Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Ranking mahoning river low head dams for removal

920 views

Published on

Published in: Engineering
  • Is Soil Remediation Incorporated still going to dump solids into the river after it has been cleaned?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Ranking mahoning river low head dams for removal

  1. 1. Ranking of Lower Mahoning River Low Head Dams for Removal Bishes Rayamajhi Supervisor: Dr. Scott C. Martin Supervisor: Dr. Hans M. Tritico Committee Member: Dr. Lauren A. Schroeder
  2. 2. Goals of Research • Develop a quantitative rating system to evaluate the costs and benefits of dam removal. • Apply the rating system to the nine remaining low head dams on the Lower Mahoning River, • Rank the dams based on priority for removal. 2
  3. 3. Why Dam Removal? • Restore river and fish habitat, • Improve riparian zone and water quality, • Increase recreational activities, • Transform the river to free flowing once again. 4
  4. 4. Why Dam Removal Ranking? • To assist dam removal authorities in planning and decision making for a priority based dam removal. 5
  5. 5. Introduction • Mahoning River is 108 miles long. • Starts in Columbiana County, Ohio, and flows northward to Warren, Ohio and then southeasterly to New Castle, PA • Joins the Shenango River to form the Beaver River(USACE 2006). • The ODNR has defined the low head dam as; – a dam of low height usually less than fifteen feet – made of timber, stone, concrete and other structural material or combination of these. 6
  6. 6. Project Area 7
  7. 7. Low Head Dams in Lower Mahoning River S.N Dam OEPA River Mile USACE River Mile 1 Lowellville Dam 12.60 12.98 2 Struthers Dam 15.83 16.19 3 Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.60 18.10 4 Mahoning Ave Dam 20.60 21.02 5 Crescent St. Dam 22.56 23.02 6 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.38 26.9 7 Warren Main St. Dam 36.03 36.70 8 Warren Summit St. Dam 39.28 39.96 9 Leavittsburg Dam 45.58 46.10 8
  8. 8. Construction year: 1908-1915 Dam height: 10 ft Dam length: 195 ft Lowellville Dam 9
  9. 9. Struthers Dam Construction year: 1908-1915 Dam height: 4.5 ft Dam length: 160 ft 10
  10. 10. Center St. Dam Construction year: 1908-1915 Dam height: 4 ft Dam length: 215 ft 11
  11. 11. Mahoning Ave Dam Dam height: 6 ft Dam length: 116 ft 12
  12. 12. Crescent St. Dam Construction year: after 1915 Dam height: 8.25 ft Dam length: 148 ft 13
  13. 13. Girard Liberty St. Dam Dam height: 9.25 ft Dam length: 170 ft 14
  14. 14. Warren Main St. Dam Construction year: around 1921 Dam height: 7.5 ft Dam length: 110 ft 15
  15. 15. Warren Summit St. Dam Dam height: 11.7 ft Dam length: 225 ft 16
  16. 16. Leavittsburg Dam Dam height: 8 ft Dam length: 190 ft 17
  17. 17. Literature Review • None of 32 river miles in lower Mahoning River meet the warm water habitat criteria (OEPA, 1996). • Impairment of biota is due to dams, contaminated sediments, and “residual stressors” (Schroeder, 2005). • OEPA 2010 studies indicate significant improvements in biota since 1994 which might be due to natural attenuation of bottom sediment contaminants, removal of residual stressors. 18
  18. 18. Dam Removal Rating Criteria • Economics 20 pts. • Environmental 40 pts. • Other factors 40 pts. 19
  19. 19. Dam Removal Rating Table ECONOMICS (20) (20) (20) (20) (10) (20) (10) (100) 1 Loweville Dam 12.6 2 Struthers Dam 15.83 3 Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.6 4 MahoningAve Dam 20.6 5 Crescent St Dam 22.56 6 Girard LibertySt. Dam 26.38 7 WarrenMainSt. Dam 36.03 8 WarrenSummit St Dam 39.28 9 LeavittsburgDam 45.58 Dam Ranking Contaminated sediments Damuse Total PointsDAM ENVIRONMENTAL (40) OTHER FACTORS (40) Damremoval cost Free flowing rivermiles increase due to removal IBI improvement due to removal Bridge pier scouring after removal OEPA River Mile 20
