P /"'oj e. j---
I DATE: 0I .
r ; Name rint)
IFe:;{) r. -\)~f2Title/Affiliation/Address
E. ~_. Dc-: r2
Tele hone
A-6
~I.
I:I :;'_-------t--------------t-------I
!r-- .
! ;"
!.._----------+---------------------If---------1
!,I j------------t---------------------'1I----------1
~~------------t------------------II----------1![
1I
r/[ .',I-----------i-----------------f-------jJ
n:~
r
i FT. NO \ ~TQA Cort: TJ\Cl ' ~ ,
WA.~W p\y -nlR-~l)GGO MP0~R.LA:;C
M A [fJ f:\ G- t. iJV'.. 6 ".) '{ 7Q.o -er~C"(
""'P_tto }-..)E
y~ ~ - 4'1}0 s-
(sOJ~ C. 2. 7 - 3' S a
f/~~- {LzltJ~ ,
1 co <0 - iJ.p & (
8/3 - B'7'-G~;16
('10'-\)372- -/50 0
(Ci l) 4) 1S 1- 70 4D
C; fig .- 3/ 7 7
1~~- QIBD
Cjo If f ).j-i3- 0 J3D '::
q04/19 I -;.( 4'? r '~
q \)~/£fIJJ ~ Ljl3dJ----
7'Lf - 0/30
iff +- - If 'I ::;B--
Kcsct.vc l
FPlltf
DC/~
b~'(L
\YM~-~~I
T,
\
A~Fl L.lAT(o~
'0evz.
F: J, /'-/, 1:J.
/£/?
r::-6Fwfc
, J/Lil ~ , C(;tskrI d
:1 :Po.&~..... Wl)og.,.~-t~
"DAViD Nt x:.oAJ
I LIArDJt DVEI 0'
I Lyl1J1 11050r4
111
Dlw... MLk-rtlIOf,'<.-
; t LV. !ltMJY(j J .>
. JOI+k.J 'Bt6SA£.)
.'f9(~d,~~, IvoN.. CARTER- C~'P5 01=- tWG'eS
',,:fO'lt"' k y A-r-J ~ cS'TL (» ('/'-l,. )
~
I!
r
I
I'Il '
1""1I !
I i
ril .
n! i
i'[ ,
A-7
rrI
~
I
~
l :
~
~
ni
~
~
I
Il .;
APPENDIX B
DIKE REQUIREMENTS
AND
DISPOSAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS
r APPENDIX B: Dike Requirements and Disposal Capacity Analysisi!i
~ r- T -1~ \l_
H
~
-~-~ GRADE
I: BG hG
I" BgI
9M.S.L ~
r- DIKE CROSS - SECT] ONi
SITE PLAN
----I~L
I-J--- - -- - - --- --- - -1_I II II A s I
J- _f~g__ - --- J_
rw
L~_--L-.I1
411II
II
!I
I Parameters:II
Values Assumed
L mean site length site specific
W mean site width site specific
As site plan area site specific
G site grade site specific
g excavated grade 3 ft.
H dike height above grade 15 ft.
Sx dike side slope 3
T dike crest width 12 ft.
F freeboard and ponding 4 ft.
B-1
I APPENDIX B: (continued)
~Width of Dike @ Grade, BG
BG = 2HS x + T (1)
Width of Dike @ Excavated Grade, BgBg = 2HS x + T + (G - g) Sx
Width of Dike @ Depth of Freeboard & Ponding, BF
BF = 2FS x + T
(2)
(3)
Volume of Dike Material Required, lfMR
lfMR = [H / 2 (T + BG)] [ 2L + 2W - 4BG] (4)
Volume of Dike Material Available, lfMA
lfMA = (G - g) [A g - L (BG + Bg) - W (BG + Bg~
Volume of Disposal Capacity, lfD
lfD = lfMA + (H - F) [Ag - L (BG + BF) - W (BG + BF) + 2 (BG2
(5)
(7)- (lfMA
If lfMA >then lfD'
Note:
I
I
iI
B-2
i iI .
II
I .l !
II •
I
I
rII
,I
i :l i
I
APPENDIX C
SITE BANK: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SITES
nj
PRIMARY SITES
Site Designator: A-3.3 W-28-1
Site Name: Piney Island
Reach: Fernandina Harbor to Nassau Sound
The major feature of the Piney Island site is the large, open
water borrow pit. The banks surrounding this feature are generally 3-4
feet below grade. Although a narrow shelf was evident around much of
the borrow pit, very little was vegetated by emergent species. Cattail
(Typha sp.) is the most abundant emergent, forming a fairly large stand
in the west central portion of the pit. Few fish were observed along
the banks of the borrow pit. The shallow margins appeared to be
frequently utilized by wading birds, and ospreys were observed foraging
over the water.
The borrow pit is flanked on the east by a dike, which separates
the freshwater pit from a brackish water embayment of Kingsley Creek.
This marsh is vegetated mostly by needlerush (Juncus roemarianus).
North and south of the borrow pit is a slash pine (Pinus elliottii) saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens) upland. Within this pine community south of
the pit is a pocket of water oak (Quercus nigra) and red cedar
(Juniperus silicicola). North of the borrow pit are old spoil mounds
vegetated by species characteristic of disturbed habitats such as dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Sesbania punicea and broomsedge
(Andropogon virginicus). The salt marsh bordering the lower part of
Piney Island (south of AlA) is dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora).
To provide capacity adequate for the projected fifty-year
requirement of the Fernandina Harbor to Nassau Sound reach of the AIWW,
analysis indicates that a disposal area of 23.62 acres is required.
With the addition of a 300' buffer around the perimeter of the disposal
area the total area is increased to 60.22 acres. (Table 4-1) However,
it is recommended (and likely to be required by the present owners)
C-I
C3C!!3HIlO:l311-S311I!!IM/O:l-
03}1:l3IlJ 01313·-·ll111I!!I ..... "" ...
1!!3W3S1f3 - - - - -
S3IlIVOlUJOlI
3l\t8SI I I
,L£ 17 0
1£/ ONe3.118
"H 8t:1\t
S3I~IH~OJ HOIIV1393A
J
J
J
JI
.,
I
J
J
J
J
II
~
J
/'--I
II
n
II
that the entire peninsula be acquired, as the remaining acreage would
be essentially unusable.
This site would appear to be well suited for disposal of
maintenance material. The central portion of the site that would lie
within the actual disposal area has been previously disturbed and is of
marginal ecological value. The borrow pit appears to be completely
isolated from state waters. With carefully considered site
configuration, the majority of the surrounding canopy as well as the
small pre-existing freshwater slough to the southwest of the main
borrow pit can be preserved within the recommended buffer. A
documented archeological site (8 Na 131) also lies within the buffer
area, and would be preserved. Reasonable pipeline access is afforded
by a cut-off meander of Kingsley Creek, although the crossing of less
than sao' of marsh with unvegetated flats would be required. The fact
that the site is a peninsula bordered on three sides by salt
marsh/tidal creeks, and is separated from adjacent upland to the north
by S.R. 200 (AlA) precludes conflicting adjacent land-use, and
minimizes the possibility of contamination of near-by wells.
Site Designator: N/A
Site Name: South Amelia Island
Reach: Nassau Sound
Wi thin the Nassau Sound reach, sediments historically have been
proven to consist primarily of beach-quality material (i. e., clean,
fine to medium quartz sand). Previous maintenance dredging within this
reach (1982) stockpiled material in an undesignated disposal area on
south Amelia Island for secondary handling prior to beach re
nourishment. Future beach disposal of maintenance material from this
reach remains likely. However, no specific site has been designated,
allowing flexibility to satisfy future project requirements.
