Implementation of Innovative Dredging
Techniques in the Chesapeake Bay Region
Don Aurand
Alexandra Mamantov
March 1982
MTR-81W31
Sponsor: Chesapeake Bay Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No.: CR 807987010
The MITRE Corporation
Metrek Division
1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard
McLean, Virginia 22102
-------
600383039
Implementation of Innovative Dredging
Techniques in the Chesapeake Bay Region
Don Aurand
Alexandra Mamantov
March 1982
MTR-81W31
Sponsor: Chesapeake Bay Program
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No.: CR 807987010
The MITRE Corporation
Metrek Division
1820 Dolley Madison Boulevard Library
McLean, Virginia 22102 y g Environmental Protection Ageoq?
Region 111
Central Regional Laboratory
£39 Bestgate Rosd
-Annapolis, Maryland 2i401
CB 00658
-------
ABSTRACT
The environmental effects of dredging and dredged material
disposal have been an issue in the Chesapeake Bay region for some
time. Recent concerns over dredging and disposal in the Baltimore
Harbor area have been particularly strong, and have resulted in
significant project delays. Possible solutions would be to improve
either the technologies or the management processes associated with
dredging. This report reviews eleven years of dredging records for
federal projects, six years of dredging records for private
projects, current management programs, and the scientific literature
in order to define current programs and their impacts. Potential
technological improvements are also described. This information was
then used to prepare a series of recommendations for improving
dredging practices in the Chesapeake Bay.
It would appear that current operations do not have a major
impact on the ecology of the bay, but that some attention should be
given to future programs in order to ensure that the situation does
not deteriorate. Specific suggestions with respect to possible
improvements are: implementation of study programs to more clearly
define the chemical nature of the sediments, better long-range
planning with respect to disposal options, comprehensive monitoring
programs to clarify long-term impacts, use of incentive payments to
encourage innovative technologies, replacement of seasonal dredging
restrictions by turbidity standards, possible federal ownership of a
small, pneumatic dredge for use in highly polluted areas, and repeal
or modification of those portions of the Jones Act affecting
importation of dredging equipment.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Most of the data presented in this report were obtained from
the Corps of Engineers, Baltimore and Norfolk Districts. The
assistance of the following staff members has been greatly
appreciated. In the Baltimore District: Thomas Filip, Jeffrey
McKee, and Dave Kingston and in Norfolk: Gene Whitehurst, Cecil
Toxey, Mark Harrell, and Bruce Williams. William Holland from the
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company, Russel Thome from Norfolk
Dredging Company, and William Schwarz from McLean Construction
Company are also gratefully acknowledged for openly discussing
current dredging issues. Mr. Ernest Krajeski at MITRE has assisted
in reviewing and editing this report. His suggestions were most
helpful and his help greatly appreciated. We would also like to
thank the other MITRE reviewers, Dr. Wade Smith, Dr. Anthony
Bisselle and Mr. Will Jacobsen, and the various agency reviewers for
their careful review and valuable suggestions. Special thanks to
Mrs. Dee Fitzgerald, Mrs. Zelda Gray, Ms. Susie Armstrong, and Ms.
Jamesetta Simpson for helping to prepare the manuscript, and to Ms.
Elaine Mullen for her excellent illustrations. Final typing was
done by Mrs. Debra Hansbrough.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ix .
LIST OF TABLES xi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Objectives of the Study 2
1.2 Project Approach 3
1.3 Background Information 3
2.0 COMPILATION AND REVIEW OF DREDGING RECORDS FOR THE 7
CHESAPEAKE BAY
2.1 Location and Size of Dredging Projects 10
2.1.1 Federal Projects 10
2.1.2 Non-Federal Projects 20
2.2 Utilization of Dredging Equipment 23
2.2.1 Federal Projects 23
2.2.2 Non-Federal Projects 23
2.3 Cost of Dredging 23
2.3.1 Federal Projects 23
2.3.2 Non-Federal Projects 26
2.4 Disposal Methods 28 -
2.4.1 Federal Projects 28
2.4.2 Non-Federal Projects 32
3.0 REGULATORY PROGRAMS AFFECTING DREDGING IN THE 35
CHESAPEAKE BAY
3.1 Federal Legislation and Regulations 35
3.1.1 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act 35
3.1.2 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 36
3.1.3 River and Harbor Act of 1899 37
3.1.4 Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research 38
and Sanctuaries Act
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
3.1.5 Other Federal Legislation 38-
3.1.6 Federal Implementing Regulations 41
3.2 State of Maryland Legislation and Regulations 42
3.3 Commonwealth of Virginia Legislation and Regulations 42
3.4 Permit Processing Procedures 43
4.0 IMPACT OF CURRENT DREDGING PRACTICES 45
4.1 Perceived Environmental Issues 45
4.2 Probable or Documented Environmental Impacts in the 46
Aquatic Environment
4.2.1 Physical Impacts 46
4.2.2 Chemical Impacts 48
4.2.3 Biological Impacts 50
4.2.4 Public Health Impacts 54
4.3 Possible Impacts of Terrestrial or Confined Disposal of 54 -
Dredged Material
4.4 Regulatory Controls 55
4.5 Economic Costs 55
5.0 IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES 57
5.1 Mechanical Dredges . 58 -
5.1.1 Clamshell or Grab Bucket Dredges 58
5.1.2 Dragline Dredges 62
5.1.3 Dipper Dredges 63 •-•
5.1.4 Bucket Ladder Dredges 63 —
5.1.5 Backhoes 66,
5.2 Hydraulic Dredges 66 __
5.2.1 Plain Suction Pipeline Dredges 67 —
5.2.2 Cutterhead Suction Dredges 67
5.2.3 Dustpan Dredge 70 _
5.2.4 Trailing Section Hopper Dredges 75
5.2.5 Sidecaster Dredges 80
5.2.6 Bucket Wheel Dredges 80 -
5.2.7 Mudmaster 82
5.2.8 Delta Dredge 82
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
5.2.9 MUD CAT 84
5.2.10 Waterless Dredge 86
5.3 Pneumatic Dredges 86
5.3.1 The Airlift . 87
5.3.2 The Oozer 87
5.3.3 The AMTEC System 90
5.4 Ancillary Equipment 93
5.4.1 Silt Curtains 93
5.4.2 Positioning Equipment 93
6.0 PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES 95
AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
6.1 Economics 97
6.2 Availability 97
6.3 Environmental Impacts 98
6.4 Compatability with Existing Regulations 98
7.0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY 99
OR MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
7.1 Screening of Available Options 99
7.1.1 Use of Improved Dredging Equipment on 100
Large Projects
7.1.2 Increased Use of Silt Curtains 100
7.1.3 Use of Improved Navigation or Positioning Equipment 100
7.1.4 Use of Pneumatic Dredges for Polluted Material 101
7.1.5 Increased Use of Hydraulic or Pneumatic Dredges 102
on Small, Private Projects
7.1.6 Establishment of Turbidity Standards to Replace 103
Seasonal Dredging Moratoriums
7.1.7 Increased Chemical and Bioassay Testing of 104
Sediments
7.1.8 Development of Comprehensive Monitoring Studies 105
to Clarify Long-Term Impacts
7.1.9 Use of Advanced Treatment Methods in Confined 106
Disposal Areas
7.1.10 Establishment of Additional Confined Disposal 106
Areas
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concluded)
Page
7.1.11 .Further Improvement to the Permit Review Process 107
7.1.12 Revisions to the Effluent Standards for Upland 107
Disposal Areas
7.1.13 Repeal or Modification of the Jones Act 108
7.2 Program Recommendations 108
APPENDIX A DREDGING STATISTICS 111
APPENDIX B EQUIPMENT OWNED BY MAJOR DREDGING COMPANIES 169
WORKING IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY 173
viii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE NUMBER Page
2-1 Location of Volumes Associated with 8
Dredging in Federally Maintained Channels
in the Northern Portion of the Chesapeake
Bay Region, Fiscal Year 1970 through
Fiscal Year 1980
2-2 Location of Volumes Associated with 9
Dredging in Federally Maintained Channels
in the Southern Portion of the Chesapeake
Bay Region, Fiscal Year 1970 through
Fiscal Year 1980
2-3 Volume of Material Dredged Annually from 16
Federal Projects in the Baltimore and Norfolk
Districts, Fiscal Years 1970 through 1980
2-4 Volume of Material Dredged Annually from 21
Non-Federal Projects in the Baltimore and
Norfolk Districts, Fiscal Years 1975 through
1980
2-5 Annual Average Cost of Dredging on Federal 27
Projects in the Baltimore and Norfolk
Districts, Fiscal Years 1970 through 1980
2-6 Disposal OptioTtis for Material Dredged from 31
Federal Projects in the Baltimore and Norfolk
Districts, Fiscal Years 1970 through 1980
5-1 Clamshell Dredge 60
5-2 Dipper Dredge 64
5-3 Bucket Ladder Dredge 64
5-4 Cutterhead Suction Dredge 69
5-5 Dustpan Dredge 74
5-6 Trailing Suction Hopper Dredge 76
5-7 Ellicott "Wheel Dragon" Excavator 81
5-8 Delta Dredge 83
ix
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTEATIONS (Concluded)
FIGURE NUMBER Page
5-9 MUD CAT 85
5-10 Oozer Pump System 89
5-11 AMTEC Pump System 91
6-1 Screening Criteria Used for Choosing New 96
Dredging Techniques
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NUMBER
2-1 Federal Dredging Projects in the Baltimore
District, Fiscal Years 1970 through 1980
2-2 Federal Dredging Projects in the Norfolk 13
District, Fiscal Years 1970 through 1980
2-3 Frequency Distribution of the Volume of 15
Material Dredged Annually from Federal
Projects in the Baltimore and Norfolk
Districts, Fiscal Years 1970 through 1980
2-4 A Summary of Volume and Cost Data for 17
Dredging in the Baltimore District, Fiscal
Years 1970 through 1980
2-5 A Summary of Volume and Cost Data for 18
Dredging in the Norfolk District, Fiscal
Years 1970 through 1980
2-6 Frequency Distribution of the Volume of 22
Material Dredged Per Permit in Non-Federal
Projects in the Baltimore and Norfolk
Districts, Fiscal Years 1975 through 1980
2-7 Volume of Material Dredged, by Type of 24
Equipment, on Non-Federal Projects in the
Chesapeake Bay Region, Fiscal Years 1975
through 1980
2-8 Frequency Distribution of the Volumes of 25 ~
Material Dredged on Non-Federal Projects, by
Type of Dredging Equipment, in the Baltimore
and Norfolk Districts, Fiscal Years 1975
through 1980
2-9 Examples of Large Private Dredging Projects 29 —
Performed by a Private Contractor in the
Last Five Years
'2-10 Disposal Options for Material Dredged from 30 ~
Federal Projects in the Baltimore and Norfolk
Districts, Fiscal Years 1970 through 1980
Xi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE NUMBER Page
5-1 General Characteristics of Mechanical 59
Dredges
5-2 General Characteristics of Hydraulic 68
Dredges
5-3 Ellicott Corporation Cutterhead Suction 71
Dredges
5-4 C.F. Bean Corporation Cutterhead Suction 72
Dredges
5-5 American Marine and Machinery Co., Inc. 73
Cutterhead Suction Dredges
5-6 General Characteristics of Pneumatic Dredges 88
A-l Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 112
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1970
A-2 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 113
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1971
A-3 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 114
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1972
A-4 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 115
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1973
A-5 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 116
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1974
A-6 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 117
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1975
A-7 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 118
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1976
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE NUMBER • Page
A-8 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 119
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1977
A-9 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 120
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1978
A-10 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 121
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1979
A-ll Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 122
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1980
A-12 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 123
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1970
A-13 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 124
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1971
A-14 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 125
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1972
A-15 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 126 -
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1973
A-16 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 127
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1974
A-17 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 128
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1975
A-18 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 129
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1976
xiii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
TABLE NUMBER . Page
A-19 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 130
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1977
A-20 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 131
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1978
A-21 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 132
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1979
A-22 Dredging Statistics for Federal Projects in 133
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1980
A-23 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 134
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1975
A-24 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 136
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1976
A-25 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 138
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1977
A-26 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 141
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1978
A-27 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 143
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1979
A-28 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 145
the Chesapeake Bay: Norfolk District;
Fiscal Year 1980
A-29 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 147
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1975
xiv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Concluded)
TABLE NUMBER Page
A-30 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 151
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1976
A-31 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 155
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1977
A-32 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 158
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1978
A-33 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 162
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1979
A-34 Dredging Statistics for Private Contracts in 166
the Chesapeake Bay: Baltimore District;
Fiscal Year 1980
B-l Major Companies Performing Federal Dredging 170
Work in the Chesapeake Bay and Available
Equipment
xv
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared under contract to the Chesapeake Bay
Program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. After
completion of the draft report in August 1981, it was sent out for
peer review under standard procedures used for Chesapeake Bay
Program reports. Comments were received from the following agencies:
o State of Maryland
- Office of Environmental Programs, Department of Health
and Mental Hygiene
- Tidewater Administration, Department of Natural Resources
o Commonwealth of Virginia
- State Water Control Board
o U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
- Norfolk District Office
o U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
- Office of Federal Activities
- Chesapeake Bay Program
Where appropriate, the suggestions of these reviewers are
incorporated into the report without comment. In a few cases,
however, suggestions made by the reviewer represent
reinterpretations of data or opinions by the reviewers based on
regulatory positions or philosophies. In such cases, if we still do
not agree with the reviewer we have inserted a summary of the
comment and our reasons for disagreeing. This will allow the reader
to form his own opinions concerning the issues.
The final comments on the report were received in February
1982. In the fall of 1981, the federal government began an
extensive reevaluation of the role of federal agencies in a wide
range of environmental issues, including dredging. This review,
ordered by President Reagan, focused on several specific pieces of
legislation. Among them was Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
waters of the United States. In addition, as a result of a suit
brought in Federal Court by the National Wildlife Federation, EPA
was directed on 2 July 1980 by the U.S. Court of Appeals of the
District of Columbia (Docket No. 78-2167) to promulgate revised
Ocean Dumping Regulations issued under Section 103 of the Marine
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (PL92-532). At
this time (February 1982) it appears that the new ocean dumping
criteria will require a more complete review of the costs of
-------
alternatives which might be selected if ocean dumping is rejected.
However, no changes have been officially made in either of the
programs authorized by these pieces of legislation, so it is not
possible to address the potential impacts of such changes on the
Chesapeake Bay. Section 3.0 of this report discusses the existing
regulations; however, the reader should be aware that it is quite
likely that changes will occur sometime in 1982, either in the
regulations, the enabling legislation, or both.
Finally, the opinions in this report are solely those of the
authors, and do not reflect official opinions or policies of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or of any of the reviewers.
Suggested actions listed in Section 7.2 are intended only to
stimulate discussions among the responsible agencies on issues that
the authors perceive to be critical to the future well-being of the
bay; they are not necessarily the only, or perhaps even the best in
all respects, alternatives for implementation at this time.
1.1 Objectives of the Study
This study is a review and evaluation of dredging equipment and
practices currently in use in the Chesapeake Bay, with the goal of
recommending changes which would have either an economic or
ecological benefit. Specifically, the report addresses the
following questions:
o How much material is dredged in the Chesapeake Bay, in what
locations, and with what type of equipment?
o What are the economic and ecological impacts of the
practices?
o What are the latest advances in dredging technology which
could be implemented in the Chesapeake Bay?
o What is the role of .government regulation in dredging in the
Chesapeake Bay?
o Are there technological or managerial options available
which would significantly improve present practices?
This study specifically does not address technologies associated
with disposal options, only those involved in actual dredging.
Issues related to disposal are considered in terms of their general
implications.
-------
1.2 Project Approach
Data collection procedures are detailed in Section 2.0.
However, in summary, dredging statistics were obtained from the
Baltimore and Norfolk District Offices of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE). Information on cost and equipment was obtained
from the COE, regional dredging companies, and the open literature.
Information on impacts was obtained from state and federal officials
and the open literature. After the data were collected, the major
issues related to current dredging practices were identified, and
new technologies were reviewed to see if they could resolve any of
these issues. Finally, managerial options were also reviewed and
potential revisions suggested.
1.3 Background Information
The ports of the Chesapeake Bay region have been a center for
commerce, fishing, and recreation since their settlement. As
appears to be the case in many areas of the east coast, a
combination of increased vessel drafts and increased sedimentation
due to agricultural development and urban construction have created
a situation where dredging is essential to maintain the viability of
these ports. Most, but not all, dredging is associated with the
maintenance of the port facilities at Baltimore and Norfolk. These
two areas are among the ten largest ports in the United States, and
make a very significant contribution to the regional economy.
While a wide range of cargoes moves through both of these
ports, their role in the transshipment of domestic coal for export
appears to be the most significant factor in their future
development. Hampton Roads is currently the leading U.S. coal
export port, handling approximately 75 percent of the total volume,
while Baltimore is the second leading port, handling an additional
20 percent of the total (Office of Technology Assessment (OTA),
1981). In 1980, total exports reached 92 million tons, a 39 percent
increase over 1979. Industry projections for the year 2000 run as
high as 280 million tons, based on a steadily increasing world
demand for coal as a replacement for oil (OTA, 1981). It is the
consensus of the coal industry, however, that these levels will
never be obtained unless the U.S. ports involved in coal export are
modernized and deepened in order to handle the new, larger colliers
now being produced and the super colliers projected for the future
(OTA, 1981). At a minimum, it appears that channels of 50- to
55-foot depths must be available if a port is to remain competitive
in this market. Presently, the coal export facilities in both
Baltimore and Norfolk are inadequate to handle even the existing
traffic, and long lines of colliers at anchor in the bay are a
common sight (OTA, 1981).
-------
In the Baltimore area alone future expansion of the port may
well require the deepening of channels from roughly the Bay Bridge
to Baltimore Harbor, and from the harbor to the Chesapeake and
Delaware Canal (Farragut, 1981). In the next twenty years this
could lead to the dredging of 120 million cubic yards of material
just in this one portion of the bay, assuming development of a
50-foot channel. (According to comments on the draft report by the
Maryland Department of Resources, dredging in this region of the bay
below the authorized depth of 35 feet could be precluded due to the
possibility of cutting through ground water aquifers.) About one
half of the material would originate within the harbor. Fifty
million cubic yards would be due to new channel work, 32 million
cubic yards would come from maintenance work, and the rest (38
million cubic yards) would result from private dredging activities
(Farragut, 1981).
In addition to the two major commercial ports, there are a host
of smaller facilities, both commercial and recreational, throughout
the bay. Indeed, the 8,000 miles of shoreline, four major rivers,
and 50 large tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay are the sites of one
of the largest fishing and water-oriented recreation industries in
the United States (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970). While
facilities associated with such activities do not require the water
depths associated with commercial ports, they do generally
necessitate some dredging, especially in the shallow embayments of
the Chesapeake Bay.
The dredging associated with all of these facilities is the
source of environmental controversy. The issue of dredging polluted
sediments and their subsequent disposal is particularly sensitive,
and in the Chesapeake Bay has resulted in a delay of several years
in the dredging of Baltimore Harbor. In addition, dredging and open
water disposal, even of clean material, generates turbidity and
disturbs benthie habitat. This has also been a source of concern
within the bay, particularly for large projects in areas of the bay
known to have a high ecological value, such as fish spawning areas
or shellfish beds. The selection of disposal sites is also a major
issue, one that will become more controversial as existing sites
become filled.
While all of these concerns are legitimate and deserve to be
addressed, it is equally clear that the economic viability of the
region requires that dredging projects be carried out. Therefore,
decisions must be made, based on all of these conflicting demands
and concerns, in order to provide the best possible protection for
the ecological systems of the bay, while still maintaining
reasonable access for commercial and recreational users. Any such
-------
consensus has been difficult to reach in the past, partly due to a
lack of readily accessible information on dredging practices and
technologies as they relate to the Chesapeake Bay. This report is
intended at least partially to fill that gap in understanding the
problems of the bay.
-------
- V t
\ !A V
-------
2.0 COMPILATION AND REVIEW OF DREDGING RECORDS FOR THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY
Regulation of dredging in the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries on the federal level is the responsibility of three
districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE): Philadelphia,
Baltimore, and Norfolk. In this capacity they maintain extensive
permit and project records. The Philadelphia District is
responsible for dredging only the approach channels to the
Chesapeake and Delaware Canal. While the volume of material
involved in this operation is large, 8.6 million cubic yards from
1973 to 1979, according to a review comment by the Maryland
Tidewater Administration, the geographic area involved is small. In
addition, no private permit work falls under their jurisdiction. An
analysis of dredging data from the Philadelphia District was not
included in the scope of this report, and data from those projects
will not be discussed. The remaining two districts are responsible
for all other federal projects in the bay and regulate all
non-federal activity. The Baltimore District is responsible for all
waters entering the bay north of, and including, the Potomac River
Basin, as well as the Maryland -and Delaware portion of the Eastern
Shore not included in the Delaware Bay drainage. The Norfolk
District is responsible for the remainder of the bay (Figures 2-1
and 2-2).
In order to obtain the necessary data to define current
dredging practices in the Chesapeake Bay a comprehensive survey of
the dredging records and permit files of the Baltimore and Norfolk
Districts was conducted. Both districts maintain their records on a
fiscal year (FY) basis, and therefore all data in this report are
presented on that basis. Prior to 1976, the federal fiscal year ran
from 1 July until 30 June. In 1976 there was a transition quarter
from 1 July through 30 September, after which the federal fiscal
year became 1 October through 30 September. In this report data
from the transition quarter are included with FY 1975. For federal
projects, records from FY 1970 to FY 1980 (inclusive) were
reviewed. For permit applications (non-federal projects) the number
(an average of 150 to 200 per year for the two districts combined)
was so extensive that the analysis was restricted to the period FY
1975 through FY 1980 (inclusive). The data obtained in this survey
are presented in Appendix A as Tables A-l through A-22 (federal
projects) and Tables A-23 through A-34 (non-federal projects).
Summaries of this information are included in this section and are
used to characterize the location and size of dredging projects, the
costs associated with dredging, disposal locations and methods, and
utilization of dredging equipment.
-------
CORPS Of CNClNCtHS
00
Yards
1000 - 5000
5001 -10,000
10,001 - 50,000
50,001-1.000,000
1,000,001-3,000,000
3,000,001-5,000,000
5.000,001 • 10,000,000
Numbers 1-93 are "Locator
Numbers." See Table 2-1.
FIGURE 2-1
LOCATION OF VOLUMES ASSOCIATED WITH DREDGING IN
FEDERALLY MAINTAINED CHANNELS IN THE NORTHERN PORTION
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, FISCAL YEAR 1970 THROUGH
FISCAL YEAR 1980
-------
>o -3*56
"
Cubic Yards
1000 • 5000
5001 • 10,000
10,001 - 50,000
50,001-1,000,000
1,000,001-3,000,000
3,000,001-5,000,000
5,000.001-10,000,000
Numbers 1-93 are "Locator
Numbers." See Table 2-1.
: u. ,
FIGURE 2-2
LOCATION OF VOLUMES ASSOCIATED WITH DREDGING IN
FEDERALLY MAINTAINED CHANNELS IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION
OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, FISCAL YEAR 1970 THROUGH
FISCAL YEAR 1980
-------
There were two assumptions made concerning the data which could
Influence the conclusions of the report. These are:
o It is assumed that the volume listed on any permit or
project description was dredged in the year of issue, unless
otherwise indicated.
o If two or more equipment types or disposal options were
listed, without clear indication as to how the dredging was
apportioned, the data were assigned to the category listed
first.
In some cases data entries were missing for a particular project or
permit. When that occurred that particular entry was not included
in the total number of data points for calculations of average
values.
In addition to this survey of federal records, four dredging
companies responsible for much of the federal dredging done under
contract in the Chesapeake Bay were contacted for information on
costs, equipment available, and general comments on the issues
surrounding dredging in the Chesapeake Bay. Information obtained
from these sources is included throughout the report. A tabulation
of all dredging equipment available for use in the Chesapeake Bay,
and a limited description of each was prepared based on these
interviews and is included as Appendix B.
2.1 Location and Size of Dredging Projects
2.1.1 Federal Projects
There are approximately 150 federal projects authorized within
the two districts, ranging in size from the extensive Baltimore and
Norfolk approach channels (40 to 50 feet deep and 600 feet or more
in width) to Accotink Creek in Virginia (four foot depth and 25 to
.40 feet in width). The main commercial navigation channels are
grouped under five project authorizations: Baltimore Harbor and
Channel (Norfolk District Project No. 8, Baltimore District Project
No. 1), the channel to Newport News (Norfolk District Project No.
47), Norfolk Harbor (Norfolk District Project No. 56), and Thimble
Shoal Channel (Norfolk District Project No. 60). Of the 145 other
projects, 15 authorized for construction have been deferred for
various reasons, 13 remain to be completed, and a large number
either do not require or cannot justify regular maintenance.
During the eleven fiscal years included in this survey, 35
federal projects in the Baltimore District and 58 in the Norfolk
10
-------
District were dredged at least once (Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Eighteen
of these projects contributed 500,000 cubic yards or more of dredged
material each in the eleven-year period, for a total of
approximately 55 million cubic yards, or 86 percent of the 63.9
million cubic yards dredged from federal projects. An additional
ten projects produced between 250,001 and 500,000 cubic yards, and,
if the two categories are combined, these 28 projects were.
responsible for 58.7 million cubic yards, or 92 percent of the
eleven-year total for federal projects. Almost all of this material
has been produced by dredging in either the Baltimore or
Norfolk-Hampton Roads harbor complexes, or in the Baltimore Channel
projects in the main stem of the bay. Figures 2-1 and 2-2 show the
locations of all the federal projects dredged during the period
reviewed. The total volume dredged at each location is indicated by
the relative size of the locator dots, which are numerically keyed
to the projects listed in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Overall, there has
been more activity in the Norfolk District, where 53 million cubic
yards were dredged, as opposed to 10.9 million cubic yards in the
Baltimore District.
The distribution of the annual volumes of material removed from
the various federal projects is shown in Table 2-3. Very few
federal projects, when they are dredged, produce an annual volume of
less than 10,000 cubic yards. In the Baltimore District, 65 percent
of the observed annual volumes fell in the range of 10,001 to
100,000 cubic yards, and no project produced an annual volume of
more than 1,000,000 cubic yards. In the Norfolk District only 39
percent of the observed annual volumes were between 10,001 and
100,000 cubic yards, and there were many more large projects. In
the Baltimore District values over 250,000 cubic yards constituted
only 20 percent of the total, while in the Norfolk District they
made up 42 percent of the observations.
Interestingly, there was only one new work project undertaken
in the Baltimore District in the entire eleven-year period, while a
wide range of new work initiatives were undertaken in the Norfolk
District. These generally involved the expansion of an existing
project (Tables A-l through A-22).
The annual volume of dredged material produced from federal
projects in both districts is shown in Figure 2-3, based on the
summary data presented in Tables 2-4 and 2-5. Over the last eleven
years, 10.9 million cubic yards of material have been dredged by the
Corps of Engineers and private contractors in federally maintained
channels in the Baltimore District; of this total amount, 4.1 cubic
yards were dredged by the Corps of Engineers' vessels while 6.8
million cubic yards of material were dredged by private
11
-------
TABLE 2-1 :
i
FEDERAL DREDGING PROJECTS IN THE BALTIMORE DISTRICT,
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
LOCATOft i
RUMBEa OB i
01 2-2 PROJECT
1 Kjltlaor* lUrbor. HD
-Cutofi Brewtrton An* I
-Crjichiil Cutoff
An|U
-Connecting Channel
(loci. Swann Point
and Tolcn*at«r)
-Cutoff Section
•brewer ton S«cclun
Cutof i
.' Anacoztia Rlvvr and
Tributaries «D
3 bunua Creek. HD
i CanbridKo tiarbwr, HD
5 Chester River. MD
CrUfl*ld Harbor. HD
Fltthlag Bay. HU
F lulling Creek, HD
Goose Creek, HD
1 Havre
19 Xantlcok* River. KD
20 Ocean CUy, Harbor and
tnlei jod Slncpuxcnt
Bay. HD
21 Pentagon Lagoon, HD
22 Pocoaok* River. HD
23 Rhodv» Point to
Tyler too, HD
24 St. Catherine Sound. H
25 St. JeruBW Cr««k, HD
26 Slaughter Crc«k. HD
27 Su»quchanaa River «bov
aod b*lov Havr* de
Grace. KD
26 Susqurhoniu River mt
UilllaMport. PA
29 Tllghoan Harbor. MO
JO Tr«d Avon River. MU
31 Twitch Cove tad Big-
Tiiorofare. KD
12 Tyler River. KD
33 Upper Thorotart, Deal
Inland. A)
W UasblnRtoo Harbor
IS Uicoaico Rlv«r, KD
DISTRICT
PF.HJLCT
SO.
1
r
104
118
10
10
ifl
36
60
46
31
Jl
IS
4i
1>
12A
•U
30
54
D
•>•>
32
e &
S
20
22
U
U
-1
101
i.1
TOTAL
CROSS TAADAUE (ruble yards)
1970
496.879
IS4.43J
1S7.422
21 7; 320
83.100
3.9)9
JO. 65}
12.23)
44,300
IV 300
42.000
41,900
107,711
40.100
64,700
14,200
1,776.414
1171 1972 1971 1974 1973 1976 l<*77
110.403 299. Wto aOft.300
171.602 '.71.830 M8.I10 t.23.624
101,706
508, 9 It
96 .OOO
M.J64 10, )I3
82.200 ^S.670
^3.045
20.200
47.200 7V.JOO
77.000 43.SOO
ii.iOU
3.300
J.-.923 ;O.OtW
HO. 500 100. 800 113.200 JO.JJb
40.910
13.000
30,922
50.000
•Mi. 000
^I.WO 9.957 U0.930 26.530
IB.J10
n5,035
162.200
1.121.846 917.778 201.922 2S0.446 1,189.016 I.271.221 9U.209
1978 1979 1980 Total
1.713.088
h|5.)50 615.000 J. 640. 349
472.340 1.029.762
539. 02*
508.938
6 I, OOO 2;U.JOO
3.9i9
79.77> 79.77S
lU.Ji^
54.250 >4.2JO
V4.I20 94. I 20
137.870
43.U4J
20.200
122.500
22,220 JA.455
75,596 196.746
25.640 '25.640
101.0^6 143,346
15.300
54.4UO
5.500
144.925
-4. BOO bO.Mi 38.6J6 -65.786
25,400 25.400
111.507 111.307
148.621
22.052 22.032
40.100
13.000
30.922
50.000
23,500 88.200
215.000
183.537
18.310
65.035
3.583 J.583
90.463 452.663
1,087.0*5 260.182 1,689.635 10.899.744
12
-------
TABLE 2-2 j
FEDERAL DREDGING PROJECTS IN THE NORFOLK DISTRICT,'
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
LOCATOR !
NJKBEK OH ! DISTRICT
FICUU 2-1 1 PROJECT
0* 2-2 i PROJECT NO.
36 Aberdeen Creek. VA -0
37 Appocaoox River. VA 30
Waterway, Deep Creek.
Canal VA
39 Atlantic Intercoastal 6)
Waterway, South Branch.
VA
40 Back River, Unfley 44
n*id. VA
it Baltloore Harbor and 6
Channels: Cape Henry. VA
42 Baltiaore Harbor and 8
4} Channel to Sewport News, 47
VA
44 Chesapeake Bay to Hagothy 6
Bay, VA
46 Craney laland. VA
47 Davis Creek. VA i9
48 D««p Creek. VA 15
49 Dt*p Creek, Newport 49
::*ws. VA
50 De«pwater Feratnal and 51
Shoals below Hopwell. VA
51 Dltaal Swamp Canal 63
Feeder Ditch, VA
52 Entrance co Channel and b2
Basin Lynnhaven. Inlet, VA
54 Hampton Creek and 46
Approach Channel. VA
56 Jackson Creek. VA 3*
57 Jarvts Creek. VA Ib
58 Lewis Creek and Chin- 1
cuieague Bay, VA
59 Long Creek to Broad 62
Bay, VA
60 Lower North Landing 63
VA
61 Hagothy Bay. Sloop 6
Channel. VA
62 toorln* Area. Vest of 63
Great Bride* Lock, VA
63 Newport News Anchorage, VA^;
64 Norfolk Harbor. VA 56
65 Norfolk Harbor. 45' 56
Channel. VA '
66 Norfolk Harbor, Ease fcf 56
Uest Anchorage* , VA {
67 Norfolk Harbor in th* J 56
• vicinity of the Navy J
Degaussing Range. VA
69 Norfolk Harbor, South 56
Branch. VA
69 Xortb Channel, VA 6
70 Oyster Channel. VA 7
71 Quetns Creek, VA 36
72 Qulnby Creek, VA 4
73 Rehandllitff, basin, VA
CROSS YAJtDACE (cubic yards)
50.426
36,011
.
483.830
538.750 369.178 105.346
454.333 532.100 216,359
114.352 295.100 207.600 97.253
58.840
69 390
845.287 1,^33,87;
45.367
5.180
42. 864 33.422
1,181.040
20.973 24,304 14.933
114,386 94,556 94.177
26.324
203.099
23.398
25.645
28.13)
337.911
291,075
9.562
3.814.194
1.167,133 1.196.300 400.084 429.722 491.372 1.131.340 3U.825 422.339
78.336 38.733 794.651 1.Q04.B09 338.740 450,284
1 576.760J 1
i
1 282.211)
'
621.604
99,194
41,934
10.931
107,352 85.585
662.909 845,287
1980 TOTAL
50,426
16,011
483,850
34.703 54.703
1.013.274
1.202.792
714.505
5U.tl40
79 BJ4 149,22*
2.079.'lo4
.S.J67
5, MO
255.975 332. 2bl
1.181.040
63, 6 JO 148,840
303.119
26 '.32 4
^
203.099
22,198
25.645
28.133
3J7.9U
291.073
9,562
967,382 4,781,576
I,521,Jtt3 7.078.718
2.705.553
1.JU1.406; I.e?8,l6l>j
I
1 282.211!
621.804
99.194
41.934
10.931
192.937
1.300.000 2.809.196
13
-------
TABLE 2-2 (concluded) ,
FEDERAL DREDGING PROJECTS IN THE NORFOLK DISTRICT,,
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
LOCATOt
BUKBEI OS : DISTKICT
01 2-2 • PROJECT SO.
14 BichBMnd Harbor, VA SI
7J S«*v*v« Pier Area. Town 3*
Point Beach. VA
76 SctMlls Point Anchorage, 56
VA
Eustls. VA
78 Sal h Creek, VA
79 Sou hern Branvb of 56
£1 zab*th River. VA
60 Sia ling Creek. VA 16
dl Tan i«r Channel. VA 17
d2 Thiable Shoal Channel. VA 60
83 To usk«v Creek, VA 24
0- Ty er« ft*»ch. I,l« ot 52
w aht. VA
dS Ua «rway on Coaat o( Va: 63
B adto d Bay, VA
66 U.i erw* on Coast of VA 63
and Ch ocote-n;u«
Channe , VA
B; Uacerwa on Coa*t of VA: 61
FUtMraao'i Iiland, VA
58 Uacervay on COM l of VA: 63
Cull Harsh, VA
«9 Uat«rv«r on Coast of VA: 63
Little Macbtpoa$o
liver. VA
90 k'at«rvay on Coast of VA: 63
Metomktn Bay. VA
91 W.KCern Branch of Nans*- 55
mind River, VA
42 White Trout Creek, Svash 6
Bay, VA
9J WISEST iisrSor, VA 37
TOTAL
CKOSS YARDAGE (cubic yards)
1970 1971 1972 1973 197* 1973 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 TOTAL
1.176.105 1.193.306 6*8,761 1.022.209 530,»28 165,503 4.776.912
13.644 13.644
8.968.092 5S0.116 9.5U.20S
(
.
37,062 37.062
211,349 3.172.1*0 3.383,709
23,662 48.724 57,200 129.606
78.328 61.622 81.139 86.416 52.698 380.403
358,960 789.633 1,129.14) 2.:?7.73tf
235.432 235, 4J2
29.363 J9.J63
67,503 67.505
409.306 28S.461 694.767
23.195 2J.I95
170.971 170.971
210,407 218, 407
18.337 18.337
52,3*2 52.342
160.200 160.200
40,426 40.426
J.IWI.81'1 12.UI.I39 7,>45.W4 h.lJt.Shh 2.j;4.1*S4 -,IW.
-------
TABLE 2-3
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE VOLUME OF MATERIAL DREDGED ANNUALLY FROM
FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE BALTIMORE AND NORFOLK DISTRICTS,
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
Baltimore District
Norfolk District
tn
Volume Dredged
(cubic yards)
1 - 1000
1001 - 10.000
10.001 - 50.000
50,001 - 100,000
100.001 - 250,000
250,001 - 500,000
500.001 - 1,000,000
1,000,001 - 5.000,000
5,000,000 +
TOTALS
No. of
Events*
0
4
30
21
8
9
6
0
0
78
X of
Total No.
0
5
38
27
10
12
8
0
0
100
Total Volume
(cubic yards)
0
22,999
936,091
1.499,573
1,245,962
3,301,795
3,893,324
0
0
10,899,744
Z of
Total Vol.
0
1
8
14
11
30
36
0
0
100
No. of
Events
0
5
24
25
19
21
17
13
1
125
* of
Total No.
0
4
19
20
15
17
1 4
10
1
100
Total Volume
(cubic yards)
0
23,236
740.931
1,855,740
3,161.288
7,687,917
12,054,247
18.502,969
8,968.092
52.994.428
X of
Total Vol.
0
<1
1
3
6
15
23
35
17
100
*An event, for a Irderal project, represents the total volume authorized for removal in a given
fiscal year, for a specific project.
-------
£
13
12
11
10
8
7
6
5
4
3
1
•K>OOI Corps of Engineers
•
^
^
,-
B
\^
V
^
N
1970
s
M
-^
^B
*f
'ff
"\
"'I-
'"I
,
f.
'<
]~
'
1S
M
^
\
\
^
i-
>•
;'
*'\
*
'*s
'1
''"s
o
\
X
-~;
'•- '
•-..
$
"
n
B N B N B N B
•^
X
^
N
1971 1972 1973 1974
^gj
^
S
1^.
M
[]
B N B
13
^
=;
N
1975 1976
Private Industry
N • Norfolk
B • Baltimore
O n
1 IN 1 1
B N B
m—.
'•
- 's
N
1977 1978
Fl
a[
B N
1979
=
«
-
B N
1980
FIGURE 2-3
VOLUME OF MATERIAL DREDGED ANNUALLY FROM FEDERAL
PROJECTS IN THE BALTIMORE AND NORFOLK DISTRICTS,
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
16
-------
TABLE 2-4
A SUMMARY OF VOLUME AND COST DATA FOR DREDGING
IN THE BALTIMORE DISTRICT, FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
YEAR
FEDERAL PROJECTS PERFORMED
BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FEDERAL PROJECTS PERFORMED
BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS
PRIVATE PROJECTS
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975*
1976
1977
1978
1979
I960
TOTAL
TOTAL
AMOUNT
DREDGED
(cubic yards)
1.276.054
1,182,246
782,233
0
0
858,216
0
0
0
'0
3.583
4,102,332
TOTAL.
COST
(dollars)
289.655
326,157
321,896
0
0
573.084
0
0
0
0
44.241
1,555.033
AVERAGE .
COST
(dollars/cubic yard)
0.23
0.28
0.41
0.67
12.35*
0.40
TOTAL
AMOUNT
DREDGED
(cubic yards)
500,360
139,600
155,545
201.922
250,446
330,800
1.271,221
914,209
1,087,055
260,182
1,686,072
6,797,412
TOTAL.
COST
(dollars)
614,398
143,614
196,067
334,611
621,777
667.956
1.868.599
1,580.756
3,484,888
1,074,983
5.009,531
15.597,180
AVERAGE.
COST
(dollars/cubic yard)
1.23
1.03
1.26
1.66
• 2.48
2.02
1.47
1.73
3.21
4.13
2.97
2.29
TOTAL
AMOUNT
DREDGED
(cubic vards)
2.019.051
1,198,168
1,726,386
505,595
2.627,490
4,076,929
12,153,619
'Includes mobilization/demobilization costs.
2Cost of dredging Itself, doesn't Include mobilization and demobilization costs.
3Data collected from 1975 to 1980 only.
^Represents only one (1) project.
* Includes Transition Quarter
-------
YEAR
TABLE 2-5
A SUMMARY OF VOLUME AND COST DATA FOR DREDGING
IN THE NORFOLK DISTRICT, FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
FEDERAL PROJECTS PERFORMED
BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FEDERAL PROJECTS PERFORMED
BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS
PRIVATE PROJECTS
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975*
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
TOTAL
TOTAL
AMOUNT
DREDGED
(cubic yards)
1,466.395
295.100
1,565,478
2.106.295
1,099,297
1,226,396
69,390
259,223
0
0
79.834
8,167,408
TOTAL.
COST
(dollars)
1.498,040
352,834
1,065,080
1.981.631
702,923
1,746.078
183.927
900,054
0
0
435,114
8,865.681
AVERAGE.
COST
(dollars/cubic yard)
1.02
1.20
0.68
0.94
0.64
1.42
2.65
3.47
5.45
1.09
TOTAL
AMOUNT
DKEDGED
(cubic yards)
1,922.426
12.028,039
5,980.506
4,027,571
1.475,657
2.933.363
2,860,546
820.578
2.740,692
1,138.611
8.899.031
44.827.020
TOTAL .
COST
(dollars)
1.236.584
5,592,411
4,616,247
2.212,939
1,916,535
2,293,220
2.551.619
1.191,737
3.629.436
1,885,521
11,389,402
38.513,651
AVERAGE.
COST
(dollars/cubic yard)
0.64
0.46
0.77
0.55
1.30
0.78
0.89
1.45
1.32
1.66
1.28
0.86
TOTAL
AMOUNT .
DRF.DTE!)
(cubic yards)
1,692,632
1,129,339
2,856,640
840,465
1, 482,114
7,211,587
15,212.^77
oo
'includes mobilization/demobilization costs.
?Cost of dredging Itself, doesn't Include mobilization and demobilization costs.
3Dnta collected from 1975 to 1980 only.
* Includes Transition Quarter
-------
contractors. In the Norfolk District, 53 million cubic yards of
material were dredged in the same period, with 8.2 million cubic
yards credited to the Corps of Engineers' dredging fleet and 44.8
million cubic yards credited to various private dredging companies.
In all years the volume of material dredged in the Norfolk District
is greater than in the Baltimore District, generally much greater.
Additionally, the amount of work done by federally-owned dredges on
federal projects has declined drastically and the annual volume has
varied considerably in both districts.
In the Baltimore District, the volume dredged decreased from FY
1970 to FY 1973, remained approximately the same in FY 1973 and FY
1974, increased in FY 1975 and FY 1976, decreased in the next three
fiscal years, and then increased again in FY 1980. The relatively
large amount of material dredged in FY .1976 appears attributable to
the additional work resulting from the effects of tropical storm
Eloise in 1975. The slowdown in dredging activities for federal
projects in FY 1979 at least partially reflects the decision by the
Corps of Engineers to postpone any dredging work in the port of
Baltimore, following tests on sediments from Swann Point and
Tolchester channels in 1978 by the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources. The results showed high levels of PCBs as well as
chlordane (McKee 1982). A study conducted by Enviroplan Inc. "in
1980 for the Baltimore District, showed no significant amount of
pesticides in the Baltimore Harbor and scheduling of dredging
activities resumed. The Swan Point Channel, which was scheduled to
be deepened in FY 1979 was actually dredged in FY 1980 (and widened
in FY 1981), which contributes to the increase in dredging
activities in FY 1980 (McKee, 1981). The declining role played by
the Corps of Engineers fleet is a result of the Industry Capability
Program and Public Law 95-269 which encourages private dredgers to
take a more active role in dredging activities, by competing with
the Corps of Engineers through the bidding procedures (Murden, 1980).
In the Norfolk District, while the volumes removed from federal
projects are always greater than in the Baltimore District, the
variations are much more dramatic. Dredging activities decreased
from FY 1971 to FY 1979, the most active fiscal years for dredging
being 1971 and 1980. The slowdown in dredging activities can be
attributed to environmental constraints and limited funding
(Whitehurst, 1981). Kepone contamination of the James River led to
cessation of all dredging there in 1975. At the present time
consideration is being given to the resumption of dredging in this
area, with suitable environmental safeguards and the allocation of
additional funding. According to Whitehurst (1981) dredging is
expected to resume in some form in FY 1981 or FY 1982. As in the
Baltimore District, the role of federally owned dredges has declined.
19
-------
•s,
•o
-------
TABLE 2-6
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE VOLUME OF MATERIAL DREDGED PER
PERMIT IN NON-FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE BALTIMORE AND NORFOLK DISTRICTS,
FISCAL YEARS 1975 THROUGH 1980
Baltimore District
Norfolk District
ro
Volume Dredged
(cubic yards)
1 - 1000
1001 - 10,000
10.001 - 50,000
50,001 - 100.000
100,001 - 250,000
250,001 - 500.000
500.001 - 1.000.060
1.000,001 - 5,000.000
5.000,000+
TOTALS
No. of
Permits
361
171
79
16
13
0
4
1
0
645
Z of
Total No.
56
27
12
2
2
0
-------
2.2 Utilization of Dredging Equipment
2.2.1 Federal Projects
Dredging in federal projects relied overwhelmingly on the use
of large hydraulic dredges (Tables A-l through A-22). Overall, only
six percent of the material produced from federal projects was
generated by equipment other than hydraulic dredges. In the Norfolk
District 52.6 million cubic yards were dredged by hydraulic
equipment (mostly cutterhead suction dredges ranging in size from 12
to 27 inches), while only 0.4 million cubic yards were excavated
using mechanical methods (mostly clamshell-type dredges). In the
Baltimore District, of the 1O.9 million cubic yards dredged, 3.4
million cubic yards were excavated by mechanical methods (again,
mostly clamshell dredges), while the rest, 7.5 million cubic yards,
was excavated by hydraulic means, mostly cutterhead suction' dredges.
2.2.2 Non-Federal Projects
A much wider range of equipment is used on non-federal projects
than on federal ones (Table 2-7). This appears to be largely due to
the wider range of equipment suitable for use on medium to
small-sized projects. In the case of the Baltimore District 457 of
the dredging permits reviewed indicate the method used for dredging;
368 were performed by mechanical means (clamshell, dragline,
backhoe, dipper), and 89 by hydraulic methods (cutterhead suction).
In the Norfolk District 330 permits indicated the method of
dredging; mechanical methods were used in 275 cases and hydraulic
equipment was indicated in 55 cases. In the Baltimore' District
mechanical equipment produced 70 percent of the volume dredged in
the six-year period, while in the Norfolk District it produced only
29 percent of the volume (Table 2-7). This is due to the tendency
to use hydraulic equipment for large projects (Table 2-8), and the
greater number of large projects in the Norfolk District (Table
2-6). While bucket or clamshell dredges were used on very small
projects as well as those in excess of 1,000,000 cubic yards,
draglines are almost never used on projects over 10,000 cubic
yards. Other construction equipment, such as backhoes and cranes,
were listed only on very small projects.
2.3 Cost of Dredging
2.3.1 Federal Projects
From 1970 to 1980, 63.9 million cubic yards of material were
dredged from federal projects in the two districts at a total cost
of 64.5 million dollars. The overall average cost per cubic yard
23
-------
TABLE 2-7
VOLUME OF MATERIAL DREDGED, BY TYPE OF EQUIPMENT ON NON-FEDERAL
PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY REGION, FISCAL YEARS 1975 THROUGH 1980
Baltimore District
Norfolk District
Type of
Equipment
Hydraulic
Bucket/Clamshell
Dragline
Backhoe
Other General
Construction
Totals
No. of
Permits
91
198
140
22
6
457
Z of
Total No.
20
43
31
5
1
100
Total Volume
of Material
(cubic yards)
1,751,896
3,611,442
399.833
20.148
8.086
5,791,405
Z of
Total Volume
30
62
7
<1
Too
No. of
Permits
55
178
92
4
1
330
Z of
Total No.
