introduction - mwcd...jul 10, 2007 · (1) proceedings of the 3rd international conference...

Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District – Maintenance Project Plan No. 1

of 18 – 7/10/2007

Introduction In June 2005 the Board of Directors and the Conservancy Court approved the Amendment to the Official Plan of the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District (MWCD). Since then the MWCD has held more than 150 public and informational meetings with various groups and individuals in each of the 18 counties within the MWCD’s boundary and numerous additional meetings with state and federal officials, including many members of the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate. These meetings have provided a tremendous amount of local input on the Amendment to the Official Plan and the proposed assessment that would fund the assessment program.

As stated and repeated throughout the Amendment to the Official Plan, the MWCD will endeavor, whenever feasible, to partner with federal, state and local agencies in identifying and funding maintenance projects that advance the purposes of the Official Plan. In accordance with that intent, the MWCD has met with representatives of various governmental entities to identify and prioritize maintenance projects. At the same time, the MWCD has learned that the cost-share for several of the major dam safety projects proposed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has been increased dramatically. The purpose of this Maintenance Project Plan No. 1 is to provide additional detail on maintenance projects to maintain, operate, strengthen, repair, restore and preserve the works and improvement constructed pursuant to the Official Plan. Additionally, based on the most recent information provided by the USACE and based on input from the numerous public meetings, this Maintenance Project Plan No. 1 refines the estimated budget projections. The Amendment to the Official Plan included what was denominated as a “proposed Plan of Work” that was “intended to be general in nature” to allow for “flexibility for implementing specific projects within the watershed as identified and prioritized.” Based on the input from the various sources described and the increase in local sponsor cost-share contributions for USACE projects, it is appropriate to offer more detailed and specific information on projects and their expected costs at this time. The Conservancy Act does not require a detailed plan for spending funds raised pursuant to a maintenance assessment. Nevertheless, for purposes of planning and accountability, the staff offers this Maintenance Project Plan No. 1 for adoption by the Board of Directors. This Plan may then act as the guiding document for the negotiation and awarding of specific contracts and partnering arrangements in furtherance of the Official Plan by maintaining and preserving the works of the MWCD.

Dam Safety/Dam Safety Assurance The USACE nationwide has instituted a program to evaluate all USACE dams utilizing risk assessment criteria. “Dam safety management is intrinsically a problem in risk management and

decision making under uncertainty.”

“Quantitative examples include: estimated probabilities of dam failure and the consequences of

failure, and estimates of risk reduction for various structural and non-structural rehabilitation

alternatives. In addition, the process of conducting a risk assessment can provide qualitative benefits

such as insights into the relative importance of various failure modes and loading types and ranges,

and the potential value of additional analyses or field investigations.” (1)

(1) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference HYDROPOWER 97, Trondheim, Norway, June 1997 A Role for Risk Assessment in Dam Safety Management, David S. Bowles, Loren R. Anderson, Terry F. Glover


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Each USACE District has identified those dams within their jurisdiction that they believe have the highest potential risk based upon their internal evaluation. From this group of structures, USACE Headquarters had a team of experts evaluate the structures and classify them into five basic risk categories:

1. Urgent and Compelling – Active failure in progress or extremely high risk of failure possible

2. Urgent – Failure expected as the result of an event such as a flood or earthquake or very high risk of failure.

3. High Priority – Probability of failure is moderate to high

4. Priority – Probability of failure is low but not tolerable.

5. Normal – Adequately safe, meeting USACE guidelines.

There were six (6) structures listed in Category 1 including Wolf Creek Dam in Tennessee. This is the dam which retains Lake Cumberland, about which there has been a great deal of media interest recently as the Nashville District of the USACE has lowered the lake in preparation for major repairs estimated at more than $300 million. There were twenty-six (26) projects listed in Category 2 including five projects within the Muskingum River Watershed: Mohawk Dam, Dover Dam, Bolivar Dam, Beach City Dam and the Zoar Levee. The USACE considers these five structures as being “Significantly Inadequate” and have a moderate level of uncertainty requiring priority action to prevent progression to Safety Category 1. The USACE has divided the Risk Assessment into two broad areas – Dam Safety Assurance and Dam Safety, which are differentiated as follows: Dam Safety Assurance

• Hydrologic Deficiency – Dam would not safely pass the design storm

• Seismic Deficiency – A major seismic event could result in settlement, slump or cracking.

• Change in State-of-the Art – New design standards for gates, emergency spillways, etc. Dam Safety

• Seepage – Water stored behind the dam seeping through the embankment or the foundation and surfacing on the downstream side of the structure

• Major rehabilitation/repair. Two Muskingum Dams are listed in Category 3 including Clendening and Atwood.

The following describe the repairs required at each structure in Category 2 in the Muskingum River Watershed:

Dover Dam Problem Description Dover Dam was completed in 1937 to provide flood reduction in the Muskingum River Watershed of Ohio. The 824-foot-long concrete gravity dam is founded on limestone and shale containing fault damages and open bedding planes. Sliding stability concerns arise at the pool of record, elevation 907, and pools higher than this.


