Measures of Impervious Cover
The percentage of impervious surface or cover in a landscape is the most frequently used measure of urbanization. Yet this parameter has its limitations, in part because it has not been consistently used or defined. Most significant is the distinction between total impervious area (TIA) and effective impervious area (EIA). TIA is the “intuitive” definition of imperviousness: that fraction of the watershed covered by constructed, non-infiltrating surfaces such as concrete, asphalt, and buildings. Hydrologically, however, this definition is incomplete for two reasons. First, it ignores nominally “pervious” surfaces that are sufficiently compacted or otherwise so low in permeability that the rate of runoff from them is similar or indistinguishable from pavement. For example, Burges and others (1998) found that the impervious unit-area runoff was only 20 percent greater than that from pervious areas—primarily thin sodded lawns over glacial till—in a western Washington residential subdivision. Clearly, this hydrologic contribution cannot be ignored entirely.
The second limitation of TIA is that it includes some paved surfaces that may contribute nothing to the stormwater-runoff response of the downstream channel. A gazebo in the middle of parkland, for example, probably will impose no hydrologic changes into the catchment except for a very localized elevation of soil moisture at the edge of its roof. Less obvious, but still relevant, would be the different downstream consequences of rooftops that drain alternatively into a piped storm-drain system with direct discharge into a natural stream or onto splash blocks that disperse the runoff onto the garden or lawn at each corner of the building. This metric therefore cannot recognize any stormwater mitigation that may result from alternative runoff-management strategies, for example, pervious pavements or rainwater harvesting.
The first of these TIA limitations, the production of significant runoff from nominally pervious surfaces, is typically ignored in the characterization of urban development. The reason for such an approach lies in the difficulty in identifying such areas and estimating their contribution, and because of the credible belief that the degree to which pervious areas shed water as overland flow should be related, albeit imperfectly, with the amount of impervious area: where construction and development are more intense and cover progressively greater fractions of the
of the literature demonstrates that many different factors can be important, such as changes to flow regime, physical and chemical constituents in the water column, or the physical form of the stream channel itself (Paul and Meyer, 2001). Not all of these changes are present in any given system—lakes, wetlands, and streams can be altered by human activity in many different ways, each unique to the activity and the setting in which it occurs. Nonetheless, direct influences of land-use change on freshwater systems commonly include the following (Naiman and Turner, 2000):
Altering the composition and structure of the natural flora and fauna,
Changing disturbance regimes,
Fragmenting the land into smaller and more diverse parcels, and
Changing the juxtaposition between parcel types.
Historically, human-induced alteration was not universally seen as a problem. In particular, dams and other stream-channel “improvements” were a