17
54
28
1
-------
TABLE 2-8
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF THE VOLUMES OF MATERIAL DREDGED ON
NON-FEDERAL PROJECTS, BY TYPE OF DREDGING EQUIPMENT,
IN THE BALTIMORE AND NORFOLK DISTRICTS,
FISCAL YEARS 1975 THROUGH 1980
Baltimore District
Norfolk District
K>
Volume Dredged
(cubic yards)
1 - 1.000
1001 - 10.000
10,001 - 50.000
50,001 - 100.000
100.001 - 250,000
250.001 - 500.000
500.001 - 1.000,000
1,000.001 - 5.000.000
Total
Dragline
94
38
7
1
0
0
0
0
uo
Bucket/
Clamshell
109
46
25
10
6
0
2
0
198
Hydraulic
13
40
29
4
5
0
0
0
?T
Other
23
4
1
0
0
0
0
0
28
Dragline
66
19
7
0
0
0
0
0
92
Bucket/
Clamshell
105
44
14
5
7
1
1
1
T78
Hydraulic
9
16
10
4
6
5
3
2
55
Other
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5~
-------
for the entire period is $1.01, however, the annual data for each
district indicates an irregular tendency towards increasing costs
for both federal- and industry-dredged projects (Figure 2-5). Prior
to Fiscal Year 1976, Corps of Engineers dredges appear to have been
slightly less costly to operate on a per cubic yard basis; however,
since that time costs associated with the use of Corps equipment
have increased much more rapidly than those for private dredgers.
This appears to be largely a result of the Industry Capability
Program; Corps dredges are no longer routinely used on large federal
projects. This has resulted in more efficient use of private
dredges and has stimulated expansion and modernization of the
private fleet. The high costs now associated with COE dredges
reflect their relatively advanced age, and the small projects where
they are now utilized (COE, 1979a; Murden, 1980). In addition,
mobilization and demobilization costs represent much less of an
incremental cost on large projects.
On the average, the cost per cubic yard for private contractors
working on federal projects appears to have approximately doubled
over the past ten years (see Tables 2-4 and 2-5). This increase can
reasonably be explained on the basis of recent inflation rates.
Costs for COE-operated dredges have increased more rapidly,
apparently due to the size and nature of the projects and the-age
and condition of the equipment. However, costs associated with
dredging are highly variable. In 1980, the last year included in
this study, project costs in the Baltimore District ranged from
$1.72/cubic yard to $12.35/cubic yard, while in the Norfolk District
they ranged from $0.96/cubic yard to $5.45/cubic yard. In both
cases the higher costs are generally associated with smaller
projects (Tables A-ll and A-22).
2.3.2 Non-Federal Projects
Costs associated with non-federal projects are much more
difficult to assess, since such information is not submitted to the
Corps and would be obtainable only by contacting each permit
applicant. Since that was beyond the scope of this project,
Information on such costs was solicited from several dredging
companies working in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Disposal is almost always restricted to upland diked disposal
sites, which implies that since disposal sites are not always
available in the vicinity of the dredging site, additional
. transportation of the material is needed. The dredged material has
then to be rehandled at the site itself. This operation
significantly adds to the cost of dredging. Representatives of
dredging companies generally assert that this has increased their
26
-------
13 -
12 -
I 7
§
•o
£ 6
u
O '
I 5
o
U
c
f 4
I
Baltimore District, COE Dredges
Baltimore District, Private Dredges
Norfolk District, COE Dredges
Norfolk District, Private Dredges
(Based on One
Project!
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
Year
FIGURE 2-5
ANNUAL AVERAGE COST OF DREDGING ON FEDERAL PROJECTS
IN THE BALTIMORE AND NORFOLK DISTRICTS,
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
27
-------
costs. No specific data were available in this study to evaluate
this claim; however, increased costs for fuel and labor, as well as
inflation, also must have played a role. In the Baltimore District,
private dredging work totaling approximately 500,000 cubic yards of
material was undertaken from 1978 through 1980 by the McLean
Contracting Company, an engineering firm which specializes in marine
and heavy construction projects and is equipped for dredging with
clamshell buckets (three to seven cubic yards capacity). Their
average cost per cubic yard (in 1980) of dredged material is about
ten dollars, Including transportation and disposal costs (Schwartz,
1980). According to Mr. Schwartz, a vice president of the McLean
Company, a small project costing two dollars per cubic yard in 1970
could cost three times as much per cubic yard in 1980, and he
attributed this to rehandling. Because the cost of mobilization and
demobilization of the equipment is very high, private contractors
usually try to combine federal and private work if they are located
in the same area, in order to offer the permit holder a more
competitive price (Holland, 1981).
Larger private projects are executed in a manner similar to
federal dredging work. The project is first advertised in local
newspapers, bids are received and evaluated by the permit holder,
and the most competitive dredging company is chosen (Hull, 1981;
Schwartz, 1980). Four major private dredging projects in the
Chesapeake Bay undertaken by the Atkinson Dredging Company in the
last five years are a fair representation of large private dredging
projects contracted by big private companies (Table 2-9). The <:osts
are comparable to those for large federal projects.
2.4 Disposal Methods
2.4.1 Federal Projects
Data on disposal methods used for federal projects are
summarized in Table 2-10 and Figure 2-6. Out of the total of 63.9
million cubic yards dredged in the eleven-year period, 16 million
(25 per cent) was disposed of in open water, with the rest going to
upland disposal areas. Craney Island, a COE operated diked disposal
area in the Norfolk District, received 36.2 million of the 47.9
million cubic yards not disposed of in open wa-ter.
In the Baltimore District, open water disposal constitutes a
significant fraction of the total throughout the study period (7.9
million cubic yards, or 72 percent). The usual method used when
dredging the approaches to the Baltimore Harbor has always been open
water placement at sites approved by EPA and the responsible
Maryland Agencies (see Section 3.2) {McKee, 1981). The Hart and
-28
-------
TABLE 2-9
. EXAMPLES OF LARGE PRIVATE DREDGING PROJECTS PERFORMED
BY A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS*
to
Year Permltee
78 Delmarva Transport
Committee
78 Fire Company
78 Va Fort Authority
78 Maritime Terminal, Inc.
Location
Baltimore Harbor
Terminals
Norfolk
Norfolk
Norfolk
Total Amount
Dredged
(cubic ytrda)
20,000
326,298
980,272
380,390
Total Cost.
(Dollars)
50.225
298,618
798,000
454,095
Cost per cu
mobilization
demobilization
(Dollars)
2.50
0.92
0.81
1.19
yd,
and
included
Sourct: Hull, 1981
-------
TABLE 2-10
DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR MATERIAL DREDGED FROM FEDERAL PROJECTS
IN THE BALTIMORE AND NORFOLK DISTRICTS,
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
VOLUMES IN CUBIC YARDS
Baltimore District
Norfolk District
OJ
O
Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
197S
1976
1977
1978
1979
198J
Total
Volume Upland
458.460
57.400
155,545
80,922
203,246
251,200
662,921
290,585
426,905
260,182
198,732
3,048.098
Volume in Open
Water
1,317,954
1,264,446
782,233
121,000
47,200
935,816
608,300
623,624
660,150
0
1,490,923
7,851,646
Volume Upland
1,056,418
1,532,267
356.931
1,381,522
647,378
1,548,146
724,197
202,957
806,266
252,324
176,031
8,684,437
Volume at
Craney Island
777,261
10,790.872
5,010.494
2,913.951
1,057.337
1.383,276
2.136,349
592,980
1,934,426
886,287
8,723,000
36,206,233
Open Ocean
358,960
0
369.178
789.635
0
1,129,143
0
0
0
0
0
2,646,916
Volume In Other
Open Water
1,196,182
0
1,809,381
1,048,758
870,239
99,194
69,390
283,864
0
0
79,834
5.456,842
-------
I
a
a
O
•
3
O
F>x1 Open Ocean
t I OpenWaiar
Bi Upland
G33 Craney Island
B • Baltimore
N • Norfolk
D
0 N
I960
FIGURE 2-6
DISPOSAL OPTIONS FOR MATERIAL DREDGED FROM FEDERAL
PROJECTS IN THE BALTIMORE AND NORFOLK DISTRICTS,
FISCAL YEARS 1970 THROUGH 1980
31
-------
Miller Island diked disposal site, when completed and in service
(1983-1985), will have an eleven-year maintenance dredging
capacity. The availability of this facility will obviously change
current procedures, but the type of material it will actually be
used for remains the subject of some discussion. Figure 2-6 is
somewhat misleading since the open water volume is almost entirely
controlled by the amount of material dredged in Baltimore Harbor and
approaches, decreasing in 1973, 1974, and 1979 and increasing in
1975 and 1980. Trends in disposal practices are better shown if
work in the Baltimore approach channels is omitted. It then becomes
evident that, except in those areas, overboard disposal practices
have been practically abandoned since 1976.
In the Norfolk District open water disposal has never been as
significant on a percentage basis as it is in the Baltimore
District, and has steadily declined since 1975, to be almost
completely abandoned by 1980. The total volume, however, is
significant. Over the eleven-year period, 8.1 million cubic yards
were disposed of in this manner, 0.2 million more -than in the
Baltimore District. This was only 15 percent of the total for the
district, however. As was stated earlier, the major disposal option
for large projects in the Norfolk area has been placement at Craney
Island•
The Craney Island disposal area is operated by the Norfolk
District, Corps of Engineers, and provides a rehandllng basin
facility for bottom dump scows. The rehandling basin has been
excavated to a 40-foot depth over a 1,000 foot square area. While
clean material can be discharged into the rehandling area,
contaminated material is discharged directly into the disposal area.
The approach channels, 1,500 feet long by 200 feet wide, are
maintained at an 18-foot depth (Cable, 1969). This facility is
available to all private interests, municipalities, and government
agencies engaged in dredging in Norfolk Harbor and other Hampton
Roads areas. A toll charge is levied to cover the costs of
amortization of the facilities, maintenance, and rehandling costs
(Cable, 1969).
Upland disposal at sites other than Craney Island received 16
percent (8.7 million cubic yards) of the total volume dredged in the
Norfolk District. These sites were generally selected due to their
proximity to specific projects and may or may not have been used
more than once.
2.4.2 Non-Federal Projects
Dredgers working on non-federal projects have a strong tendency
to dispose of material at upland sites (Tables A-23 through A-34).
32
-------
This is due to the relatively small size of most of the projects and
to lack of access to open water disposal areas. In the Norfolk
District a significant volume of material from larger non-federal
projects in the Norfolk Harbor complex is taken to Craney Island, an
option not available elsewhere in the bay.
In the Baltimore District approximately ten percent of the
material dredged on private projects was disposed of in open water.
Most of this was used for backfill over pipelines. The rest, about
eleven million cubic yards, was taken to a wide range of upland
disposal sites. On small projects, where shoreline dredging is
involved, disposal on the property itself was very common.
In the Norfolk District, out of 15.2 million cubic yards, 10.9
million were placed in Craney Island. All but 16,000 of the
remaining 4.3 million cubic yards went to other upland disposal
areas.
33
-------
A n
*>
-------
3.0 REGULATORY PROGRAMS AFFECTING DREDGING IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
Dredging, as well as transporting and disposing of dredged
material, is regulated by federal, state and local governments.
This section briefly reviews legislation and implementing
regulations which are most likely, at the federal, state and local
levels, to affect dredging activities in the Chesapeake Bay area.
3.1 Federal Legislation and Regulations
Numerous federal statutes apply, either directly or indirectly,
to dredging activities in the Chesapeake Bay. Of primary concern
are the permitting authorities in:
o Section A01 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C.
1341),
o Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C.
1344),
o The River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.), and
o Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1413).
Related legislation includes: the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.); the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (18 U.S.C. 681 et seq.); the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.);'the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1972 (42 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.); the Water
Resources Planning Act (42 U.S.C. 1962c and 1962d); the Jones Act of
1920 (46 U.S.C., numerous sections) and Public Law 95-269,
Amendments to the River and Harbor Appropriation Acts of 1899, 1912
and 1919 (33 U.S.C. 622 and 624).
3.1.1 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
This section requires that any applicant for a federal license
or permit to conduct an activity including, but not limited to, the
construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any
discharge into navigable waters, must provide the permitting agency
a certification from the responsible state (or interstate agency, if
appropriate) that the discharge will be in compliance with
appropriate effluent limitations and water quality standards. A
mechanism for public notice is required, and public hearings may be
held if appropriate. No license or permit can be granted until the
certification has been obtained (or waived due to inaction by the
35
-------
state on the request for more than one year)* Once the Water
Quality Certifieatibn lias been obtained and the terms of this
section o-f the act complied with, other necessary permits can
proceed*
3.1.2 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
The discharge of pollutants from point sources into the waters
of the United States is prohibited by Section 301 of the Clean Water
Act, unless the discharge is in compliance with Sections 402 and 404
of the Act. Section 402 establishes the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
-------
Corps of Engineers to publish the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines
which, although required by statute, had not been published at the
time the suit was filed, these "Guidelines for Specification of
Disposal Sites for Dredge or Fill Material" were published by the
EPA in revised form in December 1980 (45 FR 85344; 40 GFR 230).
they became effective^in March 1981 and included a testing section.
The testing Requirements for the Specification of Disposal Sites for
Dredged or Fill Material have also been published in the Federal
Register (44 FR 58082). Unless it can be demonstrated that a
discharge will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the .
aquatic environment, it is the fundamental precept of these regula
tions that dredged of fill material should not be discharged into
the aquatic ecosystem. One of the most important -guiding principles
is that the degradation or destruction of areas considered special
aquatic sites may represent an irreversible loss of valuable
resources. While these regulations are quite complex and highly
controversial, they have been in effect only a limited time and
apparently did tiot affect the projects reviewed for this report.
3.1.3 River and Harbor Act of 1899
the River and Harbor Act of 1899 (or the Refuse Act) was
enacted to protect navigatioft and the navigable capacity of the
« ion's waters. Permitting authorities relevant to dredging
ivitiesunder the* 1899 Act are found in:
o Section 9 which prohibits the construction of any dam or dike
across any navigable water in the absence of Congressional
consent aiid Corps approval*
-vS
o Section 10 which prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or
alteration Of any navigable water*
Under Section 10, the construction of any structure In or over any
navigable water of the United States, the excavation from or
depositing of material in such waters, Or the accomplishment of any
other work affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of
such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the
Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army, the
instrument of authorization is designated an individual permit,
general permit, or letter of permission. The authority of the
Secretary of the Army to prevent obstructions to navigation in the
navigable waters of the United States was extended to artificial
islands and fixed structures located on the outer continental shelf
by Section 4(f) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1953, 43
U.S.C. 1333(f).
37
-------
3.1.4 Section 103 of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act.
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
(commonly referred to as the "Ocean Dumping Act") contains
provisions that resemble the permitting approach taken by the Clean
Water Act. Specifically, Section 103 of the Act is similar to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in that it creates a separate
permit program to be administered by the Secretary of the Army,
acting through the Chief of Engineers, for the authorization of the
transportation of dredged material in ocean water for the purposes
of disposal at designated disposal sites. The Act requires the
Corps of Engineers to make the same evaluation that is required of
the Administrator for the ocean dumping of other materials, using
the ocean dumping criteria developed by the Administrator. The Act
also requires the Corps of Engineers to utilize, to the maximum
extent feasible, ocean dumping sites that have been designated by
the Administrator, EPA.
At the present time (February 1982) the ocean dumping criteria
are being revised by EPA, and the new criteria may depart
significantly from the current version. These criteria only apply
to material that is ocean disposed, and hence do not affect much of
the dredging done in the Chesapeake Bay. The Norfolk District is,
however, in the process of seeking designation of an ocean disposal
site, which would be subject to these criteria.
In addition, ocean dumping proposals are also influenced by the
1972 convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of
Wastes and Other Matter (the London Convention), of which the United
States is a signatory. This was accomplished by a 1974 amendment to
the Ocean Dumping Act which amended the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency's authority to promulgate ocean
dumping regulations in order to establish or revise criteria in
accordance with the Convention to the extent this could be
accomplished without relaxing the requirements of Title 33, Section
1412(a).
3.1.5 Other Federal Legislation
The review of applicable federal permitting authorities
summarized above is involved with or related to other federal
legislation. These statutes are briefly discussed in the following
paragraphs to provide a more complete framework for the Corps
general regulatory policies.
Section 307(c) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
requires federal agencies conducting activities, including
38
-------
development projects, directly affecting a state's coastal zone to
comply, to the maximum extent practicable, with an approved state
coastal zone management program. It also requires that
certification of compliance with the management program be provided
by any non-federal applicant for a federal license or permit to
conduct an activity affecting land or water uses in the state's
coastal zone. Generally no federal permit will be issued until the
state has concurred with the non-federal applicant's certification.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act expresses the concern of
Congress for the quality of the aquatic environment as it affects
the conservation, improvement, and enjoyment of fish and wildlife
resources. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between the
Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army, dated July
13, 1967, providing procedures for coordinating the concerns of both
agencies (see Appendix B of the Corps of Engineers Final
Regulations, dated July 19, 1979).
The National Environmental Policy Act is intended to encourage
a productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment.
Section 102 of that Act directs that "to the fullest extent
possible: (1) the policies, regulations, and public laws of the
United States shall be interpreted and administered in accordance
with the policies set forth in this Act, and (2) all agencies of the
Federal Government shall... "insure that presently unquantified
environmental amenities and values may be given appropriate
consideration in decision making along with economic and technical
considerations..." Detailed environmental impact statements are
required if a proposed major federal action would significantly
affect the quality of the human environment.
There is other federal legislation which may, under certain
circumstances, have a bearing on the disposal of dredged material.
Foremost among these is the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) of 1976 (PL 94-580, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.). The Act applies
to nearly all nonagricultural, solid, and liquid wastes which are
not subject to Section 402 permits. A major aspect of the Act is
its two-stage regulatory program for hazardous wastes. Under
Subtitle C of the Act, EPA established criteria for determining the
characteristics of hazardous wastes and established regulations, as
may be necessary to protect human health and the environment,
applicable to hazardous wastes generators, transporters, and owners
and operators of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
Section ^004 of RCRA requires that federal agencies which -generate
solid wastes or which permit waste disposal must ensure compliance
with the Act. Accordingly, land disposal of dredged material would
be subject to RCRA. Should -this material be classified as
39
-------
"hazardous wastes," it would further be subject to the comprehensive
Subtitle C regulatory program.
Under Section 142(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Administrator, EPA, may identify certain drinking water aquifers,
the pollution of which would create a significant hazard to public
health. Upland disposal of dredged material could be restricted if
it was done in the vicinity of designated aquifers. No such
aquifers are, as yet, designated in the Chesapeake Bay region.
In addition to the impact of these laws and regulations
directly affecting dredging and dredged material disposal, the
acquisition of foreign built dredges is regulated under the Jones
Act. This act, originally designed to protect the U.S. shipbuilding
industry, has proven difficult to interpret. It does, however,
state that:
"A foreign-built dredge shall not, under penalty of for-
feiture, engage in dredging in the U.S. unless documented
as a vessel of the United States" (46 C.F.R. 292).
According to Hoffman (1978a), based on interviews with foreign
dredging firms, it is not possible to obtain documentation as a U.S.
vessel for dredging equipment. The Act (Article 46) further
restricts the importation of a foreign vessel by limiting the
traffic of vessels between points in the United States to vessels
built and documented under the laws of the United States. Waivers
can be obtained in special cases, but with great difficulty. This
opinion was confirmed by Scholle (1981), who noted that the
prohibition could be waived by the U.S. Customs Service in specific
cases where deemed necessary in the interest of national defense by
the Secretary of Defense. According to Hoffman (1978a) dredging in
the U.S. could be improved by the acquisition of European equipment
not available on the American market. He gives the example of
bucket dredges, which are useful in dredging slips and would be too
expensive to build in the U.S. because of the tooling up procedure
and the relatively limited market. He also points out that there
are second hand bucket dredges in Europe available for purchase by
American dredging firms if it were permitted. The Japanese Oozer
dredge, which could be particularly valuable in dredging polluted
sediments, is similarly affected.
Public Law 95-269 encourages the Corps of Engineers to utilize
contractor equipment when industry demonstrates its capability to
perform the work at reasonable prices and in a timely manner. It
also recommends that the Corps of Engineers reduce its dredging
fleet to the minimum required to perform emergency and national
40
-------
defense work. As long as contractor's bids do not exceed 257, of the
estimated cost of doing the work with the Corps plant, the dredging
work should be performed by a contractor, the Corps of Engineers is
expected under this law to successively retire its older vessels and
retain only a minimum but technologically modern fleet of dredges.
As a result, the Industry Capability Program was initiated by the
Corps of Engineers in 1976 with the issuance of Corps of Engineers
Circular EC 1125-2-358. The program gave industry the opportunity
to bid competitively with the Corps of Engineers over various
dredging projects. By the end of August 1979 statistics showed that
the Industry Capability program had totalled a saving of 16.1
million dollars to the taxpayers (Murden, 1980). The industry has
risen to the opportunity provided by this program by acquiring new
dredging units to increase their efficiency. One can expect that
the industry performance will continue to improve since some of its
newest equipment is still under construction.
The remaining federal legislation which may have a bearing on
dredged material disposal includes:
o The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) which states inter alia that federal agencies ensure
that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existance
of endangered or threatened species or result in the destruc-
tion of critical habitat.
o The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), which requires that agencies con-
sider potential impacts on significant historical or archae-
ological resources.
o Section 302 of the Ocean Dumping Act which authorizes the
Secretary of Commerce to issue regulations to control
activities within areas of the ocean waters (including
estuaries) or Great Lakes which have been designated as
marine sancturaies.
3.1.6 Federal Implementing Regulations
The principal agencies having regulatory or criteria setting
functions in the above legislation are the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. Corps of
Engineers regulations regarding the transport and disposal of
dredged material are contained in 33 CFR 320-329. These regulations
apply to both federal and non-federal projects and require
consideration of all issues raised by the legislation discussed
above. Where appropriate 'they refer to additional regulations, such
41
-------
as the EPA Ocean Dumping Criteria or Section 404 Criteria, which
require compliance. Under most circumstances adherence to these
regulations is not difficult. On occasion, however, special
circumstances may lead to involvement with several additional sets
of regulations, such as those for hazardous waste management,
wastewater discharges, or groundwater protection. These issues
generally arise with respect to disposal options rather than the
dredging project itself. In such cases compliance becomes
considerably more complex. Non-federal applicants -generally must
rely on the staff of the Corps of Engineers to inform them of any
additional regulations to be consulted, which should occur as soon
as possible after the initial permit application.
The federal legislation and regulations reviewed previously
call for compliance with substantive state, interstate, and local
water quality standards and effluent limitations. Non-federal
applicants are required to show proof of compliance with local and
state regulations before the Corps will issue a Section 404 permit.
3.2 State of Maryland Legistation and Regulations
While states may, under the Clean Water Act of 1977 (33 U.S.C.
1251 et seq.), elect to administer their own permit programs for the
discharge of dredge or fill material into non-tidal navigable
waters, Maryland has not done so. There are, however, numerous
Maryland laws which must be considered during the permit process.
Those most relevant to dredging and dredged material disposal are
the Solid and Hazardous Waste Law, the Water Resources Law, and
Water Pollution Control Regulations. The primary state agencies
tasked with enforcement of the state laws and regulations are the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene. Maryland also has a federally approved coastal zone
managment plan, administered by the Tidewater Administration, part
of the Department of Natural Resources.
3.3 Commonwealth of Virginia Legislation and Regulations
As was true in Maryland, Virginia has not as yet opted to
expand its authority with respect to administration of Section 404
permits. The Commonwealth does not have a federally approved
coastal zone managment plan, although a wide range of protective
legislation has been inacted. Laws and regulations relevant to the
issues of dredging and dredged material disposal include the Solid
and Hazardous Waste Management Law and the implementing Solid Waste
Regulations, and the State Water Control Law and implementing
Regulations and Standards. Responsible state agencies are the
Virginia Marine Resources Commission, the State Water Control Board,
and the State Health Department.
42
-------
3.4 Permit Processing Procedures
Many of the environmental laws and regulations just described
were enacted or strengthened within the last ten to fifteen years.
As a result, both federal and state regulatory requirements have
increased. The reconciliation of often conflicting demands and
requirements, as well as the time-delays and expense involved, has
become a major concern, especially because of the number of
regulatory agencies involved. This has been an issue in both the
Norfolk and Baltimore Districts for a number of years, since it was
reflected in delays in the permitting process. Both offices have
taken steps to improve the 'situation.
In the Norfolk District, joint permit processing sessions have
been held monthly since August 1976. These meetings include
representatives of the Corps, EPA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and, on the state
level, the Virginia Marine Resource Commission, the State Water
Control Board, the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and the
Bureau of Shellfish and Sanitation of the State Health Department
(Larsen, 1980). The purpose of these meetings is to expedite the
processing of applications, and to ensure the direct exchange of
opinions between responsible agencies. A joint permit application
combining federal and state requirements in one form has been in use
in the Norfolk District since April 1978, and has further increased
the processing efficiency.
In the Baltimore District a joint permit review committee also
meets once a month. It is composed of the federal agencies listed
earlier and, as representatives of the State of Maryland, the
Maryland Port Administration, the Board of Public Works, the
Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene. The Maryland Port Administration and Board of
Public Works representatives do not normally attend meetings, rather
they provide input through the water quality certification process,
administered by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
and the Wetlands Licensing Program of the Maryland Department of
Natural Resources. For projects in Maryland, the district is
working on a joint permit application which would include all
federal and state requirements. At this time, however, it is still
necessary for a Maryland applicant to obtain, besides the Corps
dredging permit, a wetland license issued by the Maryland Department
of Natural Resources, which includes a water quality certificate
issued by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Durkay,
1981). For those projects in Virginia (a portion of the Potomac
River Basin) a joint application form is currently in use.
43
-------
fN
k
-------
4.0 IMPACT OF CURRENT DREDGING PRACTICES
The main impetus for the preparation of this report was the
impression, by a wide range of agencies and individuals, that
controversies over ongoing or proposed dredging projects in the
Chesapeake Bay had reached the point where a critical evaluation of
procedures and problems throughout the Bay was in order. It was
hoped that such an evaluation would lead to improvements in the
procedures or equipment now in use, which, in turn, would lessen the
controversy associated with dredging projects. Of course, the term
"improvement" could have a wide range of meanings in such a
situation, but we have defined it as "less environmentally damaging
with no unacceptable increase in cost." This definition, as do
most, contains an element of ambiguity. We do not propose any
specific definition of unacceptable, since that will obviously
depend on the viewpoint of the evaluator. In this report we will
attempt only to indicate the extent of probable economic impacts.
One essential element in this evaluation is a determination of the
extent of the impacts caused by existing procedures. In this
section we address this issue from four perspectives:
o perceived environmental issues
o probable or documented environmental impacts
o regulatory controls
c economic costs.
Each of these factors has a role to play in the evaluation of new
approaches.
A.I Perceived Environmental Issues
Any attempt to prepare a comprehensive list of environmental
concerns associated with dredging is probably doomed to failure by
the diversity of opinions; however, our research during this project
suggests -that the following issues occur repeatedly in evaluations
of projects in the bay (not listed in order of significance):
o impact of turbidity on fish and wildlife, especially
shellfish,
o release of toxic substances,
o loss of valuable habitat, especialy wetlands,
o decline in water quality,
45
-------
o aesthetics, and
o risks to human health.
All of these are legitimate concerns, but much of the controversy
and discussion appears to be based on extrapolation to a "worst
case" situation, or on very limited data. In other cases,
regulatory programs which are already in place appear adequate -to
protect the environment. The available information on the
environmental impact of current procedures is summarized in the
following section.
4.2 Probable or Documented Environmental Impacts in the Aquatic
Environment
Impacts of dredging activities are primarily associated with
the actual dredging operation or with placement of the material at a
disposal site. Transportation of the material is usually not a
significant concern. In addition, all evidence suggests that, of
the two operations, disposal is by far the most controversial as
well as the most likely to cause adverse impacts. While this report
is focused primarily on dredging operations, some discussion of open
water disposal impact is included as well because of the critical
issues involved. Impacts associated with upland disposal options
are not included.
4.2.1 Physical Impacts
Dredging and open water disposal activities can both result in
three major direct physical impacts to the estuarine environment.
These are:
o changes in submarine topography due to removal (dredging) or
deposition (disposal) of material,
o increases in concentrations of suspended participates, and
o alteration of existing sediment type.
Any or all of these may be of concern in the local operation area,
especially if a sensitive resource, such as shellfish beds or fish
spawning sites are present. On the other hand, our ability to
predict the physical impacts of dredging or disposal is much further
advanced than our capabilities to predict chemical effects. Given a
knowledge of local conditions, changes in bottom -topography and
sediment plume distribution can be modeled quite accurately through
any number of operational mathematical models; while simple physical
testing can determine sediment compatability. Of the three,
-------
turbidity is probably of the greatest concern, and its ecological
impacts are discussed in Section 4.2.3.
Changes in submarine topography, either from dredging or
disposal, can cause changes in the hydrographic regime of the bay
and eliminate or create habitat for various estuarine organisms.
For example, fish wintering habitat in deep troughs, where the water
is warmer, could be eliminated if material were to be deposited in
such locations, or shallow water nursery areas can become less
suitable if a channel is dredged through them. There are any number
of examples such as this; however, such hydrographic changes, while
they have the potential to be significant, can be reasonably
predicted prior to the event, either through the use of mathematical
models or the physical model of the Chesapeake Bay recently
constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Only modifications
to the major federal projects are likely to be of concern. The
approach channels to Baltimore Harbor may be of particular interest,
due the unusual three-layer circulation pattern which exists in the
harbor. This pattern appears to be the result of the presence of
the dredged navigation channel (Schubel et al., 1980), and its
alteration would need careful consideration.
• Increases in turbidity caused by dredging and/or open water
disposal are often mentioned with respect to potential biological
Impacts, which are discussed in Section 4.2.3* It is obvious that
both activities will effect turbidity. The level of suspended
sediment which will occur is dependent upon the type of equipement
used and can be reduced but not eliminated. Hydraulic dredging and
pipeline disposal result in the continuous generation of suspended
material, producing a plume of material extending away from the site
in the direction of the current. This is the most common type of
dredging and disposal activity in the main federal channels of the
bay. Open water disposal using barges or hopper dredges results in
a series of discrete releases of material at the disposal site.
In either case, physical impacts appear to be minimal and
restricted in their extent. According to Schubel and Meade (1977),
increases in total suspended solids of more than 100 mg/1 are
•generally localized, within a few 100 meters of the activity. Even
these levels are with in the range of values which occur naturally
in the upper Chesapeake Bay (Schubel et al., 1980). During periods
of high flow, total suspended solids values at the mouth of the
Susquehanna River may be as high as 140 mg/1, dropping to about 20
mg/1 opposite the mouth of Baltimore Harbor and to 10 mg/1 or less
by mid-bay (Schubel et al., 1980). In addition, tidal currents can
cause bottom resuspension. This is especially true in the upper bay
where total suspended solids values 0.5 meters above the bottom may
range from IS to 300 mg/1 (Schubel et al., 1980).
47
-------
The natural occurrence of high levels of turbidity is seasonal,
occuring mainly in the spring. However, recent studies have shown
the bay to be even more dominated by individual events than was
previously suspected. In a "typical" year the estuary is estimated
to receive approximately 0.6 to one million metric tons of
sediment. In comparison, in one week in June 1972, after tropical
storm Agnes, the bay received 34 million metric tons of sediment,
and in one week in September 1975, after Hurricane Eloise, ten
million metric tons of sediment entered the bay.
Bottom sediment type alterations are usually mentioned in
discussions of open water disposal operations, but may also occur in
dredged channels if.the dredging exposes a different type of
substrate. This is uncommon, but it can occur. If it does, natural
sedimentation will restore the previous condition. The impact at a
disposal site can be much longer lasting. If dredged material is
placed in an area where the substrate is different from that at the
dredging site, extensive physical modification may occur, especially
if the material is subject to redistribution by currents. An
excellent example of this occurs at the dredged material ocean dump
site for New York Harbor. In that area the natural bottom is
primarily coarse to fine sand, while the dredged material is
primarily silt. This has resulted in a major physical modification
in the vicinity of the disposal site (Conner et al., 1979).
Mounding at a disposal site is primarily a factor of the amount
material to be disposed, its method of placement, and the local
current regime and turbidity. The creation of areas which are
sufficiently higher then natural bottom can occur at heavily used
disposal sites, and may then affect the biota or the hydrographic
pattern.
4.2.2 Chemical Impacts
Dredging or disposal of dredged material in an estuarine
environment causes adverse chemical impacts if: 1) the disposed
material is contaminated with hazardous or undesirable substances,
and 2) harmful amounts of sediment-bound contaminants are released
and become available for biological uptake or chemical reactions in
the water column, or are biologically available to benthic organisms
in direct contact with the sediments.
There is only a limited amount of historical data on sediment
composition in areas of the bay which are regularly dredged. Some
information is available for the Baltimore Harbor area, where the
sediments are known to be contaminated with a variety of toxic
substances, including heavy metals and synthetic organic compounds.
48
-------
IThile such materials seem to be most prevalent in the sediments of
the marginal creeks of the harbor, they are present throughout the
area (Schubel et al., 1980)* Data on other bay tributaries are much
more limited, with the exception of the Kepone studies of the James
River and an on going evaluation of Norfolk Harbor sponsored by the :
Norfolk District (Alden, undated).
The Norfolk District, as part of its program to have an ocean
disposal site approved for future use, has embarked on a series of
extensive field and laboratory studies to aid in the evaluation Of
potential biological Impacts at the proposed site. This study,
still in process (February 1982), involves bioassay, bioaccumulatioftj
microcosm and field experiments. The most recent results have been
summarized by Alden (undated). There appears to be a two to four
mile stretch in the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River where
sediments demonstrate significant lethal and sub-lethal effects,
based on short term bioassay tests and respiration measurements
using the grass shrimp Palaeomonetes pugio. in addition, microcosm
studies suggest the possibility of shott-term changes in water
quality and possibly the zooplankton community at the disposal Site
if such material is released; however, these would probably be
localized impacts* Sediments taken from other stations in the
harbor were found to be relatively non-toxic. While this study
provides data for the main channels under the jurisdiction of the
•orps, it does not provide data on the more inshore areas, which
might be expected to be more Contaminated, based on the Baltimote
data.
Chemical testing is not normally required by either the Norfolk
or Baltimore District prior to dredging or disposal unless a 401 or
404 permit is required and there is reason to suspect
contamination. No bioassay testing has been required* The state of
Maryland requires bulk analysis testing of the material and the
sediment at the disposal site (open water) to check for
compatibility and to check for compliance with the state criteria
for overboard disposal. It appears to be the general consensus of
the regulatory agencies that severe pollution problems are
restricted to limited areas of the Baltimore and Norfolk Harbors,
and possibly certain other sites, but that the majority of the
dredging in the bay Occurs in relatively unpolluted sediments. This
is a logical conclusion given the distribution of point sources for
pollutants, and/or the concentration Of potential nonpoint sources.
As far as chemical availability is concerned, the literature
suggests that no significant short-term water quality variations
should be expected, either from dredging or disposal operations
49
-------
(Hirsch et al., 1978). This conclusion is supported by both field
observations and laboratory studies, which show minimal release of
contaminants, followed by rapid dilution.
There is less certainty concerning the long-term availability
of contaminants in dredged material after placement at an open water
disposal site. Two types of long-term chemical impacts may result
from the disposal of contaminated material. First, there is the
possiblity of gradual release of contaminants into the overlaying
water column. While it is true that, on the basis of chemical
equilibria, release via diffusion through the deposited sediment is
possible under some conditions, no evidence of such release has ever
been reported in field studies. Considering the effect of dilution
and the relatively slow rate of diffusion which would occur, it is
unlikely that this process would be significant. This assumes that
the material remains undisturbed. Resuspension would change the
existing chemical environment, particularly with regard to
oxidation-reduction potential, and hence could influence chemical
equilibria. While disposal at a site where resuspension is unlikely
is highly preferable, the resuspended sediments, would, in most
respects, be analagous to recently dumped, or discharged, material.
In this case the data summarized by Hirsch et al. (1978) would
suggest minimal release and rapid dilution.
The second type of long-term chemical impact involves the
accumulation of foreign, contaminated material at the disposal
site. The concern in this case is that organisms in contact with
the sediment may be affected. This possiblity is a significant
issue with respect to dredging Baltimore Harbor and the James River,
where contaminated sediments are known to exist. Unfortunately,
this is the least understood issue with respect to disposal. The
closest thing to a standard procedure for its evaluation is the
bioassay procedure used in the ocean dumping criteria. While these
tests may adequately evaluate short-term impacts, they do not
address long-term exposure or sublethal impacts. Bioassay tests
have been used to characterize Baltimore Harbor sediments (Tsai et
al. 1979), but only fish were used. In these tests sediments of the
Inner Harbor were rated moderately toxic, with highly toxic sediment
in the marginal creeks. Except for the Norfolk study already
described, there is little information available on conditions in
other parts of the bay.
4.2.3 Biological Impacts
While a wide range of biological impacts has been postulated
for dredging in the bay, there is no documentry evidence of any
significant adverse impacts directly related to dredging to date.
50
-------
(A review comment by the Maryland Tidewater Administration suggested
strong disagreement with this statement; however, no data were
provided for inclusion. They did correctly point out that the use
of the term significant here may be misleading, since it cannot be
accurately defined.) The most extensive study currently available
is the biological testing now being done for the Corps of Engineers
in Norfolk Harbor (Alden undated), which was summarized in Section
4.2.2. That study clearly indicates that a limited reach (two to
four miles) of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River is
contaminated with toxic substances. Disposal of these sediments in
open water would result in adverse impacts, the exact extent of
which would depend on the disposal option. The rest of the stations
tested appear to have little or no biological activity. It appears
to be a relatively accepted assumption that most of the sediments in
the bay are uncontaminated, but that certain areas, mostly in the
highly industrialized inner harbor areas, may contain pollutants.
The data which are available support this assumption, although there
are no data on relative volumes of material dredged in each type of
situation. The literature summarized by Hirsch et al. (1978)
indicates that dredging and disposal of uncontaminated material has
only localized and transitory impacts in most ecosystems. Two major
sources of concern with uncontaminated material, nutrient release
and oxygen depletion, repeatedly have been shown to be minimal.
A third major issue, turbidity, appears to be of concern only
Tft special cases involving an ecosystem with unusually high
sensitivity. Two possible examples are coral reefs or sea grass
beds. Studies by Schubel et al. (1980) for projects in the
Chesapeake Bay suggest that elevated turbidity levels would exist
only in the immediate vicinity of the operation. Locally high
levels may, however, be important during a period of normally low
turbidity in sensitive reqions of the bay. It is frequently
suggested that invertebrate and vertebrate larval or immature stages
may be adversely affected by turbidity when dredging occurs in the
vicinity of spawning or nursery grounds in the upper bay. While
this concern is widely held and is supported by evidence for some
species (Stern and Stickle, 1978), it is equally clear that the
areal and temporal extent of such potential impacts in the
Chesapeake Bay would be very limited. Most of the species likely to
be present in estuaries must be normally adapted to relatively high
levels of turbidity. Representative species of several groups of
animals, including larval fish, likely to be present in the
Chesapeake Bay have been shown to be able to withstand exposure to
levels of uncontaminated suspended sediment much higher than those
likely to occur even at the dredging or disposal site (Schubel et
al., 1980; Peddicord and McFarland, 1978).
51
-------
In their comments on the draft report, the Tidewater
Administration of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources
indicated that they had reservations concerning our conclusions on
the significance of localized impacts of dredging and disposal of
uncontaminated material. They wrote:
Localized and transitory impacts can be very
significant when the resource is localized, such
as shellfish beds, and localized and time
limited, such as seasonal finfish and shellfish
spawning. Localized watermen utilize localized
resources which are locally critical. Declaring
dredging impacts to be localized and transitory
is further misleading because projects occur
virtually throughout the Bay system and during
the whole year except where time restrictions are
applicable.
Of course there are no in situ studies which
definitevely indicate that dredge operations are
solely responsible for large scale environmental
degradation. Neither is there definitive
evidence that single causes are totally
responsible for declines in abundance of the
highly studied striped bass and submerged aquatic
vegetation. It is impossible to examine almost
anything in the natural Bay setting without
having confounding variables that obscure the
picture. This is why we must rely upon
laboratory studies as indicators of effect, and
they do indicate deleterious effects from
dredging.
It is our opinion that these arguments have often been extended
beyond reasonable limits in dealing with the evaluation of impacts.
In the extreme, the comments could be used to advocate no dredging
at all, which is clearly impossible. While local Impacts need be
considered, conclusions as to their significance must relate to the
total resource and the incremental effect the proposed action will
cause. The impact of the dredging operation must also be viewed
against the existing conditions that will prevail during the
operation. If, for example, it can be demonstrated that the
Increase in turbidity in a particular dredging operation will be
essentially unnoticable beyond the project boundaries, and no
sensitive resources occur within that zone, then a project should
not be evaluated on a worst-case basis.
52
-------
Both dredging and disposal have been shown repeatedly to result
in the destruction of the local resident benthic community.
Recovery appears to be rapid, however, and is usually complete
within one or two years (Schubel et al., 1980; Diaz and Boesch,
1977). After the destruction of the resident population,
recolonization begins from adjacent areas, both by larval
recruitment and lateral migration of adults if the sediment type is
compatible. Generally, opportunistic species dominate early
recovery and then a population similar to that in surrounding areas
develops. This sequence is, of course, controlled by the type of
sediment involved, and the deposition of incompatible material can
cause major changes in the community (Hirsch et al., 1978). Any
proposal which allows this to occur should be carefully evaluated,
since it could result in permanent changes to populations of other
species dependent on the affected benthic fauna. The dredged
material itself may contain organisms which survive (especially in
mechanical dredging) and become the main source of recolonization.
In addition, the continuous disposal of material at one site over a
period of years may prevent the recovery of the site and result in
an inpoverished fauna or a high concentration of opportunistic
species, depending on the rate of deposition.
The potential impacts associated with the disposal of
contaminated sediment are much more serious, and, although
literature currently available does not indicate any problems at
existing disposal sites in the Chesapeake Bay, there is reason for
caution. Materials which are known to be present in the sediment of
Baltimore Harbor are also known to be biologically active and are of
concern.
The presence of contaminated sediment does not necessarily mean
that significant adverse biological impacts would result. For
contaminants (e.g., metals, chlorinated hydrocarbons, petroleum
hydrocarbons) to -cause detrimental effects, they must be available
for biological uptake, which can occur through direct ingestion or
absorption through the skin and/or gill membranes (Mullins, 1977).
Contaminants may then be retained in the organism or eliminated
through excretion, defecation or simple diffusion. Both field and
laboratory evidence indicates that large-scale contaminant release
and concentration in benthic invertebrates is sporadic, highly
variable and not •common (Neff et al., 1978). However, many of the
contaminants found in dredged material can have important effects
even in relatively small amounts and low concentrations. Long-term
sublethal effects, such as changes in reproductive ability, behavior
or development are particularly important but remain poorly analyzed.
If exposure and availability are assumed, then bloaccumulatlon
and biomagnification are potential problems. Bioaccumulation occurs
53
-------
when a single organism concentrates a contaminant above ambient
levels. Biomagnification refers to the progressive concentration of
a contaminant through several levels of the food chain* Accumulation
of a known toxicant in a human food source is obviously serious.
Accumulation of a toxicant in estuarine or marine systems may result
in sublethal effects or mortality. As far as is known,
biomagnification occurs only with DDT and related organohalogens,
mercury and mercury compounds, and polychlorinated biphenyls.
At the present time, the only tool for evaluating potential
biological impacts is the bioassay test. While this approach is
certainly not perfect, it is far superior to the bulk analyses and
elutriate testing it has superseded. Neither bioassay testing or
monitoring of test organisms at disposal sites are conducted on any
organized basis in the Chesapeake Bay. There are, however, no
reports of impacts directly attributable to dredging or disposal.
4.2.4 Public Health Impacts
No data were found which would directly relate to public
health. In other areas of the country, issues raised have included:
o contamination of fish or shellfish used for human
consumption, and
o bacterial contamination of public beaches.
Neither of these issues appear to be a significant concern for
dredging projects in the Chesapeake Bay. In any case, the possible
sources of contamination for either are so diverse that a cause and
effect relationship would be difficult to verify. In those cases
which have occurred in the past, dredging and dredged material
disposal have not been implicated.
4.3 Possible Impacts of Terrestrial or Confined Disposal of Dredged
Material
While this report is mainly concerned with the aquatic
environment, the review of dredging records for the two Corps
districts indicated a strong tendency towards increasing use of
terrestrial or confined disposal options. This is particularly
evident with respect to private dredging permits in both districts.
In the Norfolk District the use of the Craney Island disposal site
for large projects in both the federal and private sector is a major
factor in disposal planning, and it is assumed that Hart and Killer
Island will be equally significant, at least for federal projects,
in the Baltimore District.
54
-------
Without preparing a detailed discussion of the ecological
impacts of terrestrial or confined disposal, it is worth noting that
they are not a cure-all for the disposal of contaminated sediments.
Indeed, in some cases, the use of such an option may increase the
potential for estuarine impacts, as well as open the possibility of
terrestrial and freshwater contamination. Leachate and effluent
must be carefully monitored and controlled in such systems, if used
for contaminated materials. Site acquisition for use is almost
always a major social issue, and public health questions are also
likely. As far as unpolluted sediments are concerned, these options
offer different, but, once again, largely localized impacts. This
is true as long as the level of suspended solids (and salt if
placing estuarine sediments near fresh water) in the effluent is
maintained at a proper level.
4.4 Regulatory Controls
Regulatory controls on both dredging and dredged material
disposal have increased significantly in the past decade. While
this certainly resulted in permitting delays initially, both Corps .
districts have undertaken programs, in conjunction with other
concerned federal and state agencies, to Improve the permit review
process. Their efforts to develop a consolidated, one-step review
process appear, at least from the standpoint of the regulatory
agencies, to have been largely successful. Both districts indicated
that further improvements are anticipated.
The major exception to this would appear to be large projects
where there is a significant controversy over contamination levels
in the sediments. Projects of this type would still require several
years for approval. If a private project were involved, the
applicant would probably find the normal procedures inadequate to
ensure the timely processing of his application.
Restrictions may be placed on dredgers with respect to
turbidity levels, the time of year dredging will be permitted, and
the type of disposal which will be allowed. In the case of confined
or upland disposal, the dredger must comply with effluent standards
and receive a discharge permit. Additional types of restrictions
could, theoretically, be developed in specific cases. Again, these
issues appear to occur mainly (if not entirely) in the case of large
projects.
4.5 Economic Costs
Dredging company spokesmen interviewed for this report were
almost unanimous in their assertion that environmental controls have
55
-------
greatly increased the costs associated with dredging. Increases as
high as fivefold were offered as being realistic in some cases.
Specifically mentioned as causes were restrictions in the time of
year dredging is allowed and the cost of transportation to upland
disposal sites, particularly for small projects.
These contentions cannot be evaluated for private projects,
since cost data for those projects were not evaluated, but they do
not appear to be strongly supported by the average annual costs for
federal projects shown in Tables 2-4 and 2-5, and Figure 2-5.
Inflation alone, assuming an average annual rate of increase of ten
percent for the entire period, is sufficient to account for most of
the increase. The rest appears to be a factor of normal variability
in costs. This variability is even more evident if the raw cost
data in Tables A-l through A-22 are examined. Project costs are
highly variable, and the attribution of a major cost increase to one
specific factor is very difficult to prove or disprove.
Circumstantially, the case for increased cost is strong where upland
disposal has been used for small projects, since it is usually more
expensive. In the case of federal projects, even though upland
disposal is becoming much more prevalent (see Section 2.4), the
large volumes involved appear to mask any cost increases. If there
has been a major cost increase due to compliance with environmental
regulations, it appears to have fallen on the private sector, where
it could not be readily evaluated.
56
-------
5.0 IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGIES
Many different kinds of dredges are currenty available.
Choosing the right dredge for a particular dredging project can be a
difficult task involving the consideration of:
o the nature of the sediment to be dredged,
o location (harbor, estuary or riverbed),
o site depth,
o quantity of sediment to be dredged,
o environmental conditions and consequences,
o existing dredging practices,
o cost of the chosen dredging unit, and
o availability of the particular dredge.
Innovative technologies, in particular, must be considered
carefully, since fewer records are available on their performance
and their acquisition represents a very large investment. The
information in this section was compiled from the open literature,
as well as from manufacturers' brochures. The use of manufacturer's
data does not imply endorsement of. a particular product and are used
only for clarity of discussion. Product information was selected
for inclusion based on its current or apparent future value in the
Chesapeake Bay. The diversity of dredging and dredging-related
equipment now available precluded any more detailed discussion of
individual items. Where possible, the following information is
provided for each technology:
o type and technical specifications,
o the particular purpose for the equipment,
o the cost and availability of the unit, and
o Impact on the environment.
There are three basic types of dredges: mechanical, hydraulic and
pneumatic. The relevant equipment in each is discussed below,
followed by a brief discussion of selected support technologies.
57
-------
5.1 Mechanical Dredges
Mechanical dredges operate by means of buckets or scoops of
various designs that are lowered and raised either by cables or by
articulated arms. The dredged material is deposited on adjacent
barges or "on board" in large hoppers (U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)/Corps of Engineers (COE), 1978). The family of
mechanical dredges includes:
o clamshell or grab bucket,
o dragline,
o dipper,
o bucket ladder, and
o backhoe.