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Possible Remediation The recommended plan for Dover includes installation of multi-strand anchors through the dam, installation of anchor bars in the stilling basin, the addition of parapet walls on top of the non-overflow sections, construction of a cut-off wall immediately downstream of the stilling basin, installation of a gate closure across State Route 800 and bank protection downstream of the dam. Dover will be stabilized to the probable maximum flood (PMF). Construction is anticipated to begin in 2010 with a total project cost estimated at $110 million.

Bolivar Dam Problem Description Bolivar Dam was completed in 1938 to provide flood reduction in the Muskingum River Watershed of Ohio. The 6,400-foot-long rolled earth dam is founded on pervious glacial outwash deposits up to 200 feet deep. The foundation materials in the terrace area consist of granular materials including extensive zones of open work gravels. Problematic seepage conditions are observed at pools with return periods as low as 5 years. Numerical modeling has been calibrated for past pools and performed for return periods of 2, 5, 75, 100, 200, and PMF pool conditions. These analyses indicate that Bolivar Dam is likely to experience seepage instability at pools at and above the 75-year return period (El. 949). Possible Remediation In order to remediate the seepage problem at Bolivar Dam, it is currently proposed to construct a seepage barrier just off the upstream toe that extends approximately two-thirds of the depth to rock (El. 830) along with an impervious blanket on the upstream face of the dam. The lateral extents of the remediation are still being refined. The seepage barrier will likely extend from Sta. 20+00 to Sta. 55+00. Another aspect of the remediation will be to augment the downstream filter berm to protect against underseepage instability. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2011 with a total project cost in the range of $150 to $190 million.

Mohawk Dam Problem Description Mohawk Dam was completed in 1937 and is located in the basin of the Walhonding River in Coshocton County. It is one of a series of dams that provides flood reduction and water conservation in the Muskingum River Watershed. The crest of the dam is 2,300 feet long with an embankment consisting of rolled earth, gravel, rock fill, and an impervious core lying over a foundation consisting of glacial outwash. During the pool of record in January 2005, an area of seepage developed along the downstream end of the blanket that required an emergency repair. There are 21 relief wells located at the dam, and multiple relief wells produced flows between 1,500 and 2,000 gallons per minute during the pool of record. Possible Remediation Actions taken to remediate seepage conditions at Mohawk Dam could include construction of a seepage barrier possibly along the upstream toe. Subsurface investigations are currently being performed in order to gather additional data necessary to complete required analyses and design. The selection of the aforementioned remediation method was based on the design and analyses that have been performed for Bolivar Dam, which has very similar foundation and seepage conditions. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 with a total project cost in the range of $110 to $170 million.


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Zoar Levee and Diversion Dam Problem Description During the January 2005 high pool event in the Muskingum Area, the Dover Dam's pool of record brought to light many deficiencies of the Zoar Levee system. Underseepage concerns were evident near the interior toe along many areas of the levee. Multiple sand boils and areas of general seepage developed at various times throughout the event. The stability of the Zoar Diversion Dam was revisited at one point during the event when the pump station began to be overwhelmed from the interior drainage. The diversion dam can help relieve the inflow to the pump station, but has not been used recently because it has significant seepage concerns through the karst rock in the right abutment. Possible Remediation Likely repairs to Zoar Levee would include a cutoff wall, additional relief wells, a seepage collection system, or an interior seepage berm, but probably some combination of these. For Zoar Diversion Dam, a cutoff wall through the abutment may be required, or the pump station may be supplemented so that the dam is no longer used. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2012 with a total project cost in the range of $90 to $130 million.

Beach City Dam Problem Description Beach City Dam, located 9 miles north of New Philadelphia, Ohio, on Sugar Creek, was completed in 1937 as part of the original system of 14 flood-reduction projects constructed in the Muskingum River Watershed of Ohio. The embankment is impervious earth with pervious shells. It has a maximum height of 65 feet above streambed and a crest length of 5,600 feet. The embankment rests on overburden that includes pervious sand and gravel to depths of over 100 feet. Uncontrolled underseepage has plagued this project since its completion. Prior to the 1979 construction of the downstream seepage blanket and relief well field, 200 gallons per minute of uncontrolled underseepage was estimated during normal pool conditions. Even with these underseepage control measures, critical underseepage remains at significant pool events below spillway crest. During the 2005 near pool of record event, Beach City Dam experienced critical uncontrolled seepage that warranted construction of an emergency seepage blanket. Possible Remediation Possible remediation measures that are under consideration include augmentation of the existing downstream seepage blanket and relief well field plus installation of an impervious seepage barrier. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2013 with a total project cost in the range of $50 to $80 million.

