Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 186, Issue 8, pp 4841–4855 | Cite as

Assessing organic contaminant fluxes from contaminated sediments following dam removal in an urbanized river

  • Mark G. Cantwell
  • Monique M. Perron
  • Julia C. Sullivan
  • David R. Katz
  • Robert M. Burgess
  • John King


In this study, methods and approaches were developed and tested to assess changes in contaminant fluxes resulting from dam removal in a riverine system. Sediment traps and passive samplers were deployed to measure particulate and dissolved polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in the water column prior to and following removal of a small, low-head dam in the Pawtuxet River, an urbanized river located in Cranston, RI, USA. During the study, concentrations of particulate and dissolved PAHs ranged from 21.5 to 103 μg/g and from 68 to 164 ng/L, respectively. Overall, temporal trends of PAHs showed no increases in either dissolved or particulate phases following removal of the dam. Dissolved concentrations of PCBs were very low, remaining below 1.72 ng/L at all sites. Particulate PCB concentrations across sites and time showed slightly greater variability, ranging from 80 to 469 ng/g, but with no indication that dam removal influenced any increases. Particulate PAHs and PCBs were sampled continuously at the site located below the dam and did not show sustained increases in concentration resulting from dam removal. The employment of passive sampling technology and sediment traps was highly effective in monitoring the concentrations and flux of contaminants moving through the river system. Variations in river flow had no effect on the concentration of contaminants in the dissolved or particulate phases, but did influence the flux rate of contaminants exiting the river. Overall, dam removal did not cause measurable sediment disturbance or increase the concentration or fluxes of dissolved or particulate PAHs and PCBs. This is due in large part to low volumes of impounded sediment residing above the dam and highly armored sediments in the river channel, which limited erosion. Results from this study will be used to improve methods and approaches that assess the short- and long-term impacts ecological restoration activities such as dam removal have on the release and transport of sediment-bound contaminants.


Dam removal Sediment resuspension Contaminant release Contaminant fluxes Sediment trap Passive samplers 



The authors thank Drs. Diane Nacci, Peg Pelletier, and Mr. Steven Rego for their technical reviews. This research was supported in part by an appointment to the Research Participation Program for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and EPA. Dr. M.M. Perron was financially supported by post-doctoral positions with the National Institute of Health and the National Research Council funded via Brown University and U.S. EPA, respectively. Although research described in this article has been wholly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and has been technically reviewed at the Atlantic Ecology Division, it has not been subjected to Agency-level review. Therefore, it does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency. This manuscript is contribution number ORD-005438 of the Atlantic Ecology Division of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Health Effects Environmental Research Laboratory. Mention of trade names does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Supplementary material

10661_2014_3742_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 26 kb)