General characteristics of mechanical dredges are summarized in Table
5-1.
5.1.1 Clamshell or Grab Bucket Dredges
A dredging unit is called a clamshell when there are two halves
to the bucket (Figure 5-1). It belongs to the category of wireline
dredges because the bucket is lowered and raised by cables. The
dredge can be either self propelled with hoppers, in which case the
dredged material is released "onboard" into these hoppers, or it can
be mounted on a pontoon with barges alongside to receive the dredged
material (Cooper, 1975). This latter option is preferred on the
newer grab bucket dredges, so that the dredging operation does not
have to be interrupted as often as it used to be. The unit,
depending on its size, can be equipped with up to four cranes
(d'Angremond et al., 1978). Using its own mass and velocity built
up during descent, the bucket "bites" into the sediments and closes
through a cable reefing mechanism (COE, 1979a). The bucket is then
pulled to the surface, raised above the barge or 'the hopper and the
dredged material is released. The operation is repeated until the
barge or the hopper are full. Clamshell bucket capacities range
from one to 22 cubic yards. The size of the bucket is chosen
according to the job to be performed, and the production rate varies
greatly with the nature of the sediment to be dredged. A bucket
with a five-cubic-yard capacity attains a production rate of about
3,600 cubic yards per 24-hour day, or 150 cubic yards per hour, not
considering downtime. The Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company,
53
-------
TABLE 5-1
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MECHANICAL DREDGES
vO
Name
(Type)
Clamshell
Dragline
Dipper Dredge
Bucket Ladder
Backhoe
Best Suited For
soft sedimentary rocks,
marine debris, anything
but fine silts, stiff
clays and rocks
anything but fine silts.
stiff clays and rocks
pretreated rock, all
kinds of soils but
very fine silts
any soil and rock of
sedimentary type. Not
good on sticky clays.
large boulders and
very fine silts
any kind of soil
Production Rate Disposal Availability
5 yd3 bucket: self propelled available
150 ydVhr. hoppers or
receiving barge
5 yd^ bucket: dumps into available
125 yd3/hr. receiving b.irge
average: 100 yd?/hr. dumps Into a available
receiving barge
up to 1830 yd.-Vhr. conveyor and not available
barge In the U.S.
average: 100 yd.-'/hr. receiving barge available-
Environmental
Impact* and
CiMiurul
Drawbacks
some
turbidity
some
turbidity
requires very
strting spuds
to retain Its
balance
some
turbidity
much
turbidity
some
Cost of1
Operation Maximum Dredging
(S/pt-r Depth
cuhli: yar.l) (Koct)
ranges from 66
$1. 25-58
depending on
disposal site '
variable 66
average $2.95
variable 60
average $2.50
not available 98
variable
average $2.50
These figures only give an Indication of operational cost. Prices arc highly variable according to the nature of the work, the distance between
the dredging project and the disposal site, and the method used fur disposal.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1978
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1979a
Holland. R. 1981.
-------
Luffing «»•
Sourct: Redrawn ttttr Brty 1979
FIGURE 5-1
CLAMSHELL DREDGE
60
-------
which is presently working on a dredging project in the Chesapeake
Bay at Tolchester and Swann Point, using a 21-cubic-yard capacity
clamshell bucket dredge, achieves a production rate of 12,000 to
16,000 cubic yards per day, or 500 to 550 cubic yards per hour (down
time not included) (Holland, 1981). The family of bucket dredges
built by the C.F. Bean Corporation listed below are all of the
clamshell type and, with a bucket capacity ranging from six to eight
cubic yards, attain an average production rate of 8000 cubic yards
per 24 hour day or 333 cubic yards per hour.
Bucket
Barge Size Capacity Boom Length
Dredge (Feet) (Cubic Yards) (Feet)
C.F. Bean 130x39x7 6-1/2 120
M.H. Bean 130x39x7 6-1/2 120
Bean No. 4 140x38x7 6-1/2 120
Bean No. 5 130x38x7 6 120
C.W. Bean 155x39x8 8 120
S.B. Whittington 145x39x8 6-1/2 120
Multi-grab dredges, such as the "Abervon" owned by the British
Transport Docks Board, are equipped with several buckets on the same
vessel (Powers, 1980).
Grab dredges are most suited for dredging marine debris and,
according to the size and the design of the bucket, can dredge
anything but very fine silt, very stiff clay, or rock. Clamshell
dredges are efficient for cleaning up small areas (maintenance work)
or for use in conjunction with another type of dredge (d'Angremond
et al., 1978). The dredges which are equipped with their own
hoppers can function in relatively rough water conditions. New grab
dredges have hydraulically assisted bucket closures and are capable
of exerting much higher downthrust, making the units more efficent
in digging harder materials. Bucket dredges are very practical when
clearing access channels or digging trenches for pipeline
installation and are therefore very popular and widely used. Bucket
manufacturers are numerous (Powers, 1980).
The 21-cubic-yard capacity clamshell dredge owned by the Great
Lakes Dredge and Dock Company that is presently operating in the
Baltimore Harbor has an average cost of $3.55 per cubic yard. It is
-------
obvious that the cost of operation of any dredging unit -can vary
greatly with the nature of the sediment to be dredged, the distance
between the dredging project and the disposal site, and the required
method of disposal. Locally, the operating cost range for clamshell
dredges is estimated at 1.25 to eight dollars per cubic yard.
Buckets are easily obtained and dredging companies usually assemble
their own clamshell dredges, changing the size of the bucket
according to their needs (Holland, 1981).
The clamshell dredge presents drawbacks from an environmental
point of view. Not only does the bucket disturb the seabed when it
takes a "bite" of sediments, but a lot of the finer particles escape
from the bucket and remain in suspension in the water creating a
significant turbidity problem. Better closure of the bucket
alleviates this problem, so that modern clamshell dredges are a
considerable improvement over earlier equipment.
5.1.2 Dragline Dredges
The dragline dredge operates on the same principle as the clam
shell dredge (Figure 5-1). In this case, the bucket is replaced by
a metal scoop, hanging from a crane which is mounted either on a
barge or on a truck. The scoop, after being thrown away from -the
hull by cables, falls into the material to be dredged, is dragged
back towards the crane (thereby slicing away a chunk of sediments),
is closed, raised, and the material dumped into the receiving barge
by tipping the bucket (EPA/COE, 1978). A dragline dredge with a
capacity of five cubic yards can dredge up to 3000 cubic yards of
material in a 24-hour work day, or 125 cubic yards per hour.
The dragline performs best in soft underwater deposits, but can
operate in any kind of sediments except stiff clays and rocks
(Cooper 1975; Bray, 1977). Because it requires very strong spuds
(movable posts) to maintain its balance, it is often -considered
impractical and is therefore less popular than the clamshell.
A dragline bucket with a five-cubic-yard capacity has been
estimated to operate at a cost of about three dollars per cubic yard
(COE, 1979a), but this figure will vary greatly with the nature of
the work and the proximity of the disposal site. Many manufacturers
specialize in the construction of dragline d-redges.
As the scoop of the dredge is dragged on the seabed, it
resuspends particles, especially if the material to be dredged is
composed of fine silts. Additional loss of material occurs during
the transfer of the material. The problem is more severe than with
the clamshell dredge.
62
-------
5.1.3 Dipper Dredges
On this unit (Figure 5-2), an articulated arm forces the bucket
into the sediment and then raises it above the water on to a
receiving barge (EPA/COE, 1978). The lower part of the bucket is
opened by a cable mechanism to release the sediment. The cutting
edge of the bucket is provided with teeth to increase the point of
pressure on the material to be dug (Powers, 1980).
Many new dipper units have replaced cable mechanisms with
hydraulic systems to improve their operation (COE, 1979a). Dipper
dredge bucket capacities range from eight to 12 cubic yards. The
"Rialto M. Christensen", owned by the Panama Canal Company, has a
15-cubic-yard bucket and is said to be the largest dipper dredge in
the world (Powers, 1980). A typical dipper dredge can dredge nearly
2500 cubic yards per 24-hour day, or slightly over 100 cubic yards
per hour, but the production rate varies according to the nature of
the sediment to be dredged (sticky clay will take longer to dig and
longer to be dumped) and the depth which, as it increases, Increases
the time needed for lowering and raising the bucket (COE, 1979a).
If the dredging depth is so great that the dipper dredge can be used
only during low tide, the production rate then decreases. Maximum
dredging depths are usually limited to approximately sixty feet
(Bray, 1977).
The dipper dredge can operate in almost any kind of soil,
including loose rocks, boulders and clay, but will do poorly.in very
fine silts (Bray, 1977). One feature of the dipper dredge, and
bucket dredges in general, is the high concentration of recovered
material they achieve. For that reason many contractors own bucket
dredges in additon to hydraulic dredges, while some operate only
bucket dredges, finding them more efficient overall.
The operating cost of an average size dipper dredge has been
estimated to be about $2.50 a cubic yard (COE, 1977a), but the same
variation in price mentioned earlier can be expected. Many
contractors around the country own dipper dredges, and buckets can
easily be purchased.
The dipper dredge is powerful and disturbs the sediments while
dredging, combined with a significant loss of material (Bray,
1977).
5.1.4 Bucket Ladder Dredges
This dredge (Figure 5-3) is frequently employed in Europe but
is seldom found in the United States where its use has been
63
-------
Boom wire
Trailing spud
Source: Redrawn liter Bny 1979
FIGURE 5-2
DIPPER DREDGE
Source: Rednwn ttter Bny 1979
FIGURE 5-3
BUCKET LADDER DREDGE
64
-------
restricted to the mining and recovery of sand, gravel and sometimes
gold. The dredging unit consists of a continuous chain of buckets
passing over a hinged ladder. The ladder is lowered to the bottom
and each bucket digs into the bottom sediment and transports the
material back to the surface (EPA/COE, 1978; COE, 1979a).
The chain is suspended from an upper tumbler and is -guided and
supported by a ladder, at the lower extremity of which is a lower
tumbler. The lower end of the ladder is suspended from a hoisting
gantry by means of a tackle. The bucket chain is driven by the
upper tumbler, mounted on the main -gantry. When each bucket reaches
the lower tumbler, the underlying soil is dislodged by the rim of
the bucket, and fills the bucket, which then commences its journey
up the face of the ladder. In order to achieve a continuous
dredging process, the vessel is swung from side to side with the aid
of anchors and wires and the vessel's own winches. Guide rollers
mounted on the ladder support the loaded buckets as they are drawn
upwards. When each bucket passes over the upper tumbler, it is
automatically emptied, the material falling into a sloping chute
mounted on the main gantry and sliding down into barges moored
alongside (Powers, 1980). One such dredge, the "Big Dalton" built
by IHG, Holland features a movable bucket ladder gantry that enables
the length of the ladder to be varied from 51 feet to 188 feet.
"The gantry, which supports the ladder ... can be unbolted from the
frame, swung around to the opposite side of the tower, using an
installed crane, and rebolted for the longer ladder configuration,
this operation can be achieved totally using equipment on board"
(Powers, 1980). The capacity of the "Big Daiton" bucket is 0.65
cubic yard. Each bucket has holes in the bottom to drain excess
water. Other ladder bucket dredges in Europe have bucket capacities
ranging from 1.5 to 6.5 cubic yards. A bucket ladder dredge can
achieve a production rate of nearly 2000 cubic yards per hour.
The bucket ladder dredge has been traditionally used in the
recovery of sand and gravel and sometimes precious minerals and
gold. It performs well in almost any soil as well as sedimentary
rocks. As one could expect, it works poorly in sticky -clays and
very fine silts (Bray, 1977). This type of dredging unit is
unsuitable for working in wave conditions and is best used in
sheltered bays and deltas. The bucket ladder dredge is also well
adapted to cutting channels, as the base of the ladder can be raised
above the waterllne, the removal of soil at or just above the level
water can be achieved and the bank is thus undermined and dislodged,
a practice known as "predredging" (Powers, 1980).
Bucket ladder dredges have not been popular in this country and
are not manufactured here. There appears to be renewed interest,
65
-------
however, because of their high productivity and high recovery of
material. Ellicott Corporation, a well known American company, has
now built a new concept bucket ladder dredge which, since it is
hydraulically powered, will be discussed in Section 5.2.6.
High turbidity has always been associated with bucket ladder
dredges and was the main reason for their unpopularity in this
country. The U.S. owners of the "Big Dalton" indicate they have had
no significant problem with turbidity, and attribute this to a
better design of the bucket.
5.1.5 Backhpes
Even though this unit is of relatively minor importance, it is
worth mentioning since it has been used extensively on smaller
projects and seems to be coming back on the market under the form of
"giant backhoes", better designed and more .efficient, some of them
hydraulically powered. This particular type of dredging unit
consists of a traditional backhoe mounted on a barge or a pontoon
and secured to the bottom by three or four spuds (Hoffmann, 1978b).
The bucket size ranges from two to 6.9 cubic yards and the
production rate can be expected to be equal to that of a dipper
dredge. Turbidity is an obvious environmental drawback.
5.2 Hydraulic Dredges
Widely used in the United States, hydraulic dredges are
essentially composed of a suction line, a centrifugal suction pump,
and a discharge line. The dredged material is evacuated by
pipeline, stored in hoppers, or pumped directly to a terrestrial or
aquatic disposal site, depending on the specific dredge used (COE,
1979a). The following hydraulic dredges are reviewed:
o plain suction pipeline dredge,
o cutterhead suction dredge,
o dustpan dredge,
o trailing suction hopper dredge,
o sidecaster,
o bucket wheel dredge,
o Mudmaster,
66
-------
o Delta Dredge,
o MUDCAT, and the
o Waterless Dredge.
General characteristics of hydraulic dredges are summarized in Table
5-2.
5.2.1 Plain Suction Pipeline Dredges
This dredge, simple but efficient, is equipped with a plain
suction pipe which "vacuums" loose material. The flow of the
material into the suction pipe can be facilitated by the application
of one or more waterjets (EPA/COE, 1978). Such dredges operate at a
maximum depth of 70 meters and are most efficient in dredging
non-cohesive material (Bray, 1977). Strategically located booster
pumps along the pipeline help convey the dredged material to distant
disposal sites. Since the principles of the simple suction dredge
are embodied in the design of the cutterhead suction dredge, the
following description of the cutterhead suction dredge will cover
them both.
5.2.2 Cutterhead Suction Dredges
The cutterhead suction dredge (Figure 5-4) functions on the
same principle as the dustpan dredge (presented next) but differs
from it by the design of the suction head which, in this case, is
equipped with a rotating cutter which can dig into all types of
alluvial materials and compacted deposits such as clay and hardpan.
Different cutters allow the dredging of softer materials, such as
basalt and limestone, or as hard a material as coral. Cutterheads
are not, as they were often advertised, rock cutters. The angle of
the cutter blade has a considerable influence on the efficiency of
its operation. The dislodged material is forced into a pipeline by
the suction action of a centrifugal pump. The "teeth" on the
cutterhead are usually made of manganese carbon steel and designed
so that they are easy to replace (Cooper, 1975). The cutterhead
dredge can effectively pump dredged material through floating and
shore discharge lines to disposal sites. With the help of
strategically located booster pumps along the pipeline, the material
can be pumped to disposal sites located at great distance from the
waterway being dredged. In main navigation channels the pipeline
can be submerged in order to reduce possible hazards to navigation.
This type of dredge is not generally self-propelled. It is
controlled on stern-mounted spuds and swung from one side of the
channel to the other by anchored wires (EPA/COE, 1978). However,
67
-------
oo
TABLE 5-2
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDRAULIC DREDGES
Name
(Type)
Plain Suction Pipeline
(aelf propelled or onaite
positioning by tuga)
Trailing Suction
Hopper Dredge,
Self Propelled
Cutterhead Dredge
Duatpan Dredge
Sidecaater
Mudaaater
Delta
MUD CAT
Uaterleas
kit Suited For
•ediuB hard to
-------
one of the latest developments in the dredging field is the
self-propelled cutterhead suction dredge (built by the Belgian firm
of "de Cloedt et Fil Cie"), which still uses a spud but a steel
piston pushing against the spud advances the dredge six meters
before repositioning of the spud is required (Hoffman, 1978a). It
can work in relatively rough seas and can cross the ocean for
transoceanic work (Hoffman, 1978). Modern cutterhead suction
dredges are also equipped with a dredging pump (situated well below
water level on the ladder which supports the suction pipe) for
increased efficiency.
Extended digging has been achieved on a pipeline cutterhead
designed by Orenstein & Koppel of Aktiengessellschaft in Lubeck,
West Germany. The 66-foot dredging capability of the cutterhead was
extended to 131 feet by hinging the ladder as far back in the dredge
hull as practical, then gaining positive control over the extended
ladder by lifting gear mounted on the bow. The invention has been
adapted to an American dredge, the "Western Condor" (COE, 1979a).
The cutterhead is adapted to dig into a wide variety of bottom
sediments ranging from hard corals to limestone and muds. It is
probably because of this factor that the cutterhead dredge is so
popular all over the world (Bray, 1977). Another positive feature
about the cutter suction dredge is its production rate, which can be
as high as 2,000 cubic yards per hour for a large dredging unit in
mud and soft clays (EPA/COE, 1978). The cost of operation varies
greatly with the nature of the sediment to be dredged, but is
usually a minimum of two to three dollars per cubic yard (Holland
1981).
One definite improvement in modern dredging technology has been
the introduction of interchangeable parts, which make the same
hydraulic dredge adaptable to practically any set of conditions.
Ellicott Corporation, for example, produces a standard line of
hydraulic pipeline dredges ranging from 500 to 5,000 horsepower.
Various "cutter modules" of different designs can simply be added on
each of these dredges, according to the needs encountered (Ellicott
Corporation, Undated). Statistics for typical units owned by
several U.S. corporations are given in Tables 5-3 through 5-5.
5.2.3 Dustpan Dredge
The Dustpan Dredge can be classified as a hydraulic, plain
suction, self-propelled dredge (Figure 5-5). As its name indicates,
this dredging unit's suction head resembles a large vacuum cleaner
or dustpan, which is about as wide as -the width of the hull it is
70
-------
TABLE 5-3
ELLICOTT CORPORATION CUTTERHEAD SUCTION DREDGES
Discharge Pipe Total Hourly Production
Model Diameter Power - (cubic yard
(inches) (Horsepower) per 'hour)
770
970
1470
1600
3000
4500
5000
6000
7000
"Dragon"
"Dragon"
"Dragon"
"Dragon"
"Super Dragon"
.Al "Super Dragon"
"Super Dragon"
.Al "Super Dragon"
"Super Dragon"
10,000 "Super Dragon"
12-14
14-16
16-18
18-20
22-27
22-27
27-33
27-33
27-34
27-34
730 450/580
930 450/580
1390 450/790
1515
3234 900/1700
4510 900/1700
5755 1200/2700
5860 1200/2700
6806
10,970
Maximum
Maximum Discharge Cost'
Digging Depth Length of Unit
(Feet) (Feet) (Dollars)
26'
33'
42'
50'
58'
58'
58'
58'
100'
100'
3000 500,000 to
550,000
5000 600,000 to
650,000
7000 900,000 to
950,000
11,000
11,000
17,000
17,000
'Final prices depend on the optional equipment, accessories and pipeline requirements for specific jobs.
Sburce: Klllcott Mnchint; Corporation, Undated.
-------
TABLE 5-4
C.F. BEAN CORPORATION
CUTTERHEAD SUCTION DREDGES
Dredge
Jim Bean
Buster Bean
Lenel Bean
Kitty Bean
Pipeliner
Dredge No. 52
Dredge No. 85
Dredge No. 32
Bill Bauer
Blackburn
Holland
Borinquen
Shary
Hull Size
(Feet)
262x65x15
215x45x10
165x40x9
116x45x8
65x24x6
180x52x11
81x26x7
200x49x11
248x50x13
180x52x11
145x41x10
120x36x8
175x50x12
Suction/Discharge
(Inches/Inches)
29/27
29/27
29/27
24/20
14/12
35/27'
20/16
35/27
36/30
30/27
30/24
24/20
30/27
Pump
Horsepower
9,200
4,750
4,600
1,750
600
3,750
1,500
3,750
6,000
3,750
3,600
1,600
3,750
Source: Bean Dredging Corporation 1980.
72
-------
TABLE 5-5
AMERICAN MARINE AND MACHINERY CO., INC.
CUTTERHEAD SUCTION DREDGES
CUTTERHEAD
SIZE
(INCHES)
6
8
10
12
14
16
20
24
27
MODEL
PD-6S
PD-8S
PD-8C
PD-10S
PD-10E
PD-10C
PD-12E
PD-12C
PD-14S
PD-14SL
PD-14C
PD-16L
PD-16SL
PD-16S
PD-16C
PD-20S
PD-20C
PD-20D
PD-24D
PD-27L
PD-27
TOTAL
HORSEPOWER*
115
175
365
480
540
695
695
905
905
1025
1215
905
1025
1215-1490
2065
1490-1645
2065-2220
2430-2980
2980
2980
4615-5715
HOURLY
PRODUCTION
(CUBIC
YARDS)**
100
150
200
250
250
275
350
400
500
600
600
700
800
800
900
1000
1-200
1200
1500
2000
3000
DISCHARGE
DISTANCE
(FEET)**
1500
2000
2500
3000
3000
•4000
-4000
5000
5000
6000
6000
4500
6000
7000
7000
7000
7000
7000
7000
7000
9000
Based on manufacturers continuous duty ratings.
'Production capacities and discharge distances are variable depending
on on-site conditions.
**
Source: American Marine and Marchinery Company, Inc. 1980.
73
-------
Suction pip* hot*! omen
A Iron*
Oustpon heodi
Source: Redrawn after Bray 1979
FIGURE 5-5
DUSTPAN DREDGE
SllCt KM
Dustpan
Head
74
-------
installed upon. This suction head is outfitted with high velocity
water jets which dislodge the silt and sands and form a mixture of
sand and water at the entrance of the suction pipe; that mixture is
then pumped through a floating discharge line to a spoil disposal
area. The suction head, suction line, and waterjet line are mounted
on a structural ladder hinged in a well section located in the for
ward part of the dredge. The suction head is pulled into the
material by winches taking in two cables that run upstream to
anchors set above the cut area (COE, 1979a). A discharge pipe of
various configurations is connected to the stern and then to a
floating pipeline (Herbich, 1974).
As can be seen from its design, the dustpan dredge is best
adapted for dredging river beds. The first dustpan dredge was built
for use on the Mississippi River. Thanks to its -wide suction head,
the dustpan dredge has a particularly wide dredging swath through
the bottom sediments, which makes this type of dredge particularly
advantageous for river channel dredging. Experience indicates that
best results are obtained when cuts do not exceed six feet in
depth. Production rates for the dustpan dredge are difficult to
predict or calculate, but often they can exceed that of a 30-inch
diameter cutter suction dredge by as much as 1,000 cubic yards per
hour (3,500 cubic yards vs 2,500 cubic yards). Because of its bulky
design, the dustpan dredge has to move out of the navigation channel
periodically to maintain traffic flow, which reduces its annual
production by more than 50 percent.
The Corps of Engineers owns most of the operational dustpan
dredges in the United States, which are used mainly for channel
maintenance work in the Mississippi River. As a result of the
Industry Capability Program initiated by the Corps of Engineers in
1976, the C.F. Bean Dredging Company constructed the first privately
owned dustpan dredge. The "Lenel Bean" has a 38-inch discharge and
is operated by a 3,600 horsepower pump. It achieves a production
rate of about 60,000 cubic yards per 24 hours at a cost ranging from
44 to 88 cents per cubic yard. The Ellicott Corporation in
Baltimore also now builds dustpan type dredges.
The dustpan dredge does create a high level of turbidity.
However, it is designed primarily for riverbed dredging where
turbidity is often not a significant concern, due to naturally high
levels.
5.2.4 Trailing Suction Hopper Dredges
This type of dredge (Figure 5-6) functions on the same
principle as the plain suction pipeline dredge. It is, however,
75
-------
Svtll compensator
\
Hoist gantries
Sow t.Vusf unit
Source: Redrawn after Bny 1979
FIGURE 5-6
TRAILING SUCTION HOPPER DREDGE
76
-------
quipped with hoppers to store the hydraulically dredged material
EPA/COE, 1978). Split hopper hydraulic dredges feature hoppers or
ins which "split" open at the disposal site. No bottom doors,
liding or otherwise, are needed for the material to be dumped.
his system also permits a better control over watertightness
d'Angremond, 1978). The hopper capacity varies from 300 to 11,700
ubic yards. The hopper dredge is equipped with large centrifugal
umps similar to those utilized by suction dredges. The craft is
alf-propelled. The material is raised by dredge pumps through one
r two dragarms which are connected to each side of the ship or to
ne centerline by trunnions. These trailing pipes are literally
-ragged along the bottom ("drag head"). They consist of a heavy
Bad with projections to scarify the bottom. Water jets can also be
sed to disintegrate the soil. When the hoppers have been filled,
ne d-ragarms are raised and the dredge sails to the disposal site.
One of the largest trailing suction hopper dredges today is the
?Tihs der Nederlanden", which has a hopper capacity of 11,700 cubic
irds, an engine power of 21,500 horsepower, an overall length of
^0 feet and can dredge at a maximum depth of 115 feet. It pumps a
>ad of 18,000 tons of material in one hour and can dump the entire
>ad in five minutes. The two trailing suction pipes are mounted
>rward and are raised and lowered by gantries and electric
Inches. Each pipe pumps 28,775 cubic yards of material in an hour
loffman, 1978).
• Another large trailing suction hopper dredge is the "Geopotes
C", which is one of Volker Stevin's largest dredges. Volker Stevin
•edging, a Dutch company, is becoming affiliated with the Bean
>rporation, which could facilitate the introduction or the building
: a craft such as "Geopotes IX" in this country. The "Geopotes IX"
; 412 feet long, 69 feet wide, and has a hopper capacity of 8,360
ibic yards. It can dredge to a depth of 110 feet. The total power
i the dredge is 11,000 horsepower (Hoffman, 1978). The dredge is
•sitioned by a sophisticated electronic system and is equipped with
ndicators of the slurry level in the hopper, indicators for the
•sitions of the trailing heads in relation to the bottom, an
tomatic compensator for swell that keeps the trailing heads on the
ttom at all times, a system of lights to indicate whether the
pper doors are open or closed, a system of lights to indicate -the
sition of the various valves, and an automatic pilot to steer the
ip on a straight course to the dump site" (Hoffman, 1978).
The trailing suction hopper dredge is very popular in Europe,
ere it is used mostly for the maintenance of harbors. Its being
If-propelled reduces any hindrance to navigation so the port to be
edged does not have to close or reduce its normal traffic when
77
-------
dredging is taking place (d'Angremond, 1978). Its design allows it
to cope with rough open sea conditions.
From 1906 to 1977 the only hopper dredges available for
projects in the United States were those operated by the Corps of
Engineers; these are now old and obsolete. The Corps of Engineers
hopper dredge fleet consists of 14 units, two of them with a hopper
capacity of 6,000 cubic yards or more, seven with a capacity of
2,000 to 6,000 cubic yards, and five with a capacity under 2,000
cubic yards. The extensive maintenance required by older vessels is
very costly and results in a considerable loss of time. The
construction of three new dredges has been authorized by the
Congress, while older vessels are' scheduled to be progressively
retired as the expense of their maintenance makes then less cost
effective. The new units will represent the nucleus of the
federally owned hopper dredge fleet being developed in response to
the Public Law 95-269 stipulations. This fleet will be required to
meet emergency or national defense requirements and consists so far
of one small dredge (hopper capacity 825 cubic yards) for use in
shallow waters, one medium class hopper dredge (6,000 cubic yard
capacity) and one large class hopper dredge (8,600 cubic yard
capacity) (Murden, 1980).
The enactment of Public Law 95-269 and the resulting Industry
Capability Program have given the industry the incentive and the
opportunity to proceed with building new dredging units (Murden,
1980). Several recently constructed units are described below.
The "Long Island", built in 1971 by the Construction Aggregates
Corporation and acquired by the Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Company
in 1978, has a capacity of 16,000 cubic yards and is propelled by a
tug fitted into a notch in the stern of the barge. It is equipped
with dual pumps and dragarms. This vessel was originally equipped
only for pumpout operations. However, it was modified during 1978
to include a bottom gate dumping capability, which improved its
versatility. The "Manhattan Island", a split hull hopper dredge
with dual pumps and dragarms, is owned by the North American
Trailing Company (a consortium consisting of the Great Lakes Dredge
and Dock Company and Ballast-Needham, a Dutch firm). It has a
hopper capacity of 3,600 cubic yards and has performed well on the
navigation projects on which it has worked for the Corps of
Engineers. This vessel is not equipped for direct pumpout
operations; however, it will probably be converted to include this
capability. The "Sugar Island", owned by North American Trailing
Company, has a hopper capacity of 3,600 cubic yards, and is a sister
ship to the "Manhattan Island". It is equipped for direct pumpout
operations. The vessel was placed in service in May 1979. The
78
-------
"Eagle I", owned by the Eagle Dredging Company (a consortium
consisting of the C.F. Bean Company of New Orleans and Volker
Stevin, a Dutch firm), has a 6,300 cubic yard hopper capacity and
features dual pumps, dragarms, and a split hull. The "Eagle I" is a
good representative of current design technology.
Technical improvements, some of which have been applied in the
construction of these modern hydraulic hopper dredges, include:
o asymmetric hopper configurations that facilitate dumping,
o increased hopper capacities without an increase in overall
hull dimensions through better utilization of hull space,
o undivided hoppers to increase vessel stability and reduce
dredge construction costs,
o maximum production, flow, density, and load meters of
improved sophistication to determine when overflow begins to
result in loss of material,
o horizontal sliding bottom dump doors that eliminate
cumbersome rod and linkage systems (used with vertically
operating dump doors), and eliminate hull protrusions to
permit operation in shallow water while reducing door
jamming,
o interchangeable draghead components that permit fast
modifications on the draghead to suit bottom conditions and
to facilitate replacement of worn parts,
o high pressure water jet scarifiers to increase the digging
capability of the draghead,
o draghead mounted, submerged pumps to increase pumping
efficiency at greater depth, and
o hydraulically operated swell compensators and electronically
operated draghead with controls to maintain bottom contact of
the draghead in increased sea states (COE, 1979a).
One particularly interesting device used for Increasing the
production rate is the submersible dredge pump. This unit seems to
be a key factor in improving dredging efficiency. This system is
now being widely used in this country (COE, 1979a). Tests indicate
that a submerged pump can more than double the maximum output of a
dredge at a 50-foot digging depth and quadruple it at an 82-foot
79
-------
lepth. Booster jet pumps placed at submerged locations in
.on line can also increase the production rate by 25 percent
rcent. Dredging depths can be increased significantly with
of submerged pumps. Such pumps can be adapted to a single
and the suction pipe is then converted to a delivery pipe*
itively new and simple device greatly improves dredging
:y at a minimum expense (COE, 1979a)*
• 5 Sidecaster Dredges
sidecast dredge is very convenient for use where the
currents do not return a significant amount of dredged
to the navigation channel, and in sandy inlets where it can
vith the double purpose of dredging and beach nourishment*
zase the diluted material is picked up and flows through
wiping and a centrifugal pump before being pumped back into
eway, some distance away from the dredged channel. A typical
£ef can dredge slightly more than 300 cubic yards per hout
proximate cost of $1.30 per cubic yard .<£$&, I979a) . its
iwback is the amounf of turbidity created during its
a:, particularly at the discharge point.
•6 Bucket Wheel Dredges
type of dredge, the old fashioned bucket line of the
adder dredge has been replaced by a bucket wheel mounted oil
2t of the dredge platform. As it rotates the wheel cuts
sediments, brings the material back to the surface and
it bi* a conveyor system. This particular design allows th6
D be used in a wide variety of sediments, making the system
satile. Bates (1979) describes the two latest bucket wheel
The first is the "wheel dragon" built by Ellicott Machine
ion in Baltimore, Maryland* The "wheel dragon" (Figure 5-7)
itest addition to Ellicptt's SO^year old "dragon" series,
£ family of standardized portable dredges' ever put into
iroduction in the United States* The second was built by
Dutch dredge and shipbuilding company. In the "wheel
the loaded bucket passes over a suction inlet chamber,
jithin the inner circumference of the bucket wheel, into
a spdll is discharged, partly under gravity and partly by
The system allows for the recovery of a very high
ation of solids and positive containment within the bucket
limizes spillage. The diameter of the bucket wheel is two,
r more times greater than an equivalent crown cutter, and
le depth of material removed lit a single pass is much
Forward steps are, however, slightly smaller (Bates,
Ihe "wheel dragon" efficiently excavates oil both starboard
80
-------
Source: Ellicott Corporation 1980
FIGURE 5-7
ELLICOTT "WHEEL DRAGON" EXCAVATOR
81
-------
and port swings to produce a continuous flow of material. It
permits control of slurry flow by variation of wheel speed and swing
speed, thus greatly improving recovery of excavated solids (Bates
1979).
5.2.7 Mudmaster
The "Mudmaster" is built by Dredge Masters International
(Hendersonville, Tennessee). The Mudmaster comes in three basic
models, with a broad range of power applications and pump sizes.
The "Mini-Mudster", the smallest model ranges from four-inch
discharge diameter and 40-horsepower, to six-inch and
93-horsepower. The "Mighty Mudster", mid-range or medium duty
machine, ranges from six-inch discharge diameter and 93-horsepower
to eight-inch and 175-horsepower. The "Super-Mudster" heavy duty
dredge, ranges from eight-inch and 190-horsepower, to ten-inch and
275-horsepower. According to the manufacturer, the Mudmaster
features a combination ladder/main frame design which is a new
concept in small dredges design. All main machinery is mounted on a
single ladder/main frame structure, thereby eliminating the center
hull section, deckhouse, "A-frame", gantry and suction hose. The
new arrangement is designed to facilitate economical construction,
ease of mobilization and assembly, simplicity of operation and
maintenance, and high operating efficiency. The flotation of the
dredge is provided by two rectangular steel side pontoon sections,
based on a "catamaran" type design. The design also enables the
Mudmaster to operate and work at an extremely shallow depth. The
Mudmaster can also be easily transported from one job to another on
one truck and, in most cases, fully assembled. An open suction
"dustpan attachment" is available to handle most loosely compacted
and free-flowing materials. The pontoons come in different
configurations (rectangular, wedge, or delta shaped) adaptable to
any kind of situation. An amphibious package is also available for
dredging in swampy or marshy areas.
5.2.8 Delta Dredge
Built by Delta Dredging Company, St. Louis, MO., the Delta
Dredge Model 212 (Figure 5-8) was developed in 1975. It is
described by EPA/COE (19/8) as lightweight dredging equipment
featuring a double cutterhead in a sumbmerged 12-inch discharge
pump. It can pump its discharged slurry up to 2,000 feet without a
booster, and can dredge up to 100 cubic yards of sand per hour and
up to 300 cubic yards per hour of silt or soft material. The hull
contains four pontoons, and the operating draft is 32 inches. The
two counter-rotating, reversible cutters provide a relatively
shallow seven foot wide cutting swath, and the unit has a digging
82
-------
oo
co
Source: Delta Dredge and Pump Corporation 1980
FIGURE 5-8
DELTA DREDGE
-------
invite WTCR
M.I1 HDM
IOOM "TO CTLMOIII
feV- -V7 "J ~-f^irr^ftr--—••— ^•.rfeyH^^^ra
nrwuux RCICHVOM
OCTMIT OCXt
(NGM
MTOKKJLC DKVC-1 LFLf>&£ COUfUC
Source: Mud C«f Corpontlon 1980
FIGURE 5-9
MUD CAT
-------
pump away a variety of bottom sediments including silt, sand, muck,
weeds, sludge, and industrial wastes, at a rate ranging from 45 to
150 cubic yards per hour, depending on the nature of the sediment to
be dredged.
The MUD CAT was recently evaluated as a mechanism for removal
of polluted sediments. It was noted that the resuspension of the
dredged material was minimal and that 99.3 percent of the four
materials tested were effectively removed (EPA, 1976). The MUD CAT
dredge is reportedly convenient and easy to use, especially in
shallow areas. Its hydraulically adjustable mudshield helps reduce
turbidity 'to a minimum, a very important factor which makes the
MUDCAT valuable in removing polluted materials from bottom sediments.
The MUD CAT dredge comes in two different sizes. The SP-180
model, or "Mini MUD CAT", is designed for the smaller jobs. Without
accessories, this model costs approximately $75,000. The model
MC-915 is a new, larger, and improved dredge. Without accessories,
this model's cost is about $116,000 (MUD CAT Division, 1981).
5.2.10 Waterless Dredge
The Waterless Dredging Company, Mattoon, Illinois, has
developed a dredging system (Model 8-180) in which the cutter, which
operates like a paddle wheel, and a pump are enclosed in a
cylindrical shroud. Totally shrouded for minimizing turbidity and
rotatable to provide equal efficiency in cutting on left and right
hand swings, the cutterhead is forced into the material and the
cutterblades remove the material near the front of the cutterhead
with little entrainment of carrier water. This machine is reported
to dredge material with a solids ratio of 30 to 50 percent, creating
a minimum amount of turbidity. The centrifugal dredge pump is a
fully submerged as an integral part of the cutterhead for maximum
efficiency (Waterless Dredging Company, undated). This approach has
the advantage of limiting the water content of each gallon of sludge
removed, which in turn minimizes the dredging time and cost of the
operation by reducing the total amount of material to be removed
(Stefanides, 1980). The waterless dredge is moved forward and
backward by cables. A weed cutter attachment is also available.
5.3 Pneumatic Dredges
Three dredging units function on the pneumatic principle
o the Airlift
o the Oozer, and
86
-------
o the AMTEC Pump.
General characterisitcs of pneumatic dredges are summarized in
Table 5-6.
5.3.1 The Airlift
The principle of operation of this unit is simple. Compressed
air is injected in a partially submerged recovery pipe, at some
point below the water surface. The bouyant air rises to the surface
creating a flow of water through the pipe capable of carrying
solids. The air lift pump is more efficient in deep water as the
air expands under reduced pressure and accelerates the flow through
the pipe. The solids-to-water ratio ranges from 15 to 70 percent
depending on the pump design. The unit can be mounted on a
conventional dredge, which, through the help of widely spaced
anchors and walking spuds, can gain lateral movement.
Air lift dredging pumps are not readily available since they
are usually assembled for a special purpose, but they have been used
for many years and have the advantage of creating a minimal amount
of turbidity. Air lift pumps have been mostly used for the removal
of silt and sediments at salvage sites, and by archeologists in the
Mediterranean Sea to expose artifacts (COE, 1979a).
5.3.2 The Oozer
Designed and made in Japan, the Oozer (Figure 5-10) is a
pneumatic pump dredge which operates by using water pressure to
raise the dredged material, its suction power being increased by
creating a vacuum in the tank. The mixture flows into the tank,
then compressed air expells the mixture from the tank to the
delivery pipe. Two tanks working alternatively are used, which
assures a constant flow of the material and increases the unit
efficiency (Nishi, 1976).
A portable oozer type dredge is available in Japan with the
following dimensions: overall length 65 feet, beam 26 feet, draft 6
feet, dredging depth 19 feet. A larger dredge, the "Taian Maru",
has a length of 121 feet, a breadth of 39 feet, a draft of 7 feet
and an excavation depth of 55 feet. This unit also features one or
two underwater cameras, depending on the model, to monitor the
dredging operation in the areas around the suction attachments. The
amount of turbidity can be then checked on a T.V. screen, where the
shaded area indicates the amount of turbidity not to be exceeded. A
recorder prints a final record of the actual dredged material so
that after-dredging surveys are not needed (Wooton, 1980).
87
-------
TABLE 5-6
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PNEUMATIC DREDGES
" " ~"
Name Best Suited for
Airlift soft silts and
sediments
Oozer any kind of
soil, viscous
clayey, sandy
2? sediments
00
•-
AMTEC sand, sludge
Model 36 clays and silts
Production Rate
very variable
523 ydVhr
(30-701
solid ratio)
600 yd3/hr
(slurry)
Means of
Disposal
pipeline to
recovery
barge
pipeline
or barges
pipeline
or barges
Availability
avuilablc in
U.S.
available In
Japan,
represented by
TJK, Inc.
7407 Fulton Ave.,
No. Hollywood,
California 91605
available front
AMTEC Development
Company
1550 Berkeley Road
Highland Park, FL
- —
Environmental Cost
Impuct U.S. Dollars
low turbidity
minimum turbidity $2,577,251
and secondary
pollution.
sophisticated
environmental
monitoring system
minimum turbidity
60035
...
Max lawn
Dredging
Depth (Feet)
56
1-200
Source: U.S. Army Corps ol Engineers 1979*
Jensen, R. 1979
Maloblockl R. 1981
-------
The Oozer has been especially designed for dredging heavily
polluted sludge. A 20-foot long, 6-foot wide metal hood covers the
suction mouth and recovers any oil or -gas contained in the
sediments* Below this hood is another cover over the suction mouth
to prevent turbidity and secondary pollution. The density of the
dredged material shows a 30 to 70 percent solids content compared to
a typical hydraulic dredge that pumps 20 percent solids and 80
percent water. The decrease in the amount of water pumped into a
disposal site has a significant impact on the size of the required
disposal area and facilitates the drying of the sludge (Wooton,
1980). The dredging capacity of the unit when pumping over a
distance of 3,000 feet is in the range of 3,000 cubic yards per
day. The Oozer is particularly suited for the dredging of viscous
materials, but it can be used in a variety of bottom sediments.
According to Jensen (1981), the Oozer dredge equipment and
barge could be purchased at the cost of about $2.6 million. The
dredge could be readied and moved to the east coast of the United
States in approximately 105 days. Transportation could cost 1.0 to
1.4 million dollars, depending upon the method used.
From an environmental protection point of view, the Oozer
presents the following advantages:
o it reduces turbidity, which has been a constant subject of
concern in dredging, to a minimum;
o it permits the extraction of polluted material with a high
density ratio, thereby minimizing the cost of transportation
and disposal;
o monitored by high precision electronic devices, it eliminates
the need for after-dredging surveys and provides precise
information on the dredging operation as it takes place;
o the Oozer can be used in almost any site; for example,
special cutters have been designed for relatively hard
soils; and
o because of its vacuum operating pump system, the dredging
power of the Oozer is not affected by the depth (Jenson,
1981).
5.3.3 The AMTEC System
The AMTEC pneumatic pump (Figure 5-11) was designed by the
AMTEC Development Company, Highland Park, Illinois. The AMTEC
dredging pump, Model 3.6 SPECS works on the pneumatic principle.
90
-------
INTAKE
CYCLE
Source: Amttc Corporation 1980
DISCHARGE
CYCLE
FIGURE 5-11
AMTEC PUMP SYSTEM
91
-------
The pump is comprised of three chambers. The intake and discharge
functions are repeated at split second intervals in each chamber as
described by the manufacturer:
o a three way valve functions to create a vacuum in one of the
chambers;
o when ready, the inlet valve opens...slurry enters induced
either by hydrostatic head pressure or vacuum action;
o as the slurry reaches a certain level, the electronic
sensoring device issues a command to the electronic
controller for the three-way valve to close;
o at its turn, the three-way value is given a command to
introduce pressurized air into the chamber;
o this pressurized air forces the slurry down, then up and
through the "wye" discharge pipe; and
o from the "wye" discharge, the slurry is conveyed through a
pipeline to a disposal area (AMTEC Corporation, 1981).
An electronic device, connected to the pump by a cable,
controls the functions of each chamber. It determines when the
slurry has filled the chamber to its capacity and, at the same time,
it coordinates the action of each of the three chambers, issuing
commands for intake and discharge, as appropriate. The electronic
controller also adjusts the operation automatically as the density
of the slurry and depth of operation change.
The AMTEC Standard Model 3.6 SPECS achieves a production rate
of 600 cubic yards of slurry per hour. The depth of operation can
vary from one to 200 feet and the length of discharge can be up to
3,000 feet. The pump can be supported by a crane or any other
suspension device. A larger AMTEC pump is also available which
could achieve about twice the production rate (AMTEC Development
Corporation, 1981).
The AMTEC pneumatic pump is, according to the manufacturer, a
versatile dredge which could be used in a variety of situations such
as cleaning up sludge basins, dredging behind docks and piers,
mining sand or minerals, dredging pollutants, and maintaining
marinas and boat slips. The AMTEC would seem to be particularly
well adapted to the dredging of polluted material, since the
pneumatic principle allows for an efficient vacuuming of bottom
sediments, which keeps resuspension of material to a minimum.
92
-------
5.4 Ancillary Equipment
In addition to the actual dredging plant, certain other types
of equipment may also be used to minimize environmental impacts or
to improve efficiency. Two areas of particular interest are silt
curtains and positioning equipment.
5.4.1 Silt Curtains
Silt curtains, or turbidity barriers, are devices that are used
to control the movement of turbid water away from the dredging or
disposal site (Johanson, 1976). Early attempts to use silt curtains
in turbidity control were only partially successful because of the
type of equipment. The first curtains used pervious filter cloth or
untreated canvas. Flotation was provided by logs, lobster floats,
and barrels. Chains, cans of concrete, sections of pipe, and the
like were used as ballast, attached to grommeted holes in the bottom
edge of the curtain. The curtains were held in place by tying them
to poles driven into the bottom. The pervious material quickly
became plugged with silt, grew heavy, and sank. The untreated
canvas supported marine growth, soon deteriorated and
disintegrated. Storms invariably destroyed the curtains. Such
primitive attempts, with their attendant serious problems,
undoubtedly formed the basis for the negative opinions which have
survived and are present in the industry today (Johanson, 1976).
To offset these problems, the early materials were replaced with
various thicknesses of polymeric films, which, while light in weight
and resistant to the chemical attack of the marine environment, were
insufficiently sturdy to withstand the intrusion of large marine
life and the abrasion and chafing of the support poles, ultimately
tearing, and failing to contain turbidity. Poles and timber
supports, were replaced by conventional anchoring systems, and the
polymeric films were strengthened with embedded woven fiber
reinforcement. Flotation and ballast were heat-sealed into the
material to become integral members of the commercial silt curtain
(Johanson, 1976). The curtains that are now being used are are much
more practical to install, easier to maintain, and considerably more
effective.
5.4.2 Positioning Systems
New advances in electronics have led to a considerable improve-
ment in positioning accuracy, which allows more accurate dredging.
Positioning and monitoring dredging activities have become a
computerized operations, which provides the project manager with
printouts indicating the existing channel depth, gives pre- and
93
-------
post-dredge profile plots and calculates volumes. The printouts
themselves can be used as proof of performance, eliminating the need
for costly overdredging. One of these systems, built by Engineering
Service Associates, Inc in Washington, D.C. is called the
Tellurometer Model -MRD-1. Its cost ranges between $61,500 (two range
system) and $78,000 (three range system). Other systems are
available, such as the "Mini Ranger" by Motorola. These
sophisticated systems are valuable additions to the regular dredging
equipment and allow great savings of time and money spent in
overdredging.
-------
6.0 PROCEDURES FOR EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
AND MANAGEMENT PLANS
Early in the preparation of this report a private dredging
contractor ventured the opinion that, while very advanced
technologies do indeed exist, they are usually not available and
much too expensive to acquire in any case* This opinion is probably
held by a majority of industry representatives. On the other hand,
many environmental groups would assume that any expense would be
justified. One method of overcoming this polarity is to develop
reasonable, quantitative (or at least semiquantitative) criteria for
evaluation of alternatives. This should, in theory, limit the
discussion to those alternatives which offer some benefits
-------
Available.
environmentally
acceptable
Available.
economically
feasible
Environmental
Impacts:
turbidity
alteration of
existing
characteristics
•cost of trans-
portation
•cost of acquisition
•cost of operation
secondary
pollution
Satisfying all
environmental
requirements and
compatible with
existing laws
Economically
feasible and
compatible
with the law*
Compatibility
With Existing Manage-
ment Practices
•water quality standards
-effluent limitations
1 Dredging Unit is available, environmentally acceptable and economically feasible, but it is not
compatible with existing management practices.
2 Dredging Unit is available, economically feasible, compatible with existing management practices, but
environmentally not acceptable.
3 Dredging Unit is available, environmentally acceptable, compatible with existing management practices,
but it Is not economically feasible.
4 Dredging Unit is environmentally acceptable, economically feasible, compatible with existing manage-
ment practices, but it is not available.
S Dredging Unit is available, environmentally acceptable, compatible with existing management practices,
and economically feasible.
FIGURE 6-1
SCREENING CRITERIA USED FOR CHOOSING
NEW DREDGING TECHNIQUES
96
-------
6.1 Economics
Economic considerations must play an important role in any
evaluation of this type, since someone ultimately must pay for any
new technology* This becomes particularly critical if industry is
expected to bear the entire financial burden of required changes,
since ecological or social benefits do not accrue to the dredger.
