User's Manual:

Watershed Management Model

Version 4.1

October 1998
DISCLAIMER

Users of WMM for Windows should understand that CDM makes no warranties, expressed or
implied, concerning the accuracy, completeness, reliability, or suitability for any particular purpose
of the information or data contained in the application files or furnished in connection therewith, and
CDM shall be under no liability whatsoever to any individual or group entity by reason of any use
made thereof.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee ii

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page
1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Watersheds and Pollution Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Land Use Pollution Loading Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 The Storm Water Permit Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Introduction to the Watershed Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Outline of User’s Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.0 Watershed Management Model Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.1 Conceptual Model Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Rainfall/Runoff Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.1 Annual Runoff Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.3 Nonpoint Pollution Event Mean Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.1 Event Mean Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.4 Nonpoint Pollution Loading Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5 Best Management Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.5.1 Best Management Practice Treatment Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5.2 BMP Pollutant Removal Efficiencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.5.3 Calculation of Pollutant Reduction from BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.6 Baseflow Loading Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.6.1 Annual Baseflow Volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.6.2 Baseflow Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.7 Point Source Dischargers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.8 Combined Sewer Overflows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.8.1 CSO Flow Estimates and Pollutant Loading Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.8.2 CSO Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.9 Failing Septic Tank Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.10 Delivery Ratio/Travel Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.11 Model Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.11.1 Runoff Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.11.2 Water Quality Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.12 Uncertainty Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.13 Model Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee iii

3.0 Structure and Operation of the Watershed Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.1 Installation and Startup of the Watershed Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.2 Default Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2.1 Default Landuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.2.2 Default Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.3 Default EMC Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.4 Default Suspended Fraction Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.5 Default Septic Impact Land Use Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.6 Default Septic Failure Loading Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.2.7 Default BMP Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2.8 Default BMP Removal Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3 Scenario Manager 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.1 Landuse Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.2 Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.3 Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.3.4 Hydrologic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.5 EMC Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.6 Baseflow Concentration Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.7 Suspended Fraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.8 Septic Failure Loading Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.4 Scenario Manager 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
3.4.1 Uncertainty Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4.2 Include CSOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.4.3 Include BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.4.4 Include Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.4.5 Include CSO Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.4.6 Running the Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.5 Output Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.5.1 Standard Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.5.2 Subarea Loads by Pollutant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
3.5.3 Multiple Scenario by Pollutant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.5.4 Bar Chart Run Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.5.5 ArcView Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.5.6 Delete Model Run Output Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4.0 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee iv

Appendix A NURP Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Appendix B Variable Dictionary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Appendix C Sample Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Appendix D Sample Output Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Appendix E Importing WMM Version 3.30 Data Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix F WMMAV Application User’s Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee v

 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
Figure 1-1 Schematic of Watershed Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 2-1 Watershed Management Model Conceptual Framework: Drainage Area and
Subbasin Delineation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2-2 Watershed Management Model Conceptual Framework: Land Use Delineation . 10

Figure 2-3 Watershed Management Model Conceptual Framework:

Alternatives Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 3-1 Schematic of the Watershed Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 3-2 Main Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 3-3 Default Manager Menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 3-4 Default Landuse Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Figure 3-5 Default Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 3-6 Default EMC Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 3-7 Default Suspended Fraction Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 3-8 Default Septic Impact Landuse Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3-9 Modify Septic Impact Landuse Types - Modify Landuses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3-10 Default Septic Tank Failure Loading Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 3-11 Default BMP Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 3-12 Default BMP Removal Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 3-13 Scenario Manager 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 3-14 Scenario Manager 1 - Land Use Set Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 3-15 Land Use Set Information - Add/Delete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 3-16 Scenario Manager 1- Parameter Set Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3-17 Parameter Set Information - Add/Delete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Figure 3-18 Scenario Manager 1- Watershed Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 3-19 Navigation Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Figure 3-20 Hydrologic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 3-21 Scenario Manager 1- EMC Set Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee vi

Figure 3-22 Scenario Manager 1- Base Flow Concentration Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 3-23 Scenario Manager 1- Suspended Fraction Set Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 3-24 Scenario Manager 1- Septic Tank Failure Loading Rate Set Information . . . . . . 46

Figure 3-25 Scenario Manager 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 3-26 Scenario Manager 2- Uncertainty Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 3-27 Scenario Manager 2 - CSO Concentration Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 3-28 CSO Concentration Set - Add Subbasins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 3-29 Scenario Manager 2 - BMP Set Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 3-30 BMP Set Information - Add/Delete BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 3-31 Scenario Manager 2 - Create New BMP Area Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 3-32 Scenario Manager 2 - View/Edit BMP Area Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 3-33 Scenario Manager 2 - Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 3-34 Add/Delete Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 3-35 Scenario Manager 2 - CSO Controls Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 3-36 Model Output Window . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 3-37 Output Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 3-38 Model Output Display - Standard Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 3-39 Output Navigation Bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 3-40 Model Output Display - Pollutant Loads by Subarea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 3-41 Model Output Display - Total Pollutant Loads by Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 3-42 Model Output Display - Bar Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 3-43 Bar Chart Parameter & Title Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 3-44 Delete Model Run Output Sets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Figure A-1 Locations of the 28 NURP Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure C-1 Land Use Set Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Figure C-2 Parameter Set Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure C-3 Add/Delete Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Figure C-4 Subbasin 3205 - Livonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee vii

Figure C-5 Subbasin 3228 - Redford Township . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure C-6 Hydrologic Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure C-7 EMC Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure C-8 Baseflow Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure C-9 CSO Concentrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure C-10 BMP Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Figure C-11 BMP Spatial Extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure C-12 Point Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure C-13 CSO Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure E-1 Land Use Import . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure E-2 WMM Version 3.30 Sample Land Use File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure E-3 Select Landuse Types from Defaults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure E-4 WMM Version 3.30 Sample Watershed Data Files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure E-5 Areas Affected by Failing Septic System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure E-6 WMM Version 3.30 Sample NPL File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure E-7 WMM Version 3.30 Sample Mean EMC File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure E-8 WMM Version 3.30 Sample Septic Impact File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Figure E-9 WMM Version 3.30 Sample BMP File . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure F-1 ArcView GIS Version 3.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure F-2 Watershed - Theme Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure F-3 Select Theme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure F-4 Enter Theme by Display Name . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure F-5 Theme/Waterhsed Association Info . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure F-6 Select WMM Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure F-7 WMM Model Output Theme Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure F-8 Select Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure F-9 Parameter Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Figure F-10 Load Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee viii

Figure F-11 Basin Property Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure F-12 Basin Load Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee ix

 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1.1 System Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2.1 Summary of Watershed Management Model Data Requirements and Potential
Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 2.2 Default Event Mean Concentrations and Impervious Percentages Assigned for the
Watershed Management Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Table 2.3 Median Event Mean Concentrations for all NURP Sites by Land Use Category . 16

Table 2.4 Mean Concentrations for all NURP Sites by Land Use Category . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Table 2.5 Average Annual Pollutant Removal Rates for Select BMPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Table 2.6 Coefficient of Variation Assigned for the Watershed Management Model . . . . . . 31

Table 2.7 "High" Event Mean Concentrations (95th Percentile) by Land Use Category . . . 32

Table 2.8 "Low" Event Mean Concentrations (5th Percentile) by Land Use Category . . . . 33

Table A.1 Individual NURP Site Event Mean Concentrations (USEPA, 1983) . . . . . . . . . . 60

Table C.1 Area Served by Extend Dry Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Table C.2 Output for Sample Data Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Table D.1 Standard Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Table D.2 Subarea Loads by Pollutant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Table D.3 Multiple Scenario by Pollutant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Table D.4 Bar Chart Run Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee x

1.0 INTRODUCTION. The Watershed Management Model (WMM) supports development
of watershed management plans and establishes an overall "framework" for assessing
pollution control strategies within the watershed. A watershed management plan should
address the following:

• Existing and projected future pollutant loads and the impacts of these pollutant loads on
receiving water quality;

• Pollutant loading reduction goals required to attain a desired level of water quality;

• Watershed-specific best management practices (BMPs) that may include specific

management policies, and facility siting and design criteria that will be implemented under
the watershed plan; and,

• Methods for assessing the effectiveness of BMPs for reducing pollutant loadings.

To support watershed planning efforts, Camp Dresser & McKee developed a user-friendly
database model has been developed to simulate the generation and fate of pollutant loads
from a number of watershed pollutant sources. The model uses land use categories with
associated event mean concentrations (EMCs), depending on the constituents of concern, to
simulate annual or seasonal pollutant loads carried in storm water runoff. Additionally, the
model estimates loads from other pollution sources such as wastewater treatment plant or
industrial wastewater discharges, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and failing septic
systems. The model is also capable of analyzing the effects of pollutant controls for storm
water and CSOs. This user’s manual provides an overview of the Watershed Management
Model for Windows and its application to watershed management planning.

1.1 WATERSHEDS AND POLLUTION SOURCES. A "watershed" is the land area which
supplies all of the water that eventually flows into a downstream "receiving water" such as
a river, lake, or reservoir. The major sources of water in a watershed typically include rainfall
runoff from the watershed surface and seepage into streams from groundwater sources.

The major sources of pollutants in a watershed are typically storm water runoff pollution from
urban and agricultural areas and discharges from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) or
industrial facilities. Storm water runoff pollution, traditionally referred to as "nonpoint source
pollution" (NPS), discharges into streams at many dispersed points. A WWTP discharge or
industrial process wastewater discharge, typically referred to as "point source pollution,"
releases pollution into streams at discrete points.

Urban nonpoint pollution sources have become a growing concern over the past 10 to 20
years as areas throughout the U.S. have compiled monitoring data on the significant increase
in pollution discharges which occur when an area becomes urbanized. For example,
compared to undeveloped land uses (such as forested areas), annual runoff pollution
(lbs/acre/yr) from urban development is as much as 10 to 20 times greater in the case of
nutrients and as much as 10 to 50 times greater in the case of toxicants like heavy metals.
Nonpoint pollution contributed by agricultural and other rural land uses can also be a
significant concern, particularly for existing undeveloped areas in a watershed. Sediment and
nutrients are of particular concern with rural land uses.

Local and nationwide studies have revealed extensive water quality impacts resulting from
storm water runoff pollution, especially nutrients and suspended solids. Rapid urbanization,
with its associated land clearing and paving of pervious area, has accelerated the problem of
water quality pollution over the last several years. While runoff from rainfall is a natural
occurrence, the problem lies in the nature of the land on which rain falls. As the amount of
paved impervious surface area increases, the volume and rate of runoff (as well as the

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 1

 accompanying pollutant loads) increases. Storm water flowing over roofs, streets, lawns,
commercial sites, industrial areas, and other permeable and impermeable surfaces transports
many pollutants into surface and ground waters. Rain washes sediments from bare soil;
transports heavy metals, oils, and greases deposited on streets and parking lots by motor
vehicles; picks up nutrients from fertilized lawns and crops; and carries coliform bacteria from
animal wastes into receiving waters (Livingston, 1985).

Experience has shown that the conservation of water resources, the level of tax expenditures,
and the assurance of a high quality of life are intimately associated with a region's land use.
As land is changed from its original state to more intensive uses, water quality tends to
deteriorate. Transition periods between different uses (e.g., construction) are especially
critical. Each progression toward more intensive land use disrupts the natural processes
which protect and preserve water quality. While not all urban centers are predestined to poor
water quality, as the intensity of land use increases, it becomes more important to manage
resources effectively. Therefore, it is essential that the effects of alternative land uses be fully
understood if local governments plan to protect their limited natural and financial resources
(FDER, 1988).

1.2 LAND USE POLLUTION LOADING MODELS. Watershed pollution loading models
are beneficial in local government planning because they can provide a forecast of the
approximate impact of planned actions or alternatives on water quality and pollution loadings.
Models can also be used to estimate and analyze trade-offs between planning objectives
through the management of all watershed pollution sources. However, the modeling of
water quality requires data for model input. Data can be obtained from existing studies or
may require extensive field monitoring (Huber 1990).

Although water quality monitoring programs are typically required to support preparation and
implementation of watershed management plans, only a limited amount of data are generally
obtained under these monitoring programs. Short-term water quality monitoring data are
usually insufficient for use in development of a comprehensive storm water management plan.
Several years of water quality data are typically required to produce a database that reflects
a sufficient range of hydrometeorologic conditions to permit definitive conclusions. For
example, water quality data collected during drought conditions may support management
decisions very different from decisions based on data collected during periods with normal
or above normal precipitation.

Often a lack of local water quality monitoring data is cited as a reason to delay or ignore
watershed management decisions. It is appropriate to apply a watershed pollution loading
model in areas where a lack of local water quality monitoring data exists. Available literature
values for pollution loading factors or results from the NPDES permit sampling programs
can be used to develop a preliminary pollution loading evaluation for use in the preparation
of a watershed management plan. Urban nonpoint pollution loading factors can also be
transferred from one region to the next with considerable confidence, as long as regional
differences in rainfall/runoff relationships are accounted for. The reason regional urban
nonpoint pollution loading factors are transferable is that urban nonpoint pollution loadings
tend to be governed by the amount of imperviousness and urban land use categories tend to
exhibit similar levels and uses of imperviousness (e.g., roads, rooftops) throughout most of
the U.S. Generally, water quality management decisions based on "regional" loading factors
are not significantly different from those based on "local" loading factors.

Although a watershed pollution loading model can only be calibrated with local data, the
model can still be used to analyze relative changes between various alternatives or scenarios.
The model can provide municipalities with an indication of the relative direction
(improvement vs. deterioration) and magnitude (10%, 50%, 100% increase/decrease) of
water quality changes under various land use or BMP alternatives and will aid in the

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 2

 development of a comprehensive watershed management program.

1.3 THE STORM WATER PERMIT PROGRAM. Amendments to the Clean Water Act
established a two-phased approach to addressing storm water discharges. Phase I, currently
being implemented, requires permits for separate storm water systems serving large- and
medium-sized communities (those with over 100,000 inhabitants), and for stormwater
discharges associated with industrial and construction activity involving at least five acres.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published regulations for Phase I in November
1990 requiring select municipalities to obtain a system wide permit for the discharge of storm
water as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
The permit application must include an estimate of the quality and quantity of discharges from
the municipal separate storm sewer system. This requirement is specified in the Code of
Federal Regulations as:

40 CFR 122.26(d) (2) (iii) (B)

Estimates of the annual pollutant load of the cumulative discharges to waters of the
United States from all identified municipal outfalls and the event mean concentration
of the cumulative discharges to waters of the United States from all identified municipal
outfalls during a storm event for BOD5, COD, TSS, dissolved solids, total nitrogen, total
ammonia plus organic nitrogen, total phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, cadmium,
copper, lead, and zinc. Estimates shall be accompanied by a description of the
procedures for estimating constituent loads and concentrations, including any modeling,
data analysis and calculation methods;

EPA regulations also require estimates of the impact on these loads from proposed storm
water management programs. A storm water management program typically consists of
BMPs for controlling various constituents in storm water runoff. This important aspect of
water quality improvement planning is required under the NPDES permit application.

The NPDES Storm Water regulations also require implementation of a long-term water
quality monitoring program during the 5-year term of the permit to assess the impacts of the
comprehensive storm water management plan. Monitoring will provide the additional data
required to refine nonpoint pollution loading factors for local conditions. Monitoring will also
help identify water quality changes within receiving waters and whether the trends are toward
improving or deteriorating conditions. If several years of monitoring indicate that
modifications of the original comprehensive storm water management plan are warranted,
mid-course corrections can be implemented.

Phase II of the storm water program, which is currently under development, will address
storm water discharges for additional municipalities that were not covered under Phase I of
the storm water program. Ultimately, millions of potential permittees will be covered,
including urban areas with populations under 100,000, smaller construction sites, and retail,
commercial, and residential activities. EPA published it's draft Phase II Stormwater NPDES
Permit Regulations in December of 1997 and has received public comment. The final rule is
scheduled to be published by March 1, 1999, after EPA has responded to comments and
revised the regulations. The draft rule proposes six minimum control measures including
public education and outreach, public involvement/participation, an illicit discharge program,
construction site controls, post-construction controls (BMPs) on new & redevelopment
greater than one acre, and pollution prevention/good housekeeping for muncipal &
govenment operations.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 3

1.4 INTRODUCTION TO THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL. WMM uses
a database platform to estimate annual or seasonal pollutant loads from many sources within
a watershed. Data required to use the WMM include storm water EMCs for each pollutant
type, land use with the areas served by septic systems identified, average annual precipitation,
annual baseflow and average baseflow concentrations, point source flows and pollutant
concentrations, and average CSO flows and concentrations. The model is a stand alone
application that runs in Microsoft Windows 3.1® or greater. The following summarizes some
of the features of the WMM:

• Uses Microsoft Windows 3.1® or greater as the working system;

• Estimates annual storm water runoff pollution loads and concentrations for nutrients (total
phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, total nitrogen, ammonia plus organic nitrogen), heavy
metals (lead, copper, zinc, cadmium), and oxygen demand and sediment (BOD5, COD,
total suspended solids, total dissolved solids) based upon EMCs, land use, percent
impervious, and annual rainfall;

• Estimates storm water runoff pollution load reduction due to partial or full scale
implementation of onsite or regional BMPs;

• Estimates annual pollution loads from stream baseflow;

• Estimates pollution loads from CSOs;

• Estimates CSO pollution load reduction due to implementation of CSO Controls;

• Estimates point source loads for comparison with relative magnitude of other watershed
pollution loads;

• Estimates pollution loads from failing septic tanks;

• Applies a delivery ratio to account for reduction in runoff pollution load due to uptake
or removal in stream courses; and

• Imports data sets from land use data files from the spreadsheet version of WMM 3.30 into
the data base version of WMM for Windows, Version 1.0.

Pollution control strategies that may be identified and evaluated using the Watershed
Management Model include:

• Nonstructural controls (e.g., land use controls, buffer zones, etc.); and

• Structural controls (e.g., onsite and regional detention basins, grassed swales, dry
detention ponds, CSO basin, sewer separation, etc.).

The model provides a basis for planning-level evaluations of the long term (annual or
seasonal) watershed pollution loads and the relative benefits of pollution management
strategies to reduce these loads. The WMM evaluates alternative management strategies
(combinations of source and treatment storm water controls) to develop a proposed municipal
NPDES storm water management plan or other watershed management plan.

Within a given watershed, multiple subbasins can be evaluated. Subbasins are typically
subdivided by drainage areas to various tributaries, outfalls, or other receiving water body
within a watershed. However, subbasins can be delineated based on non-hydrologic
boundaries such as jurisdictional limits. This provides decision makers with information

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 4

 regarding the relative contribution of pollution loadings from various areas within a watershed
which can be used for targeting control measures to those areas which are responsible for
generating the majority of the pollutant load.

The WMM consists of three major computational modules, the import utility, and numerous
related database records. WMM was developed using Visual Basic® and MS Access® and
runs under MS Windows® 3.1 or greater. Table 1.1 lists hardware and software
requirements to run WMM. Figure 1-3 depicts the interactions among the main
computational modules, supporting data files and supplemental program files.

1.5 OUTLINE OF USER’S MANUAL. This User's Manual describes the theory and
formulation of the WMM and provides instructions for its application. Section 2 presents the
theory and formulation of the data required to use WMM for Windows. Section 3 presents
the structure and operation of the WMM. Appendix A presents default data inputs for the
WMM which may be used when local data are not available. Appendix B contains an index
of variables. Appendix C provides a sample data set to use as a test run for WMM.
Appendix D contains sample output reports.

Table 1.1
System Requirements
• IBM compatible 8048b or higher PC.
• VGA Display or better
• RAM of 16 Megabyte or higher
• Available disk space of 15 Megabyte or higher
• Mouse
• MS Windows® 3.1 or greater

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 5

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 6
2.0 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL PRINCIPLES. The Watershed
Management Model (WMM) is a database model that was developed to estimate
annual/seasonal pollutant loads on watersheds and subbasins and specifically to address
watershed management needs for nonpoint source pollution. The WMM estimates loads
based on local hydrology and non-point loading factors (EMCs) which relate land use patterns
and percent imperviousness in a watershed to “per-acre” pollutant loadings. The EMCs,
percent imperviousness, and hydrologic parameter values can be easily changed for a
particular local application. This section describes the conceptual model framework and basic
concepts for the application of WMM.

2.1 CONCEPTUAL MODEL FRAMEWORK. Application of WMM requires that watershed

data be compiled and analyzed. Table 2.1 presents a summary of the types of watershed data
required for application of the model and potential data sources. The data available for each
particular watershed under study will be different. In all cases, it is advantageous to collect
as much local data as possible and to perform field investigations within the watershed to
determine site specific conditions. In some cases, data from adjacent or neighboring
watersheds may be applicable to the study watershed.

The conceptual framework for WMM is presented in Figures 2-1 through 2-3. These figures
show schematically the outline or delineation of a hypothetical watershed with a stream and
three smaller tributaries discharging to a receiving water (e.g., lake, reservoir, major river).
Figure 2-1 illustrates the types of data required to setup the model and how a watershed
might be subdivided into smaller subbasins. Figure 2-1(A) shows initial delineation of the
watershed and potential data sources. Note that meteorological data should be obtained from
stations in the region. All available water quality monitoring data from river/tributary
stations, WWTPs and other dischargers, and water quality stations located within a lake or
other receiving water should be collected. Water quality data from similar watersheds in the
region should also be considered. Figure 2-1(B) illustrates how the watershed might be
subdivided into subbasins. Note that subbasins can be delineated by drainage area as well as
jurisdiction. As shown in the example, subbasins #6 and #7 are both within the drainage area
of tributary #3 but represent different jurisdictions.

