P. 1
Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source Areas and Runoff Volumes.pdf

Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source Areas and Runoff Volumes.pdf

|Views: 1|Likes:
Published by Damien Di Vittorio

More info:

Published by: Damien Di Vittorio on Oct 31, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/31/2013

pdf

text

original

Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source

Areas and Runoff Volumes
Yang Liu

Puripus Soonthornnonda

Jin Li

Erik R. Christensen
Received: 2 November 2009 / Accepted: 12 November 2010 / Published online: 12 December 2010
Ó Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Runoff coefficients are usually considered in
isolation for each drainage area with resulting large
uncertainties in the areas and coefficients. Accurate areas
and coefficients are obtained here by optimizing runoff
coefficients for characteristic Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) subareas within each drainage area so that
the resulting runoff coefficients of each drainage area are
consistent with those obtained from runoff and rainfall
volumes. Lack of fit can indicate that the ArcGIS infor-
mation is inaccurate or more likely, that the drainage area
needs adjustment. Results for 18 drainage areas in Mil-
waukee, WI for 2000–2004 indicate runoff coefficients
ranging from 0.123 for a mostly residential area to 0.679
for a freeway-related land, with a standard error of 0.047.
Optimized runoff coefficients are necessary input parame-
ters for monitoring, and for the analysis and design of in
situ stormwater unit operations and processes for the con-
trol of both urban runoff quantity and quality.
Keywords Stormwater runoff Á Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) Á Drainage areas Á Runoff coefficients
Stormwater runoff is characterized by source areas
and runoff volumes that have been determined
accurately by optimization and GIS technology.
Introduction
Stormwater runoff containing metals, bacteria, and nutri-
ents can have significant detrimental environmental
impacts on receiving waters and human health (Hipp and
others 2006; Park and Stenstrom 2006; Eriksson and others
2007; Lee and others 2007). This runoff is becoming more
severe because of the continuing development of urban
areas, which results in increased impervious surface area
(Weng 2001; Cristina and Sansalone 2003; Lee and Hea-
ney 2003; Hipp and others 2006). In response to this
growth, regulatory agencies are requiring stormwater
monitoring programs implemented through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to
quantify and eventually reduce stormwater runoff.
The runoff coefficient is an important factor for evalu-
ating stormwater runoff pollutant (Wong 2002; Kim and
others 2005; Sen and Altunkaynak 2006). The amount of
pollutant removed from a catchment is widely assumed to
be proportional to a function of the pollutant mass accu-
mulated on the effective area at the beginning of the storm
event (Alley 1981; Sartor and others 1974; Soonthornn-
onda and Christensen 2008). The effective area is a product
of runoff coefficient and catchment area. The runoff
coefficient is the percentage of precipitation that appears as
runoff, and thus can be calculated by dividing the runoff
volume by the volume of rainfall falling within an area
(Adams and Papa 2000).
The runoff volume depends mainly on levels of imper-
vious surfaces (Lee and Heaney 2003). Other factors
Y. Liu (&) Á P. Soonthornnonda Á J. Li Á E. R. Christensen
Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
e-mail: yang.liu@ualberta.ca
Present Address:
Y. Liu
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada
P. Soonthornnonda
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Srinakharinwirot University, Rangsit-Nakhon Nayok Rd.,
Klong 16 Ongkharak, Nakhon Nayok 26120, Thailand
1 3
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
DOI 10.1007/s00267-010-9591-2
include slopes and permeability of the soil, paving, or soil
saturation (Boyd and others 1993, 1994; McCuen 2004).
Location and connections of downspouts from roofs as well
as the layout of storm sewer lines may also impact the
volume of runoff discharged to the receiving waters. In
order to obtain an accurate estimate of the rainfall volume
entering the area, the size of the drainage area should be
well known.
Although fairly simple in principle, accurate estimation
of the drainage area is not always a simple matter, partic-
ularly in urban areas. One reason is that the storm sewer
network may not be well documented. Also, the topogra-
phy, including elevations and associated contour lines and
slopes of subareas can be difficult to obtain and will change
in cases of significant construction activities.
One of the most popular methods for computing the
amount of direct runoff from a given amount of rainfall is
the Soil Conservation Service-Curve Number (SCS-CN)
method (McCuen 1981). Although the method is designed
for a single storm event, it can be scaled to find average
annual runoff values. The curve number is based on the
area’s hydrologic soil group, land use and slope. However,
the runoff area must be well defined in order for this to be
useful.
The introduction of GIS to stormwater management
makes it possible to obtain an estimate of the magnitude of
the drainage area based on the selected GIS features of the
landscape such as contour lines and land use percentage
(Seth and others 2006). The drainage area may be esti-
mated based on runoff coefficients for the areas, along with
GIS contour data and storm sewer lines.
The runoff coefficient is related to the different land use
and hydrologic soil groups (Bronstert and others 2002;
Niehoff and others 2002; Dewan and others 2007; Kayh-
anian and others 2007). Typically, there are several land
use types and soil groups within each drainage area. In
order to find a representative runoff coefficient, an overall
runoff coefficient has to be determined using the area of the
different land use/hydrologic soil group complexes as the
weighting factor. However, runoff coefficients are usually
considered in isolation for each area without looking at
consistency in estimation between different drainage areas
(Brezonik and Stadelmann 2002; Sen and Altunkaynak
2006). Consistency here means that GIS subareas in dif-
ferent drainage areas have the same runoff coefficient ^a
j
for
j = 1, 2,.., 5, as shown in section 3.4, Eqs. 1 and 2.
The present work attempted to fill this gap by generating
optimized runoff coefficients for GIS subareas within each
drainage area such that runoff coefficients estimated from
runoff volume and drainage area are consistent with coef-
ficients based on the GIS subareas. In the process, we
developed accurate estimates of the sizes of the drainage
areas. We considered here 18 separate drainage areas
throughout the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-
trict’s (MMSD’s) service area and five different subareas
based on land use type, e.g., residential, roads, parking,
freeway-related, and outdoor recreational areas.
Site Description
The study areas are part of MMSD’s 416 square mile
(1077 km
2
) planning area (Fig. 1). The MMSD’s planning
area covers Milwaukee County and parts of Washington,
Ozaukee, Waukesha, and Racine Counties. Three rivers
(the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers)
run through the area, and their confluence leads to the
Milwaukee Harbor and Lake Michigan. On average,
the Milwaukee River has the highest flow, followed by the
Menomonee and the Kinnickinnic Rivers. Only ten percent
of the service area drains to the Mississippi River, with the
other ninety percent draining to Lake Michigan. The area is
heavily urbanized in the center but largely agricultural in
the northern and southern parts. Two-thirds of the service
Fig. 1 Stormwater monitoring sites and study area
202 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
area consists of commercial, industrial, residential, trans-
portation, infrastructure, and recreational (U.S. Geological
Survey 2004). The remaining areas are agricultural, for-
ested, wetlands, and open water.
We considered here eighteen storm sewer locations
throughout the study area representing a variety of land
uses (primarily urban in nature) with drainage areas of
different sizes (Table 1). The ranges of land use percent-
ages for the eighteen sites are: residential, governmental
services and institutional, 0–80.7% (average: 38.5%);
roads, 0–100% (average: 23.2%), parking, industrial busi-
ness and commercial, 0–68.6% (average: 15.7%); outdoor
recreational and open lands, 0–81.0% (average: 11.9%);
and freeway related land, communication and utilities,
0–70.2% (average: 10.5%). In addition, the breakdown of
percentages of each of the land uses is given in Table 2.
Data and Methods
Rainfall and Runoff Measurements
An assessment of relevant runoff coefficients was per-
formed based on actual simultaneous measurements of
both rainfall and runoff. An area velocity sensor (Isco
model no. 2150, Teledyne Isco, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska)
was used to measure runoff discharges at the study sites.
Runoff discharges were obtained during the period 2000 to
2004. A rain gauge station for each study site was selected
based on the minimum distance to the site. Distances
ranged from 1 to 15 km, with most being less than 6 km.
The relatively limited variability of the data of the scatter
diagram in Fig. 2 indicates that rainfall estimation is rea-
sonable and accurate within about a factor of 2.
A runoff coefficient for a given storm event was cal-
culated regardless of the depression storage volume as a
ratio of runoff volume to rainfall volume. Our previous
study showed that even though the depression storage is
excluded from the calculation of runoff coefficients, the
effective area, defined as a product of runoff coefficient
and catchment area, still remains valid (Soonthornnonda
and Christensen 2008).
The event runoff volume was derived by integration of a
runoff hydrograph through the storm event duration. The
storm duration was estimated as the period of time between
the starting point of each storm hydrograph and the point
where 10% of discharge peak value occurred at the
recession limb of the hydrograph (Soonthornnonda and
Christensen 2008). Storm event data were collected by
MMSD, generally from April to October during the period
2000–2004. Events and runoff coefficients used for this
study are shown in Appendix A. Rainfall estimates are in
fact reasonable which can be seen from the limited
variability of the runoff coefficients for each site. Most of
this variability is due to rainfall variability. From the rel-
ative error of the median it is estimated that the rainfall
induced error of the median runoff coefficient is between
0.009 and 0.014 which amounts to between 20 and 30% of
the standard error (0.047).
GIS Data
To facilitate a better understanding of the drainage pattern
of the study area, land use maps and elevation maps were
used. Regional land use data were obtained from the
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
(SEWRPC) (SEWRPC 2000). The land use data set con-
tains polygon features of land use. The polygon features
were delineated on 1 inch:400 feet scale aerial photographs
and board digitized. The land use polygons were identified
according to the SEWRPC land use classification system.
The land use data contain existing land use development of
the region mainly categorized by residential; commercial;
transportation, communication, and utilities; governmental
and institutional; recreational; and open lands.
Elevation maps are based on digital elevation model
(DEM) files. DEM was used to evaluate the drainage pat-
tern. Also, storm sewers are normally constructed along the
background slope. DEM of 30 meter spatial resolution was
used in this study. DEMs have raster grids which are
composed of regularly spaced elevation values derived
from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topo-
graphic map series (United States Geological Survey
Digital Elevation Models (USGS DEMs) 2000). Contour
lines are generated from elevation maps.
To calculate land use percentage, ArcGIS version 9.2
was used by calculating the area for each land use subarea
and dividing by the total drainage area. In some cases, the
aerial photographs were applied to clarify the land use
types. Aerial photographs were also used to affirm the
possible drainage pattern, later helping to define the
drainage boundary of a given catchment.
Storm Sewer Lines
Storm sewer lines were provided in several formats such as
hard copies, AutoCAD files, and ArcGIS shapefiles by
local communities, i.e., the city of Milwaukee (SWMI),
Franklin (SWFR), Whitefish Bay (SWWB), Greenfield
(SWGF), New Berlin (SWNB), Wauwatosa (SWWA), and
St. Francis (SWSF). Most storm sewer lines in the city of
Milwaukee were obtained from MMSD’s databases using
MicroStation. These databases are periodically updated by
the city of Milwaukee.
The sewer files in MicroStation were then converted into
AutoCAD files so that these files were compatible with
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 203
1 3
T
a
b
l
e
1
S
t
u
d
y
s
i
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
m
a
j
o
r
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
t
y
p
e
s
,
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
s
,
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
a
r
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
s
S
i
t
e
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
L
a
n
d
u
s
e
R
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
N
e
w
a
a
r
e
a
(
h
a
)
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
b
N
e
w
r
u
n
o
f
f
c
o
e
f