Report of Schedules and Costs for Dam Safety and Dam Safety Assurance Based upon the problems experienced during the December 2005 flood, the Huntington District of the USACE has established the following plan for repairs to these five projects. The estimated cost of these repairs is between $510 and $680 million dollars. The cost share would be between $96 and $135 million. As noted, based on Congressional Authorization and funding, construction would begin in 2010 and be completed by FY 2015.


of 18 – 7/10/2007

The following information is taken from an e-mail from the Huntington District of the USACE describing the current local share cost distribution:

“BACKGROUND The US Army, Corps of Engineers ("USACE") constructed the original system of 14 reservoir projects in the Muskingum River Basin in cooperation with the Muskingum Watershed Conservancy District ("MWCD"). MWCD filed its original request to partner with the federal government through an application to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works (FEAPW) in August 1933. The FEAPW allocated funds to USACE to construct the projects. MWCD and USACE subsequently entered into an agreement to partner in implementing the projects ("the 1934 Agreement"). USACE completed construction of the 14 projects in 1938. 23% COST-SHARE ORIGIN Under the terms of the 1934 Agreement, the parties were to share the estimated costs of the project ($34,590,000) as follows: USACE - $22,090,000 and MWCD- $12,500,000. Subsequent to the 1934 Agreement's execution, Congress directed the Secretary of War to reimburse MWCD $4,500,000 for its real estate expenditures in the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1217). With this modification to the cost-sharing provisions of the parties 1934 Agreement, MWCD paid $8,000,000, approximately 23% of total project costs. The costs of USACE water resource projects are cost-shared, "in accordance with (1) the provisions of water resource development, flood control, and other laws; (2) the specific requirements of acts authorizing the projects; and (3) administrative instructions." EP 1165-2-1, at 6-1 – 6 2. Title I of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (WRDA '86) specifies the cost sharing provisions appropriate for all authorized projects, including Dam Safety Assurance (DSA) projects. In this instance, the original authority for construction of these facilities anticipated the parties' cost sharing of their respective obligations. The parties' original agreement set cost sharing obligations (64% Federal, 36% non-Federal Sponsor), and subsequent legislation amended them (77% Federal, 23% non-Federal Sponsor). 3.45% COST-SHARE ORIGIN DSA projects are cost-shared pursuant to §1203 of WRDA '86. The non-Federal sponsor must pay 15% of the costs of the improvement "in accord with the cost sharing in effect at the time of the initial project construction." If, as in this instance, the original project's non-Federal cost-share at the time of construction was 23%, the non-Federal Sponsor must pay 3.45% (15% x 23%) of the Dam Safety Assurance Project's costs.”


of 18 – 7/10/2007

The following table summarizes the current Huntington District project costs, schedule and potential local cost share: Table 1 – Dam Safety / Dam Safety Assurance Estimate Costs

Project Cost Estimated Local Match Project (millions) Start (millions)

Dover Dam $110 2010 $4 Bolivar Dam $150 - $190 2011 $35 - $44 Mohawk Dam $110 - $170 2012 $25 - $39 Zoar Levee $90 - $130 2012 $21 - $30 Beach City Dam $50 - $80 2013 $12 - $18 Total $510 - $680 $96 - $135

Flood Warning and Dam Operations System One of the key elements of the maintenance of any successful flood reduction program is a flood warning and dam operations system. Only the Muskingum River Watershed has no such flood warning system in the Huntington District of the USACE. The 14 dams comprising the MWCD system in conjunction with North Branch Kokosing Dam and Dillon Dam owned by the USACE comprise a coordinated flood reduction system. This system must be carefully monitored and operated to store floodwater from almost the entire 8,050-square-mile Muskingum River Watershed and release that floodwater in a manner that minimizes the risk of flooding downstream property. Because of the age and current condition of many of the dams, this storage and release must be carefully coordinated to ensure that the following do not occur:

1. One or more of the reservoirs in the system fills up and overtops the structure, 2. Utilizes the emergency spillway which will dramatically increase downstream flood flows, 3. Produce excessive seepage through the embankment or foundation which could carry fine

soil material and produce a channel through the structure that would result in catastrophic failure.

4. In the case of Dover Dam, produce such force on the concrete structure that the entire monolith moves downstream, or

5. Damage aging gates or operating structures. The net result of a dam failure would be catastrophic and result in significant loss of life, property and infrastructure downstream. Bridges would be washed away, roads severely damaged and closed, wastewater treatment and water supplies would be out of service for considerable time. Such a calamity would impact the health, welfare and safety of virtually every person in the Muskingum River Watershed and the State of Ohio. To minimize the potential for failure the USACE, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Weather Service (NWS) and the Ohio Emergency Management Agency (OEMA) have prepared a plan entitled “Enhancement of the Muskingum River Basin Flood Warning System.” This report recommends a number of measures to restore, update and expand the current system of stream and rainfall gages in the Muskingum Watershed along with incorporating satellite data transfer and enhanced flood forecasting and flood warning capabilities. The projected cost of this plan is $1,015,000 in data collection and transmission costs and $1,282,000 in annual operation, maintenance and replacement costs.


of 18 – 7/10/2007

To provide local matching funds for this project and encourage rapid implementation by the state and federal agencies, the MWCD proposes to pay for the installation of 10 additional stream gaging stations proposed under this plan and provide the annual operation and maintenance for these gages. The stations to be installed under this Plan currently include: Table 2 – Proposed Stream Gaging Stations