In Figure 2-2 land use information has been overlaid on the watershed schematic. Figure 2-
2(A) represents "existing" land use. In many cases existing land use data will be obtained
from the most recent aerial photography or other land use maps. Future land use,
conceptually shown in Figure 2-2(B), will typically represent a long term "build-out"
condition that can be obtained from available land use plans or zoning maps.

Figures 2-3 illustrates two simple cases of evaluating watershed management alternatives.
Figure 2-3(A) represents a hypothetical application of source control BMPs throughout the
watershed. The source control BMPs might include buffer zones, lower density development,
and locational restrictions on commercial/industrial land uses. Figure 2-3(B) represents use
of treatment control BMPs. In this example, detention pond BMPs have been sited
throughout the watershed to control about 85% of the watershed area. Actual watershed
management plans are likely to involve a mix of both source control and treatment control
BMPs based upon local needs and preferences. A watershed management plan for a multi-
jurisdictional watershed will typically involve devising alternatives that leave the choice of
source or treatment controls up to the individual jurisdictions.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 7

 Table 2.1
Summary of Watershed Management Model Data Requirements and Potential Data Sources

Data Type Data Generic Source

Watershed Drainage Area USGS Quadrangle Maps;
Characteristics Local Topographic Maps;
Local GIS
Existing Land Use Aerial Photography;
Land Use Maps;
LandSat Imagery;
Comprehensive Land Use Plans;
Large Development Plans;
Zoning Maps
Topography / Soils USGS Quadrangle Maps;
SCS Soil Surveys
Rainfall / Runoff Long Term Average Annual NWS Weather Stations
Precipitation
Annual Streamflow USGS Monitoring Gages
Impervious Cover Aerial Photos; (large scale)
“Typical” Site Plans
Watershed Storm Event Mean NPDES Permit Applications;
Water Quality Concentrations USEPA NURP Study (1983);
Data FHWA (1990);
NURP Project Final Reports;
State, Local Pollution Control Dept.
Baseflow Concentrations USEPA STORET WQ database;
(Ambient Water Quality) State, Local Pollution Control Dept.
Monitoring Data Local WWTP/Utility; State Agency; USEPA
Inventory of Package Plants, Utility Location Maps;
Industrial Dischargers Local WWTP/Utility; State Agency;
USEPA
Data Type Data Generic Source
Combined Sewer Overflow Concentrations Literature Values; Local WWTP/Utility; USEPA
Overflows
Failing Septic Septic Tank Service Area Local Utility Maps;
Tanks Local Health Department
Annual Septic Tank Failure Rate Sanitary Surveys
EPA, 1986
Delivery Ratio / Channel Geometry FEMA Flood Studies;
Travel Time Field Surveys
Mean Storm Event NOAA National Climatic Center

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 8

 Figure 2-1
Watershed Management Model Conceptual Framework:
Drainage Area and Subbasin Delineation

TR
TR
SB7

IB
IB

#3
#3
CITY A

CITY A 2
TRIB #
2 TRIB #
CITY B

SB6 SB5
CITY B

M
Q AM
RE
A
SB4 TRE
ST S
TR
IB

SB3

TR
#1

IB
#1
Q SB2
SB1
LEGEND
WWTP DISCHARGE SB1
LAKE LAKE LEGEND
NWS WEATHER STATION

USGS MONITORING STATION USGS MONITORING STATION

Q WQ MONITORING STATION WQ MONITORING STATION

A. Map of Watershed and Location of Potential Data Sources B. Delineation of Subbasins by Drainage and Jurisdiction

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 9

 Figure 2-2
Watershed Management Model Conceptual Framework:
Land Use Delineation

TR
TR

IB
IB

#3
#3
SB7 SB7
CITY A CITY A CITY A CITY A
2
TRIB #
2
TRIB #
CITY B CITY B

CITY B SB5 SB6 SB5

CITY B

AM E AM
TRE TR
S
SB4 S
SB4
SB3

SB3

TR
TR

IB
IB
#1

#1
SB2 SB2

SB1 LEGEND SB1 LEGEND

LAKE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LAKE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL

RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL

RURAL/OPEN RURAL/OPEN

A. Land Use: YEAR 1992 (<15% Urban Development) B. Land Use: YEAR 2020 (>85% Urban Development)

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 10

 Figure 2-3
Watershed Management Model Conceptual Framework:
Alternatives Evaluation

TR
TR

IB
IB

#3
#3
SB7
SB7
CITY A CITY A CITY A CITY
2 2
TRIB # CITY B A TRIB #
CITY B

CITY B
SB5 SB6 SB5

AM M
RE REA
T
S ST
SB4
SB3 SB4

TR
SB3
TR

IB
IB

#1
#1

SB2 SB2

LEGEND SB1 LEGEND

SB1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
ONSITE BMPs RESIDENTIAL
LAKE MEDIUM DENSITY LAKE RURAL/OPEN
RESIDENTIAL
BMP DETENTION POND
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DRAINAGE AREA TO BMP
OPEN/BUFFER ZONE

A. YEAR 2020 Nonstructural BMPs B. YEAR 2020 Structural BMPS (80% Coverage of Watershed)
(Land Use Controls, Buffer Zones)

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 11

2.2 RAINFALL/RUNOFF RELATIONSHIPS. Nonpoint pollution loading factors
(lbs/acre/year) for different land use categories are based upon annual runoff volumes and
event mean concentrations (EMCs) for different pollutants. The EMC is defined as the
average of individual measurements of storm pollutant mass loading divided by the storm
runoff volume. One of the keys to effective transfer of literature values for nonpoint pollution
loading factors to a particular study area is to make adjustments for actual runoff volumes in
the watershed under study. In order to calculate annual runoff volumes for each subbasin, the
pervious and impervious fractions of each land use category are used as the basis for
determining rainfall/runoff relationships. For rural/agricultural (nonurban) land uses, the
pervious fraction represents the major source of runoff or stream flow, while impervious areas
are the predominant contributor for most urban land uses.

2.2.1 Annual Runoff Volume. WMM calculates annual runoff volumes for the pervious/
impervious areas in each land use category by multiplying the average annual rainfall volume
by a runoff coefficient. A runoff coefficient of 0.95 is typically used for impervious areas (i.e.,
95 percent of the rainfall is assumed to be converted to runoff from the impervious fraction
of each land use). A pervious area runoff coefficient of 0.20 is typically used. The total
average annual surface runoff from land use L is calculated by weighting the impervious and
pervious area runoff factors for each land use category as follows:
RL ' [Cp% (CI&CP) IMPL] ( I (Equation 2-1)

Where:

RL = total average annual surface runoff from land use L (in/yr);

IMPL = fractional imperviousness of land use L;
I = long-term average annual precipitation (in/yr);
CP = pervious area runoff coefficient; and
CI = impervious area runoff coefficient.

Total runoff in a watershed is the area-weighted sum of RL for all land uses.

Table 2-1 presents typical impervious area percentages based on CDM experience and on
literature values. These factors can be refined based upon analysis on several “typical”
development site plans, aerial photos, local ordinances, or previous hydrologic studies.

It should be noted that the impervious area percentages do not necessarily represent directly
connected impervious area (DCIA). Using a single family residence as an example, rain falls
on rooftops, sidewalks, and driveways. The sum of these areas may represent 30 percent of
the total lot. However, much of the rain that falls on the roof drains to the grass and
infiltrates to the ground or runs off the property and thus does not run directly to the street.
Thus, not all of the 30 percent impervious area actually contributes as impervious area and
the DCIA percentage is less than the total impervious area percentage. The DCIA percentage
is typically on the order of one half the total impervious area percentage.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 12

 TABLE 2.2
DEFAULT EVENT MEAN CONCENTRATIONS AND IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGES
ASSIGNED FOR THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL

Land Use Category Percent Oxygen Demand & Sediment (mg/L) Nutrients (mg/L) Heavy Metals (mg/L)
Impervious
BOD COD TSS TDS TP SP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd

Forest/Open 0.5% 8.0 51 216 100 0.23 0.06 1.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Agricultural/Pasture 0.5% 8.0 51 216 100 0.23 0.06 1.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Urban Open 0.5% 8.0 51 216 100 0.23 0.06 1.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Low Density Single Family 10.0% 10.8 83 140 100 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.002
Medium Density Single 30.0% 10.8 83 140 100 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.002
Family 50.0% 10.8 83 140 100 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.002
Commercial 90.0% 9.7 61 91 100 0.24 0.10 1.28 0.63 0.13 0.04 0.33 0.002
Office/Light Industrial 70.0% 9.7 61 91 100 0.24 0.10 1.28 0.63 0.13 0.04 0.33 0.002
Heavy Industrial 80.0% 9.7 61 91 100 0.24 0.01 1.28 0.63 0.13 0.04 0.33 0.002
Water 100.0% 3.3 17 7 100 0.03 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.000
Wetlands 100.0% 3.3 17 7 100 0.03 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.000
Major Roads 90.0% 9.7 103 142 100 0.44 1.78 1.78 0.83 0.53 0.05 0.37 0.002

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 13

2.3 NONPOINT POLLUTION EVENT MEAN CONCENTRATIONS. The Watershed
Management Model estimates loads from pollutants which are most frequently associated
with nonpoint pollution sources, including, but not limited to:

• Oxygen Demand
- Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)

• Sediment
- Total Suspended Solids (TSS)

• Nutrients
- Total Phosphorus (TP)
- Dissolved Phosphorus (DP)
- Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN)
- Nitrate+Nitrite (NO3+NO2)

• Heavy Metals
- Lead (Pb)
- Copper (Cu)
- Zinc (Zn)
- Cadmium (Cd)

• Bacteria
- Fecal Coliform (F Coli)

Estimates of the annual load of most of these pollutants were also specified as part of the
Phase I National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water permitting
program. These pollutants and their impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat are
described below.

Oxygen Demand: Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) is caused by the decomposition of

organic material in storm water which depletes dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in slower
moving receiving waters such as lakes and estuaries. Low dissolved oxygen is often the
cause of fish kills in streams and reservoirs. The degree of DO depletion is measured by the
BOD test that expresses the amount of easily oxidized organic matter present in water.

Sediment: Sediment from nonpoint sources is the most common pollutant of surface waters.
Many other toxic contaminants adsorb to sediment particles or solids suspended in the water
column. Excessive sediment can lead to the destruction of habitat for fish and aquatic life.
Total suspended solids (TSS) is a laboratory measurement of the amount of sediment particles
suspended in the water column. Excessive sediment pollution is primarily associated with
poor erosion and sediment controls at construction sites in developing areas or unstable
channels throughout river systems.

Nutrients: Nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) are essential for plant growth. Within a
water supply reservoir, impoundment, lake, or other receiving water, high concentrations of
nutrients, particularly phosphorus, can result in overproduction of algae and other aquatic
vegetation. Excessive levels of algae present in a receiving water is called an algal bloom.
Algal blooms typically occur during the summer when sunlight and water temperature are
ideal for algal growth. Water quality problems associated with algal blooms range from
simple nuisance or unaesthetic conditions, to noxious taste and odor problems, oxygen
depletion in the water column, and fish kills. In addition, algal blooms are positively related
to the levels of trihalomethanes (a suspected carcinogen) in drinking water. Collectively, the
problems associated with excessive levels of nutrients in a receiving water are referred to as

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 14

 eutrophication impacts. Control of nutrients discharged to streams can severely limit algal
productivity and minimize the water quality problems associated with eutrophication.

Heavy Metals: Heavy metals are toxic to humans and are subject to State and Federal
drinking water quality standards. Heavy metals are also toxic to aquatic life and may
bioaccumulate in fish. Lead, copper, zinc and cadmium are heavy metals which typically
exhibit higher nonpoint pollutant loadings than other metals found in urban runoff. The
presence of these heavy metals in streams and reservoirs in the watershed may also be
indicative of problems with a wide range of other toxic chemicals, like synthetic organics, that
have been identified in previous field monitoring studies of urban runoff pollution (USEPA,
1983b).

Bacteria: Bacteria such as Fecal coliform are indicators of human or other animal waste
contamination. Pathogenic organisms found in feces pose a threat to human health because
they carry bacteria, viruses, and protozoa which may have been excreted by diseased persons
or animals. The presence of bacteria in a stream may be an indication of failing septic tanks,
illicit connections to the storm sewer, combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows
within the watershed.

2.3.1 Event Mean Concentrations. Nonpoint pollution monitoring studies throughout the U.S.
over the past 15 years have shown that annual "per acre" discharges of urban storm water
pollution (e.g., nutrients, metals, BOD, fecal coliform) are positively related to the amount
of imperviousness in the land use (i.e., the more imperviousness the greater the nonpoint
pollution load) and that the EMC is fairly consistent for a given land use. The EMC is a flow-
weighted average concentration for a storm event and is defined as the sum of individual
measurements of storm water pollution loads divided by the storm runoff volume. The EMC
is widely used as the primary statistic for evaluations of storm water quality data and as the
storm water pollutant loading factor in analyses of pollutant loadings to receiving waters.

Nonpoint pollution loading analyses typically consist of applying land use specific storm water
pollution loading factors to land use scenarios in the watershed under study. Runoff volumes
are computed for each land use category based on the percent impervious of the land use and
the annual rainfall. These runoff volumes are multiplied by land use specific mean EMC load
factors (mg/L) to obtain nonpoint pollution loads by land use category. This analysis can be
performed on a subarea or watershed-wide basis, and the results can be used for performing
load allocations or analyzing pollution control alternatives, or for input into a riverain water
quality model.

Selection of nonpoint pollution loading factors depends upon the availability and accuracy of
local monitoring data as well as the effective transfer of literature values for nonpoint
pollution loading factors to a particular study area.

Table 2.2 presents recommended "default" storm water event mean concentrations for use in
the WMM when local data are not available. Event mean concentrations for all land uses
except major highways are based on the pooled USEPA NURP study national median EMC
statistics (USEPA, 1983b) and EMC data reported by the Northern Virginia Planning District
Commission (NVPDC 1979, 1983b). Highway runoff data reported by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA, 1990) are applied to major highways. The median EMC NURP data
are presented in Table 2.3. There were only four land use groups considered in the NURP
study final report: residential (RES), commercial (COMM), mixed commercial/residential
(MIXED), and open/nonurban (OPEN). Only four monitoring sites under NURP were
characterized as industrial and these sites did not represent heavy industrial land uses, but
rather light industrial park land use. The industrial sites were combined with the commercial
sites for the evaluation of national statistics. The FHWA highway runoff data are treated as
a separate land use category (ROAD).

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 15

 TABLE 2.3
MEDIAN EVENT MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ALL NURP SITES BY LAND USE CATEGORY

Oxygen Demand & Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Land Use Category Statistic BOD COD TSS TDS TP SP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd
(Source)

Residential Median 10.0 73 101 - 0.383 0.143 1.900 0.736 0.144 0.033 0.135 -
(USEPA NURP Table 6-12 CV 0.41 0.55 0.96 - 0.69 0.46 0.73 0.83 0.75 0.99 0.84 -

Mixed Median 7.8 65 67 - 0.263 0.056 1.288 0.558 0.114 0.027 0.154 -
(USEPA NURP Table 6-12 CV 0.52 0.58 1.14 - 0.75 0.75 0.50 0.67 1.35 1.32 0.78 -

Commercial Median 9.3 57 69 - 0.201 0.080 1.179 0.572 0.104 0.029 0.226 -
(USEPA NURP Table 6-12 CV 0.31 0.39 0.85 - 0.67 0.71 0.43 0.48 0.68 0.81 1.07 -

Open/Nonurban Median - 40 70 - 0.121 0.026 0.965 0.543 0.030 - 0.195 -

(USEPA NURP Table 6-12 CV - 0.78 2.92 - 1.66 2.11 1.00 0.91 1.52 - 0.66 -

Highway Median - 84 93 - 0.293 - 1.480 0.660 0.234 0.039 0.217 -

CV - 0.71 1.16 - 1.10 - 0.67 0.77 2.01 0.87 1.37 -

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 16

Another primary source of loading factor data is the Guidebook for Screening Urban Nonpoint
Pollution Management Practices developed for northern Virginia (NVPDC, 1979). To derive these
loading factors, nonpoint pollution loading parameters were calibrated to single land use monitoring
data using the Environmental Protection Agency Nonpoint Source (EPA NPS) model, a continuous
simulation nonpoint pollution loading model (Hartigan, et al., 1978, 1983). The EPA NPS model
was then applied with an hourly precipitation record for a year of average rainfall to generate annual
loading projections for individual land uses, which were further refined to include loading factors for
different ranges of imperviousness and soil textures. With the exception of the 5-acre lot single family
residential category, the NPS model projections for residential land uses assumed that all pervious
area was covered with fertilized lawn surfaces. For the 5-acre lot category, it was assumed that about
2 acres was covered with fertilized lawns and about 3 acres was maintained with tree cover.

EMC monitoring data collected by NURP and FHWA were determined to be lognormally
(base e) distributed. The lognormal distribution allows the EMC data to be described by two
parameters, the mean or median which is a measure of central tendency, and the standard
deviation or coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean) which is a
measure of the dispersion or spread of the data. The median value should be used for
comparisons between EMCs for individual sites or groups of sites because it is less influenced
by a small number of large values which is typical of lognormally distributed data. For
computations of annual mass loads, it is more appropriate to use the mean value since large
infrequent events can comprise a significant portion of the annual pollutant loads.

To estimate annual pollutant loads discharged to receiving waters from a municipality, median
EMCs are converted to mean values (USEPA, 1983b; Novotny, 1992) by the following
relationship:

M'T( (1%CV 2) (Equation-2)

Where:
M = arithmetic mean;
T = median; and
CV= coefficient of variation = standard deviation/mean.

Table 2.4 presents the calculated mean EMCs. The mean EMCs are allocated to the 12 land
use categories as follows:

Forest/Open OPEN
Agriculture/Pasture OPEN
Urban Open OPEN
Low Density Single Family Residential RES
Medium Density SF/Institutional RES
High Density Residential RES
Commercial COMM
Office/Light Industrial COMM
Heavy Industrial COMM
Water WETFALL
Wetlands WETFALL
Major Roads ROAD

If the study area includes large portions of agricultural or wetland land use, caution should
be used in applying the default EMCs since pollutant loads from agricultural or wetland areas
tend to be more variable from one region to another. If local or regional agricultural or
wetland EMC data are available, these data should be carefully scrutinized before applying
the default values.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 17

 TABLE 2.4
MEAN CONCENTRATIONS
FOR ALL NURP SITES BY LAND USE CATEGORY

Oxygen Demand & Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals

(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)

Land Use Category BOD COD TSS TDS TP SP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd

Residential 10.8 83 140 - 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05 0.18 -

Mixed 8.8 75 102 - 0.33 0.07 1.44 0.67 0.19 0.04 0.20 -

Commercial 9.7 61 91 - 0.24 0.10 1.28 0.63 0.13 0.04 0.33 -

Open/Nonurban - 51 216 - 0.23 0.06 1.36 0.73 0.05 - 0.23 -

Highway 9.7 103 142 - 0.44 - 1.78 0.83 0.53 0.05 0.37 -

Wetfall 3.3 17 7 - 0.03 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.11 -

(Priede-Sedgwick 1983a Tbls 4-6 to
4-9; NVPDC 1983b tbl 24)

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 18

EMC data for cadmium were not analyzed in the final NURP report (USEPA, 1983b) although these
constituents were routinely analyzed at several of the NURP sites and reported for local NURP
projects. Cadmium was analyzed during part of the priority pollutant scans performed on 121
samples of the more than 2,300 runoff samples analyzed as part of the NURP. The priority pollutant
scans were performed at 61 sites (two storm events per site) at 20 of the NURP project sites.
Cadmium was detected in 48% of the limited number of NURP priority pollutant samples. Cadmium
concentrations detected as part of the priority pollutant scan ranged from 0.1 to 14 ug/L. Under the
Knoxville NURP project, cadmium was routinely analyzed for all storm water samples and the
following geometric mean EMCs were reported:
Cadmium
Monitoring Site (ug/L)
Residential (R1) 1.5
Residential (R2) 0.6
Central Business District 1.0
Strip Commercial 0.9.

The Tampa NURP study reported mean cadmium concentrations in pooled runoff data of 2.5
ug/L (Metcalf & Eddy, 1983). The Long Island NURP study reported storm water
concentrations of cadmium ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 ug/L at the NURP monitoring sites (Long
Island Regional Planning Board, 1982). Monitoring data collected during 1976 and 1977 in
Northern Virginia for single land use watersheds reported mean cadmium concentrations of
1.4 ug/L to 5.0 ug/L (NVPDC, 1978). Note that the Northern Virginia cadmium
concentrations were not EMCs but arithmetic means of samples collected during storm
events. Based on this information, a default EMC for cadmium was set at 2.0 ug/L. This
EMC is assumed to apply to all urban land uses. The coefficient of variation for cadmium
was assumed equal to lead.

2.4 NONPOINT POLLUTION LOADING FACTORS. The model estimates pollutant

loadings based upon nonpoint pollution loading factors (expressed as lbs/ac/yr) that vary by
land use and the percent imperviousness associated with each land use. The pollution loading
factor ML is computed for each land use L by the following equation:

ML' EMC L ( RL ( K (Equation 2-3)

Where:

ML = loading factor for land use L (lbs/ac/yr);

EMCL = event mean concentration of runoff from land use L (mg/l); EMCL varies by
land use and by pollutant;
RL = total average annual surface runoff from land use L computed from Equation
2-1 (in/yr); and
K = 0.2266, a unit conversion constant.

By multiplying the pollutant loading factor by the acreage in each land use and summing for
all land uses, the total annual pollution load from a subbasin can be computed. The EMC
coverage is typically not changed for various land use scenarios within a given study
watershed, but any number of land use data sets can be created to examine and compare
different land use scenarios (e.g., existing versus future) or land use management scenarios.
For fecal coliform, the annual load is also calculated using Equation 2-3. The conversion
multiplier of 4,535,000 allows a annual load with units of counts per year to be calculated.

