Prepared in cooperation with the Kane County Department of Environmental and Building Management and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources–Office of Water Resources
Effect of Detention Basin Release Rates on Flood Flows— Application of a Model to the Blackberry Creek Watershed in Kane County, Illinois
Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5106
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Detention basin and inlet at Fox Hill Lane at the upper part of the East Run tributary of Blackberry Creek in North Aurora, Illinois, 2002. (Photograph by U.S. Geological Survey personnel.) Effect of Detention Basin Release Rates on Flood Flows—Application of a Model to the Blackberry Creek Watershed in Kane County, Illinois
By David T. Soong, Elizabeth A. Murphy, and Timothy D. Straub
Prepared in cooperation with the Kane County Department of Environmental and Building Management and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources–Office of Water Resources
Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5106
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009
For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov
Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.
Suggested citation: Soong, D.T., Murphy, E.A., and Straub, T.D., 2009, Effect of detention basin release rates on flood flows—Application of a model to the Blackberry Creek Watershed in Kane County, Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5106, 33 p. iii
Contents
Abstract...... 1 Introduction...... 1 Purpose and Scope...... 2 Previous Studies...... 2 Release Rates in Northeastern Illinois...... 2 Release Rates in Continuous Hydrologic Simulation...... 3 Detention Modeling...... 3 Detention Basin Volume Estimation...... 3 Multiple Release Rates...... 4 Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study...... 5 Data...... 6 Methods...... 6 Simulation Results...... 10 Summary and Conclusions...... 28 Acknowledgments...... 28 References Cited...... 28 Appendix 1. Flood quantiles estimated for selected recurrence intervals based on Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN analysis for the 1996 land uses, 2020 projected land uses without detention basins, and 2020 projected land uses with detention basins and release rates of 0.08, 0.10, and 0.12 cubic feet per second per acre at subbasins of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois...... 32
Figures
1. Graph showing the differences in storage volume required by a linear slot volume-discharge relation and an orifice-controlled storage volume-discharge relation...... 4 2. Graph showing the detention storage volume required per acre to achieve a 0.08, 0.10, or 0.12 cubic feet per second per acre detention release rate for different amounts of impervious area...... 5 3. Map showing the location of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois...... 5 4. Graph showing the comparison of flood frequency curves estimated at the U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station at Yorkville, Illinois, from Argonne National Laboratory precipitation data from 1950–99 and 1950–2003...... 6 5. Maps showing the 1996 and projected 2020 land uses for the Kane County portion of the Blackberry Creek watershed...... 7 6. Map showing the subbasins and naming system used in the Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN model for the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois...... 8 iv
7–21. Graphs showing comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates: 7. Downstream from Route 38 Branch tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois...... 13 8. Downstream from Elburn Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois...... 14 9. Downstream from Seavey Road Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois...... 15 10. Downstream from Prestbury Branch tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois...... 16 11. Downstream from Lake Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois...... 17 12. Downstream from East Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois...... 18 13. Downstream from Aurora Chain-of-Lakes tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois...... 19 14. On Blackberry Creek at Route 47 downstream from the junction with Elburn Run (subbasin 220), Kane County, Illinois...... 20 15. On Blackberry Creek at Route 47 downstream from the junction with Seavey Road Run (subbasin 230), Kane County, Illinois...... 21 16. On Blackberry Creek near the Village of Sugar Grove (subbasin 236), Kane County, Illinois...... 22 17. On Blackberry Creek upstream from the junction with Lake Run (subbasin 240), Kane County, Illinois...... 23 18. On Blackberry Creek upstream from the junction with East Run (subbasin 250), Kane County, Illinois...... 24 19. On Blackberry Creek downstream from the junction with East Run (subbasin 260), Kane County, Illinois...... 25 20. On Blackberry Creek upstream from the junction with Aurora Chain-of-Lakes (subbasin 265), Kane County, Illinois...... 26 21. On Blackberry Creek (subbasin 270), at the Kane and Kendall County, Illinois, line...... 27 v
Tables
1. Land-use categories from the 2005 Blackberry Creek flood-hazard study and associated 2020 land-use categories...... 6 2. Drainage area, impervious area determined from the 1996 land-use map, and projected additional impervious area by 2020 for tributary subbasins of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois...... 9 3. Drainage area, impervious area determined from the 1996 land-use map, and projected additional impervious area by 2020 along the main stem of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois...... 10 4. Tributaries in the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kane County, Illinois, with numerical codes for the most downstream subbasin, and figure numbers where the simulation results are shown...... 11 5. Detention basin release-rate evaluation locations along the main stem of Blackberry Creek in Kane County, Illinois, numerical codes for the subbasin upstream from each location, and figure numbers where the simulation results are shown...... 11 6. Ratios of peak flow and drainage area for pre- and postdevelopment scenarios at selected locations in the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kane County, Illinois...... 12 vi
Conversion Factors
Multiply By To obtain Length foot (ft) 0.3048 meter (m) mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer (km) Area acre 0.4047 hectare (ha) square mile (mi2) 259.0 hectare (ha) Volume cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter (m3) acre-foot (acre-ft) 1,233 cubic meter (m3) Flow rate cubic foot per second (ft3/s) 0.02832 cubic meter per second (m3/s)
Vertical coordinate information is referenced to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Horizontal coordinate information is referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).
Acronyms and Abbreviations
AMS annual maximum series CBBEL Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. HSPF Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN KCDEM Kane County Department of Environmental and Building Management MWRD Metropolitan Water Reclamation District NIPC Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission USGS U.S. Geological Survey WY water year ft3/s-acre cubic foot per second per acre Effect of Detention Basin Release Rates on Flood Flows— Application of a Model to the Blackberry Creek Watershed in Kane County, Illinois
By David T. Soong, Elizabeth A. Murphy, and Timothy D. Straub
Abstract storage. Consequently, storm runoff occurs faster and can have larger peak-discharges and runoff volumes from devel- oped areas. Runoff corresponding to short-duration rainfall The effects of stormwater detention basins with speci- appears more frequently and less water infiltrates the soil, fied release rates are examined on the watershed scale with which decreases ground-water storage capacities in developed a Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN (HSPF) landscapes and alters baseflows (Konrad, 2003; Bedient and continuous-simulation model. Modeling procedures for speci- Huber, 2002). Urbanization can also impact water quality; fying release rates from detention basins with orifice and weir storm runoff from urban areas may contain high concentra- discharge configurations are discussed in this report. To facili- tions of suspended solids and chemicals, such as nitrogen, tate future detention modeling as a tool for watershed manage- phosphorus, trace elements, and organics, or oils and greases ment, a chart relating watershed impervious area to detention (Sherwood, 2001). Increases in flood-peak magnitude, flood- volume is presented. The report also presents a case study of peak frequency, and runoff volumes, along with the resulting the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Ill., a rapidly increases in sediment and pollutant loads, can cause more urbanizing area seeking to avoid future flood damages from flooding, erosion, water pollution, and destruction of stream increased urbanization, to illustrate the effects of various habitat. detention basin release rates on flood peaks and volumes and Stormwater facilities, such as detention basins, retention flood frequencies. The case study compares flows simulated basins, and infiltration areas, store storm runoff on site and with a 1996 land-use HSPF model to those simulated with reduce runoff rates from the site. Among stormwater facilities, four different 2020 projected land-use HSPF model scenar- detention or retention basins are the most widely used in prac- ios—no detention, and detention basins with release rates of tice. A detention basin temporarily stores storm runoff, and 0.08, 0.10, and 0.12 cubic feet per second per acre (ft3/s‑acre), the stored storm runoff is later released downstream through respectively. Results of the simulations for 15 locations, a flow-control structure that regulates the rate of release. A