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

7/27/2019 Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source Areas and Runoff Volumes.pdf

1/17

Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined SourceAreas and Runoff Volumes

Yang Liu Puripus Soonthornnonda

Jin Li Erik R. Christensen

Received: 2 November 2009 / Accepted: 12 November 2010/ Published online: 12 December 2010

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Runoff coefficients are usually considered in

isolation for each drainage area with resulting largeuncertainties in the areas and coefficients. Accurate areas

and coefficients are obtained here by optimizing runoff

coefficients for characteristic Geographic Information

Systems (GIS) subareas within each drainage area so that

the resulting runoff coefficients of each drainage area are

consistent with those obtained from runoff and rainfall

volumes. Lack of fit can indicate that the ArcGIS infor-

mation is inaccurate or more likely, that the drainage area

needs adjustment. Results for 18 drainage areas in Mil-

waukee, WI for 20002004 indicate runoff coefficients

ranging from 0.123 for a mostly residential area to 0.679

for a freeway-related land, with a standard error of 0.047.

Optimized runoff coefficients are necessary input parame-

ters for monitoring, and for the analysis and design of in

situ stormwater unit operations and processes for the con-

trol of both urban runoff quantity and quality.

Keywords Stormwater runoff Geographic InformationSystems (GIS) Drainage areas Runoff coefficients

Stormwater runoff is characterized by source areas

and runoff volumes that have been determinedaccurately by optimization and GIS technology.

Introduction

Stormwater runoff containing metals, bacteria, and nutri-

ents can have significant detrimental environmental

impacts on receiving waters and human health (Hipp and

others2006; Park and Stenstrom2006; Eriksson and others

2007; Lee and others2007). This runoff is becoming more

severe because of the continuing development of urban

areas, which results in increased impervious surface area

(Weng 2001; Cristina and Sansalone 2003; Lee and Hea-

ney 2003; Hipp and others 2006). In response to this

growth, regulatory agencies are requiring stormwater

monitoring programs implemented through the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) to

quantify and eventually reduce stormwater runoff.

The runoff coefficient is an important factor for evalu-

ating stormwater runoff pollutant (Wong 2002; Kim and

others 2005; Sen and Altunkaynak 2006). The amount of

pollutant removed from a catchment is widely assumed to

be proportional to a function of the pollutant mass accu-

mulated on the effective area at the beginning of the storm

event (Alley 1981; Sartor and others 1974; Soonthornn-

onda and Christensen2008). The effective area is a product

of runoff coefficient and catchment area. The runoff

coefficient is the percentage of precipitation that appears as

runoff, and thus can be calculated by dividing the runoff

volume by the volume of rainfall falling within an area

(Adams and Papa2000).

The runoff volume depends mainly on levels of imper-

vious surfaces (Lee and Heaney 2003). Other factors

Y. Liu (&) P. Soonthornnonda J. Li E. R. Christensen

Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, Universityof Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

Present Address:

Y. Liu

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada

P. Soonthornnonda

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,

Srinakharinwirot University, Rangsit-Nakhon Nayok Rd.,

Klong 16 Ongkharak, Nakhon Nayok 26120, Thailand

1 3

Environmental Management (2011) 47:201217

DOI 10.1007/s00267-010-9591-2


2/17

include slopes and permeability of the soil, paving, or soil

saturation (Boyd and others 1993, 1994; McCuen 2004).

Location and connections of downspouts from roofs as well

as the layout of storm sewer lines may also impact the

volume of runoff discharged to the receiving waters. In

order to obtain an accurate estimate of the rainfall volume

entering the area, the size of the drainage area should be

well known.Although fairly simple in principle, accurate estimation

of the drainage area is not always a simple matter, partic-

ularly in urban areas. One reason is that the storm sewer

network may not be well documented. Also, the topogra-

phy, including elevations and associated contour lines and

slopes of subareas can be difficult to obtain and will change

in cases of significant construction activities.

One of the most popular methods for computing the

amount of direct runoff from a given amount of rainfall is

the Soil Conservation Service-Curve Number (SCS-CN)

method (McCuen1981). Although the method is designed

for a single storm event, it can be scaled to find averageannual runoff values. The curve number is based on the

areas hydrologic soil group, land use and slope. However,

the runoff area must be well defined in order for this to be

useful.

The introduction of GIS to stormwater management

makes it possible to obtain an estimate of the magnitude of

the drainage area based on the selected GIS features of the

landscape such as contour lines and land use percentage

(Seth and others 2006). The drainage area may be esti-

mated based on runoff coefficients for the areas, along with

GIS contour data and storm sewer lines.

The runoff coefficient is related to the different land use

and hydrologic soil groups (Bronstert and others 2002;

Niehoff and others 2002; Dewan and others 2007; Kayh-

anian and others 2007). Typically, there are several land

use types and soil groups within each drainage area. In

order to find a representative runoff coefficient, an overall

runoff coefficient has to be determined using the area of the

different land use/hydrologic soil group complexes as the

weighting factor. However, runoff coefficients are usually

considered in isolation for each area without looking at

consistency in estimation between different drainage areas

(Brezonik and Stadelmann 2002; Sen and Altunkaynak

2006). Consistency here means that GIS subareas in dif-

ferent drainage areas have the same runoff coefficient aj for

j = 1, 2,.., 5, as shown in section 3.4, Eqs. 1 and 2.

The present work attempted to fill this gap by generating

optimized runoff coefficients for GIS subareas within each

drainage area such that runoff coefficients estimated from

runoff volume and drainage area are consistent with coef-

ficients based on the GIS subareas. In the process, we

developed accurate estimates of the sizes of the drainage

areas. We considered here 18 separate drainage areas

throughout the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Dis-

tricts (MMSDs) service area and five different subareas

based on land use type, e.g., residential, roads, parking,

freeway-related, and outdoor recreational areas.

Site Description

The study areas are part of MMSDs 416 square mile

(1077 km2) planning area (Fig. 1). The MMSDs planning

area covers Milwaukee County and parts of Washington,

Ozaukee, Waukesha, and Racine Counties. Three rivers

(the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers)

run through the area, and their confluence leads to the

Milwaukee Harbor and Lake Michigan. On average,

the Milwaukee River has the highest flow, followed by the

Menomonee and the Kinnickinnic Rivers. Only ten percent

of the service area drains to the Mississippi River, with the

other ninety percent draining to Lake Michigan. The area isheavily urbanized in the center but largely agricultural in

the northern and southern parts. Two-thirds of the service

Fig. 1 Stormwater monitoring sites and study area

202 Environmental Management (2011) 47:201217

1 3


3/17

area consists of commercial, industrial, residential, trans-

portation, infrastructure, and recreational (U.S. Geological

Survey 2004). The remaining areas are agricultural, for-

ested, wetlands, and open water.

We considered here eighteen storm sewer locations

throughout the study area representing a variety of land

uses (primarily urban in nature) with drainage areas of

different sizes (Table1). The ranges of land use percent-ages for the eighteen sites are: residential, governmental

services and institutional, 080.7% (average: 38.5%);

roads, 0100% (average: 23.2%), parking, industrial busi-

ness and commercial, 068.6% (average: 15.7%); outdoor

recreational and open lands, 081.0% (average: 11.9%);

and freeway related land, communication and utilities,

070.2% (average: 10.5%). In addition, the breakdown of

percentages of each of the land uses is given in Table 2.

Data and Methods

Rainfall and Runoff Measurements

An assessment of relevant runoff coefficients was per-

formed based on actual simultaneous measurements of

both rainfall and runoff. An area velocity sensor (Isco

model no. 2150, Teledyne Isco, Inc., Lincoln, Nebraska)

was used to measure runoff discharges at the study sites.

Runoff discharges were obtained during the period 2000 to

2004. A rain gauge station for each study site was selected

based on the minimum distance to the site. Distances

ranged from 1 to 15 km, with most being less than 6 km.

The relatively limited variability of the data of the scatter

diagram in Fig.2 indicates that rainfall estimation is rea-

sonable and accurate within about a factor of 2.

A runoff coefficient for a given storm event was cal-

culated regardless of the depression storage volume as a

ratio of runoff volume to rainfall volume. Our previous

study showed that even though the depression storage is

excluded from the calculation of runoff coefficients, the

effective area, defined as a product of runoff coefficient

and catchment area, still remains valid (Soonthornnonda

and Christensen2008).

The event runoff volume was derived by integration of a

runoff hydrograph through the storm event duration. The

storm duration was estimated as the period of time between

the starting point of each storm hydrograph and the point

where 10% of discharge peak value occurred at the

recession limb of the hydrograph (Soonthornnonda and

Christensen 2008). Storm event data were collected by

MMSD, generally from April to October during the period

20002004. Events and runoff coefficients used for this

study are shown in Appendix A. Rainfall estimates are in

fact reasonable which can be seen from the limited

variability of the runoff coefficients for each site. Most of

this variability is due to rainfall variability. From the rel-

ative error of the median it is estimated that the rainfall

induced error of the median runoff coefficient is between

0.009 and 0.014 which amounts to between 20 and 30% of

the standard error (0.047).

GIS Data

To facilitate a better understanding of the drainage pattern

of the study area, land use maps and elevation maps were

used. Regional land use data were obtained from the

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission

(SEWRPC) (SEWRPC 2000). The land use data set con-

tains polygon features of land use. The polygon features

were delineated on 1 inch:400 feet scale aerial photographs

and board digitized. The land use polygons were identified

according to the SEWRPC land use classification system.

The land use data contain existing land use development of

the region mainly categorized by residential; commercial;transportation, communication, and utilities; governmental

and institutional; recreational; and open lands.

Elevation maps are based on digital elevation model

(DEM) files. DEM was used to evaluate the drainage pat-

tern. Also, storm sewers are normally constructed along the

background slope. DEM of 30 meter spatial resolution was

used in this study. DEMs have raster grids which are

composed of regularly spaced elevation values derived

from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) topo-

graphic map series (United States Geological Survey

Digital Elevation Models (USGS DEMs) 2000). Contour

lines are generated from elevation maps.

To calculate land use percentage, ArcGIS version 9.2

was used by calculating the area for each land use subarea

and dividing by the total drainage area. In some cases, the

aerial photographs were applied to clarify the land use

types. Aerial photographs were also used to affirm the

possible drainage pattern, later helping to define the

drainage boundary of a given catchment.

Storm Sewer Lines

Storm sewer lines were provided in several formats such as

hard copies, AutoCAD files, and ArcGIS shapefiles by

local communities, i.e., the city of Milwaukee (SWMI),

Franklin (SWFR), Whitefish Bay (SWWB), Greenfield

(SWGF), New Berlin (SWNB), Wauwatosa (SWWA), and

St. Francis (SWSF). Most storm sewer lines in the city of

Milwaukee were obtained from MMSDs databases using

MicroStation. These databases are periodically updated by

the city of Milwaukee.

The sewer files in MicroStation were then converted into

AutoCAD files so that these files were compatible with

Environmental Management (2011) 47:201217 203

1 3


4/17

Table1

Studysiteswithmajorlandusetypes,receivingwaters,drainageareas,andrunoffcoefficients

Site

Location

L

anduse

Receivingwater

Initial

area

(ha)

Newa

area

(ha)

Initialrunoffcoefficientb

Newrunoff

coefficient

SWMI01

Milwaukee

I

nstitutional,residential,openlands

LakeMichigan

23.8

2.14

0.0306(0.0658,0.00563)

0.333

SWMI02

Milwaukee

R

esidential,commercial,recreational,open

lands

LakeMichigan

57.2

0.574

0.00355(0.0165,0.000965)

0.399

SWFR03

Franklin

I

ndustrialpark,openlands

DetentionPond

11.7

5.37

0.183(0.386,0.0

219)

0.392

SWMI04

Milwaukee

I

nstitutional,residential,openlands,highway,park

LakeMichigan

608

260

0.0771(0.138,0.0

491)

0.187

SWMI05

Milwaukee

R

esidential,parkinglot,openlands

MilwaukeeRiver

3.42

3.67

0.270(3.01,0.06

41)

0.252

SWMI06

Milwaukee

M

ilwaukeeCountyZoo,highway

UnderwoodCreek

10.6

38.9

2.18(16.1,0.72

1)

0.597

SWMI07

Milwaukee

R

esidential,recreational

LincolnCreek

18.4

256

3.71(8.29,0.33

5)

0.266

SWMI08

Milwaukee

R

esidential,commercial

LincolnCreek

21.2

320

3.41(8.99,0.96

2)

0.225

SWWB9

WhitefishBay

R

esidential,openlands

LakeMichigan

57.4

46.0

0.0980(0.201,0.0

0224)

0.125

SWGF10

Greenfield

B

oernerbotanicalgardens,parkinglot

DetentionPond

71.4

1.47

0.00865(0.0220,0.00164)

0.486

SWNB11

NewBerlin

N

ewresidential,openlands

DetentionPond

73.9

6.99

0.0151(0.0494,0.00604)

0.211

SWMI12

Milwaukee

R

esidential,commercial,parkinglot

HoneyCreek

38.8

17.5

0.0813(0.167,0.0

310)

0.177

SWWA13

Wauwatosa

R


MenomoneeRiver

20.5

43.3

0.265(0.505,0.0

159)

0.123

SWSF14

St.Francis

R


LakeMichigan

21.5

3.44

0.0341(0.0581,0.00346)

0.187

SWMI15

Milwaukee

H

ighway,floodcontrolarea,residential

MenomoneeRiver

44.3

2.68

0.0335(0.0948,0.0175)

0.495

SWMI16

Milwaukee

H

ighway,industrial

MenomoneeRiver

6.40

2.26

0.237(0.350,0.1

71)

0.679

SWWA17

Wauwatosa

R

ecreational,openlands,residential,comm

ercial

MenomoneeRiver

13.4

41.1

0.725(0.973,0.4

28)

0.237

SWMI18

Milwaukee

P

arkinglot

MenomoneeRiver

1.92

10.3

3.01(5.99,0.20

8)

0.561

a

ObtainedafteroptimizationaccordingtoGISdeterminedtopographyandEq.1,b

medianwithmaximumandminimum(SoonthornnondaandChristensen2008)


1 3


5/17

ArcGIS. Storm sewer line data contained useful informa-

tion such as slope, direction, location, manhole number,

and sewer pipe number. After converting the sewer files,

the storm sewer lines fitted along the local streets,

reflecting the compatibility. The GIS maps for 18 sites

were created by overlaying land use maps, elevation maps,

and stormsewer pipe lines. Contour lines were generated by

spatial analysis tools in ArcGIS, with intervals between

each contour line of 10 feet (3.05 m).

