III~.

IIIrr!

I.

nII

Ii, ,

! I. ,

I

tIIJ

LONG-RANGE DREDGED MATERIALMANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE

INTRACOASTAL WATERWAYIN NORTHEAST FLORIDA

Final ReportSeptember, 1986

Prepared for:

FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT

By:

R. Bruce TaylorWilliam F. McFetridgeTaylor & Divoky Inc.

9086 Cypress Green DriveJacksonville, FL 32216

904/731-7040

Ii

.,,

r-:i '

'!I i, '

r, I

I', I

nI it

n

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The identification and permitting of suitable dredged material

disposal sites for the intracoastal waterway in Florida has become

increasingly difficult because of the nature of dredging and disposal

operations and the environmentally sensitive areas in which they occur.

In response to this situation the Florida Inland Navigation District

has initiated a program to demonstrate the feasibility of long term

dredged material management which, it is hoped, will provide a means

for accommodating all maintenance material dredged from the waterway

during the next fifty years and beyond. The first work performed under

this program is documented in this report. It addresses Phase I of a

two-phased effort to develop a long-range dredged material management

plan for 38 miles of intracoastal waterway channels in Nassau and Duval

Counties. The plan, when completed, will serve as a model for similar

efforts addressing the remaining reaches of the waterway south to

Miami.

Work Performed

Engineering records at the Jacksonville District Office of

the Army Corps of Engineers were reviewed and analyzed to develop

estimates for the fifty-year maintenance dredging and disposal

requirements of the 38 miles of channel within the study area. The

analysis showed a projected total maintenance requirement of

5,046,083 cubic yards of bulked material distributed over seven

reaches of the waterway in which historical dredging has occurred.

Corresponding estimates of existing disposal capacity were

obtained from a preliminary assessment of 43 sites for which legal

access is presently available. From this. only four sites we r e

found acceptable for further consideration. Under the assumption

that these four sites could be used to their full potential, a

projectea fifty-year short-fall in disposal capacity of 3,495,797

cubic yards was obtained. Work was then begun to identify and

I'

I

r-I

II

rI. !

evaluate alternative disposal sites capable of satisfying this

need.

A disposal concept, consisting of three basic requirements,

was established to provide an essential focus to the site

selection process. This concept was to become a key element of

the dredged material management plan. The three requirements

constituting the disposal concept are:

(1) All future disposal will be confined to upland

areas.

(2) Sites will be established to provide

centralized disposal in a minimum number of

locations per operating reach of waterway as

determined by the analysis of historical data.

(3) Disposal sites will be operated and maintained

as permanent facilities.

Within this framework a total of 29 sites were identified for

further consideration. These included the four sites with

existing legal access which were retained earlier in the study.

All 29 sites were then subjected to a preliminary evaluation

consisting of an examination of site characteristics using

controlled black and white aerial photography, high altitude color

infrared photography, and wetlands inventory maps. This was

followed by a field inspection of each site. From this, 16 sites

were selected to form a site bank of nine primary, or first

choice, sites and seven secondary, or alternative, sites.

Representatives of all cognizant federal and state agencies

were given an opportunity to review the work performed during a

one day workshop at the DER offices in Tallahassee. In addition,

they were invited to participate in a two day field inspection of

the nine primary sites following the workshop. Comments received

I,

iI

r;I j

from the workshop and the field inspection were used in

combination with a standard set of evaluation criteria addressing

engineering/operational, environmental, and land use

considerations to perform a final site evaluation. Final

recommendations were based on this evaluation.

In support of the sites selected and the disposal concept

which guided the selection process, a set of basic considerations

for the operation and maintenance of disposal sites was also

developed. This was done to provide a basis for the long term

management of maintenance material dredged from the waterway.

Phase II of this study will utilize this information in

combination with specific site characteristics to develop a site

management plan for each of the disposal sites selected.

All work performed under this contract is documented in this

report and a companion set of 64 photo base engineering plans which

summarize pertinent channel and disposal site information.

Recommendations

The coastal area of Nassau and Duval Counties is

characterized by a mixture of heavily urbanized coastal

communities, pristine expanses of salt marsh, upland island areas,

and an extensive state aquatic preserve. In spite of the

difficulties presented by such an area, a workable plan was

developed which has the potential of satisfying the maintenance

material disposal requirements of the waterway in perpetuity.

However, several issues remain to be addressed. These include a

more detailed documentation of on-site conditions, the development

of detailed site plans and preliminary engineering drawings, and

the acquisition of sites for public use. These should be

addressed as expeditiously as possible in Phase II of the study.

A detailed scope of work is proposed for this effort in Section

6.0 of this report.

": I

ii

II

'ii iI

~,

It is also recommended that serious consideration be given to

the establishment of an institutional mechanism for the long term

operation and maintenance of the disposal sites. For this plan to

be successful a continuing commitment of manpower and financial

resources will be required to operate the sites, maintain the

facilities, and provide for the sale and reuse of dredged

material. Without such a commitment the permanent nature of the

sites and the ultimate effectiveness of this plan will be lost.

r!

r!

,-I ', ,

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF TABLES

1. 0 INTRODUCTION. •

1.1 Background

1.2 Project Overview

iii

iv

v

1

1

4

2.0 50-YEAR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT

2.1 Historical Analysis ....

2.1.1 Material Quantities and Locations

2.1.2 Material Quality

2.2

2.3

EXisting Sites

Projected Disposal Needs

7

7

7

21

26

32

3.0 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

3.1 Disposal Concept

3.2 Identification of Alternative Sites

3.3 Site Inspection . .

33

33

36

38

ESTABLISHMENT OF SITE BANK

4.1 Evaluation Criteria.

4.2 Agency Input

4.3 Site Bank ..

IIj i

r-:i

4.0

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3

Engineering/Operational Considerations

Environmental Considerations

Socioeconomic Considerations

45

45

46

48

51

51

54

II

5.0 DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT

5.1 Site Design .

5.2 Site Management During Dredging

5.3 Site Management Following Dredging

i

63

64

66

67

6.0 RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF WORK - PHASE TWO . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 70

REFERENCES . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 76

r-r­I

r

I

r-r-

i ;I

ni .• I

r-;

j

APPENDIX A:

APPENDIX B:

APPENDIX C:

APPENDIX D:

APPENDIX E:

Agency Contacts

Dike Requirements and Disposal Capacity Analysis

Site Bank: Primary and Secondary Sites

Alternative Site Drawings

Categorization of Vegetation Communities

ii

nl .1

r, I

niCi• I: J

'li I

"! !

rI

II

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to express their appreciation to E.

Lynn Mosura and Dr. James Sullivan of Water and Air Research,

Inc. for their assistance in the performance of this project.

iii

Figure C.14a Cabbage Creek (1-11.7 E-SJ3-6)

Figure C.14b Cabbage Creek (1-11.7 E-SJ3-6)

r>

!

~I

!,,I

il, .

r

Figure 1-1

Figure 2-1

Figure 3-1

Figure 4-1

Figure c.i.

Figure C.2.

Figure C.3.

Figure C.4.

Figure C.5.

Figure C.6.

Figure C.7.

Figure C.8.

Figure C.9.

Figure C.10.

Figure C.1l.

Figure C.12.

Figure C.13.

LIST OF FIGURES

Study Area

Definition of Reaches and Identificationof Existing Sites ..

Identification of Alternative Sites

Identification of Sites within Site Bank

Piney Island (A-3.3 W-28-1)

N.E. Black Hammock Island (A-12.4 W-27-3)

Central Black Hammock Island (A-15.2 W-19-4)W. Central Black Hammock lsI. (A-15.4 W-19-5)

West of Sisters Creek (A-20.7 W-5-7)

N. Heckscher Drive (A-21.4 E-2-9)

Bullard Property (1-1.7 W-Du5-1)

Moody Marine (1-5.0 W-Du9-3)

Pablo Creek (1-11.5 W-SJ3-5)

Crane Island (A-3.5 E-28-2)

Cedar Point (A-17.0 W-12-6)

Fanning Island (A-21.3 E-2-8)

DeBlieu Creek (1-3.1 E-Du6-2)

Hogpen Creek (1-5.8 W-Dull-4)

3

14

37

57

C-2

C-5

C-8

C-10

C-12

C-14

C-16

C-18

C-22

C-24

C-26

C-28

C-30

C-33

C-34

iv

Site Bank, ICWW Mile 0.0 to 12.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 61

LIST OF TABLFS

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9

Inventory of Legally Accessible, Useable Disposal SitesICWW Mile 0.0 to 12.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31

16

11

19

43

58

41

Summary of Historical Dredging,AIWW Mile 0.0 to 22.02

Intracoastal Waterway

Summary of Historical Dredging,ICW1, Mile 0.0 to 12.05

Inventory of Alternative Disposal Sites,AIWW Mile 0.0 to 22.02 .

Inventory of Alternative Disposal Sites,ICWW Mile 0.0 to 12.5 .

Site Bank, AIWW Mile 0.0 to 22.02

Inventory of Legally Accessible, Useable Disposal SitesAIWW Mile O.a to 22. 02 . . . . . . . . . . .. 29

nn[

Table 2-1

!Table 2-2

I Table 2-3

[Table 2-4

[Table 2-5

[Table 2-6

r---I[

r- Table 3-1,I

r Table 3-2L

r-r-

Table 4-1

I Table 4-2I

[

[

[~

v

I 1.0 INTRODUCTION

r-

I

r:i[

n

II

nn1

J

nl I

r-I

This report documents work performed during the first phase of a

two phased effort to develop a fifty year plan for the management of

maintenance material dredged from intracoastal waterway channels in

Nassau and Duval Counties, Florida. The initial phase of the project

focuses on the development of basic plan concepts, the definition of

short and long-term program needs, and the identification of suitable

disposal sites which satisfy these needs. Phase two of the project

will first address the legal, social, and economic issues of site

acquisition. If acquisition is considered to be feasible, work will

then proceed with the detailed documentation of site conditions

required for preliminary site engineering and permit preparation.

It is hoped that this plan, when completed, will serve as a model

for dredged material management along the remaining reaches of the

waterway south to Miami. The approach developed shows promise of

resolving the increasing difficulty of managing material dredged from

federally maintained channels within Florida. It requires a systematic

documentation of disposal alternatives, and a vigorous pursuit of those

alternatives shown to be the most favorable. If this is done the long­

term needs of the waterway and the public will be served.

1.1 Background

Since its formation in 1927 the Florida Inland Navigation

District has served as the state governmental body responsible for

maintaining intracoastal waterway channels along the east coast of

Florida between Fernandina and Miami. The waterway along this

stretch of coast consists of two separate federal navigation

projects. From the southern limits of Fernandina Harbor to

Jacksonville Harbor, the channel is the southernmost part of the

Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway (AIWW) which extends from Norfolk,

Virginia to Jacksonville, Florida. From Jacksonville Harbor south

to Miami, the authorized federal channel is simply called the

During the early years of World War II, 1941-42, the

authorized project depth of the AIWW was increased from 8 to 12

ft. mean low water. Ten years later, in 1951, the Duval County

stretch of the ICWW was similarly deepened. Since that time no

subsequent changes have been made and both stretches of the

channel have been maintained at 12 ft. Prior to 1970, maintenance

of the waterway was relatively straightforward. Growing

environmental concerns related to dredging and dredged material

disposal had not yet been translated into legislative action.

Thus, engineering, cost, and operational considerations were of

paramount importance to the design and execution of channel

maintenance projects. The availability of disposal sites was also

not a problem. An abundant number of perpetual easements had been

granted to the Florida Inland Navigation District by the Trustees

of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (hereafter referred to as

Trustees). The majority of these were located entirely within the

sovereign waters of the State and included both open water areas

and expanses of pristine salt marsh.

Thus,

includes

nnnnrnnnnnn

Intracoastal Waterway (ICWW).

area, as shown in Figure 1-1,

and the ICWW.

the Nassau - Duval study

portions of both the AIWW

rn~

nnrI

With the passing of the 1960's, the situation changed. In

1969, the Trustees adopted a resolution creating the Nassau

River--St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic Preserve (Figure 1-1).

Encompassing an area of 57,000 acres between the Highway AlA

bridge to Amelia Island and the St. Johns River, the preserve

brought with it severe restrictions on the placement of dredged

material within its boundaries. Subsequently, other state and

federal legislation specified that all dredging and dredged

material disposal activities satisfy a spectrum of environmental

requirements dealing with water quality, habitat protection

threatened and endangered species, and the filling of wetlands.

The long range implications of these actions have become more

2

>­

ILl..J..J

::l'

3

FIGU

RE

[-ISTU

DY

AR

EA

LE

GE

ND

Iff\tmJ-W

AT

ER

WA

Y

ci>..Jm:t:U<[

Wm

PR

ES

ER

VE

AT

LA

NT

ICIN

TR

AC

OA

ST

AL

WA

TE

RW

AY

(A.I.W

.W.)

22

.02

MIL

ES

-------_

..t4---IN

TR

AC

OA

ST

AL

WA

TE

RW

AY

tr.c.w.w

j1

2.5

0MILES-~

11111JJJJ11~1,:>..?

~~

J

tj

<fa

:

'"

JJJJJ

!i

r-!

n

apparent in the ensuing years. Since 1970 the AIWW in Nassau and

Duval Counties has been dredged once, in 1983. The ICWW was last

dredged in 1973; however, a permit application has been submitted

for the maintenance of this part of the waterway later this year

or early 1987. With each of these operations the identification

and permitting of suitable dredged material disposal sites has

become increasingly difficult. Areas in which existing disposal

easements are located have consistently been found to be

unacceptable. Therefore, the Florida Inland Navigation District

(hereafter referred to as FIND) decided that the time had come to

take positive action to secure its ability to maintain the

waterway for future generations within the existing framework of

engineering, operational, and environmental constraints. This

project is a result of that decision.

1.2 Project Overview

The long range dredged material management plan for the AIWW

and ICWW in Nassau and Duval Counties is embodied by the specific

sites selected for maintenance material disposal; the inherent

characteristics of each site resulting from the criteria used in

the si te evaluation process; and the recommended g u i.d e Lf.n e s for

long term operation and maintenance of the sites. Each of these

plan components is documented in this report as well as the

methods used in their development.

A key element in the plan development process was the

participation of cognizant federal, state, and local agency

representatives. Throughout the entire project an advisory

committee consisting of representatives from the FIND, the Florida

Department of Environmental Regulation (DER), and the Jacksonville

District, Army Corps of Engineers met monthly with the contractor

to monitor work in progress, review technical decisions, and

establish project policy for the execution of future tasks. Input

4

r!l

and guidance received from this group of individuals proved

invaluable to the successful completion of the project.

In addition, specific activities were conceived and carried

out to inform other agency representatives with a potential

interest in the project of the work in progress, and to solicit

their comments at various stages in the work effort. These

activities included initial telephone and letter contacts followed

by a short presentation in the Tallahassee offices of the DER to

inform all concerned of the impending work and to solicit

pertinent information. Later, following an initial evaluation of

sites, the same individuals were invited to attend a one day

workshop to review the work completed and the specific sites under

final consideration. Agencies were then given the opportunity to

participate in a field inspection of each site to provide the

contractor with additional comments for consideration in the final

site evaluation. A complete list of agency representatives

contacted during the project is provided in APPENDIX A.

Development of the dredged material management plan

consisted of a three-phased evaluation of candidate disposal sites

designed to satisfy projected disposal requirements within the

framework of a controlling disposal concept for the waterway. The

sites finally selected were then assembled to form a site bank of

primary and secondary sites. In addition, considerations for the

long term management of dredged material placed in the sites were

included in the plan, as were recommendations for future priority

actions.

The entire process is documented in the remaining sections of

this report beginning with Section 2.0 which describes the

establishment of fifty year disposal needs for various reaches of

the waterway. This was accomplished by comparing projected

disposal quantities and dredging locations based upon historical

data with the capacities of existing sites with easements.

5

Ii

!

I

!!

,-

i,

Section 3.0 discusses the disposal concept, the initial selection

of alternative disposal sites, and the re-evaluation of all

existing and alternative sites based upon field observations. The

final site evaluation process is described in Section 4.0

including the evaluation criteria used, the incorporation of

agency comments, and the formation of the site bank. Section 5.0

presents a brief discussion of the considerations of dredged

material management recommended for use during the long term

operation of the disposal sites. Finally, Section 6.0 summarizes

the results of this study and presents recommendations for the

future needs of the program.

6

r

II

2.0 50-YEAR MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT

2.1 Historical Analysis

2.1.1 Material Quantities and Locations

The establishment of a base line rate of shoaling for

projecting fifty-year dredging and disposal volumes required a

detailed examination of Jacksonville District, Army Corps of

Engineers (COE) archival records and engineering plans related to

AIWW and ICWW maintenance dredging. These records represent the

best available information on patterns of sedimentation within the

project area. Dredging frequency is often dependent on factors

unrelated to rates of shoaling, including the availability of

funding and equipment, contracting procedures, and environmental

and land-use concerns related to the disposal of maintenance

material. Dredging volumes, however, are based on regular and

comprehensive bathymetric surveys of the waterway, and over an

adequate period of record, provide a reasonable and reliable

estimate of existing patterns of shoaling.

Within the Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, all

available sources of dredging information were consulted to insure

accuracy, consistency and completeness. Preliminary sources

included the annual Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE)

Reports, previous COE summaries of maintenance dredging within the

project area, and interviews with COE personnel. Also, specific

District maintenance dredging plans were examined. Only those

maintenance events following the establishment of the present 12

ft. project depth were referenced (i.e., post-1942 for the AIWW-,

and post-195l for the ICWW-segments of the study area).

The compilation of historical

various preliminary sources and its

usable form was a difficult task.

7

dredging information from the

subsequent condensation into a

No single preliminary source

,-!

I,

had complete information, and the resolution of inconsistencies

among the sources was necessary prior to locating dredging plans.

This task accomplished, the records then had to be physically

located under several filing systems within the district office

archives, and missing plans recalled from inter-division loan or

from alternate storage at the Jacksonville District Dredge Depot.

Of those maintenance dredging events referenced in the OCE

reports or other preliminary sources, only the plans for the 1943

and 1945 channel maintenance within the AIWW were unavailable. For

these events the only information available was total pay volumes

for project channel reaches given in the annual OCE summaries.

All other relevant dredging information was verified by reference

to microfiche versions of the original engineering drawings.

Through this procedure, it was determined that maintenance within

the AIWW segment of the study area since the establishment of the

present -12.0 ft. MLW project depth consisted of eight separate

events. Within the ICWW segment, ten events were documented,

including one which is currently planned.

Description of the channel geometry, specifically the

detailed longitudinal stationing information included with the

more recent dredging plans, was used to establish a system for

cross-referencing a particular location along the waterway to both

cut and station, and channel mileage. Within the AIWW segment of

the study area, channel mileage was measured from the southern

boundary of the Fernandina Harbor Project (AIWW mile 0.0). Within

the ICI.JW segment, channel mileage was measured from the southern

boundary of the Jacksonville Harbor Project (ICWI.J mile 0.0).

This system, presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2, was used

throughout the remainder of the project. Its adoption also

required resolution of inconsistencies present in the older plan

documents as a result of modifications in channel geometry over

the lifetime of the project. Additional information obtained from

8

nn Table 2-1: ATLANTIC INTRACOASTAL WATERI~AY!

~

r ( 1)Cut Length Total Mileage S from FoH.P.

( "'8600' FoHoP. to Cut 34)

r 34 1,226.30 9,826.30 1.86

33 296.86 10,123.16 1.92

n 32 2,025.91 12,149.07 2.30i 31 1,549.87 13,698.94 2.60

r 30 2,615.36 16,314.30 3.09

29 943.14 17,257.44 3.27

28 8,253.73 25,511.17 4.83

n 27T 2,127.35 27,638.52 5.23

27S 923.47 28,561. 99 5.41n 27R 834.10 29,396.09 5.57' ,

27Q 3,578.30 32,974.39 6.25

r 27p 2,289.81 35,264.20 6.68

27N 2,470.13 37,734.33 7.15

r 27M 1,090.80 38,825.13 7.35

2h 1,282.94 40,108.07 7.60

27K 2,889.85 42,997.92 8.14r-r.

[ 27J 642.75 43,640.67 8.27

27H 688.84 44,329.51 8.40,

27C 1,859.05 46,188.56 8.75L •

2,350.67 48,539.2327F 9.19

r 27E 2,535.18 51,074.41 9.67

27n 3,196.52 54,270.93 10.28

n 27C 1,617.13 55,888.06 10.58! :

27B 2,116.25 58,004.31 10.99

27A 3,024.42 61,028.73 11.56

r 27 7,055.72 68,084.45 12.89

26A 622.82 68,707.27 13.01

r 26 505.17 69,212.44 13.11

25 1,143.69 70,356.13 13.33r[

9

n

(1)Cut Length Total Mileage S from F.H.P.

( "'8600' F.H.P. to Cut 34)

(1) Channel Cut Numbered North from Jacksonville Harbor Project

r

I

-I

r,i

IIi

r-'

I

24 1,527.18 71,883.31

23 3,290.80 75,174.11

22 1,037.37 76,211.48

21 1,059.37 77,270.85

20 1,229.08 78,499.93

19 2,889.85 81,389.78

18 1,000.12 82,389.90

17 2,437.83 84,827.73

16 1,713.84 86,541.57

15 799.55 87,341.12

14 720.83 88,061. 95

13 797.90 88,859.85

12 2,653.90 91,513.75

11 2,363.97 93,877.72

10 2,113.39 95,991.11

9 2,287.91 98,279.02

8 2,395.83 100,674.85

7 1,970.48 102,645.33

6 5,222.22 107,867.55

5 2,126.49 109,994.04

4 1,190.50 111,184.54

3 1,045.44 112,229.98

2 1,855.41 114,085.39

1 2,176.61 116,265.00

13.61

14.24

14.43

14.63

14.87

15.41

15.60

16.07

16.39

16.54

16.68

16.83

17.33

17.78

18.18

18.61

19.07

19.44

20.43

20.83

21.06

21.26

21.61

22.02

I

I

10

Table 2-2: INTRACOASTAL WATERWAY

(1) ( 2) (2) (3)Cut Length Total ICWW Mileage Total Mileage

I Du- 1 2,700.0 2,700.0 0.51 22.89

r-r- 2 1,050.8 3,750.8 0.71 23.09

3 2,175.3 5,926.1 1.12 23.50

4 2,529.4 8,455.5 1.60 23.98

I 5 4,733.5 13,189.0 2.50 24.88

6 7,561.5 20,750.5 3.93 26.31

r 7 3,161.0 23,911.5 4.53 26.91

8 1,649.7 25,561.2 4.84 27.22

r: 9 2,948.1 28,509.3 5.40 27.78: i

10 1,830.5 30,339.8 5.75 28.13

r-r- 11 1,005.0 31,344.8 5.94 28.32

12 2,380.0 33,724.8 6.39 28.77

13 3,924.9 37,649.7 7.13 29.51,-

I 14 1,361.0 39,010.7 7.39 29.77

15 2,223.4 41,234.1 7.81 30.19

I" 16 2,215.5 43,449.6 8.23 30.61i

17 3,734.7 47,184.3 8.94 31.32

r: 18 3,700.0 50,884.3 9.64 32.02

19 2,910.7 53,795.0 10.19 32.57

SJ,.. 1 2,165.8 55,960.8 10.60 32.98

2 2,748.6 58,709.4 11.12 33.50,-I

3 3,726.7 62,436.1 11.83 34.21

4 6,662.4 69,098.5 13.09 35.47

I 5 14,193.0 83,291.5 15.77 38.15

~ (1) Channel Cut Numbered South from Jacksonville Harbor Project

(2) Measured south from J.H.P.; does not include ~1920' of ICWW/AIWW within J.H.P.