which included the downstream ends of all tributaries and retention basin retains a specified amount of stormwater runoff various locations along the main stem, showed that a release without releasing it except by means of evaporation, infiltra- rate of 0.10 ft3/s-acre, in general, can maintain postdevelop- tion, emergency bypass, or pumping. Infiltration areas reduce ment 100-year peak-flood discharge at a similar magnitude to runoff by moving water from the surface into the ground-water that of 1996 land-use conditions. Although the release rate is system through permeable soils. Devices or plants that filter designed to reduce the 100-year peak flow, reduction of the or remove sediment, excess nutrients, and toxic chemicals 2-year peak flow is also achieved for a smaller proportion of can be installed on detention basins to enhance water-quality the peak. Results also showed that the 0.10 ft3/s‑acre release protection. Basins can be designed for multiple purposes rate was less effective in watersheds with relatively high and integrated into neighborhoods for open space and rec- percentages of preexisting (1996) development than in water- reation, aesthetics, and wildlife-habitat enhancement (King sheds with less preexisting development. County Stormwater Services, 2008). However, a detention basin can control runoff effectively only if its total volume is not exceeded. Once flows overtop the basin, the runoff is Introduction no longer controlled and damaging downstream flows are normally assumed. Thus basin volume is the ultimate determi- Urbanization increases impervious surfaces in residen- nant of detention basin performance. The primary factors for tial, commercial and industrial areas and alters the hydro- determining the basin volume are the contributing drainage logic response of a watershed to rainfall. Altered hydrologic area, basin release rate, local soil, hydrological, climatologic responses include reduced interception by vegetation and characteristics, and time to release the stored runoff. reduced detention capacity due to elimination of depressional 2 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
Runoff from a natural watershed is inherently distributed Previous Studies in time and space, unlike the water released from a detention basin, which enters the stream at one location. Release rate is A literature review on the use of detention release rates in the amount of flow that a control outlet structure is designed northeastern Illinois and the implementation of release rates in to pass in a given duration. The release rate varies with the other HSPF models was completed. type of outlet structure implemented, such as a weir or orifice. Release rates are determined by the size of the contributing watershed area and the chosen goal of the detention, either Release Rates in Northeastern Illinois mitigation of the effects of peak-flood discharge or duration. Communities in northeastern Illinois began adopt- Typical release-rate design requirements do not consider ing stormwater detention requirements in the early 1970s. modifications to the shape of the outflow hydrographs, such as Approximately 80 percent of the municipalities and counties longer postdevelopment flood-peak discharge than predevel- in the region have detention requirements for new develop- opment flood-peak discharge given the increased volume and ment (Dreher and others, 1989). Local detention requirements the timing of released flow. The prolonged release may cause vary widely, in terms of storage volumes, release rates, and flooding to continue or worsen in larger drainage systems. suggested computational requirements. A brief review of It is challenging to design release rates that produce outflow the establishment of stormwater ordinances in areas of the emulating storm events that vary both in intensity and duration Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago and extend over long periods of time but still satisfy flood- (MWRD) and neighboring counties is presented to illus- peak reduction and flow-duration requirements (King County trate how communities in a rapidly developing region adopt Stormwater Services, 2008). detention basin and release rate ordinances. The MWRD area The Kane County Department of Environmental and covers Cook County and parts of DuPage and Will Coun- Building Management (KCDEM) developed a stormwater ties. More detailed information can be found in the reports ordinance to manage continuing growth and to protect natural prepared by Dreher and others (1989) and the Northeastern resources in Kane County (Kane County Stormwater Manage- Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) (1985). ment, 2005). The ordinance specifies that detention storage In 1972, MWRD began to require that stormwater deten- should be constructed in all new development areas in the tion be provided for new development (Dreher and others, county and that detention basins should have a release rate 1989). This detention ordinance called for all residential devel- set at 0.1 cubic feet per second per acre of developed area opments more than 10 acres and all commercial and industrial (ft3/s‑acre) for controlling the 100-year flood. However, uncer- developments more than 5 acres to provide stormwater deten- tainty remains about the extent of protection given by this tion to limit postdevelopment 100-year event runoff peaks to release rate on the watershed scale. The U.S. Geological Sur- predevelopment peak flows. The allowable postdevelopment vey (USGS), in cooperation with the KCDEM, undertook this release rate for the 100-year storm is equivalent to the pre- study to determine the effect of detention basin release rates development 3-year storm runoff rate based on the modified on flood flows for stormwater management in the Blackberry rational formula (Chow and others, 1988) with a maximum Creek watershed in Kane County. runoff coefficient “C” of 0.15. Given the rainfall statistics and physical characteristics of typical watersheds in northeastern Purpose and Scope Illinois, a typical maximum release rate is about 0.3 ft3/s‑acre, and it may range from 0.2 ft3/s-acre to 0.5 ft3/s-acre. Smaller The purpose of this report is to document the modeling release rates are used as watershed size increases. This approach used to simulate flows from detention basins with MWRD detention ordinance has been the basis of other deten- specified release rates. Modeling procedures for specifying tion policies in northeastern Illinois (Dreher and others, 1989). release rates from detention basins with an orifice and weir The NIPC (1985) examined 38 local stormwater deten- discharge configuration are discussed. To facilitate future tion requirements outside Cook County. Several ordinances detention modeling as a tool for watershed management, a eliminated the 10-acre minimum residential development size chart relating watershed impervious area to detention vol- for required stormwater detention if the site impervious area ume is presented. The report also presents a case study of exceeded 50 percent, and some ordinances required detention the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, a rapidly for all new development regardless of development size or urbanizing area seeking to avoid future flood damages from amount of impervious area. The choice of the majority of the increased urbanization, to illustrate the effects of various municipalities was to design the postdevelopment release rate release rates on flood peaks and volumes, and the flood for control of the 100-year event. In practice, the most widely frequencies. The case study compares flows simulated with a used method of determining allowable detention release rate 1996 land-use Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN was the MWRD method using either a 3-year or a 2-year (HSPF) model (Bicknell and others, 2000) to those simulated event. About one-third of the communities specified a fixed with four 2020 land-use HSPF model scenarios—no deten- release rate; the rates were almost evenly divided between 0.1 tion, and detention basins with release rates of 0.08, 0.10, and and 0.12 ft3/s-acre. 0.12 ft3/s-acre, respectively. Detention Modeling 3
The effectiveness of existing detention policies in north- suggested that the Ftable concept can be applied to outflow eastern Illinois was evaluated by NIPC (Dreher and others, from a detention basin by: 1989). As a result, release rates for the 2-year and 100-year 1. Decreasing the outflow rates associated with the storm events were recommended for use in northeastern Illi- given storage volumes to simulate a flow-control nois in the absence of a comprehensive stormwater manage- structure across the channel, or ment plan for a particular watershed. Price and Dreher (1991) 2. Increasing the channel-storage volumes associated found that the design storm methods appear to either over- or with the given discharges to simulate creation of underpredict detention requirements based on different land- one or more storage pools adjacent to the channel or use assumptions. Because of the difficulty in using the design upstream from the discharge point. storm methods, the unit area-detention volume requirements were developed based on over 40 years of continuous hydro- Modifications to the outflow discharge and storage rela- logic simulation (Price and Dreher, 1991; Price, 1997) as tions could be achieved by using either hypothetical or com- an alternative to the design storm approach for determining puted design based on field or proposed basin dimensions or detention requirement and release rate. The resulting unit area- a combination of both. Proper determination of these outflow detention volumes requirements have been used in DuPage discharge and storage relations is essential for sizing the deten- and Lake Counties to develop stormwater ordinances (Price, tion basin and, therefore, also determines the how effective the 1997). detention basin is for stormwater management.
Release Rates in Continuous Hydrologic Detention Basin Volume Estimation Simulation In a study for DuPage County, Price (1997) devised a method that uses the HSPF continuous simulation approach Donigian and others (1997) used HSPF to investigate to estimate the sizing requirement for a 100-year detention improvements in flood control and water quality by includ- basin with an outlet release rate of 0.1 ft3/s-acre from a linear ing various detention basin design scenarios in a study of slot outflow structure (fig. 1). The design chart allows users to Calabazas Creek, California. A 50-year continuous simula- determine detention volumes based on the amount of hydrauli- tion was performed at an hour time step, and the routing and cally connected impervious area (expressed as a percentage) in release of flow through detention basins were described by a the watershed. Price (1997) found that the required detention- set of depth-surface area-volume-discharge relations called basin storage ranged from 0.245 to 0.554 acre-ft/acre for “Ftables” in the HSPF model. The surface runoff was routed contributing watersheds with impervious areas ranging from 0 from impervious areas to detention basins, and the amount of to 100 percent. Price (1997) first assumed a group of 100-acre flow released from a detention basin to a downstream stream hypothetical watersheds with impervious land areas ranging channel was determined from the detention Ftable. Typical from 0 to 100 percent. A trial-and-error approach was devel- detention basin design information was obtained from the oped with the following steps: Santa Clara Valley Water District to develop an appropriate 1. Determine a set of assumed (initial) detention Ftable, and the stage, volume, surface area, and discharge rela- volume-discharge relations, which will be the data tion were calculated accordingly. The first Ftable was designed for constructing Ftables, for the linear slot outlet for an 800-acre drainage area. Ftables for other drainage-area structure, then sizes were developed by adjusting discharge, volume, and surface-area values proportionally to the drainage area. For the 2. Run the HSPF model with the Ftable implemented, Calabazas Creek watershed, the results showed that none of and simulate hourly flow at the outlet using the long- 1 the detention basin scenarios had a substantial impact on mean term precipitation record from water years (WY) annual flow volumes, but daily peak discharge decreased for 1949 to 1993 recorded at Wheaton, Ill., as the input. events of 10-year recurrence interval or less. However, flow 3. Generate the annual maximum time series (AMS) rates for less frequent (more extreme) floods changed little, from the simulated outflow, and determine flood and some locations showed small increases in peak-flow rates frequencies from the AMS using the Log Pearson in the simulation. Type III distribution with procedures outlined in Bulletin 17B (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982). Detention Modeling 4. Stop the process if the 100-year discharge is equal to 3 In an HSPF schematic, the inflow to a river reach 0.1 ft /s-acre of the drainage basin; if not, then a new (RCHRES) may consist of the flow entering the reach from an volume-discharge relation is chosen for the process upstream reach, or flow from contributing pervious land and until the desired release rate is achieved. impervious land segments, or both. To describe outflows from a reach, an Ftable is needed that describes the relations among 1 A water year (WY) is the 12-month period from October 1 through the outflow rates and channel-reach geometry including September 30 and is designated by the calendar year in which it ends. For depth, surface area, and volume. Donigian and others (1997) example, WY 2007 is from October 1, 2006, through September 30, 2007. 4 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
In the current study, an orifice-weir outlet structure was of 1 ft3/s-acre for runoff exceeding the 100‑year modeled. Water is released from a detention basin first through magnitude. This set of relations was developed with an orifice and then over a weir if the storm exceeds the design a spreadsheet modified from one obtained from storage of the detention basin. The orifice outlet is the struc- CBBEL (Darren Olsen, Christopher B. Burke, Ltd., ture specified by Kane County (Kane County Stormwater written commun., 2005) for detention basins. Management, 2005). The release rate discharge and detention 2. Incorporate the Ftable determined in step 1 into the storage volume relations for the linear slot and orifice outlet HSPF model, and simulate hourly flow at the outlet structures were computed for the release rate of 0.1 ft3/s-acre using precipitation data from Argonne National and are compared in figure 1. Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., for WY 1949 to WY 2003. 12 3. Generate an AMS from this simulated flow time series, and analyze flood frequency with the Orifice 10 Linear PEAKFQ program (Flynn and others, 2006) to estimate flood frequencies with the Bulletin 17B
ECOND 8 method. Note that the 1996 annual maximum was removed from the AMS because it is considered an 6 outlier for the purpose of determining release rate. The 1996 annual maximum discharge measured
4 at Yorkville, Ill., was larger than a 500-year peak discharge. Inclusion of this data point in the release
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER S 2 rate analysis would have biased the flood frequencies computed for other recurrence intervals.
0 4. Stop the process if the 100-year discharge is equal to 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 the desired release rate; if not, then a new diameter STORAGE VOLUME, IN ACRE-FEET (and therefore detention basin volume) is tested until Figure 1. The differences in storage volume required by a linear the desired release rate is achieved. slot volume-discharge relation and an orifice-controlled storage The procedure presented above presents an estimate of volume-discharge relation. A release rate of 0.1 cubic feet per the total detention basin volume needed in each subbasin. For second per acre was used in the analysis. example, the resulting detention basin storage volume for sub- basins in the Blackberry Creek watershed ranged in size from The volumetric requirement for the orifice structure is approximately 3 to 810 acre-ft. The detention basins larger usually smaller than that required by the linear slot outlet than 400 acre-ft were judged to be unlikely to be constructed except at a very small release discharge. The intent of the in residential developments and were split into detention linear slot structure used by Price (1997) was to derive a sim- basins of 350 acre-ft or less for modeling purposes. plified relation. Use of an orifice-outlet structure gives a more realistic estimate of detention basin volume and, therefore, Multiple Release Rates more accurate analysis in the Blackberry Creek watershed. The Price (1997) method is modified in this study to size The required 100-year detention volumes (in acre-ft/acre) detention basins and outlet structures as outlined below. for an orifice-outlet structure for different amounts of imper- 1. Determine an initial set of depth-surface area-storage vious area and for the multiple release rates of 0.08, 0.10, volume-discharge relations (Ftables) with a trial ori- and 0.12 ft3/s-acre are shown in figure 2. This diagram was fice diameter and weir elevation. For this study, the developed to aid watershed planning for new development detention basin has a general trapezoidal shape, flat areas. When an orifice-outlet structure is used, approximately bottom, and side slope of 4 to 1. The orifice is placed 0.47–0.52 acre-ft of storage per acre of impervious land is at the bottom of the outlet structure and the diameter required to achieve a release rate of 0.10 ft3/s-acre for the is determined in the subsequent trial-and-error exer- 100-year storm. In addition, 0.495–0.565 acre-ft of storage per cise until the desired release rate is met at the outlet. acre of impervious land was required to achieve a release rate The elevation of the weir is designed to detain runoff of 0.08 ft3/s-acre, and 0.43–0.475 acre-ft of storage per acre magnitudes up to the 100-year recurrence interval of impervious land was required to achieve a release rate of before water overtops the weir, and the effective 0.12 ft3/s-acre. weir width is designed to release discharge at a rate Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 5
0.580 Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Release Rate 0.08 0.560 Case Study 0.540 The Blackberry Creek watershed is a 68.1 mi2 (Murphy 0.520 Release Rate 0.10 and others, 2007) watershed approximately 40 mi west of met-
TIO IN ACRE FEET PER ACRE 0.500 ropolitan Chicago in Kane and Kendall Counties, Ill. (fig. 3). Land use in the watershed is primarily agricultural; however, 0.480 Release Rate 0.12 in the past few decades, urban areas have been developed 0.460 throughout the watershed. In 2005, the USGS–Illinois Water Science Center, in cooperation with the KCDEM, developed, 0.440 DETENTION VOLUME, RA calibrated, and verified an HSPF hydrologic model to investi-
0.420 gate flood-hazards in the watershed (Soong and others, 2005). 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 IMPERVIOUS AREA, ACRES This hydrologic model, based on 1996 land use, was modified in this study to incorporate projected 2020 land-use changes Figure 2. Detention storage volume required per acre to achieve (Price, 2003) and detention basins simulated with Ftables a 0.08, 0.10, or 0.12 cubic feet per second per acre detention incorporating the release rates as previously described. release rate for different amounts of impervious area.
88°30' 88°25' 88°20'
41°55' Route 38 Branch Rt 38
Blackberry Creek Elburn
Pouley Rd E Union Pacific RR Watershed l b
u
r
n
R
u
n ILLINOIS .
Main St
d R n Gree Batavia 41°50' Run oad
y R e Lake av e North
S Run Aurora I-88 Bliss Rd EXPLANATION Oak St
CITY Sugar r. Rt 47 Grove y B ur n Aurora b u WATERSHED BOUNDARY t R s t Chain-of-Lakes e s r Rt 56 a P H ankes E STREAM Rd Bla ckberry Aurora
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY Randall Rd US 30 Galena Blvd U.S. HIGHWAY Burlington RR
STATE HIGHWAY Prairie St
41°45' C
r e
ROAD e k U+ Montgomery RAILROAD (05551675)
US 30 / Rt 47 Jericho Rd Jericho Lake COUNTY BOUNDARY Kane Co. US 30 Montgomery STREAMFLOW-GAGING Kendall Co. (05551675) STATION AND IDENTIFIER U 0 1.25 2.5 5 MILES
0 1.25 2.5 5 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey and Illinois Department of Natural Resources 1:24,000 Digital Data , Illinois State Plane East Coordinate System (Feet), NAD83 Datum
Figure 3. Location of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois. 6 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
Data Table 1. Land-use categories from the 2005 Blackberry Creek flood-hazard study and associated 2020 land-use categories. Meteorological data, geographic information system data [1996 land-use categories from Soong and others (2005)] layers for the analysis, subwatershed boundaries, and channel geometry are described in the 2005 flood-hazard study (Soong 1996 land-use category 2020 land-use category and others, 2005). However, the current study extended Cropland Agriculture the meteorological data and the simulation period through Grassland Agriculture resource buffer, WY 2003, whereas the 2005 study used the period WY 1950 additional open space, proposed to WY 1999. In addition, the Kane County projected 2020 open space, existing rural land-use data (Price, 2003) were used as the basis for sizing grassland, urban grassland the detention basins in this study. Changes in flood frequencies High-density urban Crossroad commercial, urban resulting from these additional four years of meteorological residential, commercial, data can be observed in the two curves in figure 4. The flood office/research, industrial, light frequency streamflow values from the WY 1950 to WY 2003 industrial, warehouse, urbanized simulation period are slightly lower for the smaller exceed- municipality, rural municipality ance probabilities. The slight changes in flood frequencies Medium-density urban Rural residential, agricultural are expected because estimation of recurrence intervals is business, institutional improved with longer records. Low-density urban Countryside/estate residential Transportation Transportation 5,000 Water bodies Water LU1996 (1950-1999) Wetland Wetland LU1996 (1950-2003) Barren land Barren land
T PER SECOND After these land-use categories were incorporated in the watershed geographic information system (GIS) layer, the sur- face area for each land use in each subbasin (fig. 6) was calcu- 1,000 lated in acres and updated in the 1996 land-use HSPF model
100-year flood to create the 2020 land-use HSPF model. The key differences DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEE between the 1996 and 2020 land-use models were the increase in impervious land area and the corresponding decrease in
2-year flood 400 pervious land area. The total drainage areas, percentage of 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 impervious area in 1996, and percentage of increased imper- EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT vious area by 2020 for each tributary subbasin are shown in Figure 4. Comparison of flood frequency curves estimated at table 2 and for the Blackberry Creek main stem subbasins in the U.S. Geological Survey streamflow-gaging station at Yorkville, table 3. Note that the largest amounts of projected develop- Illinois, from Argonne National Laboratory precipitation data from ment are planned for the tributary subwatersheds of Elburn 1950–99 and 1950–2003. Run, Prestbury Branch, East Run, and Aurora Chain-of-Lakes, and along the main stem in subbasin 236. The projected 2020 land-use conditions (fig. 5) were based on the 2020 land-use map developed by Price (2003). Methods The Price (2003) map used the Kane County data (Karen Kosky, Kane County Department of Environment and Build- The land areas that were reclassified from pervious areas ing Management, written commun., October 2002) and in the 1996 land use to impervious area in the 2020 land use incorporated urban development in the Blackberry Creek were considered new development that would require deten- watershed. It also incorporated the municipal planning maps tion. Detention basins with the three different release rates of of Aurora, North Aurora, Batavia, Elburn, Montgomery, and 0.08, 0.10, and 0.12 ft3/s-acre were created in all Kane County Sugar Grove. For consistency of the analysis, the 2020 land- subbasins of the Blackberry Creek watershed. A version of the use categories were associated with the 1996 land-use catego- model that incorporated the 2020 land use without detention ries used in the 2005 Blackberry Creek watershed flood-hazard basins was used as the “worst-case scenario” for comparison study as described in table 1. The 2020 land-use category of with the detention scenario model versions. “existing open space” was overwritten with the 1996 land-use category. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 7
88°20'
North
Aurora
Aurora
Batavia
Montgomery US 30 US
k Cree berry Black
Projected 2020 Land Cover
88°25'
41°45'
Rt 56
Kane Co.
Kendall Co. I-88 47 Rt
Land cover base from Price, 2003.
US 30
Sugar Grove
41°55' Rt 38 Rt
Elburn
88°30'
and
5 MILES
41°50'
TION
and Illinois Department of
TERSHED BOUNDARY
ooded and forested l etland
ransportation
,
High density urban Medium density urban Low density urban T Cropland Grassland W W Open water Barren and exposed
5 KILOMETERS
EXPLANA LAND COVER
WA
88°20'
North
Aurora
Aurora
Base for maps from U.S. Geological Survey Natural Resources 1:24,000 Digital Data Illinois State Plane East Coordinate System (Feet), NAD83 Datum
Batavia
0
0
Montgomery US 30 US
k Cree berry Black
1996 Land Cover
88°25'
41°45'
Rt 56
Kane Co.
Kendall Co. I-88 47 Rt
Land cover base from Luman and others, 1996.
US 30
Sugar Grove
41°55' Rt 38 Rt
Elburn 1996 and projected 2020 land uses for the Kane County portion of Blackberry Creek watershed.
88°30'
41°50' Figure 5. 8 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
88°30' 88°25' 88°20'
41°55' 10 208 Route 38 Branch Tributary (10)
22 210 Elburn Run Tributary 213 (20-22) 21 Seavey Road Run Tributary 20 216 (30-33) 57 56 220 218 Lake Run Tributary
k 55 (50-57) e re 33 32 C 53 223 y r 54 r 41°50' e b k 226 c 31 a l East Run B 52 Main Stem of Tributary 30 64 Blackberry Creek (60-64) (208-276) 230 51 62 63 233 41 50 78 Prestbury Branch 40 61 79 Tributary 60 236 77 (40-41) 250 Aurora 74 76 Chain-of-Lakes 240 72 75 Tributary EXPLANATION 260 71 73 (70-79) 41°45' 230 SUBBASIN AND IDENTIFIER 70 265 U+ Montgomery U STREAMFLOW-GAGING STATION (05551675) Jericho Lake 276 Kane Co. 270 Kendall Co.
0 1.25 2.5 5 MILES
0 1.25 2.5 5 KILOMETERS
Base from U.S. Geological Survey and Illinois Department of Natural Resources 1:24,000 Digital Data , Illinois State Plane East Coordinate System (Feet), NAD83 Datum
41°40'
Figure 6. Subbasins and naming system used in the Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN model for the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 9
Table 2. Drainage area, impervious area determined from the 1996 land-use map, and projected additional impervious area by 2020 for tributary subbasins of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, Illinois.
[1996 land use from Luman and others, 1996; projected additional impervious area by 2020 from Price, 2003, and Karen Kosky, Kane County Department of Environmental and Building Management, written commun., October 2002]
Projected additional Subbasin number Subbasin drainage Impervious area in 1996 impervious area (figure 6) area (acres) (percent) by 2020 (percent) Route 38 Branch 10 367.4 1.06 9.99 Elburn Run 22 522.2 7.75 50.49 21 627.1 2.07 34.15 20 502.1 2.71 16.8 Seavey Road Run 33 1,204.20 1.53 2.43 32 1,044.30 .51 0 31 1,124.60 1.3 .48 30 1,124.80 1.52 1.94 Prestbury Branch 41 1,132.80 4.01 44.49 40 235.3 7.38 46.95 Lake Run 57 1,104.70 1.2 0 56 391 1.02 3.77 55 383.7 2.99 2.48 54 247.1 .63 0 53 1,915.00 2.46 9.08 52 1,902.10 1.4 2.39 51 1,741.60 1.13 2.17 50 903.4 2.97 30.03 East Run 64 613.2 4.54 38.82 63 518 7.93 56.8 62 879.4 3.25 66.46 61 312.6 2.6 43.81 60 557.2 5.61 25.24 Aurora Chain-of-Lakes 79 405.6 15.09 52.45 78 239.5 17.95 48.09 77 504.9 21.54 60.15 76 325.6 41.16 42.33 75 253.4 25.18 55.54 74 87.8 9.49 57.89 73 343.5 21.99 69.24 72 136.8 13.96 78.26 71 84.7 3.11 41.57 70 223.4 5.4 42.53 10 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
Table 3. Drainage area, impervious area determined from the Simulation Results 1996 land-use map, and projected additional impervious area by 2020 along the main stem of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Simulated flood frequencies and flood hydrographs at the Kane County, Illinois. outlet of each tributary (table 4) and selected locations along the main stem of Blackberry Creek in Kane County (table 5) [1996 land use from Luman and others, 1996; projected additional impervious area by 2020 from Price, 2003, and Karen Kosky, Kane County are presented in this section. For each selected subbasin, Department of Environmental and Building Management, written commun., five scenarios were simulated: the 1996 and 2020 land uses October 2002] and the 2020 land uses with the three detention basin release rates of 0.08, 0.10, and 0.12 ft3/s-acre (figs. 7–21). The 1996 Subbasin Impervious Projected additional Subbasin and 2020 land-use scenarios are plotted for the full range of drainage area in 1996 impervious area number recurrence intervals, whereas the detention basin scenarios are area (acres) (percent) by 2020 (percent) only plotted for the 2- through 100-year recurrence intervals. 208 632.3 0.39 0.49 The results of the simulations for the five scenarios for one 210 980.4 2.86 9.3 subbasin are grouped in a single illustration for a comparative 213 1,080.00 1.06 35.01 evaluation. A summary table of estimated flood quantiles for 216 792.7 1.86 5.78 the 2-, 10- , 50-, and 100-year recurrence intervals is presented in the appendix. Among the four storm runoff events selected, 218 634.2 1.67 8.14 the July 1996 event is larger than a 100-year event, and the 220 1,003.30 2.16 9.98 May 1999 event is approximately a 2-year event, according 223 1,415.80 2.46 11.41 to the flood frequencies based on the 1950–2003 discharge 226 1,033.60 3.28 2.68 record measured at the USGS streamflow-gaging station at 230 947.8 2.2 6.6 Yorkville (station number 05551700). Analysis of the flood frequencies and storm-runoff 233 1,278.70 4.79 12.27 hydrographs for the five scenarios at different locations in the 236 1,471.00 4.65 55.13 watershed (figs. 7–21) reveals the effectiveness of detention 240 1,269.30 3.79 15.09 basins with different release rates and the effect of detention 250 556.4 2.22 11.21 basins on downstream reaches. Some general observations 260 663.9 2.55 13.41 from these plots include: 265 635.2 .87 4.61 1. an increase in impervious area results in an increase 270 428.5 3.66 13.54 in the storm-runoff magnitudes; 2. the addition of detention basins reduces flood peaks The surface runoff from new impervious areas was routed but also prolongs the release of stored flood water, to detention basins. The routing and release of flow through thus producing a flood hydrograph that shows a lon- detention basins was described by using Ftables in the HSPF ger recession time and larger discharge magnitude; model as previously discussed. The amount of flow released 3. although the release rate is designed to reduce the from a detention basin to the channel was determined from the 100-year peak flow, reduction of the 2-year peak flow corresponding detention Ftable. The flow released from the is also achieved for a smaller proportion of the peak; detention basin plus the flow from the pervious and impervi- and ous surface areas were routed using the channel routing Ftable developed in the 1996 land-use HSPF model. The annual 4. the shape of the hydrographs generated by different maximum series was compiled from the simulated flow time detention basin release rates are similar but the mag- series. Design recurrence intervals flows were determined nitudes and duration of recessional flows tend to vary through statistical analysis of the annual maximum series. among storm events and locations. The areas selected for analysis, listed from upstream to The hydrographs from the July 1996 event (larger than downstream along Blackberry Creek in Kane County, include: a 100-year event) and the May 1999 event (approximately the confluences of Blackberry Creek with Route 38 Branch a 2-year event) can be used to examine the magnitude of tributary, Elburn Run tributary, Seavey Road Run tributary, flood-peak discharge increases with the 2020 land uses and no Prestbury Branch tributary, Lake Run tributary, East Run detention basins (figs. 7–21). The hydrographs demonstrate tributary, Aurora Chain-of-Lakes tributary; the stream crossing that projected new development occurring between 1996 and at Route 47 downstream from Elburn Run; the outlets of sub- 2020 will increase flood peaks for both large and small storms. basins 230, 236, 240, 250, 260, 265; and at the Kane-Kendall county line (fig. 6). Flood-peak magnitudes for 2-, 10-, 100-, and 500-year recurrence intervals from selected storm events were analyzed. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 11
Table 4. Tributaries in the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kane On the watershed scale, implementing detention basins 3 County, Illinois, with numerical codes for the most downstream with a release rate of 0.1 ft /s-acre controls the Q100 from the subbasin, and figure numbers where the simulation results are 2020 land-uses level to close to the 1996 land-uses level at shown. the Kane-Kendall county line (fig. 21). At the county line, implementation of detention basins reduced simulated flood Subbasin Figure Tributary name quantiles of recurrence intervals shorter than 100 years from number number the 2020 land-use levels even though the detention basin were Route 38 Branch 10 7 designed to control the Q100 peak flows. However, the effec-
Elburn Run 20 8 tiveness of detention-controlled Q100’s for individual subbasins Seavey Road Run 30 9 was shown to vary. This variation in effectiveness is due to the variation in the amount of urban development in each subbasin Prestbury Branch 40 10 between the 1996 and 2020 land-use data. The detention-con- Lake Run 50 11 trolled Q100’s are lower than the 1996 land-use levels at Route East Run 60 12 38 Branch (subbasin 10), Elburn Run (20), Prestbury Branch Aurora Chain-of-Lakes 70 13 (40), and Lake Run (50) tributaries,at the stream crossing Route 47 downstream from junction with Elburn Run (220), the stream crossing Route 47 downstream from junction with Table 5. Detention basin release-rate evaluation locations Seavey Road Run (230), and Village of Sugar Grove (236) along the main stem of Blackberry Creek in Kane County, Illinois, on the main stem. The detention-controlled Q100’s are higher numerical codes for the subbasin upstream from each location, than the 1996 land-use levels at East Run (60) and Aurora and figure numbers where the simulation results are shown. Chain-of-Lakes (70) tributaries. The 0.1 ft3/s-acre release rate
could not reduce the Q100’s to the 1996 land-use levels at the Subbasin Figure Location name outlet of East Run and Aurora Chain-of-Lakes tributaries. A number number smaller release rate, such as 0.08 ft3/s-acre, would be required Stream crossing Route 47, downstream 220 14 to achieve comparable flow reduction. from the junction with Elburn Run Existing channel-routing characteristics are an additional Stream crossing Route 47 downstream from 230 15 consideration in evaluating the effect of detention basins at the junction with Seavey Road Run downstream locations. The Prestbury Branch, East Run, and Stream crossing Village of Sugar Grove 236 16 Aurora Chain-of-Lakes tributaries have higher projected urban development by 2020 (table 2) and have existing engineered Near Route 56 stream crossing upstream 240 17 from the junction with Lake Run channel modifications, such as flow-through lakes, incorpo- rated in the 1996 land-use HSPF model. Although an in-depth Upstream from the junction with East Run 250 18 evaluation of the effect of the channel modifications on the Downstream from the junction with 260 19 downstream flow conditions is beyond the scope of this East Run study, appreciable peak attenuation and runoff smoothing can Upstream from the junction with Aurora 265 20 be observed in Prestbury Branch tributary (fig. 10). These Chain-of-Lakes hydrograph characteristics result from the tributary’s com- At Kane and Kendall County line 270 21 paratively large storage capacity in two large lakes and from
mild channel slopes. This channel storage allows the Q100’s to be controlled to the 1996 level for this subbasin despite the The storm hydrographs also can show the effect of the projected urban development. land-use changes on the runoff-generation characteristics— Subbasins along the main stem of the Blackberry Creek storms that did not produce major runoff events with the 1996 in the middle part of the watershed have minimal impervious land uses would produce runoff with the 2020 land uses—the area (table 3) and are primarily agriculture and pasture land June 1994 event, for example. Therefore, subbasins projected uses in the 1996 land-use data. Simulated detention-controlled to have rapid development between 1996 and 2020 will have Q100’s lower than the 1996 levels could indicate an over- more frequent small flood runoffs than other subbasins even if designed system from using an overly strict detention basin climatic conditions are the same. Changes in the occurrences release rate. Over- and under-design of stormwater facilities and magnitudes of small floods may contribute to the increase such as detention basins can cause undesirable impacts to the in flood frequencies at short recurrence intervals, such as a aquatic habitat or channel stabilization, as well as flooding.
