1 / 19

Mudboils

This workshop addresses the pressing issue of turbidity in Onondaga Creek, primarily caused by sediment loads from local mudboils. With the goal of supporting historical fish species upstream, we propose a multifaceted approach to intercept 100% of sediment from the mudboils. Potential solutions include constructing relief wells, diversifying creek channels, and establishing impoundments with wetlands. These strategies aim to protect the river ecosystem, enhance ecological recovery, and manage sediment effectively while considering costs and environmental constraints.

piera
Télécharger la présentation

Mudboils

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Mudboils AEES Pre-Conference Workshop Wednesday, June 6, 2012 Nate Barlet Brandon Winfrey Roy Wood

  2. Problem Statement • Turbidity in Onondaga Creek too high to support species historically present • Sediment load to the creek from mudboils has been identified as major contributor to turbidity

  3. Goals and Objectives • Improve Onondanga Creek to support fish species present upstream of the mudboils • Intercept 100% of sediment load from mudboils. • This will protect river ecosystem from ever being affected by mudboil sediments that increase turbidity

  4. Design Constraints • Landowner • Honeywell • Hydrogeology • Unclear • Environmental • Energy • Cost • Dredging maybe required

  5. Potential Solutions (1) • One Large Relief Well • Attempt to create mudboil in the existing area to control source of sediment • “One Well to Rule them All” • Advantages: • Control source • Easier to design sediment abatement • Disadvantages: • Unclear if control is possible • Low flexibility if other mudboils appear

  6. Potential Solutions (2) • Divert Creek around mudboils, Contain mudboils • Build impoundment around entire area • Move creek channel into field adjacent • Advantages: • Creek avoids sediment loading (never impacted) • Mudboilspotentially capped by hydraulic head • Disadvantages: • Expensive • May create mudboils down gradient • Creek channel may migrate back to mudboil area

  7. Potential Solutions (3) • Impoundment around rogue mudboil, Wetland for smaller particle removal, relief wells • Build impoundment around rogue mudboil followed by wetland • Surround impoundment by relief wells • Construct levee to protect creek • Advantages: • Protects creek from incoming sediment • Provides ecological and aesthetic service • Flexible design • Disadvantages: • Storm events could decrease sediment capacity • Annual dredging required • Large land area required

  8. Design Overview • Relief Wells assumed to control flow from mudboils to not exceed 400 gpm • Impoundment designed to contain particles > 4 μm • Wetland designed to remove smaller particles (< 2 μm) • Levee high enough to protect creek from storm events

  9. Relief Well Design • Install 4 relief wells surrounding impoundment berm • 5” diameter with screens excluding sand size particles • Installing 1 well next to mudboil can potentially reduce hydraulic head by 15 ft. • Install wells 20 ft. from mudboil vent to prevent intercepting sediment flow in vent

  10. Impoundment Design (1) • Dredging is unavoidable • Annual dredging • Design to remove 4 μmparticles • Settling velocity of 6 x 10-4 cm/s • 38 hr detention • design driven by solids dredging annually, not settling time requirements

  11. Impoundment Design (2) • 35 meter diameter • 6 ft high • 3 feet water level design • walls are 3 foot wide top, 3:1 slope, 13 ft bottom

  12. Profile View: Impoundment Drains to Wetlands Mudboil cone

  13. Wetland Design (1) • Sheet flow over vegetation to remove particles smaller than 2 μm. • 155 acres • size driven by solids limit to 2 cm/yr depth • <1 acre needed for solids removal retention time

  14. Profile View: Wetland 4 % slope

  15. Design Overview

  16. Estimated Cost • $45,000 based on $15/cu. yd. • Includes berms for access to impoundment and levee • $5 million for bio-swale • Based on estimated cost per acre of $35,000

  17. Other Considerations • Problem of source too large to contain • Salinity diluted in stream to lower levels • Salinity in relief wells presumed to decrease (drawing from freshwater aquifer) • Not included in treatment goal • Snowfall my decrease residence time in winter • Do relief wells control flow from mudboils to below historic high flows? • Studies on effects of relief wells on mudboil flow should be done • Pilot-scale study on effectiveness of wetland • Vegetation response to sediment over time • Fine particle removal rates • Construction should occur in phases • Install relief wells first, allow some time for mudboils to react (1-2 years) • Build levees and impoundment around stabilized mudboils (1-2 years) • Construct wetland, route water from impoundment through wetland (20-year design life)

  18. Summary • As designed, sediment load from mudboils intercepted before entering Odondanga Creek • Ecological buffer (wetland) between mudboils and creek should enhance recovery of fish populations • Levee would prevent resuspension and conveyance of sediment to creek during storm events • While dredging required, sediment has astringent qualities that could have market value as a cosmetic product

  19. Questions?

More Related