Advertisement

Chesapeake Bay’s “forgotten” Anacostia River: eutrophication and nutrient reduction measures

  • Caroline M. SolomonEmail author
  • Melanie Jackson
  • Patricia M. Glibert
Article

Abstract

The Anacostia River, a Chesapeake Bay tributary running through Washington, D.C., is small but highly polluted with nutrients and contaminants. There is currently a multi-billion dollar tunnel project underway, being built in several phases, aimed at diverting effluent to sewage treatment, especially during high flow periods, and improving water quality of the Anacostia and the river into which it flows, the Potomac. Here, 4 years of biweekly to monthly nutrient and phytoplankton data are analyzed to assess pre-tunnel eutrophication status and relationships to flow conditions. Under all flow conditions, nutrients prior to tunnel implementation were well in excess of values normally taken to be limiting for growth, and hypoxia was apparent during summer. Chlorophyll a was higher in summer (averaging 26.9 μg L−1) than in spring (averaging 14.8 μg L−1), and based on pigment composition, summer communities had proportionately more cyanobacteria (> 2-fold higher zeaxanthin to chlorophyll a ratios) compared to spring, which had proportionately more diatoms (> 2-fold higher fucoxanthin to chlorophyll a ratios). When all data from all years and sites were considered, there was a decrease in diatoms and increase in cyanobacteria with decreasing NO3 and increasing NH4+ concentrations, increasing ratios of NH4+ to NO3, and increasing temperature. Tunnel implementation and associated nutrient reductions may reduce the severity of summer blooms but reductions of spring assemblages may be even greater because river flows are typically higher at that time of year.

Keywords

Wastewater treatment Combined sewer overflow Nutrient pollution Cyanobacteria Flow relationships 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Y. Shangguan, A. Robinson , K. Schouten, A. Hines, E. Flores, L. Zager, M. Rubaiyat, G. Vazquez, K. Callahan, D. Lundberg and A. Salazar are thanked for their help in collecting samples in the field and work in the lab. The collaboration with T. Sherard and the Anacostia Riverkeeper made the biweekly sampling possible. We also appreciate the help of M. Maddox and the Horn Point Analytical Services Laboratory for the HPLC analyses. Harry Nelson (Fluid Imaging Technologies) is thanked for the use of the FlowCam in summer 2014. Two reviewers provided helpful comments for which we are thankful. This study was supported by grants from the DC Water Resources Research Institute (#2013DC154B, 2016DC176B, 2017DC193B), Maryland Sea Grant (#SA75281870-K, #SA7528112-AA), and the Explorers Club Washington Group. This is contribution number 5541 from the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

Supplementary material

10661_2019_7437_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (16.7 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 17122 kb)