C-3
I!I
Site Designator: A-12.4 W-27-3
Site Name: N.E. Black Hammock Island
Reach: Nassau Sound to Ft. George River
The NE Black Hammock Island site is located immediately adjacent
to the AIWW near Sawpit Creek. The shoreline along this site is steep
with little to no fringing marsh. Immediately adjacent to the marsh is
a narrow strip of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), yaupon (Ilex
vomitoria), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and live oak (Quercus
virginiana). A short distance inland from this association, slash pine
(Pinus elliottii) becomes prevalent. The majority of the site inland
from the AIWW is slash pine (Pinus elliottii) dominated with scattered
oaks and a saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) or gallberrry (Ilex glabra)
understory. Along the northern boundary a more open scrubby character
is evident in the pinelands. This area is commonly vegetated by slash
pine (Pinus elliottii), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gallberry (Ilex
g La b r a ) , myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia), sand live oak (Quercus
virginiana var. geminata) and occasionally wire grass (Aristida
stricta). A small palustrine wetland was observed on the infrared
aerial photographs and was indicated on the USFWS Wetlands Inventory
Maps but was not visited. Protected fauna noted on site include
gopher tortoise and fox squirrel.
The area of this site is limited by the available contiguous
upland acreage which may be efficiently diked. Therefore, it must be
used in combination with two additional sites to satisfy the projected
fifty-year requirement of the high maintenance Nassau Sound to Ft.
George River reach.
Inclusion of a recommended 300' buffer to the north (Shark Road
with residences), west (Sawpit Road) and south (residences) results in
a disposal area of 19.80 acres, and a total site area of 42.38 acres.
A natural buffer is provided to the east by exclusion of an existing
transitional wetland community. A primary advantage of the site is its
location. It adjoins the very high maintenance Sawpit Cut-off section
of the waterway, and affords the opportunity to segregate the material
C-4
030N3HWOJ3lf-S3I1II/IMiOJ~
03:iJ3f1J 0131.:1 .-.WIllI/I········· .
11l31HSv:l -----
S31lfVOl/OOa
31\7'88I I I ( I
.8£17 0
S3I1IlInwwOJ NOI1V13~3A
,
-i
JJJ
J
J,
j
i.....J
.J
J~ I
JJJ
1i
,-.J
I!
,-I
r-[
IIIII
dredged from this artificial cut, if its indicated silty, organic
character proves to require specialized handling. Minimal fringing
marsh also provides excellent pipeline access. A small isolated
wetland would be impacted by utilization of this site; however,
adoption of the recommended 22.58 acres of buffer would preserve an
additional pocket wetland as well as significant open scrubby pineland
habitat. This buffer would also minimize conflicts with adjacent
residences, but possible well contamination remains a consideration.
Site Designator: A-15.2 W-19-4
Site Name: Central Black Hammock Island
Reach: Nassau Sound to Ft. George River
This site consists of the portion of existing site MSA 300E which
lies west of Sawpit Road. Ownership of this property was obtained by
FIND prior to its use in the 1982 maintenance of the AIWW. The portion
of the existing site east of Sawpit Road has been used thus far only to
provide pipeline access. Utilization of this eastern portion for spoil
disposal would provide insufficient capacity, and the acquisition of an
addi tional site would still be required. Therefore, only the western
portion of the site is recommended for inclusion in the site bank.
Moreover, it may be expanded to the south, allowing a more efficient
dike configuration than possible with the existing two sections divided
by Sawpit Road.
The western portion of the site is currently diked (total plan
area, 35.7 acres), with no surrounding buffer except that which is
provided by the right-of-way along Sawpit Road. The design dike crest
elevation is +37.0 ft. MSL, or approximately 25.0 ft. above grade.
Approximately one-half the plan area interior to the dike remains
underwater. An additional 60' easement has been obtained so that this
water may be drained by pipeline from the current outlet to the marshes
adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek to the west of the site. Work to
restore weir and settling basin functions will be required to
accomplish this drainage.
C-6
II
The only limitation on the continued use of this site is the
difficult pipeline access. To reach the site requires the crossing of
1200 f t , . of marsh with no available tidal creeks, and an additional
1000 ft. of upland. The pipeline must then pass under Sawpit Road.
Site Designator A-1S.4 W-19-S
Site Name W. Central Black Hammock Island
Reach: Nassau Sound to Ft. George River
This site is located immediately south of the existing diked
disposal area on Black Hammock Island. Communities found here include
oak scrub, maritime hammock, pine flatwoods and isolated wetlands. The
oak scrub community is characterized by sand live oak, (Quercus
virginiana var.geminata), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), myrtle oak
(Quercus myrtifolia) and staggerbush (Lyonia fruticosa). This
community has a very low profile and corresponds to the Mandarin fine
sand' areas mapped by Stem et al. (1978). The maritime hammock occurs
on the extreme western portion of the site bordering the salt marshes
associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. The vegetation community is very
diverse and is characterized by live oak (Quercus virginiana), southern
magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). Pine flatwoods are very common
throughout much of the site. Characteristic vegetation includes slash
pine, (Pinus elliottii), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and gallberry
(Ilex glabra). Two small, isolated wetland areas were also encountered
on site. One was dominated by sand cord grass (Spartina b a k e r r ) and
redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana). The other wetland was dominated by
sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) and broomsedge (Andropogon
virginicus).
The recommended site configuration results from two
considerations: (1) the desire to exclude the mature hardwood hammock
to the west; and (2) the need to provide adequate capacity in
combination with the N.E. and Central Black Hammock Island sites to
satisfy the projected requirements of the Nassau Sound to Ft. George
C-7
030~3HHOJ3~--
S3IlI~f1HHOJ---.
03~J3HJ 013H ._-lVllI~I ....•... "
1~3H3SV3 -----
S3I~voHnoa
3TtfJSI I I
1299 0
(£-61-M
(17-61-1\\
g-:J
"lSI )j::>oWWBH >j::>BTH reJ~u;):) "MpUBISI xooui WBH )j::>B18: IBJlU;):)
SOHVl 0301101Sro l-::::~:"":·~";~j._... It· ~ • ._
[-~._.," ~SOIlVlHlI r: - ';;'-:~;;J
['"' v 'J IlS3110.;l OOO/lOllVII OIlVldn Ii." ') 0 1;;>
lS3110.;l Sn01l3:lIIIOJ OIlVldfl It r t J t r tlOIlVl Hsn~O/OmJHS
~~ONV131101SVd/dOllJ
S3IlIIIIlhIIOJ 1I0I1V13~311
, i
!
: I
........!
!.J
J
J!
J
]--!
]J
; 1: I~
J1
j
I.,
I!
r-r-.
[
River reach of the AIWW. The latter consideration results in a
disposal area of 32.40 acres. Inclusion of a recommended 300' buffer
to the east and south results in a total committal of 54.80 acres. The
ixcluded hammock area provides a natural buffer to the west.
This site is predominantly a good upland disposal area, with the
exception of the two isolated freshwater wetlands mentioned above which
would be impacted. Operationally, the site suffers from the same
difficult pipeline access described with the existing Central Black
Hammock Island site. However, this is compensated by the site's
location adjoining the existing diked area, allowing a more efficient
dike configuration.
Site Designator: A-20.7 W-5-7
Site Name: West of Sisters Creek
Reach: Ft. GeQrge River to Jacksonville Harbor
The Sister's Creek site is a former diked spoil disposal area.
