PowerPoint PresentationTitle: PowerPoint Presentation Author: Laura Created Date: 4/7/2014 8:37:50...
34
Trends in water quality across Ohio watersheds Laura Johnson and Ken Krieger Ohio Water Resources Council Workgroup for Water Resources Monitoring 21 March 2014
Transcript of PowerPoint PresentationTitle: PowerPoint Presentation Author: Laura Created Date: 4/7/2014 8:37:50...
Trends in water quality across Ohio watersheds
Laura Johnson and Ken Krieger
Ohio Water Resources Council
Workgroup for Water Resources Monitoring
21 March 2014
• 16 stations
• Started in 1975 with the Sandusky and Maumee
• Old Woman Creek probable new addition – Up and down of
the wetland
Heidelberg Tributary
Loading Program
• Samples collected 3x a day
• Analyzed for all major nutrients and suspended sediments
Colorimetry for TP, DRP, TKN, NH4, Si
Ion chromatography for NO3, NO2, Cl, Fl, SO4
Suspended Sediments
• Samples collected 3x a day
• Analyzed for all major nutrients and suspended sediments
Colorimetry for TP, DRP, TKN, NH4, Si
Ion chromatography for NO3, NO2, Cl, Fl, SO4
Suspended Sediments
Objectives
• Explore patterns in nutrient export from watersheds in Ohio and Michigan
– Watershed yield or unit area loads (kg/ha) to correct for differences in watershed size
– Focus on WY 2013 and past 5 years of data
• Quantify the potential importance of hydrology alongside watershed area and land use
Cuyahoga
Rais
in
Port
age
Lost
Bla
nchard
Tiff
in
Maum
ee
Rock
Honey
Sandusky
Muskin
gum
Scio
to
Gre
at
Mia
mi
Chic
kasaw
Cold
wate
r
% w
ate
rshe
d la
nd
co
ver
0
20
40
60
80
100
Cuyahoga
Rais
in
Port
age
Lost
Bla
nchard
Tiff
in
Maum
ee
Rock
Honey
Sandusky
Muskin
gum
Scio
to
Gre
at
Mia
mi
Chic
kasaw
Cold
wate
r
Wa
ters
he
d a
rea
(km
2)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
Agriculture
Hay-Pasture
Forest
Urban
Other
11 43 30
Comparisons across watersheds
• Runoff is similar across watersheds
– Particularly low in Raisin, Lost, and Tiffin
RunoffC
uya
ho
ga
Ra
isin
Po
rta
ge
Lo
st
Bla
nch
ard
Tiffin
Ma
um
ee
Ro
ck
Ho
ne
y
Sa
nd
usky
Mu
skin
gu
mS
cio
toG
rea
t M
iam
iC
hic
ka
sa
wC
old
wa
ter
Ru
no
ff (
cm
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2013 load
5 y maximum
5 y mean
5 y minimum
*note only 1y of data for Coldwater
Comparisons across watersheds
• Runoff is similar across watersheds
– Particularly low in Raisin, Lost, and Tiffin
RunoffC
uya
ho
ga
Ra
isin
Po
rta
ge
Lo
st
Bla
nch
ard
Tiffin
Ma
um
ee
Ro
ck
Ho
ne
y
Sa
nd
usky
Mu
skin
gu
mS
cio
toG
rea
t M
iam
iC
hic
ka
sa
wC
old
wa
ter
Ru
no
ff (
cm
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
2013 load
5 y maximum
5 y mean
5 y minimum
*note only 1y of data for Coldwater
Total Phosphorus
Cu
ya
ho
ga
Ra
isin
Po
rta
ge
Lo
st
Bla
nch
ard
Tiffin
Ma
um
ee
Ro
ck
Ho
ne
y
Sa
nd
usky
Mu
skin
gu
mS
cio
toG
rea
t M
iam
iC
hic
ka
sa
wC
old
wa
ter
Un
it a
rea
lo
ad
(kg/h
a)
0
1
2
3
4
5 2013 load
5 yr maximum
5 yr mean
5 yr minimum
Lake Erie Ohio GL
Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus
Cuyahoga
Rais
inP
ort
age
Lost
Bla
nchard
Tiffin
Maum
ee
Rock
Honey
Sandu
sky
Muskin
gum
Scio
toG
reat
Mia
mi
Chic
kasaw
Cold
wate
r
Unit a
rea loa
d (
kg/h
a)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2013 load
5 yr maximum
5 yr mean
5 yr minimum
Lake Erie Ohio GL
• Both TP and DRP are particularly low in Raisin and Tiffin
Nitrate-NC
uya
ho
ga
Ra
isin
Po
rta
ge
Lo
st
Bla
nch
ard
Tiffin
Ma
um
ee
Ro
ck
Ho
ne
y
Sa
nd
usky
Mu
skin
gu
mS
cio
toG
rea
t M
iam
iC
hic
ka
sa
wC
old
wa
ter
Un
it a
rea
lo
ad
(kg/h
a)
0
20
40
60
80
2013 load
5 yr maximum
5 yr mean
5 yr minimum
Comparisons across watersheds
• Nitrate yield is high in Chickasaw and Coldwater
• Next highest in Portage, Blanchard, Maumee, Honey and Sandusky
Why such variation in unit area loads across watersheds?
