1. Ranking of Lower Mahoning
River Low Head Dams for
Removal
Bishes Rayamajhi
Supervisor: Dr. Scott C. Martin
Supervisor: Dr. Hans M. Tritico
Committee Member: Dr. Lauren A. Schroeder

2. Goals of Research
• Develop a quantitative rating system to evaluate the
costs and benefits of dam removal.
• Apply the rating system to the nine remaining low head
dams on the Lower Mahoning River,
• Rank the dams based on priority for removal.
2

3. Why Dam Removal?
• Restore river and fish habitat,
• Improve riparian zone and water quality,
• Increase recreational activities,
• Transform the river to free flowing once again.
4

4. Why Dam Removal Ranking?
• To assist dam removal authorities in planning
and decision making for a priority based dam
removal.
5

5. Introduction
• Mahoning River is 108 miles long.
• Starts in Columbiana County, Ohio, and flows northward to
Warren, Ohio and then southeasterly to New Castle, PA
• Joins the Shenango River to form the Beaver River(USACE
2006).
• The ODNR has defined the low head dam as;
– a dam of low height usually less than fifteen feet
– made of timber, stone, concrete and other structural material or
combination of these.
6

6. Project Area
7

7. Low Head Dams in Lower Mahoning River
S.N Dam OEPA River
Mile
USACE
River Mile
1 Lowellville Dam 12.60 12.98
2 Struthers Dam 15.83 16.19
3 Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.60 18.10
4 Mahoning Ave Dam 20.60 21.02
5 Crescent St. Dam
22.56 23.02
6 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.38 26.9
7 Warren Main St. Dam 36.03 36.70
8 Warren Summit St. Dam 39.28 39.96
9 Leavittsburg Dam 45.58 46.10
8

8. Construction year: 1908-1915
Dam height: 10 ft
Dam length: 195 ft
Lowellville Dam
9

9. Struthers Dam
Construction year: 1908-1915
Dam height: 4.5 ft
Dam length: 160 ft
10

10. Center St. Dam
Construction year: 1908-1915
Dam height: 4 ft
Dam length: 215 ft
11

11. Mahoning Ave Dam
Dam height: 6 ft
Dam length: 116 ft
12

12. Crescent St. Dam
Construction year: after 1915
Dam height: 8.25 ft
Dam length: 148 ft
13

13. Girard Liberty St. Dam
Dam height: 9.25 ft
Dam length: 170 ft
14

14. Warren Main St. Dam
Construction year: around 1921
Dam height: 7.5 ft
Dam length: 110 ft
15

15. Warren Summit St. Dam
Dam height: 11.7 ft
Dam length: 225 ft
16

16. Leavittsburg Dam
Dam height: 8 ft
Dam length: 190 ft
17

17. Literature Review
• None of 32 river miles in lower Mahoning River
meet the warm water habitat criteria (OEPA,
1996).
• Impairment of biota is due to dams,
contaminated sediments, and “residual stressors”
(Schroeder, 2005).
• OEPA 2010 studies indicate significant
improvements in biota since 1994 which might be
due to natural attenuation of bottom sediment
contaminants, removal of residual stressors.
18

18. Dam Removal Rating Criteria
• Economics 20 pts.
• Environmental 40 pts.
• Other factors 40 pts.
19

19. Dam Removal Rating Table
ECONOMICS (20)
(20) (20) (20) (10) (20) (10) (100)
1 Loweville Dam 12.6
2 Struthers Dam 15.83
3 Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.6
4 MahoningAve Dam 20.6
5 Crescent St Dam 22.56
6 Girard LibertySt. Dam 26.38
7 WarrenMainSt. Dam 36.03
8 WarrenSummit St Dam 39.28
9 LeavittsburgDam 45.58
Dam
Ranking
Contaminated
sediments
Damuse
Total
PointsDAM
ENVIRONMENTAL (40) OTHER FACTORS (40)
Damremoval cost
Free flowing
rivermiles
increase due
to removal
IBI
improvement
due to
removal
Bridge pier
scouring
after
removal
OEPA
River
Mile
20

20. Dam Removal Cost
• Average proportion of dam removal cost and
dam area (L*H) was used.
Heinz Center:
Average (Dam removal cost/Area) = 153 $/ft2
ODNR:
Average (Dam removal cost/Area) = 76 $/ft2
• Ranking score = (1 – Average cost/0.3) x 20
• High cost was ranked low
21

