""*"'*':•:•£'*"
Urban Rainfall-Runoff-Quality
Data Base
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5, Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the "SPECIAL" REPORTS series. This series is
reserved for reports targeted to meet the technical information needs of specific
user groups. The series includes problem-oriented reports, research application
reports, and executive summary documents. Examples include state-of-the-art
analyses, technology assessments, design manuals, user manuals, and reports
on the results of major research and development efforts.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/8-77-009
July 1977
URBAN RAINFALL-RUNOFF-QUALITY DATA BASE
by
Wayne C. Huber and James P. Heaney
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
Project No. 68-03-0496
Project Officer
C. Y. Fan
Storm and Combined Sewer Section
Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory (Cincinnati)
Edison, New Jersey 08817
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, US Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the US Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
FOREWORD
The US Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from muni-
cipal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public
drinking water supplies and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health,
and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products
of that research, a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
This report documents urban rainfall, runoff and quality data available
for testing of urban hydrologic and water quality models and characterization
of component processes. Quality data are included for eight cities with
rainfall-runoff data only for an additional 13 cities. Many potential loca-
tions of data are also discussed.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
PREFACE
A common denominator of mathematical models of urban hydrologic process-
es is the need for adequate data with which to calibrate and verify model
representations of physical processes. Such data need to be collected at
short time intervals during several storms and are typically time consuming
and expensive to obtain. However, the data also serve the very useful pur-
poses of characterization of urban rainfall-runoff-quality processes in terms
of statistics and loadings (e.g., pounds per acre) and extrapolation of such
characteristics to ungaged catchments. It has been difficult in the past to
obtain data for either modeling or characterization purposes.
This project was initiated on the assumption that many such data must
exist; they need only be "found" in unpublicized deposits in widely scattered
firms, universities and government agencies. The results of searching for
these data indicate that there are indeed many potential sources, but the
accessibility and documentation of most are deficient enough to render them
difficult to use at best. However, the data for 41 catchments in 21 cities
documented in this report represent a first effort to aggregate available
data into one accessible data base. Note that the emphasis has been upon
assembling and processing of data rather than construction of a sophisticated
computerized data storage and retrieval system. EPA's STORET system will
be used for the latter purpose in the future. At present, the data base it-
self consists of a magnetic tape with data organized in a readily accessible
format.
The project has depended entirely upon the cooperation and good will of
groups who have contributed their data. The University of Florida and EPA
actively solicit hew data from all sources in order to improve the data base
described in this report. Holders of useful data are encouraged to contact
UF directly. UF has also been designated as a recipient of data collected
under EPA Section 208 studies; however, most 208 studies are at too early
a stage to provide results in the near future. The overall goal is to build
upon this initial effort in order to provide a large enough data base to
allow selectivity in choice of model calibration-verification procedures and
to provide statistically significant urban runoff characterizations.
iv
-------
ABSTRACT
Urban rainfall-runoff-quality data gathered by others have been assembled
on a storm event basis for one or more catchments in the following eight cit-
ies: San Francisco, CA; Broward County, FL; Lincoln, NB; Durham, NC; Windsor,
ONT; Lancaster, PA; Seattle, WA; and Racine, WI. Rainfall-runoff data have
been assembled for one or more catchments in an additional 13 cities: Balti-
more, MD; Chicago, IL; Champaign-Urbana, IL; Bucyrus, OH; Falls Church, VA;
Winston-Salem, NC; Jackson, MS; Wichita, KS; Westbury, NY; Philadelphia, PA;
Los Angeles, CA; Portland, OR; and Houston, TX. The 21 cities contain data
for a total of 41 catchments. Descriptions of the catchments, parameters and
sampling procedures are provided in this report. Actual data have been placed
on a magnetic tape and will be placed on the EPA STORET data retrieval system
in the future. Additional data for the above cities and data for other cities
will be included in the form of addenda to this report. Although none are
presently included, data collected as part of current EPA Section 208 Areawide
Waste Management studies are expected to augment the data base.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-
0496 by the University of Florida under sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. This report covers the period June 1, 1974 to April 30,
1977, and work was completed as of April 30, 1977.
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Preface iv
Abstract v
Figures ix
Tables xi
Abbreviations xiv
Acknowledgments xvi
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 5
III Introduction and Objectives 6
IV Criteria for Data Collection 8
Introduction 8
Precipitation Data 8
Runoff Data 9
Quality Data 10
Comprehensive Examples 12
Time Synchronization 12
Modeling Data 12
V Data Sources 13
Introduction 13
Published Data Summaries 13
Data Sources in Other Countries 15
Potential Data Sources Not Included in First Release of
Data Base 16
VI Data Base Format 25
Types of Information 25
Data Identification 25
Coding Format 29
Access and Use 29
vii
-------
CONTENTS (concluded)
VII Description of Rainfall-Runoff-Quality Data Base Sources 40
Introduction 40
Broward County, Florida 41
Durham, North Carolina 50
Lancaster, Pennsylvania 55
Lincoln, Nebraska 60
Racine, Wisconsin 68
San Francisco, California 73
Seattle, Washington 85
Windsor, Ontario 99
VIII Description of Rainfall-Runoff Data Base Sources 104
Introduction 104
Baltimore. Maryland 105
Chicago, Illinois 109
Champaign-Urbana, Illinois 112
Bucyrus, Ohio 116
Falls Church, Virginia 119
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 122
Jackson, Mississippi 125
Wichita, Kansas 128
Westbury, Long Island, New York 131
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 134
Los Angeles, California 138
Portland, Oregon 141
Houston, Texas 145
IX Dissemination, Maintenance and Updating 151
Dissemination 151
Maintenance and Updating 151
References 152
viii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1-1 Location map for cities with rainfall-runoff-quality
data and rainfall-runoff data 4
VI-1 Arrangement of identification codes and data on computer
card 36
VI-2 Example of data grouping for Seattle, Washington 37
VI-3 Arrangement of data on magnetic tape 38
VII-1 Broward County, Florida, Residential Catchment 47
VII-2 Broward County, Florida, Transportation Catchment 48
VII-3 Broward County, Florida, Commercial Catchment 49
VII-4 Durham, N.C., Third Fork Catchment 54
VII-5 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Stevens Ave. Catchment 59
VII-6 Lincoln, Nebraska, 39th and Holdrege Catchment 65
VII-7 Lincoln, Nebraska, 63rd and Holdrege Catchment 66
VII-8 Lincoln, Nebraska, 78th and 'A' St. Catchment 67
VII-9 Racine, Wisconsin, Site I Catchment 72
VII-10 Location map for San Francisco Catchments 78
VII-11 San Francisco, California, Baker St. Catchment 79
VII-12 San Francisco, California, Mariposa St. Catchment 80
VII-13 San Francisco, California, Brotherhood Way Catchment .... 81
VII-14 San Francisco, California, Vicente St. Catchments 82
VII-15 San Francisco, California, Selby St. Catchment ....... 83
VII-16 San Francisco, California, Laguna St. Catchment ....... 84
VII-17 Location map for Seattle Catchments 91
ix
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number
Page
VII-18 Seattle, Washington, Viewridge 1 Catchment 92
VII-19 Seattle, Washington, Viewridge 2 Catchment 93
VII-20 Seattle, Washington, South Seattle Catchment 94
VII-21 Seattle, Washington, Southcenter Catchment 95
VII-22 Seattle, Washington, Lake Hills Catchment 96
VII-23 Seattle, Washington, Highlands Catchment 97
VII-24 Seattle, Washington, Central Business District Catchment . . .98
VII-25 Windsor, Ontario, Labadie Road Catchment 103
VIII-1 Baltimore, Maryland, Gray Haven Catchment 107
VIII-2 Baltimore. Maryland, Northwood Catchment 108
VIII-3 Chicago, Illinois, Oakdale Catchment Ill
VIII-4 Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, Boneyard Creek Catchment . . . -115
VIII-5 Bucyrus, Ohio, Sewer District Number Eight 118
VIII-6 Falls Church, Virginia, Tripps Run Catchment 121
VIII-7 Winston-Salem, ;North Carolina, Tar Branch Catchment .... 124
VIII-8 Jackson, Mississippi, Crane Creek Catchment ... 127
VIII-9 Wichita, Kansas, Dry Creek Catchment 130
VIII-10 Westbury, Long Island, New York, Woodoak Drive Catchment . .133
VIII-11 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Wingohocking Catchment 137
VIII-12 Los Angeles, California, Echo Park Catchment 140
VIII-13 Portland, Oregon, Eastmoreland Catchment 144
VIII-14 Houston, Texas, Hunting Bayou at Cavalcade St. Catchment ,
and Hunting Bayou at Falls St. Catchment 148
VIII-15 Houston, Texas, Bering Ditch Catchment 149
VIII-16 Houston, Texas, Berry Creek Catchment 150
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Summary of Data - April 1977 2
V-l Potential Sources of Data Not Included in First Release of
Data Base 17
VI-1 State and Provincial Mnemonics 26
VI-2 Index to Location ID Codes 27
VI-3 STORE! and University of Florida Parameter Codes 30
VII-1 Catchments - Broward County 42
VII-2 Quantity Data - Broward County 43
VII-3 Quality Sampling - Broward County 44
VII-4 Quality Parameters - Broward County 45
VII-5 Catchments - Durham 51
VII-6 Quantity Data - Durham 51
VII-7 Quality Sampling - Durham 52
VII-8 Quality Parameters - Durham 53
VII-9 Catchments - Lancaster ". . 56
VII-10 Quantity Data - Lancaster 56
VII-11 Quality Sampling - Lancaster 57
VII-12 Quality Parameters - Lancaster 58
VII-13 Catchments - Lincoln 61
VII-14 Quantity Data - Lincoln 62
VII-15 Quality Sampling - Lincoln . 63
XI
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
VII-16 Quality Parameters - Lincoln 64
VII-.17 Catchments - Racine 69
VII-18 Quantity Data - Racine 70
VII-19 Quality Sampling - Racine 71
VII-20 Quality Parameters - Racine 71
VII-21 Catchments - San Francisco 74
VII-22 Quantity Data - San Francisco 75
VII-23 Quality Sampling - San Francisco 76
VII-24 Quality Parameters - San Francisco 77
VII-25 Catchments - Seattle 86
VII-26 Quantity Data - Seattle 87
VII-27 Quality Sampling - Seattle 88
VII-28 Quality Parameters - Seattle 89
VII-29 Background Levels at Three Catchments - Seattle 90
VII-30 Catchment - Windsor 100
VII-31 Quantity Data - Windsor 100
VII-32 Quality Sampling - Windsor 101
VII-33 Quality Parameters - Windsor 102
VIII-1 Catchments - Baltimore 106
VIII-2 Quantity Data - Baltimore 106
VIII-3 Catchments •*• Chicago . . HO
VIII-4 Quantity Data - Chicago 110
VIII-5 Catchment - Champaign-Urbana 113
VIII-6 Quantity Data - Champaign-Urbana 113
xii
-------
TABLES (concluded)
Number Page
VIII-7 Additional Rain Gage Information - Champaign-Urbana 114
VIII-8 Catchment - Bucyrus 117
VIII-9 Quantity Data - Bucyrus ..... 117
VIII-10 Catchment - Falls Church 120
VIII-11 Quantity Data - Falls Church 120
VIII-12 Catchment - Winston-Salem 123
VIII-13 Quantity Data - Winston-Salem 123
VIII-14 Catchment - Jackson 126
VIII-15 Quantity Data - Jackson 126
VIII-16 Catchment - Wichita 129
VIII-17 Quantity Data - Wichita .... 129
VllI-18 Catchment - Westbury, L.I 132
VIII-19 Quantity Data - Westbury, L.I 132
VIII-20 Catchment - Philadelphia 135
VIII-21 Quantity Data - Philadelphia 135
VIII-22 Additional Rain Gage Information - Philadelphia .136
VIII-23 Estimated Interceptor Diversions - Philadelphia 136
VIII-24 Catchment - Los Angeles 139
VIII-25 Quantity Data - Los Angeles 139
VIII-26 Catchment - Portland 142
VIII-27 Quantity Data - Portland 142
VIII-28 Dry Weather Flow and Infiltration Information - Portland . . 143
VIII-29 Catchments - Houston 146
VIII-30 Quantity Data - Houston 147
xiii
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
APWA American Public Works Association
ARS Agricultural Research Service
ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers
COA Canada - Ontario Agreement
Colif Coliforms
DWF Dry Weather Flow
ENDEX Environmental Data Index (data retrieval system of NOAA)
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
FWQA Federal Water Quality Administration
GPO Government Printing Office (Washington, D.C. 20402)
HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center of the Corps of Engineers
HSP Hydrocomp Simulation Program
Hwy Highway
IASH International Association for Scientific Hydrology
IHD International Hydrological Decade
ILLUDAS Illinois Urban Drainage Area Simulator
Ind Industrial
JWPCF Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
METRO Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
NAWDEX National Water Data Exchange (data retrieval system of the USGS)
xiv
-------
ABBREVIATIONS (concluded)
NERC National Environmental Research Center
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NSF National Science Foundation
NTIS National Technical Information Service (5285 Port Royal Rd.,
Springfield, Virginia 22161)
NWS National Weather Service
OASIS Oceanic and Atmospheric Scientifc Information System (data retrie-
val system of NOAA)
OWRT Office of Water Resources Technology
PHS Public Health Service
Res Residential
RRL Road Research Laboratory of Great Britain
Set Settleable
Sol Soluble
STORET Storage and Retrieval (data retrieval system of the EPA)
STORM Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff Model
Susp Suspended
SWMM Storm Water Management Model
Tot Total
UF University of Florida
US United States
USGS United States Geological Survey
WATSTORE Water Data Information and Retrieval System (data retrieval system
of the USGS)
WMO World Meteorological Organization
xv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Considerable interest, encouragement and useful advice was received from
EPA colleagues. The efforts of Richard Field, Harry Torno, Chi Yuan Fan and
Richard Traver are gratefully acknowledged. ,
More so than most projects this one depended upon the cooperation and
good will of many contributors of data. The project could not have been per-
formed without them. At the risk of omission, individuals associated with
different locations are recognized below: Broward County - Harold C. Mattraw,
Jr., USGS, Water Resources Division, Miami; Seattle - John M. Buffo and Glen
D. Farris, Metro, Seattle; Lincoln - Dewey R. Anderson, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln and Robert Sallach, Heningson,
Durham and Richardson, Inc., Omaha; Racine - Tom Meinholz and Dick Race,
Envirex, Milwaukee; Lancaster - Arthur E. Morris and Warren Farmer, Dept. of
Public Works, City of Lancaster; Windsor - James P. Hartt, Dept. of Civil
Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor; San Francisco - Harold C. Coffee,
Jr., Dept. of Public Works, City and County of San Francisco; Champaign-Urbana,
Philadelphia, Bucyrus, Falls Church, Winston-Salem, Jackson, Wichita, West-
bury - Michael L. Terstriep, Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana; Los Angeles
- Donald C. Tillman, City Engineer, and Aaron Aarons, Bureau of Engineering,
Department of Public Works, City of Los Angeles; Portland - David G. Lorenzen,
Dept. of Public Works, City of Portland and Allen L. Davis, CH2M-Hill, Cor-
vallis; Houston - Steven L. Johnson (now with USGS, WRD, Miami) and Robert E.
Smith, USGS, Water Resources Division, Houston.
At the University of Florida, several staff members made important con-
tributions. Coding, retrieval and transferal of the data were supervised by
Scientific Programmer, W. Alan Peltz. Data reduction, cross checking and
figure preparation were performed by William C. Taylor. Much of the original
data reduction was organized by Harry L. Crotzer. The first structure of the
data base was devised by Amuri A. Arroyo. Dedicated typing was performed by
Grace Provenza. Computations were performed at the Northeast Regional Data
Center at the University of Florida.
xvi
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Since 1974, the University of Florida has been engaged in aggregation
of urban rainfall-runoff-quality data collected by others. These data are
intended primarily for urban runoff model calibration and verification,
characterization of urban runoff on a nationwide basis, and synthesis of data
for new locations.
Locations for which data have been assembled and placed on a magnetic
tape are shown in Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1. Rainfall, runoff and quality
data are available for eight locations while the remaining number have only
rainfall runoff data at present. Data are provided on a storm event basis;
no long-term (continuous) records are presently included. Receiving water
data are also not included.
Many of these sources may be updated using data collected more recently
or using data presently being collected under various programs. In particu-
lar, EPA-sponsored Areawide Waste Management (Section 208) Studies will
augment greatly the amount of data presently available. As noted in Section
V, a large volume of urban runoff data already exists, much of which may be
included in the data base at a future date.
The project results are provided in three forms:
1. The final report (this volume), which includes descriptions and
references of data sources utilized and pending.
2. A magnetic tape containing the actual rainfall-runoff-quality data
from each source on a storm event basis. Copies of the tape will
be provided at cost. In addition, it is likely that all data will
be placed on the EPA STORET data retrieval system for more general
accessibility.
3. A limited amount of in-house modeling data (maps, plans, photos, etc.)
at UF, available for short-term loan.
As new data are incorporated into the data base, addenda to this report will
be issued. The University of Florida and EPA actively solicit new and addi-
tional data of the type found herein. As these data are received and proc-
essed, addenda to this report will be issued.
-------
Table 1-1. Summary of Data - April 1977
Area
Location
Broward County, FL
San Francisco, CA
Racine, WI
Lincoln, NB
Windsor, ONT
Lancaster, PA
Seattle, WA
Catchment
Residential
Commercial
Transportation
Baker St.
Mariposa St
Brotherhood Way
Vincente St., N.
Vincente St., S.
Selby St.
Laguna St.
Site I
39 £ Holdrege
63 § Holdrege
78 § A
Labadie Rd.
Stevens Ave
View Ridge 1
View Ridge 2
South Seattle
Southcenter
Lake Hills
Highlands
Cent. Bus. Dist.
ac
47.5
39.0
. 28.4
168
223
180
16
21
3400
375
829
79
85
357
29.5
134
630
105
27.5
24
150
85
27,8
(ha)
( 19.2)
( 15.8)
( 11.5)
( 68 )
( 90 )
( 73 )
( 6.5)
( 8.5)
(1380 )
( 152 )
(336 )
( 32 )
( 39 )
C 145 )
( H.9)
( 59.2)
( 255 )
( 43 )
( 11.1)
( 9.8)
( 61 )
( 34 )
( 11.3)
Drainage
System
S
S
S
C
C
C
S
S
C
C
S
S
S
No. Storms with
Quantity Quality
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
35C
.a
,a
4
4
4
1
1
8
2
20
15
14
22
30
5
31
30
7
4
5
35C
14£
4
4
4
1
1
8
2
20
15
14
22
30
5
31
30
7
4
5
Durham, NC
Third Fork
1069
( 433 )
19
-------
Table 1-1, (concluded)
Area
Location
Baltimore. MD
Chicago, IL
Champaign-Urbana, IL
Bucyrus , OH
Falls Church, VA
Winston-Salem, NC
Jackson, MS
Wichita, KS
Westbury, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Los Angeles, CA
Portland", OR
Houston, TX
Catchment
Northwood
Gray Haven
Oakdale
Boneyard Creek
Sewer Dist. 8
Tripps Run
Tar Branch
Crane Creek
Dry Creek
Woodoak Dr.
Wingohocking
Echo Park
Eastmor eland
Hunting Bayou
(Cavalcade St.)
Hunting Bayou
(Falls St.)
Bering Ditch
Berry Creek
ac
47.4
23.3
12.9
2290
179
332
384
285
1883
14.7
5326
252
75
768
2509
. 1894
3110
(ha).
( 19,2)
( 9.4)
( 5.2)
( 927 )
( 72.5)
( 130 )
( 155 )
( US )
C 762 )
( 6.0)
(2156 )
C 102 )
( 30 )
( 311 )
(1016 )
( 767 )
(1259 )
Drainage
System
S
S
C
S
C
S
S
S
S
S
C
S
C
S
S
S
S
No. Storms with
Quantity Qualit;
14
29
21
28
10
10
17
17
8
10
16
18
24
8
11
10
10
Additional data currently being reduced by USGS.
C = Combined sewer, S = Storm sewer and/or open channels.
-------
-I
LINCOLN* ^ /
L_ _.__ __ __ _^ -
I ^ V.—x
^ i J • WICHITA | <
"~H T—1 -^ ZT-I
• QUALITY CITIES
• QUANTITY CITIES
Figure 1-1 Location map for cities with rainfall-runoff-quality data (quality cities) and rainfall-runoff
data (quantity cities).
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Rainfall, runoff and quality data are needed for model development,
urban runoff characterization, data synthesis and other purposes. Hence,
potential data sources should be cultivated and added to the present data
base. The University of Florida (in care of the authors of this report) and
EPA actively solicit all such data.
2. Confusion exists frequently as to the exact water quality parameter
being reported—sampling method, type of sample (e.g., total or dissolved,
fixed or volatile), laboratory procedure and units. Future providers of
data should carefully document each of these items. Assignment of an EPA
STORET code to the parameter provides a relatively unambiguous description.
3. Elementary statistical analyses should be applied to the extant data
to provide characterization information. In addition, quality "loadings"
(e.g., pounds per acre, pounds per acre per inch of rainfall) should be
developed. Eventually, these results can be coupled with hydrologic, physi-
cal and demographic information to determine causative relationships.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES
In an effort to provide useful planning tools for abatement.of quantity
and quality problems caused by urban stormwater runoff, many mathematical
models have been developed to simulate the various components of urban hydro-
logical processes (1,2). These models range from very simple, to very so-
phisticated, yet all share a common need—adequate data for development,
calibration and verification. Specifically, these data consist of detailed
measurements of rainfall, runoff and quality parameters taken at frequent
intervals during storms, such that the full dynamic and spatially variable
nature of the urban runoff may be studied. Since most recent urban hydrolo-
gic models define the complete hydrograph or pollutograph during a storm
event, measurement of only, say, peak flows or average concentrations is
inadequate for calibration of these models. Such models are being used in
ever increasing applications and the need for relevant data has intensified.
Another important data requirement arises from the need to characterize
urban runoff in a variety of ways. Examples of such needs are:
1) determination of rainfall and runoff volumes, intensities, peaks,
durations, interevent times and associated statistics;
2) identification of quality parameters found in urban runoff;
3) determination of ranges, arithmetic and flow-weighted means,
medians, variances, and other statistics of quality parameters;
4) computation of total mass emissions of quality parameters;
5) computation of quality "loadings" such as pounds per acre, pounds
per curb-mile, pounds per inch of rainfall, pounds per day, etc. and
combinations, and;
6) evaluation of causative relationships among rainfall, runoff, quality,
demographic and abatement factors.
Several of the above needs require collection of both runoff and quality
data; e.g., calculation of total pollutant loads, flow-weighted averages,
etc. requires simultaneous measurement of flows and concentrations. Thus,
concentration data by themselves are insufficient for many required analyses.
Characterization results may then be used to synthesize data at unmonitored
locations.
-------
Data collected for characterization purposes are not always compatible
with modeling needs since infrequent sampling times and/or omission of key
parameters are likely. However, data suitable for model usage are usually
also well suited for characterization purposes provided enough of a sample
exists. It is desirable that characterization data be representative of an
entire year or season and thus result from samplings of many storms since
one group of data may be used for model calibration while the remaining group
may be used for verification.
This project has obtained data, collected by others, to fulfill the
modeling needs as first priority with attention also to the characterization
needs. As described subsequently, there have been a surprisingly large num-
ber of studies devoted to collection of data useful for modeling, although
collection of good quality data is more difficult and lags the quantity data
by a considerable degree. The overall objective of this research, then, has
been to find these data and publish them.
Specific objectives are, broadly:
1. identify sources of data,
2. establish criteria for collection of data,
3. acquire available data,
4. construct initial data base,
5. define how continuing maintenance of the data base
is to be accomplished, and
6. define how data dissemination should be done.
These items are addressed individually and collectively in this report. Via-
ble, current data sources are described within the report, and actual data
from these sources have been placed for easy access on magnetic tapes. It
is anticipated that the data will also be available on the EPA STORET system
in the future.
The data collection and evaluation process is a continuous one, espe-
cially in light of current EPA Section 201 and 208 projects. Hence, the
data sources described herein may be considered as an initial effort only.
Data are continually being acquired as part of the project, and addenda with
new data from new or the same sources will be issued periodically. To
underscore this point, it should be noted that it is the responsibility of
the University of Florida to review data received from 208 agencies and in-
corporate them into the data base where possible. Under the auspices of the
Areawide . Waste Management Group within EPA, 208 agencies and others are
thus encouraged to provide UF with relevant data as they become available
(in care of the authors of this report). Future work will also include
statistical and loading analyses of much of the data.
-------
SECTION IV
CRITERIA FOR DATA COLLECTION
INTRODUCTION
It is easy to be overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of urban hydrologic
and water quality data presently available. Hence, consideration must be
given to the methods by which such data were collected prior to inclusion
of them in a data base. On the whole, data collected directly by federal
agencies (e.g., National Weather Service, U.S. Geological Survey) are gather-
ed under standardized, documented procedures. However, the techniques used
by almost all other agencies exhibit extreme variations. For instance, rain-
fall data may be collected using everything from a tipping bucket rain gage
to a graduated cylinder read periodically. Such variations in sampling pro-
cedures may still be acceptable if they are at least documented; however,
many project reports are lacking in this aspect. Since standardized proce-
dures do exist for many phases of urban hydrologic sampling, these will be
reviewed briefly, along with special considerations for different parameters.
PRECIPITATION DATA
Measurement of most meterological data is quite standardized. Publica-
tions of the National Weather Service (3) and others (4,5) describe instru-
ments and techniques for measurement of rainfall and other pertinent varia-
bles. Accurate sampling of the time history of snowfall is seldom required;
rather, the time history of snow melt is the record of concern. Hence, only
measurement of rainfall is addressed here.
Most urban hydrologic models require rainfall inputs (usually intensi-
ties) at frequent time intervals (typically five minutes or less) , with the
required time interval decreasing as the response time of the catchment de-
creases, e.g., models of steep, small, impervious catchments require more
frequent rainfall inputs than for flat, large, pervious ones. Eagleson and
Shack (6) relate required sampling frequency to catchment and storm proper-
ties. However, some models require only hourly rainfall totals (7,8),
available already tabulated from the National Weather Service for all first-
order meteorological stations in the U.S. It is apparent that less frequent
data can always be generated from averages of data taken at short time inter-
vals.
Perhaps the best rain gages for this purpose are of the tipping bucket
variety, in which the time of occurence of every 0.01 in. (0.25mm) ,of rain-
fall is recorded. However, by far the most common gage is the standard
weighing-bucket gage used at most National Weather Service (NWS) installa-
tions. When a 24 hour chart is used on these gages, it is difficult to
8
-------
interpolate the chart at less than 15-minute intervals. Hence, this is often
an unfortunate constraint on the temporal accuracy of rainfall data.
In the event that gages being used for modeling are only operated inter-
mittently, antecedent conditions for rainfall may sometimes be evaluated
using the nearest NWS gage, since these data are published regularly (9).
The applicability of "nearby" data will depend heavily on the spatial dis-
tribution of rainfall, discussed below.
The spatial extent of the gaging network is the other critical factor.
It is important, though not always essential, that at least one gage be
located within the catchment under consideration. This requirement becomes
more binding as the size of the catchment and the likelihood of convective
rainfall (e.g., thunderstorms) increases. When, as is all too often the case,
there are no gages within a catchment that may otherwise have good flow and
quality measurements, the recourse is to interpolate as best as possible from
nearby gages. If the rainfall is uniform in time and space ( as is sometimes
the case for storms of cyclonic origin), such data may adequately serve
modeling needs. Quantitative methods are available for determination of the
number of gages required as a function of catchment and storm characteristics
(10, 11).
Point rainfall from a single gage may be converted to a spatial average
using standard NWS curves (e.g., reference 5, p. 359) or more recent methods
(12). Multiple-gage data averaged by the Thiessen or other techniques may
create special problems, because high frequency time variations are frequent-
ly lost when station records are combined. If possible, it is preferable to
input data from separate gages in a discrete manner into a model, i.e., formu-
late a model that is distributed enough to accept multiple rainfall inputs.
Another alternative, if high frequency time variations are to be retained,
is to use only one "most representative" gage for model input. In practice,
the question of averaging or choice of gages is usually academic, however,
since it is rare that data from more than one gage are available!
RUNOFF DATA
Quantity (runoff) measurements in urban areas are frequently difficult
to perform because of a lack of an adequate hydraulic control along sewer
outfalls. Almost all basic data consist of stages measured at some location,
from which flows are derived, either by 1) calibration (by means of associa-
ted velocity measurements), or 2) known stage-discharge relationship (e.g.,
at a weir, flume or orifice constriction), or 3) theoretical stage-discharge
relationship (e.g., application of Manning's equation to depth measurements
in a conduit). The last of the three methods is the most common and least
accurate. However, from a record of stages, users can sometimes compute
their own flows, given other data on geometry and roughness. In addition,
models are occasionally programmed to print out depths as well as flows,
although this is uncommon. (Most data included in this report were taken
by methods 1 and 2 above.)
Standardized procedures for flow measurements have been published by
federal agencies (13) -, notably the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) in various
-------
chapters of their Techniques of Water Resources Investigations and their
older Surface Water Techniques. Useful references from this series include
numbers 14-17, and most are summarized in reference 13. Survey articles are
available (5, 18, 19) that describe the hydraulics of flow measurements with
reference to various agency techniques.
Surveys of available techniques as applied to urban areas are also
available (20-22). All measurement aspects of urban runoff studies are
documented in a recent study by Wullscheleger, et al. (23). For gaging
installations in which surcharged conditions (full-conduit flow) are unlike-
ly to exist, various critical depth devices are the most suitable for con-
tinuous stage monitoring, for example, flumes (22, 24, 25) or the venturi
constriction used by the USGS (26). When surcharged conditions are likely or
when velocity measurements are needed, instruments ranging from propeller
meters to ultrasonic, doppler and electromagnetic flow meters are available
(22, 23).
Most stage data are recorded continuously on various types of recorders.
The majority of installations utilize recorders located at the site. A few
telemeter data to a central location. In these cases, and for certain other
types of recorders, the stage gages are "interrogated" at frequent time inter-
vals (usually fractions of a minute), as opposed to production of a continuous
inked line on a chart. With few exceptions, adequate temporal definition of
the hydrograph is not a problem. Rather, the calibration or method used to
calculate flow rates is of prime concern.
QUALITY DATA
Most quality data consist of concentrations of various parameters. Some
parameters may be measured -In situ (e.g., pH, conductivity, temperature,
D.O.), but the majority must be obtained by laboratory analysis of samples
of the flow. The principal consideration in the use of quality data for
urban modeling is the method by which these samples are taken. Again, a
prime concern is the time frame.
Many studies have been made in which a general characterization of ur-
ban runoff is required. For this purpose, composite quality samples have
often been taken in which flow is withdrawn into a sample container over a
relatively long period (e.g., from 15 minutes to one hour). Sometimes, in
the interest of economy, composites are made for laboratory analysis from
samples taken at shorter time periods. In any event, composite samples are
of much less usefulness for most current urban runoff quality models, because
predicted pollutograph ordinates need to be calibrated against instantaneous
concentrations. (Note that concentrations, mg/l,may be readily converted to
mass rates, Ib/min, if the flow rate, cfs, is known.) Composited quality
samples may thus be "better than nothing," but must be treated carefully if
model verification is an objective.
Another aspect of sampling frequency concerns definition of first flush
effects. A common practice is to sample frequently during the initial
portion of a storm, and less frequently thereafter. This is accomplished by
sampling frequently during the whole storm but providing laboratory analyses
10
-------
of only selected samples and discarding the remainder, to economize on the
related expense. For example, it is common for a study to analyze three
quality samples on the rising limb of the hydrograph, one near the peak and
two on the hydrograph recession.
Even data that are usually termed instantaneous, may be inherently
composited. This is due to the nature of automatic quality samplers, in-
stalled at many of the sampling locations. These samplers require a certain
time to draw liquid into the sample jars, ranging from several seconds to
several minutes depending upon the type of sampler and the volume of sample
required. Larger volumes are required when a larger number of parameters
is to be analyzed. Thus, some locations have quality samples withdrawn at
20-minute intervals, but the sample bottle requires ten minutes to fill.
Hence, the result is ten-minute composites taken at 20-minute intervals.
This is not necessarily incompatible with modeling applications, since qual-
ity predictions are sometimes averages over the time step used in the model.
Concerning selection and installation of automatic samplers themselves,
recent studies have evaluated their characteristics and compared different
types and makes (23, 27, 28). Manually obtained "grab samples" are also
encountered frequently in the literature, especially when only a few runoff
events are monitored. These may be quite acceptable if the procedure is
well documented. Suggested water quality sampling procedures for various
federal agencies are described in reference 13.
Few, if any, quality monitoring studies have sampled from more than one
location within the cross sectional area of the flow. For the usual turbu-
lent flow conditions, this is a reasonable practice, except for solids, in
which some variation may be expected over the cross section. However, this
is usually neglected.
It is very important that water quality parameters being sampled are
identified exactly. Urban runoff quality sample analysis frequently requires
variations from procedures given in Standard Methods (29) because of the
emphasis in that text on analysis of domestic water and wastewater (23).
Moreover, it is not always sufficient to state simply that analytical pro-
cedures follow those given in Standard Methods since there are frequently
multiple options available for determination of a given parameter. For
example, coliforms may be determined by both plate counts and membrane
filters, using different growth media for either. Furthermore, the word
"coliforms" by itself is ambiguous since total, fecal or other types may be
implied. Another unnecessarily ambiguous parameter is phosphorous, since it
is frequently measured as total P, phosphate, ortho-phosphate, hydrolizable
P, organic P, etc. and may also be given as only the dissolved fraction.
As important as the parameter itself and type of sample (e.g., total,
dissolved, fixed) are the units associated with the parameter. Again,
phosphorus is a frequent culprit, in which a three-fold difference results
from listing a concentration as mg/1 as P versus mg/1 as PO,.
A relatively unambiguous parameter identification may be achieved by
the assignment of a STORE! code to each parameter. "STORET" is the acronym
11
-------
describing EPA's Water Quality Control Information System (30). Units are
clearly specified as are many analytical methods and types of sample. Water
quality parameters and their STORE! codes encountered during this study are
given in Section VI.
COMPREHENSIVE EXAMPLES
Wullscheleger et al. (23) have prepared an excellent review and proce-
dural guide as to all aspects of urban, runoff sampling. In addition, a
briefer review is provided by Lager and Smith (31) and the USGS (13). Flow
measurement techniques are well covered by Shelley and Kirkpatrick (22).
Case studies may be consulted for useful background information (e.g., 32-35).
TIME SYNCHRONIZATION
The fundamental model verification data are the rainfall-runoff-quality
measurements discussed above. Of considerable importance is the relative
time of each sample. Ideally, rainfall and runoff are recorded on the same
chart (typical of USGS installations) and a mark is also made on the chart
when the automatic quality sampler is switched on. This provides absolute
timing on a relative scale, even if the chart is not synchronized perfectly
with the time of day.
At many locations, however, isolated rain gages are used. In the ab-
sence of telemetry to a central location, the temporal correlation of rain-
falls and flow rates may; be questionable. One solution to this problem may
result from the use of the models themselves in which predicted and measured
hydrographs may differ only by a constant time shift. This time shift may
then be considered as the necessary adjustment between the clocks of the
rain gages and the flow recorder.
MODELING DATA
Data required for models run the gamut from generalized demographic,
land use and meteorological data to the details of sewer conduit geometries,
slopes, etc. Such data are nearly always available from the city or munici-
pality or other source, but it is of great usefulness if it has been gathered
already by a group interested in applying models. Thus, even though differ-
ent models will require different levels of detail, most will draw upon the
same basic set of input requirements, e.g., topography, land use and soil
parameters, demographic data, meteorology, drainage definition, and treatment,
storage and cost descriptions.
Where possible, input data suitable for urban runoff models have been
collected as part of this study where such data have already been prepared
as part of other studies. For all cases, attempts are being made to obtain
the relevant basic data mentioned earlier. In several instances, however, it
.is necessary to contact the data-collecting agency or municipality directly
for the required input information.
12
-------
SECTION V
DATA SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
A typical conclusion in many reports related to urban hydrology is that
"more data are needed." It is not always clear what purposes additional data
will serve, but the attitude is almost inevitably, "the more data, the better."
In spite of this generality, it has been observed during the course of this
study that vast amounts of rainfall-runoff-quality data already exist, and
even more are currently being collected. Of course, only a minority of these
data are suitable for purposes such as modeling, although a larger fraction
may be useful from the characterization viewpoint. An even smaller fraction
are actually accessible in a well documented, tabulated fashion. Finally,
many sources, especially university studies, are only discovered by accident;
no clearinghouse for such studies.exists.
Still, many data sources have been uncovered during the course of this
study and new ones continue to arrive. Only the ones considered most promis-
ing from a modeling viewpoint are given herein, and it is regrettable that
suitable sources have probably been omitted through oversight. It is the
purpose of this section to describe past and present summaries and sources of
urban runoff data and to describe specific sites for which promising data
exist but which were omitted from the data base prepared during this study
for various reasons. Sections VII and VIII describe in detail data sources
included in the data base itself.
PUBLISHED DATA SUMMARIES
American Society of Civil Engineers
The ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Council has conducted relevant
studies of urban hydrology since 1967. Among the most widely used rainfall-
runoff data are those collected at the Northwood catchment in Baltimore (36)
and the Oakdale catchment in Chicago (37) and published under ASCE auspices.
Later summaries by Tucker on monitored rainfall (38, 39) and other urban
rainfall-runoff data (40, 41, 42) remain the only conveniently published
information for many catchments, including some included in this report.
Thus, references 36,37, 40, 41, and 42 should still be considered as prime
data sources.
Other recent ASCE publications include modeling applications (43) and
a summary of activities of the Council (44). Recent NSF-sponsored work has
produced summaries of available urban hydrologic data and modeling activities
13
-------
in the U.S. (45), Australia (46), Canada (47), the United Kingdom (48), West
Germany (148), Sweden (149), France (150), Norway (151), The Netherlands (180)
and Poland (181). McPherson's report (45) contains a summary of U.S. and other
catchments that have actually been used for testing of several current urban
hydrologic models.
Illinois State Water Survey
During 1971 the Illinois State Water Survey evaluated the capabilities
of the British Road Research Laboratory (RRL) model for use in urban drainage
design (49). This study included testing on ten U.S. catchments. The Survey
later extended the capabilities of the RRL model to create the Illinois Urban
Drainage Area Simulator (ILLUDAS) model (50). For this study, ILLUDAS was
tested on rainfall-runoff data from 23 different catchments, all of which are
described by Terstriep and Stall (50). The 23 include nine from the RRL
study, and the report (50) provides very useful capsulized information about
each catchment.
U.S. Geological Survey
The USGS has collected many of the data currently available for urban
basins, and their urban hydrology programs are continuing. Several of the
data sources utilized in the ILLUDAS study (50), for instance, were from
the USGS. Current (1976), detailed sampling of urban rainfall-runoff-quality
is being conducted in Denver, Philadelphia and Broward County, Florida. (The
latter site is included in this report.) The main difficulty in utilizing
USGS data is in obtaining published references to the studies. The extensive
Catalogue of Information on Water Data (51), published biannually, apparently
only contains references to continuing stream, lake, etc. gaging programs.
Schneider's 1968 survey (52) contains some information, but is dated. A
survey by the Water Resources Scientific Information Center (53) contains
references to USGS urban hydrology studies as well as others. However, direct
inquiries can be made to state USGS offices for information on relevant
studies. In addition, most USGS quality data are placed in the EPA STORET
file or the Water Data Information and Retrieval System (WATSTORE) file of
the USGS itself (54) and are thus fairly easily accessible. Finally, the
USGS has also established its National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX), whose
purpose is to point users to relevant data files in the manner of a clear-
inghouse (55) .
Office of Water Resources Technology
The OWRT has sponsored several projects related to urban hydrology and
data collection. Included among them have been recent studies at Rutgers,
Cornell, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, University of Maryland and Univer-
sity of Massachusetts. Final reports from these studies are forthcoming.
Data from one OWRT-sponsored study in Lincoln, Nebraska (56) are included
in this report.
Environmental Protection Agency
Under the EPA and its predecessors (PHS, FWPCA, FWQA) many urban runoff
studies have been conducted involving extensive sampling programs, some of
14
-------
which are included in this report. Although better documented than most
studies, many of the earlier reports contain samples of only a few storms
at several sites or rely upon composited samples, thus making them unsuitable
for modeling applications. Such reports may still contain useful characteri-
zation data, however, and several are utilized for this purpose by Heaney
et al. (57).
The number of potentially useful EPA-sponsored studies is too large to
list each individually in this report. Also, the number is increasing be-
cause of EPA Section 201 Construction Grant and Section 208 Areawide Waste
Management Grant studies currently in progress under the 1972 Amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. However, reference to some
reports is made in subsequent sections.
Other Agencies
Other federal agencies also publish hydrologic data, but few data are
specifically for urban applications. For example, the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) has published rainfall-runoff data for many agricultural
watersheds (58) that are useful for hydrologic modeling in general. The
National Weather Service (NWS), Office of Hydrology, has compiled some data
for use in their river forecasting and modeling efforts, but engage in little
or no acquisition themselves. Of course, the NWS through its National Cli-
matic Center at Asheville, North Carolina is the prime source of precipitation
and other meteorological data collected at NWS and some other installations.
For instance, although precipitation data are routinely reduced only at hour-
ly intervals, photocopies of the original weighing bucket charts may be ob-
tained from which data may be reduced at finer time intervals. In addition,
the parent arm of the NWS, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), has established their ENDEX/OASIS data retrieval system for access to
environmental-related data within their jurisdiction (59). However, the em-
phasis is upon marine data.
The Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) of the Corps of Engineers en-
gages in extensive model development activities (e.g., 7) but few data col-
lection activities. However, they have sponsored urban runoff monitoring in
the San Francisco Bay region (160), which is listed in Table V-l to follow.
References to other available hydrologic data, (though not necessarily
urban), may be found in many reports, theses, dissertations, papers, etc.
A report prepared as part of the International Hydrological Decade (60) con-
tains information on 60 experimental watersheds in the U.S., but few are
urban in character. A report prepared by the National Technical Information
Service (NTIS) on data files available from federal agencies (61) contains
only one reference to hydrologic data (to test data included with the NWS
Office of Hydrology river forecast models).
DATA SOURCES IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Programs in urban hydrology in several countries have been summarized
by the ASCE as discussed previously (45-48, 148-151,. 180,181) . Several Canadian
studies are referenced in subsequent sections of this report, and data from
15
-------
Windsor, Ontario are included in the data base. A summary of current activi-
ties related to urban runoff in the Great Lakes region is available (152).
Another recent publication provides a useful review of available snow quality
data for urban areas (62).
As additional sources to the ASCE report on Australia (46), Keeps and
Mein (153) describe rainfall-runoff monitoring in Canbera and Melbourne, and
Cordery (154) describes quality measurements in Sydney. Reports on urban
runoff measurements in Paris (155) and Munich (156) have also been published.
Additional references to monitored West German catchments may be found in
other model studies (126, 174). Lindh (149) discusses data for <-he Bergsj'dn
catchment near Gothenberg, Sweden. Rainfall-runoff data for this catchment
may be found in reports published by Arnell and Lyngfelt (157, 1581.
POTENTIAL DATA SOURCES NOT INCLUDED IN FIRST RELEASE OF DATA BASE
During the course of this study, many promising data sources were un-
covered, but only a portion are included in this first release of the data
base. These locations are described in detail in Sections VII and VIII.
Other locations showing promise as to modeling data are listed in Table V-l
with related information. Some sources will probably be included in future
addenda to this report as data are reduced or computerized for inclusion.
Some sources are definitely deserving of inclusion, but were simply not
available in time. Note that the vast number of sources owing to EPA 201
and 208 studies are generally not included in Table V-l, as these studies
are either being initiated or have been underway for too short a period to
obtain and reduce useful data. Moreover, little is known about most of them
except at the local level. However, as these sources become viable and pro-
vide data to the University of Florida, they will be included in future ad-
denda.
16
-------
Table V-l. Potential Sources of Data Not Included in First Release of Data Base
City, Catchment, and
Major Land Use
Atlanta, GA
Confederate Ave.(Res.)
Boulevard (Res . )
McDaniel St. (Res.)
Harlan Dr . (Res . )
Caspian St. (Res.)
Fed. Prison (Open)
Burlington, ONT
Malvern(Res.)
Commercial
Cincinnati, OH
Bloody Run (Res.)
Mt. Washington (Res.)
Cleveland, OH
Madison (Res.)
Edgewater (Res . )
Denver , CO
Several residential
Des Moines, IA
Several residential
Area
ac (ha)
1129(457)
2421(980)
968(392)
954(386)
517(209)
1498(606)
57.6(23.3)
17. 0( 6.9)
2380(964)
27(11)
2550(1030)
1840( 745)
Drainage
Systems
C
C
C
S
S
s
s
s
C
s
C
s
s
c&s
Reasons for
Exclusion
^'^
13. ll
^l
^l
13. lj
1 1
1
12
1
X5
1 ,1 ,1
I1 1 1
\^2>13
\t'L2
13
Quantity
Data (Years)
r ,(69,73)
r,,(69,73)
r,,(69,73)
rf,(69)
rj,(69)
rr(69)
r,, (73-75)
TJ, (74-75)
r2,(70)
r£, (62-64)
r ,(66-67)
rj, (66-67)
r , (69-date)
rr(69)
Flow Meas.
Technique
f ,f
£8'f2
f f
8f82
f
f8
f
f2
fl' f2
f2
f.
f
fl'f2'
f6
f2
Quality
Data (Years)
q., (69,73).
q?,(69,73)
q?,(69,73)
qf,(69)
q£,(69)
qr(69)
q., (73-75)
qj, (74-75)
q3,(70)
q±t (62-63)
q (66-67)
qj, (66-67)
q5
qr(69)
Contact
1,2
3
4
5
6
7
References
63,64
62,66,67
68,102,129
40,50,69
70
42,71,72
73
-------
Table V-l. (continued)
oo
City, Catchment, and
Major Land Use
Detroit, MI
Oakwood (Res . )
Greenfield, MA
Maple Brook(Res.)
Halifax, N.S.
Quinpool Rd . (Com . )
Cambridge St. (Res.)
Total area
Hamilton, ONT
Hamilton Mt . (Res . )
Houston, TX
Woodlands (Res . )
Other Houston
Kingston, ONT
Calvin Park (Res.)
Lafayette, IN
Multiple sites
Louisville, KY
Multiple sites
Area
ac(ha)
1500(607)
547(221)
1.0(0.4)
2.4(1.0)
168(68)
176(71)
multiple
sites
36(15)
Drainage
Systems
C
S
ca
a
ca
C
S
S
S
S
S
Reasons for
Exclusion
Wa
12
13
13
1
12
13
lj_
X5
Ws
il'I5
Quantity
Data (Years)
r2,(74-date)
^,(74-75)
r ,(69-70)
rj, (69-70)
rj, (69-70)
rr (75-76)
r3, (73-76)
r2, (65-69)
r2, (73-74)
r, (74-75)
r^ (45-47)
Flow Meas.
Technique
f7
f2
f
f
f4
£2
f8
f2
(
f8
Quality
Data (Years)
q5
q;L, (74-75)
q,, (69-70)
qf, (69-70)
qj, (69-70)
q2, (75-76)
q4, (73-76)
q5
None
q5
None
Contact
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
References
42, 130,
170
74
75,76,77,
78
79
80, 169
41,42,50,
164-168
62,81,82
42, 161
50,83,84
Surface runoff samples taken.
-------
City, Catchment, and
Major Land Use
Lubbock, TX
Clapp Park (Res.)
Milwaukee, WI
Humbolt Ave . (Res . )
Occoquan Watershed, VA
Several Urban
Orlando , FL
Lake Eola(Com.)
Lake Eola(Res.)
Richmond , VA
Multiple Sites
Rochester, NY
Multiple sites
Salt Lake City, UT
Layton(Hwy-)
Parleys (Hwy.)
Area
ac (ha)
—
223(90.2)
570(231)
28(11.3)
16( 6.5)
1.35(0.54)
0.54(0.22)
Drainage
Systems
S
C
S
S
S
S
C,S
v,
Sb
sb
Reasons for
Exclusion
X5
V^
S
1 ,1
V^
h
W1^
le
Quantity
Data (Years)
r2, (71-72)
r3, (71-72)
r3,(74-date)
r ,(73-74)
r^, (73-74)
r3, (74-76)
r,, (72-73)
r3, (72-73)
Flow Meas.
Technique
f3
f2'f8
f2'f8
f
fl
f2'f9
f (•
£6
Quality
Data (Years)
q4, (71-72)
q4, (71-75)
q4,(74-date)
q ,(73-74)
q^, (73-74)
q5
q4, (74-76)
None
None
Contact
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
References
85
32,41, 162
86
87,88,89
147, 173
159
Open channel, roadside drainage.