The area contains an long narrow cattail marsh (Typha sp.). Other
vegetation species found adjacent to this marsh include saltgrass
(Distichlis spicata), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) and Carolina
willow (Salix caroliniana). Wading birds appear to have utilized the
shallow marsh area frequently. During a second visit to the site in
July, it was observed that the fringing cattails (Typha sp.) were
turning brown, and were under some apparent acute stress. No obvious
cause was noted and water levels appeared approximately the same as the
previous visit. Much of the rest of the site is sparsely vegetated but
with apparent wetland affinities. Common vegetation observed include
Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) with patches of sweet clover
(Melilotus alba) and salt marsh bulrush (Scirpus robustus). The dikes
appeared intact and were vegetated with wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
pepper vine (Ampelopsis arborea), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and
groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia).
C-9
:~~ ~ :-=J ~'-l :-j ~~ .~l ,~:l ~ ::-=l --~l ,-:---j .~ :'-l ~ '~
=-~
N
UPLAND CONIFEROUS FOREST
Appendix E For Numerical Modifiers
SCALE
o 46'L__ I I t
BOUNDARIES
------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL-.•_. FIELD CHECKED- CDIiI1UNITIES--- RECDHHENDED
DRH£CkSCH£R
W-5-7)
', ..
West of Sisters Creek (A-20.7
CROP/PASTURELAND
SIlRUB/BRUSIl LAND
Figure C.4.
VEGETATION COKMUNITIES
(")It-'
o
I.?,..,Y.,..,,.<<~I UPLAND HARDI/OOD FOREST
~--::~:...~: <I I/ETLANDS~.. ~,,,,,,,'h_
b~·:~·t:·j DISTURBED LANDS
Since the dikes which define this former disposal area remain
intact, the entire diked area (62.29 acres) is considered as a unit,
although its capacity exceeds the projected disposal requirement for
the Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor reach of the AIWW. Outside
of the dike a narrow belt of low tree canopy provides a marginal visual
buffer. Within the dike, the entire site shows evidence of disposal
and subsequent removal of dredged material. The wetland features which
formed in the resulting low areas are isolated from state waters.
Potential adjacent land-use conflicts with this site appear to be
minimal as the area is primarily used for port related industrial/
commercial activities. Additionally, the site is largely isolated by
the Heckscher Drive (S.R. 105) causeway, which also serves to separate
it from the extensive Sisters Creek - Hannah Mills Creek salt marsh
system to the north. Operationally, the site would appear to offer
little difficulty. Good pipeline access is afforded to the east from
Sisters Creek, with little or no fringing marsh. Pumping distance is
potentially less than optimal, as the site lies at the southern
boundary of the reach it is to serve. However, this is a result of the
lack of suitable upland areas adjacent to Sisters Creek, and
characterizes all alternative sites considered within this reach.
Site Designator: A-2l.4 E-2-9
Site Name: N. Heckscher Drive
~ Reach: Ft. George River to Jacksonville HarborI .
I !
II
IrIII
The North Heckscher Drive site consists of an upland forested
community, adjacent to a mixed salt marsh. The south-central portion
of the site has been previously utilized as a dredged material disposal
site. The forested area is vegetated by live oak (Quercus virginiana),
hackberry (Celtis laevigata), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), slash pine
(Pinus elliottii), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and cabbage palm
(Sabal palmetto). There is a tidal drainage area that borders the site
on the north. A large circular pool occurs northeast of the site and
drains into the tidal marsh. It is vegetated by needlerush (Juncus
roemarianus) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). The old disposal area
C-ll
~I !
nnnrI
n
II
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
I~ J -+- i -+ .4+1 UPlNiO CONIFEROUS FOREST
!y.I',Q."Q,.5~J UPlAND lll\ROIiOOD FOREST
I ~ - '".:;j:~~~-.~"""j I/ETlNiOS
f.>;".:";~~ DISTURBED LAIlOS
Appendix E For llumcricalHodificrs
Figure C.5. N. Heckscher Drive (A-21.4 E-2-9)
C-12
o 467'I I f I
SCALE
llOUNDi\RIES
------ Ei\SEHENT.......... INITIAL_.-' fIElD CHECKED--COHHUtlITIES--- RECOHHEtlDED
is characterized by hairgrass (Mulenbergia
(Heterotheca 8ubaxillaris), wax myrtle
prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia drummondi).
capillaris), camphorweed
(Myrica cerifera) and
n
iI
This site was retained as a good upland site to which FIND
currently holds a disposal easement. The useable portion of the site
represents 15.89 acres. Inclusion of a recommended 300' buffer to the
east results in a disposal area of 12.45 acres. To the south an
effective buffer is provided by the right-of-way associated with
Heckscher Drive (S.R. 105). The narrowness of the site precludes a
full 300' buffer between the proposed disposal area and the marsh to
the north. A more limited buffer in this area is advisable, but this
is not reflected in the calculated disposal area.
This small site, selected to service the same reach as the large
diked area west of Sisters Creek, affords the opportunity to segregate
fine grained or contaminated sediments related to the proximity of
port-related industries. It should be noted that no evidence of
contaminated material exists, although core borings taken prior to the
1982 maintenance found pockets of organic silt (AIWW mile 19.43 and
19.57).
Site Designator: 1-1.7 W-Du5-1
Site Name: Bullard Property
Reach: Jacskonville Harbor to Pine Island
This site is located within a large tract of undeveloped land
north of San Pablo Road along the west side of the ICWW and south of
the St. Johns River. The portion of the peninsula under consideration
for dredged material disposal is located north of an existing east-west
powerline right-of-way. The upland area on site consists entirely of
maritime hammock. Species characteristic of this diverse community
include live oak (Quercus virginiana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra),
southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),
water oak (Quercus nigra), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and yaupon
(Ilex vomitoria). Gopher tortoise burrows were common along disturbed
C-13
rrrr NI -I l'-
W
~ A ...J<!
I 0(f)
0
r:I j
,-..,
\ ,
co'I
! l'-:J
0
n, CO
WIl-
II(f)
• I
I.
C-14
l-V)
Iii""'""a ....U. cc
a1Il u.
Cl Cl ::>
"" :e a Cl
:5 ::i "" 8U-l
""' U. :0:cc
iii~ Cl
~:e "":::> a :§V) cc u Vl
'" '" Cla. .... Cl Cl z:.... CD 5 z: ::ia.
~ ::ia I-
"" v; a. 0. ....U ::> :::> :0:
III...C>
;;::.~
1Il "Ca 0
5:I;
';;;a uw 'Cm
"" OJ
r= E:J
1Il :e~ ...Cl
&U-l
.~"C=C>0.0.
'"
I,
r!
I ,l I
nI
I
i
or open areas such as old roads and the powerline right-of-way. The
fringing salt marsh east of the site is dominated by needlerush
(Juncus roemarianus) with smooth cordgrass, (Spartina alterniflora)
lining ditches and tidal creeks. A manatee was observed in the ICWW
adjacent to this site. There is a known archaeological site at this
location. Oyster shell was commonly observed and surface collections
of pot sherds were made from a disturbed area.
Sizing this site to provide the needed disposal capacity for the
Jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island reach of the ICWW requires a
disposal area of 7.08 acres. Addition of a recommended 300' buffer
around the disposal area perimeter results in a total committal of
31.67 acres. Because of the quality and diversity of the mature
hardwood hammock community, as well as its possible archeological
significance, favorable comment was received from the FGFWFC on the
possibility of preserving a significant portion of this area within a
buffer zone, despite loss of greater than seven acres. This is made
more desirable because of the planned construction of a major east-west
artery immediately south of the recommend site, and the impending
residential development of the area (Greenfield Plantation). No
operational difficulties are anticipated. Pipeline access is not
expected to introduce additional environmental impacts as adequate open
water access (possibly dredged) exists to the cleared powerline
easement.
