Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stream and Sediment Dynamics in Response to Holocene Landscape Changes in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Wetlands

  • 2988 Accesses

Abstract

Sediment pollution is one of the most important contributors to the degradation of the Chesapeake Bay. The Susquehanna River is one of the main sources of sediment to the Bay and this source could dramatically increase in the future. The reservoirs on the Susquehanna River are almost at sediment-storage capacity. The lowest reservoir (Conowingo) could be at capacity within a few decades (Langland and Hainly 1997). Once this occurs little sediment will be trapped and prevented from entering the Bay. Sediment continues to be supplied to the river system from across the watershed. Understanding the sources of this sediment, as well as the processes contributing to the continued flow of sediment, are crucial if efforts to restore the Bay’s ecosystem are to be successful.

Our study has focused on one of the sub-basins of the Susquehanna River located in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. We have examined the spatial and temporal distribution of sediment in the stream channel and floodplain and linked this information to changes in the landscape over the last several thousand years. Typically we see coarse-grained channel lag deposits formed by lateral migration of streams which are overlain by predominately fine-grained organic-rich (including large logs) sediment that accumulated slowly over several thousand years (based on radiocarbon ages). Deforestation resulting from European occupation beginning in the early 1700’s caused a significant increase in the rate of sediment deposition in the floodplain and a decrease in the organic content of the sediment. Debris flows from the surrounding hillslopes resulted in matrix-supported conglomerates within the floodplain sediments. Modifications to the stream channels to facilitate agriculture were also common. More recent landscape changes resulting from suburbanization have resulted in complex spatial and temporal responses in the stream system. Initially, sediment deposition in the channels increased, however changes in land development practices have resulted in increased peak stream flows and the remobilization of the sediment from the stream channels, streambanks, and floodplains. Most streams are incising and /or widening their channels causing high sediment yields. The resulting sediment pollutes the local streams and contributes to ongoing degradation of the Chesapeake Bay.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Abrams MC (2002) The postglacial history of oak forests in eastern North America. In: McShea WJ, Healy WM (eds) The ecology and management of oaks for wildlife. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp 34–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrams MD, Nowacki GJ (2008) Native Americans as active and passive promoters of mast and fruit trees in the eastern USA. Holocene 18:1123–1137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander CS, Prior JC (1971) Holocene sedimentation rates in overbank deposits in the Black Bottom of the lower Ohio River, southern Illinois. Am J Sci 270:361–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan JD (2004) Landscapes and riverscapes: the influence of land use on stream ecosystems. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:257–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allmendinger NE, Pizzuto JE, Moglen GE, Lewicki M (2007) A sediment budget for an urbanizing watershed, 1951–1996, Montgomery County, Maryland, USA. J Am Water Res Assoc 43:1483–1498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayrd GB, Davis AG, Harris NJ (2002) A geomorphic interpretation of the Swarr Run Watershed of Lancaster Pennsylvania. In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Undergraduate Research Symposium, Keck Geology Consortium, pp 170–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedford BL (1999) Cumulative effects on wetland landscapes: links to wetland restoration in the United States and southern Canada. Wetlands 19:775–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beighley RE, Moglen GE (2002) Assessment of stationarity in rainfall-runoff behavior in urbanizing watersheds. J Hydrolog Eng, ASCE 7:27–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black BA (1998) Physiographic analysis of witness tree distribution and surveyor bias in the pre-European settlement forest of Lancaster county, PA. M.S. thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Black BA, Abrams MD (2001) Analysis of temporal variation and species-site relationships of witness tree data southeastern Pennsylvania. Can J For Res 31:419–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun EL (1950) Deciduous forests of eastern North America. The Blackburn Press, Caldwell, p 596

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt TP, Pinay G (2005) Linking hydrology and biogeochemistry in complex landscapes. Prog Phys Geogr 29:297–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colosimo MF, Wilcock PR (2007) Alluvial sedimentation and erosion in an urbanizing watershed, Gwynns Falls, Maryland. J Am Water Res Assoc 43:499–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa JE, Cleaves ET (1984) The Piedmont landscape of Maryland: a new look at an old problem. Earth Surf Processes Landf 9:59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowl GH, Sevon WD (1999) Quaternary, vol 1. Pennsylvania Geologic Survey Special Publication, pp 224–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis MB (1983) Holocene vegetational history of the eastern United States. In: Wright HE Jr (ed) Late quaternary environments of the United States, vol 2. The University of Minnesota Press, St. Paul, pp 166–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies GM, deWet AP, Williams CJ, Wilson MD (2006) Dillerville swamp: a major wetland in SE Pennsylvania? Northeastern section–41st Annual Meeting, vol 38. Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs, p 88

    Google Scholar 

  • deWet AP, Tomlinson J (2003) Stream processes, land-use change and sediment supply, Lancaster County, PA, vol 34. GSA Abstracts with Programs, p 314

    Google Scholar 

  • Dixon JL, Heimsath AM, Kaste J, Amundson R (2009) Climate-driven processes of hillslope weathering. Geology 37:975–978

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JM (2006) Revisiting the deciduous forests of eastern North America. BioScience 56:341–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eaton LS, Morgan BA, Kochel RC, Howard AD (2003) Role of debris flows in long-term landscape denudation in the central Appalachians of Virginia. Geology 31:339–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faegri K, Iversen J (1989) Textbook of pollen analysis, 4th edn. Wiley, New York, p 328

    Google Scholar 

  • Gellis AG, Banks SL, Langland MJ, Martucci SK (2004) Summary of suspended-sediment data for streams draining the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, water years 1952–2002. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5056, pp 1–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Gooding AM (1971) Postglacial alluvial history in the Upper White-Water basin, southeastern Indiana, and possible regional relationships. Am J Sci 271:389–401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurwick NP, Groffman PM, Yavitt JB, Gold AJ, Blazejewski G, Stolt M (2008) Microbially-available carbon in buried riparian soils in a glaciated landscape. Soil Biol Biochem 40:85–96

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hassett B, Palmer MA, Bernhardt ES, Smith S, Carr J, Hart DD (2005) Restoring watersheds project by project: trends in Chesapeake Bay tributary restoration. Front Ecol Environ 3:259–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hession WC, Pizzuto JE, Johnson TE, Horowitz RJ (2003) Influence of bank vegetation on channel morphology in rural and urban watersheds. Geology 31:147–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoadley BR (1990) Identifying wood: accurate results with simple tools. The Taunton Press, Newtown, p 240

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson RB, Coleman DJ (1986) Stratigraphy and recent evolution of Maryland piedmont flood plains. Am J Sci 286:617–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnstone E, Macklin MG, Lewin J (2006) The development and application of a database of radiocarbon-dated Holocene fluvial deposits in Great Britain. Cateña 66:14–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapp RO (1969) How to know pollen and spores. W.C. Brown, Dubuque, p 249

    Google Scholar 

  • Karr JR, Schlosser IJ (1978) Water resources and the land-water interface. Science 201:229–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman ME (1999) Eocambrian, Cambrian, and transition to Ordovician. In: Shultz CH (ed) The geology of Pennsylvania. Special Publication of the Geological Survey of Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, Pensylvania, pp 59–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Langland MJ, Hainly RA (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. United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4138, pp 1–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Langland MJ, Edwards RE, Sprague LA, Yochum S (2001) Summary of trends and status analysis for flow, nutrients, and sediments at selected nontidal sites, Chesapeake Bay basin, 1985–1999. United States Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-73, pp 1–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold LB (1973) River channel change with time: an example. Geol Soc Am Bull 84:1845–1860

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leopold LB, Huppman R, Miller A (2005) Geomorphic effects of urbanization in forty-one years of observation. Proc Am Philos Soc 149:349–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Lévesque PEM, Dinel H, Larouche A (1988) Guide to the identification of plant macrofossils in Canadian peatlands. Land Resource Centre, Ottawa, Ontario. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada. Publication No. 1817, p 65

    Google Scholar 

  • Loper CA, Davis RC (1998) A snapshot evaluation of stream environmental quality in the Little Conestoga Creek Basin, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. United States Geological Survey Water Resources Report 98-4173, pp 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Lord AC (1975) The pre-revolutionary agriculture of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. J Lancaster Cty Hist Soc 79:23–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Macklin MG, Lewin J (2003) River sediments, great floods and centennial-scale Holocene climate change. J Quat Sci 18:101–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macklin M, Benito G, Gregory K, Johnstone E, Lewin J, Michczynska D, Soja R, Starkel L, Thorndycraft VR (2006) Past hydrological events reflected in the Holocene fluvial record of Europe. Cateña 66:145–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer PM, Reynolds SK, McCutchen MD, Canfield TJ (2007) Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. J Environ Qual 36:1172–1180

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell RW, Sharply A, Folmar G (2001) Phosphorus export from an agricultural watershed: linking source and transport mechanisms. J Environ Qual 30:1587–1595

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell RW, Sharply AN, Folmar G (2003) Modification of phosphorus export from an eastern USA catchment by fluvial sediment and phosphorus inputs. Agric Ecosyst Environ 99:187–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mombert JI (1869) Authentic history of Lancaster County in the State of Pennsylvania. J.E. Barr, Lancaster, p 792

