Consolidation and erosion of deposited cohesive sediments in Northern Chesapeake Bay, USA

J. Halka; W. Panageotou; L. Sanford

doi:10.1007/bf02431008

Home/Archive/USGS

USGS · 70016438

Consolidation and erosion of deposited cohesive sediments in Northern Chesapeake Bay, USA

J. Halka·W. Panageotou·L. Sanford

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Deposits of dredged cohesive sediments were monitored for changes in volume, bulk characteristics, and susceptibility to resuspension and erosion at disposal sites in Chesapeake Bay. There is a 23-48% volume reduction during the first six months, with correspondingly greater changes over longer time periods. A bulk density increase from 1.15 to 1.3 g/cm3 due to dewatering and compaction accounts for the majority of the volume change. Tidal current induced resuspension is a minor process. The observed suspended sediment load can be accounted for by erosion of only a fraction of a millimeter of sediment on each tidal cycle. ?? 1991 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

Explore related subjects

Geo-Marine Letters Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

J. Halka, W. Panageotou, L. Sanford. 1991. Consolidation and erosion of deposited cohesive sediments in Northern Chesapeake Bay, USA. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02431008

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

USGS2020

Applications and utility of the surface elevation table–marker horizon method for measuring wetland elevation and shallow soil subsidence-expansion: Discussion/reply to: Byrnes M., Britsch L., Berlinghoff J., Johnson R., and Khalil S. 2019. Recent subsidence rates for Barataria Basin, Louisiana. Geo-Marine Letters 39:265–278

Byrnes et al. (Geo-Marine Letters 39:265–278, Byrnes et al. 2019 ) present subsidence data for Barataria Basin located south and west of New Orleans in coastal Louisiana to better inform wetland protection and restoration planning by the Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority. They measured subsidence using geodetic GPS elevation surveys of rod benchmarks, similar to the rod benchmarks of the surface elevation table–marker horizon (SET-MH) method used to measure surface biophysical processes influencing elevation dynamics and shallow subsidence (i.e., subsidence occurring above the base of the rod) in coastal wetlands. Byrnes et al. (Geo-Marine Letters 39:265–278, Byrnes et al. 2019 ) argue that (1) SET-MH measures should not be included in subsidence measures because subsidence is a purely geologic process, separate from biophysical processes occurring in the active marsh zone, (2) shallow subsidence measured by the SET-MH method in deep Holocene sediments are not valid because of downdrag on the rod, and (3) high spatial variability of wetland surface processes precludes the ability to make meaningful estimates of subsidence using the SET-MH method. This reply paper presents an extensive summary of the peer-reviewed literature that refutes all three of these claims and demonstrates that it is not only reasonable but also essential to apply the SET-MH method to obtain a complete as possible assessment of surface elevation dynamics to inform coastal wetland restoration and management planning in Barataria Basin and other coastal wetlands worldwide.

Geo-Marine Letters↗

USGS2016

Observations of pockmark flow structure in Belfast Bay, Maine, Part 1: current-induced mixing

Field observations of current profiles and temperature, salinity, and density structure were used to examine vertical mixing within two pockmarks in Belfast Bay, Maine. The first is located in 21 m water depth (sea level to rim), nearly circular in shape with a 45 m rim diameter and 12 m rim-to-bottom relief. The second is located in 25 m water depth, more elongated in shape with an approximately 80 m (36 m) major (minor) axis length at the rim, and 17 m relief. Hourly averaged current profiles were acquired from bottom-mounted acoustic Doppler current profilers deployed on the rim and center of each pockmark over successive 42 h periods in July 2011. Conductivity–temperature–depth casts at the rim and center of each pockmark show warmer, fresher water in the upper water column, evidence of both active and fossil thermocline structure 5–8 m above the rim, and well-mixed water below the rim to the bottom. Vertical velocities show up- and down-welling events that extend into the depths of each pockmark. An observed temperature change at both the rim and center occurs coincident with an overturning event below the rim, and suggests active mixing of the water column into the depths of each pockmark. Vertical profiles of horizontal velocities show depth variation at both the center and rim consistent with turbulent logarithmic current boundary layers, and suggest that form drag may possibly be influencing the local flow regime. While resource limitations prevented observation of the current structure and water properties at a control site, the acquired data suggest that active mixing and overturning within the sampled pockmarks occur under typical benign conditions, and that current flows are influenced by upstream bathymetric irregularities induced by distant pockmarks.

Maine↗

USGS2016

Observations of pockmark flow structure in Belfast Bay, Maine, Part 2: evidence for cavity flow

Pockmark flow circulation patterns were investigated through current measurements along the rim and center of two pockmarks in Belfast Bay, Maine. Observed time-varying current profiles have a complex vertical and directional structure that rotates significantly with depth and is strongly dependent on the phase of the tide. Observations of the vertical profiles of horizontal velocities in relation to relative geometric parameters of the pockmark are consistent with circulation patterns described qualitatively by cavity flow models (Ashcroft and Zhang 2005 ). The time-mean behavior of the shear layer is typically used to characterize cavity flow, and was estimated using vorticity thickness to quantify the growth rate of the shear layer horizontally across the pockmark. Estimated positive vorticity thickness spreading rates are consistent with cavity flow predictions, and occur at largely different rates between the two pockmarks. Previously modeled flow (Brothers et al. 2011 ) and laboratory measurements (Pau et al. 2014 ) over pockmarks of similar geometry to those examined herein are also qualitatively consistent with cavity flow circulation, suggesting that cavity flow may be a good first-order flow model for pockmarks in general.

Maine↗