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

net/publication/298179011

Applicability of SCS curve number method for a California Oak woodlands watershed

Article  in  Journal of Soil and Water Conservation · January 2000

CITATIONS READS

18 112

3 authors:

David J. Lewis Michael J Singer

University of California, Davis University of California, Davis
33 PUBLICATIONS   363 CITATIONS    111 PUBLICATIONS   4,503 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Kenneth W Tate
University of California, Davis
133 PUBLICATIONS   2,308 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

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

Rangeland Water Quality Project View project

Soils of the United States just published by Springer View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kenneth W Tate on 24 December 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 (AGNPS) (Young et al., 1985).
Applicability of SCS Curve CN defines runoff volume (Q as a
function of total precipitation (I?) and the
Number Method for a potential maximum soil water retention
California Oak Woodlands after runoff begins (S) through Equation
(1) (Haan et al. 1994; SCS 1985; Ralli-
son and Miller 198 1).

(P - 0.2s)2
P>O.2S
D. Lewis, M.J. Singer, K.W. Tate Q= P + 0.8s

A B S T M C E The curve number (CN) method devebped by the Soil Conservation Service (now The value for S is calculated using the
NRCS) for predicting peak runofffiom Watershed has not been extensively tested in western curve number (CN) from equation (2).
regtons of t h United
~ States. We used a 17 year rainfill and runof record ?om a California
Oak woodlurid watershed to compare the accuracy of CN as prescribed in the SCS National
Enginewing Handbook (NEH-4) with two alternative method. Each method predicted mean
annual peak runoff that was not signijkanth dtffweent f;om observed runofl and correlation
between estimated and observed runof’om each of the three method was statistically signif;- The standard procedure (called the
cant. However, the highest correlation coeftcient showed that only 50% of the variability in the NEH-4 procedure after the publication
dntd were ni~ountedforby any of the methods. The NEH-4 method underpredicted maximum that describes it) is to select a CN for a
flowsfor tbe &best flow years. The more conservative Hjelmfilt method more frequently over- given soil series, land use, and land treat-

Copyright © 2000 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
predicted peak flow. Overpredictionprovides a measure of safety when using the CN technique. ment from tables developed through

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(2):226-230 www.swcs.org

analysis of watershed data (SCS 1985).
Keyword: Fore-rt hydrology, oak woodland, watershed management, wildland hydrology
Each soil series was assigned to one of

Figure 1
R elating storm runoff volume to rain-
all volume is of direct importance to
drainage and flood structure design.
However, there are few watersheds in
which rainfall and runoff are routinely
measured. This is particularly true for the
millions of hectares of upland Oak grass-
land watersheds in California. These wa-
tersheds are important for cattle grazing,
second home development, wildlife habi-
n
E
E
6o
50 t
cat, and water. Even in watersheds with v

