x>EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-15/059 | November 2015
www.epa.gov/ord
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT OPTIMIZATION
SUPPORTTOOL (WMOST) v2
User Guide
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory"
-------
-------
EPA 600/R-15/059| November 2015
www.epa.gov
Watershed Management Optimization
Support Tool (WMOST) v2
User Guide
EPA Project Team
Naomi Detenbeck and Marilyn ten Brink
NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, RI 02882
Alisa Morrison
Student Services Contractor at ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, RI 02882
Ralph Abele, Jackie LeClair, and Trish Garrigan
Region 1
Boston, MA 02109
Abt Associates Project Team
Viktoria Zoltay, Annie Brown, Brendan Small and Isabelle Morin,
Abt Associates, Inc.
Cambridge, MA 02138
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division
-------
WMOSTv2 User Guide
The development of the information in this document has been funded by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), in part by EPA's Green Infrastructure Initiative, under EPA Contract No.
EP-C-13-0397 Work Assignment 07 to Abt Associates, Inc. Versions 1 and 2 of this document have been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and have been approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation
for use.
Although a reasonable effort has been made to assure that the results obtained are correct, the
computer programs described in this manual are experimental. Therefore, the author and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency are not responsible and assume no liability whatsoever for any
results or any use made of the results obtained from these programs, nor for any damages or litigation
that result from the use of these programs for any purpose.
The Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool (WMOST) is a decision support tool that
evaluates the relative cost-effectiveness of management practices at the local or watershed scale.
WMOST models the environmental effects and costs of management decisions in a watershed
context, which is, accounting for the direct and indirect effects of decisions. At this time, the model
considers water flows and does not consider water quality. It is spatially lumped with options for a
daily or monthly modeling time step. The optimization of management options is solved using linear
programming. WMOST is intended to be a screening tool used as part of an integrated watershed
management process such as that described in EPA's watershed planning handbook (EPA 2008).
WMOST serves as a public-domain, efficient, and user-friendly tool for local water resources
managers and planners to screen a wide range of potential water resources management options
across their jurisdiction for cost-effectiveness and environmental and economic sustainability
(Zoltay et al., 2010). (WMOST does require MS Office Excel, but the accompanying linear
optimization program and EPA SUSTAIN tool are free of charge.) Practices that can be evaluated
include projects related to stormwater (including green infrastructure [GI]), water supply, wastewater
and land resources such as low-impact development (LID) and land conservation. WMOST can aid
in evaluating LID and green infrastructure as alternative or complementary management options
in projects proposed for State Revolving Funds (SRF). In addition, the tool can enable assessing
the trade-offs and co-benefits of various practices. In WMOST v2, the Baseline Hydrology and
Stormwater Hydrology modules assist users with input data acquisition and pre-processing. In
addition, the Flood module allows the consideration of flood damages and their reduction in assessing
the cost-effectiveness of management practices. The target user group for WMOST consists of local
water resources managers, including municipal water works superintendents and their consultants.
Keywords: Integrated watershed management, water resources, decision support, optimization, green
infrastructure
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Abstract ii
Preface vi
Acknowledgements ix
1. Background 1
1.1 Objective of the Tool 1
1.2 Overview 1
2. Getting Started 7
2.1 Preparing for a Model Run 7
Defining Hydrologic Response Units 7
Defining the Study Area 8
Defining the Modeling Time Period 9
Performing a Simulation Run for Validation 10
2.2 System Requirements 10
3. Model Setup and Runs 13
3.1 Entering Data 13
Step 1. Baseline Hydrology and HRU Areas 13
Step 2. Managed Hydrology and HRU Areas/Stormwater Management 18
Step 3. Water Users, Water Demand, Demand Management and Septic System Use.... 25
Step 4. Surface Water, Groundwater, Interbasin Transfer and Infrastructure 29
Step 5. Flood Module 38
Step 6. Measured Streamflow 38
3.2 Evaluating Results 39
4. Flood Damage Modeling with HAZUS 41
4.1 Data Needed 41
4.2 Creating the 100-Year Flood Depth Grid from FEMANFHL Data 42
4.3 Creating the Flood Depth Grid from Lake Elevation Flooding 45
4.4 Creating Flood Depth Grids for the 10, 50 and 500-Year Events 46
4.5 Creating a Site Specific Building Inventory 47
5. User Tips 51
6. References forHSPF Models Incorporated into WMOST Model Output Files 53
Appendix A. WMOST v2 Case Study Description A-l
Background and Context A-l
Legislative and Regulatory Framework A-l
Monponsett Pond Watershed A-4
Purpose of the Modeling Study A-5
Model Setup A-6
Land Use A-7
Brockton Diversions to Silver Lake and Precipitation on MP A-ll
Validation and Baseline Simulation A-13
MI
-------
WMOST v2 User Guide
Baseline Model Setup A-14
Reservoir Outflows A-15
Validation Results A-16
Management Optimization Scenarios A-19
Outflow Targets and MP Level Constraints A-19
Water Demand and Diversions A-20
Management Actions A-20
Scenarios A-21
Results Comparing Historical Versus Uniform Pattern of Diversions A-21
Results Comparing Effect of Stage Constraint with Diversion Reduction A-24
Results Comparing Effect of Stage Constraint with 25%ile SYE Target and
Elimination of Diversions A-29
Findings A-31
Supplemental Information on Flooding Costs around Monponsett Ponds A-31
Next Steps and Refinements A-35
Appendix B. Halifax Case Study Input Data B-l
^^^^^^
Figure 1. Schematic of Potential Water Flows in the WMOST 2
1-1. Summary of Management Goals and Management Practices 4.
^^^^^^^^
1. Monponsett ponds A-l
2. A series of legislations set out the water management framework in the watershed by
authorizing transfers of water across waterbodies and subbasins A-3
3. Water balance in Monponsett Pond subbasin A-4
4. Selected model components and their representation of MP watershed features A-7
5. Pattern of diversions from MP to SL during the 2001-2006 period, by month A-12
6. WMOST surface water input tab A-13
7. Comparison of modeled MP volume for different operating regimes
to observed MP volume A-16
IV
-------
Table of Contents
8. Observed and modeled MP volume during the period of 2001 through 2006 A-17
9. Model fit statistics for different time periods A-18
10. Monthly average MP volume and residuals A-18
11. Unimpacted streamflows (cfs) for Stump Brook at dam from SYE tool for 1961-2004 A-20
12. Menu of model specifications for validation management scenarios A-21
13. WMOST infrastructure input tab A-22
14. Time series of reservoir volumes, withdrawals, outflows and water deficits
for the Uniform withdrawal Scenario A23
15. Specifications for scenarios varying the timing of Brockton diversions A-24
16. Specifying stage constraints on the surface water input tab (stage volume constraints
are calculated from entered stage heights A-25
17. Time series of reservoir volumes, withdrawals, outflows and water deficits forthe
scenario with stage of 54 feet A-26
18. Time series of reservoir volumes, withdrawals, outflows and water deficits for the
scenario with stage of 53.5 feet A-27
19. Specifications for scenarios with varying stage constraints A-28
20. Time series of reservoir volumes, withdrawals, outflows and water deficits forthe scenario
without Brockton diversions, maximum dtage of 5 3 feet and 25th percentile flow target A-29
21. Specifications for scenarios with 25th percentile flow targets A-30
22. Census tracts intersecting with Monponsett Ponds A-32
23. Monponsett Ponds with watershed boundary A-32
24. Increase in flood elevation from 51.5 feet to 54.0 feet A-33
25. Extent of building damage for flood elevations of 53.0 feet to 55.0 feet A-34
26. Estimated value of building damage for flood elevations of 53.0 feet to 55.0 feet A-34
-------
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) has been endorsed for use at multiple scales. The
Global Water Partnership defines IWRM as "a process which promotes the coordinated development
and management of water, land and related resources, in order to maximize the resultant economic
and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital
ecosystems"1. IWRM has been promoted as an integral part of the "Water Utility of the Future"2
in the United States. The American Water Resources Association (AWRA) has issued a position
statement, calling for implementation of IWRM across the United States and committed the AWRA
to help strengthen and refine IWRM concepts.3 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has also endorsed the concept of IWRM, focusing on coordinated implementation of stormwater and
wastewater management.4
Several states and river basin commissions have started to implement IWRM.5 For example, in the
arid West, both Oregon and California have incorporated integrated water resources management into
their planning strategies.6 Even in EPA Region 1 where water is relatively plentiful, states face the
challenge of developing balanced approaches for equitable and predictable distribution of water
resources to meet both human and aquatic life needs during seasonal low flow periods and droughts.
The state of Massachusetts recently spearheaded the Sustainable Water Management Initiative
(SWMI) process to allocate water among competing human and aquatic life uses in a consistent and
sustainable fashion.7 WMOST has been applied in pilot projects funded by the state of Massachusetts
to apply IWRM in the permit planning process.8
Stormwater and land use management are two aspects of IWRM which include practices such as
green infrastructure (GI, both natural GI and constructed stormwater BMPs), low-impact
development (LID) and land conservation. In recent years, the EPA SRF funding guidelines have
been broadened to include support for green infrastructure at local scales-e.g., stormwater best
management practices (BMPs) to reduce runoff and increase infiltration-and watershed scales-
e.g., conservation planning for source water protection. Despite this development, few applicants
1 UNEP-DHI Centre for Water and Environment. 2009. Integrated Water Resources Management in Action.
WWAP, Dffl Water Policy, UNEP-DHI Centre for Water and Environment.
2 NACWA, WERF, and WEF. 2013. The Water Resources Utility of the Future: A Blueprint for Action.
National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA), Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) and
Water Environment Federation (WEF), Washington, B.C.
3 http://www.awra.org/policy/policy-statements-water-vision.html, January 22,2011.
4 Nancy Stoner memo: www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/memointegratedmunicipalplans.pdf, October 27,2011.
5 AWRA. 2012. Case Studies in Integrated Water Resources Management: From Local Stewardship to National Vision.
American Water Resources Association Policy Committee, Middleburg, VA.
6 http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/pages/law/integrated_water_supply_strategy.aspx, http://www.water.ca.gov/irwm/,
accessed November 2015.
7 MA EAA. 2012. Massachusetts Sustainable Water Management Initiative Framework Summary (November 28, 2012);
http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/water/watersheds/sustainable-water-management-initiative-swmi.html
8 See examples at http://www.abtassociates.com/wma.
VI
-------
WMOST v2 User Guide Preface
have taken advantage of these opportunities to try nontraditional approaches to water quality
improvement.9 In a few notable cases, local managers have evaluated the relative cost and benefit of
preserving green infrastructure compared to traditional approaches. In those cases, the managers have
championed the use of green infrastructure as part of a sustainable solution for IWRM, but these
examples are rare.10
Beginning with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and continued with 2010
Appropriations language, Congress mandated a 20% set-aside of SRF funding for a "Green Project
Reserve (GPR)", which includes green infrastructure and land conservation measures as eligible
projects in meeting water quality goals. The utilization of the GPR for green infrastructure projects
has been relatively limited, and responses have varied widely across states. According to a survey of
19 state allocations of Green Project Reserve funds, only 18% of funds were dedicated to green
infrastructure projects, and none of these projects were categorized as conservation planning to
promote source water protection.8 The state of Virginia passed regulations banning the use of ARRA
funds for green infrastructure projects until wastewater treatment projects had been funded.8 In New
England, states exceeded the 20% GPR mandate and used 30% of their ARRA funds for the GPR but
directed most of the funds (76%) to energy efficiency and renewables; other uses of ARRA funds
included 12% for water efficiency, 9% for green infrastructure, and 3% for environmentally
innovative projects.
In order to assist communities in the evaluation of GI, LID, and land conservation practices as part
of an IWRM approach, EPA's Office of Research and Development, in partnership with EPA's
Region 1, supported the development of Version 1 of the Watershed Management Optimization
Support Tool (WMOST). Version 2 of WMOST has been developed with support from a RARE grant
to EPA Region 1 and ORD collaborators, supplemented with funding from US EPA ORD's Green
Infrastructure Initiative research program. Enhancements to WMOST included in Version 2 include
Baseline Hydrology and Stormwater Hydrology modules to facilitate populating WMOST with the
necessary hydrologic input data pre- and post- Stormwater BMP implementation and a Flood Damage
module to allow inclusion of flood-related costs into the optimization analysis. The need to quantify
the potential role of green infrastructure in flood reduction was identified as a high priority by EPA
Region 1 in their call for RARE project proposals. The need to simplify and facilitate data entry
requirements for WMOST was identified by stakeholders following presentations on WMOST vl.
WMOST is based on a recent integrated watershed management optimization model that was created
to allow water resources managers to evaluate a broad range of technical, economic, and policy
management options within an urban or mixed-use watershed.11 This model includes evaluation of
9 American Rivers. 2010. Putting Green to Work: Economic Recovery Investments for Clean and Reliable Water.
American Rivers, Washington, D.C
1 ° http: //www.crwa. org/blue.html, http://v3.mmsd.com/greenseamsvideo 1. aspx
11 Zoltay, V.I. 2007. Integrated watershed management modeling: Optimal decision making for natural and human
components. M.S. Thesis, Tufts Univ., Medford, MA.;
Zoltay, V.I., R.M. Vogel, P.H. Kirshen, and K.S. Westphal. 2010. Integrated watershed management modeling:
Generic optimization model applied to the Ipswich River Basin. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management.
VII
-------
WMOST v1 Theoretical Documentation
conservation options for source water protection and infiltration of stormwater on forest lands, green
infrastructure stormwater BMPs to increase infiltration, and other water-related management options.
The current version of WMOST focuses on management options for water quantity endpoints.
Additional functionality to address water quality issues is one of the high priority enhancements
identified for future versions.
Development of each version of the WMOST tool was overseen by an EPA Planning Team. Priorities
for update and refinement of the original model11 were established following review by a Technical
Advisory Group comprised of water resource managers and modelers. Case studies for two
communities were developed to illustrate the application of IWRM using WMOST. These case
studies (Upper Ipswich River, and Danvers/Middleton, MA) are available from the WMOST website.
WMOST was presented to stakeholders in a workshop held at the EPA Region 1 Laboratory in
Chelmsford, MA in April 2013, with a follow-up webinar on the Danvers/Middleton case study in
May 2013. Feedback from the Technical Advisory Group and workshop participants has been
incorporated into the user guide and theoretical documentation for WMOST.
The development of the Baseline Hydrology, Stormwater Hydrology and Flood Damage modules in
WMOST v2 was assisted by a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) with expertise in one or more of
these topics. Prior to development of WMOST v2, US EPA Region 1 solicited communities in the
Taunton River watershed for interest in testing and applying WMOST to solve their problems, and
Halifax, MA, was identified as an interested collaborator. Multiple meetings with stakeholders in the
Monponsett Pond watershed (Halifax, MA) were held to engage the community in a case study
application of WMOST v2. Input from the TAG and community members were incorporated in the
final methodology for WMOST v2 and the modeling case study.
VIM
-------
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
WMOST builds on research funded by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research
Fellowship Program and published in "Integrated Watershed Management Modeling: Optimal
Decision Making for Natural and Human Components." Zoltay, V., Kirshen, P.H., Vogel, R.M., and
Westphal, K.S. 2010. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 136:5, 566-575.
HSPF-derived hydrology time series in data library for WMOST v2 were produced by the US
Geological Survey (Jeff Barbara) under a separate interagency agreement (DW-14-92400901).
EPA Project Team
Naomi Detenbeck12 and Marilyn ten Brink12, U.S. EPA ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Yusuf Mohamoud13, U.S. EPA ORD, NERL, Ecosystems Research Division
Alisa Morrison14, ORISE participant at U.S. EPA ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Ralph Abele12, Jackie LeClair12 and Trish Garrigan12, U.S. EPA Region 1
Technical Advisory Group for WMOST vl
Alan Cathcart, Concord, MA Water/Sewer Division
Greg Krom, Topsfield, MA Water Department
Dave Sharpies, Somersworth, NH Planning and Community Development
Mark Clark, North Reading, MA Water Department
Peter Weiskel, U.S. Geological Survey, MA-RI Water Science Center
Kathy Baskin, Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs
Steven Estes-Smargiassi, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
Hale Thurston, U.S. EPA ORD, NRMRL, Sustainable Technology Division
Rosemary Monahan, U.S. EPA Region 1
Scott Horsley, Horsley Witten Group
Kirk Westphal, COM Smith
James Limbrunner, Hydrologies, Inc.
Jay Lund, University of California, Davis
Technical Advisory Group for WMOST v2
Bob Lent, U.S. Geological Survey
Darryl Davis and Chris Dunn, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center
Matthew Bates, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center
Richard Zingarelli, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation
Steve Silva, former U.S. EPA and Taunton watershed stakeholder
Tom Johnson, U.S. EPA, ORD, Global Change Research Program
Marisa Mazzotta, U.S. EPA, ORD, NHERRL, Atlantic Ecology Division
12 Versions 1 and 2
13 Version 1
14 Version 2
IX
-------
WMOST v1 Theoretical Documentation
Reviewers for WMOST vl
Theoretical Documentation
Marisa Mazzotta, U.S. EPA ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Mark Voorhees, U.S. EPA Region 1
Michael Tryby, U.S. EPA ORD, NERL, Ecosystems Research Division
WMOST Tool. User Guide and Case Studies
Daniel Campbell, U.S. EPA ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Alisa Richardson, Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (partial review)
Alisa Morrison, Student Services Contractor at U.S. EPA ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Jason Berner, U.S. EPA OW, OST, Engineering Analysis Division
Reviewers for WMOST v2
Theoretical Documentation
Kristen Hychka, ORISE participant at U.S. EPA ORD, NHEERL, Atlantic Ecology Division
Mark Voorhees, U.S. EPA Region 1, Boston, MA
Thomas Johnson, U.S. EPA ORD, NCEA, Washington, D.C.
WMOST Tool. User Guide and Case Studies
Jason Berner, U.S. EPA OW, OST, Engineering Analysis Division
Yusuf Mohamoud, U.S. EPA ORD, NERL, Athens, GA
Stephen Kraemer, U.S. EPA ORD, NERL, Athens, GA
Andrea Traviglia, U.S. EPA Region 1, Boston, MA
Cathy Drinan, Board of Health, Halifax, MA
Previous Contributors
Yusuf Mohamoud, ORD, NERL, Ecosystems Research Division, Athens, GA 30605
Becky Wildner and Lauren Parker, Abt Associates, Inc.
Nigel Pickering, Horsley Witten Group under subcontract to Abt Associates Inc.
Richard M. Vogel, Tufts University under subcontract to Abt Associate Inc.
-------
Background
1. Background
1.1 Objective of the Tool
The Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool (WMOST) is a public-domain enhancement to
Microsoft Office Excel 2010 designed to aid decision making in integrated water resources management.
WMOST is intended to serve as an efficient and user-friendly tool for water resources managers and
planners to screen a wide-range of strategies and management practices for cost-effectiveness and
environmental sustainability in meeting watershed or jurisdiction management goals (Zoltay et al. 2010).
WMOST identifies the least-cost combination of management practices to meet the user specified
management goals. Management goals may include meeting projected water supply demand, minimum
and maximum in-stream flow targets, and reducing damages associated with flooding. The tool considers
a range of management practices related to water supply, wastewater, nonpotable water reuse, aquifer
storage and recharge, stormwater, low-impact development (LID) and land conservation, accounting for
both the cost and performance of each practice. In addition, WMOST may be run for a range of values for
management goals to perform a cost-benefit analysis and obtain a Pareto frontier or trade-off curve. For
example, running the model for a range of minimum in-stream flow standards provides data to create a
trade-off curve between increasing in-stream flow and total annual management cost.
WMOST is intended to be used as a screening tool as part of an integrated watershed management
process such as that described in EPA's watershed planning handbook (EPA 2008), to identify the
strategies and practices that seem most promising for more detailed evaluation. For example, results may
demonstrate the potential cost-savings of coordinating or integrating the management of water supply,
wastewater and stormwater. In addition, the tool may facilitate the evaluation of LID and green
infrastructure as alternative or complementary management options in projects proposed for State
Revolving Funds (SRF). As of October 2010, SRF Sustainability Policy calls for integrated planning in
the use of SRF resources as a means of improving the sustainability of infrastructure projects and the
communities they serve. In addition, Congress mandated a 20% set-aside of SRF funding for a "Green
Project Reserve" which includes green infrastructure and land conservation measures as eligible projects
in meeting water quality goals.
1.2 Overview
WMOST combines an optimization framework with water resources modeling to evaluate the effects of
management decisions within a watershed context. The watershed system modeled in WMOST versions 1
and 2 is shown in Figure 1. The figure shows the possible watershed system components and potential
water flows among them.
-------
WMOST v2 User Guide
Figure 1. Schematic of Potential Water Flows in the WMOST. SW = surface water,
GW = groundwater, HRU = hydrologic response unit, WTP = water treatment plant,
WWTP = wastewater treatment plant, ASR = aquifer storage and recharge
-------
Background
The principal characteristics of WMOST include:
Implementation in Microsoft Excel 2010© which is linked seamlessly with Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA) and a free, linear programming (LP) optimization solver, eliminating the need
for specialized software and using the familiar Excel platform for the user interface;
User-specified inputs for characterizing the watershed, management practices, and management
goals and generating a customized optimization model (see Table 1-1 for a list of available
management practices and goals);
Use of Lp solve 5.5, a LP optimization solver, to determine the least-cost combination of practices
that achieves the user-specified management goals (See Section 3 in the Theoretical Documentation
report for WMOST for details on Lp solve 5.5, LP optimization, and the software configuration);
Spatially lumped calculations modeling one basin and one reach but with flexibility in the number
of hydrologic response units (HRUs),15 each with an individual runoff and recharge rate;
Modeling time step of a day or month without a limit on the length of the modeling period;16
Solutions that account for both the direct and indirect effects of management practices (e.g., since
optimization is performed within the watershed system context, the model will account for the fact
1) that implementing water conservation will reduce water revenue, wastewater flow and
wastewater revenue if wastewater revenue is calculated based on water flow or 2) that
implementing infiltration-based stormwater management practices will increase aquifer recharge
and baseflow for the stream reach which can help meet minimum in-stream flow requirements
during low precipitation periods, maximum in-stream flow requirements during intense
precipitation seasons, and water supply demand from increased groundwater supply);
Ability to specify up to ten stormwater management options, including traditional (detention
basins), green infrastructure or LID practices;
A sustainability constraint that forces the groundwater and reservoir volumes at the start and end
of the modeling period to be equal;
Enforcement of physical constraints, such as the conservation of mass (i.e., water), within
the watershed; and
Consideration of water flows only (i.e., no water quality modeling yet).
The rest of this document is organized as follows. Section 2 provides considerations in model definition
and setup and directions for computer and software preparation. Section 3 leads the user through model
setup with screenshots as well as the steps for performing and trade-off analyses. Section 4 provides
directions for performing flood damage modeling to derive input data for the Flood Damage module.
Section 5 summarizes tips for the user in performing model runs and analyzing results, including conduct
of sensitivity analyses. A case study for Halifax, MA, is described in Appendix A, with input data sources
listed in Appendix B.
15 Land cover, land use, soil, slope and other land characteristics affect the fraction of precipitation that will runoff, recharge
and evapotranspire. Areas with similar land characteristics that respond similarly to precipitation are termed hydrologic
response units.
16 While the number of HRUs and modeling period are not limited, solution times are significantly affected by these
model specifications.
-------
WMOST v2 User Guide
A separate Theoretical Documentation report provides a detailed description of WMOST including a
mathematical description and the internal configuration of the software applications that constitute the
model. Case study examples are presented in individual documents and are provided with the WMOST
files. These example applications may be used as a source of default data, especially for similar
watersheds in Region 1 and similar sized water and wastewater systems.
Table 1-1. Summary of Management Goals and Management Practices17
MGD = million gallons per day
Management
Practice
Land conservation
Stormwater
management via
traditional, green
infrastructure or low
impact development
practices
Surface water storage
capacity
Surface water pumping
capacity
Groundwater pumping
capacity
Change in quantity of
surface versus
groundwater pumping
Potable water treatment
capacity
Leak repair in potable
distribution system
Wastewater treatment
capacity
Infiltration repair in
wastewater collection
system
Action18
Increase area of land
use type specified as
'conservable'
Increase area of land
use type treated by
specified management
practice
Increase maximum
storage volume
Increase maximum
pumping capacity
Increase maximum
pumping capacity
Change in pumping
time series for surface
and groundwater
sources
Increase maximum
treatment capacity
Decrease % of leaks
Increase MGD
Decrease % of leaks
Model Component
Affected
Land area allocation
Land area allocation
Reservoir/surface
storage
Potable water treatment
plant
Potable water treatment
plant
Potable water treatment
plant
Potable water treatment
plant
Potable water treatment
plant and associated
distribution system
Wastewater treatment
plant
Wastewater treatment
plant and associated
distribution system
Impact
Preserve runoff & recharge
quantity & quality
Reduce runoff, increase
recharge, treatment
Increase storage, reduce demand
from other sources
Reduce quantity and/or timing of
demand from other sources
Reduce quantity and/or timing of
demand from other sources
Change the timing of withdrawal
impact on water source(s)
Treatment to standards, meet
potable human demand
Reduce demand for water
quantity
Maintain water quality of
receiving water (or improve if
sewer overflow events)
Reduce demand for wastewater
treatment capacity
17 The user may specify which practices are available for their study area and are to be included in the optimization.
Directions for this are provided with each practice in the User Manual and WMOST interface.
