Hydrological Sciences Journal

ISSN: 0262-6667 (Print) 2150-3435 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/thsj20

Estimating effective impervious area in urban

watersheds using land cover, soil character and
asymptotic curve number

Ali Ebrahimian, John S. Gulliver & Bruce N. Wilson

To cite this article: Ali Ebrahimian, John S. Gulliver & Bruce N. Wilson (2018) Estimating
effective impervious area in urban watersheds using land cover, soil character
and asymptotic curve number, Hydrological Sciences Journal, 63:4, 513-526, DOI:
10.1080/02626667.2018.1440562

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1440562

Published online: 09 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1409

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=thsj20
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL, 2018
VOL. 63, NO. 4, 513–526
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1440562

Estimating effective impervious area in urban watersheds using land cover, soil
character and asymptotic curve number
a,b
Ali Ebrahimian , John S. Gulliverb and Bruce N. Wilsonc
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania, USA; bSaint Anthony Falls Laboratory,
Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geo-Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; cDepartment of
Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, Minnesota, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Knowledge of the effective impervious area (EIA) or the degree to which impervious surfaces are Received 20 March 2017
hydraulically connected to the drainage system is useful for improving hydrological and environ- Accepted 8 January 2018
mental models and assessing the effectiveness of green stormwater infrastructure in urban EDITOR
watersheds. The goal of this research is to develop a method to estimate EIA fraction in urban R. Woods
watersheds using readily available data. Since EIA is dependent on rainfall–runoff response and
cannot be solely determined based on the physical characteristics of a watershed, the EIA is ASSOCIATE EDITOR
linked with the asymptotic curve number (CN), a watershed index that represents runoff char- R. van Nooijen
acteristics. In order for the method to be applicable to ungauged watersheds, the asymptotic CN KEYWORDS
is predicted using land cover and soil data from 35 urban catchments in Minnesota and Texas, effective impervious area;
USA. Similar data from 11 other urban catchments in Wisconsin and Texas, USA, are used to impervious area;
validate the results. A set of runoff depth versus EIA fraction curves is also developed to assess the stormwater; runoff; rainfall;
impact of EIA reduction on discharge from an urban watershed in land-use planning studies. urban catchments;
ungauged watersheds;
urban watersheds

1 Introduction defined as the portion of TIA that is directly connected

to the storm sewer system. DCIA and EIA are different
The impervious character of an urban area can be
measures of connectedness in urban watersheds. While
defined by its total extent and the degree of connectiv-
DCIA is independent of rainfall and runoff and can be
ity to the drainage system. Total impervious area (TIA)
measured solely based on field surveys and map mea-
is a characteristic defining the extent of imperviousness
surements, the determination of EIA inherently con-
in a watershed. TIA is often used as an integrative
siders the losses along the flow paths of runoff over
indicator of urban development and its consequences
impervious surfaces. For example, an urban street that
for the urban ecosystem. However, the inability of TIA
is directly connected to the sewer system (i.e. DCIA)
to represent the alterations of hydrological processes
may not be fully EIA because of surface depressions
and the prediction of pollutant loads in environmental
and cracks in the pavement, vegetation interception, or
models suggests the need for another parameter that
clogged storm drains. Hence, EIA is a more precise
better represents the impact of impervious surfaces on
measure of the impact of impervious area on urban
the hydrology, physiography, water quality, and biol-
runoff. More details on the difference between EIA and
ogy of watersheds (Booth and Jackson 1997, Hatt et al.
DCIA can be found in Ebrahimian et al. (2016a,
2004, Shuster et al. 2005, Ebrahimian et al. 2016a). In
2016b).
the context of urban hydrology, effective impervious
Conventional stormwater networks in urban areas
area (EIA), or the portion of TIA that is hydraulically
often need to be expanded to meet the larger runoff
connected to the storm sewer system, is a better para-
volumes and rates due to urban development. This
meter in determining urban runoff and water quality
expansion is usually difficult because of several techni-
response (Alley and Veenhuis 1983, Lee and Heaney
cal, traffic, and environmental limitations and issues
2003, Ebrahimian 2015a). A brief review of the impli-
(Ebrahimian et al. 2015). To address this issue, green
cations and applications of EIA can be found in
infrastructure stormwater control measures are being
Ebrahimian et al. (2016b).
adopted to reduce the runoff volume entering storm-
Directly connected impervious area (DCIA) is
water networks. One of the main functions of green
another parameter related to impervious surfaces. It is

CONTACT Ali Ebrahimian ali.ebrahimian@villanova.edu

© 2018 IAHS
514 A. EBRAHIMIAN ET AL.
infrastructure is disconnecting impervious areas (i.e.
reducing EIA) and enhancing infiltration of rainfall in
catchments (Mueller and Thompson 2009). EIA reduc-
tion by green infrastructure practices needs to be deter-
mined for planning, crediting, and assessing the
effectiveness of those practices. Quantification of EIA
is also essential for accurate hydrological modeling and
investigating environmental degradation and water
quality in urban watersheds (Jones et al. 2003).
1.1 Background
Current methods for determining the amount of EIA
mostly rely on empirical equations (e.g. Alley and
Veenhuis 1983, Sutherland 1995) that have been devel-
oped for specific areas and, in general, are ineffective in
estimating EIA in terms of TIA (Roy and Shuster
2009). Field investigations along with map measure-
ments can be used to estimate EIA. However, field
investigations are often time consuming, costly, and
even impractical in large watersheds, and ultimately
result in DCIA (not EIA) values. The best estimate of
EIA is typically obtained from the analysis of rainfall–
runoff data in a watershed (Boyd et al. 1993, 1994,
Ebrahimian et al. 2016a, 2016b). Ebrahimian et al.
(2016a, 2016b) presented a method that improves and
generalizes the method of Boyd et al. (1993, 1994) for
estimating EIA fraction (i.e. fEIA or EIA=At where At is
the total drainage area of watershed) in gauged urban
catchments where rainfall–runoff data are available.
Based on the analysis of observed rainfall–runoff data
in 50 urban catchments using the successive weighted
least square (WLS) method (Ebrahimian et al. 2016a)
for the EIA estimation, Ebrahimian et al. (2016b)
showed that determining EIA based on a representative
average value for the EIA/TIA ratio can be misleading.
Collecting runoff data from storm sewers requires sub-
stantial time and instrumentation investment. Hence,
most of the urban watersheds are ungauged (i.e. miss-
ing runoff measurements), and a method is needed to
estimate EIA in ungauged urban watersheds using data
that are readily available. Thus, the use of geographic
information systems (GIS) and remote-sensing-based
tools to estimate EIA becomes particularly attractive
due to its applicability to ungauged watersheds, and
to the increasing quality and availability of spatial data.
Several studies (Taylor et al. 2004, Carle et al. 2005,
Yang et al. 2011, Vrebos et al. 2014) have estimated
EIA by intersecting impervious area and drainage sys-
tem GIS layers combined with field surveys, and using
additional assumptions on connectivity of impervious
surfaces to drainage systems. Making assumptions on
the connectivity of the streets that are located over or
cross storm sewers may seem reasonable. However,
determining the connectivity of rooftops to the drai-
nage system requires field investigation. In addition,
the results from this process would likely represent
DCIA, not EIA.
To address the need for a GIS-based method to
estimate EIA in urban watersheds, Han and Burian
(2009) presented a method that has the advantage of
being an automated GIS tool for developing a spatial
map of DCIA related to impervious surfaces such as
streets and parking lots in ungauged urban watersheds.
However, there are some challenges that hinder the
wide use of Han and Burian’s method: First, one
needs to have a dataset containing the locations of
conveyance elements and inlet points of the storm-
water collection system, which may not be available
in an urban area. Second, the method is not able to
recognize the connectivity of rooftops to the drainage
system, requiring determination by the user, a process
that can add significant time and expense to the
analysis.
1.2 Objective
While knowledge of EIA is needed for a wide range of
studies including but not limited to hydrology,
watershed management, and land-use planning, ade-
quate methods for EIA determination based on readily
available data do not exist (Yang et al. 2011, Fletcher
et al. 2013, Ebrahimian et al. 2016a). The overall goal of
this research is to develop a method to estimate EIA
fraction for urban watersheds using only readily avail-
able spatial data.
In the following sections, the sources for the input
GIS data as well as the study sites utilized for develop-
ing the method and validation of the results are pre-
sented and described. The different steps towards
development and validation of the method are then
elaborated and discussed. A set of curves is also devel-
oped to investigate the sensitivity of runoff depth to
EIA in an urban watershed of interest. We conclude
with a discussion on advantages and limitations of the
proposed method.
2 Data sources
The rainfall–runoff data from 35 urban catchments in
the USA were analyzed in this study to determine CN1
in each catchment and develop a general framework for
the fEIA estimation. Similar data from 11 other urban
catchments in the USA were used to validate the
results. These sets of 35 and 11 catchments are referred
to herein as “calibration catchments” and “validation
 HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 515

catchments,” respectively. All of the catchments are
presented in Table 1. The location of catchments in
the USA is also shown in Figure 1. As seen in Table 1
and Figure 1, among the 35 calibration catchments, 16
are located in the Twin Cities metro area of Minnesota
and 19 in the City of Austin, Texas. Also, of the 11
validation catchments, three are located in Madison,
Wisconsin, and eight in Austin, Texas. The main land
use of the study catchments is presented in Table 1.
Most of the catchments have a residential land use but
with different development ages. In Table 1, transpor-
tation land use denotes the drainage areas that include
highways and airports. Also, mixed urban land use
refers to combined residential and commercial land
uses. All of the study catchments operate local mon-
itoring programs to measure rainfall and runoff from
urban areas. The monitoring period in each catchment
from which the required rainfall–runoff data in this
study were extracted and analyzed is presented in
Table 1. The rainfall data that were used for determin-
ing CN1 in calibration catchments were the same data
that were used in Ebrahimian et al. (2016b) for esti-
mating fEIA . A comprehensive discussion on the quality
of utilized rainfall data including outlier identification
and addressing spatial variation of rainfall can be found
in Ebrahimian et al. (2016b).

Table 1. Description of the study catchments used for developing the method (calibration catchments) and validating the results
(validation catchments).
Row Catchment name Location Drainage Percentage of HSGs Land use Monitoring years
area (ha) A B C D
Calibration:
1 AHUG Saint Paul, MN 15.9 100 Residential 2007–2012
2 GCP Saint Paul, MN 51.8 100 Residential 2008–2012
3 Como 3 Saint Paul, MN 185.8 100 Residential 2009–2012
4 Sarita Saint Paul, MN 376.0 100 Institutional 2006,2008–2009
5 TBEB Saint Paul, MN 377.2 8.9 91.1 Residential 2006–2012
6 EK Saint Paul, MN 451.6 100 Residential 2005–2012
7 PC Saint Paul, MN 579.9 43.5 56.5 Residential 2005–2012
8 SAP Saint Paul, MN 1007.3 100 Residential 2005–2012
9 TBO Saint Paul, MN 2034.8 16.4 83.6 Residential 2007–2012
10 MG1 Maple Grove, MN 5.5 100 Residential 2001–2003, 2005–2006
11 MG2 Maple Grove, MN 3.5 100 Residential 2001–2003, 2005–2006
12 P1 Plymouth, MN 5.1 100 Residential 2001–2003, 2005–2006
13 P2 Plymouth, MN 6.8 100 Residential 2001–2003, 2005–2006
14 P3 Plymouth, MN 5.6 100 Residential 2001–2003, 2005–2006
15 Tapestry Minnetonka, MN 11.1 100 Residential 2010
16 Smith Bloomington, MN 55 NA Transportation 2004–2005
17 BW1 Austin, TX 146.3 100 Residential 2012–2014
18 EBA Austin, TX 14.3 71.8 28.2 Residential 2000–2003
19 EHA Austin, TX 20.8 100 Residential 1994–2002
20 ERA Austin, TX 40.4 90.9 9.1 Transportation 1994–1999
21 HI Austin, TX 1.2 38.6 61.4 Residential 1985–1987
22 HPA Austin, TX 17.4 100 Residential 2000–2003
23 LCA Austin, TX 84.9 0.5 86.6 12.9 Residential 1992–1999
24 LOA Austin, TX 5.4 100 Residential 2008–2011
25 LUA Austin, TX 5.5 100 Mixed Urban 1989–1996
26 MBA Austin, TX 82.1 80.4 19.6 Residential 1993–1995
27 OFA Austin, TX 0.6 47.5 52.5 Commercial 1993–1997
28 PP1 Austin, TX 2.0 100 Residential 2009–2012
29 PP2 Austin, TX 1.8 100 Residential 2009–2012
30 PP3 Austin, TX 0.9 100 Residential 2009–2012
31 RRI Austin, TX 6.4 100 Residential 2003–2007
32 SCA Austin, TX 2.3 100 Residential 2006–2010
33 TBA Austin, TX 20.0 91.9 8.1 Residential 1996–2000
34 TCA Austin, TX 16.5 100 Residential 1993–1997
35 TPA Austin, TX 16.8 100 Residential 1993–1997
Validation:
1 ASB Madison, WI 21.2 77.1 22.9 Residential 2001–2006
2 HFBB Madison, WI 23.8 76.4 23.6 Residential 2002–2006
3 CB Madison, WI 36.3 77 23 Residential 2001–2006
4 CBL Austin, TX 339.8 13.1 4.8 82.1 Mixed Urban 2001–2016
5 CMI Austin, TX 40.5 96.3 3.7 Mixed Urban 1996–2002
6 CTJ Austin, TX 11.7 92.1 7.9 Residential 2005–2007
7 CTK Austin, TX 9.6 55.5 44.5 Residential 2005–2007
8 HLA Austin, TX 133.2 3.4 96.6 Residential 1985–1996
9 SBI Austin, TX 4.4 100 Commercial 2009–2013
10 SWI Austin, TX 6.6 100 Industrial 1995–1997
11 W3A Austin, TX 1061.7 8.5 44.9 46.6 Mixed Urban 1993–1995, 1997–2016
516 A. EBRAHIMIAN ET AL.
Figure 1. Location of the study catchments in the USA.
The required GIS data for this study include land
cover and hydrologic soil group (HSG). High-resolu-
tion spatial land-cover data for the City of Saint Paul,
Minnesota, developed by Kilberg et al. (2011) were
used in this study. Land-cover data for other study
sites were provided by the Three Rivers Park District,
City of Minnetonka, and City of Bloomington in
Minnesota, USGS-Wisconsin Water Science Center,
and the City of Austin Watershed Protection
Department for their corresponding catchments.
Land-cover data for urban areas in the USA are usually
available through Cities, Counties, Watershed Districts
or other responsible entities. However, in the absence
of land-cover data from those entities, they can be
extracted from the National Land Cover Database
(NLCD) (http://www.mrlc.gov). Hydrologic soil group
spatial data for the study areas were extracted from the
NRCS-Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) database,
which is publicly available (http://websoilsurvey.sc.
egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm). The percentages
of different HSGs in each catchment are summarized
in Table 1. The HSG distribution was not determined
for Smith catchment, as we did not access to the
delineation of drainage area for that catchment. The
SSURGO database is a general view of the soils in a
region, and urban soils are known for being disturbed
and redistributed. Even so, transportation costs will
typically dictate that disturbed and redistributed soils
do not come from areas that are remote to the
watershed, and SSURGO is the best source available
to all watersheds.
3 Method
A new method is developed herein to obtain EIA
estimates for urban watersheds based on the spatial
analysis of watershed characteristics. Our goal is to
link EIA using a simple hydrological framework rather
than relying only on a statistical framework obtained
by a regression analysis. The asymptotic curve number
(CN), which is a rainfall-dependent CN and defined in
this study by the asymptote of an exponential relation-
ship between CN and rainfall depth, provides the fra-
mework for capturing the runoff characteristics of
watersheds. The EIA fraction is defined as a function
of this index. Then, rainfall–runoff, land-cover, and

soil data from 35 urban catchments with different sizes
and physical characteristics are analyzed to predict the
asymptotic CN from watershed characteristics. Land-
cover and soil datasets (which are both readily available
through the national and sometimes local datasets) will
be the only input data for estimating EIA fraction in
the proposed method.
3.1 Asymptotic curve number based on rainfall–
runoff data
The CN method, which was first introduced by the US
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) (currently referred to as Natural
Resources Conservation Service or NRCS) in 1954
(Ponce and Hawkins 1996, NRCS 2004), is an empirical
event-based hydrological model which has been pre-
dominantly used in hydrological analyses of ungauged
watersheds. The CN values for urban areas are pre-
sented based on land-cover type and conditions as well
as HSGs by the technical release 55 (TR-55) of USDA
(USDA 1986). The NRCS classifies soils in the USA
into four HSGs, A, B, C, and D, based on estimates of
soil runoff potential. Soils in Group A have the smallest
runoff potential and those in Group D the greatest. The
details of this classification can be found in USDA
(1986). Since the CN values for urban districts in TR-
55 are based on assumptions for both impervious and
pervious areas that tend to be approximate, we evalu-
ated the asymptotic CN at the basin scale from rain-
fall–runoff events using the asymptotic fitting method
of Hawkins (Hawkins 1993, Hawkins et al. 2009).
The CN equations for estimating direct runoff depth
in terms of rainfall event depth were introduced by
USDA-SCS (SCS 1964, 1972, 1985, NRCS 2004) as
follows (Q ¼ 0 for P < Ia ):
ðP  Ia Þ2
Q¼ for P  Ia (1)
P  Ia þ S
Ia ¼ λ S (2)
where Q is direct runoff depth of the storm (inches or
mm), P is rainfall depth (in. or mm), S is potential
maximum retention (in. or mm), Ia is the initial
abstraction of rainfall, and λ is the initial abstraction
ratio (Ia =S). The standard value of the initial abstrac-
tion ratio (λ) has been established by SCS as 0.2. The
potential maximum retention (S) in Equation (1) is
transformed to a dimensionless index, CN, as
CN = 25400/(S + 254), with S in mm.
Conventionally, one determines a CN for a
watershed based on its physical characteristics (i.e.
land cover/land use and HSG) through TR-55 and
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 517
then uses this CN with a given rainfall depth (P) to
determine runoff depth (Q). The CN is not conven-
tionally considered variable with P. However, research-
ers have back-calculated CN corresponding to
measured Q and P and have found variability in CN.
Based on this fact, Hawkins (1993) developed the
asymptotic fitting method using observed rainfall–run-
off data. In this method, the rainfall and runoff depth
data (P and Q) are sorted separately and then realigned
on a rank-order basis. This is called frequency match-
ing and is done to equate return period of rainfall and
runoff events (Hjelmfelt 1980, Hawkins 1993). By using
Equations (1) and (2) with λ = 0.2, the storage index, S,
for each pair of rainfall and runoff depth is deter-
mined as:
h
1 i
S ¼ 5 P þ 2Q  4Q2 þ 5PQ 2 (3)
A unique CN is then determined for each storm event
in the ordered dataset using the relationship between
CN and S. When the obtained CN values are plotted
against rainfall depths (P), three different patterns of
CN vs P have been observed by researchers working on
different watersheds around the world (Hawkins 1993,
Hawkins et al. 2009, D’Asaro et al. 2014). The most
common CN–P pattern in small watersheds is labeled
the standard behavior, where CN declines with increas-
ing P, but asymptotically approaches a constant value
for larger storms. This asymptotic value theoretically
corresponds with a rainfall depth of infinity (i.e. CN1 )
(Hawkins 1993, D’Asaro et al. 2014). In the CN–P
graph, if CN declines with increasing P but does not
approach a constant value in larger storms, the CN–P
pattern is labeled complacent behavior. The asymptotic
CN cannot be determined for the watersheds with this
CN–P behavior. The third CN–P pattern is the violent
behavior in which CN declines with increasing P for
smaller storms but suddenly increases and approaches
a constant value in larger storms (i.e. CN1 ). To deter-
mine CN1 in catchments with a standard CN–P pat-
tern, Hawkins (1993) and other researchers have used
the asymptotic Equation (4) to be fitted to P–CN data.
CN ¼ CN1 þ ð100  CN1 ÞekP (4)
where k is a fitted constant.
3.2 Asymptotic curve number and EIA fraction
The area weighted CN approach is used to determine a
single CN for a watershed with mixed land uses and
soil types. This approach is widely used in the analysis
of runoff from urban watersheds. By dividing the entire
drainage area of a watershed into two parts, impervious
518 A. EBRAHIMIAN ET AL.

and pervious areas, the weighted average CN for a CN data in the catchments of study and determine
watershed can be found from Equation (5) (Pandit CN1 and the fitting constant k for each catchment. The
and Regan 1998): obtained values of CN1 and k are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 also presents the values of fTIA , fEIA , and α for the
CNw At ¼ CNi Ai þ CNp Ap (5)
catchments of study. The TIA fraction ( fTIA ) is defined as
where CNw is the weighted average CN of the TIA=At , where At is the total drainage area of the
watershed, At is the total drainage area, CNi is the watershed. TIA in urban watersheds can be determined
CN for the impervious area, Ai is the area of imper- from land-cover data by summing up all the impervious
vious surfaces in the watershed, CNp is the CN for the surfaces. The fTIA values in Table 2 for calibration catch-
pervious area, and Ap is the area of pervious surfaces in ments were taken from Ebrahimian et al. (2016b). This
the watershed (Ap ¼ At  Ai ). value was not determined in the Smith catchment due to
An important assumption in the TR-55 CN for not accessing the delineation of this catchment. The fTIA
urban areas is that it considers only directly connected values for the validation catchments in Wisconsin and
impervious areas (or effective impervious area) as Texas were provided by USGS-Wisconsin Water Science
impervious. Equation (5) can then be modified as:
CNw At ¼ CNEIA AEIA þ CNr Ar (6) Table 2. Asymptotic CN, k, TIA fraction, EIA fraction and α
values in both calibration and validation catchments of study.
where CNEIA is the CN corresponding to effective Row Catchment name CN∞ k f TIA f EIA α
impervious area, AEIA is the area of effective imper- Calibration:
vious surfaces in the watershed, CNr is the CN corre- 1 AHUG 55.8 0.0168 0.507 0.137 0.5006
2 GCP 62.3 0.0117 0.438 0.250 0.5144
sponding to remaining area in the watershed, and Ar is 3 Como 3 44.7 0.0153 0.405 0.102 0.3945
the remaining area of the watershed (Ar ¼ At  AEIA ). 4 Sarita 48.6 0.0238 0.367 0.030 0.4804
5 TBEB 70.6 0.0219 0.447 0.193 0.6534
For our application, the CNs in Equation (6) are taken 6 EK 79.3 0.0153 0.562 0.376 0.6946
as the asymptotic CNs. 7 PC 76.1 0.0202 0.587 0.310 0.6755
8 SAP 73.2 0.0223 0.613 0.224 0.6745
CNw1 At ¼ CNEIA1 AEIA þ CNr1 Ar (7) 9 TBO 77.6 0.0204 0.473 0.284 0.7089
10 MG1 82.5 0.0600 0.405 0.117 0.8215
We hypothesize that the asymptotic CN for the total 11 MG2 71.9 0.0264 0.388 0.151 0.6867
12 P1 62.5 0.0219 0.380 0.204 0.5452
drainage area can be expressed as a weighted average 13 P2 63.9 0.0261 0.351 0.089 0.6176
CN (i.e. CNw ). For a fully impervious, connected sur- 14 P3 79.7 0.0569 0.273 0.096 0.7932
15 Tapestry 54.9 0.0175 0.237 0.169 0.4706
face the asymptotic CN is also approximated by the 16 Smith 75.1 0.0553 NA 0.076 0.7476
USDA TR-55 value of 98. By dividing both sides of 17 BW1 78.3 0.0387 0.460 0.152 0.7630
18 EBA 48.9 0.0179 0.404 0.093 0.4474
Equation (7) by At , the CN1 is defined as: 19 EHA 71.1 0.0132 0.434 0.336 0.5865
20 ERA 85.3 0.0467 0.460 0.179 0.8420
CN1 ¼ 98 fEIA þ CNr1 ð1  fEIA Þ (8) 21 HI 92.3 0.0902 0.500 0.281 0.9192
22 HPA 64.5 0.0096 0.450 0.300 0.5116
where fEIA is the EIA fraction and CNr1 is the asymp- 23 LCA 60.2 0.0258 0.225 0.064 0.5876
24 LOA 87.1 0.0474 0.422 0.196 0.8620
totic CNr . Given the availability of rainfall–runoff data, 25 LUA 95.1 0.0616 0.974 0.484 0.9421
CN1 in Equation (8) is known, but both fEIA and 26 MBA 90.9 0.0898 0.609 0.322 0.8939
27 OFA 95.6 0.1554 0.862 0.452 0.9549
CNr1 are unknowns. We define α as the ratio of 28 PP1 84.9 0.0403 0.497 0.229 0.8271
CNr1 =CNEIA1 or CNr1 =98: 29 PP2 82.2 0.0300 0.511 0.270 0.7794
30 PP3 62.3 0.0178 0.494 0.172 0.5605
CNr1 ¼ 98α (9) 31 RRI 84.2 0.0477 0.305 0.107 0.8428
32 SCA 77.7 0.0318 0.409 0.157 0.7536
33 TBA 65.5 0.0221 0.452 0.106 0.6296
By substituting Equation (9) into Equation (8), fEIA can 34 TCA 82.1 0.0721 0.374 0.097 0.8203
be evaluated as a function of CN1 and α: 35 TPA 74.5 0.0337 0.415 0.142 0.7204

CN1  98α Validation:

fEIA ¼ (10) 1 ASB 64.9 0.0256 0.343 0.109 0.6206
98ð1  αÞ 2 HFBB 52.4 0.0206 0.314 0.091 0.4882
3 CB 44.4 0.0167 0.298 0.086 0.4016
To investigate α and the possibility of presenting fEIA 4 CBL 78.2 0.0264 0.374 0.115 0.7719
5 CMI 80.3 0.0322 0.547 0.195 0.7753
solely as a function of CN1 , we analyzed the rainfall– 6 CTJ 85.8 0.0438 0.290 0.234 0.8369
runoff data from the 35 calibration catchments intro- 7 CTK 91.1 0.0494 0.392 0.348 0.8925
8 HLA 79.6 0.0351 0.391 0.138 0.7819
duced in Table 1 to determine CN1 in each catchment. 9 SBI 86.3 0.0284 0.680 0.381 0.8072
The aforementioned asymptotic fitting method 10 SWI 94.4 0.0804 0.604 0.463 0.9322
11 W3A 84.7 0.0388 0.490 0.227 0.8246
(Hawkins 1993) was applied to fit Equation (4) to P–

Center and the City of Austin Watershed Protection
Department, respectively. In another paper (Ebrahimian
et al. 2016b), the authors determined the fEIA using the
analysis of observed rainfall–runoff data from urban
catchments in the USA including the 35 calibration
catchments in the current study by the successive
weighted least square (WLS) method (Ebrahimian et al.
2016a). The fEIA values in Table 2 were taken from
Ebrahimian et al. (2016b). Knowing both CN1 and fEIA
for the study catchments, the α values in Equation (9) can
be obtained by rewriting Equation (10) as:
CN1  98 fEIA
α¼
98ð1  fEIA Þ
The α values in Table 2 are calculated based on
Equation (11).
The CN–P pattern in all the study catchments was
found to be standard. It should be noted that nine of
the calibration sites (Sarita, EK, P3, Smith, EHA,
HPA, LCA, TBA, and TCA) and two of the validation
sites (CBL and SBI) appeared to have less reliable
CN1 values because of issues such as (a) lack of
large rainfall depths in the dataset (EK, SBI), (b)
presence of a gap between small and large rainfall
depths in the dataset and lack of enough large rainfall
depths, which result in long extrapolations (Sarita,
Smith, EHA, HPA, TBA, CBL), (c) poor curve fit
(LCA), and (d) long extrapolation and poor curve fit
(P3 and TCA). Because of the limited number of
study sites, the analysis was performed using all of
the 35 study sites for calibration and 11 sites for
Figure 2. Plot of α versus CN1 in the calibration catchments.
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 519
validation. However, the effect of those uncertainties
in CN1 values is noted later.
Figure 2 provides a plot of α against CN1 for the 35
study sites using values from Table 2. Weighted least
square (WLS) regression with a similar weighting
method as Ebrahimian et al. (2016a) was used in
Figure 2 to estimate α in terms of CN1 . To assign
larger weights to more reliable data and vice versa,
the weight of observations in the utilized WLS method
was considered proportional to the inverse of variance
of residuals. More details about this method can be
found in Ebrahimian et al. (2016a). A pseudo coeffi-
cient of determination (pseudo R2WLS ), according to
(11)
Willett and Singer (1988), was used to measure the
goodness of fit in the WLS regression. The value of
pseudo R2WLS was found to be about 0.95, which indi-
cates a strong correlation between α and CN1 in
Figure 2, and hence, α can be estimated as a function
of CN1 :
α ¼ 0:0116 CN1  0:1601 (12)
Substituting Equation (12) into Equation (11) makes it
possible to estimate the fraction of EIA as a function
of CN1 :
16  0:14 CN1
fEIA ¼ (13)
114  1:14 CN1
To investigate the applicability and limitations of the
presented relation between fEIA and CN1 , we note that
Equation (9) should work in extreme conditions of fully
impervious ( fTIA ¼ 1) and pervious ( fTIA ¼ 0) water-
sheds. While fTIA ¼ 1 corresponds to CNr1 ¼ 98,
520 A. EBRAHIMIAN ET AL.
fTIA ¼ 0 would correspond to a CNr greater than or
equal to the minimum value of CN in urban areas (i.e.
40, as reported by Hawkins et al. 2009, as the minimum
CN in practice). This results in a range of [0.4,1] for α
values:
0:4  α  1 (14)
Limiting α in the range of [0.4,1] causes CN1 to be
limited to the range of 49 and 100. This indicates that
Equation (13) is valid only for CN1 values greater than
49. For 40  CN1  49, α was assigned to be constant
and equal to 0.4. Replacing α = 0.4 in Equation (10)
leads to a two-criteria function for fEIA :
( composite CN values in 36 watersheds in Sicily, Italy.
0:0175 CN1  0:6987 if 40  CN1  49
fEIA ¼ 160:14 CN1
1141:14 CN1 if 49 < CN1  98
(15)
Figure 3 shows the plot of fEIA versus CN1 based on
Equation (15). It is seen that fEIA increases with an
increase of CN1 , where the rate of the change is low
while 49 < CN1 < 80 and higher when CN1 is
greater than 80.
3.3 Correlations between asymptotic curve
number and watershed characteristics
According to Equation (15), the determination of fEIA for a
watershed requires an estimate of CN1 for that watershed.
However, the direct determination of CN1 is based on
rainfall–runoff data, which are not available in ungauged
watersheds. Area-weighted-average CN, TIA, and HSG, all
of which can be determined based on readily available data
Figure 3. Plot of fEIA versus CN1 based on Equation (15) for the estimation of fEIA in urban watersheds in terms of CN1 .
in ungauged watersheds, are investigated herein to explore
if they have any significant correlation with CN1 .
The area-weighted average CN of a watershed,
which is also called composite CN, can be determined
using the available CN values in TR-55 by the spatial
analysis of land cover/land use and HSG data (Zhan
and Huang 2004, Hernández-Guzmán and Ruiz-Luna,
2013). We determined the composite CN values for
nine catchments in Saint Paul, Minnesota (calibration
catchments 1–9 in Table 1). However, no significant
correlation was found between the asymptotic and
composite CN values for those nine study sites. This
finding agrees with D’Asaro et al. (2014), who reported
no significant relationship between asymptotic and
With the purpose of estimating asymptotic CN in
ungauged watersheds, D’Asaro et al. (2014) also inves-
tigated the links between CN1 and some hydrological
and geomorphic–climatic characteristics of 46 water-
sheds in Sicily, Italy, but they found no significant
relationships between CN1 and those characteristics.
D’Asaro et al. (2014) recommended the estimation of
asymptotic CN values in terms of watershed character-
istics for small ungauged watersheds as a future
research topic.
We investigated the correlation between CN1 and
TIA fraction as another watershed parameter by using
the fTIA and CN1 values for study catchments from
Table 2. The regression slope was statistically signifi-
cant but the correlation was not strong enough to be
proposed for estimating CN1 . In order to improve
accuracy of the regression analysis of CN1 , HSG was
also considered as a potential factor explaining the
variability in CN1 . Our study sites have soils that
cover all of the HSGs (see Table 1). To avoid using

Table 3. Range of saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ksat) for
different hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) according to NRCS
(2007).
HSG Ksat (mm/h)
A > 36.07
B > 14.48 to ≤ 36.07
C > 1.52 to ≤ 14.48
D ≤ 1.52
categorical variables in the regression analysis, the
HSGs were represented by a saturated hydraulic con-
ductivity ðKsat Þ. Table 3 provides a range of Ksat for
each HSG.
A median log Ksat value between the upper and lower
limits in each range was assigned to HSGs B and C. For
the A and D type soils the value that Ksat was greater
than or less than, respectively, was used in place of the
median. To use a dimensionless parameter in the regres-
sion analysis, we picked HSG D as a reference HSG and
considered the assigned value to each HSG as log(Ksat/
Ksat_ref) where Ksat ref denotes the Ksat of HSG D. Then,
the assigned values for HSGs A, B, C, and D are found as
1.37, 1.18, 0.49, and 0, respectively. For example, the
calculation for HSG C is as follows:
 
Ksat
log ¼ logðKsat Þ  log ðKsat ref Þ
Ksat ref
¼ 0:67  0:18 ¼ 0:49 (16)
It should be noted that any other HSG could be used as
reference. Obviously, by choosing HSGs other than D
as the reference, the assigned values of log (Ksat/Ksat_ref)
for HSGs would be different than the above-mentioned
values. Using the corresponding values of log (Ksat/
Ksat_ref) with the HSG D as reference, a weighted aver-
age value was calculated for each study site based on
the percentage of different HSGs in each site. Sixteen
regression models using different combinations of
CNp , fTIA and log (Ksat/Ksat_ref) as independent vari-
ables for the estimation of CN1 in calibration catch-
ments were developed and investigated. Three
statistics, including R2 (coefficient of determination),
RMSE (root mean square error or square root of the
average sum of the squared deviation between each
observed and predicted values of dependent variable)
and F  (i.e. MSR/MSE, where MSR is the mean square
regression or the average sum of the squared deviation
between predicted value and the mean of observed
values of dependent variable, and MSE is the mean
square error), were used to investigate the goodness
of fit in each predictive model. Variables were evalu-
ated for significance at the 5% level. A large F  means
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 521
that at least one of the slope terms in the regression
model is significantly different than zero. The signifi-
cance of each parameter in a model was determined
using a t-test. The best predictive model for the estima-
tion of CN1 in terms of fTIA and Ksat in urban water-
sheds was obtained as:
CN1 ¼ 67:8 þ 30:0 fTIA
 
0:5 Ksat
 15:1 ð1  fTIA Þ log (17)
Ksat Ref
All of the parameters in this model (Equation (17))
are significant; R2 , RMSE, and F  are equal to
0.39,10.9, and 10.24, respectively, and the model rea-
sonably estimates CN1 in the extreme conditions of
fTIA ¼ 1 and 0: The term “ð1  fTIA Þ” is included in the
model to ensure that the characteristics of the per-
vious area (here log (Ksat/Ksat_ref)) have no effect on
CN1 when fTIA ¼ 1. Details of the 16 investigated
models and their corresponding statistics can be
found in Ebrahimian (2015b). The graphical represen-
tation of Equation (17) is shown in Figure 4 for
different HSGs. By the use of Figure 4, CN1 can be
estimated for a given fTIA and HSG.
4 Results
The general framework of the proposed GIS–CN
method for estimating fEIA in urban watersheds can
be summarized as the following three steps.
(1) Obtain the total impervious area (TIA) and dis-
tribution of hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) for
the watershed of study by the geospatial analysis
of readily available land-cover and soil data
from national, regional, or local datasets.
Calculate the TIA fraction ( fTIA ) and determine
weighted average saturated hydraulic conductiv-
ity (Ksat ) of the soil for the watershed as
described in Section 3.
(2) Estimate the asymptotic curve number of the
watershed (CN1 ) as a function of fTIA and Ksat
using Equation (17) or Figure 4.
(3) Determine the fraction of effective impervious
area ( fEIA ) as a function of CN1 using Equation
(15) or Figure 3.
In the following two sections, first the validity of
proposed GIS–CN method is evaluated and then the
usefulness of the proposed method is further explored
by developing curves of runoff depth versus EIA frac-
tion for different rainfall depths.
522 A. EBRAHIMIAN ET AL.
Figure 4. Graphical representation of Equation (17) for estimating CN1 based on fTIA and HSG.
4.1 Evaluating the proposed framework
In order to see how compatible the presented fEIA vs CN1
plot (Fig. 3) is with the data from gauged watersheds (i.e.
validation), pairs of (CN1 ; fEIA ) for both the calibration
and validation catchments were added to Figure 3. The
result is presented in Figure 5. The data points in Figure 5
represent the actual CN1 and fEIA values for the study
catchments from Table 2. The 11 catchments with less
reliable CN1 values (i.e. Sarita, EK, P3, Smith, EHA,
HPA, LCA, TBA, TCA, CBL, and SBI, as explained earlier
in Section 3) are denoted with open symbols in Figure 5.
While a good agreement is seen between the proposed
curve and actual data in larger CN1 values, scatter of the
actual data around the curve is seen for smaller CN1
values. This scatter may be explained by the uncertainty
in CN1 values, as the data points associated with the less
reliable CN1 values (open symbols) have larger devia-
tions from the curve in Figure 5. In general, the scatter in
smaller CN1 values is not expected to have a severe effect
Figure 5. Comparison of the actual fEIA and CN1 values in gauged watersheds with the proposed curve for ungauged watersheds.
on the performance of the proposed method because the
rate of change of fEIA with CN1 is very low for CN1
values between 50 and 80. Hence, the proposed curve in
Figure 3 (or Equation (15)) can be used for the planning
level of hydrological, environmental, and urban land use
studies.
4.2 Runoff depth as a function of EIA fraction
The usefulness of the proposed method is further
explored by developing curves of runoff depth as a
function of EIA fraction and rainfall depth. These
curves provide useful information for land-use plan-
ners and allow the sensitivity of runoff depth to EIA
fraction to be easily assessed.
The runoff depth versus EIA fraction curves are
derived for a typical range of rainfall depths for the
design of green stormwater infrastructure using the
NRCS CN method. To determine the CN from

Figure 6. Histogram of the fitting parameter k for the calibration catchments with a standard CN–P pattern.
Equation (4) for specified rainfall depths, both CN1
and the exponential parameter (fitting constant) k are
needed. CN1 for different fEIA values can be estimated
from Equation (15) or Figure 3. To find a representa-
tive k value for ungauged watersheds, a histogram of k
was first plotted using the k values for the 35 calibra-
tion catchments from Table 2. Figure 6 shows this
histogram.
Because of the variability of k in Figure 6, using a
constant representative k value (e.g. mean or median)
is not reasonable. However, a power function was fit to
the k–CN1 plot for the 35 calibration sites (Fig. 7) as
given in Equation (18). The k and CN1 values in
Figure 7 were taken from Table 2.
k ¼ 6  1017 CN7:67
1 þ 0:0149
By having both CN1 and k, CN can be estimated for
different rainfall depths (P) from Equation (6).
Consequently, runoff depth (Q) is obtained for differ-
ent rainfall depths using the NRCS CN method.
Figure 8 illustrates the runoff depth in terms of EIA
Figure 7. Variation of the fitting parameter k with asymptotic curve number (CN1 ) in the study catchments with a standard CN–P
pattern.
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 523
fraction for three rainfall depths of 12.5, 25, and
50 mm, which lie in a typical range of rainfall depths
for designing green stormwater infrastructure prac-
tices. Since the actual fEIA values in our study sites
were all less than 0.5, Figure 8 is presented for fEIA
between zero and 0.5.
To compare the presented curves of Q vs fEIA with
the observed values (i.e. validation), runoff depth was
calculated in a similar manner to Figure 8, except
using the observed (actual) fEIA , CN1 and k values
of both the calibration and validation catchments
from Table 2 for the same rainfall depths (i.e. 12.5,
25, and 50 mm). The obtained pairs of ( fEIA , Q) from
actual data were added to the plot of Q versus fEIA in
Figure 8.
(18) As seen in Figure 8, the general trend of observed
data agrees with the proposed curves for all rainfall
depths. Also, while agreement is seen between the
observed data and proposed curves for lower rainfall
in Figure 8 (i.e. P = 12.5 and 25 mm), more scatter is
seen in higher rainfall (i.e. P = 50 mm). This may be
524 A. EBRAHIMIAN ET AL.
Figure 8. Comparison of the proposed curves of runoff depth against fEIA for urban watersheds with the observed (actual) data.
explained by the amount of contributing pervious area
in a watershed. In higher rainfall depths, more pervious
area is expected to contribute to the runoff generation
process. Hence, other characteristics of contributing
pervious area such as soil type, infiltration capacity
and initial moisture content of the soil, as well as initial
abstraction of the pervious surfaces, are added to the
runoff generation process, which make it more com-
plex and can cause scatter in Figure 8. In general, it is
concluded that the developed curves could be useful
tools in urban planning, especially for evaluating the
effect of implementing green stormwater infrastructure
systems throughout an urban watershed.
5 Conclusions
Available literature shows that EIA is a better para-
meter than TIA for representing the impact of imper-
vious surfaces on the hydrology of urban watersheds.
To estimate the EIA fraction ( fEIA ) in urban water-
sheds, a new method was developed using the analysis
of rainfall–runoff, land-cover and soil data from 35
urban catchments in the USA. The method was
further validated by the use of similar data from 11
other urban catchments in the USA. The proposed
GIS–CN method is able to estimate EIA fraction as a
function of asymptotic CN of watersheds (CN1 ) and
predict CN1 in terms of TIA fraction ( fTIA ) and
representative saturated hydraulic conductivity of the
soil (Ksat ) as estimated from HSG in an urban
watershed. The required GIS data for the proposed
method include land cover and HSG, both of which
are readily available from national, regional, or local
datasets.
The proposed GIS–CN method is relatively simple
and can be applied to ungauged urban watersheds.
While the asymptotic CN is determined as an inter-
mediate step in the proposed GIS–CN method, it can
be attractive for practitioners and modelers involved
in computing and modeling runoff from urban
watersheds. Our investigations on the CN–P patterns
in the 46 study catchments (35 calibration and 11
validation catchments) with different sizes and phy-
sical characteristics showed a standard exponential
pattern for CN–P plots in all of the catchments.
Using the GIS–CN method, a set of curves was also
developed to investigate the sensitivity of runoff
depth to EIA fraction in different rainfall depths.
The developed curves provide a tool to assess the
impact of EIA reduction (e.g. by implementing green
stormwater infrastructure practices) on discharge
from an urban watershed of interest in a variety of
urban planning studies. One limitation of the
method is that it does not determine the location
of EIA in the watershed. Also, the proposed method
has been developed using catchments with a drainage
area of 1–2035 ha. Applicability of the proposed
method to larger catchments needs to be investigated
in future studies. The presented general framework is
capable of being applied to more urban watersheds
in order to further generalize the predictive models
in the method.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the Capitol Region
Watershed District, Minnesota, Three Rivers Park District,
Minnesota, Cities of Minnetonka and Bloomington,