c
i
e
n
t
S
W
M
I
0
1
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
L
a
k
e
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
2
3
.
8
2
.
1
4
0
.
0
3
0
6
(
0
.
0
6
5
8
,
0
.
0
0
5
6
3
)
0
.
3
3
3
S
W
M
I
0
2
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
L
a
k
e
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
5
7
.
2
0
.
5
7
4
0
.
0
0
3
5
5
(
0
.
0
1
6
5
,
0
.
0
0
0
9
6
5
)
0
.
3
9
9
S
W
F
R
0
3
F
r
a
n
k
l
i
n
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
p
a
r
k
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
P
o
n
d
1
1
.
7
5
.
3
7
0
.
1
8
3
(
0
.
3
8
6
,
0
.
0
2
1
9
)
0
.
3
9
2
S
W
M
I
0
4
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
,
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
p
a
r
k
L
a
k
e
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
6
0
8
2
6
0
0
.
0
7
7
1
(
0
.
1
3
8
,
0
.
0
4
9
1
)
0
.
1
8
7
S
W
M
I
0
5
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
3
.
4
2
3
.
6
7
0
.
2
7
0
(
3
.
0
1
,
0
.
0
6
4
1
)
0
.
2
5
2
S
W
M
I
0
6
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
Z
o
o
,
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
U
n
d
e
r
w
o
o
d
C
r
e
e
k
1
0
.
6
3
8
.
9
2
.
1
8
(
1
6
.
1
,
0
.
7
2
1
)
0
.
5
9
7
S
W
M
I
0
7
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
C
r
e
e
k
1
8
.
4
2
5
6
3
.
7
1
(
8
.
2
9
,
0
.
3
3
5
)
0
.
2
6
6
S
W
M
I
0
8
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
L
i
n
c
o
l
n
C
r
e
e
k
2
1
.
2
3
2
0
3
.
4
1
(
8
.
9
9
,
0
.
9
6
2
)
0
.
2
2
5
S
W
W
B
9
W
h
i
t
e

s
h
B
a
y
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
L
a
k
e
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
5
7
.
4
4
6
.
0
0
.
0
9
8
0
(
0
.
2
0
1
,
0
.
0
0
2
2
4
)
0
.
1
2
5
S
W
G
F
1
0
G
r
e
e
n

e
l
d
B
o
e
r
n
e
r
b
o
t
a
n
i
c
a
l
g
a
r
d
e
n
s
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
D
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
P
o
n
d
7
1
.
4
1
.
4
7
0
.
0
0
8
6
5
(
0
.
0
2
2
0
,
0
.
0
0
1
6
4
)
0
.
4
8
6
S
W
N
B
1
1
N
e
w
B
e
r
l
i
n
N
e
w
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
D
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
P
o
n
d
7
3
.
9
6
.
9
9
0
.
0
1
5
1
(
0
.
0
4
9
4
,
0
.
0
0
6
0
4
)
0
.
2
1
1
S
W
M
I
1
2
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
H
o
n
e
y
C
r
e
e
k
3
8
.
8
1
7
.
5
0
.
0
8
1
3
(
0
.
1
6
7
,
0
.
0
3
1
0
)
0
.
1
7
7
S
W
W
A
1
3
W
a
u
w
a
t
o
s
a
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
M
e
n
o
m
o
n
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
2
0
.
5
4
3
.
3
0
.
2
6
5
(
0
.
5
0
5
,
0
.
0
1
5
9
)
0
.
1
2
3
S
W
S
F
1
4
S
t
.
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
L
a
k
e
M
i
c
h
i
g
a
n
2
1
.
5
3
.
4
4
0
.
0
3
4
1
(
0
.
0
5
8
1
,
0
.
0
0
3
4
6
)
0
.
1
8
7
S
W
M
I
1
5
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,

