Papers by Anonymous

Find by name:

Anonymous . 1977. Accuracy of computer refraction simulation for predicting breaking wave characteristics and longshore transport.. Coastal Sedimentology, Florida State University: 131-171.
No Abstract Avaliable
Anonymous . 1987. Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material.. Proceedings of the First Interagency Workshop, Pensacola, Florida: 271.
The First Interagency Workshop on the Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material was held to improve awareness and acceptability of beneficial use options for dredged material disposal. The workshop discussed past, current, and future beneficial use applications and identified innovative and untested beneficial uses. The workshop aimed to contribute to the development of a logical beneficial use strategy reflected in long-term planning and management. Workshop participants stressed the cultivation of an atmosphere of cooperation, communication, and coordination among Federal and State agencies, the dredging industry, port and maritime authorities, and public and private concerns. Agency and industry overviews were presented and panels were held on the first day, highlighted by a keynote address by the Director of Civil Works of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (CE). Three technical sessions on habitat development applications, industrial and commercial applications, and special applications and concpts were held the second day, followed by informal discussion groups for each session. Session summaries and wrapup panels completed the workshop on the thrid day, which was followed by two highly informative tours of Gaillard Island Confined Disposal Facility and Mobile Harbor, Alabama, and the Perdido Key Beach Nourishment Project, Florida. The following conclusions were drawn by workshop participants: beneficial uses already made have been significant; the CE could do more with the beneficial uses concept if it had greater authority to do so; in some areas such as marine fisheries, there are still needs for baseline data on beneficial use sites; every effort to continue seeking beneficial uses should be made; every effort to continue close communication, cooperation, and coordination with other agencies, offices, and concerns must be made; and another interagency workshop should be held in 12 to 18 months. (See W88-02564 thru W88-02583) (Geiger-PTT)
Isphording, W.C. and Anonymous . 1996. Sediment texture signatures in Gulf Coast estuaries.. The Journal of the Alabama Academy of Science 67(2): 82.
No Abstract Avaliable
Anonymous . 1996. Brevard County Shore Protection Project Review Study.. Brevard County, Florida, EPA: 714.
PURPOSE: The restoration of a protective and recreational beach along 24 miles of shoreline in Brevard County, located on the central east coast of Florida, is proposed. The project area is located between Canaveral Harbor and Spessard Holland Park and includes the city of Cape Canaveral, Cocoa Beach, Satellite Beach, Indian Harbour, Indialantic, and Melbourne Beach. The northern reach of the project area runs from Canaveral Harbor to the northern limit of Patrick Air Force Base (PAFB) while the southern reach extends from the southern limit of PAFB to Spessard Holland Park. The 4.5 miles of PAFB has been excluded from the project at their request. Beaches within the project area are in a state of severe erosion and shoreline recession. Investigative studies have determined that construction of a protective beach would be the optimal method of reducing damages to structures and shoreline property. The southern reach includes 32 acres of nearshore rock outcrops, composed of lithified coquina limestone, and the protection of these outcrops was a significant issue raised during the scoping process. In response to environmental agency concerns, the northern limit of the southern reach was modified to exclude the portion of the shoreline which contains these outcrops. The recommended project would involve placing approximately 2.5 million cubic yards (cy) of sand along 9.4 miles of beach in the northern reach of the project area and 1.6 million cy of sand along 3.4 miles of the southern reach. The borrow area is located two to three miles offshore of Canaveral Bight. Beach nourishment would be timed so as not to conflict with sea turtle nesting season. Nourishment would be provided at six-year intervals over the 50-year life of the project. Initial fill costs would be $1.7 million for the northern reach and $2.3 million for the southern reach. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce storm damage, benefit recreational resources, and protect shoreline property. The proj
Anonymous . 1997. Restoration of Assateague Island, Worcester County, Maryland.. Worcester County, Maryland, EPA: Main Report--387 pages and map, Appendices--317 pages and maps.
PURPOSE: The restoration of beach in the northern section of Assateague Island in Worcester County, Maryland, is proposed. The 300-square-mile project area includes the town of Ocean City, the Ocean City inlet, Assateague Island, and Assawoman, Little Assawoman, Isle of Wight, Sinepuxent, and Chincoteague bays. Because of changing coastal dynamics and dense population and development, the coastal environment has been degraded by inlet and shoreline stabilization. In the 1930s, the Corps of Engineers constructed a jetty system at the Ocean City Inlet in order to minimize future hurricane damage. However, the jetty system has interrupted the flow of sand to Assateague Island for more than 60 years. The island, which was designated a national seashore in 1965, is currently experiencing sand deprivation problems, which might soon result in a breach of the island during a severe ocean storm. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this draft EIS. Under the recommended plan, the short-term restoration plan would involve placing 1.8 million cubic yards of sand on Assateague Island. The borrow area to be used for the project is Great Gull Bank, an offshore shoal, and possibly a small portion of the ebb shoal. The area of Assateague to be renourished extends from 1.6 miles to 7 miles south of the inlet. The distance across the beach in that area would be increased to varying widths based on the erosion rates that affect each part of the beach. A low storm berm would be constructed to an elevation of 10.8 feet. The placement would be configured to restore the integrity of the island and yet to remain sensitive to the Piping Plovers, threatened and endangered birds found on the island. The estimated cost for the short-term plan, including five years of monitoring, is $17.2 million. A long-term plan for dealing with sand deprivation has not yet been developed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would reduce storm damage and benefit recreational resources by helping to prevent an ocean breach of Assateague Island. An additional inlet would change the dynamics of the area and create serious environmental and economic problems. A breach would result in a significant loss of wetlands as well as losses to recreational opportunities, damage to property, and hazards to navigation. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The project would cause the temporary disturbance of biotic habitats in the sand borrow areas and along the littoral zone in the immediate area of beach renourishment. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), River and Harbor Act of 1968, and Water Resources Development Act of 1996.
Page 1 of 1