If the cost is to be borne by the state or federal regulatory
agencies, then the problem becomes one of cost/benefit analysis.
The parameters to be considered vary from case to case, but may
include:
o capital costs,
o operational and maintenance costs,
o unit cost of dredging,
o secondary or ancillary costs, or
o costs relative to the "next best" option.
In 1980, nearly twelve million dollars were spent on dredging
federal projects in the Norfolk District, and five million dollars
were spent in the Baltimore District. Even at that funding level
work is being deferred due to budgetary constraints. With the
demand for ever-deeper channels expenditures must go up, and will be
driven even higher if inflation continues at a high pace. In this
environment it is not surprising to find that user charges are a
topic of interest in Congress, but even that approach could not pay
for major increases in unit costs. Dredging on private projects is
even more constrained. It is simply unrealistic to assume that,
except in cases of extreme need, equipment which greatly increases
costs would be used.
6.2 Availabllty
This criterion has an element of both economics and legal
constraints in it. In assessing any alternative technology for
near-term implementation in the Chesapeake Bay, one must be sure
that it is, in fact, available. For example, large hopper suction
dredges are available in the United States, but they could be fully
employed elsewhere. Since dredgers will utilize the most efficient
and cost effective technique allowed, any decision on the part of
regulatory agencies to encourage the use of alternative equipment
would have to be based on the knowledge that such equipment could be
obtained.
97
-------
6.3 Environmental Impacts
Environmental criteria have gained more and more importance
over the last ten years. At the same time, they are not reflected
in the marketplace; that is, the true worth of environmental
resources is not included in the cost of dredging. In this sense we
rely on government to provide protective regulations, based on the
value of the resource to society as a whole. Potential issues,
which would vary from project to project, include:
o substrate compatibility,
o persistence of impacts,
o impacts to shellfish areas,
o impacts to fishery nursery or spawning areas,
o impacts on benthic faunal reproduction,
o toxicity, both lethal and sublethal,
o effects on water quality,
o public health impacts, or
o aesthetic impacts.
6.4 Compatibility with Existing Regulatons
Options which meet all or some of the other criteria still must
be .compatible with existing laws and regulations, or they cannot be
implemented immediately. It is, of course, possible to change
existing laws or regulations. It is equally possible to prepare new
ones to encourage the use of approaches which are less often used in
a free market situation. Particularly critical are areas in which
the laws or regulations (or their implementation) are imprecise or
inconsistent. Dredging companies, as all other industries, are
reluctant to Invest in new or unproven equipment in the face of
regulatory uncertainty.
98
-------
7.0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL MODIFICATIONS IN TECHNOLOGY OR
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
7.1 Screening of Available Options
Based on the data assembled in this report, a series of
possible options, both technological and managerial, were developed
for evaluation. This evaluation was restricted largely to the
dredging process itself; we have made no attempt to evaluate
disposal practices in detail. An attempt was made to make the list
as inclusive as possible without becoming overly specific. The
options considered were:
o use of improved dredging equipment on large projects,
o increased use of silt curtains,
o use of improved navigation or positioning equipment,
o use of pneumatic dredges for polluted material,
o increased use of hydraulic or pneumatic dredges on small
private projects,
o establishment of turbidity standards to replace seasonal
dredging moratoriums,
o increased chemical and bioassay testing of sediments,
o development of comprehensive monitoring studies to clarify
long-term impacts,
o use of advanced treatment methods in confined disposal areas,
o establishment of additional confined disposal areas,
o further improvement to the permit review process,
o revisions to the effluent standards for upland disposal
areas, and
o repeal or modification of the Jones Act.
Each of these options is discussed in terms of the applicable
criteria (Section 6.0) in the following sections.
99
-------
7.1.1 Use of Improved Dredging Equipment on Large Projects
While there is a large variety of technological improvements
available on the market, there appears to be little reason for the
regulatory agencies to intervene directly by requiring the use of
specific equipment. At the present time, dredgers in the Chesapeake
Bay rely almost entirely on hydraulic cutterhead dredges. Economics
dictated this choice for large projects and will also encourage
implementation of new technologies. Interestingly, more efficient,
and hence more economical, techniques are also generally more
environmentally acceptable. Key environmental Issues associated
with the type of equipment used are governed by the production of
suspended sediment and by the degree of water entrainment with the
dredged material, both of which decrease with increased efficiency.
In addition, more efficient operation limits the temporal extent of
any impacts, a further beneficial impact. In the case of most
projects, the impacts associated with turbidity are so minimal,
however, that mandating improvement through requiring the use of
specific equipment is not justified. This choice should be left to
the dredging companies.
7.1.2 Increased Use of Silt Curtains
The performance of silt curtains has improved dramatically over
the past several years. JBF Scientific Corporation (1978) reviewed
the current state of the art, and there is little doubt that in some
circumstances silt curtains could appreciably reduce turbidity. It
is equally clear that they could cause a significant increase in
cost on many projects. Their most efficient application would be on
long-duration projects, or at disposal sites being utilized by more
than one project. Availability is not a problem and their use is
compatible with current management practices.
While it is clear that the use of silt curtains would decrease
turbidity, it is not clear that this would result in a significant
environmental improvement, since there is little to indicate that
present levels are harmful. The most beneficial use of such
equipment would be to protect particularly sensitive habitats in
localized areas of the bay, if such areas could realistically be
shown to be threatened by a particular project. The mathematical
and physical models to accomplish this evaluation exist and should
be used.
7.1.3 Use of Improved Navigation or Positioning Equipment
Use of modern electronic gear for navigation and positioning
can greatly reduce the need for overcutting, a definite economic
100
-------
It also produces positive environmental impacts by
; the dredging time and the total volume of material for
'„. Use of such equipment would appear to be in the best
; of all parties and should be encouraged by the regulatory
;. The type of equipment should not be specified, but
ince standards, or bonus payments, could be established which
icourage innovative technologies. In most cases the inherent
: advantages of such equipment already act to encourage their
.arge dredges.
L.A Use of Pneumatic Dredges for Polluted Material
» Japanese Oozer Dredge (Section 5.3.2), as well as the AMTEC
action 5.3.3), could be considered for use in polluted areas
Chesapeake Bay. The Oozer is the only unit which has seen
lificant use in this type of application. It was
:ally designed for the dredging of heavily polluted harbors
i. The cost of acquisition of a complete Oozer unit could be
as 2.5 million dollars, with an additional one to 1.5
dollars in transportation costs. Operational costs are not
The justification for this type of expenditure would have to
i on the existence of an essential project which simply could
iredged safely using conventional technology or on the
* of a sufficient number of moderate priority projects where
: could be employed nearly constantly, in order to amortize
cial cost. The literature available from the AMTEC
"ion suggests that the AMTEC Pump might be capable of similar
ince characteristics. The total cost of building a
jale dredge based on the AMTEC unit is not known, but might
iderably less than the importation of an Oozer.
:her unit would accomplish two desirable goals: turbidity at
ige site would be minimized, and much less water would be
id with the sediment. These are obvious advantages in
i areas. The difficulty lies in determining at what point
this type of equipment is justified. At the present time
re no criteria which can be applied.
Lie the AMTEC unit is produced domestically, the Oozer would
nported unit and would fall under the jurisdiction of the
:t
-------
7.1.5 Increased Use of Hydraulic or Pneumatic Dredges on Small^,
Private Projects
Small portable hydraulic dredging units are now available from
several companies. Most have been designed in the last ten years.
The use of such equipment would appear to be more efficient than the
mechanical methods now commonly used. A small hydraulic dredge
could achieve a production rate in the range of 300 cubic yards per
hour, while a five cubic yard bucket dredge will only produce 150
cubic yards per hour.
Small hydraulic units, such as those discussed in Sections
5.2.7 through 5.2.10, can be acquired at costs ranging from $75,000
to $250,000, or may be leased from the manufacturer. Because these
small dredging units -can easily be transported by truck to the
dredging site, mobilization and .demobilization costs are reduced to
a minimum. The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning
Commission recently acquired a MUD CAT dredge for the maintenance of
the Safford Marina in Maryland. This acquisition was considered to
be the best long-term solution, since the marina had to be
maintained on a regular basis. The MUD CAT achieves a production
rate of 200 cubic yards per hour, and at the Safford Marina,
disposal of the dredged material is accomplished directly by
pipeline, thereby eliminating the supplementary costs of rehandling
the material from barges to trucks. The dredge is now owned by the
Commission and kept at the dredging site.
These small dredging units are good examples of modern dredging
technology, featuring maximum efficiency and various monitoring
devices for additional turbidity control. The design of the suction
head (often equipped with a mudshield), along with maximum suction
power achieved by underwater pumps located as close to the suction
head as possible, minimizes the resuspension of particles and
secondary pollution problems. Small dredges have been used
extensively for cleaning up industrial ponds where viscous polluted
material had to be removed. Industrial wastes are usually composed
of extremely fine silts which cannot be handled by mechanical
dredges because the material sticks to the bucket, or by large
hydraulic units since they cannot be maneuvered in small enclosed
areas.
Small dredging equipment is environmentally acceptable, and
even desirable, as it allows for the removal of sediments with
minimum disturbance in the dredged area. Problems may arise,
however, at the disposal site, since most material from the small
private projects where these units are likely to be used is disposed
of at upland sites. In both Maryland and Virginia, various laws and
102
-------
regulations regarding effluent standards would have to be met. This
can be a problem, especially when dredged material is pumped
hydraulically in a slurry form and carried directly by pipeline to
the disposal area. A great deal of water (40 to 60 percent,
depending on the nature of the dredged material) runs off from the
disposal area back to the body of water. The 'fear of investing in
machinery which, on some projects, might not be used as it was
designed to be without elaborately engineered disposal sites, has
apparently discouraged dredging companies from acquiring this kind
of equipment.
7.1.6 Establishment of Turbidity Standards to Replace Seasonal
Dredging Moratoriums
Seasonal restrictions are a common subject of complaint among
dredgers. A moratorium of up to six or seven months is imposed on
many projects, usually covering spring, summer and/or fall, or the
periods of the most intense biological activity in the bay.
Dredging during the winter months is a very difficult operation,
sometimes impossible if the upper bay is covered by ice. Down time
increases as a result of rough weather conditions, injuries to
workmen increase, and the working efficiency is significantly
reduced. As a result, the cost to complete a given project rises.
While any seasonal restrictions are based on a case by case
review, they are largely based on "worst case" analysis, in which
the probability of the potential adverse impacts does not play a
role. What few data are available, including the study by Cronin
(1970), suggests that there is limited justification for blanket
restrictions of the type sometimes imposed in the past.
Since most increases in turbidity are highly localized and of
short duration, it would appear more realistic to establish "-tur-
bidity limits'''(which could change seasonally) that dredgers would
not be allowed to exceed for areas in need of protection. The
dredger could then determine the most efficient means of achieving
this level. Preliminary analyses could be based on the mathematical
and physical models now available, but this approach would require a
monitoring program to check for compliance. In many cases it would
appear that present methods could be demonstrated to be acceptable
if the dredger had a standard for comparison. The preparation of
such "turbidity limits" could be accomplished relatively easily by
scientists familiar with natural turbidity and biotic patterns in
the bay. This approach could require more bay-wide field studies of
background levels, although a beginning could be made with existing
data.
103
-------
During the review of this report the following comment was
received from the Tidewater Administration of the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources:
Evaluation on a worst case basis is inherently
necessary. If all parameters could reasonably be
expected to operate perfectly and in a vacuum,
environmental review would be unnecessary. This
is not.the case; Murphy's law applies. Because
it is economically and administratively difficult
to rebuild a destroyed resource it must be given
adequate protection through suitable dredge
project -restrictions. Any other action would be
to neglect the public trust.
It is our opinion that nothing in this comment indicates any reason
why a different approach to regulaton should not be investigated.
The studies cited in Section 4.2, especially the work by Schubel and
Meade (1977) and Schubel et al. (1980) suggest that appropriate
in-water turbidity standards could be developed. If, after an
evaluation of the concept is completed, it can be shown to involve
greater risk than current practices, then the old standards could be
retained. Or, if necessary, they could be retained for particularly
sensitive areas of the bay. While the present approach used by the
State of Maryland is certainly effective in eliminating impacts,
there is little evidence to support their contention that the same
protection could not be achieved in a more economical manner.
7.1.7 Increased Chemical and Bioassay Testing of Sediments
A great deal of uncertainty and controversy surrounding
dredging in the Chesapeake Bay relates to the issue of dredging
contaminated sediments. Neither the Baltimore nor the Norfolk
District requires chemical testing as a general condition for
project approval, either federal or non-federal, unless a 401 or 404
permit is involved, and then only if there is reason to suspect
contamination. No bioassay testing is required. As a result, data
on the chemical composition of the sediments dredged in the
Chesapeake Bay over the past eleven years are limited. In addition,
there is no agreement as to what level of contamination (or bioassay
results) would require special treatment, either for dredging or
disposal. In all fairness, the agencies of the Chesapeake Bay are
no worse off in this regard than most other similar organizations.
However, if reasonable management decisions are to be made, a better
understanding of the quality of the sediments of the bay would
appear to be essential.
104
-------
would result in increased dredging project costs. If it
> borne by the private sector, some consideration would
> -given to the small applicant, who could not afford the
:ost of several thousands of dollars for a series of
:ests.
Jorfolk District, as part of its program to obtain approval
>an disposal site, has instituted an extensive bioassay
rogram in Norfolk Harbor (see Section 4.2.2). This program
/e as a model for future federal evaluations in other
: the bay, but the approach is probably much too expensive
:e applicants, unless the projects are quite large. The
: the Norfolk study do suggest, however, that large-scale,
surveys, if conducted properly, could be used to exempt
iated areas from further testing.
3 Development of Comprehensive Monitoring Studies to
Clarity Long-Term Impacts
iscussed in Section 4.2.3, one of the major concerns with
and open water disposal is the lack of a clear
ding of long-term sublethal impacts. Impacts at the •
site are fairly well understood, and, although there is
-concern over turbidity increases caused by dredging, most
re of short-term duration and/or resonably predictable.
term impacts of open water disposal were a major
tibn in the Dredged Material Research Program (DMRP) of the
Engineers. In that program field investigations were
at sites in Long Island Sound, the Columbia River, Lake
.Gulf of Mexico, and Fuget Sound (Saucier et al. 1978).
ts of these studies confirmed that direct impacts (other
ical alterations) were generally short-lived; however, the
performance was inadequate to assess questions relating to
changes in long-term community structure, bioaccumulation
inants, effects on reproductive capacity, and increased
ility to disease, among others.
e the completion of the DMRP in 1978, a follow-on program,
ing Operations Technical Support (DOTS), has provided the
h a mechanism for assisting the field offices in
ing DMRP technologies. This program included limited
or continued low-level monitoring studies at selected DMRP
as. In FY 1982 a new five-year research program, Long-Term
f Dredging Operations (LEDO), was initiated at the
Experiment Station. The principal objectives of LEDO are
•e new or improved technology to predict long-term
g cumulative) environmental impacts of dredging operations
105
-------
and to address methods of minimizing any adverse impacts (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1981).
Since none of the long-term Corps of Engineer's disposal site
studies are in the Chesapeake Bay, it would be valuable to conduct
at least one such study at a disposal site in the region. This
would provide valuable information for the crucial decisions
concerning future disposal programs which will have to be made as
the Hart and Miller Islands and Craney Island sites reach capacity.
Such a study should not be undertaken lightly, however, since at
least five to ten years worth of data from a well-designed study
would be necessary to even begin to address most long-term issues.
.7.1.9 Use of Advanced Treatment Methods in Confined Disposal
Areas
The treatment of hazardous wastes is an area of rapid
technological improvement at this time, primarily due to the
implementation of the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act by
EPA. Polluted dredged material could fall under the implementing
regulations and hence require special treatment.
One possible treatment is a soil fixation process developed in
Japan specifically for the treatment of polluted dredged material
(Wooton, 1980). The technique is meant for use with the Oozer
dredge, and requires a high solids content. Portland cement and an
additive to lock up the toxic chemical are added to the dredged
material. The material-, after drying for three days in a disposal
area, is transported by truck to a landfill operation, where it can
be disposed of without the threat of leaching.
There are innumerable other approaches which could be utilized,
but they all have one common aspect, they are considerably more
expensive than any disposal practices now in use. While they
clearly would reduce the danger associated with polluted sediments,
there are no studies which can be used to evaluate their necessity
in the Chesapeake Bay.
7.1.10 Establishment of Additional Confined Disposal Areas
The existence of the Craney Island disposal site in the Norfolk
District has greatly modified disposal practices in the
Norfolk-Hampton Roads area. Hart and Miller Island, once it becomes
operational, will accomplish the same thing in the Baltimore area.
Of course, neither site has an infinite capacity, and if open water
disposal is to be discouraged in the future (as it appears to be
presently), then additional areas will be required. Such areas
106
-------
could also be useful in other segments of the bay, if they were
available for disposal of material from non-federal projects.
Rehandling charges or users fees at such a site might be more
attractive to private industry than the continual search for upland
disposal areas.
Particular attention should be given to productive uses, such
as the creation of marshes or repair of eroded areas. This is being
done presently to a limited extent in the Baltimore District for the
replenishment of Tangier Island. If properly designed, located, and
operated, these sites appear to be relatively neutral from an
ecological viewpoint. They are, of course, most useful for clean or
moderately polluted material where the threat of leaching or
effluent contamination can be shown to be minimal.
7.1.11 Further Improvement to the Permit Review Process
Steps which have already been taken have tremendously improved
the permit application review process in both districts. A joint
permit application has been effective in the Norfolk District since
April 1978. In the Baltimore District, it is still necessary *o
obtain, in addition to the Corps of Engineers permit, a "wetland
license" issued by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources,
which includes a Water Quality Certificate issued by the Department
of Mental Health and Hygiene. Hopefully, the district's goal of one
application combining all various requirements will be achieved.
The Norfolk District, in order to further reduce permit processing
time, is considering the feasibility of determining cumulative
environmental impacts in certain water bodies where there is a high
degree of shoreline development. General permits could then be
Issued to cover certain activities within these water bodies. While
these changes are certainly desirable, they will not solve the
problems associated with controversial projects, either federal or
private.
7.1.12 Revisions to the Effluent Standards for Upland
Disposal Areas
Effluent limitations and various water pollution laws in both
Maryland and Virginia have had an impact on dredging in the
Chesapeake Bay. Costs involved in compliance appear to have
encouraged the use of mechanical equipment for small dredging
projects, since such techniques produce a more dense material.
-Mechanical dredging, however, often implies the rehandling of
material for upland disposal, which adds to the costs and does not
provide an efficiency comparable to hydraulic methods. The » 4
restrictions resulting from these regulations are resented by the ~
dredging industry, who feel they are unjustified.
107
-------
This issue is particularly important if upland disposal
continues to increase in the Chesapeake Bay region. While there
does not appear to be any justification for any immediate or major ;
modifications to the laws, the environmental protection they afford
does have an economic price, one that will increase as upland
disposal sites become less available.
7.1.13 Repeal or Modification of the Jones Act
The Jones Act of 1920 (See Section 3.1.3) forbids dredging in
the United States by foreign dredges. However, a foreign dredge,
the "Big Dalton", built by IHC, Holland has recently been acquired
by the Livingston Graham Land and Gravel Company. This vessel is a
large bucket ladder dredge, a type of unit not manufactured in this
country. That particular dredge was allowed to enter the United
States and perform work in U.S. waters, since it was considered a
special case and given special permission. In most cases, however,
under existing regulations dredging companies prefer to avoid
foreign dredging units, rather than go through all the
administrative complications associated with acquisition.
The purpose of the Jones Act, protection of American
manufacturers from foreign competition, would appear to be
overstated when the technology of interest may not even be available
in this country. For example, while the small portable Oozer unit
described in Section 5.3.2 could be imported and mounted on an
american built vessel, importation of the larger Oozer (vessel
Included) would probably violate the Jones Act=. If the Act itself
cannot be changed, then the possibility of simplifying the
procedures for importation should be investigated. If necessary, a
finding of unavailability in this country could be a stipulation for
importation. There are, potentially, both economic and
environmental benefits to this action.
7.2 Program Recommendations
Regulatory agencies, private contractors, environmental groups -
and legislative bodies all play a role in the development of
dredging policy for the Chesapeake Bay. The preceeding discussions
have suggested a few areas of particular concern for all or some of
these groups. While the following recommendations may be
controversial to some extent, and certainly could be expanded by
other parties, we feel that their implementation, or at least
consideration, would improve the conditions in the bay.
First of all, it is our basic conclusion that the overall
environment of the Chesapeake Bay has not been adversely affected by
108
-------
dredging or disposal operations. While concerns over dredging and
disposal of polluted sediments are certainly real, activities to
date do not appear to have been harmful. The goal of all our
recommendations, and, hopefully, of all concerned parties, is to
ensure that this situation does not change for the worst. With
that in mind, we suggest the following:
o Regulatory agencies should implement study programs to more
clearly define the extent of contaminated sediments in the
bay in relation to present and future dredging requirements.
While it has been expensive, the current Norfolk District
biological testing program will certainly provide the type
of data not available in the past. This information is
essential for sound management decisions, but will -require
some agreement on the term "contaminated" prior to its
inception. When areas of concern are identified, plans
should be made in advance with respect to how dredging and
disposal should proceed when required.
o Better long-range planning for disposal options is required.
This should be done for the bay as a whole and should con-
sider the problems of disposal from small private projects as
well as from large contracts. The apparent trend towards
increased reliance on upland or confined disposal needs
better justification.
o Use of innovative technologies should be encouraged but not
required. On'e of the best methods of doing this is -through
performance standards, which allow the private -sector to
determine suitable responses. Specifying equipment to be
used or imposing seasonal dredging bans suppresses
innovation, since the costs are simply passed on to the
government or to the private party responsible. This could
possibly be done through incentive clauses for items such
as: time to complete, limited overcutting, or limited
turbidity, etc.
o Seasonal restrictions on dredging should be replaced by tur-
bidity standards, since their justification appears -to rely
on unreasonable "worst case" assumptions, at least in terms
of documented impacts•
o The Corps should investigate the possiblity of federal
ownership of some type of advanced pneumatic dredge for use
throughout the east coast on polluted sediments. Its pur-
chase only for use in the Chesapeake Bay appears unjustified.
Costs for private companies with no guarantee of sufficient
work appear prohibitive.
109
-------
o The portions of the Jones Act affecting dredging equipment
are unnecessarily restrictive and should be repealed or
modified to allow aquisition of foreign equipment.
The Corps of Engineers must bear the burden of most of these
suggestions, but their implementation, or the implementation of any
other innovative approaches, will require the active participation
and cooperation of all those concerned with dredging in the bay.
110
-------
APPENDIX A
DREDGING STATISTICS
111
-------
TABLE A-l
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1970
Cost of
Aaount Coat Coat of KobllUatton
of Material Per Acutal Deaobil
Dredged Unit Dredging and Other
Project MOM Stale (O». Td) <*> (S)
BilttMire Harbor MD ^46,079
-Cutoit Brewercon
Angle
-Craifhtll Cutoff 107.411
-Cuftnvctin? Channel I3<.*22
to C4D Channel
-Cuton Section 217.120
Bonua Creek VA l.»M U.9M)
Chester River XD li.100 I.UO 13.100 16,100
J5 j S 53 1.68 I5.1J3 8.000
ARocoatia River MD 83.300 0.6) 69.139 13.000
Ocvao City Harbor MD 41.900 1.00 tl.SH 8.0UO
and Inlet and
Sinepttxeat Bay
St. Jeroaw Creek HD 40.100 0.66 26.466 12.966
TiUh»an Harbor MD 64,700 0.83 14,99* 10.000
Twitch Cove and MD 14,200 1.04 14.768 JO. 000
Big Thorofare
Rhodes Point to KD 107.711 0.96 103.403 9.000
Tyltrton
laland Creek MD 12.233 1.77 21,635
St. tttorge
Island
Lower Thorofar* MD 44,300 0.9$ 42.083 18.190
Deal laland
Lower Wharf KD 15. WO 0.92 14.076 12.000
XantUoko River KD 42,000 0.67 28.274 11,000
Total Coat or Contractor
<)) H or CU£
112.601 .1 Corps et
87.429 H Corps' of
Cog iaeers
10.BJ7 H Corps ol
Engineers
30.706 H Curps ol
Engineers
14.930 M AMrican
Dreduinx
Conprfny
67.J32 M Cottreli
Engineering
Ccecwny
B4.II9 M Joe BrodesMr
Inc.
49.363 *I Cottreli
Engineer tne'
Coapany
J8.966 M Aawrlcan
Dredgis*
64.993 H Aaerican
Dredging
Ccetpany
14.766 « AiMrlcan
Coapany
112,40) N Cottreli
Engineer ing
Coapany
21.633 M Jeaerlcan
Dredging Co.
60.27* H Aawrtcan
Dredglnjt Co.
26,076 H American
Dredging Co.
19.274 H AMrican
Dredgio« Co.
Method Used
For Dredging
"Co«thaUn
liydrauliv
-Guethals"
hydraulic
"Cnethals-
hydraullc
-Goetha la-
hydraulic
Hvdraullc
12- pipe-
line
Hydraulic
12- pipeline
hydraulic .
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Disposal
Site
Overboard in
approved
disposal ar*a
Overboard in
approved
disposal area
Overboard in
approved
disposal area
Overboard in
disposal area
Upland both
•idea of
channel
Upland in diked
area
Overboard in
author iced spoil
area
Upland oo D«sp
Point
Upland 500 feet
northwest of
Devils Island
Upland on
Martin Uildllf*
Refuge
Upland
Upland c» St.
George laland
Upland oo Little
Deal laland
Upland 300 feet
northwest ol
Contract Umber
MCU1I-7U-C-0083
OACU31-70-C-OOM
t>ACU31-70-C-OOB2
DACU31-70-C-OOJO
PACUJI-70-C-0081
w»..»^»>
Mi.-uii-;o-c-ou»
MCU1I-70-C-OOM
ou»)i-)o-c-ooa]
MCH}i-;0-C-<)0»3
MOOl-70-C-OOaj
Devils Island
Indlcatiuo ot B«w (U) or Halntenaoce (K) projects.
112
-------
TABLE A-2
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1971
Project nneje State
Sell more Karbot MB
and Chaonelo
-CralihUl
Cutoff
-Cutoff Section
-erewerton
Section Cutoff
rinhini Creek !0>
HDnroe lav and !D
Creek
Twitctl Cove end HO
114 Tborofare
of Material
(Co. Id)
171. M2
901.706
101.216
205.702
02.200
3,300
31.900
Coat of
Coat Coat ef Mobilization
Per Acutat Deooblllxatlon
Onit Dredging and Other
(5) (9) l»>
.10 63.964 13.000
2.39 14,230
.93 41,400
total Coat
($>
10>,03]
U.974
61.173
72.933
10.9*4
14.230
4*. 400 .
B*
or Contractor Method Deed
H or COS For Dredslng
COC Coethala
K Cottr.ll nvdraullc
H Cottrelt Brdraullc
M Coctrell nrdraullc
Enslnecrlns Co.
Diagonal
Site Contract Hynber
Overboard In
approval epoll
dlaponal area
Overboard In OA£Ull-7l^C-0120
Cheaapeeke Say
South of Project
Upland diked- DACU11-71-C-0120
dlapoael area
Cun Bar Point
Upland-Over- DACWll-7t^C-0120
board
*In4tcacloa of Hm (R) or Mai
(«) project*.
113
-------
TABLE A-3
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1972
Coat of
of HatarUl Par Acatal DanDblllaatlon I*
Dradfad Unit Drad|ta| and Otbar Total Coat or Contractor Hotted Uaad Dlapoaal
Projact Una Staca (Co. Id) (I) (») ($) (!) II or COt Por Orod|lo* Sit. Contra.
taltlaere Harbor HD
and Chaoaola
-Iroiiartoo «n|le 310,403 157.903 M COt Hopper «rad|O 0»arboard In
-Cral|blll 471,830 163.993 "eaaayona" approved apoll
Cauff *n|le dlepoaal aroa
Coooo Crook M> 43,045 1.16 92,252 15,000 67,252 > Cottr.ll tucket/ MCU
Co.
Ocooo City M> 110,500 1.03 113,115 15,000 128,115 H Aeerlcan 16" hydraulic Upland northern UCU31-72-C-002B
•arbor and Drad|ln« Co. "Harrlaod- portion of
Inlat and Plpo Aaaatoafno
paxent lay lalaod laat
(ttaaaltabla)
in oarf tooo
•Indication of Ibm (I) or nalntonanco (H) projecta.
114
-------
I
TABLE A-A
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1973
Cost COM of ltofclll.tt.tlM
•reject Heee State
Seaeeeaeaaa liver FA
et Vllllaurort
Oeaea CUT Barker tt>
aod lalet and
lloeeeuat ley
above and bolov
Havre da Grace
Havre do Grace KD
of Malarial fat ecotal 1
Dredged Uelt Dredalag
(Co. Id) (1) (t)
90,000
100,900 0.93 tl,744
J0.«22
20,200 1 .00 20,200
>eaoelll»atleil
and Other Total Coat
()) (I)
•»,Ste
13,000 I0>.7tt
12*. Ml
11,700 11, MO
R*
or
H
'
H
H
H
CMtrcctor
ox COX
U.t|inftUdM'
m.t Sra.
b*t Co«»t
etTBeicifit IOC.
tnt J. HUl*i
Inc.
ltoCho.1 Uottti
for Draettlna
t*ot*l
HyAtaulte
12"
hydr-wlic
r Bydr-wlle
DUpoul
Sits Cotitr.icl e-»..«b«r
Qfl**4 DACW3l-?3-C-Ol30
OpUn-1 DAC.O1-73-C-01**
AefMCO.lt**
Islam ..loot
eMdVCl. (EC- ill
•art U.M
UplMei DACW31-73-C-OI30
UM*t for DAOOL-7J-C-0182
tWMb t«-
•IndlcMioa of Itow (•) or (UlACcnuc* (n) project*.
115
-------
TABLE A-5
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1974
BAY:
Project Bane State
Chester Uver KD
SBseostla Uver KD
and Tributaries
Hsnee elver end KD
Tar Bar
Esnticoks Blver KD
et Bivalve
Ile«*hter Creek KD
Tvltch Cove and KD
Big Tnorofare
•Mount Coet Coat of
of Keterlal rer acutal
Dred(sd Halt Oredeine.
(Co. Id) (») (()
31.364 1.43 74,477
96,000 1.90 182,400
47,200 I.J3 70,060
32,923 1.63 34,326
13.000 1.76 22.880
9.937
Coat of
Mobilisation
DesBblllaatloa
end Other
24.300
9,800
42,000
67,900 .
21,000
10,000
H*
Total Coat or Contractor
(5) H or CO!
108,778 II Baraetet Bar
Dredfln| Co.
224,400 N Solckard Cot.
137.960 H Atkinson
Dredilni Co.
73,326 H Bamerat
Ored|lus Co.
32,880 K Shelby
Dred|ln|
Co.
42,433 H Atklnton
Oredalot
Co.
Hotted Deed
For Dredging
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
16"
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
HydranlU
16"
Disposal
Site
Upland diked
disposal
Uplsnd
Open wster
Oplnnd diked
area et "Coder
Hill Park"
Taylors Island
Upland spoil
• Its on land
of the Herein
Rational
wildlife Sxenp
Refute
Contract Banner
D4CU31-74-C-00
UCiai-74-C-OOM
DiOni-74-C0039
DACU31-74-C-0073
oicu)i-;»-c-oo;o
OACU31-74-C-O039
•lo»lU«llon of Sev (N) or i
116
-------
TABLE A-6 '
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1975
Project I
Cost of
Cost Cost of itobilUation
of Material Per Acutal Desobillxat ioa H*
Dre4«ed Unit Dressing and Otter Total Coat or Contractor Method Used Disposal
State (C«. Yd) ($) ($) (J) (I) R or COS for Dred|ia| Stt*
Cutoff ta|L*
IB
ID SM.nO
m.v»
Heron ID 77. «00 1.1* 97.77*
City Hcrkor HD 31.200 O.tO M,3tO
and tnl*t and
St*cy«x«ot by
Ml.70* H Corpe of Hopper dredge Overboard In
Eogiaeere "Caeeyooa'' approved die-
Ill.ISO H poeel aru
122.Ut, X K.r. «
-------
TABLE A-7
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
cost or
Ami! Cost COM of Ibblllutloo
of nutlil rn Ae»ul Daotlllutloo. >•
Dr«4g«< Unit Denting and Other total Co» Of Contractor MtM lto»d DUpoael
Project *»•» SUU (C.. Td) (» (I) (5) (S) Fl or COt Pot Dredging site Contract I
S*ltiwr« lUrbor K) 609.300 0.71 4)1,893 12.000
-Cutoff An«l«
1.15 61.5*0 45.000
6.MX)
Batlcok* Itvor Del 70.000
(loci. Hortbwost to (••tl««t«)
Fork)
Oe««n City brbor KD J0.))6 1.23 J7.IOO H.OOO
Tvllch Cox nd ID 80.950 J.Ji ltl.129 68.496
•tg Tborot«r«
Opp.r Thorol.r.. MD 65.0)5 1.04 67.6)6 i5.110
D*«l IcUnd
Uteo-ico «l«.r X> J62.200 1.07 117.)16 114.}16
•lodleattoa of M«w (B) or Mainccssac* (H) projects.
U1.M3 K »~rlc«n Hnhwlcal Opra «.t«t OiCU)l-;6-c-OO6J
Orcdglog ciflBatell P«tap>co River
CoBpmy nontb 01»poul
Aru
I It.060 • Uroogit Uy Hydrulic UpUno UkCWll-74-C-OIOO
178.661 K C.P. «ai B. lydrollc OACU]l-7»-C-OOB2
56.010 H I.F. ud > Hydrwlle bach north OACUll-7t-C-OOM
of Ulot
2i9.121 X Cottrill Hydrnlle I)plaod-K>t
Co.
112.76o K Cottr.H Uydoullc Upland on D..1 MCWI-76-C-OO46
Co.
7I).)>J n Atkluon nydrwllc Uplud UCU1I-76-C-OOW
118
-------
TABLE A-8
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1977
Co«t COM »l
Project HSSH
•altlnore Harbor
-Cralshlll An«le
riehlni Creek
•onto liver end
Tsr lay
Inanps Harrows
Rhodes Pout to
Tylertoo
Twitch Cove end '
til Thorofare
Tyler liver
Chester Btver
State
HD
XJ>
n>
to
IB
' KD
HD
no
of Material
(Co. Id)
621.62.
55.470
75.300
41.JX3
4,0. »10
26,530
ia.no
30.315
Volt
(1)
0.11
1.55
2.10
l.M
1.10
1.25
1.25
3.10
aeetal 1
(1)
323.250
St. Ut
151.130.0
71.122
71.63*
33.163
22. ail
97.001
Mssolllsatlon
and Otbsr
12.000
60.000
12.112. ao
135.000.00
B7.400
13.756
36.100
ta.aoo
47.400
16.000
75.000
total Cost
(()
535.250
IS*. 101
2*1.110
172, 571
12*. Ill
•0.56)
3i.aai
172.00*
or
H
H
R
R
M
R
n
H
N
Cost rsc tor
or COI
Anwrlcan
Drsd|lni Co.
Cottrell Cog.
Co.
lanueat lay
Dredttni Co.
Cottrell En*.
Co.
Cottrell En|.
Co.
Cottrell Ens.
Co.
Cottrell Eat.
Co.
Bsrnecst say
Rstbod Used
For DrsdllnB
H-nsn."'
hydraulic
hr4r*ylie
Hydraulic
hydr«ulic
hydrwiie
hydraulic
hydraulic
Stta
VAUpsco Sit*
HfUod nortb-
w.ut of projacc
•arrw Itl**
Cat «^ UPP«t
Tyl.tr Cov«
UplwJ MrU
of narrows
Dylan., at
Tyttrcoa
Upland at
Swaaa talan.1
Upland at
CMtcr Point
Upland dlktd
Contract linMtMr
MOM^KHHl
D*CU*ll-77-C-O027
OiCU-31-77-C-OOT2
DACU-1I-77-C-0011
Daaf-ll-77-C-O02o
D4CM-11-77-C-OU26
DACW-3I'77-C-OU2
U£U-ll-77^-00*l
Or
-------
TABLE A-9
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1978
Co« of
.Went Con Co it of ftabiltutlon
of itotarUl fmt Aeutal DoPbllUacion
Project hM State
talttewr* iUrbor KD
-Cutoff AnsU
-PocoBOl** tiw.it HD
"rtl- "'
Cambridge Esrbor HD
Peatagnn Lagoon HD
Ocean City Harbor HD
end Inlet and
Vlconico River KD
Dredged
(Ce. Id)
613.330
111.307
94.120
79.715
23.400
'
44.100
90.463
Unit Dredgiu
(*> (*)
0.93 372.273
2.49 277.632
93.977
2.24 210.829
4. it 337.392
16.30 419.100
t.n 74.100
2.65 118.720
2.78 231.487
and other
(»
33.000
99,360
111.208
103.300
103.437
(nodlfs.)
241.920
30.000
61.916
66.400
32.709
23.600
163.400
106.373
total Coat
(»
603.273
400.310
419.783
399.312
331.016
173.209
144.320
323.460
or
H
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
Contractor
or COI
Anerican
Dredging Co.
Splckard Eetcr-
priae Inc.
Iplckard
Enterprise
Inc.
Cottrell Eng.
Co.
Shirley
Contracting
Co.
rred J. Miller
Inc.
Spickard
Enterprise
Inc.
Cottrell
Engineering
Co.
Hetbod Deed
for Dredging
nechxnieal
claashell
hydraulic
hydraulic
12* pipeline
hydraulic
DUpossl
Site
openweter
atupaco River
plead in
ocouome Suund
pland diked
lap. alia
upland
Contract Keener
DACU-3I-78-C-O039
D*0^3l-7e-C-80
tUCU-ll-7e-C-OOOe
mechanical Upland (dryed
claeobell adjacent to lago-
on, than trucked
to Arlington
Cenetery
hydraulic upland diked uACy-3l-79-C-OOI>4
12* pipeline diap. area
hydraulic
hydraulic
Dlsp. along
coast SMUth ot
Ocean City nun
lahment beach
upland
D*iK-ii-;i>-c-w)4
r-
[1ACU-11-76-C-OOB1
•Indication of Hev (a) or Maintenance (K) projects.
120
-------
TABLE A-10
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1979
Coat of
sapmt Cost Cost of Haalllsattan
of Material F.r tculal DsspsllUatloll »•
Dtadasd Unit Dradflaa. and Otter Total Cost or Contractor Mathod Usad Disposal
Frojact Has* stata (C.. M> (I) <») (5) (I) H or COS For Drsd,)*, sit. Contract
Crleflald Harbor IO J4.2SO I.JO IM.I75 IM.OOO
U»a> Ikorofaro »> J5.J10 2.U >}.2» 60.000
7S.1W 1.04 «3.*W 104. »t«
Ocaaa Cltr larbor KD M.olt 2.4) 14«.?I7 100.000.00
and Inloc and
Linpuaont lay
ft. Catterlm KD 22.051 I.W 41.222 81,100
Sound
Island Croak
SI. Caorta Island
22.220 1.94 40. MJ
2«).i;> If Sstcaard brdraallc upland dtktd DACU-11-I»-C-OOOI
Cat. Inc. ir* plpallna disposal araas
Jarsaji Island
and lutla furtter
nortb
111.274 H Splcksrs
Cnt. Inc.
hTdraalic
ie7.tlO H Court 11 hydraallc
tAslaaarlni
Co.
:4«.717 !1 tamaiat Bar Hydraulic
Dradalni Co.
I2t,122 M Cotcrall brdraollc
Englnaarlat
Co.
7«.<» H Cottrall lirdraulle
Cn|lnsarln|
Co.
dikad «pland OACW-ll-7»-<^X)OS
olspoaal araa
I'O. J acraa
dlkad vpland D*CW-ll-7»-C-OOOB
disposal sraa
10.1 acras
upland dlaposal OAO»-3l-7»-c-O02J
sits north of
Sand ol on tba
Bay std«
upland on St. MCU-]l-7«-C-<]OM>
MarMrst Island
upland on St. DAOI-ll-/«-C-OOM
CaorKS Island
stndlcatlasi of Hail («) or Malntaaaoca (H) projects.
121
-------
TABLE A-ll
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1980
Cost oC
Cost Cost of Utilization
of Material f«r Acntal Danblllxatloa
Projoct »aa» sue*
•alttaor* Harbor .ID
tad Ovuuwli:
-SMan Point and
Tolchattcr
Sections
-Cr.lthlll KD
Cutoff Anal*
Uaahieftoa OC 1O
•arbor
Ocean CUT Urbor M>
TlllhBBB laleod «D
lUrbor
Knappa Marrow* MD
•jucostia liver JO
Dredged Uaic
(en. TO (»
>72.}U> 2.6)
6IS.OOO 1.72
1.5M
M.tU 2.<7
23. MO ;.»0
IJ.S96 2.10
61.000 i.36
Dn4(lii«
(S)
2. 129.lt!
1 .097 .800
llt.7t«
id. 100
ISI.4JO
26). 960
tat Otter
Cl)
100.000
110.000
20&.U4
115. yw
9»,500
IU.OOO
IbtBl Cact
(1)
2.t:9.14B
1.167. >00
U.2«l
• nt.tn
1U.100
.'90.910
i»).960
or
H
a
n
M
n
s
M
!I
Contractor
or COt
Crcat Uk*«
Dr«d,« 6 Dock
Co.
AjMrleao
Dr«l,ln» Co.
Corps of
Enntnaera Co.
Coctr«ll
Lo|tloo.riAg Co,
Splckard Ent.
Inc.
Splckard Ent.
Inc.
Splckard Ent.
For Dredging
clanta.ll
nachaaical
claMboll
Bydraolic
Sldacaatar
-Fry-
nydrsuiic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Hydraulic
Disposal
; Sit* Contract Muster
Overboard la DACim-80-C-OOU
approval
SLte: Pool**
Island Drep
Overboard In OAOO1-8OC-O020
Pacupace liver
Overboard
adjacent to
channel
Upland dls- OACU3I-80-C-OOI4
posal sits
north of 32nd
st. on til*
8ay side
Upland OACU31-80-C-0027
Upland and OACU31*0OC-Ou27
overboard
Upland DACUJl-BO-C-OOOa
*Iodlcatioa of Kew (»> or Haiotenancs (H) projects.
122
-------
TABLE A-12
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
Cost of
see silt Cost Cert ef ItoblllsatLoa
n( MsterUl »*r Acatsl Deepen Uet loo jl
Dredged Unit Dredging and other Total Cost or Contractor
rmject Ran* State (Ce. Td) (I) (S) (I) <«) H or OK
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1970
netted used
For Dredging
Dl*po**l
Site
Dee* Creek
DleseU Swan*
Csnal
Feeder Ditch
Jackson Creeh
UUtlng Creek i
the HapsahsMock
Ii«er
VA
3.ISO 1.00 3.ISO
0.60 12.384
17,764
6.1
201.099
O.li 109.152
Cape Henry VA 91I.7SO 0.17 «».»!5
Cheeael
tehuillot •« M1.90) 0.41 !7».«l
Ueterve; on VA 1J2.455 0.67 1S).2>«
Coaet Qf Vlreiale
Tork Spit
Cbennel
U kS4,13] I.Ot 493.01}
South Sreuh »' VA HI.650 .77 371.OH
lei CO VA 114.152 .51 64.04)
Newport News'
ThleOle Shoel
Chsnnel
13«.960 .70 249.559
Channel VA 78.326 .84 66.243
Totiukejf Creek VA 2»,4)2 .42 9«.)71
17.300 13,264 H llggersoe 4
Swchsnsn, Inc
» Atklesoo
» Dr«Hl»i Co.
67.311 317,186 H Corps of
Engineers
74,720 227.996 N Cottrell
Engineering
Co.
12" pipeline
dredfe
DACU63-70-C-UU6)
16" pipeline Open water In DACU63-70-C-0072
dredge Plsnkatattk liver
"north-oca II" open wnter In
Wilting Cr. on
rlverhanka by
Spottswnnd gar.
"Coetnala* Opanwater In
Chesapeake gay
east of Tork Spit
Channsl
22" pipeline Craney Island DACU63-70-C-0020
"fwllen"
12* pipeline Upland on OACU63-69-C-0025
"Marlon" 4 narsh
94.267
26.011
12.859
7,924
H6.160
371.019
92,076
282.418
74,169
H Corps ot
Engineers
contractor
H Corps of
Engineers
H Corps of
Engineers
H J.A. Uporte
•Coethals*
hydraollc
"Coethala"
"Coethals"
16" pipeline
Open water In
Chesapeake saw.
North «sst ot
Channel
Upland
Craney Island
Ocean Disposal
Upland on
M J.A. Uporte
DACW6}-69-C-O026
"Clarendon" Western Island
In Tangier Island
16" pipeline Upland on the DACU65-6V-C-0026
"Clarendon" banks of
Tutuskey Creek
123
-------
TABLE A-13 '
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1971
Projact Hana State
Uatarvay on tba VA
Coaat of VA
•orfolk Harbor in VA
the vicinity of tba
Havy Daaanaalna
lanaa
8tarllnt Craah VA
Accoajack County.
Santa
llchaeod Harbor. VA
Ricbnond Deep-
water Taralnal
6 Shoale below
Hooevell
tans Craak to VA
Broad Bay 4 Part
of Baaln.
lynnhavan Inlat
Entranca to VA
Cbannal 6 Baaln.
Lronbavao Inlat
Sewella Point VA
Anchorage. Horfolk
Harbor. Caat and
Ueet Anchorage
Norfolk Harbor VA
45' ft cbannal
Oavla Craak VA
Katbewa County
Oyater Cbannal VA
tlortbaapton County
Cbannal to VA
Bovport "awe
Anoant
o( Hatarlal
Dredged
(Ca. Ml.
102.440
172.719
109.471
281.111
21.682
77.960
41.974
15.205
l.milOS
28.11]
10.812
101.554
114.586
8.968.092
78J116
1.245.469
45.167
41.954
293.100
Par
aalt
0.81
0.99
0.58
0.806
0.801
0.796
0.292
0.287
0.84
1.13
0.84
0.42
0.35
0.50
0.74
0.74
Coat ol
Aeatal C
Dredging,
(91
82.976
170.491
61.494
211.987
nuacootract
62.816
11.611
28.021
266.811
10.811
422.114
21.612
12.457
Bft.985
99,442
1.766.599
616.087
19.168
673.255
12.372
11.046
194.063
Coat of
Mjaoblllxatton
and Otbar
(II
12.049
10.000
19.914
25.000
Included
21.
60.000
7.949
12.012
17
11.088
12
11,120
38.769
9
Total Coat or Contractor
(9) H or COt
95.023 II Cottrall Cna.
Co.
241.987 H Horfolk
Oradllnt Co.
63.600 H Urotan
Dredging Co.
442.018 H Atklnaon
Drod(ln| Co.
48.612 H Hlftaaraoo-
Bacbanan Inc.
99.463 N Atklnaon
H Dredtiag Co.
1.826.399 N Craat Ukaa
H Dredge and
Dock Co.
681.298 H Atklneon
Drad|in| Co.
45.601 N Cottrall
Eogiaaarlag
Co.
42.166 H Cottnll
9 Cnginaarlas
Co.
132.834 H Corp* of
Eatlnaara
Hatlijii Uaad
Par DradsLna
12" plpallna
"Marlon"
22" plpallna
"Pullan" IB"
plpalina dradca
Talcott"
10" plpallna
dradga "Cap.
Dala"
18- plpallna
"Cntarprlaa"
14" plpalloa
dradt.