I (3) Measured south from F.H.P; does include ~ 1920' of waterway within J.H.P.[

r-r- NOTE: Atlantic Blvd. Bridge It @Du- 8 station 10+004.72 ICWW mileage

11

I .

,-!

iI

r-r-,

the dredging plans included shoaling areas and limits of planned

dredging (referenced to the existing longitudinal stationing), the

estimated dredging volume for each shoal, ·and in many cases, the

location of planned disposal. Pay volumes, i. e. volumes actually

dredged as determined by post-project bathymetric surveys, were

obtained where available from preliminary sources already listed.

Within the ICWW segment of the study area, four discrete

shoaling areas were identified. The northernmost, for which there

has only been one maintenance event, extends from ICWW mile 0.67

to mile 0.87, with a total of 15,000 cy of material removed. The

second shoal, located between mile 2.44 and mile 2.64, has also

required relatively infrequent and minor maintenance, totaling

15,100 cy in estimated dredging volume over project history.

Southward, the next area of consistent shoaling was found

immediately south of the Atlantic Blvd. bridge, from ICWW mile

4.76 to mile 5.03, opposite the entrance to Moody Marine.

Although each maintenance event here involved the removal of

relatively small amounts of material (avg. 7,500 cy/event), this

area has required dredging eight times over project history. The

southernmost shoaling area, and the most extensive within the

study area in terms of length and volume, was found to be

continuous across the Duval - St. Johns County line, extending

from ICWW mile 8.94 to mile 12.49. This area has also required

eight separate maintenance dredgings, with an average of 93,000 cy

of material removed per event.

The existence of these discrete areas of recurrent shoaling

suggested that dredging and disposal be considered in terms of

three reaches of the waterway, each encompassing an area where

maintenance dredging has been historically required. The

southernmost reach was extended across the Duval St. Johns

County line by 2.3 miles to include the southernmost shoaling area

described above. The resulting reaches, referenced to channel

12

~I

rI

mile and geographic landmarks, are defined in Table 2-2 and their

approximate limits are shown in Figure 2-1.

Dredging within the AIWW segment of the study area was found

to be more evenly distributed along the length of the channel.

Therefore, delineation of this section into logical reaches was

somewhat arbitrary, based more on operational considerations (e.g.

pumping distance, material characteristics) than patterns of

shoaling. Four reaches resulted from the consideration of such

operational factors. These are shown in Figure 2-1. The

northernmost reach was defined as extending from the southern

boundary of the Fernandina Harbor Project (i.e., the northern

limit of the study area) to the northern edge of Nassau Sound

(AIWW mile 0.0 to mile 10.58), and includes the entire backside of

Amelia Island. The definition of the reach in this manner is the

result of several considerations: (1) the amount of maintenance

dredging required within this area is relatively small (171,601 cy

over project history, or 377 cy/mi/yr); (2) the maintenance which

has historically been required within this area is centralized

(AIWW mile 2.90 to mile 8.48); (3) a centrally located disposal

site would be within practical hydraulic pipeline pumping distance

throughout the reach; and, (4) the extensive marsh and relative

scarcity of available upland sites to the west of the waterway,

and the development to the east on Amelia Island precludes the

reasonable acquisition of more than a single disposal area within

this length of waterway.

The length of channel which crosses Nassau Sound (cuts 27a

and 27b, AIWW mile 10.58 to mile 11.56) was defined as the second

AIWW reach despite the fact that this area has been maintained

only once over the 12 ft. project history (71,000 cy, 1982).

Sedimentary processes and material immediately inside an active

tidal inlet are qualitatively different from those characterizing

the majority of the waterway. Maintenance material from this

reach is suited for beach nourishment, having been used for this

13

-'-' --'

PINEISLAND

REACHllI--

FT. GEORGERIVER

REACH m

JACKSONVILLEHARBOR

REACH I

NASSAUSOUN DREACH ITNASSAUSOUND

FERNANDINAHARBOR

Ce-o.q" RD.,~__-r pOIl-lt'

ATLANTIC B

\_l,

~:~~:.:_~~~ ./

~Sil 200

B(ACH BLVD,BEACH

Ir

• • rmr ITI BLVD.0 G)

ITI 0 I ITIZ rrt rn

·4 •••• Z-; ." X I I 0

~ z en 1TI :Eo -; -; X l> REACH:Iarl> - -I v.lUIl-; 0 'TI

Z en ITI,2 G) -I ;;0

I-' 0 c;j =E~ z 0 c ~ 2 :J>

0 II ::0 -; G) -<1TIII ::0 /TI en~

/TI f\) en:t> . -;

en o JTI JTI:J: r en-; 1TI

~ PALMz en ::u VALLEY

G) » z fTI VALLEY:J> ~en z -l=1 0 JTI Z1TI 0 ITIen 0

I .

purpose in 1982. It should be noted that other reaches also have

the potential to yield beach-quality material; however, in no

other area is direct beach nourishment as operationally feasible.

For a further discussion of dredged material quality, refer to

Section 2.1.2.

Southward from Nassau Sound, historical analysis indicates a

relatively higher maintenance requirement, with areas of shoaling

evenly distributed from AIWW mile 11.56 (the northern end of cut

27, the Sawpit Cut-off) to mile 21.51 (vicinity Sisters

Creek/Heck scher Drive bridge). Because of the volume of

maintenance material involved (907,012 cy over project history, or

2,016 cy/mi/yr), and the channel length of this segment 00.46

miles), its division into two reaches was operationally desirable.

The point of division was set at the approximate half-way point,

at the confluence of the AIWW and the Ft. George River (AIWW mile

17.61). The more northern of the two reaches retains the majority

of the required maintenance (621,541 cy over project history, or

2,389 cy/mi/yr), but also would appear to have the greater

potential for upland disposal, with the proximity of the largely

undeveloped Black Hammock Island to the west. The more southern

reach, however, while historically requiring less maintenance

(285,471 cy, or 1,505 cy/mi/yr) has much less adjacent upland

area. The expansive sal t marsh which extends from the wa t e rwa y

over one mile to the east and over three miles to the west through

most of this area dictates that disposal occur within the upland

regions that exist at the extremes of this reach; that is, the

Cedar Point area to the north, and the disturbed sites along

Heckscher Drive to the south.

The seven channel reaches comprising the AIWW and ICWW study

area and the historical dredging acti vi ty wi thin each reach have

been summarized in Tables 2-3 and 2-4. The total volume dredged

within each reach represents the sum of design volumes for each

event, unless only the pay volume was available. The maintenance

15

T~.1?~e 2-3: SilllMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING, AIlM MILE 0.0 TO 22.02(1)FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY, TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY

MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUNHARy(2)

REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vo1/yr 50 yr 50 yrAIl"'. mi. AI1IlI mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol fyear /mile Unbulked Disposal

(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)

30/ 29/Fernandina 2.90 3.17 10+00 5+00 1982 10,500Harbor toNassau 28/ 28/Sound i AIW\v 3.46 3.83 72+50 53+00 1952 11,000Mile 0.0 to10.58 28/ 27Q/

4.76 6.07 4+00 9+00 1982 51,500

27K/ 27G/7.75 8.48 21+00 14+00 1982 68,500

- - - - 1945 19,178

- - - - 1943 10,923 171,601 3,991 377 199,536 429,003

27B/ 27A/Nassau Sound 10.93 11.33 3+00 12+00 1982 71,000AI1IlI Nile10.58 to - - - - 1945 9,621Mile 11.56

- - - - 1943 5,480 86,101 2,002 2,043 100,100 215,215

27/ 27/Nassau Sound 11.56 12.74 70+55 8+00 1982 121,000at SawpitCut-Off to 11.59 11.80 68+66 57+66 1968 8,600Fort GeorgeRiver i AIWto/ 11.59 12.02 69+00 46+00 1962 23,900 52,006Mile 11.56to 17.61 11.66 11.81 65+00 57+50 1957 15,000 15,829

-l--I ~ ~ ..._., ···1 ~

Table 2-3: SUMMARY OF IIISTORICAL DREDGING, Will MILE 0.0 TO 22.02 (1)(cant. ) FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY, TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY

f~INTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMrlARy(2)

REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrAI11l1 mi. AI11l1 mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal

(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)

11. 75 11.91 60+50 52+00 1952 9,000

12.55 12.68 18+00 11+50 1952 16,000

26A/ 26/12.78 12.86 6+00 2+00 1952 6,000

l-' 12.94 13.03 4+00 4+00 1957 6,500 7,417

" 12.94 13.46 4+00 8+00 1982 73,500

25/ 24/13.16 13.46 8+60 8+00 1962 5,300 9,530

13.17 13.34 8+00 14+50 1968 5,200

23/ 20/13.89 14.85 18+00 1+00 1982 43,500

23/ 21/14.14 14.63 5+00 0+00 1952 32,000

19/ H/15.07 17.61 18+00 9+00 1982 139,000

13/ 12/16.83 17.06 0+00 14+50 1952· 4,000

11/ 11/17.37 17.47 21+50 16+50 1968 4,000

1945 69,473

1943 39,568 621,541 14,454 2,389 722,722 1,553,852

.

-.-1 =J -.-I 1 -~ -.-J ~ -:::-1 -.-I .--l ~.-l ~ 1 -1 ~ ~ ~I j ~~

Table 2-3: SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING, AIW1, MILE 0.0 TO 22.02 (1)(cant.) FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY, TO ST. JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY

MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMMARy(2)

REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrAmW mi. AI\<W mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal

(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)

11/ 10/Fort George 17.70 17.93 4+00 13+00 1968 12,200River toJacksonville 11/ 9/Harborj AIWW 17.70 18.20 4+00 22+00 1982 34,000Mile 17.61to 22.02 9/ 7/

18.22 19.33 21+00 6+00 1982 72,500

9/ 8/18.53 18.61 4+00 23+00 1962 7,000 9,260

I-'00 9/ 7/

18.59 19.24 1+00 10+30 1952 13,000

7/ 6/19.40 19.69 2+00 39+00 1982 5,000

6/ 6/19.54 19.65 47+00 41+00 1952 3,000

3/ 2/21.22 21.51 1+65 4+70 1943 20,149

21.22 21.51 1+65 4+70 1952 34,000

21.22 21.51 1+65 4+70 1954 34,537

1943 18,174

1945 31,911 285,471 6,639 1,505 331,943 713,677

(1) AIWW miles measured south from Fernandina Harbor Project (Mile 0.0).(2) Design quantity used if available. Bulking factor equals 2.0. Non-Pay Volume 15% of unbulked volume. Disposal

Volume = Unbulked Volume x 2.15.

I ___ 1 .-1 ·.-l -. J

Table 2~4: SilllMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING, IClIII MILE 0.0 TO 12.5 (1)ST JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY, OAK LANDING, ST JOImS COUNTY

MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMMARy(2)

REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrICW mi. IC\/Il mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal

(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)

Du-2/ Du-3/Chicopit Bay 0.67 0.87 8+50 8+50 1956 15,000to PineIsland: ICW Du-5/ Du-6/Mile 0.00 to 2.45 2.64 44+75 7+75 1956 12,0003.40

2.44 2.53 44+50 1+50 1966 3,100 2,339 30,100 860 253 43,000 92,450

Du-8/ Du-9/Pine Island 4.79 4.89 14+00 2+50 1956 3,000to BeachBlvd.: ICW 4.77 4.90 13+00 3+00 1960 4,000 9,133Mile 3.40 toMile 7.52 4.76 5.03 12+00 10+00 1962 13,100 24,415

4.78 4.98 13+30 7+50 1964 2,700 2,203

4.78 5.01 13+39 9+00 1965 4,600 7,634

4.78 5.03 13+29 10+00 1970 13,700 13,374

4.79 4.95 14+00 6+00 1973 9,000 9,224

4.77 4.97 13+00 7+00 1986 10,000 60,100 1,717 416 85,857 184,593

-] ··-1 -I -1 .-] -1

Table 2-4: SilllMARY OF HISTORICAL DREDGING. Ic\Il. MILE 0.0 TO 12.5 (1)(cont.) ST JOHNS RIVER, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY. OAK LANDING, ST JOHNS COUNTY

MAINTENANCE EVENT REACH SUMMARy(2)

REACH From To From To Design Pay Total Vol Vol/yr 50 yr 50 yrICW mi. ICW mi. Cut/Sta Cut/Sta Year Vol (cy) Vol Vol /year /mile Unbulked Disposal

(cy) (cy) (cy) (cy) Vol (cy) Vol (cy)

Du-19/ SJ-l/Beach Blvd. 10.n 10.30 24+83 6+00 1956to Palm 60,000Valley; ICWI. SJ-2/ SJ-3/Mile 7.52 10.79 11.31 10+00 10+00 1956to 12.50

Du-18/ SJ-3/9.59 11.38 34+35 13+60 1958 77,000 98,630

N SJ-1/ SJ-4/0 10.55 11.83 19+00 0+00 1960 100,000 n4,508

Du-18/ SJ-4/8.94 12.01 0+00 10+00 1962 151,400 218,636

Du-19. SJ-1/10.n 10.28 24+85 5+00 1964

99,300SJ-l/ SJ-4/

10.58 12.01 20+50 10+00 1964

10.57 12.49 20+00 35+00 1965 71,000 101,500

SJ-2/ SJ-3/10.60 n.73 0+00 32+00 1970 42,000 47,912

Du-19/ SJ-1/10.n 10.30 25+00 6+00 1986 4,000 604,700 17,277 3,469 863,857 1,857,293

(1) ICt~v miles measured south from Jacksonville Harbor Project (Mile 0.0).(2) Design quantity used if available. Bulking factor equals 2.0. Non-Pay Volume 15% of unbulked volume. Disposal

Volume = Unbulked Volume x 2.15.

r-I

II

t--:

I

r-

I

volume for the 1943 and 1945 events within the AIW\, segment, for

which only the total pay volume for the waterway was recorded, was

apportioned among individual reaches based on the percentage of

the total maintenance volume historically dredged within a

particular reach. The total volume within each reach was then

divided by the number of years since the completion of the 12 ft.

project (35 years in the case of the ICWW, 43 years for the AIWW)

to yield the mean annual volume of maintenance required by each

reach. Projected 50-year dredging volumes listed for the various

reaches were calculated directly from these numbers. Also given

for each reach is the mean annual volume of maintenance dredging

required for each channel mile, which is an indication of the

relative shoaling rate within each reach.

The 50-year projected dredging volume (i.e. the 'unbulked'

volume) was then multiplied by an effective bulking factor of 2.15

to obtain the 50-year projected disposal volume. This factor is

based on Corps of Engineers' standard practice and recommendation,

and represents an actual material bulking of 2. 0, plus an

additional 15% of non-pay volume, or unauthorized overdredging.

These results are also presented in Tables 2-3 and 2-4.

2.1.2 Material Quality

A dredged material management plan must consider, in addition

to projected material quantities, the chemical and physical

properties of the sediment to be dredged and disposed. Techniques

employed to maintain water quality during dredging and dewatering

are highly dependent on sediment chemistry and the physical

characteristics of the dredged material (i. e., particle size,

specific gravity, etc.). Also, both the chemical and physical

properties of the dredged material determine its potential for

reuse, and therefore, the effective site lifetime. Similar to the

procedure used to establish historical dredging volumes, a

21

r­!

n

complete review was made of all available sediment chemistry and

physical data.

Existing sediment and water chemistry data for the project

area are limited to the results of studies done since 1979 by the

Corps of Engineers and the Florida DER. Waterway sediments were

sampled by the DER in 1984, and sediment and water sampl es we r e

taken by the Jacksonville District, COE, in 1979 and 1981. The

resulting data were analyzed utilizing procedures developed by the

DER and described in their "Guide to the Interpretation of

Reported Metal Concentrations in Estuarine Sediments" (DER, 1986),

and their "Deepwater Ports Manual" (Ryan et aI, 1984). A summary

of existing sediment and water chemistry data follows here.

The majority of the sediment chemistry data came from DER

sampling of sediments at four locations within the project area,

with two additional sampling locations (IWW-1 and IWW-2)

immediately to the north of the project area within the limits of

the Fernandina Harbor Project (F.H.P.). The four locations within

the FIND study area are all south of the St. Johns River, with two

sites immediately north and south of the Atlantic Blvd. bridge

(IWW-3 at the entrance to Bellinger Shipyards, and IWW-4 at the

entrance to Moody Marine, respectively); one site immediately

north of the Beach Blvd. bridge (IWW-S at the entrance to Beach

Marine); and one site south of the Duval - St. Johns County line

(IWW-6 at the confluence of the waterway and Cabbage Creek). All

locations were in zones of industrial or construction activity,

and were selected on the high probability of worst-case

contamination. Two sites (IWW-4 and HIW-6) occur in areas

requiring frequent maintenance dredging. Sediments from these six

locations may reasonably be expected to exhibit the highest level

of pollutants to be encountered within the Nassau - Duval section

of the waterway. Analysis based on DER guidelines (DER, 1986) for

the determination of metal contamination indicated the possibility

22

n

n!

i i

i'I

of metals being present at higher than 'natural' levels at t wo

sampling locations (mercury at IWW-4 and arsenic at IWW-6).

Additionally, only at sites IWW-1 and IWW-2 (both within the

F.R.P.) were TKN : TOC ratios found to be above the DER criterion,

indicating that elutriate testing would be appropriate to

determine the possibility of excessive release of nutrients during

dredging or dewatering.

Additional studies, primarily on ambient and elutriate water

quality at four locations within the AIWW segment of the project

area, were performed in 1979 and 1981 by the Jacksonville District

COE. Four locations were sampled. In the 1979 study, analyses

were made on ambient water and elutriate water for ammonia

nitrogen, orthophosphate, oil and grease, lead, zinc, iron,

nickel, copper, manganese, silver, mercury, PCBs, and selenium.

There are no Class III ambient water quality criteria for marine

waters for ammonia nitrogen, orthophosphate, lead, zinc, or

manganese. For the remaining constituents, DER Class III criteria

for marine waters were exceeded in two locations. The criterion

for mercury was exceeded at one location in both ambient and

elutriate waters, and for ambient waters also in the second

location. At the second location criteria for oil and grease and

silver in elutriate waters were exceeded as well.

Additionally, all other mercury analyses were less than 0.5

ug/l. All other silver analyses were less than 0.5 ug/l, and all

PCB results were less than 2 ug/l. Since the detection limits for

these three analyses are above the DER Class III criteria, it is

not clear that these samples exceeded state standards.

In the April, 1981 study, ambient water and elutriate water

analyses were made for aluminum, manganese, mercury, oil & grease,

selenium, silver, PCBs, and zinc. DER Class III ambient water

quality criteria for marine waters was exceeded only for mercury.

At the four sampling locations, the mercury concentrations for

23

ambient water samples ranged from 0.06 to 1.81 ug/l and the

mercury concentrations for elutriate water samples ranged from 0.5

to 1.81 ug/l compared to the DER Class III criteria of 0.1 ug/l.

Interestingly, at three of the four sites the mercury

concentration in the elutriate sample was less than that in the

ambient water sample indicating that the sediment at that location

was absorbing mercury rather than releasing it to the overlying

waters. Additionally, all PCB results were less than 0.1 ug/l

compared to a Class III criteria of 0.001 ug/l. Consequently, it

cannot be said with certainty that these samples did not equal or

exceed criteria for PCBs.

These results indicate no consistent pattern of significant

contamination and particularly do not indicate that dredging would

result in any significant degradation of ambient water quality.

Characterizations of the physical properties of the sediment

deposited within the waterway channel are limited to the results

of single sets of core borings for both the AIWW and ICWW. Each

set of borings was taken by the COE prior to the most recent

maintenance dredging activity in the respective segments of the

waterway; 1982 for the AIWW (borings taken 1979-80), and 1985 for

the currently planned maintenance in the ICWIL The data consist

of individual core boring logs, with qualitative characterizations

of the sediment at elevations referenced to MLW, as well as

gradation or sieve analysis results and suspended sediment-time

curves for each boring. For present purposes, only information

contained in the boring logs was used, and only to a depth of

-14. 0 ft. ML \IT ( i . e ., 12 . 0 ft. pro j e c t de p t h , pLu s 2. 0 ft. 0 v e r­

dredging). Total boring depth was typically -17.0 to -20.5 ft.

MLW, and the entire sample over the total boring depth was

compo sited and analyzed to produce representative grain size and

fall velocity curves. This procedure may give misleading results

if the sediment below -14.0 MLW is qualitatively different from

that above, a situation to be expected in the present case, since

24

IIII!

sediment above -12.0 to -14.0 ft. MLW has been deposited since

the last maintenance dredging, while that below reflects in situ

conditions.

Sediments within the AIWW are described by the results of 55

core borings taken inside the dredged channel, well-distributed

longitudinally from cut 30 (AIWW mile 2.60) to cut 6 (AIWW mile

20.43). From qualitative descriptions contained in the boring

logs, the sediment within this segment of the waterway may be

characterized as predominantly fine to medium quartz sand,

slightly silty, with fine to coarse shell fragments. Isolated

exceptions to this general characterization include depositions of

silt with significant organic content within cuts 6 (station

46+00, AIWW mile 19.56),13 (station 1+50, AIWW mile 16.80), and

14 (station 2+50, AIWW mile 16.63). The most extensive deposition

of fine silty materials within the AIWW is documented within cut

27 (six borings taken from station 23+00, AIWW mile 12.46 to

station 62+50, AIWW mile 11.71). This artificial cut, also known

as the Sawpit Cut-off, has historically been a high maintenance

area, with dredging requirements of 3,367 cy/mi/yr, apparently a

result of the natural channel of Sawpit Creek retaining the

greater proportion of tidal flushing. Additional isolated

depositions of silt were found in cut 27k (station 13+00, AIWW

mile 7.90) and in cut 27q (station 20+00, AIWW mile 5.87 to

station 25+00, AIWW mile 5.77). From this information it appears

that within the AIWW, only the maintenance material from cut 27,

south of Nassau Sound, may require specialized handling procedures

because of its pronounced silty character and above average

organic content.