o
o
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
r
e
a
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
M
e
n
o
m
o
n
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
4
4
.
3
2
.
6
8
0
.
0
3
3
5
(
0
.
0
9
4
8
,
0
.
0
1
7
5
)
0
.
4
9
5
S
W
M
I
1
6
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
,
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
M
e
n
o
m
o
n
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
6
.
4
0
2
.
2
6
0
.
2
3
7
(
0
.
3
5
0
,
0
.
1
7
1
)
0
.
6
7
9
S
W
W
A
1
7
W
a
u
w
a
t
o
s
a
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
,
o
p
e
n
l
a
n
d
s
,
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
M
e
n
o
m
o
n
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
1
3
.
4
4
1
.
1
0
.
7
2
5
(
0
.
9
7
3
,
0
.
4
2
8
)
0
.
2
3
7
S
W
M
I
1
8
M
i
l
w
a
u
k
e
e
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
M
e
n
o
m
o
n
e
e
R
i
v
e
r
1
.
9
2
1
0
.
3
3
.
0
1
(
5
.
9
9
,
0
.
2
0
8
)
0
.
5
6
1
a
O
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
o
p
t
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
G
I
S
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
y
a
n
d
E
q
.
1
,
b
m
e
d
i
a
n
w
i
t
h
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
n
d
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
(
S
o
o
n
t
h
o
r
n
n
o
n
d
a
a
n
d
C
h
r
i
s
t
e
n
s
e
n
2
0
0
8
)
204 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
ArcGIS. Storm sewer line data contained useful informa-
tion such as slope, direction, location, manhole number,
and sewer pipe number. After converting the sewer files,
the storm sewer lines fitted along the local streets,
reflecting the compatibility. The GIS maps for 18 sites
were created by overlaying land use maps, elevation maps,
and stormsewer pipe lines. Contour lines were generated by
spatial analysis tools in ArcGIS, with intervals between
each contour line of 10 feet (3.05 m).
Initial estimates of runoff coefficients b were used as a
guide to determine if an area adjustment appeared to be
necessary, for example, if b was greater than one or it is
very small. The first estimate of b was obtained by
dividing total runoff volume by the volume of rainfall
falling onto the initially estimated drainage area. Because
the occurrence of extraneous inflows (illegal connection of
untreated sanitary sewage and/or ground water infiltration)
was only a minor concern in the study area, unreasonable b
values can be explained by ill-defined original drainage
areas.
A large b may indicate underestimation of drainage
areas, while a very small b may imply overestimation of
the drainage area. Area adjustments were guided in part by
GIS, considering sewer lines and topography information.
By integrating sewer lines and topography information into
the GIS, the area adjustments were done by re-outlining the
drainage boundary.
Optimizing Runoff Coefficients for Characteristic
Subareas
Drainage areas and runoff coefficients were adjusted so
that they became consistent with runoff coefficients cal-
culated based on optimized runoff coefficients for each GIS
subarea j of a specific land use type. Percent land use data
Table 2 New drainage areas, runoff coefficients, and percent land use for 18 sites
Site New
area (ha)
New runoff
coefficient b
Percent land use
Residential,
governmental
services and
institutional
Freeway
related land,
communication
and utilities
Parking, industrial,
business and
commercial
Roads Outdoor
recreational,
open lands
SWMI01 2.14 0.333 0.953 9.59 2.77 81.0 5.67
SWMI02 0.574 0.399 0 18.9 0 40.1 41.0
SWFR03 5.37 0.392 0 0 38.5 29.8 31.7
SWMI 04 260 0.187 69.1 1.90 13.1 6.38 8.76
SWMI 05 3.67 0.252 65.6 0 9.05 23.1 2.21
SWMI06 38.9 0.597 0 0 28.9 0 70.2
SWMI 07 256 0.266 49.5 0 18.2 22.0 10.1
SWMI 08 320 0.225 63.4 0.834 5.08 27.2 3.53
SWWB09 46.0 0.125 73.5 0 0.770 25.7 0
SWGF10 1.47 0.486 0 0 81.8 18.2 0
SWNB 11 6.99 0.211 80.7 0 0 19.3 0
SWMI 12 17.5 0.177 69.8 0 0 27.7 2.55
SWWA13 43.3 0.123 70.4 0 0 29.6 0
SWSF14 3.44 0.187 75.0 0 0 25.0 0
SWMI 15 2.68 0.495 31.9 30.6 0 17.4 19.3
SWMI 16 2.26 0.679 0 100 0 0 0
SWWA17 41.1 0.237 43.1 5.86 15.1 19.4 15.9
SWMI 18 10.3 0.561 0 21.6 68.6 5.79 4.02
0.1
1
10
100
1000
10000
100000
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Volume (calculated from rainfall), m
3
V
o
l
u
m
e

(
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
d

r
u
n
o
f
f
)
,

m
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Site No.
Fig. 2 Measured and calculated (rainfall-based) runoff volumes for
18 sites during 2000–2004
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 205
1 3
from Table 2 was used to formulate the following opti-
mization model:
Minimize S ¼
X
18
i¼1
ðb
i
À
^
b
i
Þ
2
ð1Þ
where
^
b
i
¼
X
5
j¼1
f
ij
Á ^a
j
i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .; 18 ð2Þ
subject to
X
5
j¼1
f
ij
¼ 1 i ¼ 1; 2; 3; . . .; 18 and 0 ^a
j
1 ð3Þ
In these equations, b
i
and
^
b
i
are measured and the model
predicted runoff coefficients, respectively, for drainage
area i. And ^a
j
are the runoff coefficients for the GIS
subarea of type j. The area percentage of land use of type
j in the drainage area i is f
ij
. By using guessed initial values
of ^a
j
for the jth land use based on general runoff coefficient
information about each subarea (McCuen 2004),
^
b
i
was
estimated using the fractional area distribution f
ij
for the jth
land use of site i (Eq. 2).
The Solver command in Microsoft Excel was used to
find the optimized solutions ^a
j
(minimum S value) for the
sum of squares of differences between the measured and
the calculated runoff coefficients (Eq. 1). Equation 3
denotes the constraints of the objective function (Eq. 1).
Additionally, in order to examine whether the solutions
were unique, additional calculations were performed with
different start values for runoff coefficients of GIS
subareas.
Results and Discussion
Measured and Calculated Runoff Volumes
Initial and final drainage areas, including runoff coeffi-
cients are listed in Table 1. Median runoff coefficients
were calculated based on runoff coefficients for each event
(Appendix A, Table 5). Figure 2 shows a plot of the
measured runoff volume versus the calculated runoff vol-
ume based on rainfall, new areas and new median runoff
coefficients for 372 storm events in 18 monitoring catch-
ments. A point on the 45
o
line indicates that the event
runoff coefficient equals the median value. A point above
this line reflects a larger coefficient, and a point below a
smaller value. As shown in the figure, runoff coefficients
were nearly constant and equal to the median value for a
given area at all events (r
2
= 0.897). One exception is site
SWWB09 (Whitefish Bay, residential and open lands) with
low runoff coefficients, which generally may be attributed
to low rainfall events where depression volumes can give
low measured runoff volume.
Spatial Analysis and Drainage Area for Milwaukee
County Zoo
An example of drainage area adjustment suggested by a
high runoff coefficient (2.18) pointing to an underestimated
drainage area is shown here for the Milwaukee County
Zoo. The GIS map of site SWMI06, Milwaukee County
Zoo, is shown in Fig. 3.
Red lines indicate the original estimated drainage area,
and the blue lines enclose the new area that is estimated
based on the sewer pipe lines. As shown in Fig. 3, the
feature of a landscape (e.g., pattern of terrain and slope)
represented by contour lines was not able to fully reflect the
complete drainage pattern for site SWMI06. By contrast,
GIS maps of the drainage area’s infrastructures (buildings,
streets, and storm sewers) and natural condition (impervi-
ousness) showed a different picture. The new area was
decided upon based on the information about storm sewer
lines, and the topographic characteristics of this site.
Different land use types are represented by different
colors in polygons. Specific subarea types include resi-
dential, business and commercial, industrial, freeway
related land, roads, parking, transportation, communica-
tions and utilities, governmental services and institutional,
outdoor recreational, and open lands. In the new area of site
SWMI06, the major land use type is outdoor recreational,
and is 55% of the total area. The parking and open lands
are 29% and 16% of the total drainage area, respectively.
The original area was 10.6 ha, and the new area is 3.67
times higher, 38.9 ha. The runoff coefficient is therefore
reduced by the same factor so that it becomes 2.18/
3.67 = 0.597 (Table 1) which compares well to the model
predicted value of 0.546 (Fig. 4).
Model Predicted Runoff Coefficients (Optimization)
Other examples of drainage area adjustments prompted in
part by the lack of fit of calculated to measured runoff
coefficients were for the Whitefish Bay site, SWWB09 and
for the Boerner botanical gardens parking lot, SWGF10.
Through inspection of the GIS map of site SWWB09
(Soonthornnonda 2007), it became clear that the drainage
area was overestimated (57.4 ha), and that it should be
reduced in the north end and extended to the south of the
original area to cover the storm sewer lines. The modified
runoff coefficient of SWWB09 based on the new drainage
area (46.0 ha) was adjusted from 0.100 to 0.125. The cal-
culated runoff coefficient was 0.166 (Fig. 4).
206 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
For the botanical garden site SWGF10, we originally
included a large area east of the parking lot so that the total
area was 71.4 ha, producing a median runoff coefficient of
0.01. However, inspection of the GIS map and field
observations revealed that most of the eastern area was on a
downwards slope towards the east, preventing the runoff
from entering the drainage pipe just south of the parking lot
(Soonthornnonda 2007). The new area included the main
area of the parking lot (1.47 ha) giving a runoff coefficient
of 0.486, significantly less than the calculated value of
0.580. By replacing the parking with the more realistic
81.8% parking and 18.2% roads (Table 2), the calculated
runoff coefficient was reduced to a better fitting value of
0.472 (Fig. 4). This change was justified by aerial photo-
graphs and field inspection, revealing grassy areas subdi-
viding the parking lot. The standard error of the calculated
runoff coefficients
^
b
i
for each drainage area was 0.047
(Fig. 4). To emphasize that both measured and model
predicted runoff coefficient have errors we have here
shown the uncertainty bars with the measured values.
Optimized values of the GIS subarea runoff coefficients
are shown in Table 3. These values were found to be
independent of initial guessed values. Standard errors were
obtained by considering uncertainties of subdivisions by
land use type. Error estimation using Solver was conducted
using a Monte Carlo approach in which ten sets of varia-
tions of land use coefficients f
ij
based on the data of
Table 2 were considered. For f
ij
\65%, the average rela-
tive error of f
ij
was 10%, and for 65%\f
ij
\100%, 5%.
The resulting relative errors of the runoff coefficients ^a
j
for
the GIS subareas were less than 4%.
The runoff coefficients for GIS subareas listed in Table 3
may be compared with runoff coefficients for the rational
formula versus land use type and soil group from McCuen
(2004) (Table 4). The average of 0.141 for residential,
governmental services and institutional land uses compares
well with residential lot, soil type A, 0–2% slope, storm
recurrence interval s \25 years, especially when some
meadow and forested areas are included. For freeway
related land, communication and utilities, the value of 0.697
Fig. 3 Land use map with
elevation and storm sewer
information for site SWMI06,
Milwaukee County Zoo
(Regional land use data were
obtained from the Southeastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning
Commission (SEWRPC) 2000)
Fig. 4 Comparison of measured runoff coefficient b and calculated
runoff coefficient
^
b (uncertainty bars show the standard error for each
drainage area)
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 207
1 3
is in general agreement with runoff coefficients for streets,
soil types A–C, 0–6% slope, also with s \25 years.
Considering parking, industrial, business and commer-
cial areas, the coefficient of 0.527 compares reasonably
well with runoff coefficients in Table 4 for parking and
commercial areas along with some meadow areas reflecting
grass and planted areas. Likewise, the coefficient for roads,
0.226, should be viewed not just to reflect streets but also
encompassing planted areas in the middle of divided
highways, as well as curbside grass and trees: that is,
meadow and forest. The last category, outdoor and recre-
ational and open lands with a runoff coefficient of 0.561
should be compared with streets, meadow and open space
to include paved recreational areas as in the Milwaukee
County Zoo (Fig. 3).
Conclusion
The runoff coefficients for the 18 drainage areas are well
determined (Fig. 4). The new estimated drainage area sizes
provide a better understanding of the drainage pattern and
present information required for decision making and best
stormwater management practices (BMPs). From the above
discussion, the runoff coefficients of the GIS subareas
(Table 3) are also reasonable. Prediction of runoff coeffi-
cient for drainage areas in different geographic regions and
different climate by Eq. 2 may be possible if soil types,
slopes, and rainfall patterns are similar. Application of the
present methodology to areas with different values of these
parameters may be feasible using well-known empirical
corrections (McCuen 2004).
This study provided a novel method to determine runoff
coefficients for each GIS subarea, which was then used in
the calculation of runoff coefficients for each drainage area
according to Eqs. 1 and 2. This gives consistency in the
estimation; i.e., the same runoff coefficient for a particular
subarea such as roads is used in each drainage area.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District (M03023E01). We thank Urbain
Boudjou, Mary Singer, Christopher Magruder, Sara Hackbarth, and
Sarah Seifert for helpful discussions.
Appendix A
See Table 5.
Table 3 Model predicted values of the runoff coefficient ^aand
standard error for various land uses
GIS land use type Runoff
coefficient ^a
Standard
error
Residential, governmental services
and institutional
0.141 0.002
Freeway related land, communication
and utilities
0.697 0.005
Parking, industrial, business and
commercial
0.527 0.017
Roads 0.226 0.003
Outdoor recreational, open lands 0.561 0.002
Table 4 Runoff coefficients for the rational formula versus hydro-
logical soil group (A, B, C) modified after McCuen (1998)
Land use type A B C
0–2%
a
2–6% 0–2% 2–6% 0–2% 2–6%
Meadow 0.10
b
0.16 0.14 0.22 0.20 0.28
0.14
c
0.22 0.20 0.28 0.26 0.35
Forest 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.13
0.08 0.11 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.16
Residential lot 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.25
0.33 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.38 0.42
Industrial 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69
0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86
Commercial 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72
0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89
Streets 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73
0.76 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85
Open space 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.12 0.17
0.11 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.23
Parking 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.86
0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96
a
Slope,
b
runoff coefficients for storm recurrence intervals less than
25 years,
c
runoff coefficients for storm recurrence intervals of
25 years or longer
Table 5 Rainfall events with runoff coefficients
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
1 1 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 3:00 14 139 24.6 0.264 0.333
1 2 5/16/2001 1:00 5/16/2001 4:00 3 84.1 6.35 0.618 0.333
1 3 5/21/2001 8:00 5/21/2001 15:00 7 83.6 5.33 0.733 0.333
208 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
1 4 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 9:00 13 229 24.6 0.434 0.333
1 5 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 475 46 0.483 0.333
1 6 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 96.1 20.1 0.224 0.333
1 7 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 227 21.8 0.486 0.333
1 8 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 5:00 15 371 40.1 0.432 0.333
1 9 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 36.4 17.8 0.096 0.333
1 10 8/12/2002 18:00 8/13/2002 1:00 7 391 53.1 0.344 0.333
1 11 8/21/2002 19:00 8/21/2002 21:00 2 163 14.7 0.517 0.333
1 12 8/21/2002 22:00 8/22/2002 1:00 3 68.9 10.9 0.295 0.333
1 13 10/4/2002 4:00 10/4/2002 13:00 9 19.4 14.5 0.062 0.333
1 14 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 47.2 8.64 0.255 0.333
1 15 10/24/2003 14:00 10/24/2003 22:00 8 113 15.5 0.340 0.333
1 16 4/17/2004 1:00 4/17/2004 4:00 3 43.1 6.6 0.305 0.333
1 17 6/10/2004 11:00 6/10/2004 16:00 5 98.7 23.4 0.197 0.333
2 18 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 19:00 4 3.72 4.06 0.159 0.399
2 19 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 24.9 25.7 0.169 0.399
2 20 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 1.68 3.05 0.096 0.399
2 21 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 21:00 2 6.27 2.54 0.429 0.399
2 22 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 13.1 10.4 0.219 0.399
2 23 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 1.99 1.52 0.228 0.399
2 24 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 3.26 1.78 0.319 0.399
2 25 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 3.92 1.27 0.538 0.399
2 26 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 2.45 0.51 0.836 0.399
2 27 5/21/2001 8:00 5/21/2001 15:00 7 8.26 5.33 0.270 0.399
2 28 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 1.53 1.27 0.209 0.399
2 29 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 40.8 20.1 0.354 0.399
2 30 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 111 35.1 0.550 0.399
2 31 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 112 19.8 0.983 0.399
2 32 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 10:00 11 91.3 42.9 0.369 0.399
2 33 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 108 11.4 1.654 0.399
2 34 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 76.1 10.9 1.216 0.399
2 35 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 15.8 7.87 0.350 0.399
2 36 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 31.4 6.1 0.896 0.399
3 37 10/23/2000 12:00 10/23/2000 14:00 2 13.9 1.02 0.255 0.392
3 38 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 0:00 11 557 24.4 0.425 0.392
3 39 11/9/2000 0:00 11/9/2000 8:00 8 94.7 10.4 0.170 0.392
3 40 11/29/2000 2:00 11/29/2000 7:00 5 15.6 6.1 0.047 0.392
3 41 4/5/2001 14:00 4/5/2001 18:00 4 99.7 4.32 0.429 0.392
3 42 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 627 27.7 0.421 0.392
3 43 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 11.6 1.52 0.142 0.392
3 44 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 20:00 1 56 2.03 0.514 0.392
3 45 4/30/2001 13:00 4/30/2001 15:00 2 42.6 3.05 0.259 0.392
3 46 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 35.9 2.29 0.292 0.392
3 47 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 14:00 3 373 11.2 0.619 0.392
3 48 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 95.8 3.56 0.501 0.392
3 49 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 15:00 5 586 23.6 0.462 0.392
3 50 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 136 6.6 0.383 0.392
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 209
1 3
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
3 51 5/23/2001 12:00 5/23/2001 14:00 2 101 3.81 0.492 0.392
3 52 5/26/2001 18:00 5/27/2001 12:00 18 479 25.7 0.346 0.392
3 53 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 2273 50.3 0.841 0.392
3 54 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 360 17.3 0.388 0.392
3 55 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 95.8 26.9 0.066 0.392
3 56 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 125 47 0.049 0.392
3 57 6/3/2002 3:00 6/3/2002 9:00 6 201 29.5 0.127 0.392
3 58 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 512 27.4 0.349 0.392
3 59 8/12/2002 19:00 8/13/2002 0:00 5 298 51.3 0.108 0.392
3 60 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 15:00 20 871 41.1 0.394 0.392
3 61 10/1/2002 22:00 10/2/2002 4:00 6 218 10.2 0.399 0.392
3 62 10/4/2002 7:00 10/4/2002 13:00 6 260 10.4 0.464 0.392
3 63 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 15:00 3 186 6.1 0.569 0.392
3 64 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 504 12.2 0.769 0.392
3 65 10/24/2003 14:00 10/24/2003 22:00 8 324 13.7 0.440 0.392
3 66 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 216 7.87 0.510 0.392
3 67 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 311 11.2 0.519 0.392
4 68 11/6/2000 17:00 11/7/2000 3:00 10 9049 23.4 0.149 0.187
4 69 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 14:00 15 13955 21.6 0.248 0.187
4 70 5/16/2001 1:00 5/16/2001 4:00 3 5328 6.35 0.323 0.187
4 71 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 9:00 13 10083 24.6 0.158 0.187
4 72 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 25021 46 0.209 0.187
4 73 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 7921 20.1 0.152 0.187
4 74 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 10367 21.8 0.183 0.187
4 75 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 9:00 10 26012 46.2 0.217 0.187
4 76 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 1:00 11 18705 39.9 0.180 0.187
4 77 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 10518 17.8 0.227 0.187
4 78 8/12/2002 18:00 8/13/2002 1:00 7 28507 53.1 0.206 0.187
4 79 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 11:00 16 16265 41.1 0.152 0.187
4 80 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 3061 8.64 0.136 0.187
4 81 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 5:00 4 2045 6.86 0.115 0.187
4 82 4/17/2004 1:00 4/17/2004 4:00 3 2597 6.6 0.151 0.187
4 83 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 5840 11.9 0.189 0.187
4 84 6/10/2004 7:00 6/11/2004 12:00 29 19023 40.6 0.180 0.187
5 85 10/23/2000 20:00 10/23/2000 22:00 2 19.4 3.81 0.139 0.252
5 86 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 15:00 16 129 16.8 0.210 0.252
5 87 11/29/2000 1:00 11/29/2000 14:00 13 197 12.4 0.433 0.252
5 88 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 19:00 4 39 4.06 0.262 0.252
5 89 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 368 25.7 0.390 0.252
5 90 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 34.4 3.05 0.308 0.252
5 91 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 21:00 2 49.6 2.54 0.532 0.252
5 92 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 88.3 10.4 0.231 0.252
5 93 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 15.9 1.52 0.284 0.252
5 94 5/7/2001 10:00 5/7/2001 14:00 4 141 15.2 0.253 0.252
5 95 5/10/2001 20:00 5/11/2001 0:00 4 178 20.1 0.241 0.252
5 96 5/14/2001 11:00 5/14/2001 14:00 3 135 15.2 0.241 0.252
5 97 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 11.1 1.27 0.238 0.252
210 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
5 98 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 52.3 0.51 2.796 0.252
5 99 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 10.7 1.27 0.228 0.252
5 100 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 240 20.1 0.325 0.252
5 101 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 313 35.1 0.242 0.252
5 102 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 168 19.8 0.231 0.252
5 103 8/9/2001 16:00 8/9/2001 18:00 2 47.9 21.8 0.060 0.252
5 104 10/22/2001 15:00 10/23/2001 0:00 9 392 42.4 0.252 0.252
5 105 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 156 11.4 0.374 0.252
5 106 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 262 10.4 0.687 0.252
5 107 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 44.4 10.9 0.111 0.252
6 108 10/23/2000 20:00 10/23/2000 21:00 1 253 3.3 0.197 0.597
6 109 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 14:00 15 2614 18.3 0.365 0.597
6 110 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 8346 28.7 0.744 0.597
6 111 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 648 1.27 1.308 0.597
6 112 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 3019 16.3 0.474 0.597
6 113 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 545 1.52 0.918 0.597
6 114 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 2526 9.4 0.689 0.597
6 115 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 1734 3.3 1.346 0.597
6 116 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 6288 24.4 0.659 0.597
6 117 5/16/2001 2:00 5/16/2001 4:00 2 1139 4.06 0.719 0.597
6 118 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 4338 13 0.856 0.597
6 119 5/23/2001 12:00 5/23/2001 14:00 2 1306 0.76 4.414 0.597
6 120 5/26/2001 19:00 5/27/2001 8:00 13 7058 12.4 1.458 0.597
6 121 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 6:00 9 16561 57.7 0.736 0.597
6 122 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 3113 15.2 0.526 0.597
6 123 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 8083 36.6 0.567 0.597
6 124 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 22:00 3 672 3.3 0.523 0.597
6 125 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 2:00 2 3431 19.1 0.461 0.597
6 126 8/12/2002 16:00 8/12/2002 23:00 7 15991 81.5 0.501 0.597
6 127 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 14:00 19 10296 45.7 0.578 0.597
6 128 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 4745 16.5 0.736 0.597
6 129 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 1829 8.38 0.559 0.597
6 130 4/30/2003 11:00 4/30/2003 14:00 3 1754 7.37 0.610 0.597
6 131 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 1922 11.7 0.420 0.597
6 132 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 2389 18.5 0.330 0.597
6 133 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 847 8.38 0.259 0.597
6 134 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 1444 15 0.247 0.597
6 135 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 10:00 3 3747 15 0.640 0.597
6 136 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 14:00 29 9005 43.7 0.529 0.597
6 137 7/21/2004 11:00 7/21/2004 14:00 3 608 1.78 0.875 0.597
6 138 8/24/2004 6:00 8/24/2004 8:00 2 766 0.76 2.583 0.597
6 139 10/22/2004 22:00 10/23/2004 11:00 13 3201 15 0.548 0.597
7 140 11/2/2000 5:00 11/2/2000 7:00 2 178 1.78 0.039 0.266
7 141 11/9/2000 0:00 11/9/2000 14:00 14 2622 15.2 0.067 0.266
7 142 11/16/2000 4:00 11/16/2000 8:00 4 109 1.78 0.024 0.266
7 143 11/29/2000 3:00 11/29/2000 14:00 11 2593 11.7 0.087 0.266
7 144 4/5/2001 16:00 4/5/2001 18:00 2 2387 3.56 0.262 0.266
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 211
1 3
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
7 145 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 27114 25.1 0.423 0.266
7 146 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 3093 2.03 0.596 0.266
7 147 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 11270 12.7 0.347 0.266
7 148 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 770 1.52 0.198 0.266
7 149 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 1039 1.52 0.267 0.266
7 150 5/14/2001 11:00 5/14/2001 14:00 3 9017 15.7 0.225 0.266
7 151 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 4190 3.3 0.497 0.266
7 152 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 6913 6.6 0.410 0.266
7 153 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 4460 5.59 0.312 0.266
7 154 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 24485 25.4 0.377 0.266
7 155 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 50241 41.1 0.478 0.266
7 156 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 6951 14 0.194 0.266
7 157 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 8:00 9 13508 27.9 0.190 0.266
7 158 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 38125 38.1 0.392 0.266
7 159 6/2/2002 19:00 6/3/2002 9:00 14 27008 27.7 0.382 0.266
7 160 8/4/2002 3:00 8/4/2002 5:00 2 2180 4.32 0.198 0.266
7 161 8/12/2002 17:00 8/12/2002 23:00 6 39139 54.9 0.279 0.266
7 162 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 13:00 18 38126 50.3 0.297 0.266
7 163 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 5785 8.64 0.262 0.266
7 164 10/1/2002 22:00 10/2/2002 5:00 7 5940 9.65 0.241 0.266
7 165 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 5081 7.37 0.270 0.266
7 166 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 5288 9.65 0.214 0.266
8 167 11/2/2000 4:00 11/2/2000 7:00 3 310 1.52 0.064 0.225
8 168 11/16/2000 5:00 11/16/2000 8:00 3 597 2.54 0.074 0.225
8 169 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 9390 27.2 0.108 0.225
8 170 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 1084 1.02 0.333 0.225
8 171 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 21:00 3 2273 2.54 0.280 0.225
8 172 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 12614 29 0.136 0.225
8 173 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 748 1.02 0.229 0.225
8 174 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 14:00 3 5787 13.5 0.134 0.225
8 175 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 1434 1.78 0.252 0.225
8 176 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 16767 21.1 0.248 0.225
8 177 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 1144 1.78 0.201 0.225
8 178 5/17/2001 17:00 5/17/2001 19:00 2 1940 3.56 0.170 0.225
8 179 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 6765 9.14 0.232 0.225
8 180 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 1934 1.02 0.593 0.225
8 181 5/26/2001 22:00 5/27/2001 8:00 10 14727 16.8 0.274 0.225
8 182 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 36269 40.9 0.278 0.225
8 183 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 9511 17.5 0.170 0.225
8 184 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 10:00 11 25309 35.1 0.226 0.225
8 185 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 15116 36.6 0.129 0.225
9 186 10/23/2000 20:00 10/23/2000 22:00 2 55 5.08 0.024 0.125
9 187 11/2/2000 5:00 11/2/2000 7:00 2 9.07 1.78 0.011 0.125
9 188 11/16/2000 6:00 11/16/2000 8:00 2 10.5 2.54 0.009 0.125
9 189 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 181 2.79 0.141 0.125
9 190 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 21:00 2 194 2.79 0.151 0.125
9 191 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 75.4 1.27 0.130 0.125
212 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
9 192 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 1072 18.5 0.126 0.125
9 193 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 120 1.52 0.172 0.125
9 194 5/17/2001 17:00 5/17/2001 19:00 2 188 2.03 0.201 0.125
9 195 5/26/2001 21:00 5/27/2001 8:00 11 873 29 0.066 0.125
9 196 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 2307 36.3 0.139 0.125
9 197 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 984 18 0.119 0.125
9 198 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 10:00 11 2057 30.7 0.146 0.125
9 199 6/2/2002 19:00 6/3/2002 9:00 14 3903 49.5 0.172 0.125
9 200 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 2:00 2 256 2.29 0.243 0.125
9 201 8/12/2002 17:00 8/12/2002 23:00 6 2724 63.2 0.094 0.125
9 202 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 12.3 7.62 0.004 0.125
9 203 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 31.9 8.89 0.008 0.125
9 204 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 587 5.08 0.251 0.125
9 205 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 6.52 5.08 0.003 0.125
9 206 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 725 16.8 0.094 0.125
9 207 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 360 7.87 0.100 0.125
10 208 11/2/2000 4:00 11/2/2000 7:00 3 19.8 2.29 0.588 0.486
10 209 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 0:00 11 375 23.9 1.069 0.486
10 210 4/5/2001 14:00 4/5/2001 18:00 4 37.6 6.1 0.420 0.486
10 211 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 1:00 1 34.8 2.79 0.850 0.486
10 212 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 69 5.84 0.806 0.486
10 213 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 53.5 10.7 0.340 0.486
10 214 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 28.5 3.3 0.588 0.486
10 215 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 295 23.6 0.850 0.486
10 216 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 11.2 3.81 0.200 0.486
10 217 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 92.7 7.11 0.889 0.486
10 218 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 156 14.2 0.748 0.486
10 219 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 58.8 15.2 0.263 0.486
10 220 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 176 26.9 0.444 0.486
10 221 10/22/2001 15:00 10/23/2001 1:00 10 178 33 0.367 0.486
10 222 6/3/2002 4:00 6/3/2002 9:00 5 122 22.9 0.364 0.486
10 223 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 124 46.5 0.182 0.486
10 224 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 224 45.5 0.335 0.486
10 225 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 12:00 17 46.9 37.6 0.085 0.486
10 226 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 9.53 8.13 0.080 0.486
10 227 4/30/2003 6:00 4/30/2003 8:00 2 7.85 3.3 0.162 0.486
10 228 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 152 19.3 0.539 0.486
10 229 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 5:00 3 68.2 8.13 0.573 0.486
10 230 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 62.8 7.37 0.578 0.486
10 231 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 5:00 20 138 25.4 0.370 0.486
10 232 7/21/2004 12:00 7/21/2004 14:00 2 31.4 8.64 0.247 0.486
10 233 8/24/2004 6:00 8/24/2004 7:00 1 27.7 3.3 0.573 0.486
10 234 10/22/2004 22:00 10/23/2004 11:00 13 86 17 0.344 0.486
11 235 11/2/2000 4:00 11/2/2000 7:00 3 13.7 2.29 0.086 0.211
11 236 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 4:00 15 285 24.1 0.169 0.211
11 237 11/9/2000 0:00 11/9/2000 14:00 14 195 15.7 0.178 0.211
11 238 4/5/2001 14:00 4/5/2001 18:00 4 28.6 6.1 0.067 0.211
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 213
1 3
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
11 239 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 620 27.2 0.327 0.211
11 240 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 1:00 1 26.1 2.79 0.134 0.211
11 241 4/11/2001 5:00 4/11/2001 20:00 15 606 20.1 0.431 0.211
11 242 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 20:00 2 14.7 3.3 0.064 0.211
11 243 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 52.3 5.84 0.128 0.211
11 244 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 6:00 1 29.1 1.27 0.328 0.211
11 245 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 102 10.7 0.136 0.211
11 246 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 36 3.3 0.156 0.211
11 247 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 42.6 3.81 0.160 0.211
11 248 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 22 2.29 0.137 0.211
11 249 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 90 7.11 0.181 0.211
11 250 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 53 1.52 0.499 0.211
11 251 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 142 14.2 0.143 0.211
11 252 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 182 15.2 0.171 0.211
11 253 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 106 10.2 0.149 0.211
11 254 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 434 26.9 0.232 0.211
11 255 10/22/2001 15:00 10/23/2001 1:00 10 1204 33 0.522 0.211
11 256 6/3/2002 4:00 6/3/2002 9:00 5 283 22.9 0.177 0.211
11 257 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 804 46.5 0.247 0.211
11 258 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 795 45.5 0.251 0.211
11 259 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 14:00 19 504 37.8 0.191 0.211
11 260 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 97.5 8.13 0.171 0.211
11 261 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 57.1 7.11 0.115 0.211
11 262 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 5:00 3 41.6 8.13 0.073 0.211
11 263 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 83.1 7.37 0.162 0.211
11 264 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 5:00 20 208 25.4 0.117 0.211
11 265 7/21/2004 12:00 7/21/2004 14:00 2 67.3 8.64 0.111 0.211
11 266 8/24/2004 6:00 8/24/2004 7:00 1 17.1 3.3 0.074 0.211
11 267 10/22/2004 22:00 10/23/2004 11:00 13 114 17 0.096 0.211
12 268 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 0:00 11 802 25.1 0.182 0.177
12 269 11/28/2000 23:00 11/29/2000 15:00 16 141 10.2 0.079 0.177
12 270 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 18:00 3 115 4.83 0.136 0.177
12 271 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 1369 30.2 0.259 0.177
12 272 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 1:00 1 67.9 2.79 0.139 0.177
12 273 4/11/2001 5:00 4/11/2001 10:00 5 89.5 4.32 0.118 0.177
12 274 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 208 10.4 0.114 0.177
12 275 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 34.5 1.52 0.130 0.177
12 276 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 294 9.4 0.178 0.177
12 277 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 118 6.6 0.102 0.177
12 278 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 173 7.11 0.139 0.177
12 279 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 27.5 2.29 0.069 0.177
12 280 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 9:00 13 366 19.3 0.108 0.177
12 281 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 6:00 9 3919 60.5 0.370 0.177
12 282 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 655 15.5 0.242 0.177
12 283 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 18:00 1 303 4.83 0.359 0.177
12 284 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 10:00 12 1361 33.8 0.231 0.177
12 285 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 4:00 14 1918 38.6 0.284 0.177
214 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
12 286 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 22:00 3 40.4 2.54 0.091 0.177
12 287 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 5:00 5 1558 42.4 0.210 0.177
12 288 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 3173 68.3 0.266 0.177
12 289 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 12:00 17 2004 44.2 0.259 0.177
12 290 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 526 13 0.231 0.177
12 291 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 277 7.11 0.222 0.177
12 292 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 310 7.62 0.233 0.177
12 293 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 372 15.7 0.135 0.177
