Ranking mahoning river low head dams for removal
-
Upload
bishes-rayamajhi-eit -
Category
Engineering
-
view
107 -
download
1
Transcript of Ranking mahoning river low head dams for removal
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
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
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
Why Dam Removal Ranking?
• To assist dam removal authorities in planning and decision making for a priority based dam removal.
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
Project Area
7
Low Head Dams in Lower Mahoning River
S.N Dam OEPA River Mile
USACE River Mile
1 Lowellville Dam 12.60 12.982 Struthers Dam 15.83 16.193 Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.60 18.104 Mahoning Ave Dam 20.60 21.02
5 Crescent St. Dam22.56 23.02
6 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.38 26.97 Warren Main St. Dam 36.03 36.708 Warren Summit St. Dam 39.28 39.969 Leavittsburg Dam 45.58 46.10
8
Construction year: 1908-1915Dam height: 10 ft
Dam length: 195 ft
Lowellville Dam
9
Struthers Dam
Construction year: 1908-1915Dam height: 4.5 ftDam length: 160 ft
10
Center St. Dam
Construction year: 1908-1915Dam height: 4 ft
Dam length: 215 ft
11
Mahoning Ave Dam
Dam height: 6 ftDam length: 116 ft
12
Crescent St. Dam
Construction year: after 1915Dam height: 8.25 ftDam length: 148 ft
13
Girard Liberty St. Dam
Dam height: 9.25 ftDam length: 170 ft
14
Warren Main St. Dam
Construction year: around 1921Dam height: 7.5 ftDam length: 110 ft
15
Warren Summit St. Dam
Dam height: 11.7 ftDam length: 225 ft
16
Leavittsburg Dam
Dam height: 8 ftDam length: 190 ft
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
Dam Removal Rating Criteria
• Economics 20 pts.• Environmental 40 pts.• Other factors 40 pts.
19
Dam Removal Rating Table ECONOMICS (20)
(20) (20) (20) (10) (20) (10) (100)
1 Loweville Dam 12.62 Struthers Dam 15.833 Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.64 Mahoning Ave Dam 20.65 Crescent St Dam 22.566 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.387 Warren Main St. Dam 36.038 Warren Summit St Dam 39.289 Leavittsburg Dam 45.58
Dam RankingContaminated
sedimentsDam use
Total PointsDAM
ENVIRONMENTAL (40) OTHER FACTORS (40)
Dam removal cost
Free flowing river miles
increase due to removal
IBI improvement
due to removal
Bridge pier scouring
after removal
OEPA River Mile
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
Lowell
ville
Dam
Struthers
Dam
Youngst
own Center
St Dam
Youngst
own-Mah
oning Ave
Dam
Youngst
own-Crescen
t St. D
am
Girard
-Libert
y Stre
et Dam
Warr
en-M
ain St
reet D
am
Warr
en-Su
mmit Stre
et Dam
Leavitt
sburg
Dam
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
Dam
Rem
oval
Cos
t
(m
illio
n $)
Dam Removal Cost Prediction
22
Dam Removal Cost Ranking
Dam `River
miles
DamDam removal
cost as perAverage
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
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
Pre Dam Removal Condition
0 50000 100000 150000 200000780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elev
ation
(ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Left Levee
25
Post Dam Removal Condition
0 50000 100000 150000 200000780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elev
ation
(ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Left Levee
26
Water Surface Elevation Change Before and After Removal
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
Before removalAfter removal
River Miles (RM)
Wat
er S
urfa
ce E
lev
(ft)
Girard Dam
Crescent St. Dam
27
Velocity change pre and post dam removal
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 500
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
River Miles (RM)
Chan
ge in
vel
ocity
(ft/s
)
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
Free Flowing and Impounded River Reach
FromRiver
MilesTo
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
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
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
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
IBI prediction for Girard Pool
25 27 29 31 33 35 37 3915
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
Pre-removal
Post-removal
River Miles
IBI
scor
e
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
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
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
Contaminated Sediment Ranking
DamTotal 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
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
Final Ranking Score
DAMSOEPA 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
scouring 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
Final Ranking Score
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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ran
king
poi
nts
scor
ed
41
Cost Avoided Ranking Score
Lowev
ille Dam
Struthers
Dam
Center
St. (H
azelto
n) Dam
Mahoning A
ve Dam
Crescen
t St D
am
Girard
Libert
y St. D
am
Warr
en M
ain St
. Dam
Warr
en Su
mmit St D
am0
10
20
30
40
50R
anki
ng p
oint
s sc
ored
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
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
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
ReferencesAdhikary 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, YSUKanehl, 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 501-509Schroeder, 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
Questions and Suggestions