"Vlrtlnia
•aacb"
16" plpallna
*9ortb»ood 11"
IT plpallaa
dradta
"Alaaka Idlar"
and booatar
18- plpallna
dradna
"Entcrprlaa"
12- plpallna
drtdga
"Harloo"
12" plpallna
drtdta
"Jlarioo"
"Coatbala"
Dlapoaal
Slta
Upland
Cranay
lll»d
Upland on
8anla laland
Upland ao
banka of
Janaa tlvar
Upland alon<
tba ahora by
aoorinB and
turning baala
Contract aun*at
DACM3-70-C-0066
DACMl-lO-C-OOM
DACU63-70-C-O072
D4CU45-70-C-O063
OACU65-70-C-006I
upland aloag uACV63-70-C-aO6l
tba ahora. Up- *
land by noorlag
4 turning baala
Craaay laland
Camay laland
Upland en
Bayaida and
adtacant open
water
Upland
Cranny laland
DACU63-71-C-0002
DACU63-II-C-0020
OAO»3-ri-OO032
UACU65-7I-C-OU32
124
-------
TABLE A-14
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:'
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1972
•reject Harje State
tower worth VA
Land In* Rivet
Lewis Creek 4 VA
Chlncocea*ae Bay
Creevele. Creek VA
•oskias Creek VA
Chesapeake Bay Co VA
Hugocfly Bay, Korch-
hanpcoa CownCy
Tylers Beacb. Isle VA
of Wright Cauncy
Deep Creek Caaal VA
Atlantic Inter-
coastal waterway,
Cheaapeaka
Rtchnend Harbor VA
Deapwecer Teroioal
6 Shoals above 6
below Hopewall
Aaowat
of Nntetlnl
Oredsed
(Cu. M)
117.911
25,645
22.677
127.192
5*.*40
29.363
105.525
422.942
7;o.it;
l.m.joe
Cost
fat
OaU
(1)
0.105
1.052
0.60
0.495
1.052
0.19
0.17
0.542
0.120
Cast of
Acucal [
(>)
103.063
26.97*
11,142
62.960
61.900
26.133
91, to;
229.235
246.516
475.731aod,
Cost of
Mobilisation
and Other
(0
5.000
includ-
10.790
11.000
19
13.019
lac laded
20
7.391
7.403
It. MO
15.000
152
. 4.550
19.702
X
total Coat or Contractor
(1) R or COt
101.0*0 n Herrltt
Dredging Co.
26.979 M tplckard
Enterprise
Inc.
28.944 H Cottrell
a Enctneerln*
Corp.
75.97* N Horfolk
Predilng Co.
61.919 H Splckard
a Enterprise
lac.
11.516 H Cotcrell
Engineer in*
Corp.
110,707 H Cottrvll
a Engineering
Corp.
495,451 H Herrltt
Dredging Co.
netted Dead
for Dredging
1** pipeline
dredge
"Clinton*
12" plpallaa
drad*e "Hack
Duck*
12" plpallaa
dredge
-Star lon-
IC pipeline
dredge
"Staert"
12" pipeline
dredge
"Marlon"
12" pipeline
dredge
"Rarlon"
12" pipeline
dredge
•Bine IlJga-
18- pipeline
dredge
*Cllaton"
Disposal
Bite
Open water in
Slarth Landing
giver la des-
ignated spoil
•rasa
Opan water cfain-
cotaagwa Bay •
along hanks of
channel
In open water In
Rappaahaaoch Rlv<
cloaa to project
Upland on tip of
Hoaklns Creek
Upland on edges
of Flsheman's
Island
Upland on the
beach
Upland on bank
of Deep Creek
Uaterwey
Open wacer inta
Janes River
Contract Hweaar
DACV65-72-0001*
DACWS-72-C-001*
DACU65-72-C-0011
ir.
DACU65-72-C-0019
DACV65-72-C-OOIB
OAa»5-72-C-004l
DACU65-7l-C-a>50
DACU85-7I-0059
cco> Il»«r VA 36.011
b_U kuc Mtbor
to Lo«| lilwa
Ccraimli Cr«k
« County
Dr«d|U| U»t«rv.T VA 211.407
on eh« coa«t of Va.
Littii Haehlpongo
linr i uuurt
tolMt
1.06 M.177
«A 9.735
1.052 229.764
ItorfoU lUrbor
VA 1. 1*6. 300
VA 3*9.17*
VA 1,114,194 O.tJ 1,165,7*1
57,6/2 M Cottnll 12" pipe.in*
EagltaMrlckt dredg*
Corp. "BltM lids*"
H UrotM 10" pip-.ni...
DTMl|iat Co. drcdii*
"Cape. D»U"
UpltBul «Mt 0( OACU65-71-C-0041
rort Lee Military
.UMrv.it Ion on
Vl**r .UQk
OPM water in UACU6S-?2-C-iXXM
lUppahanoock Rlv«r,
clot)* to project
D.\att*-72-C-O016
171.113
54.100
nod.
1,516
23.972
27.4*8
lint, angloaarlng
86.669
surveys
13.096
99.763
284.564
188.89*
171,462
617.112
447,94*
H Splcksrd
a Enterprise
H Corps of
EnBiaaera
II Corps of
Engineers
12" pipeline
dredge
"Rarltan"
"Coetnels"
•eaaayons"
Open water Into DJ
Hog laland bay
and upland along
Hachlaongo River
Vlshart Paint.
Upland
Craaey Island
Open water 8 allee
aouch of cepe Henry
Channel
II Creat Ukea 27" pipeline
Deed,. 4 Dock credit
Craney Itland
125
-------
TABLE A-15
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1973
Coit of
COM Cost or ItoblllutLoa
of K..t*rUl P«r Aci.t..l
rroject Hen* Stete
tehandling lasin VA
Disposal aree for
sorfolk Harbor 4
adjacent watera
Oniony Creek. VA
AeeoBaek County
Tangier Channel. VA
Aceonecfc County
lynnhnven Inlet VA
lay and Connecting
Haters, Ve. leach
Sorfolk (arbor VA
45' ft channel
Deepwnter Teninnl VA
4 Shoals below
Hopewell. Janes
liver
Dinnel Swanp VA
Ditch
waterway on const VA
of VA 4 Chlnco-
teague lay Channel
Tort Spit VA
Channel
•orfoll (arbor VA
££J 2.. "
Thistle Shoal VA
Craney laland VA
ftshsndling Bsrf"
(Cu. Id)
843.287
107.332
81.622
94.336
400,084
38.733
438.817
66,009
1.113.031
1,181,040
24.304
409,306
332.100
576.760
207.800
789.633
8*3.287
U»U Dredging
0.53 44.1.002
0.74 79.441
0.86 70.195
1.0) 97.393
0.473 269.237
0.34 20.916
290.173
0.973 64.339
0.413 462.738
327.097
1.38 33.340
1.073 440.004
.93 493.630
.63 364.641
1.20 249.306
.90 710.672
•ad Other
(*)
10.000
41
10.041
21.400
21.434
16.000
16.024
40.000
22
40.020
1.263
23
44.300
Hod 1: Leve*
repair
7,875
66
4.000
34.073
•nodi 23.800
9.678
97.890
bulkhead
repair*
33,614
total Cost or Contractor
($> H or an
438,043 H tturfolk
H Dredging Co.
100.894 H Co tt re 11
Engineering
Co.
86.219 H Cot trill
• Engineering
Co.
137.412 N Cottrell
• Eotln**rln|
Co.
291.414 H Borfolk
N Dredging Co.
379.338 11 Atkinson
S Dredging Co.
41.340 N Cotcrvtl
H Eaiin.tiirti.8
Corp.
317,879 H Splckard
Cot«rpf !••
Inc.
303.308 N Corp. of
Bain t«n
-------
TABLE A-16
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT;; FISCAL YEAR
THE -CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1974
Cost Coot of
of K»t«rUL f*r
Project IOMM State
•nfalk Harbor
Netenkla nay.
Uatenay on
Coaat of Va.
Waterway on
Coat of Va.
Cblncoteafue
Parker Creek
Vatenay on
Coaat of Va.
ftarlinta
Creek
Tangier
nanptnn Creek
and Approach
Uchaond Harbor
tlcb-ond Deepuacer
Tar. Co llopeuall 4
City Point Shoal
Channel
Jorloll Harbor
toutharn trench
Channel
Saltb Creak
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
Dredged
(Co. Id)
37.573
17.000
50.771
110.671
37.012
265.441
212.034
41,724
81.139
26.324
6M.761
372,147
621,804
105.346
17,062
Unit
1.01
0.91
1.09
1.63
1.09
1.15
1.10.
1.80
0.91
0.74
0.433
3.47
Dredging
17.830
47.217
196.939
61.070
1.000
124.076
232,918
63.777
89,233
47,181
386,793
398,011
87,291
202,729
and Other
(*>
109.080
ToT.TiJ
88,020
54
88.074
44.700
44.715
23,156
25,390
3.000
Too?
nod 1:
30.000
17.399
26,000
Total Coat or Contractor
(f) R or cot
H Iplckard
Eaterp. Inc.
411,13* II Cettrell
Int. Corp.
141,011 II Cottrell
Cat. Corp.
110.492 II Coctrall
Cn|. Corp.
114.641 H Cottrell
Cat. Corp.
32,192 N Horlolk
• Dredtint Co.
616.061 N Atklnaoo
Dredging
Co.
H Corpa of
Cngineera
598.011 M Corpa of
Cnglneara
104,890 H Corpa of
Cngineara
228,779 H Tboana
Crooka, Jr.
Method Dead
rot Dredging
12* pipeline
dredge
"tar i can"
12* pipeline
dredge
-HMlon*
12* pipeline
dredge
-tlchnond"
12" pipeline
dredge
"Marlon"
12* pipeline
"Marlon"
12" cu. yd.
bucket
"Vlrglolan"
It" pipeline
dredge
"aorcboood"
•Coathala"
"Go.th.U-
"Coethala"
"Eaaayona"
1 yd1 bucket
dredge 1709
DUpeeal
Site
Open water
Upland Parker
Creek and open
vacer
Upland
Upland on
tula laland
Upland on
weecera Ulend
10 Tangier Soul
Craney Ulead
4 Rehandllng
Oaelo
Opnawacer Into
Jnnea giver
Craoey laland
Cranay laland
Contract Hunter
DACU63-71-C-OOt5
DAOI63-74-C-002S
DACM3-74-C-O021
DACK63-74-0051
DACU65-74-0032
•d
DACU63-73-C-0018
DACM3-71-C-0090
Open Mater In north
of Chefapeaka lay Eaac
Tork Spit Channel
Craney laland
127
-------
TABLE A-17
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1975
Project Hea* State
SorffoU :>• VA
Project
aorfolk 41' V»
torch Chaaoel VA
Southern Branch VA
llvar
tlcoeond Oe«»- VA
voter Teraiaal
co Shoals below
Bopm.ll. Va.
Aberdeen Creek VA
Gloucetter County
Sklffia Craak VA
Channel CO VA
Newport Sewe
Thimble VA
Shoal
of Material
Dredfad
(Ca. td)
491.172
oa.ioo
726.831
794. til
99.194
211, J49
1.022.209
JO. 426
261. 9U
97.211
1.129.141
Coat Coat of
Par Acutal
Unit Dragging
(t) (1)
0.783 1(4,744
0. 72 49.012
369. M9
617.921
O.«91 U.779
1.64 146,940
1.22 61.120
0.947 249.972
I10.1»
1.614,627
Coat of
nbUttattoo
DaaDbllitatton
and Other Ibtal Coat
(1) (!)
29.000 411.744
29.000 046.947
29.026
32. OW 140.779
19.900 166. «40
91.000
levee work)
14.100
turbidity
61.000
dredge rvotel
214.100
19.104 120.624
63.000 1B9.9W
area prep.
73.014
1.012 111.431
adalnlatratloo
aelnta. «ntn. 1.614.627
and Adnlnla-
tret ion
or Coatraetoc
a or COS
M Ackinaon
• Oradfiat Co.
a Atkiaeeo
• Drodftiot Co.
8 Cottrell
> lot. Co.
R mortolk
n Dredcin. Co.
a Harm
• Orodiloii Co.
H Ackloaon
Oradf in. Co.
H Atkinaon
> Dradilns Co.
a Corpa off
Eagloeere
H Corpi of
Engineers
nethod Oaed
For Dredilna
22" pipeline
dredto To lira"
ie- plpelloa
"Cnterprlee1*
12- pipeline
dredge -Marlon"
22- pipeline
dredge "Pullen"
It" plpeltae
dredge
"Clinton"
16" plpelloe
dredge
":od II"
16" pipeline
dredge
"Surthvnol 11"
"Coethala*
"Ceothala"
Dlapoaal
Site
Cr^Uland
Craaey lalaad
Open vate*
Hog Island ftay
Dpiewl on
river bank
Upland on
Jaawa River
baaka
Upland bank of
York tlver
Upland on
Craney Island
Open water a
Bllea aoutb of
Cape Henry Chac
Contract Hiailir
DACU65-79-C>O023
OAW65-7X-0073
DAO.6V75-C-OOJ4
OAO..i5-74-C-0070
O.U.VI,5-;4-C-O075
DACU63- 74-C-O07 3
KMl
128
-------
TABLE A-18
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
Project Rue state
licbBond lUrbor VA
Deepvater Ter-
•Inal Jordan Point
Jecee liver
"orfolk Hattor VA
0.11 riareb VA
(WatorMay on the
Coael of Va. )
•ortn-hanptoe
County
Jarvla Creek, VA
NortnunberUnd
County
•ortolk lUrbor VA
4}' Channel
Cnlncoteague VA
Inlet
Anouat Coot Coat of
of Hatorlal rer Acutel
Dredged Unit Dredging
94,409 1.12 101, 718
221.114 0.611 144,841
215,285 0.612 116. 060
110,828 1U.64I
173,112 0.91 164,901
170.971 1.04 177,810
22.198 1,00 22,198
719,188 0.922 691,019
1,004,109 0.72} 728,487
69,190 117,900
Coot of
PBblllsatlon
DeoBbllllatlon
OAd Other
71,100
turbidity
tarrlefe
1,200
•Mia a
•012: 8J671
2.000
liquidated
dQMMei
27.149
851
(ledelm)
28.000
44,400
•Mala 21
44,421
2,000
onBlneerlAg
Mlncenance
66.027
total Coot or Contractor
(1) H or COE
484,209 R Atklnoon
Dredging Co.
Ml. 2(4 R Korfolk
II Dredging Co.
201,110 « I. P. end 8
H Dredging Co.
61.821 - Cottrell
Eng.. Corp.
697,019 • norfolk
710.416 II Co.
181.927 H Corp of
Engineer*
Retboe Ueed Dleeoenl
For Dredgln( Sit'
16" pipeline Upland on
dredge. 18" Jaaaa liver
pipeline aredea Bank
"Norttmood 11"
"Enter pr loo"
18* pipeline Crenoy Inland
"Taleolt"
dredge
14- pipeline Upland on
dredte HJ*nle adjacent nernb
111" and "Pattr"(Uta
i:" pipeline Upland
"Ilclnond"
22" pipeline Craney laland
dredge "Pullen"
IB" pipeline
dredte
"Cnterpr iee"
"Fry* Overboard nc*t
Sldecaater to channel
Contract Kvaber
DACV-«l./6-C-0017
DACV-«l-7e-C-OOIl
DACH-41-76-C-0021
DACV-e 5- 70-C-O01 7
OACU-«i-7o-C-004l
129
-------
TABLE A-19
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
Cost of
Asntmc Cost Cost of Itoblllcstton
of MstsrUl Por Acntal DsapbUliatlna I
Drsasnd Unit DradtlAt ana Othsr total Cost or Contractor
Isna Itata (Co. vd> (S) (») (») (I) II or era
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1977
H*tt0« Uss4
For Drodilns. Sit*
Contract taksr
Lronnsvsn
Inl.t
u»t.rwr 00
tlM Coftt of
V..
94.177 1.67 197.27. 50,000
47.505 O.M 40.7J5 47,452
207.996 R Ibrfolk
Co.
121.207 R Cottrall
toon. Corp
la4 UOl-«>-77-c-001«
12* oloolin* Ovorbooro IUCW-45-77-C-O011
U,M) 1.45 141.219 90.000
turbidity bor-
rur 90.000
0>l«br Cr«.k
tostora Snaro
10.090
ibtfolk lubor VA SSO.U4 0.95 922.610 21,000
45' Mxlli
Point tachoni*
r °n ttm VA 21, 1<3 l.M 42.679 21,000
241,299 H Cottrsll
bsn. Corp
CO»t at
onoo'*
Tork Spit
a. fl.h-
loJ« 90
21,090
VA 216,199
VA 42.86*
9M.991
12- plpslUo U>Usd 4 DACU-69-77-C-O024
drsdgs • ovsrbosrd
lurloo-
390,610 R Pbrfolk
Co.
61.629 H Norfolk
Co.
22* plpsllAO
crests
Islsnd DAC4V69-77-C-O029
14" plosllns Alon( tbs DACU-*9.77-C-OOU
«rsds* tU bssch st
btldss
"Costbols* Opsn wstsr In
Cnssspuks Isr,
•orth cosst of
Corps of
Enilnssrs
Crux? tslsna
dlspossl sits
130
-------
TABLE A-20
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE
1978
BAY:
rroj*ct HttM Scat*
Craney I « land VA
telwidllat Baa la
Taoft.tr Chaan*! VA
AccotMck County
Uhlto Trout Creek VA
Swaeh Bay. Boguca
•ay Kortbaa Narrow
Matothy Bay. Sloof VA
Cbaonal. Bur ton '•
Bay
Ueetera Branch VA
of ti*a**miM*
liver
DlaMl Svatxp VA
Canal
HDorlot Arta VA
Ueat of Great
Brldga Lock
Creeevale Creek VA
Lancaater Count?
Craney Uland VA
teha&dling Baalo
Deep Creek VA
Kavaport Seva
ftichMMftd Harbor VA
I Oeepuatar Jaaws
River
Norfolk Harbor VA
*V ChaoiMl
of Hn.te.-ial
Drees*.!
131
-------
TABLE A-21
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1979
of HotorUL
DrMsod
(Co. fd)
Co>t
r«r
Unll
(I)
Cost of
AcuUl
Drooil*.
(I)
Coot of
ttobilUotlaa
DojBbllUotlM
•at Othor
(I)
Ibtol Coot
(I)
or Cimtroetor
H 01 col
Kecl.04 DM* OUpOMl
ror Dr«d|l*s *U« Gonlt*ct I
Quocno Crock •
HothOHO
Couot;
viator Hotter
Mocbovo Couocr
St«rlfat» Cretk VA
County
Sklftotl CtMh VA
Soowoyo Pior Aroo VA
Town Point Botch.
Norfolk Horbor
Sorfolk Horbor VA
15' 1
10.«5l 1.4} 15.B)9
l.otX) I.oO 6.090
97,200 1.7] 100.000
14).717 1.7B J15.B70 110.17A
Dlop. Aroo
Prop.
196.000
106.174
IJ.644 2.6} 15.BS4
422.MS 1.24 S23.72!
450.2S4 0.94 . 423.267
072.641 946.992
9,400
H Itortnakptoo
Drodto Co./
Urotoo
Drcdilot
N HortboascoA
Orodtlttf Co.
10- Dlooltoo Oplood
orodto
"01.10-
10" piooiuu
drod|0 "Olilo"
10" plpolloo
drodjo "HIOAA"
DACU6V79-C-OOIO
DAaa>-7«-c-oaii
146.MO
Drodtloi Co.
Ml. 244 H Cottroll
EMU. Co.
43.2S4 M Hortolk
965.532 H Sortolk
> Ondtut Co.
10" plpolloo
drodgo "?ttaa«"
12" plpolloo
drodgo
"mrloo"
i yd' bockoc
dr. I42t
18" plpollno
drcdgo
"Tolcott"
BACU6S-79-C-0026
Vplood
north of
crook
UpUod oo DACU6S-79-C-0022
re. Cuotlo
DACU65'79-C-<»1«
Croaoy
lolood
132
-------
TABLE A-22
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS IN
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1980
Cost Coat of
of Material rer Acutal
COM of
Hoblllsatlo*
blliaatlM
Froject Naaa> State
Channel. Sevport
News
Chanel Newport VA
News
Deep Creek Chanel VA
Newport Sewa
Southern granch VA
of Elltabeth Kiver
lack liver. VA
Langley Field
Dlsaal Swanp VA
Canal
East 4 feat VA
Anchorages.
Norfolk Harbor
Uest Anehuragea VA
Norfolk Harbor
Norfolk Harbor VA
dewport Kens VA
Ancnorsee
Haraton Eds.
Taogler Eaat VA
Channel Tangier
Island
tehandllng Baal* VA
Chlocoteaeue Ineit VA
Deep Creek AIU VA
Chesapeake
Dredged
(Co. Id)
148,466
79,152
1.419,912
1.709.685
222.561
54,701
68,610
829,406
472,000
753,084
768,299
967,182
52,698
1.100,000
79,814
4,694
Unit Dredging
(!) (1)
9.20 772,021
9.20 412.6)0
1.-) 1,915.081
1.11 2,271,881
1.11 296.009
1.96 107,216
1.14 91.964
0.96 796.210
0.96 451.120
1.12 641.454
1.11 860,495
1.19 1.144,661
2.94 154,912
credited by
user'o tolle
4.02 102,192
1.88 18.211
and Other
(t)
15.000
turbidity
barriers
42.000
57.000
15,000
46,040
other:
10.179
77.019
46.840
144
46.984
16
74.994
turb barrlera
74.418
149.418
54,000
54,016
99,250
99.250
57.000
57.080
57,000
57,080
115,000
54,000
100
54,100
113.962
1.6OO
Total Coat
(1)
201,416
787,021
412,610
1.992,102
2,120,869
296,041
216,656
146,000
895.480
552,170
900,914
917.171
1,479.661
209.032
411,114
20.011
or Contractor
M or C0«
H Horfolk
Dredglog Co.
*
M loee Marine
of Va. , lac.
H Norfolk
Dredging Co.
'A
K
:< Cottrell
Ens*. Co.
M Cottrell
turn. Co.
H Atkinson
Dredelng Co.
N Atkinson
Dredglnl Co.
H Atkinson
Dredging Co.
:• •
•I Norfolk
Dredging Co.
!i Cottrell
Engn. Co.
Norfolk
Dredging Co.
N Corps of
Engineers
N Norfolk
Dredging Co.
Method Used
*nr DreJgiaa.
bucket dredge
rill
•428
> 27
18" pipeline
dtedje
"Talcott"
i2" pipeline
dredge "Pullwn"
IJ- pipeline
dredee "E.sei"
12" pipeline
dredie "Marion"
12- pipeline
dredge "Marion"
18* pipeline
dredge
"Enterprise"
18" pipeline
dredge
"Haaoton Ttoada"
18- pipeline
dredge '
"Haapton loada"
18" pipeline
dredge
"Enterpriae"
22" pipeline
dredge "tullen"
12" pipeline
dredge
"Hlchjeood"
IS* pipeline
Tslcoit"
"rry"
8 yd1 bucket
1420
Dlspossl
Sits
Craney Inland
Craney Island
Craney laland
Craoey Island
Craney laland
Upland neat to
river
Upland neat
to canal
Craney Island
Craney laland
Craney Island
Craney Island
Craney laland
Upland on
Island
Craney laland
Beat to cbanne
Craney taland
Contract Huafter
DACW-65-00-C-0001
DACU-65-HO-C-OOOl
DACU-6 5- 7 9-C-OO 1 1
DACW-65-79-OOU59
DACU-6 5- 7 9-C-004 1
Dad>-«5-79-C-0034
DACU-e!-79-C-O034
DACU-65-79-C-0017
DACV-65-79-C-0017
OACH-65-00-C-001a
DACV-65-00-C-O027
DACU-65-80-C-0020
1
DACU-65-79-C-O020
133
-------
TABLE A-23
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1975
Date
1/16/76
5/7/74
2/19/7*
1/9/74
4/16/76
9/21/71
8/14/76
6/28/76
9/3/76
1/11/75
1/11/7}
5/10/75
•/It/75
B/2V75
W10/7S
5/21/75
S/S/7S
8/12/74
1/1/7S
4/2/75
6/16/75
7/10/7}
5/12/75
S/9/75
5/21/75
1/M/7J
lo/a/75
2/12/75
7/11/7J
4/2/75
1/29/7]
2/5/7)
2/5/7)
Ferniccee
XT. U.C. Brooke
Holllday Harlne
City of Norfolk
City of rorteeouth
VA Department of
Ilghuaye end
Trenaportatlon
D*vLd Storaont
lobert L. Denlg
Hobjeck toy Marina
VA Departnent of
HlRtweye end
Traneporcetlon
Blueuetor Yecht
Salee
United Stetee
Cypeuoi Co.
lellou Biver. Ut.
Lone Scar Induetrlee
Borfolk Shipbuilding
• an) Drydock Co.
Svann Cheeapeeke
Tenlhal Cory.
Naval Fecllitlea
Engineering Coa»and
City of import Sena
Mr. UilllaB J. Codaey
Cheaepeake an4 Ohio
Bailuay Co.
Caat Cove Waterway
Aaeocletion
Cwynn lalaad Eatatas
Propvrty uunara Aacn.
Ruaaall Flah Co^any
Inc.
Re. Uallaca C. Uwia
Corro tocan-By-c ba-
tay
Xr. aob.it L. [Mil
Kr. Boyard U. Pullay
Haval raEilltlea
bliaaarlni rna»«nil
Cariill. lac.
Alllad CKealcal Corp.
Ckxk Iron and Haul
Co., Inc.
City of Vlr,lnla
•oca
L.C. Allan a.
Carpntar. USB
Hr. Ilebard Hadao
Locatloa Total *
ClUabatb Uvar, Va.
ClUabatb Blvar. Va.
Sootnam Branch of
Ellaabath tlvar. Va.
Waatara Branch of
Ulrahath Bloar. Va.
CraaE Back Ctaak. Va.
Craac Back Craak, Va.
Craan Kaoaloo Cova. Va.
Clucatla Craak
aaapcon Craak. Va.
Southam Branch of
Uliabatn tlvar, Va.
Southam Branch of
Eluabatb Blvar. Va.
Southern Branch of
UUaaatb Btvar. Va.
Southern Branch for
Elizabeth Btvar. Va.
Southern Branch of
Elizabeth Blvar. Va.
Haapton Boaae. Va.
Haapton Boada. Va.
Horn Harbor
Jaaea Blver. Va.
Broad Bay. Va.
Cheaapeake Bay, Va.
Cbineotaafua Channel and
InLat. Va.
Cockrall Craak, Va.
Corrotonan Blver. Va.
Point Dm Craak. Va.
Eauarda Creek, Ve.
Elitabath. Biver.
Itorfolk Harbor. Va.
Southern Branch of
Elizabeth Bivar, Va.
Jaaea Bivar. Va.
Jaeaa Biver, Va.
Long Creek. Va.
Lynnhaven Biver, Va.
X
Lynneheven Blver. Va.
Hr. Eugcoa C. Schnldt LronahavaQ Bivar, Va.
Dount Dradaed
1,000
2,100
18.750
8,«00
27}
100
110
701
9,000
1,750
11.712
8, BOO
20.000
125.000
540. 000
500
360
•0,000
1,900
eti
1,200
400
250
55}
61}
12,100
4,000
5.000
10.000
24,000
100
144
IBO
H
M
It
H
B
•
H
X
B
H
>
H
•
H
!t
H
8
H
M
H
a
1
X
>
H
B
I
•
B
B
B
M
B
B
B
Katbod Uaed
For Dredging
dragline
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
dragline
bucket
claaanall
bucket
bucket
bucket
hydraulic
and bucket
hydraulic
hydraulic
bucket
dragline ana/or
hydraulic
dragline
bucket
bucket
bucket
dragline
hydraulic
bucket and
hydreullc
dragline
hydraulic
bucket
bucket
Olepoael Site
Craney taland Behaadllng
Beein ;
clty'e aanltary landfill
-Crauey laiaod Behandling
Baain
-•am* behind bulkhead
to Cranay leland Behandling
haain
on cop of riprep
behind bulkhead
upland behind earthen bera
ulthio road priaa or in
upland area
barged to Craney leland
Renandltng Baain
Craney leland Oiepoael Area
Craaay leland dlepoaal erea
Cranay laland BehendllaB
baain
upland
Cranay leland diepoeal area
Cranay leland diapoeal erea
upland, confined behind
earthen bcra
Creney leland rehandline
baein
upune, tw.£i~: USLU
eerthen beraj
' upland, behind e>tatin|
bulkhead
upland
upland
upland
upland, confined behind
eerchen ben
upland, confined behind
earthen beret
Cranay leland diapoeal area
Cranay leland diapoeal area
upland, confined behind
earthen ben
Pile Nuaber
0029
271}
0021
0027
ce»
2500
2U8
2663
2506
204}
215*
2269
2109
2264
2178
2258
1898
1821
^m»
1799
1798
2181
2189
1576
1579
2149
1851
2147
2281
2211
201t
2021
2015
134
-------
TABLE A-23 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1975
• (tatted tl»*4
Date
i/:4/7)
7/14/7)
2/)/7)
6/2/7)
)/!2/7)
6/3/7)
10/21/7)
1/29/7)
4/D/7)
4/2)/7t
1/11/7)
7/24/7)
7/10/7)
3/3/7)
1/21/74
8/2)/73
2/26/73
4/19/73
10/2/74
1/6/73
1/12/73
3/21/75
4/2/75
3/24/73
4/2/73
4/7/73
6/19/73
9/12/73
7/1/75
5/22/75
7/16/75
7/24/75
4/2/73
1/1/74 >
a/U/74
Permittee
Mr. Joe L. Gilbert
Mr. Frank J, Uada
Mi. Stephen ». Mundy
Mr. John E. Canady
V.l.M.S.
Ulllouihay lay
Marina
Dr. nabib J. Kuraal
Va. Coanleeion of
Can* and Inland
Plaherles
Ulndvlll Point
Marina
Joseph J. Vodvarka
Hamptoa Roada Saolt-
tatloa District
Mr. Fred L. carrett
Barclay Shaaks and
Clann Sheaard
Flahins lay Marina
Dot* ladiachs Co.
Mr. Benjamin F.
mitten
n.J. Vllliaae
Mra. 4 Mi. John R.
Frail ic
L.K. Thonaa
Naval Facilities
Engineer in| Coaajand
Naval Fee 11 It Lea
Mr. Donald B.
Spltsll, Jr.
City of Va. leach
Mi. Robert Harris
Hssrs. Janes J.
Nurphy, Jr., and
nation H. Mideatt
Mr. C.I. Clfford. Jr.
City of Va. leach
Hears. Kenneth V.
Duncan 6 W.M. Cuntar
Clouchester Point
Marine
City of Pottaaouth
City of Portaaoutb
I.L. UlUlaoaon
Co., Inc.
Rr. 4 Mra. Sherman
T. Koines
City of Colonial
Heights
Chincoteafue Nat.
wildlife Refuse
Location Total
Lyonhavan River. Va.
Lake ludaa. Va.
Lifikhera lay. Va.
ttormiay Craak. Va.
York River. Va.
tUllMBbay lay. Va.
UUaoa Creek. Va.
Rappahsanock River. Va.
Rappahennock River, Va.
Uachapreague Channel. Ve.
Warwick River. Va.
keeoeheenock Rival. Va.
Poeuoaon River. Va.
Poouoson River. Va.
Skiffara Creek. Va.
Thalia Creak. Va.
Prentice Creek. Va.
Pungoteegue Creek. Va.
Sarah Creak. Va.
Little Creek. Va.
Little Creek. Va.
Little Creak. Va.
Long Craak, Va.
lynnhaven River. Va.
Lynahaven River, Va.
, Lyoaaavan River, Va.
Lyttnhavan giver, Va.
Lyonbavan llvar, Va.
Sarah Creak, Va.
Scotta Craak, Va.
Scotts Creek. Va.
Rivanna River, Ve.
Robwaon Creak, Va.
Aeaotamoa River, Va.
Ton's Cove. Va.
Amount Dredge*
ISO
216
100
110
1.500
300
600
5
5.500
»0
IS, 000
1,460
400
l.OOO
7). 000
200
4)0
270
63
300.000
1)0,000
200
24,000'
7)
1.300
170
3.6)0
70
700
3)0
20
163
443
11.000
1 M
M
H
H
II
1
N
H
M
H
II
M
II
M
M
a
*
N
II
II
H
H
M
M
a
H
H
H
>
u.
for Dredging
dragline
bucket
hydraulic or
backet
buckat or
dragline
bucket
hydraulic or
bucket
dragline
backat
dragline
dragline
hydraulic
buckat
buckat
clamshell
bucket
hydraulic
backet
dragline
hydraulic
hackee
hydraulic and
backet
bucket
hydraulic and
dragline
dragline
buckat
dragline
dragline
hydraulic
hydraulic
buckat
dragline
Disposal Site F
upland behind eaisting
bulkhead
upland, confined behind
bulkhead
upland behind bulkhaad
uplaad behind new bulkhead
upland behind hulkhaad and
confined
upland balnd bulkhaad and
confinad
upland behind earthen levee
upland balnd bulkhead
6000 yd3 at Crsney Island
Reh. Basin 12000 yd3 used aa
backfill
upland behind bulkhead and
confined
apland behind earthherm
upland, pumped behind bulkhead
upland diapoaal area, and
confinad behind earthen oerm
uplaad, behind bulhheed
upland, behind earthbsrm
upland, bahind earthbara
beach replcniahaent 9000 ft
of naval aapbibioua baae
Littla Creek
Cranay laland disposal aree
upland, confined behind
earthen barm
upland, behind certhan barm
upland, behind bulkhead
upland, behind bulkhaad
upland, bahind earthen bora
upland, behind bulkhead
upland, and confined behind
earthen betm
• upland, and confined behind
earthen harm
City of Portsmouth landfill
for coammrcial uae
upland and behind earthen barm
upland diapoaal city property
lie Number
2012
2047
1111
1617
2212
20)0
11)1
1196
2219
2360
1865
2211
1740
2044
K77
1600
1806
1917
1915
213o
2179
2029
2117
2012
2004
2067
1765
1986
1891
2161
2279
1710
1302
1820
1469
135
-------
TABLE A-24
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
BAY:
• *taCbod UMd
Total jtoount Dr«d««rt ft For Pr«deitii
01
B
It
B
B
N
•
B
B
N
H
H
11
M
H
H
I
B
•
II
N
H
B
H
B
B
B
n
clanahell
dragline
hydraulic
dragline
hydraulic
dragline
dragline
dragline
hydraulic
hydraulic
buckat
bucket
buckat
dragline
hydraulic
bucket
bucket
dragline
dragline
dragline
dragline
dragline
dragline
dragline
hydraulic
buckat
buckat
bucket
dragline
bucket
dragline
elaeabell
Cranay Island
Rabandllng Basin
tanporarlly behind
boat house
upland, confined behind
an earthen bam
upland, cooflnad
behind bulkhead
upland, bahind
aartban bem
upland behind
earthen bem
upland
Cranay laland Disposal
area
adjacent upland area
Craney Island Disposal
area
Craney Island Eeheudllng
Basin
behind bulkhead
behind bulkhead
behind bulkhead
punped into an abandoned
water tilled borrow pit
upland area and confined
behind an earthen bem
Craney laland Bahandllng
Basin
upland, confined behind
•arthen bem
upland on adjacent upland
peninsula and confined
beach replenishment
upland babind aarthan bam
upland behind bulkhead
City of Bottolk's landfill
upland on adjacent fill
later to be ranoved and
dlapoaad of upland
upland behind bemad
disposal area
upland behind txittlng
bulkhead
upland diapoaal area
upland bahind bulkbaad
trocked to a bemad area
upland dlaposal alts
upland bemad araa
upland, conflnnd behind
eerthen bem
upland upper reaches of
project and confined
2147
2246
2794
186)
2197
1962
24BB
2010
2121
1021
26C1
2614
1701
2702
2413
2294
2401
2349
2611
2337
23U
2613
23*0
1718
2*11
2711
1939
2*99
2433
2932
2933
2417
2629
28*s
136
-------
TABLE A-24 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
S itethod U.«d
Dam
•tun
9/IJ/74
9/21/76
9/J/76
5/21/76
5/10/76
9/14/75
e/»/»
5/4/76
10/6/75
1/26/76
Permittee
American Original Food
Hera? 1. Heath
VA Department o(
Coastline Properties
Roger -C. Cray
Thomas L. Thornton
The Honorable J.
Caltrltt Clarke, Jr.
Mr. Jeesee Franklin
Jackson III
Henry sraithvalt*
XT. Ulltoo Holmgren
Hr. C.H. Butler
Location
Partloc Creek
"""— °
Lake bdai
:reek
>. VA
Lake kuae*. VA
Lake Kudcl
Lilly Cr*<
Llnkkorn.
Long Creel
1. VA
Ik. VA
VA
• . VA
Long Creek. VA
Lynnhaven
lush Park
Hl.et, VA
Creek, VA
T.ttal Amount UTL-d
1.900
110
264
123
V>
50
100
29S
1.310
-"B5
J.500
Kvd N
K
M
R
H
'
"
H
H
N
N
N
For Dredging
dragline
dragline
dragline
dr«t.tn*
dragUn.
dc«Ui..
dr«nHo«
bucket
dranllo*
dra«Un«
Dtsposi
upland
dl-po«.
*.trctMi
upl«.*l
prlM
UplMHl
il Sic*
dlspoMl area
td of tMblnd
i (Mra
vicbi.1 roadway
behind tMlkhaad
Kll. :.ua.Mr
>6»7
J60)
2719
2125
upUad bvbLnd «xl«tlng J&5»
bulkhMd
uDUatf
bulkhB
UpldMsd
upliuid
behind
Ctffif to
upUnt
behind *Mi«tlt)(
ad
bah lad t»rch*a
b«htnd bulkhead
th* buLkh*ad
,«d behind a butkhr
:SM
tm
2097
:;:i
ad :2flJ
^i77
137
-------
TABLE A-25
DREDGING STAnSTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
Date
10/15/76
12/17/76
11/17/77
12/17/76
6/6/77
7/29/77
6/22/77
1/28/77
9/26/77
2/10/77
11/17/76
4/1/77
10/11/76
8/11/77
4/8/77
4/18/77
2/15/77
2/5/77
10/11/76
12/10/76
3/25/77
3/23/77
12/10/76
5/27/77
6/16/77
9/12/77
4/5/77
1/26/77
1/31/77
10/4/76
1/26/77
10/22/76
6/2/77
N
Permittee
Lone Star Industries
Naval Facilities
Engineering Coenand
Naval Facilities
engineering CoaMiod
Naval Facilities
Engineering rijemii...
Elizabeth liver
Terainals, Inc.
Anwrada ness Corp.
Tidewater Equipment
Leonard T. Golden
and Ira D. H In too
Ralph F. lose
William F. Cox
Charles lobinson
George S. Langley
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transportation
Associated Kaval
Facilities Architects
Cutty Sark Karlna
Charles U. Mitchell
Atueil J. Booth
A. Jackson Booth
Clyde U. Hudgina
VA Port Authority
Naval Facilities
Engineer log fiim»iinl
Naval Facilities
Engineering Cossund
City of Norfolk
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transportation
Norfolk Yacht and
Country Club
James U. (alley and
Benjamin Conley
Thomas L. Hall and
Andrew Killer
William F. Lavson
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transportation
Detlef F. Bow*
Sbackelford-Scblifer
Seafood Corporation
Port tut is
City of Hampton
DRFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL
N
Location Total Aeount Dredged n
Southern Branch of
Elisabeth liver, VA
Southern Branch of
Eliaabeth Blver. VA
Southern Branch of
Elisabeth Klver. VA
Southern 1 anch of
Elisabeth Iver. VA
Southern B anch of
Elisabeth Iver. VA
Southern B aneb of
Elisabeth iver. VA
Southern Branch of
Elisabeth liver. VA
Great uicontco Blver. VA
Great ulcoejlno liver. VA.
Little Keck Creek. VA
Lvonhaven liver. VA
Lynnhaven liver. VA
Ueitern Branch of
Elisabeth liver, VA
Veatero Branch of
Elisabeth liver, VA
risherawui'a Cove. VA
Fleeca Bay, VA
Great uicooico liver. VA
Great wlconico liver, VA
Davis Creek. VA
Elisabeth liver
Morfolk Harbor, VA
Elisabeth liver
Borfolk Harbor. VA
Elisabeth liver
•orfolk Harbor. VA
Lafayette liver. VA
Lafayette liver. VA
Lafayette liver
Jervla Creek, VA
Lake ladee, VA
Benneta Creek. VA
Briery Creek. VA
Broad Creek, VA
Broms Bay, VA
Chesapeake Bay, VA
Chesapeake Bay. VA
8.100
83.500
50.000
85,000
7.500
90.000
6OO
275
100
500
150
267
3.700
177
40
13
225
185
2.400
557.000
300,000
50.000
, 26.000
15,405
6,000
2,490
23
150
117
250
1.200
1.000
92.000
H
M
H
H
M
t
M
H
H
N
H
•
n
•
N
a
H
•
II
•
H
a
*
•
H
H
•
•
B
»
fl
n
H
7EAR 19
Method Used
For Dredging
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
clamshell
bucket
dragline
• bucket
bucket/
dragline
bucket
clamshell or
bucket
bucket
dragline
bucket
bucket
dragline
hydraulic
hydraulic
hydraulic
clamshell
bucket/or
hydraulic
bucket
dragline
dragline
dragline
bucket
dragline
bucket
dragline
hydraulic
77
Disposal Site F1U Number
Craney Island Disposal
site and lehandling Basin
Craney Island lehandllng
Basin or Disposal Site
Craney Island lahandling
Basin or Disposal Sice
Craney Island lehandling
Basin or Disposal Site
Craney Island lehandllng
Basin
Craney island lehandliag
Basin
hauled to existing, upland
disposal area
upland, behind retaining
wall
upland, behind retaining
wall
upland behind existing
bulkhead
upland behind existing
bulkhead
upland to adjacent disposal
area
Craney Island Disposal area
material used within
roadway prism
upland
upland, 2 miles north
of project
upland, behind proposed
bulkhead
confined behind earthen
bera
pumped into Craney Island
disposal area
pumped Into Crancy Island
disposal area
Craney Island disposal area
Craney Island lehaadling
Basin
Craney Island Disposal
area and lebandllng Basin
Craney Island xabandling
Basin
upland and confined behind
earthen bera
upland behind existing
bulkhead
upland, behind earthen
bera
upland, within roadway
prism
upland behind earthen bera
upland bvhlnd earthen bera
upland on to adjacvnt beach
upland bermsd area some of
2B81
2B89
2890
2891
3200
29116
3436
2525
3J82
2998
2946
3087
2700
3004
3084
3041
2953
mi
2793
3054
2887
2888
2872
3089
32)4
2086
2796
2714
281S
2713
2681
josa
2355
1
i
I
i
;
•
1
1
i
1
th* sand for beach noroish-
138
-------
TABLE A-25 (continued)
I
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1977
Bate
6/14/77
4/4/77
10/1/76
2/23/77
3/7/77
10/26/76
10/1/76
6/23/77
6/14/77
7/14/77
3/13/77
3/4/77
1/15/77
11/9/76
12/20/76
6/27/77
7/14/77
10/19/76
4/5/77
6/15/77
10/17/77
5/27/77
5/26/77
10/21/76
2/23/77
3/30/77
4/4/77
a/11/77
12/17/76
3/23/77
1/21/77
7/3/77
6/1/77
•srnlttss
First Charter Land Corp
VA Dept. of Hlghwaya
and Transportation
toy t. Folck, Jr.
lobert T. Ferey
VA Dept. of Highways
aad Transportation
aad Transportation
VA Dept. of Highways
sod Transportation
VA IMpt. of Highways
aad Tranaportatloo
VA Dept. of Highways
•ad Tranaportation
VA IMpt. of Highways
and Tranaportation
City of Porteaouth
York liver Seafood Co.
Ullllaa A. Van Sandt
lay Property Assoc.
City of Newport Dews
layellff Civic Lssgue
VA Dspt. of Highways
and Tranaportation
VA Dept. of Highways
snd Transportation
Tlerra Fin. Inc.
Town of Culpepper
loeter's World
S.I. Coodaso
VA Dept. of Hlghwaya
aad Transportation
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transportation
I.I. of wight County
VA Dspt. of Highways
and Tranaportation
VA Dept. of Highways
and Tranaportation
LOBS Star Indwatrlea
Raaptoo losds Sanit-
ation Diatrlct
level Facilities
Engineering Coaaand
Oceanalee Caapsltss
VA Best- of Highways
and Transportation
VA Dept. of llghways
sad Transportation
Location Tot
. Chiacoteesue ley, VA
Cr.la Creek. VA
Cryatal lake, VA
Sereh Creek, VA
Totopotoay Creek. VA
Tye liver. VA
Hottowey liver. VA
Hottoway Sweep. VA
Ogle Creek. VA
South Awe liver. VA
Peredlse Creak. VA
Ferrin liver. VA
querter Harcb Creek. VA
queen Ann Creek, V»
Selter'a Crack. VA
Hill Dan Creek. VA
Veughana Creek. VA
lappahanoock liver. VA
lappehanaock llvar, VA
tappahanaock llvar, VA
Isppahaanock liver. VA
Fiankatank liver. VA
Focosbock Creek. VA
H. Anna liver. VA
Janes liver, VA
Janes liver, VA
Jaaes liver, VA
Janes liver, VA
were, creek, VA
UlUeughby ley. VA
Hacnlpongo liver. VA
Hassaponaa Creek. VA
Rill Fond. VA
el Aeount Dredged H
27,000
337
100
65
1,211
1,143
1«0
61
241
Sg
226
65
113
300
222
300
3
3.777
257
36,113
1,000
155
1,200
200
143
185
2,100
20,000
403
1,100
13
215,000
10,000
557
15
572
5,400
3.900
9.300
B
H
H
H
•
. *
H
H
»
H
H
H
B
•
B
N
H
H
H
N
M
H
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
M
H
For Dredging
bucket
bucket
hydraulic pun
bucket
bucket
dragllaa
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
dragline
bucket/
hydreullc
dragline
backhoe
dragline
bucket
dragline.
bucket or
hydraulic
hydraulic pui
bucket
dregllne
dregline
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
dragline
hydraulic
hydraulic
bucket
bucket ur
dragline
Diaposel Site File number
10D0690
within roadway prtea
upland
p fill eandbage
contained within
roadway prian
roadway prlsn
within roadwey priaa
used within epproech waya
used within roadway
prlea
within roadway prlsa
upland, confined behind
earthen bem
upland, behind bulkhead
end contained
conflnm behind bulkhead
and earthen bera
upland behind eerthen hern
upland
upland
upland or uied within
roadway prisn
upland in CKlatlng
borrow pit
*
upland
eiietlag upland disposal
area
beach replenishment
used within roadway prlsa
withia rosdwey prlsB
beach replenishaent or
dlapoae of 4E county lend-
fill or an upland area
overboard
within roadway prlaa
recycled for aggregets
reproduction or upland fill
upland behind earthen
ban
puaped directly into Craney
Island diepoaal arae
upland, adjacent upland
baraed dlapessl area
3139
2673
2999
3031
2737
2733
.
3225
1
3213
3295 .'
3107
11)6
2619
2615
2916 i
3292 '
J219
j
2766 i
3119 |
3175 j
3424
25B2 i
3117
2793
3131
!
j
3293 j
3160 |
3239
2971
'
2194
;
3018 :
3269 !
1
2976 •
(
139
-------
TABLE A-25 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1977
M Method Us*d
Total Aftjunt Drrig«d H for Dredging Disposal Sit*
l/Jl/77
I1/2J/76
12/20/76
J/29/77
mini
12/21/76
J/29/77
1/14/77
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transportation
•aval Facllltlas
En|la**rlng Comand
City of Kawport Xeva
VA tort Authority
Naval Faellltlas
Cntlneerlng tocaand
Robert McDonald
City of ftlchaood
Hampton Creek
Hampton loads
Hasp ton Roads
Haapcon ftoad.
HaiVton buds
Indian Cr««k.
Jaaa* Rlvar.
. VA
. VA
. VA
VA
. VA
VA
A
VA
2.167
200.000
11
180.000
681,000
389
too
70
*
II
s
M
•
S
N
M
clams hell/
dratllM
hydraulic
bucket/
hydraulic
buckat
bucket
wichia roadway fill
Craacy Island Disposal
upland
Craoey Island disposal
Crsney Island disposal
upland behind existing
bulkhead Cur beach
rep lent shswnt
sandbags
upland fill
™
29U
i»6»
11J4
2711
2801
2917
140
-------
•-•'. TABLE A-26 .. I
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1978
Total Amount Dredged
Method Used
For Dredging Disposal Sit*
3/24/78
7/7/78
3/9/78
U ,'16/7 7
3/17/7B
10/J1/77
3/24/7B
6/19/78
2/16/78
10/3/77
1/24/78
3/30/78
3/20/78
7/3/7B
12/20/77
6/19/78
3/20/78
3/26/78
VA Dept. of Highways
amd Transportation
J. Calvltt Clark*
Russell F. Craig
Glebe Point Boat Co.
9aval Facilities
Engineering Caaaaad
Lone Star Industries
Estate Corporation
Captain U.C. Mage*
D.T. Vest
Korthampton County
Board of Sup.
Abner R. Thompson. Jr.
Peyton Hundley. Jr.
Norfolk Dredging Co.
Uhe lan's Marina
Billy R. Clark
Ro-Hut Inc.