21. 0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
ODNR
Heinz Center
Average cost
DamRemovalCost
(million$)
Dam Removal Cost Prediction
22

22. Dam Removal Cost Ranking
Dam `
River
miles
Dam
Dam removal
cost as per Average
Cost
Million
$
Ranking
PointsHeight
(ft)
Length
(ft)
Area
(sft)
ODNR
million
$
Heinz
center
million
$
Lowellville 12.60 10 195 1950 0.15 0.30 0.23 5.0
Struthers 15.83 4.5 160 656 0.05 0.11 0.08 14.7
Center St. 17.60 4 215 860 0.07 0.13 0.10 13.3
Mahoning Ave 20.60 6 116 696 0.05 0.11 0.08 14.7
Crescent St. 22.56 8.25 148 1221 0.09 0.19 0.14 10.7
Girard-Liberty St. 26.38 9.25 170 1572.5 0.12 0.24 0.18 8.0
Warren-Main St. 36.03 7.5 110 825 0.06 0.13 0.10 13.7
Warren-Summit St. 39.28 11.7 225 2632.5 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.0
Leavittsburg 45.58 8 190 1520 0.12 0.23 0.18 8.3
23

23. HEC-RAS Simulation of Mahoning
River
• Hydrologic Engineer Centers River Analysis System
(HEC-RAS)
– River modeling software developed by USACE.
• The HEC-RAS file was provided by the USACE.
• HEC-RAS geometry file consisted eight dams
excluding Leavittsburg dam.
• A steady-state simulation was run for pre and post
dam removal.
• Flow data from four USGS gauging stations was
used.
24

24. Pre Dam Removal Condition
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elevation(ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Left Levee
25

25. Post Dam Removal Condition
0 50000 100000 150000 200000
780
800
820
840
860
880
900
920
Main Channel Distance (ft)
Elevation(ft)
Legend
WS PF 1
Ground
Left Levee
26

26. Water Surface Elevation Change
Before and After Removal
790
800
810
820
830
840
850
860
870
880
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
WaterSurfaceElev(ft)
River Miles (RM)
Before removal
After removal
Girard Dam
Crescent St.
Dam
27

27. Velocity change pre and post dam
removal
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Changeinvelocity(ft/s)
River Miles (RM)
28

28. Free Flowing and Impounded River
Length Determination
• Arbitrary change in river depth of 0.2 ft or
higher after removal was considered an
impounded reach.
• All impounded reaches are assumed to change
to free flowing reach after removal.
• Ranking score
= (Impounded River length)/9.80 * 10
• Ranking score varied linearly
29

29. Free Flowing and Impounded River
Reach
From
River
Miles
To
River
Miles
Total
River
Miles
Miles of River Reach
Dam
ranking
points
Impounded
(∆D>or =
0.2 ft)
Free
Flowing
(∆D <
0.2 ft)
PA/OH border 0 Lowellville Dam 12.98 12.98 0 12.98
Lowellville Dam 12.98 Struthers Dam 16.19 3.22 2.01 1.21 2.0
Struthers Dam 16.19 Center St. Dam 18.10 1.91 1.76 0.16 1.8
Center St. Dam 18.10 Mahoning Ave Dam 21.04 2.94 0.18 2.76 0.2
Mahoning Ave. Dam 21.04 Crescent St. Dam 23.02 1.98 0.98 1.00 1.0
Crescent St. Dam 23.02 Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.9 3.88 3.56 0.32 3.6
Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.9 Warren Main St. Dam 36.70 9.80 9.80 0 10.0
Warren Main St. Dam 36.70 Summit St. Dam 39.96 3.26 0.75 2.51 0.8
Summit St. Dam 39.96 DS Leavittsburg Dam 45.36 5.4 2.04 3.36 2.1
30

30. IBI Model
• Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) is a
representation for the fish habitat in the river.
• OEPA (1996) IBI values and USACE HEC-RAS
velocity were used.
• Predicted IBI = 3.52*V + 0.606*RM
• ∆IBI = (Predicted post-dam removal IBI) – (Predicted
pre-dam removal IBI)
31

31. IBI Model
• The length between two river miles was taken
into account to consider IBI improvement over
river length.
• Ranking score = ∑(∆IBI * ∆L)/13.4 * 20
32

