United States Environmental
Protection
Agency
Great Lakes National
Program Office
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
EPA-905/9-84-002
vvEPA
HANDBOOK
a management technique for choosing
among point and nonpoint control strategies'
-------
Acknowledgements
This handbook was prepared as part of an Inter-
agency Agreement (AD-85-F-0-061-0) between the
Great Lakes National Program Office of the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency and the Great Lakes
Basin Commission staff. Funding for the work was pri-
marily derived from the Great Lakes National Pro-
gram Office. The Soil Conservation Service (U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture) and the Great Lakes Environ-
mental Research Laboratory (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration) also cooperated in the
handbook preparation. The Great Lakes Environmen-
tal Research Laboratory, in cooperation with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, is pleased to make
this handbook available in the hope that it will lead to
more cost-effective water quality management.
The authors wish to thank the Great Lakes National
Program Office Staff and Don Urban of the Soil Con-
servation Service for their support and guidance
throughout this project. We also wish to acknowledge
Melanie Baise for her support in compiling the appen-
dices, Martha Deline for editing this work, Connie Gill
for her artwork and layout design, and Kelsie Raycroft
and Judy Hall for their secretarial support. Finally, we
thank all of the scientists and government officials
who reviewed the document and offered guidance
throughout the project.
Disclaimer
Funding for development of the WATERSHED
methodology and handbooks by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency does not signify that their content
necessarily reflects the views and policies of the
Agency nor does mention of trade names or commer-
cial products constitute endorsement or recommenda-
tion for use.
Project Officers
Great Lakes National Program Office
Kent Fuller
Great Lakes Basin Commission
Timothy Monteith
-------
HANDBOOK
a management technique for choosing
among point and nonpoint control strategies
By
Timothy J. Monteith
Rose Ann C. Sullivan
Thomas M. Heidtke
Great Lakes Basin Commission Staff
Ann Arbor, Michigan
William C. Sonzogni
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Prepared /or
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
536 South Clark Street, Room 932
Chicago, Illinois 60605
(312)353-2117
August 1981
230 South
Chicago, Illinois
-------
summary
WATERSHED is a simple, "desk top" accounting
system designed to help water quality planners
assess alternative management strategies for con-
trolling point and nonpoint source pollution inputs
from large areas (100 square miles or greater) to a
receiving water. Its goal is to find the best mix of
point and nonpoint source management techniques
to achieve a given load allocation for a receiving
waterbody. It can be used on one or more river ba-
sins at the same time. Through a cost-effectiveness
ranking scheme, WATERSHED identifies the order in
which remedial measures could be implemented to
achieve the greatest annual water quality improve-
ments at the least cost. This handbook presents the
mechanics and background data for using the WA-
TERSHED system.
The WATERSHED process has grown out of work
completed for the International Joint Commission's
Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group
(PLUARG) study and the Great Lakes Basin Commis-
sion's Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study
(GLEPS). As part of these projects an analysis similar
to what is now called WATERSHED was performed
for total phosphorus loads to numerous U.S. tributar-
ies to the Great Lakes. Generally, the magnitude of
the calculated phosphorous load compared quite fa-
vorably with river mouth water quality sampling
data thus encouraging the further development of
this process into WATERSHED.
In WATERSHED eight worksheets provide the
framework for data organization and analysis. Using
the worksheets, the major physical characteristics of
the river basin under study are noted and described
schematically. Then point source loads, urban runoff
loads, and rural noncropland and cropland loads are
calculated for various pollutants under both an in-
itial condition and a control program. The cost of the
control program is computed and a cost-effective-
ness analysis for reducing the pollutant is per-
formed.
In addition to describing the technique, this hand-
book presents guidelines for interpreting and check-
ing results. The primary method of checking the WA-
TERSHED result is to compare the rivermouth (or
sub-basin] pollutant load calculated with that ob-
tained from actual field sampling.
More advanced concepts utilizing WATERSHED
are also discussed. Topics include: 1) study of the bio-
logically available fraction of a pollutant; 2) multiple
objective analysis using linear programming; and 3]
staged or incremental pollutant control strategies.
Various accounting aids including a Fortran com-
puter program are available, but certainly not neces-
sary for the use of WATERSHED. Also, many data
sources and typical river basin data are made avail-
able in the appendices.
II
-------
table of contents
Chapter One
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Chapter Four
Chapter Five
Chapter Six
Introduction to WATERSHED 2
Synopsis of the WATERSHED Process 2
Data Requirements 4
Data Sources 5
How to Use the WATERSHED Process 6
Synopsis 6
Pre-Worksheet Tasks 6
Worksheet 1. Physical Layout 11
Worksheet 2. Urban Point and Nonpoint Loads 12
Worksheet 3. Rural Noncropland Loads 16
Worksheet 4. Rural Cropland Loads 17
Mathematical Models 18
Unit Area Load Approach 18
Universal Soil Loss Equation Method 20
Worksheet 5. Loading Summary 27
Worksheet 6. Control Program Costs 28
Costs for Controlling Nonpoint Sources 29
Costs for Controlling Point Sources 31
Worksheet 7. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis 32
Worksheet 8. Summary of Programs 38
Interpreting and Checking Results 40
River Basin Networks and Load Allocation 44
Advanced Concepts 46
Biological Availability 46
Staged Control Strategies 49
Application of WATERSHED to Various Pollutants 49
Linear Programming 50
Load AllocationsAdvanced Networks 50
Multiobjective Analysis 54
-------
Chapter 7 Accounting Aids . 60
Appendices Table of Contents 62
A. Bibliography and Experts List 64
B. Point Sources: Pollutant Loadings and Controls 70
C. Urban Runoff: Pollutant Loadings and Controls 72
D. Cropland and Other Rural Runoff:
Pollutant Loadings and Controls 84
E. Sandusky River Basin Example 92
F. References 106
G. Users Manual for WATERSHED
Computer Program (Separate Document)
Abbreviations and Conversion Factors back cover
List of Tables 1. Total Phosphorus Unit Area Loads for Rural Land 18
2. Cropland Load Calculation with Sub-Basin Loads Known 22
3. Cropland Load Calculation with River Mouth
Load Known 25
4. Estimation of Technical Assistance Costs for
Implementing Minimum Tillage and Crop Rotation
Program 30
5. General Availability of Phosphorus Derived from
Different Sources 46
List of Figures 1. Sample River Basin 8
2. Schematic Diagram of Sample River Basin 9
3. Example of Transmission Loss Calculation 33
4. Hypothetical River Basin Network 44
5. Example of Staged Pollution Control Strategy 48
-------
chapter one
introduction to WATERSHED
Given today's economic constraints (reduced gov-
ernment spending, inflation and high energy costs),
water quality managers must make decisions and re-
commend actions that will cost-effectively achieve
their objectives. To control pollution problems the
best combination of point and nonpoint water quality
control measures must be selected. This handbook
and the technique it describes will assist the user in
gathering and organizing critical information needed
to quantify pollutant loadings within a given drain-
age area and to subsequently formulate an initial
strategy for cost-effectively reducing these loadings.
WATERSHED is a simple, "desk top" accounting sys-
tem for assessing alternative management strategies
for controlling point and nonpoint source pollution in-
puts (excluding atmospheric inputs) from large areas
(100 square miles or more) to a receiving water. Its
goal is to find the best mix of point and nonpoint
source management techniques to achieve a given
load allocation for a receiving waterbody. It can be
used on one or more river basins at the same time.
Through a cost-effectiveness ranking scheme, WA-
TERSHED identifies the order in which remedial
measures could be implemented to achieve the
greatest annual water quality improvements at the
least cost. This handbook presents the mechanics
and background data for using the WATERSHED sys-
tem.
To do this WATERSHED utilizes information on the
costs and probable load reductions associated with
alternative remedial measures and on the geophysi-
cal and demographic characteristics of a drainage
area. WATERSHED is unique in that it facilitates the
integration of a wide range of technical information
on both point and nonpoint pollution control. While it
allows the user to quantify and apply information
generated from years of research and demonstration
programs, it is not meant to replace proper field
study. WATERSHED is designed to be used for plan-
ning purposes only. It is a tool for making rough as-
sessments of the cost-effectiveness of different pollu-
tion control strategies. It is best used to identify or
screen those pollutant sources that require addi-
tional study. While it is possible to apply the prin-
ciples of WATERSHED on a smaller scale, other
models such as ANSWERS (Beasley et oJ, 1977) or
CREAMS (Knisel, 1980) are more appropriate.
While WATERSHED can be adapted to study nu-
merous pollutants, this handbook is geared primarily
to phosphorus and suspended sediment loadings.
These two pollutants are generally of most concern
to nonpoint source management in North America.
Chapter 5 of the handbook describes modifications
which can be made to accommodate the unique char-
acteristics of other pollutants.
Synopsis of the Watershed Process
The initial step in WATERSHED is to divide the
drainage basin to be studied into a set of relatively
homogeneous sub-basin units. Point and nonpoint pol-
lutant sources within each sub-basin are then identi-
fied and the magnitude of their respective pollutant
inputs estimated. An accounting system is then used
to route the inputs from their point of entry through a
tributary system downstream to a final receiving
water (this process can be performed manually or
-------
-------
with the aid of a computer, as described in Chapter
6).
The magnitude of the pollutant loading reaching a
downstream location may change as a result of
transmission losses (e.g., a reservoir, inland lake or
low-gradient flood plain may retain a percentage of
the load]. These losses are estimated through the ap-
plication of "transmission coefficients" which re-
flect the fraction of material which is transported
through various stretches of the tributary network.
The biologically available fraction of the total pollu-
tant load reaching a downstream receiving water
can also be estimated.
Remedial measures can be compared in terms of
cost per unit reduction in the pollutant load either at
the point of entry to the tributary or at the down-
stream receiving water. This basic "accounting
system" is readily adaptable to various scales of
analysis (100 square miles minimum size) and can be
as general or detailed as the user desires.
Estimates of pollutant loads (when monitoring data
is unavailable) are based on the most recent informa-
tion available. The universal soil loss equation
(USLE) can be used in evaluating the effect of various
management techniques on soil loss from agricultur-
al land. Although there is no precise way to predict
the amount of sediment or other pollutants actually
delivered to a stream from soil loss data, USLE
results can be used indirectly to evaluate loadings
from agricultural land. Direct field measurements
and unit area loads are also used in compiling agri-
cultural loading information.
Eight different worksheets have been developed
for compiling river basin data and making the neces-
sary calculations in the WATERSHED process. These
worksheets provide a simple sequential procedure
for assessing the importance of point and nonpoint
sources of pollution within the river basin. The work-
sheets, in order of use, are listed below:
Worksheet No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Description
Physical Layout
Point and Urban Runoff Loads
Rural Non-Cropland Loads
Rural Cropland Loads
Loading Summary
Control Program Costs
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Summary of Programs
These worksheets are the framework of WATER-
SHED and are described in detail in Chapter 2. The
user should first understand how to utilize and inter-
pret these worksheets before attempting to employ
more advanced techniques such as the computerized
version of WATERSHED.
Data Requirements
In order to apply WATERSHED to a given drainage
area it is necessary to assemble an information pack-
age which describes the geophysical and demograph-
ic characteristics of each sub-basin, the type and
magnitude of point and nonpoint pollution sources
within each area, and the costs and control levels
associated with alternative remedial measures.
Loading data are required for all pollutant sources
identified. Data are needed on existing or current
loads as well as loads expected under different
levels of pollution control. Various techniques are
provided to estimate loads should actual measure-
ments not be available. Special attention is given to
rural runoff pollutant loads. Rural runoff loads are
divided into two categories: cropland and non-crop-
land. Techniques are provided to allow the use of the
universal soil loss equation (if desired) to assist in
calculating loads from cropland runoff. Whenever
-------
possible several options are provided for determin-
ing source loads.
Alternative pollutant control strategies must be
formulated for each major point and nonpoint source
of pollution. For each control strategy a pollutant
load reduction and implementation/operation cost is
calculated.
Other data which may be important to the analysis
include local water quality regulations or con-
straints, information on the biological availability of
the pollutant(s) under study, and location and trap ef-
ficiencies of impoundments located along the tribu-
tary system.
Data Sources
WATERSHED is able to utilize a variety of data
sources for identifying and quantifying both the pol-
lutant loads and the cost of controlling those loads.
Data sources include actual field measurements or
studies conducted on the river basin in question, or
more general data obtained from the literature or
other river basin studies that yield information that
can be applied (after adjustment) to the area under
investigation. Measured (monitored) data are fre-
quently available for municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants. Either the plants themselves or an ap-
propriate regulatory agency can often supply the
loading information and operating cost data. For
other pollutant sources (such as urban runoff and
rural runoff), estimates must frequently be used. A
list of sources to check for measured data is provided
in Appendix A. Data compiled from numerous studies
of point and nonpoint source pollutant loadings and
controls are presented in Appendices B through D.
Information presented is primarily for total phospho-
rus and suspended solids.
-------
chapter two
how to use the WATERSHED process
Synopsis
The worksheets described in this chapter provide
the organizational framework for the WATERSHED
process. By utilizing these worksheets, the cost-effec-
tiveness of different point and nonpoint control
strategies can be compared in a straight-forward
manner. The worksheets are used as follows:
Worksheet 1. After the drainage basin is divided into
sub-basins and schematically diagramed, the pollu-
tant sources are identified and characterized and
entered on the worksheet.
Worksheet 2. Pollutant loads from municipal and in-
dustrial point sources and from urban runoff are
entered. Anticipated loads from each source under
alternative control programs are entered.
Worksheet 3. Pollutant loads from rural noncropland
runoff areas are entered.
Worksheet 4. Pollutant loads from cropland with and
without control programs in effect are estimated and
entered.
Worksheet 5. All loading data (reflecting both exist-
ing conditions and the conditions due to alternative
control programs] from Worksheets 2, 3, and 4 are
summarized.
Worksheet 6. The costs of each control program are
entered.
Worksheet 7. The cost-effectiveness of each control
program is calculated in terms of the cost per unit re-
duction in pollutant load at the river mouth. Pro-
grams are then ranked according to their cost-effec-
tiveness and the least cost strategy for achieving a
specified load reduction is identified.
Worksheet 8. All of the pollution control programs
considered are listed in order of their cost-effective-
ness, and the cumulative pollution reductions and
costs that accrue as the programs are implemented
are entered.
Pre-Worksheet Tasks
Before the worksheets are employed, the drainage
basin must be subdivided into sub-basins and the pol-
lutant sources identified and characterized. This in-
formation is first recorded on a simple map of the
basin, and then diagramed schematically. Another
task is to formulate strategies for reducing pollution
from each source, and to choose a set of strategies
for testing on the worksheets.
Constructing Sub-Basins
The initial step in establishing sub-basins for a
drainage basin is to divide the basin into smaller
river basin units. These may be derived from hydro-
logic maps or other physiographic maps of the
drainage area (for possible data sources see Ap-
pendix A). Each hydrologic unit is then divided into
areas having relatively homogeneous surface soil
texture and topography. These areas are referred to
as "sub-basins" of the drainage basin under study,
-------
-------
Figure 1
Sample River Basin
and are designated by dashed lines on the drainage
basin map (see Figure 1).
If desired, sub-basins may be further partitioned
on the basis of land use intensity (i.e., cropland, pas-
ture, grassland, forest and wetlands) if such data is
available. However, this level of refinement is not
necessary for application of WATERSHED.
[ J URBAN INPUTS
Cj RURAL INPUTS
V7 POINTS OF ENTRY
LAKE
Components of the Sub-Basins
After establishing sub-basin boundaries, it is nec-
essary to identify both the point and nonpoint
sources of pollution within each and to define the
critical characteristics, such as sewered area, land
use, and soil type, of both the urban and rural non-
point sources. This information is needed to accu-
rately assess the magnitude and type of pollutant
loadings and the effect of remedial measures.
Point Source Discharges. All significant point
sources discharging to surface waters of the sub-
basins are identified and each is assigned a number.
The location where the pollutant load from each
point source enters is then shown on the map as a
numbered urban input.
Urban Nonpoint Sources. Urban areas within each
WATERSHED sub-basin are identified and the loca-
tion of each is noted on the map, as shown by the
shaded areas in Figure 1. Within each urban unit, the
separate storm sewered area, the combined sewered
area, and the unsewered area are estimated, and
each of these three sources is assigned a number. For
cities with a population less than 10,000, it is general-
ly sufficient to only identify and number the total ur-
ban area. All these sources are then shown on the
map as numbered urban inputs. The area estimates
will be entered later on Worksheet 1.
Rural Nonpoint Sources. Land remaining after urban
areas have been identified is considered rural land.
It is broken down into two general land use catego-
ries: 1) cropland (row crops, mixed farming, and pas-
ture) and 2) noncropland (grassland, forest, or wet-
lands). Specific land uses within these categories are
examined when calculating loads and control costs.
The area of each in a sub-basin is determined and
each is assigned a number. On the map, the cropland
-------
and noncropland components are shown as a single
entry for rural land, but each component is repre-
sented by its assigned number. It is critical that crop-
land areas be accurately identified and character-
ized, because these areas are generally responsible
for the greatest nonpoint pollutant load per unit area
of rural land and are the focus of rural nonpoint
source control programs. These area estimates will
be entered later on Worksheet 1.
Points of Entry
Once the sub-basin boundaries have been defined
and the major sources of pollutant loadings have
been characterized, the point where each pollutant
load enters the main stream channel is identified and
noted on the map. The WATERSHED methodology as-
sumes that all point and nonpoint pollutant sources
within a given sub-basin enter the main channel at a
discrete position referred to as a "point of entry." In
some cases loadings from several sub-basins may dis-
charge at the same point of entry, as can be seen in
Figure 1 where inputs 1 through 5 from two sub-
basins discharge at point "A."
There is no absolute rule for identifying points of
entry. This step requires sound judgment and a
knowledge of the pollutants under study as well the
physical characteristics of the main stream. In gen-
eral, points of entry correspond to intersections of
feeder streams with the main channel or to positions
upstream and downstream of river features that
could retain material moving downstream (e.g., a res-
ervoir or a low gradient flood plain).
"Transmission coefficients" are assigned to each
stretch of river between points of entry. A trans-
mission coefficient represents the fraction of pollu-
tant load that is transmitted from the upstream to the
downstream end of the river stretch, and allows the
user to account for pollutant losses within the river
system. Their use is discussed with Worksheet 7.
Schematic Diagram
Now a schematic diagram of the drainage basin is
constructed (see Figure 2). On it, the location and
type of pollution sources are listed, and their points
of entry shown. The diagram enables the components
of the drainage basin and their interrelationships to
be more easily conceptualized.
Jackson
Urban
Inputs
3.4
Points
of Entry
Rural
Inputs
3 Point Source
4 Unsewered
Monroe
9 Point Source
10 Separate
Storm sewer
11 Combined sewer
Hamilton
14 Point Source
15 Separate
Storm sewer
Figure 2
Schematic Diagram of
Sample River Basin
Wolf Creek
1 Cropland
2 Noncropland
Rock Creek
5 Cropland
Middle River
6 Cropland
Green Creek
7 Cropland
8 NonCropland
Lower River
12 Cropland
13 NonCropland
-------
Control Strategies
Strategies to reduce pollutant loads are developed
now and one strategy for each source is selected for
testing on the initial set of worksheets for its costs
and effects. (Subsequent worksheet sets may be used
to test additional strategies.) While the example in
this chapter assumes one control program per strate-
gy, the WATERSHED process also allows for strate-
gies that include several incremental control pro-
grams (see Chapter 5, "Advanced Concepts").
To accommodate the need for a variety of mea-
sures tailored to the different conditions that may oc-
cur in one sub-basin, each program in a strategy may
consist of one or more site-specific control measures.
For example, to decrease the pollutant contribution
from a cropland area, several different tillage varia-
tions may be used on individual farms, depending on
factors such as the farmer's preference, type of crop,
and the characteristics of the land.
Considerable judgment is required to formulate
strategies or control programs tailored to individual
situations, so it is important that the water quality
manager understand the control measures and how
they relate to each other.
10
-------
Sample River
Physical Layout
Source
Wolf Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Jackson Municipal, Point
Unsewered
Rock Creek Cropland
Middle River Cropland
Green Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Monroe Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
Combined Sewer
Lower River Cropland
Noncropland
Hamilton Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
TOTAL
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Point
of
entry
A
A
A
A
A
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
Area
(km')
250
250
15
500
250
300
200
25
10
500
50
60
2,410
Surface Features
Soils
Other
Diagram
Urban Rural
|3, 4| V A A^ ( '.2 1
\
7 \^ ^
^\ 5 )
x /
i^\
Y ^
[^1
\.
N.
[ 15 | ^r '
^-^
fry
/
/ ^jflF)
/^- ~""""""""^ /
r"
\7
Worksheet 1 displays the physical characteristics
of the drainage basin. The "Source" column is used
to list each pollutant source identified. Municipal
areas may have several categories of point and non-
point pollutant sources identified on the worksheet:
municipal wastewater treatment plants, industrial
discharges, combined sewered areas, separate
storm-sewered areas, unsewered areas and special
contributors such as construction sites. Rural areas
may have cropland or noncropland pollutant sources
identified.
The next column on Worksheet 1, "Position," is
simply used to identify the location of each source
relative to the other sources with the same numbers
assigned and used in Figures 1 and 2 (lowest number
is assigned to the most upstream source).
In column three, the "points of entry," as identi-
fied in Figures 1 and 2, are listed in ascending alpha-
betical order from upstream to downstream location.
In column four, the drainage areas for all nonpoint
sources are listed. Areas have been expressed in
square kilometers (km2).
Unique surface features that should be noted can
also be indicated on Worksheet 1 in columns five and
six. For example, unusually steep slopes or the de-
gree of industrialization in an urban area can be
noted. It may also be helpful to include the schematic
diagram for the river basin (Figure 2) on this work-
sheet. Various data sources for Worksheet 1 can be
found in Appendix A.
11
-------
Worksheet 2
Point and Urban Runoff Loads
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Jackson
Monroe
Hamilton
CONTROLLED CONDITION
Jackson
Monroe
Hamilton
Column > a2
Position
3,4
9,10,11
14,15
3,4
9,10,11
14,15
b,
c,
Point
Flow
(mgd)
2.0
4.0
6.2
2.0
4.0
6.2
Cone.
(mg/L)
4.0
4.7
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Load
(kg/yr)
11,100
26,000
26,600
2,800
5,500
8,600
d2
e, I f,
Separate Storm
Area
(km>)
25
60
25
60
UAL**
(kg/kmVyr)
250
250
190
190
Load
(kg/yr)
6,200
15,000
4,800
11,400
s>
h,
i,
Combined
Area
(km2)
10
10
UAL**
(kg/km'/yr)
900
850
Load
(kg/yr)
9,000
8,500
i,
k,
i,
Unsewered*
Area
(km')
15
15
UAL**
(kg/km!/yr)
250
250
_ _ _
Load
(kg/yr)
3,750
3,750
-
Worksheet 2 is used to compile and organize load-
ing information for all of the identified urban sources
of pollution. Whenever possible, measured data from
properly designed sampling programs should be used
to determine the loads from urban sources. However,
measured loadings for nonpoint sources will general-
ly not be available. Methods for estimating these
loads are presented here under "Urban Nonpoint
Loads." These methods take into account the key fac-
tors that have been identified as affecting loads from
various sources and represent state-of-the-art knowl-
edge in the nonpoint source pollution field. Although
many of the methods are specifically developed for
estimating phosphorus and suspended sediment
loads, they are applicable to other pollutants. A
separate set of worksheets are generally required
for each pollutant.
As with Worksheet 1 and the remaining work-
sheets, the left columns of Worksheet 2 are used to
enter the pollutant sources of interest and their posi-
tion number.
-------
Worksheet 2
Calculating Costs and Load Reductions
Information reflecting the costs and load reduc-
tions for alternative control programs is a major com-
ponent of WATERSHED and should be developed with
care. The appendices give figures for estimating the
costs and pollutant load reductions associated with
various control programs, but these figures should
be seen as only general guidelines, as local condi-
tions differ. Costs, for example vary in different
parts of the country and from year to year. The user
again has an opportunity to apply judgement and ex-
perience, in this case to choose cost and loading data
that reflect current conditions for the study area.
The application of this data in the WATERSHED pro-
cess to calculate loads and costs is explained in the
subsequent text accompanying the worksheets.
On .this and all subsequent worksheets, reference
will be made to column letters, subscripted by work-
sheet numbers. For example, b2 refers to column b on
Worksheet 2.
Point Source Loads (columns a2, b2 and c2)
On this section of Worksheet 2, data on the flow,
concentration, and load from municipal and industri-
al point sources are entered.
Municipal Point Sources. In most cases data on mu-
nicipal point source effluent loadings will be avail-
able for many parameters, and average annual loads
can be directly entered in column c2. If the actual
load figure is not available, it can be calculated from
average flow and concentration values. These can be
entered in columns az and b2, respectively, and when
multiplied by the proper conversion factor, will yield
the load value.
Column c2 across from the "controlled condition"
column is also used to insert the point source loads
that would occur under various control programs.
These are most often improved wastewater treat-
ment programs resulting in a reduced pollutant con-
centration but sometimes water conservation pro-
grams are used, resulting in a reduced wastewater
flow. In the example drainage basin, if the Jackson
municipal sewage treatment plant had an effluent
concentration of 4.0 mg/L total phosphorus (as
shown on Worksheet 2) and the control program
lowered that concentration to 1.0 mg/L, the new con-
centration would be entered in column b2 across from
the "controlled condition" entry. The controlled load
would then be calculated using the initial flow and
entered in the "controlled condition" slot of column
c2. (See example Worksheet 2.) Pollutant loads can
Column >- a,
INITIAL CONDITION
Jackson
Monroe
Hamilton
CONTROLLED CONDITION
Jackson
Monroe
Hamilton
Position
3,4
9,10,11
14,15
3,4
9,10,11
14,15
b,
c.
Point
Flow
(mgd)
2.0
4.0
6.2
2.0
4.0
6.2
Cone.
(mg/L]
4.0
4.7
3.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
Load
(kg/yr)
11,100
26,000
26,600
2,800
5,500
8,600
average daily flow (mgd) x
average concentration (mg/L) x 1,382
= average load (kg/yr)*
*mgd: million gallons per day
mg/L: milligrams per liter
kg/yr: kilograms per year
13
-------
Worksheet 2
also be estimated from per capita flows and concen-
trations found to be typical for different degrees of
wastewater treatment. These can usually be ob-
tained directly from sewage treatment plants.
Industrial Point Sources. The initial and controlled
industrial values are entered in columns a2 through c2
in the same manner as described for municipal
sources.
It is recommended that actual plant data be used
for important industrial sources, because their often
unique wastewaters and specialized treatment tech-
nologies make pollutant loads difficult to estimate.
However, if measured loads are not available for in-
dustrial point sources, estimates can be made if cer-
tain characteristics of the industry are known. For
example, data on the industrial activity and the
amount of process water used can provide some indi-
cation of the magnitude of the pollutant load. See Ap-
pendix A for specific data sources for industrial
point source loads.
Urban Nonpoint Loads
On this section of Worksheet 2, data on the areas
of and loads from urban nonpoint sources are en-
tered. The areas can be transferred from Worksheet
1. The loads will have to be determined using comput-
er models or accepted estimating techniques.
There are various computer models that predict
pollutant loading from urban runoff (such as STORM,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1975), and the loads
calculated using these models can be directly in-
serted on Worksheet 2. However, if the date, require-
ments for models cannot be met, or should the user
desire a less complex approach to estimate urban
runoff loads, the unit area load (UAL) approach may
be desirable.
In the UAL approach, the urban area is first bro-
ken down by stormwater collection system (separate
stormwater, combined sewer, or unsewered) and by
the degree of industrialization (low, medium, high).
(The level of industrialization is a factor because pol-
lutant loads generally increase with increased indus-
trial activity, largely due to localized industrial fall-
out.) Typical UALs for these combinations of urban
land are presented in Appendix C, and the areas
served by the various collection systems can be ob-
tained from column 3 of Worksheet 1. The load from
each source can then be calculated by multiplying
the area by the UAL.
Separate Storm Sewered Areas (columns d2, e2 and
f2). UALs are selected from Appendix C according to
existing levels of industrial activity and entered in
column e2. The separate storm sewer load (in kg/yr) is
then calculated by multiplying column d2 (the area)
by column e2 (the UAL) and is entered in column f2
(see Monroe and Hamilton in the sample worksheet).
Combined Sewered Areas (columns g2, h2 and i2).
UALs are selected from Appendix C and entered in
column hz. Then the combined sewered load (in kg/yr)
can be calculated by multiplying column g2 (area) by
column h2. This value is entered in i2. (See the City of
Monroe in the sample worksheet.)
Appendix C shows that the UALs from combined
sewered areas are considerably higher than those
from separate storm sewered and unsewered areas
for many parameters. This is because when a com-
bined sewer overflows during wet weather bypass-
ing the treatment plant it contains untreated sani-
tary wastewater in addition to storm water runoff.
Combined sewer overflow loads can vary significant-
ly depending on the weather and the design of the col-
lection system. This again calls attention to the need
to use local expertise in the WATERSHED process.
-------
Worksheet 2
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Jackson
Monroe
Hamilton
CONTROLLED CONDITION
Jackson
Monroe
Hamilton
Column >
Position
3,4
9,10,11
14,15
3,4
9,10,11
14,15
d,
e,
f,
Separate Storm
Area
(km')
25
60
25
60
UAL**
(kg/km'/yr)
250
250
190
190
Load
(kg/yr)
6,200
15,000
4,300
11,400
t,
h,
ซ,
Combined
Area
(km')
_
10
10
UAL**
(kg/km'/yr)
900
850
Load
(kg/yr)
9,000
3,500
i,
k:
i,
Unsewered*
ArRH
(km')
15
15
UAL**
(kg/km'/yr)
250
250
Load
(kg/yr)
3,750
3,750
Unsewered Areas and Developing Land (columns j2,
k2, and 12). The unsewered load (column 12) is calcu-
lated by entering a representative UAL from Appen-
dix C in column k2 and multiplying it by the area in
column J2 (see the City of Jackson).
Unsewered areas are generally found in regions
with little industrial development. In WATERSHED,
unsewered areas correspond to (a) urban areas
where sewerage systems have not been installed (b)
small urban areas where sewer system type cannot
be determined, and (c) developing urban land (con-
struction sites). In all of these instances it is assumed
that stormwater reaches the receiving stream with-
out the assistance of a sewerage system.
Developing land is a special case in which UALs of
sediment and sediment associated pollutants are
generally several times greater than those from
other urban areas. For example, Johnson et aJ. (1978)
reported a value of suspended solids for developing
land which is 3 to 5 times greater than the UAL from
separate, combined or unsewered areas. Similar
high contributions from developing urban land have
been reported by Chesters et oJ. (1980) in their exten-
sive study of the Menominee River basin in metropoli-
tan Milwaukee. Developing urban land generally
comprises a small portion of the total urban area, but
can be important due to the large volume of sediment
loading associated with it.
Controlled Condition. The controlled condition for
urban runoff is obtained by determining the likely im-
pact a control strategy would have on the unit area
load and subsequently inserting the controlled unit
area load in the appropriate column on Worksheet 2.
For example, a streetsweeping program may reduce
the separate stormwater UAL by 25 percent. The re-
duced value would then be entered in column e2 and
the controlled loading calculated by multiplying col-
umn e2 by the area in column d2 and entering the re-
sult in column f2 (see the example on Worksheet 2).
The same streetsweeping program may only have a
five percent impact on the loading from combined
sewer overflows. The adjusted UAL value would be
entered in column hz and the controlled load calcu-
lated in a manner similar to the controlled stormwa-
ter load.
-------
Worksheet 3
Rural Non-Cropland Loads
Source
Wolf Creek Noncropland
Green Creek Noncropland
Lower River Noncropland
Column >- a,
Position
2
8
13
b,
C3
Grass
Area*
(km') |
100
50
-
UAL
(kg/km2/yr)
10
25
Load
(kg/yr)
1,000
1 ,250
d,
e,
f,
Woodland
Area*
(km2)
100
150
50
UAL
(kg/km'/yr)
10
10
10
Load
(kg/yr)
1,000
1,500
500
g,
h,
i,
Other**
Area*
(km2)
50***
UAL
(kg/km'/yr)
0
Load
(kg/yr)
0
I
Total Non-
Cropland
Load
(kg/yr)
2,000
2,750
500
5,250
16
The major reason for distinguishing between crop-
land and noncropland rural areas is that it is gener-
ally not desirable to implement a pollution control
program on rural noncropland. Grassland, brush-
land, and forested land usually have a fairly low pol-
lutant load associated with the runoff. It is also very
difficult to economically reduce the rural noncrdp-
land load. So noncropland rural areas are analyzed
only to determine their area and total load. They do
not enter into the pollution control strategy evalua-
tion.
