Estuaries

, Volume 26, Issue 5, pp 1269–1280

A model study of turbidity maxima in the York River estuary, Virginia

Article

Abstract

A three-dimensional numerical model is used to investigate the mechanisms that contribute to the formation of the turbidity maxima in the York River, Virginia (U.S.). The model reproduces the basic features in both salinity and total suspended sediments (TSS) fields for three different patterns. Both the prominent estuary turbidity maximum (ETM) and the newly discovered secondary turbidity maximum (STM) are simulated when river discharge is relatively low. At higher river inflow, the two turbidity maxima move closer to each other. During very high river discharge event, only the prominent turbidity maximum is simulated. Diagnostic model studies also suggest that bottom resuspension is an important source of TSS in both the ETM and the STM, and confirm the observed association between the turbidity maxima and the stratification patterns in the York River estuary. The ETM is usually located near the head of salt intrusion and the STM is often associated with a transition zone between upriver well mixed and downriver more stratified water columns. Analysis of the model results from the diagnostic studies indicates that the location of the ETM is well associated with the null point of bottom residual flow. Convergent bottom residual flow, as well as tidal asymmetry, is the most important mechanisms that contribute to the formation of the STM. the STM often exists in a region with landward decrease of bottom residual flow and net landward sediment flux due to tidal asymmetry. The channel depth of this region usually decreases sharply upriver. As channel depth decreases, vertical mixing increases and hence the water column is better mixed landward of the STM.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Belval, D. L., M. D. Woodside, andJ. P. Campbell. 1994. Relation of stream quality to streamflow, and estimated loads of selected water-quality constituents in the James and Rappahannock Rivers near the fall line of Virginia, July 1988-June 1990. U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4042. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.Google Scholar
  2. Biggs, R. B., J. H. Sharp, T. M. Church, J. M. Tramontano, andJ. Watson. 1983. Optical properties, suspended sediments, and chemistry associated with the turbidity maxima of the Delaware estuary.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:172–179.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, C. B., L. M. Seavy, andG. Rittenhouse. 1938. Investigation of silting in the York River, Virginia. Advanced report SCS-SS-32. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Burchard, H. andH. Baumert. 1998. The formation of estuarine turbidity maxima due to density effects in the salt wedge. A hydrodynamic process study.Journal of Physical Oceanography 28:309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cohn, T. A., D. L. Caulder, E. J. Gilroy, L. D. Zynjuk, andR. M. Summers. 1992. The validity of a simple statistical model for estimating fluvial constituent loads: An empirical study involving nutrient loads entering Chesapeake Bay.Water Resources Research 28:2353–2363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dellapenna, T. M. 1999. Fine-scale strata formation in biologically and physically dominated estuarine systems within the lower Chesapeake and York River subestuary. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  7. Dellapenna, T. M., S. A. Kuehl, andL. C. Schaffner. 1998. Sea-bed mixing and particle residence times in biologically and physically dominated estuarine systems: A comparison of lower Chesapeake Bay and the York River subestuary.Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 46:777–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dobereiner, C. andJ. McManus. 1983. Turbidity maximum migration and harbor siltation in the Tay estuary.Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 40:117–129.Google Scholar
  9. Friedrichs, C. T., L. C. Schaffner, T. M. Dellapenna, andJ. Lin. 1999. Migration of mud beds associated with double turbidity maxima in a tidally energetic, partially-mixed estuary, p. 37.In Abstract of ERF '99, The 15th Biennial International Conference. ERF, New Orleans, Louisiana.Google Scholar