18 Please refer to the separate Theoretical Documentation for the specific effect of each management practice.
-------
Background
Table 1-1 (continued)
Management
Practice
Water reuse facility
(advanced treatment)
capacity
Nonpotable distribution
system
Aquifer storage &
recharge (ASR) facility
capacity
Demand management
by price increase
Direct demand
management
Interbasin transfer -
potable water import
capacity
Interbasin transfer -
wastewater export
capacity
Minimum human water
demand
Minimum in-stream
flow
Maximum in-stream
flow
Action19
Increase MOD
Increase MGD
Increase MGD
Increase % of price
Percent decrease in
MGD
Increase or decrease
MGD
Increase or decrease
MGD
MGD
ft3/sec
ft3/sec
Model Component
Affected
Water reuse facility
Nonpotable water use
ASR facility
Potable and nonpotable
water and wastewater
Potable and nonpotable
water and wastewater
Interbasin transfer -
potable water import
Interbasin transfer -
wastewater export
Groundwater and
surface water pumping
and/or interbasin
transfer
Surface water
Surface water
Impact
Produce water for nonpotable
demand, ASR, and/or improve
water quality of receiving water
Reduce demand for potable
water
Increase recharge, treatment,
and/or supply
Reduce demand
Reduce demand
Increase potable water supply or
reduce reliance on out of basin
sources
Reduce need for wastewater
treatment plant capacity or
reduce reliance on out of basin
services
Meet human water needs
Meet in-stream flow standards,
improve ecosystem health and
services, improve recreational
opportunities
Meet in-stream flow standards,
improve ecosystem health and
services by reducing scouring,
channel and habitat degradation,
and decrease loss of public and
private assets due to flooding
19 Please refer to the separate Theoretical Documentation for the specific effect of each management practice.
-------
-------
Getting Started
2. Getting Started
WMOST is a screening tool for watershed management and planning. One of the envisioned applications
of WMOST is determining the least cost combination of management options to meet management goals
for a town or watershed's planning horizon. For example, the water works portion of a town's master plan
may ask, "What stormwater practices must be installed, demand management programs created and/or
infrastructure capacity constructed to meet projected human demand for the next 20 years while meeting
minimum and maximum in-stream flow targets to preserve stream health?" To address such a planning
question, all input data must correspond to the conditions projected to occur by the end of a 20-year
planning period. For example, human demand would need to be projected 20 years from the planning
year. Most of the User Guide is written from the perspective of a user who is screening management
practices to address such planning questions and suggestions are provided throughout the User Guide and
in the case studies20 for how to specify input data appropriately. As such, the model does not provide an
annual implementation plan or specifics on operations of systems. Rather it provides the management
practices and associated costs that meet management goals at least cost and the state of the watershed and
human system at the end of the planning period if the management practices have been implemented.
2.1 Preparing for a Model Run
This section describes model specifications the user must consider prior to applying WMOST v2. Data
sources used in the case studies are detailed in their respective appendices. Some of those data sources,
especially for environmental data, are state or national level and may serve as a source for your project.
Most data related to the human water system is anticipated to be available to the municipality (ies) from
their own internal sources.
Defining Hydrologic Response Units
A main input data requirement is time series of both runoff and recharge rates (RRR) for hydrologic
response units (HRUs)21 in the study area and the corresponding area for each HRU. The time series are
not volumetric but rates that must be input as depth per unit area (e.g., inches per day). The Baseline
Hydrology module in WMOST v2 assists users in obtaining and pre-processing the time series data. If
watersheds in the hydrology runoff and recharge time series databases are not similar to the study area's
watershed, the user may derive these data from a calibrated/validated simulation model such as
Hydrological Simulation Program Fortran (HSPF)22, Soil Water and Assessment Tool (SWAT)23) and/or
Storm Water Management Model(SWMM)24. Several post-processors such as GenScn and WDMutil in
EPA BASINS25 are available to facilitate extraction of hydrology time series from HSPF model output
20 Case study documents are available on the WMOST website.
21 Land cover, land use, soil, slope and other land characteristics affect the fraction of precipitation that will runoff, recharge and
evapotranspire. Areas with similar characteristics - hydrologic response units (HRUs) - respond similarly to precipitation.
22 http://water.usgs.gov/software/HSPF/
23 http://swat.tamu.edu/
24 http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/wq/models/swmm/
25 http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/models/basins/framework.cfrnStools
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
WDM files. SWAT model output files are in ASCII format so should not require conversion prior to input.
If a watershed simulation model is not available for the study area (e.g., from U.S. Geological Survey) and
resources do not allow for the creation and setup of a model, then the user may try using default rates from
models run for watersheds with similar characteristics (i.e., similar land-use, soils, climate). Additionally
there may be generic RRRs available from state or regional studies. Such rates would specify the HRU
characteristics for which the rates are applicable. A geographic information system (GIS) or local land use
data can be used to determine the area associated with each HRU in the study area.
In addition to a baseline set of HRUs, up to ten "sets" of "managed" HRUs may be specified with
corresponding areas, RRRs and management costs. The baseline set is used to specify runoff and recharge
for HRUs for the baseline conditions of the model run. For managed sets, you may specify runoff and
recharge rates that reflect some form of land management practice and the associated cost such as
stormwater management. With such information, the model can evaluate the cost-effectiveness of
stormwater management relative to other practices.
For urban HRUs, the "managed set" may reflect RRRs resulting from use of a stormwater best
management practice (e.g., bioretention basin, swales) and/or low impact development with reduced
impervious area. Managed RRRs may be used to represent any change in land use or land management
practice that changes runoff and recharge volume or timing. For example, results of detailed modeling of
LID or other practices may be entered as a managed set of RRRs. Within WMOST, the user may model
LID that results in less impervious surface. The user must run the baseline hydrology module in a separate
WMOST file to obtain the RRRs corresponding to a developed HRU with a lower impervious surface
percent. These RRRs can be entered as a managed set with a corresponding cost, if any, in the primary
WMOST file. Alternatively, if a BMP with the equivalent effect is known, it may be requested in the
stormwater module. In WMOST v2, the Stormwater Hydrology Module assists the user in pre-processing
the time series and other data necessary for including stormwater management. Alternatively, these
managed RRRs may be derived using SWMM or other stormwater management models outside of
WMOST then manually input to WMOST. For agricultural HRUs, the "managed set" may reflect RRRs
resulting from implementation of edge of site or riparian buffers.
For each set, you can specify the area of each HRU on which the management practice may be
implemented. Therefore, for the stormwater managed set, you may restrict available area to urban HRUs
only. In addition, if stormwater management exists in part of the watershed, urban HRUs may be defined
separately for areas that already have stormwater management and remaining areas that can still be placed
under management. Then, the addition of new stormwater management may be limited to the unmanaged,
urban HRUs and excluded for managed, urban HRUs.
Defining the Study Area
Ideally, the study area is the entire land area draining to the stream reach of interest; however,
jurisdictional boundaries often cut across subbasins. This requires that the hydrology is modeled at the
subbasin or watershed level26 while management practices are limited to those areas within the
26 In cases where groundwater flows cross the watershed divide, the user can specify groundwater imports and exports beyond the
watershed boundary.
-------
Getting Started
jurisdiction(s) cooperating in the management plan. The case study of Danvers and Middleton, MA,
shows the example of how to use the model in such circumstances. The case study of the Upper Ipswich
River Basin assumes that the entire watershed is cooperating in the management strategy such as in a
water district and, therefore, management practices are specified to be applicable for the entire
watershed27.
Defining the Modeling Time Period
The model may be run on a daily or monthly time step. One exception is that the model must be run at the
daily time step when using the Flood Damage module to include flood damages in the calculation of the
total management cost. The user may choose the time step depending on the temporal resolution of
available input data, desired management practices and/or known system behavior. For example, if
stormwater management practices will be considered, a daily time step is advised as storm events and
their effects are observable on a time scale closer to a daily rather than monthly time step. If the user
desires to know the monthly or approximate water balance for watershed or human system components,
then a monthly time step would be sufficient.
The user should run the model for multiple years that cover dry, average and wet years of precipitation.
That is, time series that are input (e.g., RRRs, human demand, and surface water inflow from upstream)
should include a range of potential conditions. This approach will ensure that the management solution
screened by the model will be sustainable over a range of potential future conditions. In addition, the user
is advised to run not only a range of historical conditions but future, projected conditions. This may be
accomplished, for example, by adjusting historical conditions for projected climate change. The EPA
website "Climate Change Impacts and Adapting to Change" describes projected changes by region28.
EPA's Climate Resilience Evaluation and Awareness Tool provides projected changes in temperature
and precipitation for climate stations throughout the United States29. These values may be used to adjust
the detailed watershed simulation model from which watershed time series data is obtained for WMOST
(e.g., see Soil and Water Assessment Tool climate change function) and to adjust the traditional
methodology used for projecting human demand. The next version of WMOST will provide a library
of time series based on down-scaled climate projections for specific models.
Note that running WMOST with data from a specific time period such as 2005-2010 does not necessarily
represent watershed conditions that only occurred during those years but watershed conditions that would
occur in a similar 5-year period of weather, water use and land conditions. Therefore, these data can be
adjusted for climate change or other uncertainties and re-run to determine the sensitivity of the solution,
that is, combination of management practices and costs, to potential future deviations from historical
conditions. In fact, the user is highly encouraged to perform sensitivity analyses especially on input
27 If the user wants to model multiple adjacent/downstream study areas, theoretically, the time series of surface water outflow
from the upstream study area may be used an input into the downstream study area. WMOST v2 does not output this time
series in table form (only as a graph) but this functionality is listed for future development. In addition, enhanced spatial
modeling is identified as an area for future development so that all areas or reaches can be optimized simultaneously rather
than just consecutively from upstream to downstream reaches.
28 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/
29 http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/watersecurity/climate/creat.cfm
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
data with least certainty to determine the robustness of the solution. Section 5 briefly describes the
process for performing sensitivity analyses.
Performing a Simulation Run for Validation
A simulation run is advised before optimization runs to determine the accuracy of WMOST and the input
data in reproducing streamflow. A simulation run excludes all management decisions; therefore, the input
data are run through the model without changes in management of the system. This requires that certain
input data be specified different from an optimization setup which is described in the rest of this
document. The case study of Danvers and Middleton, MA, in the User Guide for Version 1 and the case
study for Halifax, MA, in Appendix A to this volume describe the process for performing a "simulation"
run. The "simulated" streamflow may be compared to measured data or modeled data from the detailed
watershed simulation model.
2.2 System Requirements
To open and run WMOST, you will need Microsoft Excel version 2010 installed on your computer.
The WMOST Excel file and the file for the solver, Ipsolve55.dll, must be placed in the same folder.
After opening WMOST, choose 'Enable content' or 'Enable macros' if these prompts are displayed.
To run the Baseline Hydrology module of WMOST, you will need to download the WMOST support
files. (If you have data from a calibrated/validated model already, these data can be used without relying
on the support files supplied.) The SupportFiles folder should be placed in the same directory as the
WMOST spreadsheet and solver files. The support files include: 1) Watershedlnfo.xlsm with a map
of the available watersheds and metadata on each of the watersheds, 2) time series database (e.g.,
Taunton_Timeseries.csv), and 3) HRU characteristics database (e.g., Taunton_Characteristics.csv).
You will only need to download the two database files for the watershed that overlaps with or is most
similar to your study area with respect to land-use/soil type combinations and climate.
To run the Stormwater Hydrology module, you will need to download and install EPA's stormwater
management tool, System for Urban Stormwater Treatment and Analysis Integration (SUSTAIN) Version
1.230. SUSTAIN is available in two versions: non-GIS and ArcGIS 9.3. Both versions are compatible with
the Stormwater Hydrology module. To prevent errors, do not move SUSTAIN files automatically created
during installation from their default location.
When using WMOST, you may save various versions that are set up for different scenarios. You cannot
run multiple scenarios at the same time from the same folder. However, you may save a different scenario
along with the Ipsolve55.dll file in a different folder in order to run multiple scenarios at once. Depending
on your computer's specifications, this may increase the run time for each model. When using the
Baseline Hydrology and Stormwater Hydrology modules, WMOST performs best when saved and run
on a local drive, rather than a network drive, to save processing time.
30 http://www2.epa.gov/water-research/system-urban-stonnwater-treatment-and-analy sis-integration-sustain
10
-------
Getting Started
If other Excel files are open while running WMOST, the Results table will have the correct values but
may not be formatted properly. Therefore, it is recommended that you do not have other Excel files open
and run model scenarios one at a time.
Finally, if you encounter software errors, please email Naomi Detenbeck at detenbeck.naomi@epa.gov
with the subject "WMOST bug". To register for notices of patches and new releases, please email the
same address with the subject line "WMOST register".
11
-------
-------
Model Setup and Runs
3. Model Setup and Runs
When you open WMOST you will see the familiar Excel interface with one
worksheet active called "Intro". On the introduction page, you can navigate
to input data page using the blue button, run the optimization tool using the red
button, and view the result table and figures using the green buttons found on
this screen. To begin entering data for your study area, navigate to "Input" page
and use the blue buttons to complete all the input tables linked to this
worksheet. In general, input fields requiring selection or date input are shaded
in blue.
Please note that example screenshots and values displayed in them are from the
Danvers-Middleton case study and are not necessarily appropriate values for
your study area. WMOST performs several basic checks to ensure that input
data requirements are met, for example, that price elasticities are negative and
minimum in-stream flow targets are smaller than maximum in-stream flow
targets. If these basic requirements are not met, the user is informed with a
message box and asked to re-enter the information. Section 10.1 in the
Theoretical Documentation provides additional details on input data checks and
user support.
3.1
Step 1. Baseline Hydrology and HRU Areas
HRUs are areas of similar hydrology based on similarity of characteristics such as land use, soil and/or
slope. The number of HRUs will likely be determined by the diversity of these land characteristics in your
study area and your source of runoff and recharge rates. For example, a detailed simulation model that
may be available for your study area may have predefined HRUs. For part 1A, use the Baseline
Hydrology Module button to get assistance inputting hydrology data or manually enter the data using the
buttons on the right half of the box for part 1A.
El\
RL
EV
TER INPUT DATA
Proceed to
Input Data
JN OPTIMIZATION
Optimize
ALUTATE RESULTS
Results Table
Com pa re to
Measured Flow
Com pa re to
Target Flow
1
A
B
Baseline Hydrology: Data for unmanaged land conditions.
Time series data:
Use Baseline Hydrology module for assisted data acquisition and entry
rn Baseline Hydrology
Module
Land Use: Enter HRU areas and costs for and conservation Q Land L
OR manually enter your own data. Number of HRU types in your study area: 11
H
Press "Setup Baseline Hydrolgy" button to prepare baseline land use, runoff, and recharge input
tables. 1
Setup Baseline Hydrology U Runoff Q Recharge
fU
13
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Step 1A Assisted - Baseline Hydrology Module
Five steps comprise the Baseline Hydrology Module. First, select one of the six watersheds31 from the
drop-down menu that is most hydrologically similar to your study area. The Watershed Info file provides
data on each of the watersheds to help you compare them to your study area.
1. Select the watershed that encompasses or is similar to your study area:
Maps and data on watershed characteristics are provided in the Watershedlnfo.xls file which is available on the WMOST download website.
Ipswich
Once you select the watershed, the table in part 2 will automatically populate the HRUs that were
modeled in that watershed. Select the HRUs that exist within your study area and that you will be
modeling by placing an "x" in the blue column next to HRU names. You will need to use a GIS to
calculate the area of each land-use/soil type combination for your subwatershed of interest. Then, press
Populate Land Use to automatically set up appropriately sized input tables (i.e., Baseline Land Use table
and Baseline Runoff and Recharge tables on "Land Use", "Runoff, and "Recharge").
2. Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs)
The following HRU types are available in the selected watershed.
A. Select which HRUs exist in your study area ::r, 3 ac ne an X in blue box n
HRU types in the selected watershed
Forest, Sand and Gravel
Open, Sand and Gravel
Open, low density residential. Sand and Gravel
Open, high density residential, Sand and Gravel
Open, commerical, Sand and Gravel
Forest, Till
Open, Till
Open, low density residential. Till
Open, high density residential, Till
Forest, Alluvial
Open, Alluvial
HRU type. B. Then press "Populate Land Use" to populate Land Use sheet with each HRU's name, infiltration
rate and percent effective impervious area.
Once the table setups are complete, you will be taken to the "Land Use" page showing the percent
effective impervious area and infiltration rate for each HRU. These values were automatically populated
based on the selected watershed model. Review the value for these HRU characteristics to make sure that
they are appropriate for the HRUs in your study area. If you plan to use the Stormwater Hydrology
Module to create adjusted hydrology time series, only HRUs with non-zero EIA will be utilized in the
module to create stormwater-managed hydrology time series. However, you can edit any Percent
Effective Impervious value in the HRU series to be a minimal amount of impervious area (e.g., 0.001%)
so that the desired zero EIA HRU is modeled in the Stormwater Hydrology Module.
1 HSPF model development for each of these watersheds is described in the reports listed in Section 6 References.
14
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Baseline HRU Characteristics
HRUID
HRU1B
HRU2B
HRU3B
HRU4B
HRU5B
HRU6B
HRU7B
HRUSB
HRU9B
HRU10B
HRU11B
*HRU Name
Forest, Sand and Gravel
Open, Sand and Gravel
Open, low density residential, Sand and Gravel
Open, high density residential. Sand and Gravel
Open, commerical, Sand and Gravel
Forest, Till
Open, Till
Open, low density residential. Till
Open, high density residential. Till
Forest, Alluvial
Open, Alluvial
Baseline
Area [acre]
'Percent
Effective
Impervious
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
13.7%
63.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
13.7%
0.0%
0.0%
Infiltration
Rate [in/hr]
0.572
0.574
0.484
0.424
0.16
0.076
0.076
0.056
0.044
0.19
0.184
Next, return to the "Baseline Hydrology Module" and continue with part 3-selecting the modeling time
period. The time period of available data for the selected watershed is displayed in the yellow box. You
may use the View Precipitation Data button to open a new page and see the entire precipitation time
series available for the selected watershed model. This may help in selecting wet, dry or average
precipitation time periods. Five years of daily modeling takes approximately six minutes to optimize.
We do not recommend longer time periods but rather suggest running scenarios with five-year periods
of wet, dry and average conditions. Enter the desired start and end of the modeling time period in the
appropriate blue input boxes.
I960
2009
3. Time period
Hydrology data for the selected watershed is available for the following time period:
Five years of data takes approximately five to six minutes to solve at the daily time step. You may click "View Precipitation
Data" to obtain the available daily precipition time series to help you determine the period of interest.
Enter the time period of interest for your modeling study:
Start
End
1/1/1999
12/31/2004
In part 4, use the drop-down box to indicate whether you will run a daily or a monthly model. If you
intend to use the Stormwater Hydrology Module or include flood damage costs in modeling, you must run
a daily model. Finally, in part 5, press Process and Populate Time Series Data for Runoff and Recharge
to pre-process and populate the runoff and recharge data for your study area.
4. Model time step
To use the Stormwater Module, you must setup a daily model. Would you like to setup a daily or monthly model?
5. After completing steps 1 through 4, click the button to populate time series input data:
>-.
Daily >^J
^
^Process and Populat^^M
Time Series Data for J
^Runoff and Recharge^^
^*i -a^^
Once the processing is complete, you can view the baseline runoff and recharge
time series on "Runoff" and "Recharge" pages. Navigate back to input data
worksheet using the Return to Input button. Enter the number of HRUs you
Return to Input
15
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
modeled with the Baseline Hydrology Module into the blue box. Check the box next to Baseline
Hydrology Module to indicate that the data input is complete. This will help track all completed input
pages. Continue with data entry and model setup under Step IB.
1. Baseline Hydrology: Data for unmanaged land conditions.
A. Time series data:
Use Baseline Hydrology module for assisted data acquisition and entry
OR manually enter your own data.
| Num
Baseline Hydrology
Module
imber of HRU types TI your study t t
Press "Setup Baseline Hydrolgy" button to prepare baseline land use, runoff, and recharge inp
table
Setup Baseline Hydrology 1 D | Runoff
B. Land Use: Enter HRU areas and costs for land conservation
Step 1A Manual - Baseline Hydrology
Follow the steps below to enter your own baseline hydrology data manually.
Enter the number of HRU types that you intend to model, and press the Setup Baseline Hydrology button.
This will automatically prepare appropriately sized input tables for land use, runoff and recharge data.
The process creates blank input tables; therefore, do not press this button again unless you have your
input data saved elsewhere and want to change the number ofHRUs.
1. Baseline Hydrology: Data for unmanaged land conditions.
A. Time series data:
Use Baseline Hydrology module for assisted data acquisition and entry
rj Baseline Hydrology
Module
| Number of HRU types in your study;
OR manually enter your own data.
Press "Setup Bas£lineJ^d(r^|ey'^utton to prepare baseline land use, runoff, and recharge in
Setup Baseline Hydrology J d I
B. Land Use: Enter HRU areas and costs for land conservation
Next, select the Runoffbutton to navigate to the input table and enter time series data of runoff rate for
each HRU for the modeling time period. The runoff rate must be input per unit time (e.g., inches per day).
Values can be cut and pasted from another file or imported using Data -
(Get External Data) From Text options in Excel to add contents of a
comma-delimited file.
Recharge
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
1/1/1989
1/2/1989
1/3/1989
1/4/1989
1/5/1989
1/6/1989
1/7/1989
1/8/1989
1/9/1989
1/10/1989
1/11/1989
Units: inches/time step
Baseline HRU Set
HRU1 HRU2
7.62E-06 1.39E-03
6.S6E-06 1.25E-03
6.19E-06 1.13E-03
5.5SE-06 1.02E-03
5.04E-06 9.15E-04
4.54E-06 S.23E-04
4.11E-06 7.41E-04
3.69E-06 6.67E-04
3.36E-06 6.00E-04
3.01E-06 5.40E-04
2.73E-06 4.86E-04
HRU3
S.54E-05
5.76E-05
5.07E-05
4.47E-05
3.93E-05
3.46E-05
3.05E-05
2.58E-05
2.36E-05
2.08E-Q5
1.S3E-05
HRU4
S.05E-05
6.93E-05
5.96E-05
5.12E-05
4.41E-05
3.SOE-05
3.27E-O5
2.81E-05
2.42E-05
2.QSE-05
1.79E-05
HRU5
2.91E-03
2.3SE-03
1.95E-03
1.50E-03
1.31E-03
l.OSE-03
S.84E-04
7.25E-04
5.94E-04
4.87E-04
4.00E-04
HRU6
1.7SE-03
1.50E-03
1.44E-03
1.29E-03
1.16E-03
1.05E-03
9.44E-04
8.49E-04
7.65E-04
6.SSE-04
6.19E-04
HRU7
1.19E-02
1.07E-02
9.65E-03
S.68E-03
7.S1E-03
7.03E-03
6.35E-03
5.72E-03
5.15E-03
4.63E-03
4.17E-03
HRU8
7.29E-03
6.42E-03
5.55E-03
4.97E-03
4.37E-03
3.S5E-03
3.40E-03
3.00E-03
2.54E-03
2.32E-03
2.04E-03
HRU9
9.47E-03
8.15E-03
7.01E-03
6.03E-03
5.1SE-03
4.46E-03
3.S6E-03
3.33E-03
2.S6E-03
2.46E-03
2.12E-03
HRU10
1.43 E-04
1.28E-04
1.15E-04
1.04E-04
9.35E-05
8.42E-05
7.58E-05
6.82E-05
6.14E-05
5.53E-05
4.98E-05
HRU11
4.26E-03
3.83E-03
3.45E-03
3.10E-03
2.79E-03
2.51E-03
2.26E-03
2.04E-03
1.84E-03
1.65E-03
1.49E-03
This table requires a time series of runoff rates for baseline and each managed land use set at the daily or
monthly time step. For a monthly time step, the day of the month does not matter. The dates entered on
16
-------
Model Setup and Runs
sheet will populate the dates in all other input tables that require time series. Time series data must be
consecutive and complete, that is, there must not be any missing dates or data. Refer to Defining
Hydrologic Response Units in Section 2.1, for discussion about data sources for runoff and recharge rates.
Once you have entered these data, select Return to Input and check the box
indicating that this section is complete. Select Recharge to navigate to the
input table for recharge time series.
Date Baseline HRU Set (HRU)
(mm/dd/yyyy) HRU1 HRU2 HRU3 HRU4 HRU5 HRU6 HRU7 HRU8 HRU9 HRU10 HRU11
1/1/1989
1/2/19S9
1/3/19S9
1/4/1989
1/5/1989
1/6/1989
1/7/1989
1/8/1989
1/9/1989
1/10/1989
1/11/1989
2.2E-02
2.2E-02
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
5.2E-02
5.1E-02
5.0E-02
4.9E-02
4.8E-02
4.7E-02
4.6E-02
4.5E-02
4.5E-02
4.4E-02
4.3E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.3E-02
3.2E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
2.9E-02
2.9E-02
2.8E-02
3.4E-02
3.3E-02
3.2E-02
3.1E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
2.9E-02
2.SE-02
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.7E-02
3.2E-02
3.1E-02
3.0E-02
2.9E-02
2.SE-02
2.7E-02
2.6E-02
2.6E-02
2.5E-02
2.4E-02
2.3E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
2.8E-02
2.SE-02
2.7E-02
2.7E-02
2.6E-02
2.6E-02
2.5E-02
2.5E-02
2.5E-02
2.4E-02
2.3E-02
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
1.9E-02
1.9E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.9E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
3.SE-02
3.6E-02
3.5E-02
3.4E-02
3.3E-02
3.2E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.0E-02
2.9E-02
2.SE-02
Similar to the runoff input table, the recharge input table also requires a time series of recharge rates for
baseline and land use at the daily or monthly time step. Similarly, it should be consecutive and complete.
