Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source Areas and Runoff Volumes PDF

Environmental Management (2011) 47:201217
DOI 10.1007/s00267-010-9591-2
Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source

Areas and Runoff Volumes
Yang Liu Puripus Soonthornnonda
Jin Li Erik R. Christensen
Received: 2 November 2009 / Accepted: 12 November 2010 / Published online: 12 December 2010
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract Runoff coefficients are usually considered in

isolation for each drainage area with resulting large
uncertainties in the areas and coefficients. Accurate areas
and coefficients are obtained here by optimizing runoff
coefficients for characteristic Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) subareas within each drainage area so that
the resulting runoff coefficients of each drainage area are
consistent with those obtained from runoff and rainfall
volumes. Lack of fit can indicate that the ArcGIS information is inaccurate or more likely, that the drainage area
needs adjustment. Results for 18 drainage areas in Milwaukee, 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 parameters for monitoring, and for the analysis and design of in
situ stormwater unit operations and processes for the control of both urban runoff quantity and quality.
Keywords Stormwater runoff Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) Drainage areas Runoff coefficients
Y. Liu (&) P. Soonthornnonda J. Li E. R. Christensen

Department of Civil Engineering and Mechanics, University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI 53201, USA
e-mail: yang.liu@ualberta.ca
Present Address:
Y. Liu
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada
P. Soonthornnonda
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
Srinakharinwirot University, Rangsit-Nakhon Nayok Rd.,
Klong 16 Ongkharak, Nakhon Nayok 26120, Thailand
Stormwater runoff is characterized by source areas

and runoff volumes that have been determined
accurately by optimization and GIS technology.
Introduction
Stormwater runoff containing metals, bacteria, and nutrients can have significant detrimental environmental
impacts on receiving waters and human health (Hipp and
others 2006; Park and Stenstrom 2006; Eriksson and others
2007; Lee and others 2007). This runoff is becoming more
severe because of the continuing development of urban
areas, which results in increased impervious surface area
(Weng 2001; Cristina and Sansalone 2003; Lee and Heaney 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 evaluating 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 accumulated on the effective area at the beginning of the storm
event (Alley 1981; Sartor and others 1974; Soonthornnonda and Christensen 2008). The effective area is a product
of runoff coefficient and catchment area. The runoff
coefficient is the percentage of precipitation that appears as
runoff, and thus can be calculated by dividing the runoff
volume by the volume of rainfall falling within an area
(Adams and Papa 2000).
The runoff volume depends mainly on levels of impervious surfaces (Lee and Heaney 2003). Other factors
123
202
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, particularly in urban areas. One reason is that the storm sewer
network may not be well documented. Also, the topography, including elevations and associated contour lines and
slopes of subareas can be difficult to obtain and will change
in cases of significant construction activities.
One of the most popular methods for computing the
amount of direct runoff from a given amount of rainfall is
the Soil Conservation Service-Curve Number (SCS-CN)
method (McCuen 1981). Although the method is designed
for a single storm event, it can be scaled to find average
annual runoff values. The curve number is based on the
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 estimated 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; Kayhanian 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 different 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 coefficients based on the GIS subareas. In the process, we
developed accurate estimates of the sizes of the drainage
123
areas. We considered here 18 separate drainage areas

throughout the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage Districts (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 is
heavily urbanized in the center but largely agricultural in
the northern and southern parts. Two-thirds of the service
Fig. 1 Stormwater monitoring sites and study area
area consists of commercial, industrial, residential, transportation, infrastructure, and recreational (U.S. Geological
Survey 2004). The remaining areas are agricultural, forested, wetlands, and open water.
We considered here eighteen storm sewer locations
throughout the study area representing a variety of land
uses (primarily urban in nature) with drainage areas of
different sizes (Table 1). The ranges of land use percentages for the eighteen sites are: residential, governmental
services and institutional, 080.7% (average: 38.5%);
roads, 0100% (average: 23.2%), parking, industrial business 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 performed 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 reasonable and accurate within about a factor of 2.
A runoff coefficient for a given storm event was calculated regardless of the depression storage volume as a
ratio of runoff volume to rainfall volume. Our previous
study showed that even though the depression storage is
excluded from the calculation of runoff coefficients, the
effective area, defined as a product of runoff coefficient
and catchment area, still remains valid (Soonthornnonda
and Christensen 2008).
The event runoff volume was derived by integration of a
runoff hydrograph through the storm event duration. The
storm duration was estimated as the period of time between
the starting point of each storm hydrograph and the point
where 10% of discharge peak value occurred at the
recession limb of the hydrograph (Soonthornnonda and
Christensen 2008). Storm event data were collected by
MMSD, generally from April to October during the period
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
203
variability of the runoff coefficients for each site. Most of

this variability is due to rainfall variability. From the relative 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 contains 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 pattern. 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) topographic 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
123
123
Milwaukee
Franklin
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Whitefish Bay
Greenfield
New Berlin
Milwaukee
Wauwatosa
St. Francis
Milwaukee
Milwaukee
Wauwatosa
Milwaukee
SWMI02
SWFR03
SWMI04
SWMI05
SWMI06
SWMI07
SWMI08
SWWB9
SWGF10
SWNB11
SWMI12
SWWA13
SWSF14
SWMI15
SWMI16
SWWA17
SWMI18
Parking lot
b
Highway, industrial
Recreational, open lands, residential, commercial
Highway, flood control area, residential
Residential, open lands
Residential, commercial, parking lot
New residential, open lands
Boerner botanical gardens, parking lot
Residential, commercial
Residential, recreational
Milwaukee County Zoo, highway
Residential, parking lot, open lands
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
Menomonee River
Lake Michigan
Menomonee River
Honey Creek
Detention Pond
Detention Pond
Lake Michigan
Lincoln Creek
Lincoln Creek
Underwood Creek
Milwaukee River
Lake Michigan
Detention Pond
Lake Michigan
Lake Michigan
Receiving water
1.92
6.40
13.4
44.3
21.5
20.5
38.8
73.9
71.4
57.4
21.2
18.4
10.6
3.42
608
11.7
57.2
23.8
Initial area
(ha)
10.3
2.26
41.1
2.68
3.44
43.3
17.5
6.99
1.47
46.0
320
256
38.9
3.67
260
5.37
0.574
2.14
Newa area
(ha)
3.01 (5.99,0.208)
0.237 (0.350,0.171)
0.725 (0.973,0.428)
0.0335 (0.0948,0.0175)
0.0341 (0.0581,0.00346)
0.265 (0.505,0.0159)
0.0813 (0.167,0.0310)
0.0151 (0.0494,0.00604)
0.00865 (0.0220,0.00164)
0.0980 (0.201,0.00224)
3.41 (8.99,0.962)
3.71 (8.29,0.335)
2.18 (16.1,0.721)
0.270 (3.01,0.0641)
0.0771 (0.138,0.0491)
0.183 (0.386,0.0219)
0.00355 (0.0165,0.000965)
0.0306 (0.0658,0.00563)
Initial runoff coefficientb
median with maximum and minimum (Soonthornnonda and Christensen 2008)
Institutional, residential, open lands, highway, park
Industrial park, open lands
Residential, commercial, recreational, open lands
Institutional, residential, open lands
Land use
Obtained after optimization according to GIS determined topography and Eq. 1,
Milwaukee
SWMI01
Location
Site
Table 1 Study sites with major land use types, receiving waters, drainage areas, and runoff coefficients
0.561
0.679
0.237
0.495
0.187
0.123
0.177
0.211
0.486
0.125
0.225
0.266
0.597
0.252
0.187
0.392
0.399
0.333
New runoff
coefficient
204
205
Table 2 New drainage areas, runoff coefficients, and percent land use for 18 sites
Site
New
area (ha)
New runoff
coefficient b
Percent land use
SWMI01
2.14
0.333
0.953
2.77
81.0
SWMI02
0.574
0.399
18.9
40.1
41.0
SWFR03
5.37
0.392
38.5
29.8
31.7
SWMI 04
260
0.187
69.1
1.90
13.1
SWMI 05
3.67
0.252
65.6
SWMI06
38.9
0.597
28.9
70.2
SWMI 07
256
0.266
49.5
18.2
22.0
10.1
SWMI 08
320
0.225
63.4
0.834
5.08
27.2
SWWB09
46.0
0.125
73.5
0.770
25.7
SWGF10
SWNB 11
1.47
6.99
0.486
0.211
0
80.7
0
0
81.8
0
18.2
19.3
0
0
SWMI 12
17.5
0.177
69.8
27.7
2.55
SWWA13
43.3
0.123
70.4
29.6
SWSF14
3.44
0.187
75.0
25.0
SWMI 15
2.68
0.495
31.9
SWMI 16
2.26
0.679
Residential,
governmental
services and
institutional
9.59
30.6
100
SWWA17
41.1
0.237
43.1
SWMI 18
10.3
0.561
5.86
21.6
100000
Site No.
Volume (measured runoff), m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
10000
1000
100
10
0.1
0.1
Freeway
related land,
communication
and utilities
10
100
1000
10000
Volume (calculated from rainfall), m
100000
Fig. 2 Measured and calculated (rainfall-based) runoff volumes for

18 sites during 20002004
ArcGIS. Storm sewer line data contained useful information 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).
Parking, industrial,
business and
commercial
9.05
Roads
6.38
23.1
Outdoor
recreational,
open lands
5.67
8.76
2.21
3.53
17.4
19.3
15.1
19.4
15.9
68.6
5.79
4.02
Initial estimates of runoff coefficients b were used as a

guide to determine if an area adjustment appeared to be
necessary, for example, if b was greater than one or it is
very small. The first estimate of b was obtained by
dividing total runoff volume by the volume of rainfall
falling onto the initially estimated drainage area. Because
the occurrence of extraneous inflows (illegal connection of
untreated sanitary sewage and/or ground water infiltration)
was only a minor concern in the study area, unreasonable b
values can be explained by ill-defined original drainage
areas.
A large b may indicate underestimation of drainage
areas, while a very small b may imply overestimation of
the drainage area. Area adjustments were guided in part by
GIS, considering sewer lines and topography information.
By integrating sewer lines and topography information into
the GIS, the area adjustments were done by re-outlining the
drainage boundary.
Optimizing Runoff Coefficients for Characteristic
Subareas
Drainage areas and runoff coefficients were adjusted so
that they became consistent with runoff coefficients calculated based on optimized runoff coefficients for each GIS
subarea j of a specific land use type. Percent land use data
123
206
from Table 2 was used to formulate the following optimization model:

Minimize S
18
X
^ 2
bi b
i
i1
Spatial Analysis and Drainage Area for Milwaukee

County Zoo
where
^
b
i
5
X
fij ^
aj
i 1; 2; 3; . . .; 18
j1
subject to
5
X
fij 1
i 1; 2; 3; . . .; 18 and 0 ^
aj 1
j1
^ are measured and the model

In these equations, bi and b
i
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
j in the drainage area i is fij. By using guessed initial values
of ^
aj for the jth land use based on general runoff coefficient
^ was
information about each subarea (McCuen 2004), b
i
estimated using the fractional area distribution fij for the jth
land use of site i (Eq. 2).
The Solver command in Microsoft Excel was used to
find the optimized solutions ^
aj (minimum S value) for the
sum of squares of differences between the measured and
the calculated runoff coefficients (Eq. 1). Equation 3
denotes the constraints of the objective function (Eq. 1).
Additionally, in order to examine whether the solutions
were unique, additional calculations were performed with
different start values for runoff coefficients of GIS
subareas.
Results and Discussion

Measured and Calculated Runoff Volumes
Initial and final drainage areas, including runoff coefficients are listed in Table 1. Median runoff coefficients
were calculated based on runoff coefficients for each event
(Appendix A, Table 5). Figure 2 shows a plot of the
measured runoff volume versus the calculated runoff volume based on rainfall, new areas and new median runoff
coefficients for 372 storm events in 18 monitoring catchments. 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
123
low runoff coefficients, which generally may be attributed

to low rainfall events where depression volumes can give
low measured runoff volume.
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 (imperviousness) 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 residential, business and commercial, industrial, freeway
related land, roads, parking, transportation, communications and utilities, governmental services and institutional,
outdoor recreational, and open lands. In the new area of site
SWMI06, the major land use type is outdoor recreational,
and is 55% of the total area. The parking and open lands
are 29% and 16% of the total drainage area, respectively.
The original area was 10.6 ha, and the new area is 3.67
times higher, 38.9 ha. The runoff coefficient is therefore
reduced by the same factor so that it becomes 2.18/
3.67 = 0.597 (Table 1) which compares well to the model
predicted value of 0.546 (Fig. 4).
Model Predicted Runoff Coefficients (Optimization)
Other examples of drainage area adjustments prompted in
part by the lack of fit of calculated to measured runoff
coefficients were for the Whitefish Bay site, SWWB09 and
for the Boerner botanical gardens parking lot, SWGF10.
Through inspection of the GIS map of site SWWB09
(Soonthornnonda 2007), it became clear that the drainage
area was overestimated (57.4 ha), and that it should be
reduced in the north end and extended to the south of the
original area to cover the storm sewer lines. The modified
runoff coefficient of SWWB09 based on the new drainage
area (46.0 ha) was adjusted from 0.100 to 0.125. The calculated runoff coefficient was 0.166 (Fig. 4).
207
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

^ (uncertainty bars show the standard error for each
runoff coefficient b
drainage area)
For the botanical garden site SWGF10, we originally

included a large area east of the parking lot so that the total
area was 71.4 ha, producing a median runoff coefficient of
0.01. However, inspection of the GIS map and field
observations revealed that most of the eastern area was on a
downwards slope towards the east, preventing the runoff
from entering the drainage pipe just south of the parking lot
(Soonthornnonda 2007). The new area included the main
area of the parking lot (1.47 ha) giving a runoff coefficient
of 0.486, significantly less than the calculated value of
0.580. By replacing the parking with the more realistic
81.8% parking and 18.2% roads (Table 2), the calculated
runoff coefficient was reduced to a better fitting value of

0.472 (Fig. 4). This change was justified by aerial photographs and field inspection, revealing grassy areas subdividing the parking lot. The standard error of the calculated
^ for each drainage area was 0.047
runoff coefficients b
i
(Fig. 4). To emphasize that both measured and model
predicted runoff coefficient have errors we have here
shown the uncertainty bars with the measured values.
Optimized values of the GIS subarea runoff coefficients
are shown in Table 3. These values were found to be
independent of initial guessed values. Standard errors were
obtained by considering uncertainties of subdivisions by
land use type. Error estimation using Solver was conducted
using a Monte Carlo approach in which ten sets of variations of land use coefficients fij based on the data of
Table 2 were considered. For fij \ 65%, the average relative 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) (Table 4). 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
123
208
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
well with runoff coefficients in Table 4 for parking and

commercial areas along with some meadow areas reflecting
grass and planted areas. Likewise, the coefficient for roads,
0.226, should be viewed not just to reflect streets but also
encompassing planted areas in the middle of divided
highways, as well as curbside grass and trees: that is,
meadow and forest. The last category, outdoor and recreational and open lands with a runoff coefficient of 0.561
should be compared with streets, meadow and open space
to include paved recreational areas as in the Milwaukee
County Zoo (Fig. 3).
Conclusion
Table 4 Runoff coefficients for the rational formula versus hydrological soil group (A, B, C) modified after McCuen (1998)
Land use type
Forest
Residential lot
Industrial
Commercial
Streets
Open space
Parking
a
26%
02%
26%
02%
26%
0.10b
0.16
0.14
0.22
0.20
0.28
0.14c
0.22
0.20
0.28
0.26
0.35
0.05
0.08
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.13
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.18
0.12
0.16
0.14
0.19
0.17
0.21
0.20
0.25
0.33
0.37
0.35
0.39
0.38
0.42
02%
Meadow
B
a
0.67
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.69
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.72
0.88
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.70
0.71
0.71
0.72
0.72
0.73
0.76
0.77
0.80
0.82
0.84
0.85
0.05
0.10
0.08
0.13
0.12
0.17
0.11
0.16
0.14
0.19
0.18
0.23
0.85
0.86
0.85
0.86
0.85
0.86
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.96
0.95
0.96
Slope, runoff coefficients for storm recurrence intervals less than

25 years, c runoff coefficients for storm recurrence intervals of
25 years or longer
is in general agreement with runoff coefficients for streets,

soil types AC, 06% slope, also with s \ 25 years.
Considering parking, industrial, business and commercial areas, the coefficient of 0.527 compares reasonably
The runoff coefficients for the 18 drainage areas are well

determined (Fig. 4). The new estimated drainage area sizes
provide a better understanding of the drainage pattern and
present information required for decision making and best
stormwater management practices (BMPs). From the above
discussion, the runoff coefficients of the GIS subareas
(Table 3) are also reasonable. Prediction of runoff coefficient for drainage areas in different geographic regions and
different climate by Eq. 2 may be possible if soil types,
slopes, and rainfall patterns are similar. Application of the
present methodology to areas with different values of these
parameters may be feasible using well-known empirical
corrections (McCuen 2004).
This study provided a novel method to determine runoff
coefficients for each GIS subarea, which was then used in
the calculation of runoff coefficients for each drainage area
according to Eqs. 1 and 2. This gives consistency in the
estimation; i.e., the same runoff coefficient for a particular
subarea such as roads is used in each drainage area.
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the Milwaukee
Metropolitan Sewerage District (M03023E01). We thank Urbain
Boudjou, Mary Singer, Christopher Magruder, Sara Hackbarth, and
Sarah Seifert for helpful discussions.
Appendix A
See Table 5.
Table 5 Rainfall events with runoff coefficients

Site
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m3)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
24.6
11/6/2000 13:00
11/7/2000 3:00
14
0.264
0.333
5/16/2001 1:00
5/16/2001 4:00
84.1
6.35
0.618
0.333
5/21/2001 8:00
5/21/2001 15:00
83.6
5.33
0.733
0.333
123
139
Rainfall
depth (mm)
209
Table 5 continued
Site
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m3)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
5/26/2001 20:00
5/27/2001 9:00
13
229
24.6
0.434
0.333
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
475
46
0.483
0.333
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
20.1
0.224
0.333
8/9/2001 17:00
8/9/2001 19:00
227
21.8
0.486
0.333
10/22/2001 14:00
10/23/2001 5:00
15
371
40.1
0.432
0.333
96.1
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
17.8
0.096
0.333
10
8/12/2002 18:00
8/13/2002 1:00
391
36.4
53.1
0.344
0.333
11
8/21/2002 19:00
8/21/2002 21:00
163
14.7
0.517
0.333
1
1
12
13
8/21/2002 22:00
10/4/2002 4:00
8/22/2002 1:00
10/4/2002 13:00
3
9
68.9
19.4
10.9
14.5
0.295
0.062
0.333
0.333
14
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
47.2
0.255
0.333
15
10/24/2003 14:00
10/24/2003 22:00
15.5
0.340
0.333
16
4/17/2004 1:00
4/17/2004 4:00
43.1
6.6
0.305
0.333
17
6/10/2004 11:00
6/10/2004 16:00
98.7
23.4
0.197
0.333
18
4/5/2001 15:00
4/5/2001 19:00
0.159
0.399
19
4/8/2001 22:00
4/9/2001 6:00
0.169
0.399
20
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 2:00
1.68
3.05
0.096
0.399
21
4/15/2001 19:00
4/15/2001 21:00
6.27
2.54
0.429
0.399
22
5/3/2001 6:00
5/3/2001 10:00
23
5/7/2001 6:00
5/7/2001 7:00
1.99
24
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
25
5/16/2001 3:00
5/16/2001 4:00
26
5/17/2001 18:00
5/17/2001 19:00
2
2
27
28
5/21/2001 8:00
5/23/2001 13:00
29
30
2
2
113
3.72
24.9
13.1
8.64
4.06
25.7
0.219
0.399
1.52
0.228
0.399
3.26
1.78
0.319
0.399
3.92
1.27
0.538
0.399
2.45
0.51
0.836
0.399
5/21/2001 15:00
5/23/2001 15:00
7
2
8.26
1.53
5.33
1.27
0.270
0.209
0.399
0.399
5/26/2001 20:00
5/27/2001 8:00
12
20.1
0.354
0.399
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
111
35.1
0.550
0.399
31
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
112
19.8
0.983
0.399
32
8/15/2001 23:00
8/16/2001 10:00
11
42.9
0.369
0.399
33
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
11.4
1.654
0.399
34
10/4/2002 8:00
10/4/2002 13:00
76.1
10.9
1.216
0.399
35
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
15.8
7.87
0.350
0.399
36
5/20/2004 15:00
5/20/2004 17:00
31.4
6.1
0.896
0.399
37
10/23/2000 12:00
10/23/2000 14:00
13.9
1.02
0.255
0.392
38
11/6/2000 13:00
11/7/2000 0:00
11
24.4
0.425
0.392
39
11/9/2000 0:00
11/9/2000 8:00
94.7
10.4
0.170
0.392
40
11/29/2000 2:00
11/29/2000 7:00
15.6
6.1
0.047
0.392
41
4/5/2001 14:00
4/5/2001 18:00
99.7
4.32
0.429
0.392
3
3
42
43
4/8/2001 22:00
4/11/2001 0:00
4/9/2001 6:00
4/11/2001 2:00
8
2
627
11.6
27.7
1.52
0.421
0.142
0.392
0.392
44
4/15/2001 19:00
4/15/2001 20:00
56
2.03
0.514
0.392
45
4/30/2001 13:00
4/30/2001 15:00
42.6
3.05
0.259
0.392
46
5/7/2001 5:00
5/7/2001 7:00
35.9
2.29
0.292
0.392
47
5/7/2001 11:00
5/7/2001 14:00
0.619
0.392
48
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
0.501
0.392
49
5/14/2001 10:00
5/14/2001 15:00
586
23.6
0.462
0.392
50
5/21/2001 7:00
5/21/2001 15:00
136
6.6
0.383
0.392
40.8
91.3
108
557
373
95.8
10.4
11.2
3.56
123
210
Table 5 continued
Site
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m3)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Median runoff
coefficient
51
5/23/2001 12:00
5/23/2001 14:00
101
0.492
0.392
52
5/26/2001 18:00
5/27/2001 12:00
18
479
25.7
0.346
0.392
53
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
2273
50.3
0.841
0.392
54
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
360
17.3
0.388
0.392
55
8/9/2001 17:00
8/9/2001 19:00
26.9
0.066
0.392
56
8/15/2001 22:00
8/16/2001 9:00
11
125
47
0.049
0.392
57
6/3/2002 3:00
6/3/2002 9:00
201
29.5
0.127
0.392
58
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
512
27.4
0.349
0.392
3
3
59
60
8/12/2002 19:00
8/21/2002 19:00
8/13/2002 0:00
8/22/2002 15:00
5
20
298
871
51.3
41.1
0.108
0.394
0.392
0.392
61
10/1/2002 22:00
10/2/2002 4:00
218
10.2
0.399
0.392
62
10/4/2002 7:00
10/4/2002 13:00
260
10.4
0.464
0.392
63
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 15:00
186
6.1
0.569
0.392
64
7/15/2003 1:00
7/15/2003 4:00
504
12.2
0.769
0.392
65
10/24/2003 14:00
10/24/2003 22:00
324
13.7
66
4/17/2004 2:00
4/17/2004 4:00
216
67
5/21/2004 8:00
5/21/2004 10:00
311
68
11/6/2000 17:00
11/7/2000 3:00
10
9049
69
11/8/2000 23:00
11/9/2000 14:00
15
13955
70
5/16/2001 1:00
5/16/2001 4:00
5328
71
5/26/2001 20:00
5/27/2001 9:00
13
10083
72
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
25021
46
0.209
0.187
73
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
7921
20.1
0.152
0.187
4
4
74
75
8/9/2001 17:00
8/15/2001 23:00
8/9/2001 19:00
8/16/2001 9:00
2
10
10367
26012
21.8
46.2
0.183
0.217
0.187
0.187
76
10/22/2001 14:00
10/23/2001 1:00
11
18705
39.9
0.180
0.187
77
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
10518
17.8
0.227
0.187
78
8/12/2002 18:00
8/13/2002 1:00
28507
53.1
0.206
0.187
79
8/21/2002 19:00
8/22/2002 11:00
16
16265
41.1
0.152
0.187
80
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
3061
8.64
0.136
0.187
81
7/15/2003 1:00
7/15/2003 5:00
2045
6.86
0.115
0.187
82
4/17/2004 1:00
4/17/2004 4:00
2597
6.6
0.151
0.187
83
5/21/2004 8:00
5/21/2004 10:00
5840
11.9
0.189
0.187
84
6/10/2004 7:00
6/11/2004 12:00
29
19023
40.6
0.180
0.187
85
10/23/2000 20:00
10/23/2000 22:00
0.139
0.252
86
11/8/2000 23:00
11/9/2000 15:00
16
129
16.8
0.210
0.252
87
11/29/2000 1:00
11/29/2000 14:00
13
197
12.4
0.433
0.252
88
4/5/2001 15:00
4/5/2001 19:00
39
4.06
0.262
0.252
5
5
89
90
4/8/2001 22:00
4/11/2001 0:00
4/9/2001 6:00
4/11/2001 2:00
8
2
368
34.4
25.7
3.05
0.390
0.308
0.252
0.252
91
4/15/2001 19:00
4/15/2001 21:00
49.6
2.54
0.532
0.252
92
5/3/2001 6:00
5/3/2001 10:00
88.3
0.231
0.252
93
5/7/2001 6:00
5/7/2001 7:00
15.9
0.284
0.252
94
5/7/2001 10:00
5/7/2001 14:00
141
15.2
0.253
0.252
95
5/10/2001 20:00
5/11/2001 0:00
178
20.1
0.241
0.252
96
5/14/2001 11:00
5/14/2001 14:00
135
15.2
0.241
0.252
97
5/16/2001 3:00
5/16/2001 4:00
0.238
0.252
123
95.8
19.4
11.1
3.81
Runoff
coefficient
0.440
0.392
0.510
0.392
11.2
0.519
0.392
23.4
0.149
0.187
21.6
0.248
0.187
0.323
0.187
0.158
0.187
7.87
6.35
24.6
3.81
10.4
1.52
1.27
211
Table 5 continued
Site
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m3)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
98
5/17/2001 18:00
5/17/2001 19:00
52.3
0.51
2.796
0.252
99
5/23/2001 13:00
5/23/2001 15:00
10.7
1.27
0.228
0.252
100
5/26/2001 20:00
5/27/2001 8:00
12
240
20.1
0.325
0.252
101
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
313
35.1
0.242
0.252
102
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
168
19.8
0.231
0.252
103
8/9/2001 16:00
8/9/2001 18:00
21.8
0.060
0.252
104
10/22/2001 15:00
10/23/2001 0:00
392
42.4
0.252
0.252
105
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
156
11.4
0.374
0.252
5
5
106
107
10/2/2002 0:00
10/4/2002 8:00
10/2/2002 5:00
10/4/2002 13:00
5
5
262
44.4
10.4
10.9
0.687
0.111
0.252
0.252
108
10/23/2000 20:00
10/23/2000 21:00
253
3.3
0.197
0.597
109
11/8/2000 23:00
11/9/2000 14:00
15
2614
18.3
0.365
0.597
110
4/8/2001 22:00
4/9/2001 6:00
8346
28.7
0.744
0.597
111
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 2:00
648
1.308
0.597
112
5/3/2001 5:00
5/3/2001 10:00
3019
113
5/7/2001 5:00
5/7/2001 7:00
545
114
5/7/2001 11:00
5/7/2001 13:00
115
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
116
5/14/2001 10:00
5/14/2001 14:00
117
5/16/2001 2:00
118
6
6
47.9
1.27
0.474
0.597
1.52
0.918
0.597
2526
9.4
0.689
0.597
1734
3.3
1.346
0.597
6288
24.4
0.659
0.597
5/16/2001 4:00
1139
5/21/2001 7:00
5/21/2001 15:00
4338
119
5/23/2001 12:00
5/23/2001 14:00
1306
4.414
0.597
120
5/26/2001 19:00
5/27/2001 8:00
13
7058
12.4
1.458
0.597
6
6
121
122
6/11/2001 21:00
7/17/2001 8:00
6/12/2001 6:00
7/17/2001 11:00
9
3
16561
3113
57.7
15.2
0.736
0.526
0.597
0.597
123
10/22/2001 14:00
10/23/2001 0:00
10
8083
36.6
0.567
0.597
124
6/2/2002 19:00
6/2/2002 22:00
672
3.3
0.523
0.597
125
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 2:00
3431
19.1
0.461
0.597
126
8/12/2002 16:00
8/12/2002 23:00
15991
81.5
0.501
0.597
127
8/21/2002 19:00
8/22/2002 14:00
19
10296
45.7
0.578
0.597
128
10/2/2002 0:00
10/2/2002 5:00
4745
16.5
0.736
0.597
129
10/4/2002 8:00
10/4/2002 13:00
1829
0.559
0.597
130
4/30/2003 11:00
4/30/2003 14:00
1754
0.610
0.597
131
7/15/2003 1:00
7/15/2003 4:00
1922
11.7
0.420
0.597
132
10/24/2003 15:00
10/24/2003 22:00
2389
18.5
0.330
0.597
133
4/17/2004 2:00
4/17/2004 4:00
847
0.259
0.597
134
5/20/2004 15:00
5/20/2004 17:00
1444
15
0.247
0.597
135
5/21/2004 7:00
5/21/2004 10:00
3747
15
0.640
0.597
6
6
136
137
6/10/2004 9:00
7/21/2004 11:00
6/11/2004 14:00
7/21/2004 14:00
29
3
9005
608
43.7
1.78
0.529
0.875
0.597
0.597
138
8/24/2004 6:00
8/24/2004 8:00
0.76
2.583
0.597
139
10/22/2004 22:00
10/23/2004 11:00
0.548
0.597
140
11/2/2000 5:00
0.039
0.266
141
0.067
0.266
142
0.024
0.266
0.087
0.266
0.262
0.266
766
13
3201
11/2/2000 7:00
178
11/9/2000 0:00
11/9/2000 14:00
14
2622
11/16/2000 4:00
11/16/2000 8:00
109
143
11/29/2000 3:00
11/29/2000 14:00
11
2593
144
4/5/2001 16:00
4/5/2001 18:00
2387
16.3
4.06
13
0.76
8.38
7.37
8.38
15
1.78
15.2
1.78
11.7
3.56
0.719
0.597
0.856
0.597
123
212
Table 5 continued
Runoff
volume (m3)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
27114
25.1
3093
5/3/2001 10:00
11270
0.347
0.266
5/7/2001 7:00
770
1.52
0.198
0.266
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
1039
1.52
0.267
0.266
150
5/14/2001 11:00
5/14/2001 14:00
9017
15.7
0.225
0.266
151
5/17/2001 18:00
5/17/2001 19:00
4190
3.3
0.497
0.266
152
5/21/2001 7:00
5/21/2001 15:00
6913
6.6
0.410
0.266
7
7
153
154
5/23/2001 13:00
5/26/2001 20:00
5/23/2001 15:00
5/27/2001 8:00
2
12
4460
24485
5.59
25.4
0.312
0.377
0.266
0.266
155
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
50241
41.1
0.478
0.266
156
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
6951
14
0.194
0.266
157
8/15/2001 23:00
8/16/2001 8:00
13508
27.9
0.190
0.266
158
10/22/2001 14:00
10/23/2001 0:00
10
38125
38.1
0.392
0.266
159
6/2/2002 19:00
6/3/2002 9:00
14
27008
27.7
0.382
0.266
160
8/4/2002 3:00
8/4/2002 5:00
2180
0.198
0.266
161
8/12/2002 17:00
8/12/2002 23:00
39139
54.9
0.279
0.266
162
8/21/2002 19:00
8/22/2002 13:00
18
38126
50.3
0.297
0.266
163
9/18/2002 4:00
9/18/2002 10:00
5785
8.64
0.262
0.266
164
10/1/2002 22:00
10/2/2002 5:00
5940
9.65
0.241
0.266
165
10/4/2002 8:00
10/4/2002 13:00
5081
7.37
0.270
0.266
166
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
5288
9.65
0.214
0.266
167
11/2/2000 4:00
11/2/2000 7:00
310
1.52
0.064
0.225
8
8
168
169
11/16/2000 5:00
4/8/2001 22:00
11/16/2000 8:00
4/9/2001 6:00
3
8
597
9390
2.54
27.2
0.074
0.108
0.225
0.225
170
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 2:00
1084
1.02
0.333
0.225
171
4/15/2001 18:00
4/15/2001 21:00
2273
2.54
0.280
0.225
172
5/3/2001 5:00
5/3/2001 10:00
12614
173
5/7/2001 6:00
5/7/2001 7:00
748
174
5/7/2001 11:00
5/7/2001 14:00
5787
175
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
1434
176
5/14/2001 10:00
5/14/2001 14:00
16767
177
5/16/2001 3:00
5/16/2001 4:00
1144
178
5/17/2001 17:00
5/17/2001 19:00
1940
179
5/21/2001 7:00
5/21/2001 15:00
6765
180
5/23/2001 13:00
5/23/2001 14:00
1934
181
5/26/2001 22:00
5/27/2001 8:00
10
14727
182
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
36269
40.9
0.278
0.225
8
8
183
184
7/17/2001 8:00
8/15/2001 23:00
7/17/2001 11:00
8/16/2001 10:00
3
11
9511
25309
17.5
35.1
0.170
0.226
0.225
0.225
185
10/22/2001 14:00
10/23/2001 0:00
10
15116
36.6
186
10/23/2000 20:00
10/23/2000 22:00
55
187
11/2/2000 5:00
11/2/2000 7:00
188
11/16/2000 6:00
11/16/2000 8:00
189
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 2:00
181
190
4/15/2001 19:00
4/15/2001 21:00
194
191
5/7/2001 6:00
5/7/2001 7:00
Site
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
145
4/8/2001 22:00
4/9/2001 6:00
146
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 2:00
147
5/3/2001 5:00
148
5/7/2001 5:00
149
7
7
123
Storm duration
(h)
9.07
10.5
75.4
2.03
12.7
4.32
29
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
0.423
0.266
0.596
0.266
0.136
0.225
0.229
0.225
0.134
0.225
0.252
0.225
0.248
0.225
1.78
0.201
0.225
3.56
0.170
0.225
9.14
0.232
0.225
1.02
0.593
0.225
0.274
0.225
1.02
13.5
1.78
21.1
16.8
0.129
0.225
5.08
0.024
0.125
1.78
0.011
0.125
2.54
0.009
0.125
2.79
0.141
0.125
2.79
0.151
0.125
1.27
0.130
0.125
213
Table 5 continued
Event end
Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m3)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
18.5
0.126
0.125
0.172
0.125
Site
Event
no.
Event start
192
5/14/2001 10:00
5/14/2001 14:00
1072
193
5/16/2001 3:00
5/16/2001 4:00
120
1.52
194
5/17/2001 17:00
5/17/2001 19:00
188
2.03
0.201
0.125
195
5/26/2001 21:00
5/27/2001 8:00
11
873
29
0.066
0.125
196
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
2307
36.3
0.139
0.125
197
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
984
18
0.119
0.125
198
8/15/2001 23:00
8/16/2001 10:00
11
2057
30.7
0.146
0.125
199
6/2/2002 19:00
6/3/2002 9:00
14
3903
49.5
0.172
0.125
9
9
200
201
7/26/2002 0:00
8/12/2002 17:00
7/26/2002 2:00
8/12/2002 23:00
2
6
256
2724
2.29
63.2
0.243
0.094
0.125
0.125
202
10/2/2002 0:00
10/2/2002 5:00
12.3
7.62
0.004
0.125
203
10/4/2002 8:00
10/4/2002 13:00
31.9
8.89
0.008
0.125
204
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
5.08
0.251
0.125
205
7/15/2003 1:00
7/15/2003 4:00
5.08
0.003
0.125
206
10/24/2003 15:00
10/24/2003 22:00
725
207
4/17/2004 2:00
4/17/2004 4:00
360
10
208
11/2/2000 4:00
11/2/2000 7:00
10
209
11/6/2000 13:00
11/7/2000 0:00
11
10
210
4/5/2001 14:00
4/5/2001 18:00
10
211
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 1:00
10
212
5/3/2001 6:00
10
213
10
214
10
10
587
6.52
19.8
16.8
0.094
0.125
7.87
0.100
0.125
2.29
0.588
0.486
23.9
1.069
0.486
37.6
6.1
0.420
0.486
34.8
2.79
0.850
0.486
5/3/2001 10:00
69
5.84
0.806
0.486
5/7/2001 11:00
5/7/2001 13:00
53.5
10.7
0.340
0.486
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
28.5
3.3
0.588
0.486
215
216
5/14/2001 10:00
5/16/2001 3:00
5/14/2001 14:00
5/16/2001 4:00
4
1
295
11.2
23.6
3.81
0.850
0.200
0.486
0.486
10
217
5/21/2001 7:00
5/21/2001 15:00
7.11
10
218
5/26/2001 20:00
5/27/2001 8:00
12
10
219
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
10
220
8/15/2001 22:00
8/16/2001 9:00
11
176
10
221
10/22/2001 15:00
10/23/2001 1:00
10
10
222
6/3/2002 4:00
6/3/2002 9:00
10
223
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
10
224
8/12/2002 18:00
10
225
8/21/2002 19:00
10
226
10
375
0.889
0.486
14.2
0.748
0.486
15.2
0.263
0.486
26.9
0.444
0.486
178
33
0.367
0.486
122
22.9
0.364
0.486
124
46.5
0.182
0.486
8/12/2002 23:00
224
45.5
0.335
0.486
8/22/2002 12:00
17
37.6
0.085
0.486
10/4/2002 8:00
10/4/2002 13:00
9.53
8.13
0.080
0.486
227
4/30/2003 6:00
4/30/2003 8:00
7.85
3.3
0.162
0.486
10
228
7/15/2003 1:00
7/15/2003 4:00
19.3
0.539
0.486
10
229
4/17/2004 2:00
4/17/2004 5:00
68.2
8.13
0.573
0.486
10
10
230
231
5/21/2004 8:00
6/10/2004 9:00
5/21/2004 10:00
6/11/2004 5:00
2
20
62.8
138
7.37
25.4
0.578
0.370
0.486
0.486
10
232
7/21/2004 12:00
7/21/2004 14:00
31.4
8.64
0.247
0.486
10
233
8/24/2004 6:00
8/24/2004 7:00
27.7
3.3
0.573
0.486
10
234
10/22/2004 22:00
10/23/2004 11:00
0.344
0.486
11
235
11/2/2000 4:00
11/2/2000 7:00
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
6.1
0.067
0.211
13
92.7
156
58.8
46.9
152
86
13.7
28.6
17
2.29
123
214
Table 5 continued
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
27.2
0.327
0.211
0.134
0.211
20.1
0.431
0.211
14.7
3.3
0.064
0.211
52.3
5.84
0.128
0.211
1.27
0.328
0.211
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
11
239
4/8/2001 22:00
4/9/2001 6:00
11
240
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 1:00
11
241
4/11/2001 5:00
4/11/2001 20:00
15
11
242
4/15/2001 18:00
4/15/2001 20:00
11
243
5/3/2001 6:00
5/3/2001 10:00
11
244
5/7/2001 5:00
5/7/2001 6:00
11
245
5/7/2001 11:00
5/7/2001 13:00
102
10.7
0.136
0.211
11
246
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
36
3.3
0.156
0.211
11
11
247
248
5/16/2001 3:00
5/17/2001 18:00
5/16/2001 4:00
5/17/2001 19:00
1
1
42.6
22
3.81
2.29
0.160
0.137
0.211
0.211
11
249
5/21/2001 7:00
5/21/2001 15:00
90
7.11
0.181
0.211
11
250
5/23/2001 13:00
5/23/2001 14:00
53
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
182
15.2
0.171
0.211
11
253
8/9/2001 17:00
8/9/2001 19:00
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
283
22.9
0.177
0.211
11
257
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
804
46.5
0.247
0.211
11
258
8/12/2002 18:00
8/12/2002 23:00
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
97.5
8.13
0.171
0.211
11
261
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
57.1
7.11
0.115
0.211
11
11
262
263
4/17/2004 2:00
5/21/2004 8:00
4/17/2004 5:00
5/21/2004 10:00
3
2
41.6
83.1
8.13
7.37
0.073
0.162
0.211
0.211
11
264
6/10/2004 9:00
6/11/2004 5:00
20
11
265
7/21/2004 12:00
7/21/2004 14:00
11
266
8/24/2004 6:00
8/24/2004 7:00
11
267
10/22/2004 22:00
10/23/2004 11:00
13
114
17
12
268
11/6/2000 13:00
11/7/2000 0:00
11
802
12
269
11/28/2000 23:00
11/29/2000 15:00
16
141
12
270
4/5/2001 15:00
4/5/2001 18:00
115
12
271
4/8/2001 22:00
4/9/2001 6:00
1369
12
272
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 1:00
67.9
2.79
12
273
4/11/2001 5:00
4/11/2001 10:00
89.5
4.32
12
274
5/3/2001 5:00
5/3/2001 10:00
12
275
5/7/2001 5:00
5/7/2001 7:00
12
276
5/7/2001 11:00
5/7/2001 13:00
12
12
277
278
5/16/2001 3:00
5/21/2001 7:00
5/16/2001 4:00
5/21/2001 15:00
1
8
12
279
5/23/2001 13:00
5/23/2001 14:00
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
3919
60.5
0.370
0.177
12
282
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
655
15.5
0.242
0.177
12
283
8/9/2001 17:00
8/9/2001 18:00
303
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
123
Storm duration
(h)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Site
Runoff
volume (m3)
620
26.1
606
29.1
208
2.79
1.52
0.117
0.211
8.64
0.111
0.211
3.3
0.074
0.211
0.096
0.211
25.1
0.182
0.177
10.2
0.079
0.177
0.136
0.177
0.259
0.177
0.139
0.177
0.118
0.177
0.114
0.177
1.52
0.130
0.177
294
9.4
0.178
0.177
118
173
6.6
7.11
0.102
0.139
0.177
0.177
67.3
17.1
208
34.5
27.5
25.4
4.83
30.2
10.4
2.29
4.83
215
Table 5 continued
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
0.091
0.177
0.210
0.177
68.3
0.266
0.177
44.2
0.259
0.177
13
0.231
0.177
7.11
0.222
0.177
7.62
0.233
0.177
15.7
0.135
0.177
717
213
19.3
3.81
0.086
0.129
0.123
0.123
218
4.57
0.110
0.123
5/3/2001 12:00
900
5/7/2001 14:00
604
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
300
5/14/2001 10:00
5/14/2001 14:00
1457
13
301
5/16/2001 3:00
5/16/2001 4:00
122
13
302
5/17/2001 18:00
5/17/2001 19:00
360
3.56
0.233
0.123
13
303
5/21/2001 7:00
5/21/2001 15:00
867
8.38
0.239
0.123
13
304
5/23/2001 13:00
5/23/2001 14:00
186
13
305
5/26/2001 21:00
5/27/2001 8:00
11
1202
13
306
6/11/2001 21:00
6/12/2001 7:00
10
13
307
7/17/2001 8:00
7/17/2001 11:00
13
308
8/15/2001 22:00
8/16/2001 9:00
13
13
309
310
10/22/2001 14:00
6/2/2002 19:00
10/23/2001 0:00
6/2/2002 22:00
10
3
13
311
8/21/2002 19:00
8/22/2002 0:00
13
312
9/18/2002 4:00
9/18/2002 10:00
13
313
10/1/2002 23:00
10/2/2002 5:00
13
314
10/4/2002 8:00
10/4/2002 13:00
13
315
7/15/2003 1:00
13
316
13
Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
volume (m3)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Site
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
12
286
6/2/2002 19:00
6/2/2002 22:00
12
287
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 5:00
1558
42.4
12
288
8/12/2002 18:00
8/12/2002 23:00
3173
12
289
8/21/2002 19:00
8/22/2002 12:00
17
2004
12
290
10/2/2002 0:00
10/2/2002 5:00
526
12
291
10/4/2002 8:00
10/4/2002 13:00
277
12
292
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
310
12
293
10/24/2003 15:00
10/24/2003 22:00
372
13
13
294
295
11/8/2000 21:00
4/5/2001 15:00
11/9/2000 14:00
4/5/2001 18:00
17
3
13
296
4/15/2001 18:00
4/15/2001 20:00
13
297
5/3/2001 5:00
13
298
5/7/2001 11:00
13
299
13
40.4
92.2
2.54
15.7
0.133
0.123
7.62
0.183
0.123
2.29
0.093
0.123
0.152
0.123
0.079
0.123
22.1
3.56
0.211
0.123
16
0.174
0.123
297
51.6
0.013
0.123
506
16.8
0.070
0.123
11
102
31.5
0.008
0.123
207
58.9
40.4
3.81
0.012
0.036
0.123
0.123
1826
27.2
0.155
0.123
475
11.7
0.094
0.123
874
11.9
0.169
0.123
395
9.65
0.095
0.123
7/15/2003 4:00
542
8.64
0.145
0.123
5/20/2004 15:00
5/20/2004 17:00
305
9.65
0.073
0.123
317
5/21/2004 7:00
5/21/2004 9:00
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
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
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
102
20.1
0.148
0.187
14
14
324
325
8/9/2001 17:00
10/22/2001 14:00
8/9/2001 19:00
10/23/2001 5:00
2
15
160
310
21.8
40.1
0.213
0.225
0.187
0.187
14
326
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
138
17.8
0.225
0.187
14
327
8/12/2002 18:00
8/12/2002 23:00
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
10.4
14
0.022
0.187
15
330
4/5/2001 15:00
4/5/2001 18:00
51.2
4.06
0.471
0.495
15
331
4/11/2001 0:00
4/11/2001 2:00
35.9
2.03
0.661
0.495
15
332
4/15/2001 18:00
4/15/2001 20:00
36.8
3.81
0.360
0.495
72.9
2.03
5.84
123
216
Table 5 continued
Storm duration
(h)
Runoff
coefficient
Median runoff
coefficient
10.4
Event
no.
Event start
Event end
15
333
5/3/2001 5:00
5/3/2001 9:00
15
334
5/7/2001 5:00
5/7/2001 7:00
15
335
5/7/2001 11:00
5/7/2001 13:00
15
336
5/10/2001 2:00
5/10/2001 4:00
15
337
5/14/2001 10:00
5/14/2001 14:00
401
15
338
5/16/2001 3:00
5/16/2001 4:00
97
15
339
5/17/2001 18:00
5/17/2001 19:00
26.1
15
340
5/23/2001 13:00
5/23/2001 15:00
61
15
15
341
342
6/11/2001 21:00
8/15/2001 22:00
6/12/2001 6:00
8/16/2001 9:00
9
11
1062
415
15
343
10/22/2001 14:00
10/23/2001 0:00
10
15
344
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
15
345
8/12/2002 18:00
8/12/2002 23:00
15
346
9/18/2002 4:00
9/18/2002 10:00
15
347
4/30/2003 12:00
15
348
7/15/2003 1:00
15
349
4/17/2004 2:00
4/17/2004 4:00
15
350
5/20/2004 15:00
5/20/2004 17:00
15
351
5/21/2004 7:00
5/21/2004 10:00
15
352
6/10/2004 9:00
6/11/2004 12:00
27
16
353
6/2/2002 19:00
6/2/2002 23:00
16
354
7/26/2002 0:00
7/26/2002 3:00
779
16
355
8/12/2002 18:00
8/12/2002 23:00
1246
16
16
356
357
9/18/2002 4:00
5/20/2004 15:00
9/18/2002 10:00
5/20/2004 18:00
6
3
16
358
5/21/2004 7:00
5/21/2004 10:00
16
359
6/10/2004 7:00
6/11/2004 13:00
16
360
7/21/2004 12:00
7/21/2004 14:00
103
0.583
0.679
16
361
8/24/2004 19:00
8/24/2004 23:00
497
25.1
0.875
0.679
17
362
4/30/2003 12:00
4/30/2003 14:00
752
10.9
0.169
0.237
17
363
7/15/2003 1:00
7/15/2003 4:00
552
9.65
0.140
0.237
17
364
4/17/2004 2:00
4/17/2004 4:00
812
8.38
0.237
0.237
17
365
5/20/2004 15:00
5/20/2004 17:00
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
18
368
7/15/2003 1:00
7/15/2003 4:00
467
18
369
10/24/2003 15:00
10/24/2003 22:00
525
18
370
4/17/2004 2:00
4/17/2004 4:00
563
18
18
371
372
5/20/2004 15:00
6/10/2004 9:00
5/20/2004 17:00
6/11/2004 12:00
2
27
700
3648
0.493
0.495
1.27
0.631
0.495
7.37
1.567
0.495
3.56
0.552
0.495
0.597
0.495
5.84
0.622
0.495
1.52
0.641
0.495
5.59
0.408
0.495
59.7
29
0.665
0.534
0.495
0.495
540
44.5
0.453
0.495
462
19.8
0.873
0.495
1274
74.9
0.636
0.495
166
14
0.445
0.495
4/30/2003 14:00
154
10.9
7/15/2003 4:00
137
21.5
309
52.6
25.1
0.529
0.495
9.65
0.289
0.495
8.38
0.478
0.495
6.1
0.360
0.495
338
15.2
0.831
0.495
1017
34.3
1.108
0.495
0.671
0.679
34.8
0.991
0.679
68.3
0.807
0.679
138
94.6
11.2
8.64
0.547
0.484
0.679
0.679
303
16
0.841
0.679
30
667
46.5
0.637
0.679
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
123
Runoff
volume (m3)
Rainfall
depth (mm)
Site
74.7
107
58.9
42.3
43.5
2.79
7.87
10.9
9.65
17
8.38
6.1
34.3
0.039
0.561
0.470
0.561
0.300
0.561
0.654
0.561
1.117
1.035
0.561
0.561
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. Hydrological Sciences JournalJournal Des Sciences Hydrologiques
39:321332

Brezonik PL, Stadelmann TH (2002) Analysis and predictive models
of stormwater runoff volumes, loads, and pollutant concentrations 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 landuse 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) Evaluating 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. Environmental Science & Technology 40:47944801
Kayhanian M, Suverkropp C, Ruby A, Tsay K (2007) Characterization 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
217
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 stormrunoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation
of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SWGermany. Journal of Hydrology 267:8093
Park MH, Stenstrom MK (2006) Spatial estimates of stormwaterpollutant 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, modeling, and management for the greater Milwaukee area,
Wisconsin. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 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
123

Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source Areas and Runoff Volumes PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Stormwater Runoff Characterized by GIS Determined Source Areas and Runoff Volumes PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Environmental Management (2011) 47:201217