2.5 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are

techniques, approaches, or designs which promote sound use and protection of natural
resources. Types of BMPs include:

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 19

 • Source Controls: Practices that are intended to improve runoff quality by reducing the
generation and accumulation of potential storm water runoff contaminants at or near their
sources. Nonstructural controls that can be analyzed by the model include: development
density restrictions, restrictions on industrial/commercial land uses (or other highly
impervious uses), land acquisition, and buffer zones. Other source controls such as public
education programs that reduce the EMC of the runoff can also be simulated by reducing
the EMC in the data file. However, presently there is nothing available in the literature
to assist the user to relate source controls to reduced EMCs.

• Treatment Controls: Practices that are aimed at controlling the volume and discharge
rate of runoff from urban areas as well as reducing the magnitude of pollutants in the
discharge water through physical containment or flow restrictions designed to allow
settling, physical removal through filtration, percolation, chemical precipitation or
flocculation, and/or biological uptake. (FDER, 1988)

2.5.1 Best Management Practice Treatment Controls. The use of a specific BMP depends on
the site conditions and the needs such as water quality protection, flood control, aquifer
recharge, or volume control. Source controls may be analyzed with WMM by modifying land
use types and impervious areas. The following comparative discussion of BMPs concentrates
on treatment controls such as retention, swales, wet detention, and extended dry detention
that can be analyzed by WMM.

Retention. Retention controls are typically best suited for onsite applications where the
water table is low, soils are highly permeable, and the contributing area is limited to a single
development site or subdivision (e.g., 1 to 50 acres). These devices include retention ponds,
exfiltration trenches, infiltration pipes (underdrains) and swales. To be effective, retention
controls must be an integral part of the initial design and construction of a site. Retention
controls are generally difficult to retrofit to highly urban areas. Compared to detention pond
BMPs, exfiltration trenches and underdrains require greater maintenance costs in the form of
more frequent major cleanouts (CDM, 1985). In the absence of a continuing maintenance
program, these BMPs will tend to fail within a few years after start-up. In light of these
constraints, these types of retention BMPs are not recommended for regional applications.
However in certain cases, retention pond BMPs may be suitable for use in regional
applications where soils, water table, and available space allow.

Swales are very versatile because they can treat and convey storm water in Group A, B, or
C soils. They can be used for pre-treatment or conveyance in a regional facility concept. It
is important to note that often swales are designed and constructed to be deep with steep side
slopes. This sours public acceptance because they take on the appearance of a ditch with
standing water. Flat (or nearly flat) bottomed swales with maximum depths of 1-2 feet, and
4:1 or flatter side slopes overcome this problem. Swales are recommended for use with new
development or re-development efforts in conjunction with green space or park for
recreational uses.

Detention. Detention ponds are the most practical and effective storm water runoff
management measure for flood attenuation/control and pollution abatement within most
watersheds because of the physical constraints, soil conditions, and high water table. Two
general categories of detention pond BMPs are currently used for runoff pollution control:
wet detention and extended dry detention. Both wet and extended dry detention facilities can
be designed not only for water quality control but also for flood and erosion control. The
major difference between the performance of wet and dry detention ponds is the greater
removal of nutrients for wet detention. Therefore, wet detention ponds are most appropriate
for areas where the receiving water quality problems are caused by nutrient loadings and
where metals loadings also need to be reduced.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 20

 In wet detention ponds, pollutant removal occurs primarily during the period of time between
storm events within a permanent pool typically sized to provide a two-week hydraulic
residence time during the wet season. The primary mechanism for the removal of particulate
forms of pollutants in wet detention ponds is sedimentation. Wet detention ponds can also
achieve substantial reductions in soluble nutrients due to biological and physical/chemical
processes within the permanent pool. These facilities consist of a permanent storage pool
(i.e., section of the pond which holds water at all times), and for new developments or where
site conditions allow, an overlying zone of temporary storage to accommodate increases in
the depth of water resulting from runoff. Pollutant removal within the wet detention pond
can be attributed to the following important processes which occur within the permanent
pool: uptake of nutrients by algae and rooted aquatic plants; adsorption of nutrients and
heavy metals onto bottom sediments; biological oxidation of organic materials; and
sedimentation of suspended solids and attached pollutants.

Extended dry detention ponds provide increased detention times to provide treatment for the
captured first-flush runoff in order to enhance solids settling and the removal of suspended
pollutants. Extended detention facilities are drawn down through a control structure at a rate
which is slow enough to achieve maximum pollutant removal by sedimentation. These types
of detention ponds can be designed to achieve heavy metal loading reductions which are
similar to wet detention ponds (e.g., 75 percent for lead and 40 percent for zinc), since heavy
metals in urban runoff tend to be primarily in suspended form. However, wet detention pond
BMPs can achieve greater loading reductions for nutrients which tend to appear primarily in
dissolved form in urban runoff. Extended dry detention ponds require much less storage and
are less expensive than wet detention ponds because they rely upon sedimentation processes
without the permanent pool expense.

2.5.2 BMP Pollutant Removal Efficiencies. The Watershed Management Model applies a
constant removal efficiency for each pollutant to all land use types to simulate treatment
BMPs. Recommended pollutant removal efficiencies for retention, extended dry and wet
detention ponds are discussed below.

Retention Ponds. The design of retention systems is generally based on a specified diversion
volume. Based on extensive field investigations and simulations using 20 years of rainfall
data, average yearly pollutant removal efficiencies were estimated for fixed diversion volumes
for on site (small) watersheds as presented in Table 2.6. The diversion depth is the depth of
runoff water which must be stored and percolated from the total upstream drainage area that
discharges to the retention pond (FDER, 1988).

Wet Detention Ponds. The USEPA NURP study monitored several wet detention ponds
serving small urban watersheds in different locations throughout the U.S. (USEPA, 1983b).
For wet detention ponds with significant average hydraulic residence times (e.g., 2 weeks or
greater), average pollutant removal rates were on the order of 40 to 50 percent for total-P
and 20 to 40 percent for total-N. For other pollutants which are removed primarily by
sedimentation processes, the average removal rates were as follows: 80 to 90 percent for
TSS; 70 to 80 percent for lead; 40 to 50 percent for zinc; and 20 to 40 percent for BOD.
Based upon efficiencies reported by the USEPA NURP study the average pollutant removal
rates shown in Table 2.6 are recommended for wet detention ponds which achieve an average
hydraulic residence time of 2 weeks or greater.

Extended Dry Detention Ponds. Pollutant removal efficiencies for dry extended detention
ponds are based on settling behavior of the particulate pollutants. Table 2.5 summarizes
average pollutant removal efficiencies for extended dry detention ponds based on settling
column data and field monitoring data. Settling column data from NURP studies and from
the FHWA study were evaluated to establish the removal efficiencies for TSS and metals
(USEPA, 1983b; FHWA, 1990). Removal efficiencies for the nutrients were determined by

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 21

 evaluating the results of two field monitoring studies of dry extended detention ponds in the
metropolitan Washington, D.C. region (MWCOG, 1987). These efficiencies are applied to
the percentage of total annual pollutant washoff captured for treatment in the extended dry
detention pond BMP.

2.5.3 Calculation of Pollutant Loading Reduction from BMPs. The effectiveness of BMPs in
reducing nonpoint source loads is computed for each land use in each subbasin. Up to five
BMPs per land use can be specified. The percent reduction in nonpoint pollution per
pollutant type in each subbasin of the watershed is calculated as:

PL, SB ' (AC1, SB ( REM1) % (AC2, SB ( REM2) %

(AC3, SB ( REM3) % (AC4, SB ( REM4) % (Equation 2-4)
(AC5, SB ( REM5)

where:

PL,SB = percent of annual nonpoint pollution load captured in subbasin SB by

application of the five BMP types on land use L;
AC1,SB; AC2,SB;
AC3,SB; AC4,SB;= fractional area coverage of BMP types 1 through 5 on subbasin SB;
AC5,SB

REM1; REM2; = removal efficiency of BMP types 1 through 5 respectively; REM

REM3; REM4; varies by pollutant type but not by land use or subbasin.
REM5

Table 2.5
Average Annual Pollutant Removal Rates for Select BMPs
POLLUTANT RANGE OF POLLUTANT REMOVAL RATES (%)

EXTENDED DRY WET RETENTION3 SWALES4

DETENTION1 DETENTION2

BOD5 20%-30% 20%-40% 80%-99% 20%-40%

TSS 80%-90% 80%-90% 80%-99% 70%-90%
F-COLI 10-30% 60-80% 80%-99% 0%

Total-P 20%-30% 40%-50% 80%-99% 30%-50%

Dissolved-P 0% 60%-70% 80%-99% 0%-20%
TKN 10%-20% 20%-30% 80%-99% 30%-50%
NO2+NO3 0% 30%-40% 80%-99% 30%-50%

Lead 70%-80% 70%-80% 80%-99% 60%-90%

Copper 50%-60% 60%-70% 80%-99% 40%-60%
Zinc 40%-50% 40%-50% 80%-99% 40%-50%
Cadmium 70%-80% 70%-80% 80%-99% 50%-80%
NOTES: 1. Extended dry detention basin efficiencies assumes that the storage capacity of the extended
detention pool is adequately sized to achieve the design detention time for at least 80% of the
annual runoff volume. For most areas of the U.S. extended dry detention basin efficiencies
assume a storage volume of at least 0.5 inches per impervious acre.
2. Wet detention basin efficiencies assume a permanent pool storage volume which achieves
hydraulic residence time of at least two weeks.
3. Retention removal rates assume that the retention BMP inadequately sized to capture at least

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 22

 80% of the annual runoff volume from the BMP drainage area. For most areas of the U.S.,
the required minimum storage capacity of the retention BMP will be in the range of 0.50 to
1.0 inch of runoff from the BMP drainage area, but the required minimum storage capacity
should be determined for each location.
4. Source: California Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual (CDM, et al, 1993).

Equation 2-4 enables the user to examine the effectiveness of various BMPs and the degree
of BMP coverage within a watershed. Coverage might vary depending upon whether the
BMP is applied to new development only, existing plus new development, etc. Also,
topography may limit the areal coverage of some BMPs.

The nonpoint pollution load from a watershed is thus computed by combining Equations 2-3
and 2-4 and summing over all land uses and all subbasins, i.e.

MASS' ' ' ML, SB (1&PL,SB )

N 15
(Equation 2&5)
SB'1 L'1

Where:

MASS = annual nonpoint pollution load washed off the watershed in lbs/yr.

The resultant model is a very versatile yet simple algorithm for examining and comparing
nonpoint pollution management alternatives for effectiveness in reducing nonpoint pollution.

2.6 BASEFLOW LOADING FACTORS. Some watersheds exhibit dry weather flow due to
baseflow or interflow. To determine whether baseflow discharges are a significant component
of the average annual flow volume discharged from a watershed, an estimate of baseflow rate
and quality should be included in the watershed pollution loading modeling analyses. The
baseflow loading analysis also provides a reasonable basis for comparison of the relative
magnitude of pollutant loadings during dry weather periods versus storm events. Typically,
baseflow discharges are fairly constant and do not exhibit wide ranges of pollutant
concentrations. Baseflow pollutant loading factors must be specified for the watershed and
can be developed based upon available ambient water quality monitoring data. Annual or
monthly baseflow discharge rates (cfs/sq-mi) can be estimated from daily flow records at local
USGS gages.

2.6.1 Annual Baseflow Volume. Average annual baseflow (i.e., dry weather flow) for
rural-agricultural areas and pervious areas in urban land uses can be estimated using simple
hydrograph separation techniques. Baseflow can be computed by subtracting the annual
surface runoff from the total annual stream flow measured at the stream gages located in the
watershed (e.g., USGS stations).

Monthly baseflow volumes can be estimated from daily flow records at local USGS gages,
however, it should be noted that the daily flows reported by USGS represent averaged data
and do not provide a detailed representation of storm event hydrographs. For small tributary
areas (e.g., less than 40 sq mi), the USGS records typically do not provide sufficient
information to define the recession limb of the storm event hydrograph. Shorter storms are
represented as simple triangular shapes. Therefore, simple hydrograph separation techniques
(a straight horizontal line drawn from the point of runoff initiation to the intersection with the
hydrograph recession limb), are used to identify baseflow contributions. Baseflow volumes
are totaled by month for a period (1 to 5 years) characterized by average rainfall and runoff.
By subtracting out the cfs-days that are clearly responses to rainfall events, this method
provides an estimate of cfs-days that are between storm events which are summed to compute

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 23

 baseflow volume. Regional values of average monthly baseflow in cfs per square mile of
contributing area can be developed for the study area. If site specific data are not available
for a study watershed, the regional average monthly flow data provides a reasonable
approximation of relative baseflow contributions.

2.6.2 Baseflow Concentrations. Ambient water quality monitoring data collected within the
watershed or nearby watersheds are used to represent baseflow (dry weather) concentrations
of nutrients and heavy metals. The locations of ambient water quality sampling stations
monitored by local, state or federal agencies should be identified within the region. Statistical
summaries of the available water quality monitoring data for sampling stations should be
prepared.

For monitoring stations which were not influenced by WWTP or other point source
discharges or other influences such as CSOs, illicit connections and failing septic tanks, mean
concentrations of nutrients and heavy metals can be used to characterize baseflow water
quality in the watershed for the model. If water quality monitoring data are not available
within the study watershed, baseflow can be assumed to exhibit the characteristics from
stream monitoring stations in the vicinity.

Baseflow concentrations are assumed to be representative of baseflow water quality which

is not impacted by other pollutant sources such as point sources, CSOs or failing septic tanks.
For each subbasin and land use scenario, baseflow volumes are multiplied by the appropriate
concentrations described above to derive baseflow pollutant loadings discharged from the
study watershed.

2.7 POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES. Pollutant loadings from point source discharges such
as package wastewater treatment plants (WWTP), regional WWTPs, and industrial sources
can also be estimated to determine the relative contributions of point versus other watershed
pollution loadings. An inventory of package plants and industrial discharges within each
subbasin can be developed from utility location maps and discharge permit data. Package
plants and industrial dischargers usually are assumed to be discharging effluent at their permit
limits where compliance monitoring data are not available. Where data on permit limits are
not readily available, package plant discharges can be represented by following effluent
concentrations which are based on typical effluent limits for secondary WWTPs:

• Total-P 6.0 mg/L

• Total-N 12.0 mg/L
• Lead 0.0 mg/L
• Zinc 0.0 mg/L

If permit data on industrial discharges are not available, then pollutant loads for each point
source discharge are estimated for each subbasin by multiplying the discharge flow rate by the
effluent concentration.

2.8 COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS. Within some watersheds, combined sewer

overflows (CSOs) may be a pollutant source contributing to degraded water quality within
a river system. In many cities throughout the United States, storm water runoff and sanitary
wastewater are collected in the same sewer (combined sewers.) In dry weather conditions,
all sewer flows are conveyed to and treated at the local or regional wastewater treatment
plant. During wet weather events, the combined sewage flow may become too large for the
sewer system and may overflow into the nearest receiving water system. These events are
referred to as CSOs. These discharges produce high concentrations of pollutants such as
oxygen demand, solids, nitrogen, phosphorus, and heavy metals. Pollutant loadings from
combined sewer overflows can be estimated in the pollution loading modeling analysis to
compare the impacts of CSOs to other pollution loading sources in the watershed.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 24

2.8.1 CSO Flow Estimates and Pollutant Loading Factors. Combined sewer overflow water
quality monitoring data collected within the watershed or nearby watersheds are used to
represent CSO concentrations in the pollution loading modeling analysis. Event mean
concentrations (EMCs), rather than discrete sampling data, are required to give a composite
representation of overflow events. Because of the variability of CSO pollutant concentrations
from system to system it is inappropriate for default CSO pollutant concentrations to be
recommended.

2.8.2 CSO Controls. Several types of controls are available for the elimination or reduction of
combined sewer overflows. Sewer separation, in which a new sewer is constructed so that
storm water may be conveyed directly to the receiving water (lake, stream, etc.), allows for
elimination of CSOs and their pollutant loads. However, storm water pollution contribution
of select pollutants may increase with use of this type of control. For example, heavy metals
pollutant load concentrations are often higher than the metals concentrations found in CSOs.

An alternative method of CSO control involves the use of CSO detention facilities. The
effectiveness of these CSO controls may be for each CSO control option modeled. The
WMM applies a constant removal percentage associated with each of the treatment control
alternatives for each of the modeled constituents in the following manner:

CSOMASSScenario'3 CSOSB( (1&CSOREMSB, Scenario) (Equation 2-6)

Where:

CSOMASS = annual CSO pollution load discharged from the CSO subarea;

CSO = annual CSO pollution load generated from the CSO subarea;

CSOREM = percent of annual pollution load captured by the control alternative;

and

Scenario = CSO pollution loading control scenario.

CSO removal rates should be determined based upon detention time, basin dimensions and
configuration.

2.9 FAILING SEPTIC TANK IMPACTS. Many of the residential developments within the
U.S. rely on household septic tanks and soil absorption fields for wastewater treatment and
disposal. The nonpoint pollution loading factors for low density residential areas, which are
typically served by septic tank systems, are based on test watershed conditions where the
septic systems were in good working order and made no significant contribution to the
monitored nonpoint pollution loads. In fact, septic tank systems typically have a limited
useful life expectancy and failures are known to occur, causing localized water quality
impacts. This section presents a method for estimating average annual septic tank failure
rates and the additional nonpoint pollution loadings from failing septic systems.

To estimate an average annual failure rate, the time series approach proposed by the 1986
EPA report Forecasting Onsite Soil Absorption System Failure Rates was used. This
approach considers an annual failure rate (percent per year of operation), future population
growth estimates, and system replacement rate to forecast future overall failure rates. Annual
septic tank failure rates reported for areas across the U.S. range from about 1 to 3 percent.
For average annual conditions, it is conservative to assume that septic tank systems failures
would be unnoticed or ignored for five years before repair or replacement occurred.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 25

 Therefore, during an average year, 5 to 15 percent of the septic tanks systems in the
watershed are assumed to be failing.

This is consistent with the results of a survey recently conducted in Jacksonville, Florida, by
the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Of more than 800 site inspections,
about 90 violations had been detected. Types of violations detected were typically: (1) drain
field located below groundwater table, (2) direct connections between the tile field and a
stream, and (3) structural failures. The violation rate of 11 percent is consistent with the
average year septic tank failure rate and period of failure before discovery/ remediation. The
"impact zone" or the "zone of influence" for failing septic tanks can be assumed to be all
residential areas that are not served by public sewer.

Pollutant loading rates for failing septic systems were developed from a review of septic tank
leachate monitoring studies. The range of concentrations of total-P and total-N based upon
literature values are as follows:
Total-P Total-N
Low 1.0 mg/L 7.5 mg/L
Medium 2.0 mg/L 15.0 mg/L
High 4.0 mg/L 30.0 mg/L

The low, medium, and high concentrations are used in the model sensitivity analysis described
in the uncertainty analysis section of this manual. Annual "per acre" loading rates for septic
tank failures from low density residential land uses were then estimated assuming 50 gallons
per capita per day wastewater flows. The loading rates can be applied to the percentage of
all non-sewered residential land uses with failing septic tanks. The septic tank loading factors
are included in the runoff pollution loading factors. The range of percent increases in annual
per acre loadings attributed to failing septic tanks is:

Total-P Total-N
Low 130%-180% 120%-150%
Medium 160%-250% 140%-200%
High 220%-400% 180%-310%

Despite the large increase in annual loading rates, septic tank failures typically have only a
limited impact on overall nonpoint pollution discharges. This is because the increased annual
loading rates are applied only to the fraction of non-sewered residential development that are
predicted to have a failing septic tank system during an average year. Based upon this
methodology, failing septic tank systems typically would contribute less than 10 percent of
total nonpoint loadings.

2.10 DELIVERY RATIO/TRAVEL TIME. The nonpoint pollution loading factors represent
estimates of loadings which have been discharged into a storm sewer, swale, or stream
channel. Therefore, these loading factors represent discharges into the smaller tributary
stream channels throughout the watershed. Pollutant loadings to these small tributary stream
channels may be of interest in some studies. In most cases, the model is applied to provide
an estimate of the loads delivered to a downstream receiving water such as a lake or reservoir.
In large watersheds, where maximum instream travel times during storm events are one day
or greater, the storm event loadings discharged to a downstream receiving water are likely
to be reduced due to sediment deposition or biological decay en route to the point of
discharge. Since large infrequent flood events can scour out stream beds and transport
deposited pollutant loads downstream, some studies make the assumption that 100 percent
of the nonpoint pollution loadings discharged into a stream will ultimately be delivered to the
receiving water. But if the user wants to simulate average delivery between those very large
events, the Watershed Management Model incorporates a pollutant delivery ratio into annual
pollution loading evaluations to account for instream sedimentation and decay.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 26

 The pollutant delivery ratio method used in the model is consistent with the nonpoint
pollution loading factors in that it accounts for pollutant sedimentation and decay only during
instream transport. Locational differences in the discharge of pollutants into streams are not
accounted for, although land areas that adjoin a stream are likely to deliver a higher loading
than land areas that are farther from the stream channel. Because there is insufficient
monitoring data available in the literature on relative differences in pollutant loadings for
"onstream" and "offstream" sites, it is generally assumed that the available monitored loading
factors reflect an average of the two. In other words, within the single land use test
watersheds monitored to develop these loading factors (e.g., NVPDC, 1979; USEPA,
1983b), it is assumed that the areas adjoining the drainage way produced a higher pollutant
delivery ratio and that the upland areas produced a lower delivery ratio, with the loading
factors representative of the composite loadings.