Within the ICWW, borings document only the two shoaling areas

currently scheduled for maintenance; the area immediately south of

the Atlantic Blvd. bridge (cut Du-8, station 13+00, ICWW mile

4.77, to cut Du-9, station 7+00, ICWW mile 4.97), and the Palm

Valley area astride the Duval - St. Johns County line (cut Du-19,

25

station 25+00, ICWW mile 10.11 to cut SJ-1, station 6+00, ICWW

mile 10.30). Reference to Table 2-4, Summary of Historical

Dredging, ICWW mile 0.0 to 12.5, will verify that these two shoals

correspond closely to the primary maintenance areas within the

study area of the ICWW over the project history. Again, only

qualitative descriptions of the sediment to -14.0 ft. MLW

contained in the boring logs are referenced. South of the

Atlantic Blvd. bridge, sediments are characterized as fine quartz

sand, while sediments from the high maintenance Palm Valley area

(dredging requirement, 5,010 cy/mi/yr, ICWW mile 8.94 to mile

12.5) are described as fine, brown to dark brown silty sand, with

some clay and organic content, indicating that dredged material

from this area may also require more careful handling.

2.2 Existing Sites

A review of Corps of Engineers' real estate maps yielded a

total of 43 tracts within the project area to which the FIND holds

either an existing easement or ownership. A preliminary

evaluation of each site was then performed using three resources:

black and white aerial photography of nominal 1" = 800' scale,

flown January-December, 1985 for the Corps of Engineers,

Jacksonville District; 1:29,000 scale (1" = 2,417') color-infrared

II .

II

~

,,

I

aerial· photography, flown March, 1983,

Altitude Photography Program of the USGS;

2,000') National Wetlands Inventory maps

from the National High

and 1:24,000 scale (1" =

from the U. S. Fish and

\.Jildlife Service. Consideration of the most basic operational

criteria, combined with the desire to confine disposal to upland

areas, eliminated all but nine of these tracts from further

consideration. These are shown in Figure 2-1. The 34 tracts

eliminated were clearly not feasible from both an environmental

and an operational standpoint, being primarily located in open

water or salt marsh. The few upland areas within these tracts

were limited to previously used disposal areas of low relief and

26

I!

r:,

inadequate acreage for dike construction or efficient utilization.

Thus, a significant majority were found to be unacceptable.

To further evaluate the nine remaining sites, estimates were

made of the usable upland acreage on each site, the volume of on­

site dike material available, and the site's potential disposal

capacity. The usable upland area within each tract was determined

from tracings made of the 1" = 800' black and white aerials,

guided by the color-infrared photography and the USFWS wetland

inventory maps. Analysis was then carried out to establish

whether the usable upland area could provide adequate material for

dike construction, and if the resulting capacity within thig area

supported further consideration of the site. A set of

relationships were developed (APPENDIX B) in which the required

volume of dike material, the volume of dike material available on­

site, and the resulting disposal capacity are expressed in terms

of independent variables including dike crest elevation above

grade, mean site elevation, depth of excavation, dike gide slope,

width of dike crest, and required minimum freeboard. During the

project design phase, dike geometry will be specific to each site,

and will reflect soil charac~eristics (foundation loading,

resistance to piping, etc.) and other engineering/operational

considerations. However, for the purpose of this preliminary

evaluation, a uniform dike geometry was applied to all sites.

Selected parameter values were within the range of standard

practice for similar sites used for previous maintenance events.

These included a 15.0 ft. crest elevation above grade, a IV: 3H

side slope, a 12.0 ft. crest width, an excavated grade elevation

of +3.0 ft. NGVD., and a minimum freeboard plus ponding allowance

of 4.0 ft. Calculations were based on a rectangular disposal

configuration, of plan area equal to the estimated usable upland

area of each site with a length/width ratio similar to the actual

site dimensions. The mean grade elevation for each site was

estimated from design transects, if available, or from USGS

27

Ii

quadrangle maps.

2-5 and 2-6.

Results of this analysis are presented in Tables

I,

~

I

i

These reveal that of the nine existing sites possessing

reasonable upland area, five are projected to have significant

shortages of dike material. This shortcoming, typically in

combination with other operational difficulties such as no road

access and/or no adjacent upland areas to which a marginal site

could be expanded, effectively eliminated these five sites from

further consideration.

Of the four sites remaining (square designator Figure 2-1),

three (S/A 43-44 within the Fernandina Harbor - Nassau Sound reach

of the AIWW, 400E within the Ft. George River - Jacksonville

Harbor of the AIWW, and MSA 208 within the Beach Blvd. to Palm

Valley reach of the ICWW), also have inadequate dike material on­

site. However, these sites were retained as potentially usable

based on two considerations: (1), the dike material deficit

represents a relatively minor proportion of the potential site

disposal capacity (11, 9, and 16%, respectively); and (2), each

site has adjacent upland area to which the existing easement could

possibly be expanded.

Also retained in addition to the above sites was site 300E,

within the Nassau Sound to Ft. George River reach of the AIWW.

This site, in the central region of Black Hammock Island, is

divided into east and west sections by Sawpit Road. Ownership of

the site was obtained by the FIND in 1980, and the western portion

was diked and dredged material was deposited in the 1982

maintenance of the AH1W. Engineering design documents for this

maintenance project allowed the remaining capacity of the existing

dike (crest elevation 25 ft. above mean grade) to be accurately

determined. The eastern portion of the site has not been

disturbed, and therefore received the same analysis as all other

sites.

28

---I -j :-I ~ 1 ~ - ] .~ 1•....~::-1 -I ·--1 1 -l -.1 -l

Table 2-5: INVENTORY OF LEGALLY ACCESSIDLE, USEADLE DISPOSAL SITES, AIWW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA IlARDOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE IlARDOR, DUVAL ·COUNTY

N

'"

DISPOSAL SITES REACH SUMMARY

(1) (1)REACH F.I.N.D. Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available 50-Year

Design- AIWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal Comments Require- Capacity Deficitnation Mile Area vatian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey) ment (cy) (cy)" (ey)

(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)

Fernandina SIA 3.5 25.6 6.5 15.0 1600 86,664 132,557 421,369 East side Crane Es'l ,Harbor to No. 43-44 1697 old spoil sites;Nassau estuarine scrub/shrub,Sound; AIWH but appears as upland;Mile 0.0 expansion of siteto 10.58 westward to island

uplands possible;additional dikematerial required;no road access onexisting site.

S/A-32 2.9 3.4 7.0 15.0 400 4,235 35,847 * 30,816 Inadequate dike1370 material available;

road access. *Siteunacceptable.

Reach Total 429,003 421,369 7,634

Nassau Sound; Maintenance materialAIW\~ Mile predominantly beach10.58 to quality sand; beachMile 11.56 disposal, south end

Amelia Island usedin 1982; continuedbeach disposal likely.

Reach Total 215,215 - 215,215

Nassau Sound 300E 15.2 35.7 18.5 18.5 1300 0 NIA 639,653 F.I.N.D. ownership;at Sawpit (west of 11196 upland site with roadCut-Off to Sawpit Rd) access, wes t portionFort George diked, spoiled 1982;River; AIWlI expansion of siteMile 11.56 possible.to 17.61

---'::-1 ~ =-] ~ --I --I ·-1 ..~ ,._---

I ~ -I ~---I -.l --I -.-, --I ., --~

Table 2-5:(cont.)

INVENTORY OF LEGAu.Y ACCESSIBLE, USEABLE DISPOSAL SITES, AIWW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE IlARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY

9

6

DISPOSAL SITES REACH SUMMARY

(1 ) ( 1)REACH F.I.N.D. Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available 50-Year

Design- AIWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal Comments Require- Capacity Deficitnation Mile Area vation Above (ft) Material Material Vol (cy) ment (cy) (cy)** (cy)

(ac) (ft) Grade (cy) (cy)(ft)

S/A-44 12.9 18.8 8.0 15.0 1800 69,124 129,897 *285,513 Inadequate dike/455 material available;

road access. *Siteunacceptable.

MSA 14.4 17.2 6.0 15.0 1800 35,853 127,427 *226,040 Inadequate dikeDu-3 & 4 /416 material available;

No road access.*Site unacceptable.

Reach Total 1,553,852 639,653 914,19

Fort George 400E 21.4 15.9 10.0 15.0 1385 82,845 106,463 268,571 Generally uplandRiver to /500 site; good roadJacksonville access; notHarbor; AIWW previously used asMile 17.61 as maintenance spoilto 22.02 site.

MSA 19.1 16.5 6.5 15.0 1797 38,060 126,223 *216,893 Small spoil mounds;Du-13 /400 inadequate dike

material available;No road access.*Site unacceptable.

Reach Total 713,677 268,571 445,10

i»o

* Disposal volume not included in existing Reach capacity.** Potential capacity within F.r.N.D. easements.

(1) Dimensions based on tracings taken from black and white aerial photography, with nominal 111 800' scale assumed.

· ._l

Table 2-6:

-.-I

INVENTORY OF LEGALLY ACCESSIBLE, USEABLE DISPOSAL SITES, ICWW MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY PALM VALLEY, ST. JOIINS COUNTY

DISPOSAL SITES REACH SUHHARY

(1) (1)REACH F.I.N.D. Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available 50-Year

Design- ICW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal Comments Require- Capacity Deficitnation Mile Area vation Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey) ment (cy) (cy)** (ey)

(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)

JacksonvilleHarbor(ChicopitBay) toPine lsI;ICWW Mile0.00 to 3.40

Reach Total 92,450 - 92,450

Pine Esl . HSA- 5.04 13.1 8.0 15.0 771 53,317 82,777 *210,380 Site previouslyto Beach 109C /740 diked, spoiled inBlvd: ICW (llOOE-l) 1973, 1970, 1965,Mile 3.40 1964, 1962, 1956:to 7.52 presumed at dike

capacity; additionalwetland area dikedbut apparently unusedand not included incalculations. Noroad access. *Siteunacceptable.

Reach Total 184,593 - 184,593

Beach Blvd. HSA- 11.08 14.0 7.5 15.0 938 51,990 87,653 220,696 Areas of siteto Palm 208 /650 previously diked,Valley, St. spoiled in 1986,Johns Co. i 1970, 1965, 1964,ICWW Hile 1962, 1960, 1958,7.52 to 12.50 1956. Potential

road access.

Reach Total 1,857,293 220,696 1,636,598

~ Disposal volume not included in existing Reach capacity.** Potential capacity within F.I.N.D. easements.

(1) Dimensions based on tracings taken from black and white aerial photography, wi th nominal 11: 800' scale assumed.

n!

;-

!

2.3 Projected Disposal Needs

Estimated fifty-year deficits in existing disposal capacity

were determined for each reach of waterway by comparing the

projected 50 year disposal volumes for the reach with the

potential capacity of the existing usable sites. For reaches in

which no existing site is located, the projected deficit equals

the corresponding disposal requirement. Results are presented in

Tables 2-5 and 2-6.

Wi thin the northernmost reach of the study area, Fernandina

Harbor to Nassau Sound, the existing easements east of the main

upland area of Crane Island almost satisfy the projected disposal

requirements, leaving a deficit of only 7,600 cy. Additional

acreage is required, however, because insufficient material exists

on site to construct dikes adequate for the stated capacity.

South of Amelia Island, in the reach across the open waters of

Nassau Sound, no designated disposal site presently exists.

However, dredged material quality and operational considerations

would indicate that beach disposal on the south end of Amelia

Island constitutes a viable alternative.

The remaining five reaches all exhibit significant short­

falls in disposal capacity, with no existing capacity at all in

two of the reaches within the ICWW: Jacksonville Harbor to Pine

Island (disposal capacity deficit, 92,000 cy); and Pine Island to

Beach Blvd (disposal capacity deficit, 185,000 cy). The two

reaches with the highest projected disposal requirements, Nassau

Sound to Ft. George River in the AIWW (disposal requirement, 1.55

million cy), and Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley in the ICWW (1.86

million cy), have the greatest existing capacity, but significant

deficits remain (914,000 cy and 1,637,000, respectively). The

remaining reach, Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor in the

AIWW, also retains a significant shortfall in disposal capacity of

445,000 cy.

32

r 3.0 DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES

il

r-'

i

I

I

3.1 Disposal Concept

Inherent in every dredged material disposal operation is a

set of guiding principles which reflect the attitudes and

constraints of the project sponsor, the project engineer, and the

contractor. Historically, these principles (i.e., the "Disposal

Concept") have not been explicitly stated, and have evolved

primarily through the desire to maximize operational efficiency

and short-term economy. Thus, minimal consideration was given to

environmental issues or indeed any long-term goals. Within Nassau

and Duval Counties, this approach has resulted in the numerous

small mounds which line the waterway, as the dredge contractor

sought to place the material as close as possible to the area

being dredged. For the extensive salt marsh/estuarine system

which characterizes the AIWW/ICWW in Northeast Florida, this

concept frequently meant disposal in the marsh, with effluent

returning immediately to the receiving waters, its el u tria te and

turbidity loads undiminished.

With increased environmental awareness this approach is no

longer desirable; nor is it possible, given present day agency

reviews and permitting requirements. Concerns about water quality

have led to the disposal of dredged material within diked areas to

increase retention time and insure that return water quality meets

established standards. Wetlands, particularly salt marsh areas

have come to be recognized as among the most biologically

productive of ecosystems, and a resource that must be conserved.

However, preservation of marsh requires that upland sites be

acquired, and in a high growth corridor such as that which exists

along the waterway, developmental pressures and land use conflicts

make such acquisitions increasingly difficult and expensive. It

has become apparent that these conflicts can only be resolved

through long-range planning, and the development of a disposal

33

concept which addresses both environmental and operational

concerns. As such, it constitutes the foundation upon which the

disposal plan is built.

The disposal concept adopted here consists of three

fundamental principles which are identified as follows:

(1) All future disposal will be confined to uplandareas.

(2) Sites will be established to provide centralizeddisposal in a minimum number of locations peroperating reach of waterway as determined by theanalysis of historical data.

(3) Disposal sites will be operated and maintained aspermanent facilities in which dredged material willbe actively managed.

These principles provided the basic framework within which various

I,

disposal alternatives and

identified and subsequently

candidate disposal

evaluated. In so

sites

doing,

could be

minimum

acceptance standards were established and a focus was given to the

planning process. Moreover, the early establishment of the

disposal concept facilitated the specification of a meaningful set

of individual site evaluation criteria later in the project.

The first principle of the disposal concept, the exclusive

use of upland sites for dredged material disposal, minimizes the

long term impacts of maintaining the waterway on sensitive wetland

and transitional areas. In some cases the total avoidance of

wetland impacts is impossible without the elimination of a

particular upland site from consideration.

would include the crossing of marsh areas by

Examples of these

pipeline when other

avenues, such as tidal creeks, are unavailable; or a minimal

encroachment of transitional wetland areas to provide realistic

site geometry for dike construction. However, by limiting future

disposal to upland areas the majority of the anticipated impacts

34

,.I1

nI

r:i[

r-'

[

,.ii

to sensitive wetlands have been avoided. This is of particular

concern within the Nassau River - St. Johns River Marshes Aquatic

Preserve.

The second principle of the disposal concept has both

operational and environmental advantages. The centralization of

disposal within fewer sites has the operational advantage of

locating these sites in a logical manner so as to efficiently

serve individual reaches of the waterway as defined by the

analysis of historical data. Moreover, the use of fewer, larger

sites reduces the total acreage required through economies in dike

area requirements. It also eliminates the proliferation of

smaller sites each with their own outlet works and attendant water

quality considerations. Thus, the use of centralized disposal

sites is considered to be an important element of the disposal

concept.

The requirement to manage the disposal sites as permanent

operating facilities complements the two preceding principles. It

also represents a significant departure from historical practice

in which sites were more or less abandoned following a one-time

usage. By operating the sites as continuing facilities a suite of

managemen t procedures and techniques can be implemen ted, all 0 f

which have long term operational and environmental benefits.

Example management measures include improved detention area

design; material handling and processing to increase dewatering

efficiency (e.g. mechanical grading, underdrains, wicks, etc); and

the use of natural buffer areas and the vegetation of dikes to

reduce the visual impact of the site. Most importantly, the

permanency of the sites implies that ways be explored of removing

the dewatered material from the site to be used as fill, or simply

to be stored in less ecologically sensitive upland areas further

inland. Road access, existing or potential, is therefore

essential. By not regarding the sites as one-time holding

facilities, as in the past, but as intermediate processing areas,

35

n

I

I

it is hoped that they will serve the needs of the waterway in

perpetuity. This type of activity in combination with effective

site management measures will establish the long term material

handling facilities required.

3.2 Identification of Alternative Sites

Definition of the disposal concept provided a focus to the

selection of alternative sites which satisfy the disposal capacity

deficits within each reach of the waterway. Preliminary

evaluation of the sites was accomplished through the use of the

black and white aerial photographs (I" = 800' nominal scale

assumed), color infrared photography, and USFWS Wetlands Inventory

maps previously described in Section 2.2.

The process began with the identification of all sites within

reasonable distance of the waterway which had the potential to

satisfy the basic requirement of centralized disposal in an upland

area, with existing or potential road access to meet the demands

of on-going disposal site management. Additional environmental

considerations, such as the quality of existing habitat,

preservation of canopy, or other constraints such as adjacent land

use, were not included in this initial evaluation. However, these

were considered in the final site evaluation, and are discussed in

Section 4.1.1.

Tracings of the identified areas were made from the 1" = 800'

black and white aerials. A total of 25 alternative sites, or

three to five alternative sites within each reach, were selected

for further consideration. These are shown in Figure 3-1. No

alternative sites were identified to serve the Nassau Sound reach,

however, because of the beach disposal option previously

discussed. The total potential capacity of these sites greatly

exceeded the corresponding disposal deficits. As an extreme

example, within the ICWW reach Jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island

36

>­W....J....J

~

37

FIG

UR

E3-1

IDE

NT

IFIC

AT

ION

OF

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE .

SIT

ES

LE

GE

ND

l7%m

@jjj':""W

AT

ER

WA

Y

•-

AL

TE

RN

AT

IVE

SiT

ES

a>....JII)

:I:<>""urII)

t­z<5Co.

'.<

;j--':':"':~,&

r-.r

II

~!

n! ',

II

(ICWW mile 0.0 to 3.4), 640 acres were retained during this

initial phase of evaluation even though the existing deficit

within this reach (92,450 cy) could be met by only seven acres of

upland disposal area. These overages in capacity were retained to

provide the greatest flexibility in choice prior to the final site

selection. Also, it was expected that subsequent field inspection

of the sites would result in the total elimination of some sites,

and a reduction in the usable acreages of others. The site

inspection procedure is discussed in the following section.

3.3 Site Inspection

Field inspections of both existing and alternative sites were

performed to refine initial estimates of usable upland areas, to

characterize the ecological communities within each site, and to

identify existing land use conflicts, either on-site or off-site,

which would eliminate all or a portion of that site from further

consideration. Later in the project a second inspection was

carried out to afford interested agency representatives an

opportunity to visit sites under final consideration and comment

on their proposed use as disposal areas. This also provided

contractor personnel with an opportunity to augment and refine

their previous observations. Details of this part of the project

are provided in Section 4.1.2.

Initial field inspections were conducted June 2 - 10, 1986.

Entry to each site was made by four-wheel-drive vehicle, wherever

possible, with access to the site interior gained by following

existing roads, survey trails, fire lanes, or power line

easements. In areas where vehicle travel was no longer possible,

inspection continued on foot. When entry to all or a portion of a

site was physically impossible or ill-advised, access was provided

by boat, or alternatively, the site was observed from afloat or

adjacent locations. By this procedure all significant ecological

communities tentatively identified from aerial photography were

38

r!

IiI

Ii

ground-truthed, and their photographic signature was verified.

Hherever possible, all uncertainties were resolved by physical

inspection on foot of the community in question.

At each of the 25 alternative and four existing disposal

sites, the field inspection concentrated on the identification of

vegetative communities within and adjacent to each area under

consideration. Lists of representative plant species observed in

each community were compiled, and are presented in APPENDIX C.

Qualitative assessments of plant species abundance were also made.

These measures refer only to the relative occurrence within the

communi ty. Designations include abundant (A), locally abundant

(LA), common (C), locally common (LC), occasional (0) and rare

(R). Representative specimens of plants were collected, pressed,

and sent to Dr. David Hall, (Plant Taxonomist at the University of

Florida) for identification. Notations of wildlife sightings were

also made in each community. Direct observation of animals (0)

"as differentiated from sign (S) on the field reports. Hildlife

sign occurrences included animal burrows, browse, scat, footprints

and calls. The location of each described community is depicted

on the corresponding site drawings which are included in APPENDIX

C and D. This information helped identify habitats that might

contain or support protected plant and animal species, or unusual

vegetation assemblages. Furthermore, the survey provided

information that was used to modify the configuration of the

candidate sites to avoid sensitive resource areas.

Following site inspection, the original site tracings were

modified to exclude sensitive areas. The most common modification

was to withdraw from areas possessing wetland or transitional

vegetation, particularly those areas exhibiting salt marsh

characteristics, or wetland/transitional areas contiguous with the

waterway or its tributaries. Because of this, all drainage

features were examined for evidence of this contiguity. In two

cases, however, (the DeBlieu Creek and Moody Marine sites wi thin

39

Ii

iI

.j,

the ICWW segment of the study area) the original site boundaries

were expanded to include areas which had been designated as

wetlands on the USFWS Wetlands Inventory maps (based on aerial

surveys), but were shown by inspection to possess no wetland

characteristics. Isolated drainage features or pocket fresh-water

wetlands were noted where salient, and excluded where feasible,

but not if their exclusion made an otherwise usable site unusable.

Additionally, four alternative sites, originally judged to

meri t consideration, were eliminated as a result of conflicting

land use. Within the AIWW, the site west of and adjacent to

Fernandina Airport was excluded because of municipal ownership and

planned development as an industrial park. West of the waterway,

opposite the airport site, the Pine Grove site was eliminated

because of existing residential/agricultural usage. Within the

ICWW segment, the Davis property site, south of Pablo Creek, was

eliminated, also because of existing residential/agricultural use.

Finally, the site south of and adjacent to Hopkins Creek was found

to contain significant residential development under a high canopy

of trees, and thus was not identified as such by preliminary

inspection of aerial photography.

Following the incorporation of the results of the field

observations a second analysis of dike requirements and resulting

disposal capacity was performed for each site based on the field­

verified configuration. As with the previously discussed analysis

of existing site capacities and requirements, a nominal 1" = 800'

scale was assumed. Results of this analysis are presented in

Tables 3-1 and 3-2. In all cases, the potential capacity of the

proposed alternative sites greatly exceeds the disposal

requirement, as well as the disposal requirement deficit, within

each reach. During the final site evaluation, described in the

next section of this report, these parameters were brought into

agreement .

40

-.-1 -.-1 ---I 1 -l --l

Table 3-1: INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, AI\III MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA IlARlJOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE IlARlJOR, DUVAL COUNTY

DISPOSAL SITES

(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available

Location AIWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal CommentsMile Area vat ian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey)

(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)

Fernandina Site No. 1 3.5 74.2 7.5 15.0 4600 354,373 322,937 1,351,126 Upland/Hammock area borderingHarbor to Crane Island /703 existing easement S/A No. 43-44Nassau and previously used spoil areasSound; AIWWMile 0.0 Site No. 2 3.5 120.3 10.0 15.0 4000 N/A N/A N/A Municipal ownership, not toto 10.58 Fernandina /1310 be contested

Airport

Site No. 3 3.3 106.4 8.0 15.0 3200 678,472 281,453 1,917,379 Borrow pits surrounded by woodedPiney Island /1448 upland; good road access

'"I-' Site No. 4 4.3 138.3 7.0 15.0 7532 N/A N/A N/A Residential/Agricultural land use,Pine Grove /800 with scattered wetlands; not feasible

for further consideration

Nassau Sound; Undesignated beach disposal area onAIWW Mile S. Amelia Island used in 1982; future10.58 to beach disposal likelyNile 11.56

Nassau Sound Site No. 1A 12.4 42.5 8.0 15.0 2100 230,538 175,877 771,335 Good upland site predominantly scrub oakat Sawpit N.E. Black /881 and pine with road access, adjacent toCut-Off to Hammock Is. high maintenance areaj wetland buffer toFort George eastRiver; AIWWMile 11.56 Site No. IB 13.6 18.7 8.0 15.0 1400 79,123 112,518 308,456 Similar to 1A; narrow site precludesto 17.61 N.E. Black /581 efficient utilization

Hammock Is.

Site No. 2 12.5 124.0 12.5 15.0 5600 1,382,796 402,834 2,243,881 Good upland site piney flatwoods withN.W. Black /965 road access; pipeline access moreHammock Is. difficult than 1A or IB

.~J -l ~--l

Table 3-1: INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, AIW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,(cont.) FERNANDINA lIAREOR, NASSAU COUlITY TO JACKSONVILLE lIAREOR, DUVAL COUlITY

DISPOSAL SITES

(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available

Location AIWlI Plan Ele- Crest !Width Dike Dike Disposal CommentsNile Area vatian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (cy)

(ac) (ft) Grade (cy) (cy)(ft)

Site No. 3A 15.4 70.8 10.0 15.0 3900 539,391 284,177 1,286,791 Good upland predominantly scrub oak andE. Central /791 pine with road access; ajoins existingBlack Hammock site 300E (east)Island

Site No. 3B 15.4 74.1 10.0 15.0 3800 578,328 281,507 1,343,812 Good upland (predominantly pine) withW. Central /849 pocket wetland; adjoins existing siteBlack Hammock 300E (west); road accessIsland.,.

N

Fort George Site No. 1 17.0 119.3 9.0 15.0 2500 939,966 277,063 2,146,350 Good pine and scrub oak upland site,River to Cedar Point /2079 surrounded by mature hammock; good roadjacksonville accessHarbor; AIHHMile 17.61 Site No. 2A 21.3 114.0 9.0 15.0 2600 892,147 272,713 2,051,982 Disturbed site with isolatedto 22.02 W. Fanning /910 wetland/transitional areas; road access

Island

Site No. 2B 20.7 64.3 9.0 15.0 2800 446,175 227,747 1,165,101 Same as 2AE. Fanning Is. /1000

Site No. 3 20.7 62.3 8.0 15.0 3667 322,718 171,127 851,549 Diked area with isolated wetlandHeckscher Dr. /740 pockets; former J.B.P. disposalat Sister Ck. area; road access

(1 ) Based on survey of black and white aerial photography (Ill = 800' nominal scale assumed),and color infrared aerial photography, with field verification.

.~] mml -1 l

Table 3-2: INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, IC\IW MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVIlLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY PALM VAILEY, ST. JOHNS COUNTY

DISPOSAL· SITES

(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available

Location ICWW Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike Disposal CommentsHile Area vatian Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey)

(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (cy)(ft)

Jacksonville Site No. 1 3.4 16.6 7.5 15.0 1200 63,087 101,243 265,870 Inadequate dike material on site;Harbor Pine Island /603 private residential compound: road(Chicopit accessBay) toPine lsI; Site No. 2A 1.7 142.2 12.0 15.0 3600 1,673,347 324,077 2,558,382 Wooded upland; residential developmentleW Mile Bullard Prop. /1721 and major highway connector planned;0.00 to 3.40 (North) good road access

Site No. 2B 2.1 437.4 12.0 15.0 8100 5,564,129 649,040 7,833,153 Same as 2A. with some existingBullard Prop. /2352 residential use

.0- (South)W

Site No. 3 3.1 44.1 9.0 15.0 1477 300,720 162,957 798,634 Wooded upland: road access:DeBlieu Crk. /1300 borders residential/agricultural

area: undesignated dump

Pine Is!. Site No. lA 5.0 31.15 12.0 15.0 1450 286,683 138,130 566,382 Largely open pine/palmetto upland,to Beach Moody Marine /935 adjoins marine/residential area:Blvd; ICWW close to area requiring frequentMile 3.40 maintenance: road accessto 7.52

Site No. IB 5.8 50.0 10.0 15.0 2100 394,408 185,693 905,360 Open pine/palmetto upland: adjoinsHogpen Crk. /1036 residential area: good road access

Site No. 2 6.2 47.0 9.0 15.0 1706 322,718 171,127 851,549 Existing residential development; notHopkins Crk. /1200 feasible for further consideration

Beach Blvd. Site No. I 9.2 35.6 7.0 15.0 1291 156,701 144,843 645,399 Upland site with good road access;to Palm Cradle Crk. /1200 adjoins residential development: containsValley, St. interconnected drainage ditch networkJohns Co.;ICWW HUe Site No. 2 9.8 34.7 7.0 15.0 1700 148,110 150,480 627,867 Disturbed site with borrow pits:7.52 to 12.50 Butler Blvd. /880 connection to salt marsh complicates site

(Borrow Pits) usage

~ --J -l --l -l --I -- I I -l ----I

Table 3-2:(cant.)

INVENTORY OF ALTERNATIVE DISPOSAL SITES, lew MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY PAlli VALLEY, ST. JOHNS COUNTY

DISPOSAL SITES

(1) (1)REACH Site Number Useable Grade Dike Length Available Required Available

Location ICWII Plan Ele- Crest /Width Dike Dike DisposalMile Area vation Above (ft) Material Material Vol (ey)

(ae) (ft) Grade (ey) (ey)(ft)

Site No. 3 11.5 112.8 16.0 15.0 2400 1,875,378 268,787 2,030,777Pablo Crk. /2048

Site No. 4 11.5 36.7 10.0 15.0 1778 271,827 156,687 667,492Davis Prop. /900

Site No. 5 11. 7 79.2 7.5 15.0 4000 406,296 295,007 1,435,836..,..Cabbage Crk. /862..,..

Comments

Predominantly open pine woodland;pipeline access by way of PabloCreek

Open pastureland; agricultural usage withprivate residential compound

Southerly extension of existing siteMSA-208; hammock/transitional area: roadaccess from south

(1) Based on survey of black and white aerial photography (lit ;: 800' nominal scale assumed),and color infrared aerial photography, with field verification.

4.0 ESTABLISHMENT OF SITE BANK

Final evaluation of the 29 sites listed in Tables 3-1 and 3-2 was

accomplished by assessing the ability of each site to satisfy a

standard set of evaluation criteria, and by the consideration of agency

comments and suggestions received throughout the course of the study.

From this process a group of 15 sites was selected to form a site bank

serving the seven reaches comprising the AIWW and ICWW channels within

the study area. This site bank consists of 9 primary and 6 secondary

sites which, as their names imply, represent first and second choice

options for the long term disposal and management of dredged material

removed from AIWW and ICWW channels.

A standard set of criteria were used to perform the final site

evaluation. However, no attempt was made to quantify the relative

merits of each evaluation criterion. It was felt that this approach,

sometimes referred to as matrix analysis, often promises more

objectivity than it delivers. This only confuses the evaluation

process and diminishes its value. Therefore, the decision was made to

evaluate the sites using the criteria as a who1istic standard and to

take into consideration specific information pertinent to a particular

criterion when it was available.

The remaining portions of Section 4.0 describe the evaluation

procedure and the results obtained from it, including the criteria

used, the agency input considered, and the primary and secondary sites

comprising the site bank.

4.1 Evaluation Criteria

Each site was evaluated by its ability to satisfy criteria in

three broad areas:

o Engineering/Operational Considerations

o Environmental Considerations

45

this study was to identify suitable

to meet the projected fifty-year

the waterway in the study area.

n

o Socioeconomic Considerations (primarily landuse)

Individual criteria considered in each of these areas are

described below.

4.1.1 Engineering/Operational Considerations

A primary objective of

sites of adequate capacity

disposal requirements of

Therefore, the potential disposal capacity of a site was included

as an evaluation criterion. In keeping with the disposal concept

of centralized disposal, all alternative sites were selected and

existing sites retained based on their ability to provide adequate

capacity with a minimum number of sites. Typically, a single site

within each reach is required, although in two cases (the Nassau

Sound to Ft. George River, and the Ft. George River to

Jacksonville Harbor reaches within the AIWW) the retention of

usable, but smaller existing sites resulted in the recommendation

of more than one site to serve those reaches.

Closely related to site capacity is the availability of

adequate material on-site to construct the standard dike employed

in the disposal capacity analysis (APPENDIX B). It is possible to

circumvent an insufficient on-site supply by trucking in

additional material, or by using dewatered material from a

previous disposal operation to incrementally build the dikes to

design elevation. However, the expense of transporting material

from off-site sources, the uncertainties of dredging and disposal

frequency, and the possible unsuitability of the dewatered dredged

material for dike construction, make a pre-existing adequate on­

site supply of material preferable.

46

n) !

1',, ;

r-r-!

rI

Pumping distance from the area to be dredged to the disposal

site is also a criterion affecting site selection. The

availability of add-on boosters can extend pumping distances to

more than 5 miles. However, this increased distance is achieved

through a reduction in dredging efficiency and economy.

Therefore, it is desirable to choose a site which is either

centrally located within the reach it is to serve, or is located

adjacent to the area requiring the highest maintenance.

A site which affords the greatest ease of pipeline access

from the waterway to the disposal area, as well as the return of

effluent to the waterway, is also preferred. Apart from the

environmental concerns which will be discussed later, problems

related to difficult pipeline access, such as extensive marsh

crossings or significant elevation changes, add to mobilization­

demobilization costs, and decreased operating efficiency.

Upland access, with existing or potential road service, is

desirable for initial site construction, and is required if the

site is to be managed as a permanent operating disposal facility.

It should be noted that this criterion was a condition for the

original selection of sites. Therefore all sites which remain at

this stage of the selection process satisfy this criterion.

Soil properties (e.g. foundation loading, resistance to

piping, etc.), as well as the depth of the wa t e r table below

grade, are additional factors which should be included as criteria

for site evaluation. However, these determinations require field

testing not included in phase one of the project. Data supporting

site soil properties and geohydrology will be obtained during

phase two. Visual observations made during the field inspections

revealed no obvious areas of concern.

47

~I

i J

,-

Iri

I"!

4.1.2 Environmental Considerations

The environmental criteria used for site evaluation were

intended to minimize adverse impacts to sensitive estuarine and

upland areas, within the constraint of providing adequate disposal

capacity to serve the needs of the waterway. More than the other

two categories, these criteria reflect the interests of the

various agencies contacted during the study, even though these

interests often conflict. The resulting criteria may be organized

under two categories reflecting the desire to restrict disposal to

upland sites only: (1) criteria for the avoidance of wetland

areas to the greatest extent possible; and (2) criteria for

minimizing the unavoidable impacts to upland areas.

Avoidance of wetlands was a primary consideration throughout

the site selection process, and by use of the USFWS Wetlands

Inventory maps and the color-infrared photography this has largely

been achieved. However, where a question remained, or where

avoidance of isolated or transitional wetland areas would have

precluded the use of a site, several specific criteria were used

to weigh the relative success in minimizing wetland impacts.

Salt marsh and all wetland areas exhibiting salt water

characteristics, particularly those judged to be contiguous with

state waters, are recognized by all state agencies to be an

extremely valuable resource. This consideration is inherent in

the permitting process. Moreover, the value of this sensitive

ecological system is reinforced by the designation of the

estuarine waters and adjacent wetlands of the northern portion of

the study area as a state Aquatic Preserve. Therefore, the degree

to which a site succeeds in eliminating the impacts to the salt

marsh is obviously a crucial criterion in site selection. Closely

related to this is the sometimes unavoidable impact caused by

pipeline access to the site. If no other avenue is available

(e. g., floating the pipeline in a tidal creek) this may involve

48

ri

crossing the marsh itself, a practice which should be minimized,

and a necessary consideration in site selection.

Isolated freshwater wetlands are a valuable biological

community, and in addition can afford a system of filtering run­

off and recharging groundwater supplies. However, such wetlands

are not consistently recognized in governmental policy as being as

biologically productive as salt marsh areas, and are not given the

same degree of agency protection. The presence of these isolated

wetlands was considered in the evaluation of a particular site,

and their disruption was avoided wherever possible. However,

agency comments received tend to support the position that the

sacrifice of small isolated areas possessing wetland vegetation

may be acceptable if required to provide an adequate disposal

area. Somewhat independent of the areal extent of an interior

wetland is the quality of the habitat which it may afford, or the

unusual vegetation assemblages it may support. Thus, the

'quality' of impacted wetlands was also a criterion of site

selection. It should be noted here that all documented or

observed rookeries were avoided in the initial selection process.

The restriction of potential disposal areas to predominantly

upland sites requires that the existing upland biota within the

diked disposal area be sacrificed. Again, the 'quality' of the

impacted upland communities can vary widely, and therefore

considerations which reflect the existing ecological value of a

potential disposal area are useful site evaluation criteria.

Specifically, those criteria used included the quality of habitat

afforded by a particular site as determined by field inspection

and ecological categorization; the value, uniqueness, maturity,

and aesthetic quality of the existing vegetation (e.g. mature

hardwood canopy vs. second-growth scrub); and the extent to which

a site was disturbed by previous activities.

49

~,

I

i 'i ii..

I

I

,-! II '

,-

!

Also, considered as a criterion was the ability of a site to

provide a buffer zone of undisturbed vegetation outside of the

containment area. The benefits of such a buffer, beyond its

primary function as a visual barrier, include the preservation of

areas of particular environmental value such as maritime hammock

or transitional wetlands. It should be noted that the withdrawal

of a recommended disposal area from adjacent wetland or

transitional areas has a similar effect as a designated buffer,

since future development in these fringing wetlands would be

eliminated.

The presence of a documented archeological site, common to

upland regions within the study area, was an additional evaluation

criteria. To apply this to the disposal sites under consideration

a records search was performed by the Division of Archives,

History and Records Management, Florida Department of State which

identified potential conflicts with documented archeological sites

listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the Florida

Master Site File. Evidence of archeological value does not

prevent the use of a site; however, should any site be considered

for registration, mitigation in the form of testing prior to any

land clearing or ground disturbance would be required.

The final environmental evaluation criterion related to

impacts upon upland areas addressed effects on groundwater

supplies. If there are residential areas adjacent to a potential

disposal site, there exists the possibility of contamination of

residential wells, primarily through saltwater intrusion or

elevated nutrient levels. The potential for such contamination,

as measured by the proximity of residences, was therefore used as

a criterion in the site evaluation.

50

rI

J

[

rI

n

4.1.3 Socioeconomic Considerations

The third major category of criteria has been termed

socioeconomic considerations, and primarily involves consideration

of existing land use. Every attempt was made during the initial

selection of alternative sites to choose areas with no present

development. Subsequent discovery of existing on-site

residential, agriculture, or commercial development resulted in

modifying the configuration of the site, or its complete

elimination from further consideration. Adjacent land use

conflicts were not so easily resolved, and in areas in which there

was limited upland acreage, such conflicts remain. To the extent

possible, these conflicts were mitigated by the recommendation of

a buffer zone to separate the disposal area from residential or

commercial development.

Related issues such as current ownership and land acquisition

costs could not be addressed at this preliminary stage, and will

be addressed in phase two of the project. Consideration was given

to current ownership only in the instance of municipal ownership

of the proposed alternative site immediately west of the

Fernandina Beach Airport. In this case it was decided to

eliminate the site from further consideration.

4.2 Agency Input

Throughout the plan development process, input was actively

sought from all agencies with a potential interest in the project,

and specific opportunities were provided for agency

representatives to review the methodology used for site selection,

as well as the actual sites under consideration. The process by

which agency input was solicited was summarized in Section 1.2.

Specific comments received are discussed below.

51

r-';

i

nI '

!,

!I

II

At the outset of the project a brief presentation was made at

the Tallahassee offices of the Florida DER to state agency

representatives. The expressed purpose of this presentation was

to solicit pertinent background information with which to augment

the planned analysis of historical dredging records, and to

receive comments on the proposed methodology and goals of the

project. Comments received were generally positive, acknowledging

that such a long-term, environmentally sensitive approach to

dredged material disposal was long overdue.

Specific issues were raised by the Department of Natural

Resources (DNR) and the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish

Commission (FGHiFC). Representatives of Florida's DNR stressed

that the relative public benefits of maintaining the waterway vs.

committing 'new' areas to dredged material disposal must be

considered. For this reason, DNR would favor the use of existing

sites over the acquisition of additional or alternative sites. In

response, the present plan does recommend the use of those

existing sites possessing reasonable upland acreage. However, the

restriction of disposal to upland areas eliminates most sites with

existing easements from further consideration. Therefore, new

sites must be acquired. The DNR staff strongly supported the

concept of upland disposal.

Other agency comments expressed at this meeting addressed

habitat; the preservation of existing habitat to the greatest

extent possible, and the creation of new habitat where feasible.

Regarding beach disposal of sand dredged from the waterway, the

DNR, Division of Beaches and Shores, warned against disruption of

sea turtle nesting habitat on the beaches of south Amelia Island.

This can be avoided by the scheduling of disposal activity to not

coincide with the season of nesting/incubation, and by the careful

monitoring of turtle nesting and nest relocation, a practice which

is already actively pursued in the area.

52

n

i!

The representative of the FGFWFC stressed the need to

preserve existing habitat by retaining shrub and tree canopy, and

the desirability to create new habitat for nesting shore birds by

placing dredged material to form a coarse sandy substrate. During

the site evaluation process which followed, careful consideration

was given to the quality of the canopy which would be impacted,

the presence of sensitive rookeries, and the undisturbed/disturbed

nature of the site. Canopy disruption was minimized by the use of

centralized disposal sites and the incorporation of buffer zones

around each site. The creation of nesting shore bird habitat was

not considered feasible outside of the containment areas.

Following initial site evaluation, a workshop was held, again

at DER - Tallahassee, to review the methodology of site evaluation

and to discuss the specific sites under final consideration.

Representatives of state and federal agencies were invited to

attend and comment (APPENDIX A). Again the general response was

positive. However, only a few specific comments were received.

These primarily involved questions seeking clarification of the

site evaluation process or the actual disposal activities planned.

The FGFWFC representative asked about the damage done to the marsh

by the placement of pipeline from the dredge to the disposal site.

He was assured that the evaluation method used sought to minimize

these impacts but in some cases where deep water access was not

available some disruption to small areas of marsh could be

expected. The representative from the DNR, Division of Resource

Management, asked if potential contamination of groundwater was

considered in the evaluation of sites. He was assured that it was

and a specific example was discussed. Several agency

representatives requested that detailed site drawings be provided

in future project documents. These have been included in this

report.

I1

Agency representatives attending the

invited to visit each primary and secondary

53

workshop were then

site included in the

I!

site bank.

Florida DER,

Freshwater

Service.

Only three agencies participated. They were the

Office of Coastal Management; the Florida Game and

Fish Commission; and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

[,

Unofficial comments received during the site visits were in

general support of the sites selected as primary choices for

dredged material disposal. One possible exception was the choice

of the site along Pablo Creek to serve Reach VII of the ICWW. The

representative of the FGFWFC indicated that his agency might

prefer 'the Cabbage Creek site as a primary site for this reach

rather than as a secondary site because of its disturbed nature.

He did, however, acknowledge that the use of this site may require

encroachment on saltmarsh contiguous with the waterway, and

therefore its use would prove to be difficult.

The FGFWFC representative also suggested that the proposed

boundaries of the Moody Marine site in Reach VI of the ICWW be

modified to preserve an existing hardwood stand along the eastern

edge of the site. This was accomplished by extending the western

boundary of the site further west, providing a buffer both east

and west of the disposal area. This change is reflected in the

appropriate site description presented in APPENDIX C.

4.3 Site Bank

Following the final evaluation of sites and the consideration

of agency comments, a total of 15 sites were selected to form a

site bank. Of these, nine sites represent primary or first choice

disposal options. The remaining six were included to provide

backup secondary disposal options in the event utilization of one

or more of the primary sites proved not to be feasible. As their

names imply, these 15 sites represent the nine best and six second

best disposal options to serve the AIWW and ICWW channels in

Nassau and Duval Counties after the consideration of all

54

~

I

I'I

II

en gin ee ring, operational, en vironmen tal, and socioeconomic (land

use) factors influencing site selection.