Worksheet 3 is designed to facilitate analysis of
the rural noncropland loads. On it are spaces for re-
cording the areas, unit area loads, and total loads for
different categories of noncropland. Space is also
provided for entering the total noncropland load.
This value can be obtained from direct measurement,
from runoff models, or from unit area loads as given
in Appendix D. As with urban nonpoint loads on
Worksheet 2, the area and UAL of each source are
multiplied to yield the load. This is illustrated on sam-
ple Worksheet 3, where the three noncropland areas
identified in the sample drainage basin, at positions
2, 8, and 13 are entered.
The "Other" section on Worksheet 3 (columns g,,
h3, and i3) provides space for entering minor noncrop-
land categories or special cases. A likely special case
could be septic tank failures, which can cause water
quality problems if a large number of failures occur
near a stream channel. These values can be ac-
counted for in column i3.
-------
Rural Cropland Loads
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
CONTROLLED
CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
Column >- a,
Position
1
5
6
7
12
1
5
6
7
12
Cropland
Area
(km')
250
500
250
300
500
250
500
250
300
500
Universal Soil Loss Equation Coefficients
Rainfall
& Runoff
R
125
125
130
138
133
125
125
130
138
138
Soil
Erodi-
bility
K
.35
.38
.42
.32
.38
.35
.38
.42
.32
.38
Topo-
graphic
LS
.402
.424
.426
.357
.381
.402
.424
.426
.357
.381
Cover &
Manage-
ment
C
.233
.233
.245
.260
.260
.108
.099
.103
.108
.110
Support
Practice
P
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
b,
Soil
Loss
( t /ac/yr)l
A
4.1
4.7
5.7
4.1
5.2
1.9
2.0
2.4
1.7
2.2
ซ=,
Soil
Loss
mt/km2/yr
A
920
1,054
1,278
920
1,116
426
449
538
381
493
d,
Total Gross Erosion
(mt/yr)
230,000
527,000
320,000
276,000
583,000
1,936,000
106,000
224,000
134,000
114,000
246,000
824,000
e.
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
0.0924
0.0949
0.0586
0.0815
0.0514
r,
PRE
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.0
8.
UAL
(kg/km!/yr)
85
100
75
75
60
60
50
22
30
30
h,
Total P
(kg/yr)
21,250
50,000
18,750
22,500
30,000
142,500
13,230
27,000
8,940
14,580
12,680
76,430
Estimating pollutant loads from cropland is impor-
tant, because in many areas management of crop-
land will offer the greatest potential for pollutant re-
duction from land runoff. Most cropland loads are
associated with the soil material. Thus, load estima-
tions often take soil movement into account. Ideally,
loads from cropland runoff within each sub-basin
would be calculated from field sampling data. How-
ever, such data are often unavailable. Further, it is
usually not possible to distinguish the pollutant con-
tributions from individual land uses within a sub-
basin.
A variety of techniques exist for estimating crop-
land runoff loads when direct measurements are not
available. These include mathematical models, the
unit area load (UAL) approach, and the universal soil
loss equation (USLE) method. Both the UAL & USLE
methods should be used for planning purposes only.
The two methods have some drawbacks (to be ex-
plained later) that require the user to employ care in
their application. Nevertheless, these methods can
provide valuable insight into loading from cropland
runoff when used for general purposes. Mathemati-
cal models are probably the best tool available for
detailed nonpoint source load estimates, but they too
have limitations. Worksheet 4 is designed to help the
user employ any of these techniques for estimating
cropland loads.
-------
Worksheet 4
Mathematical Models
Various deterministic mathematical models exist
that allow generation of runoff parameters (Heidtke,
1979; Heidtke and Sonzogni, 1979]. Also, there are
models such as "ANSWERS" (Beasley et aJ., 1977]
and "CREAMS" (Knisel, 1980], whose results can be
directly used in WATERSHED.
Unit Area Load Approach
Table 1
Total Phosphorus Unit Area Loads for Rural Land
Total Phosphorus UAL (kg/km2/yr]
Type of Soil"
Land Use Intensity
Sand
Coarse
Loam
Medium
Loam
Fine
Loam
Clay Organic
Rural Cropland
Cultivated Fieldsrow crop
(low animal density) 25 65 85 105 125
Cultivated Fieldsmixed farming
(medium animal density) 10 20 30 55 85
Rural Non-Cropland
Pasture/Rangedairy 5 5 10 40 60
Grassland 5 5 10 15 25
Forest 5 10ฐ
Wetlands 0
SOURCE: Adapted from Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG)
(1978). "Environmental Management Strategy for the Great Lakes," International Joint
Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
"Mainly for midwestern soils. May vary by regions.
Unit area loads may be higher when soil has an unusually high clay content.
cUnit area loads may be higher in certain unique forested areas with clay soils.
1B
Unit area loads are derived from many different
river basins, soils, and climate conditions. The val-
ues most often used are for "average" conditions. Be-
cause of this the UAL applied in any one study area
must be viewed as a general approximation for plan-
ning purposes only.
Unit area loads from cropland are often high rela-
tive to other sources, although they tend to vary from
site to site more than those from other types of land.
This variability has been illustrated statistically by
Reckhow et al. (1980).
One of the principal conclusions from the Interna-
tional Joint Commission's Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) study was that
land use is not the only variable influencing pollution
from land runoff. Other factors which explain the
large range in contributions from single land uses
are: land form (e.g., surface soil texture, slope and
the chemical characteristics of the soil), land use in-
tensity, materials usage, and meteorology (Sonzogni
et aL, 1980). The impact that some of these factors
have on cropland UALs can be seen in Appendix D.
As Table 1 (extracted from Appendix D) demon-
strates, surface soil texture is particularly impor-
tant. How some factors such as materials usage (e.g.,
amount and technique of fertilizer application) affect
UALs is not easily quantified for the general case.
Therefore, the values in Table 1 must be tempered by
the user's judgment and knowledge of the study area.
It is also possible to adjust the UALs in Table 1 to ac-
count for differences in the slope of the land. In gen-
eral, the steeper the slope, the higher the UAL within
the same soil texture group. The effect of slope on
UALs is described in more detail in Johnson et al.
(1980).
If the UAL method is selected to estimate loads
from cropland runoff, a representative value is first
-------
Worksheet 4
obtained for each sub-basin from Appendix D. A
weighted average for the area may be calculated, de-
pending upon the detail desired. For example, if crop-
land is comprised of 80 percent row crop and 20 per-
cent close grown crop, the unit area load for row
crop would be multipled by 0.8 and added to the
quantity 0.2 x the UAL for close-grown crops. This
weighted UAL is then placed in column g4 and multi-
plied by the cropland area (column a4] to obtain the
pollutant load in column h4.
Loads which reflect implementation of a remedial
measure are entered on the worksheet across from
the "controlled condition" entry. Programs for con-
trolling cropland phosphorous runoff include basic
good stewardship, conservation tillage practices, im-
proved fertilizer management, livestock manage-
ment, buffer strips, and various structural measures.
Appendix D lists typical reductions in UAL values
from different cropland controls. Since a control
strategy for a sub-basin generally consists of a com-
bination of programs the individual reductions in
UALs can be used to calculate a new UAL value for
the sub-basin pollutant contribution. This reduced
value should be entered in column g4.
The UAL approach is based on using data from
drainage basins similar to the basin under study.
This fact must be considered when using this ap-
proach. To provide an indication of the sensitivity of
the selected UALs, it may be desirable to select a
range of UAL values for a particular control strate-
gy. For example, the WATERSHED process could be
executed with a controlled UAL in column g4 that is
20 percent less than the initial value. The analysis
could then be run once again using a control value 50
percent less than the initial value. A comparison of
results would provide an indication of the sensitivity
or importance of cropland control in a particular
sub-basin. This approach is discussed in more detail
in Chapter 5, "Advanced Concepts."
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Ho If Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
CONTROLLED
CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
Column >- a,
Position
1
5
6
7
12
1
5
6
7
12
Cropland
Area
[km')
250
500
250
300
500
250
500
250
300
500
g.
UAL
(kg/km'/yr)
85
100
75
75
60
60
50
22
30
30
h,
Total P
(kg/yr)
21 ,250
50,000
18,750
22,500
30,000
142,500
13,230
27,000
8,940
14,580
12,680
76,430
19
-------
Worksheet 4
Universal Soil Loss Equation Method
The Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) does not
allow for directly estimating loads, as does the UAL
approach. However, it is a valuable tool in cropland
load calculations, because it enables the user to eval-
uate how a control measure affects erosion. When
this kind of information is desired, the USLE can be
used together with the UAL approach or other meth-
ods for estimating cropland pollutant loads to com-
plete Worksheet 4.
The USLE can be used with a fair amount of confi-
dence to estimate soil loss from small areas for it has
been in use for many years, and there is a large
amount of well-documented data available from
years of research on many soil types.
texture, drainage density, and slope may have more
significant effect on the delivery ratio than the area
drained.
Surface soil texture may be particularly important
to delivery. In the Great Lakes basin it has been
found that areas with predominantly clay surface
soils often have relatively low potential gross erosion
rates but high yields of sediments and associated pol-
lutants (PLUARG, 1978). Although McElroy et oJ.
(1976) have attempted to relate soil texture to deliv-
ery ratio the relationship is not readily usable. A
widely applicable equation for pollutant delivery ra-
tios which would allow direct calculations of sedi-
ment yield from potential gross erosion remains a
major research need.
Calculating Sediment Yield
The USLE cannot be used to directly estimate rural
runoff loads because it provides an estimation of the
potential gross erosion of soil rather than of a sedi-
ment or other pollutant load. That is, the USLE de-
scribes the amount of soil that is potentially moved
not the amount of sediment that actually reaches a
stream channel. Sediment yield (or load) is usually
significantly less than the gross erosionoften in the
neighborhood of only 5 to 10 percent of the latter. A
factor called the delivery ratio is frequently used to
link sediment load with potential gross erosion. Deliv-
ery ratio is defined as the ratio of sediment yield to
gross erosion.
Unfortunately, there is no established mechanism
for estimating sediment delivery ratios. Stewart et aJ.
(1975) indicate that the delivery ratio has been ob-
served to be roughly inversely proportional to the 0.2
power of the drainage area (in acres). Such a rela-
tionship, because of its exponential nature, makes lit-
tle distinction in the delivery ratio for basins over 40
to 50 acres in size. Other factors such as surface soil
Calculating Chemical Pollution
Potential gross erosion, as calculated from the
USLE, does not provide information on chemical pol-
lution from runoff. The amount of pollutant delivered
is often calculated by multiplying the sediment yield
by the proportion of chemical contained in the soil
sediment and then by an enrichment ratio (Logan,
1980). The enrichment ratio accounts for the fact
that the pollutant yield is often a different percent-
age of the sediment yield than the average percent
composition of the pollutant in the soil. Taking phos-
phorus as an example, an enrichment ratio can be
used to account for preferential delivery of clay size
particles which, because of their physical and chemi-
cal properties, tend to have more phosphorus associ-
ated with them than larger particles.
Using Worksheet 4 to Apply the USLE
Although the USLE is most readily applicable to
areas of less than 100 acres, in this example and in
most WATERSHED applications, it will be applied to
-------
Worksheet 4
larger areas. To do this the USLE coefficients used
must represent averages for different crop condi-
tions. If large scale averaging is not appropriate for a
particular area (perhaps because crop types or sur-
face features differ significantly within a sub-basin),
the area can be further divided to provide land units
appropriate for application of the USLE. This may be
done on Worksheet 1 where the initial analysis was
completed, or it may be done on Worksheet 4, where
a cropland position may be simply split into several
pieces. For example, Wolf Creek at position 1 could
be divided into Wolf Creek a, b, and c, at position la,
Ib, and Ic.
Calculating Total Gross Erosion
Ideally, the WATERSHED user would derive unique
values for the USLE variables reflecting the specific
characteristics of the local study area (see Wisch-
meier and Smith, 1978). If this cannot be done, some
generalized values may be obtained from the litera-
ture.
The USLE is applied to each sub-basin to estimate
potential gross erosion. For each sub-basin, repre-
sentative values for the rainfall coefficient (R), soil
erodibility (K), topographic conditions (LS), cover and
management (C), and support practices (P) are en-
tered on Worksheet 4. These factors are then multi-
plied together and the product entered as soil loss in
tons/acre/year in column b4. The value in column b4 is
converted to metric tons per hectare in column c4 (b4
x 224.3 = c4). The value in column c4 is then multi-
plied by the area (a4) to yield the total potential gross
erosion of sediment in metric tons per year (column
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
CONTROLLED
CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
Column >- a,
'osition
1
5
6
7
12
1
5
6
7
12
Cropland
Area
(km')
250
500
250
300
500
250
500
250
300
500
Universal Soil Loss Equation Coefficients
Rainfall
& Runoff
R
125
125
130
138
138
125
125
130
138
138
Soil
Erodi-
bility
K
.35
.38
.42
.32
.38
.35
.38
.42
.32
.38
Topo-
graphic
LS
.402
.424
.426
.357
.381
.402
.424
.426
.357
.381
Cover &
Manage-
ment
C
.233
.233
.245
.260
.260 .
.108
.099
.103
.108
.110
Support
Practice
P
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
b.
Soil
Loss
(t/ac/yr)
A
4.1
4.7
5.7
4.1
5.2
1.9
2.0
2.4
1.7
2.2
c,
Soil
Loss
mt/km!/yr
A
920
1,054
1,278
920
1,116
426
449
538
381
493
d,
Total Gross Erosion
) (mt/yr)
230,000
527,000
320,000
276,000
583,000
1,936,000
106,000
224,000
134,000
114,000
246,000
824,000
-------
Worksheet 4
22
As mentioned previously, the USLE can be used to
evaluate how control measures affect potential gross
erosion. Extensive literature exists on how control
measures such as tillage practices and crop rotation
affect the cover factor (C) (Urban et al., 1978; Beasley
et al., 1977; and PLUARG, 1978). Information also
exists on how measures such as contour plowing and
strip cropping affect the practice factor (P), and how
terracing can affect the slope length factor (LS). Ap-
pendix D provides data for several cropland control
programs that reduce potential gross erosion by
changing the (C) factor with different tillage or crop
rotation practices. By using new values for the (C], (P)
or (LS) factors on Worksheet 4 in the "controlled con-
dition" slot, reduced soil loss can be calculated in
columns b4 and c4, and the reduced total gross ero-
sion in column d4.
Calculating Total Pollutant Load
At this stage the sediment load (yield) or other pol-
lutant load associated with the sediment must be re-
lated to gross erosion so that the initial and con-
trolled pollutant loads can be calculated. There are
two basic approaches which will be discussed in de-
tail: 1) the total pollutant load from all sources from
each sub-basin is known, 2) the total pollutant load
from each sub-basin is not known but the river mouth
load is known. In a third situation, where neither the
sub-basin load nor the river mouth load is known, the
USLE approach can be utilized only to evaluate con-
trol practices. Initial condition loads must be calcu-
lated using the UAL method in this case.
1. Pollutant Load of the Sub-Basin is Known
The initial or uncontrolled cropland load is ob-
tained by the following equation:
Cropland load = total sub-basin load
- total noncropland load
(Equation 1).
This equation merely indicates that a cropland pol-
lutant load can be obtained by subtracting the total
noncropland load (both urban and rural) calculated
on Worksheets 2 and 3 (columns c2, f2, i2,12, j3) from the
measured total sub-basin load (see Table 2 for exam-
ple). The results from this equation, called "cropland
load" in Table 2, are placed in column h^. These val-
ues complete the entries necessary for the initial con-
dition.
To evaluate the controlled condition two more val-
ues are needed for each sub-basin: 1) the "pollutant
delivery ratio" (column e4), and 2) the "pollutant re-
duction efficiency" (column f4). The pollutant deliv-
ery ratio for cropland is described by the following
equation:
Table 2
Loads from Sub-Basins Known
Sub-Basin
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
.S Total
T3 Sub-Basin
P. Load (kg/yr)
1
5
6
7
12
38,100
50,000
18,750
25,250
113,300
245,400
Total
Non-Cropland
Load (kg/yr)
16,850"
0
0
2,750
83,300
102,900
Result
Cropland
Load (kg/yr)
21,250
50,000
18,750
22,500
30,000
142,500
"Includes Jackson.
blncludes Monroe and Hamilton.
-------
Worksheet 4
Pollutant delivery ratio =
_ cropland load
cropland erosion
(Equation 2).
This equation assumes a direct relationship exists
between a pollutant load and the amount of material
being eroded. The delivery ratio is the link between
these two values and is derived by dividing columns
d, (total gross erosion) into h, (total load). The result is
placed in column e4 in the controlled conditions sec-
tion. The ratio provides an estimate of the kilograms
of pollutant delivered to the stream channel per met-
ric ton of soil eroded. This estimate assumes that the
pollutant delivery ratio remains constant as the
gross erosion is reduced. Because the actual ratio of
pollutant delivered to gross erosion is likely to be dif-
ferent with and without control programs in effect,
the concept of "pollution reduction efficiency" (col-
umn f4) is introduced here.
Loadings of many sediment-associated pollutants
are reduced as gross erosion is reduced, but at dif-
ferent rates. This is because many pollutants have
both a soluble and particulate form, and the control
of soil erosion will usually reduce the particulate
fraction more than the soluble. Taking total phospho-
rus as an example, if the total phosphorus is 70 per-
cent particulate and 30 percent soluble, a 50 percent
reduction in sediment load could reduce the particu-
late fraction by 50 percent but have little effect on
the soluble portion. The pollution reduction efficien-
cy value is designed to reflect this difference. The
WATERSHED user may wish to initially ignore this
consideration by placing a value of 1.0 in column f4.
Values for this column may be obtained from the lit-
erature (Urban et oL, 1978; Logan, 1980; Mueller et
oL, 1981) or estimated by the user. Typical values of
the pollution reduction efficiency for total phospho-
rus would be 0.6 to 0.9.
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
CONTROLLED
CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
Column >- d,
'osition
1
5
6
7
12
1
5
6
7
12
Total Gross Erosion
(mt/yr)
230,000
527,000
320,000
276,000
583,000
1,936,000
106,000
224,000
134,000
114,000
246,000
824,000
e.
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
0.0924
0.0949
0.0586
0.0815
0.0514
f.
PRE
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.0
84
UAL
(kg/km'/yr)
85
TOO
75
75
60
60
50
22
30
30
l>4
Total P
(kg/yr)
21,250
50,000
18,750
22,500
30,000
142,500
13,230
27,000
8,940
14,580
12,680
76,430
-------
Worksheet 4
Having estimated total gross erosion, the pollutant
delivery ratio, and the pollutant reduction efficiency,
Equation 3 below is used to estimate the pollutant
load delivered to the main river channel assuming a
control program is in effect:
Lc = Lj - [(E. - Ec) x PRE x PDR]
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
CONTROLLED
CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
Column > d,
Position
1
5
6
7
12
1
5
6
7
12
Total Gross Erosion
(mt/yr)
E.
230,000
527,000
320,000
276,000
583,000
1,936,000
E
106,000
224,000
134,000
114,000
246,000
824,000
e,
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
0.0924
0.0949
0.0586
0.0815
0.0514
t,
PRE
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.0
h,
Total P
(kg/yr)
L
21,250
50,000
18,750
22,500
30,000
142,500
Lc
isjso
27,000
8,940
14,580
12,680
76,430
(Equation 3).
Worksheet
Column
L = the controlled condition load (mt/yr) h4
L = initial pollutant load (mt/yr) h,
E. = initial gross erosion (mt/yr) d4
Ec = the control condition gross erosion (mt/yr) d4
PRE = pollutant reduction efficiency
(unit dimensionless) e4
PDR = pollutant delivery ratio
(unit dimensionless) f4
In the example river basin, Lc is calculated in the
following manner:
Example for Wolf Creek
L, = 21,250
E. = 230,000
Ec = 106,000
PDR = 0.0924
PRE = 0.7
Lc = 21,250 - [(230,000 - 106,000) x 0.7 x 0.0924]
Lc = 13,230
The controlled cropland loads from each sub-basin
are calculated hi this manner. Values are entered hi
column \ in the controlled condition section.
Some programs (e.g., voluntary sound land man-
agement) do not alter the surface features of the land
on which they are applied, so will not show an associ-
ated reduction in potential gross erosion on Work-
sheet 4. However, these programs, such as proper
fertilizer application, can still reduce runoff pollu-
tant loadings. These reductions can be subtracted
from the values in column h, to yield the total crop-
land load reduction.
-------
Worksheet 4
2. Pollutant Load from the Sub-Basin is Not Known
In the majority of cases the pollutant load from any
given sub-basin will not have been measured. In
these situations several techniques can be used for
estimating either the load or the pollutant delivery
ratio (which may then be used to estimate the pollu-
tant load].
Perhaps the simplest means of estimating the pol-
lutant load is to obtain pollutant delivery ratios from
a monitored sub-basin with similar characteristics.
If the pollutant delivery ratio can be calculated for a
sub-basin using the procedure previously described,
this delivery ratio could be used for other sub-basins
which are expected to behave in a similar manner.
Another technique is to estimate cropland pollu-
tant loads based on the sub-basin cropland area and
the appropriate UAL. The UAL technique for the ini-
tial condition would be the same as described previ-
ously. The pollutant delivery ratio could then be esti-
mated from Equation 2 and used for the controlled
condition on Worksheet 4.
Finally, an estimate of the cropland pollutant deliv-
ery ratio can be obtained when the total river mouth
load is known (as opposed to the sub-basin load) and
no in-stream pollutant transmission losses are likely
to occur. River mouth data frequently exist since
river mouth monitoring programs are common. In
this case, the total noncropland load for the entire
basin is subtracted from the total river mouth load to
provide an estimate of the cropland load for the en-
tire basin (see Table 3). The total noncropland load
would consist of the sum of the values from Work-
sheets 2 and 3, combining pollutant contributions
from urban and rural sources not related to cropland
(i.e., the cropland load is that portion of the river
mouth load that is not already accounted for on
Worksheets 2 and 3].
A cropland pollutant delivery ratio is then calcu-
lated for the entire river basin by dividing the crop-
land load by the cropland total potential gross ero-
sion (the summation of column d4). These calculations
are identical to those presented in equations 1,2, and
3 except that they are carried out for the entire basin
instead of a single sub-basin.
Column >- d.
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
Position
1
5
6
7
12
Total Gross Erosion
(mt/yr)
230,000
527,300
320,000
276,000
583,000
1,936,000
e,
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
f,
PRE
g.
UAL
(kg/km'/yr)
85
100
75
75
60
h.
Total P
(kg/yr)
21,250
50,000
18,750
22,500
30,000
142,500
Table 3
Loads from River Mouth Known
kg/yr
Total River Mouth Load 245,400
Total Non-Cropland Load - 102,900
Total Cropland Load 142,500
-------
Worksheet 4
The resultant pollutant delivery ratio represents
an average for the entire river basin. This pollutant
delivery ratio is entered in column e4 and can be used
for each of the sub-basins, provided their character-
istics are similar and pollutant inputs do not undergo
significant transmission losses before reaching the
river mouth.
By multiplying the pollutant delivery ratio (e4) by
total gross erosion (d,) for each sub-basin, an esti-
mate of the pollutant load from each sub-basin can be
generated and entered in column h4. If application of
the pollutant delivery ratio concept is inappropriate
because sub-basin characteristics vary or there is a
significant transmission loss, the UAL approach
must be used.
The pollutant loading with control programs in ef-
fect is obtained using Equation 3 with the basin-wide
pollutant delivery ratio (e4), the pollutant reduction
efficiency from each sub-basin (f4) and the estimated
gross erosion for each sub-basin (d4). These values
are entered as the controlled load in column hi.
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
CONTROLLED
CONDITION
Wolf Creek
Rock Creek
Middle River
Green Creek
Lower River
TOTAL
Column >- d,
Position
1
5
6
7
12
1
5
6
7
12
Total Gross Erosion
(mt/yr)
230,000
527,000
320,000
276,000
583,000
1,936,000
106,000
224,000
134,000
114,000
246,000
824,000
e,
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
0.0924
0.0949
0.0586
0.0815
0.0514
f,
PRE
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
1.0
g<
UAL
(kg/km'/yr)
;
85
100
75
75
60
60
50
22
30
30
h,
Total P
(kg/yr)
21,250
50,000
18,750
22,500
30,000
142,500
13,230
27,000
8,940
14,580
12,680
76,430
'"ซ. .'
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
0.0736
h,
Total P
(kg/yr)
16,930
38,790
23,550
20,310
42,910
142,490
10,540
20,950
11,230
13,160
18,110
73.990
-------
Worksheets
Loading Summary
Source
Holf Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Jackson Municipal, Point
Unsewered
Rock Creek Cropland
Middle River Cropland
Green Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Monroe Municipal , Point
Separate Storm
Combined Sewer
Lower River Cropland
Noncropland
Hamilton Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
TOTAL
Column V a,
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0
o
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Initial Load to
River Channel
(kg/yr)
21,250
2,000
11,100
3,750
13,000
18,750
21,500
2,750
26,000
6,200
9,000
30,000
500
26,600
15,000
245,400
b,
c,
Load to River Channel
with Controls in Place
(kg/yr)
Stage I
13,230
2,000
2,800
3,750
27,000
8,940
14,580
2,750
5,500
4,800
8,500
12,680
500
8,600
11,400
127,030
Stage II
Not Applicable
(NA)
d,
e,
Load Reductions
(kg/yr)
Stage I
8,020
0
8,300
0
23,000
9,810
7,92.0
0
20,500
1 ,400
500
17,320
0
18,000
3,600
118.370
Stage II
Not Applicable
(NA)
The purpose of this worksheet is to compile data
from the previous three worksheets (Numbers 2, 3,
and 4) and to generate load reductions attributable
to alternative control programs. This load reduction
data will be vital in determining the cost-effective-
ness of the various control programs (Worksheet 7).
Data on initial loads are compiled in column a5,
"Initial Load to River Channel." This is obtained
from columns c2, f2, i2,12, j3, and h,, which give the total
urban, rural noncropland, and cropland loads. These
initial loads are summed to provide an estimate of the
total pollutant input to the river system. This value
should equal the river mouth load if no transmission
losses occur throughout the system.
Subsequent columns on Worksheet 5 are used to
estimate pollutant loadings with control programs in
effect. (To simplify the discussion, only one control
condition will be considered here. Multiple "stages"
of control will be examined in Chapter 5.) Column b5,
"Load to River Channel with Controls in Place" pro-
vides space to compile the data on controlled loads.
These are also obtained from columns c2, f2,12, )3, and
column hซ. The sum of all values entered in column b5
yields an estimate of the total load to the river system
with control programs in effect. Again, this load is
equivalent to the controlled load at the river mouth if
no transmission losses occur.
The final step on this worksheet is the calculation
of the load reduction due to control programs. This is
accomplished in columns d5 and e5. (Because only one
stage of control is being examined at this time, only
column d5 will be discussed). The load reduction (d5)
is simply the difference between the initial (a5) and
controlled (b5) loadings.
-------
Worksheet 6
Program Costs
Source
Wolf Creek--Cropland
--Noncropland
Jackson--Munici pal
--Unsewered
Rock CreekCropland
Middle RiverCropland
Green CreekCropland
--Noncropland
Monroe Municipal Point
--Separate Storm
--Combined Sewer
Lower River Cropland
--Noncropland
Hamilton Municipal Point
--Separate Storm
TOTAL
Column > a.
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
b.
c.
Nonpoint
Area
Treated
jkm'J
250
_ _ _
500
250
300
25
10
500
60
($/km'/yr)
Initial to
Stage I
65
65
65
65
7,500
7,500
65
7,500
Stage 1 to
Stage II
NA
d.
ปt
f.
Point
Units
Served
13,000
25,000
40,000
($/cap/yr)
Initial to
Stage I
2.4
2.4
2.4
Stage I to
Stage II
NA
8.
h.
Total Cost of Program ($/yr)
Initial to
Stage I
16,250
31 ,200
32,500
16,250
19,500
60,000
187,500
75,000
32,500
96,000
450,000
1 ,016,700
Stage I to
Stage II
NA
Up to now pollution control programs have been
discussed only in terms of their ability to reduce pol-
lutant loads. At each major source of pollution a con-
trol strategy has been identified and a load reduction
determined [Worksheet 5 (columns d5 and e5)]. The ob-
jective of Worksheet 6 is to derive a corresponding
cost for those programs. (Chapter 5 presents a fur-
ther discussion of computing costs when multiple
benefits are obtained from control programs.) The
cost of Stage II programs (columns ce> f6, h8) are not
applicable to the example given, but are provided for
a more detailed analysis and also discussed in Chap-
ter 5.
Estimating costs can be done in several different
ways. In some cases the cost of a particular program
may be known and can be entered directly into col-
umn ge, "Total Cost of Program." However, in most
instances it will be necessary to estimate program
costs from more general information. Worksheet 6
has been set up to provide flexibility in accomplish-
ing this task.
-------
Worksheet 6
Costs for Controlling Nonpoint Sources
Urban
Costs for control of nonpoint sources are frequent-
ly expressed on a per unit area basis. To derive the
total cost control at each urban pollutant source, the
areas served by combined and separate sewer sys-
tems and the urban unsewered areas are entered in
column a6, and the costs per unit area for pollution
control at each source are entered in column b6 (or c6
if applicable.) (Values for this example are found in
Appendix G, which provides cost information for the
urban programs selected for Worksheet 2.) Then the
values in columns ae and be are multiplied to deter-
mine the total cost of control at each source.
Noncropland
As discussed with Worksheet 3, comprehensive
control programs generally will not be considered for
rural noncropland since runoff from these areas usu-
ally has a low pollutant load. When there are pro-
grams in rural noncropland areas, they are usually
site-specific rather than uniformly applied. If pro-
grams such as drainage projects or streambank sta-
bilization projects exist, it is possible to estimate
their costs and treat them as point sources, as dis-
cussed in the next section.
Cropland
Computing costs for controlling runoff loadings
from cropland is one of the more difficult tasks of the
WATERSHED process. Part of the difficulty stems
from the fact that individual remedial measures are
frequently applied for reasons other than water
quality protection or improvement. For example, con-
servation tillage practices are often implemented to
save the farmer time and to conserve soil. In applica-
tion of WATERSHED, the costs of reducing cropland
loadings should be apportioned to the benefits de-
rived from various programs to yield a more realistic
cost-benefit comparison. This technique will be dis-
cussed in Chapter 5.
Appendix D contains data for several cropland
control programs. The information is based on recent
findings of studies such as the Lake Erie Wastewater
Management Study (Urban et aJ., 1978), the Black
Creek Study (Beasley et aJ., 1977) and the PLUARG
Study (PLUARG, 1978). These costs are expressed on
a per unit area basis so they can be entered directly
in column be. The total cost (to be entered in column
g6) can be computed by multiplying the values in col-
umn b6 by the area in ae.
Calculating Education and Training Costs. Most
changes in f arming practices that will improve water
quality (such as chisel plowing, winter crop covers,
crop rotations, or buffer strips) are achieved through
education and technical assistance. The only cost of
such a program, therefore, is the technical personnel
and overhead required to operate such a program or
an associated demonstration project. The Black
Creek (Indiana) and Honey Creek (Ohio) demonstra-
tion programs have shown how important education
and technical assistance are for the implementation
of these measures. Experience from these programs
has indicated that demonstration plots are often de-
sirable for only a short time (three to five years).
After this, farmers in the area have either accepted
or rejected the new techniques. If the techniques are
accepted, farmers who observed or participated in
such demonstrations will share their experience
with other farmers. Operational farms can be used to
demonstrate the new techniques and train other
farmers.
In estimating the costs of education and technical
assistance programs, the WATERSHED user should
have a basic understanding of what types of pro-
-------
Worksheet 6
grams are appropriate for the area. It is vital to ob-
tain local support in such an undertaking.
The following example illustrates how costs for
such a technical assistance program could be de-
rived. Assume a demonstration and technical
assistance program is to be operated over a three
year period. Also assume that the effort would reach
farmers who are responsible for 35,000 hectares of
cropland. Table 4 illustrates how the costs for techni-
cal assistance can be derived. Salary and overhead,
demonstration plot costs, and equipment rental costs
are all included. The capital cost is amortized over
twenty-five years at a ten percent interest rate and
Table 4
Estimation of Technical Assistance Costs
for Implementing the Minimum Tillage
and Crop Rotation Program
3-year program
125 ha of demonstration plots
Goal of 35,000 ha converted to minimum till
Yearly Costs
Salary and overhead $ 38,500/yr
Demonstration plot costs $ 25,000/yr
Equipment rental $ 6,500/yr
Yearly TOTAL: $ 70,000/yr
3-year TOTAL: $210,000
10% interest amortized over 25 years $23,000/yr
Cost per ha considering only demon-
stration plots: $23,000/yr -=- 125 ha $184/ha-yr
Cost per ha if 35,000 ha converted to
minimum till: $23,000/yr 4- 35,000 ha $0.65/ha
added to O & M costs to yield an annual cost of
$23,000. The equivalent cost expressed on a unit
area basis is $0.65/ha ($65/km2) (this assumes that
35,000 hectares are actually influenced by the tech-
nical assistance). This $65/km2 figure is used in the
example worksheet in column be, for cropland. Even
though the demonstration program has a goal of
achieving implementation of conservation tillage on
35,000 hectares of cropland in the area, additional
areas may also be influenced. For example, if the
total cropland area affected is 200,000 hectares, the
annual cost of technical assistance would be re-
duced to $0.12/ha.
3O
-------
Worksheet 6
Other Costs. Program costs in some critical areas
may also include financial incentives to encourage
farmers to try the new techniques or subsidies to
those operators who may actually lose money if they
change their operational procedures. The latter can
occur in areas where soils are not conducive to some
conservation tillage practices.
Costs for Controlling Point Sources
Total costs are often directly available for control-
ling loadings from municipal and industrial point
sources. If not, cost information can frequently be ob-
tained from the treatment plant on a per unit basis
(i.e., population served, industrial units produced,
gallons treated), or Appendix B can be used to obtain
typical costs. In the latter case, the units served can
be entered in column de and costs per unit served can
be entered in columns ee and fe. Total program costs
are then obtained by multiplying column de by column
e6 (or f6, if appropriate) and placing the result in col-
umn ge. For the three example cities, a cost of
$2.40/cap/yr was selected as representative for a
phosphorus removal program (see column ee).
Source
Wolf Creek Cropland
--Noncropl and
Jackson--Munici pal
--Un sewered
Rock CreekCropland
Middle River--Cropland
Green CreekCropland
--Noncropl and
Monroe--Munici pal Point
--Separate Storm
--Combined Sewer
Lower Ri ver--Cropland
--Tloncropland
Hamil tonMunicipal Point
--Separate Storm
TOTAL
Column > d.
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
e. | f,
Point
Units
Served
13,000
25,000
40,000
($/cap/yr)
Initial to
Stage I
2.4
2.4
2.4
Stage I to
Stage II
NA
g.
Total Cost of Program (3
Initial to
Stage I
16,250
31 ,200
32,500
16,250
19,500
60,000
187,500
75,000
32,500
96,000
450,000
1 ,016,700
31
-------
Worksheet 7
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Source
Wolf Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Jackson Municipal, Point
Unsewered
Rock Creek Cropland
Middle River Cropland
Green Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Monroe Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
Combined Sewer
Lower River Cropland
Noncropland
Hamilton Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
TOTAL
Column >- a,
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
/
<&
ฃ<
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
b, c,
c /~? /
'^/ /
J//^Sf/ Total Load to
r/vฃ/ Surface Water
/^// (kg/yr)
NA
21,250
2,000
11,100
3,750
50,000
13,750
22,500
2,750
26,000
6,200
9,000
30,000
500
26,600
15,000
245,400
d,
Load
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
21,250
2,000
11,100
3,750
50,000
18,750
22,500
2,750
26,000
6,200
9,000
30,000
500
26,000
15,000
245,400
e,
Load Reduction
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
8,020
0
8,300
0
23,000
9,810
7,920
0
20,500
1 ,400
500
17,320
0
18,000
3,600
118,370
f,
Cosl of
Program
($/yr)
16,250
31,200
32,500
16,250
19,500
60,000
187,500
75,000
32,500
96,000
450,000
1,016,700
g,
Cost Per Unit
Removed at
Mouth
($/kg)
2.0
3.8
1.4
1.6
2.4
2.9
133.9
150.0
1.9
5.3
125.0
h,
Cost-
Effectiv
Rank
4
7
1
2
5
6
10
11
3
8
9
The previous worksheets have helped the user or-
ganize information concerning each major pollutant
source in the drainage basin. Worksheet 7 draws this
information together so that control programs can be
compared and ranked according to their cost-effec-
tiveness in reducing pollutant loads at the down-
stream receiving water. New information derived on
Worksheet 7 so that cost-effectiveness can be calcu-
lated includes the load and load reduction at the
river mouth, and the cost per unit of pollutant re-
moved at the mouth.
It is recommended that all pollutant sources be
listed on Worksheet 7, although only those being con-
sidered for control will enter into the cost-effective-
ness analysis. By listing information on all sources,
the user can evaluate the total basin load to the river
and the river mouth and the proportion of the total
load that is eliminated by control measures.
-------
Worksheet 7
Effective Transmission (column a7)
To calculate the load at the river mouth, the
amount of pollutant lost between the point of entry
and the river mouth must be taken into account. At
the beginning of Chapter 2 the concepts of transmis-
sion loss and transmission coefficients were intro-
duced, with the "transmission coefficient," describ-
ing the fraction of pollutant load transmitted be-
tween any two points of entry. Each reach of the riv-
er (section of river between two points of entry) has a
transmission coefficient (t) associated with it. The
transmission coefficients are used to calculate the
"effective transmission," which is the fraction of the
pollutant load that is transmitted from the point of
entry to the river mouth.
The concept of transmission is further illustrated
in Figure 3. If the transmission coefficient tj has a
value of 0.5 (50 percent of the pollutant load entering
at point A is lost by the time it reaches point B) and t2
equals 0.8 (20 percent loss), the effective transmis-
sion of the pollutant load entering at point A (TJ
would be 0.4 (TA = 0.5 x 0.8). Thus, if the pollutant
load introduced at point A were 100 mt/yr, only 40
percent, or 40 mt/yr, would reach the downstream
receiving water. At point of entry B the effective
transmission TB is the same as the transmission coef-
ficient (t2) since there are no further downstream
transmission losses. Thus, the total load to the re-
ceiving water in Figure 3 is 104 mt/yr. In the example
worksheets all transmission (t) values are set at 1.0
for ease in demonstration.
Bio-Available Fraction (column b7)
Column b7 provides room for an optional entry of a
factor representing the fraction of the total pollutant
load from each source (both point and nonpoint) that
is judged to be in a biologically available form. Bio-
logical availability is especially important to the com-
parison of the cost-effectiveness of control strate-
gies, since the most desirable controls would natural-
ly be those shown to yield the greatest reduction in
the biologically available fraction of a pollutant. A
further discussion of biological availability is found
in Chapter 5 and Sonzogni et oJ. (1980). Naturally col-
umn b7 would not be used when evaluating the im-
pacts of control strategies on the total form of vari-
ous pollutants (as in the example basin).
Points Transmission Effective
Load to River of Entry Coefficient (t) Transmission (T)
Figure 3
Example of
Transmission Loss
Calculation
LA = 100 mt/yr
LB = 80 mt/yr
B
t, = 0.5
t2 = 0.8
T. = t, X t2 = 0.4
TB = t2 = 0.8
Receiving Water
RW
= (LA x TA)
x TB)
= (100 x 0.4) + (80 x 0.8) = 104 mt/yr
where
LA = Total Pollutant Load to Point of Entry A
LB = Total Pollutant Load to Point of Entry B
LRW = Total Pollutant Load to Receiving Water
If control strategy reduces the LA by 50% (i.e., 50 mt/yr,
then the new load (LRW) is
L., = [50 x 0.41 + (80 x 0.8) = 84 i
LRW - LRW = 104 - 84 = 20 mt/yr
Therefore, a 50 mt/yr reduction to entry point A produces
only a 20 mt/yr reduction at the receiving water.
33
-------
Worksheet 7
Total Load to Surface Water (column c7)
The data entered in column c7 on Worksheet 7,
"Total Load to the Surface Water," is taken directly
from column a5 on Worksheet 5 which describes the
initial condition. Recall that the values in column a5
were generated on previous worksheets to provide
an estimate of the initial or uncontrolled loading to
the main channel from all sources identified. This in-
formation is now simply transferred to column c7.
Load at Mouth (column d7)
The data in columns a7 through c7 are now used to
calculate the values to be entered in column d7the
annual load transmitted from each point of entry to
the river mouth (ultimate receiving water). Entries in
column d7 take into account transmission losses and,
if desired, the biologically available fraction of pollu-
tant loadings at the river mouth. The portion of the
river mouth load attributable to any one pollutant
Source
Wolf Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Jackson Municipal, Point
Unsewered
Rock Creek Cropland
Middle River Cropland
Green Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Monroe Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
Combined Sewer
Lower River Cropland
Noncropland
Hamilton Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
TOTAL
Column >- a,
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
'//
-------
Worksheet 7
source is obtained by multiplying the column c2, the
total load to the surface water, by column a7, the ef-
fective transmission, and this product is then multi-
plied by column b7, the biologically available fraction
(if applicable). In terms of the columns on Worksheet
7, this would mean multiplying columns a7 x b7 x c?
and entering the result in column d7. For example, if
the effective transmission is 0.8 and the biologically
available fraction is not applicable (which is equiva-
lent to an assumed value of 1.0) the calculated load at
the river mouth from Wolf Creek would be 0.8 x 1.0
x 21,250 kg/yr. Thus, a value of 17,000 kg/yr is en-
tered in d7. This same procedure is carried out for
each source identified, including those which are not
considered for pollution control.
Once this step is completed, the values in column d7
are summed to provide an estimate of the total load
at the mouth. This estimate should then be checked
against measured river mouth loads (if available).
Differences between estimated and measured loads
may be due to a variety of factors (see Reckhow et oL,
1980 for a further discussion of these factors). Be-
cause both the estimated and measured loads are
based upon the best information sources available,
which have inherent uncertainties, they should not
be expected to agree completely, but if they compare
reasonably well the user has some assurance that
the assumptions made are correct. A large discrep-
ancy would signal the need to check the worksheets
for mathematical errors, unreasonable assumptions,
or unique characteristics of the sub-basins that re-
quire more detailed analysis. A further discussion on
checking results is presented in Chapter 3.
Of course, if the measured river mouth load was
utilized in Worksheet 4 to calculate a basinwide
cropland load, the load arrived at in column d7 and
the measured load will obviously be the same. If not,
mathematical errors have occurred on one or more
of the worksheets. If UALs or monitored sub-basin
loads were used on Worksheet 4, then the sum of all
entries in column d7 can be used as a check against
the monitored river mouth load.
The load at the river mouth can be mathematically
expressed by Equation 4 below:
IN
Pollutant load at the river mouth = I [(L: x BF) cropland + (L, x BF) rural non-cropland + (Lt x BF) urban land
+ (Lj x BF) point sources + (Lt x BF) other sources] x T
(Equation 4).
where: L = total load from all sources discharging to the ith point of entry (i = 1,2, ... N)
BF = Bioavailability Factor,
T, = Effective transmission from the 1th point of entry to the river mouth,
N = number of points of entry.
Note that more than one sub-basin and point
source may be discharging to a single point of entry.
For example, the cropland load to point of entry "i"
in Equation 4 may be the sum of cropland loads from
several sub-basins.
-------
Worksheet 7
Load Reduction at Mouth (column e7),
In addition to the effect transmission losses or bio-
logically available fractions less than 1.0 have on the
load delivered to the river mouth, these factors also
impact the effectiveness rating of various control
programs. This can be seen by examining Figure 3. If
a control program reduces the pollutant load at point
(A) by 50 mt/yr (50 percent reduction), the resultant
load delivery to the river mouth would not be reduced
by 50 mt/yr. As the example in Figure 3 illustrates,
the annual load to the river mouth would be reduced
by only 20 mt/yr. In other words, a fraction of the
36
Source
Wolf Creek Cropland
Moncropland
Jackson Municipal, Point
Unsewered
Rock Creek Cropland
Middle River Cropland
Green Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Monroe Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
Combined Sewer
Lower River Cropland
Noncropland
Hamilton Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
TOTAL
Column >- e,
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Load Reduction
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
8,020
0
8,300
0
23,000
9,810
7,920
0
20,500
1,400
500
17,320
0
18,000
3,600
118,370
f,
Cost of
Program
l$/yr)
16,250
31,200
32,500
16,250
19,500
60,000
187,500
75,000
32,500
96,000
450,000
1,016,700
g>
Cost Per Unit
Pemoved at
Mouth
($/kg)
2.0
3.8
1.4
1.6
2.4
2.9
133.9
150.0
1.9
5.3
125.0
h,
Cost-
Effective
Rank
4
7
1
2
5
6
10
11
3
8
9
-------
Worksheet 7
load would never have reached the river mouth due
to transmission losses, and thus the remedial pro-
gram can only be credited with a 20 mt/yr reduction.
As shown in Figure 3, the new load would be 84 mt/
yr. If the effectiveness of a control is important at the
point of entry, rather than the river mouth, then this
calculation can be omitted.
To calculate the river mouth load reduction attrib-
utable to the various control strategies, the load re-
duction from Worksheet 5 (d5) is multiplied by the ef-
fective transmission and biologically available frac-
tion entered on Worksheet 7. In terms of worksheet
columns, this would imply the following: columns
d5 x a7 x b7 = e,. If no losses occur, column e7 is
identical to column d5.
Cost of Program (column f7)
The cost of each control program is now entered in
column f7. These costs are obtained directly from
Worksheet 6 from either column ge (if only one con-
trol strategy is present) or columnn he (if the staged
approach is used, as will be discussed in Chapter 5).
Cost Per Unit Removed (column g7)
Column g7 is used to enter the estimated cost per
unit of pollutant removed at the river mouth. These
values are calculated for each pollutant source iden-
tified by dividing f7, cost of program, by e7 load reduc-
tion at mouth. In other words, the total cost of a con-
trol strategy is divided by the pollutant reduction
achieved at the river mouth. This allows all control
strategies to be compared on the basis of their cost-
effectiveness in reducing the pollutant load at the
river mouth (dollars spent per unit load reduction at
the river mouth).
Cost-Effectiveness Rank (column h7)
The final step on Worksheet 7 is to rank in column
h7 the programs according to their cost-effectiveness
values, given in column g7. The ranking proceeds
from the smallest cost per unit removed to the largest
cost per unit removed. So the number one program is
that which has the smallest cost per unit of pollutant
removed, and is therefore the most cost-effective.
In the example worksheet, the number one pro-
gram is the implementation of an education and
training program that will encourage conservation
tillage practices in the Rock Creek sub-basin (posi-
tion 5). The estimated cost-effectiveness of the
number one example program is $1.40/kg of pollu-
tant removed at the river mouth (g7). The program
would reduce the river mouth load by an estimated
23,000 kg/yr (e7). In instances where programs have
the same cost-effectiveness value, both the load
reduction at the river mouth and the total cost of the
program should be examined. The program that
removes the greatest amount of pollutant at the river
mouth would normally be ranked ahead of others
with the same cost-effectiveness value.
-------
Worksheet 8
Summary of Programs
Sources
Rock Creek Cropland
Middle River Cropland
Lower River Cropland
Wolf Creek Cropland
Green Creek Cropland
Monroe Municipal Point
Jackson Municipal Point
Hamilton Municipal Point
Hamilton Separate Storm
Monroe Separate Storm
Monroe Combined Sewer
Column > a.
Rank
(h7)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Stage
NA
Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
23,000
9,810
17,320
8,020
7,920
20,500
8,300
18,000
3,600
1,400
500
b.
I Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
23,000
32,810
50,130
58,150
66,070
36,570
94,870
112,870
116,470
117,870
118,370
c.
% Re-
duction
9
13
20
24
27
35
39
46
47
48
48
d.
Cost of
Reduction
($/yr)
32,500
16,250
32,500
16,240
19,500
60,000
31,200
96,000
450,000
187,500
75,000
e.
5! Reduction
Costs
($/yr)
32,500
48,750
81,250
97,500
117,000
177,000
208,200
304,200
754,200
941,700
1,016,700
3S
All of the programs are arranged in their ranked
order on Worksheet 8 as displayed on Worksheet 7 in
column h7. Columns are provided on Worksheet 8 for
the name of the source, the cost-effectiveness rank-
ing of the program considered for its control, and for
"Stage." The latter column is used only with the ad-
vanced multi-level control program formulations, dis-
cussed in Chapter 5. Column a8 is used to display the
load reductions by rank position. For example, the
entry at rank position 5 would be the summation of
the load reductions achieved through control of the
first five sources entered on Worksheet 8. The values
at any position in column b8 represent the summation
of values in column a8 to that rank position in the
table.
Column ce represents the percent reduction in the
total river mouth load achieved through implementa-
tion of successive programs. For example, a 27 per-
cent reduction would be achieved if the first five pro-
grams on Worksheet 8 were implemented. The val-
ues in cs represent the sum of the load reductions in
column be divided by the initial condition total river
mouth load (sum of column d7).
The cost of control programs is also entered on
Worksheet 8 in column de. These values come direct-
ly from column g6 on Worksheet 6.
-------
Worksheet 8
Costs in column d8 are summed in e8 so that a total
cost can be easily identified for the most cost-effec-
tive combination of programs. For example, the value
entered in column ee at rank position 3 reflects the
sum of the costs associated with the first three posi-
tions in column da. This column is similar to column b8
in that it provides a running total for any particular
rank position on the worksheet.
For the information on this worksheet to be effec-
tively interpreted, the WATERSHED user must keep
in mind that the program rankings are not absolute.
They are based on numerous assumptions and the in-
tegration of an extensive data base. It would not be
appropriate, therefore, to conclude that the rankings
presented on Worksheet 8 should be used to define
the exact programs which should be implemented to
meet a specified waste allocation objective for the
river basin under study. However, the information
can be used as a method of screening programs to
identify those which should be considered in more
detail.
Note: A completed worksheet example using the
Sandusky River basin is provided in Appendix E
which includes staged control strategies and some of
the more advanced features that are discussed in
Chapter 5.
-------
chapter three
interpreting and checking results
Many different data sources must be utilized to es-
timate point and nonpoint source pollutant loadings
to a receiving water system. While information is
usually available on the amounts of contaminants
leaving municipal and industrial sources, it is usually
quite difficult to accurately assess nonpoint source
contributions, expecially considering the factors,
such as bioavailability and transmission losses, that
affect the amount of harmful pollutant reaching the
river mouth. Because of these problems, the compari-
son between estimated and measured river mouth
loads is one of the most important components of the
WATERSHED process.
The data assembled in the appendices of this hand-
book provide typical estimates of pollutant loadings,
control costs, and load reductions. Unit Area Loads
(UALs) presented in Appendices C and D represent
average annual inputs derived from a number of dif-
ferent river basin studies. Proper interpretation of
these values is important because every river basin
is different. When comparing estimated runoff load-
ings derived from these average values with moni-
tored loadings, the user must be able to recognize
and interpret discrepancies which may arise. The
following discussion focuses on ways to account for
some of the more common problems encountered in
checking and interpreting WATERSHED results.
Estimating Pollutant Loadings to the Tributary
As described in Chapter 2, Worksheets 2, 3 and 4
are used to derive estimates of diffuse pollutant load-
ings from urban, rural noncropland, and cropland
areas, respectively. As previously mentioned, the
most desirable method of obtaining loading data for
these sources is directly from monitoring programs.
However, because empirical measurements will usu-
ally be unavailable, it is frequently necessary to use
methods of approximation such as Unit Area Loads
(UALs), the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), or
various mathematical models of nonpoint source pol-
lution. If such methods are utilized, the following fac-
tors should be taken into consideration when check-
ing estimated loadings against available field meas-
urements:
1. Measured sub-basin loads may not reflect con-
tributions from the entire sub-basin drainage area.
2. Measured sub-basin loads may reflect a high or
low flow condition rather than an average annual
condition.
3. Physiographic and demographic characteristics
of the sub-basin may be changing at a rapid rate so
that present conditions vary from those during which
data was collected.
4. Available field measurements may be inaccu-
rate or insufficient for comparison with estimated
loads.
5. UALs used to estimate nonpoint source pollutant
loadings may not be representative of the sub-basins
under study.
6. For sub-basins where the USLE has been used
on Worksheet 4, an improper assumption may have
been made in selecting the transmission coefficients
or delivery ratios.
Each of the aforementioned problems can result in
large discrepancies between estimated and meas-
ured loadings. No attempt has been made here to ad-
dress methods of resolving these difficulties. Each is
unique and requires careful evaluation by the WA-
TERSHED user. For example, a measured cropland
load obtained from sampling conducted during a
-------
high-flow year may be adjusted to reflect present
conditions by the use of a weighting factor which
takes into account the ratio of the annual flow for the
year of sampling to the historical average annual
flow. This presupposes a known relationship or cor-
relation between cropland load and flow within the
sub-basin. Because such relationships will vary
among regions, it is impossible to provide a single ap-
proach.
Estimating Pollutant Loadings to the Rivermouth
When evaluating the total pollutant load delivered
to the rivermouth, a number of additional factors can
account for discrepancies between estimated WA-
TERSHED loads and loads derived from field meas-
urements. One source of error is the assignment of an
incorrect transmission coefficient to a river reach.
As explained in Chapter 2, the purpose of the trans-
mission coefficient is to account for pollutant losses
between adjacent points of entry. These losses may
result from phenomena such as entrapment of mate-
rial within an impoundment or sedimentation along
low-gradient flood plains. Because the estimated riv-
ermouth load is sensitive to the values assigned to
these coefficients, it is essential that the WATER-
SHED user be familiar with the physical characteris-
tics of the system. Transmission coefficients are in-
tended to enable the user to take into account the
sensitivity of pollutant loadings and remedial meas-
ures to transmission losses. They should not be indis-
criminately used to adjust the estimated rivermouth
load to match a measured load.
The recommended method of accounting for trans-
mission losses when comparing estimated and meas-
ured rivermouth loads is to initially assign a value of
1.0 (100 percent transmission) to all coefficients as
was done in the Chapter 2 example (Worksheet 7).
After calculating the total pollutant load at the river-
mouth on Worksheet 5 (summation of values in col-
-------
Figure 1
umn a5), this value can be checked against a meas-
ured rivermouth load that has been adjusted to re-
flect average annual nonpoint source contributions.
If the estimated and monitored loads are in "good
agreement"1 and careful study of the physical char-
acteristics of the tributary system does not indicate
pollutant transmission losses, the user may proceed
with calculations on subsequent worksheets. This
does not imply that transmission losses do not occur,
only that there is insufficient evidence to conclude
otherwise at this point.
In cases where the estimated total annual river-
mouth load from WATERSHED is significantly great-
er than the measured rivermouth load (after adjust-
ing for differences attributable to climatological fac-
tors), the user should examine hydrologic maps or
layouts of the river basin system to identify physical
characteristics which may result in entrapment of
pollutants during transport. If one or more potential
transmission loss locations are noted, the appropri-
ate transmission coefficients should be adjusted
downward to reflect the fraction of the pollutant load
lost or retained in that particular section of the river.
The impact of transmission losses on the WATER-
SHED process can be seen by examining the sample
river basin described in Chapter 2. On Worksheet 7
all of the effective transmission values were set at
1.0. For example purposes assume the estimated to-
tal load at the mouth (sum of column d7) was high by
50,000 kg/yr compared to the measured load of
199,000 kg/yr. By examining Figure 1, it could be de-
duced that the reservoir between points of entry A
The definition of "good agreement" will vary with the
pollutant under study and the management objectives of the
WATERSHED application. An estimated load within ฑ 25
percent of a measured load may be considered "good agree-
ment" in one situation, while a discrepancy in excess of ฑ 5
percent may be considered poor in some other WATERSHED
application.
and B may be acting as a permanent trap to the pollu-
tant. In order to better take into account the impact
of the reservoir on transmission, the effective trans-
mission (TA) value will be set at 0.5 in this example.
Pollutant sources 1 through 5 all enter at point A so
each is affected by the reservoir.
Worksheet 7 is recalculated with new values in
columns d7, e7, g7 and h7 (compare this example with
Chapter 2, Worksheet 7). Trapping of material in the
reservoir lowers the amount of pollutant delivered to
the river mouth (column d7) and the load reduction
seen at the mouth with control programs in effect
(column e7). The estimated rivermouth load is now
201,350 kg/yr, much closer to the measured value of
195,000 kg/yr.
This change in the assumed effective transmission
also influences the cost-effectiveness (column g7) and
the rank (column h7). Because the cost is still the same
for the control programs (column f7) and the effective-
ness at the mouth is reduced (column e7), the cost per
unit removed at the mouth (column g7) goes up. The
ranking is performed in column h7 and the results can
be compared with the Chapter 2 example where all
effective transmission values were equal to 1.0.
Results of Checking Watershed Estimates Against
Collected Data
The WATERSHED approach was applied in the
Great Lakes Basin Commission's Great Lakes Envi-
ronmental Planning Study (GLEPS) to estimate total
phosphorus loadings within the entire U.S. portion of
the Great Lakes basin. The estimates were compared
with estimates derived from data obtained from field
sampling conducted under Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group (PLUARG]. The data,
which were collected over a four year period, were
adjusted to average annual conditions by flow
weighting loadings (see Monteith and Sonzogni, 1981)
using the long-term historical flow. This was done to
-------
Source
Wolf Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Jackson Municipal, Point
Unsewered
Rock Creek Cropland
Middle River Cropland
Green Creek Cropland
Noncropland
Monroe Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
Combined Sewer
Lower River Cropland
Noncropland
Hamilton Municipal, Point
Separate Storm
TOTAL
Column > a,
Position
1
2
3
4
5
6
b,
c,
/
?/ "^ /
ฃ> ^/^g/ Total Load to
&//?&/ Surface Water
&//#// fkg/yr,
k-6 <
l~rQ
1^9
W-6 <
Vft
1.0
7 1.0
8 h.O
9 h.O
10
11
12
13
14
15
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1 .0
1 .0
>.5
).5
).5
).5
).5
NA
21,250
2,000
11,
100
3,750
50,000
18,750
22,500
2,750
26,000
6,200
9,000
30,000
500
26,600
15,000
245,400
d,
Load
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
-ฃrr250lO,625
2-rOOt) 1,000
4+TrDO 5,550
3T^50 1,875
-50700025,000
18,750
22,500
2,750
26,000
6,200
9,000
30,000
500
26,000
15,000
ฃฃ4-7400201,350 .
e,
Load Reduction
at Mouth
{kg/yr)
-%Q2T5 4,010
0
-87300 4,150
0
-2-3700th 1,500
9,810
7,920
0
20,500
1,400
500
17,320
0
18,000
3,600
W^73?098,710
t,
Cost of
Program
($/yr)
16,250
31,200
32,500
16,250
19,500
.. . _
60,000
187,500
75,000
32,500
___
96,000
450,000
1,016,700
87
Cost Per Unit
Removed at
Mouth
($/kg)
-2-T04.0
- . _
-3-7B7.5
_ _
-K42.8
1.6
2.4
mm mm _
2.9
133.9
150.0
1.9
5.3
125.0
h,
Cost-
Effective
Rank
46
_ .
^8
_ .
/|4
-21
4*
mt _ M
-6s
10
11
-32
mm _
ซ7
9
remove bias toward particularly high or low runoff
years.
Results from the WATERSHED analysis were com-
pared to the PLUARG monitored data for each of the
31 major U.S. Great Lakes rivers. A linear regression
was performed correlating the monitored data with
the WATERSHED data. The results showed a correla-
tion coefficient of 0.86. Data that were off the regres-
sion line by a "significant" (subjective value) margin
usually represented streams where WATERSHED
had overestimated the load to the river mouth. These
were often streams which had an impoundment or
other physical barrier that would likely trap up-
stream phosphorus inputs. Adjusting the transmis-
sion coefficients for these streams improved the cor-
relation to a coefficient of 0.92.
In summary, two entirely different approaches
were used to estimate rivermouth loads. In the first
approach, the WATERSHED technique, using unit
area loads to estimate nonpoint source contributions
and data from effluent sampling to estimate point
source loadings, predicted the annual total phos-
phorus load at the river mouth. In the second ap-
proach, four years of rivermouth water quality data
were used to calculate a flow weighted rivermouth
total phosphorus load. When rivermouth loads were
compared for these two cases a good linear correla-
tion was observed.
-------
chapter four
riven basin netwonks and load allocation
The preceding chapters have dealt with the analy-
sis of a single river basin. Frequently a water quality
manager is concerned with more than one tributary
draining to a lake or estuary. The WATERSHED pro-
cess is able to accommodate the analysis of multiple
river basins or direct point sources. This chapter de-
scribes how multiple basins and sources may be
linked and analyzed to determine which pollutant
source (located within different basins) can be con-
trolled to provide the most cost-effective load reduc-
tion to a large body of water.
As a result of legislation, some pollutant sources,
such as municipal wastewater treatment plants, may
Figure 4
Hypothetical River
Basin Network
VI
111 Sub-Basin Numbersv\ J
Direct Point
Sources or Storm-
water Sewers
already have pollution control programs in effect.
For example, all plants discharging to surface wa-
ters within a river basin may be required to limit
their effluent concentration of total phosphorus to
1.0 mg/L. The impact of such a requirement, com-
pared with other forms of remedial controls, could
also be evaluated using this network process.
Chapter 2 described how an individual river basin
was broken down into sub-basins and how the signifi-
cant sources of pollution were identified. The proce-
dure outlined in Chapter 2 would be applied to each
river basin identified in the region of interest. Figure
4 shows a hypothetical network containing several
river basins feeding into a lake. For example pur-
poses consider river basin II to be the same sample
basin used in Chapter 2.
Calculations on the first six worksheets should be
completed for each basin identified within the net-
work. An additional set of worksheets is used to ac-
count for point sources discharging directly to the
lake. In Figure 4, three different direct point sources
have been identified (labelled A through C).
The next step is to complete columns a7 through g7
on each river basin's Worksheet 7 and on a Work-
sheet 7 for all direct point sources. The cost-effec-
tiveness rank in column h7 is not generated at this
point.
To determine the best mix of programs to reduce
the load to the lake, cost-effectiveness ranking would
be performed by comparing all of the cost/unit values
in column g7 on all Worksheets 7 (i.e., the ranking is
among all programs considered for control in all the
sub-basins within the river basin network].
Finally, a single Worksheet 8 is prepared which
accounts for all pollutant sources within all of the
-------
different river basins and sub-basins identified. The
ranking of programs over the entire network pro-
vides a comparison of their cost-effectiveness in re-
ducing pollutant loadings to the lake.
Using Figure 4 as an example, assume that the cur-
rent load of pollutant "X" to the lake is 1,460 kg/yr.
The WATERSHED user wishes to formulate the most
cost-effective strategy for reducing this load to 800
kg/yra reduction of 660 kg/yr. After the work-
sheets have been completed through column g7 for all
river basins and direct point sources, values in col-
umn g7 are labeled in column h7 in order of cost-effec-
tiveness rank. This ranking would then be trans-
ferred onto a single Worksheet 8. Column b8 repre-
sents a summation of load reduction to the lake from
all river basins and direct point sources. It is then
possible to select the highest ranked combination of
programs which would achieve the 660 kg/yr reduc-
tion in the load of pollutant "X" delivered to the lake.
By assuming the first 8 programs would achieve this
objective, the procedure implies that under average
conditions the desired load reduction could be met.
The total cost of these programs is also found in col-
umn ee.
The eight programs selected may be scattered
throughout the lake drainage area. For instance, pro-
gram No. 1 might represent a new tillage practice to
be implemented in River Basin IV, program No. 5
might consist of improved settling at direct point
source C, and program No. 8 might be a streetsweep-
ing program in a city within River Basin VII.
This networking approach provides a framework
for comparing all possible options for meeting a de-
sired water quality objective. It should be stressed
that this is a general initial approach to help identify
those critical sources that need further investiga-
tion. More advanced techniques which can be ap-
plied to this networking system are discussed in
Chapter 5.
-------
chapter five
advanced
concepts
This chapter presents several different concepts
which may be added to the basic WATERSHED analy-
sis. These "advanced concepts" offer the manager
an opportunity to analyze river basins in more detail
once the basic worksheets have been completed.
Biological Availability
A portion of the load of certain pollutants may be
in a chemical form that does not stimulate biological
growth. In the case of phosphorus, a substantial por-
tion of the total phosphorus load may be in a form un-
available for biological uptake. Availability is espe-
cially important when comparing the cost-effective-
ness of control alternatives. Otherwise, funds could
be wasted on controlling a pollutant that does not
substantially affect water quality.
Table 5
General Availability of Phosphorus
Derived from Different Sources
(Based Mostly on Great Lakes Studies)
Form and Source
Approx. % Available Phosphorus
at the Point of Discharge
46
Particulate P in
River Water
Total P in River Water
Particulate P
in Urban Runoff
Total P in
Rural Runoff
Total P in Municipal
Point Source Discharges
40 or less
50-60 or less
50 or less
50 or less
70 or more
While information on biological availability is still
incomplete, enough information does exist, particu-
larly for phosphorus, to make some generalizations
that can be applied in WATERSHED. Sonzogni et al.
(1981) recently reviewed the existing information on
phosphorus availability. Table 5 is based on their re-
view.
Table 5 shows that the bioavailability of phospho-
rus in runoff water is generally less than half of the
total. In contrast, phosphorus in municipal point
source discharges is largely available, at least com-
pared to other sources at the point of discharge.
Based on limited data, the type of sewage treatment
or phosphorus removal practice does not appear to
affect what fraction of phosphorus in the effluent is
bioavailable. However, once the effluent is dis-
charged to a stream the available phosphorus from a
municipal sewage plant will bind to the stream sedi-
ments and suspended material. Thus, the available
phosphorus load from a plant far upstream may be
significantly reduced as a result of this action by the
time it reaches the downstream receiving water (Ver-
hoff et al, 1978; Logan, 1980).
Because the bioavailability of phosphorus from
point and nonpoint sources seems to differ widely, it
is important that it be considered in certain cost-ef-
fectiveness analyses. In WATERSHED, the bioavail-
able pollutant load from a particular source is esti-
mated by multiplying the total load from that source
by the bioavailable fraction, as discussed in Chapter
2. Since the bioavailable fraction will almost never
be established for an individual source, the value
must be estimated. In most situations, it is advisable
to work with a range of bioavailable fractions to de-
termine the sensitivity of the analysis to this factor.
-------
-------
In considering bioavailability, the user must be at-
tentive to the effects of control measures on both the
bioavailable and total form of a pollutant delivered
from a source. As discussed in Sonzogni et aJ. (1981),
bioavailable phosphorus is not necessarily reduced
in proportion to the total phosphorus load as control
measures are implemented. For instance, conserva-
tion tillage may have a negligible effect on or may
even increase soluble phosphorus loads. Thus, large
reductions in particulate phosphorus as a result of
conservation tillage could greatly reduce the total
phosphorus load but have less of an effect on the bio-
available P load. For more information on this point
the user is referred to Logan (1980) and Mueller et aJ.
(1981).
Very little information exists on the bioavailability
of parameters other than phosphorus. Limited stud-
ies on suspended solids from tributaries of the Great
Lakes indicate that about 20 to 70 percent of particu-
late copper, zinc and lead are in an available form.
Figure 5
Example of Staged
Pollution Control Strategy
Strategy for Total Phosphorus
Stage I Stage II Stage in
Point
Source
Urban
Runoff
Cropland
Runoff
Add chemicals to coagulate total P
Stage I plus more chemicals and
increase settling time. Add more
sludge handling
Stage I plus Stage II plus filtration
Streetsweep at 7 day intervals
Stage I plus settling of stormwater
Stage I plus Stage II plus treat
stormwater
Provide education and training to
encourage conservation tillage
Stage I plus provide demonstration
plots to show on-site results
Stage I plus Stage II plus provide
subsidies to farmers who use
conservation tillage
-------
The availability is likely to vary with location, size of
the particle, and the specific metal. Generally, 50
percent of total participate metals may be consid-
ered available for the analytical purposes of WATER-
SHED.
Staged Control Strategies
In WATERSHED a strategy to control a pollution
source (rural runoff, urban runoff, and municipal
point sources) may be staged; that is, it may consist of
one or more incremental control programs. Incre-
mental programs, where one program builds upon
another, may be appropriate in many situations. For
instance, a municipal point source control strategy
for phosphorus might consist of three stages of chem-
ical phosphorus control. Stages I, II and III might be
treatment to the 1.0 mg/L, 0.5 mg/L and 0.3 mg/L
phosphorus effluent levels, respectively. Stage III
could not be implemented before Stage II, and Stage
II could not be implemented before Stage I. However,
it is possible that Stage I and II point source control
programs should be implemented before either a
Stage I cropland or Stage I urban runoff control pro-
gram. Figure 5 shows a schematic representation of
an example of a staged pollution control strategy for
total phosphorus. This figure could represent a strat-
egy for a single river basin or an entire network.
Appendix E contains a set of worksheets in which
control programs are grouped into stages of imple-
mentation. Any number of stages can be formulated
for a pollutant source. For this example, two stages
of control were selected for each source (rural run-
off, urban runoff, and municipal point sources). Total
phosphorus is the pollutant to be controlled.
Note that the stages of control in Appendix E are
formulated as incremental levels of treatment. Thus,'
the costs and load reductions presented for Stage II
controls are in addition to the costs and load reduc-
tions associated with Stage I controls. In other
words, for any given loading source, the ability to im-
plement a Stage II control is dependent on imple-
menting the Stage I control first.
A given stage of control may itself consist of sever-
al different control measures. This allows for site
specific application of a general control program
over a broad area, since "across-the-board" runoff
control programs are more the exception than the
rule. For example, to decrease the pollutant contri-
bution from a cropland area, several different tillage
practices may be used on individual farms in the
area, depending on factors such as the farmer's pref-
erence, type of cropland, and the characteristics of
the land. Analytically (i.e., in the WATERSHED ac-
counting ) the different control measures would be
viewed in combination. An average level of pollutant
reduction at an average cost would be utilized for the
program.
Finally, more than one strategy, each consisting of
one or more stages of control, can be proposed for a
river basin. Each of these strategies should be evalu-
ated separately using the WATERSHED process and
then compared.
Application of WATERSHED to
Various Pollutants
The previous discussion has focused on the appli-
cation of WATERSHED to phosphorus and suspended
solids loadings. With proper base information other
pollutants can be analyzed using the same worksheet
techniques. Available loading data for metals and
other pollutants can be found in Appendices A
through D. Pollutant delivery ratios and bioavailable
fractions should be modified depending upon the pol-
lutant and location.
-------
chapter six
linear programming
50
The following two sections discuss a management
technique known as linear programming. This tech-
nique does not follow the worksheet approach dis-
cussed throughout the rest of the handbook. While
some of the worksheets may be helpful, linear pro-
gramming is presented as an advanced concept with
its own format requirements.
Load AllocationsAdvanced Networks
If a load limitation has been imposed on a particu-
lar river basin, WATERSHED can be used to deter-
mine the most cost-effective combination of strate-
gies to achieve the desired pollutant load. If water
quality improvements are to be made in increments,
WATERSHED can show which measures are most
cost-effective from a water quality standpoint and
should be examined first. Since control measures
will have benefits and costs other than those con-
sidered in WATERSHED, the planner or manager
should also take these into consideration if more de-
tailed planning or construction is to be undertaken.
For example, many nonpoint control measures im-
prove soil conservation as well as water quality. Con-
sequently, it may be necessary to implement some
nonpoint control measures for soil conservation even
though they have little effect on water quality.
The previous discussion has focused on the appli-
cation of WATERSHED to phosphorus and suspended
solids loadings. With proper base information other
pollutants can be analyzed using the same worksheet
techniques. Available loading data for metals
and other pollutants can be found in Appendices A
through D. Pollutant delivery ratios and bioavailable
fractions should be modified depending upon the pol-
lutant and location.
If load allocations are made among different
sources to a waterbody, linear program techniques
can be used. Linear programming is an optimization
technique that can determine the least cost reduc-
tion in pollutant loads from different sources neces-
sary to reach a desired overall load. Data for this ap-
proach can be compiled in Worksheets 1 through 6.
Data required to use a linear programming ap-
proach for load allocations include the present pol-
lutant loadings for each source as well as the unit
costs of reducing these loadings. Also required is the
target load reduction objective for the water course
being analyzed. The flexibility of linear programming
also allows incorporation of additional technologi-
cal, economical, political and/or social constraints
(e.g., maximum or minimum allowable expenditure at
a particular source, maximum or minimum load re-
duction required at a particular source).
Once the linear programming objective function
and constraints have been formulated, the optimum
solution for simple cases can be found with the aid of
a pocket calculator using the Simplex Tableau Meth-
od (Au and Stelson, 1969). For more complex cases, a
computer program can be utilized. Linear program-
ming computer software is readily available and rel-
atively easy to use (see Hall, McWhorter, and Spivey,
1977).
An example of the application of linear program-
ming to a hypothetical load application problem fol-
lows. Since a complete discussion of linear program-
ming is beyond the scope of this handbook, the user is
referred to the many fine texts on this subject (see Au
and Stelson, 1969). In addition, examples of actual
-------
-------
applications of linear programming techniques to
river basin management may be found in Heidtke et
ol (1980).
Linear Programming Example 1Load Allocations
Assume the following phosphorus loading situa-
tion in a hypothetical lake:
Source
River A
River B
River C
STP
Urban Runoff
Total
Present P Loading (kg/yr)
18,868
20,816
37,072
28,200
12,650
117,606
It is desired to reduce the total phosphorus loading
to the lake by 70,000 kg/yr. Therefore,
LT = target load reduction = 117,606 - 70,000
= 47,606 kg/yr.
The unit costs for reducing phosphorus loads at
the lake for each of the sources are known to be:
Source
River A
River B
River C
STP
Urban Runoff
Unit Cost of P Removal
($/kg reduced at the lake)
1.2
1.0
0.8
2.2
123.3
Objective Function. The objective of the analysis will
be to achieve the required loading reduction at the
minimum annual cost:
Min CT = I L. Cj
where:
GT = total annual cost of reductions ($/yrj
L, = required reduction in phosphorus
loading from source i (kg/yr)
Cj = unit cost of phosphorus reduction at
source i ($/kg)
Therefore, the objective function for this case is:
minCT = 1.2LA + 1.0LB + 0.8LC + 2.2LSTP + 123.3L
Constraints.
1. The first constraint will state that the sum of the
phosphorus load reductions at each source must
achieve the target load reduction. In general:
IL^L,
Therefore, in this case:
LA + LB + LC + LSTP + LUR > 47-606
2. The next set of constraints will reflect the physi-
cal constraint that load reductions at each source
cannot be greater than the present loading there:
UR
VS
-------
Note that these maximum load reductions could
have been set at any loading less than the present
loading if required due to technological, economical,
social and/or political considerations. Therefore:
LA < 18,868
LB < 20,816
Lc < 37,072
LSTP < 28,200
LUR < 12,650
3. The next set of constraints will state that the
load reductions at each source must be nonnegative
(i.e., there can be no increase in the loading from any
source]:
L's > 0
Therefore:
LB>0
STP
This completes the set of constraint equations for
this case. As discussed earlier other constraints,
such as cost constraints reflecting maximum or mini-
mum expenditures for load reductions or load con-
straints reflecting maximum or minimum reductions
required at particular sources, could also have been
imposed on the analysis. For example, a fixed maxi-
mum expenditure could be set for nonpoint source
controls, or a load reduction limit could be set on
point sources [i.e., the minimum total phosphorus
concentrations of the point source effluent could be
fixed at 1.0 mg/L). In summary, the complete problem
statement is as follows:
minCT = 1.2LA
subject to:
1.0LB + 0.8LC + 2.2L
STP
123.31^
LST
Lra > 47,606
LA< 18,868
LB< 20,816
Lc< 37,072
LSTP< 28,200
LUR< 12,650
LA' LB, Lc, LSTP, LUR > 0
This problem can now be solved by hand or with
the aid of a computer to yield the following optimum
load reductions at each source:
LA = load reduction required in River A = 0
LB = load reduction required in River B = 10,534 kg/yr
Lc = load reduction required in River C = 37,072 kg/yr
LSTP = load reduction required for the STP = 0
LUR = load reduction required for urban runoff = 0
The total minimized cost of these reductions (CT) is
$40,191.60/yr. Note that this solution is exactly what
would be expected for this simple case, considering
the given unit costs of phosphorus reduction at each
source. River C has the lowest unit cost of phospho-
rus reduction ($0.80/kg) and therefore, it is desirable
to decrease loading from this source as much as
possible (i.e., LCmax = 37,072 kg/yr). The additional
10,534 kg/yr reduction required to meet the target
load reduction objective of 47,606 kg/yr is then re-
moved from River B since this source has the next
lowest unit cost of phosphorus reduction (1.0/kg) and
the 10,534 kg/yr reduction does not exceed its maxi-
mum obtainable reduction of 20,816 kg/yr. In more
complicated cases the solution may not be as ob-
vious.
-------
Multiobjective Analysis
Previous chapters in this handbook have consid-
ered only one pollutant at a time. However, control
strategies may affect more than one pollutant. For
example, removing phosphorus at a municipal waste-
water treatment plant may concurrently reduce bio-
chemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, toxic
metals, and viruses. Ideally, a multiobjective analy-
sis should be performed so that the cost of the total
phosphorus control program can be evaluated
against benefits (or costs) other than just those asso-
ciated with phosphorus reductions. Simon (1980) has
made an initial attempt at this by modifying the over-
view modeling approach of PLUARG with a paramet-
ric nonlinear optimization technique.
The linear program approach discussed previous-
ly as a load allocation tool is also well-suited for mul-
tiobjective analysis. The following example illus-
trates it use in a hypothetical situation. For a more
advanced approach, using parametric nonlinear op-
timization techniques, see Simon (1980).
Linear Programming Example 2 Multiobjective Analysis
Assume the following pollutant loading for a hypo-
thetical lake:
The unit costs for reducing these three pollutants
at each source are:
Source
River 1
River 2
River 3
STP (4)
Totals
Present Pollutant Loadings
BOD
(kg/yr)
8,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
38,000
Phosphorus
(kg/yr)
15,000
10,000
5,000
10,000
40,000
Fecal Coliforms
(106 cells/yr)
1.0
0.1
100
100
201.1
Unit
BOD
($/kg)
10
11
9
12
Costs for Pollutant Reductions
Phosphorus
($/kg)
13
15
17
18
Fecal Coliforms
($/106 cells/yr)
10
10
8
5
Assume the target load reductions are as follows:
JTBOD
= target load reduction for BOD = 10,000 kg/yr.
LTP = target load reduction for phosphorus = 10,000 kg/yr.
LTFC = target load reduction for fecal coliforms = 100 x 106 cells/yr.
-------
In order to illustrate the adaptability of linear pro-
gramming to unique constraints or requirements, it
will also be assumed that the money spent for reduc-
ing the pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources (i.e.,
the rivers) may not exceed some maximum amount:
CNP max = maximum allowable expenditure for
reducing pollutants from nonpoint
sources = $15,000/yr.
Objective Function. The objective of this analysis is
to achieve the required pollutant load reductions at
the minimum annual cost:
minCT =
where:
CT = total annual costs of reductions ($/yr)
LJ . = required load reduction of pollutant i
from source j (units/yr)
C, j = unit cost of pollutant reduction for
pollutant i from source j ($/unit)
Therefore, the objective function for this case can be
written:
minCT = (10LBOD1 + 13LP1 + 10LFC1)
+ (HLBOD.2 + 15Lp,2 + 10LFC2)
+ 17LP,3 + 8LFC,3)
LBOD
D4
18
5 LPCJ
Constraints.
1. The first set of constraints reflects the target
load reduction requirements for each of the pollu-
tants:
I
1
Z
i
JTP
so for this case:
LBOD,1 + LBOD,2 + LBOD.3 + LBOD,4 ^ 10,000
Lp 2 + Lp 3 + LP4 > 10,000
FC.l
FC,2
FC.3
FC.4
2. The next set of constraints reflects the max-
imum load reductions of each pollutant that can be
achieved at each source. For simplicity it will be as-
sumed that all loadings can be reduced to zero (i.e.,
the maximum load reduction attainable is equal to
the present loading). In reality this probably would
not be the case. Thus:
Kj's
where:
)max's
j max
= Maximum obtainable load reduction of
pollutant i from source j (units/yr)
Therefore:
LBOD,I < 8'000 LP,I ** 15.000 LFC a
1.0
LBOD2< 5,000 LP2< 10,000 LFC2<0.1
LBOD3< 10,000 LP3< 5,000 LFC3<100
LBOD4< 15,000 LP4< 10,000 LFC4<100
3. The next constraint represents the imposed ex-
penditure ceiling for controlling pollutant loadings
from nonpoint sources:
or:
(10LBOD1 + 13 L^ + 10LFC1)
+ (11LBOD2 + 15LP2 + 10LFC2)
+ (9LBOD3 + 17LP3 + 8 LFC3)< 15,000
4. The nonnegativity constrauits complete the
problem statement:
55
-------
56
Vs >
Therefore:
LBOD^O Lp^O LFC3>0
LBOD,4>0 LP4>0 LFC4>0
Again, other constraints unique to a specific case
could have been included in the above analysis.
The complete problem statement is given below:
13L + 10L
minCT = 10L
subject to:
'BOD.l
+ 11 LBOD2
+ 9 LBOD.S H
+ 12 LBOD,4
P,I
+ is:
17 L,
FC,1
JP,2 + 10 LFC,2
P,3
18 L
8L
P,4
FC,3
L
LBOD.
D.2
Lp _t + Lp 2 p 3
LBOD.3
+ Lp
LFC.3
BOD,4
LP4
10,000
LFC,1 + LFC,2 + LFC.3 + LFC,4
LBOD.I < 8'000 LP,I < 15'000 LFC,I 4
LBOD 2 < 5,000 LP2 < 10,000 LFC 2 <
LBOD,3 < 10'000 LP,3 < 5-000 LFC,3 <
LBOD,4 < 15'000 LP.4 < 10'000 LFC,4
0.1
10LBOD,1
+ 15LP2
13LP,1 + 10LFC.l +
10LFC2 + 9LBOD3
11 ^BOD.2
+ 17k,,
+ 8LFr,< 15,000
-Fas
The optimum solution would be determined with
the aid of an appropriate computer program for opti-
mization problems.
-------
Linear Programming Example 3 Multiobjective Analysis
Finally, a slightly different application of linear
programming is illustrated. Here the major types of
pollutant sources contributing to a surface water (in
this case a river) are considered as opposed to the
previous two examples where individual sources
were considered. In this example an upper limit on
removal of pollutants (other than 100 percent, as was
assumed in the first two examples] will be imposed on
each pollutant source. Assume the following river
basin with four major types of pollutant sources:
(1) Point
Sources (PS)
(3) Rural
Cropland
Runoff (RCR)S
River
(2) Urban^
Runoff (UR)
(4) Rural ^
Non-Cropland
Runoff (RNCR)
BOD
Present
Loading
Sources (kg/yr)
(1) PS 20,000
(2) UR 20,000
(3) RCR 10,000
(4) RNCR 1,000
Totals 51,000
Maximum
Feasible Reduction
(kg/yr)
19,000
16,000
8,000
200
43,200
Phosphorus
Present Maximum
Loading Feasible Reduction
(kg/yr) (kg/yr)
15,000 14,500
18.000 12,000
30,000 22,500
1,000 200
64,000 49,200
Unit Costs for
Pollutant Reductions
BOD Phosphorus
($/kg) ($/kg)
120 180
150 160
100 90
300 200
The target load reduction objectives for the river are:
LTBOD = target load reduction for BOD = 18,000 kg/yr
LTP = target load reduction for phosphorus = 15,000 kg/yr
-------
58
Objective Function. The objective function is formu-
lated exactly as in the preceding example:
Therefore:
In this case:
minCT = (120LBOD1 + 180
+ (150LBOD2 + 160 LP2)
+ (100 LBOD 3 + 90 Lp 3)
+ (300LBOD4 + 200 LPJ
Constraints.
1. Target load reduction objectives:
L ^
Z Lp . > LT
LBOD.l + LBOD.2 + LBOD,3 + LBOD,4 > 18'000
LP1 + LP2 + LP3 -I- LP4 > 15,000
2. Maximum feasible reductions attainable for
each source:
Li,j'S 0
BOD,2
BOD,3
0
0
0
0
"BOD.4 " "
In summary:
min CT = 120LBOD4 + 180 Lp t + 150 LBOD 2
subject to:
160 LP2 + 100 LBOD 3 + 90 LP3
30ฐ LBOD,4 + 200 LP4
LBOD 2 + LBOD 3 + LBOD 4 > 18,000
LP.I + Lp,2 + Lp,3 + Lp,4 ** 15,000
LBOD,1 < 19'000
JBOD,2
LBOD3< 8,000
; 200
LM's ^ 0
"p.i ^
LP2< 12,000
LP3 < 22,500
LD, < 200
A computer could now be used to solve for the opti-
mum solution. In this case the optimum solution
would be the BOD and phosphorus load reductions
required for point sources, urban runoff sources,
rural cropland runoff sources and rural non-crop-
land runoff sources in order to meet the target load
reductions for the two pollutants at the minimum
cost.
In the last two examples, the unit costs for reduc-
ing each of the pollutants considered were assumed
to be completely independent. In other words, reduc-
tion of one pollutant has no effect on the unit cost for
reducing the other pollutants. Again, this may not be
the case, as the removal of one pollutant may have an
effect on the removal and cost of removal of other
pollutants present.
-------
chapter seven
accounting aids
Because WATERSHED is based upon many user as-
sumptions which carry through the entire process, it
is often desirable to change an early assumption to
determine its impact on the final results. This type of
change can result in many additional calculations.
While the mathematics involved are simple, the num-
ber of operations involved may best be handled on a
programmable calculator or a computer. WATER-
SHED is primarily designed to be performed without
these aids, however some users may wish to take ad-
vantage of the technology available to them.
Programmable Calculator
The worksheets involve many repetitive opera-
tions that are ideally suited for electronic calcula-
tors, particularly those that accept simple programs.
All the equations necessary for performing the work-
sheet calculations are given on the bottom of the
worksheet or in the text in Chapter 2. These equa-
tions may be easily programmed into any of the pro-
grammable calculators available today.
Some of the more advanced hand-held or desk top
calculators will support the entire WATERSHED pro-
cess. These devices are able to store the equations
and the data entered for all of the worksheets, thus
providing a significant time-savings once the pro-
grams have been written.
Fortran Program
For users with access to a computer, a Fortran
Program is available which will perform the com-
plete WATERSHED process. Data entry, calculations,
worksheet printouts and data storage for individual
river basins or up to seven basins in a network are all
handled by the program. The program listings and
operators manual are found in Appendix G which is a
separate document from the Handbook. A tape or
other user assistance can be obtained from Dr. Wil-
liam Sonzogni at the Great Lakes Environmental Re-
search Laboratory, National Oceanographic and At-
mospheric Administration, Ann Arbor, Michigan
[phone: [313)668-2249].
BO
-------
-------
table of contents: appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Tables
Appendix C
Tables
Bibliography and Experts List 64
Rural Runoff and Pollution Control Bibliography 64
Urban Runoff Pollution Control Bibliography 65
Experts List 68
Point Sources: Pollutant Loadings and Controls 70
B-l Costs to Achieve Various Effluent Phosphorus
Concentrations 70
B-2 Chemical Treatment Costs at Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities 71
Urban Runoff: Pollutant Loadings and Controls 72
C-l Total Phosphorus Unit Area Loads
from Urban Land 72
C-2 Costs and Total Phosphorus Load Reductions
of Urban Runoff Control Programs 72
C-3 Costs and Heavy Metals Load Reductions
of Urban Runoff Control Programs 73
C-4 Problems, Benefits, and Costs
of Urban Runoff Control Measures 74
C-5 Annual Costs and Percent Removal
of Total Suspended Solids and Biochemical
Oxygen Demand, Using Detention Basins 75
C-6 Average Phosphorus Removal
of Various Stormwater Control Measures 75
C-7 Costs of Different Types of Storage 76
C-8 Costs of Various Runoff Control Measures 76
C-9 Estimated Cost of Permanent Soil
Stabilization Methods 77
C-10 Estimated Cost of Temporary Soil
Stabilization Methods for Urbanizing Areas 78
C-ll Annual Cost of Porous Pavement 79
C-l2 Annual Cost and Percent Phosphorus
Removal of Sewer Flushing 79
C-l3 Costs and Percent Removal
of Biochemical Oxygen Demand
from Combined Sewer Overflow
Abatement Alternatives 80
-------
Figure
Appendix D
Tables
Appendix E
Figure
Appendix F
C-14 Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
of Street Gleaning Operations 81
C-15 Annual Costs and Percent Removal
of Total Solids by Streetsweeping 81
C-16 A Comparison of Streetsweeper
Pollutant Recovery Efficiencies 82
C-17 Annual Street Cleaning Costs
of Broom Sweeper 82
C-1 Land Management Methods
for Controlling Urban Runoff 83
Cropland and Other Rural Runoff: Pollutant Loadings and Controls. . 84
D-l Total Phosphorus Unit Area Loads
for Rural Land 84
D-2 Costs of Various Rural Runoff Control Measures 85
D-3 A Comparison of Soil Loss Reductions
Under Different Conservation
Tillage Practices , 86
D-4 Reductions in Annual Soil Losses
and Phosphorus Loadings Associated
with Different Farm Practices,
as Compared to Continuous Corn
with Conventional Tillage 87
D-5 A Comparison of Revenues and Costs
of Different Farm Practices
with Corn and Soybeans 88
D-6 Change in Net Return and Actual Yield
for Corn Under Alternative Tillage Practices,
by Soil Management Group 89
D-7 Nonpoint Pollution from Silviculture Operations:
Factors Influencing Sediment Load
and Control Measures 90
Sandusky River Basin Example 92
Basic Assumptions 92
E-1 Costs for Reducing Total Phosphorus Load
vs. Percent Load Reduction 93
Worksheets
References 106
S3
-------
Appendix A
Bibliography and Experts List
64
Rural Runoff Pollution Control References
General
Madison, F.W. (1979). "Washington County Proj-
ect," EPA Report No. 905/9-80-003.
Agricultural Land
Meta Systems, Inc. (1979). "Costs and Water Quality
Impacts of Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint
Source Pollution: An Analysis Methodology," Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA,
Athens, Georgia, EPA Report No. 600/5-79-009.
Seitz, W.D. et al., (1978). "Alternative Policies for
Controlling Nonpoint Agricultural Sources of Wa-
ter Pollution," ERS, Athens, Georgia, EPA Report
No. 600/5-78-005.
Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments
(SEMCOG) (1978). "Costs for Applying Recom-
mended Management Practices on Agricultural
Land," SEMCOG, Detroit, Michigan.
Walker, D. J. and J.F. Timmons (1980). "Costs of Alter-
native Policies for Controlling Agricultural Soil
Loss and Associated Stream Sedimentation," Jour-
nal of Soil and Water Conservation, 35(4).
Conservation Tillage
Amemiya, M. (1977). "Conservation Tillage in the
Western Corn Belt," JournoJ of Soil and Water
Conservation, 32(1).
Bauder, J.W. et al. (1979). "Tillage: Its Role in Con-
trolling Soil Erosion By Water," Agricultural Ex-
tension Service Folder No. 497, University of Min-
nesota.
Cahill, T.H. and R.W. Pierson, (1979). "Honey Creek
Watershed Report," Lake Erie Wastewater Man-
agement Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buf-
falo, New York.
Griffith, D.R., Mannering, J.V., and W.C. Molden-
haur (1977). "Conservation Tillage in the Eastern
Cornbelt." In: Conservation Tillage: Problems and
Potentials, Soil Conservation Society of America,
Iowa.
Honey Creek Joint Board of Supervisors (1980). "Hon-
ey Creek Watershed Project: Tillage Demonstra-
tion Results 1979," Lake Erie Wastewater Man-
agement Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buf-
falo, New York.
Hughes, H. (1980). "Conservation Farming," John
Deere & Company, Moline, Illinois.
Monteith, T.M., Baise, M.P., and R. A. Sullivan (1981).
"Environmental and Economic Implications of
Conservation Tillage Practices in the Great Lakes
Basin," Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Ar-
bor, Michigan.
Oschwald, W. and J. Siemens (1976). Conservation
Tillage: A Perspective, SM-30, Agron. Facts, Uni-
versity of Illinois.
Phillips, R.E. et al. (1980). "No-Tillage Agriculture,"
Science, 208.
Pollard, R.W. et al. (1979). "Farmers Experience
With Conservation Tillage: A Wisconsin Survey,"
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 34(5).
Siemens, J.C. and W.R. Oschwald, (1978). "Corn-
Soybean Tillage Systems: Erosion Control, Effects
on Crop Production, Costs," Transactions of the
ASAE, 21.
-------
Triplett, Jr., G.B. and D.M.VanDoren, Jr. (1977). "Ag-
riculture Without Tillage," Scientific American,
January.
U.S. Department of AgricultureSoil Conservation
Service, Ecological Sciences and Technology Divi-
sion (1980). "Briefing Paper on Minimum and No-
Till Farming," Washington, D.G.
Voorhees, W.B. (1977). "Soil Compaction," Conserva-
tion Tillage Research Progress and Needs, U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Agricultural Research
ServiceNorth Central Region, Council Bluffs,
Iowa, ARS-NC-57.
Pesticide Use
Rao, P.S.C. and J.M. Davidson (1978). "Estimates
of Pesticide Retention and Transformation Param-
eters Required in Nonpoint Source Pollution
Models." In Environmental Impact of Nonpoint
Source Pollution, Overcash, M.R. and J.M. David-
son, editors.
Smith, C.N., Leonard, R.A., Langdale, G.W. and G.W.
Bailey (1978). "Transport of Agriculture Chemi-
cals From Small Upland Piedmont Watersheds,"
EPA Report No. 600/3-78-056.
Silviculture
U.S.D.A., Forest Service (1980). "An Approach to
Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silvicul-
ture Sources (A Procedural Handbook)," EPA Re-
port No. 600/8-80-012, Athens, Georgia.
Urban Runoff Pollution Control References
General
Adgate, K.C. (1975). "Land Management Tech-
niques for Stormwater Control in Developed Ur-
ban Areas." In: Proceedings, Urban Stormwater
Management Seminars, EPA Report WPD-03-76-
04.
Black, Crow and Eidness, Inc. and Jordan, Jones and
Goulding, Inc. (1975). "Study and Assessment of
the Capabilities and Cost of Technology for Con-
trol of Pollutant Discharges from Urban Runoff,"
prepared for the National Commission on Water
Quality, Draft Report.
Field, R. (1975). "Coping with Urban Runoff in the
United States," Water Research, 9.
Field, R. and J.A. Lager (1974). "Countermeasures for
Pollution from Overflows," EPA Report No. 670/2-
74-090, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Field, R. and Lager, J. A. (1975). "Urban Runoff Pollu-
tion ControlState of the Art," /. Environmental
Engineering Div., 101.
Field, R., Tafuri, A.N., and H.E. Masters (1977). Ur-
ban Runoff Pollution ControJ Technology Over-
view, EPA Report No. 600/2-77-047.
Lager, J.A. et al. (1977). "Urban Stormwater Man-
agement and Technology: Update and User's
Guide," EPA Report No. 600/8-77-014.
Mallory, C.W., Hittman Associates (1973). "The Ben-
eficial Use of Stormwater," EPA Report No. R2-
73-139, Columbia, Maryland.
Naber, K.M. and W.L. Miller (1975). "Systematic De-
velopment of Methodologies in Planning Urban
Water Resources for Medium Size Communities."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980). "Plan-
ning For Urban Stormwater Management: Finan-
cial Issues and Options. Draft," EPA Report No.
1.2: F49/2-4.
65
-------
Water Quality Impacts of Urban Runoff
American Public Works Association (1969). "Water
Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff," EPA Report
No. 11030DN501, Chicago, Illinois.
Enviro Control Inc. (1973]. "Total Urban Pollutant
Load: Sources and Abatement Strategies," pre-
pared for the Council of Environmental Quality,
Draft Report.
Shaheen, D.G. (1975). "Contributions of Urban Road-
way Usage to Water Pollution, EPA Report No.
600/2-75-004.
Stormwater Modeling
Heaney, J.K. and W.C. Huber (1975). "Urban Storm-
water Management Modeling and Decision-Mak-
ing," EPA Report No. 670/2-75-022. Gainesville,
Florida.
Heaney, J.P. and S.J. Nix (1977). "Stormwater Man-
agement Model, Level I: Comparative Evaluation
of Storage-Treatment and Other Management
Practices," EPA Report No. 600/2-77-083.
Hydrologic Engineering Center for U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (1974). "Generalized Computer Pro-
gram, Urban Storm Water Runoff, STORM," Pub-
lication No.723-S8-L2520.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (1976). "Development and Appli-
cation of a Simplified Stormwater Management
Model," EPA Report No. 600/2-76-218, Palo Alto,
California.