Lone Star Industries
Jame* River, VA
LInkkoro lay. VA
Little Meek Creek, VA
Hampton Roads. VA
Hampton Road*. VA
Harveys Creek. VA
Henry's Creek, VA
Oyiter Bay, VA
Oyster Harbor. VA
Mill Creek. VA
Rappahannock River. VA
Newport New* Creek, VA
Moratclco Creek. VA
Mosquito Creek. VA
Mosquito Creek, VA
Han*emond River, VA
31.000
2.300
33.300
170
123
U3.000
1.000
4.000
4.000
23
1.000
2.300
300
n:.360
100
900
240
10.000
n
X
y
a
M
S
M
H
N
H
H
S
N
M
II
H
bucket
dragline
bucket or
hydraulic
bucket
bucket
backhoe
clamshell
hydraulic
dragline
hydraulic
dragline
bucket
bucket
bucket
upland or recycled
Craney Island disposal
area. Some used for
upgrading
upland behind proposed
bulkhead
upland behind- bulkhead
pumped into Cranny
Island disposal area
used as fill and d*po»ited
on an upland area
upUnd site and confined
upland
upland Into adjacent land.
confined and stabilized
upland
piped to existing upland.
bermed disp. area
to existing upland dlsp.
area
pumped to Craney Island
disposal area
area adjacent to channel
adjacent upland site
trucked to upland
disposal area
part of material used for
backfill rest disposed of ii
324 1
3869-06
/69V
3*63
J/43
2622
U03 411
001 212
O03 606
001 424
003 773-02
2SD OXZ 1002
059
003 037
80-01 33-02
003 237
Craney Island Rehandling 5asin
8/8/78
3/21/78
5/10/78
4/11/78
11/28/77
12/12/77
6/12/78
3/28/78
6/1/78
6/27/78
2/28/78
10/23/77
3/20/78
1/24/78
4/11/78
4/18/78
Duff Green Porter
Lone Star Industrie*
Vllson Duke
Elliott Rlozom
Russell Fish Company
Blyth and Son. Inc.
Albert E. Pollard
Keffer Marine Service
Herbert Dehmert
Frederick AJootlan
Lone Star Industry
Richard T. l*y
Albert M. Edmonds
Jordon Marine Railway
Rosco* Meadows
Lower Chesapeake
Yacht Center
Scocts Creek, VA
Appomatox River. VA
Broad Creek, VA
Carter Cove. VA
Chlmeoteagu* Channel and
Inlet. VA
Chuckatuck Creek, VA
Corrotomaa River, VA
Deep Creek, VA
Dyer Creek, VA
Dymer Creek, VA
Suo*et Creek, VA
Stall on'. Creek. VA
Indian Creek, VA
Sarah Creek. VA
*
Perrin River. VA
300
3,300
600
60
417
1.000
100
11.000
90
110
2.200
123
200
100
2,000
7,000
M
N
M
N
H
H
H
H
H
M
M
M
H
H
.»
S
bucket
bucket or
hydraulic
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
draglln*
dragline
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
hydraulic
behind bulkhead
material puftped to existing
borrow areas and confined
upland
upland
upland disposal site
upland, confined behind
bulkhead
upland, behind existing
bulkhead
upland
003 171
3567
3593
3391
3320
3433
34*0
2450
upland, behind earthen berm 3699-O2
upland, behind earthen ben 3877-03
recycled or used as upland.
fill material
upland, contained behind
bulkhead
upland and confined
upland
behind earthen berm
pumped into a harmed
disposal area
3239
3448
3665
.3653
3303
3567
141
-------
TABLE A-26 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:1
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1978
Method Csed
foe Drtdglaf Dlapoa.il Site
3/8/7B
3/29/78
-m/78
1/5/78
12/5/78
4/25/78
11/15/77
11/2/77
I/I7/7B
10/5/77
A/ 18/78
2/2W78
2/28/78
northeastern Motor, Inc. Pasquotank River. VA
Robert (,. Thompson Paaquotaak liver. VA
aad Marina
City of Norfolk Uilloufby Bay, VA
T.C. aeaucha»p Winter Harbor, VA
U.T. .Urdstock Onancock Rivet. VA
W.u. CwathBwy Soutbern Branch of
ELis«b«tn liver. VA
VA Dspt. of BlBtwaya Jacks Creek. VA
and Transportation
Hawthorne Corporation Jackson Creek, VA
Electric and Foyer Co. Janes River. VA
JaasstoiM-TorktoHD Jaass liver, VA
Foundation
Corporation
VA Comission of Caa* Jaevs River. VA
Lone Star Industries Jaaes River, VA
780
100
1.500
9.500
180
1.000
1.341
26?
572
839
600
350.000
II. ZOO
600
110 000
30
2.500
V draf line
H dragline
H bucket /back ho
II bucket
R bucket
9 hydraulic
tt bucket
N backet
fl bucket
!. hydraulic
II upland
9 bucket
II bucket
H bucket
upland, behind
exist ln| bulkhead
used in project
• upland, confined
behind earthen ben
used for beach
replenishment
upland, behind earthen
ben.
upland Into beraed disposal
area adjmtcent to project
hauled by truck to an
upland disposal sit*
upland disposal area
upland behind existing
bulkhead
Material pumped directly
and coatlned behind an
earthen bera
Bmtterisl cranaportad to
2 upland areas and confined
Craney Island disposal
ares
upland
recycled as aurcRtte oc
used as upland fill
1576
3706-03
3271
3**4
3393
931)
3318
3375
2375
2173
3616
3151
3226
3195
3242
142
-------
TABU: A-27
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1979
Date
9/3/79
9/6/79
8/10/79
8/27/79
6/5/79
9/28/79
5/1/79
9/12/79
12/12/78
9/7/79
5/15/10
2/12/80
1/01/79
1/5/79
1/21/79
10/12/78
4/1/79
8/24/79
5/22/79
1/10/79
5/2/79
11/11/78
11/7/78
12/5/78
5/2/79
1/2/79
10/11/79
1/7/79
6/11/79
9/17/79
Permittee
Ullllaa H. Goodman
City of Elisabeth
VA Dapt. of Highways
and Traneportaclon
York Co. Dept. of
Leisure Services
City of VA Besch
Arthur t. HcElroy
loch Fuels, Inc.
Railway Chesapeake
and Ohio
George Dragas, Jr.
Edwin S. Brock, Sr.
Clyde K. Hoey
Colonial National
Historic Park
VA Dept. of Hlghwaye
and Tranaportetion
0. Garland Hoore
Richard Broken-
borough
Euon Co., lac.
Marrlmac Shores
Yacht Baain
Contlnentel Creln Co.
Cully's lallway
M.C. Alson
Buntoo Creek Asaoc.
Chaaapaeka Boat Basin
Inc.
Hawporl Hews Ship-
building
Allied Cbenlcal Corp.
Garland Humphries
City of Chesapeake
City of Norfolk
Weaver Fertiliser Co.
Langley Air Force Base
John U. Harris
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transportation
Location To
PasBuotaak River, VA
Pasquotaak liver. VA
Asseteague Channel. VA
Back Creek. VA
Thalia Creek. VA
Tide Mill Creek. VA
Jawae Blver. VA
Janes River. VA
Little Heck Creek. VA
Little Heck Creek. VA
Little Heck Creek. VA
York liver, VA
London Bridge Creek. VA
Lyona Creek. VA
Robinsons Creek. VA •
Haaatoo Roads, VA
Hampton Roads, VA
Hampton Roads. VA
Harpers Creek. VA
•neon Creek, VA
Indian Creek, VA
Janes liver, VA
Janea River, VA
Dlanal Swanp Canal, VA
Eaatarn Branch of
Elisabeth liver, VA
Southern Branch of
Elizabeth River. VA
Back River, VA
Back liver, VA
Slight. Creek, VA
tal Amount Dredged
160
273
ditch: 900ft.1
1.5 ft. deep
1 ft. wide
100 ft. Ions
•llydl
115
155
10
60,000
10.000
223
700
43
27
846
900
300
41,000
700
141,000
860
300
1,000
1,200
110,000
13,000
82
2
850
51,900
17
50
N
H
n
H
w
H
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
N
N
H
a
H
fl
H
H
H
M
H
H
N
a
Method Used
For Dredalns.
drallloe
dreillne
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
bucket
clauhell
draaline or
bucket
dragline
bucket
bucket
clamshell
bucket
dragline
buckat and/or
hydraulic
bucket
hydraulic
dragline
dragline
bucket
bucket
bucket
hydraulic
dragline
Dlaposal Site File Number
upland behind bulkhead
upland upon existing
apoll area
within roadway prlam
upland
upland and confined
behind earthen bern
wetland landward of
bulkhead
barged to Craney Island
disposal site
Craney Island kehandllng
trucked to upland
dlspoaal
upland behind bulkhead
upland; sone of the
•aterial uaed es backfill
upland to York county
landfill project
upland adjacent disposal
site sod confined
B«OI
2763
78-4417-02
78-4378-02
001734-02
78-4294-02
7B-44IB-02
79-0141-01
001*94-06
79-0118-01
79-0361-02
79-0448-02
1694
3111
j
!
i
1
i
!'
i
i
i
I
i
:
i
upland behind earthen bern 3102 i
Craney Island
barged and disposed of
on upland alta
Craney Island Dlapoaal
site pumped directly
Adjacent upland area
upland and confined
behind earthen berm
upland and confined
behind earthen bent
upland behind bulkhead
Cranny Island Disposal
area
Overboard dlspoaal site
by pipeline
upland
H clamshell and/off upland
11
H
H
H
dragline
bucket
hydraulic
bucket
bucket
2 upland sites end
contained behind earthen
berm
pumped directly tn a
disposal site confined
behind earthen bam
upland and confined
behind earthen bern
In wetland ares and
upland on dlapoaal site
1003703-01
1001925-01
78-4107-02
001901-05
79-0014-01
1169
1599
1700-01 ,
1447
78-4403-01
78-4247-01
1004070-07
001745-02
004-OI9-O2
79-0018-02
I
i
143
-------
TABLE A-27 (concluded) ;
,DPJTOGT.NR STATISTIC* FOP. PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:' j
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1979 !
Date
9/17/79
3/07/79
7/18/79
3/2/79
10/16/78
9/20/78
5/10/79
10/«/7B
1/9/79
5/7/7»
5/17/79
12/8/78
8/11/78
8/31/78
8/23/78
9/18/78
9/1/78
2/25/78
9/18/78
7/3/78
9/17/79
4/11/79
3/26/79
6/4/79
8/1/79
6/7/79
7/11/79
9/27/79
8/1/79
6/15/79
Permittee
VA Dapt. of Highways
and Transportation
F.J. Swearlgen. Jr.
Bortoas Harlna. Inc.
Earl Cockrell
Leslie T. Coa
Harry E. Austin
Perloc Corp.
Aluminum Co..
Company of America
Naval Facilities
Engineering '"Tfil
Aooco Oil Co.
Marshall Seafood
Humphrey 'a Rsilway, Inc
VA CosBlsslon of Came
end Inland Fisheries
John B. Erdm-a
Creenvale Farms Civic
Aasoc.
Colonna'a Shipyard
Intareoastal Steel
Corporat ion
Roystar Co.
first Energy Co.
Regent Point Harlna
VA Dept. of Highwaya
and Transportation
Cordea Rob to.
Gloucester Enterprises
Larry V»n» Boakina
John K. Nice
C.H. Ware
VA Dept of Highways
and Transportation
VA Dept of Highways
and Transportation
South Hampton County
Windmill Point Karlo*
Location
Brlgbts Creek, VA
Broad Creek. VA
Broad Creek. VA
Great Uicomlco River. VA
Flahermana' Cove, VA
Pssouotank liver, VA
Perrln River. VA
Paradise Creek, VA
York River, VA
York River. VA
Butler's Creek. VA
Carter Cove. VA
Back Bay. VA
Back Creek. VA
Belsont Creek, VA
Eastern Branch of
Elisabeth River, VA
Southern Branch of
Elisabeth River, VA
Southern Branch of
Elisabeth River. VA
Jama Biver. VA
Locklies Creek, VA
Three Creek, VA
Orbatma Creek. VA
Sarah Creek, VA
Quarter March Creek, VA
Quarter March Creek, VA
Queen Creek, VA
Horattico Creek, VA
Banaemond River. VA
Bottoway River, VA
Rappafajnaock River. VA
Total Amount Dredged
50
33
4.970
260
250
925
1,400
17.800
50
445.000
178.000
1.400
1.896
800
500
2,500
10.000
10.000
170,000
180
30
376
430
1.730
17
19
82
40
143.031
1
3,500
B
H
^
11
H
B
II
B
B
H
91
K
B
B
M
B
B
n
11
B
a
H
B
1
B
H
H
H
H
B
B
91
n
Method Used
For Dredging
bucket
bucket
hydraulic
bucket
dragline
dragline
dragline
hydraulic or
bucket
clamshell
hydraulic
hydraulic
dragline
bucket
hydraulic
bucket
hydraulic
eleoahell
bucket
bucket
dragline
bucket
dragline
bucket or
hydraulic
backboe or
hydraulic
hydraulic
dragline
clamshell
bucket
4500 cu. yds.
hydraul ic
1000 cu. yds.
d ratline
Disposal Site File Dumber '
in wetland area and 79-0018-02
upland on disposal
site
upland disposal site 004102-03
triangle shaped beraed 003102*02
disposal area
upland, confined behind 1004216-02
earthen berm
upland behind bulkhead 3616
used as backfill for 395603 1
bulkhead !
upland 60 ft. away fro. 78-4460-01 !
project |
Craney Island Rehandling 3M003 •
Basin |
upland to adjacent 394502 ;
drainage easement and •
contlned ,
Craney Island Disposal 3353 !
area
pumped directly to several 4278*02 :
upland diapoaal area* and ',
confined behind earthen berm
upland confined behind 3854*01 :
earthen berm
temporary open water 3856-02 ;
disposal sites surrounded :
upland, confined behind 3611 ;
earthen berm •
upland 2518
upland, pumped into 778-02 •
adjacent diapoaal area •
Craney Island or upland 1BI5-OD
behind berm
upland behind existing 3333
bulkhead ;
Craney Island Rehandling DACU65-7B-C-0038
Basin
Upland disposal city 3913-03
maintained
upland 3787-01
within roadway prism 4280-01
or disposal area
upland and confined 78-4427-01
behind earthen berm
upland and confined 3633
behind beraed area
upland behind bulkhead 3990-03
upland, use for fill 4232-03
backfill, cxceaa goes to 78-4403-01
upland disposal
within roadway prism 3919-03
Craney Island Dlaposal J 7 89-02
Area and Rehandling Basin
upland 4124-02
bcrmed disposal area 79-0010-03
144
-------
TABLE A-28
DREDGING .STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY;
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1980
Date
12/17/79
10/30/79
4/7/80
9/12/60
3/30/80
9/4/60
9/30/80
9/4/80
2/12/80
9/4/60
12/31/79
9/2/80
6/18/80
6/27/60
2/19/80
2/28/80
12/31/79
3/9/80
4/7/80
3/27/60
3/U/60
7/23/80
1/13/80
9/4/80
9/3/60
10/26/79
1/11/60
4/16/80
7/9/80
Feral t tee
Colonial Nat.
Historical Park
C.B. Butler. Jr.
Bormaa Van Jester
He**r*. Edward H.
Karrall Jr. at. al.
Colonial Ftp. Hoe Co.
VA Dept. Of Highway*
and Transportation
Gregory J- Harable
Virginia Chemical*,
Inc.
Colonial National
Historical Fark
Sot folk Dredging Co.
Marvin E. rg«
VA Dept. of Highway*
and Transportation
Dismal Swamp National
UUdllfe Refuge
Virginia Tractor Co.
Equipment Unlimited
Inc.
City of Suffolk
City of Newport New*
Tidewater Boat Club
Colonial Pipeline Co.
City of VA Beach
Nr. Gary FT ice
Dr. Charles Lloyd
Milliam 8. Smith
Frederick J. Fetsloger.
Ill
City of Fortamouth
City of Hampton
Naval Facilities
Engineering Command
Norfolk Shipbuilding
and Drydock Co.
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transportation
H
Location Total Anount Dredged H
York River, VA
Bush Fark Creek. VA
Lewis Creek. VA
Lynnhavca liver, VA
Western Branch of
Elizabeth liver. VA
Southern Branch of
Elizabeth liver. VA
Southern Branch of
Elizabeth liver. VA
Western Branch of
Elizabeth liver. VA
Felg'te* Creek. VA
Albermarl* and Chesapeake
Canal VA Cut, VA
Antipoison Creek. VA
talnes Creek. VA
Dismal Swamp. VA
Souther* Branch of
Elizabeth liver. VA
Eastern Branch of
Elisabeth River. VA
James liver. VA
Jones liver. VA
Knitting Hill Creek, VA
Lake Anna. VA
Lake Rude*. VA
Lake tvdee, VA
Stutt* Creek. VA
Taylor Creek. VA
Scott* Creak. VA
Scott a Creek. VA
Hampton live* Creek. VA
Hampton load*. VA
Eaatern Branch of
Elizabeth liver. VA
ware liver. VA
E. CLalborae Robin*. Jr. Hare liver. VA
3.900
60
933
4,500
923
1.142.000
60
60
27
23.000
500
963
2.000
23.600
900
30
3.000
407
30
133
400
2.330
1,130
63
23.800
67.000
13
1.200
N
H
H
V
g
M
a
M
It
N
*
a
H
M
H
M
N
H
II
t
*
H
N
II
11
H
H
N
N
H
Method Used
For Dredging
bucket
bucket
dragline
hydraulic
bucket
clam* hell
bucket
clam* hell
bucket
drag line
dragline and
hydraulic
bucket
clamshell
bucket
bucket
dragline
bucket
dragline
bucket
dragline
hydraulic
bucket
bucket
bucket
hydraulic
bucket
bucket
claoshall
Disposal Site File Number
upland York County 78-0493-02
Landfill Froject
upland behimd bulkhead J 7 96-01
upland disposal area. 79-0221-03
privately owned
pumped directly on 79-O105-02
upland ait*
upland, than reused 79-073V-01
unusable material barged 79-0777-06
to Craney Ulaod lehandling
Basin
use for backfill 9tM))76-07
momentarily stored on 80-0)78-07
adjacent site
York County landfill 79-0446-02
barged to upland 79-0742-O2
disposal
area, confined behind
earthen beret
within roadway seism 79-023O-02
part deposited Into a 80-0250-06
roadway, rest upland
Craney Island Disposal 79-0774-O6
Area
backfill for bulkhead 79-0704-07
Craney Island lehandling 3838-06
Basin
adjacent upland confined 79-0117-02
disposal
Norfolk's Lambert Land- 79-0363-03
fill
upland, behind earthen 79-0784-02
berm
upland dispoaal 79-0399-03
upland and confined 00*129-02
upland on adjacent field 79-0682-07
upland bermed area 79-0402-07
behind earthen bera 79*0168-02
recycled 80-01 29-03
Cranay Island Rchandllne. 8O-O029-01
Baain
pumped directly to 79-0261-02
Craney Uiand Disposal
Area
Craney Island Dispoaal 79-0360-03
Area
within roadway prism or 78-U14-O2
upland
567 uaed for fill 75 a* 79-O643-07
Sbeepnead Creak. VA
backfill rest graded In-
to adjacent property
upland landvard of new 3981-02
bulkhead
145
-------
TABLE A-28 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
NORFOLK DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1980
For DredRUs. Disposal Sit*
IQ/4/79
2/19/BO
2/28/ao
4/10/BO
9/-13/80
9/8/80
5/21/80
11/7/79
9/16/79
7/6/80
S/ff/80
1/17/80
7/16/80
10/13/79
12/28/79
7/J/BO
10/10/79
1/3/80
9/17/80
8/2/80
12/31/80
4/25/50
9/4/80
10/23/79
10/24/79
U.S. Army T ran » port -
*tlun CVIU«T .imi Fort
EuStlS
City of Suffolk
Kenneth a. Vhltehurst
VA Dept. of liithtttya
and Transportation
City of VA Reach
Chelsea Waterway Assoc.
Cldeon Enterprises
Frank E. Hueller
VA Dept. of Highnys
and Transportation
Korview Marina
Colonial ripellne Co.
fteon Shipyard and
Rcpari Corp.
U.S. Coast Guard
Douglas V. Bralcy
Hsopton Road* Energy
Coapany
Norfolk aod Ucstcra
Railway Company
Allied Haritw Industry
Inc.
City of Newport Hen
Ami* 1. Shall
Gary Bollaad
Dtnnia H. Buahntll
tU^ton Roads
Sanitation District
VA Dept. of Highways
and Transports tioa
Wildlife Service
UllliaMburi
Foundation
Sklffers Creek, VA
(Uaseaond River. VA
Kawnev Creek. VA
»*w Market Creek. VA
North Land ins. River. VA
f
Rroad Bay. VA
•ells Hill Creek. VA
Bleakhom Creek, VA
•rights Creek, VA
•road Creek. VA
raauokey River, VA
Eastern Branch of
Clluheth River. VA
Cbincoceagu* Channel . VA
Dynsr Creek, VA
Elisabeth River. VA
Elizabeth Riwr. VA
Eastern Branch of
Elisabeth River. VA
Haaptoo Roads, VA
•appshsoaock River, VA
tadee Inlet, VA
Tlnb.rneck Creek. VA
Raspcon Roads. VA
Basel Run, VA
. Jeaws River. VA
JAMS Rivor. VA
2.000.000
1.400
1.061
10
1.400
8.500
4.000
too
134
12,000
419
6,200
7,000
iti
3.400,000
170,000
3,200
30
SO
33
17
287.100
603
80
213
H
H
N
tt
H
n
N
r.
s
N
1*
M
M
M
a
N
H
N
H
•
H
N
•
8
H
a
hydraulic
bucket
bucket and /or
dynaaic
bucket
bucket
hydraulic
dragline
backhoe
dragline
• hydraulic
bucket
dragline
bucket
bucket
hydraulic
hvdraullc
and /or bucket
hydraulic
dragline
dragline •
dragline
hand tools
clamshell
bucket
dragline
hydraulic
upland Into bernee"
area
Craney Island Krhandllng
Basin .
onto adjacent wetlands
upland or within roadway
priSB
part used in brldgv coo-
it t ruction remainder
transported to upland
disposal
puaped to disposal
sites and confined
upland Into adfaceni
beraed disposal area
upland behind earthen
bera
material uaed for the
placement ot bridge
sbwtBents
pooped directly into
adjacent disposal area
and confined by earthen
bera
upland behind earthen
Craney Island
area on Willow Street
upland into bermed
disposal
pipeline to Craoey Islam
Craney Island Disposal
Area
barged to Craney Island
Disposal Ares
upland
upland and confined
behind earthen bera
upland alt*
upland, bermed area
on sas* property
upland
escess on roadway prlsa
upland behind bulkhead
spoil osed In project
construct ion
41U6-O1
W19-0*
79-O2 S6-O2
;9-U-*Oft-4>-'
hU*>im-4Jj
;4-ute)-o7
00426I-06
79-0179-06
79-026IMU
4173-02
79-07s4-02
79-OS47-01
78-410S-4U
1 1-0022)6
8O-O049-OJ
79-4183-02
79-0118-03
79-0489-03
80-0256-03
79-0330-OJ
79-0322-03
79-0399-02
79-O4W-03
79-0461-42
146
-------
TABLE A-29
DREDGING STAnSTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1975
Data
b/16/75
6/16/75
4/15/75
10/4/74
4/17/75
6/19/75
6/12/75
6/2/75
2/2/75
11/25/74
6/4/75
10/18/74
6/2/75
1/27/75
5/7/75
1/27/75
1/27/75
12/18/74
11/22/74
9/17/74
12/10/74
4/29/75
1/11/75
11/4/74
4/9/75
12/11/74
2/14/75
5/7/75
12/20/74
5/16/75
12/6/74
2/10/75
Permittee
Kent Island Llalted
Limited Partnership
Kant Island Limited
Partnership
Flab llarkor Corp.
Havre da Grace. Mayor
and City Council
Smith. Seat, Jr.
Anna Arundel County.
Dept. of Public Works
Snug Harbor Citlzene
Aaaociatlon
Research Homes. Inc.
Fairfax Co. Dept.
of Public Works
Green, William
Bay City Improvement
Aseoclatlon
Durr. Williams
Research Homes. Inc.
Bohemia tiver Marina
Baltimore Co. Dept.
of Public Works
Trojan Yacht
Calvert County
Melville. Thomas
Bayslda Propertiea. Inc.
Zahniser. Albert
Cloverfield Improve-
ment Asaocietlon
Somerset County
Recreation and Park
Commiaeion
tits. Jack H.
Caster. C.
U.S. naval Facllitiaa
Engineering Command
Campbell, Robert
Hull, Sam E. at al.
Edwarde. Donald
U.R. Grace and Co.
W.t. Grace and Co.
U.S. Coaat Guard
Balch. Henry ».
Location Total Amount Dredged R
Chesapeake Bay near
StevenavilU. HD
Cheeapcake Bay near
Stevenavllle. MD
Chesapeake Bay at
Long Beach. KD
Cheaapeaka Bay at
tavrs de Grace. HD
Charleeton Creek. HD
Cheaapeake Bay at
Severely Beach. MD
Cheeapeake Bay near
Shady Side. MD
Cheeepeake Bay at Bodkin
Point. KD
Cameron Run. VA
Carr'a Creek. HD
Broad Creek. VA
Bodkin Creak. KD
Bodkin Creek. HD
Bohemia River. KD
Bear Creek. KD
Big Elk Creek. KD
Back Creek. KD
Balla Creek, KD
. Bat Creek, HD
Back Creek. HD
Cheater tiver at Clover-
field, KD
Coon* Creek at tumbley. KD
Galloway Creek, KD
Elk liver. KD
Doraay Creek, KD
Elk tiver et Elkton. HD
Cypress Creek. KD
Davie Creek. HD
Curtle Creek near Sledds
Point. HD
Cart la Creek near Sleilda
Point. KD
Cutrla Say, HD
Cos Crack near Bayflelda.
15,000
7,400
11.000
2B.OOO
J75
12,000
1,854
2,050
700
10
110
1.800
110.000
9,400
760
10,000
150
210
5,000
1,000
1,600
10,000
500
10,000
14,500
10
600
200
400
5,000
12,000
HD 175
R
R
s
N
s
s
s
s
9
V
H
K
H
S
S
II
II
S
s •
a
II
B
,
g
H
*
S
S
ti
8
H
n
For Dredging
hydraulic
hydraulic
clamshell
clamshell
mechanical
dragline
dragline
clamshell or
dragline
dragline
dragline and
hydraulic
dragline
hydraulic
backhoe
dragline
clamshell
hydraulic
clamshell
dragline
Disposal Site fllv Number
upland and retained
behind an earthen dike
on applicant's property
upland and retBlned on 74-611
applicant's property
74-441 .
behind dike on appllcant'a 74-172
property
upland apoll site 74-968
11,070 cu yd used SB back- 71-1226
fill, test disposed of
upland
landward of bulkhead and 71-811
earthen barriera
landward of ehorellne 74-110
500 cu yd used for stream 74-742
backfill, rest deposited
landward is disposal area
retained behind bulkhead 74-188
71-725
deposited and reteined em 71-119
upland alte
landward of shoreline 71-1021
upland disposal 74-601
480 cu yd uaed as land- 74-1021
fill, rest barged to
disposal area
diked upland dlepoaal area 74-321
behind bulkhead 74-678
landward of shoreline 74-414
diked area on shoreline 71-17
on applicant 'a property
landward of bulkhead 71-1217
2 upland disposal altea 71-1216
on applicant 'a property
depoelied and retained 74-1001
landward of MnU shnre-
lln*
deposited and retained 74-411
landward of HHU shoreline
deposited and ratainmd on 71-740
applicant'* nroperty
74-947
landward of XBU on 74-494
applicant's property
to be placed landward 74-159
of bulkhead
depoalted and retained
landward of noi shoreline
deposited and retained 74-782
in a diked area
landward of KHU In diked 75-94
area on applicant 'a property
74-876
upland site 74-719
147
-------
TABLE A-29 (continued) j
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:'
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1975
Date
IM/7)
10/8/74
3/18/75 .
S/27/7S
imi/74
J/lB/71
t/20/7)
1/29/75
A/15/75
10/11/74
5/27/75
6/9/73
6/20/75
11/26/71
9/20/74
1/28/75
X/I4/7S
6/17/75
10/23/74
J/5/75
5/22/7)
6/12/7)
11/25/74
2/10/7)
1/13/75
2/5/75
1/10/75
1/18/75
U/19/74
11/21/74
5/2/75
Pern It i e«
Zepp, C.I.
Creenhswh. Leooard
Tleder. J.U.. toe.
Towaend. Victor
Anderson, Charles
!O State Dept. of
FraeiBportatioo
U.S. Xavy Chesapeake
Division
Bertenfelder. Harry
Colu«bia LSC Co.
Pass. Quentin V.
Showtll. Joho Dale
C. and T. Uad. lac.
Sewarda* Point Marina
Yekstst. Bernard C.
Anchorage SwU Club.
Inc.
SD Seats Dept. cf
Natural Resources
Dans. Carl a.
Kutcblnaon. Karl J.
Hlrsca, Thomas E.. Jr.
Boise Cascade Bom add
Land Corp.
Chcaeldllne. Joseph E.
Buthe*. Helens V.
Kapland, Kit che 11 A.
Maryland State Dept.
of Batural Resource*
Levlsburg Arc* JoUt
S«w«r Authority
ttatropolltan Edison Co.
Oucaa. ttichMl
J. Lawaon Cllbcri
Distributors, Inc.
Bota* Cascade loa* and
Land Corp.
faytd. J«BM« J.
The B4O Railroad Co.
location Total t
Col burn Cr««h at Marlon
MO
Church Crack. ND
Cboptaok Blvtr. M>
Chlncotcagoa Bay o«ar Handya
HaaaDCk, KD
Canal or Cuapovdwr liver
at JoppotoMM, HO
Aiynaa Fall. ND
Harper Creek, MD
Hopkins Creek near Essex, KD
Hunting Creek. Stoakley. KD
Island Creek at Saint
George. K)
Isle of Uljht Bay at Ocean
City, HD
Jackaon Creek a«ar Craaon*
vllle. KD
Kent Harrows near Crasoo-
vlLle, HD
Knaaps Harrow* at TlRhlun, KD
lake Ogleton at Beale Manor.
KD
Lak« Conoy. MD
Little Bound oay near
Mathiera Point. HD
Lowry Cove. HD
Hagothy River. KD
Kaoklla Creek ac Ocean
Pines. KD
Shannon Branch of TeocceHao
River. VA
Cblpplns Creek near Bates
Heck. KD
South River near Boyd Point. KD
Susquehaona River near Kavra
de Grace. KD
Suaqvananna River near
LewlabarB. KD
Sw«qoehanna liver at 3 alle
Island. PA
St. Thoe«s Crvck. Soccer Ley
Point. KD
Suaqoehanna River at Havre
d« Grace. KD
St. Hartln River near Cedar
Point, KD
St. Peters Creek. tt>
Pstpsco River at Baltimore
Harbor. HD
uount Dredged
50
150
1,000
292
1.000
t).o50
2.000
40
16.300
150
3.200
250
450
120
312
65.000
130
22.600
1.000
60.000
ISO
2.000
60
210
73
1.100
1.400
2.92)
8.600
200
BO. 000
*
H
a
a
X
y
K
s
H
X
H
B
8
B
M
H
N
n
8
M
11
H
a
•
H
N
H
H
H
H
H
H
Method Used
For Dr edit Ing
dragline
hydraulic
cl-Mh.ll
boost crane
backet
dragline
hydraulic
dragline
dragline
backet
dragline
hydraulic
dragline
hydraulic
dragline
bucket
Disposal Sits File Sumtoer
deposited and retained
landward of bulkhead
deposited, apread. seeded
and retained landward
landward of KLH shoreline
behind earthen ber* land-
ward of HWI shoreline
trucked end deposited into
upland disposal
upland, deposited and
retained landward ol HWU
shoreline
deposited and retained
landward on applicant's
property
backfill ever pipeline
upland site
landward of MM shoreline
in disposal site
trucked on applicant's
property, landward of MKU
shoreline
deposited and retained on
upland site
retained landward of KHU
shoreline
landward of bulkhead
landward of HHU shoreline
tHHtlw OuI^M^
landward of KUU shoreline
Undward of MHW shoreline
landward of MOI shoreline
landward of KHU shoreline
behind dike landward of
HHU shoreline
landward of existing
bulkhead
placed and retained
behind bulkhead
landward of HHU shoreline
upland disposal on Island
landward of HHU shoreline
deposited and retained
above KKU shoreline
landward of HNU shoreline
deposited and retained
landward of bulkhead
diked containaent on
applicant's property
7A-i23
73-93B
74-920
74-519
73-1J31
74-4 7 >
7J-2.*7
T4-9I3
74-J4I
7J-9J5
74-185
75-7)
73-198
73-1254
74-279
74-761
;i-;sc
73-549
73-506
74-933
74-329
74-491
74-490
HArtV-rU
7)-8>
74-443
71-13*7
74-I7J
73-91 1
76-474
148
-------
TABLE A-29 (continued)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1975
Method Used
Total Amount Dredged !1 for Dredging
Disposal Slt«
2/11/75
10/25/74
10/25/74
1/19/75
1/24/7}
2/18/75
5/27/75
1/8/75
11/27/74
4/28/75
7/2/75
5/2/75
5/8/75
6/3/75
11/6/74
2/27/75
3/13/75
10/3/74
4/15/75
11/6/74
5/11/75
5/19/75
1/3/7}
3/27/75
J/12/7S
10/10/74
4/15/7}
4/15/75
Lynn. Fred M.
Public Works
Tow* Commissioner
at Charleston
•y r na
Ruark * Ashton
Swsfood Co.
Cox. R.
Phillips, Van B.
Holland Cliff
Shores Assn.
Johnston. William D.
Maryland State Port
Administration
Meyer, Robert C.
Western Rsrylsod
Railway
Abe 11. Vernon P.
Maryland State Dept.
of Transportation
of SCM
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Hooks, Wlngate E.
Powell. Paul K
Vise. Ralph H. and
rullioa. William
Columbia LHG Corp.
Boise Cascade Home
and Land Corp.
Delmarva Hater Trans*
protstlon Committee Inc.
General Services Admin.
Bauman, Henry
Wor chaster County
Commissioners Show Hill
•omer. Arthur H. Jr.
U.S. Navy Commanding
Officer. Chesapeake
Division, D.C.
Columbia LKC Corp.
Wilmington, Del.
Columbia LUC Corp.
Occoeuan liver at Occoouan,
MD
Point, HD
Northeast liver at Char Us
town. MD
ree ,
Muddy Book near
Hoopersvllle, MD
Island, MD
Point. MD
San Domingo Creek near St.
Michaels, KD
Patux*nt tivet at Holland
Cliff, HD
Patuxent liver, unnamed
cove, HD
Patapsco liver Baltimore
Harbor. HD
Patapsco liver at Clen
Burnie, HD
Kiddle Branch of Patapsco
River at Hawkins Point. HD
Patuxent liver at Solomons
Island. MD
Patapsco River at Baltimore HD
Point. HD
Northwest Branch of the
Patapsco at Sparrows. MD
St. George Creek at
Hodgson. HD
St. Jerome Creek near
Ridge, KD
St. Jerome Creek near
Ridge, KD
St. Leonard Creek. XD
St. Martin liver and
Hanklin Creek. KD
Ulcomico liver near
Salisbury. HP
Potomac River at Potomac
Pk. MD
Potomac River at Cobb
Island. HO
Pocomoke River near
Pocomoke, HD
Patuxent Rlvtr near
Holland Point, HD
Patuxent River at Naval
Air Station, KD
Planters Wharf Creek
lusby, KD
Patuxent River near
Aquasco. KD
50
2.000
70
'
350
75
4 550
110
1.500
340
15.000
25
50.000
390
91.000
10.000
20.000
170
1.000
730
25.300
32.000
54,150
550
15
125
100
700
13.900
126,640
S clamshell
"
y
c aos
S dragline
S
K
*
N drag line
S
K bucket
N dragline
S clamshell
clamshell
S dragline
dragline
dragline
bucket
clamshell
or dragline
H hydraulic
H clamshell
H
y
a
H clamshell
H bucket
N bucket
landward of MKU shoreline 7i->83
landward of MHU shoreline .J-991
deposited end retained on 7*-«04
applicant's property
property . t
landward of MHU shoreline 7--S23 |
|
1-mdward or bulkhead .3-*57 j
landward of MHW shoreline ;
upland of MHW shoreline 75-29 '
landward of MHU shoreline 7J-l3ii :
behind bulkhead 7J-1U2
!
barged to Arundel Corp. 7i-10J7 j
Property and retained ;
landward of MHW shoreline 75-157 |
:
behind diked area on fast- NABOT-F/: j
land in Patapsco River j
deposited and retained 73-156 ,
behind bulkhead '
deposited and retained 75-209 :
landward of MKW shoreline '
line
retained upland 7J-U53 >
i
deposit and retained 71-81 j
landward of bulkhead !
behind bulkhead 74-676 • i
diked disposal 73-116* i
i'
•
upland la approved spoil 75-305
sit* In Wlcoaico River j
rainwaters landfill 75-257 ;
upland 71'1282 •
landward of ftJW shoreline 74-700
upland site on applicant 'a 73-24
property
landward of MHU shoreline 74-253
in Patuxent River
use of backfill over 74-339
pipeline
used ss backfill 74-342
149
-------
TABLE A-29 (concluded) .
•DGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1975
Permittee
ft.F. Diawoad Con-
* truce too Corp.. Inc.
Cedar Point Harlne
Siwleys Point
Yacht Basin
'.'lllage Green. Inc.
Ting. Richard
Plantation
Dupont de tteaoure
Sanitary Cooaiasioa
Columbia LUC Corp.
iUick. Jean £., and
Franklin. S.
U'lltor^J. Jonathan
C.S.Y. Finance, Inc.
Sethlaai Steel Corp.
Location Total taount Dredged M
Patuxent River near
Johnstown. XD
Xarsby Creek near
Barrows, XD
Middle River at
Bow leys Point. HO
Quern Aone fouhl near
ttsttepes. KD
Ramaay Lake at Turkey
Point. KD
Potomac River off Rout*
VA WOO
Pottmuc River near Falling
Water Waat V*
Potomac River at Hockley
Point, m
Potomac River. MD
Port Tobacco River at
Port Tobacco. KD
Island Creeo near Oxford. MD
Patapaco River at Canton KD
Patapsco River at Sparrows. K
3.000 •
2.700
to
25.000 a
SO
7.000
40
40,000
740,000
70 8
30
9S.OOO
> dredge
For Dredging Disposal Sit*
clamshell place above MO* shoreline
deposited sad retained on
upland area landward ot
MM shoreline on applicant
property
upland site above HKV
shoreline
hydraulic landward of HKU shoreline
on applicant's property
dragU"* landward ot KUU shoreline
hydraulic upland and contained
dragline use as fill
bucket upland sit*
bucket use *a backfill
behind bulkhead
deposited and retained
landward of t9ttt shoreline
landward of WU shoreline
landward of KHV shoreline
File Number
71-B87
73-W6
*a
7V-241
74-32.
7 4 -4,91
73-906
74- 10W
74-143
73-3
74-310
74-364
73-1260
150
-------
TABLE A-30
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
Date
3/20/76 .
11/6/73
10/16/73
12/3/76
9/10/76
B/ 30/76
9/26/73
9/26/73
1U/7/73
4/8/76
S/10/76
1/9/76
9/26/73
9/28/76
7/14/73
tO/31/73
3/2»/76
6/4/76
7/12/76
1/15/76
8/15/73
10/10/73
11/28/73
7/16/76
4/12/76
1/21/76
1/6/76
3/3/76
3/17/76
12/8/73
4/14/76
8/13/73
remittee
LeRoy. Pierre L.
Steeie, Albert B. Jr.
Thompsmn, Herman
Dartiey. Edward
C«d*rhurst Citizens
Moore. Marshall •
Ulltard
Papaa. John
S legman. Raymond H.
Baltimore County
Dept. of .Recreation
ItasMermlll Paper Co.
watergate Village
Uooster. Uilllom
Areaore Developers, lac
Potomac Electric
Power Company
Washington Suburban
Sanitary Casnission
Culien, Reginald
Asplen. S. Herbert
Brlce, Tylalin
Castle Marina. Inc.
Cvertng, Joseph
Galloway Creek Rarlna
Uolfe. Frank
ftewport Bay Co. lac.
As tin. Ira T.
Maryland Dept. of
natural Resources
Harbour View, Inc.
Fairfax County
Department of Public
Works
Fllncbum. Allen J.
Somerset County
Clarke. Thomas Jr.
Townacad, Victor
EibUr's Karloa. Inc.
location Tots
Chesapeake Bay at Rock
Hall. HD
Chesapeake Bay near
Matapeok*. HD
Chesapeake Bav at Kent
Point. KD
Cat Creek and Patuxent
River. KD
Cedar bust Channel. KD
Brannock's Bay. KD
Brsnmock's Bay. HD
Bin AnnemesMX. HD
Bird River. KD
Bald Eagle Creek, PA
Back Creek, KD
AssavoBOn Bay, HD
Anacostla River, KD
Anacostia River. KD
Anacmeascx Canal, KD
Church Creek. HD
Chester River near
Chaster town, KD
Chester River near
Chester, KD
Frog Mortar Creak near
Galloway Point, KD
Galloway Creak. MD
Galloway Creek at Log
Point KD
Clbba Pond at Slaepuxent
Beck, KD
Flog Pond near Ophelia. VA
Dundee Creek. HD
Elk River near Courthouse
Point. KD
North Form of Dogue Creek.
Cypress Creek, HD
Dames Quarter Creek, KD
Church Creek near Saint
Inigoea, KD
Chlncoteagu* »sy near
Handy Hammock, HD
Chester River at Chester-
town. HD
1 Amount Dredge
1,300
30,000
30.000
3.300
3.UUO
700
23
100
16.900
300
2.739
330
237
22.000
130,000
2,106
90
830
1.300
600
420
200
1.200
300
1.100
2.000
VA 67
330
33.430
60
200
3.600
d H
K
3
a
x
N
M
S
N
!l
N
S
•
It
H
•
H
H
H
M
H
•
H
H
H
•
•
H
n
i
H
H
H
Method Used
for Dredging
hydraulic
dragline
J rag line
dragline
dragline
claashell
hydraulic
dragline
dragline
dragline
hydraulic
hydraulic
backhoe
dr ax line
hydraulic
dragline
dragline
dragline
dragllna
dragline or
backhoe
suction dredge
dragline
clamshell
dragline
cront
Disposal Site
used as fill material
behind bulkhead
deposited and retained
In a diked area on
applicant's property
retained landward of
the bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
approved upland
used to create a
t--ausewsy
landward of shoreline
on applicant's property
retained landward
deposited In beracd
area
use as fill oo the pipe
680 landward ot bulk-
head, rest: upland site
upland disposal ares
landward ot bulkhead
diked disposal on
applicant's property
landward 6 retained
upland
deposited 6 retained
landward ot bulkhead
truck to an abandoned
depoaltnd and retained
In a diked areJ
upland and retained on
applicant's property
deposited & apread onto
open fi*U above MHU
shoreline
deposited behind
bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
in Cibbs' Pond
upland site
upland 4 retained on
applicant's property
upland disposal area
Trucked to a commercial
dump
retained in designated
spoil area
fill behind bulkhead
landward of MHU shore-
line on applicant's
property
dump trucks to upland
diked area
File Dumber •
.
7J-U13-1
73-iB2
I
73-990
:>6>3
73-94,
:.-««
7i-399
75-163 '
1
73-1)61
73-121-1
••6-0021
74-44)
76-427
73-934
73-119
75-1)66
76-111
76-364
73-974
]
15-1BS i
75-569
75-720
75-1167
74-1011
75-1003
75-628
75-1114-2
lUIOT-F/l
74-114
76-282
76-400
151
-------
TABLE A-30 (continued)
I
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
Date
7/29/7J
8/16/76
8/19/75
4/16/76
1/25/76
11/7/75
11/21/75
7/15/76
1/1/76
10/29/76
2/26/76
7/U/7S
9/10/76
8/11/76
12/12/75
12/5/75
6/10/76
11/28/75
10/1/75
12/1/75
5/10/76
10/14/75
2/25/76
12/1/75
1/28/76
4/26/76
2/19/76
4/12/76
9/28/76
7/1/75
12/11/75
9/10/76
1/9/76
Permittee
Holland. •.'111 Ian H.
KcMahan. Lee D.
Balnun. Irwln
Brown. Paul
Planar. Kill tan t.. Jr.
Crazier. Kathryn C.
Hudson. Jamee
Umphler. John 0.
Lrnch. Wllllaa a.
Phillips. Bruce B.
Hurte Creek Asaoc.
Bahla Marina. Inc.
Brown. Kenneth
Maryland State Dent.
of Tranaportatlon
Morris. Marvin K.
Faulkner. Jemee A.
Flaherty's Boatyard.
Inc.
Soyes. James 8.. Jr.
Meyer. Robert C.
Ceatero Bay Seafood
Daly. Robert E.
Leigh. A.H. 6 Bond. C.
Hadgett. A.C.
Maryland State Dept.
of Natural Resources
Adaaa. Mitchell W.
Grove. George D.
Talbot Co. Sanitary
Cooalaaton
Margaret's Far*
Providence Club
Ray. Robert S.
Turner. Elwood K.
Ublte, MartLa. C.Jr.
and Robert L. Carrlson
Eppard. Leonard C.
City of Alexandria
Location Total A
Roaga River near Church
Creek. KD
Bonga River at Hoopera
Island
lala of Wright Bay at
Ocean City. KD
lala of Wlnht Bay near
Ocean City. KD
Isle of Wight Bay at
Ocean City. KD
lala of Wlcbt Bay at
Ocean Cltv. KD
lale of wight Bay at
Cap lele of Wright. HD
Ocean City, KD
tale of Wight Bay near
Ocean City. KD
Isle of Wight Bay near
Ocean City. KD
Hurts Creek, KD
lele of Wight Bay at
Ocean City. KD
Juhnaoo Bay near Clrdletree.
KD
Jonae Palla. KD
Kent Narrowa, KD
Cnapps Narrowa. KD
Kaap?e. Narrows. HD
Tllghaaa leland, HD
Knapps Narrowa at Tllghaan
lsl£»s. ^
Lethe Pond near Paaadllna
Beach. MD
Little Creek Hear Chestsr. KD
Logecllff Harbor. KD
Hagothy River at Gibson
Island. HD
Kagothy River at Longvlev. KD
Hagothy River at Shore
Acres. KD
Harvmaco Creek. KD
Herumaco Creek. KD
Hilea River naar St.
Hlchaela. MD
Hill Creek et St.
Hargareta Pans. KD
Kill Creak at Providence. XD
Hill Creek near Hollywood
Kill Creek neer Harry
Hogan Point. KD
Pythers Creek at Cape Loch
Haven
Potomac River naar Hallowing
Point. KD
Potomac River. City of
Alexandria. VA
mouot Dradgsi
200
800
110
220
60
6
1
"
175
720
4.000
100
10
190
220
195
400
210
600
650
10
600
75
8.800
692
50
1.500
965
760
111
1.000
100
200
40.000
N
1 H
H
H
a
a
M
a
a
N
a
H
H
a
y
»
a
a
S
N
a
H
H
a
a
H
H
H
a
H
H
a
a
H
a
Method Uaed
for Dredging
dragline
dregllne
backhoe
backhoe
dragline or
clamshell
clamshell
dragline
dragline
clamshell
dr saline
clJAshell
clamshell
clamshell
clamshell
hydraulic
hydraulic
clamshell
dragline
clamahell
Olapoaal Sit*
retained landward of
KttU shorsliaa
landward of bulkhead
landward of KnW shore-
llna
landward of Htw ahere-
llne
landward of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
shoreline
landward of KM store-
line on 2 properties
landward of MKW ahore-
llne
upland disposal sites
landward of MNW shore-
line et Ocean City. MD
landward of HKW abore-
llne
teuaad for project rest
in disposal aree upland
above the MKU shore-
line
landward of bulkhead
deposited 4 retained on
upland site
landward of HKW shore-
Use
upland
trucked onto upland elte
landward of bulkhead
landward nf bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
upland
upland
upland 6 apread in
adjacent flelda
disposal area landward
upland
upland diked diaposal
area
behind bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
landward of HHU ahora-
llne
File Number
75-260
75-1419
75-992
IJ-10^0 '
MBOP-P/I
75-1155
75-856
7J-991
76-408
75-946
76-796
75-950
75-268
76-528
75-14001
71-276
74-515
75-110:
75-144-1
75-62
75-516
75-568
75-214
75-614-1
15-918
75-1284
75-546
75-888-1
75-1121 '
76-176
74-1025
75-110-1
76-154
75-941
152
-------
TABLE A-30 (continued)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
If Method Used
nt Dredged M for Dredging Disposal Sic*
153
1/21/76
1/26/79
11/19/75
9/21/79
1/11/76
1/9/76
9/7/76
6/1/76
9/17/76
6/29/76
11/11/79
1/9/76
7/15/75
a/27/75
7/22/75
12/15/75
7/10/76
1/25/76
9/19/76
9/«/79
2/20/76
1/17/76
679/76
10/17/79
10/21/79
12/6/79
7/7/76
1/19/76
Crenshaw. U.S. Jr.