32. IBI Ranking
Pool Upstream ∑ ∆IBI * ∆L IBI points
Lowellville 3.767 5.6
Struthers 2.388 3.6
Center St. 0.782 1.2
Mahoning Ave 3.342 5.0
Crescent St. 7.456 11.2
Girard Liberty St. 13.37 20.0
Warren Main St. 0.431 0.6
Warren Summit St. 4.961 7.4
33

33. IBI prediction for Girard Pool
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39
Pre-removal
Post-removal
River Miles
IBIscore
34

34. Bridge Pier Scouring Potential
• Low ranking for high scouring potential
• Change in velocity (∆V) at the cross-section
just upstream of a bridge
• Number of bridge piers (N) in river were
determined from HEC-RAS bridge cross-
section
• Ranking score = (1 – ∑(N *∆V)/8) * 10
35

35. Bridge Pier Scouring Potential
Ranking
U/S of DAM ∑N*∆V Ranking Points
Lowellville Dam 1.29 8.4
Struthers Dam 0.46 9.4
Center St. Dam 0.24 9.7
Mahoning Ave. Dam 7.11 1.1
Crescent St. Dam 6.83 1.5
Girard Liberty St. Dam 2.42 7.0
Warren Main St. Dam 0.00 10.0
Summit St. Dam 4.08 4.9
36

36. Sediment Contamination
• Higher sediment accumulation was given low ranking
• Sediment data from USACE 2006 was used
• Mahoning River sediment contamination
represented by Total Recoverable Petroleum
Hydrocarbons (TRPH)
• River sediment volume with contamination level of
>700 mg/kg TRPH was used for ranking
• Ranking score = (1 – Total Sediment/198,000)*20
37

37. Contaminated Sediment Ranking
Dam
Total Sediment Volume
>700 mg/kg TRPH (CY)
Ranking Points
Lowellville Dam 40,000 16
Struthers Dam 37,000 16
Center St. Hazelton Dam 62,000 14
Mahoning Ave. Dam 57,000 14
Crescent St. Dam 94,000 11
Girard - Liberty St. Dam 198,000 0
Warren -Main St. Dam 67,000 13
Warren - Summit St. Dam 41,000 16
38

38. Dam Use
• Low ranking was given to dams being used.
• Girard dam and Warren Main St. dam were
being used for water supply purposes by
industries (WCI Steel, McDonald Steel, Reliant
Energy)
• Leavittsburg dam pool is used for canoeing
• Remaining six dams are unused or abandoned
• Probable water level drop in river after
removed was considered for ranking
39

39. Final Ranking Score
DAMS
OEPA
River
Mile
ECONOMICS
(20)
ENVIRONMENTAL
(40)
OTHER FACTORS
(40)
Total
Points Dam
Ranking
Dam Removal
Cost
Free
Flowing
River
Miles
Increase
due to
removal
IBI
improvement
due to
removal
Bridge
piers
scourin
g after
removal
Contaminated
Sediments
Dam
use
(20) (20) (20) (10) (20) (10) (100)
Struthers Dam 15.83 14.7 3.6 3.6 9.4 16 10 57.3 1
Girard Liberty St. Dam 26.38 8 20 20 7 0 0 55.0 2
Crescent St Dam 22.56 10.7 7.2 11.2 1.5 11 10 51.6 3
Loweville Dam 12.6 5 4 5.6 8.4 16 10 49.0 4
Center St. (Hazelton) Dam 17.6 13.3 0.4 1.2 9.7 14 10 48.6 5
Mahoning Ave Dam 20.6 14.7 2 5 1.1 14 10 46.8 6
Warren Main St. Dam 36.03 13.7 1.6 0.6 10 13 5 43.9 7
Warren Summit St Dam 39.28 0 4.2 7.4 4.9 16 10 42.5 8
Leavittsburg Dam 45.58 8.3 6
40

40. Final Ranking Score
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Loweville
Dam
Struthers
Dam
Center St.
(Hazelton)
Dam
Mahoning
Ave Dam
Crescent St
Dam
Girard Liberty
St. Dam
Warren Main
St. Dam
Warren
Summit St
Dam
Rankingpointsscored
41

