Skip to main content

Influences of a River Dam on Delivery and Fate of Sediments and Particulate Nutrients to the Adjacent Estuary: Case Study of Conowingo Dam and Chesapeake Bay

Estuaries and Coasts volume 42, pages 2072–2095 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Dams impact the magnitude and nature of material transport through rivers to coastal waters, initially trapping much material in upstream reservoirs. As reservoirs fill, trapping decreases and bottom sediments can be scoured by high flows, increasing downstream delivery. This is the case for the Conowingo Dam, which historically has trapped much of the sediment and particulate nutrients carried by the Susquehanna River otherwise bound for Chesapeake Bay but has now reached dynamic equilibrium. While previous studies primarily focus on either delivery of river inputs or their fate in the Bay, this study synthesizes insights from field observations and modeling along the Reservoir-Bay continuum to evaluate potential impacts of infilling on Bay biogeochemistry. Results show most Susquehanna sediment and particulate nutrient loading occurs during high-flow events that occur only ~ 10% of the time. While loading during these events has increased since the late 1970s, consistent with a decreasing scour threshold for Reservoir sediments, loading during low-flow periods has declined. Loads entering the estuary are largely retained within the upper Bay but can be transported farther downstream during events. Reservoir sediments are highly refractory, and inputs of reservoir-like organic matter do not enhance modeled sediment-nutrient release in upper Bay sediments. These findings and an emerging literature highlight the Bay’s resilience to large sediment loads during events (e.g., Tropical Storm Lee in 2011), likely aided by ongoing restoration efforts and/or consistently low-moderate recent inflows (2012–2017). Thus, while events can have major short-term impacts, the long-term impact to Bay biogeochemistry is less severe.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

References

  • Alexander, C.R., D.J. DeMaster, and C.A. Nittrouer. 1991. Sediment accumulation in a modern epicontinental-shelf setting: The Yellow Sea. Marine Geology 98 (1): 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(91)90035-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appleby, P.G., and F. Oldfield. 1978. The calculation of lead-210 dates assuming a constant rate of supply of unsupported 210Pb to the sediment. Catena 5 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0341-8162(78)80002-2.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barmawidjaja, D.M., G.J. van der Zwaan, F.J. Jorissen, and S. Puskaric. 1995. 150 years of eutrophication in the northern Adriatic Sea: Evidence from a benthic foraminiferal record. Marine Geology 122 (4): 367–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(94)00121-Z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley, S., V.D. Stotts, P.F. Springer, and J. Steenis. 1978. Changes in submerged aquatic macrophyte populations at the head of Chesapeake Bay, 1958-1975. Estuaries 1 (3): 171–182. https://doi.org/10.2307/1351459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biggs, R.B. 1970. Sources and distribution of suspended sediment in northern Chesapeake Bay. Marine Geology 9 (3): 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0025-3227(70)90014-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Booij, N., R.C. Ris, and L.H. Holthuijsen. 1999. A third-generation wave model for coastal regions: 1. Model description and validation. Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans 104 (C4): 7649–7666. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JC02622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boynton, W.R., and F.M. Rohland. 1998. Sediment-water flux status and trends: 1997 Patuxent River study. In Maryland Chespeake Bay water quality monitoring program ecosystem processes component level one report #15 interpretive report, 71–217.

  • Boynton, W.R., L. Lubbers, K.V. Wood, and C.W. Keefe. 1984. Seston dynamics in the lower Susquehanna River. Final data report to Martin Marietta Corporation [UMCES]CBL 84–81. Solomons, MD: University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boynton, W.R., J.H. Garber, R. Summers, and W.M. Kemp. 1995. Inputs, transformations, and transport of nitrogen and phosphorus in Chesapeake Bay and selected tributaries. Estuaries 18 (1): 285–314.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, D.C., J.M. Testa, D.M. Di Toro, W.R. Boynton, and W.M. Kemp. 2013. Sediment flux modeling: Calibration and application for coastal systems. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 117: 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.11.003.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brookes, A., K.J. Gregory, and F.H. Dawson. 1983. An assessment of river channelization in England and Wales. Science of the Total Environment 27 (2-3): 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(83)90149-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, G.S. 1989. Rates and patterns of estuarine sediment accumulation. Limnology and Oceanography 34 (7): 1235–1246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, G.S. 2001. Natural and anthropogenic changes in Chesapeake Bay during the last 1000 years. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 7 (5): 1283–1296. https://doi.org/10.1080/20018091095005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brush, G.S. 2009. Historical land use, nitrogen, and coastal eutrophication: A paleoecological perspective. Estuaries and Coasts 32 (1): 18–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-008-9106-z.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdige, D.J. 1991. The kinetics of organic matter mineralization in anoxic marine sediments. Journal of Marine Research 49 (4): 727–761. https://doi.org/10.1357/002224091784995710.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerco, C.F. 2016. Conowingo reservoir sedimentation and Chesapeake Bay: State of the science. Journal of Environmental Quality 45 (3): 882. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2015.05.0230.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerco, C.F., S.-C. Kim, and M.R. Noel. 2013. Management modeling of suspended solids in the Chesapeake Bay, USA. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 116: 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2012.07.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, P., M. Li, and Y. Li. 2013. Generation of an estuarine sediment plume by a tropical storm. Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans 118 (2): 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrc.20070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coakley, J.P., and J.P.M. Syvitski. 1991. SediGraph technique. In Principles, methods, and application of particle size analysis, 129–142.

  • Cornwell, J.C., and P.A. Sampou. 1995. Environmental controls on iron sulfide mineral formation in a coastal plain estuary. In Geochemical Transformations of Sedimentary Sulfur, ed. M. A. Vairavamurthy and M. A. A. Schoonen, 224–242.

  • Cornwell, J.C., P.M. Glibert, and M.S. Owens. 2014. Nutrient fluxes from sediments in the San Francisco Bay delta. Estuaries and Coasts 37 (5): 1120–1133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-013-9755-4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, J.L.W., and W.R. Boynton. 1996. Sediment-water oxygen and nutrient exchanges along the longitudinal axis of Chesapeake Bay: Seasonal patterns, controlling factors and ecological significance. Estuaries 19 (3): 562. https://doi.org/10.2307/1352518.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin, T.M., G.S. Dwyer, T. Kamiya, S. Schwede, and D.A. Willard. 2003. Medieval warm period, little ice age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay. Global and Planetary Change 36 (1-2): 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8181(02)00161-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donoghue, J.F., O.P. Bricker, and C.R. Olsen. 1989. Particle-borne radionuclides as tracers for sediment in the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 29 (4): 341–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7714(89)90033-4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R.E. 2006. Comprehensive analysis of the sediments retained behind hydroelectric dams of the lower Susquehanna River. 239. Watershed assessment and Protectio program Susquehanna River basin commission.

  • Elliott, A.J. 1978. Observations of the meteorologically induced circulation in the Potomac estuary. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 6 (3): 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/0302-3524(78)90017-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, J., and G.L. Morris. 1992. Reservoir sedimentation. I: Delta and density current deposits. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 118 (3): 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1992)118:3(354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feddersen, F., M. Olabarrieta, R.T. Guza, D. Winters, B. Raubenheimer, and S. Elgar. 2016. Observations and modeling of a tidal inlet dye tracer plume. Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans 121 (10): 7819–7844. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JC011922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, T.R., A.B. Gustafson, K. Sellner, R. Lacouture, L.W. Haas, R.L. Wetzel, R. Magnien, D. Everitt, B. Michaels, and R. Karrh. 1999. Spatial and temporal variation of resource limitation in Chesapeake Bay. Marine Biology 133 (4): 763–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002270050518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ganju, N.K., D.H. Schoellhamer, and B.E. Jaffe. 2009. Hindcasting of decadal-timescale estuarine bathymetric change with a tidal-timescale model. Journal of Geophysical Research 114 (F4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001191.