  20. 20. Dam Removal Cost • Average proportion of dam removal cost and dam area (L*H) was used. Heinz Center: Average (Dam removal cost/Area) = 153 $/ft2 ODNR: Average (Dam removal cost/Area) = 76 $/ft2 • Ranking score = (1 – Average cost/0.3) x 20 • High cost was ranked low 21
  21. 21. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 ODNR Heinz Center Average cost DamRemovalCost (million$) Dam Removal Cost Prediction 22
  22. 22. Dam Removal Cost Ranking Dam ` River miles Dam Dam removal cost as per Average Cost Million $ Ranking PointsHeight (ft) Length (ft) Area (sft) ODNR million $ Heinz center million $ Lowellville 12.60 10 195 1950 0.15 0.30 0.23 5.0 Struthers 15.83 4.5 160 656 0.05 0.11 0.08 14.7 Center St. 17.60 4 215 860 0.07 0.13 0.10 13.3 Mahoning Ave 20.60 6 116 696 0.05 0.11 0.08 14.7 Crescent St. 22.56 8.25 148 1221 0.09 0.19 0.14 10.7 Girard-Liberty St. 26.38 9.25 170 1572.5 0.12 0.24 0.18 8.0 Warren-Main St. 36.03 7.5 110 825 0.06 0.13 0.10 13.7 Warren-Summit St. 39.28 11.7 225 2632.5 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.0 Leavittsburg 45.58 8 190 1520 0.12 0.23 0.18 8.3 23
  23. 23. HEC-RAS Simulation of Mahoning River • Hydrologic Engineer Centers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) – River modeling software developed by USACE. • The HEC-RAS file was provided by the USACE. • HEC-RAS geometry file consisted eight dams excluding Leavittsburg dam. • A steady-state simulation was run for pre and post dam removal. • Flow data from four USGS gauging stations was used. 24
  24. 24. Pre Dam Removal Condition 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 Main Channel Distance (ft) Elevation(ft) Legend WS PF 1 Ground Left Levee 25
  25. 25. Post Dam Removal Condition 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 780 800 820 840 860 880 900 920 Main Channel Distance (ft) Elevation(ft) Legend WS PF 1 Ground Left Levee 26
  26. 26. Water Surface Elevation Change Before and After Removal 790 800 810 820 830 840 850 860 870 880 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 WaterSurfaceElev(ft) River Miles (RM) Before removal After removal Girard Dam Crescent St. Dam 27
  27. 27. Velocity change pre and post dam removal 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Changeinvelocity(ft/s) River Miles (RM) 28
  28. 28. Free Flowing and Impounded River Length Determination • Arbitrary change in river depth of 0.2 ft or higher after removal was considered an impounded reach. • All impounded reaches are assumed to change to free flowing reach after removal. • Ranking score = (Impounded River length)/9.80 * 10 • Ranking score varied linearly 29
  29. 29. Free Flowing and Impounded River Reach From River Miles To River Miles Total River Miles Miles of River Reach Dam ranking points Impounded (∆D>or = 0.2 ft) Free Flowing (∆D < 0.2 ft) PA/OH border 0 Lowellville Dam 12.98 12.98 0 12.98 Lowellville Dam 12.98 Struthers Dam 16.19 3.22 2.01 1.21 2.0 Struthers Dam 16.19 Center St. Dam 18.10 1.91 1.76 0.16 1.8 Center St. Dam 18.10 Mahoning Ave Dam 21.04 2.94 0.18 2.76 0.2 Mahoning Ave. Dam 21.04 Crescent St. Dam 23.02 1.98 0.98 1.00 1.0 Crescent St. Dam 23.02 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.9 3.88 3.56 0.32 3.6 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.9 Warren Main St. Dam 36.70 9.80 9.80 0 10.0 Warren Main St. Dam 36.70 Summit St. Dam 39.96 3.26 0.75 2.51 0.8 Summit St. Dam 39.96 DS Leavittsburg Dam 45.36 5.4 2.04 3.36 2.1 30
  30. 30. IBI Model • Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is a representation for the fish habitat in the river. • OEPA (1996) IBI values and USACE HEC-RAS velocity were used. • Predicted IBI = 3.52*V + 0.606*RM • ∆IBI = (Predicted post-dam removal IBI) – (Predicted pre-dam removal IBI) 31