References

  1. American Public Health Association (APHA). (1992). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. APHA Method, 4500-P.Google Scholar
  2. Behm, P., A. Buckley, & Schultz C.L. (2003). TAM/WASP toxics screening level model for the tidal portion of the Anacostia River: Final report. D.C. Department of Health, Environmental Health Administration, Bureau of Environmental Quality, Water Quality Division.Google Scholar
  3. Briceño, H. O., & Boyer, J. N. (2010). Climatic controls on phytoplankton biomass in a sub-tropical estuary, Florida Bay, USA. Estuaries and Coasts, 33, 541–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cerco, C.F., S.-C. Kim, & M.R. Noel. (2010). The 2010 Chesapeake Bay eutrophication model. A report to the US Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program and to the US Army Engineering Baltimore District. https://www.chesapeakebay.net/content/publications/cbp_55318.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2018.
  5. Cerco, C. F., Threadgill, T., Noel, M. R., & Hinz, S. (2013). Modeling the pH in the tidal fresh Potomac River under conditions of varying hydrology and loads. Ecological Modelling, 257, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). (2002). The state of the Chesapeake Bay: A report to the citizens of the Bay region. Annapolis, MD. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/documents/0659_001.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2016.
  7. Connor, N. P., Sarraino, S., Frants, D. E., Bushaw-Newton, K., & MacAvoy, S. E. (2014). Geochemical characteristics of an urban river: Influences of an anthropogenic landscape. Applied Geochemistry, 47, 209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). (2002). Combined sewage system long term control plan: Final report. https://www.dcwater.com/sites/default/files/Complete%20LTCP%20For%20CD.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2016.
  9. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). (2011). DC Water breaks ground on $2.6 billion clean rivers project- largest construction project since building of metro. https://www.dcwater.com/whats-going-on/news/dc-water-breaks-ground-26-billion-clean-rivers-project-largest-construction. Accessed 28 April 2016.
  10. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DC Water). (2017). Clean water projects. https://www.dcwater.com/projects. Accessed 18 May 2017.
  11. Doane, T. A., & Horwáth, W. R. (2003). Spectrophotometric determination of nitrate with a single reagent. Analytical Letters, 36, 2713–2722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Domingues, R. B., Barbosa, A. B., Sommer, U., & Galvão, H. M. (2011). Ammonium, nitrate and phytoplankton interactions in a freshwater tidal estuarine zone: Potential effects of cultural eutrophication. Aquatic Sciences, 73, 331–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donald, D. B., Bogard, M. J., Finlay, K., & Leavitt, P. R. (2011). Comparative effects of urea, ammonium and nitrate on phytoplankton dominance, community composition and toxicity in a hypereutrophic freshwater. Limnology and Oceanography, 56, 2161–2175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Donald, D. B., Bogard, M. J., Finlay, K., Bunting, L., & Leavitt, P. R. (2013). Phytoplankton-specific response to enrichment of phosphorus-rich surface waters with ammonium, nitrate, and urea. PLoS One, 8, e53277.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dugdale, R. C., Wilkerson, F. P., Hogue, V. E., & Marchi, A. (2007). The role of ammonium and nitrate in spring bloom development in San Francisco Bay. Estuarine, Coastal, and Shelf Science, 73, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2010). Nutrients in estuaries: A summary report of the National Estuarine Experts Workgroup 2005–2007. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/nutrients-in-estuaries-november-2010.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2018
  17. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2016). Urban waters and the Anacostia watershed. DC/Maryland: Washington https://www.epa.gov/urbanwaterspartners/urban-waters-and-anacostia-watershed-washington-dcmaryland. Accessed 28 April 2016.Google Scholar
  18. Glibert, P. M., Conley, D. J., Fisher, T. R., Harding, L. W., Jr., & Malone, T. C. (1995). Dynamics of the 1990 winter/spring bloom in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 122, 22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Glibert, P. M., Heil, C. A., Hollander, D., Revilla, M., Hoare, A., Alexander, J., & Murasko, S. (2004). Evidence for dissolved organic nitrogen and phosphorus uptake during a cyanobacterial bloom in Florida Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 280, 73–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Glibert, P. M., Fullerton, D., Burkholder, J. M., Cornwell, J. C., & Kana, T. M. (2011). Ecological stoichiometry, biogeochemical cycling, invasive species and aquatic food webs: San Francisco estuary and comparative systems. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 19, 358–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Glibert, P. M., Hinkle, D., Sturgis, B., & Jesien, R. (2014). Eutrophication of a Maryland/Virginia coastal lagoon: A tipping point, ecosystem changes, and potential causes. Estuaries and Coasts., 37(Suppl 1), S128–S146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Glibert, P. M., Wilkerson, F., Dugdale, R. C., Raven, J. A., Dupont, C. L., Leavitt, P. R., Parker, A. E., Burkholder, J. M., & Kana, T. M. (2016). Pluses and minuses of ammonium and nitrate uptake and assimilation by phytoplankton and implications for productivity and community composition, with emphasis on nitrogen-enriched conditions. Limnology and Oceanography, 61, 165–197.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Harding, L. W., Batiuk, R. A., Fisher, T. R., Gallegos, C. L., Malone, T. C., Miller, W. D., Mulholland, M. R., Paerl, H. W., Perry, E. S., & Tango, P. (2014). Scientific bases for numerical chlorophyll criteria in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts, 37, 134–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9656-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harding, L. W., Mallonee, M. E., Perry, E. S., Miller, W. D., Adolf, J. E., Gallegos, C. L., & Paerl, H. W. (2016). Variable climatic conditions dominate recent phytoplankton dynamics in Chesapeake Bay. Scientific Reports, 6, Aarticle no. 23773.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep23773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hilton, J., O’Hare, M., Bowes, M. J., & Jones, J. J. (2006). How green is my river? A new paradigm of eutrophication in rivers. Science of the Total Environment, 365, 66–83.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2006.02.055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Howarth, R., Swaney, D., Billen, G., Garnier, J., Hong, B., Humborg, C., Johnes, P., Mörth, C. M., & Marino, R. (2012). Nitrogen fluxes from the landscape are controlled by net anthropogenic nitrogen inputs and by climate. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 10, 37–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hwang, H. M., & Foster, G. D. (2006). Characterization of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in urban stormwater runoff flowing into the tidal Anacostia River, Washington, DC. USA. Environ. Poll., 140, 416–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Integration and Application Network, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (IAN UMCES). (2008). Methods: Microcystis blooms- HAB, Ecocheck newsletter. http://ian.umces.edu/ecocheck/forecast/chesapeake-bay/2009/methods. Accessed 26 June 2017.
  29. Jackson, M. (2016). Phytoplankton and nutrient dynamics with a focus on nitrogen form in the Anacostia River, in Washington, D.C. and West Lake, in Hangzhou, China. Masters of science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  30. Jassby, A. (2008). Phytoplankton in the upper San Francisco estuary: Recent biomass trends, their causes and their trophic significance. San Francisco estuary and watershed science 6.Google Scholar
  31. Jeffrey, S. W., & Vesk, M. (1997). Introduction to marine phytoplankton and their pigment signatures. In S. W. Jeffrey, R. F. C. Mantoura, & S. W. Wright (Eds.), Phytoplankton pigments in oceanography: Guidelines to modern methods. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
  32. Jeffrey, S. W., & Wright, S. W. (1994). Photosynthetic pigments in the haptophyta. In J. C. Green, B. S. C. Leadbeater, & B.S.C (Eds.), The haptophyte algae (pp. 111–132). Oxford: Clarendon press.Google Scholar
  33. Keller, T., Shenk, G., Williams, M. R., & Batiuk, R. A. (2011). Development of a new indicator of pollutant loads and its application to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. River Research and Application, 27, 202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Li, J., Glibert, P. M., & Gao, Y. (2015). Temporal and spatial changes in Chesapeake Bay water quality and relationships to Prorocentrum minimum, Karlodinium veneficum, and CyanoHAB events, 1991-2008. Harmful Algae, 42, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lomas, M. W., & Glibert, P. M. (1999a). Temperature regulation of nitrate uptake: A novel hypothesis about nitrate uptake and reduction in cool-water diatoms. Limnology and Oceanography, 44, 556–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lomas, M. W., & Glibert, P. M. (1999b). Interactions between NH4 + and NO3 uptake and assimilation: Comparison of diatoms and dinoflagellates at several growth temperatures. Marine Biology, 133, 541–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. MacNally, R., & Hart, B. T. (1997). Use of CUSUM methods for water-quality monitoring in storages. Environmental Science and Technology, 31, 2114–2119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manly, B. F. J., & Mackenzie, D. I. (2003). CUSUM environmental monitoring in time and space. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 10, 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE). (2012). Maryland’s final 2012 integrated report of surface-water quality. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/Integrated303dReports/Pages/2012_IR.aspx. Accessed 28 April 2016.
  40. Mesnil, B., & Petitgas, P. (2009). Detection of changes in time series using CUSUM control charts. Aquatic Living Resources, 22, 187–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller, W. D., & Harding, L. W., Jr. (2007). Climate forcing of the spring bloom in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 331, 11–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Miller, C. V., Chanat, J.G., & Bell, J.M. (2013). Water quality in the Anacostia River, Maryland and Rock Creek, Washington, D.C.: Continuous and discrete monitoring with simulations to estimate concentrations and yields of nutrients, suspended sediment, and bacteria. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1034. 37. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1034/. Accessed 28 April 2016.
  43. Miranda, K. M., Espey, M. G., & Wink, D. A. (2001). A rapid simple spectrophotometric method for simultaneous detection of nitrate and nitrite. Nitric Oxide, 5, 62–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murray, R., Wilson, S., Dalemarre, L., Chanse, V., Phoenix, J., & Baranoff, L. (2015). Should we put our feet in the water? Use of a survey to assess recreational exposures to contaminants in the Anacostia River. Environmental Health Insights, 9, EHI-S19594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Najjar, R. G., Walker, H. A., Anderson, P. J., Barron, E. J., Bord, R. J., Gibson, J. R., Kennedy, V. S., Knight, C. G., Megonigal, J. P., O'Connor, R. E., Polsky, C. D., Psuty, N. P., Richards, B. A., Soreson, L. G., Steele, E. M., & Swanson, R. S. (2000). The potential impacts of climate change on the mid- Atlantic coastal region. Climate Research, 14, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Najjar, R. G., Patterson, L., & Graham, S. (2009). Climate simulations of major estuarine watersheds in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Climate Change, 95, 139–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Najjar, R. G., Pyke, C. R., Adams, M. B., Breitburg, D., Kemp, M., Hershner, C., Howarth, R., Mulholland, M., Paolisso, M., Secor, D., Sellner, K., Wardrop, D., & Wood, R. (2010). Potential climate-change impacts on the Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 86, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Hare, M. T., Baattrup-Pederson, A., Baumgarte, I., Freeman, A., Gunn, I. D. M., Lázár, A. N., Sinclair, R., Wade, A. J., & Bowes, M. J. (2018). Responses of aquatic plants to eutrophication in rivers: A revised conceptual model. Frontiers in Plant Science, 9, 451.