  • García-Robledo, E., A. Corzo, and S. Papaspyrou. 2014. A fast and direct spectrophotometric method for the sequential determination of nitrate and nitrite at low concentrations in small volumes. Marine Chemistry 162: 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marchem.2014.03.002.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfenbaum, G., A.W. Stevens, I. Miller, J.A. Warrick, A.S. Ogston, and E. Eidam. 2015. Large-scale dam removal on the Elwha River, Washington, USA: Coastal geomorphic change. Geomorphology 246: 649–668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2015.01.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gong, G.-C., J. Chang, K.-P. Chiang, T.-M. Hsiung, C.-C. Hung, S.-W. Duan, and L.A. Codispoti. 2006. Reduction of primary production and changing of nutrient ratio in the East China Sea: Effect of the three gorges dam? Geophysical Research Letters 33 (7). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025800.

  • Gregory, K.J. 2006. The human role in changing river channels. Geomorphology 79 (3-4): 172–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2006.06.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M.G., M. Karweit, W.B. Cronin, and J.R. Schubel. 1978. Suspended sediment discharge of the Susquehanna River to northern Chesapeake Bay, 1966 to 1976. Estuaries 1 (2): 106. https://doi.org/10.2307/1351599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurbisz, C., and W.M. Kemp. 2014. Unexpected resurgence of a large submersed plant bed in Chesapeake Bay: Analysis of time series data. Limnology and Oceanography 59 (2): 482–494. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2014.59.2.0482.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurbisz, C., W.M. Kemp, L.P. Sanford, and R.J. Orth. 2016. Mechanisms of storm-related loss and resilience in a large submersed plant bed. Estuaries and Coasts 39 (4): 951–966. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-016-0074-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagy, J.D., W.R. Boynton, C.W. Keefe, and K.V. Wood. 2004. Hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay, 1950–2001: Long-term change in relation to nutrient loading and river flow. Estuaries 27 (4): 634–658. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02907650.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidvogel, D.B., H.G. Arango, K. Hedstrom, A. Beckmann, P. Malanotte-Rizzoli, and A.F. Shchepetkin. 2000. Model evaluation experiments in the North Atlantic Basin: Simulations in nonlinear terrain-following coordinates. Dynamics of Atmospheres and Oceans 32 (3-4): 239–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0265(00)00049-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hainly, R.A., L.A. Reed, H.N. Flippo, and G.J. Barton. 1995. Deposition and simulation of sediment transport in the lower Susquehanna River reservoir system. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.

  • Harris, C.K., C.R. Sherwood, R.P. Signell, A.J. Bever, and J.C. Warner. 2008. Sediment dispersal in the northwestern Adriatic Sea. Journal of Geophysical Research 113 (C11). https://doi.org/10.1029/2006JC003868.

  • Hartzell, J.L., T.E. Jordan, and J.C. Cornwell. 2017. Phosphorus sequestration in sediments along the salinity gradients of Chesapeake Bay subestuaries. Estuaries and Coasts 40 (6): 1607–1625.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, R.M. 2012. Flux of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment from the Susquehanna River basin to the Chesapeake Bay during tropical storm Lee, September 2011, as an indicator of the effects of reservoir sedimentation on water quality. US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey.