-------
Table V-l (continued)
NJ
o
City, Catchment, and
Major Land Use
San Francisco Bay, CA
Castro Valley [Hayward]
(Res.)
Peralta Cr. [Oakland]
(Res.)
Ross Cr.[San Jose]
(Res.)
Strong Ranch SI.
[Sacramento] (Res.)
Syracuse, NY
Maltbie St. (Com.)
Newell St. (Res.)
Tallahassee, FL
Meginnis Arm(Res . )
Toronto, ONT
North York, Brucewood
(Res.)
East York(Res.)
Int. Airport
West Toronto (Res.)
Area
ac(ha)
3200(1300)
1280( 520)
4480(1810)
3200(1300)
135(54.6)
54(21.9)
1780(721)
48.3(19.5)
383(155)
495(200)
2330(943)
Drainage
Systems
S
S
S
S
C
C
S
S
c
S
c
Reasons for
Exclusion
1
1
1
1
Irl3
1 1
-) O
11,13,15
1 » 2* i
1 1
1 ' **
1 1
Quantity
Data (Years)
r (72-76)
r ,(73)
.1.
r., (73-74)
_L
r ,(73-76)
J
r (73-76)
r^, (73-76)
r3, (74-75)
r (74-75)
r ,(76)
r,, (74-75)
rj, (69-76)
Flow Meas.
Technique
f2
£.
f2
£.
f2
£.
f2
£,
f2
f2
f8
f2
f2
_ ^
f2
Quality
Data (Years)
q4, (72-76)
q-,(73)
Z.
q ,(73-74)
£.
q (73-76)
*T
q, ,(73-76)
qj, (73-76)
q4, (74-75)
q4, (74-75)
'
q,,(76)
q^, (74-75)
None
Contact
24
22
25
3
27
26
28
References
160
147
90
62,91-93
62,94
62,95
62,63
-------
Table V-l (concluded)
City, Catchment, and
Major Land Use
Tucson, AZ
Multiple sites
Washington, DC
Kingman Lake (Res.)
Winnipeg, MAN
Bannatyne (Com . )
Area
ac(ha)
4200(1700)
542(219)
Drainage
Systems
S
C
C
Reasons for
Exclusion
X3
We
V^
Quantity
Data (Years)
r3, (67-75)
r3,(69)
r3, (69-71)
Flow Meas.
Technique
f3
fl
f2
Quality
Data (Years)
q4, (67-75)
qr(69)
qr (69-71)
Contact
29
30
31
References
96-99
100,102
62,63
-------
Notes for Table V-l
Codes—
f. Stage measurement in conduits converted to flow using Manning equation
f2 Weir
f_ Parshall flume
f, Other critical depth measurement
fc Dye dilution
f, Calibrated flow constriction
D
f7 Pumping records
f_ Stage discharge calibration
o ,
fq Flow meter
1- Lack of sufficient documentation
1» Program being initiated or too few data to date
1, Data not in suitable form for transmittal or further reduction required
1, Data questionable or requiring re-analysis
lc Data unavailabe to UF in time
I/- Large sampling interval, portions missing, or unsuitable for modeling
q.. Yes, few parameters, <^10 storms
q- Yes, several parameters, < 10 storms
q_ Yes, few parameters, >10 storms
q. Yes, several parameters, > 10 storms
q_ Program being initiated
r- Yes, <10 storms
r- Yes, 10-20 storms
r» Yes,> 20 storms
C Combined sewer systems
S Storm sewer and/or natural drainage system.
22
-------
Notes for Table V-l (continued)
Contacts—
1. Mr. Allen Fields, Environment and Streets, City of Atlanta, City Hall,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303.
2. Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc., Consulting Engineers, 1261 Spring St. NW,
Atlanta, Georgia 30309.
3. Mr. J. Marsalek, Hydraulics Research Division, Canada Centre for Inland
Waters,Box 5050, Burlington, Ontario L7R 4A6.
4. Dr. H.C. Pruel, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221.
5. Mr. L.W. Curtis, Havens and Emerson, Ltd., 1220 Leader Bldg., Cleveland,
Ohio 44114.
6. Mr. J. Biesecker, District Chief, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources
Division, Stop 415, Box 25046, Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado
80225.
7. Henningson, Durham and Richardson, Inc., 8404 Indian Hills Drive, Omaha,
Nebraska 68114.
8. Mr. D. Suhry, Director of Engineering, Detroit Metro Water Department,
Water Board Bldg., Detroit, Michigan 48226.
9. Dr. D.D. Adrian, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002.
10. Dr. D.H. Waller, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Nova Scotia Technical Uni-
versity, Box 1000, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
11. Mr. C.W. Eicher, Gore and Storrie, Ltd., 1670 Bayview Avenue, Toronto,
Ontario M4G 3C2.
12. Dr. W. Characklis, Dept. of Environmental Science and Engineering, Rice
University, Houston, Texas 77001.
13. U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, 2320 La Branch St.,
Room 1112, Houston, Texas 77004.
14. Dr. W.E. Watt.Dept. of Civil Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston,
Ontario K7L 3N6.
15. Dr. A. Rao, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, Lafayette,
Indiana 47907.
16. District Engineer, U.S. Army Engineer District, Louisville, 600 Federal
Plaza, Box 59, Louisville, Kentucky 40201.
23
-------
17. Dr. D. Wells, Water Resources Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas 79409.
18. City of Milwaukee, Dept. of Public Works, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
19. Dr. T. Grizzard, Laboratory Director, Occoquan Watershed Monitoring
Laboratory, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Box 773, Manassas, Virginia
22110.
20. Dr. M. Wanielista, College of Engineering, Florida Technological Univer-
sity, Box 25000, Orlando, Florida 32816.
21. Mr. K.C. Das, Director, Division of Special Projects, Piedmont Regional
Office, State Water Control Board, Box 11143, Richmond, Virginia 23230.
22. Mr. D. Carleo, O'Brien & Gere Engineers, 1304 Buckley Rd., Syracuse, New
York 13201.
23. Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322.
24. Mr. Bill S. Eichert, Director, The Hydrologic Engineering Center, Corps
of Engineers, 609 2nd St., Davis, California 95616.
25. Dr. R.C. Harriss, Dept. of Oceanography, Florida State University,
Tallahassee, Florida 32306.
26. Dr. P.E. Wisner, James F. MacLaren Ltd., 435 McNicoll Ave., Willowdale,
Ontario M2H 2R8.
27. Mr. E. Larsen, M.M. Dillon Ltd., 50 Holly St., Toronto, Ontario M4S 2E9.
28. Mr. C.S. Kitchen, Data Retrieval and Reporting, Dept. of Public Works,
24th Floor, East Tower, City Hall, Toronto, Ontario M5H 2N2.
29. Dr. S. Resnick, University of Arizona, Water Resources Research Center,
Bldg. No. 28, Tucson, Arizona 85721.
30. Roy F. Weston, Inc., Weston Way, West Chester, Pennsylvania 19380.
31. Mr. G.E. Burns, Manager of Engineering, Waterworks, Waste and Disposal
Division, City of Winnipeg, 455 Ellice Ave., Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 1Y6.
24
-------
SECTION VI
DATA BASE FORMAT
TYPES OF INFORMATION
At least four types of information are potentially available for each
location utilized as a data source:
1. physical, demographic, etc. descriptions of the sites, plus maps,
parameters and sampling methods;
2. published reports and other written documentation;
3. the rainfall-runoff-quality data themselves; and
4. associated modeling data, e.g., maps, plans, photos, etc.
Sections VII and VIII contain item 1 in write-ups for each location. A
standardized tabular format is used for all sites. Item 2 is handled through
a list of references for each location. Item 3 is handled separately, where-
in all data have been coded and placed on a magnetic tape, the format of
which is explained below. UF has been able to obtain a limited amount of
data needed for model input, item 4. These will be available for short-term
loan. The remainder of such data will have to be obtained from contacts with
individuals at each location. In addition, input data for the EPA Storm
Water Management Model, SWMM (101-103) are available for a few locations.
DATA IDENTIFICATION
Location Identification
For computer coding, all locations are given a state, city and catchment
code. State codes are the standard two-character mnemonics used by the Postal
Service. These are listed in Table VI-1. Canadian provinces are identified
in the same manner, as given in Table VI-1. Since each mnemonic must be
unique, the most logical two-character provincial identifier is not always
used in order to avoid conflicts with state mnemonics.
A two-digit numeric code is arbitrarily assigned to each data location
within a state. Similarly, a two-digit numeric code is then assigned to each
catchment at a given location. These numbers have been assigned strictly on
the basis of the order in which each location has been processed for the data
base. They are identified along with each description, in Sections VII and
VIII. An index is provided in Table VI-2,
25
-------
Table VI-1. State and Provincial Mnemonics
Area Mnemonic
Alabama AL
Alaska AK
Alberta AB
Arizona AZ
Arkansas AR
British Columbia BC
California CA
Colorado CO
Connecticut CT
Delaware DE
District of Columbia DC
Florida FL
Georgia GA
Hawaii HI
Idaho ID
Illinois IL
Indiana IN
Iowa IA
Kansas KS
Kentucky KY
Louisiana LA
Maine ME
Manitoba MB
Maryland MD
Massachusetts MA
Michigan MI
Minnesota MN
Mississippi MS
Missouri MO
Montana MT
Nebraska NB
Area Mnemonic
Nevada NV
New Brunswick NK
Newfoundland NF
New Hampshire NH
New Jersey NJ
New Mexico NM
New York NY
North Carolina NC
Nova Scotia NS
Ohio OH
Oklahoma OK
Ontario ON
Oregon OR
Pennsylvania PA
Prince Edward Island PI
Puerto Rico PR
Quebec PQ
Rhode Island RI
Saskatchewan SS
South Carolina SC
South Dakota SD
Tennessee TN
Texas TX
Utah UT
Vermont VT
Virginia VA
Virgin Islands VI
Washington WA
West Virginia WV
Wisconsin WI
Wyoming WY
26
-------
Table Vlr-2 Index to Location ID Codes
Code
State
City
Catchment
CA 1 1
CA 1 2
CA 1 3
CA 1 4
CA 1 5
CA 1 6
CA 1 7
CA 2 1
FL 1 1
FL 1 2
FL 1 3
IL 1 1
IL 2 1
KS 1 1
MD 1 1
MD 1 2
MS 1 1
NB 1 1
NB 1 2
NB 1 3
NC 2 1
NC 1 1
NY 1 1
OH 1 1
ON 1 1
OR 1 1
PA 1 1
PA 2 1
California
California
Florida
Illinois
Illinois
Kansas
Maryland
Mississippi
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Carolina
New York
Ohio
Ontario
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Broward County
Chicago
Champa ign-Urbana
Wichita
Baltimore
Jackson
Lincoln
Winston-Salem
Durham
Westbury
Bucyrus
Windsor
Portland
Lancaster
Philadelphia
Baker St.
Mariposa St.
Brotherhood Way
Vicente St., N.
Vicente, St. , S.
Selby St.
Laguna St.
Echo Park
Residential
.Transportation
Commercial
Oakdale
Boneyard Creek
Dry Creek
Gray Haven
Northwood .
Crane Creek
39 & Holdrege
63 & Holdrege
78 & A
Tar Branch
Third Fork
Woodoak Dr.
Sewer District 8
Labadie Rd,
Eastmor eland
Stevens Ave,
Wingohocking
27
-------
Table VI-2 (concluded)
Code State City Catchment
TX 1 1 Texas Houston Hunting Bayou
(Cavalcade St.)
TX 1 2 Hunting Bayou
(Falls St.)
TX 1 3 Bering Ditch
TX 1 4 Berry Creek
VA 1 1 Virginia Falls Church Tripps Run
WA 1 1 Washington Seattle View Ridge 1
WA 1 2 View Ridge 2
WA 1 3 South Seattle
WA 1 4 Southcenter
WA 1 5 Lake Hills
WA 1 6 Highlands
WA 1 7 Cent. Bus. Dist.
WI 1 1 Wisconsin Racine Site I
28
-------
Parameter Identification
Each quantity and quality parameter is identified with its appropriate
five-digit STORET code (30). Where these codes are missing, arbitrary codes
have been assigned by UF. These are in the 90000 range so as to avoid con-
flict with STORET codes which go no higher than the 80000 range. All codes
for parameters encountered during the processing of data are given in Table
VI-3 with the units used. As discussed previously, in most cases, STORET
codes have the advantage of implying the units, type of sample (e.g., total,
fixed, dissolved) and analytical technique used. Slight variances with STORET
definitions are indicated in Table VI-3. A complete list of STORET codes may
be found in the STORET manual (30).
CODING FORMAT
All data have been placed on standard punched cards for later entry onto
magnetic tapes. Each card contains the location ID followed by the date,
time and up to five parameters, as shown in Figure VI-1. Although this for-
mat is far from being compressed, it does allow easy identification and filing
of each card. Also, new data may easily be added to a given location. Dec-
imal points are always punched, and no scaling is performed. All values are
instantaneous values at the indicated time except for rainfall, for which the
value given is an average intensity over the time interval beginning at the
indicated time. In a few instances, cumulative rainfall depth is given to
avoid calculation of intensities over varying time intervals.
Coliforms and streptococci are treated differently because their range
(1 to 109) is greater than the seven-character field width of the format used
for data entries. Hence, all such data are entered on the cards as 100 • log-^Q
(MPN/lOOml). (The multiplier of 100 is used to provide extra significant
figures when an F7.2 format is used.) Users should be careful to remember
this fact when reading values of these parameters.
A typical grouping of punched data is shown in Figure VI-2. Note that
a header card containing the name of city, state and catchment precedes the
data for that catchment. All data from one storm event are grouped together,
although rainfall, flow and quality cards may appear in a different order for
different catchments. Occasionally, as in Seattle, a few storm parameters
(e.g., dry days, total depth) may precede the storm data itself.
ACCESS AND USE
The emphasis of this project was not upon formulation of a sophisticated
storage and retrieval system for management of the data base. Rather, it was
to obtain and document as much data as possible. Hence, the "data base" it-
self is merely a magnetic tape containing card images of the type shown in
Figure VI-2. On the tape, data are blocked according to cities, as sketched in
Figure VI-3. The first block contains information on STORET codes and card
format, and material accompanying the tape explains the location (block num-
ber) of data for each city.
29
-------
Table VI-3. STORET and University of Florida Parameter Codes.
Note: Codes above 90000 assigned by UF Chemical Symbol
Code Parameter and Units or Abbreviation
10 Temperature, [°C]
11 Temperature, [°F]
o
45 Precipitation, total, [in. /day or in. /storm ]
53 Catchment area, [acres]
V O
61 Flow, instantaneous stream or conduit , [ft /sec = cfs]
65 Stage, [ft]
70 Turbidity, [Jackson Turbidity Units = JTU]
80 Color, [Platinum Cobalt Units = PCU]
94 Conductivity, field [micro mhos = pmho]
95 Conductivity, at 25 °C [ymho]
299 Oxygen, dissolved, by probe, [mg/1] DO
300 Oxygen, dissolved, [mg/1] DO
301 Oxygen, dissolved, [% saturation] DO
310 Biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day, [mg/1] BOD-
311 Biochemical oxygen demand, 5-day, dissolved, [mg/1] Diss. BOD5
324 Biochemical oxygen demand, 20-day, [mg/1]
__
340 Chemical oxygen demand, high level, [mg/1] COD
341 Chemical oxygen demand, dissolved [mg/1] Diss. COD
400 pH
405 Carbon dioxide, [mg/1 as COj C02
410 Alkalinity, total, [mg/1 as Ca CO ]
440 Bicarbonate ion, [mg/1 as HCO_]
445 Carbonate ion, [ mg/1 as CO-] CO-
-------
-3(continued)
Chemical Symbol
Code Parameter and Units or Abbreviation
480 Salinity, [parts per thousand = ppt]
500 Residue, total, (total solids), [mg/1] TS
505 Residue, total volatile (total volatile solidsT, [mg/1] TVS
515 Residue, total filterable, (total dissolved solids), [mg/1] TDS
530 Residue, total nonfilterable, (total suspended solids),[mg/1] TSS or SS
535 Residue, volatile nonfilterable (volatile suspended solids), [mg/1] VSS
540 Residue, fixed nonfilterable (fixed suspended solids), [mg/1] FSS
A
544 Residue, volatile settleable (volatile settleable solids), at 45 min, [mg/1]
545 Residue, settleable (settleable solids) at 45 minC, [ml/1] Set.. S
546 Residue, settleable (settleable solids) at 45 min°, [mg/1] Set. $
600 Nitrogen, total, [mg/1 as N] Tot. N
605 Nitrogen, total organic, [mg/1 as N] Org. N
610 Nitrogen, total ammonia, [mg/1 as N] !JH_-N
615 Nitrite nitrogen, total, [mg/1 as N] N0o~^
620 Nitrate nitrogen, total, [mg/1 as N] N03 >N-
625 Nitrogen, total Kjeldahl, [mg/1 as N] TKN
630 Nitrite plus nitrate, total (one determination), [mg/1 as N] NO^-N+NO^-N
650 Phosphate, total, [mg/1 as PO,] TPO^-PO^
653 Phosphate, total soluble, [mg/1 as PO,] TPO.-PO,(solf
660 Orthophosphate, total, [mg/1 as PO,] OPO,-PO,
665 Phosphorus, total (wet method), [mg/l;as P] Tot. P
666 Phosphorus, dissolved (wet method), [mg/1 as P] Dis. P
669 Phosphorus, total hydrolyzable, [mg/1 as P] Tot. hyd-P
-------
Table VTr3 (continued)
u>
ISJ
Code
671
680
685
690
901
916
927
929
937
940
945
955
1002
1027
1034
1037
1041
1042
1045
1051
1055
1067
1082
Parameter and Units
Orthophosphate, dissolved, [mg/1 as P]
Carbon, total organic, [mg/1 as C]
Carbon, total inorganic, [mg/1 as C]
Carbon, total [mg/1 as C]
Hardness, carbonate, [mg/1 as CaCO,,]
Calcium, total, [mg/1 as Ca]
Magnesium, total, [mg/1 as Mg]
Sodium, total, [mg/1 as Na]
Potassium, total, [mg/1 as K]
Chloride, [mg/1 as Cl]
Sulfate, [mg/1 as SO,]
Silica, dissolved, [mg/1 as SiO-]
Arsenic, total, [yg/1 as As]
Cadmium, total, [yg/1 as Cd]
Chromium, total, [yg/1 as Crl
Cobalt, total, [mg/1 as Co]
Copper, suspended, [yg/1 as Cu]
Copper, total, [yg/1 as Cu]
Iron, total, [yg/1 as Fe]
Lead, total, [yg/1 as Pb]
Manganese, total [mg/1 as Mn]
Nickel, total, [mg/1 as Ni]
Strontium, total, [mg/1 as Sr]
Chemical Symbol
or Abbreviation
OPO -
4
TOC
Tot. C
Ca
Mg
Na
K
Cl
S°4
Si02(soluble)
As
Cd
Cr
Co
Cu(susp.)
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Ni
Sr
-------
Table VI-3(continued)
u>
Code
1092
1107
31501
31503
31504
31505
31615
31616
31679
50055
70299
70351
70507
71886
71887
71889
71900
90035
90036
90037
90038
90039
90045
Parameter and Units
Zinc, total, [yg/1 as Zn]
Aluminum, total, [mg/1 as Al]
Coliform, tot., membrane filt,
immed., M-endo. media,35°C,[MPN/100ml]
Coliform, tot., membrane filt., delayed, M-endo. media,35°C,[MPN/lOOml]
Coliform, tot., membrane filt., immed., Les endo. agar,35°C,[MPN/100ml]'
Coliform, tot., MPN, confirmed test, 35°C, [MPN/lOOml]
Coliform, fecal, MPN, EC. media, 44.5°C, [MPN/lOOml]
Coliform, fecal, membrane filt., M-ec. broth, 44.5°C, [MPN/100ml]d
Streptococci, fecal, [MPN/lOOml]
Depth of flow in pipe or conduit, [in.]
Solids, suspended by evaporation at 180°C, [mg/1]
Grease, hexane-soluble, [mg/1]
Orthophosphate, total, [mg/1 as P]
Phosphorus, total, [mg/1 as PO,]
Nitrogen, total, [mg/1 as NO ]
Orthophosphate, soluble, [mg/1 as PO,]
Mercury, total, [yg/1 as Hg]
Cumulative rainfall at given time, (in.) sixth gage
Cumulative rainfall at given time, (in.) fifth gage
Cumulative rainfall at given time, (in.) fourth gage
Cumulative rainfall at given time, (in.) third gage
Cumulative rainfall at given time, (in.) second gage
Rainfall intensity, beginning at indicated time, [in./hr], sixth gage
Chemical Symbol
or Abbreviation
Zn
Al
Tot. Colif.
Tot. Colif.
Tot. Colif.
Tot. Colif.
Fee. Colif.
Fee. Colif.
Fee. Strep.
TSS or SS
OP04-P
Tot. P-PO.
4
Tot. N-N03
OP04-P04(soL)
Hg
-------
Table VI-3(continued)
Code
90046
90047
90048
90049
90050
90051
90052
90053
90055f
90060
90063
90064
90065
90066
90067
90068
90069
90070
90100
Parameter and Units
Chemical Symbol
or Abbreviation
Rainfall intensity, beginning at indicated time,[in./hr], fifth gage
Rainfall intensity, beginning at indicated time,[in./hr], fourth gage
Rainfall intensity, beginning at indicated time,[in./hr], third gage
Rainfall intensity, beginning at indicated time,[in./hr], second gage
Rainfall intensity, beginning at indicated time,[in./hr], principal gage
Storm duration, [min]
Minimum flow, lower bound when flow reported only over a range, [cfs]
Maximum flow, upper bound when flow reported only over a range, [cfs]
Floatables, [mg/1]
Residue, settleable (settleable solids) at 30 min, [ml/1]
Settled COD, [mg/1]
Settled BOD , [mg/1]
Percent suspended solids on 75y filter, [%]
Percent suspended solids on 14p filter, [%]
Percent suspended solids on 5p filter, [%]
Percent suspended solids on 0.45y. filter, [%]
Bioassay, percent survival in undiluted waste, 96 hrs, [%]
Tbxicity, percent survival in undiluted waste, 96 hrs,[%]
Dry days preceding storm, [days]
Set. S
Set. COD
Set. BODr
Code also used for total storm depths as defined by data source, (i.e., the storm duration may be
unequal to one day).
Code also used for conduit flows (most urban data).
"Code also used for settleable solids at 60 min.
-------
OJ
Ul
Table VI-3 (concluded) Footnotes
Note: On data tape, coliforms, etc. are given as 100-log... (MPN/lOOml)
Q
Storm duration given in absence of detailed rainfall hyetograph.
Parameters 90055 - 90070 used only for San Francisco (34,35).
-------
FORMAT-A2,712,
5(15, F 7.2)
STATE MNEMONIC
CITY CODE - ARBITRARY, NUMERIC
CATCHMENT CODE- ARBITRARY, NUMERIC
YEAR
MONTH
DAY
HOUR - 24 HR CLOCK
MINUTE
TENTH OF MINUTE
NOT USED 3
STORET CODE
PARAMETER VALUE
STORET CODE
F&RAMETER VALUE
2 345678910II12131415161718-20 21-25 26-32 33-37 38-44,
Figure VI-1 Arrangement of identification codes and data on computer card.
-------
8EATTI.tr
WA 1
HA I
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
HA
UA
UA
WA
WA
WA
HA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
UA
WA
WA
HA
HA
HA
WA
HA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
HA
UA
UA
WA
UA
NA
WA
WA
MA
MA
UA
HA
UA
WA
UA
UA
HA
UA
HA
UA
UA
HA
MA
Si.
UA
UA
MA
UA
HA
HA
HA
u *
HA
HA
7,3
75
75
75
75
75
751
Soil S
0022 1 30
Qu22 i tib
0022200
0022215
6022330
0022345
6022400
75l8o3o8io
7510030045
7510030 00
7510030 15
7516030 *0
751
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
i 7 5
1 7 5.
6030 45
00: 0 00
00 0 15
06 10 SO
0030 45
0030 00
0030 15
0030345
0030400
0030415
mm
0030545
0030645
7510030700
7516030715
7SJ0022430
75I002243Q
7510022445
75
75
75
75
75
75
75
003 100
605 115
003 1)5
003 115
003 130
003 130
005 J36
003 145
603 200
003 215
751003 213
75 003 215
751003 230
1751603 230
1751003 245
1751003 245
1751003 245
1751003 300
1751003 315
1751003 315
1751 003 315
J751003 330
1751003 i45
751003 400
751003 415
751003 430
751003 445
75JQ03 500
751003 515
751003 530
751003 545
75
75
75
i]
88i m
003 615
603 615
603 630
003 630
003 630
751003 645
751003 700
751Q03 713
751003 730
751003 745
751003 800
751003 800
75l8oJ 6l£
WASHINGTON
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
900SO
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
9o81o
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90050
90030
90030
90050
90030
90100
bl
bl
bl
bl
MO
1031
630
61
61
61
MO
1031
61
630
1051
61
630
1031
bl
bl
MO
103!
61
bl
61
bl
bl
bl
6'1
61
61
61
61
630
1051
bl
630
1051
61
61
bl
61
61
MO.
61
0.0
0.04
O.P
0.0
0.04
0.0
0.0
0.04
0.04
0.0
0.04
0.04
0.0
0.04
0.12
o.OB
o.?o
0.?8
0.16
0.04
0 04
o.O
O.o
0.04
0.0
0.0
0.04
o.o
0.0
0.04
0.0
ol«>3
1 .01
1 las
1 .41
1240.00
f:i8
910^00
? . ft 5
p ^7
? * 1 8
1.16
620.00
fc i 4 §
740^0
oj71
l7<>0.00
0**5
R90.OQ
7.1?
6 6 7
4.45
?Iaa
?.os
1 .70
1.60
1 .60
1 .49
P 92
290.00
0^54
190.00
2*fl5
2 J*o
1 .«8
1 .70
1 .40
1.17
lOO.oo
1 .49
VIE*
51
6bS
53o
109?
5301
10i70507
476.00 70
130. Of,
1.097t507
176.00 70
340.00
1 .1070507
^0^»^0 70
4SO.OO
5301040JOO 70
109?
fcbS
bo5
6fcS
530
109?
6b5
530
109?
665
530
109?
1^0.00
o ^b70507
0.2970507
P. 1470507
?60.0Q 70
130.00
0.4370507
15*. oo 70
150>0
P. 1370507
Q.?470507
55.00 70
0.33
0.26
44.00
0.26
43.00
0.26
0.26
38.00
0.20
57.00
0.23
33.00
0.24
37.00
0.24
0.16
0.14
1*.00
0.21
19.06
0.19
°.^
(UA
605
94
605
94
.'
605
94
605
94
605
94
605
94
605
94
605
94
605
94
1 1)
9.99
?50.00
7.62
206.00
5.16
160.00
4.73
140.00
4.18
108.00
3.01
77.00
1.60
116.00
77:5i
146'§8
'
610
1027
MO
1027
610
1027
610
1027
610
1027
610
1027
610
1027
610
1027
102"?
1.19
4.00
1.39
4.00
1.37
4.00
1.26
4.00
0.92
4.00
0.49
4.00
0.13
«.oo
0.28
4.06
2:!
Figure VI-2 Example of data grouping for Seattle, Washington
37
-------
BLOCK I
BLOCK 2
BLOCK 3
BLOCK 4
CARD FORMAT
STORET CODE
GENERAL INFORMATION
DATA FOR FIRST CITY
DATA FOR SECOND CITY
DATA FOR THIRD CITY
Figure VI-3
Arrangement of data on magnetic tape.
resemble those shown in Figure VI-2.
Data within each block
38
-------
Data may be utilized for comparison with modeling results simply by ob-
taining a listing ("dump") of the tape contents. Alternatively, only selected
parameters may be retrieved from the tape if desired. The tape itself may be
utilized for statistical analyses and characterization purposes, although in
practice such manipulations will be better served after having placed the data
onto a disk, drum or other rapid-access storage device.
In the future, the data will also be entered directly into the STORET
system. This should facilitate nationwide access as well as permit use of
STORET software for statistical and other analyses. Future addenda will pro-
vide necessary information to permit access to the data when they are placed
on STORET.
39
-------
SECTION VII
DESCRIPTION OF RAINFALL-RUNOFF-QUALITY
DATA BASE SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The following subsections describe locations for which rainfall, runoff
and quality data have been obtained that are suitable for the data base.
Additional locations with rainfall-runoff data only are described in Section
VIII.
Sources included in this section were chosen primarily on the basis of
known high quality of the data, availability and documentation. The first
consideration was checked primarily by familiarization with the sampling pro-
gram, careful review of the documentation and personal conversations with the
responsible personnel. The latter two considerations were the keys to actu-
ally obtaining, reducing (in some cases), key punching, etc. the data for in-
clusion on the magnetic tape. Since UF is distant from most of the sources,
the only way in which these operations could be accomplished was to have good
documentation provided in some form. In all cases, data values were inspected
visually for reasonableness. Where data were key punched at UF, spot checks
were made against the source listing.
Each location has tables describing the catchments, quantity sampling
programj quality sampling program, quality data sampled, and, in a few cases,
additional information. Similar tables for different locations differ in con-
tent according to the available information at each location. In all cases,
additional useful information may be obtained from the cited references.
The amount of modeling data contained in-house by UF varies considerably
from location to location and is increasing with time. Requests should be
made directly to UF to the persons indicated below for information on data
for individual catchments.
Wayne C. Huber, or
James P. Heaney or
W. Alan Peltz
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
(904)392-0846
40
-------
BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA
The Water Resources Division of The Miami office of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) initiated monitoring of stormwater runoff at three sites with
different land uses in northeast Broward County (Fort Lauderdale area) in
1974 in cooperation with the county and with the Florida Department of Trans-
portation (104, 105). In addition to the extensive amount of quality sampling
being done, an added advantage of this program is that all quality data are
being placed directly into the STORET system, and are thus accessible by many
users. Flow and rainfall data are not in the STORET files and were obtained by
UF directly from USGS. Early data have been used for model comparisons (172).
All quality data were retrieved from STORET and placed in the same for-
mat as other data on the data tape. Further data will be added to the data
tape as they become available. Overall, these data are among the very best
included in 'the data base, in terms of volume, care in sampling, sophistica-
tion of instrumentation and accessibility.
State and City Code: FL 01
41
-------
Table VII-1. Catchments - Broward County
No. Name
Residential (near
D
NE 31 St. and US1)"
Area, ac
(ha)
47.5
(19.2)
Transportation (Sample 39.0
Rd. near 1-75)b (15.8)
Commercial (Coral Ridge 28.4
Shopping Plaza, near (11.5)
NE 35 St. and US1)C
" Drainage
Population System
STORET
Location
ID
351 Stormr 261615080055900
Storm 261629080072400
Storm
261002080070100
Land Use
House roofs, 19%;drive
ways,9%; roads,11%;
lawns,61%. j
Arterial Highway(does
not include interstate
hwy. drainage).e
Shopping Center
Estimated using 151 single family houses.
North of Pompano Beach, Florida
"In north Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Roadway and connected parking lots 13.7 ac (5.6ha), permeable lawns
24.3 ac (9.8ha) and rooftops 1.0 ac (0.4ha).
a
"Pavement 19.7 ac (S.Oha), vegetation 0.4 ac (0.16ha) and rooftops
draining to sewer 8.3 ac (3.4ha).
"Open-channel, swale drainage
-------
Table VII-2. Quantity Data - Broward County
Flow
Rajp
No.
1
2
3
Catchment
Residential
Transportation
Commercial
flow meas
fl
f
1
f
1
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms
5'
5
5
3
2
1
0
0
0
5°
5
5
35
14
Period
4/74-9/75
it/75-9/75
f1 - Fiberglass U-shaped, venturi-type constriction mounted in 36 in. (914 mm), 54 in. (1372 mm), and
36 in. (914 mm) pipes at sites 1, 2 and 3,respectively. Calibrated in laboratory. Stage measured
by nitrogen gas bubbler tube.
r, - Weather Measure Model P-501 tipping bucket gage; bucket capacity = 0.01 in. (0.25 mm). Average of
gages is used at sites 1 and 2.
^low and rain monitored continuously, but data are reduced to 5 min. increments.
bRain/flow data pending reduction by USGS
Time synchronization, flow-rain: Excellent since data are telemetered to same multiple pen strip chart
recorder.
-------
Table VII-3. Quality Sampling - Broward County
No.
1
2
3
Catchment
Residential
Transportation
Commercial
Sampling-
Method
81
Sl
Sl
Sampling
Interval ,
min.
1-15
1-15
1-15
Sampling
Outfall
Outfall
Outfall
Location
pipe
pipe
pipe
No. of
Storms
35a
14*
4a
Period
4/74-9/75
4/75-1/76
Number of storms currently (8/76) in STORET file. More to be added.
s1 - USGS continuous flow automatic sampler It (0.53 gal.) bottles
Time synchronization, flow-quality: Good since time of sample noted on same strip chart recorder as
used for rain-flow.
-------
Table VII-4. Oualitv Parameters - Broward County
Not all parameters are available for all storms at all catchments.
Parameter
Temperature
Stage
Turbidity
Color
Conductivity
Dis . Oxygen
DO, % saturation
STORET
Code
COD
PH
co2
Tot. Alkalinity
HCO ion
CO- ion
Tot. Solids
Dis. Solids
Tot. N
Tot. Organic N
NH3-N
N02-N
N03-N
TKN
N02 + N03-N
Tot. P
Tot. Organic C
Tot. Inorganic C
Tot. C
Cl
Dis. Silica
Cd
Cr
10
65£
-70
80
95£
300
301
310
340
400
405
410
440
445
500
515
600
605
610
615
620
625
630
665
680
685
690
940
955
1027
1034
a
Units
°C
ft
JTU
PCU
ymho
mg/1
•y
fo
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 as C02
mg/1 as CaCO.
mg/1 as HCO
mg/1 as C03
mg/1
mg/1
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-P
mg/l-C
mg/l-C
mg/l-C
mg/1
mg/1 as Si09
vg/l
Ug/1
No values yet stored on STORET file
45
-------
Table VTI-4. (concluded)
Parameter
Cu
Fe
Pb
Zn
Tot. Colif.-
Fee. Colif.
Fee. Strep.
Susp* Solids by evap @ 180°C
OPO.-P
Toti N as NO,,
STORET
Code
1042
1045
1051
1092
31501
31616
31679
70299
70507
71887
Units
Pg/1
MPN/100 ml
MPN/100 mla
MPN/100 mla
mg/1
mg/l-P
mg/1 as NO
a
On data tape, coliforms reported as 100 x Iog10 (MPN/100 ml).
46
-------
LJL
SAM
LING SITE
N.E 14th
N.E 17th AVE.
AVE.
-F
I 1 1 1 .
0 300 FT I
BROWARD COUNTY , FLORIDA
RESIDENTIAL CATCHMENT (FL I I )
Figure VII-1 Broward County, Florida, Residential Catchment, 47.5 ac (19.2 ha)
47
-------
oo
1-95
OLD FEDERAL HIGHWAY
SAMPLE ROAD
SAMPLING SITE
500 FT
BROWARD COUNTY , FLORIDA
TRANSPORTATION CATCHMENT (FL I 2)
Figure VII-2 Broward County, Florida, Transportation Catchment, 39.0 ac (15.8 ha). Scale is
approximate.
-------
CORAL RIDGE
SHOPPING
CENTER
I
OAKLAND PARK BOULEVARD
\\
SAMPLING SITE
BROWARD COUNTY , FLORIDA
COMMERCIAL CATCHMENT (FL I 3)
Figure VII-3 Broward County, Florida, Commercial Catchment, 28.4 ac
Scale is approximate.
49
-------
DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA
The 1Q69 ac (433 ha) Third Fork Basin in Durham has been monitored for
rainfall-runoff data by the USGS as reported by Tucker (42). The RRL and
ILLUDAS models were tested on these data (49,50), and keypunched rainfall-
runoff data for 1969 were received through the courtesy of the Illinois State"
Water Survey. These data have also been used for hydrograph analyses (176).
Quality sampling was performed in 1969 by Bryan (133,134) and in 1971-
1973 by Colston (135). Bryan's data were in the form of composite samples
and are not included in the data base. Of the several storms sampled by
Colston, rainfall data are reported for four and included herein. Colston's
report (135) also contains useful catchment information and examples of SWMM
modeling. All data for the catchment are considered to be good due to the
careful processing of rainfall-runoff data by the USGS and analysis of the
quality data by Colston. However, measurements of BOD were not reproducible,
and it was Colston's recommendation that they not be used as an indicator of
water quality. In addition, due to the fact that the quality samples were
taken from the bottom, suspended solids measurements may not be representative
of the entire vertical solids profile.
State and City Code: NC 02
50
-------
Table VII-5. Catchments - Durham
No.
Name
Area
ac
(ha)
Sewerage
Population
Impervious-
ness %
Ave. land
Slope, %
Land Use
Percentages
Third Fork
1069 Storm 6400
(433) (open channels)
Paved 20%, rooftops 9, unpaved streets 3, vegetation 68.
>-n Table VII-6. Quantity Data - Durham
29C
7.6
Res. 24, com. and
ind. 19, public and
institutional 12,
open 10.
Flow
Rain
No.
1
Catchment
Third
Fork
Type
flow
of
meas.
fl
Sampling
Interval,
min
5
Gages
No. in
Catchment
1
Used
No . near
Catchment
-
Type
rl
Sampling
Interval,
min
5
No. of
Storms
15
4
Period
6/69-2/70
6/72-10/72
f.. - Continuous stage measurement at V-notch weir, connected to digital tape punch recorder. USGS
station no. 02097243.
r. - Float-type rain gage with punched record.
Time synchronization: Good since rain gage and stage gage use same clock.
-------
Table VII-7. Quality Sampling - Durham
No.
Catchment
Sampling
Sampling Interval
Method min.
Sampling
Location
No.
Storms
Period
Ln
to
Third Fork
12 - 30 Basin outlet at
USGS weir
6/72-10/72
s, - Pumped to Serco Model NW-3 automatic sampler, modified slightly as described by Colston (135).
Sample volume was 0.35 1. Inlet pump was anchored near stream bed immediately below weir.
Time synchronization , flow-quality: Good since USGS and quality sampling clocks were housed in same
facility and could be cross checked.
-------
Table VII-8. Quality Parameters - Durham
Not all parameters are given for all storms,
Parameter
BOD5
COD
Dis. COD
pH
Tot. Alaklinity
Tot. Solids
Tot. Vol. Solids
Suspended Solids
Vol. Susp. Solids
TKN
Tot. P
Tot. Organic C
Ca
Mg
Cr
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
Al
Fee. Coliform
STORET
Code
310
340
341
400
410
500
505
530
535
625
665
680
916
927
1084
1041
1045
1051
1055
1107
31616
Units
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 as CaC03
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1 - N
mg/1 - *
mg/1 - C
ag/1
mg/1
yg/l
yg/i
yg/i
yg/i
MS/1
vg/i
MPN/100mla
S0n data tape, coliforms reported as 100 x log,Q (MPN/lOOml).
Cobalt, nickel and strontium were also measured but all values were less than
the detection level of 100 ug/1.
53
-------
1500 FT
DURHAM , N. C.
THIRD FORK CATCHMENT
(NC 2 I)
Figure VII-4 Durham, N.C., Third Fork Catchment, 1069 ac (433 ha)
54
-------
LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA
Data were taken from the 134 acre (54.2 ha) Stevens Avenue catchment as
part of the Swirl Regulator Demonstration Project (EPA Grant S802219, formerly
11023 GSC) being undertaken at that location. In preparation for construction
of a swirl regulator/concentrator at the Stevens Avenue outfall to Connestoga
Creek, monitoring was performed in 1973-74 by the City of Lancaster and Mer-
idian Engineering of Philadelphia. As a participant in the project, the
University of Florida received data on a routine basis and has used the com-
bined-sewered Stevens Avenue catchment as a study area in a previous report
(106).
All data were collected and analyzed by the city; however, depth, pH, DO,
conductivity and temperature were reduced directly from the original strip
charts by UF. Rainfall data were similarly reduced by UF from xerox copies
of the charts. Quality data are felt to be good at this location. Flow data
are not as good since they were obtained using Manning's equation to convert
measured depths. However, supercritical flow at the measuring point elimi-
nates any backwater effects.
State and City Code: PA 01
55
-------
Table VII-9. Catchments - Lancaster
1.
Name
Stevens
Avenue
Area
ac
(ha)
134
(54.2)
Population
3900
Drainage
System
Combined
DWF
cfs
(I/sec)
0.6-0.9
(17-25)
Ave
Runoff
Coef
0.59
Land Use
Single-family res
Multi-family res
Table VII-10. Quantity Data - Lancaster
Ui
Flow
Rain
Catchment
Stevens
Avenue
Type of
Flow Meas
f.
1
Sampling Gages Used
Interval No. in No. near
min Catchment Catchment Type
1.5 1 Or,
1
Sampling
Interval
min
5
No.
Storms
6
Period
9/73 -
1/74
f - Depth measurement in 60 in. (152 cm) RCP sewer by Controlotron Corp 290-l;sonic water level sensor.
Continuous strip chart records at depth were converted to flow by UF using Manning equation,
n = 0.013, slope = 0.035 (note that flow is supercritical). Measured depths are also given
in data tabulation.
r, = Weighing bucket raingage at Hand JHS. 24-hour strip charts.
Time synchronization, rain-flow: possible errors due to separate clocks.
-------
Table VII-11. Quality Sampling - Lancaster
Sampling
Sampling Interval Sampling No.
Catchment Method min Location Storms Period
Stevens Avenue s- 1.5-60 Diversion Structure 6 9/73 - 1/74
s^ - pH, conductivity, DO, temperature by Ohmart Corp Model 1-1000-D probe sensor.
Recorded on Westronic multiple-pen strip chart along with depth measurment. Other
parameters by Sonfotd Model HG-4 automatic sampler (connected to Ohmart sampler pumps)
into 2 liter (0.53 gal) bottles.
Time synchronization, flow-quality: good because data recorded on same strip chart.
-------
Table VII-12. Quality Parameters - Lancaster
Not all parameters are given for all storms.
Parameter
STORE!
Code
Units
Conductivity (probe)
Dis. Oxygen (probe)
pH (probe)
Temperature (probe)
Sus. Solids (SS)
Fixed SS
Vol. SS
Dis. Solids
Tot. Solids
BODS
BOD20
COD
TOC
Tot. Cd
Tot. Cr
Tot. Cu
Tot. Pb
Tot. Zn
Chloride
Tot. Org. N
NH.-N
NO^-N
NOI-N
OPO,-P
Tot. P
Hydroliz. P
Depth
Flow
Rain
94
299
400
11
530
540
535
515
500
310
324
340
680
1027
1034
1042
1051
1092
940
605
610
620
615
70507
665
669
50055
61
90050
y mhos
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
mg/1
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-P
mg/l-P
mg/l-P
in.
cfs
in./hr
Grease/oil, total coliforms and fecal colifonns were listed
as part of the sampling program, but no data were given for
the storms used.
58
-------
STEVENS TRADE
SCHOOL
ALITY SAMPLING
Y SAMPLING
600
1000 FT
LANCASTER, PA.
STEVENS AVENUE CATCHMENT (PA I I)
Figure VII-5 Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Stevens Ave. Catchment, 134 ac (54.2 ha).
59
-------
LINCOLN, NEBRASKA
Quantity and quality data were gathered for the three residential catch-
ments as part of OWRT-sponsored research conducted by the University of
Nebraska. The period of study was April 1972 to May 1974.
Data were taken from a thesis (107) and completion report (56) and
reduced prior to receipt by UF. Additional information on rainfall was re-
ceived from R. Sallach (personal communications, 1975, 1976). These data are
considered to be of good quality, on the basis of discussions with University
of Nebraska personnel.
State and City Code: NB 01
60
-------
Table VII-13. Catchments - (Lincoln
No.
1
2
3
Name
39th & Holdrege
63rd & Holdrege
78th & A St.
Area
ac
(ha)
79
(32)
85
(39.4)
357
(145)
Sewerage
Storm
Storm
Storm
Population
822C
391
Imperviousness
(%)
30
36-40
25
Length of
Streets
ml (km)
4.3
(6.9)
Land Use
Residential
Residential
Developing
residential,
open, farm
11952 population. Estimated 1975 population density = 11.3 persons/ac (27.9 persons/ha).
31952 population. Estimated 1975 population density = 7.9 persons/ac (19.5 persons/ha).
C0pen channels.
-------
Table VII-14. Quantity Data - Lincoln
Flow
Rain
1-0
Type of
Catchment Flow Meas
39th & Holdrege f
63rd- & Holdrege f£
78th & A St. f
Sampling
Interval
min
10-15
10-15
10-15
Gages Used Sampling
No .in No . near Interval
Catchment Catchment Type min
1 Or 15-90
0 1 r- - 15-90
1 Or, 15-90
No.
Storms Period
20 4/72 -
5/74
15 4/72 -
5/74
14 4/72 -
7/73
f, - Visual head measurement on sharp-crested rectangular weir in open channel 20 ft (6.1 m)
downstream of 48 in. (1220mm) concrete sewer.
fy - Visual readings of depth markings on wall of 48 in. (1220mm) sewer. Converted to flow using
Manning's equation.
f_ - Visual readings of markings on wall of 5 x 10 ft(.1*5x3.6m) concrete box culvert in open
drainage ditch. Velocity measurements used to develop stage-discharge relationship.
r, - Standard USGS recording rain gages with seven day clock.
Time synchronization: Rain-flow dependent upon different clocks. Possibility of occasional
time shift between flow and rainfall measurements.
Comment: Time sequence of rainfall is poorly defined for many storms due to reduction.of data
over long time periods (e.g., rainfall totals reported at 90 min intervals for some
storms).
-------
Table VII-15. Quality Sampling - Lincoln
U>
No. Catchment
1 39th & Holdrege
2 63rd & Holdrege
3 78th & A St.
Sampling
Sampling Interval
Method min
10-15
10-15
10-15
Sampling No.
Location Storms
At weir downstream 20
of 48 in. (1220 mm)
sewer
At outlet of 48 in. 15
(1220mm) sewer
In box culvert in open 14
drainage ditch
Period
4/72 - 5/74
4/72 - 5/74
4/72 - 5/74
s1 - Manual grab samples.
Time synchronization, flow-quality: good since both, kinds of data recorded simultaneously at
same point.
-------
Table VII-16. Quality Parameters - Lincoln
Not all parameters were recorded for all storms at all locations.
Parameter
Catchment
No.
STORET
Code
Units
BODS
COD
VSS
TS
TVS
SS
NO.-N
Org-N
OP04-P (Soluble)
Spec. Conductivity
Turbidity
Tot. Colif.
Salinity
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
All
310 mg/1
340 mg/1
535 mg/1
500 mg/1
505 mg/1
530 mg/1
620 mg/l-N
605 mg/l-N
671 mg/l-P
95 y mho
70 JTU
31503 HPN/100 mla
480 ppt
Note: On data tape, coliforms are given as 100 x loglfj (MPN/100 ml)
64
-------
_^ HOLDREGE
SAMPL
h-
co
JC
N
to
^"Y-
ING S
i-
OT
S
ia
1-
OT
oT
ro
1
AVE
STARR
ORCH4
RD
•ST
/
ST
i
I
\
\
_
/
h-
to
jz
0 600 FT
LINCOLN , NEBRASKA
39th AND HOLDREGE CATCHMENT (NB I I)
Figure VII-6 Lincoln, Nebraska, 39th and Holdrege Catchment, 79 ac (32 ha). Scale is approximate.
-------
^
d
LEXINGTON
^\
\
\
^K^~
f~
V.
<£
AVE
1-
to
T3
to
^
HOLt
GARLA^
1
1
1
1
J
IREGE
D
COLBY
AYLEStt
AVE
OR
1
ST
Q
_J
m
J
COTNEF
TH
ST
X
X"
"'
, ' TO
U>
/
X
^-
0 600 FT
AVE
SAMPLING SITE-
LINCOLN., NEBRASKA
63rd AND HOLDREGE CATCHMENT (NB I 2)
Figure VII-7 Lincoln, Nebraska, 63rd and Holdrege Catchment, 85 ac (39.4 ha)
Scale is approximate.
66
-------
'A' ST
SAMPLING SITE
1000 FT
LINCOLN , NEBRASKA
78th AND 'A' ST CATCHMENT
(NB I 3)
Figure VII-8 Lincoln, Nebraska, 78th and 'A' St. Catchment, 357 ac (195 ha)
Scale is approximate.
67
-------
RACINE, WISCONSIN
Data were taken from a draft report <108) of a detailed study performed
by Envirex, Inc. involving an extended monitoring program. The flow data are
somewhat difficult to interpret since runoff from the catchment is split be-
tween two outlets, Site I and Site II, and difficulties were experienced in
flow measurements at Site II. Thus, proper interpretation of the Site I run-
off data must rely upon accurate analysis of upstream diversion structures.
It is understood that this information will be contained in the final version
of the report. All data are taken from the draft report and were reduced
prior to to receipt by UF. Additional quality parameters beyond the three
included herein were also monitored and will be included in the data base at
a future date.
