Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies-White, Carter-Cornell, 2012
•Als PPT, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•1,064 views
Approximately 12.5 million tons of cargo is shipped annually in the Cleveland Harbor. To maintain this federal navigation channel, an average of approximately 300,000 cubic yards of sediment is dredged every year. Dredged sediments from the Cuyahoga River do not meet Ohio EPA standards for open lake placement. Existing confined disposal facilities (CDFs) are near design capacity and the cost and challenges to locate, design and construct new CDFs cannot be completed under current U.S. ACE budgets. Also, this work could not be accomplished before the existing CDF capacity is exhausted. The Port Authority is completing a sustainable sediment management study to identify and evaluate both near and long-term solutions to address this crisis. Presenters will share research findings and study results regarding the expanded use of existing CDFs through increased capacity, beneficial use for upland site restoration, and creation of beneficial use products, among others. This “Science of the Great Lakes” session will also include planned steps for implementation of study recommendations.
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Andere mochten auch
Andere mochten auch (10)
Ähnlich wie Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies-White, Carter-Cornell, 2012
Ähnlich wie Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies-White, Carter-Cornell, 2012 (20)
Mehr von Healthy Lakes, Healthy Lives
Mehr von Healthy Lakes, Healthy Lives (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (13)
Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies-White, Carter-Cornell, 2012
- 1. September 12, 2012 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies
- 2. Presenters • James White, Director of Sustainable Infrastructure Programs, Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority • Peter Kotulak, P.E., Associate, Senior Coastal Engineer, Moffatt & Nichol • Shawn McGee, P.E., Senior Project Manager / Geoenvironmental Practice Leader, Hull & Associates, Inc. • Kristin Gardner, Scientist, Hull & Associates, Inc. 2 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 3. Overview of the Port of Cleveland and Current Initiatives James White, Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority 3
- 4. Port of Cleveland • 800 freighter trips per year average • Regular deliveries from fleet of 14 cargo vessels • Average length of 630-711 ft. • Operated by eight companies • 12.5 million tons of cargo delivered • Primarily iron ore, limestone, cement, salt • Dredged depth of 23 ft. allows 20,000- 23,000 tons per delivery • 1” of loss of depth = 110 tons of cargo 4 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 5. Port of Cleveland • 17,800 jobs associated with maritime activity • $1.08 billion in personal income • $112.3 million in state & local taxes • $508 million in local purchases 5 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 6. Port of Cleveland 6 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 7. Port of Cleveland's Strategic Action Plan – Adopted in September 2011 – Lays foundation for Port being a pro-active steward of the river-lake system – Focuses on three key themes and seven recommendations 7 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 8. Sustainable Sediment Management Strate gy Elements • Best management practices – Bed load interception • Existing CDF optimization • Beneficial use of dredged material – Redevelopment projects – Unrestricted open-lake placement 8 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 9. River Sediment System Source: Geology Dept., Indiana University 9 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 10. Cuyahoga River Bed Load Interception • Bed load can be captured through passive means before it reaches the navigational channel • Key benefits of bed load interception: – Less costly than dredging and placement in CDFs – Reduces the dredging requirements – Bed load sediment is typically cleaner – Well suited for a wide variety of beneficial upland uses 10 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 11. Cuyahoga River Bed Load Interceptor Results • Confirmed the 2010 study that Cuyahoga River sediments are susceptible to bed load interception • Grain-size distribution indicates material that is suitable of a variety of uses • Harvested bed load is cleaner than background soils and is considered by