  • Hobbs, C.H., J.P. Halka, R.T. Kerhin, and M.J. Carron. 1992. Chesapeake Bay sediment budget. Journal of Coastal Research 8: 292–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, P.F., H. Middelkoop, and E. Stouthamer. 2008. Flood management along the lower Mississippi and Rhine Rivers (the Netherlands) and the continuum of geomorphic adjustment. Geomorphology 101 (1-2): 209–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2008.07.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humborg, C., V. Ittekkot, A. Cociasu, and B.V. Bodungen. 1997. Effect of Danube River dam on Black Sea biogeochemistry and ecosystem structure. Nature 386 (6623): 385–388. https://doi.org/10.1038/386385a0.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ibàñez, C., N. Prat, and A. Canicio. 1996. Changes in the hydrology and sediment transport produced by large dams on the lower Ebro river and its estuary. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 12 (1): 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1646(199601)12:1<51::AID-RRR376>3.0.CO;2-I.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kana, T.W., C. Darkangelo, M.D. Hunt, J.B. Oldham, G.E. Bennett, and J.C. Cornwell. 1994. Membrane inlet mass spectrometer for rapid high-precision determination of N2, O2, and Ar in environmental water samples. Analytical Chemisty 66 (23): 4166–4170.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaste, J.M., S.A. Norton, and C.T. Hess. 2002. Environmental chemistry of Beryllium-7. Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry 50 (1): 271–289. https://doi.org/10.2138/rmg.2002.50.6.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W.M., R.R. Twilley, J.C. Stevenson, W.R. Boynton, and J.C. Means. 1983. The decline of submerged vascular plants in upper Chesapeake Bay: Summary of results concerning possible causes. Marine Technology Society Journal 17: 78–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, W.M., W.R. Boynton, J.E. Adolf, D.F. Boesch, W.C. Boicourt, G. Brush, J.C. Cornwell, T.R. Fisher, P.M. Glibert, J.D. Hagy, L.W. Harding, E.D. Houde, D.G. Kimmel, W.D. Miller, R.I.E. Newell, M.R. Roman, E.M. Smith, and J.C. Stevenson. 2005. Eutrophication of Chesapeake Bay: Historical trends and ecological interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 303: 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, A.C., B.P. Horton, S.J. Culver, D.R. Corbett, O. van de Plassche, W.R. Gehrels, B.C. Douglas, and A.C. Parnell. 2009. Timing and magnitude of recent accelerated sea-level rise (North Carolina, United States). Geology 37 (11): 1035–1038. https://doi.org/10.1130/G30352A.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lang, D.J. 1982. Water quality of the three major tributaries to the Chesapeake Bay, the Susquehanna, Potomac, and James Rivers, January 1979 - April 1981. US Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations: 82–32.

  • Langland, M.J. 2009. Bathymetry and sediment-storage capacity change in three reservoirs on the Lower Susquehanna River, 1996–2008. 2009–5110. Scientific Investigations. US Geological Survey.

  • Langland, M.J. 2015. Sediment transport and capacity change in three reservoirs, lower Susquehanna River basin, Pennsylvania and Maryland 1900-2012. USGS Open-File Report 2014–1235.

  • Langland, M.J., and T.M. Cronin. 2003. A summary report of sediment processes in Chesapeake Bay and watershed. 03–4123. Water-Resoureces investigations. New Cumberland, PA.

  • Langland, M.J., and R.A. Hainly. 1997. Changes in bottom-surface elevations in three reservoirs on the lower Susquehanna River, Pennsylvania and Maryland, following the January 1996 flood - implications for nutrient and sediment loads to Chesapeake Bay. 97–4138. Water-Resources Investigations. US Geological Survey.

  • Lefcheck, J.S., R.J. Orth, W.C. Dennison, D.J. Wilcox, R.R. Murphy, J. Keisman, C. Gurbisz, M. Hannam, J.B. Landry, K.A. Moore, C.J. Patrick, J. Testa, D.E. Weller, and R.A. Batiuk. 2018. Long-term nutrient reductions lead to the unprecedented recovery of a temperate coastal region. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115 (14): 3658–3662. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715798115.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehtoranta, J., P. Ekholm, and H. Pitkänen. 2009. Coastal eutrophication thresholds: A matter of sediment microbial processes. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 38 (6): 303–308. https://doi.org/10.1579/09-A-656.1.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, M., L. Zhong, and W.C. Boicourt. 2005. Simulations of Chesapeake Bay estuary: Sensitivity to turbulence mixing parameterizations and comparison with observations. Journal of Geophysical Research 110 (C12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002585.

  • Li, M., L. Zhong, W.C. Boicourt, S. Zhang, and D.-L. Zhang. 2006. Hurricane-induced storm surges, currents and destratification in a semi-enclosed bay. Geophysical Research Letters 33 (2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005GL024992.

  • Linker, L.C., R.A. Batiuk, G.W. Shenk, and C.F. Cerco. 2013. Development of the Chesapeake Bay watershed Total maximum daily load allocation. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association: n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.1111/jawr.12105.