2-year storm (Q2). Examples of this increase can be seen in flood frequency curves for the 1996 and 2020 land uses such as those in figures 7, 8, 16, and 17. 12 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
The changes in flood quantiles due to release rate HSPF model (table 6). Ratios for two recurrence intervals, controlled detention throughout the watershed are inconsis- Q2 and Q100, were analyzed. In small headwater watersheds, tent. To illustrate this inconsistency, ratios of QT (T denotes runoff from rainfall begins more quickly and is less attenuated a specific recurrence interval) to drainage area DA( ) were because of small available storage. Therefore, Q100/DA ratios computed for subbasins in the Blackberry Creek watershed. of small watersheds are higher (higher than 0.1 ft3/s-acre) than
The QT/DA ratios with QT’s simulated by the 1996 land-use larger watersheds. Requiring a low release rate for a watershed
HSPF model were compared to those QT’s simulated with the with higher initial urban development may result in a lower 3 2020 land uses with 0.1 ft /s-acre release rate detention basins postdevelopment Q100, such as in subbasin 240.
Table 6. Ratios of peak flow and drainage area for pre- and postdevelopment scenarios at selected locations in the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kane County, Illinois.
3 3 [ft /s-acre, cubic foot per second per acre; Q2 and Q100 are the 2-year and 100-year flood quantiles, respectively; 0.1 RR, 0.1 ft /s-acre release rate] 100-year flood/drainage area 2-year flood/drainage area 3 3 Subbasin Total (ft /s-acre) (ft /s-acre) number drainage area Q based on Q based on Q based on 100 Q based on 2 (figure 6) (acres) 100 2020 land uses 2 2020 land uses 1996 land uses 1996 land uses and 0.1 RR and 0.1 RR 10 367 0.29 0.27 0.07 0.07 20 1,651 .54 .42 .09 .08 30 4,498 .16 .16 .03 .03 40 1,368 .05 .05 .01 .02 50 8,588 .12 .11 .03 .03 60 2,880 .06 .08 .01 .02 70 2,605 .03 .07 .01 .01 220 7,142 .19 .16 .04 .03 230 15,037 .13 .12 .03 .03 236 17,787 .11 .1 .03 .03 240 20,424 .1 .1 .02 .03 250 29,569 .09 .09 .02 .02 260 33,113 .09 .09 .02 .02 265 33,748 .08 .08 .02 .02 270 36,782 .07 .08 .01 .02 Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 13
1,000
100 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 10 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
16 12
10 12 8
8 6
4 4 2
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/14/95 01/16/95
120 30
100 25
80 20
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
60 15
40 10
20 5
0 0 07/17/96 07/19/96 07/21/96 05/21/99 05/22/99 05/23/99 05/24/99
Figure 7. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates downstream from Route 38 Branch tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois. 14 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
1,000
EXPLANATION
100 2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use 10
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
200 120
100 150 80
100 60
40 50 20
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/14/95 01/16/95
1,400 250
1,200 200 1,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 150 800
600 100
400 50 200
0 0 07/17/96 07/18/96 07/19/96 07/20/96 05/21/99 05/22/99 05/23/99 05/24/99
Figure 8. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates downstream from Elburn Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 15
1,000
EXPLANATION
100 2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use 10
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
20 70
60 15 50
40 10 30
5 20
10
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
1,200 120
1,000 100
800 80
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
600 60
400 40
200 20
0 0 07/17/96 07/19/96 07/21/96 05/21/99 05/23/99 05/25/99
Figure 9. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates downstream from Seavey Road Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois. 16 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
100 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 10 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
15 20
15 10
10
5 5
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/13/95 01/16/95 01/19/95
700 30
600
500 20
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 400
300 10 200
100
0 0 07/17/96 07/19/96 07/21/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 10. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates downstream from Prestbury Branch tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 17
1,000
EXPLANATION
100 2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use 10
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
100 120
100 80
80 60 60 40 40
20 20
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
2,000 250
200 1,500
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 150 1,000 100
500 50
0 0 07/17/96 07/20/96 07/23/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 11. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates downstream from Lake Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois. 18 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
1,000
100 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 10 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0 06/23/94 06/26/94 06/29/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
1,000 90 80 800 70 60 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 600 50 40 400 30
200 20 10 0 0 07/17/96 07/20/96 07/23/96 05/23/99 05/26/99 05/29/99 06/01/99
Figure 12. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates downstream from East Run tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 19
1,000
EXPLANATION
100 2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use 10
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
1 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
30 30
25 25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0 06/23/94 06/26/94 06/29/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
1,000 40
35 800 30
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 600 25
20 400
15 200 10
0 5 07/17/96 07/20/96 07/23/96 05/23/99 05/26/99 05/29/99
Figure 13. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates downstream from Aurora Chain-of-Lakes tributary to Blackberry Creek, Kane County, Illinois. 20 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
1,000 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 100 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
10 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
250 250
200 200
150 150
100 100
50 50
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
3,000 400
350 2,500 300 2,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 250
1,500 200
150 1,000 100 500 50
0 0 07/17/96 07/20/96 07/23/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 14. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek at Route 47 downstream from the junction with Elburn Run (subbasin 220), Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 21
1,000 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year 100
100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
250 350
300 200 250
150 200
100 150
100 50 50
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
4,000 500
3,500 400 3,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 2,500 300 2,000
1,500 200
1,000 100 500
0 0 07/17/96 07/20/96 07/23/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 15. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek at Route 47 downstream from the junction with Seavey Road Run (subbasin 230), Kane County, Illinois. 22 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
1,000 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year 100
100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
350 400
300 350 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100
50 50
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
5,000 500
4,000 400
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 3,000 300
2,000 200
1,000 100
0 0 07/19/96 07/22/96 07/25/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 16. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek near the Village of Sugar Grove (subbasin 236), Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 23
1,000 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year 100
100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
400 450
350 400
300 350 300 250 250 200 200 150 150 100 100 50 50
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
5,000 600
4,000 500
400 DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 3,000 300 2,000 200
1,000 100
0 0 07/19/96 07/22/96 07/25/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 17. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek upstream from the junction with Lake Run (subbasin 240), Kane County, Illinois. 24 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
1,000 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year 100
100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
350 500
300 400 250 300 200
150 200
100 100 50
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/14/95 01/16/95 01/18/95
7,000 700
6,000 600
5,000 500
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 4,000 400
3,000 300
2,000 200
1,000 100
0 0 07/18/96 07/20/96 07/22/96 07/24/96 07/26/96 05/21/99 05/23/99 05/25/99 05/27/99
Figure 18. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek upstream from the junction with East Run (subbasin 250), Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 25
10,000
EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 1,000 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year
100 100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
400 600
350 500 300 400 250
200 300
150 200 100 100 50
0 0 06/23/94 06/25/94 06/27/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
7,000 800
6,000 700 600 5,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 500 4,000 400 3,000 300 2,000 200
1,000 100
0 0 07/19/96 07/22/96 07/25/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 19. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek downstream from the junction with East Run (subbasin 260), Kane County, Illinois. 26 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
1,000 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year 100
100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
250 500
200 400
150 300
100 200
50 100
0 0 06/23/94 06/26/94 06/29/94 01/12/95 01/15/95 01/18/95
6,000 700
5,000 600
500 4,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 400 3,000 300 2,000 200
1,000 100
0 0 07/19/96 07/22/96 07/25/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 20. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek upstream from the junction with Aurora Chain-of-Lakes (subbasin 265), Kane County, Illinois. Blackberry Creek Detention Modeling Case Study 27
1,000 EXPLANATION
2020 land use 0.08 release rate 2020 land use 0.10 release rate 2020 land use 0.12 release rate 2020 land use 1996 land use
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND
2-year
10-year
100-year 100
100.0 99.9 99.0 90.0 70.0 50.0 30.0 10.0 1.0 0.1 0.0 EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY, IN PERCENT
300 500
250 400
200 300 150 200 100
100 50
0 0 06/23/94 06/26/94 06/29/94 01/12/95 01/14/95 01/16/95 01/18/95
6,000 700
5,000 600
500 4,000
DISCHARGE, IN CUBIC FEET PER SECOND 400 3,000 300 2,000 200
1,000 100
0 0 07/19/96 07/22/96 07/25/96 07/28/96 05/21/99 05/24/99 05/27/99
Figure 21. Comparison of flood frequencies and selected storm hydrographs simulated for 1996 and 2020 land uses and selected detention basin release rates on Blackberry Creek (subbasin 270), at the Kane and Kendall County, Illinois, line. 28 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois
Summary and Conclusions the peak. Results also showed that the 0.10 ft3/s-acre release rate was less effective in watersheds with relatively high percentages of preexisting (1996) development than in water- The Kane County Department of Environmental and sheds with less preexisting development. Building Management (KCDEM) developed a stormwater ordinance for managing continuing growth and protecting natural resources in Kane County. The ordinance specifies that detention storage should be constructed in all new develop- Acknowledgments ment areas in the county and that detention basins should have a release rate set at 0.1 cubic feet per second per acre of devel- The Kane County Department of Environmental and oped area (ft3/s-acre) for controlling the 100‑year flood. How- Building Management and the Illinois Department of Natural ever, uncertainty remains about the extent of protection given Resources–Office of Water Resources, in cooperation with by this release rate on the watershed scale. The U.S. Geo- the USGS–Illinois Water Science Center, conducted this logical Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the KCDEM, investigation of stormwater management strategies for the undertook this study to determine the effect of detention basin Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County. Darren Olson, release rates on flood flows for stormwater management in the of Christopher Burke Engineering, Ltd. (CBBEL), provided Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County. a detention basin sizing spreadsheet that was the basis of the The effects of stormwater detention basins with specified detention basin spreadsheet developed in this study. Valu- release rates are examined on a watershed scale with a Hydro- able input was received from the following technical review- logical Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) continuous- ers: William Coon, USGS–New York Water Science Center; simulation model. The outlet structure of the simulated Karen Kosky, Kane County Department of Environmental and detention basins was an orifice and a weir, and procedures for Building Management; Chad Ostheimer, USGS–Ohio Water estimating the detention basin storage with a given release rate Science Center; Loren Wobig, Illinois Department of Natural and for implementation in the HSPF models were developed Resources–Office of Water Resources. and described. To facilitate future detention modeling as a tool for watershed management, a chart relating impervious area in a watershed to detention volume is presented. A case study of the Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane References Cited County, Illinois, a rapidly urbanizing area seeking to avoid future flood damages from increased urbanization, illustrates Bedient, P.B., and Huber, W.C., 2002, Hydrology and flood- the effects of various detention basin release rates on peak plain analysis: Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, 763 p. flows and volumes and flood frequencies. A detention basin was simulated in each subbasin where urban development Bicknell, B.R., Imhoff, J.C., Kittle, J.L., Jr., Jobes, T.H., was projected to occur between 1996 and 2020. Simulated and Donigian, A.S., Jr., 2000, Hydrological simulation flows based on a 1996 land-use HSPF model were compared program—FORTRAN (HSPF) User’s manual for release to those based on four projected 2020 land-use HSPF model 12: Athens, Ga., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency scenarios: no detention, and detention basins with release rates Research Laboratory [variously paged]. 3 of 0.08, 0.10, and 0.12 ft /s-acre, respectively. Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W., 1988, Applied Flood-frequency analyses and selected flood hydrograph Hydrology: New York, McGraw–Hill, Inc., 572 p. plots showed the effect of increased urban development and implementation of detention basins with specific release rates Donigian, A.S., Chinnaswamy, R.V., and Jobes, T.H., 1997, in the watershed. Overall, the detention basin storm runoff Conceptual design of multipurpose detention facilities for hydrographs show reduction in flood peaks; however, the flood protection and nonpoint source pollution control: recession limbs were prolonged with higher discharge magni- Mountain View, Calif., Aqua Terra Consultants, 151 p. tudes. The release-rate effectiveness was evaluated by whether 100-year flood-peak discharge could be maintained at or Dreher, D.W., Schaefer, G.C., and Hey, D.L., 1989, Evalua- below the 1996 land-use conditions. tion of stormwater detention effectiveness in Northeastern The results of the simulations at 15 locations, which Illinois: Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 135 p. included the downstream ends of all major tributaries and stra- Flynn, K.M., Kirby, W.H., and Hummel, P.R., 2006, User’s tegic locations along the main stem, showed that a detention manual for program PeakFQ annual flood-frequency 3 basin release rate of 0.10 ft /s-acre, in general, could maintain analysis using Bulletin 17B guidelines: U.S. Geological postdevelopment 100-year peak flows at a similar magnitude Survey Techniques and Methods Book 4, Chapter B4, 42 p., to that of 1996 land-use conditions. Although the release rate accessed July 10, 2009, at http://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/2006/ is designed to reduce the 100-year peak flow, reduction of the tm4b4/. 2-year peak flow is also achieved for a smaller proportion of References Cited 29
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, 1982, Guide- Price, T.H., 1997, Unit area detention volumes based on con- lines for determining flood flow frequency, Bulletin 17B of tinuous simulation recommended for use with the DuPage the Hydrology Subcommittee: Reston, Va., U.S. Geological Countywide stormwater management ordinance: Northeast- Survey, Office of Water Data Coordination, 183 p. [Avail- ern Illinois Planning Commission, prepared for Stormwater able from National Technical Information Service, Spring- Management Division, Environmental Concerns, DuPage field, VA 22161, as report no. PB 86 157 278. Also avail- County, March 1997. able in PDF format (28 Mbyte file size) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency Web site http://www.fema. Price, T.H., 2003, Blackberry Creek watershed alternative gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2360] futures analysis: Elmhurst, Ill., Conservation Design Forum, 54 p. Kane County Stormwater Management, 2005, Countywide stormwater ordinance, accessed July 16, 2008, at Price, T.H., and Dreher, D.W., 1991, Investigation of hydro- http://www.co.kane.il.us/kcstorm/. logic methods for site design in northeastern Illinois—Draft report, August 1991: Chicago, Ill., Northeastern Illinois King County Stormwater Services, 2008, Stormwater facili- Planning Commission [variously paged]. ties, accessed August 27, 2008, at http://www.kingcounty. gov/environment/waterandland/stormwater/introduction/ Sherwood, D.A., 2001, Effect of a vegetated stormwater- facilities.aspx. detention basin on chemical quality and temperature of run- off from a small residential development in Monroe County, Konrad, C.P., 2003, Effects of urban development on floods: New York: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Inves- U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet FS–076–03, 4 p. tigations Report 01–4099, 11 p., accessed July 10, 2009, at http://ny.water.usgs.gov/pubs/wri/wri014099/. Luman, D., Joselyn, M., and Suloway, L., 1996, Criti- cal Trends Assessment land cover database of Illinois, Soong, D.T., Ishii, A.L., Sharpe, J.B., and Avery, C.F., 2004, 1991–1995: Champaign, Ill., Illinois Department of Natural Estimating flood-peak discharge magnitudes and frequen- Resources, 157 p. cies for rural streams in Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5103, 158 p. and Murphy, E.A., Straub, T.D., Soong, D.T., and Hamblen, C.S., 1 CD-Rom. 2007, Hydrologic, hydraulic, and flood-hazard analysis of the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kendall County, Illinois: Soong, D.T., Straub, T.D., and Murphy, E.A., 2005, Continu- U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report ous hydrologic simulation and flood-frequency, hydrau- 2007–5141, 27 p. lic, and flood-hazard analysis of the Blackberry Creek watershed, Kane County, Illinois: U.S. Geological Survey Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1985, Survey of Scientific Investigations Report 2005–5270, 78 p.. 1 pl., and detention basin maintenance problems: Chicago, Ill., North- 1 CD-Rom. eastern Illinois Planning Commission. This page is intentionally blank. Appendix 1 32 Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application of Model to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Kane County, Illinois 26 68 98 62 100 100 121 420 697 335 507 675 730 460 182 631 951 243 337 185 288 262 Q
1,257 1,154 50 86 20 61 72 54 107 347 573 272 407 566 606 373 141 509 804 208 283 158 248 223 Q 1,068 1,000 10 55 72 10 44 32 68 35 Q /s-acre release rate 203 330 152 218 343 359 204 277 659 653 500 133 172 102 165 141 3 2020 projected land use with detention basin and 0.12 ft 4 9 2 24 36 85 57 77 25 74 22 14 60 76 51 86 69 Q 135 146 153 100 278 301 228 26 63 98 62 100 100 121 414 690 335 507 675 730 460 182 630 947 243 332 173 257 234 Q
1,257 1,151 50 86 20 57 72 54 are for 2, 10, 50, and 100 years] T 107 342 566 272 407 567 606 373 140 509 998 800 208 278 148 222 200 Q 1,067 10 55 72 10 41 32 68 35 95 Q /s-acre release rate 200 325 152 218 342 359 204 277 658 651 497 133 169 148 129 3 2020 projected land use with detention basin and 0.10 ft 4 9 2 24 36 83 57 77 24 74 22 14 60 74 48 78 64 Q 131 146 152 100 277 300 226 26 56 98 62 100 100 121 408 682 335 507 675 730 460 182 629 945 243 327 162 225 201 Q
1,255 1,147 50 86 20 51 72 54 107 336 559 272 407 566 606 373 140 508 995 798 208 273 138 195 173 Q 1,065 10 East Run Lake Run 55 72 10 37 32 68 35 89 Elburn Run Q /s-acre release rate 114 196 319 152 218 342 359 204 277 656 650 495 133 165 131 3 Route 38 Branch Seavey Road Run Prestbury Branch 2020 projected land use with detention basin and 0.08 ft 4 9 2 24 36 81 57 77 22 74 22 14 60 73 44 70 59 Q 127 145 152 100 275 298 225 56 100 104 201 738 350 507 679 746 203 108 460 132 206 645 478 841 567 576 480 Q
1,047 1,266 1,150 1,038 50 93 93 97 51 187 657 916 287 407 572 622 168 373 160 521 894 421 751 505 510 407 , flood quantile at T-year recurrence interval, in cubic feet per second; presented Q T-year recurrence interval, in cubic feet per second; presented , flood quantile at Q T 1,082 1,006 10 67 98 62 42 79 38 Q 152 476 633 164 218 349 373 204 284 681 673 584 297 546 367 363 258 2020 projected land use without detention basin 2 38 65 77 40 30 74 12 25 22 Q 110 284 350 151 161 103 296 320 287 171 321 222 213 124 90 66 60 100 105 162 576 886 349 507 680 734 460 129 206 647 999 382 576 335 303 182 Q 1,288 1,160
50 91 71 54 95 54 145 478 728 284 407 570 609 373 158 521 845 328 481 274 249 151 Q 1,095 1,009 10 59 36 32 40 76 38 89 Q 411 1996 land use 104 277 158 218 344 361 205 283 678 663 525 209 285 157 144 without detention basin Flood quantiles estimated for selected recurrence intervals based on Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN analysis the 1 996 land uses, 2020 projected 2 26 54 60 77 12 14 74 10 24 17 93 65 61 39 Q
115 107 151 146 153 101 288 305 236 - 10 22 21 20 33 32 31 30 41 40 57 56 55 54 53 52 51 50 64 63 62 61 60 /s-acre, cubic foot per second acre; tributaries shown on figure 2; Q Sub 3 basin number Appendix 1. land uses without detention basins, and 2020 projected with basins release rates of 0.08, 0.10, 0.1 2 cubic feet per second acre at subbasins the Illinois. —Continued Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, [ft Appendix 1 33 5 5 7 23 24 100 159 376 452 329 204 362 618 592 570 591 Q
1,144 1,314 1,332 1,886 1,902 1,839 2,021 2,798 3,024 2,882 2,876 4 5 5 50 20 21 133 324 355 265 168 300 516 487 476 496 951 Q 1,119 1,092 1,583 1,600 1,554 1,720 2,367 2,560 2,415 2,425 2 5 3 10 14 80 14 98 207 180 147 174 308 282 290 306 571 655 692 977 993 976 Q /s-acre release rate 3 1,103 1,492 1,618 1,471 1,500 2020 projected land use with detention basin and 0.12 ft 1 8 4 1 7 2 33 91 60 58 41 67 Q 115 127 133 144 257 294 325 458 470 471 549 724 787 657 684 5 5 7 21 21 100 157 367 425 282 171 362 618 592 559 578 Q
1,135 1,309 1,318 1,868 1,879 1,812 1,969 2,722 2,928 2,805 2,771 4 5 5 50 18 18 are for 2, 10, 50, and 100 years] T 130 314 329 229 143 300 516 487 466 484 941 Q 1,085 1,105 1,567 1,579 1,530 1,675 2,302 2,478 2,343 2,330 2 5 3 10 13 77 12 86 199 162 129 174 308 281 282 298 562 647 681 964 978 959 Q /s-acre release rate 3 1,072 1,450 1,565 1,417 1,434 2020 projected land use with detention basin and 0.10 ft 1 7 4 1 6 2 31 87 52 52 38 67 Q 114 126 129 140 250 287 318 450 461 461 532 702 761 630 653 5 5 7 18 18 100 153 357 386 241 139 362 618 590 548 565 Q
1,121 1,300 1,304 1,851 1,860 1,789 1,910 2,646 2,819 2,728 2,673 4 5 5 50 16 16 118 127 304 295 196 300 516 485 456 473 928 Q 1,075 1,092 1,550 1,561 1,508 1,624 2,236 2,385 2,269 2,240 2 5 3 10 11 11 74 74 111 190 142 174 307 279 275 291 551 637 669 951 963 942 Q /s-acre release rate 3 1,038 1,405 1,505 1,359 1,367 2020 projected land use with detention basin and Aurora Chain-of-Lakes 0.08 ft 1 7 4 1 6 2 29 82 45 45 34 67 Blackberry Creek main stem Q 113 311 126 124 135 243 280 442 452 450 514 678 731 598 618 9 60 100 275 575 803 172 120 633 363 681 912 765 791 Q
3,511 1,085 1,361 1,640 1,786 1,734 2,250 2,282 2,179 2,237 3,284 3,699 3,474 8 50 50 94 711 207 494 938 137 487 302 578 782 652 674 , flood quantile at T-year recurrence interval, in cubic feet per second; presented Q T-year recurrence interval, in cubic feet per second; presented , flood quantile at Q T 1,139 1,403 1,526 1,486 1,916 1,942 1,881 1,946 2,786 3,136 2,926 2,978 7 10 93 29 72 47 611 325 502 668 235 176 363 510 420 433 913 989 971 Q 1,811 1,229 1,243 1,254 1,322 1,771 1,988 1,871 2020 projected land use without detention basin 6 2 25 12 26 16 74 68 Q 211 166 278 284 249 168 257 216 465 501 498 613 617 663 716 870 973 832 872 6 39 26 24 20 88 100 265 497 370 225 364 654 748 620 635 Q 1,511 1,336 1,443 1,970 1,976 1,916 1,958 2,706 2,853 2,801 2,709
6 50 29 21 19 16 74 511 207 398 271 177 302 545 612 526 Q 1,092 1,237 1,197 1,638 1,646 1,605 1,646 2,262 2,383 2,286 2,225 5 9 9 10 13 12 91 46 115 711 102 208 175 323 347 299 312 625 713 985 994 984 Q 1996 land use 1,020 1,380 1,452 1,300 1,286 without detention basin Flood quantiles estimated for selected recurrence intervals based on Hydrological Simulation Program–FORTRAN analysis the 1 996 land uses, 2020 projected 4 5 4 3 4 2 30 65 30 32 21 67 Q
131 136 128 138 258 295 314 441 450 457 482 636 667 529 535 - 79 78 77 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 /s-acre, cubic foot per second acre; tributaries shown on figure 2; Q 208 210 213 216 218 220 223 226 230 233 236 240 250 260 265 270 Sub 3 basin number Appendix 1. land uses without detention basins, and 2020 projected with basins release rates of 0.08, 0.10, 0.1 2 cubic feet per second acre at subbasins the Illinois. —Continued Blackberry Creek watershed in Kane County, [ft This page is intentionally blank.
Soong and others—Effect of Detention Basin Releases on Flood Flows—Application to Blackberry Creek Watershed, Illinois—Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5106 Printed on recycled paper