rainfall and runoff records, the relation- EC

ship between annual peak runoff and 3
rainfall is not simple. For example, for a
the Schubert experimental watershed,
only 39% of the variability in annual
peak runoff was explained by rainfall with
a regression slope of 0.63 (Figure 1 ) . This
result suggests that there is considerable
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
risk in over or under designing flood con-
trol structures using this simple relation- Rainfall (mm)
ship. A more accurate method is required
that can better account for conditions Figure 1. Schubert watershed annual peak runoff as a function of correspond-
ing annual rainfall from 1981 to 1997. Correlation coefficient 1.2 = 0.39.
found in Mediterranean Oak woodland
watersheds, such as Schubert.
The curve number approach (CN) was use is to determine a design discharge four hydrologic soil groups, according to
developed by the Soil Conservation (SCS 1985). The CN approach is simple, the soil’s minimum infiltration rate.
Service to predict peak annual runoff on predictable, and stable (Ponce and Group A soils have low runoff and high
ungaged watersheds. Its most common Hawkins 1996). Because of these charac- infiltration rates; group B soils have mod-
teristics, it has been used in hydrologic erate infiltration rates; group C soils have
__
- -.
models such as Chemicals, Runoff, and low infiltration rates; and group D soils
David Lewij is a Research Assistant and Michael Erosion From Agricultural Management have high runoff potential (SCS 1986).
Singer i 3 n P~ofisssorof Soil Science in the Depart-
Systems (CREAMS) (Kiesel 1980), Curve number values reported in
ment of Land, Air, and Water Resources Depart-
ment of the Uniuersirp.of California. Kenneth Tate Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricul- NEH-4 (SCS 1985) are for antecedent
1 ) 17 Rungeland Watershed Hydrologist i n the tural Management Systems (GLEAMS) soil moisture condition I1 (AMC-11).
Department of Agronomy and Range Science at the (Leonard et al., 1986) and Agricultural This is one of three antecedent soil mois-
I!niversrry orCaL@rnia. Non-Point Source Pollution Model ture conditions established to account for
the runoff conditions that exist at
the time of each storm event. AMC-I1 is
defined by either average conditions,
median CN, or antecedent rainfall tables
(SCS 1985). Median C N is the C N that
divides runoff and rainfall data into equal
numbers. Quantitative and qualitative
description of average conditions is not
clear, but it appears to correspond to con-
ditions when annual flooding occurs.
The definition of AMC-I1 is critical to
the successful use of CN because CN for
AMC-I and AMC-I11 are calculated from
CN for AMC-I1 by these equations:
4.2CN(II)
CN (I) = (3)
10 - 0.058CN(II)
23CN(II)
CN (1111) = (4)
10 + O.l3CN(II)
In general, condition I (ARIC-I) is for
storm events occurring with little to no
preceding rainfall. Condition I11 (AMC-
111) is for storm events that follow consid-
erable rainfall when infiltration rates are
at their lowest.
Antecedent rainfall tables provide a
predetermined convention for AMC-I, 11,
and I11 designation based on five day
antecedent rainfall. The comparison of
these definitions by Hjelmfelt (1991)
identified a consistency in runoff predic-
tion between the average conditions and
median curve number if annual peak
runoff events are used. The antecedent
rainfall table definition was not dis-
missed, but was not advised by Hjelmfelt
(1991) because of problems identified by
SCS in its application.
Results from field calibration of CN,
using measured rainfall and runoff, have
identified considerable variability in C N
selection and runoff volume calculations
(Hawkins 1993; Hjelmfelt 199 1 ;
Boughton 1989). This variability is
expected (SCS 1985) and points to the
importance of conducting site-specific
and regional calibration studies with long
term watershed research data, Consider-
able long term research of this nature has
been conducted throughout the eastern
and midwestern regions of the United
States (Van Cleve and Martin 1991;
Haan et al. 1994; Hawkins 1993; Hjelm-
felt 1991), but little long term research
has been reported for the west. More
importantly, the available data raises the
question of the accuracy and applicability
of C N for western climatic conditions
(Hawkins 1993). The ability to adapt the
C N approach to regional geology and
climate has also been questioned (Ponce
and Hawkins 1996). The objective of this
study was to test the accuracy and appro-
priateness of the NEH-4 CN technique
for the study site and the environment it
represents and to compare this method
with two other published C N techniques.
Materials and methods
Site description. The Schubert water-
shed is located approximately 96 km (60
mi) northeast of Sacramento, California
in Yuba County, on the University of
California Sierra Foothill Research and
Extension Center (SFREC). The 103 ha
(254 ac) watershed ranges in elevation
from 152 m (500 ft) to 427 m (1,400 fi)
with slopes that average 18% and range
from 2% to 50%. The annual rainfall
distribution reflects California’s Mediter-
ranean climate with average monthly
rainfall greatest in the wet, cool winters
and absent in the dry, hot summers.
Average annual rainfall and stream flow
during the 17 year study were 708 mm
(27.9 in) and 344 mm (13.5 in). The
averages include extreme variability
among years, with minimum and maxi-
mum annud rainfall of 367 mm (14.5 in)
and 1,212 mm (47.8 in) and minimum
and maximum annual stream flow of 88
mm (3.5 in) and 848 mm (33.4 in).
Dominated by blues Oaks (QUPYCUS
douglarii) and intermixed with interior
live Oaks (Q. wislizenii) and foothills
pine (Pinus sabiniana), the vegetation
of the site typifies foothill Oak wood-
lands (Griffin 1988). Distributed uneven-
ly, these trees create a mosaic of open
grasslands, savanna, and woodlands
(Epifanio 1989). Annual grasses and
legumes dominate the understory, pro-
viding > 90% ground coverage. Species
diversity and production differs under the
Oak canopy and in the open grasslands
(Jackson et al. 1990; and Jansen 1987).
Oak stocking varies from 90 to 200 trees
ha with a minimum canopy coverage of
70% (Dahlgren et al., 1997).
Soils a t Schubert are classified as
Auburn-Sobrante-Las Posas Association
(Herbert and Begg 1969). These are
shallow to moderately deep, medium
textured, gravely and rocky soils (classi-
fied as fine, mixed, thermic Typic Hap-
loxeralfs). Formed in basic metavolcanic
(greenstone) bedrock of the Smartville
complex (Beiersdorfer 1979), they are
rich in Fe-oxides. Field mapping found
that 58% of the site is comprised of the
Sobrante-Las Posas rocky loams, 39%
Sobrante-Auburn very rocky loams, and
1% each Sobrante-Las Posas very rocky
hams and Auburn-Las Posas-Argonaut
gravely loams (Epifanio 1989). Soil pit
observations within the Schubert water-
shed consistently identified very stony
clay subsoils with 40% average clay con-
tent (Huang 1997). This clay content,
along with the bedrock, at the site limit
deep percolation of water (Dahlgren and
Singer 1994).
The site is primarily managed as range-
land with light to moderate beef cattle
grazing during January to March and
August to October. Average AUM/ha was
0.22 (0.54 AUM ac). Additional manage-
ment included conversion of 14% of
the watershed area from Oak cover to
open grasslands between 1984 to 1986
(Epifanio 1989).
Instrumentation. In 1978 the stream
was instrumented with a three foot Par-
shall flume for stage height measurements
during high flow events and a tandem
Copyright © 2000 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
one foot 90 degree V notch weir for stage
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(2):226-230 www.swcs.org
height measurements during low flow
periods. Stage height was continually
measured by floats inside stilling wells
beside the flume and weir; these data
were recorded on charts. From these data,
the annual, seasonal, monthly, and daily
discharge was calculated. Streamflow
volume, converted to depth by dividing
discharge by the watershed area, is
referred to as runoff. It was assumed that
runoff was the sum of overland and sub-
surface flow (Haan et al. 1994). Rainfall
quantity and intensity were measured
with tipping bucket rain gauges a t three
different elevations within the study site.
Although measurements were first
recorded in 1978, consistent data collec-
tion began in 1981, resulting in the 17
year record used in this study.
D a t a analysis. W e compared the
NEH-4 CN method to two alternate
methods for determining CN. The first
was that presented by Hjelmfelt (199 1).
In his review of 14 watershed data sets,
annual peak runoff and corresponding
rainfall were used to calculate the proba-
bility distribution of S using Equation
(1). With a lognormal distribution of S,
the mean or 50% probability of S used
with Equation (2) determined the CN for
AMC-11. Frequency values at the 10%
and 90% probabilities for S were then
used to determine CN for AMC-I and
AMC-111 in the same manner.
The second method was an asymptotic
determination of CN, recommended by
Hawkins (1 993). Frequency matching
was employed by equating rainfall (P)
and runoff (Q) event return periods.
Rainfall and runoff depths were sorted
SECOND QUARTER zoo0 227
separately and reassigned as rank-ordered
pairs of equal return periods. As first
interpreted by Hjelmfelt (1980), this
method of rank-ordering does not require
that storm runoff events be matched with
respective rainfall events, only that equal
rainfail and runoff return frequencies be
matched. For each rank-ordered pair, S
was calculated using the following qua-
dratic equation developed by Hawkins
(1993):
S = 5(P t 24- 4Q2 + 5PQ)’ (Q,P,S mm,in) ( 5 )
These S values were then substituted
into Equation (2) to calculate C N for
each Q P pair. The relationship between
the calculated CN and rainfall volume
was then plotted and used to determine
an AMC-I1 C N value.
Using the CNs determined by each
method, runoff was calculated for the 17
peak annual runoff events. Analysis of
variance and multiple comparison tests
were used to determine differences in
means among the estimated and observed
runoff (Hesel and Hirsch 1995). In addi-
tion, sum-of-least-squares and regression
analysis of observed runoff and estimated
runoff were used to assess the effective-
ness of the methods.
Table 1. Curve numbers for the Schubert watershed determined from NEH-4,
S-frequency return period, and asymptotic methods.
Method AMC-I
NEH-4
63
S-probability 86
Asymptotic 70
Note: AMC-antecedent moisture condition as defined by SCS (1985).
Figure 2
1
I t
10 30 50
Exceedence Probability (%)
Figure 2. Schubert watershed maximum soil water reten-
tion (S) return period frequency for 17 year peak annual
runoff events.
228 1OLf:N4L O F S O I L AEU’D W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N
Results and discussion
Hydrologic group designations for soils
in the watershed were Argonaut D;
Auburn D; Sobrante; C. Group designa-
tion for Las Posas was not available.
Although Sobrante associations with
Argonaut, Auburn, and Las Posas soils
make up the largest portion of the water-
shed, hydrologic group D was selected for
the watershed to ensure the most conserv-
ative estimate of runoff, following the rec-
ommendations in NEH-4 (SCS 1985) for
hydrologic group selection. In addition to
the hydrologic group designation, the site
was characterized as pasture and range in
good hydrologic condition, according to
the definition by soil group, cover type,
and cover density (SCS 1985). Curve
numbers were lowest using NEH-4, inter-
mediate for the asymptotic method and
highest for the S probability method
(Table 1). The 10, 50, and 90% S proba-
bility values were taken from Figure 2. As-
ymptotic analysis was based on Figure 3.
T h e relationship in Figure 3 of the
derived C N values approaching a con-
stant value as rainfall increases is “stan-
dard,” corresponding to high lateral flow
conditions (Hawkins 1993). This is in
agreement with conditions of lateral flow
proposed for this watershed ( H u a n g
AMC-II AMC-Ill
80 91
91 99
85 94
100
90
80
5 70
5 60
50
40
=
5 30
20
‘1
A Rainfall (mm)
70 90 Figure 3. Schubert watershed asymptotic determination
of curve number. Data-derived curve numbers are plotted
as a function of corresponding rainfall volume.
Note: The solid line represents the threshold of runoff
initiation (P > 0.2s).
1997; Dahlgren and Singer 1994), as well
as preferential flow paths observed in
other forested watersheds (Mosley 1979;
Freeze 1974; Dunne and Black 1970).
D u r i n g the 1 7 years, peak annual
events occurred under CN-I conditions
once, under CN-I1 conditions three
times, and under CN-I11 conditions 13
times, according to NEH-4 (SCS 1985)
(Table 2). Analysis of variance indicated a
significant difference between means cal-
culated by the S probability and NEH-4
methods (p = 0.009) by the Kruskal-
Wallis test (Hesel and Hirsch 1995).
However, all three C N applications pre-
dicted runoff values with no significant
differences to the observed values (Figure
4). Predicted mean peak-annual runoff
was highest for the S-probability method
and lowest for NEH-4 (Table 2). Com-
parison of estimated peak runoff to
observed runoff indicates that the S prob-
Copyright © 2000 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(2):226-230 www.swcs.org
ability procedure overestimated runoff 12
years and underestimated it five years
(Table 2). In comparison, runoff estima-
tions from the NEH-4 and asymptotic
methods were below observed values 12
and 10 years and above observed values
five and seven years, respectively. This
high variability between actual and ob-
served runoff for all three CN methods is
expected (SCS 1985). The errors are ran-
dom and the differences in estimated and
observed values are neither all minus or
all plus. Accuracy determinations de-
scribed in NEH-4 (SCS 1985) emphasize
that estimated runoff results reflect the
same return period frequency as observed
runoff rather than exact agreement of
runoff values.
Figure 3
50 I00 150
Table 2: Observed and estimated runoff for 17 peak annual runoff events in the Schubert watershed.
Cumulative Observed NEH-4 S-f requency Asymptotic
AMC Rainfall Runoff Runoff Runoff Runoff
Year Condition (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1981 Ill 20 9 6 20 9
1982 Ill 64 38 41 64 48
1983 Ill 49 28 28 49 34
1984 II 53 30 16 40 22
1985 Ill 54 36 32 51 39
1986 111 70 62 47 70 54
1987 Ill 8 4 0 8 1
1988 II 26 8 2 15 5
1989 Ill 66 35 43 63 50
1990 Ill 33 12 14 33 19
1991 Ill 37 19 18 37 23
1992 Ill 62 35 40 62 46
1993 Ill 26 21 9 26 13
1994 II 36 5 6 24 10
1995 Ill 64 44 41 61 48
1996 I 59 27 5 19 9
1997 Ill 41 57 21 41 26

Copyright © 2000 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
Mean

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(2):226-230 www.swcs.org

45 28 22 38 27
St. Dev. 18 17 16 20 18
r2 0.49 0.50 0.50
P= (0.002) (0.001) (0.001)

Regression analysis of estimated runoff

on observed runoff was highly significant
for all three methods (Table 2). These re- 70 -
sults indicated that all three CN methods
improved the prediction of annual peak
60 -

ic
runoff compared to rainfall alone (Figure
50 -
1). In addition, they indicated that a
lower S value and higher CN-11, generat- n

I
E 40 -
ing a near one-to-one relationship for E
v
rainfall and runoff in AMC-111 condi- 5 30 -
tions are needed. 2=I
If predicted peak runoff is statistically U 20 -
the same as measured peak runoff for all
three methods, there is a reason to select 10 -
one method over another. If flood predic-
tion is a major reason for using the CN 0-
procedure, the S probability method is
the most conservative and has the largest Observed NEH-4 S-probability Asymptotic
built-in safety factor for the experimental
watershed because it most frequently
overpredicted peak runoff compared to Curve Number Method
the other two methods. For example,
water year 1986 had the highest observed Figure 4. Analysis of variance among observed and estimated peak annual
runoff (Table 2). T h e S probability runoff. A line within the box shows means.
method estimated 70 mm (2.8 in) of
Note: 25th and 75th percentiles are shown as horizontal ends of the boxes
runoff compared to 47 mm (1.8 in) and and the whisker lines furthest from the boxes show 10th and 90th percentiles.
54 mm (2.1 in) for the NEH-4 and as-
ymptotic methods, respectively. Flood
control structures built based o n the S the highest dollar cost, which is not con- that curve number explained more than
probability predicted runoff will better sidered in this analysis. 75% of the variability (Hawkins 1993;
contain the peak runoff than structures These results do not explain, however, Hjelmfelt 1991). One possible answer to
based on either the NEH-4 or asymptotic why all three methods for determining this question is identification of stream-
methods. Engineering based on overpre- C N were at best only able to explain 51% flow sources in forested watersheds.
diction of peak flows may have the largest of the runoff variability for the 17 annual Water infiltration in such settings usually
built-in safety factor, but may also have peak runoff events. Other studies showed exceeds rainfall intensity (Dunne and

S E C O N D Q U A R T E R 2000 229
 Black 1970) because macro pore water
velocities are two and three orders of
magnitude higher than saturated soil
hydraulic conductivity (Mosley 1979).
The resulting streamflow is generated pri-
marily from subsurface flow with only
minimal contributions from overland
flow (Mosley 1979; Freeze 1974). Curve
number accounts for retention with re-
gard to antecedent conditions through S,
corresponding soil properties, and site
conditions as they influence overland
flow. However, it was not developed to
account for site-specific contributions of
macropore and subsurface flow to stream
flow. This point is important because
subsurface flow has been suggested as a
contributor to stream flow at the study
site (Dahlgren and Singer 1994) and
could account for the lower r’ between
observed and estimated runoff than has
been found for other studies. I t also
pling and instrumentation. Their work,
combined with that of Charlette Epifanio
and Xiaohong Huang, as researchers and
custodians o f the Schubert Watershed
record, have generated the long term data
used in this study.
REFERENCES CITED
Beiersdorfer, R.E. 1979. Metamorphic petrology of
the Smarrville Complex, Northern Sierra Neva-
da foothills. Master’s thesis, Universiry of
California.
Boughton, W.C. 1989. A review of the USDA SCS
curve number method. Australian Journal of
Soil Research 27:511-523.
Dahlgren, R.A., and M.J. Singer. 1994. Nutrient
cycling in managed and non-managed oak
woodland-grass ecosystems. Final Report to
Integrated Hardwood Range Management
Program, University of California.
Dahlgren, R.A., M.J. Singer, and X. Huang. 1997.
Oak tree and grazing impacts on soil properties
and nutrients in a California oak woodland.
Biogeochemistry 39:45-64.
Dunne, T., and R.D. Black. 1970. An experimental
investigation of runoff production in permeable
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
1980. Knisel, W.G. (ed). CREAMS: A field-
scale model for chemicals, runoff and erosion
from agricultural management systems. Conser-
vation Research Report No. 26, Southeast Area.
Washington, D.C.
Leonard, R.A., W.G. Knisel, and D.A. Still. 1986.
GLEAMS: Groundwater loading effects of agri-
cultural management systems. American Society
of Agricultural Engineers. Paper No. 86-25 11.
Chicago, IL.
Mosley, M.P. 1979. Streamflow generation in a
forested watershed. New Zealand. Water Re-
sources Research 15:795-806.
Ponce, V.M., and R.H. Hawkins. 1996. Runoff
curve number: Has it reached maturity? Journal
of Hydrologic Engineering 1:11- 19.
Rallison, R.E. and N. Miller. 1981. Past, present,
and future SCS runoff procedure. In: V.P.
Singh (ed). Rainfall-runoff relationship. Water
Resources Publication.
SCS. 1985. Hydrology, Section 4. In: Soil Conser-
vation Service National Engineering Handbook.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),
Washington, D.C.
SCS. 1986. Urban hydrology for small watersheds.
Technical Release No. 55. Soil Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wash-

Copyright © 2000 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.
soils. Water Resources Research 6:478-490. ington, D.C.
implies that regardless of how CN is de-

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 55(2):226-230 www.swcs.org

rived, it must be used with caution for
California and other Mediterranean Oak
woodlands.
Conclusion
Estimated mean annual peak runoff
was not significantly different from ob-
served runoff regardless of the method
used for determining CN, confirming the
ability of the curve number technique to
relate rainfafl to runoff for peak events.
T h e S probability method (Hjelmfelt
199 1) most frequently overestimated
runoff and is, therefore, a more conserva-
tive predictor than the NEH-4 method.
The best method for CN calculation ex-
plained only 51% of the variability in
peak annual runoff with a regression
slope of 0.73. In this Oak and grassland
watershed, it is likely that macro pore and
lateral flows contributed to runoff and
were not accounted for with any of the
CN techniques. This should serve as cau-
tion to researchers and resource managers
utilizing CN for hydrologic modeling
and flood management in California’s
Oak Woodlands and other watersheds in
which macropore flow is prevalent.
Acknowledgments
Partial support-fir this work came?om the
cllnivet-sity o f California International
Agricaltur d Development Graduate Group
and the Justro-Shields f u n d . Thanks t o
Mike Conner, Dave Labadie, and the
Sierra Foothills Research and Extension
Center s t a f j w continued szlpport in sam-
Epifanio, C.R. 1989. Hydrologic impacts of blue Van Cleve, K., and S. Martin (eds). 1991. Long
oak harvesting and evaluation of the modified term ecological research in the United States:
USLE in the northern Sierra Nevada. Master’s A network of research sites, 1991. Long-term
thesis, University of California. Ecological Research Office, University of Wash-
Freeze, R.A. 1974. Stream flow generation. Reviews ington.
of Geophysics and Space Physics 12:627-647. Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P.
Griffin, J. 1988. Oak woodland. Pp 383-415. Anderson. 1985. Agricultural nonpoint surface
In: M. Barbour and J. Major (eds). Terrestrial pollution models (AGNPS) I and I1 model
vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley documentation. Pollution Control Agency,
& Sons. St. Paul, and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Haan, C.T., B.J. Barfield, and J.C. Hayes. 1994. Agricultural Research Service, Washington,
Design hydrology and sedimentology for small D.C.
catchments. San Diego: Academic Press.
Hawkins, R.H. 1993. Asymptotic determinations of
runoff curve numbers from data. Journal of Irri-
gation and Drainage Engineering 119:334-345.
Herbert, F.W., and E.L. Begg. 1969. Soils of the
Yuba area California. Soil Survey Report.
Deparrment of Soils and Plant Nutrition,
University of California.
Hesel, D.R., and R.M. Hirsch. 1995. Statistical
methods in water resources. Studies in Environ-
mental Science 49. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Hjelmfelt, A.T., Jr. 1991. Investigation of curve
number procedure. Journal of Hydraulic Engi-
neering 117:725-737.
Hjelmfelt, A.T., Jr. 1980. Empirical Investigation of
curve number technique. Journal of Hydraulics
Division 106:1471-1476.
Huang, X. 1997. Watershed hydrology, soil, and
biogeochemistry in an oak woodland annual
grassland ecosystem in the Sierra Foothills, Cali-
fornia. Ph.D. diss., University of California.
Jackson, L.E., R.B. Straws, M.K. Firestone, and
J . W . Bartolome. 1990. Influence of tree
canopies on grassland productivity and nitrogen
dynamics in deciduous oak savanna. Agricul-
ture, Ecosystems and Environment 32:89-105.
Jansen, H. 1987. The effect of blue oak removal on
herbaceous production on a foothill site in the
northern Sierra Nevada. T.R Plumb and N.H.
Pillsbury (Technical Coordinators). Multiple-
use management of California’s hardwood
resources. In the proceedings of the Symposium
of the Pacific Southwest Forest Range Experi-
ment Station, Berkeley, CA.

230 J O U R N A L OF SOIL A N D W A T E R C O N S E R V A T I O N

View publication stats