County

River

Location

Muskingum Muskingum River Beverly Wahington Muskingum River Below McConnelsville Washington Muskingum River Marietta Licking Licking River Downstream Buckeye Lake Washington Duck Creek Upstream I-77 Wayne Killbuck Creek Near Wooster Richland Black Fork Upstream Charles Mill Reservoir Summit Tuscarawas River Near Barberton Tuscarawas Conotton Creek Downstream Atwood Lake Stark Zimber Ditch Near Canton

The present value cost of this plan is $10,433,809. The local share at 35% would be $3.66 million. The MWCD estimated costs include: 1) Installation of 10 gaging stations at $22,000 per station .............................................$220,000 2) Coordination, engineering, and rating at $10,000 per station.......................................$100,000 3) $320,000 financed at 5% for 20 years ................................................... (cost per year) $18,000 4) Operation and Maintenance

• Personnel, 2 Technicians - 6 visits per year ........................................ $25,000

• Travel, 6 trips to 10 stations per year....................................................... 3,000

• USGS, Publish 10 station records @ $4,500 ........................................ 45,000

• Total Operation and Maintenance per year .............................................................$ 73,000

5) Replacement – Replace equipment at one gage per year...............................................$ 20,000 The total cost for this stream gage program is $2,980,000 over 20 years. The map on the following page shows the location of the proposed stations.


of 18 – 7/10/2007


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Debris Removal in Streams One of the more serious issues in the Muskingum Watershed are log jams and debris removal in streams. Log jams result in serious scour at bridges and major erosion of stream banks. This erosion can increase the sediment load in the stream or river which may also increase the sediment deposition in the MWCD reservoirs. The log jams may increase flooding on adjoining properties and result in failure of bridges or overtopping and damage to highways. The estimated cost of this program is:

Item

Quantity

Estimate

3 person crew 3 @ 30 weeks + fringes $ 90,000 Backhoe $ 80,000 Dump Truck $ 50,000 Low Boy Trailer $ 20,000 Total Equipment $150,000 Annual Equipment Cost $150,000 @ 6% for 10 years $ 20,000 Equipment Replacement $196,000 @ 6% for 20-years $ 17,000

Road Relocation/Elevation The major flood of January 2005 confirmed the need to provide safe emergency access to residents of the Muskingum Watershed who were trapped by flood storage behind some of the 16 flood control reservoirs in the watershed or by roads flooded by rising waters in streams and rivers. Seven of the sixteen reservoirs in the system experienced record storage levels. As a result, over 6,400 people were trapped in the Wilkshire Hills Subdivision near Bolivar by the floodwaters and the Tusk Valley High School was closed for two weeks. In addition, the Village of Zoar was surrounded by floodwater for several days. It is estimated that almost 214 miles of roads are subject to inundation at spillway level flood. The following table shows the distribution of miles for each reservoir:

Reservoir U.S. * State County Township Other Miles

Atwood 0.00 4.94 2.21 1.94 1.65 10.74

Beach City 0.00 3.11 4.53 0.95 0.34 8.93

Bolivar 0.00 2.94 14.24 5.19 0.00 22.37

Charles Mill 1.42 3.34 2.52 5.01 5.12 17.41

Clendening 0.00 1.55 2.54 0.80 0.00 4.89

Dover 2.46 10.93 11.72 5.59 1.23 31.93

Leesville 0.00 0.00 1.19 3.76 0.24 5.19

Mohawk 1.70 9.48 11.22 9.62 0.25 32.27

Mohican 0.63 3.65 5.28 5.52 0.00 15.08

Piedmont 0.00 0.00 2.31 0.89 0.00 3.2

Pleasant Hill 0.00 2.56 3.59 2.02 3.89 12.06

Seneca 0.00 6.05 3.21 0.81 1.51 11.58

Tappan 4.73 0.63 0.80 1.25 0.47 7.88

Wills Creek 0.00 6.28 12.72 11.32 0.00 30.32

Total 213.85

* Includes Interstate


of 18 – 7/10/2007

The MWCD, along with the Ohio Department of Transportation, the Huntington District Corps of Engineers and various County Engineers are currently evaluating certain of these roads within their respective jurisdictions which are critical to remain open and accessible for the public health and safety during major flood events. Priority will be given to providing access for developed areas with no viable escape route or to those areas where the length of access could be critical for emergency services such as fire, ambulance, etc. To help achieve this goal, the MWCD has included $250,000 per year as local matching or planning funds to complete projects and provide safe escape routes from flooded areas. Property Boundary Survey The MWCD owns approximately 38,000 acres of property in 13 counties, around the 14 reservoirs under its control. Approximately 400 miles of outer boundary area must be regularly monitored and maintained. Much of this property was purchased in the 1930s and was typically transferred without benefit of a field survey. Today as development pressure and neighboring property owners encroach on MWCD property or even market timber and natural resources from MWCD property, the MWCD must accurately locate and monument its property boundaries. It is estimated there are 49.2 miles of un-surveyed property boundary in the MWCD. The estimated cost to locate and monument the property corners, based on a field crew working 10-weeks per year is:

Project

Quantity

Estimate

Courthouse and office 400 parcels @ 8-hours x $40 $ 128,000 Field crew 49.2 miles x 5,280 feet x $2.00 $ 520,000 Set monuments $400 x 260 $ 104,000 Set witness posts every 200 feet $130 x 1,300 $ 169,000 Rectify and plot surveys 400 parcels x 4 hours x $ 60 $ 96,000 Travel 200 days x 100 miles x $0.85 $ 17,000 Total $1,034,000 A present value of $1,034,000 produces an annual cost of $70,000 at 3% over 20 years


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Dredge Reservoirs The MWCD has conducted a survey of the accumulated sediment at seven of the reservoirs that are in need of dredging to restore the reservoir capacity.

Reservoir

Accumulated Sediment

(cubic yards) Years to

Complete Estimated 2001 Cost

Leesville 100,000 3 $ 2,000,000 Atwood 50,000 2 $ 1,000,000 Piedmont 350,000 7 $ 7,000,000 Seneca 240,000 6 $ 4,800,000 Beach City 50,000 2 $ 1,000,000 Clendening 50,000 2 $ 1,000,000 Pleasant Hill 60,000 2 $ 1,200,000 Total 900,000 $18,000,000

An estimated 900,000 cubic yards of sediment has accumulated at the seven reservoirs over the period 1940 to 2001, when the estimate was completed. If we assume that sediment continued to accumulate at a rate of (900,000/ 62 years) = 15,000 cubic yards per year. In the last six years an additional 90,000 cubic yards is estimated to have accumulated. Historically, the total cost of dredging has been about $20.00 per cubic yard including the cost of operating the dredge and maintaining the material storage areas. The present value cost to remove 990,000 cubic yards of material would be $19,800,000, or $ 800,000 over 25 years. Included in the replacement cost of the dredging project is replacement of the current 10-inch suction dredge. Recently the Ohio Department of Natural Resources purchased a 10-inch dredge for $ 650,000. The annual replacement cost for a 10-inch dredge would be approximately $ 40,000 per year over the 20-year term.

Reduce Shoreline Erosion MWCD has compiled an inventory of the shoreline erosion problems at each of the reservoirs. Shoreline erosion adds to the slow filling of the reservoirs by sedimentation. It also increases the suspended solids load in the lake water and in the effluent to the downstream outlet channel. As a result, the receiving streams in many cases violate state water quality standards and are included in the State’s 303(d) list of non-attaining stream systems. MWCD currently estimates that there are 17.14 miles of shoreline erosion at 8 of the reservoirs:


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Table 3 – Shoreline Erosion

Reservoir Survey

Date Miles of

Shoreline

Miles of Shoreline Eroded

Estimated Cost ($100/ft.)

Atwood June 92 28 1.54 $ 813,100 Charles Mill July 99 34 2.12 $ 1,119,400 Clendening June 99 41 0.60 $ 316,800 Leesville Aug 99 28 1.36 $ 718,100 Piedmont June 99 38 2.40 $ 1,267,200 Pleasant Hill June 00 13 0.71 $ 374,900 Seneca June 99 48 7.30 $ 3,854,400 Tappan June 92 41 1.11 $ 586,100 Total 271 17.14 $ 9,050,000

Assuming a 4% increase since the original surveys were completed increases the present value cost to $ 9,400,000. The annual cost of the shoreline restoration program would be $470,000 per year.

Assist with Reservoir H2S problem One of the most serious maintenance issues at several of the MWCD reservoirs is Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S). Sometimes referred to as “sewer gas,” hydrogen sulfide smells like rotting eggs. In the Muskingum River Watershed system of reservoirs and dams, hydrogen sulfide is most often noticed at the outlet structures of the dams. Over the years throughout eastern and southeast Ohio, coal mining activities have contributed to the formation of sulfates and other chemical residuals which run off into waterways Once in the lake, natural processes convert sulfate to hydrogen sulfide. The current outlet structures for five of the reservoirs can only release water from the bottom of the reservoir, as shown on the adjoining graphic. As water is released from the lake, atmospheric levels of hydrogen sulfide downstream from the dam exceed federal and state limits and standards for several months out of the year. The adjoining graphic illustrates the

current water withdrawal system at the dams. This problem occurs at Atwood, Clendening, Leesville, Piedmont, and Tappan reservoirs. Not only does the release cause a public health hazard, near the projects, but it also causes an aquatic health hazard in the stream. Downstream reaches are devoid of oxygen and aquatic life for significant periods of time. The high levels of hydrogen sulfide in the air create an environment

that is conducive to early deterioration of concrete. At some structures as much as 1 to 2 inches of concrete is missing from the inside of the outlet tunnel. If allowed to continue, the tunnel will fail leading to possible failure of the dam structure. The adjoining picture depicts the loss of concrete and exposure of the reinforcing steel inside the outlet tunnel at Tappan Dam.


