ABSTRACT
Using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) curve number (CN) procedure for estimating runoff volume on an ungauged forest watershed remains controversial because little guidance has been provided for defining appropriate CN values. In this study, alternative methods for assigning CN values (CNs) were assessed to determine whether these methods provide acceptable estimates of runoff on forested watersheds. The estimated CNs varied between the methods employed, showing the highest CN values when derived from a probabilistic method and lowest when derived from a graphical method. The tabulated CN values in Section 4 of the National Engineering Handbook (NEH-4) had relatively higher bias compared to those derived from measured rainfall-runoff data. The storm runoff volume was predicted using the assigned CNs and compared with the observations. The coefficients of determination and RMSE values between the measured and estimated runoff volumes varied with the methods employed. The highest watershed average RMSE value was obtained by the use of the tabulated CN values in NEH-4 (51.19 mm), while arithmetic mean approach provided the lowest average RMSE value of 24.38 mm, even though this method requires intensive data collection. Among the alternatives, probabilistic method was found to be the most reliable in determining CNs for forest cover with limited data. The estimated runoff largely agreed with the observations. Therefore, the revised CNs can be used for estimating storm runoff from ungauged, mountainous forests.