13 294 11/8/2000 21:00 11/9/2000 14:00 17 717 19.3 0.086 0.123
13 295 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 18:00 3 213 3.81 0.129 0.123
13 296 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 20:00 2 218 4.57 0.110 0.123
13 297 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 12:00 7 900 15.7 0.133 0.123
13 298 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 14:00 3 604 7.62 0.183 0.123
13 299 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 92.2 2.29 0.093 0.123
13 300 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 1457 22.1 0.152 0.123
13 301 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 122 3.56 0.079 0.123
13 302 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 360 3.56 0.233 0.123
13 303 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 867 8.38 0.239 0.123
13 304 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 186 2.03 0.211 0.123
13 305 5/26/2001 21:00 5/27/2001 8:00 11 1202 16 0.174 0.123
13 306 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 297 51.6 0.013 0.123
13 307 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 506 16.8 0.070 0.123
13 308 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 102 31.5 0.008 0.123
13 309 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 207 40.4 0.012 0.123
13 310 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 22:00 3 58.9 3.81 0.036 0.123
13 311 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 0:00 5 1826 27.2 0.155 0.123
13 312 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 475 11.7 0.094 0.123
13 313 10/1/2002 23:00 10/2/2002 5:00 6 874 11.9 0.169 0.123
13 314 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 395 9.65 0.095 0.123
13 315 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 542 8.64 0.145 0.123
13 316 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 305 9.65 0.073 0.123
13 317 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 9:00 2 1416 15.7 0.208 0.123
13 318 6/10/2004 8:00 6/11/2004 12:00 28 2274 41.9 0.125 0.123
14 319 11/6/2000 17:00 11/7/2000 0:00 7 106 23.1 0.134 0.187
14 320 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 14:00 15 157 21.6 0.212 0.187
14 321 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 72.9 5.84 0.363 0.187
14 322 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 439 46 0.278 0.187
14 323 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 102 20.1 0.148 0.187
14 324 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 160 21.8 0.213 0.187
14 325 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 5:00 15 310 40.1 0.225 0.187
14 326 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 138 17.8 0.225 0.187
14 327 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 182 52.8 0.100 0.187
14 328 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 11:00 16 486 41.1 0.344 0.187
14 329 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 10.4 14 0.022 0.187
15 330 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 18:00 3 51.2 4.06 0.471 0.495
15 331 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 35.9 2.03 0.661 0.495
15 332 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 20:00 2 36.8 3.81 0.360 0.495
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 215
1 3
References
Adams BJ, Papa F (2000) Urban stormwater management planning
with analytical probabilistic models. Wiley, New York, p 376
Alley WM (1981) Estimation of impervious-area washoff parameters.
Water Resources Research 17(4):1161–1166
Boyd MJ, Bufill MC, Knee RM (1993) Pervious and impervious
runoff in urban catchments. Hydrological Sciences Journal—
Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques 38:463–478
Boyd MJ, Bufill MC, Knee RM (1994) Predicting pervious and
impervious storm runoff from urban drainage basins. Hydrolog-
ical Sciences Journal—Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques
39:321–332
Table 5 continued
Site Event
no.
Event start Event end Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m
3
)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
15 333 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 9:00 4 137 10.4 0.493 0.495
15 334 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 21.5 1.27 0.631 0.495
15 335 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 309 7.37 1.567 0.495
15 336 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 52.6 3.56 0.552 0.495
15 337 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 401 25.1 0.597 0.495
15 338 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 97 5.84 0.622 0.495
15 339 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 26.1 1.52 0.641 0.495
15 340 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 61 5.59 0.408 0.495
15 341 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 6:00 9 1062 59.7 0.665 0.495
15 342 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 415 29 0.534 0.495
15 343 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 540 44.5 0.453 0.495
15 344 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 462 19.8 0.873 0.495
15 345 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 1274 74.9 0.636 0.495
15 346 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 166 14 0.445 0.495
15 347 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 154 10.9 0.529 0.495
15 348 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 74.7 9.65 0.289 0.495
15 349 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 107 8.38 0.478 0.495
15 350 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 58.9 6.1 0.360 0.495
15 351 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 10:00 3 338 15.2 0.831 0.495
15 352 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 12:00 27 1017 34.3 1.108 0.495
16 353 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 23:00 4 42.3 2.79 0.671 0.679
16 354 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 779 34.8 0.991 0.679
16 355 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 1246 68.3 0.807 0.679
16 356 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 138 11.2 0.547 0.679
16 357 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 18:00 3 94.6 8.64 0.484 0.679
16 358 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 10:00 3 303 16 0.841 0.679
16 359 6/10/2004 7:00 6/11/2004 13:00 30 667 46.5 0.637 0.679
16 360 7/21/2004 12:00 7/21/2004 14:00 2 103 7.87 0.583 0.679
16 361 8/24/2004 19:00 8/24/2004 23:00 4 497 25.1 0.875 0.679
17 362 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 752 10.9 0.169 0.237
17 363 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 552 9.65 0.140 0.237
17 364 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 812 8.38 0.237 0.237
17 365 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 644 6.1 0.258 0.237
17 366 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 12:00 27 4453 34.3 0.317 0.237
18 367 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 43.5 10.9 0.039 0.561
18 368 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 467 9.65 0.470 0.561
18 369 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 525 17 0.300 0.561
18 370 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 563 8.38 0.654 0.561
18 371 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 700 6.1 1.117 0.561
18 372 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 12:00 27 3648 34.3 1.035 0.561
216 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217
1 3
Brezonik PL, Stadelmann TH (2002) Analysis and predictive models
of stormwater runoff volumes, loads, and pollutant concentra-
tions from watersheds in the Twin Cities metropolitan area,
Minnesota, USA. Water Research 36:1743–1757
Bronstert A, Niehoff D, Burger G (2002) Effects of climate and land-
use change on storm runoff generation: present knowledge and
modelling capabilities. Hydrological Processes 16:509–529
Cristina CM, Sansalone JJ (2003) Kinematic wave model of urban
pavement rainfall-runoff subject to traffic loadings. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 129:629–636
Dewan AM, Islam MM, Kumamoto T, Nishigaki M (2007) Evalu-
ating flood hazard for land-use planning in Greater Dhaka of
Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water
Resources Management 21:1601–1612
Eriksson E, Baun A, Scholes L, Ledin A, Ahlman S, Revitt M,
Noutsopoulos C, Mikkelsen PS (2007) Selected stormwater
priority pollutants—a European perspective. Science of the Total
Environment 383:41–51
Hipp JA, Ogunseitan O, Lejano R, Smith CS (2006) Optimization of
stormwater filtration at the urban/watershed interface. Environ-
mental Science & Technology 40:4794–4801
Kayhanian M, Suverkropp C, Ruby A, Tsay K (2007) Characteriza-
tion and prediction of highway runoff constituent event mean
concentration. Journal of Environmental Management 85:279–
295
Kim LH, Kayhanian M, Zoh KD, Stenstrom MK (2005) Modeling of
highway stormwater runoff. Science of the Total Environment
348:1–18
Lee JG, Heaney JP (2003) Estimation of urban imperviousness and its
impacts on storm water systems. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management 129:419–426
Lee H, Swamikannu X, Radulescu D, Kim SJ, Stenstrom MK (2007)
Design of stormwater monitoring programs. Water Research
41:4186–4196
McCuen RH (1981) Relation between curve number and runoff
coefficient. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division
107:395–400
McCuen RH (1998) Hydrologic analysis and design, 2nd edn. Pearson
Prentice Hall, New Jersey
McCuen RH (2004) Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd edn.
Pearson, Prentice Hall, p 888
Niehoff D, Fritsch U, Bronstert A (2002) Land-use impacts on storm-
runoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation
of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW-
Germany. Journal of Hydrology 267:80–93
Park MH, Stenstrom MK (2006) Spatial estimates of stormwater-
pollutant loading using Bayesian networks and geographic
information systems. Water Environment Research 78:421–429
Sartor JD, Boyd GB, Agardy FJ (1974) Water pollution aspects of
street surface contaminations. Journal of Water Pollution Control
Federation 46(3):458–467
Sen Z, Altunkaynak A (2006) A comparative fuzzy logic approach to
runoff coefficient and runoff estimation. Hydrological Processes
20:1993–2009
Seth I, Soonthornnonda P, Christensen ER (2006) Use of GIS in urban
storm-water modeling. Journal of Environmental Engineering
132:1550–1552
Soonthornnonda P (2007) Stormwater quality characterization, mod-
eling, and management for the greater Milwaukee area,
Wisconsin. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Mil-
waukee, Milwaukee
Soonthornnonda P, Christensen ER (2008) A load model based on
antecedent dry periods for pollutants in stormwater. Water
Environment Research 80(2):162–171
Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)
(2000) GIS landuse inventory. Waukesha, WI
U.S. Geological Survey (2004) Water-resources-related information
for the Milwaukee metropolitan sewerage district planning area,
Wisconsin, 1970–2002. Water-Resources Investigation Report
03-4240, USGS, Reston, Virginia
United States Geological Survey Digital Elevation Models (USGS
DEMs) (2000) U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey. http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/dem.html
Weng QH (2001) Modeling urban growth effects on surface runoff
with the integration of remote sensing and GIS. Environmental
Management 28:737–748
Wong TSW (2002) Call for awakenings in storm drainage design.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 7:1–2
Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 217
1 3