  • Liu, Y., B.A. Engel, D.C. Flanagan, M.W. Gitau, S.K. McMillan, and I. Chaubey. 2017. A review on effectiveness of best management practices in improving hydrology and water quality. Science of the Total Environment 601–602: 580–593. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.212.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malarkey, J., C.F. Jago, R. Hübner, and S.E. Jones. 2013. A simple method to determine the settling velocity distribution from settling velocity tubes. Continental Shelf Research 56: 82–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.01.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malpezzi, M.A., L.P. Sanford, and B.C. Crump. 2013. Abundance and distribution of transparent exopolymer particles in the estuarine turbidity maximum of Chesapeake Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 486: 23–35. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps10362.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcnair, J.N., and J.D. Newbold. 2001. Turbulent transport of suspended particles and dispersing benthic organisms: The hitting-distance problem for the local exchange model. Journal of Theoretical Biology 209 (3): 351–369. https://doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2001.2273.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, M.M. 1977. Response and recovery of an estuary following a river flood. SEPM Journal of Sedimentary Research 47. https://doi.org/10.1306/212F7301-2B24-11D7-8648000102C1865D.

  • Nixon, S.W. 2003. Replacing the Nile: Are anthropogenic nutrients providing the fertility once brought to the Mediterranean by a great river? Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 32 (1): 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1579/0044-7447-32.1.30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, E.W., S.Y. Chao, L.P. Sanford, and R.R. Hood. 2004. The influence of wind and river pulses on an estuarine turbidity maximum: Numerical studies and field observations in Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries 27 (1): 132–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02803567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NRC. 2011. Achieving nutrient and sediment reduction goals in the Chesapeake Bay: An evaluation of program strategies and implementation. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13131.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Officer, C.B., D.R. Lynch, G.H. Setlock, and G.R. Helz. 1984. Recent sedimentation rates in Chesapeake Bay. In The estuary as a FIlter, 131–157. Academic Press, Inc.

  • Olabarrieta, M., J.C. Warner, and N. Kumar. 2011. Wave-current interaction in Willapa Bay. Journal of Geophysical Research 116 (C12). https://doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007387.

  • Olsen, C.R., I.L. Larsen, P.D. Lowry, N.H. Cutshall, and M.M. Nichols. 1986. Geochemistry and deposition of 7Be in river-estuarine and coastal waters. Journal of Geophysical Research 91 (C1): 896–908. https://doi.org/10.1029/JC091iC01p00896.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R.J., and K.A. Moore. 1984. Distribution and abundance of submerged aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: An historical perspective. Estuaries 7 (4): 531–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth, R.J., W.C. Dennison, J.S. Lefcheck, C. Gurbisz, M. Hannam, J. Keisman, J.B. Landry, K.A. Moore, R.R. Murphy, C.J. Patrick, J. Testa, D.E. Weller, and D.J. Wilcox. 2017. Submersed aquatic vegetation in Chesapeake Bay: Sentinel species in a changing world. BioScience 67 (8): 698–712. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, M.W. 1976. Determination of the settling velocities of cohesive muds. IT161. Wallingford: Hydraulics Research Station.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owens, M.S., and J.C. Cornwell. 2016. The benthic exchange of O2, N2, and dissolved nutrients using small core incubations. Journal of Visualized Experiments 114: e54098.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paerl, H.W. 2006. Assessing and managing nutrient-enhanced eutrophication in estuarine and coastal waters: Interactive effects of human and climatic perturbations. Ecological Engineering 26 (1): 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2005.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinkas, C.M. 2009. The timing of floods and storms as a controlling mechanism for shelf deposit morphology. Journal of Coastal Research 255: 1122–1129. https://doi.org/10.2112/08-1041.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinkas, C.M., and C.A. Nittrouer. 2006. Clinoform sedimentation along the Apennine shelf, Adriatic Sea. Marine Geology 234 (1-4): 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2006.09.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinkas, C.M. and E. Russ, 2019. Spatial and temporal patterns of sedimentation in an infilling reservoir. Catena 180: 120–131.