Site Designator: 1-5.0 W-Du9-3
Site Name: Moody Marine
Reach: Pine Island to Beach Blvd.
This site is located immediately south and west of the Moody
Marine complex on the ICWW at Atlantic Blvd. Vegetation consists of a
strand of maritime hammock adjacent to an area disturbed by marina
activities, pine flatwoods and an isolated wetland. The pine flatwoods
vegetation consists of mostly longleaf with some slash pine (Pinus
palustris and Pinus elliottii) with an understory of saw palmetto
(Serenoa repens) and gallberry (Ilex glabra). In more open areas wire
C-15
~.....oql::I-j
CD
o-:J
~oo0«:~~I-j
s'CD
.......'iCJ1
o
~J
t:1l::wI
W'-'
91-8
9::0 orOJJ>\J 2l>en
.--f"-~A'f t t t t ~
~~t t t t t t ~........-f t t t t t t t t t t t
t t t t t t t t t t t t t~.t~~ ~ t t T t t+t ttl:,t T f t t t t t .. .t t t t
~. , t t t fTr'f t 'f T't"
.- t t t t i' t t t t t r T'\!tYtttttttt t tt t tYtttttlt'~
'" t t t t t t t 1.. t t t tl\" t t t t t t t '"\yt t t t :.'" t t t t t t T t l~ t t t t·,~tttttttttttttt "~ tttttttttttttt',\' t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t .",Stttttttttttttt':1 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t ~~:1tttttttttttttt ..., "'f 't..t t t t t t t t t t t t
t t t 'f't"t'"t't.:t.;t,!·.t,t tty.t t t t t t t t t t t t T T 1"',\'
, t t t t t t t t t t t t t t i'tttttttt 1"ttt,r t t t t t t t t~tt t t t t\t t T t t t t f t t t t t t t ~, t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 'tttttttttltt ~
~t t t t t t '" Q ? t ~l" ~~
"! 'r"l .,ot ';J 'I ,,0) ~':) (.1:) 8 ;;:. Q 9 ,
,'2,'-: .<'::~': '~): -: ~.' ~J.: t;,.:',:,.' ~••~~[,~.0 ' '~, 'j '", ~ 9 ~~ Q it> ~
,~ ':' ~~~, ? 0 9lff Q 6 ., ,'> r,"~ ;., ;., "oj ~, p.--"
~, . ,:) " .~ . ~, &.~.,~:} .~) "'p--;;'--~. '
:>'0.",.,"a-X
tTl
6''"1 ;::
'" Vl~ c!" '"'1 '"_. m
n '"..~ s:is 69: 1,1)
....Q''1..
:;:~8'"..,'"soenVI-1
c: VI n..., ::::: ::0s: ~ ~'" '" .....'" ..... '""" :>n '" VIg t;; c!J-t :;:::::: ;:c-n m~ s: s:o :z '"c: <:> cVI
-no
~
J."'"gJ I
~Jg
~: I"',~-......~
JJJU-J
I-.J
J
j
I~
J-.-J
:.......J
__ Z-i
j
o
..p:.
..p:.ill
enol>rrrl
~g:::J~~n:J: m _ I.I't
~eb=~~ =. n ;:: £2 lei:;::C~= .....(:'" _ mm m n'" VI xm
'"
I iII i i I~~
J
I'I
r-r-
I
grass (Aristida stricta) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) are
locally common. The saltmarsh adjacent to the site is dominated by
smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) but needlerush (Juncus
roemarianus) is also common. The isolated wetland is a circular
depression vegetated by maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) and Virginia
chain fern (Woodwardia virginica). A green sea turtle carcass was
found floating in the ICWW adjacent to this site.
Analysis indicates a disposal area of 11.51 acres is required to
provide capacity adequate to contain the projected fifty-year disposal
volume for the Pine Island to Beach Blvd. reach of the ICWW. Ample
open pineland area allows this disposal area to be situated to the west
of the maritime hammock, thereby preserving the hammock and the
isolated wetland within the recommended buffer. Additional buffer to
the north and west, segregating the disposal area from a trailer park
and roadside development results in a total site area of 31.10 acres.
To avoid the marsh areas adjacent to the waterway, pipeline access
is expected to be permitted through the dredged marina basin and the
disturbed area to the south. The only shoaling area within this reach,
and one which has required frequent maintenance, is of very limited
extent immediately opposite the marina entrance. Currently planned
maintenance of this shoal includes the disposal of material within the
disturbed area south of the marina on a one-time basis only. A primary
advantage of the proposed site is its proximity to this high
maintenance area.
Site Designator: 1-11.5 W-SJ3-5
Site Name: Pablo Creek
Reach: Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley
This site lies west of the ICWW and north of Pablo Creek. There
is a well developed marsh along Pablo Creek that is documented by
smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) but also contains sawgrass
(Cladium jamaicense), cattail (Typha sp.) and needlerush (Juncus
roemarianus) toward the upland edge. Wading and aquatic birds are
C-17
coIo
S'IT-I) >ida.':) Dlqed(S-8rS-MD30IBWWO:l3U-S3I1IHrN-lOJ--.
03;:(::I3I1J a13H ._.-lVllINI .
UI3t/3SV3 -----
S3IllVO»OOlJ·...··{'l
..,\' t 1:...f··t t 1 :
c-i- '1 ....4· ..t 1 t 1, j:i., ': .. ,..··'··1· t t t 'y~,
","'0 ~'r " ' "-",,,'@~'o'\J :.t.. ·T·:of· .. -. 'r Y 'f r . .,':o .....,...... ....." tIt r r r-vty ....be'" t r r .i'
.y.') ..1. 'i', ~.''''..·;;;:·¥.t \t tr t t ...-=. , r r r tr ".."" 9 '(> " \'I '" t ' . r. , t '., , ,r, r t I,
..t> ," " " "" . :' , ~_r 1 t r , 1 t r, "'";'0''''' r t, -"'bO:':I'" t t t, r t r t t""'l> " . • t t ,t t, 1 t " t r t t,', 1 t, t .:
."';99' t 1ttrt',ttt'ltrt',1t 1 ' 1'.r: '" '", '" •. t , t t t, t , t , t , , ,t t,t 1,t t t t r t t t "
17 U) " ,-.; 9v"v'i> ?£ t 1 1 t 1 1 1 T T t)' 1 T 1 T ., T r t t 1 !:'~~.,'tI' '" '" 'iJ,,' t, t t t t t t , t t, t r r, 1 , t t 1 ., Yr.lo'1' '1 ~!
.....·f '" " "> t' t tt It
' t t t t, t r ttl '1' t r r 1 t r;.."c'Y~ 1 1 [,.• "V"v t ttTtlt't" " ~ , '; '" " "" . 1 1 t 1 1 t . t ' 1 t " 1 ,r r, 1 '1' 1 r r r T, r ,:.t>;;,@'" ,r r tttrrtrtttr1tTt'J ;;, '... .'. t t t t ,tr t t t ,t t t t t ,t t t.t, t t t ttl" t' .'