  31. 31. IBI Model • The length between two river miles was taken into account to consider IBI improvement over river length. • Ranking score = ∑(∆IBI * ∆L)/13.4 * 20 32
  32. 32. IBI Ranking Pool Upstream ∑ ∆IBI * ∆L IBI points Lowellville 3.767 5.6 Struthers 2.388 3.6 Center St. 0.782 1.2 Mahoning Ave 3.342 5.0 Crescent St. 7.456 11.2 Girard Liberty St. 13.37 20.0 Warren Main St. 0.431 0.6 Warren Summit St. 4.961 7.4 33
  33. 33. IBI prediction for Girard Pool 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 Pre-removal Post-removal River Miles IBIscore 34
  34. 34. Bridge Pier Scouring Potential • Low ranking for high scouring potential • Change in velocity (∆V) at the cross-section just upstream of a bridge • Number of bridge piers (N) in river were determined from HEC-RAS bridge cross- section • Ranking score = (1 – ∑(N *∆V)/8) * 10 35
  35. 35. Bridge Pier Scouring Potential Ranking U/S of DAM ∑N*∆V Ranking Points Lowellville Dam 1.29 8.4 Struthers Dam 0.46 9.4 Center St. Dam 0.24 9.7 Mahoning Ave. Dam 7.11 1.1 Crescent St. Dam 6.83 1.5 Girard Liberty St. Dam 2.42 7.0 Warren Main St. Dam 0.00 10.0 Summit St. Dam 4.08 4.9 36
  36. 36. Sediment Contamination • Higher sediment accumulation was given low ranking • Sediment data from USACE 2006 was used • Mahoning River sediment contamination represented by Total Recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TRPH) • River sediment volume with contamination level of >700 mg/kg TRPH was used for ranking • Ranking score = (1 – Total Sediment/198,000)*20 37
  37. 37. Contaminated Sediment Ranking Dam Total Sediment Volume >700 mg/kg TRPH (CY) Ranking Points Lowellville Dam 40,000 16 Struthers Dam 37,000 16 Center St. Hazelton Dam 62,000 14 Mahoning Ave. Dam 57,000 14 Crescent St. Dam 94,000 11 Girard - Liberty St. Dam 198,000 0 Warren -Main St. Dam 67,000 13 Warren - Summit St. Dam 41,000 16 38
  38. 38. Dam Use • Low ranking was given to dams being used. • Girard dam and Warren Main St. dam were being used for water supply purposes by industries (WCI Steel, McDonald Steel, Reliant Energy) • Leavittsburg dam pool is used for canoeing • Remaining six dams are unused or abandoned • Probable water level drop in river after removed was considered for ranking 39
  39. 39. Final Ranking Score DAMS OEPA River Mile ECONOMICS (20) ENVIRONMENTAL (40) OTHER FACTORS (40) Total Points Dam Ranking Dam Removal Cost Free Flowing River Miles Increase due to removal IBI improvement due to removal Bridge piers scourin g after removal Contaminated Sediments Dam use (20) (20) (20) (10) (20) (10) (100) Struthers Dam 15.83 14.7 3.6 3.6 9.4 16 10 57.3 1 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.38 8 20 20 7 0 0 55.0 2 Crescent St Dam 22.56 10.7 7.2 11.2 1.5 11 10 51.6 3 Loweville Dam 12.6 5 4 5.6 8.4 16 10 49.0 4 Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.6 13.3 0.4 1.2 9.7 14 10 48.6 5 Mahoning Ave Dam 20.6 14.7 2 5 1.1 14 10 46.8 6 Warren Main St. Dam 36.03 13.7 1.6 0.6 10 13 5 43.9 7 Warren Summit St Dam 39.28 0 4.2 7.4 4.9 16 10 42.5 8 Leavittsburg Dam 45.58 8.3 6 40
  40. 40. Final Ranking Score 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Loweville Dam Struthers Dam Center St. (Hazelton) Dam Mahoning Ave Dam Crescent St Dam Girard Liberty St. Dam Warren Main St. Dam Warren Summit St Dam Rankingpointsscored 41
  41. 41. Cost Avoided Ranking Score 0 10 20 30 40 50 Loweville Dam Struthers Dam Center St. (Hazelton) Dam Mahoning Ave Dam Crescent St Dam Girard Liberty St. Dam Warren Main St. Dam Warren Summit St Dam Rankingpointsscored 42