Minnesota, the USGS-Wisconsin Water Science Center, and
the Watershed Protection Department, City of Austin, Texas,
for providing rainfall–runoff and GIS data. We also thank
the Department of Forest Resources, University of Minnesota
for providing land-cover data in Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This research was funded by the Minnesota Local Road
Research Board.
ORCID
Ali Ebrahimian http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3992-170X
References
Alley, W.M. and Veenhuis, J.E., 1983. Effective impervious
area in urban runoff modeling. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 109 (2), 313–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9429(1983)109:2(313)
Booth, D.B. and Jackson, C.R., 1997. Urbanization of aquatic
systems: degradation thresholds, stormwater detection, and
the limits of mitigation. Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 33 (5), 1077–1090. doi:10.1111/
jawr.1997.33.issue-5
Boyd, M.J., Bufill, M.C., and Knee, R.M., 1993. Pervious and
impervious runoff in urban catchments. Hydrological
Sciences Journal, 38 (6), 463–478. doi:10.1080/02626669
309492699
Boyd, M.J., Bufill, M.C., and Knee, R.M., 1994. Predicting
pervious and impervious storm runoff from urban drai-
nage basins. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 39 (4), 321–332.
doi:10.1080/02626669409492753
Carle, M.V., Halpin, P.N., and Stow, C.A., 2005. Patterns of
watershed urbanization and impacts on water quality.
Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 41
(3), 693–708. doi:10.1111/jawr.2005.41.issue-3
D’Asaro, F., Grillone, G., and Hawkins, R.H., 2014. Curve
number: empirical evaluation and comparison with curve
number handbook tables in sicily. Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering, 19 (12), 04014035. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)
HE.1943-5584.0000997
Ebrahimian, A., 2015a. Towards sustainable urban stormwater
infrastructure: improving the estimation of effective imper-
vious area. World Environmental and Water Resources
Congress, 2015, 2261–2268. doi:10.1061/9780784479162.223
Ebrahimian, A., 2015b. Determination of effective impervious
area in urban watersheds. Ph.D. Dissertation. Department
of Civil, Environmental, and Geo-Engineering, University
of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
Ebrahimian, A., et al., 2015. Urban stormwater construction
method selection using a hybrid multi-criteria approach.
Automation in Construction, 58, 118–128. doi:10.1016/j.
autcon.2015.07.014
HYDROLOGICAL SCIENCES JOURNAL 525
Ebrahimian, A., Gulliver, J.S., and Wilson, B.N., 2016b.
Effective impervious area for runoff in urban watersheds.
Hydrological Processes, 30, 3717–3729. doi:10.1002/hyp.
v30.20
Ebrahimian, A., Wilson, B.N., and Gulliver, J.S., 2016a.
Improved methods to estimate the effective impervious
area in urban catchments using rainfall-runoff data.
Journal of Hydrology, 536, 109–118. doi:10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2016.02.023
Fletcher, T.D., Andrieu, H., and Hamel, P., 2013.
Understanding, management and modelling of urban
hydrology and its consequences for receiving waters: a
state of the art. Advances in Water Resources, 51, 261–
279. doi:10.1016/j.advwatres.2012.09.001
Han, W.S. and Burian, S.J., 2009. Determining effective
impervious area for urban hydrologic modeling. Journal
of Hydrologic Engineering, 14 (2), 111–120. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0699(2009)14:2(111)
Hatt, B.E., et al., 2004. The influence of urban density and
drainage infrastructure on the concentrations and loads of
pollutants in small streams. Environmental Management,
34 (1), 112–124. doi:10.1007/s00267-004-0221-8
Hawkins, R.H., 1993. Asymptotic determination of runoff
curve numbers from data. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering, 119 (2), 334–345. doi:10.1061/
(ASCE)0733-9437(1993)119:2(334)
Hawkins, R.H., et al., 2009. Curve number hydrology, state of
the practice. Reston, VA: ASCE.
Hernandez-Guzman, R. and Ruiz-Luna, A., 2013. SARA – an
enhanced curve number-based tool for estimating direct
runoff. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 15 (3), 881–887.
doi:10.2166/hydro.2013.145
Hjelmfelt, A.T., 1980. Empirical investigation of curve num-
ber technique. Journal of the Hydraulics Division, 106 (9),
1471–1476.
Jones, T., Johnston, C., and Kipkie, C., 2003. Using annual
hydrographs to determine effective impervious area.
Journal of Water Management Modeling, R215–14,
291–306.
Kilberg, D., Martin, M., and Bauer, M., 2011. Digital classi-
fication and mapping of urban tree cover: city of St. Paul.
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN: Department of Forest
Resources, University of Minnesota, Final Report.
Lee, J.G. and Heaney, J.P., 2003. Estimation of urban
imperviousness and its impacts on storm water systems.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
129 (5), 419–426. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9496(2003)
129:5(419)
Mueller, G.D. and Thompson, A.M., 2009. The ability of
urban residential lawns to disconnect impervious area
from municipal sewer systems. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association, 45, 1116–1126. doi:10.1111/
j.1752-1688.2009.00347.x
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2004.
National engineering handbook, part 630 hydrology.
Washington, DC: USDA.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 2007.
National engineering handbook, part 630 hydrology,
“Hydrologic Soil Groups”. Washington, DC: USDA.
Pandit, A. and Regan, J., 1998. What is the impervious area
curve number. Advances in Modeling the Management of
Stormwater Impacts, 6, 437–450.
526 A. EBRAHIMIAN ET AL.
Ponce, V.M. and Hawkins, R.H., 1996. Runoff curve number:
has it reached maturity? Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
1 (1), 11–19. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1996)1:1(11)
Roy, A.H. and Shuster, W.D., 2009. Assessing impervious
surface connectivity and applications for watershed man-
agement. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association, 45 (1), 198–209. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.
2008.00271.x
SCS (Soil Conservation Service), 1964. National engineering
handbook, section 4 hydrology. Washington, DC: USDA.
SCS (Soil Conservation Service), 1972. National engineering
handbook, section 4 hydrology. Washington, DC: USDA.
SCS (Soil Conservation Service), 1985. National engineering
handbook, section 4 hydrology. Washington, DC: USDA.
Shuster, W.D., et al., 2005. Impacts of impervious surface on
watershed hydrology: a review. Urban Water Journal, 2,
263–275. doi:10.1080/15730620500386529
Sutherland, R.C., 1995. Methodology for estimating the effec-
tive impervious area of urban watersheds. Watershed
Protection Techniques, 2 (1), 282–284.
Taylor, S.L., et al., 2004. Catchment urbanisation and
increased benthic algal biomass in streams: linking
mechanisms to management. Freshwater Biology, 49 (6),
835–851. doi:10.1111/fwb.2004.49.issue-6
USDA (US Department of Agriculture), 1986. Urban
hydrology for small watersheds. 2nd ed. Washington,
DC: Natural Resource Conservation Service, Technical
Release 55.
Vrebos, D., et al., 2014. Water displacement by sewer infra-
structure in the Grote Nete catchment, Belgium, and its
hydrological regime effects. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 18 (3), 1119–1136. doi:10.5194/hess-18-1119-
2014
Willett, J.B. and Singer, J.D., 1988. Another cautionary note
about R2: its use in weighted least-squares regression ana-
lysis. The American Statistician, 42 (3), 236–238.
Yang, G., et al., 2011. The impact of urban development on
hydrologic regime from catchment to basin scales.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 103 (2), 237–247.
doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.08.003
Zhan, X. and Huang, M.-L., 2004. ArcCN-runoff: an ArcGIS
tool for generating curve number and runoff maps.
Environmental Modelling & Software, 19, 875–879.
doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.03.001