See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230822228

SCS-CN method revisited

Chapter · January 2007

CITATIONS READS
4 1,940

3 authors:

Suresh Babu Parasuraman Surendra Mishra

Kalingu Consultancy Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee
12 PUBLICATIONS   121 CITATIONS    122 PUBLICATIONS   2,621 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vijay P. Singh
Texas A&M University
1,330 PUBLICATIONS   25,218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AI-Meshless View project

defunct View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Suresh Babu Parasuraman on 18 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SCS-CN METHOD REVISITED

S.K. Mishra1, P. Suresh Babu2, V.P. Singh3

1
Asst. Prof., Dept. WRD&M, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee-247 667, U.A.,
India. E-mail: skm61fwt@iitr.ernet.in
2
Senior Research Fellow (CSIR), Institute of Remote Sensing, Anna University, Chennai-
600 025, India. E-Mail: suba_babu@yahoo.com
3
Dept. of Civil and Env. Engineering, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
70803-6405

2.1 INTRODUCTION
There exist numerous approaches in hydrologic literature for estimation of runoff
in ungauged watersheds. Among various methods utilizing rainfall data along with soil,
land use, hydrologic conditions, and antecedent moisture is the popular Soil Conservation
Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) methodology, which is frequently used for direct
surface runoff computation for given rainstorms in ungauged basins (Muttharam et al.,
1997) and is the theme of this chapter.
The then Soil Conservation Service (SCS), presently Natural Resource
Conservation Service, runoff equation came into common use in the mid 1950’s. It is the
product of more than 20 years of studies of rainfall-runoff relationships from small rural
watershed areas. Based on annual flood data collected at a number of study watersheds
with drainage areas of 1 sq. miles (2.6 sq. kms) or less and with a uniform basin
hydrologic soil-cover complex, the SCS developed the Curve Number (CN) tables (Bales
and Betson, 1981). It is a simple procedure for estimating streamflow volume (exclusive
of base flow) generated by large rainstorms. The SCS-CN method, which estimates the
“before” and “after” hydrologic response from events, is basically empirical, and
provides a consistent basis for estimating the amount of runoff under varying landuse and
soil types. It was used primarily for developing design hydrographs for hydraulic
structures and conservation works.
The SCS-CN method was developed in 1954 by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Soil Conservation Service (SCS), and is described in the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) National Engineering Handbook Section 4: Hydrology
(NEH-4) (SCS, 1985). The first version of the handbook containing the method was
published in 1954. Subsequent revisions followed in 1956, 1964, 1965, 1971, 1972, 1985,
and 1993 (Ponce and Hawkins 1996). In 1994, SCS became Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), and therefore, the name of Soil Conservation Service
SCS-CN method changed as Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to widen its
scope.
To the origin of the SCS-CN methodology, Sherman (1942, 1949) was the first to
propose the plotting of direct runoff against storm rainfall. Later, Mockus (1949)
proposed that estimates of surface runoff for ungauged watersheds could be based on soil,
landuse, antecedent rainfall, storm duration, and average annual temperature. He
combined these factors into an empirical parameter ‘b’ characterizing the relationship
between rainfall depth P and runoff depth Q (Rallison and Miller, 1981) as:

1
Q = P (1-10-bP) (2.1)
According to Mishra and Singh (1999b, 2003c), Equation (2.1) forms the basis of the
development of the SCS-CN concept. In a separate attempt, Andrew (unpublished report,
1954) developed a graphical procedure for estimating runoff from rainfall utilizing
infiltrometer data, and consequently, graphs were developed for several combinations of
soil texture, type and amount of cover, and conservation practices, combined together
referred as “Soil-Cover Complex”. Mockus empirical P-Q Rainfall-Runoff relationship
and Andrew’s soil-cover complex formed the basis of the conceptual rainfall-runoff
relationship incorporated in NEH-4 (Ponce and Hawkins 1996).
In the past three decades, the SCS-CN methodology has been used by a number of
researchers for runoff estimation worldwide and, in turn, has attracted intensive and
extensive exploration into its formation, rationality, applicability and extendibility, pros
and cons aspects, physical significance, etc. Accordingly, based on the reviews available
on its applicability to field data (Hjelmfelt et al., 2001), the NEH-4 was significantly
revised several times, and most recently in 1993 (SCS, 1993).
This chapter aims at critically reviewing the SCS-CN model, particularly to
discuss in detail the analytical derivation, development of representative CN and
subsequent runoff estimation, low rainfall-high CN bias, importance of CN, initial
abstraction relation with potential maximum retention, antecedent moisture condition
(AMC), effect of storm duration, source-area concept, applications, long-term hydrologic
simulation, distributed modeling, use of Remote Sensing (RS) data and Geographical
Information System (GIS), its advantages and limitations.

2.2 SCS-CN model

2.2.1 Derivation
The SCS-CN model is based on the water balance equation and two fundamental
hypotheses. The first hypothesis equates the ratio of the actual amount of direct surface
runoff (Q) to the total rainfall (P) (or maximum potential surface runoff) to the ratio of
the amount of actual infiltration (F) (or cumulative infiltration) to the amount of the
potential maximum retention (S). The second hypothesis relates the initial abstraction (Ia)
to the potential maximum retention (S). These are expressed, respectively, as
(a) Water Balance Equation: P = Ia + F + Q (2.2)
Q F
(b) Proportionality Hypothesis: = (2.3)
P - Ia S
(c) Ia – S Hypothesis: Ia = S (2.4)
where P = total rainfall, Ia = initial abstraction, F = cumulative infiltration, Q = direct
surface runoff, S = potential maximum retention, and λ = initial abstraction coefficient.
The proportionality concept appears to have been derived from the rainfall-runoff data
plotted on an arithmetic graph paper, as shown in Figure 2.1 showing a curve that
becomes asymptotic to a straight line with 1:1 slope at high rainfall. Assuming there is no
lag between the beginnings of rainfall and runoff, the equation of the straight-line portion
of the runoff curve can be given as:
Q  P  S  (2.5)
where P’ = maximum potential runoff (actual rainfall after runoff starts or actual rainfall
when initial abstraction does not occur) (mm) and S’ = maximum potential retention after
runoff starts (mm). The following proportionality describes the relationship among

2
precipitation, runoff, and retention (the difference between the rainfall and runoff) at any
point on the runoff curve:
F Q
 (2.6)
S  P
where
F = P’ – Q (2.7)
Here, F describes the actual retention after runoff starts (mm). Substituting for F in
equation (2.6),
P  Q Q
 (2.8)
S P
Ia

S`
Q=P S

Ia = 0.2 S
Q = P-Ia

Runoff, Q
Q = P – S`
F
F Q = P- Ia- S

450

Ia Rainfall, P

Figure 2.1. Relation Between Runoff, Precipitation, and Retention

If initial abstraction is considered, the runoff curve is translated to the right, as shown in
Figure 2.1, by the amount of precipitation that occurs before runoff begins. This amount
of precipitation is termed as initial abstraction, Ia. This Ia accounts for depression
(surface) storage, interception, and infiltration, occurring before runoff begins. To adjust
Equation (2.8) for initial abstraction, this amount is subtracted from the precipitation as:
P  P  I a (2.9)
Equation (2.8) becomes
P  Ia  Q Q
 (2.10)
S P  Ia
where P = actual rainfall (mm). Figure 2.1 shows that the two retention parameters, S’
and S, are equal:
S  S (2.11)
A substitution of Eqs. (2.2) and (2.11) into Equation (2.10) yields Eq. (2.3), ie., the
proportionality concept, and the combination of Eqs. (2.2) and (2.3) leads to the popular
form of the SCS-CN methodology:
2
(P - Ia )
Q= (2.12)
P - Ia + S
Equation (2.12) is valid for P ≥ Ia, Q = 0 otherwise.

3
 During the initial efforts in SCS-CN model formulation (Plummer and
Woodward, 2002), the inclusion of initial abstraction was not considered, but as
development continued, it was included as a fixed ratio of Ia to S (Eq. 2.4). This
relationship was justified on the basis of measurements in watersheds less than 10 acres
in size although a considerable scatter existed in the resulting Ia-S plot (SCS, 1985).
NEH-4 (SCS, 1985) reported 50% of data points to lie within 0.095 ≤ λ ≤ 0.38, leading to
a standard value of λ = 0.2 (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996). Thus, Eq. 2.4 becomes
I a  0.2S (2.13)
Subsequently Eq. 2.12 becomes,
( P  0.2S ) 2
Q (2.14)
( P  0.8S )
Performing polynomial division on Equation (2.14) and dividing both sides of the
equation by S, Eq. 2.14 transforms to
Q P 1.0
  1.2  (2.15)
S S P
 0.8
S
which is the normalized rainfall-runoff relationship for any S (Figure 2.2).

Figure 2.2. SCS Rainfall-Runoff Relation Normalized on Retention Parameter, S

The parameter S in Eq. (2.12) is mapped on to CN as:

25400
S= - 254 (2.16)
CN
where S is in mm and CN is a non-dimensional quantity varying in the range (0, 100).
The relation between S and CN is a pure mathematical transformation, done purely for
reasons of convenience in portrayal of the coefficients and for ease of understanding
(Hawkins, 2001). Further the relation makes interpolating, averaging and weighting
operations more nearly linear. It is, however, entirely not clear as to the extent to which
S could assume a value that is practically meaningful. Since the experience indicates CN
to vary in the range (55-95) on watersheds of small to mid-size area (ie., < 250 sq. km.),
the corresponding S-values can be taken to fall in usual range of (13-208 mm).

4
 From the observed rainfall-runoff data, the SCS-CN parameter S can be
determined by solving equation (2.12) and it can be given as (Mishra and Singh, 1999b):



S 2  C 1     C C 1     4
2
 (2.17)
P 22
where C = Q/P. In equation (2.17), the ‘+’ sign before square root in the numerator has
been omitted, for it is always greater than or equal to 0 and is always less than first
bracketed term in the numerator. It follows that S/P will always be greater than or equal
to 0. When λ = 0.2, Eq. 2.17 becomes (Hawkins, 1993):
S = 5[(P + 2Q) - Q(4Q + 5P) ] (2.18)
The derived S-values can be mapped onto the CN-values and a median CN value can be
taken as a watershed representative value, which may be further taken to correspond to
the average antecedent moisture condition (AMC) for runoff estimation.

2.2.2 Theoretical Justification

Mockus (1949) suggested that the method produced rainfall-runoff curves of the
type found on natural watersheds. The concepts (assumptions) of SCS-CN method are
purely empirical, and therefore, a brief review of the justifications available in literature
is in order. The Handbook of Hydrology (Maidment, 1993) states that the assumption of
proportionality (equation 2.3) seems to be quite arbitrary and has no theoretical or
empirical justification (Pilgrim and Cordery, 1993). Based on this proportionality, Mishra
and Singh (2003c) described it in terms of C = Sr concept, where C is the runoff
coefficient and Sr is the degree of saturation, and presented several SCS-CN-inspired
models.
According to Chen (1981) and Mishra and Singh (2004a,b), the SCS-CN model is
an alternative expression of the infiltration decay curve, and in practice, it can be used as
one of the parametric infiltration models, or modified forms there of, to formulate the
standard infiltration capacity curve for a given soil-cover-moisture complex. Yu (1998)
derived SCS-CN model theoretically (analytically) assuming exponential distribution for
the spatial variation of infiltration capacity and the temporal variation of rainfall rate.
Under these assumptions, runoff will be produced anywhere on a catchment where the
time-varying rainfall rate exceeds the spatially variable but time-constant infiltration
capacity (making no allowance for any run-on process) (Beven, 2002). Mishra and Singh
(1999b) derived the SCS-CN method analytically with its basis in the Mockus (1949)
method. Later on, the constrained region for the validity of the Mockus (1949) method,
and the existence of watersheds with CN < 50 was pointed out. Further, the underlying
assumption on the spatial variability of rainfall employed by the SCS-CN and Mockus
(1949) methods were critically discussed (Mishra and Singh, 2001).
Of late, Mishra and Singh (2002a, 2003b) revisited the existing SCS-CN method
from an analytical perspective and explored the fundamental proportionality concept (Eq.
2.3). Mishra and Singh (2002a) described F (Eq. 2.3) as the dynamic portion of
infiltration (Fd) and distinguished it from the static or gravitational infiltration (Fc), while
Mishra and Singh (2003b) derived Equation (2.3) using the first-order linear hypothesis
for the variation of S with rainfall. Further, Mishra and Singh (2003a) explained the
physical significance of S using the diffusion term of the linear Fokker-Planck equation

5
for infiltration (Philip, 1974), which relates S to the storage and transmission properties
of the soil.

2.3 Development of representative CN

The curve number CN can be better taken as an integrated index of the
watershed’s hydrological soil group (A, B, C, and/or D); Landuse and treatment classes
(Agricultural, Range, Forest, and Urban (SCS, 1986)); Hydrologic surface condition of
native pasture (Poor, Fair, and/or Good); and antecedent moisture condition (AMC) of a
watershed. To estimate the runoff CN or representative CN for a watershed, numerous
approaches are available and these can be broadly categorized as:
1. Hydrologic soil-cover complex number procedure.
a. Weighted CN method
b. Weighted Q method
2. CN’s from field data
a. Asymptotic approach
b. Least square approach
c. NEH-4 procedure
i. Graphical approach
ii. Median CN approach
2.3.1 Hydrologic soil-cover complex number procedure
This method uses the available standard CN table (Hydrologic soil-cover complex
number) of NEH-4 (SCS, 1993) to estimate the CN of a watershed based on its landuse
type and hydrological soil group type. This is generally used for ungauged watersheds.
According to NEH-4, there are 4 Hydrologic soil groups: A, B, C, and D. 1. ‘A’ Soils
having high infiltration rates, even when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of
deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels. These soils have a high rate of water
transmission. 2. ‘B’ Soils having moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and
consisting chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately fine to moderately coarse
textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission. 3. ‘C’ Soils having slow
infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of soils with a layer that
impedes downward movement of water, or soils with moderately fine to fine texture.
These soils have a slow rate of water transmission. 4. ‘D’ Soils having very slow
infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly of clay soils with a high
swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a clay pan or clay
layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These
soils have a very slow rate of water transmission. Of late, Golding (1997) noticed several
discrepancies where the SCS has classified the soils as being A/D and B/D, which are
supposed to reflect a high ground-water table. Further, Golding (1997) added that
urbanization of an area could change the height of the ground-water table. In addition,
professionals tend to use A or B rather than D classification to economize the project.
The CN values of NEH-4 tables represent the average median site-CN values with
the indicated soil, cover, and surface condition. Here, the average median site-CN
represents the CN corresponding to the curve that separated half of the plotted P-Q data
from the other half for the given site. This is denoted as CNII, where the subscript stands
for AMC II, indicating average runoff potential. The CNII can be derived using the
weighted CN approach or weighted Q approach. In the first approach, the CN-values of

6
the respective hydrological-soil cover complex are multiplied with the respective percent
areal coverage of the complexes, as follows:
n

 CN i * Ai 
CN aw  i 1
n
(2.19)
A
i 1
i

where CNaw = area-weighted curve number for the drainage basin; CNi = curve number
for each land use-soil group complex; Ai = area for each land use-soil group complex;
and n = number of land use-soil group complex in drainage basin. Then, using this
weighted CN, the runoff is estimated from Eqs. 2.12 and 2.16.
In the weighted-Q method, the direct surface runoff (Q) is computed for each sub-
areas of a watershed from Eqs. 2.12 and 2.16, utilizing the CN-value derived for
respective hydrological-soil cover complex of the sub-area. Finally, the area-weighted Q
is computed. Obviously, the weighted-Q method is superior to the weighted-CN method,
as the former is more rational than the latter for water balance reasons. However, the
weighted CN is easier to work with the watershed having many complexes or with a
series of storms. Mishra and Singh (2003c) pointed out that the computed runoff by
above two approaches would significantly deviate for a wide range of CNs for various
complexes in a watershed. In general, the weighted-CN method is less time consuming,
but tends to be less accurate when compared to the actual measured runoff depth. The
difference between the two methods is however is insignificant for total CN difference
less than 5 and if the rainfall is high in magnitude.
While using the above “Hydrologic soil-cover complex number” approach, the
following two problems are generally encountered:
1. The calculation of “Hydrologic soil-cover complex number” approach is much
more sensitive to the chosen CN than it is to the rainfall depths (Hawkins, 1975;
Bondelid et al., 1982).
2. It is difficult to accurately select the CNs from the available handbook CN tables
(Hawkins, 1984).
The above approach has been employed recently with the aid of remote sensing and
Geographical Information System (GIS) techniques in distributed watershed modeling.
Here, it is worth emphasizing that CN determination from field data is better than that
from hydrologic soil-cover complex number method, as the latter leads to variable,
inconsistent or invalid results (Hawkins, 1984).

2.3.2 CN Derivation from field data

(a) Asymptotic approach
Hjelmfelt (1980) suggested an “Ordered” data based approach for CN
determination. In this approach, P and Q data are arranged in descending order, in which
a Q-value corresponding to a particular P may not necessarily represent the actual runoff
due to this rainfall. The “Natural” data however retain the actual P-Q dataset. This
technique advantageously preserves the return-period matching between rainfall and
runoff, and therefore, is also sometimes referred as “frequency matching” technique. The
CN-values derived from ordered P-Q dataset yields a secondary relationship, complacent,
standard, or violent, with rainfall P, as shown in Figure 2.3. The standard and violent
relations yield a constant CN with increasing storm rainfall, but the complacent one does

7
not yield a stable CN-value. The ‘Standard’ and ‘Violent’ relations can be expressed,
respectively, as:
CN(P) = CN + (100-CN)exp(-kP) (2.20)
and
CN(P) = CN(1-exp(-kP)) (2.21)
where CN = constant value approaches as P; and k = fitting constant.
A variation of this approach would be to use (P-Pcrit) in place of P, with the Pcrit
estimated from the plot by inspection. If ‘Complacent’, then several options should be
considered. This is the most troublesome pattern insofar as the CNs – by definition – are
assumed not to approach to a stable value. While extrapolation to higher rainfalls may be
easily done, it is risky, considering that ‘Violent’ response often springs at higher rainfall
from a ‘Complacent’ precedent. This is the major uncertainly with ‘Complacent’ data.
The following options can be applied for this condition (Hawkins, 2005):
(a) declaring a ‘Complacent’ condition as defined by the data, and a better and
simpler fitting, such as Q = CP;
(b) treating as a ‘Standard’, and fitting of the Standard extrapolation function, i.e.
Equation 2.20; In this second option, cautions should be issued in the statement
including the possibility of a ‘Violent’ threshold.
(c) fitting “k” to the following equation:
CN(P) = CNo + k(100-CNo) = 100(2+kP)/(2+P) (2.22)
where CNo = 100/(1+P/2). Here, as P, then CN(P)  100k = CN.
Notably, all the above options ignore the ‘Violent’ possibilities at higher rainfalls,
and the last two attempt to force a stable CN-value onto the data interpretation.
All fittings to complacent data should carry appropriate user warnings. At present
there is no means of determining the threshold of Violence in Complacent data
sets and watersheds;
(d) determining CN from visually derived P-CNord (CN of ordered data) relation, if
none of the above fits;
If none of the above options hold, CN cannot be determined. Hawkins (1993), Hawkins
and Ward (1998), Price (1998), Hjelmfelt et al. (2001), Van Mullem et al. (2002) used
this asymptotic method for CN determination from ordered data. Rietz and Hawkins
(2000) however applied this approach for CN estimation for each landuse in a watershed
at three scales: local, regional, and national. According to Hawkins (2005), the approach
has the following advantages: (1) It makes more efficient use of the available data
resources; (2) It negates the absolute need for rainfall data directly on-site; (3) It avoids
CN biasing with high CNs for low P; (4) From experience, the results seem more
consistent with external factors such as seasonal issues and adjacent watershed findings;
(5) CN solutions with it are less sensitive to occasional outlier P and Q values, and give
more consistent results; (6) Results are similar to those derived from natural data; (7) It is
trendy.

8
 (a) Complacent (b) Standard

CN0
CNordered
Fitted Response

(c) Violent
Figure 2.3. Three types of watershed response due to a secondary relationship exist in
ordered P-Q dataset. (Ref.: Hawkins, 1993)

The above approach is however valid only in frequency matching sense, and
therefore, applied to return-period cases. Its use for other than the above cases is
questionable and debatable. Furthermore, some of the statistical uneasiness exist in the
procedure such as (Hawkins, 2005): (1) built-in bias in all P:Q fitting insofar as 0≤Q≤P.
That is, all points must fit into the octant below the 1:1 line and above Q=0. Mere random
generation of Q≤P for given P will lead to a series of points displaying an unnaturally
high r2. This is exacerbated with the CN situation: all points must fit in the reality space
of CNo≤CN(P,Q)≤100, and – as described above - CN is already a function of P; (2)
there is a more subtle problem in the selection of watersheds gauged. It is assumed that
they are truly valid samples of what they are taken to represent; (3) data points used are
end-of-storm total P and Q, and the array of many of these does not necessarily define the
relationship with time for an individual event. That is, Q and P are assumed to be Q(t)
and P(t).

(b) Least Squares approach

This approach adopts the least squares function fitting of the P-Q data to the basic
CN equation (Eq. 2.12 or 2.14). Before that, the “smaller” storms must be excluded, to
avoid low rainfall-high CN bias found in essentially every data set. Thus, CNs derived
using the direct least squares may be expected to be similar to those due to asymptotic

9
approach, even with natural data. Therefore, least squares CNs may be an unnecessary
refinement. This approach fits the storage index S to the runoff equation (2.12) for the
given P and Q (either natural or ordered data set), such that the quantity
2 = (Qobs-Qcalc)2 (2.23)
is a minimum, and it is derived using trial-and-error. Here Qcalc is the runoff computed
from equation (2.12) using the observed P and Qobs is the observed direct surface runoff.
This is the same objective function and approach used in the familiar traditional linear
least squares fittings. In essentially all cases, if minimum storm magnitude consideration
ignored, the fitting is biased to a high CN, and the residual departures (Qobs-Qcalc)
following a fitting would yield a trend with P. Thus, the data used in least squares
fittings should be independent of the P-CN relationship. If only large P-independent
portions are used, both the least squares fitted CN (or S) and asymptotic CN values
(especially for the ordered data) match each other, insofar as they both use the same data,
and are both taken to be free from the rainfall depth influence. Thus, little is gained by
least squares fitting, except for the natural data case. However, excluding a body of
smaller storms is perhaps the most “honest” way to express the real event natural
relationship between P and Q given the CN equation. However, negative r2 values are
possible in unruly datasets.

(c) NEH-4 procedure

(i) Graphical approach
The simple procedure shown in the NEH4 (SCS, 1972) example superimposes the
annual flood P:Q data on the NEH4 P:Q:CN plot, as depicted in Figure 2.4, and allows
optical selection of CN. But it consists of the following drawbacks:
1. It uses only one piece of data (the annual flood event) from each year of
measurement, which is an inefficient and expensive way to use data.
2. It does not assure freedom from the P:CN bias. Many annual datasets contain the
P influence, including the NEH4 graphical example.
3. In dry years, some small watersheds may not have flow every year.
4. Many applications of the CN method go well beyond only annual event
circumstances.
(ii) Median CN approach
Due to above drawbacks, the graphical approach is generally not practiced and
has become obsolete. Instead, the simple average (mean) or median CN from a number of
storms is practiced. The occurrence of Low P-High CN bias is judiciously considered. In
the existing SCS-CN method, the use of “Median” CN of large storms computed from
Eqs. 2.12 and 2.16 is quite common (Rallison and Cronshey, 1979; Hawkins et al., 1985;
Hjelmfelt, 1991; Hawkins et al., 2002; Mishra et al., 2004a; Schneider and McCuen,
2005; and Mishra et al., 2005a,b), and this approach can be applied to both “ordered” and
“natural” datasets. According to Hawkins (2005), either median or mean CN of large
storms is appropriate, if the bias in dataset is removed. The median is more appropriate
for small samples for it reduces the effect of outliers (Schneider and McCuen, 2005) and
is useful in operational setting (Hjelmfelt, 1991). Notably, the NEH-4 (SCS, 1985)
example divides the P-Q plot into two equal numbers of P-Q points for deriving the
median CN corresponding to AMC II. Since the asymptotic method considers the
“ordered” dataset and, turn, shifts the values to another position, but within the

10
conditional distribution function of Q for the measured P (Schneider and McCuen, 2005),
Its accuracy in the estimated CN is affected. In a comparative study, Simanton et al.
(1996) (a) found them to yield similar results and (b) sensed the existence of CN -
drainage area relationship. Traditionally, S-values from Eq. 2.18 or Eq. 2.17 are
converted to curve numbers using Eq. 2.16 for each event, their “Median” or “Mean”
value is represented as CNII, describes the “average condition” of the watershed in terms
of wetness, and is considered as representative CN for the watershed.

Figure 2.4. NEH4 P:Q:CN plot

2.4 Runoff estimation

For runoff estimation, the above CNII is adjusted according to Antecedent
Moisture Condition (AMC) of the watershed, which can be defined as the initial moisture
condition of the watershed prior to the storm event of interest. The SCS-CN methodology
expresses this parameter as an index based on seasonal limits for the total 5-day
antecedent rainfall as follows:
1. AMC I represents dry soil with a dormant season rainfall (5-day) of less than 12.7
mm and a growing season rainfall (5-day) of less than 35.56 mm,
2. AMC II represents average soil moisture conditions with dormant season rainfall
averaging from 12.7 to 27.94 mm and growing season rainfall from 35.56 to
53.34 mm, and
3. AMC III conditions represent saturated soil with dormant season rainfall of over
27.94 mm and growing season rainfall over 53.34 mm.
Later, depending on the 5-day precipitation amount, AMC II (CNII) is convertible to
AMC I (CNI) or AMC III (CNIII) using any of the relations (Table 2.1) given by Sobhani
(1975), Chow et al. (1988), Hawkins et al. (1985), and Neitsch et al. (2002), and also
directly from the NEH-4 table (SCS, 1972). A critical review on the CN conversion
formulae is in order. Here, the subscripts I-III in Table 2.1, and elsewhere in the text refer
to AMC I-AMC III, respectively.

Table 2.1. Popular AMC dependent CN-conversion formulae.

11
Method AMC I AMC III
CN II CN II
Sobhani
CN I  CN III 
(1975) 2.334  0.01334CN II 0.4036  0.005964CN II
CNII CN II
Hawkins et al. CNI  CN III 
(1985) 2.281  0.01281CNII 0.427  0.00573CN II
4.2CNII 23CN II
Chow et al. CNI  CN III 
(1988) 10  0.058CNII 10  0.13CN II
20(100  CN II )
Neitsch et al. CN I  CN II  CN III  CN II exp{0.0067 3(100  CN II )}
(2002) {100  CN II  exp[2.533  0.0636(100  CN II )]}

2.4.1 CN-conversion formulae

The AMC-dependent CN-values given by NEH-4 in tabular form were
represented by mathematical expressions given by Sobhani (1975), Smith and Williams
(1980), Hawkins et al. (1985), Chow et al. (1988), and Neitsch et al. (2002). Since the
accuracy of runoff computation largely depends on the correctness of CN-value, it is in
order to compare these conversion formulae and discuss their validity.
(a) Sobhani (1975) Formulae
The Sobhani (1975) formulae for CN conversion from AMC II (CNII) to AMC I
(CNI) and AMC III (CNIII) are given in Table 2.1. In an analysis of the SCS (1972) table
for CN, Sobhani (1975) found the existence of linear relationships between the potential
retention, S, for AMC II and that for AMC I or AMC III. A substitution for S from Eq.
2.16 into these linear relations yields the CN-relations shown in Table 2.1. These
equations are reportedly applicable in the CN-range (55, 95), which encompasses the
most estimated or experienced range of CN-variation. To add, CNs of every 5th of the
range (55, 95) were used to obtain the relationship (Hawkins, 2005).
(b) Smith and Williams (1980) Formulae
A field scale model for Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion From Agricultural
Management Systems (CREAMS) includes a CN conversion formula for converting CN II
to CNI in polynomial form (Smith and Williams, 1980):
CN I  16.91  1.348* CN II  0.01379 * CN II  0.0001177 * CN II
2 3
(2.24)
Only one relationship was perhaps suggested for the reason that the CREAMS model
concerned only to determination of the maximum available water storage in the soil
profile, which is related to CNI, and the derivation of a CNII Vs CNIII relationship was
considered unnecessary (Knisel, 2005). Notably, the model as such does not utilize curve
number in runoff computation, rather it determines the maximum available storage space
from the NEH-4 tabular CN values for AMC II, and to this end, CNI is computed. Later
on, the runoff is estimated on daily basis using the available storage in the soil profile on
a specific day as determined from daily soil water accounting procedure. The 1987
version of “Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems
(GLEAMS)” model incorporates a vastly improved soil representation and, therefore, is
an improvement over the CREAMS model.
Later, Schroeder et al. (1994) gave a 4th order polynomial in place of the 3rd order
polynomial used in CREAMS model as:
CN I  3.751*10 1 * CN II  2.575 *10 3 * CN II  1.639 *10 5 * CN II  5.143 *10 7 * CN II
2 3 4
(2.25)

12
It was used in “The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)” Model.
Here it is worth emphasizing that the CREAMS model was developed in 1980, before the
development of Personal Computers and word processing capabilities.
(c) Hawkins et al. (1985) Formulae
Based on the smoothened CN-data obtained by fitting straight lines through the
plot on normal probability paper (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996), Hawkins et al. (1985)
provided the following relations:
SI = 2.281 SII r2 = 0.999 and Se = 5.2324 mm (2.26)
2
SIII = 0.427 SII r = 0.994 and Se = 2.2352 mm (2.27)
These equations are also applicable in the range 55  CN  95. Substitution of Eqs. 2.26
and 2.27 into Eq. 2.16 leads to expressions shown in Table 2.1. The CNI expression was
derived with r2 = 0.996 and Se = 1.0 CN, and CNIII expression was obtained with r2 =
0.994 and Se = 0.7 CN. These expressions, along with their derivation, are similar to
those suggested by Sobhani (1975). The only difference with Sobhani (1975) is that CNs
of all in the range (55, 95) was used, hopefully to get a better relationship. Due to this, the
denominator values (Table 2.1) of Hawkins et al. (1985) formulae were slightly changed
(not significant) with that of Sobhani (1975). It was found out that the relationship from
both formulations deteriorated quickly for CNII less than 55 (Hawkins, 2005).
(d) Chow et al. (1988) Formulae
The formulae of Chow et al. (1988) and those of Sobhani (1975) and Hawkins et
al. (1985) (Table 2.1) resemble with the following general form:
aX
Y (2.28)
10  bX
where Y and X are, respectively, the dependent and independent variables and a and b are
empirical parameters. Here, Y corresponds to CNII; X to CNI or CNIII; and – sign and +
sign for AMC I and AMC III, respectively. As an example, the Chow et al. equations can
be recast by dividing them by 4.2 and 23 to derive the same forms as of the CNI and CNIII
Sobhani and Hawkins et al. equations, respectively. In the derived relations (Table 2.1),
CNI represents the lowest runoff potential, and CNIII the highest runoff potential. These
equations are reportedly applicable in the whole range of CN-variation (0,100).
(e) Neitsch et al. (2002) Formulae
The Neitsch et al. (2002) formulae (Table 2.1) are entirely different in form from
all others and these are used in the SWAT model developed by Agricultural Research
Service of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA-ARS). This is a
continuous long-term yield model that predicts the impact of land management practices
on water, sediment, and agricultural chemical yields in large complex watersheds with
varying soils, land use, and management conditions (Neitsch et al., 2002). Its
documentation, however, does not provide clear guidelines for the applicability of the
conversion formulae, except CNI and CNIII (Table 2.1) are further adjusted for actual
moisture content.
The full development detail of the formulae was unknown, except that their basis
in the NEH-4 CN table values. Additionally, Mishra et al. (Under review) found out that
the formulae yield the undesirable negative values of CNI in CNII range (1, 19). Here, it is
noted that the CN-values obtained for most soil-cover-moisture complexes in the field are
generally greater than 40 (SCS, 1972). However, the occurrence of negative CN-values is
conceptually not rational. According to Mishra et al., the Hawkins et al. (1985) CN

13
conversion formulae perform better than others, though there was about 0.1% difference
among them all over the range of CNII values from 50 to 100 for either the CNI or CNIII
conversions. Therefore, the Hawkins et al. (1985) were recommended for CN-conversion
and, in turn, runoff computation from Eqs. 2.16 and 2.12.

2.5 Low P-High CN Bias

Since the CNs presented in NEH-4 were developed using the annual flood events
(Hjelmfelt, 1991), use of smaller events could bias the results towards larger CNs.
Hawkins (1993) and Hawkins and Cate (1998) found a strong secondary relationship
between CNs and causative rainfall P (spurious correlation). Paradoxically, lowest CNs
comes with the larger storms. The bias of “low P-High CN” occurs due to the following
(Hawkins, 2005; Schneider and McCuen, 2005):
 The data are “censored” to the extent that no events of Q=0 are included, so
that the only events that survive in the dataset for low rainfalls are those that
indicate a high CN.
 The SCS-CN equations are subject to two constraints, specifically that Q must
be less than P and greater than 0.
 Many watersheds may be composed of various components of different source
areas or CNs, a condition that also leads to declining CNs with P.
 Errors in the SCS-CN model itself, in either structure or concept, or in
coefficients (such as 0.2).
 Nonlinear models, such as power models, are inherently biased, as are
exponential and logistic models. So, the nonlinearity of Eqs. 2.12 and 2.17
contributes to the bias.
 The fitting of the CN by least squares inherently puts more weight on the
larger Q values where the CN tends to be larger.
For least squares fitting of P-Q data to the basic CN equation (Eq. 2.12), the “smaller”
storms must be excluded, to avoid low P-high CN bias found in essentially every dataset.
Hawkins (2005) provided the following guidelines for the removal of small storms:
Rainfalls, which are less than 1 inch, can be avoided for the further analysis or the storms
that satisfy the P/S ≤ 0.456 inches (Hawkins et al., 1985) should be avoided and
considered as small storms for the SCS-CN application. The latter one may be more
rational than the former, which is based on a crude assumption of P < 1 inch. The
Hawkins et al. (1985) approach of “large storms” suggests the following to obtain P
independent CN storm data:
(i) Consider natural P-Q pair, and use the biggest storm to calculate S from Eqs.
2.12, and CN from Eq. 2.16.
(ii) Check for P/S > 0.456 inches.
(iii) If satisfied, add the next biggest storm in calculation. Use mean (or median) CN
for those selected storms.
(iv) Repeat step (ii).
(v) Consider all the events down to point where the last P divided by the mean (or
median) S is greater than 0.456 inches in analysis.
The above “0.456 inches” was considered due to the following reasons (Hawkins et al.,
1985):

14
 a) “P/S < 0.4…poorly (if at all) define a CN in any case”, though they gave no
reasons. (Smith and Montgomery, 1980).
b) a “small storm is one which….P<0.2S where S is determined from AMC I
curve number” (Hjelmfelt, 1982), and therefore, elimination of small events
from the dataset is warranted.
c) In Hawkins et al. (1985) approach, P < 0.2 SI, where 0.2 SI = 0.2 x 2.281 SII =
0.456 SII. Here, SII is associated with AMC II curve number.
d) There exists less than a 10% chance of not including events (ie., P/S > 0.456
inches) because Q=0.
e) Inspection of P:Q data plot yields a clear break away from the P-axis.

2.6 Importance of CN
Prescribing an accurate value of CN is perhaps the most important part in SCS-
CN methodology for accurate estimation of storm runoff, for the runoff is notably more
sensitive to CN than rainfall values up to about 9 inches. The smaller the values of CN,
the larger are the effects of the variation of initial abstraction and rainfall on runoff
(Chen, 1981). CN is significantly related to storm hydrograph model parameters, such as
the peak flow (Bales and Betson, 1981). Experience suggests that about 10% variation in
CN arises from differences in AMC due to changing land conditions over time.
Especially, in low runoff and low rainfall situations, errors in runoff calculation near its
threshold are severe. Hawkins (1981) pointed out that much of the power of the CN
method lies in its adjustment to land conditions. According to Knisel and Davis (2000),
CNII is sensitive to runoff volume in GLEAMS computations for small changes in high
curve numbers, and more sensitive than equivalent small changes in low curve numbers.
Therefore, an accurate estimate of CN is the weak input link in the SCS-CN
methodology.

2.6.1 Alternative approaches for CN Determination

Williams and Laseur (1976) developed a procedure for allowing the CN to vary
continuously with soil moisture in a continuous daily water yield model. Bonta (1997)
evaluated derived frequency distributions as another method for determining watershed
CNs from measured data, treating P and Q data as separate frequency distribution. The
derived distribution method gives fewer variable estimates of CN for a wide range of
sample sizes than two other methods of asymptotic approach, and Median-CN approach
for CN estimation. This derived distribution approach is advantageous in limited P-Q
data situation. It does not require watershed response type to estimate CN, as needed in
the asymptotic method. Mishra and Dwivedi (1998) presented an approach to determine
upper and lower bound or enveloping CNs, which are useful in high and low flow
studies, respectively. McCuen (2002) found that the quantity (100-CN) to fit the gamma
distribution, which he used to develop confidence intervals for CNs from 65 to 95, with
parameter estimation by Method of Moments (MOM). Later, Bhunya et al. (2002, 2003)
provided a more reliable procedure for estimation of confidence interval by employing
the Method of Maximum Likelihood (MOML), and Method of L-moment in addition to
MOM as parameter estimation.

2.7 Ia -S Concept

15
 The quantification of hydrologic abstractions is an extremely difficult task (Ponce
and Hawkins, 1996). These abstractions include interception; storage, surface storage;
evaporation from water bodies such as ponds, lakes, etc.; infiltration; and
evapotranspiration from all types of vegetation. Of these, infiltration is the most
important for storm analysis (short-term), whereas evaporation and evapotranspiration are
the most important for seasonal or annual yield or long-term evaluations. The remaining
two losses (interception and surface storage) are usually of secondary importance. Out of
these, initial abstraction (Ia) accounts for depression (surface) storage, interception, and
infiltration, occurring before runoff begins. The interception and depression storage vary
widely with types of vegetative cover, wind, depressed area and depth, etc. and extremely
difficult to quantify accurately.
Besides the wider variability in the resulting Ia-S plot (SCS, 1985), a simple
assumption of Ia = 0.2S has led to severe criticisms and several modifications since its
inception. For example, Central Unit for Soil Conservation (1972) recommended a λ
value of 0.3 for all regions of India, except for black cotton region for which it is 0.1
under AMC II (normal) and III (wet) conditions. Aron et al. (1977) suggested λ  0.1 and
Golding (1979) provided curve number dependent λ-values for urban watersheds: λ =
0.075 for CN ≤ 70, λ = 0.1 for 70 < CN ≤ 80, and λ = 0.15 for 80 < CN ≤ 90. Springer et
al. (1980) found λ = 0.2 not appropriate for both arid and humid watersheds and
cautioned against its use for other watersheds. In his mathematical treatment, Chen
(1981) physically signified λ as a square root ratio of initial (fo) and final infiltration rates
(f∞). He varied λ from 0 to 1. Here, it is worth emphasizing that the Chen analysis based
on two assumptions of ‘S including Ia’ and ‘S excluding Ia’. Since S does not include Ia,
the NEH-4 was corrected accordingly (Van Mullem et al., 2002).
Here, the conclusion of NRCS website publication is interest to note, as follows:
"...each relationship of Ia to S requires a unique set of runoff curve numbers. Simple
revision of the relationship of Ia to S to something other than Ia = 0.2S requires more than
a simple change of the runoff equation. There is no linear relationship between the runoff
curve numbers for the two Ia conditions. It also requires a new set of runoff curve
numbers developed from analysis of small watershed data….”. From these findings, it is
probably not justifiable to tweak this relationship as part of the development of a design
hydrograph for a site with no calibration data available. If played with the existing
relationship, the standard CN values are no longer valid (Rallison and Miller, 1981). It
was for this reason that Rallison (1980) did not recommend its further refinement.
Indeed, a critical examination of Ia–S relationship and a logical refinement is needed for
pragmatic applications.
Cazier and Hawkins (1984) suggested λ = 0.0 which best fitted their dataset, and
according to Ramasastri and Seth (1985), Jain and Seth (1997), Jena and Tiwari (2002), λ
can vary in the range (0, 0.3). As an alternative, Bosznay (1989) suggested to treat Ia as a
random variable. Since many storm and landscape factors interact to define the initial
abstraction (Hjelmfelt, 1991), fixing of λ at 0.2 is tantamount to regionalization based on
geologic and climatic settings (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996). Consequently, the number of
methods increases when CN is determined from the measured P-Q data and λ is allowed
to vary (Bonta, 1997). Walker et al. (1998) pointed out that the sources of error
associated with Ia-estimates and listed in NEH-4 include the likelihood of some

16
abstracted rainfall to have eventually appeared at the outlet and emphasized further that
some of this rainfall might have contributed to quick response in tile-drained watersheds.
Based on their mathematical analysis, Mishra and Singh (1999a,b) found λ to vary
from 0 to . They explained the functional behaviour of the SCS-CN method using Ia as
a key descriptor and derived C-Ia*- spectrum, where C is the runoff factor (=Q/P) and Ia*
is the non-dimensional initial abstraction (=Ia/P). Among others (for example, Bonta,
1997; Woodward et al., 2002), Hawkins and Khojeini (2000) and Hawkins et al. (2002)
examined the data-supported values of Ia/S ratio and suggested accommodations for
updating its role employing two techniques, event analysis and model fitting, to
determine Ia/S from field data. Only “large” storms were used to avoid biasing effects of
small storms towards high CNs. Both “natural” and “ordered” datasets were used to
establish a relation between S0.05 & S0.20 and then convert CNs based on λ = 0.2 to those
based on λ = 0.05. Here, subscript 0.05 and 0.2 of S represent λ values. Since λ varied
from storm to storm or watershed to watershed, λ = 0.05 fitted better than λ = 0.2, which
was found to be unusually high. However, the values of median λ varied from 0.0005 to
0.4910, with median of 0.0476 for the datasets in event analysis. In model fitting, it
varied from 0 to 0.996, with median of 0 for “natural” datasets, and 0-0.9793 with
median of 0.0618 for “ordered” data sets. λ = 0.05 was found to significantly effect the
low P/S situations, and subsequently, hydrograph structures defined by time and peak
values (especially at lower CNs). Jena and Tiwari (2002) however found λ = 0.2 most
appropriate for their study area. While describing the origin and derivation of Ia/S in the
runoff CN system, Plummer and Woodward (2002) considered  in the range (0, 0.2) and
emphasized that the refinement was a cooperative effort of hydrologists from Forest
Service (FS), ARS, and NRCS. Interestingly, while explaining the SCS-CN
proportionality concept (Eq. 2.3) using the volumetric concept of soil-water-air, Mishra
and Singh (2003c) described λ as the degree of atmospheric saturation. They also
provided a complete SCS-CN-based initial abstraction model incorporating infiltration,
interception, evaporation, and surface depression separately. For infiltration only,  =
fotp/S or tp, where fo is the initial infiltration rate, tp is the time to ponding, and  is the
infiltration decay parameter analogous to Horton (1938) infiltration decay parameter. Of
late, Michel et al. (2005) linked S and Sa (a summation of Ia and soil moisture store level
at the beginning of an event), instead of S and Ia for simplification in case of continuous
modeling.

2.8 Antecedent Moisture Condition

Normally, AMC II is taken as the base with reference to which CNs are adjusted.
It describes the watershed’s “average condition” in terms of wetness, and the
corresponding CN represents the median CN. AMC I and AMC III are defined by
respective lower and upper enveloping curves on the P-Q plot (Figure 2.5). This AMC
procedure suffers from three major weaknesses (Hope and Schulze, 1981): (1) The
relationship between AMC and antecedent rainfall holds for discrete classes, rather than
continuous (Hawkins, 1978b). (2) The use of 5-day antecedent rainfall is not based on
physical reality, but on subjective judgment. (3) Evapotranspiration (ET) and drainage
are not considered in depletion of catchment storage.

17
 AMC II

75
AMC III
AMC I

Figure 2.5. Enveloping curves by AMC on a P-Q plot for Watershed-2 near Treynor,
Iowa. (Source: Figure 5-6 at page no. 5-12, Chapter 5, Streamflow data, NEH-4, SCS,
1997)

As nothing was known on the actual field data that went into preparation of the
NEH-4 AMC table, and also the methodology adopted, the table can be seen as a
convention. Its application falls in the category of administrative hydrology, rather than
scientific hydrology, and is "true" only inside the Curve Number realm. It is to note that
early editions of NEH-4 show some variation in the AMC table from what is now
offered. This is due to the smoothing of data CNII Vs CNI, CNIII on normal-normal
probability paper and published after 1956 edition of NEH-4 (Rallison and Cronshey,
1979). Due to the incertitude of NEH-4 AMC table values, Williams and LaSeur (1976),
Hawkins (1978b), and Bales and Betson (1981) reviewed critically the issues of CN
adjustment with the watershed’s moisture status.
Bales and Betson (1981) noticed that if SCS tables were used for determining a
hydrologic-soil-cover complex number and if the wettest antecedent moisture condition
was assumed, the runoff volumes would be regularly under-predicted in the regions
represented by these data. The runoff volumes will apparently be under-predicted even
for the higher yield events, for which the CN methodology best applies. According to
Chen (1981), a drastic (discrete) change of AMC over a short period of time may cause a
serious error in CN-value and hence the estimated runoff. According to Hjelmfelt et al.
(1981), the AMC conversion table describes the 90% (AMC I), 50% (AMC II), and 10%
(AMC III) cumulative probabilities of exceedance of runoff depth for a given rainfall.
The CN variation is closely associated with antecedent precipitation, but poorly with
peak discharge (Hjelmfelt, 1982). Gray et al. (1982) assumed four AMC classes with
respect to initial infiltration capacities for each soil type, instead of three AMC classes
defined by SCS, and performed a regression analysis using average annual precipitation.
According to Ponce and Hawkins (1996), the AMC table (SCS, 1972) of NEH-4 does not
account for regional differences or scale effects and, therefore, an antecedent period
longer than 5-days might be required for large watersheds.
Besides the quality of the measured P-Q data, the accuracy of runoff prediction
largely depends on accurate estimation of the lumped parameter CN (Ponce and
Hawkins, 1996) which varies with (a) spatial and temporal variability of storm and

18
watershed characteristics and (b) antecedent rainfall and associated soil moisture.
According to Ponce and Hawkins (1996), and McCuen (2002), AMCs are assumed to be
the primary cause of the storm to storm variation of CN on any one watershed. It is noted
that a watershed would have more than one CN, indeed, a set of CNs (SCS, 1985;
Hjelmfelt, 1991). In response to the above criticisms on the procedure of AMC, the
reference to AMC was removed in CN-portion of NEH-4 (Hawkins, 1996), and
variability is incorporated by considering CN as a random variable (Hjelmfelt at al.,
2001), and, in turn, the terminology changed to “Antecedent runoff condition” or ARC,
that explains only a part of the CN- variation (Van Mullem et al., 2002). Heggen (2001)
found that the 3 parameter Normalized Antecedent Precipitation Index (NAPI) model
outperforms the one parameter (AMCII) CN model. Recently, using the 5-d antecedent
rainfall, Mishra and Singh (2002b) proposed an SCS-CN based model incorporating non-
linear continuous variation of antecedent moisture (M).
It is evident from the above that AMC is still one of the major sources of CN-
variability, and the accuracy of runoff computation largely depends on the correctness of
CN-value. Contradictorily, in many climates, a more important source of variability is
rainfall intensity and its pattern within the storm, and this cannot be accounted for by the
SCS-CN methodology. According to Smith (1997), the antecedent moisture for most
storms has a far lower variability than does the storm CN. Walker et al. (1998) used the
baseflow, rather than the antecedent rainfall, for quantifying the watershed wetness prior
to the storm event of interest. More recently, McCuen (2002) prescribed AMC limits
statistically and showed that confidence intervals can be used to assess the variation in
CN. According to Woodward et al. (2002), a number of other factors (than the ones listed
in NEH-4, viz., soil type, land use, hydrologic condition, and antecedent moisture)
affecting CN such as stage of crop growth and soil moisture also explain the individual
CN-variation with storms.
Since not much is still, not known about the SCS-CN procedure (Garen and
Moore, 2005), the results have often been either misinterpreted or the methodology has
been employed well beyond its realm of applicability. A more rational approach however
should be to adjust the soil moisture status in continuous modeling, such as in SWAT.
Ironically, such a description of the variation in CN is also not proper though it is being
widely used. In future, more efforts are required for testing the validity of 5-day
precipitation or soil moisture accounting procedure using the field data.

2.9 Storm duration

As seen from the SCS-CN formulation (Eqs. 2.12, 2.4 and 2.16), it does not
contain any expression of time. It was not incorporated perhaps largely due to non-
availability of reliable data (Cowan, 1957 in Woodward et al., 2002). While attempting to
incorporate rainfall intensity or its duration for runoff estimation, Mockus (1949)
modified the Sherman (1949) concept of plotting direct runoff versus storm runoff by
incorporating storm duration as a factor, in addition to soil type, areal extent and location,
land use, antecedent rainfall, storm rainfall depth, average annual temperature and date of
storm. Further attempts (Smith, 1978; Hawkins, 1978a In: Rallison and Miller, 1981)
proposed CN-based infiltration relationship and found CN to vary with storm intensity
and storm duration. CN decreases as storm duration increases. Thus, the rainfall intensity
or indirectly the storm duration is one of the most influencing factors to runoff

19
generation. This is, however, in contrast with the concept that the precipitation rate
affects only runoff rates, not runoff volume (Steenhuis et al., 1995). Rallison (1980)
attributed the runoff variation to varying infiltration rates at the soil surface strongly
affected by rainfall impact and, in turn, rainfall intensity. According to Bales and Betson
(1981), the peak flow rate is affected by rainfall intensity, storm yield (runoff/rainfall),
initial moisture conditions and season, as well as rainfall and runoff volume.
Introducing an additional parameter “surface detention” to produce a dynamic
equation, Chen (1981) included the time in SCS-CN procedure. For simplicity, the effect
of surface detention on infiltration was assumed to be negligibly small. During rainfall
(of uniform intensity and continuing indefinitely), the cumulative surface detention was
found to grow rapidly in the early stage and then very slowly converging to a maximum
value. It depends mainly on the roughness characteristics and the slope of the soil surface
on which rainwater moves. In general, high intensity precipitation events occur less
frequently than do low intensity events, and the duration of a high intensity event is likely
to be shorter than that of a low intensity event. Therefore, Smith (1997) proposed to
account for not only the rainfall intensity but also its pattern in the SCS-CN
methodology, for a particular storm can produce different runoff hydrographs depending
on rainfall intensity.
The above attempts led Yu (1998) to assume a probability distribution of rainfall
intensity in time and infiltration rate in space to derive the SCS-CN equation analytically.
Of late, Mishra et al. (2002) proposed an SCS-CN-based runoff rate equation coupled
with routing to generate the time distribution of runoff volume. These attempts however
need further refinement.

2.10 Source area concept

Variable Source areas or partial areas denote the areas of a watershed actually
contributing flow to the stream at any time. They expand during rainfall and contracts
thereafter around the streams (Chow et al., 1988). This concept was not considered in
SCS-CN method before 1970s. In 1973, using a large set of data from several small
western forested watersheds, Hawkins (1973) showed the existence of a strong
relationship between CN and storm rainfall. Based on the observation, he later (Hawkins,
1979) allowed CN to vary with rainfall volume on watersheds apparently exhibiting a
constant source area. In design of surface drains, Varshney et al. (1983) suggested the use
of areal correction factor in determination of runoff from the SCS-CN method. Later,
Steenhuis et al. (1995) found the SCS-CN method to be interpretable using the principles
of partial area hydrology and its efficacy to predict the contributing area. Steenhuis et al.
(1995) and Gburek et al. (2002) in their studies assumed the surface runoff to generate
from rainfall on the expanding and contracting saturated zones and CN to be considered
exclusively for these areas (In: Garen and Moore, 2005). On the other hand, Suwandono
et al. (1999) used unit hydrograph concept to generate rainfall hyetographs and runoff
hydrographs, and to estimate sediment loss from the source area using SCS-CN method.

2.11 Applications
The SCS method was originally formulated and intended for the conservative
engineering design of agricultural water management projects. Its application elsewhere
should always be accompanied by good discretion and sound engineering judgement.

20
Though curve number method originated as an empirical, event based procedure for flood
hydrology, it has been adapted and used in various models for simulating the runoff
behaviour of ordinary as well as large rainfalls and daily time series as well as events.
(Garen and Moore, 2005). It was used primarily for developing design hydrographs for
hydraulic structures and conservation works.
McCuen (1982) provided guidelines for using SCS methods for hydrologic
analysis. Heggen (1981) and Srinivas et al. (1997) illustrated relative runoff estimation by
CN Nomograph for =0.2 and =0.3/0.1 (Indian catchments) respectively. Mishra and
Singh (2003c) presented an up-to-date account of the SCS-CN method and discussed its
potential for practical applications other than those originally intended. This method was
found to be performing best in agricultural sites, fairly in range sites and poorly in forest
sites.
To describe few of the different SCS-CN applications apart from its original,
Svoboda (1991) used the CN concept to calculate the soil-water content and
subsequently, the rainfall contribution to direct runoff and ground water. Pandit and
Gopalakrishnan (1996) determined annual storm runoff coefficients (ASRCs) by a
continuous simulation technique based on the SCS-CN method. Hawkins and Ward
(1998) found distinct relationship between cover and CN. Mishra (2000) and Mishra and
Singh (2004b) developed an SCS-CN based long-term hydrologic model for simulating
daily runoff from two Indian catchments. Putty and Hareesha (2001) used this model for
piped catchments of wet mountainous region of the Western Ghats in South India to
simulate subsurface quickflow, source area runoff and delayed flow. Pandit (2002) used
the method for a continuous annual load simulation model (CALSIM) to determine
annual or average annual pollutant loads from watersheds.
Mishra et al. (2003) modified the SCS-CN method (SCS, 1956) by accounting for
the static portion of infiltration and the antecedent moisture in its basic proportionality
concept (Eq. 2.3) and found that the modified method was performed well on the same
data sets as used in the National Engineering Handbook (SCS, 1971). However, there
exists a scope for further improving the results of the modified version using infiltration
data. On a large set of rainfall-runoff data of 234 watersheds in USA, ranging from 0.01
to 310.3 km2, Mishra et al. (2004a) evaluates the modified version of the Mishra and
Singh (2002b) (MS) model which is based on the SCS-CN methodology and incorporates
the antecedent moisture in direct surface runoff computations. This modified MS model
found to be performs far better than the existing SCS-CN model. Later, Mishra et al.
(2005b) proposed a catchment area based evaluation on this modified version of the MS
model.
Mishra et al. (2005a) investigated the general SCS-CN-based Mishra and Singh
(Mishra and Singh, 1999b) model and its eight variants for their field applicability using
a large set of rainfall-runoff events, derived from a number of U.S. watersheds varying in
size from 0.3 to 30351.5 ha, grouped into five classes based on the rainfall magnitude.
The five classes of rainfall adopted for their (Mishra et al., 2005a) study were, (1)
Rainfall ≤ 12.7 mm, (2) 12.7 < Rainfall ≤ 25.4 mm, (3) 25.4 < Rainfall ≤ 38.1 mm, (4)
38.1 < Rainfall ≤ 50.8 mm, and, (5) Rainfall > 50.8 mm. Mishra et al. (2005a) concluded
that the existing SCS-CN method generally performs significantly poorer than all the
general model variants on all data sets with rainfall ≤50.8 mm, and therefore, it is
appropriate for high rainfall (>50.8 mm) data. Of late, Michel et al. (2005) adopted a

21
change of parameterization and a more complete assessment of an initial condition to
deliver a renewed the SCS-CN procedure based on continuous soil moisture accounting
procedure.
In case of special application of metal partitioning in an urban pollutant transport,
Mishra et al. (2004b) examined the partitioning of 12 metal elements, Zn, Cd, Pb, Ni,
Mn, Fe, Cr, Mg, Al, Ca, Cu, and Na, between dissolved and particulate-bound forms
using the basic proportionality concept (Eq. 2.3) of the SCS-CN method. To apply this
metal partitioning analog, Mishra et al. (2004b) postulated two parameters, the potential
maximum desorption, Ψ, and the partitioning curve number, PCN, as analogous to the
SCS-CN parameters, S and CN, respectively. Further, Mishra et al. (2004b) found that
the PCN-based ranking of metals is in general agreement with that available in the
literature. Later on, Mishra et al. (2004c) extended the above PCN-based metal
partitioning in urban snowmelt, rainfall-runoff, and river flow systems.
The joint work group of NRCS recognized three distinctly different modes of
application for CNs (Hjelmfelt et al. 2001; Van Mullem et al., 2002):
(i) Determination of runoff volume of a given return period, given total event
rainfall for that return period.
(ii) Determine direct runoff for individual events, explaining the variability from
event to event, as used in continuous simulation models.
(iii) Determine infiltration rates for short time intervals as used with unit
hydrograph development of flood hydrographs.
2.12 Long-term hydrologic simulation
Since the CN method is considered an infiltration loss model, its applicability is
restricted to modeling storm losses (Ponce and Hawkins, 1996). The method has,
however, been used in long-term hydrologic simulation and several models have been
developed in the past two decades. Few notable models among others are due to
Williams and LaSuer (1976), Huber et al. (1976), USDA (1980), Soni and Mishra (1985),
Mishra (2000), and Mishra and Singh (2004b).
The Williams and LaSuer (1976) model has only one parameter (CN), uses a one
day time interval, has simple inputs such as measured monthly runoff, daily rainfall, and
average monthly lake evaporation. But the model is in conflict with the SCS-CN concept
because of an unrealistic accounting for moisture decay with time. Later on, Hawkins
(1978b) developed a continuous soil-moisture accounting model in which the S-value
was also varied with evapotranspiration, a significant feature of the model, as it plays a
significant role in long-term hydrologic simulation. Hawkins (1978b) considers the SCS-
CN method to be based on a (Ia+S) scheme, whereas Ia is separate from S. Evaluating
most of the above models, Mishra and Singh (2003b,c; 2004b) proposed a more versatile
SCS-CN-based continuous simulation model. Later on, using the concept of Soil
Moisture Index (SMI), which is generally used in long-term hydrologic simulation for
water balance, Mishra and Singh (2004a) proposed an extension of the SCS-CN method
for computing infiltration and rainfall-excess rates.

2.13 Distributed Modeling

Distributed models are developed to represent the variability in physical
watershed characteristics. On the other hand, lumped models integrate watershed
characteristics over a given area, neglecting heterogeneity within the area resulting in

22
simplified runoff conditions. Initially, lumped models were developed and the distributed
approaches were tried later to exploit the computing power incessantly increasing over
the last two decades.
In general, distributed models involve division of the area of interest into cells
(often rectangular grids) at which basic computations are undertaken. The models raise a
number of issues including increased data requirements, effects of cell resolution on
model outputs, etc. The SCS-CN method was originally developed as spatially and
temporally lumped model for conversion of storm rainfall depth to direct runoff volume.
Its incorporation in the infiltration-capacity-equivalent form (Aron et al., 1977; Hawkins,
1978a, 1980; Chen, 1981; Mishra and Singh, 2002a,b) extends the method to the domain
of distributed modeling. Compared to the composite approach, Grove et al. (1998)
showed a 100% increase of predicted runoff volume in distributed CN approach. In an
attempt (Michand and Sorooshian, 1994; Moglen, 2000) found the simple model to
perform as accurate as a complex distributed model, provided calibration was performed.
Furthermore, the differences in simulation results due to various models could be
explained either by differences in complexity of the modeling approach or resolution of
input data (e.g. Hughes, 1994). On the other hand, Chandana and Aggarwal (2001) and
Jena and Tiwari (2002) showed the former to perform better than the latter. Moglen
(2000) also found that the orientation of landuse affects the CN-predicted runoff
significantly.
In general, the relative advantages of distributed modeling against lumped
modeling are not easily determinable, and in practice, the acceptable amount of lumping
is a function of problem scale. Semi-distributed models form a compromise between fully
distributed methodologies and lumped models. The choice ultimately depends on the
desired model output and the nature of possible management interactions (Merritt et al.,
2003). In the present age of growing computing powers, the distributed procedure may be
well coupled with the SCS-CN method on the scale of hydrological response unit (Beven,
2002).

2.14 Use of Remote Sensing Data

Remote Sensing (RS) helps in acquisition of data in different aspects of landuse
and soil cover, essential for runoff estimation using SCS-CN methodology. Though the
runoff cannot be directly measured by remote sensing techniques, there are two general
areas where remote sensing can be used in hydrologic and runoff modeling: (1)
determining watershed geometry, drainage network, and other map-type information; and
(2) providing input data such as soil moisture or delineated land use classes that are used
to define runoff coefficients. Landuse is an important characteristic of runoff process that
affects infiltration, erosion, and evapotranspiration. Most of the work on adapting RS to
hydrologic modeling has involved the SCS-CN model, for which RS data are used as a
substitute for land cover maps obtained by conventional measures, such as those
described by Nagaraj et al. (2002) among others.
Ragan and Jackson (1975, 1980), Jackson et al. (1977), Slack and Welch (1980)
assert that Landsat-based information provides similar or better results than traditional
methods, for landcover analysis. Further, Slack and Welch (1980), and Still and Shils
(1985) recommended the use of Landsat digital data to determine landuse and landcover.
Kumar et al. (1991) used IRS-1A LISS II digital database for establishing CN-values. An

23
improved landuse/landcover database benefits the runoff estimation or forecasting, if
watershed response is calculated separately from each landuse/landcover classification.
‘Landsat’ approach is cost effective, especially for larger basins or for multiple basins in
the same general hydrological area. Ragan and Jackson (1980) have shown that landuse
or vegetation data for the SCS-CN method can be obtained using remotely sensed data,
which can greatly reduce the cost of data collection.
A few investigators utilized the aerial photographs and satellite data along with
others to estimate the CNs (e.g. Ragan and Jackson 1980; Slack and Welch 1980; Hill et
al. 1987; Tiwari et al. 1991; Roberto Colombo and Sarfatti 1995; Rao et al. 1996; Sharma
et al. 2001; Pandey and Sahu 2002). Due to being in pixel format, remote sensing data
can be easily merged with the geomorphological Information System (GIS), which
enhances the possibility of data integration, synthesis and analysis. Although accuracy
associated with practical use of RS data varies, the applicability of remotely sensed data
is not limited by the degree of accuracy (Rango et al. 1983).

2.15 Coupling of RS and GIS

GIS is defined by the National Science Foundation as a computerized database
management system used for capture, storage, retrieval, analysis and display of spatial
data. The technology can be used to overlay and combine data into a single computerized
map that can summarize geographic, cultural, and scientific land attribute. The use of RS
technology involves large amount of spatial data management and requires an efficient
system to handle such data. GIS provides suitable alternatives for efficient management
of large and complex databases. It plays a vital role in water resources planning and
management (Leipnik et al. 2001; Xu et al. 2001). Integration of GIS and RS in
hydrological modeling can enhance the quality of the hydrological models (Greene and
Cruise, 1995; Turcotte et al., 2001). It is capable of handling spatial and aspatial data
when compared to conventional information system.
In their studies, Mohd and Mansor (1999), Sharma and Dubey (2001), Nagaraj et
al. (2002), Jena and Tiwari (2002) found the GIS derived SCS-CN results to be agreeable
and preferable to those due to conventional methods. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has
made a first step towards the integration of spatially distributed data for the runoff
computation utilizing the GIS technique and distributing the basin into number of square
cells. In this approach, soil and landuse information derived using these techniques for
each cell provides a better method for the rainfall- excess computation.
Most of the works overlay the landuse and Hydrological Soil Group (HSG) maps,
label the CN’s to each polygon, and take area-weighted CN’s to describe the behaviour of
a hydrologic basin (Merzi and Aktas, 2000; Pal and Agarwal, 2000; Chakraborty et al.,
2001; Durbude et al., 2001; Chatterjee et al., 2001; Debnath and Seethapathi, 2001; Malik
and Sidhpuria, 2001; Halley et al., 2002; Suresh Babu et al., 2002). Pandit et al. (1999)
added the slope information with the aid of GIS to modify the potential maximum
retention (S) of water in soil in the SCS-CN method. Sharma and Dubey (2001) used
rational formula and SCS-CN model to account for the land slope besides land cover and
soil characteristics. Rao et al. (2001) estimated the runoff by SCS Synthetic Unit
Hydrograph (SUH) using RS and GIS Techniques. Chakraborty et al. (2001) adopted
SCS-CN method for each cell to estimate soil erosion. Tripathi et al. (2002) developed an
empirical model using multiple regression for runoff estimation based on

24
geomorphological parameters of the watershed including CN as one of the parameter.
Halley et al. (2002) developed an ArcView GIS extension for estimating CNs based on
landuse and HSG maps.

2.16 ADVANTAGES AND LIMITATIONS

The advantages of this method are (Bales and Betson, 1981; Ponce and Hawkins,
1996; Beven, 2002):
 It is a simple, predictable, and stable conceptual method.
 Its calculations are straightforward and intuitively logical.
 It relies on only one parameter (CN).
 The required input is generally available.
 The technique may be applied to ungauged basins.
 Methodology is well established and accepted.
 It is the only agency methodology that features readily grasped and reasonably
well-documented environmental inputs (soil, landuse/treatment, surface
condition, and AMC).
 The method is featured in most of the hydrologic computer models in current
use.
 Its responsiveness to major runoff-producing watershed properties (soil,
landuse/ treatment, surface condition, and AMC).
 The method does best in agricultural sites, for which it was originally
intended, and extended to urban sites.
 It provides a relatively easy way to update the model with the application of
remote sensing and Geographic Information System (GIS).
 As the method was formulated on the basis of small catchment measurements,
not on the point scale measurement, it is likely to be revisited in the future,
due to the booming of point scale process.

Chen (1981), Bales and Betson (1981), Ponce and Hawkins (1996), Willeke
(1997), Smith (1997), and Mani et al. (2002) reviewed the SCS-CN method for its
limitations as follows:
 The success of the SCS method is mainly limited by the watershed size and to
a lesser extent by the magnitude of runoff events. Actual distributions of the
rainfall and infiltration rates would indicate whether or not the SCS method is
appropriate for the watershed in question (Yu 1998).
 In the absence of clear guidelines, it is assumed to apply to small and mid-size
catchments. Its application to large catchments (say > 100 sq.mi. or 250
sq.km.) should be viewed with caution.
 It was never intended to match individual storms. In other words, it was
supposed to predict an average trend, and not the response of individual
storms, which could deviate from the average trend)
 In many climates, a more important source of variability is the rainfall
intensity and its pattern within the storm, and this can’t be accounted for by
the CN methodology.

25
  CN derived for a watershed will inherently reflect the particular storms for
which it was fitted, e.g. annual series.
 The method is not intended for continuous simulation; rather, only an event-
by-event basis.
 Its applicability is restricted to modeling storm losses. Barring appropriate
modifications, the method should not be used to model the long-term
hydrologic response of a catchment.
 It was not supposed to account for indirect runoff (interflow and groundwater
flow); only direct runoff.
 The range of return periods of the annual floods used to develop the tabulated
CN values is not known. The size of event (either rainfall or runoff) to which
methodology is well suited is also not known.
 Saturation overland flow was the most likely runoff mechanism to be
simulated by the method, and not necessarily Hortonian overland flow or
crusting.
 Since the method was originally developed using regional data, some caution
is recommended for its use in other geographic or climatic regions.
 A lack of clear guidance on how to vary antecedent condition. The method
may be very sensitive to CN and antecedent conditions, for lower CNs and/or
rainfall depths. The discrete relation between CN and AMC, which is not
realistic.
 The method performs differently on different landuses, and therefore, has
varying accuracy for different biomes.
 The fixing of the initial abstraction ratio at λ=0.2, preempting a
regionalization based on geologic and climatic setting.

REFERENCES
1. Andrews, R.G. (1954). “The use of relative infiltration indices in computing runoff
(unpublished).” Soil conservation service, Fort Worth, Texas, 6 pp.
2. Aron, G., Miller, A.C.Jr., and Lakatos, D.F. (1977). "Infiltration formula based on
SCS curve number." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 103 (IR4),
419-427.
3. Bales, J. and R.P. Betson. (1981). “The curve number as a hydrologic index”. Proc.,
Int. Symp. on Rainfall – Runoff modeling, edited by V.P. Singh, Water Resources
Publications, Littleton, Colorado, 371-386.
4. Beven, K.J. (2002). “Rainfall-runoff modeling: The Primer.” John Wiley and Sons
Ltd., England, 360pp.
5. Bhunya, P.K., and Mishra, S.K., Ojha, C.S.P., Ronny Berndtsson. (2002).
“Confidence interval estimation for curve numbers”. Proceedings of International
Conference on “Hydrology and Watershed Management”, Vol-I, 18-20th Dec, 2002,
by Centre for Water Resources, Institute of Postgraduate Studies & Research,
JNTU, Hyderabad, A.P., India, 162-168.
6. Bhunya, P.K., Mishra, S.K., and Berndtsson, R. (2003). "Discussion of "Approach
to confidence interval estimation for curve numbers" by McCuen, R.H." Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, 8 (4), 232-235.

26
7. Bondelid, T.R., McCuen, R.H., and Jackson, T.J. (1982). "Sensitivity of SCS
models to curve number variation." Water Resources Bulletin, American Water
Resources Association, 18 (1), 111-116.
8. Bonta, J.V. (1997). "Determination of watershed curve number using derived
distributions." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 123 (1), 28-36.
9. Bosznay, M. (1989). “Generalization of SCS curve number method.” Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 115(1), 139-144.
10. Cazier, D.J., and Hawkins, R.H. (1984). “Regional application of the curve number
method.” Water Today and Tomorrow. Proc. ASCE Irrigation and Drainage
Division Special Conference, ASCE, New York, N.Y., 710.
11. Central Unit for Soil Conservation (Hydrology and Sedimentation). (1972).
“Handbook of Hydrology.” Soil Conservation Division, Ministry of Agriculture,
Govt. of India.
12. Chakraborty, D., Chandrasekharan, H., Dutta, D. (2001). “Remote sensing and GIS
applications in spatial modeling for hydrological response behaviour of a watershed
in Western Rajasthan”. Workshop on Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in
Water Resources Engineering, 29-31 August 2001, Lucknow, 65-75.
13. Chandana, G., and Aggarwal, S.P. (2001). "Hydrological Modeling Using Remote
Sensing And GIS." Paper presented at the 22nd Asian Conference on Remote
Sensing, 5 - 9 November 2001, Singapore, Singapore, 1-6.
14. Chatterjee, C., Rakesh Kumar, Lohani, A.K, Jha, R., Jaiswal, R.K. (2001). “Runoff
estimation using remote sensing and GIS based SCS method”. Workshop on
Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Water Resources Engineering, 29-31
August 2001, Lucknow, 1-7.
15. Chen, C.-L. (1981). “An evaluation of the mathematics and physical significance of
the soil conservation service curve number procedure for estimating runoff
volume”. Proc., Int. Symp. on Rainfall – Runoff modeling, edited by V.P. Singh,
Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, 387-418.
16. Chow, V.T., D.R. Maidment, and L.W. Mays (1988). “Applied Hydrology.”
McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, N.Y., 572pp.
17. Cowan, W.L. (1957). “Personal communication.” Letter to H.O. Ogrosky, dated
October 15, 1957, 7pp.
18. Debnath, A.C., Seethapathi, P.V. (2001). “Morphological study of GAI river”.
Workshop on Remote Sensing and GIS Applications in Water Resources
Engineering, 29-31 August 2001, Lucknow, 14-25.
19. Durbude, D.G., Purandara, B.K., Sharma, A. (2001). “Estimation of surface runoff
potential of a watershed in semi-aid environment – a case study”. Journal of the
Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 29(122), 47 – 58.
20. Garen, D., and Moore, D.S. (2005). "Curve number hydrology in water quality
modeling: uses, abuses, and future directions." Journal of the American Water
Resources Association, 41 (2), 377-388.
21. Gburek, W.J., Drungil, C.C., Srinivasan, M.S., Needleman, B.A., and Woodward,
D.E. (2002). “Variable-Source area controls on Phosphorus transport: Bridging the
gap between research and design. Jr. of Soil and Water Conservation, 57 (6), 534-
543.

27
22. Golding, B.L. (1979). "Discussion of "Runoff curve number with varying site
moisture" by Hawkins, R.H." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE,
105 (IR4), 441-442.
23. Golding, B.L. (1997). "Discussion of "Runoff curve number: Has it reached
maturity?" by Ponce,V.M., and Hawkins, R.H." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
2 (3), 145-148.
24. Gray, D., Katz, P.G., DeMonsabert, S.M., and Cogo, N.P. (1982). “Antecedent
Moisture Condition Probabilities.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division,
ASCE 108(IR2), 107-114.
25. Greene, R.G., and Cruise, J.F. (1995). “Watershed modeling using GIS.” Journal of
Water Resources Planning and Management, 121(4), 318-325.
26. Grove, M., Harbor, J., and Engel, B. (1998). “Composite vs. distributed curve
numbers: effects on estimates of storm runoff depths.” Journal of American Water
Resources Association, 34, 1015-1023.
27. Halley M.C.P.E., White, S.O., and Watkins E.W.P.E. (2002). “ArcView GIS
extension for estimating curve numbers”. From website:
www.esri.com/library/userconf/proc00/professional/papers/PAP657/p657.htm.
Accessed in February 2002.
28. Hawkins, R.H. (1973). “Improved prediction of storm runoff in mountain
watersheds.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 99(IR4), 519-523.
29. Hawkins, R.H. (1975). “The importance of accurate curve numbers in the estimation
of storm runoff.” Water Resources Bulletin, 11(5), 887-891.
30. Hawkins, R.H. (1978a). “Effects of rainfall intensity on runoff curve numbers.”
Utah Agric. Exp. Stn., Journal 2288.
31. Hawkins, R.H. (1978b). “Runoff curve number with varying site moisture.” Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 104(4), 389-398.
32. Hawkins, R.H. (1979). "Runoff curve numbers from partial area watersheds."
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE, 105 (IR4), 375-389.
33. Hawkins, R.H. (1980). "Infiltration and curve numbers: Some pragmatic and
theoretic relationships." Symposium on "Watershed Management", ASCE, Boios,
Idahs, July 1980, 925-937.
34. Hawkins, R.H. (1981). "Discussion of "Empirical Investigation of Curve Number
Technique" by Hjelmfelt, A.T. Jr." Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 107
(HY7), 953-954.
35. Hawkins, R.H. (1984). "A comparison of predicted and observed runoff curve
numbers." Replogle, J., and Renard, K.G. (Eds), Water Today and Tomorrow,
Proceedings of the Specialty Conference Sponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage
Division of ASCE, Arizona, ASCE, NY, 702-709.
36. Hawkins, R.H. (1993). "Asymptotic determination of runoff curve numbers from
data." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 119 (2), 334-345.
37. Hawkins, R.H. (1996). "Discussion of "SCS runoff equation revisited for variable-
source runoff areas" by Steenhuis, T.S., Winchell, M., Rossing, J., Zollweg, J.A.,
and Walter, M.F." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 122 (5), 319-320.
38. Hawkins, R.H. (2001). "Discussion of "Another look at SCS-CN method" by S.K.
Mishra and V.P. Singh." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 6 (5), 451.

28
39. Hawkins, R.H. (2005). “Personal Communications on SCS-CN model.” Received
via email in 2005.
40. Hawkins, R.H., A.T. Jr. Hjelmfelt, and A.W. Zevenbergen (1985). “Runoff
probability, storm depth and curve numbers.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, ASCE, 111(4), 330-340.
41. Hawkins, R.H., and Cate, A.J. (1998). "Secondary influences in curve number
rainfall-runoff." A Presentation to Amer. Soc. Civ. Engineers, Memphis, TN.
42. Hawkins, R.H., and Khojeini, A.V. (2000). “Initial abstraction and loss in the curve
number method.” Arizona Hydrological Society Proceedings, 1-2.
43. Hawkins, R.H., and Ward, T.J. (1998). "Site and cover effects on event runoff,
Jornada experimental range, New Mexico." Rangeland Management and Water
Resources, Proceedings from American Water Resources Association (AWRA),
Reno, NV, 361-370.
44. Hawkins, R.H., Jiang, R., Woodward, D.E., Hjelmfelt, A.T.Jr., and VanMullem,
J.E. (2002). "Runoff Curve number method: Examination of the initial abstraction
ratio." Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las Vegas,
NV, 1-12.
45. Heggen, R.J. (1981). "Relative runoff by curve number nomograph." Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Division, ASCE., 107 (IR4), 385-388.
46. Heggen, R.J. (2001). "Normalized antecedent precipitation index." Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, 6 (5), 377-381.
47. Hill, J.M., Singh, V.P., and Aminian, H. (1987). “A computerized data base for
flood prediction modeling.” Water Resources Bulletin, AWRA, 23, 21-27.
48. Hjelmfelt, A.T. Jr. (1980). "Empirical investigation of curve number technique."
Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 106 (HY9), 1471-1476.
49. Hjelmfelt, A.T. Jr. (1982). “Closure to "Empirical Investigation of Curve Number
Technique" By Hjelmfelt, A.T. Jr.” Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE
108(HY4), 614-616.
50. Hjelmfelt, A.T. Jr. (1991). "Investigation of curve number procedure." Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering, 117 (6), 725-737.
51. Hjelmfelt, A.T. Jr., Kramer, L.A., and Burwell, R.E. (1981). “Curve number as
random variable.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Rainfall – Runoff modeling, edited by V.P.
Singh, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, 365-370.
52. Hjelmfelt, A.T., Woodward, D.A., Conaway, G., Quan, Q.D., Van Mullem, J.A.,
and Hawkins, R.H. (2001). “Curve numbers, recent development.” IAHR, 29th
IAHR Congress Proceedings, Beijing, China, 285-291.
53. Hope, A.S. and Schulze, R.E. (1981). “Improved estimates of storm flow volume
using the SCS-CN method.” Proc., Int. Symp. on Rainfall – Runoff modeling, edited
by V.P. Singh, Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, 419-428.
54. Horton, R.I. (1938),’The interpretation and application of runoff plot experiments
with reference to soil erosion problems,’ Proc., Soil Science Society of America, 3,
pp. 340-349.
55. Huber, W.C., Heaney, J.P., Bedient, B.P., and Bender, J.P. (1976). “Environmental
Resources Management Studies in the Kissimmee River Basin.” Report ENV-05-6-
3, Department of Environmental Engineering and Science, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.

29
56. Hughes, D. A. (1994). ‘‘Soil moisture and runoff simulations using four catchment
rainfall-runoff models.’’ J. Hydro., Amsterdam, 158, 381–404.
57. Jackson, T.J., Ragan, R.M., and Fitch, W.N. (1977). “Test of Landsat based
hydrologic modeling.” Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
ASCE, Vol. 103, WR1, 141-158.
58. Jain, M.K., Seth, S.M. (1997). “Rainfall runoff modeling of a Himalayan Catchment
using of Distributed Approach”. IE (I) Journal –CV, Vol. 78, August 1997, 89-92.
59. Jena, S.K., and Tiwari, K.N. (2002). “Runoff estimation using distributed curve
number technique: A remote sensing and GIS approach.” Proceedings of
International Conference on “Hydrology and Watershed Management”, Vol-II, 18-
20th Dec, 2002, by Centre for Water Resources, Institute of Postgraduate Studies &
Research, JNTU, Hyderabad, A.P., India, 456-465.
60. Knisel, W.G. (2005). “Personel Communication on CREAMS model
documentation.” Received via email on 19th October 2005, p.2.
61. Knisel, W.G., and F.M. Davis. (2000). “GLEAMS: Groundwater Loading Effects of
Agricultural Management Systems.” User manual, version 3.0, Publication No.
SEWRL-WGK/FMD-050199, 191 pp.
62. Kumar, P., Tiwari, K.N., and Pal, D.K. (1991). “Establishing SCS runoff curve
number from IRS digital data base.” Journal of the Indian Society of Remote
Sensing, 19(4), 245-351.
63. Leipnik, M.R., Kemp, K.K., and Loaiuga, H.A. (2001). “Implementing of GIS for
water resources planning and management.” Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management, ASCE, 119(2), 1-13.
64. Maidment, D.R. (1993). “Handbook of Hydrology.” McGraw-Hill Inc., New York.
65. Malik, R.K., Sidhpuria, M.S. (2001). “Remote Sensing and GIS applications in run-
off estimation from watersheds: An overview”. Workshop on Remote Sensing and
GIS Applications in Water Resources Engineering, 29-31 August 2001, Lucknow,
43-46.
66. Mani, D., Gosain, A.K., Subash Chander. (2002). “A semi distributed catchment
yield model for water resources management”. Proceedings of International
Conference on “Hydrology and Watershed Management”, Vol-I, 18-20th Dec, 2002,
by Centre for Water Resources, Institute of Postgraduate Studies & Research,
JNTU, Hyderabad, A.P., India, 546-555.
67. McCuen, R.H. (1982). “A guide to hydrologic analysis using SCS methods.”
Prentice-Hall Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 145pp.
68. McCuen, R.H. (2002). "Approach to confidence interval estimation for curve
numbers." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 7 (1), 43-48.
69. Merritt, W.S., Letcher, R.A., and Jakeman, A.J. (2003). “A review of erosion and
sediment transport models.” Environmental Modelling and Software, 18, 761-799.
70. Merzi, N., and Aktas, T. M. (2000). “Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for the
Determination of Inundation Maps of Lake Mogan, Turkey”. International Water
Resources Association, Water International, 25(3), 474 – 480.
71. Michaud, J., and Sorooshian, S. (1994). “Comparison of simple versus complex
distributed models on a midsized semiarid watershed.” Water Resources Research,
30(3), 593-605.

30
72. Michel, C., Andreassian, V., and Perrin, C. (2005). “Soil conservation service curve
number method: How to mend a wrong soil moisture accounting procedure?” Water
Resources Research, 41(2), W02011, doi: 10.1029/2004WR003191, 1-6.
73. Mishra, S.K. (2000). “A modified SCS-CN based hydrologic model.” Tech. Rep.
(BR) 2/1999-2000, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, UP, India, 51pp.
74. Mishra, S.K. and V.P. Singh. (2004a), ’Validity and extension of the SCS-CN
method for computing infiltration and rainfall-excess rates,’ J. Hydrological
Processes, Vol. 18, No. 17, pp: 3323-3345.
75. Mishra, S.K., and V.P. Singh. (2004b), ’Long term hydrologic simulation based on
the soil conservation service curve number,’ J. Hydrological Processes, 18(7), 1291-
1313.
76. Mishra, S.K. and V.P. Singh (2001), Closure by authors of the discussion on
‘Another look at the SCS-CN method,’ J. Hydrologic. Engrg., ASCE, Sept-Oct, pp.
451-452.
77. Mishra, S.K. and V.P. Singh (2002a),’SCS-CN method: Part-I: Derivation of SCS-
CN based models,’ Acta Geophysica Polonica, Vol. 50, No. 3, 457-477.
78. Mishra, S.K., and V.P. Singh (2002b). “SCS-CN-based hydrologic simulation
package.” In Mathematical Models in Small Watershed Hydrology and Application,
Singh, V.P., and Frevert, D.K. (eds), Water Resources Publication, Littleton, CO,
391-464.
79. Mishra, S.K. and V.P. Singh (2003a),’Derivation of SCS-CN parameter S from
linear Fokker-Planck equation’, J. Acta Geophysica Polonica, Vol. 51, No. 2, 180-
202.
80. Mishra, S.K. and V.P. Singh (2003b),’ SCS-CN method Part-II: Analytical
treatment,’ Acta Geophysica Polonica, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 107-123.
81. Mishra, S.K., and V.P. Singh (2003c). “Soil conservation service curve number
(SCS-CN) methodology.” Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The
Netherlands, ISBN 1-4020-1132-6, 513pp.
82. Mishra, S.K., and Dwivedi, A.K. (1998). “Determination of curve numbers for a
watershed”. 9th Nat. Symp. on Hydrology, Indian National Committee on
Hydrology (INCOH), Amritsar, India, Nov., 26-27.
83. Mishra, S.K., and Singh, V.P. (1999a). “Behavior of SCS-CN method in C-1*-λ
spectrums.” Proc., ‘Hydrologic Modeling’, Int. Conf. on Water, Environment,
Ecology, Socio-economics and Health Engineering, Seoul Nat. Uni., Korea, October
18-21, 112-117.
84. Mishra, S.K., and Singh, V.P. (1999b). “Another look at SCS-CN method”. Journal
of Hydrologic Engineering, 4(3), 257-264.
85. Mishra, S.K., Jain, M.K., and V.P. Singh (2004a). "Evaluation of the SCS-CN based
model incorporating antecedent moisture." J. Water Resources Management
(WARM), 18(6), 567-589.
86. Mishra, S.K., J.J. Sansalone, and V.P. Singh (2004b),’Partitioning analog for metal
elements in urban rainfall-runoff overland flow using the Soil Conservation Service
curve number concept,’ J. Environmental Engg., ASCE, Vol. 130, No. 2, Feb., pp.
145-154.
87. Mishra, S.K., J.J. Sansalone, D.W. Glenn III, and V.P. Singh (2004c),’PCN-based
metal partitioning in urban snowmelt, rainfall-runoff, and river flow systems,’ J.

31
 American Water Resources Association (AWRA), Vol. 40, No. 5, 1315-1337.
88. Mishra, S.K., Jain, M.K., Bhunya, P.K., and Singh, V.P. (2005a). "Field
applicability of the SCS-CN-based Mishra-Singh general model and its variants."
Water Resources Management, 19(1), 37-62.
89. Mishra, S.K., Jain, M.K., Pandey, R.P., and Singh, V.P. (2005b). "Catchment area-
based evaluation of the AMC-dependent SCS-CN-based rainfall-runoff models."
Hydrological Processes, 19(14), 2701-2718.
90. Mishra, S.K., Jain, M.K., Suresh Babu, P., and Venugopal, K. (Unpublished, 2005).
“Comparison of AMC-dependent CN-conversion formulae.” Under Re-Review of
Jr. of Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE, Manuscript No.: HE/2003/022732, 24p.
91. Mishra, S.K., Singh, V.P., Aravamuthan, V., Sansalone, J.J., and Ojha, C.S.P.
(2002). "An SCS-CN-Based time distribution runoff model." Water and Energy
International, 59 (2), 34-51.
92. Mishra, S.K., V.P. Singh, J.J. Sansalone, and V. Aravamuthan (2003),’A modified
SCS-CN method: Characterization and testing,’ J. Water Resources Management
(WARM), Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 37-68.
93. Mishra, S.K., Jain, M.K., Suresh Babu, P., and Venugopal, K. (Under review).
“Comparison of AMC-dependent CN-conversion formulae.” Under Re-Review of J.
Hydrologic Engineering, ASCE, Manuscript No.: HE/2003/022732, 24p.
94. Mockus, V. (1949). “Estimation of total (and peak rates of) surface runoff for
individual storms.” Exhibit A in Appendix B, Interim Survey Report Grand
(Neosho) River Watershed, USDA, December 1.
95. Moglen, G.E. (2000). "Effect of orientation of spatially distributed curve numbers in
runoff calculations." Journal of the American Water Resources Association
(JAWRA), 36 (6), 1391-1400.
96. Mohd, M.I.S., and Mansor, M.A. (1999). “Flood prediction from LANDSAT
Thematic Mapper data and hydrological modeling”. ACRS 1999, Water Resources,
Website: www.GISdevelopment.net.
97. Muttharam, M., Krishnaveni, M., and Karmegam, M. (1997). “Quantification of
Curve Number Parameters.” Journal of Applied Hydrology 10(1 & 2), 1-7.
98. Nagaraj, M.K., Yaragal, S.C., and Rajasekhar, G. (2002). “Runoff estimation using
GIS techniques”. Proceedings of International Conference on “Hydrology and
Watershed Management”, Vol-II, 18-20th Dec, 2002, by Centre for Water
Resources, Institute of Postgraduate Studies & Research, JNTU, Hyderabad, A.P.,
India, 466-473.
99. Neitsch, S.L., Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J.R., Williams, J.R., King, K.W. (2002). “Soil
and water Assessment Tool (SWAT): Theoretical Documentation, Version 2000.”
Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station, Texas, TWRI Report TR-191.
100. Pal, D.J., Agrawal, S.P. (1999). “Rainfall-runoff modeling on Bata Watershed using
GIS techniques”. Int. Conf. On Geoinformatics for Natural Resource Assessment,
Monitoring and Management, 9-11 March, 1999, IIRS, Dehradun, India, 197-202.
101. Pandey, A., and Sahu, A.K. (2002). “Estimation of runoff using remote sensing and
geographic information system”. Proceedings of International Conference on
“Hydrology and Watershed Management”, Vol-II, 18-20th Dec, 2002, by Centre for
Water Resources, Institute of Postgraduate Studies & Research, JNTU, Hyderabad,
A.P., India, 503-509.

32
102. Pandit, A. (2002). “CALSM: Continuous annual load simulation model.”
Mathematical models in small watershed hydrology and applications. Edited by
Singh, V.P., and Frevert, D.K., Water Resources Publication, Littleton, CO, 883-
906.
103. Pandit, A., and Gopalakrishnan, G. (1996). “Estimation of annual storm runoff
coefficients by continuous simulation.” Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering, 122 (4), 211-220.
104. Pandit, D.S., Srinivasan, D.S., and Krishnamurthy, Y.V.N. (1999). “A semi
automoted software package for Value added Rainfall-Runoff analysis – VARUN”.
Proceedings of ISRS National Symposium on Remote Sensing Applications for
Natural Resources Retrospective & perspective, Jan. 19-21, 1999, Bangalore, a joint
publication of Indian Society of Remote Sensing (ISRS) & National Natural
Resource Management System (NNRMS), 397-400.
105. Philip, J.R. (1974). ‘Recent progress in the solution of nonlinear diffusion
equations.’ Soil Sci., 117, 257-264.
106. Pilgrim, D.H., and Cordery, I. (1993). “Flood runoff”. Handbook of Hydrology,
D.R. Maidment, ed., Chap. 9, McGraw-Hill Inc., New York, 41.
107. Plummer, A., and Woodward, D.E. (2002). “The origin and derivation of Ia/S in the
runoff curve number system.” From website: http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/water/
quality/common/techpapers/curve.html. Accessed in October 2002.
108. Ponce, V.M., and Hawkins, R.H. (1996). "Runoff curve number: Has it reached
maturity?" Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 1 (1), 11-19.
109. Price, M. (1998). “Seasonal variation in runoff curve numbers.” MS Thesis,
Watershed Management, University of Arizona. 189pp.
110. Putty, M., and Hareesha, K.T. (2001). "A watershed model using curve number
expression for piped catchments." International Conference on Civil Engineering,
Bangalore, Interline Publishing, 632-640.
111. Ragan, R.M., and Jackson, T.J. (1975). “Use of satellite data in urban hydrologic
model.” Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 101(HY12), 1469-1475.
112. Ragan, R.M., and Jackson, T.J. (1980). “Runoff synthesis using Landsat and the
SCS model.” Journal of Hydraulic Division, ASCE, 106(HY5), 667-678.
113. Rallison, R.E. (1980). "Origin and evolution of the SCS runoff equation."
Symposium on "Watershed Management", ASCE, Boios, Idahs, July 1980, 912-924.
114. Rallison, R.E., and Cronshey, R.C. (1979). "Discussion of "Runoff curve number
with varying site moisture" by Hawkins, R.H." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Division, ASCE, 105 (IR4), 439-441.
115. Rallison, R.E., and Miller, N. (1981). “Past, Present, and Future SCS runoff
procedure”, Proc., Int. Symp. on Rainfall – Runoff modeling, edited by V.P. Singh,
Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, 353 – 364.
116. Ramasastri, K.S., and Seth, S.M. (1985). “Rainfall-Runoff relationships.” Rep. RN
– 20, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, UP, India.
117. Rango, A., Feldman, A., George III, T.S., and Ragan, R.M. (1983). “Effective use
of Landsat data in hydrological models.” Water Resources Bulletin, AWRA, 19(2),
165-174.

33
118. Rao, K.V., Bhattacharya, A.K., and Mishra, K. (1996). “Runoff estimation by curve
number method – Case studies.” Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 40,
1-7.
119. Rao, S.Y.R., Sudheer, K.P., Jayakanthan, V.S., Ramasastri, K.S. (2001). “Potential
use of Remote Sensing and GIS Techniques for Estimation of Flood in Ungauged
Catchment”. Spatial Information Technology -RS & GIS, ICORG, Vol. II - Edited
by I.V. Muralikrishna. B.S.Publication, 525-531.
120. Rietz, P.D., and Hawkins, R.H. (2000). "Effects of landuse on runoff curve
number." Watershed Management 2000, ASCE, Proceedings Watershed
Management Symposium, Fort Collins CO., (CD ROM), 11p.
121. Roberto Colombo and Sarfatti, P.(1995). “Hydrological analysis of two sub-
catchments of the Mareb River (Eritrea)”. Proceedings of the International
Workshop on Remote Sensing and Water Resources, held at Montpellier, France, 30
Nov-1 Dec, 1995, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, From
website: http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7320B/w7320b22.htm.
122. Schneider, L.E., and McCuen, R.H. (2005). "Statistical guidelines for curve number
generation." Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 131 (3), 282-290.
123. Schroeder, P. R., Dozier, T.S., Zappi, P. A., McEnroe, B. M., Sjostrom, J.W., and
Peyton, R. L. (1994). "The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP)
Model: Engineering Documentation for Version 3," EPA/600/R-94/168b,
September 1994, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
124. SCS. (1954, 1956, 1964, 1965, 1971, 1972, 1985, 1986, 1993, 1997). 'Hydrology',
National Engineering Handbook, Supplement A, Section 4, Chapter 10, Soil
Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
125. Sharma, D.C., and Dubey, O.P. (2001). “Remote sensing application to study the
effect of land cover on stream flow”. Workshop on Remote Sensing and GIS
Applications in Water Resources Engineering, 29-31 August 2001, Lucknow, 79-
87.
126. Sharma, T., Satya Kiran, P.V., Singh, T.P., Trivedi, A.V., and Navalgund, R.R.
(2001). “Hydrologic response of a watershed to landuse changes: A remote sensing
and GIS approach.” International Journal of Remote Sensing, 22(11), 2095-2108.
127. Sherman, L.K. (1942). “Hydrographs of runoff.” In Physics of the Earth, IX,
Hydrology, O.E. Menizer Ed., McGraw Hill, New York, N.Y.
128. Sherman, L.K. (1949). “The unit hydrograph method.” In Physics of the Earth, O.E.
Menizer Ed., Dover Publications, Inc., New York, N.Y., 514-525.
129. Simanton, J.R., Hawkins, R.H., Mohseni-Saravi, M., and Renard, K.G. (1996).
"Runoff curve number variation with drainage area, Walnut Gulch, Arizona." Soil
and Water Division, Transactions of the ASAE, 39 (4), 1391-1394.
130. Slack, R.B., and Welch, R. (1980). “Soil conservation service runoff curve number
estimates from Landsat data”. Water Resources Bulletin, AWRA, 16(5), 887-893.
131. Smith, R. E., and J. R. Williams. (1980). Simulation of surface water hydrology. In:
W. G. Knisel (ed.), CREAMS: A Field-Scale model for Chemicals, Runoff, and
Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems, U. S. Department of Agriculture,
Science and Education Administration, Conservation Research Report No. 26, Vol.
I, Chapter 2. pp. 13-35.

34
132. Smith, R.E. (1978). “A proposed infiltration model for use in simulation of field-
scale watershed hydrology.” Presented at U.S. Dep. Agric. Agric. Res. Serv.
Nonpoint Pollution Modeling Workshop.
133. Smith, R.E. (1997). "Discussion of "Runoff curve number: Has it reached
maturity?" by Ponce, V.M., and Hawkins, R.H." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
2 (3), 145-148.
134. Smith, R.E., and R.J. Montgomery. (1980). ‘Discussion on ‘Runoff curve numbers
from partial area watersheds’ by Hawkins, R.H.’ Jr. of Irrigation and Drainage
Division, IR4, 379-381.
135. Sobhani, G. (1975). “A review of selected small watershed design methods for
possible adoption to Iranian conditions.” M.S. Thesis, Utah State University,
Logan, Utah.
136. Soni, B., and Mishra, G.C. (1985). “Soil Water Accounting using SCS Hydrologic
Soil Classification.” Case Study, National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee (India).
137. Springer, E.P., McGurk, B.J., Hawkins, R.H., and Coltharp, G.B. (1980). "Curve
numbers from watershed data." Symposium on "Watershed Management", ASCE,
Boios, Idahs, 938-950.
138. Srinivas, D., Prasad, V.S., and Narasimham, M.L. (1997). "Relative runoff - curve
number nomographs for Indian catchments." Journal of Applied Hydrology, 10 (1 &
2), 17-20.
139. Steenhuis, T.S., Winchell, M., Rossing, J., Zollweg, J.A., and Walter, M.F. (1995).
"SCS runoff equation revisited for variable-source runoff areas." Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 121 (3), 234-238.
140. Still, D.A., and Shils, S.F. (1985). “Using Landsat data to classify landuse for
assessing the basinwide runoff index.” Water Resources Bulletin, AWRA, 21(6),
931-940.
141. Suresh Babu, P., Muralidharan, C., and Venugopal, K. (2002). Proceedings of
International Conference on “Hydrology and Watershed Management”, Vol-II, 18-
20th Dec, 2002, by Centre for Water Resources, Institute of Postgraduate Studies &
Research, JNTU, Hyderabad, A.P., India, 447-455.
142. Suwandono, L., Parsons, J.E., and Carpena, R.M. (1999). "Design guide for
vegetative filter strips using VFSMOD." ASAE/CSAE-SCGR Annual International
Meeting, Canada, July 18-22, 1999, 1-7.
143. Svoboda, A. (1991). “Changes in flood regime by use of the modified curve number
method.” Hydrologic Science Journal, 36 (5/10), 461-470.
144. Tiwari, K.N., Kumar, P., Sibartian, M., and Paul, D.K. (1991). “Hydrological
modeling for runoff determination: Remote sensing technique.” Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management, 7(3), 178-184.
145. Tripathi, M.P., Panda, R.K., Pradhan, S., and Sudhakar, S. (2002). “Runoff
modelling of a small watershed using satellite data and GIS”. Journal of the Indian
Society of Remote Sensing, 30(1 & 2), 39-52.
146. Turcotte, R., Fortin, T.P., Roussean, A.N., Manicotte, S., and Villeneuve, J.P.
(2001). “Determination of the drainage structure of a watershed using a DEM and a
digital river and lake network.” Journal of Hydrology, 240, 225-242.

35
 147. USDA. (1980). ‘‘CREAMS: A field scale model for chemicals, runoff and erosion
from agricultural management systems.’’ W. G. Knisel, ed., Conservation Research
Rep. No. 26, Washington, D.C.
148. Van Mullem, J., Woodward, D.E., Hawkins, R.H., and Hjelmfelt, A.T.Jr. (2002).
"Runoff curve number method: Beyond the handbook." Second Federal Interagency
Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 1-10.
149. Varshney, R.S., Gupta, S.C. and Gupta, R.L. (1983). “Theory and design of
irrigation structures.” Vol-1, Nem Chand and Bros Publishers, Roorkee.
150. Walker, S.E., Banasik, K., Northcott, W.S., Jiang, N., Yuan, Y., Mitchel, J.K.
(1998). “Application of the SCS curve number method to mildly-sloped
watersheds.” ASAE Ann. Intl. Mtg., ASAE paper 98-2216. Southern Cooperative
Series Bulletin (SAAESD), From the Website: www3.bae.ncsu.edu/Regional-
Bulletins/Modeling-Bulletin/paper98-draft1.html
151. Willeke, G.E. (1997). "Discussion of "Runoff curve number: Has it reached
maturity?" by Ponce, V.M., and Hawkins, R.H." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering,
2 (3), 145-148.
152. Williams, J.R, and LaSeur, W.V. (1976). "Water yield model using SCS curve
numbers." Journal of Hydraulics Division, ASCE, 102 (HY9), 1241-1253.
153. Woodward, D.E., Hawkins, R.H., Hjelmfelt, A.T.Jr., Van Mullem, J.A., and Quan,
D.Q. (2002). "Curve number method: Origins, applications and limitations." Second
Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 1-10. From
website: www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/water/quality/common/ techpapers/curve.html.
Accessed in October 2002.
154. Xu, Z.X., Ito, K., Schuttz, K., and Li, J.Y. (2001). “Integrated hydrologic modeling
and GIS in water resources management.” Journal of Computing in Civil
Engineering, ASCE, 15(3), 217-222.
155. Yu, B. (1998). "Theoretical justification of SCS method for runoff estimation."
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 124 (6), 306-310.

36

View publication stats