2018Journal of Hydrologic EngineeringOpen access

Comparison of Two Alternative Methods for Developing TMDLs to Address Sediment Impairments

Carlington W. Wallace, Brian Leslie Benham, E. R. Yagow, Daniel L. Gallagher

Open full text 5 citations

Abstract

While excessive sediment is a leading cause of aquatic life use impairments in free-flowing rivers in Virginia, there is no numeric sediment-water quality criterion. As a result, total maximum daily load (TMDL) sediment loads are often established using a comparable, nonimpaired reference watershed. Selecting a suitable reference watershed can be problematic. This case study compared the reference watershed approach (RWA) which uses the Generalized Watershed Loading Function and the disaggregate method (DM) which uses output from Phase 5.3 of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. In this case study, the two methods were used to develop sediment TMDLs for three impaired watersheds in Virginia (Taylor Creek, Turley Creek, and Long Meadow Run). In this case study comparison, the RWA required between 12.8 and 14.7 times greater sediment load reductions (t/year) to reach the TMDL load (Taylor Creek > Long Meadow Run > Turley Creek) when compared to the reductions called for using the DM. While each TMDL development method has inherent limitations, the DM uses output from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model to establish TMDL target loads. This means that the application of the DM is restricted to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

While excessive sediment is a leading cause of aquatic life use impairments in free-flowing rivers in Virginia, there is no numeric sediment-water quality criterion. As a result, total maximum daily load (TMDL) sediment loads are often established using a comparable, nonimpaired reference watershed. Selecting a suitable reference watershed can be problematic. This case study compared the reference watershed approach (RWA) which uses the Generalized Watershed Loading Function and the disaggregate method (DM) which uses output from Phase 5.3 of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. In this case study, the two methods were used to develop sediment TMDLs for three impaired watersheds in Virginia (Taylor Creek, Turley Creek, and Long Meadow Run). In this case study comparison, the RWA required between 12.8 and 14.7 times greater sediment load reductions (t/year) to reach the TMDL load (Taylor Creek > Long Meadow Run > Turley Creek) when compared to the reductions called for using the DM. While each TMDL development method has inherent limitations, the DM uses output from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model to establish TMDL target loads. This means that the application of the DM is restricted to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

While excessive sediment is a leading cause of aquatic life use impairments in free-flowing rivers in Virginia, there is no numeric sediment-water quality criterion. As a result, total maximum daily load (TMDL) sediment loads are often established using a comparable, nonimpaired reference watershed. Selecting a suitable reference watershed can be problematic. This case study compared the reference watershed approach (RWA) which uses the Generalized Watershed Loading Function and the disaggregate method (DM) which uses output from Phase 5.3 of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model. In this case study, the two methods were used to develop sediment TMDLs for three impaired watersheds in Virginia (Taylor Creek, Turley Creek, and Long Meadow Run). In this case study comparison, the RWA required between 12.8 and 14.7 times greater sediment load reductions (t/year) to reach the TMDL load (Taylor Creek > Long Meadow Run > Turley Creek) when compared to the reductions called for using the DM. While each TMDL development method has inherent limitations, the DM uses output from the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model to establish TMDL target loads. This means that the application of the DM is restricted to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.

Key concepts: Watershed, Total maximum daily load, Environmental science, Sediment, Hydrology (agriculture), Chesapeake bay, Clean Water Act, Water quality

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Comparison of Two Alternative Methods for Developing TMDLs to Address Sediment Impairments — Research Paper | ScholarLens