One approach used to estimate the pollutant delivery ratio is described below and other
methods for estimating delivery ratio are presented in the literature (Novotny and Chesters,
1981). The method for estimating delivery ratio is based on travel time from the mouth of
a watershed or subbasin to the point of runoff discharge. This method assumes that
suspended pollutants settle out in a stream channel while being transported to a downstream
receiving water. The methodology applies to suspended pollutants only, with dissolved
pollutants assumed to exhibit 100 percent delivery to the receiving water. In addition to being
useful for evaluations of water quality impacts of nonpoint pollution loadings, the pollutant
delivery ratios can be used to identify the most critical sections of a watershed in terms of
pollutant delivery potential. The suspended fraction data input into the model are used in the
deliver ratio calculation.

Ideally, the delivery ratio method should be applied to the range of storm events which occur
over the course of one or more years for determinations of travel time contours and long-term
pollutant deposition rates. The selected approach approximates long-term impacts by using
regional statistics on "average" rainstorm conditions. Based on statistics on the mean
duration and mean volume for regional rainfall events, travel times and pollutant delivery
ratios can be estimated using sedimentation calculations for channel transport periods.

Since settling velocities for specified particle sizes apply only under quiescent flow conditions,
the duration of turbulent flow resulting from rainfall runoff is an important assumption. For
approximate delivery ratio calculations based on triangular hydrograph approximations, it is
reasonable to assume that the maximum duration of turbulent flow in the major stream
channel system is about 1.5 to 2.0 times the rainstorm duration (Reckow, et al., 1988). For
example, since storm events in the southeastern U.S. have a mean duration of 4 to 8 hours,
the maximum duration of turbulent stream flow conditions which may preclude settling of
suspended pollutants is 12 to 16 hours.

Channel slopes and cross-section characteristics should be estimated for the main stem
channel system within a watershed. Based on rational formula calculations for existing land
use conditions, flow rates for the mean storm event can be estimated for stream channels in
the watershed. Using the Manning equation, stream channel velocities can be calculated for
specified reaches, and cumulative travel times can be calculated for the watershed. Maximum
travel times to the tributary mouth from headwater areas are calculated by summing the
cumulative travel time within each subbasin. Settling velocities for suspended pollutants are
approximately about 0.1 ft/hr (fine/very fine silt particles) (FHWA, 1990). Under the
assumption that turbulent stream flow conditions (i.e., periods of no sedimentation) occurred
for 12 to 16 hours after the start of rainfall, sedimentation rates can be calculated for transport
from different sections of the watershed. The sedimentation calculations were based on the
ratio of depth settled by a particle following the turbulent flow period to the total depth of
flow. In subbasins where mean instream travel times are less than 24 hours, 100 percent
delivery of suspended pollutants is likely. For watersheds where travel times are difficult to

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 27

 estimate, the delivery ratio can be set at 100% to conservatively estimate pollutant loadings
to the receiving waters. The delivery ratio can also be used as a model calibration parameter
if sufficient water quality monitoring data are available.

2.11 MODEL CALIBRATION. If sufficient monitoring data are available for the study
watershed, the model should be calibrated to both runoff quantity and quality. This is a two-
step procedure since the water quality calibration is a function of the predicted runoff
volumes. It is therefore essential to properly calibrate the runoff quantity section before
attempting to calibrate the water quality section.

2.11.1 Runoff Calibration. The runoff quantity model should be calibrated to the same period that
the water quality monitoring data were collected. The model is designed to use annual or
seasonal flow volumes and nutrient loads, so the model's runoff section should be calibrated
to match the average annual seasonal or runoff during the calibration period, using Equation
2-1.

The available gaged flow volumes used in the calibration should be tabulated for the long term
period, as well as the calibration period, to determine whether hydrometerologic conditions
were wet, dry or normal. The pervious and impervious areas runoff coefficients can be
adjusted to match available data. Those coefficients can be used to account for surface
runoff, initial abstractions, and evapotranspiration. Typical ranges of the runoff coefficients
are:

Pervious 0.05 - 0.30

(FDOT Drainage Manual, 1987)
Impervious 0.85 - 1.0
(Linsley and Franziani, 1979)

2.11.2 Water Quality Calibration. It is necessary to use professional judgement about the
appropriate values of the water quality calibration coefficients. Each of the land use
categories has three coefficients which can be varied to change the predicted pollutant load:

1) the assigned fraction of impervious area,

2) the pollutant EMC, and
3) the pollutant delivery ratio.

The impervious area values will impact the runoff calibration process and should not be varied
if the runoff coefficient derived from them appears reasonable. Therefore, only the pollutant
EMC and the pollutant delivery ratio should be used for calibration. These two coefficients
are independent of each other because each of the 12 land use categories has EMC values for
each pollutant that can be varied independently of the other land use EMCs. While the model
has this capacity, the available data are not typically sufficient to support such a detailed
calibration. Model calibration typically will involve varying the pollutant delivery ratio so that
the EMC values for each land use category remain at their mean literature values. This is the
same as varying all the land use EMCs by the same pollutant delivery ratio. This will simplify
the water quality calibration process to the variation of the pollutant delivery ratio assigned
to each subbasin. Pollutant delivery ratios can be initially estimated using the travel time
technique described in the Delivery Ratio/Travel Time Section. This procedure will yield a
lower delivery ratio for subbasins located in the headwaters of the watershed. Subbasins
located near the mouth of the watershed are likely to discharge 100 percent of the pollutant
loading into the receiving water.

Water quality calibration will involve comparison of the annual pollutant loads predicted by
the model to actual annual pollutant loads based on monitoring data. Water quality
calibration typically will require 3 to 5 years of monitoring data. The monitoring data should

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 28

 be evaluated carefully to ensure that it includes samples collected over a range of storm
events. Water quality sampling is often performed only during ambient (dry weather)
conditions. However, the majority of the pollutant load is transported during storm events.
The monitoring data used for calibration should report storm event EMCs for a statistically
representative number of storms (e.g., greater than 10).

2.12 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS. Because the nonpoint pollution loading factors used in the
Watershed Management Model were derived from national statistics, the model includes the
capability to perform an uncertainty analysis with a range of literature values for each land use
category. The calculated from the loading factors (lbs/acre/year) EMCs (mg/L) based on the
average annual runoff estimates are assumed to be representative of a "medium" or "most
probable" estimate of the nonpoint pollution loading factor for each specific land use. The
purpose of the uncertainty analysis is to develop estimates of the extremes, high and low
values of pollutant loadings and to assess whether these estimates would result in different
management decisions.

A statistical approach is used to estimate the "high" and "low" loading factors for each
pollutant. Based on a review of monitoring study data, a Coefficient of Variation (CV) is
applied to for EMCs specific to each pollutant and each land use. The CV is calculated as the
standard deviation divided by the mean and provides an indication of the relative degree of
uncertainty associated with the EMC estimates.

Based upon the NURP study results (USEPA, 1983b), the CVs assigned to each pollutant and
to each land use category are summarized in Table 2.13 for total-P, total-N, lead and zinc.
Forest and open land uses have CVs of zero since the available monitoring data suggest that
there is very little variability among rural watersheds. The CVs for nutrient loading factors
from cropland are highly variable, and monitoring studies indicate that there is much
uncertainty about nonpoint pollution loading factors from this type of land use. This
uncertainty is a result of the wide range of tillage practices, fertilizer application rates,
cropping practices, etc. which are represented by a single loading factor. For urban land uses,
the CVs range from 0.5 to 1.0 (USEPA, 1983b), which reflects a degree of uncertainty in the
EMC estimates.

"High" and "low" EMCs are computed from the mean EMC and CV estimated for each
pollutant and land use category based on a specified probability of exceedance. An EMC in
the 90th percentile will be exceeded during only 10% of storm events, whereas an EMC in
the 10th percentile will be exceeded during 90% of storm events. The following relationship
is used to calculate "high" and "low" EMCs:

(U % Z % W)
EMC(HIGH,LOW)' e (Equation 2-7)

Where:
EMC = "High" or "low" EMC;
U = log mean;
U = LN (M/SQRT(1+CV2));
Z = standardized normal deviate:
Z = 1.645 for 95% percentile,
Z = 1.282 for 90% percentile,
Z = -1.645 for 5% percentile, and
Z = -1.282 for 10% percentile;
W = log standard deviation; and
W = SQRT(LN(1 + CV2)).

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 29

 By changing the standardized normal deviate (Z), any pair of percentiles can be used to
generate "high" and "low" EMC values. The range of EMCs generated by the "high" and
"low" reflects the effects of the coefficient of variation on the EMCs. Table 2.14 and 2.15
present "high" and "low" EMCs based on the 95% and 5% percentile. As may be seen, a
higher coefficient of variation results in a greater spread of the "high" and "low" EMC
estimates.

The model user may select a single EMC estimate (e.g., low, medium or high) or all three
EMC estimates. If all three EMC estimates are selected, the annual loadings discharged from
a watershed are automatically computed in the WMM for the medium EMC estimates and for
both the high and low EMC estimates for each land use scenario.

2.13 MODEL LIMITATIONS. The Watershed Management Model projects average annual or
seasonal pollutant loadings discharged from the watershed. The model may also be used to
predict the cumulative effects of alternative watershed management decisions (e.g. treatment
BMPs or CSO controls). The models should be applied to appropriate spatial (watershed
wide) and temporal (average annual) scales. It is not appropriate to use these input/output
models for analysis of short-term (i.e., daily, weekly) water quality impacts, nor for
incremental area (i.e., development of several hundred acres) water quality impacts. For
example, it is not appropriate to use this model to evaluate the downstream water quality
impacts of development projects that are only a small percentage (e.g., less than 10%) of a
watershed drainage area.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 30

 Table 2.6
COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION
ASSIGNED FOR THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL

Oxygen Demand & Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals

Land Use Category Percent BOD COD TSS TDS TP SP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd
Impervious CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV

Forest/Open 0.5% 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Agriculture/Pasture 0.5% 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cropland 0.5% 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Low Density Single
Family 10.0% 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8
Medium Density Single
Family 30.0% 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8
High Density Single
Family 50.0% 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8
Commercial 90.0% 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Office/Light industrial 70.0% 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Heavy Industrial 80.0% 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Water 100.0% 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Wetlands 100.0% 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Major Roads 90.0% 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.1 2.0 0.7 0.8 2.0 0.9 1.4 1.4

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 31

 TABLE 2.7
"HIGH" EVENT MEAN CONCENTRATIONS (95TH PERCENTILE)
BY LAND USE CATEGORY

Oxygen Demand & Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals

Land Use Category Percent BOD COD TSS TDS TP SP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd
Impervious CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV

Forest/Open 0.5% 15.6 99 420 195 0.54 0.14 2.65 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
Agriculture/Pasture 0.5% 15.6 99 420 195 0.54 0.14 2.65 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
Cropland 0.5% 15.6 99 420 195 0.54 0.14 2.65 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000
Low Density Single
Family 10.0% 19.1 170 382 273 1.07 0.29 5.57 2.42 0.43 0.13 0.43 0.005
Medium Density Single
Family 30.0% 19.1 170 382 273 1.07 0.29 5.57 2.42 0.43 0.13 0.43 0.005
High Density Single
Family 50.0% 19.1 170 382 273 1.07 0.29 5.57 2.42 0.43 0.13 0.43 0.005
Commercial 90.0% 15.3 106 232 256 0.55 0.23 2.32 1.21 0.29 0.09 0.95 0.006
Office/Light industrial 70.0% 15.3 106 232 256 0.55 0.23 2.32 1.21 0.29 0.09 0.95 0.006
Heavy Industrial 80.0% 15.3 106 232 256 0.55 0.23 2.32 1.21 0.29 0.09 0.95 0.006
Water 100.0% 6.3 33 13 195 0.07 0.02 1.09 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.000
Wetlands 100.0% 6.3 33 13 195 0.07 0.02 1.09 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.000
Major Roads 90.0% 22.5 240 425 298 1.28 0.49 4.03 2.03 1.90 0.13 1.18 0.006

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 32

 TABLE 2.8
"LOW" EVENT MEAN CONCENTRATIONS (5TH PERCENTILE)
BY LAND USE CATEGORY

Oxygen Demand & Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals

Land Use Category Percent BOD COD TSS TDS TP SP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd
Impervious CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV

Forest/Open 0.5% 3.3 21 89 41 0.07 0.02 0.56 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000
Agriculture/Pasture 0.5% 3.3 21 89 41 0.07 0.02 0.56 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000
Cropland 0.5% 3.3 21 89 41 0.07 0.02 0.56 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0000
Low Density Single
Family 10.0% 5.2 31 27 19 0.14 0.07 0.65 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.0005
Medium Density Single
Family 30.0% 5.2 31 27 19 0.14 0.07 0.65 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.0005
High Density Single
Family 50.0% 5.2 31 27 19 0.14 0.07 0.65 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.0005
Commercial 90.0% 5.7 31 21 23 0.07 0.03 0.60 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.0003
Office/Light Industrial 70.0% 5.7 31 21 23 0.07 0.03 0.60 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.0003
Heavy Industrial 80.0% 5.7 31 21 23 0.07 0.03 0.60 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.05 0.0003
Water 100.0% 1.3 7 3 41 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000
Wetlands 100.0% 1.3 7 3 41 0.01 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.0000
Major Roads 90.0% 2.8 29 20 14 0.07 0.03 0.54 0.21 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.0002

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 33

3.0 STRUCTURE AND OPERATION OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
MODEL. The Watershed Management Model (WMM) for Windows is based on model
run scenarios with each scenario consisting of a user defined set of data input files. (Note:
Technically they are not files but a collection of related database records, however it is
easier to think of them as files.) WMM assists the user in creating, managing and
associating these input files in preparation for a model run. Once a scenario has been
established, the model is run and the resultant output is both displayed to the user and
stored for later use. This section describes the structure of the Watershed Management
Model (WMM) and how the model may be applied.

WMM for Windows is composed of three modules described as follows and shown in
Figure 3-1:

• The Default Manger allows the user to create default files for each of the main data
input areas (e.g. landuse, parameters, EMC values, etc.). The default files allow the
user to have a starting point when creating new input files.

• Output Manger manages the model output data sets created when the model is run.
Here the user can display output from any of the previous model runs in a variety of
different formats. This is also the module where the user can delete unwanted model
output.

• The Scenario Manager is the heart of WMM. This is where data input files are
created and managed, model scenarios are assembled and model execution takes
place. This is also where data from the non-Windows based WMM Version 3.30
may be imported.

3.1 INSTALLATION AND STARTUP OF THE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT

MODEL. To install WMM for Windows, insert the CD or diskette into the appropriate
drive. In File Manager or Windows Explorer, double click on Setup.exe. To initiate the
WMM for Windows application, double click on the WINWMM icon in Windows. Click
on Continue after reading the information/disclaimer screen to reach the main WMM
screen (Figure 3-2). You are now ready to begin setting up the model of your watershed.

Figure 3-2 shows the introductory screen of the model, providing three options allowing
the user to enter the Default Manager, Output Manager or Scenario Manager modules of
the model by selecting the appropriate button. File management also takes place through
this screen, by selecting the File pull down menu. A new project file can be created by
selecting the New Project button and entering a new file name when prompted. When a
new project is created, the base project data set may be selected by highlighting the
desired data set in the pull down menu on the right of the pop up screen. This option
allows data for individual clients and projects to be stored in separate data base files, and
for old data sets to be used to build new data sets under different project names. An
existing project may be opened by clicking on the Open Project button and selecting the
project you wish to use for your modeling session.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 34

 DEFAULT DATA SETS
Landuse
DEFAULT Parameter
Event Mean Concentrations
MANAGER Suspended Fraction
Septic Impact Landuses
Septic Tank Failure Loading Rates
BMP Alternatives
BMP Removal Rates

USER DATA SETS

Landuse
Parameter
Event Mean Concentrations
Suspended Fraction
Septic Impact Landuses
Septic Tank Failure Loading Rates
SCENARIO BMP Alternatives
BMP Removal Rates
MANAGER
USER DATA SETS
Watershed Information
Hydrologic Data
Base Flow Parameter Concentrations
CSO Source Data
CSO Controls
Point Source Data
BMP Spatial Extent

OUTPUT MANAGER

REPORTS CHARTS
Standard Report Bar Chart Scenario Comparison
Subarea Loads by Pollutant
Multiple Scenario by Pollutant

Figure 3-1
Schematic of Watershed Management Model

Figure 3-2
Main Menu
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 35
3.2 DEFAULT MANAGER. From the Default
Manager window (shown in Figure 3-3) the user
selects the category for the default file they wish
to modify, by clicking on the appropriate button.
Upon selection, a new window opens with the
selected file ready for editing. To exit the
Default Manager window and return to the main
menu, click the OK button. Because default files
are interrelated (e.g. Event Mean Concentration
Files are dependent upon both landuse types and
parameters) modifications should be made to
default files from the top to the bottom of the
menu. Additionally, it is important to note that
all new land use types, parameters, and best
management practices must first be entered into
the Default Manager before they can be used in
the Scenario Manager.
Figure 3-3
Default Manager Menu

3.2.1 Default Landuse. To add a new

landuse category click the Add button,
as shown in Figure 3-4. You will be
prompted with a message notifying you
that adding a new landuse type to the
Default Landuse File will also result in
the new landuse type being added to
the Default EMC and Suspended
Fraction files. Additionally, it is
important to remember that all land use
types need for use in the scenario
manager must be included in the default
land use types. Click OK and enter the
new landuse type and the % impervious
in decimal format. Click Save to save
your change or Cancel to quit without
saving the change.

To delete a landuse type, click the Figure 3-4

Default Land Use Types
landuse type you wish to delete and
then click the delete button. Similar to above, you will be prompted with a message
notifying you that deleting a landuse type from the Default Landuse File will also result in
the landuse type being deleted from the Default EMC and Suspended Fraction files. When
done modifying the file, click Save to save your changes or Cancel to cancel your changes
and restore the original values.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 36

3.2.2 Default Parameters. To add a new
parameter click the Add button in the
Default Parameters Screen, as shown in
Figure 3-5. You will be prompted with
a message notifying you that adding a
new parameter to the Default
Parameter File will also result in the
new parameter being added to the
Default BMP Removal Rate, EMC,
Suspended Fraction and Septic Tank
Failure Loading Rate files. Click OK
and enter the new parameter and
description. Click Save to save your
change or Cancel to quit without
saving the change.
Figure 3-5
To delete a parameter type, click the Default Parameters
parameter you wish to delete and then
click the Delete button. Similar to
above, you will be prompted with a
message notifying you that deleting a parameter from the Default Parameter File will also
result in the new parameter being deleted from the Default BMP Removal Rate, EMC,
Suspended Fraction and Septic Tank Failure Loading Rate files. When done modifying
the file, click Save to save your changes or Cancel to restore the original default
parameters and return to the Default Manager Menu.

3.2.3 Default EMC Values. To edit EMC values and associated coefficients of variation for
each landuse type, click on the landuse type you wish to edit and enter the new values in
the table, as shown in Figure 3-6. Note that all EMC values need to be entered in
concentrations of mg/L. Click Save to save the changes or Cancel to undo changes and
restore the original default EMC values. If a parameter or landuse was added to the
default manager, new EMC values will need to be entered into this data set.

3.2.4 Default Suspended Fraction Values. To edit suspended fraction percentages for each
parameter and land use, click on the landuse type you wish to edit and enter the new
values in the table, as shown in Figure 3-7. These percentages are used in the travel times
and delivery ratio calculations, when travel time and delivery ratio are taken into account.
For the Rouge modeling purposes, travel time and delivery ratios were not taken into
account. Again, note that the values should be entered as decimals (e.g. 0.25 equals
25%). Click Save to save all changes, Cancel to undo changes and return to the previous
default suspended fraction values. If a parameter or landuse was added to the default
manager, new suspended fraction values will need to be entered into this data set.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 37

 Figure 3-6
Default EMC Values

Figure 3-7
Default Suspended Fraction Values

3.2.5 Default Septic Impact Landuse Types. Figure 3-8 shows the screen obtained by
clicking on the Septic Impact Landuses button in the Default Manager screen. By
clicking on the Add/Delete button, a new window opens (shown in Figure 3-9) which
allows the user to add or delete landuse types. By using the >, >>, <, and << buttons,
landuse types can be moved from the available list on the left to the selected list on the
right. Click Save to save all changes, Cancel to undo changes and return to the previous
values.

3.2.6 Default Septic Failure Loading Rates. Modify septic tank failure loading rates by first
selecting the landuse type and then the concentration level for which you wish to modify
values, as shown in Figure 3-10. Enter the new multiplier values for each parameter into
the table. These multipliers are used to increase the storm water pollutant load in the
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 38
 Figure 3-8
Default Septic Impact Landuse Types

Table 3-9
Default Septic Impact Landuse Types - Modify Landuses
areas affected by failing septic tank impacts. If new parameters were added to the default
manager, septic impact multipliers must be entered for new parameters. Click Save to
save all changes, Cancel to undo and return the previous values.

Figure 3-10
Default Septic Tank Failure Loading Rates

3.2.7 Default BMP Alternatives. Add BMP alternatives by clicking the Add button and
typing the new BMP and a description in the table, as shown in Figure 3-11. You will be
notified that adding a new BMP will result in it being added to the BMP Removal Rate
default file. To delete a BMP, select the BMP by clicking on it and then click the Delete
button. As described above, you will be notified that deleting a BMP will result in it being
deleted from the BMP Removal Rate default file. Click Save to save all changes, Cancel
to undo changes and return to the previous values.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 39

3.2.8 Default BMP Removal Rates. As shown in Figure 3-12, pollutant load reductions for
each best management practice may be assigned for each pollutant parameter by clicking
on the BMP type and then entering new removal rate values in the table. Values should be
entered as decimal percent (e.g. 0.25 equals 25%). Click Save to save all changes,
Cancel to undo changes and return to the previous default values. Again, note that if a
new parameter was added to the default manager, BMP pollutant removal efficiencies will
need to be entered for the new parameter.