  1. American Rivers 2013. Viewed May 6, 2013
  2. Ashley, J., Bushaw-Newton, K., Wilhelm, M., Boettner, A., Drames, G., & Velinksy, D. (2006). The effects of small dam removal on the distribution of sedimentary contaminants. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 114, 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baish, S., David, S., & Graf, W. (2002). The complex decision-making process for removing dams. Environment, 44, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bednarek, A. (2001). Undamming rivers: a review of the ecological impacts of dam removal. Environmental Management, 27(6), 803–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowman, M. B. (2002). Legal perspectives on dam removal. BioScience, 52, 739–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess, R. M., Ahrens, M. J., & Hickey, C. W. (2003). Geochemistry of PAHs in aquatic environments: a synthesis of source, distribution and persistence. In P. E. T. Douben (Ed.), PAHs: An ecotoxicological perspective (pp. 35–45). London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Cheng, F., Granata, T. 2007. Sediment transport and channel adjustments associated with dam removal: field observations. Water Resources Research 43. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004271
  8. Ciba Geigy Corporation. (2003). Sediment sampling report for the Pawtuxet River, Former Ciba Geigy Facility, Cranston, Rhode Island. Wayne, New Jersey: Woodward-Clyde.Google Scholar
  9. Cui, Y., Parker, G., Braudrick, C., Dietrich, W. E., & Cluer, B. (2006). Dam removal express assessment models (DREAM). Part 1: model development and validation. Journal of Hydraulic Research, 44(3), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Emerson, D.G., Vecchia, A.V., Dahl, A.L. 2005. Evaluation of drainage-area ratio method used to estimate streamflow for the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota and Minnesota. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5017.Google Scholar
  11. Erickson, M. D. (1992). Analytical chemistry of PCBs (p. 508). Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, J. E., & Gottgens, J. F. (2007). Contaminant stratigraphy of the Ballville Reservoir, Sandusky River, NW Ohio: implications for dam removal. Journal of Great Lakes Research, 33(2), 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graf, W. L. (1993). Landscapes, commodities, and ecosystems: the relationship between policy and science for American rivers (Sustaining Our Water Resources, pp. 11–42). Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gregory, S., Li, H., & Li, J. (2002). The conceptual basis for ecological responses to dam removal. BioScience, 52(8), 713–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gschwend, P. M., Macfarlane, J. K., Reible, D. D., & Lu, X. (2011). Comparison of polymeric samplers for accurately assessing PCBs in pore waters. Environmental Toxicology Chemical, 30(6), 1288–1296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harman, W.A. 2008. Design improvements of meander bend protection using root wads. Southeastern Regional Conference on Stream Restoration, Winston-Salem, NCGoogle Scholar
  17. Hart, D., Johnson, T., Bushaw-Newton, K., Horwitz, R., Bednarek, A., Charles, D., Kreeger, D., & Velinsky, D. (2002). Dam removal: challenges and opportunities for ecological research and river restoration. BioScience, 52(8), 669–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Center, H. (2002). Dam removal: science and decision making. Washington, DC: H.J. Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.Google Scholar
  19. Huckins, J.N., Petty, J.D. and K. Booij. 2006. Passive monitors of organic chemicals in the environment: semipermeable membrane devices. (pp. 39–74) Springer, New York, NY,Google Scholar
  20. Kleinschmidt. 2005. Pawtuxet River anadromous fish passage restoration project: feasibility study.Google Scholar
  21. Long, E. R., MacDonald, D. D., Smith, S. L., & Calder, F. D. (1995). Incidence of adverse biological effects within ranges of chemical concentrations in marine and estuarine sediments. Environmental Management, 19(1), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lopez-Avila, V., Hites, R. A. (1980). Organic compounds in an industrial wastewater: their transport into sediments. Environmental Science Technology 14: 1382–1390.Google Scholar
  23. Perron, M. M., Burgess, R. M., Suuberg, E. M., Pennell, K. G., & Cantwell, M. G. (2013). Performance of passive samplers for monitoring estuarine water column concentrations 1. Contaminants of concern. Environmental Science Technology, 32(10), 2182–2189.Google Scholar
  24. Poff, N., & Hart, D. (2002). How dams vary and why it matters for the emerging science of dam removal. BioScience, 52(8), 659–668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pohl, M. (2002). Bringing down our dams: trends in American dam removal rationales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 38, 1511–1519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Quinn, J.G., Hoffman, E.J., Latimer, J.S., Carey, C.G. 1985. A study of the water quality of the Pawtuxet River: chemical monitoring and computer modeling of pollutants. Volume 1: Chemical monitoring of pollutants in the Pawtuxet River. A report submitted to the Division of Water Resources, Dept. of Environmental Management, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  27. Sloan, R. J., Kane, M. W., & Skinner, L. C. (2005). Of time, PCBs and the fish of the Hudson River. Albany, New York: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.Google Scholar
  28. Stanley, E., & Doyle, M. (2002). A geomorphic perspective on nutrient retention following dam removal. BioScience, 52(8), 693–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. USACE 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Inventory of Dams. Accessed 03/13/2013.
  30. USDA 2006. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service Warwick, Rhode Island, 02886. Technical Memorandum. National Register Eligibility Evaluation Pawtuxet Falls Dam, Cranston and Warwick, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  31. USGS 2013. U.S. Geological Survey, The National Map Viewer, National map data. Accessed 4/21/2013.
  32. Whitelaw, E., & MacMullan, E. (2002). A framework for estimating the costs and benefits of dam removal. BioScience, 52(8), 724–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark G. Cantwell
    • 1
  • Monique M. Perron
    • 2
  • Julia C. Sullivan
    • 3
  • David R. Katz
    • 1
  • Robert M. Burgess
    • 1
  • John King
    • 4
  1. 1.Office of Research and DevelopmentU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyNarragansettUSA
  2. 2.Office of Pesticide ProgramU.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Oak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationNarragansettUSA
  4. 4.Graduate School of OceanographyUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansettUSA

Personalised recommendations