41. Cost Avoided Ranking Score
0
10
20
30
40
50
Loweville
Dam
Struthers
Dam
Center St.
(Hazelton)
Dam
Mahoning
Ave Dam
Crescent St
Dam
Girard
Liberty St.
Dam
Warren Main
St. Dam
Warren
Summit St
Dam
Rankingpointsscored
42

42. Conclusion
• Velocity increase after dam removal would have
environmental benefits but may be detrimental for
bridge piers.
• The major change in water velocity and depth due to
dam removal is found in the river reach just upstream of
the dam.
• IBI scores were predicted to increase for most of the river
reach due to the dam removal but still did not meet the
criteria for warm water habitat (i.e. IBI>40).
• 21.1 river miles (i.e. 65% of the total) is presently
impounded by the eight low head dams (9.8 miles
impounded by Girard dam).
43

43. Conclusion
• Final dam removal ranking will help in decision
making for dam removal authorities.
• Removal of Struthers dam will act as a model
project.
44

44. Recommendations
• Dam removal permits – determine USACE
permitting requirements; is sediment removal
required?
• Perform more detailed studies of sediment
erosion and bridge pier scouring potential.
• Obtain more detailed cost estimates.
45

45. References
Adhikary B., Majumdar P., and Kostic Milivoje., 2009. Simulation of open channel turbulent flow over bridge decks and formation of scour hole beneath the bridge under flooding
conditions. International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition.
Bednarek A. T. 2001. Undamming Rivers: A review of the ecological impacts of dam removal.
Bushaw - Newton, K. L., D. D. Hart, J. E. Pizzuto, J.R. Thomson, J. E. Egan, J. T. Ashley, T. E. Johnson,R. J. Horwitz, M. Keeley, J. Lawrence, D.Charles, C. Gatenby, D. A. Kreeger, T.
Nightengale,R. L. Thomas, and D. J. Velinsky, 2002. An integrative approach towards understanding ecological responses to dam removal: the Manatawny Creek study. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association 38:1581–1599.
Doyle M. W., Stanley E. H., Orr C. H., Selle A. R., Sethi S. A., Harbor J. M., 2004. Stream ecosystem response to small dam removal: Lessons from the Heartland.
Friends of Earth, American Rivers and Trout Unlimited, 1999. Dam Removal Success Stories.
Heinz Center, 2002. Dam Removal: Science and Decision Making.
John D. Bralich, Center for Urban and Regional Studies, YSU
Kanehl, P. D., J. Lyons, and J. E. Nelson. 1997. Changes in the habitat and fish community of the Milwaukee River, Wisconsin, following removal of the Woolen Mills Dam. North American
Journal of Fisheries Management 17:387–400.
Mahoning River Field Visit on Feb 7, 2011, Sept 6, 2011 and Sept 29, 2011.
Martin, S.C. 2004, Mahoning River Watershed Action Plan.
Nuskievicz T., Envirionmental & Floodplain/CRS Coordinator (GIS Specialist), Trumbull County Planning Commission
.
ODNR 2006, Low Head Dams and Removal Projects
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/tabid/3357/Default.aspx
ODNR Division of Soil and Water Resources, 2006. Dam Safety Program
http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/water/dsafety/whatdam/tabid/3342/Default.aspx
OEPA Technical Report, 1996. Biological and Water Quality Study of the Mahoning River Basin.
OEPA, 2010. Biological and Water Quality Study, Mahoning River. Former Wean United Property.
OEPA, 2010. Biological and Water Quality Study, Mahoning River. Former YS&T Seamless Tube Mill, Campbell Facility.
Poff, N. L., and D. D. Hart, 2002. How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience 52:659–668.
Pohl, M. 2001. Constructing Knowledge on American Dam Removals in US Society on Dams, The Future of Dams and Their Reservoirs, Denver (CO):USSD at 501-509
Schroeder, L. A. Relative Importance of Sediment Contamination, Low Head Dams and Residual Stressors on the Biotic Integrity of the Mahoning River.
Stanley, E. H., and M. W. Doyle, 2003. Trading off the ecological effects of dam removal. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1:15–22.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001. Lower Mahoning River, Pennsylvania, Environmental Dredging Reconnaissance Study.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement.
Wood, P. J., and P. D. Armitage. 1997. Biological effects of fine sediment in the lotic environment. Environmental Management 21(2):203–217.
46

46. Questions and Suggestions
47