Figure 3-11
Default BMP Alternatives

Figure 3-12
Default BMP Removal Rates

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 40

3.3 SCENARIO MANAGER 1. The Scenario Manager is the heart of WMM and is where
data input files are created and managed, model scenarios are assembled and where model
execution takes place. The user builds scenarios by creating new input files, selecting
existing files accessed through the two main windows of this module and/or importing old
data files from the non-Windows based version of WMM, release 3.30. It is important
for the user to remember, however, that all new land use types, pollutant parameters, and
best management practices must be entered in the default manager before they may be
used in the Scenario Manager module of WMM for Windows.

The Scenario Manager module is accessed by clicking on the Scenario Manager button
in the main menu screen of WMM. There are several file management operations that are
universal for data set management within Scenario Manager. These options are shown
Figure 3-13, Page One of the Scenario Manager, and are described as follows:

• By clicking the list drop down button the user can obtain a list of all existing files. To
select a file for use, click on the file name in the list.
• Clicking anywhere in the file list box will cause the action buttons for that input set to
be displayed. These buttons are used to view/edit existing files, create new files,
delete existing files or import files from WMM Version 3.30.
• To view/edit an existing file, select the desired file from the list box and click the
View/Edit button. A new window will open, displaying the selected file.
• Create a new file by clicking on the New button and then selecting the Default Set
option. If the new file being created is one for which default values exist, a new file
will be created with the appropriate default values. The default values can then be
edited as necessary. If a new file is being created for a category where default values
do not exist, a blank form for entering data is displayed. Each file has an associated
name and description field that must be filled.
• Spreadsheet files from WMM Version 3.30 may be imported for all data sets required
to run WMM for Windows by clicking on the New button and selecting the Import
from Version 3.30 button. See Appendix E for additional information on the import
•
functionality of this modeling software.
• Delete a file by selecting the file you wish to delete in the file list box and then click
the Delete button. You will be prompted with a question asking if you really want to
delete the file.
• Clicking the Next button takes you to the Scenario Manager 2 screen, clicking the
Before button returns you to the main WMM screen.

It is important to note that data files should be created, imported and/or modified in the
order they are listed in Scenario Managers 1 and 2. For example, changes to the
parameter set for the current scenario impacts EMC mean values, base flow parameters
and concentrations, etc. If changes are not made in the order the data sets are listed, data
incompatibility flags may appear next to the incompatible data sets. These flags disappear
as these related data sets are updated to reflect any changes made to the land use,
parameter or watershed data sets. The incompatible data sets will automatically be
updated when they are opened using the View/Edit button. The user must allow these
data sets to be updated (by selecting Yes when prompted) in order for the selected files to
be used for watershed modeling.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 41

 Figure 3-13
Scenario Manager 1

3.3.1 Landuse Types. To modify an existing land use coverage or create a new coverage, click
on the View/Edit or New buttons. To edit the percent impervious values, type the new
values in decimal format in the % impervious column, as shown in Figure 3-14. To add or
delete land uses click on Add/Delete to obtain the screen shown in Figure 3-15. By using
the >, >>, <, and << buttons, landuse types can be moved from the available list on the left
to the selected list on the right. Click Save to save all changes, Cancel to undo changes
and return to the previous values. It is important to remember that any new land uses

Figure 3-14
Scenario Manager 1 - Land Use Set Information
Figure 3-15
Land Use Set Information - Add/Delete

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 42

 desired for use in the Scenario Manager must first be entered in the Default Manager.

3.3.2 Scenario Manager 1 - Parameters. To modify an existing parameter set of or create a

new parameter data set, click on the View/Edit or New buttons. To add or delete
parameters click on the Add/Delete button, as shown in Figure 3-16, to obtain the screen
shown in Figure 3-17. By using the >, >>, <, and << buttons, parameters can be moved
from the available list on the left to the selected list on the right. Click Save to save all
changes, Cancel to undo changes and return to the previous values. Again, remember
that any new parameters desired for use in the Scenario Manager must first be entered in
the Default Manager.

Figure 3-16 Figure 3-17

Scenario Manager 1 - Parameter Set Information Parameter Set Information - Add/Delete

3.3.3 Watershed. The Watershed file is where the subbasin information for the watershed to be
modeled is entered. This file contains the subbasin name and description, a breakdown of
land acreage within each subbasin including a total acreage calculated from the sum of the
breakdown, the pollutant load delivery ratio, and septic impact zones and failure rates. A
set of information is generated for each unique subbasin name and jurisdiction, which
must be unique for each subbasin. A sample input screen is shown in Figure 3-18.

There are several data fields shown on the input screen which do not require entry from
the user. The number of subbasins and acres of fields are calculated automatically for
each subbasin. The remainder of the fields requires input from the user.

The pollutant load Delivery Ratio should be entered as decimal percent. For each
Landuse Type, enter the number of acres that exist within the given subbasin. To include
effects of septic systems within the subbasin, click the box to the left of Septic Impact,
which will cause the default Septic Impact Landuse Types to be displayed in the table.
Enter the decimal percent, each of the septic impacted landuse types are effected by septic
systems. The value for Septic Tank Failure Rate must also be entered as a decimal
percent . (e.g. 0.25 equals 25%)

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 43

 Figure 3-18
Scenario Manager 1 - Watershed Information

To add a new subbasin, click the Add button. To delete a subbasin, click the Delete
button. In each case the user will be asked if they really want to add/delete a subbasin.
Use the navigation bar to move between the subbasins, as shown in Figure 3-19. Click on
the Cancel button to cancel all changes and restore previous values. Click on the Save
button to save all changes and exit form. The
Save As button prompts the user for a new file
name and description, saves all changes with the
new file name, and exits the form.

Clicking the Global Changes button brings up a Figure 3-19

window that allows the user to make changes to Navigation Bar
all subbasins in the watershed for delivery ratio, septic impact and/or septic failure rates.
To select an item to change, click on the empty box to the left of the item of interest.
Values for delivery ratio and septic impact rates should be entered as decimal percents.
Septic impact is Yes to take in account septic systems impact on loadings or No for no
septic impact.

3.3.4 Hydrologic Data. An existing Hydrologic data file may be modified or a new one created
by clicking on the appropriate button in the main screen of Scenario Manager 1. The
following data are entered in the screen shown in Figure 3-20:
• Annual Precipitation as (in/yr).
• Annual Base Flow as (MGD).
• Pervious Runoff Coefficient as decimal percent (e.g. 0.25 equals 25%).
• Impervious Runoff Coefficient as decimal percent (e.g. 0.25 equals 25%).
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 44
 Click Cancel to cancel all changes and
exit, Save to Save all changes and exit.

3.3.5 EMC Values. To create a new or edit

an existing EMC value file, click on the
appropriate button in the EMC Mean
Values menu in Scenario Manager 1.
The default EMC and Coefficient of
Variation values from the default
manager will automatically show up
when a new file is created, as shown in
Figure 3-21. Scenario specific values
may be created by overwriting the
default values. Click Cancel to cancel
all changes and exit, Save to Save all
changes and exit. Figure 3-20
Hydrologic Data

Figure 3-21
Scenario Manager 1 - EMC Set Information
3.3.6 Base Flow Concentration Values. To create a new or edit an existing baseflow
concentration file, click on the appropriate button in the Base Flow Parameter
Concentrations menu in Scenario Manager 1. Enter the base flow concentrations in units
of mg / L, as shown in Figure 3-22. Click Cancel to cancel all changes and exit, save to
Save all changes and exit.

3.3.7 Suspended Fraction. To create new or edit existing suspended fraction value files, click
on the appropriate button in the Suspended Fraction menu in Scenario Manager 1. Enter
the suspended fraction for a parameter as a decimal percent, as shown in Figure 3-23.
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 45
 Click Cancel to cancel all changes and exit, save to Save all changes and exit.

Figure 3-22 Figure 3-23

Scenario Manager 1 - Base Flow Concentration Values Scenario Manager 1
Suspended Fraction Set Information

3.3.8 Septic Failure Loading Rates. To

create new or edit existing septic tank
failure loading rate files, click on the
appropriate button in the Septic Tank
Failure Loading Rate menu in Scenario
Manager 1. Click on a land use type
and enter the loading rate percentages
in decimal format for the desired
parameter, as shown in Figure 3-24.
Click Cancel to cancel all changes and
exit, save to Save all changes and exit.

Figure 3-24
Scenario Manager 1 - Septic Tank
Failure Loading Rate Set Information

3.4 SCENARIO MANAGER 2. The Scenario Manager 2 screen, as shown in Figure 3-25,
allows modifications to the degree of uncertainty in calculating loads and the options to
include CSOs, BMPs, Point Sources and CSO controls in load calculations. In addition,
model execution is initiated from this screen. Clicking the Save Scenario button will save
the current scenario configuration under the existing name. Clicking the Back button will
return you to the Scenario Manager 1 screen.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 46

 Figure 3-25
Scenario Manager 2

3.4.1 Uncertainty Analysis. The Uncertainty Analysis option allows the user to select the
desired EMC estimate (low, medium or high). Selecting a low and/or high estimate will
cause the Standardized Normal Deviate table to be displayed. To select the desired

Figure 3-26
Scenario Manager 2 - Uncertainty Analysis
deviate, use the arrow up/down buttons, as shown in Figure 3-26.

3.4.2 Include CSOs. Click the box next to Include CSOs to activate this option. Once
selected, the file list box and action buttons become enabled.

To create a new CSO Concentration Set file, click the New action button which displays
the CSO concentration set window, Figure 3-27. Enter a name and description for the
new file. To add or delete subbasins, click on the Add/Delete key. Using the <, <<, > and
>> buttons, move the subbasins for which CSOs exist from the available list to the
selected list, as shown in Figure 3-28. Click Save to save the list. For each subbasin, click
on the subbasin name in the Subbasin Table and enter values for each parameter and a
CSO flow in MGD. Use the Add/Delete button to add or delete subbasins.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 47

 Figure 3-27 Figure 3-28
Scenario Manager 2 - CSO Concentration Set CSO Concentration Set - Add Subbasins

3.4.3 Include BMPs. Click the box next to Include BMPs to activate this option. Once
selected the file list boxes and action buttons become enabled. This option allows BMP
types, pollutant removal rates and coverages to be created or modified for each scenario.

BMP Types. The BMP Types file contains the types of BMPS available for use in the
model. Figure 3-29 shows the screen that is accessed by clicking the View/Edit button.
Upon creation of a new file the available types of BMPs will consist of those from the
default BMP Alternatives. Click the Add/Delete button access the screen shown in Figure
3-30. Using the <, <<, > and >> buttons, move the BMPs back and forth between the
lists to add or delete BMP types. Click the Save button to save your changes and exit or
the Cancel button to undo your changes and exit.

BMP Removal Rates. Scenario specific pollutant load reductions for each best
management practice may be created or modified by clicking on the View/Edit or New
button in the BMP removal rates pull down menu. For help on editing BMP pollutant
removal rates, see the Default Manager - BMP Removal Rates description found in
Section 2.3.1.

BMP Spatial Extent. To create a new BMP Spatial Extent file, click the New action
button and select Default Set as the data type. In the BMP Area Set Information window
(shown in Figure 3-31), enter a name and description for the new file. Using the arrow
keys, select the subbasins you wish to apply BMP coverage to. Next click on the
add/delete button to select the BMPs you wish to apply to these subbasins. Enter the
percent coverage of the BMPs for each landuse type for the selected basin. Continue
adding information as necessary by selecting new BMPs and subbasins. Click the Save
button to save your changes or the Cancel button to undo your changes.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 48

 To edit an existing BMP Spatial Extent file, click the View/Edit action tool. Click the
subbasin and landuse type of interest and edit as was done when a new coverage was
entered.. (Shown in Figure 3-32.) Click the Save button to save your changes and exit or
the Cancel button to undo your changes and exit.

Figure 3-29 Figure 3-30

Scenario Manager 2 – BMP Set Information BMP Removal Rates

Figure 3-31 Figure 3-32

Scenario Manager 2 – Create New BMP Area Set Scenario Manager 2 – View/Edit BMP Area Set
3.4.4 Include Point Sources. Click the box next to Include Point Sources to activate this
option. Once selected, the file list box and action buttons become enabled. To create a
new Point Sources file, click the New action button. Enter a name and description for the
new file, as shown in Figure 3-33. To add or delete subbasins, click on the Add/Delete
key. Using the <, <<, > and >> buttons, move the subbasins for which point sources exist
from the available list to the selected list, as shown in Figure 3-34. Click Save to save the

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 49

 Figure 3-33 Figure 3-34
Scenario Manager 2 - Point Sources Add/Delete Point Sources
list. For each subbasin, click on the subbasin name in the Subbasin Table and enter point
source pollutant loading concentrations in mg/L for each parameter, and a flow in MGD.

3.4.5 Include CSO Controls. Click the box next to Include CSO Controls to activate this
option and access the screen shown in Figure 3-35. Once selected the file list box and
action buttons become enabled. To create a new CSO Controls Set file click the New
action button. If necessary, use the Add/Delete buttons to add or delete CSO controls.
Note that the Sewer Separation control is a default CSO control and cannot be removed.
Click the Save button to save your changes and exit or the Cancel button to undo your
changes and exit.

For each CSO control, click on the control in the CSO Controls list box and enter percent
reduction values for each parameter. Also enter a % Flow Reduction value (as decimal
percent) for each CSO control. To assign subbasins to a CSO control, click on the
Add/Delete button in the subbasins box and use the <, << , > and >> buttons to move
subbasins from the available list to the selected list, similar to the method used to add
subbasins for point sources. Click the Save button to save the selected subbasin list,
Cancel to undo changes. The Save button saves all changes using the current file name
and exits the form. To save with a different name, change the name and description in the
text boxes before using the Save As button

3.4.6 Running the Model. Once all data files are updated with scenario specific information,
the model may be run by clicking the Run Model button. You will be prompted for a
model run output name and description. After entering the required information, click
OK to run the model or Cancel to return to page 2 of the Scenario Manager. The model
will take several minutes to run, with the calculation time dependant upon the number of
subbasins, point sources, CSOs and BMPs.

Upon completion of a model run, the results of the run are displayed to the user in a
display window, as shown in Figure 3-36. Within the display window, you may scroll
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 50
 Figure 3-35
Scenario Manager 2 - CSO Controls Set

Figure 3-36
Model Output Window
through the data pages using the arrow keys, zoom in or out, print the output data, or
export the data to a new file. It is not necessary to export the data from this window in
order to save it. The data are automatically saved and can be accessed through the Output
Manager module of the program.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 51

3.5 OUTPUT MANAGER. The Output Manager allows the user to display output from
previous model runs in a variety of different styles and formats. Additionally, the Output
Manager also supports the comparison of different model output sets. Output Manager
also allows the user to delete data from previous model runs. The output manager menu
may be accessed by clicking on the Output Manager button from the main menu of
WMM, and is shown in Figure 3-37.

3.5.1 Standard Report. The Standard Report format is designed to closely resemble the
output from the spreadsheet version of WMM’s NPL module. Clicking the Standard
Report button displays the Model Output Display selection screen (see Figure 3-38). This
screen is used to select the output to be displayed. Using the navigation bar (see Figure 3-
39), the user can select the output set to display. Once selected, the user may enter a title
for the report in the report title box. The user clicks the Display button to display the
results. The report may be printed or exported from the display screen. Sample reports of
this standard report and all other reports can be found in Appendix D.

Figure 3-38
Model Output Display - Standard Report

Figure 3-39
Output Navigation Bar

Figure 3-37
Output Manager
3.5.2 Subarea Loads by Pollutant. Clicking the Subarea Loads by Pollutant allows the user
to display modeling results grouped by pollutant parameter. This report also provides the
opportunity to compare one scenario to another by calculating a percent change between
two defined sets of results. The user selects a primary run, for which pollutant loads by
subarea will be displayed by parameter. The user also selects a comparison run to as a
basis for the percent change. The user is also given the opportunity to create a report title,
as shown in Figure 3-40.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 52

3.5.3 Multiple Scenario by Pollutant. The multiple scenario by pollutant output option allows
the user to display output summarizing total pollutant load totals for up to five scenarios
in one table. This option may be accessed by clicking on the Multiple Scenario by
Pollutant button, which accesses the screen shown in Figure 3-41.

Figure 3-40
Model Output Display - Pollutant Load by Subarea
Figure 3-41
Model Output Display - Total Pollutant Load by Scenario

3.5.4 Bar Chart Run Comparison. Clicking the Bar Chart Run Comparison allows the
user to display modeling results in a graphical format, comparing pollutant loads by
parameter for up to five scenarios. The user is prompted to select the scenarios desired for
comparison, as shown in Figure 3-42. After clicking next to continue, the user must
select the parameter they wish to display and may create a graphic title, as shown in Figure
3-43. To create the graphic, click on Display.

Figure 3-42 Figure 3-43

Model Output Display - Bar Chart Bar Chart Parameter and Title Selection

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 53

3.5.5 ArcView Map. Selecting the ArcView Map button allows the user to spatially display
data generated by the WMM for Windows model. ArcView Version 3.1 is required to
utilize this capability of WMM for Windows. After clicking the ArcView Map button,
the user will be prompted to enter the location of their ArcView 3.1 executable file
(ArcView.exe). Once this location has been identified, ArcView will automatically
initialize and the user may proceed with mapping their model results. See Appendix E for
details on the development of ArcView coverages from WMM for Windows scenario
results.

3.5.6 Delete Model Run Output Sets. Clicking the Delete Model Run Output Sets button
displays the Delete Model Output selection screen. The screen shown in Figure 3-44 is
used to select the output to be deleted. Using the navigation bar, the user can select the
output set to delete. Once selected the user clicks the Delete button to delete the results.

Figure 3-44
Delete Model Run Output Sets

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 54

4.0 REFERENCES.
Beaulac, M.N. and Reckhow, K.H., "An Examination of Land Use - Nutrient Export Relationships,"
Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 18, No. 6, December 1982, pp. 1013-1024.

Camp Dresser & McKee, et al., "California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks,"
March, 1993.

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Phase I Report, Master Storm Water Management Plan, City of
Jacksonville/St. Johns River Water Management District, August, 1989.

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., "Southeast Area Storm water Management Study - Manatee County,
Florida," for Manatee County, 1985.

Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., "Tributary Streamflows and Pollutant Loading Delivered to Tampa
Bay," for Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 1984.

East-Central Florida Regional Planning Council, Orlando Metropolitan Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan, 1978.

Federal Highway Administration, "Pollutant Loadings and Impacts from Highway Storm water
Runoff, Volume III: Analytical Investigation and Research Report," FHWA-RD-88-008,
McLean, Virginia, April 1990.

Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, "The Florida Development Manual: A Guide to

Sound Land and Water Management," Nonpoint Source Management Section, 1988.

Hartigan, J.P., et al., "Calibration of Urban Nonpoint Pollution Loading Models," Proceedings of
ASCE Hydraulics Division Specialty Conference on Verification of Mathematical and Physical
Models in Hydraulic Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York,
August 1978, pp. 363-372.

Hartigan, J.P., George, T.S., Quasebarth, T. F., Dorman, M.E., Retention, Detention, and Overland
Flow for Pollutant Removal from Highway Storm water Runoff: Volume II - Design
Guidelines, FHWA/RD-89/203, August 1989.

Hartigan, J.P., T.F. Quasebarth, and E. Southerland, "Calibration of NPS Model Loading Factors,"
Journal of Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 109, No. 6, December 1983,
pp.1259-1272.

Huber, W.C., "Current Methods for Modeling of Nonpoint Source Water Quality" ASCE Seminar
on Urban Storm Water Quality Management, Orlando FL, March 1990.

Hudson, J., "Forecasting Onsite Soil Absorption System Failure Rates," EPA/600/2-86/060, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Water Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1986.

Humenik, F.J., "Agricultural Nonpoint Source Studies in Southeastern Watersheds: Field Monitoring
and Farmer Surveys," UNC.

Humenik, F.J., et al., "Nonpoint Inputs from Agricultural Areas in a Southeastern Watershed,"
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, NCSU, 1983.

Linsley R.U., and Franzini J.B., Water Resources Engineering, McGrow-Hill Book Co., 1979.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 55

Livingston, Eric, "The Stormwater Rule: Past, Present, and Future," Proceedings of the Stormwater
Management Workshop, Orlando, Florida, 1985.

Long Island Regional Planning Board, "The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program", December 1982

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Tampa Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Phase II: Task II.2 Rainfall
Quality Analysis, prepared for City of Tampa, FL, February 1983.

Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Tampa Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Phase II: Task II.6, I.9, and
II.10, prepared for City of Tampa, FL, February 1983 (Draft).

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, "Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual

for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs," July 1987.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Chesapeake Bay Basin Model, Final Report,"
prepared for EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, January 1983a.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Occoquan/Four Mile Run Non-Point Source
Correlation Study," prepared for Metropolitan Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.,
July, 1978.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Guidebook for Screening Urban Nonpoint
Pollution Management Strategies," prepared for Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, D.C., November 1979.

Northern Virginia Planning District Commission, "Washington Metropolitan Area Urban Runoff
Demonstration Project," prepared for Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, D.C., April 1983b.

Novotny V., "Unit Pollutant Loads: Their Fit in Abatement Strategies", Water Environment &
Technology, January, 1992

Novotny and Chesters, Handbook of Nonpoint Pollution, Van Nostrand and Reinhold, 1981.

Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (OWML). 1982. Evaluation of Management Tools

in the Occoquan Watershed. Final Contract Report to the Virginia State Water Control Board.
Grant #R806310010.

Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (OWML). 1983. Final contract Report: Washington
Area NURP Project. Prepared for Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Manasas, Virginia, 450pp.

Priede-Sedgwick, Inc., Precipitation Quantity and Quality Data: Task II.3, prepared for Tampa
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Study: Phase II, February 1983a.

Priede-Sedgwick, Inc., "Runoff Characterization: Water Quality and Flow," Prepared for Tampa
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program Study - Phase II, March 1983b.

Rutledge, A.T., “Computer Programs for Describing the Recession of Ground-Water Discharge and
for Estimating Mena Ground-Water Recharge and Discharge from Streamflow Records,”
USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 93-4121, 1993.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 56

South Florida Water Management District/East Central/Florida Regional Planning Council, "Boggy
Creek Water Quality Management Study: Final Report," January 1988.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action," Chesapeake
Bay Program, Annapolis, MD, September 1983a.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Final Report of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program,"
Office of Water, Washington, D.C., December 1983b.

Whalen, P.J., and Cullum, M.G., "An Assessment of Urban Land Use/Stormwater Runoff Quality
Relationships and Treatment Efficiencies of Selected Stormwater Management Systems," South
Florida Water Management District, July 1988.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 57

 Appendix A

NURP Data

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 58

 Locations of the 28 NURP Projects

EPA NURP Project Name/Location EPA Nurp Project Name/Location

Region Code Region Code
I MA1 Lake Quinsigamond (Boston Area) MI1 Lansing, Michigan
MA2 Upper Mystic (Boston Area) MI2 SEMCOG (Detriot Area)
NH1 Durham, New Hamshire MI3 Ann Arbor, Michigan
II NY1 Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk WI1 Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Counties)
NY2 Lake George VI AR1 Little Rock, Arkansas
NY3 Irondequoit Bay (Rochester Area) TX1 Austin, Texas
III DC1 WASHCOG (Washington D.C. VII KS1 Kansas City
Metropolitan Area)
MD1 Baltimore, Maryland VIII CO1 Denver, Colorado
IV FL1 Tampa, Florida SD1 Rapid City, South Dakota
NC1 Winston-Salem, North Carolina UT1 Salt Lake City, Utah
SC1 Myrtle Beach, South Carolina IX CA1 Coyote Creek (San Franciso Area)
TN1 Knoxville, Tennessee CA2 Fresno, California
V IL1 Champaign-Urbana, Illinois X OR1 Springfield -Eugene, Oregon
IL2 Lake Ellyn (Chicago Area) WA1 Bellevue (Seattle Area)

Figure A-1
Locations of the 28 NURP Projects
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 59
 Table A-4
Individual NURP Site Event Mean Concentrations (USEPA, 1983)
TSS BOD COD Total P Soluble P
Land Pop. No. No. No. No. No.
Land Use Area Den. % of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median
Use Site % (A) (#/A) IMP. OBS mg/L COV mg/L OBS mg/L COV mg/L OBS mg/L COV mg/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L
Resid. 1 CO1 Big Dry Cr 100 33 19 41 16 383 1.04 265 0 - - - 16 129 0.72 105 16 693 0.94 505 15 193 0.64 163
2 CO1 Cherry 100 57 24 38 14 180 0.98 129 0 - - - 14 122 0.66 102 14 429 0.54 377 14 212 0.47 192
3 CO1 116/Claude 100 167 14 24 16 365 1.17 232 0 - - - 15 137 0.74 103 15 630 0.65 513 16 196 0.35 179
4 DC1 Dufief 100 12 - - 8 56 1.02 39 0 - - - 7 64 0.26 62 5 499 0.32 475 6 448 0.55 392
5 DC1 Lakeridge 100 68 21 27 49 175 1.47 98 0 - - - 44 60 0.66 50 48 323 0.78 256 47 69 0.62 59
6 DC1 Stratton 100 8 - - 33 54 1.01 38 4 - - - 31 51 0.55 45 28 340 0.54 300 27 251 0.65 210
7 IL1 John M 100 54 18 19 51 205 1.36 122 0 - - - 31 126 0.80 98 33 750 0.62 636 0 - - -
8 KS1 Overton 100 58 8 38 15 2216 1.47 1247 5 12 0.59 11 14 162 0.67 135 8 1636 0.91 1207 8 313 0.41 290
9 MA2 Hemlock 100 50 5 16 5 78 2.49 29 0 - - - 0 - - - 5 314 1.05 216 5 160 0.89 120
10 MD1 Bolton Hill 100 14 30 51 18 74 1.32 45 0 - - - 19 218 1.38 128 19 932 1.15 613 0 - - -
11 MD1 Homeland 100 23 9 29 13 50 1.65 26 0 - - - 13 172 0.73 139 13 421 0.70 345 0 - - -
12 MD1 Mt Wash 100 17 12 29 20 95 1.12 63 0 - - - 20 168 0.85 128 20 556 0.83 428 0 - - -
13 MD1 Res Hill 100 10 55 76 13 127 1.05 88 0 - - - 13 177 0.85 135 13 4090 1.05 2825 0 - - -
14 NY1 Carll's K. 100 73 13 20 23 42 0.85 32 0 - - - 0 - - - 24 221 0.54 195 0 - - -
15 NY1 Unqua 100 - - - 8 65 0.53 57 0 - - - 0 - - - 8 229 0.61 196 0 - - -
16 NY3 Cranston 100 166 5 22 10 134 1.15 88 0 - - - 8 33 0.43 31 13 301 0.54 265 0 - - -
17 NY3 E. Roch. 100 346 18 38 7 294 1.12 196 0 - - - 7 86 0.31 82 8 448 0.47 405 0 - - -
18 TX1 Rollingwood 100 60 3 21 9 227 1.13 150 0 - - - 9 70 0.45 64 9 268 0.56 233 0 - - -
19 WA1 Surrey 100 95 9 29 113 113 0.51 101 0 - - - 118 48 0.54 42 118 239 0.83 184 0 - - -
20 Wl1 Burbank 100 63 15 50 45 266 0.44 243 28 7 0.64 6 27 39 0.79 30 45 229 0.45 209 0 - - -
21 Wl1 Hastings 100 33 17 51 33 170 0.68 141 20 9 0.62 8 23 41 0.55 36 35 258 0.51 230 0 - - -
22 FL1 Young Apts 100 9 - 6 12 53 1.23 34 12 16 1.1 11 12 73 0.96 52 12 333 0.65 279 0 - - -
23 TR1 Hart 99 378 9 40 15 156 1.61 82 0 - - - 11 82 0.83 63 14 333 0.80 260 0 - - -
24 Wl1 Lincoln 97 36 18 57 23 251 0.69 206 11 18 1.23 12 16 91 0.95 66 23 453 0.69 373 0 - - -
25 TN1 R2 96 89 4 13 11 63 1.13 42 10 9 0.66 7 11 45 0.39 42 11 246 0.41 227 11 132 0.63 112
26 DC1 Westleigh 93 41 3 21 41 75 1.45 43 3 - - - 39 51 0.46 46 41 397 0.75 319 41 223 0.71 182
27 KS1 IC - 92nd 92 63 - 37 13 156 0.84 119 5 28 0.66 23 11 176 0.98 126 10 1297 1.31 787 10 241 0.62 205
28 IL1 John S. 91 39 18 18 49 248 1.50 138 0 - - - 29 111 0.80 87 32 732 0.65 604 0 - - -
29 TN1 R1 91 69 11 33 11 611 0.73 492 9 14 0.87 11 11 120 0.96 87 11 705 0.35 665 11 136 0.94 99
30 WA1 Lake Hills 91 102 12 37 126 127 0.80 100 0 - - - 127 44 0.54 38 127 264 0.81 204 0 - - -
31 IL1 Mattis S. 90 28 22 37 59 311 1.08 211 0 - - - 30 180 0.72 146 32 587 0.69 483 0 - - -
32 FL1 Charter Hdg. 89 42 - 16 12 33 1.76 16 12 13 1.24 8 12 55 0.64 47 12 395 1.61 208 0 - - -
33 DC1 Fairidge 88 19 - 34 47 25 1.55 14 5 5 0.64 4 48 51 0.46 47 47 351 0.73 254 46 297 0.87 224
34 CD1 Asbury 86 127 9 22 9 493 0.82 380 0 - - - 9 234 1.12 156 9 1025 0.71 834 9 212 0.22 207
35 IL2 Comb Inlets 85 524 8 17 27 250 0.75 200 0 - - - 24 138 0.90 102 26 506 0.79 397 24 98 1.21 63
36 MA1 Locust 85 154 11 16 6 257 1.75 128 0 - - - 6 104 0.45 95 6 1228 0.79 966 6 184 0.42 169
37 MC1#1023 84 324 6 27 66 291 1.92 135 7 11 0.63 10 34 90 0.97 64 67 529 0.99 375 0 - - -
38 MA1 Jordan 79 110 10 21 9 78 1.74 39 0 - - - 9 79 0.53 70 8 448 0.95 324 7 202 1.11 136
39 DC1 Stedwick 78 27 15 34 47 54 1.02 38 3 - - - 45 45 0.60 39 44 388 0.65 326 41 261 0.70 206

Open 1 CA1 Seaview 100 633 - - 13 718 0.83 551 0 - - - 14 111 0.42 102 13 590 0.82 455 12 145 1.24 91
2 CO1 Rooney Gulch 100 405 0 1 7 403 0.63 341 0 - - - 7 73 0.33 69 7 420 0.47 380 7 137 0.46 124
3 NY3 Thornell 100 28,416 - 4 11 154 0.92 113 0 - - - 8 25 0.36 23 13 193 0.46 175 0 - - -
4 NY2 English Br 98 5,248 - 1 28 17 2.46 6 0 - - - 0 - - - 30 27 1.20 17 18 5 0.35 5
5 NY2 West Br 97 5,338 - 1 28 64 2.77 22 0 - - - 0 - - - 31 52 1.27 32 26 8 0.54 7
6 NY3 Thomas Cr 91 17,728 1 11 9 63 0.74 51 0 - - - 6 26 0.26 26 12 195 0.47 177 0 - - -
7 NY3 Traver Cr 90 2,303 - 6 5 33 0.77 26 5 2 0.41 2 5 25 0.19 25 5 91 0.38 85 5 33 0.55 29
8 NY2 Sheriff Dock 80 552 - 7 32 378 2.33 149 0 - - - 0 - - - 33 264 1.01 186 32 39 1.11 26
 Table A-4 (ctd.)
Individual NURP Site Event Mean Concentrations (USEPA, 1983)
TSS BOD COD Total P Soluble P

Land Pop. No. No. No. No. No.

Land Use Area Den. % of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median
Use Site % (A) (#/A) IMP. OBS mg/L COV mg/L OBS mg/L COV mg/L OBS mg/L COV mg/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L

Mixed 1 KS1 Noland - 36 3 68 16 280 0.91 208 3 - - - 12 106 0.66 89 7 555 0.34 526 8 165 0.52 146
2 MD1 Hampden - 17 40 72 20 82 1.62 43 0 - - - 20 111 0.73 89 20 754 1.41 436 0 - - -
3 IL1 Mattis N - 17 3 58 58 282 1.01 199 0 - - - 35 198 0.68 164 35 498 0.58 431 0 - - -
4 MI1 Waverly - 30 11 68 35 85 1.28 52 21 9 0.64 7 27 64 0.80 50 35 198 0.64 167 32 43 0.76 34
5 IN1 SC - 187 3 43 13 71 1.07 48 12 14 0.87 11 13 60 0.70 49 13 352 0.64 296 13 197 1.17 128
6 WL1 Wood Ctr - 45 12 81 47 383 0.78 302 31 14 0.54 13 39 92 0.57 80 47 289 0.59 249 0 - - -
7 MA1 Rt 9 - 338 7 23 7 351 2.05 153 0 - - - 6 107 0.68 88 5 1176 0.63 995 5 160 0.38 150
8 MA1 convent - 100 1 33 8 54 1.53 30 0 - - - 8 72 0.62 61 8 459 1.99 206 6 106 1.83 51
9 MI1 Grand R Ot - 453 5 38 23 158 1.26 98 13 8 0.62 7 18 71 0.47 65 22 458 0.65 384 20 68 0.68 56
10 MI3 Pitt AA-S - 2001 2 21 6 46 0.37 43 6 5 0.49 5 4 - - - 6 103 0.50 93 6 13 0.37 13
11 NY2 Cedar - 76 - 5 27 291 1.92 134 0 - - - 0 - - - 32 363 1.20 233 26 49 1.16 32
12 MA1 Anna - 601 9 12 6 150 2.95 48 0 - - - 6 88 0.51 78 6 534 0.88 402 4 - - -
13 MI3 Pitt AA-N - 2871 7 26 6 68 0.47 61 6 6 0.76 5 3 - - - 6 268 0.47 243 6 59 0.88 44
14 MI1 Grace N - 164 5 28 23 172 0.85 131 11 8 0.78 7 17 72 0.43 66 23 394 0.54 347 21 47 0.47 42
15 MI3 Swift Run - 1207 2 4 5 80 0.91 59 5 3 0.41 3 5 29 0.12 29 5 134 0.56 117 5 39 0.46 35
16 SD1 Meade - 2030 - - 15 3093 1.39 1804 14 19 0.75 15 14 179 0.39 167 15 1885 1.28 1163 14 87 0.61 74
17 CA1 Knox - 1542 12 - 19 283 1.32 171 0 - - - 21 93 0.60 80 19 418 0.50 374 18 169 0.99 120
18 FL1 N. Jesult - 30 - 13 15 87 3.59 23 15 16 0.95 12 15 50 1.18 33 15 196 0.71 160 0 - - -
19 FL1 WIlder - 194 - 97 14 33 0.71 27 15 16 1.18 10 15 51 0.38 48 15 229 0.52 204 0 - - -
20 CO1 North Ave - 69 9 50 32 492 0.96 354 32 - - - 32 280 0.74 225 32 784 0.60 673 30 228 0.95 165
Comm 1 CO1 Villa Italia 100 74 0 91 27 260 1.89 122 0 - - - 27 184 0.87 139 27 704 1.26 438 26 293 1.09 198
2 NC1 1013 (CBD) 100 23 0 69 60 163 1.15 107 23 18 0.86 13 40 120 0.79 94 61 395 0.58 342 0 - - -
3 NY3 Southgate 100 179 2 21 12 141 0.76 112 0 - - - 9 40 0.34 38 12 216 0.26 209 0 - - -
4 Wl1 Post Office 100 12 0 100 58 212 0.86 161 35 9 0.5 8 40 57 0.62 48 60 108 0.56 94 0 - - -
5 NH1 Pkg Lot 100 0 90 32 74 1.66 38 33 17 0.86 13 33 98 0.72 79 27 273 1.21 174 0 - - -
6 TN1 CBD 100 26 0 99 15 123 0.73 99 13 13 0.46 12 15 73 0.52 65 15 212 0.43 195 15 46 0.72 37
7 Wl1 Rustler 100 12 0 100 42 202 0.68 167 27 13 0.79 10 26 59 0.76 47 44 105 0.79 82 0 - - -
8 KS1 IC Metcalf 96 58 - 97 22 80 2.12 34 13 8 0.48 7 20 55 0.86 41 20 246 0.98 176 21 116 1.06 80
9 FC1 Norma Pk 91 47 - 45 12 22 1.13 14 12 12 0.88 9 12 41 0.47 37 12 151 0.60 135 0 - - -
10 Wl1 State Fair 74 29 10 77 29 412 0.97 296 15 19 0.72 15 21 113 0.88 84 29 544 1.19 330 0 - - -
Indus. 1 MA2 Addison 100 18 0 69 5 48 0.81 37 0 - - - 0 - - - 5 114 0.89 85 5 75 0.92 55
2 MI1 Indus Drain 100 63 0 64 18 92 0.82 71 8 10 0.58 9 12 67 0.46 61 18 546 0.58 472 14 127 0.72 103
3 KS1 Lenaxa 56 72 - 44 18 102 1.33 61 8 14 0.77 11 16 58 0.60 50 16 599 0.87 452 16 346 1.66 179
4 MI1 Grace S. 52 75 5 39 20 188 0.94 137 9 5 0.34 5 11 60 0.79 47 17 435 0.71 355 16 59 1.24 37
 Table A-4 (ctd.)
Individual NURP Site Event Mean Concentrations (USEPA, 1983)
TKN Nitrite plus Nitrate Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc
Land Pop. No. No. No. No. No.
Land Use Area Den. % of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median
Use Site % (A) (#/A) IMP. OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L
Resid. 1 CO1 Big Dry Cr 100 33 19 41 16 2369 0.58 2041 15 527 0.34 499 16 32 0.82 25 16 183 0.88 137 15 194 0.80 151
2 CO1 Cherry 100 57 24 38 14 2603 0.39 2430 14 709 0.40 657 14 35 1.48 20 14 194 0.92 143 14 195 0.63 165
3 CO1 116/Claude 100 167 14 24 15 2893 0.51 2501 16 670 0.51 579 16 28 0.74 22 16 292 0.87 210 16 195 0.66 158
4 DC1 Dufief 100 12 - - 6 2066 0.13 2048 8 470 0.35 445 21 - - - 1 - - - 8 156 0.26 151
5 DC1 Lakeridge 100 68 21 27 48 1724 0.64 1450 49 746 0.62 633 14 38 0.55 33 19 227 0.54 200 48 129 0.70 106
6 DC1 Stratton 100 8 - - 28 1811 0.39 1686 33 418 0.86 317 10 28 0.30 27 0 - - - 28 84 0.47 76
7 IL1 John M 100 54 18 19 33 3994 0.81 3107 0 - - - 36 83 0.85 63 36 237 0.73 191 0 - - -
8 KS1 Overton 100 58 8 38 5 - - - 0 - - - 12 91 0.50 81 11 138 0.39 128 13 831 0.97 596
9 MA2 Hemlock 100 50 5 16 5 3679 0.55 3217 4 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -
10 MD1 Bolton Hill 100 14 30 51 18 6067 0.77 4815 19 9535 1.59 5073 19 107 0.70 88 19 2745 4.53 592 19 1388 2.21 573
11 MD1 Homeland 100 23 9 29 13 6505 0.40 6044 13 6343 4.56 1358 13 312 0.34 296 13 76 0.46 69 13 120 0.35 113
12 MD1 Mt Wash 100 17 12 29 20 6935 0.41 6408 20 7822 1.56 4229 20 26 0.78 20 20 86 0.48 77 20 92 0.54 81
13 MD1 Res Hill 100 10 55 76 13 10803 0.43 9915 13 6938 1.08 4707 13 42 0.69 34 13 461 1.86 218 13 531 1.20 340
14 NY1 Carll's K. 100 73 13 20 24 1487 0.73 1201 24 730 1.38 442 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -
15 NY1 Unqua 100 - - - 8 1408 0.26 1363 8 1533 - - 0 - - - 8 88 1.36 52 0 - - -
16 NY3 Cranston 100 166 5 22 13 1492 0.45 1358 0 - - - 0 - - - 13 34 0.77 27 9 415 0.88 312
17 NY3 E. Roch. 100 346 18 38 7 3246 0.90 2411 0 - - - 0 - - - 8 193 0.89 144 8 488 1.10 327
18 TX1 Rollingwood 100 60 3 21 9 5004 2.37 1942 9 879 0.51 783 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -
19 WA1 Surrey 100 95 9 29 118 1007 0.62 857 0 - - - 0 - - - 118 152 0.51 136 118 124 0.42 114
20 Wl1 Burbank 100 63 15 50 1260 0.50 1125 18 775 0.48 699 0 - - - 44 95 0.72 77 18 106 1.34 63
21 Wl1 Hastings 100 33 17 51 15 1102 0.54 969 24 625 0.39 582 0 - - - 35 108 0.67 90 21 108 1.20 69
22 FL1 Young Apts 100 9 - 6 12 1339 0.70 1097 12 311 0.64 262 12 6 0.36 6 12 76 1.03 53 12 60 0.45 55
23 TR1 Hart 99 378 9 40 11 3016 0.75 2412 10 1625 0.54 1430 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -
24 Wl1 Lincoln 97 36 18 57 1 - - - 3 - - - 0 - - - 22 303 1.14 200 0 - - -
25 TN1 R2 96 89 4 13 11 476 0.33 452 11 397 1.34 237 11 28 1.54 15 11 133 0.41 123 11 93 0.57 81
26 DC1 Westleigh 93 41 3 21 41 1901 0.56 1660 41 702 0.59 606 6 37 0.43 34 5 186 0.17 184 34 67 0.96 48
27 KS1 IC - 92nd 92 63 - 37 8 4187 0.94 3051 0 - - - 2 - - - 3 - - - 3 - - -
28 IL1 John S. 91 39 18 18 32 3527 1.04 2441 0 - - - 36 43 0.84 33 33 217 0.80 169 1 - - -
29 TN1 R1 91 69 11 33 11 1131 0.34 1071 11 578 0.77 458 11 61 0.60 52 11 440 0.61 376 11 412 0.59 354
30 WA1 Lake Hills 91 102 12 37 127 1056 0.73 852 0 - - - 5 22 0.34 21 126 192 0.67 159 126 120 0.53 107
31 IL1 Mattis S. 90 28 22 37 32 3440 0.69 2825 0 - - - 36 45 0.76 36 37 595 1.12 396 0 - - -
32 FL1 Charter Hdg. 89 42 - 16 12 1704 0.83 1309 12 610 0.77 483 12 10 0.94 7 12 49 1.60 26 12 54 1.02 38
33 DC1 Fairidge 88 19 - 34 46 2212 0.53 1958 48 927 0.66 772 9 26 0.39 25 1 - - - 44 86 0.52 76
34 CD1 Asbury 86 127 9 22 7 3735 0.56 3263 9 881 0.21 862 9 59 0.84 46 9 433 0.72 351 9 349 0.63 295
35 IL2 Comb Inlets 85 524 8 17 0 - - - 21 796 0.55 699 26 49 0.53 43 24 322 1.01 227 27 230 0.69 189
36 MA1 Locust 85 154 11 16 6 2695 0.38 2522 5 1705 0.69 1406 6 107 0.23 104 6 271 0.67 225 6 247 0.31 236
37 MC1#1023 84 324 6 27 67 1488 0.94 1086 67 716 0.68 591 66 39 0.60 33 66 254 0.98 182 66 178 0.81 138
38 MA1 Jordan 79 110 10 21 9 1391 0.60 1194 9 1247 0.55 1094 8 74 0.24 72 9 168 0.32 160 9 218 0.28 210
39 DC1 Stedwick 78 27 15 34 43 1895 0.57 1643 47 837 0.70 686 9 30 0.35 28 11 141 0.41 130 45 91 0.70 75
Open 1 CA1 Seaview 100 633 - - 13 3674 0.59 3159 12 1542 0.49 1383 12 58 0.33 55 7 214 0.89 159 17 190 0.64 160
2 CO1 Rooney Gulch 100 405 0 1 7 2954 0.53 2615 7 581 1.03 405 7 37 1.09 25 7 52 0.91 39 7 105 0.58 91
3 NY3 Thornell 100 28,416 - 4 13 1099 0.50 982 0 - - - 0 - - - 10 12 0.42 11 9 792 2.39 306
4 NY2 English Br 98 5,248 - 1 15 340 0.50 305 30 240 0.60 206 0 - - - 21 9 0.60 8 0 - - -
5 NY2 West Br 97 5,338 - 1 24 392 0.52 347 31 862 0.53 763 0 - - - 25 38 1.40 22 0 - - -
6 NY3 Thomas Cr 91 17,728 1 11 10 1111 0.36 1045 0 - - - 0 - - - 12 35 1.65 18 9 1063 3.14 322
7 NY3 Traver Cr 90 2,303 - 6 5 889 0.11 883 5 1108 0.17 1092 0 - - - 0 - - - 2 - - -
8 NY2 Sheriff Dock 80 552 - 7 33 963 0.76 765 33 383 1.02 268 0 - - - 33 132 1.05 91 0 - - -
 Table A-4 (ctd.)
Individual NURP Site Event Mean Concentrations (USEPA, 1983)
TKN Nitrite plus Nitrate Total Copper Total Lead Total Zinc
Land Pop. No. No. No. No. No.
Land Use Area Den. % of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median of Mean Median
Use Site % (A) (#/A) IMP. OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L OBS ug/L COV ug/L
Mixed 1 KS1 Noland - 36 3 68 0 - - - 0 - - - 9 48 0.38 45 9 164 0.49 147 9 814 1.19 525
2 MD1 Hampden - 17 40 72 19 6994 0.55 6140 20 11529 4.00 2793 20 81 0.86 61 20 227 0.82 176 13 318 0.35 112
3 IL1 Mattis N - 17 3 58 35 2822 0.64 2372 0 - - - 37 48 0.81 37 41 554 1.06 380 0 - - -
4 MI1 Waverly - 30 11 68 35 1490 0.53 1316 35 775 0.49 696 16 15 0.54 13 24 111 1.09 75 17 121 0.45 110
5 IN1 SC - 187 3 43 13 623 0.50 558 13 587 1.49 327 13 42 1.35 25 13 237 0.31 227 13 149 0.40 138
6 WL1 Wood Ctr - 45 12 81 16 1462 0.35 1369 17 751 0.69 618 0 - - - 45 582 0.94 424 27 476 1.21 303
7 MA1 Rt 9 - 338 7 23 5 2446 0.50 2188 5 1789 0.48 1613 7 112 0.49 100 7 439 1.02 307 7 244 0.43 225
8 MA1 convent - 100 1 33 8 1080 0.64 910 6 960 0.39 894 7 105 0.43 96 7 196 0.94 143 7 202 0.59 174
9 MI1 Grand R Ot - 453 5 38 23 1631 0.42 1506 23 883 0.44 807 13 30 0.63 26 18 122 0.90 91 14 245 0.71 200
10 MI3 Pitt AA-S - 2001 2 21 6 845 0.29 811 6 284 0.48 256 0 - - - 6 21 1.63 11 4 - - -
11 NY2 Cedar - 76 - 5 21 1237 0.83 951 32 248 0.72 201 0 - - - 28 75 1.25 47 0 - - -
12 MA1 Anna - 601 9 12 6 1888 0.70 1547 6 1268 0.60 1086 5 54 0.51 48 4 - - - 5 178 1.50 99
13 MI3 Pitt AA-N - 2871 7 26 6 1056 0.22 1031 5 469 0.24 456 0 - - - 5 61 0.71 50 4 - - -
14 MI1 Grace N - 164 5 28 23 1988 0.47 1802 23 875 0.43 803 9 14 0.31 13 18 170 1.39 99 9 149 0.35 140
15 MI3 Swift Run - 1207 2 4 5 1116 0.15 1104 5 1033 0.76 821 0 - - - 4 - - - 2 - - -
16 SD1 Meade - 2030 - - 13 4243 0.50 3802 15 616 0.40 571 0 - - - 24 383 1.13 254 0 - - -
17 CA1 Knox - 1542 12 - 20 2220 0.75 1775 17 1111 0.36 1044 17 98 1.14 65 22 495 0.99 351 21 303 0.85 231
18 FL1 N. Jesult - 30 - 13 15 1388 0.49 1249 14 376 0.54 332 15 7 0.63 6 15 56 1.22 35 15 94 0.68 78
19 FL1 WIlder - 194 - 97 15 1107 0.31 1056 15 456 0.47 412 15 6 0.84 5 15 85 0.85 65 15 51 0.95 37
20 CO1 North Ave - 69 9 50 23 4196 0.65 3522 32 1744 0.92 1286 32 77 0.83 59 33 358 0.81 278 33 543 0.82 421
Comm 1 CO1 Villa Italia 100 74 0 91 27 3657 0.85 2785 27 1180 0.86 895 27 33 0.87 25 27 262 1.21 167 27 320 0.82 247
2 NC1 1013 (CBD) 100 23 0 69 61 1613 0.70 1318 61 1118 0.55 980 61 70 0.54 61 61 382 0.81 296 60 533 0.51 474
3 NY3 Southgate 100 179 2 21 13 1256 0.45 1144 0 - - - 0 - - - 13 47 0.50 42 9 1416 2.55 517
4 Wl1 Post Office 100 12 0 100 27 1023 0.44 936 28 708 0.68 584 0 - - - 59 193 0.83 148 32 145 1.16 94
5 NH1 Pkg Lot 100 1 0 90 18 2112 0.66 1761 28 801 0.84 615 31 104 0.13 103 33 208 0.93 152 33 513 0.65 430
6 TN1 CBD 100 26 0 99 15 646 0.41 597 15 662 0.62 562 15 42 0.60 36 15 158 0.52 140 15 315 0.43 289
7 Wl1 Rustler 100 12 0 100 25 1073 0.61 916 26 781 0.69 642 0 - - - 44 121 0.73 98 19 156 0.75 125
8 KS1 IC Metcalf 96 58 - 97 17 1175 0.73 949 0 - - - 6 41 0.33 39 7 - - - 7 465 0.78 368
9 FC1 Norma Pk 91 47 - 45 12 826 0.84 633 12 356 0.46 323 12 11 0.47 10 12 46 1.01 32 12 37 0.88 28
10 Wl1 State Fair 74 29 10 77 8 1656 0.65 1389 12 783 0.50 702 0 - - - 27 409 0.86 310 7 280 0.66 234
Indus. 1 MA2 Addison 100 18 0 69 5 2092 0.49 1879 5 1355 0.29 1301 0 - - - 0 - - - 0 - - -
2 MI1 Indus Drain 100 63 0 64 18 1274 0.57 1107 18 686 0.40 637 6 36 0.53 32 13 116 0.77 92 7 244 0.42 225
3 KS1 Lenaxa 56 72 - 44 12 1385 0.73 1117 0 - - - 5 36 0.24 35 6 - - - 6 2721 3.29 791
4 MI1 Grace S. 52 75 5 39 18 1713 0.56 1493 17 742 0.52 657 7 25 0.65 21 13 115 0.76 92 7 223 0.54 196
 Appendix B

