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

-------