Ohio EPA to be suitable for unrestricted uses 11 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 12. Sand Bar Reshaping/ Mobilizing Sediment 12 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 13. Grain Size Distribution Sieve # MM % Cum % Engineering Uses 22.94 20 .850 22.94 Aggregate Fill 30.86 30 .580 7.92 Aggregate Fill 44.94 40 .425 14.08 Aggregate Fill 76.69 50 .279 31.75 Aggregate Fill Eng Soils 98.66 100 .150 21.97 Fill Eng Soils 99.74 200 .075 1.08 Fill Eng Soils 100 Pan <.075 .25 Fill Eng Soils Totals 76.69 % 100 % 55.05 % 13 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 14. Comparative Bed Load Toxicity Comparative Bed Load EPA Standards Undisturbed Samples at Soils RM 11.5 RCRA Residential- Industrial- Mg/kg Background S1 S2 S3 S4 1x10-6 1x10-6 Arsenic .39 1.60 20.73 7.8 9.7 5.6 8.1 Barium 15,000 196,000 59.27 32 39 19 32 Chromium .30 5.6 21.0 7.2 9.5 5.4 8.4 Lead 15.00 800 24.0 13 18 8.5 20 Mercury 23.00 43 .06 - - - .02 Acetone 61,000 630,000 .078 Benzene 1.10 5.40 .0011 PCB1254 .22 .74 .27 14 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 15. Cuyahoga River Bed Load Interceptor – Next Steps • Verification of bed load technology for long-term use • Verification of collected sediment use for unrestricted purposes • Development of a consumption demand for the materials • Incorporate results into final hydrodynamic model and sustainable sediment strategy 15 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 16. Hydrodynamic Model Peter Kotulak, P.E., Moffatt & Nichol 16
- 17. Over view of Cuyahoga River Hydrodynamic and Sedimentation Model 17 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 18. Study Objectives • Improve understanding of sediment transport in the lower Cuyahoga River – Establish relation between discharge and sedimentation rates and sediment distribution (sand and mud) • Develop 2D hydrodynamic, sediment transport, and morphological model of lower Cuyahoga River – Calibrate model to observed sedimentation patterns • Generate dredging projections and evaluate sediment management alternatives 18 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 19. Model Development and Calibration 19 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 20. Calibration/Validation Periods 20 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 21. Calibration 1: Medium Flow Observed Sedimentation (CY) Fraction Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Very Fine Sand 176 1,226 285 1,687 Fine Sand 748 920 142 1,810 Medium Sand 1,345 123 0 1,467 Very Coarse Sand 2,550 0 0 2,550 Total Sand 4,819 2,268 427 7,514 Mud 1,782 22,255 16,649 40,686 Total 6,601 24,524 17,076 48,201 Modeled Sedimentation (CY) Fraction Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Very Fine Sand 423 551 32 1,006 Fine Sand 1,134 38 11 1,183 Medium Sand 573 -1 1 573 Very Coarse Sand 1,453 0 0 1,453 Total Sand 3,584 588 43 4,216 Observed Modeled Mud 2,204 18,954 29,733 50,891 Total 5,788 19,542 29,776 55,107 21 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 22. Validation 1: High Flow Observed Sedimentation (CY) Fraction Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Very Fine Sand 520 2,374 336 3,230 Fine Sand 2,210 1,781 168 4,158 Medium Sand 3,972 237 0 4,209 Very Coarse Sand 7,532 0 0 7,532 Total Sand 14,233 4,392 504 19,129 Mud 5,264 43,089 19,663 68,016 Total 19,497 47,481 20,167 87,145 Modeled Sedimentation (CY) Fraction Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Very Fine Sand 1,424 2,824 86 4,334 Fine Sand 4,245 168 26 4,438 Medium Sand 2,409 1 0 2,411 Very Coarse Sand 7,164 0 0 7,164 Total Sand 15,243 2,993 112 18,347 Observed Modeled Mud 3,237 48,989 79,818 132,043 Total 18,480 51,981 79,929 150,390 22 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 23. Validation 2: Low Flow Observed Sedimentation (CY) Fraction Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Very Fine Sand 66 1,208 189 1,463 Fine Sand 282 906 95 1,282 Medium Sand 507 121 0 628 Very Coarse Sand 961 0 0 961 Total Sand 1,817 2,234 284 4,335 Mud 672 21,917 11,085 33,674 Total 2,489 24,151 11,369 38,009 Modeled Sedimentation (CY) Fraction Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Total Very Fine Sand 63 6 0 69 Fine Sand 60 0 0 60 Medium Sand 28 0 0 28 Very Coarse Sand 29 0 0 29 Total Sand 181 6 0 187 Observed Modeled Mud 2,822 14,759 15,760 33,341 Total 3,003 14,765 15,760 33,528 23 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 24. Model Calibration Summary • Model calibration/validation performed to 3 different time periods with very different flow conditions • Model is capable of reproducing observed sedimentation patterns • Model closely matches observed sedimentation conditions for Zones 1 and 2 • Model over predicts sedimentation in Zone 3 (silts and clays) • Model produces a tool well suited to accomplish study objectives 24 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 25. Evaluation of Sediment Management Alternatives • Sedimentation Modeling of Bed Load Collection Device • Erodible bed downstream of trap, not effective • Shallow sediment trap, performs poorly • Deep sediment trap, performs well (traps all sediment, at least initially, except very fine sand) • Deep sediment trap with continuous sediment removal, performs well (traps all sediment except very fine sand) 25 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 26. Sediment Model Results Baseline Conditions Sediment Trap Sediment Trap, Non-Erodible Sediment Trap, Non-Erodible + Dredging 26 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 27. Animation: Sediment Trap, Non-Erodible 27 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 28. Existing CDF Optimization Peter Kotulak, P.E., Moffatt & Nichol Shawn McGee, P.E., Hull & Associates, Inc. 28
- 29. Cleveland CDFs 29 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 30. FAA Imaginary Obstruction-free Surfaces 30 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 31. Burke Lakefront Airport Imaginary Obstruction-free Surfaces :1 50 E FAC S UR H O AC PR 7:1 AP E F AC SUR TI ON D I LW ANS .5 ’ TR . 12 E EL FAC S UR Y M AR I PR 31 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 32. 32 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12
- 33. Conceptual CDF Dike Raising PE S LO 33 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 34. Potential Capacity Available Above Elevation 12.5 FT LWD (REMAINING CAPACITY BELOW 12.5 FT LWD APPROXIMATELY 1 MCY) Potential West East Area Capacity Elevation Elevation (MCY) (FT, LWD) (FT, LWD) CDF 10B 1.5 36 72 CDF 9 1.3 72 83 CDF 12 2.5 29 64 CDF 12 0.8 71 117 (Optional) Existing 1.0 12.5 12.5 Total 7.1 34 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 35. CDF 12 UPWARD VERTICAL EXPANSION PLAN & SECTIONS 35 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 36. Operations/Dewatering for Both Capacity and Soil Strength Gains • Perimeter Trenching • Dewatering • Dike Construction • Additional Trenching • Mechanical Unloading 36 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 37. PERIMETER TRENCHING, DEWATERING AND DIKE CONSTRUCTION 37 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 38. PERIMETER TRENCHING, DEWATERING AND DIKE CONSTRUCTION 38 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 39. PERIMETER TRENCHING, DEWATERING AND DIKE CONSTRUCTION 39 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 40. DIKE CONSTRUCTION WITH DREDGED MATERIAL 40 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 41. 2012 Geotechnical Exploration • Exploration and evaluation of geotechnical conditions for CDFs 9, 10B and 12 in April/May 2012 • 16 borings spatially distributed across dikes • Borings advanced to a depth between 20 - 65 feet below existing ground surface • Completed to supplement existing geotechnical data • to facilitate the design of dike rehabilitation and/or raising • to provide basic information relative to potential CDF dewatering activities 41 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 42. Additional Geotechnical Data Needs and Future Explorations • Additional geotechnical exploration activities may be necessary • Data will better confirm assumptions and design parameters used in the dike raising for the CDF vertical expansion 42 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 43. Beneficial Use Shawn McGee, P.E., Hull & Associates, Inc. Kristin Gardner, Hull & Associates, Inc. 43
- 44. Kolthoff Road Landfill 44 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 45. Cuyahoga Valley Industrial Center 45 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 46. Cleveland Lakefront Nature Preserve (formerly Dike 14) 46 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 47. Sediment Characterization • Material is primarily sand and gravel • Part of study is to evaluate all beneficial use and placement options – Treating sediment as a commodity- with market value- not as a discarded waste – Options include bed load interceptor, upland placement, optimizing existing CDFs, open lake placement (including use for aquatic habitat along north side of breakwater and other shoreline areas) – Evaluations include option feasibility, cost, environmental impacts, and others 47 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 48. Sediment Characterization • What additional sampling characterization should be completed to facilitate the unrestricted beneficial use in an upland or open-lake location of all, or a portion of, dredged material? 48 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 49. USACE Sampling History • The USACE completes full characterization of maintained channel sediments every 5 years – 2002, 2007, 2012 • ERDC completed supplemental sampling in 2010 as part of a beneficial use suitability study – 2010 data suggest sediment quality in the upper reach has improved 49 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 50. Upper River Reach 50 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 51. Middle, Lower, and Old River Reaches 51 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 52. Open-Lake Placement Suitability Sampling • USACE assessing suitability of upper reach sediments for open-lake placement – Additional sediment and water column toxicity testing for Upper Reach DMMUs and proposed open-lake placement areas • Port planning is focused on use of sediments for creation or enhancement of aquatic habitat 52 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 53. Recommended Sediment Quality Evaluation • Use of Sediment Quality Guideline (SQG) dependent on placement location – Upland Use • USEPA Region 9 Preliminary Remediation Goals • Voluntary Action Program Commercial/Industrial Standards • Sediment Reference Value – In-Water • USEPA Region 5 Ecological Screening Levels • Sediment Quality Guidelines for Freshwater Ecosystems (MacDonald, 2000) 53 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 54. Sediment Sampling Recommendations • Use systematic approach to complete comprehensive characterization to facilitate the unrestricted beneficial use of all or a portion of dredged material in an upland or open-lake location • Baseline Characterization – Identify additional potential COC source areas (e.g. outfalls) – Collect additional samples in shoulders, COC source areas, and upstream of channel – Complete historic data review and trend analysis – Screen results to identify acceptable sediment management options for specific channel reaches • Future characterizations based on disposition and findings 54 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 55. Sediment Sampling Recommendations 55 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 56. Next Steps • Finalize design supporting CDF vertical expansion • Continue characterization of stream model • Continue discussions with Ohio EPA regarding proposed immediate/baseline and long-term characterization program • Baseline and predictor model of potential COC limitations (spatial and intended use/management) • Refine modified CDF construction and operation cost estimate • Complete upstream direct offload cost estimates • Funding – Cleveland-Cuyahoga Port Authority levy • Schedule 56 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 57. Final Thoughts •Currently no statewide management framework; options/costs are site specific with highly variable pricing •Many federal, state and local stakeholders are working collaboratively to develop sustainable sediment management solutions for Cleveland Harbor with integrated community benefits 57 Cleveland Harbor Sustainable Sediment Management Strategies Sediment management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12 Great Lakes Restoration Conference
- 58. James White Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority james.white@portofcleveland.com (216) 377-1337 Peter Kotulak, P.E. Shawn McGee, P.E. Kristin Gardner Moffatt & Nichol Hull & Associates, Inc. Hull & Associates, Inc. pkotulak@moffattnichol.com smcgee@hullinc.com kgardner@hullinc.com (410) 563-7300 (440) 232-9945 (419) 385-2018 Thank you! 58
- 59. Goodtime III Dinner Cruise: Trolleys depart starting at 5:45 pm 59 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12
- 60. Spread the word! Wireless password: HOW12 Conference website: Conference.healthylakes.org Email us photos, comments, tweets or video: healthylakes@gmail.com On Twitter? Use the hashtag: #healthylakes 60 Sediment Management Engineering Services – Status Update 5/12/12
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Jenny – introduce speakers at one time
- Created in 1968 and includes 125 acres of waterfront property Averages 10 million – 15 million tons of domestic and international trade annually Average of approximately 230,000 cubic yards of sediment is dredged every year from the federal channel Material does not meet standards for open-lake placement Currently placed into confined disposal facilities (CDFs) CDFs are nearing capacity and are very costly and timely to permit/construct Cleveland Harbor is 5 th busiest port on Great Lakes Cleveland Harbor is identified as a “Critical” Dredged Material Management Status - access to the shipping channel could be restricted within 5 years Several industries along river depend on navigable waters of the Cuyahoga to move goods Assurance of navigable waters also helps in promotion of real estate to future users The Ship Channel depth of 23 feet acts as a settling basin for sediments (sand, soil, and gravel). Each year, 200,000 to 250,000 cubic yards of sediment is dredged from the channel. Currently, because of latent toxicity which is above levels that would allow open lake placement, the dredged materials are placed in Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs), developed and managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Local CDFs are nearing capacity and very costly (local cost share for a new CDF could be $100 million). New alternative methods for dealing with sediment need to be developed. Jim – how much is dredged from the non-federal channel?
- Created in 1968 and includes 125 acres of waterfront property Averages 10 million – 15 million tons of domestic and international trade annually Average of approximately 230,000 cubic yards of sediment is dredged every year from the federal channel Material does not meet standards for open-lake placement Currently placed into confined disposal facilities (CDFs) CDFs are nearing capacity and are very costly and timely to permit/construct Cleveland Harbor is 5 th busiest port on Great Lakes Cleveland Harbor is identified as a “Critical” Dredged Material Management Status - access to the shipping channel could be restricted within 5 years Several industries along river depend on navigable waters of the Cuyahoga to move goods Assurance of navigable waters also helps in promotion of real estate to future users The Ship Channel depth of 23 feet acts as a settling basin for sediments (sand, soil, and gravel). Each year, 200,000 to 250,000 cubic yards of sediment is dredged from the channel. Currently, because of latent toxicity which is above levels that would allow open lake placement, the dredged materials are placed in Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs), developed and managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Local CDFs are nearing capacity and very costly (local cost share for a new CDF could be $100 million). New alternative methods for dealing with sediment need to be developed. Jim – how much is dredged from the non-federal channel?
- The Cuyahoga Ship Channel- (the lower 5.5 miles of the Cuyahoga River) is a critical tool of the regional economy, providing access for maritime commerce which supports 17,000 jobs in the NE Ohio.
- The Port Authority has stepped up to the plate to lead an effort to reduce the amount of sediment entering the harbor and evaluate opportunities for the beneficial use of dredged material. The Port of Cleveland's Strategic Action Plan policies calls on the Port to step up in unprecedented ways to deliver on community ambitions for job creation, economic vitality, and waterfront renewal. The Plan is organized around three key themes, seven recommendations, and a set of implementing actions: explain. As part of recommendation 3, there are several action items that the Port is seeking to implement. Recommendation 3 of the Port Authority’s newly adopted Strategic Plan includes Leading Critical Initiatives for River Renewal and Infrastructure Improvements. This recommendation includes action items for the Port to Lead Development of a Sustainable Sediment Management Program that Focuses on Beneficial Use and to Aggressively Pursue Interagency Agreements and Funding Opportunities to Implement the Program This initiative is based on the premise that all of the dredged sediment is not a waste product, but rather a significant portion may be a resource that can be used to benefit the community and used for a variety of markets and uses. In order to pursue implementing this initiative, the Port is undertaking a variety of activities, which will be the focus of today’s session.