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Points of Emphasis • Hydrogen sulfide levels exceed federal and state standards for human health and safety in water

released from these five projects

• Areas below the projects periodically are closed to the public due to health hazards posed by hydrogen sulfide releases

• Degraded aquatic and atmospheric environments

• Early deterioration of concrete in outlet tunnel - leading to potential collapse of tunnel and failure of dam

• Restore fishery of stream below reservoirs and return downstream areas to public use

The solution to this problem is twofold. In the short-term, the existing outlet structures can be modified to collect water from various depths in the reservoir, thereby diluting the deeper sulfate-laden water with oxygenated upper level water. The adjoining graphic illustrates this process. The long-term solution is to reduce the formation of sulfates in the reservoirs through remediation at the source. Sulfates form as a byproduct of surface mining in the watershed. The Huntington District of the USACE estimates the cost to modify the outlet structures at Atwood, Clendening, Leesville, Piedmont and Tappan dams at $3,000,000 per structure, or $15,000,000 total. The local cost share for this program would be 25% or $3,750,000, for an annual cost of $188,000.

Water Quality Monitoring The MWCD has partnered with the USACE for more than 20 years to monitor the quality of water in the reservoirs as part of an ongoing maintenance program. The quality of water entering the reservoirs from tributary streams is critical to the health, welfare and safety of the general public, including those who utilize the reservoirs for water supply. In the future, it is realistic to predict that the reservoirs will continue to serve as water supply sources. To continue monitoring water quality in the reservoirs and the tributary streams, the MWCD anticipates collecting and analyzing approximately 300 water quality samples per year from sites throughout the watershed that feed the 14 reservoirs. The estimated cost of this program is:

Project Quantity Estimate

2-person sample crew 30 days per year $13,000 Travel 3,000 miles @ $0.50 1,500 Samples 300 @ $125 37,500 Equipment 2,000 Total $52,000


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Acid Mine Drainage Issues The Ohio Department of Natural Resources’ Division of Mineral Resources (DRMR) has conducted an inventory of many former and abandoned mine sites in eastern and southeastern Ohio. More than 180 active sites have been identified to date. DRMR is charged with the responsibility to mitigate and clean up these Acid Mine Drainage (AMD) sites. Most of these are old or abandoned coal mine sites that discharge or seep groundwater contaminated with minerals and chemicals. In the presence of oxygen, these chemical combine to form constituents that are toxic to aquatic life in the receiving streams. Many of these streams at first glance appear to be clear and clean; however, that is because they actually are devoid of any life, even algae. Currently, federal funding is available under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act Amendments of 2006 (SMCRA) to assist states in the cleanup efforts. However, state law requires a 25% local match be provided to any state and federal project costs. In much of Appalachia, obtaining a 25% match from local governments for a project that will involve millions of dollars in cleanup is not currently feasible. Therefore, the MWCD proposes to assist local and state governments by providing some, or all, of the required local match for those AMD projects that drain directly to one of the MWCD reservoirs. The following table lists those AMD projects that presently meet these criteria and provides an estimate of the remediation cost and local share for each. Table 4 – AMD Projects

Project Sub Watershed

Estimated Remediation

Cost Local Match MM-280 Lower Muskingum $ 750,000 $188,000 Mineral Zoar Tuscarawas 315,000 79,000 Thomas Tuscarawas 377,000 94,000 Fern Hill Tuscarawas 150,000 38,000 Acid Pit II Tuscarawas 150,000 38,000 Hope Road West Tuscarawas 165,000 41,000 Lick Run, PHII Tuscarawas 350,000 88,000 Robinson Run Tuscarawas 250,000 63,000 Ales Run Lower Muskingum 793,000 198,000 Sherrick Run Tuscarawas N/A N/A Andrew Creek Lower Muskingum 9,110,000 2,278,000 Bear Creek Lower Muskingum 3,350,000 838,000 McLuney Creek Lower Muskingum 3,231,000 808,000 Snake Run Lower Muskingum 200,000 50,000 Burley Run Lower Muskingum 2,923,000 731,000 Riders Run Lower Muskingum 9,000 2,000 Black Fork Lower Muskingum 1,296,000 324,000 Total $20,119,000 $ 5,031,000

The annual cost to provide a portion of the local match is $150,000 per year.


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Watershed Coordinators One of the key elements of the MWCD maintenance program is the establishment of Watershed Coordinators in the three major sub-watersheds within the District: the Tuscarawas, Walhonding and the Lower Muskingum. These Watershed Coordinators would have the responsibility of working with individual property owners, local governments and other interested parties within their respective territories. By establishing a watershed action plan to identify those water resource problems specific to the area, these coordinators would assist the watershed group in locating grants or other funding sources to deal with those problems. This would particularly hold true for AMD projects that require that a Watershed Action Plan be established before state and federal funds be spent on a remediation project. The ODNR Division of Soil and Water Conservation provides grants for watershed coordinators to facilitate preparation of Watershed Action Plans along with Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment Plans. These grants provide 100% funding the first year, which is then reduced by 10% each year down to a total of 50% of the original grant in the sixth year when the grant terminates. Local funds are expected to fully support the program after the sixth year. Maximum grant amount is $40,000 for the first year. In addition to the planning functions, the watershed coordinators would be the MWCD’s representatives in their respective watershed. They would attend local meetings on water-related matters and provide input to the public and governments on MWCD programs. Because of the vast size of the Muskingum River Watershed – 8,050 square miles – these watershed coordinators will serve as the spokespersons, literally the eyes and the ears of the MWCD. The projected budget for this program, assuming state assistance, would be:

Projects

Quantity

Estimate

3 Watershed Coordinators 3 @ 2,080 hours + fringes $ 168,500 Travel (Assume 300 miles/week @ $0.50) $ 22,500 Office space for 2 ($400 per month) $ 9,600 Miscellaneous supplies $ 3,200 Computers (3 @ $800 amortize over 3-years) $ 1,200 Total $ 205,000

With state grants for the first six years, the estimated annual cost for three watershed coordinators over the 20-year life of this plan is $ 205,000 per year with inflation at 3% per year.

Establish Watershed GIS One of the critical elements of good watershed-based planning, maintenance and resources management is a comprehensive Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS is a “smart map” that includes physical features such as topography, streams, roads, buildings and soils data. Other critical information such as the location of water and wastewater treatment plants, potential acid mine drainage facilities, stormwater outlets, property boundaries and other features that are critical to good water resources management can be included. Each of these elements can then be “attributed” to include relative information such as property ownership, road and stream names, etc. The State of Ohio, through its Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program (OGRIP) is currently investing millions of dollars in a statewide GIS mapping effort that will include new aerial mapping


of 18 – 7/10/2007

with topography, buildings, streams and roads. The MWCD, as part of the assessment process, has invested significant resources in establishing a GIS parcel map and dataset, attributed with Auditors data, within the 18 counties inside the MWCD boundary. This mapping should be updated to coordinate with the new statewide mapping and allow the MWCD to more accurately measure impervious area to resolve questions regarding individual assessments. The estimated cost to maintain and operate the MWCD GIS is:

Projects

Quantity

Estimate

GIS Manager 2,080 hours + fringes $ 70,000 Data collection $ 100,000

Assist Local Property Owners with BMPs To support established programs to improve the quality of the water entering the reservoirs, the MWCD will cooperate with state and federal agencies to establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) on streams and tributaries that drain to the reservoirs. Such programs would include establishing riparian buffers to reduce sediment and chemicals draining from agricultural and residential properties, minimizing stream bank erosion to reduce sediment loading into the reservoirs, and support agricultural and residential conservation programs. The estimated cost of this program is:

Projects

Quantity

Estimate

3 person crew 24 weeks $70,000

R / W & Materials $120,000 Total $190,000

Reservoir Inspection A required element for optimum reservoir maintenance and performance in the Muskingum River Watershed is for routine and documented inspection of the reservoirs. The MWCD has a responsibility to conduct regular inspections to ensure their overall health and effective performance as the major components of the flood reduction system. The MWCD controls approximately 16,000 acres of reservoirs at 10 dams in eastern Ohio. The following table describes each project.


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Table 5 – Reservoir Information

Reservoir

Original Design Surface Area

(acres) Shoreline

(miles)

Design Volume

(acre-feet)

Adjoining Property (acres)

Atwood 1,540 28 23,600 3,013 Beach City 420 17 1,700 930 Charles Mill 1,350 34 7,400 2,002 Clendening 1,800 41 26,500 4,802 Leesville 1,000 28 19,500 2,709 Piedmont 2,270 38 33,600 4,416 Pleasant Hill 850 13 13,500 1,344 Seneca 3,350 48 43,500 4,266 Tappan 2,350 41 35,100 5,244 Wills Creek 900 52 6,000 4,895 To accomplish this task the MWCD will employ a 2-person team to perform the inspections at each of the 14 reservoirs on a regular basis at the following cost::

Project

Quantity

Estimate

2-person crew 36 weeks per year $ 70,000 Work Boat Replace once 9,000 Truck Replace every 5-years 9,000 Equipment Total 18,000 Miscellaneous tools and equipment $ 5,000

Reservoir Maintenance Working in tandem with the reservoir inspection program, the MWCD will perform routine and special maintenance projects at all the reservoirs. These would include litter and debris removal, spill-hazard response, mapping and analysis of sediment deposits, exotic species control, roadway vegetative maintenance, public education and outreach. The following costs are associated with this program:

Project

Quantity

Estimate

Two 3-person crews 36 weeks per year $ 210,000 2 Trucks Replace every 5-year 18,000 Pontoon Boats Replace in 10-years 8,000 Bobcat loader Replace in 5-years 16,000 Equipment Total $ 42,000


of 18 – 7/10/2007

Overall Summary Cost Estimate I.D. Projected 20-Year Program Cost Maintenance O & M Replacement 20-Year Total No. Capital Cost (3% Inflation)