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Paerl, H. W., & Huisman, J. (2008). Blooms like it hot. Science, 320, 57–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Page, E. S. (1954). Continuous inspection schemes. Biometrika, 41, 100–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Parker, M. S., & Armbrust, E. V. (2005). Synergistic effects of light, temperature and nitrogen source on transcription of genes for carbon and nitrogen metabolism in the centric diatom Thalassiosira pseudonana (Bacillariophyceae). Journal of Phycology, 41, 1142–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Parsons, T. R., Maita, Y., & Lalli, C. M. (1984). A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  53. Revilla, M., Alexander, J., & Glibert, P. M. (2005). Analysis of urea in coastal waters: Comparison of the enzymatic and direct method. Limnology Oceanography Methods, 3, 290–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schaffranek, R.W. (1987). A flow-simulation model of the tidal Potomac River. A water-quality study of the tidal Potomac River and Estuary. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2234-D. https://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2234d/report.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2017.
  55. Shangguan, Y., Glibert, P. M., Alexander, J. A., Madden, C. J., & Murasko, S. (2017). Phytoplankton community response to changing nutrients in Florida Bay: Results of mesocosm studies. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 494, 38–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.embe.2017.05.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Swarbrick, V., Simpson, G., Glibert, P. M., & Leavitt, P. (2019). Stimulation or suppression: Drivers of dichotomous phytoplankton response to ammonium enrichment in hardwater lakes. Limnology and Oceanography., 64, S130–S149.  https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Syracuse Research Corporation (SRC). (2000). Interpretive summary of existing data relevant to potential contaminants of concern within the Anacostia River watershed. New York: Syracuse Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  58. Valderrama, J. C. (1981). The simultaneous analysis of total nitrogen and phosphorus in natural waters. Marine Chemistry, 10, 109–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van Damme, S., Dehairs, F., Tackx, M., Beaichard, O., Struyf, E., Grisholt, B., Cleemput, O., & Meier, P. (2009). Tidal exchange between a freshwater tidal marsh and an impacted estuary: The Schelt estuary, Belgium. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 85, 197–207 et al. 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van der Wiejden, C. H., & Middelburg, J. J. (1989). Hydrogeochemistry of the River Rhine: Long term and seasonal variability, elemental budgets, base levels and pollution. Water Research, 23, 1247–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van Heukelem, L., & Thomas, C. (2001). Computer-assisted high-performance liquid chromatography method development with applications to the isolation and analysis of phytoplankton pigments. Journal of Chromatography, 910, 31–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., & Cushing, C. E. (1980). The river continuum concept. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 130–137.  https://doi.org/10.1139/f80-017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Velinsky, D. J., Riedel, G. F., Ashley, J. T. F., & Cornwell, J. C. (2011). Historical contamination of the Anacostia River, Washington, DC. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 183, 307–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang, H., Wang Z., Loftis D., & Teng Y.-C. (2013). Hydrodynamic and water quality modeling and TMDL development for Maryland’s Coastal Bays system. Maryland Department of the Environment. http://www.mde.state.md.us/programs/Water/TMDL/ApprovedFinalTMDLs/Documents/MD_Coastal_Bays_nutrient_TMDL/WQM_report_031114_final.pdf. Accessed 15 Sept 2018.
  65. Warner, A., Shepp, D. L., Corish, K., & Galli, J. (1997). An existing source assessment of pollutants to the Anacostia watershed. D.C.: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG), Final Report, Washington.Google Scholar
  66. Wennersten, J. R. (2008). Anacostia: The death and life of an American river. Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  67. Wilkerson, F. P., Dugdale, R. C., Hogue, V. E., & Marchi, A. (2006). Phytoplankton blooms and nitrogen productivity in the San Francisco Bay. Estuaries and Coasts, 29, 401–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0278498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Winder, M., & Cloern, J. E. (2010). The annual cycles of phytoplankton biomass. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society B., 365, 3215–3226.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu, J., Glibert, P. M., Liu, H., Yin, K., Yuan, X., Chen, M., & Harrison, P. J. (2012). Nitrogen sources and rates of phytoplankton uptake in different regions of Hong Kong waters in summer. Estuaries and Coasts, 35, 559–571.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-011-9456-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Yoshiyama, K., & Sharp, J. H. (2006). Phytoplankton response to nutrient enrichment in an urbanized estuary: Apparent inhibition of primary production by over eutrophication. Limnology and Oceanography, 51, 424–434.  https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2006.51.1_part_2.0424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Science, Technology and MathematicsGallaudet UniversityWashingtonUSA
  2. 2.Horn Point LaboratoryUniversity of Maryland Center for Environmental ScienceCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations