Evaluation of Sediment Management and Use Options for the Toledo - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Toledo Sediment Management and Use Solutions Evaluation of Sediment Management and Use Options for the Toledo Harbor Sediment Management and Use Plan Joe Cappel, Director of Development

1

Lake Superior IN

CANADA CANADA CANADA WISCONSIN OHIO INDIANA ILLINIOS PENNSYLVANIA NEW YORK MICHIGAN MINNESOTA

Grand Marias Two Harbors Duluth Superior Ashland Ontonagon Keweenaw Waterway Presque Isle Marquette Grand Marias

• St. Marys River

Channel in Straits of Mackinac Grays Reef Little Bay de Noc Menominee Green Bay Kewaunee Port Washington Milwaukee Kenosha Manitowoc Sheboygan Waukegan Chicago River & Harbor Calumet

• St. Joseph

Harbor Holland Grand Haven Muskegon Harbor Ludington Manistee Frankfort Charlevoix Cheboygan Alpena Saginaw Harbor Beach Monroe Channels in Lake St. Clair

• St. Clair

River Detroit River Rouge River Toledo

800K 100K – 250K 50K – 95K <50K ANNUAL DREDGING REQUIREMENT (CY) DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT STATUS

Critical – Dredged Material Management issues could severely restrict channel availability within 5 years Pressing – Dredged Material Management issues could severely restrict channel availability within 10 years. No pressing issues within next 10 years; continue to work on long range planning such as DMMPs.

2

3

4

Sediment Entering Lake Erie

• n 4/2/08

4

Toledo Harbor - Sediment

Current : 850,000 yd3

• 850,000yd3
• Equivalent to 2.2x One

SeaGate*

*Numbers are not exact, but estimations are instructive.

5

Great Lakes Shipping: Economic Benefits

• The shipping industry employs 227,000 people in the U.S. and Canada and

produces business revenue of $33.5 billion.

• Electrical utilities, steel mills, construction companies, mining companies,

manufacturers and farmers all depend on the 164 million tons of cargo delivered by Great Lakes ships each year.

• Marine transportation on the System provides $3.6 billion in annual savings

compared to the next best all land transportation alternative.

• 6,971 jobs are supported by the cargo moving via Toledo’s marine
• terminals. 2,521 jobs were directly generated by the maritime activity at

the terminals with wages and salaries totaling over $109 million.

• Direct business revenue received by the firms dependent upon the cargo

handled at the Port totaled $381.3 Million in 2010.

6

Lake Erie Economic Values

• Lake Erie

– $10.7 Billion Lake Erie Tourism – $1 Billion Lake Erie Fishing – 3 million Ohio drinking water users

7

Ohio’s Position

• Ohio has long (25 years) consistent position on

this issue

• Toledo Harbor must be kept open
• Lake Erie must be restored & open lake disposal

is not acceptable

• Beneficial use and source reduction-best
• Strongly support cooperative partnerships
• Sustainable practices

8

• Beach nourishment
• Aquaculture
• Parks and recreation
• Strip mine reclamation & solid

waste management

• Brownfields restoration
• Shoreline stabilization and

erosion control

• Construction and industrial

use (port development, airports, urban, & residential)

• Material transfer (fill, dikes,

levees, parking lots, roads)

• Habitat development

(wetland, upland, island, aquatic, others)

9

Beneficial Uses of Dredged Material

9

Toledo Harbor Dredging Task Force

• Membership
• Toledo-Lucas

County Port Authority

• State agencies
• Federal agencies

Local officials

• Non-governmental
• rganizations

(environmental, commercial, and recreational)

10

• Introduction to the Project

– The Ohio Lake Erie Commission was awarded a GLRI grant to create a sediment management strategy/plan for the Toledo Harbor that identifies and addresses:

• recommended short-term (1-5 years)
• ptions
• recommended long-term (30 year)
• ptions
• funding needs/sources/mechanisms
• timelines for implementation of

recommended approaches

– The Hull & Associates, Inc. Team was retained to assist in developing this plan

Toledo Harbor Sediment Management and Use Planning

11

Toledo Harbor Dredging

• Federal Channel spans

RM 7 to LM 18 (25 miles, 400-500 ft. width)

• Projected 1M CY Dredged

Annually, includes federal and non-federal channels

• 30-year total of 30M CY

12

Single Option Relative Unit Costs

13

Single-Option Challenges

• Challenges of using only one alternative:

– Practicality/Logistics (low flexibility, seasonal limitations) – Costs (high initial capital investment, balance between capital and O&M) – Location (large overall footprint) – Optimization of alternative (compromise/tradeoff between technical categories) – Size (large structural requirements to control quantity)

• Both short-term and long-term plans will likely

consist of a combination of approaches due to the challenges of single-option

14

15

Agricultural Field Improvements

Relative Footprint of 30M CY for Single-Option

Not a proposed location (shown for relative size needed to accommodate all 30M CY)

16

Wetland Restoration and Shoreline Protection

Relative Footprint of 30M CY for Single-Option

Not a proposed location (shown for relative size needed to accommodate all 30M CY)

17

Submerged Habitat Restoration Unit

Relative Footprint of 30M CY for Shallow and Deep Single-Options

Not a proposed location (shown for relative size needed to accommodate all 30M CY)

18

New Confined Disposal Facility

Relative Footprint of 30M CY for Single-Option

Not a proposed location (shown for relative size needed to accommodate all 30M CY)

Combination Option

• Wetland Restoration and Shoreline Protection

(7M CY)

• Agricultural fields (7M CY)
• Beneficial Use (3M CY)
• Open-lake with controls (13M CY)

19

Single and Combination Option Final Ranking and Relative Costs

Rank Option Weighted Score Relative Unit Costs ($/CY)

1 Combination

406.2

$13.50 2 Wetland Restoration & Shoreline Protection 401.3 $10.90 3 Agricultural Fields (5-mile Radius) 391.0 $10.20 4 Agricultural Fields (10-mile Radius) 384.0 $11.20 5 Emergent HRU - Shallow Water 383.6 $24.70 6 Emergent HRU - Deep Water 357.1 $32.40 7 Beneficial Use 352.0 $30.20 8 Open-Lake - With Controls 349.4 $11.10 9 Submerged HRU - Deep Water 325.9 $42.60 10 Open-Lake - No Controls 324.7 $10.50 11 New CDF 323.9 $27.30 12 Submerged HRU - Shallow Water 292.6 $61.70

20

Conceptual Locations of Combination Option

21

Beneficial Use to Date

• Dredged material used in the Marina District and

at the Jeep Overland site.

• Dredged material used for Toledo Edision

project

• Dredged material used in the Cherry Street

Legacy project as engineered soil

• S&L Fertilizer blends dredged material with

treated biosolids from the City of Toledo to create Nu-Soil which is used as landfill cover.

22

Other sticks in the fire

ODNR Coastal Mgmt Grant Capital Improvement Budget Center of Innovation

23

Questions

The full Toledo Harbor Sediment Management and Use Plan is available on the Ohio Lake Erie Commission Website at www.lakeerie.ohio.gov Thank You!

24