4.4 Article

Runoff Curve Numbers for 10 Small Forested Watersheds in the Mountains of the Eastern United States

Journal

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING
Volume 17, Issue 11, Pages 1188-1198

Publisher

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000436

Keywords

Curve number method; Rainfall-runoff relationships; Forests; Mountains; Watersheds; Eastern United States; Annual maximum series; Median; Geometric mean; Nonlinear least squares; Asymptotic

Funding

  1. West Virginia Division of Forestry
  2. U.S. Geological Survey through the Georgia Water Resources Institute
  3. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Engineers and hydrologists use the curve number method to estimate runoff from rainfall for different land use and soil conditions; however, large uncertainties occur for estimates from forested watersheds. This investigation evaluates the accuracy and consistency of the method using rainfall-runoff series from 10 small forested-mountainous watersheds in the eastern United States, eight annual maximum series from New Hampshire, West Virginia, and North Carolina, and two partial duration series from Georgia. These series are the basis to compare tabulated curve numbers with values estimated using five methods. For nine of 10 watersheds, tabulated curve numbers do not accurately estimate runoff. One source of the large uncertainty is a consistent decrease in storm-event curve numbers with increasing rainfall. A calibrated constant curve number is suitable for only two of 10 watersheds; the others require a variable watershed curve number associated with different magnitude rainfalls or probabilities of occurrence. Paired watersheds provide consistent curve numbers, indicating that regional values for forested-mountainous watersheds (locally calibrated and adjusted for storm frequency) may be feasible. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)HE.1943-5584.0000436. (C) 2012 American Society of Civil Engineers.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available