EPA-600/5-78-006a
April 1978
Socioeeonomic Environmental Studies Series
A DEMONSTRATION OF AREAWIDE WATER
RESOURCES PLANNING
Office of Air, Land, and Water Use
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis, ecological impacts, comprehensive planning and fore-
casting, and analysis methodologies. Included are tools for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques
at the regional, state, and local levels; and approaches to measuring environ-
mental quality perceptions, as well as analysis of ecological and economic im-
pacts of environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial
mix, growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms
of optimal environmental performance. These interdisciplinary studies and sys-
tems analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses
to management and policy-oriented reports.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/5-78-006a
April 1978
A DEMONSTRATION OF
AREAWIDE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING
by
Charles S. Spooner
John Promise
Philip H. Graham
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments
1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
Project 802149
Project Officer
Roger Don Shull
Office of Air, Land and Water Use
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
EPA-RTPUBRARY
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Air Land and Water Use,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names
or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
This report documents a demonstration of areawide water resources
planning by the Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Council of Governments
(MWDOG). Hie study was initiated prior to the current 208 program,
and although the purposes and approaches are similar to a typical 208
project, the results should not be viewed as a prototype for the water
quality analytical methods, evaluative procedures, scope and level of
detail expected by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
certifiable 208 plan reports. Certain agencies may find that some or
all of the techniques described are applicable to their local situation,
but many others will have neither staff nor data, time and financial
resources to utilize the spectrum of tools described.
Publication by EPA does not indorse MWCOG techniques, nor does it
imply that utilization of these detailed techniques are requisite to
preparation of an adequate 208 plan. EPA has, for instance, recently
published an Areawide Assessment Procedures Manual (EPA Report
600/9-76-014, July 1976) which describes a much simpler set of
techniques which may be more relevant in areas where the systems are
neither so large nor coqplex as those in Washington, D.C.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The MTOOG Framework Water Resources Planning Model developed and
tested under this study is a comprehensive analytical tool for use
in areawide water resources management planning.
The physical simulation portion was formed by linking component
computer models which test alternative future community development
patterns by small area, estimate water demands by usage categories,
calculate sewage flows based on water demands and add infiltration/inflow,
simulate stormwater runoff, test application of alternative waste treatment
management systems, and simulate the quality response of region's major
water body.
The impact assessment portion of the Framework Model includes
methodologies for assessing the fiscal, social, and environmental impacts
of alternatives. The Framework Model has been tested for the Metropolitan
Washington region by identifying the cost-effectiveness of six alternative
areawide water resources management strategies, and is currently in use
planning programs.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iv
Table of Contents v
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgements xii
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General Findings xiv
Refinements/Improvements by Framework Model xvi
Conclusions From Model Testing xxii
Recommendations For Future Improvements xxiii
I. OBJECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
Need for the Study 1
Objectives of the Study 4
Current Application of Framework Model 7
Implications for Section 208 Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Planning 8
Towards a Metropolitan Growth Policy 14
II. IDENTIFICATION OF AREAWIDE WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Expanding Range of Options 16
Reexamination of the Year 2000 Policies Plan 17
Workshop on Physical Environment 19
Options for Action 23
-------
Paqe
Implications for Fiscalr Natural Resource,
and Community Response Budgets 25
Six Strategies for Demonstration of
Framework Model 31
III. COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS OF THE FRAMEWORK
WATER RESOURCES PLANNING MODEL
Overview 34
Framework For Physical Simulations of
the Water Resources System 38
Community Development Component 38
Water Demand Component 40
Sewage Generation Component 46
Stormwater Runoff Component 48
Waste Treatment Management Component. 54
Receiving Water Component 54
Framework For Analyzing the Fiscal, Environ-
mental, and Social Impacts of Alternative
Strategies 62
The Need for the Framework 62
Fiscal Budget 64
Cost Element
Existing Methodologies 64
Proposed Cost Element 68
Financial Arrangements Element
Existing Methodologies 71
Proposed Financial Arrange.-
ments Element 75
vi
-------
Page
Natural Resources Budget 78
Water Quality Objectives Element
Existing Methodologies 78
Proposed Water Quality Objectives
Element 83
Cost-Effectiveness Determination 87
Natural Resources Impact Element
Existing Methodologies 88
Proposed Natural Resources Impact Element. 99
Community Response Budget 106
Social Impact Element
Existing Methodologies 107
Proposed Social Impact Element 110
Implementability Element
Existing Methodologies 113
Proposed Implementability Element 114
IV. DEMONSTRATION OF THE FRAMEWORK MODEL
Typical Computer Run of Framework Model
Physical Simulation Components 119
Community Development Component 120
Water Demand Component 124
Sewage Generation Component 125
Stormwater Runoff Component 126
Waste Treatment Management Component 128
Receiving Water Component 128
vii
-------
Paqe
Simulation and Comparison of Areawide Water
Resources Management Strategies for 1992
General Description of Areawide Strategies... 132
Water Quality Effects of Each Areawide
Strategy 132
Strategy No.l Secondary Waste Treatment... 132
Strategy No.2 Advanced Waste Treatment.... 136
Strategy No. 3 Stormwater Treatment 136
Strategy No. 4 Water Conservation 138
Strategy No.5 Dry Waste Collection 140
Strategy No.6 Indirect Estuary Reuse 142
Comparison of "Capability" of Areawide
Strategies 144
Probability of Occurrence of Simulated
Conditions 147
Comparison of "Effectiveness" of
Areawide Strategies 149
Comparison of Costs of Areawide
Strategies 151
Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness of
Areawide Strategies 151
REFERENCES . 154
APPENDICES 168
vni
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Year 2000 Radial Corridor Plan 18
2 Environmental Resources Management System 20
3 Resource Trade-offs 22
4 Components and Elements of the Framework
Model 35
5 Flow Diagram of Alternative Ways to
Exercise Community Development Component 41
6 Flow Diagram of Water Demand Component 43
7 Flow Diagram of Sewage Generation Component... 47
8 Flow Diagram of Stormwater Runoff Component... 49
9 Rainfall Analysis Model Schematic 52
10 Flow Diagram of Waste Treatment
Management Component 55
11 Flow Diagram of Receiving Water Component 57
12 Estuary Quality Model Schematic 59
13 Flow Diagram of Cost Element 70
14 Flow Diagram of Financial Arrangements
Element 76
15 Chronology of Establishment of Waste Load
Allocation For Upper Potomac Estuary 80
16 Flow Diagram of Water Quality Objectives
Element 85
17 Areas of Maximum Environmental Quality 92
18 Ecological Inventory By Ten Acre Grid Cell.... 94
19 Phosphorus Routes 97
20 Flow Diagram of Natural Resources
Impact Element 100
ix
-------
Figure Page
21 Flow Diagram of Social Impact Element Ill
22 Geographic Units in the Framework
Model Physical Simulations 123
23 Example of Three-Dimensional Estuary
Profile from the Receiving Water Component.... 131
24 Three-Dimensional Estuary Profiles for
Strategy No.l Secondary Waste Treatment 135
25 Three-Dimensional Estuary Profiles for
Strategy No. 2 Advanced Waste Treatment 137
26 Three-Dimensional Estuary Profiles for
Strategy No. 3 Stormwater Treatment 139
27 Three-Dimensional Estuary Profiles for
Strategy No. 4 Water Conservation 141
28 Three-Dimensional Estuary Profiles for
Strategy No. 5 Dry Waste Collection 143
29 Three-Dimensional Estuary Profiles for
Strategy No. 6 Indirect Estuary Re-use 145
30 Cost Effectiveness of Areawide Water
Resources Management Strategies 153
x
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paqe
1 Development of Framework Model 5
2 Water Quality-Related Options for Action 26
3 Summary of Areawide Water Resources
Management Strategies 32
4 Example of Present Worth and Average
Annual Equivalent Cost Calculation 66
5 Economic Comparisons of AWT Alternates
in Montgomery County, Md 67
6 Categorization of Water-Sewer
Financing By Type 74
7 Comparison of Suggested Load Limits for
Upper 15 Miles of Potomac Estuary 82
8 Environmental Comparison of Alternate AWT
Sites in Montgomery County, Md 108
9 Conditions Simulated for Areawide Water
Resources Management Strategies 133
10 Comparison of "Capability" of Areawide
Strategies 146
11 Comparison of "Joint Probability of
Occurrence" of Simulated Conditions 148
12 Comparison of "Effectiveness" of
Areawide Strategies 150
13 Monetary Cost By Element of Areawide
Strategies 152
xi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report summarizes the study conducted by the Metropoli-
tan Washington Council of Governments started under Environ-
mental Protection Agency Project I16110FEY on May 3, 1971
and completed June 30, 1974 under Project #802149. The
study under the guidance of Mr. Walter A. Scheiber, Executive
Director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments, was directed by the following Directors of the Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Protection: Dr. John Lentz,
May 1971 - January 1972; Mr. Dennis R. Bates, February 1972 -
May 1972; Mr. John Capper, June 1972 - January 1973; and Mr.
Dennis R. Bates, February 1973 - present.
The Principal Investigators were Dr. John Lentz prior to
January 1972, Mr. Lawrence S. Costello from February 1972 to
April 1973, and Mr. Dennis R. Bates to completion.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments applied
research team was comprised of the following:
Environmental Engineer Charles S. Spooner
Environmental Engineer John Promise
Environmental Engineer Philip H. Graham
Assistant Director Kenneth Karch
Director, Data Systems Jack C. Barrett
Systems Analyst Steve R. Leventhal
Analyst/Programmer Elizabeth St. J. Loker
Analyst/Programmer Thomas V. Gill
Analyst/Programmer John P. Molineaux
Program Documentation Specialist Patricia Weiss
Director, Remote Sensing Projects Harry J. Mallon
Graduate Research Assistant Robert Dereniuk
Margery Leiserson
William Febiger
J. Michael Kasper
Jay Lankford
The Environmental Protection Agency Project Officers are as
follows:
Project H6110FEY
Water Quality Office
Project Officer William P. Sommers
Xll
-------
Project #802149
Washington Environmental Research Center
Implementation Research Division
Systems Analysis Branch
Project Officer Dr. Roger Don Shull
The five-constituent nitrogen-limited Estuary Quality and
Hydraulic Programs and Potomac Estuary data were provided by:
Annapolis Science Center
Region III
Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis, Maryland Leo Clark
Consultation services to provide an operational MAIN II pro-
gram and library deck, and to provide technical guidance in
the use of the MAIN II computer program were performed by:
Hittman Associates
Columbia, Maryland
Michael Nawrocki
Donald Davis
Consultation services to modify the Estuary Hydraulic and
Quality Models to accommodate hydrograph and pollutograph in-
puts for storm conditions simulations were provided by:
Water Resources Engineers, Inc.
Springfield, Virginia
Dr. Robert Schubinski
Robert Taylor
John Matticks
The artwork in this report was prepared by Gloria Saberin, a
member of the MWCOG Graphic Arts staff, under the direction
of P. Charles Saberin, Chief of Graphic Arts. The report was
typed by Eve Auchincloss.
xiii
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The conclusions and recommendations of this study are grouped
under four major headings. First, general findings of the
study are presented. Next, improvements in planning tools
and methodologies as a result of development of the MWCOG
Framework Water Resources Planning Model are detailed for
each model component and element.
Next, conclusions from exercising the Framework Model to sim-
ulate the application of six alternative areawide water re-
sources management strategies in metropolitan Washington for
1992 are discussed. Finally, recommendations for future im-
provements in the Framework Model during areawide waste
treatment management planning are described.
GENERAL FINDINGS
1. The MWCOG Framework Water Resources Planning Model devel-
oped during the study is a sophisticated and versatile
analytical tool for simulating the physical areawide water
resources system, and for analyzing the fiscal, environmental
and social impacts of alternative areawide water resources
management strategies.
2. The Framework Model can serve as a major planning tool for
agencies designated to conduct areawide waste treatment man-
agement planning as provided in Section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. The Frame-
work Model has been designed to satisfy or to assist with
satisfying the following requirements of the Section 208
planning process:
0 Identifying future development patterns and
sewage flows, including infiltration/inflow
0 Testing alternative structural waste treat-
ment control techniques
0 Testing alternative non-structural control
techniques, such as land use regulation and
water conservation practices
0 Evaluating alternative waste load alloca-
tions
0 Identifying water quality impacts of alter-
natives
xiv
-------
0 Identifying costs and financial arrangements
including user charges
0 Comparing cost-effectiveness of alternative
strategies
0 Assessing the environmental and social
impacts of plan implementation
0 Assisting public participation and plan review
3. The submodels which have been linked to create the
Framework Model physical components are generally available,
and in many cases, have newly created counterparts which can
be substituted in applications of the Framework Model in many
metropolitan areas of the country.
4. Basic policies for water quality management planning,
water supply, and stormwater control planning should be con-
sidered together in the Washington metropolitan area.
5. The Framework Water Resources Planning Model should con-
tinue to be integrated into the continuing planning process
of the Council of Governments and be used in the emerging
areawide waste treatment management planning process and the
formulation of the Metropolitan Growth Policy Program.
6. Use of the Framework Water Resources Planning Model
physical components requires that many assumptions of river
flow and background conditions be made. These assumptions
influence each simulation and therefore the conditions under
which questions of policy are answered using the Framework
must be clearly stated.
7. As part of the Reexamination of the Year 2000 Policies
Plan conducted by the Council of Governments and its member
local governments, the water quality-related management
"options for action" available to the metropolitan Washington
region have been identified.
8. The associated costs and benefits of the various water
quality-related management options have been assessed in
qualitative terms, using a three-budget framework for analyz-
ing fiscal, natural resource, and community response impacts,
as part of the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination.
9. From this reexamination iias emerged a consensus that the
available resources within these three hypothetical budgets
that can be devoted to the solution of a problem such as
water quality are finite, and that there will need to be
xv
-------
difficult tradeoffs among these budgets.
10. A definition of the "effectiveness" of an areawide
strategy has been developed combining measures of the extent,
constituent, concentration, duration, and annual joint
probability of occurrence of the response of a receiving
water to the areawide water resources management strategy.
11. To illustrate applications of the Framework Model in the
areawide planning process, the cost-effectiveness of six al-
ternative areawide water resources management strategies for
metropolitan Washington in 1992 have been compared.
REFINEMENTS/IMPROVEMENTS MADE BY FRAMEWORK MODEL
Framework For Physical Simulation
1. Community Development Component
a. The EMPIRIC Activity Allocation Model is used
as the Community Development Component to pro-
ject the areawide distribution of growth for
alternative forecast years as a prerequisite
to simulating the future water resources system
in the Washington Metropolitan Area.
b. Many of the Community Development Component
parameters of importance to the simulation of
the water resources system are also important
to other areas of planning.
2. Water Demand Component
a. Water demand is forecast by the following sec-
tors of usage: single-family domestic (in-
house) , single-family sprinkling, apartment
domestic, apartment sprinkling, commercial/
industrial by major employment group, free
service, and distribution losses.
b. Forecasting techniques are based on principal
factors influencing water demand including
economic level of consumer, climate, number of
households and the type of billing.
c. Projections by usage sector are made for up to
200 user-specified geographical areas for use
in detailed water supply and waste treatment
planning activities.
xvi
-------
3. Sewage Generation Component
a. Residential domestic and commercial/industrial
sewage flows are inferred directly from the
Water Demand Component output of residential
domestic and commercial/industrial water de-
mands, respectively, by small geographic area.
(Residential sprinkling and public/unaccounted
water demand do not contribute to sewage flows).
No other agency or government in Metropolitan
Washington calculates sewage flows based dir-
ectly on water demands.
b. Infiltration/inflow is determined separately
by small area based on the amount of land
developed during the forecast period as pro-
jected by the Community Development Component,
thus providing useful information for Infiltra-
tion/Inflow studies. Residential domestic flows,
commercial/industrial flows, and infiltration/
inflow are added to produce annual average daily
sewage flow.
c. Pollutant loads for user-specified parameters
are determined for residential and commercial/
industrial sectors separately, thus facilitat-
ing use of the model in establishing user
charges as required by EPA guidelines.
4. Stormwater Runoff Component
a. The rainfall analysis prepared for use in the
Framework Model provides the basis from which
to estimate the volume and recurrence of storm
events in the region by storm decile.
b. Forecasts of stormwater runoff and quality are
made using the Stormwater Runoff Component.
The Component incorporates the EPA Stormwater
Management Model and uses projections of
population,households, and employment densities
provided by the Community Development Component.
c. Since the scale of application of the Storm-
water Runoff Component did not permit detailed
analysis of the potential for combined sewer
overflows, all combined flows were considered
to receive the same level of treatment as sani-
tary sewage in all simulations in this report.
xvii
-------
5. Waste Treatment Management Component
a. Sewage flows and stormwater runoff (to be
treated) are aggregated into user-specified
sewage service areas, therefore allowing
different service areas for treatment works
to be tested.
b. Alternative pollutant removal efficiencies
for each pollutant are user-specified, thus
permitting the simulation of alternative
waste treatment management systems.
6. Receiving Water Component
a. The EPA Estuary Model, originally designed
to simulate steady state point discharges
has been modified as a part of the Receiving
Water Component to simulate time varying
non-point discharges from storm events as
well as point discharges from treatment works.
b. The Receiving Water Component contains pre-
sentation and analytical programs to summarize
the water quality effects of alternative water
resources management strategies through three-
dimensional estuary profiles for each con-
stituent under examination.
Framework For In.pact Analysis
7. Water Quality Objectives Element
a. Using the three-dimensional estuary profiles
and summary tables for dissolved oxygen pro-
duced by the Receiving Water Component, the
"capability" of an areawide water resources
management strategy can be defined as the ex-
tent of a constituent concentration of less
than or equal to a stated beneficial consti-
tuent concentration, or greater than or equal
to a stated harmful constituent concentration,
for greater than or equal to a stated dura-
tion.
b. The annual joint "probability of occurrence"
of the .conditions simulated all occurring
during a stated time period can be determined,
such as for the assumed river flow, or pro-
jected storm event.
xviii
-------
c. The product of the "capability" of an area-
wide strategy and the annual joint "probabil-
ity of occurrence" of simulated conditions is
the expected "effectiveness" of the areawide
strategy.
d. Using cost estimates from the Cost Element,
the cost-effectiveness of alternative strate-
gies can be compared.
8. Natural Resources Impact Element
a. The approach contained in the Framework Model
will assist in satisfying the requirements of
the Federal National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and state-adopted EPA's, and may ful-
fill the environmental impact analysis require-
ments of Section 208 areawide waste treatment
management planning processes under PL 92-500.
b. Under this approach the user selects or com-
bines any of the following five detailed meth-
odologies identified in the study: 1) ad hoc;
2) overlays; 3) checklists; 4) matrices; and
5) networks. A review of these methodologies
revealed significant similarities among them.
c. An analysis by MWCOG of the methodologies used
during the performance of recent water resource
studies conducted in the metropolitan Washington
area revealed that:
1. Environmental impact analyses are conducted
by organizations other than local govern-
ment staffs (i.e., consultants, regional
planning agencies, EPA) although they may
be commissioned by the local government.
2. The environmental impact analysis techniques
employed by these organizations differ mark-
edly in content and scope but generally fall
into the "ad hoc" and "checklist" categor-
ies. The level of detail is often consider-
ably less than that suggested in "textbooks"
on the subject.
3. Most studies emphasize the mitigation and
minimization of possible adverse impacts.
xox
-------
4. The impacts assessed are primarily from
capital-intensive structural treatment
facilities.
5. Methodologies which lend themselves to
"carrying capacity" considerations (i.e.,
overlays and networks) are not being
used in impact studies or in large scale
planning development.
6. Significant decisions have been made by
local governments based on the results
of many of these studies.
d. From this discussion, the following conclusions
regarding the Natural Resources Impact Element
were made:
1. No single impact assessment methodology
yet developed is appropriate to all
metropolitan regions under all conditions.
Therefore, the Element should not be re-
stricted to only one methodology.
2. There are significant similarities in the
five types of impact assessment methodolo-
gies which should serve as the major steps
in the Natural Resources Impact Element.
3. The Element should permit the ready identi-
fication of adverse impacts to be minimized,
eliminated, or recognized as unavoidable or
overriding.
4. Because of limited reserves of air, land
and energy resources, impact assessment
methodologies which assess the carrying
capacity of these resources should begin
to be utilized in metropolitan Washington.
e. Adverse impacts are identified in the procedure
as either capable of being minimized or elimin-
ated by "mitigating" measures, as "unavoidable"
but not in themselves sufficient to eliminate
the alternative from selection, or as "overriding"
enough to eliminate the alternative.
xx
-------
9. Cost Element
a. Conventional techniques of engineering economics
and guidelines published by EPA are adequate to
fully consider the comparative resource costs of
capital-intensive alternatives and are incorpor-
ated in the Framework Model.
b. Methods tc compute the costs of non-capital in-
tensive programs such as water conservation
public education are lacking.
10. Financial Arrangements Element
a. Debt service on bonds for given years is calculat-
ed using construction costs provided by the Cost
Element.
b. Revenue requirements for given years for alter-
native waste treatment management systems are
compared under different grant assumptions.
c. Operation, Maintenance, Repair (OM&R) user
charges are determined consistent with EPA
guidelines based on OM&R costs provided by
the Cost Element.
d. Generalized customer charges for given years
are estimated using population and household
projections provided by the Community Develop-
ment Component.
11. Social Impact Element
a. The approach will assist in satisfying federal
and state Environmental Policy Acts, fulfill
the social and economic impact analysis re-
quirements of the Section 208 areawide waste
treatment management planning process, and
comply with requirements of several associated
Federal Acts.
b. Social factors are identified and grouped into
three categories: (a) individual-related; (b)
neighborhood-related; and (c) regional.
c. The analysis procedure outlined in the Natural
Resources Impact Element is also utilized in
this element.
xxi
-------
12. Implementability Element
a. This Element identifies points during the
procedure outlined in the Framework Model
where public participation consistent with
EPA guidelines is essential.
b. Mechanisms useful in gauging the implemen-
tability of alternative areawide water re-
sources management strategies are identified
CONCLUSIONS FROM MODEL TESTING
1. Calibration model runs of the Water Demand Com-
ponent for the metropolitan area in 1968 were
within four percent of the recorded water de-
mands for 1968.
2. Model estimates of water demand by usage cate-
gory for the metropolitan area were generally
within seven percent of the recorded results,
with a detailed demonstration in the subregional
element of the District of Columbia producing
comparable results.
3. Model estimates for 1968 of 314.6 MGD of aver-
age daily metropolitan Washington sewage flow
compare favorably with the value of 319.4 MGD
recorded for that year.
4. Utilization of water-saving devices in new
construction after 1976 will result in water
savings for the metropolitan area of up to
25 million gallons per day by 1992 in the
residential sector alone, with substantial
savings in the commercial sector expected as
well.
5. Results of Framework Model runs to date have
been used extensively by state water pollu-
tion control agencies/ U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, several local governments, MWCOG,
and numerous consultants.
6. Water supply planning will play an increas-
ingly important role in estuary quality
management planning as demand for water in-
creases.
xxii
-------
7. The cost-effectiveness of the following six
areawide water resources management strategies
for 1992 have been identified and compared:
Strategy No.l - Secondary Waste Treatment
Strategy No.2 - Advanced Waste Treatment
Strategy No.3 - Stormwater Treatment
Strategy No.4 - Water Conservation
Strategy No. 5 -• Dry Waste Collection
Strategy No.6 - Indirect Estuary Re-use
A description of these strategies is contained in
Chapter IV. The storm event and raver flow condi-
tions used in the simulations are relatively
"normal", not unusually severe conditions.
8. None of these areawide water resources management
strategies is projected to meet adopted state
minimum dissolved oxygen standards for the upper
Potomac Estuary in the year of simulation, 1992.
9. As less kilometers of the estuary are affected
by depressed dissolved oxygen levels, the costs
of the strategies employed to gain this improve-
ment rise. Strategy No.l (Secondary Treatment)
has the least "effectiveness" and lowest cost.
Strategy No.3 (Stormwater Treatment) has the
greatest "effectiveness" and highest cost.
10. Although Strategies No.2, 4, and 5 have the same
"effectiveness", the Water Conservation Strategy
has the lowest relative cost.
11. The areawide strategy which results in the
greatest increment of "effectiveness" for the
least increment of cost is Strategy No.4 -
Water Conservation.
12. Urban runoff is a source of water pollution too important
to be ignored in water resources management planning in the
region for year 1992 even if all combined sewer overflows
are eliminated.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
1. The Community Development Component should be
refined to the small area level and should be
altered as needed as part of the Growth Policy
Program in the Washington Metropolitan Area.
xxiii
-------
2. A Water Supply Component should be added to
the Framework Model to simulate the impacts
of various water supply alternatives for use
in detailed water supply studies.
3. The Sewage Generation Component should be
further refined to include more information
on user-specified pollutant concentration
factors, and possibly be linked to the runoff
data produced by the Stormwater Runoff Com-
ponent to estimate infiltration/inflow.
4. The Rainfall Analysis of the Stormwater Runoff
Component should be expanded to include further
study of area storm distribution and severities.
5. The Stormwater Management Model of the Storm-
water Runoff Component should be calibrated
for the heavily developed watersheds of the
region.
6. The Receiving Water Component should be expanded
to simulate water quality in embayments and
tributaries to the Potomac Estuary, and should
be further calibrated for the estuary during
and immediately succeeding storm events.
7. Water demand coefficients utilized in the
commercial sector of the Water Demand Component
should be refined based on future field surveys
in metropolitan Washington.
8. Methods to compute the costs of non-capital in-
tensive programs such as water conservation
public education need to be developed.
9. Additional studies are needed to assess the magni-
tude and frequency of combined sewer overflows
in the metropolitan Washington region to permit
their simulation in the Stormwater Runoff
Component. The Framework Model analysis should then be
repeated to determine any changes in the most effective
water resources management strategy.
xxiv
-------
CHAPTER I
OBJECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY
NEED FOR THE STUDY
While signing the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965,
President Johnson declared that within ten years the Potomac
would be a model river. Today, as a visitor to the Nation's
Capital stands alongside the Tidal Basin under the cherry
blossoms and gazes across at the Jefferson Memorial, he need
only turn his head a few feet to read the following sign:
POLLUTED WATER
NO FISHING
FISH CONTAMINATED
National Park Service
Or, on a stroll or bicycle ride by the banks of the Potomac
Estuary, be greeted by such signs as:
POLLUTED
WATER
BATHING
HAZARD
since water contact sports are prohibited in the upper estuary
and its tributaries by regulations of the District of Columbia.
In October of 1972 the Congress overrode a presidential veto
to enact the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.
This Act declares as a national goal that the Nation's waters
provide for the protection and propagation of fish and wild-
life, and provide for recreation in and on the water, by July 1,
1983. Can the metropolitan Washington region accomplish
during the next ten years what it has been unable to achieve
during the past ten years?
-1-
-------
A key to answering this question may rest with Section 208
of the Act. Section 208 provides for establishment of a
continuing areawide waste treatment management planning pro-
cess and development of annual plans in areas throughout the
country which have substantial water quality control problems
as a result of urban-industrial concentrations or other
factors. The metropolitan Washington region is one such
area,** and the success or failure in meeting the 1983 objec-
tives may depend in large measure on the region's ability to
accurately assess its future needs and to analyze a wide
variety of alternate methods for meeting these needs.
Until very recently sophisticated tools for performing these
assessments and analyses were not readily available, and
where available were not actually being incorporated into
the continuing and comprehensive planning processes of local
governments. The need for such tools is recognized in the
Section 208 planning guidelines prepared by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency.^5 Consideration of both the need
for better planning tools, and the need to incorporate the
results into the areawide planning process, led to the con-
clusion by EPA, even before passage of the 1972 Act, that the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments was uniquely
suited to undertake development and application of such
planning tools.
First, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
as the official Metropolitan planning agency for the Washing-
ton Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, was in a position
to insure that the results would be applied to the areawide
comprehensive planning process. MWCOG's members are the
elected officials of governments in the metropolitan area.
Specifically, they represent:
0 The District of Columbia
* Numbers indicate references at end of report.
**Subsequent to completion, of this study, the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments was designated by EPA in
March, 1975, as the Section 208 areawide waste treatment
management planning agency for the National Capital area.
-2-
-------
0 All surrounding counties in Maryland and
Virginia which are in the SMSA texcept
Charles County, Maryland, recently added
to the SMSA).
0 All independent cities in the Virginia
part of the SMSA.
0 Most cities over 10,000 in the Maryland
part of the SMSA.
0 Members of the Maryland and Virginia legis-
latures who represent districts in the
metropolitan area.
0 Members of the U.S. Congress who represent,
in whole or part, parts of the metropolitan
area.
Member jurisdictions are represented on policy committees
and advisory boards of MWCOG by these officials and represen-
tatives of special purpose and state agencies. The actions
of policy board representatives, with recommendations from
MWCOG staff, technical committees, and citizen advisory
committees, determine development goals and policy for the
region. The program areas in which MWCOG staff is actively
involved include regional planning, transportation planning,
public safety, human resources, housing, health and environ-
mental protection.
Secondly, MWCOG has incorporated into its planning program
a sophisticated analysis tool called the EMPIRIC model to
evaluate the impacts of alternative public policies on the
distributions and rate of growth within the region.37 The
model distributes metropolitan control totals of households
and employment into small areas based on policy inputs which
specify transportation, open space and water and sewer pro-
grams .
In addition, in the summer of 1969 the Potomac Enforcement
Conference, which had met originally in the late 1950 '• s, was
reconvened because of continued deterioration of river water
quality. Recommendation No.4 of the May, 1969, Potomac En-
forcement Conference directed the Federal Water Quality
Administration (now the Environmental Protection Agency), in
cooperation with state, interstate, and local agencies, to
-3-
-------
initiate detailed analysis of alternate methods of meeting
future waste requirements and sewage needs in the Metropolitan
area.
One of the work elements recommended by the Short-Term
Planning Committee to accomplish Recommendation No.4 was a
long-term future needs study to be performed by the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments?-24 It was
envisioned that a joint research proposal would be submitted
by MWCOG to the Office of Water Resources Research of the U.S.
Department of the Interior, and to the predecessor of the
Environmental Protection Agency, as part of an effort to
develop a "Comprehensive Urban Water Resources Planning Pro-
gram for the Washington Metropolitan Area". In 1971 the
Council of Governments received grant awards from these
agencies for the joint study.125/126,127
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Thus, this overall study effort was undertaken with a princi-
pal objective "to find a way in which the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments as a planning and political
organization, can effectively develop and implement a compre-
hensive planning program which utilizes both sophisticated
analytical and technical tools and political sensitivity to
structure an optimum water resources development program".-'-25
The purpose of the portion of the overall study supported by
the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Water Resources
Research was to identify and evaluate effects of water and
sewage facilities on growth, and to develop and evaluate
methods for expressing relationships between water and sewage
service and urban growth in a form useful for urban water
resources planning. That research is described in the final
report of that portion of the project, Water Resources Manage-
ment for Metropolitan Washington; Analysis of the Joint
Interactions of Water and Sewage Service, Public Policy, and
Land Development Patterns in an Expanding Metropolitan Area,
published in December of 1973 by the Council of Governments.-1-
The EPA-sponsored portion of the study, discussed in detail
in the remainder of this report, had several major project
objectives. How these objectives were attained during the
study is depicted in Table 1. The first objective was to
develop an operational definition of the metropolitan scale
-4-
-------
Table 1
OF FRAMEWORK MODEL
Objectives of Suudy
1. Develop an operational
definition oC .sy.::'..om
Physical Siiailation
Carcxv.onL'S
Analsis
Q-t^ D U D C'J
Choose appropriate cont-
ponent mcxlels, nethods,
& approachc-s; iixxiify as
necossai"y arid link to
form Framework ^!cdel
MATU II-
Watcr Demand
t-tdel
Cost Elerncni:
based on EPA
cost-effectiveness
guidelines
Identify v/ater quality-
related rvjnagemeiit
options available to
Metro Washington; identify
in qualitative terms their
associated costs and bene-
fits.
Participated in development of
Reexamination of Yaar 2000 Policies Plan
Identified "options for action"
and assessed using "three-budget system"
4. Test frarework by identify-
ing cost-effectiveness of
selected areawide water re-
sources management strate-
gies.
Grouped options for action into six areawide strategies
V V
Model exercised us- Identified cost of
ing 1992 develop- 6 strategies
ment pattern for 6
strategies ^ &
cost-ef fectiveness
of strategies
5. Make conclusions and
reccmnsndations
a.
b.
c.
-5-
-------
water resources system. The physical system begins with the
community development pattern of the region, from which both
water demands and stormwater runoff can be estimated. Based
on water demands, sewage flows can be directly calculated and,
with infiltration/inflow added, "treated" through the appli-
cation of alternative waste treatment management systems.
Finally, this wastewater, and stormwater runoff is dis-
charged to the region's major water bodies, or is recycled
or applied to the land. In addition, the impact analysis
portion of the operating definition incorporates considera-
tion of the fiscal, social, and environmental impacts of
alternative systems and assumed conditions.
A second objective was tD select and modify appropriate com-
puter models, methods, and approaches capable of simulating
each of the components of the physical water resource system,
and to link these components to form a model of the metropoli-
tan water resources system. The resulting analytical tool
has been termed the MWCOG Framework Water Resources Planning
Model. The Framework Model also includes elements for
applying fiscal, social, and environmental impact assessment
methodologies in the region. The attainment of these first
two project objectives is described in a Technical Summary
of the Framework Wai:er Resources Planning Model published by
MWCOG in May,1974,^ and is further discussed in this report
in Chapter III.
The third objective of the study was to identify the water
quality management options available to the metropolitan
Washington region. This activity was undertaken as an inte-
gral part of the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination con-
ducted by the Council of Governments and its member local
governments as discussed in Chapter II. A three-budget
framework for analyzing the fiscal, environmental, and social
impacts of the various "options for action" in all problem
areas of regional concern was developed and used during the
Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination to fulfill the next
study objective. This objective was to identify in qualita-
tive terms the associated costs and benefits of various
water quality-related management options. This is also pre-
sented in Chapter II.
The final study objective was to test the Framework Model for
the metropolitan Washington region by identifying the cost-
effectiveness of selected areawide water resources management
-6-
-------
strategies. Six areawide strategies were identified by com-
bining various water quality-related options for action.
The final chapter includes highlights from a typical computer
run of the Framework Model physical simulation components,
and identifies the water quality effects and compares the
cost-effectiveness of the alternative areawide strategies.
The conclusions and recommendations from the overall study
are contained at the beginning of this report.
CURRENT APPLICATION OF FRAMEWORK MODEL
Many portions of the Framework Model have been tested and
used for planning within the Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments and other organizations during various stages
of the Model's development. Where this has happened, it has
been possible to test the assumptions and procedures dis-
cussed in this report.
Initial water demand and sewage flow estimates have been used
extensively by the water agencies of the states of Maryland
and Virginia and the District of Columbia as part of the
Washington Area Interstate Water Resources Program.3>4 r^g
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has used the water demand es-
timates in its water supply study of the Washington Metropoli-
tan area,5 as has The Johns Hopkins University in a study
for the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program.^ Such estimates
are also useful in the preparation of Environmental Assess-
ments and Impact Statements as required under Section 102
of the National Environmental Policy Act. Examples of
studies utilizing results from the Framework Model are those
undertaken by consultants for the Washington Suburban Sani-
tary Commission^ and the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.^
The results and estimating techniques of the Stormwater Run-
off Component have also found widespread application. A
stormwater management study for the District of Columbia by
an engineering consultant utilized some of the findings of
the stormwater runoff component.10 ^n Environmental Impact
Statement prepared by EPA for North Fulton County, Atlanta,
Georgia1^ applied an urban runoff estimating technique de-
veloped by MWCOG for use in the Framework Model.12 In fact,
a report prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, and presented at the 1973 Confer-In, cited this
method of estimating imperviousness and specific curb length
— 7~
-------
developed by MWCOG as the prime example of currently avail-
able stormwater estimating techniques.13
Because the Framework Model is the first effort by the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments to relate
projections of future growth to future demands for an essen-
tial environmental resource, it provides a useful guide to
similar activities underway in the region. The Framework
Model has been aid is being applied by the Council of Govern-
ments in its Reexamination of the Year 2000 Policies Plan
and in the preparation of an Air Quality Maintenance Plan
for the National Capital Interstate Air Quality Control
Region, where the recommended control strategies will be
analyzed for both air and water impacts.
The Framework Model is likely to be useful in similar
environmental planning in other metropolitan regions in the
Country. The EMPIRIC Model, (which serves as the Community
Development Component) and, therefore, the rest of the
Framework Model, is not restricted to the Washington Metro-
politan area. The EMPIRIC Model has been or soon will be in
full operation by the Minneapolis-St. Paul Metropolitan
Council, the Canadian Council of Urban and Regional Research
in the Winnipeg region, the Denver Regional Council of
Governments, and the Boston Metropolitan Area Planning
Council.15 Thus, the Framework Model could be linked direct-
ly to the EMPIRIC Model in these urban areas as well.
IMPLICATION FOR SECTION 208 AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
The Framework Model's ability to measure the effect of land
use, stormwater management, waste treatment management, and
non-structural measures on the region's major water resource,
and to analyze fiscal, social, and environmental impacts, is
particularly important in light of the Section 208 areawide
waste treatment management planning requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972.17 Section
208 provides for the establishment of a continuing areawide
waste treatment management planning process and development
of an annual areawide plan in those regions in the country
which, as a result of urban-industrial concentrations or
other factors, have substantial water quality control problems.
Section 208 identifies the mechanisms by which an area and an
agency may be designated by EPA for the conduct of this con-
tinuing planning process, and specifies what the annual area-
-8-
-------
wide waste treatment management plan must contain.
The Framework Model can serve as a major analytical tool for
agencies designated to conduct areawide waste treatment
management planning. The Framework Model has been designed
to satisfy or to assist with satisfying the following re-
quirements of the Section 208 planning process:^'^
° Identifying future development patterns and
sewage flows, including infiltration/inflow
0 Testing alternative structural waste treat-
ment control techniques
0 Testing alternative non-structural control
techniques, such as land use regulation
and water conservation practices
0 Evaluating alternative waste load alloca-
tions
0 Identifying water quality impacts of alter-
natives
0 Identifying costs and financial arrangements
including user charges
0 Comparing cost-effectiveness of alternative
strategies
0 Assessing the environmental and social
impacts of plan implementation
0 Assisting public participation and plan re-
view
The remainder of this section illustrates how the Framework
Model can be applied to meet the above requirements,
Identifying Future Development Patterns and Sewage Flows
The Framework Model physical simulations begin with the
Community Development Component, which for metropolitan
Washington includes as the basic computational tool the
EMPIRIC Activity Allocation Model. EMPTRIC is designed to
distribute regional "control totals" of future households
-9-
-------
and employment among a set of small sub-areas based on alter-
native public policies and market forces. Sub-models are
used to generate estimates of population, land use by type,
income by group, and other desired characteristics by small
area. The EMPIRIC model can be used, and has been used in
metropolitan Washington, to test the effects of alternative
future metropolitan development patterns; i.e., corridor
cities vs urban sprawl.
Using output from EMPIRIC, the Water Demand Component estim-
ates future water requirements by small area for various
usage categories, such as single-family domestic (in-house)
demands, sprinkling, commercial/industrial demand by major
employment category, and public-unaccounted demand. Dry
weather sewage flows are derived directly from the residential
in-house and commercial/industrial water demands as part of
the Sewage Generation Component. Infiltration/inflow, which
must also be examined in Section 208 planning, is calculated
based on EMPIRIC output also, and added to dry weather sewage
flows. Pollutant load characteristics of sewage are also cal-
culated.
Testing Structural Control Techniques
The Section 208 planning process is required to satisfy the
facilities planning provisions of the Act under Section 201
(so-called Step 1 planning). This facilities planning must
include an evaluation of technologies for treating wastewater
and disposing of the effluent by: 1) discharging to receiving
waters, 2) reusing, and 3) applying to the land. The Waste
Treatment Management Component of the Framework Model is de-
signed to test alternative waste treatment management sys-
tems by applying user-specified removal efficiencies to the
projected sewage flows. The effluent can be discharged to
user-specified points of discharge in the Potomac Estuary, or
withheld from such discharge (to simulate either re-use or
land application).
Testing Non-Structural Control Techniques
According to guidelines prepared by the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency,*-° in the required municipal facilities planning
under Section 201 of the Act and therefore under Section 208,
all measures for preventing, reducing, and abating municipal
wastes (including stormwater wastes) other than conventional
-10-
-------
structural facilities shall be considered. These wastewater
management techniques include the regulation of land use and
development, a technique which can be tested directly by
using the Framework Model. Guidelines published by the
Council on Environmental Quality also require consideration
of land use control and other non-structural devices in the
preparation of Environmental Impact Statements and Assess-
ments.19
Another wastewater management technique to be considered in
Section 208 planning is the control of surface runoff. The
effectiveness of this technique is directly measured by exer-
cising the Stormwater Component of the Framework Model to
estimate future runoff, and then applying alternative control
strategies such as stormwater storage or treatment in the
Waste Treatment Management Component.
Another technique for reducing wastewater flows identified
in the EPA guidelines is water conservation. Since the Water
Demand Component estimates commercial usage, public-unaccount-
ed usage, and both residential in-house domestic usage and
sprinkling separately, the effectiveness of instituting water
conservation practices such as water-saving toilets and
shower heads can be evaluated. This is important not only
for wastewater management analyses under the Act but also
for water supply/demand planning in the metropolitan area.
In revising its model plumbing code for the region to require
water conserving devices^^, the Council of Governments deter-
mined by applying the Water Demand Component that up to 25
million gallons of water per day could be saved in residen-
tial usage alone by 1992 if local governments adopt the
plumbing code revisions.21
In addition, the effectiveness of measures to reduce infil-
tration/inflow can be tested since infiltration/inflow is
calculated separately in the Sewage Generation Component.
From this estimate a determination can be made as to
whether excessive infiltration/inflow will occur, and there-
fore whether a sewer system evaluation survey must be con-
ducted.18
Evaluating Waste Load Allocations
An important requirement under Section 303 (e) of the Act is
the establishment by appropriate agencies of pollutant load
limits for the major water bodies of a region. 4»I7 The
-11-
-------
estuary model which serves as the Receiving Water Component
of the Framework Model was developed for and exercised by
the Environmental Protection Agency in 1969 to establish
effluent limits which, are the basis for the current expansion
and upgrading of treatment plants discharging to the Upper
Potomac Estuary. ^ 5 However, a report prepared in 1973 by
consultants for the Maryland Environmental Service challenged
the validity of those limits and the current effluent load
allocation scheme. ^6 This estuary model has been revised and
improved by MWCOG for use in the Framework Model, and could
be exercised to evaluate other load allocation schemes to meet
the Section 303 (e) requirements. The Section 208 planning
guidelines identify the testing of alternative waste load
allocations as a major activity within the Section 208 plan-
ning process as
Identifying Water Quality Impacts
The ability of alternative control strategies to achieve
desired water quality objectives is a necessary and obvious
consideration in the areawide water resources planning pro-
cess. The Receiving Water Component of the Framework Model
can simulate the effects of alternative point and non-point
sources of pollution, and can produce three-dimensional
estuary profiles for each of the water quality constituents
of interest. These computer plots are very useful in
presenting complicated results in a simplified and under-
standable format to elected and appointed decision-makers
and citizens.
Identifying Costs and Financial Arrangements
To assist in identifying the fiscal impacts of the Section 208
plan, the Fiscal Budget portion of the Framework Model in-
cludes a Cost Element and a Financial Arrangements Element.
The Cost Element is used to determine and compare the capital
and OM&R costs of proposed alternatives, while the Financial
Arrangements Element is used to determine the need for Federal/
State grants, bond indebtedness, and required user charges.
Various portions of the Framework Model, both in the physical
simulation components and in the impact assessment elements,
can be used to assist in determining these user charges for
operation and maintenance of publicly owned treatment works.
Regulations published fay EPA under the Act23 require that the
user charge system shall result in the distribution of the
-12-
-------
cost of operation and maintenance of treatment works in pro-
portion to the user's contribution to the total wastewater
loading of the treatment works. Factors such as strength,
volume, and delivery flow rate characteristics shall be con-
sidered and included as the basis for the user's contribution.
If the concentrations for BOD or other pollutants from a user
exceed the range of concentration of these pollutants in
normal domestic sewage, a surcharge added to the base charge
can be levied. The Sewage Generation Component can be used
to simulate effects of different strengths to serve as a
basis for determination of user charges in the Financial
Arrangement Element.
Comparing Cost-Effectiveness of Strategies
The facilities planning portion of the Act requires that a
cost-effectiveness analysis of alternatives be conducted,
and that Federal grant funds be given only for treatment
works found to be the most cost-efficient. A principal
objective of this study was to develop a definition of cost-
effectiveness applicable in highly complex regions, and to
test the cost-effectiveness of alternative areawide water re-
sources management strategies in metropolitan Washington.
Under the Water Quality Objectives Element in Chapter III,
the definition of cost-effectiveness is explained, while
Chapter IV includes the comparison of alternative strategies.
Assessing Environmental and Social Impacts
Regulations published by EPA require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Assessment on the areawide waste treat-
ment management plan by the designated planning agency. This
will serve as the basis for development of an Environmental
Impact Statement by EPA. The Natural Resources Impact
Element and Social Impact Element of the Framework Model have
been designed specifically to assist with the identification
of environmental and social impacts during the planning pro-
cess,
Assisting Public Participation
The Act and implementing EPA regulations encourage active
public participation during the areawide planning process.
The Implementability Element of the Framework Model addresses
this need, and emphasizes the responsibility of the designat-
ed planning agency to obtain citizen points of view during the
-13-
-------
program for presentation to the responsible policy board.
These are some of the uses of the Framework Water Resources
Planning Model in the Section 208 areawide waste treatment
management planning process. The illustrated uses stress
that each component or element of this model can be used
independently or they can be linked, as was done in the full
Framework Model. Either way, the Framework Model is easily
the most flexible and comprehensive water resource planning
model available in the Washington Metropolitan Area, and will
continue to be used by the Council of Governments in its
areawide water resources planning program.
TOWARDS A METROPOLITAN GROWTH POLICY
The discussion of the Section 208 areawide waste treatment
management planning process would be incomplete without an
explanation of where that program fits within the comprehen-
sive areawide planning process of the Council of Governments.
A basic reason for this Council of Governments' interest in
Section 208 planning is that water resources planning is
recognized as an integral and inseparable part of the over-
all planning program at MWCOG aimed towards development of
a metropolitan growth policy for the region.
During the Year 2000 Policies Plan Re-examination (which is
discussed in Chapter II) over the past year and a half/ the
need for developing a metropolitan growth policy has been
reiterated by many local governments, citizens, and technical
staff representatives in the Washington area. Public dis-
cussions have gone beyond the question of whether there should
be a metropolitan growth policy for the region. The ques-
tions now being asked include: What should this policy add-
ress? How should it be developed?
As this study was being completed (summer of 1974), the MWCOG
staff had begun an attempt to answer these questions and to
structure a proposed Metropolitan Growth Policy Program for
consideration by the region's officials. Preliminary staff
analysis identified the need for a cooperative forecasting
process as a foundation for the development of the growth
policy, an emphasis on impact analysis, and a series of
action programs including a Metropolitan Capital Improve-
ments Program and fair-share interjurisdictional agreements
on key growth issues.
-14-
-------
It is envisioned that the metropolitan growth policy at MWCOG
would integrate a greater extent possible than before, the
following functional programs:
0 Land Use and Housing programs sponsored by HUD
0 Water Resources program sponsored by EPA
0 Air Quality program sponsored by EPA
0 Transportation planning program sponsored by DOT
0 Proposed energy program under HUD sponsorship
The metropolitan growth policy would be intended to serve as
the foundation for legal and constitutional defense of local
growth management efforts, would assure consistency among the
MWCOG functional planning activities noted above, and would
increase coordination among local, state, and Federal agencies
within the region.
-15-
-------
CHAPTER II
IDENTIFICATION OP AREAWTDE WATER
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
EXPANDING RANGE OF OPTIONS
One of the primary objectives of the project is the identifi-
cation of water quality management options available to the
metropolitan region. Too often in the past this task has
been undertaken as a narrow engineering design study of a
proposed physical structure to determine the desired treatment
units. An option has been defined frequently as simply
where to put a wastewater treatment plant, rather than as
alternatives to building such a facility at all. The dis-
cussions of the interrelated elements of the Metropolitan
Washington water resources system in this report reveals that
there is justification for broadening this approach. Indeed,
several significant actions which have occurred at the
Federal and State levels in recent years require that a
broader range of water resources management strategies be
considered by local communities.
One such action was the passage by Congress of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law
92-500, which establishes national water quality goals and
prescribes the system through which Federal financial aid
to municipalities for constructing waste treatement works is
channeled. Under the Act the definition of treatment works
eligible for Federal grants has been broadened considerably
to include any method or system for preventing, abating, re-
ducing, storing, treating, separating or disposing of muni-
cipal waste, including storm water runoff, or industrial
waste.1' Waste treatment management techniques which must
be evaluated in every case include: (i) biological of physical-
chemical treatment and discharge to receiving waters; (ii)
treatment and reuse; and (iii) land application techniques.^
Flow and waste reduction measures such as infiltration/inflow
reduction, water conservation techniques, and regulation of
land use and construction practices must also be evaluated
in every planning effort, as discussed in Chapter I.
Another significant Federal action was the passage of the
-16-
-------
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which requires all
Federal departments and agencies to prepare environmental
impact statements (EIS) for major Federal actions signifi-
cantly affecting the quality of the human environment.7 Thus,
before the Environmental Protection Agency can give a con-
struction grant to a community, the EPA must prepare an EIS
for the project. Alternatives to the proposed action, in-
cluding those not within the authority of the responsible
agency, must be considered in the EIS, including the alterna-
tive of taking no action, or action of a significantly
different nature such as non-structural programs.1^
State action in the form of the imposition in the early
1970's of moratoria on further connections to certain munici-
pal wastewater treatment plants in the metropolitan area has
caused the local jurisdictions to actively consider, and in
some cases already approve, the construction of "interim"
treatment facilities to control public health hazards and to
promote orderly growth within the community.28,29 Local
governments have also taken actions which now prohibit cer-
tain practices of waste treatment management, such as Prince
George's County's recent limited ban on the incineration of
sludge within the county.^0
Thus for a number of reasons, not the least of which has been
the inability of traditional treatment facilities alone
to achieve desired water quality goals, a much broader range
of water resources management options must be assessed than
appeared to be necessary even five years ago.
RE-EXAMINATION OF THE YEAR 2000 POLICIES PLAN
The identification of water quality-related management options
under this project was achieved as an integral part of a much
larger metropolitan effort by MWCOG and its member jurisdic-
tions, commonly referred to as the "Reexamination of the Year
2000 Policies Plan." This Policies Plan31'32'33'34 has been
the basic planning guide for the Washington region since it
was published by MWCOG's predecessor, the National Capital
Regional Planning Council, in 1961. Sometimes called the
"wedges and corridors plan," it recommended development of the
Washington area in a series of corridors radiating from a
central core along which new communities and towns would be
concentrated. Areas between the corridors ("wedges") would
be preserved as open space as shown in Figure 1.
-17-
-------
Source:" A Policies Plan For The Year 2000" NCRPC & NCPC, 1-361.
Figure 1 YEAR 2000 RADIAL CORRIDOR PLAN
-18-
-------
Since the late 1960's a continuing review and comparative
evaluation of existing plans has been conducted by MWCOG
in three phases. ^ Phase One included a series of qualita-
tive evaluations of metropolitan development trends cul-
minating in a Metropolitan Conference on the Year 2000 Plan
held in July, 1971. In Phase Two, four alternative devel-
opment patterns, including the original wedges and corri-
dors concept, were evaluated and discussed in an extensive
process of public briefings and hearings before local
governing bodies and in meetings with technical staffs and
the public. This discussion resulted in a re-affirmation in
mid - 1972 of public preference for the wedges and corridors
concept and a refinement of the plan's basic goals.
Beginning in early 1973, Phase Three of the plan review,
through a series of workshops and public meetings and inten-
sive staff effort, concentrated on extending the subject
areas dealt with in metropolitan policy beyond the relative-
ly narrow confines of the original year 2000 Policies Plan
and into such areas as health, criminal justice, and natural
resources planning including water resources planning.
WORKSHOP ON PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
A workshop during Phase III which established the context
within which the water resources management options would be
identified in the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination was
held in June of 1973. This "Joint Workshop on the Physical
Environment" was conducted by the Land Use Policy Committee
and the Health and Environmental Protection Policy Committee
of MWCOG to discuss environmental resources management issues
through discussion of issue papers. In one of the issue
papers,121 the environmental resources management system was
depicted to these elected officials of the region in the
simplified manner shown in Figure 2, where urban activities
place demands on and generate wastes to environmental re-
sources in a closed cycle.
Drawing from research conducted by Resources for the
Future, it was emphasized that management techniques
could be grouped into four major types based on the "loci of
control" where they are imposed. These groupings are:
1. Reduce waste emissions within urban activity
(such as changing generation patterns and
limiting growth)
-19-
-------
DEMANDS
WASTES
CONSUMPTION
A
TRAVEL
ENVIRONMENTAL
RESOURCES
URBAN
ACTIVITY
Source: MWCOG Joint Workshop on the Physical Environment,
Environmental Management Issue #4, June 18,1973.
Figure 2 ENVIRCM^EKTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
-20-
-------
2. Reduce or transform wastes after generation
(such as treating sewage and incinerating
or recycling solid wastes)
3. Decrease demand - increase supply (such as
water-saving home fixtures and reservoirs)
4. Affect environmental resources directly
(such as instream aeration to increase
assimilative capacity).
The issue paper noted that a major problem which the region
faces is where and to what extent in the environmental re-
sources management system the management techniques should
be introduced.
The need to manage the area's natural resources within the
limits of their "capabilities" or "carrying capacities"
was highlighted throughout the workshop. Environmental
resource capability or carrying capacity means the measured
ability of a resource to support use and development commen-
surate with desired environmental quantity and quality of
that resource. ^ It was recognized that these resource
carrying capacity limits which make up the area's natural
resource budget have not yet been fully determined. The
most current expression of resource carrying capacity is
the air and water quality standards adopted or approved by
the States and the Environmental Protection Agency.
During the workshop it was noted that in recent years local
jurisdictions have attempted to "trade" land quantity for
improved air and water quality. Through use of block dia-
grams such as those in Figure 3, the staff demonstrated how
resource tradeoffs can and do occur. The figure illustrates
that between 1967 and 1973 the region had achieved a decrease
in particulates in the air from open burning and solid waste
incineration (by banning them in local ordinances) to the
point that Federal-State particulate air quality standards
are now being met. However, as a result the amount of land
required to landfill material which had previously been
burned or incinerated has increased substantially.
Through use of these block diagrams, the sources of waste
emissions or resource demands can be depicted by parameter,
and potential tradeoffs among media can be highlighted.
Emerging from the workshop was a consensus that there is
-21-
-------
DECREASE INPARTICULATES
FROM OPEN BURNING
1967
DECREASE IN PARTICULATES FROM
SOLID WASTE INCINERATION
INCREASE IN LAND NEEDED
FOR NEW LANDFILLS
STANDARD
AIR
1973
1967
LAND
1973
Figure 3 RESOURCE TRADE-OFFS
-22-
-------
a need for intensifying efforts to develop a natural re-
sources budget for the metropolitan area which is more
sophisticated and meaningful than the current set of Federal-
State air and water quality standards.1"^
OPTIONS FOR ACTION
As a direct result of the workshop and this study, a much
broader and more useful range of water quality-related
management options has been prepared and incorporated, as
part of a comprehensive set of "options for action" for
each problem topic, into the two-volume "Reexamination of
the Year 2000 Policies Plan" published by MWCOG in early
1974.l^ This document identifies the water quality-related
"target" for the metropolitan area as: "maintain or achieve
by 1983 existing state-adopted standards for protection and
propagation of fish and wildlife and for recreation in and
on the water." This target is entirely consistent with the
stated goals of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and of Section 208 areawide waste treatment management
planning.
To achieve this target, a set of "options for action" have
been identified and generally grouped according to the
loci of control identified in the workshop. These options
for action are as follows:
1. Reduce sewage flows by:
a. Water demand reduction through:
1. watersaving devices required by codes
2. use restrictions during water shortages
3. water rate changes
4. public education
5. water service moratoria
b. Reduction of infiltration/inflow into collection
systems
c. Moratoria on sewer connections
-23-
-------
2. Transfer residuals to air or land by:
a. Interim package treatment plants
b. Expansion and upgrading of the treatment efficiencies
of existing waste treatment plants
c. Construction of new advanced waste treatment plants
d. Land application of secondary effluent from treatment
plants
e. Septic tanks
f. Multi-residual processing (such as sewage and solid
waste recycling)
g. In-house devices to transfer residuals or to with-
hold wastes from water-carried systems (such as
chemical or incinerating toilets or holding tanks)
3. Improve stormwater management by:
a. Erosion and sediment control during construction
b. On-site retention of stormwater (after construction)
c. Collection and removal of residuals from stormwater
4. Utilize assimilative capacity of water resource by:
a. In-stream aeration
b. Extension of effluent outfalls
Although most of these options are structural, there are
several others on the list, such as public education and
water pricing, which seek to change people's habits and con-
sumption patterns. Each of these options share a common
characteristic in that each has received serious considera-
tion in Metropolitan Washington by one or more local juris-
dictions in recent years. Even though there are perhaps
other water quality-related options which may be added dur-
ing the public review process, and there are water supply-
related options in the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination
-24-
-------
not shown here, this list provides a basis from which to
assess the relative benefits and costs to the metropolitan
region of the options available to it.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FISCAL, NATURAL RESOURCE, AND COMMUNITY
RESPONSE BUDGETS
Another objective of this study was the identification in
qualitative terms of the associated costs and benefits of
the various water quality-related management options. This
has been accomplished in part also during the Year 2000
Policies Plan Reexamination. In his study for MWCOG of the
concepts of optimum growth and balanced communities, a con-
sultant suggested that the decision-making process, whereby
problem solving occurs on an incremental basis, can generate
new problems because, without an appreciation of the resources
available, relative priorities cannot be thoroughly examin-
ed.35 He suggested that the decision-making process use as
a tool three "budgets" — natural resource, fiscal, community
response — as a method of weighing the various and sometimes
conflicting considerations that must be included in resolu-
tion of growth-related problems.
In its Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination, MWCOG has eval-
uated in a qualitative fashion each of the "options for ac-
tion" in housing, jobs, safety and justice, juvenile delin-
quency, health and education, recreation, general welfare,
natural resources including water resources, community
balance, and transportation relative to the three-budget
system. Under the budget concept, the available resources
(whether monetary, natural, or human) at any given time that
can be devoted to the solution of a problem such as water
quality are finite.14 For this reason, it is necessary to
weigh social, economic, and environmental factors and to
make difficult tradeoffs in allocating limited resources to
the solution of the problem. The fiscal budget includes
economic considerations such as tax base and public revenues,
costs of services, and impact upon the private sector
economy. The natural resources budget is defined by the
"carrying capacity" of the air, land and water. The communi-
ty response budget encompasses not only the social impact
on a neighborhood but also current public values and the
local government decision-making process.
It is believed that the budgets can be useful at two points
in the planning process. First, they can be used in evaluat-
es-
-------
Table 2
WATER QUALITY-RELATED OPTIONS FOR ACTION
(Extracted from Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Re-examination of Year 2000 Policies Plan, Volume I, January, 1974;
CTl
I
Problem
Water
Resources
The Upper Polo-
muc Kstuary, the
Occoquan, and the
Patiuenl regularly ;
Target
Maintain or achieve
by 1983 existing
staUvo clop ted
stanrt.iicls for
experience high boc- 1 protection &
tcriaJ counts, low {propagation of
dissolved oxygen
levels, and nuisance
algnc growtlis such
that adopted state
water quality
standards are regu-
larly violated.
fish and wildlife
and for recreation.
(PO-8)
(72-13)
Options for
Action
1. Reduce seuwgg {lows
by Demand Reduction
through:
a. Water taving devices
required by coder
b. Use restriction*
during water shortage.
c. Water rate changes.
d. Public education.
e. Water service
moratoha.
Implications for
Fiscal
Budget
New develop-
ments will
bear cost which
will likely be
passed on to the
consumer.
Place hardship
on selected com-
mercial enter-
prises such as
car washes.
Rales gener-
ally set based on
revt-nuo needed
to operate at
no profit.
Source of funds
for such a pro-
gram would be
needed.
Tax base
affected.
Builders/
developers
restricted.
Natural
Resources
Budget
Reduce
requirements
for new water
facilities.
Reduce flow
to water
pollution con-
trol facilities.
Permit water
to be available
for longer dura-
tion.
Reduction in
demand that
could be
achieved in
question.
Assist in
reducing
demand for
waloi.
Reduce future
demand for
water. Reduce
future sewage
flows.
Community
Response
Budget
Permit consu-
mer to feet he
is participant
in effort to
help environ-
ment.
Require
sacrifices on
water use by
public.
Could adversely
affect lew and
moderate in-
come fannUes.
Purpose is to
change people's
water consump
lion habits.
Housing stock
diminished.
Need for Metro-
politan Agree-
ment on Imple-
mentation Prog.
Modification of COG
Model Plumbing Code.
Adoption of code
change to require water-
saving devices.
Water shortage
emergency plan.
Adoption of ordinance
as part of eme'"*
-------
h. Reduction of
infiltration/inflow
into collection
svsfcms.
c. Sewer moratoria.
2. Transfer Residuals
to Air or Lund by:
a. Interim pack.i-e
plants.
b. Expansion end up-
grading to A WT of
existing watf.r pollution
contml p'.asili (Arling-
ton, Alexandria, Prince
Gcor&s County. Fair-
fax Count:,; D.C.,
Loaduun Co.
c. New AWT plants
(Occoquan, Prince
William County, Mont-
gomery County).
d. Land application of
secondary effluent
from plants.
'rnde-off of
epainng collet-
ion ni;uns versus
expanding caps*
•ity of water
pollution control
slants.
Guilders/
developers
restricted. Tax
base affected.
Financial
responsibility
not established.
^"•onomios "f
nrrcTse-re-
moval efficiency
of plants by
concentrating
load.
Reduce future
scwnge flows.
Perfomi.i/ice of
plants to pro-
tect waU'r
bodies ques-
tioned. Assist
in eliminating
overflows.
\iblie incon-
nenicncc of
ronstruction
and repair.
Housing stock
diminished.
l^irk of iju/ili-
fipd and avail-
aljle operations
personnel.
Effectiveness 'prni.Ti pi.hlic
Undertake studies on
nfiltration/inflow
required by EPA.
Interim solution to
balance construction
with plant capacity.
Compatibility of per-
formance standards
across junsdictional lines
and financing.
Receive Federal state
sciir. !HKVF
lor land by :IV,|I-M: rafnrcv-
sludgepro- 'menl :.n:o,\.
Cost-effectiveness
versus upgrading
existing p'.ants.
90% Federal-state
funding avail-
ability.
Devrlopable
land removed
from use. Cost-
effectiveness.
Und cost
allowable under
grant.
cessing.
Kffrctivene1;?
of AWT to
reduce loads.
Effect of new
discharge to
UW of w.iter
bodies as
potable water
source. Trans-
fers of n'siduals
to air or Kind.
Energy re-
(|UirciTi(.ints.
Powilile ground
Protect public
hr;>lth. Effect
of plant on
surrounding
community.
Kails.ifc re-
quirements.
Difficulty of
sludge disposal.
Public health
water contaminJnsks not
ation. Increased ;fully invest-
quantity of jigated.
ground water.
Kffirt on sur-
face topo-
graphy and
vegeuitiou.
Recycling of
valuable
nutrients.
F.nsure new plants will
perform as expected.
Obtain Federal-sUile
approval and financing.
Construct and operate
facilities.
Investigation of feasi
bility of pilot project.
Obtain Federal-state
approval and financing.
Construct and operate
facilities.
,ocnl public works
epU., stale water
gencics, local
joveniments, COG
ind other regional
ilanning agencies,
EPA.
State water agencies,
oral grwrnimcnls,
COC; and other
regional planning
agencies, developers
and builders
associations, chamber
of commerce.
Ix>ca) Kovrminents,
stale water agencies,
developers and
buidling associations
Contractors, local
public works depts.
EPA, state water
agencies.
EPA, slate water
agencies, local
goveniments, COG
and other regional
planning agencies,
citizens' groups,
contractors.
Local governments.
state water
agencies, local
public works depts.,
COC and other
regional planning
agencies, EPA,
citizens' groups.
1GD of infiltration/
nflow reduced.
Number of housing
and commercial
units affected by
type.
MGD processed by
plants. Removal
efficiencies.
Pounds of residual
transfercd.
MGD processed by
plants. Removal
efficiency.
Pounds of residuals
iransfered.
Same as above.
MOD transfercd
to land. Amount
of nutrient*
discharged to
land.
-------
oo
I
Problem
Target
(
Options (or
Action
e. Septic tanks.
f. Multi-residual
processing (sewnge
and solid waste).
g. In-house* device to
transfer rf*.;idua)s {such
os chemical or incine-
rating toilets and
garbage disposals).
3. Improve stormwatcr
management by:
a. Erosion and sediment
control during con-
struction.
b. On ~site retention of
starmwater (after
construction).
Implications for
Fiscal
flucffiel
Cost borne by
consumer
diroctJy.
Cost-effectiveness
versus transfrring
residuals tn
separate processes
Economics of
scale. Cost alloca-
tion among
participants
Eliminate or
minimize need
Tor collection
system and pol-
lution control
facilities.
Tec hnol epical
state- of- the- art
availability ques-
tioned. Could
increase private
cost to deve-
lopers, reduce
public costs.
Requires ex-
penditures by
developers.
Requires
expenditures
by t level opvrs.
Natural
Resource*
Budget
Possible effect
on ground-
water. Many
soils not suited
to septic tanks.
i
Reuse and
recycling of
residuals.
Energy
conservation.
Transfer
residuals to
air or land.
Eliminate
sedimentation
of water
resources from
scarified land.
Minimize
impact of
storm loads on
water resources
Community
J? export 5*
Budget
Potential
ncalth hazard
in future.
Permit de-
velopment
without
sewers.
Multiple use
of facilities.
Public health
risk associated
with break-
down of
equipment.
Improve
aesthetics of
water
resources.
Minimize
flooding of
streets during
storms. Re-
quires main-
tenance1.
Need for Metro-
politan Agree-
ment on Imple-
mentation Prop.
Identify areas with septic
tank potential or
problems.
Identify positive returns
to jurisdictions, economic
incentives, management
efficiencies.
Encourage research
to determine feasibility
of installing as pilot
such as in a "new town".
Insure ordinances are
compatible and enforced.
Development, adoption
of enforcement of
compatible ordinance
Responsibility
Local public works.
state water agencies.
EPA. state water
agencies, local
[ovemments, public
service utilities,
COG and other reg-
onal planning
agencies, citizen
groups.
Developers, local
governments, COG
and other regional
Manning agent ies.
ocal health depts.,
state water agi-ncies.
manufacturer*.
Local public works
and other dcpls.,
state water agencies
COG and other
regional planning
agencies, developers
soil and water con-
servation districts.
Locai public works
dcpts., COG and
other regional plan-
ning rgrncies,
developers, piopert
owner?, local govern
menu, soil and
water conservation
districts.
Key Criteria
for Monitoring
and Evaluation
Number of septic
tanks.
rtGD processed.
Amount of resi-
uats reused and
recycled.
Amount of reai-
uaJs transferal.
Amount of silt
discharge.
Number of viola-
tions of ordinances
reported and
prosecuted.
Amount of storm-
water flow reduced
during peak period*.
-------
c. Collt-ction and re-
moval of rvsuluaJs
from stormwatcr.
t^. Utilize nssimiblive
capacity of water re-
source by:
a. instrearn aeration.
b. Extension of ef-
fluent outfaJls (such
OK I'laOaUwuy plant).
Tradeoff of
controlling
stormwatcr
versus sewage
flow.
Cost-effectiveness.
Pumping costs.
Cost-effectiveness
Availability of
Federal grant.
Transfer
residuals to
air or land.
Provide source
of nonpotablc
waU-r for reuse
and recycling.
Increase dis-
solved oxygen
level of water.
Permit belter
dispersion of
effluent. Im-
pact during
comlmcti'.n.
Temporary
disruption of
neighborhood
during con-
struction.
F.ffect on rw
reritton and
navigation.
Aesthetic ef-
fects of foun-
tains.
Image of
reducing pol-
lution by
dilution.
nvcstigation of
feasibility as a pilot
>roject.
Investigation of
feasibility.
Investigation of
feasibility for each
treatment plant.
COG and other
regional planning
agencies, local
government depts..
state water agencies,
soil and water con-
servation districts.
State water
agencies, local
governments.
COG and other
regional planning
agencies, state water
nfiencies.
'ounds of
residuals removed.
flange in dis-
solved oxygen level
of water resource.
Change in dissolved
oxygen level and
eutrophication in
water resource.
-------
ing the desirability of each individual option for action.
Then, they are useful in facilitating the tradeoff process
that must occur when proposed solutions to one problem are
evaluated in relation to other problems. An example is
given in the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination where the
most desirable solution to a water resource problem such as
prohibiting new connections to overloaded treatment plants
may prove detrimental to efforts to solve a human resource
problem such as the need for increasing the supply of
reasonably priced housing.
Table 2 on the preceding pages presents, in abbreviated form,
the implications for the three budgets of the water quality-
related management options listed earlier. The table and
others like it included in the Year 2000 Policies Plan
Reexamination constitute a written guide for the conduct of
a decision-making process that leads toward solution of the
problems facing the Washington metropolitan area. They
illustrate a process in which:
1. Problems are identified. (See column headings
that appear on the following tables.)
2. Targets are established for solving the
problem.
3. A series of options for action are identified
including all known, reasonable alternatives.
4. The options are explored and evaluated in
terms of three sets of criteria or three
"budgets": fiscal/ natural resource, and
community response.
5. The necessary extent of metropolitan agree-
ment on an action program is discussed and
agreed upon.
6. Responsibility is agreed upon for all
necessary actions designed to carry out the
option and to reach the target.
7. Key Criteria (quantitative measures) for
monitoring and evaluating progress toward
reaching the target are established.
-30-
-------
It is interesting to note that when participants at an EPA
Conference on the Quality of Life (QOL) concept were asked
during an experiment to develop a consensus list of QOL
factors, the component headings which resulted — economic,
political/social, and environment -- are parallel to those
of the MWCOG three-budget system. And, when the specific
QOL factors in each heading were then weighted and totalled,
the three component headings ended up being rated relatively
equal to each other in importance.3"
SIX STRATEGIES FOR DEMONSTRATION OF FRAMEWORK MODEL
It is neither necessary nor within the resources available
to the study to undertake a more detailed analysis of all
of these options for action. Rather, since the primary pur-
pose of the project is the development of systematic tools
and techniques for use in the areawide planning process, a
'lesser number of water resources management strategies in-
corporating a variety of options will be used to demonstrate
these tools in later chapters.
Six possible strategies for the year 1992 in metropolitan
Washington have been selected for detailed discussion. They
were formed by combining various options for action from Table
2. These strategies have been termed "areawide water resour-
ces management strategies" because they are tested for appli-
cation across the entire metropolitan region, because treat-
ment works are not site-specific (except for outfall loca-
tion) , and because they include options beyond simply waste-
water treatment. These six strategies are summarized in
Table 3 and include:
Strategy No.l - Secondary Waste Treatment. The level
of wastewater treatment in all municipal treatment plants dis-
charging into the estuary is assumed at only secondary treat-
ment. Water demand and sewage flow estimates predicted by the
Framework Model are used with no control of stormwater runoff.
Strategy No.2 - Advanced Waste Treatment. Wastewater
entering the Potomac Estuary in 1992 is assumed treated to
advanced standards (AWT). The remaining strategies are
alternative extensions of this strategy.
Strategy No.3 - Stormwater Treatment. This strategy
assumes AWT, as well as operation of structural options
-31-
-------
Table 3. SUMMARY OF AREAWI'. E
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
1. Secondary
Waste Treatment
2 . Advanced
Waste Treatment
3 . StormuM tor
Treatment
4 . Water
Conservation
5. Dry Waste
Collection
6. Indirect
Estuary Re-use
j
Yes
No
No
Yes
No ': Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Nc
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
All strategies assume sane projected 1992 metropolitan development pattern,.
-32-
-------
resulting in 50% average reduction in waste load reaching
estuary from stormwater runoff.
Strategy No.4 - Water Conservation. This strategy in-
corporates plumbing code changes requiring water-saving
devices for all new construction after 1976. A 20% reduction
in new residential domestic (in-house) water demands and
sewage flows, and equivalent reductions in commercial/indus-
trial sectors is simulated to reflect this. Advanced waste
treatment for all wastewater is also simulated, while treat-
ment of stormwater is not simulated. Sewer infiltration/
inflow is assumed to be reduced by seven percent by stricter
construction specifications and programs.
Strategy No.5 - Dry Waste Collection. This strategy
assumes non-water carried waste removal of residential and
commercial wastes in new construction after 1976 resulting
in 50% reduction in residential domestic and commercial/
industrial water demands and elimination of sewage flows in
new construction while assuming AWT for existing sewage flows.
This strategy also assumes water conservation measures are
required for new construction causing an additional 10%
reduction in residential domestic and commercial/industrial
water demands. Reduced sewer infiltration/inflow as in
Strategy No.4 is also assumed.
Strategy No.6 - Indirect Estuary Reuse. This strategy
envisions obtaining a portion of the needed water supply
from the Potomac Estuary during emergencies. This strategy
also assumes water conservation and sewer infiltration/inflow
reduction measures and AWT from Strategy No.4 are in effect,
and that emergency water use restrictions are also imposed.
The six strategies were chosen to reveal the impacts of dif-
ferent treatment efficiencies, and different public policies
that influence the use of water resources. With the excep-
tion of Strategy No.5, these strategies are in various
stages of consideration within the metropolitan Washington
region. A detailed description of the assumptions made in
operating the Framework Model for these six strategies is
included in Appendix A. A comparison of the results of the
Framework Model simulations is presented in Chapter IV.
-33-
-------
CHAPTER III
COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS OF THE
FRAMEWORK WATER RESOURCES PLANNING MODEL
OVERVIEW
The Framework Water Resources Planning Model can be depicted
as a series of components and elements relating to one
another in the manner shown in Figure 4. A major objective
of the study was to describe the interrelationships among
the components of the metropolitan scale water resources
system. The physical simulation portion of the Framework
Model begins with a Community Development Component which
projects the nature and distribution of future growth in the
metropolitan area for various forecast years, producing es-
timates of numbers of households, employment by type, and
other socio-economic and demographic data by small geograph-
ic area.
The Water Demand Component is designed to estimate water
demand by usage category for each combination of development
plan and forecast year provided by the Community Development.
Component. Water requirements are estimated by small area
separately for the residential, commercial/industrial, and
public-unaccounted sectors. Within these sectors, require-
ments are further estimated for individual categories of
usage such as apartment domestic (in-house), apartment
sprinkling, single-family domestic, single-family sprinkling,
commercial use by type, distribution losses, and free service.
The Water Demand Component also provides essential information
for the Sewage Generation Component.
The Sewage Generation Component projects the burden future
growth imposes on the sanitary sewer and sewage treatment
system of the region. It provides estimates by small area
of average daily sewage flow and average daily pollutant
loads by parameter based on appropriate output from the
Water Demand Component, exogenously-calculated infiltration/
inflow based on output from the Community Development Compon-
ent, and user-specified pollutant load coefficients.
-34-
-------
COMMUXITY
DEVELOPMENT
COMPONENT
PHYSICAL
SIMULATION
COMPONENTS
IMPACT
ANALYS! S
ELEMENTS
FINANCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS
ELEMENT
WASTE
TREATMENT MGT.
COMPONENT
RECEIVING
WATER
COMPONENT
COST
ELEMENT
WATER
QUALITY
OBJECTIVES
ELEMENT
NATURAL
RESOURCES
IMPACT
ELEMENT
SOCIAL
IMPACT
ELEMENT
1 IMPLEMENT- '
ABILITY
ELEMENT
-1 t-
FISCAL BUDGET
NATURAL RESOURCES
BUDGET
COMMUNITY RKSPONSE
BUDGET
Figure 4 COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS OF THE FRAMEWORK MODEL
-35-
-------
The Stormwater Runoff Component projects the impacts of non-
point sources of pollution for future patterns of urban de-
velopment. This component also uses output from the
Community Devleopment Component to calculate runoff volume
and hydrographs by watershed for each storm selected for
analysis. In addition, the Stormwater Runoff Component pro-
duces associated biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) washoff
and BOD pollutographs by watershed.
The Waste Treatment Management Component next simulates the
application of alternative waste treatment management tech-
niques to the wastewater and Stormwater flows and loads gen-
erated by the Sewage Generation Component and Stormwater
Runoff Component respectively. The results are effluent
flows and loads by parameter for all sewage service areas
in the region.
These projected flows and loads are then simulated as dis-
charges at selected points in the receiving water. These
flow quantities and pollutant loads, along with initial con-
ditions and constant data, are the inputs to the Receiving
Water Component, which simulates the water quality response,
in this case, of the upper Potomac Estuary. The estuary
simulation can be performed on three different types of in-
puts: (a) "dry weather" sewage discharges only; (b) sewage
discharges and treated Stormwater runoff; or (c) sewage dis-
charges and untreated Stormwater runoff. Output from the
Receiving Water Component consists of a computer-printed
three-dimensional estuary profile for each pollutant or
parameter simulated, with axes including the extent of
Potomac Estuary affected (length in statute miles), time (in
hours), and the concentration of parameter under investiga-
tion (such as milligrams per liter of dissolved oxygen) ..
It was the intent of the study to integrate existing physical
simulation models into the Framework Model wherever possible,
rather than developing new and untested models. Thus, the
Community Development Component consists of the EMPIRIC
Activity Allocation Model utilized by the Council of
Governments for several years in other planning areas such as
transportation. The basic computational model used in the
Water Demand Component is the "MAIN II System", which was
developed by Hittman Associates based on extensive research
conducted by The Johns Hopkins University during the 1960's.
The Stormwater Runoff Component incorporates portions of the
-36-
-------
EPA Stormwater Management Model, while the Receiving Water
Component includes the Potomac Estuary Model developed for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The following section of this chapter describes in detail
each of these Framework Model components used to simulate
the metropolitan water resources system. A flow diagram
is presented for each component to illustrate how it operates
and how the various submodels interrelate. Methods used to
validate the results of the Framework Model components are
also discussed.
The final section of the chapter describes the framework for
analyzing the fiscal, environmental, and social impacts of
alternative water resources management strategies. This
framework is presented schematically in Figure 4 as the im-
pact analysis elements of the Framework Water Resources
Planning Model. The approach used was derived directly
from the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination discussed in
the previous chapter, where three hypothetical budgets, a
fiscal budget, a natural resources budget, and a community
response budget,were shown to describe limits to resource use,
Every allocational decision made by government, whether it
be in water resources planning or another functional area,
impacts upon or consumes a portion of each of these budgets.
For each of these three budgets, existing methodologies for
analyzing impacts of water resources management strategies
are discussed and proposed procedures for their use in the
Framework Model are presented.
-37-
-------
FRAMEWORK FOR PHYSICAL SIMULATIONS OF THE WATER RESOURCES
SYSTEM
Each of the major physical simulation components of the
Framework Water Resources Planning Model, presented schemati-
cally in Figure 4, is discussed in detail in this section.
The purpose of this section is to provide a better under-
standing of the development and applicability of the Frame-
work Model for areawide waste treatment management planning.
A demonstration of the entire physical simulation- portion
of the Framework Model for six areawide water resources man-
agement strategies for 1992 in metropolitan Washington is
contained in the next chapter.
Community Development Component
The Community Development Component of the Framework Model
provides estimates of detailed socio-economic and demographic
characteristics for future years as input to the Water Demand
and Stormwater Runoff Components. The "EMPIRIC" Activity
Allocation Model, developed by the Council of Governments
and its consultants, Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., serves
as the Community Development Component37 although any model
which provides the necessary socio-economic and demographic
data can be used for this purpose. EMPIRIC* is one of a
family of regional planning models which are designed to
allocate projected metropolitan population, employment and
land use totals among a set of smaller subregions or dis-
tricts.
The model is designed to perform three specific functions:
0 To allocate metropolitanwide control
totals of future population, employ-
ment, and land use growth among a set
of small subregions or districts,
based upon exogenously specified
metropolitan planning policies;
0 To estimate the probable impact of
alternative public and private plann-
ing policy decisions on the future dis-
tribution of metropolitan growth; and
*A detailed explanation of the design and use of "EMPIRIC" is
contained in references 37 and 38.
-38-
-------
0 To provide an analytical foundation for
the evaluation and coordination of
public policy decisions in many func-
tional areas.
In essence, the EMPIRIC Model is a set of simultaneous
linear equations used to evaluate the effect of public poli-
cies and public investments on private market forces and
development trends. The market forces are expressed by:
0 Patterns of subregional household and
employment development over a past
period of time
0 Future employment and population
projections by time period for the
entire metropolitan area
0 Large scale private and public devel-
opments
The public policies are expressed in the following ways:
0 Transportation Service: the accessibility
of a given area to activity centers, via
both automobile and public transportation
for specific future points in time;
0 Water and Sewer Service; the land area to
be served by public systems in each portion
of the area, as of stated points in time;
0 Density Constraints: the density at which
new development will take place is speci-
fied for various categories of residential
and employment-oriented activities. Addi-
tionally, it is possible to place activity
"ceilings" upon small areas in simulating
moratoria or holding capacity constraints.
Household and employment levels divided into various cate-
gories are called "activities" in the modeling terminology.
The EMPIRIC model allocates these activities to subregional
areas called "Policy Analysis Districts" (or PAD's). The
Washington metropolitan area is divided into 146 of these
Policy Analysis Districts as shown in Figure 22. In addi-
-39-
-------
tion to the EMPIRIC "Main" module which estimates household
and employment distribution, there is a land consumption
submodel which estimates future acreage, by type of land use,
for each PAD, and supplementary submodels which divide "Main"
model outputs into component distributions of population by
age, household size, and so forth. Listed in Appendix C are
the outputs available from the full EMPIRIC model.
The EMPIRIC Model has been "calibrated" (adapted to the
Washington metropolitan area) using activity and policy data
developed for two points of time, in this case 1960 and
1968. Forecasts of the future metropolitan distribution of
activity are then generated by specifying anticipated
metropolitan wide control totals of households and employ-
ment, together with a set of future development and planning
policies for the forecast intervals 1968-1976, 1976-1984, and
1984-1992, and by operating the model recursively to gener-
ate future activity distributions by small geographic area.
A demonstration of the EMPIRIC model for the metropolitan
Washington area as the base from which to estimate water
resource impacts is contained in the final chapter of this
report.
The EMPIRIC Model may be used both as a straight-forward fore-
casting device and also as a mechanism for comparing the
efficacy of alternative planning policies over one or more
specific time periods. Both of these methods are illustrat-
ed in Figure 5. EMPIRIC, or a substitute planning system
for predicting the distribution of growth in an area, should
be identical to the system used in developing metropolitan-
wide transportation, air quality, housing and other related
plans. This will ensure that the accepted basis for planning
is used as input to the Water Demand Component and Stormwater
Runoff Components of the Framework Model.
Water Demand Component
The Water Demand Component of the Framework Model is designed
to estimate water demand by usage category for up to 200 user-
specified geographic areas for each combination of development
plan and forecast year provided by the Community Development
Component. In addition, these water demand estimates serve
as a basis for inferring uninfiltrated waste flows in the
Sewage Generation Component.
-40-
-------
RECURSIVE FORECAST PROCEDURE
197'j REGIONAL TOTALS -"•» !2
ALTEP.NATIVE
PLANNING
POLICY "3
ALTERNATIVE
PLANNING
POLICY f4
ALTERNATIVE
PLANNING
POLICY «
— »— •/ MODZL ) — >—
i'KOJECTED SL'UKi.ClONAl.
DiSTjiauTio:: OF
ACTIVITY
— *— ( MODEL V- »
DISlSIbUTION OF
ACTIVITY
> ^ MODEL V+—
— »— / KODEL V#
PROJECTS.!) SL'5c;!'CIONAI.
DUTR1BLT10N OF
ACTIVITY
PMUECTE3 SUOXCGIOX.U.
DISTRIEITIOS' OK
ACTIVITY
— >— / MODEL J »
PROJECTED SUIIRJ.ulOXAl
DISTRIBUTION Of
ACTIVITY
Figure 5 FLOW DIAGRAM OF ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO EXERCISE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT
-41-
-------
A schematic representation of the Water Demand Component is
presented in Figure 6. The basic computational model is
the "MAIN II System", which was developed by Hittman Asso-
ciates, Inc. based on extensive research conducted by The
Johns Hopkins University during the 1960's. The system
itself is a set of formalized precedures, approaches, and
equations which have been developed specifically for use in
planning for municipal water supply. Water requirements
are estimated separately for the residential, commercial/
industrial and public/unaccounted sectors for each of the
50 "planning units" identified in the study and illustrated
in Figure 22 as aggregated EMPIRIC Policy Analysis Districts.
Within these sectors, requirements are further estimated for
individual categories of water uses such as apartment
domestic use, apartment sprinkling, single-family household
domestic use, single-family sprinkling, commercial use by
type of establishment, free-service, and distribution losses.
Estimates are made of average daily, maximum day, and peak
hour requirements for each category. Complete verification
and documentation of the "MAIN II System" has been completed
by Hittman Associates, Inc.3^'40
To estimate water demands for each combination of development
plan and forecast year, the MAIN II System as utilized in
the Framework Model requires one hundred and five data ele-
ments for each planning unit. Because over 5000 data ele-
ments are therefore required to exercise the MAIN II System
each time, a new computer program identified as the "Inter-
face" program has been developed to manage this data. To
accomplish this interfacing, the new program constructs a
matrix of planning units by data elements for each combina-
tion of development plan and forecast year. These matrices
can be formed/ manipulated and revised as necessary.
Figure 6 indicates how data is entered into the Interface
Program from three sources - a "constants" data file, an
EMPIRIC output file from the Community Development Component,
and user-specified data elements on cards. Sixty-five of
the 105 data elements required by the MAIN II System for each
planning unit are considered to remain constant throughout
all development plans and forecast years for metropolitan
Washington. These data elements, such as latitude, longitude,
and home value range, are stored in the "constants" data file.
The remaining forty-two data elements vary for each develop-
ment plan and forecast year. The values for all of these
-42-
-------
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMPONtUT I
SELECTS APPROPRIATE
•AGGREGATES EMPIRIC I CONSTANT r>ATn
MATHU FORMAT F0» USER-SPEC I f ! En
NUMBER OF PLANNING UNITS
ARRANGES DATA INTO FORMAT Rf)UI«EO
BY MAIN II SYSTEM
•ESTIMATES SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSEHOLD DOMESTIC
AND SPRINKLING WATER DEMAND FOR E»CM PLANNING UNIT
•ESTIMATES APARTMENT DOMESTIC AND
SPRINKLING WATER DEMAND FOR EACH PLANNING UNIT
•ESTIMATES COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL WATER
DEMAND BY CATEGORY FOR EACH PLANNING UNIT
•ESTIMATES PUBLIC/UNACCOUNTED WATER DEMAND
BY FREE SERVICE AND DISTRIBUTION LOSS FOR
EACH PLANNING UNIT
INTERFACE
PROGRAM
MAIN II
SYSTEM
1 1
MAIN II
OUTPUT FILE
PRINTED WATER
OEHANO ESI IHATES
ISY PLANNING UNIT
Repeat procedure for
•REFORMATS MAIN II OUTPUT FILE FOR USE
IN SEWAGE GENERATION COMPONENT AND
MUNWATRE PROGRAM
FIXSEVEH
PROGRAM
TO SEWAGE GENERATION
COMPONENT
pment plan
t year.
1
•SUMMARIZES WATER DEMAND ESTIMATES FOR I
METROPOLITAN AREA BY CATEGORY
4
(PRINTED SUMMARY
— • — Of WAIER DEMAND
[ESTIMATES
MUNrfATRE
PrfOGUAH
Figure 6
FLOW DIAGRAM OF WATER DEMAND COMPONENT
-43-
-------
variables are either direct EMPIRIC output or are computed
from EMPIRIC data produced by the Community Development
Component. For each combination of development plan and
forecast year an unmodified EMPIRIC data file is obtained
and input to the Interface program. In addition, user-
specified data elements on cards may be used to override
any of the 'constant1 or 'variable1 data elements.
The Interface program reformats these inputs to produce
three different outputs illustrated in Figure 6. One is
a printout of data elements. The second is a data file disc
that can be input directly to the MAIN II System to estimate
water demands. The third is the same data file in matrix
format convenient for revising the MAIN II input if necessary
by rerunning the "Interface" program. The final two programs
in the Water Demand Component serve to reaggregate MAIN II
output for use in the Sewage Generation Component and to
produce a printed metropolitan summary of water demand
estimates.
As indicated earlier, the rationale behind the estimating
procedures of the MAIN II System is based on extensive
studies of residential, commercial and industrial water use
conducted by The Johns Hopkins University. The research
of residential water use conducted by Johns Hopkins '''
revealed that the principal factor influencing total annual
water use in residential areas is the total number of homes.
Thus, the EMPIRIC Model, which distributes the number of
households throughout the metropolitan area based upon
alternative development policies, provides ideal projections
of this parameter. In addition to the number of households,
the Johns Hopkins study identified three other important
factors which affect water use in residential areas. These
are the economic level of consumers as indicated by the
market value of their homes, the climate, and whether cus-
tomers are metered (single-family households) or are billed
on a flat-rate basis (apartments).
Since the EMPIRIC Model projects the number of single-family
and multi-family households separately, the latter factor is
directly indicated by EMPIRIC. Similarly, since EMPIRIC
distributes total families into four income quartiles, and
based on an analysis by MWCOG to relate home value ranges
and income quartilesT another important factor is accounted
for by EMPIRIC. Finally, as part of the original MAIN II
-44-
-------
System, a Library of Water Use Coefficients contains the
required climatic data.
The MAIN II System permits the commercial/institutional and
industrial segments of the community to be divided into
categories by type of establishment or industry, and water
demand to be estimated for each type. Commercial establish-
ments in the model include businesses of all kinds, mostly
retail, which are not included in the Bureau of the Census
Standard Industrial Classifications. Because of the
similarity of the MAIN II computational techniques for the
commercial/institutional and the industrial categories {i.e.
multiplying each parameter by a water usage coefficient) the
format of the EMPIRIC data to be used, and the fact that
there is little industry in the Metropolitan Washington area,
these two categories were under a commercial/industrial head-
ing. Because commercial/industrial usage is relatively less
important than residential usage in Metropolitan Washington
and because EMPIRIC distributes employment into five major
categories as indicated in Appendix C, eight commercial/
industrial categories are used in the Water Demand Component.
These consist of the five employment categories by EMPIRIC
along with three of the original 28 commercial categories
included in the basic MAIN II Model. Appropriate water usage
coefficients were developed for these categories by MWCOG12^
based on the results of the commercial and industrial studies
by The Johns Hopkins University and the County Business
Patterns published by the Bureau of the Census.46
The public-unaccounted submodel computes water which is pump-
ed without subsequent recovery of revenue from a residential,
commercial, or industrial customer. This usage is divided
into the following three categories: free service, losses
(probably due to leakage), and usage by airports. Computa-
tion is based on national average per-capita usage coeffi-
cients. For free service and losses categories the usage
is determined within the model by multiplying the appropriate
usage coefficient by the total population of the planning
unit. For the airport category the average daily number of
passengers at National Airport is input. Projections of
passengers at other area airports are under development in
the MWCOG Air Transportation System Plan and Program, and
can be incorporated into the Water Demand Component when
available.130
-45-
-------
To demonstrate on a macro-scale the validity of the MAIN II
model for application in Metropolitan Washington, published
water consumption data for 1968 was first collected by MWCOG
and tabulated by the water service areas indicated in Figure
22 in the following chapter. This recorded information was
then compared by MWCOG to the output from the Water Demand
Component exercised for 196sl°9For the metropolitan area as
a whole, the model results are within four percent of the
recorded water demands for 1968. Because individual wells
prevalent in the outer portions of the region are not in-
cluded in the recorded information, the model output actually
was closer than four percent. Model estimates by individual
usage category for the metropolitan area were generally with-
in seven percent of the recorded data. A more detailed
demonstration of the model has also been performed by MWCOG
for the water resource planning units within the District of
Columbia, with excellent results. 10
Sewage Generation Component
The Sewage Generation Component provides estimates of average
daily sewage flow and average daily pollutant loads by para-
meter based on appropriate output from the Water Demand
Component, exogenously-calculated infiltration/inflow based
on output from the Community Development Component, and
user-specified pollutant load coefficients. Sewage flow and
load estimates serve as input to the Waste Treatment Manage-
ment Component along with appropriate Stormwater Runoff
Component output. A schematic representation of the Sewage
Generation Component is presented in Figure 7. Uninfiltrated
average daily sewage flows are inferred by planning unit
directly from the Water Demand Component output of domestic
(in-house) residential water demand and commercial/industrial
water demand. Since they do not contribute to sewage flow,
residential sprinkling and public-unaccounted water estimates
are not used in the Sewage Generation Component. It is
interesting to note that no agencies in the metropolitan
Washington area, including local jurisdictions, state agencies,
water utilities, or wastewater treatment plant operating
agencies, calculate sewage flows based directly on water
demand.
Infiltration/inflow is calculated exogenously for each plan-
ning unit by multiplying the Community Development Component
output of developed acres in the forecast year by a user-
specified infiltration/inflow factor. In the initial runs
-46-
-------
FROM CU.'JMUNITY
W.VKl.iTMKNT COMPONENT
FROM l.'ATER
REMAND COMPONENT
MULTIPLY DEVLl-OI'l'l)
ACRKS BY USLR-SITCIKIED
INFILTRATION/IS!10W
FACTORS
DOMESTIC
RESIDENTIAL
WATER DEMAND
,....!....,
COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL
WATER DEMAND
I T
| RESIDENTIAL SPRINKLING |
| i PUBLIC/UNACCOUNTED .
1 WATER DEMAND (NOT USED)
COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL
SEWAGE FLt 4
MULTIPLY BY
RESIDENTIAL
POLLUTANT LOAD
COEFFICIENTS
MULTIPLY BY COMMERCIAL/
INUUSTRIAL POLLUTANT
LOAD COEFFICIENTS
COHKERC.LAL/mCUSTRIAL
POLLUIAMT LOADS
SEWAGE
GENERATION
PROGRAM
PRINTED SEW,\OE
FLOW AOT LOAD
ESTIMATES BY
PLANNING UNIT
TO WASTE TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT COMPONENT
Figure 7 FLOW DIAGRAM OF SEWAGE GENERATION COMPONENT
-47-
-------
of the Sewage Generation Component an infiltration/inflow
factor developed by the Washington Suburban Sanitary
Commission of 200 gal/developed acre/day is used.^7 In
many areas more sophisticated information from formal infil-
tration/inflow studies may be available. Total average
daily sewage flow by planning unit is thus the sum of the
residential sewage flow, commercial/industrial sewage flow,
and infiltration/inflow. An option available within the
Sewage Genration Component is to calculate infiltration/
inflow by applying an adjustment factor to the uninfiltrated
flow produced by the Water Demand Component instead of cal-
culating it exogenously. The method of calculating infiltra-
tion/inflow could perhaps be improved by linking it to run-
off generated in the Stormwater Runoff Component.
It is assumed in the Sewage Generation Component that the
effect of infiltration/inflow is to dilute the pollutant strength
of sewage generated by households and businesses, and that the
pollutant contribution from infiltration/inflow is minimal
on an average daily basis when compared to other sources of
wastewater. Thus, pollutant loads for such parameters as
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrogen, and phosphorus
are calculated by the Sewage Generation Component by multi-
plying, in turn, the residential sewage flow and the
commercial/industrial sewage flow by user-specified pollut-
ant load coefficients. Based on a survey of water pollution
control plants in the metropolitan area, concentrations in
milligrams per liter for each pollutant were determined and
used in initial runs of the Sewage Generation Component.108
Output consists of the total pounds per day for each pollut-
ant by planning unit. The Sewage Generation Component exer-
cised for 1968 using MAIN II output and infiltration/inflow based
on EMPIRIC output predicted 314.6 MGD. The value actually
recorded in the region for that year was 319.4 MGD, repre-
senting accuracy well within the expectations of the model.-
Stormwater Runoff Component
The Stormwate Runoff Component is made up of four models:
the Prestorm Model, the EPA Stormwater Management Model, the
Split Runoff Model, and the Rainfall Analysis Model. The
flow diagram of the Stormwater Runoff Component is illustrat-
ed in Figure 8. The Community Development Component, the
source of population and growth forecasts used in estimating
water demand, is also used as an input to the Stormwater
-48-
-------
FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT
(SEE
Figure
9)
RAINFALL ANALYSIS
MODEL
USER SPECIFIED
WATERSHED
MEASUREMENTS
CONSTANT
RUNOFF BLOCK
INPUT DATA
• Allocates EMPIRIC Population and Land Use
from EMPIRIC PAD'S to Watersheds
• Applies Correlation Equations Relating EMPIRIC
Output to Stormwater Management Model Input
• Calculates Watershed Input Data From
Topographic Map Measurements
I
PRESTORM MODEL
INPUT TAPE
TO STORMWATER
MODEL
PRINTED INPUT
DATA TO
STORMWATEF
MODEL
CALCULATES RUNOFF VOLUMES AND HYDROGRAPHS
BY WATERSHED BY STORM DECILE
CALCULATES BODc WASHOFF AND POLLUTOGRAPHS
BY WATERSHED BY STORM DECILE
EPA STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT MODEL
STORMWATER
MODEL
OUTPUT TAPE
I
PRINTED OUTPUT
OF STORMWATER MODEL
ALLOCATES RUNOFF VOLUME AND BODe
KASHOFF BY WATERSHED
** TO COMBINED SEWER INLETS OR
** TO STORM SEWER AND NATURAL DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
SPLIT
RUNOFF
MODEL
I
t
TO RECEIVING WATER
COMPONENT
Figure 8 FLOW DIAGRAM OF STORMWATER RUNOFF COMPONENT
-49-
-------
Runoff Component. Stcrmwater runoff is linked, in research
conducted as part of this project12 to the measures of urban
growth which come from the EMPIRIC Model. The effects of
growth on the accumulation of pollutants and subsequent
washoff from the ground surface are linked in the Prestorm
Model. This link provides an essential interface between
the variables commonly projected by urban planners (popula-
tion, employment and households) to variables required in
stormwater forecasting models. It allows the element of
urban planning to be related to the management of stormwater.
The Stormwater Management Model48 developed for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency serves as the major element
of the Stormwater Component of the Framework Model. In the
EPA Stormwater Management Model, the pollutant accumulation
is'related to the length of curbs in an area. MWCOG staff
research developed the relationship of population, households,
and employment to curb length,12 providing the key to the
connection between the predictive EMPIRIC and the EPA
Stormwater Management Models.
In order to project the changes in the volume of runoff
carrying pollutants from impervious surfaces, a sensitivity
analysis was performed by MWCOG to determine the relative
importance of the twenty-one parameters (shown in Appendix
D, representing watershed, stream hydraulics and land use)
in the EPA Stormwater Management Model49 on runoff volume
per storm and BOD washoff per storm. The greatest impact
on stormwater runoff volume for a given storm was found to
be watershed imperviousness. Estimating this parameter over
time required that EMPIRIC be used to project changes in a
variable related to imperviousness. The correlation between
impervious surfaces and population density by MWCOG allowed
this link between projected growth forecasts and the storm-
water runoff quantities. The equations correlating EMPIRIC
output parameters and inputs required by the EPA Stormwater
Management Model were applied in the Prestorm Model. The
remaining variables required to project runoff were pro-
cessed by the Prestorm Model either as inputs passed
directly to the EPA Stormwater Management Model or as an
input that requires further calculation or allocation before
being passed on to the EPA Stormwater Management Model.
Watershed geographic parameters are based on three topo-
graphic map measurements: longest stream length, its change
in elevation, and the average change in elevation from stream
-50-
-------
to ridge measured at the midpoint of stream length. The Pre-
storm Model then calculates the required slopes and overland
flow distances from these measurements and watershed areas
by land use. Watershed areas by land uses are obtained from
the output of the Community Development Component from an
allocation by the Prestorm Model of one hundred and forty-
six policy analysis districts (PAD's) to sixty-five water-
sheds. Only those watersheds directly tributary to the
Potomac River have been studied in this project.
The EPA Stormwater Management Model calculates runoff volume
and hydrographs by watershed for each storm selected and, in
addition, produces the associated BOD washoff and BOD pollu-
tograph. During the initial runs of the Framework Model a
storm with a two year return frequency5*3 was used to simulate
the rainfall in the region. Because antecedent dry periods
(during which ground pollutants accumulate) and detailed in-
tensities during a storm are required by the EPA Stormwater
Management Model, a more sophisticated analysis has been
made of rainfall actually experienced in the region51.
The objective of the rainfall analysis was to produce a small
set of storms representative of an actual series of many
storms. The storm characteristics that are important include
the rainfall intensity variation with time, the duration of
the period antecedent to the storm event, and the duration
of the period succeedant to the storm event. The antecedent
duration is important in the EPA Stormwater Management Model48
because the constituent accumulation rate is directly propor-
tional to antecedent duration. The rainfall intensity varia-
tion is important in the EPA Stormwater Management Model be-
cause the constituent washoff -fraction is simulated as an
exponential function of rainfall intensity. The succeedent
duration is important for estimating available treatment
time.
The flow diagram of the Rainfall Analysis Model is presented
in Figure 9. Storm events were formed from continuous hourly
rainfall records obtained from the U.S. Weather Bureau
Storm deciles were formed by dividing all of the series of
storms of record into ten groups called deciles containing
the same number of storms. The first decile storm group
contained the largest storms on a volume basis. Each storm
decile was then grouped by hour from start of storm and ten
intensity groups were formed for each of the hours. The
highest tenth intensity group was then interpreted to repre-
-51-
-------
SUCCEEDENT VOLUME
ANTECEDENT VOLUME
MINIMUM STORM
SEPARATION
DEFINITION
NATIONAL CLIMATIC
CENTER
PRECIPITATION
FILE
1
FORMS STORM EVENTS FROM CONTINUOUS
HOURLY DATA
FORMS STORM DECILES
CALCULATES EXPECTED VALUE OF RAINFALL
INTENSITY VERSUS TIME BY STORM DECILE
CALCULATES EXPECTED VALUES OF ANTECEDENT
AND SUCCEEDENT PERIODS OF STORM
BY STORM DECILE
CALCULATES EXPECTED NUMBER OF STORMS
PER YEAR BY DECILE
RAINFALL
ANALYSIS
MODEL
STORM INTENSITY
VS. TIME BY
STORM DECILE
T
EXPECTED VALUE,
MAXIMUM, MINIMUM &
STANDARD DEVIATION
OF STORM PARAMETERS
T
STORM BY DATE
BY MINIMUM
SEPARATION
PERIOD
TO PRESTORM MODEL
TO PR£STORM MODEL
Figure 9 RAINFALL ANALYSIS MODEL SCHEMATIC
-52-
-------
sent the intensity that applies during the first tenth of
each hour; the second highest tenth intensity group is sim-
ilarly interpreted to represent the second highest tenth of
each hour - and so on through the remainder of the hour.
This form of analysis preserved the proportion of the various
hourly intensities for each storm decile. Because of this
analysis, simulations of stormwater runoff resulting from
more frequent storms than those normally considered when
solving the more conventional stormwater piping problems can
be made by the Framework Model.
The Split Runoff Model is used to allocate the runoff volume
and BOD washoff by watershed to either combined sewer inlets
(for subsequent treatment) or to the storm sewer and natural
drainage system. These results are used directly as input to
either the Waste Treatment Management or to the Receiving
Water Components. In this study combined sewerage was
assumed to be completely treated. At the time of the study,
no data correlating the rainfall to combined sewer overflows
existed. When such data becomes available, it can be intro-
duced into the simulation at this point.
The projections of the Stormwater Management Component consist
of the expected runoff volume and BOD5 washoff by storm and
by annual total. The area studied is 737,000 acres divided
in the model into fifty-three watersheds. These fifty-three
watersheds are expected to have a population density greater
than 0.5 persons per acre in 1992. The specific ground
pollutant accumulation rates used to produce these 8005
washoff results are 5.73, 28.3, 36.3, and 12.3 grams/curb
meter/day, respectively,for residential, commercial, indus-
trial, and undeveloped or parkland user. In order to oper-
ationally apply the Stormwater Management Model 48 to the
737,000 acre area of the Metropolitan Washington Region
directly tributary to the Potomac River only one of the
two sources of pollution used in the model was utilized.
The catchbasin source of pollution is included with the curb
accumulation of ground pollutants. The resulting annual
average BOD concentration of stormwater runoff ranges
between 2 and 39 mg/1 depending roughly on the watershed
population density. The resulting fifty-three watershed
average BOD concentration of stormwater runoff ranges
between 11 and 18 mg/1 depending on storm decile.
-53-
-------
Waste Treatment Management Component
This Component, depicted in Figure 10, simulates the appli-
cation of alternative waste treatment management options to
the wastewater and stormwater flow and loads generated by
the Sewage Generation Component and Stormwater Runoff Com-
ponent respectively. An earlier chapter has mentioned the
various management options available to the metropolitan
community, many of which do not involve "treatment" of flows
by conventional structural facilities. However, this com-
ponent is designed to test load reduction by structural
facilities where applicable.
Operation of the NEWTREAT program of the Waste Treatment
Management Component permits the user to simulate the per-
formance of existing or proposed facilities designed to re-
move pollutants from stormwater or wastewater by inputing
user-specified levels of treatment. Within the Component
the appropriate outputs of the Sewage Generation Component
by planning unit and Stormwater Runoff Component by watershed
(important for watersheds served by combined sewers or for
which stormwater is "treated") are first aggregated into a
user-specified set of sewage service areas. Figure 22 in
the following chapter depicts the service areas used in the
initial runs of the Framework Model. An option available
in the Waste Treatment Management Component but not used in
the initial runs is to put portions of a single planning
unit's flow into more than one sewage service area.
For each sewage service area, a set of user-specified pollu-
tant removal efficiencies (which indicate the actual or desir-
ed level of treatment) are applied by the Waste Treatment
Management Component. The results are effluent flows and
loads by parameter for all sewage service areas. If the
effluent will be discharged to the Potomac Estuary, this
data is transferred to a data file for input to the
Receiving Water Component. If an option such as land
application of partially treated effluent is being simulated,
then the effluent loads and flow for direct discharge to the
Potomac Estuary will be zero.
Receiving Water Component
The Receiving Water Component of the Framework Model is com-
prised of a Preestuary Model developed by MWCOG and two sub-
-54-
-------
FROM STORMWATfR
RUNOFF COMPONENT
USER-SPECIFIED
AREAWIDE WASTE
TREATMENT MCT.
STRATEGY
TO COST, NATURAL RESOURCES
IMPACT, AND SOCIAL IMPACT
ELEMENTS
LEVEL OF TREATMENT
6 AGGREGATION TO
SEWAGE SERVICE AR£AS
•AGGREGATES PLANNING UNITS AND WATERSHEDS
INTO USER-SPECIFIED SEWAGE SERVICE AREAS
•APPLIES USER-SPECIFIED POLLUTANT K^IOVAI.
EFFICIENCIES FOR EACH POLLl'TAJtT TO SIMULATE
APPLICATION OF WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVES
NEWTREAT
PROGRAM
1
PRINTED EFFLUENT
FLOW AND LOAD
ESTIMATES BY
SEWAGE SERVICE AREA
TO RECEIVING WATER COMPONENT
(WHERE APPLICABLE)
Figure 10 FLOW DIAGRAM OF WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT COMPONENT
-55-
-------
models of the Potomac Estuary Model developed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency-^'^. The Preestuary Model
is used to facilitate data preparation for use in the EPA
Estuary Model. The EPA Estuary Model as applied in the
Framework Model produces dissolved oxygen profiles of the
Potomac River from statute mile 116 at Chain Bridge to
statute mile 18 at Piney Point, Md., in response to the bio-
chemical oxygen demand, ammonia, and dissolved oxygen loads
from tributary streams and wastewater treatment plant dis-
charges. The EPA Estuary Model was modified by MWCOG^S so
that storm flows and constituent loads to the estuary are
superimposed for the duration of the storm event on a
background dry weather estuary condition.
A further modification of the EPA Estuary Model was made by
MWCOG to produce three-dimensional estuary profiles of con-
stituent concentration vs river mile vs time and to calcu-
late in tabular format the extent and duration of receiving
water dissolved oxygen response. These outputs are used in
the Water Quality Objectives Element of the Framework Model.
During a storm simulation, constituent profiles by river
mile are produced for a series of times from the start of a
storm simulation. The Receiving Water Component can be used
to investigate alternative treatment levels for both waste-
water and stormwater as provided by the Waste Treatment
Management Component for comparison to state standards
applicable to each water quality segment in the Water Quality
Objectives Element.
Estuary simulation using three different types of inputs can
be performed by the Receiving Water Component. In Figure 11,
the flow diagram of the Receiving Water Component, these types
of inputs are designated as Option A, Option B, and Option C
which represent (a) "dry weather" sewage flow discharges
only, (b) sewage flow discharges and treated stormwater run-
off; and (c) sewage flow discharges and untreated stormwater.
Also identified in Figure 11 are the calculations performed
by the Preestuary, Estuary Hydrodynamics, and Estuary Quality
Models comprising the Receiving Water Component. The input
shown as "impact of extra-regional policies" represents the
incoming water quantity and quality upstream of the Washing-
ton metropolitan area. The incoming water quantity is ad-
justed for the effect of power plant comsumptive uses and
water supply withdrawals in the Potomac Basin. This is a
very important input to this model as will be seen in later
-56-
-------
FROM WASTK TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT COMl'ONIiNT
FROM STORM WATER
RUNOFF COMPONENT
'
EFFLUENT FLOW AND
LOAD ESTIMATED BY
SEWAGE SERVICE AREA
1
\
USER-SPECIFIED
TABLE OF WATERSHEDS
4 SEKVICE AREAS TO
ESTUARY SEGMENTS
i
'CALCULATE WASTEWATKR
CONCENTRATIONS BASED ON
FLOW
AND
LOAD
*ASSICN WASTEWATER
CONCENTRATIONS 4 FLOWS
TO ESTUARY SEGMENT
Option A
Waste Water
Onlv
'CALCULATE STORM WATER
CONCENTRATIONS AFTER
TREATMENT BASED ON
FLOW AND LOAD
•ASSIGN STORMWATER
CONCENTRATION 4 FLOWS
AFTER TREATMENT TO
ESTUARY SEGMENT
OUTPUT OF FLOW A
& CONCENTRATION A
BY ESTUARY SEGMENT
Option B
Waste Waste
4 Treated
Scorn Water
Discharge-
STORM WATER FLOW
4 LOAD ESTIMATES
BY WATERSHED
1
''CALCULATE STORM WATER
CONCENTRATIONS (WITHOUT
TREATMENT) BASED ON
FLOW /IND LOAD
•ASSIGN STORMWATER
CONCENTRATION' 4 FLOWS
(WITHOUT TREATMENT)
BY
WATERSHED TO
ESTUARY SEGMENT
OUTPUT OF FLOW B
4 CONCENTRATION B
BY WATERSHED 4
SEGMENT
Option C
Waste Water
4 Untreated
Storm Water
Discharges
OUTPUT OF FLOW C
4 CONCENTRATION C
BY WATERSHED 4
SEGMENT
PREESTUARY
MODEL
FLOW
A
OR
B
OR
C
T
* CALCULATES FLOW RATE VS. TIME
INTO 4 OUT OF EACH ESTUARY SEGMENT
INITIAL HYDRODYNAMIC
CONDITIONS 4 CONSTANT
ESTUARY DATA
I
ESTUARY
HYDRODYNAMIC
MODEL
IMPACT OF
EXTRARECIONAL
POLICIES
INITIAL QUALITY
CONDITIONS
4 CONSTANT
ESTUARY DATA
I
CALCULATES LEVELS OF 5 CONSTITUENTS
FOR EACH ESTUARY SEGMENT AT SPECIFIC
TIME INTERVALS
ESTUARY
QUALITY
MODEL
PRINTED TABLE OF DISSOLVED
OXYGEN DEFICIT
PRINTED THREE-DIMENSIONAL
ESTUARY PROFILES FOR EACH
CONSTITUENT
* *
TO WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ELEMENT
Figure 11 FLOW DIAGRAM OF RECEIVING WATER COMPONENT
-57-
-------
discussions of the river flows modeled.
The Preestuary Model is used to assign effluent flows and
constituent concentrations calculated by the Waste Treatment
Management Component, with or without treated or untreated
stormwater runoff flows and associated constituent concen-
trations, to the appropriate segment of the estuary to simu-
late waste treatment plant outfall locations.
The Estuary Model is comprised of two blocks, the Estuary
Hydrodynamic Block and the Estuary Quality Block. The
Estuary Hydrodynamic Block is used to calculate the flow
rate versus time into and out of each segment of the Potomac
Estuary, based on stated inflows, tidal conditions, and
withdrawals by segment.^6 The output of the Hydrodynamic
Block is used in the Quality Block to transfer constituents
between segments and to calculate dissolved oxygen trans-
ferred between the atmosphere and the estuary.
The Estuary Quality Model is used to calculate the con-
stituent concentrations for each segment of the Potomac
Estuary. The five constituents chosen for analysis in the
study are five day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), ammonia
nitrate(N03), chlorophyll 'a' of photosynthetic phytoplankton
and dissolved oxygen. The interaction of these constituents
is shown in Figure 12. The dissolved oxygen constituent
is depleted by oxidation of carbonaceous and nitrogenous
matter. The product of the oxidation of nitrogenous matter
in the nitrification process is nitrate. The nitrate is
used as a nutrient source by photosynthetic phytoplankton;
whose population is depleted by predation and sinking. The
photosynthetic phytoplankton, measured as a concentration
of chlorophyll 'a', alternately perform photosynthesis by
day adding oxygen to the water and respiration by night de-
pleting the dissolved oxygen level of the water. Depressed
oxygen levels are counteracted by aeration at the air-water
surface.
Similarly, oxygen levels in excess of the equilibrium satur-
ation concentration result in a transfer of excess oxygen to
the atmosphere. An additional consumption of oxygen is re-
moved by reaction with the benthos in a proportion to the
bottom area. The interactions of these constituents take
place at different rates which vary with temperature. At
a temperature of 20° C the half-life of ammonia used in the
-58-
-------
BOD
NATURAL OXIDATIpN OF CARBONACEOUS MATTER
N1U
NATURAL OXIDATION OF NITROGENOUS.
MATTER
NO,
DECAY
UPT; KI
PHOTOSYNTHETIC PHYTOPLANKTON
MEASURED AS CHLOROPHYLL a
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
RESPIRATION
AERATION
L_
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ULTIMATE
OXYGEN
DEMAND
BENTHIC OXYGEN DEMAND
Figure 12 ESTUARY QUALITY MODEL SCHEMATIC
-59-
-------
simulation due to its reaction with oxygen is 3.0 days. The
half-life of BOD in the simulation due to its reaction with
oxygen is 4.0 days. The half-life of nitrate in the simula-
tion due to uptake by photosynthetic phytoplankton is 7.7
days. The half-life of chlorophyll 'a' in the simulation
due to predation and sinking is 17.3 days. All of these
half-lives are adjusted when simulations are conducted at
other than 20°C. In addition to these chemical and biologi-
cal reactions, the physical processes of advection of the
constituents in the direction of flow, and diffusion of the
constituents in the direction of lower concentration are
simulated in the Estuary Model.
The results of the operation of the Estuary Model are pre-
sented as constituent concentrations versus river> mile by
time from simulation start. Simulation length is set to
approximate three times the BOD half-life or about 12 days
at 20°C. Initial conditions for storm and non-storm simula-
tions are held constant so that the additive effect of a
storm event is determined even if the initial constituent
concentrations set at the start of the simulation are not at
equilibrium flow and quality conditions averaged over a
tidal cycle. The timing of the arrival of the storm loads
from the various watersheds is assumed to occur evenly over
the same twenty-four hour period. This is an operational de-
cision as the more distant and least developed watersheds
from the uppermost estuary segment have the smallest con-
stituent washoff amounts. Additionally, from an examination
of the constituent half-lives, it is thought that a differ-
ence of twenty-four hours in arrival time of watershed BOD
washoff amounts to the uppermost segment is small relative
to the BOD half-life of 4 days.
Besides intermediate outputs used to link the various sub-
models, output from the Receiving Water Component is computer-
printed in two readily-useable formats. First, three-dimen-
tional estuary profiles are produced for each of the five
constituents modeled. Axes on each plot include the extent
of Potomac Estuary affected (length in statute miles), duration
(in hours), and the concentration of the constituent under
investigation (such as milligrams per liter of dissolved
oxygen). The first section of Chapter IV presents a typical
three-dimensional estuary plot. The second section includes
the profiles for each of six areawide water resources manage-
ment strategies analyzed in Chapter IV.
-60-
-------
A second output from the Receiving Water Components is a
table summarizing the three-dimensional estuary profiles
for dissolved exygen. The table shows the extent in area,
estuary length, and estuary volume affected by various levels
of dissolved oxygen for stated durations. Examples of these
tables are included in Chapter IV and Appendix A.
Both the three-dimensional estuary profiles and the tables
for dissolved oxygen are utilized in the Receiving Water
Component of the Framework Model to assist in defining the
"capability" and the "effectiveness" of each areawide
water resources management strategy.
-61-
-------
FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYZING THE FISCAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND
SOCIAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
The Need for the Framework
That a water quality'management option must be formally
assessed for not only its fiscal impact, but also for its
environmental and social effects beyond meeting water quality
standards, is a relatively new requirement in local water
resources planning,stimulated in large part by state and
Federal regulations. 58 ijo date the most influential Federal
legislation in this regard has been the National Environment-
al Policy Act of 1969 which requires that Federal agencies
prepare detailed statements on "major Federal actions sig-
nificantly affecting the quality of the human environment",^
including such actions as providing Federal financial assist-
ance to construct treatment works and preparing the Section
208 areawide waste treatment management plans. ' In addition,
fifteen states including Virginia and Maryland now require
impact statements for a wide range of state government, local
government, or private industry activities significantly
affecting environmental quality.^9r60'61 These requirements
do not appear out of the ordinary. According to results
of an extensive survey conducted in 1973 by the International
City Management Association, 30% of cities and 35% of counties
responding also have formal requirements for environmental
impact statements.^°
Thus, in a four year period the preparation of environmental
analyses has become a major activity at all levels of govern-
ment. However, despite federal guidelines defining uniform
procedures for EIS preparation, a recent study conducted for
EPA concludes that an obstacle to meaningful review of en-
vironmental impacts has been the "general lack of adequate
methodological tools" actually being put to use in the
governmental decision-making processes.
The development of a framework within which such existing
and emerging tools can be used in assessing and displaying
the fiscal, environmental, and social impacts of water
quality managementalternatives as required by Federal, state
and local law was a major objective of this project. There
are several reasons for employing such a framework in the
water resources planning and impact assessment process of
the Washington Metropolitan Area. First, many levels of
-62-
-------
government and groups of citizens are involved in arriving
at any water resource management decision. For example, a
wastewater treatment plant in Maryland must receive local
government and state health approval as an amendment to
the county's "Ten Year Water & Sewer Plan", undergo public
hearings, and receive local permits. The treatment plant
must also be included in the state basin water quality
management plan and any Section 208 areawide waste treatment
management plan. If it is to be funded by a Federal grant,
it must also undergo review by other local governments and
the metropolitan planning agency as part of OMB Circular
A-95 procedures, qualify for and receive state and federal
grant funds where applicable and obtain an NPDES permit. It
is expected that an acceptable framework for identifying and
analyzing background information and planning assessments
might facilitate decision making processes as complicated as
this one.
It was also throught that the framework could serve as a major
tool for agencies designated to conduct areawide waste
treatment management planning under Section 208 of PL 92-500,
by being designed to satisfy or assist with satisfying the
following regulatory requirements under Section 208:
2?
0 Cost-effectiveness analysis
0 User charge determination2-^
0 Financial arrangements to implement the plan-'-'
0 Facilities planning requirements27
0 Impacts of plan implementation17
0 Public participation and plan review63'^4
Perhaps more importantly, however, the framework can be used
to present the relevant data and points of view to an area-
wide waste treatment management agency's policy board in a
manner which will aid the board's decision as to whether a
particular strategy should or should not be part of the
annual areawide plan.
The same basic premise used in developing the framework for
simulating the water resources system was used to structure
-63-
-------
the impact analysis; i.e., to link existing methodologies
wherever feasible into a framev.ork for use by the area's
decision makers, rather than developing all-new and thus
untested techniques. As discussed earlier, there has
developed during the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination
a growing consensus that conceptually there are three budgets
which define the limits or constrain the range of resource
allocation choices that can be nade by elected officials in
the Washington Metropolitan area. These three budgets are
the fiscal budget, the natural resources budget, and the
community response budget. While only the first budget deals
in a recognized currency (dollars), it is recognized that
every allocational decision made by local governments impact
upon or consume a portion of ee.sh of these budgets. In this
chapter existing methodologies for analyzing the impacts
of water quality management options will be discussed and
the proposed procedures for use in the Framework Water
Resources Planning Model will i>2 described.
Fiscal Budget
The community fiscal budget is #ell known to urban managers.
On the revenue side it is defined as the fiscal capacity of
the jurisdiction, whether local, state or Federal, to
generate from its income and from intergovernmental transfers
(i.e., revenue sharing) adequate revenues to support its
wide-ranging capital and operating programs. On the expendi-
tures side it is a process of buying the services and use of
capital required to support the needs of the community.
Expenditures are made with the administrative and often
legal requirement that the desired product or service be
purchased at the lowest attainable price following a program
to guarantee that costs will be equitably shared and that
long-term expenditures are carefully programmed. In this
report the fiscal budget will be discussed as two elements,
a "cost" element and a "financial arrangements" element.
EPA guidelines suggest that the evaluation of monetary costs
for water pollution control projects should not be influ-
enced by adopted financial arrangements, thus lending
credence to the separation of these two elements.
Cost Element-
Existing Methodologies - In waste treatment management
planning, local governments in Metropolitan Washington and
-64-
-------
their engineering consultants have extensive experience in
estimating and comparing the direct costs of proposed capital
facilities using methods long known to engineering economics
and specified in Federal cost-effectiveness analysis guide-
lines. ' Direct costs consist of both capital construction
costs and annual costs for operation, maintenance, and repair
(OM & R), with the latter divided between fixed annual costs
and costs which would be dependent on the annual quantity of
wastewater processed. The cost of an alternative water
resources management strategy is computed by discounting its
costs over the selected planning period to "present worth
values" or the "average annual equivalent values." Table 4
illustrates in simplified form the derivation of present
worth and average annual equivalent cost for a hypothetical
sewage treatment plant. Alternative systems are then com-
pared by ranking the estimated present worth values, or to
identify where estimated values are identical within the
accuracy of the analysis. An example of this for a recent
study in Montgomgery County, Maryland, is shown in Table 5.
The approach is relatively straightforward once the appro-
priate interest rate and planning period are selected, al-
though there may be a need to give special treatment to
elements of operating costs that are projected to inflate
in cost at a rate well above any inflation experiences by
the rest of the economy. This can be done by discounting
them in present worth analysis at a rate less than that
chosen for other items of cost. The cost of chemicals, fuels,
or power may qualify for such treatment in present value
analysis.
Most water quality management alternatives chosen in the
past have been capital-intensive, thus lending themselves
to straightforward engineering economic analysis. As more
comprehensive water resource management strategies are con-
sidered, it will be necessary to consider such things as
flow reduction devices and use of pricing to reduce water
consumption. These programs do not fit easily into conven-
tional cost analyses. Therefore the framework must be
designed to permit calculation and comparison of the costs
associated with these alternatives as well.
As emphasized by the MWCOG three-budget system, local govern-
ments are faced with providing other community services such
as roads, schools and police in addition to water resource
facilities. Each of these have direct costs as well which
-65-
-------
Table 4. EXAMPLE OF PRESENT WORTH AND
AVERAGE A'JUUAL EQUIVALENT COST CALCULATION
(adapted from example by EPA in reference 18)
GIVEN:
sewage troatr.ent plant If 2
capacity: 10 rcgd
average flow through plant: increases linearly
from 2 mgd to 10 mgd over 20 years
planning period: 20 years (as required by EPA guide-
line '•
salvage value at end of 20 years: $0
initial cost of plant: $3,000,000
constant annual operation and maintenance cost:
$126,000
variable annual operation and maintenance cost:
increases linearly from $0 to $68,000 in year 20
interest rate: 7.04 (as established by Water Re-
sources Council^
DETERMINE:
Present worth and average annual equivalent cost
of this plant ovor 20 years.
METHOD:
Present worth equals the sum of initial cost, pre-
sent worth of constant 06.M cost, and the present
worth of the gradient series of the variable O&M
cost. Averaqe annual equivalent cost equals the
present worth times the appropriate capital recovery
factor. Use engineering economics textbook to find
table at 7.0% compound interest factors (present
worth of a gradient series)
$3,000,000
To find the present worth of operating costs it will
be necessary to calculate the present worths of the
constant costs and the variable costs .separately.
a. Present worth of constant annual costs eounls
that cost times the uniform series present worth fac-
tor d 7.0% for 20 years. Thus:
$126,000 (10.594) = $1 , Z : i>, O'.'C
b. Present worth of a variable cost increasing li.-.-
early is found by first finding the a.~oj-it of ir.cr-iar.
per year. This amount is $68,000/20 yearr- or S3.40;
per year. This increase is known as a gradic:i\. L'irio
This series times the correct gradient series :^!'o.-':nt
worth factor @ 7.0% for 20 years yield the pru£•-.-.-
worth of the variable cost. Thus:
2 6 4 , 0 C''
$3,400 (77.5091) =
Step 3
Sum of numbers obtained in the steps above yields
present worth:
present worth of constant OSM costs = $1,33:,000
present worth of variable 06.M cost = $ 2 64 , C0C
present worth = $4 ,599,000
Step 4
To find average annual equivalent cost r.ultiply pre-
sent worth obtained above times the capital recovery
factor 3 7.0% for 20 years. Thus:
$4,599,000 (.09439) =
-134,100
which is the average annual equivalent cost of the
plant for 20 years.
-66-
-------
Table 5. ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF AWT ALTERNATES IN MONTGOMERY CO., MD.
(All Values in Thousands of Dollars)
SITE
S-l
M-2
W-2
R-2
M-2/R- 2
W-2/R-2
AWT at PEPCO
M-2, Clear Water
Lane Lo PEPCO
INITIAL
CAPITAL
COSTS*
5125,398
$122,627
$129,350
$129,784
$140,945
$151,983
$124,521
$130,978
RANGE OF
ANNUAL
O 6,1-1
COSTS
$3,615-513,493
$3,613-313,410
$3,676-$13,6C3
$3,665-$13,650
$3,777-51 1,913
$3,828-514,070
$3,342-511,502
$3,882-$13,645
TOTAL
CAPITAL
COSTS
1973-2000
$224,309
$218,358
$227,378
$225,761
$2-10,744
$256,610
$229,247
$226,664
PRESENT VALUE OF COSTS
O&M CAPITAL TOTAL
$83,897
$83,036
$84 ,487
$84 ,549
$86,414
$87,379
$75,426
$85,785
$154 ,917
$151,327
$158 ,906
$1 5'.' , 148
$176,784
S 1 8 3 , 7 0 1
$156,841
$153,857
$238,314
$234,362
$243,393
$243,697
$263,198
$27) ,030
$232,267
$244 ,642
RATIO OF PRESFIMT
VALUE TO LO'.-,'
cos': SITU
1.03
1.01
1.05
1. 0^
1.13
1. 17
1.00
1.05
*Expenditure for 1973-1976 period exclusive
of local lateral collector sewers. Initial
AWT plant capacity is 60 mgd. Assumed 27
year planning period and 5.5% interest rate.
Adapted from Reference 66.
-67-
-------
will influence the decisions of local elected officials. EPA
guidelines recognize that waste treatment works must be
evaluated on the basis of "opportunity costs", which means
that when funds are invested in any particular capital goods,
the opportunity is foregone to obtain a return from the in-
vestment of funds elsewhere. The Framework Model should have
the capability for describing these competing programs when-
ever desired by decision makers.
Finally, it is universally recognized in urban areas (parti-
cularly in metropolitan Washington where sewer moratoria con-
tinue) there will likely be large "private" expenditures by
developers or industry for new development within the comm-
unity in a metropolitan area where additional waste treatment
capacity is provided. Guidelines from EPA indicate that
these types of "indirect" costs or benefits should be in-
cluded, as appropriate, in the social and economic impact
evaluations rather than in the direct cost calculations.65
The justification for this is the fact that these costs cannot
be accurately quantified, although, it can be argued, that
the costs of infrastructure and service systems induced by
sewer systems are more important than differences between
most engineering choices. Lacking detailed quantitative
tools for assessing induced costs, they will be considered
later in this chapter under the Community Response Budget.
Proposed Cost Element - The Cost Element is used to compare
the costs of alternative management strategies. The techni-
que involves the reduction of anticipated resource costs
of an alternative- capital, operations, maintenance, fuel
and utilities - to a present value. To do this, a planning
period must be chosen, cost estimates must be made, and the
time value of money must be estimated.
The cost element is used only to compare alternatives. Cer-
tain simplifications are made during the process that make
the selection process inappropriate for use in programming
implementation or in determining mechanisms for covering the
costs of the alternative chosen by this selection process.
Cost estimates made to compare two or more alternatives may
be only approximate. The effects of inflation or of varying
interest rates are ignored since they are considered to
affect each alternative with equal uncertainty. The overhead
costs to be experienced by the agency or grant subsidies to
-68-
-------
be obtained by the agency responsible for the operation of
the planned facility, while important components of costs,
are ignored in cost comparisons. These costs are considered
in the Financial Arrangements Element.
Figure 13 presents a flow diagram of the Cost Element. It
is used to calculate the total present value cost per plan-
ning period at a specified date and to show the incremental
present value cost differential among alternative strategies.
To apply the Cost Element to alternative water resource
management strategies, each strategy is first segmented into
devices. The cost of each device is then determined.
The total planning period capital cost element requires the
following information: the total capital cost at a stated
cost index, the length of the construction period, and the
life of the capital structure. The equation for performing
the calculation is presented in Appendix B as Equation (1).
Operation and maintenance costs are divided into a fixed and
variable portion with the variable portion further divided
into a base component and a growth component. Thus the
elements of operation and maintenance cost are a fixed
element, a variable-base element, and a variable-growth
element. The total planning period fixed operations and
maintenance cost element requires an estimate of the fixed
annual operations and maintenance cost at the end of the
planning period, and is therefore based on the design capa-
city at the end of the planning period. The fixed portion
of the total planning period operation and maintenance cost
is calculated using Equation (2) of Appendix B.
The total planning period variable operation and maintenance
base element cost requires an estimate of the annual variable
operations and maintenance costs which are based on the
capacity of each device in use at the start of the planning
period and on a variable operations and maintenance cost per
unit capacity for each device evaluated at the midpoint of
the planning period. This variable-base element equation
is shown as Equation (3) of Appendix B.
The total planning period variable operations and maintenance
variable element requires an estimate of the annual variable
operations and maintenance costs which are based on the
amount of growth in used capacity of each device during the
-69-
-------
TOTAL CAl'lTAL COST AT CONSTANT ENR
LKNGTH OK CONSTRUCTION PKH10D
LIFE OF CAl'lTAL STRUCTURE
• FIXED ANNUAL 0 & M COST AT
END OF PLANNING PERIOD
• VARIABLE ANNUAL 0 & M COST
BASE COMPONENT
• VARIABLE ANNUAL 0 & M COST
GROWTH COMPONENT
• LENGTH OF PLANNING PERIOD
• DISCOUNT RATE
WASTE TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT DEVICE
FROM WASTE TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT COMl'ONENT
FOR EACH DEVICE OF AN ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY CALCULATES
TOTAL PLANNING PERIOD COSTS ON PRESENT VALUE BASIS
• CAPITAL COST(Eq.l in Appendix B)
• FIXED OPERATIONS & MAINTKN'A.VCE COST(Eq. 2)
• VARIABLE OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE COST BASE
COMPONENT(Eq.3)
• VARIABLE OPE'RATIONS & MAINTENANCE COST
GROWTH COMPONENT(Eq.4)
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY COST BY ABOVE COST
ELEMENT ON PRESENT VALUE BASIS
• TOTAL COST PER PLANNING PERIOD AT SPECIFIED DATE
• INCREMENTAL COST BETWEEN ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
AT SPECIFIED DATE
WATER QUALITY
OBJECTIVES ELEMENT
(Cost-Effectiveness Analysis)
TO FINANCIAL
ARRANGEMENTS ELEMENT
Figure 13 FLOW DIAGRAM OF COST ELEMENT
-70-
-------
planning period and on the above mentioned variable opera-
tions and maintenance cost per unit capacity for each device
evaluated at the midpoint of the planning period. This
variable-growth component is calculated from Equation (4) of
Appendix B. Use of this equation implies an assumption of a
linear growth rate in used capacity of each device.
The results produced by the Cost Element are used in conjunc-
tion with the Water Quality Objective Element during compari-
sons of both the cost and the effectiveness of alternative
water resources management strategies. The results produced
by the Cost Element are also used in conjunction with the
Financial Arrangement Element for comparison of alternative
methods of covering these resource costs.
Financial Arrangements Element
Existing Methodologies - The other portion of the fiscal
budget consists of financial arrangements for meeting the
direct resource costs of proposed facilities and to other-
wise carry out the areawide waste treatment management plan
as required by Section 208(b)(2)(E) of PL 92-500. This is
far more complicated than simply choosing between alterna-
tives as was done in the Cost Element.
For example, from data obtained as a result of interviews
with technical and financial personnel representing a sample
of the water resources utilities in the Washington region,
it was discovered that a third component of cost beyond cap-
ital and OM & R costs must be recognized in water resources
planning. This is the indirect operation, maintenance, and
overhead costs associated with the utility itself but not
associated with an particular project.
It was found that such costs ranged between twenty-five per-
cent and thirty-five percent of a utility's budget. The
Financial Arrangements Element must in some fashion deal with
this "third" cost. Such "general overhead costs" are often
assumed common to all alternatives and therefore are excluded
in the cost analyses,^^ but cannot be ignored when consider-
ing required financial arrangements.
Sources of revenue for local jurisdictions include inter-
governmental transfers from state and local agencies, and
local revenues primarily through property taxes^' and user
charges. Property taxes are a primary source of local
-71-
-------
revenues, but user charges are more often used to finance
sewage treatment works. Normally, local jurisdictions seek
Federal grants for 75% of the costs for design and construc-
tion of such facilities as provided by PL 92-500, and meet
the remaining construction costs by a combination of state
grants and municipal bonds. In turn, jurisdictions gener-
ally utilize user charges to customers to pay annual operat-
ing, maintenance, and repair costs and debt services for the
principal and interest on the non-grant funded portion of
the capital. Local delivery and collection systems to in-
dividual homes are paid for through other charges such as
front-foot benefit assessments and house connection fees.
A consultant to Montgomery County, Maryland, explained the
method used to analyze financing arrangements for proposed
facilities to serve that county as follows:
To finance construction costs, bonds are assumed
to be sold as needed during the 1973-76 period,
for the initial costs of development (less ex-
pected grants), and at later dates, as required
by the construction schedules. Payment of inter-
est but no principal is assumed during the 1973-
76 period. Further, principal payments, together
with interest are assumed to begin in 1976, the
first year of system operation. Level debt ser-
vice, a term of 35 years, and a rate of 5.5 per-
cent is assumed on the bonds. Bonds issued in
years subsequent to the initial development, for
phased construction, are also assumed to have
the same terms as the_bonds.issued, in the initial
development period. Federal and state grants are
assumed available to cover 80 percent of eligible
project costs. Possible effects of legislation
affecting grants are illustrated. Alternative
grant assumptions are 90 percent of eligible
project costs and 80 percent of all project costs,
including land costs.
A "revenue-requirement", or "cash basis", is used
in estimating user charges for the alternative
plans. User charges are defined for this study
as the amount of revenue required to pay debt ser-
vice on bond amounts required after deduction of
grants, plus the additional revenue required to pay
-72-
-------
operation and maintenance costs. Bond sales
and operation and maintenance costs are for
only the part of the sewerage system consider-
ed in this study. Therefore, the user charges
are for only the "sewer use charges", which
are billed to households and others on the
basis of water consumption.66
Annual user charges for alternative waste treatment options
can be compared just as present values were in a previous
table. This approach to presenting alternative financial
arrangements can easily mislead the public, however, by show-
ing relative costs to be confused with absolute costs. If
construction and operating costs are increased by inflation
or if an interest rate different from that assumed in the Cost
Element is actually paid for borrowed capital, or if the pro-
portion of grant support changes, the user charge may in-
crease substantially.
Several added points concerning financial arrangements are
necessary. First, Section 204(b)(2) of PL 92-500 requires
that each industrial and nonindustrial recipient (such as
another local jurisdiction) of waste treatment services must
pay its proportionate share of operation and maintenance
costs based on guidelines published by EPA.17,23 ^he frame-
work developed under this project must therefore incorporate
methods recommended in such guidelines.
Next, as noted earlier there are non capital-intensive alter-
natives which must be evaluated under the areawide planning
process. Most are not eligible for Federal Title II grants
under PL 92-500, and therefore may be lower total cost alter-
natives, yet because they are unsubsidized be more costly to
individual users of the system. Table 6 illustrates that
"subsidies" for such alternatives may range substantially.
As the final column indicates, however, the costs will be
passed on to the consumer in some fashion. Therefore, it is
important that the framework display the expected cost to
the consumer of every alternative considered with appropriate
explanation to avoid the impression that these charges will
not change.
Thirdly, waste treatment management agencies in the past have
operated on the basis that revenues must be collected to
equal, but not to exceed, costs. Section 201 (e) of PL 92-500
-73-
-------
Table 6. CATEGORIZATION OF WATER-SEWER FINANCING BY TYPE
Type of financing
F.xamples in waste treatment manage-
ment where this would apply
How cost passed on to cor.surer
A. 100% local financing
B. 100% local-state financing
C. 75* federal - 25% local
and state financing
D. 100% developer financing
E. 100% industry financing
F. 100% private citizen
financing
G. "no" financing
Street sewer lines, operating costs
of treatment plants
Sanitary landfills, resource re-
covery
Municipal treatment works capital
costs
"Interim" treatment plant, water
saving devices, "dry collection"
facilities
Industrial treatment works, indus-
try contribution of flow to muni-
cipal treatment plant
Pricing policy to encourage water
conservation
Water use restrictions during
water shortages, individual water
conservation practices
Increase in customer water-sewer
rates, increase in front-foot
assessments
Increase in customer ratej, state
income tax
Title II grant by Federal incone
tax, state income tax, increase
in customer rates
Increase in price of housing
Price of product produced or
service rendered
Surcharge on customer user rates
Loss of revenues by selected com-
mercial establishments
-74-
-------
now provides that integration of facilities for sewage treat-
ment and other municipal and industrial wastes is encouraged,
and that such integrated facilities shall be designed and
operated to produce revenues in excess of capital and opera-
tion and maintenance costs. Such revenues are to be used to
aid in financing other environmental improvement programs.
Thus this concept of reinvesting the "profits" must be intro-
duced into the financial planning framework.
Finally and inevitably, the budgets of individuals, local
governments, states, and the Federal government must each
"balance" in some fashion. There will be constraints placed
on local government budgets, such as Maryland state limit on
chartered counties of maximum of 25% of local assessed valua-
tion allowed for sewerage facilities bonds, which must be
recognized in the fiscal budget portion of the framework to
ensure that it is of assistance to decision makers.
Proposed Financial Arrangements Element - Under this element
the financial arrangements for meeting the direct costs of
proposed capital facilities and non-capital programs are
identified. Figure 14 depicts the procedure to be used.
The procedure would be repeated for each alternative water
resources management strategy and comparative . tables pre-
pared accordingly.
For capital facilities, the financial arrangements to cover
construction costs generally consist of a combination of
grants from the Federal and State governments as provided for
by PL 92-500 and general obligation bonds by the local govern-
ment or special district. Construction cost estimates are
obtained directly from the Cost Element. User-specified
information includes the determination of which portions of
this construction cost are expected to be borne by grants
and which by bonds. Alternative grant assumptions should be
used for comparative purposes, such as 80% grant-20% bond vs.
100% bond. Additional user-specified information includes
the type of debt service (i.e. level), payment period,
expected interest rate, year interest payment begins, year
principal payment begins, and any constraints imposed. An
example of a constraint would be the limitation on municipal-
ities by the Commonwealth of Virginia of an 18 percent bond
rate limit applied against assessed property values.**7 For
that portion of construction costs to be financed by bonds,
the debt service is calculated for user-specified years.
-75-
-------
FROM COST ELEMENT
CONSTRUCTION COSTS
FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES
USER-SPECIFIED INFORMATION:
ALTERNATIVE FEDERAL/STATE GRANT ASSUMPTIONS
PAYMENT PERIOD
INTEREST RATE
YEAR INTEREST PAYMENT BEGINS
YEAR PRINCIPAL PAYMENT BEGINS
TYPE OF DEBT SERVICE
CONSTRAINTSC i.e. STATE BOND CEILING)
GRANTS
I PREPARE MATERIAL FOR GRANT |
. APPLICATION(WHEN APPLICABLE) ,
FROM COST ELEMENT
BONDS
CALCULATE DEBT SERVICE ON BONDS FOP
GIVEN YEARS( EQUATIONS IN APPENDIX)
OMiR COSTS FOR
CAPITAL FACILITY
FROM SWAGE
GENERATION
COMPONENT
FROM COST ELEMENT
CALCULATE REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FOR GIVEN YEARS:
WHERE
DEBT
SEVICE
DEBT
SERVICE
OM&R
NON-CAPITAL
PROGRAM COST
CUMULATIVE VALUE
OF CAPITAL COST
DEBT SERVICE
FACTOR
FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
COMPONENT
POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATION
& SEWAGE FLOW
DETERMINE OMiR USER CHARGES:
(CONSISTENT WITH EPA GUIDELINES
IF SEEKING FEDERAL GRANT)
(EQUATIONS IN APPENDIX)
ILLUSTRATE GENERALIZED CUSTOMER
CHARGES FOR GIVEN YEAR:
REVENUE REQUIREMENT FOR GIVEN YEAR
f PERSONS OR /I HOUSEHOLDS
CHARGE PER PERSON OR
HOUSEHOLD FOR GIVEN YEAR
REPEAT PROCEDURE FOR
EACH ALTERNATIVE STRATEGY
UNDER INVESTIGATION
I
I
PREPARE SUMMARY TABLES OF:
• DEBT SERVICE FOR GIVEN YEARS FOR EACH GRANT ASSUMPTION
• REVENUE REQUIREMENTS FOR GIVEN YEARS FOR EACH GRANT ASSUMPTION
• GENERALIZED CUSTOMER USER CHARGES' FOR EACH GRANT ASSUMPTION
• OM&R USER CHARGES FOR EACH GRANT ASSUMPTION
• COSTS FOR NON-CAPITAL PROGRAMS
• COMPARATIVE TABLES UNDER ALL GRANT ASSUMPTIONS
• COMPARATIVE TABLES FOR ALL ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT STRATEGIES
Figure 14 FLOW DIAGRAM OF FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS ELEMENT
-76-
-------
The equations used are presented in Appendix B, The time
periods are often in annual or five-year increments.
Next, revenue requirements are calculated for given years.
This is done by summing the debt service previously calculat-
ed, the operations, maintenance and replacement costs and
the costs for non-capital programs obtained from the Cost
Element. The revenue requirements represent the amount of
income which the local jurisdiction or special district must
collect for each specified year to cover costs associated
with the proposed facility or program. This income is gen-
erally obtained through the imposition of customer charges,
although some functions such as planning may not be fully
covered by these charges. Generalized customer charges
accurate enough for comparing alternative waste treatment
management systems are calculated for given years by divid-
ing the revenue requirement by the number of persons or the
number of households to be served. These later numbers are
generated by the Community Development Component.
Under PL 92-500 an applicant for a Federal construction
grant must adopt a system of user charges to assure that
each recipient of waste treatment services will pay its
proportionate share of operations, maintenance and replace-
ment.2-^ Guidelines published by the U.S. Environmental. Pro-
tection Agency present alternative formulas for determining
these user charges encorporating such factors as strength,
volume, and delivery flow rate characteristics. As part of
the Financial Arrangements Element, operations, maintenance
and repair user charges can be calculated based on the
OM&R costs developed in the Cost Element and the pollutant
concentration and sewage flow resulting from the Sewage
Generation Component of the Framework Model.
Summary tables are then prepared for each set of calculations
made in the Financial Arrangements Element. Typical tables
for a single vaste treatment management system would include
debt service, revenue requirements and generalized customer
user charges for given years for each alternative grant
assumption, OM&R user charges, and costs for non-capital
programs. Comparative tables under all grant assumptions and
for all alternative water resources management strategies
would complete the Financial Arrangements Element.
-77-
-------
Natural Resources Budget
The "Natural Resources Budget" is the second of the three
budgets identified by the Council of Governments during
the Year 2000 Policies Plan Re examination. It includes con-
sideration of the limits or "carrying capacities" of the
region's land, air, and water resources, and other environ-
mental impacts. Because of the emphasis on water quality
considerations in this study, the Natural Resources Budget
has been divided into a Water Quality Objectives Element,
and a Natural Resources Impact Element.
Water Quality Objectives Element
Existing Methodologies - Waste treatment management plans
and practices are required by PL 92-500 to assist in achiev-
ing the goals of the Act in restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's
water. Thus, waste treatment works are required by Federal
law to demonstrate a beneficial influence on a natural re-
source media.
Since passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of
1965, this beneficial effect has been defined for treatment
works as contributing to the attainment of water quality
standards adopted by each state and approved by EPA (or its
predecessors). These standards consist of (1) a set of
planned water uses, (2) quality criteria, expressed as
limiting numerical values assigned to various water quality
indicators, selected to protect planned water uses, and (3)
a plan for implementation and enforcement of the criteria. *
A significant feature of the 1965 Act was the absence of a
requirement that the states establish criteria governing
the quality of effluents, and non-point sources of pollution.
Enforcement efforts against alleged polluters during the
late 1960"s were therefore often hampered by the difficulty
in tracing each pollutant back to a discharger or proving
that the discharger was causing sufficient damage to the
river or to public health to warrant special restrictions.70
To remedy these difficulties, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) established
minimum effluent limitations to apply to industries and
municipalities nationwide, while retaining the former system
of state-adopted water quality standards. However, the Act
-78-
-------
also recognized that there were water bodies in the nation,
such as the Upper Potomac Estuary, where these effluent
limitations alone would not be adequate to achieve desired
water quality. Therefore, the Act permits more stringent
limitations to be imposed by the states in those instances.
The Act also requires each state to classify its waters
into those segments by basin which will, and those which
will not, meet applicable water quality standards after the
application of the effluent limitations prescribed by the
Act. Those which will meet standards are termed "effluent
limitations" segments. Those which will not meet standards
are termed "water quality" segments.71
This distinction is important to the development of the
Framework Model for two reasons. First, Section 208 area-
wide waste treatment management planning may occur in those
areas of the nation with substantial water quality control
problems. EPA regulations provide that classification of
substantial portions of major receiving wastes in an urban-
industrial area as "water quality" segments will meet the
definition of having substantial problems. Secondly, these
regulations also require that each basin plan prepared by the
states shall include for each "water quality" segment the
total maximum daily loads of pollutants allowable for each
specific criterion being violated or expected to be violated,
with these maximum loads at least as stringent as necessary
to implement applicable water quality standards. These loads
are then to be allocated among significant discharges and,
whereever possible, other- sources including non-point
sources. ^ These allowable loads are then incorporated into
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permits required under Section 402 of the Act for all dis-
chargers.
Even before passage of the Act, the essentials of this pro-
cedure had been utilized in the Washington Metropolitan area.
As indicated in Figure 15 total maximum daily loads for bio-
chemical oxygen demand (BOD), total nitrogen (N) and total
phosphorus (P) were determined in 1969 for the Upper Potomac
Estuary by the U.S. Department of the Interior utilizing the
forerunner of the computer model which serves as the Receiv-
ing Water Component of the Framework Model. Then, waste load
allocations for each pollutant were made in May of 1969 by
-79-
-------
LATE 1960's - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ADOPTED BY STATES OF MARYLAND AND VIRGINIA
AWD THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR PURSUANT TO FWPCA OF 1965. (ill, 132, 113,*)
16,500 Ibs/doy
EARLY 1969 - ANALYSIS OF UPPER POTOMAC ESTUARY CONDUCTED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR USING
MODEL VHICH SERVES AS RECEIVING WATER
COMPONENT. TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS
RECQMMENDED(II/I:)
8,000
740
BOD N P
Pentagon
Westgate
Alexandria
Arlington
16,500 I bs/day
MAY 1969 - TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS ACCEPTED BY
POTOMAC ENFORCEMENT CONFERENCE WASTE
LOAD ALLOCATIONS ADOI'TKf) SY CONFERENCE(25:}
1969- 1973 - DESIGN DRAWINGS AND JJRAMT APPLICATIONS
PREPARED FOR UPGRADING OK FACILITIES TO
ACHIEVE WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS.
D.C.
•3flo~-
3(HL
130CL
1300
12,700
8000
740
BOD
N
1973 - UPPER POTOMAC ESTUARY IDENTIFIED AS A
"WATER QUALITY" SEGMENT 3Y STATES OF
MARYLAND AKD VIRGINIA AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA PURSUANT TO FWPCAA OF 1972
(U5, 116, 117.)
NPDES PERMIT ISSUED BY L'SEPA TO THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BASED ON WASTE
LOAD ALLOCATION (l!8.)
REMAINING PERMITS TO BE ISSUED BY
END OF YEAR.
* NUMBERS REFER TO REFERENCES AT END OF REPORT
Figure 15 CHRONOLOGY OF ESTABLISHMENT OF WASTE LOAD
ALLOCATION FOR UPPER POTOMAC ESTUARY
-80-
-------
the Potomac Enforcement Conference* to the fiye wastewater
treatment plants discharging into the Estuary, These load
limits have served as tne design target for the upgrading
of the facilities, and are being incorporated into the NPDES
permits being issued. Since 1969, however more sophisticat-
ed models have shown that different load limits73 may be
applicable to the estuary but these revised "budget limits"
have not been recognized by those responsible for planning.
The two load limits for the upper fifteen miles of the
estuary are shown in Table 7. Newer models will doubtless
allow the estuary load allocation to be further revised.
This concept of a finite limit for given water bodies, to be
apportioned among discharges, is entirely consistent and
compatible with the concept of natural resources "budget
limit" which emerged during the Year 2000 Policies Plan
Reexamination. The budget limit is, in effect, a "carrying
capacity." The concept of carrying capacity or natural re-
source budget limit has received considerable support by local
governments and citizens as a major element of metropolitan
Washington growth policy.
It must be remembered, however, that the apportionment of
discharge rights to various sources is little more than
a goal if the technology to treat waste discharges is insuf-
ficient to provide the degree of treatment needed to remain
within the discharge limit, and therefore to attain water
quality within standards. In these cases, the strategies
for the control of any source of pollution must be carefully
justified as cost effective steps in a wider strategy of
water quality improvement. In regions such as metropolitan
Washington where application of the effluent limitations
required by the Act (i.e., secondary treatment) will not
achieve compliance with water quality standards, the defini-
tion of the term "effectiveness" in a cost effectiveness
calculation must be explicit so that a single project can be
gauged for its incremental effectiveness on water quality.
*Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate Waters
of the Potomac and Its Tributaries in the Washington Metro-
politan Area was initiated by the Secretary of the Interior
in 1957 and reconvened in 1958 and 1969 under the provisions
of Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 466, et.seq.).
-81-
-------
Table 7. COMPARISON OF
SUGGESTED LOAD LIMITS FOR
UPPER 15 MILES OF POTOMAC ESTUARY
(Ibs./day)
Potomac Enforcement
Conference
S/8/6925
Technical Report
Wo. 35, 4/7173
BOD
16,500
41,800
N
8,000
4,700
740
1,185
-82-
-------
In one sense, the projected effectiveness of a management
strategy can be measured in terms of the diminished adverse
effects on water quality caused by pollution. The value of
the removal of biochemical oxygen demand, as an example,
from any source must be gauged by the diminished effects of
all oxygen-demanding pollutants on water quality. This is
essential when management strategies are applied to differ-
ent elements of the water resources system and include both
structural and non-structural approaches, and programs
initiated by many different agencies. This approach
appears to also have merit in preventing commitments to
technologies that may prove unproductive and that may over-
commit the financial resources or community support available
without gaining the greatest degree of water quality im-
provement. The proposed Water Quality Objectives Element
of the Framework Model describes how these considerations
are dealt with.
Proposed Water Quality Objectives Element - A purpose of
the Water Quality Objectives Element is to state a method
of reporting the effectiveness of water resources management
strategies on receiving water properties, and to provide a
basis for cost-effectiveness analysis. The emphasis on re-
ceiving water quality is in contrast to the often-used pro-
cedure of determining the most cost effective method of pro-
viding a given degree of treatment, a practice which is
justified during plant design and along effluent limited
segments of receiving waters, but is inappropriate in plan-
ning and managing a water resource system of interrelated
facilities in "water quality" areas.
For this reason, the definition chosen for a control strate-
gy's "effectiveness" incorporates measures of the extent,
constituent concentration, duration and annual probability
of occurrence of the response of the receiving water to an
areawide water resources management strategy.
A strategy can be called an effective one when there is a
high probability that constituent concentrations will be
within the limits set in standards in all stretches of the
estuary and for all time periods.
The first measure incorporated into the definition of
effectiveness, the extent of the estuary response, is re-
quired to present the length, surface area or volume of re-
-83-
-------
ceiving water affected by depleted dissolved oxygen or by in-
creased concentrations of harmful constituents. Surface area
or length of receiving water affected may be appropriate
when water uses for protection or propagation of fish or for
recreation are to be evaluated. The volume measure may be
appropriate when water uses for industry, agriculture, or
public water supply are to be evaluated.
The constituent concentration of the estuary response is
measured as less than or equal to a stated beneficial con-
stituent concentration or as greater than or equal to a
harmful constituent concentration. Thus, either a beneficial
constituent such as dissolved oxygen, or a harmful consti-
tuent such as nitrate may be used in the Framework Model.
The duration of the receiving water response is measured
as greater than or equal to a stated duration which may be
a constant selected on the basis of the effects different
constituent concentrations are known to have on aquatic life,
By combining these first three measures, the "capability" of
an areawide water resources management strategy can be de-
fined as the extent of a constituent concentration of less
than or equal to a stated constituent concentration for
greater than or equal to a stated duration. By selecting,
for example, the state-adopted water quality criteria for
dissolved oxygen as the stated concentration for analysis,
the "capability" of an alternative strategy in meeting
standards can be described. These three measures can be
taken directly from the dissolved oxygen table output by
the Receiving Water Component. If a constituent other than
dissolved oxygen is utilized, the measures can be derived
from the three-dimensional estuary profile for that con-
stituent.
Figure 16 presents a flow diagram of the Water Quality
Objectives Element. In this study the capability, C, of a
management strategy is defined mathematically as:
C = Extentd/c
where Extent is the estuary length, volume or surface area
either 1) at or below a chosen beneficial constituent
concentration "c"; or
-84-
-------
FROM RECEIVING
WATER COMPONENT
FROM COMPONENTS AND ELEMENTS
OF FRAMEWORK MODEL
FACTORS ( SUCH AS HYDROLOCIC CONDITIONS
OR RETURN FREQUENCY OF STORM EVENT) IN
SIMULATIONS FOR WHICH PROBABILITY OF
OCCURRENCE IS DESIRED
DETERMINE " CAPABILITY", C , OF
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES MEASURED
AS EXTENT OF ESTUARY AT OR BELOW
BENEFICIAL CONSTITUENT CONCEN-
TRATION, " c ", FOR DURATION " d"
ESTIMATE "JOINT PROBABILITY OF
OCCURRENCE" P(0) OF SIMULATED
CONDITIONS BY:
P(0)=P(F, ) x P(FJ x...P(Fn)
WHERE P(Fn) IS THE PROBABILITY
OF FACTOR "n" OCCURRING OR
FUNCTIONING AT OR BELOW THE
PROJECTED LEVELS
I
DETERMINE "EFFECTIVENESS" OF
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES UNDER
SIMULATED CONDITIONS:
P(0) x C
FROM
COST
ELEMENT
COMPARE " COST-EFFECTIVENESS" OF
ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES UNDER
SIMULATED CONDITIONS
PREPARE SUMMARIES OF:
•PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE FACTORS
•CAPABILITY
•EFFECTIVENESS
•COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Figure 16 FLOW DIAGRAM OF WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES ELEMENT
-85-
-------
2) at or above a chosen harmful constituent
concentration "c"
for a chosen period of time of duration "d"
The definition and use of these terms may seem unnecessary,
but they allow an analyst to answer important questions in
resource management. What, for instance, is the best measure
of "extent" in a given water body? Are future water supply
withdrawals going to remove dilution waters needed to assist
in abating the impacts of effluents on the estuary? Will un-
treated stormwater obliterate water quality improvements
thought to be gained from the treatment of point sources?
The determination of an areawide management strategy's
capability permits analysis of the response of a receiving
water body subjected to steady state wastewater flows, inter-
mittent stormwater runoff, and less frequent combined sewer
overlfows.
In Chapter IV, the "capability" of alternative areawide water
resources management strategies are compared using extent,
constituent concentration, and duration measures which are
output by the Receiving Water Component.
The fourth and final measure incorporated into "effectiveness"
is the joint annual probability of occurrence of the extent,
constituent concentration, and duration of estuary quality
response. The inverse of the annual probability of
occurrence may be called the return frequency in years or
the frequency of occurrence in years or the mean time in
years between occurrences of the estuary quality response.
The annual probability of the estuary response to an area-
wide water resources management strategy is based on return
frequency of storms, river inflows, and water demands, com-
prising the areawide water resources management strategy,
as well as on wastewater and stormwater treatment devices
reliability data. This fourth measure is the joint annual
probability of all of the above events occurring during a
stated time period.
When the "capability" of an alternative areawide water re-
sources management strategy is multiplied by the "joint
annual probability of occurrence" of the simulated conditions,
the resulting product is the expected "effectiveness".
Mathematically, the expected "effectiveness" is represented
-86-
-------
as:
Effectiveness = P(O) x C
where P(O) is "joint annual probability of occurrence" of
conditions upon which the simulation is based. C is the
"capability" of the areawide water resources management
strategy.
Thus the term "effectiveness" includes the extent, duration,
constituent concentration, and joint annual probability of
occurrence of the receiving water's response to alternative
water resources management strategies.
Of particular significance is that the expected "effective-
ness" term provides a link between bioassay results used to
evaluate the toxicity of selected chemical constituents or
physical parameters to aquatic species which are expressed
as a 96-hour-median-tolerance limit, TL^ or TLso. This link
is important because it relates the alternative water re-
sources management strategies to their effects on shellfish,
fish, and wildlife which are required to be protected by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
Cost-Effectiveness Determination - Although it is included as
the final activity in the Water Quality Objectives Element,
the determination of the cost-effectiveness of alternative
water resources management strategies links the Cost Element
and the Water Quality Objectives Element of the Framework
Model.
Section 212 (2) of the Act provides that Federal construction
grants can only be made for systems which are determined by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be "cost-
efficient" as defined by EPA cost-effectiveness guidelines.2^
The EPA guidelines indicate that:
The most cost-effective alternative shall
be the waste treatment management system
determined from the analysis to have the
lowest present worth and/or equivalent
annual value without overriding adverse
non-monetary costs and to realize at least
identical minimum benefits in terms of
applicable Federal, State, and local stand-
ards for effluent quality, water quality,
-87-
-------
water reuse, and/or land and subsurface
disposal.22
In the Framework Model the benefits are measured in terms of
water quality.
The Cost Element of the Framework Model is used to define
the present worth and/or equivalent annual value of the
areawide water resources management strategies. The com-
putation of expected "effectiveness" in the Water Quality
Objectives Element is the mechanism for comparing the minimum
benefits as required by the guidelines. The identification
of any "overriding adverse non-monetary costs" is included
in the Natural Resources Impact Element discussed next.
A demonstration of the cost-effectiveness analysis methodolo-
gy proposed under this study is included in the final chapter
of this report. The analysis is for several areawide metro-
politan Washington water resources management strategies
through the year 1992, using dissolved oxygen as the water
quality constituent and total planning period capital costs,
and operations and maintenance costs, discounted to January
1974 for the cost variable.
Natural Resources Impact Element
Existing Methodologies - Because improved water' quality is
the objective of water resource planners, other natural
resource changes which result from strategies designed to
meet water quality objectives are considered to be impacts.
The emphasis to date has generally been on trying to identify
and minimize adverse impacts of such water quality strategies.
The Natural Environmental Policy Act requires that unavoidable
adverse environmental effects be identified and that avoidable
adverse environmental effects be "mitigated."^ Cost-
effectiveness guidelines by EPA require the recognition of
any "overriding adverse" impacts of alternatives.2^
Construction grant regulations specify that treatment works
will "comply with" requirements of Clean Air Act and other
applicable environmental laws and regulations.
In an earlier chapter the use of adopted air and water quality
standards or policies of nondegredation of these resources, as
the current expression of environmental resources carrying
capacity in the region was noted. A block diagram technique
-88-
-------
for presenting the current regional conditions, versus these
standards, and for performing tradeoffs among media was
highlighted, as well as the concept of environmental re-
sources as highly related and interdependent. The expansion
of this technique into water supply, land and energy consid-
erations was noted.
Natural resources budget limits are relevant at the local
and Federal levels as well as at the regional level. In
two recent water-related cases in Montgomery County, Maryland,
wastewater treatment plant sites were rejected because of
overriding adverse impacts. In one instance, the EPA re-
gional office refused to consider locations of outfalls
which were within 20 miles of the upstream water supply in-
takes. In the other case, the proposed location for an
"interim" treatment plant was rejected by the County Council
after it was learned that brown trout inhabitated the
stream where the outfall was proposed. In both cases, how-
ever, these factors were discovered after a "firm" decision
had been made. In these cases a perceived budget for
drinking water quality or for desirable fish population
would have been violated.
As in the physical simulation components of the Framework
Model, the premise in the Natural Resources Impact Element
was to examine and utilize existing methodologies wherever
feasible, rather than to develop untested techniques. As
a starting point, existing environmental impact assessment
methodologies as categorized by Warner and Preston were
examined. The categorization of methodologies was into
the following five types based on the way impacts are
identified:"^
(1) Ad hoc: Broad areas of possible impacts (i.e.,
impacts on lakes, forests, etc.) are suggested
rather than specific parameters for further in-
vestigation being defined.
(2) Overlays: Maps of environmental characteristics
are overlaid to provide composites from which
impacts can be identified.
(3) Checklists: A specific list of environmental
parameters to be investigated for possible
impacts is prepared, but direct cause-effect
-89-
-------
link to project activities is not established.
C4) Matrices: Two lists, one including project
activities and the other potentially impacted
environmental characteristics, are related in
a matrix which identifies cause-effect rela-
tionships between specific activities and
impacts.
(5) Networks: Cause-condition-effect networks are
prepared to illustrate a series of impacts
which may be triggered by a project action.
In the following discussion examples of existing methodologies
in each category are presented and then later evaluated.
(1) Ad hoc - The three-budget system developed by MWCOG
during the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination and dis-
cussed earlier is, in its current state of refinement, re-
presentative of the "ad hoc" assessment methodology.
Statements such as "reduces particulate matter", "minimizes
impact of storm loads", or "improves aesthetics of water
resources" are examples of the way impacts are expressed in
an ad hoc methodology.
(2) Map Overlays - The use of map overlays as a technique
for land use planning has been proposed by McHarg in his
well-known Design With Nature.7^ in this approach an indivi-
dual map is prepared for each environmental characteristic
of interest. These maps are then overlayed to expose areas
which are conducive to certain types of development. McHarg
explains this urban suitability selection process as follows:
Phase I: Exclusion of flood plains, woodlands
for erosion control, steep slopes,
row-cropland, cropland
Phase II? Exclusion in addition to Phase I of
aquifer outcrops, noise zones,
•existing forest cover
Phase III:Exclusion in addition to Phases I and
II of scenic and historic corridors.
-90-
-------
Ranking of urban suitability based
upon bearing capacities of soils
and suitability for septic tanks
Phase IV: Identification of aggregations of
urban suitable land.
In Design With Nature the Potomac River Basin and portions
of the metropolitan Washington region served as test cases
for application of this approach.
The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments has utiliz-
ed the map overlay approach in two planning efforts to date.
In 1968, COG prepared an "ecological reconnaissance" of major
natural features of the metropolitan area in the form of
1:8000 scale mylar maps. The natural features included
geology, minerals, elevation, slope, soils, streams and
drainage basins, flood plains, ground water, and woodlands.
Several of these maps were then overlayed to form the "natural
featurescomposite. Where two or more features overlap,
only the most limiting one is shown. Although highly gener-
alized, the map illustrates how environmental interpretation
and evaluation could help shape metropolitan development
policies.
Map overlays were also used by COG in its open space planning
program. One of the purposes identified for preserving open
spaces in the region was the protection of irreplaceable and
ecologically sensitive natural resources. The areas not yet
publicly owned or controlled which were specified for primary
preservation considerations were designated as "Areas of
Maximum Environmental Quality" (AMEQ's), which comprise
approximately 176,000 acres within the metropolitan area as
shown in Figure 17. They were determined by superimposing
maps of streams, flood plains, slopes (over fifteen percent)
and woodlands. The resulting composite is a pattern of con-
tinuous, corridor-like lanes embracing the greatest concen-
tration of features contributing to environmental diversity.
AMEQ preservation is currently a major element of the COG
open space program.
Overlaying can also take the form of computer mapping. Data
on a large number of environmental characteristics are
collected and stored in the computer on a grid system. Alter-
native composite maps can be generated by giving subjective
weights to the various parameters. This technique has been
-91-
-------
ARE AS OF MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITV NOT /N PUBLIC OWNERSHIP
AREAS OF MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP. 1971
Figure 17 AREAS OF MAXIMUM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
-92-
-------
used in highway impact assessments.76 The Northern Virginia
Planning District Commission has been undertaking a study
to define a population carrying capacity for an urbanizing
watershed in the Metropolitan Washington area based on a
computer-compatible ecological data inventory.77 Data which
was collected by 10-acre grid cells included physiographic,
pedologic, geologic, hydrologic, climatic factors as well as
man-made features and influences. Interrelationships of
ecological factors depicting vulnerability to development
were then displayed. Figure 18 presents a typical computer-
printed map of these features for a portion of the Broad Run
Watershed. The maximum population definition of population
carrying capacity of the watershed will be determined by the
limit imposed by the quantity of environmentally suitable
land.
(3) Checklist - The most prominent example of an impact
assessment methodology which could be classified as a "check-
list" is the hierarchial Environmental Evaluation System
(EES) developed by Dee, et.al., at Battelle Columbus Labora-
tories.7^ The environment is divided into the four general
categories of ecology, environmental pollution, aesthetics,
and human interest. Under these categories a total of 78
environmental parameters are identified representing a "unit
or an aspect of environmental significance worthy of separate
consideration in water resource development." To permit net
environmental effects to be evaluated and tradeoffs made all
parameters are transformed into commensurate units. The
technique consists of:
Step 1: Transforming parameter estimates into
environmental quality by determining
the environmental impacts of each
parameter on a scale of 0 (extremely
bad) to 1 (very good). Value function
graphs are used for this purpose.
Step 2: Assigning relative weights to each
parameter as indicators of the rela-
tive importance to the environment.
A total of 1000 parameter importance
units (PIU) is distributed among the
parameters.
-93-
-------
ii ?) ;7M777boPlrf
i U2*
8g
020
>;|7
3l)
~-Ji
^bl
-bJ
Slf
010
006
005
U04
00)
,OCOVJC1 m.l\llll2ti2<.tttt2H> M> i JJ J'--.'.'.-«'v4<.**Jil555i!.ilo6&66t6666T77777777T888888eB869V<>l)999<>tJ<*tCl,CO
i«.bbJul:»UWiSb678tiOl J J'.^blblUl.; JJ.boloVOli-l'.itlB901i3«.^bT8<»01ii'.1)(.7fc<»CHj: J«tSb78901Z3't!ib71j<)Ol2JJ»^67ti<301i3''
J-lt.* *hM MI-!>»... 11 POlEhTIALtLov Ll^lTAl UM
b**i,0t AAll S>"-J'K-iHELL POIthllAL JrtDot^ATt LlllTAIIONl
9-nlljl' M-"l iK-Shlll PQIEh'lAl |H)OM LlHlIADUN)
Si.ifivC.* : OjLi ii)L CtNitRVAIION SftviL> Soil SUHVtT, I960
LI ASMf UAH vK eAitC Oh IKIfcRPRtlcL' JJla ^^p )HfL>ftH4J]O*
SUPPLIc- h» It.i iCS I*. 1HEIR «CUlU^ fit, | i.IeM^Rt tl MC thCU
JilS I » i .Hi.
xxxxxxxxx ooooooooo seeeeeeee *MMMM ••••••••• IISM
Figure 18 ECOLOGICAL INVENTORY BY TEN ACRE GRID CELL
-94-
-------
Step 3: Obtaining commensurate environmental
impact units (EIU) by multiplying
the environmental quality from step
1 by the PIU in step 2 for each
parameter.
The EIU's are used to trade-off beneficial and adverse envir-
onmental effects by comparing each parameter with and without
a proposed project. The approach can also be used as a
warning system to "red flag" parameters that change signifi-
cantly in an adverse direction. The EES has been field-
tested for the proposed Oneida Narrows reservoir portion of
the Bureau of Reclamation Bear River project. The approach
has not yet been used in the Metropolitan Washington area,
although the U.S. Corps of Engineers as part of its ongoing
water supply study for the region has identified the list of
parameters in the EES as a checklist for its environmental
consultant to utilize.^ As part of the Montgomery County
wastewater study, the checklist approach was used to deter-
mine the existence of habitat with special scientific or
educational value or unique or fragile character at each of
the sites under consideration.66
(4) Matrix - An example of the "matrix" impact assessment
methodology is the procedure developed by Leopold, et.al.,
for the USGS.80 A matrix of 100 possible project activities
and 88 environmental characteristics or conditions is filled
out for a proposed project in the following way:
a. Those activities from the top of the matrix
which are relevant to the project under
analysis are identified.
b. For those cells in the column where a
possible environmental characteristic could
be affected, a slash is made.
c. For each box with a slash, a number between
1 (least) and 10 (greatest) indicating the
magnitude of the possible impact is placed
in the upper left corner of the box. Before
the number a "+" is placed if the impact is
expected to be beneficial.
-95-
-------
d. In a similar fashion, a number is placed
in the lower right corner of each box
representing the imprtance of the possible
impact.
e. A narrative on environmental impacts is
prepared for those rows and columns with
large numbers of boxes marked or with
large numbers in boxes.
(5) Network - The final category of environmental impact
methodologies is the "network." Under this approach, cause-
condition-effect networks are prepared in an attempt to
identify the primary and secondary impacts which may be
triggered by a project as well as to expose opportunities for
controlling waste loads at points other than at treatment
plants. As part of the Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamina-
tion, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
utilized a generalized network to trace the sources and the
paths which phosphorus takes as it passes through the eco-
system in Metropolitan Washington. This materials flow
analysis is shown in Figure 19.
Through this technique the various points of interception
of the residual and the allocation of the "ultimate" dis-
posal can be displayed in a relatively straightforward
framework of choice. This technique also emphasizes inter-
media considerations and is supportive of the carrying capa-
city approach of the Natural Resources Budget.
Evaluation - These five types of impact assessment methodolo-
gies differ markedly in such characteristics as comprehensive-
ness, data needs, and manpower requirements. However, a re-
view of the methodologies reveals the following similarities
important to the Framework Model:
1. Natural resource parameters are selected
for investigation
2. The natural resource setting without
waste treatment management systems can
be identified
-96-
-------
SOURCES
SEWAGE DETERGENTS
SEPTIC
SYSTEMS
EROSION
AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
TU1
INDUSTRY
I
MUNICIPAL
TREATMENT
PLANTS
UPGRADE :
BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT
INTRODUCE :
CHEMICAL TREATMENT
SLUDGE EFFLUENT
LIME ALUMINUM SALTS
1
IRON SALTS
SLUDGE EFFLUENT SLUDGE EFFLUENT SLUDGE EFFLUENT
SINKS
SLUDGE
EFFLUENT
FURTHER TREATMENT
SLUDGE
LANDFILL COMPOST POTOMAC INCINERATION
I RIVER I
1
EFFLUENT
DIVERT
FROM RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER
I I I
CROP UPTAKE SOLID PARTICULATES
RESIDUAL
LANDFILL AIR
LAND /WATER
Figure 19 PHOSPHORUS ROUTES
-97-
-------
3. The magnitude of changes resulting from
implementation of alternatives is assess-
ed for specified parameters
4. Whether subjectively or "objectively", the
relative importance of these changes is
recognized
5. Potential adverse impacts of alternatives
are highlighted
Recent water resource studies conducted in the Washington
Metropolitan area* have been analyzed by MWCOG to identify
the methodologies used during their performance and other
significant ^characteristics as a guide for the Framework
Model development. These studies and several others were
classified by the type of impact assessment methodology
used in the study development. Several significant findings
have emerged from this analysis. These include:
1. Environmental impact analyses are conducted
by organizations other than local government
staffs (i.e., consultants, regional planning
agencies, EPA) although they may be commis-
sioned by the local government.
2. The environmental impact analysis techniques
employed by these organizations differ mark-
edly in content and scope but generally fall
into the "ad hoc" and "checklist" categories.
The level of detail is often considerably
less than that suggested in "texcbooks" on
the subject.
3. Most studies emphasize the mitigation and
minimization of possible adverse impacts.
4. The impacts assessed are primarily from
capital-intensive structural treatment
facilities.
*Studies analyzed include references 15, 66, and 81 through 88,
-98-
-------
5. Methodologies which lend themselves to
"carrying capacity" considerations (i.e,,
overlays and networks) are not being used
in impact studies or in large scale
planning development.
6. Significant decisions have been made by
local governments based on the results
of many of these studies.
From this discussion, the following conclusions regarding
the Natural Resources Impact Element have been made:
1. No single impact assessment methodology
yet developed is appropriate to all
metropolitan regions under all conditions.
Therefore, the Element should not be
restricted to only one methodology.
2. There are significant similarities in the
five types of impact assessment methodolo-
gies which should serve as the major steps
in the Natural Resources Impact Element.
3. The Element should permit the ready identi-
fication of adverse impacts to be minimized,
eliminated, or recognized as unavoidable or
overriding.
4. Because of limited reserves of air, land
and energy resources, impact assessment
methodologies which assess the carrying
capacity of these resources should begin
to be utilized in metropolitan Washington.
Proposed Natural Resources Impact Element - Under this
element, the natural resource impacts which would result
from the implementation of alternative waste treatment
management systems and water resources management strategies
can be assessed. The approach presented schematically in
Figure 20 is designed to assist in satisfying the requirements
of the Federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
state-adopted Environmental Policy Acts, and to fulfill the
environmental impact analysis requirements of the Section 208
-99-
-------
SELECT " MEDIA"
PARAMETERS
FOR INVESTIGATION
SELECT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGIES
TO BE UTILIZED (SEE PREVIOUS
DISCUSSION OF 5 TYPES)
OBTAIN AVAILABLE INFORMATION
ON NATURAL RESOURCE SETTING
IN AREA ONDER STUDY
FROM
WASTE
TREATMENT —
MANAGEMENT
COMPONENT
PROPOSED WASTE
TREATMENT MGT.
SYSTEMS
SELECT " ECOLOGY"
PARAMETERS
FOR INVESTIGATION
DESCRIBE NATURAL RESOURCE
SETTING WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE
ASSESS VALUE OF CHANGES TO
PARAMETERS DUE TO ALTERNATIVE
TO COST
ELEMENT
IDENTIFY RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
OF CHANGES FROM DIFFERENT
POINTS OF VIEW
IDENTIFY " MITIGATING" MEASURES
TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE ADVERSE
IMPACTS
IDENTIFY ADVERSE IMPACTS
WHICH ARE " UNAVOIDABLE"
IDENTIFY " OVERRIDING"
ADVERSE IMPACTS ( IN
IMPLEMENTABILITY ELEMENT)
PREPARE SUMMARIES OF:
•PARAMETERS TO BE INVESTIGATED
•N.R. SETTING WITH & WITHOUT
ALTERNATIVES
•VALUE OF PARAMETER CHANGES
•RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CHANGES
•ADVERSE IMPACTS MITIGATED,
UNAVOIDABLE OR OVERRIDING
Figure 20 FLOW DIAGRAM OF NATURAL RESOURCES IMPACT ELEMENT
-100-
-------
areawide waste treatment management planning process. So-
called "social" impacts are discussed separately in the
Social Impact Element of the Community Resource Budget.
As discussed earlier, there are at least five different types
of environmental impact assessment methodologies which have
been developed during the last four years. The most commonly
used technique in the Washington Metropolitan Are for detailed
comparison of waste treatment management strategies is the
"checklist." Therefore, this technique will be highlighted
in the remaining discussion. However, the Natural Resources
Impact Element procedure permits the user to select and
combine detailed assessment methodologies which are most
compatible with the area's ongoing planning process. For
example, a region where a set of overlays for natural surface
features at the desired scale has already been prepared, may
choose that technique to analyze land parameters. However,
the "checklist" approach still could be used to identify
significant ecological features.
Thus, the first step in the Natural Resources Impact Element
is to select the combination of assessment methodologies
most suitable for the region's planning process. Criteria
to use in making this choice are contained in several recent
publications. °2,89,90 In al-j_ cases the user should select
the natural resource parameters which are to be investigated.
Based partially on the delineation developed by Batelle
Columbus Laboratories, 7*3 parameters are placed into two
groups. The first, "media" parameters, include physical/
chemical factors such as air pollution criteria, hydrology,
and land surface and subsurface features, and critical
environmental areas such as wetlands and "Areas of Maximum
Environmental Quality." The second, "ecological" parameters,
include plant life, wildlife, and biotic community species
and habitat, with particular attention to rare or endangered
species and fragile ecosystems. For the latter grouping,
checklists for birds of the Metropolitan Washington region
and for plants and animals of the Chesapeake Bay Estuarine
system have been prepared by the Audubon Naturalist Society
of the Central Atlantic States, Inc.66 and the Chesapeake
Research Consortium, Inc. respectively.9! The user should
identify whether similar types of checklists have been pre-
pared for the area under study for use in the Element.
Perhaps the most common "media" parameters examined in envir-
-101-
-------
onmental impact analyses, besides those for water quality
discussed in the Water Quality Objectives Element earlier,
are air quality criteria contained in Federally-adopted
standards.92 Many metropolitan areas with substantial
water quality control problems also have existing or
potential air quality problems as well. Where such air
quality problems exist, recent regulations published by
the U.S. EPA93 require that "air quality maintenance plans"
be developed during the next several years to ensure that
standards are not violated as growth occurs. Thus, the on-
going air quality planning process should be integrated
wherever possible with the Section 208 areawide waste treat-
ment management planning process.
The next step in the Natural Resources Impact Element is to
describe the natural resource media setting without the
alternative waste treatment management systems (i.e., the
no-action alternative) by obtaining values for the parameters
previously identified. Much of the necessary information
may be readily available. For ecology parameters this may be
accomplished in a generalized fashion by describing the exist-
ing terrestrial and aquatic environments for the area under
study. For media parameters such as air quality the adopted
implementation plans and maintenance plans should be consult-
ed. Hydrologic information can be taken from the Receiving
Water Component. Land surface and subsurface data is avail-
able for most metropolitan regions from the United States
Geological Survey. Areas that have been designated as
Critical Environmental Areas should be identified. It is
important, however, that information be obtained for the
particular parameters under investigation wherever possible,
rather than simply describing the natural resource setting
for factors not relevant to the discussion.
The next activity is to assess the value of changes to the
natural resource parameters due to the alternative waste
treatment management systems. Most often in Metropolitan
Washington, this task is performed by consultants hired by
the involved local government or planning agency. The pur-
pose of the activity is to obtain quantitative estimates of
changes wherever possible. However, often two "experts"
will arrive at different conclusions regarding the numerical
change to be expected in a given parameter by a water re-
sources management strategy, especially where advanced and
sometimes untested technology is being suggested. Thus, it
-102-
-------
is extremely important that whatever findings are developed
in this task be subjected to extensive public scrutiny as
part of the Implementability Element. For example, wherever
wetlands would be impacted by an alternative, the EPA EIS
guidelines require review by the Departments of Interior or
Commerce. 4 The points of view expressed during this review
process should be used to identify the relative importance
of parameter changes from different perspectives. For example,
the air pollution effects of an alternative may be relatively
"insignificant" when viewed as part of the entire metropoli-
tan area,but may be critically important to those citizens
in whose neighborhood the treatment system is to be placed.
Several different "ranking" schemes are available. A common
one which is required by the Maryland Environmental Policy
Act, ^ is to separate impacts that are "beneficial" from
those that are "adverse". Another is to give subjective
weights to the importance of each parameter as in the Battelle
EES, and then to determine cumulative weights for each al-
ternative. A third is to signify which impacts are more
"significant" than others by such classes as "little",
"moderate", and "great" concern. Again, the method to be
employed by the user will depend on the region under study,
the alternatives under consideration, and the personal pre-
ferences of the decision-making bodies and citizen organiza-
tions. Undoubtedly, however, some subjective method of in-
dicating the relative importance of parameters will be
chosen if only by classifying them into "beneficial",
"adverse", and "no change".
A major purpose of the Natural Resources Impact Element is,
in fact, to "red flag" those parameters which may be "ad-
versely" affected by implementation of a given alternative.
Based on federally-promulgated regulations adverse impacts
evidently can be grouped into three categories:
1. Adverse impacts which can be minimized
or eliminated by introduction of "miti-
gating" measures (from NEPA)
2. "Unavoidable" adverse impacts which do
not in themselves eliminate an alterna-
tive from selection (from NEPA)
3. "Overriding" adverse impacts which by
-103-
-------
themselves eliminate an alternative
from selection (.from EPA cost-
effectiveness guidelines)
For each impact identified as "adverse" in the Natural
Resources Impact Element, the user should first attempt to
identify any mitigating measures to minimize or eliminate
the adverse effects, including not only changes to any
physical portions of the waste treatement management system,
but also changes in monitoring, maintenance, replacement,
operation, and other follow-up activities. The costs of
the proposed mitigating measures should be included in the
analysis conducted in the Cost Element. Those adverse im-
pacts which cannot be completely eliminated should then be
identified as "unavoidable". Finally, as part of the
Implementability Element these unavoidable adverse impacts
should be discussed in detail in the community to determine
if any -are "overriding" such that the alternative should be
eliminated from consideration. Two examples of "overriding"
adverse natural resource impacts identified recently in
Metropolitan Washington were presented earlier in the chapter,
In both cases, the alternative was eliminated during the
public review process.
Summary tables for presentation to decision-makers and the
public should be prepared for each of the activities in the
Natural Resources Impact Element. These should include
the parameters to be investigated, the natural resource
setting with and without the alternatives, value of parameter
changes, indicators of relative importance of changes, and
adverse impacts which are mitigated, unavoidable, or over-
riding. In addition, the background data used to prepare
these summary tables should also be made available for
public review.
In summary, the natural resources budget for the purposes of
water resources management planning is considered to consist
of two parts, each related to the concept of "carrying
capacity" as defined during the Year 2000 Policies Plan
Reexamination. The first is the expected "effectiveness"
of an alternative strategy in achieving the objectives of
the FWPCA of 1972 by testing various allocations versus
criteria for each pollutant specified in adopted state water
quality standards. The Framework Model Receiving Water
-104-
-------
Component physical simulation serves as the primary tool for
this in the Water Quality Objectives Element, although modi-
fication of the term "effectiveness" as proposed in this
study is desirable.
The second part of the Natural Resources budget consists of
assessing the "impacts" of alternative strategies on the air,
land, and water media, and on species and habitat by utiliz-
ing available environmental impact assessment methodologies
within the framework specified in the Natural Resources
Impact Element.
-105-
-------
Community Response Budget
The "Community Response Budget" is perhaps the most elusive
in terms of quantitative description, but remains the most
visible to public officials. On the one hand, it includes
the political response of the community to decisions made
or proposed. Public hearings, the electorale process itself,
citizen suits, letters to Congressmen, and public opinion
sampling are means by which this political response is
measured. Such points of view are ways of gauging the
"implementability" of a proposed action. In addition, the
community response budget includes the expected "human"
impacts of a proposal. Such social and economic factors as
the displacement or division of jobs or households, aesthe-
tics, equity,, and neighborhood identity are representative
of individual and community concerns which must be addressed.
For example, proposals for new wastewater treatment plants,
sanitary landfills, or water supply impoundments in the
Metropolitan Washington region are almost always opposed by
those persons in whose neighborhood such a facility would be
located. As in the case of the Natural Resources Budget, such
concerns can become "overriding adverse" factors which cause
the elected official or local governing body to eliminate a
particular site from consideration. In a very real sense,
the proposed facility would have exceeded the community
response budget perceived available by the elected officials
at that time.
Thus, the term "budget" is used to suggest limits for
community response as well as fiscal and natural resources.
At any given time the available resources (whether monetary,
natural, or human) that can be devoted to the solution of any
problem are considered to be finite. It is therefore neces-
sary for elected officials to weigh social, economic, and
environmental factors and to make difficult trade-offs in
allocating limited resources to solutions of problems. Since
the limits in the natural resource and fiscal budgets cannot
be set by science alone, in the words of one of MWCOG's
consultants, "we must rely on the value trade-offs from
community response as the primary guide to where the cumula-
tive effect of incremental decisions is at last taking a
toll."97
It is therefore extremely important that the water resources
management planning processes such as Section 208 areawide
-106-
-------
waste treatment management planning, provide adequate oppor-
tunity for the expression of relevant points of view and
consideration of social impacts if the planning process is
to result in implementable programs. The remainder of this
section will review the methodologies and techniques
currently used or available for incorporation into the
Framework Model for this purpose.
Social Impact Element
Existing Methodologies - Recent court cases concerning the
definition of "human environment" as used in the National
Environmental Policy Act have broadened its interpretation
to include physical, cultural, economic, aesthetic and social
factors which affect the quality of life.^° Many of the
recent environmental impact assessment methodologies present-
ed earlier therefore incorporate consideration of social
impact under the broad context of "environment". For
example, in the Environmental Evaluation System (EES)
developed by Dee, et.al., and discussed earlier, thirty-six
of the seventy-eight environmental parameters deal with
social impacts as defined by the three-budget MWCOG system.
These are grouped into such components as cultures, composi-
tion, man-made objects, historical packages, mood/atmosphere,
and life patterns. In the EES, however, these "aesthetics"
and "human interest" categories only receive a relative
weight of 358 out of the 1000 points for the natural resource
and social impacts together.
Table 7 displays a checklist comparison for alternative
waste treatment plant sites in Montgomery County, Maryland,
of the impacts to man-related and natural systems. Each
impact is ranked on a relative scale of 1 (most favorable) to
5 (least favorable). Man-related impacts include such factors
as dislocation of families, compatibility with adjacent land
use, disruption of historical sites, and perservation of
visual neighborhood character. Community values were assess-
ed principally through comments of local citizenry expressed
at neighborhood meetings, from questionnaires which were
submitted subsequent to the meetings, and from adopted master
plan statements of community goals and objectives. Factual
information was obtained through site visits and inspection
of existing data.66
A study of alternative arrangements and scheduling of waste
treatment facilities for serving the Maryland portion of the
-107-
-------
Table 8
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF ALTERNATE
AWT SITES IN MONTGOMERY CO., MD.
COMPARISON ITEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - NATURE
Soils/Geology-Suitability for AWT
Topography-Minjjtial Grading
Effects on Potomac River
Wildlife Habitat
Mature Forest, Other Unique
Vegetation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT - MAN
Community Reaction
Preservation of Visual
Neighborhood Character
Disruption of Historical Sites
Compatibility with Adjacent Use
Dislocation of Families
Adaptability to Traffic and
Proximity to Freeway
Drainage Area above Reservoir
Construction Impact
Augmentation Potential for C&O
Canal
Reservoir Recreational Value
Delivery System Impact
Railroad Access
RANKING OF COSTS2
AWT SITE RANKINGS1
M-2 W-2
PEPCO S-l M-2 W-2 R-2 R-2 R-2
2
4
1
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
5
4
2
1
4
3
1
1
2
2
2
4
4
3
3
5
2
2
2
5
2
2
2
2
5
2
2
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
5
1
5
5
5
5
5
4
1
1
3
1
3
1
4
4
1
1
5
3
2
1
5
3
3
5
4
1
4
1
1
1
3
4
1
5
5
3
2
3
4
4
4
5
5
1
5
2
4
3
5
3
1
4
5
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
5
1
4
1
5
4
1
4
5
5
1) 1 = Most Favorable;
5 = Least Favorable
2) Ratio of present value of
project costs
(1973-2000) to lowest cost site
From Reference 66, Table 21-1.
1.00 1.03 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.13 1.17
-108-
-------
Metropolitan Washington area arrived at a "fundamental
conclusion" that no single regional program was more cost-
effective than all other alternatives, and therefore that
the selection had to be made on the basis of intangible, or
non-quantifiable factors.85 The factors selected in the
study were flexibility, speed of implementation, potential
for wastewater reclamation, and community impact. The alter-
natives were then rated as good, fair, or poor for each
factor.
In addition, there are requirements in certain Federal acts
which must be met as part of the social impact analysis.
For example, regulations published under authority of Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 re-
quire that any draft environmental statement must include
evidence indicating that the most recent listing of the
National Register of Historic Places has been consulted and,
if a site will be affected, the actions will be undertaken
to remove any adverse impacts that could result from imple-
mentation of the selected alternative.99'100'101 This re-
quirement takes on special significance in historically
important regions such as the Nation's capital.
Another Federal act of significance is the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970.102 This Act requires that, in order to obtain Federal
funds for projects (such as treatment works) resulting in
the displacement of any person, the State must assure the
Federal government that: (a) fair and reasonable relocation
payments and assistance as defined under the Act, shall be
provided to owners and tenants displaced from their homes,
businesses, or farms; (b) relocation assistance programs
shall be provided; and (c) comparable, decent, safe, and
sanitary housing will be available for displaced persons
prior to displacement.103 Thus, the social impact analysis
in the Framework Model should identify the number and types
of homes and business to be directly affected by a proposed
alternative.
Finally, many "secondary" or induced environmental impacts
may be social or economic, and therefore should be included
in the social impact analysis. Changes to the region's
employment or household patterns which will result from
implementation or an alternative should be identified. Much
of the information will be contained in the Community Devel-
-109-
-------
opment Component and can be summarized here.
As a minimum the social and economic ijnpact analysis portion
of the Framework Model, to be called the Social Impact Ele-
ment, will have to contain a checklist of factors or par-
meters for consideration. As with the natural resource im-
pact analysis, some parameters will be directly measurable
and other, such as neighborhood identity, will undoubtedly
derive from an individual's point of view. The underlying
basis for the social impact analysis, however, is that there
is a Community Response Budget which may cause any social
impact to become an "overriding factor" sufficient to
eliminate an alternative. The potential displacement of 10
households may appear "insignificant" to the consultant per-
forming the study, but may be or primary importance, for
example, to the City Council of the District of Columbia who,
with 616 households in B.C. displaced in FY 1973, and re-
placement housing not readily available, may reject a pro-
posed alternative for one which causes no residential dis-
placement.
Proposed Social Impact Element - In this element the social
and economic changes associated with an alternative waste
treatment management system are evaluated by the process
illustrated in Figure 21. This approach will assist in
satisfying federal and state Environmental Policy Act, fulfill
the social and economic impact analysis requirements of the
Section 208 areawide waste treatment management planning
process, and comply with requirements of several associated
Federal Acts.
In the Natural Resources Impact Element, five types of impact
assessment methodologies were discussed. Of those, the
"checklist" approach appears to be most satisfactory for
discussion of social impacts, although descriptions of cer-
tain factors may be generalized (ad hoc). Neither the "ma-
trix" nor "network" approaches appear conducive to social
impact analysis, while the "overlay" technique might have
limited application for identifying the neighborhood-related
factors to be discussed shortly. It is expected that, as
these assessment methodologies become more refined through
greater use, they will be used in social impact analyses.
Therefore, the first activity in the Social Impact Elment
-110-
-------
SELECT INDIVIDUAL-RELATED
FACTORS FOR INVESTIGATION
(INDIVIDUAL HAilITS,
AESTHETICS, ETC.)
SELECT NEIGHBORHOOD-RELATED
FACTORS FOK INVESTIGATION
(DISPLACEMENT OF HOUSEHOLDS,
CULTURAL & HISTORIC AREAS , ETC)
FROM WASTE
TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT
COMPONENT
I
SELECT REGIONAL FACTORS FOR
INVESTIGATION (POPULATION TO
BK SLAVED, TRANSPORTATION
NETWORK, AVAILABILITY OF
TRAINED OPERATORS, KTC.)
DESCRIBE NEIGHBORHOOD
CHARACTER WITHOUT
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE WASTE
TREATMENT MGT.SYSTEM
ASSESS CHANGES TO
INDIVIDUAL-RE LATED
FACTORS DUE TO ALTERNATIVE
ASSESS CHANGES TO
NEIGHBORHOOD FACTORS
DUE TO ALTERNATIVE
FROM COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
COMPONENT
ASSESS REGIONAL
CHANCES RELATED
TO ALTERNATIVE
IDENTIFY RELATIVE IMPORTANCE
OF CHANGES FROM DIFFERENT
POINTS OF VIEW IN THE
IMPLEMENTABILITY ELEME.'T
TO COST ELEMENT
I
IDENTIFY "MITIGATING"
MEASURES TO ELIMINATE
OR MINIMIZE ADVERSE
IMPACTS
1
IDENTIFY UNAVOIDABLE
"OVERRIDING" ADVERSE
IMPACTS
ASSURE COMP
APPLICABLE
STATE REGUL
RELOCATION,
AREAS, ETC.
LIANCE WITH
FEDERAL AM)
\TIONS ON
HISTORIC
I
PREPARE SUMMARIES OF:
•FACTORS TO BE INVESTIGATED
•NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER WITH
& WITHOUT ALTERNATIVE
•CHANCES TO INDIVIDUAL RELATED
& REGIONAL FACTORS
•RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF CHANGES
•OVERIDING ADVERSE IMEACTS.
Figure 21 FLOW DIAGRAM OF SOCIAL IMPACT ELEMENT
-111-
-------
is the selection of social factors to be investigated. It
has been found through experience in metropolitan Washing-
ton that certain social issues commonly raised by citizens
are associated with the specific neighborhood where an alter-
native is to be located, while others are linked to the
pattern of regional growth which is expected to result. In
the former case, these "primary" impacts might include the
displacement of households and businesses, the disruption of
historically or culturally significant areas, or other sig-
nificant changes in neighborhood character. In the latter
case, these "secondary" regional impacts include the poten-
tial growth in the service area of a facility, the effect on
the regional transportation network or the availability
regionwide of trained personnel to operate proposed facilities,
In addition, with the broadening of the definition of waste
treatment management alternatives to includa public education,
pricing and other nonstructural programs designed to change
people's habits, a third category of social factors called
"individual-related" must be added. Therefore, social fac-
tors are to be identified and grouped into the following
three categories: (a) individual-related; (b) neighborhood-
related; and (c) regional.
Next, for those alternatives such as treatment plants and
conveyance facilities which require land, the characteristics
of the neighborhoods under consideration as "sites" should be
described without the proposed alternative (.i.e., no action
alternative) using the neighborhood-related factors previous-
ly selected. In most cases this can be accomplished by
describing the existing situation, although proposed changes
contained in master plans should also be noted. For example,
a site which is currently farmland may be designated as part
of an industrial park for 1978 in the local master plan, thus
perhaps making it more suitable for use as a treatment plant
site. Because of the nature of the individual-related and
regional factors, a description of existing conditions would
not be as meaningful.
The remaining series of steps are comparable to those to be
performed in the Natural Resources Impact Element, so they
are only highlighted here. The changes in each of the three
factor categories due to the proposed alternative should
first be assessed. In the case of the regional factors, much
of the needed information on land use, household, and employ-
ment changes is contained in the Community Development
-112-
-------
Component. Next, the relative importance of the changes
should be assessed based on the points of view expressed
during the review process. For those impacts which are
assessed as adverse, "mitigating" measures should be iden-
tified to minimize or eliminate them.
As discussed earlier in the Community Response Budget, the
user must ensure that these mitigating measures will permit
the alternative to comply with the requirements of all
applicable Federal, and State regulations, including the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Uniform
Relocation Act of 1970, NEPA, and any other legislation
which might be or relevance. During the public review
process any unavoidable "overriding" adverse impacts of an
alternative should be identified. Finally, throughout the
Social Impact Element wherever information or points-of-
view are obtained, they should be summarized and made avail-
able .
Implementability Element
Existing Methodologies - The previous section leads directly
to the second portion of the Community Response Budget -
"implementability." Frequently in the past in metropolitan
Washington the most significant action to result from a
governing body's review of the results of an investigation and
comparison of alternatives has been no action;, i.e., the
decision to obtain more information on one or more alterna-
tive before making a "firm" decision. Thus, in water supply-
demand planning during the past few years, proposals for
upstream reservoirs have been pitted against emergency use of
the Potomac Estuary, resulting in the recent Congressional
decision to restudy each alternative once again.10^ During
this debate, local governments and agencies were quietly in
the process of adopting water-saving plumbing code changes
recommended by COG which, by 1992, are expected to have
"saved" up to 25 million gallons per day in new-construction
residential comsumption alone. Plumbing code changes were
adopted while the other alternatives were stalled, because
plumbing code changes were more "implementable".
Several factors made them implementable. First, local elect-
ed officials and citizen organizations agreed on the concept
of eliminating the unnecessary waste of water. Second, the
local government in its water supply utility had the power
itself to take the desired legal action to change the ordin-
-113-
-------
ance. Third, there was no expenditure of local government
capital funds required. Fourth, there were no identifiable
significant adverse natural resource impacts. Fifth, there
were no identifiable significant adverse social or economic
impacts since manufacturers indicated the required fixture
could be produced at costs comparable to those of normal
fixtures provided the market was large enough. Finally,
the decision would not influence the development patterns
for future growth in the community. Although there were
probably other reasons as well, it is clear that this al-
ternative had great "implementability", the perceived advan-
tages outweighed the disadvantages.
It is not proposed that "implementability" is an easily
definable or quantifiable measure which a consultant can
determine by- conducting a study of it. Rather, it will
evolve from the planning process itself by exposing elected
and appointed officials to a wide range of viewpoints ex-
pressed through public hearings, personal discussions, citi-
zen or developer lawsuits, questionnaires, and other mechan-
isms. In addition, there may be certain incentives or con-
straints to the implementation of a specific alternative which
the elected official should be aware of. In deed, the Fed-
eral and State law and regulations cited throughout this
report place meaningful boundaries on actions which local
governments can or cannot take regarding water quality manage-
ment, as well as providing such incentives as 75% federal
funds for projects which conform with EPA regulations.
The Implementability Element of the Community Response
Budget must therefore provide a means of obtaining and
displaying these points of view and incentives/constraints
to decisionmakers. Mechanisms available to regional planning
agencies, such as the Office of Management and Budget Circular
A-95 review and comment procedures for federally-funded
projects-LO^and those techniques identified in the U.S. EPA
public participation guidelines*^ should be used to the maxi-
mum extent feasible.
Proposed Implementability Element - The basic objective of the
Framework Model development has been to identify and link
various techniques and methodologies for use in the water
resources management planning process. Each component and
element of the Framework Model has been designed to provide
information needed by elected and appointed officials to make
-114-
-------
decisions. Perhaps most important of all is the need to pro-
vide decisionmakers with the varying and inevitably conflict-
ing points of view of the community towards the alternatives
under (or not under) consideration. 'me purpose of ti*e Iniple-
mentability Element is to assure that these points of view
are solicited and obtained through an active public partici-
pation program such that a decision can be made and implemented,
The approach to be used to find an implementable alternative
includes public participation in all portions of the planning
process already discussed. However, certain additional steps
are essential in every planning activity. These include:
a) Identify the public
b) Identify mechanisms to be used for public parti-
cipation
c) Identify where to use these mechanisms in the
planning process
d) Undertake public participation program
e) Summarize points of view
f) Identify incentives/constraints to implementation
In its Water Quality Training Institute workbook, the Conser-
vation Foundation has identified the following four types of
publics:
a) the general public often referred to as the
man in the street
b) the organized public, such as civic associations
and environmental groups
c) the representative public, including elected and
appointed officials (and their staffs)
d) the economically concerned public, such as
neighborhoods or developers, whose interests may
be affected (adversely or favorably) by water
quality decisions-^6
It is important that each of these "publics" have an opportun-
ity to participate in the planning process, although certain
mechanisms may be more appropriate for each group at certain
times during the process than others. K. Warner has classi-
fied these mechanisms into three categories by primary empha-
sis, recognizing that many may be multi-purpose.
-115-
-------
These three categories are:
1} Education/Information, such as newspaper
articles, speeches, letters, brochures, and
TV programs.
2) Review/Reaction, including public hearings,
questionnaires, and access to material.
3) Interaction/Dialogue through advisory boards,
workshops and informal contacts.1^7
Public participation minimum guidelines published by EPA under
Section 101(e) of the Act specify certain mechanisms to be
used at various points in the planning process with "interest-
ed" or affected persons or organizations-63 in addition, such
mechanisms as the Circular A-95 review and comment proce-
dures published by the OMB provide an opportunity for affect-
ed local governments to review and comment on proposed
Federally-funded projects and programs. 105 j^- is important
that the public participation program be designed to provide
for these mechanisms to be used at appropriate points in the
planning process, i.e., before the "decisions" are made, so that
the projected improvements in water quality can be identified
and counted as advantages in the decision making process.
For example, there are numerous points during the procedures
outlined in the Framework Model where public participation is
essential. These include, but are not limited to:
a) Identification of inputs to Community Devel-
opment Component
b) Selection of user-specified inputs to Water
Demand and Sewage Generation Components
c) Identification of waste treatment management
alternatives to be tested, including review
of assumed removal efficiencies
d) Selection of alternative points of discharge,
and options to be tested, in the Receiving
Water Component
e) Review of all outputs from physical simulations
f) Identification of alternative financial
arrangements to be investigated
g) Review of alternative user charges and customer
charges from Financial Arrangements Element
h) Selection of "probabilities of occurrence" and
various conditions to be simulated in the
Water Quality Objectives Element
i) Review of "capability", expected "effectiveness",
-116-
-------
and cost-effectiveness analyses
j) Selection of assessment methodology and
parameters to be investigated in the
Natural Resources Impact Element
k) Selection of factors to be investigated in
the Social Impact Element
1) Expression of points of view on relative
importance of changes to parameters and
factors in the Natural Resources Impact and
Social Impact Elements
m) Identification of adverse impacts which are
"unavoidable" or "overriding"
n) Improvements needed in Framework Model
As these points of views are registered, it is desirable that
a record be kept and that significant points raised be
addressed. Although the guidelines by EPA require the prepar-
ation of a "Summary of Public Participation" for every grant
application or plan, it is more important that there view-
points be made known to elected and appointed officials
during the areawide planning process.
Finally, it is likely that in any region there may be certain
constraints to or incentives for implementation of alternatives
under consideration which may be identifiable during the
planning process. An example of a constraint may be a re-
quirement by the state constitution or statutes that the
sanitary commission but not the local government may con-
struct and operate treatment works (as in Maryland portion
of metropolitan Washington) or a state policy that interim
treatment works cannot be built unless the permanent facility
to replace it has received necessary state and local planning
approvals (as in Virginia). The most readily identifiable
incentive is the Federal Title II construction grant program
under the Act which provides 75% federal funding of treat-
ment works which conform with EPA regulations. Such regula-
tions covering all parts of the Act are published regularly
in the Federal Register, which is obtainable from the U.S.
Government Printing Office. Legal and institutional changes
are a recognized part of the waste treatment management
planning process, however. Thus, changes which are deemed
necessary as part of the selected management program should
be offered.
The key concept of this element and the Community Resource
-117-
-------
Budget is that there are limits for community response as
well as fiscal and natural resources, and that these limits
must be identified to the greatest extent possible as a
part of the water resources management planning process.
Although it is the most difficult to quantify, the Community
Response Budget is the most visible to the elected and
appointed decisionmaker.
-118-
-------
CHAPTER IV
DEMONSTRATION OF THE FRAMEWORK MODEL
The Framework Water Resources Planning Model is a flexible
and versatile tool for use in areawide water resources
management planning. This chapter illustrates through a
variety of examples the application of the Framework Model
in metropolitan Washington. As an aid to understanding how
the physical simulation components of the model fit together,
the first part of this chapter presents the results from a
typical model run for the year 1976. For ease of presenta-
tion, emphasis is placed on showing the model output starting
with one of the fifty "planning units" identified in the
study for metropolitan Washington.
Then, to demonstrate the use of the full Framework Model
capabilities, six alternative areawide water resources manage-
ment strategies which are in various stages of consideration
in metropolitan Washington are simulated for the year 1992.
Through use of the three-dimensional estuary profile plots,
the water quality response of the upper Potomac Estuary for
each alternative is displayed. From these plots produced by
the Receiving Water Component, the "capability" and the ex-
pected "effectiveness" of the alternative strategies as de-
fined in the Water Quality Objectives Element is compared.
Next, using the procedures contained in the Cost Element, the
present values by cost element of the alternative areawide
water resources management strategies are determined.
Finally, the cost effectiveness of the alternative areawide
water resources management strategies is compared.
TYPICAL COMPUTER RUN OF FRAMEWORK MODEL PHYSICAL SIMULATION
COMPONENTS
This section presents the results of a typical computer run
of the Framework Model physical simulation components. The
forecast year selected for analysis is 1976. The "planning
unit" chosen to begin illustration of the model results is
No. 19. It is located along the eastern boundary of Loudoun
County, Virginia, south of the Potomac River, and north of
Route 50 as indicated in the figure below. The natural
-119-
-------
drainage in the area flows into Broad Run and then to the
Potomac River above Great Falls. Dulles Airport and the
developed portion of Loudoun County are located in the area,
which obtains water from the Fairfax City water supply on
Goose Creek through the Loudoun County Sanitatation Authority
The area is part of a drainage basin sewered by the Potomac
Interceptor Sewer, which transmits flows to the regional
wastewater treatment plant at Blue Plains in the District of
Columbia. The Blue Plains treatment plant discharges into
the Potomac Estuary.
The location of Planning Unit No. 19
in the Washington Metropolitan Area
Planning Unit No. 19 is made up to two "Policy Analysis
Districts", No. 766 and 767, from the Community Development
Component. The relationship of geographic units used in the
Framework Model as initially applied in metropolitan
Washington is illustrated in Figure 22.
Community Development Component
The EMPIRIC Activity Allocation Model serves as the basic
computational tool in the Community Development Component of
the Framework Model. The EMPIRIC Model distributes metropoli-
tan "control" totals of future population, employment, and
-120-
-------
land use growth in eight-year intervals among a set of smaller
subregions or districts, based upon exogenously specified
metropolitan planning policies. The following is an example
of a portion of EMPIRIC output for 1976 for the most recent
EMPIRIC alternative for the two Policy Analysis Districts
(#766 and #767) that form Planning Unit No. 19.
METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
SUMMARY OK FORECAST RESULTS AND INPUTS - ALTERNATIVE 6.2 HOD.
SEPTEMBER 1972
DISTRICT 766
POPULATION
HOUSEHOLDS
EMPLOYMENT
1
J968
0.
0.
2073.
UMMARY OF
1976
0.
0.
2527.
FORKCAS1
1984
0.
0.
5303.
RESULTS
Z992 CHANGE: 6S-92
0. 0.
0. 0.
6307. 423A.
DISTRICT 707
1'OPin.A.T.iON
HOUSEHOLDS
KMPI.OYMfNT
1963
6S73.
J8'.3.
8/46.
SUMMARY 01
1976
41058.
11706.
2232.
VOJT.CAST
J984
59-'436.
J7575.
£209.
KKS'JI.TS
1992
727M.
22977.
12519.
CHANGE:
65911
2113'.
1)673
68-92
.
.
For the entire metropolitan region in 1976, the EMPIRIC model
estimates (or utilizes as a control total)^^ a total popula-
-121-
-------
STORMWATER
RUNOFF
COMPONENT
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
COMPONENT
Empiric Policy
Analysis Districts
Water Resource
Planning Units
Watersheds
WATER DEMAND COMPONENT
& SEWAGE GENERATION
COMPONENT
-122-
-------
RECEIVING
WATER
COMPONENT
Potomac Estuary f
Model Segments
Sewer Service
Areas
WASTE TREATMENT
MANAGEMENT
COMPONENT
Water Service
Areas
Figure 22 GEOGRAPHIC UNITS IN THE FRAMEWORK MODEL P.HYSICAL SIMULATIONS
-123-
-------
tion of 3,305,933, total households of 1,091,190, and total
employment of 1,497,880. EMPIRIC forecasts are not official
projections, and are used for study purposes only, as in this
report.
Water Demand Component
The Interface program reformats selected EMPIRIC output into
planning units. Then the "MAIN II System" is exercised to
produce estimates of average daily, maximum day, and peak
hour water demand by usage category for each of the 50 plan-
ning units shown in Figure 22 for each forecast year. For
example, in 1976 single-family (metered) and multi-family
(flat-rate) residential water demand in Planning Unit No. 19
is estimated as:
MUNICIPAL WATER REQUIREMENTS...PLANNING UNIT 19
ANALYZED BY MAIN SYSTEM
CURRENT RESIDENTIAL WATER REQUIREMENTS IN GALLONS PER DAY
ANNUAL
AVERAGE
2564733.
MAXIMUM
DAILY
4154761
PEAK
HOUKLY
12123045.
REQUIREMENTS BY TYPE - ANNUAL AVERAGE
METERED AND SEWERED AREAS
FLAT RATE AND SKWKRED AREAS
TOTAL
NO. OF GALLONS PER DAY
UNITS DOMESTIC SPRINKLING TOTAL
7086. 1260628. 217927. 1478555.
4120. 9330S6. 153092. 1036178.
11206. 2193713. 371019. 2564733.
SUMMER EVAPOTRANSPIRATION HNCIiES * * 16.00
SUMMER PRECIPITATION 2INCIiES< f 6.75
MAX. DAY EVAPOTRANSP1KATION ','. INCHES< It 0.29
Commercial and industrial water demand in the planning unit
is projected as:
Ml'..' 1C I PAL
TYPE
ICIIOOL, Kl.F.M.
iCHOOt., HIGH
1ANU/TCU
:KADK
'lltn/SKRV.
;OVI:UNMI:NY
VCR] /CONST.
.'ATFK KEllUiKEKI.XTS MJK TUT CITY OF PLANNING UNIT 19 FOR THE YF.AR 1976
ANALYZED BY MAIN SYSTEM
TOTAL COIKEUCIAL KEQl'J KKMEXTS IN GALLONS PER DAY
ANNUAL MAXIMUM PEAK
AVKKACI" DAILY HOURLY
5105J3
WATER REQl'lRD
UNITS
STIM)!:\T
STUR'.'.XT
KMI'IOYITS
LMP1.0S r S
r.Mpi.oY:.rs
LMI'I.OYtKS
EMl'LOYlil.S
70S66). 1649186.
irvrs BY TYPE
Kl-MRF.R
OF UNITS
5'.S3.
2MS.
1823.
u','2.
1149.
665.
5J9.
OF COMMERCIAL
AXXTAl.
AVF.KACE
(GALLONS
29500.
16695.
353786.
48651.
415!9.
1SS88.
1475.
ESTASLTSltMENT
M\X!MUM
DAILY
PF.R DAY )
53078.
49356.
368026.
130911.
60432.
35116.
2742.
PEAK
HOURLY
269227.
30-'. 699.
430239.
339502.
196424.
106012.
3085.
i
-124-
-------
Public and unaccounted-for water demand in the planning unit
is projected as:
TOTAL PUBLlC-l'NACCOUNTKU RKQUlRKMi:.'."! S IS GALLONS FER DAY
ANNUAL
AVFKACf-:
MAX I MuM
DA ILY
PF.AK
HGL-KI.Y
82S?61. 625261. 82.5261.
S BV TVl'U Or M'iJI. 1C-I'.'viCCO'J.'.T.'.D VSA'-K i.V KAI I.O.'.'S PKR DAY
TYI'K
nj: SIT, in. !.O:;M:S
ruKK PKKVICKS
A.V.VIML
AVF.KACK
611761.
213iOO.
MAX1NLM
DA I LY
611761 .
?moo.
PI-AC
110'Jrll.Y
611761.
2131,00.
The average annual water demand estimates are then summar-
ized by major water demand section as follows:
19 1260629
si-i:i::.-:i.i::G
'.: IIAU.Y "::i':i".'!. V.-.M ::;; !:;:"j!i.: -TMS
::i v::i-:. )•'.. Ti'i: YI M: !'J7'. AMh.
\;.:T.:; ••: ••• PAY
S25761 3900^11
The output of the Water Demand Component can easily be
aggregated into water service areas as illustrated in Figure
22 for water supply planning purposes. The total average
daily water demand estimated for 1976 for the region is 455
ion
million gallons per day, zu which is approximately a 22 per-
cent increase from 1*968.
Sewage Generation Component
Estimates of domestic residential and commercial/industrial
average daily water demands can be translated directly into
uninfiltrated residential and commercial sewage flow by the
Sewage Generation Component. Infiltration/inflow is then
calculated exogenously based on the amount of developed land
estimated by the Community Development Component. Estimated
-125-
-------
average daily flows for Planning Unit 19 are as follows:
SEWAGE GENERATION MODEL
CONTRIBUTION TO SEUACE FLOW FROM .MAIN 11 WATER ESTIMATES
PLANNING DOMESTIC WATER USE (CAL/DAY) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL WATER USE (GAL/DRY) FROM
UNIT INFILTRATION
(MGD)
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
DAILY DAILY DAILY
1205182.00
433860.000
0.6340
Both the uninfiltrated residential and commercial sewage
flows are multiplied by user-specified pollutant concentra-
tions to provide estimates of total sewage pollutant load by
parameter as follows:
:-!.?.•;;:::..,
li:.'!1;1 AVEK.M1K K'Oi.Y H.l/i.T- .Y.:l) ;.OAUS
FLOW- LOADS 'LIlF-'PAVJ
2.2730. 219'j. b47. 13U.
Stormwater Runoff Component
The Community Development Component, the source of population
and growth forecasts used in projecting sanitary waste gener-
ation, is also used as input to the Stormwater Runoff Compon-
ent. Figure 22 shows that the area chosen for this example
overlaps five of the 92 major watersheds in the region which
flow to the Potomac, Occoquan, and Patuxent Rivers. Water-
shed No. 17 is one of those covering the area used in the
example.
From a data file, EMPIRIC outputs for each Policy Analysis
District are assigned to watersheds in proportion to the
fractions of area. This is done in the interface program
"Prestorm" which adds assignment of population and employ-
-126-
-------
ent to each watershed and accepts the input of the user's
choice of storm to be simulated. For realistic simulation
of storms actually experienced in the region, a "first
decile" storm described by its changes in intensity and dur-
ation is superimposed. The dry period preceding a storm of
this size is used to calculate the pollutant accumulation
eligible for washoff, and the succeeding dry period is calcu-
lated to show the time possible flow retention stormwater
treatment devices may be permitted to operate at an constant
rate to treat the surge of stormwater.
The simulation of a storm is completed by the EPA Stormwater
Management Model and the resultant runoff summarized by a
program called "Split" which divides that portion of the
runoff flow and load that will be discharged directly in the
estuary, from that which will be simulated as treated as
combined sewage in the Waste Treatment Management Component.
SPLIT FLCKS A;."3 LCADS
(LOS)
.~u:;ofF 300
C-;3) (LoS)
Comparison of the runoff projected for this area in 1976
shows that it v/ill increase by 52 percent from the Icvclc
simulated for 1968. Had a more mature watershed, one with
combined .seweraae systems been chosen, the split printout
would revel the stormwater loads contributed to the sewerage
system. Watershed No. 36 is an example where this occurs:
S.->:.IT FLOX3 AND LO/oii
r?: ;.V."D FL'.-VS ( LOA3S 'J;;7RTJ»7LD FLOWS ( LOADS
i.'.is;
1S3',2
o.o
(L&S) |.v.3i (LOS) (L2S
iO.lS 230 0.0
0.0 682.22 21,323 0.0
-127-
-------
The simulated stormwater flows t.'.iat do not go through com-
bined sewers can be "treated" in the Waste Treatment
Management Component by removing a user-specified portion
of the pollutant loads. The treated flows are then ready to
join simulated flows of sewage when they are discharged into
the estuary.
Waste Treatment Management Component
The Waste Treatment Management Component aggregates sewage
flows and loads from the water resource planning units into
user-specified sewage service areas such as those shown in
Figure 22. (Planning Unit No. 19 is in Sewer Service Area
No. 1 flowing to the Blue Plains Treatment Plant) and applies
a user-specified removal efficiency to each pollutant to
simulate the application of technology such as an advanced
waste treatment. Flow to treatment plants due to stormwater
runoff through combined sewer systems can also be simulated.
In the following example the user-specified removal effi-
ciencies for BOD5, Total N, and Total P are 71.2 percent,50
percent, and 50 percent, respectively.
SWAGE TREATMENT TO ESTUARY 1976 LOCAL NO. 1
DESCRIPTION AVERAGE AVERAGE LOADS(LBS/DA?)
FLOW(CPD) BOD NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS
VIRGINIA POTOMAC-DULLES INTERCEPTOR 18,655,300 6116 2290 541
Receiving Water Component
The effluent from the Waste Treatment Management Component
and the additional stormwater flows and loads via the natural
drainage system from the Stormwater Runoff Component are in-
put via the Preestuary model to the Estuary Hydrodynamic Sub-
program of the Receiving Water Component. This subprogram
calculates the tidal stage versus time for each estuary seg-
ment and the flow versus time between adjacent segments:
-128-
-------
METROI'OUT.V: u'.ism.vrro." rui.-.ci). or covm::m.sis POTOHAC ESTIURY HYDRAULIC RW
US1KG f I;: AT FA'.I.S 0-'"0p r-<. UI.VVI A!' :'• n.lf.1. CFS. PINTY POINT TIDE OF 4-7S8-69
EXIKACI liYur^x; tic RL'N /,i ..-;. *..'.\''J :,•>;..; wi.i, 0.'>0 ;;oi'i; TIMI. sirp
THIS EXTRACT t'SKD TO C!.'i:C>:M.T ::.•; •-."CD-fcO-CIILflkWIIVLL A MCW.'L 6-28-72
******* FKO.M IIVDIUULICS rT.orKA»: «••***«
START CVCLK Si'OP CYCLK TIME INTERVAL
1500
2000
90 SECONDS
HYDRAULIC CYCLES PER
QUALITY CYCLE
20
TIME INTERVAL IV
QUALITY PROCRAM
0.50 HOURS
CHANNEL
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
RET FLOW
(CFS)
7899.61
7899.59
7899.5'.
7899.55
76D9.52
7899.46
7899.43
7899.34
7ftoo m
toy?. v t
7699.08
7899.02
7RQO. nQ
MIX
(CFS)
-8035
6199
4694
3271
1609
-771
-3345
-689S
77A7 ^
" £ VU / J
-24206
88
S3
50
37
24
MAX
MIN
(CFS) crs)
-7615
8721
9453
10160
10396
91
11
39
14
05
f.l 122226.08
44
50
fifi
ou
88
13624
156'.!
51
11
-2
0
0
0
0
-0
227
250
)43
139
068
048
MAX
(CFS)
-1
0
0
0
0
906
348
268
440
444
MIN
(SQ. FT.
3553.5
23943.0
31347.8
21334.7
NOTE:
MAX
(SQ. FT.)
4129.5
26036.2
33845.4
Not all
AVE
(SQ. FT.
3885.4
24969.3
of the
I Printout reproduced.
Output from the Hydrodynamic Subprogram is used directly by
the Estuary Quality Subprogram which calculates the consti-
tuent levels for each segment of the estuary. The Estuary
Quality Subprogram simulates constituent concentration for
selected intervals of the twenty-four hour tidal cycle:
QUALITY SUMMARY
Sl'.XMARY STARTS AT SUX.MARY ENDS AT
CYCLE 575 (11 DAYS 23.5 HOURS) CYCLE 600 (12 DAYS 12.0 HOURS)
CONSTITUENT
HER
1 XH3-.VG/L DVCAY = 0.23/DAY
2 BOD-5 MG/L DECAY » .17
3 DO .>!G/I. R2 = 1
4 CilLOSOPilYL
5 N03 DrCAY = .09
** COMSTITUBNT NO 1 ** *« CONSTITUENT NO 2 •* ** CONSTITUENT NO 3 •* •• CONSTITUENT NO 4 ** •• CONSTITUENT M.O 5 •*
SEGM MI!.'. PAX. AVE.
HIM. KAX. AVE.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.
0.
0.
c.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
20
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
01
01
02
01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.20
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.05
.19
.43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.20
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.02
.05
2.
7.
7.
6.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
8.
00
79
31
80
61
84
60
26
70
6-1
45
2.
7.
7.
6.
9.
9.
8.
8.
9.
00
80
34
86
40
22
97
4?
20
2.00
7.80
7.33
6.83
B.92
9.00
3.79
0.38
8.97
KIN. MAX. AVE.
MIN.
MAX AVE.
7.00
6.92
5.83
5.20
5.34
4.PO
4.19
3.90
7.00
7.01
5.23
5.31
5. '.8
5.01
4.52
f,.5S
7.00
6.96
5.S5
5.75
5.41
4.99
4.36
4.21
7.00 7.00 7.09
19.05 19.07 19.06
18.91 18.9E 18.92
19.32 19.33 19.36
13.80 15.48 K.83
14.13 15.04 K63
MOTE: Not all oi the
Printout reproduced.
MIN. I
-------
To display the output data of the Receiving Water Component,
three-dimensional estuary profiles showing constituent concen-
trations by estuary mile and time, and tables of dissolved
oxygen response of the estuary are produced. The storm
event is simulated to occur during one tidal day starting
twelve and one-half hours after the start of the quality
simulation. The condition of the estuary after 300 hours
of the quality simulation is assumed to represent a steady
state condition which occurs once the storm's effects have
been dissipated in the estuary.
Figure 23 shows a generalized version of the three-dimensional
estuary profiles produced by the Estuary Quality Subprogram
of the Receiving Water Component. The large pollutant loads
that are induced at hour 12.5 are dissipated by dilution,
oxidation, ingestion and predation processes as they are
moved downstream by water entering the estuary at statute
mile zero. The characteristics of the estuary along the
first fifty miles of its length are shown along the wall of
the three dimensional box nearest the viewer. Three-dimen-
sional estuary profiles are produced for the following con-
stituents: biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) , nitrate (NC>3) ,
ammonia (NH3),chlorophyll "a", and dissolved oxygen (DO).
The relationship of these five constituents in the estuary
quality model is shown in Figure 12.
In addition to the three-dimensional estuary profiles, the
Receiving Water Component outputs a summary table of the
dissolved oxygen response of the estuary as follows:
DEFICIT PERIOD MEASURES AT VARIOUS MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
FOR SELECTED AREAWIDE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
RIVER I.tNGVH
(K!!.)
3.0
9.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
DURATION
12. KOUfl5 »*•»
29.35S
33.337
33.337
35. '.94
42.261
59.690
80.571
82.953
82.353
62.-) :.3
*»»• DURATION - 24. JiOUP-S ••••
23.218
28.356
33.337
35.494
42.251
•»•» DURATION = 48. HOURS
RIVfR VOLUME
(CO'. KM.)
0.115
0.153
0.153
0.153
0.219
0.504
C.837
0.368
0.853
0.883
0.053
0.115
RIVER SURFAC
(SQ. KM.)
26.657
34.346
34.34G
31.620
46.209
J.05.533
j NOTE: Not all of the
I Printout reproduced.
-130-
-------
Figure 23 EXAMPLE OF THREE-DIMENSIONAL ESTUARY PROFILE
FROM THE RECEIVING WATER COMPONENT
-131-
-------
SIMULATION AND COMPARISON OF AREAWIDE WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR 1992
General Description of Areawide Strategies
To demonstrate the full Framework Model capabilities, six
areawide water resources management strategies have been
simulated for the metropolitan Washington region for the
year 1992. These strategies were selected in Chapter II
from the "Options For Action" in water resources identified
during the MWCOG Year 2000 Policies Plan Reexamination.
The six strategies were chosen to reveal the water quality
impacts of applying different treatment efficiencies, and
different public policies that influence the use of water
resources. All strategies with the exception of strategy
No. 5 are in various stages of consideration within the
region.
The six strategies are summarized in Table 9 by displaying
the conditions simulated in each. These strategies assumed
that certain facilities or practices that would influence
either wastewater, stormwater, or water supply would be
applied in the region in 1992. It is important to note
that strategies were chosen to illustrate the Framework
Model's use and that assumptions made in forming each stra-
tegy can change to permit different assumptions to be tested.
Water Quality Effects of Each Areawide Strategy
In this section a detailed description of the conditions
simulated and the resulting water quality effects of each
alternative are presented. The three-dimensional estuary
profiles of five constituents for each areawide strategy are
displayed.
Strategy No. 1; Secondary Waste Treatment
This strategy assumed that all major wastewater treatment
plants discharging directly or to tributaries of the Potomac
would treat wastes to secondary treatment levels. (.85% BOD
removal efficiency; 13:3 mg/1. NH3 and 1.0 mg/1 DO effluent
concentrations). The simulation of this treatment strategy
was undertaken to provide a base from which to assess the
gains to be expected from the application of more advanced
-132-
-------
Table 9
CONDITIONS SIMULATED FOR AREAWIDE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
N. Simulated
N. Conditions
N.
\^
\^
N.
Areawide >v
Strategies N^
1 . Seocriiary
Waste
J^nd
Use
C/cvoicprerit
Pattern
(frcm
Corciunity
IX-veloara.t
Corcor.er.t)113
Water
Potorrtic
River
f la/i
above
water
intakes
.
S^iPIPJC Ai- 1954 cubic
tematiive
Treatment '6,2 noai-
2. Advanced
Waste
Treatment
3. Stcrrrvciter
Treatment
4. Water
Conservation
5. Dry Waste
Collection
fied for
1992
"
feet per
second (cfs)
K? ter
Dcjrands
{ f rar.
ivatcr
De-Tiind 2. 3 2
Conrponent)
1000 cfs
(647 MGD)
1
!
ti
1902 cfs
j
1797 cfs
I
1
6. Indirect \
Estuary | "
Re-use j
551 cfs
I '
II
948 cfs
843 cfs
Flow
into
Potcrac
Estuary
954 cfs
"
"
11
-309 cfs
860 cfs
(estuary
witMrawal
Wgs'ev.-ater
Sewage
Flows
(fron
Sewage
Generation
Component}
769 cfs
(496 *•'&>)
"
"
715 cfs
622 cfs
653 cfs
Treatment level
at rrt^nicipal
plants (frora
Waste Treatment
Mgt. Component) 6°
Secondary treat-
n«nt=85% BOD re-
moval, •& effluent
concentration
DO: 1 mg/1
NIi3:13.3 mg/1
Al\T effluent con-
centration =
BOD:5 nxi/1
DO: 5 mg/1
NH3:1 mg/1
11
AV.'i' for sewage
flews before 1976.
Non^.vatcr carried
waste remova] for
construction after
1976
AKT
Stormwater
Storm
Event51
First
decile
stonu
with vol-
a-TXJ=1.83"
frequency
> 8.62
storms per
year
"
H
M
"
Stonn^ater
Treatment
level (from
Waste Treat-
ment Mgt.
Component)
None
Estuary
Simulation Length
(of Receiving
Water Component)
3 times BOD nalf-
life ? 12 days at
None
50^ BOD re-
moval from
1st decile
storm
None
None
None
20°C
II
II
II
II
"
LO
U)
I
Sources of da>^a indicated by reference number.
-------
forms of treatment or management practices. Combined sewer
flows were assumed to be treated to secondary standards, al-
though stormwater not flowing to combined systems was not
assumed to be treated. The pattern of urban development
was simulated for the year 19"92 using Empiric Alternative
6.2 modified, H9 ancj this pattern influenced the amount of
water demand (1000 cfs) waste generation, (including infil-
tration 769 cfs) and the quantities of runoff expected from
storms.
A "first decile" storm (volume = 1.83 in, frequency 8.62
per year at 60% confidence level)^1 was assumed to occur dur-
ing the period simulated.
An attempt was made to simulate river flow conditions. The
seven-day ten-year low flow is that natural flow entering the
upper Potomac Estuary from upstream which is expected to
occur for a seven-day period once every ten years. The seven-
day ten-year low flow is the standard used by the States of
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia to determine
the assimilative capacity for water quality aspects. The
seven-day ten-year low flow into the region before water
withdrawals is 954 cfs, 73 and this is less than the projected
water demand in 1992 (1000 cfs). This fact caused the pro-
ject team to choose between simulating a negative river flow
(involving estuary withdrawal for water supply) or changing the
assumed river flow or the assumed water supply system.
Because estuary withdrawal was an emergency strategy that
would be simulated separately (Strategy No. 6), and additions
to the water supply would mean a choice between several in-
complete proposals to augment the metropolitan reservoir
system, it was decided to simulate a greater Potomac River
flow condition. It was decided that a total flow at the
upper boundary of the metropolitan region of 1954 cfs would
permit 1000 cfs of annual average day water supply to be
withdrawn and still allow 954 cfs to enter the estuary. This
flow for seven consecutive days has a recurrence interval of
•70 •*
approximately 1.8 years.y° Thus, the flow condition simulat-
ed is not an extreme case but one experienced generally every
other year in the region. The resulting three-dimensional
estuary profiles are therefore representative of normal
rather than extreme hydrologic conditions of the river.
Figure 24 contains the three-dimensional estuary profiles of
-134-
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
NITRATE
Figure 24 THREE-DIMENSIONAL ESTUARY PROFILES FOR STRATEGY NO. 1
SECONDARY WASTE TREATMENT
-135-
-------
the upper Potomac Estuary's response to the conditions
simulated. The profiles show that significant BOD loads
are washed into the estuary during a first decile storm over
the fifty-three urban metropolitan area watersheds tributary
to the Potomac when compared to treated wastewater BOD loads.
During steady state, dry weather conditions, the major source
of BOD and ammonia are the treatment plants in the upper
estuary. Dissolved oxygen concentrations are shown to be
depressed significantly below standards by both the storm
and the dry weather waste discharges, and by the dry weather
waste discharges alone.
Strategy No.2 Advanced Waste Treatment
This strategy assumed identical conditions of 1992 community
development as the secondary treatment strategy, but wastes
(including combined sewer flows) were assumed to be treated
to advanced waste treatment (AWT) standards (5.0 mg/1 DO,
5 mg/lBOD5, and 1 mg/1 NH3 effluent concentrations). A first
decile storm was also assumed. The three-dimensional estuary
profiles in Figure 25 show that the effects of the untreated
storm are nearly as great in Strategy No.2 as in Strategy
No.l. However, the dry weather flow condition did not de-
press the dissolved oxygen levels to the same extent. Dis-
solved oxygen levels were still below standards in the
neighborhood of the treatment plant outfalls in the upper
Potomac estuary. Advanced Waste Treatment was assumed as the
basis for the subsequent simulations of the water resource
system in the region in Strategies No.3 through No.6.
Strategy No.3 Stormwater Treatment
The first two strategies simulated illustrated the important
impact of untreated stormwater on the dissolved oxygen in
the estuary. It was shown that the stormwaters were
washed into the estuary where they remained until degraded.
Because of relatively low estuary flows they were not washed
downstream into the greater volumes of the expanding estuary
where they would have been diluted. The third strategy simu-
lated the treatment of both storm and sanitary wastewater
in order to show that the treatment of storms could contri-
bute significantly to improved water quality. Wastewater was
assumed treated to the AWT standards simulated in Strategy
No. 2.
-136-
-------
BOD
'MONIA
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
. • <-
NITRATE "*,•
CHLOROPHYLL "a"
Figure 25 THREE-DIMENSIONAL ESTUARY PROFILES FOR STRATEGY NO. 2
ADVANCED WASTE TREATEMENT
-137-
-------
A stormwater treatment efficiency of 50 percent removal from
a first decile storm for both BOD and NH3 was simulated. It
was computed assuming a greater degree of treatment on the
watersheds projected to have the highest stormwater BOD
concentration in 1992. It was found that treating the 19
watersheds with the highest stormwater BOD concentration at
a 60% BOD removal efficiency would be equivalent to removing
50 percent of the BOD load from all 53 watersheds in the
region directly tributary to the Potomac River. Because con-
trol measures for storm flows from these 19 watersheds would
be constructed in built-up areas where large facilities would
be difficult to locate, the removal of this pollution load
was assumed to be accomplished with four hundred and forty
20 mgd stormwater treatment units comprised of a combination
of bar racks, micro strainers, dissolved air flotation, and
surface detention for 25% of first decile storm runoff. This
assumption was made to facilitate cost estimates of storm-
water treatment and did not alter simulated storm discharge
points.
The results of this simulation are shown in Figure 26. The
profiles reveal that the BOD loads to the estuary are greatly
reduced during storms, but that water quality in the estuary
fails to meet state-adopted water quality standards, although
the model predicts the least violation when compared to the
strategies simulated. The importance of this simulation is
that it appears to point the way toward an important mechan-
ism for improving water quality and an area in which model
techniques should be refined to permit further analysis.
Strategy No.4 Water Conservation
The fourth strategy simulated the application of water con-
servation measures which have been proposed through the
Council of Governments as a mechanism for reducing the ever-
increasing demands imposed on the unregulated Potomac River.
At the time of the simulation,code changes requiring install-
ation of water saving devices in new construction were being
adopted by local and state governments in the area. The
plumbing code changes would reduce water used in toilets,
showers and in faucets in residential and commercial estab-
lishments in new construction and in rehabilitation. These
policies were modeled as being enforced after the year 1976,
but only in new construction in the region since the future
rate of renovation was not known. New residential, commercial
-138-
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
NITRATE
Figure 26 THREE-DIMENSIONAL ESTUARY PROFILES FOR STRATEGY NO. 3
STORMWATER TREATMENT
-139-
-------
and industrial construction was projected using the EMPIRIC
model. Overall annual average day water demand in the year
1992 was projected to be 948 cfs, down from the 1000 cfs pro-
jected without water conservation measures. Water use in
residential, commercial and industrial establishments was
assumed to be reduced twenty percent, but major use categor-
ies such as public and unaccounted for demands and residen-
tial sprinkling were not considered to be reduced by these
plumbing code changes.
Sewer infiltration/inflow was assumed to be reduced seven
percent by implementation of stricter construction specifica-
tions and inspection programs. The combination of reduced
water use and reduced sewer infiltration resulted in waste-
water quantities of 715 cfs, down from 769 cfs in previous
simulations. Advanced waste treatment was assumed for all
wastewater flows and combined sewer flows. A first decile
storm was also assumed, without stormwater treatment.
The reaction of the estuary to the discharges of reduced
quantities of wastewater was not significantly different
from its reaction to the second strategy simulated. This is
shown in the estuary profiles in Figure 27. It should be
remembered, however, that the Strategy No.4 is less expen-
sive because it defers the staging of treatment capacity (both
water and wastewater). The costs of the alternative strate-
gies are discussed later in this chapter.
Strategy No.5 Dry Waste Collection
Wastewater treatment is simply a method of removing contamin-
ants from water, and the question is often asked; why put
wastes into water in the first place? Aside from the mechan-
ical simplicity of the current water-carried system, it
appears to have little logic because it involves mixing
things together only to separate them again. To test the
effects on the estuary of a hypothetical program of non-water
carried waste disposal, a "dry" waste collection system was
simulated for all new construction beyond 1976. All sewage
flows generated before 1976 and combined sewer flows are
assumed to be treated to Advanced Waste Treatment standards.
The system could involve direct collection by truck, inciner-
ating toilets, or the universal use of functioning septic
systems; the exact system was not specified. A parallel
water-carried system for bathwater and other relatively clean
-140-
-------
BOD
AMMONIA
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
NITRATE
CHLOROPHYLL "a
Figure 27 THREE-DIMENSIONAL ESTUARY PROFILES FOR STRATEGY NO. 4
WATER CONSERVATION
-141-
-------
water discharges from homes and commercial establishments was
assumed. The system was assumed to be instituted in a manner
similar to the water conservation measures simulated in
Strategy No.4. New construction between the years 1976 and
1992 would contain "dry" systems. Water conservation through
plumbing modifications would also be practices, although
the benefits attributed to toilets using less water could not
be credited to this strategy. As with all other alternatives,
a first decile storm was assumed, in this case without storm-
water treatment.
The results of the simulation contained in Figure 28 show almost
no improvement in water quality as a result of this strategy
when compared to the AWT Strategy (Strategy No.2). The removal
efficiency of AWT resulting in the following effluent concentra-
tions: 5 mg/1 BOD5, 1 mg/1 NH3, 5.0 mg/1 dissolved oxygen, was
simply too high to make changes in wastewater flows a sensitive
variable. Use of "dry systems" for more than the '76- "92 growth
portion of the region's population could be expected to show an
improvement. If secondary treatment of remaining wastewater
flows had been assumed, a greater degree of improvement would
doubtless also have been observed. For the high levels of
treatment used in both the AWT Strategy (Strategy No.2) and the
Dry Waste Collection Strategy (Strategy No.5) the effect of the
storm-introduced constituents appears to control the estuary
dissolved oxygen levels.
Strategy No.6 Indirect Estuary Re-use
Proposals to use water from the upper portion of the Potomac
Estuary as an emergency supply of water provided impetus for
formulating this strategy. The prospect of emergency estuary
reuse has been considered in previous studies from the water
supply standpoint and by Congressional mandate must be fur-
ther examined.^-"
The simulation of this strategy assumed that water needs would
be reduced by plumbing code changes to effect water conserva-
tion as in Strategy No.4. It also assumed that the emergency
water use restrictions included in the Water Shortage Emer-
gency Plan adopted by the Council of Governments would be
imposed to reduce residential domestic (inhouse) demand and
sprinkling demand an additional 15 percent of the currently
projected 1992 figure for Strategy No.1. An average annual
day water demand of 860 cfs therefore was projected to be
supplied through withdrawals from the free flowing por-
tion of the river (551 cfs) and from the estuary, (309 cfs).
-142-
-------
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
NITRATE
Figure 28 THREE-DIMENSIONAL ESTUARY PROFILES FOR STRATEGY NO. 5
DRY WASTE COLLECTION
-143-
-------
Under the conditions simulated, the conditions of low dissolv-
ed oxygen normally expected several miles below the head of
the estuary are seen to move toward the intake in the estuary.
Dissolved oxygen levels in the neighborhood of the treatment
plants on the estuary actually appear to be improved as the
result of the upstream movement of waters which have provided
significant dilution to waste discharges. The results of the
simulation of this strategy are shown in Figure 29.
Comparison of "Capability" of Areawide Strategies
In the discussion of the Water Quality Objectives Element in
Chapter III, the "capability" of an areawide water resources
management strategy is defined as the extent of a constituent
concentration of less than or equal to a stated constituent
concentration for greater than or equal to a stated duration.
For the comparison of areawide strategies in this chapter,
the constituent chosen for analysis is dissolved oxygen. One
reason for this is that there are state-adopted standards for
permissible minimum dissolved oxygen levels in the Potomac
Estuary.
The extent measure selected for investigation is the length
of estuary affected in kilometers because it represents a
barrier to the movement of aquatic life and serves as a mea-
sure of the potential aesthetic effects from degraded water
quality. A ninety-six hour duration was chosen so that the
"capability" of each alternative could be compared if de-
sired with 96 hour median tolerance limit data for both
aquatic species and the associated species in their food
chain. Such a comparison was not made as part of this study,
however.
For each areawide strategy under investigation, the Receiving
Water Component produced a computer-printed table of the
extent of the Potomac Estuary affected (in area, volume, and
length) by various levels of dissolved oxygen for various
durations. For Strategies No.l through No.6, these summary
tables are presented in Appendix A as Tables No.A-1 through
No.A-6, respectively. Using the information contained in the
Appendix tables, Table 10 was prepared to present a compari-
son of the "capability" of the six areawide water resources
management strategies. "Capability" is the length of the
Potomac Estuary in kilometers at less than or equal to the
stated dissolved oxygen levels for greater than or equal to
-144-
-------
BOD
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
NITRATE
CHLOROPHYLL "a
Figure 29 THREE-DIMENSIONAL ESTUARY PROFILES FOR STRATEGY NO. 6
INDIRECT ESTUARY RE-USE
-145-
-------
Table 10
COMPARISON OF "CAPABILITY" OF AREAWIDE STRATEGIES
Areawide
Strategy
1. Secondary
Waste
Treatment
2. Advanced
Waste
Treatment
3. Storm water
Treatment
4. Water
Conservation
5. Dry Waste
Collection
6. Indirect
Estuary
Reuse
"Capability" as Length of
Potomac Estuary in Kilometers
At < stated dissolved oxygen
levels for duration of ^ 96
hours
Dissolved Oxygen Level, mg/1
12345
22.2 26.8 33.3 33.3 42.3
6.3 13.3 16.8 22.2 2&'.4
0 0 8.3 13.3 22.2
6.3 13.3 16.8 22.2 28.4
6.3 13.3 13.3 22.2 28.4
12.3 12.3 19.3 26.7 29.8
Values taken
from Table:
Table A-l in
Appendix A
Table A-2
Table A-3
Table A-4
Table A-5
Table A-6
Note that the lower the length of estuary affected, the better the capability
of a strategy.
-146-
-------
ninety-six hours. Note that for the strategy with the least
number of kilometers of estuary affected for a stated dissolv-
ed oxygen level, the better is the "capability" of that
strategy.
Thus, according to Table 10, for less than or equal to a con-
centration of four milligrams per liter dissolved oxygen,
Strategy No.3, Stormwater Treatment, has significantly better
"capability", although still violating the State-adopted
standard that dissolved oxygen levels must never fall below
four milligrams per liter.
Probability of Occurrence of Simulated Conditions
To perform a simulation using the Framework Model, assumptions
must be made concerning such conditions as the expected Poto-
mac River flow entering the region, the expected storm flow,
the expected water demand withdrawals, the expected community
development pattern, the reliability of treatment works to
perform as simulated, and other conditions. It is important,
as explained in the Water Quality Objectives Element, to
consider the joint probability of occurrence of these simulat-
ed events for the period modeled.
For this comparison of areawide water resources management
strategies, only the first two simulation conditions listed
above, the Potomac River flow and ths storm flow, have been
assigned probabilities of occurrence, primarily because these
numbers were easily obtainable. These are shown as Event A
and Event B in Table 11. All other simulation conditions have
been grouped into Event C and assigned a constant probability
of occurrence in the table. For simplicity this number was
chosen as 1.0. In further applications of this methodology
it is recommended that probabilities of occurrence be derived
for other simulation conditions, such as the reliability of
untested waste treatment works versus secondary treatment
works, or the probability that the water demand withdrawal
will be greater than or equal to the projected water demand.
In Table 11, Event A is defined as the Potomac River flow
entering at the upper boundary of the metropolitan region
being less than or equal to the simulated flow. This simulat-
ed flow equals the sum of the flow entering the estuary (954
cubic feet per second) plus the projected average daily water
demand withdrawn upstream of the estuary (1000 cfs for
-147-
-------
Table 11
COMPARISON OF "JOINT PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE"
OF SIMULATED CONDITIONS
Areav/ide
Strategy3
1. Secondary
Waste
Treatment
2. Advanced
Waste
Treatment
3. Stormwater
Treatment
4. Water
Conservation
5. Dry Waste
Collection
"Probability of Occurrence"
for any seven consecutive
days during a one
Event A Event '
Potomac Storm
River Flow
Flow2 >
< First
Simulated Decile
Flow Storm
Flow
0.55 0.15
0.55 0.15
0.55 0.15
0.54 0.15
0.53 0.15
year period-1-
B Event C
Other
Conditions
Simulated
Conditions'*
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"Joint Probability
of Occurrence
Events A, B &
" of
C for
any consecutive 7
days during a
of 1 year
period
0.083
0.083
0.083
0.081
0.080
1) At 60 percent confidence
2) Before withdrawals for water supply
3) In this comparison and the comparison of effectiveness it is assumed that
water withdrawals will not reduce the Potomac River inflow to the estuary
to less than the provision of 954 cfs flow and quality conditions simulated,
As Strategy No. 6 does not meet this condition it is not included for
further comparison.
4) See text for discussion of other conditions
-148-
-------
Strategies 1 through 3, less for Strategies 4 and 5).
This simulated flow of 1954 cfs for the first three strate-
gies has a recurrence interval, for a seven-day consecutive
period, of 1.8 years.73 The probability of occurrence of the
Potomac River flow being less than or equal to the simulated
flow is simply the reciprocal of the recurrence interval, or
0.55. Because Strategy No.6, Indirect Estuary Reuse, does
not assume 954 cfs enters the estuary, it is not included
for further comparison.
The probability of occurrence of Event B, the storm flow
being greater than or equal to the first decile storm, was
determined from the results of the Rainfall Analysis Model
of the Stormwater Runoff Cemponent2,. and is o.qual to 0.15
for all strategies tested.
The product of each of these event probabilities, if one
assumes the events are independent, is the joint probability
of occurrence of all of these events during the same time
period. A detailed investigation to verify that these events
are independent was not part of the study. The resulting
joint probability of occurrence of the factors considered for
each strategy is shown in Table 11.
Comparison of "Effectiveness" of Areawide Strategies
The product of the 'joint probability of occurrence" and the
"capability" is the expected "effectiveness" of an areawide
water resources management strategy. Utilizing the values
for capability contained in Table 10, and the joint probabil-
ity of occurrence from Table 11, Table 12 presents the effect-
iveness of the five strategies. This table shows that
effectiveness is the length of Potomac Estuary in kilometers
at less than or equal to the stated dissolved oxygen levels
for greater than or equal to 96 hours due to the joint
occurrence of stated river flow, storm flow, and other condi-
tions for seven consecutive days during a one-year period.
This table illustrates that even with Strategy No.3, Storm-
water Treatment, more than one kilometer o± the Potomac
Estuary would be expected to experience dissolved oxygen
levels at or below four milligrams per liter during the
period modeled. The Advanced Waste Treatment (No.2), the Water
Conservation (No.4), and the Dry Collection (No.5) Strategies
-149-
-------
Table 12
COMPARISON OF "EFFECTIVENESS" OF AREAWIDE STRATEGIES
Areawide
Strategy
"Capability" as length of
Potomac Estuary in kilometers
at £ stated dissolved oxygen
levels for duration of ^ 96
hours (from Table 10)
Dissolved Oxygen Level, mg/1
12345
"Joint
Probability
of Occur-
rence" of
Events A, B
5 C for any
consecutive
7 days dur-
ing a period
of 1 year
[from Table
11)
"Effectiveness" as length of
Potomac Estuary in kilometers
at i~ stated dissolved oxygen
levels for > 96 hours due to
joint occurrence of stated river
flow, storm flow and water with-
drawals for 7 consecutive days
during a 1 year period
Dissolved Oxygen Level, mg/1
1-2 345
1; Secondary
Waste
Treatment
22.2 26.8 33.3 33.3 42.3
0.083
1.9 2.2 2.8 2.8 3.5
2. Advanced
Waste
Treatment
6.3 13.3 16.8 22.2 28.4
0.083
0.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.4
3. Stormwater
Treatment
0 0 8.3 13.3 22.2
0.083
0 0 0.7 1.1 l.i
4. Water
Conservation
6.3 13.5 16.8 22.2 28.4
0.081
0.5 1.1 1.1 1.8 2.3
5. Dry
Waste
Collection
6.3 13.3 13.3 22.2 28.4
0.080
0.5 1.1 1.4 1.8 2.3
See footnotes in Table 11. Note that the lower the length of estuary affected, the better the
effectiveness of a strategy.
-150-
-------
all have the same expected "effectiveness", but all are signifi-
cantly better than Strategy No.l, Secondary Waste Treatment.
Table 12 therefore demonstrates that, although none of the
strategies simulated can achieve the adopted water quality
standard for dissolved oxygen, certain strategies are more
effective than others for gaining incremental water quality
improvements. The strategies differ not only in effective-
ness, however, but also in cost.
Comparison of Cost of Areawide Strategies
The present value of each of the alternative strategies is
summarized by cost element in Table 13. This table was
developed using the methodology contained in the Cost Element
described in Chapter III, and the assumptions detailed in
Appendix E. The costs are expressed as the present value of
capital, fixed operation and maintenance (0 & M), variable
0 & M base element, and variable 0 & M growth element costs
of each strategy for the planning period July 1, 1976 through
June 30, 1992 in millions of January 1974 dollars.
The strategy with the lowest total present value is Strategy
No.l, Secondary Treatment. By far the strategy with the
highest total present value is Strategy No.3, Stormwater
Treatment. By analyzing the total present value from Table
13 and the effectiveness from Table 12, the relative cost-
effectiveness of the areawide strategies can be determined.
Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness of Areawide Strategies
The cost-effectiveness of each of the areawide water resources
management strategies is shown in Figure 30. The chart shows
that as less kilometers of the estuary are affected by de-
pressed dissolved oxygen levels, the costs of the strategies
employed to gain this improvement rise. Another conclusion
that can be reached from an analysis of the chart is that
the Water Conservation Strategy is more cost-effective than
either the Advanced Waste Treatment or Dry Collection Strate-
gies, even though all three have the same effectiveness. The
chart also shows that the strategy which results in the
greatest increment of effectiveness for the least increment
of cost is the Water Conservation Strategy as well.
-151-
-------
Table 13
MONETARY COST BY ELEMENT OF APEAWIDE STRATEGIES
Expressed as the present value of total monetary
cost for planning period July 1, 1976 thru
June 30, 1952 in millions of 1/1/74 dollars
Cost Element
Capital
Fixed O t, M
Variable 0 & M
Base Element
Variable 0 & M
Growth
Element
Total Present
Value of
Strategy
AREAWIDE WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
Strategy No.l
SEC
133
47
16
2
198
Strategy No. 2
AWT
426
236
75
11
748
Strategy No. 3
swr
1874
332
75
138
2419
Strategy No. 4
VC
394
215
75
5
689
Strategy No. 5
DRY
635
196
75
145
1051
-152-
-------
2500 -i
2000 -
o
a
1500 -
1000 -
8
H
2:
••4
«:
0-,
Q
UJ
to
to
5
0-
X
500 -
SWT
ffi DRY
• AWT
® WC
more effective
SEC
1
1.0
l
2.0
3.0
4.0
EFFECTIVENESS
EXPECTED EFFECTIVE LENGTH OF POTOMAC ESTUARY km/yr WIT!! DISSOLVED OXYGEN
LEVEL ^ A.Omg/1 FOR DURATION - 96 hrs. DUE TO JOINT OCCURENCE OF STATED
RIVER INFLOW, STORM FLOW, WATER WITHDRAWAL AND WASTEWATER DISCHARGE DURING
A SEVEN DAY PERIOD.
Figure 30 COST EFFECTIVENESS OF AREAWIDE WATER RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
-153-
-------
REFERENCES
1. Promise, J. and M. Leiserson. Water Resource Management
for Metrpolitan Washington; Analysis of the Joint Inter-
actions of Water and Sewage Service/ Public Policy, and
Land Development Patterns in an Expanding Metropolitan
Area. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
Washington, D.C. December, 1973. NTIS No. PB-232169/3WU.
2. •Spooner, C.S., P.H. Graham, J. Promise, W. Febiger.
Technical Summary of the Framework Water Resources Plan-
ning Model. Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments. May, 1974.
3. Washington Area Interstate Water Resources Program. The
Basis for Planning an Action Program. Draft. Metropoli-
tan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.
November, 1972.
4. Washington Area Interstate Water Resources Program Policy
Committee. A Report of Progress and Conclusions. Sub-
mitted to Governor Holton, Governor Mandel, and Mayor-
Commissioner Washington. Washington, D*C. January, 1973.
5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Northeastern Water Supply
Study Group. Letter to Walter A. Scheiber, Executive
Director, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
from Herbert Howard, Acting Chief, Planning Division.
July 27, 1973.
6. Johns Hopkins University, Applied Physics Lab. Power
Plant Site Evaluation Interim Report - Dickerson Site.
Submitted to the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program.
Silver Spring, Maryland. April 30, 1973.
7. 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, Public Law 91-190, (January 1, 1970),
The National Envirnomental Policy Act of 1969.
8. Wapora, Inc. Draft Environmental Impact Assessment for
the Diversion Weir, Potomac River. Prepared for the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. Washington, D.C.
1973.
-154-
-------
9. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore Engineer District.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Emergency
Water Pumping Station. Prepared by Wapora, Inc. Balti-
more, Maryland. August, 1973.
10. Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers, in association with Water
Resources Engineers. Reconnaissance Study of Combined
Sewer Overflows and Storm Water Discharges. Prepared
for District of Columbia Department of Environmental
Services. March, 1973.
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV. Letter
to P. Graham from H.S. True concerning North Fulton
County, Atlanta, Ga. Environmental Impact Statement.
October 30, 1973.
12. Graham, P.H., L.S. Costello, H.J. Mallon. "Estimation of
Imperviousness and Specific Curb Length for Forecasting
Stormwater Quality and Quantity." Journal Water Pollu-
tion Control Federation, 46: 717, 1974.
13. Berdine, S.P. and James S. Kutzman. Planning for Urban
Water Pollution Control. Submitted for presentation at
Confer-In 1973. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Atlanta, Georgia. October, 1973.
14. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Re-exam-
ination of the Year 2000 Policies Plan Vol. I and II,
Washington, D.C. January, 1974.
15. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company. Background and
Experience. Accompanied March 27, 1972, statement of
work to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
in connection with OWRR project No. 14-31-0001-3400.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Planning Agencies - 40 CFR35,
Subpart F, Grants to Designated Areawide Waste Treatment
Management Planning Agencies: Grant Applications; Grants;
Plan Content and Approval." Interim regulations,
Federal Register. 39 (93) :17202-17206, May 13, 1974.
17. 33 U.S.C. 1313, Public Law 92-500, October 18, 1972. The
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-155-
-------
18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for
Facilities Planning. Washington, D.C.. January, 1974.
19. Council on Environmental Quality. "Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements: Guidelines - 40 CFR
1500." Final regulations. Federal Register. 38:
20550-20562, August 1, 1973.
20. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Board of
Directors. "Resolution Accepting Amendments to the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments Model
Plumbing Code, R50-73." Adopted June 13, 1973.
21. . Report on the Use of Regional Plumbing Codes
to Effect Water Conservation. Washington,D.C. June,1973.
22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "State and Local
Assistance - 40 CFR 35, Subpart E, Appendix A, Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis." Final regulations. Federal
Register. 39(29): 5268-5270, February 11, 1974~i
23. . "State and Local Assistance - 40 CFR 35, Sub-
part E, Appendix Bl, User Charges and Industrial Recovery
Cost." Final regulations. Federal Kegister, 3y(^y):
5270, February 11, 1974.
24. . "State and Local Assistance - 4u CI-'K 3b, auu-
part B, 35. 400," Interim regulations. Federal Resister,
38(125): 17217-17222, June 29, 1973.
25. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. "Recom-
mendation No. 1 of the Potomac Enforcement Conference,
April, 1969." In: Water and Sewerage Plan and Program
1971-72. Appendix F. Washington, D.C. 1971.
26. Hydroscience, Inc. A Water Resource Analysis of the
Potomac Estuary - Phase I. Preliminary copy. Prepared
for Maryland Environmental Service, Washington, D.C.
April, 1973.
27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "State and Local
Assistance - 40 CFR 35, Subpart E, 35,900," Final
Regulations. Federal Register. 39(29): 5252-5269,
February 11, 1974.
-156-
-------
23. Prince Georges County, Maryland. "Prince Georges County
1973-1982 Ten Year Water and Sewer Plan and 1973-1978
Six Year Capital Improvements Program of the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission." July, 1972.
29. Montgomery County, Maryland. "Comprehensive Ten Year
Water and Sewerage Plan, FYS '74-'83." August, 1973.
As Amended by Council Resolutions No. 7-901 and 7-1539.
30. Prince Georges County Council Resolution CR.51. "Prohi-
biting the Operation of the Piscataway Incinerator Until
30 Days After Final Environmental Impact Statement Has
Been Approved." Enacted May 28, 1974.
31. National Capital Regional Planning Council. A Policies
Plan for the Year 2000. Washington, B.C., 1961.
32. Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission.
On Wedges and Corridors: A General Plan for the Maryland-
Washington Regional District. 1964.
33. National Capital Planning Commission. Proposed Compre-
hensive Plan for the National Capital, General Land Use
Objectives 1970-1985. Amended January 31, 1974.
34. Northern Virginia Regional Planning Commission. Northern
Virginia Regional Plan, Year 2000. 1965.
35. Gordon, M. Optimum Growth: Consequences for the Year 2000
in Metropolitan Washington. A report to the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. August, 1973.
36. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "The Quality of
Life Concept, A Potential New Tool for Decision-Makers."
Symposium Report. March, 1973.
37. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. EMPIRIC Activity Allocation
Model/ Application to the Washington Metropolitan Region.
A report to the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, D.C. 1972.
38. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Areawide
Land Use Element - 1972. Washington, D,C% 1972.
-157-
-------
39. Hittman Associates, Inc. Forecasting Municipal Water
Requirements ~ Volume I - The Main II System. Columbia,
Maryland. September, 1969.
40. . Forecasting Municipal Water Requirements --
Volume II—JThe Main II System. Columbia, Maryland.
September, 1969.
41. Linaweaver, P.P., et. al. A Study of Residential Water
Use. The Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore,
Maryland. Undated.
42. . Report I - Phase Two - Residential Water Use
Research Project. The Johns Hopkins University. Balti-
more, Maryland. 1964.
43. . Report II - Phase Two - Residential Water Use
Research Project. The Johns Hopkins University. Balti-
more, Maryland. 1965.
44. Howe, C., et. al. Future Water Demands. Resources for
the Future, Washington, D.C. March, 1971.
45. Wolff, J.B., et. al. Report on the Commercial Water Use
Research Project. The Johns Hopkins University.
Baltimore, Maryland. 1966.
46. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1968
County Business Patterns CBP-68-10. Washington, D.C.
1970.
47. Maryland Environmental Service. State of Maryland-
Potomac Metropolitan Area Basin Water Quality Management
Plan. Review Draft. Annapolis, Maryland. 1973.
48. Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., University of Florida, and Water
Resources Engineers, Inc. "Stormwater Management Model."
A report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Volumes
I through IV, 11024DOCO 7/71. Washington, D.C. 1971.
49. Lager, J.A., R.P. Shubinski, L.W. Russell. "Development
of a Simulation Model for Stormwater Management." Jour-
nal Water Pollution Control Federation. 40:2424, 1971.
50. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. Rainfall
Frequency Atlas of the United States. Technical Paper
No. 40. Washington, D.C. 1963.
-158-
-------
51. Unpublished study by P. Graham and T. Gill, MWCOG, con-
ducting an applied ra,infall analysis for stormwater
quality forecasts, 1973.
52. National Climatic Center "Hourly Precipitation Data
(Card Deck 488) for Washington, D,C./National Airport
Weather Bureau (#44-8906) 1/60-12-71, Tape 1/2 inch,
9-channel, card image format, blocked 10 cards/record,
EPCDIC, add parity, 800 bpi." Environmental Data
Service, National Oceanic and Atmosphereic Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.
1973.
53. Feigner, K. and Howard S. Harris. Documentation Report,
FWQA Dynamic Estuary Model. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration.
Washington, D.C. 1970.
54. Clark, L.J., and N.A. Jaworski. Nutrient Transport and
Dissolved Oxygen Budget Studies in the Potomac Estuary.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Annapolis Field
Office Region III. 1972.
55. Unpublished study by P. Graham, MWCOG, of Receiving
Water Component equations and constants in Framework
Model, 1974.
56. Jaworski, N.A. and L.J. Clark. Physical Data Potomac
River Tidal System Including Mathematical Model Segmen-
tation. Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory, Middle
Atlantic Region, Federal Water Quality Administration.
Washington, D.C. 1970.
57. American Pxiblic Health Association, American Water Works
Association, Water Pollution Control Federation. "Stan-
dard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater."
Thirteenth Ed. Washington, D.C. 1971.
58. Carter, S., M. Frost, C. Rubin, and L. Sumek. Environ-
mental Management and Local Government, EPA - 600/5-73-
016. Conducted by International City Management Associa-
tion, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
February, 1974.
59. Trzyna, T.C. Environmental Impact Requirements in the
States: NEPAls Offspring. EPA-600/5-74-006. Government
Printing Office. Washington, D.C. April 1974.
-159-
-------
60. Maryland Environmental Policy Act. Maryland Annotated
Code, Article 41, Sections 447-453. Approved 1973.
61. Virginia Environmental Policy Act. Virginia Annotated
Code, Chapter 384, Acts 1973. Approved March 15, 1973.
62. Warner, M.L. and E.H. Preston. A Review of Environment-
al Impact Assessment Methodologies. EPA - 600/5-74-002.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. April,
1974.
63. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Public Partici-
pation in Water Pollution Control - 40 CFR 105." Mini-
mum Guidelines. Federal Register. 38(163): 22756-
22758, August 23, 1973.
64. . "State and Local Assistance-40 CFR 35, Subpart
F, Grants to Designated Areawide Waste Treatment Manage-
ment Planning Agencies." Interim regulations. Federal
Register. 39(93): 17202-17206, May 13, 1974.
65. . Draft Guidelines for Areawide Waste Treatment
Management. Washington,D.C.May 3,1974.
66. Cornell, Rowland, Hayes, & Merryfield, Clair A. Hill &
Associates. Wastewater Treatment Study Montgomery
County, Md. Vol. II. November, 1972.
67. Economic Development Bureau, Metropolitan Washington
Board of Trade. Metropolitan Washington Municipal
Budgets; How They Work. Washington, D.C. Fall, 1972.
68. Maryland Environmental Service, State of Maryland. Pre-
liminary draft. Potomac-Metropolitan Area Basin Plan.
Annapolis, Maryland. March, 1974.
69. 33 U.S.C. 466, et. seq. The Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1965.
70. Izaak Walton League of America. A Citizens Guide to
Clean Water. Washington, D.C. June, 1973,
71. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Quality Manage-
ment Basin Plans, Policies and Procedures - 40 CFR 130
and 131." Final regulations. Federal Re'g'ister. 39(107):
19634-19644, June 3, 1974.
-160-
-------
72. Environmental Protection Agency. "Areawide Waste
Treatment Management Planning Areas and Responsible
Planning Agencies - 40 CFR 126." Final regulations.
Federal Register. 39(178): 25681-25683. September 14,
1973.
73. Jaworski, N.A., L.J. Clark, and L.P. Feigner. A Water
Resource-Water Supply Study of the Potomac Estuary.
Chesapeake Technical Support Laboratory, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. April, 1971.
74. McHarg, Ian. Design With Nature. Garden City, New York:
Natural History Press, 1969.
75. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Natural
Features of the Washington Metropolitan Area. Washing-
ton, D.C. January, 1968.
76. Kranskoff, Thomas M. and D.C. Bunde. "Evaluation of
Environmental Impact Through a Computer Modelling Pro-
cess." Environmental Impact Analysis; Philosophy and
Methods, Ditton, R. and T. Goodale, (eds.). Madison,
Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program.
1972.
77. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. "Ecologi-
cal Inventory of Broad Run Watershed - Environmental Data:
Acquisition, Coding and Manipulation." Attached to May
10, 1974 letter from R. J. Basele, NVPDC.
78. Dee, Norbert, J. Baker, N. Drobny, K. Duke, I. Whitman
and D. Fahringer. "An Environmental Evaluation System
for Water Resources Planning." Water Resources Research.
9(3), June, 1973.
79. Conversation between J. Promise, MWCOG, and S. Joyner,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers NEWS Study, March, 1974.
80. Leopold, L.B., F.E. Clarke, B.B. Henshaw, and J.R.
Balsley. A Procedure for Evaluating Environmental Im-
pact. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 645. Washington,
D.C. 1971.
-161-
-------
81. Cornell, Howland, Hayes, & Merryfield, Clair A. Hill &
Associates. Regional Water Reclamation Plan, Upper
Occoquan Sewage Authority — Volume I Report. Project
No. W6958.0 Reston, Virginia. January 28, 1971.
82- . Draft Study Area I Wastewater Treatment Study,
Phase 2. For Northern Virainia Plannina District
Commission. April, 1974.
83. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III. Draft
Environmental Impact Statement - Upgrading and Expansion
of the WSSC Piscataway Wastewater Treatment Facility to
30 MGD AWT. Philadelphia, Pa. December, 1973.
84. . Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Dis-
trict of Columbia Water Pollution Control Plant (Expan-
sion and Upgrading) Philadelphia, Pa. April, 1972.
85. Bechtel Incorporated. Executive Summary, Lower Potomac
Basin Wastewater Facilities Study. For Maryland Envir-
onmental Service. October, 1972.
86. Northern Virginia Planning District Commission. Draft
Phase I Water Quality Management Plan For Northern
Virginia. Arlington, Virginia. October, 1973.
87. Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers.
Supplement to Final Environmental Statement, Sixes Bridge
Dam and Lake, Maryland and Pennsylvania, and Verona Dam
and Lake, Virginia. 2 Volumes. Washington, D.C. May,
1973.
88. Howard, Needles, Tammen, and Bergendoff. 1-66 Corridor
Transportation Alternates Study, Draft Environmental/
Section 4 (f) Statement. For Virginia Department of
Highways. Virginia. November, 1973.
89. Warner, M.L. Environmental Impact Analysis; An Examina-
tion of Three Methodologies. PhD. Thesis. Department of
Agricultural Economics, Wisconsin University. 1973.
90. Sorenson, J.C. and M.L. Moss, Procedures and Programs
to Assist In the Environmental Impact Statement Process.
California University, Berkeley, Institute of Urban and
Regional Development. April, 1973.
-162-
-------
91. Baltimore District,. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ches-
apeake Bay Existing Conditions Report - Summary.
Baltimore, Md. December, 1973.
92. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "National Primary
and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards, 42 CFR 410."
Federal Register, 36(84): 8186-8187, April 30, 1971.
93. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Preparation
Adoption and Submittal of Implementation Plans, Mainten-
ance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 40 CFR
51. Federal Register, 38(116); 15834-15837, June 18,
1973.
94. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements - 40 CFR 6." Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register. 39(138): 26254-
26270, July 17, 1974.
95. "Fairfax County Water Authority Water System Budget for
Fiscal Year Ending December 31, 1973, Details of Current
Expenses, Exhibit 7". Annandale, Virginia. 1973.
96. "Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission Cost Studies,
1972 Actual-1973 Budget." Treasurer's Department,
Controller's Division. Hyattsville, Md. 1973.
97. Development Sciences, Inc. Optimum Growth: Consequences
for the Year 2000 in Metropolitan Washington. For the
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washing-
ton, D.C. August, 1973.
98. High, M. Dean. "A Review of the Background, Preparation,
and Use of Environmental Impact Statements." Journal of
the Air Pollution Control Association. February, 1974.
99. 16 U.S.C. 470(f), The National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966.
100. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. "Procedures
for Compliance with Section 106 of National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966." Federal Register. 5430,
March 15, 1972.
-163-
-------
101. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements - 40 CFR 6." Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking. Federal Register. 39(138):
26254-26270, July 17, 1974.
102. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Public Law 91-646.
(January 2, 1971), 91st Congress, S.L.
103. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Relo-
cation: A Place To Live. Washington, D.C. October,
1972.
104. Water Resources Development Act of 1974. Public Law
93-251. (March 7, 1974), 93rd Congress, H.R. 10203.
105. Office of Management and Budget. "Federal and Federally
Assisted Programs and Projects - Evaluation, Review and
Coordination." Revision to Circular A-95. Federal
Register. 38(228): 32874-32881, November 29, 1973.
106. The Conservation Foundation. Water Quality Training
Institute. Funded under training grant from Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of Public Affairs.
Washington, D.C. 1974.
107. Warner, Katherine P. Public Participation in Water
Resources Planning. National Water Commission.
Arlington, Virginia. July, 1971.
108. From unpublished survey of wastewater treatment plant
performance records by W. Febiger, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. 1973.
109. From unpublished report by J. Promise, MWCOG, on use of
MAIN II System in the Framework Model, Table 4-3.
July, 1972.
110. From unpublished study by J. Promise, MWCOG, of 1968
water demand estimates for District of Columbia versus
recorded D.C. water usage. January, 1973,
111. District of Columbia "Water Quality Criteria, Implemen-
tation and Enforcement Plan," Department of Public
Health, January, 1969.
-164-
-------
112. State of Maryland Water Resources Regulation 4.8,
"General Water Quality Criteria and Specific Water
Quality Standards," Department of Water Resources,
April 1969.
113. Virginia State Water Control Board, "Commonwealth of
Firginia Water Quality Standards,H June 1970.
114. U.S. Department of Interior, Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration. Potomac River Water Quality,
Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area. Technical Advisory
and Investigations Branch, Division of Technical Ser-
vices, Cincinnati, Ohio. 1969.
115. District of Columbia Department of Environmental Ser-
vices, District of Columbia State Continuing Planning
Process, February 15, 1973.
116. Virginia State Water Control Board, 1973-74 Continuing
Water Quality Planning Process, December 1973 (Revised).
117. Maryland Environmental Service et al, State of Maryland
Continuing Planning Process For Water Quality Manage-
ment, February 15, 1973 and map attached to the "Letter
of Transmittal" of classifications, December 27, 1973.
118. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Environ-
mental Impact Statement - District of Columbia Water
Pollution Control Plant (Expansion and Upgrading).
Philadelphia, Pa. May, 1974.
119. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments National
Capital Region Transportation Planning Board. Zonal
Land Use Allocations for Regional Travel Demand Fore-
casts, Alternative 6.2 as modified. September, 1973.
120. Computer printout of MUNWATRE subprogram of Water Demand
Component for 1976 utilizing MAIN II run titled MAIN2.
FIXSINP.LOCAL.PU50.Y76.N01, May, 1973.
121. "Joint Workshop on the Physical Environment", Land Use
Policy Committee and Health and Environmental Protection
Policy Committee of MWCOG, Meeting notice and attached
issue papers. June 18, 1973.
-165-
-------
122. Bower, Blair T. and W.O. Spofford, Jr. "Environmental
Quality Management", Natural Resources Journal, Volume
10, No.4, October, 1970. The University of New Mexico
School of Law.
123. Colony, William M. "The Tahoe "Land Capability' Approach
to Resource Management: A Case History", 1972.
124. Report of the Short-Term Planning Committee - Recommenda-
tion No. 4, prepared in accordance with Recommendation
No. 4 of the "Conference on Pollution of the Interstate
Waters of the Potomac River and Its Tributaries".
Washington, D.C. 1971.
125. United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water
Resources Research. Research grant number 14-31-0001-
3400, Analysis of the Joint Interaction of Water Supply,
Public Policy, and Lard Development Patterns in an Ex-
panding Metropolitan Area. Awarded to the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. 1971.
126. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Office,
Office of Research and Development. Offer and Acceptance
of a Federal Grant for Research and Development - Pro-
ject Number 16110 FEY, Systems Analysis in Urban Water
Quality Planning. Awarded to Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments. Washington, D.C. 1971.
127. U.S. Envirnomental Protection Agency, Implementation
Research Division, Office of Research and Monitoring.
Continuation of Grant Systems Analysis in Urban Watejr
Quality Planning, Revised Project Number S-802149.
Awarded to the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. Washington, D.C. May, 1973.
128. Unpublished study by J. Promise and M. Leiserson, MWCOG,
of approaches to meeting the MAIN II Model requirements
for specification of number of dwelling units within
home value categories. Fall, 1971.
129. Unpublished study by J. Promise, MWCOG, calculating ex-
pected ugage coefficients for the commercial/institutional
categories of the MAIN II system based on an analysis of
establishments in metropolitan Washington within specified
SIC industries. March, 1972.
-166-
-------
130. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
National Capital Region Air Transportation Plan and
Program - Synopsis of the Study. Department of Trans-
portation Planning. 1974.
131. Unpublished Interviews with Representatives of Water
Resource Utilities in Metropolitan Washington concerning
Indirect and Overhead Costs. P. Graham and W. Febiger,
MWCOG. 1973.
132. Computer printout of MUNWATRE subprogram of Water Demand
Component for 1992 utilizing MAIN II run titled MAIN2.
FIXSINP, LOCAL, PU50, Y92, NO1, June 4, 1973. Values
converted to cubic feet per second.
133. Computer printout of Sewage Generation Component for 1992
utilizing sewage run titled SEWG, TRTINP. LOCAL. PU50.
Y92, NO1. Values converted to cubic feet per second.
134. Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers. Water Supply Study
for Washington Metropolitan Area, Fairfax County Water
Authority, Government of the District of Columbia,
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission. April, 1974.
135. Monti, R.P., and P.T. Silberman, "Wastewater System
Alternatives: What They Are...And What They Cost."
Water and Wastes Engineering. Vol. II, No. 3, March,
April, May and June, 1974.
136. Heaney, J.P., W.C. Huber, et al. Urban Stormwater Manage-
ment Modeling and Decision-Making. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D,C. Publication Number
670/2-75-022, May, 1975.
137. Greeley and Hansen, Engineers. Report on^Additional
Water Supply, Fairfax County Water Authority. June, 1971.
123 p.
138. Goeppner, J. and D.E. Hasselmann, "Digestion By-Product
May Give Answer to Energy Problem." Water and Wastes
Engineering. Vol. II, No. 4, April, 1974.
-167-
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix A Dissolved Oxygen Summary Tables
For Six Areawide Strategies 169
Appendix B Comparison of Costs of Alternate
Water Resources Management
Strategies 175
Appendix C Output Available From Community
Development Component (EMPIRIC) 182
Appendix D Parameters Used in the Stormwater
Management Model of the Storm-
water Runoff Component 183
-168-
-------
APPENDIX A DISSOLVED OXYGEN SUMMARY TABLES FOR SIX AREAWIDE STRATEGIES
TABLE A-l
DEFICIT PERIOD MEASURES AT VARIOUS MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
STRATEGY NO. 1: SECONDARY WASTE TREATMENT
MINIMUM
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
LEVEL
(MG/L)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
RIVER LENGTH
KILOMETERS
DURATION=12. HOURS
28.356
33.337
33.337
35.494
42.261
59.690
80.571
82.953
82.953
82.953
DURATION=24. HOURS
25.218
28.356
33.337
35.494
42.261
DURATION=48. HOURS
25.218
28.356
33.337
33.337
42.261
DURATION=96. HOURS
22.176
26.811
33.337
33.337
42.261
RIVER VOLUME
CUBIC KILOMETERS
0.115
0.153
0.153
0.158
0.219
0.504
0.887
0.888
0.888
0.888
0.093
0.115
0.153
0.158
0.219
0.093
0.115
0.153
0.153
0.219
0.076
0.104
0.153
0.153
0.219
RIVER SURFACE
SQUARE KILOMETERS
26.657
34.346
34.346
34.820
46.209
105.588
186.306
186.306
186.306
186.306
21.920
26.657
34.346
34.820
46.209
21.920
26.657
34.346
34.346
46.209
18.793
23.922
34.346
34.346
46.209
-169-
-------
TABLE A-2
DEFICIT PERIOD MEASURES AT VARIOUS MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
STRATEGY NO. 2: ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
MINIMUM
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
LEVEL
(MG/L)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
RIVER LENGTH
KILOMETERS
DURATION=12. HOURS
14.781
14.781
22.176
25.218
35.494
59.690
80.571
82.953
82.953
82.953
DURATION=24. HOURS
11.506
14.781
18.306
22.176
30.513
DURATION=48. HOURS
10.018
14.781
18.306
22.176
28.356
DURATION=96. HOURS
6.284
13.293
16.817
22.176
28.356
RIVER VOLUME
CUBIC KILOMETERS
0.041
0.041
0.076
0.093
0.158
0.504
0.887
0.888
0.888
0.888
0.030
0.041
0.056
0.076
0.120
0.027
0.041
0.056
0.076
0.115
0.015
0.037
0.052
0.076
0.115
RIVER SURFACE
SQUARE KILOMETERS
10.433
10.433
18.793
21.920
105.588
186.305
186.604
186.604
186.604
186.604
7.698
10.433
14.066
18.793
27.132
7.197
10.433
14.066
18.793
26.657
4.070
9.932
13.565
18.793
26.657
-170-
-------
TABLE A-3
DEFICIT PERIOD MEASURES AT VARIOUS MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
STRATEGY NO. 3: STORMWATER TREATMENT
MINIMUM
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
LEVEL
(MG/L)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
RIVER LENGTH
KILOMETERS
DURATION=12. HOURS
0.0
4.522
13.293
14.781
25.218
49.334
82.059
82.953
82.953
82.953
DURATION=24. HOURS
0.0
4.522
13.293
14.781
22.176
DURATION=48. HOURS
0.0
4.522
10.018
13.293
22.176
DURATION=96. HOURS
0.0
0.0
8.256
13.293
22.176
RIVER VOLUME
CUBIC KILOMETERS
0.0
0.011
0.037
0.041
0.093
0.362
0.891
0.888
0.888
0.888
0.0
0.011
0.037
0.041
0.076
0.0
0.011
0.027
0.037
0.076
0.0
0.0
0.023
0.037
0.076
RIVER SURFACE
SQUARE KILOMETERS
0.0
3.291
9.932
10.433
21.920
77.460
186.806
186.806
186.806
186.806
0.0
3.291
9.932
10.433
18.793
0.0
3.291
7.197
9.932
18.793
0.0
0.0
6.418
9.932
18.793
-171-
-------
TABLE A-4
DEFICIT PERIOD MEASURES AT VARIOUS MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
STRATEGY NO. 4: WATER CONSERVATION
MINIMUM
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
LEVEL
(MS/L)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
RIVER LENGTH
KILOMETERS
DURftTION=12. HOURS
14.781
14.781
22.176
25.218
35.494
59.690
80.571
82.953
82.953
82.953
DURATIOSN24. HOURS
11.506
14.781
18.306
22.176
30.513
DURATION=48. HOURS
10.018
14.781
18.306
22.176
28.356
DURATION=96. HOURS
6.284
13.293
16.817
22.176
28.356
RIVER VOLUME
CUBIC KILOMETERS
0.041
0.041
0.076
0.093
0.153
0.504
0.887
0.888
0.888
0.888
0.030
0.041
0.056
0.076
0.120
0.027
0.041
0.056
0.076
0.115
0.015
0.037
0.052
0.076
0.115
RIVER SURFACE
SQUARE KILOMETERS
10.433
10.433
18.793
21.920
34.820
105.588
186.300
186.604
186.604
186.604
7.698
10.433
14.066
18.793
27.132
7.197
10.433
14.066
18.793
26.657
4.070
9.932
13.565
18.793
26.657
-172-
-------
TABLE A-5
DEFICIT PERIOD MEASURES AT VARIOUS MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
STRATEGY NO. 5: DRY WASTE COLLECTION
MINIMUM
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
LEVEL
(MG/L)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
LO.O
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
RIVER LENGTH
KILOMETERS
DURATION=12. HOURS
14.781
14.781
22.176
25.218
35.494
59.690
80.571
82.953
82.953
82.953
DURATION=24. HOURS
11.506
14.781
18.306
22.176
30.513
DURATICN=48. HOURS
10.018
14.781
18.306
22.176
28.356
DURATION^e. HOURS
6.284
13.293
13.293
22.176
28.356
RIVER VOLUME
CUBIC KILOMETERS
0.041
0.041
0.076
0.093
0.158
0.504
0.887
0.888
0.888
0.888
0.030
0.041
0.056
0.076
0.120
0.027
0.041
0.056
0.076
0.115
0.015
0.037
0.037
0.076
0.115
RIVER SURFACE
SQUARE KILOMETERS
10.433
10.433
18.793
21.920
34.820
105.588
186.604
186.604
186.604
186.604
7.698
10.433
14.066
18.793
27.132
7.197
10.433
14.066
18.793
26.657
4.070
9.9?n
9.932
18.793
26.657
-173-
-------
TABLE A-6
DEFICIT PERIOD MEASURES AT VARIOUS MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS
STRATEGY NO. 6: INDIRECT ESTUARY REUSE
MINIMUM
DISSOLVED
OXYGEN
LEVEL
(MG/L)
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
RIVER LENGTH
KILOMETERS
DURATION=12. HOURS
12.311
19.320
19.320
26.715
32.895
62.072
82.953
82.953
82.953
82.953
DURATION=24. HOURS
12.311
16.045
19.320
26.715
31.349
DURATION=48. HOURS
12.311
16.045
19.320
26.715
31.349
DURATION=96. HOURS
12.311
12.311
19.320
26.715
29.756
RIVER VOLUME
CUBIC KILOMETERS
0.025
0.047
0.047
0.081
0.121
0.505
0.888
0.888
0.888
0.888
0.025
0.036
0.047
0.081
0.110
0.025
0.036
0.047
0.081
0.110
0.025
0.025
0.047
0.081
0.099
RIVER SURFACE
SQUARE KILOMETERS
5.345
11.207
11.207
19.567
27.431
105.888
186.604
186.604
186.604
186.604
5.345
8.472
11.207
19.567
24.696
5.345
8.472
11.207
19.567
24.696
5.345
5.345
11.207
19.567
22.694
-174-
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPARISON OF COSTS OF ALTERNATE
WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
EQUATIONS USED TO COMPARE COSTS
The cost of alternate water resources management strategies
tested with the Framework Model were computed through the
application of the four equations illustrated in Figure B-l.
The four equations reduce costs for capital, and total oper-
ating and maintenance costs to present values used in com-
paring alternatives. The equations were each formulated
to recognize that the period of construction may differ sig-
nificantly among alternatives. They do this by discounting
costs to be incurred once operations begin and once debt
starts being retired across the period of construction.
Equation (1) in Figure B-l reflects the assumption that the
capital costs will be paid annually in even increments during
the construction process and thus cannot be discounted en-
tirely to the beginning of the construction process. The
expressions
i (l+i)k and (l+i)n-l
reflect the assumption that the useful life in capital facil-
ities at the end of the planning period can, in effect, be
salvaged at a value proportional to its unused life.
Equations (2) and (3) in Figure B-l each deal with uniform
series of costs estimated to be incurred for operations and
maintenance. Equation (2) deals with fixed costs, while
Equation (3) covers variable operating and maintenance costs.
While these are estimated separately, their present values
are computed by multiplying by identical factors, the first
to determine the present value of the series at the time
construction ceases, and the second to discount that value
further to reflect the delays in the need for the expendi-
ture during construction.
Equation (4) reduces an increasing series of operations and
maintenance costs to a present value at the time of initial
operations. Then, using the single payment present value
factor, it further discounts that cost to reflect the delay
in the need for the expenditure during construction. Opera-
tion and maintenance costs which might be treated in this way
-175-
-------
?IGURE B-l
ILLUSTRATION OF EQUATIONS USED TO COMPARE COSTS
Total Planning Period
Capital Cost
Discounted to
1/1/74
Total Planning
Period Fixed
0 4 M Cost
Discounted to
1/1/74
Total Planning,
Pprind Variable
0 S M Cost
Base Component
Discounted to
1/1/74
[Wai Coital Cos
f Fixed Annual 0 t M
I Cost at End of
1 Planning Period
Variable Annual O s M
Cost-Base Component
(1«TP
) r (
ent J / , [
1 '
TH
(4)
Capital Cost
(for Equation
J/3
1 1 1
Payment
1
l
1/1/74
Payment
1)
1/3
. 2
r
Payment
2
- l
1/1/75
Schedule
1/3
1
T
Payment
3
|
1/1/76
Fraction of Capital Cost
Paid During Year
Construction Year
Payment Date ,n=2
k=» life of capital structure
m» length of construction period
n= length of planning period
i= discount rate
ENR 2000= Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index
on 1/1/74
Operations & Maintenance Cost Payment Schedule
(for Equations 2 & 3)
\
7/1/76 6/
|
1/1/74
r
Year 0
1/1/76
, ,
1/1/75 1/1/76
1
r
Payment
1
1
30/77
If 2 1
T
Payment
2
J,
6/30/92
... f 16 1 n-16
r
Payment
16
»-2
Operations & Maintenance Cost Payment Schedule
(for Equation 4)
1/32
3/32
16
Year
0
1/1/76
Payment
1
Payment
2
Payment
16
1/1/74
1/1/75
1/1/76
Proportion of
0 & M Growth
Component in
Effect at Micdle
of Year n
n=16
m«2
-•176-
-------
include costs of chemicals and power which are proportional
to the amount of designed capacity actually used.
The following section presents the methods used to determine
the costs of the five alternative water resources management
strategies in Chapter IV.
STRATEGY NO.1 SECONDARY WASTE TREATMENT
The cost of the secondary waste treatment strategy was calcu-
lated on the assumption that secondary treatment would consist
of preliminary treatment by comminution and degritting,
primary treatment by settling, secondary treatment by aera-
tion and settling, and disinfection by chlorination. It also
included the assumption, held constant except where specifi-
cally noted, that local impoundments would provide the sources
of additional water supplies for the area. While this assump-
tion is not valid from the standpoint of adopted plans, it
allows the use of relatively recently prepared cost estimates
of one alternative for the provision of additional water
supplies. -^
Secondary treatment costs were based on the addition to the
existing treatment capacity of 215 mgd of eight secondary
treatment plants of approximate size of 25 mgd to reach the
average annual wastewater flow of 519 mgd by 1992. A thirty
year life was assumed.
Capital costs for expansion during the planning period were
based on Monte and Silberman.135 Capital costs for upgrad-
ing existing facilities are computed at $.20/mgd of existing
capacity based on budgeted secondary treatment costs reported
by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.^8,29
Operation and maintenance costs were based on Monte and
Silberman I35 and were applied only to the expansion of
secondary treatment capacity required during the planning
period.
STRATEGY NO.2 ADVANCED WASTE TREATMENT
The cost of the advanced waste treatment strategy was based
on the following unit operations: preliminary treatment by
communition and degritting, primary and phosphorus removed
by chemical addition, aeration and settling, nitrification
by aeration and settling, denitrification by mixing and
methanol addition, filtration, carbon adsorbtion in columns,
disinfection by chlorination, and final effluent aeration.
Advanced waste treatment costs were based on the addition of
-177-
-------
519 mgd of regional advanced waste treatment capacity as eight
approximately 65 mgd capacity plants each with a sixteen year
life. A thirty year life and a water supply alternative
identical to Strategy No.l were assumed.
Capital and operating and maintenance costs were based on
Monte and Silberman. 5 Seventy percent of the values for
operation and maintenance cost based on 1992 design capacity
were assumed to be fixed85 and therefore would be incurred
in each year of the planning period. The remaining 30% were
assumed to be variable and therefore incurred as a funciton
of capacity used.
STRATEGY NO.3 STORMWATER TREATMENT
This strategy assumed water supply and advanced waste treat-
ment identical to the second strategy and treatment of 50
percent of the regional stormwater load through the achieve-
ment of 60 percent BODc, removal from a limited number of
urban watersheds.
The cost of the stormwater treatment strategy was based on
Strategy No.2 plus the cost of the following devices: surface
storage (reservoir, ponds, or tanks), bar racks, fine screens,
and dissolved air flotation.
Stormwater treatment was based on 440 treatment units each
designed for 5 million gallons of surface storage and for a
treatment rate of 20 million gallons per day. The large
number of these units was the result of the estimate of the
small unit size seen needed for location without excessive
disruption in areas urban in character.
The total planning period (16 years) capital cost of $1,448
million was divided into surface storage costing $880 million;
dissolved air flotation costing $365 million; fine screens
costing $151 million and bar racks costing $52 million. Sur-
face storage of 25% of the runoff volume of a first decile
storm from nineteen of the fifty-three watersheds estimated
to have the highest annual BOD5 concentration.
The surface storage life used in costing was 50 years with
the life of the mechanical equipment set at 16 years, the
planning period duration. The bar racks and fine screen cost
equations are taken from the Stormwater Management Model.
The dissolved air flotation cost equations were based on
Heaney and Huber's refinements to this model. ^6 Storage
cost equations are based on Rohrer Associates data or $0.351
per gallon at an estimated ENR of 1400.
-178-
-------
Operations and maintenance cost for bar racks, fine screens
and dissolved air flotation devices were based on fixed por-
tion equal to two percent of initial capital cost and another
fixed portion based on the treatment of the expected runoff
in 1992 from the nineteen watersheds at a cost of $10 per
million gallons at ENR of 1400. The present worth of the
fixed operations and maintenance costs for the planning period
for these facilities was calculated to be $20 million.
The operations and maintenance costs associated with surface
storage were costed as sediment removal to the disposal
site at $10 per ton and 80 percent removal of an estimated 1.6
million tons per year of sediment from the 342,580 acre area
of the watersheds selected for stormwater treatment. The
fixed operations and maintenance costs for the planning
period for surface storage devices was calculated to be
$107 million.
The total incremental present value of the stormwater treat-
ment strategy over Strategy No.2, was $1,448 million in
capital costs and $223 million in fixed operations and main-
tenance costs.
STRATEGY NO.4 WATER CONSERVATION
The cost of the water conservation strategy was based on
Strategy No.2, Advanced Waste Treatment, with the addition
of plumbing code changes in new and residential construction
between 1976 and 1992 to reduce water use, and stricter sewer
construction specifications and inspection programs to re-
duce sewer infiltration. These changes cause a reduction in
annual water demand and wastewater flows of approximately 35
mgd. The incremental savings in dams, water purification
facilities, and advanced wastewater treatment facilities are
the basis for the cost savings of this alternative.
Of the total planning period capital cost savings, 75 percent
was due to the smaller advanced waste treatment and secondary
treatment facilites; 24 percent was due to a decreased re-
quirement for water purification, including intake structures,
and 1 percent was due to a reduced requirement for dams. Secondary
and advanced, waste treatment costs were based on Monte and
Silberman-^ , however, no costs for upgrading existing facili-
ties as required in Strategy No.l were included. Water
purification costs are based on data from Greely and Hansen-*--^
and Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission's using a 30
year life. Dam costs are based data from Black & Veatch1-^
using a 50 year life.
The total incremental present value savings during the entire
-179-
-------
planning period when compared to Strategy No.2, was $32 million
for capital costs and $27 million for operations and mainten-
ance costs.
STRATEGY NO.5 DRY WASTE COLLECTION
The cost of the dry collection strategy was based on water
conservation and infiltration control measures as reported in
Strategy No.4, dry collection facilities at each household,
a household to digestion plant transportation system, a diges-
tion plant, and final disposal by sanitary landfill.
The water conservation and infiltration control measures cause
a 16 percent reduction in annual water demand totaling 102
mgd and a reduction in wastewater flows of 95 mgd. The cost
savings due to the smaller facilities and lower operating
costs were determined as in Strategy No.4, and amount to a
total of $116 million for the planning period.
The capital costs of the dry collection facility having a 30
year life at each household are estimated based on $1000 per
household for the 443,127 new households estimated for the
1976-1992 planning period for the watersheds directly tribu-
tary to the Potomac River. Capital costs for the commercial
sector were calculated using the same 16 percent reduction as
the residential sector multiplied by or the ratio of commercial
water demand to residential water demand in Strategy No.2. The
total present value planning period capital cost for the addi-
tion of dry collection capital equipment was calculated to be
$273 million.
Household to digestion plant transportation costs are based
on a $5/household/month estimated collection charge amount-
ing to a total operation and maintenance cost of $90 million
for the planning period. Addition of the commercial sector
operations and maintenance cost in proportion to water demand
of the residential and commercial sector as described earlier
brought the total planning period household to digestion
plant costs to $142 million.
Digestion plant costs for the planning period were based on
total planning period costs equaling total planning period
revenues from methane sales after Goeppner and Hasselmann.
Transportation from the digestion plant to the final disposal
was based on a population growth during the planning period
in the metropolitan Washington area directly tributary to the
Potomac River of 1,068,756 people, an average per capita per
day total solids production of 0.55 Ibs. and a hauling charge
-180-
-------
of $8 per ton. The total planning period transportation costs
from digestion plant to landfill was calculated to be $4.0
million.
The total present value cost during the entire planning
period of the dry collection strategy was $209 million in
capital costs and $94 for operation and maintenance costs
higher than the costs estimated for Strategy No.2.
-181-
-------
APPENDIX C
OUTPUT AVAILABLE FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT (EMPIRIC)
ESTIMATES ARE GENERATED FOR EACH POLICY ANALYSIS DISTRICT AND EACH
FORECAST YEAR FOR THE FOLLOWING:
HOUSEHOLDS AND EMPLOYMENTS BY:
No. of Family Households in Low Income Quartile
No. of Family Households in Low-Middle Income Quartile
No. of Family Households in Upper-Middle Income Quartile
No. of Family Households in Upper Income Quartile
No. of Unrelated Inficidual Households
Employment in Manufacturing, Transportation, Communication
and Utilities
Employment in Retail and Wholesale
Employment in Financial, Insurance, Real Estate and Services
Employment in Fovernment
Employment in Agriculture and Construction
POPULATION Broken down by Age
Under 5 years
5-14
15 - 19
20 - 29
30 - 49
50 - 64
65 and Over
HOUSEHOLDS Broken down by Size
1 Person
2 Persons
3 Persons
4 Persons
5 or more persons
HOUSEHOLDS Broken down by:
Single-Family Households
Multi-Family Households
LAND USE Broken down by Type
Residential Intensive Institutional Vacant
Industrial Extensive Institutional Residential
Commercial Parks and Open Space (incl. streets)
EMPLOYMENT Broken down by Land Use
EMP On Residential Land BMP on Institutional Land
EMP on Commercial Land EMP on Agricultural & Vacant Land
-182-
-------
APPENDIX D
PARAMETERS USED IN THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
MODEL OF THE STORMWATER RUNOFF COMPONENT55
Watershed
0 Acres
0 Length to width ratio
0 Imperviousness (%)
0 Overland flow slope
0 Impervious area coefficient of roughness
0 Impervious area detention depth (in)
0 Pervious area coefficient of roughness
0 Pervious area detention depth (in)
0 Pervious area maximum infiltration rate (in/hour)
0 Pervious area minimum infiltration rate (in/hour)
0 Pervious area decay rate of infiltration (sec -1)
Stream
Length of main stream (ft)
Width of main stream (ft)
Slope of main stream (ft)
Coefficient of roughness (Manning's n)
Land Use
Residential (%)
Commercial (%)
Industrial (%)
Undeveloped (%)
Total (%)
Specific Curb Length (ft/acre)
-183-
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
I. REPORT NO.
EPA-6QO/5-78-006a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
A Demonstration of Areawide Water Resources Planning
S. REPORT DATE
June 1975
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
C.S. Spooner, J. Promise, P.M. Graham
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
1225 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BAQ3Q
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA 16110 FEY and
S-802149
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research & Development
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/16
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT The MWCOG Framework Water Resources Planning Model developed and tested
under this study is a comprehensive analytical tool for use in areawide water
resources management planning. The physical simulation portion was formed by linking
component computer models which test alternative future community development pattern:
by small area, estimate water demands by usage categories, calculate sewage flows
based on water demands and add infiltration/inflow, simulate stormwater runoff, test
application of alternative waste treatment management systems, and simulate the
quality response of the region's major water body. The impact assessment portion of
the Framework Model includes methodologies for assessing the fiscal, social, and
environmental impacts of alternatives. The Framework Model has been tested for the
Metropolitan Washington region by identifying the cost-effectiveness of six
alternative areawide water resources management strategies, and is currently in
use in many planning programs.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Water resources planning, Land use
planning, Storm runoff, Water supply,
Water quality, Systems analysis, Decision
making, Computer simulation, Water
pollution sources, Regional analysis,
Data collection, Estuary, Social aspects,
Environmental effects, Economic impacts
Resource allocation
Metropolitan Washington,
Areawide waste treatment
management planning,
Potomac Estuary model,
Stormwater runoff model,
Framework for ass-essing
fiscal, social and
environmental effects
06A, 06B, 03D,
05C, 05B, 05D,
05G, 06D, 07A
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited release
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
184
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
184
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978- 260-8880:33
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Information Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. S3OO
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
FOURTH-CLASS MAIL
Postage & Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
£
$32
\
LU
If your address is incorrect, please change on the above label
tear off; and return to the above address.
If you do not desire to continue receiving these technical
reports, CHECK Wffffd; tear off label, and return it to the
above address.
EPA-600/5-78-006a
------- |