See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260854494

Geographic Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, and Urban Storm-

Water Management

Article  in  Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management · June 2001

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2001)127:3(155)

CITATIONS READS
78 461

4 authors, including:

David James Sample Leonard Wright

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 38 PUBLICATIONS   418 CITATIONS   
90 PUBLICATIONS   1,067 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Clean WateR3 - Reduce, Remediate, Recycle View project

SMV CSO View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Leonard Wright on 10 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1
Geographical Information Systems, Decision Support Systems, and Urban
Stormwater Management

James P. Heaney, David Sample, and Leonard Wright

University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado

Final Report to the US Environmental Protection Agency

Edison, NJ

1
This report was prepared by the University of Colorado under Cooperative Agreement No. CZ826256-01-0 with the EPA. The
information presented does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. The
mention of trade names or commercial products does not imply endorsement by the United States government.
 Table of Contents
Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................................................v
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
2.0 Literature Review...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Overview of Sources of Reviewed Literature .................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 GIS as a Spatial Database for Urban Stormwater Modeling......................................................................................... 2
2.2.1 GIS as a pre-processor for urban stormwater models ............................................................................................. 3
2.2.2 GIS as a post-processor for urban stormwater models ........................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 GIS used to estimate spatial input parameters ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2.4 GIS used to estimate non-point source pollutant loads .......................................................................................... 5
2.3 Integration of GIS and Hydrologic Time Series.............................................................................................................. 5
2.4 Integration of GIS and Urban Stormwater Models ......................................................................................................... 6
2.5 Management Evaluation Using Integrated GIS and Urban Stormwater Models ....................................................... 7
2.6 Trends in the Integration of GIS and Urban Stormwater Modeling............................................................................. 8
3.0 Summary of Available GIS Urban Stormwater Modeling Software ................................................................................ 9
3.1 SWMM and EPA Windows SWMM.............................................................................................................................. 11
3.2 PCSWMM ’98 and PCSWMM GIS................................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 XP-SWMM by XP Software (Also Available as Visual Hydro by CAiCE)............................................................ 12
3.4 SWMM-DUET.................................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.5 DHI Software ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13
3.5.1 MIKE SWMM............................................................................................................................................................. 13
3.5.2 MOUSE and MOUSE GIS........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.6 Wallingford Software-HydroWorks and InfoWorks .................................................................................................... 16
3.7 Summary............................................................................................................................................................................... 17
4.0 Future Urban Stormwater Modeling in a DSS Environment........................................................................................... 19
4.1 State Information................................................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.1 GIS................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
4.1.2 Time series ................................................................................................................................................................... 22
4.1.3 Relational database..................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2 Process Information-Simulation Tools ............................................................................................................................ 28
4.3 Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................................................................. 28
4.4 Overall DSS for Water Management............................................................................................................................... 28
5.0 Application of GIS and DSS to Micro Storm Analysis .................................................................................................... 31
5.1 Spatial Scale and GIS-Stormwater Modeling ................................................................................................................ 32
5.2 Description of Happy Acres Case Study GIS................................................................................................................ 37
5.3 Simulation Tools for Hydraulic Design.......................................................................................................................... 44
5.4 Simulation Tools for Hydrologic Analysis .................................................................................................................... 49
5.4.1 Hydrologically functional landscaping................................................................................................................... 49
5.4.2 Determination of runoff volumes using NRCS method....................................................................................... 52
5.4.3 Breakdown of calculated volumes per function .................................................................................................... 52
5.5 Simulation Tools for Cost Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 55
5.6 Optimization of Control Options for Happy Acres....................................................................................................... 59
5.7 Decision Support Systems and the Happy Acres Case Study..................................................................................... 61
6.0 Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................... 62
6.1 Summary............................................................................................................................................................................... 62
6.2 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 62
7.0 References ................................................................................................................................................................................ 65
Appendix: Happy Acres Database............................................................................................................................................. 72

ii
 List of Figures
Figure 3.1: PCSWMM output.................................................................................................................................................... 12
Figure 3.2: Visual Hydro ............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 3.3: Mouse GIS user action............................................................................................................................................ 15
Figure 3.4: System response to user action, Mouse GIS........................................................................................................ 15
Figure 3.5: InfoWorks from Wallingford Software ................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 4.1: DSS structure and components .............................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 4.2: Relational database query example in ArcView using water use data ........................................................... 25
Figure 4.3: Spatial results for example query from figure 4.2. ............................................................................................. 26
Figure 4.4: Query results output to Excel using Avenue script tool and Microsoft DDE................................................ 27
Figure 4.5: CU-CADSWES DSS............................................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 4.6: Danish Hydraulic Institute DSS, based on integrated water resources modeling......................................... 30
Figure 5.1: Proposed DSS for microstorm analysis ................................................................................................................ 32
Figure 5.2: BASINS dataset for Boulder, Colorado ............................................................................................................... 34
Figure 5.3: ArcView coverage of Boulder, Colorado............................................................................................................. 35
Figure 5.4: City of Boulder ArcView GIS coverage for University Hill neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado............... 36
Figure 5.5: AutoCAD file for University Hills neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado........................................................... 38
Figure 5.6: AutoCAD coverage for study area........................................................................................................................ 39
Figure 5.7: Study area topography ............................................................................................................................................ 40
Figure 5.8: Study area land use.................................................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 5.9: Study area soils ......................................................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 5.10: Study area sewer network..................................................................................................................................... 45
Figure 5.11: Conventional storm drainage............................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 5.12: Illustration of hydrologically functional landscape ......................................................................................... 51
Figure 5.13: Allocation of available storage for initial abstraction and land use.............................................................. 55

iii
 List of Tables
Table 3.1: Summary of available urban stormwater modeling software with GIS linkages ........................................... 10
Table 3.2: Characteristics of urban storm stormwater models .............................................................................................. 18
Table 5.1: Available BASINS data attributes.......................................................................................................................... 33
Table 5.2: Minimum horizontal accuracy and example features for various map scales in urban areas....................... 34
Table 5.3: Mix of land uses in Happy Acres ........................................................................................................................... 37
Table 5.4: AutoCAD layers for study area............................................................................................................................... 43
Table 5.5: Right of way characteristics..................................................................................................................................... 43
Table 5.6: Lot characteristics for residential parcels .............................................................................................................. 44
Table 5.7: Aggregate characteristics for commercial, apartments, and schools ................................................................ 44
Table 5.8: Sewer network design hydrology ........................................................................................................................... 46
Table 5.9: Sewer network design hydraulics ........................................................................................................................... 47
Table 5.10: Sewer network design cost.................................................................................................................................... 48
Table 5.11: Initial abstraction as a function of curve numbers, CN..................................................................................... 49
Table 5.12: SCS hydrologic classifications, and calculation of unit storage values, 1/99$............................................. 53
Table 5.13: Calculation of developed and predevelopment stormwater volumes for Happy Acres .............................. 54
Table 5.14: Land valuation for medium density lot, 1/99$.................................................................................................... 56
Table 5.15: Cost analysis of landscaping for medium density lot, 1/99$............................................................................ 57
Table 5.16: Calculation of unit costs for controls, including opportunity costs for land, 1/99$..................................... 58
Table 5.17: Results of LP optimization-land use allocation by function (includes opportunity costs)......................... 60
Table 5.18: Least-cost LP solutions for land Use/BMP options (including land costs) for Happy Acres.................... 61
Table A-1: Parcel attributes ........................................................................................................................................................ 73
Table A-2: Right of way attributes ............................................................................................................................................ 78

iv
Abstract

This report reviews the application of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to the
field of urban stormwater modeling. The GIS literature is reviewed in the context of its use as a
spatial database for urban stormwater modeling, integration of GIS and hydrologic time series,
and integration of GIS and urban stormwater models (from both a software and management
perspective). The available urban stormwater modeling software is reviewed and discussed with
respect to their GIS integration capabilities. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are reviewed with
respect to their integration with GIS, and their applicability to urban stormwater management
problems. A simplified neighborhood scale DSS is presented that includes a GIS, a database, a
stormwater system design template, and an optimization capability for screening alternatives.
The area and soil based NRCS method is used for calculating runoff from GIS information.
Using economic analysis that compares the costs of controls, including the opportunity cost of
land for land intensive controls, the optimal selection of Best Management Practice (BMP)
controls was accomplished by use of a linear programming (LP) method. The intent of this
presentation is to provide an example of the types of problems that become possible to explore
with the application of DSS and GIS technology on a small scale. This field is evolving rapidly,
and warrants carefully targetted research efforts, particularly at developing nonspecific software
tools that aid in integrating existing models.
1.0 Introduction

A mathematical model of an urban hydrologic response to precipitation usually requires

extensive data due to the complexity of surfaces, flow paths and conduits found in developed
locales. Many of these data are geographic in nature; e.g., geographic boundaries of the
hydrologic basin provide boundary conditions of the mathematical model. Therefore the
marriage of mathematical stormwater models and geographic information systems (GIS) is a
natural development of simulation and database technology. The relationship between urban
stormwater models and GIS may take many forms. This is apparent from the nearly 50 journal
articles, conference proceedings and internet reports surveyed for this review of recent literature.
The relationship between GIS and urban stormwater models may be distinct, where the GIS
functions as a separate pre- and post-processor; or the distinction may be blurred, where the
model is seamlessly integrated to the GIS.

The purpose of this report is to accomplish several tasks. In chapter 2 a review of technical
literature is performed to determine how GIS is being used in the field of urban storm stormwater
modeling. Next, in chapter 3, the predominant urban stormwater models are reviewed within the
context of the taxonomy developed in chapter 2. Then, in chapter 4, looking at the future
directions of urban stormwater models, Decision Support Systems (DSSs) are described. DSS is
now being used extensively for river basin modeling, particularly in the hydropower context.
This type of system lends itself to unstructured problems where data integration is a key to
evaluation of the problem. The various components of DSS including models, database
structure, GIS, optimization, and time series management are discussed. A process level DSS is
developed for a textbook subdivision in chapter 5. This DSS contains a GIS, including graphic
features and a relational database, a system simulator, and an optimizer. Stormwater design
templates were created using Excel spreadsheets, paralleling the design problem from the
textbook. Next, GIS data were utilized in a simple hydrologic model using the NRCS (National
Resources Conservation Service) method. This data was combined with unit cost data into a
linear programming model (LP) in order to develop the least costly mix of BMP controls that
maintain the same initial abstraction after development as before. Suggestions for further
improvement of the DSS are made by comparison of the DSS structure with those found in
chapter 4. Finally conclusion are presented in chapter 6.

1
2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Overview of Sources of Reviewed Literature

The GIS literature is broad, due to the wide variety of areas that utilize geographic data.
Likewise, the literature describing GIS applications in water resources is itself very broad.
However, much of this work in water resources has been in the area of natural hydrology and
large-scale, river-basin hydrology. GIS has a long history in this area due in large part to the
early availability of remotely sensed spatial data suited for this purpose. A good overview of the
concepts of GIS and database technology and their application within the field of natural systems
hydrology is found in Singh and Fiorentino (1996).

The use of GIS in modeling urban stormwater systems has been more limited due to the need for
large, expensive and detailed spatial and temporal databases, along with the fact that many
computer tools used in urban stormwater modeling are not easily amenable to integration with
GIS. However, as local data gathering efforts have increased and software integration has
evolved, the use of GIS in urban stormwater is now widespread. Shamsi et al. (1995) estimate
that more than 70% of the information used by local governments is georeferenced. Much of
this information has been, or will be, transferred to a digital format, usually a GIS.

Recent literature was found in several distinct fields. From the water resources field, recent
conferences focusing on urban stormwater have several papers on GIS. Proceedings from two
European conferences on urban stormwater by Butler and Maksimovic (eds. 1998), and Seiker
and Verworn (eds. 1996), have a wealth of current information on GIS. The American Water
Resources Association (AWRA) has sponsored conferences specific to the use of GIS in water
resources, such as Harlin and Lanfear (1993) and Hallam et al. (1996). These reports have
sections devoted to urban stormwater, of which modeling is a recurring theme. Significant
literature in this area was also found on the internet. The Center for Research in Water
Resources at The University of Texas at Austin has a large online library of reports and papers
on the use of GIS for hydrologic research, some of which concerns the modeling of urban areas
(University of Texas, 1998).

Other resources were found in the GIS field. One software provider, Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI), hosts a large annual international user conference. The proceedings
for these conferences are located on the internet at http://www.esri.com (ESRI 1998). The
International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) publishes the proceedings from its
many conferences, some of which have dealt specifically with the integration and application of
GIS and water resources management (e.g. Kovar and Nachtnebel 1996). Other IAHS
conferences have focused on applications, which usually have several papers on using GIS for
that application. For example Simonovic et al. (1995) edited “Modeling and Management of
Sustainable Basin-Scale Water Resource Systems”, proceedings from a 1995 conference in
Boulder, CO. which contained several papers on GIS and model integration.

2.2 GIS as a Spatial Database for Urban Stormwater Modeling

The most basic role a GIS can play in the modeling of urban stormwater is that of a simple pre-
processor of spatial data. As a pre-processor, GIS may simply store geographic information in a
database, or it may be used to calculate model-input parameters from stored geographic data.
2
Frequently data are exported from the GIS in a file format consistent with a model-input file. As
a post-processor, GIS may be used to map water surface elevations, concentrations, etc., or to
derive spatial statistics based on model output. Shamsi (1998) describes the batch transfer of
data from a GIS to SWMM as the interchange data. The GIS and SWMM are operated
separately, with no direct interlink. The GIS is used to extract data required by SWMM from the
spatial database into a file compatible with a SWMM input file. A recurring theme in recent
literature focuses on the ability to get the most out of data by assuring that information tools are
consistent. This idea has been termed “hydroinformatics” and is especially prominent in the
recent European literature (Fuchs and Scheffer 1996).

2.2.1 GIS as a pre-processor for urban stormwater models

Many municipalities store general spatial information in a GIS, and the information is used for a
wide variety of purposes and functions within the institutional framework. VanGelder and
Miller (1996) describe a typical use of GIS as a spatial database for modeling stormwater from a
municipal airport. Detailed georeferenced data were used in conjunction with maintenance data
to develop an operation and management schedule as well as to link node information needed to
create a SWMM EXTRAN model. Pryl et al. (1998) use a GIS to export details of the urban
stormwater network to a hydraulic simulator for Prague in the Czech Republic. The Danish
Hydraulic Institute (DHI) program Model Of Urban SEwers (MOUSE) was used to simulate
various scenarios for development of an urban stormwater master plan. Rodriguez et al. (1998)
used a GIS to study stormwater characteristics of an urban area in Nantes, France. This study
used the urban land parcel as the base hydrologic unit of a detailed hydrologic model, as opposed
to the more typical basin defined by topography and the layout of the stormwater network. A
detailed water budget was performed around the owner-defined parcel. This physically based
hydrologic model was then used with the stormwater network to analyze the behavior of urban
catchments under a wide variety of storm events. The idea of using small hydrologic units based
on land ownership for urban stormwater modeling is ideally suited for GIS applications and is
useful when simulating the effect of management decisions made at the parcel level.

Sotic et al. (1998) began a preliminary design of CSO facilities in Kumodraz, Yugoslavia with
paper maps. Existing paper maps and other data were used to create a GIS, which in turn was
used to aid in the design and analysis of the CSO system. This “hydroinformatic” approach
consists of developing a set of tools to collect and process data in a consistent manner. The
attention to consistency in data transferability is to assure that the greatest value is achieved from
the dataset. In this case, the GIS was used to integrate a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), the
street network, and the sewer network; then this information was transferred to the BEAMUS
hydraulic simulation model (Sotic et al. 1998). A similar hydroinformatic approach is described
for the town of Pilsen in the Czech Republic by Hora et al. (1998). Beginning with paper maps,
a GIS was built from the ground-up. The complete process is described, ending with an
information tool that was used to create a hydrodynamic model of the sewer system, store
monitored flow and rain data, evaluate current hydraulic sewer capacity and evaluate the
feasibility of alternative sewer developments.

Barbe et al. (1993) integrate data transfer from a GIS and a SCADA system to a SWMM model
of the Jefferson Parish stormwater stormwater system in Louisiana. The SWMM RUNOFF
block was used to simulate the hydrologic runoff characteristics of the area. Geospatial data
were transferred from the GIS to the SWMM RUNOFF data file. Similarly, the EXTRAN block
3
was used to simulate the pipe network, and the network connectivity was transferred from the
GIS to the SWMM EXTRAN data file. Time series data from 150 monitoring sites were
transferred from a SCADA system to the SWMM model for calibration purposes.

2.2.2 GIS as a post-processor for urban stormwater models

GIS may also be used to accept model output. Xu et al. (1998) describe a mixed land use
hydrologic model that uses GIS as a pre- and post-processor of model information. For this
application, the model output of time series of simulated flows may be depicted dynamically
through an ArcView interface. Sorensen (1996) describes a typical use of GIS to present model
output, that of depicting flood inundation maps from the GIS. MIKE GIS is a modeling tool
from DHI that interfaces between ArcInfo or ArcView and MIKE, a flood assessment model.
First developed to study flood management in Bangladesh, MIKE GIS uses both the maximum
flood extent and the time series of flooding to analyze expected damages from peak inundation
and the duration of inundation (Sorensen 1996). A key element to this work is that the GIS is
used for more than mapping model output, but that spatial analysis is done with the GIS that adds
to the information gained from the model output alone.

Shamsi (1998) discusses the difference between transferring data files between ArcView and
SWMM and creating an interface that uses SWMM output as a spatial coverage layer in a GIS.
This “interface method” (as opposed to the interchange method described above) involves
creating a SWMM menu within ArcView. Pre- and post-processors of SWMM input and output
files create input files, read output files, and join and unjoin data files (Shamsi 1998). These
options are made available in ArcView; however SWMM is run separately from ArcView
(Shamsi 1998).

2.2.3 GIS used to estimate spatial input parameters

One of the most important hydrographic features of an urban surface is impervious area.
Fankhauser (1998) describes a method to estimate impervious area from color infrared aerial
photographs and orthophotos. These images have a ground resolution of 25 to 75 centimeters. A
raster based GIS, IDRISI, was used to estimate imperviousness to within 10% of the value
determined manually for an entire basin. However, the deviation for individual catchments was
much higher. For this reason, this method was recommended only for large project areas where
the high costs of parameter estimation could be justified.

Olivera et al. (1996) use GIS to calculate hydrographic properties of terrain for non-point load
estimation. Flow paths calculated from paths of steepest descent are used to calculate flow
properties of basins. Cluis et al. (1996) use topographic data and GIS functions to derive
important hydrographic characteristics of the terrain such as overland flow paths in a raster based
format. Mercado (1996) describes the use of detailed spatial information in the creation of a
stormwater model in Tallahassee, FL using XPSWMM software. Scanned and georectified
black and white aerial photography was used as a background with other GIS based data,
including two foot contour elevations, streams, buildings, roads, etc. A DEM was created in
ArcInfo, and the Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) and Grid functions were used to define
areas of high slope and erosion potential, flow gradients and very accurate subbasin delineation
(Mercado 1996).

4
Herath et al. (1996) used high-resolution raster data sets to develop a distributed GIS-based
urban hydrologic model. Data sets included 50 m x 50 m and 20 m x 20 m land use grids;
1:25,000 plans were used to develop imperviousness by land use, a 50 m x 50 m DEM,
population density, water supply data, and rainfall. Herath et al. (1996) integrated the hydrologic
model with the GIS, by writing the numerical simulation codes within the GIS, thus reducing
problems of data transfer. However, the computational time was felt to be too high for practical
use due to inefficiencies of performing the hydrologic simulation within the GIS (Herath et al.
1996).

Olivera et al. (1998) developed a GIS-based preprocessor for the new HEC-HMS model
developed by the Army Corps of Engineers’ Hydrologic Engineering Center. HEC-HMS is an
updated version of the popular HEC-1 hydrologic model. Olivera et al. (1998) describe HEC-
PrePro as a system of ArcView scripting programs and controls to extract hydrographic
information from spatial databases and prepare an input file to HEC-HMS. Using SCS curve
numbers and a DEM, HEC-PrePro delineates streams and basin boundaries, determines their
interconnectivity, and calculates parameters for each stream and basin (Olivera 1998). A benefit
to automating the calculation of hydrologic parameters that were traditionally estimated
manually is that results are reproducible, i.e., they are not dependent on the bias or experience of
the modeler.

2.2.4 GIS used to estimate non-point source pollutant loads

Using land use as a predictor of non-point source loads is a common use of GIS and hydrologic
models. Hauber and Joeres (1996) describe how a GIS was used to preprocess urban pollutant
loads for the Source Loading and Management Model (SLAMM). Similarly, Wright et al.
(1995) estimated nutrient loads from developed areas in the Onondaga Lake stormwater basin in
upstate NY with the GRASS GIS. These preprocessed loads were then routed from the
developed basins using the SWMM RUNOFF model.

Battin et al. (1998) describe the EPA’s BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point
and Non-Point Sources) software, which integrates watershed point and non-point source load
data, the watershed hydrology program HSPF and the receiving water quality simulation
program QUAL2E. Olivera et al. (1996) describe the use of GIS to account for the spatial
variability of terrain in pollutant loading from a variety of land uses. The authors review the
strength of GIS in quantifying spatially distributing loads, and point out that this is a distinct
advantage over lumped models.

Scarborough and Yetter (1998) evaluated the Non-Point Source (NPS) module in BASINS 2.0
and found it to be a useful tool for evaluating NPS pollution. However, several problems were
found when evaluating a small watershed with the GIS data included with the program. The
most critical problem was that of coverage alignment (Scarborough and Yetter 1998).
Boundaries of land use and watershed boundaries did not match for the test case study, the St.
Jones watershed in Delaware.

2.3 Integration of GIS and Hydrologic Time Series

For the purposes of urban stormwater modeling, spatial data may usually be viewed as static.
Changes in geographic data are typically modeled in a scenario manner, e.g., a model run may be
5
done for an undeveloped watershed, and then a developed scenario is performed using the same
hydrologic conditions. Hydrologic and meteorological data are commonly a time series of
discrete values. Therefore some attention must be paid to the integration of spatial and time
series data. This idea of consistency among data is key to the concept of hydroinformatics. Pryl
et al. (1998) describe the integration of time series with GIS to accomplish urban stormwater
master planning in the Czech Republic. Similarly, Rodriguez et al. (1998) use time series in their
analysis of the water budget based on parcel-level urban spatial data. Time series integration
was a key element in the work reported by Barbe (1996) in Louisiana. A large network of 150
monitoring locations fed a SCADA system with many time series data that were integrated with
GIS data and the SWMM model. An Oracle database was used to manage non-spatial data for
this project (Barbe 1993).

Da Costa et al. (1995, 1996) examined this problem in developing the Portuguese Water
Resources Information System. The integration of GIS with temporal data is described as one of
the great challenges of developing this system (da Costa et al. 1996). To accomplish this
integration, a database was developed using Oracle software to underlie the information system.
A special processing module was developed to interface time series data with the GIS. The GIS
portion used the ESRI ArcView software. Sorensen et al. (1996) describe the use of time series
in an application of MIKE GIS in Bangladesh. Sotic et al. (1998) describe the integration of
rainfall and flow time series with geographic data in a hydroinformatic manner in Yugoslavia.

Wolf-Schumann and Vaillant (1996) describe in detail the need for integrated time series with
georeferenced data. The development of TimeView, a time series management tool, is described
as adding a whole dimension (time) to spatial data. TimeView is integrated with ArcView, so
that a user can select a geographic feature in ArcView (e.g. a monitored manhole), and
TimeView returns a time series of measured data in graphical format.

2.4 Integration of GIS and Urban Stormwater Models

The linking of GIS and several hydrologic process models (beyond creating pre-processed data
files within the GIS) is examined by Charnock et al. (1996) and DeVantier and Feldman (1993).
Issues of differing scale properties and error propagation are addressed. The use of GIS as a
central hub of information, which is fed to several satellite process models, is favored over
coupling all the processes in one large program. Kopp (1996) addresses these same issues and
argues for more data standards to streamline hydroinformatics. Sponemann et al. (1996) explain
how a GIS can be shared among many varied users, e.g. gas utilities, water utilities, stormwater,
etc. thus maximizing the benefits derived from data collection and management. Greene and
Cruise (1995) developed an urban watershed modeling system using the SCS rainfall-runoff
methodology and GIS parcel attributes. Meyer et al. (19993) developed a raster based GIS for an
urban subdivision in Ft. Collins, Colorado and found that the results compared favorably with
non-GIS hydrologic studies of the same area.

Shamsi (1998) distinguishes three forms of information exchange between ArcView and
SWMM. The interchange and interface methods are described above, and involve the transfer of
information between ArcView and SWMM, which are run independently. Shamsi (1998)
defines the third method, integration, as the most advanced of the methods. SWMM is used as
the hydrologic and hydraulic simulator and is executed from within ArcView. This form of
integration includes performing all program tasks within ArcView: creating SWMM input data,
6
editing data files, executing SWMM, and displaying output results (Shamsi 1998). Integration as
defined by Shamsi (1998) combines a SWMM Graphical User Interface (GUI) with a GIS to
provide a complete data environment. The advantages of a GUI were advanced by Shamsi
(1997), who provided a summary of software features and needs for SWMM interfaces.

Feinberg and Uhrick (1997) discuss integrating an infrastructure database in Broward County,
FL with a GIS and water distribution and wastewater models. The HydroWorks model is used to
simulate the wastewater collection system, with close integration with the database of
infrastructure characteristics and the GIS. Refsgaard et al. (1995) describe the evolution of
DHI’s land process hydrologic model, SHE, and its extensive use of GIS. Ribeiro (1996)
describes the use of a raster-based GIS to interface with HSPF to analyze the effects of basin
urbanization. Hellweger (1996) developed an ArcView application using the Avenue scripting
language to perform the model calculations of USDA’s hydrologic model TR-55.

Mark et al. (1997) use the MOUSE program from DHI to evaluate stormwater in Dhaka, along
the banks of the Ganges and Bramaputra rivers in Bangladesh. Integration of GIS, time series,
and the hydraulic model were accomplished to better understand flooding characteristics.
Maximum inundation and duration of inundation were mapped using MOUSE and GIS. Shamsi
and Fletcher (1996) describe in detail the linkage of ArcView and SWMM for the City of
Huntington, WV. ArcView is shown to be a user-friendly environment to perform stormwater
modeling. Bellal et al. (1996) studied partly urbanized basins using a linked GIS and hydrologic
model. The hydrologic model was based on a non-urban water budget, with modifications to
account for urbanization. The GIS was based on a DEM and raster-based land use data.

2.5 Management Evaluation Using Integrated GIS and Urban Stormwater Models

The integration of GIS, time series data, and an urban stormwater model is usually done to
evaluate management options. These options may be watershed-based, which would likely
include non-urban areas, or they may be local to the urban area.

Rodriguez et al. (1998) describe an integrated GIS and urban hydrologic model to evaluate small
storm hydrology for parcel level management decisions. Tskhai et al. (1995) use a GIS linked
with an optimization model to evaluate ecological and economic alternatives for the Upper Ob
River in the Altai region of Russia. While not strictly an urban runoff model in the traditional
sense, this project does link urban management decisions with an economic optimization model.

Makropoulos et al. (1998) focus on urban sustainability to evaluate stormwater systems.

Beginning with the idea that low energy solutions that control impacts at the source are more
sustainable, Makropoulos et al. (1998) demonstrate how a raster-based GIS (IDRISI) can be used
to integrate theoretical concepts and site specific spatial characteristics. The strength of GIS can
be used as a common ground between specialists and non-specialists to help them communicate
effectively. Bellal et al. (1996) studied the effect of urbanization on a watershed using a linked
hydrologic model based on a DEM and a GIS. A water budget approach was used around each
raster unit to account for changes due to urbanization.

Mark et al. (1997) describe a detailed evaluation of flood management techniques in Dhaka,
Bangladesh, using MOUSE GIS. Xue et al. (1996) and Xue and Bechtel (1997) describe the
development of a model designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Best Management Practices
7
(BMP’s). This model, called the Best Management Practices Assessment Model (BMPAM),
was linked with ArcView to create an integrated management tool. This integrated model was
used to evaluate the pollutant load reduction potential of a hypothetical wet pond in Okeechobee,
Florida. Kim et al. (1998) used ArcView with an economic evaluation model and a hydraulic
simulator to evaluate storm sewer design alternatives. The hydraulic simulator was used to
generate initial design alternatives, which where in turn evaluated with an economic model. The
GIS was used to store spatial information, generate model input, and present alternative
solutions. The complete package of GIS, economic evaluation model, and hydraulic simulator
was termed a Planning Support System (Kim et al. 1998).

2.6 Trends in the Integration of GIS and Urban Stormwater Modeling

The trend towards a data-centric suite of evaluation tools is clear. The central idea behind the
European concept of hydroinformatics is that a consistent database is used for a variety of
purposes. The model is no longer the central unit driving the decision process. Neither,
however, has the GIS become the central data tool, due in large part to its inability to handle
temporal information effectively. Researchers who have paid equal attention to the model (the
processes), the GIS (the spatial data), and the temporal information (time series of hydrologic
processes) seem to have had considerable success. The integration of GIS and urban stormwater
models should therefore include integration with a database structure equipped to handle time
series. Several advanced applications have used a non-graphic database (e.g. dBase, Oracle,
Access) that is queried by both the GIS and the hydrologic/hydraulic models. While clearly an
evolving area, this approach seems to hold the most promise for the purpose of urban stormwater
decision support systems.

8
3.0 Summary of Available GIS Urban Stormwater Modeling Software

As described in section 2, a useful taxonomy to define the different ways a GIS is used in urban
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling is presented by Shamsi (1998). The three methods defined
by Shamsi (1998) are data interchange, program interface, and program integration (Shamsi
1998). A fourth grouping was added for this report, the “intermediate program”. Several
commercial modeling products feature a data management program to facilitate data transfer
between the GIS and a model. A short description is given below in order of increasing
sophistication.

Data Interchange: a batch process is used to transfer data to and from the model data set. For
example, the GIS may be used to calculate model input parameters e.g., catchment slope, or to
query an existing spatial coverage, such as land use. Then portions of the GIS query file can be
copied into a model-input file with no direct link between the GIS and the model. The model is
executed independently from the GIS, and portions of the output files may be copied back into
the GIS as a new spatial coverage for presentation purposes.

Intermediate Program: a data management program is used to transfer information between a

GIS and a model. This data management program is written specifically to import data from a
variety of common third party GIS software, and export to a model data set. Under certain
conditions this intermediate program could be defined as an interface, but generally it is not.

Program Interface: a direct link consisting of a pre- and post-processor is used to transfer
information between the GIS and the model. This process automates the data interchange
method. Model-specific menu options are added to the GIS. The model is executed
independently from the GIS, however the input file is created in the GIS. For example, in the
data interchange method, the user finds a portion of a file and copies it. An interface automates
this process, so that the pre- and post-processor finds the appropriate portion of the file
automatically.

Program Integration: while the interface method can’t launch the model from the GIS, under
the integration method, the model and the GIS are together within one Graphical User Interface
(GUI). This represents the closest relationship between GIS and model, though “closest” does
not necessarily mean “best”. It may be more efficient for a model to be independent from a GIS
in certain situations.

As noted elsewhere in this report, the development of a GIS for use in urban hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling is an expensive investment. Typically the most advanced tools are created
for advanced applications, where a full GIS is in place. For some applications, a DOS-based
model may still be the most appropriate. However, as more urban areas create GIS coverages,
the integration of modeling software and GIS software will become more useful and more
prevalent.

The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is the most widely used urban
hydrologic/hydraulic model in the US. In addition to SWMM, numerous other hydrologic
models were created in the US during the 70s including the US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center “HEC” series of models (HEC-1 through 6). Two of the most
popular models, HEC-1 and HEC-2, have been updated and renamed HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS,
9
respectively. These two models have been updated from the original DOS model with a MS
Windows based GUI. HSPF, and ILLUDAS are other models developed in the 70’s, which are
still used today.

The original SWMM model, available at no charge from the US EPA (at the following website:
http://ftp.epa.gov/epa_ceam/wwwhtml/ceamhome.htm) was written in Fortran-77 for mainframe
computers (Huber and Dickinson 1988). The model was originally written during the 70s, with
several major improvements made in the early 80s. It has continued to evolve since being ported
to personal computers. Version 4.31 is the latest release; however numerous other modifications
exist to the program (e.g. UD-SWMM, a modification of SWMM by the Urban Stormwater and
Flood Control District of Denver, Colorado). SWMM runs in MS-DOS in a text-based
environment, which is not the user-friendly windows and graphical user interface (GUI) based
environment that is expected today. Despite these shortcomings, it has an active user community
within the United States.

Lack of funding support for SWMM during the 80s and 90s meant that the model had to be self-
sustaining. Interested parties such as local governments, consultants, and third party developers
added their own refinements to the model, with very little support from the federal government.
Because these refinements added value to the original program code, the developers started to
charge for these improvements. XP-SWMM (XP-Software 1998) and PCSWMM (CHI 1998)
are examples of this type of refinement. The SWMM user’s listserver has developed into a self-
sustaining community of users. Information on accessing the listserver can be found at
http://www.chi.on.ca/swmmusers.html

During the 1980’s, several models started to evolve in Europe. Two of them are HydroWorks,
from Wallingford Software in Great Britain, and MOUSE from the Danish Hydraulic Institute,
DHI, in Denmark. Unlike EPA SWMM, these models are proprietary.

These models are listed in table 3.1, with the addition of MikeSWMM, which is the result of a
recent collaborative effort between DHI and Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM). This product
uses the latest SWMM model engine available from the US EPA, and adds the MIKE GUI and
MOUSE GIS from DHI.

Table 3.1: Summary of available urban stormwater modeling software with GIS linkages

Product Model Interface Company/Source Website

HydroWorks/ Hydroworks Hydroworks HR Wallingford/ www.wallingford-software.co.uk
InfoWorks Montgomery Watson
Mouse GIS Mouse Mike Danish Hydraulic Institute/ www.dhi.dk

MikeSWMM SWMM Mike Danish Hydraulic Institute/ www.mikeswmm.com

Camp Dresser and McKee
PCSWMM/GIS SWMM PCSWMM Computational Hydraulics www.chi.on.ca
International
XPSWMM SWMM XPSWMM CAiCHE www.xpsoftware.com

The following sections describe commercial and public domain products that are currently
available for urban hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. The above taxonomy is used to define
how each one handles information transfer between a GIS and the model. However, the reader is

10
cautioned that while integration may be the most advanced method of using a GIS and model
together, it is not necessarily the best method for every application. For some applications
(especially when the GIS is incomplete, inaccurate, or both) different levels of manual operation
may be more appropriate. For example, a limited GIS may exist for an urban watershed, along
with very detailed and accurate CAD files. Certain commercial products (e.g. Visual Hydro by
CAiCE) can handle CAD drawings better than a product designed to run a pre-existing GIS. If
resources were not available to create a GIS, it would be appropriate to use a product suited to
the available data.

3.1 SWMM and EPA Windows SWMM

As stated previously, SWMM is a DOS based program developed under US EPA funding during
the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. There is no provision to link directly or indirectly with a GIS
other than through standard input text files. This is the most basic version of SWMM available.
This version of SWMM is important because it is in the public domain, and the source code is
readily available. The latest version of the DOS based SWMM can be found at
http://www.ccee.orst.edu/swmm/

In 1994, the US EPA produced a Windows-based GUI for SWMM. This program (also
available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/SWMM_WINDOWS/) runs on Windows version 3.1, and is
therefore somewhat outdated. This program is also limited by the fact that the DOS based
SWMM engine is in a constant state of improvement by developers and users because the
Fortran source code is available. Unfortunately, the Windows SWMM program used the
SWMM engine available circa 1994, and the newer versions of the SWMM engine cannot easily
be substituted. Therefore the program has quickly become outdated, and has few users.
Windows SWMM could not be linked directly to a GIS program.

To use either of these programs with a GIS, the data-interchange method must be deployed to
transfer information from a GIS to an input file. The GIS may be used to store and estimate
model input parameters. The GIS could be queried for the needed values, and the values could
then be transferred to the input file. The level of automation to perform this task depends on the
user. It could be as simple as copying the needed values onto a Windows clipboard and pasting
them into the input file, or developing special queries from the GIS to create an input file
automatically.

3.2 PCSWMM ’98 and PCSWMM GIS

PCSWMM-98 is a set of 32 bit applications designed to facilitate running SWMM. These tools
include an ASCII text editor, an animated hydraulic grade line plot, a chart wizard, an Internet
wizard, a batch file control, a rainfall analysis package, a bibliographic database, a sensitivity
analysis wizard, and a calibration wizard. The GUI allows files from many sources to be linked,
including those accessed across Intranets and Internets. PC-SWMM GIS is an optional tool that
works directly with CAD or GIS files in constructing a link-node database for running the model
from the existing data sources. After importing the data from a CAD or GIS file, an aggregation
tool allows semiautomatic construction of a simplified link-node model. This reduces model
complexity, and provides a direct analog to the aggregated catchment concept in the original
SWMM. An example of output from a PC-SWMM example run is found in figure 3.1.

11
Figure 3.1: PCSWMM output
(CHI, 1999)

PCSWMM GIS is an intermediate data management program designed to accept data from a GIS
package and transfer it to a SWMM input file. Because it is a more sophisticated method of
transferring information from a GIS to a model than the data-interchange method, but it is not an
interface as defined by Shamsi (1998), a fourth category was added to the taxonomy, that of the
intermediate program. PCSWMM GIS and PCSWMM’98 were developed by CHI in Guelph,
Ontario. According to the CHI website, (www.chi.on.ca), PCSWMMGIS does not perform any
parameter estimation calculations. It accepts geographic data from an external GIS, within
which the parameter estimation calculations and queries are performed. However, it does
perform tasks specific to SWMM modeling, such as performing geographic and hydrologic
aggregation calculations that are commonly done to simplify a SWMM model.

3.3 XP-SWMM by XP Software (Also Available as Visual Hydro by CAiCE)

XP-SWMM32 by XP Software (also included in Visual Hydro, by CAiCE) is a full 32-bit MS

Windows application. The program has been enhanced by the addition of a graphics database,
and an adaptive dynamic wave solution algorithm that is more stable than the matrix method
used in the original SWMM. The program is divided into a stormwater layer, which includes
hydrology and water quality, a wastewater layer, which includes storage treatment and water

12
quality routing for BMP analysis, and a hydro-dynamic/hydraulics layer for simulation of open
or closed conduits. The user-friendly GUI is based upon a graphical representation of the
modeled system using a link-node architecture. An example of input and output processing in
Visual Hydro is found in figure 3.2. Because the links and nodes are set up on a coordinate
system basis, files can be translated between most CAD and GIS software systems. CAD or GIS
files can also be used as a backdrop for the system being modeled. However, since there is no
interface with a GIS, data interchange method must be used to transfer parameters (e.g., slope,
width, percent imperviousness, etc.) from a GIS to the model. However, the program can import
and export files from and to a GIS.

3.4 SWMM-DUET

SWMM-DUET is the only fully integrated application of a model into a GIS. It was developed
using ArcInfo and the native ArcInfo development language AML (Shamsi 1998). SWMM
DUET uses relational databases, both pre- and post-processors, and expert system logic to
integrate the SWMM environment and the graphical paradigm of ArcInfo (Shamsi 1998). Future
plans include an ArcView version of this product (Shamsi 1998).

3.5 DHI Software

3.5.1 MIKE SWMM

MikeSWMM is a proprietary GUI for SWMM from the Danish Hydraulic Institute and Camp,
Dresser and McKee, Inc. Mike SWMM can be integrated with a GIS system using Mouse GIS,
also available from DHI. Mike SWMM is a classified as an ArcView interface due to its ability
to link with the Mouse GIS program, which is described in the follow section.

3.5.2 MOUSE and MOUSE GIS

Mouse GIS is a module for MikeSWMM and Mouse users that also allows tight integration
between the GIS and the model database. Mouse GIS is an ArcView GIS application. Files do
not need to be translated and converted from the GIS to the model format. The DHI product for
stormwater modeling, Mouse, uses the Mike GUI within the MS Windows environment. Mouse
is a dynamic 32-bit model running in MS Windows that is capable of modeling any type or
combination of open or closed conduits and pressurized or gravity flows. An example of the
result of a simple query that illustrates the operating environment of Mouse GIS can be seen in
figures 3.4 and 3.5. Each object within Mouse GIS has database attributes that can be queried.
Mouse GIS is an interface between ArcView and the hydraulic pipe simulator, MOUSE. Mouse
is a sophisticated proprietary hydraulic model that is commonly compared to SWMM.

13
Figure 3.2: Visual Hydro
(CAiCHE, 1998)
14
Figure 3.3: Mouse GIS user action
(www.dhi.dk/mouse/)

Figure 3.4: System response to user action, Mouse GIS

(www.dhi.dk/mouse/).

15
3.6 Wallingford Software-HydroWorks and InfoWorks

HydroWorks and InfoWorks are companion products produced by Wallingford, Inc. of the UK.
Wallingford has taken a different approach to managing geospatial data. InfoWorks is designed
to import relational and geospatial data from third party software (e.g. Access and ArcView).
Once transferred to InfoWorks, the data is then used to create and run a HydroWorks model.
Hydroworks is an urban stormwater modeling system with a user friendly GUI. HydroWorks
uses a fully dynamic solution technique that solves backwater and unsteady open or closed
conduit situations.

InfoWorks performs GIS-type operations, and is designed to operate with HydroWorks, the
hydrologic and hydraulic simulator produced by Wallingford, Inc. While the relationship
between InfoWorks and HydroWorks may be defined as an interface or even fully integrated,
InfoWorks is not a GIS interface. An example of InfoWorks is shown in figure 3.5. Data from a
general use GIS product like ArcView would need to be imported into InfoWorks, much like the
PCSWMM GIS program from CHI.

Figure 3.5: InfoWorks from Wallingford Software

(HR-Wallingford, 1999)

16
3.7 Summary

A summary of model and GIS features is presented in table 3.2. As described above, and
summarized in table 3.2, the problem of transferring geographic and hydrographic data between
a GIS and a simulation model has been handled several different ways by various software
developers. It may appear self evident that a tight integration between the hydraulic model and
the GIS is desirable. However, the question should be raised; how integrated should these two
types of software be? For example, should a GIS include a hydraulic model as part of a toolbox
within the GIS? This may, or may not, be desirable. Therefore it should not be assumed that
because SWMM DUET has integrated SWMM within ArcInfo that it is the best modeling tool.
For example, the expert GUI of XP SWMM may be more useful for a given application, despite
the fact that it does not interface directly with a GIS, nor does it have an intermediate data
management program. What is common among the recent software developments is a
transferability of fundamental database information. This theme is formerly known as a
Decision Support System (DSS). Under a DSS framework, neither the GIS nor the model are
“central” to the process. Both GIS and model serve satellite functions to a central master
database. A more fundamental look at this question is given in chapter 5.

The question “which model works best with GIS?” is impossible to answer. Depending on the
problem at hand, several products are designed to work with an existing GIS. The answer
largely depends on the state of information available. If an existing ArcInfo database is in place,
SWMMDUET would work well. Other products have used an information management
approach over GIS integration. This may be best suited for applications with disparate data
sources. Differences amongst hydraulic models may be more important. The DHI suite of
models may be appealing for certain applications. The organization of the HydroInfo/
HydroWorks or PCSWMM’98/PCSWMM GIS software may be best suited for other
applications. Each has unique and valuable features, and no recommendation is made in this
report for a specific software package.

The future evolution of both GIS and urban stormwater modeling, and their possible
convergence, appears to be centering upon object intelligence and smaller, programmable
component tools. For example, ESRI’s stated goal of its next generation of programs (possibly
ArcView 4.0) is to rewrite and enhance its programs to use standard MS Windows routines that
can be called via dynamic link libraries (DLLs). An early example is the product called
MapObjects, which allows a programmer to insert a GIS-like application within a Visual Basic
or Visual C++ program, and make queries and ArcView-like functions upon GIS databases
without the ArcView program itself. Existing tools like Evolver, for nonlinear optimization, and
@Risk for Monte Carlo simulation are also available as DLLs (Palisade Corporation, 1998).
Urban stormwater modeling tools appear to be evolving into using similar tools as they take
advantage of existing libraries such as spreadsheet and graphic add-ons, (e.g., Visual Hydro,
PCSWMM), and are rewritten in object-oriented programs such as Visual C++, Visual Basic, or
Java. The future convergence of GIS and urban stormwater modeling will probably utilize these
common sets of tools to take advantage of the easier interoperability. Such tools make
integration of these disparate components possible into an integrated Decision Support System,
the subject of the next chapter.

17
Table 3.2: Characteristics of urban storm stormwater models

Software Data Intermediate GIS/Model GIS/Model Advantages/Disadvantages

Interchange Program Interface Integration
SWMM Products:
EPA SWMM X DOS based
Windows SWMM X Based on SWMM circa 1994
PCSWMM’98/ X PCSWMM GIS is a data management
PCSWMM GIS program
Visual Hydro/XP-SWMM X Imports CAD, GIS files
SWMMDUET X ArcInfo based
MIKE SWMM/ X ArcView based (via MOUSE GIS)
DHI Products X ArcView
MOUSE, Mike-11
MOUSE GIS
HydroWorks/ X InfoWorks is a data management program
InfoWorks for geographic and relational databases.

18
4.0 Future Urban Stormwater Modeling in a DSS Environment

Much of the data used in distributed (and lumped-distributed) hydrologic modeling requires
some level of spatially referenced information. Conversely, purely lumped hydrologic models
by definition do not require data to be spatially referenced. This report is focused on lumped-
distributed models and the type of information required to use them. Lumped-distributed models
are typically defined by sub-catchments within a stormwater basin. The hydrologic parameters
are lumped within each sub-catchment. On the basin scale, however, the discretization among
sub-catchments provides spatial distribution. Some of the data used in these distributed models
may be more efficiently stored in forms other than GIS spatial database structures (Reitsma et al.
1996). For example, relational data models may be more efficient in storing certain attribute
information. Time series are another form of data commonly used in hydrologic modeling.
These data are frequently stored in a relational form, despite some shortcomings of this structure
for time series (Reitsma et al. 1996).

Besides model input, decision-makers frequently require analysis of model output, and the
analysis may not necessarily be spatially referenced. For these reasons, future model
development should not only focus on the role of GIS in modeling, but on how all information is
stored and used.

Due to the complexity of tools required to fully support a complex hydrologic decision, a system
made up of more than a GIS and simulation model is needed. An integrated suite of tools is
required to manage information. These tools are referred to as Decision Support Systems (DSS).
Although the model is important, much of the focus has shifted to the related needs of relational
database management, developing geographical information systems, and a sophisticated user
friendly interface, all combined in DSS. Figure 4.1 describes these necessary components of a
DSS (Reitsma et al., 1996). The evolution of DSS may be seen as a natural extension of
simulation models (e.g. SWMM, MOUSE, HydroWorks), GIS (e.g. ArcView, IDRISI, ArcInfo),
relational databases (e.g. Dbase, Oracle, Access) and evaluation tools (e.g. optimization
software). Reitsma (1996) define a DSS for water resources applications:

“Decision support systems are computer-based systems which integrate state

information, dynamic or process information, and plan evaluation tools into a
single software implementation.”

In this definition, state information refers to data which represents the system’s state at any point
in time, process information represents the first principles governing resource behavior, and
evaluation tools refer to software used for transforming raw data into information useful for
decision making. A simple representation of DSS components is shown in figure 4.1.

The GIS and the simulation model are only components of the DSS in figure 4.1. Future model
development should focus not only on GIS interfaces and integration with models, but should
include integration with a more complete management information system.. The view for future
model development should be broader than only GIS integration, because hydrologic decision
making requires more than just spatial information. In a DSS, the GIS only handles spatial data.
Spatially referenced information is only one form of state data that is relevant to hydrologic and

19
hydraulic modeling. Time series and attribute data are also crucial to the analysis, and may be
handled poorly in a GIS database format designed to manage spatially referenced data.

A thorough background on DSSs and their application to reservoir decisions can be found in
Jamieson and Fedra (1996a), Fedra and Jamieson (1996), and Jamieson and Fedra (1996b).
These series of articles describe the conceptual design, planning capability, and example
application of the Water Ware DSS, a complex river basin DSS that combines a “GIS, a geo-
referenced database, groundwater flow, surface water flow, hydrologic processes, demand
forecasting, and water-resources planning” (Jamieson and Fedra 1996a). Reservoir operation
and management was one of the first areas of civil engineering in which DSSs were applied.
Because of the complicated decision criteria governing urban stormwater management, Davis et
al. (1991) studied a prototype DSS developed to analyze the impact of different catchment
policies. Driscoll (1993) developed a DSS to assist highway engineers in determining which
construction sites would contribute to a receiving water quality problem. Azzout et al. (1995)
discuss a DSS under development that would assist in determining the feasibility of alternative
techniques in urban stormwater management.

DSS
Evaluation Tools
-Multi Criteria Evaluation
-Visualization
-Status Checking

State Information
-Databases
-Geographic Information

Process Information
-(Simulation) Models

Figure 4.1: DSS structure and components

(Reitsma et al. 1996)

20
The theme of the following sections is that the parts of a DSS are separate but complementary.
They should be able to transfer information to needed process models and evaluation tools
without complications. There is no need to house everything under one umbrella, i.e. to perform
all modeling tasks in an integrated GIS/hydraulic model.

4.1 State Information

In one form of DSS, state information drives the system. This is a “data-centric” view, and it
differs from the more traditional model-based analysis commonly used in urban water resources
modeling. This fundamental change in perspective may be more important to the future of
stormwater modeling than efficient program interfacing. The modeler will need to have tools
that handle spatial and temporal data for purposes of modeling, rather than spending resources
manually transforming data into the format needed for the model. While this is the idea behind
much of the discussion in section 4, a fully integrated GIS/model like SWMMDUET may not be
the best modeling tool for the future. It may be that an intermediate database manager (e.g.
HydroInfo, PCSWMM GIS, etc) may be closer to a DSS than full GIS integration.

State information is stored in relational databases or spatial databases in a modern DSS. Instead
of integrating all data forms into one database model, the relational and the spatial information
are kept separate, and are linked together to form a geo-relational database structure.

4.1.1 GIS

The focus of this report has been on spatial data for modeling purposes. GIS is a critical part of
the DSS for systems that are spatially distributed. Since some spatial discretization is needed to
model urban hydrologic systems, much effort has been placed on smoothly transferring spatial
data to the model and vice versa. Under the DSS data-centered framework, the GIS is one part
of the central database of state information. Due to the popularity of GIS software, there has
been some interest in housing the entire DSS within the GIS framework. For example, Walsh
(1993) investigate spatial DSS, a GIS driven DSS. Reitsma et al. (1996) describe some of the
problems associated with a GIS-based DSS:

“Recent developments in modeling in GIS (NCGIA 1991; 1993) suggest that GIS
can be extended even further into other domains of modeling, e.g., water
resources. This type of architecture does offer certain advantages in that it makes
use of sophisticated software for management and evaluation of spatial data. A
distinct problem, however, is that although rapid improvements are being made in
the integration of GIS and modeling (NCGIA 1991; 1993), the full integration of
all three components of DSS in GIS is, to say the least, problematic.”

To facilitate a non-GIS-based DSS framework, i.e. GIS as a component but not central to the
DSS, there are several considerations for GIS. First, the spatial database in the GIS must
communicate with other DSS components. This means that much of the interfacing/integration
of models and GIS discussed by Shamsi (1998) and reviewed in Chapter 3 must be extended to
include other DSS components. Second, spatial tools should be available for modification by the
modeler. The GUI should include a dynamic toolbox. For example, if the GIS performs an

21
aggregation calculation in one way, the modeler may wish to modify the algorithm without
having to re-write a lot of computer code.

The spatial analysis of topographic and hydrographic data may be efficiently carried out in a
GIS. GIS software, e.g. ArcView, contain tools that take basic geographic input parameters, e.g.
a DEM, and create stormwater boundaries, do slope analysis, etc. Land use and soil coverages
are commonly used to estimate hydrologic parameters. Shamsi (1998) discusses several ways
that SWMM input parameters may be estimated using GIS. Subarea characteristics such as area,
width of overland flow, percent imperviousness and slope may be estimated for the RUNOFF
block of SWMM. Parameters used for water quality simulation with the TRANSPORT block of
SWMM such as curb length may be estimated from road characteristics in a GIS. Similarly, land
use data may be used from a GIS to create SWMM TRANSPORT input files for water quality
simulation.

Hellweger and Maidment (1999) discuss the details of the spatial analysis required to create an
input file for the HEC-HMS model. While not specifically an urban model, it may be useful to
review the procedures used. A method to define sub-basin boundaries and stream network
connectivity was developed using GIS data layers derived from digital terrain data. Intersecting
the sub-basin and stream network layers results in a node-arc representation of the watershed.
This information is used to develop an input file for the HEC-HMS model. In this example, an
underlying assumption was that streams flowed perpendicular to topographic contour lines.

While many of the tools and methods described by Hellweger and Maidment (1999) are useful
for modeling natural hydrologic systems, the effect of managed systems in urban areas
significantly complicates the analysis. For example, gravity sewers and engineered open
channels may have slopes that are independent from the ground surface slope, possibly crossing
natural stormwater boundaries and otherwise defying a general physics-based analysis that is
used when describing natural systems. Managed or altered hydrologic systems may also be
operated based on logic other than the processes that drive a natural system. For example, flow
may be diverted from a stream only during dry weather for irrigation purposes, thereby
exaggerating the apparent peaking ratio of a stream gauging station.

The problems associated with a “pure” GIS analysis of an urban, managed system highlight the
advantages of integrating GIS, simulation tools, and relational databases into a DSS. The DSS
framework addresses many of the problems associated with using a GIS for urban analysis
because of the ability to access and manage related, auxiliary information.

4.1.2 Time series

The analysis of time series data is equally important to modeling as the analysis of spatial data.
Temporal data includes flow and rain time series, water quality data, etc., as well as dynamic
model output. The DSS could include a time series toolbox. Statistical tests and statistical
models could reside in this portion of the DSS, for comparison with process models and for
analyzing model output. An example of some of this type of pre-processing is that which is
currently done in outside statistical packages, or even using Microsoft Excel.
Continuous simulation modeling usually will require large amounts of time series data for input

22
purposes. Urban stormwater models that have the capability of continuous simulation usually
are capable of reading several different formats of rainfall data. For example, SWMM reads the
following formats (Gregory and James, 1996):

1. National Weather Service Hourly Rainfall Data (in two formats).

2. Pre-1980 National Weather Service Hourly Rainfall Data
3. User Defined Hourly Rainfall Data
4. Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service Hourly Rainfall Data

In SWMM, the standard modules RUNOFF, TRANSPORT, EXTRAN, and STORAGE can
import the above formats of time series data. In addition, the modules RAIN, TEMP, STATS,
and COMBINE can be used to preprocess time series data. HSP-F, the Hydrologic Simulation
Program FORTRAN, includes several time series facilities (Gregory and James, 1996). Several
single purpose time series data management programs are available. The HEC-DSS, or the
Hydrologic Engineering Center Data Storage System (not Decision Support System), was
developed to link time series data with the various HEC watershed management programs.
ANNIE, developed by the US Geological Survey, uses watershed data management (WDM)
files, and can import WATSTORE files (Gregory and James, 1996). Both ANNIE and HEC-
DSS are non-proprietary FORTRAN models. Due to the multitude of file formats it is difficult
to import and export datasets between different modeling environments. For this reason, the
CASCADE2 time series management program was developed (Wang and James, 1997). This
program, written in Visual Basic, runs under MS Windows and bridges the gap between SWMM
and HEC-DSS formats.

To be used within a relational database, the time value must be stored, which creates a
redundancy of information. This is because a time series is defined by the start time, the time
interval, and either the length of the interval or the end time (Reitsma et al. 1996). Another
disadvantage of the relational approach is that the DSS must store the criteria for searching the
time series (Reitsma et al. 1996). The importance of this redundancy becomes more evident in
the case of real time control, which utilizes signal processing and control theory. Lavallee et al.
(1996) describe a real time control system developed for the Quebec urban area to manage a
stormwater system to minimize CSOs. The unique data needs and system architecture of the
RTC system support many of the concepts of DSS due to the demand for timely decisions and
vast amounts of data available..

4.1.3 Relational database

An example of a relational database query and its results is presented in this subsection. This
example is presented within the context of a relational database contained within a GIS. The
same queries can be made in a non-graphic relational database. The linked tabular structure of a
relational database allows for extremely complex and powerful queries to be constructed, thus
relevant information is made available to the user. The City of Aurora, Colorado has developed
a very good base system for GIS. A subcatchment was chosen from the Shop Creek watershed
of Aurora, Colorado, a pilot area for GIS development for the City of Aurora.

The available themes from this area are as follows:

1. Water lines

23
 2. Digital elevation models
3. Rain gages
4. Stream gages
5. Parcels
6. Sewer lines
7. Sewer manholes
8. Digital orthophotos
9. Streets centerlines
10. Sewer tap locations
11. Water meter locations
12. Impervious areas (created by tracing the digital orthophotos)

Many tables are associated with each of these themes. An important feature of ArcView is the
use of the relational database structure. Tables are linked to graphical features, or themes
(analogous to layers in AutoCAD) through the use of spatial geocoding. The user links or joins
the tables by choosing a common column, or field between them. The three main types of
relationships among tables are:

1. One to One
2. One to Many or Many to One
3. Many to Many

All of the records in the one to one table could be placed in the same table. However, good
database practice suggests organizing the tables around their functions, instead of the other way
around. For example, many attributes are associated with your name, but only your address and
phone number are listed in a telephone directory. The first two of these types of relationships is
shown in figure 4.2. The two tables nearest the bottom, “Attributes of Theme1.shp” and
“Attributes of Parcel” are joined by a one to one relationship, with the fields “Parcel-ID” being
the common column. This is again the relationship between “Attributes of Parcel” and
“Attributes of Address”, using the fields “Parcel-Id” and “Address-Id” as the common columns
(it is not necessary that they have the same name). Lastly, a one to many relationship is shown
by the indexing of “Attributes of Address” and “all_9295.dbf” with the fields “Gistag” and
“Gisno”. The function of this linking is essentially the following. The theme1.shp table contains
the parcels that are located within the small subcatchment. The Attributes of Parcel table
contains data on all parcels. Attributes of Address contain address information, including the
GIS tag number needed within the Water Use database. This database lists monthly water use
data within entire Shop Creek basin, so many records are associated with each parcel.

The query shown in figure 4.2 illustrates the power of this tool. The query asks for all linked
records in which the water use in a month is over 10,000 gallons. The results of the query are
highlighted within the tables. These queries can be moved to the top of their respective tables for
further visual analysis. Alternatively, by clicking on the view with the current theme set to
Theme1.shp, the visual results of the query can be seen by highlighting parcels that used at least
10,000 gallons a month as shown in figure 4.3.

24
Figure 4.2: Relational database query example in ArcView using water use data

25
Figure 4.3: Spatial results for example query from figure 4.2.

26
The results of the query can also be output to an Excel spreadsheet by using ArcView’s Avenue
script language and Microsoft’s Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE). This capability is incorporated
as a toolbar shown as an “X” in figure 4.3. The results of this query, output to MS Excel, can be
found in figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Query results output to Excel using Avenue script tool and Microsoft DDE

An example of a relational database within a DSS can be found in Reitsma et al. (1996). In a
review of the TERRA DSS system, the authors explain that the data were divided into seven
main groupings:

1. Time Series Data

2. Historical Data
3. Physical Attribute Data
4. Operational Constraints
5. Model Data
6. Security Data
7. Meta Data

Meta data, the last group, is data about data; and allows the Data Management Interface (DMI), a
program component of the DSS, to refer only to the meta data, which keeps track of the data
structure and where and how the data is stored. This allows the DSS program to be relatively

27
free of data constraints (Reitsma et al., 1996). Although the relational database model has some
shortcomings, particularly for time series, it remains the database structure of choice for DSS, as
it is the prevailing database model at present.

4.2 Process Information-Simulation Tools

In the DSS framework, the process information is contained in simulation models. Process
models simulate transitions of the state of the system, as described by the geo-relational
database. The simulation model must therefore communicate in some fashion with the rest of the
system. For stormwater management models, this may occur in much the same way as described
in chapter 3. Data must be transferred to the model from spatial and relational databases. This
may occur in a variety of ways, from the rudimentary (but effective) data interchange methods to
full-fledged integration in a DSS, running along with the other tools that make up a DSS. The
difference from the methods described in chapter 3 is that the communication is not only with the
GIS, but also with all elements of the DSS.

4.3 Evaluation Tools

Evaluation tools assist the decision-maker by presenting the output from the process and state
information in a manner consistent with resource or policy appraisal (Reitsma et al. 1996).
Evaluation tools may be of many forms. While much of the above discussion is framed around
the excellent review of DSS by Reitsma et al. (1996), the discussion of optimization deviates
somewhat from their discourse. Reitsma et al. (1996) do not consider optimization tools to be
strictly an evaluation tool, nor do they feel that optimization has been accepted by the user
community. While perhaps true for classical optimization techniques, the development of new
Intelligent Search Techniques (IST) is proving to be useful for many realistic problems that are
unsuitable for traditional methods.

4.4 Overall DSS for Water Management

An overall DSS for water management of hydropower and river operations is shown in figure
4.5. This DSS combines the concepts of a centralized database, including hydrologic as well as
spatial information, and utilizes two different models that access that data; the Modular
Modeling System (MMS) which is a watershed and general environmental model, and
RiverWare, which models rivers and reservoirs. Evaluation tools are included within each of the
model components. The DSS includes a GIS as a tool for the user to query the common spatial
database. This DSS was developed by the Center for Advanced Decision Support in Water and
Environmental Systems (CADSWES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, with support
from the Tennessee Valley Authority and the US Bureau of Reclamation. This DSS focuses on
large watersheds with complex reservoir and hydropower operations.

28
Figure 4.5: CU-CADSWES DSS
(Fulp et al., 1994)

A DSS framework for the urban stormwater field is presented in figure 4.6. This DSS is an
amalgamation of the different components of the Mike series of software produced by the Danish
Hydraulic Institute (DHI), emphasizing their interoperability and common database, Mike Info.
The database (relational and spatial) is the common link between separate functions and
applications of the DSS. The peripheral models include Mike-11 for urban drainage, Mike SHE
for distributed watershed modeling, WUS for river basin planning, and NAM for statistical
analysis of streamflow/unguaged catchments.

29
Figure 4.6: Danish Hydraulic Institute DSS, based on integrated water resources modeling (DHI,
1998)

30
5.0 Application of GIS and DSS to Micro Storm Analysis

This chapter focuses upon the application of GIS, database management, and DSS to the urban
stormwater management problem. A textbook case study from Tchobanoglous (1981) is used to
develop a GIS and an accompanying relational database. The database is used with hydrologic
and hydraulic models, and a cost analysis module. The combination of these components
represents a systematic urban stormwater design tool. The tool is then interfaced with an
optimization software package to develop optimal designs of the proposed network. The costs of
these designs can then be compared with a decentralized approach to controlling runoff. This
was done by using the GIS in conjunction with the NRCS analysis, which computes the initial
abstraction storage volume that is lost as a result of development. Using unit costs developed in
Heaney et al. (1999a), the optimal suite of controls can be selected using linear programming
(LP).

A diagram of the process used in the chapter is found in figure 5.1. The reader may notice
similarities between some of the components of a DSS and figure 5.1. In particular, the problem
consists of a database, simulation tools, and evaluation tools, similar in concept to that of a DSS
presented by Reitsma et al. (1996). The database includes GIS and its inherent spatial database,
but also a cost database, and a hydrologic database. The simulation tools consist of the NRCS
curve number method for computation of initial abstraction, the hydrologic model spreadsheet
template, the hydraulic model spreadsheet template, and the costing module. The evaluation tool
consists of a genetic algorithm to optimize the stormwater network, and a linear programming
model to evaluate proposed controls based upon unit costs developed in Heaney et al. (1999a).
Although not integrated into a single software program, the process shown here closely parallels
that of a DSS. The utility of GIS (to the urban stormwater field) is enhanced by its close
integration with the database, models, and analysis tools used in the problem. Because of the
large investment in time and resources necessary to construct an urban GIS, there is a natural
tendency for the GIS system to move to center stage. However, the value of the GIS is when it is
fully integrated within a DSS which is then used to address complex processes that cannot be
easily solved by other means.

Key considerations are the concepts of accuracy and scale as they apply to GIS data. Since the
datasets presented here vary substantially in terms of their level of detail and scale, a discussion
of spatial scale becomes necessary.

31
 DSS

Evaluation Tools

Optimization
Linear Programming (LP)
Genetic Algorithms (GA)

Simulation Tools
Database
Relational (nongraphic) NRCS CN Hydrologic Method
addresses Rational Method
billing Hydraulic Design Template
unit costs Cost Template
time series input data
GIS/Spatial Database
Themes
Topography
Soils
Land use
Streets
Right of way
Pipe network
Parcels

Figure 5.1: Proposed DSS for microstorm analysis

5.1 Spatial Scale and GIS-Stormwater Modeling

A recent software development, BASINS 2.0, developed by TetraTech for the US Environmental
Protection Agency, has created interest in the development of model-graphical user interface-
GIS linkages within the water community. BASINS 2.0 runs within ArcView 3.0 and includes a
national dataset on the attributes listed in Table 5.1 (Battin, et al. 1998).

32
Table 5.1: Available BASINS data attributes
(Battin et al. 1998)
Spatially Distributed Data
Land use/land cover (GIRAS)
Urbanized areas
Populated place location
Reach File, version 1 (RF1)
Reach File, version 3 (RF3)
Soils (STATSGO)
Elevation (DEM)
Major roads
Environmental Monitoring Data
Water quality monitoring station summaries
Water quality observation data
Bacteria monitoring station summaries
Weather Station Sites (477)
Clean Water Needs Survey
Point Source Data
Permit Compliance System
Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) sites
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites
USGS Hydrologic unit boundaries
Drinking water supplies
Dam sites
EPA region boundaries
State boundaries
County boundaries
Federal and Indian Lands
Ecoregions
USGS gaging stations
Fish and wildlife advisories
National Sediment Inventory (NSI)
Shellfish Contamination Inventory
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) sites
Mineral availability system/mineral industry location
Superfund national priority list sites

BASINS 2.0 includes tools for automatic watershed delineation and handling of digital elevation
models (DEM). Its main data handling routines include: Target, which is a regional, or state
level broad-based watershed water quality or point source assessment tool; Assess, which
operates a smaller scale of one or a few watersheds and enclosed discharge points or water
quality stations; and Data Mining, which dynamically links water discharge stations and
geographic location information. Modeling tools include a nonpoint source model (later to be
enhanced by the addition of SWAT, the MS Windows based nonpoint source model developed
by the USDA), HSPF, Qual-2E, and Toxiroute. Model post processors include graphs (Battin,
Kinerson, and Lahlou 1998). EPA SWMM may be linked with BASINS in the future.

33
The accepted accuracy levels of mapping work are listed in Table 5.2 (Shamsi et al. 1995). Most
of the BASINS work and modeling have been on a watershed or regional level scale. An
example is shown in figure 5.2. The size of this file relative to the area it represents reflects a
scale of about 1:2000.

Table 5.2: Minimum horizontal accuracy and example features for various map scales in urban
areas
(Shamsi et al. 1995)
Map Scale Minimum Horizontal Examples of Smallest
Accuracy, per National Map Features Depicted
Accuracy Standards
1”=50’ ± 1.25’ Manholes, catch basins
1’=100’ ± 2.50’ Utility poles, fence lines
1”=200’ ± 5.00’ Buildings, edge of pavement
1”=2000’ ± 40’ Transportation, developed
areas, watersheds

Figure 5.2: BASINS dataset for Boulder, Colorado

Automatic watershed delineation of undeveloped areas may be appropriate at this scale.

However, urban systems have extremely altered topography. The topography in these types of
catchments can be represented by a dense DEM; however, development of watersheds based

34
upon triangular irregular networks (TINs) from this information is not presently reliable. This is
not to say that the database information presented from a watershed level scale has no value.
Actually, having the information presented in figure 5.2 can provide the modeler with possible
alternative sources of data, possibly structures that may not have been considered, etc. However,
a key disadvantage of using GIS information from different scales of accuracy is that a vector
GIS cannot show any uncertainty. An assumption of the GIS model is that the points are known
to 100% accuracy. This leaves it up to the reader to verify locations and discrepancies,
particularly when the scales, and the resultant accuracy, differ widely.

In addition, the memory requirements for regional level stormwater-GIS modeling are
staggering. For example, the City of Boulder has an ongoing GIS project, a broad view of which
is shown in figure 5.3 (Brown and Caldwell and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1997).

Figure 5.3: ArcView coverage of Boulder, Colorado

(Brown and Caldwell and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1997)

Minor roads are outlined in light green, major roads are outlined in thick maroon; creeks are
shown in light blue, lakes in shaded blue, and sub-basins boundaries in black. Not shown for
better clarity, but available, are parcels, zoning, topography, watershed boundaries, and several
other miscellaneous themes. Also not shown is the database describing each graphic entity (for
example, the parcel database). Even at this finer resolution, urban stormwater modeling is at too
aggregate a scale to evaluate sets of alternatives that include micro-topographical changes to
implement BMPs.

35
In order to evaluate the effects of source and neighborhood-level BMPs, the coverage as depicted
in figure 5.4 is needed. This area is a block in the University Hill neighborhood of Boulder. The
parcel theme is shown in red, the street centerline is shown in green, and the streams are shown
in blue. Topography is not shown, but exists in this database at the 40 foot contour interval,
reflecting a scale of about 1:200.

Figure 5.4: City of Boulder ArcView GIS coverage for University Hill neighborhood, Boulder,
Colorado.

36
Moving towards a finer dataset, another parallel project at the City of Boulder, in the Public
Works/Public Utilities group, is an Automated Mapping/Facilities Management (AM/FM)
project in which the city’s infrastructure is being mapped by street surveys and aerial
photography. The end product at the present time is a tiled set of AutoCAD maps representing
portions of the city. The representation of this project for the same block in the University Hill
neighborhood is shown in figure 5.5. The scale of this information is approximately 1:100. The
green layer signifies building rooflines, yellow is the street centerline and parking
areas/driveways, red is sidewalks, and black is the curblines. This file has been edited
extensively to eliminate extraneous lines and close polygons. Since the end product of the
project was a set of AutoCAD maps, manual and automatic processes on the digital photography
result in multiple lines whose ends may not match and polygons that do not close. Although
acceptable for graphic presentation, this information is of limited value for extracting data for
stormwater evaluations. Extensive cleanup is necessary for this information prior to inputting it
into a GIS. Topography for this information is available for an additional cost at a 2-foot contour
interval. At the present time, conversion of this data to ArcInfo and ArcView coverages is
underway.

5.2 Description of Happy Acres Case Study GIS

A textbook study area, nicknamed “Happy Acres”, was selected from Tchobanoglous (1981). A
GIS coverage for this case study was developed. The study area was first digitized in AutoCAD,
then edited for geometric consistency, i.e., parallel lines were kept parallel, polygons were joined
from separated lines, to make the transition to GIS easier. The mix of land uses for the area is
laid out in table 5.3. The reconstructed AutoCAD drawing of the area is shown in figure 5.6.
The topography of the study area and the layout of the storm sewer system are shown in figure
5.7 (Tchobanoglous 1981). Land use is shown in figure 5.8. Soils data is shown in figure 5.9.
The entire study area is divided into 54 sub-areas that range in size from 0.8 to 5.4 acres in size.
A description of the attribute information in figure 5.6 is found in table 5.4.

Table 5.3: Mix of land uses in Happy Acres

Land Use Acres Dwelling

units/acre
Residential, low density 20.8 2-3
Residential, medium density 51.7 6-8
Apartments 10.0 10
School 5.7 N/A
Commercial 18.4 N/A
Total 106.6

37
Figure 5.5: AutoCAD file for University Hills neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado.

38
Figure 5.6: AutoCAD coverage for study area
(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

39
 N

Sewer2.sh p
Manhol e2 .sh p
Con tour s o f Tch ob an_po ints 4_point.shp
Tchoban_parce ls2 _regio n.shp
Tchoban_roads 2_r egi on .s hp

100 0 100 200 Meters

Figure 5.7: Study area topography

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

40
 Tchoban_roads2_region.shp
Nwgrd3
Apartment
Commercial
LD Residential
MD Residential
School
No Data

W E
300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 Feet
S

Figure 5.8: Study area land use

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

41
 Tchoban_roads2_region.shp
Tchoban_drainage2_region.shp
Soilgrid
Clay
Rock
Silt
No Data

W E
300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 Feet
S

Figure 5.9: Study area soils

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

42
Table 5.4: AutoCAD layers for study area

Layer/Object Category Color

Streets Not shown (for clarity)
Manholes Blue
Sewer lines Red
Land use boundary Aqua
Hydrologic boundary Blue
Parcel Green
Rooflines Magenta
Driveways Orange
Soils Not shown (for clarity)

The AutoCAD layers shown in table 5.4 become the following ArcView themes:

1. Streets
2. Manholes
3. Sewer lines
4. Land use boundary
5. Hydrologic boundary
6. Parcel
7. Rooflines
8. Driveways
9. Soils

A relational database is associated with each graphic object, grouped according to type.
Attributes associated with parcels are address and land area; and with streets are right of way
width, length, land area, and street name. Soils and land use exist in separate tables, and this
information was combined with the parcel and street databases by performing an intersection
query on the two themes. The results of the query can also be output to an Excel spreadsheet by
using ArcView’s Avenue script language and Microsoft’s Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE). This
procedure was used to extract the relevant attribute information for parcels and streets.

The rights of way identified in figures 5.6 through 5.9 were assigned widths based upon the
following criteria. Minor streets within the development have a 50 foot right of way, a minor
arterial is given a 60 foot right of way, and a major arterial a 70 foot right of way. The profile of
each right of way is given in table 5.4. The reader is referred to Heaney et al. (1999a) for further
details on the database.

Table 5.5: Right of way characteristics

R/W Length, Curb Parking Landscaping Sidewalk Traffic

ft ft ft ft strip, ft ft Lanes, ft
50 28,680 4 8 10 8 20
60 1,124 4 16 10 8 22
70 2,741 4 16 18 8 24

43
Note: Some of the parameters are summed from both sides of the street.

Lot characteristics for the two single lot residential land use classifications are presented in table
5.6. Lots were aggregated in this manner for the optimization; however the GIS contains the full
heterogeneity of each parcel.

Table 5.6: Lot characteristics for residential parcels

Land Use No. of Roof Patio Driveway Landscap- Total

Parcels Area SF SF ing Area
SF SF SF
MD Residential (6-8 DU/AC) 255 1,600 200 600 3,600 6,000
LD Residential (2-5 DU/AC) 51 2,000 400 800 9,800 13,000

For the apartments, commercial, and school land uses, an aggregate analysis was used because
these land uses exhibited multi-parcel characteristics, such as for parking. A summary of these
characteristics is found in table 5.7

Table 5.7: Aggregate characteristics for commercial, apartments, and schools

Land Use No. of Stories Parcel Roof Parking Landscap-

parcels Area Area Area ing
SF SF SF SF
Apartments 2 2 162,680 46,927 75,083 40,670
Commercial 6 1 481,070 152,839 304,678 23,553
School 3 1 149,407 69,080 51,807 28,521

5.3 Simulation Tools for Hydraulic Design

The storm sewer network for the Happy Acres subdivision is diagrammed in figure 5.10. A
spreadsheet template has been developed to simulate and optimize storm sewer design for the
Happy Acres neighborhood-see tables 5.8 to 5.10. The value of better data obtained using GIS
can be estimated by evaluating the designs with and without this better information. The
following columns in table 5.7 represent data that can be obtained partially or totally with a GIS
system for this example.
Column Description
5 Sewer length
6 Stormwater area
7 Dwelling units per acre

The output from table 5.8 is the design peak discharge leaving each subcatchment. This
information is input to the sewer design table 5.9 that finds feasible combinations of pipe
diameters and slopes. The constraints on the design are:

Minimum depth of cover for the sewer, and

44
 Minimum velocity in the pipe.

The decision variables are pipe diameter (column 8) and slope (column 6). Trial and error
procedures are used to find a feasible solution to the design problem. In more sophisticated
analysis, the costs of the alternative systems are evaluated as shown in table 5.10. The
background for development of the cost relationships found in this table can be found in Heaney
et al. (1999a), and is based upon data obtained from R.S. Means (1996a). Additional GIS data
are helpful for the cost analysis. Specifically, soil conditions (column 8) affect the side slopes of
the sewer excavations, and the bedding costs.
18

17 17A 17B

16 16A 16B 16C

15 15A 15B

14E 14F

14
14D 14C 14B 14A

13I 13H
13

13G 13F 13E 13D 13C 13B 13A

12 12A 12B

11G 11F 11E 11D 11C 11B 11A 11

10E 10D 10C 10B 10A 10

9 9A 9B

8D 8C 8B 8A 8

7 7A 7B

1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 5.10: Study area sewer network

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

45
Table 5.8: Sewer network design hydrology
(Heaney et al. 1999)

46
Table 5.9: Sewer network design hydraulics
(Heaney et al. 1999)

47
Table 5.10: Sewer network design cost
(Heaney et al. 1999)

48
Using a new intelligent search technique called genetic algorithms (GAs), the optimal design was
found by having Evolver (Palisade Corp., 1998), a commercially available GA, evaluate different
combinations of pipe diameters and slopes until the least cost design is found.

5.4 Simulation Tools for Hydrologic Analysis

Heaney, Wright, and Sample (1999) describe a method for using the NRCS curve number (CN)
approach for evaluating micro storms. The fundamental principle is that development should not
reduce the initial soil moisture storage that existed prior to development. This initial soil
moisture storage is equivalent to the initial abstraction as calculated using the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) curve number (CN) method. The initial abstraction is a good
measure of the ability of the soil system to filter the stormwater. The initial abstraction, as a
function of CN, is shown in table 5.11. Inspection of table 5.11 reveals the importance of CN. A
low CN of 30 corresponds to an initial abstraction of 4.67 inches. Even at a CN of 80, the initial
abstraction is still 0.5 inches. If the original CN is fairly low, then a significant amount of soil
moisture storage is lost if this area is rendered impervious by development.

Table 5.11: Initial abstraction as a function of curve numbers, CN

CN Ia, inches CN Ia, inches

20 8 70 0.86
30 4.67 80 0.5
40 3 90 0.22
50 2 100 0.02
60 1.33

This method uses the concept of modifying the CNs for the developed condition so that the
modified CN is the same as the natural CN. The more cost-effective controls tend to focus on
utilizing the pervious area for more intensive infiltration. Alternatively, we seek to design
hydrologically functional landscapes as described in the next section.

5.4.1 Hydrologically functional landscaping

Traditional landscaping relies on covering most, if not all, of the pervious area with grass. The
lot is graded so that stormwater drains to the street and/or the rear of the lot as shown in figure
5.11 (Dewberry and Davis 1996). An example of a hydrologically functional landscape is shown
in figure 5.12 (Prince Georges County 1997). The general idea is to maximize the infiltration of
stormwater by providing depressions, draining runoff from impervious areas to pervious areas,
providing more circuitous routes for the stormwater to increase the time of concentration, etc.

49
Figure 5.11: Conventional storm drainage
(Dewberry and Davis 1996).

50
Figure 5.12: Illustration of hydrologically functional landscape
(Prince Georges County 1997).

51
5.4.2 Determination of runoff volumes using NRCS method

Each developed land use is assigned a curve number (CN) based upon work done by the Soil
Conservation Service (1986). The initial abstraction, or available storage, is estimated by the
following equation:
200
Ia = −2 5.1
CN
The final list of 10 permeable and 16 impermeable candidate land uses with their expected
effectiveness as measured by their curve number (CN) and the associated initial abstraction in
inches, calculated using equation 5.1, are shown in table 5.12. The CNs range from 25 to 98.
The initial abstraction associated with a CN of 25 is 6.00 inches of precipitation. Making this
land impervious increases the CN to 98 with an associated initial abstraction of only 0.04 inches,
a major loss of infiltration capacity. Using unit costs in $/square feet, which are developed in
section 5.5 (and detailed in Heaney et al. 1999a) and having determined the appropriate
abstraction, it is possible to convert the control option costs to $/gallon, which is done in the last
four columns of table 5.12. Several different functional land uses are given in table 5.12. These
include two kinds of aspens, fair, and good (referring to the health and density of the stand), two
kinds of driveways, permeable and impermeable, three types of grass cover, good, fair, and poor
(again referring to health and density), four types of parking, a traditional impervious surface,
and three of gradually increasing porosity, two types of patios, permeable and impermeable, two
kinds of roofs, with retention and without, two kinds of sidewalks, permeable and impermeable,
storage (detention pond), four types of streets, a traditional street profile with curb and gutter, a
street with curb and gutter and porous pavement, an impervious street with swales, and a street
with porous pavement and swales, two types of swales of progressively greater infiltration
capacity (and greater area), and two kinds of wooded areas, fair and poor, again referring to
health and density of the trees.

These values are unique to the soil type heading the column. The NRCS method aggregates clay
and silt together as soil type "B", and rock as soil type "D". Unit costs expressed as $/gallon are
useful for comparative purposes, as will be seen later.

5.4.3 Breakdown of calculated volumes per function

A functional analysis within each land use and soil classification was performed by adding the
total areas for the functions of roof, lawns, driveways, and parking (for non-right of way uses),
and streets, curbs, parking, sidewalks, and lawns for right of way areas. Volumes of developed
runoff can then be calculated by multiplying the initial abstraction by the appropriate area.
Predevelopment runoff can be calculated by using the composite curve number for Happy Acres
prior to development of 63.07, determining an initial abstraction for each soil group, and
multiplying this again by the area as done for the developed volumes. The result of this analysis
is found in table 5.13. This provides a snapshot of the increase in runoff volume for each land
use generated by development. Because the NRCS method is unique to soil characteristics, this
is further broken down by soil group.

52
Table 5.12: SCS hydrologic classifications, and calculation of unit storage values, 1/99$
Cover Description Curve Number Initial Abstraction in inchesUnit Unit Costs in $/gallons
cost
No. Type Cover type and hydrologic condition ID A B C D A B C D $/sf A B C D
1 Permeable Aspen-mountain brush mixture: Fair:30- Aspen F 28 48 57 63 5.14 2.17 1.51 1.17 $2.00 $0.62 $1.48 $2.13 $2.73
70% ground cover
2 Permeable Aspen-mountain brush mixture: Good: Aspen G 25 30 41 48 6.00 4.67 2.88 2.17 $3.00 $0.80 $1.03 $1.67 $2.22
>70% ground cover
1 Impervious Driveway Driveway 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.23 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21
2 Impervious Driveway-porous pavement Driveway 2 70 80 85 87 0.86 0.50 0.35 0.30 $0.25 $0.47 $0.80 $1.13 $1.34
3 Permeable Lawns, pasture, grassland: Fair condition Grass F 49 69 79 84 2.08 0.90 0.53 0.38 $0.81 $0.63 $1.45 $2.45 $3.42
(grass cover 50-75%)
4 Permeable Lawns, pasture, grassland: Good condition Grass G 39 61 74 80 3.13 1.28 0.70 0.50 $1.03 $0.53 $1.29 $2.35 $3.30
(grass cover >75%)
5 Permeable Lawns, pasture, grassland: Poor condition Grass P 68 79 86 89 0.94 0.53 0.33 0.25 $0.70 $1.19 $2.12 $3.45 $4.55
(grass cover < 50%)
6 Impervious Parking Parking 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.23 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21
4 Impervious Porous parking 1 Parking 2 61 75 83 87 1.28 0.67 0.41 0.30 $0.25 $0.31 $0.60 $0.98 $1.34
5 Impervious Porous parking 2 Parking 3 46 65 77 82 2.35 1.08 0.60 0.44 $0.26 $0.18 $0.39 $0.71 $0.97
6 Impervious Porous parking 3 Parking 4 36 55 67 72 3.56 1.64 0.99 0.78 $0.28 $0.13 $0.27 $0.46 $0.58
7 Impervious Patio Patio 1 95 95 95 95 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 $0.19 $2.89 $2.89 $2.89 $2.89
8 Impervious Porous patio Patio 2 76 85 89 91 0.63 0.35 0.25 0.20 $0.19 $0.49 $0.88 $1.25 $1.57
9 Impervious Roof Roof 1 95 95 95 95 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 Impervious Roof with detention Roof 2 85 85 85 85 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 $1.50 $6.82 $6.82 $6.82 $6.82
11 Impervious Sidewalks Sidewalk 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.19 $7.44 $7.44 $7.44 $7.44
12 Impervious Sidewalks with porous materials Sidewalk 2 70 80 85 87 0.86 0.50 0.35 0.30 $0.19 $0.36 $0.62 $0.88 $1.04
13 Permeable Storage-off-site in infiltration/detention Storage 15 20 35 40 11.33 8.00 3.71 3.00 $5.00 $0.71 $1.00 $2.16 $2.67
basins
14 Impervious Street with curb and gutter Street 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.25 $9.77 $9.77 $9.77 $9.77
15 Impervious Street with curb and gutter and porous Street 2 70 80 85 87 0.86 0.50 0.35 0.30 $0.26 $0.49 $0.84 $1.19 $1.41
pavement
16 Impervious Street with swales Street 3 76 85 89 91 0.63 0.35 0.25 0.20 $0.27 $0.68 $1.22 $1.74 $2.17
17 Impervious Street with swales and porous pavement Street 4 61 75 83 87 1.28 0.67 0.41 0.30 $0.28 $0.35 $0.67 $1.09 $1.49
18 Permeable Swales 1 Swales 1 46 65 77 82 2.35 1.08 0.60 0.44 $3.00 $2.05 $4.47 $8.06 $10.9
6
19 Permeable Swales 2 Swales 2 29 50 62 67 4.90 2.00 1.23 0.99 $6.00 $1.97 $4.81 $7.85 $9.77
20 Permeable Woods:Fair: Woods are grazed but not Woods F 36 60 73 79 3.56 1.33 0.74 0.53 $0.80 $0.36 $0.96 $1.73 $2.41
burned, and some forest litter
21 Permeable Woods:Good: Woods without grazing, and Woods G 25 55 70 77 6.00 1.64 0.86 0.60 $1.40 $0.37 $1.37 $2.62 $3.76
adequate litter and brush
Source: adapted from SCS, 1986

53
Table 5.13: Calculation of developed and predevelopment stormwater volumes for
Happy Acres
Soil Soil Volume Volume Total Vol. Volume Volume Tot. Volume
Types Types
Land Use Function B D, Total Area, Total Developed, B Developed, D Developed Undev., Undev., Undev.
B D
sf sf sf cf cf cf cf cf cf
Apartments Roof 46927 0 46927 412 0 412 4580 0 4580
Parking 75083 0 75083 255 0 255 7327 0 7327
Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lawns 40670 0 40670 4334 0 4334 3969 0 3969
Commercial Roof 95132 57707 152839 834 506 1341 9284 49 9333
Parking 44810 259868 304678 152 884 1036 4373 86 4459
Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lawns 6839 16714 23553 729 696 1425 667 68 735
MD Residential Roof 140800 267200 408000 1235 2344 3579 13741 229 13969
Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Driveway 52800 100200 153000 180 341 520 5153 33 5186
Lawns 353666 538755 892420 37686 22448 60134 34514 2191 36705
Patio 17600 33400 51000 154 293 447 0
LD Residential Roof 102000 0 102000 895 0 895 9954 0 9954
Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Driveway 40800 0 40800 139 0 139 3982 0 3982
Lawns 491233 0 491233 52344 0 52344 47939 0 47939
Patio 20400 0 20400 179 0 179 0
School Roof 69080 0 69080 606 0 606 6742 0 6742
Parking 51806 0 51806 176 0 176 5056 0 5056
Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lawns 28521 0 28521 3039 0 3039 2783 0 2783
Streets
50 ROW 659728 774288 1434016
Street with 105556 123886 229443 359 421 780 10301 41 10342
curb and gutter
Parking 105556 123886 229443 359 421 780 10301 41 10342
Sidewalks 105556 123886 229443 359 421 780 10301 41 10342
curb 52778 61943 114721 180 211 390 5151 21 5171
Lawns 52778 61943 114721 3952 1966 5918 5151 192 5343
60 ROW 87540 0 87540
Street with 11672 0 11672 40 0 40 1139 0 1139
curb and gutter
Parking 23344 0 23344 79 0 79 2278 0 2278
Sidewalks 11672 0 11672 40 0 40 1139 0 1139
curb 5836 0 5836 20 0 20 570 0 570
Lawns 5836 0 5836 437 0 437 570 0 570
70 ROW 13195 189531 202726
Street with 1508 21661 23169 5 74 79 147 7 154
curb and gutter
Parking 3016 43321 46337 10 147 158 294 14 309
Sidewalks 1508 21661 23169 5 74 79 147 7 154
curb 754 10830 11584 3 37 39 74 4 77
Lawns 754 10830 11584 56 344 400 74 34 107
Total 1724282 140882 210758

54
The functions were then compared across land uses by computing the difference between
the sum of the function’s pre-development and post-development storage volumes. The
result is plotted as a bar chart in figure 5.13. The greatest impact is from streets and
roofs, with roughly equal values of storage volume reduction. Patios are insignificant in
this analysis. Lawns actually add a great deal of storage, offsetting somewhat the drastic
reductions from roofs and streets. Driveways and parking lots result in smaller
reductions in volume, however, the local impact may be significant.

140000

120000
Volume, post development, (CF)
Volume, predevelopment (CF)
Difference
100000

80000
Volume in Cubic Feet

60000

40000

20000

0
Roof Parking Driveway Lawns Patio Streets

-20000

-40000
Function

Figure 5.13: Allocation of available storage for initial abstraction and land use.

5.5 Simulation Tools for Cost Analysis

If the cost of modifying the CNs can be determined, then cost-effective strategies can be
developed for maintaining the undeveloped CN for each parcel or combination of parcels.
Since most BMPs are land intensive, a careful evaluation of their costs must include land
valuation. The costs used in the analysis were developed in Heaney et al. (1999), for
each control and each land use. The procedure for calculation of the land component of
controls within one land use, medium density residential, is outlined in table 5.14.

55
Table 5.14: Land valuation for medium density lot, 1/99$
Component SF % of $/sf Construction Total Land $ Unimproved
total Cost, $ Land, $
Roof-house 1200 20.0% $56.25 $67,500 $8,790 $5,860
Roof-garage 400 6.7% $34.00 $13,600 $2,930 $1,953
Driveway 600 10.0% $4.00 $2,400 $4,395 $2,930
Yard 3600 60.0% $1.00 $3,600 $26,370 $17,580
Patio 200 3.3% $4.00 $800 $1,465 $977
Total 6000 100.0% $87,900 $43,950 $29,300

An estimate of the cost in $/sf is found in column 4 of table 5.14. Next, the construction
cost (column 5) is obtained by multiplying column 2 by column 4. Next, the percentage
in column 3 is multiplied by the total of column 5 to obtain an estimate of the land cost,
in column 6. Column 7, the unimproved land cost, is obtained by multiplying the values
in column 6 by 2/3. The value of the 3,600 square feet of land for the yard function is
$26,370.

Next, opportunity costs must be calculated. This procedure is illustrated in table 5.15.
The value of $26,370 is annualized, using an interest rate of 6%, and an infinite term (as
in equation 6.2), to obtain $1,582/year. Then, this value is spread over 25 years at 6%, to
obtain $20,226. Dividing this value by 3,600 square feet gives $5.62/square feet. This
value is used for all grass types as the underlying value of the land is assumed to be
constant irrespective of the type of grass. Landscaping costs were developed from RS
Means (1996b), and updated to January 1999, and are presented in table 5.15 (for a
medium density residential lot). The initial capital investment consists of the cost of soil
preparation including sod, topsoil, and soil conditioners, and an irrigation system. For a
good lawn, the present value of the initial landscaping investment is $2.22 per square
foot. Costs for lesser quality lawns drop to $1.71/sf and $.95/sf for fair and poor quality
lawns. For the good lawn system, operation and maintenance costs add an additional
$2.45 per square foot bringing the total to $10.29 per square foot. An estimated 10
percent of this total cost is allocated to stormwater management. Similar estimates were
made for fair and poor lawns. The resulting total costs per square foot vary from $0.70 to
$1.03 per square foot. Better lawns have a lower CN and are thereby preferable from the
viewpoint of being able to store more water.

Similar estimates were made for the land valuation for low-density residential lots,
commercial, apartments, and schools. A similar procedure was followed for these uses,
except that the commercial, apartments, and schools are aggregated as one lot. However,
they also cost more. The cost for each control was then estimated using these land
valuations. The matrix of controls and land uses is presented in table 5.16. A linear
programming model is used to find the least costly mix for each land use. See Heaney et
al. (1999b) for a more detailed explanation of this method.