• In part due to land use:
– Agricultural watersheds tended to have higher loads
– Chickasaw and Coldwater (GLSM) watersheds had consistently high loads, especially nitrate
• What about influence of “flashiness”?
R-B flashiness index
• Flashiness = the frequency and rapidity of short-term changes in discharge
• Incorporates the day-to-day changes in discharge relative to total discharge over the time interval
From Baker et al. 2004, JAWRA
FlashinessC
uyahoga
Rais
inP
ort
age
Lost
Bla
nchard
Tiffin
Maum
ee
Rock
Honey
Sandu
sky
Muskin
gum
Scio
toG
reat
Mia
mi
Chic
kasaw
Cold
wate
r
R-B
index
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Comparisons across watersheds
• Smaller watersheds most flashy
• Agricultural watersheds as well
• Raisin and Tiffin have low indices
2013 load
5 y maximum
5 y mean
5 y minimum
Influence of agriculture and watershed area on flashiness
% Agriculture
0 20 40 60 80 100
R-B
in
de
x
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Watershed area (km2)
1 10 100 1000 10000 100000R
-B in
de
x0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
r=-0.926 P<0.001
r=-0.543 P<0.04
*note log scale
Influence of flashiness on unit area loads
• TP and nitrate are significantly related to flashiness
• The tributary to Lost Creek has lower loads than expected
Total Phosphorus
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Un
it a
rea
lo
ad
(kg/h
a)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus
R-B Flashiness index
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Nitrate-N
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
r=0.627 P=0.01
r=0.432 P=0.10
r=0.587 P=0.02
Total Phosphorus
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
Un
it a
rea
lo
ad
(kg/h
a)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus
R-B Flashiness index
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Nitrate-N
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Influence of flashiness on unit area loads
• Relationships much stronger without Lost Cr tributary
• Yet, in part driven by Chickasaw and Coldwater, that have high loads because of land management, small watersheds, and high % agriculture
r=0.842 P<0.001
r=0.708 P<0.001
r=0.825 P<0.001
Load exported in top 10 and 25% of flows
Total Phosphorus
Cuya
hoga
Rais
inP
ort
age
Lost
Bla
nch
ard
Tiffin
Ma
um
ee
Rock
Hon
ey
Sa
ndusky
Mu
skin
gum
Scio
toG
reat M
iam
iC
hic
ka
saw
Cold
wa
ter
% o
f th
e lo
ad
0
20
40
60
80
100
Dissolved Reactive Phosphorus
Cuya
ho
ga
Rais
inP
ort
age
Lost
Bla
nch
ard
Tiffin
Ma
um
ee
Rock
Hon
ey
Sand
usky
Mu
skin
gu
mS
cio
toG
reat M
iam
iC
hic
ka
sa
wC
old
wate
r
% o
f th
e lo
ad
0
20
40
60
80
100
Nitrate-N
Cuya
hoga
Rais
inP
ort
age
Lost
Bla
nch
ard
Tiffin
Ma
um
ee
Rock
Hon
ey
Sa
ndusky
Mu
skin
gum
Scio
toG
reat M
iam
iC
hic
ka
saw
Cold
wa
ter
% o
f th
e lo
ad
0
20
40
60
80
100
• For all nutrients, most of the load occurs in the top 25% of flow
– Except the Cuyahoga
• Small watersheds have higher % exports
• Point source dominated exports are lower
Total bar Colored bar
Sandusky
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Maumee
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Long-term trends in DRP concentrations
• FWMC have been increasing in the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers since the mid-1990’s
5 yr running average
Long-term trends in DRP concentrations
Cuyahoga
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Muskingum
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07*note change in scale
Sandusky
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Maumee
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Great Miami
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Scioto
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Long-term trends in DRP concentrations
*note change in scale
Sandusky
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Maumee
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
Great Miami
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Scioto
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Long-term trends in DRP concentrations
*note change in scale
Sandusky
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Maumee
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
An
nu
al F
WM
C (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Long-term trends in nitrate concentrations
• FWMC has declined in the Maumee and Sandusky Rivers since the early 2000’s
Sandusky
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Maumee
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Long-term trends in nitrate concentrations
Sandusky
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Maumee
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Great Miami
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
Scioto
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
*note change in scale
Long-term trends in nitrate concentrations
Sandusky
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Maumee
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Cuyahoga