  • Palinkas, C.M., C.A. Nittrouer, R.A. Wheatcroft, and L. Langone. 2005. The use of 7Be to identify event and seasonal sedimentation near the Po River delta, Adriatic Sea. Marine Geology 222–223: 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.margeo.2005.06.011.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinkas, C.M., J.P. Halka, M. Li, L.P. Sanford, and P. Cheng. 2014. Sediment deposition from tropical storms in the upper Chesapeake Bay: Field observations and model simulations. Continental Shelf Research 86: 6–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2013.09.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmieri, A., F. Shah, and A. Dinar. 2001. Economics of reservoir sedimentation and sustainable management of dams. Journal of Environmental Management 61 (2): 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.2000.0392.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park, K., H.V. Wang, S.-C. Kim, and J.-H. Oh. 2008. A model study of the estuarine turbidity maximum along the main channel of the upper Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 31 (1): 115–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-007-9013-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, T.R., Y. Maita, and C.M. Lalli. 1984. A manual of chemical and biological methods for seawater analysis. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirmez, C., L.F. Pratson, and M.S. Steckler. 1998. Clinoform development by advection-diffusion of suspended sediment: Modeling and comparison to natural systems. Journal of Geophysical Research - Solid Earth 103 (B10): 24141–24157. https://doi.org/10.1029/98JB01516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poppe, L.J., S.J. Williams, and V.F. Paskevich. 2005. USGS east-coast sediment analysis: procedures, database, and GIS data. USGS open-file report 2005–1001.

  • Reed, L.A., and S.A. Hoffman. 1997. Sediment deposition in Lake Clarke, Lake Aldred, and Conowingo Reservoir, Pennsylvania and Maryland, 1910–93. USGS 96–4048. Water-Resources Investigations. Lemoyne, PA: USGS.

  • Roden, E.E., and J.W. Edmonds. 1997. Phosphate mobilization in iron-rich anaerobic sediments: Microbial Fe(III) oxide reduction versus iron-sulfide formation. Archiv Fur Hydrobiologie 139: 347–378.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Russ, E.R. 2019. Sediment connectivity between the lower Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland College Park.

  • Russ, E.R., and C.M. Palinkas. 2018. Seasonal-scale and decadal-scale sediment-vegetation interactions on the subaqueous Susquehanna River delta, upper Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 41 (7): 2092–2104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-018-0413-8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russ, E.R., and C.M. Palinkas. In review. Sediment dynamics in upper Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science.

  • Sanford, L.P. 1994. Wave-forced resuspension of upper Chesapeake Bay muds. Estuaries 17 (1): 148. https://doi.org/10.2307/1352564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, L.P., S.E. Suttles, and J.P. Halka. 2001. Reconsidering the physics of the Chesapeake Bay estuarine turbidity maximum. Estuaries 24 (5): 655–669.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford, L.P., P.J. Dickhudt, L. Rubiano-Gomez, M. Yates, S.E. Suttles, C.T. Friedrichs, D.D. Fugate, and H. Romine. 2005. Variability of suspended particle concentrations, sizes, and settling velocities in the Chesapeake Bay turbidity maximum. Flocculation in natural and engineered environmental systems: 211–236.

  • Schnoor, J.L. 1996. Environmental modeling: Fate and transport of pollutants in water, air, and soil. John Wiley and Sons.

  • Schubel, J.R. 1968. Turbidity maximum of the northern Chesapeake Bay. Science 161 (3845): 1013–1015. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.161.3845.1013.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubel, J.R. 1972. Suspended sediment discharge of the susquehanna river at Conowingo, Maryland, during 1969. Chesapeake Science 13 (1): 53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1350551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schubel, J.R., and H.H. Carter. 1977. Suspended sediment budget for Chesapeake Bay. In Estuarine Processes, 48–62. Elsevier. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-751802-2.50012-6.