Raddoi. Trod
(Marlon Station. .ID)
Vllacm. Inbert J.
U.S. Savv Ospt. of
Kan D.C.
Commission of
Leonardtown. 3D
Slchola*. J.H. ,
Billiard. C.T..
Bllai. «.«..
Poolesvllle. nD
Breezy Point Beach
Blade* Material*. Inc.
C.A. i F.C. Uagman.
Inc. (tork. Pa.)
Baltimore City Dept.
of Public Works
Baltimore Caa t
Electric Company
Bethlehem Steel Corp.
Harbor View Assoc.
County Coomisaion of
Qween Aonea County
Cecil County Oept. of
Public Works
Dayton. David H.
tabam, OtCla C.
Burroughs, Ann T.
Career. Eicon 0.
Point Field Land-
Ing, Inc.
Rain. Klaua H. Dr.
Smith Brothers. Inc.
Parker. Nary E.
Robert Shaw L.B.
Annapolis. City of
Ireland, R. . Cadow. A.
and Saatboff. V.
Maryland State Port
Administration.
Baltimore
Potomac River. City
of Alexandria. VA
Pocomoke River near
Sbelltown. KD
Pocomoke River near
Shelltown. KD
Bridge at Indian Read.
MO
Kingston and Little K
Feck's Cove near Crason-
villa; KD
Plum Point Creek near
Plum Point. KD
Focovoke River near
Pocomoke City
Kiddle Branch Fatapsco
River at Baltimore. KD
Papapaeo River at Baltimore
City. HD
Fatepcco River. KD
Pat apse o River at fair-
field, KD
Occoquan River t Kasaey
Creek near Lor too. VA
No Name Creek at Phil pots
Island, HD
Northeast River near Seneca
Point. HD
Nantlcoke River at
Bivalve. HD
lockawalkln Creak at
Salsibury. KD
Point, KD
Severn River at Herald
Harbor. KD
Severn River at Point
Field Landing. KD
Shipping. Creek at Butler's
Landing. KD
Slaughter Crack at Taylor
Island. KD
South River at nitlsmere
Estates, KD
South River at Water Beach,
Spa Creek at the City Dock.
Annapolis, HD
Spring Cove at Coster. KD
Spring Cardan Channel. KO
500
90
2,140
120
*
150
6,000
23,000
140,000
5)5
6.000
235.000
1 .400
11.000
10.500
2.000
170
10.000
260
400
1.250
200
590
1.650
IB 55
2.100
9.000
60,000
M
•
I hydraulic
II
H hydraul Ic
If backhoe
II dragline
H
K clamshell
II dragline
II
« clamshell
H clamahell
K hydraulic
If hydraul Ic
II *uctlon
II clamshell
•
II dragline
* hydraulic
II draglln* 6
clamahall
II clamahall
II
II hydraulic
II clamahell
II clamshell
H hydraulic
H clamshell
landward of ttflf shore-
line
landward of bulkhead
laosward on applicant'*
property
landward of KfU shoro-
llne
upland alte* until dry.
them on baaehes
upland retained
retain** behind earthen
dike on applicant 'a
property
landward of MKW shoro-
line on appl leant '«
property
tucked to diked disposal
area on Arund.l County
property at Hasonvlll*
used a* cover material
upland on applicant's
property
spoil site fc r«teined
upland site
landward of KHU shore-
line
in earthen dike upland
landward of the nW
shoreline on applicant's
property
upland on disposal area
designated spoil area
landward of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
laosVard of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
approved disposal *lt*
landward of bulkhead t
retaining W4ll
dcposltiid i retained
landward of existing
bulkhead
trucked to Annapolis
landfill
diked spoil sr« a on
applicant's property
bobpcr barged to diked
erea upland
75-BOB
75-267 I
74-78
15-61
75-1055
74-2t)
71-TO5
76-717 '
76-5)6
75-412
71-926
"'"
79-195
74- 1(* J
75-495
76-162
71-1211
71-1017
75-411
75-*4«-l
76-0029
16-201
75-14
75-917-4
75-1028
70-187
79-721
\
j
-'
| -
1-
£
.
SUs
-------
TABLE A-30 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1976
Total Aaoyot Drcdt.«d
for Prolcim Dl.po.al Site
7/2/75
IJ/17/75
6/:9/76
11/25/75
1/19/76
9/16/75
12/5/75
2/19/76
9/9/76
9/20/76
3/9/76
3/3/76
8/9/76
3/19/76
1/9/76
9/3/75
6/30/76
6/7/76
6/11/76 .
9/22/7S
9/2.776
12/9/75
12/12/73
7/15/75
12/10/75
10/27/76
J. Uvsoa Gilbert
Diatrtbutor. Inc.
Borouttb of Cliiabeth*
town
Fuller. Harry L.
Harrlsburt, City of
Metropolitan Edison
Cocpany (Reeding. PA>
Metropolitan Edison
Conpany (Reedlns.. FA>
Mt. Joy Borough
Authority
Peonaylvani* Dept. of
Transportation
(HarrlBburg)
Fennsylvanla Power
6 Light CoBpa&y
U.S. Coast Guard
Foftaaowth, VA
cultural ft Chealcal
Division, aaltlttore
Al •under. Robert V.
Uanaer , Charles R.
Hudson. Halter J. Sr.
tiaMX. TROBBS J.
Washington Retro
Transit Authority
Stata of Maryland Dept.
of XR Capital Program*
Administration
Dtlnarva Uater Iraos-
porC CoHMittee.
Sallsburf
Brova, Cecil E.
Clarke Joseph H.
Delaurva Water Trans-
port CoDOunity, Inc.
Parks Orvllle
Cupper Daniel
Shofer Cherly
Aaerada Hess Corp.
Morrlsaett John F.
Susouehaan* River at
Havra de Grace, MD
Suseuehanna River near
BaUbrldce. MD
Suaaueheana River near
Drutaore, HD
Suseuehanna River at
Harrlsbum. MD
Susquehanna River at
three Mil* Island. PA
Susquehaiuu River at
Three Mile Island. PA
Susa,u*haatu River at
Three Mile Island near
Chlklcs Rock. PA
Suaquehanna River at the
183 bridge. PA
Susqueheona River near
Berwick, PA
Stlllpoad at Klnnalrd
Foint. VA
Baltimore. KD
Stoney Creek at
Clearwater Beach. MD
Stoney Creek at
Clearwater Beach. KD
St. Martin liver near
Bishopeville. MD
•iarwlck River at
Secretary, MD
Vashinfton Channel off
the PotOMC River. MD
Watts Creek at Martlnak
State Park, KD
UlcoBlco River near
Salisbury. KD
YeocoBico River at
Allen Point, MD
COOM Creek at Rombly
Kenticoke River near
Usford
Shoal Creek at
Cambridfs. KD
Linepuzetit Bay at
Ocean City
Brook Creek. KD
Curtis Creek near
Ferry Foint
Jone* Pood
MO
400
3.000
*13
3.000
• i.ooo
230
120
9.600
29.000
1.350
30.350
300
1.500
1.500
250
150
171.000
450
500
20
1.500
11.000
120
2.150
61
10.000
500
a clanh.ll
a
• hydraulic
> backho.
11 suction
« bucket
a backhoe
9 backho.
S
M hydraulic
c ans
N drstliM
11
H dragUM
H claBsMll
a
a dra.lin. or
backhos
11
I bucket
1 dratluu
H
a clsnshall
a dratllaa
a
clamsMU
bucket
drill In.
d
-------
TABLE A-31
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1977
Method UMd
For Dr«dtint Df»po*al Site
4/IB/77
10/18/76
11/4/76
1/18/77
8/21/77
11/4/76
7/26/77
6/9/77
11/12/76
12/20/76
8/1/77
6/1U/77
8/18/77
6/24/77
11/1/76
9/28/77
10/29/76
8/8/77
8/15/77
1/5/77
7/17/77
5/1J/77
5/9/77
1/4/77
11/26/76
IO/U/76
8/19/77
J/18/77
11/15/76
3/11/77
4/4/77
4/77/77
5/9/77
Haryland State Dept.
of Natural Resources
Carpenter. Lloyd
Cedarburst Cit Irene
Asaociatloo
Hill., bin w.
Coabe, UUllae
Baesett. I.T.
Lsngenfelder * Son
Porter. Elisabeth
Reele. Selvetore
tUl.t. Boyce C.
ARnapolle. City of
Zshnlser. Albert
are. Hsry Clerk
Haryland Park Service
Kent Island United
Pertnerehlp
Clovsrfleld laproveaent
Aseociatton
Thoaae A. Hortoo. Jr.
Heff, 8111 V.
Trevers, Delaaa B.
Soneraet County
Sanitation Dlatri"t, Inc
Maryland State Dept.
of Natural Resources
Becker. Vllllaa
Facllltlea Engineering.
(Director of) U.S. Araqr
Corpa of Eagineere
Donald J. Scylola 6
Coapaoy
Powell. Luther
McConlck 6 Co. , Inc.
Jennings. John L.
Cullan. Hary
Pioneer Point. Inc.
J.A. Aesexui, Inc.
Baltimore County Dept.
of Public Uorka
It.ln. ullllasi J.
Leaoroa. Charlee r.
Cheeapeake Be* near
Hatapeake, It)
Cheeapeake Bay at
Tailor's lalend, ID
Cederburat Channel, HD
Chapel Creek. It)
Caabridfa Creek. ID
Catbird Creek. K)
Breton Bar. DD
Broad Creek. HD
Bell Creek, H>
Black Beard Pond. VA
Back Creek. HD
Back Creek. HD
Aberdeen Creek.
Watermelon Point. KD
Anneaaaaea Canal
Cove of Cbeaapeake Bay
near Steveaaviile, HD
Cheater River et Clover*
field. HD
Grace Creek at Boaaan, HD
Prog Pond near Ragged
Point. VA
riahlng Creek at Honga. KD
Prancle CUT at bell. KD
Ilk giver. HD
Deep Creek. KO
Dogue Creek. VA
Dogue Creek, VA
Cypreea Creek, K>
Crab Allay Bay at Paraon
laland, KD
Coeta Creek. HD
Choetank River at Eaat
Mew Harket, HD
Grove Creek near Cordon
Point. HO
•errlnga Bay at Deale. KD
Herring Run at galtlaore
City, HD
Manga River near Ulngate, KD
Itopklna Creek near Barren
Point, HD
15,000
to
250
1.11!
5.900
1.712
500
50
410
650
850
60
48
1,000
160,000
800
175
400
2.500
200
150
100
75,000
6.500
40
.5.200
25
1.000
300
1.980
51.000
1.384
3,413
H
M
I
M
M
M
II
II
M
M
M
H
M
M
H
>
«
H
H
11
M
M
>
M
R
M
•
II
M
H
M
M
dragline
dragline and
cleaahell
hydraulic
backhoe
dragl me
dragline
crane
claaabell
claeahell or
backhoe
hydraulic
dragline
claaahell
dragline
hydraulic or
owchanlcal
dragline
hydraulic
hydraulic
hydraulic
bucket
ctaashell
dragline
Crane
dregllne
dragline
landxard of proposed
bulkhead
used aa backfill
lenduard of bulkhead
tracked to upland
dlapoaal aite
upland alte
backtill an exiatlog
channel
diapoaal area landward
of ahoraline
retain upland site on
applicant's property
landward of shoreline
upland disposal site
Amapolis landfill
upland dlapoaal elte
upland dlapoaal sits
diked disposal ares
upland and retained la
applieant'a property
upland spoil site
upland site
behind bulkhead
depoalted and retained
landward of HHUS
dealgnaced apoll area
landward of propoaed
bulkhead
upland on the property
spoil area adjacent to
Dogue Creek
upland on applicant's
property
landward of propoaed
bulkhead
retalnad In dikes on
applicant 'a property
Landward of HKV shore-
line at deslgnstad spoil
sits
landward of HLU
barged and trucked to
upland eite
In hole dug on property
uplands and retained by
grading 4 seeding
create a 14-fwot base
dike around pond
deposited and regained
upland on applicant's
property
7J.114-*
73-870
76-1114-1 .
76-990-2
77-0252-3
76-89
76-6671
76-1222-5 1
74-oOB
76-898
77-0235-1 j
77-0043-2
77-00667-1
77-0493
74-192
77-04BO-3
76-0081
73-1364
76-439
76-6S5-4
77-0257 j
77-0096-2 {
76-1336
73-1214
76-647-2
76-404
76-1138
76-928
76-451
76-1136-2 !
76-712
j
77-0418 |
76-539
155
-------
TABLE A-31 (continued)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1977
out
9/21/77
6/17/77
1/27/77
6/29/77
6/1/77
ll/S/76
1/J6/77
6/10/77
9/JO/77
5/20/77
7/6/77
1/4/77
6/21/77
3/H/77
g/12/77
0/29/77
1/5/77
10/7/76
10/21/77
2/26/77
J/17/77
4/22/77
11/2/76
1/29/77
7/18/77
2/2/77
•/ 12/77
1/7/77
5/10/77
•/IS/77
5/23/77
7/26/77
7/11/77
10/29/76
6/27/77
12/9/76
&/2I/77
Permittee
Rannu*, Frederick V.
Insloy Hade X. Ill
Leonard. Skinner
Phillips. Garland
Phillips. Ru*sal
Renderson. JVM* H.
Garlands Association
Uelker. Clyde T.
Crlstteld, City of
Perk end Recreation
Steley. Carl u.
Faith Seafood. Inc.
Bayberry Conaamlty
Asaoclstlon
Clleeaen. Today
Anne Arundel County
Public Work*. !fl>
PO-PAC Inc.
Sooersec County
Sanitary District. Inc.
Bouleye Point Yacht
Basin
Blttort Ford Sales Inc.
Bo-nan. Uayne
Urlght. Edvln E.
Ton o( Diaafrles
Robinson Terninal
Uarehouaa
U.S. Ravy
Garden. Gerbert C.
Denlaoo. Robert
nanael, Levrenee C.
Ulllla**. Hlnnle
Pool*. Richard C.
Bowie. Howard S.
(U Plata)
Plngltore. Vincent
Stevert Investment
Coavany (D.C.)
Lontry, Orica
!taryl«nd Dtpt. of
Traniportatlon
(UltlnorO
Mirylud Dipt, of
Transportation
(BaltUor*)
Batblcbca Stall Co.
Baltiport Citv D»pt.
of Public Vorks
!•!• of Ulcht Bay at
Ocvan City. HD
lala of Uicbt Bay at
Cap* lala of Ul|ht. ID
Knappa Harrowa at TllthaMB
Uland. HD
Rnaapa ttarrowa at TtlfthMa
lala«d, HD
KAappa Harrowa at TllaMao
Ulaod. KD
Lanaa Pood. HD
La Cat.. Cover at Oakland, KD
Levee Creek. DC
Little »"-—"-" River. HD
Little aoneBeaeea River at
Crlaflald. HD
Long Haul Creek. HD
Lover Thorofare at Uenona. HD
Nagothy River. XD
Hanokln. River at Riaebley. RD
rhfley Creek at Ranaadale. RD
Harahy Creek near Craaoo-
vllle. HD
Rarlin Cut near Tylerun. KD
Middle River at Bowley'a
roini. fS
Kllea River 6 Haalilaton
Cove. KD
Hlne Creek at Prencn-
tovn, HD
Raataey Lake off Soutn
River. HD
Quant Ico Creek at
Duaifrlea. VA
PotoBAc River at
Alexandria. VA
Poton«c River at
Oaaatico. VA
PotoBMc River at Lynch
Point, VA
Price Creek at Queen Anne
Colony. RD
Price* Creek near Kantanrr. H
Poconok* River neer Poconoke
City. VA
Poola'a Pond at St. George
Island. RD
Port Tobacco River at
Uarenouaa Point, no
Poteewc River at Rarry U.
lice Heanrlal trldg*. HD
Plney Point Creak at Plnay
Point, HD
Patuxant River at Broona
Island. KD
Patapaoc River at South
Locuat. KD
Patapaco River at Dundalk
Harltte Terailnal. XD
Patapsco River at Sparrova.
HD
Patopsco River at
Balttnore City. RD
70
120
1.172
Ml
811
200
175
2.000
116
WO
too
500
1.000
150
a. 100
750
50
45
2.120
466
60
607
200
•5.000
1.500
40
D 200
10
1>0
600
275
1,000
900
900.000
24.000
21.000
210
a
•
N
H
H
H
II
H
X
X
9
>
II
X
»
X
•
I
a
H
*
•
I
I
X
»
H
X
H
X
•
•
>
X
R
a
X
claauhell or
dragline
backhoe
dragline
dragline
dragline
backhoe
hydraulic
dragline
dragline 4
hydraulic
dragline
claoehell and
dragline
dragline
auction
hydraulic HUD
CAT
dragline
clanahell
hydraulic
dragline or
clanahell
dragline
dragline
dragline
burkat
auction
JrmJce
landvard of HHU on 7I-O8OO-I
appllcant'a property
landvard of bulkhead 77-O116-1
landvard of Been vatar 76-412*1
shoreline
deposited on upland site 76-270-1
laoduard of bulkhead 76-J61-1
along beach 76-191
upland area 76-017-1
upland above MM ebore- 75-1171-2
line
upland 77-1165-5
upland disposal area 77-0161-4
upland 76-1141-2
upland 76-411-4
diked disposal area 75-1146-2
upland dlanoaal area f2 76-940
trucked to upland dlapoaal i6-9Jb-l
site*
trucked end depoelted 77-0:19-4
upland
landvard of bulkhead 76-514-*
landvard of HWS. then 76-599
upland to dlspoaal alt*
upland landvard of 77-0565-5
bulkhead
deposited and retained 76-1005-4
upland
landvard of proposed 76-«90-2
bulkhead
landvard of HW ahora- 76-145
line
depoaited at Reinvater 75-1)14
landfill
landvard of HUV ehore- 76-996
line
upland 77-0276
landvard of bulkhead 76-502-5
upland apoll alte 77-027B-5
landvard of RKU ahorellne 76-1191-2
behind 2 adjacent bulk- 76-911
baada
landward of bulkhead 71-1210
77-0161
disposal area landvard of 76-67B
RHU Shore line
upland 76-115-1
barged and trucked to 75-665
upland diked disposal
area
Arundel Corp. property at 77-0550
Kuonviil'. diked
.liked erea 76-9M
•barged to an upland diked 77-OOli
disposal area
156
-------
TABLE A-31 (concluded)
DREDGING STAnSTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1977
Date
8/26/77
2/14/77
5/6/77
10/18/77
7/20/77
1/20/77
7/5/77
4/31/77
2/2/77
J/24/77
7/1/77
7/20/77
3/11/77
10/21/76
10/8/76
10/21/76
8/10/77
7/15/77
8/2/77
8/19/77
5/26/77
8/18/77
8/19/77
5/9/77
6/24/77
12/20/76
9/29/77
7/14/77
7/20/79
10/18/76
5/26/77
Permittee
Baltimore Gas 4
Elvctrlc Company
Agrlco Chemical Co.
Kreuaa. Richard
Hlmose Cove 4 Tvl.r
Dcale Civic Assoc.
Abner. Robert F.
tll.it. J.N.
Karemlan, Sarblk A.
Lambert, Frank Jr.
TownscrwJt Victor
Maryland State Dept.
of Natural Resources
U.S. Davy Commanding
Officer
Lasaahn, Edgar F.
Rugby Hall Community
Assoc lat loo
(Arnold. KD)
Cropper, C«org« g.
Eagles Nest Corp.
Dorchester County
Uighway Dept.
(Cambridge)
Allan. Scott H.
Annapolis, City of
Tlllman, Irvln C.
Sr. (Baltimore)
Lumoklna Seafood
Edwards. Alvln 1.
(Accokeek, KD)
Dorchester County
Highway Dept.
(Cambridge)
Chesapeake Division
Naval Facilities
(Salisbury, KD)
Griffith, John B.
Bright, Cooper
Hall. Richard
U.S. Havy
Queen F Limes Co.
Theak, Ronald F.
Froobelser Robert L.
Somerset bouncy Dept.
of Parka and Recreation
Local Ion Tot
Patapsco River near
Orchard. HD
Patapsce River at
Baltimore, KD
Occoquan Biver at
Occoquan. VA
Parker Creek near
Dcale. KD
Xorth Beach. KD
Xaoticoks River near
Seaford, KD
SanticoLs River ntar
Sandy Hill, KD
Kaatlcoke River at
S«aford, KD
N«wport say near Handy
Hammock. MD
Kockhold Creek at
Deale. HD
Second Cove Patuxcot
River, HD
Sefteca Creek. KD
Severn River at Arnold, KD
SinepuxMit Bay at Ocean
City. KD
Slnepuxent Bav near
Coffin Point, KD
Slaughter Craek at
Taylor Island, KD
Spa Creek, Annapolis. KD
Sea Creek at Fifth Street,
Swan Creek near Rock
Hall. KD
St. Ceorge Creek near
Fioey Point, HD
St. Jerome Creek near
Darner oo, HD
Taf Bay at Hoopers
Island. KD
West Patuxent Baa ID at
Engln. Conmend Naval Air
Station. HD
West River h South Creek
near Avalon Shores, KD
Branmock's Bay
Fyres Creek
Chesapeake Bay at
Hot Point
Chester River at Love Pt.
Gunpowder River
Northeast River
UUomino River neat
Kount Vernon
al Amount Dredged
110.000
11,000
1.000
13.800
335
177
270
2.155
1.060
17,000
100.000
30
700
2.360
55
37.000
160
HD ISO
1,200
1,900
350
3.333
12.900
3.000
909
4,000
55
200
IS
•00
70
M Kethod Used
H for Or editing
H hydraulic
H clamshell
X clamshell
M hydraulic
S draglln* 4
clamshell
X
a
S dragline
X
S hydraulic
8 clamshell
H clamshell
N hydraulic
K
N clamshell
S hydraulic
5 crane or
bucket
S clamshell
!f clamshell
• clamshell
S dragline
a dragline
K hydraulic
M hydraulic
H
X ilratllne
a
N
K backhoe
II hydraulic
clamshell
Disposal Site FH« Number
upland settling basin 77-0421-2
diked disposal area 76-1090
upland 77-0554
In existing Lagoon 77-0535-1
upland lite of 77-0099-1
applicant's property
landward of bulkhead 76-588-2
beach repltnlshment 75-11154
deposited 4 retained 76-1344-5
landward of bulkhead
landward of KtfU shoreline 76-1349-1
on applicant's field
upland disposal SAJOP-F/1-1
upland dike disposal 76-307-1
area
landward of bulkhead on 77-0259
applicant's property
76-1353-2
landward of KKU 76-O008
landward of KW shoreline 74-494
on applicant's property
upland ' 76-44
landward of bulkhead 77-O125-11
Annapolis Sanitary landf 11177-0318-1
landward of KM" shoreline 77-0002-1
oo applicant'* property
landward of NW ahorellM 77-0508
landward of MW shoreline 76-4*5
adjacent u?;*nds 77-O630-4
designated disposal site 77-O236
landward of MM Shoreline
upland diked 6 disposal 77-0022-1
site
adjacent uplands 77-0201
landward on «ppl. property 76-969-1
landward of tfJU shoreline 77-0820
trucked to upland site 77-0093-2
75-1060-)
landward of KtCU ahorsline 79-0211
uplands
upland disposal area 77-426-4
157
-------
TABLE A-32
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1978
cat.
12/6/77
2/22/71
8/10/78
12/11/77
1/11/71
9/12/71
11/1/77
U/17/77
2/14/78
1/9/71
10/14/77
1/11/78
1/16/71
5/9/71
1/4/78
9/1/78
12/21/77
8/9/78
9/8/78
10/10/77
12/6/77
8/24/78
4/12/78
7/1/71
9/21/71
10/27/77
5/16/71
1/24/78
7/21/78
2/21/71
4/14/78
12/6/77
2/21/76
IO/D/77
Peraittee
Tolchester Karlna
Smith, Kenneth
Jackson. Hurray, [.
Shaefcr. Ulllian
4 Helen
Plcnsoen. Louie K.
Jones. Russell
Dorchester Ceuaty
Cuiajissiooera
Harebell. Percy
Blrney. Arthur A.
Cela*r. Andrew J.
Sclson. VOOdrow
Sterllnl. Howard
Glen oben Commit?
Association
Hocking. Edward C.
Ocean City. Kayor
4 Council
Mr. Charles U>rdoa,
Uetbarldge Latate*. Inc.
Tower Cardan* laprove-
s*nt Association. Inc.
Constantino. N.J.
Cuosa Bay Marina
Baltisore County Dcpt.
of Public Works
Van Oyke, Hogcr
Iprlokla. Edwin C.
Tolley. tatbryn T.
ttillaa. Tboaas A.
Meredith. Celvert
Tolley. Calvert 1.
Pokorny. Joseph K.
Cooper, crover C.
U.S. Kaval Pacllltlea.
FjlglAecrtnit CooBand
Keev. Mildred T.
leltoln. Thoou
Barrlton. Uvlg P.. Ill
larrleoo. U»In p.. Ill
Ickleadaler. John C.
Location Tota
Cbeeapeake Kay at
Tolcbnter. KD
Chepel Creek. KD
Cherry Cove 4 Beaton
Bay, HD
Cenoe Beck. KD
BrdiBe Creek. Ml
Broad Creek. RD
Brooks Creek, ID
Big AnoeeMtssex, KD
Back Creek. HD
Beck Il«er. KD
Back Creek. KD
AnaeMSsex Canal. KD
Aseultb Creek. Ml
Aesewoeum Bay. KD
AasaMOntfja Bay. HD
Aberdeen Creek. HD
Chesapeake Bay 4 Carter
Creek near gnettnroke, HD
Glebe Bar at Cdieuater. HD
Goose Creek neer Brent-
land, KD
Creenhlll Cove at Edie-
•ere. HD
Csry Creek near
Lloyds. HD
Plshlni Creek at Ulneadll
Point. RD
Plshui Bay. KD
Palrlee Creak. MB
Para Creek. RD
Para Creek. HD
Fcmrlck Ditch at Ocean
City, HD
Ptsbias Creek near
UooUord. RD
Dorsev Creek. RD
Eastern Bay near Wades
Pout. HD
De«p Cresk, KD
Doevood Cove. KD
Oopiood Cove. HD
Cypress Creek, KD
1 Anouat Dredsed
A.UOO
ISO
1,200
45
8.000
2.419
1.702
1.000
2.000
too
447
91
1.160
100
600
ISO
100
100
20,000
1.190
SO
»
600
1.671
800
2.000
2.000
200
100
26}
1.000
l.liO
150
100-150
M
H
K
a
•
s
H
M
B
•
9
»
*
H
9
m
*
*
!l
!1
X
K
B
•
11
H
M
H
M
M
I
R
M
S
X
X
Hethod V.rt
for DTBtlcini
draaline
drssllu
drallioa
hydraulic
dratlina
claasbell
draBllne
hydrsollc
dratllne
bucket
clnshell
drslline
drsfllne or
claashell
drs8lins
cleaahell
cloahell or
drailine
drsfline
claashell
claasbell
claashell snd
dracllna
Disposal Site
used aa fill •atvrial
upland
In deslfnated spoil ares
landward of aean hljh
water shoreline
upland diked dlspoeal
alts
landward of shoreline on
applicant's property
behind bulkhead and uplao
upland on applicant's
property
retained landward on
applicant's property
landward of bulkhead
upland on appilcaat'a
property
landward and upland
adjacent to dredtod area
upland to indicated
spoil area
upland
on adjacent beach
upland site
landward of WWS
used aa stock pllea
trucked to upland site
landward of Man nigh
water shoreline
on tide bank adjacent to
ditch
landward of proposed
earth bera
on adjacent upland
deposited 4 retsloed law
ward of HUW shoreline
landward of RUV shorellM
deposited 4 retained lam
ward of bulkhead
Aonapolla landfill
upland site
upland
upland spoil site
upland diked spoil sits
landward of an adjacent
property
File lUsdnrr
75-1197
77-1394-4
78-0101
77-155
78-0067-5
7a-ua08-l
d 77-156-4
77-1077-4
77-1222-1
71-124-1 |
77-0011-5
78-0068-1 i
77-1162-2
77-1219-1 '
77-0116-1 :
i
78-0522-2 ;
:
77-UJl-i '
71-0549-1 !
78-0064
77-O6B4
77-05(7-2
78-O431-4
77-1177-4
78-OM9-9
78-0776-4
- 74-1005-2
1 77-1219-1
- 77-1054-5
78-0502-1
77-1165-5
71-21 |
77-107505
77-1428-5 i
77-0041 i
158
-------
TABLE A-32
(continued) |
(REDOING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN
BALTIMORE DISTRICT;
•8
i
•B
•7
T7
-77
"8
>J
It
76
78
78
;a
77
70
A
4
/8
..'77
8
;n
•/7I
in
• W
./77
B
78
.'B
;B
78
'TO
77
8
•5
Permittee
Fair Oaks Cum* unity
Aasoclatioa
Browa. Harden H.
D* Stepbeno. Robert
Uhaley, Richard C.
Kaene. Robert •.
Dorchester County
Highway Dept.
Dorchester County
Highway Dept.
Dorchester County
Highway Dept.
Herring Bay Partner •hip
Parka Brothers
Eaferman, Kenneth
Russell. Francis J.
Skylln* Development
Corporation
Somerset County D**t.
of Recreation t Parks
Ullson, Sam
Crouch. Hodges
Blrdsong. B. Saxon
Maryland Dept. of
Natural Resource*
Somerset County Park
and Recreation
Someraet County Park
and Recreation
?talkua. Calvin
Garden Estates, Inc.
Am* Arundel County
Public Works
Bole* CeiM-ad*
Recreation
Bowleya Point
Tacht Basin
llrchwood Improvement
Asuoclatloa
Cattl. Louia A.
0' Hears. John
• C*ntr*vlll*.
Community of
Ely. Ha then lei J.
Oak Harbor Marino. Inc.
Uaahlagton Suburban
Sanitary Commission
The County Commlasloaer
of Kent County
Ulills, Mil llam
Locotioo Totol M
Cold Spring Covo.
Cotull Crvok. KD
Coobo Crook, HD
Cool Sprlag Covo ot
Hlachootor For**. MD
Cborch Crook. KD
Church Crook, KD
Cboptoak Rlvor. HD
Chopuak Rlvor, KD
Chopuak Rlvor. KD
Borrlog Boy ot Doolc. HD
Hoago Rlvor ot Booporo-
.111.. HD
Bunt log Crook aoor
Burlock. HD
loload Crook ot
St. Coorgo lolood. ND
lolo of Wight Roy oc
Oeooo City. HD
Jookloo Crook ot
Crloflold, HD
Rooppo Norrouo ot
Tllghoon. 1C
Loagford. Crook. HD
Looooa Covo. HD
Llttlo taaoMooex Rlvor
ot Crlollold. HD
Llttlo Aaaoooooox Rlvor
ot Crlldold, K>
Uttlo Aaaoooooi Rlvor
ot Crliflold, HD
Llttlo Blockwotor ovor
CoabTldgo. KD
Uttlo Cboptoak ooor
Nodlooa, 1C
Hogotby Rlvor aoar
Sovoro Pork, KD
Hoakllo Crook ot
Ocooo Piooo, HD
Hlodlo Rlvor ot Booloyo
Poiat. HD
Kill Crook ot Blrchuood, HD
Hill Crook noor Druo
Polot. KD
Hill Crook ot Luobv, 1C
Kill Strooo ot Cootro-
vlllo. HD
HUM Crook ot Frcacb-
towo. KD
Rock Crook ooar Pooodoao. FD
Rock Crook ot Foroot
Cloa Pork. HD
0 Rock Boll Borhor ot
Rock Boll, HD
Rock Boll Rorbor ot
Rock Boll. HD
-
FISCAL
•
•Mat Drodgoi H
4,000
130
300
43
440
1,100
17,100
3.BBB
11,700
2.000
100
1.000
2.000
29.000
2,000
2.610
30
20.300
eoo
H
II
B
B
B
B
B
B
H
B
B
B
B
•
B
B
B
B
H
YEAR
Hotbod u»od
for Drodxlar,
clouholl
buckot
clonholl
dngllno 4
bockot
drodlao
hydroullc
droglluo
hydroullc
cloooholl
droilioo
bukhoo
hydroullc
hydroullc
drogllao
bydroullc
drogllno am
THE CHESAPEAKE
1978
Disposal Site
upUnd aite
retain the spoil naterlal
landward of ftN ahorellne
landward ••," the bulkhead
upland
upland
upland disposal alt*
upland disposal sit*
barged to diapoaal area
upland
adjacent upland
upland
landward of HOIS upland
disposal area
landward of bulkhead
upland sites. 1
upland aits
upland disposal
upland
spoil disposal site
I/ adjacent upland
or cloaoholl
12.000
350
930
2.100
11.000
12.000
3,430
170
40
300
103
1.850
130
732
2.300
159
B
a
M
B
B
N
B
H
B
H
H
B
B
B
B
hydroullc
hydroullc
hydroullc
drogllao or
cloooholl
cloooholl
bydroullc
hydroullc
droglloo
drogllao
cloooholl
cloookoll
upland diapoaal area
landward of bulkhead
upland diapoaal are*
upland disposal area
landward of existing
bulkhead
disposal area upland
diked disposal araa
landward of bulkhead
landward'of bulkhead
upland elte
adjacent spoil disposal
area
landward of bulkhead
t
1
BAY: i
i
!
rilo Kuobor :
77-0100-1 !
'
77-I3BS I
i
j
1
75-150-1 i
1
77-OB70-4 :
77-629-4 1
t
77-1442-4 !
!
77-B47-4 j
j
77-1286-2 I
7B-0347-4 1
1
1
77-11U-I j
77-1049 ;
1
77-0406 I
1
73-1410 1
i
78-0085-2 I
1
76-1331-4 j
77-0226-1 1
78-054) i
j
77-OM1-4 ;
1
77-1160-4 i
78-0710-4 |
i
7B-OB61 i
j
77-1088-2 i
77-1059-1 ;
I
74-1449 |
1
76-0411-1 '
77-1170-1
71-0442-2 ;
7B-040B-3
76-1416-4
78-0017-2
us* for bank stabilization 77-0736
tracked to upland disposal 7B-O15S-L
site in Rock Bali
upland sit*
77-1427-2
/
-" '.'t-Vi-'V;1-. .•/;;*. ••;-.••!-,; A ."•'-',:- •;.'-
.- ,- :. '-""'"'/,-.";- -V . ' "--'-';•"
•;V.V
- • '- "•"•;'
::; ;;-;'...
•- ..-• -
."*£.- Vv: /»•'•' U!"--^:!
T''''~i-^ .vV^'L-V*
-Lv.T.'"^'""' ;-:2/ »-.''"•
m^i^^^i
jsys
"••••<>
-------
TABLE A-32 (continued)
DREDGING STATISTICS .FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1978
•late
«»/:•
S/21/7S
)/29/7«
7/21/78
7/21/7*
12/12/77
10/26/77
3/8/78
7/1/71
6/6/78
S/I9/7B
5/19/78
5/19/78
6/13/78
6/12/7B
6/26/71
6/9/78
10/18/78
12/19/77
J/22/78
4/6/78
5/18/78
IO/:*/77
10/J7/78
7/18/78
5/11/78
1/26/78
6/ 11/18
6/9/78
Permittee
Rlela. Thou, J.
Santajyer, Robert
Large. Jack R.
Fairfax County
Water Authority
Washington Suburban
Sanitary OMusiasion
Matthews. SaaMal C. Jr.
Horeell. Ultllaa
loung George t.
Jr. (Marlon)
Bicks. Uayne •
PhllU.
'
' Maryland Dept. of
Tranaportatlon
XaryUnd Dept. of
Transportation
Maryland Mot. of
Transportation
Canton Coenenv of
Saltlnore. KD
Cold Bond Building
Producta
Baltlnore. City of.
Dept. of Recreation
6 Parka
Maryland (late Blghwav
Adainistratloo. Balti-
Hinoaa Cove 6 Tvler
Deala Civic Aaaoc.
. terser, Vllllaa S.
Cecil County Dept.
of Public Work.
•each. Harv J.
Homer. B. Louie
BUI. Donald C.
Shywensky. Bruce
Bargesc. Claere
Dreaaa Landing Condo-
Inlueta OMiera' Assoc.
Petty. Dcnall H.
Winchester Pond
Property Ownere
Buntera Barbor Civic
4 Recreation Aaaoc.
Location Total An
Prices Crevk near
Prices Creek near
Stevoavlile. M>
Reader Lake. Edgeuater. K>
PotcaMC River unatreaa
Loudonn county. VA
Potooac River upstream
et ualklne. [aland. VA
PocoBOka River near
Sbelltowi. VA
Pocoaoka River et
Harlon Station. VA
Pocoenka River near
Ihelltotn, VA
Patuxent River et
Benedict. VA
Uacoer'e Point. MD
Sortnweat 8rancn of
Patapaco Biver, KD
BortMnat Branch of
Patapeco Biver. IS)
Borttwest Branch of
Patapaco River. MD
Baltimore Barbor. MD
Patapaco River at
Baitiaore City. HD
Patapaco River at
Canton Railroad Yard. MD
Middle Beach of Patapaco
River. HD
Paint Branch near
College Park, HD
Parker Creek near
Deale. HD
Bortheaat Biver et
Bortbeaat. HD
Bortheaat Biver at
Charleatoun. HD
Occoouan Biver near
Lortoo. VA
Baaticeke Biver neer
Tyaakln
Beaosco Creek near
UoodbrldBe, VA
Beele Sound neer
Cobb laland. HD
Severn Biver at Crounavllle. KO
Severn Biver at Oreaaa
Landing, KD
Severn River at Winchester
on the Severn. KD
Severn Biver at Winchester
HD
Slllery Bay near Buntera
Harbor. MD
aunt Dredged
160
170
1.100
1.700
5.100
1.480
720
1.800
60
11.000
25.400
16.000
59.600
24.500
!2.500
ij.iCO
100
110
11,100
110
2.BOO
2,000
700
100
200
980 .
6,400
1.020
500
12,000
B Hethod Deed
H for Dredging
B clanehell
» clanhell
B claaahell
H
N
B
B
M
B claaahell
H claatthell
H clensbell
H elauah.il
H clamshell
H bucket
H ciiiiu::
B dragline or
claanhell
B
B hydraulic
B
H dragline
B clanahell
H clamabell
B
H elansheU
B
» claaohell
B elaatahell
B claaalhell
"
Dlaposal Site
landward of bulkhead
landvard of bulkhead
upland •
upland
upland on eppllcant'a
property
upland
upland
landward of HKU shoreline
In Pocouoke River
landward of KW shoreline
retained in an upland dikm
dlaaosel area on Acundel
County property st Haaon-
vllle
barged and rucked to up-
land diked lepoaal area
barged and rucked to up-
land diked iapoaal area
barged and rucked to up-
land diked ispoaal area
upland
diked disposal area
•_;i=i *L±?* >!-r^-!
upland disposal depoalted
and retelned
apoll uaed for eabankaanta
in dieting lagoon
landward of bulkhud
on adjacent uplanda
upland
adjacent road
landward of bulkhead
fill behind bulkhead
upland
landward of bulkhead
upland alte
sosie (150 c> yd) uaed aa
landfill, real upland
rile Bunfaer
7B-0179-*
78-OIHU-4
77-0657-2
76-1126
76-«U4
77-1026-4
77-1027-4
71-771
78-0418
7B-«25V5
78-0212-5
78-0252-5
77-1113
78-0169-5
77-I446-S
78-0090-6
77-111)
77-OS1J-I
7J-1011-2
7e-«*9
77-OBtl
77-OMO-4
77-0209
77-1052
70-0855-2
77-0055-1
77-0524
7S-OM5-I
75-21*
160
-------
TABLE A-32 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1978
Date
6/1/78
1/21/78
3/16/71
7/23/78
1/11/78
11/22/77
11/10/78
6/27/78
12/3/77
11/21/77
2/17/78
6/13/78
9/29/78
6/13/78
12/16/77
11/22/77
3/22/78
1/28/71
*/»/78
8/21/78
8/17/78
12/6/77
3/19/71
11/10/78
Permittee
Miasa Court Hotel
Uetherlll. Frederic
(Psnnlngton. «.J.)
Coady. Charlea P.
U.S. Coast Guard
Annapolla Taeht
Salea a Service
Maryland State Dept.
of Natural leaourcee.
Annepolia
Sellnsgrove Municipal
Authority
Urlghtavllle Uacer
Supply Conpany
(Harrlaburg. PA)
Pa. Fish Conelsiion
(sellefonte. PA)
Nsrco Hunt las and
Planing Club
Maryland Stats Dept.
of General Services
Cnseapeake Bay Maritime
Nusensi
Brown lobert C.
Sabatlnl, lohert
C.H. Dickinson Co..
Inc. . Battinors
Queen Anne's County
Dept. of Public works
Csntrevllle, Maryland
Eaaea Seefood. lee.
Ueat liver Marina
Uhite Halt Taeht Tard.
Inc. Annapolia
F.O. Dean Boatyard
(Ulneace. KD)
Kllby. Hsrndon C.
Ullaon. lobert J.
Hd. Dept. of
Transportation
Sellnga grove sualclnal
Authority
Location Total
Slnepuxent Bay at
Ocean City, HD
Slaughter Creek at
Taylor liland. KD
Slaughter Creek near
loyal Oak, KD
Sonera' Cove at the U.S.
Coast Guard Station at
Crlafleld, KB
Spa Crsek between )th
and 6th St.. MO
Spa Creek at
Annapolis. RD
Susauahanne liver near
Sellnagrove. KD
Susquebanna liver at
Urlgbtevllle. PA
Sueauehaane liver near
HcKaee Half falla. PA
Stansbury Creek near
Ullaon Point. HD
St. Mary's liver near
St. Mary'a City. KD
St. Michael's Harbor
at St. Hichaacls. MD
St. Pstrick'a Creek
near Avenue. KD
St. Leonard Creek at
Uhite Sanda. HD
Tar lay at Hoopers
Island. ID
Thonpson Creek near
Stevenaville. HD
•Jenona Harbor and tower
Thorofare at Uenona, KD
Uest liver st Catesvllle. KD
Uhite Ball Creek neer
ABoennlle. KD
Uingste Creek near
Uingate. KD
Uye liver near Bennett
Point. HD
Cotboum Creek •
northwest Branch of
Patapaco liver in
Baltimore Harbor
Suseuahanna liver near
Sellnagrove. KD
Anount Dredied
300
1.000
130
230
320
130
993
11
130
630
30
630
183
1.000
136
1.300
1.123
2.200
if
900
3,000
1*3
11.000
993
II Method Uaed
M for Dredging
N
»
.H clansbsll or
hvdraultc
pipeline
H dragline or
clannall
N dragline or
claBSheli
H clanshetl
II becUoe
I backhoe
H
H
H
R c lasftucket
H clanshall
N hydraulic
H
H
M hydraulic
> clanshell
H cla«hell
H dragline
II dragline
cleajh.ll
N ctanahell
backhos
Disposal Site
landward of bulkhead
used to construct a
diked around the pond
landward nf emlatinf
bulkhead
upland
upland aits
Annapolis landfill
redepoelted la the
trench, excess upland
rcdeposlted in trench
retsined on applicant's
property
retained In beraa upland
landward of riprap
landward nf uuseiM
behind bulkhead
upland of warah area
upland
upland landfill aite
adjacent diked disposal
area
upland sits
landward of bulkhead
behind bulkhead in
previously used spoil srea
upland
adjacent upland
barged and trucked to
dlapoaal are*
rsdeposited In the trench
exceaa uplanda
Fit. Kinbn
70-UI01-:
77-1161-4
78-0181-3
76-0191-1
77-0860
77-0*93-1
76-0011-1
78-0009-1
17-1089
76-111*
76-1209
78-0177-1
77-1226
77-1198-2
77-1037-4
77-10*1-1
78-0*19-3
77-0683-1
78-0013-1
78-0108-4
77-0320-4
73-176
78-0236-3
78-0011-1
161
-------
TABLE A-33
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1979
D-ite
a, lR/79
•V17/79
-/:/79
2/5/79
li/l/79
12/I2/7I
S/27/79
J/e/79
6/1J/79
3^/79
3/22/79
8/27/79
1/9/79
V7/79
j/7/79
t^VPT*
J/7/79
Y/J8/79
R/ 1 3/79
j/:/79
7/20/79
10/27/71
9/21/79
9/:«/79
.U/24/7R
J/22/79
7/29/79
1/2S/79
H/J/79
Pwrsilttee
Maryland State Dept.
uf Natural Resources
Queen Annea County
Dcpt. of Public Works
Stinnett. Inc.
Ransom. P. AlUm Jr.
Rerube, Paul
Concord Cove
Schuaaiu.. George 4
Julia
Rohe«ls River Marina
Raltiewre County Dept.
of Recreation 4 Parks
JabU. Rert
A 4 G Enterprises
Zahniser, Albert
Spring Cove Marina
Reese, Richard
Rcmeteln, Howard
Ocean Development Corp.
Visit inRtofi Suburban
Sanitary CowiasioA
Washingto.. Suburban
Sanitary Comlsslon
Uyatt, Earl
OeUanra Power 4 Light
Costpany
J.U. Crcea Construction
MllUr, Randal, K.
Hullmi. Andrie
Llsyds Volunteer
Harford County Dept.
of Recreation 4 Parks
Kellast- Lynvood T.
Harrison. Levin
L.E.C. Joint Venture
4 Cape Arthur Istprove-
stent Association
U.S. Gypsusi Co.
Krlda. Robert H.
Location Total Amount Drudged M
Chwsapeake Ray at
Hat apeak*. MD
Chesapeake Ray at
K«nc Island, MD
Ctttsapeake Ray at
Chesapeake Reach. MD
Chesapeake la* near
Golden Mill. »
Chesapeake Ray at Havre
de Grace, HD
Chesapeake (Uy at Havre
de Grace, MD
de Grace, MD
Caine Woods Canal, HD
lohemia River, MD
llrd River. HD
Rack Creek. HD
Reck Creek. MD
lack Creek. KD
Rack Creek. KD
Anneewseex Canal. KD
Assawowian Ray, HD
AssavoMM. lay, MD
Anacostia River, HD
Anacostia River, KD
Coose Creek at
Toddville, KD
Goose Pond and
Aasawowtn lay, KD
Grays Creek at
Pasadena, KD
Greys Creek near
Ocean City. HD
Gary Creek. KD
Gary Creek at
Llsyds, KD
Harford County Dept. of
Recreation and Parks
Alexandria, VA
Fishing Creek at
Chesapeake leach, MD
Dofwood Cove. KD
Cypress Creek, KD
Curtis lay near
Sledds Point. MD
Cool Spring Cove,
Winchester on the Severn, !•
SO
40,000
1.400
1,000
3.2)0
11,183
It. 000
20
no
5.500
• 50
4SO
4.500
2,375
100
2.100
1,000
110,000
ISO, 000
121
11,000
1.250
1.250
190
10
7.000
10 000
1.000
940
200
100.000
110
9>
N
N
K
M
H
H
N
N
a
H
«
N
K
N
H
M
M
H
H
H
H
N
H
H
K
K
•
N
N
H
clamshell
•echanlc or
hydraulic
clauhell
clauhell
hydraulic
dragline or
claMahell
nechanically
hydraulic
cUmah.ll
claiahell
hydraulic
dragline or
claMhell
clauhell
ajechanlcal
dragline
hydraulic fc
dragline
hydraulic
dragline or
clauhell
claiahell
•echaolcal
ewcnanlcal
hydraulic
dragline
clamahell 6
dragline
clauhell
clanehell
clauhell
bucket
Kent Island duu site
upland
adjacent to the channel
within breakwater
upland alte
landward of proposed
bulkhead
upland owned by applicant
piped ta upland dlaposai
upland
landward of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
chanaelward of HW ahore-
llne
landward of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead on
applicant's property
landward of bulkheads
upland and retained
landward 4 retained
on tide hank
use ae backfill
at existing spoil band anx
landward of MWS on
applicant's property
upland
upland site owned by
applicant
upland ait.
trucked upland
upland diked disposal
dredged Material to be
pread on sand beach at
roperty
arged to upland dispose]
Ite at Harley Neck 4
etained
upland on appllcant'a
property
Kile Nuefcer
79-U1U6
79-U204
78-1351
78-0716-4
78-1117-1
78-1109-1
79-0.54— 1
79-01S9
7B-1064
78-12U-J
71-1112-2
78-1107-2
79-0127-1
78-0916-2
71-0979
7D-1146
79-0627
79-0964
75-854
79-0575
79-1004
79-1269-1
79-0099
79-0946
79-0447
79-1192-1
76-0029
79-0111
78-1069
79-0216
79-1117
79-0225-6
j
!
i
•
1
1
1
1
;
j
I
1
,
j
i
i
|
i
1
162
-------
TABLE A-33 (continued)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1979
Date
8/20/79
7/7/79
9/28/79
9/12/79
9/7/79
1/22/79
10/4/78
1/22/79
2/8/79
12/20/78
10/3/78
11/15/78
4/27/79
10/27/78
12/21/78
6/13/79
2/16/79
9/18/79
11/16/78
6/26/79
1/3/79
10/6/78
11/19/71
8/20/79
1/19/79
5/17/79
9/19/79
5/15/79
11 11
6/22/79
2/21/79
11/10/78
Permittee
St. Hary's County
CoaailssloBers
western Electric Co.
