Modeling urban hydrology and green infrastructure using the AGWA urban tool and the KINEROS2 model

Abstract

Urban hydrology and green infrastructure (GI) can be modeled using the Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) Urban tool and the Kinematic Runoff and Erosion (KINEROS2) model. The KINEROS2 model provides an urban modeling element with nine overland flow components that can be used to represent various land cover types commonly found in the built environment while treating runoff-runon and infiltration processes in a physically based manner. The AGWA Urban tool utilizes a Geographic Information System (GIS) framework to prepare parameters required for KINEROS2, executes the model, and imports results for visualization in the GIS. The AGWA Urban tool was validated on a residential subdivision in Arizona, USA, using 47 rainfall events (June 2005 to September 2006) to compare observed runoff volumes and peak flow rates with simulated results. Comparison of simulated and observed runoff volumes resulted in a slope of 1.00 for the regression equation with an R 2 value of 0.80. Comparison of observed and simulated peak flows had a slope of 1.12 with an R 2 value of 0.83. A roof runoff analysis was simulated for 787 events, from January 2006 through December 2015, to analyze the water availability from roof runoff capture. Simulation results indicated a 15% capture of the average monthly rainfall volume on the watershed. Additionally, rainwater captured from roofs has the potential to provide for up to 70% of the domestic annual per capita water use in this region. Five different scenarios (S1 - base, S2 - with retention basins, S3 - with permeable driveways, S4 - with rainwater harvesting cisterns, and S5 - all GI practices from S2, S3, and S4) were simulated over the same period to compare the effectiveness of GI implementation at the parcel level on runoff and peak flows at the watershed outlet. Simulation results indicate a higher runoff volume reduction for S2 (53.41 m 3 average capacity, average 30% reduction) as compared to S3 (average 14% reduction), or S4 (3.78 m 3 capacity, average 6% reduction). Analysis of peak flows reveal larger peak flow reduction for S2. S3 showed more reduction of smaller peak flows as compared to S4.