Select Return to Input and check the "Recharge" box. This completes Step 1A manual entry. Continue to
Step IB.
Step IB - Land Use audits Management
Select Land Use button to
navigate to the Land Use and
Its Management page. On
this page you must enter
HRU areas for baseline
conditions and may enter
information for considering
land conservation as a
management practice. The
Baseline HRU Characteristics
part of the table, the baseline
areas for HRUs can represent
existing conditions or future
Baseline HRU Characteristics
HRU ID
HRU1B
HRU2B
HRU3B
HRU4B
HRU5B
HRU6B
HRU7B
HRU8B
HRU9B
HRU1QB
HRU11B
*HRUName
Forest, Sand and Gravel
Open, Sand and Gravel
Open, low density residential, Sand and Gravel
Open, high density residential, Sand and Grave!
Open, commerical. Sand and Gravel
Forest, Till
Open, Till
Open, low density residential. Till
Open, high density residential. Till
Forest, Alluvial
Open, Alluvial
Baseline
Area [acre]
1,681
437
3,099
1,274
1,255
6,660
519
7,005
1,616
110
153
*Percent
Effective
Impervious
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
13.7%
63.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.5%
13.7%
0.0%
0.0%
"Infiltration
Rate [in/hr]
0.572
0.574
0.484
0.424
0.16
0.076
0.076
0.056
0.044
0.19
0.1S4
conditions that you would like to model. For example, if you intend to run the model to prioritize
management options to achieve by 2050, you would enter the projected area of each HRU in 2050. If you
manually entered data in Step 1A, then you must enter information on the percent effective impervious
area and infiltration rate for each HRU.
17
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
For the Land Conservation part of the table, the following examples are provided to help guide inputting
appropriate values:
"Minimum" areas for each HRU - For urban HRUs this
may be the existing area of urban HRUs given that these
areas are not expected to be reforested or otherwise be
"undeveloped". For forest lands, it may be the area of
conserved/protected forest lands which must exist in the
future due to their protected status.
"Maximum" areas for each HRU - For urban HRUs,
this may be the projected, built-out area or maximum
allowable area under zoning regulations. For forest lands,
it may be the existing area of forest land given that other
HRU types will not be used to regrow forest for urban
recreation or start a forestry business.
Cost to conserve HRUs - For example, it may be beneficial to purchase and conserve forest or
wetlands. For these HRUs, enter the initial cost of purchasing the land (i.e., capital costs) and any
annual operations and maintenance (O&M) costs that may continue to be associated with the
purchase.
If land conservation is not possible or desirable for a HRU, then enter "-9" for initial and O&M costs.
In the above screenshot example, forest land is possible to conserve at an initial cost of $187,408 per acre
and $1,874 annual O&M costs.
Once both tables are complete, navigate back to the Input page and check the box in front of the Land Use
button and continue to Step 2.
Data for Land Conservation Option
Minimum Area
[acre]
1,681
437
3,099
1,274
1,255
6,660
519
7,005
1,616
110
153
Maximum
Area [acre]
2,760
774
3,099
1,274
1,255
9,371
600
7,005
1,616
148
237
Initial Cost to
Conserve
[S/acre]
187,408
187,408
-9
-9
-9
187,408
187,408
-9
-9
187,408
187,408
O&M Cost
[S/acre/yr]
1,874
1,874
(9)
-9
-9
1,874
1,874
-9
-9
1,874
874
1. Baseline Hydrology: Data for unmanaged land conditions.
A. Time series data:
Use Baseline Hydrology module for assisted data acquisition and entry
Baseline Hydrology I
Module
OR manually enter your own data.
Number of HRU types
study a
Press "Setup Baseline Hydrolgy" button to prepare baseline land use, runoff, and recharge input
tables.
B. Land Use: Enter HRU areas and costs for land conservation [7] land Use
Step 2. Managed Hydrology and HRU Areas/Storm water Management
To include stormwater best management practices (BMPs) in the cost-effectiveness assessment, you must
complete this step.
Step 2A Assisted - Stormwater Hydrology Module
Navigate to the Stormwater Hydrology Module to get assistance with deriving and populating stormwater
management related inputs. To enter your own stormwater hydrology data, proceed to the next section -
Step 2 A Manual.
18
-------
Model Setup and Runs
2. Stormwater Managed Hydrology: Data for storwmater managed land conditions. Th
A. Time series data:
Use Stormwater HydrQ^^y^^yefDr assisted data acquisition and entry OR
D ^ Stormwater Hydrology p
^^^^ Module ^^jf
B. Land use: Enter data on HRU areas available for stormwater management and costs forstor
D 1 Land Use
s section is only required if you wish to
manually enter your own data.
Press "Setup Stormwater Hydrolgy"
tables.
Setup Stormwater Hya
nwater management.
consider stormwater management.
Button to prepare managed land use, runoff, and recharge input
rology Q Runoff | Q] Recharge
Four parts comprise the Stormwater Hydrology Module. In part 1, use the drop-down menu to indicate
whether you used Baseline Hydrology Module or manually entered your own data. If you used Baseline
Hydrology Module, choose the "Baseline Hydrology Module" and press Import Hourly Time Series. If
you manually entered your own data, choose the "Entered Own Data" and press Hourly Time Series
where you will be asked for additional information.
To use this Stormwater Module, you MUST enter baseline hydrology data first. You may do so^mnuallv or via the Hydrology Module.
1. Did you use the Baseline Hydrology Module or manually enter data? [Baseline Hydrology Module l^^mJ
^Import Hourly Time Series^
A. If you used the Baseline Hydrology Module, use the Import Hourly Time Series button to automatically populate hourly data.
B. If you entered data manually, use the Hourly Time Series button to navigate to the stormwater data sheet and provide hourly data.
Hourly Time Series
Additional Stormwater Data: Three types of additional data are required if you entered your own
baseline hydrology: 1) latitude of your study area, 2) hourly temperature time series for your study area,
and 3) hourly runoff time series for developed HRUs (HRUs with percent effective impervious value
greater than 0). The time series data must match the modeling time period. More detailed guidance is
below.
If you used Baseline Hydrology Module, the Import Hourly Time Series button will populate all
additional stormwater data based on your model setup in Step 1. If you entered your own data in Step 1,
you must provide the additional data requirements. Press Hourly Time Series to navigate to "Stormwater-
Data" and enter the data.
To use this Stormwater Module, you MUST enter baseline hydrology data first. You may do sq^nanually or via the Hydrology Module.
1. Did you use the Baseline Hydrology Module or manually enter data?
Entered Own Data
A. If you used the Baseline Hydrology Module, use the Import Hourly Time Series button to automatically populate hourly data.
B. If you entered data manually, use the Hourly Time Series button to navigate to the stormwater data sheet and provide hourly data.
Import Hourly Time Series
HourlvTime Series ^ \
First, enter the model time period. This time period must match the time period of the baseline runoff and
recharge time series. Second, enter the latitude of your study area.
1. Enter the model time period. Time series data must match the time period of the baseline hydrology.
Baseline hydrology start:
Baseline hydrology end:
1/1/2002
12/31/2006
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
developers' data sources for compatible weather time series. Finally, enter hourly runoff data for all
developed HRUs. Press Populate HRU Names from Land Use to prepare the input table for the runoff
data This will create time series columns for all developed HRUs. The Stormwater Hydrology Module
only simulates Stormwater management for developed HRUs (i.e., HRUs with percent EIA=0 are
ignored) so you do not need to provide hourly runoff time series for HRUs with 0 EIA.
Date/time
Date/Time (dd-mm-yyyy hK Temperatu
1/1/1989 2:00 AM
1/1/1989 3:00 AM
1/1/19894:00 AM
1/1/1989 5:00 AM
1/1/1989 6:00 AM
1/1/1989 7:00 AM
1/1/1989 8:00 AM
1/1/1989 9:00 AM
1/1/1989 10:00 AM
1/1/1989 11:00 AM
1/1/1989 12:00 PM
1/1/1989 1:00 PM
1/1/1989 2:00 PM
1/1/1939 3:00 PM
1/1/1939 4:00 PM
Date/time Runoff (in/hr)
Mediumtolow Commer
Open density High-density industria
^^^^^ nonresidential, residential, Sand residential, Sand transpor
re [deg F)j l(dd-mm-yyyyy hh) Sand and Gravel and Gravel and Gravel Sand and
28 1/1/19392:00 AM 000
28 1/1/1939 3:00 AM 000
27 1/1/1939 4:00 AM 0 0 0
24 1/1/1989 5:00 AM 0 0 0
23 1/1/1989 6:00 AM 0 0 0
24 1/1/19897:00 AM 000
24 1/1/19S9 8:00 AM 000
25 1/1/1939 9:00 AM 000
27 1/1/1989 10:00 AM 0 0 0
29 1/1/1989 11:00 AM 0 0 0
29 1/1/1989 12:00 PM 0 0 0
29 1/1/19S9 1:00 PM 0 0 0
33 1/1/1989 2:00 PM 0 0 0
34 1/1/1989 3:00 PM 000
33 1/1/1989 4:00 PM 0 0 0
cial- Open Medium to low High-density Commercial-
nonresidential, density residential. Till & industrial-
ation, Till & fine- residential, Till & fine-grained transportation.
Gravel grained deposits fine-grained deposits Till & fine-
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
00000
Use the Return to Stormwater Hydrology Module to navigate back. Confirm that you are using a daily
timestep in part 2. If you will include flood damages in the optimization of costs, you must select to set up
a daily model.
2. Model time step
You must set up a daily timestep model to
use the Stormwater Module.
Daily
In part 3, select the Stormwater BMP types and sizes that you would like to model. You can select up to
10 combinations of BMP type and runoff design depth. This limitation is imposed to ensure manageable
processing time and completion. For each combination, the Stormwater Hydrology Module will calculate
the appropriate BMP design parameters, run a
simulation for all the developed HRUs, calculate the
final "managed" runoff and recharge time series and
populate the appropriate WMOST input table. In order
for the Stormwater Hydrology Module to run, the
WMOST file must be saved in a folder location with no
spaces in the file path.
BMP Type
Biorentention with UD
Biorentention with UD
Infiltration trench
Infiltration trench
Detention pond
Detention pond
Design Depth For BMP (in)
0.6
2
O.S
1.4
4.5
6
After entering the BMP management combinations, press Generate input files for Stormwater model. This
button creates three input files for the Stormwater simulation: 1) the main input file (Input.inp), 2) a
climate time series file (Climate, swm), and 3) multiple HRU runoff time series files based on the number
of developed HRUs (HRU#.txt). The input file generation step may take a few minutes to complete.
4. Use the buttons below to perform the indicated processes.
Generate input files for
Stormwater model
Run Stormwater model and
populate WMOST input fields
20
-------
Model Setup and Runs
The generated input files are saved to a folder titled "Input" in same location as the WMOST Excel file.
Next, press Run stormwater model and populate WMOST input fields.
4. Use the buttons below to perform the indicated pro
Generate input files for
stormwater model
Run storm water model and
populate WMOST input fields
The stormwater simulation determines how much of the runoff is infiltrated or detained by a BMP and
the remaining runoff due to surface discharge and/or overflow. Simulation outputs are automatically
processed and the appropriate input tables for Managed HRU Sets are populated on the "Runoff
and "Recharge" pages.
Once the module completes processing, select Return to Input and check the box for Stormwater
Hydrology Module to indicate that the module and data entry is complete. Enter the number of HRU sets
created by the Baseline Hydrology Module (always one) and the Stormwater Hydrology Module
(depends on the number of HRUs and BMP types entered onto the Stormwater tab. Proceed to Step 2B.
2. Stormwater Managed Hydrology: Data for storwmater managed land conditions
A. Time series data:
This section is only required if you wish to consider stormwater management.
Use Stormwater Hydrology module for assisted data acquisition and entry OR manually enteryour own data. | Number of HRU Sets it asehre plus managed sets/:
0 Stormwater Hydrology
Module
D Land Use
-^J^
<:
Press "Setup Stormwater Hydrolgy" button to prepare managed land use, runoff, and rechargeTfput
tables, i
Setup Stormwater Hydrology Q Runoff Q Recharge
Step 2A Manual - Storm-water Hydrology
For manually entering your own stormwater hydrology data, follow the instructions below.
Decide on the number of BMPs you would like to evaluate, that is, the number of BMP type and size
combinations. For example, assessing a bioretention basin and a detention pond each at the 0.6 inch
and 1.0 inch design depth would require a total of four BMP setups. Each BMP setup is assessed for
all developed HRUs, that is, HRUs with effective impervious areas greater than zero. The runoff and
recharge time series associated with one BMP setup for all developed HRUs constitutes a managed
HRU set.
Enter the number of HRU sets that you intend to model including the baseline set (i.e., add one to the
number of stormwater BMP setups you intend to model).
2. Stormwater Managed Hydrology: Data for storv.rn.iter managed land conditions. This section is only required if you wish to considei
A. Time series data:
Use Stormwater Hydrology module for assisted data acquisition and entry
Stormwater Hydrology
Module
manually enter your own data.
Press "Setup Stormwater Hydrc
tables, i
Number of HRU Sets [ba;elire Fli; rrEiraged ^e^^L 5 J
B. Land use: Enter data on HRU areas available for storm water management and costs for stormwater management.
G Land Use
Press Setup Stormwater Hydrology to automatically prepare appropriately sized input tables for managed
land use, runoff and recharge data. The process creates blank input tables; therefore, do not press this
21
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
button again unless you have your input data saved elsewhere and want to change the number of
HRU sets.
Next, select "Runoff to navigate to the input table and enter time series data of runoff rate for each
developed HRU.
Managed HRU Set (HRUM1)
HRU1M1 HRU2M1 HRU3M1
7.62E-06
6.86E-06
6.19E-06
5.58E-06
5.04E-06
4.54E-06
4.11E-06
3.69E-06
3.36E-06
3.01E-06
2.73E-06
1.39E-03
1.25E-03
1.13E-03
1.02E-03
9.15E-04
8.23E-04
7.41E-04
6.67E-04
6.00E-04
5.40E-04
4.86E-04
6.38E-05
5.61E-05
4.94E-05
4.35E-05
3.S4E-05
3.3SE-05
2.97E-05
2.61E-05
2.30E-05
2.03 E-05
1.79E-05
HRU4M1
6. 9 3 E-05
5.96E-05
5.12E-05
4.41E-05
3.79E-05
3.26E-05
2.81E-05
2.42E-05
2.08E-05
1.79E-05
1.54E-05
HRU5M1
1.07E-03
8.81E-04
7.23E-04
5.93E-04
4.S6E-04
3.99E-Q4
3.27E-04
2.68E-04
2.20E-04
l.SOE-04
1.48E-04
HRU6M1
1.78E-03
1.60E-03
1.44E-03
1.29E-03
1.16E-03
1.05E-03
9.44E-04
S.49E-04
7.65E-04
6.S8E-04
6.19E-04
HRU7M1
1.19E-02
1.07E-02
9. 65 E-03
8.68E-03
7.S1E-03
7.03E-03
6.35E-03
5.72E-03
5.L5E-03
4.63E-03
4.17E-03
HRU8M1
7.11E-03
6.26E-03
5.51E-03
4.85 E-03
4.26E-03
3.75E-03
3.31E-03
2.92E-03
2.57E-03
2.26E-03
1.99E-03
HRU9M1 HRU10M1 HRU11M1
S.15E-03
7.01E-03
6.03 E-03
5.18E-03
4.46E-03
3.83E-03
3.32E-03
2.S6E-03
2.46E-03
2.12E-03
1.S2E-03
1.43 E-04
1.28E-04
1.15E-04
1.04E-04
9. 35 E-05
S.42E-05
7.5SE-05
6.S2E-05
6.14E-05
5.53E-05
4.98E-05
4.26E-03
3.83E-03
3.45E-03
3.10E-03
2.79E-03
2.51E-03
2.26E-03
2.04E-03
1.84E-03
1.55E-03
1.49E-03
This table requires a time series of runoff rates for each managed land use set at the daily or monthly time
step. For a monthly time step, the day of the month does not matter. The dates entered on sheet will
populate the dates in all other input tables that require time series. Time series data must be
consecutive, that is, there must not be any missing dates. Refer to Defining Hydrologic Response Units
in Section 2.1, for discussion about data sources for runoff and recharge rates.
The time series are input vertically and HRUs and HRU sets horizontally. If an HRU is excluded from a
"managed set" (i.e., HRUs without impervious areas), then the values specified for those HRUs are not
consequential since the model will exclude those values. To the right of the Baseline HRU set, which was
completed in Step 1, you will see the continuation of HRU columns for the managed sets.
Once you have entered these data, select "Return to Input" and check
the box indicating that this section is complete. Next select "Recharge"
to enter time series data of recharge rates for each HRU.
Similar to the runoff input table, the recharge input table also requires a time series of recharge rates for
baseline and each managed land use set at the same daily or monthly time step. Similarly, it should be
consecutive and complete and input as depth per time step (e.g., inches per day).
22
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Managed HRU Set (HRUM1)
HRU1M1 HRU2M1 HRU3M1 HRU4M1 HRU5M1 HRU6M1 HRU7M1 HRUSM1 HRU9M1 HRU10M1 HRU11M1
2.2E-02
2.2E-02
2.2E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.1E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
5.2E-02
5.1E-02
5.0E-02
4.9E-02
4.8E-02
4.7E-02
4.6E-02
4.5 E- 02
4.5E-02
4.4E-02
4.3E-02
3.4E-02
3.3E-02
3.2E-02
3. IE- 02
3. IE- 02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
2.9E-02
2.SE-02
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.9E-02
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.7E-02
2.6E-02
2.5E-02
2.SE-02
2.6E-02
2.4E-02
2.3E-02
2.3E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
l.OE-02
l.OE-02
2.2E-02
1.7E-02
9.3E-03
8.9E-03
S.6E-03
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.2E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
2.8E-02
2.8E-02
2.7E-02
2.7E-02
2.6E-02
2.6E-02
2.5 E- 02
2.5 E- 02
2.5E-02
2.4E-02
2.3E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
1.9E-02
1.9E-02
l.SE-02
l.SE-02
l.SE-02
1.8E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.7E-02
1.6E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.6E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.5E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
1.3E-02
3.8E-02
3.6E-02
3.5E-02
3.4E-02
3.3E-02
3.2E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.0E-02
2.9E-02
2.8E-02
Select Return to Input and check the "Recharge" box indicating that this section is complete.
Step 2B-Land Use audits Management
Select the Land Use button to navigate to the input page. Beneath the baseline HRU input table, you will
see table(s) for managed HRU sets. There is one table for each BMP or managed HRU set. Depending on
whether you used the automated or manual version of the stormwater hydrology input (Step 2A), some
fields will be pre-filled.
Enter or verify the name of the BMP in the blue box in the upper right hand corner of each table. The
following input data are requested for each HRU:
Minimum area on which the management practice may be implemented - For urban HRUs,
regulations may require that a specific stormwater management practice is implemented.
Maximum area on which the management practice may be implemented - For urban HRUs,
some of the HRU may already managed by the specified stormwater practice and is, therefore,
unavailable for that treatment.
Initial costs associated with the management practice - For example, design and construction
of a bioretention basin to retain one inch of runoff.
O&M costs associated with the management practice - For example, annual clean out and other
upkeep of the bioretention basin to maintain performance.
Stormwater Hydrology Module will automatically enter initial costs and O&M costs based on the cost of
stormwater BMPs in terms of dollars per treated cubic feet of stormwater. The unit cost values are derived
from previous applications of SUSTAIN32'33. If a management practice is not applicable or desirable for
an HRU, "-9" is entered for initial and O&M costs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2011. Memorandum to Project File: Methodology for developing cost
estimates for structural stormwater controls for preliminary Residual Designation sites for Charles River watershed areas in the
communities of Milford, Bellingham and Franklin, Massachusetts. August 9, 2011.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP). 2009.
Optimal Stormwater Management Plan Alternatives: A Demonstration Project in Three Upper Charles River Communities.
23
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
First Set of Managed Land Uses and Their Limits
HRUID
HRU1M1
HRU2M1
HRU3M1
HRU4M1
HRU5M1
HRU6M1
HRU7M1
HRUSM1
HRU9M1
HRU10M1
HRU11M1
Land Use Name
Forest, sand & gravel
Open, sand & gravel
Low-resid, sand & gravel
High-resid, sand &gravel
Comm, sand & gravel
Forest, Till
Open, Till
Low-resid, Till
High-resid, Till
Forest, Fine deposition
Open, Fine deposition
Minimum
Area [acre]
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Maximum
Area
[acre]
0
0
3,099
1,274
1,255
0
G
7,005
1,616
G
0
Bioretention basin, 0.6"
Initial Cost
to Manage
[$/acre]
-9
-9
3,833
5,685
12,589
-9
-9
3,833
5,685
-9
-9
O&M Cost
[S/acre/yr]
-9
-9
38
57
126
-9
-9
38
57
-9
-9
< Input name of management practice
In the above screenshot, all urban HRUs receive bioretention basin management. There are no minimum
acres of HRU area that must be managed but the maximum values are entered based on projected build-
out (therefore, same as maximum areas in the baseline table). In addition, as described in the Theoretical
Documentation, the maximum area of an HRU that can be managed with bioretention is limited to the
area of that HRU that exists considering land conservation decisions (i.e., land area is conserved and no
more can be treated than exists as decided is optimal by the model). All specifications are "per acre of
HRU"; therefore, the initial cost of $3,833 and O&M cost of $38 for low density residential on sand and
gravel surficial geology is the cost to treat one acre of that HRU. The actual footprint of the bioretention
basin will only be a small part of that acre of land. WMOST calculates the final costs for implementation
taking into account the quantity of BMPs implemented. Neither SUSTAIN nor WMOST include the
associated cost of land the BMP is constructed upon but users can adjust values accordingly based on
local land costs.
Repeat the same instructions for additional BMPs/managed sets. Up to ten stormwater management
options, including traditional, green infrastructure or LID practices or other land management practices
that modify runoff and recharge may be specified. A managed set may include multiple practices that
achieve some standard such as retaining a one inch storm event using rooftop disconnection, bioretention
basins and swales.
Once this section of "Land Use" is complete, navigate to the input screen by pressing Return to Input.
Check the box next to Land Use to indicate that you have completed data entry for this category of input.
2. Stormwater Managed Hydrology: Data for storwmater managed land conditions. This section is only required if you wish to consider stormwater management.
A. Time series data:
Use Stormwater Hydrology module for i
manually enteryour own data.
| Mum
Stormwater Hydrology
Module
Press "Setup Stormwater Hydrolgy" button to prepare managed land use, runoff, and recharge input
tables.
Setup Stormwater Hydrology \^\ Runoff I Q Recharge
B. Land use: Enter data on HRU areas available for stormwater management and costs for stormwater management.
0 Land Use
24
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Step 3. Water Users, Water Demand, Demand Management and Septic System Use
On "Input", enter the number of water user types. Do not include unaccounted-for-water (UAW) as it is
automatically included in all relevant input tables. UAW in WMOST is assumed to be real losses from the
system lost as leakage to the subsurface.
Press Setup Input Tables to automatically prepare input tables for potable, nonpotable, demand
management, and septic components of your system. The process creates blank input tables; therefore,
do not press this button again unless you have your input data saved elsewhere and want to change
the number of water user types.
3. Water use and demand managem
Enter the number of water use types
Press "Setup Input Tables" button to
Navigate to each input tab associatec
rj Potable
Demand
ent.
Dut do not include unaccou
prepare appopriate sized in
with water use.
, 1 Nonpotable
Demand
ited water; it is automatica
Dut tables for potable and n
i il Demand
Management
y included.
unpotable demanc
CH Septic
Number of Water Use Types: ^. 5 J|
and septic systems data based onrTf^ber of water use types. Setup Input
Tables j
Systems 1
Select "Potable Demand" to navigate to the input table.
[| f Potable
Demand
D
N on potable
Demand
n
Demand
Management
Septic Systems
Date Total Water Demand [million gallons /time step]
(mm/dd/yyyy) Unaccounted Residential Commercial Agricultural Industrial Municipal
1/1/19 89
1/2/19S9
1/3/1989
1/4/1989
1/5/1989
1/6/1989
1/7/1989
1/8/1989
1/9/1989
1/10/1989
1/11/1989
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
0.199
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
1.937
0.882
O.SS2
0.882
0.882
O.SS2
0.882
0.882
0.882
0.882
0.882
0.882
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.008
0.003
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.008
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
0.333
This table requires a time-series of the potable water demand for all users entered in Step 3, plus demand
attributable to unaccounted-for-water. This time series should be 1) at the time step of your model, that is,
the same time step as runoff and recharge rates, 2) complete and consecutive and 3) the exact same time
period as the runoff and recharge rate data.
This section also includes an input table for the average percent consumptive water use by month. These
values can reflect any seasonal changes in consumptive use over the year, such as increased outdoor
watering in the summer, and among water user types.
Water withdrawal and demand and consumptive use data may be available from state or regional sources.
For example, in Massachusetts the Department of Environmental Protection receives such data in the
form of Annual Statistical Reports from water utilities.
25
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Average Percent Consumptive Water Use (%)
Month Residential Commerci Agricultural Industrial
January 4 4 99 4
February 4 4 99 4
March 4 4 99 4
April 6 6 99 6
May 20 20 99 20
June 26 26 99 26
July 29 29 99 29
August 25 25 99 25
September 20 20 99 20
October 4 4 99 4
November 44 99 4
December 44 99 4
Note: None of these columns or rows need to add to 1015%. Each value
percent consumptive use for a user type for a month.