Variable Dictionary

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 64

AC1,SB = Fractional areal coverage of BMP type 1 on subbasin SB.

AC2,SB = Fractional areal coverage of BMP type 2 on subbasin SB.

AC3,SB = Fractional areal coverage of BMP type 3 on subbasin SB.

AC4,SB = Fractional areal coverage of BMP type 4 on subbasin SB.

AC5,SB = Fractional areal coverage of BMP type 5 on subbasin SB.

CI = Pervious area runoff coefficient.

CP = Impervious area runoff coefficient.

CSO = annual CSO pollution load generated from the CSO subarea.

CSOMASS = annual CSO pollution load discharged from the CSO subarea.

CSOREM = percent of annual pollution load captured by the control alternative.

CV = Coefficient of variation (standard deviation/mean).

EMCL = Event mean concentration of runoff from land use L (mg/L). EMCL varies
by land use and by pollutant.

EMC(High,Low) = Event mean concentration for a given probability of exceedance.

IMPL = Fractional imperviousness of land use L.

I = Long-term average annual precipitation (in/yr).

K = 0.2266, a unit conversion constant.

MASS = Annual nonpoint pollution load washed off the watershed (lbs/yr).

ML = Loading factor for land use L (lb/ac/yr).

PL,SB = Percent of annual nonpoint pollution load captured in subbasin SB by

application of five BMP types on land use L.

REM1 = Removal efficiency of BMP type 1. REM1 varies by pollutant type but not
by land use.

REM2 = Removal efficiency of BMP type 2. REM2 varies by pollutant type but not
by land use.

REM3 = Removal efficiency of BMP type 3. REM3 varies by pollutant type but not
by land use.

REM4 = Removal efficiency of BMP type 4. REM4 varies by pollutant type but not
by land use.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 65

REM5 = Removal efficiency of BMP type 5. REM5 varies by pollutant type but not
by land use.

RL = Total average annual surface runoff from land use L (in/yr).

T = Median value.

U = Log mean (base e).

Z = Standardized normal deviate.

W = Log standard deviation (base e).

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 66

 Appendix C

Sample Application

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 67

To create a sample scenario, enter the Scenario Manager Module of WMM for Windows. Click
on the New button found next to the Scenario Name and Description box when the box is
highlighted. Enter the desired scenario name and description in the appropriate locations.

To create the land use file, click on the New button found next to the land use types data files
when the list is highlighted. Default impervious percentages will appear, as shown in Figure C-1.
These default land use types and percent impervious values will be used for this modeling
exercise. Enter the desired name and description of this data set and click Save to return to the
Scenario Manager 1 Screen.

To create the parameters file, click on the New button found next to the parameters file list when
the list is highlighted. A list of default parameters will appear, as shown in Figure C-2. Enter the
desired name and description for this file. For this modeling exercise, the following parameters
will be used: BOD, TSS, Total Phosphorus, Dissolved Phosphorus, TKN, NO3+NO2-N, Lead,
Copper, Zinc, Cadmium and Fecal Coliform. To remove the undesired parameters from the
parameter set, click on the Add/Delete button. Remove the undesired parameters by highlighting
the undesired parameter in the User Parameter Set list and clicking on the left arrow button, as
shown in Figure C-3. After all the needed changes are made, click Save to return to the
Parameter Set Information Screen, then click Save again to return to the Scenario Manager 1
Screen.

Figure C-1
Land Use Set Information

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 68

 Figure C-2
Parameter Set Information

Figure C-3
Add/Delete Parameters

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 69

To create the watershed file, click the New button found next to the watershed data file list when
the file list is highlighted. Enter the desired file name and description in the appropriate locations.
Next, enter the subbasin name and jurisdiction, in the appropriate locations. Next, enter acreage
totals for each land use type for the subarea. These values can be found in Figure C-4, which
shows a completed WMM for Windows screen for this first subarea. Notice that as the acreage
numbers for each land use are entered, the total acres are automatically calculated in the acres box
to the left of the land use acreage breakdown. For this modeling exercise, a delivery ratio of one
will be used. Enter this value in the appropriate location. Click on the box located next to the
words septic impact to activate this option. Notice that the three residential land use types appear
with default percent area values of zero. None of the residential areas located within subbasin
3205 Livonia are served by septic systems, so these values are left as zero. Although not
necessary for this subbasin, a default septic failure rate of eleven percent may be entered in
decimal format (e.g. 0.11 equals 11%). After all of the data for this first subbasin are entered,
click on the Add button to add one additional subbasin. All of the required data for the second
subbasin are shown in Figure C-5 Click the Save button to save these entries.

To create the hydrologic data file for this scenario, click on New found next to the hydrologic
data file list when the file list is highlighted. Enter the desired file name, file description, and the
hydrologic parameter data given in Figure C-6. Click Save to return to the Scenario Manager 1
Screen.

Figure C-4
Subbasin 3205 - Livonia

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 70

 Figure C-5
Subbasin 3228 - Redford Twp.

Figure C-6
Hydrologic Data

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 71

To create the EMC file for this scenario, click on New button found next to the EMC mean
values file list when the file list is highlighted. A screen (Figure C-7) will appear with the EMC
values that were originally defined in the Default Manager. These values are approprate for this
modeling excercise so no changes are necessary. Enter the desired file name and description and
click Save to return to the Scenario Manager 1 Screen.

Figure C-7
EMC Data
To create the baseflow parameter concentrations file for this scenario, click on the New button
found next to the file list when it is highlighted. Enter the desired file name and description and
then enter the concentrations for each parameter, as shown in Figure C-8. Note that the fecal
coliform base flow value is actually a concentration of 300 counts per 100 mL multiplied by a
conversion factor of 4,535,000. Click Save to return to Scenario Manager - 1.

To create the suspended fraction file for this scenario, click on the New button which appears
next to the file list when the list is highlighted. The default suspended fraction values for each
parameter and land use will automatically be shown in this table, so no data needs to be entered in
this screen except for the desired file name and description. Although suspended fraction data are
needed to run the model, these data will not affect the results of this sample scenario because
delivery ratio values of one were input in the Watershed file. Click Save to return to the Scenario
Manager - 1 screen.

To create the septic tank loading failure rates file, click on the New button located next to the file
list when the list is highlighted. Enter the desired file name and description and click Save to
return to the Scenario Manager - 1 screen. No additional input is required for this file because the
data from the default manager are automatically entered as the default values.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 72

 Figure C-8
Baseflow Data

After creating the septic tank loading failure rates file, click the Next button to move on to
Scenario Manager - 2. Click the box next to Medium to select the loading factor type in the
Uncertainty Analysis Section.

Click on the box next to “Include CSOs” to activate this option. Click the New button to create
the CSO concentration data set file. Enter the desired file name and description in the appropriate
location. For this modeling exercise, subbasin 3228-Redford Township contains CSOs. Highlight
this subbasin and click on the right arrow button to move this subarea to the selected subbasin list.
Click on the Save button.

After adding subbasin 3228-Redford Township to the selection list and saving the file, a screen
will appear allowing you to enter the CSO flow and pollutant concentrations. The data required
for this CSO are shown in Figure C-9. Remember that the value entered for Fecal Coliform is
actually a concentration of 1,000,000 in counts per 100 mL multiplied by a conversion factor of
4,535,000.

Click on the box next to “Include BMPs” to activate this option. Click the New button to create
the BMP Types data set file. A list of default BMPs will appear. After entering a file name and
description in the appropriate locations, click the Add/Delete button to select the BMPs desired
for this sample application. Remove all BMPs but the Extended Dry Detention BMP from the
User BMP Types Set List to create a screen that looks like the one shown in Figure C-10. Click
Save to return to the previous screen, then click Save again to return to the Scenario Manager - 2
Screen.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 73

 Figure C-9
CSO Concentrations

Figure C-10
BMP Types

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 74

To create the BMP removal rates file, click on the New button located next to the file list when
the list is highlighted. Enter the desired file name and description in the appropriate locations and
click Save to return to the Scenario Manager - 2 screen. No additional input is required for this
file because the BMP pollutant removal rates from the Default Manager are automatically entered
as the default values.

To create the BMP spatial extent file, click on the New button located next to the file list when it
is highlighted. Enter the desired file name and description in the appropriate locations. For this
modeling exercise, the extended dry detention BMP will be applied to a portion of subarea 3205
Livonia. The percentage of area covered for each land use category may be found in Table C.1.
In WMM, enter each percentage by moving each appropriate land use category to the list on the
right and entering the percent coverage in decimal format (e.g. 0.25 equals 25 percent.) After all
desired coverages have been entered, click the Save button located at the bottom of the screen to
return to the Scenario Manager - 2 screen To verify your entries, click on the View/Edit button
to obtain a listing of the entries, as shown in Figure C-11. To view the percent coverage for each
land use, click on the land use to highlight it. Click Save to Save changes or Cancel to return to
the Scenario Manager - 2 screen if no changes were made.

Table C.1
Area Served by Extended Dry Detention
Land Use Type Percent of Area Served by BMP
Medium Density Residential 10%
Commercial 13%
Industrial 75%
Highway 21%

Figure C-11
BMP Spatial Extent

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 75

Click on the box next to Include Point Sources to activate this option. Click on the New button
to create the Point Source data set file. For this exercise, there will be one point source pollutant
source located within subbasin 3205 - Livonia. Enter the desired file name and description in the
appropriate locations and add Subbasin 3205 - Livonia to the selected subbasin list by highlighting
this subbasin and clicking on the right arrow button. Click Save to obtain the screen that allows
point source pollutant loads to be entered. The required values are shown in Figure C-12. Click
Save to return to return to the Scenario Manager - 2 screen.

Figure C-12
Point Sources

Click on the box next to Include CSO Controls to activate this option. Click on the New button
to create the CSO Controls data set file. Click on the Add button to add a new CSO control.
When prompted, enter the name “Phase II CSO Basin” and click on Save. Add this new CSO
control to the selected CSO controls list by highlighting the control and clicking on the right
arrow button. Note that Sewer Separation is also listed as a control in this column. Although
sewer separation will not be a control used in this subbasin, it must remain in the selected CSO
controls list. Click Save to retain these selections and to obtain the screen that allows entry of
pollutant load reductions expected from the selected controls. The required values are shown in
Figure C-13. Remember to enter percent reductions as decimal values (e.g. 0.25 equals 25
percent.) Note that no changes are needed to the Sewer Separation control option. Default values
of zero are automatically entered for all CSO controls and since sewer separation will not be used
in this subarea, no reductions of will be achieved by this control. Click the Add/Delete button to
add subbasin 3228 Redford Twp. to the list of subbasins controlled by the Phase II CSO Basin.
Click Save to return to the Scenario Manager - 2 screen.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 76

 Figure C-13
CSO Controls
After all of the data described in the previous pages have been entered, save this scenario
combination by clicking on the Save Scenario button found at the bottom of the Scenario
Manager - 2 screen.

The model is not ready to be run. You may execute the model by clicking on the Run Model
button located at the bottome of the Scenario Manager - 2 screen. When prompted, enter the
desired model run output name and description and click the OK button. When the model run is
completed, output will appear like that shown in Table C.2 (if all data were entered correctly
during the model setup.)