Initial estimates of runoff coefficients b were used as a

guide to determine if an area adjustment appeared to be

necessary, for example, ifb was greater than one or it is

very small. The first estimate of b was obtained by

dividing total runoff volume by the volume of rainfallfalling onto the initially estimated drainage area. Because

the occurrence of extraneous inflows (illegal connection of

untreated sanitary sewage and/or ground water infiltration)

was only a minor concern in the study area, unreasonableb

values can be explained by ill-defined original drainage

areas.

A large b may indicate underestimation of drainage

areas, while a very small b may imply overestimation of

the drainage area. Area adjustments were guided in part by

GIS, considering sewer lines and topography information.

By integrating sewer lines and topography information into

the GIS, the area adjustments were done by re-outlining thedrainage boundary.

Optimizing Runoff Coefficients for Characteristic

Subareas

Drainage areas and runoff coefficients were adjusted so

that they became consistent with runoff coefficients cal-

culated based on optimized runoff coefficients for each GIS

subareaj of a specific land use type. Percent land use data

Table 2 New drainage areas, runoff coefficients, and percent land use for 18 sites

Site New

area (ha)

New runoff

coefficientb

Percent land use

Residential,

governmental

services and

institutional

Freeway

related land,

communication

and utilities

Parking, industrial,

business and

commercial

Roads Outdoor

recreational,

open lands

SWMI01 2.14 0.333 0.953 9.59 2.77 81.0 5.67SWMI02 0.574 0.399 0 18.9 0 40.1 41.0

SWFR03 5.37 0.392 0 0 38.5 29.8 31.7

SWMI 04 260 0.187 69.1 1.90 13.1 6.38 8.76

SWMI 05 3.67 0.252 65.6 0 9.05 23.1 2.21

SWMI06 38.9 0.597 0 0 28.9 0 70.2

SWMI 07 256 0.266 49.5 0 18.2 22.0 10.1

SWMI 08 320 0.225 63.4 0.834 5.08 27.2 3.53

SWWB09 46.0 0.125 73.5 0 0.770 25.7 0

SWGF10 1.47 0.486 0 0 81.8 18.2 0

SWNB 11 6.99 0.211 80.7 0 0 19.3 0

SWMI 12 17.5 0.177 69.8 0 0 27.7 2.55

SWWA13 43.3 0.123 70.4 0 0 29.6 0

SWSF14 3.44 0.187 75.0 0 0 25.0 0

SWMI 15 2.68 0.495 31.9 30.6 0 17.4 19.3

SWMI 16 2.26 0.679 0 100 0 0 0

SWWA17 41.1 0.237 43.1 5.86 15.1 19.4 15.9

SWMI 18 10.3 0.561 0 21.6 68.6 5.79 4.02

0.1

1

10

100

1000

10000

100000

0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000

Volume (calculated from rainfall), m3

Volume(measuredru

noff),m

3

1

2

3

4

5

67

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Site No.

Fig. 2 Measured and calculated (rainfall-based) runoff volumes for

18 sites during 20002004


1 3


6/17

from Table2 was used to formulate the following opti-

mization model:

Minimize SX18

i1

bi bi2 1

where

biX

5

j1

fij aj i 1; 2; 3;. . .; 18 2

subject to

X5

j1

fij 1 i 1; 2; 3;. . .; 18 and 0aj 1 3

In these equations,biand bi are measured and the model

predicted runoff coefficients, respectively, for drainage

area i. And aj are the runoff coefficients for the GIS

subarea of type j. The area percentage of land use of type

jin the drainage areai is fij. By using guessed initial valuesofaj for thejth land use based on general runoff coefficient

information about each subarea (McCuen 2004), bi was

estimated using the fractional area distributionfijfor thejth

land use of site i (Eq.2).

The Solver command in Microsoft Excel was used to

find the optimized solutions aj (minimumSvalue) for the

sum of squares of differences between the measured and

the calculated runoff coefficients (Eq.1). Equation3

denotes the constraints of the objective function (Eq. 1).

Additionally, in order to examine whether the solutions

were unique, additional calculations were performed with

different start values for runoff coefficients of GISsubareas.

Results and Discussion

Measured and Calculated Runoff Volumes

Initial and final drainage areas, including runoff coeffi-

cients are listed in Table1. Median runoff coefficients

were calculated based on runoff coefficients for each event

(Appendix A, Table 5). Figure2 shows a plot of the

measured runoff volume versus the calculated runoff vol-ume based on rainfall, new areas and new median runoff

coefficients for 372 storm events in 18 monitoring catch-

ments. A point on the 45o line indicates that the event

runoff coefficient equals the median value. A point above

this line reflects a larger coefficient, and a point below a

smaller value. As shown in the figure, runoff coefficients

were nearly constant and equal to the median value for a

given area at all events (r2 = 0.897). One exception is site

SWWB09 (Whitefish Bay, residential and open lands) with

low runoff coefficients, which generally may be attributed

to low rainfall events where depression volumes can give

low measured runoff volume.

Spatial Analysis and Drainage Area for Milwaukee

County Zoo

An example of drainage area adjustment suggested by a

high runoff coefficient (2.18) pointing to an underestimated

drainage area is shown here for the Milwaukee County

Zoo. The GIS map of site SWMI06, Milwaukee County

Zoo, is shown in Fig. 3.

Red lines indicate the original estimated drainage area,

and the blue lines enclose the new area that is estimated

based on the sewer pipe lines. As shown in Fig.3, the

feature of a landscape (e.g., pattern of terrain and slope)

represented by contour lines was not able to fully reflect the

complete drainage pattern for site SWMI06. By contrast,

GIS maps of the drainage areas infrastructures (buildings,streets, and storm sewers) and natural condition (impervi-

ousness) showed a different picture. The new area was

decided upon based on the information about storm sewer

lines, and the topographic characteristics of this site.

Different land use types are represented by different

colors in polygons. Specific subarea types include resi-

dential, business and commercial, industrial, freeway

related land, roads, parking, transportation, communica-

tions and utilities, governmental services and institutional,

outdoor recreational, and open lands. In the new area of site

SWMI06, the major land use type is outdoor recreational,

and is 55% of the total area. The parking and open landsare 29% and 16% of the total drainage area, respectively.

The original area was 10.6 ha, and the new area is 3.67

times higher, 38.9 ha. The runoff coefficient is therefore

reduced by the same factor so that it becomes 2.18/

3.67 = 0.597 (Table1) which compares well to the model

predicted value of 0.546 (Fig. 4).

Model Predicted Runoff Coefficients (Optimization)

Other examples of drainage area adjustments prompted in

part by the lack of fit of calculated to measured runoff

coefficients were for the Whitefish Bay site, SWWB09 andfor the Boerner botanical gardens parking lot, SWGF10.

Through inspection of the GIS map of site SWWB09

(Soonthornnonda2007), it became clear that the drainage

area was overestimated (57.4 ha), and that it should be

reduced in the north end and extended to the south of the

original area to cover the storm sewer lines. The modified

runoff coefficient of SWWB09 based on the new drainage

area (46.0 ha) was adjusted from 0.100 to 0.125. The cal-

culated runoff coefficient was 0.166 (Fig. 4).


1 3


7/17

For the botanical garden site SWGF10, we originally

included a large area east of the parking lot so that the total

area was 71.4 ha, producing a median runoff coefficient of0.01. However, inspection of the GIS map and field

observations revealed that most of the eastern area was on a

downwards slope towards the east, preventing the runoff

from entering the drainage pipe just south of the parking lot

(Soonthornnonda 2007). The new area included the main

area of the parking lot (1.47 ha) giving a runoff coefficient

of 0.486, significantly less than the calculated value of

0.580. By replacing the parking with the more realistic

81.8% parking and 18.2% roads (Table2), the calculated

runoff coefficient was reduced to a better fitting value of

0.472 (Fig.4). This change was justified by aerial photo-

graphs and field inspection, revealing grassy areas subdi-

viding the parking lot. The standard error of the calculated

runoff coefficients bi for each drainage area was 0.047

(Fig.4). To emphasize that both measured and model

predicted runoff coefficient have errors we have hereshown the uncertainty bars with the measured values.