    Google Scholar 

  • Muenz TK, Golladay SW, Vellidis G, Smith LL (2006) Stream buffer effectiveness in an agriculturally influenced area, southwestern Georgia: responses of water quality, macroinvertebrates, and amphibians. J Environ Qual 35:1924–1938

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Naiman RJ, Bunn SE, Nilsson C, Petts GE, Pinay G, Thompson LC (2002) Legitimizing fluvial ecosystems as users of water: an overview. Environ Manag 30:455–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer MA, Moglen GE, Bockstael NE, Brooke S, Pizzuto JE, Wiegand C, van Ness K (2002) The ecological consequences of changing land use for running waters: the suburban Maryland case. Yale Environ Sci Bull 107:85–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul MJ, Meyer JL (2001) Streams in the urban landscape. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 32:333–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pazzaglia FJ, Gardner TW (1993) Fluvial terraces of the lower Susquehanna River. Geomorphology 8:83–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterjohn WT, Correll DL (1984) Nutrient dynamics in an agricultural watershed: observations on the role of a riparian forest. Ecology 65:1466–1475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Poff NL, Allan JD, Bain MB, Karr JR, Prestegaard KL, Richter BD, Sparks RE, Stromberg JC (1997) The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769–784

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riding JB, Kyffin-Hughes JE (2006) Further testing of a non-acid palynological preparation procedure. Palynology 30:69–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanford SD, Ashley GM, Brenner GJ (2001) Late Cenozoic fluvial stratigraphy of the New Jersey Piedmont: a record of glacioeustasy, planation, and incision on a low-relief passive margin. J Geol 109:265–276

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stuiver M, Reimer PJ, Bard E, Beck JW, Burr GS, Hughen KA, Kromer B, McCormac G, van der Plicht J, Spurk M (1998) IntCal98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000–0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40:1041–1083

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomlinson J (2003) Land use and sediment yield: an assessment of Swarr Run, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Senior Independent Thesis, Department of Geosciences (now Earth and Environment), Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pennsylvania

    Google Scholar 

  • Trimble SW (1997) Contribution of stream channel erosion to sediment yield from an urbanizing watershed. Science 278:1442–1444

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Voli M, Merritts D, Walter R, Ohlson E, Datin K, Rahnis M, Kratz L, Deng W, Hilgartner W, Hartranft J (2009) Preliminary reconstruction of a pre-European settlement valley bottom wetland, southeastern, Pennsylvania. Water Res Impact 11:11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Vörösmarty CJ, Sahagian D (2000) Anthropogenic disturbance of the terrestrial water cycle. BioScience 50:753–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walter RC, Merritts DL (2008) Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered mills. Science 319:299–304

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Watts WA (1979) Late quaternary vegetation of central Appalachia and the New Jersey coastal plain. Ecol Monogr 49:427–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JW, Shuman BN, Webb T III, Bartlein PJ, Leduc PL (2004) Late-quaternary vegetation dynamics in North America: scaling from taxa to biomes. Ecol Monogr 74:309–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolman MG, Schick AP (1967) Effects of construction on fluvial sediment, urban and suburban areas of Maryland. Water Resour Res 3:451–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (2000) Progress in wetland restoration ecology. Trends Ecol Evol 15:402–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zedler JB (2003) Wetlands at your service: reducing impacts of agriculture at the watershed scale. Frontiers Ecol Environ 1:65–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the faculty and students involved in the Keck Geology Consortium—Little Conestoga Watershed project: Dorothy Merritts, Jeffrey Marshall, Steve Weaver, Garrett Bayrd, Abby Bowers, Aaron Davis, Jennifer Fallon, Nancy Harris, Ashley Hawes, Kyle Cavanaugh, and Lauren Manion. Matt Kofroth of the Lancaster County Conservation District provided access to the site, Flyway Excavating Company excavated the trench, and Christopher Sommerfield at the Graduate College of Marine Studies, University of Delaware provided access to the sedigraph.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Earth and Environment, Franklin and Marshall College, 17603, Lancaster, PA, USA

    Andrew deWet & Christopher J. Williams

  2. Delaware Geological Survey, University of Delaware, 202 DGS Building, 257 Academy Street, 19716-7501, Newark, DE, USA

    Jaime Tomlinson

  3. Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University, 16802, University Park, PA, USA

    Erin Carlson Loy

Authors
  1. Andrew deWet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher J. Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaime Tomlinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Erin Carlson Loy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew deWet .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental & Remediation Project, PECO Energy Company, Market Avenue 2301, Philadelphia, 19103, Pennsylvania, USA

    Ben A. LePage

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

deWet, A., Williams, C.J., Tomlinson, J., Loy, E.C. (2011). Stream and Sediment Dynamics in Response to Holocene Landscape Changes in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. In: LePage, B. (eds) Wetlands. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0551-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation