European Journal of Scientific Research ISSN 1450-216X Vol.34 No.4 (2009), pp.575-590 EuroJournals Publishing, Inc. 2009 http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.

htm

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran
Mahboubeh Ebrahimian Faculty of Forestry, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia E-mail: eb_m60@yahoo.com Tel: +60 (3)89467202; Fax: +60 (3)89467202 Lai Food See Faculty of Forestry, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Mohd Hasmadi Ismail Faculty of Forestry, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Ismail Abdul Malek Faculty of Forestry, University Putra Malaysia, 43400 (UPM) Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia Abstract This study aims to determine the runoff depth using NRCS-CN method with GIS and the effect of slope on runoff generation. The study was carried out in the Kardeh watershed about 42 km north of Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi province, Iran. The USDANRCS-CN method was applied for estimating the runoff depth in the semi-arid Kardeh watershed. Hydrologic soil group, land use and slope maps were generated in GIS environment. The curve number values from NRCS standard tables were assigned to the intersected hydrologic soil groups and land use maps to generate CN values map. The curve number method was followed to estimate runoff depth for selected storm events in the watershed. Effect of slope on CN values and runoff depth was determined. The results showed that there was no significant difference between observed and estimated runoff depths (P > 0.05). Statistically positive correlations were detected between observed and estimated runoff depth (r = 0.56; P < 0.01). About 9 % and 6 % of the estimated and slopeadjusted runoff values were within 10% of the recorded values, respectively. In addition, about 43 and 37 percent of the estimated and slope-adjusted values were in error by more than 50 %, respectively. Keywords: Curve Number, Geographic Information System, Kardeh watershed, Slopeadjusted runoff depth

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran

576

1. Introduction
Due to serious soil erosion and water deficiency in most areas of Iran, natural resources conservation is a vital issue. Despite these pressing issues, few studies have been carried out in rainfall-runoff modelling in Iran. Conventional methods of runoff measurement are costly, time consuming, errorprone and difficult because of inaccessible terrain in many of the watersheds. Thus, the use of new tools, for instance GIS, to generate supporting land-based data for conserving soil and water resources in watershed planning is very much needed. In addition, most basins in Iran do not have sufficient numbers of gauges to record rainfall and runoff. Scarcity of reliable recorded data therefore is another serious problem which planners and researchers face for the analysis of the hydrology of arid regions. There are several approaches to estimate ungauged basin runoff. Examples are the University of British Columbia Watershed Model (UBCWM), Artificial Neural Network (ANN), SCS Curve Number model, and Geomorphological Instantaneous Unit Hydrograph (GIUH). Among these methods, the SCS method (now called Natural Resources Conservation service Curve Number method (NRCS-CN)) is widely used because of its flexibility and simplicity. The method combines the watershed parameters and climatic factors in one entity called the Curve Number (CN). Many researchers (Pandey and Sahu, 2002; Nayak and Jaiswal, 2003; Zhan and Huang, 2004; Gandini and Usunoff, 2004) have utilized the Geographic Information System (GIS) technique to estimate runoff Curve Number value throughout the world. In India, Pandy and Sahu (2002) pointed out that the land use/land cover is an important parameter input of the SCS-CN model. Nayak and Jaiswal (2003) found that there was a good correlation between the measured and estimated runoff depth using GIS and CN. They concluded that GIS is an efficient tool for the preparation of most of the input data required by the SCS curve number model. Akhondi (2001) pointed out that correlation between observed and estimated discharge using CN method is decreased by increasing watershed area. While having runoff data is essential in all watershed development and management plans, very little work has been previously done in the watersheds of Iran in estimating runoff from rainfall in ungauged watersheds. This study emphasizes the use of GIS technique to develop a data base containing all the information of the study watershed for direct runoff depth estimation using the NRCS-CN model. The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of NRCS Curve Number method with GIS for estimating runoff depth and the effect of slope on CN values and runoff generation in a well-equipped gauged watershed. If the estimated runoff data are accurate compared to observed runoff in this watershed, then the NRCS-CN method can be recommended for estimating runoff in ungauged watersheds of the region.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Study area This study was conducted in the Kardeh watershed about 42 km north of Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi province, north eastern Iran (Figure 1). The watershed lies between 59 26 3 to 59 37 17 E longitude and 36 37 17 to 36 58 25 N latitude. Kardeh watershed is 448.2 km2 in size. The elevation of the watershed ranges from 1320 to 2960 m above mean sea level. The climate of the watershed is semi-arid. The mean annual precipitation is about 296.4 mm. Temperature in the study watershed is low with a mean annual of 11.6 C. The mean relative humidity is approximately 52.6%, but varies from 32.1 % in August to 82.3% in February. In most parts of the study watershed, topsoil is loamy and the subsoil is sandy clay loamy except in alluvial deposits that have relatively heavy texture of clay. In barren areas where soil is shallow, fine platy structure surface soil and compressed blocky structure subsurface soil are be sound. The major land uses in the study watershed are shown in Figure 1. About 73% of Kardeh has occupied by rangelands. Forested areas have been degraded because of severe utilization over the time and only single trees are a sign of degraded forest in highlands (Table 1).

577
Table 1:

Mahboubeh Ebrahimian, Lai Food See, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail and Ismail Abdul Malek
Land use/ cover classes present in the Kardeh catchment*

Land use/ Land cover Area (km) % of total area Dry farmland (rainfed farming) 66.90 15 Forest Thin 25.50 5.7 Fair 5.20 1.2 Rangeland Good condition 32.80 7.3 Fair condition 92.70 20.7 Poor condition 204.40 45.5 Orchards and irrigation farmland 17.40 3.9 Settlement 0.28 0.1 Rocks 2.90 0.6 Total area 448.20 100 *Watershed Management Department of Khorasan Razavi Jihad-e-Agriculture Organization, 1996

Figure 1: Location of the study area in Iran.

2.2. Data sources Topographic maps at the scale of 1:25000 prepared by the National Cartographic Centre (NCC) were used for demarcation of study watershed border and as basic maps in generation of other ancillary maps. Digitized land use/cover map prepared by the Watershed Management Department of Khorasan Razavi Jihad-e-Agriculture Organization in 1996 was used for identification of types and areas of land use. Digitized soil map at the scale of 1:25000 and soil information were taken from Khorasan Razavi General Office of Natural Resources. Meteorological data including rainfall, evaporation, and temperature and runoff data (1990-2000) were obtained from Khorasan Razavi Regional Water Authority.

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran 2.3. Software used for data processing

578

Arc View version 3.3 powerful Geographic Information System (GIS) software was used for creating, managing and generation of different layers and maps. The SPSS software was used for statistical analysis of data. The Microsoft Excel was used for mathematical calculations.
Figure 2: Land use/ cover map of the study watershed.

2.4. Generating hydrologic soil group (HSGs) map The hydrologic soil group is an attribute of the soil mapping unit (each soil mapping unit is assigned a particular hydrologic soil group: A, B, C, or D). In the preparation of the hydrologic soil group (HSG) map, a digital text file of soil data was prepared to assign the soil data layers based on soil mapping unit. Spatial Analyst and XTools extensions of Arc View 3.3 were applied for map preparation. The Soil Surveys from NRCS which provides a list of soil types and corresponding hydrologic soil groups were used. The generated map contains individual polygons of the characterized hydrologic soil group. 2.5. Generating CN map To create the CN map, the hydrologic soil group and land use maps were uploaded to the Arc View platform. The Xtools extension of Arc View was used to generate the CN map. The hydrologic soil group field from the soil theme and the land use field from the land use map were selected for intersection. After intersection, a map with new polygons representing the merged soil hydrologic group and land use (soil-land map) was generated. The appropriate CN value for each polygon of the

579

Mahboubeh Ebrahimian, Lai Food See, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail and Ismail Abdul Malek

Soil-Land map was assigned. The CN values for different land uses and hydrologic soil groups were adopted from Technical Release 55, USDA-NRCS, 1986. 2.6. Antecedent moisture condition (AMC) The calculated CN value for each polygon is for average conditions (i.e. Antecedent Moisture Condition Class II). The CN values for AMC II can be converted into CN values for AMC I and AMC III by using the SCS standard tables (USDA-SCS, 1993). To determine which AMC Class is the most appropriate relative to study area, the use of rainfall data is necessary. The 5-day rainfall prior to the event date was determined to be used for converting the calculated CN value to AMC class II and AMC class III using based on the NRCS standard tables. 2.7. Calculating runoff depth without incorporating the slope factor After generating CN map the next step was to calculate maximum potential retention (S). S value was computed for each polygon using equation (1). Runoff depth was ascertained for each rainfall event by using equation (2). Arithmetic mean rainfall of available rain gauge stations in the watershed was used for estimation of runoff depth in the watershed for selected events. 25400 S= 254 (1) CN ( P 0.2S ) 2 Q= (2) P + 0.8S where Q is runoff depth (mm); P is rainfall (mm); S is potential maximum retention (mm); S is initial abstraction of rainfall by soil and vegetation (mm) and CN is Curve Number. At the next step, weighted runoff depth was estimated for the watershed by multiplying the area of each polygon in runoff depth value and divided by total area of watershed (equation 3). In this study, a total of 35 daily rainfall events were employed in the NRCS-CN model to estimate runoff depth for them. QiAi Q= (3) A where Qi is runoff depth for each polygon (mm); Ai is polygon area (ha) and A is watershed area (ha). 2.8. Calculating slope-adjusted CN

The NRCS-CN method does not take into account the effect of slope on runoff yield. However, there are few models which incorporate a slope factor to CN method to improve estimation of surface runoff depth and volume (Huang et al., 2006). Fewer attempts have been made to include the slope factor into the CN method. Those which had taken the slope factor into account were notably, Sharpley and Williams (1990) and Huang et al. (2006). Equations (4) and (5) were used to adjust the CN values obtained from SCS-CN standard tables for the slope, respectively. Both methods assume very simply that CN obtained from SCS standard tables correspond to a slope of 5%. CN2= 1/3 (CN3-CN2) (1-2e-13.86) +CN2 (4) where CN2 is value of CN2 for a given slope; CN2 and CN3 are the NRCS-CN for soil moisture condition II (average) and III (wet), and (m m-1) is the soil slope. (5) CN2= CN2 K Where: 322.79 + 15.63( ) K= + 323.52 where K is a CN constant. Slope and CN maps were intersected to get slopes of each polygon. Since each polygon has different slopes, then calculating of weighted slope is need for each polygon. Weighted slope of a

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran

580

polygon was computed using formula (6). Weighted slope of polygon was applied in equation (5) to compute slope adjusted CN values. The Huang et al. (2006) approach was used because of the improvement made to incorporate the slope factor into the analysis. Weighted slope where ai is area of slope (ha); si is slope (%); and A is polygon area (ha).
2.9. Calculating slope-adjusted runoff depth

(6)

The same method as discussed above was employed to calculate slope adjusted runoff depth using of slope-adjusted CN values for calculating S values. Accordingly, weighted runoff depth value was estimated for the watershed for all rainfall events with corporation of slope factor.
2.10. Determining runoff depth for observed data

Direct runoff volume was calculated by subtracting base flow and total runoff volume in WHAT (Web-based Hydrograph Analysis Tool) software (Engel et al., 2004). Runoff depth was calculated by equation (7) as following: (7) A where H: is runoff depth (m); Q is runoff volume (m3/s); bf is base flow (m3/s); t is hourly time interval (3600) and A is watershed area (m2).
2.11. Statistical analysis

H=

(Q bf ) t
i 1

24

SPSS functions were used to perform statistical analysis on data. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to check the normality of data set. The differences were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. Percentage error was calculated to compare the difference between the estimated and observed runoff depth. Pair wise comparisons were done with the t-test to compare observed and estimated runoff depth data. The spearman rank correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between estimated (as a dependent variable) and observed (as an independent variable) runoff depths.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Hydrologic soil groups

All hydrologic groups including A, B, C, and D were found in the Kardeh watershed (Figure3). Only 2 percent of soil was placed in group A and about 40.6 and 31.7 percent of soil were placed in group C and D, respectively (Table 2).

581
Table 2:

Mahboubeh Ebrahimian, Lai Food See, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail and Ismail Abdul Malek
Curve number of various land use and hydrologic soil groups in Kardeh watershed
Hydrologic soil group A B C A B C D B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D A B C D D Area (ha) 102.30 2204.90 4378.10 83.98 1262.60 809.60 398.70 24.40 447.70 44.16 4.70 72.60 1208.54 1996.19 26.97 1809.90 2628.26 4808.70 215.36 5649.30 7930.9 6649.90 428.99 510.30 803.00 28.40 286.50 44814.95 CN 62 71 78 36 60 73 79 55 70 77 35 35 47 55 51 51 63 70 67 67 80 85 43 65 76 93 91 -

Land use/ Land cover Dry farmland (rainfed farming) Forest Thin forest Forest Fair forest Rangeland Good condition Rangeland Fair condition Rangeland Poor condition Orchards and irrigated farmland Settlement Rocks Total area

3.2. CN values

The CN value for each soil hydrologic group and corresponding land use class are presented in Table 2. Hydrologic soil groups A and B leading to low CN value while the hydrologic group D leading to the high CN value in the Kardeh watershed. Gandini and Usunoff (2004) observed that hydrologic soil group B leading to lower CN values in a humid temperate watershed of Argentina. In terms of land use and hydrologic soil group combination, the lowest CN value was found to be 35 and 36 in forest and rangeland with good condition and the highest CN value was found to be 93 in settlement areas. Gandini and Usunoff (2004) found the CN value of 92 for urban area and 45 for forest in good condition in Argentina. Table 2 indicates that rangelands with poor condition, settlements and mountainous areas without developed soil layer (rocks) are major contributors in runoff generation in the Kardeh watershed. Nassaji and Mahdavi (2005) found that rangeland with poor and very poor conditions had CN values greater than 85 in three rangeland watersheds in semi-arid areas of northern Iran. High CN value in poor rangelands can be explained by low vegetation density, high soil compaction due to treading by grazing animals and low infiltration rate. The CN values map is displayed in Figure 4.The CN map can be viewed as a mosaic of CN values due to differences in land use. About 70 percent of Kardeh watershed has CN values between 60 and 80, 4 percent less than 50 and 0.7 percent greater than 90. These values show that Kardeh watershed generates more runoff for a given rainfall in areas having greater CN values. Because by increasing the value of CN in a specific area, the amount of runoff will be increased. Mellesse and Shih (2002) indicated that any changes in land use can alter CN values of the watershed and accordingly the runoff response of the watershed by increasing runoff volume. The study also reported that by decreasing the area of croplands and rangelands within two decades the CN values greater than 90

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran

582

increased by 2.2 percent and the area of the watershed having runoff depth greater than 180 mm increased by 2 percent. The relationship between the calculated CN from SCS Standard Tables and slope-adjusted CN with land slope of the study area is shown in Figure 5. The figure suggesting that there is a direct positive relationship between slope and CN value. Higher CN values are expected in steep slope land. Slope-adjusted CN and standard CN ratio increases with slope. Slope-adjusted CN values are listed in Table 3. The highest CN value (93) was found in steep slope (32 %) of the study watershed while the lowest CN value (35) was found in slight slope (17 %) of the watershed. In watersheds where land slope is higher than 5%, CN values must be adjusted with slope (Huang et al, 2006).
3.3. Runoff depth

The estimated runoff depths, slope-adjusted runoff depths and observed runoff for all selected rainfall events are listed in Table 4. Comparison of columns 4 and 5 in Table 4 shows that there is no much difference between runoff depth before and after applying of slope factor. In the other words, after using this equation and incorporating slope factor in CN method, the CN values changed, but the runoff generation was not affected by new values considerably. This is largely due to the equation used (Huang et al, 2006). In this study, the equation used was developed over plot scale and the application is largely targeted for small sites (Huang et al, 2006). To date, there is very little information regarding modification of NRCS-CN method for steep slopes at watershed scale. In fact, the equation used here is the only available in the literature to modify runoff response with slope factor. The assessment of the effect of slope on rainfall-runoff relationship in the NRCS-CN method is extended in this study to evaluate the effect on surface runoff generation at watershed scale. It is obvious that the curve number values must be adjusted with slope degree to overcome to such problems in steep slopes.
Figure 3: Hydrologic soil groups of Kardeh catchment.

583

Mahboubeh Ebrahimian, Lai Food See, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail and Ismail Abdul Malek
Figure 4: Map of curve number values for Kardeh watershed.

Figure 5: Relationship between the calculated CN from SCS standard tables and slope-adjusted CN ratio and land slope.
1.03 p<0.01 r = 0.75 1.02

Slope-adjusted/ tabulated CN ratio

1.02

1.01

1.01

1.00

1.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Slope (%)

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran
Table 3: Slope-adjusted CN values for the study watershed
CN 35 36 43 47 51 55 60 62 63 65 67 70 71 73 76 77 78 79 80 85 91 93 Slope (%) 17 16 36 30 28 45 26 18 31 18.5 34 43 28 35 28 21 30 40 28 44 20 32 Area (ha) 77.3 83.9 428.9 1208.5 1836.9 2020.6 1262.6 102.3 2628.2 510.2 5864.6 5256.4 2204.9 809.6 803.0 44.2 4387.1 398.7 7930.9 6649.9 286.5 28.4 CN constant(K) 1.005 1.005 1.015 1.010 1.010 1.014 1.010 1.006 1.012 1.006 1.013 1.017 1.010 1.013 1.010 1.007 1.010 1.016 1.010 1.018 1.007 1.012

584

Slope-adjusted CN 35.18 36.18 43.65 47.47 51.51 55.77 60.60 62.37 63.76 65.39 67.87 71.19 71.71 73.95 76.76 77.54 78.78 80.26 80.80 86.53 91.64 94.12

585
Table 4:
Storm date 14/5/1991 1/6/1992 11/7/1992 6/1/1993 8/3/1993 13/4/1993 7/5/1993 12/3/1994 14/6/1994 3/10/1994 1/5/1995 3/7/1995 4/2/1996 8/3/1996 14/3/1996 23/5/1996 27/5/1996 17/7/1996 6/5/1997 19/6/1997 1/8/1997 6/11/1997 9/2/1998 14/3/1998 26/3/1998 6/4/1998 27/4/1998 30/5/1998 22/7/1998 3/8/1998 14/8/1998 21/2/1999 28/4/2000 9/8/2000 18/8/2001

Mahboubeh Ebrahimian, Lai Food See, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail and Ismail Abdul Malek
Estimated runoff depths for rainfall events using NRCS-CN method
Rainfall (mm) 18.0 17.0 20.0 26.1 8.6 22.9 6.3 11.0 13.5 5.9 9.0 19.0 14.9 17.7 9.4 6.6 6.2 23.5 15.6 24.1 17.5 8.0 26.1 6.1 14.0 25.1 13.1 7.8 6.9 5.3 4.3 27.1 19.0 8.1 15.5 Sum of prior 5day rainfall (mm) 18.3 0.2 14.9 29.7 11.2 4.4 4.0 22.2 00 2.8 3.0 9.6 27.7 44.9 32.8 9.8 10.3 00 12.0 7.9 0.8 14.3 4.3 1.2 0.8 2.6 2.2 4.5 00 0.5 00 3.8 10.5 1.1 0.3 Estimated runoff depth (mm) 5.44 5.71 4.94 6.56 8.56 4.30 9.54 0.92 6.77 9.72 8.40 5.18 1.26 2.77 0.69 9.41 9.59 4.18 6.11 4.07 5.57 2.34 3.27 7.73 5.15 3.34 5.39 7.07 7.41 8.07 8.51 3.20 4.11 6.96 4.80 Estimated slope-adjusted runoff depth (mm) 5.21 5.47 4.73 7.55 8.27 4.12 9.24 1.21 6.51 9.42 8.11 4.96 1.24 3.40 0.90 9.11 9.28 4.01 5.87 3.90 5.34 2.19 3.23 7.47 4.96 3.29 5.18 6.82 7.15 7.80 8.23 3.18 3.97 6.71 4.62 Observed (mm) 3.5 8.2 3.8 5.6 6.6 11.0 5.5 4.6 5.2 5.6 6.8 2.4 3.9 5.0 3.4 7.2 6.1 3.3 7.8 7.3 3.0 1.5 4.0 5.9 4.7 5.3 2.6 4.3 4.7 7.5 5.1 4.4 3.2 5.2 5.3

3.4. Comparison of estimated and observed runoff depth

At first step in the analysis, percentage error was used to compare the difference between the estimated and observed runoff depth (Table 5). The maximum and minimum error between observed and estimated runoff depth were 115 and 7 percent, respectively. However, the maximum and minimum error between observed and slope-adjusted runoff depth were 106 and 4 percent, respectively. The mean percent error between observed and estimated runoff depth reduced from 46.26 % before adjusting for slope to 42.97 % after adjusting for slope (Table 5). In India, Pandey et al. (2003) reported that the maximum and minimum error between observed and estimated runoff depth were 68.33 and 3.27 percent, respectively. Malekian et al. (2005) also reported an average percent error of 68.3 between observed and estimated runoff by the CN method for 25 storm events in semi-arid areas of north western Iran. In this study, about 9 % and 6 % of the estimated and slope-adjusted values were within 10% of the recorded values, respectively. About 34 and 37 percent were within 30 % of the observed runoff. About 43 and 37 percent of the estimated and slope-adjusted values were in error by more than 50 %, respectively (Table 5). A percent error of less than 50 % was considered acceptable (Boughton and Chiew, 2007 and Pandey et al., 2003). Statistical analysis indicated that percent error of estimated slope-adjusted runoff

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran

586

depth was significantly (P < 0.01) lower than the percent error of estimated runoff depth. This decline in percent error can be explained by the role of slope in runoff generation in mountainous watershed. One of the potential sources of error in runoff depth estimation is believed to be due to the rainfall and recorded runoff data input. The quality of the input data is the main determinant of the quality of the results in runoff estimation (Boughton and Chiew, 2007; Jacobs and Srinivasan, 2005). The presence of various land use/ cover classes or condition in the watershed, and mountainous topography and large area of the watershed may have played a part in the lack of acceptable runoff estimate results for selected storm events in this study. Field workers errors in recording rainfall and associated runoff data provide data with error to users which probably are another source of error. Pair wise comparison between the variable (observed vs. estimated runoff) means showed that there is no significant difference between means of estimated and observed data (P > 0.05). Therefore, estimated runoff depth by CN method was near to corresponding observed runoff depths (Table 6). Interestingly, Pandey et al. (2003) found that estimated direct runoff depth by the NRCS-CN method was significantly (P > 0.05) near to corresponding observed runoff depth in the Karso watershed, India. Similar results were reported by Pandey and Sahu (1999), Pandey et al. (2003) in India and Akhondi et al. (2001) in Iran.

587
Table 5:

Mahboubeh Ebrahimian, Lai Food See, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail and Ismail Abdul Malek
Details of percent error between estimated and observed runoff depth
Percent error between estimated and observed runoff 7 9 9 17 18 21 23 26 27 28 29 30 30 30 30 31 33 36 44 45 55 56 57 57 60 64 66 68 73 73 80 80 85 107 115 Percent error between slope adjusted and observed runoff 4 5 12 19 19 21 24 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 29 32 33 34 37 46 46 48 52 52 58 61 62 68 68 68 73 73 78 99 106 % of total number of storm events 5.7

Study storm date

% of observe d runoff

% of total number of storm events

Acceptabi lity

% of observed runoff

Acceptabil ity

14/5/1991 1/6/1992 11/7/1992 6/1/1993 8/3/1993 13/4/1993 7/5/1993 12/3/1994 14/6/1994 3/10/1994 1/5/1995 3/7/1995 4/2/1996 8/3/1996 14/3/1996 23/5/1996 27/5/1996 17/7/1996 6/5/1997 19/6/1997 1/8/1997 6/11/1997 9/2/1998 14/3/1998 26/3/1998 6/4/1998 27/4/1998 30/5/1998 22/7/1998 3/8/1998 14/8/1998 21/2/1999 28/4/2000 9/8/2000 18/8/2001 Minimum = 7 Maximum = 115 Mean = 46.23

0-10

8.58

Very high

0-10

Very high

10-30

34.30

high

10-30

37.3

high

30-50

14.30

fair

30-50

20

Fair

> 50

43

unacceptab le

> 50

37

unacceptab le

100

Minimum = 4 Maximum = 106 Mean = 42.97

100

The results showed that there is no provision to apply the NRCS-CN model in the Kardeh watershed for runoff estimation. It is noteworthy that the P values in Table 6 indicate that mean of slope-adjusted estimated data (5.50) are nearer to mean of observed data (5.11) than estimated data (5.63) in terms of depth. Low P value means estimated and observed data are roughly far from each other and vice versa. The comparison of observed runoff with estimated slope-adjusted runoff showed there is no significant difference between the means of observed and slope-adjusted estimated runoff (P > 0.05). It should be noted that for slope-adjusted runoff vs. observed runoff P value (0.27) was greater than P value for estimated runoff vs. observed runoff (0.16) (Table 6). This means that when runoff depths

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran

588

were adjusted for slope, their means (5.50) were nearer to observed runoff depths (5.11). This indicates that slope is an important factor in runoff estimation. In steep slope watersheds, estimated runoff must be adjusted for slope since the estimations are affected more.
Table 6: Means comparison of estimated and observed runoff for the Kardeh watershed
Estimated runoff depth (mm) 5.63 2.53 Slope-adjusted runoff depth (mm) 5.50 2.41 Observed runoff depth (mm) 5.11 1.90 P Estimated vs. observed 0.16 Slope-adjusted vs. observed 0.27

Variable Mean SD

A fairly direct positive correlations was found between observed and estimated data (r = 0.55; P < 0.01) and slope adjusted vs. observed runoff data (r = 0.56; P < 0.01). In India, Nayak and Jaiswal (2003) found a good correlation (about 90 %) between estimated and observed data in all eight subbasins with various areas (less than 100 km2) of the Bebas watershed, although correlation decreased by increasing the area of the sub-basins. Akhondi (2001) pointed out that correlation coefficient (r) between observed and estimated runoff using the CN method decreased from 98 % to 17 % with increasing watershed area and decreasing rainfall (from semi-humid to semi-arid) in four watersheds with various areas and climate in semi-arid and semi-humid areas of south western Iran. Furthermore, Malekian et al. (2005) reported a correlation coefficient of 73 % between observed and estimated runoff by the CN method in a semi-arid watershed of northwestern Iran. In the present study, a fair correlation (about 55 %) between estimated and observed runoff depth could be attributable to the big area of the watershed. As discussed above, correlation is higher in small watersheds compared to bigger ones. Another reason behind this low correlation may be due to the use of a non-localized CN method in this study. The CN method parameters still have not been localized and modified based on Iranian condition. This should serve as a caution to managers and researchers utilizing the CN method for hydrologic modelling in Iran (Khojini, 2001 and Malekian et al., 2005).

4. Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn from the study: The incorporation of NRCS-CN model and GIS facilitates runoff estimation from watershed and can augment the accuracy of computed data. Nevertheless there was no high significant correlation between estimated and observed runoff depth (r = 0.56; p < 0.01) in this study, but still there is no enough reason that curve number method should not be used for ungauged watersheds which do not have runoff records to produce runoff data for the purpose of management and conservation. Although the results of this study failed to show the real effect of slope on runoff generation in the watershed due to the used equation (equation 5) at watershed scale, but the assessment of the effect of slope on rainfall-runoff relationship in NRCS-CN method should be extended further at watershed scale to get the effect on surface runoff generation. In this study using of combined GIS and CN model to estimate runoff data in Kardeh watershed neither approved nor rejected completely. The results indicated that the combined GIS and CN method can be used in ungauged watershed with the same condition to Kardeh with about 60 percent accuracy only for management and conservation purposes not for computation of design floods.

589

Mahboubeh Ebrahimian, Lai Food See, Mohd Hasmadi Ismail and Ismail Abdul Malek

Acknowledgement
Authors acknowledge University Putra Malaysia for providing research fellowship to make this research possible. We are particularly grateful to Khorasan Razavi Regional Water Authority, Department of Watershed Management and Abkhiz Gostar Shargh Co. Ltd. for providing the data and maps of the study watershed.

References
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Akhondi, S., 2001. An investigation of curve number model in flood estimation using Geographical information System (GIS), MSc thesis. Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran. Boughton, W., and F. Chiew, 2007. Estimating runoff in ungauged catchments from rainfall, PET and the AWBM model, Environmental Modelling & Software 22, pp. 476-487. Engel, B., J. Kyoung, Z.Tang, L. Theller, and S. Muthukrishnan, 2004. WHAT (Web-based Hydrograph Analysis Tool), http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~what/ (accessed Feb. 2009). Gandini, M.L., and E.J. Usunoff, 2004. SCS Curve Number Estimation Using Remote Sensing NDVI in A GIS Environment, Journal of Environmental Hydrology 12, (Paper 16). Hossein, A.A., D.H. Pilgrim, G.W. Titmarsh, I. Cordery, 1989. Assessment of U.S. Conservation Service method for estimating design floods. New direction for surface water modeling (Proceedings of the Balimore Symposium), IASH publication. No. 181, pp. 283291. Huang, M., G. Jacgues, Z. Wang, and G. Monique, 2006. A modification to the soil conservation service curve number method for steep slopes in the Loess Plateau of China Hydrological processes 20(3), pp. 579-589. Jacobs, J.H. and R. Srinivasan, 2005. Effects of curve number modification on runoff estimation using wsr-88d rainfall data in Texas watersheds, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 60 (5), pp. 274-278. Khorasan General Office of Natural Resources, 1993. Watershed management plan for Kardeh dam watershed, Report. 50p. Khorasan Razavi Jihad-e-Agriculture Organization, 1996. Evaluation of land capability and soil of the Kardeh watershed, Watershed Management Department, 150p. Khorasan Razavi General Office of Natural Resources, 2001. Rangeland Vegetation Cover of Kardeh Watershed, Report. 89 p. Khorasan Razavi Regional Water Authority, 2001. Climatology of Kardeh Dam, report. 180p. Khojini, A. 2001. Investigation on the applicability of the SCS-CN method in runoff depth and peak discharge estimation in representative watersheds of Alborz Mountain chain, Research and reconstruction 38, pp. 12-15. Malekian A., M. Saravi Mohseni and M. Mahdavi, 2005. Applicability of the USDA-NRCS Curve Number method for runoff estimation, Iranian Journal of Natural Resources 57(4), pp. 621-633. Melesse A.M., S.F. Shih, 2002. Spatially distributed storm runoff depth estimation using Landsat Images and GIS, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 37, pp.173-183. Nassaji M. and M. Mahdavi, 2005. The determination of peak-flood using different curve number methods (case study, Central Alborze area), Iranian Journal of Natural Resources 58(2), pp. 315-324. Nayak, T.R. and R.K. Jaiswal, 2003. Rainfall-runoff modelling using satellite data and GIS for Bebas river in Madhya Pradesh, IE (I) Journal 84, pp.47-50. Pandey, A. and A. K. Sahu, 2002. Generation of curve number using remote sensing and Geographic Information System, http://www.GISdevelopment.net (accessed on Sep. 2007).

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

Application of Natural Resources Conservation Service Curve Number Method for Runoff Estimation with GIS in the Kardeh Watershed, Iran [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

590

Pandey, A., V.M. Chowdary, B.C.Mal, and P.P. Dabral, 2003. Estimation of runoff for agricultural watershed using SCS curve number and Geographic Information System, Htpp://www.GISdevelopment.net (accessed on Sep. 2007). Sharpley, A. N. and J.R. Williams, 1990. EPIC- Erosion/Productivity Impact Calculator: 1. Model determination, US department of Agriculture. Technical Bulletin, No. 1768. USDA/NRC. 1986. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds TR-55, Technical Release 55. Washington DC. USDA-SCS. 1993. Storm rainfall depth. In: National Engineering Handbook Series, Part 630, Chapter 4, Washington, D.C. Zhan, X. and M. L. Huang, 2004. ArcCN-Runoff: An ArcGIS tool for generating curve number and runoff maps, Environmental Modelling & Software 19, pp.875879.