Predicting River Aquatic Productivity and Dissolved Oxygen before and after Dam Removal in ...

131 Pages·2012·3.87 MB·English

Predicting River Aquatic Productivity and Dissolved Oxygen before and after Dam
Removal in Central Ohio, USA

Thesis

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science
in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

By

Yiding Zhang, M.S.
Environmental Science Graduate Program
The Ohio State University
2012

Thesis Committee:
William J. Mitsch, Advisor
Jay F. Martin
Richard H. Moore
Copyright by
Yiding Zhang
2012
Abstract
The potential changes of dissolved oxygen concentrations caused by combined
sewer overflows (CSOs) are an important consideration before and after dam removal
in many urban rivers. In central Ohio, removal of a 2-m-high dam is planned in
Columbus for the fourth-order Lower Olentangy River, which has several major
CSOs. Two simulation models were developed, using STELLA® 9.1.4, an icon-based
dynamic systems modeling software, to investigate the interactions of hydrology,
water quality, CSOs, and dam removal on the Olentangy River reservoir before the
Fifth Avenue Dam. The first simulation model, focusing on daily dissolved oxygen
(DO), was created to predict DO changes with the pollution of CSOs before and 120
hours after dam removal. Field DO data in 2009, 2011, and 2012 were used to
calibrate and validate the model. The second simulation model, a weekly water
quality model, was created to simulate one-year streamflow, gross primary
productivity (GPP) and DO changes before dam removal and to predict long-term
water quality changes 2 years after dam removal. Field streamflow and water quality
data in 2004 and 2009 were used to calibrate the model. The results from both field
data analysis and model simulations suggest that large differences existed in water
quality between base flow and flooding periods. The water quality of the Lower
Olentangy River will be impacted immediately after dam removal. DO concentrations
will continue to be significantly impacted by CSO discharges even after dam removal.

ii
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. William J. Mitsch. He supported and
taught me how to do research. I would like to thank my co-advisor, Dr. Li Zhang, who
taught me modeling during my research and gave me much help even after she left
The Ohio State University. I would like to thank my committee members, Drs. Jay F.
Martin and Richard H. Moore, for their advice and guidance. I also would like to
thank my colleagues in the Wilma H. Schiermeier Olentangy River Wetland Research
Park (ORWRP), including Kay Stefanik, Blanca Bernal, Jorge Villa-Betancur, Darryl
Marois, and Evan Waletzko, for their support in my research. Lastly, I would like to
thank my parents and friends for their support during the time of my study in the
United States.

iii
Vita
2006-2010……………………………………………………………B.S.
Environmental Science, Tianjin
University, China

Field of Study

Major Field: Environmental Science

iv
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………..ii
Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………...iii
Vita…………………………………………………………………………………....iv
List of Tables…………………………………………………………………...……vii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………….…..ix
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………..1
1.1. Dam removal…………………………………………………………………1
1.2. Fifth Avenue Dam and Lower Olentangy River……………………………...2
1.3. Dissolved oxygen…………………………………………………………….4
1.4. Combined Sewer Overflows in Columbus…………………………………...5
1.5. Modeling dissolved oxygen in river and stream……………………………..7
1.6. Previous studies related to the Olentangy River Dam removal………………9
1.7. Goals and objectives………………………………………………………...10
Chapter 2: Materials and Methods…………………………………………………...12
2.1. Study site……………………………………………………………………12
2.2. Data sources………………………………………………………………...12
2.3. Modeling methods…………………………………………………………..13
Chapter 3: Results……………………………………………………………………19
3.1. Field data analysis and productivity model development…………………..19
3.2. Hourly dissolved oxygen model…………………………………………….22
v
3.3. Weekly water quality model………………………………………………...24
Chapter 4: Discussion………………………………………………………………...29
4.1. Current dissolved oxygen patterns………………………………………….29
4.2. Dissolved oxygen changes after dam removal……………………………...29
4.3. The effect of combined sewer overflows on dissolved oxygen…………….30
4.4. Aquatic metabolism before and after dam removal………………………...31
4.5. Limitations of the simulation models……………………………………….32
Chapter 5: Conclusions………………………………………………………………34
References……………………………………………………………………………36
Appendix A: Tables………………………………………………………………….42
Appendix B: Figures…………………………………………………………………52
Appendix C: Field data………………………………………………………………81
Appendix D: Equations, parameters, and coefficients used in the simulation
model.…………………………………………………………………..97
Appendix E: Simulation results……………………………………………………..111

vi
List of Tables
Table 1. Published case studies of completed dam removals in the last 30 years in
USA (Bednarek 2001) …………………………………………………..….43
Table 2. Comparison of some dissolved oxygen modeling approaches………..……45
Table 3. Comparison of streamflow, solar radiation, temperature and DO field data
and gross primary productivity (GPP) calculations in different seasons in
base flow and flooding periods in reservoir 2 of the Olentangy
River……………………………………………………………………..….46
Table 4. Summary table of hourly DO mode calibration and validation using two
different methods……………………………………………...……………47
Table 5. Sensitivity analysis for each forcing function in the hourly DO model and
their influences on DO concentrations…………………..………………….47
Table 6. Lowest, highest, and mean value of dissolved oxygen in the second reservoir
of the Olentangy River during the simulation for lentic and lotic
DO..........................................................................................................…...48
Table 7. Summary table of weekly mode calibration and validation using two
different methods…………………….……………………………………..48
Table 8. Sensitivity analysis for each forcing function in the weekly water quality
model and their influences on the water volume and GPP…………………49
Table 9. Lowest, highest, and mean value of streamflow, GPP, and DO during one
year simulation with weekly water quality model………………….………49
vii
Table 10. Mean values of water column, GPP and DO in reservoir 2 upstream of the
Fifth Avenue Dam before and after dam removal…………...……………50
Table 11. The effects of controlling CSOs on DO concentrations after dam
removal……………………………………………………………………50
Table 12. Suggested immediate and long-term effects of dam removal and controlling
combined sewer overflows on urban streams……………………...……...51

viii
List of Figures
Figure 1. The Olentangy River near the Fifth Avenue Bridge before the Fifth Avenue
Dam was constructed……………………………………………………...53
Figure 2. Location of the Fifth Avenue Dam and the extent of two reservoirs upstream
the dam on the Olentangy River………...………………………………...54
Figure 3. Fifth Avenue Dam on the Olentangy River, Columbus Ohio……………...55
Figure 4. Olentangy Watersheds: Upper Olentangy, Middle Olentangy, Lower
Olentangy, and Whetstone Creek………………...……………………….56
Figure 5. Map of Olentangy River within the Scioto River watershed………………57
Figure 6. Land use of the Lower Olentangy River watershed………………………..58
Figure 7. Lower Olentangy River showing two reservoirs used in the study………..59
Figure 8. Conceptual diagram of the Lower Olentangy River in Columbus, Ohio….60
Figure 9. Field streamflow of the Olentangy River in 2004 near Clinton Park Dam at
the Olentangy River Wetland Research Park (ORWRP) …………………61
Figure 10. Comparison of DO concentrations in base flow and flooding periods…...61
Figure 11. Daily gross primary productivity (GPP) estimated during the base flow
period using DO field data: A, from July 4-10, 2009 and July 1-7, 2011;
and B, as a function of solar radiation….…………………………………62
Figure 12. GPP as a function of water temperature for base flow period……………63
Figure 13. GPP as a function of streamflow for flooding period…………………….63
Figure 14. Comparison of GPP model simulations (equation 10 and 11) with: A, field
ix