Each of the seven reaches defined in Section 2.1.1 has at

Le a s t; one primary and one secondary site assigned to it, except

for the Nassau Sound reach of the AIWW for which future beach

disposal requirements will determine the location of material

placement. Three primary sites were selected for the Nassau Sound

- Fort George River reach of the AIWW. These include one site on

northeast Black Hammock Island, the existing site in the central

part of Black Hammock Island, and an extension of this site to the

south which is referred to as the West Central Black Hammock

Island site. The utilization of three primary sites for this

reach was required to accommodate the high maintenance

requirements of the Sawpit Cut-off while retaining suitable

utilization of the existing site. The Fort George River to

Jacksonville Harbor reach of the AIWW has two primary and two

secondary sites. In this case, two primary sites were selected to

provide additional flexibility in the management of material

d red g e d from the channel near its c o n f Luence with the St. Johns

River. For this reason, the small existing upland site on the

north side of Heckscher Drive at Sisters Creek was retained as a

primary site in addition to the previously diked area directly

across the channel on the west side of Sisters Creek. Two

secondary sites for this reach were retained to provide needed

backup flexi bili ty in the event the primary sites selected could

not be used. The remaining reach of the AIWIIf and all three

reaches of the ICIlfW have one primary and one secondary site each

in the site bank.

The total primary site land area for the 38 miles of channel

is approximately 514 acres. This includes 308 acres of active

disposal area and 206 acres of buffer area outside of the dikes.

It does not include additional buffer zones provided by preserved

transitional wetlands, maritime hammock, and other environmentally

55

Iii :, I

ri

sensitive areas. The corresponding secondary site land area is

379 acres which includes 245 acres of active disposal area and 134

acres of buffer area.

The general locations of all sites in the site bank are shown

in Figure 4-1. Detailed drawings of each site, including specific

location information, are presented in APPENDIX C along with a

summary description of the site's significant characteristics.

Companion narratives and figures in this Appendix describe the

evolution of each site's configuration through the evaluation

process, the vegetative communities found on each site, observed

plant and animal species which typify these communities, and

significant site attributes or shortcomings which were considered.

Tables 4-1 and 4-2 summarize the basic physical

characteristics of all sites in the site bank, including required

dis posal area, total area, equi valen t plan dimensions, estimated

mean site elevation, dike material quantities, capacity, and

recommended buffer configuration. The process of site selection

and configuration has guaranteed that all of these sites can

provide adequate capacity to meet the projected fifty-year

requirement of their respective reach when used as recommended.

The standard dike analysis (APPENDIX B), in addition to

determining acreage and capacity relationships, also indicates

that all remaining sites can provide sufficient on-site dike

material. For those sites in which this analysis suggests a

deficit in available dike material, the deficit is not considered

significant, and does not reflect site-specific design

requirements to be addressed in phase two of this project.

Pumping distances and road access for all remaining sites have

also been found to be acceptable.

In addition to the common name given each site, Table 4-1 and

4-2 also list an alpha-numeric site designator which concisely

specifies its position, referenced to both channel mile and cut.

56

17-lrnO-MS'9-I --

---i:::-SnO-3I'£-I

1\B:lI.l.N\fl.l.\f

·--1 --1 --1

Table 4--1: SITE BlINK, AII/W MILE 0.0 TO 22.02FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACRSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY

DISPOSAL SITES

REACH Site DisposalDesignator(l) Area

Location (Acres)

Total (2)Area

(Acres)

LengthIWidth(ft)

MeanGradeElev.(ft)

AvailableDike

Material(cy)

RequiredDike

Material(cy)

DisposalVolume(cy)

Deficit(cy)

Comments

lJlO::J

IFernandinaHarbor toNassauSound: AIWWMile 0.0to 10.58

IINassau Sound;AIWW Mile10.58 toMile 11. 56

. A-3.3 W-28-1 23.62Piney Island (P)

A-3.5 E-28-2 24.62Crane Island (8)

60.22

32.20

12001857

11001975

8.0 116,019 117,382 429,057 1,363 Adequate capacity for 50-yearrequirement, Reach I; bufferon four sirles

7.0 99,414 118,496 429,209 19,082 Adequate capacity for 50-yearrequirement, Reach Ij bufferon south side only

Undesignated beach disposal areaon South Amelia Island used in1982; future beach disposal likely

IIINassau Sound A-12.4 11-27-3 19.80 42.38 1600 8.0 81,891 122,556 322,543 40,665 Maximum capacity of site withat Sawpit N.E. Black 1539 buffer on north, west, and southCut-Off to Hammock Is. (P)Fort GeorgeRiver; AIWW A-15.2 11-19-4 35.7 35.7 1300 18.5 N/A 0 639,653 0 Full utilization of remainingMile 11.56 Central Black /1196 capacity of existing site MSA 300Eto 17.61 Hammock Is. (P) (west of Sawpit Road only)

A-15.4 11-19-5 32.40 54.80 2352 10.0 206,932 174,053 592,599 0 In combination with sites A-15.2 11-19-3,W. Central 1600 A-15.4 W-19-4, adequate capacity forBlack Hammock 50-year requirement, Reach III; bufferIsland (P) on east and south

I . - ] l ----:l -.l -.. 1

Table 4-1: SITE BANK, AIWW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,(cont . ) FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE lIARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY

DISPOSAL SITES

REACH Site Disposal Total(2) Length Mean Available Required DisposalDesignator(l) Area Area /Width Grade Dike Dike Volume Deficit Comments

Location (Acres) (Acres) (ft) Elev. Material Material (cy) (cy)(ft) (cy) (cy)

IVFort George A-17.0 W-12-6River to Cedar Point (S)JacksonvilleHarbor; AHlW Reach III 35.65 78.27 1294 9.0 233,074 145,040 647,018 0 In combination with site A-lS.2 W-19-4Mile 17.61 /1200 adequate capacity for 50-yearto 22.02 requirement, Reach III; buffer on

four sides

V1 Reach IV 28.10 66.94 1200 9.0 173,512 127,680 511,081 0 In combination with site A-21.4 £-2-9-o /1020 adequate capacity for 50-year

requirement, Reach IV; buffer onfour sides

Reach III 60.42 113.94 1900 9.0 433,820 195,143 1,092,228 0 In combination with existing sites& IV /1385 A-15.2 W-19-4, A-21.4 E-2-9, adequate

capacity for Reach III & IV 50-yearrequirement; buffer on all four sides

A-20.7 W-5-7 62.29 62.29 3667 8.0 332.667 266.190 1,133.392 0 Full utilization of existing dikedW. of Sisters /740 area; no bufferCreek (P)

Table 4-1:(cont ,')

.. -=1 .J

SITE BANK, AIW MILE 0.0 TO 22.02,FERNANDINA HARBOR, NASSAU COUNTY TO JACKSONVILLE HARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY

DISPOSAL SITES

REACH Site DisposalDesignator(l) Area

Location (Acres)

Tota1(2)Area

(Acres)

LengthIWidth(ft)

MeanGradeElev.(ft)

AvailableDike

Material(cy)

RequiredDike

Material(cy)

DisposalVolume(cy)

Deficit(cy)

Comments

A-21. 3 E-2-HW. FanningIsland (S)

Reach IV 39.37 83.71 1319 7.0 177,187 152,963 713,925 0 Adequate capacity for SO-year11300 requirement, Reach !Vj buffer on

four sides

Reach IV 28.68 68.09 1300 7.0 119,663 130,276 511,052 10,614 In combination with site A-21. 4 E-2-9(with A-21.4 1961 adequate capacity for 50-yearE-2-9) requirement, Reach IV; buffer on

four sides

A-21. 4 E-2-9 12.45 15.89 1085 10.0 61,383 87,463 202,750 26,080 Maximum capacity of existing site;N. Heckscher 1500 buffer on east side onlyDrive (P)

(1) A (IWW) or I (CWlI) - (AI\IW/IC\IW) Mileage E (ast) or W(est) of WW - Cut - Site Number

(2) Includes Buffer (300' wide) as Specified in Comments

(F) Primary Site(8) Secondary Site

-.-I ---]

Table 4-2: SITE BANK, ICWW MILE 0.0 TO 12.5,JACKSONVILLE llARBOR, DUVAL COUNTY TO VICINITY .PALM VALLEY, ST. JOIINS COUNTY

DISPOSAL SITES

REACH Site Disposal Total(2) Length Mean Available Required DisposalDesignator(l) Area Area /Width Grade Dike Dike Volume Deficit Comments

Location (Acres) (Acres) (ft) Elev. Material Material (cy) (cy)(ft) (cy) (cy)

VJacksonville I-l.7W-Du5-1 7.08 31.67 800 10.0 24,042 62,162 92,570 38,120 Adequate capacity for 50-yearHarbor Bullard Prop.(p) /386 requirement, Reach Vi buffer(Chicopit on four sidesBay) to PineIsland; leW 1-3.1E-Ou6-2 6.85 16.47 597 9.0 23,228 56,538 92,667 33,310 Adequate capacity for 50-yearMile 0.00 to DeBlieu Crk. (8) /500 requirement, Reach V; buffer3.40 on east and south

0-f--' VI

Pine Island 1-5.0W-Du9-3 11. 51 31.10 836 9.0 51,618 78,001 184,703 26,384 . Adequate capacity for 50-yearto Beach Moody Marine (P) /600 requirement, Reach VIi bufferBlvdj ICWW on north, east, and westMile 3.40to 7.52 1-5.8W-Dull-4 11.51 23.46 836 9.0 51,618 78,001 184,703 26,384 Adequate capacity for 50-year

Hogpen Creek (S) /600 requirement, Reach VI; bufferon south and west

VIIBeach Blvd. I-ll.5W-SJ3-5 103.15 179.42 2300 16.0 1,694,892 256,475 1,857,430 0 Adequate capacity for 50-yearto Palm Pablo Creek (P) /1954 requirement, Reach VIIi bufferValley, St. surrounding disposal areaJohns Co. iICWlI Mile I-ll.7E-SJ3-6102.58 109.06 4750 6.0 366,857 347,491 1,857,534 0 Adequate capacity for 50-year7.52 to 12.50 Cabbage Creek(s) /941 requirement, Reach VII; buffer

on south only; potential impactto < 7 acres of wetland

(1) A (lWW) or I (CIM) - (AIWW/ICWlI) Mileage E (as t ) or W(est) of 1M - Cut - Site Number

(2) Includes Buffer (300' wide) as Specified in Comments(P) Primary Site

(S) Secondary Site

~! For example, the existing site, Central Black Hammock Island (the

portion of existing site MSA 300E west of Sawpit Road) has been

designated as site A-15.2 W-19-4. The first letter, A, indicates

that the site is to serve the AIWW segment of the waterway.

Obversely, a first letter, I, would indicate a site serving the

ICWW segment. The 15.2 specifies the channel mileage opposite the

northern boundary of the site, as measured south from the southern

boundary of the Fernandina Harbor Project within the AIWW segment.

\·Jithin the ICWW segment, channel mileage is measured south from

the southern boundary of the jacksonville Harbor Project. The

letter following the channel mileage (E or W) indicates whether

the site lies east or west of the waterway. The next number (19

:'1

r:!

I!

in this example) refers to the dredged cut (as designated by the

COE, Jacksonville District), opposite the northern boundary of the

si te. The final number (4 in the example) is a simple north to

south sequential numbering of the sites within either the AIWW or

ICWW segment of the waterway.

r-r-

I

r-r-

II

rrr 62

r!

I'I 5.0 DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT

The dredged material management plan presented in this report

consists of three parts; namely, a disposal concept; a group (bank) of

material disposal sites which satisfy that concept; and a set of

fundamental considerations to guide the development of specific

management programs for these sites. In this section, the

considerations of site management will be introduced. It is not

intended that these provide a specific operating plan for each of the

disposal sites selected. This will be addressed during phase two of

the project. Rather, these considerations are intended to establish

fundamental standards and philosophy for the design and long term

operation of all sites within this program.

As presently conceived, the dredged material management plan

represents a departure from traditional approaches to material

disposal. The change is embodied by a revised perception of the value

of dredged material, and the manner in which it is disposed and used.

The considerations discussed reflect this by their recognition of

disposal sites as permanent operating facilities located in close

proximity to environmentally sensitive areas under increasing pressures

of urbanization and population growth. It is hoped that by

implementation of these guidelines the sites described in this report

will serve the needs of the waterway indefinitely. Moreover, the

manner in which this is accomplished will maximize the individual

storage capacity of each site; maximize the recovery of dredged

material for other uses; and minimize the impacts of disposal

operations on the environment.

rI Considerations recommended for inclusion in the management program

are divided into three categories:

(1) Site Design

o External Buffer

o Equipment Ingress and Egress

63

IiI I

l i

r-i

r­II

-I

o Compartmentalization

o Spur Dikes

o Dike Vegetation

o Improved Outlet and Inlet Works

(2) Site Management During Dredging

o Outlet Operation and Monitoring

o Inlet Operation and Monitoring

o Ponding Depth

o Material Distribution

(3) Site Management Following Dredging

o Material Treatment/Dewatering

o Surface Water Management

o Material Handling/Re-use

o "Monitoring

These are discussed in the following sections.

5.1 Site Design

Site design considerations impact all aspects of material

management. The provision of adequate buffer zones external to

the dikes creates a needed zone of separation and a visual barrier

between the disposal operation and the surrounding areas. Nearby

environmentally sensitive areas such as transitional wetlands can

also be protected in this manner. Similarly, the use of

vegetation on the dikes themselves serves to reduce the visual

impact of these structures while minimizing erosion during periods

of heavy precipitation. Both practices should be incorporated

into the design of all sites, and, in fact, the use of buffers has

been included wherever practical. Minimum buffer widths of 300

ft. were incorporated in all primary and secondary site

configurations as described in APPENDIX C.

64

jI

r-r-ii

,[

r--:

ii

Compartmentalization of large disposal areas in which

material is deposited continuously or with high frequency provides

greater flexibility in site operation, and increased efficiency in

material handling and removal. For example, the division of a

site into three separate containment areas would permit material

to be discharged into one area, while other material is undergoing

dewatering in the second area, and still other material is being

removed from the third. Use of such an approach may be beneficial

in the high maintenance Reach VII of the ICWW (Beach Blvd. to Palm

Valley) .

Another important design consideration is the provision for

equipment ingress and egress both during disposal operations and

after they are completed. It is essential that the containment

area design accommodate the movement of heavy equipment (e.g.

earthmovers, graders, trucks, trenching machines, etc.) into and

out of the diked area on a routine basis. Without such a

provision the treatment and dewatering of material cannot be

readily accomplished; grading cannot be performed; operating

efficiency during disposal will be lost; material cannot be moved

off-site; and the long term capacity of the site and therefore its

ultimate contribution to the success of this plan will be

significantly diminished. To provide this capability it is not

necessary to violate the integrity of the dike system. External

ramps with mild grades can be incorporated into the dike design

without affecting internal storage capacity. To provide equipment

access to the interior basin a similar approach could be taken, or

a ramped spur dike configuration could be introduced. The

incorporation of such a feature would not only provide internal

access for equipment, it would also serve to increase the

detention time of the basin during disposal operations, thereby

improving effluent quality.

The remaining aspect of disposal site design that should be

considered is the improvement and upgrading of inlet and outlet

65

I',

ri

works. To support and complement the permanent operational

capabilities of the site, outlet works should be designed to

provide distributed outflows with increased effective weir lengths

to reduce .v e Lo c t t t e s and provide improved control .over flow

patterns within the basin. Consideration should also be given to

replacing the traditional board and batten weir design with a

continuously adjustable system. Similarly, the design of more

efficient inlet structures with distributed discharge points would

provide greater operational flexibility and a more uniform

distribution of material. Design improvements such as these will

produce significant long term benefits in site operating

efficiency, increased storage capacity, resource recovery, and

improved effluent quality. These benefits should offset increases

in initial cost.

5.2 Site Management During Dredging

During those periods when disposal is in progress the site

should be operated to maximize effluent water quality and provide,

as much as possible, an even distribution of material within the

basin. This can be achieved by means of an appropriate site

design and proper control of inlet and outlet works during

disposal operations.

Weir elevations at each outlet should be continuously

monitored and adjusted to maintain ponding depths at or above two

feet. To achieve required effluent quality standards within the

Nassau River St. Johns River Aquatic Preserve portion of the

waterway, ponding depths of 3 ft. may be required. When multiple

outlet works are provided, weir elevations may be adjusted

individually to re-route internal flows and achieve a more even

dis t rib uti 0 n 0 f mat e ria I the reb y.Lle due i n gpo ten t i a Ish 0 r t­

circuiting of the basin. Outlet work design considerations

discussed in the previous section would facilitate the

implementation of these operating procedures.

66

rI

n

nn

ni!

r--

!I

In a similar manner, a more even distribution of material and

increased basin settling efficiency can be achieved from improved

design and operation of inlet works. Multiple inlets or moveable

inlet pipes can be controlled to provide even mounding and a more

efficient bottom slope between inlet and outlet. Consideration of

this during site design and operation will not only provide

benefits during disposal operations, it will reduce material

handling costs following disposal and increase the site's

dewatering efficiency.

Longer term benefits can also be obtained from a properly

conceived and executed monitoring program during disposal

operations. Information obtained will not only serve to satisfy

regula tory req uiremen ts, it will provide valuable feedback for

maintaining and improving site efficiency. Sample data should

include influent and effluent quality and quantity, ponding

elevations, bottom topography, wind conditions, and inlet and

outlet control settings.

5.3 Site Management Following Dredging

Historically, disposal sites have been abandoned following

the cessation of dredging operations and in many cases have

remained unattended for indefinite periods. As a result, dikes

deteriorate from erosion and uncontrolled vegetative encroachment,

surface waters are impounded within the containment area, inlet

and outlet works are rendered inoperable, and vegetation becomes

established within the basin. The implementation of post-dredging

site management measures can prevent this and maintain the site as

a viable facility over long periods.

The

essential

material.

control of surface water on site following dredging is

for proper processing and dewatering of dredged

Slurry waters remaining from disposal operations should

67

,I I, ,

r !

nI j

be drained as quickly as possible from the containment area

without violation of effluent quality standards. Ponding of

precipitation should also be prevented by continued operation of

outlet works with appropriate weir elevation settings. Too often

this has not been done. Outlets have become blocked, weir

elevations have remained too high, and rainwater has slowly

accumulated within the containment area. This should not be

allowed to happen.

Other measures should be considered to ensure that the

material impounded within the site is dewatered as quickly as

possible and put in a form suitable for removal and off-site

usage. These include regular mechanical working of the material,

trenching, placement of drains, wicks, and the use of vegetation.

Of these, the regular working of the material (e. g. plowing,

turnover, grading), the use of trenches, and vegetative

transpiration appear to be the most effective and best understood

methods, and would be appropriate for this project.

Following dewatering and processing, the material is ready

for removal from the site. Provided that the site design

accommodates the routine ingress and egress of heavy equipment,

this can proceed immediately at a rate dictated by market demands

and transportation limitations. The capability to remove material

from the disposal site on a routine basis is essential if the site

is to serve the needs of the waterway indefinitely. This requires

not only a suitable containment area design but also effective

material processing which transforms the dredged material to a

form appropriate for other uses.

To monitor changing conditions on site during this phase of

the operation, and to provide long-term documentation and feedback

on site performance, a monitoring program should be implemented.

Such a program would complement the sampling during dredging

previously discussed. Data collected should be used to evaluate

68

changes in material and effluent chemistry, foundation

consolidation, material consolidation and soil moisture content.

In addition, the dates of dredged material removal and

corresponding quantities should be documented to confirm the

accuracy of volumetric projections, and to detect potential

problems before they occur.

n~

~

~r

I

!

I

~

~69

~

nI . 6.0 RECOMMENDED SCOPE OF WORK - PHASE TWO: !

TASK I: SITE ACQUISITION FEASIBILITY

Establish feasibility of acquiring all primary and secondary

sites (15) in the Phase one Site Bank.

II

A.

B.

Property Ownership/Assessed Value - From county tax

rolls and related records determine ownership,

assessed value .• parcel size, and approximate

boundaries.

Zoning

1. Determine existing zoning classification and

permissible use.

2. Document procedures required for zoning

reclassification.

3. Establish city/county position regarding

intended FIND use of site.

I'I

C.

D.

Other Site Use Restrictions Identify other

restrictions which may preclude use of the site

(e.g. municipal, regional planning concerns. etc.).

Site Access - Establish requirements which must be

satisfied to permit entry on-site for the purposes

of field testing and data collection. Identify

time required to obtain necessary authorizations

and any restrictions imposed.

70

I',

TASK II: SITE CONDITIONS

Obtain necessary engineering and environmental

information required for preliminary engineering design

permitting of primary sites only (as modified by results of

I) .

site

and

Task

rI !

! A. Engineering Topographic Survey Provide site

topographic information necessary for site

planning, permitting, and design purposes.

Horizontal and vertical control of data should

include reference to established bench marks and

all elevations should be referenced to NGVD. This

task will be performed by the Jacksonville

District, Corps of Engineers.

B. Subsurface and Soils Survey

performed by the Jacksonville

Engineers.

- This task will

District, Corps

be

of

!

! :

I'I

1.

2.

Soils Survey - By means of core borings and

analysis, document site soil characteristics

including grain size distributions, organic

content, boring logs, Atterberg limits, shear

strength, compaction, and consolidation.

Groundwater Obtain groundwater table

elevations at a sufficient number of locations

to provide estimates of water table potential

surface elevations on-site referenced to NGVD.

c. Environmental Survey - Perform field survey and

data collection efforts to provide the following:

1. Detailed documentation of site vegetation

communities, including species frequencies of

71

2.

3.

4.

occurrence, and the delineation of wetlands

and transitional areas using state approved

methods.

Detailed documentation of on-site animal

species, including endangered or threatened

species, and pertinent habitat information.

Locations of all wells within a one-half mile

radius of the site.

Documentation of existing vegetation

communities and species habitats along

proposed pipeline access and return drainage

routes.

TASK III: PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ANALYSIS

Analyze data obtained from Task

documentation, and complete preliminary

prepare permit drawings.

II, develop site

design necessary to

A. Environmental - Using information obtained from

Task II-C prepare the following:

,-!

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Detailed site maps showing vegetation

communities, species locations and habitats,

revised usable boundaries, and wetlands areas.

Detailed written text supporting 1. above.

Specific mitigation measures required.

Archeological site locations as recorded in

published records available from the Florida

Division of Archives, History, and Records

Management.

Recommended pipeline access and return water

routes.

72

B. Engineering - Using information obtained in Task II

prepare the following:

r:1 !

r:I

r-«

1.

2.

3.

4.

Site Capacity Analysis - Recalculate estimated

site capacity and dike material requirements.

