slide1
Download
Skip this Video
Download Presentation
Mid-Chesapeake Bay Feasibility Study

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26

Mid-Chesapeake Bay Feasibility Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 70 Views
  • Uploaded on

Mid-Chesapeake Bay Feasibility Study. Screening Criteria. Tier I: Island needs to be in study area Tier II: Island needs to be or have historically been at least 200 acres; currently needs to possess the ability to be 200 acres or more

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Mid-Chesapeake Bay Feasibility Study' - hazina


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
screening criteria
Screening Criteria
  • Tier I: Island needs to be in study area
  • Tier II:
    • Island needs to be or have historically been at least 200 acres; currently needs to possess the ability to be 200 acres or more
    • Island must be reasonably accessible for dredged material placement
    • Island restoration cannot negatively affect the hydraulic conditions of existing river systems
    • Island cannot significantly impact current navigation of existing waterways
    • Must be an island/not shoreline
slide3
Tier II Continued:
    • Island must not be a highly populated center
    • Island must not involve any unexploded ordinance or hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste
    • If island is currently State or Federally managed as a wildlife area, must have support from the landowners for restoration
    • Compatibility with any other Corps-led studies being conducted on the island
slide4
Barren Island, Dorchester County
  • Holland Island, Dorchester County
  • Hoopers Islands, Dorchester County
  • James Island, Dorchester County
  • Little Deal Island, Somerset County
  • Ragged Island, Dorchester County
  • Smith Island, Somerset County
  • South Marsh Island, Somerset County
formulate alternative plans
Formulate Alternative Plans
  • Screen the Island(s)
  • Collect Detailed Environmental - Engineering - Socioeconomic Data
  • Prepare Conceptual Plans
    • Determine Potential Island Configurations/Acreages
      • No configuration pre-determined
  • Analyze/Compare Plans
  • Select Recommended Plan
corps six step planning process
Corps Six Step Planning Process
  • Specify Problems and Opportunities
  • Inventory and Forecast Conditions
  • Formulate Alternative Plans
  • Evaluate Effects of Alternative Plans
  • Compare Alternative Plans
  • Select Recommended Plan
slide7
Site Locations:

James and Barren Islands Dorchester County, MD

James

Island

Barren

Island

james island study findings coastal engineering
James Island Study FindingsCOASTAL ENGINEERING
  • Water depths in concept area(s) are 2-12 feet
  • Highest waves approach from north and south
  • East side of island sheltered from waves
  • Longest fetch from south
  • Currents relatively weak
    • Maximum velocity 1 ft/sec
  • Update bathymetric survey Fall 2002
james island study findings hydrodynamics sedimentation
James Island Study FindingsHYDRODYNAMICS & SEDIMENTATION
  • Minimal impacts on local tidal elevations
  • Current velocities impacted
    • Maximum change ±0.4 ft/sec
  • Beneficial effects on sedimentation rates and patterns
    • Less shoreline erosion of James Island and portions of Taylors Island
  • Probable reduction of suspended sediment and improved water quality
james island study findings existing environmental conditions fall 2001 2002 summer 2002 studies
James Island Study FindingsEXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSFall 2001/2002 & Summer 2002 Studies
  • In situ water quality results were in expected range
  • Diverse fish community with juveniles of commercially important species
  • Essential Fish Habitat for 9 finfish species
    • Bluefish, red drum and summer flounder present
  • Low B-IBI scores
    • Average score of 1.6 in Summer 2002
james island study findings environmental conditions continued
James Island Study FindingsENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (continued)
  • Variety of wildlife utilizes island remnants
    • 42 bird species present
    • 9 species of wildlife
  • No adverse impacts expected on terrestrial vegetation, including wetlands
  • Commercial crabbing within concept area will be displaced
  • Temporary viewshed and noise disturbance during construction
  • No cultural resources within concept area
james island additional studies
James Island Additional Studies
  • Crab Pot Surveys
    • April – September
  • Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Survey & Popnetting
    • Late season grasses
  • Pound net surveys
  • Clam Surveys
    • Soft shell
    • Razor shell
barren island study findings coastal engineering
Barren Island Study FindingsCOASTAL ENGINEERING
  • Water depths in concept area are 3-10 feet
  • Highest wind speeds from the southwest and northwest
  • Longest fetch from the south
  • Eastern side of island requires less armor because it is sheltered
barren island study findings environmental conditions fall 2002 summer 2002 studies
Barren Island Study FindingsENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONSFall 2002 & Summer 2002 Studies
  • In situ water quality results were in expected range
  • Area inhabited by numerous finfish species
    • Several species support commercial and recreational fisheries
  • Essential Fish Habitat for 9 finfish species
    • Bluefish, summer flounder, and red drum present in area
  • B-IBI scores were high
    • Average 3.84
  • SAV beds present along eastern shoreline and in quiescent waters east of island
  • RTE species: bald eagle, royal tern, Wilson’s plover
barren island study findings environmental conditions continued
Barren Island Study FindingsENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS (continued)
  • Two NOBs located in areas adjacent to proposed dike alignment
  • Island important habitat for colonial waterbirds and wading birds
    • 61 bird species observed in Summer 2002
  • Variety of wildlife utilizes island remnants
    • 13 species
  • Reduction of commercial crabbing area
  • Negligible noise and viewshed disturbance
  • MHT- no records of historically significant sites
barren island additional studies
Barren Island Additional Studies
  • Crab Pot Surveys
    • May – September
  • Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Survey & Popnetting
    • Late season grasses
  • Pound net surveys
  • Clam Surveys
    • Soft shell
    • Razor shell
plan formulation
Plan Formulation
  • Goal
    • The goal for this feasibility study is to restore and protect valuable but threatened Mid-Chesapeake Bay island ecosystems through the beneficial use of dredged material.
plan formulation1
Plan Formulation
  • Objectives
      • Restore and enhance wetland, aquatic and terrestrial island habitat for fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals;
      • Protect existing island ecosystems, including sheltered embayments;
      • Minimize impacts to fisheries nursery-, feeding-, and protective-habitats;
      • Increase wetlands acreage in the Chesapeake Bay watershed;
      • Decrease turbidity and shoreline erosion;
plan formulation2
Plan Formulation
  • Objectives (continued)
      • Promote conditions that promote the establishment and protection of submerged aquatic vegetation;
      • Promote conditions that support oyster recolonization;
      • Minimize impacts to rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats
      • Minimize establishment of invasive species; and
      • Allow for placement of 2 millioncubic yars/year of dredge material.
plan formulation3
Plan Formulation
  • Design Criteria and Constraints
      • Must protect existing island habitat
      • Dredge placement depths will be considered in the range of 7-9 feet.
      • Footprint should be based on geomorphology (i.e. clay areas)
      • Dike heights need to be at a minimum of 10-12 feet above MLLW.
ad