Optimized values of the GIS subarea runoff coefficients

are shown in Table3. These values were found to be

independent of initial guessed values. Standard errors were

obtained by considering uncertainties of subdivisions by

land use type. Error estimation using Solver was conducted

using a Monte Carlo approach in which ten sets of varia-

tions of land use coefficients fij based on the data of

Table2were considered. For fij\ 65%, the average rela-

tive error of fij was 10%, and for 65%\fij\ 100%, 5%.

The resulting relative errors of the runoff coefficients aj for

the GIS subareas were less than 4%.The runoff coefficients for GIS subareas listed in Table 3

may be compared with runoff coefficients for the rational

formula versus land use type and soil group from McCuen

(2004) (Table4). The average of 0.141 for residential,

governmental services and institutional land uses compares

well with residential lot, soil type A, 02% slope, storm

recurrence interval s\ 25 years, especially when some

meadow and forested areas are included. For freeway

related land, communication and utilities, the value of 0.697

Fig. 3 Land use map with

elevation and storm sewer

information for site SWMI06,

Milwaukee County Zoo

(Regional land use data were

obtained from the Southeastern

Wisconsin Regional Planning

Commission (SEWRPC)2000)

Fig. 4 Comparison of measured runoff coefficient b and calculated

runoff coefficient b(uncertainty barsshow the standard error for each

drainage area)


1 3


8/17

is in general agreement with runoff coefficients for streets,

soil types AC, 06% slope, also with s\ 25 years.

Considering parking, industrial, business and commer-

cial areas, the coefficient of 0.527 compares reasonably

well with runoff coefficients in Table4 for parking and

commercial areas along with some meadow areas reflecting

grass and planted areas. Likewise, the coefficient for roads,

0.226, should be viewed not just to reflect streets but also

encompassing planted areas in the middle of divided

highways, as well as curbside grass and trees: that is,

meadow and forest. The last category, outdoor and recre-

ational and open lands with a runoff coefficient of 0.561should be compared with streets, meadow and open space

to include paved recreational areas as in the Milwaukee

County Zoo (Fig. 3).

Conclusion

The runoff coefficients for the 18 drainage areas are well

determined (Fig.4). The new estimated drainage area sizes

provide a better understanding of the drainage pattern and

present information required for decision making and best

stormwater management practices (BMPs). From the abovediscussion, the runoff coefficients of the GIS subareas

(Table3) are also reasonable. Prediction of runoff coeffi-

cient for drainage areas in different geographic regions and

different climate by Eq.2 may be possible if soil types,

slopes, and rainfall patterns are similar. Application of the

present methodology to areas with different values of these

parameters may be feasible using well-known empirical

corrections (McCuen2004).

This study provided a novel method to determine runoff

coefficients for each GIS subarea, which was then used in

the calculation of runoff coefficients for each drainage area

according to Eqs.1 and 2. This gives consistency in the

estimation; i.e., the same runoff coefficient for a particular

subarea such as roads is used in each drainage area.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Milwaukee

Metropolitan Sewerage District (M03023E01). We thank Urbain

Boudjou, Mary Singer, Christopher Magruder, Sara Hackbarth, and

Sarah Seifert for helpful discussions.

Appendix A

See Table5.

Table 3 Model predicted values of the runoff coefficient aand

standard error for various land uses

GIS land use type Runoff

coefficient a

Standard

error

Residential, governmental services

and institutional

0.141 0.002

Freeway related land, communication

and utilities

0.697 0.005

Parking, industrial, business and

commercial

0.527 0.017

Roads 0.226 0.003

Outdoor recreational, open lands 0.561 0.002

Table 4 Runoff coefficients for the rational formula versus hydro-

logical soil group (A, B, C) modified after McCuen (1998)

Land use type A B C

02%a

26% 02% 26% 02% 26%

Meadow 0.10b

0.16 0.14 0.22 0.20 0.28

0.14c 0.22 0.20 0.28 0.26 0.35

Forest 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.11 0.10 0.13

0.08 0.11 0.10 0.18 0.12 0.16

Residential lot 0.14 0.19 0.17 0.21 0.20 0.25

0.33 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.38 0.42

Industrial 0.67 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.69

0.85 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.86 0.86

Commercial 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.72

0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89

Streets 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.73

0.76 0.77 0.80 0.82 0.84 0.85Open space 0.05 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.12 0.17

0.11 0.16 0.14 0.19 0.18 0.23

Parking 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.86 0.85 0.86

0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96 0.95 0.96

aSlope,

brunoff coefficients for storm recurrence intervals less than

25 years, c runoff coefficients for storm recurrence intervals of

25 years or longer

Table 5 Rainfall events with runoff coefficients

Site Event

no.

Event start Event end Storm duration

(h)

Runoff

volume (m3

)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

1 1 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 3:00 14 139 24.6 0.264 0.333

1 2 5/16/2001 1:00 5/16/2001 4:00 3 84.1 6.35 0.618 0.333

1 3 5/21/2001 8:00 5/21/2001 15:00 7 83.6 5.33 0.733 0.333


1 3


9/17

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

1 4 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 9:00 13 229 24.6 0.434 0.333

1 5 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 475 46 0.483 0.333

1 6 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 96.1 20.1 0.224 0.333

1 7 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 227 21.8 0.486 0.3331 8 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 5:00 15 371 40.1 0.432 0.333

1 9 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 36.4 17.8 0.096 0.333

1 10 8/12/2002 18:00 8/13/2002 1:00 7 391 53.1 0.344 0.333

1 11 8/21/2002 19:00 8/21/2002 21:00 2 163 14.7 0.517 0.333

1 12 8/21/2002 22:00 8/22/2002 1:00 3 68.9 10.9 0.295 0.333

1 13 10/4/2002 4:00 10/4/2002 13:00 9 19.4 14.5 0.062 0.333

1 14 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 47.2 8.64 0.255 0.333

1 15 10/24/2003 14:00 10/24/2003 22:00 8 113 15.5 0.340 0.333

1 16 4/17/2004 1:00 4/17/2004 4:00 3 43.1 6.6 0.305 0.333

1 17 6/10/2004 11:00 6/10/2004 16:00 5 98.7 23.4 0.197 0.333

2 18 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 19:00 4 3.72 4.06 0.159 0.399

2 19 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 24.9 25.7 0.169 0.399

2 20 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 1.68 3.05 0.096 0.399

2 21 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 21:00 2 6.27 2.54 0.429 0.399

2 22 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 13.1 10.4 0.219 0.399

2 23 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 1.99 1.52 0.228 0.399

2 24 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 3.26 1.78 0.319 0.399

2 25 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 3.92 1.27 0.538 0.399

2 26 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 2.45 0.51 0.836 0.399

2 27 5/21/2001 8:00 5/21/2001 15:00 7 8.26 5.33 0.270 0.399

2 28 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 1.53 1.27 0.209 0.399

2 29 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 40.8 20.1 0.354 0.399

2 30 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 111 35.1 0.550 0.399

2 31 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 112 19.8 0.983 0.399

2 32 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 10:00 11 91.3 42.9 0.369 0.399