State and City Code: WI 01
68
-------
Table VII-17. Catchments - Racine
No.
-Name
Area
ac
(ha)
Population
Sewerage
Land Use Percentages
1 Site I 829.3
(335.8)
984 T
Combined
Single Fam. Res. 63,
Multi-Fam. Res. 10,
Com. 12, Ind. 9, Park 6
Population of residential land use only.
-------
Table VII-18. Quantity Data - Racine
Flow Rain
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval No. in No. near Interval No.
Catchment Flow Meas min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms Period
Site I f_ 10 2 1 r. 5 9 7/73
1 X 8/74
. f, - At Site I, total flow is sum of pumped flow to treatment plant, measured by Parshall flume,
o plus weir overflow, determined by bubbler tube measurement of stage at diversion structure.
Stage measurements in Parshall flume were variable, hence results are given in terms of a
range (minimum and maximum) at each time step.
r, - Bendix, weighing bucket recording gages. Value reported is from the one out of three sites
selected for modeling of the particular storm.
Time synchronization: flow-rain, dependent upon separate clocks on rain and stage gages.
Possibility of time shifts between two sets of data. No
problems reported.
Comment: In the reference report flow was recorded at two sites in the catchment. Data in this
report is only for Site I since there were many problems with the accuracy of Site II.
When comparing with modeling results, characteristics of flow dividers upstream from
Sites I and II must be considered since total runoff from catchment is split between
Sites I and II.
-------
Table VII-19. Quality Sampling - Racine
Sampling
Sampling Interval Sampling No.
No. Catchment Method min Location Storms
Site I
10-30
Wet well
at lift
station
to treat-
ment plant
Period
11/73 - 8/74
s, - grab samples.
Time synchronization; flow-quality, good since data gathered simultaneously at same location.
Table VII-20. Quality Parameters - Racine
Not all parameters are available at all times for all storms.
Parameter
STORET
Code
Units
BOD5 310
SS 530
Tot. Colif. 31501
mg/1
mg/1
MPN/100 ml£
On data tape, coliforms are given as
100 x Iog10 (MPN/100 ml).
-------
to
LAKE MICHIGAN
RACINE , WISCONSIN
CATCHMENT (Wl I I)
Figure VII-9 Racine, Wisconsin, Site I Catchment, 829 ac (336 ha).
-------
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Flow and quality data included in the report were collected by Engineer-
ing Science, Inc., for the City of San Francisco during 1966-70(34,35,175).Six
catchments were monitored in the study, five mainly residential and one main-
ly industrial. Although the volume of data (i.e., number of storms sampled)
is small, the data themselves are considered good and represent one of the
earlier efforts in monitoring overflow points for later model calibration.
All data were acquired and reduced by the staff of Engineering Science
and are taken directly from their reports. They have been used previously
for model verification (102,143-145,178). All rainfall values included on the
data tape were read from graphs since no tabulation was provided.
The City of San Francisco instituted in 1972 an extensive network of
tipping-bucket rain gages and bubbler stage measurements throughout the City.
These data are stored on several hundred magnetic tapes by the City but have
not been reduced to a convenient form for modeling to date.
State and City Code: CA 01
73
-------
Table VII-21. Catchments - San Francisco
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Name
Baker St.
Mariposa St.
Brotherhood Way
Vicente St . , North
Vicente St . , South
Selby St.
Laguna St.
Area
ac
(ha)
168
(68)
223
(90)
180
(73)
16
C6.5)
21
(8.5)
3400
(1380)
375
C152)
Sewerage
Combined
Combined
Combined
Storm
Storm
Combined
Combined
Popu-
lation
13,200
4,500
5,100
400a
500a
81,000
25,300
No.
Catch-
basins
140
145
114
12a
15a
2300
250
Streets, mi
(km)
8.75
(14.0)
8.45
(13.5)
11.6
(19.6)
' 1.32
(2.1)
1.64
(2.6)
136
(217)
17.2
(27.5)
Land Use
Percentages
Res 80, Com 8,
Vac 12
Res 29, Ind 36,
Vac. 14, Other 21
Res 77, Com 6
Govt 11, Other 6
Res 100
Res 80, Com 15,
Other 5
Res 77, Com 2,
Ind 6, Vac 15
Res 62, Com 16,
Ind 6, Other 16
Estimated
-------
Table VII-22.
Quantity Data - San Francisco
Flow
Rain
Type of
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Catchment Flow Meas
Baker St.
Mariposa St.
Brotherhood Way
Vicente St., N
Vicente St., S
Selby St.
Laguna St.
fl
fl
fl
fl
fl
f2
f
Sampling
Interval
min
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
5-10
Gages Used Sampling
No. in No. near Interval
Catchment Catchment Type min
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Fed Bldg ^ 10
Fed Bldg r± 10
Fed Bldg ^ 10
rl. 10
r;L 10
Fed Bldg ^ 10
r, 5-10
No.
Storms Period
3
3
3
1
1
8
2
4/69
2/69
1/70
2/70
2/70
11/69
3/67
- 11/69
- 4/69
- 3/67
f1 - Dye dilution, using pumped dye inflow 500-700 ft (150-210 m) upstream from diversion structure.
Reported flows corrected for assumed flow into interceptor.
f - Depth measurement at outfall structure. Stage-discharge calibration over weir. Interceptor
blocked during storms, so reported flows are overflows over weir. A volume of approximately
5.3 x 10^ ft^ (1.5 x 10^ m^) in overflow structure and trunk sewer must be filled at beginning of
storm prior." to overflow.
f- - Depth measurement in sewer outfall, converted to flow by Manning equation. Flows apparently
uncorrected for "small" amount diverted to interceptor during storms.
r, - Unspecified recording raingage. Rainfall measured at Federal Building by US Weather Service
occasionally used, but not indicated as to which storms.
r. - Homemade gage using graduated cylinder, read at fixed time intervals.
Time synchronization: dependent on different clocks in different gages. Possibility of
occasional time shift between flow and rainfall measurements.
-------
Table VII-23. Quality Sampling - San Francisco
No. Catchment
1 Baker St.
2 Mariposa St.
3 Brotherhood Way
4 Vicente St., North.
5 Vicente St., South
6 Selby St.
7 Laguna St.
Sampling
Sampling
Method
Sl
Sl
Sl
Sl
Sl
s2
So
Interval
min
1 10
1 10
L 10
>_ 10
>_ 10
>_ 10
> 10
Sampling Location
Above diversion structure
Diversion structure
Above diversion structure
Diversion structure
Diversion structure
Diversion structure
Outfall below diversion-
No.
Storms
3
3
3
1
1
8
2
Period
4/69
2/69
1/70
2/70
2/70
11/66
3/67
- 11/69
- 4/69
- 3/67
structure
s, - Pumped to sample bottle from intake on bottom of sewer. About 10 sec required to fill bottle.
s_ - Mechanical sampler traverses flow from top to bottom over about a two minute interval. Provides
depth integrated sample. Final sample composited from three samplers at. outfall.
s_ - Manual grab samples taken in sewer outfall.
Time synchronization: quality-flow good at all locations since both measurements made simultaneously
at same point...
-------
Table VII-24. Quality Parameters - San Francisco
Not all parameters are given for all storms at all catchments
Parameter
Catchment
No.
STORET
Code
Units
COD
BOD5
Floatables
Grease (Hex Extract)
Set. Solids
Set. Solids @ 30 min
Sus. Solids (SS)
Vol. SS
Particle Size Dist.
% Retained on:
74 y filter
14 y filter
5 y filter
0.45 y filter
Tot. N
NH.-N
TKN
OPO.-P
TPO^-PO,
Tot. Colif.
Fee. Colif.
Spec. Conductivity
Alkalinity
PH
Bioassay
SO.
Cl4
Na
K
Ca
Mg
Settled BOD
Vol. Set. Solids
Settled COD
Toxicity
Flow
Rainfall
All
All
All
All
1-5
6,7
All
All
340
310
90055
70351
545
90060
530
535
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
All
6,7
1-5
6,7
1-5
All
All
All
1-5
1-5
6,7
6,7
6,7
6,7
6,7
6,7
6
6
6
1-5
All
All
90065
90066
90067
90068
600
610
625
70507
650
31505
31615
.95
410
400
90069
945
940
929
937
S16
927
90064
544
90063
90070
61
90050
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
ml/1
ml/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-P
mg/l-PO,
MPN/100 ml
MPN/100 mla
y mho
mg/1 as CaCO-
% survival at 96 hrs
mg/l-S04
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
% survival at 96 hrs
cfs
in./hr
aOn data tape, coliforms are given as 100 x log,Q (MPN/100 ml)
77
-------
PACIFIC OCEAN
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
oo
BAKER STREET-^
LACUNA STREET
HYDE ST. »•
£_FEDERAL
"*" BUILDING
MARIPOSA STREET
v
VICENTE STREET
SELBY STREET
BROTHERHOOD WAY
ISLAIS CREEK
Figure VII-10 Location map for San Francisco catchments.
-------
CENTRAL SAN FRANCI
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA
BAKER STREET CATCHMENT
I I)
_n2V5^~^
1000 FT
LOMBARD ST.
J
/JACKSON ST.
CLAY ST.
Figure VII-11 San Francisco, California, Baker St. Catchment,168 ac
79
-------
_—-
r 16th ST.
©
r
]
'
1
1
1
r~
1
1
1
/•
1000 FT
I-'
co
CL
Q.
CO
CO
CO
CO
I
1
1
|
i
1
L
i
i
L
i
MARIPOSA ST
SAM
PLING
AND
RAII^
•r- '~HM
ir-j. L
1
, --. _
GAU
I-'
CO
•o
10
1
_J
GE S
r
i
i
l
I
i
i
i
i
i
/
/
,w^
IllE
J
| 23rd ST.
r
l
1
1
i
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA
MARIPOSA STREET CATCHMENT (CA I 2)
Figure VII-12 San Francisco, California, Mariposa St. Catchment, 223 ac(90ha>.
80
-------
2!
1
SHIEL
PS
JD RAIN GAUGE SITE
)OD WAY
ST.
1000 FT
' SAMPLING A
BROTHERH
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA
BROTHERHOOD WAY CATCHMENT ( CA I 3)
Figure VII-13 San Francisco, California, Brotherhood Way Catchment, 180 ac
(73 ha).
81
-------
Ill 1
1
i
1
1
I
1
I1
-
1
g t-
_ __ __
Ul
^
£
*
^^x**^
R/ICEI
&
l
1
te==
UJ
NO
-SAMPL
ITE
-soim
IN GAU
=1
SANT
I
?TH
ING sr
ST._.
SAMPI
>E
SLO/i
=====
AGO ST.
0 1000 FT
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA
| VICENTE STREET CATCHMENT
F
1
L 1 (CA ' 4)
ING sr E and
^ (CA 1 5)
£
r BLVI .
L li
Figure VII-14 San Francisco, California, Vicente St. North Catchment, 16 ac
(6.5 ha) and Vicente St. South Catchment, 21 ac (8.5 ha).
82
-------
ISLAIS CREEK
oo
2000 FT
RAIN GAUGE LOCATED OFF SITE
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIFORNIA
SELBY ST. CATCHMENT (CA I 6)
•Figure VII-15 San Francisco, California, Selby St. Catchment, 3400 ac (1380 ha)
-------
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
. IT
\
_1
I1
it
. 1
I
v
f
i
I
X
i
<
_l
MM* •••• '
FORT MASON
| SAMPLING SITE
^1
^
,)
^
\
/
**
t
»
*^
FRANC
CHEST
LOMB/i
CO
CO
UJ
z
z
._^
BEACH 1
ISCO
NUT
RD
^^•••••M
P
BAY
'
1
1
1
\
\
1
1
I
>
\
\
i
i
RAIN GAUGE LOCATED
W i
0
•^••IBMiHBBM
OFF S
\
\
\
-+
1
i
TE
1000 FT
SAN FRANCISCO , CALIF.
LA6UNA ST. CATCHMENT (CA I 7)
Figure VII-16 San Francisco, California, Laguna St. Catchment, 375 ac (152.ha).
84
-------
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON
The data included in this report were made available by the Municipality
of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) through the River Basin Coordinating Commit-
tee, plus later data through a continuing sampling program by METRO. The data
are part of an integrated study of water and wastewater management of the
Cedar and Green River Basins (33, 146).
Seven catchments were sampled representing residential, commercial, and
industrial land use. Data for all seven were gathered during 1973 under a
cooperative arrangement between METRO and the Seattle District Corps of
Engineers. Intensive sampling at three catchments has continued into 1974-75.
All data, with the exception of some limited 74-75 rainfall data, were reduced
by the agency prior to receipt by UF.
All Seattle data are considered excellent, both in terms of sampling
procedures and volume. METRO personnel are performing extensive in-house
analyses of the data to determine loading rates, statistical parameters, etc.
When published, their reports should provide a valuable addition to the data
themselves. Some additional information on the catchments is available in
modeling studies performed for the city (109, 143).
State and City Code: WA 01
85
-------
Table VII-25. Catchments - Seattle
No.
Name
Area
ac
(ha)
Sewerage
Land Use
oo
1
2
View Ridge 1 (VRl)a
View Ridge 2 (VR2)
3 South Seattle (SS3)
4 Southcenter (SC4)
5 Lake Hills (LH5)
6 Highlands (HL6)
7 Central Bus. Dist. (CBD7)
630
(255)
105
(43)
Storm
Storm
27.5 Storm
(11.1)
24 Storm
(9.8)
150
(61)
85
(34)
Storm
Storm
27.8 Combined
(11.3)
High dens., older single
family residential
Single fam. res. 50%,
multiple fam. res. 40%,
com. and hosp. 10%
Industrial
New shopping center (com.)
Medium dens., newer single
family residential
Low density, wooded, single
family residential
Older business district (com.)
Notation used in Seattle documentation.
-------
Table VII-26. Quantity Data - Seattle
Flow
Rain
00
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Type of „
Catchment Flow Measa
View Ridge 1
View Ridge 2
South Seattle
Southcenter
Lake Hills
Highlands
Central Bus. Dist.
f
f3
f3
f.
f2
f3
f3
Sampling
Interval
rnin
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-15
5-15
Gages Used
No .in No . near
Catchment
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
Sampling
Interval
Catchment Type min
3
2
2
0
1
1
1
r± 5-60
^ 5-15
r.. 5-60
r 5-60
r 5-15
^ 5-15
r^ 5-15
No.
Storms Period
5
25
5
5
26
6
25
5
2
4
5
2/73- 9/73
10/74-12/75
2/73- 9/73
3/73- 9/73
10/74-12/75
2/73- 9/73
10/74-12/75'
3/73- 9/73
4/75- 6/75
3/73- 9/73
3/73- 9/73
All flows computed from stage-discharge relationship from Manning equation, with some calibration using
velocity measurements. Stage measured by Arkon Model 63 TN Nitrogen Gas Bubbler Tube.
fjL - Recorder at hole in conduit. t^ ~ Recorder at catchbasin. f, - Recorder at manhole.
bFlows were calculated every 15 min from strip chart records with linear interpolation for values
reported at shorter intervals.
r- - Stevens tipping bucket gage and event recorder. Reported data are for gage in catchment, if working,
or else nearest gage in direction of approaching storm.
Time synchronization, rain-flow: dependent upon separate clocks in rain and stage gages.
No problems reported.
Comment: Early problems in flow measurements developed at Southcenter, Lake Hills and
Highlands due to unusually high velocities creating a venturi effect as water
rushed past the bubbler tube. Weirs were installed on April 23-24, 1973 to
reduce velocities, and calibrations changed accordingly. Flow data are con-
sidered very good, in general.
-------
Table VII-27. Quality Sampling - Seattle
oo
oo
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Catchment
View Ridge 1
View Ridge 2
South Seattle
Southcenter
Lake Hills
Highlands
Central Bus. Dist.
Sampling
Method
Sl
S2
sl
sl
JL
S2
fm
S2
S2
Sampling
Interval
min
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
Sampling Location
Flow-measuring site
Plow-measuring site
Plow-measuring site
Flow-measuring site
Flow-measuring site
Flow-measuring site
Flow-measuring site
No.
Storms
5
25
5
5
26
5
25
5a
2a
4
5
Period
2/73- 9/73
10/74-12/75
3/73- 9/73
3/73- 9/73
10/74-12/75
- 2/73- 9/73
10/74-12/75
3/73- 9/73
4/75- 6/75
3/73- 9/73
3/73- 9/73
Only quality data are a few measurements of total P.
s - Manual grab samples in 2 gal (7.6 1) bottles (1973 storms). Most 1974-75 storms used Serco
automatic samplers.
s. - Manual grab samples in 2 gal (7.6 1) bottles.
Time synchronization, flow-quality: good since flow measured at same location as quality sampling.
-------
Table VII-28. Quality Parameters - Seattle
Not all parameters are given for all storms at all catchments.
Parameter
Catchment
No.
STORE!
Code
Units
DO All
pH All
Temperature All
Susp. Solids (SS) All
BOD5 All
COD All
Cd All
Cr All
Cu All
Pb
Zn
Cl
NH_-N
NO;;-N
Nof-N + NO--N
TKfl
Organic-N
Fee. Colif.
Tot. Colif.
Tot. Hydroliz. P
Tot. P
OPO.-P
Conductivity
Turbidity
Grease (Hex Extract)
Tot. Dis. Solids
Set. Solids (at 1 hr)
SO,
Fe4
Hg
As
Flow
Rain All3
Dry Days Preceding 1,3,4
Storm0
Catchment Areac 1,3,4
Storm Rainfall0 1,3,4
a
a
All3
All3
All
All3
All
All3
All
1,3,4
All
All
All
1,3,4*
All3
All3
All3
All
All
AH
All
All
All
All
a
300
400
10
530
310
340
1027
1034
1042
1051
1092
940
610
615
630
625
605
31616
31501
669
665
70507
94
70
70351
515
546
945
1045
7190
1002
61
90050
90100
53
45
mg/1
°C
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
yg/i
yg/i
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
mg/1
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
MPN/100 ml?
MPN/100 mlb
mg/l-P
mg/l-P
mg/l-P
y mho /cm
JTU
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
mg/1
yg/l
yg/l
yg/l
cfs
in./hr
days
acres
in.
Only parameters measured when using automatic samplers during 1974-75
storms
On data tape, coliforms are given as 100 x log- _ (MPN/100 ml).
'"Also provided on data tape for 1974-75 storms.
89
-------
Table VII-29. Background Levels at Three Catchments - Seattle
Limited samples were taken in 1976 to determine background levels of
parameters during periods of no rain. These may be used as initial
conditions at the initiation of storms. They also are subject to
refinement at a future date.
Concentration at Catchments
STORET 134
Parameter Code (VRl) (SS3) (SC4) Units
Tot. P 665 0.15 0.11 0.22 mg/l-P
OPO.-P 70507 0.09 0.1 0.14 mg/l-P
Organic-N 605 0.44 0.40 0.80 mg/l-N
NH3-N 610 0.06 0.08 0.16 mg/l-N
NO, + NO -N 630 2.3 0.1 0.35 mg/l-N
Susp. Solids (SS) 530 6.0 24.0 14.0 mg/1
Turbidity 70 120 220 110 JTU
Conductivity 94 290 180 420 y mho/cm
Cd 1027 4a 4a 4a yg/1
Pb 1051 100 100 100 yg/1
Zn 1092 10 190 150 yg/1
Flow 61 0.24 0.01 Q.01 cfs
Lowest measureable.
90
-------
PUOET
SOUND
PUOET
SOUND
01234 MILES
CENTRAL BUSINESS UHSIRICT
Figure VII-17 Location map for Seattle catchments.
91
-------
VO
to
CO
^h
w
^^^
1 *
0 OQOFT.
1
U— — —
1
1
1 |
|
J z
[_
1 ,
i _5
i r
i ____j
, 50th
1
i r-
1 v
L^
CO
^
O
uj
z
1
AVE. N.E.
^ *^ ^^
CO
i
UJ
z
40th AVE .
1
_ — i
\
/
---"V x
^ ' \ '
\
\
\
\
'
N.E.
^^
•
35th AVE. N.E
i
I
DAIM ftAnAP i nr Ai
.
1 "t
\ f.
\. ^
\
•^ z
X
X
SAMPLING S
•p-n IM*
ITE
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
VIEWRIDGE CATCHMENT I (WAI i)
VIEWRIDGE 2 CATCHMENT
Figure VII-18 Seattle, Washington, Viewridge 1 Catchment, 630 ac (255 ha)
-------
40th Ml. N.E.
500 FT.
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
VIEWRIDGE CATCHMENT, 2
(WA I 2)
LJ
SAMPLING
RAIN GAUGE
Figure VII-19 Seattle, Washington, Viewridge 2 Catchment, 105 ac (43 ha)
Scale is approximate.
93
-------
4th AVE.
RAIN GAUGE LOOTED OFF SITE
MAYNARD
f2
m
"1
1
1
1
I
SAMPLING SITE
\,
O
1000 FT
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
SOUTH SEATTLE CATCHMENT
(WA I 3)
Figure VII-20 Seattle, Washington, South Seattle Catchment, 27.5 ac (11.1 ha)
-------
VO
Ln
in
O
o
m
300 FT
I ._.
DOUBLE TREE
INN
ACCESS RD.
PENNEYS
GARAGE
o
m
30
I I
I J
/^ POST
OFFICE
STRANDER BLVD.
--L/RAIN GAUGE
'•4
SAMPLING
SITE
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
SOUTHCENTER CATCHMENT (WA I 4)
Figure VII-21 Seattle, Washington, Southcenter Catchment, 24 ac (9.8 ha)
-------
SAMPLING SITE
800 FT
172nd AVE.
I I
164th AVE. N.E
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
LAKE HILLS CATCHMENT (WA I 5)
Figure VII-22 Seattle, Washington, Lake Hills Catchment, 150 ac (61 ha).
96
-------
VO
200 FT
RAIN GAUGE LOCATED OFF SITE AT INTERSECTION OF,
INNIS AROEN WAY AND 10th AVE. N. W.
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
HIGHLANDS CATCHMENT (WA I 6)
Figure VII-23 Seattle, Washington, Highlands Catchment, 85 ac (34 ha).
-------
V0
oo
V)
2nd AVE.
SAMPLING SITE
3rd AVE.
WESTERN AVE.
_
100 FT
f-
v>
RAIN GAUGE LOCATED OFF SITE AT INTERSECTION OF ALASKAN AND DENNY WAYS
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT CATCHMENT (WA I 7)
Figure VII-24 Seattle, Washington, Central Business District Catchment, 27.8 ac (11.3 ha)
-------
WINDSOR, ONTARIO
Data were taken from the thesis of Droste (110) of the University of
Windsor from one residential catchment for the period September 1972 to
August 1973. Sampling and all data reduction were performed by the University
of Windsor. Additional information about a nearby catchment is provided in
an earlier study by Singh, but his data are not included because of construc-
tion activities underway during his sampling activities (111).
The data included herein were taken for a large number of storms, 22,
but suffer from a large sampling interval of one hour. This will limit their
usefulness somewhat for modeling purposes.
Province and City Code: ON 01
99
-------
Table VII-30. Catchment - Windsor
No. Name
Labadie Road
Area
ac
(ha)
29.5
(11.9)
Sewerage Population
Storm
590
Land Use
Single family Residential
Table VII-31. Quantity Data - Windsor
o
o
Flow
Rain
No. Catchment
Labadie Road
Sampling
Type of Interval
Flow Meas min
Gages Used
No. in No. near
Catchment Catchment Type
60
Sampling
Interval
min
60
No.
Storms Period
22
9/72
8/73
f, - Stage measured by Arkon Model 63 TN Nitrogen Gas Bubbler Tube in 21 in. (53 cm) sewer at manhole.
Flow computed using calibrated stage-discharge relationship.
r.. - Not reported, but 0.01 in. (0.254 mm) accuracy.
Flow-rain synchronization: dependent upon separate clocks on rain and stage gages.
reported.
No problems
Comment: A weighted average of two or three rain gages is reported leading to some smoothing of data.
Gages are operated by Department of Geography at University of Windsor. Storms of January
23-24, March 16-17, 1973 and November 25-26, 1972 contain significant snowfall.
-------
Table VII-32. Quality Sampling - Windsor
Sampling
Sampling Interval Sampling No.
Catchment Method min Location Storms Period
Labadie Road S;L 60 Manhole 22 9/72 - 8/73
S-, - Automatic grab sampler by Testing Machines International. Sampling
head anchored to bottom of sewer. Samples not taken when flow <
0.01 cfs (0.28 I/sec).
Time synchronization: Quality-flow good .because measurements taken at
same location.
-------
Table VII-33. Quality Parameters - Windsor
Not all parameters were sampled for all storms
STORE!
Parameter Code
Units
BOD 310
Tot. Colif. 31504
Fee. Colif. 31616
Tot. Susp. Solids (SS) 530
Vol. SS 535
NH--N 610
NO,-N 620
NO,-N 615
OPO -PO, 660
Cl 4 * 940
SO, 945
Alkalinity 410
Ca; hardness 901
Total hardness 900
pH 400
Color 80
Turbidity 70
Spec. Conductivity 95
mg/1
MPN/100 ml
MPN/100 mla
mg/1
mg/1
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/l-N
mg/1 as PO
mg/1 4
mg/1
mg/1 as CaCO,
mg/1 as CaCO;
mg/1 as CaCO;
PTU
JTU
y mho
Some additional data were taken in composite samples
during storms.
On data tape, coliforms are given as 100 x log
(MPN/100 ml).
10
102
-------
o
U)
SAMPLING
SITE
J
WINDSOR, ONTARIO
CATCHMENT (ON I I)
RAIN GAUGE LOCATED
OFF SITE
Figure VII-25 Windsor, Ontario, Labadie Road Catchment, 29.5 ac (11.9 ha).
-------
SECTION VIII
DESCRIPTION OF RAINFALL-RUNOFF DATA
BASE SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The following subsections describe locations for which rainfall and
runoff data have been obtained and placed in the data base. No quality data
-(.or only unsuitable data) are available, although current studies at some
sites are likely to provide such data in the future.
Again, sources included in this section were chosen primarily on the
basis of quality of the data, availability and documentation. Remarks made
at the introduction to Section VII apply here also. In particular, documen-
tation varies greatly from site to site. In a few instances, the only read-
ily available information available to UF was that contained in the RRL and
ILLUDAS studies (49,50). However, in most cases, at least some other source
documentation was available. The cited references should be consulted for
additional information at each location.
For quantity-only locations, a table of parameter codes is not given
unless there are multiple rain gages, in which case data from each gage is
given a different code number (see Table VI-3 )... In the absence of a table,
rainfall and flow values are assigned the code numbers 90050 and 00061,
respectively, as indicated in Table VI-3.
Information.on modeling data should again be requested directly from UF,
as indicated in Section VII.
104
-------
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Some of the earliest and most widely used urban rainfall-runoff data were
gathered in Baltimore as part of the Storm Drain Research Project at The John
Hopkins Unviersity. Tucker (36,40) has published data for the Northwood and
Gray Haven catchments, including necessary modeling information, and the data
included herein were taken from these reports. Data from other catchments,
Including Swansea, Montebello No. 4 and South. Parking Lot No. 1, are also
available (40, 50).
The Baltimore data, especially Northwood, have been extensively used for
model verification, e.g., references 50, 81, 101, 112-127, 143, 174, 176-178.
Such references serve as valuable supplementary material for interpretation
of data.
State and City Code: MD 01
LOS
-------
Table VIII-1. Catchments - Baltimore
Area
ac Imperviousness, Average Land Use
No. Name (ha) Sewerage % Slope, % Percentages
1 Gray Haven 23.3 Storm
(9.4)
2 Northwood 47.4 Storm
(19.2)
t— '
§ Table VII-2. Quantity Data - Baltimore
Flow
Sampling
Type of Interval,
No. Catchment flow meas. min
1 Gray Haven f. 1
2 Northwood f, 1
52 0.5 Residential
68 3 Res. 63, Com. 37
Rain
Gages Used Sampling
No. in No. near Interval, No. of
Catchment Catchment Type min Storms Period
1 ri 1 28 6/63-10/66
1 - r. 1 14 3/64-9/65
f- - Parshall flume located in open channel. Flow measurements estimated to be within +
r. - Tipping bucket gage, 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) capacity.
Time synchronization: Excellent since data recorded on same chart.
-------
BOUNDARY RD
r
|"J DEL jHAVEN RD.
1 ii~~'
_J
< —
1
1"~ GRAY HAVEN
1
f
i — ^
i
L
r-J
— 1
i
r_RD- !
Lc— J
i
,^J PARK HAVEN RD
RAIN GAUGE
A STREAM GAUGE
400 FT
BALTIMORE , MARYLAND
GRAY HAVEN CATCHMENT
(MD I I)
Figure VIII-1 Baltimore, Maryland, Gray Haven Catchment, 23.3 ac (9.4 ha)
107
-------
^
BALTIMORE , MARYLAND
NORTHWOOD CATCHMENT
(MD 12)
Figure VIII-2 Baltimore, Maryland, Northwood Catchment, 47.4 ac (19.2 ha)
108
-------
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
During the period 1959-1963, the Chicago Department of Public Works,
Bureau of Engineering, collected rainfall-runoff data for the 12.9 ac (5.2 ha)
Oakdale catchment, located about 6 miles (9.6 km) northwest of downtown
Chicago. These data were published by Tucker (37, 40) and have been widely
used for model testing, e.g., references 1, 81, 101, 112-115, 119, 125-129,143,
174. Complete modeling data are presented by Tucker (37) to which the studies
of Chow and Yen (128) and Brandstetter (1) are valuable supplements.
State and City Code: IL 01
109
-------
Table VIII-3. Catchments - Chicago
Impervious Area
No. Name
1 Oakdale
Area
ac
(ha)
12.9
(5.2)
Sewerage
Combined
Directly
Connected
ac(ha)
5.15
(2.09)
Indirectly
Connected
ac (ha)
0.72
(0.29)
Pervious
Area
ac(ha)
7.05
(2.85)
No . inlet
catchbasins
30
Land
Use
Dense r<
Table VIII-4. Quantity Data - Chicago
Flow
Rain
No.
1
Catchment
Oakdale
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms
16
Period
5/59-9/64
f - Simplex 30 in. (76cm) Type "S" parabolic flume located in vault at outlet of 30 in.(76cm)
combined sewer.
r.. - Tipping bucket gage with 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) capacity located one block north of drainage area.
Time synchronization: Good. Flow and rain data were telemetered to downtown office of Dept. of Public
Works. However, time of day of start of storm is not noted, so all data are
relative to start of storm.
-------
r
i
r- -i r- -1
C^-i l~l
i ,
1
1
L -^.
1
i
_- , 1
1 j
1
1
L
i
t
m
o
r
^|
m
•
•» i
1
i
L_ _,
n ' ' r""i-_
. — . _ _ . -^ . — . — _ . . . ^_._
• 1 r-. f
[— — • !__<«__ _ — -J
|
J
^l_ll^ A ^^\ II II ^l^\ 1 O
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
^^ A i^ ^ A • r^ ^% * ^p ^^i iKj^^i
f~
m
o
z
m
-
1
t
•
l
1
4
«^
FALCONER ELEMEN1
SCHOOL
RAIN GAUGE
r — i
f L ,
L _,
STj?EAI
•W.— OAKDALE— AVE. +• r —
j
1
J
i
--. , 1
1 1
^^^
A
^^^^^^ ^^«ji
IARY
z
r-
o
z
1 GAUGE
A
200 FT
(IL I I)
Figure VIII-3 Chicago, Illinois, Oakdale Catchment, 12.9 ac (5.2 ha).
-------
CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, ILLINOIS
Runoff data for the Boneyard Creek catchment have been collected by the
USGS since 1948. Rainfall data have been collected since 1949 by the Illinois
State Water Survey in cooperation with the Department of Civil Engineering of
the University of Illinois. Tucker (42) presents rainfall-stage data for 29
storms from October 1960 to August 1966. After having converted stages to
flows via a rating curve and having keypunched the data, they were made avail-
able to UF through the courtesy of the Illinois State Water Survey.
The basin contains five recording gages. For 15 of the 28 storms inclu-
ded in the data base, a Thiessen weighted average of the five gages is given.
For .the remaining 13 storms, individual data for from three to five gages are
given. Boneyard Creek data have been used by Stall and Terstriep for RRL and
ILLUDAS model verification studies (50, 113) and by others (114, 115, 131,
142).
State and City Code: IL 02
112
-------
Table VIII-5. Catchment -Champaign-Urbana
No.
Name
rard Creek
Area
ac
(ha)
2290
(927)
Average
Slope
Sewerage %
Storm3 0.2
Imperviousness Impervious Area
% Land Use Percentage
44.1 Streets 10.9, Alleys 0
Sidewalks 3.5, Commerc
7.0, Residential Rooftops
14.8, Campus 7.0.
partially open channels.
£ '.fable VIII-6. Quantity Data - Champaign-Urbana
OJ
Flow
Rain
No. Catchment
1 Boneyard Creek
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No..near Interval, No. of
flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms
Period
5-15
28 10/60-8/66
f1 - Stage gage at concrete control. Rating curve given by Tucker (42). USGS gage ID is 3-3370.
r1 - Weighing bucket gages with weekly charts.
Time Synchronization: Among rain gages +10%. Stage gage estimated to be with + 5 min. of actual
time.
-------
T,able VIII-7. Additional Rain Gage Information - Champaign-Urbana
Thiessen Weights
Parameter a
Gage No. Code
1 90049
2 90048
5 90047
7 90046
11 90045
Average 90050a
5 Gages
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.25
0.10
Gages 1,2,5
0.40
0.30
0.30
Gages 1,2,5,11°
0.20
0.20
0.30
%
0.30
when Thiessen average rainfall of 5 gages is given (15 storms) . These
data were averaged because of similar rainfall patterns.
bStorm of 7/13/62 has rainfall for only gages 1,2,5.
C
Storm of 6/14/64 has rainfall for only gages 1,2,5,11.
114
-------
STREAM
y GAUGE
IN GAUGE NO. II
UNIVERSITY OF
ILLINOIS STADIUM
1800 3000 FT
CHAMPAIGN - URBAN A , ILLINOIS
BONEYARD CREEK CATCHMENT (IL 2 I)
Figure VIII-4 Champaign-Urbana, Illinois, Boneyard Creek Catchment, 2290 ac,
(927 ha).
115
-------
BUCYRUS, OHIO
During 1969, Burges and Niple, Ltd. conducted combined sewer overflow
studies in Bucyrus (132). Their report contains considerable information
about the three sewer districts sampled, including limited quality data.
Data for Sewer District No. 8 were keypunched and supplied to UF through the
courtesy of the Illinois State Water Survey.
The data were used in testing the RRL and ILLUDAS models (49, 50).
Terstriep and Stall (50) suggest sampling errors at high flows, i.e., high
values of measured flows may be lower than their true values. In addition,
the flat terrain and indeterminate drainage pattern create ponding during
some storms.
State and City Code: OH 01
116
-------
.Table VIII-8. Catchment -. Bucyrus
No.
Name
Area
ac
(ha)
Average Imperviousness, Land-Use
Sewerage Population Slope, % % Percentages
1 Sewer Dist. 179 Combined
No.8 (72.5)
2020
0.85
33.7 Res. 59.6, Com. 6.3,
Ind. 7.8, institution-
al 4.6, undev. 12.9,
railroad 0.2, streets
8.6
Table VIII-9. Quantity Data - Bucyrus
Flow
Rain
No. Catchment
1 Sewer District
No. 8
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms
5-15
10
10
Period
3/69-9/69
f - Stage measurements by Stevens Type-F recorder located behind 8 ft. (2.4m) rectangular weir.
Readings could be made to nearest 0.01 ft. (3mm).
r- - Bendix weighing-bucket gage with 24 hour chart.
Time synchronization: Rain and stage gage times estimated to be within + 2 min.
-------
800 FT
STREAM GAUGE
BUCYRUS , OHIO
SEWER DISTRICT NUMBER EIGHT
(OH I I )
Figure VIII-5 Bucyrus, Ohio, Sewer District Number Eight, 179 ac (72J>ha>.
118
-------
FALLS CHURCH, VIRGINIA
The USGS began recording rainfall-runoff data in the residential Tripps
Run Basin near Washington, B.C. in 1959. Tucker (42) reports on its charac-
teristics and sampling program. The Illinois State Water Survey reduced
original stage and rainfall records for a 326 ac (130 ha) tributary. The
keypunched data were received by UF through their courtesy. A disadvantage
in the data is the 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) capacity of the tipping bucket rain gage
utilized. In testing the RRL and ILLUDAS models, Stall and Terstriep (49,
50) report some difficulty in obtaining good modeling information. The data
have also been used in studies of the effect of urbanization on hydrographs
(176, 177).
State and City Code: VA 01
119
-------
Table VIII-10. Catchment - Falls Church
No.
Name
1 Tripps Run
Tributary
Area
ac
(ha)
322
(130)
Sewerage
Storm
Channel
Total Paved Length, mi
Area, % (km)
31
1.1
(1.76)
Channel
Slope
0.0193
Land Use
Residential with some
commercial
Table VIII-11. Quantity Data - Falls Church
Flow
Rain
No. Catchment
1 Tripps Run
Tributary
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms Period
5-15
10
10 3/63-10/67
f- - Stage measurements by a Stevens graphical recorder on a rated culvert. USGS Gage No. 1-6526.45
r. - Tipping bucket gage with 0.1 in. (2.5 mm) capacity.
Time synchronization: Good since rainfall and stage data recorded or same chart.
-------
750 FT
STREAM \0AUG€ .
FALLS CHURCH , VIRGINIA
TRIPPS RUN CATCHMENT
(VA I I)
Figure VII-6 Falls Church, Virginia, Tripps Run Catchment, 322 ac (130 ha).
121
-------
WINSTON-SALEM, NORTH CAROLINA
The USGS gages the 384 ac (155 ha) Tar Branch basin at Walnut Street in
Winston-Salem. Keypunched rainfall-runoff data were made available to UF
through the courtesy of the Illinois State Water Survey who utilized them
in testing the RRL and ILLUDAS models (49, 50). The data have also been used
for hydrograph analyses (171, 176). Tucker (42) provides additional informa-
tion on the basin and gaging installations.
State and City Code: NC 01
122
-------
Table VIII-12. Catchment - Winston-Salem
No. Name
1 Tar Branch
Area
ac
(ha) Sewerage
384 Storm
(155)
Total Paved
Area, %
59
Channel
Length, mi
(km)
1.27
(2.03)
Channel
Slope
0.0295
Land Use
Residential
and business
H- Table VIII-13. Quantity Data - Winston-Salem
co
Flow
Rain
No.
1
Catchment
Tar Branch
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms Period
17 6/68-12/69
f - Continuous stage record above a rated culvert. Fischer-Porter automatic data recorder. USGS
Station no. 20115843.
r. - Float-type gage with punched output onto paper tape.
Time synchronization: Good since both rain and stage gage use same clock.:
-------
M GAUGE
WINSTON-SALEM N. C.
TAR BRANCH CATCHMENT (NC I I)
Figure VIII-7 Winston-Salem, N.C., Tar Branch Catchment, 384 ac (155 ha).
124
-------
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI
USGS data have been collected since 1965 on the residential Crane Creek
basin in Jackson and utilized by the Illinois State Water Survey for RRL and
ILLUDAS model verification (49, 50). Keypunched data were obtained by UF
through the courtesy of the Survey. The data have also been used for unit
hydrograph analyses (171) and model comparisons (172) . Other information on
urban runoff in Jackson is available in a USGS report by Wilson (136).
State and City Code: MS 01
125
-------
Table VIII-14. Catchment - Jackson
No. Name
Area
ac
(ha)
Sewerage
Channel
Total Paved Length, mi Channel
Area, % (km) Slope Land Use
1 Crane Creek 285 Storm
(115)
24
0.8
(1.3)
0.0067 Residential
*- Table VIII-15. Quantity Data - Jackson
No. Catchment
1 Crane Creek
Flow
Rain
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms
16
Period
5/65-5/66
' ^* • '
- Continuous stage record at a rated box culvert (Meadowbrook Dr.). Digital output on punched
tape. USGS Station no. 4857.80.
r - Float-type gage with punched output onto paper tape, using same clock as stage gage.
Time synchronization: Good since both rain and stage gage use same clock.
-------
iRAIN GAUG
I I
600 FT
JACKSON , MISSISSIPPI
CRANE CREEK CATCHMENT
(MS I I)
Figure VIII-8 Jackson, Mississippi, Crane Creek Catchment, 285 ac (115 ha)
127
-------
WICHITA, KANSAS
USGS data have been collected on the residential Dry Creek basin in
Wichita and utilized by the Illinois State Water Survey for RRL and ILLUDAS
model verification (49, 50). Keypunched data were obtained by UF through the
courtesy of the Survey. The data have also been used for studies of hydrologic
effects of urbanization in the area (179).
State and City Code: KS 01
128
-------
Table VIII-16. ' Catchment — Wichita
Area
ac Total paved
No. Name (ha) Sewerage Area, % Land Use
1 Dry Creek 1883 Storm 31 Residential with commercial strips
(762) (open channel)
N> Table VIII-17. Quantity Data - Wichita
Flow Rain
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
No. Catchment flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms Period
1 Dry Creek ^ 5 1 - ^ 5 8 5/64-7/65
f - Continuous stage record at a rated bridge (Lincoln St.). Digital output on punched tape.
USGS Gage No. 71443J30.
r., - Float-type gage with punched output onto paper tape, using same clock as stage gage.
Time synchronization: Good since both rain and stage gage use same clock.
-------
STREAM GAUGE
U)
c>
1800 FT
WICHITA , KANSAS
DRY CREEK CATCHMENT
(KS I I)
\
1
1
Figure VIII-9 Wichita, Kansas, Dry Creek Catchment, 1183 ac (762 ha)
-------
WESTBURY, LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
In connection with a larger hydrologic study in Nassau County, New York,
the USGS monitored inflow from the 14.7 ac (6.0 ha) residential Woodoak Drive
basin into a small recharge basin. Seaburn reports the details of the 1966-
67 study (137) with further information on the flow measurement techniques
(138) and related hydrology efforts in the area (139). Thus, other parameters
related to the recharge basin were measured as well. The Illinois State Water
Survey utilized the data for verification of the RRL and ILLUDAS models (49,
50). Keypunched data were obtained through the courtesy of the Survey.
State and City Code: NY 01
131
-------
Table VIII-18. Catchment - Westbury, L.I.
Area
ac
No. Name (ha) Sewerage Streets, % perviousness Houses Land Use
ac Area of Totalaim- No.
1 Woodoak 14.7 Storm 12 33 52 Residential
(6.0)
a
i- Includes streets, driveways, sidewalks and roofs.
OJ
.10
Table VIII-19. Quantity Data-Westbury, L.I.
Flow Rain
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
No. Catchment flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms Period
1 Woodoak f 5 - 1 r 10 10 9/66-5/68
f1 - Continuous stage record at a V-notch weir in 24 in. (61cm) concrete outlet pipe (only pipe in
basin). Digital output on punched tape.
r - Weighing bucket gage located about 900 ft. (274 m) southeast of basin.
-------
RAIN GAUGE
WESTBURY LONG ISLAND , N . Y.
WOODOAK DRIVE CATCHMENT
.(NY I I)
Figure VIII-10 Westbury, Long Island, New York, Woodoak Drive Catchment,
14.7 ac (6.0 ha).
133
-------
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
The 5326 ac (2156 ha) Wingohocking basin is Philadelphia's largest
combined sewer catchment. Tucker (40) describes in detail the gaging program
at Wingohocking which was initiated by the U.S. Public Health Service in
1963 and has been under the direction of the Philadelphia Water Department
since 1965. Guarino, Radziul and Greene (140) discuss Wingohocking in the
context of overall combined sewer problems in Philadelphia. Tucker
(41) also provides additional information on the city's gaging program,
plus more detailed information on the raingage network within the city (38).
There are four raingages which service the Wingohocking area. Keypunched
rainfall-runoff data were obtained through the courtesy of the Illinois
State Water Survey who used them for RRL and ILLUDAS verification (49,
50). They indicate a possible change during 1966 in the rating curve used
for flow calculations. The data have also been used for SWMM verification
(102) in which pome of the composited quality samples are utilized. These
composited quality data are not included in the data base. SWMM input data
are also given in reference 102. Additional SWMM simulations of several
of the storms included in this data base have been performed by Hagarman and
Dressier (141).
State and City Code: PA 02
134
-------
Table VIII-20. Catchment - Philadelphia
No.
1
Name
Wingohocking
Area
ac
(ha)
5362a
(2171)
Sewerage
Combined
1960
Population
173,000
Impervious-
ness %
75
Length of
Sewers ,
Atlas (km)
45
(72)
Land Use Percentages
Single Family Res.
84.2, Multi-Family
Res. 9.0, Open 6.8
Reference 40. Reference 102 gives 5432 ac (2199 ha) and references 49 and 50 give 5326 ac (2156 ha),
Table VIII-21. Quantity Data - Philadelphia
U)
Flow
Rain
No . Catchment
1 Wingohocking
Type of
flow meas.
*i
Sampling
Interval ,
min
15
Gages Used
No. in No. near
Catchment Catchment
2 3
Sampling
Interval ,
Type min
*, 5
No. of
Storms
12
Period
7/67-8/6
f- - Depth measurements 450 ft (137 m) upstream from calibrated (physical model) broad-crested weir, which
is 87 ft (27 m) upstream from 21 by 24 ft (6.4 by 7.3m) horseshoe-shaped combined sewer outfall.
Continuous depth record on strip chart from Pro-Tech model SM-205 depth recorder. Note: Given flows
are overflows over weir. See Table VIII-23 for estimate of diversion into interceptor upstream of
weir. Dry weather flow estimated to be about 30 cfs (0.86 nrVsec).
r. - Weighing type with minimum scale divisions of 5 min. See Table VIII-22 for further information.
Time Synchronization:
Rain gage network estimated to be within + 5 min of clock time. Variation in
1 in/hr (2.5 cm/hr) speed of depth gage strip chart may lead to variations with
clock time greater than 5 min.
-------
Table VIII-22. Additional Rain Gage Information - Philadelphia
See also reference 38.
City Gage
Gage No. No.
1 18
2 8
3 17
4 7
5 20
Name
Roosevelt
Heinz
Queen Lane
Harrow Gate
Shawmont3
Parameter
Code
90050
90049
90048
90047
90046
Approximate
Elev. ft (m)
300
140
220
80
(91)
(43)
(67)
(24)
Thiessen
Weight
0.58
0.12
0.15
0.15
Located to west of catchment. Data also included in data base.
Table VIII-23. Estimated Interceptor Diversions - Philadelphia
The maximum capacity of the 102 in. (259 cm) interceptor is 270 cfs (7.7
m^/sec). It also may receive up to 150 cfs (4.3 m^/eec) from an upstream
60 in.(152 cm) pipe. Actual diversion through interceptor will depend upon
storm pattern. However, in reference 102, the following estimates are
given.
Total Flow
(Diversion plus
Overflow)
cfs (nrVsec)
0 - 500
500 - 1000
1000 - 1500
1500
( 0 - 14.2)
(14.2 - 28.3)
(28.3 - 42.5)
(42.5)
Estimated
Diversion
cfs (m^/sec)
Up to 200
150
100
50
(5.7)
(4.3)
(2.8)
(1.4)
136
-------
u>
PHILADELPHIA , PENNSYLVANIA
WINGOHOCKING CATCHMENT
(PA 2 I)
9000 6000 FT
ROOSEVELT
RAIN \GAUGE i
HARROW GATE
RAIN GAUGE 4
HUNTING PARK\ / / /
Figure VIII-11 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, WingohockLng Catchment, 5362 ac (2171 ha)
-------
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
The 252 ac (102 ha) Echo Park basin is a steep, residential catchment
in north central Los Angeles. Copies of strip chart records of rainfall
and runoff from 1954 to 1974, plus considerable catchment and other informa-
tion, were received by UF directly from the City of Los Angeles, Depart-
ment of Public Works, Bureau of Engineering. For purposes of the data base,
reduced keypunched data were also obtained through the courtesy of the
Illinois State Water Survey who used them for RRL and ILLUDAS model verifi-
cation (49, 50). The HSP model has also been applied to this basin (142)
during which it was estimated that measured flows could be in error by more
than 20 percent due to uncertainty in the roughness and the supercritical
flow velocities in the sewer. Terstriep and Stall (50) also point but that
for a basin this steep, rainfall resolution at intervals less than 4 minutes
would be desirable, but the 24-hour rain gage charts do not permit it.
State and City Code: CA 02
138
-------
Table VIII-24. Catchment - Los Angeles
Area
ac Imperviousness, % 1973
No. Name (ha) Sewerage " 1956 1970 Population Land Use
1 Echo Park 252 Storm 49.5 53.8 2850a Residential with some
(102) commercial
estimate using population density of larger Echo Park District of Los Angeles.
io "Table VIII-25. Quantity Data - Los Angeles
Flow • Rain
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
No. Catchment flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms Period
1 Echo Park ^ 2 - 10 1 - TI 4 18 2/58-12/70
f1 - Rating curve from Manning equation (n=0.013, slope = 0.018) in 51 in.(130 cm) concrete arch storm
sewer. Stage records on Stevens Type L recorder with 24 hr chart.
r.. - Weighing bucket gage with 24 hr chart.