Combined Sewer Overflow
General
Field, R. (1973). "Combined Sewer Overflows," Civil
EngineeringASCE Magazine, February.
66
Field, R., Curtis, J., and R. Bowden (1976). "Literature
Review: Urban Runoff and Combined Sewer Over-
flow," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation,
48(b).
Field, R. and E.J. Struzeski (1972). "Management and
Control of Combined Sewer Overflows," Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, 44(6).
Jordan, Jones and Goulding, Inc., and Black, Crow
and Eidsness, Inc. (1977). "Cost Estimates for Con-
struction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treat-
ment FacilitiesSummaries of Technical Data for
Combined Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Dis-
charge1976 Needs Survey," EPA Report No.
430/9-76-012.
Parks, J.W. et al. (1974). "An Evaluation of Three
Combined Sewer Overflow Treatment Alterna-
tives," EPA Report No. 670/2-74-079.
Wycoff, R.L., Scholl, J.E., and S. Kissoon (1979).
"1978 Needs SurveyCost Methodology for Con-
trol of Combined Sewer Overflow and Stormwater
Discharge," EPA Report No. 430/9-79-003.
Chemical Treatment
Dow Chemical Company (1970). "Chemical Treat-
ment of Combined Sewer Overflows," EPA Report
No. 11023FDB809/70, Midland, Michigan.
Concentrators
American Public Works Association (1972). "The
Swirl Concentrator as a Combined Sewer Over-
flow Regulator Facility." EPA Report No. RZ-72-
008, Chicago, Illinois.
Degritters
Sullivan, R.H. et al. (1977). "Field Prototype Demon-
stration of the Swirl Degritter," EPA Report No.
600/2-77-185.
-------
Flotation Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows
Bursztynsky, T.A. et al., Engineering Science Inc.
(1975). "A Treatment of Combined Sewer Over-
flows by Dissolved Air Flotations," EPA Report
No. 600/2-75-033, Berkeley, California.
The Ecology Division, Rex Chainbelt, Inc. (1972).
"Screening/Flotation Treatment of Combined
Sewer Overflows," EPA Report No. 11020FDC01/
72, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Rhodes Corporation (1970). "Dissolved-Air Flotation
Treatment of Combined Sewer Overflows," EPA
Report No. 11020FKI01/70, Oklahoma City, Okla-
homa.
Sewer Flushing
Central Engineering Laboratory, FMC Corporation
(1972). "A Flushing System for Combined Sewer
Cleansing," EPA Report No. 11020DN003/72, San-
ta Clara, California.
Storage
Melpar (1970). "Combined Sewer Temporary Un-
derwater Storage Facility," EPA Report No.
11022DPP10/70, Falls Church, Virginia.
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Maryland Department of Water Resources and Hitt-
man Associates (1972). "Guidelines for Erosion
and Sediment Control Planning and Implementa-
tion," EPA Report No. R2-72-015, Columbia,
Maryland.
National Association of Counties Research Founda-
tion (1970). "Urban Soil Erosion and Sediment Con-
trol," EPA Report No. 15030DTL05/70, Washing-
ton, D.C.
U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service for the State of
Maryland (1975). "Standards and Specifications
for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in Develop-
ing Areas."
High Rate Filtration
Ross Nebolsine, P.J. Havey and Chi-Yuan Fan, Hy-
drotechnic Corp. (1972). "High Rate Filtration of
Combined Sewer Overflows," EPA Report No.
11023EY104/72, New York, New York.
Control of Infiltration/Inflow
American Public Works Association (1970). "Control
of Infiltration and Inflow into Sewer Systems,"
EPA Report No. 11022EFF12/70, Chicago, Illinois.
Sewer Rehabilitation
Sullivan, R.H. et al. (1977). "Sewer System Evalua-
tion, Rehabilitation and New Construction, A
Manual of Practice," EPA Report No. 600/2-77-
017d.
Stormwater Detention and Retention
Poertner, H.G. (1973). "Detention Storage of Urban
Stormwater Runoff," APWA Reporter, 40, 5:14.
Poertner, H.G. (1974). "Practices in Detention of Ur-
ban Stormwater Runoff," American Public Works
Association Special Report No. 43.
Respond, F.J. (1976). "Roof Retention of Rainfall to
Limit Urban Runoff," National Symposium on
Urban Hydrology, Hyd. and Sed. Control, July 26-
29, 1976. University of Kentucky, Lexington, Ken-
tucky.
Springfield Sanitary District (1970). "Retention Ba-
sin Control of Combined Sewer Overflows," EPA
Report No. 1102308/70, Springfield, Illinois.
67
-------
Street Cleaning
Levis, A.H. (1975). "Urban Street Cleaning," EPA Re-
port No. 670/2-75-030.
Pitt, R. (1979). "Demonstration of Nonpoint Pollution
Abatement Through Improved Street Cleaning
Practices," Office of Research and Development,
EPA Report No. 600/2-79-161.
Personal Contacts
68
Nonpoint Source Models
ANSWERS
Dr. Edwin }. Monke
Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
CREAMS
Mr. George R. Foster
Dept. of Agricultural Engineering
Purdue University
West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Dr. Steve Yaksich
Chief, Water Quality Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Buffalo District
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo, New York 14207
Dr. John Konrad
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Dr. W. Ronald Drynan
Great Lakes Regional Office
International Joint Commission
100 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3
Cropland Runoff
Mr. John Crumrine
Project Manager
Honey Creek Watershed Project
155 East Perry Street
Tiffin, Ohio 44833
-------
USDA Soil Conservation Service
State Offices
District Offices
Phosphorus Unavailability
Dr. Terry J. Logan
Associate Professor
Agronomy Department
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Dr. David E. Armstrong
Professor, Water Chemistry Program
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Water Chemistry Laboratory
660 N. Park Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53706
Mr. Roger Bannerman
Special Studies Section
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
Point Sources
State Departments of Natural Resources
State Environmental Protection Agencies
Dr. W. Ronald Drynan
Great Lakes Regional Office
International Joint Commission
100 Ouellette Avenue
Windsor, Ontario N9A 6T3
Dr. Steve Yaksich
Chief, Water Quality Section
U.S. Army Corps (if Engineers
Buffalo District
1776 Niagara Street
Buffalo. Nev\ \ ' k ' " )''
Soils
USDA Soil Conservation Service
State Offices
District Offices
Transmission Factors
Dr. David B. Baker
Director, Water Quality Laboratory
Heidelberg College
Tiffin, Ohio 44833
WATERSHEDInformation on Utilization
of the Process
Mr. Kent Fuller
Chief, Environmental Planning
Great Lakes National Program Office
U.S. EPA, Room 932
536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
Dr. William C. Sonzogni
Head, Special Projects Group
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
2300 Washtenaw Avenue
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104
Dr. Terry J. Logan
Associate Professor
Agronomy Department
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio 43210
Dr. Don Urban
Soil Conservationist
Water Quality Project Implementation
USDA Soil Conservation Service
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, D.C. 20013
69
-------
Appendix B
Point Sources: Pollutant Loadings and Controls
Municipal Point Source Controls
Table B-l
Costs to Achieve Various Effluent
Phosphorus Concentrations
Effluent Total
Phosphorus
Concentration
(mg/L
4.0
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.1
Annual Cost {$ /Capital)1
Capital2 O & M3 Total
12.15 6.25 18.40
12.70 8.18 20.88
13.12 8.85 21.97
17.93 10.74 28.67
17.52 33.23 50.75
SOURCE: Drynan, W.R. (1978). "Relative Costs of Achieving Vari-
ous Levels of Phosphorous Control at Municipal Wastewater Treat-
ment Plants in the Great Lakes," International Joint Commission,
Windsor, Ontario. Based on a computer simulation model.
'Costs assume primary or secondary treatment exists. Costs shown
are in 1980 dollars, assuming that original dollar figures were for
1978.
2Simulated capital costs to build and expand plant as required over
a 25-year period. The per capita cost is the total simulated capital
costs divided by the present population served, and the annual per
capita cost (R) is the amount needed at an interest rate of 10 per-
cent (i) to recover the investment (P) in 25 years (n).
R = P
1 - (1 + i)
3The operating and maintenance costs are the total O & M costs sim-
ulated for the first 5 years and divided by the present population
served on an annual basis.
70
-------
Total Cost
($/capita/yr)
4.01a
2.48b
1.51b
4.31ฐ
4.20d
3.65e
3.47f
2.35g
Plant Sizes
Represented
in Sample
(mgd)
1.4-17.5
1
10
1
5
1
5
6-950
P Content
of Influent
(mg/L)
10
10
10
10
10
10
P Content
of Effluent
(mg/L)
Capital and O & M Costs for
Chemical
Treatment
1.0 yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Sludge
Handling
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Sludge
Disposal
yes
no
no
no
no
no
no
yes
Table B-2
Chemical Phosphorus Treatment Costs
at Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities
NOTE: means information is not reported.
aTotal cost is the population-weighted average of 1976 costs at four Michigan municipal wastewater
treatment plants.
Total cost does not include costs for final sludge disposal because they were considered to be vari-
able based on local conditions and to be low relative to other cost items.
GPlants used different chemical additives as follows: ฐalum; dalum; "ferric chloride; 'ferric chloride.
Total costs do not include costs for final sludge disposal because of the sensitivity of those costs to
location and disposal methods.
8Total cost was determined in a computer modeling study of 43 municipal wastewater treatment
plants in the Great Lakes basin, covering a cross section of the United States and Canada.
of
Source: Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) (1979). "Consideration of Municipal
Wastewater Treatment for Phosphorus Removal in the Evaluation of a Detergent Phosphorus
Ban," staff worksheets.
Source: Baret, et al. (1977). "A Comparative Assessment of the Effectiveness and Cost of Different
Measures Aimed at Reducing the Environmental Impact of Phosphorus in the Surface Waters of
Western Europe," Battelle, Geneva Research Centre.
Source: Ciecka, Fabian, Merilatt and Murphy (1978). "An Economic Analysis of Phosphorus Con-
trol and Other Aspects of R76-1," contracted for by Institute for Environmental Quality, State of
Illinois.
Source: Dryan, W.R. (1978). "Relative Costs of Achieving Various Levels of Phosphorus Control at
Municipal Treatment Plants in the Great Lakes Basin," prepared for the International Reference
Group on Great Lakes Pollution from Land Use Activities (PLUARG), International Joint Commis-
sion (IJC), Windsor, Ontario.
71
-------
Appendix C
Urban Runoff: Pollutant Loadings and Controls
Table C-l
Total Phosphorus Unit Area Loads
from Urban Land
Urban Land Classification
Combined Sewered Areas
Separate Sewered Areas
Unsewered Areas
Small Urban Areas
(Sewer system not differentiated)
Urbanizing Land
(Areas under construction)
Total Phosphorus UAL (kg/km2/yr)
Degree of Industrialization
Low Medium High
900
125
125
250
2,500
1,000
250
250
2,500
1,100
300
250
2,500
SOURCE: Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group
(PLUARG) (1978). "Environmental Management Strategy for the
Great Lakes System," International Joint Commission, Windsor,
Ontario.
Table C-2
Costs and Total Phosphon
of Urban Runoff Control Programs
Dad Reductions
rams
Control
Program
Urban Diffuse Sources
Combined
Sewered Areas
%UAL
Reduction $/km2/yr
Streetsweeping plus
Measures to Reduce Flow 0 7,400
Streetsweeping plus
Detention/ Sedimentation
of Stormwater and
Combined Sewer Overflows 30 32,100
Separate Sewered Areas
High Industry
% UAL
Reduction $/km2/yr
20 7,400
40 16,000
Medium Industry
% UAL
Reduction $/km2/yr
25 7,400
45 16,000
Low Industry
% UAL
Reduction S/km2/yr
50 7,400
65 16,000
72
SOURCE: Adapted from Johnson, M.G., Comeau, J.C., Heidtke,
T.M., Sonzogni, W.C. and B.W. Stahlbaum (1978). "Management
Information Base and Overview Modelling," prepared for the Pol-
lution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG), Inter-
national Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario. It is unknown what
year the dollar figures represent.
-------
Table C-3
Costs' and Heavy Metals Load Reductions of
Urban Runoff Control Programs
Control Program
Combined Sewered Areas
High Industry
% UAL
Reduction
ZnCuPb $/km2/yr
Streetsweeping with vacuum
sweepers at 7-day intervals 38 30 41 7,400
Streetsweeping plus
Detention/ Sedimentation
of Stormwater and Combined
Sewer Overflows 58 52 60 32,100
Medium Industry
% UAL
Reduction
ZnCuPb $/km2/yr
38 30 41 7,400
58 52 60 32,100
Low Industry
% UAL
Reduction
ZnCuPb $/km2/yr
38 30 41 7,400
58 52 60 32,100
Separate Sewered Areas
High Industry
% UAL
Reduction
ZnCuPb $/km2/yr
42 42 42 7,400
61 61 61 16,000
Medium Industry
%UAL
Reduction
Zn Cu Pb $/km2/yr
42 42 42 7,400
61 61 61 16,000
Low Industry
ซ/o UAL
Reduction
ZnCuPb $/km2/yr
42 42 42 7,400
61 61 61 16,000
'It is unknown what year the dollar figures represent.
SOURCE: Johnson, M.G., Comeau, J.C., Heidtke, T.M., Sonzogni,
W.C. andB.W. Stahlbaum(1978). "Management Information Base
and Overview Modelling," prepared for the Pollution from Land
Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG), International Joint Com-
mission, Windsor, Ontario.
73
-------
Table C-4
Problems, Benefits, and Costs of
Urban Runoff Control Measures
NOTES:
Because of the many factors involved in the large scale
construction of detention basins, data presented here nec-
essarily vary widely from city to city. It is apparent that
larger basins can be very effective in removal of pollutants.
However, the costs involved may be prohibitive.
74
Control Measure
Problems/Benefits
Cost
Chemical Soil
Stabilizers
Dutch Drain
Grass Channels
or Waterways
Horizontal Shaft
Screen
Permanent Diversions
Pits, Gravity Shafts,
Trenches, Tile Fields
Precast Concrete
Lattice Blocks &
Bricks
Retention Basins
Roof Top Ponding
Seepage Pits or
Dry Wells
Seepage or
Recharge Basin
Stationary Screens
Treatment Lagoons
Vertical Shaft Screen
Costly; may reduce infiltration.
Easy, and quick to use on disturbed
areas.
Due to clogging problems it must
be replaced every 5-10 years.
Enhances groundwater supply
Require careful design & maintenance.
Increase infiltration; aesthetically
pleasing.
Require careful maintenance.
Problems with clogging, therefore
replacement often required.
Expensive to lay; permeability not as
good as asphalt.
Not necessarily cost-effective; highly
dependent on local hydrology & efflu-
ent requirements.
Construction problems; limited
usefulness.
Need to be very large; require periodic
replacement due to clogging
Have only a single use; safety hazard;
require constant maintenance.
Collection of sludge required; pumping
may be required.
Otherwise they are energy efficient.
Large land requirement; mosquito and
odor problems.
Requires a lot of space; provides good
removal; high costs with low flows.
$.30-1.20/m2
$.04/L stored
$18/cmm trench
sod: $1.20/m2
seeding without
topsoil but with
fertilizer: $2,000/
hectare
$170-180/L/sec
O & M: .01/1000 L
$21-50/m
seepage pit:
$20/m3 storage
$11.40/m2
$50/m3 capacity
$80-130 each
$15-19/m3 of pit or
$30-40/m3 of water
stored
$10-20/m3
recharge capacity
$250/L/sec
$200-700/L/sec
(excluding land
costs) O & M:
$2.50-3.50/1000m3
$180/L/sec
0 & M: $.01/1000 L
SOURCE: Unknown. It is not known what year the dollar figures represent, but likely the early to mid-1970s.
-------
Runoff
(in/acre)
0.1
0.5
1.0
1.5
5.0
Storage
Size
(gal/acre)
2,700
13,600
27,200
40,700
136,000
Capital
Costb
($/acre)
26.20
87.25
123.61
174.51
523.53
Annual
O&M"
Cost
($/acre)
43.26
37.08
37.08
37.08
30.90
TSS UAL
Reduction
20
40
60
70
75
BOD UAL
Reduction
10
25
30
35
40
Table C-5
Annual Costs8 and Percent Removal
of Total Suspended Solids
and Biochemical Oxygen
Demand, Using Detention Basins
SOURCE: Stanley Consultants (1976). "Urban Intermittent Point and Nonpoint
Source Control Alternatives and Cost InformationState-of-the-Art Studies, 208
Water Quality Management Planning Program.
"Costs in 1980 dollars. Capital costs averaged over 25-year life of project.
TBased on earthen structure with pipe outlet. Concrete basins or tanks will cost
about four times this amount. Valid for basins serving 50 acres or less.
GCost is more for smaller facilities, since sediment would have to be removed more
often to retain storage volume.
UAL
Reduction
Stormwater Control Measure
Diversion of first flush materials
to a storage/percolation basin
Retention/percolation
Detention in natural
swales/percolation
Percolation and collection
by underdrains
Detention/ sedimentation
99 +
100
92
93
76
Table C-6
Average Phosphorus Removal of
Various Stormwater Control Measures
SOURCE: Finnemore, E.J., Lynard, W.G. and J.A. Loop (in
progress). "Urban Stormwater Management & Technology: Case
Histories," U.S. EPA 68-03-2617, in: Lynard, W.G. and R. Field
(1980)," Phosphorus in Stormwater: Sources and Treatability," in:
Loehr, R.C., Martin, C.S. and W. Rast (eds.) (1980), Phosphorus
Management Strategies for Lakes, Ann Arbor Science Publishers
Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
75
-------
Table C-7
Costs of Different Types of Storage
Storage Type
Cost"
($/gal of storage)
Surface detention
In-line
Open, lined basin
Covered basin
Basin plus sewer
Buried basin
Buried-void space
Buried, short detention
Open quarry
Tunnels and appurtenances
.05
.36
.41
3.37
1.46
.79
.98
7.53
.33
.43
SOURCE: Lager, J.A. and W.G. Smith (1974). "Urban Stormwater
Management and Technology: An Assessment," U.S. EPA-PB-
240-687, Washington, B.C.
"Costs in 1980 dollars.
Table C-8
Costs of Various Runoff Control Measures
Method
Diversion dike
Runoff interception trench
Strawbale sediment barrier
Sandbag sediment barrier
Filter berm
Filter fence
Filter inlet
Siltation berm
Cost ($/ft)'
,a,b
4.24
7.22
2.49
3.67
8.08
3.31
2.30
8.52
SOURCE: Lynard, W.G., Finnemore, E.J., Loop, J.A., and R.M. Finn
(1980). "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Case
Histories," EPA Report No. 600/8-80-035, Cincinnati, Ohio.
alncludes materials, labor and equipment.
blt is unknown what year the dollar figures represent.
76
-------
Method
Rock retaining
wall (4 ft. high)
Redwood retaining
wall (3 ft. high)
Gabion retaining
wall (3 ft. high)
Slope bottom bench
Wattling
Slope steeping
Slope serration
Unit
$/ft.
$/ft.
$/ft.
$/ft.
$/ft.
$/acre
$/acre
Materials
5
12
10
none
0.3
none
none
Labor
12
10
8
5
1.9
320
300
Equipment
10
3
3
2
0.1
250
120
Total Cost
27
25
21
7
2.30
. 570
420
Table C-9
Estimated Cost of Permanent
Soil Stabilization Methods
SOURCE for Table and Notes: Lynard, W.G., Finnemore, E.J., Loop, J.A., and R.M.
Finn (1980). "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Case Histories,"
EPA Report No. 600/8-80-035, Cincinnati, Ohio.
NOTES:
Rock Retaining Wall. A low gravity wall constructed of rock
materials to provide an aesthetically attractive method for
physically stabilizing a slope.
Redwood Retaining Wall. A retaining wall constructed of
redwood planking and posts to stabilize unstable slopes.
Gabions. Large, single- or multi-celled rectangular wire
mesh boxes filled with rock and wired together for perma-
nent slope or drainage stabilization and erosion control.
Slope Bottom Bench. A gently sloping surface at the base of
a steeper slope to retain eroded material.
Wattling. Bundles of live cuttings from willows to stabilize
slopes and provide revegetation. Wattling reduces slope
lengths for surface runoff, increases water retention, and
provides additional organic matter.
Slope Steeping. Continuous series of horizontal steps cut on
the face of cut slopes to interrupt slope length and provide
slope stabilization.
Slope Serration. Construction of approximately 10 inch
horizontal steps on the entire face of a cut slope to provide
stabilization benches which can support vegetation.
77
-------
Table C-10
Estimated Cost of
Temporary Soil Stabilization Methods
for Urbanizing Areas
Method
Jute matting
Paper fabric
Plastic netting
Wood excelsior matting
Fiberglass roving
Hydromulching
Chemicals and tackifiers
Wood chip application
Crushed gravel mulches'
Straw mulch2
Materials
($/acre)
2,700
2,900
700
1,700
1,900
500
400
750
620
150
Labor & Equipment
($/acre)
6,400
6,600
4,100
9,000
2,100
700
200
100
180
530
Total Cost
($/acre)
9,100
9,500
4,800
10,700
4,000
1,200
600
850
800
680
NOTES:
SOURCE for Table and Definitions: Lynard, W.G., Finnemore, E.J., Loop, J.A., and
R.M. Finn (1980). "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Case
Histories," EPA Report No. 600/8-80-035, Cincinnati, Ohio.
'2.5 tons/acre.
!2.0 tons/acre.
Jute Matting. Mulch nets made of jute used for erosion con-
trol and protection of other mulches.
wood fiber mulch, and tacking agent with or without seeds
to large areas.
Matting in Drainage Channels. Application of jute matting
or fiberglass roving for dust and erosion control in very
small drainage channels with flow velocities less than 2 ft/s.
Chemicals and Tackifiers. Plastics, organic seeding addi-
tives, asphaltic tacking agents and other products used to
tack fibers to slopes for erosion and dust control.
78
Plastic Netting. Monolithic plastic cloth-like material used
over mulch, straw, or hydromulch.
Wood Excelsior Matting. Mat of wood excelsior fibers
bonded to a paper or plastic used for dust and erosion con-
trol. Flows under mat should be prevented.
Fiberglass Roving. Matting of continuous strands of glass fi-
bers and tacking agent. Used for dust and erosion control
and as a mulch for seeded and unseeded areas.
Hydro-mulching. Mechanized rapid method for applying
Wood Chip Application. Temporary mulch and surface pro-
tection using chips of wood. Used for dust and erosion con-
trol during construction and as a mulch around plantings.
Crushed Gravel Mulches. Application of gravel or crushed
stone as a mulch to stabilize soils during construction, or for
low-use dirt roads, driveways, and areas of light vehicular
use.
Straw Mulch. Application of staple straw as a protective
cover over bare or seeded soil to reduce erosion and pro-
vide a mulch. Requires matting or other methods to hold it in
place.
-------
NOTES:
In most instances porous pavement is economically com-
petitive with conventional pavement. By preserving natural
drainage it decreases runoff and downstream pollution. De-
pending upon design, porous pavements can remove
anywhere from 0 to 100 percent of the suspended solids in
the runoff.
Type of Use
Cost ($/sq. yd.)1
Table C-ll
Annual Cost
of Porous Pavement
Residential Street
Low design level 1.11
High design level 1.12
Business Street
Suburban 1.12
City 1.34
Highway
Two lane 1.29
Four lane
Asphalt surface 1.48
Portland cement concrete surface 1.51
Parking lot 1.11
Playground 1.11
SOURCE: Poertner, H.G. (1974). "Practices in Detention of Urban
Stormwater Runoff," American Public Works Association Special
Report No. 43.
'Costs assumed to originally be in 1974 dollars. Dollars shown are
1980 dollars amortized over a 25-year period.
NOTES:
Regular flushing of sewers can reduce pollution from
combined sewer overflow events. It is especially beneficial
in areas with low slopes where the average dry weather
flow is not strong enough to keep fine materials in suspen-
sion long enough to transport them to the treatment plant. In
such cases the "shockloading" effect accompanying the
first flush of a sewer line during a storm is particularly
great. By preventing accumulation of materials, flushing of
sewer lines also increases the overall capacity and efficien-
cy of the system in handling and treating wet weather flows.
Flush Stations
per 9 Acres
Total Cost8
($/acre)
UAL
Reduction (%)
Table C-12
Annual Cost and
Percent Phosphorus Removal
of Sewer Flushing
362.75
728.78
61
72
SOURCE: Lager, J.A. and W.G. Smith (1974). "Urban Stormwater
Management and Technology: An Assessment," EPA Report No.
EPA-PB-240-687, Washington, D.C. Data obtained from a demon-
stration project in Detroit, Michigan.
"Costs are in 1980 dollars averaged over 25-year life of project.
79
-------
Table C-13
Costs and Percent Removal
of Biochemical Oxygen Demand
from Combined Sewer Overflow
Abatement Alternatives'
Source Controls2
Streetsweeping
Catch basin cleaning
Sewer flushing
Collection System Controls3
Sewer separation
Swirl concentrators
In-line storage
Roof drain disconnection
Storage/Treatment Systems4
2,000 acre Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
Level 4
Level 5
200 acre Level 3
20 acre Level 3
Advanced Wastewater Treatment9
Effluent BOD = 15-25 mg/L
Effluent BOD = 10 mg/L
Effluent BOD = 5 mg/L
%
BOD Removal
2-11
0
18 - 32
54 - 65
32 - 56
site specific
site specific
10 - 16
16 - 35
35 - 61
61 - 87
87 - 95
56 - 90
65 - 90
Cost
($/lb. BOD)
3.63 -
>
1.14 -
2.86 -
1.56 -
>
5.85 -
4.23 -
3.86 -
3.86 -
5.23 -
9.96 -
37.35 -
2.37 -
3.49 -
6.10 -
9.08
60.50
4.84
29.88
4.98
4.98
60.50
7.47
5.85
4.23
5.23
17.43
16.19
51.05
3.24
4.98
8.72
80
SOURCE: Graham, P.H. (1978). "Report to Congress on Control of Combined Sewer Overflow in the United States," EPA Report No. 430/9-78-
006.
'Assumptions common to all calculations:
Population density = 16.73/acre
BOD5 yield = 136.23 Ib/acre-year
Annual runoff = 16.5 inches
Sludge pumping costs are included.
!Original dollar figures were for 1978. Costs shown are in 1980 dollars. Conversion made by assuming 10% inflation rate per year.
'Original dollar figures were for 1978. Costs shown are in first quarter 1981 dollars.
'Storage/Treatment systems are based on runoff from a 2,000 acre drainage basin unless otherwise stated. Treatment levels are defined as
follows:
Level 1 = Storage
Level 2 = Storage and microscreening
Level 3 = Storage, microscreening, and sedimentation-flocculation
Level 4 = Storage, microscreening, sedimentation-flocculation, and high-rate filtration
Level 5 = Storage, microscreening, dissolved air flotation, sedimentation-flocculation, and high-rate filtration
'Advanced wastewater treatment costs are incremented costs incurred above secondary treatment. Secondary treatment will remove ap-
proximately 85% of the BOD5 from the dry-weather flow at a cost of $0.50 to $0.70 per pound of BOD, removed. The unit costs reported are
those required to remove the remaining BOD, from the dry-weather flow.
-------
Pollutant
Total Solids
Suspended Solids
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Orthophosphate
Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Lead
Zinc
Chromium
Copper
Cadmium
Average Removal
(Ibs. /curb-mile)
205
103
22
11
0.03
0.96
0.57
0.11
0.09
0.18
0.005
Average Unit Cost8
($/lb. removed)
0.11
0.22
1.04
2.07
951.40
46.00
39.20
191.40
246.60
134.40
35376.00
Table C-14
Pollutant Removal Efficiencies
of Street Cleaning Operations
SOURCE: Adapted from Lynard, W.G., Finnemore, E.J., Loop, J.A., and R.M. Finn (1980). "Urban
Stormwater Management and Technology: Case Histories," EPA Report No. 600/8-80-035, Cincin-
nati, Ohio.
alt is unknown what year the dollar figures represent.
NOTES:
In most large cities streetsweeping equipment is already in use and little additional cost
will be involved in shifting the focus of the operation to pollution abatement.
Generally, vacuum sweepers appear to be the most cost-effective. Vacuum sweepers
are also less affected by variations in the street surface.
Land Use
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Cost8
($/curb mile)
17.40
17.40
17.40
Cost
($/acre)
27.43
32.54
15.82
Removal of
Total Solidsb
(%)
33-43
34-40
not reported
Table C-15
Annual Costs and Percent Removal of
Total Solids by Streetsweeping
SOURCE: Pitt, R. (1979). "Demonstration of Nonpoint Pollution
Abatement through Improved Street Cleaning Practices," EPA
Report No. 600/2-79-161, Washington, B.C.
"Costs are based on 26 passes/year, 1 pass every 2 weeks. Machin-
ery used varied. Costs are 75 percent labor and are in 1980 dol-
lars.
Based on moderate to heavy pollutant loads. Percentage removal
of phosphorus is "very similar."
81
-------
Table C-16
A Comparison of Streetsweeper
Pollutant Recovery Efficiencies
Pollutant
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
BOD
COD
Nitrates
Phosphates
Heavy Metals
% Recovery
Efficiency by Streetsweeper Type
Vacuum or
Broom/Vacuum
Broom Combination
55 80
50 80
45 80
30 80
35 70
20 70
50 90
SOURCE: Graham P., (1979). "1978 Needs Survey Cost Methodology For Control of Combined Sewer
Overflow and Stormwater Discharges," EPA Report No. 430/9-79-003, Washington, D.C.
Table C-17
Annual Street Cleaning Costs
of Broom Sweeper
Item
Maintenance
Suppliesb
Costs8 Percentage
($/yr) of Total
97,000 12
Operation Supplies0 30,000 3
Debris Transfer
and Disposal
Equipment
Depreciation
Labord
67,000 8
32,000 3
604,000 74
82
SOURCE: Lynard, W.G., Finnemore, E.J., Loop, J.A., and R.M. Finn
(1980). "Urban Stormwater Management and Technology: Case
Histories," EPA Report No. 600/8-80-035, Cincinnati, Ohio. Data
from San Jose, California, study.
alt is unknown what year the dollar figures represent.
Includes broom replacements.
cTires, fuel and oil.
Includes sweeper operators, maintenance personnel, supervisors,
warehouse, secretary and overhead costs.
-------
Land Management
Figure C-l
Methods for Controlling
Urban Runoff Pollution
1^
t^mm
ง
Structural/ Semi-Structural
1
On-Site
(Upstream)
Storage
Construction (Hydrologic
Modification) Control
Erosion/ Sedimentation
(Construction)
Flood
Pollution
Retention
Basins/Ponds
Recharging Ponds
Detention
Basins/Ponds
Dual Use
Rooftop
Parking Lot/Plaza
Recreational Facilities
Aesthetics
Porous Pavement
Overland
Flow
Modification
Swales
Diversion Structures
Ditches
Chutes
Flumes
Solids
Separation
Sediment Basins
Fine Sediment
Removal Systems
Tube Settler
Upflow Filter
Rotating Disc Screen
Swirl Device
Non-Structural
Surface
Sanitation
Anti-Litter
Street Cleaning
Street Flushing
Air Pollution Control
Chemical
Use
Control
Lawn Chemicals
Industrial Spillage
Gasoline Stations
Lead in Gasoline
Highway Deicing
Urban
Development
Resource
Planning
Computer Simulation
Land Use
Population Density
Control Options
Use of Natural
Drainage
Marsh Treatment
Erosion
Sedimentation
Control
Cropping
Seeding
Sodding
Soil Conservation
Mulching
Chemical Soil
Stabilization
Berming
SOURCE: Field, R., Tafuni, A., and H. Masters (1977). "Urban Runoff Pollution Control Technology Review," EPA Report No. 600/2-77-047,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
83
-------
Appendix D
Cropland and Other Rural Runoff: Pollutant Loadings and Controls
Table D-l
Total Phosphorus Unit Area Loads
for Rural Land
Total Phosphorus UAL (kg/km'/yr]
Type of Soil"
Land Use Intensity
Rural Cropland
Cultivated Fieldsrow crop
(low animal density)
Cultivated Fieldsmixed farming
(medium animal density)
Rural Non-Cropland
Pasture/Rangedairy
Grassland
Forest
Wetlands
Sand
25
10
5
5
5
Coarse
Loam
65
20
5
5
Medium
Loam
85
30
10
10
Fine
Loam
40
15
Clay Organic
105 125
55 85
60
25
- 10" -
0
Source:
"Adapted from Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group (PLUARG) (1978). "Environmen-
tal Management Strategy for the Great Lakes," International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Mainly for midwestern soils. May vary by regions.
TJnit area loads may be higher when soil has an unusually high clay content.
ฐUnit area loads may be higher in certain unique forested areas with clay soils.
84
SOURCES:
aEacker, C. (1981). Information is derived from the Saline Valley Rural Clean Water
Program Project in Southeast Michigan. Costs shown are in 1981 dollars.
bSkimin, W.E., Powers, E.G., andE.A. Jarecki(1978). "An Evaluation of Alternatives
and Costs for Nonpoint Source Controls in the United States Great Lakes Basin," In-
ternational Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario. It is unknown what year the dollar
figures represent.
-------
Practice
Unit Cost
Permanent Vegetative Cover
Animal Waste Management System
Stripcropping System
Diversion System
Waterway System
Conservation Tillage System
Stream Protection System
$125.00/acrea
$30,000.00/unita
$6.00/acreb $20.00/acrea
$0.70/ft.-$5.00/ft.
$200.00/acrea
$0/acreb $9.00/acrea
$2.00/ft.a
Sediment Retention, Erosion or
Water Control Structures
Tile Drain
Contour Farming
Terrace System
Cover Cropping
Fertilizer Management
$2,500.00/unita
$.80/ft.b
$4.00/acreb
$1.00/ft.b
$18.00/acreb
$6.00/acrea
Table D-2
Costs of Various Rural
Runoff Control Measures
NOTES:
Permanent Vegetative Cover. Improves water quality by es-
tablishing permanent vegetative cover on farm or ranch
land to prevent excessive runoff or soil loss. Permanent veg-
etative cover may also be applied to critical areas such as
gullies or banks which are major sources of sediment.
Animal Waste Management System. Facilities for the stor-
age and handling of livestock and poultry wastes.
Stripcropping. A tillage system in which the field is subdi-
vided into alternate strips of erosion-resistant crops and
erosion-susceptible crops or fallow.
Diversion System. The installation of channels which inter-
cept excess stormwater runoff which would otherwise flow
across arable land contributing to a water pollution prob-
lem.
Waterway System. The installation of water courses which
serve as outlets for runoff channels or drains. The water-
way conveys excess surface runoff at non-erosive velocities
to a natural water course or impoundment. The waterway
is protected from erosion with establishment of sod cover of
perennial grasses or legumes.
Contour Farming. A tillage system in which strips of an
erosion-resistant crop and erosion-susceptible crop are al-
ternated along the contour.
Terrace System. Constructed to convey excess water safely
in areas of abundant rainfall. Bench terraces are adapted
to slopes of 25 to 30 percent and are not common in the U.S.
because farm machinery cannot be used over them. Broad
base terraces are more common. This is a broad surface
channel or embankment constructed across the slope of
rolling land.
Tile Drain. Form of subsurface drain in which tile in the
form of fired clay, concrete or corregated plastic is laid in
the bottom of a trench. The tile line is given a slight slope to
cause the water to flow to the outlet.
Cover Cropping. A tillage system in which a crop is planted
specifically to control erosion. Rye, clover and vetch are ex-
amples of cover crops. It is usually planted for protection
during the time money crops are not grown on a tract of
land, but may also be planted between rows of crops. Cover
crops provide the additional benefit of returning organic
matter to the soil.
Stream Protection System. Includes the installation of vege-
table filter strips, protective fencing, livestock crossings
and livestock water facilities to protect streams from sedi-
ment.
Fertilizer Management. Includes changes in the fertilizer
rate, time and/or method of application to achieve control
over nutrient movement in critical areas contributing to wa-
ter pollution.
85
-------
Table D-3
A Comparison of
Soil Loss Reductions Under
Different Conservation
Tillage Practices
Farm Practice
% Reduction in Soil
Loss Compared to
Conventional Tillage
No-Till
No-TillCorn
No-TillSoybeans
Reduced Till
Till-Plant
Chisel-Plow
Disk ChiselCorn
Disk ChiselSoybeans
76a-85B
91C
85C
40a
60b
94b
89ฐ
SOURCES:
"Crumrine, J.P. andD.U. Wurm(1980). "Conservation Tillage Prac-
tices to Control Agricultural Pollution," Lake Erie Wastewater
Management Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo Dis-
trict. Buffalo, New York.
^Mannering, J.V. et al. (1975). "Tillage for Moisture Conservation,"
in: Griffith, D.R., Mannering, J.V., and W.C. Moldenhauer (1977),
"Conservation Tillage in the Eastern Corn Belt."
ฐOschwald, W. andj. Seimens(1976). "Conservation Tillage: A Per-
spective," in: Griffith et al. (1977), op. cit.
NOTES:
Conservation Tillage
86
Conservation tillage methods have been defined by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture as "any tillage sequence
that reduces loss of soil or water."' These systems leave a
rough soil surface or a mulch of plant residue which pro-
tects against wind and water erosion. Residue acts as an
umbrella, reducing the impact of rainfall, and as a barrier
to slow runoff. In addition, residue increases infiltration by
preventing crusting of the soil surface.
Conservation tillage includes a wide range of practices.
Three such systems are described below.
Till-Plant. In till-plant the number of tillage operations is re-
duced, but a moldboard plow or similar tool is still used on
an annual basis, in this case in the fall. Till plant minimizes
tillage by eliminating spring plowing. Planting occurs in the
ridges made the previous fall with a cultivator or disk-har-
row.2 The reduction in soil erosion can be substantial, but
the occurrence of intense rainstorms after the crop residue
has been buried will result in near-maximum soil loss.
Chisel-Plow. Another conservation tillage system utilizes
non-inversion equipment such as the chisel-plow. Chiseling
loosens the soil and leaves up to three-fourths of the residue
at or near the surface.
Often a combination of conservation tillage methods are
employed, such as chisel plowing in conjunction with ridge
planting. The latter technique involves planting row crops
on soil ridges. This accelerates soil drying and warming,
which is often a problem on fields in which tillage is re-
duced.
The chisel-plow conservation tillage system effectively
controls erosion on level to gently sloping land. On steeper
land, it can enhance the effectiveness of other conservation
practices such as terraces and contour plowing.
No-Till. No-till farming is a special case of conservation till-
age. It is the planting of crops in narrow slots opened in the
seedbed without any other physical disturbance of the soil.
The seed is planted in crop residue from the previous year
or in herbicide burned winter cover or meadow vegetation.
Maintaining crop residue on the soil surface throughout
the year has been shown to reduce the potential soil loss by
65 to 85 percent of that from conventionally tilled land.3 In
addition to the decrease in soil erosion and associated
water quality benefits, no-till farming has the potential to
lower fuel use, save farmers' time, and produce greater or
nearly equal crop yields on properly selected soils.
SOURCE: Excerpted from: Monteith, T.J., Basie, M.P. and R.A.C.
Sullivan (1981). "Environmental & Economic Implications of Con-
servation Tillage Practices in the Great Lakes Basin.
'Bauderetal. (1979). "Tillage: Its Role in Controlling Soil Erosion by
Water," Agricultural Extension Service Folder No. 497, Universi-
ty of Minnesota.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
-------
? //
Farm Practice ^ / /X
Am
Continuous Corn
Continuous Corn
Continuous Corn
Continuous Corn
Corn-Soybean0
Corn-Soybean
Corn-Soybean
Corn-Soybean
Corn-Soybean-
Wheat-Hay
Corn-Soybean-
Wheat-Hay
A/ / Percent Reduction
jr/A>/
///
ซ*/ Uplands Ridge Lowlands
/Soil Loss PUAL Soil Loss P UAL Soil Loss P UAL
28.7 17-26 28.6 17-26 29.4 18-26
54.7 33-49 54.9 33-49 52.9 32-48
67.9 41-61 67.0 40-60 67.6 41-61
73.6 44-66 73.6 44-66 73.5 44-66
2.6C 2C 3.3C 2-3ฐ 2.9C 2.3ฐ
42.6 26-38 42.9 26-39 41.2 25.37
57.0 34-51 57.1 34-51 55.9 34-50
69.4 42-62 69.2 42-62 70.6 42-64
83.8 50-75 83.5 50-75 85.3 51-77
89.8 54-81 90.1 54-81 88.2 53-79
Table D-4
Reductions in Annual Soil Losses"
and Phosphorus Loadings'*
Associated with Different Farm Practices,
as Compared to Continuous Corn
with Conventional Tillage
SOURCE: Meta Systems, Inc., (1979). "Costs and Water Quality Impacts of Reducing Agricultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution. An Analysis Methodology," EPA Report No. EPA-600/5-79-009, Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S.
EPA, Athens, Georgia.
aAnnual soil loss (tons/acre) with continuous corn, conventional tillage: Uplands26.5; Ride9.1; Lowlands3.4
Percent reduction in phosphorus loss is assumed to be 60% to 90% of the percent reduction in soil loss, based on work
for the Lake Erie Wastewater Management Study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo,
New York, published in 1979.
GThese figures represent a percentage increase in annual soil loss and phosphorus unit area load.
Conventional tillage is for corn only.
87
-------
Table D-5
A Comparison of Revenues and Costs of Different Farm
Practices with Corn and Soybeans (per acre)
Corn
'Soybeans
Material
Costs1
Machine
Costs2
Total
Costs
Return
(Net)3
Yield
(Bu/Ac.)
No-Till
Range
$163.33-244.06
$ 70.48-136,60
$ 46.53- 59.12
$ 39.31- 45.04
$216.45-299.26
$111.49-181.56
$- 9.94-200.47
$178.16-290.86
81.5-155.1
44.6-54,8 ,
Average
$200.40
$105.84
$ 50.99
$ 42.86
$251.39
$148.70
$ 83.79
$227.35
118.05
50.24
Reduced
Range
$162.30-232.02
$ 63.18
$ 51.37- 64.34
$ 55.17
$226.64-294.86
$118.35
$ 18.60-191.01
$187.65
98.6-146.7
40.78
Till
Average
$195.28
$ 63,18
$ 59.62
$ 55.17
$254.90
$118.35
$ 79.94
$187.65
117.98
40.78
Conventional
Range
$145.13-214.71
$ 60,63-10845
$ 64.49- 80.36
$ 54,99- 67.87
$225.49-290.31
$115.62-176.02
$ 55.02-223.88
$161,14-268.80
112.2-174.0
43.1-52,1 .
Till
Average
$181.23
$78.49
$ 72.25
$ ง0.ง4
$253.48
$139.43
$133.86
$221.21
135.60
48,22
SOURCE: Honey Creek Joint Board of Supervisors (1981). "Honey Creek Watershed Project: Tillage Demonstration Results, 1980," U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
'1980 material costs include: seed, lime, miscellaneous, fertilizer, herbicides, and interest on operating capital.
21980 machine costs include: custom rates for tillage, planting, harvesting, trucking, application of fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides.
31980 return (net) = Crop value minus total costs. Crop value obtained by taking yields at 15.5% moisture, multiplying by the base price of
$3.00 (current market price), minus the wet bushels produced per acre times the drying charges (local elevator schedule).
88
-------
Table D-6
Change in Net Return and Actual Yield for Corn Under
Alternative Tillage Practices, by Soil Management Group
Tillage System
Soil Management Group8
% Change
in Net
Return
Conventional Till
Chisel Plow Till + 9.2
Minimum Tillage +21.7
No Tillage +12.7
I
% Change
in
Yield
-0.2
+ 7.0
+ 0.6
% Change
in Net
Return
+ 5.4
+ 13.8
+ 4.1
n
% Change
in
Yield
+ 0.6.
+ 6.4
+ 0.9
% Change
in Net
Return
+ 10.0
+ 15.2
- 2.2
m
% Change
in
Yield
+ 4.5
+ 6.6
+ 1.3
SOURCE: Hemmer, R.F. and D.L. Forster (1981). "Farmer Experiences with Alternative Tillage Practices in the
Western Lake Erie Basin," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, New York. Data from corn grown in 10
selected counties in the western Lake Erie basin.
"Soil Management Groups are as follows:
Management Group I: Soils included in this group should have yield response to no tillage equal to or greater than con-
ventional tillage. Soils are moderately well, well, and excessively well-drained. They have silt loam, sandy loam, or
loamy fine sand surface texture. They are low in organic matter.
Management Group II: These soils should have yield responses to no tillage nearly equal to conventional tillage if soil
drainage has been improved. These soils are somewhat poorly drained in their natural state. They have a silt loam,
loam, sandy loam, or loamy fine sand surface texture. They are low in organic matter.
Management Group III: These soils yield less with no tillage than conventional tillage. They are somewhat poorly to
very poorly-drained. Tile does not provide adequate drainage. Surface texture is loam, silt loam, or silty clay loam.
Most of these soils are low in organic matter.
89
-------
Table D-7
Nonpoint Pollution from Silviculture Operations:
Factors Influencing Sediment Load and Control Measures
Sediment delivery factors
Preventive
Mitigative
Water availability
Texture of eroded material
90
Ground cover
Slope shape
Slope gradient
Delivery distance
Surface roughness
Site specific factors
SOURCE: Mulkey, L. (1980).
Washington, D.C.
Control over the rainfall rate is not likely to occur because it is a function of overall weath-
er patterns.
Use management practices that maintain
high infiltration rates. Avoid such things
as soil compaction which changes soil
structure and permeability. Control of
soil moisture content by high consumptive
use promotes infiltration.
Increase infiltration rates by breaking
surface crusts, and incorporating organic
matter or other soil amendments to im-
prove aggregation of soil particles. Pro-
mote vegetative growth for high consump-
tive water use and desirable soil struc-
ture development.
Reduce snowmelt runoff rates by increas-
ing the interception of solar energy above
the snow surface.
Where snowmelt is influential, use man-
agement practices which will not create
significant increases in the amount of so-
lar energy reaching the snow pack.
Soil texture is controlled by soil-forming factors that are generally related to mineralogy
and weathering.
Maintain natural, stable soil aggregates
which will act as a coarse-textured mate-
rial in response to sediment delivery
forces.
Control and design forest management
activities to minimize forest floor distur-
bance.
Control location and design of various
types of construction and other activities
that would create adverse slope shapes.
Control location and design of various
types of construction activities to mini-
mize the creation of steep slopes.
Locate activities well away from stream
channels to maintain long delivery paths.
Design activities to maintain natural sur-
face roughness. Avoid creating channels
that shortcut natural tortuous pathways.
Use soil amendments which promote floc-
culation and development of aggregates.
Add mulch, establish vegetation, distrib-
ute residues, or use other practices to cre-
ate long tortuous pathways for water
flow and sediment delivery.
Design concave slope segments for sedi-
ment delivery control on construction
sites or with other activities.
Reduce slope gradients created by con-
struction and other activities wherever
possible.
Relocate activity sites to increase overall
delivery distance to a stream channel.
Create ridges and depressions on the sur-
face to trap sediment and increase water
infiltration.
This will depend upon the characteristics of the chosen site factor.
"An Approach to Water Resources Evaluation of Non-Point Silviculture Sources," EPA-600/8-80-012,
-------
Appendix E
Sandusky River Basin Example
92
This example is developed fully in Monteith et aL,
1980. Only the basic assumptions and the worksheets
are presented here.
Municipal
Stage I Control: chemical precipitation to reduce the
total phosphorus effluent concentration to 1.0 mg/L.
Stage II Control: additional treatment to further re-
duce the total phosphorus effluent concentration
from 1.0 mg/L to 0.5 mg/L.
Stormwater Runoff
Stage I Control: streetsweeping at 7-day intervals
with vacuum sweepers.
Stage II Control: Stage I control plus detention and
sedimentation of stormwater runoff.
Implementing the Stage I program is assumed to
result in a 25 percent reduction in the uncontrolled
diffuse loading from all separate sewered areas. Im-
plementation of Stage II programs will realize
another 20 percent total phosphorus load reduction
from the initial stormwater load.
Stage I Control: streetsweeping at 7-day intervals
with vacuum sweepers.
Stage II Control: Stage I control plus detention and
treatment of the combined sewer overflow.
The Stage I program results in about a 5 percent
reduction in the total phosphorus load, and Stage II
will result in additional 25 percent reduction in the
total phosphorus loading.
Rural Cropland
Stage I Control: technical assistance to educate far-
mers on the techniques and economic advantages of
adopting conservation tillage practices.
Stage II Control: Stage I control plus application of
more intensive conservation tillage practices (i.e..
no-till where soils will support it).
NOTES:
By plotting the WATERSHED results from Worksheet 8.
the point at which the implementation of control programs
yields a diminished return on the investment made can be
seen. Figure 1 shows a plot of the sum of the program costs
(from column e8) versus the sum of the percent load reduc-
tion (from column ca). Good load reduction occurs as pro-
grams are implemented up to the funding level of $400,000
per year. In fact, the WATERSHED results show an esti-
mated 56 percent reduction in the total phosphorus load for
a cost of around $430,000 per year (programs ranked 1
through 14). After this point the graph flattens out consider-
ably. The next 20 percent reduction (programs ranked 15
through 29), up to a total of 76 percent, is estimated to cost
over $8 million more per year than the initial 56 percent re-
duction. Finally, the last 5 percent of the total phosphorus
load that can be removed (programs ranked 30 through 40),
for a total of 81 percent, is estimated to cost another $2.9
million per year for a total of $11.4 million per year if all
programs were implemented.
-------
Figure E-l
Reduction Costs for
Total Phosphorus vs. Percent Load Reduction
Sandusky River Basin Example
(from Worksheet 8)
90
80
_, 70
c?
a
6
3 60
o
a
o
a
03
-a
CO
o
03
a
tH
03
a,
50
40
30
20
10
Through Program
No. 40
Through Program
No. 20
i
j I
J I
J I
200 400 000 BOO 1000
2000
Sum of Reduction Costs (thousands of $/yr.)
(column e8)
3000
3600 11,415
93
-------
Physical Layout
Worksheet
Source
Position
Point
of
entry
Area
(km2)
Surface Features
Soils
Other
Diagram
Loss Creek
Broken Sword
""' up'plr "f an'dti's ty' tfi ty"""""""""""" *"*"""'
,2
21
,. ,ป_
^'^fJ^^f^T-V^'.-i'!- Ov y'V:-^^!.'^--",-^;^^?-^- s-.s-1'^. ...***?;"'-i -o"*.* 3-,P^
Middle Sandusky
ma
'47*15'"" ""
;Sฃ-||S^55
'-^a^.'^g^g^oTl -^.^^ ffllji
Roc? "Creek '"
jf*|||p|p^l||^^
"tower" Sah'd us ky
fiS|
r
ซ?ปซ
Lake Erie
-------
'oint and Urban Runoff Loads
Worksheet 2
Source
INITIAL CONDITION
iucyrus City
Upper Sandusky City
tiffin City '.
Fremont
fc TOTAL
STAGE I
iucyrus City
Upper Sandusky City
tiffin City
Fremont
I, ."TOTAL;";""'"
STAGE II
Bucyrus City
Ipper Sandusky City
Tiffin City
Jrremont City
I-; TOTAL .
! .;:;:;
iV,- ฐ . - '. ' ',.
Column > dj | b2
Position
'3:,4V5V:C'-
10,11
18,19 ,20
25,, 26, 27
10,11
18,19,20
25,26,27
10,11"
18,19,20
25,26,27-
C2
Point
Flow
(mgd)
1 * 5
5,!l
' -lw i'-'-o i.
1L + '- -.-:\
U5
3V2
5,:lv
2. '5
T.5
3.2
.:"-'/' '.ฐ
Gone.
(mg|L)
4.1p,
4.!.0
1 0
1.0
1.0
0'.5
o:.5
0.5
-,';;'>,
'-, .'/.-.
Load
(kg/yr)
.!:8l3Qp:,
28^200
,2^100
4,400
16,900
1,728
: 1,036:
2,211
v^i^9.
>.. ...',.. >...-;./.:
'.;,;-/:>:,,; ;.,>:,;-.
4
e2
f2
Separate Storm
Area
....14, ,
ซฐs'''- '"-. ", '
- ".,
'.., M '.'.
'> ^-~:'-f--
UAL**
(kg/km2/yr)
'-'-f ss '''-'
... "4S ซ - . '.":
140 ;;
Load
(kg/yr)
.'350.....
1,8,00 ,
182
.Z?SP -,-.
'>;^'-.:<'""'::ik
'V.''.'-,/.'^"''"-"':
8:
h2 | i,
Combined
Area
(km2)
....... 7 --.2
J:P'ซ}'-.'
'>..-'.-'' ' -V - ' '"- '-
.;/-.-' .
,':v;;:;y^; .;';;-:
UAL**
(kg/kmVyr)
.-...,2.5P.,,
-U.9.QP -.,
+J, =.' -' o,- L. ซ '':,,;
' 'j--ฐ ',/' " ""-
,:-^2;35::y
630 _;
"".'.7QJC
-";,: 7QDV.
"..V .--: :-"',',-
Load
(kg/yr)
l-P
J2l3P.ol
;||
29,003
i"'';%v:A'S
;;:4,536;;;
-=7*280
>/ฐrt. 'ฃ!'t'|i\: J
- O^t'0.* 'V/s- *ฐ:
""'.C ..;" '//' '-;,''-'i'9'
.--:S:l'-':Wi-i,::.;
J2
k.
1,
Unsewered*
Area
(km2)
.'-;.- ';;..;> -','-;. '->-
::;-.-:':i'-:'-."X':-
UAL**
(kg/km2/yr)
: -:..:,:-,-;:. ;'.
::;-:-/.-.:..C'.:i:vvl
r^vi-.-.'^'V :i-'-:"
'/-;'";.,- -:V';%>.-::
;;v'^...'-:;>v-;:
Load
(kg/yr)
-;:X->:"S:::::
;w.v:, v/.x.
^v.?-;$,-x
= a, x b, x 1,382: where 1,382 is the conversion factor (mg/L x mgd x 1,382) = kg/yr. *Can include Con8truction sites or septic tank areas.
- ฐ! x ?> **UAL: Unit Area Load
= 8, x hj
-------
Rural Non-Cropland Loads
Worksheet 3
Column > an
Source
Position
b,
Grass
Area*
(km2)
UAL
(kg/kmz/yr)
Load
(kg/yr)
f,
Woodland
Area*
(km2)
UAL
(kg/km2/yr)
Load
(kg/yr)
Other**
Area*
(km2)
UAL
(kg/km2/yr)
Load
(kg/yr)
250;.-..
180
, .
441 ;';
>,: ;LQWer-.
. XS0i;!: A;) v;
m^.^f^<
.:SS
Water* Wetlands
c, = a, x b3
f, = ds x e3
i, = g, x h,
i - r_ X f. + i,
* Weighted Extrapolation
*Can include septic tank failure!
UALUnit Area Load
-------
Rural Cropland Loads
Worksheet 4
Source
(INITIAL
rLoss Creek
feroken Sword
JJpper Sandusky
ifymochtee
Middle Sandusky
fffoney Creek
Wolf Creek
lock Creek
L. Sandusky (Soil 1)
|..Sandusky iSoil. 2:1
I TOTAL
STAGE I
toss Creek
ire ken Sword
upper Sandusky
fymochtee
Middle Sandusky
ttoney Creek
liolf Creek
lock Creek
l.Sandtisky (Soil 1)
|ป San dusky (Soil 2}
1' TOTAL - :.-.
r
ง' --..-. --', ='.-
fe "-"-"',".
Column > a,
Position
1,
8
"t '?""'
14
16
21
23
.2.8-":.
1
6
12
14
16:
21
28
28
-, ,. - - -
'. : - , '."
'' ~- ->.-,,3
Cropland
Area
(km*)
,= TM84 ., ,
27,460 .
- 52,840^ -.':
54,236 .-
. 34,355'"
34,31.1 . .
40,990
24,355-
316;25Q '' ฐ
. . - . . , -
' : ' ." ' .--". .-- --,,.--.--. -
i-,-., :v..>,.,. u,-::-,,v;r,;,'
Universal Soil Loss Equation Coefficients
Rainfall
& Runoff
R
125
:1-Z5----
;1,30
138
125
125
125 -
,125
,:-/;::,, -.-,
Soil
Erodi-
bility
K
. , -
... .35, ,
,,,42,.,
,.38,
. ..35' x-
,29
'.;34'.'..-.
,^32.
; . o,-.,;;,C: ..:-
V '"''- "ฐ.-;; '"
.ฐ * ''"' r ' '.
V- ' '-' -T --"t" '' '
Topo-
graphic
LS
,40,2
,42.6 ,. .,
.381...
. 3-38 '
.256
..427
410,
;'o,;:v<-c>o
Cover &
Manage-
ment
C
,233,
,245
.26,0,
.237
237 :
26,8.-.
'- ^ -" ฐp\' '" ,ฐ
.v v \-
.108 ฐ
.103
.110
.108
iฎII>
;*: ,.::,-',
, -T_, s, .
c- ::';:-;->';
Support
Practice
P
";-Tr
--,!,.,,
1.,.
, 1 ..
,'. -]'-''%:
^
-\\,ฐ.f.,. vvj'-\:
/c, " :-"
'o 5 ,%- ''s /.
':;--:;:,;
*^','-ฃ,.
b,
Soil
Loss
(t/ac/yr)
A
4.1
5,7.;.
5^2
.'-3";,-:g:'"'f'
2,2
,_-4,,4,,
>^:A
1.9
-14- >:
2.2 "
1.0
irf""
&&:
.y->. -;,_.;;
c,
Soil
Loss
mt/km2/yr
A
?,3
1H-
11.6
,5,0
.-,,9^
<;;^|,
4.3
5,3
4.9
2.2
4.2
v-^v
vi'-XvV.'^
d,
Total Gross Erosion
) (mt/yr)
....^lyfiL,^}..-.--
,-,,348^42,,;,;
629' 138
^^-^fiT^B^'^-^"
--. 171 ,555
,,,241,, 114,..,,,
ฐ \-i~-' '' ' - : Ossl . - ' A A-fsi V - '. - -
" - - - ฉ'i-'j^/^y6'"' '-" "' +'
-'o-^r>-QQ^"+.H P^'J'fV60 ^PJ.-;>
-- - '.- ^. " T- ;-" \ -\" - - ' ,
81,269
146,494
''265 ,887"
75,938
102,601
vt,2B3:v786;::-,:f
-,-,,. .,,,,,.-,.
::j'... -.:;-.' v';>v:i>'v:-.v:''..;
e.
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
'r-' " ,ฐ *".''' "\ ฐ--
-.' ' '' ' .''',
- ';;''"'-';:"::-v;;::--?>:-
:,::,fflV-Xl
;i%Qfti;"
-J"tV- -V%'!':>-'ซ, A.- .^S/'-'S. -1"
:" '- tฐ '"' " V-0-' '-ฐ; '.!-,ฐ,
.- i, . .... -,.._ , ,
rd^
saoMosw.
yVvivAvi-k^1
f<
PRE
.j'.'v,:':'
.". s.ฐ:, ,! ^ ฐ
L- 's",e': ' ';
^P
, ,.,
"rr
"'^-.''rV
8.
UAL
(kg/km2/yr)
''--.'."'''.'"', '''..-''''
ซ ' -J- \'L -,: ,s>. , -':.L'
'''''- >"-' -: v^-v^r^
&lps
,..-', - ,~ * ,- -- :ฐ-
, , ^ se,,~ . . ' 4ฐ. !',' E." ฐ'
1.0
1 .0
1.0
1.0
1.0
X&M&.
"ซ ฐ '' . " ,~ . ' !._ L+
-V i .i - riฐ ,' . ,' 5
---^ '; L,. -'T-s .v i-
h,
Total P
(kg/yr)
r18,4,;
IvUlv
fil'ฐ
:-:ifiป-r'
m n
^:;;|~-^tt;y
,^lp
1,' " .-. ,.' - -
tj-ir
15.4
27.9
,,,,^,v,,,.
10.8
:-EJfti-R?-
'^ฃ&&
b4 = (R) (K) (LS) (C) (P)
c, = b, x 2.243
d4 = c, x a4
s,: Pollutant Delivery Ratio (PDR)The ratio of pollutant to total gross erosion for Initial Case
f,: Pollutant Reduction Efficiency (PRE)The extent that a pollutant
yield is decreased from a given decrease in potential gross erosion.
-------
Rural Cropland Loads
Worksheet 4
Column >- a.
Source
'^'^^1^".
Loss Creek
Upper Sandusky
Middle Sandusky
l^bTf ftreefc'"'^"""''' '""'""'"
'"J3^^* \/ ' -?if^-v*cio,l^ 6' s i;i r 5!ฐฐฐ-'" -ฐ ' L' - j.
i'rT\WV#"">-J "ซ.ฐf %*%" IV V ,'-*-" s , n ''"-, ฐ '':"
L. Sandusky (Soft'!!
ฃi Safl dil S:lQf!:;(S:d" ijt: --2;)
a^teS^W
---.ฐ - v-" --- ..-,- - , - - v;-r.--.
x--'. ;--'->^/' ^-vrV:>isy;/;:;:
' - ' , -. ฐ .; " - - r ฐ ', '-/ % ..-;' '- -ฐ
v x ; -,;?-voX ^> ,-:v-. ^ \-ฐ,v; ^ v.^
0,V;.'-- ; ; ' -,;!'-.">' ,'.,ซ -.T.5,1-;''"- '-' -"'"/X-V.
.;'^\/'XXi/>v4'X^->^s^>*KVf^
b, = (R) (K) (LS) |C) (Pj
c, = b, x 2.243
d, = c, x a.
1
"osition
'C-U-''^
1
""!'T"y
^
28
iw;-.,-:?.-;
'ฃ&&.
Cropland
Area
(km2)
ฐ ^ '',-'.' ', '5 o ฐ - = ฐ ,' ,";
,* o'e-r- '- ,' ' ' -V 'V;- "'ซ, '" V' '
". ' ,.JS; 'VV f" '-.' , 1- ' *. I.S-'Sv''J>9''"T.r
v.-s""^ '%e -ฐ'-ฐซ ^s+i Ts o,' , -' ' -zf' <:
". " .,ฐ ฐ ฐซ ' "r - ' ^ ,' : >. - "" i! "J
-/ ' *-ฐ' ฐ , . ปฐ.,'L ฐ .' -, *' ~. r ',
.,' '- . ฐ.J ''., 'j '" ' -. " f.' ' "-,?' "-'^
' "-' "''',' ' ^"! '"' ~ I'',' 'nฐ. ''" ''
V .' sฐ ^ e", s* ' . ' 0 '-' "- ^ o -^_
-, .' ., s , y i ฐ. '". - ' ฐ"--0 . - ฐ '". .- , --". l
Universal Soil Loss Equation Coeffic
Rainfall
& Runoff
R
;-:.:-;;:-;--. ;:
:.:,,,>l:::i:;-
^'.S^u
"*>'"' n!-3!v s'-ฐ'
Vฐ's,,'^ .".ซ^^-L'V
Soil
Erodi-
bility
K
,;'.;. :?,;.'::.:
;;-.<";ซ:
-- ' . & ". '>, *" ; "
.-ฐ ';;,;-.,'', _'" "
;:,X"2v::;;
Topo-
graphic
LS
v.\-.;-.::r:;i
>;-:;y;:::.,:.;
^;/,'-^h'
Cover &
Manage-
ment
C
;to34'
'.035
703T
;;-W.,
;:".03:3:
"ฃ'M&
Support
3ractice
P
':i::;:X/:':;:
:l;ฃ>::^.
,:;::^v:;v::'-
;--;&:;>.
b,
Soil
Loss
t/ac/yr)(
A
'''.-'. -H'i'. -:'
o!s
0.7
:M:w
:<>,*-::>: ?.
?;feSs-;:.
c,
Soil
Loss
mt/km2/yr
A
'1/7
T.2.!::'
1.6'
111;
,:J-I;-
, -.'.',' "-.;;-.
" '--lf\-'ฐ~ '.'
.-X'-'vivX
:;:;;V>;-:^.
d,
Total Gross Erosion
(mt/yr)
..,-: 27^692 :; v
47,388
ill-S*,:: .,
"-"'--. "s" . ' . T.- , . ' - -
... >v-X-'; >V '..:v : -ซ.-.- tj.-
; F| j ; ' \ -,v :ฐ ' . ;-ฐ
: .;.',;':;.';-;..;':.;',;;.
e,
Pollutant
Delivery
Ratio
,000105
:-' ;;';--,; '--:: .::.
'-/c-"' L,!=ฐ' ฐ,3 ' ' ฐ -
-''-: - '. \ฐ', ~ฐ"~ " -" ' ' ,.
^-i ' ฐ.ฐ,' -";.'". " r ' ."'.'
'' -\ ,ฐ ."'' , , ' _
--.:,." ',''
tt
PRE
1.0
1.0
T.O
i.O
r.o
1 .0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
H ',','_- -5 L
: f, -..
8.
UAL
(kg/km2/yr)
:
: ' ' ' "
h.
Total P
(kg/yr)
2.8 ':
2.9 1
5.0 '
6.8
9.1
4.1
2.6
5.9 .
3.5
1.2
44.0
yield is decreasea from a given decrease m potential gross erosion
-------
Loading Summary
Worksheet 5
Source
ซ... .: . ,-. . .- .... :_. '_-. ...... ,-; '..-._:_; - -.---, -.-X.X- . ;-;
H.OS-S Creek - " '""" !" -
pBucy r us . - mun i c i pa 1 , . ... , - ,
*'" "" ' - ' storm ' ' " 'v" "' ";v"
i;x - combined. -./-.-:.-" y- -- -
h" ' --'-' ',"" " " - ฐ- ~ ฐ~ T >" , -: ฐ"*
"Broken Sword
KUpper Sandusky River..: ,.:.,,,,;;_ ;_::.
'Upper Sandusky -'municipal
g; . .. -:- ,- -- :;-v.pQfflb.ined,;:: ;,x -x
lTTymochtee Creek
fiddle Sandusky, . , _ ,,,,_,....;.;,
THoney Creek
ejTiffin - municipal x --....
f" '" -' storm ' ' ''"' :"; -"'-
if .-combined . ----- :.;:
%)lf Creek : - x,x-x.x:xx:-
sRock Creek ,.,
^Fremont - municipal
fe - -S-to-rm-- ... . -. !!,:-"-:;x;:x,.
K - combined
ilower Sandusky :,:
!is ' ' ' ' '- -T-" -.",' ' y~-~'-
K - -TOTAL- -xvx--::-:;,-;-x.xx-
1 ;, '^ y-y-y' .^'-y-&m
I '-'-." :::--;-^:^-'1^:;:--;,
I. '..'..-.' - : ::;:: X
1 y^y^^:
1' - .' ..- :'.".. ;.x-':-V;:^
Column >- a,
Position
-XX-XX'-'-X - .. . -
'->-'"' n-: x;-v -x :
'3. xxx:xx-xx r
^xxxox-x.'-...;-.'
Sx-.x-x-xx:
^7 -:' -'-"-:
Q.$$" :; .-.
t'd"':';" ' "'""
11:x.,x :::--.:
f2v't;3':''"''';
14,1'5
r6,i7' J
13:.-.' ,:-,-:x:-
;|.g... ..-:. -;-v., ,
:20: ,:----.:. :-
21,22; - " '
2|ป2,f!>::_,
26,x x,V.v:;--
27" ':'"':"'r ''
,28,|9 ;.x;y
:^;;V':1':"^"=:^
;;:;.;. ;.''.-.:. ,: .,;
-y". .v, .'-* :: -yy
Initial Load to
River Channel
(kg/yr)
.v'ฐ.ฐ-\'-%yvn", ^.-'o,- "^eSvX"1 . ฐc
""''"''"'''TS','8'68''"'^"''1"''
:;::."<:' .l:3v800r.;x,-> x-
'--"' '-'^2^ '''" "'"-"''-"
^.mi^^m:.-^:^
20,8T6
!;:x;-.:;3;|:;,i;0:72:f:. ;..;:-:;:;
'"'"' ' '8,300' " '
.>>;. ';':- Jx700'.X ,-ป..-,
'^''"'^'SfvSSi)^'"''"1'"'^
' 66y853x :-'--..
" ""' '2ง,572' " '
v :x---:l:7,.7jQง-:;' '.':- ,.;;v
-% V'i'."'.T.I'.I'J;T'-rsi"0ฐAJrtt- -'-"-''-" ?: V:
"V,. - '..'r"- 1L"Q " 4-00 ' ฐ"~ ฐฐ"ฐ'ฐ- ' - 'I
j:'- ::>'1'8,"3'OS":'''';;;'"'-:'
.;"' .,:$\.%986- x,xv'.
"" 28":,:2t)0 v':v ;
;-- :.:.-. - - .^KQ. -,.,,-..,,,
-. '"- - - - . .vป JU,. ....;-.,
' "'" 12; 300 """"
:;:.x;:;'iaA,S77x'.x; :;:.
:::xซซ:S,x:,
ss'^'v^r
:.>;::;", "V:'--", ">;"" *,-; : ----"
: *'..&, ' I-*-".L""-:-:-V.S' -'-'/ - --''ฐ'
-'--!-iT ' s ฐ, L v> ;-:-/- >5^.-',vJ %:-ฐ:ir-
\ฐy -' >"-\'yyฐ'.- xปi-, T - -i-v -j
, ; - -^-^,0v . -- .-,-,' ---
bs | c5
Load to River Channel
with Controls in Place
(kg/yr)
Stage I
x wX -vvXX.'X1 - X ฐ.? , -"'.:,. ;-.'
O , OGO
;,:.'.'', :: .3j:400s.v.--"-'
v;.s:.v.-.-x. --'>'2^Q[:':'' '''"''
:-;-;: %:-:;ฃ3&-$9$gg%
' 9,1 1C
::i';:K;::;;:::1:S:i:&^2;..';.:::.:Xx:
c. , 1 uu
---'-:--;: -'^-'^"7^ :-'-- -y-
^:^''l-y^^<3T''^: (
-":-. ::.-', -->2S- :-7:5-.3.v'-.---:-.
^xvxvt.-'Y^^.^.x.v;.;.'.
.x-rx .x.r;4i?f;OQ:...; >,--.
'' ' :""1 ,300" ' "'
'>:'<.:: ---9'.'.-7-76:-x :..;..'-..
-:-,-:::; ^^(5^:;---"-^-:
,' - :-.:; tJS^S.ft;.-;--:-:^'
,.;: J.j.-.^Qft"''*-:-;-:-.
-"//-- X:-,;:-;-:-.26-0:'. "':-
'--- - 6 a- 'ฅ1 --^PO-' ;: ' ::
...A!J-,V -v-i .Bc..4-77?'' -: 5- - ~
'",V,.:ฐ."' " -J-l^ " .. ' ' -' 'f " -. .'-'-". "!
.. --,.-, -T- ; ' :";~. -- ,' ... ...
j-j L ' s^..-J.C?-/. ;^.Q^c-,y!ฐ./. -v . ., ".-
-N'...i-!;x:.ฐ-- -." ->;ฐ. - -xx"X':X ': ;..s- "
r;.^;;:':".: ..-:.;; !.'';-;:;;xx-;;x:x.:;
..V;;.5;:i::'Y-r,;j:;;.:.:-.V:;:v:';;;::'
.XX- /;:-'-..- :>.-..; _ X :-.;_.;.
,'," ',' ' -0-- ' - " =.i .V ,' . \X '
,'", :,ฐ ,- - -ฐ: " V --!' - -Ls \ .'
Stage II
;%V'5T/SVV >ปt-i/b ">//';.'- 5?'-. X
":':;':"X::3V'V'6S:"::'"'''';"'":"
ixxxxI'V^ES7"::^:::-?^
-''"""-''"'qgp xx -:-';:-;-.-..
x-v;:";:^S3fi;;.:x-x-:::x:'i
3,11 S
x.;Vx--;Sv422;xX::.::v::-;:
,..-.- -''I'^g'jg-- -'--
v -r:--,',! -I'.. 1-7 2 "' -';- ''ป'
;.:: .:\-:ys:'^jjy...1. -xxt-:
.-:.-;-x-x-9;ป9g-3;-.x-r.x:.:-,;o
Ix: .:.xx.>^ฃy;-x-;x.;..:.
- -i s,i-.s /> O^"l - - -i-.- , ^ ,
A/ vx<^v&af -lie -.--ป' :,v,'
, L. L f ~V ^_,-'xc.-', - i! **..,: rr-'ฐฐ.->I"-iT. ฐ.-ฐ.-'
'"Qp'n" " r ^ ' " ฐ ฐ
-:-:; .--..-.7-- 2;8Q:-:-:""' "----::
x:: xx^^g-i-^vs.:;;::;;;,
:;":: x-;&; &8fex x-x:x--
'''''"-' V3',"524 :'v>:'vx
-x .fe.:.'-r1.9-'.r: x'x-:
":':'::8',6TO': : " '
::':r^...-.-:ง:4-7;7.?:,:.".;;'..f:->;:;;
ซ:ซfcp*.fc;
'^"H" ' -, *- .;' ' ' J- ''. "' +,
= "''s'ฐ '' ,' ฐฐ. " '"' " ' -- ฐ- -"'-' n'-'"9'ฐ
""^ ""'-. 'ป'!! -P-'':"-''-vv!!"- "V^ 's- !
:.'.-.--.-.:- -%C--V:V ".'": ' "" V.
' "v" 'si ri. i %.\ ซ; " v.-X'/v' /'/''
.'.".*., -:.1-"; '- .v^.'v"'- x-r->
",5 ----- -;-,X- - ', . 5s,f "->' :ซ..-'-,- -
- :". ,!, - ; -,' - ," ' a. ',,r^;--;: s "- '
.,' ,- .- - "--': . ' s ',-,, ฐ,,-' , - -
. "- '- -Xs'sV , -= n '-"s^'s.'",, . ;ป'' ' ฐ". '"
d,
e,
Load Reductions
(kg/yr)
Stage I
.;-,._ .>:..:<:.,;,- ,:.,>: :::';:;:'-;
=-..-. -"^i-g'^g-oQ--'- '"y: -'
:^:::'-.'.'^:&^QQff-:/yy.
>:-::-:.. . ^vv..;,,:--:gQ;,-,vx-.v
v":>. f:xx :-'x*05:-x::x-::X
11 ,700
';:>:::::x;i'2f':,:2ฃ!-@,:::;:3:I:::>
,-,-.-.-,,.- .'. "g-^QQ"" --''
"' :-.--- x ----- :-- -'.-'4'2-S" -v":: -"--'-
'.::;i:..:'-:^*^Jfr;x:S-:
:;;-?"::---.^3:&->>lOQ;-i.;'Kc<'
.-x.x;v ^"^j-jg'^--1^
,<;.': '/ -.'-} SixISO-xx:-:-::--.:
<;,
:-.;.,;; ;--v.;.;x t,:.:งQ-;x::X :.;
.x-..--,x:,:vx.v^8--x^x
-;;:-:''^vl:J5v4.S0-;.:v.?J
: -- ; --'. x : : 2: 32 ,;i;7&7.S<":';'. :: : .
--. :::-,.- >; > - .-,-,--.:-:-: <\ .";;-:'- xtx
\.: %-: :^-^x : ^.i.x:x.:s:;x v^x.^5
.- ^,';j-..i - ..'.'-..v^.- sv.v0- LT,-::C-:X.V..-..
" . ..--.-. - - - . -.,'. %...^.? *;,; *..; ,
...e" -,-,'- ^V^c." C.-g^--..."-. .%^."i;"i\ -r,.-, s,
.ป.-:- :.-;.x.--;:v..x..-:-;'.;.-;.-;-x-,.:x
;.;,r-,::?:xv:,.-.;.-x;-X:.>X.;r,y;;x:,;
' \"-'-^y,. -".'-. ฐJ L.ฐ-/I. '; : >-6 10! ฐr* nS '-"" S"0" S'^.
Stage II
''']'''' .: .""".:-X''XX-;: :*. X ;.
:'X'; "'5,*700' '"""
x--:x.X.:::1':-''i:72x-:'x:"::-,;
,;x-v;-s--:v, ;-'-'-gg"- ' -'-"-":
r-::-.-x':x-;.?>55S/.: :.'""
6 9 000
;!-';HC?!l /^A'V^i;pjAoxi"-\;v;; ;- ;;
"x"''tir!C664%":'V' "
S.i :/.. -.. .xfffJJ?'"' '" v~
:::-:v;.x;;^:v/:v^x...,_::y:::
j:::.: v;;,x--].:g',gQg- .-.-:-;-.;,_;
--^^OD'--'-^"
fx --K::-: 2;.-:-]:8:9.;.-:x:::'x'c;'::
:' -'-'' '"' * 32o':'r'c'"'
,;,.,,. :--. -2x4 Q g--:- -',--- :-:
"-:Xx:;>:.-v-:^^y. x::.x.^:
.;/;;- -;;-;,i g - TOO.x:::::: x
"""'""''" 3*4'76"v"''":"' :
;-,..--:. x-.-'-sg^'-xv'xx:
''"'' "'"2'':'952 "
xv::-;.,;;;.j.;9^|0Q;;:;::-;.;:x:.;:
:iซP^.ปซ::S::
^X'1-' ip-V';"ฐ,y'7- v> .'-!%- n ,ฐv>>
;';r:y~vv;" - ,-"- - >\*ฐy * ----- .^ -.'* -,-'s
-v^T':0"X\>.>v>^-Cv>>>'^ ;-- X-!"'---
'^V-CV^.^-v-X'"'^-''^^^''"' "- " h-'"!" '-'
,s', ^ \\ฐ, ,%- ",'+ V-ฐ -! -; s i , .; .-
a,. Initial municipal (cj, storm (fj, combined sewer (iz), noncropland (j,), cropland (hj.
[),,: Stage 1. municipal (cj, storm (fj, combined sewer (i2), noncropland (j,), cropland |h,).
b,1 Stage II: municipal (cj, storm (fj, combined sewer (i,), noncropland (j,), cropland (hj.
j, = a, - tv The loading reduction from the initial rondition when Stage I is implemented.
j), = b, - c,: The loading reduction from the Stage 1 condition when Stage II is implemented.
-------
Program Costs
Worksheet 6
Source
-.t-OS,s;-'--.Grftek, ':;;:: ,:.',''.-;;.:=.v.;-rv 'V '->' > .' '.'
Eucyrus - m'unit'f pal ' '
, , ,' 'jf--f.- " "w" - ~c spT^ ^cn^" - eฐ5" ~ฐฐ ',ฐฐ6'~ ''' " Ln nr
- '-' ' ' .. L ,-,'ฐ '. . ป ,-ฐ'&'ฃf\t J ;1 Et "s,-1- -,%"'- " - -r ' -\' '- -'j5,. : ?';"--
.'' ' '""' "'r":^^^^" '?. ' ""T.? ' ฐ
.Bpl5k:5;n.--S;W&r:&' Cr"feSko-,: :',;; ':..':'->;-;'':-'
Opper Saridusky 'River
;:t|ppe^;:S;a;h:eto$ K&:rr,ctpuป0.ฃ;i pal;. : ',;-:'
""- 'comb'Tned '
:?^^Ch$ee\;^^^;^^^;-7;c;:;/^.;V:-V^:
Riddle Sandusky''"" '"
",llOftey;';:0reฅk-.- -' ' *:-' -^:^Vi: -: l':;;"v/;::-:r
Tiffin' -municipal
'.'. : '>.".' v>' " V^S.teafM'-'' - '"v:-;.,''.'.-';-; -,-:-'>/,
- combined"
-S-Jolf^Cifefelf -;>",>-v ^ ,-; x?;??;? :^
'Rock Creek
.,(^rjsm0;iffix-:-5>niurt
-! s'torfn
.' '.' :; PV;:'"i:?:G"6ttWfted'"::Vr:;:""';''-:''-'"':-'"-''--:-;'
Lower Sandusky '
?=m^^^
- - - ,0- -..-,ฐ .-;- " "...-'.,- . "o. ,.-;.--- . .-.-.. ,L .."..-
0 V-ฐ .- . .' .'-"..'.- '. , , ' --^ . ฐ? -' ^' V .- . -,?, ; o s;ฐ', .
--,'.-. ^ .'..... o. . ,- !", ฐ-. .-"-. ,.- ฐ ''.-.'.-.'. ฐ -'-' '.'-- \ฐ"- ", ' -/- ' -.' . C-
Column V a,,
Position
1y-2, ;;;.-,:;;-:; >-
'"'3" " '"" '
::..4-l ;/."V;.".; :':;v
'xr.-"".'r.
'6"^:'7---- ''"'- -i "--.--
:a;9""'"^;:"
- -W->:-.:-:---s::'- "-
'11 '--' >:>-':
V2-;-V3'--''-"-:
:"T^ir':-:-J'
'"-'l:'i!l-;1"-7-"-:'.""--
-fs-'-::-,x,:-:
;;:.'}9v- :'/-'.''. -":.
'"'2"0;':>;' '"'-'':'"
v'glq.gg-'"-.-"-'^
''2:3,;24/r''::
.-,2-5. -;'!'-;-' -:-,:.;-:>:
;W"':'"":"
:,-27::::c,-:--::'-;-
"28',V29 ''
v?-;;::'''::-;--->:;-:-."j?'
Sw^x'':;:?^
:::k;;f:S;7:Vv;:^
b,
c.
Nonpoint
Area
Treated
(km2)
.'1,6;9-.;8;' -";. ,
""''--"-
ฐ"J' *ฐ i^ * "" ฐ ",
A- = f, ' . ' -
s'>l:ฐ8?^ฐ2i--ฐ^ ; ',
'^74: ''"'
.';-': ^-V-.T :":':--,,;,
"'" ""6. 7 " "'
:VS2B ;$-.V". ':.:
542. ?;"-'
V 3,4-3 :.;&;.:-.-:>/:
" '___- ''*' "
.-;.:.,i7-iO;-::-:. ::
'ib.4;:
;.343',1:';-: : '."
:"40^."9 : '
j;;:^;.;*-;;-':,:;,';.
'T.4'
:-':::1'2-^3.'':':-'r-
-34J.6"": :
::,:-''!;"-':,-;.:.;-;,
,-'-. '. :'/'.':."
\ :--'': ."-;.-':-' '.':
f$/km2/yr)
Initial to
Stage I
;- . .-65 ..'_'-
''- '_'__'
':7::,.;4Q0: >X' ;
7 ^-00
-.-' -'"-' .65' - ' ;'.'
>:, ;- ,gg-,: ; -,:-
'-,: '-"*?.-,-,''--.-
7, 460"
.;--V:15.-v-
:65
r:;.:;-;-:';:^-":-",;;-;
'- ' _'_:_--' - '
7,400. ;x
"7,40b'; X
-: '<:. -'65. :::,;.;-.:
--x-,-;gg, .-:--:-':
' -,: ;-?*--: -';:'.:--
7,'400 ;':
;744QO :v ;::.
: ; V65"rvi':
;.1;-,-.V;v-".:.-.:v;,-;
;>,-.Vl -;;,,;->-;;,. ,v
Stage I to
Stage II
.'ฐ;';.yฎ.Q': ,'.:
. -__-_u- -
'8^600- ';:
24,70:&"::";
"* '35000'!i ". .--
3,b6b':"
' : ;:\- -*<%-,:.:-
24,700 "
:r '3,000 ,.
'3,000''
-V-.3v900:.;. ..
_.__,.. . ,.
:'-85600:' .
;24,70&- :
;-?.3sOQOv :;
' :3vObO "
-. -,^-?>-'::. :r
: 8,:600 :
-2:4;-,700 . ;
;''3,000 '
&W:':^.
X/'^-y^-.''-: ',-:;'
--';-,: -.'":>; ->-':-'.-::-:;
d.
e,
f,
Point
Units
Served
,,'.;-:;-'^'?'":!:;:;:-:. -
* 13, 500 '
-;--:; ':'$-- '-;;". ":': '.
,.,.__
.;. ;- - :"*-:-.' .'.;: '
'__
:-: 'S-j".2-50'vv .
-'__ ' '-"
. : -'''' '** y.-J- *',*' ..
: .--.' --, -:-- ..- ----,-,
' . '-- ;"w"r-_ ' .
'26; 000 "
;:::;;;.;;--%;-,;-:-;;:;-
-., = . _._. -. --.
-,;.,-.; 7-.;--,,..-;-:
' -'_;_""-"
.1-9: ,.730 -..:;
------. _.,-. ,---.-
I.-.-,,,--.,-,;;.-. -,.
.- ,'__._--.. ..- , ,
,..,,.... ,,,.._:,,.r.,,.;
.,-.-,; .,>.-;,-.-:,;:.-, -,
($/cap/yr)
Initial to
Stage I
, ^ " T" ~ ' ' ฐ ,ฐ
;;'2V4:"A
- ~~-*.;-<-
-
C""-~-.~ , -
___
;s2v.4;-;:
___'"-"
.y---. ;
--'-- -'-:
. .>- ^ -.; -
V2v4 '
'',*"---"-.--
_-^_"
-:,----* -..
"'-:-'-'"'
:;2:. 4'
__"_
"iu_ -
'V '.'>-';' '.''.:
;:;.::-.'-'v:.:
Stage I to
Stage II
"","" "* - -'-
'3.6
-*':
-''
~**~',-. ..:
,3*6.:;-.
r- !-- -',--:-
''---' -
;,..*.--.;..
'"'3': 6X
.-,-:f---.- ,
"--- -
----- :'."
-'-- ' '
3.6:, .
-___'-
,,fr -,,-
-.,___-._ ,
'=':' -;-;-'.-'
ge
h.
Total Cost of Program ($/yr)
Initial to
Stage I
12,337 . .
32,400'
:--.- ,9,620 .-.
: 5 3; 200 :
. 1 i- j 1 b8
17,849
.-..-: -15, -QQQ. ..
49,530
.->v 34,34.6.. , , .
' 35,256
... ,22,334
: ;62!,400 "
: 51-, 300 . .- .=
' "76,960
23,302. ...
": 26,644
..,.-- 47,352- .-.
' 10", 360
.... ,91,020 ...
2'2,334 -
' ; 705,342 -
' V-' ' ' - ... ." ' .
- - . . ' V ; > ,.
Stage I to
Stage II
j69,400 .;!
48,600
-- -11,180 -.ซ
177,340 '
T .- r r i c. c\ri
bot ,DuO j
823,800 *
22,500 ;
165,490 "'
., 1,5.85,200
1,627,200 -i
- 1,030,800
93,600 "'
.... .60,200 ;
""256,880 '
1., 029, 300 i
1,229,700 '-
71,028 ji
12,040 "!
303,810 4
1,030,800
10,710,902 '*
-ฐ- ' . ' "k
M,
a,. a4 cropland, or d, or g, or j, urban land
bs: Unit area cost of going from the initial rropland condition to a Stage 1 cropland program.
CH- Unit area rost of going from the Stagp t cropland program to Stage II.
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Total P
Worksheet 7
Source
: - ' '>;-" ::;, ': .",/->. ':' ':;;':.',... ;: : :-::. :';
STAGE I
\ .Los^ Creek'"-" :'--- *, r>y-: : :'-" '-
Bucyr us - .Tnun:i c i pal
,,, -; combined -
: Broken :Swor d' ' '::A '
Upper Sandusky River
: Upper Sandusky - munixnpal
.,, , - combined ..
; Tyrnoehtee Greek : : ::
Middle Sandusky
Honey Creelc : : ...'.
Tiffin -municipal .
."- :StQfm :::::::-:/ ,,."
- combined, .. ... .
; Wolf Creek ^ M:^,,:: ". - :
., .. Rock Creek
Fremont;:- municipal ::
, , . .. ,:, -.-.stprm,., ....... .... ,,
Lower. Sandusky ,.......,
-,,, , . ., ,. ........ JO JAL..:; ,,;,;;., ,,,,,;
? ; : :''.:' ^^'l:'JK^^':^m
f- ': - ' * ':' ::;".'..V '-=/ :::::' !-t:' V :::":,-",:ซ
Column >
Position
<-':': :]" ^::;'-: -''-
^,^,,,,.,,,_;;
>-3 ,;:,.,:,
,,5,,.,,,, ..,
3e-tr"----x'-''
,8,9 ., ,,
:r]0-%:: -:''
.11,,,,-,
14,15 ,.
,18,,,,,,,:,
,,20.,,,.,., .
':. 21v22
23,24 ,
'.':-25': .- ; '-'- '
:,>?ง;.;,:.: :,,:{;;.
2,8 ,,29
v:;v:,:x--;.:..::. :.;:<;'
f
ป
//
i'-l-rJ:
:>k;:
,,1...
,:';"l-:,
, 1
''I'---:
,.} ,
:i:V"v
1
""-"[.- --:
1
.-.-.T.
. 1
,''-?.'::v:
,1,
''.-"-%:.
,,,1,,
,,!,.
v<:::l:.
?;;-x-:::
i,
//5
//
:N^::-:
,; v::":!:
b7 c7
* -':'^
v..iMjffs~&
>,,, -6. 500 ,,,,,,
: ":::;-2IJv'81' ":':':;v:''
, ,,37,,072.,,,;,,
,..,,,.1,7DO...... .
A-;\;Mv6S7;:'.:::--''
66,853 ...
'-:--''';>:28-~572 '''"' :'''
,, 17,700 ......
' - T S06~ ' ' " -
,..,1.0,400. ,
:; ; 18 v305 "''''
,, 41,98,6 , ,
: :;;28y200 :';- -
,,..,,,,, ,v. 350, ,v
^"..34*877".. '.",'.'
::-:;::.lSb;:.-::;::y^y?i-VSi:'
S^^SP'^M:-::
d,
Load
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
':;:>,_,. "::::'.,;:;':,ix, : ''.
^'i'^i^'fsSS^-'
,,,,;, ,,,y.,:80Q-,:,,
, ,,-,6,500,,,,..
-''\<-2$'ffi'&--*:-t
,. .,,,37,072... .
'''' ~,ฐ ,- i ' . /^h H"n^f}CJ 'ฐ ' ' "' ;-
..,.. 1,700,.,
1 ^vr^.Sl./jSS?:-..-:':'1::
-66,853.,, ....
"' ' ?: '-:"': ^8:' ''S7i2'~'.':^:'.
17,700
, - ,~ ,5 -- - - .- ; V ;, r ซ s> -
v 1 ^800 *'""
, ,,1Q, ,400
'- ' ;;:-vl8:,30S: -* ' "'
,, 41,986
;->:,:,. '.-.:28.,iป2:l0Q"'s-i:-:':
..,,..._,, :,,35p,,,,,.
... , 34 ,,877,, .....
,,._,., _420K4 16, ,.,..
t;?r^-i:"''';>'"ii'-:5f-.'.>'';:^
*: :<::';-;-;:: r.^';M?:;:>::: ;>ฃฅป:
v:::-:-:'::":;J,:; :%;:'J:^\-:' '--
e,
Load Reduction
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
"'"'" STAGE''"!"' : ;"
''':-^wMo''-'-^':
;.,;;-; ;;l;ft^0a,.;,,.
,-,,-, =-.4Q9,-..,,.
':;::;';;. .- ^i j7dt)";-"'''-:>>:
...... ,..21.,.200,,,,.,,.
:;;.;:;:::. .;'.vi6i2GjO;^?^A:
.... ... ,126,,.,...,.,.,
''''>''- :'2.Qj^&&:>''y.:-:
,,,. 3SJOQ... ,
,-, : :::A--.'|'5:;>8'00'"-: ':'"-':":
., 13.300 ..
. -' "'--'" '- "i-'.'BQQ '" ' ' ''
,.,,,.,,,,,62.4,,.,,,,.
;;;v-';-:::.SlB;^06ง;., ":';':'.
,,,,, 23, .300.,,
>::::.:>. .::::.;;::2l-i2'9fc::-:V/:.
;s,.. ,,,,,. ^.,.,^0,,,,.^,
,.,,^,J9,4QQ ,,.
-ปT,r -^4,,' ,^,,?-f,y/;.,-:,;-----'---
vn ;^;;,;^fe^:S.v-:;:::";;
;:;;L:;.;'::;:>:v:rV.r:-^'::::;.'l:::vซ-:
f,
Cost of
Program
($/yr)
-:,-;: :--:;? W---;^.^.
STAGE I "
*:M^m^^?^
.;,;,!., 32,.,4PA,v:,;..,,
,,,,.,5.3,,280,,;:..,
:;<;. ,.;;:;,^2,. Jtjgg -;,-,;;;;-..;,.
,,,.,J 7,8^,9,,,,,,.
:>;.." ^'HsjQSb -^:':.
,.,,,,.49,5,80,,,,, ..
-::v' :?::>:34:i3fi^';:::-,:-- :
,,,., ,3.5,256... ....
62, 400,,.. , ,,
< .'K:.;>I-I-. 5'?"!'-'8Sw"':' ' ' '"'
,...,...,..7.6.^96^..,.
V-x-V -;:<-?- 2:ฃ3Gi :'-;''"::"; ."-,
,,...., ,2^6.44,,,,-,,
>;;-;y . .xi^SSf >>;.:.:>";;.<
:;:,;.::, -Wf||ft -,;>::,,
,,,.. , 22,.334.,,.j .
_3X^ '.'Si', 'V^C -,'ฐป> "'- --r-'-s''; V s'"c '
"s-Vr, !^,ซ ; -'."Mv- >,.--'!% C%"%ฐs*ฐ.VVT .V
.j5:.01^"*. ฐTป . "" :*', -.ฐ'ฐ.T' ' ฐ; ฐ^5, ', ">'-.- -'",
.,' > -^'V" ~T'* t'1' - v s- ' 'ฐin8- a; ,e" * "jV!'!--!
87
Cost Per Unit
Removed at
Mouth
(S/kg)
;;;:sT:iffi::
:i:;=t:ii:s
- , , . , O SI .
'- V J Y '. - '-.
T V "I O jp^ .'.nOT;..:. , ..'
:,, ,.130..^-..,,
:':"::-:';>:lviJ"-: '
,,,.,0,,8,,,.,
'ฃ<ฃ''& $-$'
,..3,93,5.,.,
o:*.:;v":::|.v:t>::>r;
,0.9
^"vii'^kjliv.i1'?
,.,,.,,,4,7,,,,
i-'""'-'"itiQ.3-'-'6'1- '"'-:
..... 12,3,3.,.
\\-s> o- '-;il''!!O; .'O:-".", L-ฐ'
- ,''-,'; /''.*. ซGi -i -ti '"
, 1,,,,1-,1,,,
;;:-:".:-':::::Er'2:'-:.>:-
^di5"-\v"
.,,,,,1,2,,,,.
^'^:f^M
i&^:<ฃ
''&'?ฃ:t}.f.'-'&'.
h,
Cost-
Rank
:."X',-;:-:> :
:,,^::^:i
:12,.
::33,,,,
.-J, .,.
is I'tfs'T "' '-
.' .'Ir3f ฐ,- ^
. , 34
r:"::;ir':, '-x
, ,2,.
?:'vg !:-;:
,1,3,,,..
";i"-2.3'''''"'''"
,,.30, ,.
--'111):-'::,;?:.:
,,,,,4...
;!.: .:,gK:-;:,:
-,|6-::,;:
6,.._
:;5?:-:,v'i;-
,.,:,;;,:-.;-:-.;;;.;.:;
a,: Effective Transmission from Source to River Mouth (usually 1.0).
b7: Portion of parameter that is judged to be biologically available.
c, = a,
d, = a, x b, x c,: Load at the mouth with losses and availability factored in.
e, = d, x a, x b, (Stage I), or = e, x a, x b, (Stage II).
f, = g, (Stage 1), or h, (Slage II.
g, = f, - a,
h7: The rank from smallest to largest value in g, (cost-effertivnness):
-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Total P
Worksheet 7
(Continued)
Source
ฐCfT-flf*E?T T t ""jVฐ'- 'J''ฐ'ฐ - - '" r -..-'ฐ"-i^ /- "V ,"-"'. '. - ',
-v\v4"O'M&C/'*Vle.X. ฐ"e"i"T --'*,- vvฐ --'' LVฐV-ฐ -,-.-"- .:.--.'-ฐ '
:.-. xloss^Creek^w-- ''" vvx-v-: -;;v.
frucyru'S - rnuhtclpal
'<.:': ''::-'. xV-:~-*.:-Stp.n$;-. -,x:" :'''-V.:-'::"'v
Broken Sword v ; ;
x"ijppe:f 'S:afiaus"ky "Rivet' ' " :
. ., Upper: S,an dusky , ^municipal:
: . ,. Tyjfloch-tee rCreek;/, :: :; ;-..;,.
' " 'Mi^tfie Sandusky' ' ' " "'
Mnnpv Pyppk '- '
. 1 1VI IS-eJf. W| '.Cซ.l^l\, . ;- f>- - .',:- r - . .- - . . ' .