  • Schubel, J.R., and T.W. Kana. 1972. Agglomeration of fine-grained suspended sediment in northern Chesapeake Bay. Powder Technology 6 (1): 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0032-5910(72)80050-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sclavo, M., A. Benetazzo, S. Carniel, A. Bergamasco, F.M. Falcieri, and D. Bonaldo. 2013. Wave-current interaction effect on sediment dispersal in a shallow semi-enclosed basin. Journal of Coastal Research 165: 1587–1592. https://doi.org/10.2112/SI65-268.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shchepetkin, A.F., and J.C. McWilliams. 2005. The regional oceanic modeling system (ROMS): A split-explicit, free-surface, topography-following-coordinate oceanic model. Ocean Modelling 9 (4): 347–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2004.08.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shchepetkin, A.F., and J.C. McWilliams. 2009. Computational kernel algorithms for fine-scale, multiprocess, longtime oceanic simulations. In Handbook of Numerical Analysis, 14:121–183. Elsevier. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1570-8659(08)01202-0.

  • Soulsby, R. 1997. Dynamics of Marine Sands: A Manual for Practical Applications. Heron quay. London: Thomas Telford Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syvitski, J.P., and M.D. Morehead. 1999. Estimating river-sediment discharge to the ocean: Application to the eel margin, northern California. Marine Geology 154 (1-4): 13–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J.M., and W.M. Kemp. 2012. Hypoxia-induced shifts in nitrogen and phosphorus cycling in Chesapeake Bay. Limnology and Oceanography 57 (3): 835–850. https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.2012.57.3.0835.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J.M., and W.M. Kemp. 2014. Spatial and temporal patterns of winter–spring oxygen depletion in Chesapeake Bay bottom water. Estuaries and Coasts 37 (6): 1432–1448. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-014-9775-8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J.M., and W.M. Kemp. 2017. Modeling sediment nutrient and oxygen cycling in the Conowingo reservoir and upper Chesapeake Bay. [UMCES}CBL 2017-060. University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science.

  • Testa, J.M., D.C. Brady, D.M. Di Toro, W.R. Boynton, J.C. Cornwell, and W.M. Kemp. 2013. Sediment flux modeling: Simulating nitrogen, phosphorus, and silica cycles. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 131: 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2013.06.014.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J.M., Y. Li, Y.J. Lee, M. Li, D.C. Brady, D.M. Di Toro, W.M. Kemp, and J.J. Fitzpatrick. 2014. Quantifying the effects of nutrient loading on dissolved O2 cycling and hypoxia in Chesapeake Bay using a coupled hydrodynamic–biogeochemical model. Journal of Marine Systems 139: 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmarsys.2014.05.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Testa, J.M., W.M. Kemp, and W.R. Boynton. 2018. Season-specific trends and linkages of nitrogen and oxygen cycles in Chesapeake Bay: Linked oxygen and nitrogen trends. Limnology and Oceanography 63 (5): 2045–2064. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.10823.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, R.E., and N.N. Rabalais. 1991. Changes in Mississippi River water quality this century. BioScience 41 (3): 140–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/1311453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USGS. 2013. Surface-Water Data for the Nation.

  • Velleux, M., and J. Hallden. 2017. Hydrodynamic and sediment transport analyses for Conowingo pond. Mahwah: HDR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vericat, D., and R.J. Batalla. 2006. Sediment transport in a large impounded river: The lower Ebro, NE Iberian Peninsula. Geomorphology 79 (1-2): 72–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2005.09.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vulgaropulos, Z. 2017. Reservoir scour as a major source of bioavailable phosphorus to a coastal plain estuary? MS Thesis, College Park. College Park: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J.C., C.R. Sherwood, R.P. Signell, C.K. Harris, and H.G. Arango. 2008. Development of a three-dimensional, regional, coupled wave, current, and sediment-transport model. Computers & Geosciences 34 (10): 1284–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2008.02.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J.C., B. Armstrong, R. He, and J.B. Zambon. 2010. Development of a coupled ocean–atmosphere–wave–sediment transport (COAWST) modeling system. Ocean Modelling 35 (3): 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2010.07.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warrick, J.A. 2015. Trend analyses with river sediment rating curves. Hydrological Processes 29 (6): 936–949. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.10198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, X., M. Li, and W. Ni. 2018. Roles of wind-driven currents and surface waves in sediment resuspension and transport during a tropical storm. Journal of Geophysical Research, Oceans 123 (11): 8638–8654. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JC014104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z., H. Wang, Y. Saito, J.D. Milliman, K. Xu, S. Qiao, and G. Shi. 2006. Dam impacts on the Changjiang (Yangtze) river sediment discharge to the sea: The past 55 years and after the three gorges dam. Water Resources Research 42 (4). https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR003970.