Time Synchronization: Possible errors due to separate clocks on rain and stage gages.
-------
LOS ANGELES , CALIFORNIA
ECHO PARK CATCHMENT
(CA 2 I)
Figure VIII-12 Los Angeles, California, Echo Park Catchment', 252 ac (102 ha).
-------
PORTLAND, OREGON
The City of Portland, Department of Public Works has collected rainfall-
runoff data at the ?5 ac (30 ha) residential Eastmoreland catchment since
early 1975. More recently, 24 rain gages and 14 sewer monitors have been in-
stalled around the city, which are sampled at 15 second intervals and output
stored on magnetic tapes. In addition, EPA Section 208 quality sampling pro-
grams have been initiated on the Eastmoreland catchment and four others. Data
from these may be included in the data base at a future date.
Eastmoreland rainfall-runoff data have been used to calibrate an urban
runoff model developed for the City of Portland (163). Additional information
on the catchment is included therein.
State and City Code: OR 01
141
-------
Table VIII-26. Catchment - Portland
No.
Name
Area
ac
(ha)
Sewerage
Population
Average Density, persons/ac
Slope (persons/ha)
Land Use
Eastmoreland
75
(30)
Combined
0.04
18.2
(45)
Single family res.
Table VIII-27. Quantity Data - Portland
NJ
Flow
Rain
No. Catchment
1 Eastmoreland
Sampling Gages Used Sampling
Type of Interval, No. in No. near Interval, No. of
flow meas. min Catchment Catchment Type min Storms
0.75
0.25
24
Period
3/75-8/75
f. - Brooks magnetic flow meter in 21 in. (53cm) C.S.P. (slope 0.10). Values logged on Metro data 616
Data Logger at 15 sec intervals whenever flow is greater than 1.0 cfs (0.028 m-Vsec)• See Table
VIII-28 for dry weather flow and infiltration information.
r. - Weather Measure No. P-501 tipping bucket rain gage with 0.01 in. (0.25 mm) bucket capacity. In-
terregated for number of tips every 15 seconds. Data base tape stores time and cummulative total
(code number 90040) to avoid computing intensities over odd time intervals.
Time synchronization, rainfall-flow: Excellent since both records are recorded using same clock.
-------
Table VIII-28. Dry Weather Flow and Infiltration Information - Portland
Average daily DWF for the Eastmoreland area has been measured at approximately
0.1 cfs (0.003 m-Vsec)• This corresponds roughly to 50 gal/day per capita
(0.19 m-Vday per capita). Infiltration into the system is minimal and of the
same order of magnitude as the average DWF. Hourly correction factors for
DWF (excluding infiltration) have been determined and are given below.
a
Hour Correction Factor
0 1.0
1 0.6
2 0.3
3 0.2
4 0.1
5 0.1
6 0.1
7 0.6
8 0.5
9 0.6
10 0.4
11 0.4
12 1.3
13 1.1
14 1.0
15 0.95
16 0.95
17 1.1
18 1.2
19 1.4
20 1.7
21 1.6
22 1.5
23 1.3
24.0
Multiply by average DWF to get value at each hour. These values have been
adjusted slightly from data supplied by city so that they sum to 24.0.
143
-------
PORTLAND, OREGON
EASTMORELAND, CATCHMENT
(OR I i)
STREAM GAUGE
Figure VIII-13 Portland, Oregon, Eastmoreland Catphment, 75 ac (30 ha)
-------
HOUSTON, TEXAS
In cooperation with the City of Houston, the USGS initiated collection
of urban rainfall-runoff data at more than 20 .sites in 1964. Annual reports
have been published (e.g., 164, 165) containing catchment information and
detailed results (i.e., hyetographs and hydrographs) from several storm events
at several sites. Unfortunately, all but the latest reports are out of print
and available only for short-term loan from the Houston offices of the USGS.
The data have been used in studies of the effect of urbanization in the
Houston area (e.g., 166, 167). Data from Hunting Bayou have been used for
ILLUDAS model calibration (50). Data from several Houston catchments along
with many others were used by Brater and Sherrill (168) to develop unit hydro-
graph parameters. Keypunched data for the four catchments included herein
were obtained from this latter study. Similar studies in urban hydrology are
underway in Austin and Dallas.
The quality of these data are good. The measurements are carefully con-
ducted, and the annual reports (164, 165) give a detailed time history of
each storm. Quality sampling at several locations is now'underway as a part
of EPA 208 studies.
It is anticipated that quality data from the Woodlands project (80, 169)
north of Houston will be included in addenda to the data base. Extensive
quality data have been gathered; they await complete computerization before
they can be transmitted to UF.
State and City Code: TX 01
145
-------
Table VIII-29. Catchments - Houston
Area, ac
No. Name (ha) Sewerage
1 Hunting Bayou at 768 Storm
Cavalcade St. (311)
(USGS Gage 80757.5)
2 Hunting Bayou at 2509b Storm
Falls St. (1016)
(USGS Gage 80757.6)
3 Bering Ditch at 1894C Stormd
Voodway Dr. (767)
(USGS Gage 80738.0)
4 Berry Creek at . 3110 Storm
Galvecton Rd. (1259)
(USGS Gage 80757.0)
1960 Population Storm Drainage8
Density, persons/ac Imperviousness, Sewered Main Channel Density
Land
(persons /ha)
Area, Z
Slope
ml/ml2 (km/km2) Uses
12
(31
10
(26
6
(17
2
(6
.9
.6)
.5
.0)
.9
.1)
.9
.0)
27 29
20 21 14 0.00167 2
(1
17 27f 68 0.00066 3
(2
8 9 18 0.00114 2
(1
.61-
.63)
.20
.00)
.11
.32)
Res.
plus
hwy.
Res.
plus
hwy.
Res.
plus
Res.
approx
com. ,
approx
com. ,
approx
com. ,
, com. ,
. 50Z
ind.
. 70X
Ind.
.'70Z,
Ind.
>
•
>
»t
; open
"Tributary to (basin contained In) Hunting Bayou at Falls St. Area prior to June 1, 1970, 659 ac (267 ha).
bPrlor to October 1, 1973, 2240 ac (907 ha); prior to June 1, 1970, 2189 ac (886 ha).
CPrior to June 1965, 1773 ac (718 ha); June to Sept. 1965, 1658 ac (671 ha); Oct. 1965 to May 1967, 1722 ac (697 ha); June 1967 to March 1969,
1754 ac (710 ha). New drainage areas due to road construction.
Mostly open channel drainage, heavily vegetated.
*Flr»t value, October 1964, second value, March 1969.
fValue of 22%, February 1967.
^Includes all opn channels, ditches and storm sewers >. 36 In. (91 cm).
-------
Table VIII-30. Quantity Data - Houston
Flow
Rain
No.
1
2
3
4
Type of
Catchment flow meas.
Hunting Bayou f1
at Calvalcade St.
Hunting Bayou f.
at Falls St.
Bering Ditch f
at Woodway Dr.
Berry Creek f-
Sampling
Interval,
min
15-60
15-60
15-60
15-60
Gages
No. in
Catchment
1
2
1
1
Used
No . near
Catchment
2
1
-
2
Sampling
Interval ,
Type min
TI 10-60
r-j^ 10-60
rx 10-60
r 10-60
No. of
Storms
8
11
10
10
Period
5/65-9/68
5/65-11/69
12/64-9/68
11/64-9/68
f. - Stage measurements with stage-discharge rating curve.
r - USGS Type SR continuous rain gage.
Time synchronization, rain-flow: Good, since most storms utilize rainfall data measured at same lo-
cation as flow.
-------
oo
EASTfcx 1 FREEWAY !
J-. - ->
I"
JENSEN DR
GAUGE SITE
FALLS ST STREAM AND RAIN GAUGE SITE
2000 4000 FT
HOUSTON . TEXAS
HUNTING BAYOU SUBCATCHMENTS
CAVALCADE ST (TX I I) FALLS ST(TX I 2)
Figure VIII-14 Houston, Texas, Hunting Bayou at Cavalcade St. Catchment,
and Hunting Bayou at Falls St. Catchment, 768 ac (311 ha).
-------
AM .&UGE
RAIN GAUGE
WESTHEIMER ROAD
HOUSTON .TEXAS
BERING DITCH AT WOODWAY DRIVE CATCHMENT
(TX I 3)
Figure VIII-15 Houston, Texas, Bering Ditch Catchment, 1894 ac (767 ha)
149
-------
HOUSTON , TEXAS
BERRY CREEK AT 6ALVESTON RD. CATCHMENT
(TX I 4)
TREAM GAUGE
RAIN GAUGE
/•\
V
5OOOFT
HOBBY
FIELD
iC
tu-
UJ
a:
o
6
-------
SECTION IX
DISSEMINATION, MAINTENANCE AND UPDATING
DISSEMINATION
The format of the magnetic tape containing the data was described in
Section VI. As discussed, retrieval of the data can take the form of a
listing or various searches for desired parameters. No special software is
required since the tape is merely a substitute for input from punched cards.
Copies of the tape will be mailed by UF at cost (anticipated to be about
$40) to those who request it. It is possible that the tape may also be made
available through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS).
The data will also be placed on the EPA STORET data management system.
This will facilitate access by a wide variety of users and make available
STORET software for analysis purposes.
In-house modeling data varies in quantity from location to location.
They generally consist of maps, photos, drainage plans and written descrip-
tions of each location, but few sites have all such material. Available data
will be made available on a loan basis for short time periods. Future refine-
ments may include placing maps, plans, etc. on a microfiche file.
MAINTENANCE AND UPDATING
As indicated in Section V, many data sources already extant may be
suitable for inclusion in the data base. In addition, there are presently
underway approximately 150 EPA Section 208 Areawide Waste Management Studies,
many of which are collecting storm event data of the type included in this
report. As such sources are developed, periodic addenda to this report will
be issued. These will consist primarily of documentation for new sources
of the nature of that found in Sections VII and VIII. Simultaneously, the
data will be placed on the magnetic tape with the previous sources. Updating
of the tape for previous sources will .also include addition of new storm
events to those already included on the tape. Any changes in catchment
parameters (e.g., imperviousness, population) will also be noted.
Future project work at UF includes elementary statistical analyses of
the data. These will include computation of ranges, means, medians, vari-
ances, etc. of the data with allowance for flow weighting. Some computations
will be performed to develop mass loadings of the type discussed in Section
III.
151
-------
REFERENCES
1. Brandstetter, A. "Assessment of Mathematical Models for Storm and
Combined Sewer Management," EPA Report EPA-600/2-76-175a, August 1976.
2. Huber, W.C. "Modeling for Storm Water Strategies," APWA Reporter, Vol.
42, No. 5, pp. 10-14, May 1975.
3. U.S. National Weather Service, Substation Observations. Observers Hand-
book, No. 2, 1970, rev. 1972.
4. World Meteorological Organization. Guide to Hydrometeorological Practices,
2nd ed., WHO No. 168, Tech. Paper 82, Geneva, 1970.
5. Linsley, R.K., Kohler, M.A. and Paulhus, J.L.H. Hydrology for Engineers.
Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, 1975.
6. Eagleson, P.S. and Shack, W.J. "Some Criteria for the Measurement of
Rainfall and Runoff," Water Resources Research, Vol. 2, No. 3., pp.427-
436, 1966.
7. Hydrologic Engineering Center, Corps of Engineers. "Storage, Treatment,
Overflow and Runoff Model, STORM," Users Manual, Generalized Computer
Program 723-58-L7520, Davis, California, July 1976.
8. Smith, G.F. "Adaptation of the EPA Storm Water Management Model for Use
in Preliminary Planning for Control of Urban Storm Runoff," M.E.
Thesis, Dept. of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of
Florida, Gainesville, 1975.
9. National Weather Service. Local Climatological Data plus supplements,
U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Published monthly for each state with addi-
tional data available from National Climatic.Center, Asheville, North
Carolina.
10. Eagleson, P.S. "Optimum Density of Rainfall Networks," Water Resources
Research, Vol. 3, No. 4., pp. 1021-1033, 1967.
11. Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. and Mejia, J.M. "The Design of Rainfall Networks in
Time and Space," Water Resource Research, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 713-728,
August 1974.
152
-------
12. Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. and Mejia, J.M. "On the Transformation of Point
Rainfall to Areal Rainfall." Water Resources Research, Vol. 10, No. 4,
pp. 729-736, August 1974.
13. U.S. Geological Survey, "Recommended Methods for Water-Data Acquisi-
tion," Preliminary Report of the Federal Interagency Work Group on
Designation of Standards for Water Data Acquisition, 1972.
14. Buchanan, T.J. and Somers, W.P, "Stage measurement at gaging stations,"
USGS Techniques of Water-Resources Inv., Book 3, Chap. A7, 1968.
15. Buchanan, T.J. and Somers, W.P, "Discharge measurements at gaging sta-
tions," USGS Techniques of Water-Resources Inv., Book 3, Chap. A8,
1969.
16. Kilpatrick, F.A, "Use of flumes in measuring discharge at gaging sta-
tions," USGS Surface-Water Techniques, Book 1, Chap. 16, 1965.
17. Carter, R.W. and Davidian, J, "Discharge ratings at gaging stations,"
USGS Surface-Water Techniques, Book 1, Chap. 12, 1965.
18. Gray, D.M., ed. Handbook on the Principles of Hydrology, Water Informa-
tion Center, 1973.
19. Chow, V.T. Open-Channel Hydraulics, McGraw-Hill, 1959.
20. Knapp, J.W., Schaake, J.C. and Viessman, W. Jr. "Measuring Rainfall and
Runoff at Storm-Water Inlets," J. Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 89, No.
HY5, pp. 99-115, September 1963.
21. Wenzel, H.G. Jr. "A Critical Review of Methods of Measuring Discharge
Within a Sewer Pipe," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program,
Tech. Memo. No. 4, NTIS-PB-182 789, September 1968.
22. Shelley, P.E. and Kirkpatrick, G.A. "Sewer Flow Measurement—A State
of the Art Assessment," EPA Report EPA-600/2-75-027, NTIS-PB 250 371,
November 1975.
23. Wullschleger, R.E., Zanoni, A.E. and Hansen, C.A. "Methodology for the
Study of Urban Storm Generated Pollution and Control," EPA Report
EPA-600/2-76-145, August 1976.
24. Parshall, R.L. "The Improved Venturi Flume," Transactions ASCE,
Vol. 89, pp. 841-851, 1926.
25. Diskin, M.H. "Temporary Flow Measurements in Sewers and Drains," J.
Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 89, No. HY4, pp. 141-159, July 1963.
26. Smoot, G.G.. Davidian, J. and Billings, R.H. "Urban Storm Rainfall-
Kanoff-Quality Instrumentation," IASH Publ, No= 112; n, 44. 1974.
153
-------
27. Shelley, P.E. and Kirkpatrick, G.A. "Assessment of Automatic Sewer
Flow Samplers—1975," EPA Report EPA-600/2-75-065, NTIS-PB 250 987,
December 1975.
28. Shelley, P.E. "Design and Testing of a Prototype Automatic Sewer
Sampling System," EPA Report EPA-600/2-76-006, NTIS-PB 252 613,
March 1976.
29. American Public Health Assn., American Public Works Assn., Water
Pollution Control Federation. Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition, American Public Health Assn.,
Washington, D.C., 1975.
30. Environmental Protection Agency. "Water Quality Control Information
System (STORET) Handbook," Washington,D.C., 1965 with updates.
31. Lager, J.A. and Smith, W.G^ "Urban Stormwater Management and Tech-
nology: An Assessment," EPA Report EPA-670/2-74-040, NTIS-PB 240 687,
December 1974.
32. Milwaukee, City of, Department of Public Works Milwaukee. "Detention
Tank for Combined Sewer Overflow—Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Demonstration
Project." EPA Report EPA-600/2-75-071, NTIS-PB 250 427, December 1975.
33. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) and River Basin Coordinat-
ing Committee. "Environmental Management £br t&e Metropolitan Area,
Part II Urban Drainage, Appendix C.Storm Water Monitoring Program,"
Seattle, October 1974.
34. Engineering-Science, Inc. "Characterization and Treatment of Combined
Sewer Overflows," Final Report to City and County of San Francisco,
EPA Report EPA-670/2-75-054, NTIS-PB 241 299, April 1975,.
35. Engineering-Science, Inc. "Dissolved Air Flotation, Appendix A, Phase
1—Pre-Construction Studies on Quality and Quantity Relationships of
Combined Sewage Flows and Receiving Water Studies at Outer Marina
Beach," City and County of San Francisco report for EPA, July 1971.
36. Tucker, L.S. "Northwood Gaging Installation, Baltimore—Instrumentation
and Data," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo. No.
11, NTIS-PB 182 786, August 1968.
37. Tucker, L.S. "Oakdale Gaging Installation, Chicago—Instrumentation
and Data," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No.
2, NTIS-PB 182 787, August 1968.
38. Tucker, L.S. "Raingage Networks in the Largest Cities," ASCE Urban
Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No. 9, NTIS-PB 184 704,
March 1969.
154
-------
39. Tucker, L.S. "Non-Metropolitan Dense Raingage Networks," ASCE Urban
Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No. 11, NTIS-PB 191 709,
January 1970.
40. Tucker, L.S. "Availability of Rainfall-Runoff Data for Sewered Catch-
ments," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No.
8, NTIS-PB 184 703, March 1969.
41. Tucker, L.S. "Sewered Drainage Catchments in Major Cities," ASCE Urban
Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No. 10, NTIS-PB 184 705,
March 1969.
42. Tucker, L.S. "Availability of Rainfall-Runoff Data for Partly Sewered
Urban Drainage Catchments," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program,
Tech. Memo No. 13, NTIS-PB-191 755, March 1970.
43. Roesner, L.A., Nichandros, H.M., Shubinski, R.P., Feldman, A.D., Abbot,
J.W. and Friedland, A.O. "A Model for Evaluating Runoff-Quality in
Metropolitan Master Planning," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Pro-
gram, Tech. Memo No. 23, NTIS-PB 234 312, April 1974.
44. McPherson, M.B. and Mangan, G.F. Jr. "ASCE Urban Water Resources Research
Program," J. Hyd. Div. Proc. ASCE, Vol 101, No. HY7, pp.847-355, JuLyl975.
45. McPherson, M.B. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catchment Research
in the U.S.A.," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech.
Memo No. IHP-1, NTIS-PB 260 685, November 1975.
46 Aitken, A.P. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catchment Research in
Australia," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No.
IHP-2, NTIS-PB 260 686 , May 1976.
47. Marsalek, J. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catchment Research in
Canada," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No.
IHP-3, NTIS-PB 262 068, June 1976.
48. Lowing, M.J. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catchment Research in
the United Kingdom," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program,
Tech. Memo No. IHP-4, NTIS-PB 262 069, July 1976.
49. Stall, J.B. and Terstriep, M.L. "Storm Sewer Design—An Evaluation
of the RRL Method," EPA Report EPA-R2-72-068, NTIS-PB 214 134,
October 1972.
50. Terstriep, M.L. and Stall, J.B. "The Illinois Urban Drainage Area
Simulator, ILLUDAS," State of Illinois, Illinois State Water Survey,
Bulletin 58, Urbana, 1974.
51. U.S. Geological Survey. "Catalog of Information on Water Data," Edi-
tion 1974, Separate volumes for each of 21 regions.
155
-------
52. Schneider, W.J. "Water Data for Metropolitan Areas," USGS Water
Supply Paper 1871, 1968.
53. Water Resources Scientific Information Center. "Catalog of USGS Publi-
cations Related to Urban Water Resources 1968—November 1974," Report
for USGS, 1974.
54. U.S. Geological Survey. "WATSTORE Users Guide," Water Resources
Division, Reston, Va., 1975.
55. Edwards, M.D. "Status of the National Water Data Exchange (NAWDEX)—
September 1976," USGS Open File Report 76-719, Reston, Va., 1976.
56. Anderson, D.R. "Water Quality Models for Urban and Suburban Areas,"
Completion Report, OWRT Project No. A-025NEB, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NTIS-PB 238 622, August 1974.
57. Heaney, J.P., Huber, W.C., Medina, M.A., Nix, S.J., Murphy, M.P. and
Hasan, S. "Nationwide Evaluation of Combined Sewer Overflows and Storm-
water Discharges: Vol. II Cost Assessment and Impacts," EPA Report
600/2-77-064b, March 1977.
"58. Burford, J.B. and Clark, J.M. "Hydrologic Data for Experimental Agri-
cultural Watersheds in the United States, 1967," Agricultural Research
Service, Misc. Publ. Ho. 1262, GPO No. 0100-02802, July 1973.
59. NOAA, Environmental Data Service, "Users Guide to ENDEX/OASIS, Environ-
mental Data Index and the Oceanic and Atmospheric Scientific Information
System," Key to Oceanic and Atmospheric Information Sources No.l, Wash-
ington D.C., January 1976.
60. U.S. National Committee for the International Hydrological Decade.
"International Hydrological Decade Representative and Experimental
Basins in the United States, Catalog of Available Data and Results,
1965-1972," Report NAS/IHD-74/01 for National Academy of Sciences,
NTIS-PB 237 002, July 1974.
61. National Technical Information Service. "Directory of Computerized
Data Files and Related Software Available from Federal Agencies,"
NTIS-SR-74-01, March 1974.
62. Proctor and Redfern Ltd. and James F. MacLaren Ltd. "Storm Water
Management Model Study, Vol. I," COA Research Report 47, Environmental
Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OH3, September 1976.
63. Proctor and Redfern Ltd. and James F. MacLaren Ltd. "Storm Water
Management Model Study, Vol. II," COA Research Report 48, Environmental
Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OH3, September 1976.
64. Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc. "Storm and Combined Sewer Pollution
Sources and Abatement, Atlanta, Ga," EPA Report EPA-11024ELB01/71,
NTIS-PB 201 725, January 1971.
156
-------
65. Holbrook, R.F., Perez, A.I., Turner, B.C. and Miller, H.I. "Stormwater
Studies and Alternatives in Atlanta," J. Env. Eng. Div.,Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 102, No. EE6, pp. 1263-1277, December 1976.
66. Marsalek, J. "Malvern Urban Test Catchment," Progress Report No. 1,
Project 73-3-12, Canada Centre for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ont.
L7R 4A6, April 1976.
67. Marsalek, J. Canada Centre for. Inland Waters, "Storm Water Quality in
the Malvern Catchment," Paper presented at SWMM Users Group Meeting,
Toronto, October 1976.
68. Cincinnati, University of. "Urban Runoff Characteristics," EPA
Report EPA-11024DQU10/70, NTIS-PB 202 865, October 1970.
69. Weibel, S.R., Anderson, R.J. and Woodward, R.L. "Urban Land Runoff
as a Factor in Stream Pollution," JWPCF, Vol. 36, No. 7, pp. 914-924,
July 1964.
70. Havens and Emerson, Ltd. "Master Plan for Pollution Control, Report
to City of Cleveland," 1967.
71. Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. "Denver Region Urban
Hydrology Report," Technical Series, Denver, undated.
72. Ducret, G.L. Jr. and Hodges, H.E. "Rainfall-Runoff Data from Small
Watersheds in Colorado, June 1968 through September 1971," USGS,
Urban Drainage and Flood Control Dis. and Colo. Dept. of Highways,
Colorado Water Resources Basic-Data Release No. 27, Colorado Water
Conservation Board, Denver, 1972.
73. Davis, P.L. and Borchardt, F.A. "Combined Sewer Overflow Abatement
Plan, Des Moines, Iowa," EPA Report EPA-R2-73-170, April 1974.
74. Jewell, T.K., Mangarella, P.A. and DiGiano, F.A, University of
Massachusetts, "Application and Testing of the EPA Stormwater Manage-
ment Model to Greenfield Massachusetts," presented at National Symposium
on Urban Rainfall and Runoffand Sediment Control, University of Kentucky,
Lexington, Ky., July 1974.
75. Waller, D.H. "Pollution Attributable to Surface Runoff and Overflows
from Combined Sewerage Systems," Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora-
tion, Ottawa, Ontario , April 1971.
76. Bhatia, I. "Mass Discharge Rates and Variations in Composition of Sur-
face Runoff from two Urban Areas," M.JS. Tnesis, Depc. of Civil Engineer-
ing, Nova Scotia Technical College, Halifax, 1973.
