Nutrient and Water Quality Analysis of a Lake Erie
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NUTRIENT AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS OF A LAKE ERIE HEADWATER TRIBUTARY A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science MaryAnne Hejna August 2020 NUTRIENT AND WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS OF A LAKE ERIE HEADWATER TRIBUTARY MaryAnne Hejna Thesis Approved: Accepted: ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Advisor Department Chair Dr. Teresa J. Cutright Dr. Wieslaw K. Binienda ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Committee Member Interim Dean of the College Dr. Stephen E. Duirk Dr. Craig Menzemer ____________________________________________ ____________________________________________ Committee Member Acting Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Richard L. Einsporn Dr. Marnie M. Saunders ____________________________________________ Date ii ABSTRACT Lake Erie is a drinking water source for millions of people and therefore requires protection from anthropogenic impacts. Nine percent of Lake Erie’s freshwater comes from its tributaries. These sources should deliver clean water to the lake and thus warrant stewardship. Today, nonpoint sources emanating from agricultural and urbanized tributary watersheds are responsible for nutrient pollution loads to the lake and its tributaries. This thesis focused on the existing water quality parameters (nutrients and water chemistry) throughout the Euclid Creek watershed, an urbanized Lake Erie headwater tributary east of the Cuyahoga River. Field sampling was conducted from March 2019 to March 2020 at 14 sites with 23 dry weather collections and 11 wet weather collections. Results suggest that the 2019 annual phosphorus load entering Lake Erie was 22,600 pounds, over four times the target of 5000 pounds. Multiple upstream sites were the major nonpoint sources of nutrient pollution. Four locations averaged phosphorus levels 12 to 15 times the target of 0.05 mg/L, with two in the East Branch and two in the Main Branch. The main cause of the pollution pointed to leaky sanitary sewers. Like many urbanized areas throughout the United States, the original headwaters have been replaced by underground stormwater infrastructure. Due to the high level of iii connectivity between the creek and the storm sewer network, Euclid Creek responds rapidly to rainfall. There was evidence of Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) and Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) activations during storm events downstream of the confluence of the two branches and in the East Branch. Seasonally, spring storms contributed the most pollution during the monitoring period. The presence of the Cleveland Metroparks significantly reduced [푝 < 0.05] nutrients during dry weather. Residential areas contributed more pollution than the three golf courses and the regional airport located within the watershed. The East Branch has little protection from urban run-off. This research suggests that water quality improvements are needed in both upstream branches. Autosamplers should be installed for future water quality monitoring at the two upstream existing US Geological Survey stations to gather data during wet weather events and baseflow conditions. Fish rocks, protective cave-like features, should be installed at upstream sites to protect aquatic life from storm-induced currents. If possible, storage for wet weather flows should be provided for both branches. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Teresa J. Cutright, my advisor, for her unwavering guidance and support throughout this research work. Her encouragement and helpful critiques were invaluable. I am grateful for everything: laboratory and field equipment use, weekly update meetings, abundant reference material, expert chemical advice, and the pivotal opportunity to expand my engineering knowledge. Additionally, I would like to acknowledge the help provided me by Dr. Richard L. Einsporn. His statistical expertise and advice were greatly appreciated throughout my research process. I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Stephen E. Duirk, for his wisdom, time, and review of this work. My special thanks are extended to Michael Spade, who generously helped with a plethora of laboratory analysis and George Carleton, who skillfully trained me in proper lab procedures and assisted with my initial field collection. I would also like to thank Elizabeth Hiser, the Euclid Creek Watershed Program Manager, for her time and communication. I wish to thank everyone who helped me in the field collecting data for this research, during all types of weather. Thanks to Caroline Kelemen, my sons, Cameron and Ethan, and Anne Wiles. Thanks to Elena Stachew, who donated the turbidity tube and to Patricia Eaglewolf, who was always available for help in the Civil Engineering office. Finally, I wish to thank my husband, Tony, for all his support. v TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………...