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Muskingum
Water Year
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Annua
l FW
MC
(m
g/L
)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0*note change in scale
DRP chemograph
• Most agricultural rivers are similar to the Maumee
• Cuyahoga reflects point source inputs – As do Great Miami and Scioto
• Coldwater and Chickasaw have the highest concentrations – Pattern in Portage is similar but
lower magnitude
Maumee
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
cha
rge
(m3/s
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Discharge
DRP
Cuyahoga
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
cha
rge
(m3/s
)
0
100
200
300
400
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Discharge
DRP
Coldwater
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
cha
rge
(m3/s
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Discharge
DRP
*note change in scale
Nitrate chemograph
• June peaks in nitrate across all watersheds, except the Cuyahoga
• Great Miami and Scioto exhibit similar peaks reflecting mixed sources of nutrients
Maumee
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
cha
rge
(m3/s
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800C
once
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0
5
10
15
20Discharge
Nitrate-N
Muskingum
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct D
ischa
rge
(m3/s
)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Cuyahoga
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
cha
rge
(m3/s
)
0
100
200
300
400
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Discharge
Nitrate-N
*note change in scale
• Coldwater and Chickasaw peaks are particularly pronounced
Coldwater
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
cha
rge
(m3/s
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Chickasaw
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
cha
rge
(m3/s
)
0
10
20
30
40
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Nitrate chemograph
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Ch
icka
sa
w C
ree
k d
isch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg
/L)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
2014 Water year
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5 GLSM tributaries
• Added Beaver Creek, outfall of Grand Lake St Marys in October 2013
• Thus far in WY 2014, Chickasaw and Coldwater have much higher DRP and nitrate concentrations than Beaver, TP is similar
– Indicates substantial processing in the lake
DRP
Nitrate
TP
Chickasaw Discharge
Chickasaw
Coldwater
Beaver
Conclusions
• Unit area loads vary across watersheds based on specific land management practices as well as hydrology
– Tributaries to GLSM have high loads, especially of nitrate
• Recent increases in DRP may also be occurring in watersheds outside Lake Erie, though hard to discern from point sources
• Nitrate may be decreasing across many watersheds, but patterns are still variable
– Concentrations peak in June even in watersheds with very little agriculture
Questions?
For more information visit: http://www.heidelberg.edu/NCWQR
Or contact me at [email protected]
http://www.facebook.com/NCWQR
Sandusky
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Discharge
DRP
Portage
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Discharge
DRP
Maumee
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Discharge
DRP
Great Miami
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Discharge
DRP
Scioto
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Discharge
DRP
Cuyahoga
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct D
isch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
100
200
300
400
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Discharge
DRP
Muskingum
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
Discharge
DRPColdwater
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Discharge
DRP
Chickasaw
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
10
20
30
40
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Discharge
DRP
Sandusky
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0
5
10
15
20
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Portage
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0
5
10
15
20
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Maumee
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0
5
10
15
20Discharge
Nitrate-N
Great Miami
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)0
5
10
15
20
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Scioto
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Cuyahoga
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
100
200
300
400
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Muskingum
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Coldwater
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)
0
10
20
30
40
50
Discharge
Nitrate-N
Chickasaw
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Dis
ch
arg
e (m
3/s)
0
10
20
30
40
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
mg/L
)0
10
20
30
40
50
Discharge
Nitrate-N