Site Topographic Map Prepared by

Jacksonville District, Corps of Engineers.

Engineering Report on Subsurface and Soils

Conditions Prepared by Jacksonville

District, Corps of Engineers.

Preliminary design calculations and permit

drawings of:

o Location Map

o Site Plan

o Pipeline Access and Return Routes

o Inlet Works

o Outlet Works

o Dike Section

o Internal Structures

o Equipment Ingress and Egress Features

o Vegetation and Buffer Area Plan

TASK IV: SITE MANAGEMENT PLANS

Prepare a site management plan for each primary site in the

Si te Bank as modified by the results of Task I. Each plan will

address the following:

i,

,!

A. Design Features - Brief description of all site

design features as they relate to the long term

operation of the site and the management of dredged

material.

73

B. During-Dredging Procedures

l.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

Outlet Operation

Inlet Operation

Ponding Depth

Material Distribution

Monitoring

C. Post-Dredging Procedures

l.

2.

3.

4.

Dewatering

Surface Water Management

Material Handling/Reuse

Monitoring

TASK V: COST CONSIDERATIONS

Evaluate cost considerations and potential funding mechanisms

for each primary site:

,­I iI

A.

B.

C.

Site Improvement Costs

Site Operations and Maintenance Costs

Funding Mechanisms

TASK VI: DOCUMENTS AND DELIVERABLES

The following project documents will be prepared and

submitted for each primary site:

A. Permit Drawings

B. Subsurface

Jacksonville

and Soils Report (prepared

District, Corps of Engineers)

74

by

nnnnnnnnnI

nnn

n

C.

D.

E.

Environmental Report

Site Management Plan

Cost Considerations Report

75

n

nn

rI

i

II

REFEREt~CES

Nesbitt, S.A., J.C. Ogden, H.W. Kale II, B.W. Patty and L.A. Rowse (1982)."Florida Atlas of Breeding Bird Sites for Herons and Their Allie's:1976-78," U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of BiologicalServices. FWS/OBS-81/49.

Ryan, J.D., F.D. Calder, and L.C. Burney (May 1984). "Deepwater PortsMaintenance Dredging and Disposal Manual; A Guide to Planning andEstuarine Chemical Data Collection, Analysis, and Interpretation,"Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, Office of CoastalManagement.

Stemm L.T., H.D. Dollar, D.A. Howell, D.L. Lewis, C.A. Wettstein, and H.Yamataki. 1978. "Soil Survey of City of Jacksonville, Duval County,Florida," U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.

, (September, 1985). "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms--~---:

Classification System," Florida Department of Transportation, StateTopographic Bureau, The-matic Mapping Section.

, (March, 1986). "Guide to the Interpretation of Reported Metal----"C-o-n-c-e~ntrations in Estuarine Sediments," Florida Department of

Environmental Regulation, Office of Coastal Management.

76

I '

~

II .

APPENDIX A

AGENCY CONTACTS

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (Jacksonville)

3426 Bills RoadJacksonville, Florida 32207

I'! I

!

Jeremy TylerSupervisor, Dredge & Fill

396-6959

n, 'I

n

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (Tallahassee)

Twin Towers Office Bldg.2600 Blair Stone RoadTallahassee, Florida 32301

Louis C. Burney 904/488-4805Office of Coastal Management

Fred Calder 904/488-4805Environmental Specialist

Bureau of Permitting 904/488-0130

David H. BicknerMark Latch

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

3900 Commonwealth Blvd.Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Division of Beaches and Shores

Bureau of Historical and Environmental Land ManagementDivision of Recreation and Parks

,-I

I I

Paden WoodruffBrett Moore

Charles B. KnightEnvironmental Specialist

A-I

904/487-4478487-4475

904/488-6242

[

I

Division of Marine Resources

David C. HeilEnvironmental AdministratorRoom 810BTallahassee, Florida

Bureau of Marine Research

904/488-5471

I

I

George Henderson 813/896-8626Assistant Chief100 8th Avenue, S.E.St. Petersburg, Florida 33701

Brad Weigle 813/896-8626Manatee CoordinatorFlorida DNR Marine Research Laboratory

Stuart Field Station

,-[

II

Ross William

Division of Resource Management

Art WildeDirector

Division of State Lands

305/334-1667

904/488-3177

\'I

Casey Fitzgerald 904/488-2297Chief, Bureau of State Lands Management

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Division of Archives, History, and Records Management

The CapitolTallahassee, Florida 32301-8020

Louis Tesar

A-2

904/487-2333

I!

STATE OF FLORIDA GAME AND FRESHWATER FISH COMMISSION

620 South Meridian StreetTallahassee, Florida 32301

Mike AllenBiologistRoom 204

FLORIDA INLAND NAVIGATION DISTRICT

904/488-6661

II

Col. Sterling K. Eisiminger 305/627-3386General Manager818 U.S. Highway One, Suite 7North Palm Beach, Florida 33408

Nancy BeersAdministrative Assistant

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS

I

I

James GarlandChief, Engineering DivisionP. O. Box 4970Jacksonville, Florida 32232

Don CarterChief, Design Branch

791-2473

~ JACKSONVILLE, CITY OF

Planning Department

John H. Crofts, AICPUrban Planner128 E. Forsyth Street,Jacksonville, Florida

Suite 70032202

633-2266

Department of Public Works - Engineering Division

r

Stan Nodland, P.E.City Engineer220 E. Bay StreetJacksonville, Florida 32202

A-3

633-2920

rr

,,

rr

,-,

r '

Public Health Division

Bill Reese515 W. 6th StreetJacksonville, Florida 32206

NASSAU COUNTY ENGINEERS OFFICE

Nassau County Transportation Dept.Rt. 4, Box l71-BFernanadina Beach, Florida 32034

R. L. "Dick" King, P.E.Nassau County - County Engineer

Jo Ann KirklandSecretary

NORTH EAST FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL

7933 Baymeadows Way, Suite 6Jacksonville, Florida 32216

633-3910

356-6670 (Jax)

n

I

!,

Brian D. Teeple, AICPDirector of Planning and

Administration

Alfred E. WalkerRegional Planner

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

9450 Koger Blvd.St. Petersburg, Florida 33702

Paul J. LeachAssistant Regional Director

for Fisheries Management

Richard J. HooglandChief, Southeast Region

A-4

737-7311

813/893-3721

I'I

III'

Dr. Edwin KeppnerArea SupervisorHabitat Conservation DivisionNational Marine Fisheries Service3500 Delwood Beach RoadPanama City, Florida 32407-7499

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Joseph Carroll 305/562-3909P.O. Box 2676Vero Beach, Florida 32961-2676

Jacksonville Offices - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

2747 Art Museum DriveJacksonville, Florida 32207

r-r-

r

Mr. David WesleyEndangered Species

Don Palmer

791-2580

J1I

~I

STATE OF FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION

r· CONFERENCE REGARDING: F Z/Z/ P - 4-.r c. ww P /"'oj e. j---

I DATE: 0I .

r ; Name rint)

IFe:;{) r. -\)~f2Title/Affiliation/Address

E. ~_. Dc-: r2

Tele hone

A-6

~I.

I:I :;'_-------t--------------t-------I

!r-- .

! ;"

!.._----------+---------------------If---------1

!,I j------------t---------------------'1I----------1

~~------------t------------------II----------1![

1I

r/[ .',I-----------i-----------------f-------jJ

n:~

r

i FT. NO \ ~TQA Cort: TJ\Cl ' ~ ,

WA.~W p\y -nlR-~l)GGO MP0~R.LA:;C

M A [fJ f:\ G- t. iJV'.. 6 ".) '{ 7Q.o -er~C"(

""'P_tto }-..)E

y~ ~ - 4'1}0 s-

(sOJ~ C. 2. 7 - 3' S a

f/~~- {LzltJ~ ,

1 co <0 - iJ.p & (

8/3 - B'7'-G~;16

('10'-\)372- -/50 0

(Ci l) 4) 1S 1- 70 4D

C; fig .- 3/ 7 7

1~~- QIBD

Cjo If f ).j-i3- 0 J3D '::

q04/19 I -;.( 4'? r '~

q \)~/£fIJJ ~ Ljl3dJ----

7'Lf - 0/30

iff +- - If 'I ::;B--

Kcsct.vc l

FPlltf

DC/~

b~'(L

\YM~-~~I

T,

\

A~Fl L.lAT(o~

'0evz.

F: J, /'-/, 1:J.

/£/?

r::-6Fwfc

, J/Lil ~ , C(;tskrI d

:1 :Po.&~..... Wl)og.,.~-t~

"DAViD Nt x:.oAJ

I LIArDJt DVEI 0'

I Lyl1J1 11050r4

111

Dlw... MLk-rtlIOf,'<.-

; t LV. !ltMJY(j J .>

. JOI+k.J 'Bt6SA£.)

.'f9(~d,~~, IvoN.. CARTER- C~'P5 01=- tWG'eS

',,:fO'lt"' k y A-r-J ~ cS'TL (» ('/'-l,. )

~

I!

r

I

I'Il '

1""1I !

I i

ril .

n! i

i'[ ,

A-7

rrI

~

I

~

l :

~

~

ni

~

~

I

Il .;

APPENDIX B

DIKE REQUIREMENTS

AND

DISPOSAL CAPACITY ANALYSIS

r APPENDIX B: Dike Requirements and Disposal Capacity Analysisi!i

~ r- T -1~ \l_

H

~

-~-~ GRADE

I: BG hG

I" BgI

9M.S.L ~

r- DIKE CROSS - SECT] ONi

SITE PLAN

----I~L

I-J--- - -- - - --- --- - -1_I II II A s I

J- _f~g__ - --- J_

rw

L~_--L-.I1

411II

II

!I

I Parameters:II

Values Assumed

L mean site length site specific

W mean site width site specific

As site plan area site specific

G site grade site specific

g excavated grade 3 ft.

H dike height above grade 15 ft.

Sx dike side slope 3

T dike crest width 12 ft.

F freeboard and ponding 4 ft.

B-1

I APPENDIX B: (continued)

~Width of Dike @ Grade, BG

BG = 2HS x + T (1)

Width of Dike @ Excavated Grade, BgBg = 2HS x + T + (G - g) Sx

Width of Dike @ Depth of Freeboard & Ponding, BF

BF = 2FS x + T

(2)

(3)

Volume of Dike Material Required, lfMR

lfMR = [H / 2 (T + BG)] [ 2L + 2W - 4BG] (4)

Volume of Dike Material Available, lfMA

lfMA = (G - g) [A g - L (BG + Bg) - W (BG + Bg~

Volume of Disposal Capacity, lfD

lfD = lfMA + (H - F) [Ag - L (BG + BF) - W (BG + BF) + 2 (BG2

(5)

(7)- (lfMA

If lfMA >then lfD'

Note:

I

I

iI

B-2

i iI .

II

I .l !

II •

I

I

rII

,I

i :l i

I

APPENDIX C

SITE BANK: PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SITES

nj

PRIMARY SITES

Site Designator: A-3.3 W-28-1

Site Name: Piney Island

Reach: Fernandina Harbor to Nassau Sound

The major feature of the Piney Island site is the large, open

water borrow pit. The banks surrounding this feature are generally 3-4

feet below grade. Although a narrow shelf was evident around much of

the borrow pit, very little was vegetated by emergent species. Cattail

(Typha sp.) is the most abundant emergent, forming a fairly large stand

in the west central portion of the pit. Few fish were observed along

the banks of the borrow pit. The shallow margins appeared to be

frequently utilized by wading birds, and ospreys were observed foraging

over the water.

The borrow pit is flanked on the east by a dike, which separates

the freshwater pit from a brackish water embayment of Kingsley Creek.

This marsh is vegetated mostly by needlerush (Juncus roemarianus).

North and south of the borrow pit is a slash pine (Pinus elliottii) saw

palmetto (Serenoa repens) upland. Within this pine community south of

the pit is a pocket of water oak (Quercus nigra) and red cedar

(Juniperus silicicola). North of the borrow pit are old spoil mounds

vegetated by species characteristic of disturbed habitats such as dog

fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Sesbania punicea and broomsedge

(Andropogon virginicus). The salt marsh bordering the lower part of

Piney Island (south of AlA) is dominated by smooth cordgrass (Spartina

alterniflora).

To provide capacity adequate for the projected fifty-year

requirement of the Fernandina Harbor to Nassau Sound reach of the AIWW,

analysis indicates that a disposal area of 23.62 acres is required.

With the addition of a 300' buffer around the perimeter of the disposal

area the total area is increased to 60.22 acres. (Table 4-1) However,

it is recommended (and likely to be required by the present owners)

C-I

C3C!!3HIlO:l311-­S311I!!IM/O:l-­

03}1:l3IlJ 01313·-·­ll111I!!I ..... "" ...

1!!3W3S1f3 - - - - -­

S3IlIVOlUJOlI

3l\t8SI I I

,L£ 17 0

1£/ ONe3.118

"H 8t:1\t

S3I~IH~OJ HOIIV1393A

J

J

J

JI

.,

I

J

J

J

J

II

~

J

/'--I

II

n

II

that the entire peninsula be acquired, as the remaining acreage would

be essentially unusable.

This site would appear to be well suited for disposal of

maintenance material. The central portion of the site that would lie

within the actual disposal area has been previously disturbed and is of

marginal ecological value. The borrow pit appears to be completely

isolated from state waters. With carefully considered site

configuration, the majority of the surrounding canopy as well as the

small pre-existing freshwater slough to the southwest of the main

borrow pit can be preserved within the recommended buffer. A

documented archeological site (8 Na 131) also lies within the buffer

area, and would be preserved. Reasonable pipeline access is afforded

by a cut-off meander of Kingsley Creek, although the crossing of less

than sao' of marsh with unvegetated flats would be required. The fact

that the site is a peninsula bordered on three sides by salt

marsh/tidal creeks, and is separated from adjacent upland to the north

by S.R. 200 (AlA) precludes conflicting adjacent land-use, and

minimizes the possibility of contamination of near-by wells.

Site Designator: N/A

Site Name: South Amelia Island

Reach: Nassau Sound

Wi thin the Nassau Sound reach, sediments historically have been

proven to consist primarily of beach-quality material (i. e., clean,

fine to medium quartz sand). Previous maintenance dredging within this

reach (1982) stockpiled material in an undesignated disposal area on

south Amelia Island for secondary handling prior to beach re­

nourishment. Future beach disposal of maintenance material from this

reach remains likely. However, no specific site has been designated,

allowing flexibility to satisfy future project requirements.

C-3

I!I

Site Designator: A-12.4 W-27-3

Site Name: N.E. Black Hammock Island

Reach: Nassau Sound to Ft. George River

The NE Black Hammock Island site is located immediately adjacent

to the AIWW near Sawpit Creek. The shoreline along this site is steep

with little to no fringing marsh. Immediately adjacent to the marsh is

a narrow strip of saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), yaupon (Ilex

vomitoria), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and live oak (Quercus

virginiana). A short distance inland from this association, slash pine

(Pinus elliottii) becomes prevalent. The majority of the site inland

from the AIWW is slash pine (Pinus elliottii) dominated with scattered

oaks and a saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) or gallberrry (Ilex glabra)

understory. Along the northern boundary a more open scrubby character

is evident in the pinelands. This area is commonly vegetated by slash

pine (Pinus elliottii), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), gallberry (Ilex

g La b r a ) , myrtle oak (Quercus myrtifolia), sand live oak (Quercus

virginiana var. geminata) and occasionally wire grass (Aristida

stricta). A small palustrine wetland was observed on the infrared

aerial photographs and was indicated on the USFWS Wetlands Inventory

Maps but was not visited. Protected fauna noted on site include

gopher tortoise and fox squirrel.

The area of this site is limited by the available contiguous

upland acreage which may be efficiently diked. Therefore, it must be

used in combination with two additional sites to satisfy the projected

fifty-year requirement of the high maintenance Nassau Sound to Ft.

George River reach.

Inclusion of a recommended 300' buffer to the north (Shark Road

with residences), west (Sawpit Road) and south (residences) results in

a disposal area of 19.80 acres, and a total site area of 42.38 acres.

A natural buffer is provided to the east by exclusion of an existing

transitional wetland community. A primary advantage of the site is its

location. It adjoins the very high maintenance Sawpit Cut-off section

of the waterway, and affords the opportunity to segregate the material

C-4

030N3HWOJ3lf-­S3I1II/IMiOJ~

03:iJ3f1J 0131.:1 .-.­WIllI/I········· .

11l31HSv:l -----­

S31lfVOl/OOa

31\7'88I I I ( I

.8£17 0

S3I1IlInwwOJ NOI1V13~3A

,

-i

JJJ

J

J,

j

i.....J

.J

J~ I

JJJ

1i

,-.J

I!

,-I

r-[

IIIII

dredged from this artificial cut, if its indicated silty, organic

character proves to require specialized handling. Minimal fringing

marsh also provides excellent pipeline access. A small isolated

wetland would be impacted by utilization of this site; however,

adoption of the recommended 22.58 acres of buffer would preserve an

additional pocket wetland as well as significant open scrubby pineland

habitat. This buffer would also minimize conflicts with adjacent

residences, but possible well contamination remains a consideration.

Site Designator: A-15.2 W-19-4

Site Name: Central Black Hammock Island

Reach: Nassau Sound to Ft. George River

This site consists of the portion of existing site MSA 300E which

lies west of Sawpit Road. Ownership of this property was obtained by

FIND prior to its use in the 1982 maintenance of the AIWW. The portion

of the existing site east of Sawpit Road has been used thus far only to

provide pipeline access. Utilization of this eastern portion for spoil

disposal would provide insufficient capacity, and the acquisition of an

addi tional site would still be required. Therefore, only the western

portion of the site is recommended for inclusion in the site bank.

Moreover, it may be expanded to the south, allowing a more efficient

dike configuration than possible with the existing two sections divided

by Sawpit Road.

The western portion of the site is currently diked (total plan

area, 35.7 acres), with no surrounding buffer except that which is

provided by the right-of-way along Sawpit Road. The design dike crest

elevation is +37.0 ft. MSL, or approximately 25.0 ft. above grade.

Approximately one-half the plan area interior to the dike remains

underwater. An additional 60' easement has been obtained so that this

water may be drained by pipeline from the current outlet to the marshes

adjacent to Pumpkin Hill Creek to the west of the site. Work to

restore weir and settling basin functions will be required to

accomplish this drainage.

C-6

II

The only limitation on the continued use of this site is the

difficult pipeline access. To reach the site requires the crossing of

1200 f t , . of marsh with no available tidal creeks, and an additional

1000 ft. of upland. The pipeline must then pass under Sawpit Road.

Site Designator A-1S.4 W-19-S

Site Name W. Central Black Hammock Island

Reach: Nassau Sound to Ft. George River

This site is located immediately south of the existing diked

disposal area on Black Hammock Island. Communities found here include

oak scrub, maritime hammock, pine flatwoods and isolated wetlands. The

oak scrub community is characterized by sand live oak, (Quercus

virginiana var.geminata), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), myrtle oak

(Quercus myrtifolia) and staggerbush (Lyonia fruticosa). This

community has a very low profile and corresponds to the Mandarin fine

sand' areas mapped by Stem et al. (1978). The maritime hammock occurs

on the extreme western portion of the site bordering the salt marshes

associated with Pumpkin Hill Creek. The vegetation community is very

diverse and is characterized by live oak (Quercus virginiana), southern

magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),

and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). Pine flatwoods are very common

throughout much of the site. Characteristic vegetation includes slash

pine, (Pinus elliottii), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens) and gallberry

(Ilex glabra). Two small, isolated wetland areas were also encountered

on site. One was dominated by sand cord grass (Spartina b a k e r r ) and

redroot (Lachnanthes caroliniana). The other wetland was dominated by

sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri) and broomsedge (Andropogon

virginicus).

The recommended site configuration results from two

considerations: (1) the desire to exclude the mature hardwood hammock

to the west; and (2) the need to provide adequate capacity in

combination with the N.E. and Central Black Hammock Island sites to

satisfy the projected requirements of the Nassau Sound to Ft. George

C-7

030~3HHOJ3~--­

S3IlI~f1HHOJ---.­

03~J3HJ 013H ._-­lVllI~I ....•... "

1~3H3SV3 -----­

S3I~voHnoa

3TtfJSI I I

1299 0

(£-61-M

(17-61-1\\

g-:J

"lSI )j::>oWWBH >j::>BTH reJ~u;):) "MpUBISI xooui WBH )j::>B18: IBJlU;):)

SOHVl 0301101Sro l-::::~:"":·~";~j._... It· ~ • ._

[-~._.," ~SOIlVlHlI r: - ';;'-:~;;J

['"' v 'J IlS3110.;l OOO/lOllVII OIlVldn Ii." ') 0 1;;>

lS3110.;l Sn01l3:lIIIOJ OIlVldfl It r t J t r tlOIlVl Hsn~O/OmJHS

~~ONV131101SVd/dOllJ

S3IlIIIIlhIIOJ 1I0I1V13~311

, i

!

: I

........!

!.J

J

J!

J

]--!

]J

; 1: I~

J1

j

I.,

I!

r-r-.

[

River reach of the AIWW. The latter consideration results in a

disposal area of 32.40 acres. Inclusion of a recommended 300' buffer

to the east and south results in a total committal of 54.80 acres. The

ixcluded hammock area provides a natural buffer to the west.

This site is predominantly a good upland disposal area, with the

exception of the two isolated freshwater wetlands mentioned above which

would be impacted. Operationally, the site suffers from the same

difficult pipeline access described with the existing Central Black

Hammock Island site. However, this is compensated by the site's

location adjoining the existing diked area, allowing a more efficient

dike configuration.

Site Designator: A-20.7 W-5-7

Site Name: West of Sisters Creek

Reach: Ft. GeQrge River to Jacksonville Harbor

The Sister's Creek site is a former diked spoil disposal area.

The area contains an long narrow cattail marsh (Typha sp.). Other

vegetation species found adjacent to this marsh include saltgrass

(Distichlis spicata), maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) and Carolina

willow (Salix caroliniana). Wading birds appear to have utilized the

shallow marsh area frequently. During a second visit to the site in

July, it was observed that the fringing cattails (Typha sp.) were

turning brown, and were under some apparent acute stress. No obvious

cause was noted and water levels appeared approximately the same as the

previous visit. Much of the rest of the site is sparsely vegetated but

with apparent wetland affinities. Common vegetation observed include

Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),

groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia) with patches of sweet clover

(Melilotus alba) and salt marsh bulrush (Scirpus robustus). The dikes

appeared intact and were vegetated with wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),

pepper vine (Ampelopsis arborea), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and

groundsel tree (Baccharis halimifolia).