77. Waller, D.H., Coulter, W.A., Carson, W.M., and Bishop, D.G. "Urban
Drainage Model Comparison for a Catchment in Halifax, Nova Scotia,"
COA Research Report No. 43, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa,
157
-------
Ontario, K1A OH3, 1976.
78. Waller, D.H. and Coulter, W.A. "Winter Runoff from an Urban Catchment,"
COA Research Report No. 41, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa,
Ontario, K1A OH3, 1976.
79. Eicher, C.W., Gore and Storrie Ltd. "Description of an Urban Test
Catchment in Hamilton Ontario," Presented at SWMM Users Group Meeting,
Toronto, April 1976.
80. Characklis, W.G., Gaudet, F.J., and Roe, R.L. "Maximum Utilization of
Water Resources in a Planned Community," Rice Univ., Report to Edison
Water Quality Research Laboratory, EPA, Edison, N.J., June 1976.
81. James F. MacLaren, Ltd. "Review of Canadian Storm Sewer Design Prac-
tice and Comparison of Urban Hydrologic Models," COA Research Report
No. 26, Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OH3,
1975.
82. Kidd, C.H.R. "The Development of an Urban Runoff Model," MS. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario,
1972.
83. Eagleson, P.S. "Unit Hydrograph Characteristics for Sewered Areas,"
J. Hyd. Div.,Proc. ASCE, Vol. 88, No. HY2, pp. 1-25, March 1962.
84. Corps of Engineers. "Report of Sewer Runoff Investigation for Louis-
ville, Kentucky," Louisville Disttict, Louisville, Ky, 1949.
85. Wells, D.M., Anderson, J.F., Sweazy, R.M. and Claborn, B.J. "Varia-
tion of Urban Runoff Quality with Duration and Intensity of Storms—
Phase II," OWRT Completion Report, Project OWRR B-104-TEX, Texas
Tech University, Lubbock, NTIS-PB 223 930, August 1973.
86. Grizzard, T.J., Hartigan, J.P., Randall, C.W. and Kim, J.I. Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, "Assessment of Runoff Pollution Impacts in
Urbanizing Watershed: A Case Study of Northern Virginia's Occoquan
Watershed," Presented at the EPA Region III Urban Runoff Seminar,
Philadelphia, November 1976.
87. Wanielista, M.P. "Nonpoint Source Effects," Florida Technological
University, Orlando, Report No. ESEI-76-1 to State Dept. of Environ-
mental Regulation, Tallahassee, January 1976.
88. Wanielista, M.P. "Nonpoint Source Effects, Appendices," Florida Tech-
nological University, Orlando, Report No. ESEI-76-2, to State Dept.
of Environmental Regulation, Tallahassee, January 1976.
89. Wanielista, M.P., ed. "Nonpoint Source Workshop," Florida Technological
University, Orlando, Report No. ESEI-76-3, to State Dept. of Environ-
mental Regulation, Tallahassee, February 1976.
15.8
-------
90. Turner, R.R., Harriss, R.C., Burton, T.M. and Laws, E.A. "The Effect of
Land Use on Nutrient Fluxes in North Florida Watersheds," Dept. of
Oceanography, Florida State Univ., Tallahassee, 1975. <
91. Proctor and Redfern Ltd. and James F. MacLaren Ltd. "Storm Water
Management Model Study, Volume III," COA Research Report, Environment
tal Protection Service, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A OH3, September 1976.
92. James F. MacLaren Ltd. "Report on the Brucewood Monitoring Programme,
Feb. 15, 1974-December, 1974," Report and Addendum to Canada Centre
for Inland Waters, Burlington, Ontario, L'7R 4A6, September_1975.
93. James F. MacLaren Ltd. "Brucewood Monitoring Programme, January 1,
1975, to May 15, 1975," Report to Canada Centre for Inland Waters,
Burlington, Ontario, L7R 4A6, December 1975.
94. Larsen, E., M.M. Dillon Ltd. "Instrumentation of an Urban Catchment
in Metropolitan Toronto," Presented at SWMM Users Group Meeting,
Toronto, April 1976.
95. James F. MacLaren Ltd. "A Study of Environmental Problems at Toronto
• International Airport," Prepared for the Environmental Protection
Service, Ontario Region, July 1975.
96. Resnick, S.D. and DeCook, K.J. "Hydrological and Environmental Con-
trols on Water Management in an Arid Urban Area," Symp. on Urbaniza-
tion in the Arid Lands, Dec., 1970, ISASALS Publ. 75-1, Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, 1974.
97. Blackwood, K.R. "Runoff Water Quality of Three Tucson Watersheds,"
Research Report, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson, 1974.
98. Dharmadhikari, V.V. "Quality of Runoff from Diversified Urban Water-
sheds," MS. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Eng.,'Univ. of Arizona, Tucson,
1970.
99. Mische, E.F. "The Potential of Urban Runoff Area Water Resource,"
PhD Dissertation, Dept. of Civil Eng., Univ. of Arizona, Tucson,
1971.
100. Weston, R.F. "Conceptual Engineering Report—Kingman Lake Project,"
EPA Report EPA-11023FIX08/70, NTIS-PB 197 598, August 1970.
101. Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, University of jj'lorlda ana water Resources
Engineers. "Storm Water Management Model, 761. 1, Final Report, EPA
Report EPA-11024DOC07/71, NTIS-PB 203 289, July 1971.
102. Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, University of Florida and Water Resources En-
gineers. "Storm Water riauagemenc Model, Vol. II, Verification and Test-
ing," EPA Report EPA-11024DOC08/71, NTIS-PB 203 290, August 1971.
159
-------
103. Huber, W.C., Heaney, J.P., Medina, M.A., Peltz, W.A., Sheikh, H. and
Smith, G.F. "Storm Water Management Model: User's Manual—Version
II," EPA Report EPA-670/2-75-017, March 1975.
104. Sherwood, C.B. and Mattraw, B.C. JE "Quantity and Quality of Runoff from
a Residential Area Near Pompano Beach, Florida," in Proceedings,
Storm-Water Management Workshop, M.P. Wanielista, ed., Florida
Technological University, Orlando, February 1975.
105. Mattraw, H.C. Jr. and Sherwood, C.B. "Quality of Storm-Water from a
Residential Area, Broward County, Florida," Journal of Research of the
U.S. Geological" Survey, Vol. 5, (in press), 1977.
106. Heaney, J.P., Huber, W.C., Sheikh, H., Medina, M.A., Doyle, J.R.,
Peltz, W.A. and Darlingj J.E.- "Urban Stormwater Management Modeling
and Decision-Making," EPA Report EPA-670/2-75-022, NTIS-PB 242 290,
May 1975. .
107. Hergert, S.L. "Urban Runoff Quality and Modeling Study," MS. Thesis,
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NTIS-PB
237 141, December 1972.
108. Clark, M.J., Gruber, D.A., Meinholz, T.L., Moser, J.H., Race, R.A. and
Hans.en., C,A, "ScrPtpning/Dissolved-Air Flotation Treatment as an Alter-
native to Combined Sewer Separation," EPA Report in preparation, 1977.
109. Corps of Engineers. "Environmental Management for the Metropolitan
Area Cedar-Green River Basins, Washington, Part II Urban Drainage,
Appendix B Urban Storm Drainage Simulation Models," Report for River
Basin Coordinating Committee by Kramer, Chin and Mayo; Water Resources
Engineers and Yoder, Trotter Orlob and Assoc., Seattle, December 1974.
110. Droste, R.L. "Pollution Loadings of Urban Storm Runoff," M. Appl.
Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Windsor,
Windsor, Ontario, July 1974.
111. Singh, M.M. "Urban Storm Runoff, A Qualitative and Quantitative Study,"
M. Appl. Sc. Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of
Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, March 1972.
112. Chen, C.W. and Shubinski, R.P. "Computer Simulation of Urban Storm
Water Runoff," J. Hyd. Div.,Proc. ASCE, Vol. 97, No. HY2, pp. 289-
301, February 1971.
113. Terstriep, M.L. and Stall, J.B. "Urban Runoff by Road Research
Laboratory Method," J. Hyd. Div.^Proc. ASCE, Vol. 95, No. HY6,
pp. 1809-1834, November 1969.
114. Miller, C.R. "Runoff Yields from Small Urban Watersheds," MS.
Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,
January 1971.
160
-------
115. Miller, C.R. and Viessman, W. Jr. "Runoff Volumes from Small Urban
Watersheds," Water Resources Research, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 429-434,
April 1972.
116. Schaake, J.C. Jr., Leclerc, G. and Harley, B.M. "Evaluation and
Control of Urban Runoff," ASCE Annual and National Environmental
Engineering Meeting, New York, Preprint 2103, October 1973.
117. Surkan, A.J. and Kelton, P. "Binary Tree Model Simulation of the
Behavior of Urban Hydrologic Systems," Int. J. Systems Science, Vol. 5,
No. 7, pp. 639-654, July 1974.
118. Shubinski, R.P. and Roesner, L.A. Water Resources Engineers, "Linked
Process Routing Models," Presented at Symposium on Models for Urban
Hydrology, Spring Meeting, American Geophysical Union, Washington,
D.C., April 1973.
119. Marsalek, J., Dick, T.M., Wisner, P.E. and Clarke, W.G. "Comparative
Evaluation of Three Urban Runoff Models," Water Resources Bulletin,
Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 306-328, April 1975.
120. Viessman, W. Jr. and Geyer, J.C. "Characteristics of the Inlet
Hydrograph," J. Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 88, No. HY5, pp. 245-
267, September 1962.
121. Willeke, G.E. "Time in Urban Hydrology," J. Hyd. Dlv.,Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 92, No. HY1, pp. 13-29, January 1966.
122. Schaake, J.C. Jr., Geyer, J.C. and Knapp, J.W. "Experimental Examina-
tion of the Rational Method," J. Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 93,
No. HY6, pp. 353-370, November 1967.
123. Grace, R.A. and Eagleson, P.S. "Scale Model of Urban Runoff from
Storm Rainfall," J. Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 93, No. HY3, pp. 161-
176, May 1967.
124. Grace, R.A. and Eagleson, P.S. "The Modeling of Overland Flow,"
Water Resources Research, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 393-403, 1966.
125. Harley, B.M., Perkins, F.E. and Eagleson, P.S. "A Modular Distributed
Model of Catchment Dynamics," MIT Parsons Lab Report No. 133, December
1970.
126. Klym, H., Koniger, W., Mevius, F. and Vogel, G. Dorsch Consult,
"Urban Hydrological Processes, Computer Simulation," Presented at
the Seminar or Computer Methods in Hydraulics, Swiss Federal Institute,
Zurich, February 1972.
127. Colyer, P.J. and Pethick, R.W. "Storm Drainage Design Methods, a
Literature Review," Report No. INT 154, Hydraulics Research Station,
Wallingford, Oxfordshire, England, March 1976.
161
-------
128. Chow, V.T., and Yen, B.C. "Urban Stormwater Runoff—Determination
of Volumes and Flowrates," EPA Report EPA-600/2-76-116, NTIS-PB 253 410,
May 1976.
129. Papadakis, C.N. and Preul, H.C. "Testing of Methods for Determina-
tion of Urban Runoff," J. Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 99, No. HY9,
pp. 1319-1335, September 1973.
130. Brown, J.W. and Suhre, D. "Sewer Monitoring and Remote Control—
Detroit," ASCE Annual and Environmental Meeting, Chicago, Preprint No.
1035, October 1969.
131. Stall, J.B., Terstriep, M.L. and Huff, F.A. "Some Effects of Urbani-
zation on Floods," ASCE National Water Resources Engineering Meeting,
Memphis, Preprint No. 1130, January 1970.
132. Burgess and Niple, Ltd. "Stream Pollution and Abatement from Com-
bined Sewer Overflows, Bucyrus, Ohio," EPA Report EPA 11024FKN11/69,
NTIS-PB 195 162, November 1969.
133. Bryan, E.H. "Quality of Stormwater Drainage from Urban Land Areas in
North Carolina," Report No. 37, Water Resources Research Institute,
University of North Carolina, Raleigh, 1970.
134. Bryan, E.H. "Quality of Stormwater Drainage from Urban Land," Water
Resources Bulletin, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 578-588, June 1972.
135. Smith, R. and Eilers, R.G. "Control Schemes for the Activated-
Sludge Process," EPA Report EPA-670/2-74-069, NTIS-PB 236 086,
December 1974.
136. Wilson, K.V. "A Preliminary Study of the Effect of Urbanization on
Floods in Jackson, Mississippi," USGS Professional Paper 575-D,
pp. 259-261, 1968.
137. Seaburn, G.E. "Preliminary Results of Hydrologic Studies at Two
Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York," USGS Professional Paper
627-C, 1970.
138. Seaburn, G.E. "Method of Rating Flow in a Storm Sewer," USGS Pro-
fessional Paper 750-D, pp. D219-D223, 1971.
139. Seaburn, G.E. "Effects of Urban Development on Direct Runoff to
East Meadow Brook, Nassau County, Long Island, .New York," USGS
Professional Paper 627-B, 1969.
140. Guarino, C.F., Radziul, J.V. and Greene, W.L. "Combined Sewer
Considerations by Philadelphia," J. San. Eng. Div., Proc. ASCE,
Vol. 96, No. SA1, pp. 1-14, February 1970.
141. Hagarman, J.A., and Dressier, F.R. "Storm Water Management Model:
Dissemination and User Assistance," EPA Report EPA-r670/2-75-041,
162
-------
NTIS-PB 242 544, May 1975.
142. Crawford, N.H. "Studies on the Application of Digital Simulation to
Urban Hydrology," Hydrocomp International, Palo Alto, California,
NTIS-PB 206 715, September 1971.
143. DiGiano, F.A. and Mangarella, P.A. "Short Course Proceedings:
Applications of Stormwater Management Models," EPA Report EPA-670/2-
75-065, NTIS-PB 247 163, June 1975.
144. Huber, W.C., Russell, L.W. and Pyatt, E.E. "Routing Model for Com-
bined Sewage," ASCE National Water Resources Engineering Meeting,
Memphis, Preprint 1108, January 1970.
145. Roesner, L.A., Kibler, D.F, and Monser, J.R. "Use of Storm Drainage
Models in Urban Planning," Proceedings, National Symposium on Water-
sheds in Transition, Colorado State University, American Water Re-
sources Assn., Urbana, Illinois, pp. 400-405, 1973.
146. Duff, H.W. and Hsieh, G.C.C. "Seattle Rain-gaging Program and Rain-'
storm Data," ASCE National Water Resources Engineering Meeting,
Memphis, Preprint 1089, January 1970.
147. Lager, J.A., Didriksson, T. and Otte, G.B. "Development and Applica-
tion of a Simplified Stormwater Management Model," EPA Report EPA-600/2-
76-218, NTIS-PB 258 074, August 1976.
148. Massing, H. "Urban Hydrology Studies and Mathematical Modeling in the
Federal Republic of Germany," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Pro-
gram, Tech. Memo No. IHP-6, NTIS-PB , September 1976.
149. Lind, G. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catchment Research in Sweden,"
ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No. IHP-7,
NTIS-PB , October 1976.
150. Desbordes, M. and Normand, D. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catch-
ment Research in France," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program,
Tech. Memo No. IHP-8, NTIS-PB , November 1976.
151. Selthun, N.R. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catchment Research in
Norway," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech. Memo No.
IHP-9, NTIS-PB , December 1976.
152. Urban Drainage Subcommittee. "Report of the Urban Drainage Subcommittee
Program, Urban Drainage Subcommittee, Canada-Ontario Agreement, Describ-
ing Projects Conducted Between 1972 and 1976," Training and Technology
Transfer Division (Water), Environmental Protection Service, Ottawa,
Ontario K1A OH3, 1976.
153. Keeps, D.P. and Mein, R.G. "Independent Comparison of Three Urban Run-
off Models." j. Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 100, No. HY7, pp. 995-1009,
July 1974.
163
-------
154. Cordery, I. "Quality Characteristics of Urban Storm Water in Sydney,
Australia," Water Resources Research, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 197-202,
February 1977.
155. Coyne and Bellier. "Measurements and Evaluation of Pollutant Loads from
a Combined Sewer Overflow," (in English), Coyne and Bellier, Consulting
Engineers, 5, rue d'Heliopolis, 75017 Paris, March 1974.
156. Brunner, P.G. "The Pollution of Storm Water Runoff in Separate Systems:
Studies with Special Reference to Precipitaiton Conditions in the Lower
Alp Region," Water Resources and Sanitary Engineering Dept. Report No. 9,
Munich Technical University, 1975. (English translation available from
EPA Cincinnati NERC Library).
157. Arnell, V. and Lyngfelt, S. "Berakningsmodell for simulering av
Dagrattenfldde inom Bebyggda Omraden," ("Computational Model for Sim-
ulating Daily Floods in Urban Areas"), in Swedish, Chalmers University
of Technology, Dept. of Hydraulics Report No. 12, Gotegorg, Sweden, 1975.
158. Arnell, V. and Lyngfelt, S. "Nederbords-Avrinningsmatningar 1 Bergsjon,
Goteborg 1973-1974," ("Downstream Runoff Measurements of Runoff at Lake
Bergsjon, Goteborg 1973-1974"), in Swedish, Chalmers University of Tech-
nology, Dept. of Hydraulics, Report No. 13, Gotegorg, Sweden, 1975.
159. Fletcher, J.E. and Chen, C.L. "Urban Storm Runoff Inlet Hydrograph
Study: Vol. 3. Hydrologic Data for Two Urban Highway Watersheds in the
Salt Lake City Area, Utah," FHWA Report No. FHWA-RD-76-118, NTIS-PB
263987, March 1976.
160. Hydrologic Engineering Center. "Annual Report on the Quality of Urban
Storm Runoff Entering the San Francisco Bay," Four Reports for Fiscal
Years 1972-75, HEC, Corps of Engineers, Davis, California.
161. McElroy, F.T.R., III, Mattox, C.F., Hartman, D.W., Bell, J.M. "Sampling
and Analysis of Stormwater Runoff from Urban and Semi-Urban/Rural Water-
sheds," Purdue University, Water Resources Research Center, Tech. Rept.
No. 64, West Lafayette, Indiana, September 1976.
162. Harper and Owes, Assoc. "Preliminary Water Quality Report for the Mil-
waukee Combined Sewer Overflow Study," Report for the Milwaukee Metro-
politan Sewerage District of the County of Milwaukee, in preparation,
1977.
163. O'Neel, W.G., Davis, A.L., and VanDusen,, K.W. "Wastewater Collection
System Analysis Model, User's Manual," Report for City of Portland by
Cornell, Rowland, Hayes, Merryfield-Hill, Corvallis, Oregon, March 1976.
164. Johnson, S.L. and Smith, R.E. "Urban Hydrology of the Houston, Texas
Metropolitan Area, Compilation of Basic Data, April 1964 to September
1965," Open File Report, U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Divi-
sion, Federal Bldg., 300 E. 8th St., Austin, Texas 78701, 1965.
164
-------
165. Ranzau, C.E. Jr. "Hydrologic Data for Urban Studies in the Houston,
Texas Metropolitan Area, 1974," Open File Report, U.S. Geological.Sur-
vey, Water Resources Division, Federal Bldg., 300 E. 8th St., Austin,
Texas 78701, June 1976.
166. Johnson, S.L. and Sayre, D.M. "Effects of Urbanization on Floods in the
Houston, Texas, Metropolitan Area," Water-Resources Investigations 3-73,
U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Federal Bldg., 300 E.
8th St., Austin, Texas 78701, April 1973.
167. Espey, W.H. Jr. and Winslow, D.E. "Urban Flood Frequency Characteris-
tics," J. Hyd. Div., Proc. ASCE, Vol. 100, No. HY2, pp. 279-293, Feb-
ruary 1974.
168. Brater, E.F. and Sherrill, J.D. "Rainfall-Runoff Relations on Urban and
Rural Areas," EPA Report EPA-670/2-75-046, NTIS-PB 224 420, May 1975.
169. Everhart, R.C. "New Town Planned Around Environmental Aspects," Civil
Engineering, Vol. 43, No. 9, pp. 69-73, September 1973.
170. Watt, T.R., Skrentner, R.G. and Davanzo, A.C. "Sewerage System Monitor-
ing and Remote Control," EPA Report EPA-670/2-75-020, NTIS-PB 242 107,
May 1975.
171. Tracer, Inc. "Statistical Analysis of Hydrograph Characteristics for
Small Urban Watersheds," Final Report to OWRT, Contract No. 14-13-0001-
3737, NTIS-PB 228 131, October 1973.
172. Jennings, M.E. and Mattraw, H.C., Jr. "Comparison of Predictive Accur-
acy of Models of Urban Flow and Water Quality Processes," Proc. of
National Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment Control,
University of Kentucky, Lexington, pp. 239-243, July 1976.
173. Geiger, W.F., LaBella, S.A. and Me Donald, G.C. "Overflow Abatement
Alternatives Selected by Combining Continuous and Single Event Simu-
lations," Proc. of National Symposium on Urban Hudrology, Hydraulics
and Sediment Control, University of Kentucky, Lexington, pp. 1-9, July
1976.
174. Geiger, W.F. "Urban Runoff Pollution Derived from Long-Time Simulation}'
Proc. of Naitonal Symposium on Urban Hydrology, Hydraulics and Sediment
Control, University of Kentucky, Lexingotn, pp. 259-270, July 1975.
175. Eckhoff, D.W., Friedland, A.O. and Ludwig, H.F. "Characterization and
Control of Combined Sewer Overflows, San Francisco," Water Research,
Vol. 3, pp. 531-543, 1969.
176. Putnam, A.L. "Effect of Urban Development on Floods in the Piedmont
Province of North Carolina," USGS Open File Report, Water Resources
Division. Raleigh, North Carolina, 1972.
165
-------
177. Anderson, D.G. "Effects of Urban Developemnt on Floods in Northern
Virginia," USGS Water Supply Paper 2001-C, 1970.
178. Water Resources Engineers and The Hydrologic Engineering Center "Manage-
ment of Urban Storm Runoff," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program,
Tech. Memo No. 24, NTIS-PB 234 316, May 1974.
179. James, I.C. "Flood Runoff ftom Partially Urbanized Areas, Wichita,
Kansas," USGS Open File Report, District Office, USGS, 1950 Avenue A,
Campus West, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, June 1967.
180. Zuidema, F.C. "Urban Hydrological Modeling and Catchment Research in
The Netherlands," ASCE Urban Water Resources Research Program, Tech.
Memo No. IHP-10, NTIS-PB , January 1977.
181. Blaszczyk, P. "Urban Runoff Research in Poland," ASCE Urban Water Re-
sources Research Program, Tech. Memo No. IHP-11, NTIS-PB ,
February 1977.
166
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/fl-77-009
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
5. REPORT DATE
July 1977 (Issuing Date)
"URBAN RAINFALL-RUNOFF-QUALITY DATA BASE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Wayne C. Huber and James P. Heaney
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
University of Florida
Gainesville, Florida 32611
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC611
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-0496
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory - Cin., OH
Office of Research and Development
US Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
6/74-4/77
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Richard Field, Storm and Combined Sewer Section
EPA, Edison, NJ 08817
(201) 321-6674
FTS 340-6674
16. ABSTRACT
Urban rainfall-runoff-quality data gathered by others have been assembled
on a storm event basis for one or more catchments in the following eight cities:
San Francisco, CA; Broward County, FL; Lincoln, NB; Durham, NC; Windsor, ONT;
Lancaster, PA; Seattle, WA; and Racine, WI. Rainfall-runoff data have been
assembled for one or more catchments in an additional 13 cities: Baltimore, MD;
Chicago, IL; Champaign-Urbana, IL; Bucyrus, OH; Falls Church, VA; Winston-Salem, NC;
Jackson, MS; Wichita, KS; Westbury, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Los Angeles, CA; Portland,
OR; and Houston, TX. The 21 cities contain data for a total of 41 catchments.
Descriptions of the catchments, parameters and sampling procedures are provided in
this report. Actual data have.been placed on a magnetic tape and will be placed
on the EPA STORET data retrieval system in the future. Additional data for the
above cities and data for other cities will be included in the form of addenda to
this report. Although none are presently ;included, data collected as part of cur-
rent EPA Section 208 Areawide Waste Management studies are expected to augment the
data base in the future.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATl Field/Group
Hydrology, Precipitation, Water pol-
lution, Surveys, Documentation, Data
storage and retrieval, Combined sewers,
Mathematical models, *Storm sewers,
Surface water runoff, Storms, Rainfall,
Runoff
Rainfall runoff,
Water quality data,
Rainfall data, Data
collection, Urban run-
off, Urban runoff char-
acterization, Combined
sewer overflows, Hydrol
ogy data, Storm runoff
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)'
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
183
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
•167
(I. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: )977-757-056/56'il Region No. 5-11
------- |