- The Port has taken the lead on developing a sustainable sediment management strategy which includes employing BMPs, which intercept the sediment prior to reaching the open lake. While there are a variety of BMPs, today I will discuss bed load interception. In addition to BMPs, optimizing the CDF and beneficially using some or all of the dredged material for beneficial use projects such as brownfields and development, and potential unrestricted open-lake placement. In order to develop these elements, the Port is working with representatives from Hull & Associates and Moffatt and Nichol, Inc., who are assisting with developing and implementing portions of this strategy, including a hydrodynamic and sediment characterization approach. The Port is also working with Streamside Systems and the University of Akron to complete a bed load interception study, which is investigating the feasibility of intercepting some of the sediment before it reaches the navigation channel.
- Sediment moves downstream in a river system in suspended and dissolved form. Dissolved and suspended are small particles that do not easily settle out. Suspended sediments , consisting of very fine particles and organics, move mostly during higher river discharge periods. Bed load sediment is comprised of heavier, larger grain sized material and bounce and tumble along the bottom. Bed load sediments move constantly in all flow conditions. As part of its strategic leadership for sediment management, the Port of Cleveland has been studying bed load interception technology, developed and patented by Streamside Systems (an Ohio company) as one possible tool in an array of potential sediment management techniques. Bed load interception would be used to catch sediment before it enters and settles in the ship channel.
- As part of its strategic leadership for sediment management, the Port of Cleveland has been studying bed load interception technology, developed and patented by Streamside Systems (an Ohio company) as one possible tool in an array of potential sediment management techniques. Bed load interception would be used to catch sediment before it enters and settles in the ship channel. Key benefits of bed load interception: Bed load interception is significantly less costly than dredging and placement in CDFs (less than one quarter of typical dredging and disposal costs) Reducing dredging requirements by bed load interception extends the useful life of CDFs. Bed load sediment is cleaner. It has significantly less latent toxicity and is less impacted by the effects of urban run-off and discharge from Combined Sewer Overflows. Clean, granular, harvested bed load is well suited for a wide variety of beneficial upland uses.
- Empirical Confirmation - In the spring of 2012 the Port Authority sponsored a study by the University of Akron. The study included: Temporary placement and operation of passive bed load sediment collectors from Streamside Systems, in two of locations in the natural flowing river (river mile 11.5 at Kurtz Bros. and river mile 21 in Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Both sites were upstream of the Ship Channel and also above the influence of discharges from Combine Sewer overflows; Daily retrieval of bed load materials from the collectors; Characterization of the collected materials for grain size distribution and related engineering properties; Toxicity analysis (soil chemistry) by a certified lab of the benthic and bed load sediments. Results: Confirmed the 2010 study that Cuyahoga River sediments are susceptible to bed load interception. Bed load interception appears to be a viable technique for reducing overall dredging quantities. The Port Authority is shaping the details for a larger, longer Pilot Study. Grain size distribution indicates material that is suitable of a variety of uses (see Table 1) Harvested bed load is cleaner than background soils (see Table 2) and is considered by OEPA to be suitable for unrestricted uses.
- Cuyahoga River sediments are susceptible to bed load interception. Grain size distribution indicates material that is suitable for a variety of beneficial uses.
- Harvested Bed load is cleaner than undisturbed background soils typically found in the region. OEPA has indicated bed load sediments meet Standards for placement in residential settings. The Port Authority and OEPA are very encouraged by the results.
- These results will be incorporated into the hydrodynamic model being developed for the river. I would like to introduce Pete Kotulak of Moffat and Nichol. Pete will present the status of the hydrodynamic model.
- Lower reach, blue Upper, red Upstream of channel, green
- Delft3D notes USGS Discharge (1921-2012) and Sediment Concentration (1991-2001) Measurements NOAA Lake Erie Water Level Measurements (1996-2012) USACE Hydrographic Surveys and Sediment Sampling (2002, 2007, 2010) Hull Hydrographic Survey & Sediment Sampling (2012) U. Akron & RCB&S Engineering Consultants Bed Load Study (2012)
- 25 ft grid, 2 bucket full; Corps data for dredging records
- Made model and calibrated to medium flow period; ran for high and low flow to bracket flow conditions for sedimentation
- Used Corps dredging records for observed
- Discuss bed load data input (suspended and bed load and total) here
- Discuss next steps here Continued Development of Sediment Trap Arrangements and Modeling to Evaluate Optimum Methodology Further Development of Model to Better Predict Deposition of Mud Downstream in Zone 3
- John suggested this be optional due to time restrictions; sediment trap, non-erodible
- Shawn takes over this portion of the CDF presentation – 16 borings spatially distributed (e.g., on the outside portion of the CDF) and within the CDF themselves.