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 77

 Table C.2: Output for Sample Data Set

DCIA
Drainage Area Loading Storm Storm Water with Total with
Name Jurisdiction Area (acres) (acres) %DCIA Factor Parameter Units Water Base Flow Point Source CSO Total BMP Controls Controls %Reduction

3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium RunOff (ac-ft/yr) 881 459 594 0 1,933 881 0 1,933 0.0
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium BOD (lbs/yr) 66,364 3,184 4,744 0 74,292 58,356 0 66,284 10.8
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium TSS (lbs/yr) 272,104 37,971 17,280 0 327,356 136,115 0 191,367 41.5
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium TP (lbs/yr) 916 112 81 0 1,110 808 0 1,002 9.7
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium DP (lbs/yr) 405 75 52 0 531 405 0 531 0.0
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium TKN (lbs/yr) 5,735 1,261 992 0 7,988 5,273 0 7,526 5.8
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium NO23 (lbs/yr) 4,202 999 501 0 5,702 4,202 0 5,702 0.0
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium Pb (lbs/yr) 152 4 2 0 158 92 0 98 38.1
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium Cu (lbs/yr) 107 4 4 0 115 72 0 80 30.8
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium Zn (lbs/yr) 1,029 5 137 0 1,171 700 0 842 28.1
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium Cd (lbs/yr) 10 0 2 0 13 6 0 9 32.6
3205 Livonia 888 307 34.6 medium F-Coli (lbs/yr)
89,788,416,022,332
1,698,777,867,309 0 91,487,193,889,641
0 80,708,133,803,791 82,406,911,671,100
0 9.9

3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 RunOff (ac-ft/yr) 0 156 0 65 221 0 31 186 15.6
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 BOD (lbs/yr) 0 1,081 0 11,664 12,745 0 5,249 6,330 50.3
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 TSS (lbs/yr) 0 12,889 0 47,188 60,078 0 20,291 33,180 44.8
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 TP (lbs/yr) 0 38 0 207 245 0 93 131 46.4
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 DP (lbs/yr) 0 25 0 55 80 0 26 51 36.2
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 TKN (lbs/yr) 0 428 0 470 898 0 216 644 28.3
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 NO23 (lbs/yr) 0 339 0 143 482 0 67 406 15.7
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 Pb (lbs/yr) 0 1 0 2 4 0 1 2 35.6
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 Cu (lbs/yr) 0 1 0 5 6 0 2 4 43.5
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 Zn (lbs/yr) 0 2 0 18 20 0 8 10 50.7
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 Cd (lbs/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38.6
3228 Redford Twp. 302 72 24.0 F-Coli (lbs/yr) 576,654,433,638
0 801,490,528,251,337
0 802,067,182,684,975 144,268,300,817,948
0 144,844,955,251,585 81.9
 Appendix D

Sample Output Reports

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 79

 Table D.1: Standard Report

DCIA
Drainage Area Loading Storm Storm Water with CSOs with Total with
Name Jurisdiction Area (acres) (acres) %DCIA Factor Parameter Units Water Base Flow Point Source CSO Total BMP Controls Controls Controls %Reduction

3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 RunOff (ac-ft/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 BOD lbs/yr 0 0 0 20 20 0 20 20 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 TSS lbs/yr 0 2 0 81 84 0 81 84 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 TP lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 DP lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 TKN lbs/yr 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 NO23 lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 Pb lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 Cu lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 Zn lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 Cd lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Livonia 0 0 17.4 F-Coli counts/yr 0 313 1,381,925,014,153
0 1,381,925,014,466 1,381,925,014,153
0 1,381,925,014,466 0.0

3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 RunOff (ac-ft/yr) 37 31 0 0 69 37 0 69 0.0

3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 BOD lbs/yr 0 217 0 2,300 2,517 0 2,300 2,517 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 TSS lbs/yr 0 2,584 0 9,373 11,956 0 9,373 11,956 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 TP lbs/yr 0 8 0 41 49 0 41 49 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 DP lbs/yr 0 5 0 11 16 0 11 16 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 TKN lbs/yr 0 86 0 93 179 0 93 179 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 NO23 lbs/yr 0 68 0 28 96 0 28 96 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 Pb lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 Cu lbs/yr 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 Zn lbs/yr 0 0 0 4 4 0 4 4 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 Cd lbs/yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
3201 Redford Twp. 60 11 18.2 F-Coli counts/yr 0 376,421 159,197,761,630,462
0 159,197,762,006,882 159,197,761,630,462
0 159,197,762,006,882 0.0

3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium RunOff (ac-ft/yr) 142 133 0 0 275 142 0 275 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium BOD lbs/yr 10,796 920 0 0 11,716 10,796 0 11,716 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium TSS lbs/yr 27,030 10,973 0 0 38,003 27,030 0 38,003 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium TP lbs/yr 156 32 0 0 189 156 0 189 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium DP lbs/yr 79 22 0 0 101 79 0 101 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium TKN lbs/yr 971 364 0 0 1,335 971 0 1,335 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium NO23 lbs/yr 592 289 0 0 880 592 0 880 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium Pb lbs/yr 19 1 0 0 20 19 0 20 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium Cu lbs/yr 10 1 0 0 11 10 0 11 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium Zn lbs/yr 55 1 0 0 57 55 0 57 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium Cd lbs/yr 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0.0
3202 Redford Twp. 256 39 15.4 medium F-Coli counts/yr
27,853,384,263,390 1,598,458 0 27,853,385,861,847
0 27,853,384,263,390 27,853,385,861,847
0 0.0

3203 Livonia 0 0 3.6 medium RunOff (ac-ft/yr) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0

 Table D.2: Subarea Loads by Pollutant

BOD (lbs/yr)

Point % Change from

Name Jurisdiction % DCIA Storm Water Baseflow Source CSO Total Existing with
Phase II CSO
Controls
3201 Livonia 17 0 0 0 9 9 -55

3201 Redford Twp. 18 0 217 0 1,035 1,252 -50

3202 Redford Twp. 15 10,796 920 0 0 11,716 0

3203 Livonia 4 1 0 0 0 2 0

3203 Redford Twp. 17 23,702 1,972 0 0 25,674 0

3204 Farmington Hills 35 306 18 0 0 324 0

3204 Livonia 18 67,305 4,610 0 0 71,915 0

3204 Redford Twp. 20 19 1 0 0 21 0

3205 Livonia 17 37,996 3,200 258 0 41,453 0

3205 Redford Twp. 43 16 1 0 0 16 0

3206 Farmington 21 14,721 986 0 0 15,707 0

3206 Farmington Hills 9 20,630 2,139 0 0 22,769 0

3206 Livonia 18 33,777 2,313 0 0 36,090 0

3207 Livonia 18 49,981 3,467 0 0 53,448 0

3208 Livonia 24 93,623 5,667 0 0 99,289 0

3209 Farmington 42 26 1 0 0 27 0

3209 Farmington Hills 15 96 12 0 0 109 0

3209 Livonia 14 76,726 6,409 0 0 83,134 0

3210 Livonia 17 61,558 4,340 0 0 65,898 0

3211 Farmington 12 10,165 1,100 0 0 11,265 0

3211 Farmington Hills 10 26,393 3,557 0 0 29,950 0

3212 Livonia 15 50,145 4,095 0 0 54,239 0

3213 Farmington 18 7,105 590 0 0 7,695 0

3213 Farmington Hills 22 57,591 4,939 0 0 62,530 0

3213 Novi 12 2,124 351 0 0 2,475 0

3214 Farmington Hills 6 21,215 3,334 0 0 24,549 0

3214 Livonia 6 1,173 313 0 0 1,486 0

3215 Farmington Hills 3 3,954 496 0 0 4,449 0

 Table D.3: Multiple Scenario by Pollutant

Upper 2 Existing Existing with Phase II CSO Controls

Parameter Units % Change from

Total Total Upper 2 Existing

Runoff ac-ft/yr 26,123 26,123 0

BOD lbs/yr 1,109,131 1,078,937 -3

Cd lbs/yr 133 132 -1

Cu lbs/yr 1,166 1,154 -1

DP lbs/yr 9,143 9,008 -1

F-Coli counts/yr 6,233,704,815,364,508 3,049,556,973,688,836 -51

NO23 lbs/yr 84,914 84,558 0

Pb lbs/yr 1,872 1,865 0

TKN lbs/yr 122,959 121,758 -1

TP lbs/yr 18,087 17,551 -3

TSS lbs/yr 4,156,708 4,029,816 -3

Zn lbs/yr 7,433 7,385 -1

 Table D.4
Bar Chart Run Comparison

4500000

4000000

3500000
Loading (lbs/yr)

3000000

2500000

2000000

1500000

1000000

500000

0
Existing with Phase II CSO Controls Upper 2 Existing

Baseflow Point Source CSO Storm Water

 Appendix E

Importing WMM Version 3.30 Data Files

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 84

The user may import data from WMM Version 3.30 using tools provided in the Scenario
Manager portion of WMM for Windows. Version 3.30 spreadsheet files containing
EMC, land use, BMP, imperviousness and hydrologic data may be imported for use in
WMM for Windows.

To import old data files, enter the scenario manager. Note that it is easiest to import data
files in the same order as the buttons are shown in Scenario Manager. Click on the New
button located to the left of the Landuse Types file list to begin the import exercise. After
entering a new scenario name and description, select the Import from Version 3.30 option
when prompted, and click the OK button to continue. The user will be asked to locate
the WMM 3.30 land use data file by clicking the Browse button and selecting the proper
file location, as shown in Figure E-1. Click the Open button once you have chosen the
proper file and then click the Import File button to continue. Note that it is important that
the spreadsheet file to be imported is in the original format required to run WMMJ
Version 3.30. A sample of this format is shown in Figure E-2.

Figure E-1
Land Use Import

Once the file has been opened, the user may be prompted to match landuse types from the
Version 3.30 data file to the default land use types found in WMM for Windows (as
shown in Figure E-3.) The user may assign the old land use type to one of the default
values by clicking on the desired default value and clicking on the Next button. If there
is not an appropriate WMM for Windows default land use type available for the old land
use type, the user should click the Next button without selecting any of the default land
use types. This will allow the WMM 3.30 land use type name to become a WMM for
Windows land use type. The user will continue to be prompted to match all WMM 3.30
land use type names until all unmatching land use type names have been assigned to
default values or have been added to the data base. After all matches have been made,
enter a name and description for the Land Use Set Information and click Save to retain
your new data set.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 85

 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL
VERSION 3.30

Percent Impervious Edit File

Percent
Land Use Impervious

Forest/Open 0.5%
Agricultural/Pasture 0.5%
Cropland 0.5%
Low Density Single Fam. 10.0%
Med. Density Single Fam. 30.0%
High Density Single Fam. 50.0%
Commercial 90.0%
Office/Lt. Industrial 70.0%
Heavy Industrial 80.0%
Water 100.0%
Wetlands 100.0%
Major Roads 90.0%
Optional Land Use #1 0.0%
Optional Land Use #2 0.0%
Optional Land Use #3 0.0%

Figure E-2
WMM Version 3.30 Sample Land Use File
 Figure E-3
Select Landuse Types from Defaults
After the land use data set has been imported, continue building your new scenario by
importing the watershed data used in WMM Version 3.30. Click the New button located
next to the Watershed file lists, select the Import from Version 3.30 option and locate the
desired file. (A sample of this file format is shown in Figure E-4.) The user will be
prompted to match land use type names to WMM land use type defaults, similar to the
way the user was prompted when importing the imperviousness data. It is important that
the same land use names are used so that the data sets are compatible. After matched
have been created for the land use data, the user will be asked if he wishes to import
septic failure impact data. Select yes if your file contains these data or no if this
information is not contained in your WMM Version 3.30 file. If the user selects yes to
import septic impact data, he will be prompted to identify the land use types affected by
septics, as shown in Figure E-5. After the desired land use types affected by septics are
selected, click ok to complete the import. Once the data have been imported, the

Figure E-5
Areas Affected by Failing Septic Systems

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 87

 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL
VERSION 3.30

LAND USE MODULE

LAND USE FILE NAME: LUEXAM

Number of Sub-basins: 3
Subbasin Range Name: SB1 SB2 SB3

LAND USE SCENARIO: EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING

SUBBASIN NAME: WATERSHED 1 WATERSHED 2 WATERSHED 3
JURISDICTION: YOUR COUNTY YOUR COUNTY YOUR COUNTY

Land Use Category Acres Acres Acres

Forest/Open 250 500 0

Agricultural/Pasture 100 500 0
Cropland 100 0 0
Low Density Single Fam. 300 0 0
Med. Density Single Fam. 0 0 0
High Density Single Fam. 0 0 300
Commercial 100 0 500
Office/Light Industrial 0 0 50
Heavy Industrial 50 0 150
Water 100 0 0
Wetlands 0 0 0
Major Roads 0 0 0
Optional Land Use #1 0 0 0
Optional Land Use #2 0 0 0
Optional Land Use #3 0 0 0

Total 1,000 1,000 1,000

Delivery Ratio 100% 100% 100%

Septic Tank Failure Data
Ann. Septic Failure Rate 15.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Septic Failure Impact Area 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Figure E-4
WMM Version 3.30 Sample Watershed Data File
Watershed Information screen will appear and the user must enter the desired watershed
name and description. At this point, data imported should be reviewed to confirm it’s
correct importation. Once the data have been reviewed, click Save to return to the
Scenario Manager screen.

Similar steps must be taken to import the remaining WMM Version 3.30 data, including
the hydrologic data, EMC mean value data, base flow parameter concentrations,
suspended fraction data, septic loading data, BMP data, and point source data. Sample
file formats for the WMM Version 3.30 data are shown in Figures E-6 through E-9.
Figure E-6 shows the first page of the file containing the data for the hydrologic,
baseflow, suspended fraction and point source data inputs. Consequently, this file is also
the main file for WMM Version 3.30 containing the macros used to run the model, and is
usually named npl.wk1. An example file format for the EMC mean values is shown in
Figure E-7 and an example file format for the septic tank failure loading rates and BMP
data sets can be found in Figures E-8 and E-9, respectively.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 89

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL
VERSION 3.30

NONPOINT POLLUTION LOADING MODULE

developed by
CAMP DRESSER & McKEE

MAY, 1994

Figure E-6
WMM Version 3.30 Sample NPL File
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL

MEAN EMCS

mg/L
Oxygen Demand & Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals
Land Use BOD COD TSS TDS TP DP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd

Forest/Open 8.0 51 216 100 0.23 0.06 1.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Agriculture/Pasture 8.0 51 216 100 0.23 0.06 1.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cropland 8.0 51 216 100 0.23 0.06 1.36 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Low Density Single Family 10.8 83 140 100 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.002
Medium Density Single Family 10.8 83 140 100 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.002
High Density Single Family 10.8 83 140 100 0.47 0.16 2.35 0.96 0.18 0.05 0.18 0.002
Commercial 9.7 61 91 100 0.24 0.10 1.28 0.63 0.13 0.04 0.33 0.002
Office/Light Industrial 9.7 61 91 100 0.24 0.10 1.28 0.63 0.13 0.04 0.33 0.002
Heavy Industrial 9.7 61 91 100 0.24 0.10 1.28 0.63 0.13 0.04 0.33 0.002
Water 3.3 17 7 100 0.03 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.000
Wetlands 3.3 17 7 100 0.03 0.01 0.60 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.000
Major Roads 9.7 103 142 100 0.44 0.17 1.78 0.83 0.53 0.05 0.37 0.002
Optional Land Use #1 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Optional Land Use #2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Optional Land Use #3 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION

Oxygen Demand & Sediment Nutrients Heavy Metals

BOD COD TSS TDS TP SP TKN NO23 Pb Cu Zn Cd
Land Use CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV CV
Forest/Open 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Agriculture/Pasture 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Cropland 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Low Density Single Family 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8
Medium Density Single Family 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8
High Density Single Family 0.4 0.6 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.8
Commercial 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Office/Light Industrial 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Heavy Industrial 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Water 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Wetlands 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1
Major Roads 0.7 0.7 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.1 0.7 0.8 2.0 0.9 1.4 1.4
Optional Land Use #1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Optional Land Use #2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Optional Land Use #3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Figure E-7
WMM Verison 3.30 Sample Mean EMC File
 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT MODEL
Version 3.30b
Septic Tank Failure Loading Rate Multipliers

NUTRIENTS TP DP TKN NO2&NO3

LDSF & MDSF: MEDIUM 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0

LDSF & MDSF: HIGH 3.3 3.3 3.0 3.0
LDSF & MDSF: LOW 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5

ODS BOD COD TSS TDS

LDSF & MDSF: MEDIUM 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

LDSF & MDSF: HIGH 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
LDSF & MDSF: LOW 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

METALS LEAD CU ZINC CD

LDSF & MDSF: MEDIUM 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

LDSF & MDSF: HIGH 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
LDSF & MDSF: LOW 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

NOTE: These multipliers are applied to —_Large Lot Single Family˜, —_Low Density Single Family˜,
and —_Low-Medium Density Single Family˜ residential areas.

Figure E-8
WMM Version 3.30 Sample Septic Impact File
 Constituent RETENTION EXTENDED DRY WET DETENTION BMP4 BMP5
BOD 90% 30% 30% 0% 0%
BMP COVERAGE DATABASE COD 90% 30% 30% 0% 0%
TSS 90% 90% 90% 0% 0%
WATERSHED: TDS 90% 0% 40% 0% 0%
BMP COVERAGE FILE: BMPEXAM Total-P 90% 30% 50% 0% 0%
LAND USE FILE NAME: LUEXAM.WK1 Dissolved-P 90% 0% 70% 0% 0%
SCENARIO: EXISTING TKN 90% 20% 30% 0% 0%
NO—d2˜ + NO—d3 90% 0% 30% 0% 0%
Number of sub-basins: 3 Lead 90% 80% 80% 0% 0%
Copper 90% 60% 70% 0% 0%
Zinc 90% 50% 50% 0% 0%
Cadmium 90% 80% 80% 0% 0%

SB1 SB2
Scenario Scenario
WATERSHED 1 WATERSHED 2
YOUR COUNTY YOUR COUNTY

Land Use BMP1 BMP2 BMP3 BMP4 BMP5 RETENTION EXTENDED DRY WET DETENTION BMP4 BMP5

Forest/Open 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Agricultural/Pasture 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Cropland 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Low Density Single Family 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Medium Density Single Family 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
High Density Single Family 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Commercial 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Office/Light Industrial 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Heavy Industrial 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Water 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Wetlands 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Major Roads 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Optional Landuse #1 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Optional Landuse #2 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Optional Landuse #3 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Figure E-9
WMM Version 3.30 Sample BMP File
 Appendix F

WMMAV Application User’s Guide

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 94

WMMAV is an application developed using ESRI’s ArcView 3.1 GIS software to
spatially display data generated by the WMM for Windows model. WMMAV connects
directly to the WMM database and allows display of stored model output. All that is
required to run WMMAV is ArcView 3.1, WMM for Windows 4.1 and a polygon theme
containing the delineated basin areas which are being modeled. The source of the
polygon theme can include any ArcView compatible spatial data including shape files,
ArcInfo coverages, CAD drawings or Map Info Interchange Format files.

Note: Use of WMMAV assumes a working knowledge of ArcView and an understanding

of the basic concepts of themes, attribute tables and polygon topology.

WMMAV Operation

WMMAV may be started directly from WMM by clicking the ArcView Map button
located in Output Manager or by starting ArcView and loading the wmmav.apr project
file. WMM does not have to be running to use WMMAV.

When initially loaded, WMMAV presents the user with the standard ArcView interface
window (Figure F-1) to which has been added 5 buttons and 1 tool through which
WMMAV is implemented.

Custom Tool

Custom Buttons

Figure F-1

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 95

Initial Theme Setup

In order to connect an ArcView polygon theme containing the delineated basin areas that
are being modeled to associated WMM model output, a new field must be added to the
theme’s attribute table. This new field, Subareaid, serves as a link between the theme and
the WMM output data.

To add the Subareaid field to the theme attribute table:

1. Open ArcView and add the basin theme to a View and set it active.

2. Click the Add Subareaid Field button to add the Subareaid field to the active
theme’s attribute table.

After adding the Subareaid field to the theme’s attribute table, the field must be populated
with subarea ID values. The subarea ID values consists of the basin name concatenated
with “/” and the jurisdiction. The basin name and jurisdiction are as entered in WMM for
each basin. All entries must be made in uppercase.

Example:

Basin name = 1234

Jurisdiction = Northville

Subarea ID = 1234/NORTHVILLE

To populate the Subareaid field, open the theme’s attribute table, select Start Editing
from the Table menu, add the subarea ID values to the Subareaid field and then select
Stop Editing from the Table menu and click OK to save edits.

Theme/Watershed Association

Once a theme has had the Subareaid field added and populated it needs to be associated
with a WMM watershed.

To associate an ArcView theme with a WMM watershed click the button which will
display the Watershed -Theme Association window (Figure F-2).

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 96

From the Watershed list
box, select the
watershed that you wish
to associate and click
the Select Theme button
which will display the
Select Theme window
(Figure F-3).

Figure F-2

From the Select

Theme window move
to the file of the theme
you wish to associate
to the selected
watershed and click
OK which will display
the Enter Theme
Display Name input
window (Figure F-4).

Figure F-3

The user has the

option of entering a
more meaningful
theme name that will
be used in the
ArcView View table
of contents or of
accepting the default Figure F-4
file name.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 97

After the theme display name
information has been entered and
the user clicks the OK button, the
Theme/Watershed Association
Info window (Figure F-5) is
displayed showing the newly
added association information.
To accept the association click
OK, to undo the association,
click the Cancel button.

Once the association is accepted,

WMMAV is ready to display
WMM model output data. Figure F-5

Associations are stored in the ArcView table wshedlu and can be viewed, edited or
deleted by working directly with the table.

Displaying WMM Output Data

The first step in displaying WMM output data is to select the WMM output run

you wish to display. This is done by clicking the button on the ArcvView View
button bar, which will display the Select WMM Output window (Figure F-6).

Select the desired WMM output

run from the list box and click
the OK button.

Figure F-6

The WMM Model

Output Theme
Association window
(Figure F-7) will be
displayed showing
the current theme
association
information. Click
OK to continue. Figure F-7

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 98

If the associated theme is not already in the View you will be prompted asking if you
would like it added to the current View.

The and buttons determine what data will be displayed. Clicking the
button displays the select basin property selection list (Figure F-8).

Form this window the user

can select basin property
data such as % DCIA,
Acres, Base Flow, etc. to
display. Selecting a
property and clicking OK
will cause a map to be
displayed with basins Figure F-8
color-coded based on the
selected property range values.

Clicking the button will display the Parameter Selection window (Figure F-9).

The Parameter Selection

window allows the user to
select a parameter of interest.
Selecting a parameter and
clicking the OK button will
display the Load Selection
window (Figure F-10).
Figure F-9

From the Load Selection

window the user can select
the type of load they wish to
display such as base load,
CSO load, surface load, etc.
Selecting a load type and
Figure F-10
clicking OK will cause a map
to be displayed with basins
color-coded based on the selected load range values.

Displaying Basin Information

Once a map is displayed showing the selected property or load values, the Show Basin
Info tool will display additional basin information based upon the current map.

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 99

Selecting the the Show Basin Info tool and clicking on a basin while the basin
property map is displayed will display the Basin Property Information window (Figure F-
11).

Clicking on additional basins will cause the

values in the information window to update
dynamically.

Figure F-11

Similarly, selecting the Show Basin Info tool

and clicking on a basin while the basin load
map is displayed will display the Basin Load
Information window (Figure F-12).

Clicking on additional basins will cause the

values in the information window to update
dynamically.

Figure F-12

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee 100