  42. 42. Conclusion • Velocity increase after dam removal would have environmental benefits but may be detrimental for bridge piers. • The major change in water velocity and depth due to dam removal is found in the river reach just upstream of the dam. • IBI scores were predicted to increase for most of the river reach due to the dam removal but still did not meet the criteria for warm water habitat (i.e. IBI>40). • 21.1 river miles (i.e. 65% of the total) is presently impounded by the eight low head dams (9.8 miles impounded by Girard dam). 43
  43. 43. Conclusion • Final dam removal ranking will help in decision making for dam removal authorities. • Removal of Struthers dam will act as a model project. 44
  44. 44. Recommendations • Dam removal permits – determine USACE permitting requirements; is sediment removal required? • Perform more detailed studies of sediment erosion and bridge pier scouring potential. • Obtain more detailed cost estimates. 45
  45. 45. References Adhikary B., Majumdar P., and Kostic Milivoje., 2009. Simulation of open channel turbulent flow over bridge decks and formation of scour hole beneath the bridge under flooding conditions. International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition. Bednarek A. T. 2001. Undamming Rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Bushaw - Newton, K. L., D. D. Hart, J. E. Pizzuto, J.R. Thomson, J. E. Egan, J. T. Ashley, T. E. Johnson,R. J. Horwitz, M. Keeley, J. Lawrence, D.Charles, C. Gatenby, D. A. Kreeger, T. Nightengale,R. L. Thomas, and D. J. Velinsky, 2002. An integrative approach towards understanding ecological responses to dam removal: the Manatawny Creek study. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 38:1581–1599. Doyle M. W., Stanley E. H., Orr C. H., Selle A. R., Sethi S. A., Harbor J. M., 2004. Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland. Friends of Earth, American Rivers and Trout Unlimited, 1999. Dam Removal Success Stories. Heinz Center, 2002. Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making. John D. Bralich, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, YSU Kanehl, P. D., J. Lyons, and J. E. Nelson. 1997. Changes in the habitat and fish community of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:387–400. Mahoning River Field Visit on Feb 7, 2011, Sept 6, 2011 and Sept 29, 2011. Martin, S.C. 2004, Mahoning River Watershed Action Plan. Nuskievicz T., Envirionmental & Floodplain/CRS Coordinator (GIS Specialist), Trumbull County Planning Commission . ODNR 2006, Low Head Dams and Removal Projects http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/tabid/3357/Default.aspx ODNR Division of Soil and Water Resources, 2006. Dam Safety Program http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/dsafety/whatdam/tabid/3342/Default.aspx OEPA Technical Report, 1996. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mahoning River Basin. OEPA, 2010. Biological and Water Quality Study, Mahoning River. Former Wean United Property. OEPA, 2010. Biological and Water Quality Study, Mahoning River. Former YS&T Seamless Tube Mill, Campbell Facility. Poff, N. L., and D. D. Hart, 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience 52:659–668. Pohl, M. 2001. Constructing Knowledge on American Dam Removals in US Society on Dams, The Future of Dams and Their Reservoirs, Denver (CO):USSD at 501-509 Schroeder, L. A. Relative Importance of Sediment Contamination, Low Head Dams and Residual Stressors on the Biotic Integrity of the Mahoning River. Stanley, E. H., and M. W. Doyle, 2003. Trading off the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:15–22. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001. Lower Mahoning River, Pennsylvania, Environmental Dredging Reconnaissance Study. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement. Wood, P. J., and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21(2):203–217. 46
  46. 46. Questions and Suggestions 47

×