-f '" ""',,"". t t t t r r. t t t T t t t t r t t T T t t t 1 t r r r t I'.,~ 1) Ii> '" v. t t t t t, 1 t t t t t t.:l, t t t t 1 t t t t t T t t t '
"'I,\"\;>,,,,,-...u,'\'l tt t t T t t t t t t t\./fPt t t t 1 , t t t, t ttl"(,,'@ 9~~'P"'. t t t.t,t.t t.t t,t t t.tt.t t.t t,t T t t rI;,.",r t ,:i, " 9 '" '. '" t t r T Ttl t.)' t t. T T 1,' , t T 1 t t 'i.~,(f"Y'~ 1 I:I'iJ '" "'. T t t t t , t 1, t, r t t, 1 t t r, t t, t, r t, t t \:4 r ryr ,::u ",,,"", tttttttttrrtt1tt1rrr,rtrttrt'Itq
1> .,; 'i> "';, t t t t t t t t r t t r r, t t r, r ,r r. 1 , r t r t 1 fW r I:~ ...".,,~, '" '" ,'" ,t+tl7' 1 t t 1 t t t t. t t r 1 t 1It. r r r,t r 1 , t t. t 1 I:0.0"'\)0". rr t ttttttt11ttt,trTT r111111'T1.:
::0 \·5',,\'1;0,0.;pt t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 1 t ' r 1 1 t 1 , t t t T tTY TTl'. '. "~"• '1' t t t t t t t ... ..i.1.J..:Lt t t t r' r' , 't 1 t ' " , , ' c', '"Q" 0. .!- ' '" ,.-<,=,.~ .."" """". ' T, r l' , ,1'19 ' , ',W I'.................,.,""'"...... ,,",=,'" "0;, t t ", r t t t r 1 , t t , t "" ,)1 1:
'.ttl t t t r , t t 1 r t rt r '['··".,,,!.t,t t,t T.tt t,t It 1t r:
". ·,~··:t'~'~~·~'·~'!.~'"tJ.;
(f)
»z
S3IIINOHWOJ NOIIV1393~
sallVl 03HHfUSIO KfJ[-" ¥ -~SaNVl13n,=~I' ~•..=:
1$3110:1 OOOMQllVlI oNVldn j.~f~)(~r.j;l0 ~\':)9
lS3HO;/ SnOH3.:lINOJ QlNldO ~r t T+ri tj
3lV8SI I I I I
,VGL 0
}/
1- 1_·~.
InnnrII
abundant along the creek. Five osprey nests were observed in nearby
snags. A gopher tortoise was observed swimming across the creek, which
is an unusual habitat for this species. Woodstorks were also observed
soaring overhead. There is a known woodstork rookery about 1.2
kilometers south of the edge of the proposed disposal site (Nesbitt et
aI., 1982).
Moving inland (and north) from Pablo Creek, there is a band of
hardwoods bordering the watercourse. Species found here include live
oak (Quercus virginiana), water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak
(Quercus laurifolia), swamp bay (Per sea palustris) and pignut hickory
(Carya glabra). Moving further north through the hammock, the
elevations of the site increase substantially to near +20 feet MSL.
The vegetation on these sandy hills is characteristic of the longleaf
pine-turkey oak association. Species found there include longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), turkey oak (Quercus laevis), post oak (Quercus
margaretta) and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia). Ground cover was
dominated by wire grass (Aristida stricta) with occasional saw palmetto
(Serenoa repens) and silk-grass (Pit yo psis graminifolia). Wildlife
sitings included white tailed deer and gopher tortoise. Moving further
north the vegetation community changes to a mixed pine flatwoods.
Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine(Pinus elliottii), saw
palmetto (Serenoa repens) and wiregrass (Aristida stricta) are
prevalent. In addition, the understory also commonly contains
gallberry (Ilex glabra) and shiny-leaved blueberry (Vaccinium
myrisinites). A pond is located on the site and is vegetated by panic
grass (Panicum sp.) and spikerush (Eleocharis s p i) . An American
alligator was observed utilizing this wetland. The pond may be
augmented with groundwater, since a large well was observed adjacent to
the pond.
As discussed previously, the Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley reach of
the ICWW is the highest maintenance reach in the project area.
Incorporation of the required disposal capacity within a single site
requires 103.15 acres of disposal area. For this site, it is
recommended that the disposal area be confined to the pine lands north
C-19
r:i !
r,
I'!
,-i
of the maritime hammock which borders the Pablo Creek marsh system,
with the hammock area preserved as a buffer between the disposal area
and Pablo Creek. Inclusion of additional on-site buffer areas to the
north and west of the disposal area results in a total area requirement
of 179.42 acres. The recommended configuration would include the
freshwater pond mentioned above within the proposed disposal area,
although the site could be re-configured to avoid this area. The
presence of the pond and the adjacent well indicates that potential
groundwater contamination must be a consideration. No adjacent land
use conflicts exist at present, with the area of planted pine to the
north the closest development. Pipeline access is afforded by way of
Pablo Creek, which closely approaches the upland area in several
locations, minimizing the impact to the marsh. The relatively high
elevation of the site (+20.0 ft. MSL) would reduce pumping efficiency.
C-20
nI
I
[
nII
n~
I
SECONDARY SITES
Site Designator: A-3.5 E-28-2
Site Name: Crane Island
Reach: Fernandina Harbor to Nassau Sound
Crane Island is located on the AIWW directly west of the
Fernandina Airport. It is a natural maritime hammock island surrounded
by a predominately smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) salt marsh.
There are also large areas of unvegetated salt flats within the marsh
community that may be associated with old dredged material disposal.
On the east side of the island are three major and two smaller disposal
lobes. The two largest lobes are vegetated by slash pine (Pinus
elliottii), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria),
and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Most of the main portion of the
island is maritime hammock dominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana),
southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) and red cedar (Juniperus
silicicola). The northern sixth of the island has a lower canopy that
appears more wind-pruned, less mesic and less diverse than the rest of
the island. One small internal wetland was found. It is dominated by
sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), smartweed (Polygonum sp.) and
Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica). There is a known
archaeological or historical site recorded for Crane Island.
The relatively small disposal area required on this site (24.62
acres) to satisfy the projected requirements of the Fernandina Harbor
to Nassau Sound reach permits the recommended site to be confined to
the northern 30% of the island, thereby utilizing the two largest
disposal lobes and the lower canopy in this area. This configuration
would also impact the small transitional and wetland area between the
lobes. Location of the site in this manner allows the majority of the
original island to remain unaffected, including the mature hardwood
hammock and the internal wetland in the central part of the island, as
well as the documented archeological site (8Na59) at the southern end.
C-21
'\
N
FERNANoINAAIRpaRT
ISCALE
a 6791
I------,---,--....l--.J[
A.I.
W.W.
CRO?/PASTURElN/O
ARCH. SITE8Na 59
VEGETATION COMMUNITIes
BOUNOARIES
------ EAS~EHI
., •.•••••• IIlITIAL_.-" FIELD CHECKED--- CO!'HJNrTIES--- RECOHHENDED
rl
r-I
II
i ,L •
II
Figure e.g. Crane Island (A-3.5 E-28-2)
C-22
r,
,.!
I'!
I,
No adjacent land-use conflicts exist at present. This will not be
changed by the planned industrial park development on the land
immediately west of the Fernandina Airport, from which Crane Island is
separated by Broadbent Creek and marsh. Road access through airport
property does not extend all the way to Crane Island, and a small
distance (less than 100') of marsh/unvegetated flats would have to be
crossed. Pipeline access to the site would require the crossing of
200'-400' of marsh, depending on the route.
Site Designator: A-17.0 W-12-6
Site Name: Cedar Point
Reach: Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor
Cedar Point is located on the southern end of Black Hammock
Island. The vegetation on the extreme tip is mature oak hammock.
Apparently, much of the understory was cleared at one time so that what
remains is a live oak (Quercus virginiana) canopy and a shrubby second
growth understory of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), wax myrtle (Myrica
ceritera), and muscadine (Vitis sp.). Also located within this hammock
are several isolated wetlands with one containing a heron rookery of
great blue heron, great egret, cattle egret and white ibis (Nesbitt et
al., 1982). Three archaeological sites are also located in this area.