  • Zabawa, C.F., and J.R. Schubel. 1974. Geologic effects of tropical storm Agnes on upper Chesapeake Bay. Maritime Sediments 10: 79–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., and W.P. Ball. 2014. Data associated with long-term trends of nutrients and sediment from the nontidal Chesapeake watershed: An assessment of Progress by river and season. Johns Hopkins University Data Archive Dataverse. https://doi.org/10.7281/T1VD6WC7.

  • Zhang, Q., and J.D. Blomquist. 2018. Watershed export of fine sediment, organic carbon, and chlorophyll-a to Chesapeake Bay: Spatial and temporal patterns in 1984–2016. Science of the Total Environment 619–620: 1066–1078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.279.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., D.C. Brady, and W.P. Ball. 2013. Long-term seasonal trends of nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended sediment load from the non-tidal Susquehanna River basin to Chesapeake Bay. Science of the Total Environment 452–453: 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.02.012.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., D.C. Brady, W.R. Boynton, and W.P. Ball. 2015. Long-term trends of nutrients and sediment from the nontidal Chesapeake watershed: An assessment of progress by river and season. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association 51 (6): 1534–1555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1752-1688.12327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., R.M. Hirsch, and W.P. Ball. 2016. Long-term changes in sediment and nutrient delivery from Conowingo dam to Chesapeake Bay: Effects of reservoir sedimentation. Environmental Science & Technology 50 (4): 1877–1886. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b04073.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q., R.R. Murphy, R. Tian, M.K. Forsyth, E.M. Trentacoste, J. Keisman, and P.J. Tango. 2018. Chesapeake Bay’s water quality condition has been recovering: Insights from a multimetric indicator assessment of thirty years of tidal monitoring data. Science of the Total Environment 637–638: 1617–1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.05.025.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhong, L., and M. Li. 2006. Tidal energy fluxes and dissipation in the Chesapeake Bay. Continental Shelf Research 26 (6): 752–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csr.2006.02.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the many colleagues, students, and technicians who made this work possible. In particular, we thank USGS colleagues Michael Langland and Joel Bloomquist, as well as Majorie Zeff from AECOM. We thank Debbie Hinkle and Mike Owens for invaluable field and lab assistance. Emily Russ, Stephanie Barletta, and Zoe Vulgaropulos were graduate students at Horn Point Lab supported by this project and contributed many insights from their theses to this work. Casey Hodgkins contributed to sediment biogeochemical model simulations, data analysis, and preparation of Fig. 2.

Funding

The authors of this paper were supported by grants from Maryland Sea Grant (from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce award NA14OAR4170090 to Sanford and Palinkas; award NA14OAR4170090 SA75281450-G to Cornwell), the Grayce B. Kerr Fund (to C. Palinkas), and Exelon through the Maryland Department of Natural Resources (107C04105 to all authors). This is UMCES contribution number 5651.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Horn Point Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Cambridge, MD, USA

    Cindy M. Palinkas, Jeffrey C. Cornwell, Ming Li & Lawrence P. Sanford

  2. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, Solomons, MD, USA

    Jeremy M. Testa

Authors
  1. Cindy M. Palinkas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy M. Testa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey C. Cornwell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ming Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lawrence P. Sanford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindy M. Palinkas.

Additional information

Communicated by Lijun Hou

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 1143 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Palinkas, C.M., Testa, J.M., Cornwell, J.C. et al. Influences of a River Dam on Delivery and Fate of Sediments and Particulate Nutrients to the Adjacent Estuary: Case Study of Conowingo Dam and Chesapeake Bay. Estuaries and Coasts 42, 2072–2095 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00634-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12237-019-00634-x

Keywords

  • Reservoir
  • Sediment delivery
  • River discharge
  • Biogeochemistry
  • Storm impacts
  • Modeling