Municipal
4
4
4
6
20
26
29
25
20
4
4
4
is the
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Potable" when this section is complete. Next, select
Nonpotable demand to navigate to the input table.
Potable
Demand
D
Nonpotable
Demand
D
Demand
Management
Septic Systems
Enter the percent nonpotable water use and percent consumptive use for nonpotable applications. The
percent nonpotable water is the maximum amount of potable use that may be met using nonpotable water
such as toilet flushing or outdoor irrigation. The values in the columns or rows do not need to add to
100% for either table.
Maximum Potential Nonpotable Water Use (%)
Month Residential Commercial Agricultural Industrial Municipal
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
45
^^^^^^^^|
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
90
26
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Average Percent Consumptive Nonpotable Water Use (%)
Month Residential Commercial Agricultural Industrial Municipal
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
1
1
1
3
17
23
26
22
17
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
17
23
26
22
17
1
1
1
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
4
4
4
6
20
26
29
25
20
4
4
4
1
1
1
3
17
23
26
22
17
1
1
1
Based on these nonpotable input data, the consumptive use percent of potable water is recalculated. It is
possible to enter values for Maximum Potential Nonpotable Water Use and Average Percent
Consumptive Nonpotable Water Use that result in Adjusted Consumptive Potable Water Use values that
are outside of the feasible range of 0-100%. To help the user confirm that nonpotable input data do not
create infeasible Adjusted Consumptive Potable Water Use values, a third table on the "Nonpotable
Demand" worksheet pre-calculates these adjusted values (see below). If any of the values are outside of
the feasible range, they are highlighted red. In addition, the model will not run and the user is provided
with an error message to change input values for Maximum Percent Nonpotable Use and/or Average
Percent Consumptive Nonpotable Water Use. Therefore, ensure that values are not highlighted red in the
table shown below before proceeding.
Adjusted Consumptive Potable Water Use (%)
Month Residential Commercial Agricultural Industrial Municipal
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
6
6
6
8
22
28
31
27
22
6
6
6
31
31
31
33
47
53
56
52
47
31
31
31
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
4
4
4
6
20
26
29
25
20
4
4
4
31
31
31
33
47
53
56
52
47
31
31
31
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Nonpotable" when this section is complete. Click on
"Demand Management" to enter information about how changes in price and other demand management
practices may affect demand in your study area.
Potable
Demand
I
Nonpotable
Demand
D
Septic Systems
27
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
The first option is reducing demand by increasing the price of water services. Specify the price elasticity -
percent change in water use divided by percent change in price - for each type of water user. Price
elasticities should be negative given that an increase in price is expected to decrease water use. Price
elasticities may be found in the literature but will depend on existing pricing and other local conditions34.
For example, if the consumer's purchase price of water is relatively high, price elasticities will be smaller
than if the existing pricing is relatively low. This reflects the fact that increasing price indefinitely will not
decrease demand indefinitely; therefore, it is not a linear effect. The user may specify the maximum price
change possible within the planning horizon which may be used to limit price change over the range
where the response is expected to be linear35.
Price Elasticities [% demand reduction / % price increase]
Residential Commercial Agricultural Industrial Municipal
-0.2 -0.2
-0.5
-0.1
Initial cost
O&M cost
Maximum price change
23,000
2,000
20
S
S/yr
%
-0.2
Maximum percent increase in price of water services from existing price over the duration of the planning horizon
The initial cost may reflect the cost of a study to determine effective pricing structure and values, billing
frequencies, changes in billing logistics, and consumer outreach to convey the importance of efficient use
of water resources and the planned change in pricing. O&M costs may reflect smaller studies to re-
evaluate pricing every year or five years; however, be sure to enter the expected annual cost of such
evaluations.
The second option is direct demand reductions which may be achieved using rebates for water efficient
appliances, changing building codes, educational outreach and other practices. Initial and O&M costs may
be specified for the aggregate cost of direct demand reduction practices. The aggregate effect of these
practices should be specified as a percent reduction is overall demand.
Initial cost
O&M cost
Total demand reduction
3,186,600
0
0.60
$
S/yr
MGD
Total demand reduction value should equal the MGD reduction in demand across all
usertypes achieved by all managemnet practices encompassed in the initial and
O&M cost.
EPA's WaterSense website provides a calculator that together with local or Census data (e.g., number of
households) can be used to determine the total potential reductions in water use with the installation of
water efficient appliances36. When acquiring input data for these practices, the user must be aware of
34 For example, http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/rstavins/Monographs_&_Reports/Pioneer_Olmstead_Stavins_Water.pdf
35 The effect of price on water is assumed to be linear with WMOST v2 but nonlinear assumption may be implemented in future
version.
36http://www.epa.gov/watersense/our_water/start_saving.html#tabs-3
-------
Model Setup and Runs
the potential reduction in the individual effectiveness of demand management practices when
multiple practices are implemented simultaneously37.
For any options that are not possible or desirable, enter "-9" for costs.
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Demand Management" when this section is complete.
Click on "Septic" to enter information about the percent of customers with septic systems inside and
outside of your study area that are on public water. Customers that are not on public water should be
represented as private withdrawals and discharges on the Surface Water or Groundwater input worksheets
depending on their source and discharge of water (see Step 4 below for description of these input
worksheets).
Potable
Demand
0
Nonpotable
Demand
I Demand
Management
For public water users, it is important to distinguish customers who are on septic systems but are outside
of the watershed of the study area being modeled. Such septic systems do not recharge the groundwater
and do not contribute to the baseflow of the stream in the study area's watershed.
Customers with Public Water &
Residential
9
.4
Commercial
9.4
Customers with Public Water &
Residential
0
Commercial
0
Septic Systems Recharging Inside
Agricultural
9.4
Industrial
9.4
Study Area (%)
Municipal
9.4
Septic Systems Recharging Outside Study Area (%)
Agricultural
0
Industrial
0
Municipal
0
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Septic" when the section is complete. Proceed to Step 4.
Step 4. Surface Water, Groundwater, Interbasin Transfer and Infrastructure
Select "Surface Water & Streamflow Targets" to navigate to three input tables.
4. Water supply sources and infrastructure
\^T^ Surface Water fiT^l Q
X^fowTarget^
Navigate to each
-1 Groundwater
nput tab
n
to enter data.
Interbasin
Transfer
n 1 Infrastructure 1
In Part 1 of this section, you can enter reservoir or surface storage properties and costs. Reservoir and
surface storage may represent reservoirs, lakes or ponds used for water supply and/or surface storage
tanks. Surface storage in wetlands may be modeled as surface storage or as a separate HRU. Initial
volume is the volume at the start of modeling period. Minimum target volume may represent the volume
of water always maintained in storage for emergencies or inactive storage volume which is inaccessible
37 For example, rebates for water low flow shower heads will reduce the gallons per minute used in showering. If an increase in
water rates is implemented at the same time, the anticipated water use reduction may not be as large with a low flow shower
head as with a high flow shower head even if the new water rates induce shorter shower times.
29
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
due to the height of the storage outlet. Existing maximum volume is the total volume of existing storage.
Initial costs should include the cost to plan, design and build additional surface storage volume. O&M
costs should include the annual cost for maintaining surface storage capacity in operational condition.
Initial reservoir/surface storage volume
Minimum target reservoir/storage volume
Existing maximum reservoir/storage volume
Initial construction cost
O&M costs
533
0.0
710
1,542,790
0
[MG]
[MG]
[MG]
[$/MG]
[S/MG]
To exclude an increase in reservoir/surface storage volume as a management option, enter -9 in the input
field shown below. In version 2 of WMOST, based on the next response supplied, reservoir outflow can
either be entered as a data time series or included as a decision variable.
-3
Yes
Exclude New/ Additional - to exclude new and additional capacity For a surface water storage, enter -3 in the corresponding blue box.
Entei
Yes
to use Rese
ruoir/Sv Oi
itfloH
as data til
ne seiies 01 JWa
to allow
it to be
a dec
sion.
In Part 2 you may enter information about other withdrawals and discharges of surface water such as
industrial users that are not on public water. These data may be available from state sources such as the
Department of Environmental Protection or regional sources such as regional EPA offices. In addition, if
the stream into which your study area drains receives inflow from an upstream reach, enter a time series
for the inflow of this surface water. These data should be available from the model from which you may
have obtained your RRRs. If a reservoir exists in your study area, you may enter informatioln on surface
reservoir withdrawals, discharges, or outflow requirements. Withdrawals and discharges to reservoirs may
be related to human activity or natural hydrologic processes over the reservoir, such as precipitation and
evapotranspiration.
These time-series must be at the resolution of your model (i.e., daily or monthly) and over the same time
period as other time series. The dates will be pre-filled for you based on data you entered in the Runoff
tab. As with other time series data, they must be complete and consecutive. For any of the three time
series, if you do not have data or they do not exist, enter zero for all dates. Note that upstream inflow is
critical, especially if you will be specifying any streamflow requirements.
30
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
1/1/1989
1/2/1989
1/3/1989
1/4/1989
1/5/1989
1/6/1989
1/7/1989
1/8/1989
1/9/1989
1/10/1989
1/11/1989
Other Sw
Withdrawal
[MG/time step]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
OtherSw
Discharge
[MG/time step]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
External Sw
Inflow [cfs]
19.91
18.60
17.80
17.09
16.23
15.53
14.92
14.42
13.92
13.31
12.60
Reservoir
Withdrawal
[MG/time step]
1.02
0.45
1.00
2.31
1.83
1.32
1.42
3.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Reservoir
Discharge
[MG/time step]
0.36
0.71
0.41
0.33
0.50
0.59
0.72
0.49
0.10
0.45
0.23
Reservoir
Outlfow
[MG/time step]
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
5.00
In Part 3 you may provide management goals for minimum and/or maximum in-stream flow on a monthly
basis. In addition, any requirements for flow to a downstream reach may be specified. Requirements or
guidelines for minimum and/or maximum in-stream flow may be found at the state or regional level. For
example, in New England there are Stream Flow Recommendations38 and in Massachusetts there is a
Sustainable Water Management Initiative Framework39. If any of these flow requirements do not exist in
your study area, enter "-9" for each month of that set.
For minimum and maximum values, enter -9 and the model will not apply the constraint
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Minimum
In-Stream
Flow [cfs]
16.6
19.1
17.3
19.4
15.9
13.5
18.4
18.7
1S.S
17.5
17.5
17.1
Maximum
In-stream
flow [cfs]
-9
-9
-9
_g
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
Minimum
Sw Outflow
to External
Sw [cfs]
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
Maximum
Sw Outflow
to External
Sw [cfs]
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
-9.0
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Surface Water & Streamflow Targets" when this
section is complete. Select "Groundwater" to navigate to three input tables.
38 http://www.fws.gov/newengland/pdfs/Flowpolicy.pdf
39 http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/eea/water/swmi-framework-nov-2012.pdf
31
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
] Surface Waters
Streaf low Targets
D
Interbasin
Transfer
D
Infrastructure
As on the "Surface Water & Streamflow Targets" page, the Groundwater input tables consist of three
parts. The same state and regional data sources are recommended as for surface water data. In Part 1,
enter information about groundwater storage characteristics will likely be derived from the same model
that you obtain the runoff and recharge rates. These data include:
Groundwater recession coefficient or baseflow coefficient - fraction of groundwater volume that
flows to the stream reach each time step,
Initial groundwater volume - volume of the active groundwater aquifer at the start of the modeling
period,
Minimum volume - this volume may be based on the depth of wells which are used for water supply
below which water is inaccessible and/or the volume at which the water table will be below the
stream bed and therefore no longer emptying to the stream, and
Maximum volume - this value represents the total storage capacity of the aquifer.
Groundwater recession coefficient
Initial ground water volume
Minimum volume
Maximum volume
0.01
1,134
706
2,S3S
[I/time step]
;MG]
[MG]
[MGl
The maximum volume can be obtained from information available from model documentation or from
ancillary documents describing groundwater resources for a region of interest. If you used Baseline
Hydrology Module, you may use Calculate and Populate the Groundwater Recession Coefficient to
calculate this value.
If you used the Baseline Hydrology module, you may automate the calculation of the groundwater
recession coefficient with the button below.
Calculate and Populate the GroundwaterRecession Coefficient
In Part 2, similar to "Surface Water & Streamflow Targets" sheet, you can enter time series data for other
groundwater withdrawals, discharges and inflow into the study area.
Note: If you used the Baseline Hydrology Module to create your baseline recharge time series, a small
part of the water balance is not yet present in the model. All negative recharge values in the baseline
recharge time series have been removed from the recharge time series in order to be compatible with
WMOST. The negative recharge values were retained as positive values in the WMOST Support Files
folder as "Watershed RechargeAdjustment.csv". Enter the sum of all the recharge values for your HRUs
and time period into the model as part of the other groundwater withdrawals time series.
32
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Date
[mm/dd/yyyy]
1/1/1989
1/2/1989
1/3/1989
1/4/1989
1/5/1989
1/5/1989
1/7/1989
1/S/19S9
1/9/1989
1/10/1989
1/11/1989
Other Gw
Withdrawal
[MG/time
step]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Other Gw
Discharge
[MG/time
step]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
External Gw
Inflow
[MG/time
step]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
In Part 3, similar to "Surface Water & Streamflow Targets" sheet, you can enter requirements for
groundwater flowing out of the basin. In most cases this will not exist as the groundwater will drain to the
stream reach; however, this option provides flexibility in defining a study area or when groundwater and
surface water watersheds do not overlap.
Enter a minimum value or zero if the ground and surface watersheds are coincident.
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Minimum External
Gw Outflow
[MG/time step]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Groundwater" when this section is complete. Select
"Interbasin Transfer" (IBT) to navigate to two sets of input data.
Surface Waters
StreaflowTargets
Groundwater
n
Infrastructure
33
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
In Part 1, you can enter data for:
Costs to purchase water and wastewater from systems outside of your study area and
Initial costs for water and wastewater rights in addition to any existing agreements including costs for
any new infrastructure to utilize the additional rights 40.
If you do not want IBT as a management option, enter -9 for costs AND 0 for constraints.
Purchase cost for potable water
Purchase cost for wastewater
3,803
6,340
[$/MG]
[$/MG]
Initial cost for new/increased IBT potable water limit
Initial cost for new/increased IBT wastewater limit
29,500,000
0
[$/MGD]
[S/MGD]
In Part 2, enter any existing monthly limits for interbasin transfer of water and wastewater in the left and
daily or annual limits in the right table. Depending on the time step of your model, the daily, monthly
and/or annual limits are adjusted to specify appropriate constraints in the model.
Enter existing limits on IBT for daily, monthly and/or annual basis. If a constraint does not exist, enter -9.
Month
Existing Limits on IBT [MG per month]
Water Wastewater
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
-9.00
Existing Limits on IBT
Daily [MGD]
Annual [MG peryear]
Water Wastewater
-9.00
-9.00
6.00
-9.00
Additional Capacity Limits
Daily [MGD]
Water Wastewater
0.27
-9.00
The following guidelines for specifying limits and initial costs for increasing limits are important to
note:
If you do not have interbasin transfer as an option, you must enter "0" for limits. Entering "-9"
will indicate no restriction, that is, unlimited interbasin transfer is available. As such if you enter -9
for daily, monthly or annual limits, then you must specify the initial cost for new/increased IBT.
If additional water or wastewater services can be purchased with no additional initial costs or entry
fees, then enter the current agreement limit for services and specify $0 for initial cost for a
new/increased limit (i.e., do not enter -9 for the existing limit).
If your system provides water services to customers outside of the basin without a return flow via the
wastewater treatment plant or septic systems, you may specify these customers as a separate water
user type that entirely drains to septic outside of the study area. If your system provides out of basin
40 The case study of Danvers and Middleton, MA provides costs associated with initial connection for water with the
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, a large regional water and wastewater provider.
34
-------
Model Setup and Runs
wastewater services that discharge in your basin, you may enter this flow as a private discharge of
surface water (or groundwater, depending on where the wastewater treatment plant discharges).
WMOST does not support routing out of basin wastewater to the wastewater treatment plant. It may
be added as functionality in future versions.
If your system's wastewater is treated outside of the basin at a larger, central facility and you want to
model returning the treated wastewater for discharge locally, then you may enter a capital cost for a
wastewater treatment plant that represents the construction of infrastructure necessary to return and
discharge the treated wastewater. In addition, enter O&M costs that reflect the IBT O&M cost and
exclude the use of IBT for wastewater. This will effectively model the desired scenario. If the
returned wastewater will be discharged to groundwater rather than surface water, follow the same
procedure but apply it to the aquifer storage and recharge facility rather than the wastewater treatment
plant. See below under "Infrastructure" for input data tables related to wastewater treatment plant and
aquifer and storage recharge facility.
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Interbasin Transfer" when this section is complete.
Select "Infrastructure" to navigate to the next section, where you can enter information about costs and
capacity limits for a range of water and wastewater facilities. This section consists of six parts.
Surface Water&
Streaf low Targets
,
Groundwater
0
Interbasin
Transfer
In Part 1, you enter the planning horizon for large capital improvement projects and the interest rate for
loans for such projects. For any management option for which a project lifetime is not requested, the
planning horizon is used for the lifetime over which the initial cost is annualized. The specified interest
rate is used for the annualization of all initial and capital costs. For mathematical equations describing the
annualization of capital costs, please refer to Section 2.1.1 in the separate Theoretical Documentation.
Planning horizon [years]
Interest rate [%]
20 I!
5.00 ||
In Part 2, you enter data related to providing water services including:
Consumer's price for potable water from the local utility-this may be specified as a monthly fixed fee
and/or volume based fee.
Facility data for groundwater pumping, surface water pumping and water treatment plant including
o Capital costs - cost for increasing capacity or cost for replacing existing capacity beyond the
remaining lifetime,
o O&M costs - cost for operating based on the size and flow through the facility,
o Existing maximum capacity of the facility,
o Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure or the number of years expected to remain before
major capital rehabilitation or new facility must be built, and
o Lifetime of new infrastructure - the expected lifetime of new construction before major capital
rehabilitation or new facility must be built.
Potable distribution system data including
35
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
o Initial cost for surveying the distribution system for leaks and repairing to the maximum
percent feasible,
o O&M costs representing annual costs for maintaining repairs made to the distribution system,
and
o Maximum percent of distribution system leaks that can be fixed - this value may be less than
100% due to practical limitations of many miles of pipes.
If no water treatment plant exists in your study area (i.e., all water is from interbasin transfer), then enter
"0" for maximum capacities and remaining lifetimes. However, still enter the price that is charged for
customers for water services. To exclude the option to increase facility capacity, enter -9 in the "Exclude
New/Additional" for the appropriate facility.
Water services Value Units
Consumer's price for potable water: Fixed fee C
Consumer's price for potable water: Variable, volume-based fee 5.03
$/month
$/HCF
Groundwater(Gw) Pumping
Capital cost for additional capacity 747,285
Operation & Maintenance (O&M) costs
Existing maximum capacity 1.74
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure 33
Lifetime of new construction 35
$/MGD
$/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
Surface Water (Sw) Pumping
Capital cost for additional capacity 453,885
O&M costs
Existing maximum capacity 9.40
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure 33
Lifetime of new construction 35
$/MGD
$/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
Capital cost for additional capacity 2,022,884
O&M costs 5,314
Existing maximum capacity 9.40
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure 33
Lifetime of new construction 35
$/MGD
$/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
Unaccounted-for-Water/ Potable water distribution system leak
Initial cost for survey & repair 774,368
O&M costs for maintaining reduction in UAW 77,437
Maximum percent UAW that can be fixed 99
$
$/yr
%
Exclude New/Additional
0
0
0
In Part 3, enter similar data for wastewater services as for water services including consumer's price,
capital and O&M costs, lifetime of new and existing infrastructure, and repair of infiltration into
collection system. Two additional types of information are requested:
"Are wastewater fees charged based on metered water or wastewater?" - Most wastewater utilities in
the U.S. charge for wastewater services based on metered potable water delivered to a customer.
However, the option is provided to charge based on metered wastewater to determine the effect of
separating metering.
"Existing Gw infiltration into collection system" - Specify the percent of wastewater inflow to
the wastewater treatment plant that is groundwater infiltration
36
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) Value Units Exclude New/Additional
Consumer's price for wastewater services: Fixed fee 0.00
Consumer's price for wastewater services: Variable, volume-based fee 6.12
Are wastewater fees charged based on metered water or wastewater? water
Capital cost for additional capacity 15,788,674
O&M costs 7,925
Existing maximum capacity 0.00
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure 0
Lifetime of new construction 40
S/month
S/HCF
water or wastewater
S/MGD
S/MG
MGD
years
years
Infiltration into wastewater collection system
Existing Gw infiltration into collection system 0
Initial cost for survey & repair 214,846
O&M costs for maintaining reduction in infiltration 21,485
Maximum percent of infiltration that can be fixed 0
% of WW Inflow
$
S/yr
%
0
To exclude the option to increase wastewater treatment plant capacity, enter "-9" in the "Exclude
New/Additional" data field.
In Part 4, enter data for a water reuse facility (WRF) similar to water and wastewater facilities including
the ability to exclude new and additional capacity.
Water Reuse Facility (WRF) Value Units Exclude New/Additional
Capital cost for additional/ new capacity 10,402,467
O&M costs 2,S50
Existing maximum capacity 0,00
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure 0.00
Lifetime of new construction 35
S/MGD
$/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
0
In Part 5, enter data for a nonpotable water distribution system which are similar to the other facilities but
in addition, specify the price that would be charged to customers for the provision of nonpotable water.
See case study appendices for potential data sources.
Nonpotable Water Distribution System Value Units Exclude New/Additional
Consumer's pricefor nonpotable water: Fixed fee 0
Consumer's pricefor nonpotable water: Variable, volume-based fee 3.02
Capital cost for additional capacity 12,529,440
O&M costs 1,716
Existing maximum capacity 0.00
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure 0
Lifetime of new construction 35
$/month
$/HCF
$/MGD
$/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
0
In Part 6, enter data for an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facility similar to the other facilities.
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) Value Units Exclude New/Additional
Capital cost for additional/new capacity 10,807,824
O&M costs 3,769
Existing maximum capacity 0
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure 0
Lifetime of new construction 35
S/MGD
S/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
0
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Infrastructure" when this section is complete.
37
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Step 5. Flood Module
To include flood damage costs in the optimization of management costs, select Flood Module to navigate
to the input page. The Flood Module requires at least three sets of data for average daily streamflow,
return period and flood damage. If you do not have these data, refer to Section 4 for information on
existing flood damage studies and conducting your own flood damage modeling using publicly available
data and software. Note: Engaging the flood module creates substantially larger optimization problems
resulting in significantly longer solve times. A one-year, daily time step model may require less than
5 minutes to solve without the flood module and require approximately 30 minutes with the flood module.
Step 6. Measured Streamflow
Click on "Measured Flow" to navigate to the next input table. These data are used to create an output
graph showing both measured and modeled in-stream flow to assess the accuracy of the model in
reproducing measured flows. These data may be acquired from the U.S. Geological Survey41 or from
the model from which you may have obtained baseline hydrology data.
6. Measured streamflow. If available, enter measured streamflow data. |
Measured Flow
Date (mm/dd/yyyy) Measured In-Stream Flow (cfs)
1/1/1939
1/2/1939
1/3/1989
1/4/1989
1/5/1939
1/6/1939
1/7/1939
1/S/19S9
1/9/1989
1/10/1989
1/11/1939
1 http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
-------
Model Setup and Runs
Select Return to Input and check the box next to "Measured Flow" when this
section is complete.
Once all sections are complete, you may run the optimization model by
returning to "Intro" and clicking the red Optimize button. This will
initiate the optimization and processing of results.
RUN OPTIMIZATION
Optimize
I
After the optimization is finished, the model will display the message
shown to the right. Click "OK" and wait for the model to process
outputs and populate the Results tables. The "Intro" page will display
again once the output processing is complete.
3.2 Evaluating Results
After optimization, WMOST provides three outputs:
Optimization complete!
OK
1. Summary table of management practices and associated costs that met specified goals
(e.g., minimum demand, minimum in-stream flow) at least cost,
2. Graph of modeled in-stream flow and baseflow compared with user-specified measured in-stream
flow, and
3. Modeled in-stream flow and baseflow and user-specified minimum and/or maximum in-stream
flow targets.
Results represent estimated conditions at the end of the planning horizon if all management practices
were implemented. For example, the modeled in-stream flow and baseflow are estimated to occur if
recommended management practices are implemented and human demand is at the projected rate input by
the user with the expected weather patterns (i.e., user input runoff and recharge rates). The flows over the
modeling period represent estimated flow over a variety of potential weather conditions represented by
the years in the modeling period. The length of the modeling period and the variety of conditions it
represents, determine the robustness and sustainability of the solutions recommended by the model.
Results are most meaningful if compared relative to results from a simulation run (Section 2.1) and other
optimization scenarios. In addition, performing sensitivity analyses is highly recommended especially
for input data with least certainty to further determine the robustness of results (Section 5). By varying the
input data, you can determine the robustness of results over a variety of potential conditions that may
occur by the end of planning period.
Results Table
To view the summary table of results, select the "Results Table" button to
display the management decisions and associated costs. Capital and O&M
costs are presented as one total annualized cost in WMOST v2. This may lead to costs for an existing
facility even if no additional capacity is selected as a management practice. For example, an existing
water treatment plant may be able to meet projected demand without additional capacity but O&M costs
are still incurred for operating the facility for the required demand. Therefore, when "number of units" is
zero but there is still a cost, that cost represents O&M costs.
39
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
An excerpt from the summary table of results is below:
RESULTS
Due to solver precision, there mav be neglible changes in HRU areas that round to zero displayed as Oor{0).
MANAGEMEXT PRACTICES UNITS Number of Units
Demand Management
Consumer Rate Change :
Direct Demand Reduction MGD
Land Conservation
Forest, sand & gravel Acie;
Open, sand & gravel Acie;
Low-resid, sand & gravel Acie;
High-resid, sand & gravel Acres
20
0.60
0
0
(0)
0
Total Annual Cost
Water Revenue
Wastewater Revenue
J13.5 mitton
3102 mitton
310.3 miEon
Total Annual Sub-Costs (incl. O&M)
S 3,846
S255,~01
SO
Select "Compare to Measured Flow" to display a graph comparing measured in-stream flow to modeled
in-stream flow and baseline.
Select "Compare to Target Flow" to display a graph comparing modeled flows to
user-specified in-stream flow constraints.
Results may be printed from the Excel interface with the same options as any
Excel file or copied and pasted into Word or another application.
Compare to
Measured Flow
Compare to
Target Flow
-------
Flood Damage Modeling with HAZUS
4. Flood Damage Modeling with HAZUS4
HAZUS-MH is used to generate the flooding cost curve data which are entered into the WMOST v2
Flooding Module table. HAZUS-MH is a multi-hazard loss estimation tool developed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) which provides a nationally applicable and standardized
methodology for estimating flood (and earthquake) losses on a regional scale. HAZUS is designed to run
with ESRI's ArcMap GIS. The Flood Model is designed with three levels of analysis, with Level I using
the default, HAZUS-supplied building stock and flood modeling procedures to Level III which requires
extensive hydraulic modeling and high quality building data.43 The following steps will guide the user on
methodology to determine the 100-year flood depth grid using data from the FEMA National Flood
Hazard Layer, as well as methodology to create 10, 50 and 500-year grids. Additionally, this guide will
assist users to create a user-defined building inventory from the available data to improve upon existing
default settings in HAZUS and perform a Level II analysis. By running several flood levels, the user is
then able to create a flood depth (return interval)-damage curve for use as input into the WMOST tool.
Note: This example uses data for Plymouth County in Massachusetts. Some data sources may not
be available in other states or regions.
4.1 Data Needed
FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) data
o Data can be downloaded for the entire state (where available) or by county.
(https://msc. fema.gov/portal/advance Search)
Elevation data-Accuracy of solutions may vary with resolution of input data. HAZUS can be run
either with 10- or 30-meter resolution data from USGS or with finer resolution LIDAR data if
available for the area of interest.
o National Elevation Data can be obtained at the National Elevation Dataset from the
National Map (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/).
o LiDar data can be found and downloaded from NOAA Digital Coast website
(http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/coastallidar) or from state specific GIS websites
where available.
It is important that the ground elevation grid and the FEMA flood elevations are in the same vertical
projection (NAV88).
The generalized method to creating a flood depth grid for any region is to create a flooding surface using
available information and subtract the ground elevation. Areas where the flood surface minus the ground
elevation is positive represent flooded regions. Areas where the flood surface minus the ground elevation
is negative represent non-flooded areas.
42 HAZUS Level 2 Site Specific Flood Model: FEMA Region VIII Standard Operating Procedure for Riverine Flood Hazard and
Site Specific Loss Analysis, prepared by Jesse Rozelle, Austen Cutrell, Doug Bausch, and H.E. Longenecker.
43 Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology Flood Model HAZUS-MH, Users Manual, FEMA
(www. fema. go v/plan/prevent/hazus.)
41
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
4.2 Creating the 100-Year Flood Depth Grid from FEMA NFHL Data
These preprocessing methods require the use of ArcMap to maintain compatability with FEMA's
HAZUS tool.
1. Open ArcMap.
2. Add the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) shapefile (S_BFE.shp) from the NFHL dataset to
the map. The shapefile has an attribute "ELEV" which is the Base Flood Elevation (BFE)
at each section.
3. Add the Stream Profile Centerline and the Flood Hazard Area shapefiles from the
NFHL(S_PROFIL_BASLN.shp and S_FLD_HAZ_AR.shp).
s ~» 5 - ;-- .
4. Create points at each vertex of the BFE lines (Data Management
Tools»Feature»Feature Vertices to Points).
:.. o : .
42
-------
Flood Damage Modeling with HAZUS
5. Using the point feature generated in Step 4, create the 100-year flood surface by inverse
distance weighting using the ELEV attribute (Spatial Analyst»Interpolation»IDW).
+ 3
IB I
H|
* 4
t 5
+ *
+ <
- «
; E
t Editing Took
t Geocoding Tools
) Geastatistical Analyst Tools
) Linear Referencing Tools
) Multidimension Tools
) Network Analyst Tools
| PafCel Fabric Tools
) Schematics Tools
) Server Tools
| Spatial Analyst Tools
: &i Conditional
ffl %j Density
i
. [
1
[
E
1 %, Distance
: % Extraction
. ^. Generalization
^t- Groundwater
i &. Hydrology
B %t Interpolation
: [
E
: c
\ IDW
\ Kriging
\ Natural Neighbor
" Spline
y Spline with Barriers
% Topo to Raster
*\ Topo to Raster by File
' Trend
j % Local
^ Map Algebra
i %. Math
1
. .-,-,-,-,-,.
* * O X . -. .
i ' j
ii
trf
SN**
«fe-«*T3<: *.
" -' ^?/\' -
- -....,.,
».- * ^; -A *
- ^» - / u A * -1 - * - ,
7: -.,
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
A Swvw Tint
4p If'tt.rt ArdcH Toote
'*. ^ HyJrdw
" . SiMtwThan
* , CiKtrf ThMt Fi
*S, wjrt
\IiHul
** Less ihjfiUw*/
1. Eliminate negative values using a conditional statement (SpatialAnalyst»Math»Logical
»Greater than Equal). Setting the flood elevation grid greater than zero will result in a
true/false condition where positive values will have a gridcode of 1 and negative values
will have a grid code of 0.
8. Determine the flood extent boundary polygon by first converting the conditional raster
created in Step 7 to a polygon. Then, export polygons with a GRIDCODE=1 to a new data
layer delineating the flood extent boundary.
9. Mask the water depth grid (Step 6) by the flood extent boundary (Step 8) to create a flood
depth grid.
44
-------
Flood Damage Modeling with HAZUS
10. Import this flood depth grid into HAZUS as a user-defined depth grid.
r-iif lid!! ',. tOjir-Liil-s Insert Selection '.It-uD'i: V'.-.jr.g :jL-Lon -.: Windows Help
HAZU5-FIT * Riverine < Coastal
l-i ^ Layers
S D FeatureVerticestoPoints
- D FloodElevationPoints
i? 0 S_PROFIL_Bfta.N
- H s_xs
a 0 5.BFE
a D FloodExtentlOO
a D floodpolygonlOO
n
t D 5JLD_HAZ_flR
- 0
Value
High ; 15.0803
S D grtrthanlOD
D minusJdwlQO
> D idwlOD
H D malid_Ft_2
Value
High : 634.761
ArcToCiltr, ^ Table 'Jt'
Dra»ing - \ . D - A - :
4.3 Creating the Flood Depth Grid from Lake Elevation Flooding
Creating a flood depth grid for possible lake flooding follows a similar approach
1. Determine the watershed draining to the lake and clip the digital elevation model (DEM) to the
watershed boundary. This will be the study area of interest.
2. Beginning at Step 6, subtract the ground surface elevations from the lake flood elevation (Map
Algebra»Raster Calculator or Math»Minus) to determine a water depth grid. Instead of a raster
layer as in the riverine example above, this will now be a constant value representing the lake
elevation during flood events. The resulting layer will have negative values where the ground
surface is above the flooded elevation (areas of no flooding) and positive values in flooded areas.
3. Continue with Steps 7 through 10.
4. Repeat these steps for various lake flooding elevations.
45
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
4.4 Creating Flood Depth Grids for the 10, 50 and 500-Year Events
The next set of steps demonstrate how to create a flood depth grid from the 10, 50 and 500-year data in
the published Flood Insurance Study books.
FLOOD
INSURANCE
STUDY
1. FEMA Flood Insurance Studies (FlS)are county-specific and can
be obtained from the FEMA Map Service Center
(www.msc.fema.gov). The flood profile graphs show flood
elevations along the centerline of the stream
(S_PROFIL_BASLN.shp). The profiles show the elevation of the
100-year flood as well as the 10, 50, and 500-year floods. The
profiles also show locations of streets, elevation of the streambed
and other hydraulic structures.
2. For each stream in the study area, locate the profile plot in the FIS
along with the corresponding stream in ArcMap. Each stream has
both cross-section locations (S_XS.shp) and Base Flood Sections
locations(S_BFE.shp).
3. In the S_BFEhe existing attribute ELEV represents the 100-year
base flood elevation. Add attribute fields to S_BFE.shp
representing the 10, 50 and 500-year flood. The attribute labeled
ELEV is the BFE. Although the S_BFE.shp file is easily replaced, it is a good idea to make a
copy of this file to use as a working platform.
PLYMOUTH COUNTY.
MASSACHUSETTS
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
Federal Emerpem;v MuiwiJemenl Agency
FloodElevation_Sections X
-
y
SOURCE_CIT
2S023C_FIS1
25023C FIS1
2S023C FIS1
25023C FIS1
25023C_FIS1
25023C_FIS1
2S023C FIS1
25023C FIS1
25023C FIS1
J25023C FIS1
25023C_FIS1
500_YR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I25023C FIS1 0
<
H < 9 > H
FloodElevation_5ections
ELEV
77
ii"
64
79
40
32
84
47
27
31
42
16
50_YR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10_YR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AI
(0 out of 1376 Selected)
|$ ArcToolbox H Table Of Contents | i|
Bill
46
-------
Flood Damage Modeling with HAZUS
For each BFE line, locate the corresponding location on the profile plot and transfer
these elevations to the appropriate attribute field. The cross-section labels on the map correspond
to the cross-section labels across the bottom of the profile plot. Although the BFE lines are not
shown on the profile plot, their location can be easily estimated. Cross-section locations are NOT
the same as BFE locations
FID | Shape- | 10_YR | 50_VR | ELEB | 500JfR
456 Polyline 47.5 48.5 49 50
5. Repeat this procedure for all section lines.
6. Once all elevations are determined, the methodology to create the 100-ylear flood grid can be
utilized to create flood depth grids for the 10, 50 and 500-year intervals.
4.5 Creating a Site Specific Building Inventory
To determine flood damage, FIAZUS assumes that all buildings are distributed evenly throughout a
census tract. In order to get a more accurate assessment of the potential damage, it is helpful to build a
user-defined building inventory. To create a detailed building inventory, the following information is
necessary: structure location, foundation type, first floor height, building value, contents value, occupancy
type, design level and number of stories.
1. Create point locations of buildings within the floodplain. This can be accomplished in several
ways, depending on the type of available data and the amount of time and effort available to spend
on this step. The best data source is a shapefile of building footprints. If there is not a field labeled
Area, add a field and calculate the area of each building. If the building footprint data are not
available, parcel data can be used as well. For parcel data, the centroid of the parcel can be used as
a substitute for building location. If neither of these is available, it is possible to manually locate
each building from available orthoimagery. Only primary structures are necessary. Structures such
as garages, sheds and small out-buildings should be excluded from the dataset. Buildings smaller
than 400 square feet are often accessory structures. Aerial photographs such as the NAIP 1-meter
imagery can be helpful in determining building use.44 One can also perform a spatial join with the
building points and the parcel layer to determine parcels with more than one building to help
locate secondary, accessory structures on a property.
44 Available from https://gdg.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
47
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
mcihtxJs.micd Arcttap Arclnfo
File Edit View Boobnerks Insert Selection Geoproce-^ing Customize Windows Help
Q p] ^ " Editor-
w/w»* (_MRJ|- _ V ^ .
» X
MfctifGiMi
- - L
Layers
- D BldgPts in SOOyrFloodplain lOOrnbuf
- Cl Structures_Point
*
- 0 Structures merge
- D FloodEitentSQO
o
L-; D 500yr_floodp!ain_bufFer
n
'_- D Zoning by General Use (Transparent)
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Conservation
Other
- 0
Red: Band_l
Green: Band_2
Blue: Band 3
Table Of Contents An:T,:,0lt
2. HAZUS needs several attributes for each building: occupancy class, first floor height above
ground level, design level, number of stories, building value and foundation type. These can
be obtained from a number of sources, such as tax assessor databases and zoning information.
BldgPtsJn_500yrFloodplain_100mbuffer_under700sf_parcelinfo_elev_zoning
BLD AREA RES AREA
STYLE
STORIES
OCC Class FFH
Foundation
NUM_ROOMS
E A
1
95 /
98.E
1
J37J
1
T
1
i"
i^
94.7
1^
1
2396
3214
3453
2231
3073
2522
1976
2630
2780
6010
6356
2559
2314
2350
3592
1804 Two Family
3532 Two Family
3351 Conventional
836 Ranch
RES3A
RES3A
1.75
RES1
RES1
3078 ClubsJLodges
1530 Conventional
973 Ranch
1383 Conventional
1008 Ranch
3301 Apart OS
2128 ClubsJLodges
1280 Conventional
COM1
1.75
RES1
RES1
1.75
RES1
RES1
RES3C
COM1
1.5
RES1
1276 Colonial
1130 Raised Ranch
2357 Raised Ranch
1.75
RES1
RES1
RES1
11
17
3583
1945 | Cape Cod
1.75
RES1
"
(0 out of 9919 Selected)
BldgPts_in_5QQyrFloodplain_lQOmbuffer_under7QQsf_parcelinfo_elev_zoning
ArcToolbox ill "fable!
Table Of Contents
Fields should be created in the attribute table for each of these necessary attributes.
48
-------
Flood Damage Modeling with HAZUS
3.
HAZUS has specific values for occupancy class and foundation type and these must
correspond exactly in order to map correctly. The HAZUS Technical Manual45 has various
default values to aid in assigning these attributes. In New England, 81% of residential
structures have basements, so all residential structures were assumed to have a basement type
foundation with the first floor height 4 feet above the existing ground. Commercial and
industrial structures were assumed to have a slab type foundation with first floor height one
foot above existing ground. Once completed, this attribute table should be exported to a
database table and properly formatted for use in HAZUS. The HAZUS Users Manual gives
detailed instructions to import the user-specified inventory.
H UDF_MecMenburg_NC : Table
I
Field Name
ID
Name
Address
City
State
ZipCode
Contact
Phone
Occupancy
BldgType
Cost
VearBuft
Area
NumStories
DesignLevel
FoundationType
FirstFloorHt
ContentCost
BldgDamageFnld
ContDamageFnld
InvdamageFnld
FloodProtection
ShelterCapacity
BUPower
Longitude
Latitude
County
Comment
Data Type
Te:.t
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Text
Currency
Number
Number
Number
Text
Text
Number
Currency
Text
Text
Text
Number
Number
Yes/No
Number
Number
Text
Text
Description U_|
Field Sire: 6
Field Size: 40
Field Size: 40
Field Size; 40
Field Size: 2
Field Size: 10
Field Size: 40
Field Size: 14
Field Size: 5
Field Size: 15
Field Size:
Field Size; Integer
Field SUe: Single
Field Size: Byte
Field Size; 1
Field Size; 1
Field Size: Double
Field Size:
Field Size: 10
Field 5ize: 10
Field Size: 10
Field Size: Long Integer
FieW Size: Integer
Field Size:
Field Size; Decimal (11,6)
Field Size: Decimal (11, 6)
Field Size: 40
Field Size: 40
y
_j
Proper formatting schema for database table in Access
The following figure shows typical output from HAZUS for user-defined facilities. Damages are listed by
occupancy type, damage percentage, building loss cost, content damage percentage and content loss cost.
The figure shows only building-related damages but the user may wish to include estimates of other
flood-related damages from HAZUS output as well.
45 HAZUS MR4 Technical Manual, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Mitigation
Division, Washington, D.C. (http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/hazus/)
49
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
T3ble
n x
UserDefinedFacilities
OccupancyC
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
RES1
COM2
RES1
IND2
RES1
Controllm
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
4
H 1 1 f M H
UserDefinedFacilitieE
BldgDmgPct
66358566
69.11240S
69.945282
44.59601
15.103155
SO
33.106655
56.994598
20.483168
57.004348
16.967435
36.476012
41.96305
17.798485
19.404114
45.388669
56.545074
BldgLossUS
92039.331042
102493.701064
106946.336178
84321.61102
18667.4995B
60200
53103.07462
0
28041.456992
68918.256732
39262.64459
59091.13944
63951.6882
49853.556485
27223.971942
1Sie9.827.i1B
105286.9277B8
ContDmgPct
60
60
60
42.39734
9.765048
49.759718
26.927986
54.991897
19.483168
55.006522
12.747896
31.095015
37.75566
60.59697
16.404114
73.796223
54.317611
(0 out of 1108 Selected]
ContentLos
41610
44490
45870
40319.87034
6034.799664
29955.350236
21596.244772
0
13336.228496
33251.442549
14749.315672
25186.96215
28769.81292
169732.11297
11507.485971
478420.913709
ECEc9.65E8J1
l~
InventoryL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
186538.11297
0
336235.275806
0
AnalysisOp
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
III
^
u
~]>
Typical output from HAZUS for user-defined facilities (buildings).
For each HAZUS flood depth grid corresponding to a unique flood recurrence interval, the user will need
to sum the flood-related damages and enter these into the flood cost table in the WMOST v2. Flood
module.
Average Daily
Streamflow (cfs)
Return Period
(years)
Flood Related
Damages ($)
Flood cost curve in WMOST Flood Module
50
-------
User Tips
5. User Tips
The following tips are provided for troubleshooting, interpreting results and modeling specific situations
or scenarios.
If the results show "1E+30" for Total Annual Cost, the scenario run was infeasible. This means that
the specified management goals and/or continuity constraints could not be met with the user-provided
input data. Refer to the Theoretical Documentation for constraints that are defined in the optimization
model. You may need to adjust your management goals or identify erroneous input data. Future
versions of the model will support identifying constraints and data that contribute to infeasible
solutions.
If you want to test the effect of a management option but the model is not selecting it, you can enter 0
for cost. You can also adjust the cost of a management practice to see the cost at which that practice is
selected by the model and, therefore, assessed as cost effective.
To exclude replacement costs for existing infrastructure, set the remaining lifetime to be greater than
the planning period. This tells the model that the infrastructure does not need replacement within the
planning period and the model will not calculate replacement costs. It will only calculate capital costs
for new or additional capacity of infrastructure and O&M costs.
As detailed in the Theoretical Documentation, a "sustainability" constraint forces the initial and final
groundwater and reservoir/surface water storage volumes to be equal. If only one year is modeled,
then the watershed should be a "within-year" watershed, that is, the groundwater and reservoir
volumes generally return to their initial levels each year. If multiple years are modeled, this
sustainability constraint "softens" and the model may be applied to multi-year watersheds as well.
A "simulation run" is advised before optimization runs to determine the accuracy of WMOST in
modeling in-stream flow relative to measured data or data from the detailed watershed simulation
model from which RRRs may have been acquired. Case study applications describe the process for
performing a "simulation run" with WMOST.
Sensitivity analyses should be performed with the most uncertain input data. For example, if the price
elasticity for industrial water use is most uncertain, then the model should be run multiple times over
a range of potential values as follows:
1. Starting with the best estimated value, determine the range of potential values e.g., -0.5 with a
potential range of-0.2 to -0.7.
2. Run the model with the same input data varying only the price elasticity for industrial water
use. For example, run the model five times with values of-0.2, -0.3, -0.5, -0.6, and -0.7.
3. Save the results of each run, that is, either use the "save as" function in Excel to save a
different version of the file/model with each run or copy and paste the results tables into a
separate Excel file.
51
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
4. Determine the effect of the price elasticity on results. Does it change whether demand
management via pricing is implemented? Does it change the mix of other management
options? How does it change the total annual cost?
Ideally, change only one of the input data values at a time at first so that you can determine the individual
effect of each variable. Once you know the individual effects and you have more than one uncertain input
data value, you may want to run the model varying more than one data value at a time to determine their
combined effects. You may consider "worst" and "best" case scenarios. For example, vary all uncertain
data in the direction of higher costs to determine the worst case scenario for total cost if all uncertain data
were to be truly in the higher cost direction. Or run the highest cost for a specific management practice
to determine the whether it is still a cost effective practice that is chosen by the model and, therefore, a
"no regrets" option. For more guidance, please refer to EPA's "Sensitivity and Uncertainty Analyses"
website46.
Trade-off analyses are similar to sensitivity analyses but with a different purpose. With trade-off
analyses the question may be "How does cost change with increasing in-stream flow? Is it linear?
Are there points at which the increasing investment in management practices (i.e., total cost) results
in less increase in in-stream flow than the first $X?" To answer these questions, follow the same steps
as for the sensitivity analysis. For the in-stream flow example, increase the minimum in-stream flow
requirement with each run and record the results. Then examine the effect of this increase on the
combination of management practices that are suggested and the total costs and revenues. A trade-off
curve may be created by plotting total cost versus percent of in-stream flow requirement to create
a visual understanding of the trade-off and results. An example of the process is shown in the case
study of Danvers and Middleton, MA.
46 http://www.epa.gov/osa/crem/training/module8.htm
52
-------
References
6. References for HSPF Models Incorporated into WMOST Model
Output Files
AQUA TERRA Consultants, and HydroQual, Inc. 2001. Modeling Nutrient Loads to Long Island Sound
from Connecticut Watersheds, and Impacts of Future Buildout and Management Scenarios. Prepared
for CT Department of Environmental Protection. Hartford, CT. 138 pg, plus CD.
Barbara, J.R. 2007. Simulation of the Effects of Water Withdrawals, Wastewater-return Flows, and
Land-use Change on Streamflow in the Blackstone River Basin, Massachusetts and Rhode Island: U.S.
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2007-5183, 98 p.
Barbara, J.R., and Sorenson, J.R. 2013. Nutrient and Sediment Concentrations, Yields, and Loads in
Impaired Streams and Rivers in the Taunton River Basin, Massachusetts, 1997-2008: U.S. Geological
Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2012-5277, 89 p., available
at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/52777.
Barbara, J.R., and Zarriello, P.J. 2006. A Precipitation-runoff Model for the Blackstone River Basin,
Massachusetts and Rhode Island: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2006-5213, 85 p.
Bent, G.C., Zarriello, P.J., Granato, G.E., Masterson, J.P., Walter, D.A., Waite, A.M., and Church, P.E.
2011. Simulated Effects of Water Withdrawals and Land-use Changes on Streamflows and
Groundwater Levels in the Pawcatuck River Basin, Southwestern Rhode Island and Southeastern
Connecticut: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5127, 254 p., available
at http://pubs.usgs.gOv/sir/2009/5127.
Charles River Watershed Association and Numeric Environmental Services. 2011. Total Maximum Daily
Load for Nutrients in the Upper/Middle Charles River, Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection, Division of Watershed Management, Worcester, MA. Report Number
MA-CN 272.0
Donigian, Jr., A.S., and J.T. Love. 2002. The Connecticut Watershed Model - Tool for BMP Impact
Assessment in Connecticut. Presented at WEF-Watershed 2002, February 23-27, 2002. Ft. Lauderdale,
FL.
Zarriello, P.J. and K.G. Ries, III. 2000. A Precipitation-Runoff Model for Analysis of the Effects of
Water Withdrawals on Streamflow, Ipswich River Basin, Massachusetts. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4029.
Zarriello, P.J., Parker, G.W., Armstrong, D.S., and Carlson, C.S. 2010. Effects of Water Use and
Land-use on Streamflow and Aquatic Habitat in the Sudbury and Assabet River Basins, Massachusetts.
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2010-5042, 160 p.
53
-------
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A. WMOST v2 Case Study Description
Background and Context
Legislative and Regulatory Framework
Following outreach to stakeholders in the Taunton River watershed by EPA Region 1, we selected the
Monponsett Ponds (MP) watershed in Halifax, MA (Exhibit 1) as a case study for testing WMOST
version 2. The MP system is part of the Taunton River watershed (Subbasin #24022: Middle Taunton
River-Town River to Nemasket River). The Taunton River watershed is an area of concern for EPA
Region 1 and the focus of a Healthy Watersheds Initiative project. The Taunton watershed contains a
Wild and Scenic River but at the same time is subject to significant development pressure. Conditions in
the MP watershed, and in the larger Taunton River watershed, illustrate the inherent connections between
management of water quantity and water quality.
Exhibit 1: Monponsett Ponds
Monponsett Ponds is a large water system consisting of two basins, East and West. The two ponds are
connected by a small culvert at their southern end supporting flow between the two basins. East
Monponsett Pond serves as water supply to the City of Brockton through periodic diversions of water to
Silver Lake (located in the adjacent Jones River watershed). West Monponsett Pond drains into Stump
A-1
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Brook, a tributary of the Satucket River. There are estimates that Stump Brook only receives about one
third of its potential annual discharge due to water diversions to Silver Lake (Princeton Hydro, 201347).
Monponsett Ponds' two basins have differing water quality, with higher pollutant loadings (notably
phosphorus) in West Monponsett Pond resulting in the listing of the waterbody as impaired or threatened
for one or more uses and requiring a TMDL.48 By contrast, the East basin has higher water quality, as
does Silver Lake, to which MP waters are diverted.
The Monponsett Pond Watershed Association in Halifax, MA, identified the following water resources
management issues within the watershed and with interbasin transfers between Monponsett Pond and the
Jones River watershed:
Water quantity
Concerns over changes to natural flow regime of Stump Brook draining from Monponsett Ponds
o Effects on anadromous fish passage once downstream dam impedances are removed;
o Effects on regeneration of Atlantic cedar swamp downstream.