Because of these sensitive resources, the proposed dredged material
disposal site was shifted northward out of this community. Vegetation
communities north of the hammock area include pine flatwoods, oak scrub
and isolated wetland depressions. The pine lands are dominated by slash
pine (Pinus elliotti), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and rusty lyonia
(Lyonia ferruginea). The oak scrub community is dominated by myrtle
oak (Quercus myrtifolia), saw palmetto, rusty lyonia (Lyonia
ferruginea), and gallberry (Ilex glabra). Several wetland depressions
are evident on the aerial photographs but were not visited because of
access problems.
The Cedar Point site has been selected as a secondary site for
both the Nassau Sound to Ft. George River, and Ft. George River to
Jacksonville Harbor reaches, lying at the common boundary of both.
C-23
I9L9
030H3HHOJ3~ -------S3IlIHrl4-I03 ---.
03:'433113013I.:l·---l'lIlIHI .
11B1I3SV3 -----
S3IHVOHOOU
28 no 8::LLJ S .HJ t:l'V'
:3lV~S.
I
:4fr-- £9 no 8 ::l1.IS 'HJt:JV
929 nOB.~~~~~-- :3.1 JS .HJ t:l'i
s~a!J!pOII l~a!~a~nH ~O~ 3 XIPuaddv
SOHV1 03a~nlSIO t:'.:.(..;:-:.]S0llV11311 r:·.:-_,:;~~:I.t'.... -..... '"t
lS3~O~ OOOIlOllVlI ONV1dn ['1./0""0V0]lS3<lO:l sno~3:1 IlI03 Ol/V1dn ItT t f t T; I
o'l/V1 HSml9/amlllS
~====;0lN13<1nlSVd/dO~J L....~,...-..;:.....J
S3I1IHnHII03 NOI1V13~3A
",I
j
J]
...J
J,I
I.,.
1I..
J
i--.J
J1I
, !--J
JJ
i
J
J
Therefore, it has been sized to satisfy the combined requirement of
both reaches, less the remaining capacity of the two existing sites.
The resulting disposal area requirement is 60.42 acres. However,
because of the undeveloped acreage potentially available in this
region, this disposal area can be located to the north of the hammock
area, rookery, and archeological sites, while still allowing a full
300' buffer around the entire site perimeter. This results in a total
committal of 113.94 acres. The buffer to the north segregates the
disposal area from the only adjacent conflicting land-use, the
residential/agricultural development along Cedar Point Road. As is the
case with all sites on Black Hammock Island, residential well
contamination must be a consideration.
The primary limitation of the Cedar Point site relates to pumping
distance and pipeline access. The site lies at the extremes of the
reaches it is to serve; therefore pumping distance approaches the
limits of efficient operation. This is exacerbated by circuitous
access to the site by way of Horseshoe Creek and an additional crossing
of up to 1000' of upland. A pipeline crossing of the extensive marsh
to the east of Cedar Point would be the only alternative.
Site Designator: A-21.3 E-2-8
Site Name: Fanning Island
Reach: Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor
The Fanning Island site is part of a complex of former dredged
material disposal lobes located north and east of Heckscher Drive, and
bordering a portion of the tidal marsh adjacent to Sister's Creek.
This site consists of the more southerly disposal lobe in the complex.
The old d f. s p os a L area is vegetated by hairgrass (Nu h Le n b e r g La
capillaris), camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), and large-headed rush
(Juncus megacephalus). Occasionally sea oats (Uniola paniculata) were
found on the old sandy substrate. A dense band of wax myrtle (Myrica
cerifera) and Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) form a thin strip
C-25
r r0<r
d'G"f!w
cZ: -.J !;;i VI c« UUJ UJn UJ _c
t- ::: ...... :z:.:0 VI =-Ju_wUJ UJ<: "'~(f) ;;: :o:-o~w ..... -J c<: V1 - W U0 c .:)""_OUJ:>:: -u..uc<:8
II~ec
~I
l
~
nnrr~
......00r It:'lI
r.LI
MI .--<C"lI
<r:.........
~ '0CCIl......1- U)VI ......UJ 1-
V!b1l
cc VIr '" UJ l-
I:::u. ec CJ
'" <;:cv> VI u.
c 0 ::::> ,~
I:::l UJ:>:: 5 <> 0 v> -c
CIlE ec 8 <> 0:5 UJ 5 :<:~:>: W ~ :x
*cc
:>:: 5l ";;;r::: <> ~
c uVI UJ 'J:VI UC ca
.--<u <: <> 0 '" cc CJC-
5 :>::
E ~ E.--<% ..... :s :>0 C-
::::l '" 0§ '" C- C-o:::::> ::::> c I-U
~UJ ",(l)I ..,
of ,f Wt..,w::l
I > ~.. ;: ><! ,"b.O. ~, "" .-<c:~
. i CJ
:l:.?\ c..c..<:
I C-26
r
nn
between the dredged material deposits and the adjacent salt marsh. This
fringing tidal wetland is vegetated by smooth cordgrass (Spar tina
alterniflora), needlerush (Juncus roemarianus) and salt grass
(Distichlis spicata).
This secondary site for the Ft. George River to jacksonville
Harbor reach may satisfy the projected requirements of this reach
without consideration of the existing site to the west (N. Heckscher
Drive) because of ample upland acreage (Table 4-1). However, including
the existing site (Figure C-ll) results in disposal area of 28.68
acres, with a buffer around the site perimeter yielding a total site
area of 68.09 acres. The buffer to the southeast segregates the
disposal area from scattered residential/commercial development. The
disposal area itself is confined to the disturbed region, apparently
the scene of dredged material disposal connected with the development
and maintenance of the Jacksonville Harbor Project. The small isolated
areas exhibiting wetland affinities, which would be impacted by
additional disposal, currently provide only marginal habitat. Good
pipeline access is provided by the tidal creek bordering the site to
the north, and only a minimum (less than 50') marsh crossing would be
required.
Site Designator: 1-3.1 E-Du6-2
Site Name: DeBlieu Creek
Reach: jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island
The DeBlieu Creek site is located east of the ICWW, approximately
1.5 miles north of Atlantic Blvd. Site vegetation communities include
a maritime hammock, an oak-pine community, a wetland drainage
association, and the salt marsh community fringing the creek. Species
found in the maritime hammock were live oak (Quercus virginiana),
laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens),
southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and pignut hickory (Carya
glabra). The oak-pine community is less diverse than the hammock and
included these species: water oak (Quercus nigra), slash pine (Pinus
elliottii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweetgum (Liquidambar
C-27
030H;ooIOJ311 --S3UIHfWlO:l--
03:t:l311J 0131:1.-.lUIUHI ..••••••.•
lH3H3SV3 -----
S3111UOHOOll (z-gna-g 1"£-1)
. !
I..
JJ
3l\18SI I I
18917 as~~!J~POH lE~~JDWnH JO~ 3 x!puvddV
som 03811tUSIO (~:::~;:::.~
SOllV1131l ~:#- ~.7~
1S3110~ OOOIlUllVlI OllVldfl f~ .''0'.'~ v ib'l
lS3110~ SI10113.:1IlIOJ OlNldfl ["t r tit ' t I.e.,'~""i,...:~~. "'-
Ollvl nsmlOlOffilHS ,r..f{6:c'lff,:;·;
S3I1INflHWOJ HOI1V13~3~
! I
i !