City of Cambridge
Applegate. Kenneth P.
Pierce. Kalvln
Maryland State Dept.
of Transportation
Dorchester County
Highway Departaent
Blackwater Paras
Brown. Kenneth L.
Abraason, Joel
Ranyoae, P.
Alexandria Sanitation
Calvert County
Coanlealoners
Ingletoo Association,
Inc.
Reyoolda. Hugh U.
U.S. Coast Guard
CAT Land. Inc.
Reeser, Henry
Garden Eatatea. Inc.
Brloaflled, Belvln
Cosjeshall, Lcater L.
Low*. Saauel C.
U.A. Thoaas 4 Son* Inc.
Maryland Dept. of
natural Resources
The Crenshaw Coapany
Brownley. R.U.
The Chesapeake
Corporation of VA
Bandwartb, Robert F.
Ritchie, David
Clsenaao, Richard
(Dunkirk, KD)
Haryland Dept. of
Transportation
Location Ti>tnl A
.Cooper Creek, KD
Colgate Creek, HD
Choptank River. KD
Choptenk liver, HD
Choptank River, HD
Choptank River. KD
chopcaak River, HD
Chlcaaacoalno River, KD
Chlacoteague Bay. HD
Gunpowder River. HD
Hong" River near Golden
Hill, KD
Hoof Run, Alexandria
City. VA
Huogerford Creek near
Coster. HD
Hunting Creek at
Ingletoo. HD
la land Creek at
Haatlaton. HD
I.I. of Vlght Bay at
Ocean City. HD
Jackson Creek at
Craaonvllle. KD
Knapps Harrows at Tllghaao
laland. HD
Little Choptank near
Hadlsoo. HD
Harshyhope Creek near
Hurlock. HD
Rewastlco Creek near
Quantlco. VA
Prices Creek at Queen
Annes Colony. KD
Prospect Bay at Kent
Harrows HD
PotoauK River at
St. Cleaenta laland. HD
Potoaac River at
Alexandria. VA
Pocoaoke River near
Shelltoun. VA
Pocoaoke River near
Pocoaoke City. KD
»ort Tobacco Creek, KD
Hooper. Keck. KD
Plia. Creek at Breezy Point, HD
Petuxent liver at Ferry
Landing Woods, KD
Northwest Branch Patapsco
River near Hawkins Point, KD
Mount Dredged
2.800
57 000
101.000
1.200
2,700
110
1.000
6.000
95
15
25
900
16,000
2.100
900
5,800
5,000
900
90
930
122
100
110
100
2,300
230
930
21.800
160
450
250
5.000
000.000
n
H
N
H
tt
H
H
N
H
N
M
a
s
H
N
H
N
N
N
H
H
H
N
H
II
H
N
M
K
H
I)
H
N
Method Uacd
for Drcdpla*
hydraulic
clatwhell
hydraulic
occhanical-
dragline
dragline
claauhelt
hydraulic
clatuhell or
hydraulic
hydraulic
cLeatatvell
dragline
clamshell
hydraulic
clamshell
clae, bucket
clacuhell
dragline
dragline
hydraulic
Oltjpoaal Site
ulapoeal <-rea upland
tranaported to an upland
diapoeal lite fc retained
contained upland dlapoaal
Landward of cxUtlag
bulkhead
backfill the trench
upland diepoaal area
upland
adjacent road
depoaited and retained
landward of MMS
upland
upland behind earthen ben
upland
depoaited 4 retained
landward of MtVS on
applicant'* property
landvard on applicant 'a
property
upland diapocal areaa
upland dlapoaal aite
upland
upland dlcpotal area
adjacent upland*
upland
upland portion of
applicant'* property
landward ot JHW ahore-
liae on applicant'*
property
landward of NO. aborcllae
upland adjacent to canal
upland landward of IttV
chore llae
•poll area landvard of S«
up land
landward of bulkhead
upland of applicant'*
property
barged and trucked to up-
land diked diapoaal area
Kite Nuab.r
7B-0'6l
78-1063-3
79-0598
77-1071
79-0448
78-0962
7B-0544-4
78-1258-4
78-1252
70-09*9-3
78-0717-4
78-0510
78-4839-2
78-0317
78-0782
78-1093
78-0003-5
79-0201
78-0843
79-0386
78-1180
78-795-5
75-1207
79-0167
78-1007
78-1)55
79-OJBO
79-O054
78-0441-1
78-1376-1
"i-853
78-0972
163
-------
TABLE A-33 (continued)
STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1979
BAY:
v Location Total Amount Dredged M for Dredging
levaior
•* CSY
Baltlaore
ievator
- CSY
Baltimore
e City Mayor
ounc 1 1
a Steal Corp.
icina Construe-.
•ivin; Company,
undrla.. VA
iarvey 1.
• & Recrea-
,1 Alt, XD)
-unty Depc. of
•'orks
Cuve Yacht
.id Mar in la Inc.
Waldo ,
.i Power and:
napariy
, Airy
Ba^fcyelop-
~r^^^^c. )
, ^^B*
^^^^
. L.8.
jte)
n. '.'tlbur, MD
. Loh
i Satural
es. Maryland
Annapolis
••«ns i Son
•ns, Cork Company
aphis
:e Company
Lester S.
>.. & John 0.
11, Inc.
. Tom
Xnnes County
* Loners of,
juse. Centre^-
tt Brothers
fd
, Thomas G.
-tier County
v Dept.
-lite. MD
Patapsco River near
Lazaretto Point. KD
Patapsco River -near
Utsretto Point, KD
Patapsco River at
Baltimore City, KD
Northwest Branch of the
Patapsco River', HD '
Occoquan River at
Uootibrldge. VA
Old Kan Creek at
Severn* Park, VA
Flying Point. Kb
Northeast River at
Charlestown, MD
Northeast River at
•fence's Point. HD
Nanticokc River near
Cokelahd, MD'
Nanticoke Rtver at
Vienna. HD
Hockhold Creek near
Drun Point, KD
Shipping Creek near
Normans. MD
Shipping Creek at
Butler's Landing, HD
Slaughter Creek near
Taylors Island. MD
Spa Creek. Annapolis. HD
Spa Creek at Annapolis, MD
Tanner Creak near
Scotland. KD
Susquehanna Rtver , PA
Susquehanh* River at
Marietta, PA
Susquehanna River at Beach
Bottom-, PA
Tar Cove Rock Creek at
Pasadena i KD
Tenthouse Creek at
Calesvllle, KD
Thompson Creek near
Stevensville. KD
Thompson Creek near
Stcvensvllle. KD
Town Creek at Oxford. KD
Warehouse Creek near
Stevensville, KD
Warwick River at
Secretary, KD
45,000
20,000-
100
65
8,000 '
250
2 $00
2,000
15.000
592
700,
330
150
5
600
650
415 „
50,000
4,200
60
25,000
250
4.500
400
1.500
130
870
2,000
t) ciamslieil
B clamshell
N dragline
N clamshell
N dragline
tl clamshell
mechanical
M
M
it
M clamshell
tt clamshell
M
H clamshell
N clamshell .
S clamshell
If hydraulic
H clamshell
H backhd*
H hydraulic
If dragline
H clamshell or
dragline
H clamshell or
dragline
M dragline
N
M
tt
Disposal Site
barged to an upland
disposal »Ue at Harley
Pacapsco Company
upland
used as backfill
landward of bulkhead
Rainwater Concrete Co.
landward of KKU shoreline
~*
landward of bulkhead
upland
upland
upland }
spoil piles with breaks
upland' disposal
landward of bulkhead
landward of bulkhead
landward of KHU shoreline
landward of bulkhead
at a- landfill
designated spoil sites
landward of HHW shoreline
upland site
redeposlted in the trench
upland disposal area
landward of bulkhead
upland site
upland spoil site
upland
upland & vegetated tital
wetlands
upland disposal site
File Number
T9-UJ49-3
79-0214-3
78-1051-1 j
79-0149-3
7 B -600 7
|
79-0060-2 |
79-0016-1
76-1127 ;
78-1212
78-1005 i
80-0202-3 I
79-0114 1
78-1217 !
78-0982 I
i
78-1334-1 :
79-0422-1
78-1240 ;
78-1120
7H-085 3- J
78-0866-3
78-1091-1 1
76-1236-1
•
78-1266
78-0999-5
79-0075
79-0117
78-1340
164
-------
TABLE A-33 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1979
Permittee
Total Amount Dredged
fethod l'»d
for Dredgitii Disposal Site
5/10/79
2/5/79
11/22/78
8/H/79
5/8/79
7/18/79
6/6/79
8/23/79
6/S/79
Anchor Properties
County Cover n*«mt
Kwlldins
CtMisston. Dept. of
Public Workt
Queen Frnes Co.
lonuw Randall
Hd. Dept. of
Transportation
Tht Arvndcl Corp.
(Balclttore)
Dorchester to Highvey
Ocpt. (Canbridge, HD)
BrooM County
UelU Cove sc Itl«od
Creek. HD
Salisbury. KD
CruoovllU. KD
lorslcs Klver at
C
-------
TABLE A-34
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
1980
Date
10/7/80
2/7/M
9/26/60
4/16/80
VX1/80
10/26/79
3/M/W
11/15/80
11/16/00
W2/80
B/27/BO
9/10/80
*/ii/ao
2/7/80
It/23/79
1/3/80
7/26/80
1 1/16/79
8/27/80
1/23/80
4/6/80
1/1/80
7/26/80
8/14/80
10/16/79
2/22/80
7/20/80
11/13/79
8/1 /BO
7/13/80
1/26/60
4/1/80
Permittee
Baltimore Cds i
Electric Building
Carpenter, Lloyd
Jackson, Hurra? E.
Dorchester County
Highly Dept.
VlrflnU Electric 4
fower Company
Tower Cardena Improve-
•cat
Buck. Donald
Bobbins, David
Allen. John
Mardela Spring*
Hacking. Edward C.
U.S. Amy Fort
Belvoir. VA
Potomac Electric
Power Coop* or
Uroten. Charles F.
City of Alexandria VA
Edwarda Boatyard, toe.
Caffney. Jams J.
Kettler. Hilton
J.U. Creen Construc-
tion Corp.
U.R. Grace * Co.
Flinchum. A.J. Jr.
Elrcbner. R*lph A.
U.S.S. Realty
Development Division
Maryland Toll
Facilities
Admin 1st ration
Yercskovsky,
Alexander
Liadaaoor leprovement
Association
Uclntraub. Willlea
Queen Anne's County
Oept. of Public Uork»
Johnston. Randolph P.
Cordoms Creek
Deve Lopaent
narlflngcr. F.
Virginia Dept. of
Highways and
Location Total
Chesapeake Bav at •
C4lwrt Cliff* Nuclear
Power Plant. HD
Chesapeake Bay at
Taylor* Island, MD
Chtfrry Cove 4 Breton
by. KD
Cambridge Creek, SD
Catteron Run, VA
Carter Creek. KD
BUckhole Creek. HD
Shorter* Harsh adjacent
to Blackwater River
Branson Cove. VA
Barren Creek. HD
A»«ii
Cbepowaataic Creek, VA
N
Amount DredKed H
9.900
ISO
t.zoo
)00
97
600
40
2.715
i.:uo
ItlO
823
i.600
22.000/.
10 yeara
42 $
10,000
700
250
30.600
280
10,000
111
20
ISO
30.000
44}
462
900
l.SOO
)M>
62 S
100
500
K .
H
H
S
N
H
X
N
If
H
a
H
N
N
H
J1
N
N
H
Bi-
ll
N
H
M
H
M
H
M
M
n
R
s
nethod U»ed
for Dredging
claoshell
claashell
dragline
oechaotcal
b^ckhoe
EMchanlcal
clamshell
dragline
dragline
hydraulic
clamshell
dragline
dragline
aec nan teal
hydraulic
clvuhell
hydraulic
clamshell
clasvhell
clamshell
clamshell
dragline
dragline
rUashell
mechanical
mechanical
dragline
Disposal Sice File &UB»cr
upland and contained
upland site on applicant's
property
landward to designated
Hpoil *r«a
upland
upland spoil site
use aa backfill landward
of proposed bulkhead
adjacent to apoll banks
behind earthen be» upland
use as fill arterial
backfill laadward of canal
upland and confined behind
earthen bera
diked disposal are* land-
ward
landward of bulkhead
deposited 4 retained land-
ward of bul*h**d on
applicant's property
vacant adjacent upland
lots
diked disposal area on up-
lands owned by applicant
landward of proposed bulk-
head
existing spoil pond on
Sllold's Point
Joy Reclamation Coopany
landfill
upland
landward of the mean high
water shoreline
disposal sit* of Harley
Heck
on beach landward of the
mean water shoreline
upland site
upland spoil sit*
trucked away Co upland
site
landward
Tork County landfill
upland site
use as fill
SO-OJCS
79-098*
aO-061]
79-0309
79-6048
79-0339
79-1072-6
80-OU4
79-«034
79-1137
80-0094
80-6036
79-1163
79-0357
76-0028
70-1130-3
bO-0095
76-1 112
80-0434-4
79-1050-2
79-I19S-4
79-0163
60-0162
80-0293-1
79-OS91
79-1155-1
79-0719-6
79-0036
;a-I06i
79-1U1-;
79-0984
79-4087
Transportation
166
-------
TABLE A-34 (continued) ,
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1980
Total Aaouot Dredged
Dlflpoial Slta
A/1V80
1/28/80
12/14/79
9/3/80
0/15/80
I/ 18/00
5/27/80
10/22/79
o/ 19/80
5/15/80
9/3/80
5/20/80
5/21/80
4/25/80
9/22/80
4/25/80
9/18/80
6/13/80
5/15/80
11/13/79
4/30/80
4/3/80
2/7/80
1/21/80
6/27/80
3/19/80
10/12/79
6/16/80
8/5/80
10/22/79
Maryland Dept. of
Transportation
Hall. Sorrls
Loos. Dlckson
Seotts Cove Marina
Powley. Mary P.
Powley, Rary P.
Alexandria. City of
Baltimore County Dept.
of Public Transportation
Bonn, Henry H.
Woodman. De Great, Dr.
Queen Anne's County,
Cooslss loners of
Severn Marina
Services. Inc.
Lake Klllsmere Croup
Meyer, Robert C.
J.C.U. Tawea f> Son
Little Hagothy River
Association
Cabin Point, Inc.
Reifsnyder. C. Frank
Anne Arundel County
Dept of Public Works
Eastern Yacht Club. Inc.
Ruff. Harold
Winter. Paul
Kendall, Calvlo
Sailing EBporlM. lac.
Wlllard. Fred
(Chester town)
Prince William Forest
Part (Triangle)
Virginia Electric
power Company
(Richmond)
Colonial pipeline
Company (Richa0nd.
Charles, E. Alford)
Moore, Dennis 5-
Bower. Harry W. fc
Hi 11 is. Janes
(Port Tobacco)
Choptaok River. HP
Chester River near
Kingstown, KD
Chiiicoe*que Ray at
Tactarda Island, KD
Haloes Creek t Seotts
Cove, KD
Means Cove off Honga
River, KD
Uvarns Cove off Honga
River, KD
Hoof's Run, Alexandria. VA
Hopkins Creek, HD
Hunger ford Creek, MD
[•land Creek near
Oxford. XD
Kent Island Harrows near
Crasonville, KD
Knepps Harrows at Tlghlman. HD
Lake HlllsMre. KD
Letha Pond. KD
Little Annemeasex, HD
Little Hagothy River. KD
Lower Machodoc Creek. HD
Hagothy River at
Gibson Island, KD
Harley Creek at Point
Pleasant. HU
Middle River at Essex, HD
Miles River, KD
Rioll Cove on Brooks
Creak. KD
Rock Hall Harbor at
lock Rail, KD
Rock Hall Harbor, at
Rock Kail, HD
Rock Hall Harbor, at
Rock Hall, KD
South Branch of Quant lea
Creek, VA
PotOMC River at
POSSUB Point, VA
Potomac River upstream
Iron Watklns Island, KD
Pooles Cut. femey Laks, HD
Port Tobacco
River at Port Tobacco, KD
7.100
300
1.000
15.240
780
300
1.800
t
150
250
7.155
4,500
875
6 BOO
45
20
14,900
19,000
2,500
3,545
113
3,659
4,900
600
70
990
6,000
550
12,000
40,690
10,966
111
266
• clanshell or
K Mechanical
H dragline
H dragline
II clansnell
H aechantcal
H
11 dragline or
backhoe
a clamshell
" """""
H Bcchanlcal
H hydraulic or
claashell
" "•"»•"
> cl-ah.ll
K
" «1— "»"
S hydraulic
» dragline
II clauhell
" Cl"*""
> sochanlcal
" el-*-U
> dragline
" """"^
" '"**•
I hydraulic
N hydraulic
S backhoe.
cleashell
M hydraulic
H gradall
approved upland alte
landward of riprap
deposited on wetland
landward of propoaed
bulkhead
340 cu. yd. landward of
bulkhead, rest on upland
disposal site
landward of bulkhead
upland
upland ait-
be ind bulkhead
upland site fc retained
by dike
upland
retained upland
upland altc
upland on applicant 'a
property
landward of bulkhead
on beach area
designated spoil area
landward of bulkhead
backfill. 113 cu. yd.
upland
trudMd to sanltarv
landfill
upland
upland on applicant 'a
property
upland on applicant'a
property
upland apoll disposal area
Sharptowa Duap
piped to disposal site
effluent returned to lake
2 existing ash ponds on
10.163 cu. yd. as backfill
rest landward of MOf
Shoreline
upland
spoil area landward of
WU shoreline
79-06D5
71-0672
79-0303
79-007-4
80-0261
79-0144
7>-0960
79-O813-1
80-O006
80-0072
71-1033
10-0134
79-0132-1
79-0061
80-0089-3
80-0080
79-1083-2
75-1317
79-0132-2
79-0814-1
79-0109-2
7>-0673
80-0034
79-0758
78-1354
79-1104
79-6079
79-6001
79-6042
80-0302-1
79-0761
167
-------
TABLE A-34 (concluded)
DREDGING STATISTICS FOR PRIVATE CONTRACTS IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY:
BALTIMORE DISTRICT; FISCAL YEAR 1980
Method Used
cut.
10/11/79
3/9/80
1/17/60
4/4/80
8/22/80
U/5/79
9/12/80
J/U/SO
4/17/ao
5/7/80
1/10/80
9/17/80
4/2B/80
6/18/80
5/21/80
U/15/79
9/13/80
10/30/79
2/12/80
1/10/80
7/10/80
3/21/80
2/28/80
11/13/79
S/21/BO
9/29/80
10/16/79
4/4/80
8/17/flO
6/6/80
4/ 15/80
9/26/80
}/ 18/80
9/24/80
Permittee
Norfolk, Baltimore
•ad Caroline Line.
Inc. (Baltimore)
Rukert Terminals
Schaafer, John A.
Maryland Dept. of
Transportation
Bethlehem Steel Co.
Conoco, Inc . (Georgia)
Avatar Corp.
Baltimore City
Skyline Terminals
Oyster Harbor
Citizen's Association
Vicka. Richard T,
Cropper. C^orga B.
Elliot* » Sports Marina
Shifting Sand Realty
(Ocean City)
Annapolis. City of
Bridges. Jack. H.
Pier 4 Marina
Annapolis
Tidewater Marina
(Havre de Grace)
Ulley Manufacturing
Compaay. Ed Jobnatoa
Pennsylvania Fish
Commission
Pennsylvania Power *
Light Company
Sue Haven Yacht Club
Higgle*. Joha D.
Budd. William C.
Glebe Harbor Property
Owners Association
Strlbling, John
Dorchester Co. HO
Fruey Robert
Culver Ronald H.
Borintblen Yacht Club
Parr, Bertram
Blackvcll Clarence
Bromwell Charles E. Ill
Location Total
Patapsco River In
Baltimore Harbor, HO
Patapsco River la
Baltimore City, KB
Patapsco River. Northwest
Harbor, Baltimore City. KD
Northwest Branch of
Patapsco at Duhdalk. KD
Patapsco River at Sparrows. KD
Patapsco River at
Falrfleld. MD
Patapsco River at
Baltimore, MU
Patapsco River at 3
Patapsco River at
Falrfteld, Kb
Oyster Cre«k 4 Chesapeake
Bay near Annapolis. KD
Sassafras River at
Fredcrlcktown. KD
Slaepuxcnt Bay at Oceaa
City, KD
Slnepuxcnt Bay at Vest
Ocean City. KD
Slaepuxcnt Bay at
Ocean City. KD
Spa Creek, Annapolis, KD
Spa Creek at Annapolis KD
Spa Creek at Annapolis, KD
Deposit, KD
Susquchenna River at
Havre de Grace, KD
Susquchanna River at Port
Deposit. KD
North Branch of Susqvehanna
River near Danville, Hoacour
City, PA
Siuquchanna River at Brers
Uland. PA
SB* Creek at Turkey Point. KD
St. Michaels Harbor at
St. Michaels. KD
Warwick River at Secretary. «
Ucataerall Creek, VA
Cypress Creek
Indian Creek near Cartridge
Upland Creek near Plaey Point
Patuxcnt River
Put land Creek
Ruddy Creek near Crasonville
Sp* Creek at Annapolis
Uoolford Creek near Kadison
Amount Dredged
A. 000
25.000
510
135.000
5.000
15.200
60.000
,400,000
too, ooo
1,100
300
2,000
7,500
500
963 oyster
shells
6.667 total
25
50
200
1.200
4.000
100
800
400
) 200
500
17»
14.100
37
400
220
800
15
650
H
R
H
II
n
H
M
H
N
N
N
H
H
K
M
B
It
N
N
a
•
a
8
II
N
V
M
H
H
for Dredging
bucket
clastbucket
dragline or
claffishell
clamshell
dragline or
hydraulic
clamahell
clamshell
dragline
mechanical or
hydraulic
swchanical
hydraulic
mechanical
clamshell
class he 11
claashall
cUaah.ll
clamshell
backhoe
clamshell
bucket
mechanical
mechanical
dragline
clamshell
hydraulic
backhoe or
craa*
clamshell
backhoe and
clamahell
clamshell
dragline
Disposal Site 1
barged to the diked
disposal area at
Hawkins Point
Hsrley Keck Disposal Site
Karley Neck Disposal Site
landward chaaaelwurd of
K«U ehorcliae
contained area .
Karley Neck Disposal Sit*
Karley Creek
upland contained
Karle* Keck Dlspoaal Site
landward ot bulkhead on
beach area
upland spoil ar
-------
APPENDIX B
EQUIPMENT OWNED BY MAJOR DREDGING COMPANIES
WORKING IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY
169
-------
TABLE B-l
MAJOR COMPANIES PERFORMING FEDERAL DREDGING WORK
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT
NAME OF COMPANY
AND ADDRESS
Norfolk Dredging Company
P.O. Box 539
Norfolk, VA 23501
Cottrell Engineering Company
541 Front -Street
Norfolk, VA 23510
Atkinson Dredging Company
P.O. Box 15284
Chesapeake, VA 23320
American Dredging Company
P.O. Box 190 Delaware Ave.
and State Street
Camdcn., N.J. 08101
TYPE OF DREDGING
EQUIPMENT
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
'Booster station
Booster station
Floating grab/clamshell
Floating grab/clamshell
Floating grab/clamshe.ll
Floating grab/clamshell
DREDGE VS NAME
"Philos"
"428"
"111"
"Pullen"
"Essex"
"Talcott"
"Ft. Pierce"
"Jekyll Island"
"Manteo"
"Richmond"
"Marion"
"Neuse"
"Blue Ridge"
"Enterprise"
"Hampton Roads"
"Northwood"
"ADCO"
"American"
"Arkansas
"Ozark"
"Maryland"
"Erie"
"Chester"
"New Jersey II"
"Chesapeake II"
"Booster No. 1"
Booster No. 2"
"Ranger"
"Titan"
"New York"
''Convoy"
DISCHARGE BUCKET POWER HOPPER CAPACITY
PIPE SIZE CAPACITY hp Cu. Yd.
(in) Cu. Yd.
3 250
10 1100
6 800
22
18
18
16
14
12
12 1000
12 1000
12 800
12 500
18
18
16
27
27
27
27
16
16
16
14
12
27
16
-------
AND ADDRESS
American Dredging Company (Cont.)
P.O. Box 190 Delaware Ave.
and Scace Street
Catnden, N.J. 08101
Barnegat Bay Dredging Company
Inc.
Box 336, 8101 Bay Terrace,
Harvey Cedars, N.J. 08040
EQUIPMENT
Bucket dipper
Bucket dipper
Cutter suction
Booster station
"Delaware Valley"
"President"
"Mike Thomas"
"Reynold Thomas"
PIPE SIZE CAPACITY hp Cu. Yd.
(in) CU. Yd.
12 1300
12 700
Splckard Enterprises, Inc.
390 Beaumont Avenue
Tuckerton, N.J.
Great Lakes International Inc.
2122 York Rd.
Oak' Brook, II. 60502
Cutter suction
"Raritan"
12
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Cutter suction
Bucket dipper
Bucket dipper
Bucket dipper
Bucket dipper
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
Clamshell
"Illinois"
"Alaska"
"New York"
"Georgia"
"Louisiana"
"Puerto Rico"
"Rhode Island"
"Crest"
"Boston"
"Cleveland"
"Mogul"
"No. 51"
"No. 52"
"No. 54"
"Conical"
"No. 50"
"No. 55"-
VNo. 56"
"No. 811"
27
27
27
26
25
24
1* ..._..
12
10
10
10
9-15
10-22
10-22
91 A
- la
91 ft
— IO
6-12
6-14
5-12
5-12
4-6
'&•
I
I
-------
TABLE B-l (Concluded)
MAJOR COMPANIES PERFORMING FEDERAL DREDGING WORK
IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND AVAILABLE EQUIPMENT
NAME OF COMPANY
AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes International Inc. (Con t.)
2122 York Rd.
Oak Brook, IL 60521
TYPE OF DREDGING
EQUIPMENT
Trailing suction
Hopper Dredge
Hopper Dredge
Hopper Dredge
Hopper Dredge
Hopper Dredge'
DREDGERS NAME
"Long Island"
"Padre Island"
"Manhattan Island"
"Sugar Island"
"Dodge Island"
DISCHARGE
PIPE SIZE
(in)
24
24
24
24
BUCKET POWER
CAPACITY hp
Cu. .Yd.
6550
6750
9470
9470
HOPPER CAPACITY
Cu. Yd.
16,000
3,600
3,600
3,600
1,300
N)
-------
Alden, R. W., Ill, Undated. Ocean Disposal: An Ecological
Assessment of Spoils from the Port of Hampton Roads, Virginia.
Presented at Dredging Technology Seminar, 26-27 August 1981.
Co-Sponsored by the School of Engineering, Old Dominion
University and the Norfolk District of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion
University, Norfolk, Virginia.
American Marine and Machinery Co., Inc., 1980. Manufacturer's
Brochure. Nashville, Tennessee.
AMTEC Development Corporation, 1981. Equipment Brochure. Highland
Park, Illinois.
Anonymous, 1978. Lasers: New Dimension in Port Construction.
American Seaport, June, pp. 31-32.
Anonymous, 1980a. Directory of the World's Dredges and Suppliers.
World Dredging and Marine Construction 16(2):33-111.
Anoymous, 1980b. Bibliography of Dredging Technology. World
Dredging and Marine Construction 16(10):31-63.
Anonymous, 1981. Electronics in Dredging. World Dredging and Marine
Construction 17(3):9-13.
Bates, A. D., 1979. Buckets Full of Promise. Consulting Engineer,
October, pp. 57-69.
Bean Dredging Corporation, 1980. Company Brochure and Equipment
Listing. New Orleans, Louisiana.
Biller, R. A., 1980. Personal Communication. Chief of International
Staff, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C.
Blankinship, B. T., 1975. Problems and Challenges in the Dredging
Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Proceedings of
World Dredging Conference No. VI, pp. 17-35. WODCON
Association, San Pedro, telifornia.
Bray, R. N., 1977. Choosing the Right Dredger for the Job.
International Dredging and Marine Construction 13(7):2Q-24.
Bray, R. N., 1979. Dredging, a Handbook for Engineers. Edward
Arnold, New York, New York.
Bray, R. N., 1980. Dredging and the Environment. .Civil Engineering
50(2):22-25.
174
-------
nd Thompson, L. J., 1977. Dewatering of Confined Dredge
reas. Paper Gl. Second International Symposium on
g Technology. BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield,
, England.
, 1965. Two Stage Dredging Method Allows Continuous
on. Construction Methods and Equipment, March 1965,
89.
1978. Rebirth of the Dredging Industry.
ine Construction 14(7):36-39.
World Dredging
, 1969. Optimum Dredging and Disposal Practices in
es. Journal of the Hydraulic Division* Proceedings of
n Society of Civil Engineers 95(HY1):103-114.
. H., 1977. Limiting Factors that Control Dredging
ies in the Estuarine Zone, pp. 217-223. In; Office of
lanning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Estuarine Pollution Control and Assessment, vol. 1.
vernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
- I
.., 1976. Chemical Fixation and Solidification of Dredge
235-257. Proceedings of World Dredging Conference
'ODCON Association, San Pedro, California.
Aurand, D., Leslie, M., Slaughter, J., Amr, A., and
roft, F. I., 1979. Disposal of Dredged Material within
r York District, vol. 1. Current Practices and Candidate
tives. MTR 7808-01. The MITRE Corporation, McLean,
.a.
.., 1975. Practical Dredging and Allied Subjects.
Son & Ferguson, Ltd., Glasgow, England.
.. (ed.), 1970. Gross Physical and Biological Effects
•board Spoil Disposal in Upper Chesapeake Bay. Natural
;e Institute Special Report No. 3. Chesapeake Biological
ory, Solomons, Maryland. . '
'<•, Gross, M. G., Whaley, R. C., Boicourt, W.,
., J. R., and Taylor, W. R., 1978. Investigations of
ig Operations, Craighill Angle-Patapsco River Mouth
il Site. Final Report to Department of Natural Resources,
>f Maryland and the Baltimore District, U.S. Army Corps
.neers. Open File Report No. 12. Annapolis, Maryland*
175
-------
D* Angremond, K., Brakel, J., Hoekstra, A. J., Kleinbloesem, W. C. H.
Nederof, L., and de Nekker, J., 1978. Assessment of Certain
European Dredging Practices and Dredged Material Containment and
Reclamation Methods. Technical Report D-78-58. U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
D1 Heur, A. P., 1981. Personal Communication. U.S. Customs Service,
Office of Inspection, Washington, D.C.
Delta Dredge and Pump Corporation, 1980. Manufacturer's Brochure.
St. Louis, Missouri.
Diaz, R. J., and Boesch, D. F., 1977. Impact of Fluid Mud Dredged
Material on Benthic Communities of the Tidal James River,
Virginia. Technical Report D-77-45. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Dixhoorn, J. van, 1972. Modern Dredging Techniques. Terra et Aqua,
Nov. 1972.
Dredge Masters International, Inc., Undated. Manufacturer's
Brochure
and Technical Specifications. Hendersonville, Tennessee.
Dolber, F., 1981. 15th Annual Directory of Dredgers and Suppliers.
World Dredging and Marine Construction 17(2):61-71.
Dunn, J. T., 1975. Space Age Electronics Boost Dredging Efficiency.
World Dredging and Marine Construction 11(8):18-21.
Durkay, J., 1981. Personal Communication. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland.
Ellicott Machine Corporation, Undated. Company Brochure and
Technical Specifications. Baltimore, Maryland.
Farragut, P., 1981* Baltimore Dredging Depends on Suitable Disposal
Sites. World Dredging and Marine Construction 17(1):20.
Filip, T., 1981. Personal Communications. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland.
Freed, R. J., and Abell, P. A., 1979. Sediment Analyses of the
Craighill Angle and the Patapsco River Disposal Area.
Enviroplan Inc., Baltimore, Maryland.
176
-------
Freed, R. J., and Abell, P. A., 1980. Sediment Sampling and
Analysis, Craighill Angle, Cutoff Angle, Patapsco River
Disposal Area, and Pooles Island Deep Disposal Area.
Enviroplan Inc., Baltimore, Maryland.
Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co., Undated. Company Brochure and
Annual Report, 1980. Oak Brook, Florida.
Greenwood, D. R., Kingsbury, G. L., and Cleland, J. G., 1979. A
Handbook of Key Federal Regulations and Criteria for Multimedia
Environmental Control. EPA 68-02-2612. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Gross, M. G., and Cronin, W. B., 1979. Dredging and Disposal in
Chesapeake Bay, 1975-2025, pp. 131-145. In; Palmer, H. D.,
Gross, M. G. (eds.). Ocean Dumping and Marine Pollution.
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, Inc., Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.
Gross, M. G., Karweit, M., Cronin, W. B., and Schubel, J. R., 1978.
Suspended Sediment Discharge of the Susquehanna River to
Northern Chesapeake Bay, 1966-1976. Estuaries 1(2):106-110.
Hachiro, P., 1975. An Overview of Dredging in Japan, pp. 11-16.
Proceedings of World Dredging Conference No. VI. WODCON
Association, San Pedro, California.
Haliburton, A. T., 1979. Best Ways to Dewater Dredged Material.
Civil Engineering 49(8):57-61=
Haller, D., 1981. Personal Communication. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk District, Norfolk, Virginia.
Hammond, R., 1969. Modern Dredging Practice. Frederick Muller,
London, England.
Hansen, R. S., 1971. Great Lakes Dredging: Problems and
Remedies. World Dredging and Marine Construction 7:16-20.
Harris, D., 1981. Personal Communication. AMTEC Development
Company, Highland Park, Illinois.
Herbich, J. B., 1974. Coastal and Deep Ocean Dredging. Gulf
Publishing Company, Houston, Texas.
Hirsch, N. D., DiSalvo, L. H., and Peddicord, R., 1978. Effects of
Dredging and Disposal on Aquatic Organisms. Technical Report
DS-78-5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
177
-------
Hoffman, J. F., 1978a. European Dredging, Review of the State of
the Art. London Report R-12-78. Office of Naval Research,
Washington, D.C.
Hoffman, J. F., 1978b. New Methods for Dredging Pier Slips. Coastal
Zone 1978. Symposium on Technical, Environmental, Socioeconomic
and Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management. American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York.
Holland, R., 1981. Personal Communication. Great Lakes Dredge and
Dock Company, Towson, Maryland.
Hubbard, B. S., and Herbich, J. B., 1977. Productive Land Use of r~
Dredged Material. Paper Fl. Second International Symposium on
Dredging Technology. BHRA Fluid Engineering, Cranfield,
Bedford, England.
Hull, W., 1981. Personal Communication. Atkinson Dredging Company,
Chesapeake, Virginia.
Huston, J., 1976. Techniques for Reducing Turbidity with Present
Dredging Procedures and Operations, pp. 163-181. Proceedings of
the World Dredging Conference No. VII. WODCON Association, San
Pedro, California.
JBF Scientific Corporation, 1978. An Analysis of the Functional
Capabilities and Performance of Silt Curtains. Technical Report
D-78-39. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Jensen, R., 1979. Oozer Pump Dredge Manufacturer's Brochure.
TJK, Inc., N. Hollywood, California.
Jenson, R., 1981 Personal Communication. TJK, Inc., N. Hollywood,
Florida.
Johanson, E. E., 1976. The Effectiveness of Silt Curtains (Barriers)
in Controlling Turbidity, pp. 183-206. Proceedings of the World
Dredging Conference No. VII. WODCON Association, San Pedro,
California.
Kennedy, V. S., Krantz, G. E., 1978. Biological, Chemical and Physi-
cal Effects of Dredging and Overboard Spoil Disposal at the
Mouth of the Patapsco River, with an Evaluation of Benthic Re-
colonization of Dredge Spoil and Recovery of Disturbed Benthic
Community. Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies,
University of Maryland, Cambridge, Maryland.
178
-------
Krenkel, P. A., Harrisson, J., and Burdick, J. C., Ill (eds.)»
1976. Dredging and its Environmental Effects: Proceedings of
the Specialty Conference. The American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, New York.
Larsen, N., 1980. Industry in the Bay—Environmental Disputes.
Chesapeake Bay and Industry Seminar, October 9, 1980.
Citzens .Program for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., Hampton, Virginia.
Lee, G. F., 1977. Significance of Chemical Contaminants in Dredged
Sediment on Estuarine Water Quality, pp. 211-216. In; Office
of Water Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Estuarine Pollution Control and Assessment, vol. 1.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Leslie, M., Aurand, D., Schultz, D. and Holman, R., 1980. Disposal
of Dredged Material within the New York District, vol. 2.
Preliminary Evaluation of Upland Disposal. MTR 7808-02. The
MITRE Corporation, McLean, Virginia.
Maloblocki, R., 1981. Personal Communications. AMTEC Development
Company, Highland Park, Florida.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1981. Dredging and Spoil
Disposal. Maryland Coastal Report Number 4. Coastal Resources
Division, Tidewater Administration, Baltimore, Maryland.
McDonald, B., 1S80. Dredge Now or Die Later. Marine Engineering/
Log, June, pp. 34-37.
McKee, J., 1981/1982. Personal Communications. Navigation Branch,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District, Baltimore,
Maryland.
McLean Contracting Company, Undated. Company Brochure. Baltimore,
Maryland.
Mullins, T., 1977. The Chemistry of Water Pollution, pp. 331-400.
In: Brockes, J. 0. (ed). Environmental Chemistry. Plenum
PFess, New York, New York.
Murden, W. R., Jr., 1978. The Development of New Dredging
Procedures. Defense Technical Information Center, Defense
Logistics Agency, Alexandria, Virginia.
179
-------
Murden, W. R., Jr., 1980. Dredging on a Competitive Basis.
Management of Bottom Sediments Containing Toxic Substances.
Proceedings of the 5th U.S.-Japan Experts Meeting.
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon.
Murden, W. R., Jr., 1981. Personal Communications. Institute for
Water Resources, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir,
Virginia.
National Car Rental System, Inc., Undated. MUD CAT Dredge
Manufacturer's Brochures. MUD CAT Division, St. Louis
Park, Minnesota.
Neff, J. W., Foster, R. S., and Slowey, J. F., 1978. Availability of
Sediment Absorbed Heavy Metals to Benthos with Particular
Emphasis on Deposit-Feeding Infauna. Technical Report D-78-42.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Nichols, M., 1972. Sediments of the James River Estuary,
Virginia, pp. 169-213. In; Nelson, 3. W. (ed). Environmental
Framework of Coastal Plain Estuaries. Geol. Soc. Amer. Memoir
133.
Nishi, K., 1976. Dredging of High-Density Sludge Using Oozer Pump,
pp. 751-778. Proceedings of the World Dredging Conference No.
VII. WODCON Association, San Pedro, California.
Nordstrom, K. F., Hastings, R. W., and Bonsall, S., 1974. An
Environmental Impact Assessment of Maintenance Dredging of the
New Jersey Intercoastal Waterway. Technical Report No. 74-1.
Marine Sciences Center, Rutgers—The State University of New
Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Nordstrom, K. F., and Kucma, G. A., 1978. The Suitability of Dredge
Spoil as Beach Fill at Berkeley Township, New Jersey.
Proceedings, Middle States Division, Association of American
Geographers. Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Nordstrom, K. F., 1974. The Use of Dredged Spoil as Beach Fill on
the New Jersey Beaches* Proceedings, Middle States Division,
Association of American Geographers, 1974. Rutgers—the State
University of New Jersey, Department of Geography, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Norfolk Dredging Co., Undated. Company Brochure. Norfolk, Viginia.
180
-------
O'Brien, D. J., 1981. Sharing the Port Barrel. The New York Times,
16 April 1981, vol. 130, p. N-27.
Office of Technology Assessment, 1981. Coal Exports and Port
Development. OTA-TM-0-8. Office of Technology Assessment,
U.S. Congress. Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C.
Palmer, H. D., Schubel, J. R., -and Cronin, W. B., 1975. Estuarine
Sedimentology, Upper Bay Survey, vol. 2, Technical Report.
Westinghouse Electric Corp., Oceanic Division, Annapolis,
Maryland.
Peddicord, R. K., McFarland, V. A., Belfiori, D. P., and Byrd, T. E.,
1975. Effects of Suspended Solids on San Franciso Bay
Organisms. Dredge Disposal Study, San Francisco Bay and
Estuary. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District,
San Francisco, California.
Peddicord, R. K., and McFarland, V. A., 1978. Effects of Suspended
Dredged Material on Aquatic Animals. Technical Report D-78-29.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Phillips, T., 1980-1981. Personal Communications. Geography
Department, Rutgers—The State University of New Jersey, New
Brunswick, New Jersey.
Pitts, J. T., 1981. Personal Communication. Director, Delmarva
Water Transport Committee, Salisbury, Maryland.
Powers, J., 1980. Bucket Dredging Methods and Equipment. World
Dredging and Marine Construction 16(12):11-14.
Sato, E., 1976. Application of Dredging Techniques for Environmental
Problems, pp. 143-162. Proceedings of the World Dredging
Conference No. VII. WODCON Association, San Pedro, California.
Saucier, R. T., Calhoun, C. C., Jr., Engler, R. M., Palin, T. R., and
Smith, H. K., 1978. Executive Overview and Detailed Summary.
Technical Report DS-78-22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Scholle, A. J., 1981. Personal Communication. Chief of Carrier
Ruling Branch, U.S. Customs Service, Washington, D.C.
Schubel, J. R., 1968. Suspended Sediment of the Northern Chesapeake
Bay. Technical Report 35. Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland.
181
-------
Schubel, J. R. (ed.), 1971. The Estuarine Environment and Estuarine
Sedimentation. Short Course Lecture Notes. Amer. Geol. Inst.,
Washington, B.C.
Schubel, J. R., 1972. Distribution and Transportation of Suspended
Sediment in Upper Chesapeake Bay, pp. 151-167. In; Nelson,
B. W. (ed.). Environmental Framework of Coastal Plain
Estuaries.
Geol. Soc. Amer. Memoir 133.
Schubel, J. R., 1974. Effects of Tropical Storm Agnes on the
Suspended Solids of the Northern Chesapeake Bay, pp. 113-132.
In; Gibbs, R. J. (ed.). Suspended Solids in Water. Plenum
FFess, New York, New York.
Schubel, J. R., and Meade, R. H., 1977. Man's Impact on Estuarine
Sedimentation, pp. 193-209. In; Office of Water Planning and
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Estuarine
Pollution Control and Assessment, vol. 1. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Schubel, J. R., Hirschberg, D. J., Pritchard, D. W., and Gross,
M. G., 1980. A General Assessment of Selected Dredging/
Disposal Operations for Three Federal Dredging Projects in
Upper Chesapeake Bay. Special Report 40. Marine Science
Research Center, State University of New York, Stony Brook,
New York.
Schwarz, W. H., 1980. Personal Communication. McLean Contracting
Company, Baltimore, Maryland.
Shenman, L., 1981. Personal Communication. District Sales Manager,
MUD CAT, National Car Rental System, Inc., Fort Lee, New Jersey.
Smith, D. D., and Graham, K. F., 1976. The Effect of Institutional
Constraints on Dredging Projects, San Diego Bay: A Case
History, pp. 119-141. Proceedings of the World Dredging
Conference No. VII. WODCON Association, San Pedro, California*
Sorensen, A. H., 1971. Equipment State-of-the-Art, U.S. Dredging
Industry. World Dredging and Marine Construction 7(4):20-26.
Stefanides, E.J., 1980* Hydraulic Dredge Optimizes Solid Waste
Mining. Design News, 5 May, pp. 86-87.
Stern, E. M., and Stickle, W. B., 1978. Effects of Turbidity and
Suspended Material in Aquatic Environments: Literature Review.
Technical Report D-78-21. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
182
-------
Stribllng, J. W., 1981. Personal Communication. Sales Manager,
Ellicott Machine Corporation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Thorne, R. J., 1981. Personal Communication. Executive Vice Presi-
dent, Norfolk Dredging Company, Norfolk, Virginia.
Tofflemire, T. J., 1979. Improving the Efficiency of Dredging
Several Feet of Contaminated Sediment off the Top of an Uncon-
taminated Sediment. Technical Paper No. 61. New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Water
Research, Albany, New York.
Toxey, C., 1981. Personal Communication. U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk District, Norfolk, Virginia.
Tsai, C-F., Welch, J., Chang, K-Y, Schaeffer, J., and Cronin, L. E.,
1979. Bioassay of Baltimore Harbor Sediments. Estuaries 2:
141-153.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1969-79. Annual Reports. Baltimore
District, Baltimore, Maryland.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974. Operation and Maintenance of
Baltimore Harbor and Associated Channels, Maryland and Virginia.
Environmental Statement. Baltimore District, Baltimore,
Maryland.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1976. Final Environmental Statement.
Permit Application for Diked Disposal, Island Hart and Miller
Islands, Baltimore County, Maryland. Baltimore District,
Baltimore, Maryland.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979a. Mississippi Sound and Adjacent
Areas Reconnaissance Report. Appendix D, Dredging Equipment and
Dredged Material Transportation and Disposal, Mobile. Mobile
District, Mobile, Alabama.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1979b. Baltimore District Project
Maps. Baltimore District, Baltimore, Maryland.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981. Dredged Material Research,
Notes, News, Reviews, etc., vol. D-81-2 (August 1981).
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974. Demonstration of the
Separation and Disposal of Concentrated Sediments. EPA
660/2-74-072. Washington, D.C.
183
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Removal and Separation
of Spilled Hazardous Materials from Impoundment Bottoms.
EPA-600/2-76-245. Washington, B.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1977. Ecological Evaluation of Proposed Discharge of
Dredged Material into Ocean Waters. Implementation Manual for
Section 103 of Public Law 92-532. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S=. Army Corps of
Engineers, 1978. The EPA Kepone Mitigation Feasibility Project
Report. Remedial Conventional Measures for Capturing,
Stabilizing or Removing Kepone in Bayley Bay, Bailey Creek,
Gravelly Run, and the James River, Virginia, Appendix B. U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Norfolk District, Norfolk, Virginia.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,
1970. National Estuary Study, vol. 3, Appendix B, Management
Studies in Specific Estuaries. Superintendent of Documents,
Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
and Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway
Administration Interstate Division for Baltimore.City, 1979.
Fort McHenry Tunnel, vols. 1, 2, and 3. Technical Report 1.
Maryland Department of Transportation, Baltimore, Maryland
Villa, 0., Jr., and Johnson, P. G., 1974. Distribution of Metals in
Baltimore Harbor Sediments. Environmental Protection Agency
Technical Report 59. NTIS Report PB-229 258. National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia.
Wade, T. L., and Wong, G. T. F., 1980. Temperature, Salinity, and
Dissolved Oxygen Monitoring Program for Dredging Operations at
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard (Portsmouth, VA). Department of
Oceanography, School of Sciences and Health Professions, Old
Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia.
Wakeman, T. H., Dickson, W. J., and Sustar, J. F., 1975. Alternative
Dredging Methods, Relative Physical Impact, pp. 429-453.
Proceedings of the World Dredging Conference No. VI. WODCON
Association, San Pedro, California.
Water Resource Administration, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, 1977. Management Alternatives for Dredging and Dis-
posal Activities in Maryland Waters. Baltimore, Maryland.
184
-------
Waterless Dredging Company, Undated. Model 8-180 Specifications.
Mattoon, Illinois.
Whitehurst, G., 1981. Personal Communication. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk District, Norfolk, Virginia.
Williams, B. F., 1981. Personal Communication. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Norfolk, Virginia.
Wojciechowski, S., 1981. Personal Communication. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Philadelphia District, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Wooton, F. T., 1980. Dredging and Disposal of Toxic Material Using
Japanese Technology Suggested for United States. World Dredging
and Marine Construction 16:14-15.
185
------- |