Concerns over water volume fluctuations from water withdrawals by Brockton Water Department
o Minimum volume required to support recreational uses;
o Maximum volumes maintained for water storage can exacerbate flooding of properties
surrounding Monponsett Ponds and possibly inputs from septic systems.
Water quality
Blue-green algal blooms leading to public beach closures for West Monponsett Pond during
most of the past few years and possibly linked to an October 2011 fish kill.
If water withdrawals reverse the normal direction of flow between East and West Monponsett
Ponds, this would transfer water from the basin with poor water quality (average TP = 0.134 mg
P/L) to the basin with good water quality (average TP = 0.032 mg P/L).
Regardless of flow reversals between the East and West basins, interbasin transfer from MP
to Silver Lake in the Jones River watershed could degrade Silver Lake water quality
(average TP = 0.02 mg P/L).
Droughts prompted a series of legislative actions that set in place a water management framework that
authorizes transfers of water across basin in the region (Exhibit 2). These transfers affect the water
quantity and quality issues in the Monponsett Ponds. The City of Brockton (Brockton Water System,
BWS) obtains over 90 percent of its roughly 9 million gallon per day (MOD) water supply from Silver
Lake. In order to meet demand, BWS diverts water from Monponsett Ponds (MP-W and MP-E) and
Furnace Pond (FP) into Silver Lake (SL). Treated water is then piped 15 miles from SL to Brockton and
following use, water is returned to the Taunton River (see Exhibit 1 for the location of MP, FP, SL and
47 Princeton Hydro. 2013. Sustainable Water Management Initiative Report: Monponsett Pond and Silver Lake Water Use
Operations and Improvement SWMI Project No. BRP 2012-06. Prepared for Town of Halifax, MA and Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. Princeton Hydro, LLC. Ringoes, NJ. July 2013.
48 The West Basin of Monponsett Pond is on Massachusetts' 2012 Integrated List of Waters requiring a TMLD due to nutrients
enrichment (phosphorus), non-native aquatic plants, excess algal growth, and lack of water clarity (MassDEP, 2013).
A-2
-------
Appendix A
Brockton).1 These water transfers were originally authorized in 1899 by Chapter 356 "An act to authorize
the city of Brockton to take an additional water supply" enacted by the Massachusetts Legislature. In
1964 the Massachusetts Legislature approved Act 371: "An act establishing the Central Plymouth County
Water District and authorizing the City of Brockton to extend its source of water supply" in response to
severe drought in the early 1960s. Act 371 established the Central Plymouth County Water District and
set emergency provisions to further authorize flow from the Taunton River watershed by diversion from
East Monponsett Pond into Silver Lake (in a separate watershed) and from the North River basin, by
diversion of Furnace Pond into Silver Lake. (See Exhibit 1 for water body locations.) Act 371 set timing
and water elevation conditions when diversions into Silver Lake could occur; the water elevation
conditions triggered Brockton to establish or modify water control structures at Monponsett and Furnace
Ponds. Subsequently, Chapter 237 of the Acts of 1981 ("An act further regulating the source of water
supply for the City of Brockton"), required establishment of water control structures to prevent diversion
of water from East Monponsett Pond when the level of the pond is below an elevation of 52 feet and to
prevent diversion of water from Furnace Pond below an elevation of 56 feet (National Geodetic Vertical
Datum 1929). In 2002, Brockton entered into a 20 year contract with Aquaria setting the stage for
minimum use of water created by a new desalination plant near the head-of-tide of the Taunton River.
Exhibit 2: A series of legislations set out the water management framework in the
watershed by authorizing transfers of water across waterbodies and subbasins
(Source: Princeton Hydro, 2013)
me Line of Key Events
Notes/Abbreviations:
MGD million gallons/day: Draw S.L. Dravwfowi
(feet): BWS - Brockton Water Supply
ACO Administrative Consent Order
S.L. Silver Lake
SWM/I Sustainable Water Management/Initiative
CWMP Comprehensive Water Management Plan
WRC Water Resource Commission
Refers to use by BWS
S. L. Water Flows
to BWS
1905
Brockton is
heart of US
shoe making
Post Civil
War
Regional
Drought
MGD
1354
Summer Use:
18-19 MGD
2.970-SOs
*Ave. Use:
8 MGD/
Draw: -14.5
1966
\
'8S Water Supply
Emergency: BW^ 'No
new connections';
Allo-.vsPine Brook divert
to S.L. from '86-91
1930s-90s
BWS' explore
new sources
BWS agrees to 20-yr
contract with Aquaria
! Aquaria on-line
200S 2009
Bluestone pesal
permit begins
FootJoy, Brockton's last
active shoemaker, closes
Brockton submits
C o m p r a h e n si ve Wa te r
Management Plan .
MADEP has not approved
CWMP
11 '
f IT1
I
1948; 1956
Water Pollution
Control Act
T* ' '
1
1965
Water Quality Art
Regions
' <
b _^ ^"^^ * '
1 19S9 WRC denies BWS' \Ns,
requestfor permanent \ \
use of Pine Brook \ \
I 1972 : Clean Water Act \ \
r T T
i
2010 2012
SWM Advisory SWMI
Commission Framev
"Ave. use:
: - 1964
Chap 356 Act: chap 371 Act:
S.L. Approved as Approved
Brockton's Water diversjons from
"""- Monponsett &
Furnace to S.L.
Drought:
1980 83
19S1-83
Draw: -22.5'
'82 Emergency Law No. 6396
i allows"2MGDfrorn Pine Brook
| Into S.L. (1981-83)
1973: Endangered Species Act \
1974: Safe Drinking Water Act \
1976: Fvlagnuson Act
19Sd: MA Inter -basin Transfer Act
1985: MA Water Management A(t
"9 MGD
1395
PEP and BWS enter ACQ
:onditions include
s required to devetop
CWMP
1991
BWS receives WMA permit
In Taunton R. for "Brockton
Reservoir"
FIGURE 1. Time line (not to scale) of key events involving Brockton's water supply system as well as major federal and state legislative actions pertinent to
natural resources management.
A-3
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
In 2010, Massachusetts established the Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI), an associated
Advisory Committee, and a technical subcommittee with an objective to develop and implement water
policy that both supports ecological needs and fulfills human economic requirements. The overall
principle adopted by SWMI is stated as:
The Commonwealth's water resources are public resources that require sustainable management
practices for the well-being and safety of our citizens, protection of the natural environment, and
for economic growth.
Beginning in 2014, the SWMI framework guides permitting decisions by the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) via the Water Management Act, based on the principles of safe
yield, seasonal streamflow criteria, and a baseline reference.
Monponsett Pond Watershed
The Monponsett Pond watershed is 1,732 hectares in size, split roughly equally between the East and
West Ponds. The two ponds are similar in size (MP-East volume = 2.04 Mm3, average depth = 1.84 m;
MP-West volume = 2.61 Mm3, average depth = 2.09 m). The annual water balance is dominated by
groundwater inputs (Princeton Hydro 2013) and by diversion outflows (Exhibit 3).
Exhibit 3: Water balance in Monponsett Pond subbasin
Subbasin 24022
headwater subbasin, 7,11 square mile, 9.2% impervious surface Total GWW = 2.01, Total SWW = 5.82
Land Areas
Stump Brook
streamflow targets
Withdrawals
Pembroke
External Subbasins
Pembroke
Hanson
Halifax
Private Users
Cranberry Growers
SWW=0.32
Hanson
Private Users
Cranberry Growers
GWW=1.11
SWW=1.Z3
Halifax
Private Users
Halifax Water Department
GWW=0.34
Brockton DPW
SWW=3.27
Cranberry Growers
6WW=0.56
SWW=1.00
Notes:
Units are million gallons per day unless otherwise noted.
Values are average annual reported values for 2000 through 2004 period as summarized in WMA tool.
Private users are households on private well water and users with withdrawals less than 100,000 gallons per day.
A-4
-------
Appendix A
The MP watershed is located in the 118,900 hectare Taunton River Basin (TRB). Within the TRB, 44
percent of the basin is underlain by sand and gravel deposits, supporting several well-developed aquifers.
The remaining 56 percent of the basin is underlain by till and fine-grained stratified deposits, of which 36
percent is till, 7 percent is fine-grained deposits, and 13 percent is flood-plain alluvium. Land-use in the
TRB in 1999 was predominantly undeveloped (67 percent), including forested, wetlands, open water, and
open nonresidential categories. Agricultural land composed 5 percent of the basin, with another 2 percent
devoted to cranberry bogs. Twenty two percent of the basin was classified as residential, 3 percent of
which was high density, with the remaining 4 percent of the basin classified as commercial-industrial-
transportation (Barbara et al. 2012).
For the purposes of this modelling exercise, we focus on the MP drainage area bounded by the subbasin
24022 according to the Massachusetts Water Management Act (WMA) subbasin mapping (Exhibit 1).
Subbasin 24022 is a headwater system with an area of 7.11 square miles, of which 9.2 percent is
impervious. The drainage area is located approximately half in the town of Halifax, one-quarter in
Pembroke and one-quarter in Hanson, MA. The town of Halifax has an annual demand of 0.45 to
0.55 MGD (2006-2012), more than 75 percent of which is residential, and some of which is sold to
Pembroke Water. Halifax public water is supplied by 4 groundwater withdrawals in 2 subbasins, with
some private wells in the basin as well. Halifax has a WMA baseline withdrawal allocation of 0.54 MGD.
Under the WMA, all groundwater withdrawal permittees must meet permit "standard conditions" 1-8 in
the Regulations. These standard conditions include performance requirements for residential per capita
water use, percent unaccounted-for-water (UAW), limits on non-essential outdoor water use, and
minimum water conservation best management practices (BMPs) that follow Massachusetts' Water
Conservation Standards (EEA and WRC, 2012), such as leak detection and repair, among others. Halifax
currently meets the WMA performance standards,49 with a water usage rate of 53 Residential Gallons Per
Capita per Day (RGPCD), UAW of 3.2 percent, and limitations on outdoor watering.
Purpose of the Modeling Study
We used WMOST to evaluate management approaches to meet water demand in Halifax, Brockton, and
other towns that affect or depend on MP, while also ensuring streamflow targets out of MP that are
environmentally protective of the critical habitat in Stump Brook.
Represented in the model are:
Surface water reservoir representing the two MP basins;
The land area draining to MP;
Water diversions from MP to SL to meet Brockton water needs;
Halifax groundwater withdrawals within the MP watershed;
Septic system returns;
Other withdrawals and returns occurring within the MP watersheds;
Outlet of MP, which feeds into Stump Brook; and
49 According to WMA, standard conditions include RGPCD of 65 or less, and UAW of 10 percent or less.
A-5
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Various water management approaches, including stormwater management practices, demand
management, and aquifer storage and recovery.
The model was developed to explore various management questions such as: How much water can be
diverted from MP to SL and during which period in order to maintain minimum outflows to Stump
Brook? What improvements in outflow levels may be accomplished by changing water demand within the
subbasin? Related water quality issues will not be addressed until development of version 3 of WMOST,
which will include a water quality module.
In the next section, we describe the process used to set up the WMOST MP model.
Model Setup
We defined desired performance measures for the model as follows.
Significant water users are included especially those that may be targets for management
alternatives. Stakeholders have identified these users to be Brockton diversions, and stormwater
and bog operations. In addition, the town of Halifax has two well fields located close to MP.
Known, consequential processes are represented. For example, stakeholders requested information
and consideration of the interaction between the shallow aquifer system and MP.
The model provides acceptable comparison of flow and lake elevation/volume with measured
data. As described below, we used lake elevation data for the MP outlet obtained from BWS for
comparisons of modelled versus measured data. WMOST calculates and tracks volume rather than
elevation; therefore we converted measured elevations into volumes using available bathymetry
data (Princeton Hydro, 2013) and compared with WMOST to assess percent error, applying the
total volume criteria of 10 percent.
Exhibit 4 shows selected relevant components of the MP system as represented in WMOST. We describe
selected model components below.
A-6
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit 4: Selected model components and their representation of MP watershed
features.
Storm water
Managed
HRUs3
to External SW
Stump Brook
>minand
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
We populated the Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs) by selecting the Taunton Watershed from the
Baseline Hydrology menu and then selecting those present within the MP subwatershed by marking the
right-hand column with an X:
Baseline Hydrology Module
Return to Input I
Follow the step-by-step directions below to obtain hydrology data for your study area including baseline runoff and recharge time series and groundwater recession coefficient. Based on your
selections, the model will populate input fields on the appropriate sheets.
1. Select the watershed that encompasses or is similar to your study area: || Taunton
Maps and data on watershed characteristics are provided in the Watershedlnfo.xls file which is available on the WMOST download website.
2. Hydrologic Response Units (HRUs)
The following HRU types are available in the selected watershed.
A. Select which HRUs exist in your study area by placing an x in blue box next to the HRU type. B. Then press "Populate Land Use" to populate Land Use table with each HRU's name, infiltration
rate and percent effective impervious area.
HRU types in the selected watershed
?st, Sand and Gn
el
Open nonresidentiai, Sand and Gravel
Medium to low density residential, Sand and Gravel
High-density residential, Sand and Gravel
Commercial-industrial-transportation, Sand and Gravel
Agriculture, Sand and Gravel
Forest, Till & fine-grained deposits
Open nonresidential, Till & fine-grained deposits
Medium to low density residential, Till & fine-grained deposits
y residential. Til! S. fine-grained deposits
Commercial-industrial-transportation, Till & fine-grained deposits
Agriculture, Till & fine-grained deposits
Cranberry1 bogs, Combined
Forested wetland, Combined
IStonforested wetlands. Combined
Populate Land Use
In this case, all 15 HRU types in the Taunton watershed are also present in the MP subwatershed so all
were selected. We clicked on "Populate Land Use" to set up the HRU table.
WMOST next prompts the user to select the time series endpoints of interest from within the range of
years for which hydrology data are available. We chose the period 2002-2006 to evaluate baseline
conditions. This corresponds to the calibration period for the initial HSPF model. Users are encouraged to
examine the 50-year historic record of precipitation by clicking on the "View Precipitation Data" button
to compare optimum management strategies for a combination of wet and dry periods as well as average
conditions.
3. Time period
Hydrology data for the selected watershed is available for the following time period:
Five years of data takes approximatley five to six minutes to solve at the daily time step. You may click "View Precipitation Data" to
obtain the available daily precipition time series to help you determine the period of interest.
Enter the time period of interest for your modeling study:
Start
End
1/1/2002
12/31/2006
4. Model time step
To use the Stormwater Module, you must setup a daily model. Would you like to setup a daily or monthly model?
5. After completing steps 1 through 4, click the button to populate time series input data:
View Precipitation Data
Daily
Process and Populate
Time Series Data for
Runoff and Recharge
A-8
-------
Appendix A
A\ A B C D E F
1
2
3
4
5
o
7
3
9
10
11
12
13
1-1
15
IS
17
13
IS
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
23
29
30
Precipitation for the Taunton Watershed AH values in/day
Return to Hydro
Date PREC
1/1/2002 0
1/2/2002 0
l/J/2002 0
1/4/2002 0
1/5/2002 0
1/6/2002 0.2
1/7/2002 0.37
1/8/2002 0.01
1/9/2002 0
1/10/2002 0
If 11/2O02 0.3
1/12/2002 0
1/13/2002 0.78
1/14/2O02 0
1/15/2002 0.23
1/16/2002 0
1/17/2002 0.03
1/18/2002 0
1/19/2002 0.17
1/20/2002 0.07
1/21/2002 0.3
1/22/2002 0
1/2J/2002 0
| Intro Input Hydro Precipitation (?)
In this case we chose the daily time step because we will be using the Stormwater Module. Then we
clicked on the "Process and Populate Time Series Data for Runoff and Recharge" to populate the
hydrology time series. These time series can be viewed by returning to the input data screen and clicking
on the Runoff and Recharge buttons, respectively.
Input Data Retu
As you complete each section, click the box in front of the button to indicate completion and change the color to grey. This will help you track your progress. Once all are complete, return to Main.
:turnto Intro I
1. Baseline Hydrology: Data for unmanaged land conditions.
A. Time series data:
Use Baseline Hydrology module for assisted data acquisition and entry
Baseline Hydrology
Module
OR manually enter your own data.
|Number afHRU types in your study a
Press "Setup Baseline Hydrolgy" button to prepare baseline land use, runoff, and recharge input
tables. ^^^HBb I
Setup BaselineHydrok^ H^' Runoff FJ Recharge
A-9
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Runoff Rates rnme series of runoff rate from
Return to Input
Date
(mm/dd/yyyy)
1/1/2002
1/2/2002
1/3/2002
1/4/2002
1/5/2002
1/6/2002
1/7/2002
1/8/2002
1/9/2002
1/10/2002
1/11/2002
1/12/2002
1/13/2002
1/14/2002
all HRUs for baseline condition and managed land use conditions.
r Enter data in blue input fields for available time period. Time series must be consecutive, e.|
o' o' or o' or or o' or o
Units: inches/time
step
min=
0
., no skipped days. For monthly time step, the day of the mont
o' or or o' o' o'
Baseline HRU Set (HRU)
HRU1 HRU2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2.63E-05 0.008073
4.05E-05 0.016124
1.4E-07 0.000642
0 0
0 0
1.47E-05 0.012519
0 0
7.75E-05 0.033S23
0 0
HRU3
0
0
0
0
0
O.OOS326
0.016635
0.000663
0
0
0.01292
0
0.034901
0
HRU4 HRU5
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.028906 0.123933
0.05778 0.247798
0.002307 0.009904
0 0
0 0
0.044921 0.192813
0 0
0.121252 0.520027
0 0
HRU6
0
0
0
0
0
4.14E-05
6.28E-05
2.1E-07
0
0
2.2E-05
0
0.000113
0
HRU7 HRUS HRU9
000
000
000
000
000
6.71E-06 0.008309 0.008345
7.98E-05 0.016908 0.016826
6.64E-06 0.000679 0.000677
000
000
0.000455 0.012916 0.01307
0 0 8.04E-08
0.000391 0.035805 0.035761
000
HRU10
0
0
0
0
0
0.028287
0.056954
0.002268
0
0
0.043835
0
0.120471
0
HRU11
0
0
0
0
0
0.124716
0.250734
0.00994
0
0
0.193129
0
0.527892
0
HRU12
0
0
0
0
0
0.000122
0.000497
1.75E-05
0
0
0.000203
2.16E-07
0.001258
0
HRU13
0
0
0
0
0
0.0015
0.006142
0.000097
0
0
0.000522
0
0.022376
0
HRU14
0
0
0
0
0
0.00047
0.002187
7.92E-05
0
0
0.000169
0
0.006318
0
HRU15
0
0
0
0
0
0.001515
0.006277
0.000099
0
0
0.000538
0
0.021371
0
Recharge Rate!; Time series of recharj
Return to Input | 0.0000 ' 0.0000 ' 0.0000 '
step min=
Date Baseline HRU Set (HRU)
'e rate from all HRUs for baseline condition and mana
0.0000
-0.1425
(mm/dd/yyyy) HRU1 HRU2 HRU3 HRU4
1/1/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/2/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/3/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/4/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/5/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/6/2002 0.0693 0.1015 0.0786
1/7/2002 0.1535 0.2141 0.1723
1/8/2002 0.0062 0.0083 0.0067
1/9/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/10/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/11/2002 0.1350 0.1818 0.1474
1/12/2002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
1/13/2002 3.9E-01 4.8E-01 4.1E-01
1/14/2002 O.OE+00 O.OE+00 O.OE+00
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0875
0.1896
0.0079
0.0000
0.0000
0.1643
0.0000
4.4E-01
O.OE+00
0.0000
HRU5
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0882
0.2060
0.0103
0.0000
0.0000
0.2019
0.0000
4.9E-01
1.4E-04
0.0000
HRU6
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.1018
0.2147
0.0084
0.0000
0.0000
0.1814
0.0000
4.SE-01
O.OE+00
0.0000
HRU7
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0385
0.1233
0.0120
0.0052
0.0047
0.1269
0.0058
3.5E-01
2.0E-02
0.0000
ged land use condit
0.0000
HRUS HRU9
0.0040
0.0037
0.0034
0.0032
0.0030
0.0628
0.1855
0.0231
0.0130
0.0111
0.1626
0.0125
4.7E-01
2.9E-02
0.0011
0.0011
0.0010
0.0010
0.0010
0.0462
0.1358
0.0149
0.0073
0.0065
0.1394
0.0072
3.7E-01
2.4E-02
0.0000
ons.
0.0000
HRU10 HRU11
0.0028
0.0027
0.0025
0.0024
0.0022
0.0492
0.1553
0.0204
0.0112
0.0095
0.1438
0.0109
4.2E-01
2.SE-02
0.0072
0.0065
0.0059
0.0054
0.0049
0.0693
0.2329
0.0256
0.0145
0.0124
0.1749
0.0159
5.SE-01
2.4E-02
' 0.0000
HRU12
0.0034
0.0032
0.0030
0.0028
0.0027
0.0593
0.1751
0.0223
0.0124
0.0107
0.1591
0.0122
4.4E-01
3.1E-02
' 0.0000
HRU13
0.0079
0.0072
0.0066
0.0061
0.0057
0.0583
0.1902
0.0217
0.0137
0.0121
0.1538
0.0154
5.5E-01
2.2E-02
' 0.0000
HRU14
0.0050
0.0046
0.0044
0.0041
0.0038
0.0454
0.1352
0.0154
0.0095
0.0083
0.1129
0.0103
4.2E-01
1.9E-02
' 0.0000
HRU15
0.0080
0.0073
0.0067
0.0062
0.0060
0.0610
0.199S
0.0221
0.0135
0.0120
0.1611
0.0151
5.6E-01
2.2E-02
At this point, we returned to the Input screen and selected Land Use to populate land areas for each of the
HRUs.
Input Data
As you complete each section, click the box in front of the button to indicate completion and change the color to grey. This will help you track your progress. Once all are
Return to tntro 1
complete, return to Main.
1. Baseline Hydrology: Data for unmanaged land conditions.
A. Time series data:
Use Baseline Hydrology module fo
0 Baseline Hydro!
Module
B. Land Use; Enter HRU areas and cosi
r assisted data acquisition and entry OR manually enter your own data. Number of HRU types in your study
Press "Setup Baseline Hydrolgy" button to prepare baseline land use,
Setup Baseline Hydrology ' D | Runoff | £
s for land conservation [7] Land Use I ^^I^H'
area- 15 |
runoff, and recharge input
] Recharge j
A-10
-------
Appendix A
Land Use! and Its Management
I Return to Input I I Return to Baseline Hydrology
Baseline HRU Characteristics
HRU ID
HRU1B
HRU2B
HRU3B
HRU4B
HRU5B
HRU6B
HRU7B
HRUBB
HRU9B
HRU10B
HRU11B
HRU12B
HRU13B
HRU14B
HRU15B
HRU Name
Forest, Sand and Gravel
Open nonresidential, Sand
and Gravel
Medium to low density
residential. Sand and Gravel
High-density residential,
Sand and Gravel
Commercial-industrial-
transportation, Sand and
Gravel
Agriculture, Sand and Gravel
Forest, Till & fine-grained
deposits
Open nonresidential, Till &
fine-grained deposits
Medium to low density
residential, Till & fine-
grained deposits
High-density residential, Till
& fine-grained deposits
Commercial-industrial-
transportation, Till & fine-
grained deposits
Agriculture, Till Stfine-
grained deposits
Cranberry bogs. Combined
Forested wetland. Combined
Nonforested wetlands,
Combined
Baseline Area
[acre]
834
74
593
322
61
10
161
2
29
62
2
13
340
64
47
Percent
Effective
Impervious
0.0%
4.3%
4.4%
15.3%
65.7%
0.0«
0.0%
4.3%
4.4%
14.9%
65.8%
056
0%
0%
0%
Infiltration
Rate [in/hr]
9.5
8.455
8.075
5.95
3.0S
S.01
0.938
0.832
0.806
0.605
0.336
0.768
0.2
0.2
0.2
For management options that are not applicable or desired for an HRU, enter -9 for costs.
For Minimum and Maximum Areas, enter -9 ifthere is no limit on the area for a type of HRU.
Allocation of area among Managed HRU sets are mutually exclusive (i.e., one acre may only receive one management type).
O&M = Operations and maintenance
^Starred variables are not required if the Hydrology Module is used **Starred variables are not required if the Stormwater
Data for Land Conservation Option
Minimum Area
[acre]
834
74
598
322
61
10
161
2
29
62
2
13
340
64
47
Maximum
Area [acre]
834
74
598
322
61
10
161
2
29
62
2
13
340
64
fl
Initial Cost to
Conserve
[5/acre]
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
O&M Cost
[S/acre/yr]
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
-9
For the baseline simulation, we entered the baseline area associated with each HRU in the MP
subwatershed. Percent effective impervious area and infiltration rates were automatically filled in based
on the Taunton HSPF model parameters. For the initial set-up, the land areas associated with each HRU
are fixed so minimum and maximum areas in the Land Conservation Option table are identical and set to
existing values.
Brockton Diversions to Silver Lake and Precipitation on MP
We obtained the time series of water volumes diverted from MP to SL from BWS. The time series covers
the period of October 1996 through December 2013 and provides the volume diverted from MP each day.
Exhibit 5 shows the pattern of average diversions by month for the period of 2001 through 2006.
A-11
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 5: Pattern of diversions from MP to SL during the 2001-2006 period, by month.
