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