  10. Galperin, B., L. H. Kantha, S. Hassid, andA. Rosati. 1988. A quasi-equilibrium turbulent energy model for geophysical flows.Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 45:55–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Geyer, W. R. 1993. The importance of suppression of turbulence by stratification on the estuarine turbidity maximum.Estuaries 16:113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamrick, J. M. 1992. A three-dimensional environmental fluid dynamics computer code: Theoretical and computational aspects. Special report on Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 317. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  13. Hamrick, J. M. 1996. User's manual for the environmental fluid dynamics computer code. Special Report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 331. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  14. Jay, D. A. andJ. D. Musiak. 1994. Particle trapping in estuary tidal flows.Journal of Geophysical Research 99:20445–20461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lin, J. 2001. A study of the secondary turbidity maximum in the York River estuary, Virginia. Ph.D. Dissertation, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  16. Lin, J. andA. Y. Kuo. 2001. Secondary turbidity maximum in a partially mixed microtidal estuary.Estuaries 24:707–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Maa, J. P.-Y., L. D. Wright, C.-H. Lee, andT. W. Shannon. 1993. VIMS Sea Carousel: A field instrument for studying sediment transport, 1993.Marine Geology 115:271–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald, E. T. andR. T. Cheng. 1997. A numerical model of sediment transport applied to San Francisco Bay.Journal of Marine Environmental Engineering 4:1–41.Google Scholar
  19. Mellor, G. L. andT. Yamada. 1982. Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems.Reviews of Geophysics and Space Physics 20:851–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore, K. A., R. L. Wetzel, andR. J. Orth. 1997. Seasonal pulses of turbidity and their relations to eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) survival in an estuary.Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 215:115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nelson, B. W. 1960. Recent sediment studies in 1960.Mineral Industries Journal 7:1–4.Google Scholar
  22. Nichols, M. M., S.-C. Kim, andC. M. Brouwer. 1991. Sediment characterization of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. NOAA National Estuarine Inventory, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  23. Nichols, M. M. andG. Thompson. 1973. Development of the turbidity maximum in a coastal plain estuary. Final Report for U.S. Army Research Office Durham, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  24. Park, K., A. Y. Kuo, J. Shen, andJ. M. Hamrick. 1995. A three-dimensional hydrodynamic-eutrophication model (HEM-3D): Description of water quality and sediment process submodels. Special report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 327. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  25. Roberts, W. P. andJ. W. Pierce. 1976. Deposition in upper Patuxent estuary, Maryland, 1968–1969.Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 4:267–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sanford, L. P. andM.-L. Chang. 1997. The bottom boundary condition for suspended sediment deposition.Journal of Coastal Research 25:3–17.Google Scholar
  27. Sanford, L. P. andJ. P.-Y. Maa. 2001. A unified erosion formulation for fine sediments.Marine Geology 179:9–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shen, J. andA. Y. Kuo. 1999. Numerical investigation of estuarine front and its associated eddy.Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 125:127–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shen, J., G. M. Sisson, A. Y. Kuo, J. Boon, andS.-C. Kim. 1998. Three-dimensional numerical modeling of the York River system, Virginia, p. 495–510.In M. L. Spaulding and A. M. Blumberg (eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Estuarine and Coastal Modeling. ASCE, Reston, Virginia.Google Scholar
  30. Simpson, J. H., J. Brown, J. Matthews, andG. Allen. 1990. Tidal straining, density currents, and stirring in the control of estuarine stratification.Estuaries 13:125–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sisson, G. M., J. Shen, S.-C. Kim, J. Boon, andA. Y. Kuo. 1997. VIMS three-dimensional hydrodynamic-eutrophication model (HEM-3D): Application of the hydrodynamic model to the York River system. Special report in Applied Marine Science and Ocean Engineering No. 341. Virginia Institute of Marine Science, The College of William and Mary, Gloucester Point, Virginia.Google Scholar
  32. Stacey, M. T., S. G. Monismith, andJ. R. Burau. 1999. Observations of turbulence in a partially stratified estuary.Journal of Physical Oceanography 29:1950–1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weir, D. J. andJ. McManus. 1987. The role of wind in generating turbidity maxima in the Tay estuary.Continental Shelf Research 7:1315–1318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Estuarine Research Federation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marine ScienceCollege of William and MaryGloucester Point
  2. 2.Department of Bioenvironmental Systems EngineeringNational Taiwan UniversityTaipeiTaiwan

Personalised recommendations