1.00 Dam Safety / Flood Control 1.01 > Dam Safety Upgrades $4,000,000 $120,000,000*

1.02 > Flood Warning/Dam Operations $18,000 $73,000 $20,000 $2,980,000 1.03 > Upgrade Key Culverts & Bridges 1.04 > Debris Removal in streams $ 20,000 $ 90,000 $ 17,000 $ 3,410,000 1.05 > Road Relocations / Elevate $ 250,000 $ 6,720,000 1.06 > Flood Mitigation (buyouts) 1.07 > Local Flood Reduction 1.08 > Lower Muskingum Improvements 1.09 > Assist in Flood Clean Up 1.10 > Property Boundary Survey $70,000 $1,880,000 2.00 Sediment Removal

2.01 > Dredge Reservoirs $800,000 $40,000 $22,570,000 3.00 Shoreline Protection 3.01 > Reduce Shoreline Erosion $470,000 $12,630,000 4.00 Water Quality 4.01 > Assist C of E w/ H2S Problems $188,000 $5,050,000 4.02 > Reduce pollution load w/ WTP’s 4.03 > Water Quality Monitoring $52,000 $2,000 $1,450,000 4.04 > Acid Mine Drainage Issues $150,000 $ 4,030,000 4.05 > Environmental Education 5.00 Watershed Management 5.01 > Planning 5.02 > Support Farm Conservation Prog. 5.03 > Watershed Coordinators $205,000 $ 3,510,000 5.04 > Regulatory Compliance 5.05 > Establish Basinwide GIS $100,000 $70,000 $4,570,000 5.06 > Assist Local Property w/ BMP’s $120,000 $70,000 $5,110,000 6.00 Reservoir Operations 6.01 > Reservoir Inspection $5,000 $70,000 $18,000 $ 2,500,000 6.02 > Reservoir Maintenance $210,000 $42,000 $6,770,000 Annual Cost w/ Inflation $ 6,944,000 $1,129,000 $187,000 $165,180,000 Subtotal Annual Cost $ 8,260,000 > Design (10% of Capital) $ 694,000 > Construction Supervision ( 5.5%) $ 384,000 > Administration (25% of D, S & O&M) $ 552,000 > Start up costs $ 610,000 Total Program Costs $10,500,000 $210,000,000 * 30-year total

TABLE I

20-Year Total

(3% Inflation)

Dam Safety/Flood Control

> Upgrades & Repair to Dams 275,000$ 7,390,000$

> Stream Gage/Flood Warning Program 310,000$ 83,000$ 40,000$ 3,620,000$

> Upgrade key culverts & bridges 160,000$ 4,300,000$

> Debris Removal in stream channels 150,000$ 140,000$ 200,000$ 7,990,000$

> Road Relocations/Elevation Upgrades 300,000$ 8,060,000$

> Flood Mitigation (buy-outs, raise, etc.) 132,000$ 3,550,000$

> Assist local flood reduction programs 505,000$ 177,000$ 18,000$ 18,340,000$

> Improvements along the Muskingum River 400,000$ 10,748,000$

> Assist in Flood Clean Up 100,000$ 19,000$ 3,200,000$

> Property Boundary Survey 77,000$ 2,070,000$

Sediment Removal

> Dredge Reservoirs 1,000,000$ 800,000$ 27,670,000$

Shoreline Protection

> Reduce Shoreline Erosion 350,000$ 9,400,000$

Water Quality Improvements

> Assist C of E w/ H2S problems 200,000$ 5,370,000$

> Reduce pollution load in Watershed by improving WTP's & Sewers 1,000,000$ 20,000,000$

> Water Quality Monitoring 37,500$ 14,000$ 2,000$ 1,450,000$

> Acid Mine Drainage Issues 200,000$ 5,374,000$

> Environmental Education 30,720$ 830,000$

Watershed Management

>Planning 140,400$ 3,770,000$ >Support for Farm Conservation & Forest Management Programs 300,000$ 56,000$ 9,570,000$

> Watershed Coordinators 36,000$ 280,800$ 72,000$ 7,650,000$

> Regulatory Compliance 70,200$ 1,890,000$

> Establish Basinwide GIS 201,000$ 70,200$ 20,000$ 7,820,000$

> Assist Local Property Owners with BMPs 120,000$ 41,000$ 4,330,000$

Reservoir Operations

> Reservoir Inspection 5,000$ 170,100$ 4,700,000$

> Reservoir Maintenance 404,000$ 10,860,000$

Annual Cost w/ Inflation @ 3% per year 7,870,000$ 2,280,000$ 480,000$ 189,950,000$

Subtotal Annual Cost 10,630,000$

Design (15% of Capital) 1,181,000$

Construction Supervision (10%) 787,000$

Administration (15% of Design, Super. & O&M) 637,000$

Start Up Costs 228,000$

Total Program Cost 13,463,000$ 269,200,000$

Total Parcels in District 701,200$

Projected Residential Parcel Assessment 12.00$

ReplacementCapital Cost O & MProjected 20-Year Program Cost

introduction - mwcd...jul 10, 2007 · (1) proceedings of the 3rd international conference...

Documents