…..xi LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….xiii CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….1 1.1 Water Pollution Background……………………………………………………………………………………….1 1.2 Euclid Creek Watershed……………………………………………………………………………………………..4 1.3 Objectives………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..5 II. LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..7 2.1 Lake Eutrophication……………………………………………………………………………………………………..7 2.2 Harmful Algal Blooms………………………………………………………………………………………………….9 2.3 Lake Erie………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..10 2.4 Euclid Creek……………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….13 2.5 Dry Weather & Wet Weather Definitions……………………………………………………………14 III. HISTORICAL WATER QUALITY SAMPLING & RAINFALL…………………………….…….16 3.1 Rainfall Event Summary for the 2019-2020 Monitoring Period…….…………………..16 vi 3.2 Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment Reporting………………………………………..25 3.3 NEORSD Sampling…………………………………………………………………………………………………….29 3.4 The Euclid Creek Watershed Program……………………………………………………………….….31 3.5 Historical Rainfall Data Exploration………………………………………………………………………32 IV. EXPERIMENTAL METHODS……………………………………………………………………………………………..38 4.1 Overview of Site Selection Process………………………………………………………………………….38 4.2 Sampling Site Descriptions……………………………………………………………………………………...40 4.2.1 Acacia…………………………………………………………………………………………………………...40 4.2.2 Telling Mansion………………………………………………………………………………………...43 4.2.3 Schaefer Park………………………………………………………………………………………………45 4.2.4 Spencer Road……………………………………………………………………………………………..46 4.2.5 Harris Road…………………………………………………………………………………………………48 4.2.6 Community Center……………………………………………………………………………………50 4.2.7 U/S Stonewater……………………………………………………………………………………………51 4.2.8 Rockefeller Road………………………………………………………………………………………..52 4.2.9 Bishop Road………………………………………………………………………………………………..54 4.2.10 Richmond White……………………………………………………………………………………..55 4.2.11 Highland Main…………………………………………………………………………………………..56 vii 4.2.12 Highland East……………………………………………………………………………………………58 4.2.13 Villaview……………………………………………………………………………………………….……59 4.2.14 Wildwood……………………………………………………………………………………………….…61 4.3 Field Equipment………………………………………………………………………………………………………….62 4.4 Lab Analyses…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……64 4.5 Statistical Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………....65 V. DRY WEATHER RESULTS & DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………..……67 5.1 Dry Weather Flow Overview……………………………………………………………………………………67 5.2 Dry Weather Flow Conditions at Acacia……………………………………………………………...68 5.3 East & Main Branch Comparison……………………………………………………………………………78 5.4 Tributary Impact on East & Main Branches………………………………………………...……...81 5.5 Active Storm Sewer Collections During Dry Weather……………………….…….…….….89 VI. WET WEATHER RESULTS & DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………..…91 6.1 Wet Weather Overview………………………….…………………………………………………………….…...91 6.2 Wet Weather Flow Conditions at Acacia…………………………………………………………….92 6.3 Rainfall Characteristics of Wet Weather Collection Events……………………..…….101 6.4 East & Main Branch Comparison During Wet Weather for Upper and Lower Reaches………………………………………………...…………….……106 viii 6.5 Tributary Impact on Nutrient Concentrations of the Two Branches During Wet Weather…………………………………………………………………..……..109 6.6 Wet Weather Collections at Single Sites……………………………………………………………..112 VII. TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING ANALYSIS……………………………………………..……………128 7.1 USGS Stations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……128 7.2 Dry Weather Phosphorus Loading Calculations…………………………………………...……131 7.3 Wet Weather Phosphorus Loading Calculations………………………………………….…..133 7.4 Total Annual Phosphorus Loading Conclusion……………………………………………….…135 VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS………………………………………………………..136 8.1 Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……..136 8.2 Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………..…………..141 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………145 APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..158 APPENDIX A: Dry Weather Results (Individual Sites) ………………………………..………159 APPENDIX B: Dry Weather East and Main Branch Comparison……………………..….186 APPENDIX C: Dry Weather ANOVA and Tukey Comparisons of Upstream Tributary Impact……………………………………………………………………………..…...…196 APPENDIX D: Wet Weather Results (Individual Sites)…………………………….……….…201 APPENDIX E: Wet Weather Collection Events……………………………………………………...228 ix APPENDIX F: Phosphorus and Rainfall Characteristic Comparison………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………237 APPENDIX G: Wet Weather