C-9

:~~ ~ :-=J ~'-l :-j ~~ .~l ,~:l ~ ::-=l --~l ,-:---j .~ :'-l ~ '~

=-~

N

UPLAND CONIFEROUS FOREST

Appendix E For Numerical Modifiers

SCALE

o 46'L__ I I t

BOUNDARIES

------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL-.•_. FIELD CHECKED- CDIiI1UNITIES--- RECDHHENDED

DRH£CkSCH£R

W-5-7)

', ..

West of Sisters Creek (A-20.7

CROP/PASTURELAND

SIlRUB/BRUSIl LAND

Figure C.4.

VEGETATION COKMUNITIES

(")It-'

o

I.?,..,Y.,..,,.<<~I UPLAND HARDI/OOD FOREST

~--::~:...~: <I I/ETLANDS~.. ~,,,,,,,'h_

b~·:~·t:·j DISTURBED LANDS

Since the dikes which define this former disposal area remain

intact, the entire diked area (62.29 acres) is considered as a unit,

although its capacity exceeds the projected disposal requirement for

the Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor reach of the AIWW. Outside

of the dike a narrow belt of low tree canopy provides a marginal visual

buffer. Within the dike, the entire site shows evidence of disposal

and subsequent removal of dredged material. The wetland features which

formed in the resulting low areas are isolated from state waters.

Potential adjacent land-use conflicts with this site appear to be

minimal as the area is primarily used for port related industrial/

commercial activities. Additionally, the site is largely isolated by

the Heckscher Drive (S.R. 105) causeway, which also serves to separate

it from the extensive Sisters Creek - Hannah Mills Creek salt marsh

system to the north. Operationally, the site would appear to offer

little difficulty. Good pipeline access is afforded to the east from

Sisters Creek, with little or no fringing marsh. Pumping distance is

potentially less than optimal, as the site lies at the southern

boundary of the reach it is to serve. However, this is a result of the

lack of suitable upland areas adjacent to Sisters Creek, and

characterizes all alternative sites considered within this reach.

Site Designator: A-2l.4 E-2-9

Site Name: N. Heckscher Drive

~ Reach: Ft. George River to Jacksonville HarborI .

I !

II

IrIII

The North Heckscher Drive site consists of an upland forested

community, adjacent to a mixed salt marsh. The south-central portion

of the site has been previously utilized as a dredged material disposal

site. The forested area is vegetated by live oak (Quercus virginiana),

hackberry (Celtis laevigata), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), slash pine

(Pinus elliottii), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and cabbage palm

(Sabal palmetto). There is a tidal drainage area that borders the site

on the north. A large circular pool occurs northeast of the site and

drains into the tidal marsh. It is vegetated by needlerush (Juncus

roemarianus) and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata). The old disposal area

C-ll

~I !

nnnrI

n

II

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

I~ J -+- i -+ .4+1 UPlNiO CONIFEROUS FOREST

!y.I',Q."Q,.5~J UPlAND lll\ROIiOOD FOREST

I ~ - '".:;j:~~~-.~"""j I/ETlNiOS

f.>;".:";~~ DISTURBED LAIlOS

Appendix E For llumcricalHodificrs

Figure C.5. N. Heckscher Drive (A-21.4 E-2-9)

C-12

o 467'I I f I

SCALE

llOUNDi\RIES

------ Ei\SEHENT.......... INITIAL_.-' fIElD CHECKED--COHHUtlITIES--- RECOHHEtlDED

is characterized by hairgrass (Mulenbergia

(Heterotheca 8ubaxillaris), wax myrtle

prickly-pear cactus (Opuntia drummondi).

capillaris), camphorweed

(Myrica cerifera) and

n

iI

This site was retained as a good upland site to which FIND

currently holds a disposal easement. The useable portion of the site

represents 15.89 acres. Inclusion of a recommended 300' buffer to the

east results in a disposal area of 12.45 acres. To the south an

effective buffer is provided by the right-of-way associated with

Heckscher Drive (S.R. 105). The narrowness of the site precludes a

full 300' buffer between the proposed disposal area and the marsh to

the north. A more limited buffer in this area is advisable, but this

is not reflected in the calculated disposal area.

This small site, selected to service the same reach as the large

diked area west of Sisters Creek, affords the opportunity to segregate

fine grained or contaminated sediments related to the proximity of

port-related industries. It should be noted that no evidence of

contaminated material exists, although core borings taken prior to the

1982 maintenance found pockets of organic silt (AIWW mile 19.43 and

19.57).

Site Designator: 1-1.7 W-Du5-1

Site Name: Bullard Property

Reach: Jacskonville Harbor to Pine Island

This site is located within a large tract of undeveloped land

north of San Pablo Road along the west side of the ICWW and south of

the St. Johns River. The portion of the peninsula under consideration

for dredged material disposal is located north of an existing east-west

powerline right-of-way. The upland area on site consists entirely of

maritime hammock. Species characteristic of this diverse community

include live oak (Quercus virginiana), pignut hickory (Carya glabra),

southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera),

water oak (Quercus nigra), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola) and yaupon

(Ilex vomitoria). Gopher tortoise burrows were common along disturbed

C-13

rrrr NI -I l'-

W

~ A ...J<!

I 0(f)

0

r:I j

,-..,

\ ,

co'I

! l'-:J

0

n, CO

WIl-

II(f)

• I

I.

C-14

l-V)

Iii""'""a ....U. cc

a1Il u.

Cl Cl ::>

"" :e a Cl

:5 ::i "" 8U-l

""' U. :0:cc

iii~ Cl

~:e "":::> a :§V) cc u Vl

'" '" Cla. .... Cl Cl z:.... CD 5 z: ::ia.

~ ::ia I-

"" v; a. 0. ....U ::> :::> :0:

III...C>

;;::.~

1Il "Ca 0

5:I;

';;;a uw 'Cm

"" OJ

r= E:J

1Il :e~ ...Cl

&U-l

.~"C=C>0.0.

'"

I,

r!

I ,l I

nI

I

i

or open areas such as old roads and the powerline right-of-way. The

fringing salt marsh east of the site is dominated by needlerush

(Juncus roemarianus) with smooth cordgrass, (Spartina alterniflora)

lining ditches and tidal creeks. A manatee was observed in the ICWW

adjacent to this site. There is a known archaeological site at this

location. Oyster shell was commonly observed and surface collections

of pot sherds were made from a disturbed area.

Sizing this site to provide the needed disposal capacity for the

Jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island reach of the ICWW requires a

disposal area of 7.08 acres. Addition of a recommended 300' buffer

around the disposal area perimeter results in a total committal of

31.67 acres. Because of the quality and diversity of the mature

hardwood hammock community, as well as its possible archeological

significance, favorable comment was received from the FGFWFC on the

possibility of preserving a significant portion of this area within a

buffer zone, despite loss of greater than seven acres. This is made

more desirable because of the planned construction of a major east-west

artery immediately south of the recommend site, and the impending

residential development of the area (Greenfield Plantation). No

operational difficulties are anticipated. Pipeline access is not

expected to introduce additional environmental impacts as adequate open

water access (possibly dredged) exists to the cleared powerline

easement.

Site Designator: 1-5.0 W-Du9-3

Site Name: Moody Marine

Reach: Pine Island to Beach Blvd.

This site is located immediately south and west of the Moody

Marine complex on the ICWW at Atlantic Blvd. Vegetation consists of a

strand of maritime hammock adjacent to an area disturbed by marina

activities, pine flatwoods and an isolated wetland. The pine flatwoods

vegetation consists of mostly longleaf with some slash pine (Pinus

palustris and Pinus elliottii) with an understory of saw palmetto

(Serenoa repens) and gallberry (Ilex glabra). In more open areas wire

C-15

~.....oql::I-j

CD

o-:J

~oo0­«:~~I-j

s'CD

.......'iCJ1

o

~J

t:1l::wI

W'-'

91-8

9::0 orOJJ>\J 2l>en

.--f"-~A'f t t t t ~

~~t t t t t t ~........-f t t t t t t t t t t t

t t t t t t t t t t t t t~.t~~ ~ t t T t t+t ttl:,t T f t t t t t .. .t t t t

~. , t t t fTr'f t 'f T't"

.- t t t t i' t t t t t r T'\!tYtttttttt t tt t tYtttttlt'~

'" t t t t t t t 1.. t t t tl\" t t t t t t t '"\yt t t t :.'" t t t t t t T t l~ t t t t·,~tttttttttttttt "~ tttttttttttttt',\' t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t .",Stttttttttttttt':1 t t t t t t t t t t t t t t ~~:1tttttttttttttt ..., "'f 't..t t t t t t t t t t t t

t t t 'f't"t'"t't.:t.;t,!·.t,t tty.t t t t t t t t t t t t T T 1"',\'

, t t t t t t t t t t t t t t i'tttttttt 1"ttt,r t t t t t t t t~tt t t t t\t t T t t t t f t t t t t t t ~, t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 'tttttttttltt ~

~t t t t t t '" Q ? t ~l" ~~

"! 'r"l .,ot ';J 'I ,,0) ~':) (.1:) 8 ;;:. Q 9 ,

,'2,'-: .<'::~': '~): -: ~.' ~J.: t;,.:',:,.' ~••~~[,~.0 ' '~, 'j '", ~ 9 ~~ Q it> ~

,~ ':' ~~~, ? 0 9lff Q 6 ., ,'> r,"~ ;., ;., "oj ~, p.--"

~, . ,:) " .~ . ~, &.~.,~:} .~) "'p--;;'--~. '

:>'0.",.,"a-X

tTl

6''"1 ;::

'" Vl~ c!" '"'1 '"_. m

n '"..~ s:is 69: 1,1)

....Q''1..

:;:~8'"..,'"soenVI-1

c: VI n..., ::::: ::0s: ~ ~'" '" .....'" ..... '""" :>n '" VIg t;; c!J-t :;:::::: ;:c-n m~ s: s:o :z '"c: <:> cVI

-no

~

J."'"gJ I

~Jg

~: I"',~-......~

JJJU-J

I-.J

J

j

I~

J-.-J

:.......J

__ Z-i

j

o

..p:.

..p:.ill

enol>rrrl

~g:::J~~n:J: m _ I.I't

~eb=~~ =. n ;:: £2 lei:;::C~= .....(:'" _ mm m n'" VI xm

'"

I iII i i I~~

J

I'I

r-r-

I

grass (Aristida stricta) and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum) are

locally common. The saltmarsh adjacent to the site is dominated by

smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) but needlerush (Juncus

roemarianus) is also common. The isolated wetland is a circular

depression vegetated by maidencane (Panicum hemitomon) and Virginia

chain fern (Woodwardia virginica). A green sea turtle carcass was

found floating in the ICWW adjacent to this site.

Analysis indicates a disposal area of 11.51 acres is required to

provide capacity adequate to contain the projected fifty-year disposal

volume for the Pine Island to Beach Blvd. reach of the ICWW. Ample

open pineland area allows this disposal area to be situated to the west

of the maritime hammock, thereby preserving the hammock and the

isolated wetland within the recommended buffer. Additional buffer to

the north and west, segregating the disposal area from a trailer park

and roadside development results in a total site area of 31.10 acres.

To avoid the marsh areas adjacent to the waterway, pipeline access

is expected to be permitted through the dredged marina basin and the

disturbed area to the south. The only shoaling area within this reach,

and one which has required frequent maintenance, is of very limited

extent immediately opposite the marina entrance. Currently planned

maintenance of this shoal includes the disposal of material within the

disturbed area south of the marina on a one-time basis only. A primary

advantage of the proposed site is its proximity to this high

maintenance area.

Site Designator: 1-11.5 W-SJ3-5

Site Name: Pablo Creek

Reach: Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley

This site lies west of the ICWW and north of Pablo Creek. There

is a well developed marsh along Pablo Creek that is documented by

smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) but also contains sawgrass

(Cladium jamaicense), cattail (Typha sp.) and needlerush (Juncus

roemarianus) toward the upland edge. Wading and aquatic birds are

C-17

co­Io

S'IT-I) >ida.':) Dlqed(S-8rS-MD30IBWWO:l3U-­S3I1IHrN-lOJ--.

03;:(::I3I1J a13H ._.-lVllINI .

UI3t/3SV3 -----­

S3IllVO»OOlJ·...··{'l

..,\' t 1:...f··t t 1 :

c-i- '1 ....4· ..t 1 t 1, j:i., ': .. ,..··'··1· t t t 'y~,

","'0 ~'r " ' "-",,,'@~'o'\J :.t.. ·T·:of· .. -. 'r Y 'f r . .,':o .....,...... ....." tIt r r r-vty ....be'" t r r .i'

.y.') ..1. 'i', ~.''''..·;;;:·¥.t \t tr t t ...-=. , r r r tr ".."" 9 '(> " \'I '" t ' . r. , t '., , ,r, r t I,

..t> ," " " "" . :' , ~_r 1 t r , 1 t r, "'";'0''''' r t, -"'bO:':I'" t t t, r t r t t""'l> " . • t t ,t t, 1 t " t r t t,', 1 t, t .:

."';99' t 1ttrt',ttt'ltrt',1t 1 ' 1'.r: '" '", '" •. t , t t t, t , t , t , , ,t t,t 1,t t t t r t t t "

17 U) " ,-.; 9v"v'i> ?£ t 1 1 t 1 1 1 T T t)' 1 T 1 T ., T r t t 1 !:'~~.,'tI' '" '" 'iJ,,' t, t t t t t t , t t, t r r, 1 , t t 1 ., Yr.lo'1' '1 ~!

.....·f '" " "> t' t tt It

' t t t t, t r ttl '1' t r r 1 t r;.."c'Y~ 1 1 [,.• "V"v t ttTtlt't" " ~ , '; '" " "" . 1 1 t 1 1 t . t ' 1 t " 1 ,r r, 1 '1' 1 r r r T, r ,:.t>;;,@'" ,r r tttrrtrtttr1tTt'J ;;, '... .'. t t t t ,tr t t t ,t t t t t ,t t t.t, t t t ttl" t' .'

-f '" ""',,"". t t t t r r. t t t T t t t t r t t T T t t t 1 t r r r t I'.,~ 1) Ii> '" v. t t t t t, 1 t t t t t t.:l, t t t t 1 t t t t t T t t t '

"'I,\"\;>,,,,,-...u,'\'l tt t t T t t t t t t t\./fPt t t t 1 , t t t, t ttl"(,,'@ 9~~'P"'. t t t.t,t.t t.t t,t t t.tt.t t.t t,t T t t rI;,.",r t ,:i, " 9 '" '. '" t t r T Ttl t.)' t t. T T 1,' , t T 1 t t 'i.~,(f"Y'~ 1 I:I'iJ '" "'. T t t t t , t 1, t, r t t, 1 t t r, t t, t, r t, t t \:4 r ryr ,::u ",,,"", tttttttttrrtt1tt1rrr,rtrttrt'Itq

1> .,; 'i> "';, t t t t t t t t r t t r r, t t r, r ,r r. 1 , r t r t 1 fW r I:~ ...".,,~, '" '" ,'" ,t+tl7' 1 t t 1 t t t t. t t r 1 t 1It. r r r,t r 1 , t t. t 1 I:0.0"'\)0". rr t ttttttt11ttt,trTT r111111'T1.:

::0 \·5',,\'1;0,0.;pt t t t t t t t t t t t t t t t 1 t ' r 1 1 t 1 , t t t T tTY TTl'. '. "~"• '1' t t t t t t t ... ..i.1.J..:Lt t t t r' r' , 't 1 t ' " , , ' c', '"Q" 0. .!- ' '" ,.-<,=,.~ .."" """". ' T, r l' , ,1'19 ' , ',W I'.................,.,""'"...... ,,",=,'" "0;, t t ", r t t t r 1 , t t , t "" ,)1 1:

'.ttl t t t r , t t 1 r t rt r '['··".,,,!.t,t t,t T.tt t,t It 1t r:

". ·,~··:t'~'~~·~'·~'!.~'"tJ.;

(f)

»z

S3IIINOHWOJ NOIIV1393~

sallVl 03HHfUSIO KfJ[-" ¥ -~SaNVl13n,=~I' ~•..=:

1$3110:1 OOOMQllVlI oNVldn j.~f~)(~r.j;l0 ~\':)9

lS3HO;/ SnOH3.:lINOJ QlNldO ~r t T+ri tj

3lV8SI I I I I

,VGL 0

}/

1- 1_·~.

InnnrII

abundant along the creek. Five osprey nests were observed in nearby

snags. A gopher tortoise was observed swimming across the creek, which

is an unusual habitat for this species. Woodstorks were also observed

soaring overhead. There is a known woodstork rookery about 1.2

kilometers south of the edge of the proposed disposal site (Nesbitt et

aI., 1982).

Moving inland (and north) from Pablo Creek, there is a band of

hardwoods bordering the watercourse. Species found here include live

oak (Quercus virginiana), water oak (Quercus nigra), laurel oak

(Quercus laurifolia), swamp bay (Per sea palustris) and pignut hickory

(Carya glabra). Moving further north through the hammock, the

elevations of the site increase substantially to near +20 feet MSL.

The vegetation on these sandy hills is characteristic of the longleaf

pine-turkey oak association. Species found there include longleaf pine

(Pinus palustris), turkey oak (Quercus laevis), post oak (Quercus

margaretta) and laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia). Ground cover was

dominated by wire grass (Aristida stricta) with occasional saw palmetto

(Serenoa repens) and silk-grass (Pit yo psis graminifolia). Wildlife

sitings included white tailed deer and gopher tortoise. Moving further

north the vegetation community changes to a mixed pine flatwoods.

Longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine(Pinus elliottii), saw

palmetto (Serenoa repens) and wiregrass (Aristida stricta) are

prevalent. In addition, the understory also commonly contains

gallberry (Ilex glabra) and shiny-leaved blueberry (Vaccinium

myrisinites). A pond is located on the site and is vegetated by panic

grass (Panicum sp.) and spikerush (Eleocharis s p i) . An American

alligator was observed utilizing this wetland. The pond may be

augmented with groundwater, since a large well was observed adjacent to

the pond.

As discussed previously, the Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley reach of

the ICWW is the highest maintenance reach in the project area.

Incorporation of the required disposal capacity within a single site

requires 103.15 acres of disposal area. For this site, it is

recommended that the disposal area be confined to the pine lands north

C-19

r:i !

r,

I'!

,-i

of the maritime hammock which borders the Pablo Creek marsh system,

with the hammock area preserved as a buffer between the disposal area

and Pablo Creek. Inclusion of additional on-site buffer areas to the

north and west of the disposal area results in a total area requirement

of 179.42 acres. The recommended configuration would include the

freshwater pond mentioned above within the proposed disposal area,

although the site could be re-configured to avoid this area. The

presence of the pond and the adjacent well indicates that potential

groundwater contamination must be a consideration. No adjacent land­

use conflicts exist at present, with the area of planted pine to the

north the closest development. Pipeline access is afforded by way of

Pablo Creek, which closely approaches the upland area in several

locations, minimizing the impact to the marsh. The relatively high

elevation of the site (+20.0 ft. MSL) would reduce pumping efficiency.

C-20

nI

I

[

nII

n~

I

SECONDARY SITES

Site Designator: A-3.5 E-28-2

Site Name: Crane Island

Reach: Fernandina Harbor to Nassau Sound

Crane Island is located on the AIWW directly west of the

Fernandina Airport. It is a natural maritime hammock island surrounded

by a predominately smooth cord grass (Spartina alterniflora) salt marsh.

There are also large areas of unvegetated salt flats within the marsh

community that may be associated with old dredged material disposal.

On the east side of the island are three major and two smaller disposal

lobes. The two largest lobes are vegetated by slash pine (Pinus

elliottii), red cedar (Juniperus silicicola), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria),

and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Most of the main portion of the

island is maritime hammock dominated by live oak (Quercus virginiana),

southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora) and red cedar (Juniperus

silicicola). The northern sixth of the island has a lower canopy that

appears more wind-pruned, less mesic and less diverse than the rest of

the island. One small internal wetland was found. It is dominated by

sand cordgrass (Spartina bakeri), smartweed (Polygonum sp.) and

Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica). There is a known

archaeological or historical site recorded for Crane Island.

The relatively small disposal area required on this site (24.62

acres) to satisfy the projected requirements of the Fernandina Harbor

to Nassau Sound reach permits the recommended site to be confined to

the northern 30% of the island, thereby utilizing the two largest

disposal lobes and the lower canopy in this area. This configuration

would also impact the small transitional and wetland area between the

lobes. Location of the site in this manner allows the majority of the

original island to remain unaffected, including the mature hardwood

hammock and the internal wetland in the central part of the island, as

well as the documented archeological site (8Na59) at the southern end.

C-21

'\

N

FERNANoINAAIRpaRT

ISCALE

a 6791

I------,---,--....l--.J[

A.I.

W.W.

CRO?/PASTURElN/O

ARCH. SITE8Na 59

VEGETATION COMMUNITIes

BOUNOARIES

------ EAS~EHI

., •.•••••• IIlITIAL_.-" FIELD CHECKED--- CO!'HJNrTIES--- RECOHHENDED

rl

r-I

II

i ,L •

II

Figure e.g. Crane Island (A-3.5 E-28-2)

C-22

r­,

,.!

I'!

I,

No adjacent land-use conflicts exist at present. This will not be

changed by the planned industrial park development on the land

immediately west of the Fernandina Airport, from which Crane Island is

separated by Broadbent Creek and marsh. Road access through airport

property does not extend all the way to Crane Island, and a small

distance (less than 100') of marsh/unvegetated flats would have to be

crossed. Pipeline access to the site would require the crossing of

200'-400' of marsh, depending on the route.

Site Designator: A-17.0 W-12-6

Site Name: Cedar Point

Reach: Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor

Cedar Point is located on the southern end of Black Hammock

Island. The vegetation on the extreme tip is mature oak hammock.

Apparently, much of the understory was cleared at one time so that what

remains is a live oak (Quercus virginiana) canopy and a shrubby second

growth understory of cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), wax myrtle (Myrica

ceritera), and muscadine (Vitis sp.). Also located within this hammock

are several isolated wetlands with one containing a heron rookery of

great blue heron, great egret, cattle egret and white ibis (Nesbitt et

al., 1982). Three archaeological sites are also located in this area.