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
i % of days with diversions
-Total volume diverted (MG)
100%
90%
10%
0%
We combined this information with the evapotranspiration (ET) time series from HSPF as input in
WMOST for Reservoir withdrawals in the Surface Water tab (Exhibit 6). Reservoir discharges, which
represent inflow of water into the reservoir, were set to the amount of precipitation falling directly on MP.
For the baseline scenario, we specified the reservoir outflow to match observed data (see Section 1.3.1)
whereas this parameter is a management decision in the management scenarios discussed in Section 1.3.
A-12
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit 6: WMOST Surface Water input tab
Surface Water: StreamFlow and Surface Storat u^^ M m
nitial reservoir/surface storage volume
Minimum target reservoir/storage volume
Ewisting maHimum reservoir/storage volume
nitial construction cost
Q&.M costs
sum over all timr 0 0
Private Sw Private Sw
Date Withdrawal Discharge
fmmfdd/yyuy) [MG(time step] [MGftime step]
1(1(2002 0.00 0.00
1(2(2002 0.00 0.00
1(3(2002 0.00 0.00
1(4(2002 0.00 0.00
1(5(2002 0.00 0.00
1(612002 0.00 0.00
1(7(2002 0.00 0.00
1(8(2002 0.00 0.00
1(3(2002 0.00 0.00
1(10(2002 0.00 0.00
1(11(2002 0.00 0.00
1(12(2002 0.00 0.00
1(13(2002 0.00 0.00
1(14(2002 0.00 0.00
1(15(2002 0.00 0.00
1(16(2002 0.00 0.00
1(17(2002 0.00 0.00
1(18(2002 0.00 0.00
1(13(2002 0.00 0.00
1(20(2002 0.00 0.00
1(21(2002 0.00 0.00
1(22(2002 0.00 0.00
1(23(2002 0.00 0.00
1(24(2002 0.00 0.00
1/25(2002 0.00 0.00
1/26(2002 0.00 0.00
1(27(2002 0.00 0.00
1(28(2002 0.00 0.00
1(23(2002 0.00 0.00
1(30(2002 0.00 0.00
1(31(2002 0.00 0.00
2(1(2002 0.00 0.00
2(2(2002 0.00 0.00
2(3(2002 0.00 0.00
2(4(2002 0.00 0.00
2(5(2002 0.00 0.00
2(6(2002 0.00 0.00
2(7(2002 0.00 0.00
9jRj-?nn^ n nn n nn
1,545 [MG]
1,454 [MG]
r 1.945 [MG]
0 [*(MG]
0 [«MG]
0 r 17183
Res
External Eiw Withdrawal
Inflow [cfs] [MGdime step]
0.00r
0.00r 0.03
0.00r 0.10
0.00r 0.08
0.00r 0.14
0.00r 0.18
0.00r 0.02
0.00r 0.06
0.00r 0.11
0.00r 0.26
0.00r 0.06
0.00r 0.14
5t.3g& Limit
52.00
54.50
1
r 5357 r
Res
discharge[MG Res out
-3
No
-
low
(timestep] [MG/time step]
0.00r
0.00r
o.oor
o.oor
o.oor
4.39r
r 3.05 r
r 0.24 T
n no r
r 0.00 r
r 7.34 r
r n 00 r
0.00r 0.08r 13.07r
0.00r 23.15r 0.00r
0.00r 28.58r 5.62r
0.00r 30.02r 0.00r
0.00r 0.03r 0.73r
0.00r 0.11r 0.00r
0.00r 0.06r 4.1Sr
0.00 r 0.12r 1.71r
0.00 r 0.04 r 7.34 r
0.00 r 22.33 r 0.00 r
0.00 r 37.27 r 0.00 r
0.00 r 24.70 r 0.38 r
0.00r 0.23r 0.00r
0.00r 0.36r 0.00r
0.00r 0.37
0.00 r 0.40
o.oor
r 0.00 r
0.00r 0.56r 0.00r
0.00r 0.07
0.00r 0.06
r 2.20 r
r 3.42r
0.00r 0.05r 5.14r
0.00r 0.21r 0.00r
0.00r 0.08r 0.00r
0.00r 25.35r 0.00r
0.00r 28.53r 0.00r
0.00r 28.53r 0.00r
0.00 r 3.68 r 0.49r
n nn^ n 20%), USGS generated the HSPF model outputs for the MP subbasin using an artificial modelling
construct termed a "virtual wetland" to allow for adjustment of wetlands ET during drought periods
(Barbara et al. 2012). In the HSPF model, all recharge and runoff are routed to a wetlands storage
component and then released according to a specified stage-discharge curve. Maximum wetlands storage
A-13
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
is calculated assuming a water depth of 1 meter in wetlands. When wetlands storage volume reaches a
critical low level, the stage-discharge relationship shifts to reflect the potential decrease in surface area of
wetlands and ET is reduced accordingly. WMOST is not designed to incorporate this intermediate storage
compartment and does not replicate the HSPF flow time series for this particular reach. In addition, HSPF
model developers did not account for flow regulation at the outlet of MP.
As an alternative approach to validate the WMOST water balance, we used the measured MP water levels
and the available hypsographic curve for MP (Princeton Hydro 2013) to generate a volume time series for
MP storage. We compare the estimated reservoir volume to this "observed" MP volume time series to
verify that the model provides a reasonable approximation of volumes over time.
Baseline Model Setup
We used the hydrology runoff and recharge time series and pumping data from HSPF (Zariello et al.
2005). The time period of simulation was limited to the available surface water and groundwater pumping
data in the HSPF model which covered the years from 2002 to 2006. We included cranberry bogs as an
HRU and thus excluded withdrawals for cranberry bog irrigation (included in the HSPF model) to avoid
double-counting ET. We used the following data for the baseline simulation:
Precipitation time series from Daymet.51 We noted differences between local precipitation and
precipitation recorded at the Warwick RI station used by HSPF. Overall, precipitation in Halifax,
MA was 20 percent greater than in Warwick RI during the period.
Land areas, runoff rates, and recharge rates for 15 HRUs for 2002-2006. We adjusted the data to
reflect differences in precipitation noted above. Notably, we adjusted precipitation, runoff, and
evapotranspiration obtained from HSPF by a factor of 1.2.
Surface water.
This is a headwater basin so there are no external surface water inflows
Reservoir/surface water storage: Two basins of MP are modelled as a single basin
Private/other surface water withdrawal based on measured diversions to Brockton via Silver Lake.
We did not include withdrawals for cranberry bog growers as cranberry bogs are also represented
by HRUs and therefore included in the runoff and recharge time series.
Daymet-based precipitation inputs to surface water area
ET withdrawal from surface water area
Outflows from MP based on reservoir operating rules (see Section Reservoir Outflows below)
Groundwater
Minimum, maximum and initial storage as well as recession coefficient (groundwater recession
coefficient of 0.067 was obtained directly from HSPF).
No private/other groundwater withdrawals, discharges or external groundwater inflows:
Surface water and groundwater pumping data from 2002 to 2006
51 Downloaded from http://daymet.ornl.gov/singlepixel.html. The HSPF model relied mostly on weather station from T.F. Greene
Airport near Warwick, RI and did not account for spatial variability in precipitation across the Taunton River basin
A-14
-------
Appendix A
Human demand
Disaggregated HSPF pumping data based on MA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
Annual Statistical Report (ASR) data into five user types. Monthly data from the ASRs were
divided by the number of days in the month to construct a daily time series.
Consumptive use values for each user based on literature values (Vickers 201252):
Wastewater
Assumed all of Halifax and portions of Hanson and Pembroke in Subbasin 33 are on septic
Assumed that half of the water is supplied to Halifax customers within the basin:
Exclusion of all management options (-9 entered)
Instream flow targets
No constraint on minimum or maximum instream flows.
Reservoir Outflows
Outflows from the fishway in the MP Dam are currently monitored via flowmeter, but these data were not
collected prior to 2013. We evaluated the stage-discharge relationship using measured MP levels and
fishway flow data. However, the plotted relationship demonstrated multiple embedded curves due to
shifts in dam operation (e.g., opening or closing the sluice gate upstream of the fishway, installation of
stoplogs). Given the uncertainty in actual outflows, we ran a series of WMOST simulations using
outflows estimated based on the following operating regimes:
1) Conservative mode (drought conditions):
a. Full spillway discharge over dam flashboard (53.5 ft. elevation53) based on modified
Princeton Hydro (2013) equation for narrow crest weir
b. Release of 0.9 mgd through fishway only during Brockton diversions and during
herring runs (GHD 201554).
2) Minimum compliance plus stage management goal to maximize potential water withdrawals:
a. Full spillway discharge over dam flashboard (53.5 ft. elevation) based on modified
Princeton Hydro equation for narrow crest weir
b. Release of average 0.9 mgd through fishway only during Brockton diversions and during
herring runs (GHD 2015)
c. Release of average 0.9 mgd through fishway when stage > 52.5 (to minimize potential
flooding problems at stage of 53 ft.).
3) Maximum compliance for fishway goal of 0.9 mgd:
a. Full spillway discharge over dam flashboard (53.5 ft. elevation) based on modified
Princeton Hydro equation for narrow crest weir.
b. Average release of 0.9 mgd through fishway year-round.
52 Vickers, A. 2012. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation. WaterPlow Press. Amherst, MA.
53 CDM. 1964. City of Brockton, Mass. Diversion Works Monponsett Pond (Outlet), License Plan No. 4987. Camp, Dresser,
and McKee, Boston, MA.
54 GHD. 2015. Report for the Town of Halifax: Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) Feasibility and Design
Memorandum at the Monponsett Pond System.
A-15
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
4) Stage management goal enabling maximum diversions, high water conditions:
a. Full spillway discharge over dam flashboard (53.5 ft. elevation) based on modified Princeton
Hydro equation for narrow crest weir
b. Full fishway discharge (per Princeton Hydro 2013 equation) if stage > 52.5 ft.
Validation Results
Exhibit 7 compares the MP volumes modeled using the operating regimes described above including
combination regimes which switch operating rules overtime (3/4, 1/3/4). The simpler decision rules result
in a marked break with the observed levels in October 2005 with the MP volume increasing to levels
unmatched in the observed data. During the first week of October 2005, Tropical Storm Tammy hit New
England, dumping up to 20 inches of rain throughout the region. This event likely triggered emergency
management regimes to reduce flooding impacts and protect dam infrastructure. Accordingly, we also ran
scenarios where we combined different operating regimes before and after October 2005.
Exhibit 7: Comparison of modeled MP volume for different operating regimes to
observed MP volume.
4,000
3,000
2,000
,,,Vr
/'- "G"
'
Kg
1,000
8
s
d d d d d d
*-< O1 O1 £> L/l ff,
&^_ d oo ^i o.
iH ^ r^
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit 8: Observed and modeled MP volume during the period of 2001 through 2006.
Modeled volume is based on assumed operation of the reservoir following Operating
Regime 3 before October 2005 and Operating Regime 4 after October 1, 2005.
3,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
8 8
Stage-based volume (Observed) Modeled volume
As shown in the graph of Exhibit 8, while patterns are similar, the modeled volume tends to be lower
than derived from observed MP stage. The average difference is 4 percent over the analysis period, with
the largest difference occurring toward the end of the simulation in December 2006 when the modeled
pond volume is 29 percent larger than implied by the stage.
Error between observed and modeled volumes may be due to difference in the magnitude and timing
of precipitation (which the coarse adjustment discussed above cannot address), as well as potential
differences between the assumed operating rules and actual releases from MP. In addition, water
withdrawals and returns to and from cranberry bogs for protection from freezing were not included in
the water balance as they were expected to cancel one another out and only generic time series for these
are available. Observed volumes are also uncertain as they were not measured directly but instead were
derived from measured stage (available for only one basin of MP) and an elevation-volume relationship.55
55 The MP elevation-volume relationship is defined at 1-foot increments, to a maximum stage of 52 feet. However, the observed
stage often exceeds this value, and ranged from 52.1 feet to 54.2 feet during the period of 2002 through 2006.
A-17
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 9 summarizes model fit statistics for daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal averages. Exhibit 10
plots monthly average volumes and residuals.
Exhibit 9: Model fit statistics for different time periods.
Fit statistic
Average residual (%)
Maximum residual (%)
R2
Daily
0%
22%
0.170
Weekly
0%
19%
0.171
Monthly
-4%
13%
0.162
Annual
0%
3%
0.070
Seasonal
0%
2%
0.998
Exhibit 10: Monthly average MP volume and residuals [(modeled-observed)/observed].
3DOO
2500
2000
o
1500 - -
1000
500
100%
80S
60';'
40%
20%
-20%
-40%
60%
-80%
-100%
Month-Year
i % Error [(Modeled-0bserved)/0bserved] Stage-based vol ume (observed) Modeled volume
For the baseline WMOST run, we ran WMOST with the above settings and with the calibrated
groundwater coefficient. Although there are options to exclude the use of new management practices,
currently there is no capability to prevent the model from optimizing the use of existing infrastructure.
For example, the model may select a different timing of PWS withdrawals from groundwater than the
HSPF model simulated. To ensure the same behavior in WMOST as in the HSPF model, we input all
human withdrawals and returns as private groundwater withdrawals and discharges under the
groundwater input sheets as follows:
Surface withdrawal: HSPF surface water withdrawals
A-18
-------
Appendix A
Groundwater withdrawal: HSPF groundwater withdrawals
Groundwater discharge: Unaccounted for water calculated as percentage of total pumping and
septic returns from Halifax adjusted for consumptive use
Management Optimization Scenarios
For the management scenarios, we specified the minimum and maximum outflows from MP, as well as
minimum and maximum MP volumes (derived from specified water elevations). These specifications
replace the outflow time series used in the validation simulation described in Sectionl.2.3. Thus, in the
management scenarios, WMOST determines the outflows necessary to meet these flow and level
objectives, subject to the available resources and constraints (e.g., runoff, recharge, water demand,
diversions, etc.).
We ran several scenarios, changing inputs and constraints as described below, to identify the actions and
associated costs for meeting management goals. The final scenario specifications were informed by
results of initial runs.
Outflow Targets and MP Level Constraints
In the management scenarios, the outflow from MP is a decision variable, subject to minimum and
maximum values. For most of the management scenarios we analyzed, we set the minimum value at the
desired instream flows of 0.9 MGD (1.39 cfs) in Stump Brook, based on regulatory requirements. We
set the maximum outflow to 60 percent of the maximum outflow estimated for the baseline scenario
(84 MGD, or 130 cfs).
We also conducted model runs using higher minimum monthly flow targets corresponding to the 25th
and 75th percentiles of the unaffected flow (Exhibit 11).
The minimum elevation of the pond was set to 52 ft. The maximum elevation of the pond was set at the
crest height (53.5 ft.). This is also the height at which flooding damage may be expected to occur.56 We
converted the elevations into minimum and maximum volumes using the relationship used to derive the
observed volume time series (see Section 1.2.3). For comparison purposes, we also did some model runs
using a maximum volume corresponding to the old crest height of 53 ft. before Brockton raised it.57
' Note that in other cases in which users wish to minimize costs (including flooding damage), this will be accomplished via the
flooding module. In this case study, potential flooding damage is limited to local areas surrounding MP rather than along
downstream reaches. Data from the Flood Insurance Studies had too coarse a spatial resolution to include the outlet reach
from MP. Instead, we estimated potential building damage in HAZUS after creating flood grids associated with different
pond stages based on local topography.
' Per suggestions in the Princeton Hydro (2013) report, the dam height could be lowered to that level and automated dam
controls could be installed; these options are being evaluated under a current SWMI grant.
A-19
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 11: Unimpacted streamflows (cfs) for Stump Brook at dam from SYE
tool58 for 1961-2004.
Percent! le
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
10th
4.33
7.04
10.97
8.02
4.74
1.98
0.79
0.62
0.51
1.13
2.49
4.53
25th
7.49
9.59
13.74
10.39
6.14
2.99
1.12
1.15
0.99
2.43
4.63
6.32
50th
11.46
12.03
19.46
16.60
9.32
4.22
2.25
2.21
2.12
3.07
7.91
11.17
75th
17.43
19.18
27.31
25.07
13.93
7.54
3.33
3.33
2.91
7.30
13.74
21.04
90th
23.10
25.41
33.86
32.14
17.02
13.18
6.29
6.23
5.49
12.80
19.43
25.75
Water Demand and Diversions
For the management scenarios, we scaled the water demand for Halifax to match the most recent levels
for 2009-2013, which were 6.7 percent lower than those recorded in 2002-2006. We further adjusted the
demand to reflect compliance with the WMA standard permit conditions of 10 percent UAW. As noted in
Section 1.2.3, Halifax already meets the other standard permit conditions of 65 RGPCD and non-essential
outdoor watering.
We also adjusted the magnitude of Brockton's diversions to reflect the slightly lower demand (by
1.8 percent) during the period of 2009-2013, as compared to demand during 2002-2006. For some
scenarios, we further adjusted diversions to reflect use of water from the Aquaria desalination plant
(3 MOD during November-July). For the purpose of this adjustment, we assumed that Aquaria would
offset diversions from MP on a gallon-for-gallon basis, i.e., using water from Aquaria reduces the amount
of water needing to be diverted from MP by 23.6 percent relative to total diversions in 2002-2006.
Management Actions
We enabled different types of management actions within the model to allow selection of the lowest-cost
approach to meet the specified constraints. Specifically, these actions include retrofitting stormwater
BMPs and constructing and operating an aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facility.
58 Archfield, S.A., Vogel, R.M., Sleeves, P.A., Brandt, S.L., Weiskel, P.K., and Garabedian, S.P., 2010. The Massachusetts
Sustainable-Yield Estimator: A decision-support tool to assess water availability at ungauged stream locations in
Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5227,41 p. plus CD-ROM.
A-20
-------
Appendix A
Scenarios
Exhibit 12 summarizes the menu of model specifications combined for the various scenarios analyzed in
this case study.
Exhibit 12: Menu of model specifications for validation management scenarios
Model
Component
Halifax water
demand
Brockton water
diversions
Reservoir
volume (based
on stage)
Stump brook
flow
Reservoir
withdrawals
Reservoir
outflows
Management
options
Validation
Scenario
Historical 2001-
2006
Historical
No constraint
No constraint
Specified based
on historical
record
Specified based
on historical
record
None
Management Scenarios (Select One)
Scaled to reflect more
recent demand (2009-
2013) and meet 10%
UAW
Scaled to reflect more
recent demand (2009-
2013)
52ft - 54.5ft
Uniform target of
1 .39 cfs
Scaled diversions
based on adjusted
demand and historical
distribution
Estimated in model
Stormwater BMPs
(bioretention basins
and infiltration
trenches sized for
0.6", 1", or 2" events)
Scaled to reflect
more recent
demand (2009-
2013) + Aquaria at
3 MGD in
November-July
52ft - 53.5ft
Monthly target
based on 25th
percentile of SYE
Scaled diversions
based on adjusted
demand and
uniform distribution
Stormwater BMPs
(bioretention basins
and infiltration
trenches sized for
0.6", 1", or 2"
events) and ASR
Scaled to reflect more
recent demand (2009-
2013) + Aquaria at 3
MGD in Nov-July +
additional 10-20%
demand reduction
52ft - 53ft
Monthly target based on
75th percentile of SYE
Stormwater BMPs
(bioretention basins and
infiltration trenches
sized for 0.6", 1", or 2"
events) and IBT
We discuss selected scenarios below.
Results Comparing Historical Versus Uniform Pattern of Diversions
Two scenarios were run to evaluate the effect of changing the pattern of Brockton diversions from the
historic record to a uniform distribution over the entire year. The two following scenarios would normally
be infeasible and runs of WMOST would produce null results due to insufficient water being available to
meet the system constraints. To ensure that results were obtained for review, we allowed for a
hypothetical, very expensive source of supplemental water as a possible management option on the
A-21
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
infrastructure input tab (see "make-up water" specifications on Exhibit 13). The specified cost for this
variable determines the "penalty" the model will incur for having to use the decision variable to meet the
constraint; we set this cost to a significantly greater value than that of any other water source available
within the watershed so that the management practice is used as final resort when there is no other way to
reach water balance in the system.
Exhibit 13: WMOST infrastructure input tab
Nonpotable Water Distribution System
Consumer's pricefor nonpotable water: Fixed fee
Consumer's pricefor nonpotable water: Variable, volume-based fee
Capital cost for additional capacity
O&M costs
Existing maximum capacity
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure
Lifetime of new construction
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
Capital cost for additional/new capacity
O&M costs
Existing maximum capacity
Lifetime remaining on existing infrastructure
Lifetime of new construction
Make-Up Water .
Cost for make-up water ^|
H < > w Nonpotable Demand Demand Mgmt Infrastructure MUSS
Value Units Exclude New/Additional
0.00
3.02
29,119,740
1,716
0.00
0
35
S/month -9
S/HCF
S/MGD
S/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
Value Units Exclude New/Additional
1,882,957
3,769
0
0
35
S/MGD -9
S/MG
MGD
yrs
yrs
Exclude New/Additional
> 100,000 S/MG 1 -g|
IJ5BBI!B^Bt«B!IIIB!HHH^Biilll^BSroE!5^^ Septic Interbasin Meas
The two runs each specified minimum and maximum stages of 52.0 and 54.0 feet, respectively, and the
regulatory target flow rate of 1.39 cfs. Halifax water demand was adjusted downwards based on recent
use rates (2009-2013). In one scenario, the historical pattern of Brockton withdrawals was used, while in
the second scenario, Brockton diversions were spread evenly over all days of the year. Results showed
that the number of days showing a deficit (i.e., inadequate volume for water withdrawals) increased from
7 to 61 and the water deficit increased from 1.4 percent to 12.3 percent of the Brockton diversion volume.
Exhibit 14 shows the time series of reservoir volumes, withdrawals, outflows and make-up water flows
for the scenario assuming uniform daily withdrawals. The red line shows the 61 days with water deficits.
A-22
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit 14: Time series of Reservoir Volumes, Withdrawals, Outflows and Water Deficits
for the Uniform Withdrawal Scenario (Daily Time Interval)
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
o
2,000
I
1,800
1,600
1,400
1,200
100
200 2.
300 -S
o
75
00 1
500
§0000000000000000
oooooooooooooooo
jNr^r^r^rg rM^^1
u~llDlDlDtDlD
ooooooooooo
O O O O
T-I m in
^ ID 00 "o"
r-J Tf ID 00 O~
rJ ^- ID 00 O
rj rg ^ ^ ^
01 o" m" 65" r^" <3"
r-l -^-^ ID 00 O (N
Reservoir Withdrawals MIN Reservoir Volume
-WMOST Reservoir Volume Water Make Up
MAX Reservoir Volume
Reservoir outflow
A-23
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 15: Specifications for Scenarios Varying the Timing of Brockton Diversions
Halifax Water
Demand
Brockton Water
Diversions
Reservoir volume
Stump Brook flow
Reservoir
Withdrawals
(includes ET)
Reservoir
Outflows
Reservoir Water
Deficit
Management
Options
Costs
Basis
Annual Total (MGY)
Max(MGD)
Basis
Magnitude (MG, over 5 years)
Pattern
Min stage (ft)
Max stage (ft)
Min allowed (MG)
Max allowed (MG)
Actual Min (MG)
Actual Max (MG)
Basis
Min (cfs)
Max (cfs)
Pattern
Basis
Max(MGD)
Total (MG)
Basis
Min (MGD)
Max(MGD)
Average (MGD)
Total (MG)
No Days with Deficit
Max (MGD)
Total Deficit (MG)
% Water Deficit, Relative to Diversion
Available
Selected
Total costs (Million $)
Water supply costs ($)
Penalty for make-up water (Million $)
Existing 2009-2013
120.34
0.49
Historical
13,871.3
Historical
52.0
54.5
1,453.9
1,944.6
1,453.9
1,944.6
OCR
1.39
130.0
Uniform target
Historical
37.3
17,183.4
Decision
0.9
84.0
4,398.5
7
108.9
191.6
1.4%
None
N/A
$19.6
$466,514
$19.16
Existing 2009-2013
120.34
0.49
Historical
13,871.3
Uniform all days
52.0
54.5
1,453.9
1,944.6
1,453.9
1,944.6
OCR
1.39
130.0
Uniform target
Modified historical
15.6
17,183.4
Decision
0.9
84.0
6,319.3
61
471.6
1,711.6
12.3%
None
N/A
$171.6
$466,514
$171.16
Specified as Input
Calculated by
Model
Results of Concern
Results Comparing Effect of Stage Constraint with Diversion Reduction
Two scenarios were run to compare the effect of stage constraints (Exhibit 16) with stormwater BMP and
interbasin transfers (IBT, transfers from Halifax wells outside of the MP subbasin) management options
available after Brockton water diversions were reduced by a 3 MGD supply from the Aquaria desalination
plant. If the stage was restricted to between 52 and 53.5 feet, there was still a slight water deficit over 2
days (0.4% of diversions), which disappeared when the stage was allowed to vary between 52 and 54.0
A-24
-------
Appendix A
feet (Exhibits 17, 18). In the first case, both IBT and stormwater BMPs were implemented (on 53 acres),
while in the second, only IBT was implemented (Exhibit 19).
Exhibit 16: Specifying Stage Constraints on the Surface Water Input Tab (Stage Volume
Constraints are Calculated from Entered Stage Heights).