....J
JJJJ
JJJJJJJJ
r
I
II
ii
styraciflua), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). A forested area close
to the road contains ditches and received runoff from part of the
surrounding woodland. As a result, the vegetation in this area is
adapted to wetter conditions. Species found here include loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and dahoon holly
(Ilex cassine). Ground covers include netted-chain fern (Woodwardia
a r e o La t a ) , Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), and pipewort
(Eriocaulon sp.) A needlerush marsh (Juncus roemarianus) is adjacent
to DeBlieu Creek. Transitional species include grounsel tree
(Baccharis halimifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and sand
cordgrass (Spartina bakeri). No documented archaeological sites are
found in this location.
The relatively small disposal area required to serve the
Jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island reach of the ICWW (6.85 acres)
allows the site to be confined to the north of the available upland
area. Inclusion of a buffer zone to the south and east to segregate
the disposal area from scattered residential/ agricultural development
results in a total site area of 16.47 acres. Although areas of the
site are disturbed, showing evidence of artificial drainage,
unauthorized dumping, and destruction from off-road vehicles, much of
the mature hardwood canopy remains intact, and would be impacted.
Although the marsh separating this site from the waterway is extensive,
reasonable pipeline access is provided by DeBlieu Creek to the north of
the site.
Site Designator: 1-5.8 W-Du11-4
Site Name: Hogpen Creek
Reach: Pine Island to Beach Blvd.
This site is located on the west side of the ICWW approximately
1.5 miles north of Beach Blvd. It is bordered on the west by San Pablo
Road. The Hogpen Creek site contains a mixed pine and oak association,
pine flatwoods and some isolated wetland depressions to the north.
There is also an area of young planted slash pine (Pinus elliottii).
More mature longleaf and some slash pine (Pinus palustris and Pinus
C-29
[-~
030113HWO:l31l --S3IlIIInHHOJ--
03:lJ311:l 013I.:l._.lVIlIIII .•••..••••
11l3H3SV3 -----
S3111VOllno9
3l'18SI I I I I
161717 0
L_ .. L._: L.. __..:
l/v
L .
(v-nnQ-M
L_._~_
8's-I)
oC'l
JU
s~a!JJpoH le~!~awnll JO~ 3 x!puaddV
som 0391llllSl0 [:·;'::·::.B~. , ..... III
SOIlVlJ.31\ [~~.i:;j
lS31l0~ OOOI\01lVlI OIlVldn r~ ,,;V~V Q',lS:nrO~ Sno1l3~IIIO:J OWldn It' t't' t r
om IIsnllll/llnllllS lo"~f.i}i\~fi;'~
OIlVl31llUSVdldOll:l ." "'JI'':.,~ '~I"" 0'~, ..# • "1\'-
S3I.tHII1IMOJ 1I0IlV1393~
L~~ ~ ~ 1_"_'
II
rII
II
rI
i
elliottii) cover much of the surrounding area. Understory vegetation
inc 1 udes saw palmet to (Serenoa repens), gall berry (Ilex gla bra),
bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinium), and greenbrier (Smilix sp.). The
mixed pine and oak community is dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) accompanied by a mixture of oaks, including live oak
(Quercus virginiana), bluejack oak (Quercus incana), and turkey oak
(Quercus laevis). Other young hardwoods occur sporadically in this
association including sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and pignut
hickory (Carya glabra). Ground covers include saw palmetto (Serenoa
repens), greenbrier (Smilax auriculata), and wiregrass (Aristida
stricta). Gopher tortoise burrows were noted in this association. The
wetland depressional area to the north is vegetated by tall milkwort
(Polygala cymosa), and Virginia chain fern (\-Ioodwardia virginica).
Along the southern edge of the site is a band maritime hammock
vegetation. Common species in this group included the dominant live
oak (Quercus virginiana), with sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and pignut hickory (Carya
glabra) mixed with pines (Pinus sp.). No archaeological or historic
sites are known to exist on this site.
The required disposal area for the Hogpen Creek site is 11.51
acres. Addition of a 300' buffer to the south, to segregate the
disposal area from existing residential development, and to the west,
along San Pablo Road, results in a total site area requirement of. 23.46
acres. The buffer to the south also preserves much of the maritime
hammock mentioned above. The wetland depressions to the north of the
site are largely excluded as well, providing a natural buffer area.
Good pipeline access is provided by the Hogpen Creek system; which also
includes a powerline right-of-way. The primary limitation of this site
is the increased pumping distance from the high maintenance shoaling
area immediately south of the Atlantic Blvd. bridge, as compared to the
Moody Marine site.
C-31
~
I'I
III
III!
Site Designator: I-ll.7 E-SJ3-6
Site Name: Cabbage Creek
Reach: Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley
The Cabbage Creek site is located along the eastern shore of the
ICWW near the Duval - St. Johns County line. The site has apparently
been disturbed by various activities in the past. In some locations
dredged material has been deposited and in other regions borrow
excavations are apparen~. The former borrow areas are now vegetated by
wetland, transitional, or ruderal plants. These include Carolina
willow (Salix caroliniana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), large-headed
rush (Juncus megacephalus) and dog fennel (Eupatorium sp.). Much of the
forested portions of the site are vegetated by a mixture of live oak
(Quercus virginiana), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and slash pine
(Pinus elliottii). In some areas an oak-pine association is prevalent;
in other locations an oak-cabbage palm association is more common.
Understory species typically include saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wax
myrtle (Myrica cerifera), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and muscadine (Vitis
sp.) Some large ruderal areas are vegetated mostly by vines including
muscadine (Vitis sp.), blackberry (Rubus s p . ) , peppervine (Ampelopsis
arborea), greenbrier (Smalix sp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). This area has a thick cover of various vines covering the
few trees within the community and climbing the trees bordering this
community. The northern portion of the site is adjacent to Cabbage
Creek and contains some former uncontained dredged material deposits
and some diked disposal areas. This area is vegetated by saltmarsh and
transitional vegetation including smooth cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and marsh elder (Iva
frutescens). It is obvious that some of the low dikes are breached.
The Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley reach of the ICWW is the reach
requiring the greatest maintenance as well as the largest disposal
capacity within the project area, significantly more than the Nassau
Sound to Ft. George River reach of the AIWW for which three disposal
sites are recommended. To proyide adequate capacity within a single
C-32
llOUNOAHIES
------ EJ\SEHENT............ INITIAL
,....--'-' FIELO CIJECKEO-'-- COlflllllTIES--- RECOIfl':NoEO
r-,
n
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
CRO?/?J\SllJREI.JlJiO
SIlRUll/llRUSIl I.JlJiO
I~ I +I ... ! +., UI'LJ\l{O COJiIFEROUS FOREST
1,9.,....¢.,....~.•$.) UI'I.JlJiD. IlfIRDliOOO FOREST
E'?~ ~] IIETll\JiOS
E0 ...":,'1
~"::'::":.:'j DISllJRllEO lJ\IlOS
Jlppendix E For Nu~erical Kodificrs
Figure C.143 Cabbage Creek (I-l1.7 E-SJ3-6)
C-33
oI J
SCALE
S31lIlInHWOJ 1I0IlV13~3A
0301l3»/OJ311-S3IlIIIlN/O:l --.
