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

on 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

organizations

(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) options

• recommended long-term (30 year) options

• 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