- Additional geotechnical exploration activities may be necessary to supplement the previously collected information and the observations made by Hull in 2012 Data will be used to better confirm assumptions and design parameters used in the dike raising for the CDF vertical expansion
- Ohio Controlling Board approved Clean Ohio Assistance Fund grant 9/12/11 Site assessment completed Spring/Summer 2012 Additional site assessment and data review ongoing Report anticipated to be completed in Fall 2012 Ohio EPA is collaborating on the project; impact assessment Considering placement of dredged material; ongoing Use of sediment for grading
- Harvested approximately 300,000 CY of material from CDF 10B Imported and managed material through Ohio EPA approved Materials Management Plan, guidance on how material documented JRS grant funds to complete project and get shovel ready Potential Remaining Airspace Future Parking Area = 150k CY Morgana Run = 120k CY Site acreage – approximately 70 acres
- Mention planning for creation of a World Class Habitat. Similar process can then be applied to CDFs 9/10/12 as they reach capacity.
- While some beneficial use projects have been implemented, there is a need for additional sediment sampling and characterization activities that could be completed in the river and more reach-specific sediment management guidelines that might support the unrestricted beneficial use of all, or a portion of dredged material from the river in upland or open-lake placement locations.
- While some beneficial use projects have been implemented, there is a need for additional sediment sampling and characterization activities that could be completed in the river and more reach-specific sediment management guidelines that might support the unrestricted beneficial use of all, or a portion of dredged material from the river in upland or open-lake placement locations.
- According to USACE, recent sediment data collected in 2010 suggests that the sediment quality in the upper reach of the Cuyahoga River has improved (Stations 799+00 to the Upper Turning Basin at Station 736+00). As a result, part of the USACE’s focus for the 2012 sampling is to complete 5-year sampling event of channel for bulk chemistry analyses and further characterize the sediments in the Upper reach to determine whether they are suitable for open-lake placement The USACE samples Cleveland Harbor every 5 years 2002 2007 2012 ERDC completed supplemental sampling in 2010 as part of a beneficial use suitability study
- 2012 sampling locations included several general management areas. 1) Upper River Reach (Station 736+00 to Station 799+00) Approximately 70% of the annual dredging occurs here Bottom material that is dredged from stations 799+00 to Station 787+00 may contain significant fractions of sand and gravel. However, it does not meet OEPA criteria for littoral nourishment (USACE, WQC Application) Material within this area has the potential to meet open-lake placement Federal guidelines 3 dredged material management units, 5 discrete samples and 1 composite for each DMMU
- USACE Assumptions for the remaining areas: Material within these areas is dredged less frequently USACE believes material is not likely to meet open-lake placement guidelines 2) Middle River Reach (Station 736+00 to Station 606+00) 5 discrete sediment samples, 1 composite for elutriate testing only 3) Lower River Reach (Station 606+00 to mouth of the River at Outer Harbor) 6 discrete sediment samples, 1 composite for elutriate testing only 4) Old River Reach (Entirely within Old River Channel) 3 discrete sediment samples, 1 composite for elutriate testing only All composite sediment samples analyzed for general bulk chemistry including: Metals PAHs Pesticides PCBS Cyanide Ammonia Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen Total phosphorus TOC BTEX Total petroleum hydrocarbons % Moisture Organic Matter Grain Size
- According to the USACE, recent sediment data collected in 2010 suggests that the sediment quality in the upper reach of the Cuyahoga River has improved over the years (USACE, 2012). As a result, USACE focused the 2012 sampling efforts, in part, on characterizing the suitability of sediments in the upper reach for open-lake placement. A recent review of the USACE website shows that 2012 sediment data has not yet been released. Some observations regarding the USACE sampling plan discussed during the meeting include: All historic samples were generally focused in the center of the channel; Sampling did not consider shoulder areas, or target depositional/erosional areas; Sampling points were not biased toward potential upland COC source areas (e.g., existing outfalls, industrial operations, etc.); Sampling did not include upstream locations; and Chemical analyses apparently only evaluate open-lake placement suitability of upper reach materials and may not be representative of full dredge depth.
- Review of 2010 data identified the following parameters that exceeded one or more SQGs: Arsenic Mercury Silver Cadmium Cobalt Chromium Lead Nickel Copper Zinc Benzoapyrene Most exceedances occurred in Upper Reach
- There is a need to fully characterize sediment both within the federal navigation channel as well as areas outside of the federal navigation channel, such as the shoulders and upstream areas. Additionally, sediment sampling should consider potential upland COC source areas. To address these limitations, and with feedback/input from Ohio EPA , Hull developed a systematic approach for the completion of a comprehensive sediment characterization through identification of potential COC source areas, evaluation of recent pollutant discharges, and the incorporation of a hydrodynamic model to integrate depositional/erosional areas in the sampling approach. Hull completed a general review of several data sources to identify the locations of various potential COC source areas (e.g. outfalls). These data sources include the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Ohio EPA, U.S. EPA, and Cleveland Water Pollution Control. Hull also used the U.S. EPA Discharge Monitoring Evaluation (DMR) Tool to evaluate the relative amount and location of pollutants discharged in 2010 to the Cuyahoga River within the project area. While this tool includes discharge information for many NPDES permitted industrial and municipal point source facilities, it does not include all facilities, discharges, or monitoring data under the NPDES program. Additionally, it does not include other Clean Water Act releases such as biosolids and wet-weather discharges. However, this information is useful in qualitatively evaluating potential areas relatively of high pollutant loading. Much of the pollutant loading, according to the U.S. EPA DMR Tool results, occurs upstream of the federal navigation channel and within the Upper River Reach of the federal navigation channel. Pollutants reported in these areas included copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, oil and grease, and zinc.
- Hull has developed a preliminary sediment sampling approach to facilitate a project partnership to pursue funding for a sediment characterization project. Since the material outside of the federal channel has not been fully characterized yet, Hull believes the first step should be to complete a comprehensive baseline evaluation of the sediment outside of the federal channel. The proposed sediment sampling approach would include general testing for chemical and physical parameters as illustrated by this figure. The general testing results would be reviewed and potential COCs would be identified. Focused bioavailability and toxicity testing would be completed for specific areas identified based on the results of the general testing. The final number and location of samples will be determined after the COC potential source areas are identified and the hydrodynamic transport model is complete. Sampling locations will be selected to better characterize the navigation channel as well as shoulder and upstream areas outside of the federal channel. Final sampling locations and sample depths will be established after the hydrodynamic model is completed and stakeholder feedback is incorporated. This baseline sediment evaluation would support the development of a sediment testing and evaluation program to facilitate the beneficial use of dredged material. Further, this program would be periodically evaluated to ensure that it is protective of human health and the environment. Additional testing programs could also be developed based on the specific end use of the dredged material. Finally, subsequent pre-dredging sampling could be coordinated so that data could be used for multiple purposes in addition to federal dredging sediment evaluations. A comprehensive sediment sampling characterization and management approach would incorporate stakeholder data requirements into a unified sediment sampling approach, reducing the time lag of sharing data and leading to a better mutual understanding of the benefits of a comprehensive sediment sampling and management strategy. Turn back over to Jim to discuss next steps and final thoughts
- Jim White- present next steps and closing thoughts
- Jenny – moderate the Q/A.