Sources of Suspended-Sediment Flux in Streams of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Regional Application of the SPARROW Model1

Brakebill, John W., Scott W. Ator, and Gregory E. Schwarz, 2010. Sources of Suspended-Sediment Flux in Streams of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: A Regional Application of the SPARROW Model. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 46(4): 757-776. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00450.x Abstract: We describe the sources and transport of fluvial suspended sediment in nontidal streams of the Chesapeake Bay watershed and vicinity. We applied SPAtially Referenced Regressions on Watershed attributes, which spatially correlates estimated mean annual flux of suspended sediment in nontidal streams with sources of suspended sediment and transport factors. According to our model, urban development generates on average the greatest amount of suspended sediment per unit area (3,928 Mg/km²/year), although agriculture is much more widespread and is the greatest overall source of suspended sediment (57 Mg/km²/year). Factors affecting sediment transport from uplands to streams include mean basin slope, reservoirs, physiography, and soil permeability. On average, 59% of upland suspended sediment generated is temporarily stored along large rivers draining the Coastal Plain or in reservoirs throughout the watershed. Applying erosion and sediment controls from agriculture and urban development in areas of the northern Piedmont close to the upper Bay, where the combined effects of watershed characteristics on sediment transport have the greatest influence may be most helpful in mitigating sedimentation in the bay and its tributaries. Stream restoration efforts addressing floodplain and bank stabilization and incision may be more effective in smaller, headwater streams outside of the Coastal Plain.     

Development and Use of a Sedimentation Risk Index for Unpaved Road‐Stream Crossings in the Choctawhatchee Watershed1

Abstract: Unpaved road‐stream crossings increase sediment yields in streams and alter channel morphology and stability. Before restoration and sedimentation reduction strategies can be implemented, a priority listing of unpaved road‐stream crossings must be created. The objectives of this study were to develop a sedimentation risk index (SRI) for unpaved road‐stream crossings and to prioritize 125 sites in the Choctawhatchee watershed (southeastern Alabama) using this model. Field surveys involved qualitative and quantitative observations of 73 metrics related to waterway conditions, crossing structures, road approaches, and roadside soil erosion. The road‐stream crossing risk analyses involved elimination of candidate metrics based on redundancy, skewness, lack of data, professional judgment, lack of nonzero values, unbalanced box plots, and limited ranges of values. A final selection of 12 metrics formed the SRI and weighed factors involving soil erodibility, road sedimentation abatement features, and stream morphology alteration. The SRI was organized into narrative categories (excellent, good, fair, poor, and very poor) based on the distribution of scores. No excellent sites (scores ≥55) were found in this study, 17 (20.7%) were good (low sedimentation risk), 37 (45.1%) were fair (moderate sedimentation risk), 26 (31.7%) were poor (high sedimentation risk), and two (2.5%) were very poor (high sedimentation risk). There was no significant difference in SRI scores among crossing structure type (round culverts, box culverts, and bridges) (H = 4.31, df = 2, p = 0.058). A future study of the Choctawhatchee watershed involving the same study sites could assess the success of restoration plans and activities based on site score improvement or decline.