'TTffitf';-aniuniT'ci pal " ' - ' "
,;- ; . ,-'; ;. ^r^St Of ffl..: ;/,>-, :-' ;"."' v> '
Wolf, Creek ,--
;': Rbck tfee'k "' vv' ''' ' "" ;
/Fremant^ municipal ; :
'-'-"- "'''' ' "' -v";ง'tb:'rrn ' -:v-"- '- ' -
- -. '--'.-, .,.:-. '-.--: CQrab.Tne.d\. ,;- v.j-v-.
'"'"" Lower SaniJu'siy '"" " ' ' " ' ' ""'""
^^-S'^'^-'^/Sil'.V-'':^^..:"^^^:
,';,*:;;>'/: ., *?..;'; ./... ..-.: '-..:'.: .:' -''...;
v----v ;'..;: . . :;.;.-;;.---' -_,- .,:' ..'.,.,,..,'"-:;,,'..,
- .": -' ' "".- -v .-- . ' " ' L'. '. -'",',-':: - --' ,- .'. '.''.- ''
-:,:> >v,r.*v. ';:' ->,;> ^:^' ':-:-^.^^ :;-.- ">>
Column >
Position
X: r- ..HV >-;;-.->>'-;.,
: ' ', . t V'1 ' "' n '-'
.V- -L-. ฐs ..-..,;,- >, ..
:;-",;-.-.-.-,:
- e
<6
^
'>.v.;
.-:-V>.;:'
V . ,;_ :
' "'""'"
7
v?
'/./ฃ
..'.:,
':" -r :
.V, ;'y
b, 1 c7
^ /
e-/ Total Load to
gy Surface Water
7 (kg/yr)
." '/::''.' ''"';::"'>:.X:ฐ:V/'
;;>;/_.; ::VV;~/:-'.;'.--'.-- .'.';
;.v-.:;-'V--v::--'--":::..'"V.'
0= :r -"ฐ - ' r'ฐ j"- " 'ฐ "' "--", ' ^0 .
- ' 1 -' - '- ฐ""-. ",' \i ปV-ฐป,''
, ฐ , , - . "^ , ฐ ^' T ฐ ' ,, - ' ' .
^ฐ ' ,' *' L ฐ" -. -"/'" . - , . "'
STAGE J ^'/
':.--;;:--^;':^:3;;-;0:^
,;:"-<;> ,- :"^-Vi
>;;;.. -....;::--.- .' >:--';'-:
--.-. ;;:.. -..:. ,.-;.-: /:..-
d,
Load
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
''-'siXv '":'/'.:':; :---.'-;^;;'.'
/'.-.'' -,c. /. :':".': ,'-
'- '- - -;.;-'-- ,. ...' - '.;. '.
Subtotal
" " -%,-'..',-. ,ฐ.'~~r -ฐ - "ฐ .-'',
' - . . - , - ฐ -^ . . v : vrp
Subtotal
^./>WM>v,:
:,-,v.-:^:;:;.----vx;
.;,'-.-. '-.-.'V .-;''-. '':'"; '':
': ''. ';''."':. ' ,-.
e,
Load Reduction
at Mouth
(kg/yr)
.'- ^-st^'i:F; '"-
" >'.''' :&v 7:00" "' /--
1,672
"'"T',555"
''l'bt4d6
.-402
li o D nA
1 O 9 OUU
o i (5 o
" "2V496 ' '"""""
--''64 '
9/700""""'
107,148
- :-:; '"---:.:>/>,/.;,:,
232,767
- \, If-'^T-V 7ฐ/MDv ' '' '/
-/, . Vฐ -1U/ 5 Jl -rO -ฐ , --'>.. s" 'J'ฐa-
;V:y339MS:v::.;'::^
..,,,. ..;..--,_,.,-,v >:; ;../::...,
-- "... ''- .''; SL' ' .'"-ฐf' v. ,.^< /-:~.::j-:-,1 .
:":;.'.-.-.^-.'.-xv.--v,\ >':','- '''./-.:
f,
Cost of
Program
(S/yr)
' v -STAGE -ri'";'
- :S69>40G'-
48,600
". : -ui.ii so-,
177,840
"'82V300
165,490
= ./ VV585V200- -
1,627,200
''93* 600
6:0v200
" 256,880
1 !229' 700
71,028
' ' '12,640' '
i.osolsoo
v^-v-.. :/V; :;"/>,: --
10,710,902
..<','.* .',;.-'-'":-. :'
v- ,-.:" ' -.. -. - -. ;.;-.- '
'v,',, :-'-".,.;,'>:- '/'::''-. ::". -x''
"-\^ov:--:-::'/:.V":T:::''":."'::^>.>''
;'"--;/-';>:; u'V?'. ;;>'-':'
87
Cost Per Unit
Removed at
Mouth
($/kg)
STAGE II
:: 99,9-
29.1
192.7
114.4
79:2'
;2T.l
411.7
86.6
125.7 :
42.8
188.1
102.9
190,6 -
101.6
20.4.
188.1
.102,9
106.3
s ฐ > / v , - -, .,' -
, ; '. "_ r^- ฐ. ,
, " - o- . n , o' ' , . ' , '
h7
Cost-
Effective
Rank
,21 !
16
"38 ,
34
20 :
18
W V
40
19
'32 .--:
17
.-36 '-.:;
31
.3.r.;<
22
14 ..'./
36
29 ,
24
a,: Effective Transmission from Source to River Mouth (usually 1.0).
b,: Portion of parameter that is judged to be biologically available.
c, = a.
f, = g, (Stage I), or h, (Stage II.
g, = f, - e,
h,: The rank from smallest tn largest value in g. (cost-effectiveness)'
-------
Summary of Programs
Worksheet 8
Column >- ae
Sources
Combined Sewer - Tiffin
Cropland - Honey Creek ' ; v ;
Combined Sewer - Bucyrus
1 Combined Sewer :- .Bucyrus ':'"' '""-.' '.'.--'?'
Storm Sewer - Tiffin ,..,.,,
: Storm Sewer' - Fremont .... : ' - : : ;:'.' : .;- :' :-::. ;
Cropland - Wolf Creek
1 . .-,..,-,,.._ L . . , L 0 L .. ., f f h ,, , -,- = ,' - ,. . . . , _., - - -, .._ s_ a
Storm Sewer. -.Bucyrus. :,;. . ; , -,:'' ;-.-.:;:
Combined Sewer - Upper Sandusky
', Combined Sewer.- Upper Sandusky ".":' ".";.; ;: *-/:
I : ..,:.,:...-..,:,.;... . -:,;;'-:-y->,-, -;,-: v'.v:,-..y
, '- "~ '- '''" ." ":' --'--'";:<, -:-,: ' : -- '.'.'! -':-.:'"'"'" - .:.':;;
t . -. . :-.:.::'; :.K '''-"fr"""'-'-'.' ".''"" '''"*"'- '-'"'." "".?.-;-:';Vt *"'' "''':'*;:"''v ",".'
s . '.' - - ..'- - ,- . ,' .'.'-- V, .'V ', ' -V.ป . ,'..' ,-v ,'. V, ..--,..-.'. .'5;-,.,
. . , -,-..: ..,,....._,. , ^, T., , .; . ... Y. . .,.. . , ...',,., r. -, T], ., . ' .^,.^:,,
:':- ... -"'..'" -'-'". C" - ./ ฐ'- . . .'.;.' ' ..' "-,''.---.. -V.V.*. 5 ,. .- ' ".*.'-:
---, "-"-"' ..."". .. ^:-'.---; '"->: -'i'v':'^''^ i-'-^'1' --;- - :--:^; . -'I/ '*~J '' -'i'S'"L '-\:r/'
i . v ; ;-;' <.-::/.^ :'!:;':%'ฃ^^Z'3^M^^&%
- ' . _ -', ~.T ',, ฐ "./,,. o%n-',,>'.%>n -,':; - J. ji ' - .ฐซฐ .- ' vฐ= j.-'.r -,','"s s" VL. '-,r \- - .-L-'-- v
: '.''*'-. .:"--, ::\- ; .,:..:;;-: ;V::'-;-::::;' :>;-; ;;;<'-;
Rank
(h,)
^^
:'- 32-:;:-:"
..3.3, ,.
34?:;.-y
.35. ....
37
: 38? ; :
39
W;"-
\\~y~. -''.'''''
?w',v.r.-r
im:.;,:::-
:,:-:v;ry
Stage
..II...
....I
..II,,,..
,11,,
I
:;H- -.-:
*/- ..Cf-'"-5-*-""
:^;-Ki:'-;
' !"'- .' X''nls-"ฐ"'ฐป'5ป''
,,,,,..,.,,.,.-,,
c-vv.i.:ป-
:^",^'C'S'.' :'.ฐ
Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
2,49,6
409
:'-'.">. r,-S5s-.': -
320
l";;x:-/ ;;;iiv;;-::-:
,.v5,4p.9,._
' ''.-;":-'- V:-:;.S8':- ' '''
.. .,,126.,.,
>' - :. -1 ฐ';ฐ h:'-"ฐr -v' .'ฐ ' " -";-/ V *"-* -+ r
..'.*'''''<:'*.'<><':'*'
\::-:'^;y'^~'*:--yv
,ฐ -'';! "j ' VS tS ฐ<"ฐ ' '" ^ Eฐ!'J,"Jฐ'-
;mX'.;m;;g'.S>;
!:,';;v:::;; = -:;::>;-:v'i'>:.;;
,;.^->-.:':;v:.';'--5:;vX'
-:>.;^->->.:. .:;::-? .:- T.E-/ ,:-''-.K.
'V-.f,*^:.-;.^'.^,.;.,,;,.-;-.^-^-^,
ba
ZLoad
Reduction
(kg/yr)
..,,,,32.3,381
..... 331*530...... ~
,333 ,.86,5, , ..,.
.. ,,.,3.39,,,32a. , ..
"::.;.::::339:;j-38"?--' :-'':""
,. ,3 39,, 5.1 3.,.,.,, ,
" " '-'" "' '"' L -! " '-"*" ', ' ,'%T" -"'V5' . ;'--""''
^;':<':r'ซ"<:":/'!-^-'--'-:-H: ^ ^r'vvt
; +. . ; ** s.rVC! ฐ - :!-ฐ.V3'iH r;v%r '/,' -'-"-
'>r" ';- : ฐ.% . - H., r , , - ; :,n,.
x::":>;1v'<:;-4;;v;*-:'r>-'-.V '-.:'-::-.
f.~yy, * IT" !'.'ป"!' '" .""TV/"ฐ!: H ' " v vฐ ';' " ';:
h"ss"sฐ.' ซ 'ซ",' 'I"'XL ฐ ฐ1ฐ'p ฐ * ฐ-*s '.-""X ~ ..- "' " ^i "
- C;.+ ''i'.^vv!-- - - '-ฐ''\'\ sr -7 - rฐr"
..' . Vis,iV-ฐ - '-. j~ '*' - -- .".'-..-.-,,
'" h^ C"I ฐ'rv"ฐ 9 - .v,/;v-c-;.>v ''J,-C-"'i -'*'
-,' - <",'- 1" ฐ - ,i ป -"l.IJ0 , V ... .0 ; irป ป
Ca
% Re-
duction
,77,,..
,7.9..,. .
'" W : :
,,79,.,
-Jl.,..
8T: ":-;
.81......
*"
-:,?,,-..,--,..
;;'<-.'"'.i:
,,,.;,,,. ., ..,-,
"" ''->.- -/*
':':* ':1*-\
>^-^".^:-;
A.
Cost of
Reduction
($/yr)
I'"- . '.;- .-;":- .'.'.-.-.,-- -,.;.
.-. '-'' .'".-'.i.-y..'.- '',-
...-.,-, 256 ,-S80 ,,,,,,
_ g^. .2,80-
':. : ^;.V7?(งW"-^---:
..^...-ฃ0,200.. ...
<-ฐ "" ฐ r* r * ' -ฐ. if '.^ ^'n^-n ' '''' '-"- '
, ,-,J, gsV'A^L..ปc>5V-'>r\v>:>.-!*-'1'-
' :';> ' 'l:l^T8:0:"-:':: :''c'
>v ', \< >r-:ri iX--sv"ฐ' -ซ''" v!T'-'-X
'.'.' i,ฐ,, "r:- ,">, \S.*- - ฐ- ' ' ฐ'.ฐ'--J'^ป%'< " C~!.' -ฐ
?",->^i'r.! ,# ,.9>j*'v s;' ;; ;i ';; ';,"',!' ^VV.^" ซ'ฐฐ*s"ซ'ฐ"ffi::v:;\ ;.;--; -,>>;: <:-'.->:.;?.>;
'I-'s'-C -ฐฐf ^ .--"--J\" ".-'Xv''5 ,^^';^X; '
; v-\ :'"."- ;<:;.v ;M.:::v;iy: W:-;
!- T ;- - . .-v ,- -va,- ...--., -,- ? v--n ;.-
'i".;-;,:-, Vt^i i.'T,'..--,- _v;\v/v 'v^v.;:-
. -_s_ -- s,-,5,~ ---'-,-,- -',.%.%-;. 9 -T V-- >'.:..
e,
S Reduction
Costs
($/yr)
- - > :r'5%i,^ ^'s* ,!;-;'" v;,-\- ,vJ\ -. A-. o
o QOR Q/~K"\
:S:x:ii:l^|^ri ir~ ฐฐ' ฐ~
-- -10 1-A7 92-Q
?;:;:^.-)J?i;งiS|gO:>.i;';;..
. ,,;,.]a,,,149,,..2;6.Q,,,;,V,,
' ">: ';fT,:2^60:.f'44tJ ">: """'
, 11- 2-50- 020-----
m^mm^-
l':/ . ',"" ;GT%-' 'ฐ- ,,-r '-'"ป V,.-'--,,ฐ:. "" i;'iฐ'i ,,'
.'Li+s-'3-.\'ปr.ป -.ป;'.. 3?" Sorป,%P,^VV- ซ%ซ -L, %"-1"'J;I-ฐ~ฐs!.-s'
'^'^''^Kf'''- :&'ฃ%
"'>: -:'-:- J " '"">' 'J f r-K ; -::;:: :>:->.^"'
ฃ >I'*'i:*'.--;.xv -f : ".-''','i-~'" v:;vv"''';
,;v.,s.'''.k'.;-:-.Cc;. ::._:'-,-;,>.>;.-,;-;''. ;;.
^.+, A.^,,;-,,. .,..,. .,-,.,. , -,.,,;;.-,,-:-..- 9 ... '..-.,,,;-,:
ซ -; -ฐ .;'.,-., . -.,,,,. -",-". ;>,,, ,: . ฐ, ,'-- .-,- -, Vt.
.i\. '"---^ ^ 'J Ji"-'X'' ":' .ir.-"-.!; 3s'!^'_.
,l!;.,ri.Vl.,:?.r,i;-,;,. ,.,,,;,,,,-,.,,;,
'/-^ .".' '!! r-.V.'.V -*ซ' ปฐ'- ,'s"-- =' ;h:-"-':ฐ-''-ฐ
:', 5'ฐ '',' rฐ.''!r" ,S -i, ,5, 'i , .- ] ,"- ;-" '
',:' p-'V-!'^'"-s''- "'-'"/' Vs' "";'''"' ".'SIs'ฐ:'r"l- "--XE'o"f??''T
' -ฐ ; T~.'vฐ- % Tj,.%L s%:ฐ. L"-:;' r ฐv x ซ *v r -" ' , .
a, = e;
b, = Sa,
c, = b, - d, (total)
d, = f, = g,
e. = 2d,
-------
Summary of Programs
Worksheet 8
Sources
, Cropland ;-^:,ypper^:.5aWiU:Sj: , ,-.- .,;. :;-:;- -: -::;:,:
''ฃ fespl&ncf :-~ 'iWdcff ec '"Sah-cfusfey "'" ;':>:' ''''- "''''' '"" '-' ;'':;: ::
- .. Crppla0.d;.:- JSroken, Sword ,,;: ,:>.,,:::: : >; :: .:;.; , -::-
;'::-'Sr&pTa:n'd";'*!'-R6"c'M:i'feteek' ''x - '""''' ;''-:y-'- "" -;-':" :'-:;" "' ' ' ' "
,,. Cropland, ,--;,:, JymoQh-tee,,-., :, - - ...>:,,,., ..- -x ,-- ,:..,:
* Cropland'"'*" tower Saridif sky :" '" ; c : .%: .
...Cropland.,-, Loss ..Creek . ,,, ... , .,.,..., .,-,.. .- .
':'' C^opl-afitf^HWiy '-B^e'etc"' ' '' .-:'v'^:--'-x' :r':-'';''-:- ': ;ฃ';:- . '':
? Municipal - ,Frernon,t ,, .,.. ,;,,:,;,,,,;,, - .,., ,; -,> ....
.- - Crop! and--;----:Wol:"P::'-Greek":-/ - :;-:':^ ;-;:-;" ;-'-: -; ';:--.' ^A--^- ---.-' ';:>-
,,. -Municipal :-vyppe,r,$,andu$,kyv. v , -,, ... ,,,....-,.. ,
'--Wriic--ipai!;--'':Buy-rty;s;!-:::>::'';":'::'--- :v-:;;- '''' ':'---:" '''' ''''^--- -
f>MMnlcjpal,- Tlf^inL..--. ,;,,...-:-,.,- %,,,, ,:, ...,,.- ,
^^-MiifniCTpal -:-:-;'hrie(tent' :'>-v- -:.. ,, ,':v>;-, ,:-,::;;-., .-,:: - ':< . ,"-.:-.. '
Municipal -Upper, S.an,dus.ky . . ,.
^''MuiWiGi^a:l-'-^-;งa:,:::.'v^. .':-. .'
,,MuniCJpal - Jiffia .,,,,..,-,,-.,; ,:; :, ;, -,-vv:..;,,,:,>y:, :
-Cropland'^ yppe'r-Sawdusky^ -: -:.::->:;>-
, Cropland - , Broken Sword;,, , . ;: r; , :,
i- Cropland1' Middle-' Sandtisfcy-'^ - > - - ' ; ; - ' : :
Cropland -, Loss ..Creek ..... :,,,>., ':,.;,
' -"'Crdpland-i^ltdcJc ;'Cre'e'k^' - '.f':^- >;.;:- 'i: : -.'. '-'- '-' <'''" '. '"' -:.'
Stprni Sewer - Tiffin., ,., ; , ,,, : . ,, ,:..-:.
;;; Cropland: ;-. .-%.dwer-';-Sa:ntJ;u:S'kyv "' ' '' ''' ":': --- -: :- -'^ '
Crop] and - ,Tyraochtee:, , ....,,., ,, : .-.. ; ,
/'-JS^pfr-Sewer-'^^refnottfe--"5---:-'''--"'--^^ '- ' '":'- '-""'" ~"
... Storni,, Sewer, -..Bucyrus, ,: :, , ..... ,,, ; ,. ,
;'!:;C6mt>ihed '-Sewe'r-"^ "-"F^rrioWt- -:-':; ^^^-^'^-^^^ '
..Cojntriried Sewer .- Fremont. ;, , ,, ,,. .;,: ...,-, ... . ,
"'G0*tte^
>::^^.",:yf^.^:'',^'^::;ฑ^
Column >. a.
Rank
(b,)
; ,,L -;.s ' , _
:--:- 2'-""
.;.; 3-. -
--..--: jj , ,
..;. ;5. :-;;,.
-;,:-g;.:--:-
.,,,7,. ,
-;-;:::g:::,-.
:.,$:"."
,-;^'0.':"-:-:
v-11:,,.
''''T2'"^''
,,,.13,,,.
: -14' ;--
, 15 ,,,;
-:.U '
13.;:,
:--,25'-.-:'-'-
,-21,.,
-:-:22' '
,r23.,,.
'--2;4:'- '-
,,-2S - ,;
:!:-26':':';'-
,,,,,27;, Jr
.'>.'"-2&:'::-:
,,?.9 :::,;
Stage
t'T'I
.. - j:*V.
::::!:;,'
- '-i-;--'
. ,,!-:,
-:-,,. :|. .:--'
--!--
v.', - j-: .<;.
:----,.i: -:
: .':->-|:<:-.
, .-I;,-;,
.;'.v;i'.-v-"-
I
If-
>,II ,
-1-p-'-'-
v -1:1- :-
1-t
-11,;--
,--t^-:-
IL,
''If : ;';
--: It. -:
:|,|;:::::- ;
>4i,;:;
-:,>.-: j :::.-.-.,
,,,-. 1,-.,-
,", : ;{;r'v :
:.II;:
^* "
Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
^SOO^,
"''"'jSj'ioo''"'"'
::11S70Q:
:Vi:;2'i,^db::'"
: 2:9,-600, .
'' 1'9r;:4t30' ' ;
-10 .000 ,
--^:-J5^gQ%:::;-''"::
:;,. 21 <2QO, ,.
:'-:;: :1-o:,;6oo - -: ;-
.:-6, 200
'^lO^OO : :;;
, xl3>3aO ,
',"', c" . -'.'W'.,- "a wj'f - .
' o- ' -f , ,-" ,- V-. L..ฃl" 'f'F\ฐ -' ' ' -ฐ
1,.064-
;'':':-'4',fe72"-'-''':'-''-'
- :-.;2-Il89:;,:-:;;
: :, 18^800
:v '6^000 ;
; -:V ;5:,;700 ... .
:, 'SOQ,:.
"'' 9,7&Q c
: .14,600, ,
y(j
.- .-.8Q-:V-
-.v;: .:.-:-7-3g: '':
,:,;::.,=2.,952,;;;-:,.
'."-,.. "." - ,; *'-. ". c - -
'-' '"-/; n v.,- s-"r.J- ' '--' T;''':
ba
S Load
Reduction
(kg/yr)
..,,., :,,2.V::'-.:?l-i,Q00, o;:,-:.
' : ง4,300
;: :: 12 3^900 , .--.
V-X! 1:43,300- """""
153 300
''':'~-]69$i:Q$ '"'' -'
19,0^300 ,;,
: :;';. ^oo^'Sob1''1'' :;>':'
, .;. ;206;I;500 : ;ป;
'' :2i 6,900 :j:':;';
-230,200, ,f
- ;-:'-":;^33,;6:76:%"':;;;'-:::
.;.: ,,234,74.0, : :
; . . - -\ T - - :"*, _"' ' .0 ,' / : -
.238160,1 -
"249, 001'
. 267,801 -,
273,801
: -, 279,501
291,60V
292,101, ; .... :.
301,801
.:, :316,401 ..;.:.,
3 !TU' 4-;?0| ฐ ฐ
,3161571, ,
'- ;; 317:,304r;::;; :
,v..s._ 320,4261;, :,;.,>,
' :' -'-ฐ'i.' -- '. ' ''' :'ฐฐ "~ -,'' - -ฐ'-': '"'
-ฐ.-J-.J', - .L.'r", -'.' ' ' ' ซV, - -'-'^'- !
- ซ%V%\\ '.'/-." - \' / -,?'-"-
i\; :-'>/;'/, ^ _{; ^ -f\'ฐi\ฐ ' ,JJ/ ,j-.':"i
C8
% Re-
duction
-"- 5^
- f 4-
--'- 17-:',':'
22"
- 29- ,
r34:;;
36
''4d::;:-
45-
:"-"4'8"'-'
;. 49. -::
;'5:2':;
,:; 55-:,,.
'; 56
:5:6
*5-6
57:
59 :
- '-V i- ",
65
66
69-
-69,
72
75:;:
/ b
-::-75-:;,:
75
: 76:
76
de
Cost of
Reduction
($/yr)
,17,84;9:: ,::
35,256 -;
.,:-:, ,-'.l^-168,,;,,:
': 26,644' '
.,--,,.34,34%,;, ,:
' 22',3"34' :
: ,12,337-;
:. ;; : 22,;334 -
,;,,:: ,,.47,.3;52,, ;--,
': : :v 22,302: :
; ,-: ,-..15,,OQQ,v.,.,
;'-::: x 32', 400 "'' ;:
62,400 ......
- 71,028 - --
: ,22,500 -
:' 48,:600 ;
93;,6QO
823,800
,1,;627,,200
561,600
569;,400,
1^229^760 .
51,800
' 1,030,;000
U585,200 =-..:-
10,360
9,620, ,:
; -91 V020 '
303,*,810 ; ,
v.::,;:;",-i'-^:.;3:-:';vi::"
e8
I. Reduction
Costs
($/yr)
. 17,8:49 ;
v 53,105
. .65*273-
91,917 :
: . 126^263
148 .,'597
160,934 ,,
183,268 :
,. 230,620 ....<.
252,922 ;'
267,922
^ ; 300y322 '
362,722
-' 433,750
456,250
504,850
598,450
1,422,250 ;
3,049,450 ,=,
3,611,050 '
4,180,450
5,410,150
5,461,950
6,491,950 '
8,077,150 ,
8,087,510 :
8,097,130
8,188,150 :
8,491,960
8,568,920 :
a, = e,
b, = 2a,
c, = b, - d, (total)
d, = f, = gป
-------
Appendix F
References
Au, T. and I.E. Stelson (1969). Introduction to Sys-
tems EngineeringDeterministic Models.
Beasley, D.B., Monke, E.J., and L.F. Huggins (1977).
"The ANSWERS Model: A Planning Tool for Wa-
tershed Research," American Society of Agricul-
tural Engineers, Paper No. 77-2532, St. Joseph,
Michigan.
Chesters, G., Konrad, J.G., and G.V. Simsiman (1980).
"Menominee River Pilot WATERSHED Study
Summary and Conclusions," Draft Report, Univer-
sity of Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Madi-
son, Wisconsin.
Hall, McWhorter, and Spivey (1977). "Optimization
Programs at the University of Michigan," 5th Edi-
tion, Division of Research, Graduate School of Bus-
iness Administration, University of Michigan.
Heidtke, T.M. (1979). "Modeling the Great Lakes Sys-
tem: Update of Existing Models," Great Lakes En-
vironmental Planning Study Contribution No. 4,
Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michi-
gan.
Heidtke, T.M. (1980). "Optimizing Phosphorus Con-
trol Strategies for the Great Lakes Basin: A Linear
Programming Approach," Great Lakes Environ-
mental Planning Study Contribution No. 30, Great
Lakes Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Heidtke, T.M., and W.C. Sonzogni (1979). "Modeling
the Great Lakes System: Ongoing and Planned
Modeling Activities," Great Lakes Environmental
Planning Study Contribution No. 6, Great Lakes
Basin Commission, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Johnson, M.G., Comeau, J.C., Heidtke, T.M., Son-
zogni, W.C., and B.W. Stahlbaum (1978). "Man-
agement Information Base and Overview Model-
ing," prepared for the Pollution from Land Use Ac-
tivities Reference Group (PLUARG), International
Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Knisel, W.G., ed. (1980). "CREAMS, A Field-Scale
Model for Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion from Ag-
ricultural Management Systems," U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Conservation Research Re-
port No. 26.
Logan, T. J. (1980). "The Effects of Reduced Tillage on
Phosphate Transport from Agricultural Land,"
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District,
Buffalo, New York.
McElroy, A.D., Chin, S.Y., Nebgen, J.W., Aleti, A.,
and F.W. Bennett (1976). "Loading Functions for
Assessment of Water Pollution from Nonpoint
Sources," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Protection Technology Series Re-
port No. 600/2-76-151, Washington, D.C.
Monteith, T.J., and W.C. Sonzogni (1981). "Variations
in U.S. Great Lakes Tributary Flows and Loading,"
Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study, Con-
tribution No. 47, Great Lakes Basin Commission,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Monteith, T.J., Sonzogni, W.C., Heidtke, T.M., and
R.A.C. Sullivan (1980). "WATERSHEDA Man-
agement Technique for Choosing Among Point and
Nonpoint Control Strategies. Part 2A River Ba-
sin Case Study," Great Lakes Basin Commission,
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
1O6
-------
Mueller, D.H., Daniel, T.C., and R.C. Wendt (1981).
"Conservation Tillage: Best Management Prac-
tices for Nonpoint Runoff." Environmental Man-
agement, 5.
Pollution from Land Use Activities Reference Group
(PLUARG) (1978). "Environmental Management
Strategy for the Great Lakes System," Internation-
al Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Reckhow, K.H., Beaulac, M.N., and J.T. Simpson
(1980). "Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake
Response Under Uncertainty: A Manual and Com-
pilation of Export Coefficients," Draft Report to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, De-
partment of Resource Development, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Simon, D.P. (1980). "A Parametric Nonlinear Optimi-
zation Approach to the Water Quality Problems of
Southeastern Wisconsin," University of Wiscon-
sin Water Resources Center, Madison.
Sonzogni, W.C., Monteith, T.J., Skimin, W.E., and
S.C. Chapra (1979). "Critical Assessment of U.S.
Land Derived Pollutant Loadings to the Great
Lakes," Task D Report, Pollution from Land Use
Activities Reference Group, International Joint
Commission, Windsor, Ontario.
Sonzogni, W.C., Monteith, T.J., Heidtke, T.M., and
R.A.C. Sullivan (1980). "WATERSHEDA Man-
agement Technique for Choosing Among Point and
Nonpoint Control Strategies. Part 1Theory and
Process Framework," Great Lakes Basin Commis-
sion, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Sonzogni, W.C., Chaptra, S.C., Armstrong, D.E., and
T.J. Logan (1981). "Bioavailability of Phosphorus
Inputs to Lakes: Significance to Management,"
Great Lakes Environmental Planning Study Contri-
bution No. 40, Great Lakes Basin Commission, Ann
Arbor, Michigan.
Stewart, B.A., Woolhiser, D.C., Wischmeier, W.H.,
Caro, J.H., and M.H. Frere (1975). "Control of Wa-
ter Pollution from CroplandVolume 1, A Manual
for Guideline Development," Agricultural Re-
search Services Report No. ARS-H-5-1, U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Hyattsville, Maryland.
Urban, D.R., Logan, T.J., and J.R. Adams (1978). "Ap-
plication of the Universal Soil Loss Equation in the
Lake Erie Drainage Basin," U.S. Army Corps of En-
gineers, Buffalo District, Buffalo, New York.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1975). "Urban Storm-
water RunoffSTORM," Hydrologic Engineering
Center, Davis, California.
Verhoff, F.H., Melfi, D.A., Yaksich, S., and D.B. Bak-
er (1978). "Phosphorous Transport in Rivers,"U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, Buffa-
lo, New York.
Wischmeier, W.H., and D.D. Smith (1978). "Predict-
ing Rainfall Erosion Losses," Agricultural Hand-
book No. 537, Science and Education Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-905/9-84-002
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Watershed Handbook, A Management Technique For
Choosing Among Point and Nonpoint Control Strategies
5. REPORT DATE
May 1984
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Timothy J. Monteith, Rose Ann C. Sullivan and
Thomas M. Heidthke
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Great Lakes Basin Commission
2200 Bonisteel Blvd.
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Enteragency Agreement
(AD-85-F-0-061-0)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Great Lakes National Program Office
Room 958, 536 South Clark Street
Chicago, Illinois 60605
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Research
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
U.S. EPA
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
William C. Sonzogni
Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, Ann Arbor, Michigan
16. ABSTRACT
Watershed is a simple, "desk top" accounting system designed to help water quality
planners assess alternative management strategies for controlling point and non-
point source pollution inputs from large areas (100 square miles or greater) to
a receiving water. Its goal is to find the best mix of point and nonpoint source
management techniques to achieve a given load allocation for a receiving waterbody.
Through a cost-effectiveness ranking scheme, Watershed identifies the order in
which remedial measures could be implemented to achieve the greatest annual water
quality improvements at the least cost. This handbook presents the mechanics and
background data for using the Watershed system.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI Field/Group
Pollutant loads
Point source loads
Urban runoff
Phophorus
Municipal point source
Industrial point source
Combined and Separate Sewers
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Document is available to the public throug
the National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
T.
21. NO. OF PAGES
108
2Q. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
abbreviations/conversion factors
ac
cap
I
gal
ha
kg
km2
L
Ib
mg
mgd
mt
mi2
yr
T
To Convert
ac
kg
km2
Ib
Ib
mgd
mi2
mi2
mt
T
T
Abbreviations
acres
capita
summation of .
gallon
hectares
kilograms
i i
square kilometers
liters
pound
milligrams
million gallons
day
metric tons
square miles
year
tons (short)
Conversion Factors
To Obtain
ha
mg
ha
kg
mt
L/day
ha
km2
kg
kg
mt
per
Multiply By
0.4047
1,000,000
100
0.4536
0.004535
3,785,000
259.0
2.59
1000.0
907,2
0.9072
Miscellaneous
mgd x mg/L x 1,382 = kg/yr
T/ac/yr x 224.3 = mt/km2/yr
1.0 mg/L = 3.8 kg/million gal = 8.3 Ib/million gal
------- |