Because of these sensitive resources, the proposed dredged material

disposal site was shifted northward out of this community. Vegetation

communities north of the hammock area include pine flatwoods, oak scrub

and isolated wetland depressions. The pine lands are dominated by slash

pine (Pinus elliotti), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), and rusty lyonia

(Lyonia ferruginea). The oak scrub community is dominated by myrtle

oak (Quercus myrtifolia), saw palmetto, rusty lyonia (Lyonia

ferruginea), and gallberry (Ilex glabra). Several wetland depressions

are evident on the aerial photographs but were not visited because of

access problems.

The Cedar Point site has been selected as a secondary site for

both the Nassau Sound to Ft. George River, and Ft. George River to

Jacksonville Harbor reaches, lying at the common boundary of both.

C-23

I9L9

030H3HHOJ3~ -------­S3IlIHrl4-I03 ---.

03:'433113013I.:l·---l'lIlIHI .

11B1I3SV3 -----­

S3IHVOHOOU

28 no 8::LLJ S .HJ t:l'V'

:3lV~S.

I

:4fr-- £9 no 8 ::l1.IS 'HJt:JV

929 nOB.~~~~~-- :3.1 JS .HJ t:l'i

s~a!J!pOII l~a!~a~nH ~O~ 3 XIPuaddv

SOHV1 03a~nlSIO t:'.:.(..;:-:.]S0llV11311 r:·.:-_,:;~~:I.t'.... -..... '"t

lS3~O~ OOOIlOllVlI ONV1dn ['1./0""0V0]lS3<lO:l sno~3:1 IlI03 Ol/V1dn ItT t f t T; I

o'l/V1 HSml9/amlllS

~====;0lN13<1nlSVd/dO~J L....~,...-..;:.....J

S3I1IHnHII03 NOI1V13~3A

",I

j

J]

...J

J,I

I.,.

1I..

J

i--.J

J1I

, !--J

JJ

i

J

J

Therefore, it has been sized to satisfy the combined requirement of

both reaches, less the remaining capacity of the two existing sites.

The resulting disposal area requirement is 60.42 acres. However,

because of the undeveloped acreage potentially available in this

region, this disposal area can be located to the north of the hammock

area, rookery, and archeological sites, while still allowing a full

300' buffer around the entire site perimeter. This results in a total

committal of 113.94 acres. The buffer to the north segregates the

disposal area from the only adjacent conflicting land-use, the

residential/agricultural development along Cedar Point Road. As is the

case with all sites on Black Hammock Island, residential well

contamination must be a consideration.

The primary limitation of the Cedar Point site relates to pumping

distance and pipeline access. The site lies at the extremes of the

reaches it is to serve; therefore pumping distance approaches the

limits of efficient operation. This is exacerbated by circuitous

access to the site by way of Horseshoe Creek and an additional crossing

of up to 1000' of upland. A pipeline crossing of the extensive marsh

to the east of Cedar Point would be the only alternative.

Site Designator: A-21.3 E-2-8

Site Name: Fanning Island

Reach: Ft. George River to Jacksonville Harbor

The Fanning Island site is part of a complex of former dredged

material disposal lobes located north and east of Heckscher Drive, and

bordering a portion of the tidal marsh adjacent to Sister's Creek.

This site consists of the more southerly disposal lobe in the complex.

The old d f. s p os a L area is vegetated by hairgrass (Nu h Le n b e r g La

capillaris), camphorweed (Heterotheca subaxillaris), wax myrtle (Myrica

cerifera), Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana), and large-headed rush

(Juncus megacephalus). Occasionally sea oats (Uniola paniculata) were

found on the old sandy substrate. A dense band of wax myrtle (Myrica

cerifera) and Carolina willow (Salix caroliniana) form a thin strip

C-25

r r0<r

d'G"f!w

cZ: -.J !;;i VI c« UUJ UJn UJ _c

t- ::: ...... :z:.:0 VI =-Ju_wUJ UJ<: "'~(f) ;;: :o:-o~w ..... -J c<: V1 - W U0 c .:)""_OUJ:>:: -u..uc<:8

II~ec

~I

l

~

nnrr~

......00r It:'lI

r.LI

MI .--<C"lI

<r:.........

~ '0CCIl......1- U)VI ......UJ 1-

V!b1l

cc VIr '" UJ l-

I:::u. ec CJ

'" <;:cv> VI u.

c 0 ::::> ,~

I:::l UJ:>:: 5 <> 0 v> -c

CIlE ec 8 <> 0:5 UJ 5 :<:~:>: W ~ :x

*cc

:>:: 5l ";;;r::: <> ~

c uVI UJ 'J:VI UC ca

.--<u <: <> 0 '" cc CJC-

5 :>::

E ~ E.--<% ..... :s :>0 C-

::::l '" 0§ '" C- C-o:::::> ::::> c I-U

~UJ ",(l)I ..,

of ,f Wt..,w::l

I > ~.. ;: ><! ,"b.O. ~, "" .-<c:~

. i CJ

:l:.?\ c..c..<:

I C-26

r

nn

between the dredged material deposits and the adjacent salt marsh. This

fringing tidal wetland is vegetated by smooth cordgrass (Spar tina

alterniflora), needlerush (Juncus roemarianus) and salt grass

(Distichlis spicata).

This secondary site for the Ft. George River to jacksonville

Harbor reach may satisfy the projected requirements of this reach

without consideration of the existing site to the west (N. Heckscher

Drive) because of ample upland acreage (Table 4-1). However, including

the existing site (Figure C-ll) results in disposal area of 28.68

acres, with a buffer around the site perimeter yielding a total site

area of 68.09 acres. The buffer to the southeast segregates the

disposal area from scattered residential/commercial development. The

disposal area itself is confined to the disturbed region, apparently

the scene of dredged material disposal connected with the development

and maintenance of the Jacksonville Harbor Project. The small isolated

areas exhibiting wetland affinities, which would be impacted by

additional disposal, currently provide only marginal habitat. Good

pipeline access is provided by the tidal creek bordering the site to

the north, and only a minimum (less than 50') marsh crossing would be

required.

Site Designator: 1-3.1 E-Du6-2

Site Name: DeBlieu Creek

Reach: jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island

The DeBlieu Creek site is located east of the ICWW, approximately

1.5 miles north of Atlantic Blvd. Site vegetation communities include

a maritime hammock, an oak-pine community, a wetland drainage

association, and the salt marsh community fringing the creek. Species

found in the maritime hammock were live oak (Quercus virginiana),

laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), saw palmetto (Serenoa repens),

southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and pignut hickory (Carya

glabra). The oak-pine community is less diverse than the hammock and

included these species: water oak (Quercus nigra), slash pine (Pinus

elliottii), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), sweetgum (Liquidambar

C-27

030H;ooIOJ311 --­S3UIHfWlO:l--­

03:t:l311J 0131:1.-.­lUIUHI ..••••••.•

lH3H3SV3 -----­

S3111UOHOOll (z-gna-g 1"£-1)

. !

I..

JJ

3l\18SI I I

18917 as~~!J~POH lE~~JDWnH JO~ 3 x!puvddV

som 03811tUSIO (~:::~;:::.~

SOllV1131l ~:#- ~.7~

1S3110~ OOOIlUllVlI OllVldfl f~ .''0'.'~ v ib'l

lS3110~ SI10113.:1IlIOJ OlNldfl ["t r tit ' t I.e.,'~""i,...:~~. "'-

Ollvl nsmlOlOffilHS ,r..f{6:c'lff,:;·;

S3I1INflHWOJ HOI1V13~3~

! I

i !

....J

JJJJ

JJJJJJJJ

r

I

II

ii

styraciflua), and cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto). A forested area close

to the road contains ditches and received runoff from part of the

surrounding woodland. As a result, the vegetation in this area is

adapted to wetter conditions. Species found here include loblolly pine

(Pinus taeda), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and dahoon holly

(Ilex cassine). Ground covers include netted-chain fern (Woodwardia

a r e o La t a ) , Virginia chain fern (Woodwardia virginica), and pipewort

(Eriocaulon sp.) A needlerush marsh (Juncus roemarianus) is adjacent

to DeBlieu Creek. Transitional species include grounsel tree

(Baccharis halimifolia), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and sand

cordgrass (Spartina bakeri). No documented archaeological sites are

found in this location.

The relatively small disposal area required to serve the

Jacksonville Harbor to Pine Island reach of the ICWW (6.85 acres)

allows the site to be confined to the north of the available upland

area. Inclusion of a buffer zone to the south and east to segregate

the disposal area from scattered residential/ agricultural development

results in a total site area of 16.47 acres. Although areas of the

site are disturbed, showing evidence of artificial drainage,

unauthorized dumping, and destruction from off-road vehicles, much of

the mature hardwood canopy remains intact, and would be impacted.

Although the marsh separating this site from the waterway is extensive,

reasonable pipeline access is provided by DeBlieu Creek to the north of

the site.

Site Designator: 1-5.8 W-Du11-4

Site Name: Hogpen Creek

Reach: Pine Island to Beach Blvd.

This site is located on the west side of the ICWW approximately

1.5 miles north of Beach Blvd. It is bordered on the west by San Pablo

Road. The Hogpen Creek site contains a mixed pine and oak association,

pine flatwoods and some isolated wetland depressions to the north.

There is also an area of young planted slash pine (Pinus elliottii).

More mature longleaf and some slash pine (Pinus palustris and Pinus

C-29

[-~

030113HWO:l31l --­S3IlIIInHHOJ--­

03:lJ311:l 013I.:l._.­lVIlIIII .•••..••••

11l3H3SV3 -----­

S3111VOllno9

3l'18SI I I I I

161717 0

L_ .. L._: L.. __..:

l/v

L .

(v-nnQ-M

L_._~_

8's-I)

oC'l

JU

s~a!JJpoH le~!~awnll JO~ 3 x!puaddV

som 0391llllSl0 [:·;'::·::.B~. , ..... III

SOIlVlJ.31\ [~~.i:;j

lS31l0~ OOOI\01lVlI OIlVldn r~ ,,;V~V Q',lS:nrO~ Sno1l3~IIIO:J OWldn It' t't' t r

om IIsnllll/llnllllS lo"~f.i}i\~fi;'~

OIlVl31llUSVdldOll:l ." "'JI'':.,~ '~I"" 0'~, ..# • "1\'-

S3I.tHII1IMOJ 1I0IlV1393~

L~~ ~ ~ 1_"_'

II

rII

II

rI

i

elliottii) cover much of the surrounding area. Understory vegetation

inc 1 udes saw palmet to (Serenoa repens), gall berry (Ilex gla bra),

bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinium), and greenbrier (Smilix sp.). The

mixed pine and oak community is dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus

palustris) accompanied by a mixture of oaks, including live oak

(Quercus virginiana), bluejack oak (Quercus incana), and turkey oak

(Quercus laevis). Other young hardwoods occur sporadically in this

association including sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and pignut

hickory (Carya glabra). Ground covers include saw palmetto (Serenoa

repens), greenbrier (Smilax auriculata), and wiregrass (Aristida

stricta). Gopher tortoise burrows were noted in this association. The

wetland depressional area to the north is vegetated by tall milkwort

(Polygala cymosa), and Virginia chain fern (\-Ioodwardia virginica).

Along the southern edge of the site is a band maritime hammock

vegetation. Common species in this group included the dominant live

oak (Quercus virginiana), with sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),

southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora), and pignut hickory (Carya

glabra) mixed with pines (Pinus sp.). No archaeological or historic

sites are known to exist on this site.

The required disposal area for the Hogpen Creek site is 11.51

acres. Addition of a 300' buffer to the south, to segregate the

disposal area from existing residential development, and to the west,

along San Pablo Road, results in a total site area requirement of. 23.46

acres. The buffer to the south also preserves much of the maritime

hammock mentioned above. The wetland depressions to the north of the

site are largely excluded as well, providing a natural buffer area.

Good pipeline access is provided by the Hogpen Creek system; which also

includes a powerline right-of-way. The primary limitation of this site

is the increased pumping distance from the high maintenance shoaling

area immediately south of the Atlantic Blvd. bridge, as compared to the

Moody Marine site.

C-31

~

I'I

III

III!

Site Designator: I-ll.7 E-SJ3-6

Site Name: Cabbage Creek

Reach: Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley

The Cabbage Creek site is located along the eastern shore of the

ICWW near the Duval - St. Johns County line. The site has apparently

been disturbed by various activities in the past. In some locations

dredged material has been deposited and in other regions borrow

excavations are apparen~. The former borrow areas are now vegetated by

wetland, transitional, or ruderal plants. These include Carolina

willow (Salix caroliniana), wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera), large-headed

rush (Juncus megacephalus) and dog fennel (Eupatorium sp.). Much of the

forested portions of the site are vegetated by a mixture of live oak

(Quercus virginiana), cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), and slash pine

(Pinus elliottii). In some areas an oak-pine association is prevalent;

in other locations an oak-cabbage palm association is more common.

Understory species typically include saw palmetto (Serenoa repens), wax

myrtle (Myrica cerifera), yaupon (Ilex vomitoria) and muscadine (Vitis

sp.) Some large ruderal areas are vegetated mostly by vines including

muscadine (Vitis sp.), blackberry (Rubus s p . ) , peppervine (Ampelopsis

arborea), greenbrier (Smalix sp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron

radicans). This area has a thick cover of various vines covering the

few trees within the community and climbing the trees bordering this

community. The northern portion of the site is adjacent to Cabbage

Creek and contains some former uncontained dredged material deposits

and some diked disposal areas. This area is vegetated by saltmarsh and

transitional vegetation including smooth cordgrass (Spartina

alterniflora), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and marsh elder (Iva

frutescens). It is obvious that some of the low dikes are breached.

The Beach Blvd. to Palm Valley reach of the ICWW is the reach

requiring the greatest maintenance as well as the largest disposal

capacity within the project area, significantly more than the Nassau

Sound to Ft. George River reach of the AIWW for which three disposal

sites are recommended. To proyide adequate capacity within a single

C-32

llOUNOAHIES

------ EJ\SEHENT............ INITIAL

,....--'-' FIELO CIJECKEO-'-- COlflllllTIES--- RECOIfl':NoEO

r-,

n

VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

CRO?/?J\SllJREI.JlJiO

SIlRUll/llRUSIl I.JlJiO

I~ I +I ... ! +., UI'LJ\l{O COJiIFEROUS FOREST

1,9.,....¢.,....~.•$.) UI'I.JlJiD. IlfIRDliOOO FOREST

E'?~ ~] IIETll\JiOS

E0 ...":,'1

~"::'::":.:'j DISllJRllEO lJ\IlOS

Jlppendix E For Nu~erical Kodificrs

Figure C.143 Cabbage Creek (I-l1.7 E-SJ3-6)

C-33

oI J

SCALE

S31lIlInHWOJ 1I0IlV13~3A

0301l3»/OJ311-­S3IlIIIlN/O:l --.

03:l:l31IJ 013H .-._"lVIlIlI] .

lN3W3S\J3 -----­

S3IllVOllOOO

J

JJ

, 1

i ~t,

I :IJ

J

JJJJU

JJJJ

u

S~~!J!POH l~~!~~wnll ~03 3 X!puaddV

SaM 03011fUslO [': .:.::.::.~.. ..c· ..... ,

SOllVll3t1 G'#-~~~.lS31103 ODOIIOllVlI OIlVldn [Q" i;?.j~0/01

lS3lI0;l Soo1l33]lIO:> OHVldn It 't' t'tI·,.""';i...~t"

OWl IISnlllJ!OnllllS ,:C~~l$::f.'PS

" .3l'i18SI I I

J£OL 0

I i

nI !

site requires a disposal area of 102.58 acres, with additional acreage

for buffer zones as indicated. Only a small portion of the recommended

site is contained within the existing easement, with the remainder of

the easement area characterized as wetland, isolated disposal mounds,

or relict dikes of low relief. Disposal for the 1986-87 maintenance

activity is currently planned for one of these diked wetland areas

immediately south of the mouth of Cabbage Creek. It is estimated that

only 103 acres of contiguous upland exist north of the residential

development on Roscoe Road (S.R. 210A). Development of this site as a

disposal area of sufficient capacity to contain the projected fifty­

year volume of maintenance material, therefore, may impact wetland

areas, as inc1using the recommended 300' buffer to the south to

segregate the site from commercial development would result in a total

site area of 109.6 acres. Pumping distance is minimal and pipeline

access is excellent, as the site is immediately adjacent the area

requiring the highest maintenance, with no intervening marsh.

C-35

III:II

IIIIIIInIIiI

r­I .i :

II

APPENDIX D

ALTERNATIVE SITE DRAWINGS

rrr-1

ri »

n~

r~

~

wr w0::u

r I-zwr rn0<J:0

n 0::m

rII

r-

'.'

I '

~

rr

Fiaure D.l. Fernandina Airport

.....•...:~~~:~:

~) ]~,J I~

~ I .:( ~ l~..... i .-.----..:,.? '1~~c.C?_. .

, ..~ ':;". I: I-

J 'I: 0:::, : 0/ .: 0..

! l~ ~( ~j I: ~'\ i~ ~, ~o ~ <J:\ .: Z

\ l~ f5. 1~ LL( .:

j [

. \ I............ ";... ) /:'

.... /'.,/-.:.,.~ .. '... ~'

. /~'I /~.,

i /:.\/:.

D-l

N

o 573 1

I ! I I JSCALE

BOUNDARIES

------ EASEMENT" •..• " INIlIAL----·----FIELD CHECKED--COMHUNITIES-- RECO~EIiDED .

Il

~.

I

,-­i

~I

r-

i :t

n

i •!l

Figure D.2.. Pirie GroveD-2

N

o 557!I J 1----'-_1

SCALE

BOUNDARIES

------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED--COMMUNITIES--RECOMMENDED

N

o 562 1

L r---l-r JSCALE

BOUNDARIES------ EASEMENT,' .... ,." INITIAL---'---' FIELD CHECKED-------- COMMUNITIES-- RECOMHENDED

\\.

\\.\)!I.I

:

425

" ....

"

.'

D-3

:'

" ....

..........

"............ - _a .

•••• -, 4.1 •••••• :

Figure D.3. N.W. Black Hammock lsI.and

N.E. Black Hammock Isl. (South)

r.n~

rr~

~

n~

nI J

iI!, .

~

rI

N

o 556'I I [ , I

SeA LE.

(A-2.

"

o~1« :,0:10::::

Ii!

I j

rl

rIIiI:

nI:II'n

rI !

Figure D.4.E. Central Black Hammock Island

D-4

BOUNDARIES

------ EASEHENl.•..• , ..•. INInAl_. _. FIELD CHECKED

--COMMUNInES-------- RECOHMENDED

r:I !

I

Irn

I

I

nI '

!

IrnnI

. rt-«: j.) ./ 74' -----'1"'­

-\. 3/"­~, ..

Figure D.5. E. Fanning Island

-.

D-S

N

a 363'I ! I ! I

SCALE

BOUNDARIES

- - - - - - EASEMENT............ INITIAL

-..-- FIELD CHECKEDCDMHUNITIES

-- RECO~ENOED

r:

I

I

n

N

I'I o 382

1

I I I I ISCALE

..' 411

A

ROADCHURCH

642. BA""

~. til

~.-.~ .. .

. [" \\I \ ~

\ ~J+ L. '. \ ~/

. \'\ ' .._._.J:

~i ;,i

r! .

e ,

Figure D.6. Pine Island

D-6

BOUNDARIES

------ EASEMENT.. , •.... ,. INITIAL----,---. FIELD CHECKED-------- COMMUNITIES----- RECOMHENDED

SCALE

ri

~c ,I '

l .

rII '!

II ,

ni ;I i

i

I :

~!;

rI, ,

:-,

iI

N

oI . I I

397'I

~

! 'Figure D. 7. Hopkins Creek

D-7

BOUNDARIES------ EASEMENT........ IHITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED--COMMUNITIES

RECOI'ViENDED

r-I '

I'

i1 .

r:

I 'i .

! ~,, W

Wr- n::i , <->,"

nw-J0<t:

r- n::<->

I

I

rII

I:

:

I',r-t

i

"Ii

.r..:.:_:_:_:_:,:_..-....'-'~':~': ':':":"':':"'-'~I~

./' :

\> i~~ .....:» I:

\7:'~l' 414:/ (.0~::-:·;

.~. i.~.{ )"~ /:.

..:~:~ f~:-'":~ .-

-':.,:-:-,:-' .. -'

wz<t:-J

N

a 387'I I I • I

SCALE

n;­!,iI .

Figure D.8. Cradle Creek

D-8

BOUNDARIES------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL----·---·FIELD CHECKED-----.....,- COMHUNITIES--RECOMMENDED

,.,I

,.,I

!

rI

l

~

~

I ,

II .

r, .! :

i :i

! I

N

o 395'I I I I I

SCALE

rI :

I !

Figure D.9. Butler Blvd.

D-9

BOUNDARIES

------ EASEMENT.......... INITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED~- COMMUNITIES-------- RECOMHENDED

Ii

!iI

r­ii

rr:j ;I

IiI!

ri

0'

o' •

~ ......

350

o.

N

ISCALE

-

i I, ,

! '

,..,, ,

,I

l .:

r-I

r-r-

II ,

o.

Figure D.lO. Davis Property

D-IO

.00'

BOUNDARIES

-- - - -- EASEMENT••••• 0. ° INITIAL---------FIELD CHECKED--- COMMUNITIES--- RECO/flENDED

I

Ir

I

rI,

n

nn

I

IL

APPENDIX E

CATEGORIZATION OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

APPENDIX E: Categorization of Vegetation Communities

n

nI ;

,

The vegetative categorization used in this report are taken

from "Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System"

(Department of Transportation, 1985). Identification to the

second level of categorization under this system was depicted in

the site diagrams symbolically, with the third level indicated

numerically where possible and appropriate.

The following categories were used in this report:

r,

nI ~

nnr,I '

II

100 Urban and BUilt-up110 Residential, Low Density

III Fixed Single-Family Units

200 Agriculture210 Cropland and Pastureland

212 Unimproved Pastures

300 Rangeland320 Shrub and Brushland

322 Coastal Scrub329 Vine Community

400 Upland Forests410 Upland Coniferous Forests

411 Pine Flatwoods412 Longleaf Pine - Xeric Oak414 Pine - Mesic Oak419 Other Pines

420 Upland Hardwood Forests425 Temperate Hardwoods428 Cabbage Palm429 Wax Myrtle - Willow434 Hardwood - Conifer Mixed

440 Tree Plantations441 Coniferous Platations

600 Wetlands610 Wetland Hardwoods Forests

616 Inland Ponds and Sloughs

640 Vegetated Non-Forested Wetlands641 Freshwater Marshes642 Saltwater Marshes643 Wet Prairies

700 Barren Land740 Disturbed Land

742 Borrow Areas743 Spoil Areas

E-l