The runoff curve number (also called a curve number or simply CN) is an empirical parameter used in hydrology for predicting direct runoff or infiltration from rainfall excess.[1] The curve number method was developed by the USDANatural Resources Conservation Service, which was formerly called the Soil Conservation Service or SCS — the number is still popularly known as a "SCS runoff curve number" in the literature. The runoff curve number was developed from an empirical analysis of runoff from small catchments and hillslope plots monitored by the USDA. It is widely used and is an efficient method for determining the approximate amount of direct runoff from a rainfall event in a particular area.
Definition
The runoff curve number is based on the area's hydrologic soil group, land use, treatment and hydrologic condition. References, such as from USDA[1] indicate the runoff curve numbers for characteristic land cover descriptions and a hydrologic soil group.
is the potential maximum soil moisture retention after runoff begins ([L]; in)
is the initial abstraction ([L]; in), or the amount of water before runoff, such as infiltration, or rainfall interception by vegetation; historically, it has generally been assumed that , although more recent research has found that may be a more appropriate relationship in urbanized watersheds where the CN is updated to reflect developed conditions.[2]
The runoff curve number, , is then related
has a range from 30 to 100; lower numbers indicate low runoff potential while larger numbers are for increasing runoff potential. The lower the curve number, the more permeable the soil is. As can be seen in the curve number equation, runoff cannot begin until the initial abstraction has been met. It is important to note that the curve number methodology is an event-based calculation, and should not be used for a single annual rainfall value, as this will incorrectly miss the effects of antecedent moisture and the necessity of an initial abstraction threshold.
Selection
The NRCS curve number is related to soil type, soil infiltration capability, land use, and the depth of the seasonal high water table. To account for different soils' ability to infiltrate, NRCS has divided soils into four hydrologic soil groups (HSGs). They are defined as follows.[1]
HSG Group A (low runoff potential): Soils with high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. These consist chiefly of deep, well-drained sands and gravels. These soils have a high rate of water transmission (final infiltration rate greater than 0.30 in (7.6 mm) per hour).
HSG Group B: Soils with moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These consist chiefly of soils that are moderately deep to deep, moderately well drained to well drained with moderately fine to moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (final infiltration rate of 0.15–0.30 in (3.8–7.6 mm) per hour).
HSG Group C: Soils with slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These consist chiefly of soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water or soils with moderately fine to fine textures. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission (final infiltration rate 0.05–0.15 in (1.3–3.8 mm) per hour).
HSG Group D (high runoff potential): Soils with very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted. These consist chiefly of clay soils with a high swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious materials. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission (final infiltration rate less than 0.05 in (1.3 mm) per hour).
Selection of a hydrologic soil group should be done based on measured infiltration rates, soil survey (such as the NRCS Web Soil Survey), or judgement from a qualified soil science or geotechnical professional. The table below presents curve numbers for antecedent soil moisture condition II (average moisture condition). To alter the curve number based on moisture condition or other parameters, see Adjustments.
Values
Fully developed urban areas (vegetation established)
Cover description
Curve numbers for hydrologic soil group
A
B
C
D
Open space (lawns, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, etc.)
Poor condition (grass cover <50%)
68
79
86
89
Fair condition (grass cover 50 to 75%)
49
69
79
84
Good condition (grass cover >75%)
39
61
74
80
Impervious areas
Paved parking lots, roofs, driveways, etc. (excluding right of way)
98
98
98
98
Streets and roads
Paved; curbs and storm sewers (excluding right-of-way)
98
98
98
98
Paved; open ditches (including right-of-way)
83
89
92
93
Gravel (including right of way)
76
85
89
91
Dirt (including right-of-way)
72
82
87
89
Western desert urban areas
Natural desert landscaping (pervious area only)
63
77
85
88
Artificial desert landscaping (impervious weed barrier, desert shrub with 1- to 2-inch sand or gravel mulch and basin borders)
96
96
96
96
Urban districts
Commercial and business (85% imp.)
89
92
94
95
Industrial (72% imp.)
81
88
91
93
Residential districts by average lot size
1⁄8 acre or less (town houses) (65% imp.)
77
85
90
92
1⁄4 acre (38% imp.)
61
75
83
87
1⁄3 acre (30% imp.)
57
72
81
86
1⁄2 acre (25% imp.)
54
70
80
85
1 acre (20% imp.)
51
68
79
84
2 acres (12% imp.)
46
65
77
82
Developing urban areas
Cover description
Curve numbers for hydrologic soil group
A
B
C
D
Newly graded areas (pervious areas only, no vegetation)
Farmsteads—buildings, lanes, driveways, and surrounding lots.
—
59
74
82
86
A Poor: <50% ground cover or heavily grazed with no mulch; Fair: 50-75% ground cover and not heavily grazed; Good: >75% ground cover and light or only occasionally grazed.
C Actual curve number is less than 30; use CN = 30 for runoff computation.
D CN's shown were computed for areas with 50% woods and 50% grass (pasture) cover. Other combinations of conditions may be computed from the CN's for woods and pasture.
E Poor: Forest litter, small trees, and brush are destroyed by heavy grazing or regular burning; Fair: Woods are grazed but not burned, and some forest litter covers the soil; Good: Woods are protected from grazing, and litter and brush adequately cover the soil.
Herbaceuous—mixture of grass, weeds, and low-growing brush, with brush the minor element
Poor
—
80
87
93
Fair
—
71
81
89
Good
—
62
74
85
Oak-aspen—mountain brush mixture of oak brush, aspen, mountain mahogany, bitter brush, maple, and other brush
Poor
—
66
74
79
Fair
—
48
57
63
Good
—
30
41
48
Pinyon-juniper—pinyon, juniper, or both; grass understory
Poor
—
75
85
89
Fair
—
58
73
80
Good
—
41
61
71
Sagebrush with grass understory
Poor
—
67
80
85
Fair
—
51
63
70
Good
—
35
47
55
Desert shrub—major plants include saltbush, geasewood, creosotebush, blackbrush, bursage, palo verde, mesquite, and cactus.
Poor
63
77
85
88
Fair
55
72
81
86
Good
49
68
79
84
A Poor: <30% ground cover (litter, grass, and brush overstory); Fair: 30 to 70% ground cover; Good: >70% ground cover.
B Curve numbers for group A have been developed only for desert shrub.
Adjustments
Runoff is affected by the soil moisture before a precipitation event, the antecedent moisture condition (AMC). A curve number, as calculated above, may also be termed AMC II or , or average soil moisture. The other moisture conditions are dry, AMC I or , and moist, AMC III or . The curve number can be adjusted by factors to , where factors are less than 1 (reduce and potential runoff), while factor are greater than 1 (increase and potential runoff). The AMC factors can be looked up in the reference table below. Find the CN value for AMC II and multiply it by the adjustment factor based on the actual AMC to determine the adjusted curve number.
Adjustments to select curve number for soil moisture conditions.[3]
Curve Number (AMC II)
Factors to Convert Curve Number for AMC II to AMC I or III
AMC I (dry)
AMC III (wet)
10
0.40
2.22
20
0.45
1.85
30
0.50
1.67
40
0.55
1.50
50
0.62
1.40
60
0.67
1.30
70
0.73
1.21
80
0.79
1.14
90
0.87
1.07
100
1.00
1.00
Initial abstraction ratio adjustment
The relationship was derived from the study of many small, experimental watersheds . Since the history and documentation of this relationship are relatively obscure, more recent analysis used model fitting methods to determine the ratio of to with hundreds of rainfall-runoff data from numerous U.S. watersheds. In the model fitting done by Hawkins et al. (2002)[2] found that the ratio of to varies from storm to storm and watershed to watershed and that the assumption of is usually high. More than 90 percent of ratios were less than 0.2. Based on this study, use of ratios of 0.05 rather than the commonly used value of 0.20 would seem more appropriate. Thus, the CN runoff equation becomes:
In this equation, note that the values of are not the same as the one used in estimating direct runoff with an ratio of 0.20, because 5 percent of the storage is assumed to be the initial abstraction, not 20 percent. The relationship between and was obtained from model fitting results, giving the relationship:
The user, then, must do the following to use the adjusted 0.05 initial abstraction ratio:
Use the traditional tables of curve numbers to select the value appropriate for your watershed.
Calculate using the traditional equation:
Convert this S value to using the relationship above.
Calculate the runoff depth using the CN runoff equation above (with 0.05 substituted for the initial abstraction ratio).
^ abcUnited States Department of Agriculture (1986). Urban hydrology for small watersheds(PDF). Technical Release 55 (TR-55) (Second ed.). Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Engineering Division.
^ abHawkins, R.H.; Jiang, R.; Woodward, D.E.; Hjelmfelt, A.T.; Van Mullem, J.A. (2006). "EFFECTS OF INITIAL ABSTRACTION AND URBANIZATION ON ESTIMATED RUNOFF USING CN TECHNOLOGY1". Jawra Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 42 (3): 629–643. Bibcode:2006JAWRA..42..629L. doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2006.tb04481.x. S2CID130013737.
^Ward, Andy D.; Trimble, Stanley W. (2004). Environmental Hydrology. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press LLC. ISBN9781566706162.