YaBeSH Engineering and Technology Library

    • Journals
    • PaperQuest
    • YSE Standards
    • YaBeSH
    • Login
    View Item 
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
    • View Item
    •   YE&T Library
    • ASCE
    • Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
    • View Item
    • All Fields
    • Source Title
    • Year
    • Publisher
    • Title
    • Subject
    • Author
    • DOI
    • ISBN
    Advanced Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Archive

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

    Source: Journal of Hydrologic Engineering:;2018:;Volume ( 023 ):;issue: 012
    Author:
    Wallace Carlington W.;Benham Brian L.;Yagow Eugene R.;Gallagher Daniel L.
    DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001728
    Publisher: American Society of Civil Engineers
    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.
    • Download: (2.669Mb)
    • Show Full MetaData Hide Full MetaData
    • Get RIS
    • Item Order
    • Go To Publisher
    • Statistics

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

    URI
    https://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4249728
    Collections
    • Journal of Hydrologic Engineering

    Show full item record

    contributor authorWallace Carlington W.;Benham Brian L.;Yagow Eugene R.;Gallagher Daniel L.
    date accessioned2019-02-26T07:50:09Z
    date available2019-02-26T07:50:09Z
    date issued2018
    identifier other%28ASCE%29HE.1943-5584.0001728.pdf
    identifier urihttp://yetl.yabesh.ir/yetl1/handle/yetl/4249728
    description abstractWhile 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.
    publisherAmerican Society of Civil Engineers
    titleComparison of Two Alternative Methods for Developing TMDLs to Address Sediment Impairments
    typeJournal Paper
    journal volume23
    journal issue12
    journal titleJournal of Hydrologic Engineering
    identifier doi10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0001728
    page5018023
    treeJournal of Hydrologic Engineering:;2018:;Volume ( 023 ):;issue: 012
    contenttypeFulltext
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian
     
    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    نرم افزار کتابخانه دیجیتال "دی اسپیس" فارسی شده توسط یابش برای کتابخانه های ایرانی | تماس با یابش
    yabeshDSpacePersian