Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 2048 OF 2319

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Uncertainty Analysis of Runoff Estimates from a Runoff Contour Map.
Author Rochelle, B. P. ; Stevens, D. L. ; Church, M. R. ;
CORP Author Corvallis Environmental Research Lab., OR. ;NSI Technology Services Corp., Corvallis, OR. ;Eastern Oregon State Coll., La Grande.
Publisher c1989
Year Published 1989
Report Number EPA/600/J-89/134;
Stock Number PB90-125659
Additional Subjects Runoff ; Water pollution ; Watersheds ; Maps ; Estimates ; Mathematical models ; Regional planning ; Comparison ; Interpolation ; Uncertainty analysis
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
NTIS  PB90-125659 Most EPA libraries have a fiche copy filed under the call number shown. Check with individual libraries about paper copy. NTIS 03/10/1990
Collation 10p
Abstract
The US EPA in cooperation with the USGS conducted an analysis to quantify the uncertainty associated with interpolating runoff to specific sites using a runoff contour map. The authors interpolated runoff to 93 gaged watersheds from a runoff contour map using: (1) hand interpolation to the watershed outlet, (2) a computer interpolation to the watershed outlet, and (3) hand interpolation to the watershed centroid. The authors compared the interpolated values to the actual gaged values and found that there was a bias in the average interpolated value for runoff estimated at basin outlets, with interpolated values being less than the actual. The authors found no significant difference between the hand interpolation method and the computer interpolation method except that the computer method tended to have higher variability due to factors inherent to the software used. There were no strong spatial correlations or regional patterns in the runoff interpolations, which indicates that there are no regional biases introduced in the development of the contour map. The authors determined that they could estimate runoff, on the average within approximately 15% of the measured value using the three methods.