followed by the Menomonee and the Kinnickinnic Rivers. Kayhanian and others 2007). paving. 2. The introduction of GIS to stormwater management makes it possible to obtain an estimate of the magnitude of the drainage area based on the selected GIS features of the landscape such as contour lines and land use percentage (Seth and others 2006). However. with the other ninety percent draining to Lake Michigan. freeway-related.4. On average. Menomonee. One of the most popular methods for computing the amount of direct runoff from a given amount of rainfall is the Soil Conservation Service-Curve Number (SCS-CN) method (McCuen 1981). along with GIS contour data and storm sewer lines. including elevations and associated contour lines and slopes of subareas can be difficult to obtain and will change in cases of significant construction activities. In order to obtain an accurate estimate of the rainfall volume entering the area. and their confluence leads to the Milwaukee Harbor and Lake Michigan. The area is heavily urbanized in the center but largely agricultural in the northern and southern parts.. Although fairly simple in principle. we developed accurate estimates of the sizes of the drainage areas.. We considered here 18 separate drainage areas throughout the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District’s (MMSD’s) service area and five different subareas based on land use type. One reason is that the storm sewer network may not be well documented. the topography. Only ten percent of the service area drains to the Mississippi River. e. land use and slope. 1 and 2. Consistency here means that GIS subareas in different drainage areas have the same runoff coefficient ^ aj for j = 1. Although the method is designed for a single storm event. and Kinnickinnic Rivers) run through the area. residential. 1 Stormwater monitoring sites and study area 123 . the size of the drainage area should be well known. Eqs. The runoff coefficient is related to the different land use and hydrologic soil groups (Bronstert and others 2002. particularly in urban areas. Typically. or soil saturation (Boyd and others 1993. and outdoor recreational areas. 1). The MMSD’s planning area covers Milwaukee County and parts of Washington.202 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201–217 include slopes and permeability of the soil. The drainage area may be estimated based on runoff coefficients for the areas. Dewan and others 2007. the Milwaukee River has the highest flow. Niehoff and others 2002. Location and connections of downspouts from roofs as well as the layout of storm sewer lines may also impact the volume of runoff discharged to the receiving waters. Also.g. Two-thirds of the service Fig. 5. Sen and Altunkaynak 2006). there are several land use types and soil groups within each drainage area. and Racine Counties. it can be scaled to find average annual runoff values. Site Description The study areas are part of MMSD’s 416 square mile (1077 km2) planning area (Fig. In the process. In order to find a representative runoff coefficient.. as shown in section 3. 1994. McCuen 2004). Waukesha. Ozaukee. runoff coefficients are usually considered in isolation for each area without looking at consistency in estimation between different drainage areas (Brezonik and Stadelmann 2002. accurate estimation of the drainage area is not always a simple matter. roads. the runoff area must be well defined in order for this to be useful. an overall runoff coefficient has to be determined using the area of the different land use/hydrologic soil group complexes as the weighting factor. parking.. Three rivers (the Milwaukee. However. The present work attempted to fill this gap by generating optimized runoff coefficients for GIS subareas within each drainage area such that runoff coefficients estimated from runoff volume and drainage area are consistent with coefficients based on the GIS subareas. The curve number is based on the area’s hydrologic soil group.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->