Surface Water: Streamflow and Surface
Initial reservoir/surface storage volume
Minimum target reservoir/storage volume
Existing maximum reservoir/storage volume
Initial construction cost
O&M costs
sum over all time 0 0
Private Sw Private Sw
Date Withdrawal Discharge
(mm/dd/yyyy) [MG/time step] [MG/time step]
1/1/2002 0.00 0.00
1/2/2002 0.00 0.00
1/3/2002 0.00 0.00
1/4/2002 0.00 0.00
1/5/2002 0.00 0.00
1/6/2002 0.00 0.00
1/7/2002 0.00 0.00
1/8/2002 0.00 0.00
1/9/2002 0.00 0.00
1/10/2002 0.00 0.00
1/11/2002 0.00 0.00
1/12/2002 0.00 0.00
1/13/2002 0.00 0.00
i k. LI iKfnKsmvmmm^nMsmiKmfmf^i *?-
Storage Returnto
1,545 [MG]
1,454 [MG]
1,849 [MG]
Input
Stage Limit (ft)
52.00
54.00
0 [$/MG]
0 [$/MG]
r Q " 13729 5957
Res
External Sw Res Withdrawal discharge[MG/ti
Inflow [cfs] [MG/time step] mestep]
0.00
o.oo r
o.oo r
0.00
o.oo r
o.oo r
o.oo r
0.00 '
o.oo r
o.oo r
o.oo r
o.oo r
o.oo r
0.05r 0.00
0.09 r 0.00
o.ior o.oo
0.08 0.00
0.14 ' 0.00
0.18 r 4.89
0.02 T 9.05
0.06 r 0.24
0.11 r 0.00
0.26 r 0.00
0.06 r 7.34
0.14r 0.00
0.08r 19.07
1
^
-9
No
r
Res outflow
[MG/time step]
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
r o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
r o.oo
0.00
0.00
A-25
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 17: Time series of Reservoir Volumes, Withdrawals, Outflows and Water Deficits
for the Scenario with Stage of 54 feet
o
1
1
Reservoir Withdrawals
- WMOST Reservoir Volume
MIN Reservoir Volume
-Water Make Up
MAX Reservoir Volume
Reservoir Outflows
A-26
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit 18: Time series of Reservoir Volumes, Withdrawals, Outflows and Water Deficits
for the Scenario with Stage of 53.5 feet
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200 -
2,000
1,800
- 50
100
I
5"
1
O
1,200
1,000
200
- 250
300
ooo
8000000000000000000
oooooooooooooooooo
SS-S-S-SS-S-S-S-S-S-SS-SSS-S-S-S^S-^-S-
lDCOOr^rvl*JtDOOOi>JrMi0UDiOtQiD
oooooooooooo
oooooo
o o
OT 00" I""* ID
U? 00" O" rsT
Reservoir Withdrawals MIN Reservoir Volume
- WMOST Reservoir Volume Water Make Up
MAX Reservoir Volume
Reservoir Outflows
A-27
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 19: Specifications for Scenarios with Varying Stage Constraints
Halifax Water Demand
Brockton Water Diversions
Reservoir volume
Stump Brook flow
Reservoir Withdrawals
(includes ET)
Reservoir Outflows
Reservoir Water Deficit
Management Options
Costs
Basis
Annual Total (MGY)
Max(MGD)
Basis
Magnitude
(MG, over 5 years)
Pattern
Min stage (ft)
Max stage (ft)
Min allowed (MG)
Max allowed (MG)
Actual Min (MG)
Actual Max (MG)
Basis
Min (cfs)
Max (cfs)
Pattern
Basis
Max(MGD)
Total (MG)
Basis
Min (MGD)
Max(MGD)
Average (MGD)
Total (MG)
No Days with Deficit
Max (MGD)
Total Deficit (MG)
% Water Deficit,
Relative to Diversion
Available
Selected
Total costs (Million $)
Water supply costs ($)
Penalty for make-up water
(Million $)
Existing 2009-2013
120.34
0.49
Adjusted based on
2009-2013 diversions
+ Aquaria
10,417.4
Historical
52.0
54.0
1,453.9
1,848.9
1,453.9
1,848.9
OCR
1.39
130.0
Uniform target
Historical, Adjusted
28.0
13,729.4
Decision
0.9
84.0
8,059.2
-
-
-
0.0%
Stormwater
BMPs+IBT
IBT
$0.5
$466,514
$0.00
Existing 2009-2013
120.34
0.49
Adjusted based on
2009-2013 diversions
+ Aquaria
10,417.4
Historical
52.0
53.5
1,453.9
1,751.3
1,453.9
1,751.3
OCR
1.39
130.0
Uniform target
Historical, Adjusted
28.0
13,729.4
Decision
0.9
84.0
11,609.5
2
46.6
50.6
0.4%
Stormwater
BMPs+IBT
Stormwater BMP
(53 acres) and IBT
$5.6
$529,645
$5.07
Specified as Input
Calculated by
Model
Results of
Concern
A-28
-------
Appendix A
Results Comparing Effect of Stage Constraint with 25%ile SYE Target and Elimination
of Diversions
Two management scenarios were evaluated to see if it would be possible to meet a higher base flow target
(25% of unimpacted flows for Stump Brook based on the USGS Sustainable Yield Estimator59 for
Massachusetts; http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2009/5227/). To accommodate the need for increased flows in
these two scenarios, we assumed Brockton diversions would be eliminated entirely. The management
scenario with a range of pond stages from 52 to 53.5 feet (or higher) was feasible, while the management
scenario with a more restricted range of 52 to 53.0 feet predicted three days with volume deficits totaling
3.3% of current Brockton diversions even after implementation of stormwater BMPs on 14 acres.
(Exhibits 20, 21)
Exhibit 20: Time series of Reservoir Volumes, Withdrawals, Outflows and Water Deficits
for the Scenario without Brockton Diversions, Maximum Stage of 53 feet, and 25th
Percentile Flow Target.
3,000
2,800
2,000
1
1,200
1,000
*
200 1
250
(N (N
ro m ro ro
§ 8
s a a s
00"
§ §
IO *J m
(N (N IN
UD 00 O~
1/1 1/1 in in ID
o o o o o
00000
IN IN IN IN IN
^> ~> > ~^ i.
8 S
S S
300
IN IN IN IN
cn" oo" f^ ID
Reservoir Withdrawals MIN Reservoir Volume
-WMOST Reservoir Volume Water Make Up
MAX Reservoir Volume
Reservoir Outflow
59 Archfield, S.A., Vogel, R.M., Sleeves, P.A., Brandt, S.L., Weiskel, P.K., and Garabedian, S.P., 2010, The Massachusetts
Sustainable-Yield Estimator: A decision-support tool to assess water availability at ungaged stream locations in Massachusetts:
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5227, 41 p. plus CD-ROM.
A-29
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 21: Specifications for Scenarios with 25th Percentile Flow Targets
Halifax Water Demand
Brockton Water
Diversions
Reservoir volume
Stump Brook flow
Reservoir Withdrawals
(includes ET)
Reservoir Outflows
Reservoir Water Deficit
Management Options
Costs
Basis
Annual Total (MGY)
Max(MGD)
Basis
Magnitude
(MG, over 5 years)
Pattern
Min stage (ft)
Max stage (ft)
Min allowed (MG)
Max allowed (MG)
Actual Min (MG)
Actual Max (MG)
Basis
Min (cfs)
Max (cfs)
Pattern
Basis
Max(MGD)
Total (MG)
Basis
Min(MGD)
Max(MGD)
Average (MGD)
Total (MG)
No Days with Deficit
Max (MGD)
Total Deficit (MG)
% Water Deficit,
Relative to Diversion
Available
Selected
Total costs (Million $)
Water supply costs ($)
Penalty for make-up water
(Million $)
Existing 2009-2013
120.34
0.49
None
-
N/A
52.0
53.5
1,453.9
1,751.3
1,453.9
1,751.3
OCR 25th Percentile
7.49
130.0
Monthly Min
No Diversions
37.3
17,183.4
Decision
0.6
84.0
18,253.0
-
-
-
0.0%
Stormwater BMPs
SW BMPs: 0 acres
$0.5
$466,514
$0.00
Existing 2009-2013
120.34
0.49
None
-
N/A
52.0
53.0
1,453.9
1,652.5
1,453.9
1,652.5
OCR 25th Percentile
7.49
130.0
Monthly Min
No Diversions
37.3
17,183.4
Decision
0.6
84.0
19,326.3
3
65.4
109.0
3.3%
Stormwater BMPs
SWBMPs: 14 acres
$11.4
$483,284
$10.92
Specified as Input
Calculated by
Model
Results of
Concern
A-30
-------
Appendix A
Findings
Review of the results across these various scenarios provides the following planning insight:
The system is highly constrained, with a very tight operating range.
o Setting constraints on the reservoir volume between 52ft and 54.5 ft provides the broadest range
of options to meet both environmental and water needs. For example, when we allow the
reservoir stage to vary by up to 2.5 ft over the simulation period, the model is able to meet both
the existing water demand and a 1.39 cfs minimum outflow to Stump Brook by retrofitting
stormwater BMPs on approximately 100 acres, for an annual cost of approximately $35,000.
This range of operation, however, may cause periodic flooding and is unlikely to be acceptable.
o Tightening the operating range to be between 52 and 53 feet makes it impossible to meet the
water demand even when using the least stringent flow targets for Stump Brook (1.39 cfs) and
the greatest reduction in diversions; the reservoir is unable to accumulate enough water to make
it through the relatively drier months.
o Increasing the upper bound of the operating range to 53.5 feet yields outcomes that are between
these two scenarios. The system does show water deficits during the modeling period (i.e., must
add water to the system to provide sufficient storage to meet the environmental and/or water
needs), but such deficits are less frequent.
Distributing Brockton diversions uniformly over the year actually increases the frequency of water
deficits in the system due to a mismatch in the timing of inflows and outflows from the reservoir.
Stormwater BMPs were selected in several of the simulations in which water deficits are relatively
small and/or infrequent, suggesting that the BMPs are a cost effective approach for mitigating the
impacts.
Relatively large reductions (~25 percent) in the magnitude of diversions, which we calculated based
on the assumed use of 3 MGD from Aquaria in November-July mitigates the projected water
deficit, but does not eliminate it completely for scenarios where the reservoir is only allowed to
operate within a 1.0-1.5ft range.
When ASR is available, it is invariably selected as the cost-effective action to meet the constraints.
ASR is very effective at eliminating the water deficit in the simulations and providing sufficient
water during relatively drier periods. However, estimated ASR costs are substantial, i.e., several
million dollars. Further, additional investigation would be needed to assess the feasibility of ASR in
the watershed.
Supplemental Information on Flooding Costs around Monponsett Ponds
Most users of WMOST v2 will be able to use the flooding module within the tool to include flooding
costs in the cost-benefit analysis and optimization. However, in this case, we are estimating flooding costs
associated not with streamflow of different recurrence intervals, but with elevation of the Monponsett
Ponds. Therefore, we conducted a separate analysis to estimate flooding costs using the HAZUS software.
HAZUS is a regional multi-hazard loss estimation model that was developed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS). The primary
purpose of HAZUS is to provide a methodology and software application to develop multi-hazard losses
at a regional scale. These loss estimates would be used primarily by local, state and regional officials to
plan and stimulate efforts to reduce risks from multi-hazards and to prepare for emergency response and
recovery.
A-31
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
To assess potential flood-related damages within the Monponsett Pond watershed (shown in dark blue in
Exhibit 22), we selected the four census tracts that contain Monponsett Pond as our study region.
Exhibit 22: Census tracts intersecting with Monponsett Ponds.
Exhibit 23: Monponsett Ponds with
watershed boundary
From the Massachusetts GIS website
(http://www.mass.gov/office-of-geographic-
information-massgis/datalayers/lidar.html) we obtained
LiDAR elevation data for the digital elevation model
input into HAZUS.
Elevation 51 was used as a base line elevation for flood
depth calculations. The LiDAR elevation at the surface
of the eastern portion of Monponsett Pond was 50.918
and the elevation of the western portion was 51.050
(Exhibit 23).
To determine the flood depth grids, we used the LiDAR elevation data and increased the elevation of
flooding by half foot increments, beginning at Elevation 51.5 and increasing to Elevation 5 5 (Exhibit 24).
A-32
-------
Appendix A
Exhibit 24: Increase in flood elevation from 51.5 feet to 54.0 feet.
Elev54.
\r *~~L,
Using the building footprint layer, we located all the structures within the study area and eliminated
buildings less than 300 ft2 assuming these smaller buildings were garages, sheds and other miscellaneous
structures. Attributes associated with this layer were number of stories, site address, and approximate
building value. It was assumed for analysis purposes that all residential buildings had a basement type of
foundation and the first floor was located 4 feet above the ground elevation.
We then used HAZUS to determine the number of user-defined facilities that were impacted by flooding
at various elevations. As shown, there were no buildings damaged at the 51.5,52 and 52.5 elevations. We
determined amount of building damage by the HAZUS methodology. The anticipated building damage
for the user defined structures is shown in Exhibit 25.
A-33
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Exhibit 25: Extent of building damage for flood elevations of 53.0 feet to 55.0 feet.
Exhibit 26 shows the estimated building damage for the user defined structures for increasing flood
elevations.
Exhibit 26: Estimated value of building damage for flood elevations of 53.0 feet to
55.0 feet.
Predicted User Defined Facility (UDF) Damage
180 -,
53
53.5 54 54.5
Flood Elevation
*No damages predicted for UDF at elevations under 53
$400,000
- $350,000 g,
ra
- $300,000 |
Q
- $250,000 o
- $200,000 8
01
- $150,000 |
- $100,000 o
Q.
- $50,000 <
$0
A-34
-------
Appendix A
Next Steps and Refinements
The preliminary results presented above demonstrate the need for a regional solution to water supply
and use issues in the larger Taunton River watershed, with inherent trade-offs between different water
uses and between the needs of different communities. To help inform discussions of a regional solution,
we will be completing a regional analysis of the trade-offs between flooding costs and the cost of
implementation of green infrastructure stormwater BMPs in the upper Taunton River watershed.
As shown above, implementation of GI stormwater BMPs contributes to some of the lowest cost solutions
for water supply in the Monponsett Ponds subbasins, and it is possible that they could contribute to a
solution for other communities in the Taunton watershed as well, thus minimizing the need for diversions
from MP. In addition, we will be adding a water quality module to WMOST and applying the new
module to evaluate cost-effective solutions to the combined water quantity and water quality problems
inMP.
A-35
-------
-------
Appendix B
Appendix B. Halifax Case Study Input Data
Input Data
Units Scenario Value Sources/Approach
LAND USE (LU)
Number of land
uses/HRUs
Stormwater
Management Sets
Existing land use for
each HRU
Minimum area for each
HRU
Maximum area for each
HRU
Capital cost to conserve
land use/HRU
O&M cost to conserve
land use/HRU
Numerical
value
Numerical
value
Acres
Acres
Acres
$/acre
$/acre/year
Validation/
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
15
-
6
See model
interface
Existing
HRU Area
Existing
HRU Area
4704
-
47
Based on delineation in USGS Taunton HSPF
watershed simulation model
NA
Infiltration trench and bioretention basin, sizing: 0.6,
1.0, 2.0 inches
Intersection of MassGIS 1999 LU/SurfGeo layers
crosswalked to HSPF HRU categories
Combination of data sets: MassGIS 2005 Land Use,
protected areas, Stormwater managed areas
Same as minimum area data sources
Previous purchases of land for preservation by the
state of Massachusetts (The Trust for Public Land,
2013)
NA
Default value: 1% of capital costs
Stormwater Management
Capital installation cost
O&M cost
$
$
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
-
Varies by
BMP and
size
-
Varies by
BMP and
size
NA
Previous case studies and report including Charles
River Watershed Association and EPA Region 1
(TetraTech, 2014)
NA
Based on case studies by CRWA/EPA Region 1 (5%
of capital costs)
RUNOFF AND RECHARGE (Ru and Re)
Recharge rates for
each original or
"baseline" land use
Runoff rates for each
original or "baseline"
land use
Recharge rates for
each "managed" land
use
Runoff rates for each
"managed" land use
in/day
in/day
in/day
in/day
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
See model
interface
See model
interface
-
See model
interface
-
See model
interface
USGS Taunton HSPF Model Outputs
USGS Taunton HSPF Model Outputs
NA
WMOST Stormwater module
NA
WMOST Stormwater module
B-1
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Input Data
Units Scenario Value Sources/Approach
WATER DEMAND (Demand) - Halifax Public Water Supply
Number of water user
types
Demand for each user
for each day
Unaccounted-for-water
(i.e., leakage from
potable water
distribution system)
Percent consumptive
use for each water user
for each month
Numerical
value
MG/time
step
MG/time
step
%
Validation/
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
5
See model
interface
See model
interface
12
10
Default
values
Residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, UAW
(based on Halifax ASR)
Validation: Daily water pumping time series from
public water supplier
Percent use by each user (e.g., 55% commercial)
from Annual Statistical Report
Daily water pumping time series altered to include
summer outdoor watering restrictions and a basic
demand management program
Average UAW from 2002-2006 from Halifax ASR
Validation value or the WMA standard condition
requirement of 10% maximum UAW (i.e., assume
utility will reduce to 10% before permit renewal)
Based on data in Amy Vickers (2002) Handbook of
Water Use and Conservation
. u, ,*, . NOT USED
Nonpotable Water ..... ... ..
r IN Validation
Maximum percent
demand that can be
met by nonpotable
water for each user
Percent consumptive
use for nonpotable
water for each user for
each month
%
%
Optimization
Optimization
Default
values
Default
values
Based on data in Amy Vickers (2002) Handbook of
Water Use and Conservation
Based on data in Amy Vickers (2002) Handbook of
Water Use and Conservation
n ... . NOT USED
Demand Management ..... ... ..
a IN Validation
Price elasticity for each
user
Capital cost to
implement price
increase
O&M cost to administer
price increase (e.g.,
resurvey for appropriate
price etc.)
Maximum price change
over Optimization
horizon
Initial cost of providing
rebates
O&M cost of providing
rebates
Fraction
$
$/year
%
$
$/year
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Default
values
10,000
1,000
49
Based on Littleton case study (Abt Associates et al.
2014)
Based on 2% increase over 20 years
B-2
-------
Appendix B
Input Data
Maximum demand
reduction
Units Scenario Value Sources/Approach
MGD
Optimization
SEPTIC (Sep)
Percent septic use for
public water user
draining inside the
study area
Percent septic use for
public water user
draining outside the
study area
%
%
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
100
0
No public sewer systems exist in Halifax, Hanson, or
Pembroke
SURFACE WATER (SW)
Reservoir Storage - Monponsett Pond
Initial reservoir volume
Minimum reservoir
volume
Current maximum
reservoir volume
Capital construction
cost
O&M costs
MG
MG
MG
$/MG
$/MG
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Based on
model
Based on
model
Based on
model
_
-
For validation: Calculated based on reservoir stage
time series
For optimization: Calculated by the model
For validation, set to 0 MG (no constraint)
For optimization, based on minimum stage of 52 ft
For validation, set to 5800 MG (high enough not to be
a constraint)
For optimization, based on minimum stage of 53 ft,
53.5 ft or 54.5 ft
NA
NA
Streamflow
Inflow from external
surface water
Minimum in-stream flow
standards
Maximum in-stream
flow standards
Minimum surface water
discharging outside of
study area
Private withdrawals of
surface water
Private discharge of
surface water
MG/time
step
cfs
cfs
cfs
MG/time
step
MG/time
step
Validation/
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
-
-
Based on
model
-
Based on
model
-
See model
interface
See model
interface
NA - Headwater subbasin
NA
MADER
NA
130 cfs
Standard was not used in model
USGS Taunton HSPF Model Outputs
USGS Taunton HSPF Model Outputs
B-3
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Input Data
Units Scenario Value Sources/Approach
GROUNDWATER (GW)
Groundwater recession
coefficient
Initial groundwater
volume
Minimum volume
Maximum volume
Flow from external
groundwater
Private withdrawals of
groundwater (all but
public water system)
Private discharge of
groundwater
1/time step
MG
MG
MG
cfs
MG/time
step
MG/time
step
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
0.0673
3,275
3,128
7,062
-
See model
interface
See model
interface
Calculated using USGS Taunton HSPF model: [1 -
(area-weighted average of AGWRC across HRUs)]
based on distribution of HRUs in each subbasin. The
groundwater recession coefficient was used to
calibrate the model, and the calibrated value is
shown.
Based on USGS Taunton HSPF model groundwater
storage
NA - Headwater subbasin
USGS Taunton HSPF Model Outputs minus Halifax
public water system withdrawals
USGS Taunton HSPF Model Outputs
INTERBASIN TRANSFER (IBT) (based on water from other wells in Halifax)
Purchase price for IBT
potable water
Purchase price for IBT
wastewater
Initial cost for
new/additional IBT
potable water
Initial cost for
new/additional IBT
wastewater
Maximum additional
capacity for water and
wastewater
Daily, monthly and/or
annual limits for water
and/or wastewater
$/MG
$/MG
$/MG
$/MG
MGD
MGD
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
-
-
-
NA
NA
NA
NA
INFRASTRUCTURE
Optimization horizon
Interest rate
years
%
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
20
3
Based on town/utility practices
Based on previous bonds by town/utility
B-4
-------
Appendix B
Input Data
Units Scenario Value
Sources/Approach
Water Treatment Plant (WTP)
Customer's price for
potable water
Customer fixed monthly
account fee
GW pumping-Capital
construction cost
GW pumping-O&M
costs
GW pumping-Current
max capacity
GW pumping lifetime-
remaining on existing
construction
GW Pumping lifetime-
new construction
construction cost
SW pumping-O&M
costs
SW pumping-Current
max capacity
SW pumping lifetime-
remaining on existing
construction
SW Pumping lifetime-
new construction
WTP-Capital
construction cost
WTP-O&M costs
$/HCF
$/month
$/MGD
$/MG
MGD
years
years
$/MGD
$/MG
MGD
years
years
$/MGD
$/MG
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Validation
3.78
3.72
8.33
-
5,787,037
2.742
25
35
-
453,885
31,772
0
0
35
-
6,229,186
-
Based on 2015 Halifax water rates and volume-
weighted average of water rates across user types
from 2002-2006
Based on 2015 Halifax water rates and volume-
weighted average of water rates across user types
from 2009-201 3
Based on 2015 Halifax water rates. All users pay the
same fixed fee, independent of volume used
NA
Based on previous Littleton study estimate for
developing a new well source
Based on Halifax 201 5 Water Budget
Based on maximum approved daily pumping at wells
(2013ASR)
Values set higher than Optimization horizon to
exclude replacement costs from analysis
NA
Based on previous Danvers-Middleton MA case study
(EPA 201 360)
Default value: 7% of capital costs
No surface water sources
NA
Based on previous Littleton study estimate for new
water treatment capacity (Abt Associates et al 201 461)
Included in groundwater O&M costs
60 U.S. EPA. Watershed Management Optimization Support Tool (WMOST) vl: User Manual and Case Study Examples. U.S.
EPA, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-13/174, 2013.
61 Town of Littleton, MA, Abt Associates Inc., Horsley Witten Group and Charles River Watershed Association. 2014.
Maximizing Sustainable Water Management by Minimizing the Cost of Meeting Human and Ecological Water Needs:
Sustainable Water Management Initiative Project Report BRP 2013-06. June 2014. Prepared for Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Department of Environmental Protection.
B-5
-------
Wmost v2 User Guide
Input Data
WTP lifetime-remaining
on existing construction
WTP lifetime-new
construction
WTP-Current max
capacity
Capital cost of survey &
repair
O&M costs for
continued leak repair
Maximum percent of
leaks that can be fixed
Units
years
years
MGD
$
$/year
%
Scenario
Optimization
Validation
Optimization
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Value
-
25
25
35
1.742
267,231
0
99
Sources/Approach
Values set higher than Optimization horizon to
exclude replacement costs from analysis
Based on water treatment plant capacity and
maximum allowed pumping (2013 ASR)
Cost for survey and repair of all Halifax water mains
Assume one-time survey
Default values
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Customer's price for
wastewater
Capital construction
cost
Charged based on
water or wastewater?
O&M costs
Lifetime remaining on
existing construction
Lifetime of new
construction
Current maximum
capacity
Initial groundwater
infiltration into WW
collection system
Initial cost of repairs
O&M costs of repairs
Maximum percent of
leakage that can be
fixed
$/HCF
$/MGD
Binary
(water or
wastewater)
$/MG
years
years
MGD
%
$
$/year
%
Validation/
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Validation/
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
0
water
0
35
0
0
0
0
Halifax is all septic
No existing wastewater system
No existing wastewater system
No existing wastewater system
Water Reuse Facility (WRF)
Capital construction
cost
O&M costs
Lifetime remaining on
existing construction
$/MGD
$/MG
years
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
18,644,791
1,305,135
0
Values from Littleton study (Abt Associates et al,
2014)
No existing capacity
B-6
-------
Appendix B
Input Data
Lifetime of new
construction
Current maximum
capacity
Units Scenario Value Sources/Approach
years
MGD
Optimization
Optimization
35
0
Values set higher than Optimization horizon to
exclude replacement costs from analysis
No existing capacity
Nonpotable Water Distribution System (NPDist)
Consumer cost for
nonpotable water
Capital construction
cost for nonpotable
distribution system
O&M cost for
nonpotable distribution
system
$/HCF
$/MGD
$/MG
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
3
12,529,440
1,716
Values from Danvers-Middleton case study (EPA
2013)
Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR)
Capital construction
cost
O&M costs
Lifetime remaining on
existing construction
Lifetime of new
construction
Current maximum
capacity
$/MGD
$/MG
years
years
MGD
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
Optimization
1,965,727
538
0
35
0
Values from Danvers-Middleton case study (EPA
2013)
No existing capacity
Values set higher than Optimization horizon to
exclude replacement costs from analysis
No existing capacity
MEASURED FLOW
Measured flow
cfs
Validation/
Optimization
None (comparison is done for calculated pond
volume)
B-7
------- |