56
Table 5.15: Cost analysis of landscaping for medium density lot, 1/99$

Input Good Fair Poor

Item Data $/ft2 $/ft2 $/ft2
A. Initial Capital Investment
1. Soil preparation
Initial cost of sod $0.43 $0.34 $0.26
Initial cost of topsoil, 6" $0.50 $0.40 $0.30
Spreading topsoil, 6" $0.64 $0.51 $0.38
Soil conditioners $0.03 $0.02 $0.01
Sprinkler system $0.62 $0.44 $0.00
$2.22 $1.71 $0.95
2. Opportunity Cost of Land
Land Investment Cost $26,370
Opportunity cost investment rate 6%
Annual cost, $/yr. $1,582
Interest rate per year 0.06
Present worth over 25 years $20,226
Cost in $/ft2 $5.62 $5.62 $5.62
Total of initial capital investment $7.84 $7.33 $6.57
B. Operation & Maintenance Costs, $
Lawn watering
Inches per year 20
% of pervious area that is irrigated 80%
Cost of water, $/1,000 gallons $1.50
Present worth factor 12.78
Present worth, $/ft2 $0.24 $0.15 $0.09
Lawn maintenance
Weeks per year 26
$/week $8.46
Maintenance area, ft2 2880
Present worth, $/ft2 $0.98 $0.50 $0.35
Sprinkler system maintenance $0.25 $0.15 $0.00
Total operation and maintenance costs, $ $1.46 $0.80 $0.44
C. Total Cost, $/ft2 $9.31 $8.13 $7.01
Portion attributable to stormwater
Assumed % 10%
D. Cost for Stormwater $0.93 $0.81 $0.70

57
Table 5.16: Calculation of unit costs for controls, including opportunity costs for land,
1/99$

ID LD Res MD Res Commercial School Apartments RW50 RW60 RW70

$/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf
Aspen F $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Aspen G $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Driveway 1 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23
Driveway 2 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25
Grass F $0.60 $0.60 $2.12 $2.49 $1.22 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60
Grass G $0.69 $0.69 $2.18 $2.56 $1.29 $0.69 $0.69 $0.69
Grass P $0.49 $0.49 $2.01 $2.38 $1.11 $0.49 $0.49 $0.49
Parking 1 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23
Parking 2 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25
Parking 3 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26
Parking 4 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28
Patio 1 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Patio 2 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Roof 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Roof 2 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50
Sidewalk 1 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Sidewalk 2 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Storage $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Street 1 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.24
Street 2 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26
Street 3 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27
Street 4 $0.28 $0.29 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.29 $0.28
Swales 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Swales 2 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00
Woods F $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80
Woods G $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40

58
5.6 Optimization of Control Options for Happy Acres

The results of the LP optimizations are summarized in tables 5.17 and 5.18. The results
are allocated along functional grouping within each soil class in table 5.17, and
aggregated for each land use type in table 5.18. The least cost design allocates the
appropriate control option to the appropriate soil type and land use (soil is reflected in its
predevelopment CN, land use is reflected in the influence of land valuation on the cost of
the control). The changes in control options affect the appearance of the neighborhood,
and this is evident by inspection of table 5.17. For example, porous pavements were
selected (with curb and gutter) for the street design in the rocky soil. In the clay and silt
soils where more percolation can take place, the LP model selected a street design with
porous pavement and swales instead of curb and gutter. A similar allocation took place
with parking areas; both were porous, however, the more permeable soils resulted in a
design that had a higher infiltration capacity. The more permeable driveway, patio, and
sidewalk choices were chosen in both soil types. Good grass was selected over the other
options for all soil areas, except in commercial areas where poor was selected in silts and
clays, and fair was selected in rock. This is due to the relatively small amount of
landscaped area in commercial areas. There may be other aesthetic factors with
commercial areas that would put a higher premium on a higher quality grass other than
for a stormwater quality function. Aspens were chosen, but in small amounts, so it would
not look significantly different than a typical subdivision. The roof choice remained the
standard, rather the roof with detention, due to its relatively high unit cost. Storage was
chosen when no other controls were feasible, the highest values, as expected, were in
commercial areas with rocky soils, which would not have much infiltration capacity.

The cost of the optimal solution for each soil class and land use is found in table 5.18.
The total cost for the controls would be $5.2 million, some of which overlaps with money
that would be spent for landscaping anyway. About half of this amount is used to attempt
to control runoff from transportation related functions.

What differs from a traditional subdivision development is the allocation of use. A

traditional subdivision would have allocated everything in ground cover to the high
quality grass, (particularly for commercial areas) and neglected the woods and aspens
(although some exceptions to this exist, mainly for aesthetics). In commercial areas, the
detention storage, would have been utilized. For sidewalks, patios, streets, and parking
lots, nonporous pavement would have been chosen. Curb and gutter would have replaced
swales along street rights of way.

An important note here is that this DSS cannot dynamically change land uses. For
example, the net amount of area used for rights of way, 39 acres out of the 106 total (see
table 5.18), must remain the same. Likewise, the amounts and locations for medium
density and low density, as well as the other land uses, must remain the same. What has
been done here, however, is to attempt to allocate storage optimally throughout each of
these land uses. A more general problem exists which would allow tradeoffs between the
land uses. This problem is extremely complex because it involves re-creation of the GIS
for each iteration.

59
Table 5.17: Results of LP optimization-land use allocation by function (includes opportunity costs)
Land Use Area in Soil Group B in acres Land Use Area in Soil Group D in acres
50 60 70 LD MD HD Comm Sch 50 60 70 LD MD HD Comm Sch
Street 1
Street 2 11.38 0.00 2.74
Street 3
Street 4 9.69 1.08 0.03
Sidewalk 1
Sidewalk 2 2.42 0.21 0.01 0.50 0.00 0.50
Grass P 0.16
Grass F 0.38
Grass G 3.03 0.26 0.01 11.23 6.49 0.57 0.65 1.12 0.00 1.12 0.00 4.60 0.00 0.00
Swales 1
Swales 2
Storage 1.00 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.24 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.35 0.00 2.15 0.00
Parking 1
Parking 2 1.72 0.14 1.19 0.00 0.00
Parking 3
Parking 4 2.04 1.32
Roof 1 2.34 3.23 1.08 1.03 1.59 0.00 6.13 0.00 5.97 0.00
Roof 2
Driveway 1
Driveway 2 0.94 1.21 0.00 2.30
Patio 1
Patio 2 0.47 0.40 0.00 0.77
Woods F
Woods G
Aspen F
Aspen G 0.25 0.79 0.36 0.00 9.20 0.00 0.00

60
Table 5.18: Least-cost LP solutions for land Use/BMP options (including land costs) for Happy
Acres.

Soil B Soil D Total

Land Use Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres)
50 ft ROW 15.15 17.78 32.92
60 ft ROW 1.55 0.00 1.55
70 ft ROW 0.05 4.35 4.41
Low Density Residential 15.02 0.00 15.02
Medium Density Residential 12.97 21.57 34.54
Apartments 3.73 0.00 3.73
Commercial 3.37 7.67 11.04
School 3.43 0.00 3.43
SUM 55.27 51.37 106.64

Land Use Cost in Soil B, $ Cost in Soil D, $ Sum, $

50 ft ROW $443,554 $1,484,917 $1,928,471
60 ft ROW $36,463 $- $36,463
70 ft ROW $1,058 $247,981 $249,039
Low Density Residential $376,677 $- $376,677
Medium Density Residential $361,197 $1,509,515 $1,870,712
Apartments $98,633 $- $98,633
Commercial $39,267 $517,237 $556,503
School $106,305 $- $106,305
$1,463,153 $3,759,650 $5,222,803
TOTAL $5,220,000

5.7 Decision Support Systems and the Happy Acres Case Study

The previous sections have illustrated how a simple hydrologic model can be constructed with
basic GIS information. The methods presented in this report allow hydrologic and economic
analysis to be performed on micro scales not traditionally used in urban analysis. These micro
scales, although unfamiliar, must be used to properly evaluate BMPs for the control of locally
generated stormwater runoff. This same information can be used as building blocks for SWMM.
SWMM aggregates information in a manner controlled by the user, into an equivalent
rectangular catchment. Several methods of aggregation are available within SWMM add-on
packages (such as PCSWMM). Unfortunately, this method homogenizes the parcels within each
subcatchment, i.e., they lose their unique hydrologic characteristics. The aggregation was
typically done so that the user was not overwhelmed by data, as most had to be handled
manually. However, within the context of a DSS, appropriate tools can be used to process the
data, so smaller scales may be evaluated.

A disadvantage of the DSS process used in this case study and outlined in figure 5.1 is that most
of the analysis is one way, i.e., there is not a true interchange of information between the
modules. The most obvious example is the GIS. It would be desirable to optimize land use in a
general form of a land allocation model considering the effects of land valuation, soils, and
control options. In order to do this efficiently, the spatial database underlying the parcel
delineation must be re-created for each iteration of the model. Of course, this level of integration
is also the most difficult and expensive.

61
6.0 Summary and Conclusions

6.1 Summary

In summary, GIS has transformed our approach to the urban stormwater management problem.
Not only are input parameters in the model itself becoming more easily obtainable, but also the
scale of possible evaluations has decreased to a point that it is now possible to effectively
evaluate source controls. The case study process shown in figure 5.1 provides a preliminary
evaluation of the complex urban stormwater problem and the linked problem of allocation of
land use. Several models exist that utilize GIS information; the degree of integration that is
desirable remains debatable. Due to the widely disparate spatial scales involved, and the detailed
amount of information available in a GIS, it is quite possible for the analyst to be drowned in
data that may not be needed in evaluating the problem. The urban stormwater problem needs to
be of primary concern to the analyst; rather than the micro maintenance of the GIS. The problem
should be the primary focus, even more so than the model, or the database used. As the models
evolve into more general Decision Support Systems, they will tend to become more data
centered, and computational engines more interchangeable. The GIS data will become more
available and standardized, and will be an important tool. One lesson to be learned from the 90s
and the computer software explosion that has transformed the working world is that too much
reliance on any one technology can lead to obsolescence. DSS promises to be the technology
that links many of these tools together to enable the analyst to explore new challenging problems
in old contexts.

6.2 Conclusions

Advances in development of computer software have produced two key linked technologies:
relational databases and geographic information systems. The combination of these two has
affected the development of another technology, decision support systems, that has been applied
to complex unstructured water resources and environmental problems. Most DSSs include these
two technologies, with the addition of simulation models, an evaluation tool (can include
optimization), and a graphical user interface. The graphical user interface, mainly the MS-
Windows interface, is another advance that has both transformed software as well changed the
standard of model development. Construction of programs within this environment tends to be
more difficult due to its object oriented architecture, however, it is also inherently more dynamic
than constructing programs within older environments such as FORTRAN-77. This is primarily
due to the advent of structured programming techniques that tend to keep data handling
processes out of the main program files, which tends to advance a more data centric approach to
modeling. The structured techniques also avoid the use of “spaghetti code” in which it is
difficult to debug code due to vague loops and “GOTO” statements that branch the program in
many different directions.

New types of solvers are now available that can serve as better evaluation tools for a DSS.
These include genetic algorithms (GA), simulated annealing (SA), and the relative ease with
which linear programming (LP) solvers are used. These optimization tools allow rapid
evaluation of both linear and nonlinear problems, which can assist the designer in finding the
better or best solution.

62
Urban stormwater models have been created according to specific needs and available funding.
The predominant US model, SWMM, was created in the late 60s and early 70s. There is an
active user community for this largely public domain model. Several enhancements to the
model, namely PC SWMM, Visual Hydro (XP SWMM), and MikeSWMM, are now available in
the private domain as well. These enhancements contain facilities that include graphical user
interfaces for ease of program use, GIS and CAD interfaces for construction of models based
upon the best available system mapping, and external links to available databases to enhance the
use of available system data. European models, in particular the DHI and the HR-Wallingford
series, have been significantly ahead of the US modeling community in the use of GUIs and GIS.
The reason for this gap is primarily the result of funding. Funding for urban stormwater
modeling in the US ceased in the early 80s. Meanwhile, the European models were developed
and enjoyed significant funding during the 80s and early 90s from both national governments as
well as the European Union. These models may have become self-supporting by the creation of
companies that sell the licensed product. This enables future enhancements in the models to be
made, as well as user support from a centralized source.

The US should focus its efforts on the use of linked technologies to take advantage of significant
savings that can be realized by avoiding the re-creation of common tools currently available. For
example, spreadsheet technology in the US has been effectively standardized upon MS Excel
(even if you don’t use it, you use a program that can read these files). Input and output
processing within new models could make use of this application, which would allow the user
greater flexibility in terms of pre- and post-processing of model output. Visual Hydro provides a
good example of the use of spreadsheet tools for data input and output. The US has been a
leader in the GIS and database software development field; available links to these programs will
continue to evolve and interfaces with GIS should become easier to construct than those at
present. A significant portion of this effort is the development of both the graphic features of the
GIS and the associated system attributes as well. The case study outlined in this report, although
using a simplified hydrologic model, provides a possible outline of the use of this data for
problems that have remained intractable to this point, for example, the selection of the
appropriate BMP control technology for each parcel. Further work needs to be done to enhance
the development of DSS technology to the urban stormwater field. The funding resources should
carefully target the development of models and DSSs that link available tools rather than re-
create them, and provide a common set of technologies that the user may combine with other
available software. The funding should also seek to complement or prod the development of
existing commercial software, rather than supplant the market by the introduction of competing
products. A possible model could also be the European model community, in which the
government funds the initial development of the model, then licenses it to a nonprofit company
that markets and sells the model at a self-sustaining price.

Care should be taken in that as the model interfaces become easier to run, they may be used
inappropriately. A stated goal within the DSS community is to bring the computing power to the
level of the decision-maker, rather than an intermediary. This works well if the decision-maker,
or their assistant, is trained in the field of urban stormwater. The field of urban stormwater
modeling involves the use of complex boundary conditions. Using GIS involves the use of
wildly different scales where the uncertainty in the information may not be immediately evident

63
to the user. Such complex problems require a technically competent professional to carefully use
and evaluate the information the DSS presents. Rather than simply using a sophisticated set of
tools to solve the same problem more efficiently than we can at present, the problems evaluated
will become more complex as well as the possible array of solutions to them. The advent of DSS
and its inherent technologies, relational databases and GIS, have transformed the field of urban
stormwater modeling and allow the evaluation of previously intractable problems.

64
Abstract

This report reviews the application of Geographic Information System (GIS) technology to the
field of urban stormwater modeling. The GIS literature is reviewed in the context of its use as a
spatial database for urban stormwater modeling, integration of GIS and hydrologic time series,
and integration of GIS and urban stormwater models (from both a software and management
perspective). The available urban stormwater modeling software is reviewed and discussed with
respect to their GIS integration capabilities. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are reviewed with
respect to their integration with GIS, and their applicability to urban stormwater management
problems. A simplified neighborhood scale DSS is presented that includes a GIS, a database, a
stormwater system design template, and an optimization capability for screening alternatives.
The area and soil based NRCS method is used for calculating runoff from GIS information.
Using economic analysis that compares the costs of controls, including the opportunity cost of
land for land intensive controls, the optimal selection of Best Management Practice (BMP)
controls was accomplished by use of a linear programming (LP) method. The intent of this
presentation is to provide an example of the types of problems that become possible to explore
with the application of DSS and GIS technology on a small scale. This field is evolving rapidly,
and warrants carefully targetted research efforts, particularly at developing nonspecific software
tools that aid in integrating existing models.
1.0 Introduction

A mathematical model of an urban hydrologic response to precipitation usually requires

extensive data due to the complexity of surfaces, flow paths and conduits found in developed
locales. Many of these data are geographic in nature; e.g., geographic boundaries of the
hydrologic basin provide boundary conditions of the mathematical model. Therefore the
marriage of mathematical stormwater models and geographic information systems (GIS) is a
natural development of simulation and database technology. The relationship between urban
stormwater models and GIS may take many forms. This is apparent from the nearly 50 journal
articles, conference proceedings and internet reports surveyed for this review of recent literature.
The relationship between GIS and urban stormwater models may be distinct, where the GIS
functions as a separate pre- and post-processor; or the distinction may be blurred, where the
model is seamlessly integrated to the GIS.

The purpose of this report is to accomplish several tasks. In chapter 2 a review of technical
literature is performed to determine how GIS is being used in the field of urban storm stormwater
modeling. Next, in chapter 3, the predominant urban stormwater models are reviewed within the
context of the taxonomy developed in chapter 2. Then, in chapter 4, looking at the future
directions of urban stormwater models, Decision Support Systems (DSSs) are described. DSS is
now being used extensively for river basin modeling, particularly in the hydropower context.
This type of system lends itself to unstructured problems where data integration is a key to
evaluation of the problem. The various components of DSS including models, database
structure, GIS, optimization, and time series management are discussed. A process level DSS is
developed for a textbook subdivision in chapter 5. This DSS contains a GIS, including graphic
features and a relational database, a system simulator, and an optimizer. Stormwater design
templates were created using Excel spreadsheets, paralleling the design problem from the
textbook. Next, GIS data were utilized in a simple hydrologic model using the NRCS (National
Resources Conservation Service) method. This data was combined with unit cost data into a
linear programming model (LP) in order to develop the least costly mix of BMP controls that
maintain the same initial abstraction after development as before. Suggestions for further
improvement of the DSS are made by comparison of the DSS structure with those found in
chapter 4. Finally conclusion are presented in chapter 6.

1
2.0 Literature Review

2.1 Overview of Sources of Reviewed Literature

The GIS literature is broad, due to the wide variety of areas that utilize geographic data.
Likewise, the literature describing GIS applications in water resources is itself very broad.
However, much of this work in water resources has been in the area of natural hydrology and
large-scale, river-basin hydrology. GIS has a long history in this area due in large part to the
early availability of remotely sensed spatial data suited for this purpose. A good overview of the
concepts of GIS and database technology and their application within the field of natural systems
hydrology is found in Singh and Fiorentino (1996).

The use of GIS in modeling urban stormwater systems has been more limited due to the need for
large, expensive and detailed spatial and temporal databases, along with the fact that many
computer tools used in urban stormwater modeling are not easily amenable to integration with
GIS. However, as local data gathering efforts have increased and software integration has
evolved, the use of GIS in urban stormwater is now widespread. Shamsi et al. (1995) estimate
that more than 70% of the information used by local governments is georeferenced. Much of
this information has been, or will be, transferred to a digital format, usually a GIS.

Recent literature was found in several distinct fields. From the water resources field, recent
conferences focusing on urban stormwater have several papers on GIS. Proceedings from two
European conferences on urban stormwater by Butler and Maksimovic (eds. 1998), and Seiker
and Verworn (eds. 1996), have a wealth of current information on GIS. The American Water
Resources Association (AWRA) has sponsored conferences specific to the use of GIS in water
resources, such as Harlin and Lanfear (1993) and Hallam et al. (1996). These reports have
sections devoted to urban stormwater, of which modeling is a recurring theme. Significant
literature in this area was also found on the internet. The Center for Research in Water
Resources at The University of Texas at Austin has a large online library of reports and papers
on the use of GIS for hydrologic research, some of which concerns the modeling of urban areas
(University of Texas, 1998).

Other resources were found in the GIS field. One software provider, Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI), hosts a large annual international user conference. The proceedings
for these conferences are located on the internet at http://www.esri.com (ESRI 1998). The
International Association of Hydrological Sciences (IAHS) publishes the proceedings from its
many conferences, some of which have dealt specifically with the integration and application of
GIS and water resources management (e.g. Kovar and Nachtnebel 1996). Other IAHS
conferences have focused on applications, which usually have several papers on using GIS for
that application. For example Simonovic et al. (1995) edited “Modeling and Management of
Sustainable Basin-Scale Water Resource Systems”, proceedings from a 1995 conference in
Boulder, CO. which contained several papers on GIS and model integration.

2.2 GIS as a Spatial Database for Urban Stormwater Modeling

The most basic role a GIS can play in the modeling of urban stormwater is that of a simple pre-
processor of spatial data. As a pre-processor, GIS may simply store geographic information in a
database, or it may be used to calculate model-input parameters from stored geographic data.
2
Frequently data are exported from the GIS in a file format consistent with a model-input file. As
a post-processor, GIS may be used to map water surface elevations, concentrations, etc., or to
derive spatial statistics based on model output. Shamsi (1998) describes the batch transfer of
data from a GIS to SWMM as the interchange data. The GIS and SWMM are operated
separately, with no direct interlink. The GIS is used to extract data required by SWMM from the
spatial database into a file compatible with a SWMM input file. A recurring theme in recent
literature focuses on the ability to get the most out of data by assuring that information tools are
consistent. This idea has been termed “hydroinformatics” and is especially prominent in the
recent European literature (Fuchs and Scheffer 1996).

2.2.1 GIS as a pre-processor for urban stormwater models

Many municipalities store general spatial information in a GIS, and the information is used for a
wide variety of purposes and functions within the institutional framework. VanGelder and
Miller (1996) describe a typical use of GIS as a spatial database for modeling stormwater from a
municipal airport. Detailed georeferenced data were used in conjunction with maintenance data
to develop an operation and management schedule as well as to link node information needed to
create a SWMM EXTRAN model. Pryl et al. (1998) use a GIS to export details of the urban
stormwater network to a hydraulic simulator for Prague in the Czech Republic. The Danish
Hydraulic Institute (DHI) program Model Of Urban SEwers (MOUSE) was used to simulate
various scenarios for development of an urban stormwater master plan. Rodriguez et al. (1998)
used a GIS to study stormwater characteristics of an urban area in Nantes, France. This study
used the urban land parcel as the base hydrologic unit of a detailed hydrologic model, as opposed
to the more typical basin defined by topography and the layout of the stormwater network. A
detailed water budget was performed around the owner-defined parcel. This physically based
hydrologic model was then used with the stormwater network to analyze the behavior of urban
catchments under a wide variety of storm events. The idea of using small hydrologic units based
on land ownership for urban stormwater modeling is ideally suited for GIS applications and is
useful when simulating the effect of management decisions made at the parcel level.

Sotic et al. (1998) began a preliminary design of CSO facilities in Kumodraz, Yugoslavia with
paper maps. Existing paper maps and other data were used to create a GIS, which in turn was
used to aid in the design and analysis of the CSO system. This “hydroinformatic” approach
consists of developing a set of tools to collect and process data in a consistent manner. The
attention to consistency in data transferability is to assure that the greatest value is achieved from
the dataset. In this case, the GIS was used to integrate a Digital Elevation Model (DEM), the
street network, and the sewer network; then this information was transferred to the BEAMUS
hydraulic simulation model (Sotic et al. 1998). A similar hydroinformatic approach is described
for the town of Pilsen in the Czech Republic by Hora et al. (1998). Beginning with paper maps,
a GIS was built from the ground-up. The complete process is described, ending with an
information tool that was used to create a hydrodynamic model of the sewer system, store
monitored flow and rain data, evaluate current hydraulic sewer capacity and evaluate the
feasibility of alternative sewer developments.

Barbe et al. (1993) integrate data transfer from a GIS and a SCADA system to a SWMM model
of the Jefferson Parish stormwater stormwater system in Louisiana. The SWMM RUNOFF
block was used to simulate the hydrologic runoff characteristics of the area. Geospatial data
were transferred from the GIS to the SWMM RUNOFF data file. Similarly, the EXTRAN block
3
was used to simulate the pipe network, and the network connectivity was transferred from the
GIS to the SWMM EXTRAN data file. Time series data from 150 monitoring sites were
transferred from a SCADA system to the SWMM model for calibration purposes.

2.2.2 GIS as a post-processor for urban stormwater models

GIS may also be used to accept model output. Xu et al. (1998) describe a mixed land use
hydrologic model that uses GIS as a pre- and post-processor of model information. For this
application, the model output of time series of simulated flows may be depicted dynamically
through an ArcView interface. Sorensen (1996) describes a typical use of GIS to present model
output, that of depicting flood inundation maps from the GIS. MIKE GIS is a modeling tool
from DHI that interfaces between ArcInfo or ArcView and MIKE, a flood assessment model.
First developed to study flood management in Bangladesh, MIKE GIS uses both the maximum
flood extent and the time series of flooding to analyze expected damages from peak inundation
and the duration of inundation (Sorensen 1996). A key element to this work is that the GIS is
used for more than mapping model output, but that spatial analysis is done with the GIS that adds
to the information gained from the model output alone.

Shamsi (1998) discusses the difference between transferring data files between ArcView and
SWMM and creating an interface that uses SWMM output as a spatial coverage layer in a GIS.
This “interface method” (as opposed to the interchange method described above) involves
creating a SWMM menu within ArcView. Pre- and post-processors of SWMM input and output
files create input files, read output files, and join and unjoin data files (Shamsi 1998). These
options are made available in ArcView; however SWMM is run separately from ArcView
(Shamsi 1998).

2.2.3 GIS used to estimate spatial input parameters

One of the most important hydrographic features of an urban surface is impervious area.
Fankhauser (1998) describes a method to estimate impervious area from color infrared aerial
photographs and orthophotos. These images have a ground resolution of 25 to 75 centimeters. A
raster based GIS, IDRISI, was used to estimate imperviousness to within 10% of the value
determined manually for an entire basin. However, the deviation for individual catchments was
much higher. For this reason, this method was recommended only for large project areas where
the high costs of parameter estimation could be justified.

Olivera et al. (1996) use GIS to calculate hydrographic properties of terrain for non-point load
estimation. Flow paths calculated from paths of steepest descent are used to calculate flow
properties of basins. Cluis et al. (1996) use topographic data and GIS functions to derive
important hydrographic characteristics of the terrain such as overland flow paths in a raster based
format. Mercado (1996) describes the use of detailed spatial information in the creation of a
stormwater model in Tallahassee, FL using XPSWMM software. Scanned and georectified
black and white aerial photography was used as a background with other GIS based data,
including two foot contour elevations, streams, buildings, roads, etc. A DEM was created in
ArcInfo, and the Triangulated Irregular Network (TIN) and Grid functions were used to define
areas of high slope and erosion potential, flow gradients and very accurate subbasin delineation
(Mercado 1996).

4
Herath et al. (1996) used high-resolution raster data sets to develop a distributed GIS-based
urban hydrologic model. Data sets included 50 m x 50 m and 20 m x 20 m land use grids;
1:25,000 plans were used to develop imperviousness by land use, a 50 m x 50 m DEM,
population density, water supply data, and rainfall. Herath et al. (1996) integrated the hydrologic
model with the GIS, by writing the numerical simulation codes within the GIS, thus reducing
problems of data transfer. However, the computational time was felt to be too high for practical
use due to inefficiencies of performing the hydrologic simulation within the GIS (Herath et al.
1996).

Olivera et al. (1998) developed a GIS-based preprocessor for the new HEC-HMS model
developed by the Army Corps of Engineers’ Hydrologic Engineering Center. HEC-HMS is an
updated version of the popular HEC-1 hydrologic model. Olivera et al. (1998) describe HEC-
PrePro as a system of ArcView scripting programs and controls to extract hydrographic
information from spatial databases and prepare an input file to HEC-HMS. Using SCS curve
numbers and a DEM, HEC-PrePro delineates streams and basin boundaries, determines their
interconnectivity, and calculates parameters for each stream and basin (Olivera 1998). A benefit
to automating the calculation of hydrologic parameters that were traditionally estimated
manually is that results are reproducible, i.e., they are not dependent on the bias or experience of
the modeler.

2.2.4 GIS used to estimate non-point source pollutant loads

Using land use as a predictor of non-point source loads is a common use of GIS and hydrologic
models. Hauber and Joeres (1996) describe how a GIS was used to preprocess urban pollutant
loads for the Source Loading and Management Model (SLAMM). Similarly, Wright et al.
(1995) estimated nutrient loads from developed areas in the Onondaga Lake stormwater basin in
upstate NY with the GRASS GIS. These preprocessed loads were then routed from the
developed basins using the SWMM RUNOFF model.

Battin et al. (1998) describe the EPA’s BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point
and Non-Point Sources) software, which integrates watershed point and non-point source load
data, the watershed hydrology program HSPF and the receiving water quality simulation
program QUAL2E. Olivera et al. (1996) describe the use of GIS to account for the spatial
variability of terrain in pollutant loading from a variety of land uses. The authors review the
strength of GIS in quantifying spatially distributing loads, and point out that this is a distinct
advantage over lumped models.

Scarborough and Yetter (1998) evaluated the Non-Point Source (NPS) module in BASINS 2.0
and found it to be a useful tool for evaluating NPS pollution. However, several problems were
found when evaluating a small watershed with the GIS data included with the program. The
most critical problem was that of coverage alignment (Scarborough and Yetter 1998).
Boundaries of land use and watershed boundaries did not match for the test case study, the St.
Jones watershed in Delaware.

2.3 Integration of GIS and Hydrologic Time Series

For the purposes of urban stormwater modeling, spatial data may usually be viewed as static.
Changes in geographic data are typically modeled in a scenario manner, e.g., a model run may be
5
done for an undeveloped watershed, and then a developed scenario is performed using the same
hydrologic conditions. Hydrologic and meteorological data are commonly a time series of
discrete values. Therefore some attention must be paid to the integration of spatial and time
series data. This idea of consistency among data is key to the concept of hydroinformatics. Pryl
et al. (1998) describe the integration of time series with GIS to accomplish urban stormwater
master planning in the Czech Republic. Similarly, Rodriguez et al. (1998) use time series in their
analysis of the water budget based on parcel-level urban spatial data. Time series integration
was a key element in the work reported by Barbe (1996) in Louisiana. A large network of 150
monitoring locations fed a SCADA system with many time series data that were integrated with
GIS data and the SWMM model. An Oracle database was used to manage non-spatial data for
this project (Barbe 1993).

Da Costa et al. (1995, 1996) examined this problem in developing the Portuguese Water
Resources Information System. The integration of GIS with temporal data is described as one of
the great challenges of developing this system (da Costa et al. 1996). To accomplish this
integration, a database was developed using Oracle software to underlie the information system.
A special processing module was developed to interface time series data with the GIS. The GIS
portion used the ESRI ArcView software. Sorensen et al. (1996) describe the use of time series
in an application of MIKE GIS in Bangladesh. Sotic et al. (1998) describe the integration of
rainfall and flow time series with geographic data in a hydroinformatic manner in Yugoslavia.

Wolf-Schumann and Vaillant (1996) describe in detail the need for integrated time series with
georeferenced data. The development of TimeView, a time series management tool, is described
as adding a whole dimension (time) to spatial data. TimeView is integrated with ArcView, so
that a user can select a geographic feature in ArcView (e.g. a monitored manhole), and
TimeView returns a time series of measured data in graphical format.

2.4 Integration of GIS and Urban Stormwater Models

The linking of GIS and several hydrologic process models (beyond creating pre-processed data
files within the GIS) is examined by Charnock et al. (1996) and DeVantier and Feldman (1993).
Issues of differing scale properties and error propagation are addressed. The use of GIS as a
central hub of information, which is fed to several satellite process models, is favored over
coupling all the processes in one large program. Kopp (1996) addresses these same issues and
argues for more data standards to streamline hydroinformatics. Sponemann et al. (1996) explain
how a GIS can be shared among many varied users, e.g. gas utilities, water utilities, stormwater,
etc. thus maximizing the benefits derived from data collection and management. Greene and
Cruise (1995) developed an urban watershed modeling system using the SCS rainfall-runoff
methodology and GIS parcel attributes. Meyer et al. (19993) developed a raster based GIS for an
urban subdivision in Ft. Collins, Colorado and found that the results compared favorably with
non-GIS hydrologic studies of the same area.

Shamsi (1998) distinguishes three forms of information exchange between ArcView and
SWMM. The interchange and interface methods are described above, and involve the transfer of
information between ArcView and SWMM, which are run independently. Shamsi (1998)
defines the third method, integration, as the most advanced of the methods. SWMM is used as
the hydrologic and hydraulic simulator and is executed from within ArcView. This form of
integration includes performing all program tasks within ArcView: creating SWMM input data,
6
editing data files, executing SWMM, and displaying output results (Shamsi 1998). Integration as
defined by Shamsi (1998) combines a SWMM Graphical User Interface (GUI) with a GIS to
provide a complete data environment. The advantages of a GUI were advanced by Shamsi
(1997), who provided a summary of software features and needs for SWMM interfaces.

Feinberg and Uhrick (1997) discuss integrating an infrastructure database in Broward County,
FL with a GIS and water distribution and wastewater models. The HydroWorks model is used to
simulate the wastewater collection system, with close integration with the database of
infrastructure characteristics and the GIS. Refsgaard et al. (1995) describe the evolution of
DHI’s land process hydrologic model, SHE, and its extensive use of GIS. Ribeiro (1996)
describes the use of a raster-based GIS to interface with HSPF to analyze the effects of basin
urbanization. Hellweger (1996) developed an ArcView application using the Avenue scripting
language to perform the model calculations of USDA’s hydrologic model TR-55.

Mark et al. (1997) use the MOUSE program from DHI to evaluate stormwater in Dhaka, along
the banks of the Ganges and Bramaputra rivers in Bangladesh. Integration of GIS, time series,
and the hydraulic model were accomplished to better understand flooding characteristics.
Maximum inundation and duration of inundation were mapped using MOUSE and GIS. Shamsi
and Fletcher (1996) describe in detail the linkage of ArcView and SWMM for the City of
Huntington, WV. ArcView is shown to be a user-friendly environment to perform stormwater
modeling. Bellal et al. (1996) studied partly urbanized basins using a linked GIS and hydrologic
model. The hydrologic model was based on a non-urban water budget, with modifications to
account for urbanization. The GIS was based on a DEM and raster-based land use data.

2.5 Management Evaluation Using Integrated GIS and Urban Stormwater Models

The integration of GIS, time series data, and an urban stormwater model is usually done to
evaluate management options. These options may be watershed-based, which would likely
include non-urban areas, or they may be local to the urban area.

Rodriguez et al. (1998) describe an integrated GIS and urban hydrologic model to evaluate small
storm hydrology for parcel level management decisions. Tskhai et al. (1995) use a GIS linked
with an optimization model to evaluate ecological and economic alternatives for the Upper Ob
River in the Altai region of Russia. While not strictly an urban runoff model in the traditional
sense, this project does link urban management decisions with an economic optimization model.

Makropoulos et al. (1998) focus on urban sustainability to evaluate stormwater systems.

Beginning with the idea that low energy solutions that control impacts at the source are more
sustainable, Makropoulos et al. (1998) demonstrate how a raster-based GIS (IDRISI) can be used
to integrate theoretical concepts and site specific spatial characteristics. The strength of GIS can
be used as a common ground between specialists and non-specialists to help them communicate
effectively. Bellal et al. (1996) studied the effect of urbanization on a watershed using a linked
hydrologic model based on a DEM and a GIS. A water budget approach was used around each
raster unit to account for changes due to urbanization.

Mark et al. (1997) describe a detailed evaluation of flood management techniques in Dhaka,
Bangladesh, using MOUSE GIS. Xue et al. (1996) and Xue and Bechtel (1997) describe the
development of a model designed to evaluate the effectiveness of Best Management Practices
7
(BMP’s). This model, called the Best Management Practices Assessment Model (BMPAM),
was linked with ArcView to create an integrated management tool. This integrated model was
used to evaluate the pollutant load reduction potential of a hypothetical wet pond in Okeechobee,
Florida. Kim et al. (1998) used ArcView with an economic evaluation model and a hydraulic
simulator to evaluate storm sewer design alternatives. The hydraulic simulator was used to
generate initial design alternatives, which where in turn evaluated with an economic model. The
GIS was used to store spatial information, generate model input, and present alternative
solutions. The complete package of GIS, economic evaluation model, and hydraulic simulator
was termed a Planning Support System (Kim et al. 1998).

2.6 Trends in the Integration of GIS and Urban Stormwater Modeling

The trend towards a data-centric suite of evaluation tools is clear. The central idea behind the
European concept of hydroinformatics is that a consistent database is used for a variety of
purposes. The model is no longer the central unit driving the decision process. Neither,
however, has the GIS become the central data tool, due in large part to its inability to handle
temporal information effectively. Researchers who have paid equal attention to the model (the
processes), the GIS (the spatial data), and the temporal information (time series of hydrologic
processes) seem to have had considerable success. The integration of GIS and urban stormwater
models should therefore include integration with a database structure equipped to handle time
series. Several advanced applications have used a non-graphic database (e.g. dBase, Oracle,
Access) that is queried by both the GIS and the hydrologic/hydraulic models. While clearly an
evolving area, this approach seems to hold the most promise for the purpose of urban stormwater
decision support systems.

8
3.0 Summary of Available GIS Urban Stormwater Modeling Software

As described in section 2, a useful taxonomy to define the different ways a GIS is used in urban
hydrologic and hydraulic modeling is presented by Shamsi (1998). The three methods defined
by Shamsi (1998) are data interchange, program interface, and program integration (Shamsi
1998). A fourth grouping was added for this report, the “intermediate program”. Several
commercial modeling products feature a data management program to facilitate data transfer
between the GIS and a model. A short description is given below in order of increasing
sophistication.

Data Interchange: a batch process is used to transfer data to and from the model data set. For
example, the GIS may be used to calculate model input parameters e.g., catchment slope, or to
query an existing spatial coverage, such as land use. Then portions of the GIS query file can be
copied into a model-input file with no direct link between the GIS and the model. The model is
executed independently from the GIS, and portions of the output files may be copied back into
the GIS as a new spatial coverage for presentation purposes.

Intermediate Program: a data management program is used to transfer information between a

GIS and a model. This data management program is written specifically to import data from a
variety of common third party GIS software, and export to a model data set. Under certain
conditions this intermediate program could be defined as an interface, but generally it is not.

Program Interface: a direct link consisting of a pre- and post-processor is used to transfer
information between the GIS and the model. This process automates the data interchange
method. Model-specific menu options are added to the GIS. The model is executed
independently from the GIS, however the input file is created in the GIS. For example, in the
data interchange method, the user finds a portion of a file and copies it. An interface automates
this process, so that the pre- and post-processor finds the appropriate portion of the file
automatically.

Program Integration: while the interface method can’t launch the model from the GIS, under
the integration method, the model and the GIS are together within one Graphical User Interface
(GUI). This represents the closest relationship between GIS and model, though “closest” does
not necessarily mean “best”. It may be more efficient for a model to be independent from a GIS
in certain situations.

As noted elsewhere in this report, the development of a GIS for use in urban hydrologic and
hydraulic modeling is an expensive investment. Typically the most advanced tools are created
for advanced applications, where a full GIS is in place. For some applications, a DOS-based
model may still be the most appropriate. However, as more urban areas create GIS coverages,
the integration of modeling software and GIS software will become more useful and more
prevalent.

The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is the most widely used urban
hydrologic/hydraulic model in the US. In addition to SWMM, numerous other hydrologic
models were created in the US during the 70s including the US Army Corps of Engineers
Hydrologic Engineering Center “HEC” series of models (HEC-1 through 6). Two of the most
popular models, HEC-1 and HEC-2, have been updated and renamed HEC-HMS and HEC-RAS,
9
respectively. These two models have been updated from the original DOS model with a MS
Windows based GUI. HSPF, and ILLUDAS are other models developed in the 70’s, which are
still used today.

The original SWMM model, available at no charge from the US EPA (at the following website:
http://ftp.epa.gov/epa_ceam/wwwhtml/ceamhome.htm) was written in Fortran-77 for mainframe
computers (Huber and Dickinson 1988). The model was originally written during the 70s, with
several major improvements made in the early 80s. It has continued to evolve since being ported
to personal computers. Version 4.31 is the latest release; however numerous other modifications
exist to the program (e.g. UD-SWMM, a modification of SWMM by the Urban Stormwater and
Flood Control District of Denver, Colorado). SWMM runs in MS-DOS in a text-based
environment, which is not the user-friendly windows and graphical user interface (GUI) based
environment that is expected today. Despite these shortcomings, it has an active user community
within the United States.

Lack of funding support for SWMM during the 80s and 90s meant that the model had to be self-
sustaining. Interested parties such as local governments, consultants, and third party developers
added their own refinements to the model, with very little support from the federal government.
Because these refinements added value to the original program code, the developers started to
charge for these improvements. XP-SWMM (XP-Software 1998) and PCSWMM (CHI 1998)
are examples of this type of refinement. The SWMM user’s listserver has developed into a self-
sustaining community of users. Information on accessing the listserver can be found at
http://www.chi.on.ca/swmmusers.html

During the 1980’s, several models started to evolve in Europe. Two of them are HydroWorks,
from Wallingford Software in Great Britain, and MOUSE from the Danish Hydraulic Institute,
DHI, in Denmark. Unlike EPA SWMM, these models are proprietary.

These models are listed in table 3.1, with the addition of MikeSWMM, which is the result of a
recent collaborative effort between DHI and Camp, Dresser, and McKee (CDM). This product
uses the latest SWMM model engine available from the US EPA, and adds the MIKE GUI and
MOUSE GIS from DHI.

Table 3.1: Summary of available urban stormwater modeling software with GIS linkages

Product Model Interface Company/Source Website

HydroWorks/ Hydroworks Hydroworks HR Wallingford/ www.wallingford-software.co.uk
InfoWorks Montgomery Watson
Mouse GIS Mouse Mike Danish Hydraulic Institute/ www.dhi.dk

MikeSWMM SWMM Mike Danish Hydraulic Institute/ www.mikeswmm.com

Camp Dresser and McKee
PCSWMM/GIS SWMM PCSWMM Computational Hydraulics www.chi.on.ca
International
XPSWMM SWMM XPSWMM CAiCHE www.xpsoftware.com

The following sections describe commercial and public domain products that are currently
available for urban hydrologic and hydraulic modeling. The above taxonomy is used to define
how each one handles information transfer between a GIS and the model. However, the reader is

10
cautioned that while integration may be the most advanced method of using a GIS and model
together, it is not necessarily the best method for every application. For some applications
(especially when the GIS is incomplete, inaccurate, or both) different levels of manual operation
may be more appropriate. For example, a limited GIS may exist for an urban watershed, along
with very detailed and accurate CAD files. Certain commercial products (e.g. Visual Hydro by
CAiCE) can handle CAD drawings better than a product designed to run a pre-existing GIS. If
resources were not available to create a GIS, it would be appropriate to use a product suited to
the available data.

3.1 SWMM and EPA Windows SWMM

As stated previously, SWMM is a DOS based program developed under US EPA funding during
the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. There is no provision to link directly or indirectly with a GIS
other than through standard input text files. This is the most basic version of SWMM available.
This version of SWMM is important because it is in the public domain, and the source code is
readily available. The latest version of the DOS based SWMM can be found at
http://www.ccee.orst.edu/swmm/

In 1994, the US EPA produced a Windows-based GUI for SWMM. This program (also
available at http://www.epa.gov/ost/SWMM_WINDOWS/) runs on Windows version 3.1, and is
therefore somewhat outdated. This program is also limited by the fact that the DOS based
SWMM engine is in a constant state of improvement by developers and users because the
Fortran source code is available. Unfortunately, the Windows SWMM program used the
SWMM engine available circa 1994, and the newer versions of the SWMM engine cannot easily
be substituted. Therefore the program has quickly become outdated, and has few users.
Windows SWMM could not be linked directly to a GIS program.

To use either of these programs with a GIS, the data-interchange method must be deployed to
transfer information from a GIS to an input file. The GIS may be used to store and estimate
model input parameters. The GIS could be queried for the needed values, and the values could
then be transferred to the input file. The level of automation to perform this task depends on the
user. It could be as simple as copying the needed values onto a Windows clipboard and pasting
them into the input file, or developing special queries from the GIS to create an input file
automatically.

3.2 PCSWMM ’98 and PCSWMM GIS

PCSWMM-98 is a set of 32 bit applications designed to facilitate running SWMM. These tools
include an ASCII text editor, an animated hydraulic grade line plot, a chart wizard, an Internet
wizard, a batch file control, a rainfall analysis package, a bibliographic database, a sensitivity
analysis wizard, and a calibration wizard. The GUI allows files from many sources to be linked,
including those accessed across Intranets and Internets. PC-SWMM GIS is an optional tool that
works directly with CAD or GIS files in constructing a link-node database for running the model
from the existing data sources. After importing the data from a CAD or GIS file, an aggregation
tool allows semiautomatic construction of a simplified link-node model. This reduces model
complexity, and provides a direct analog to the aggregated catchment concept in the original
SWMM. An example of output from a PC-SWMM example run is found in figure 3.1.

11
Figure 3.1: PCSWMM output
(CHI, 1999)

PCSWMM GIS is an intermediate data management program designed to accept data from a GIS
package and transfer it to a SWMM input file. Because it is a more sophisticated method of
transferring information from a GIS to a model than the data-interchange method, but it is not an
interface as defined by Shamsi (1998), a fourth category was added to the taxonomy, that of the
intermediate program. PCSWMM GIS and PCSWMM’98 were developed by CHI in Guelph,
Ontario. According to the CHI website, (www.chi.on.ca), PCSWMMGIS does not perform any
parameter estimation calculations. It accepts geographic data from an external GIS, within
which the parameter estimation calculations and queries are performed. However, it does
perform tasks specific to SWMM modeling, such as performing geographic and hydrologic
aggregation calculations that are commonly done to simplify a SWMM model.

3.3 XP-SWMM by XP Software (Also Available as Visual Hydro by CAiCE)

XP-SWMM32 by XP Software (also included in Visual Hydro, by CAiCE) is a full 32-bit MS

Windows application. The program has been enhanced by the addition of a graphics database,
and an adaptive dynamic wave solution algorithm that is more stable than the matrix method
used in the original SWMM. The program is divided into a stormwater layer, which includes
hydrology and water quality, a wastewater layer, which includes storage treatment and water

12
quality routing for BMP analysis, and a hydro-dynamic/hydraulics layer for simulation of open
or closed conduits. The user-friendly GUI is based upon a graphical representation of the
modeled system using a link-node architecture. An example of input and output processing in
Visual Hydro is found in figure 3.2. Because the links and nodes are set up on a coordinate
system basis, files can be translated between most CAD and GIS software systems. CAD or GIS
files can also be used as a backdrop for the system being modeled. However, since there is no
interface with a GIS, data interchange method must be used to transfer parameters (e.g., slope,
width, percent imperviousness, etc.) from a GIS to the model. However, the program can import
and export files from and to a GIS.

3.4 SWMM-DUET

SWMM-DUET is the only fully integrated application of a model into a GIS. It was developed
using ArcInfo and the native ArcInfo development language AML (Shamsi 1998). SWMM
DUET uses relational databases, both pre- and post-processors, and expert system logic to
integrate the SWMM environment and the graphical paradigm of ArcInfo (Shamsi 1998). Future
plans include an ArcView version of this product (Shamsi 1998).

3.5 DHI Software

3.5.1 MIKE SWMM

MikeSWMM is a proprietary GUI for SWMM from the Danish Hydraulic Institute and Camp,
Dresser and McKee, Inc. Mike SWMM can be integrated with a GIS system using Mouse GIS,
also available from DHI. Mike SWMM is a classified as an ArcView interface due to its ability
to link with the Mouse GIS program, which is described in the follow section.

3.5.2 MOUSE and MOUSE GIS

Mouse GIS is a module for MikeSWMM and Mouse users that also allows tight integration
between the GIS and the model database. Mouse GIS is an ArcView GIS application. Files do
not need to be translated and converted from the GIS to the model format. The DHI product for
stormwater modeling, Mouse, uses the Mike GUI within the MS Windows environment. Mouse
is a dynamic 32-bit model running in MS Windows that is capable of modeling any type or
combination of open or closed conduits and pressurized or gravity flows. An example of the
result of a simple query that illustrates the operating environment of Mouse GIS can be seen in
figures 3.4 and 3.5. Each object within Mouse GIS has database attributes that can be queried.
Mouse GIS is an interface between ArcView and the hydraulic pipe simulator, MOUSE. Mouse
is a sophisticated proprietary hydraulic model that is commonly compared to SWMM.

13
Figure 3.2: Visual Hydro
(CAiCHE, 1998)
14
Figure 3.3: Mouse GIS user action
(www.dhi.dk/mouse/)

Figure 3.4: System response to user action, Mouse GIS

(www.dhi.dk/mouse/).

15
3.6 Wallingford Software-HydroWorks and InfoWorks

HydroWorks and InfoWorks are companion products produced by Wallingford, Inc. of the UK.
Wallingford has taken a different approach to managing geospatial data. InfoWorks is designed
to import relational and geospatial data from third party software (e.g. Access and ArcView).
Once transferred to InfoWorks, the data is then used to create and run a HydroWorks model.
Hydroworks is an urban stormwater modeling system with a user friendly GUI. HydroWorks
uses a fully dynamic solution technique that solves backwater and unsteady open or closed
conduit situations.

InfoWorks performs GIS-type operations, and is designed to operate with HydroWorks, the
hydrologic and hydraulic simulator produced by Wallingford, Inc. While the relationship
between InfoWorks and HydroWorks may be defined as an interface or even fully integrated,
InfoWorks is not a GIS interface. An example of InfoWorks is shown in figure 3.5. Data from a
general use GIS product like ArcView would need to be imported into InfoWorks, much like the
PCSWMM GIS program from CHI.

Figure 3.5: InfoWorks from Wallingford Software

(HR-Wallingford, 1999)

16
3.7 Summary

A summary of model and GIS features is presented in table 3.2. As described above, and
summarized in table 3.2, the problem of transferring geographic and hydrographic data between
a GIS and a simulation model has been handled several different ways by various software
developers. It may appear self evident that a tight integration between the hydraulic model and
the GIS is desirable. However, the question should be raised; how integrated should these two
types of software be? For example, should a GIS include a hydraulic model as part of a toolbox
within the GIS? This may, or may not, be desirable. Therefore it should not be assumed that
because SWMM DUET has integrated SWMM within ArcInfo that it is the best modeling tool.
For example, the expert GUI of XP SWMM may be more useful for a given application, despite
the fact that it does not interface directly with a GIS, nor does it have an intermediate data
management program. What is common among the recent software developments is a
transferability of fundamental database information. This theme is formerly known as a
Decision Support System (DSS). Under a DSS framework, neither the GIS nor the model are
“central” to the process. Both GIS and model serve satellite functions to a central master
database. A more fundamental look at this question is given in chapter 5.

The question “which model works best with GIS?” is impossible to answer. Depending on the
problem at hand, several products are designed to work with an existing GIS. The answer
largely depends on the state of information available. If an existing ArcInfo database is in place,
SWMMDUET would work well. Other products have used an information management
approach over GIS integration. This may be best suited for applications with disparate data
sources. Differences amongst hydraulic models may be more important. The DHI suite of
models may be appealing for certain applications. The organization of the HydroInfo/
HydroWorks or PCSWMM’98/PCSWMM GIS software may be best suited for other
applications. Each has unique and valuable features, and no recommendation is made in this
report for a specific software package.

The future evolution of both GIS and urban stormwater modeling, and their possible
convergence, appears to be centering upon object intelligence and smaller, programmable
component tools. For example, ESRI’s stated goal of its next generation of programs (possibly
ArcView 4.0) is to rewrite and enhance its programs to use standard MS Windows routines that
can be called via dynamic link libraries (DLLs). An early example is the product called
MapObjects, which allows a programmer to insert a GIS-like application within a Visual Basic
or Visual C++ program, and make queries and ArcView-like functions upon GIS databases
without the ArcView program itself. Existing tools like Evolver, for nonlinear optimization, and
@Risk for Monte Carlo simulation are also available as DLLs (Palisade Corporation, 1998).
Urban stormwater modeling tools appear to be evolving into using similar tools as they take
advantage of existing libraries such as spreadsheet and graphic add-ons, (e.g., Visual Hydro,
PCSWMM), and are rewritten in object-oriented programs such as Visual C++, Visual Basic, or
Java. The future convergence of GIS and urban stormwater modeling will probably utilize these
common sets of tools to take advantage of the easier interoperability. Such tools make
integration of these disparate components possible into an integrated Decision Support System,
the subject of the next chapter.

17
Table 3.2: Characteristics of urban storm stormwater models

Software Data Intermediate GIS/Model GIS/Model Advantages/Disadvantages

Interchange Program Interface Integration
SWMM Products:
EPA SWMM X DOS based
Windows SWMM X Based on SWMM circa 1994
PCSWMM’98/ X PCSWMM GIS is a data management
PCSWMM GIS program
Visual Hydro/XP-SWMM X Imports CAD, GIS files
SWMMDUET X ArcInfo based
MIKE SWMM/ X ArcView based (via MOUSE GIS)
DHI Products X ArcView
MOUSE, Mike-11
MOUSE GIS
HydroWorks/ X InfoWorks is a data management program
InfoWorks for geographic and relational databases.

18
4.0 Future Urban Stormwater Modeling in a DSS Environment

Much of the data used in distributed (and lumped-distributed) hydrologic modeling requires
some level of spatially referenced information. Conversely, purely lumped hydrologic models
by definition do not require data to be spatially referenced. This report is focused on lumped-
distributed models and the type of information required to use them. Lumped-distributed models
are typically defined by sub-catchments within a stormwater basin. The hydrologic parameters
are lumped within each sub-catchment. On the basin scale, however, the discretization among
sub-catchments provides spatial distribution. Some of the data used in these distributed models
may be more efficiently stored in forms other than GIS spatial database structures (Reitsma et al.
1996). For example, relational data models may be more efficient in storing certain attribute
information. Time series are another form of data commonly used in hydrologic modeling.
These data are frequently stored in a relational form, despite some shortcomings of this structure
for time series (Reitsma et al. 1996).

Besides model input, decision-makers frequently require analysis of model output, and the
analysis may not necessarily be spatially referenced. For these reasons, future model
development should not only focus on the role of GIS in modeling, but on how all information is
stored and used.

Due to the complexity of tools required to fully support a complex hydrologic decision, a system
made up of more than a GIS and simulation model is needed. An integrated suite of tools is
required to manage information. These tools are referred to as Decision Support Systems (DSS).
Although the model is important, much of the focus has shifted to the related needs of relational
database management, developing geographical information systems, and a sophisticated user
friendly interface, all combined in DSS. Figure 4.1 describes these necessary components of a
DSS (Reitsma et al., 1996). The evolution of DSS may be seen as a natural extension of
simulation models (e.g. SWMM, MOUSE, HydroWorks), GIS (e.g. ArcView, IDRISI, ArcInfo),
relational databases (e.g. Dbase, Oracle, Access) and evaluation tools (e.g. optimization
software). Reitsma (1996) define a DSS for water resources applications:

“Decision support systems are computer-based systems which integrate state

information, dynamic or process information, and plan evaluation tools into a
single software implementation.”

In this definition, state information refers to data which represents the system’s state at any point
in time, process information represents the first principles governing resource behavior, and
evaluation tools refer to software used for transforming raw data into information useful for
decision making. A simple representation of DSS components is shown in figure 4.1.

The GIS and the simulation model are only components of the DSS in figure 4.1. Future model
development should focus not only on GIS interfaces and integration with models, but should
include integration with a more complete management information system.. The view for future
model development should be broader than only GIS integration, because hydrologic decision
making requires more than just spatial information. In a DSS, the GIS only handles spatial data.
Spatially referenced information is only one form of state data that is relevant to hydrologic and

19
hydraulic modeling. Time series and attribute data are also crucial to the analysis, and may be
handled poorly in a GIS database format designed to manage spatially referenced data.

A thorough background on DSSs and their application to reservoir decisions can be found in
Jamieson and Fedra (1996a), Fedra and Jamieson (1996), and Jamieson and Fedra (1996b).
These series of articles describe the conceptual design, planning capability, and example
application of the Water Ware DSS, a complex river basin DSS that combines a “GIS, a geo-
referenced database, groundwater flow, surface water flow, hydrologic processes, demand
forecasting, and water-resources planning” (Jamieson and Fedra 1996a). Reservoir operation
and management was one of the first areas of civil engineering in which DSSs were applied.
Because of the complicated decision criteria governing urban stormwater management, Davis et
al. (1991) studied a prototype DSS developed to analyze the impact of different catchment
policies. Driscoll (1993) developed a DSS to assist highway engineers in determining which
construction sites would contribute to a receiving water quality problem. Azzout et al. (1995)
discuss a DSS under development that would assist in determining the feasibility of alternative
techniques in urban stormwater management.

DSS
Evaluation Tools
-Multi Criteria Evaluation
-Visualization
-Status Checking

State Information
-Databases
-Geographic Information

Process Information
-(Simulation) Models

Figure 4.1: DSS structure and components

(Reitsma et al. 1996)

20
The theme of the following sections is that the parts of a DSS are separate but complementary.
They should be able to transfer information to needed process models and evaluation tools
without complications. There is no need to house everything under one umbrella, i.e. to perform
all modeling tasks in an integrated GIS/hydraulic model.

4.1 State Information

In one form of DSS, state information drives the system. This is a “data-centric” view, and it
differs from the more traditional model-based analysis commonly used in urban water resources
modeling. This fundamental change in perspective may be more important to the future of
stormwater modeling than efficient program interfacing. The modeler will need to have tools
that handle spatial and temporal data for purposes of modeling, rather than spending resources
manually transforming data into the format needed for the model. While this is the idea behind
much of the discussion in section 4, a fully integrated GIS/model like SWMMDUET may not be
the best modeling tool for the future. It may be that an intermediate database manager (e.g.
HydroInfo, PCSWMM GIS, etc) may be closer to a DSS than full GIS integration.

State information is stored in relational databases or spatial databases in a modern DSS. Instead
of integrating all data forms into one database model, the relational and the spatial information
are kept separate, and are linked together to form a geo-relational database structure.

4.1.1 GIS

The focus of this report has been on spatial data for modeling purposes. GIS is a critical part of
the DSS for systems that are spatially distributed. Since some spatial discretization is needed to
model urban hydrologic systems, much effort has been placed on smoothly transferring spatial
data to the model and vice versa. Under the DSS data-centered framework, the GIS is one part
of the central database of state information. Due to the popularity of GIS software, there has
been some interest in housing the entire DSS within the GIS framework. For example, Walsh
(1993) investigate spatial DSS, a GIS driven DSS. Reitsma et al. (1996) describe some of the
problems associated with a GIS-based DSS:

“Recent developments in modeling in GIS (NCGIA 1991; 1993) suggest that GIS
can be extended even further into other domains of modeling, e.g., water
resources. This type of architecture does offer certain advantages in that it makes
use of sophisticated software for management and evaluation of spatial data. A
distinct problem, however, is that although rapid improvements are being made in
the integration of GIS and modeling (NCGIA 1991; 1993), the full integration of
all three components of DSS in GIS is, to say the least, problematic.”

To facilitate a non-GIS-based DSS framework, i.e. GIS as a component but not central to the
DSS, there are several considerations for GIS. First, the spatial database in the GIS must
communicate with other DSS components. This means that much of the interfacing/integration
of models and GIS discussed by Shamsi (1998) and reviewed in Chapter 3 must be extended to
include other DSS components. Second, spatial tools should be available for modification by the
modeler. The GUI should include a dynamic toolbox. For example, if the GIS performs an

21
aggregation calculation in one way, the modeler may wish to modify the algorithm without
having to re-write a lot of computer code.

The spatial analysis of topographic and hydrographic data may be efficiently carried out in a
GIS. GIS software, e.g. ArcView, contain tools that take basic geographic input parameters, e.g.
a DEM, and create stormwater boundaries, do slope analysis, etc. Land use and soil coverages
are commonly used to estimate hydrologic parameters. Shamsi (1998) discusses several ways
that SWMM input parameters may be estimated using GIS. Subarea characteristics such as area,
width of overland flow, percent imperviousness and slope may be estimated for the RUNOFF
block of SWMM. Parameters used for water quality simulation with the TRANSPORT block of
SWMM such as curb length may be estimated from road characteristics in a GIS. Similarly, land
use data may be used from a GIS to create SWMM TRANSPORT input files for water quality
simulation.

Hellweger and Maidment (1999) discuss the details of the spatial analysis required to create an
input file for the HEC-HMS model. While not specifically an urban model, it may be useful to
review the procedures used. A method to define sub-basin boundaries and stream network
connectivity was developed using GIS data layers derived from digital terrain data. Intersecting
the sub-basin and stream network layers results in a node-arc representation of the watershed.
This information is used to develop an input file for the HEC-HMS model. In this example, an
underlying assumption was that streams flowed perpendicular to topographic contour lines.

While many of the tools and methods described by Hellweger and Maidment (1999) are useful
for modeling natural hydrologic systems, the effect of managed systems in urban areas
significantly complicates the analysis. For example, gravity sewers and engineered open
channels may have slopes that are independent from the ground surface slope, possibly crossing
natural stormwater boundaries and otherwise defying a general physics-based analysis that is
used when describing natural systems. Managed or altered hydrologic systems may also be
operated based on logic other than the processes that drive a natural system. For example, flow
may be diverted from a stream only during dry weather for irrigation purposes, thereby
exaggerating the apparent peaking ratio of a stream gauging station.

The problems associated with a “pure” GIS analysis of an urban, managed system highlight the
advantages of integrating GIS, simulation tools, and relational databases into a DSS. The DSS
framework addresses many of the problems associated with using a GIS for urban analysis
because of the ability to access and manage related, auxiliary information.

4.1.2 Time series

The analysis of time series data is equally important to modeling as the analysis of spatial data.
Temporal data includes flow and rain time series, water quality data, etc., as well as dynamic
model output. The DSS could include a time series toolbox. Statistical tests and statistical
models could reside in this portion of the DSS, for comparison with process models and for
analyzing model output. An example of some of this type of pre-processing is that which is
currently done in outside statistical packages, or even using Microsoft Excel.
Continuous simulation modeling usually will require large amounts of time series data for input

22
purposes. Urban stormwater models that have the capability of continuous simulation usually
are capable of reading several different formats of rainfall data. For example, SWMM reads the
following formats (Gregory and James, 1996):

1. National Weather Service Hourly Rainfall Data (in two formats).

2. Pre-1980 National Weather Service Hourly Rainfall Data
3. User Defined Hourly Rainfall Data
4. Canadian Atmospheric Environment Service Hourly Rainfall Data

In SWMM, the standard modules RUNOFF, TRANSPORT, EXTRAN, and STORAGE can
import the above formats of time series data. In addition, the modules RAIN, TEMP, STATS,
and COMBINE can be used to preprocess time series data. HSP-F, the Hydrologic Simulation
Program FORTRAN, includes several time series facilities (Gregory and James, 1996). Several
single purpose time series data management programs are available. The HEC-DSS, or the
Hydrologic Engineering Center Data Storage System (not Decision Support System), was
developed to link time series data with the various HEC watershed management programs.
ANNIE, developed by the US Geological Survey, uses watershed data management (WDM)
files, and can import WATSTORE files (Gregory and James, 1996). Both ANNIE and HEC-
DSS are non-proprietary FORTRAN models. Due to the multitude of file formats it is difficult
to import and export datasets between different modeling environments. For this reason, the
CASCADE2 time series management program was developed (Wang and James, 1997). This
program, written in Visual Basic, runs under MS Windows and bridges the gap between SWMM
and HEC-DSS formats.

To be used within a relational database, the time value must be stored, which creates a
redundancy of information. This is because a time series is defined by the start time, the time
interval, and either the length of the interval or the end time (Reitsma et al. 1996). Another
disadvantage of the relational approach is that the DSS must store the criteria for searching the
time series (Reitsma et al. 1996). The importance of this redundancy becomes more evident in
the case of real time control, which utilizes signal processing and control theory. Lavallee et al.
(1996) describe a real time control system developed for the Quebec urban area to manage a
stormwater system to minimize CSOs. The unique data needs and system architecture of the
RTC system support many of the concepts of DSS due to the demand for timely decisions and
vast amounts of data available..

4.1.3 Relational database

An example of a relational database query and its results is presented in this subsection. This
example is presented within the context of a relational database contained within a GIS. The
same queries can be made in a non-graphic relational database. The linked tabular structure of a
relational database allows for extremely complex and powerful queries to be constructed, thus
relevant information is made available to the user. The City of Aurora, Colorado has developed
a very good base system for GIS. A subcatchment was chosen from the Shop Creek watershed
of Aurora, Colorado, a pilot area for GIS development for the City of Aurora.

The available themes from this area are as follows:

1. Water lines

23
 2. Digital elevation models
3. Rain gages
4. Stream gages
5. Parcels
6. Sewer lines
7. Sewer manholes
8. Digital orthophotos
9. Streets centerlines
10. Sewer tap locations
11. Water meter locations
12. Impervious areas (created by tracing the digital orthophotos)

Many tables are associated with each of these themes. An important feature of ArcView is the
use of the relational database structure. Tables are linked to graphical features, or themes
(analogous to layers in AutoCAD) through the use of spatial geocoding. The user links or joins
the tables by choosing a common column, or field between them. The three main types of
relationships among tables are:

1. One to One
2. One to Many or Many to One
3. Many to Many

All of the records in the one to one table could be placed in the same table. However, good
database practice suggests organizing the tables around their functions, instead of the other way
around. For example, many attributes are associated with your name, but only your address and
phone number are listed in a telephone directory. The first two of these types of relationships is
shown in figure 4.2. The two tables nearest the bottom, “Attributes of Theme1.shp” and
“Attributes of Parcel” are joined by a one to one relationship, with the fields “Parcel-ID” being
the common column. This is again the relationship between “Attributes of Parcel” and
“Attributes of Address”, using the fields “Parcel-Id” and “Address-Id” as the common columns
(it is not necessary that they have the same name). Lastly, a one to many relationship is shown
by the indexing of “Attributes of Address” and “all_9295.dbf” with the fields “Gistag” and
“Gisno”. The function of this linking is essentially the following. The theme1.shp table contains
the parcels that are located within the small subcatchment. The Attributes of Parcel table
contains data on all parcels. Attributes of Address contain address information, including the
GIS tag number needed within the Water Use database. This database lists monthly water use
data within entire Shop Creek basin, so many records are associated with each parcel.

The query shown in figure 4.2 illustrates the power of this tool. The query asks for all linked
records in which the water use in a month is over 10,000 gallons. The results of the query are
highlighted within the tables. These queries can be moved to the top of their respective tables for
further visual analysis. Alternatively, by clicking on the view with the current theme set to
Theme1.shp, the visual results of the query can be seen by highlighting parcels that used at least
10,000 gallons a month as shown in figure 4.3.

24
Figure 4.2: Relational database query example in ArcView using water use data

25
Figure 4.3: Spatial results for example query from figure 4.2.

26
The results of the query can also be output to an Excel spreadsheet by using ArcView’s Avenue
script language and Microsoft’s Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE). This capability is incorporated
as a toolbar shown as an “X” in figure 4.3. The results of this query, output to MS Excel, can be
found in figure 4.4.

Figure 4.4: Query results output to Excel using Avenue script tool and Microsoft DDE

An example of a relational database within a DSS can be found in Reitsma et al. (1996). In a
review of the TERRA DSS system, the authors explain that the data were divided into seven
main groupings:

1. Time Series Data

2. Historical Data
3. Physical Attribute Data
4. Operational Constraints
5. Model Data
6. Security Data
7. Meta Data

Meta data, the last group, is data about data; and allows the Data Management Interface (DMI), a
program component of the DSS, to refer only to the meta data, which keeps track of the data
structure and where and how the data is stored. This allows the DSS program to be relatively

27
free of data constraints (Reitsma et al., 1996). Although the relational database model has some
shortcomings, particularly for time series, it remains the database structure of choice for DSS, as
it is the prevailing database model at present.

4.2 Process Information-Simulation Tools

In the DSS framework, the process information is contained in simulation models. Process
models simulate transitions of the state of the system, as described by the geo-relational
database. The simulation model must therefore communicate in some fashion with the rest of the
system. For stormwater management models, this may occur in much the same way as described
in chapter 3. Data must be transferred to the model from spatial and relational databases. This
may occur in a variety of ways, from the rudimentary (but effective) data interchange methods to
full-fledged integration in a DSS, running along with the other tools that make up a DSS. The
difference from the methods described in chapter 3 is that the communication is not only with the
GIS, but also with all elements of the DSS.

4.3 Evaluation Tools

Evaluation tools assist the decision-maker by presenting the output from the process and state
information in a manner consistent with resource or policy appraisal (Reitsma et al. 1996).
Evaluation tools may be of many forms. While much of the above discussion is framed around
the excellent review of DSS by Reitsma et al. (1996), the discussion of optimization deviates
somewhat from their discourse. Reitsma et al. (1996) do not consider optimization tools to be
strictly an evaluation tool, nor do they feel that optimization has been accepted by the user
community. While perhaps true for classical optimization techniques, the development of new
Intelligent Search Techniques (IST) is proving to be useful for many realistic problems that are
unsuitable for traditional methods.

4.4 Overall DSS for Water Management

An overall DSS for water management of hydropower and river operations is shown in figure
4.5. This DSS combines the concepts of a centralized database, including hydrologic as well as
spatial information, and utilizes two different models that access that data; the Modular
Modeling System (MMS) which is a watershed and general environmental model, and
RiverWare, which models rivers and reservoirs. Evaluation tools are included within each of the
model components. The DSS includes a GIS as a tool for the user to query the common spatial
database. This DSS was developed by the Center for Advanced Decision Support in Water and
Environmental Systems (CADSWES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, with support
from the Tennessee Valley Authority and the US Bureau of Reclamation. This DSS focuses on
large watersheds with complex reservoir and hydropower operations.

28
Figure 4.5: CU-CADSWES DSS
(Fulp et al., 1994)

A DSS framework for the urban stormwater field is presented in figure 4.6. This DSS is an
amalgamation of the different components of the Mike series of software produced by the Danish
Hydraulic Institute (DHI), emphasizing their interoperability and common database, Mike Info.
The database (relational and spatial) is the common link between separate functions and
applications of the DSS. The peripheral models include Mike-11 for urban drainage, Mike SHE
for distributed watershed modeling, WUS for river basin planning, and NAM for statistical
analysis of streamflow/unguaged catchments.

29
Figure 4.6: Danish Hydraulic Institute DSS, based on integrated water resources modeling (DHI,
1998)

30
5.0 Application of GIS and DSS to Micro Storm Analysis

This chapter focuses upon the application of GIS, database management, and DSS to the urban
stormwater management problem. A textbook case study from Tchobanoglous (1981) is used to
develop a GIS and an accompanying relational database. The database is used with hydrologic
and hydraulic models, and a cost analysis module. The combination of these components
represents a systematic urban stormwater design tool. The tool is then interfaced with an
optimization software package to develop optimal designs of the proposed network. The costs of
these designs can then be compared with a decentralized approach to controlling runoff. This
was done by using the GIS in conjunction with the NRCS analysis, which computes the initial
abstraction storage volume that is lost as a result of development. Using unit costs developed in
Heaney et al. (1999a), the optimal suite of controls can be selected using linear programming
(LP).

A diagram of the process used in the chapter is found in figure 5.1. The reader may notice
similarities between some of the components of a DSS and figure 5.1. In particular, the problem
consists of a database, simulation tools, and evaluation tools, similar in concept to that of a DSS
presented by Reitsma et al. (1996). The database includes GIS and its inherent spatial database,
but also a cost database, and a hydrologic database. The simulation tools consist of the NRCS
curve number method for computation of initial abstraction, the hydrologic model spreadsheet
template, the hydraulic model spreadsheet template, and the costing module. The evaluation tool
consists of a genetic algorithm to optimize the stormwater network, and a linear programming
model to evaluate proposed controls based upon unit costs developed in Heaney et al. (1999a).
Although not integrated into a single software program, the process shown here closely parallels
that of a DSS. The utility of GIS (to the urban stormwater field) is enhanced by its close
integration with the database, models, and analysis tools used in the problem. Because of the
large investment in time and resources necessary to construct an urban GIS, there is a natural
tendency for the GIS system to move to center stage. However, the value of the GIS is when it is
fully integrated within a DSS which is then used to address complex processes that cannot be
easily solved by other means.

Key considerations are the concepts of accuracy and scale as they apply to GIS data. Since the
datasets presented here vary substantially in terms of their level of detail and scale, a discussion
of spatial scale becomes necessary.

31
 DSS

Evaluation Tools

Optimization
Linear Programming (LP)
Genetic Algorithms (GA)

Simulation Tools
Database
Relational (nongraphic) NRCS CN Hydrologic Method
addresses Rational Method
billing Hydraulic Design Template
unit costs Cost Template
time series input data
GIS/Spatial Database
Themes
Topography
Soils
Land use
Streets
Right of way
Pipe network
Parcels

Figure 5.1: Proposed DSS for microstorm analysis

5.1 Spatial Scale and GIS-Stormwater Modeling

A recent software development, BASINS 2.0, developed by TetraTech for the US Environmental
Protection Agency, has created interest in the development of model-graphical user interface-
GIS linkages within the water community. BASINS 2.0 runs within ArcView 3.0 and includes a
national dataset on the attributes listed in Table 5.1 (Battin, et al. 1998).

32
Table 5.1: Available BASINS data attributes
(Battin et al. 1998)
Spatially Distributed Data
Land use/land cover (GIRAS)
Urbanized areas
Populated place location
Reach File, version 1 (RF1)
Reach File, version 3 (RF3)
Soils (STATSGO)
Elevation (DEM)
Major roads
Environmental Monitoring Data
Water quality monitoring station summaries
Water quality observation data
Bacteria monitoring station summaries
Weather Station Sites (477)
Clean Water Needs Survey
Point Source Data
Permit Compliance System
Industrial Facilities Discharge (IFD) sites
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) sites
USGS Hydrologic unit boundaries
Drinking water supplies
Dam sites
EPA region boundaries
State boundaries
County boundaries
Federal and Indian Lands
Ecoregions
USGS gaging stations
Fish and wildlife advisories
National Sediment Inventory (NSI)
Shellfish Contamination Inventory
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) sites
Mineral availability system/mineral industry location
Superfund national priority list sites

BASINS 2.0 includes tools for automatic watershed delineation and handling of digital elevation
models (DEM). Its main data handling routines include: Target, which is a regional, or state
level broad-based watershed water quality or point source assessment tool; Assess, which
operates a smaller scale of one or a few watersheds and enclosed discharge points or water
quality stations; and Data Mining, which dynamically links water discharge stations and
geographic location information. Modeling tools include a nonpoint source model (later to be
enhanced by the addition of SWAT, the MS Windows based nonpoint source model developed
by the USDA), HSPF, Qual-2E, and Toxiroute. Model post processors include graphs (Battin,
Kinerson, and Lahlou 1998). EPA SWMM may be linked with BASINS in the future.

33
The accepted accuracy levels of mapping work are listed in Table 5.2 (Shamsi et al. 1995). Most
of the BASINS work and modeling have been on a watershed or regional level scale. An
example is shown in figure 5.2. The size of this file relative to the area it represents reflects a
scale of about 1:2000.

Table 5.2: Minimum horizontal accuracy and example features for various map scales in urban
areas
(Shamsi et al. 1995)
Map Scale Minimum Horizontal Examples of Smallest
Accuracy, per National Map Features Depicted
Accuracy Standards
1”=50’ ± 1.25’ Manholes, catch basins
1’=100’ ± 2.50’ Utility poles, fence lines
1”=200’ ± 5.00’ Buildings, edge of pavement
1”=2000’ ± 40’ Transportation, developed
areas, watersheds

Figure 5.2: BASINS dataset for Boulder, Colorado

Automatic watershed delineation of undeveloped areas may be appropriate at this scale.

However, urban systems have extremely altered topography. The topography in these types of
catchments can be represented by a dense DEM; however, development of watersheds based

34
upon triangular irregular networks (TINs) from this information is not presently reliable. This is
not to say that the database information presented from a watershed level scale has no value.
Actually, having the information presented in figure 5.2 can provide the modeler with possible
alternative sources of data, possibly structures that may not have been considered, etc. However,
a key disadvantage of using GIS information from different scales of accuracy is that a vector
GIS cannot show any uncertainty. An assumption of the GIS model is that the points are known
to 100% accuracy. This leaves it up to the reader to verify locations and discrepancies,
particularly when the scales, and the resultant accuracy, differ widely.

In addition, the memory requirements for regional level stormwater-GIS modeling are
staggering. For example, the City of Boulder has an ongoing GIS project, a broad view of which
is shown in figure 5.3 (Brown and Caldwell and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1997).

Figure 5.3: ArcView coverage of Boulder, Colorado

(Brown and Caldwell and Camp, Dresser, and McKee, 1997)

Minor roads are outlined in light green, major roads are outlined in thick maroon; creeks are
shown in light blue, lakes in shaded blue, and sub-basins boundaries in black. Not shown for
better clarity, but available, are parcels, zoning, topography, watershed boundaries, and several
other miscellaneous themes. Also not shown is the database describing each graphic entity (for
example, the parcel database). Even at this finer resolution, urban stormwater modeling is at too
aggregate a scale to evaluate sets of alternatives that include micro-topographical changes to
implement BMPs.

35
In order to evaluate the effects of source and neighborhood-level BMPs, the coverage as depicted
in figure 5.4 is needed. This area is a block in the University Hill neighborhood of Boulder. The
parcel theme is shown in red, the street centerline is shown in green, and the streams are shown
in blue. Topography is not shown, but exists in this database at the 40 foot contour interval,
reflecting a scale of about 1:200.

Figure 5.4: City of Boulder ArcView GIS coverage for University Hill neighborhood, Boulder,
Colorado.

36
Moving towards a finer dataset, another parallel project at the City of Boulder, in the Public
Works/Public Utilities group, is an Automated Mapping/Facilities Management (AM/FM)
project in which the city’s infrastructure is being mapped by street surveys and aerial
photography. The end product at the present time is a tiled set of AutoCAD maps representing
portions of the city. The representation of this project for the same block in the University Hill
neighborhood is shown in figure 5.5. The scale of this information is approximately 1:100. The
green layer signifies building rooflines, yellow is the street centerline and parking
areas/driveways, red is sidewalks, and black is the curblines. This file has been edited
extensively to eliminate extraneous lines and close polygons. Since the end product of the
project was a set of AutoCAD maps, manual and automatic processes on the digital photography
result in multiple lines whose ends may not match and polygons that do not close. Although
acceptable for graphic presentation, this information is of limited value for extracting data for
stormwater evaluations. Extensive cleanup is necessary for this information prior to inputting it
into a GIS. Topography for this information is available for an additional cost at a 2-foot contour
interval. At the present time, conversion of this data to ArcInfo and ArcView coverages is
underway.

5.2 Description of Happy Acres Case Study GIS

A textbook study area, nicknamed “Happy Acres”, was selected from Tchobanoglous (1981). A
GIS coverage for this case study was developed. The study area was first digitized in AutoCAD,
then edited for geometric consistency, i.e., parallel lines were kept parallel, polygons were joined
from separated lines, to make the transition to GIS easier. The mix of land uses for the area is
laid out in table 5.3. The reconstructed AutoCAD drawing of the area is shown in figure 5.6.
The topography of the study area and the layout of the storm sewer system are shown in figure
5.7 (Tchobanoglous 1981). Land use is shown in figure 5.8. Soils data is shown in figure 5.9.
The entire study area is divided into 54 sub-areas that range in size from 0.8 to 5.4 acres in size.
A description of the attribute information in figure 5.6 is found in table 5.4.

Table 5.3: Mix of land uses in Happy Acres

Land Use Acres Dwelling

units/acre
Residential, low density 20.8 2-3
Residential, medium density 51.7 6-8
Apartments 10.0 10
School 5.7 N/A
Commercial 18.4 N/A
Total 106.6

37
Figure 5.5: AutoCAD file for University Hills neighborhood, Boulder, Colorado.

38
Figure 5.6: AutoCAD coverage for study area
(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

39
 N

Sewer2.sh p
Manhol e2 .sh p
Con tour s o f Tch ob an_po ints 4_point.shp
Tchoban_parce ls2 _regio n.shp
Tchoban_roads 2_r egi on .s hp

100 0 100 200 Meters

Figure 5.7: Study area topography

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

40
 Tchoban_roads2_region.shp
Nwgrd3
Apartment
Commercial
LD Residential
MD Residential
School
No Data

W E
300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 Feet
S

Figure 5.8: Study area land use

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

41
 Tchoban_roads2_region.shp
Tchoban_drainage2_region.shp
Soilgrid
Clay
Rock
Silt
No Data

W E
300 0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 Feet
S

Figure 5.9: Study area soils

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

42
Table 5.4: AutoCAD layers for study area

Layer/Object Category Color

Streets Not shown (for clarity)
Manholes Blue
Sewer lines Red
Land use boundary Aqua
Hydrologic boundary Blue
Parcel Green
Rooflines Magenta
Driveways Orange
Soils Not shown (for clarity)

The AutoCAD layers shown in table 5.4 become the following ArcView themes:

1. Streets
2. Manholes
3. Sewer lines
4. Land use boundary
5. Hydrologic boundary
6. Parcel
7. Rooflines
8. Driveways
9. Soils

A relational database is associated with each graphic object, grouped according to type.
Attributes associated with parcels are address and land area; and with streets are right of way
width, length, land area, and street name. Soils and land use exist in separate tables, and this
information was combined with the parcel and street databases by performing an intersection
query on the two themes. The results of the query can also be output to an Excel spreadsheet by
using ArcView’s Avenue script language and Microsoft’s Dynamic Data Exchange (DDE). This
procedure was used to extract the relevant attribute information for parcels and streets.

The rights of way identified in figures 5.6 through 5.9 were assigned widths based upon the
following criteria. Minor streets within the development have a 50 foot right of way, a minor
arterial is given a 60 foot right of way, and a major arterial a 70 foot right of way. The profile of
each right of way is given in table 5.4. The reader is referred to Heaney et al. (1999a) for further
details on the database.

Table 5.5: Right of way characteristics

R/W Length, Curb Parking Landscaping Sidewalk Traffic

ft ft ft ft strip, ft ft Lanes, ft
50 28,680 4 8 10 8 20
60 1,124 4 16 10 8 22
70 2,741 4 16 18 8 24

43
Note: Some of the parameters are summed from both sides of the street.

Lot characteristics for the two single lot residential land use classifications are presented in table
5.6. Lots were aggregated in this manner for the optimization; however the GIS contains the full
heterogeneity of each parcel.

Table 5.6: Lot characteristics for residential parcels

Land Use No. of Roof Patio Driveway Landscap- Total

Parcels Area SF SF ing Area
SF SF SF
MD Residential (6-8 DU/AC) 255 1,600 200 600 3,600 6,000
LD Residential (2-5 DU/AC) 51 2,000 400 800 9,800 13,000

For the apartments, commercial, and school land uses, an aggregate analysis was used because
these land uses exhibited multi-parcel characteristics, such as for parking. A summary of these
characteristics is found in table 5.7

Table 5.7: Aggregate characteristics for commercial, apartments, and schools

Land Use No. of Stories Parcel Roof Parking Landscap-

parcels Area Area Area ing
SF SF SF SF
Apartments 2 2 162,680 46,927 75,083 40,670
Commercial 6 1 481,070 152,839 304,678 23,553
School 3 1 149,407 69,080 51,807 28,521

5.3 Simulation Tools for Hydraulic Design

The storm sewer network for the Happy Acres subdivision is diagrammed in figure 5.10. A
spreadsheet template has been developed to simulate and optimize storm sewer design for the
Happy Acres neighborhood-see tables 5.8 to 5.10. The value of better data obtained using GIS
can be estimated by evaluating the designs with and without this better information. The
following columns in table 5.7 represent data that can be obtained partially or totally with a GIS
system for this example.
Column Description
5 Sewer length
6 Stormwater area
7 Dwelling units per acre

The output from table 5.8 is the design peak discharge leaving each subcatchment. This
information is input to the sewer design table 5.9 that finds feasible combinations of pipe
diameters and slopes. The constraints on the design are:

Minimum depth of cover for the sewer, and

44
 Minimum velocity in the pipe.

The decision variables are pipe diameter (column 8) and slope (column 6). Trial and error
procedures are used to find a feasible solution to the design problem. In more sophisticated
analysis, the costs of the alternative systems are evaluated as shown in table 5.10. The
background for development of the cost relationships found in this table can be found in Heaney
et al. (1999a), and is based upon data obtained from R.S. Means (1996a). Additional GIS data
are helpful for the cost analysis. Specifically, soil conditions (column 8) affect the side slopes of
the sewer excavations, and the bedding costs.
18

17 17A 17B

16 16A 16B 16C

15 15A 15B

14E 14F

14
14D 14C 14B 14A

13I 13H
13

13G 13F 13E 13D 13C 13B 13A

12 12A 12B

11G 11F 11E 11D 11C 11B 11A 11

10E 10D 10C 10B 10A 10

9 9A 9B

8D 8C 8B 8A 8

7 7A 7B

1 2 3 4 5 6

Figure 5.10: Study area sewer network

(adapted from Tchobanoglous, 1981)

45
Table 5.8: Sewer network design hydrology
(Heaney et al. 1999)

46
Table 5.9: Sewer network design hydraulics
(Heaney et al. 1999)

47
Table 5.10: Sewer network design cost
(Heaney et al. 1999)

48
Using a new intelligent search technique called genetic algorithms (GAs), the optimal design was
found by having Evolver (Palisade Corp., 1998), a commercially available GA, evaluate different
combinations of pipe diameters and slopes until the least cost design is found.

5.4 Simulation Tools for Hydrologic Analysis

Heaney, Wright, and Sample (1999) describe a method for using the NRCS curve number (CN)
approach for evaluating micro storms. The fundamental principle is that development should not
reduce the initial soil moisture storage that existed prior to development. This initial soil
moisture storage is equivalent to the initial abstraction as calculated using the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) curve number (CN) method. The initial abstraction is a good
measure of the ability of the soil system to filter the stormwater. The initial abstraction, as a
function of CN, is shown in table 5.11. Inspection of table 5.11 reveals the importance of CN. A
low CN of 30 corresponds to an initial abstraction of 4.67 inches. Even at a CN of 80, the initial
abstraction is still 0.5 inches. If the original CN is fairly low, then a significant amount of soil
moisture storage is lost if this area is rendered impervious by development.

Table 5.11: Initial abstraction as a function of curve numbers, CN

CN Ia, inches CN Ia, inches

20 8 70 0.86
30 4.67 80 0.5
40 3 90 0.22
50 2 100 0.02
60 1.33

This method uses the concept of modifying the CNs for the developed condition so that the
modified CN is the same as the natural CN. The more cost-effective controls tend to focus on
utilizing the pervious area for more intensive infiltration. Alternatively, we seek to design
hydrologically functional landscapes as described in the next section.

5.4.1 Hydrologically functional landscaping

Traditional landscaping relies on covering most, if not all, of the pervious area with grass. The
lot is graded so that stormwater drains to the street and/or the rear of the lot as shown in figure
5.11 (Dewberry and Davis 1996). An example of a hydrologically functional landscape is shown
in figure 5.12 (Prince Georges County 1997). The general idea is to maximize the infiltration of
stormwater by providing depressions, draining runoff from impervious areas to pervious areas,
providing more circuitous routes for the stormwater to increase the time of concentration, etc.

49
Figure 5.11: Conventional storm drainage
(Dewberry and Davis 1996).

50
Figure 5.12: Illustration of hydrologically functional landscape
(Prince Georges County 1997).

51
5.4.2 Determination of runoff volumes using NRCS method

Each developed land use is assigned a curve number (CN) based upon work done by the Soil
Conservation Service (1986). The initial abstraction, or available storage, is estimated by the
following equation:
200
Ia = −2 5.1
CN
The final list of 10 permeable and 16 impermeable candidate land uses with their expected
effectiveness as measured by their curve number (CN) and the associated initial abstraction in
inches, calculated using equation 5.1, are shown in table 5.12. The CNs range from 25 to 98.
The initial abstraction associated with a CN of 25 is 6.00 inches of precipitation. Making this
land impervious increases the CN to 98 with an associated initial abstraction of only 0.04 inches,
a major loss of infiltration capacity. Using unit costs in $/square feet, which are developed in
section 5.5 (and detailed in Heaney et al. 1999a) and having determined the appropriate
abstraction, it is possible to convert the control option costs to $/gallon, which is done in the last
four columns of table 5.12. Several different functional land uses are given in table 5.12. These
include two kinds of aspens, fair, and good (referring to the health and density of the stand), two
kinds of driveways, permeable and impermeable, three types of grass cover, good, fair, and poor
(again referring to health and density), four types of parking, a traditional impervious surface,
and three of gradually increasing porosity, two types of patios, permeable and impermeable, two
kinds of roofs, with retention and without, two kinds of sidewalks, permeable and impermeable,
storage (detention pond), four types of streets, a traditional street profile with curb and gutter, a
street with curb and gutter and porous pavement, an impervious street with swales, and a street
with porous pavement and swales, two types of swales of progressively greater infiltration
capacity (and greater area), and two kinds of wooded areas, fair and poor, again referring to
health and density of the trees.

These values are unique to the soil type heading the column. The NRCS method aggregates clay
and silt together as soil type "B", and rock as soil type "D". Unit costs expressed as $/gallon are
useful for comparative purposes, as will be seen later.

5.4.3 Breakdown of calculated volumes per function

A functional analysis within each land use and soil classification was performed by adding the
total areas for the functions of roof, lawns, driveways, and parking (for non-right of way uses),
and streets, curbs, parking, sidewalks, and lawns for right of way areas. Volumes of developed
runoff can then be calculated by multiplying the initial abstraction by the appropriate area.
Predevelopment runoff can be calculated by using the composite curve number for Happy Acres
prior to development of 63.07, determining an initial abstraction for each soil group, and
multiplying this again by the area as done for the developed volumes. The result of this analysis
is found in table 5.13. This provides a snapshot of the increase in runoff volume for each land
use generated by development. Because the NRCS method is unique to soil characteristics, this
is further broken down by soil group.

52
Table 5.12: SCS hydrologic classifications, and calculation of unit storage values, 1/99$
Cover Description Curve Number Initial Abstraction in inchesUnit Unit Costs in $/gallons
cost
No. Type Cover type and hydrologic condition ID A B C D A B C D $/sf A B C D
1 Permeable Aspen-mountain brush mixture: Fair:30- Aspen F 28 48 57 63 5.14 2.17 1.51 1.17 $2.00 $0.62 $1.48 $2.13 $2.73
70% ground cover
2 Permeable Aspen-mountain brush mixture: Good: Aspen G 25 30 41 48 6.00 4.67 2.88 2.17 $3.00 $0.80 $1.03 $1.67 $2.22
>70% ground cover
1 Impervious Driveway Driveway 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.23 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21
2 Impervious Driveway-porous pavement Driveway 2 70 80 85 87 0.86 0.50 0.35 0.30 $0.25 $0.47 $0.80 $1.13 $1.34
3 Permeable Lawns, pasture, grassland: Fair condition Grass F 49 69 79 84 2.08 0.90 0.53 0.38 $0.81 $0.63 $1.45 $2.45 $3.42
(grass cover 50-75%)
4 Permeable Lawns, pasture, grassland: Good condition Grass G 39 61 74 80 3.13 1.28 0.70 0.50 $1.03 $0.53 $1.29 $2.35 $3.30
(grass cover >75%)
5 Permeable Lawns, pasture, grassland: Poor condition Grass P 68 79 86 89 0.94 0.53 0.33 0.25 $0.70 $1.19 $2.12 $3.45 $4.55
(grass cover < 50%)
6 Impervious Parking Parking 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.23 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21 $9.21
4 Impervious Porous parking 1 Parking 2 61 75 83 87 1.28 0.67 0.41 0.30 $0.25 $0.31 $0.60 $0.98 $1.34
5 Impervious Porous parking 2 Parking 3 46 65 77 82 2.35 1.08 0.60 0.44 $0.26 $0.18 $0.39 $0.71 $0.97
6 Impervious Porous parking 3 Parking 4 36 55 67 72 3.56 1.64 0.99 0.78 $0.28 $0.13 $0.27 $0.46 $0.58
7 Impervious Patio Patio 1 95 95 95 95 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 $0.19 $2.89 $2.89 $2.89 $2.89
8 Impervious Porous patio Patio 2 76 85 89 91 0.63 0.35 0.25 0.20 $0.19 $0.49 $0.88 $1.25 $1.57
9 Impervious Roof Roof 1 95 95 95 95 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
10 Impervious Roof with detention Roof 2 85 85 85 85 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 $1.50 $6.82 $6.82 $6.82 $6.82
11 Impervious Sidewalks Sidewalk 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.19 $7.44 $7.44 $7.44 $7.44
12 Impervious Sidewalks with porous materials Sidewalk 2 70 80 85 87 0.86 0.50 0.35 0.30 $0.19 $0.36 $0.62 $0.88 $1.04
13 Permeable Storage-off-site in infiltration/detention Storage 15 20 35 40 11.33 8.00 3.71 3.00 $5.00 $0.71 $1.00 $2.16 $2.67
basins
14 Impervious Street with curb and gutter Street 1 98 98 98 98 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 $0.25 $9.77 $9.77 $9.77 $9.77
15 Impervious Street with curb and gutter and porous Street 2 70 80 85 87 0.86 0.50 0.35 0.30 $0.26 $0.49 $0.84 $1.19 $1.41
pavement
16 Impervious Street with swales Street 3 76 85 89 91 0.63 0.35 0.25 0.20 $0.27 $0.68 $1.22 $1.74 $2.17
17 Impervious Street with swales and porous pavement Street 4 61 75 83 87 1.28 0.67 0.41 0.30 $0.28 $0.35 $0.67 $1.09 $1.49
18 Permeable Swales 1 Swales 1 46 65 77 82 2.35 1.08 0.60 0.44 $3.00 $2.05 $4.47 $8.06 $10.9
6
19 Permeable Swales 2 Swales 2 29 50 62 67 4.90 2.00 1.23 0.99 $6.00 $1.97 $4.81 $7.85 $9.77
20 Permeable Woods:Fair: Woods are grazed but not Woods F 36 60 73 79 3.56 1.33 0.74 0.53 $0.80 $0.36 $0.96 $1.73 $2.41
burned, and some forest litter
21 Permeable Woods:Good: Woods without grazing, and Woods G 25 55 70 77 6.00 1.64 0.86 0.60 $1.40 $0.37 $1.37 $2.62 $3.76
adequate litter and brush
Source: adapted from SCS, 1986

53
Table 5.13: Calculation of developed and predevelopment stormwater volumes for
Happy Acres
Soil Soil Volume Volume Total Vol. Volume Volume Tot. Volume
Types Types
Land Use Function B D, Total Area, Total Developed, B Developed, D Developed Undev., Undev., Undev.
B D
sf sf sf cf cf cf cf cf cf
Apartments Roof 46927 0 46927 412 0 412 4580 0 4580
Parking 75083 0 75083 255 0 255 7327 0 7327
Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lawns 40670 0 40670 4334 0 4334 3969 0 3969
Commercial Roof 95132 57707 152839 834 506 1341 9284 49 9333
Parking 44810 259868 304678 152 884 1036 4373 86 4459
Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lawns 6839 16714 23553 729 696 1425 667 68 735
MD Residential Roof 140800 267200 408000 1235 2344 3579 13741 229 13969
Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Driveway 52800 100200 153000 180 341 520 5153 33 5186
Lawns 353666 538755 892420 37686 22448 60134 34514 2191 36705
Patio 17600 33400 51000 154 293 447 0
LD Residential Roof 102000 0 102000 895 0 895 9954 0 9954
Parking 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Driveway 40800 0 40800 139 0 139 3982 0 3982
Lawns 491233 0 491233 52344 0 52344 47939 0 47939
Patio 20400 0 20400 179 0 179 0
School Roof 69080 0 69080 606 0 606 6742 0 6742
Parking 51806 0 51806 176 0 176 5056 0 5056
Driveway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lawns 28521 0 28521 3039 0 3039 2783 0 2783
Streets
50 ROW 659728 774288 1434016
Street with 105556 123886 229443 359 421 780 10301 41 10342
curb and gutter
Parking 105556 123886 229443 359 421 780 10301 41 10342
Sidewalks 105556 123886 229443 359 421 780 10301 41 10342
curb 52778 61943 114721 180 211 390 5151 21 5171
Lawns 52778 61943 114721 3952 1966 5918 5151 192 5343
60 ROW 87540 0 87540
Street with 11672 0 11672 40 0 40 1139 0 1139
curb and gutter
Parking 23344 0 23344 79 0 79 2278 0 2278
Sidewalks 11672 0 11672 40 0 40 1139 0 1139
curb 5836 0 5836 20 0 20 570 0 570
Lawns 5836 0 5836 437 0 437 570 0 570
70 ROW 13195 189531 202726
Street with 1508 21661 23169 5 74 79 147 7 154
curb and gutter
Parking 3016 43321 46337 10 147 158 294 14 309
Sidewalks 1508 21661 23169 5 74 79 147 7 154
curb 754 10830 11584 3 37 39 74 4 77
Lawns 754 10830 11584 56 344 400 74 34 107
Total 1724282 140882 210758

54
The functions were then compared across land uses by computing the difference between
the sum of the function’s pre-development and post-development storage volumes. The
result is plotted as a bar chart in figure 5.13. The greatest impact is from streets and
roofs, with roughly equal values of storage volume reduction. Patios are insignificant in
this analysis. Lawns actually add a great deal of storage, offsetting somewhat the drastic
reductions from roofs and streets. Driveways and parking lots result in smaller
reductions in volume, however, the local impact may be significant.

140000

120000
Volume, post development, (CF)
Volume, predevelopment (CF)
Difference
100000

80000
Volume in Cubic Feet

60000

40000

20000

0
Roof Parking Driveway Lawns Patio Streets

-20000

-40000
Function

Figure 5.13: Allocation of available storage for initial abstraction and land use.

5.5 Simulation Tools for Cost Analysis

If the cost of modifying the CNs can be determined, then cost-effective strategies can be
developed for maintaining the undeveloped CN for each parcel or combination of parcels.
Since most BMPs are land intensive, a careful evaluation of their costs must include land
valuation. The costs used in the analysis were developed in Heaney et al. (1999), for
each control and each land use. The procedure for calculation of the land component of
controls within one land use, medium density residential, is outlined in table 5.14.

55
Table 5.14: Land valuation for medium density lot, 1/99$
Component SF % of $/sf Construction Total Land $ Unimproved
total Cost, $ Land, $
Roof-house 1200 20.0% $56.25 $67,500 $8,790 $5,860
Roof-garage 400 6.7% $34.00 $13,600 $2,930 $1,953
Driveway 600 10.0% $4.00 $2,400 $4,395 $2,930
Yard 3600 60.0% $1.00 $3,600 $26,370 $17,580
Patio 200 3.3% $4.00 $800 $1,465 $977
Total 6000 100.0% $87,900 $43,950 $29,300

An estimate of the cost in $/sf is found in column 4 of table 5.14. Next, the construction
cost (column 5) is obtained by multiplying column 2 by column 4. Next, the percentage
in column 3 is multiplied by the total of column 5 to obtain an estimate of the land cost,
in column 6. Column 7, the unimproved land cost, is obtained by multiplying the values
in column 6 by 2/3. The value of the 3,600 square feet of land for the yard function is
$26,370.

Next, opportunity costs must be calculated. This procedure is illustrated in table 5.15.
The value of $26,370 is annualized, using an interest rate of 6%, and an infinite term (as
in equation 6.2), to obtain $1,582/year. Then, this value is spread over 25 years at 6%, to
obtain $20,226. Dividing this value by 3,600 square feet gives $5.62/square feet. This
value is used for all grass types as the underlying value of the land is assumed to be
constant irrespective of the type of grass. Landscaping costs were developed from RS
Means (1996b), and updated to January 1999, and are presented in table 5.15 (for a
medium density residential lot). The initial capital investment consists of the cost of soil
preparation including sod, topsoil, and soil conditioners, and an irrigation system. For a
good lawn, the present value of the initial landscaping investment is $2.22 per square
foot. Costs for lesser quality lawns drop to $1.71/sf and $.95/sf for fair and poor quality
lawns. For the good lawn system, operation and maintenance costs add an additional
$2.45 per square foot bringing the total to $10.29 per square foot. An estimated 10
percent of this total cost is allocated to stormwater management. Similar estimates were
made for fair and poor lawns. The resulting total costs per square foot vary from $0.70 to
$1.03 per square foot. Better lawns have a lower CN and are thereby preferable from the
viewpoint of being able to store more water.

Similar estimates were made for the land valuation for low-density residential lots,
commercial, apartments, and schools. A similar procedure was followed for these uses,
except that the commercial, apartments, and schools are aggregated as one lot. However,
they also cost more. The cost for each control was then estimated using these land
valuations. The matrix of controls and land uses is presented in table 5.16. A linear
programming model is used to find the least costly mix for each land use. See Heaney et
al. (1999b) for a more detailed explanation of this method.

56
Table 5.15: Cost analysis of landscaping for medium density lot, 1/99$

Input Good Fair Poor

Item Data $/ft2 $/ft2 $/ft2
A. Initial Capital Investment
1. Soil preparation
Initial cost of sod $0.43 $0.34 $0.26
Initial cost of topsoil, 6" $0.50 $0.40 $0.30
Spreading topsoil, 6" $0.64 $0.51 $0.38
Soil conditioners $0.03 $0.02 $0.01
Sprinkler system $0.62 $0.44 $0.00
$2.22 $1.71 $0.95
2. Opportunity Cost of Land
Land Investment Cost $26,370
Opportunity cost investment rate 6%
Annual cost, $/yr. $1,582
Interest rate per year 0.06
Present worth over 25 years $20,226
Cost in $/ft2 $5.62 $5.62 $5.62
Total of initial capital investment $7.84 $7.33 $6.57
B. Operation & Maintenance Costs, $
Lawn watering
Inches per year 20
% of pervious area that is irrigated 80%
Cost of water, $/1,000 gallons $1.50
Present worth factor 12.78
Present worth, $/ft2 $0.24 $0.15 $0.09
Lawn maintenance
Weeks per year 26
$/week $8.46
Maintenance area, ft2 2880
Present worth, $/ft2 $0.98 $0.50 $0.35
Sprinkler system maintenance $0.25 $0.15 $0.00
Total operation and maintenance costs, $ $1.46 $0.80 $0.44
C. Total Cost, $/ft2 $9.31 $8.13 $7.01
Portion attributable to stormwater
Assumed % 10%
D. Cost for Stormwater $0.93 $0.81 $0.70

57
Table 5.16: Calculation of unit costs for controls, including opportunity costs for land,
1/99$

ID LD Res MD Res Commercial School Apartments RW50 RW60 RW70

$/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf $/sf
Aspen F $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00
Aspen G $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Driveway 1 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23
Driveway 2 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25
Grass F $0.60 $0.60 $2.12 $2.49 $1.22 $0.60 $0.60 $0.60
Grass G $0.69 $0.69 $2.18 $2.56 $1.29 $0.69 $0.69 $0.69
Grass P $0.49 $0.49 $2.01 $2.38 $1.11 $0.49 $0.49 $0.49
Parking 1 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23
Parking 2 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25
Parking 3 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26
Parking 4 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28
Patio 1 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Patio 2 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Roof 1 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Roof 2 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50
Sidewalk 1 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Sidewalk 2 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19
Storage $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Street 1 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.24
Street 2 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26 $0.26
Street 3 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27 $0.27
Street 4 $0.28 $0.29 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.29 $0.28
Swales 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Swales 2 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00 $6.00
Woods F $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80 $0.80
Woods G $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40 $1.40

58
5.6 Optimization of Control Options for Happy Acres

The results of the LP optimizations are summarized in tables 5.17 and 5.18. The results
are allocated along functional grouping within each soil class in table 5.17, and
aggregated for each land use type in table 5.18. The least cost design allocates the
appropriate control option to the appropriate soil type and land use (soil is reflected in its
predevelopment CN, land use is reflected in the influence of land valuation on the cost of
the control). The changes in control options affect the appearance of the neighborhood,
and this is evident by inspection of table 5.17. For example, porous pavements were
selected (with curb and gutter) for the street design in the rocky soil. In the clay and silt
soils where more percolation can take place, the LP model selected a street design with
porous pavement and swales instead of curb and gutter. A similar allocation took place
with parking areas; both were porous, however, the more permeable soils resulted in a
design that had a higher infiltration capacity. The more permeable driveway, patio, and
sidewalk choices were chosen in both soil types. Good grass was selected over the other
options for all soil areas, except in commercial areas where poor was selected in silts and
clays, and fair was selected in rock. This is due to the relatively small amount of
landscaped area in commercial areas. There may be other aesthetic factors with
commercial areas that would put a higher premium on a higher quality grass other than
for a stormwater quality function. Aspens were chosen, but in small amounts, so it would
not look significantly different than a typical subdivision. The roof choice remained the
standard, rather the roof with detention, due to its relatively high unit cost. Storage was
chosen when no other controls were feasible, the highest values, as expected, were in
commercial areas with rocky soils, which would not have much infiltration capacity.

The cost of the optimal solution for each soil class and land use is found in table 5.18.
The total cost for the controls would be $5.2 million, some of which overlaps with money
that would be spent for landscaping anyway. About half of this amount is used to attempt
to control runoff from transportation related functions.

What differs from a traditional subdivision development is the allocation of use. A

traditional subdivision would have allocated everything in ground cover to the high
quality grass, (particularly for commercial areas) and neglected the woods and aspens
(although some exceptions to this exist, mainly for aesthetics). In commercial areas, the
detention storage, would have been utilized. For sidewalks, patios, streets, and parking
lots, nonporous pavement would have been chosen. Curb and gutter would have replaced
swales along street rights of way.

An important note here is that this DSS cannot dynamically change land uses. For
example, the net amount of area used for rights of way, 39 acres out of the 106 total (see
table 5.18), must remain the same. Likewise, the amounts and locations for medium
density and low density, as well as the other land uses, must remain the same. What has
been done here, however, is to attempt to allocate storage optimally throughout each of
these land uses. A more general problem exists which would allow tradeoffs between the
land uses. This problem is extremely complex because it involves re-creation of the GIS
for each iteration.

59
Table 5.17: Results of LP optimization-land use allocation by function (includes opportunity costs)
Land Use Area in Soil Group B in acres Land Use Area in Soil Group D in acres
50 60 70 LD MD HD Comm Sch 50 60 70 LD MD HD Comm Sch
Street 1
Street 2 11.38 0.00 2.74
Street 3
Street 4 9.69 1.08 0.03
Sidewalk 1
Sidewalk 2 2.42 0.21 0.01 0.50 0.00 0.50
Grass P 0.16
Grass F 0.38
Grass G 3.03 0.26 0.01 11.23 6.49 0.57 0.65 1.12 0.00 1.12 0.00 4.60 0.00 0.00
Swales 1
Swales 2
Storage 1.00 0.06 0.00 0.04 0.24 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.35 0.00 2.15 0.00
Parking 1
Parking 2 1.72 0.14 1.19 0.00 0.00
Parking 3
Parking 4 2.04 1.32
Roof 1 2.34 3.23 1.08 1.03 1.59 0.00 6.13 0.00 5.97 0.00
Roof 2
Driveway 1
Driveway 2 0.94 1.21 0.00 2.30
Patio 1
Patio 2 0.47 0.40 0.00 0.77
Woods F
Woods G
Aspen F
Aspen G 0.25 0.79 0.36 0.00 9.20 0.00 0.00

60
Table 5.18: Least-cost LP solutions for land Use/BMP options (including land costs) for Happy
Acres.

Soil B Soil D Total

Land Use Area (acres) Area (acres) (acres)
50 ft ROW 15.15 17.78 32.92
60 ft ROW 1.55 0.00 1.55
70 ft ROW 0.05 4.35 4.41
Low Density Residential 15.02 0.00 15.02
Medium Density Residential 12.97 21.57 34.54
Apartments 3.73 0.00 3.73
Commercial 3.37 7.67 11.04
School 3.43 0.00 3.43
SUM 55.27 51.37 106.64

Land Use Cost in Soil B, $ Cost in Soil D, $ Sum, $

50 ft ROW $443,554 $1,484,917 $1,928,471
60 ft ROW $36,463 $- $36,463
70 ft ROW $1,058 $247,981 $249,039
Low Density Residential $376,677 $- $376,677
Medium Density Residential $361,197 $1,509,515 $1,870,712
Apartments $98,633 $- $98,633
Commercial $39,267 $517,237 $556,503
School $106,305 $- $106,305
$1,463,153 $3,759,650 $5,222,803
TOTAL $5,220,000

5.7 Decision Support Systems and the Happy Acres Case Study

The previous sections have illustrated how a simple hydrologic model can be constructed with
basic GIS information. The methods presented in this report allow hydrologic and economic
analysis to be performed on micro scales not traditionally used in urban analysis. These micro
scales, although unfamiliar, must be used to properly evaluate BMPs for the control of locally
generated stormwater runoff. This same information can be used as building blocks for SWMM.
SWMM aggregates information in a manner controlled by the user, into an equivalent
rectangular catchment. Several methods of aggregation are available within SWMM add-on
packages (such as PCSWMM). Unfortunately, this method homogenizes the parcels within each
subcatchment, i.e., they lose their unique hydrologic characteristics. The aggregation was
typically done so that the user was not overwhelmed by data, as most had to be handled
manually. However, within the context of a DSS, appropriate tools can be used to process the
data, so smaller scales may be evaluated.

A disadvantage of the DSS process used in this case study and outlined in figure 5.1 is that most
of the analysis is one way, i.e., there is not a true interchange of information between the
modules. The most obvious example is the GIS. It would be desirable to optimize land use in a
general form of a land allocation model considering the effects of land valuation, soils, and
control options. In order to do this efficiently, the spatial database underlying the parcel
delineation must be re-created for each iteration of the model. Of course, this level of integration
is also the most difficult and expensive.

61
6.0 Summary and Conclusions

6.1 Summary

In summary, GIS has transformed our approach to the urban stormwater management problem.
Not only are input parameters in the model itself becoming more easily obtainable, but also the
scale of possible evaluations has decreased to a point that it is now possible to effectively
evaluate source controls. The case study process shown in figure 5.1 provides a preliminary
evaluation of the complex urban stormwater problem and the linked problem of allocation of
land use. Several models exist that utilize GIS information; the degree of integration that is
desirable remains debatable. Due to the widely disparate spatial scales involved, and the detailed
amount of information available in a GIS, it is quite possible for the analyst to be drowned in
data that may not be needed in evaluating the problem. The urban stormwater problem needs to
be of primary concern to the analyst; rather than the micro maintenance of the GIS. The problem
should be the primary focus, even more so than the model, or the database used. As the models
evolve into more general Decision Support Systems, they will tend to become more data
centered, and computational engines more interchangeable. The GIS data will become more
available and standardized, and will be an important tool. One lesson to be learned from the 90s
and the computer software explosion that has transformed the working world is that too much
reliance on any one technology can lead to obsolescence. DSS promises to be the technology
that links many of these tools together to enable the analyst to explore new challenging problems
in old contexts.

6.2 Conclusions

Advances in development of computer software have produced two key linked technologies:
relational databases and geographic information systems. The combination of these two has
affected the development of another technology, decision support systems, that has been applied
to complex unstructured water resources and environmental problems. Most DSSs include these
two technologies, with the addition of simulation models, an evaluation tool (can include
optimization), and a graphical user interface. The graphical user interface, mainly the MS-
Windows interface, is another advance that has both transformed software as well changed the
standard of model development. Construction of programs within this environment tends to be
more difficult due to its object oriented architecture, however, it is also inherently more dynamic
than constructing programs within older environments such as FORTRAN-77. This is primarily
due to the advent of structured programming techniques that tend to keep data handling
processes out of the main program files, which tends to advance a more data centric approach to
modeling. The structured techniques also avoid the use of “spaghetti code” in which it is
difficult to debug code due to vague loops and “GOTO” statements that branch the program in
many different directions.

New types of solvers are now available that can serve as better evaluation tools for a DSS.
These include genetic algorithms (GA), simulated annealing (SA), and the relative ease with
which linear programming (LP) solvers are used. These optimization tools allow rapid
evaluation of both linear and nonlinear problems, which can assist the designer in finding the
better or best solution.

62
Urban stormwater models have been created according to specific needs and available funding.
The predominant US model, SWMM, was created in the late 60s and early 70s. There is an
active user community for this largely public domain model. Several enhancements to the
model, namely PC SWMM, Visual Hydro (XP SWMM), and MikeSWMM, are now available in
the private domain as well. These enhancements contain facilities that include graphical user
interfaces for ease of program use, GIS and CAD interfaces for construction of models based
upon the best available system mapping, and external links to available databases to enhance the
use of available system data. European models, in particular the DHI and the HR-Wallingford
series, have been significantly ahead of the US modeling community in the use of GUIs and GIS.
The reason for this gap is primarily the result of funding. Funding for urban stormwater
modeling in the US ceased in the early 80s. Meanwhile, the European models were developed
and enjoyed significant funding during the 80s and early 90s from both national governments as
well as the European Union. These models may have become self-supporting by the creation of
companies that sell the licensed product. This enables future enhancements in the models to be
made, as well as user support from a centralized source.

The US should focus its efforts on the use of linked technologies to take advantage of significant
savings that can be realized by avoiding the re-creation of common tools currently available. For
example, spreadsheet technology in the US has been effectively standardized upon MS Excel
(even if you don’t use it, you use a program that can read these files). Input and output
processing within new models could make use of this application, which would allow the user
greater flexibility in terms of pre- and post-processing of model output. Visual Hydro provides a
good example of the use of spreadsheet tools for data input and output. The US has been a
leader in the GIS and database software development field; available links to these programs will
continue to evolve and interfaces with GIS should become easier to construct than those at
present. A significant portion of this effort is the development of both the graphic features of the
GIS and the associated system attributes as well. The case study outlined in this report, although
using a simplified hydrologic model, provides a possible outline of the use of this data for
problems that have remained intractable to this point, for example, the selection of the
appropriate BMP control technology for each parcel. Further work needs to be done to enhance
the development of DSS technology to the urban stormwater field. The funding resources should
carefully target the development of models and DSSs that link available tools rather than re-
create them, and provide a common set of technologies that the user may combine with other
available software. The funding should also seek to complement or prod the development of
existing commercial software, rather than supplant the market by the introduction of competing
products. A possible model could also be the European model community, in which the
government funds the initial development of the model, then licenses it to a nonprofit company
that markets and sells the model at a self-sustaining price.

Care should be taken in that as the model interfaces become easier to run, they may be used
inappropriately. A stated goal within the DSS community is to bring the computing power to the
level of the decision-maker, rather than an intermediary. This works well if the decision-maker,
or their assistant, is trained in the field of urban stormwater. The field of urban stormwater
modeling involves the use of complex boundary conditions. Using GIS involves the use of
wildly different scales where the uncertainty in the information may not be immediately evident

63
to the user. Such complex problems require a technically competent professional to carefully use
and evaluate the information the DSS presents. Rather than simply using a sophisticated set of
tools to solve the same problem more efficiently than we can at present, the problems evaluated
will become more complex as well as the possible array of solutions to them. The advent of DSS
and its inherent technologies, relational databases and GIS, have transformed the field of urban
stormwater modeling and allow the evaluation of previously intractable problems.

64
7.0 References

Azzout, Y., Barraud, S., Cres, F. N., and Alfakih, E. (1995) Decision Aids for Alternative
Techniques in Urban Storm Management, Water Science and Technology, 32 (1):
41-48.
Barbe, D.E., Miller, H., and Jalla, S. (1993) Development of a Computer Interface among
GDS, SCADA and SWMM for Use in Urban Runoff Simulation. In Harlin, J.M
and Lanfear, K.J. (eds.) Proc. of the Symposium on Geographic Information
Systems and Water Resources. American Water Resources Association,
Bethesda, MD. p. 113-120.
Battin, A., Kinerson, R., and Lahlou, M. (1998) EPA's Better Assessment Science
Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS)-A Powerful Tool for Managing
Watersheds. Internet file retrieved 11/6/98 from The Center for Research in
Water Resources, The University of Texas at Austin.
http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/gis/gishyd98/epa/ battin/p447.htm.
Bellal, M., Sillen, X., and Zech, Y. (1996) Coupling GIS with a Distributed Hydrological
Model for Studying the Effect of Various Urban Planning Options on Rainfall-
Runoff Relationships in Urbanized Watersheds. In Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel,
H.P. (eds.) HydroGIS ’96: Application of Geographic Information Systems in
Hydrology and Water Resources Management. International Association of
Hydrologic Sciences Publication No. 235. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p. 99-
106.
Brown and Caldwell and Camp, Dresser and McKee (1997) Boulder Creek Watershed
Study, Phase I, November, 1997. Prepared for the City of Boulder.
Butler, D. and Maksimovic, C. (eds.) (1998) UDM ’98 Fourth International Conf. on
Developments in Urban Drainage Modeling. Imperial College of Science,
Technology & Medicine, London, UK.
CAiCHE (1998) Visual Hydro Software, Tampa, FL.
Charnock, T.W., Hedges, P.D., and Elgy, J. (1996) Linking multiple process models with
GIS. In Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel, H.P. (eds.) HydroGIS ’96: Application of
Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources
Management. International Association of Hydrologic Sciences Publication No.
235. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p. 29-36.
Cluis, D., Martz, L., Quentin, E., and Rechatin, C. (1996) Coupling GIS and DEM to
Classify the Hortonian Pathways of Non-point Sources to the Hydrologic
Network. In Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel, H.P. (eds.) HydroGIS ’96: Application
of Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources
Management. International Association of Hydrologic Sciences Publication No.
235. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p. 37-44.
Computational Hydraulics International (CHI) (1998) PCSWMM, PCSWMM GIS
Software, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
da Costa, J.R, Lacerda, M., and Jesus, H.B. (1995) The Portuguese Water Resources
 Information System: Using OOP to Integrate Time Series and GIS. Proc. of
1995 ESRI User Conference. Internet file retrieved from
http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/ proc95/to300/p296.html
da Costa, J.R., Jesus, H.B., and Lacerida, M. (1996) Integrating GIS and Time Series
Analysis for Water Resources Management in Portugal. In Kovar, K., and
Nachtnebel, H.P. (eds.) HydroGIS ’96: Application of Geographic Information
Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources Management. International
Association of Hydrologic Sciences Publication No. 235. IAHS Press,
Wallingford, UK. p. 289-297.
Davis, J. R., Nanninga, P. M., Biggins, J., and Laut, P. (1991) Prototype Decision
Support System for Analyzing Impact of Catchment Policies, Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, 117 (4): 399-414.
DeVantier, B.A. and Feldman, A.D. (1993) Review of GIS Applications in Hydrologic
Modeling, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 119 (2): 246-
261.
Dewberry and Davis (1996) Land Development Handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.
DHI, Inc. (1998) Mouse, Mike, MikeSHE, NAM, WUS, MikeInfo, MikeSWMM
Software, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Dion, T.R. (1993) Land Development for Civil Engineers. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Driscoll, E. D. (1993) A Decision Support System for Highway Runoff Monograph: in:
James, W., (Ed.) New Techniques for Modeling of Stormwater Quality Impacts, p.
101-122, Guelph, ON.
ESRI (1998) Internet page: http://www.esri.com., Redlands, CA.
Fankhauser, R. (1998) Automatic Determination of Imperviousness in Urban Areas from
Digital Orthophotos. In UDM ’98, the Fourth International Conference on
Developments in Urban Drainage Modeling, Butler, D. and Maksimovic, C.
(Eds.) 21-24 September, 1998, London, UK, IAWQ/IAHR, pages 321-326.
Federal Highway Administration (1996) Urban Drainage Design Manual, HEC No. 22,
FHWA-SA-96-078, Washington, D.C.
Fedra, K. and Jamieson, D. G. (1996) The ‘Water Ware’ Decision-Support System for
River-Basin Planning. 2. Planning Capability, Journal of Hydrology, 177 (3/4),
p. 177-198.
Feinberg, D., and Uhrick., S.W. (1997) Integrating GIS with Water and Wastewater
Hydraulic Models. Proc. of 1997 ESRI User Conference. Internet file retrieved
from http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/PROC97/TO200/
PAP199/P199.HTM
Fuchs, L., and Scheffer, C. (1996) Hydroinformatic Tools in Urban Drainage. In Seiker,
F., and Verworn, H.R. (eds.). IAHR/IAWQ Proc. of the 7th Annual Conf. on
Urban Storm Drainage. Hannover, Germany. Vols. III, p. 1587-1592.
Fulp, T., Harkins, J., Williams, B., Vickers, B., King, D., Martin, K., Shiao, L (1994)
 Decision Support for Water Resources Management in the Colorado River,
United States Bureau of Reclamation; Boulder City, NV.
Greene, R.G. and Cruise, J.F. (1995) Urban Watershed Modeling Using Geographic
Information System, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 121
(4): 318-325.
Gregory, M. and James, W. (1995) Management of Time-Series Data for Long-Term,
Continuous Stormwater Modeling. Chapter 8 in James, W. (Ed.) Advances in
Modeling the Management of Stormwater Impacts, Computational Hydraulics
International, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Hallam, C.A., Salisbury, J.M., Lanfear, K.J., and Battaglin, W.A. (eds.) (1996) Proc. of
the AWRA Annual Symposium: GIS and Water Resources. American Water
Resources Association, Herndon, VA.
Harlin, J.M and Lanfear, K.J. (eds.) (1993) Proc. of the Symposium on Geographic
Information Systems and Water Resources. American Water Resources
Association, Bethesda, MD.
Hauber, S.M. and Joeres, E.F. (1996) Using a GIS for Estimating Input Parameters in
Urban Stormwater Quality Modeling, Water Resources Bulletin 32(6), p. 1341-
1352.
Heaney, J. P., Wright, L., and Sample, D. (1998) Research Needs in Wet Weather Flows,
Final Report of Project 96-IRM-1, Water Environment Federation, Alexandria,
VA.
Heaney, J.P., Sample, D., and Wright, L. (1999a) Costs of Urban Stormwater Systems,
Report to the US EPA, Edison, NJ.
Heaney, J.P., Wright, L., and Sample, D. (1999b) Innovative Methods for Optimization
of Urban Stormwater Systems, Report to the US EPA, Edison, NJ.
Hellweger, F. (1996) TABHYD-TR55 Tabular Hydrograph Method in ArcView. Internet
file retrieved from The Center for Research in Water Resources, The University
of Texas at Austin.
http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/gis/gishyd98/runoff/webfiles/TABHYD/
TABHYD.HTM
Hellweger, F. and Maidment, D. (1999) Definition and Connection of Hydrologic
Elements using Geographic Data, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 4 (1): 10-
18.
Herath, S., Musiake, K., and Hironaka, S. (1996) Development and Application of a
GIS Based Distributed Catchment Model for Urban Areas. In Seiker, F., and
Verworn, H.R. (eds.) IAHR/IAWQ Proc. of the 7th Annual Conf. on Urban Storm
Drainage. Hannover, Germany. Vols. III, p. 1695-1700.
Hora, J., Kuby, R., and Suchanek, M. (1998) Information Technologies and
Hydroinformatic Tools in the Town of Pilsen. In Butler, D. and Maksimovic, C.
(eds.) UDM ’98 Fourth International Conf. on Developments in Urban Drainage
Modeling. Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London, UK.
 p. 481- 486.
HR-Wallingford, Inc. (1998) Hydroworks, Infoworks Software, Wallingford,
Oxfordshire, UK.
Huber, W.C. and Dickinson, R.E. (1988) Storm Water Management Model User's
Manual, Version 4, EPA/600/3-88/001a (NTIS PB88-236641/AS), Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA, 1988.
Jamieson, D. G. and Fedra, K. (1996a) The ‘Water Ware’ Decision-Support System for
River-Basin Planning. 1. Conceptual Design, Journal of Hydrology, 177 (3/4), p.
163-175.
Jamieson, D. G. and Fedra, K. (1996b) The ‘Water Ware’ Decision-Support System for
River-Basin Planning. 3. Example Applications, Journal of Hydrology, 177
(3/4), p. 199-211.
Kim, H.-B., Kim, K.-M., and Lee, J.-C. (1998) Sewer Alternative Generation Using GIS
and Simulation Models in a Planning Support System. Internet file retrieved from
the ESRI 1998 International User Conference, http://www.esri.com/library/
userconf/proc98/PROCEED/
Kopp, S.M. (1996) Linking GIS and Hydrologic Models: Where Have We Been,
Where Are We Going? In Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel, H.P. (eds.) HydroGIS ’96:
Application of Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water
Resources Management. International Association of Hydrologic Sciences
Publication No. 235. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p. 133-139.
Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel, H.P. (eds.) (1996) HydroGIS ’96: Application of Geographic
Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources Management.
International Association of Hydrologic Sciences Publication No. 235. IAHS
Press, Wallingford, UK.
Lavallee, P., Marcoux, C., Bonin, R., (1996) Performance of an Integrated Real Time
Control System: Application to CSOs Control, in WEF Urban Wet Weather
Pollution, Controlling Sewer Overflows and Stormwater Runoff, p. 12.13-12-22,
Alexandria, VA.
Litman, T. (1998) Transportation Cost Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Columbia.
Makropoulos, C., Butler, D., and Maksimovic, C. (1998) A GIS Based Methodology for
the Evaluation of Suitability of Urban Areas for Source Control Application. In
Butler, D. and Maksimovic, C. (eds.) UDM ’98 Fourth International Conf. on
Developments in Urban Drainage Modeling. Imperial College of Science,
Technology & Medicine, London, UK. p. 59-66.
Mark, O., van Kalken, T., Rabbi, K., and Kjelds, J. (1997) A Mouse GIS Study of the
Drainage in Dhaka City. Proc. of the 1997 ESRI User Conference. Internet file
retrieved from http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/
PROC97/TO500/PAP487/P487.HTM
Mercado, R.M. (1996) Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Image Processing for
 Stormwater Management Modeling Using XPSWMM in Tallahassee, Florida. In
Hallam, C.A., Salisbury, J.M., Lanfear, K.J., and Battaglin, W.A. (eds.) Proc. of
the AWRA Annual Symposium: GIS and Water Resources. American Water
Resources Association, Herndon, VA. p. 305-313.
Meyer, S.P., Salem, T.H., and Labadie, J.W. (1993) Geographic Information Systems in
Urban Storm-Water Management, Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, 119 (2): 206-228.
Miles, S.W. and Heaney, J.P. (1988) Better than “Optimal” Method for Designing
Drainage Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
114(5): 477-499.
Olivera, F, Reed, S., and Maidment, D. (1998) HEC-PrePro v.2.0: An ArcView Pre-
Processor for HEC's Hydrologic Modeling System. 1998 ESRI User's
Conference, San Diego, CA.
http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc98/PROCEED.
HTM
Olivera, F., Maidment, D.R., and Charbeneau, R.J. (1996) Spatially Distributed Modeling
of Storm Runoff and Non-Point Source Pollution Using Geographic Information
Systems (GIS). CRWR Online Report 96-4. Internet file retrieved from The
Center for Research in Water Resources, The University of Texas at Austin.
http://www.crwr.utexas.edu/gis/ gishyd98/library/olivera/ header.htm
Palisade Corporation (1998) @Risk, Evolver Software, Newfield, NY.
Prince Georges County (1997) Low-Impact Development Design Manual, Prince Georges
County, Largo, MD, November, 1997.
Pryl, K., Vanecek, S., and Vasek, P. (1998) Data Processing and Manipulation Tools
Used for Urban Drainage Systems. In Butler, D. and Maksimovic, C. (eds.) UDM
’98 Fourth International Conf. on Developments in Urban Drainage Modeling.
Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London, UK. p. 327- 332.
R.S. Means (1996a) Heavy Construction Cost Data, 10th Annual Edition, R.S. Means
Company, Inc., Kingston, MA.
R.S. Means (1996b) Landscaping Unit Cost Data, R.S. Means Company, Inc., Kingston,
MA.
Refsgaard, J.C., Storm, B. and Refsgaard, A. (1995) Recent Developments of the
Systeme Hydrologique Europeen (SHE) Towards the MIKE SHE. In Simonovic,
S., Kundzewicz, Z., Rosbjerg, D., and Takeuchi, K. (eds.) Modeling and
Management of Sustainable Basin-Scale Water Resource Systems. International
Hydrologic Sciences Publication No. 231. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p.
427-434.
Reitsma, R. F. (1996) Structure and Support of Water-Resource Management and
Decision-Making, Journal of Hydrology, 177 (3/4), p. 253-268.
Reitsma, R. F., Zagona, E.A., Chapra, S.C., and Strzepek, K.M. (1996) Decision Support
Systems (DSS) for Water Resources Management, chapter 33 in Mays, L.W.
 (Ed.) Water Resources Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Ribeiro, C.T. (1996) Impact of Land Use on Water Resources: Integrating HSPF and a
Raster-Vector GIS. In Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel, H.P. (eds.) HydroGIS ’96:
Application of Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water
Resources Management. International Association of Hydrologic Sciences
Publication No. 235. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p. 349-356.
Riley, A. (1998) Restoring Streams in Cities, A Guide for Planners, Policymakers, and
Citizens. Island Press,
Rodriguez, F., Andrieu, H., Creutin, J.D., and Raimbault, G. (1998) Relevance of
Geographic Information Systems for Urban Hydrological Analysis. In Butler, D.
and Maksimovic, C. (eds.) UDM ’98 Fourth International Conf. on Developments
in Urban Drainage Modeling. Imperial College of Science, Technology &
Medicine, London, UK. p. 333-340.
Scarborough, R.W., and Yetter, C.H. (1998) A Case Study Evaluation of the
ArcView/Non-point Source Module Interface in EPA’s BASINS 2.0 Watershed
Model. Internet file retrieved from the 1998 ESRI International User’s
Conference, http://www.esri.com/library/
userconf/proc98/PROCEED/ABSTRACT/A247.HTM
Seiker, F., and Verworn, H.R. (eds.) (1996) IAHR/IAWQ Proc. of the 7th Annual Conf. on
Urban Storm Drainage. Hannover, Germany. Vols. I, II, and III.
Shamsi, U. M., Benner, S. P., and Fletcher, B. A. (1995) A Computer Mapping Program
for Sewer Systems, chapter 7 in Advances in Modeling the Management of
Stormwater Impacts, CHI: Guelph, Canada, W. James, Editor, 1995.
Shamsi, U.M. (1997) SWMM Graphics. Chapter 7 in James, W. (Ed.), Advances in
Modeling the Management of Stormwater Impacts, Volume 5. Computational
Hydraulics International, Guelph, Ontario. p. 129-153.
Shamsi, U.M. (1998) ArcView Applications in SWMM Modeling. Chapter 11 in James,
W. (ed.) Advances in Modeling the Management of Stormwater Impacts, Volume
6. Computational Hydraulics International, Guelph, Ontario, Canada. p. 219-
233.
Shamsi, U.M., and Fletcher, B.A. (1996) Arcview Applications in Stormwater and
Wastewater Management. In Hallam, C.A., Salisbury, J.M., Lanfear, K.J., and
Battaglin, W.A. (eds.) Proc. of the AWRA Annual Symposium: GIS and Water
Resources. American Water Resources Association, Herndon, VA. p. 259-268.
Simonovic, S., Kundzewicz, Z., Rosbjerg, D., and Takeuchi, K. (eds.) (1995) Modeling
and Management of Sustainable Basin-Scale Water Resource Systems.
International Hydrologic Sciences Publication No. 231. IAHS Press,
Wallingford, UK.
Singh, V. P. and Fiorentino, M. (1996) Geographical Information Systems in Hydrology,
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA.
Sorensen, H.R., Kjelds, J.T., Deckers, F., and Waardenburg, F. (1996) Application of
 GIS in Hydrological and Hydraulic Modeling: DLIS and MIKE11-GIS. In
Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel, H.P. (eds.) HydroGIS ’96: Application of
Geographic Information Systems in Hydrology and Water Resources
Management. International Association of Hydrologic Sciences Publication No.
235. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p. 149-156.
Sotic, A., Despotovic, J., Petrovic, J., Babic, B., Djukie, A., and Prodanovioc, D. (1998)
Hydroinformatic Approach in Sewer System Design-Kumodraz case study. In
Butler, D. and Maksimovic, C. (eds.) UDM ’98 Fourth International Conf. on
Developments in Urban Drainage Modeling. Imperial College of Science,
Technology & Medicine, London, UK. p. 341-346.
Sponemann, P., Beeneken, L., Fuchs, L., Prodanovic, D., and Schneider, S. (1996)
Criteria for Geographic Information Systems Used in Urban Drainage. In Seiker,
F., and Verworn, H.R. (eds.) (1996) IAHR/IAWQ Proc. of the 7th Annual Conf.
on Urban Storm Drainage. Hannover, Germany. Vols. III. p. 1689-1694.
Tchobanoglous, G. (1981) Wastewater Engineering: Collection and Pumping of
Wastewater, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York.
Tskhai, A., Shirokova, S., Konev, D., Koshelev, K., and Tskhai, T. (1995) GIS
“Hydromonitoring” and Optimization Model of Enterprise Water Protection
Activity. In Simonovic, S., Kundzewicz, Z., Rosbjerg, D., and Takeuchi, K.
(eds.) Modeling and Management of Sustainable Basin-Scale Water Resource
Systems. International Hydrologic Sciences Publication No. 231. IAHS Press,
Wallingford, UK. p. 263-270.
University of Texas (1998) Internet page: http://www. crwr.utexas.edu/ The Center for
Research in Water Resources.
Urban Land Institute (1989) Project Infrastructure Development Handbook. Urban Land
Institute, Washington, D.C.
VanGelder, P., and Miller, M. (1996) GIS as an Aid in the Evaluation of Drainage
Facilities at the Albany County Airport, New York. In Hallam, C.A., Salisbury,
J.M., Lanfear, K.J., and Battaglin, W.A. (eds.) Proc. of the AWRA Annual
Symposium: GIS and Water Resources. American Water Resources Association,
Herndon, VA. p. 295-303.
Walsh, M.R. (1993) Toward Spatial Decision Support Systems in Water Resources,
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 119 (2): 158-169.
Wang, Y, and James, W. (1997) Integration of US Army Corps of Engineers’ Time-
Series Data Management System with Continuous SWMM Modeling. Chapter 2
in James, W. (Ed.) Advances in Modeling the Management of Stormwater
Impacts, volume 5, Computational Hydraulics International, Guelph, Ontario,
Canada.
Wolf-Schumann, U., and Vaillant, S. (1996) Time View: A Times Series Management
System for GIS and Hydrologic Systems. In Kovar, K., and Nachtnebel, H.P.
(eds.) HydroGIS ’96: Application of Geographic Information Systems in
Hydrology and Water Resources Management. International Association of
 Hydrologic Sciences Publication No. 235. IAHS Press, Wallingford, UK. p. 79-
87.
Wright, L.T., Nix, S.J., Hassett, J.M. and Moffa, P.E. (1995) A Preliminary Urban Non-
point Source Management Plan: A Modeling Approach. Chapter 4 in James, W.
(ed.), Modern Methods for Modeling the Management of Stormwater Impacts.
Computational Hydraulics International, Guelph, Ontario. p. 51-62.
Xu, Z.X., Schultz, G.A., and Ito, K. (1998) GIS Application in a Watershed-Based Water
Resources Management. In Butler, D. and Maksimovic, C. (eds.) UDM ’98
Fourth International Conf. on Developments in Urban Drainage Modeling.
Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine, London, UK. p. 487-494.
Xue, R.Z., and Bechtel, T.J. (1997) Integration of Stormwater Runoff and Pollutant
Model with BMP Assessment Model Using ArcView GIS. Proc. of 1997 ESRI
User Conference. Internet file retrieved 11/6/98 from
http://www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc97/
PROC97/TO700/PAP656/P656.HTM
Xue, R.Z., Bechtel, T.J., and Chen, Z. (1996) Developing a User-Friendly Tool for BMP
Assessment Model Using a GIS. In Hallam, C.A., Salisbury, J.M., Lanfear, K.J.,
and Battaglin, W.A. (eds.) Proc. of the AWRA Annual Symposium: GIS and
Water Resources. American Water Resources Association, Herndon, VA. p. 285-
294.
Appendix: Happy Acres Database

Table A-1: Parcel attributes

Ad- Street Soil Land Use Area Roof Parking Drive-ways, SF Patios Imperv- Pervious
dress SF SF SF SF ious, SF SF
100 Alpine Street Silt Apartments 50320 0 37740 0 0 37740 12580
101 Alpine Street Silt Apartments 112360 46927 37343 0 0 84270 28090
200 Cedar Street Clay Commercial 25957 0 24659 0 0 24659 1298
200 Ashmount Street Rock Commercial 154915 57707 89462 0 0 147169 7746
201 Ashmount Street Rock Commercial 72968 0 69319 0 0 69319 3648
100 Highland Street Rock Commercial 80450 0 76427 0 0 76427 4022
200 Birch Avenue Silt Commercial 100139 95132 0 0 0 95132 5007
201 Birch Avenue Silt Commercial 46642 0 44810 0 0 44810 1832
105 Center Street Silt LD Residential 14235 2000 800 400 3200 11035
110 Center Street Silt LD Residential 18488 2000 800 400 3200 15288
120 Center Street Silt LD Residential 6844 2000 800 400 3200 3644
100 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 15082 2000 800 400 3200 11882
101 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 9927 2000 800 400 3200 6727
102 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 11751 2000 800 400 3200 8551
103 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 9742 2000 800 400 3200 6542
104 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 11025 2000 800 400 3200 7825
105 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 8744 2000 800 400 3200 5544
106 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 11441 2000 800 400 3200 8241
107 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 7667 2000 800 400 3200 4467
108 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 12942 2000 800 400 3200 9742
109 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 11518 2000 800 400 3200 8318
110 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 11728 2000 800 400 3200 8528
111 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 7707 2000 800 400 3200 4507
112 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 12053 2000 800 400 3200 8853
113 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 14291 2000 800 400 3200 11091
114 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 17653 2000 800 400 3200 14453
115 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 8015 2000 800 400 3200 4815
116 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 13857 2000 800 400 3200 10657
117 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 13778 2000 800 400 3200 10578
118 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 11207 2000 800 400 3200 8007
119 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 18674 2000 800 400 3200 15474
120 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 15565 2000 800 400 3200 12365
121 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 13029 2000 800 400 3200 9829
123 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 14017 2000 800 400 3200 10817
125 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 16758 2000 800 400 3200 13558
127 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 19500 2000 800 400 3200 16300
129 Maple Street Silt LD Residential 22449 2000 800 400 3200 19249
100 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 14049 2000 800 400 3200 10849
101 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 10172 2000 800 400 3200 6972
102 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 11049 2000 800 400 3200 7849
106 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 11131 2000 800 400 3200 7931
108 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 11239 2000 800 400 3200 8039
110 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 11681 2000 800 400 3200 8481
120 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 11993 2000 800 400 3200 8793
121 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12611 2000 800 400 3200 9411
130 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12127 2000 800 400 3200 8927
131 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12680 2000 800 400 3200 9480
140 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12646 2000 800 400 3200 9446
141 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12749 2000 800 400 3200 9549
150 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 13048 2000 800 400 3200 9848
151 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12818 2000 800 400 3200 9618
160 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12950 2000 800 400 3200 9750
161 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12886 2000 800 400 3200 9686
170 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 13016 2000 800 400 3200 9816
171 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 12955 2000 800 400 3200 9755
180 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 13412 2000 800 400 3200 10212
181 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 13618 2000 800 400 3200 10418
190 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 14363 2000 800 400 3200 11163
191 Oak Street Silt LD Residential 11552 2000 800 400 3200 8352
151 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 6019 1600 600 200 2400 3619
160 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 5286 1600 600 200 2400 2886
161 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 3926 1600 600 200 2400 1526
165 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 3853 1600 600 200 2400 1453
 Ad- Street Soil Land Use Area Roof Parking Drive-ways, SF Patios Imperv- Pervious
dress SF SF SF SF ious, SF SF
170 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 5543 1600 600 200 2400 3143
171 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 3926 1600 600 200 2400 1526
176 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 5800 1600 600 200 2400 3400
179 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 3926 1600 600 200 2400 1526
180 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 4788 1600 600 200 2400 2388
181 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 3926 1600 600 200 2400 1526
182 Acorn Street Clay MD Residential 4783 1600 600 200 2400 2383
100 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 5750 1600 600 200 2400 3350
101 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6785 1600 600 200 2400 4385
110 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6600 1600 600 200 2400 4200
111 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6765 1600 600 200 2400 4365
120 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6620 1600 600 200 2400 4220
121 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6744 1600 600 200 2400 4344
131 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6724 1600 600 200 2400 4324
135 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6703 1600 600 200 2400 4303
139 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6683 1600 600 200 2400 4283
141 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6662 1600 600 200 2400 4262
150 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 3919 1600 600 200 2400 1519
151 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6642 1600 600 200 2400 4242
160 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 4481 1600 600 200 2400 2081
161 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6621 1600 600 200 2400 4221
170 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 4763 1600 600 200 2400 2363
171 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6601 1600 600 200 2400 4201
180 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 4878 1600 600 200 2400 2478
181 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6581 1600 600 200 2400 4181
190 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 4326 1600 600 200 2400 1926
191 Ash Street Clay MD Residential 6560 1600 600 200 2400 4160
100 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3127 1600 600 200 2400 727
101 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3180 1600 600 200 2400 780
111 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3039 1600 600 200 2400 639
121 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3157 1600 600 200 2400 757
131 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 2994 1600 600 200 2400 594
141 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3086 1600 600 200 2400 686
150 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 4739 1600 600 200 2400 2339
151 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3157 1600 600 200 2400 757
154 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 5648 1600 600 200 2400 3248
155 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3109 1600 600 200 2400 709
161 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3089 1600 600 200 2400 689
165 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3149 1600 600 200 2400 749
166 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 5648 1600 600 200 2400 3248
170 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 4630 1600 600 200 2400 2230
171 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 3349 1600 600 200 2400 949
180 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 4818 1600 600 200 2400 2418
181 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 2948 1600 600 200 2400 548
190 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 4551 1600 600 200 2400 2151
191 Ash-Acorn Connec Clay MD Residential 2686 1600 600 200 2400 286
100 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6469 1600 600 200 2400 4069
101 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6554 1600 600 200 2400 4154
110 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6477 1600 600 200 2400 4077
111 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6522 1600 600 200 2400 4122
112 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6484 1600 600 200 2400 4084
116 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6492 1600 600 200 2400 4092
120 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6499 1600 600 200 2400 4099
121 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6490 1600 600 200 2400 4090
131 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6457 1600 600 200 2400 4057
141 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6425 1600 600 200 2400 4025
151 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6360 1600 600 200 2400 3960
161 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6328 1600 600 200 2400 3928
180 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6560 1600 600 200 2400 4160
190 Birch Avenue Clay MD Residential 6568 1600 600 200 2400 4168
101 Cedar Street Clay MD Residential 6572 1600 600 200 2400 4172
111 Cedar Street Clay MD Residential 6580 1600 600 200 2400 4180
121 Cedar Street Clay MD Residential 6588 1600 600 200 2400 4188
131 Cedar Street Clay MD Residential 6595 1600 600 200 2400 4195
141 Cedar Street Clay MD Residential 6603 1600 600 200 2400 4203
181 Cedar Street Clay MD Residential 6663 1600 600 200 2400 4263
191 Cedar Street Clay MD Residential 6671 1600 600 200 2400 4271
100 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6481 1600 600 200 2400 4081
110 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6448 1600 600 200 2400 4048
120 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6416 1600 600 200 2400 4016
130 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6384 1600 600 200 2400 3984
 Ad- Street Soil Land Use Area Roof Parking Drive-ways, SF Patios Imperv- Pervious
dress SF SF SF SF ious, SF SF
140 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6351 1600 600 200 2400 3951
150 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6319 1600 600 200 2400 3919
160 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6286 1600 600 200 2400 3886
170 Elm Street Clay MD Residential 6254 1600 600 200 2400 3854
106 Forest Avenue Clay MD Residential 6428 1600 600 200 2400 4028
101 Main Street Clay MD Residential 4993 1600 600 200 2400 2593
111 Main Street Clay MD Residential 5154 1600 600 200 2400 2754
120 Main Street Clay MD Residential 6770 1600 600 200 2400 4370
140 Main Street Clay MD Residential 6636 1600 600 200 2400 4236
141 Main Street Clay MD Residential 6323 1600 600 200 2400 3923
150 Main Street Clay MD Residential 4939 1600 600 200 2400 2539
151 Main Street Clay MD Residential 6323 1600 600 200 2400 3923
100 Street A Clay MD Residential 5072 1600 600 200 2400 2672
101 Street A Clay MD Residential 4644 1600 600 200 2400 2244
120 Street A Clay MD Residential 5072 1600 600 200 2400 2672
121 Street A Clay MD Residential 4789 1600 600 200 2400 2389
141 Street A Clay MD Residential 4934 1600 600 200 2400 2534
161 Street A Clay MD Residential 5079 1600 600 200 2400 2679
100 Street B Clay MD Residential 4787 1600 600 200 2400 2387
101 Street B Clay MD Residential 4953 1600 600 200 2400 2553
121 Street B Clay MD Residential 4953 1600 600 200 2400 2553
140 Street B Clay MD Residential 4787 1600 600 200 2400 2387
100 Street C Clay MD Residential 5609 1600 600 200 2400 3209
101 Street C Clay MD Residential 4737 1600 600 200 2400 2337
120 Street C Clay MD Residential 5609 1600 600 200 2400 3209
141 Street C Clay MD Residential 4888 1600 600 200 2400 2488
100 Street D Clay MD Residential 5254 1600 600 200 2400 2854
101 Street D Clay MD Residential 5461 1600 600 200 2400 3061
120 Street D Clay MD Residential 5254 1600 600 200 2400 2854
141 Street D Clay MD Residential 5461 1600 600 200 2400 3061
101 Street E Clay MD Residential 5192 1600 600 200 2400 2792
100 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6480 1600 600 200 2400 4080
101 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6511 1600 600 200 2400 4111
110 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6460 1600 600 200 2400 4060
111 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6712 1600 600 200 2400 4312
120 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6439 1600 600 200 2400 4039
121 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6470 1600 600 200 2400 4070
130 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6419 1600 600 200 2400 4019
131 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6492 1600 600 200 2400 4092
140 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6399 1600 600 200 2400 3999
141 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6514 1600 600 200 2400 4114
150 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6378 1600 600 200 2400 3978
151 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6536 1600 600 200 2400 4136
156 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6358 1600 600 200 2400 3958
160 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6337 1600 600 200 2400 3937
161 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6558 1600 600 200 2400 4158
165 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6580 1600 600 200 2400 4180
166 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6317 1600 600 200 2400 3917
170 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6296 1600 600 200 2400 3896
171 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 5931 1600 600 200 2400 3531
180 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6276 1600 600 200 2400 3876
181 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 5744 1600 600 200 2400 3344
190 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6255 1600 600 200 2400 3855
191 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 6274 1600 600 200 2400 3874
193 Sycamore Street Clay MD Residential 5919 1600 600 200 2400 3519
101 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6649 1600 600 200 2400 4249
110 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 5611 1600 600 200 2400 3211
120 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 5524 1600 600 200 2400 3124
130 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6461 1600 600 200 2400 4061
140 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6805 1600 600 200 2400 4405
150 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6624 1600 600 200 2400 4224
156 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6875 1600 600 200 2400 4475
158 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6554 1600 600 200 2400 4154
160 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6693 1600 600 200 2400 4293
170 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6533 1600 600 200 2400 4133
180 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 6461 1600 600 200 2400 4061
190 Ashmount Street Rock MD Residential 5691 1600 600 200 2400 3291
161 Main Street Rock MD Residential 6323 1600 600 200 2400 3923
130 Street A Rock MD Residential 5072 1600 600 200 2400 2672
170 Street A Rock MD Residential 5072 1600 600 200 2400 2672
190 Street A Rock MD Residential 5072 1600 600 200 2400 2672
 Ad- Street Soil Land Use Area Roof Parking Drive-ways, SF Patios Imperv- Pervious
dress SF SF SF SF ious, SF SF
141 Street B Rock MD Residential 4953 1600 600 200 2400 2553
160 Street B Rock MD Residential 4787 1600 600 200 2400 2387
180 Street B Rock MD Residential 4787 1600 600 200 2400 2387
181 Street B Rock MD Residential 4953 1600 600 200 2400 2553
190 Street B Rock MD Residential 4787 1600 600 200 2400 2387
191 Street B Rock MD Residential 4953 1600 600 200 2400 2553
160 Street C Rock MD Residential 5609 1600 600 200 2400 3209
161 Street C Rock MD Residential 5039 1600 600 200 2400 2639
171 Street C Rock MD Residential 5189 1600 600 200 2400 2789
190 Street C Rock MD Residential 5609 1600 600 200 2400 3209
191 Street C Rock MD Residential 5340 1600 600 200 2400 2940
180 Street D Rock MD Residential 5254 1600 600 200 2400 2854
181 Street D Rock MD Residential 5461 1600 600 200 2400 3061
190 Street D Rock MD Residential 5254 1600 600 200 2400 2854
191 Street D Rock MD Residential 5461 1600 600 200 2400 3061
100 Street E Rock MD Residential 6520 1600 600 200 2400 4120
120 Street E Rock MD Residential 6520 1600 600 200 2400 4120
151 Street E Rock MD Residential 5363 1600 600 200 2400 2963
171 Street E Rock MD Residential 5533 1600 600 200 2400 3133
190 Street E Rock MD Residential 6520 1600 600 200 2400 4120
191 Street E Rock MD Residential 5704 1600 600 200 2400 3304
126 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6507 1600 600 200 2400 4107
130 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6515 1600 600 200 2400 4115
136 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6522 1600 600 200 2400 4122
140 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6530 1600 600 200 2400 4130
150 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6537 1600 600 200 2400 4137
160 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6545 1600 600 200 2400 4145
170 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6552 1600 600 200 2400 4152
171 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6345 1600 600 200 2400 3945
181 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 6939 1600 600 200 2400 4539
191 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 7911 1600 600 200 2400 5511
193 Birch Avenue Silt MD Residential 5095 1600 600 200 2400 2695
151 Cedar Street Silt MD Residential 6610 1600 600 200 2400 4210
155 Cedar Street Silt MD Residential 6618 1600 600 200 2400 4218
161 Cedar Street Silt MD Residential 6625 1600 600 200 2400 4225
165 Cedar Street Silt MD Residential 6633 1600 600 200 2400 4233
171 Cedar Street Silt MD Residential 6641 1600 600 200 2400 4241
175 Cedar Street Silt MD Residential 6648 1600 600 200 2400 4248
179 Cedar Street Silt MD Residential 6656 1600 600 200 2400 4256
101 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6663 1600 600 200 2400 4263
111 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6667 1600 600 200 2400 4267
121 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6671 1600 600 200 2400 4271
131 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6676 1600 600 200 2400 4276
141 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6680 1600 600 200 2400 4280
151 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6684 1600 600 200 2400 4284
176 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6070 1600 600 200 2400 3670
180 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6675 1600 600 200 2400 4275
181 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6688 1600 600 200 2400 4288
190 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6941 1600 600 200 2400 4541
191 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6693 1600 600 200 2400 4293
193 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 4843 1600 600 200 2400 2443
195 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 4131 1600 600 200 2400 1731
201 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6416 1600 600 200 2400 4016
221 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6106 1600 600 200 2400 3706
231 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6452 1600 600 200 2400 4052
241 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6627 1600 600 200 2400 4227
244 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6706 1600 600 200 2400 4306
250 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6894 1600 600 200 2400 4494
251 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6665 1600 600 200 2400 4265
254 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6256 1600 600 200 2400 3856
260 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6865 1600 600 200 2400 4465
261 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6682 1600 600 200 2400 4282
270 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6463 1600 600 200 2400 4063
274 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6886 1600 600 200 2400 4486
280 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6909 1600 600 200 2400 4509
281 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6699 1600 600 200 2400 4299
290 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6765 1600 600 200 2400 4365
291 Elm Street Silt MD Residential 6716 1600 600 200 2400 4316
100 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6312 1600 600 200 2400 3912
101 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 7572 1600 600 200 2400 5172
110 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6424 1600 600 200 2400 4024
 Ad- Street Soil Land Use Area Roof Parking Drive-ways, SF Patios Imperv- Pervious
dress SF SF SF SF ious, SF SF
111 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6971 1600 600 200 2400 4571
120 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6294 1600 600 200 2400 3894
130 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6313 1600 600 200 2400 3913
140 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6353 1600 600 200 2400 3953
141 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6998 1600 600 200 2400 4598
150 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6333 1600 600 200 2400 3933
151 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6875 1600 600 200 2400 4475
160 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6372 1600 600 200 2400 3972
161 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6694 1600 600 200 2400 4294
170 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6392 1600 600 200 2400 3992
171 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6619 1600 600 200 2400 4219
180 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 8120 1600 600 200 2400 5720
181 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6724 1600 600 200 2400 4324
186 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6312 1600 600 200 2400 3912
190 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6079 1600 600 200 2400 3679
191 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6599 1600 600 200 2400 4199
200 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6558 1600 600 200 2400 4158
201 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6500 1600 600 200 2400 4100
205 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6389 1600 600 200 2400 3989
210 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6562 1600 600 200 2400 4162
211 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6266 1600 600 200 2400 3866
220 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6566 1600 600 200 2400 4166
221 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6326 1600 600 200 2400 3926
230 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6570 1600 600 200 2400 4170
231 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6133 1600 600 200 2400 3733
240 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6575 1600 600 200 2400 4175
241 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6025 1600 600 200 2400 3625
250 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6579 1600 600 200 2400 4179
251 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6193 1600 600 200 2400 3793
261 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6379 1600 600 200 2400 3979
270 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6583 1600 600 200 2400 4183
271 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6169 1600 600 200 2400 3769
280 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 6587 1600 600 200 2400 4187
281 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 5411 1600 600 200 2400 3011
290 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 3196 1600 600 200 2400 796
291 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 5894 1600 600 200 2400 3494
293 Forest Avenue Silt MD Residential 3230 1600 600 200 2400 830
121 Main Street Silt MD Residential 5200 1600 600 200 2400 2800
125 Center Street Silt School 8600 0 8600 0 0 8600 0
100 Walnut Street Silt School 97601 69080 0 0 0 69080 28521
101 Walnut Street Silt School 43206 0 43206 0 0 43206 0
 Table A-2: Right of way attributes

Street Name RW RW Area,

width, length, sf
ft ft
Acorn Street 50 1640 81990
Alpine Street 50 1125 56272
Ash Street 50 1205 60251
Ash-Acorn Connector 50 844 42214
Ashmount Street 50 870 43492
Ashmount Street ext. 50 1620 80981
Aspen Street 50 851 42537
Birch Avenue 50 2574 128701
Cedar Street 50 2899 144940
Center Street 60 1124 67445
Elm Street 50 2639 131944
Forest Avenue 50 2622 131119
Highland Street 50 831 41568
Main Street 70 2741 191895
Maple Street 50 2153 107667
Oak Street 50 1751 87540
Street A 50 490 24491
Street B 50 465 23267
Street C 50 517 25829
Street D 50 415 20756
Street E 50 397 19875
stub between Elm 50 519 25951
and Forest
Sycamore Street 50 1086 54281
Walnut Street 50 1167 58349
Total 1693357

View publication stats