03:l:l31IJ 013H .-._"lVIlIlI] .
lN3W3S\J3 -----
S3IllVOllOOO
J
JJ
, 1
i ~t,
I :IJ
J
JJJJU
JJJJ
u
S~~!J!POH l~~!~~wnll ~03 3 X!puaddV
SaM 03011fUslO [': .:.::.::.~.. ..c· ..... ,
SOllVll3t1 G'#-~~~.lS31103 ODOIIOllVlI OIlVldn [Q" i;?.j~0/01
lS3lI0;l Soo1l33]lIO:> OHVldn It 't' t'tI·,.""';i...~t"
OWl IISnlllJ!OnllllS ,:C~~l$::f.'PS
" .3l'i18SI I I
J£OL 0
I i
nI !
site requires a disposal area of 102.58 acres, with additional acreage
for buffer zones as indicated. Only a small portion of the recommended
site is contained within the existing easement, with the remainder of
the easement area characterized as wetland, isolated disposal mounds,
or relict dikes of low relief. Disposal for the 1986-87 maintenance
activity is currently planned for one of these diked wetland areas
immediately south of the mouth of Cabbage Creek. It is estimated that
only 103 acres of contiguous upland exist north of the residential
development on Roscoe Road (S.R. 210A). Development of this site as a
disposal area of sufficient capacity to contain the projected fifty
year volume of maintenance material, therefore, may impact wetland
areas, as inc1using the recommended 300' buffer to the south to
segregate the site from commercial development would result in a total
site area of 109.6 acres. Pumping distance is minimal and pipeline
access is excellent, as the site is immediately adjacent the area
requiring the highest maintenance, with no intervening marsh.
C-35
III:II
IIIIIIInIIiI
rI .i :
II
APPENDIX D
ALTERNATIVE SITE DRAWINGS
rrr-1
ri »
n~
r~
~
wr w0::u
r I-zwr rn0<J:0
n 0::m
rII
r-
'.'
I '
~
rr
Fiaure D.l. Fernandina Airport
.....•...:~~~:~:
~) ]~,J I~
~ I .:( ~ l~..... i .-.----..:,.? '1~~c.C?_. .
, ..~ ':;". I: I-
J 'I: 0:::, : 0/ .: 0..
! l~ ~( ~j I: ~'\ i~ ~, ~o ~ <J:\ .: Z
\ l~ f5. 1~ LL( .:
j [
. \ I............ ";... ) /:'
.... /'.,/-.:.,.~ .. '... ~'
. /~'I /~.,
i /:.\/:.
D-l
N
o 573 1
I ! I I JSCALE
BOUNDARIES
------ EASEMENT" •..• " INIlIAL----·----FIELD CHECKED--COMHUNITIES-- RECO~EIiDED .
Il
~.
I
,-i
~I
r-
i :t
n
i •!l
Figure D.2.. Pirie GroveD-2
N
o 557!I J 1----'-_1
SCALE
BOUNDARIES
------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED--COMMUNITIES--RECOMMENDED
N
o 562 1
L r---l-r JSCALE
BOUNDARIES------ EASEMENT,' .... ,." INITIAL---'---' FIELD CHECKED-------- COMMUNITIES-- RECOMHENDED
\\.
\\.\)!I.I
:
425
" ....
"
.'
D-3
:'
" ....
..........
"............ - _a .
•••• -, 4.1 •••••• :
Figure D.3. N.W. Black Hammock lsI.and
N.E. Black Hammock Isl. (South)
r.n~
rr~
~
n~
nI J
iI!, .
~
rI
N
o 556'I I [ , I
SeA LE.
(A-2.
"
o~1« :,0:10::::
Ii!
I j
rl
rIIiI:
nI:II'n
rI !
Figure D.4.E. Central Black Hammock Island
D-4
BOUNDARIES
------ EASEHENl.•..• , ..•. INInAl_. _. FIELD CHECKED
--COMMUNInES-------- RECOHMENDED
r:I !
I
Irn
I
I
nI '
!
IrnnI
. rt-«: j.) ./ 74' -----'1"'
-\. 3/"~, ..
Figure D.5. E. Fanning Island
-.
D-S
N
a 363'I ! I ! I
SCALE
BOUNDARIES
- - - - - - EASEMENT............ INITIAL
-..-- FIELD CHECKEDCDMHUNITIES
-- RECO~ENOED
r:
I
I
n
N
I'I o 382
1
I I I I ISCALE
..' 411
A
ROADCHURCH
642. BA""
~. til
~.-.~ .. .
. [" \\I \ ~
\ ~J+ L. '. \ ~/
. \'\ ' .._._.J:
~i ;,i
r! .
e ,
Figure D.6. Pine Island
D-6
BOUNDARIES
------ EASEMENT.. , •.... ,. INITIAL----,---. FIELD CHECKED-------- COMMUNITIES----- RECOMHENDED
SCALE
ri
~c ,I '
l .
rII '!
II ,
ni ;I i
i
I :
~!;
rI, ,
:-,
iI
N
oI . I I
397'I
~
! 'Figure D. 7. Hopkins Creek
D-7
BOUNDARIES------ EASEMENT........ IHITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED--COMMUNITIES
RECOI'ViENDED
r-I '
I'
i1 .
r:
I 'i .
! ~,, W
Wr- n::i , <->,"
nw-J0<t:
r- n::<->
I
I
rII
I:
:
I',r-t
i
"Ii
.r..:.:_:_:_:_:,:_..-....'-'~':~': ':':":"':':"'-'~I~
./' :
\> i~~ .....:» I:
\7:'~l' 414:/ (.0~::-:·;
.~. i.~.{ )"~ /:.
..:~:~ f~:-'":~ .-
-':.,:-:-,:-' .. -'
wz<t:-J
N
a 387'I I I • I
SCALE
n;!,iI .
Figure D.8. Cradle Creek
D-8
BOUNDARIES------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL----·---·FIELD CHECKED-----.....,- COMHUNITIES--RECOMMENDED
,.,I
,.,I
!
rI
l
~
~
I ,
II .
r, .! :
i :i
! I
N
o 395'I I I I I
SCALE
rI :
I !
Figure D.9. Butler Blvd.
D-9
BOUNDARIES
------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED~- COMMUNITIES-------- RECOMHENDED
Ii
!iI
rii
rr:j ;I
IiI!
ri
0'
o' •
~ ......
350
o.
N
ISCALE
-
i I, ,
! '
,..,, ,
,I
l .:
r-I
r-r-
II ,
o.
Figure D.lO. Davis Property
D-IO
.00'
BOUNDARIES
-- - - -- EASEMENT••••• 0. ° INITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED--- COMMUNITIES--- RECO/flENDED
I
Ir
I
rI,
n
nn
I
IL
APPENDIX E
CATEGORIZATION OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES
APPENDIX E: Categorization of Vegetation Communities
n
nI ;
,
The vegetative categorization used in this report are taken
from "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System"
(Department of Transportation, 1985). Identification to the
second level of categorization under this system was depicted in
the site diagrams symbolically, with the third level indicated
numerically where possible and appropriate.
The following categories were used in this report:
r,
nI ~
nnr,I '
II
100 Urban and BUilt-up110 Residential, Low Density
III Fixed Single-Family Units
200 Agriculture210 Cropland and Pastureland
212 Unimproved Pastures
300 Rangeland320 Shrub and Brushland
322 Coastal Scrub329 Vine Community
400 Upland Forests410 Upland Coniferous Forests
411 Pine Flatwoods412 Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak414 Pine - Mesic Oak419 Other Pines
420 Upland Hardwood Forests425 Temperate Hardwoods428 Cabbage Palm429 Wax Myrtle - Willow434 Hardwood - Conifer Mixed
440 Tree Plantations441 Coniferous Platations
600 Wetlands610 Wetland Hardwoods Forests
616 Inland Ponds and Sloughs
640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands641 Freshwater Marshes642 Saltwater Marshes643 Wet Prairies
700 Barren Land740 Disturbed Land
742 Borrow Areas743 Spoil Areas
E-l