2 33 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 108 11.4 1.654 0.399

2 34 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 76.1 10.9 1.216 0.399

2 35 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 15.8 7.87 0.350 0.399

2 36 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 31.4 6.1 0.896 0.399

3 37 10/23/2000 12:00 10/23/2000 14:00 2 13.9 1.02 0.255 0.392

3 38 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 0:00 11 557 24.4 0.425 0.392

3 39 11/9/2000 0:00 11/9/2000 8:00 8 94.7 10.4 0.170 0.392

3 40 11/29/2000 2:00 11/29/2000 7:00 5 15.6 6.1 0.047 0.392

3 41 4/5/2001 14:00 4/5/2001 18:00 4 99.7 4.32 0.429 0.392

3 42 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 627 27.7 0.421 0.3923 43 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 11.6 1.52 0.142 0.392

3 44 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 20:00 1 56 2.03 0.514 0.392

3 45 4/30/2001 13:00 4/30/2001 15:00 2 42.6 3.05 0.259 0.392

3 46 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 35.9 2.29 0.292 0.392

3 47 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 14:00 3 373 11.2 0.619 0.392

3 48 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 95.8 3.56 0.501 0.392

3 49 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 15:00 5 586 23.6 0.462 0.392

3 50 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 136 6.6 0.383 0.392


1 3


10/17

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

3 51 5/23/2001 12:00 5/23/2001 14:00 2 101 3.81 0.492 0.392

3 52 5/26/2001 18:00 5/27/2001 12:00 18 479 25.7 0.346 0.392

3 53 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 2273 50.3 0.841 0.392

3 54 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 360 17.3 0.388 0.3923 55 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 95.8 26.9 0.066 0.392

3 56 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 125 47 0.049 0.392

3 57 6/3/2002 3:00 6/3/2002 9:00 6 201 29.5 0.127 0.392

3 58 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 512 27.4 0.349 0.392

3 59 8/12/2002 19:00 8/13/2002 0:00 5 298 51.3 0.108 0.392

3 60 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 15:00 20 871 41.1 0.394 0.392

3 61 10/1/2002 22:00 10/2/2002 4:00 6 218 10.2 0.399 0.392

3 62 10/4/2002 7:00 10/4/2002 13:00 6 260 10.4 0.464 0.392

3 63 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 15:00 3 186 6.1 0.569 0.392

3 64 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 504 12.2 0.769 0.392

3 65 10/24/2003 14:00 10/24/2003 22:00 8 324 13.7 0.440 0.392

3 66 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 216 7.87 0.510 0.392

3 67 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 311 11.2 0.519 0.392

4 68 11/6/2000 17:00 11/7/2000 3:00 10 9049 23.4 0.149 0.187

4 69 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 14:00 15 13955 21.6 0.248 0.187

4 70 5/16/2001 1:00 5/16/2001 4:00 3 5328 6.35 0.323 0.187

4 71 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 9:00 13 10083 24.6 0.158 0.187

4 72 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 25021 46 0.209 0.187

4 73 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 7921 20.1 0.152 0.187

4 74 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 10367 21.8 0.183 0.187

4 75 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 9:00 10 26012 46.2 0.217 0.187

4 76 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 1:00 11 18705 39.9 0.180 0.187

4 77 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 10518 17.8 0.227 0.187

4 78 8/12/2002 18:00 8/13/2002 1:00 7 28507 53.1 0.206 0.187

4 79 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 11:00 16 16265 41.1 0.152 0.187

4 80 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 3061 8.64 0.136 0.187

4 81 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 5:00 4 2045 6.86 0.115 0.187

4 82 4/17/2004 1:00 4/17/2004 4:00 3 2597 6.6 0.151 0.187

4 83 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 5840 11.9 0.189 0.187

4 84 6/10/2004 7:00 6/11/2004 12:00 29 19023 40.6 0.180 0.187

5 85 10/23/2000 20:00 10/23/2000 22:00 2 19.4 3.81 0.139 0.252

5 86 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 15:00 16 129 16.8 0.210 0.252

5 87 11/29/2000 1:00 11/29/2000 14:00 13 197 12.4 0.433 0.252

5 88 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 19:00 4 39 4.06 0.262 0.252

5 89 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 368 25.7 0.390 0.2525 90 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 34.4 3.05 0.308 0.252

5 91 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 21:00 2 49.6 2.54 0.532 0.252

5 92 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 88.3 10.4 0.231 0.252

5 93 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 15.9 1.52 0.284 0.252

5 94 5/7/2001 10:00 5/7/2001 14:00 4 141 15.2 0.253 0.252

5 95 5/10/2001 20:00 5/11/2001 0:00 4 178 20.1 0.241 0.252

5 96 5/14/2001 11:00 5/14/2001 14:00 3 135 15.2 0.241 0.252

5 97 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 11.1 1.27 0.238 0.252


1 3


11/17

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

5 98 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 52.3 0.51 2.796 0.252

5 99 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 10.7 1.27 0.228 0.252

5 100 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 240 20.1 0.325 0.252

5 101 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 313 35.1 0.242 0.2525 102 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 168 19.8 0.231 0.252

5 103 8/9/2001 16:00 8/9/2001 18:00 2 47.9 21.8 0.060 0.252

5 104 10/22/2001 15:00 10/23/2001 0:00 9 392 42.4 0.252 0.252

5 105 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 156 11.4 0.374 0.252

5 106 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 262 10.4 0.687 0.252

5 107 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 44.4 10.9 0.111 0.252

6 108 10/23/2000 20:00 10/23/2000 21:00 1 253 3.3 0.197 0.597

6 109 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 14:00 15 2614 18.3 0.365 0.597

6 110 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 8346 28.7 0.744 0.597

6 111 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 648 1.27 1.308 0.597

6 112 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 3019 16.3 0.474 0.597

6 113 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 545 1.52 0.918 0.597

6 114 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 2526 9.4 0.689 0.597

6 115 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 1734 3.3 1.346 0.597

6 116 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 6288 24.4 0.659 0.597

6 117 5/16/2001 2:00 5/16/2001 4:00 2 1139 4.06 0.719 0.597

6 118 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 4338 13 0.856 0.597

6 119 5/23/2001 12:00 5/23/2001 14:00 2 1306 0.76 4.414 0.597

6 120 5/26/2001 19:00 5/27/2001 8:00 13 7058 12.4 1.458 0.597

6 121 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 6:00 9 16561 57.7 0.736 0.597

6 122 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 3113 15.2 0.526 0.597

6 123 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 8083 36.6 0.567 0.597

6 124 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 22:00 3 672 3.3 0.523 0.597

6 125 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 2:00 2 3431 19.1 0.461 0.597

6 126 8/12/2002 16:00 8/12/2002 23:00 7 15991 81.5 0.501 0.597

6 127 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 14:00 19 10296 45.7 0.578 0.597

6 128 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 4745 16.5 0.736 0.597

6 129 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 1829 8.38 0.559 0.597

6 130 4/30/2003 11:00 4/30/2003 14:00 3 1754 7.37 0.610 0.597

6 131 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 1922 11.7 0.420 0.597

6 132 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 2389 18.5 0.330 0.597

6 133 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 847 8.38 0.259 0.597

6 134 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 1444 15 0.247 0.597

6 135 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 10:00 3 3747 15 0.640 0.597

6 136 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 14:00 29 9005 43.7 0.529 0.5976 137 7/21/2004 11:00 7/21/2004 14:00 3 608 1.78 0.875 0.597

6 138 8/24/2004 6:00 8/24/2004 8:00 2 766 0.76 2.583 0.597

6 139 10/22/2004 22:00 10/23/2004 11:00 13 3201 15 0.548 0.597

7 140 11/2/2000 5:00 11/2/2000 7:00 2 178 1.78 0.039 0.266

7 141 11/9/2000 0:00 11/9/2000 14:00 14 2622 15.2 0.067 0.266

7 142 11/16/2000 4:00 11/16/2000 8:00 4 109 1.78 0.024 0.266

7 143 11/29/2000 3:00 11/29/2000 14:00 11 2593 11.7 0.087 0.266

7 144 4/5/2001 16:00 4/5/2001 18:00 2 2387 3.56 0.262 0.266


1 3


12/17

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

7 145 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 27114 25.1 0.423 0.266

7 146 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 3093 2.03 0.596 0.266

7 147 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 11270 12.7 0.347 0.266

7 148 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 770 1.52 0.198 0.2667 149 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 1039 1.52 0.267 0.266

7 150 5/14/2001 11:00 5/14/2001 14:00 3 9017 15.7 0.225 0.266

7 151 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 4190 3.3 0.497 0.266

7 152 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 6913 6.6 0.410 0.266

7 153 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 4460 5.59 0.312 0.266

7 154 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 24485 25.4 0.377 0.266

7 155 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 50241 41.1 0.478 0.266

7 156 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 6951 14 0.194 0.266

7 157 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 8:00 9 13508 27.9 0.190 0.266

7 158 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 38125 38.1 0.392 0.266

7 159 6/2/2002 19:00 6/3/2002 9:00 14 27008 27.7 0.382 0.266

7 160 8/4/2002 3:00 8/4/2002 5:00 2 2180 4.32 0.198 0.266

7 161 8/12/2002 17:00 8/12/2002 23:00 6 39139 54.9 0.279 0.266

7 162 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 13:00 18 38126 50.3 0.297 0.266

7 163 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 5785 8.64 0.262 0.266

7 164 10/1/2002 22:00 10/2/2002 5:00 7 5940 9.65 0.241 0.266

7 165 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 5081 7.37 0.270 0.266

7 166 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 5288 9.65 0.214 0.266

8 167 11/2/2000 4:00 11/2/2000 7:00 3 310 1.52 0.064 0.225

8 168 11/16/2000 5:00 11/16/2000 8:00 3 597 2.54 0.074 0.225

8 169 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 9390 27.2 0.108 0.225

8 170 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 1084 1.02 0.333 0.225

8 171 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 21:00 3 2273 2.54 0.280 0.225

8 172 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 12614 29 0.136 0.225

8 173 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 748 1.02 0.229 0.225

8 174 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 14:00 3 5787 13.5 0.134 0.225

8 175 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 1434 1.78 0.252 0.225

8 176 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 16767 21.1 0.248 0.225

8 177 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 1144 1.78 0.201 0.225

8 178 5/17/2001 17:00 5/17/2001 19:00 2 1940 3.56 0.170 0.225

8 179 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 6765 9.14 0.232 0.225

8 180 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 1934 1.02 0.593 0.225

8 181 5/26/2001 22:00 5/27/2001 8:00 10 14727 16.8 0.274 0.225

8 182 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 36269 40.9 0.278 0.225

8 183 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 9511 17.5 0.170 0.2258 184 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 10:00 11 25309 35.1 0.226 0.225

8 185 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 15116 36.6 0.129 0.225

9 186 10/23/2000 20:00 10/23/2000 22:00 2 55 5.08 0.024 0.125

9 187 11/2/2000 5:00 11/2/2000 7:00 2 9.07 1.78 0.011 0.125

9 188 11/16/2000 6:00 11/16/2000 8:00 2 10.5 2.54 0.009 0.125

9 189 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 181 2.79 0.141 0.125

9 190 4/15/2001 19:00 4/15/2001 21:00 2 194 2.79 0.151 0.125

9 191 5/7/2001 6:00 5/7/2001 7:00 1 75.4 1.27 0.130 0.125


1 3


13/17

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

9 192 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 1072 18.5 0.126 0.125

9 193 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 120 1.52 0.172 0.125

9 194 5/17/2001 17:00 5/17/2001 19:00 2 188 2.03 0.201 0.125

9 195 5/26/2001 21:00 5/27/2001 8:00 11 873 29 0.066 0.1259 196 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 2307 36.3 0.139 0.125

9 197 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 984 18 0.119 0.125

9 198 8/15/2001 23:00 8/16/2001 10:00 11 2057 30.7 0.146 0.125

9 199 6/2/2002 19:00 6/3/2002 9:00 14 3903 49.5 0.172 0.125

9 200 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 2:00 2 256 2.29 0.243 0.125

9 201 8/12/2002 17:00 8/12/2002 23:00 6 2724 63.2 0.094 0.125

9 202 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 12.3 7.62 0.004 0.125

9 203 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 31.9 8.89 0.008 0.125

9 204 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 587 5.08 0.251 0.125

9 205 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 6.52 5.08 0.003 0.125

9 206 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 725 16.8 0.094 0.125

9 207 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 360 7.87 0.100 0.125

10 208 11/2/2000 4:00 11/2/2000 7:00 3 19.8 2.29 0.588 0.486

10 209 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 0:00 11 375 23.9 1.069 0.486

10 210 4/5/2001 14:00 4/5/2001 18:00 4 37.6 6.1 0.420 0.486

10 211 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 1:00 1 34.8 2.79 0.850 0.486

10 212 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 69 5.84 0.806 0.486

10 213 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 53.5 10.7 0.340 0.486

10 214 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 28.5 3.3 0.588 0.486

10 215 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 295 23.6 0.850 0.486

10 216 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 11.2 3.81 0.200 0.486

10 217 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 92.7 7.11 0.889 0.486

10 218 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 156 14.2 0.748 0.486

10 219 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 58.8 15.2 0.263 0.486

10 220 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 176 26.9 0.444 0.486

10 221 10/22/2001 15:00 10/23/2001 1:00 10 178 33 0.367 0.486

10 222 6/3/2002 4:00 6/3/2002 9:00 5 122 22.9 0.364 0.486

10 223 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 124 46.5 0.182 0.486

10 224 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 224 45.5 0.335 0.486

10 225 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 12:00 17 46.9 37.6 0.085 0.486

10 226 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 9.53 8.13 0.080 0.486

10 227 4/30/2003 6:00 4/30/2003 8:00 2 7.85 3.3 0.162 0.486

10 228 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 152 19.3 0.539 0.486

10 229 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 5:00 3 68.2 8.13 0.573 0.486

10 230 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 62.8 7.37 0.578 0.48610 231 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 5:00 20 138 25.4 0.370 0.486

10 232 7/21/2004 12:00 7/21/2004 14:00 2 31.4 8.64 0.247 0.486

10 233 8/24/2004 6:00 8/24/2004 7:00 1 27.7 3.3 0.573 0.486

10 234 10/22/2004 22:00 10/23/2004 11:00 13 86 17 0.344 0.486

11 235 11/2/2000 4:00 11/2/2000 7:00 3 13.7 2.29 0.086 0.211

11 236 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 4:00 15 285 24.1 0.169 0.211

11 237 11/9/2000 0:00 11/9/2000 14:00 14 195 15.7 0.178 0.211

11 238 4/5/2001 14:00 4/5/2001 18:00 4 28.6 6.1 0.067 0.211


1 3


14/17

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

11 239 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 620 27.2 0.327 0.211

11 240 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 1:00 1 26.1 2.79 0.134 0.211

11 241 4/11/2001 5:00 4/11/2001 20:00 15 606 20.1 0.431 0.211

11 242 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 20:00 2 14.7 3.3 0.064 0.21111 243 5/3/2001 6:00 5/3/2001 10:00 4 52.3 5.84 0.128 0.211

11 244 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 6:00 1 29.1 1.27 0.328 0.211

11 245 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 102 10.7 0.136 0.211

11 246 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 36 3.3 0.156 0.211

11 247 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 42.6 3.81 0.160 0.211

11 248 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 22 2.29 0.137 0.211

11 249 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 90 7.11 0.181 0.211

11 250 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 53 1.52 0.499 0.211

11 251 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 8:00 12 142 14.2 0.143 0.211

11 252 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 182 15.2 0.171 0.211

11 253 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 106 10.2 0.149 0.211

11 254 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 434 26.9 0.232 0.211

11 255 10/22/2001 15:00 10/23/2001 1:00 10 1204 33 0.522 0.211

11 256 6/3/2002 4:00 6/3/2002 9:00 5 283 22.9 0.177 0.211

11 257 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 804 46.5 0.247 0.211

11 258 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 795 45.5 0.251 0.211

11 259 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 14:00 19 504 37.8 0.191 0.211

11 260 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 97.5 8.13 0.171 0.211

11 261 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 57.1 7.11 0.115 0.211

11 262 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 5:00 3 41.6 8.13 0.073 0.211

11 263 5/21/2004 8:00 5/21/2004 10:00 2 83.1 7.37 0.162 0.211

11 264 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 5:00 20 208 25.4 0.117 0.211

11 265 7/21/2004 12:00 7/21/2004 14:00 2 67.3 8.64 0.111 0.211

11 266 8/24/2004 6:00 8/24/2004 7:00 1 17.1 3.3 0.074 0.211

11 267 10/22/2004 22:00 10/23/2004 11:00 13 114 17 0.096 0.211

12 268 11/6/2000 13:00 11/7/2000 0:00 11 802 25.1 0.182 0.177

12 269 11/28/2000 23:00 11/29/2000 15:00 16 141 10.2 0.079 0.177

12 270 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 18:00 3 115 4.83 0.136 0.177

12 271 4/8/2001 22:00 4/9/2001 6:00 8 1369 30.2 0.259 0.177

12 272 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 1:00 1 67.9 2.79 0.139 0.177

12 273 4/11/2001 5:00 4/11/2001 10:00 5 89.5 4.32 0.118 0.177

12 274 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 10:00 5 208 10.4 0.114 0.177

12 275 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 34.5 1.52 0.130 0.177

12 276 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 294 9.4 0.178 0.177

12 277 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 118 6.6 0.102 0.17712 278 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 173 7.11 0.139 0.177

12 279 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 27.5 2.29 0.069 0.177

12 280 5/26/2001 20:00 5/27/2001 9:00 13 366 19.3 0.108 0.177

12 281 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 6:00 9 3919 60.5 0.370 0.177

12 282 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 655 15.5 0.242 0.177

12 283 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 18:00 1 303 4.83 0.359 0.177

12 284 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 10:00 12 1361 33.8 0.231 0.177

12 285 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 4:00 14 1918 38.6 0.284 0.177


1 3


15/17

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

12 286 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 22:00 3 40.4 2.54 0.091 0.177

12 287 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 5:00 5 1558 42.4 0.210 0.177

12 288 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 3173 68.3 0.266 0.177

12 289 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 12:00 17 2004 44.2 0.259 0.17712 290 10/2/2002 0:00 10/2/2002 5:00 5 526 13 0.231 0.177

12 291 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 277 7.11 0.222 0.177

12 292 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 310 7.62 0.233 0.177

12 293 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 372 15.7 0.135 0.177

13 294 11/8/2000 21:00 11/9/2000 14:00 17 717 19.3 0.086 0.123

13 295 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 18:00 3 213 3.81 0.129 0.123

13 296 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 20:00 2 218 4.57 0.110 0.123

13 297 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 12:00 7 900 15.7 0.133 0.123

13 298 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 14:00 3 604 7.62 0.183 0.123

13 299 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 92.2 2.29 0.093 0.123

13 300 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 1457 22.1 0.152 0.123

13 301 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 122 3.56 0.079 0.123

13 302 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 360 3.56 0.233 0.123

13 303 5/21/2001 7:00 5/21/2001 15:00 8 867 8.38 0.239 0.123

13 304 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 14:00 1 186 2.03 0.211 0.123

13 305 5/26/2001 21:00 5/27/2001 8:00 11 1202 16 0.174 0.123

13 306 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 297 51.6 0.013 0.123

13 307 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 506 16.8 0.070 0.123

13 308 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 102 31.5 0.008 0.123

13 309 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 207 40.4 0.012 0.123

13 310 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 22:00 3 58.9 3.81 0.036 0.123

13 311 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 0:00 5 1826 27.2 0.155 0.123

13 312 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 475 11.7 0.094 0.123

13 313 10/1/2002 23:00 10/2/2002 5:00 6 874 11.9 0.169 0.123

13 314 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 395 9.65 0.095 0.123

13 315 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 542 8.64 0.145 0.123

13 316 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 305 9.65 0.073 0.123

13 317 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 9:00 2 1416 15.7 0.208 0.123

13 318 6/10/2004 8:00 6/11/2004 12:00 28 2274 41.9 0.125 0.123

14 319 11/6/2000 17:00 11/7/2000 0:00 7 106 23.1 0.134 0.187

14 320 11/8/2000 23:00 11/9/2000 14:00 15 157 21.6 0.212 0.187

14 321 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 72.9 5.84 0.363 0.187

14 322 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 7:00 10 439 46 0.278 0.187

14 323 7/17/2001 8:00 7/17/2001 11:00 3 102 20.1 0.148 0.187

14 324 8/9/2001 17:00 8/9/2001 19:00 2 160 21.8 0.213 0.18714 325 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 5:00 15 310 40.1 0.225 0.187

14 326 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 138 17.8 0.225 0.187

14 327 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 182 52.8 0.100 0.187

14 328 8/21/2002 19:00 8/22/2002 11:00 16 486 41.1 0.344 0.187

14 329 10/4/2002 8:00 10/4/2002 13:00 5 10.4 14 0.022 0.187

15 330 4/5/2001 15:00 4/5/2001 18:00 3 51.2 4.06 0.471 0.495

15 331 4/11/2001 0:00 4/11/2001 2:00 2 35.9 2.03 0.661 0.495

15 332 4/15/2001 18:00 4/15/2001 20:00 2 36.8 3.81 0.360 0.495


1 3


16/17

References

Adams BJ, Papa F (2000) Urban stormwater management planning

with analytical probabilistic models. Wiley, New York, p 376

Alley WM (1981) Estimation of impervious-area washoff parameters.

Water Resources Research 17(4):11611166

Boyd MJ, Bufill MC, Knee RM (1993) Pervious and impervious

runoff in urban catchments. Hydrological Sciences Journal

Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques 38:463478

Boyd MJ, Bufill MC, Knee RM (1994) Predicting pervious and

impervious storm runoff from urban drainage basins. Hydrolog-

ical Sciences JournalJournal Des Sciences Hydrologiques

39:321332

Table 5 continued

Site Event

no.


(h)

Runoff

volume (m3)

Rainfall

depth (mm)

Runoff

coefficient

Median runoff

coefficient

15 333 5/3/2001 5:00 5/3/2001 9:00 4 137 10.4 0.493 0.495

15 334 5/7/2001 5:00 5/7/2001 7:00 2 21.5 1.27 0.631 0.495

15 335 5/7/2001 11:00 5/7/2001 13:00 2 309 7.37 1.567 0.495

15 336 5/10/2001 2:00 5/10/2001 4:00 2 52.6 3.56 0.552 0.49515 337 5/14/2001 10:00 5/14/2001 14:00 4 401 25.1 0.597 0.495

15 338 5/16/2001 3:00 5/16/2001 4:00 1 97 5.84 0.622 0.495

15 339 5/17/2001 18:00 5/17/2001 19:00 1 26.1 1.52 0.641 0.495

15 340 5/23/2001 13:00 5/23/2001 15:00 2 61 5.59 0.408 0.495

15 341 6/11/2001 21:00 6/12/2001 6:00 9 1062 59.7 0.665 0.495

15 342 8/15/2001 22:00 8/16/2001 9:00 11 415 29 0.534 0.495

15 343 10/22/2001 14:00 10/23/2001 0:00 10 540 44.5 0.453 0.495

15 344 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 462 19.8 0.873 0.495

15 345 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 1274 74.9 0.636 0.495

15 346 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 166 14 0.445 0.495

15 347 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 154 10.9 0.529 0.495

15 348 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 74.7 9.65 0.289 0.495

15 349 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 107 8.38 0.478 0.495

15 350 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 58.9 6.1 0.360 0.495

15 351 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 10:00 3 338 15.2 0.831 0.495

15 352 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 12:00 27 1017 34.3 1.108 0.495

16 353 6/2/2002 19:00 6/2/2002 23:00 4 42.3 2.79 0.671 0.679

16 354 7/26/2002 0:00 7/26/2002 3:00 3 779 34.8 0.991 0.679

16 355 8/12/2002 18:00 8/12/2002 23:00 5 1246 68.3 0.807 0.679

16 356 9/18/2002 4:00 9/18/2002 10:00 6 138 11.2 0.547 0.679

16 357 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 18:00 3 94.6 8.64 0.484 0.679

16 358 5/21/2004 7:00 5/21/2004 10:00 3 303 16 0.841 0.679

16 359 6/10/2004 7:00 6/11/2004 13:00 30 667 46.5 0.637 0.679

16 360 7/21/2004 12:00 7/21/2004 14:00 2 103 7.87 0.583 0.679

16 361 8/24/2004 19:00 8/24/2004 23:00 4 497 25.1 0.875 0.679

17 362 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 752 10.9 0.169 0.237

17 363 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 552 9.65 0.140 0.237

17 364 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 812 8.38 0.237 0.237

17 365 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 644 6.1 0.258 0.237

17 366 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 12:00 27 4453 34.3 0.317 0.237

18 367 4/30/2003 12:00 4/30/2003 14:00 2 43.5 10.9 0.039 0.561

18 368 7/15/2003 1:00 7/15/2003 4:00 3 467 9.65 0.470 0.561

18 369 10/24/2003 15:00 10/24/2003 22:00 7 525 17 0.300 0.561

18 370 4/17/2004 2:00 4/17/2004 4:00 2 563 8.38 0.654 0.561

18 371 5/20/2004 15:00 5/20/2004 17:00 2 700 6.1 1.117 0.56118 372 6/10/2004 9:00 6/11/2004 12:00 27 3648 34.3 1.035 0.561


1 3


17/17

Brezonik PL, Stadelmann TH (2002) Analysis and predictive models

of stormwater runoff volumes, loads, and pollutant concentra-

tions from watersheds in the Twin Cities metropolitan area,

Minnesota, USA. Water Research 36:17431757

Bronstert A, Niehoff D, Burger G (2002) Effects of climate and land-

use change on storm runoff generation: present knowledge and

modelling capabilities. Hydrological Processes 16:509529

Cristina CM, Sansalone JJ (2003) Kinematic wave model of urban

pavement rainfall-runoff subject to traffic loadings. Journal of

Environmental Engineering 129:629636

Dewan AM, Islam MM, Kumamoto T, Nishigaki M (2007) Evalu-

ating flood hazard for land-use planning in Greater Dhaka of

Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water

Resources Management 21:16011612

Eriksson E, Baun A, Scholes L, Ledin A, Ahlman S, Revitt M,

Noutsopoulos C, Mikkelsen PS (2007) Selected stormwater

priority pollutantsa European perspective. Science of the Total

Environment 383:4151

Hipp JA, Ogunseitan O, Lejano R, Smith CS (2006) Optimization of

stormwater filtration at the urban/watershed interface. Environ-

mental Science & Technology 40:47944801

Kayhanian M, Suverkropp C, Ruby A, Tsay K (2007) Characteriza-

tion and prediction of highway runoff constituent event mean

concentration. Journal of Environmental Management 85:279

295

Kim LH, Kayhanian M, Zoh KD, Stenstrom MK (2005) Modeling of

highway stormwater runoff. Science of the Total Environment

348:118

Lee JG, Heaney JP (2003) Estimation of urban imperviousness and its

impacts on storm water systems. Journal of Water Resources

Planning and Management 129:419426

Lee H, Swamikannu X, Radulescu D, Kim SJ, Stenstrom MK (2007)

Design of stormwater monitoring programs. Water Research

41:41864196

McCuen RH (1981) Relation between curve number and runoff

coefficient. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division

107:395400

McCuen RH (1998) Hydrologic analysis and design, 2nd edn. Pearson

Prentice Hall, New Jersey

McCuen RH (2004) Hydrologic analysis and design, 3rd edn.

Pearson, Prentice Hall, p 888

Niehoff D, Fritsch U, Bronstert A (2002) Land-use impacts on storm-

runoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation

of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW-

Germany. Journal of Hydrology 267:8093

Park MH, Stenstrom MK (2006) Spatial estimates of stormwater-

pollutant loading using Bayesian networks and geographic

information systems. Water Environment Research 78:421429

Sartor JD, Boyd GB, Agardy FJ (1974) Water pollution aspects of

street surface contaminations. Journal of Water Pollution Control

Federation 46(3):458467

Sen Z, Altunkaynak A (2006) A comparative fuzzy logic approach to

runoff coefficient and runoff estimation. Hydrological Processes

20:19932009

Seth I, Soonthornnonda P, Christensen ER (2006) Use of GIS in urban

storm-water modeling. Journal of Environmental Engineering

132:15501552

Soonthornnonda P (2007) Stormwater quality characterization, mod-

eling, and management for the greater Milwaukee area,

Wisconsin. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Mil-

waukee, Milwaukee

Soonthornnonda P, Christensen ER (2008) A load model based on

antecedent dry periods for pollutants in stormwater. Water

Environment Research 80(2):162171

Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)

(2000) GIS landuse inventory. Waukesha, WI

U.S. Geological Survey (2004) Water-resources-related information

for the Milwaukee metropolitan sewerage district planning area,

Wisconsin, 19702002. Water-Resources Investigation Report

03-4240, USGS, Reston, Virginia

United States Geological Survey Digital Elevation Models (USGS

DEMs) (2000) U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological

Survey. http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/dem.html

Weng QH (2001) Modeling urban growth effects on surface runoff

with the integration of remote sensing and GIS. Environmental

Management 28:737748

Wong TSW (2002) Call for awakenings in storm drainage design.

Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 7:12


1 3
http://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/dem.htmlhttp://edc.usgs.gov/products/elevation/dem.html

Documents

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