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
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.
KeywordsReservoir Sediment delivery River discharge Biogeochemistry Storm impacts Modeling
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.
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.
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- Coakley, J.P., and J.P.M. Syvitski. 1991. SediGraph technique. In Principles, methods, and application of particle size analysis, 129–142.Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.
- 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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
- 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
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- 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.Google Scholar
- Russ, E.R. 2019. Sediment connectivity between the lower Susquehanna River and upper Chesapeake Bay. PhD Dissertation, University of Maryland College Park.Google Scholar
- Russ, E.R., and C.M. Palinkas. In review. Sediment dynamics in upper Chesapeake Bay. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science.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.Google Scholar
- Schnoor, J.L. 1996. Environmental modeling: Fate and transport of pollutants in water, air, and soil. John Wiley and Sons.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Soulsby, R. 1997. Dynamics of Marine Sands: A Manual for Practical Applications. Heron quay. London: Thomas Telford Publications.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.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- USGS. 2013. Surface-Water Data for the Nation.Google Scholar
- Velleux, M., and J. Hallden. 2017. Hydrodynamic and sediment transport analyses for Conowingo pond. Mahwah: HDR.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
- 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., 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar