Regulatory Guide 1.59: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(13 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
{{Adams
| number = ML13038A102
| number = ML003740388
| issue date = 04/30/1976
| issue date = 08/31/1977
| title = Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants
| title = Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants
| author name =  
| author name =  
| author affiliation = NRC/RES, NRC/OSD
| author affiliation = NRC/RES
| addressee name =  
| addressee name =  
| addressee affiliation =  
| addressee affiliation =  
Line 10: Line 10:
| license number =  
| license number =  
| contact person =  
| contact person =  
| document report number = RG-1.059, Rev. 1
| case reference number = -nr, FOIA/PA-2015-0456, FOIA/PA-2015-0458
| document report number = RG-1.59, Rev 2
| document type = Regulatory Guide
| document type = Regulatory Guide
| page count = 80
| page count = 64
}}
}}
{{#Wiki_filter:U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY  
{{#Wiki_filter:Revision 2
COMMISSION
-
REGULATORY
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
GUIDE OFFICE OF STANDARDS  
August 1077 C,
DEVELOPMENT
REGULATORYGUIDE
Revision 1 April 1976 DESIGN NUCLEAR PLANTS iA~5,,..1 USNRC REGULATORY  
OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT  
GUIDES Comments should be sent to the Secretary of the Commission.
REGULATORY GUIDE 1.59 DESIGN BASIS FLOODS
FOR
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES
Regulatory Guides or* ihsed to describe and make available to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of Implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems at postulated accidents. or to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory Guides are not sub*titute& for regulations, and compliance with them ia not required.


U S. Nuclear Regulatory Guides are issued to describe and make available to the public Regulatory Commission.
Methods and solutions different from those mt out in the guides will be accept able if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission.


Washington.
Comments and suggestions for Improvements In these guides erai ncounrged at ll timnes. end guides will be revised, as appropriale. to accommnodate comments and to reflect new information or experience.


D C 2055o. Attention Docketing and methods acceptable to the NRC staff of implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate techniques used by the staff in evalu The guides are issued in the following ten broad divisions" ating specific problems or postulated accidents, or to provide guidance to appli cants. Regulatory Guides are not substitutes for regulations, and compliance t Power Reactors 6. Products with them is not required Methods and solutions different from those set out in 2. Research and Test Reactors 7. Transportation the guides wdi be acceptable if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to 3 Fuels and Materials Facilities
This guide was revised as a result of substantive comments received from the public and additional staff review.
8 Occupational Health the issuance or continuance u Ia permit or license by the Commission
4 Environmental and Siting 9. Antitrust Review Comments and suggestions for improvenments in these guides are encouraged
5 Materials and Plant Protection
10 General at all times, and guides will lbe revised. as appropriate, to accommodate coa ments and to reflect new intormatn or eyperience However. comments on Copies of published guides may be obtained by written request indicating the this guide. if received within about Iwo months after its issuance, will be par divisions desired to the U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission.


Washington.
Comments Ohould be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, US. Nuclear Regu latory Commision. Washington, D.C. 2055, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.


D.C-culariy useful in evaluating the need for an early revision 20655. Attention:  
The gluides e issued in the following ten broad divisions:  
Director.


Office of Standards Development
===1. Power Reactors ===
--7 0 C." r'11 cx) , '- " I 66 F(I


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A .IN TRO DUCTIO N .....................................59-5  
===6. Products ===
2. Research and Test Reactors
 
===7. Transportation ===
3. Fuels end Materials Facilities S. Occupational Health
4. Environmental end Siting
9. Antitrust Review S. Materials nd Plant Protection
10. General Requests for single copies of issued guides (which may be reproduced) or for place ment on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commision.
 
Washington. D.C.
 
20555. Attention:
Director. Division of Document Control.
 
I
 
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 30, 1980
ERRATA
Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977
"Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants"
New information that affects the Probable Maximum the Upper Ohio River for drainage areas of 10,000
has been identified.
 
The changes to the isolines in the Upper Ohio River Basin and do not have any the Design Basis Flood for existing plants.
 
Flood (PMF) isolines for and 20,000 square miles affect only a small area significant impact on As a result of the new information, revised Figures B.6 and B.7 transmitted herewith should be used in future PMF discharge determinations when the simplified methods presented in Appendix B to the Regulatory Guide are being used.
 
In addition, appropriate changes have been made to the PMF data on pages 28 and 30 of Table B.1, which are also transmitted herewith.
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page  
 
==A. INTRODUCTION==
...
........................................  
1.59-5  


==B. DISCUSSION==
==B. DISCUSSION==
..........................
..  
.........................  
.............................................  
595 C. REGULATORY  
1.59-5
POSITION .......................
 
.................................
==C. REGULATORY POSITION==
59-7  
....................................  
1.59-7  


==D. IMPLEMENTATION==
==D. IMPLEMENTATION==
.........................
........................................  
....................................  
1.59-8 APPENDIX A-Probable Maximum and Seismically Induced Floods on Streams and Coastal Areas 1.59-9 APPENDIX B-Alternative Methods of Estimating Probable Maximum Floods ...........  
.59-8 APPENDIX A -Probable Maximum and Seismically Induced Floods on Streams ..... .............
1.59-11 APPENDIX C-Simplified Methods of Estimating Probable Maximum Surges ............  
.59-9 APPENDIX B -Alternative Methods of Estimating Probable Maximum Floods ....... .............  
1.59-41
.59-23 *APPENDIX C -Simplified Methods of Estimating Probable Maximum Surges ....... ..............  
*Lines indicate substantive changes from previous issue.
.59-53'LTines indicate substantive changes from previous issue.1.59-3  
 
1.59-3


==A. INTRODUCTION==
==A. INTRODUCTION==
General Design Criterion 2, "Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena," of Appen dix A, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, "Licensing of Produc tion and Utilization Facilities," requires, in part, that structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. Criterion 2 also requires that design bases for these structures, systems, and components reflect (I) appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding region, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy and quan tity of the historical data and the period of time in which the data have been accumulated, (2) ap propriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena, and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed.
Paragraph 100.10(c) of 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," requires that physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology, be taken into account in determining the acceptability of a site for a nuclear power reactor.
Section IV(c) of Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,"
to 10 CFR Part 100 suggests investigations for a detailed study of seismically induced floods and water waves. The appendix also suggests [Section IV(cXiii)] that the determination of design bases for seismically induced floods and water waves be based on the results of the required geologic and seismic in vestigations and that these design bases be taken into account in the design of the nuclear power plant.
This guide discusses the design basis floods that nuclear power plants should be designed to withstand without loss of capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof. The design requirements for flood protection are the subject of Regulatory Guide
1.102, "Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants."
The material previously contained in Appendix A,
"Probable Maximum and Seismically Induced Floods on Streams," has been replaced by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N170
1976, "Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites,", which has been endorsed as acceptable by the NRC staff with the ex ception noted in Appendix A. In addition to informa tion on stream flooding, ANSI N170-1976 contains methodology for estimating probable maximum sur
'Copies of ANSI Standard N 170-1976 may be purchased from the American Nuclear Society. 555 North Kensington Avenue. La Grange Park, IL 60525.
ges and seiches at estuaries and coastal areas on oceans and large lakes. Appendix B gives timesaving alternative methods of estimating the probable max imum flood along streams, and Appendix C gives a simplified method of estimating probable maximum surges on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has been con sulted concerning this guide and has concurred in the regulatory position.


==B. DISCUSSION==
==B. DISCUSSION==
General Design Criterion
Nuclear power plants should be designed to pre vent the loss of capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof resulting from the most severe flood conditions that can reasonably be predicted to occur at a site as a result of severe hydro meteorological conditions, seismic activity, or both.
2, "Design Bases for Pro-tection Against Natural Phenomena," of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," requires, in part, that structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions.
 
The Corps of Engineers for many years has studied conditions and circumstances relating to floods and flood control. As a result of these studies, it has developed a definition for a Probable Maximum Flood (PMFY and attendant analytical techniques for estimating, with an acceptable degree of conser vatism, flood levels on streams resulting from hydrometeorological conditions. For estimating seismically induced flood levels, an acceptable degree of conservatism for evaluating the effects of the in itiating event is provided by Appendix A to 10 CFR
Part 100.


Criterion
The conditions resulting from the worst site-related flood probable at the nuclear power plant (e.g., PMF,
2 also requires that design bases for these structures, systems, and components reflect (1) appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding region, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy and quantity of the historical data and the period of time in which the data have been accumulated, (2) appropriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena, and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed.
seismically induced flood, seiche, surge, severe local precipitation) with attendant wind-generated wave activity constitute the design basis flood conditions that safety-related structures, systems, and compo nents identified in Regulatory Guide 1.291 should be
'Corps of Engineers' Probable Maximum Flood definition appears in many publications of that agency such as Engineering Circular EC 1110-2-27, Change 1, "Engineering and Design-Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Determination of Spillway Capacities and Freeboard Allowances for Dams," dated 19 Feb. 1968. The Probable Maximum Flood is also directly analogous to the Corps of Engineers' "Spillway Design Flood" as used for dams whose failures would result in a significant loss of life and property.


Paragraph
'Reguiatory Guide
100.10(c)
1.29,
of 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," requires that physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology, be taken into account in determining the acceptability of a site for a nuclear power reactor.Section IV(c) of Appendix A, "Seismic and GeologicSiting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 100 suggests investigations for a detailed study of seismically induced floods and water waves. The ap-pendix also suggests [Section IV(c)(iii)]
"Seismic Design Classification,"  
that the deter-mination of design bases for seismically induced floods and water waves be based on the results of the required geologic and seismic investigations and that these design bases be taken into account in the design of the nuclear power plant.This guide discusses the design basis floods that nuclear power plants should be. designed to withstand without loss of capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof. The design requirements for flood protection are the subject of Regulatory Guide 1.102"Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants." Appendix A outlines the nature and scope of detailed hydrologic engineering activities involved in determining estimates for the probable maximum flood and for seismically induced floods resulting from dam failures and describes the situations for which less extensive analyses are acceptable.
identifies structures, systems, and components of light-water cooled nuclear power plants that shouild be designed to withstand the effects of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake and remain func tional. These structures, systems, and components are those neces sary to ensure (1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, (2) the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or (3) the capability to prevent or mitfgiate the consequences of accidents that could result in poten tial offsite exposures comparable to the guideline exposures of 10
CFR Part 100. These same structures, systems, and components should also be designed to withstand conditions resulting from the design basis flood and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof of other types of nuclear power plants. It is expected that safety-related structures, systems, and components of other types of nuclear power plants will be identified in future regulatory guides. In the interim, Regulatory Guide 1.29 should be used as guidance when identifying safety-related structures, systems, and components of other types of nuclear power plants.


Two new appendices have been added to this revision of the guide. Appendix B gives timesaving alternative methods of estimating the prob-able maximum flood along streams and Appendix C gives a simplified method of estimating probable maxi-mum surges on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.Nuclear power plants should be designed to prevent the loss of capability for cold shutdown and mainten-ance thereof resulting from the most severe flood conditions that can reasonably be predicted to occur at a site as a result of severe hydrometeorological conditions, seismic activity, or both.The Corps of Engineers for many years has studied conditions and circumstances relating to floods and flood control. As a result of these studies, it has developed a definition for a Probable Maximum Flood (PMF)' and attendant analytical techniques for esti-mating, with an acceptable degree of conservatism, flood levels on streams resulting from hydrometeorological conditions.
1.59-5 I
I


For estimating seismically induced flood levels, an acceptable degree of conservatism for evalua-ting the effects of the initiating event is provided by Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100.The conditions resulting from the worst site-related flood probable at the nuclear power plant (e.g., PMF, seismically induced flood, seiche, surge, severe local precipitation)
designed to withstand and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance therof.
with attendant wind-generated wave activ-ity constitute the design basis flood conditions that safety-related structures, systems, and components iden-tified in Regulatory Guide 1.292 should be designed to withstand and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof.For sites along streams, the PMF generally provides the design basis flood. For sites along lakes or seashores, a flood condition of comparable severity could be'Corps of Engineers'
Probable Maximum Flood definition ap-pears in many publications of that agency such as Engineering Circular EC 1110-2-27, Change 1, "Engineering and Design-Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Determination of Spill-way Capacities and Freeboard Allowances for Dams," dated 19 Feb. 1968. The Probable Maximum Flood is also directly analogous to the Corps of Engineers' "Spillway Design Flood" as used for dams whose failures would result in a significant loss of life and property.2Regulatory Guide 1.29, "Seismic Design Classification," identifies structures, systems, and components of light-water- cooled nuclear power plants that should be designed to withstand the effects of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake and remain functional.


These structures, systems, and components are those necessary to ensure (1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, (2) the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or (3) the capability to prevent or mitigate the consequences of accidents which could result in potential offsite exposures comparable to the guideline exposures of 10 CFR Part 100. These same structures, systems, and components should also be designed to withstand conditions resulting from the design basis flood and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof of other types of nuclear power plants. It is expected that safety-related structures, systems, and components of other types of nuclear power plants will be identified in future regulatory guides. In the interim, Regulatory Guide 1.29 should'be used as guidance when identifying safety-related structures, systems, and components of other types of nuclear power plants.1.59-5 produced by the most severe combination of hydro-meteorological parameters reasonably possible, such as may be produced by a Probable Maximum Hurricane, 3 or by a Probable Maximum Seiche. On estuaries, a Probable Maximum River Flood, a Probable Maximum Surge, a Probable Maximum Seiche, or a reasonable combination of less severe phenomenologically caused flooding events should be considered in arriving at design basis flood conditions comparable in frequency of occurrence with a PMF on streams.In addition to floods produced by severe hydro-meteorological conditions, the most severe seismically induced floods reasonably possible should be considered for each site. Along streams and estuaries, seismically induced floods may be produced by dam failures or landslides.
For sites along streams, the PMF generally provides the design basis flood. For sites along lakes or seashores, a flood condition of comparable severity could be produced by the most severe com-. 
bination of hydrometeorological parameters reasonably possible, such as may be produced by a Probable Maximum Hurricane4 or by a Probable Maximum Seiche. On estuaries, a Probable Max imum River Flood, a Probable Maximum Surge, a Probable Maximum Seiche, or a reasonable com bination of less severe phenomenologically caused flooding events should be considered in arriving at design basis flood conditions comparable in fre quency of occurrenfe with a PMF on streams.


Along lakeshores, coastlines, and estuaries, seismically induced or tsunami-type flooding shoUld be considered.
In addition to floods produced by severe hydrometeorological conditions, the most severe seismically induced floods reasonably possible should be considered for each site. Along streams and es tuaries, seismically induced floods may be produced by dam failures or landslides. Along lakeshores, coastlines, and estuaries, seismically induced or tsunami-type flooding should be considered. Con sideration of seismically induced floods should in clude the same range of seismic events as is postulated for the design of the nuclear plant. For in stance, the analysis of floods caused by dam failures, landslides, or tsunami requires consideration of seismic events of the severity of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake occurring at the location that would produce the worst such flood at the nuclear power plant site. In the case of seismically induced floods along rivers, lakes, and estuaries that may be produced by events less severe than a Safe Shutdown Earthquake, consideration should be given to the coincident occurrence of floods due to severe hydrometeorological conditions, but only where the effects on the plant are worse than and the probability of such combined events may be greater than an individual occurrence of the most severe event of either type. Appendix A contains acceptable combinations of such events. For the specific case of seismically induced floods due to dam failures, an evaluation should be made of flood waves that may be caused by domino-type dam failures triggered by a seismically induced failure of a critically located dam and of flood -waves that may be caused by multiple dam failures in a region where dams may be located close enough together that a single seismic event can cause multiple failures.


Consideration of seismically induced floods should include the same range of seismic events as is postulated for the design of the nuclear plant. For instance, the analysis of floods caused by dam failures, landslides, or tsunami requires consideration of seismic events of the severity of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake occurring at the location that would produce the worst such flood at the nuclear power plant site. In the case of seismically induced floods along rivers, lakes, and es-tuaries which may be produced by events less severe than a Safe Shutdown Earthquake, consideration should be given to the coincident occurrence of floods due to severe hydrometeorological conditions, but only where the effects on the plant are worse than and the probability of such combined events may be greater than an individual occurrence of the most severe event of either type. For example, a seismically induced flood produced by an Operating Basis Earthquake (as defined in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 100) coincident with a runoff-type flood of Standard Project Flood 4 severity may be considered to have approximately the same severity as the seismically induced flood from an earthquake of Safe Shutdown severity coincident with about a 25-year flood. For the specific case of seismi-cally induced floods due to dam failures, an evaluation should be made of flood waves that may be caused by domino-type dam failures triggered by a seismically induced failure of a critically located dam and of flood See References  
Each of the severe flood types discussed above should represent the upper limit of all potential phenomenologically caused flood combinations con sidered reasonably possible. Analytical techniques are available and should generally be used for predic
2 and 4, Appendix C.4 The Standard Project Flood (SPF) is the flood resulting from the most severe flood-producing rainfall depth-area-duration relationship and isohyetal pattern of any storm that is considered reasonably characteristic of the region in which the watershed is located. If snowmelt may be substantial, appropri-ate amounts are included with the Standard Project Storm rainfall.
"See References 2 and 5, Appendix C.


Where floods are predominantly caused by snowmelt, the SPF is based on critical combinations of snow, temperature, and water losses. See "Standard Project Flood Determina- tions," EM 1110-2-1411, Corps of Engineers, Departrlhent of the Army (revised March 1965).waves that may be caused by multiple dam failures in a region where dams may be located close enough together that a single seismic event can cause multiple failures.Each of the severe flood types discussed above should represent the upper limit of all potential phenomeno- logically caused flood combinations considered reason-ably possible.
tion at individual sites. Those techniques applicable to PMF and seismically induced flood estimates on streams are presented in Appendices A and B of this guide. For sites on coasts, estuaries, and large lakes, techniques are presented in Appendices A and C of this guide.


Analytical techniques are available and should generally be used for prediction at individual sites. Those techniques applicable to PMF and seismi-cally induced flood estimates on streams are presented in Appendices A and B to this guide. Similar appendices for coastal, estuary, and Great Lakes sites, reflecting com-parable levels of risk, will be issued as they become available.
Analyses of only the most severe flood conditions may not indicate potential threats to safety-related systems that might result from combinations of flood conditions thought to be less severe. Therefore, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood condi tions should also be considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism. Such combina tions should be evaluated in cases where the probability of their existing at the same time and hav ing significant consequences is at least comparable to that associated with the most severe hydro meteorological or seismically induced flood. For ex ample, a failure of relatively high levees adjacent to a plant could occur during floods less severe than the worst site-related flood, but would produce condi tions more severe than would result during a greater flood (where a levee failure elsewhere would produce less severe conditions at the plant site). 
Wind-generated wave activity may produce severe flood-induced static and dynamic conditions either independent of or coincident with severe hydrometeorological or seismic flood-producing mechanisms. For example, along a lake, reservoir, river, or seashore, reasonably severe wave action should be considered coincident with the probable maximum water level conditions.' The coincidence of wave activity with probable maximum water level conditions should take into account the fact that suf ficient time can elapse between the occurrence of the assumed meteorological mechanism and the max imum water level to allow subsequent meteorological activity to produce substantial wind-generated waves coincident with the high water level. In addition, the most severe wave activity at the site that can be generated by distant hydrometeorological activity should be considered' For instance, coastal locations may be subjected to severe wave action caused by a distant storm that, although not as severe as a local storm (e.g., a Probable Maximum Hurricane), may produce more severe wave action because of a very long wave-generating fetch. The most severe wave ac tivity at the site that may be generated by conditions at a distance from the site should be considered in such cases. In addition, assurance should be provided
'Probable Maximum Water Level is defined by the Corps of Engineers as "the maximum still water level (i.e., exclusive of local coincident wave runup) which can be produced by the most severe combination of hydrometeorological and/or seismic parameters reasonably possible for a particular location. Such phenomena are hurricanes, moving squall lines, other cyclonic meteorological events, tsunami, etc., which, when combined with the physical response of a body of water and severe ambient hydrological con ditions, would produce a still water level that has virtually no risk of being exceeded."
1.59-6 K
S
I
I


Appendix C contains an acceptable method of estimating hurricane-induced surge levels on the open coasts of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.Analyses of only the most severe flood conditions may not indicate potential threats to safety-related systems that might result from combinations of flood conditions thought to be less severe. Therefore, reason-able combinations of less-severe flood conditions should also be considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism.
that safety systems necessary for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof are designed to withstand the static and dynamic effects resulting from frequent flood levels (i.e., the maximum operating level in reservoirs and the 10-year flood level in streams)
coincident with the waves that would be produced by the Probable Maximum Gradient Wind' for the site (based on a study of historical regional meteorology).


Such combinations should be evaluated in cases where the probability of their existing at the same time and having significant consequences is at least comparable to. that associated with the most severe hydrometeorological or seismically induced flood.For example, a failure of relatively high levees adjacent (to a plant could occur during floods less severe than the worst site-related flood, but would produce conditions more severe than would result during a greater flood (where a levee failure elsewhere would produce less severe conditions at the plant site).Wind-generated wave activity may produce severe flood-induced static and dynamic conditions either independent of or coincident with severe hydrometeoro- logical or seismic flood-producing mechanisms.
==C. REGULATORY POSITION==
1. The conditions resulting from the worst site related flood probable at a nuclear power plant (e.g.,
PMF, seismically induced flood, hurricane, seiche, surge, heavy local precipitation) with attendant wind generated wave activity constitute the design basis flood conditions that safety-related structures, systems, and components identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 (see footnote 3) must be designed to withstand and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof.


For example, along a lake, reservoir, river, or seashore, reasonably severe wave action should be considered coincident with the probable maximum water level conditions.
a. The PMF on streams, as defined in Appendix A and based on the analytical techniques summarized in Appendices A and B of this guide, provides an ac ceptable level of conservatism for estimating flood levels caused by severe hydrometeorological con ditions.


5 The coincidence of wave activity with probable maximum water level conditions should take into account the fact that sufficient time can elapse between the occurrence of the assumed meteorological mechanism and the maximum water level to allow'Probable Maximum Water Level is defined by the Corps of Engineers as "the maximum still water level (i.e., exclusive of local coincident wave runup) which can be produced by the most severe combination of hydrometeorological and/or seismic parameters reasonably possible for a particular location.Such phenomena are hurricanes, moving squall lines, other cyclonic meteorological events, tsunami, etc., which, when combined with the physical response of a body of water and severe ambient hydrological conditions, would produce a still water level that has virtually no risk of being exceeded." (See Appendix A to this guide.)1.59-6 subsequent meteorological activity to produce sub-stantial wind-generated waves coincident with the high water level. In addition, the most severe wave activity at the site that can be generated by distant hydrometeoro- logical activity should be considered.
b. Along lakeshores, coastlines, and estuaries, estimates of flood levels resulting from severe surges, seiches, and wave action caused by hydrometeorological activity should be based on criteria comparable in conservatism to those used for Probable Maximum Floods. Criteria and analytical techniques providing this level of conservatism for the analysis of these events are summarized in Ap pendix A of this guide. Appendix C of this guide pre sents an acceptable method for estimating the still water level of the Probable Maximum Surge from hurricanes at open-coast sites on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.


For instance, coastal locations may be subjected to severe wave action caused by a distant storm that, although not as severe as a local storm (e.g., a Probable Maximum Hurricane), may produce more severe wave action because of a very long wave-generating fetch. The most severe wave activity at the site that may be generated by conditions at a distance from the site should be considered in such cases. In addition, assurance should be provided that safety systems necessary for cold shutdown and main-tenance thereof are designed to withstand the static and dynamic effects resulting from frequent flood levels (i.e., the maximum operating level in reservoirs and the 10-year flood level in streams) coincident with the waves that would be produced by the Probable Maximum Gradient Wind 6 for the site (based on a study of historical regional meteorology).
c. Flood conditions that could be caused by dam failures from earthquakes should also be considered in establishing the design basis flood. Analytical techniques for evaluating the hydrologic effects of seismically induced dam failures discussed herein are presented in Appendix A of this guide. Techniques for evaluating the effects of tsunami will be presented in a future appendix.
C. REGULATORY
POSITION 1. The conditions resulting from the worst site-re-lated flood probable at a nuclear power plant (e.g., PMF, seismically induced flood, hurricane,.
seiche, surge, heavy local precipitation.)
with attendant wind-generated wave activity constitute the design basis flood conditions that safety-related structures, systems, and components iden-tified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 (see footnote 2) must be designed to withstand and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof.a. On streams the PMF, as defined by the Corps of Engineers and based on the analytical techniques sum-marized in Appendices A and B of this guide, provides an acceptable level of conservatism for estimating flood levels caused by severe hydrometeorological conditions.


b. Along lakeshores, coastlines, and estuaries.
d. Where upstream dams or other features that provide flood protection are present, in addition to the analyses of the most severe floods that may be in duced by either hydrometeorological or seismic mechanisms, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood conditions and seismic events should also be
6Probable Maximum Gradient Wind is defined as a gradient wind of a designated duration, which there is virtually no risk of ex ceeding.


estimates of flood levels resulting from severe surges, seiches, and wave action caused by hydrometeorological activity should be based on criteria comparable in conservatism to those used for Probable -Maximum Floods. Criteria and analytical techniques providing this level of conservatism for the analysis of these events will be summarized in subsequent appendices to this guide.Appendix C of this guide presents an acceptable method for estimating the stillwater level of the Probable Maximum Surge from hurricanes at open-coast sites on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.c. Flood conditions that could be caused by dam failures from earthquakes should also be considered in 6 Probable Maximum Gradient Wind is defined as a gradient wind of a designated duration, which there is virtually no risk of exceeding.
considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism. The effect of such combinations on the flood conditions at the plant site should be evaluated in cases where the probability of such com binations occurring at the same time and having significant consequences is at least comparable to the probability associated with the most severe hydrometeorological or seismically induced flood.


establishing the design basis flood. A simplified analyti-cal technique for evaluating the hydrologic effects of seismically induced dam failures discussed herein is presented in Appendix A of this guide. Techniques for evaluating the effects of tsunami will also be presented in a future appendix.d. Where upstream dams or other features which provide flood protection are present, in addition to the analyses of the most severe floods that may be induced by either hydrometeorological or seismic mechanisms, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood conditions and seismic events should also be considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism.
For relatively large streams, examples of acceptable combinations of runoff floods and seismic events that could affect the flood conditions at the plant arc con tained in Appendix A. Less-severe flood conditions, associated with the above seismic events, may be ac ceptable for small streams, that exhibit relatively short periods of flooding.


The effect of such combinations on the flood conditions at the plant site should be evaluated in cases where the probability of such combinations occurring at the same time and having significant consequences is at least comparable to the probability associated with the most severe hydrometeorological or seismically induced flood.On relatively large streams, examples of acceptable combinations of runoff floods and seismic events that could affect the flood conditions at the plant include the Safe Shutdown Earthquake with the 25-year flood and the Operating Basis Earthquake with the Standard Project Flood. Less severe flood conditions, associated with the above seismic events, may be acceptable for small streams which exhibit relatively short periods of flooding.
e. The effects of coincident wind-generated wave activity to the water levels associated with the worst site-related flood possible (as determined from paragraphs a, b, c, or d above) should be added to generally define the upper limit of flood potential.


The above combinations of independent events are specified here only with respect to the determination of the design basis flood level.e. The effects of coincident wind-generated wave activity to the water levels associated with the worst site-related flood possible (as determined from para-graphs a, b, c, or d above) should be added to generally define the upper limit of flood .potential.
Acceptable procedures are contained in Appendix A
of this guide.


An acceptable analytical basis for wind-generated wave activity coincident with probable maximum water levels is the assumption of a 40-mph overland wind from the most critical wind-wave-producing direction.
2. As an alternative to designing hardened proteo ton' for all safety-related structures, systems, And components as specified in Regulatory Position 1 above, it is permissible not to provide hardened protection for some of these features if:
a. S ufficientt'warning time is shown to be available to shut the plant down and implement ade quate emergency procedures;
b. All safety-related structures, systems, and components identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 (see footnote 3) arc designed to withstand the flood condi tions resulting from a Standard Project events with attendant wind-generated wave activity that may be produced by the worst winds of record and remain functional;
c. In addition to the analyses in paragraph 2.b
-above, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood conditions are also considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism; and
'Hardened protction means structural provisions Incorporated in the plant design that will protect safety-related structures, systems, and components from the static and dynamic effects of floods. In addition, each component of the protection must be passive and In place, as it is to be used for flood protection, during normal plant operation. Examples of the types of flood protection. to be provided for nuclear power plants are contained in Regulatory Guide 1.102.


However, if historical windstorm data substantiate that the 40-mph event, including wind direction and speed, is more extreme than has occurred regionally, historical data may be used. If the mechanism producing the maximum water level, such as a hurricane, would itself produce higher waves, these higher waves should be used as the design basis.2. As an alternative to designing hardened protec-tion 7 for all safety-related structures, systems, and components as specified in Regulatory Position 1 above,"Hardened protection means structural provisions incorporated in the plant design that will protect safety-related structures, systems, and components from the static and dynamic effects of floods. In addition, each component of the protection must be passive and in place, as it is to be used for flood protection, during normal plant operation.
sFor sites along streams, this event is characterized by the Corps of Engineers' definition of a Standard Project Flood. Such floods have been found to produce flow rates generally 40 to 60 percent of the PMF. For sites along seashores, this event may be characterized by the Corps of Engineers' definition of a Standard Project Hurricane. For other sites, a comparable level, of risk should be assumed.


Examples of the types of flood protection to be provided for nuclear power plants are contained in Regulatory Guide 1.102.fI 1.59-7 I it is permissible not to provide hardened protection for some of these features if: a. Sufficient warning time is shown to be available to shut the plant down and implement adequate emergency procedures;
1.59-7
b. All safety-related structures, systems, and com-ponents identified in Regulatory Guide 1..29 (see foot-note 2) are designed to withstand the flood conditions resulting from a Standard Project event 8 with attendant wind-generated wave activity that may be produced by the worst winds of record and remain functional;
c. In addition to the analyses in paragraph
2.b above, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood conditions are also considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism;
and d. In addition to paragraph
2.b above, at least those structures, systems, and components necessary for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof are designed with hardened protective features to remain functional while withstanding the entire range of flood conditions up to and including the worst site-related flood probable (e.g., PMF, seismically induced flood, hurricane, surge.seiche, heavy local precipitation)
with coincident wind-generated wave action as discussed in Regulatory Posi-tion I above.3. During the economic life of a nuclear power plant, unanticipated changes to the site environs which may affect the flood-producing characteristics of the environs are possible.


Examples include construction of a dam upstream or downstream of the plant, or comparably, construction of a highway or railroad bridge and embankment that obstructs the flood flow of a river, and construction of a harbor or deepening of an existing harbor near a coastal or lake site plant.Significant changes in the runoff or other flood-producing characteristics of the site environs, as they affect the design basis flood, should be identified and used as the basis to develop or modify emergency operating procedures, if necessary, to mitigate the 8 For sites along streams, this event is characterized by the Corps of Engineers'
d. In addition to paragraph 2.b above, at least those structures, systems, and components necessary fbr cold shutdown and molntenance thereof are designed with hardened protective features to remain functional while withstanding the entire range of flood conditions up to and including the worst site related flood probable (e.g., PMF, seismically in.
definition of a Standard Project Flood. (Also, see footnote 4.) Such floods have been found to produce flow rates generally
40 to 60 percent of the PMF. For sites along seashores, this event may be characterized by the Corps of Engineers'
definition of a Standard Project Hurricane.


For other sites, a comparable level of risk should be assumed.a. The type of investigation undertaken to identify changed or changing conditions in the site environs.b. The changed or changing conditions noted during the investigation.
duced flood, hurricane, surge, seiche, heavy local precipitation) with coincident wind-generated wave action as discussed in Regulatory Position I above.


c. The hydrologic engineering bases for estimating the effects of the changed conditions on the design basis flood.d. Safety-related structures, systems, or com-ponents (identified in paragraph
3. During the economic life of a nuclear power plant, unanticipated changes to the site environs which may adversely affect the flood-producing characteristics of the environs are possible. Examples include construction of a dam upstream or downstream of the plant or, comparably, construc tion of a highway or railroad bridge and embank ment that obstructs the flood flow of a river and con struction of a harbor or deepening of an existing har bor near a coastal or lake site plant.
2.b above) affected by the changed conditions in the design basis flood should be identified along with modifications to the plant facility necessary to afford protection during the in-creased flood conditions.


If emergency operating pro-cedures must be used to mitigate the effects of these new flood conditions, the emergency procedures devel-oped or modifications to existing procedures should be provided.4. Proper utilization of the data and procedures in Appendices B and C will result in PMF peak discharges and PMS peak stillwater levels which will in many cases be approved by the NRC staff with no further verifica-tion. The staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMF and PMS analyses that result in less conservative estimates than those obtained by use of Appendices B and C. In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMF and PMS analyses will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in Appendices B and C result in more conservative estimates.
Significantly adverse changes in the runoff or other flood-producing characteristics of the site environs, as they affect the design basis flood, should be iden tified and used as the basis to develop or modify emergency operating procedures, if necessary, to mitigate the effects of the increased flood.
 
4. Proper utilization of the data and procedures in Appendices B and C will result in PMF peak dis charges and PMS peak stiliwater levels which will in many cases be approved by the NRC staff with no further verification. The staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMF and PMS analyses that result in less conservative estimates than those ob tained by use of Appendices B and C. In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMF and PMS analyses will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in Appendices B and C result in more conservative estimates.


==D. IMPLEMENTATION==
==D. IMPLEMENTATION==
The purpose of this section is to provide information to license applicants and licensees regardirng the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.This guide reflects current NRC practice.
The purpose of this section is to provide informa tion to license applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.
 
This guide reflects current NRC practice.
 
Therefore, except in those cases in which the appli cant or licensee proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with specified portions of the Commission's regulations, the methods described herein are being. and will continue to be used in the evaluation of submittals for construction permit ap plications until this guide. is revised as a result of sug gestions from the public or additional'staff review.
 
1.59-8
 
APPENDIX A
PROBABLE MAXIMUM AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED
FLOODS ON STREAMS AND COASTAL AREAS
The material preiiously contained in Appendix A
has been replaced by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard.N170-1976, "Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites," with the following exception:
Sections 5.5.4.2.3 and 5.5.5 of ANSI N170-1976 contain references to methods for evaluating the cro- sion failure of earthfill or roekfrdl dams and determin ing the resulting outflow hydrographs. The staff has found that some of these methods may not be conser vative because they predict slower rates of erosion than have historically occurred. Modifications to the models may be made to increase their conservatism.
 
Such modifications will be reviewed by the NRC staff on a case-by-case basis.
 
1.59-9
 
APPENDIX B
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF
ESTIMATING PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOODS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
B.
 
==I. INTRODUCTION==
..................... 
B.2 SCOPE
........................... 
B.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD PEAK DISCHARGE
B.3.1 Use of PMF Discharge Determinations
........ 
B.3.2 Enveloping Isolines of PMF Peak Discharge..... 
B.3.2.1 Preparation of Maps ................ 
B.3.2.2 Use of Maps ............. 
B.3.3 Probable Maximum Water Level ............ 
B.3.4 Wind-Wave Effects ................... 
B.4 LIMITATIONS ....................... 
REFERENCES ........................... 
FIGURES .............................. 
TABLE
............................. 
FIGURES
Page
.......1.59-12
1.59-12
1.59-12
1.59-12
1.59-12
1.59-12
1.59-13
1.59-13
1.59-13
1.59-13
1.59-14
1.59-15
1.59-23
1.59-15
1.59-16
1.59-17
1.59-18
1.59-19
1.59-20
1.59-21
1.59-22 Figure B. I-Water Resources Regions
..................... 
B.2-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-100 Sq. Mi.
 
B.3-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-500 Sq. Mi.
 
B.4-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-1,000 Sq. Mi.
 
B.5-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-5,000 Sq. Mi.
 
B.6-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-10,000 Sq. Mi.
 
.B.7--Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-20,000 Sq. Mi.
 
B.8-Example of Use of Enveloping Isolines ................ 
TABLE
Table B.I--Probable Maximum Flood Data
..
1.59-23
1.59-11
.
.
. .
.
.
.
I
g I
D
D
I
 
0.1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents timesaving alternative methods of estimating the probable maximum flood (PMF) peak discharge for nuclear facilities on non tidal streams in the contiguous United States. Use of the methods herein will reduce both the time neces sary for applicants to prepare license applications and the NRC staff's review effort.
 
The procedures are based on PMF values deter mined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by ap plicants for licenses that have been reviewed and ab cepted by the NRC staff, and by the staff and its con.
 
sultants. The information in this appendix was developed from a study made by Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, through a contract with NRC (Ref. 1). 
PMF peak discharge determinations for the entire contiguous United States are presented in Table B. I.
 
Under some conditions, these may be used directly to evaluate the PMF at specific sites. In addition, maps showing enveloping isolines of PMF discharge for several index drainage areas are presented in Figures B.2 through B.7 for the contiguous United States east of the 103rd meridian, including instructions for and an example of their use (see Figure B.8). Because of the enveloping procedures used in preparing the maps, results from their use are highly conservative.
 
Limitations on the use of these generalized methods of estimating PMFs aretidgntified in Section B.4. These limitations should be considered in detail in assessing the applicability of the methods at specific sites.
 
Applicants for licenses for nuclear facilities at sites on nontidal streams in the contiguous United States have the option of using these methods in lieu of the more precise but laborious methods of Appendix A.
 
The results of application of the methods in this ap pendix will in many cases be accepted by the NRC
staff with no further verification.
 
0.2 SCOPE
The data and procedures in this appendix apply only to nontidal streams in the contiguous United States. Two procedures are included for nontidal streams east of the 103rd meridian.
 
Future studies are planned to determine the ap plicability of similar generalized methods and to develop such methods, if feasible, for other areas.
 
These studies, to be included in similar appendices, are anticipated for the main stems of large rivers and the United States west of the 103rd meridian, in cluding Hawaii and Alaska.
 
B.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD
PEAK DISCHARGE
The data presented in this section are as follows:
1. A tabulation of PMF peak discharge determina.
 
tions at specific locations throughout the contiguous United States. These data are subdivided into water resources regions, delineated on Figure B.1, and are tabulated in Table B.1.
 
2. A set of six maps, Figures B.2 through B.7, covering index drainage areas of 100, 500, 1,000,
5,000, 10,000, and 20,000 square miles, containing isolines of equal PMF peak discharge for drainage areas of those sizes east of the 103rd meridian.
 
B.3.1 Use of PMF Discharge Determinations The PMF peak discharge determinations listed in Table B.I are those computed by the Corps of Engineers, by the NRC staff and their consultants, or computed by applicants and accepted by the staff.
 
For a nuclear facility located near or adjacent to one of the streams listed in the table and reasonably close to the location of the PMF determination, that PMF may be transposed, with proper adjustment, or routed to the nuclear facility site. Methods of trans.
 
position, adjustment, and routing are given in stan dard hydrology texts and are not repeated here.
 
B.3.2 Enveloping Isollnes of PMF Peak Discharge B.3.2.1 Preparation of Maps For each of the water resources regions, each PMF
determination in Table B.A was plotted on logarithmic paper (cubic feet per second per square mile versus drainage area). It was found that there were insufficient data and too much scatter west of about the 103rd meridian, caused by variations in precipitation from orographic effects or by melting snowpack. Accordingly, the rest of the study was confined to the United States east of the 103rd meri dian. For sites west of the 103rd meridian, the methods of the preceding, section may be used.
 
Envelope curves were drawn for each region east of the 103rd meridian. It was found that the envelope curves generally paralleled the Creager curve (Ref. 2),
defined as Qi,46.0 CA (0.894A -0.048) -1 where Q is the discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs)
C is a. constant, taken as 100 for this study A is the drainage area in square miles.
 
1.59-12 K
 
Each PMF discharge determination of 50 square miles or more was adjusted to one or more of the six selected index drainage areas in accordance with the slope of the Creager curve. Such adjustments were made as follows:
PMF Within Drainage Area Range, sq. mi.
 
50 to 500
100 to 1,000
500 to 5,000
1,000 to 10,000
5,000 to 50,000
10,000 or greater Adjusted to Index Drainage Area, sq. mil.
 
100
500
1,000
5,000
10,000
20,000
. The PMF values so adjusted were plotted on maps of the United States east of the 103rd meridian, one map for each of the six index drainage areas. It was found that there were areas on each map with insuf ficient points to define isolines. To fill in such gaps, conservative computations of approximate PMF
peak discharge were made for each two-degree latitude-longitude intersection on each map. This was done by using enveloped relations between drainage area and PMF peak discharge (in cfs per inch of runoff), and applying appropriate probable max imum precipitation (PMP) at each two-degree latitude-longitude intersection. PMP values, obtained from References 3 and 4, were assumed to be for a 48 hour storm to which losses of 0.05 inch per hour were applied. These approximate PMF values were also plotted on the maps for each index drainage area and the enveloping isolines were drawn as shown on Figures B.2 through B.7.
 
B.3.2.2 Use of Maps The maps may be used to determine PMF peak dis charge at a given site with a known drainage area as follows:
1. Locate the site on the 100-square-mile map, Figure B.2.
 
2. Read and record the 100-square-mile PMF peak discharge by straight-line interpolation between the isolines.
 
3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for 500, 1,000, 5,000,
10,000, and 20,000 square miles from Figures B.3 through B.7.
 
4. Plot the six PMF peak discharges so obtained on logarithmic paper against drainage area, as shown on Figure B.8.
 
5. Draw a smooth curve through the points.
 
Reasonable extrapolations above and below the defined curve may be made.
 
6. Read the PMF peak discharge at the site from the curve at the appropriate drainage area.
 
B.3.3 Probable Maximum Water Level When the PMF peak discharge has been obtained as outlined in the foregoing sections, the" PMF still water level should be determined. The methods given in Appendix A are acceptable for this purpose.
 
B.3.4 Wind-Wave Effects Wind-wave effects should be superimposed on the PMF stillwater level. Criteria and acceptable methods are given in Appendihx A.
 
BA LIMITATIONS
1. The NRC staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMF analyses that result in less con servative estimates. In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMF analyses at specific sites will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in this appendix result in more con servative estimates.
 
2 .The PMF estimates obtained as outlined in Sec tions B.3.1 and B.3.2 are peak discharges that should be converted to water level to which appropriate wind-wave effects should be added.
 
3. If there are one or more reservoirs in the drainage area upstream of the site, seismic and hydrologic dam failure' flood analyses should be made to determine whether such a flood will produce the design basis water level. Criteria and acceptable methods are included in Appendix A.
 
4. Because of the enveloping procedures used, PMF peak discharges estimated as outlined in Sec tion B.3.2 have a high degree of conservatism. If the PMF so estimated casts doubt on the-suitability of a site, or if protection from a flood of that magnitude would not be physically or economically feasible, consideration should be given to performing a detailed PMF analysis, as outlined in Appendix A. It is likely that such an analysis will result in ap preciably lower PMF levels.
 
'In this contest, "hydrologic dam failure" muama failure caused by a flood from the drainage area upstream of the dam.
 
1.59-13
 
REFERENCES
1. Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, "Probable Max imum Flood and Hurricane Surge Estimates," un published report to NRC, June 13, 1975 (available in the public document room). 
2. W.P. Creager, J.D. Justin, and J. Hinds,
"Engineering for Dams," J. Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, 1945.
 
3. U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), "Seasonal Variation of the Probable Max imum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian,"
Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, 1956.'
4. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, "All Season Probable Maximum Precipitation-United States East of the 105th Meridian, for Areas from
1,000 to 20,000 Square Miles and Durations from 6 to 72 Hours," draft report, July 1972.2
'Note References 3 and 4 are being updated and combined into a single report by NOAA. This report is expected to be published in the near future as Hydrometeorological Report No. 51 with the ti tle "Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East or the 105th Meridian."
1.59-14 K
 
y FIGURE I.1 WATER RESOURCES REGIONS
K
'0
iS
 
-ISOLINE
REPRESENTING PEAK-FLOW OF f--4
,
PUF iN 1,000CFS.
 
I
I
NOTE: PMF ISO UNIS ON TIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED
V~LESOF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 10"SUARE MILE DRAINAGE
AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY.
 
PMIF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRISU
TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM
UPSTREAM DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.
 
11G
1170
1159
113°
1110
100
1076
106 FIGURE 8.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 100 SQUARE MILES
(
LA
'0
0%
r
 
83o f
1
79*
770
750
730
710 ms
670
O6r IS- 101dM REPRESENOIN
PEAK FLOW OF
S
PMf IN 1.00
15
!m: P
IJOUNIs OW TWS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED
VALUES O PEAK RUIN
FRM
F
00SCOUAREMLE DRAINAGE0A
AREA UNME NATURAL RIVER CONID"IMRS. ACCORDINGLY.
 
j PU, VALUES OBTAINED 0o NOT INCLUDE POMSSBLE CONTRIMU.
 
TrONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM
DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EV*
ETOS.
 
I
I
I*
I
I
IZ3-*
LI
m o 190
1170
11
. 113ie
* 1110
me
0
1070
105°
103
101°
99W
w7°
95o
3
9
89w
070
or
0
3or FIGURE 8.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 500 SQUARE MILES
K
k
-J
470
4v.
 
43.
 
41*
390
370
3s.
 
33.
 
310
29*
2r0
2SO
 
47r
470
[
450
4V.
 
41
360
37.
 
33.
 
310
290
27r
2fie
121'
11g°
117
115°
113.
 
I!I°
108'
1070
10°
103.
 
101°
9'
970
9i°
93w
91o
8w o
870
85.
 
83w FIGURE BA PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLIIES) FOR 1,000 SQUARE MILES
-C
45.
 
43.
 
410*
30.
 
370
35p
33.
 
310
2B°
270
2r r
-
ISOLINE REPRESENTING PEAK FLOW OF
PMF IN 1.000 CFS.
 
NOTS: PiF ISOLWINS ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED
VAL WEE OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 1.Q0.04UARE MILE DRAINAGE
LAiREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY.
 
IMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU
TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM
DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.
 
I
f I
I
I
I
A
!
--
t
(
.,p ImO
GO
 
-
ISOLINE REPRESENTING PEAK FLOW OF
PMF IN 1,000 CFS.
 
-----
N
'
al
*
a a
a a
a a
I
NOTE: PMF ISOUNES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED
VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 5,000.SQUARE MILE DRAINAGE
AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY,
PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU
TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM D)
FAILURE Off OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.
 
a a
a a
a a
a I
--
-
1110
IO9
1070 100
103
1010
9 g7o
959 93
91m
90g or
0
8w
81°
790
770
75 FIGURE B.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 5.000 SQUARE MILES
Q
K
"Ip Ga
 
-"ISOLINE
REPRESENTING PEAK FLOWOF
PMF IN 11000 CFS.
 
NOTE: PMF ISOLINES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED
VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 10.OOO4OUARE MILE DRAINAGE
AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY.
 
PUF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU.
 
TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM
FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.
 
..
.
121
1190
117,1 115o
1130
1110
19o
107
1050
1030
1010
990
970
B5e
930
910
o n
870
850
830
FIGURE 8.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 10.000 SQUARE MILES
...
(
r
 
Q
I M I N 1, 0 IF
; 0 0 Z 6f i
ý
ROETE: PMF rJOt.NES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED
1400,
100
VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 20.000-SUARE MILE DRAINAGE
"Pm VALUE*S OBTAINED 00 NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIt-
*%
1IONS T'O PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM
P2 DAM FALRSOR OTHER UNNATUAL EVENTS.
 
ii°
119e
1*7
115°
113°
11 i09°
"
os i0o0°13°
, i01°
99p°
g
95P
g°93°
91°
89
87°
5
3 FIGURE B.7 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 20,000 SQUARE MILES
y
'a
 
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
1 I
-EXAMPLE:
FOR DRAINAGE AREA OF
.2,300 S. MI.AT LAT. 43@,
LONG. 950, DETERMINE PMF
PEAK DISCHAR.GE.
 
I I II I
*
I
i'-
:
.
.
I-
-I
.4
;tI ; ;
i , - 4 -4
4 I * *
I I-
I
Si Wil I
I
ii
-%SLUTIUN:
FOR DRAINAGE AREA OF
2,300 SO. MI., PMF PEAK
4,00CF&.
"
I
I I,
,______....
__
I
I I
11 I...11L..!.
100
1000
10,000
DRAINAGE AREA, SQUARE MILES
FIGURE B.8 EXAMPLE OF USE OF ENVELOPING ISOLINES
S-C
I
jul11 g
*iWW
IULm
<
co a
0. u:
,c<
0
00
L1A
.j m
0
i
.
m.
 
Im,,,
10
100,000
/'If]"POINTS FROM
I
..
."
FIGURES
B;.2-B.7 d
X
X
I
I
I
I
I I I I
I
I
I
air J!*d*
I
ilia
 
y TABLE B.1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD DATA ( )
K
"Drainage Basin Average PM? Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (n inches)
Discharge North Atlantic Region (Northeast Atlantic Sub-reion)
Ball Mountain Barre Falls Beaver Brook Birch Hill Black Rock Blackwater Buffumville Colebrook Conant Brook East Barre East Branch East Brimfield Edward McDowell Everett Franklin FClas Hal Meadow Hancock Hodges Village Hop Brook Hopkinton Knight**lle Littleville Mad River Mansfield Hollow Nookagee Northfield North Hartland North Springfield Otter Brook Phillips Sucker Brook S
yMountain Thomaston Vt.
 
Mass.
 
N. He Mass.
 
Conn.
 
N. H.
 
Mass.
 
Conn.
 
Mass*
Vt.
 
Conne Mass.
 
N. H.
 
N. He N.H.
 
Conne Como.
 
Mass.
 
cozme No H.
 
MaSs.
 
Mass.
 
Conn*
Mass.
 
come Vt.
 
Vt.
 
Maass Come.
 
N. H.
 
Conn.
 
Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Housatonic Merrimack Thames Connecticut Connecticut Winooski Housatonic Thames Merrimack Merrimack Merrimack Connecticut Housatonic Thames Housatonic Merrimack Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Thames Merrimack Housatonic Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Merrimack Connecticut Connecticut Housatonic West River Ware River Beaver Brook Millers River Branch Brook Blackwater River Little River Farmington River Conant Brook Jail Branch Naugatuck River Quineaaug River Nubanusit River Piseataquog River Pemigewasset River Hall Meadow Brook Hancock Brook French River Hop Brook Contoocook River Westfield River Westfield River Mad River Natchaug River Phillips Brook Northfield Brook Ottauquechee River Black River Otter Brook Phillips Brook Sucker Brook Ashuelot River Naugatuck River
'0
172
55
6.0
175
20
128
26
118
7.8
39
9s2
68
.44
64
1,000
17
12
31
16
426
162
52
18
159
11
5.7
220
158
47
5.0
100
97
20.6
20.1
21*3
18*3
22.2
18.3
26.6
22.?
24.4
21.5
24.0
24.2
19.5
20,7
15.8
24.0
24.0
26.2
25.0
17.4
18.8
25.1.
 
24.0
19.8
21.8
24.4
19.3
20.0
19.1
24.2
22.4
22.2
24.5
18.1
18.9
19.7
17.1
20.6
16,4
25.3
21.1
23.2
18.6
22.8
22.9
18.3
18,,2
13.3
22.8
22.8
22.3
23.8
14.7
17.6
22.4
22.8
18.5
20.2
23.2
17.2
18.3
17.9
23.0
21.4
19.6
22.4
190,000
61,000
10,.00
88.500
35,000
95,000
36,500
165,000
11,900
52,500
15,500
73,900
43,000
68,000
300,000
26,600
20,700
35,600
26,400
135,000
160,000
98000
30,000
125,000
17,750
.9000
199,000
157,000
45,000
7,700
6,500
63,000
158,000
a
 
TABLE 0.1 ( )
River Basin Stream Drainage Area ta m4 I
Basin Average (in inches)
Townshend Trumbull, Tully Union Village Vermont-Yankee Waterbury West Hill West Thompson Westville Whitemanville Wrightsville Vt.
 
Conn.
 
Mass.
 
Vt.
 
Vt.
 
Vt.
 
Mass.
 
Coeme Mass.
 
Mass.
 
Vt.
 
Connecticut Pequonnook Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Winooski Blackstone Thames Thames Merrimack Winooski West River Pequonnook River Tully River Ompompanoosuc River Connecticut River Waterbury River West River Quinebaug River Quinebaug River Whitman River North Branch North Atlantic Region (Mid-Atlantic Sub-region)
Almond Alvin R. Bush Aquashicola Arkport Aylesworth Baird Beltzville Bloomington Blue Marsh Burketown Cabins Chambersburg Christiana Cootes Store Coiaaesque Curwensavile Dawsonville Douglas Point East Sidney Edes Fort Fairview Foster Joseph Sayers Francis e. Walter N. Y.
 
Pa.
 
Pa.
 
N. Y,
Pa.
 
w. Va.
 
Pa.
 
Md.
 
Pa.
 
Va.
 
We Va*
Md.
 
Del.
 
Va.
 
Pa.
 
Pa.
 
Md.
 
N. YO
we Va*
Md.
 
Pao Pas Susquehanna Susquehanna Delaware Susquehanna Susquehanna Potomac Delaware Potomac Delaware Potomac Potomac Potomaa Delaware Potomac Susquehanna Susquehanna Pot *r*-c Potomac Susquehanna Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Delaware Canacadea Creek Kettle Creek Aquashicola Creek Canister River Aylesworth Creek Buffalo Creek Pohopoco Creek North branch Tulpehockan Creek North River South Branch Conococheague River Christiana River North Fork River Cowanesque River Susquehanna River Seneca Creek Poto mac River Oulelot River Cacapon River Conococleaque Creek Bald Eagle Creek Lehigh River
4r Project State PIF Peak Discharge
--
-
-;%
wg*Ru"W
.
1 R&O I
278
14
50
126
6,266
109
28
74
32
18
68
21.3
23.0
20.0
17.0
18.9
28.0
20.4
25.4
21.4
20.2
22.0
24.0
28.0
22.5
23.8
34.0
27.1
22.2
24.0
24.3
20.8
28.9
32.1
22.5
21.9
22.0
13.4
24.0
21.2
22.9
21.8
22.4
17.2
21.8
16.6
15.8
16.0
25.6
17'.5
22.8
19.8
17.3
18.8
21.1
24.2
17.7
22.0
30.2
25.6
17.6
21.3
21.2
16.8
26.0
28.3
19.1
18.5
18.9
27.1
10.2
22.1
17.3
18.8
19.0
19.8
228,000
26,700
47,000
110,0000
480,000
128.000
26,ooo
85,000
38,400
25,000
74,000
59.000
154,000
42.500
33.400
13,700
14,600
68,000
196,000
11o,600
272,200
l955,900
81,400
39,200
140,200
285,000
205. 000
161,900
1,490,000
99,900
410,800
150,100
251,000
1700000
56
226
66"
31
6.2
10
97
263
175
375
314
141
41
215
298
365s
0l1
13,317
202
679
494
339
288 C
t T"
*o
 
Q
K1 Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)
Discharge
(2.so.m
_ Pec. Ruoff (cfs)
Franklin Frederick Front Royal Fulton (Harrisbrg)
Gathright Geun. Edgar Jadwin Great Cacapon Harriston Hawk Mountain Headsvifle John H. Kerr Karo Keyser Kitsmiller Leesburg Leidstown Licking Creek Little- Cacapon Maiden Creek Martinsburg Mikville Moorefield Moorefield Newark North Anna North Mountain Peach Bottom Perryman Petersburg Philpott Prompton Raystown Royal Glen Salem Church Savage River Seneca Sharpeburg V. Va.. 
Md.
 
Va, Pa.
 
Va, Pa.
 
We Va.
 
Va*
Pa.
 
W. Va.
 
Va.
 
V. Va.
 
V,. Va.
 
Md.
 
Va.
 
Mde W. Va@
W. Va.
 
Pa.
 
V, Va.
 
V, Va, Del*
Va.
 
we Va.
 
Pa.
 
Md, V. Va, Va.
 
Pat Pa.
 
Md.
 
Va.,
Md.
 
Md.
 
Mde Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna James Delaware Potomac Potomac Delaware Potomac Roanoke Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Delaware Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Delaware Pamunkey(York)
Potomac Susquehanna Chesapeake Bay Potomac Roanoke Delaware Susqiehanna Potomac Rappahannock Potomac Potomac Potomac South Branch Monocacy River SoFk.Shenandoah River Susquehanna River Jackson River Dyberry Creek Cacapon River South River E.Br. Delaware River Patterson Creek Roanoke River South Branch North Branch North Branch Goose Creek Fishing Creek Licking Creek Little Cacapon River Maiden Creek Opequon Creek Shenandoah River South Branch Soo Pl.
 
South Branch White Clay River North Anna River Back Creek Susquehanna River Bush River South Branch Smith River Lackawaxen River Juniata River (Br.)
South Branch Rappahannock River Savage River Potomac River Antietem Creek'
T
TABLE B.1 ( )
%0
urn
182
817
1,638
24,100
65
677
222
812
219
7,800
1,577
"495
225
338
7.1
158
101
161
272
3),o01
1,173
283
66
3143
231
27,000
118
642
212
60
960
640
1,598
105
11,400
281
24,2
23.2
18.0
12.7
&#xfd;24.11
24.8
21o2
29.6
.16.5
23.4
16.8
18.9
21.5
22.3
26.5
34.8
29.0
29.7
27.3
27.2
16.2
18.0
21.1
29.8
25.0
27.9
12.7
1903
27.5
25.0
21.4
19.3
23.6
26.3
13.5
26.6
20o.6
20.9
114.3
8.2
21.3
17.3
26.5
12.7
19.0
12.9
14.9
16.o
17.1
2*4.2
32.7
26.1
27.4
23.5
24.1
11.7
1*4.0
17.1
26.0
21.3
24.8
8.2
15.3
24*3.
 
24.2
17.5
15.3
19.6
22.2
10.3
23.5
174,000.
 
* .363,00
419,000
1,750,000
246,000
119,700
373,100
153,700
.202,000
176,000
1,000,000
*430,000
2799200
120,200
340,900
12,200
125,800
122,700
118,000
17?4.600
592,000
389,700
173,800
103,000
220,000
256,000
1,750,000
87,400
208,700
160,000
87,190
353,*400
208,700
552,000
107,400
1,393,000
154,900
 
TABLE B.1 ( )
Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)
Discha ge (sq.mi.)
Prec.
 
Runoff (cfre)
Sherrill Drive Six Bridge Springfield Staunton Stillwater Summit Surry Tioga-Hammond Tocks Island Tonoloway Town Creek Trenton Trexler Tri-Towns Verplanck Washington, D, C,
Wayneaboro West Branch Whitney Point Winchester York Indian Rock Allatoona Alvin W. Vogtle Bridgewater Buford Carters Catawba Cherokee Claiborne Clark Hill Coffeeville Cowans Ford Demopolis Falls Lake Md.
 
Md.
 
WO Va.
 
Va.
 
Pa.
 
N. J,
Va.
 
Pa.
 
N. Jo Md.
 
Md.
 
N. J.
 
Pa.
 
We Va.
 
N. Y.
 
Mid.
 
Va.
 
W. Va.
 
No Y.
 
Va.
 
Pa.
 
Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Delaware James Susquehanna Delaware Potomac Potomac Delaware Delaware Potomac Hudson Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Potomac Susqueha~nna Rock Creek Monocacy River South Branch South Branch Shen.
 
Lacawanna River Delaware River James River Tioga River Delaware River Tonoloway Creek Town Creek Delaware River Jordon Creek North Branch Hudson River Potomac River South River Conococheague River Otselie River Opeqnon Creek Codorus Creek South Atlantic-Gulf Region Ca.
 
Ga, N. C.
 
Ga.
 
Ga.
 
N. C.
 
N. C,
Ala.
 
Ga.
 
Ala.
 
N. C.
 
Ala, N. C.
 
Albaba-Coosa Savannah Santee Apalachicola Alabama-Coosa Santee Congaree-Santee Alabama-Coosa Savannah Toabigbee Santee Tombigbee Neuse Etowah River Savannah River Catawba River Chattahoochee River Coosawattee River Catawba River Broad River Alabama River Savannah River Black Warrior River Catawba River Tombigbee River Neuse River
62
308
1,471
325
37
11, 100
9,517
"402
3,827
112
144
6,780
52
478
12,65o
11,5460
136
78
255
120
94
1,110
6,144
380
1,040
376
3,020
1,550
21,520
.6,144
18,600
1,790
15,300
76o
30.6
27.1
17.5
25.0
27.3
23.5
13.3
29.9
27.5
25.2
21.6
14.0
13.4
29.6
30.7
20.7
28.9
22.1
28.3
24.0
15.5
21.3
24.1
19.2
10.5
26.8
25.2
22.6
16.4
9.7
10.2
26.5
27.0
19.1
25o8
1707
22.2
19.8
21.8
14.5
21.7
19.7
26.6
22.3
16.6
14.9
21.8
13.6
16.7
23.2
12.3
14,5
11.2
14.3
21.2 C
0%
111,900
225o,00
405, 000
226:000
39,600
1,000,000
1,000,000
318,000
576,300
117,600
102,900
830,000
5500
268,000
1,100,000
1,280,000
116,000
78,700
102,000
142,l00
74,300
44O,000
1,001,000
187,000
428,900
203,100
674,000
560,000
682,500
1,140,000
743,400
636,000
1,068,000
323,000
C
1"
 
Q
TABLE B.1 ( )
Drainage Basin Average PM? Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)
Discharge (soemi.)
Prec, Runoff
(4f8)
k'
Gainsville Hartwell Holt Howards Mill Jim Woodruff John H. Bankhead Jones Bluff Laser Creek Lookout Shoals Lower Auchumpkee MeGuire Millers Ferry Mountain Island New Hope Oconee Oconee Okatibbee Oxford Perkins Randleman Reddies Rhodhiss Shearon Harris Sprewell Bluff Trotters Shoals Walter F. George Warrior West Point V. Kerr Scott Bedford Bristol Fall Creek Ithaca Jamesville Linden Ala.
 
Ga.
 
Ala.
 
N. C.
 
Fla.
 
Ala.
 
Ala.
 
Ga.
 
N. Co Ga.
 
N. C.
 
Ala.
 
N. C.
 
N. C.
 
S. C.
 
S. C.
 
Miss.
 
N. Co N. Co N. C.
 
N. C.
 
N. C.
 
N. C.
 
Ga.
 
Ga.
 
Ga.
 
Ala.
 
Ga.
 
N. Co Ohio N. Yo N. Y.
 
N. Y.
 
Tombigbee Savannah Warrior Cape Fear Apalachicola Tombigbee Alabama Apalachicola Santee Apalachicola Santee Alabama Santee Cape Fear Savannah Savannah Pascagoula Santee Pee Dee Cape Fear Pee Dee Santee Cape Fear Apalachicola Savannah Apalachicola Tombigbee Apalachioola Pee Dee Cuyahoga Oswego Oswego Oswego Oswego Niagara Tombigbee River Savannah River Warrior River Deep River Apalachicola River Black Warrior River Alabama River Laser Creek Catawba River Flint River Catawba River Alabama River Catawba River New Hope River Keowee River Little River Okatibb"e Creek Catawba River Yadkin River Deep River Red1dies River Catawba River White Oak Creek Flint River Savannah River Chattahoochee River Black Warrior River Chattahoochee River Yadkin River Great Lakes Region Tinkers Creek Mud Creek Fall Creek Six Mile Creek Butternut Creek Little Tonawanda Creek
7,142
2,088
49232
626
17,150
3,900
16,300
1, Ll0
1,450
1,970
1,770
20,700
1,860
1,690
439
148
154
1,310
2,t473
169
94
1I
090
. 79
1,210
2,900
7,460
5,828
3,440
348
91
29
123
43
37
22
19.6
16.8
24.8
18.8
22.1
19.2
26.8
24.2
17.6
12.3
22.3
19.4
14o.2
11.6
24.6
20.7
23.7
19.8
14.7
12.1
22.0
19.4
26.5
23.5
26.6
.33.0
28.4
28.6-
26.0
28.0
24.8
25.8
24.0
16.6
19.5
21.9
25.6
28.6
29.9
17.1
26.9
26.0
30.8
.21.3
19.1
15.2
16.6
17.4
21.5
25.9
28.1
16.1
25.1
24.1
29,0
-J
702,400
875,000
650,000
305.000
1,133,800
670,300
664,000
303,600
492,000
355,600
750.000
844,000
362,000
511,000
450,000
245,000
87,"00
479,000
440,600
126,000
174, 200
379,000
163,500
318,000
800,000
843,000
5549000
440,000
318,000
79,000
64,900
63,400
77,900
35,200
64,400
 
TABLE 8.1 ( )
Pr ject Mount Morris Onondago Oran Portageville Quanicassee Quanicassee Qouanicassee Standard Corners Alum Creek Barkley Barren Beaver Valley Beech Fork Big Blue Big Darby Big Pine Big Walnut Birch Bluestone Booneville Brookville Buckhorn Burnsvlfle Cae.ar Creek Cagles Mill Carr Fork Cave Run Center Hill Clarence J. Brown Claytor Clifty Creek Dale Hollow Deer Creek Delaware Dewey State N. Y.
 
N. Y.
 
N. Y.
 
N. Y.
 
Mich.
 
Mich.
 
Mich.
 
N. Y.
 
Ohio Ky.
 
Ky.
 
Pa.
 
W. Va.
 
Ind.
 
Ohio Ind.
 
Ind, we Va.
 
W. Va.
 
Ky.
 
Ind.
 
Ky.
 
W. Va.
 
Ohio Ind.
 
Ky.
 
Ky.
 
Temn.
 
Ohio Va.
 
Tmd.
 
Tenn.
 
Ohio Ohio Ky.
 
River Basin Genesee River Lake Ontario Oswego Genesee Saginaw Bay Saginaw Bay Saginaw Bay Genesee Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio SStream Genesee River Onondigo Greek Limestone Creek Genesee River Saginaw River Tittabawassee River Quanicassee River Genesee River Ohio Region Alum Creek Cumberland River Barren River Ohio River Twelve Pole Creek Big Blue River Big Darby Creek Big Pine Creek Big Walnut Creek Birch River Nea River So. Fk. Kentucky River White.ater River M. Fk.Kentucky River Little Kanawha River Caesar Creek Mill Creek No; Fk. Kentucky River Licking River Caney Fork Buck Creek New River Clifty Creek Obey River Deer Creek Olentangy River Big Sandy River Ara ae Area.
 
1,077
68
47
983
6,260
2,o40
70
265
123
8,700
940
23,000
78
269
326
197
142
4,565
665
379
408
165
237
295
58
826
2,174
82
2,382
145
935
278
381
207 Basin Average
(,ininches)
7Prec.
 
Runoff Prec Ruoff (cfsm
17.0
14.6
24.2
23.3
25.1
23.4
17.8
15.8
22.3
20.3
24.6
22.6
17.6
26.4
23.5
24.1
22.4
24-0
28.:4
23.2
24.2
23.8
24.8
24.1
24.6
27.4
22.8
22.-3
29.0
22.3
24.9
23.8
22.9
22.7
25.0
21.8
21.5
16.9
23.5
21.2
21.3
20.4
22.0
25.2
13.8
21.0
22.1
21.5
22.3
21.9
22.7
25.0
20.6
21.8
26.7
18.0
23.0
23.3
20.1
20.4
22.6 r
Go PJ? Peak Discharge
385,000
61,800
80,790
359,000
440,000
270,000
46,000
189,900
3.10,000
1,000,000
531,000
1,500,000
84,000
161,000
294,000
174,000
144,ooo
102,000
410,000
425,000
272,000
239,000
138,800
230,200
159,000
132,500
510,000
696,0oo0
121,000
1,1091000
112,900
435to00
160,000
296,000
75,500
(
r TABLE B.1 ( )
 
Q
TABLE B.1 ( )
River Basin Drainage stream Area f-
'-
Basin Average (in inches)
Dillon Dyes Eagle Creek N. Br. Clarion East Fork East Lynn Pishtrap Grayson Green River Helm John W. Flannagan J. Percy Priest Kehoe Kinzua Lafayette Laurel Leading Creek Lincoln Logan Louisville Mansfield Martins Fork Meigs Meigs Mill Creek Mississinena Michael J. Kirwin Monroe Nuddy Creek Nolin N. Br. Kokosing N. Fk. Pound River Paint Creek Paintsville Panthers Creek Patoka R. D. Bailey Rough River Ohio Ohio Ky.
 
Pa.
 
Ohio w. Va.
 
Ky.
 
Ky.
 
Ky.
 
Ill.
 
Va.
 
Tenn.
 
Ky.
 
Pa.
 
Ind.
 
Ky.
 
W. Va.
 
Ill'
Ohio Ill.
 
Ind.
 
Ky.
 
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ind.
 
Ohio Ind.
 
Pa.
 
Ky.
 
Ohio Va.
 
Ohio Ky.
 
V. Va.
 
Ind.
 
W. Va.
 
Ky.
 
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Licking River Dyes Fork Eagle Creek E. Br. Clarion River E. Fk. Little Miami River Twelve Pole Creek Levisa Fk. Sandy River Little Sandy River Green River Skillet Fk. Wabash River Pound River Stones River Tygarts Creek Allegheny River Wildcat Creek Laurel River Leading Creek Eabarras River Clear Creek Little Wabash River Raccoon Creek Cumberland River Meigs Creek Meige Creek Mill Creek Mississinewa River Mahoning River Salt Creek Muddy Creek Nolin River N. Br. Kokosing River N. Fk. Pound River Paint Creek Paint Creek, Panther Creek Patoka River Guyandotte River Rough River y
Project State K
PNF Peak PMF Peak Discharge (vcfa
%0
t0
748
44
292
?2
342
133
395
196
682
210
222
892
127
2,180
791
282
146
915
84
661
216
56
72
27
181
809
80
441
61
703
44
18
573
92
24
168
540
454
19.8
30.?
24.?
22.7
23.8
29.4
26.1
27.5
26.5
24.8
27.6
25.9
26.0
16.4
20.6
25.9
25.0
21.2
29.5
22.1
25.9
27.9
29.5
32.2
24.0
20,6
26.0
25.9
22.8
14.2
25.4
35.3
21.8
26.3
36.7
.25.6
23.1
27.6
16.3
27.8
22.1
18.9
21.2
26.5
23.2
24.7
231.9
22.6
24.9
18.8
23.4
12.8
18.5
20.7
22.5
19.0
27.0
19.9
23.0
22.7
26.6
29.3
21.4
18.4
20.1
25.4
19.6
13.2
22.6
32.2
18.8
23.8
33.9
23.5
20.3
25.1 thinnff k
L
246,000
49,500
172,800
41,500
313,200
72,000
320,000
83,300
"109,000
152,800
235,800
430,000
105,900
115,000
182,000
120,000
131,000
502,000
78,000
310,000
175,800
61,800
72,100
45,500
92,000
196,000
51,800
366,000
59,300
158,000
50,000
51,200
305,000
?7,500
59,800
292,000
349,000
358,000
 
TABLE B.1 ( )
River Basin Stroaa Drainage Area
.~n4 Basin Average t(in inches)
=1 I e a
0
aw t&*E
Rowlesbsrg Salamonia Stonewall Jackson Sumersville Sutton Taylorville Tom Jenkins Union City Utica West Fork West Fk. Mill Ck.
 
Whiteoak Wolf Creek Woodcock Yatesville Youghiogheny Zimmer, Vm. H.
 
Bellefonte Browns Ferry Sequoyah Ames Byron Bear Creek Blue Earth Blue Earth Carlyle Clarence Cannon Clinton Coralville Duane Arnold Faradale Fondulac Friends Creek w. Va.
 
Ind.
 
W. Va.
 
V. Va.
 
W. Va.
 
Ky.
 
Ohio Pa.
 
Ohio W. Va.
 
Ohio Uhio Ky.
 
Pa.
 
Ky.
 
Pa.
 
Ohio Ala.
 
Tenn.
 
Tenn.
 
Iowa Ill.
 
Mo.
 
Minn.
 
Hinn.
 
Ill, Mo.
 
I Li.
 
Iowa Iowa Ill.
 
Ill.
 
Il1.
 
Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohlo Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Cheat River Salamonla River West Fork River Gauley River Elk River Salt River Hocking River French Creek N. Fk. Licking River W. Fk. Little Kanawha Mill Creek Whiteoak Creek Cumberland River Woodcock Creek Blaine Creek Youghiogheny River Ohio River Tennessee Region Tennessee River Tennessee River Tennessee River Upper Mississippi Region Skunk River Rock River Bear Creek Minnesota River Blue Earth River Kaskaskia River Salt River Salt Creek Iowa River Cedar River Farm Creek Fondulac Creek Friends Creek
936
553
102
803
537
353
33
222
112
238
30
214
5789
46
208
"434.
 
70,800
23.340
27,130
20,650
314
8,000
28
11,250
3,550
2,680
2,318
296
3,084
6,250
26
5,4
133
21.2
21.3
24, N
23.8
20.4
24.8
26.?
20.*3
24.7
24.4
31.9
24.5
20.6
23.5
25.2
18.4
.19.0
22.2
21.1
20.4
22.2
25.8
17.8
22.1
21.8
30.0
21.6
20.0
20.9
22.6
25.4
21.3
18.4
29.0
26.2
14.2
10.9
18.4
14.8
19.2
15.8
21.8
15.7
20.8
14.4
24.0
21.4
27.8
22.1
19.9
21.6 C
Project State PMF Peak Discharge Ut
%0
331.000
201,000
85,500
"412,000
222,400
"426,000
"43000
87,500
73,700
156,4oo
81,600
134,000
9969000
37,700
l8, 000
151,000
2,150,000
1,160,000
1,200,000
1,205,000
87,200
308,000
38o000
283,&00
206,000
246,000
4?76,200
99,500
326,000
316,000
67,300
21,200
83,160
C
C
 
Q
TABLE B.1 ( )
River Basin Stream .
Drainage Area (sa.mi. )
Basin Average (in inches)
Prec.
 
Runoff Jefferson Lapa'ge Mankato Meramec Park Montevideo Monticello New Ulm New Ulm Oakley Prairie Island Red Rock Rend Saylorville Shelbyville Arkabutla Enid Grenada Sardis Union Vappapello Burlington Fox Hole Homoe Kindred Lake Ashtabula Orwell Bear Creek Big Bend Blue Springs Blue Stem Bowman-Haley Branched Oak Iowa Wisc.
 
Minna Mo.
 
Minn.
 
Minn.
 
Minn.
 
Minn.
 
Ill.
 
Minn.
 
Iowa Ill.
 
Iowa Ill, Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Mo.
 
Mot N. D.
 
N. D.
 
N. D.
 
N. D.o N. D.
 
Minn.
 
Colo.
 
S. D.
 
Mo.
 
Nebr.
 
N. D.
 
Nebr.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.. 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Upper Miss.
 
Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Souris Souris Red of Red of Red of Red of Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
Miss.
 
North North North North Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Raccoon River Kickapoo River Minnesota River Meramec River Minnesota River Mississippi River Minnesota River Cottonwood River Sangamon River Mississippi River Des Moines River Big Muddy River
.Des Moines River Kaskaskia River Lower Mississippi Region Coldwater River Yacona River Yalobusha River Tallahatchia River Bourbeuse River St. Francis River Souris-Red-Rainy Region Souris River Des Lacs. River Park River Sheyenne River Sheyenne River dtter Taln River Missouri Region Bear Creek Missouri River Blue Springs Creek Olive Br. Salt Creek Grand River Oak Creek Project State K
PMF Peak Discharge (of s)
"Ih
1,532
266
14,900
1,407
6,180
13,900
9,500
1,280
808
44,755
12,323
"488
5o823
1,030
1,000
560
1,320
'1, 545
771
1,310
9,490
939
229
3,020
983
1,820
2,6
5,840
33
17
446
89
21.7
22.8
13.9
22.9
15.2
14o4
21.2
23.5
12,1
2?.5
13.8
22.1
22.5
25.4
24.0
32.5
25.0
13.0
13.2
19.9
15.2
13.4
12.4
17.1
24.4
26.5
25.0
15.5
20.1
19.0
18.9
10.6
17.5
11.6
11.1
]1.6
17.2
7.5
21.5
10.3
19.1
21o2
24.?
23P1
26.0
19.9
11.7
5.7
12.4
12.3
8,6
9.5
14.7
6.7
9.0
23.8
2J.7
12.7
16.8
267,300
128,000
329,000
552,000
263,0oo
365,000
263,000
128,000
178,000
910,000
613o000
308,200
277,800
142,000
430,000
204,900
310,800
2Q0,400
264,000
344,000
89,100
52,700
35,000
68.700
86,500
25,500
225,000
725,000
42,400
69,200
110,000
93,600
 
TABLE B.1 ( )
River Basin Stream Drinage Area
*
1A
Basin Average (in inches)
-'
=-
&
**
,m-A.I
B*raymar MO.
 
Brookfield mo.
 
Bull Hook Mont.
 
Chatfield Colo.
 
Cherry Creek Colo.
 
Clinton Kans.
 
Cold Brook S. Do Conestoga Nebr.
 
Cottonwood Springs S. D.
 
Dry Fork Ko.
 
East Fork Mo.
 
Fort Scott Kans.
 
Fort Peck Mont.
 
Fort Randall S. D.
 
Fort St. Vrain Colo.
 
Garrison No D,
Gavins Point Nebr.
 
Grove Kans.
 
Harlan County Nebr.
 
Ha=y S. Truman Mo.
 
Hillsdale Kane.
 
Holmes Nebr.
 
Kanopolls Kane.
 
LUnneus Mo.
 
Long Branch Mo.
 
Longview Mo.
 
Melvern Kans.
 
Mercer Mo.
 
Milford Kanso Mill Lake Mo.
 
Oahe So Do Olive Creek Nebr.
 
Onag Kans.
 
Pattonsburg Mo.
 
Pawnee Nebr.
 
Perry Kano, Pioneer Colo.
 
Pause do Terre Mo.
 
Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Hissouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Shoal Creek West Yellow Creek Bull Hook Creek South Platte River Cherry Creek Wakarusa River Cold Brook Holmes Creek Cheyenne River Fishing River Fishing River Marmaton River Missouri River Missouri River South Platte River Missouri River Missouri River Soldier Creek Republican River Osage River Big Bull Creek Antelope Creek smoky Hill River.
 
Locust River So Fk. Little Chariton Blue River Marias des Cygnes River Weldon River Republican River Mill Creek Missouri River Olive Br. Salt Creek Vermillion Creek Grand River Pawnee Br. Salt Creek Delawre River Republican River Poaue do Terre River
390
140
54
3,018
.385
367
15
26
30.2
19
279
57,725
14:150
4,700
123,215
16,000
259
7,141
7,856
144
5,4
2,560
546
109
50
349
"427
3,620
9.5
62,550
8.2
301
2,232
36
1,U17
918
611
24.7
22.2
24.5
22.0
10.8
13.2
2.0
2309
9.5
23.6
22.4
6.4
25.2
21.9
18.7
11.1
26.1
22.5
25.7
24ol
23.8
22.7
3.2
3.7,
2.7
3.3
23.8
22.7
7.6
2.8
13.1
25.4
24.3
27.1
23.8
6.9
3.6
2397
21.2
*4.5
21.9
26.2
23.4
23.1
22.1
21.0
17.8
8.8
5.0
27.7
26.4
6.5
26.0
22o7
23.5
22.2
18.8
16.3
23.5
2O02
21.5
18.4
15.0
8.3
23.9
21.6
.
Project State PM? Peak Discharge U'
173,800
64,5S00
26,2oo
.584,500
350,000
153,500
95,700
52,000
74,700
19,460,
62,700
198.000
360,000
80,000
500,000
1,026,000
642,000
79,800
"485, 000
1,060,000
190,500
41,600
456,300
242,300
66,500
74,800
182,000
274,000
757,400
13,000
946,000
36,650
251,000
400,100
59,000
387,400
390,000
362,000
C
r
 
Q
TABLE B.1 ( )
River Basin Stroam Drainage Area t.
 
m.
 
,4 Basin Average fin Inches)...
Pomona Rathbun Smithville Stagecoach Stockton Thomas Hill Tomahawk Trenton Tuttle Creek Twin Lakes Wagon Train Wilson Wolf-Coffee Yankee Hill Arcadia Bayou Bodcau Beaver Bell Foley Big Hill Big Pine Birch Blakely Mountain Blue Mountain Boswell Broken Bow Bull Shoals Candy Canton Cedar Point Clayton Cleariater Conchas Cooper Copan Council Grove County Line Kans.
 
Iowa Mo.
 
Nebr.
 
Mo.
 
Mo.
 
Kane.
 
Mo.
 
Kans*
Nebr.
 
Nebr.
 
Kans.
 
Kans.
 
Nebr.
 
Okla.
 
La.
 
Ark.
 
Ark.
 
Kans.
 
Tex.
 
Okla.
 
Ark.
 
Ark.
 
Okla, Okla.
 
Ark.
 
Okla, Okla.
 
Kans.
 
Okla.
 
Mo.
 
N. Mex.
 
Tex.
 
Okla, Kan.s Moo Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Arkansas Red White Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Red White.
 
Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red White
.Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas.
 
White
110 Mile Creek Chariton River Little Platte River Hickman Br. Salt Creek Sac River Little Chariton River Tomahawk Creek Thompson River Big Blue River S. Br. Middle Creek Hickman Br. Salt Creek Saline River Blue River Cardwell Br. Salt Creek Arkansas-White-Red Region Deev Fork River Bayou Bodcau White River Strawberry River Big Hill Creek Big Pine Creek Birch Creek Ouachita River Petit Jean River Boggy Creek Mountain Fork White River Candy Creek North Canadian River Cedar Creek Jackfort Creek Black River South Canadian River South Sulphur River Little Caney River Grand River James River Project State K
Discharge refs)~
Ut
322
549
213
9e7
1,160
147
24
1,079
9,556
11
16
1,917
45
8.,4
105
656
1,186
78
37
95
66
1,105
500
2,273
7.54
6,036
43
7,600
119
275.
 
898
7.409
476
505
246
153
26.2
23.7
23.9
26.o
19.7
25.0
26.4
22.6
14.5
25.9
25.2
20.2
26.1
26.0
28.5
35.3
24.3
26.4
25.4
31.3
29.0
21.5
21.8
27.6
32.5
15.2
29.3
12.4
25.4
31.3
16.0
4,8
30.9
26.2
25.5
27.2
25.2
21.1
20.2
22.7
18.9
23.,0
24.8
20.1
8.1
22.6.
 
21.9
10.8
24.5
22.7
24.9
33.6
22.4
23.5
23.6
29.3
26.0
19.6
18.2
29,4
1.0
27.5
4.1
22.6
29.3
13.8
3.0
29.2
21.1
22U7
25.3
186,000
188.000
185,000
50,500
4?0,000
?79000
26,800
342,400
798,000
56,000
53,500
252,000
58,000
58,400
144,000
168,?00
480,000
57,000
47,500
86,000
91,000
418,000
258'000
405,000
569,000
?65,000
67,500
371,000
208,000
240,000
432,000
582,000
194,400
169,000
250,000
133,000
A
e It
0
Pvr Rnf
 
TABLE B.1 ( )
Drainage Basin Average PM? Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)
Discharge (S,.Ml.
 
Prec, Lng.of (cfs)_
DeGray Denison DeQueen Dierks Douglas El Dorado Elk City Efaula Fall River Ferrells Bridge Fort Gibson Fort Supply Gillhaa Great Salt Plains Greers Ferry Heyburn Hugo Hulah John Martin John Redmond Kaw Keystone Lake Kemp Lukfata Marion Milluood Narrows Neodesha Nimrod Norfolk Oologah Optima Pat Mayse Pine Creek Robert S. Kerr Sand Shidler Skiatook Lable Rock Ark.
 
Okla.
 
Ark.
 
Ark.
 
Kans.
 
Kans.


Therefore, except in those cases in which the applicant or licensee proposes an acceptable alternative method for comply-ing with specified portions of the Commission's regula-tions, the method described herein is being and will continue to be used in the evaluation of submittals for construction permit applications until this guide is revised as a result of suggestiQns from the public or additional staff review.9 Reporting should be by special report to the appropriate NRC Regional Office and to the Director of the Office of Inspection and Enforcement.
Kans.


Requirement for such reports should be included in theTechnical Specifications (Appendix A) unless it can be demonstrated that such reports will not be necessary during the life of the plant._4 effects of the increased flood. The following should be reported:
Okla.
9 (1.59-8 APPENDIX A PROBABLE MAXIMUM AND SEISMICALLY
 
INDUCED FLOODS ON STREAMS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. 1 Introduction
Kans.
.........  
 
......................
Tex.
A. 2 Probable Maximum Flood ................
 
A. 3 Hydrologic Characteristics
Okla.
................A. 4 Flood Hydrograph Analyses ...............
 
A. 5 Precipitation Losses and Base Flow ............
Okla.
A. 6 Runoff M odel .............. ... ....A. 7 Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates
 
.........A. 8 Channel and Reservoir Routing ..............
Ark.
A. 9 Probable Maximum Flood Hydrograph Estimates
 
..........
Okla.
A.1O Seismically Induced Floods ..... .................
 
A.] I Water Level Determinations
Ark.
..... ..... .... .A.12 Coincident Wind-Wave Activity ..............
 
1.59-11 1.59-11 1.59-12 1.59-13 1.59-13 1.59-14 1.59-15 1.59-17 1.59-17 1.59-18 1.59-18 1.59-19................................................REFERENCES
Okla.
...................
 
.....................................
Okla.
.. .1.59-20 1.59-9 (I
 
A.1 INTRODUCTION
Okla.
This appendix has been prepared to provide guidance for flood analyses required in support of applications for licenses for nuclear facilities to be located on streams.Because of the depth and diversity of presently available techniques, this appendix summarizes acceptable methods for estimating Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP), for developing rainfall-runoff models, for analyz-ing seismically induced dam failures, and for estimating the resulting water levels.The Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) may be thought of as one generated by precipitation and a seismically induced flood as one caused by dam failure.For many sites, however, these two types do not constitute the worst potential flood danger to the safety of the nuclear facilities.
 
Colo.
 
Kans.
 
Okla.
 
Okla.
 
Tex.
 
Okla.
 
Kans.
 
Ark.
 
Ark.
 
Kans.
 
Ark.
 
Ark.
 
Okla, Okla.
 
Tex.
 
Okla.
 
Okla, Okla.
 
Okla.
 
Okla.
 
Mo.
 
Red Rod Red Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Arkansas White Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas White Caddo River Red River Rolling Fork Saline River Little Walnut Creek Walnut River Elk River Canadian River Fall River Cypress Creek Grand River Wolf Greek Cossatot River Salt Fk. Arkansas River Little Red River Polecat Creek Kianichi River Caney River Arkansas River Grand River Arkansas River Arkansas River Wichita River Glover Creek Cottonwood River Little River Little Missouri River Verdigris River Fourche La Fave River North Fork White River Verdigris River North Canadian River Sanders Creek Little River Arkansas River Sand Creek Salt Creek Hominy Creek White River C
U,
453
33,783
169
113
238
234
634
8,405
556
880
9,477
271
3,200
1,146
123
1,709
732
18,130
3,015
7,250
22,351
2,086
291
200
4,144
239
1,160
68o
1,#765
4,339
2,341
175
635
64.386
137
99
354
4,020
28.4
12.9
35.5
36.2  
26.7
26.8
23.0
15.9
27.1
31.1
16.2
20.5
34.,6
16.?
17.9
26-3 Z7.1
16.5
7.4
18.2
14.5
12.9
23.7
34.6
24.8
28.4  
25.0
18.?
20.2
15.7
17.8
13.8
31.8
32.8
10.0
31.3
27.3
27..8
18.3
26.0
6.5  
32.5
33.2
22.9
22.8
20.3
10.9
23.0
28.1
12.6  
15.7
31.5
9.3
17.5
24.2
25.8
13.5
2.0
15.6
9.9
6.7  
19.2
31.5
21.9
25.3
23.0
16.6
17.2
12.8  
13.9  
9.0
29.4
29.8
5.8
28.3
24.0
23.8
15.4
397,000
1,830,000
254,000
202,000
156,000
196, ooo
.196,000
319,000
700,000
"442.000
367,000
865,000
54?7000
355,000
412,000
630,000
151,000
339,000
239,000
630.00O
638,000
774.000
1,035,000
566,000
349,000
160,000
"442,000
194,000
287.000
228,000
372,000
451,000
386,000
150,000
523,000
1,884,000
154,000
104,100
147,800
657,000
C
r
 
Q
Project Tenkiller Ferry Texarkana Toronto Towanda Trinidad Tuskahoma Wallace Lake Vaurika Webbers Falls Vister Addicks Aquilla Aubrey Bardwell Barker Belton Benbrook Big Sandy Blieders Creek Droimwood
.Canyon Lake Carl L. Estes Coleman Comanche Peak Ferguson Gonzales Grapevine Horde Creek Lake Fork Lakeview Laneport Lavon Lewisville Millioan Navarro Minle Navasota State Okla.
 
Tex.
 
Kans.
 
Kans.
 
Colo.
 
Okla.
 
La.
 
Okla.
 
Okla.
 
Okla.
 
Tex.
 
Tex*
Tex.
 
Tex..
Tex.
 
Tex, Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Teax Tax, Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Teax Tex*
Tex.
 
River Basin Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Red Arkansas Arkansas
.San Jacinto Brazos Trinity Trinity San Jacinto Bre*zos Trinity Sabine Guadalupe Colorado Guadalupe Sabine Colorado Brazos Brazos Guadalupe Trinity Colorado Sabine Trinity Brazos Trinity Trinity Brazos Trinity Brazos Stream Drainage Area Illinois River Sulphur River Verdigris River Whitewater River Purgatorie River Kiamichi River Cypress Bayou Beaver Creek Arkansas River Poteau River Texas-Gulf Region South Mayde Creek Aquilla Creek Elm Fork Trinity River Waxahachie Creek Buffalo Bayou Leon River Clear Fork Trinity River Big Sandy Creek Blieders Creek Pecan Bayou Guadalupe River Sabine River Colorado River Squaw Creek Navasota River San Marcos River Denton Creek Horde Creek Lake Fork Creek Mountain Creek San Gatriel Pivor Eset Fork, Trinity River Elm Fork, Trinity River Navasota River Riohland Creek Navasota River
1,
610
3,400
730
422
671
347
260
562
"W8,127
99.3
129
2914
692
178
150
3,560
429
196
15
1,544
1,432
1,146
287
64
1,782
1,344
695
48
507
232
/09
770
3,660
2,120
320
1,241 Basin Average In Rnofhes)
Pre
 
====e. Runnff====
20.e4
26.6
23.9
24.3
10*0
16.5
38.4
26.5
10.7
25.9
29.7
31.2
28.5
31.1
29.4
29.4
28.2
36.2
43.8
27.8
24o5
34.5
30.9
39.1
26.0
24.9
26.5
28.9
33.8
31.6
28.9
26,2
23.2
25.5
33.6
27.2
17.6
20.1
21.1
20.5
4.5
14.6
35.6
22.2
6.1
23.2
27.9
28.6
26.0
28.3
27.9
20.6
21.1
32.2
34.6
21.0
16.9
30.4
24*. 1
34.1
22.4
15.4
21.5
23.4
29.7
28.8
23.7
23.o4
20.5
22.4
30.5
24.2 TABLE B.1 ( )
K
Ut PMF Peak Discharge
406,000
451,000
"400,000
198,000
296,000
188,g400
197,000
354,000
1,518,000
339,000
68,670
283,800
445,300
163,500
55,900
608,400
290,100
125,200
70,300
676,200
687,000
277,000
267,800
149,000
355,800
633,900
319,400
.92,400
247,600
335,000
521,000
430,?00
632,200
393,v40o
280,500
327,400
 
TABLE B.1 ( )
-Project
* North Fork Pecan Bayou Proctor Roanoke
-Rockland Sam Raybrn San Angelo Somerville South Fork Stillhouse Hollow Tennessee Colony Town Bluff Waco Lake Whitney Abiquiu Alamogordo Cochita Jemez Canyon Los Esteroa Two Rivers Alamo Mcoicken Whitlow Ranch Painted Rock Little Dell Mathews Canyon Pine Canyon Applegate Blue River State River Basin'
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Te,:. 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.
 
Tex.


Subsequent appendices will present acceptable methods of analyzing other flood types, such as tsunami, seiches, and surges (in addition to the surge method in Appendix C).The PMF on streams is compared with the upper limit of flood potential that may be caused by other phenomena to develop a basis for the design of safety-related structures and systems. This appendix outlines the nature and scope of detail.ed hydrologic engineering activities involved in determining estimates for the PMF and for seismically induced floods resulting--rom dam failures and describes the situations fdr which less extensive analyses are acceptable.
Tex.


Estimation of the PMF requires the determination of the hydrologic response (losses, base flow, routing, and runoff model) of watersheds to intense rainfall, verifica-tion based on historical storm and runoff data (flood hydrograph analysis), the most severe precipitation reasonably possible (PMP), minimum losses, maximum base flow, channel and reservoir routing, the adequacy of existing and proposed river control structures to safely pass a PMF, water level determinations, and the superposition of potential wind-generated wave activity.Seismically induced floods, such as may be produced by dam failures or landslides, may be analytically evaluated using many PMF estimating components (e.g., routing techniques, water level determinations)
Tex, Tea.
after conserva-tive assumptions of flood wave initiation (such as dam failures)
have been made. Each potential flood com-ponent requires an in-depth analysis.


The basic data and results should be evaluated to ensure that the PMF estimate is conservative.
Tex, Tex.


In addition, the flood potential from seismically induced causes should be compared with the PMF to ensure selection of the appropriate design basis flood. The seismically induced flood poten-tial may be evaluated by simplified methods when conservatively determined results provide acceptable iesign bases.Three exceptions to use of the above-described analyses are considered acceptable as follows: a. No flood analysis is required for nuclear facility sites where it is obvious that a PMF or seismically induced flood has no bearing. Examples of such sites are coastal locations (where it is obvious that surges, wave action, or tsunami would produce controlling water levels and flood conditions)
Tex.
and hilltop or "dry" sites.b. Where PMF or seismically induced flood estimates of a quality comparable to that indicated herein exist for locations near the site of the nuclear facility, the estimates may be extrapolated directly to the site if such extrapolations do not introduce potential errors of more than about a foot in design basis water level estimates.(See Appendix B.)c. It is recognized that an in-depth PMF estimate may not be warranted because of the inherent capability of the design of some nuclear facilities to function safely with little or no special provisions or because the time and costs of making such an estimate are not com-mensurate with the cost of providing protection.


In such cases, other means of estimating design basis floods are acceptable if it can be demonstrated that the technique utilized or the estimate itself is conservative.
No N.


Similarly, conservative estimates of seismically induced flood potential may provide adequate demonstration of nuclear facility safety.A.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD Probable Maximum Flood studies should be com-patible with the specific definitions and criteria sum-marized as follows: a. The Corps of Engineers defines the PMF as "the hypothetical flood characteristics (peak discharge, volume, and hydrograph shape) that are considered to be the most severe reasonably possible at a particular location, based on relatively comprehensive hydro-meteorological analysis of critical runoff-producing pre-cipitation (and snowmelt, if pertinent)
N.
and hydrologic factors favorable for maximum flood runoff." Detailed PMF determinations are usually prepared by estimating the areal distribution of PMP (defined below) over the subject drainage basin in critical periods of time and computing the residual runoff hydrograph likely to result with critical coincident conditions of ground wetness and related factors. PMF estimates are usually based on the observed and deduced characteristics of historical flood-producing storms&#xfd; Associated hydrologic factors are modified on the basis of hydrometeorological analyses to represent the most severe runoff conditions considered to be "reasonably possible" in the particular drainage basin under study. The PMF should be deter-mined for adjacent large streams. In addition, a local 1.59-11 PMF should be estimated for each local drainage course that can influence safety-related facilities, including drainage from the roofs of buildings, to assure that local intense precipitation cannot constitute a threat to the safety of the nuclear facility.b. Probable Maximum Precipitation is defined by the Corps of Engineers and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as "the theoreti-cally greatest depth of precipitation for a given duration that is meteorologically possible over the applicable drainage area that would produce flood flows of which there is virtually no risk of being exceeded.


These estimates usually involve detailed analyses of historical flood-producing storms in the general region of the drainage 'basin under study, and certain modifications and extrapolations of historical data and reflect more severe rainfall-runoff relations than actually recorded, insofar as these are deemed reasonably possible of occurrence on the basis of hydrometeorological reason-ing." The PMP should represent the depth, time, and spade distribution of precipitation that approaches the upper limit of what the atmosphere and regional topography can produce. The critical PMP meteorologi- cal conditions are based on an analysis of air-mass properties (e.g., effective precipitable water, depth of inflow layer, temperatures, winds), synoptic situations prevailing during recorded storms in the region, topo-graphical features, season of occurrence, and location of the geographic areas involved.
N.


The values thus derived are designated as the PMP, since they are determined within the limitations of current meteorological theory and available data and are based on the most effective combination of critical controlling factors.A.3 HYDROLOGIC
N.
CHARACTERISTICS
Hydrologic characteristics of the watershed and stream channels relative to the facility site should be determined from the following:
a. A topographic map of the drainage basin showing watershed boundaries.


for the entire basin and principal tributaries and other subbasins that are pertinent.
N.


The map should include the location of principal stream gaging stations and other hydrologically related record collection stations (e.g., streamflow, precipitation)
Brazos Colorado Brazoa Trinity Neches Neches
and the locations of existing and proposed reservoirs.
-Colorado Brazos Brazos Brazos Trinity Neches Brazoa Brazos Rio Grande Rio Grande Rio Graude Rio Grande Rio Grande Rio Grande me H.


b. The drainage areas in each of the pertinent watersheds or subbasins above gaging stations, reservoirs, any river control structures, and any unusual terrain features that could affect flood runoff. All .major reservoirs and channel improvements that will have a major influence on streamflow should be considered.
MI
H.


In addition, the age of existing structures and. information concerning proposed projects affecting runoff character- istics or streamflow are needed to adjust streamflow records to "pre-project(s)" and "with project(s)" con-ditions as follows: (1) The term "pre-project(s)
H.
conditions" refers to all characteristics of watershed features and develop-ments that affect runoff characteristics.


Existing con-ditions are assumed to exist in the future if projects are to be operated in a similar manner during the life of the proposed nuclear facility and watershed runoff char-acteristics are not expected to change due to develop-ment.(2) The term "with project(s)" refers to the future effects of projects being analyzed, assuming they will exist in the future and operate as specified.
H.


If existing projects were not operational during historical floods and may be expected to be effective during the lifetime of the nuclear facility, their effects on historical floods should be determined as part of the analyses outlined in Sections A.5, A.6, and A.8.c. Surface and subsurface characteristics that affect runoff and streamflow to a major degree (e.g., large swamp areas, noncontributing drainage areas, ground-water flow, and other watershed features of an unusual nature which cause unusual characteristics of stream-flow).d. Topographic features of the watershed and histor-ical flood profiles or high water marks, particularly in the vicinity of the nuclear facility.
Ariz.


For some sites one or more gaging stations may be required at or very near the facility site as soon as a site is selected to establish hydrologic parameters. (A regulatory guide is being prepared to provide guidance on hydrologic data collec-tion.)e. Stream channel distances between river control structures, major tributaries, and the facility site.f. Data on major storms and resulting floods-of- record in the drainage basin. Primary attention should be given to those events having a major bearing on hydrologic computations.
Ariz.


It is usually necessary to analyze a few major floods-of-record in order to develop unit hydrograph relations, infiltration indices, base flow relationships, information on flood routing relationships, and flood profiles.
Ariz.


Except in unusual cases, climatol-ogical data available from the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and other public sources are adequate to meet the data requirements for storm precipitation histories.
Ariz.


The data should include: (1) Hydrographs of major historical floods for pertinent locations in the basin from the U.S. Geological Survey or other sources, where available.
Utah N.y.


(.1.59-12
No.
(2) Storm precipitation records, depth-area- duration data, and any available isohyetal maps for the most severe local historical storms or floods that will be used to estimate basin hydrological characteristics.


A.4 FLOOD HYDROGRAPH
Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Jordon (Great)  
ANALYSES Flood hydrograph analyses and related computations should be used to derive and verify the fundamental hydrologic factors of precipitation losses (see Section A.5) and the runoff model (see Section A.6). The analyses of observed flood hydrographs'
Great Basin Great Basin Oreg.
of streamflow and related storm precipitation (Ref. 1) use basic data and information referred to in Section A.3 above. The sizes and topographic features of the subbasin drainage areas upstream of the location of interest should be used to estimate runoff response for each individual hydro-logically similar subbasin utilized in the total basin runoff model. Subbasin runoff response characteristics are estimated from historical storm precipitation and streamflow records where such are available, and by synthetic means where no streamflow records are avail-abl


====e. Reference ====
Rogue Ore&.  
2 and the following provide guidance for the analysis of flood hydrographs.
Columbia Stream Drainage Area f,.4 N. F


a. The intensity, depth, and areal distribution of precipitation causing runoff for each historical storm (and rate of snowmelt, where this is significant)
====k. San Gabriel River ====
should be analyzed.
.Pecan Bayou Leon River Denton Creek Neches River Angelina River North Concho River.


Time distributions of storm precipitation
Yogua Creek S. Fk. San Gabriel River Lam pasas River Trinity River Neches River B*sque River Brazos River Rio Grande. Region Rio Grande Pecos River Rio Grande Jemez Canycn Peccs River Rio Hondo Lower Colorado Region Bill Williams River Aqua Fria River Queen Creek Gila River Great Basin Region Dell Creek Mathews Canyon Pine Canyon Columbia-North Pacific Region Applegate River S. Fk. McKenzie River Basin Average (in inches)
-k are generally based on recording rainfall gages. Total precipitation measurements (including data from non-recording gages) are usually distributed, in time, using precipitation recorders.
D~n D..n
246
316
1,265
604
39557
3,449
1,511
1,006
1 123
1,318
12,687
7,v73
1,670
17,656
3,159
3,917
4,065
1,034
2,434
1,027
4,770
247
143
50,800
16
34
45
223
88
31.7
30.7
27.0
28.9
21.0
23.7
21.2
22.0
32.6
27.?
25.1
18.9
25.7
15.7
4.6
9.2
12.2
26.6
23.8
21.4
17.2
20.6
13.1
13.6
27.4
22.5
20.4,
15.7
20.6
7.7
8.2
1.9
1.9
3.7
4.7
12.0
3.5
3.3
11.5
9.7
7.7
2.8
8.1
6.0
6.6
7.4
8.2
6.6
28.9
22.7
(
P1F Peak Discharge
/'-..'_
'0
Ch
265,800
236,200
459,200
313.600
150,400
395,600
614,5c0
4 15,700
145,300
686s400
575o600
326,000
*622,900
700,000
130,000
277,000
320,000
.220.000
352,000
281,400
5B0,000
52,000
230,000
620,000
23,000
"35,000
38.000
C
99, 500
.39.500
tC
0
L&W&#xfd;*
LIVA&
LCIRI


Areal distributions of precipita- tion, for each time increment, are generally based on a weighting procedure.
Q
TABLE B.1 ( )
sin Stream Lrainaee Area
1 4 K
Basin Average P1* Peak
( in inches)
Discharge Prec,_ -noff (efa)
Bonneville Caseadia Chief Joseph Cottage Grove Cougar Detroit Dorena Dworshak Elk Creek Fall Creek Fern Ridge Poster Green Peter Gate Creek Hills Creek Holley
'Howard A. Hanson lee Harbor John Day Libby Little Goose Lookout Point Lost Fork Lower Granite Lower Monumental Lucky Peak MPeNary Mud Mountain Ririe The Dallee Wynoochee Zintel Bear Big Dry Creek Black Butte Brea Oreg.


The incremental precipitation over a particular drainage area is the sum of the precipitation for each precipitation gage weighted by the percentage of the drainage area considered to be represented by the rain gage.b. Base flow is the time-distribution of the difference between gross runoff and net direct runoff.c. Initial and infiltration losses are the time distrib-uted differences between precipitation and net direct runoff.d. The combined effect of drainage area, channel characteristics, and reservoirs on the runoff character- istics, herein referred to as the "runoff model," should be established. (Channel and reservoir effects are dis-cussed separately in Section A.8.)Streamflow hydrographs (of major floods) are available in publications by the U.S. Geologic Survey, National Weather Service, State agencies, and other public sources.A.5 PRECIPITATION
Oreg.
LOSSES AND BASE FLOW Determination of the absorption capability of the basin should consider antecedent and initial conditions and infiltration during each storm investigated.


Antece-dent precipitation conditions affect precipitation losses and base flow. The assumed values should be verified by studies in the region or by detailed storm-runoff studies.The fundamental hydrologic factors would be derived by analyzing observed hydrographs of streamflow and related storms. A thorough study is essential to deter-mine basin characteristics and meteorological influences affecting runoff from a specific basin. Additional discus-sion and procedures for analyses are contained in various publications such as Reference
Wash.
2. The following discus-sion briefly describes the considerations for determining the minimum losses applicable to the PMF.a. Experience indicates that the capacity of a given soil and its cover to absorb rainfall applied continuously at high rate may rapidly decrease until a fairly definite minimum rate of infiltration is reached, usually within a period of a few hours. Infiltration loss may include initial conditions or may require separate determinations of initial losses. The order of decrease in infiltration capacity and the minimum rate attained are primarily dependent upon the type of ground cover, the size of soil pores within the zone of aeration, and the condi-tions affecting the rate of removal of capillary water from the zone of aeration.


Infiltration theory, with certain approximations, offers a practical means of estimating the volume of surface runoff from intense rainfall.
Oreg.


However, in applying the theory to natural drainage basins, several factors must be considered.
Oreg.


(1) The infiltration capacity of a given soil at the beginning of a storm is related to antecedent field moisture and the physical condition of the soil. There-fore, the infiltration capacity for the same soil may vary appreciably from storm to storm.(2) The infiltration capacity of a soil is normally highest at the beginning of rainfall.
Oreg.


Rainfall frequently begins at relatively moderate rates, and a substantial period of time may elapse before the rainfall intensity exceeds the prevailing infiltration capacity.
Oreg.


It is gen-erally accepted that, a fairly substantial quantity of infiltration is required to satisfy initial soil moisture deficiencies before runoff will occur, the amount of initial loss depending upon antecedent conditions.
Ida.


(3) Rainfall does not normally cover the entire drainage basin during all periods of precipitation with intensities exceeding infiltration capacities.
Oreg.


Further-more, soils and infiltration capacities vary throughout a drainage basin. Therefore rational application of any 1.59-13 loss-rate technique must consider the varying nature of rainfall intensities over the basin in order to determine the area covered by runoff-producing rainfall.b. Initial loss is defined as the maximum amount of precipitation that can occur without producing runoff.Values of initial loss may range from a minimum of a few tenths of an inch during relatively wet seasons to several inches during dry summer and fall months. Initial losses prevalent during major floods usually range from about 0.2 to 0.5 inch and are relatively small in comparison with the flood runoff volume. Conse-quently, in estimating loss rates from data for major floods, allowances for initial losses may be approximated without introducing important errors into the results.c. Base flow is defined herein as that portion of a flood hydrograph which represents runoff from antece-dent storms and bank flow. Bank flow is storm precipitation which infiltrates the ground surface and flows, possibly as groundwater, into stream channels.Many techniques exist for estimating base flow. It is generally assumed that base flow which could exist during a PMF is high, the rationale being that a storm producing relatively high runoff could meteorologically occur over most watersheds about a week earlier than that capable of producing a PMF. An acceptable method is to assume that a flood about half as severe as a PMF occurred 3 to 5 days earlier for frontal-type storms and about 24 hours for thunderstorms.
Oreg.


The recession of this flood is the base flow for the PMF.A.6 RUNOFF MODEL The hydrologic response characteristics of the water-shed to precipitation (i.e., runoff model) should be determined and verified from historical flood records.The model should include consideration of nonlinear runoff response due to high rainfall intensities or unexplainable factors. In conjunction with data and analyses discussed above, a runoff model should be developed, where data are available, by analytically"reconstituting" historical floods to substantiate its use for estimating a PMF. The rainfall-runoff-time-areal distribution of historical floods should be used to verify that the reconstituted hydrographs correspond reason-ably well with flood hydrographs actually recorded at selected gaging stations (Ref. 2). In most cases, reconsti-tution studies should be made with respect to two or more floods and possibly at two or more key locations, particularly where possible errors in the determinations could have a serious impact on decisions required in the use of the runoff model for the PMF. In some cases the lack of stream gage records, the lack of sufficient time and areal precipitation definition, or unexplained causes may prevent development of reliable predictive runoff models. In such cases a conservative PMF estimate should be ensured by other means such as conservatively developed synthetic unit hydrographs.
Oreg.


Basin runoff models for a PMF determination should provide a conservative estimate of the runoff that could be expected during the life of the nuclear facility.
Oreg.


The basic analyses used in deriving the runoff model are not rigorous but may be conservatively undertaken by considering the rate of runoff from unit rainfall (and snowmelt, if pertinent)
Oreg.
of some unit duration and specific time-areal distribution (called a unit hydro-graph). The applicability of a unit hydrograph or other technique for use in computing the runoff from the Probable Maximum Precipitation over a basin may be partially verified by reproducing observed major flood hydrographs.


An estimated unit hydrograph is first applied to estimated historical rainfall-excess values to obtain a hypothetical runoff hydrograph for comparison with the observed runoff hydrograph exclusive of base flow (i.e., net runoff). The loss rate, the unit hydro-graph, or both, are subsequently adjusted to provide accurate verification.
Oreg.


A study of the runoff response of a large number of basins for several historical floods in which a variety of valley storage characteristics, basin configurations, topo-graphical features, and meteorological conditions are represented provides the basis for estimating the relative effects of predominating influences for use in PMF analyses.
Oreg.


In detailed hydrological studies, each of the following procedures may be used to advantage:
Oreg.
a. Analysis of rainfall-runoff records for major storms;b. Computation of synthetic runoff response models by (1) direct analogy with basins of similar character- istics and/or (2) indirect analogy with a large number of other basins through the application of empirical rela-tionships.


In basins for which historical streamflow and/or storm data are unavailable, synthetic techniques are the only known means for estimating hydrologic response characteristics.
Wash.


However, care must be taken to assure that a synthetic model conservatively reflects the runoff response expected from precipitation as severe as the PMP.Detailed flood hydrograph analysis techniques and studies for specific basins are available from many agencies.
Wash.


Published studies such as those by the Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and Soil Conserva-tion Service may be utilized directly where it can be demonstrated that they are of a level of quality and conservatism comparable with that indicated herein. In particular, the Corps of Engineers has developed analysis techniques (Refs. 2, 3) and has accomplished a large number of studies in connection with their water resources development activities.
Ore.


Computerized runoff models (Ref. 3) offer an ex-tremely efficient tool for estimating PMF runoff rates and for evaluating the sensitivity of PMF estimates to t-1.59-14 possible variations in parameters.
Mont.


Such techniques have been used successfully in making detailed flood esti-mates.Snowmelt may be a substantial runoff component for both historical floods and the PMF. In cases where it is necessary to provide for snowmelt in the runoff model, additional hydrometeorological parameters must be in-corporated.
Wash.


The primary parameters are the depth of assumed existing snowpack, the areal distribution of assumed existing snowpack, the snowpack temperature and moisture content, the type of soil or rock surface underlying the snowpack and the type and amount of forest cover of the snowpack and variation thereof, and the time and elevation distribution of air temperatures and heat input during the storm and subsequent runoff period. Techniques that have been developed to reconsti-tute historical snowmelt floods may be used in both historical flood hydrograph analysis and PMF determina- tions (Ref. 4).A.7 PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION
Oreg.
ESTIMATES Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) estimates are the time and areal precipitation distributions compatible with the definition of Section A.2 and are based on detailed comprehensive meteorological analyses of severe storms of record. The analysis uses precipitation data and synoptic situations of major storms of record to determine characteristic combinations of meteorological conditions in a region surrounding the basin under study. Estimates are made of the increase in rainfall quantities that would have resulted if conditions during the actual storm had been as critical as those considered probable of occurrence in the region. Consideration is given to the modifications in meteorological conditions that would have been required for each of the record storms to have occurred over the drainage basin under study, considering topographical features and location of the region involved.The physical limitations in meteorological mecha-nisms for the maximum depth, time, and space distribu-tion of precipitation over a basin are (1) humidity (precipitable water) in the airflow over the watershed, (2) the rate at which wind may carry the humid air into the basin, and (3) the fraction of the inflowing atmos-pheric water vapor that can be precipitated.


Each of these limitations is treated differently to estimate the PMP over a basin. The estimate is modified further for regions where topography causes marked orographic control on precipitation (designated as the orographic model as opposed to the general model which embodies little topographic effect). Further details on the models and acceptable procedures are contained in References
Oreg.
5 and6.a. The PMP in regions of limited topographic influ-ence (mostly convergence precipitation)
may be esti-mated by maximizing observed intense storm parameters and transposing them to basins of interest.


The param-eters include storm duration, intensity, and the depth-area relation.
Wash.


The maximum storm should represent the most critical rainfall depth-area-duration relation fo- *he particular drainage area during various seasons oi -he year (Refs. 7-10). In practice, the storm parameters considered are (1) the representative storm dewpoint adjusted to inflow moisture producing the maximum dewpoint (precipitable water), (2) seasonal variations in parameters, (3) the temperature contrast, (4) the geo-graphical relocation, and (5) the depth-area relation.Examples of these analyses are explained and utilized in a number of published reports (Refs. 7-10).This procedure, supported with an appropriate analysis, is usually satisfactory where a sufficient num-ber of historical intense storms have been maximized and transposed to the basin and where at least one of them contains a convergent wind "mechanism" very near the maximum that nature can be expected to produce in the region (which is generally the case in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains).
Wash, Ida, Oreg.
A general principle for PMP estimates is: The number and severity of maximization steps must balance the adequacy of the storm sample; additional maximization steps are re-quired in regions of more limited storm samples.b. PMP determinations in regions of orographic influences generally are for the high mountain regions.Additional maximization steps from paragraph A.7.a above are required in the use of the orographic model (Refs. 5, 6). The orographic model is used where severe precipitation is expected to be caused largely by the lifting imparted to the air by mountains.


This orographic influence gives a basis for a wind model with maximized inflow. Laminar flow of air is assumed over any particular mountain cross section. The "life" of the air, the levels at which raindrops and snowflakes are formed, and their drift with the air before they strike the ground may then be calculated.
Wash, Ida.


Models are verified by reproducing the precipita- tion in observed storms and are then used for estimating PMP by introducing maximum values of moisture and wind as inflow at the foot of the mountains.
Oreg.


Maximum moisture is evaluated just as in nonorographic regions. In mountainous regions where storms cannot readily be transposed (paragraph A.7.a above) because of their intimate relation to the immediate underlying topo-graphy, historical stor~ns are resolved into their convec-tive and orographic components and maximized.
Wash.


Maxi-mum mroisture, maximum winds, and maximum values of the orographic component and convective component (convective as in nonorographic areas) of precipitation are considered to occur simultaneously.
Wash.


Some of the published reports that illustrate the combination of orographic and convective components, including seasonal variation, are References
Cal.
11-13.1.59-15 In some watersheds, major floods are often the result of melting snowpack or of snowmelt combined with rain. Accordingly, the PMP (rainfall)
and maximum associated runoff-producing snowpacks are both esti-mated on a seasonal and elevation basis. The probable maximum seasonal snowpack water equivalent should be determined by study of accumulations on local water-sheds from historical records of the region.Several methods of estimating the upper limit of ultimate snowpack and melting are summarized in References
4 and 5. The methods have been applied in the Columbia River basin, the Yukon basin in Alaska, the upper Missouri River basin, and the upper Mississippi in Minnesota and are described in a number of reports by the Corps of Engineers.


In many intermediate- latitude basins, the greatest flood will likely result from a combination of critical snowpack (water equivalent)
Cal.
and PMP. The seasonal variation in both optimum snow depth (i.e., the greatest water equivalent in the snow-pack) and the associated PMP combination should be meteorologically compatible.


Temperature and winds associated with PMP are two important snowmelt factors amenable to generalization for snowmelt computations (Ref. 14). The meteorological (e.g., wind, temperature, dewpoints)
Cal.
sequences prior to, during, and after the postulated PMP-producing storm should be compatible with the sequential occurrence of the PMP. The user should place the PMP over the basin and adjust the sequence of other parameters to give the most critical runoff for the season considered.


The meteorological parameters for snowmelt compu-tations associated with PMP are discussed in more detail in References
Cal.
11, 12, and 14.Other items that need to be considered in deter-mining basin melt are optimum depth, areal extent and type of snowpack, and other snowmelt factors (see Section A.8), all of which must be compatible with the most critical arrangement of the PMP and associated meteorological parameters.


Critical probable maximum storm estimates for very large drainage areas are determined as above but may differ somewhat in flood-producing storm rainfall from those encountered in preparing similar estimates for small basins. As a general rule, the critical PMP in a small basin results primarily from extremely intense small-area storms, whereas in large basins the PMP usually results from a series of less intense, large-area storms. In large river basins (about 100,000 square miles or larger) such as the Ohio and Mississippi River basins, it may be necessary to develop hypothetical PMP storm sequences (one storm period followed by another) and storm tracks with an appropriate time interval between storms.The type of meteorological analyses required and typical examples thereof are contained in References
Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Rogue Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Green Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Rogue Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Puyallup Columbia Columbia Chechalis Columbia San Joaquin San Joaquin Sacranento Santa Ana Columbia River
9, 15, and 16.The position of the PMP, identified by "isohyetal patterns" (lines of equal rainfall depth), may have a very great effect on the regimen of runoff from a given volume of rainfall excess, particularly in large drainage basins in which a wide range of basin hydrologic runoff characteristics exist. Several trials may be necessary to determine the critical position of the hypothetical PMP storm pattern (Refs. 8, 17) or the selected record storm pattern (Refs. .9, 16) to determine the critical isohyetal pattern that produces the maximum rate of runoff at the designated site. This may be accomplished by super-imposing the total-storm PMP isohyetal contour map on an outline of the drainage basin (above the site) in such a manner as to place the largest rainfall quantities in a position that would result in the maximum flood runoff (see Section A.8 on Probable Maximum Flood runoff).The isohyetal pattern should be consistent with the assumptions regarding the meteorological causes of the storm.A considerable range in assumptions regarding rainfall patterns (Ref. II) and intensity variations can be made in developing PMP storm criteria for relatively small basins without being inconsistent with meteorological causes. For drainage basins less than a few thousand square miles in area (particularly if only one unit hydrograph is available), the rainfall may be expressed as average depth over the drainage area. However, in determining the PMP pattern for large drainage basins (with varying basin hydrologic characteristics, including reservoir effects), runoff estimates are required for different storm pattern locations and orientations to obtain the final PMF. Where historical rainfall patterns are not used for PMP, two other methods are generally employed.a. The average depth over the entire basin is based on the maximized areal distribution of the PMP.b. A hypothetical isohyetal pattern is assumed.Studies of areal rainfall distribution from intense storms indicate that elliptical patterns may be assumed as representative of such events. Examples are the typical patterns presented in References
240,000  
8, 14, 17, and 18.To compute a flood hydrograph from the probable maximum storm, it is necessary to specify the time sequence of precipitation in a feasible and critical meteorological time sequence.
South Santian River
179 Columbia River  
7.5,000
Coast F


Two meteorological factors must be considered in devising the time se-quences: (1) the time sequence in observed storms and.(2) the manner of deriving the PMP estimates.
====k. Willamette River ====
104 S. F


The first imposes few limitations;
====k. McKenzie River ====
the hyetographs (rainfall time sequences)
208 North Santiam River
for observed storms are quite varied. There is some tendency for the two or three time increments with. the highest rainfall in a storm to bunch together, as some time is required for the influence of a severe precipitation-producing weather situation to pass a given (1.59-16 region. The second consideration uses meteorological parameters developed from PMP estimates.
438 Row River
26.


An example of 6-hour increments for obtaining a critical 24-hour PMP sequence would be that the most severe 6-hour increments should be adjacent to each other in time (Ref. 17). In this arrangement the second highest increment should precede the highest, the third highest should be immediately after this 12-hour se-quence, and the fourth highest should be before the 18-hour sequence.
N. F


This procedure may also be used in the distribution of the lesser, second (24-48 hours) and third (48-72 hours), 24-hour periods. These arrange-ments are permissible because separate bursts of precipi-tation could have 'occurred within each 24-hour period (Ref. 7). The three 24-hour precipitation periods are interchangeable.
====k. Clearwater River ====
2,440
Elk Creek
132 Willamette River
184 Long Tom River
252 South Santiam River
4144 Middle Santiam River
27?
Gate C


Other arrangements that fulfill the sequential requirements would be equally reasonable.
====k. McKenzie River ====
50
Middle F


The hyetograph selected should be the most severe reasonably possible that would produce critical runoff at the project location based on the general appraisal of the hydrometeorologic conditions in the project basin.Examples of PMP time sequences fulfilling the sequential requirements are illustrated in References
====k. Willamette River ====
11, 12, and 17. For small areas maximized local records should be considered to ensure that the selected PMP time sequence is as severe as has occurred.The Corps of Engineers and the Hydrometeorological Branch of NOAA (under a cooperative -arrangement since 1939) have made comprehensive meteorological studies of extreme flood-producing storms (Ref. 1) and have developed a number of estimates of PMP. The PMP estimates are presented in various unpublished memo-randa and published reports. The series of published reports is listed on the fly sheet of referenced Hydro-meteorological Reports such as Reference
38q Calapooia River
18. The unpublished memoranda reports may be obtained from the Corps of Engineers or Hydrometeorological Branch, NOAA. These reports and memoranda present general techniques and several contain generalized estimates of PMP for different river basins. The generalized studies (Refs. 7-13, 18, 29) are based on coordinated studies of all available data, supplemented by thorough meteoro-logical analyses and usually assure reliable and consistent estimates for various locations in the region for which they have been developed.
105 Green River
221&#xfd;
Snake River
109,000
Columbia River
226,00O
Kootenai River
9,070
Snake River
10i4900
Middle F


In some cases, however, additional detailed analyses are needed for specific river basins (Refs. 7, 8) to take into account unusually large areas, storm series, topography, or orientation of drain-age basins not fully reflected in the generalized esti-mates. In many river basins, available studies may be utilized to obtain the PMP without the in-depth analysis discussed herein.A.8 CHANNEL AND RESERVOIR
====k. Vilaette Aiver ====
ROUTING Channel and reservoir routing of floods is generally an integral part of the runoff model for subdivided basins.Care should be taken to ensure that the characteristics determined represent historical conditions (which may be verified by reconstituting historical floods) and also conservatively represent conditions to be expected dur-ing a PMF.Channel and reservoir routing methods of many types have been developed to model the progressive down-stream translation of flood waves. The same theoretical relationships hold for both channel and reservoir rout-ing. However, in the case of flood wave translation through reservoirs, simplified procedures have been developed that are generally not used for channel routing because of the inability of such simplified methods to model frictional effects. The simplified channel routing procedures that have been developed have been found useful in modeling historical floods, but care should be exercised in using such models for severe hypothetical floods such as the PMF. The coefficients developed from analysis of historical floods may not conservatively reflect flood wave translation for more severe events.Most of the older procedures were basically attempts to model unsteady-flow phenomena using simplifying approximations.
991 Lost P


The digital computer has allowed development of analysis techniques that permit direct solution of basic unsteady flow equations utilizing numerical analysis techniques (Ref. 19). Most of the older techniques have also been adapted for computer use (Ref. 3).For all routing techniques, care should be exercised to ensure that parameters selected for model verification are based on several historical floods (whenever possible)and that their application to the PMF will result in conservative estimates of flow rates, water levels, veloci-ties, and impact forces. Theoretical discussions of the many methods available for such analyses are contained in References2 and 19-22.A.9 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD HYDROGRAPH
====k. Rogue River ====
ESTIMATES Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) net runoff hydro-graph estimates are made by sequentially applying critically located and distributed PMP estimates using the runoff model, conservatively low estimates of precipitation losses, and conservatively high estimates of base flow and antecedent reservoir levels.In PMF determinations it is generally assumed that short-term reservoir flood control storage would be depleted by antecedent floods. An exception would be when it can be demonstrated that a reasonably severe flood (e.g., about one-half of a PMF) less than a week (usually a minrimm of 3 to 5 days; 24 hours if the PMP is a thunderstorm)
6,7'
prior to a PMF can be evacuated from the reservoir before the arrival of a PMF. However, it is 1.59-17 unusual to use an antecedent storage level of less than one-half the available flood control storage.The application of PMP in basins whose hydrologic features vary from location to location requires the determination that the estimated PMF hydrograph repre-sent the most critical centering of the PMP storm with respect to the site. Care must be taken in basins with substantial headwater flood control storage to ensure that a more highly concentrated PMP over a smaller area downstream of the reservoirs would not produce a greater PMF than a total basin storm that is partially controlled.
Snake River
101,,4O0
Snake River
108,500
Boise River
2,650.


In such cases more than one PMP runoff analysis would be required.
Columbia River
214,000
White River
'400
Willow C


Usually, only a few trials of a total basin PMP are required to determine the most critical centering.
====k. Snake River ====
620
Columbia River
237,000
Wynoochee River
41 Zintel Canyon Snake River IQ
California Region Bear Creek Big Dry Creek Stony Creek Brea Creek
72
]3.b
91
19.0
741
19.?
23
10.6 K
Project State River Bas
22.1
42.2
29.0
29.7
34.2
36.0
34.6
70.5
32.6
33.8
20.3
40.8
41.3
146..3
31.0
35.8
26.8
13.9
2191
3' 5
14,6
10.8
22.7
14*?
1400
32.5
23.0
31.9
21,14
21.1
69.9
7.8
13.6
13.8
12.3
6.6
2,720,000
1159,000
1,550,000
45,000
98,000
203,000
131,600
280,000
63,500
100,000
148,600
260,000
160,000
37,000
197,000
59,000
164,000
95,%000
2,650,000
282,000
850,0C0
360,000
169,0Cc
850.000
850,000
123,000
2,610,000
!86,000
4?,000
2,660,000
52,500
"4O, 500
30,0400
17,000
1 54,000
37000
=
a  
9


Antecedent snowpack is included when it &#xfd;s deter-mined that snowmelt significantly contributes to the PMF (see Section A.7).Runoff hydrographs should be prepared at key hydrologic locations (e.g., streamgages and dams) as well as at the site of nuclear facilities.
TABLE B.1 ( )
River Basin Stream Drainage Area (sq.mi.)
Basin Average (in inches)
Prec.


For all reservoirs involved, inflow, outflow, and pool elevation hydro-graphs should be prepared.Many existing and proposed dams and other river control structures may not be capable of safely passing floods as severe as a PMF. The capability of river control structures to safely pass a PMF and local coincident wind-generated wave activity must be determined as part of the PMF analysis.
Runoff Buchanan Burns Butler Valley Carbon Canyon Cherry Valley Comanche Coyote Valley Dry Creek Farmington Folsom Fullerton Hansen Hidden Lake Isabella Knights Valley Lakeport Lopes Mariposa Kartis Creek Marysville Mojave River N*ew Dullards Bar New Exchequer New Hogm New Melones Oroville Owens Pine Flat Prado San Antonio Santa Fe Sepulveda Cal.


Where it is possible that such structures may not safely survive floods as severe as a PMF, the worst such condition with respect to down-stream nuclear facilities is assumed (but should be substantiated by analysis of upstream PMF potential)
Cal.
to be their failure during a PMF, and the PMF determina- tion should include the resultant effects. This analysis also requires that the consequences of upstream dam failures on downstream dams (domino effects) be considered.


A.10 SEISMICALLY
Cal.
INDUCED FLOODS Seismically induced floods on streams and rivers may be caused by landslides or dam failures.


Where river control structures are widely spaced, their arbitrarily assumed individual, total, instantaneous failure and conservative flood wave routing may be sufficient to show that no threat exists to nuclear facilities.
Cal.


However, where the relative size, location, or proximity of dams to potential seismic generators indicates a threat to nuclear facilities, the capability of such structures (either singly or in combination)
Cal.
to resist severe earthquakes (critically located) should be considered.


In river basins where the flood runoff season may constitute a significant portion of the year (such as the Mississippi, Columbia, or Ohio River basins), full flood control reservoirs with a 25-year flood are assumed coincident with the Safe Shutdown Earthquake. (An acceptable method of determining the 25-year flood is contained in Reference
Cal.
30.) Also, consideration should be given to the occurrence of a Standard Project Flood with full flood control reservoirs coincident with the Operating Basis Earthquake to maintain a consistent level of analysis with other combinations of such events. As with failures due to inadequate flood- control capacity, domino and essen-tially simultaneous multiple failures may also require consideration.


If the arbitrarily assumed total instan-taneous failure of the most critically located (from a hydrologic standpoint)
Cal.
structures indicates flood risks at the nuclear facility site more severe than a PMF, a progressively more detailed analysis of the seismic capability of the dam is warranted.


In lieu of detailed geologic and seismic investigations at the site of the river control structure, the flood potential at the nuclear facility may be evaluated assuming the most probable mechanistic-type failure of the questioned structures.
Cal.


If the flood effects of this assumed failure cannot be safely accommodated at the nuclear facility site in an accept-able manner, the seismic potential at the site of each questioned structure is then evaluated in detail. The structural capability is evaluated in the same depth as for the nuclear facility.
Cal.


If the capability is not sufficient to ensure survival of the structure, its failure is assumed, and the resulting seismically induced flood is routed to the site of the nuclear power plant. This last detailed analysis is not generally required since intermediate investigations usually provide sufficient conservative information to allow determination of an adequate design basis flood.A.11 WATER LEVEL DETERMINATIONS
Cal.
The preceding discussion has been concerned pri-marily with determinations of flow rates. The flow rate or discharge must be converted to water surface eleva-tion for use in design. This may involve determination of elevation-discharge relations for natural stream valleys or reservoir conditions.


The, reservoir elevation estimates involve the spillway discharge capacity and peak reser-voir level likely to be attained during the PMF as governed by the inflow hydrograph, the reservoir level at the beginning of the PMF, and the reservoir regulation plan with respect to total releases while the reservoir is rising to peak stage. Most river water level determina:
Cal.
tions involve the assumption of steady, or nonvarying, flow for which standard methods are used to estimate flood levels.Where little floodplain geometry definition exists, a technique called "slope-area" may be employed wherein the assumptions are made that (1) the water surface is parallel to the average -bed slope, (2) any available floodplain geometry information is typical of the river reach under study, and (3) no upstream or downstream hydraulic controls affect the river reach fronting the site 1.59-48 ander study. Where such computations can be shown to indicate conservatively high flood levels, they may be used. However, the usual method of estimating water surface profiles for flood conditions that may be characterized as involving essentially steady flow is called the "standard-step method." This method utilizes the integrated differential equation of steady fluid motion commonly referred to as the Bernoulli equation (Refs. 22-25). Water levels in the direction of flow computation are determined by the trial and error balance of upstream and downstream energy. Frictional and other types of head losses are usually estimated in detail using characteristic loss equations whose coeffi-cients have been estimated from computational reconsti-tution of historical floods and from detailed floodplain geometry information.


Where no data exist to reconsti-tute water levels from historical floods, conservative values of the various loss coefficients should be used.Application of the standard-step method has been developed into very sophisticated computerized models such as the one described in Reference
Cal.
23. Theoretical discussions of the techniques involved are presented in References
22, 24, and 25.Unsteady-flow models may also be used to estimate water levels since steady flow may be considered a class of unsteady flow. Computerized unsteady-flow models require generally the same floodplain geometry defini-tion as steady-flow models, and their use may allow more accurate water surface level estimates for cases where steady-flow approximations are made. One such unsteady-flow computer model is discussed in Reference 19.All reasonably accurate water level estimation models require detailed floodplain definition, especially of areas that can materially affect water levels. The models should be calibrated by mathematical reconstitution of historical floods (or the selection of calibration coeffici-ents based on the conservative transfer of information derived from similar studies. of other river reaches).Particular care should be exercised to ensure that controlling flood level estimates are always conserva-tively high.A.12 COINCIDENT
WIND-WAVE
ACTIVITY The superposition of wind-wave activity on PMF or seismically induced water level determinations is re-quired to ensure that, in the event either condition did occur, ambient meteorological activity would not cause a loss of any safety-related functions due to wave action.The 'selection of windspeeds and critical wind directions assumed coincident with maximum PMF or seismically induced water levels should provide assurance of virtually no risk to safety-related equipment.


The Corps of Engineers suggests (Refs. 26, 27) that average maximum windspeeds of approximately
Cal.
40 to 60 mph have occurred in major windstorms in most regions of the United States. For application to the safety analysis of nuclear facilities, the worst regional winds of record should be assumed coincident with the PMF. However, the postulated winds should be meteorologically com-patible with the conditions that induced the PMF (or with the flood conditions assumed coincident with seismically induced dam failures).
The cqnditions in-clude the season of the year, the time required for the PMP storm to move out of the area and be replaced by meteorological conditions that could produce the postu-lated winds, and the restrictions on windspeed and direction produced by topography.


As an alternative to a detailed study of historical regional winds, a sustained 40-mph overland windspeed from any critical direction is an acceptable postulation.
Cal.


Wind-generated setup (or windtide)
Cal.
and wave action (runup and impact forces) may be estimated using the techniques described in References
26 and 28. The method for estimating wave action is based on statistical analyses of a wave spectrum.


For nuclear facilities, protection against the one-percent wave, defined in Reference
Cal.
28 as the average of the upper one percent of the waves in the anticipated wave spectrum, should be assumed. Where depths of water in front of safety-related structures are sufficient (usually about seven-tenths of the wave height), the wave-induced forces will be equal to the hydrostatic forces estimated from the maximum runup level. Where the waves can be"tripped" and caused to break, both before reaching and on safety-related structures, dynamic forces may be estimated from Reference
28. Where waves may induce surging in intake structures, the pressures on walls and the underside of exposed floors should be considered, particularly where such structures are not vented and air compression can greatly increase dynamic forces.In addition, assurance should be provided that safety systems are designed to withstand the static and dynamic effects resulting from frequent (10-year)
flood levels coincident with the waves that would be produced by the Probable Maximum Gradient Wind for the site (based on a study of historical regional meteorology).
1.59-19 APPENDIX A REFERENCES
1. Precipitation station data and unpublished records of Federal, State, municipal, and other agencies may be obtained from the National Weather Service (formerly called the U.S. Weather Bureau). In addition, studies of some large storms are available in the "Storm Rainfall in the United States, Depth-Area-Duration Data," summaries published by Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. A list of references is contained in Section 2.4 of"Regulatory-Standard Review Plan," U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1974.2. Corps of Engineers publications, such as EM 1110-2-1405, August 31, 1959, "Engineering and Design-Flood Hydrograph Analyses and Computa-tions," provide excellent criteria for the necessary flood hydrograph analyses. (Copies are for sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.) Isohyetal patterns and related precipitation data. are in the files of the Chief of Engineers, Corps of Engineers.


3. A publicly available model is "Flood Hydrograph Package, HEC-l Generalized Computer Program," available from the Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, California, October 1970.4. One technique for the analysis of snowmelt is contained in Corps of Engineers EM 1100-2-406,"Engineering and Design-Runoff From Snowmelt," January 5, 1960. Included in this reference is also an explanation of the derivation of probable maxi-mum and standard project snowmelt floods.5. "Technical Note No. 98-Estimation of Maximum'Floods," WMO-No. 233.TP.126, World Meteorologi- cal Organization, United Nations, 1969, and"Manual for Depth-Area-Duration Analysis of Storm Precipitation," WMO-No. 237.TP. 129, World Meteorological Organization, United Nations, 1969.6. "Meteorological Estimation of Extreme Precipita- tion for Spillway Design Floods," Tech. Memo WBTM HYDRO-5, U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA) Office of Hydrology, 1967.7. "Seasonal Variation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian for Areas from 10 to 1,000 Square Miles and Durations of 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours." Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), 1956; and "All-Season Probable Maximum Precipitation-United States East of the 105th Meridian, for Areas from 1,000 to 20,000 Square Miles and Durations from 6 to 72 Hours," draft report, National Weather Service, ESSA (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), 1972.8. "Probable Maximum Precipitation, Susquehanna River Drainage Above Harrisburg, Pa.," Hydro-meteorological Report No. 40, U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), 1965.9. "Meteorology of Flood Producing Storms in the Ohio River Basin," Hydrometeorological Report No. 38, U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1961.10. "Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation Over the Tennessee River Basin Above Chattanooga," Hydrometeorological Report No. 43, U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1965.11. "Interim Report-Probable Maximum Precipitation in California," Hydrometeorological Report No. 36, U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1961; revised 1969.12. "Probable Maximum Precipitation, Northwest States," Hydrometeorological Report No. 43, U.S.Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1966.1 13. "Probable Maximum Precipitation in the Hawaiian Islands," Hydrometeorological Report No. 39, U.S.Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1963.14. "Meteorological Conditions for the Probable Maxi-mum Flood on the Yukon River Above Rampart, Alaska," Hydrometeorological Report No. 42, U.S.Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1966.15. "Meteorology of Flood-Producing Storms in the Mississippi River Basin," Hydrometeorological Report No. 34, U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1965.16. "Meteorology of Hypothetical Flood Sequences in the Mississippi River Basin," Hydrometeorological Report No. 35, U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1959.17. "Engineering and Design-Standard Project Flood Determinations," Corps of Engineers EM 1110-2-1411, March 1965, originally published as Civil Engineer Bulletin No. 52-8, 26 March 1952.18. "Probable Maximum Precipitation Over South Platte River, Colorado, and Minnesota River, Minne-sota," Hydrometeorological Report No. 44, U.S.Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1969.I 1.59-20
Cal.
19. "Unsteady Flow Simulation in Rivers and Reser-voirs," by J.M. Garrison, J.P. Granju, and J.T. Price, pp. 1559-1576, Vol. 95, No. HY5, (September
1969), Journal of the Hydraulics Division, ASCE, (paper 6771).20. "Handbook of Applied Hydrology," edited by Ven Te Chow, McGraw-Hill, 1964, Chapter 25.21. "Routing of Floods Through River Channels," EM 1110-2-1408, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March 1, 1960.22. "Engineering Hydraulics," edited by Hunter Rouse, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1950.23. "Water Surface Profiles, HEC-2 Generalized Com-puter Program," available from the Corps of Engi-neers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Davis, Calif.24. "Open Channel Hydraulics" by Ven Te Chow, McGraw-Hill, 1959.25. "Backwater Curves in River Channels," EM 1110-2-1409, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 7, 1959.26. "Coxlnutation of Freeboard Allowances for Waves in Reservoirs," Engineer Technical Letter ETL 1110-2-9, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1, 1966.27. "Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Deter-mination of Spillway Capacities and Freeboard Allowances for Dams," Engineer Circular EC 1110-2-27, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 1, 1966.28. "Shore Protection Manual," U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center. 1973.29. "Probable Maximum and TVA Precipitation for Tennessee River Basins up to 3,000 Square Miles in Area and Durations to 72 Hours," Hydrometeoro- logical Report No. 45, U.S. Weather Bureau (now NOAA), 1969.30. "Floods in the United States, Magnitude and Fre-quency, (Basin)," series of Water-Supply Papers.U.S. Geological Survey, various dates.1.59-21 f t-i-i APPENDIX B ALTERNATIVE
METHODS OF ESTIMATING
PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOODS TABLE OF CONTENTS Page B.1 INTRODUCTION
...............
B.2 SCOPE ........ ....................
1.59-25 1.59-25 B.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD PEAK DISCHARGE
.........
.....................
1.59-25 B.3.1 Use of PMF Discharge Determinations
....B.3.2 Enveloping isolines of PMF Peak Discharge
...B.3.2.1 Preparation of Maps ... .. .. .B.3.2.2 Use of Maps ............B.3.3 Probable Maximum Water Level .......B.3.4 Wind-Wave Effects .... .........B.4 LIMITATIONS
........... ..........................1.5 9 -2 5....................1.5 9 -2 5....................1.59 -2 5...... ...........I. .1.59-26....................1.5 9 -2 6....................1.5 9 -2 6 1.59-26 REFERENCES
........................FIG U R ES ..........................TABLE FIGURES Figure B.I -Water Resources Regions. ................
B.2 -Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)
-100 Sq. Mi. .B.3 -Probable.


Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)
Cal.
-500 Sq. Mi..B.4 -Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)
-1,000 Sq. Mi.B.5 -Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)
-5,000 Sq. Mi.B.6 -Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)
-10,000 Sq. Mi.B.7 -Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)
-20,000 Sq. Mi.B.8 -Example of Use of Enveloping Isolines .... ...........
TABLE*. ..1.59-27 1.59-28 1.59-36 1.59-28 1.59-29 1.59-30 1.59-31 1.59-32 1.59-33 1 .59-34 1.59-35..--Table B. I -Probable Maximum Flood Data 1.59-36 1.59-23 r
B.1 INTRODUCTION
*This appendix presents timesaving alternative methods of estimating the probable maximum flood (PMF) peak discharge for nuclear facilities on nontidal streams in the contiguous United States. Use of the methods herein will reduce both the time necessary for applicants to prepare license applications and the NRC staff's review effort.The procedures are based on PMF values determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by applicants for licenses that have been reviewed and accepted by the NRC staff, and by the staff and its consultants.


The information in this appendix was developed from a study made by Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, through a contract with NRC (Ref. 1).PMF peak discharge determinations for the entire contiguous United States are presented in Table B.1.Under some conditions, these may be used directly to evaluate the PMF at specific sites. In addition, maps showing enveloping isolines of PMF discharge for several index drainage areas are presented in Figures B.2 through B.7 for the contiguous United States east of the 103rd meridian, including instructions for and an example of their use (see Figure B.8). Because of the enveloping procedures used in preparing the maps, results from their use are highly conservative.
Cal.


Limitations on the use of these generalized methods of estimating PMFs are identified in Section B.4. These limitations should be considered in detail in assessing the applicability of the methods at specific sites.Applicants for licenses for nuclear facilities at sites on nontidal streams in the contiguous United States have the option of using these methods in lieu of the more precise but laborious methods of Appendix A. The results of application of the methods in this appendix will in many cases be accepted by the NRC staff with no further verification.
Cal.


B.2 SCOPE The data and procedures in this appendix apply only to nontidal streams in the contiguous United States.Two procedures are included for nontidal streams east of the 103rd meridian.Future studies are planned to determine the applica-bility of similar generalized methods and to develop such methods, if feasible, for other areas. These studies, to be included in similar appendices, are anticipated for the main steins of large rivers and the United States west of the 103rd meridian, including Hawaii and Alaska.B.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD PEAK DISCHARGE The data presented in this section are as follows: 1. A tabulation of PMF peak discharge determina- tions at specific locations throughout the contiguous United States. These data are subdivided into water resources regions, delineated on Figure B.1, and are tabulated in Table B.1.2. A set of six maps, Figures B.2 through B.7, covering index drainage areas of 100, 500, 1,000, 5,000, 10,000, and 20.000 square miles, containing isolines of equal PMF peak discharge for drainage areas of those sizes east of the 103rd meridian.B.3.1 Use of PMF Discharge Determinations The PMF peak discharge determinations listed in Table B.1 are those computed by the Corps of Engi-neers, by the NRC staff and their consultants, or computed by applicants and accepted by the staff.For a nuclear facility located near or adjacent to one of the streams listed in the table and reasonably close to the location of the PMF determination, that PMF may be transposed, with proper adjustment, or routed to the nuclear facility site. Methods of transposition, adjust-ment, and routing are given in standard hydrology texts and are not repeated here. Limits for acceptable trans-positions are contained in Appendix A, Section A.I .b.B.3.2 Enveloping lsolines of PMF Peak Discharge B.3.2.1 Preparation of Maps For each of the water resources regions, each PMF determination in Table B.1 was plotted on logarithmic paper (cubic feet per second per square mile versus drainage area). It was found that there were insufficient data and too much scatter west of about the 103rd meridian, caused by variations in precipitation from orographic effects or by melting snowpack.
Cal.


Accordingly, the rest of the study was confined to the United States east of the 103rd meridian.
Cal.


For sites west of the 103rd meridian, the methods of the preceding section may be used.Envelope curves were drawn for each region east of the 103rd meridian.
Cal.


It was found that the envelope curves generally paralleled the Creager curve (Ref. 2), defined as Q = 46.0 CA(0.894A-O'
Cal.
0 4 8)-l 1.59-25 where Q is the discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs)C is a constant, taken as 100 for this study A is the drainage area in square miles.Each PMF discharge determination of 50 square miles or more was adjusted to one or more of the six selected index drainage areas in accordance with the slope of the Creager *curve. Such adjustments were made as follows: PMF Within Drainage Area Range, sq. mi.50 to 500 100 to 1,000 500 to 5,000 1,000 to 10,000 5,000 to 50,000 10,000 or greater Adjusted to Index Drainage Area, sq. mi.100 500 1,000 5,000 10,000 20,000 The PMF values so adjusted were plotted on maps of the United States east of the 103rd meridian, one map for each of the six index drainage areas. It was found that there were areas on each map with insufficient points to define isolines.


To fill in such gaps, conserva-tive computations of approximate PMF peak discharge were made for each two-degree latitude-longitude inter-section on each map. This was done by using enveloped relations between drainage area and PMF peak discharge (in cfs per inch of runoff), and applying appropriate probable maximum precipitation (PMP) at each two-degree latitude-longitude intersection.
Cal.


PMP values, ob-tained from References
Cal.
3 and 4, were assumed to be for a 48-hour storm to which losses of 0.05 inch per hour were applied. These approximate PMF values were also plotted on the maps for each index drainage area and the enveloping isolines were drawn as shown on Figures B.2 through B.7.B.3.2.2 Use of Maps The maps may be used to determine PMF peak discharge at a given site with a known drainage area as follows: 1. Locate the site on the 100-square-mile map, Figure B.2.2. Read and record the 100-square-mile PMF peak discharge by straight-line interpolation between the isolines.3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for 500, 1,000, 5,000, 10.000, and 20,000 square miles from Figures B.3 through B.7.4. Plot the six PMF peak discharges so obtained on logarithmic paper against drainage area, as shown on Figure B.8.5. Draw a smooth curve through the points. Reason-able extrapolations above and below the defined curve may be made.6. Read the PMF peak discharge at the site from the curve at the appropriate drainage area.B.3.3 Probable Maximum Water Level When the PMF peak discharge has been obtained as outlined in the foregoing sections, the PMF stillwater level should be determined.


The methods given in Appendix A, Section A.11, are acceptable for this purpose.B.3.4 Wind-Wave Effects Wind-wave effects should be superimposed on the PMF stillwater level. Criteria and acceptable methods are given in Appendix A, Section A.12.B.4 LIMITATIONS
Cal.
1. The NRC staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMF analyses that result in less conservative estimates.


In addition, previously reviewed and appruved detailed PMF analyses at specific sites will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in this appendix result in more conservative estimates.
Cal.


2. The PMF estimates obtained as outlined in Sec-tions B.3.1 and 13.3.2 are peak discharges that should be converted to water level to which appropriate wind-wave effects should be added.3. If there are one or more reservoirs in the drainage area upstream of the site, seismic and hydrologic dam failure' flood analyses should be made to determine whether such a flood will produce the design basis water level. Criteria and acceptable methods are included in Appendix A, Section A.10.4. Because of the enveloping procedures used, PMF peak discharges estimated as outlined in Section B.3.2 have a high degree of conservatism.
Cal.


If the PMF so estimated casts doubt on the suitability of a site, or if protection from a flood of that magnitude would not be physically or economically feasible, consideration should be given to performing a detailed PMF analysis, as outlined in Appendix A. It is likely that such an analysis will result in appreciably lower PMF.levels.
Cal.


In this context, "hydrologic dam failure" means a failure caused by a flood from the drainage area upstream of the dam.I 1.59-26 APPENDIX B REFERENCES
Cal.
1. Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, "Probable Maximum Flood and Hurricane Surge Estimates," unpublished report to NRC, June 13, 1975 (available in the public document room).2. W.P. Creager, J.D. Justin, and J. Hinds, "Engineering For Dams," J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1945.3. U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), "Seasonal Variation of the Probable Maximum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian," Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, 1956.4. U.S. Department of Commerce, N.OAA, "All-Season Probable Maximum Precipitation-United States East of the 105th Meridian, for Areas from 1,000 to 20,000 Square Miles and Durations From 6 to 72 Hours," draft report, July 1972.1.59-27
450'410'l0 CALIFORNIA-
t'.)00SOUTH
PACIFIC ROGRANDEmis
290 TEXAS-GULF
1170 1130 1090 1050 1010 970 930 890 850 810 FIGURE B.1 WATER RESOURCES
REGIONS F 133'I 290 1250
t ISOLINE REPRESENTING
PEAK FLOW OF PMF IN 1,000 CFS.NOTE: PMF ISOLINES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT
ENVELOPED VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 100-SQUARE
MILE DRAINAGE 160 AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS.


ACCORDINGLY, I PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU-TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM 140 UPSTREAM DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL
Cal.
EVENTS. 1 1190 1170 1150 113' 111&deg; 1090 1070 1050 1030 101' 990 FIGURE B.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING
PMF ISOLINES)
FOR 100 SOUARE MILES
470'.450 430 410 390 370 350 330 310 290 270 250 ,-ISOLINE
REPRESENTING
PEAK FLOW OF PMF IN 1,000 CFS.NOTE: PMF ISOLINES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT
ENVELOPED VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 500-SQUARE
MILE DRAINAGE AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS.


ACCORDINGLY, PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU-TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL
San Joaquin San Joaquin had Santa Ana San Joaquin San Joaquin Russian Russian San Joaquin Sacramento Santa Ana Los Angeles San Joaquin San Joaquin Russian Sacramento Los Angeles San Joaquin Truckee Sacramento Mojave Sacramento San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin Sacramento San Joaquin San Joaquin Santa Ana Santa Ana San Gabriel Los Angeles Chowchilla River Burns Creek Mad River Santa Am River Cherry Creek Mokeluane River Fast Fk. Russian River Dry Creek Little John Creek American River Fullerton Creek Tujunga Wash Fresno River Kern River Franz-Maacama Creek Scotts Creek Pacoima Creek Mariposa Creek Martis Creek Yuba River Mojave River North Yuba River Merced River Calaveras River Stanislaus River Feather River Owens Creek Kings River Santa Ama River San Antonio Creek San Gabriel River Los Angeles River
EVENTS.I I 1 I I I T -FIGURE B.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING
235
PMF ISOLINES)
74
FOR 500 SQUARE MILES
352
470 470 450 14 45'430 200 250 43'4300 410 1 2 410 3 9 0 3 9.0 0 4 04 0 370 370 4.5 350 330 330 31040 5 310 290 290.270 PMF IN 1 000 CFS. 503020270 NOTE: PMF ISOLINES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT
19
ENVELOPED VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 1,000-SQUARE
117
MILE DRAINAGE 500 350 AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS.
618'
105
82
212
1,875
5.0
147
234
2,073
59
52
34
108
39
1,324
215 L489
1,031
362
897
2,600
26
1,542
2,233
27
236
152
26.0
20.1
17.*4
10.6
35.2
10.4
10.3
24.3
23.1  
25.0
19.9
22.9
21.3  
15.6
11.3
10.9
21.2  
17.5
9.0  
6.8
9.8
29.9
18.4
27.1
6.5
31.6
28.9
30.9  
24.0  
20.8
18.6
13.0  
26.5
12.7
38.9
27.0
40.4
30.4  
38.9
25.7
27.1
15.9
18.3
25.8
16.3
23.3
22.8
14.4  
9.2
28.5  
14.4
26.3
13.0
13.0
35.*5  
15.0
r Project State PM? Peak Discharge (ofe)
I.A
00
127,000
26,800
137,000  
56.000
60,000
261,000
57,000
"45,000
56,000
615,000
16,000
130,000
114,000
235,000
"44,300
36,100
32,000
"43,000
12,400
460,00oc
186,000
226,ooo
396,000
132,000
355,000
720,000  
11.400
437,000
700,000
60,000
194,000
220,000
C
r


ACCORDINGLY, ___I 25 PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU-
Q
250 TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM45 DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL
River Basin Stream Drain..te Area (sa.mi.)
EVENTS.0 I ....0 I 45o l1 I 1210 1190 1170 1150 113" 111' 1090 1070 105" 103" 101l 97' 95" 93" 91" 89" 87' 850 83' 81, FIGURE B.4 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING
Basin Average (in Inches)  
PMF ISOLINES)  
Pree.
FOR 1.000 SQUARE MILES
470 450 410 390 350 330 3106 700 6000,.29&deg;I800 2900 27~ _1PMF IN 1,000 CFS.000 25&deg; PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU9 TIONS TO PEAK FLOW. THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM FAILURE OR OTHERUNARLEVTS
121&deg; 1190 1170 1150 T13&deg; 1110 1090 1070 1Q05 1030 j01&deg; gg0 970 950 930 910 890 870 850 FIGURE B.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING
PMF ISOLINES)  
FOR 5,000 SQUAR 830 E MILES
470.J1 450 430 410 390 370 350 330 310 290 270 250 ISOLINE REPRESENTING
PEAK FLOW OF PMF IN 1,000 CFS."..# ,. I NOTE: PMF ISOLINES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT
ENVELOPED VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 10,000-SOUARE
MILE DRAINAGE/ AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS.


ACCORDINGLY, PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU.TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL
Runoff Success Terminus Tuolumne Whittier Narrows Cale Cal$
EVENTS.1210 1190 1170 1150 1130 1110 1090 1070 1050 1030 1010 990 970 950 930 910 890 870 850 830 810 FIGURE B.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING
cal.
PMF ISOLINES)
FOR 10,000 SQUARE MILES
~100 350 4&#xfd; 100 400 1600 1800 330&deg;50 311 250 AR AU D RN T R LRV R O DTO S C O DN L 1300 16 2900 TIN T ISOLINE REPRESENTING
PEAK FLOW OF DAM 1200 PMDF IN 1,000 C FSO 127 0 110 17 15 13 11 0 1 9 0 0 .0 0 1 3 0 0 g 0 9 0 0g 0 9 300 9 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 3 9 7 NOTE: PMF ISOLINES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT
ENVELOPED
1400M 1100 VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 20,000-SQUARE
MILE DRAINAGE .I 250 AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS.


ACCORDINGLY.
Cal.


10 ..13 PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU-T'IONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM 10 DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL
San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin San Gabriel Tule River Kaweah River Tuolumne River San Gabriel River TABLE B.1 ( )
EVENTS. .121&deg; 119&deg; 1170 1150 113&deg; Ili, 109&deg; 107' "1050 103&deg; 101' 99&deg; 97o 95' 93&deg; 91&deg; 89' B7' 85&deg; 83o 810 79&deg; 77'FIGURE B.7 PROBABL E MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING
K
PMF ISOLINES)
Pro.iect
FOR 20,000 SQUARE MILES 2?25 75' 73'
'0
I I I I I III'C LLf 0 0 IL 0 Cc r -EXAMPLE:-FOR DRAINAGE AREA OF-2,300 SQ. MI. AT LAT. 95", LONG. 430, DETERMINE
'0
PMF PEAK DISCHARGE.
State F
Peak Discharve (ofa)
383
560
it 5133
"40.1
25.1
1.*,
i2.6
2468
20. ?
13.7
200,000  
290,000
602,000
305,000


I II I I III! I I I I SI I I I I I T I I I I I I I.1 Li L I-1-4. I I I I I--SOLUTION:
APPENDIX C
FOR DRAINAGE AREA OF-2,300 SQ. MI., PMF PEAK =400,000 CFS.il-HI I Lci 0 POINTS FROM FIGURES B.2-B.-; [ i J lfl &#xfd; I I I I I I I 11 flai._W=I i i I I I I I1'r Z i i~flh1IEl3~
SIMPLIFIED METHODS OF  
I 1 .01.10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 DRAINAGE AREA, SQUARE MILES FIGURE B.8 EXAMPLE OF USE OF ENVELOPING
ESTIMATING PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGES
ISOLINES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE B.1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD DATA ( )Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches) Discharge (sq.mi.) Prec. Runoff (cfs)North.Atlantic Region (Northeast Atlantic Sub-region)
Page C.
0\CYN Ball Mountain Barre Falls Beaver Brook Birch Hill Black Rock Blackwater Buffumville Colebrook Conant Brook East Barre East Branch East Brimfield Edward McDowell Everett Franklin Falls Hall Meadow Hancock Hodges Village Hop Brook Hopkinton Knightville Littleville Mad River Mansfield Hollow Nookagee Northfield North Hartland North Springfield Otter Brook Phillips Sucker Brook Surry Mountain Thomaston Vt, Mass.N. H.Mass.Conn.N. H.Mass.Conn.Mass.Vt.Conn.Mass.N. H.N. H.N.H.Conn.Corn.Mass.Conn.N. H.Mass.Mass.Conn.Conn.Mass.Conn.Vt.Vt.N. H.Mass.Conn.N. H.Conn.Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Housatonic Merrimack Thames Connecticut Connecticut Winooski Housatonic Thames Merrimack Merrimack Merrimack Connecticut Housatonic Thames Housatonic Merrimack Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Thames Merrimack Housatonic Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Merrimack Connecticut Connecticut Housatonic West River Ware River Beaver Brook Millers River Branch Brook Blackwater River Little River Farmington River Conant Brook Jail Branch Naugatuck River Quinebaug River Nubanusit River Piscataquog River Pemigewasset River Hall Meadow Brook Hancock Brook French River Hop Brook Contoocook River Westfield River Westfield River Mad River Natchaug River Phillips Brook Northfield Brook Ottauquechee River Black River Otter Brook Phillips Brook Sucker Brook Ashuelot River Naugatuck River 172 55 6.0 175 20 128 26 118 7.8 39 9.2 68 44 64 1,000 17 12 31 16 426 162 52 18 159 11 5.7 220 158 47 5.0 3.4 100 97 20.6 20.1 21.3 18.3 22.2 18.3 26.6 22.7 24.4 21.5 24.0 24.2 19.5 20.7 15.8 24.o 24.0 26.2 25.0 17.4 18.8 25.1 24.0 19.8 21.8 24.4 19.3 20.0 19.1 24.2 22.4 22.2 24.5 18.1 18.9 19.7 17.1 20.6 16.4 25.3 21.1 23.2 18.6 22.8 22.9 18.3 18.2 13.3 22.8 22.8 22.3 23.8 14.7 17. 6 22.4 22.8 18.5 20.2 23.2 17,2 18.3 17.9 23.0 21.4 19.6 22.4 190,000 61,000 10,400 88.500 35,000 95,000 36,500 165,000 11,900 52,500 15,500 73,900 43,000 68,000 300,000 26,600 20,700 35,600 26,400 135,000 160,000 98,000 30,000 125,000 17,750 9,000 199,000 157,000 45,000 7,700 6,500 63,000 158,000
TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stream Drainage Area Basin Average (in inches)Prec. Runoff PMF Peak Discharge (cfs)(sa mi., L .Townshend Trumbull Tully Union Village Vermont-Yankee Waterbury West Hill West Thompson Westville Whitemanville Wrightsville Vt.Conn.Mass.Vt.Vt.Vt.Mass.Conn.Mass.Mass.Vt.Connecticut Pequonnook Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Winooski Blackstone Thames Thames Merrimack Winooski West River Pequonnook River Tully River Ompompanoosuc River Connecticut River Waterbury River West River Quinebaug River Quinebaug River Whitman River North Branch 278 14 50 126 6,266 109 28 74 32 18 68 North Atlantic Region (Mid-Atlantic Sub-region)
Almond Alvin R. Bush Aquashicola Arkport Aylesworth Baird Beltzville Bloomington Blue Marsh Burketown Cabins Chambersburg Christiana Cootes Store Cowanesque Curwensville Dawsonville Douglas Point East Sidney Edes Fort Fairview Foster Joseph Say(Francis E. Walter N. Y.Pa.Pa.N. Y.Pa.W. Va.Pa.Md.Pa.Va.W. Va.Md.Del.Va.Pa.Pa.Md.Md.N. Y.W. Va.Md.ers Pa.Pa.Susquehanna Susquehanna Delaware Susquehanna Susquehanna Potomac Delaware Potomac Delaware Potomac Potomac Potomac Delaware Potomac Susquehanna Susquehanna Pot ciMac Potomac Susquehanna Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Delaware Canacadea Creek Kettle Creek Aquashicola Creek Canister River Aylesworth Creek Buffalo Creek Pohopoco Creek North Branch Tulpehockan Creek North River South Branch Conococheague River Christiana River North Fork River Cowanesque River Susquehanna River Seneca Creek Potomac River Oulelot River Cacapon River Conococleaque Creek Bald Eagle Creek Lehigh River 56 226 66 31 6.2 10 97 263 175 375 314 141 41 215 298 36,;102 679 494 339 288 21.3 23.0 20.0 1760 18.9 28.0 2064 25,4 21.4 2092 22.0 24.0 28.0 22.5 23.8 34.0 27.1 22.2 24.0 24.3 20.8 28.9 32.1 22.5 21.9 22.0 206 .I 13.4 24.0 21.2 22..9 21,8 2264 17.2 21.8 16.6 15.8 16.0 25.6 17.5 22.8 19.8 17.3 18.8 21.1 24.2 17.7 22.0 30.2 25.6 17.6 21.3 21.2 16.8 26.0 28.3 19.1 18.5 18.9 2?.1 10.2 22.1 17.3 18.8 19.0 19.8 59,000 154,000 42,500 33,400 13,700 14,600 68,000 196,000 110,600 272,200 195,900 81,400 39,200 140,200 285,000 205,000 i61,900 1,490,000 99, 900 410,800 150,100 251,000 170,000 228,000 26,700 47,000 110,000 48O,O00 128,000 26,000 85,000 38,400 25,000 74,000.4 TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stream Drainage Basin Average Area (in inches)(sn.mi.) Prec. Runoff P1* Peak Discharge (cfsR Franklin Frederick Front Royal Fulton (Harrisburg)
Gathright Gen. Edgar Jadwin Great Cacapon Harriston Hawk Mountain Headsville John H. Kerr Karo Keyser Kitzmiller Leesburg Lewistown Licking Creek Little Cacapon Maiden Creek Martinsburg Mikville Moorefield Moorefield Newark North Anna North Mountain Peach Bottom Perryman Petersburg Philpott Prompton Raystown Royal Glen Salem Church Savage River Seneca Sharpsburg W. Va.Md.Va.Pa.Va.Pa.W. Va.Va.Pa.W. Va.Va.W. Va.W. Va.Md.Va.Md.W. Va.W. Va.Pa.W. Va.W, Va.W. Va.W. Va.Del.Va.W. Va.Pa.Md.W. Va.Va.Pa, Pa.Md.Va.Md.Md.Md.Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna James Delaware Potomac Potomac Delaware Potomac Roanoke Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Delaware Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Delaware Pamunkey(York)
Potomac Susquehanna Chesapeake Bay Potomac Roanoke Delaware Susquehanna Potomac Rappahannock Potomac Potomac Potomac South Branch Monocacy River S.Fk.Shenandoah River Susquehanna River Jackson River Dyberry Creek Cacapon River South River E.Br. Delaware River Patterson Creek Roanoke River South Branch North Branch North Branch Goose Creek Fishing Creek Licking Creek Little Cacapon River Maiden Creek Opequon Creek Shenandoah River South Branch So. Fk. South Branch White Clay River North Anna River Back Creek Susquehanna River Bush River South Branch Smith River Lackawaxen River Juniata River (Br.)South Branch Rappahannock River Savage River Potomac River Antietem Creek 182 817 1,638 24,100 344 65 677 222 812 219 7,800 1, 577 495 225 338 7.1 158 101 161 272 3,040 1,173 283 66 343 231 27,000 118 642 212 60 960 640 1, 598 105 11,400 281 24.2 23.2 18.0 12.7 24.4 24.8 21*2 29.6 16.5 23.4 16.8 18.9 21.5 22,3 26.5 34.8 29.0 29.7 27.3 27.2 16.2 18.0 21,1 29.8 25.0 27.9 12.7 19,3 27.5 25.0 21-4 19.3 23.6 26.3 13.5 26.6 20.6 20.9 14.3 8.2 21.3 24.0 17.3 26.5 12.7 19.0 12,9 14.9 16.3 17,1 24.2 32.7 26.1 27o4 23.5 24.1 11.7 14.0 17.1 26.0 21.3 24.8 8.2 15.3 24.3 24.2 17.5 15.3 19.6 22.2 10.3 23.5 174,000 363,400 419,000 1,750,000 246,0OO 119,700 373,400 153,700 202,000 176,000 1,000,000 430,000 279,200 120,200 340,900 12,200 125,800 122,700 118,000 174,600 592,000 389,700 173,800 103,000 220,000 256,000 1,750,000 87,400 208,700 160,000 87,190 353,400 208,700 552,000 107,400 1,393,000 154,900
TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stream Sherrill Drive Six Bridge Springfield Staunton Stillwater Summit Surry Tioga-Hammond Tocks Island Tonoloway Town Creek Trenton Trexler Tri-Towns Verplanck Washington, D. C.Waynesboro West Branch Whitney Point Winchester York Indian Rock Allatoona Alvin W. Vogtle Bridgewater Buford Carters Catawba Cherokee Claiborne Clark Hill Coffeeville Cowans Ford Demopolis Falls Lake Md.Md.W. Va.Va.Pa.N. J.Va.Pa.N. J.Md.Md.N. J.Pa.W. Va.N. Y, Md.Va.W. Va.N. Y.Va.Pa.Ga.Ga.N. C.Ga.Ga.N. C.N. C.Ala.Ga.Ala.N. C.Ala.N. C.Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Delaware James Susquehanna Delaware Potomac Potomac Delaware Delaware Potomac Hudson Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Potomac Susquehanna Rock Creek Monocacy River South Branch South Branch Shen.Lacawanna River Delaware River James River Tioga River Delaware River Tonoloway Creek Town Creek Delaware River Jordon Creek North Branch Hudson River Potomac River South River Conococheague River Otselie River Opeqnon Creek Codorus Creek Drainage Area (sq.mi.)62 308 1,471 325 37 11,100 9,517 402 3,827 112 144 6,780 52 478 12,650 11,560 136 78 255 120 94 Basin Average (in inches)Prec. Runoff PMF Peak Discharge (cfs)30.6 27.1 17.5 25.0 27.3 23.5 13.3 29.9 27.5 25.2 21.6 14.0 13.4 29.6 30.7 20.7 28.9 22,1 28,3 24.0 15,5 21.3 24.1 19.2 10.5 26.8 25.2 22.6 16.4 9.7 10.2 26 .5 27.0 19.1 25.8 17.7 111,900 225,000 405,000 226,000 39,600 1,000,000 1,000,000 318,000 576,300 117,600 102,900 830,000 55,500 268,000 1,100,000 1,280,000 116,000 78,700 102,000 142,100 74,300 440,000 1,001,000 187,000 428,900 203,100 674,000 560,000 682,500 1,140,000 743,400 636,000 1,068,000 323,000-w South Atlantic-Gulf Region Alabama-Coosa Savannah Santee Apalachicola Alabama-Coosa Santee Congaree-Santee Alabama-Coosa Savannah Tombigbee Santee Tombigbee Neuse Etowah River Savannah River Catawba River Chattahoochee River Coosawattee River Catawba River Broad River Alabama River Savannah River Black Warrior River Catawba River Tombigbee River Neuse River 1, 110 6,144 380 1,040 376 3,020 1, 550 21,520 6,144 18,600 1,790 15,300 760 22.2 19.8 21.8 14.5 21.7 19.7 26.6 22.3 16.6 14.9 21.8 13.6 16.7 23.2 12.3 14.5 11.2 14.3 21.2 TABLE B.1 ( )Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches) Discharge (sq.mi.) Prec. Runoff (cfs)0 Gainsville Hartwell Holt Howards Mill Jim Woodruff John H. Bankhead Jones Bluff Lazer Creek Lookout Shoals Lower Auchumpkee McGuire Millers Ferry Mountain Island New Hope Oconee Oconee Okatibbee Oxford Perkins Randleman Reddies Rhodhiss Shearon Harris Sprewell Bluff Trotters Shoals Walter F. George Warrior West Point W. Kerr Scott Ala.Ga.Ala.N. C.Fla.Ala.Ala.Ca.N. C, Ga.N. C, Ala.N. C.N. C.S. C.S. C.Miss.N. C.N. C.N, C.N. C.N. C, N. C.Ca.Ga.Ga.Ala.Ga.N. C.Ohio N. Y.N. Y.N. Y.N. Y.N. Y.Tombigbee Savannah Warrior Cape Fear Apalachicola Tombigbee Alabama Apalachicola Santee Apalachicola Santee Alabama Santee Cape Fear Savannah Savannah Pascagoula Santee Pee Dee Cape Fear Pee Dee Santee Cape Fear Apalachicola Savannah Apalachicola Tombigbee Apalachicola Pee Dee Tombigbee River Savannah River Warrior River Deep River Apalachicola River Black Warrior River Alabama River Lazer Creek Catawba River Flint River Catawba River Alabama River Catawba River New Hope River Keowee River Little River 9katibbee Creek Catawba River Yadkin River Deep River Reddies River Catawba River White Oak Creek Flint River Savannah River Chattahoochee River Black Warrior River Chattahoochee River Yadkin River Great Lakes Region Tinkers Creek Mud Creek Fall Creek Six Mile Creek Butternut Creek Little Tonawanda Creek 7,142 2,088 4,232.626 17,150 3,900 16,300 i,41O 1,450 1,970 1,770 20,700 i, 860 1,69o 439 154 1,31.0 2,4?3 169 94 1,090 79 1,210 2,900 7,4460 5,828 3,44o 348 19.6 24.8 22.1 26.8 17,6 22.3 14.2 24.6 23.7 19.8 14.7 12.1 22.0 19.4 26.5 23.5 26.6 33.0 28.4 28.6 26.0 28.0 24.8 16.8 18.8 19.2 24.2 12.3 19.4 11.6 20.7 702,400 875,000 650,000 305,000 1,133,800 670,300 664,000 303,600 492,000 355,600 750,000 844,000 362,000 511,000 450,000 245,000 8?, 700 479,000 440,600 126,000 174,200 379,000 163, 500 318,000 800,000 843,000 554,000 440,000 318,000 25.8 24.0 16.6 19.5 21.9 25.6 28.6 29.9 17.1 26.9 26.0 30.8 21.3 19.1 15.2 16.6 17.4 21.5 25.9 28.1 16. 1 25.1 24.1 29.0 Bedford Bristol Fall Creek Ithaca Jamesville Linden Cuyahoga Oswego Oswego Oswego Oswego Niagara 91 29 123 43 37 22 79,000 64,900 63,400 77,900 35,200 64,400
TABLE B.1 ( )Pr,,ject State Mount Morris Onondago Oran Portageville Quanicassee Quanicassee Quanicassee Standard Corners Alum Creek Barkley Barren Beaver Valley Beech Fork Big Blue Big Darby Big Pine Big Walnut Birch Bluestone Booneville Brookville Buckhorn Burnsville Caesar Creek Cagles Mill Carr Fork Cave Run Center Hill Clarence J. Brown Claytor Clifty Creek Dale Hollow Deer Creek Delaware Dewey N. Y.N. Y.N. Y.N. Y.Mich.Mich.Mich.N. Y.Ohio Ky.Ky.Pa.W. Va.Ind.Ohio Ind.Ind.W. Va.W. Va.Ky.Ind.Ky.W. Va.Ohio Ind.Ky.Ky.Tenn.Ohio Va.Ind.Tenn.Ohio Ohio Ky.River Basin Genesee River Lake Ontario Oswego Genesee Saginaw Bay Saginaw Bay Saginaw Bay Genesee Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Stream Genesee River Onondago Creek Limestone Creek Genesee River Saginaw River Tittabawassee River Quanicassee River Genesee River Ohio Region Alum Creek Cumberland River Barren River Ohio River Twelve Pole Creek Big Blue River Big Darby Creek Big Pine Creek Big Walnut Creek Birch River New River So. Fk. Kentucky River Whitewater River M. Fk.Kentucky River Little Kanawha River Caesar Creek Mill Creek No. Fk. Kentucky River Licking River Caney Fork Buck Creek New River Clifty Creek Obey River Deer Creek Olentangy River Big Sandy River Drainage Basin Average Area _Lin inches)(sq.mi.) Prec. Runoff 1,077 68 47 983 6,260 2,400 70 265 123 8,700 940 23,000 78 269 441 326 19?142 4,565 665 379 408 165 237 295 58 826 2,174 82 2,382 145 935 278 381 207 17.0 24.2 25.1 17.8 22.3 20.3 24.6 22.6 17.6 26.4 23.5 24.1 22.4 24.0 28.4 23.2 24.2 23.8 24.8 24.1 24.6 27.4 22.8 22.3 29.0 22.3 24.9 23.8 22.9 22.7 25.0 21.8 21.5 16.9 23.5 21.2 21.3 20.4 22.0 25.2 13.8 21.0 22.1 21.5 22.3 21.9 22.7 25.0 20.6 21.8 26.7 18.0 23.0 2303 20,1 20.4 22.6 14.6 23.3 23.4 15.8 PMF Peak Discharge (cfs)385,000 61,800 80,790 359,000 440,000 270,000 46,000 189,900 110,000 1,000,000 531,000 1,500,000 84,000 161,000 294,000 174,000 144,000 102,000 410,000 425,000 272,000 239,000 138,800 230,200 159,000 132,500 510,000 696,000 121,000 1,109,000 112,900 435,000 160,000 296,000 75,500 1;
TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stream Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Area (in inches) Discharge (sa.mi.) Prec. Runoff (cfs)'.0 Dillon Dyes Eagle Creek E. Br. Clarion East Fork East Lynn Fishtrap Grayson Green River Helm John W. Flannagan J. Percy Priest Kehoe Kinzua Lafayette Laurel Leading Creek Lincoln Logan Louisville Mansfield Martins Fork Meigs Meigs Mill Creek Mississinewa Michael J. Kirwin Monroe Muddy Creek Nolin N. Br. Kokosing N. Fk. Pound River Paint Creek Paintsville Panthers Creek Patoka R. D. Bailey Rough River Ohio Ohio Ky.Pa.Ohio W. Va.Ky.Ky.Ky.Ill.Va.Tenn.Ky.Pa.Ind.Ky.W. Va.Ill.Ohio Ill.Ind.Ky.Ohio Ohio Ohio Ind.Ohio Ind.Pa.Ky.Ohio Va.Ohio Ky.W. Va.Ind.W. Va.Ky.Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Licking River Dyes Fork Eagle Creek E. Br. Clarion River E. Fk. Little Miami River Twelve Pole Creek Levisa Fk. Sandy River Little Sandy River Green River Skillet Fk. Wabash River Pound River Stones River Tygarts Creek Allegheny River Wildcat Creek Laurel River Leading Creek Embarras River Clear Creek Little Wabash River Raccoon Creek Cumberland River Meigs Creek Meigs Creek Mill Creek Mississinewa River Mahoning River Salt Creek Muddy Creek Nolin River N. Br. Kokosing River N. Fk. Pound River Paint Creek Paint Creek Panther Creek Patoka River Guyandotte River Rough River 748 44 292 72 342 133 395 196 682 2LO 222 892 127 2,180 791 282 146 915 84 661 216 56 72 27 181 809 80 441 61 703 44 18 573 92 24 168 540 454 19.8 30.7 24.?22.7 23.8 29.4 26.1 27.5 26.5 24.8 27.6 25.9 26.0 16.4 20.6 25.9 25.0 21.2 29.5 22.1 25.9 27.9 29.5 32.2 24.0 20.6 26.0 25.9 22.8 14.2 25.4 35.3 21.8 26.3 36.7 25.6 23.1 27.6 16.3 27.8 22.1 18.9 21.2 26.5 23.2 24.7 23.9 22.6 24.9 18.8 23.4 12.8 18.5 20.7 22.5 19.0 27.0 19.9 23.0 22.7 26.6 29.3 2i.4 18.4 20.1 25.4 19.6 13.2 22.6 32.2 18.8 23.8 3309 23.5 20.3 25.1 246,000 49,500 172,800 41,500 313,200 72,000 320,000 83,300 409,000 152,800 235,800 430,000 105,900 115,000 182,000 120,000 131,000 502,000 78,000 310,000 175,800 61,800 72,100 45,500 92,000 196,000 51,800 366,000 59,300 158,000 50,000 51,200 305,000 77,500 59,800 292,000 349,000 358,000 1 TABLE B.1 ( )Stream Project State River Basin Drainage Area Basin Average (in inches)PMF Peak Discharge Prec Runoff (cfs)-J~.Rowlesburg Salamonia Stonewall Jackson Summersville Sutton Taylorville Tom Jenkins Union City Utica West Fork West Fk. Mill Ck.Whiteoak Wolf Creek Woodcock Yatesville Youghiogheny Zimmer, Wm. H.Bellefonte Browns Ferry Sequoyah Ames Bryon Bear Creek Blue Earth Blue Earth Carlyle Clarence Cannon Clinton Coralville Duane Arnold Farmdal e Fondulac Friends Creek W. Va.Ind.W. Va.W. Va.W. Va.Ky.Ohio Pa.Ohio W. Va.Ohio Ohio Ky.Pa.Ky.Pa.Ohio Ala.Tenn.Tenn.Iowa Ill.Mo.Minn.Minn.Ill.Mo.Ill.Iowa Iowa Ill.Ill.Ill.Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Cheat River Salamonia River West Fork River Gauley River Elk River Salt River Hocking River French Creek N. Fk. Licking River W. Fk. Little Kanawha Mill Creek Whiteoak Creek Cumberland River Woodcock Creek Blaine Creek Youghiogheny River Ohio River Tennessee Region Tennessee River Tennessee River Tennessee River Upper Mississippi Region Skunk River Rock River Bear Creek Minnesota River Blue Earth River Kaskaskia River Salt River Salt Creek Iowa River Cedar River Farm Creek Fondulac Creek Friends Creek 936 553 10?80, 53?353 33 222 112 238 30 214 5,789 46 208 434 70,800 21.2 2143 23.8 20.4 24.8 26. 7 20.3 24.7 24.4 31.9 24.5 20.6 23.5 25.2 18.4 19.0 22.2 21.1 20.4 22.2 25.8 17.8 22.1 21.8 30.0 21.6 20.0 20.9 22.6 25.4 331,000 201,000 85, 500 412,000 222,400 426, 000 43,000 87, 500 73,700 156,400 81,600 134,000 996,000 37,700 118,000 151,000 2,150,000 1,160,000 1,200,000 1,205,000 23,340 29,130 20,650 Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.314 8,000 28 11,250 3,550 2,680 2,318 296 3,084 6,250 26 5.4 133 21.3 18.4 29.0 26.2 14.2 10.9 18.4 14.8 19.2 15.8 21.8 15.7 20.8 14.4 87,200 308,000 38,000 283,000 206,000 246,000 476,200 99,500 326,000 316,000 67,300 21,200 83,160 24.0 21.4 27.8 22.1 19.9 21.6 TABLE Bi1 ( )TABLE B.I ( )Project State River Basin Stream Drainage Basin Ave-age Area (in inches)(sq.mi.) Prec.. Runoff PMF Peak Discharge (cfs)Jefferson LaFarge Mankato Meramec Park Montevideo Monticello New Ulm New Ulm Oakley Prairie Island Red Rock Rend Saylorville Shelbyville Iowa Upper Miss.Wisc. Upper Miss.Arkabutla Enid Grenada Sardis Union Wappapello Minn.Mo.Minn.Minn.Minn.Minn.Ill.Minn.Iowa Ill.Iowa Ill.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Mo.Mo.N. D.N. D.N. D.N. D.N. D.Minn.Colo.S. D.Mo.Nebr.N. D.Nebr.Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Raccoon River Kickapoo River Minnesota River Meramec River Minnesota River Mississippi River Minnesota River Cottonwood River Sangamon River Mississinpi River Des Moines River Big Muddy River Des Moines River Kaskaskia River Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Miss.Burlington Fox Hole Homme Kindred Lake Ashtabula Orwell Bear Creek Big Bend Blue Springs Blue Stem Bowman-Haley Branched Oak Souris Souris Red of Red of Red of hid of Lower Mississippi Regaon Coldwater River Yacona River Yalobusha River Tallahatchia River Bourbeuse River St. Francis River Souris-Red-Rainy Region Souris River Des Lacs River Park River Sheyenne River Sheyenne River Otter Tail River Missouri Region Bear Creek Missouri River Blue Springs Creek Olive Br. Salt Creek Grand River Oak Creek 1,532 266 14,900 1,497 6,180 13,900 9,500 1,280 808 44,755 12,323 488 5,823 1,030 1, 000 560 1,320 1, 545 771 1,310 9,490 939 229 3,020 983 1,820 236 5,840 33 17 446 89 21.7 22.8 13.9 22.9 15.2 14.4 21.2 23.5 12,1 27.5 13.8 22.1 22.5 25.4 24.0 32.5 25.0 13.0 13.2 19.9 15.2 13.4 12.4 17.1 19.0 18.9 10.6 17.5 11.6 11.1 17.6 17.2 7.5 21.5 10.3.19.1 21.2 24.7 23.1 26.0 19.9 11.7 5.7 12.4 12.3 8.6 9.5 14.7 267,300 128,000 329,000 552,000 263,000 365,000 263,000 128,000 178,000 910,000 613,000 308,200 277,800 142,000 430, 000 204,900 390,800 290,400 264,000 344,000 89,100 52,700 35,000 68,700 86,500 25,500 225,000 725,000 42,4OO 69,200 113,000 93,600 North North North North Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri 24.4 6.7 9.0 26.5 23.8 25.0 21.7 15.5 12.7 20.1 16.8.~ ~ F I
TABLE 8.1 ( )Project State River basin Stream Drainage Area (an ml.)Basin Average (in inches)Pre.~ RInnff PMF Peak Discharge (eflf (s mi Prec Runoff (cfs)(I'Braymer Brookfield Bull Hook Chatfield Cherry Creek Clinton Cold Brook Conestoga Cottonwood Springs Dry Fork East Fork Fort Scott Fort Peck Port Randall Fort St. Vrain Garrison Gavins Point Grove Harlan County Harry S. Truman Hillsdale Holmes Kanopolis Linneus Long Branch Longview Melvern Mercer Milford Mill Lake Oahe Olive Creek Onag Pattonsburg Pawnee Perry Pioneer Pomme de Terre Mo.Mo.Mont.Colo.Colo.Kans.S. D.Nebr.S. D.Mo.Mo.Kans.Mont.S. D.Colo.N. D.Nebr.Kans.Nebr.Mo.Kans.Nebr.Kans.Mo.Mo.Mo.Kans.Mo.Kans.Mo.S. D.Nebr.Kans.Mo.Nebr.Kans.Colo.Mo.Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Shoal Creek West Yellow Creek Bull Hook Creek South Platte River Cherry Creek Wakarusa River Cold Brook Holmes Creek Cheyenne River Fishing River Fishing River Marmaton River Missouri River Missouri River South Platte River Missouri River Missouri River Soldier Creek Republican River Osage River Big Bull Creek Antelope Creek Smoky Hill River Locust River E. Fk. Little Chariton Blue River Marias des Cygnes River Weldon River Republican River Mill Creek Missouri River Olive Br. Salt Creek Vermillion Creek Grand River Pawnee Br. Salt Creek Delaware River Republican River Pomme de Terre River 390 140 54 3,018 385 367 70 15 26 3.2 19 279 57,725 14,150 4,700 123,215 16,000 259 7, 142 7,856 144 5.4 2,560 5446 109 50 349 427 3,620 9.5 62,550 8.2 301 2,232 36 1,117 918 611 24.7 22.2 24.5 22.0 10.8 13.2 2.0 23.9 9.5 23.6 22.4 6.4 25.2 21.9 18.7 11.1 26.1 22.5 25.7 24.1 23.8 22.7 3.2 3.7 2.7 3.3 23.8 22.?7.6 2.8 13.1 25.4 24.3 27.1 23.8 6.9 3.6 23.7 21.2 24.5 21.9 26.2 23.4 23.1 22.1 21.0 17.8 8.8 5.0 27.7 26.4 6.5 26.0 22.7 23.5 22.2 18.8 16.3 23.5 20.2 21.5 18.4 15.0 8.3 23.9 21.6 173,800 64, 500 26,200 584, 500 350,000 153,500 95,700 52,000 74,700 19,460 62,700 198,000 360,000 849,000 500,000 1,026,000 642,000 79,800 485,000 1,060,000 190,500 41,600 456,300 242,300 66,500 74,800 182,000 274,000 757,400 13,000 946,000 36,650 251,000 40o0,100 59,000 387,400 390,000 362,000
TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stre:an Drainage Basin Average Aren ' ir. 4nchesq_(sa.'ni.)
Prec. Runcff PFY Peak Discharge (cf s)Pomona Rathbun Smithville Stagecoach Stockton Thomas Hill Tomahawk Trenton Tuttle Creek Twin Lakes Wagon Train Wilson Wolf-Coffee Yankee Hill Kans.Iowa Mo.Nebr.Mo.Mo.Kans.Mo.Kans.Nebr.Nebr.Kans.Kans.Nebr.Arcadia Bayou Bodcau Beaver Bell Foley Big Hifl Big Pine Birch Blakely Mountain Blue Mountain Boswell Broken Bow Bull Shoals Candy Canton Cedar Point Clayton Clearwater Conchas Cooper Copan Council Grove County Line Okla.La.Ark.Ark.Kans.Tex.Okla.Ark.Ark.Okla.Okla.Ark.Okla.Okla.Kans.Okla.Mo.N. Mex.Tex.Okla.Kans.Mo.Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Arkansas lied White Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Red White Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red White Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas White 110 Mile Creek Chariton River Little Platte River Hickman Br. Salt Creek Sac River Little Chariton River Tomahawk Creek Thompson River Big Blue River S. Br. Middle Creek Hickman Br. Salt Creek Saline River Blue River Cardwell Br. Salt Creek Arkansas-White-Red Region Deep Fork River Bayou Bodcau White River Strawberry River Big Hill Creek Big Pine Creek Birch Creek Ouachita River Petit Jean River Boggy Creek Mountain Fork White River Candy Creek North Canadian River Cedar Creek Jackfort Creek Black River South Canadian River South Sulphur River Little Caney River Grand River James River 322 213 9.7 1,160 1a47 24 1,079 9,556 11 16 1, q1?45 8.4 105 656 1,186 78 3?66 1,105 500 2,273 754 6,036 43 7,600 119 275 898 7,409 476 505 246 153 26.2 23.7 23.9 26.0 19.7 25.0 26.4 22.6 14.5 25.9 25.2 20.2 26.1 26.0 28.5 35.3 24.3 26.4 25.4 31.3 29.0 21.5 21.8 27.6 32.5 15.2 29.-3 12.4 25.4 31.3 16.0 4.8 30.9 26.2 25.5 27.2 25.2 21.1 20.2 22.7 18.9 23.0 24.8 20.1 8.1 22.6 21.9 10.8 24.5 22.?24.9 33.6 22.4 23.5 23.6 29.3 26.0 19.6 18.2 20.8 29.4 1&#xfd;.0 27 5 4.1 22.6 29.3 13.8 3.0 29.2 21.1 22.7 25.3 186,000 188,000 185,000 50,500 470,000 79,000 26,800 342,400 798,000 56,000 53,500 252,000 58,000 58,400 1i44,000 168,?00 480,000 57,000 47, 500 86,ooo 91,000 418,000 258,000 405,000 569,000 765, 000 67, 500 371,000 208,000 24O0,oo 432,000 582,000 194,40o 169,000 250,000 133,000
TABLE B.1 ( )Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak in Stream Area (in inches) Discharge (sq.mi.) Prec. Runoff _(cfs) _Project State River Bas Lu--1 DeGray Denison DeQueen Dierks Douglas El Dorado Elk City Eufaula Fall River Ferrells Bridge Fort Gibson Fort Supply Gillham Great Salt Plains Greers Ferry Heyburn Hugo Hulah John Martin John Redmond Kaw Keystone Lake Kemp Lukfata Marion Millwood Narrows Neodesha Nimrod Norfolk Oologah Optima Pat Mayse Pine Creek Robert S. Kerr Sand Shidler Skiatook rable Rock Ark.Okla.Ark.Ark.Kans.Kans.Kans.Okla.Kans.Tex.Okla.Okla.Ark.Okla.Ark.Okla.Okla.Okla.Colo.Kans.Okla.Okla.Tex.Okla.Kans.Ark.Ark.Kans, Ark.Ark.Okla.Okla.Tex.Okla.Okla.Okla.Okla.Okla.No.Red Red Red Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Arkansas White Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas White Caddo River Red River Rolling Fork Saline River Little Walnut Creek Walnut River Elk River Canadian River Fall River Cypress Creek Grand River Wolf Creek Cossatot River Salt Fk. Arkansas River Little Red River Polecat Creek Kiamichi River Caney River Arkansas River Grand River Arkansas River Arkansas River Wichita River Glover Greek Cottonwood River Little River Little Missouri River Verdigris River Fourche La Fave River North Fork White River Verdigris River North Canadian hiver Sanders Creek Little River Arkansas River Sand Creek Salt Creek Hominy Creek White River 453 33,783 169 113 238 234 634 8,405 556 880 9,477 1,494 271 3,200 1, !i46 123 1,709 732 18,130 3,015 7,250 22,351 2,056 291 200 4,104 23?1,100 68o 1,765 4,339 2,341 175 635 64,386 137 99 354 4,020 28.4 12.9 35. 5 36.2 26.7 23.0 15.9 27.1 31.1 15.2 20. 5 34.6 i6&#xfd;?17.9 26.3 27.1 16. 5 7.4 16.2 14.5 12.9 23.7 34.6 24.8 25.0 18.7 20.2 15.7 17.8 13.8 31.8 32.8 10.0 31.3 27.3 18.3 26.0 6.5 32. 5 33.2 22.9 22.8 20.3 10.9 23.0 28.1 12.6 15.7 31.5 9.3 17.5 24.2 25.8 13.5 2.0;56 9.9 6.7 19.2 31.5 2J..9 25.3 23.0 16.6 17.2 12.8 13.9 9.0 29.4 29.8 5.8 28.3 24.0 23.8 15.4 397,000 1,830,000 254,000 202,000 156,000 196,000 319,000 700,000 442,000 367,000 865,000 547,000 355,000 412,000 630,000 151,000 339,000 239,000 630,000 038,000 774,000 1,035,000 566,000 349,0o0 160,000 442,o00 194,000 287,000 228,000 372,000 451,000 386,000 150,000 523,000 1,884,000 154,000 104,100 147,800 657,000
TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Stream Area (in inches) Discharge (s .mi.) Prec. Runoff (cfs)L1A 00 Tenkiller Ferry Texarkana Toronto Towanda Trinidad Tuskahoma Wallace Lake Waurika Webbers Falls Wister Addicks Aquilla Aubrey Bardwell Barker Belton Benbrook Big Sandy Blieders Creek Brownwood Canyon Lake Carl L. Estes Coleman Comanche Peak Ferguson Gonzales Grapevine Hords Creek Lake Fork Lakeview Laneport Lavon Lewisville Millican Navarro Mills Navasota Okla.Tex.Kans.Kans.Colo.Okla.La.Okla.Okla.Okla.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Red Arkansas Arkansas San Jacinto Brazos Trinity Trinity San Jacinto Brazos Trinity Sabine Guadalupe Colorado Guadalupe Sabine Colorado Brazos Brazos Guadalupe Trinity Colorado Sabine Trinity Brazos Trinity Trinity Brazos Trinity Brazos Texas-Gulf Region South Mayde Creek Aquilla Creek Elm Fork Trinity Hiver Waxahachie Creek Buffalo Bayou Leon River Clear Fork Trinity River Big Sandy Creek Blieders Creek Pecan Bayou Guadalupe River Sabine River Colorado River Squaw Creek Navasota River San Marcos River Denton Creek Hords Creek Lake Fork Creek Mountain Creek San Gatriel Piv-r East Fork, Trinity River Elm Fork, Trinity River Navasota River Richland Creek Navasota River Illinois River Sulphur River Verdigris River Whitewater River Purgatorie River Kiamichi River Cypress Bayou Beaver Creek Arkansas River Poteau River 1,61o 3,400 730 422 671 347 260 562 48,127 993 129 294 692 178 150 3,560 429 196 15 1,544 1,432 1,146 287 64 1,782 1,344 695 4b 507 232 eC9 770 i ,66o 2,120 320 1,341 20.4 26.6 23.9 24.3 10.0 16.5 38.4 26.5 10.7 25.9 2q.7 31.2 28.5 31.1 29.4 29.4 28.2 36.2 431.8 27.8 24.5 34.5 30.9 39.1 26.0 24.9 26.5 28.9 33.8 31.b 28 .9 26.2 23.2 25.5 33.6 27.2 17.6 20.1 21.1 20.5 4.5 14.6 35.6 22.2 6.1 23.2 27.9 28.6 26.0 28. 3 29.9 20.6 21.1 32.2 34.6 21.0 16.9 30.4 24.1 34.1 22.4 15.4 21.5 23.4 29.7 28.8 23?7 23.4 20.5 22.4 30.5 24.2 406,ooo 451,000 400,000 198,000 296,000 188,400 197,000 354,ooo 1,518,000 339,000 68,670 283,800 445,300 163,500 55,900 608,400 290,100 125,200 70,300 676,200 687,000 277,000 267,800 149,000 355,800 633,900 319,400 92,400 247,600 335,0o0 52i,'00 430,300 632,200 393,400 280,500 327,400
TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stream Drainage Area (so.mi.)Basin Average (in inches)Prec. Runoff PMF Peak Discharge (cfs)North Fork Pecan Bayou Proctor Roanoke Rockland Sam Rayburn San Angelo Somerville South Fork Stillhouse Hollow Tennessee Colony Town Bluff Waco Lake Whitney Abiquiu Alamogordo Cochita Jemez Canyon Los Esteros Two Rivers Alamo McMicken Whitlow Ranch Painted Rock Little Dell Mathews Canyon Pine Canyon Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Tex.Brazos Colorado Brazos Trinity Neches Neches Colorado Brazos Brazos Brazos Trinity Necnes Braazos Brazos N. Fk. San Gabriel River Pecan Bayou Leon River Denton Creek Neches River Angelina River North Concho River Yogua Creek S. Fk. San Gabriel River Lampasas River Trinity River Neches River Bosque River Brazos River Rio Grande Region Rio Grande Pecos River Rio Grande Jemez Canyon Peccs River Rio Hondo Lower Colorado RegLon Bill Williams River Aqua Fria River Queen Creek Gila River 246 316 1,265 604 3,557 3,449 1, 511 1,006 123 1,318 12,687 7, 573 i, 670 17,656 3,159 3,917 4,065 1,034 2,434 1,027 4,770 247 143 50,600 31.7 30.7 27.*0 28.9 21.0 23.7 21.2 22.0 32.6 27 *7 18.9 2?. 7 25.7 2 5. 7 26.6 23.8 21.4;>',. I 20.6 13.1 13.6 27.*4 22.5 20.4 15.7 20.6 7.7 N.N.N.N.N.N.Me M.M.M.M.M.Rio Rio Rio Rio Rio Rio Grande Grande Grande Grande Grande Grande 4.6 9.2 12.2 8.2 1.9 1.9 3.7 4.7 265,800 236,200 459,200 313,600 150, 00 395,600 (14,-00 415,700 145,300 686,400 575,600 326,000 622,900 700,000 130,000 277,000 320,000 220,000 352,000 282,400 580,000 52,000 230,000 620,000 23,000 35,000 38,000 99,500 39,500 Ariz.Ariz.Ariz.Ariz.Utah Nev.Nev.Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado 12.0 3.5 3,3 11 .5 9.7 7.7 2.8 6.1 6.0 8.6 7.4 8.2 6.6 Jordon (Great)Great Basin Great Basin Great Basin Region Dell Creek Mathews Canyon Pine Canyon 36 34 4&#xfd;5 Applegate Blue River Oreg. Rogue Oreg. Columbia Columbia-North Pacific Region Applegate River S. Fk. McKenzie River 223 88 28.9 22.7 TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stream Drainage Area (sa.mi.)Basin Average (in inches)Prec. Runoff PMF Peak Discharge (cfs)C)Bonneville Cascadia Chief Joseph Cottage Grove Cougar Detroit Dorena Dworshak Elk Creek Fall Creek Fern Ridge Foster Green Peter Gate Creek Hills Creek Holley Howard A. Hanson Ice Harbor JOhn Day Libby Little Goose Lookout Point Lost Fork Lower Granite Lower Monumental Lucky Peak McNary Mud Mountain Ririe The Dalles Wynoochee Zintel Bear Big Dry Creek Black Butte Brea Oreg.Oreg.Wash.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Ida.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Oreg.Wash.Wash.Oreg.Mont.Wash.Oreg.Oreg.Wash.Wash.Ida, Oreg.Wash.Ida.Oreg.Wash.Wash.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Rogue Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia (2 olum bia Columbia Green Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Rogue Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Puyallup Columbia Columbia Chechalis Columbia San Joaquin San Joaquin Sacramento Santa Ana Columbia River 240,000 South Santiam River 179 Columbia River 75,000 Coast Fk. Willamette River 104 S. Fk. McKenzie River 208 North Santiam River 438 Row River 2hc N. Fk. Clearwater River 2,440O Elk Creek 132 Willamette River 184 Long Tom River 252 South Santiam River 4c!4 Middle Santiam River 277 Gate Ck. McKenzie River 50 Middle Fk. Willamette River 38q Gala.pooia River 105 Green River Snake River 109,000 Columbia River 226,000 Kootenai River 9,070 Snake River 3.03.900 MiddJe F


====k. Wilamette ====
==A. INTRODUCTION==
?iver 9ga Lost Fk. Howie River 6L Snake River  Snake River 1.08,500 Boise River 2,650 Columbia River 21.4,000 White River '400 Willow Ck. Snake River 620 Columbia River 237,000 Wynoochee River 4i Zintel Canyon Snake River 1Q 22,1 42,2 29.0 29.7 34.2 36.0 34.6 70.5 32.6 33.8 20.3 40 .8 41.1 33.0 35.8 26. 8 13.a 21.1 3r:.5 14.6-40.8 22.7 14.7 14.0 32. 5 23.0 33.9 2i.1 69.9 7.8 13.6 13.8 12,3 6.6 2,720,000 115,000 1,550,000 45,000 98,000 203,000 131,600 280,000 63,500 100,000 4,8,600 260,000 160,0oo 37,000 197,000 59,000 164,000 954,000 2,650,000 282,000 850,000 360,000 169,OOC 850,000 850,000 123,000 2,610,000 386,000 4?, 000 2,660,000 52, 500 40, '500 California Region Bear Creek Big Dry Creek Stony Creek Brea Creek 72 91.741 23 I 3.b 19.0 19.7 10. LL 30,400 17,000 254,000 37,000 K-
......  
TABLE B.1 ( )Project State River Basin Stream Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Area (in inches) Discharge (sq.mi.) Prec. Runoff (cfs)Buchanan Burns-Butler Valley Carbon Canyon Cherry Valley Comanche Coyote Valley Dry Creek Farmington Folsom Fullerton Hansen Hidden Lake Isabella Knights Valley Lakeport Lopez Mariposa Martis Creek Marysville Mojave River New Bullards Bar New Exchequer New Hogan New Melones Oroville Owens Pine Flat Prado San Antonio Santa Fe Sepulveda Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.Cal.San Joaquin San Joaquin Mad Santa Ana San Joaquin San Joaquin Russian Russian San Joaquin Sacramento Santa Ana Los Angeles San Joaquin San Joaquin Russian Sacramento Los Angeles San Joaquin Truckee Sacramento Mojave Sacramento San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin Sacramento San Joaquin San Joaquin Santa Ana Santa Ana San.Gabriel Los Angeles Chowchilla River Burns Creek Mad River Santa Ana River Cherry Creek Mokelumne River East Fk. Russian River Dry Creek Little John Creek American River Fullerton .Creek Tujunga Wash Fresno River Kern River Franz-Maacama Creek Scotts Creek Pacoima Creek Mariposa Creek Martis Creek Yuba River Mojave River North Yuba River Merced River Calaveras River Stanislaus River Feather River Owens Creek Kings River Santa Ana River San Antonio Creek San Gabriel River Los Angeles River 235 74 352 19 117 618 105 82 212 1,875 5.0 147 234 2,073 59 52 34 108 39 1,324 215 489 1,031 362 897 2,600 26 1, 542 2,233 27 236 152 26.0 20.1 17.4 10.6 35.2 10.4 10.3 24.3 23.1 25.0 19.9 22.9 21.3 15.6 11.3 10.9 21.2 17.5 9.0 6.8 9.8 29.9 18.4 27.1 6-5 31.6 28.9 30.9 24.0 20.8 18.6 13.0 26.5 12.7 38.9 27.0 40.4 30.4 38.9 25.7 27.1 15.9 18.3 25.8 16.3 23.3 22.8 14.4 9.2 28.5 14.4 26.3 13.0 13.0 35.5 15.0 127,000 26,800 137,000 56,000 60,000 261,000 57,000 4-5,000 56, 000 615,000 16,000 130,000 114,000 235,000 44,300 36,100 32,000 43,000 12,400 460,000 186,000 226,000 396,000 132,000 355,000 720,000 11,400 437,000 700,000 60,000 194,000 220,000 I -- ----
TABLE B.] ( )Project State River Basin StreamBasin Average PMF Peak Area (in inches) Discharge (sq.mi.) Prec. Runoff (cfs)Lf1 Success Terminus Tuolumne Whittier Narrows Cal.Cal, Cal.Cal.San San San San Joaquin Joaquin Joaquin Gabriel Tule River Kaweah River Tuolumne River San Gabriel River 38-560 1,533 551+32.5 40.1 25.1 17.4 12.6 24.8 20.?13.7 200,000 290,000 602,000 305,000
APPENDIX C SIMPLIFIED
METHODS OF ESTIMATING
PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGES TABLE OF CONTENTS Page C.1 INTRODUCTION
.................  
....................................  
....................................  
..1.59-55 C.2 SCOPE .............  
1.59-42 C.2 SCOPE .
... ..................  
.............................................  
1.59-55 C.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE LEVELS FROM HURRICANES  
1.59-42 C.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGELEVELS FROM HURRICANES ...............  
.....................  
1.59-42 C.3.1 Methods Used  
.1.59-55 C.3.1 Methods Used .........................................  
.............  
1.59-55 C.3.2 Use of Data in Estimating PMS ..... ..... ....... ............................  
........................  
1.59-55 C.3.3 Wind-Wave Effects ....... ..... ..... ..................................  
1.59-42 C.3'2 Use of Data in Estimating PMS ............  
1.59-56 C.4 LIMITATIONS  
1.59-42 C.3.3 Wind-Wave Effects ......................................  
.........................1.59-56 REFERENCES
1.59-43 C.4 LIMITATIONS .
....... ..... ..... ........................................  
..........................................  
..1.59-56 FIGURES ...... ... ..... ....... ...........................................  
1.59-43 REFERENCES .
1.59-57 T A B L E S ....................................: 1.59-59 FIGURES Figure C.1 -Probable Maximum Surge Estimates, Gulf Coast .... .............
.............................................  
C.2 -Probable Maximum Surge Estimates, Atlantic Coast ..........
1.59-43 FIG URES .. ..............................................  
TABLES Table C. 1 -Probable Maximum Surge Data ...... ....................
1.59-44 TABLES .
C. 2 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Port Isabel ..C. 3 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Freeport ....C. 4 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Eugene Island .C. 5 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level.- Isle Dernieres C. 6 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Biloxi C. 7 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Santarosa Island .C. 8 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Pitts Creek ...C. 9 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Naples .......C.10 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Miami .....C.1l- Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Jacksonville  
...............................................  
...C.12 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -JeckyUl Island...C.1 3 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Folly Island ...C.14 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Raleigh Bay ...C.I 5 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Ocean City ...C.1 6 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Atlantic City ..C.17 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Long Island ...C. 18 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Watch Hill Point C.19 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -- Hampton Beach C.20 -Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level -Great Spruce Island C.21 -Ocean Bed Profiles ................................1.59-57........1.59-58 1.59-59 1.59-60 1.59-61 1 .59-62 1 .59-63 1.59-64 1.59-65 1.59-66 1.59-67 1.59-68 1.59-69 1.59-70 1.59-71 1.59-72 1.59-73 1.59-74 1.59-75 1.59-76 1.59-77 1.59-78 1.59-79 1.59-53
1.59.46 FIGURES  
Figure C.1-Probable Maximum Surge Estimates, Gulf Coast  
....................  
1.59-44 C.2-Probable Maximum Surge Estimates, Atlantic Coast ..................  
1.59-45 TABLES  
Table C. I-Probable Maximum Surge Data ..............................  
1.59-46 C. 2-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Port Isabel ..........
1.59.47 C. 3-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Freeport ............
1.59.48 C. 4-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Eugene Island ........
1.59.49 C. 5-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Isle Dernieres .........
1.59-50
C. 6-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Biloxi ....
...........
1.59-51 C. 7-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Santa Rosa Island .....
.1.59-52 C. 8-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Pitts Creek ...........
1.59-53 C. 9-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Naples ....
.........  
1.59-54 C.-10-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Miami ..............
1.59-55 C.A I-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Jacksonville  
...........
1.59-56 C. 12-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Jeckyll Island ........
1.59-57 C.13-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Folly Island ...........
1.59-58 C.14-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Raleigh Bay ..........
1.59-59 C.15-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Ocean City ...........
1.59-60
C.16-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Atlantic City ..........
1.59-61 C.17-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Long Island ...........
1.59-62 C.18-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Watch Hill Point .......
1.59-63 C.19-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Hampton Beach ......
..
1.59-64 C.20-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Great Spruce Island .
.
. .
1.59-65 C.21-Ocean-Bed Profiles  
...........  
. ....  
............................  
1.59-66
1.59-41


C.1 INTRODUCTION
C.1 INTRODUCTION
C.3.1 Methods Used This appendix presents timesaving methods of esti-mating the maximum stillwater level of the probable maximum surge (PMS) from hurricanes at open-coast sites on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Use of the methods herein will reduce both the time necessary for applicants to prepare license applications and the NRC staff's review effort.The procedures are based on PMS values determined by applicants for licenses that have been reviewed and accepted by the NRC staff and by the staff and its consultants.
This appendix presents timesaving methods of es timating the maximum stiilwater level of the probable maximum surge (PMS) from hurricanes at open coast sites on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.


The information in this appendix was developed from a study made by Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, through a contract with NRC (Ref. 1).The PMS data are shown in Tables C.A through C.21 and on maps of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (Figures C.A and C.2). Suggestions for interpolating between these values are included.Limitations on the use of these generalized methods of estimating PMS are identified in Section C.4. These limitations should be considered in detail in assessing the applicability of the methods at specific sites.Applicants for licenses for nuclear facilities at sites on the open coast of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico have the option of using these methods in lieu of more precise but laborious methods. The results of application of the methods in this appendix will in many cases be accepted by the NRC staff with no further verification.
Use of the methods herein will reduce both the time necessary for applicants to prepare license applica tions and the NRC staff's review effort.


C.2 SCOPE The data and procedures in this appendix apply only to open-coast areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.Future studies are planned to determine the applica-bility of similar generalized methods and to develop such methods, if feasible, for other areas. These studies, to be included in similar appendices, are anticipated for the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast, including Hawaii and Alaska.C.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE LEVELS FROM HURRICANES
The procedures are based on PMS values deter mined by the NRC staff and its consultants and by applicants for licenses that have been reviewed and accepted by the staff. The information in this appen dix was developed from a study made by Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, through a contract with NRC (Ref. 1). 
The data presented in this appendix consist of all determinations of hurricane-induced PMS peak levels at open-coast locations computed by the NRC staff or their consultants, or by applicants and accepted by the staff.The data are shown in Tables C.A through C.21 and on Figures C.A and C.2. All represent stillwater levels for open-coast conditions.
The PMS data are shown in Tables C.I through C.21 and on maps of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (Figures C.I and C.2). Suggestions for interpolating between these values are included.


All PMS determinations in Table C.A were made by NRC consultants for this study (Ref. 1), except Pass Christian, Crystal River, St. Lucie, Brunswick, Chesa-peake Bay Entrance, Forked River-Oyster Creek, Mill-stone, Pilgrim, and Seabrook.The computations by the consultants were made using the NRC surge computer program, which is adopted from References
Limitations on the use of these generalized methods of estimating PMS are identified in Section C.4. These limitations should be considered in detail in assessing the applicability of the methods at specific sites.
2 and 3. Probable maximum hurricane data were taken from Reference
4. Ocean bottom topography for the computations was obtained from the most detailed available Nautical Charts pub-lished by the National Ocean Survey, NOAA. The traverse line used for the probable maximum hurricane surge estimate was drawn from the selected coastal point to the edge of the continental shelf or to an ocean depth of 600 feet MLW, and was one hurricane radius to the right of the storm track. It was oriented perpendicular to the ocean bed contours near shore. The ocean bed profile along the traverse line was determined by roughly averaging the topography of cross sections perpendicular to the traverse line and extending a maximum of 5 nautical miles to either side. The 10-mile wide cross sections were narrowed uniformly to zero at the selected site starting 10 nautical miles from shore. It was assumed that the peak of the PMS coincided with the 10% exceedance high spring tide 1 plus initial rise.2 In each case the maximum water level resulted from use of the high translation speed for the hurricane in combination with the large radius to maximum wind, as defined in Reference
4. Detailed data for the computed PMS values are shown in Tables C.1 through C.20. Ocean bed profile data for Pass Christian, Crystal River, St.Lucie, Chesapeake Bay Mouth, and Seabrook are shown in Table C.21.The water levels resulting from these computations are open-coast stillwater levels upon which waves and wave runup should be superimposed.


C.3.2 Use of Data in Estimating PMS Estimates of the PMS stillwater level at open coast sites other than those shown in Tables C.1 through C.21 and on Figures CA and C.2 may be obtained as follows: 1. Using topographic maps or maps showing sound-ings, such as the Nautical Charts, determine an ocean bed profile to a depth of 600 ft MLW, using the methods'The 10% exceedance high spring tide is the predicted maximum monthly astronomical tide exceeded by 10% of the predicted maximum monthly astronomical tides over a 21-year period.2 Initial rise talso called forerunner or sea level anomaly) is an anomalous departure of the tide level from the predicted astronomical tide.1.59-55 outlined above. Compare this profile with the profiles of the locations shown in Tables C.2 through C.21. With particular emphasis on shallow water depths, select the location or locations in the general area with the most similar profiles.
Applicants for licenses for nuclear facilities at sites on the open coast of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico have the option of-using these methods in lieu of more precise but laborious methods contained in Appendix A. The results of application of the methods in this appendix will in many cases be ac cepted by the NRC staff with no further verification.


An estimate of the wind setup may be interpolated from the wind setup data for these loca-tions.2. Pressure setup may be interpolated between loca-tions on either side of the site.3. Initial rise, as shown in Table C1, may be interpolated between locations on either side of the site.4. The 10% exceedance high spring tide may be computed from predicted tide levels in Reference
C.2 SCOPE
5; it may be obtained from the Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, Va.;or it may be interpolated, using the tide relations in Reference
The data and procedures in this appendix apply only to open-coast areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.
5.5. An estimate of the PMS open-coast stillwater level at the desired site will be the sum of the values from Steps 1 through 4, above.C.3.3 Wind-Wave Effects Coincident wave heights and wave runup should be computed and superimposed on the PMS stillwater level obtained by the foregoing procedures.


Acceptable methods are given in Reference
Future studies are planned to determine the ap plicability of similar generalized methods and to develop such methods, if feasible, for other areas.
2.C.4 LIMITATIONS
1. The NRC staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMS analyses that result in less conservative estimates.


In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMS analyses at specific sites will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in this appendix result in more conservative estimates.
These studies, to be included in similar appendices, are anticipated for the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast, including Hawaii and Alaska.


2. The PMS estimates obtained as outlined in Section C.3.2 are maximum stillwater levels. Coincident wind-wave effects should be added.3. The PMS estimates obtained from the methods in Section C.3.2 are valid only for open-coast sites, i.e., at the point at which the surge makes initial landfall.
C.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE LEVELS
FROM HURRICANES
The data presented in this appendix consist of all determinations of hurricane-induced PMS peak levels at open-coast locations computed by the NRC
staff or their consultants, or by applicants and ac cepted by the staff. The data are shown in Tables C. 1 through C.21 and on Figures C.I and C.2. All repre sent stillwater levels for open-coast conditions.


If the site of interest has appreciably different offshore bathy-metry, or if the coastal geometry differs or is complex, such as for sites on an estuary, adjacent to an inlet, inshore of barrier islands, etc., detailed studies of the effect of such local conditions should be made. Refer-ence 2 provides guidance on such studies.APPENDIX C REFERENCES
SAll PMS determinations in Table C.1 were made by NRC consultants for this study (Ref. 1) or for earlier studies except Pass Christian, Brunswick, Chesapeake. Bay Entrance, Forked River-Oyster
.1. Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, "Probable Maximum Flood and Hurricane Surge Estimates," unpublished report to NRC, June 13, 1975 (available in the public document room).2. U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,"Shore Protection Manual," 1973.3. B.R. Bodine, "Storm Surge on the Open Coast: Fundamental and Simplified Prediction," Technical Memorandum No. 35, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, 1971.4. U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), "Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," Hurricane Research Interim Report, HUR 7-97 and HUR 7-97A, 1968.5. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, "Tide Tables," annual publications.
.Creek, Millstone, Pilgrim, and Hampton Beach.


1.59-56
The computations by the consultants were made using the NRC surge computer program, which is adapted from References 2, 3, and 4. Probable max imum hurricane data were taken from Reference 5.
840 830 820 810 800 790 780 360 350 340 330 330 320 310 310 LOUISIANA-4 Z290 U300 0 FLORIDA 29 Wry > l 280270 280 270 _ 260 260 43 250 250 240 32.7 MAXIMUM STILLWATER
LEVEL AT OPEN COAST, FT., MLW 230 970 960 950 940 930 920 910 90&deg; 890 880 870 860 850 840 830 820 810 FIGURE C.1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE ESTIMATES
-GULF COAST
830 820 810 800 790 780 770 760 750 740 730 720 710 700 690 680 670 660 650 640 630 620 (___ " 32.7 MAXIMUM STILLWATER
LEVEL AT OPEN COAST, FT., ML 860 850 840 830 820 810 800 790 780 770 760 750 740 730 720 710 700 FIGURE C.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE ESTIMATES
-ATLANTIC COAST 1.59-58 TABLE C.1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE DATA (LOCATIONS
INDICATED
ON FIGURES C.] and C.2)DISTANCE FROM SHORELINE, NAUTICAL MILES, FOR SELECTED WATER DEPTHS, FEET mLW PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AT OPEN COAST SHORE LINE OPEN COAST LOCATION TRAVERSE J DEPTH, FEET, ALONG TRAVERSE FROM OPEN COAST SHORE LINE WIND PRESSURE INITIAL 10% EXC. HIGH TOTAL AND TRAVERSE AZIMUTH 10 20 50 100 200 600 SETUP, SETUP, RISE, TIDE, SURGE, DEG. -MIN. DISTANCE, NAUTICAL MILES, TO DEPTH INDICATED
FT. FT. FT. FT. MLW FT. MLW C-,.PORT ISABEL FREEPORT EUGENE ISLAND ISLE DERNIERES PASS CHRISTIAN (a)BILOXI SANTAROSA
ISLAND PITTS CREEK CRYSTAL RIVER (a)NAPLES MIAMI STr. LUCIE(a)JACKSONVILLE
JEKYLL ISLAND FOLLY ISLAND BRUNSWICK RALEIGH CHESAPEAKE
BAY ENTRANCE (a)OCEAN CITY ATLANTIC CITY FORKED RIVER -OYSTER CREEK LONG ISLAND MILLSTONE WATCH HILL POINT PILGRIM HAMPTON BEACH SEABROOK(a)
GREAT SPRUCE ISLAND 86 152 192 165 160 183 205 248 100 90 108 150 135 110 146 166 166 115 148 30 00 30 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0.23 0.20 2.00 0.62 3.40 0.09 8.84 2.31 0.17 0.17 0.10 0.10 2.60 0.19 0.12 0.49 0.55 20.00 1.75 11.20 0.18 9.23 0.79 0.94 0.20 4.00 2.17 0.30 1.94 5.50 30.00 11.90 30.00 0.48 24.30 31.40 15.70 2.01 2.58 15.60 12.00 11.10 24.0 44.1 30.4 50.1 11.9 69.4 45.6 2.2 30.0 39.6 32.8 69.2 20.9 107.0 85.8 2.7 55.0 64.3 47.0 33.10 55.5 60.0 45.3 44.0 70.9 90.0 58.5 77.0 78.0 45.0 132.0 127.0 145.0 3.9 18.7 62.5 72.6 57.6 10.07 15.99 29.74 18.61 28.87 27.77 9.12 24.67 26.55 18.47 2.51 8.25 16.46 20.63 17.15 12.94 8.84 3.57 2.89 3.29 3.29 2.88 2.98 3.25 2.31 2.65 2.90 3.90 3.80 3.23 3.34 3.23 2.20 3.09 2.50 2.40 2.00 2. 00 0.80 1. 50 1.50 1.20 0.60 1. 00 0.90 0.98 1.30 1.20 I. 00 1. 00 1 -00 1.10 1.14 1.10 1.80 2.90 2.40 1.90 1.20 2.50 1.80 4.20 4.30 3.60 3.60 3.70 6.20 7.50 6.80 5.80 5.20 3.50 5.10 5.80 2.70 8.00 3.56 8.80 17.94 24.18 37.44 25.80 33.75 34.76 15.67 32.38 34.10 25.97 10.91 16.73 27.20 32.67 28.18 21.94 18.13 21.90 23. 17 24.80 21.78 20.16 19.17 22.19 19.6 19.01 19.53.30.51 1.75 12.0 25.4 35.2 62.0 00 0.12 0.26 3.67 17.8 45.0 59.0 00 0.20 0.85 5.00 23.1 58.4 70.0 17.30(b) (b)14.30 2.83 15.32 2.57 00 0.09 0.18 00 0.07 0.14 00 0.22 0.31 00 0.04 0.08 1.35 4.8 27.2 68.4 0.64 1.6 34.3 84.0 18.08(b)8.73 12.41 10.01 4.25 4.79 9.73 (b) 1.00 2.46 0.97 2.20 1.00 2.42 0.96 0.71 2.0 0.20 1.1 7.2 6.3 40.0 44.0 178.0 2.23 0.83 11.70 2.28 0.86 11.60 1.82 0.56 18.40 a. See Table C.H for ocean bed profile.b. Combined wind and pressure setup.a. See Table C.21 for ocean bed profile.b. Combined wind and pressure setup.


TABLE C.2 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
Ocean bottom topography for the computations was obtained from the most detailed available Nautical Charts published by the National Ocean Survey, NOAA. The traverse line used for the probable max imum hurricane surge estimate was drawn from the selected coastal point to the edge of the continental shelf or to an ocean depth of 600 feet. MLW and was one hurricane radius to the right of the storm track.
PROBABLE MAXIMUt. hURRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL  
 
DATA AND RESULTANT  
The radius to maximum winds was oriented at an angle of 1150 from the storm track. The traverse was oriented perpendicular to the ocean-bed contours near shore. The ocean-bed profile along the traverse line was determined by roughly averaging the topography of cross sections perpendicular to the traverse line and extending a maximum of 5 nautical miles to either side. The 10-mile-wide cross sections were narrowed uniformly to zero at the selected site starting 10 nautical miles from shore. It was assumed that the peak of the PMS coincided with the 10% ex ceedance high spring tide' plus initial rise.' Slightly different procedures were used for postulating the traverse lines and profiles for the Crystal River and St. Lucie determinations.
WATER LEVEL LOCATION PORT ISABEL [AT. 260o4.3' LONG. 97 09.4': TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH86&deg;-30'DECREEi LENGTH 42.1 NAUTICAL MILES TEXAS PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE  
 
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
In each case the maximum water level resulted from use of the high translation speed for the hur ricane in combination with the large radius to max imum wind as defined in Reference 5. Detailed data for the computed PMS values are shown in Tables C.1 through C.20. Ocean-bed profile data for Pass Christian, Crystal River, St. Lucie, Chesapeake Bay Mouth, and Hampton Beach are shown in Table C.21.
ZONE C AT LOCATION 260 04' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
 
PARAMETER  
The water levels resulting from these computations are open-coast stillwater levels upon which waves and wave runup should be superimposed.
DESIGNATIONS
 
SLOW MODERATF HIGH_(ST) (MT) (.)_3ENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P 0 INCHES 26.42 26.42 26.42&#xfd;PER IPHERAL PRESSURE Pn INCAES 31.30 31.30 31.30 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 20 20 20 rRANSIATION
C.3.2 Use of Data In Estimating PMS
SPEED Fv (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 1 4 11 28 WIAXMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 147 151 161 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.
Estimates of the PMS stillwater level at open-coast sites other than those shown in Tables C.1 through C.21 and on Figures C.1 and C.2 may be obtained as follows:
'The 10% exceedance high spring tide is the predicted maximum monthly astronomical tide exceeded by 10%.of the predicted max imum monthly astronomical tides over a 21-year period.
 
'Initial rise (also called forerunner or sea level anomaly) is an anomalous departure of the tide level from the predicted axtronomical tide.
 
1.59-42 C.3.1 Methods Used I
I
 
I. Using topographic maps or maps showing soundings, such as the Nautical Charts, determine an ocean bed profile to a depth of 600 ft MLW, using the methods outlined above. Compare this profile with the profiles of the locations shown in Tables C.2 through C.21. With particular emphasis on shallow water depths, select the location or locations in the general area with the most similar profiles. An es timate of the wind setup may be interpolated from the wind setup data for these locations.
 
2. Pressure setup may be interpolated between locations on either side of the site.
 
3. Initial rise, as shown in Table C.1, may be inter polated between locations on either side of the site.
 
4. The 10% exceedance high spring tide may be computed from predicted tide levels in Reference 6; it may be obtained from the Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft.
 
Belvoir, Va.; it may be interpolated, using the tide relations in Reference 6; or it may be obtained from Appendix A.
 
5. An estimate of the PMS open-coast stillwater level at the desired site will be the sum of the values from Steps I through 4, above.
 
C.3.3 Wind-Wave Effects Coincident wave heights and wave runup should be computed and superimposed on the PMS stillwater level obtained by the foregoing procedures. Accep table methods are given in Reference 2 and in Appen dix A.
 
CA LIMITATIONS
I. The NRC staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMS analyses that result in less con servative estimates. In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMS analyses at specific sites will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in this appendix result in more con servative estimates.
 
2. The PMS estimates obtained as outlined in Sec tion C.3.2 arc maximum stillwater levels. Coincident wind-wave effects should be added.
 
3. The PMS estimates obtained from the methods in Section C.3.2 are valid only for open-coast sites, i.e., at the point at which the surge mikes initial land fall. If the site of interest has appreciably different off-shore bathymetry, or if the coastal geometry dif fers or is complex, such as for sites on an estuary, ad jacent to an inlet, inshore of barrier islands, etc.,
detailed studies of the effect of such local conditions should be made. Reference 2 provides guidance on such studies.
 
REFERENCES
I. Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, "Probable Max imum Flood and Hurricane Surge Estimates," un published report to NRC, June 13, 1975 (available in the public document room). 
2. U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,
"Shore Protection Manual," Second Edition, 1975.
 
3. B. R. Bodine, "Storm Surge on the Open Coast:
Fundamental and Simplified Prediction," Technical Memorandum No. 35, U.S. Army Coastal Engineer ing Research Center, 1971.
 
4. George Pararas-Caryannis, "Verification Study of a Bathystrophic Storm Surge Model," Technical Memorandum No. 50, U.S. Army Coastal Engineer ing Research Center, May 1975.
 
5. U. S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), "Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," Hurricane Research Interim Report, HUR 7-97 and HUR 7-97A, 1968.
 
6. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, "Tide Tables," annual publications.
 
1.59-43
 
96&deg;
960
940
329
310
200
27r
260
250
240
93?
92r
910
90p
89W
88e
870
860
860
840
8r3
820
810
FIGURE Ci PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE ESTIMATES - GULF COAST
C
34&deg;
340
C
f(
 
830
820 810 800
790
780 770
760
750
8o
85o-
840
830 820
81
800 70r
780
0
770
760
750
740
730
720
71'
FIGURE C.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE ESTIMATES - ATLANTIC COAST
1.59-45
 
TABLE C. 1 PROBABLE MPAXfl04 SURGE DATA
(W)CATIONS INDICATED ON FIGURES C.1 and C.2)
DISTANCE FR0OM
SHORELINE, NAUTICAL MILES,
FOR SELECTED WATER DEPTHS, FEET HIM
OPEN-COAST LOCATION
AND TRAVESE
PORT ISABEL
FREEPORT
EUGENE ISLAND
ISLE DERNIERE
PASS CHRISTIAN (a)
BILOXI
SANTA ROSA ISLAND
PITTS CREEK
CRYSTAL RIVER (a)
NAPLES
MIAMI
ST. LUCIEW()
JACKSONVILLE
JEKYLL ISLAND
FOLLY ISLAND
BRUNSWICK
RALEIGH
CHESAPEAKE BAY
ENTRANCE (a)
OCEAN CITY
ATLANTIC CITY
FORKED RIVER
OYSTER CREEK
LONG ISLAND
MILLSTONE
WATCH HILL POINT
PILGRIM
HAMPTON
EAM (a)
GREAT SPRUCE ISLAND
I
N
TRAVERSE
AZIMUTH
DEG.
 
-
HIN.
 
DEPTH, FEET, ALONG TRAVERSE FROM OPEN COAST SHORE LINE
10
20
50
100
200
600
DISTANCE,
NAUTICAL MILES, TO DEPTH INDICATED
1
1 ii
86
152
192
165
160
183
205
248
100
90
108
150
135
30
00
30
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
110
00
146
00
166
166
115
148
00
00
00
no
0.23
0.49
1.94
11.10
33.10
44.0
0.20
0.55
5.50
24.0
55.5
70.9
2.00
20.00
30.00
44.1
60.0
90.0
0.62
1.75
11.90
30.4
45.3
58.5
77.0
3.40
11.20
30.00
50.1
69.2
78.0
0.09
0.18
0.48
11.9
20.9
45.0
8.84
9.23
24.30
69.4
107.0
132.0
2.31
31.40
127.0
0.17
0.79
15.70
45.6
85.8
145.0
0.17
0.94
2.01
2.2
2.7
3.9
0.10
18.7
0.10
0.20
2.58
30.0
55.0
62.5
2.60
4.00
15.60
39.6
64.3
72.6
0.19
2.17
12.00
32.8
47.0
57.6
0.12
0.30
1.75
12.0
25.4
35.2
62.0
0.12
0.26
3.67
17.8
45.0
59.0
0.20
0.85
5.00
23.1
58.4
70.0
0.09
0.07
0.22
0.04
0.18
1.35
0.14
0.64
0.31
0.71
0.08
0.20
4.8
1.6
2.0
1.1
27.2
34.3
7.2
6.1
68.4
"84.0
40.0
1 7R .0
1.
 
6
1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AT OPEN COAST SHORE LINB
WIND
SETUP,
FT.
 
PRESSURE
SETUP,
FT.
 
10.07
15.99
29.74
18.61
28.87
27.77
.9.12
24.67
26.55
18.47
2.51
8.25
16.46
20.63
17.15
12.94
8.84
17.30(b)
14.30
15.32
18.08(b)
8.73
12.41
10.01
4.25
9.73
3.57
2.89
3.29
3.29
2.88
2.98
3.25
2.31
2.65
2.90
3.90
3.80
3.23
3.34
3.23
2.20
3.09 (b)
2.83
2.57 (b)
2.46
2.20
2.42
2.23
1.82 INITIAL 102 EXC.
 
HIGH
TOTAL
RISE,
TIDE,
SURGE,
FT.
 
FT. ML
(C) PT. mL (C)
2.50
2.40
2.00
2.00
0.80
1.50
1.50
1.20
0.60
1.00
0.90
0.98
1.30
1.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.10
1.14
1.10
1.00
0.97
1.00
0.96
0.83
0.56
1.70
2.20
2.30
2.40
2.30
2.50
2.10
4.10
4.30
3,50
3.60
3.70
6.90
8.70
6.80
5.80
4.70
3.80
5.00
5.70
4.70
3.10
3.80
4.00
11.90
10.50
16. OC
17.84
23.48
37.34
26.30
34.85
34.76
15.97
32.28
34.10
25.87
10.91
16.73
27.90
33.87
28.18
21.94
17,63
22.20
23.27
24.70
23.78
15.26
19.41
17.39
19.60
17.81
28.11 a.
 
See Table C.21 for ocean-bed profile.
 
b.
 
Combined wind and pressure setup.
 
c.
 
Host values in these columns have been C
updated by the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center and differ from those in the orilinal documents.
 
(
(
'0
0%
I
I
9.73
 
Q
Note:
maximm wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
-!/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Stdrm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
OCEAN BED PROFILE
WATER
BELOW
MWM
0
9.0o
20.5
35.0
43.0.
 
51.0.
 
58.5.
 
69.0
95.5
116
138
171
266
6oo
19,850o TRAVERSE
DISTANCE
FROM
SHORE
(NAUT.MI.)
0
0.2
-
0.5
1.0
-
1.5
,
2.0
_
5.0
1O
.15
20
30
40
_4
50
DEGREE AT TRAVERSE
MID-POINr FROM SHORE
T6 600-FOO DanT
K
TABLE C.2 SUMMARY-PERTINT PROBABLE MAXIMIh hURRICANE (*MH), STOR.M SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LE
LOCATION PORT ISABEL  
T. 26004.3'  
LONG. 97 09.41: TRAVERSE-AIMUTH86 0-30  
GREEI LENTH 4.2.1 NAUTIICAL MILES  
"""&mla K
-J
PROBABLE  
MAXIMUM HURRICANE IN
PARCThISTICS
ZONE  
C  
AT LOCATION  
260  
04 EREE NOM
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
SLW
MODERATF  
HIGH
GEMMEAL PRESSURE IDEX
P0 INCHE
26.412
26.412
26.112
2
-
PERIPHERAL PRESSURE  
INCHES
31.30  
31.30  
31.30  
RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND  
LARGERADIUS RnAU.
 
MIe.
 
20  
20  
20  
TRANLATION SPEED  
V (FORWARD  
)KNOTS  
I
...
28  
,'!xIMUM WIND SPEED)
V  
M.P.H.
 
147  
151  
161 ATALMRZ D1SrANE-WINDU .NI.
 
M2OMP20 IND
398
374,
318
*' O
TO MlAX.
 
IN
PMH cCMnPUATIONAL ComD71CrT
AD WATE LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES
CO EFFI CI MNTS
B0TIO
FMICTION FACTOR 0.0030
WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10
WATER
L.EVEL
DATA
(AT OPEN CanB
SHORELINE)
pM
SpEISD OF TPANMSIATIOVq OOMP0NERTS
H
WIND SETUP
10007 PRESSURE SETUP
35 INITIAL WATER LEV.
 
.*
ASTRONOMICAL
1.70
TIDETLESM*
TOTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER
Lhs'J.
 
17.84 PET
LW-
-
-
 
TABLE C.3 SuMMARY-PEITINE*rT PRUMBLE MAXIMUI. HURRICANE (FMH).
STORKM S;GIO
COMPUIATIONAL ITA. AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
LOCATION FREEPOR'.
LUT. 280
56' LONG. 95'
TEXAS
Note: Nax-- wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
--/nitial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
C ) . . . ..
.......
..... .. .
. . .
22' : TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH 152 PROBABLE MAXIMUM HUiRICANE INDEX CHARACTI*$ISTICS
ZONE
C
AT LOCATION
280
561 MHZE NORTH
1 SPEED OF UNSITION
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
SLOW
HODERATF
HIGH
*.."
*(sT)
NOm'
(Hr,)
CflI!VAL PRESSURE INDEX
Po INCHES
26.69
26.69
26.69 PERIPHERAL P
0SRE
P n INCHES
31.25
31.25
31.25 ADIUS 70 KMAXDIUM WIND
LiRGE SAhMS iUT.
 
I.
 
26.0
26.0
26.0
TRUN*LATION SPEED
V (voawRD SPEED) I
S
139 U
8.
 
KiXD= WIND SPEED
Yx M.P.H.
 
139
143
153 INITIAL DISTAN(CE--&U.I ,* l9 MPH WIND
491
458
390
AT SHORE TO MAX.


MI, i/FROM 20 MPH WIND 398 374 318 6T SHORE TO MAX. WIND 0 OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0 0.2 9.0_ 0.5 20.5 1.0 35.0_ 1.5 43.0 2.0 51.0_ 3.0 58.5-5.0 69.0 10 95.5 15 116 20 138_ 30 171 40 266 44 600 50 1,850 LATITUDE 26&deg; 05'DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
WIND
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH C 0 E F F I CI E N T S BOTfIOF FhICTION FACTOR 0.0030 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
DiXRE, o LENGTH 70.9 NAUTICAL MILES
FACTOR 1.10 WATER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH COUPUTATIONAL C0EWICIENT
PMH (CNPUTATIONAL
AND WATER LEVU (SUGE) ESTIMATES
COEFFICIENT
CooFFIOIENT&sect;  
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES 14ULe Maximum wind speed is assumed Lto be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
BOT'iM FkICTION FACTOR 0.0030  
WIND STRE
CORRCION FACTOR 1.10  
WATEH
LVEL
DATA  
(AT OPEN COAST SHOP.LIIE)
.
U'
OCEAN BED PROFILE
TRAVERSE
WATE
DISTANCE
DEPTH
FROM
BELOW
SORE
MI
(  
TmI.


Storm diameter between 20 mph-isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.PMH SPEED OF TPANSLATION
(FEw-)
0
0
"
.1.0
30
_
2.0
32
_
3.0
37
4.0
40
-
5.0
47
10.0
66
_
15.0
78
_
20.0
90
. 
_
30.0
114
-
40.0
132
50.0
168
-
60.0
240
_
70.0
570
70.9
600
IATITUDE
* 280 26'
DEGREE AT TRAVERSE
KID-POINT FROM SHOR9
1'O 600-FOOT DEPTH
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST MT nIT F E E T WIND SETUP 10.07 PRESSURE SETUP 3.57 INITIAL WATER LEV. 2.50 kSTRONONICAL
ST I
1.80 FIDE LEVEL rOTAL-SURGE
HTr H T
STILL WATER LEV. 17.9.4 FEET NLW 7]
F  
TABLE C.3 SUMMARY-PERTINENT  
E  
PROBABLE MAXIMU. hURRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL  
E  
LATA AND RESULTANT  
T  
WATER LEVEL LOCATION FREEPORT, LAT. 280 56' LONG. 95" TEXAS 22' : 'PRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
WIND SEiTUP
152 DEGREEt LENGTH 70.9 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE  
15.99 PRLSSURE SETUP  
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
2.89 INITIAL WATIR LEV.
ZONE C AT LOCATION 280 56' DEGHEE NORI'H I SPEED OF TRANSLATION
 
PARAMETER  
2.40
DESIGNATIONS  
&STRONOMICAL
SLOW MODERATF HIGH S(ST) (?Tr) I MENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX 26.69 P INCHES 26.69 26.69 26.69 0 PERIPHERAL
2.20
PRESSURE P INCHES 31.25 31.25 31.25 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 26.0 26.0 26.0 rRANS1ATION
TIDE LEVEL.
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS I 4 11 28.0 AIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 139 143 153 x INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.Y
 
FROM 20 MPH WIND 491 458 390 AT SHORE TO MAX. WIND I U)&OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DErTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0 1.0 30 2.0 32_ 3.0 37 4.0 40_ 5.0 47 10.0 66 1 15.0 78 20.0 9o 30.0 114_ 40&deg;.0 132_ 50.0 168 6o.o0 240 70.0 570 70.9 600 LATITUDE 28' 26'DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
TOTAL-SURGE  
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH OCPIPUTATIONAL
STILL WAT1E Lhl,.
COEFFICIENT
23.48 FELT MLW
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BO'nUfM FRICTION FACTOR 0.0030 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
-
FACTOR 1.10 W A T E h L EV E L D A T A (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
.....
Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
tC
 
Q
LOCTION EUGENE
LAT. 29o 20'
LONG. 91'
ISLAND, LOUISIANA
Note:
Maximm wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
- Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels Is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
21 . T-RAVmRSE-AZImuTH19230'DE2REEs LENGTH
90
NAUTICAL MILES
OC]AN BED PROFILE
TRAVEiSk WATER  
DISTANCE
DEPTH
FROM
BELOW
SHORE
MKU
NAUT
*
FEET)
-
0.0
0
-
1.0
5
-
2.0
10
-
3.0
12
-
5.0
15
-
10.0
15
-
15.0
18
-
20.0
20
-
30.0
50
-
40
60
-
50
140
-
60
200
-
70
260
-
80
320
-
90
600.
 
L&TrTUDE
%2o
4d DEGREE AT TRAVERSE
MID-POINT FROM SHORE
600:=
TABLE C.4 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBULE MAXIMLI. HURRICANE (PMH),  
STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
K
.ub PROBABLE 1AXIMUM HURRICANE INE
CHARACThWISTICS
ZONE  
B
AT LOCATION  
29P
20' DGREE NORTH
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS  
SLOW  
TODERATF
HIGH  
CENTRAL PRESSURE I*NDE
P0 INCHES  
26.87
26.87
26.87 PDtIPHEAL PRESSURE
INCHES  
31.24
31.24
31.24 IUS TO MAXIMUM WIND  
J.-ARE RADIUS NUT*. MI.
 
29.0  
29.0  
29.0  
T SLATION SPEED  
, (FORWARD SPED) KNOTS  
I  
4  
1
28.0  
AIMUM WIND SPED
Vx M.P.H.
 
141
144
153 INITIAL DISTArCE-NMAT.M.I.-/
FROM 20 MPH WIND  
534
184
412 AT SHORE To MAX.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
WID-1)
PMH OCHPUTATIONAL COEFFICIENT
AND WATER LEVM (SURGE) ESTINATES
ICTJIM 'iFICTION
FACTOR 0.0030
WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10
WAT E
Lh VEL
DATA
(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION  
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST I MT I HT F E E T WIND SETUP 15.99 PRESSURE SETUP 2.89 INITIAL WATER LEV. 2.40 kSTRONOMICAL
ST  
2.90 rIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
M
STILL WATER LEV. 24.18 FEET MLW
ST
TABLE C4 SUM MARY-PERTINENT  
HiT
PROBABLE MAXIMUE hUHRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
F  
DATA AND RESULTANT  
E, T  
WATER LEVEL LOCATION EUGENE LAT. 290 20' LONG. 91 ISLAND, LOUISIANA 1 :0 t 21 'rTRAVERSE-AZIMUJTHl9
WIND SETIUP
2 30 DEG~REE, LENGTH 90 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE  
-29.74 PRESSURE SETUP  
INDEX CHARACTEIISTICS
3.29 INITIAL WLATER LEV.
ZONE B AT LOCATION 290 20' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
 
PARAMETER  
2.00
DESIGNATIONS  
ATRONOMICAL
SLOW MODERATF HIGH 2 (ST) (nT) (HT)MENMAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.87 26.87 26.87 PERIPHERAL  
2.30
PRESSURE P INCHES 31.24 31.24 31.24 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 29.0 29.0 29.0 rRANSLATION
hIDE LEVEL  
SPEED Fv (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 4 11 28.0 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 141 144 153 INITIAL DfSTANCE-NAUT.
SUAL-RGE
STILL  
L
kA .
37.34 SET =L
:
 
TABLE C.5 SUMMY-PERTINENT PROALE MAXI M1,. HU*RIlCANE (PMH) ' STORM SMGE 00MFUTTIONAL WA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL  
LOIATION ISLE
L&T. 29002.91 LONG. 90"42.5'; "TAVERSE-AzIMUTH 165 DiEEaLe LG
58.5 NAuTICAL muILs DERNIERES, IOUISIAM
Note:  
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maxlmum wind.
 
-!/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
C
(
0o PROBLE MAXIDUH HURRICANE INDEX CHARAMTUISTICS
ZONE B  
AT LOC&TION
290  
3 D0G'EENOTNO
SPEED*OF TMNSL&sect;T:0I.
 
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS  
SLOW  
14OD91ATF
HIGH  
MH
PRESSURE INDEM
P0 INCHES  
26.88
26.88
26.88 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE
P  
INCHES  
31.25
31.25
31.25 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND  
IARGZ RADIUS NALT. HI.
 
29  
29  
29 MANSIATION SPEED
? (FORWARD SPME)  
KNOTS  
4 I
11  
\\2 IAXIMUM WIND SPEED  
!V  
M.P.H.


MI.i_FROM 20 MPH WIND 534 484 412 4T SHORE TO MAX. WIND .OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BEL40W SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FErT)-0.0 0 -1.0 5 --2.0 10 -3.0 12 --5.0 15 --10.0 15 --15.0 18 --20.0 20 --30.0 50 --40 60 --50 140 --6o 200 --70 260 -80 320 --90 600 -IATITUDE 28 04 DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
140
FROM SHORE (ro 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH CCNPUTATIONAL
144
COEFFICIENT
153 INITIAL D
AND LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES BOIOM FilICTION
=h-N
FACTOR 0.0030 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
.MI.1/
FACTOR 1.10 WATER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PROM 20 MPH WIND  
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
528
48?
394 KT SHORE TO MAX. WIND  
I
I
PMW OCKWPUATION&L COiUVICIERT
AND  
AMAE
LEVEL (SUlGE)  
ESTIMATES,
COEFFICI-ENTS
"BMiOT
FRICTION FACTOR 0.0030  
WIND SRESS, C0HHEION FACTOR 1.10  
WATER  
LEVEL  
DATA  
(AT OPEN CCAST sFMlEJNS)  
P1W SPEED OF TRANSLI'TIO
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST M MT HTI F E E' T WIND SETUP 29.74 PRESSURE SETUP 3.29 INITIAL WATER LEV. 2.00 ASTRONOMICAL
ST I
2.40 TIDE LEVEL TAL-SURGE STILL WATER LEV. 37.44 FEET MLW I Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
-14
!
9 F  
E  
E" T  
WIND SETUP  
8b RESSURE SETUP  
3 INITIAL  
MATES LEW.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.-~-r..-  
2.00
TABLE CA5 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
ATRNOMICAL
PROBABLE MAXIMUE HU!RICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
2.40
LATA AND RESULTANT  
TIDE LEME
WATE LEVEL LOCATION ISLE LAT. 29'02.9' LONG. 90'42.5':  
TOTAL-SURGE
TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH  
SILL jATa7 LEV.
165 DERNIERES, LOUISIANA PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE  
 
INDEX CHARACTEIISTICS
26.30
ZONE B AT LOCATION 290 03' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
=
PARAMETER
MHW
DESIGNATIONS
 
SLOW I4ODERATF
K
HIGH_(ST) (rT) )JENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.88 26.88 26.88 PER IPHERAL PRESSURE P INCHES 31.25 31.25 31.25 n _ a _RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 29 29 29 rRANSLATION
TABLE C.6 SURY-PFERTINENT PR"OBBLE MAX IMU. hURRICANE (Pml'.
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 4 11 28 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 140 144 153 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.1!
STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
FROM 20 MPH WIND 528 487 394&#xfd;T SHORE TO MAX. WIND I _OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0-0.2 6.0 0.5 9.0 1.0 13.0 1.5 17.5 2.0 22.5 3.0 26.e 5.0 32.0 7.0 34.0 7.5 28.0-8.0 25.5-8.5 25.0 9.0 28.5.9.5 34.0 1 10.0 42.5-15.0 62.0-20.0 56.0 30.0 97.9-40.0 152.0 50.0 243-58.5 600-60.o 688 LATITUDE 0 28&deg;3 4.4 DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT  
LOTION BIIOXI
FROM SHORE rO 600-FOOT DEPTH DEGREE, LENGIH 58.5 NAUTICAL MILES PMH OCXPUTATIONAL
LAT. 30023.6'
COBYFICIENT
LONG. 88"53.6't TRAVMsSE-AZIMUTH
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S B(yJ']fj .FhICTION FACTOR 0.0030 WIND STRESS  
160
FACTOR 1.10 WATER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
DECREEs LEVGTH 77 NAUTICAL MILES
Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.y Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
MISSISSIPPI
Note:
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
1-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE IN=*
CHARACMISTICS
ZONE
B AT LOCATION
300
24 DECREE NORTH
K
r Lft
'0
OCEAN BED PROFILE
TRAVERSE
WATER
DISTANCE
DET
FROM
BELOW
SHORE
MLW
0
0
-
0.2
3.0
0.5
2.0
1.0
6.5
1.5
9.0
_
2.0
9.0
_
3.0
9.5.
 
5.0
12.0
_
9.0
9.5 _
_
9.5 U-.0
_
10.0
14.0
-
10.5
18.5
-
11.0
17.5
_
11.5
23.0
-
12.0
29.0
1
13
34.5
-
15
41.5
20
45.0
25
47.0
30
50.0
40
65.0
50
99.0
60
164
"
70
203
78
6oo
80
7*
LATITUDE
?
290 508 DEGREE AT TRAVERSE
MID-POINT FROM SHORE
TO k00--1 RMP'
ISPEED
OF TRANSATION_
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
SLW
MODERATF
HIGH
METRAL PRESSURE INDEI
o INC=
26.9
26.9
26.9 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE
P
INCHES
31.23
31.23
31.23 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND
laRGE RADIUS NAUT. MI.
 
30
30
30
rRANSLATION SPEED
!
(FORWARD SPEED) KEATS
4
11
28 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED
vx M*.P.H.
 
139
143
153 INITIAL DiSr~C-niuT.MI.X
FROM 20 MPH WIND
525
498
396 IT SHORE 32 MAX. WIND
-
-
I
P10
OCCUATIONAL COEFFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL. (SURGE)
SrIMATES
COEFFICIENTS
WM'OK FRICTION FACTOR 0.0030
WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10
(ATER L
.VCST
DATA
(AT OPEN OCs sMREiNZ)
 
TABLE C.7 SUMMARY-YERUNENT ?RUMABLE MAX IMU h1JRRIC&NE (FMH)
* STORM SUItGh. OOIPULAT1ONAL IATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
LOCATION SANTA ROSA
LIT. 30 023.769 LONG. 86"37.7': TR"AVERSE-AZIMUTH  
183
=BflE&# LQWGTH 4e4.7 NAUTICAL MILES
ISLAND,  
AUEAZAM
l.A
Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
-
Initial distance is.-distance along tra .verse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline. Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACMh~ISTICS
ZONE  
B  
AT LOCATION  
300
24' DNEGR N0ORTH
PARMLERDESIGNATION$
SLOWV
I40DM1TFI
HIGH
, (sr)  
(N)  
(T
CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX  
P0 INCHES  
.26.88  
26.88  
26.88 PEtWIPERAL.PRESSURE  
in IziCi~s
31.20
310
3.2 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND  
IARGE RADIUS HAUT. MI.
 
29  
29  
29 fAnWSIATION SPEED
? (FMonAiiD SPEED) KNOTS  
4  
11  
28 MIAXIMUM WIND. SPEED  
V XMeP9*H  
140  
144  
153, INITIAL DIST&NCE-NAUT.H
2
'8
9 PRtOM 20 MPH WIND
47
'9 KT SHORE TO MAX. WIND
1___ -
PMH OMPUTATI0NAL GOiFFICILUT
AND WATER LLY&i (SURiGE)
ESTIMATES
C 0 E F.
 
F I C I E N T S
10rj'0M FRIICTION FACTORB 0.0030
WIND MSTRSS COURiCYIO
FACTOR 1.10
WATEft LEVEL
DATA
(AT OPENI COAST SI RELINE)
PKH SPEED OF TRANSLATIOIb COMPONENTS
ST I
T
H
___ __E
F
ET
WIND SETUJP
9.12 PRESSURE SETUP
3.25 INITIAL WATER LEV*
1.50
LSTROHORIC&L
2.10
riDE LEVEL
lOTAL-SURCE
STILL WATER LEV.
 
15.97
&#xfd;=7I MLW
___
C
OCEAN BED PROFILE
.TRAVERSE
WATER
DISrANCE
DEPTH
FROM
BELOW
swagR
HMW
Nt
.AUT.H.
 
LF2TL
0
0
S 0.2
22 S 0.5
5
: 1.0
66
1.5
66
290
66
-
3.0
73
5.0
76.
 
10
88
-
15
120
20
182
30377
40
510
-
45
600.
 
-
0
756 LATITUDE
3601-36 DEG~REE AT TRAVERSE
MID-POINT FROM SHORE
ro600-F
DEPTH
 
K
Q
LOCATIONPITTs CREEK
LAT. 30001.1' LONG. 83""
FLORIDA
Note:
Maxima wind speed Is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
.20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm
,diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
53': -TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
205 DE*EEs LENGITH 110
NAUTICAL MILES
PROBABLE MA*INUM HURRICANE INIM CHARACTERISTICS
ZON.
 
A
AT WC&TION
300
01o DEGR
NORTH
SLSPEED OF TNSA
TION
PARAMEI
DEINAIN
SLOW
HOIERATF
HIGH
RADIUS
PRESXUME INDEX
Po0 INCHES
26-79
26.79
26.79 PERIPHItA
PRESSURE
SPn INCHES
30.ZZ
30.22
30.22 RADIU&#xfd;S TO MAIMU
WIND
JAUME RADIUS NAUT.
 
MI.
 
26
26
26 rRANSIATION SPEED
rV (1OiM I)D SPEED) KNOTs
1 4
11
21 AXIMUM WIND SPEED
v_
M.P.H.
 
138
142
146 naTIAT, DIST-ANCE-NUT.MIX
FROM 20 MPH~ WIN
3514
322
278.
 
AT MOMK To MAX. WIND-
-
-
TABLE C.8 SUMART-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMU1. hfJRRIC&NE (PMH),
STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL LATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
A
'a I,'
 
====t. h OCEAN BED PROFILE ====
TRAVERSE  
WATER  
DISTANCE  
DEPTH  
FROM  
BELOW  
SHORE  
MLW  
NAUT.MI.
 
IFEET)  
0  
0  
_
0.2.
 
1.0  
_
0.5  
2.0
_
1.0  
3.0
_
1.5  
4.o0
_
2.0
5.0.
 
.
3.0  
6.5.
 
_
5.0  
9.0.
 
_
10
22. 0.
 
_
15
31.o0
-
20
41.0  
_
30
62.0  
_
40
78.0
_
50
81.0o
-
60
84.0 .
70
101.0..
-
80
117.0.
 
_
90
144.0._
_ 100
180.0  
_ 110
210.0_
120
280.0  
.
130
543.o L.
 
132
600.0.
 
140
846 TITUDE
* 29&deg; 03'
DEREE AT TRAVEMSE,
ID-POINT FROM SHORE  
&sect;2L60-=0T
=
PMH OCUTATIONAL COEFFICIENT
AND WATE
UWEL (SURGL)
ESTIMATES
COEFF ICI
ENTS
B
uM FIIcrTION FACTOR 0.0030
WIND STRESS COHREMTION FACTOR 1,10
WA T Eh Lh9VEL
DAT.T
(AT OPEN
CAST SHORELINE)
PIMH SPEED OF TRANSIATION
COMPOONETS
ST
I
MT
I
T
F
E E T
WIND SETUP
24.67 RESSURN SETUJP23 INITIAL WATER LE.
 
1.20
ASRNOMICAL
4.10
TIDE LEVEL
TOTAL-SURGE
322 STILL VATIr LIU".
32.28 LW
-
-
 
TABLE C.9 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PRUbABLE MAX IMt:? HURRICANE (PNJO, STORM SUC
COMPULATIONAL rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
LOCATION
NAPLES
FLORIDA
LkT. 26001.41 IONG. 81'46.2'; TRAVERSE-AZINUTH
248 DIUREEa LENGTH 14e NAUTI-CL MILES
1P
Note:
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
-!/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
PMH ONPUTATIONAL COXFICIeNT
AND WATER LEVEL (SUiRGE) ESTIMATES
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE IN=X CHARACeTUISTICS
ZONE
A AT LOCATION
260
01' DEGRE NORTH
SPEED OF
NSLATION
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
. SLOW
MODERATF
HIGH
~(ST)
"T
(0  
Sa~RYlAL PRESSURE INDEX
P0 INCHES
26.24'
26.24
26.24 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE
% INCHES
31.30
31.30
31.30
ADniS TO MAXIMUM WIND
LRGE RAIUS wNAU.
 
MI.
 
15
15
 
===1. i LIANSLATION SPEED ===
rv (FOAD SPEED) KOTS
4 -
'17
4AXIMUM WIND SPEED
Vx M.P.H*
19)
3ejL
158 ENITIAL DISTAN.-NWUT.MIND
FROKM 20 MPH WIND
2952
270
256 kT SHORE TO MAX.
 
WIND
-
-C
COJFFI CIENTS
BOIO
FRICTION FACTR 0-0030  
WIND STRESS CORETIN FACTOR 1,10
.WATEh LE~VEL
DATA  
(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)  
PHH SPLWD OF TRANSLATION
COMPONETS
SIT I
mT
HT
F
S E
T
WIND SETUP
13.49
15.87
18.47 PRESSURE SETUP
3.29
2.87
2.90
7NITIAL WATER LEV.
 
l.0)0
1.00
1.00
ASTRON0MICAL
3.60
3.60
3.50
TIDE LEVEL
&#xfd;VAL-SURGX
TILL WATia L"V.
 
21.3:8
23.35
25.87 MEE .LW
,
E,,I
(
 
K
TABLE C.10
SJMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUP. hURRICANE (PMH) , STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
LOCATION
MIAMI
LAT. 25%?.2'
LONG. 80'07.8'; TRAVErSE-AZIMUTH
100
DEREEs LENGTH
3-.9 NAUTICAL MILES
FLORIrA
Note:  
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
-1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading  
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
.P
Ius PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE I
.DEX gCKRACTISTICS
ZONE
1 AT IOCATION
250 47.2 DEGREE NORTH
PARAM
~
~
SPEE OFIG~TIN IO
1*
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
S
IlW HODERATF
HIGH
... (ST)
(MT)
CHT)
CENTAL PRESSURE INDEX
P INCS
26.09
26.09
26.0
PERIPHEAL PRESSURE
Pn INCHES
31.30
31.30
31.0,
RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND
LARGE RADIUS NAUT.MI.
 
1
14
14 TNSLATION SPEED
F (FORWARD SPEED)
OTS
1 4
13
17 WMUM WIND SPEED
v M.P.H.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.PMH SPEED OF TANSIATIOI
152
156
160
INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.YJ
ROM 20 MPH MWIND
274
258
243 AT SHORE TO MAX, WND
-
PMH CCMPUTATIONAL COEFTICIENT
AND WATER LEE (SURGE) ESTIMATES
CON?
I CI ENTS
WFIVM1X
FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10
WATER
LEVEL
DATA
(AT OPEN OCAST SMFRNLINN)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSIATION
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST MT I HT F E E T WIND SETUP 18.61 PRESSURE SETUP 3.29 INITIAL WATER LEV. 2.00 kSTRONONICAL
ST 1I '
1.90 rIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
HT  
STILL WATER LEV. 25.aO FEET MLW I-..-.  
S.. [
TABLE C.6 SUMMARY-PERTINENT  
F  
PROBABLE MAXIMUV. HURRICANE (PMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL  
E  
DATA AND 'RESULTANT  
E  
WATER LEVEL LOCATION BILOXI LAT. 30023.6' LONG. 88"53.6':  
T  
TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
WIND SETUP  
160 DEGREE, LENGTH 77 NAUTICAL MILES MISSISSIPPI
2.06
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
2.37.
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
 
ZONE B AT LOCATION 300 24' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF THRANS TION PARAMETER
2.51 PRESSURE SETUP  
3.97
3.82
3.90
INITIAL WATR LEV.
 
0.90
0.90
0.90
ASTRONOM.ICAL
3.6o
3.60
3.60
ITDE LEEL
ff UAL-SURGE
STILL WATER IJS.
 
10.53
10.68
10.91
=V
-
-
-
 
TABLE C.11 SUM
*Y-P~iRTINr PROBABLE M&XIMVP. WIRICANS (PMH),
STORM SUNG*r, COMPUI*ATIOMAL rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL.
 
LOC&TIONJACKSONVILLELAT.
 
300
21' LONG. 81"
FLORIDA
PRORARL/ MAXIMUM HURRICANE IND12 CHARACTIhISTICS
ZONE
2 AT LOCATION
300
21' nwRHU NOMTH
AN EG N OF
Q
ITR
ATION
P
ETER
ESIGNATIONS
LOW
HODEATF
HIGH
C01TH&L *PRESSUR
INDEX
P0 INCHES
26.67
26.67
26.6?
PENIPHHEAL PRESSURE
-P
INCHES
31.21
31.21
31.21 ADIUS 1* MAXIMUM WIND
LAE RAMDUS NAUT. MI.
 
38
38
38 TIOU SPEED
v(FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS
1 4
11
22 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED
vX
M.P.H.
 
138
142
149 INITIAL DIMtNCE-NAJT*.HIJI
PROM 20 MPH WIND
407
372
334 kT SHORE TO MAX. WIND
Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
1Y/Initial distance is distance along traveree froe shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
24*..
rmvEasE-AzimuTH
9o OCEAN BED PhOFILE
TRAVERSE
WATER
DISTANCE
DIETH
FROM
BELOW
SHORE
MIM.
 
(NAUT.MI. )
FEET
0
0
0.2  
20
0.5
25
1.0
32
1.5
37
2.0
43
3.0
55
5.0
59
10.0
66
"12.0
66
14.0
72
15.0
73
20.0
8o
30.0
100
40.0
117
50.0
131
-
o.o noi r" 60.0
270
62.5
6oo
70.0
9W8 LATITUDE % 300 21'
DE*REE AT TRAVERSE
IMID-POINT FROM SHORE
P600-FOOT Dwri Domes LENGTH 62.5 xL'UiIC&L MILEm PMH (IHUTATIONAL COXYTICIENT
-AN
WATER LEVEL (stihz) ESLTIMTE
COEFFICIENT_4 LOTIVI1 FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND SRES CORRECTION FAC!TOR 1.10
WATEh LSVNL
DATA
(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COoMP0MERS
sT
MT
HT
__
_E
E
T
WIND SETUP
16.46 PRESSURE SEUP
3.23 INITIAL
kAT/R LEV.
 
1.30
NORICAL
6.90  
rIDE LEVEL  
-
,
-,
tAL-SURGE  
ILL WAT12 LLY.
 
27.90
EET MLW
0'i r
-_
-
j
 
K
Q
LOCATION JEKYLL
IAT. 310
05' LONG.
 
81"24.5': TRAVESE-AZImuTH 108 DIXRE',
LENGTH 72.6 NA*TICAL MILES
ISLAND, GEORGIA
PROBBLE MAXIMUM HURICANE INDEX CHARACT10ISTICS
ZONE
2 AT LOCATION
310
56 *DREZ
NORTH
Note:
Maxim=m wind speed is assumed to be on
"the traverse that is to right of storm track a
"distance equal to the radius-to maximum wind.
 
-!/initial dist ance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline., Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
OCEAN BED PROFILE
TRAVERSE
WATER
DISTANCE
DEPTH
FROM
BELOW
SHORE
MLW
(NAuT.mi.
 
(*
c
0
0
0.2
3.0
0.5
4.o0
1.0
6.o
1.5
6.5
2,0
7.0
3.0
12.0
4.0
20.0
5.0
2365_
6.0
29.5_
7.0
35.5.
 
8.0
35.0.
 
10.0
39.5
15.0
49.0.
 
20.0
57.0.
 
25.0
65.0
_
30.0
73.0
4.0.0
101.0
50.0
115.0o
60.0
131.0o
"700.
 
291.0
72.6
600.0
80.0
1,030.0
LATITUD'
300 53'
DRGREE AT TRAVERSE
MID-POINT FROM SHORE
S600-FOOT DEPrT
TABLE C.12 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMvI. h'URRICAE (PMH).
STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL LATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
A"
'0
SPEE
OF TANS ATIONn PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
[LOW
HODERATF
HIGH
_ _
_
_)
(n (HT)
C RAL PRESSURE N X
P0 INCHES
26.72
26.72
26.72 PERIPH1RKL PRESSURE
Pn INCHES
31.19
31.19
31.19 RDUSe TO MAXIMUM WIND
IARGE RADIUS NAM. MI.
 
10
40
40
TRIATrON SPEED
IMUR WIND SPED
yxM.P.H.
 
135
1541
147 INITIAL DISTAxacT-mW.mI
S20 MPH WIND
400
380
336 TSH
TO
-AX,
pMH O
*HPUTATIONAL COODTICIE3T
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)
ESTIMATES
CO0 E FF I C I E NTS3 TIMTON
FHICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10
WAT
B
.LEVEL
DATA  
(AT OPEN OCAS
SORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COMPONErTS
ST
HT
WT
S~F
E. E _T
WIND SETUP
20.63 PREESUR,
SETUP
3.34 INITIAL WATES LEW.
 
1.20
ASTRONOMICAL
8.70
IDE LEVEL
AL-SURGE
STILL VTSuv33.87 TILL WATER Lh`V.
 
EEIT MLW
 
TABLE C.13 su5mHAY-PjmTINENT PROBaBLE MAXmIMp. hUICIANE (PmIl),
STORM SURGE (OmPUTATIOMAL
rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
LOCATION FOLLY ISIANIL&T. 32e 39' LONG. 79"56.6': TRAVIMSE-AZIMUTH 150
SOUTH CAROLINA
-Note:  
Maxi'm- wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
!/Initial distance Is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
PROEABLE MAXIMUM HIURRICANE INDEX CHABAC'M"ISTICS
ZONE  
2 AT LOCATION  
320
39' DOtEES NORTH  
J
SPEED OF TASLTION
PARANMET
DESIGNATIONS  
DESIGNATIONS  
SLOW MODERATF HIGHl ST)'n (n) (HT)CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.9 26.9 26.9 0 PER IPHERAL PRESSURE P INCHES 31.23 31.23 31.23 n__RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 30 30 30 TRANSLATION
SLOW  
SPEED Fv (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 4 11 28 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 139 143 153 x INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.i/
MODERATF  
FROM 20 MPH WIND 525 498 396&T SHORE TO MAX, WIND OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NALT.MI.) (FEET)o 0 0.2 3.0 -_ 0.5 2.0_ 1.0 6.5_ 1.5 9.0" 2.0 9.0 -_ 3.0 9.5 -_ 5.0 12.0_ 9.0 9.5_ 9.5 11.0 10.0 14.0-10.5 18.5_ 11.0 17.5 -_ 11.5 23.0 j 12.0 29.0_ 13 34.5__ 15 41.5 20. 45.0-25 47.0_ 30 50.0 40 65.0 L 50 99.0 60 164 -S70 203 L '78 600o LATITUDE 290 5'*DEfGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT  
HIGH
FROM SHORE rO 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH OCCPUTATIONAL
S(ST)  
COEFFICIENT
NO'  
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I 9 N T S BOT'1OYM FHICTION FACTOR 0.0030 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
NO?
FACTOR 1.10 WATER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
MAL PRESSURE INDEX  
PMH SPOED OF TRANSLATION
P 0INCHES
26.81
26.81
26.81 PERIPHE*AL PRESSURE  
'n INCHES  
31.13
31.13
31.13 RADIU8 TO MAXIMUM WIND  
R09 RADIUJS NAUT.
 
MI.
 
40
40
40
&RANSIATION SPEED  
?v (FAD SPEED) KNOTS  
1 4  
13
4AXDOJM WIND SPEED  
Vx M.P.H.
 
134
139  
148
[NITIAL DISTANIE-NAUT.MI.1
'PROM
20 MPH WIND  
400
364
311 kT SHORE TO MAX.
 
WIND  
II
DEGREE$ LENGTH 57.6 NAUTICAL MILES
PMH OCHPUTATIONAL CO
ZICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGcE)
ESTIMATES
OCEAN BED P"OFIL
TRAVERSE  
WATER  
DISTANCE  
DEPTH  
FROM  
BELDW
SHORE  
HIM
(NAUT.HI.)  
(FEET)  
0
0
0 0.2  
10.5
_  
0.5  
12.0.
 
_
1.0  
14.0
_
1.5  
16.5
_
2.0  
18.0.
 
_  
3.0  
29.5  
,
5.0  
39.0
-
10.0  
460.
 
_
15.0  
56.o
-
20.0  
65.o L30.0
85.0.
 
_  
40.0
138.o0
_
50.0  
227.0o
-
57.6
6o0.0  
_
60.0  
1,800.0  
LATIT UME
320 25'  
DEGREE AT TRAVERSE  
MID-POINT FROM SHORE  
ro600-= DE
BOT1I0M FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS COM=ION FACTOR 1.10  
WATEEB
LE~VEL
DATA  
(AT OPEN OGAST SHOELINE)  
PMHl SPEED OF TRANISLATION
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST I MT IHT F E E T WIND SETUP 27.77 RESSURE SETUP 2.98 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.50 TNOMICAL 2.50 rAL-SURGE STILL WATER LU. 34.76 BET MLW Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
ST I  
M
__....____
F.E j T  
WIND SETUP  
17.15 PRESSURE SETUlP
3-*23 INITIAL WATER LEV.
 
1.00
ST1'ONOOICAL
6.80
rFiD
LEVEL
TOT1AL-SURGE  
STILL WATER LW.
 
28.18 Pwr MLW
_C
(
0,
 
K.
 
TABLE C.14 SUMMARy-PETINENT pROBABLE MAXIMUM. hVRRICAMM (PMH),
MWTOM SJRGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
LOCATION RALEIGH BAY,IAT.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.
340
54' LONG. 76 15.3': TRAVIMSE-AZIMIUTH
135 WOWPH OAROLINA
Note:
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.


TABLE C.7 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
!/lnitial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind whe
PROBABLE MAXIMUV: h1JRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
 
DATA AND RESULTANT
====n. leading ====
WATER LEVEL LOCATION SANTA ROSA LAT. 30023.7' LONG. 86 37.7': TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
183 ISLAND, ALABAMA DEGXREEs LENGTH 44.7 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
 
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
ZONE B AT LOCATION 300 24' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
 
PARAMETER  
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTMISTICS
DESIGNATIONS
IZONE
SLOW ,ODERATF HIGH_ (ST) (MT) (HT)CTL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.88 26.88 26.88 0 PERIPHERAL
3 AT LOCATION  
PRESSURE P INCHES 31.20 31.20 31.20 n RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 29 29 29 TRANSLATION
34&deg;0
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 4 ii 28 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED" V M.P.H. 140 144 153 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.I.i FROM 20 MPH WIND 528 487 394 IT SHORE TO MAX. WIND I I vi OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DERPH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0 0.2 22 0.5 52 1.0 66 1.5 66"2.0 66 3.0 73 5.0 76 10 88 15 120 20 182 30 377 40 510 45 600 50 756 LATITUDE ; 30&deg;1.3'DEGREE AT TRAVERSE AID-POINT  
54' DEREE VNOTH
FROM SHORE iv 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH CNhPUTATIONAL
DEREE, LENGTH 35.2 NAUTICAL MILES
COEFFICIENT
K
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BO'i''0JM
'0
FilICTION
'C
FACTOR 0.0030 WIND STRESS CORRECTiON
NORTH CAROLINA
FACTOR 1.10 WATEh LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
0E
Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximumwind.-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
OFTAN-5 ION
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
!SLW
OMODERATF
HIGH
IfNtR PRESSURE INDEX  
P, INCHES  
26.89
26.89
26.89 LERIPHEAL PRESSURE
Pn INCHES  
31.00
31.00
31.00
RtADI1US TO MAXIMUM WIND  
LARGE RADIUS NlUT. MI.
 
35
35
35 IRANS*ATION SPEED  
Fv (FOWVARD
SPEED) KNOTS  
5
17
38 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED  
Vx M.P.H.
 
130
137
119 INfiTAL DISTANCE-NAUT.I.i  
-"
FROM 2O MP
IND
385
346
280
#T SHORE TO  
MAX WIND
i._.1..1 P111 aCHPUTATIONAL OOE"ICrIIr AnD WATER MMYE (SURGE) ESTIMATES
COEjFFICXXNT-S
BT
FR)ICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10
WATER
LSVEL
DATA
(AT OPEN OCAST S)ORELINE)
OCEAN BED PROFILE  
TRAVERSE  
WATER  
DISTANCE  
DEPTH
FROM  
BELOW  
SHORE  
MWI
I.
 
0  
0  
-
0.2  
16
0.5  
28
1.0  
1.0
1.5  
4.6
2.0  
514
3.0  
614
5.0  
72
10.0
92 S15.0
U2
20.0
124
30-0
264
35.2
600
40.0
900
LATITUDE % 3,4o4,fl DEGREE AT TRAVIMSE
MID-POINT FO1 SHORE
 
TABLE C.15 SUHIAMY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUt! hURRICANE (FMH),
STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LLVEL
LOCATION OCEAN CITY, LkT. 38e
20' LONG. 75 04.9'; TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH 110
I=REEM LENGTH 59 NAUTICAL MILES
MARYLAND
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTUISTICS
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION
380
20' DWEE NORITH
"SPEE OF TRANSLATION
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
SLOW
,ODERATF
HIGH
CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX
P0 INCHES
27.05
27.05
27.05 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE
P
INCHES
30.?7
30.77
30.77 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND  
LRGE 1ADIUS
IAUT.
 
MI.
 
38
38
38
1IWSIATION SPEED
? (y o AMUD
SPEE)  
[NOTS
1 10
26
48 IXIElUM WIND SPEED
vS
m.P.H.
 
124
1133
1146 INITIAL DISTAKCE--NUT.MI.*Y
RM 20 MPH WIND
350
293
251 kT SHORE TO MAX.
 
WIND
I_
I
Note:  
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
1 Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading  
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi matelv double the Initial distance.
COMPO1ENTS
ST I MT I I-l'F E E T WIND SETUP 9.12 PRESSURE SETUP 3.25 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.50 ASTRONOMICAL
1.80 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LEV. 15.67 FEET MLW
TABLE C.8 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
PROBABLE MAXIMU. hUhRRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
DATA AND RESULTANT
WATER LEVEL LOCATIONPITTS
CREEK LAT. 30&deg;01.1' LONG. 83'FLORIDA PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
INDEX CHARACTEIISTICS
ZONE A AT LOCATION 300 01' DEGREE NORTH 53' : TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
205 t SPEED OF TRANSLATION
PARAMETER
DESIGNATIONS
SLOW IODERATF HIGH (ST) (MT) .HT ENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.79 26.79 26.79 ERIPHERAL
PRESSURE P INCHES 30.22 30.22 30.22&#xfd;EDUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 26 26 26 FRANSIATION
SPEED&#xfd;_ (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 1 4 11 21 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 138 142 146 INITIAL DISTANCE-NRUT.MI.li FROM 20 MPH WIND 354 322 278 TT SHORE _O MAX. WIND OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)DEGREEi LENGTH 110 NAUTICAL MILES PMH CDNPUTATIONAL
COEFFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BOT'ION FlICTION FACTOR 0.0030 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
FACTOR 1.10 WA T ER LEVEL DATA (AT OPE12 CCAST SHOFELINE)
/1 0 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 5.0 10 15 20 30 40 50 6o 70 80 9o 100 110 120 130 132 140 0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.5 9.0 22.0 31.0 41.0 62.0 78.0 81.0 84.0 101.0 117.0 144.0 180.0 210.0 280.0 543.0 6oo.0 846 Note: Maximum wind speed is.assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to.the radius to maximum wind.-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.PMH SPEED OF TPANSLATION
TRAVERSE
WATER
DISTANCE
DEPTH
FROM
BELOW
SHORX
MLW
NA& T.MI
(FEET
0.2
17
0.5
32
. 
1.0
29
-
1.5
35
2. 0
4c
-
3.0
38 2
4.0
56
"
-
5.0
61 2
6
71 2
?
56
8
60
9
58
-
10
59
-
11,
65
-
12
64
-
13
70
14
62
214!
II 1i 7 LATITUDE
0 3)8014.~
DEGREE AT TRAVLVS&
MID-POINT FROM SHORE
IR600-FOO
az
--"-K
Ip PMH (THPUTATIONAL CODUICIIVT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES
C 0 EFF i C
E H NTS
IOT'iM ,,FRICTION
FACTOR 0.0025 WIND SrTRESS CORMION FACTOR 1.10
W AT E
L SVBL
D ATA
(AT OPEN MAST SHORELINE)
PKH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST I MT H Ti'F E E T WIND SETUP 24.67 PRESSURE SETUP 2.31 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.20 ASTRONOMICAL
S
4.20 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
I  
STILL WATER LEV. 32.38 FEET M LW____LATITUDE $ 290 03'DEGREE AT TRAVESE MID-POINT
NT
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH
H T
TABLE C.9 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
_________
PROBABLE MAXIMUE hUJRRCANE (PMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
F  
DATA AND RESULTANT
9E
WATER LEVEL LOCATION NAPLES FLORIDA LAT. 26001.4' LONG. 81"46.2':  
T1 WIND SETUP  
TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH  
14.30
2413 DELREE, LENGTH 145 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE  
RESSURE SETUP-
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
2.83 INITIAL WATER LEV.
ZONE A AT LOCATION 260 01' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
 
PARAMETER  
1.14 ATNOMICAL
DESIGNATIONS
5.00
SLOW IMODERATF
TIDE LEVEL.
HIGH_(ST) (ni) (HT)CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.24 26.24 26.24 PER IPHERAL PRESSURE P INCHES 31.30 31.30 31.30 n RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 15 1 I TRANSLATION
 
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 4 17 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 150 1LL 158 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.
TU-&-SURG,
SILL WATER LEV.
 
23.27 Vw~ MLK
-
-
(
 
Q.
 
LOCATION ATLANTIC
LAT. 39&deg;
21'  
LONG. 74"  
CITY, NEW JERSEY
Note:
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
25': TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH  
146 DE*.EEm LENGTH  
70
NAUTICAL MILES
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTER2ISTICS
ZONE  
4 AT LOCATION  
39P
21' DEGREE NORTH
TABLE C.16 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMU,. HURRICANE (PMH),
STORM SUHGE COMPUTATIONAL DkTA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
K
LA
'0
0
OCEAN BED PROFILE
TRAVERSE
WATER
DISTANCE
DEPTH
FROM
BEUOW
SHORE
wLx
-
0
0
_
0.2
10.0
D
0.5
15.0.
 
_
1.0
22.0
-
2.0
38.0
-
5.0
50.o0
1 10.0
72.0.
 
-
20.0
90.10
-
30.0
120.0.
 
_
4o.o
138.0
_
50.0
162.0o
_
60.0
210.0
_
65.0
258.0.
 
_
70.0
600.0.
 
-.
0
IATITDE P3
5 DEGREE AT TVERS
MID-POINT FROM SHORE
600-OO
VE
SPEED OF, T_ SLATION
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
SIOW
HODERATF
HIGH
,(sT)  
(n)  
H)  
ENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX  
P0 INCHS
27.12 R'IPImUA
PRESSURE  
P* INCHES  
30.70
RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND  
LARCE RADIUS NAUT. MI.
 
40
r1RASIATION SPEED  
r! (F*ORWARD
spra)KNOTS  
i
49 D(IUM WIND SPEED  
V.
 
K.P.H.
 
142 INIrIAL DISTAMCE-11A
.MI.A
ROM 20 MPH WIND
A~T MSHORE
TO
. yMAX*WN
PMH OCMPUTATIONAL COOEFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)
ESTIMATES
"C
0 E F F I C I E N T 5 BOTTOM FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10
WATER
Lh VEL
DATA
(AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
ODMPONENTS
ST
i MT
Hr F
3 E
T.T
WIND SETUP
15.32 PRESSURE SETUP
2.5?
INITIAL WATER LEV*
1.10
1AUMNOMICAL
5.70
r I IDL L-V
"AL-SURGE
2 STILL WATER L.
 
ET MLW.
 
TABLE C.17 SUI4AM
Y-PERTINENT PROBABLE HAXIMUJ. hWHRICANE (PMH),
STORM M:RGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL
LOCATION LONG ISLAND.LAT. 410 00' LONG. 7i201.8%' TRAVEiSE-AZIMUTH 166 CONNECTICUT
DECREEa LENGTH 68.4 NAUTICAL MILES
r'
Note:
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.


MI.i/FROM 20 MPH WIND 292 270 256 AT SHORE TO MAX. WIND Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-I OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0-0,.5 +/-8.0-1.0-!.55 3.0 27.0 5.0 150 41.0 151 48.20 4) 90.0 50 108-60 144 70 165 80 186 90 210 100 228 110 249 120 252 130 432 140 452-145 600 150 1,200 LATITUDE 0 250 35'DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT  
OCEAN BED PROFILE  
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH CCNPUTATIONAL
TRAVERSE  
COEFFICIENT
WATER  
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BO'ITUr FHICTION FACTOR 0.r1030 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
DISTANCE  
FACTOR 1.10 WATEh LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
DEPTH  
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
FROM  
BELOW  
SHORE  
HMU
(HAUT. mi.)  
JFEgrE
0
0
_ 0.2
22
0.5  
38
_
1.0  
43
_
1.5
53
2.0  
67
-
3.0
82
-
5.0  
102
_
10.0  
132
_
15.0  
145
_
20.0  
170
30.0
212
40.0  
240
50.0
260
-
60.0
302
68.4
6O0
70.0  
870
1ATITUDE
.
400 27'  
DEGREE AT TRAVERSE  
ID-POINT FHOM SHORE
60o-Foz DFTr'
PMH (XMPUTATIONAL COEWFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)  
ESTIMATES  
COEFFIC-1ENTS
BO1`nf FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND sbfRESS CORREMION FACTOR 1.10  
WATER
LEV EL
DATA  
(AT OPEN MAS SWORELINS)  
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION  
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST I MT I HT F E E T WIND SETUP 13.49 15.87 18.47 PRESSURE SETUP 3.29 2.87 2.90 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.00 1.00 1.00 ASTRONOMICAL
ST I  
3.60 3.60 3.60 TIDE LEVEL AOTKL-SURGE
MT  
STILL WATER LEV. 21.38 23.35 25.97 FEE MLW .. I II _I-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
u S
_ _E
E  
T  
WIND SETUP  
8.73 PRESSURE SETUP  
2.46 INITIAL WATIR LEV.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-matelv double the initial distance.
0.97
&STONONICAL
3.10
TIDE LEVEL
WTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LWV.


TABLE C.10 SU MMARY-PERTINENT
15.26 E1EET MLW
PROBABLE MAXIMU. hiUaRICANE (PMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
(
DATA AND RESULTANT
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HUHRICkNE INDEX CHARAC'IMtISTICS
WATER LEVEL LOCATION MIAMI FLORIDA LAT. 25047.2' LONG. 80"07.8' ; TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
ZONE
100 DBYGREEj LEN.GTH 3.9 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MA.XIMUM HURRICANE
4 AT LOCATION
INDEX CHARACTEISTICS
410
ZONE 1 AT LOCATION 250 47.2' DEXGREE NORTH OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0 0.2 12 0.5 16 1.5 25 2.0 47_ 3.0 266 3.9 600 5.0 822 LATITUDE 0 25I46-.DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT  
00' DXMEE NORTH
FROM SHORE To 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH OCMPUTATIONAL
SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COEFFICIENT
PARAMTER DESIGNATIONS
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BOi7IFO FiRICTION
SLOW
FACIOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION  
HODEATF
FACTOR 1.10 WATER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORnELINE)
HIGH
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
M2?I1AL PRESSURE INDEX
P0 INCHES
27.26
27.26
27.26 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE
P
INCHES
30.56
30.56
30.56 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND
LARERADIS NAUT. MI.
 
.8
48
48 mRANSLATION SPEED
?,v (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS
115
34
51
1AXlMUM WIND SPEED
vx M.P.H.
 
115
126
136 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAWTeMIJ/
FROM 20 MPH WIND
346
293
259 kT SHORE TO MAX.
 
WIND
r
 
Q
SUMMARY-PERTINENT PRtJBA.LE MAXIMUI,. hhIRICANE
LOCATION WATCH HILL
LAT.
 
43?18.9w LONG.
 
71 POINT, RHODE ISLAND
PROBABLE MAX IMUM HURRlCANE INDEX CHARACTISTICS
ZONE  
4 AT LOCATION  
*41
19'  
REE NORTH
Note:
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the--raverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.
 
1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm
-diameter between 20 mph iaovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
K
TABLE C.18 (nMH),
STORM SUHGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT MATER LEVEL
50 : T1RAVERSE-AZIMUTH 166 DE*REE: LENGTH
84 NAUlICAL MILES
OCEAN BED PROFILE;
TRAVERSE  
WATER  
DISTANCE  
DEPTH  
FROM  
BELOW  
SHORE  
MWI
NAUT  
MI  
(FELT)  
0  
0  
0.2  
28
_
0.5  
40
1.0
77
_
1.5  
98
2.0  
119
_
3.0  
117
4.0
114
_
5.0  
128
6.0  
114
-
7.0
113
8.0
117
9.0
118
10.0
93
11.0
70
12.0
65 S
3.0
51 L4.o
56
15.0
77?
20.0
131
-0
1
0
2~
gO
0
245 LATITUiE
0 400 38'
DEIREE AT TRAVERSE  
MID-POINT FROM SHORE  
IT 600-2
=
DEFA
K
'r
6,
""SPEED
F *A
STION
PARAMETER I(SIPNATIOE.OS
5
35
1IGH
, ,, (sT_
)
" N '0
( r)
10 INCHES
27.29
27.29
27.29 P a INCHES
30.54
30.54
30.54 UaDIS TO
MAXIMUM WIND
IARG RADIUS NAUT. MI.
 
49
49
4 XIMUM MIND SPEED
VA
M.P.H.
 
113
126
134 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI .1 FROM 20 MPH WIND
348
284.
 
255 AT S HO VE IQ MA*X
, WI
-
PMH OC?1PUTATIONAL COOVFICIMN
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES  
C O
F F I  
E ENT S  
IX*OT*IV
YICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10  
WATER  
LEVE.L
DATA  
(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)
PIH SPEED OF TRANSIATION
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST T MT i HI'F E E T WIND SETUP 2.06 2.37 2.51 PRESSURE SETUP 3.97 3.82 3.90 INITIAL WATER 0.90 0.90 0.90 ASTRONOMICAL
STI
3.60 3.60 3.60 FIDE
MT  
____AOTAL-SURGE
-IH
STILL WATER LER .10.53 10.68 10.91 FEET MLW I Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
F  
E  
E"
T _.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.
WIND SETUP
10.01 PRESSURE SETUP
2.42 INITIAL WATER LEV.


TABLE C.11 PROBAWLE NAXIMUI h.HURRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
0.96
FATA AND RESULTANT
.STRON0MIC.L
WATER LEVEL LOCATION JACKSONVILLELAT.
4.00
POTAhL-SURGE  
STILL WATER LLk.


300 21' LONG. 81 FLORIDA PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE  
17.39 T*-r-LW
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
 
ZONE 2 AT LOCATION 300 21' DEGREE NORTH 24.3: TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
TABLE C.19 SUPARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUk HURRICANE (PFH),
90 DECREEt LENGTH 62.5 NAUTICAL MILES SPEED OF TRANSLATION
STORM SUGIO
PARAMETER  
COMPUIATIONAL LATA AND RESULTANT WATER)LEVEL
DESIGNATIONS
LOCATION HAMPTON
SLOW MODERATF HIGH_(ST) (T HT CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.67 26.67 26.67 PERIPHERAL  
LT. 420
PRESSURE Pn INCHES 31.21 31.21 31.21 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 38 38 38 TRANSIATION
57' 1ONG. 70"47.l' 'i TRAVQtSE-AZIML
SPEED I F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 1, 4 11 22 MIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 138 142 149 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.]_
115 cH
FROM 20 MPH WIND 407 372 334 NT SHORE TO MAX. WIND I OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0 0.2 20 0.5 25 1.0 32 1.5 37 2.0 43 3.0 55 5.0 59 10.0 66 12.0 66 14.0 72 15.0 73 20.0 80 30.0 100 40.0 117 50.0 131-6o.o 270-62.5 6oo 70.0 948 LATITUDE 30' 21 DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT  
NEW H&HPSHIRE
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH CCXNPUTATIONAL
Note:
COEFFICIENT
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to. the radius to maximum wind.
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C.1 E N T S BO)'Ir0N FkICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
 
FACTOR 1.10 WATER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
F-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
 
Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.
 
C
PROR&BI
MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARAC.!tISTICS
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION  
420
57' DEGRE NORTh S'
... lSPEE OF THMANS AION
PARAMETER IESIGNATIONS
SIOW
HODESATF
HIGH
.
:
*-(sT)  
(,.,r)
,
CElAL PRESSURE INDEX  
.-
P 0INCHES
27.44
27.44
27.44 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE
Pn INCHES  
30.42
30.42
30.42 RADIUS T0 NAXIMUM WIND  
LARG
RADIUJS FAUT. KI.
 
57
57
57 TANSLATIGN SPEED  
iy (FOWARD SPEED) KNOTS  
1 1?
37
52 MAXINUM WIND SPEED,
Pvx
.. ,.  
107o
118 n
1 INITIAL DiAmcE.-RWT.mI.ND
F!ROM 20MPH WIND ,-
353
290
262
4T SHORE TO WA. WIND  
1........
DWRE{E
LENG'H
40
NAUTICAL MILS
C
r Uf, OCEAN BED PROFILE  
TRAVERSE  
WATER  
DISTANCE  
DEPTH  
FROM  
BIOW
SHORE  
MLN
(k,.TMi.){
(FFE*)  
-
0  
0  
-
0.2  
8
-
0.5  
40
-
1.0  
64
-
1.5  
82
,
2.0  
100
-
3.0  
105
-
5.0  
156
-
10.0  
258
-
15.0  
336
-
20.0  
266
-
25.0  
210
-
30.0  
322
-
35.0  
433
40,0  
6OO
IATITUDI
0 42 0 48'  
DEIREE AT TRAVERSE  
MID-POINT FHOM SHORE
TM 60o-=OOT DEPTm
*M OCIPUTTIONAL COiFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (StkGE) ESrIMATES
COEFF
I C I ENTS
kOnO' FRICTION FA&#xa5; 02 0.0025 WIND STRESS CGURLCTION FACTOR 1.10  
WATER  
L-VEL
DATA  
(AT OPEN GCAST SHORELINE)  
PMH SPEED CF TRANSLATION  
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST I MT M.HT F E E T WIND SETUP 16.46 PRESSURE SETUP 3.23 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.30 ASTRONONICAL
ST  
6.20 TIDE LEVEL tOTAL-SURGE
I  
STILL WATER LEV. 27.20 FEET MLW Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.l/ Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
ITT
I
hi F  
E  
E"
T  
WIND SETUP  
4.25 PRESSURE S'IMP
2.23 INITIAL WAT1.
 
LEV.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.II
0.83 M NORICAL
TABLE C.12 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
10.50
PROBABLE MAXIMUk hURRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
VIDE LEVEL  
rATA AND RESULTANT
TAL-SURGE
WATER LEVEL LOCATION JEKYLL LAT. 310 ISLAND, GEORGIA 05' LONG. 81" 24.5': TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
*TILL WATER L67,.  
108 DEGREE, LENGTH 72.6 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
17.81 EETr MLW
INDEX CHARACTENISTICS
I
ZONE .2 AT LOCATION 310 05' DEGREE NORTH! SPEED OF TRANSLATION
PARAMETER
DESIGNATIONS
SLOW IIODERATF
HIGH (ST) (NT) (21L JENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.72 26.72 26.72 PER IPHERAL PRESSURE Pn INCHES 31.19 31.19 31.].9 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 40 40 40 rRANSLATION
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS I 4 11 23 VJ MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 135 141 147 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.i/
FROM 20 MPH WIND 400 380 336&T SHORE TO MAX. WIND 0n PMH CCD]PUTATIONAL
COEFFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BOIU'ON FilICTION
FACTOR G.C025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
FACTOR 1.10 WA T Ei LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COMPONENTS
ST I MT I H, F E E T'WIND SE'7UP 20.63 PRESSURE SETUP 3.34 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.20 ASTRONOMICAL
7.50 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LEV. 32.6.7 FEET MLW Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.
K
LOCATION GREAT
LAT.


TABLE C.13 SUMmARY-PERTINENT
W$O3304'
PROBAI.BLE
LONG.
NAXIML+k hURRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
LATA AND RESULTANT
WATER LEVEL LOCATION FOLLY ISIANDLAT.


320 39' LONG. 79 56.6'. TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
67'  
150 SOUTH CAROLINA PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
SPRUCE ISLAND. MAINE
INDEX CHARACTE1ISTICS
otej:
ZONE 2 AT LOCATION 320 39' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF THANSLATION
Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius-to maximum wind.
PARAMETER
DESIGNATIONS
SLOW HODERATF HIGH (ST) (MT) (HT)CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.81 26.81 26.81 0 PERIPHERAL
PRESSURE P INCHES 31.13 31.13 31.13 n RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 40 40 40 TRANSLATION
SPEED F, (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 4 13 29 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 1134 139 14 X INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI
.,/FROM 20 MPH WIND 400 364 311 fT SHORE TO MAX. WIND Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-- Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.OCEAN BED PROFILE I TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BFELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0 0.2 10.5_ 0.5 12.0 -1.0 14.0 __ 1.5 16.5 2.0 18.0 __ 3.0 29.5_ 5.0 39.0 10.0 46.0 S1;. 0 56.0 o_ 20.0 65.0_ 30.0 85.0_ 40.0 138.0 __ 50.0 227.0 __ 57.6 600.0_ 60.0 1,800.0 LATITUDE ; 320 25'DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
y/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum  
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH I DEGREEt LENGTH 57.6 NAUTICAL MILES PMH OCHPUTATIONAL
*
COEFICIENT
ind when leading i 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BO1FI)FM FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
FACTOR 1.10 WA TER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATIO]
COMPONENTS
ST I MT H'F E E T WIND SETUP 17.15 PRESSURE SETUP 3.23 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.00 ASTRONOMICAL
6.80 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LEV. 28.18 FEET MLW I I
TABLE C.14 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
PROBABLE MAXIMUE hUHRICA.NE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
LATA AND RESULTANT
WATER LEVEL LOCATION RALEIGH BAY,LAT. 34 54' LONG. 7615.3;: TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
135 NORTH CAROLINA DECXREi LENG'i'H 35.2 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
INDEX CHARACTrEISTICS
ZONE 3 AT LOCATION 340 54' DEGREE NORTH r 1 I SPEED OF TRANSLATION
PARAMETER
DESIGNATIONS
SLOW MODERATF HIGH ,(ST) (wT) (HT)"ENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 26.89 26.89 26.89 PERIPHERAL
PRESSURE P INCHES 31.00 31.00 31.00 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 35 35 35 tRANSlATION
SPEED v (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 5 17 38 FLAXfl4JM
WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 130 137 149 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.1/
FROM 20 MPH WIND 385 346 280 6T SHORE TO MAX. WIND tJn r'J OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.lI.) (FEET)0 0 0.2 16 0.5 28 1.0 40 1.5 46 2.0 54 3.0 64 5.0 72 10.0 92 15.0 112 20.0 124 30.0 264 35.2 6oo 40.0 900 LATITUDE # 34'41.A DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH I PMH OCXPUTATIONAL
COEFFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SbRGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BOT'XOM FhIlCTION
FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
FACTOR 1.10 WATEh LEV E'L DATA (AT OPEN CLAST
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COMPONENTS
ST HI I HT F E E T WIND SETUP 8.84 PRESSURE SETUP 3.09 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.00 ASTRONONICAL
5.20 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LEV. 18.13 FEET MLW I Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.
Storm diameter between 20 mph Isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.


TABLE C.15 SUMMARY-PEYTINENT
30': TRAvERS
PROBABLE MAXIMUI. hJURRICANE (FMH), STORM SUHGE COMPUTATIONAL
OCEAN BE
DATA AND RESULTANT
TRAVERSE
WATER LEVEL LOCATION OCEAN CITY, LAT. 380 20' LONG. 75'04.9' : TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
DISTANCE
110 MARYLAND DEREEt LENGTH 59 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
FROM
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
SHORE
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION 380 20' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
(NuT.MI.
PARAMETER
DESIGNATIONS
SLOW MODERATF HIGH__(ST) (NT) (.Tf CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 27.05 27.05 27.05 PERIPHERAL
PRESSURE P INCHES 30.77 30.77 30.77 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 38 38 38 TRANSLATION
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 1 10 26 48 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 124 133 146 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.


MI,.&#xfd;J FROM 20 MPH WIND 350 293 251 6T SHORE TO MAX. WIND I OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.j (FEET)0 0 0.2 17 0.5 32 1.0 29_ 1.5 35 2.0 45 30 38_ 0 56_ 5.0 61 6 71 7 56 8 6o 9 58 10 59 11 65 12 64 13 70 14 62-18 103-20 90-2 ~ 114-146 840 LATITUDE;
0  
38o14, DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
_
FROM SHORE To 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH CCINPUTATIONAL
0.2  
COEFFICIEN'
-
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BQ'I1ON FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS COiRRECTION
0.5  
FACTOR 1.10 WA TER LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
-
PMH SPEED CF TRANSLATION
1.0  
COMPONENTS
_
ST I MI HT F E E T WIND SETUP 14.30 PRESSURE SETUP 2.83 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.14 ASTRONOMICAL
1.5  
5.10 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
-
STILL WATER LEV. 23.37 IEET NLW Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
2.0  
_
3.0
-
4.0  
_
5.0  
1 0.0
_
15.0
20.0
-
30.0
10.0
50.0
-
60.0
70.0
-
120.0
130.0
1'Ii0
180.0
IATITUDE
DFRFZ AT
MID-POiNT
,E-AZIMUTH
148 ED PROFILE
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTrERISTICS
I ZO.E
4 AT LOCATION
440
31 DEGREE  
NOW'TH
INO 600-FOOT DEPT'
Dif-REEs LFNGTH 178.6 NAUTICAL MILES
K
TABLE C.20
SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUI. hUWRICANE (PMH).
STOIRM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER L*VEL'
K
WATER  
DEMT
BELOW
MLW
FEET
0  
50
96
"95
125
125
165
247
188
233
438
570
271
511 NIL
4
1,620
4 o17df TRAVERSE
FROM SHORE
SPEE OF TRANSLTION
PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS
SLOW
HODERATF
HIGH
.EMLPRESSURE
INDEX
-
P0 INCHES
27.61
27.61
27.61 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE
Pn INCHES
30.25
30.25
30.25
&#xfd;RDU TO MXMWIND
IARGE RADIUS NAUT.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.I.
MI.


TABLE C.16 SUMNARY-PERTINENT
*64
PRUbAPLE MAXIMUk hiJiRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
64
LATA AND RESULTANT
64 TRASIATION SPEED
WATER LEVEL LOCATION ATLANTIC LAT. 39' 21' LONG. 74 CITY, NEW JERSEY 25 : TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
V (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS
146 DEGREEt LENGTH 70 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
I 19
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
39  
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION 390 21' DEGREE NORTH S OF TRANSLATION
53
PARAMETER
"Vx M.P.H.
DESIGNATIONS
5 SLOW IHODERATF
HIGH_, (ST) (MT) (HT)CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 27.12 PERIPHERAL
PRESSURE P INCHES 30.70 n _____ 0.70__ ____RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 40 TRANSLATION
SPEED Fv (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS  MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 142 x X INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.


MI.Ii FROM420 MPH WIND AT SHORE TO MAX. WIND OCEAN BED PROFILU TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)K 0 0.2 10,_ 2.0-5.0_ 10.0 20.0-30.0_ 40.0-50.0 6o.o_ 65.0_ 70.0 0 10.0 15.0 _22.0 _38.0 _50.0 _72.0 _90.0 -120.0 _138.0 _162.0 210.0 -258.0 _600.0 PMH CCMPUTATIONAL
102
COEFFICIENT
114
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T SFhICTION FACTOR 0.002r5 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
122 TINITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MID
FACTOR 1.10 WATER Lh V EL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHOPELINE)
"
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
1P
%A
PMH 001PUTATIONAL COEFFICIE2IT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)  
ESTIMATES  
C 0 E F F . C I E N T S
BTJOh F'HzICT'ON FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORHEHTION FACTOR 1.10  
w.Tz*,
L,'v1L
DATA  
(AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)  
'PMH SPEED OF TRANSIATION
COMPONENTS  
COMPONENTS  
ST F I mlE MT I__ E E T WIND SETUP 15.32 PRESSURE SETUP 2.57 INITIAL WATER LEV. 1.10 ASTRONOMICAL
ST  
5.80 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
I  
STILL WATER LEV. 24.80 EET MLW Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
MT  
HT
F
E  
E  
T  
WIND SETUP  
9.73 PRESSURE SLTJP
1.82 INITIAL WATEW LEV.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.LATITUDE # 38' 53'DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
0.56 ASTRONOMICAL
FROM SHORE o 600-FOOT DEPTH
16.00
TABLE C.17 SULMPLAY-PERTINENT
TIDE LEVEL-  
PROBAFLE MAXIMUE. hUR(RICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPU'ATIONAL
-
LATA AND RESULTANT
tOTAL-SURGE
WATER LEVEL LOCATION LONG ISLAND,LAT.
28.1 STILL WAT*R LLV.


410 00' LONG. 72 01.8': TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
EETL"
166 DEBREEE LENGqH 68.4 NAUTICAL MILES CONNECTICUT
MLW
PROBABLE MAXIMUM HUHRICANE
 
INDEX CHARACTEISTICS
TABLE C.21 OCEAN BED PROFILES
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION 4.1 00' DEGREE NOBTH-SPEED OF TRANSIATION
PASS
PARAMETER
CRYSTAL
DESIGNATIONS
CHESAPEAKE
SLOW HODERATF HIGH_ (ST) (MT) (HT()CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 27.26 27.26 27.26 0 _PERIPHERAL
CI*RISTI"
PRESSURE P INCHES 30.56 30.56 30.56 R US TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 48 48 48 TRANSLATION
RIVER
SPEED (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 15 34 51 IMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 115 126 136 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.NI.i/
ST. LUCIE
FROM 20 MPH WIND 346 293 259 AT SHORE TO MAX. WIND I I LA LI'OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)0 0 0.2 22_ 0.5 38-1.0 43_ 1.5 53_ 2.0 67-3.0 82-5.0 102-10.0 132-15.0 145_ 20.0 170-30.0 212 40.0 240 50.0 260 60.0 302 68.4 6o0 7 70.0 870 LATITUDE 0 400 27 DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
BAY MOUTH
FROM SHORE To 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH ccNPUTATIONAL
HAMPTON BEACH*
COEFFICIENT
Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Miles from Depth, Miles from Depth.
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BO1J3'ON FriICTION
FACTOR 0.0029 WIND STRESS CORRECTiON
FACTOH 1.10 WAT Eh LE V E L DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COMPONENTS
ST T MI I HT F E E T WIND SETUP 8.73 PRESSURE SETUP 2.46 INITIAL WATER LEV. 0.97 ASTRONOMICAL
8.00 TIDE LEVEL OTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LEV. 20.16 VEE MLW _ I I Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance..4 I __ I " .1 .-..---
Miles from Depth, Miles from Depth, Miles from Depth, Shore ft.
TABLE C.18 SU1I4AY-PERTINENT
PROBABLE MAXIMUL. h1UJRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
DATA AND RESULTANT
WATER LEVEL LOCATION WATCH HILL LAT. 410i18.9'
LONG. 71 POINT, RHODE ISLAND 50 ; TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
166 0~'PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
INDEX CHARACTrISTICS
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION 410 19' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
PARAMETER
DESIGNATIONS
SLOW MODERATF HIGH_ (ST) (MT) (HT)CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 27.29 27.29 27.29 PERIPHERAL
PRESSURE Pn INCHES 30.54 30.54 30.54 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 49 49 49 TRANSLATION
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 15 35 51 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 113 126 134 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.i
/FROM 20 MPH WIND 348 284 255 AT SHORE TO MAX. WIND Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind./ Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FEET)o 0 0.2 28 0.5 40 1.0 77_ 1.5 98 2.0 119-3.0 117 4.0 114-5.0 128 6.0 114 7.0 113 8.0 117-9.0 118 10.0 93 11.0 70 12.0 65_ 13.0 51 14.0 56 15.0 77?20.0 131-0. g 00 222.0 240 --70 28g 90.0 1.488 LATITUDE 4 40&deg; 38 DE)REE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
I4LW
FROM SHORE TO 600-FOOT DEPTH DECREEs LENGTH 84 NAUTICAL MILES PMH CCNPUTATIONAL
Shore ft.
COEFFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BO'T&#xb6;ON FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
FACTOR 1.10 WATE h LEVEL DATA (AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF THANSLATION
COMP014ENTS
ST J MT i HT F E E T WIND SETUP 10.01 PRESSURE SETUP 2.42 INITIAL WATER LEV. 0.96 kSTRONOMICAL, 8.80 r IDE LEVEL rOTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LEV. 22.1.9 F'EET MLW I__________
TABLE C.19 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
PROBA-PLE
MAXIMUm. HURRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL
DATA AND RESULTANT
WATER LEVEL LOCATION HAMPTON LAT. 420 57' LONG. 70'BEACH, NEW HAMPSHIRE PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION 420 57' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
PARAMETER
DESIGNATIONS
SLOW 1-ODERATF
HIGH_(ST) (NT) (HT)METRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 27.44 27.44 27.44 PERIPHERAL
PRESSURE P INCHES 30.42 30.42 30.42 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 57 57 57[RANSIATION
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 17 37 52 WAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 107 118 127 INITIAL DISTAoCE-HAUT.MI.1/
FROM 20 MPH WIND 353 290 262 kT SHORE TO MAX. WIND 47.1'; TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
115 OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BELOW SHORE MLW INAUT.M1.) (FFM)-0 0 0.2 8-0.5 40-. 1.0 64-1.5 82'- 2.0 100-3.0 105-5.0 156-10.0 258-15.0 336-20.0 266-25.0 210-30.0 322-35.0 433-40.o 6o0 LATITUDE 420 48'DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
FROM SHORE 600-FOOT DEPTH D@CREE, LENGTH 40 NAUTICAL MILES PMH OCNPUTATIONAL
COEFFICIENT
AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F I C I E N T S BO7'OI- FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
FACTOR 1.10 WATE h LE V EL DATA (Ar OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSIATION
COMPONENTS
ST I MT HI, F E E T WIND SETUP 4.25 PRESSURE SETUP 2.23 INITIAL WATER LEV. 0.83 ASTRONOMICAL
11.70 TIDE LEVEL TOTAL-SURGE
STILL WATER LEV. 19.01 FEET MLW Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.
HLW
Shore f


TABLE C.20 SUMMARY-PERTINENT
====t. MLW ====
PRUhABLE MAXIMUE hUJiRICANE (FMH), STORM SURGE COMPU'IATlONAL
Shore
[ATA AND RESULTANT
- ftj MLW
WATER LEVEL LOCATION GREAT LAT. 44&deg;33.4' LONG. 67 SPRUCE ISLAND, MAINE 30'; TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH
Shore ft, MLW
148 DEGREEs LFNGTH 178.6 NAUTICAL MILES PROBABLE MAXIMUM HUHRICANE
1
INDEX CHARACTERISTICS
2
ZONE 4 AT LOCATION 440 3' DEGREE NORTH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
5
PARAMETER
10
DESIGNATIONS
15
SLOW HODERATF HIGH (ST) (nT) (HT)CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX P INCHES 27.61 27.61 27.61 PERIPHERAL
20
PRESSURE P INCHES 30.25 30.25 30.25 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND LARGE RADIUS NAUT. MI. 64 64 64 TRANSLATION
30  
SPEED F (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS 19 39 53 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED V M.P.H. 102 114 122 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.
40
50
60
70
77
0.55
2.31
6.25  
8.33
31.4
100
113
127
3
9
12
13
35
36
40
52
90
160
335
600
0.1
10
16
18.7
3
10
14
9
50
180
300
600
10
90
390
600
5
10
30
50
55
62
44
56
102  
178
240
600
0.5
4
10
25
44
20
120
250
250
600
* As developed for Seabrook r
70
0%
G%
C
t


*MI._ /FROM 20 MPH WIND 352 288 262 AT SHORE TO MAX. WIND I Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.1/-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.
UNITED STATES
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 OFFICIAL BUSINESS
PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, *W0
FIRST CLASS MAIL.


Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi-mately double the initial distance.OCEAN BED PROFILE TRAVERSE WATER DISTANCE DEPTH FROM BFLOW SHORE MLW (NAUT.MI.) (FFET)0 0 0.2 50 0.5 96 1.0 95 1.5 125 2.0 125 3.0 165 4.o 247-5.0 188 10.0 233_ 15.0 438 20.0 570 30.0 271 40.0 511-50.0 443_ 6o.0 374 110 0~0.0 100.0 25-110.01-120.0 34O -I-180.0 1,620 LATITUDE $43 17.8-DEGREE AT TRAVERSE MID-POINT
.
FROM SHORE o 600-FOOT DEPTH PMH CCMPUTATIONAL
POSTAGE 6 FEES PAID
COEFFICIENT
USNRC
ANL WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES C 0 E F F -C I E N T S BOTIOM 1i FICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION
PERMIT N&. 0-67}}
FACTOR 1.10 W A T E R L E V E L DA T A (Ar OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)
PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION
COMPONENTS
ST I MT HT F E E T WIND SETUP 9.73 PRESSURE SETUP 1.82 INITIAL WATER LEV. 0.56 STRONONICAL
18.40 IDE LEVEL
STILL WATER LEV. 30.51 EET MLW
TABLE C.21 OCEAN BED PROFILES PASS CHRISTIAN CRYSTAL RIVER CHESAPEAKE
BAY MOUTH ST. LUCIE SEABROOK Nautical Miles from Shore Depth, ft, MLW Nautical Miles from Shore Depth, ft, RLW Nautical Miles from Shore Depth, ft, HLW Nautical Nautical Miles from Depth, Miles from Depth, Shore ft, ffLW Shore ft, MLW-4 1 2 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 77 3 9 12 13 35 36 40 52 90 160 335 600 0.55 2.31 6.25 8.33 31.4 100 113 127 3 10 14 9 50 180 300 600 0.1 10 16 18.7 10 90 390 600 5 10 30 50 55 62 44 56 102 178 240 600 0.5 4 10 25 44 20 120 250 250 600
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 OFFICIAL BUSINESS PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300 POSTAGE AND FEES PAID U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION}}


{{RG-Nav}}
{{RG-Nav}}

Latest revision as of 02:05, 17 January 2025

Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants
ML003740388
Person / Time
Issue date: 08/31/1977
From:
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
To:
References
-nr, FOIA/PA-2015-0456, FOIA/PA-2015-0458 RG-1.59, Rev 2
Download: ML003740388 (64)
v • d • e


Revision 2

-

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

August 1077 C,

REGULATORYGUIDE

OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT

REGULATORY GUIDE 1.59 DESIGN BASIS FLOODS

FOR

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

USNRC REGULATORY GUIDES

Regulatory Guides or* ihsed to describe and make available to the public methods acceptable to the NRC staff of Implementing specific parts of the Commission's regulations, to delineate techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems at postulated accidents. or to provide guidance to applicants. Regulatory Guides are not sub*titute& for regulations, and compliance with them ia not required.

Methods and solutions different from those mt out in the guides will be accept able if they provide a basis for the findings requisite to the issuance or continuance of a permit or license by the Commission.

Comments and suggestions for Improvements In these guides erai ncounrged at ll timnes. end guides will be revised, as appropriale. to accommnodate comments and to reflect new information or experience.

This guide was revised as a result of substantive comments received from the public and additional staff review.

Comments Ohould be sent to the Secretary of the Commission, US. Nuclear Regu latory Commision. Washington, D.C. 2055, Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.

The gluides e issued in the following ten broad divisions:

1. Power Reactors

6. Products

2. Research and Test Reactors

7. Transportation

3. Fuels end Materials Facilities S. Occupational Health

4. Environmental end Siting

9. Antitrust Review S. Materials nd Plant Protection

10. General Requests for single copies of issued guides (which may be reproduced) or for place ment on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the US. Nuclear Regulatory Commision.

Washington. D.C.

20555. Attention:

Director. Division of Document Control.

I

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 July 30, 1980

ERRATA

Regulatory Guide 1.59, Revision 2, August 1977

"Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants"

New information that affects the Probable Maximum the Upper Ohio River for drainage areas of 10,000

has been identified.

The changes to the isolines in the Upper Ohio River Basin and do not have any the Design Basis Flood for existing plants.

Flood (PMF) isolines for and 20,000 square miles affect only a small area significant impact on As a result of the new information, revised Figures B.6 and B.7 transmitted herewith should be used in future PMF discharge determinations when the simplified methods presented in Appendix B to the Regulatory Guide are being used.

In addition, appropriate changes have been made to the PMF data on pages 28 and 30 of Table B.1, which are also transmitted herewith.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

A. INTRODUCTION

...

........................................

1.59-5

B. DISCUSSION

..

.............................................

1.59-5

C. REGULATORY POSITION

....................................

1.59-7

D. IMPLEMENTATION

........................................

1.59-8 APPENDIX A-Probable Maximum and Seismically Induced Floods on Streams and Coastal Areas 1.59-9 APPENDIX B-Alternative Methods of Estimating Probable Maximum Floods ...........

1.59-11 APPENDIX C-Simplified Methods of Estimating Probable Maximum Surges ............

1.59-41

  • Lines indicate substantive changes from previous issue.

1.59-3

A. INTRODUCTION

General Design Criterion 2, "Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena," of Appen dix A, "General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants," to 10 CFR Part 50, "Licensing of Produc tion and Utilization Facilities," requires, in part, that structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena such as floods, tsunami, and seiches without loss of capability to perform their safety functions. Criterion 2 also requires that design bases for these structures, systems, and components reflect (I) appropriate consideration of the most severe of the natural phenomena that have been historically reported for the site and surrounding region, with sufficient margin for the limited accuracy and quan tity of the historical data and the period of time in which the data have been accumulated, (2) ap propriate combinations of the effects of normal and accident conditions with the effects of the natural phenomena, and (3) the importance of the safety functions to be performed.

Paragraph 100.10(c) of 10 CFR Part 100, "Reactor Site Criteria," requires that physical characteristics of the site, including seismology, meteorology, geology, and hydrology, be taken into account in determining the acceptability of a site for a nuclear power reactor.

Section IV(c) of Appendix A, "Seismic and Geologic Siting Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,"

to 10 CFR Part 100 suggests investigations for a detailed study of seismically induced floods and water waves. The appendix also suggests [Section IV(cXiii)] that the determination of design bases for seismically induced floods and water waves be based on the results of the required geologic and seismic in vestigations and that these design bases be taken into account in the design of the nuclear power plant.

This guide discusses the design basis floods that nuclear power plants should be designed to withstand without loss of capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof. The design requirements for flood protection are the subject of Regulatory Guide

1.102, "Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants."

The material previously contained in Appendix A,

"Probable Maximum and Seismically Induced Floods on Streams," has been replaced by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard N170

1976, "Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites,", which has been endorsed as acceptable by the NRC staff with the ex ception noted in Appendix A. In addition to informa tion on stream flooding, ANSI N170-1976 contains methodology for estimating probable maximum sur

'Copies of ANSI Standard N 170-1976 may be purchased from the American Nuclear Society. 555 North Kensington Avenue. La Grange Park, IL 60525.

ges and seiches at estuaries and coastal areas on oceans and large lakes. Appendix B gives timesaving alternative methods of estimating the probable max imum flood along streams, and Appendix C gives a simplified method of estimating probable maximum surges on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards has been con sulted concerning this guide and has concurred in the regulatory position.

B. DISCUSSION

Nuclear power plants should be designed to pre vent the loss of capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof resulting from the most severe flood conditions that can reasonably be predicted to occur at a site as a result of severe hydro meteorological conditions, seismic activity, or both.

The Corps of Engineers for many years has studied conditions and circumstances relating to floods and flood control. As a result of these studies, it has developed a definition for a Probable Maximum Flood (PMFY and attendant analytical techniques for estimating, with an acceptable degree of conser vatism, flood levels on streams resulting from hydrometeorological conditions. For estimating seismically induced flood levels, an acceptable degree of conservatism for evaluating the effects of the in itiating event is provided by Appendix A to 10 CFR

Part 100.

The conditions resulting from the worst site-related flood probable at the nuclear power plant (e.g., PMF,

seismically induced flood, seiche, surge, severe local precipitation) with attendant wind-generated wave activity constitute the design basis flood conditions that safety-related structures, systems, and compo nents identified in Regulatory Guide 1.291 should be

'Corps of Engineers' Probable Maximum Flood definition appears in many publications of that agency such as Engineering Circular EC 1110-2-27, Change 1, "Engineering and Design-Policies and Procedures Pertaining to Determination of Spillway Capacities and Freeboard Allowances for Dams," dated 19 Feb. 1968. The Probable Maximum Flood is also directly analogous to the Corps of Engineers' "Spillway Design Flood" as used for dams whose failures would result in a significant loss of life and property.

'Reguiatory Guide

1.29,

"Seismic Design Classification,"

identifies structures, systems, and components of light-water cooled nuclear power plants that shouild be designed to withstand the effects of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake and remain func tional. These structures, systems, and components are those neces sary to ensure (1) the integrity of the reactor coolant pressure boundary, (2) the capability to shut down the reactor and maintain it in a safe shutdown condition, or (3) the capability to prevent or mitfgiate the consequences of accidents that could result in poten tial offsite exposures comparable to the guideline exposures of 10

CFR Part 100. These same structures, systems, and components should also be designed to withstand conditions resulting from the design basis flood and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof of other types of nuclear power plants. It is expected that safety-related structures, systems, and components of other types of nuclear power plants will be identified in future regulatory guides. In the interim, Regulatory Guide 1.29 should be used as guidance when identifying safety-related structures, systems, and components of other types of nuclear power plants.

1.59-5 I

I

designed to withstand and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance therof.

For sites along streams, the PMF generally provides the design basis flood. For sites along lakes or seashores, a flood condition of comparable severity could be produced by the most severe com-.

bination of hydrometeorological parameters reasonably possible, such as may be produced by a Probable Maximum Hurricane4 or by a Probable Maximum Seiche. On estuaries, a Probable Max imum River Flood, a Probable Maximum Surge, a Probable Maximum Seiche, or a reasonable com bination of less severe phenomenologically caused flooding events should be considered in arriving at design basis flood conditions comparable in fre quency of occurrenfe with a PMF on streams.

In addition to floods produced by severe hydrometeorological conditions, the most severe seismically induced floods reasonably possible should be considered for each site. Along streams and es tuaries, seismically induced floods may be produced by dam failures or landslides. Along lakeshores, coastlines, and estuaries, seismically induced or tsunami-type flooding should be considered. Con sideration of seismically induced floods should in clude the same range of seismic events as is postulated for the design of the nuclear plant. For in stance, the analysis of floods caused by dam failures, landslides, or tsunami requires consideration of seismic events of the severity of the Safe Shutdown Earthquake occurring at the location that would produce the worst such flood at the nuclear power plant site. In the case of seismically induced floods along rivers, lakes, and estuaries that may be produced by events less severe than a Safe Shutdown Earthquake, consideration should be given to the coincident occurrence of floods due to severe hydrometeorological conditions, but only where the effects on the plant are worse than and the probability of such combined events may be greater than an individual occurrence of the most severe event of either type. Appendix A contains acceptable combinations of such events. For the specific case of seismically induced floods due to dam failures, an evaluation should be made of flood waves that may be caused by domino-type dam failures triggered by a seismically induced failure of a critically located dam and of flood -waves that may be caused by multiple dam failures in a region where dams may be located close enough together that a single seismic event can cause multiple failures.

Each of the severe flood types discussed above should represent the upper limit of all potential phenomenologically caused flood combinations con sidered reasonably possible. Analytical techniques are available and should generally be used for predic

"See References 2 and 5, Appendix C.

tion at individual sites. Those techniques applicable to PMF and seismically induced flood estimates on streams are presented in Appendices A and B of this guide. For sites on coasts, estuaries, and large lakes, techniques are presented in Appendices A and C of this guide.

Analyses of only the most severe flood conditions may not indicate potential threats to safety-related systems that might result from combinations of flood conditions thought to be less severe. Therefore, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood condi tions should also be considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism. Such combina tions should be evaluated in cases where the probability of their existing at the same time and hav ing significant consequences is at least comparable to that associated with the most severe hydro meteorological or seismically induced flood. For ex ample, a failure of relatively high levees adjacent to a plant could occur during floods less severe than the worst site-related flood, but would produce condi tions more severe than would result during a greater flood (where a levee failure elsewhere would produce less severe conditions at the plant site).

Wind-generated wave activity may produce severe flood-induced static and dynamic conditions either independent of or coincident with severe hydrometeorological or seismic flood-producing mechanisms. For example, along a lake, reservoir, river, or seashore, reasonably severe wave action should be considered coincident with the probable maximum water level conditions.' The coincidence of wave activity with probable maximum water level conditions should take into account the fact that suf ficient time can elapse between the occurrence of the assumed meteorological mechanism and the max imum water level to allow subsequent meteorological activity to produce substantial wind-generated waves coincident with the high water level. In addition, the most severe wave activity at the site that can be generated by distant hydrometeorological activity should be considered' For instance, coastal locations may be subjected to severe wave action caused by a distant storm that, although not as severe as a local storm (e.g., a Probable Maximum Hurricane), may produce more severe wave action because of a very long wave-generating fetch. The most severe wave ac tivity at the site that may be generated by conditions at a distance from the site should be considered in such cases. In addition, assurance should be provided

'Probable Maximum Water Level is defined by the Corps of Engineers as "the maximum still water level (i.e., exclusive of local coincident wave runup) which can be produced by the most severe combination of hydrometeorological and/or seismic parameters reasonably possible for a particular location. Such phenomena are hurricanes, moving squall lines, other cyclonic meteorological events, tsunami, etc., which, when combined with the physical response of a body of water and severe ambient hydrological con ditions, would produce a still water level that has virtually no risk of being exceeded."

1.59-6 K

S

I

I

that safety systems necessary for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof are designed to withstand the static and dynamic effects resulting from frequent flood levels (i.e., the maximum operating level in reservoirs and the 10-year flood level in streams)

coincident with the waves that would be produced by the Probable Maximum Gradient Wind' for the site (based on a study of historical regional meteorology).

C. REGULATORY POSITION

1. The conditions resulting from the worst site related flood probable at a nuclear power plant (e.g.,

PMF, seismically induced flood, hurricane, seiche, surge, heavy local precipitation) with attendant wind generated wave activity constitute the design basis flood conditions that safety-related structures, systems, and components identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 (see footnote 3) must be designed to withstand and retain capability for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof.

a. The PMF on streams, as defined in Appendix A and based on the analytical techniques summarized in Appendices A and B of this guide, provides an ac ceptable level of conservatism for estimating flood levels caused by severe hydrometeorological con ditions.

b. Along lakeshores, coastlines, and estuaries, estimates of flood levels resulting from severe surges, seiches, and wave action caused by hydrometeorological activity should be based on criteria comparable in conservatism to those used for Probable Maximum Floods. Criteria and analytical techniques providing this level of conservatism for the analysis of these events are summarized in Ap pendix A of this guide. Appendix C of this guide pre sents an acceptable method for estimating the still water level of the Probable Maximum Surge from hurricanes at open-coast sites on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

c. Flood conditions that could be caused by dam failures from earthquakes should also be considered in establishing the design basis flood. Analytical techniques for evaluating the hydrologic effects of seismically induced dam failures discussed herein are presented in Appendix A of this guide. Techniques for evaluating the effects of tsunami will be presented in a future appendix.

d. Where upstream dams or other features that provide flood protection are present, in addition to the analyses of the most severe floods that may be in duced by either hydrometeorological or seismic mechanisms, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood conditions and seismic events should also be

6Probable Maximum Gradient Wind is defined as a gradient wind of a designated duration, which there is virtually no risk of ex ceeding.

considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism. The effect of such combinations on the flood conditions at the plant site should be evaluated in cases where the probability of such com binations occurring at the same time and having significant consequences is at least comparable to the probability associated with the most severe hydrometeorological or seismically induced flood.

For relatively large streams, examples of acceptable combinations of runoff floods and seismic events that could affect the flood conditions at the plant arc con tained in Appendix A. Less-severe flood conditions, associated with the above seismic events, may be ac ceptable for small streams, that exhibit relatively short periods of flooding.

e. The effects of coincident wind-generated wave activity to the water levels associated with the worst site-related flood possible (as determined from paragraphs a, b, c, or d above) should be added to generally define the upper limit of flood potential.

Acceptable procedures are contained in Appendix A

of this guide.

2. As an alternative to designing hardened proteo ton' for all safety-related structures, systems, And components as specified in Regulatory Position 1 above, it is permissible not to provide hardened protection for some of these features if:

a. S ufficientt'warning time is shown to be available to shut the plant down and implement ade quate emergency procedures;

b. All safety-related structures, systems, and components identified in Regulatory Guide 1.29 (see footnote 3) arc designed to withstand the flood condi tions resulting from a Standard Project events with attendant wind-generated wave activity that may be produced by the worst winds of record and remain functional;

c. In addition to the analyses in paragraph 2.b

-above, reasonable combinations of less-severe flood conditions are also considered to the extent needed for a consistent level of conservatism; and

'Hardened protction means structural provisions Incorporated in the plant design that will protect safety-related structures, systems, and components from the static and dynamic effects of floods. In addition, each component of the protection must be passive and In place, as it is to be used for flood protection, during normal plant operation. Examples of the types of flood protection. to be provided for nuclear power plants are contained in Regulatory Guide 1.102.

sFor sites along streams, this event is characterized by the Corps of Engineers' definition of a Standard Project Flood. Such floods have been found to produce flow rates generally 40 to 60 percent of the PMF. For sites along seashores, this event may be characterized by the Corps of Engineers' definition of a Standard Project Hurricane. For other sites, a comparable level, of risk should be assumed.

1.59-7

d. In addition to paragraph 2.b above, at least those structures, systems, and components necessary fbr cold shutdown and molntenance thereof are designed with hardened protective features to remain functional while withstanding the entire range of flood conditions up to and including the worst site related flood probable (e.g., PMF, seismically in.

duced flood, hurricane, surge, seiche, heavy local precipitation) with coincident wind-generated wave action as discussed in Regulatory Position I above.

3. During the economic life of a nuclear power plant, unanticipated changes to the site environs which may adversely affect the flood-producing characteristics of the environs are possible. Examples include construction of a dam upstream or downstream of the plant or, comparably, construc tion of a highway or railroad bridge and embank ment that obstructs the flood flow of a river and con struction of a harbor or deepening of an existing har bor near a coastal or lake site plant.

Significantly adverse changes in the runoff or other flood-producing characteristics of the site environs, as they affect the design basis flood, should be iden tified and used as the basis to develop or modify emergency operating procedures, if necessary, to mitigate the effects of the increased flood.

4. Proper utilization of the data and procedures in Appendices B and C will result in PMF peak dis charges and PMS peak stiliwater levels which will in many cases be approved by the NRC staff with no further verification. The staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMF and PMS analyses that result in less conservative estimates than those ob tained by use of Appendices B and C. In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMF and PMS analyses will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in Appendices B and C result in more conservative estimates.

D. IMPLEMENTATION

The purpose of this section is to provide informa tion to license applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staff's plans for using this regulatory guide.

This guide reflects current NRC practice.

Therefore, except in those cases in which the appli cant or licensee proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with specified portions of the Commission's regulations, the methods described herein are being. and will continue to be used in the evaluation of submittals for construction permit ap plications until this guide. is revised as a result of sug gestions from the public or additional'staff review.

1.59-8

APPENDIX A

PROBABLE MAXIMUM AND SEISMICALLY INDUCED

FLOODS ON STREAMS AND COASTAL AREAS

The material preiiously contained in Appendix A

has been replaced by American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard.N170-1976, "Standards for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites," with the following exception:

Sections 5.5.4.2.3 and 5.5.5 of ANSI N170-1976 contain references to methods for evaluating the cro- sion failure of earthfill or roekfrdl dams and determin ing the resulting outflow hydrographs. The staff has found that some of these methods may not be conser vative because they predict slower rates of erosion than have historically occurred. Modifications to the models may be made to increase their conservatism.

Such modifications will be reviewed by the NRC staff on a case-by-case basis.

1.59-9

APPENDIX B

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF

ESTIMATING PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOODS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

B.

I. INTRODUCTION

.....................

B.2 SCOPE

...........................

B.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD PEAK DISCHARGE

B.3.1 Use of PMF Discharge Determinations

........

B.3.2 Enveloping Isolines of PMF Peak Discharge.....

B.3.2.1 Preparation of Maps ................

B.3.2.2 Use of Maps .............

B.3.3 Probable Maximum Water Level ............

B.3.4 Wind-Wave Effects ...................

B.4 LIMITATIONS .......................

REFERENCES ...........................

FIGURES ..............................

TABLE

.............................

FIGURES

Page

.......1.59-12

1.59-12

1.59-12

1.59-12

1.59-12

1.59-12

1.59-13

1.59-13

1.59-13

1.59-13

1.59-14

1.59-15

1.59-23

1.59-15

1.59-16

1.59-17

1.59-18

1.59-19

1.59-20

1.59-21

1.59-22 Figure B. I-Water Resources Regions

.....................

B.2-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-100 Sq. Mi.

B.3-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-500 Sq. Mi.

B.4-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-1,000 Sq. Mi.

B.5-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-5,000 Sq. Mi.

B.6-Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-10,000 Sq. Mi.

.B.7--Probable Maximum Flood (Enveloping Isolines)-20,000 Sq. Mi.

B.8-Example of Use of Enveloping Isolines ................

TABLE

Table B.I--Probable Maximum Flood Data

..

1.59-23

1.59-11

.

.

. .

.

.

.

I

g I

D

D

I

0.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix presents timesaving alternative methods of estimating the probable maximum flood (PMF) peak discharge for nuclear facilities on non tidal streams in the contiguous United States. Use of the methods herein will reduce both the time neces sary for applicants to prepare license applications and the NRC staff's review effort.

The procedures are based on PMF values deter mined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, by ap plicants for licenses that have been reviewed and ab cepted by the NRC staff, and by the staff and its con.

sultants. The information in this appendix was developed from a study made by Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, through a contract with NRC (Ref. 1).

PMF peak discharge determinations for the entire contiguous United States are presented in Table B. I.

Under some conditions, these may be used directly to evaluate the PMF at specific sites. In addition, maps showing enveloping isolines of PMF discharge for several index drainage areas are presented in Figures B.2 through B.7 for the contiguous United States east of the 103rd meridian, including instructions for and an example of their use (see Figure B.8). Because of the enveloping procedures used in preparing the maps, results from their use are highly conservative.

Limitations on the use of these generalized methods of estimating PMFs aretidgntified in Section B.4. These limitations should be considered in detail in assessing the applicability of the methods at specific sites.

Applicants for licenses for nuclear facilities at sites on nontidal streams in the contiguous United States have the option of using these methods in lieu of the more precise but laborious methods of Appendix A.

The results of application of the methods in this ap pendix will in many cases be accepted by the NRC

staff with no further verification.

0.2 SCOPE

The data and procedures in this appendix apply only to nontidal streams in the contiguous United States. Two procedures are included for nontidal streams east of the 103rd meridian.

Future studies are planned to determine the ap plicability of similar generalized methods and to develop such methods, if feasible, for other areas.

These studies, to be included in similar appendices, are anticipated for the main stems of large rivers and the United States west of the 103rd meridian, in cluding Hawaii and Alaska.

B.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD

PEAK DISCHARGE

The data presented in this section are as follows:

1. A tabulation of PMF peak discharge determina.

tions at specific locations throughout the contiguous United States. These data are subdivided into water resources regions, delineated on Figure B.1, and are tabulated in Table B.1.

2. A set of six maps, Figures B.2 through B.7, covering index drainage areas of 100, 500, 1,000,

5,000, 10,000, and 20,000 square miles, containing isolines of equal PMF peak discharge for drainage areas of those sizes east of the 103rd meridian.

B.3.1 Use of PMF Discharge Determinations The PMF peak discharge determinations listed in Table B.I are those computed by the Corps of Engineers, by the NRC staff and their consultants, or computed by applicants and accepted by the staff.

For a nuclear facility located near or adjacent to one of the streams listed in the table and reasonably close to the location of the PMF determination, that PMF may be transposed, with proper adjustment, or routed to the nuclear facility site. Methods of trans.

position, adjustment, and routing are given in stan dard hydrology texts and are not repeated here.

B.3.2 Enveloping Isollnes of PMF Peak Discharge B.3.2.1 Preparation of Maps For each of the water resources regions, each PMF

determination in Table B.A was plotted on logarithmic paper (cubic feet per second per square mile versus drainage area). It was found that there were insufficient data and too much scatter west of about the 103rd meridian, caused by variations in precipitation from orographic effects or by melting snowpack. Accordingly, the rest of the study was confined to the United States east of the 103rd meri dian. For sites west of the 103rd meridian, the methods of the preceding, section may be used.

Envelope curves were drawn for each region east of the 103rd meridian. It was found that the envelope curves generally paralleled the Creager curve (Ref. 2),

defined as Qi,46.0 CA (0.894A -0.048) -1 where Q is the discharge in cubic feet per second (cfs)

C is a. constant, taken as 100 for this study A is the drainage area in square miles.

1.59-12 K

Each PMF discharge determination of 50 square miles or more was adjusted to one or more of the six selected index drainage areas in accordance with the slope of the Creager curve. Such adjustments were made as follows:

PMF Within Drainage Area Range, sq. mi.

50 to 500

100 to 1,000

500 to 5,000

1,000 to 10,000

5,000 to 50,000

10,000 or greater Adjusted to Index Drainage Area, sq. mil.

100

500

1,000

5,000

10,000

20,000

. The PMF values so adjusted were plotted on maps of the United States east of the 103rd meridian, one map for each of the six index drainage areas. It was found that there were areas on each map with insuf ficient points to define isolines. To fill in such gaps, conservative computations of approximate PMF

peak discharge were made for each two-degree latitude-longitude intersection on each map. This was done by using enveloped relations between drainage area and PMF peak discharge (in cfs per inch of runoff), and applying appropriate probable max imum precipitation (PMP) at each two-degree latitude-longitude intersection. PMP values, obtained from References 3 and 4, were assumed to be for a 48 hour5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> storm to which losses of 0.05 inch per hour were applied. These approximate PMF values were also plotted on the maps for each index drainage area and the enveloping isolines were drawn as shown on Figures B.2 through B.7.

B.3.2.2 Use of Maps The maps may be used to determine PMF peak dis charge at a given site with a known drainage area as follows:

1. Locate the site on the 100-square-mile map, Figure B.2.

2. Read and record the 100-square-mile PMF peak discharge by straight-line interpolation between the isolines.

3. Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for 500, 1,000, 5,000,

10,000, and 20,000 square miles from Figures B.3 through B.7.

4. Plot the six PMF peak discharges so obtained on logarithmic paper against drainage area, as shown on Figure B.8.

5. Draw a smooth curve through the points.

Reasonable extrapolations above and below the defined curve may be made.

6. Read the PMF peak discharge at the site from the curve at the appropriate drainage area.

B.3.3 Probable Maximum Water Level When the PMF peak discharge has been obtained as outlined in the foregoing sections, the" PMF still water level should be determined. The methods given in Appendix A are acceptable for this purpose.

B.3.4 Wind-Wave Effects Wind-wave effects should be superimposed on the PMF stillwater level. Criteria and acceptable methods are given in Appendihx A.

BA LIMITATIONS

1. The NRC staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMF analyses that result in less con servative estimates. In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMF analyses at specific sites will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in this appendix result in more con servative estimates.

2 .The PMF estimates obtained as outlined in Sec tions B.3.1 and B.3.2 are peak discharges that should be converted to water level to which appropriate wind-wave effects should be added.

3. If there are one or more reservoirs in the drainage area upstream of the site, seismic and hydrologic dam failure' flood analyses should be made to determine whether such a flood will produce the design basis water level. Criteria and acceptable methods are included in Appendix A.

4. Because of the enveloping procedures used, PMF peak discharges estimated as outlined in Sec tion B.3.2 have a high degree of conservatism. If the PMF so estimated casts doubt on the-suitability of a site, or if protection from a flood of that magnitude would not be physically or economically feasible, consideration should be given to performing a detailed PMF analysis, as outlined in Appendix A. It is likely that such an analysis will result in ap preciably lower PMF levels.

'In this contest, "hydrologic dam failure" muama failure caused by a flood from the drainage area upstream of the dam.

1.59-13

REFERENCES

1. Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, "Probable Max imum Flood and Hurricane Surge Estimates," un published report to NRC, June 13, 1975 (available in the public document room).

2. W.P. Creager, J.D. Justin, and J. Hinds,

"Engineering for Dams," J. Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

New York, 1945.

3. U.S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), "Seasonal Variation of the Probable Max imum Precipitation East of the 105th Meridian,"

Hydrometeorological Report No. 33, 1956.'

4. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, "All Season Probable Maximum Precipitation-United States East of the 105th Meridian, for Areas from

1,000 to 20,000 Square Miles and Durations from 6 to 72 Hours," draft report, July 1972.2

'Note References 3 and 4 are being updated and combined into a single report by NOAA. This report is expected to be published in the near future as Hydrometeorological Report No. 51 with the ti tle "Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United States East or the 105th Meridian."

1.59-14 K

y FIGURE I.1 WATER RESOURCES REGIONS

K

'0

iS

-ISOLINE

REPRESENTING PEAK-FLOW OF f--4

,

PUF iN 1,000CFS.

I

I

NOTE: PMF ISO UNIS ON TIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED

V~LESOF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 10"SUARE MILE DRAINAGE

AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY.

PMIF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRISU

TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM

UPSTREAM DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.

11G

1170

1159

113°

1110

100

1076

106 FIGURE 8.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 100 SQUARE MILES

(

LA

'0

0%

r

83o f

1

79*

770

750

730

710 ms

670

O6r IS- 101dM REPRESENOIN

PEAK FLOW OF

S

PMf IN 1.00

15

!m: P

IJOUNIs OW TWS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED

VALUES O PEAK RUIN

FRM

F

00SCOUAREMLE DRAINAGE0A

AREA UNME NATURAL RIVER CONID"IMRS. ACCORDINGLY.

j PU, VALUES OBTAINED 0o NOT INCLUDE POMSSBLE CONTRIMU.

TrONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM

DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EV*

ETOS.

I

I

I*

I

I

IZ3-*

LI

m o 190

1170

11

. 113ie

  • 1110

me

0

1070

105°

103

101°

99W

w7°

95o

3

9

89w

070

or

0

3or FIGURE 8.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 500 SQUARE MILES

K

k

-J

470

4v.

43.

41*

390

370

3s.

33.

310

29*

2r0

2SO

47r

470

[

450

4V.

41

360

37.

33.

310

290

27r

2fie

121'

11g°

117

115°

113.

I!I°

108'

1070

10°

103.

101°

9'

970

9i°

93w

91o

8w o

870

85.

83w FIGURE BA PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLIIES) FOR 1,000 SQUARE MILES

-C

45.

43.

410*

30.

370

35p

33.

310

2B°

270

2r r

-

ISOLINE REPRESENTING PEAK FLOW OF

PMF IN 1.000 CFS.

NOTS: PiF ISOLWINS ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED

VAL WEE OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 1.Q0.04UARE MILE DRAINAGE

LAiREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY.

IMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU

TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM

DAM FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.

I

f I

I

I

I

A

!

--

t

(

.,p ImO

GO

-

ISOLINE REPRESENTING PEAK FLOW OF

PMF IN 1,000 CFS.

N

'

al

a a

a a

a a

I

NOTE: PMF ISOUNES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED

VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 5,000.SQUARE MILE DRAINAGE

AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY,

PMF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU

TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM D)

FAILURE Off OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.

a a

a a

a a

a I

--

-

1110

IO9

1070 100

103

1010

9 g7o

959 93

91m

90g or

0

8w

81°

790

770

75 FIGURE B.5 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 5.000 SQUARE MILES

Q

K

"Ip Ga

-"ISOLINE

REPRESENTING PEAK FLOWOF

PMF IN 11000 CFS.

NOTE: PMF ISOLINES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED

VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 10.OOO4OUARE MILE DRAINAGE

AREA UNDER NATURAL RIVER CONDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY.

PUF VALUES OBTAINED DO NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIBU.

TIONS TO PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM

FAILURES OR OTHER UNNATURAL EVENTS.

..

.

121

1190

117,1 115o

1130

1110

19o

107

1050

1030

1010

990

970

B5e

930

910

o n

870

850

830

FIGURE 8.6 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 10.000 SQUARE MILES

...

(

r

Q

I M I N 1, 0 IF

0 0 Z 6f i

ý

ROETE: PMF rJOt.NES ON THIS CHART REPRESENT ENVELOPED

1400,

100

VALUES OF PEAK RUNOFF FROM 20.000-SUARE MILE DRAINAGE

"Pm VALUE*S OBTAINED 00 NOT INCLUDE POSSIBLE CONTRIt-

  • %

1IONS T'O PEAK FLOW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM UPSTREAM DAM

P2 DAM FALRSOR OTHER UNNATUAL EVENTS.

ii°

119e

1*7

115°

113°

11 i09°

"

os i0o0°13°

, i01°

99p°

g

95P

g°93°

91°

89

87°

5

3 FIGURE B.7 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD (ENVELOPING PMF ISOLINES) FOR 20,000 SQUARE MILES

y

'a

I

I

I

I

I

I I I

1 I

-EXAMPLE:

FOR DRAINAGE AREA OF

.2,300 S. MI.AT LAT. 43@,

LONG. 950, DETERMINE PMF

PEAK DISCHAR.GE.

I I II I

I

i'-

.

.

I-

-I

.4

tI ; ;

i , - 4 -4

4 I * *

I I-

I

Si Wil I

I

ii

-%SLUTIUN:

FOR DRAINAGE AREA OF

2,300 SO. MI., PMF PEAK

4,00CF&.

"

I

I I,

,______....

__

I

I I

11 I...11L..!.

100

1000

10,000

DRAINAGE AREA, SQUARE MILES

FIGURE B.8 EXAMPLE OF USE OF ENVELOPING ISOLINES

S-C

I

jul11 g

  • iWW

IULm

<

co a

0. u:

,c<

0

00

L1A

.j m

0

i

.

m.

Im,,,

10

100,000

/'If]"POINTS FROM

I

..

."

FIGURES

B;.2-B.7 d

X

X

I

I

I

I

I I I I

I

I

I

air J!*d*

I

ilia

y TABLE B.1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD DATA ( )

K

"Drainage Basin Average PM? Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (n inches)

Discharge North Atlantic Region (Northeast Atlantic Sub-reion)

Ball Mountain Barre Falls Beaver Brook Birch Hill Black Rock Blackwater Buffumville Colebrook Conant Brook East Barre East Branch East Brimfield Edward McDowell Everett Franklin FClas Hal Meadow Hancock Hodges Village Hop Brook Hopkinton Knight**lle Littleville Mad River Mansfield Hollow Nookagee Northfield North Hartland North Springfield Otter Brook Phillips Sucker Brook S

yMountain Thomaston Vt.

Mass.

N. He Mass.

Conn.

N. H.

Mass.

Conn.

Mass*

Vt.

Conne Mass.

N. H.

N. He N.H.

Conne Como.

Mass.

cozme No H.

MaSs.

Mass.

Conn*

Mass.

come Vt.

Vt.

Maass Come.

N. H.

Conn.

Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Housatonic Merrimack Thames Connecticut Connecticut Winooski Housatonic Thames Merrimack Merrimack Merrimack Connecticut Housatonic Thames Housatonic Merrimack Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Thames Merrimack Housatonic Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Merrimack Connecticut Connecticut Housatonic West River Ware River Beaver Brook Millers River Branch Brook Blackwater River Little River Farmington River Conant Brook Jail Branch Naugatuck River Quineaaug River Nubanusit River Piseataquog River Pemigewasset River Hall Meadow Brook Hancock Brook French River Hop Brook Contoocook River Westfield River Westfield River Mad River Natchaug River Phillips Brook Northfield Brook Ottauquechee River Black River Otter Brook Phillips Brook Sucker Brook Ashuelot River Naugatuck River

'0

172

55

6.0

175

20

128

26

118

7.8

39

9s2

68

.44

64

1,000

17

12

31

16

426

162

52

18

159

11

5.7

220

158

47

5.0

100

97

20.6

20.1

21*3

18*3

22.2

18.3

26.6

22.?

24.4

21.5

24.0

24.2

19.5

20,7

15.8

24.0

24.0

26.2

25.0

17.4

18.8

25.1.

24.0

19.8

21.8

24.4

19.3

20.0

19.1

24.2

22.4

22.2

24.5

18.1

18.9

19.7

17.1

20.6

16,4

25.3

21.1

23.2

18.6

22.8

22.9

18.3

18,,2

13.3

22.8

22.8

22.3

23.8

14.7

17.6

22.4

22.8

18.5

20.2

23.2

17.2

18.3

17.9

23.0

21.4

19.6

22.4

190,000

61,000

10,.00

88.500

35,000

95,000

36,500

165,000

11,900

52,500

15,500

73,900

43,000

68,000

300,000

26,600

20,700

35,600

26,400

135,000

160,000

98000

30,000

125,000

17,750

.9000

199,000

157,000

45,000

7,700

6,500

63,000

158,000

a

TABLE 0.1 ( )

River Basin Stream Drainage Area ta m4 I

Basin Average (in inches)

Townshend Trumbull, Tully Union Village Vermont-Yankee Waterbury West Hill West Thompson Westville Whitemanville Wrightsville Vt.

Conn.

Mass.

Vt.

Vt.

Vt.

Mass.

Coeme Mass.

Mass.

Vt.

Connecticut Pequonnook Connecticut Connecticut Connecticut Winooski Blackstone Thames Thames Merrimack Winooski West River Pequonnook River Tully River Ompompanoosuc River Connecticut River Waterbury River West River Quinebaug River Quinebaug River Whitman River North Branch North Atlantic Region (Mid-Atlantic Sub-region)

Almond Alvin R. Bush Aquashicola Arkport Aylesworth Baird Beltzville Bloomington Blue Marsh Burketown Cabins Chambersburg Christiana Cootes Store Coiaaesque Curwensavile Dawsonville Douglas Point East Sidney Edes Fort Fairview Foster Joseph Sayers Francis e. Walter N. Y.

Pa.

Pa.

N. Y,

Pa.

w. Va.

Pa.

Md.

Pa.

Va.

We Va*

Md.

Del.

Va.

Pa.

Pa.

Md.

N. YO

we Va*

Md.

Pao Pas Susquehanna Susquehanna Delaware Susquehanna Susquehanna Potomac Delaware Potomac Delaware Potomac Potomac Potomaa Delaware Potomac Susquehanna Susquehanna Pot *r*-c Potomac Susquehanna Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Delaware Canacadea Creek Kettle Creek Aquashicola Creek Canister River Aylesworth Creek Buffalo Creek Pohopoco Creek North branch Tulpehockan Creek North River South Branch Conococheague River Christiana River North Fork River Cowanesque River Susquehanna River Seneca Creek Poto mac River Oulelot River Cacapon River Conococleaque Creek Bald Eagle Creek Lehigh River

4r Project State PIF Peak Discharge

--

-

-;%

wg*Ru"W

.

1 R&O I

278

14

50

126

6,266

109

28

74

32

18

68

21.3

23.0

20.0

17.0

18.9

28.0

20.4

25.4

21.4

20.2

22.0

24.0

28.0

22.5

23.8

34.0

27.1

22.2

24.0

24.3

20.8

28.9

32.1

22.5

21.9

22.0

13.4

24.0

21.2

22.9

21.8

22.4

17.2

21.8

16.6

15.8

16.0

25.6

17'.5

22.8

19.8

17.3

18.8

21.1

24.2

17.7

22.0

30.2

25.6

17.6

21.3

21.2

16.8

26.0

28.3

19.1

18.5

18.9

27.1

10.2

22.1

17.3

18.8

19.0

19.8

228,000

26,700

47,000

110,0000

480,000

128.000

26,ooo

85,000

38,400

25,000

74,000

59.000

154,000

42.500

33.400

13,700

14,600

68,000

196,000

11o,600

272,200

l955,900

81,400

39,200

140,200

285,000

205. 000

161,900

1,490,000

99,900

410,800

150,100

251,000

1700000

56

226

66"

31

6.2

10

97

263

175

375

314

141

41

215

298

365s

0l1

13,317

202

679

494

339

288 C

t T"

  • o

Q

K1 Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)

Discharge

(2.so.m

_ Pec. Ruoff (cfs)

Franklin Frederick Front Royal Fulton (Harrisbrg)

Gathright Geun. Edgar Jadwin Great Cacapon Harriston Hawk Mountain Headsvifle John H. Kerr Karo Keyser Kitsmiller Leesburg Leidstown Licking Creek Little- Cacapon Maiden Creek Martinsburg Mikville Moorefield Moorefield Newark North Anna North Mountain Peach Bottom Perryman Petersburg Philpott Prompton Raystown Royal Glen Salem Church Savage River Seneca Sharpeburg V. Va..

Md.

Va, Pa.

Va, Pa.

We Va.

Va*

Pa.

W. Va.

Va.

V. Va.

V,. Va.

Md.

Va.

Mde W. Va@

W. Va.

Pa.

V, Va.

V, Va, Del*

Va.

we Va.

Pa.

Md, V. Va, Va.

Pat Pa.

Md.

Va.,

Md.

Md.

Mde Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna James Delaware Potomac Potomac Delaware Potomac Roanoke Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Delaware Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Delaware Pamunkey(York)

Potomac Susquehanna Chesapeake Bay Potomac Roanoke Delaware Susqiehanna Potomac Rappahannock Potomac Potomac Potomac South Branch Monocacy River SoFk.Shenandoah River Susquehanna River Jackson River Dyberry Creek Cacapon River South River E.Br. Delaware River Patterson Creek Roanoke River South Branch North Branch North Branch Goose Creek Fishing Creek Licking Creek Little Cacapon River Maiden Creek Opequon Creek Shenandoah River South Branch Soo Pl.

South Branch White Clay River North Anna River Back Creek Susquehanna River Bush River South Branch Smith River Lackawaxen River Juniata River (Br.)

South Branch Rappahannock River Savage River Potomac River Antietem Creek'

T

TABLE B.1 ( )

%0

urn

182

817

1,638

24,100

65

677

222

812

219

7,800

1,577

"495

225

338

7.1

158

101

161

272

3),o01

1,173

283

66

3143

231

27,000

118

642

212

60

960

640

1,598

105

11,400

281

24,2

23.2

18.0

12.7

ý24.11

24.8

21o2

29.6

.16.5

23.4

16.8

18.9

21.5

22.3

26.5

34.8

29.0

29.7

27.3

27.2

16.2

18.0

21.1

29.8

25.0

27.9

12.7

1903

27.5

25.0

21.4

19.3

23.6

26.3

13.5

26.6

20o.6

20.9

114.3

8.2

21.3

17.3

26.5

12.7

19.0

12.9

14.9

16.o

17.1

2*4.2

32.7

26.1

27.4

23.5

24.1

11.7

1*4.0

17.1

26.0

21.3

24.8

8.2

15.3

24*3.

24.2

17.5

15.3

19.6

22.2

10.3

23.5

174,000.

  • .363,00

419,000

1,750,000

246,000

119,700

373,100

153,700

.202,000

176,000

1,000,000

  • 430,000

2799200

120,200

340,900

12,200

125,800

122,700

118,000

17?4.600

592,000

389,700

173,800

103,000

220,000

256,000

1,750,000

87,400

208,700

160,000

87,190

353,*400

208,700

552,000

107,400

1,393,000

154,900

TABLE B.1 ( )

Drainage Basin Average PMF Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)

Discha ge (sq.mi.)

Prec.

Runoff (cfre)

Sherrill Drive Six Bridge Springfield Staunton Stillwater Summit Surry Tioga-Hammond Tocks Island Tonoloway Town Creek Trenton Trexler Tri-Towns Verplanck Washington, D, C,

Wayneaboro West Branch Whitney Point Winchester York Indian Rock Allatoona Alvin W. Vogtle Bridgewater Buford Carters Catawba Cherokee Claiborne Clark Hill Coffeeville Cowans Ford Demopolis Falls Lake Md.

Md.

WO Va.

Va.

Pa.

N. J,

Va.

Pa.

N. Jo Md.

Md.

N. J.

Pa.

We Va.

N. Y.

Mid.

Va.

W. Va.

No Y.

Va.

Pa.

Potomac Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Delaware James Susquehanna Delaware Potomac Potomac Delaware Delaware Potomac Hudson Potomac Potomac Potomac Susquehanna Potomac Susqueha~nna Rock Creek Monocacy River South Branch South Branch Shen.

Lacawanna River Delaware River James River Tioga River Delaware River Tonoloway Creek Town Creek Delaware River Jordon Creek North Branch Hudson River Potomac River South River Conococheague River Otselie River Opeqnon Creek Codorus Creek South Atlantic-Gulf Region Ca.

Ga, N. C.

Ga.

Ga.

N. C.

N. C,

Ala.

Ga.

Ala.

N. C.

Ala, N. C.

Albaba-Coosa Savannah Santee Apalachicola Alabama-Coosa Santee Congaree-Santee Alabama-Coosa Savannah Toabigbee Santee Tombigbee Neuse Etowah River Savannah River Catawba River Chattahoochee River Coosawattee River Catawba River Broad River Alabama River Savannah River Black Warrior River Catawba River Tombigbee River Neuse River

62

308

1,471

325

37

11, 100

9,517

"402

3,827

112

144

6,780

52

478

12,65o

11,5460

136

78

255

120

94

1,110

6,144

380

1,040

376

3,020

1,550

21,520

.6,144

18,600

1,790

15,300

76o

30.6

27.1

17.5

25.0

27.3

23.5

13.3

29.9

27.5

25.2

21.6

14.0

13.4

29.6

30.7

20.7

28.9

22.1

28.3

24.0

15.5

21.3

24.1

19.2

10.5

26.8

25.2

22.6

16.4

9.7

10.2

26.5

27.0

19.1

25o8

1707

22.2

19.8

21.8

14.5

21.7

19.7

26.6

22.3

16.6

14.9

21.8

13.6

16.7

23.2

12.3

14,5

11.2

14.3

21.2 C

0%

111,900

225o,00

405, 000

226:000

39,600

1,000,000

1,000,000

318,000

576,300

117,600

102,900

830,000

5500

268,000

1,100,000

1,280,000

116,000

78,700

102,000

142,l00

74,300

44O,000

1,001,000

187,000

428,900

203,100

674,000

560,000

682,500

1,140,000

743,400

636,000

1,068,000

323,000

C

1"

Q

TABLE B.1 ( )

Drainage Basin Average PM? Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)

Discharge (soemi.)

Prec, Runoff

(4f8)

k'

Gainsville Hartwell Holt Howards Mill Jim Woodruff John H. Bankhead Jones Bluff Laser Creek Lookout Shoals Lower Auchumpkee MeGuire Millers Ferry Mountain Island New Hope Oconee Oconee Okatibbee Oxford Perkins Randleman Reddies Rhodhiss Shearon Harris Sprewell Bluff Trotters Shoals Walter F. George Warrior West Point V. Kerr Scott Bedford Bristol Fall Creek Ithaca Jamesville Linden Ala.

Ga.

Ala.

N. C.

Fla.

Ala.

Ala.

Ga.

N. Co Ga.

N. C.

Ala.

N. C.

N. C.

S. C.

S. C.

Miss.

N. Co N. Co N. C.

N. C.

N. C.

N. C.

Ga.

Ga.

Ga.

Ala.

Ga.

N. Co Ohio N. Yo N. Y.

N. Y.

Tombigbee Savannah Warrior Cape Fear Apalachicola Tombigbee Alabama Apalachicola Santee Apalachicola Santee Alabama Santee Cape Fear Savannah Savannah Pascagoula Santee Pee Dee Cape Fear Pee Dee Santee Cape Fear Apalachicola Savannah Apalachicola Tombigbee Apalachioola Pee Dee Cuyahoga Oswego Oswego Oswego Oswego Niagara Tombigbee River Savannah River Warrior River Deep River Apalachicola River Black Warrior River Alabama River Laser Creek Catawba River Flint River Catawba River Alabama River Catawba River New Hope River Keowee River Little River Okatibb"e Creek Catawba River Yadkin River Deep River Red1dies River Catawba River White Oak Creek Flint River Savannah River Chattahoochee River Black Warrior River Chattahoochee River Yadkin River Great Lakes Region Tinkers Creek Mud Creek Fall Creek Six Mile Creek Butternut Creek Little Tonawanda Creek

7,142

2,088

49232

626

17,150

3,900

16,300

1, Ll0

1,450

1,970

1,770

20,700

1,860

1,690

439

148

154

1,310

2,t473

169

94

1I

090

. 79

1,210

2,900

7,460

5,828

3,440

348

91

29

123

43

37

22

19.6

16.8

24.8

18.8

22.1

19.2

26.8

24.2

17.6

12.3

22.3

19.4

14o.2

11.6

24.6

20.7

23.7

19.8

14.7

12.1

22.0

19.4

26.5

23.5

26.6

.33.0

28.4

28.6-

26.0

28.0

24.8

25.8

24.0

16.6

19.5

21.9

25.6

28.6

29.9

17.1

26.9

26.0

30.8

.21.3

19.1

15.2

16.6

17.4

21.5

25.9

28.1

16.1

25.1

24.1

29,0

-J

702,400

875,000

650,000

305.000

1,133,800

670,300

664,000

303,600

492,000

355,600

750.000

844,000

362,000

511,000

450,000

245,000

87,"00

479,000

440,600

126,000

174, 200

379,000

163,500

318,000

800,000

843,000

5549000

440,000

318,000

79,000

64,900

63,400

77,900

35,200

64,400

TABLE 8.1 ( )

Pr ject Mount Morris Onondago Oran Portageville Quanicassee Quanicassee Qouanicassee Standard Corners Alum Creek Barkley Barren Beaver Valley Beech Fork Big Blue Big Darby Big Pine Big Walnut Birch Bluestone Booneville Brookville Buckhorn Burnsvlfle Cae.ar Creek Cagles Mill Carr Fork Cave Run Center Hill Clarence J. Brown Claytor Clifty Creek Dale Hollow Deer Creek Delaware Dewey State N. Y.

N. Y.

N. Y.

N. Y.

Mich.

Mich.

Mich.

N. Y.

Ohio Ky.

Ky.

Pa.

W. Va.

Ind.

Ohio Ind.

Ind, we Va.

W. Va.

Ky.

Ind.

Ky.

W. Va.

Ohio Ind.

Ky.

Ky.

Temn.

Ohio Va.

Tmd.

Tenn.

Ohio Ohio Ky.

River Basin Genesee River Lake Ontario Oswego Genesee Saginaw Bay Saginaw Bay Saginaw Bay Genesee Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio SStream Genesee River Onondigo Greek Limestone Creek Genesee River Saginaw River Tittabawassee River Quanicassee River Genesee River Ohio Region Alum Creek Cumberland River Barren River Ohio River Twelve Pole Creek Big Blue River Big Darby Creek Big Pine Creek Big Walnut Creek Birch River Nea River So. Fk. Kentucky River White.ater River M. Fk.Kentucky River Little Kanawha River Caesar Creek Mill Creek No; Fk. Kentucky River Licking River Caney Fork Buck Creek New River Clifty Creek Obey River Deer Creek Olentangy River Big Sandy River Ara ae Area.

1,077

68

47

983

6,260

2,o40

70

265

123

8,700

940

23,000

78

269

326

197

142

4,565

665

379

408

165

237

295

58

826

2,174

82

2,382

145

935

278

381

207 Basin Average

(,ininches)

7Prec.

Runoff Prec Ruoff (cfsm

17.0

14.6

24.2

23.3

25.1

23.4

17.8

15.8

22.3

20.3

24.6

22.6

17.6

26.4

23.5

24.1

22.4

24-0

28.:4

23.2

24.2

23.8

24.8

24.1

24.6

27.4

22.8

22.-3

29.0

22.3

24.9

23.8

22.9

22.7

25.0

21.8

21.5

16.9

23.5

21.2

21.3

20.4

22.0

25.2

13.8

21.0

22.1

21.5

22.3

21.9

22.7

25.0

20.6

21.8

26.7

18.0

23.0

23.3

20.1

20.4

22.6 r

Go PJ? Peak Discharge

385,000

61,800

80,790

359,000

440,000

270,000

46,000

189,900

3.10,000

1,000,000

531,000

1,500,000

84,000

161,000

294,000

174,000

144,ooo

102,000

410,000

425,000

272,000

239,000

138,800

230,200

159,000

132,500

510,000

696,0oo0

121,000

1,1091000

112,900

435to00

160,000

296,000

75,500

(

r TABLE B.1 ( )

Q

TABLE B.1 ( )

River Basin Drainage stream Area f-

'-

Basin Average (in inches)

Dillon Dyes Eagle Creek N. Br. Clarion East Fork East Lynn Pishtrap Grayson Green River Helm John W. Flannagan J. Percy Priest Kehoe Kinzua Lafayette Laurel Leading Creek Lincoln Logan Louisville Mansfield Martins Fork Meigs Meigs Mill Creek Mississinena Michael J. Kirwin Monroe Nuddy Creek Nolin N. Br. Kokosing N. Fk. Pound River Paint Creek Paintsville Panthers Creek Patoka R. D. Bailey Rough River Ohio Ohio Ky.

Pa.

Ohio w. Va.

Ky.

Ky.

Ky.

Ill.

Va.

Tenn.

Ky.

Pa.

Ind.

Ky.

W. Va.

Ill'

Ohio Ill.

Ind.

Ky.

Ohio Ohio Ohio Ind.

Ohio Ind.

Pa.

Ky.

Ohio Va.

Ohio Ky.

V. Va.

Ind.

W. Va.

Ky.

Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Licking River Dyes Fork Eagle Creek E. Br. Clarion River E. Fk. Little Miami River Twelve Pole Creek Levisa Fk. Sandy River Little Sandy River Green River Skillet Fk. Wabash River Pound River Stones River Tygarts Creek Allegheny River Wildcat Creek Laurel River Leading Creek Eabarras River Clear Creek Little Wabash River Raccoon Creek Cumberland River Meigs Creek Meige Creek Mill Creek Mississinewa River Mahoning River Salt Creek Muddy Creek Nolin River N. Br. Kokosing River N. Fk. Pound River Paint Creek Paint Creek, Panther Creek Patoka River Guyandotte River Rough River y

Project State K

PNF Peak PMF Peak Discharge (vcfa

%0

t0

748

44

292

?2

342

133

395

196

682

210

222

892

127

2,180

791

282

146

915

84

661

216

56

72

27

181

809

80

441

61

703

44

18

573

92

24

168

540

454

19.8

30.?

24.?

22.7

23.8

29.4

26.1

27.5

26.5

24.8

27.6

25.9

26.0

16.4

20.6

25.9

25.0

21.2

29.5

22.1

25.9

27.9

29.5

32.2

24.0

20,6

26.0

25.9

22.8

14.2

25.4

35.3

21.8

26.3

36.7

.25.6

23.1

27.6

16.3

27.8

22.1

18.9

21.2

26.5

23.2

24.7

231.9

22.6

24.9

18.8

23.4

12.8

18.5

20.7

22.5

19.0

27.0

19.9

23.0

22.7

26.6

29.3

21.4

18.4

20.1

25.4

19.6

13.2

22.6

32.2

18.8

23.8

33.9

23.5

20.3

25.1 thinnff k

L

246,000

49,500

172,800

41,500

313,200

72,000

320,000

83,300

"109,000

152,800

235,800

430,000

105,900

115,000

182,000

120,000

131,000

502,000

78,000

310,000

175,800

61,800

72,100

45,500

92,000

196,000

51,800

366,000

59,300

158,000

50,000

51,200

305,000

?7,500

59,800

292,000

349,000

358,000

TABLE B.1 ( )

River Basin Stroaa Drainage Area

.~n4 Basin Average t(in inches)

=1 I e a

0

aw t&*E

Rowlesbsrg Salamonia Stonewall Jackson Sumersville Sutton Taylorville Tom Jenkins Union City Utica West Fork West Fk. Mill Ck.

Whiteoak Wolf Creek Woodcock Yatesville Youghiogheny Zimmer, Vm. H.

Bellefonte Browns Ferry Sequoyah Ames Byron Bear Creek Blue Earth Blue Earth Carlyle Clarence Cannon Clinton Coralville Duane Arnold Faradale Fondulac Friends Creek w. Va.

Ind.

W. Va.

V. Va.

W. Va.

Ky.

Ohio Pa.

Ohio W. Va.

Ohio Uhio Ky.

Pa.

Ky.

Pa.

Ohio Ala.

Tenn.

Tenn.

Iowa Ill.

Mo.

Minn.

Hinn.

Ill, Mo.

I Li.

Iowa Iowa Ill.

Ill.

Il1.

Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohlo Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Ohio Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Upper Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Cheat River Salamonla River West Fork River Gauley River Elk River Salt River Hocking River French Creek N. Fk. Licking River W. Fk. Little Kanawha Mill Creek Whiteoak Creek Cumberland River Woodcock Creek Blaine Creek Youghiogheny River Ohio River Tennessee Region Tennessee River Tennessee River Tennessee River Upper Mississippi Region Skunk River Rock River Bear Creek Minnesota River Blue Earth River Kaskaskia River Salt River Salt Creek Iowa River Cedar River Farm Creek Fondulac Creek Friends Creek

936

553

102

803

537

353

33

222

112

238

30

214

5789

46

208

"434.

70,800

23.340

27,130

20,650

314

8,000

28

11,250

3,550

2,680

2,318

296

3,084

6,250

26

5,4

133

21.2

21.3

24, N

23.8

20.4

24.8

26.?

20.*3

24.7

24.4

31.9

24.5

20.6

23.5

25.2

18.4

.19.0

22.2

21.1

20.4

22.2

25.8

17.8

22.1

21.8

30.0

21.6

20.0

20.9

22.6

25.4

21.3

18.4

29.0

26.2

14.2

10.9

18.4

14.8

19.2

15.8

21.8

15.7

20.8

14.4

24.0

21.4

27.8

22.1

19.9

21.6 C

Project State PMF Peak Discharge Ut

%0

331.000

201,000

85,500

"412,000

222,400

"426,000

"43000

87,500

73,700

156,4oo

81,600

134,000

9969000

37,700

l8, 000

151,000

2,150,000

1,160,000

1,200,000

1,205,000

87,200

308,000

38o000

283,&00

206,000

246,000

4?76,200

99,500

326,000

316,000

67,300

21,200

83,160

C

C

Q

TABLE B.1 ( )

River Basin Stream .

Drainage Area (sa.mi. )

Basin Average (in inches)

Prec.

Runoff Jefferson Lapa'ge Mankato Meramec Park Montevideo Monticello New Ulm New Ulm Oakley Prairie Island Red Rock Rend Saylorville Shelbyville Arkabutla Enid Grenada Sardis Union Vappapello Burlington Fox Hole Homoe Kindred Lake Ashtabula Orwell Bear Creek Big Bend Blue Springs Blue Stem Bowman-Haley Branched Oak Iowa Wisc.

Minna Mo.

Minn.

Minn.

Minn.

Minn.

Ill.

Minn.

Iowa Ill.

Iowa Ill, Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Mo.

Mot N. D.

N. D.

N. D.

N. D.o N. D.

Minn.

Colo.

S. D.

Mo.

Nebr.

N. D.

Nebr.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss..

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Upper Miss.

Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Lower Souris Souris Red of Red of Red of Red of Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

Miss.

North North North North Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Raccoon River Kickapoo River Minnesota River Meramec River Minnesota River Mississippi River Minnesota River Cottonwood River Sangamon River Mississippi River Des Moines River Big Muddy River

.Des Moines River Kaskaskia River Lower Mississippi Region Coldwater River Yacona River Yalobusha River Tallahatchia River Bourbeuse River St. Francis River Souris-Red-Rainy Region Souris River Des Lacs. River Park River Sheyenne River Sheyenne River dtter Taln River Missouri Region Bear Creek Missouri River Blue Springs Creek Olive Br. Salt Creek Grand River Oak Creek Project State K

PMF Peak Discharge (of s)

"Ih

1,532

266

14,900

1,407

6,180

13,900

9,500

1,280

808

44,755

12,323

"488

5o823

1,030

1,000

560

1,320

'1, 545

771

1,310

9,490

939

229

3,020

983

1,820

2,6

5,840

33

17

446

89

21.7

22.8

13.9

22.9

15.2

14o4

21.2

23.5

12,1

2?.5

13.8

22.1

22.5

25.4

24.0

32.5

25.0

13.0

13.2

19.9

15.2

13.4

12.4

17.1

24.4

26.5

25.0

15.5

20.1

19.0

18.9

10.6

17.5

11.6

11.1

]1.6

17.2

7.5

21.5

10.3

19.1

21o2

24.?

23P1

26.0

19.9

11.7

5.7

12.4

12.3

8,6

9.5

14.7

6.7

9.0

23.8

2J.7

12.7

16.8

267,300

128,000

329,000

552,000

263,0oo

365,000

263,000

128,000

178,000

910,000

613o000

308,200

277,800

142,000

430,000

204,900

310,800

2Q0,400

264,000

344,000

89,100

52,700

35,000

68.700

86,500

25,500

225,000

725,000

42,400

69,200

110,000

93,600

TABLE B.1 ( )

River Basin Stream Drinage Area

1A

Basin Average (in inches)

-'

=-

&

,m-A.I

B*raymar MO.

Brookfield mo.

Bull Hook Mont.

Chatfield Colo.

Cherry Creek Colo.

Clinton Kans.

Cold Brook S. Do Conestoga Nebr.

Cottonwood Springs S. D.

Dry Fork Ko.

East Fork Mo.

Fort Scott Kans.

Fort Peck Mont.

Fort Randall S. D.

Fort St. Vrain Colo.

Garrison No D,

Gavins Point Nebr.

Grove Kans.

Harlan County Nebr.

Ha=y S. Truman Mo.

Hillsdale Kane.

Holmes Nebr.

Kanopolls Kane.

LUnneus Mo.

Long Branch Mo.

Longview Mo.

Melvern Kans.

Mercer Mo.

Milford Kanso Mill Lake Mo.

Oahe So Do Olive Creek Nebr.

Onag Kans.

Pattonsburg Mo.

Pawnee Nebr.

Perry Kano, Pioneer Colo.

Pause do Terre Mo.

Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Hissouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Shoal Creek West Yellow Creek Bull Hook Creek South Platte River Cherry Creek Wakarusa River Cold Brook Holmes Creek Cheyenne River Fishing River Fishing River Marmaton River Missouri River Missouri River South Platte River Missouri River Missouri River Soldier Creek Republican River Osage River Big Bull Creek Antelope Creek smoky Hill River.

Locust River So Fk. Little Chariton Blue River Marias des Cygnes River Weldon River Republican River Mill Creek Missouri River Olive Br. Salt Creek Vermillion Creek Grand River Pawnee Br. Salt Creek Delawre River Republican River Poaue do Terre River

390

140

54

3,018

.385

367

15

26

30.2

19

279

57,725

14:150

4,700

123,215

16,000

259

7,141

7,856

144

5,4

2,560

546

109

50

349

"427

3,620

9.5

62,550

8.2

301

2,232

36

1,U17

918

611

24.7

22.2

24.5

22.0

10.8

13.2

2.0

2309

9.5

23.6

22.4

6.4

25.2

21.9

18.7

11.1

26.1

22.5

25.7

24ol

23.8

22.7

3.2

3.7,

2.7

3.3

23.8

22.7

7.6

2.8

13.1

25.4

24.3

27.1

23.8

6.9

3.6

2397

21.2

  • 4.5

21.9

26.2

23.4

23.1

22.1

21.0

17.8

8.8

5.0

27.7

26.4

6.5

26.0

22o7

23.5

22.2

18.8

16.3

23.5

2O02

21.5

18.4

15.0

8.3

23.9

21.6

.

Project State PM? Peak Discharge U'

173,800

64,5S00

26,2oo

.584,500

350,000

153,500

95,700

52,000

74,700

19,460,

62,700

198.000

360,000

80,000

500,000

1,026,000

642,000

79,800

"485, 000

1,060,000

190,500

41,600

456,300

242,300

66,500

74,800

182,000

274,000

757,400

13,000

946,000

36,650

251,000

400,100

59,000

387,400

390,000

362,000

C

r

Q

TABLE B.1 ( )

River Basin Stroam Drainage Area t.

m.

,4 Basin Average fin Inches)...

Pomona Rathbun Smithville Stagecoach Stockton Thomas Hill Tomahawk Trenton Tuttle Creek Twin Lakes Wagon Train Wilson Wolf-Coffee Yankee Hill Arcadia Bayou Bodcau Beaver Bell Foley Big Hill Big Pine Birch Blakely Mountain Blue Mountain Boswell Broken Bow Bull Shoals Candy Canton Cedar Point Clayton Cleariater Conchas Cooper Copan Council Grove County Line Kans.

Iowa Mo.

Nebr.

Mo.

Mo.

Kane.

Mo.

Kans*

Nebr.

Nebr.

Kans.

Kans.

Nebr.

Okla.

La.

Ark.

Ark.

Kans.

Tex.

Okla.

Ark.

Ark.

Okla, Okla.

Ark.

Okla, Okla.

Kans.

Okla.

Mo.

N. Mex.

Tex.

Okla, Kan.s Moo Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Missouri Arkansas Red White Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Red White.

Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red White

.Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas.

White

110 Mile Creek Chariton River Little Platte River Hickman Br. Salt Creek Sac River Little Chariton River Tomahawk Creek Thompson River Big Blue River S. Br. Middle Creek Hickman Br. Salt Creek Saline River Blue River Cardwell Br. Salt Creek Arkansas-White-Red Region Deev Fork River Bayou Bodcau White River Strawberry River Big Hill Creek Big Pine Creek Birch Creek Ouachita River Petit Jean River Boggy Creek Mountain Fork White River Candy Creek North Canadian River Cedar Creek Jackfort Creek Black River South Canadian River South Sulphur River Little Caney River Grand River James River Project State K

Discharge refs)~

Ut

322

549

213

9e7

1,160

147

24

1,079

9,556

11

16

1,917

45

8.,4

105

656

1,186

78

37

95

66

1,105

500

2,273

7.54

6,036

43

7,600

119

275.

898

7.409

476

505

246

153

26.2

23.7

23.9

26.o

19.7

25.0

26.4

22.6

14.5

25.9

25.2

20.2

26.1

26.0

28.5

35.3

24.3

26.4

25.4

31.3

29.0

21.5

21.8

27.6

32.5

15.2

29.3

12.4

25.4

31.3

16.0

4,8

30.9

26.2

25.5

27.2

25.2

21.1

20.2

22.7

18.9

23.,0

24.8

20.1

8.1

22.6.

21.9

10.8

24.5

22.7

24.9

33.6

22.4

23.5

23.6

29.3

26.0

19.6

18.2

29,4

1.0

27.5

4.1

22.6

29.3

13.8

3.0

29.2

21.1

22U7

25.3

186,000

188.000

185,000

50,500

4?0,000

?79000

26,800

342,400

798,000

56,000

53,500

252,000

58,000

58,400

144,000

168,?00

480,000

57,000

47,500

86,000

91,000

418,000

258'000

405,000

569,000

?65,000

67,500

371,000

208,000

240,000

432,000

582,000

194,400

169,000

250,000

133,000

A

e It

0

Pvr Rnf

TABLE B.1 ( )

Drainage Basin Average PM? Peak Project State River Basin Stream Area (in inches)

Discharge (S,.Ml.

Prec, Lng.of (cfs)_

DeGray Denison DeQueen Dierks Douglas El Dorado Elk City Efaula Fall River Ferrells Bridge Fort Gibson Fort Supply Gillhaa Great Salt Plains Greers Ferry Heyburn Hugo Hulah John Martin John Redmond Kaw Keystone Lake Kemp Lukfata Marion Milluood Narrows Neodesha Nimrod Norfolk Oologah Optima Pat Mayse Pine Creek Robert S. Kerr Sand Shidler Skiatook Lable Rock Ark.

Okla.

Ark.

Ark.

Kans.

Kans.

Kans.

Okla.

Kans.

Tex.

Okla.

Okla.

Ark.

Okla.

Ark.

Okla.

Okla.

Okla.

Colo.

Kans.

Okla.

Okla.

Tex.

Okla.

Kans.

Ark.

Ark.

Kans.

Ark.

Ark.

Okla, Okla.

Tex.

Okla.

Okla, Okla.

Okla.

Okla.

Mo.

Red Rod Red Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Arkansas White Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas White Caddo River Red River Rolling Fork Saline River Little Walnut Creek Walnut River Elk River Canadian River Fall River Cypress Creek Grand River Wolf Greek Cossatot River Salt Fk. Arkansas River Little Red River Polecat Creek Kianichi River Caney River Arkansas River Grand River Arkansas River Arkansas River Wichita River Glover Creek Cottonwood River Little River Little Missouri River Verdigris River Fourche La Fave River North Fork White River Verdigris River North Canadian River Sanders Creek Little River Arkansas River Sand Creek Salt Creek Hominy Creek White River C

U,

453

33,783

169

113

238

234

634

8,405

556

880

9,477

271

3,200

1,146

123

1,709

732

18,130

3,015

7,250

22,351

2,086

291

200

4,144

239

1,160

68o

1,#765

4,339

2,341

175

635

64.386

137

99

354

4,020

28.4

12.9

35.5

36.2

26.7

26.8

23.0

15.9

27.1

31.1

16.2

20.5

34.,6

16.?

17.9

26-3 Z7.1

16.5

7.4

18.2

14.5

12.9

23.7

34.6

24.8

28.4

25.0

18.?

20.2

15.7

17.8

13.8

31.8

32.8

10.0

31.3

27.3

27..8

18.3

26.0

6.5

32.5

33.2

22.9

22.8

20.3

10.9

23.0

28.1

12.6

15.7

31.5

9.3

17.5

24.2

25.8

13.5

2.0

15.6

9.9

6.7

19.2

31.5

21.9

25.3

23.0

16.6

17.2

12.8

13.9

9.0

29.4

29.8

5.8

28.3

24.0

23.8

15.4

397,000

1,830,000

254,000

202,000

156,000

196, ooo

.196,000

319,000

700,000

"442.000

367,000

865,000

54?7000

355,000

412,000

630,000

151,000

339,000

239,000

630.00O

638,000

774.000

1,035,000

566,000

349,000

160,000

"442,000

194,000

287.000

228,000

372,000

451,000

386,000

150,000

523,000

1,884,000

154,000

104,100

147,800

657,000

C

r

Q

Project Tenkiller Ferry Texarkana Toronto Towanda Trinidad Tuskahoma Wallace Lake Vaurika Webbers Falls Vister Addicks Aquilla Aubrey Bardwell Barker Belton Benbrook Big Sandy Blieders Creek Droimwood

.Canyon Lake Carl L. Estes Coleman Comanche Peak Ferguson Gonzales Grapevine Horde Creek Lake Fork Lakeview Laneport Lavon Lewisville Millioan Navarro Minle Navasota State Okla.

Tex.

Kans.

Kans.

Colo.

Okla.

La.

Okla.

Okla.

Okla.

Tex.

Tex*

Tex.

Tex..

Tex.

Tex, Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Teax Tax, Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Teax Tex*

Tex.

River Basin Arkansas Red Arkansas Arkansas Arkansas Red Red Red Arkansas Arkansas

.San Jacinto Brazos Trinity Trinity San Jacinto Bre*zos Trinity Sabine Guadalupe Colorado Guadalupe Sabine Colorado Brazos Brazos Guadalupe Trinity Colorado Sabine Trinity Brazos Trinity Trinity Brazos Trinity Brazos Stream Drainage Area Illinois River Sulphur River Verdigris River Whitewater River Purgatorie River Kiamichi River Cypress Bayou Beaver Creek Arkansas River Poteau River Texas-Gulf Region South Mayde Creek Aquilla Creek Elm Fork Trinity River Waxahachie Creek Buffalo Bayou Leon River Clear Fork Trinity River Big Sandy Creek Blieders Creek Pecan Bayou Guadalupe River Sabine River Colorado River Squaw Creek Navasota River San Marcos River Denton Creek Horde Creek Lake Fork Creek Mountain Creek San Gatriel Pivor Eset Fork, Trinity River Elm Fork, Trinity River Navasota River Riohland Creek Navasota River

1,

610

3,400

730

422

671

347

260

562

"W8,127

99.3

129

2914

692

178

150

3,560

429

196

15

1,544

1,432

1,146

287

64

1,782

1,344

695

48

507

232

/09

770

3,660

2,120

320

1,241 Basin Average In Rnofhes)

Pre

e. Runnff

20.e4

26.6

23.9

24.3

10*0

16.5

38.4

26.5

10.7

25.9

29.7

31.2

28.5

31.1

29.4

29.4

28.2

36.2

43.8

27.8

24o5

34.5

30.9

39.1

26.0

24.9

26.5

28.9

33.8

31.6

28.9

26,2

23.2

25.5

33.6

27.2

17.6

20.1

21.1

20.5

4.5

14.6

35.6

22.2

6.1

23.2

27.9

28.6

26.0

28.3

27.9

20.6

21.1

32.2

34.6

21.0

16.9

30.4

24*. 1

34.1

22.4

15.4

21.5

23.4

29.7

28.8

23.7

23.o4

20.5

22.4

30.5

24.2 TABLE B.1 ( )

K

Ut PMF Peak Discharge

406,000

451,000

"400,000

198,000

296,000

188,g400

197,000

354,000

1,518,000

339,000

68,670

283,800

445,300

163,500

55,900

608,400

290,100

125,200

70,300

676,200

687,000

277,000

267,800

149,000

355,800

633,900

319,400

.92,400

247,600

335,000

521,000

430,?00

632,200

393,v40o

280,500

327,400

TABLE B.1 ( )

-Project

  • North Fork Pecan Bayou Proctor Roanoke

-Rockland Sam Raybrn San Angelo Somerville South Fork Stillhouse Hollow Tennessee Colony Town Bluff Waco Lake Whitney Abiquiu Alamogordo Cochita Jemez Canyon Los Esteroa Two Rivers Alamo Mcoicken Whitlow Ranch Painted Rock Little Dell Mathews Canyon Pine Canyon Applegate Blue River State River Basin'

Tex.

Tex.

Te,:.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex.

Tex, Tea.

Tex, Tex.

Tex.

No N.

N.

N.

N.

N.

Brazos Colorado Brazoa Trinity Neches Neches

-Colorado Brazos Brazos Brazos Trinity Neches Brazoa Brazos Rio Grande Rio Grande Rio Graude Rio Grande Rio Grande Rio Grande me H.

MI

H.

H.

H.

Ariz.

Ariz.

Ariz.

Ariz.

Utah N.y.

No.

Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Jordon (Great)

Great Basin Great Basin Oreg.

Rogue Ore&.

Columbia Stream Drainage Area f,.4 N. F

k. San Gabriel River

.Pecan Bayou Leon River Denton Creek Neches River Angelina River North Concho River.

Yogua Creek S. Fk. San Gabriel River Lam pasas River Trinity River Neches River B*sque River Brazos River Rio Grande. Region Rio Grande Pecos River Rio Grande Jemez Canycn Peccs River Rio Hondo Lower Colorado Region Bill Williams River Aqua Fria River Queen Creek Gila River Great Basin Region Dell Creek Mathews Canyon Pine Canyon Columbia-North Pacific Region Applegate River S. Fk. McKenzie River Basin Average (in inches)

D~n D..n

246

316

1,265

604

39557

3,449

1,511

1,006

1 123

1,318

12,687

7,v73

1,670

17,656

3,159

3,917

4,065

1,034

2,434

1,027

4,770

247

143

50,800

16

34

45

223

88

31.7

30.7

27.0

28.9

21.0

23.7

21.2

22.0

32.6

27.?

25.1

18.9

25.7

15.7

4.6

9.2

12.2

26.6

23.8

21.4

17.2

20.6

13.1

13.6

27.4

22.5

20.4,

15.7

20.6

7.7

8.2

1.9

1.9

3.7

4.7

12.0

3.5

3.3

11.5

9.7

7.7

2.8

8.1

6.0

6.6

7.4

8.2

6.6

28.9

22.7

(

P1F Peak Discharge

/'-..'_

'0

Ch

265,800

236,200

459,200

313.600

150,400

395,600

614,5c0

4 15,700

145,300

686s400

575o600

326,000

  • 622,900

700,000

130,000

277,000

320,000

.220.000

352,000

281,400

5B0,000

52,000

230,000

620,000

23,000

"35,000

38.000

C

99, 500

.39.500

tC

0

L&Wý*

LIVA&

LCIRI

Q

TABLE B.1 ( )

sin Stream Lrainaee Area

1 4 K

Basin Average P1* Peak

( in inches)

Discharge Prec,_ -noff (efa)

Bonneville Caseadia Chief Joseph Cottage Grove Cougar Detroit Dorena Dworshak Elk Creek Fall Creek Fern Ridge Poster Green Peter Gate Creek Hills Creek Holley

'Howard A. Hanson lee Harbor John Day Libby Little Goose Lookout Point Lost Fork Lower Granite Lower Monumental Lucky Peak MPeNary Mud Mountain Ririe The Dallee Wynoochee Zintel Bear Big Dry Creek Black Butte Brea Oreg.

Oreg.

Wash.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Ida.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Wash.

Wash.

Ore.

Mont.

Wash.

Oreg.

Oreg.

Wash.

Wash, Ida, Oreg.

Wash, Ida.

Oreg.

Wash.

Wash.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Rogue Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Green Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Rogue Columbia Columbia Columbia Columbia Puyallup Columbia Columbia Chechalis Columbia San Joaquin San Joaquin Sacranento Santa Ana Columbia River

240,000

South Santian River

179 Columbia River

7.5,000

Coast F

k. Willamette River

104 S. F

k. McKenzie River

208 North Santiam River

438 Row River

26.

N. F

k. Clearwater River

2,440

Elk Creek

132 Willamette River

184 Long Tom River

252 South Santiam River

4144 Middle Santiam River

27?

Gate C

k. McKenzie River

50

Middle F

k. Willamette River

38q Calapooia River

105 Green River

221ý

Snake River

109,000

Columbia River

226,00O

Kootenai River

9,070

Snake River

10i4900

Middle F

k. Vilaette Aiver

991 Lost P

k. Rogue River

6,7'

Snake River

101,,4O0

Snake River

108,500

Boise River

2,650.

Columbia River

214,000

White River

'400

Willow C

k. Snake River

620

Columbia River

237,000

Wynoochee River

41 Zintel Canyon Snake River IQ

California Region Bear Creek Big Dry Creek Stony Creek Brea Creek

72

]3.b

91

19.0

741

19.?

23

10.6 K

Project State River Bas

22.1

42.2

29.0

29.7

34.2

36.0

34.6

70.5

32.6

33.8

20.3

40.8

41.3

146..3

31.0

35.8

26.8

13.9

2191

3' 5

14,6

10.8

22.7

14*?

1400

32.5

23.0

31.9

21,14

21.1

69.9

7.8

13.6

13.8

12.3

6.6

2,720,000

1159,000

1,550,000

45,000

98,000

203,000

131,600

280,000

63,500

100,000

148,600

260,000

160,000

37,000

197,000

59,000

164,000

95,%000

2,650,000

282,000

850,0C0

360,000

169,0Cc

850.000

850,000

123,000

2,610,000

!86,000

4?,000

2,660,000

52,500

"4O, 500

30,0400

17,000

1 54,000

37000

=

a

9

TABLE B.1 ( )

River Basin Stream Drainage Area (sq.mi.)

Basin Average (in inches)

Prec.

Runoff Buchanan Burns Butler Valley Carbon Canyon Cherry Valley Comanche Coyote Valley Dry Creek Farmington Folsom Fullerton Hansen Hidden Lake Isabella Knights Valley Lakeport Lopes Mariposa Kartis Creek Marysville Mojave River N*ew Dullards Bar New Exchequer New Hogm New Melones Oroville Owens Pine Flat Prado San Antonio Santa Fe Sepulveda Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

Cal.

San Joaquin San Joaquin had Santa Ana San Joaquin San Joaquin Russian Russian San Joaquin Sacramento Santa Ana Los Angeles San Joaquin San Joaquin Russian Sacramento Los Angeles San Joaquin Truckee Sacramento Mojave Sacramento San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin Sacramento San Joaquin San Joaquin Santa Ana Santa Ana San Gabriel Los Angeles Chowchilla River Burns Creek Mad River Santa Am River Cherry Creek Mokeluane River Fast Fk. Russian River Dry Creek Little John Creek American River Fullerton Creek Tujunga Wash Fresno River Kern River Franz-Maacama Creek Scotts Creek Pacoima Creek Mariposa Creek Martis Creek Yuba River Mojave River North Yuba River Merced River Calaveras River Stanislaus River Feather River Owens Creek Kings River Santa Ama River San Antonio Creek San Gabriel River Los Angeles River

235

74

352

19

117

618'

105

82

212

1,875

5.0

147

234

2,073

59

52

34

108

39

1,324

215 L489

1,031

362

897

2,600

26

1,542

2,233

27

236

152

26.0

20.1

17.*4

10.6

35.2

10.4

10.3

24.3

23.1

25.0

19.9

22.9

21.3

15.6

11.3

10.9

21.2

17.5

9.0

6.8

9.8

29.9

18.4

27.1

6.5

31.6

28.9

30.9

24.0

20.8

18.6

13.0

26.5

12.7

38.9

27.0

40.4

30.4

38.9

25.7

27.1

15.9

18.3

25.8

16.3

23.3

22.8

14.4

9.2

28.5

14.4

26.3

13.0

13.0

35.*5

15.0

r Project State PM? Peak Discharge (ofe)

I.A

00

127,000

26,800

137,000

56.000

60,000

261,000

57,000

"45,000

56,000

615,000

16,000

130,000

114,000

235,000

"44,300

36,100

32,000

"43,000

12,400

460,00oc

186,000

226,ooo

396,000

132,000

355,000

720,000

11.400

437,000

700,000

60,000

194,000

220,000

C

r

Q

River Basin Stream Drain..te Area (sa.mi.)

Basin Average (in Inches)

Pree.

Runoff Success Terminus Tuolumne Whittier Narrows Cale Cal$

cal.

Cal.

San Joaquin San Joaquin San Joaquin San Gabriel Tule River Kaweah River Tuolumne River San Gabriel River TABLE B.1 ( )

K

Pro.iect

'0

'0

State F

Peak Discharve (ofa)

383

560

it 5133

"40.1

25.1

1.*,

i2.6

2468

20. ?

13.7

200,000

290,000

602,000

305,000

APPENDIX C

SIMPLIFIED METHODS OF

ESTIMATING PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page C.

A. INTRODUCTION

......

....................................

1.59-42 C.2 SCOPE .

.............................................

1.59-42 C.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGELEVELS FROM HURRICANES ...............

1.59-42 C.3.1 Methods Used

.............

........................

1.59-42 C.3'2 Use of Data in Estimating PMS ............

1.59-42 C.3.3 Wind-Wave Effects ......................................

1.59-43 C.4 LIMITATIONS .

..........................................

1.59-43 REFERENCES .

.............................................

1.59-43 FIG URES .. ..............................................

1.59-44 TABLES .

...............................................

1.59.46 FIGURES

Figure C.1-Probable Maximum Surge Estimates, Gulf Coast

....................

1.59-44 C.2-Probable Maximum Surge Estimates, Atlantic Coast ..................

1.59-45 TABLES

Table C. I-Probable Maximum Surge Data ..............................

1.59-46 C. 2-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Port Isabel ..........

1.59.47 C. 3-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Freeport ............

1.59.48 C. 4-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Eugene Island ........

1.59.49 C. 5-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Isle Dernieres .........

1.59-50

C. 6-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Biloxi ....

...........

1.59-51 C. 7-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Santa Rosa Island .....

.1.59-52 C. 8-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Pitts Creek ...........

1.59-53 C. 9-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Naples ....

.........

1.59-54 C.-10-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Miami ..............

1.59-55 C.A I-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Jacksonville

...........

1.59-56 C. 12-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Jeckyll Island ........

1.59-57 C.13-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Folly Island ...........

1.59-58 C.14-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Raleigh Bay ..........

1.59-59 C.15-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Ocean City ...........

1.59-60

C.16-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Atlantic City ..........

1.59-61 C.17-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Long Island ...........

1.59-62 C.18-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Watch Hill Point .......

1.59-63 C.19-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Hampton Beach ......

..

1.59-64 C.20-Probable Maximum Hurricane, Surge, and Water Level-Great Spruce Island .

.

. .

1.59-65 C.21-Ocean-Bed Profiles

...........

. ....

............................

1.59-66

1.59-41

C.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix presents timesaving methods of es timating the maximum stiilwater level of the probable maximum surge (PMS) from hurricanes at open coast sites on the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

Use of the methods herein will reduce both the time necessary for applicants to prepare license applica tions and the NRC staff's review effort.

The procedures are based on PMS values deter mined by the NRC staff and its consultants and by applicants for licenses that have been reviewed and accepted by the staff. The information in this appen dix was developed from a study made by Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, through a contract with NRC (Ref. 1).

The PMS data are shown in Tables C.I through C.21 and on maps of the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts (Figures C.I and C.2). Suggestions for interpolating between these values are included.

Limitations on the use of these generalized methods of estimating PMS are identified in Section C.4. These limitations should be considered in detail in assessing the applicability of the methods at specific sites.

Applicants for licenses for nuclear facilities at sites on the open coast of the Atlantic Ocean or the Gulf of Mexico have the option of-using these methods in lieu of more precise but laborious methods contained in Appendix A. The results of application of the methods in this appendix will in many cases be ac cepted by the NRC staff with no further verification.

C.2 SCOPE

The data and procedures in this appendix apply only to open-coast areas of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.

Future studies are planned to determine the ap plicability of similar generalized methods and to develop such methods, if feasible, for other areas.

These studies, to be included in similar appendices, are anticipated for the Great Lakes and the Pacific Coast, including Hawaii and Alaska.

C.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE LEVELS

FROM HURRICANES

The data presented in this appendix consist of all determinations of hurricane-induced PMS peak levels at open-coast locations computed by the NRC

staff or their consultants, or by applicants and ac cepted by the staff. The data are shown in Tables C. 1 through C.21 and on Figures C.I and C.2. All repre sent stillwater levels for open-coast conditions.

SAll PMS determinations in Table C.1 were made by NRC consultants for this study (Ref. 1) or for earlier studies except Pass Christian, Brunswick, Chesapeake. Bay Entrance, Forked River-Oyster

.Creek, Millstone, Pilgrim, and Hampton Beach.

The computations by the consultants were made using the NRC surge computer program, which is adapted from References 2, 3, and 4. Probable max imum hurricane data were taken from Reference 5.

Ocean bottom topography for the computations was obtained from the most detailed available Nautical Charts published by the National Ocean Survey, NOAA. The traverse line used for the probable max imum hurricane surge estimate was drawn from the selected coastal point to the edge of the continental shelf or to an ocean depth of 600 feet. MLW and was one hurricane radius to the right of the storm track.

The radius to maximum winds was oriented at an angle of 1150 from the storm track. The traverse was oriented perpendicular to the ocean-bed contours near shore. The ocean-bed profile along the traverse line was determined by roughly averaging the topography of cross sections perpendicular to the traverse line and extending a maximum of 5 nautical miles to either side. The 10-mile-wide cross sections were narrowed uniformly to zero at the selected site starting 10 nautical miles from shore. It was assumed that the peak of the PMS coincided with the 10% ex ceedance high spring tide' plus initial rise.' Slightly different procedures were used for postulating the traverse lines and profiles for the Crystal River and St. Lucie determinations.

In each case the maximum water level resulted from use of the high translation speed for the hur ricane in combination with the large radius to max imum wind as defined in Reference 5. Detailed data for the computed PMS values are shown in Tables C.1 through C.20. Ocean-bed profile data for Pass Christian, Crystal River, St. Lucie, Chesapeake Bay Mouth, and Hampton Beach are shown in Table C.21.

The water levels resulting from these computations are open-coast stillwater levels upon which waves and wave runup should be superimposed.

C.3.2 Use of Data In Estimating PMS

Estimates of the PMS stillwater level at open-coast sites other than those shown in Tables C.1 through C.21 and on Figures C.1 and C.2 may be obtained as follows:

'The 10% exceedance high spring tide is the predicted maximum monthly astronomical tide exceeded by 10%.of the predicted max imum monthly astronomical tides over a 21-year period.

'Initial rise (also called forerunner or sea level anomaly) is an anomalous departure of the tide level from the predicted axtronomical tide.

1.59-42 C.3.1 Methods Used I

I

I. Using topographic maps or maps showing soundings, such as the Nautical Charts, determine an ocean bed profile to a depth of 600 ft MLW, using the methods outlined above. Compare this profile with the profiles of the locations shown in Tables C.2 through C.21. With particular emphasis on shallow water depths, select the location or locations in the general area with the most similar profiles. An es timate of the wind setup may be interpolated from the wind setup data for these locations.

2. Pressure setup may be interpolated between locations on either side of the site.

3. Initial rise, as shown in Table C.1, may be inter polated between locations on either side of the site.

4. The 10% exceedance high spring tide may be computed from predicted tide levels in Reference 6; it may be obtained from the Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft.

Belvoir, Va.; it may be interpolated, using the tide relations in Reference 6; or it may be obtained from Appendix A.

5. An estimate of the PMS open-coast stillwater level at the desired site will be the sum of the values from Steps I through 4, above.

C.3.3 Wind-Wave Effects Coincident wave heights and wave runup should be computed and superimposed on the PMS stillwater level obtained by the foregoing procedures. Accep table methods are given in Reference 2 and in Appen dix A.

CA LIMITATIONS

I. The NRC staff will continue to accept for review detailed PMS analyses that result in less con servative estimates. In addition, previously reviewed and approved detailed PMS analyses at specific sites will continue to be acceptable even though the data and procedures in this appendix result in more con servative estimates.

2. The PMS estimates obtained as outlined in Sec tion C.3.2 arc maximum stillwater levels. Coincident wind-wave effects should be added.

3. The PMS estimates obtained from the methods in Section C.3.2 are valid only for open-coast sites, i.e., at the point at which the surge mikes initial land fall. If the site of interest has appreciably different off-shore bathymetry, or if the coastal geometry dif fers or is complex, such as for sites on an estuary, ad jacent to an inlet, inshore of barrier islands, etc.,

detailed studies of the effect of such local conditions should be made. Reference 2 provides guidance on such studies.

REFERENCES

I. Nunn, Snyder, and Associates, "Probable Max imum Flood and Hurricane Surge Estimates," un published report to NRC, June 13, 1975 (available in the public document room).

2. U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center,

"Shore Protection Manual," Second Edition, 1975.

3. B. R. Bodine, "Storm Surge on the Open Coast:

Fundamental and Simplified Prediction," Technical Memorandum No. 35, U.S. Army Coastal Engineer ing Research Center, 1971.

4. George Pararas-Caryannis, "Verification Study of a Bathystrophic Storm Surge Model," Technical Memorandum No. 50, U.S. Army Coastal Engineer ing Research Center, May 1975.

5. U. S. Weather Bureau (now U.S. Weather Service, NOAA), "Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," Hurricane Research Interim Report, HUR 7-97 and HUR 7-97A, 1968.

6. U. S. Department of Commerce, NOAA, "Tide Tables," annual publications.

1.59-43

96°

960

940

329

310

200

27r

260

250

240

93?

92r

910

90p

89W

88e

870

860

860

840

8r3

820

810

FIGURE Ci PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE ESTIMATES - GULF COAST

C

34°

340

C

f(

830

820 810 800

790

780 770

760

750

8o

85o-

840

830 820

81

800 70r

780

0

770

760

750

740

730

720

71'

FIGURE C.2 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE ESTIMATES - ATLANTIC COAST

1.59-45

TABLE C. 1 PROBABLE MPAXfl04 SURGE DATA

(W)CATIONS INDICATED ON FIGURES C.1 and C.2)

DISTANCE FR0OM

SHORELINE, NAUTICAL MILES,

FOR SELECTED WATER DEPTHS, FEET HIM

OPEN-COAST LOCATION

AND TRAVESE

PORT ISABEL

FREEPORT

EUGENE ISLAND

ISLE DERNIERE

PASS CHRISTIAN (a)

BILOXI

SANTA ROSA ISLAND

PITTS CREEK

CRYSTAL RIVER (a)

NAPLES

MIAMI

ST. LUCIEW()

JACKSONVILLE

JEKYLL ISLAND

FOLLY ISLAND

BRUNSWICK

RALEIGH

CHESAPEAKE BAY

ENTRANCE (a)

OCEAN CITY

ATLANTIC CITY

FORKED RIVER

OYSTER CREEK

LONG ISLAND

MILLSTONE

WATCH HILL POINT

PILGRIM

HAMPTON

EAM (a)

GREAT SPRUCE ISLAND

I

N

TRAVERSE

AZIMUTH

DEG.

-

HIN.

DEPTH, FEET, ALONG TRAVERSE FROM OPEN COAST SHORE LINE

10

20

50

100

200

600

DISTANCE,

NAUTICAL MILES, TO DEPTH INDICATED

1

1 ii

86

152

192

165

160

183

205

248

100

90

108

150

135

30

00

30

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

110

00

146

00

166

166

115

148

00

00

00

no

0.23

0.49

1.94

11.10

33.10

44.0

0.20

0.55

5.50

24.0

55.5

70.9

2.00

20.00

30.00

44.1

60.0

90.0

0.62

1.75

11.90

30.4

45.3

58.5

77.0

3.40

11.20

30.00

50.1

69.2

78.0

0.09

0.18

0.48

11.9

20.9

45.0

8.84

9.23

24.30

69.4

107.0

132.0

2.31

31.40

127.0

0.17

0.79

15.70

45.6

85.8

145.0

0.17

0.94

2.01

2.2

2.7

3.9

0.10

18.7

0.10

0.20

2.58

30.0

55.0

62.5

2.60

4.00

15.60

39.6

64.3

72.6

0.19

2.17

12.00

32.8

47.0

57.6

0.12

0.30

1.75

12.0

25.4

35.2

62.0

0.12

0.26

3.67

17.8

45.0

59.0

0.20

0.85

5.00

23.1

58.4

70.0

0.09

0.07

0.22

0.04

0.18

1.35

0.14

0.64

0.31

0.71

0.08

0.20

4.8

1.6

2.0

1.1

27.2

34.3

7.2

6.1

68.4

"84.0

40.0

1 7R .0

1.

6

1 PROBABLE MAXIMUM SURGE AT OPEN COAST SHORE LINB

WIND

SETUP,

FT.

PRESSURE

SETUP,

FT.

10.07

15.99

29.74

18.61

28.87

27.77

.9.12

24.67

26.55

18.47

2.51

8.25

16.46

20.63

17.15

12.94

8.84

17.30(b)

14.30

15.32

18.08(b)

8.73

12.41

10.01

4.25

9.73

3.57

2.89

3.29

3.29

2.88

2.98

3.25

2.31

2.65

2.90

3.90

3.80

3.23

3.34

3.23

2.20

3.09 (b)

2.83

2.57 (b)

2.46

2.20

2.42

2.23

1.82 INITIAL 102 EXC.

HIGH

TOTAL

RISE,

TIDE,

SURGE,

FT.

FT. ML

(C) PT. mL (C)

2.50

2.40

2.00

2.00

0.80

1.50

1.50

1.20

0.60

1.00

0.90

0.98

1.30

1.20

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.10

1.14

1.10

1.00

0.97

1.00

0.96

0.83

0.56

1.70

2.20

2.30

2.40

2.30

2.50

2.10

4.10

4.30

3,50

3.60

3.70

6.90

8.70

6.80

5.80

4.70

3.80

5.00

5.70

4.70

3.10

3.80

4.00

11.90

10.50

16. OC

17.84

23.48

37.34

26.30

34.85

34.76

15.97

32.28

34.10

25.87

10.91

16.73

27.90

33.87

28.18

21.94

17,63

22.20

23.27

24.70

23.78

15.26

19.41

17.39

19.60

17.81

28.11 a.

See Table C.21 for ocean-bed profile.

b.

Combined wind and pressure setup.

c.

Host values in these columns have been C

updated by the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center and differ from those in the orilinal documents.

(

(

'0

0%

I

I

9.73

Q

Note:

maximm wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

-!/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Stdrm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

OCEAN BED PROFILE

WATER

BELOW

MWM

0

9.0o

20.5

35.0

43.0.

51.0.

58.5.

69.0

95.5

116

138

171

266

6oo

19,850o TRAVERSE

DISTANCE

FROM

SHORE

(NAUT.MI.)

0

0.2

-

0.5

1.0

-

1.5

,

2.0

_

5.0

1O

.15

20

30

40

_4

50

DEGREE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINr FROM SHORE

T6 600-FOO DanT

K

TABLE C.2 SUMMARY-PERTINT PROBABLE MAXIMIh hURRICANE (*MH), STOR.M SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LE

LOCATION PORT ISABEL

T. 26004.3'

LONG. 97 09.41: TRAVERSE-AIMUTH86 0-30

GREEI LENTH 4.2.1 NAUTIICAL MILES

"""&mla K

-J

PROBABLE

MAXIMUM HURRICANE IN

PARCThISTICS

ZONE

C

AT LOCATION

260

04 EREE NOM

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SLW

MODERATF

HIGH

GEMMEAL PRESSURE IDEX

P0 INCHE

26.412

26.412

26.112

2

-

PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

INCHES

31.30

31.30

31.30

RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

LARGERADIUS RnAU.

MIe.

20

20

20

TRANLATION SPEED

V (FORWARD

)KNOTS

I

...

28

,'!xIMUM WIND SPEED)

V

M.P.H.

147

151

161 ATALMRZ D1SrANE-WINDU .NI.

M2OMP20 IND

398

374,

318

  • ' O

TO MlAX.

IN

PMH cCMnPUATIONAL ComD71CrT

AD WATE LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES

CO EFFI CI MNTS

B0TIO

FMICTION FACTOR 0.0030

WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

L.EVEL

DATA

(AT OPEN CanB

SHORELINE)

pM

SpEISD OF TPANMSIATIOVq OOMP0NERTS

H

WIND SETUP

10007 PRESSURE SETUP

35 INITIAL WATER LEV.

.*

ASTRONOMICAL

1.70

TIDETLESM*

TOTAL-SURGE

STILL WATER

Lhs'J.

17.84 PET

LW-

-

-

TABLE C.3 SuMMARY-PEITINE*rT PRUMBLE MAXIMUI. HURRICANE (FMH).

STORKM S;GIO

COMPUIATIONAL ITA. AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOCATION FREEPOR'.

LUT. 280

56' LONG. 95'

TEXAS

Note: Nax-- wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

--/nitial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

C ) . . . ..

.......

..... .. .

. . .

22' : TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH 152 PROBABLE MAXIMUM HUiRICANE INDEX CHARACTI*$ISTICS

ZONE

C

AT LOCATION

280

561 MHZE NORTH

1 SPEED OF UNSITION

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SLOW

HODERATF

HIGH

  • .."
  • (sT)

NOm'

(Hr,)

CflI!VAL PRESSURE INDEX

Po INCHES

26.69

26.69

26.69 PERIPHERAL P

0SRE

P n INCHES

31.25

31.25

31.25 ADIUS 70 KMAXDIUM WIND

LiRGE SAhMS iUT.

I.

26.0

26.0

26.0

TRUN*LATION SPEED

V (voawRD SPEED) I

S

139 U

8.

KiXD= WIND SPEED

Yx M.P.H.

139

143

153 INITIAL DISTAN(CE--&U.I ,* l9 MPH WIND

491

458

390

AT SHORE TO MAX.

WIND

DiXRE, o LENGTH 70.9 NAUTICAL MILES

PMH COUPUTATIONAL C0EWICIENT

AND WATER LEVU (SUGE) ESTIMATES

CooFFIOIENT§

BOT'iM FkICTION FACTOR 0.0030

WIND STRE

CORRCION FACTOR 1.10

WATEH

LVEL

DATA

(AT OPEN COAST SHOP.LIIE)

.

U'

OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATE

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SORE

MI

(

TmI.

(FEw-)

0

0

"

.1.0

30

_

2.0

32

_

3.0

37

4.0

40

-

5.0

47

10.0

66

_

15.0

78

_

20.0

90

.

_

30.0

114

-

40.0

132

50.0

168

-

60.0

240

_

70.0

570

70.9

600

IATITUDE

  • 280 26'

DEGREE AT TRAVERSE

KID-POINT FROM SHOR9

1'O 600-FOOT DEPTH

PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION

COMPONENTS

ST I

HTr H T

F

E

E

T

WIND SEiTUP

15.99 PRLSSURE SETUP

2.89 INITIAL WATIR LEV.

2.40

&STRONOMICAL

2.20

TIDE LEVEL.

TOTAL-SURGE

STILL WAT1E Lhl,.

23.48 FELT MLW

-

.....

tC

Q

LOCTION EUGENE

LAT. 29o 20'

LONG. 91'

ISLAND, LOUISIANA

Note:

Maximm wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

- Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels Is approxi mately double the initial distance.

21 . T-RAVmRSE-AZImuTH19230'DE2REEs LENGTH

90

NAUTICAL MILES

OC]AN BED PROFILE

TRAVEiSk WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

MKU

NAUT

FEET)

-

0.0

0

-

1.0

5

-

2.0

10

-

3.0

12

-

5.0

15

-

10.0

15

-

15.0

18

-

20.0

20

-

30.0

50

-

40

60

-

50

140

-

60

200

-

70

260

-

80

320

-

90

600.

L&TrTUDE

%2o

4d DEGREE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

600:=

TABLE C.4 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBULE MAXIMLI. HURRICANE (PMH),

STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

K

.ub PROBABLE 1AXIMUM HURRICANE INE

CHARACThWISTICS

ZONE

B

AT LOCATION

29P

20' DGREE NORTH

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SLOW

TODERATF

HIGH

CENTRAL PRESSURE I*NDE

P0 INCHES

26.87

26.87

26.87 PDtIPHEAL PRESSURE

INCHES

31.24

31.24

31.24 IUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

J.-ARE RADIUS NUT*. MI.

29.0

29.0

29.0

T SLATION SPEED

, (FORWARD SPED) KNOTS

I

4

1

28.0

AIMUM WIND SPED

Vx M.P.H.

141

144

153 INITIAL DISTArCE-NMAT.M.I.-/

FROM 20 MPH WIND

534

184

412 AT SHORE To MAX.

WID-1)

PMH OCHPUTATIONAL COEFFICIENT

AND WATER LEVM (SURGE) ESTINATES

ICTJIM 'iFICTION

FACTOR 0.0030

WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

WAT E

Lh VEL

DATA

(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)

PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION

COMPONENTS

ST

M

ST

HiT

F

E, T

WIND SETIUP

-29.74 PRESSURE SETUP

3.29 INITIAL WLATER LEV.

2.00

ATRONOMICAL

2.30

hIDE LEVEL

SUAL-RGE

STILL

L

kA .

37.34 SET =L

TABLE C.5 SUMMY-PERTINENT PROALE MAXI M1,. HU*RIlCANE (PMH) ' STORM SMGE 00MFUTTIONAL WA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOIATION ISLE

L&T. 29002.91 LONG. 90"42.5'; "TAVERSE-AzIMUTH 165 DiEEaLe LG

58.5 NAuTICAL muILs DERNIERES, IOUISIAM

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maxlmum wind.

-!/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

C

(

0o PROBLE MAXIDUH HURRICANE INDEX CHARAMTUISTICS

ZONE B

AT LOC&TION

290

3 D0G'EENOTNO

SPEED*OF TMNSL§T:0I.

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SLOW

14OD91ATF

HIGH

MH

PRESSURE INDEM

P0 INCHES

26.88

26.88

26.88 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

P

INCHES

31.25

31.25

31.25 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

IARGZ RADIUS NALT. HI.

29

29

29 MANSIATION SPEED

? (FORWARD SPME)

KNOTS

4 I

11

\\2 IAXIMUM WIND SPEED

!V

M.P.H.

140

144

153 INITIAL D

=h-N

.MI.1/

PROM 20 MPH WIND

528

48?

394 KT SHORE TO MAX. WIND

I

I

PMW OCKWPUATION&L COiUVICIERT

AND

AMAE

LEVEL (SUlGE)

ESTIMATES,

COEFFICI-ENTS

"BMiOT

FRICTION FACTOR 0.0030

WIND SRESS, C0HHEION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

LEVEL

DATA

(AT OPEN CCAST sFMlEJNS)

P1W SPEED OF TRANSLI'TIO

COMPONENTS

ST I

-14

!

9 F

E

E" T

WIND SETUP

8b RESSURE SETUP

3 INITIAL

MATES LEW.

2.00

ATRNOMICAL

2.40

TIDE LEME

TOTAL-SURGE

SILL jATa7 LEV.

26.30

=

MHW

K

TABLE C.6 SURY-PFERTINENT PR"OBBLE MAX IMU. hURRICANE (Pml'.

STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOTION BIIOXI

LAT. 30023.6'

LONG. 88"53.6't TRAVMsSE-AZIMUTH

160

DECREEs LEVGTH 77 NAUTICAL MILES

MISSISSIPPI

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

1-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE IN=*

CHARACMISTICS

ZONE

B AT LOCATION

300

24 DECREE NORTH

K

r Lft

'0

OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DET

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

MLW

0

0

-

0.2

3.0

0.5

2.0

1.0

6.5

1.5

9.0

_

2.0

9.0

_

3.0

9.5.

5.0

12.0

_

9.0

9.5 _

_

9.5 U-.0

_

10.0

14.0

-

10.5

18.5

-

11.0

17.5

_

11.5

23.0

-

12.0

29.0

1

13

34.5

-

15

41.5

20

45.0

25

47.0

30

50.0

40

65.0

50

99.0

60

164

"

70

203

78

6oo

80

7*

LATITUDE

?

290 508 DEGREE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

TO k00--1 RMP'

ISPEED

OF TRANSATION_

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SLW

MODERATF

HIGH

METRAL PRESSURE INDEI

o INC=

26.9

26.9

26.9 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

P

INCHES

31.23

31.23

31.23 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

laRGE RADIUS NAUT. MI.

30

30

30

rRANSLATION SPEED

!

(FORWARD SPEED) KEATS

4

11

28 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED

vx M*.P.H.

139

143

153 INITIAL DiSr~C-niuT.MI.X

FROM 20 MPH WIND

525

498

396 IT SHORE 32 MAX. WIND

-

-

I

P10

OCCUATIONAL COEFFICIENT

AND WATER LEVEL. (SURGE)

SrIMATES

COEFFICIENTS

WM'OK FRICTION FACTOR 0.0030

WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

(ATER L

.VCST

DATA

(AT OPEN OCs sMREiNZ)

TABLE C.7 SUMMARY-YERUNENT ?RUMABLE MAX IMU h1JRRIC&NE (FMH)

  • STORM SUItGh. OOIPULAT1ONAL IATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOCATION SANTA ROSA

LIT. 30 023.769 LONG. 86"37.7': TR"AVERSE-AZIMUTH

183

=BflE&# LQWGTH 4e4.7 NAUTICAL MILES

ISLAND,

AUEAZAM

l.A

Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

-

Initial distance is.-distance along tra .verse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline. Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACMh~ISTICS

ZONE

B

AT LOCATION

300

24' DNEGR N0ORTH

PARMLERDESIGNATION$

SLOWV

I40DM1TFI

HIGH

, (sr)

(N)

(T

CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX

P0 INCHES

.26.88

26.88

26.88 PEtWIPERAL.PRESSURE

in IziCi~s

31.20

310

3.2 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

IARGE RADIUS HAUT. MI.

29

29

29 fAnWSIATION SPEED

? (FMonAiiD SPEED) KNOTS

4

11

28 MIAXIMUM WIND. SPEED

V XMeP9*H

140

144

153, INITIAL DIST&NCE-NAUT.H

2

'8

9 PRtOM 20 MPH WIND

47

'9 KT SHORE TO MAX. WIND

1___ -

PMH OMPUTATI0NAL GOiFFICILUT

AND WATER LLY&i (SURiGE)

ESTIMATES

C 0 E F.

F I C I E N T S

10rj'0M FRIICTION FACTORB 0.0030

WIND MSTRSS COURiCYIO

FACTOR 1.10

WATEft LEVEL

DATA

(AT OPENI COAST SI RELINE)

PKH SPEED OF TRANSLATIOIb COMPONENTS

ST I

T

H

___ __E

F

ET

WIND SETUJP

9.12 PRESSURE SETUP

3.25 INITIAL WATER LEV*

1.50

LSTROHORIC&L

2.10

riDE LEVEL

lOTAL-SURCE

STILL WATER LEV.

15.97

ý=7I MLW

___

C

OCEAN BED PROFILE

.TRAVERSE

WATER

DISrANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

swagR

HMW

Nt

.AUT.H.

LF2TL

0

0

S 0.2

22 S 0.5

5

1.0

66

1.5

66

290

66

-

3.0

73

5.0

76.

10

88

-

15

120

20

182

30377

40

510

-

45

600.

-

0

756 LATITUDE

3601-36 DEG~REE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

ro600-F

DEPTH

K

Q

LOCATIONPITTs CREEK

LAT. 30001.1' LONG. 83""

FLORIDA

Note:

Maxima wind speed Is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

-/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

.20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm

,diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

53': -TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH

205 DE*EEs LENGITH 110

NAUTICAL MILES

PROBABLE MA*INUM HURRICANE INIM CHARACTERISTICS

ZON.

A

AT WC&TION

300

01o DEGR

NORTH

SLSPEED OF TNSA

TION

PARAMEI

DEINAIN

SLOW

HOIERATF

HIGH

RADIUS

PRESXUME INDEX

Po0 INCHES

26-79

26.79

26.79 PERIPHItA

PRESSURE

SPn INCHES

30.ZZ

30.22

30.22 RADIUýS TO MAIMU

WIND

JAUME RADIUS NAUT.

MI.

26

26

26 rRANSIATION SPEED

rV (1OiM I)D SPEED) KNOTs

1 4

11

21 AXIMUM WIND SPEED

v_

M.P.H.

138

142

146 naTIAT, DIST-ANCE-NUT.MIX

FROM 20 MPH~ WIN

3514

322

278.

AT MOMK To MAX. WIND-

-

-

TABLE C.8 SUMART-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMU1. hfJRRIC&NE (PMH),

STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL LATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

A

'a I,'

t. h OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

MLW

NAUT.MI.

IFEET)

0

0

_

0.2.

1.0

_

0.5

2.0

_

1.0

3.0

_

1.5

4.o0

_

2.0

5.0.

.

3.0

6.5.

_

5.0

9.0.

_

10

22. 0.

_

15

31.o0

-

20

41.0

_

30

62.0

_

40

78.0

_

50

81.0o

-

60

84.0 .

70

101.0..

-

80

117.0.

_

90

144.0._

_ 100

180.0

_ 110

210.0_

120

280.0

.

130

543.o L.

132

600.0.

140

846 TITUDE

  • 29° 03'

DEREE AT TRAVEMSE,

ID-POINT FROM SHORE

§2L60-=0T

=

PMH OCUTATIONAL COEFFICIENT

AND WATE

UWEL (SURGL)

ESTIMATES

COEFF ICI

ENTS

B

uM FIIcrTION FACTOR 0.0030

WIND STRESS COHREMTION FACTOR 1,10

WA T Eh Lh9VEL

DAT.T

(AT OPEN

CAST SHORELINE)

PIMH SPEED OF TRANSIATION

COMPOONETS

ST

I

MT

I

T

F

E E T

WIND SETUP

24.67 RESSURN SETUJP23 INITIAL WATER LE.

1.20

ASRNOMICAL

4.10

TIDE LEVEL

TOTAL-SURGE

322 STILL VATIr LIU".

32.28 LW

-

-

TABLE C.9 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PRUbABLE MAX IMt:? HURRICANE (PNJO, STORM SUC

COMPULATIONAL rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOCATION

NAPLES

FLORIDA

LkT. 26001.41 IONG. 81'46.2'; TRAVERSE-AZINUTH

248 DIUREEa LENGTH 14e NAUTI-CL MILES

1P

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

-!/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

PMH ONPUTATIONAL COXFICIeNT

AND WATER LEVEL (SUiRGE) ESTIMATES

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE IN=X CHARACeTUISTICS

ZONE

A AT LOCATION

260

01' DEGRE NORTH

SPEED OF

NSLATION

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

. SLOW

MODERATF

HIGH

~(ST)

"T

(0

Sa~RYlAL PRESSURE INDEX

P0 INCHES

26.24'

26.24

26.24 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

% INCHES

31.30

31.30

31.30

ADniS TO MAXIMUM WIND

LRGE RAIUS wNAU.

MI.

15

15

1. i LIANSLATION SPEED

rv (FOAD SPEED) KOTS

4 -

'17

4AXIMUM WIND SPEED

Vx M.P.H*

19)

3ejL

158 ENITIAL DISTAN.-NWUT.MIND

FROKM 20 MPH WIND

2952

270

256 kT SHORE TO MAX.

WIND

-

-C

COJFFI CIENTS

BOIO

FRICTION FACTR 0-0030

WIND STRESS CORETIN FACTOR 1,10

.WATEh LE~VEL

DATA

(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)

PHH SPLWD OF TRANSLATION

COMPONETS

SIT I

mT

HT

F

S E

T

WIND SETUP

13.49

15.87

18.47 PRESSURE SETUP

3.29

2.87

2.90

7NITIAL WATER LEV.

l.0)0

1.00

1.00

ASTRON0MICAL

3.60

3.60

3.50

TIDE LEVEL

ýVAL-SURGX

TILL WATia L"V.

21.3:8

23.35

25.87 MEE .LW

,

E,,I

(

K

TABLE C.10

SJMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUP. hURRICANE (PMH) , STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOCATION

MIAMI

LAT. 25%?.2'

LONG. 80'07.8'; TRAVErSE-AZIMUTH

100

DEREEs LENGTH

3-.9 NAUTICAL MILES

FLORIrA

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

-1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

.P

Ius PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE I

.DEX gCKRACTISTICS

ZONE

1 AT IOCATION

250 47.2 DEGREE NORTH

PARAM

~

~

SPEE OFIG~TIN IO

1*

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

S

IlW HODERATF

HIGH

... (ST)

(MT)

CHT)

CENTAL PRESSURE INDEX

P INCS

26.09

26.09

26.0

PERIPHEAL PRESSURE

Pn INCHES

31.30

31.30

31.0,

RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

LARGE RADIUS NAUT.MI.

1

14

14 TNSLATION SPEED

F (FORWARD SPEED)

OTS

1 4

13

17 WMUM WIND SPEED

v M.P.H.

152

156

160

INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI.YJ

ROM 20 MPH MWIND

274

258

243 AT SHORE TO MAX, WND

-

PMH CCMPUTATIONAL COEFTICIENT

AND WATER LEE (SURGE) ESTIMATES

CON?

I CI ENTS

WFIVM1X

FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

LEVEL

DATA

(AT OPEN OCAST SMFRNLINN)

PMH SPEED OF TRANSIATION

COMPONENTS

ST 1I '

HT

S.. [

F

E

E

T

WIND SETUP

2.06

2.37.

2.51 PRESSURE SETUP

3.97

3.82

3.90

INITIAL WATR LEV.

0.90

0.90

0.90

ASTRONOM.ICAL

3.6o

3.60

3.60

ITDE LEEL

ff UAL-SURGE

STILL WATER IJS.

10.53

10.68

10.91

=V

-

-

-

TABLE C.11 SUM

  • Y-P~iRTINr PROBABLE M&XIMVP. WIRICANS (PMH),

STORM SUNG*r, COMPUI*ATIOMAL rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL.

LOC&TIONJACKSONVILLELAT.

300

21' LONG. 81"

FLORIDA

PRORARL/ MAXIMUM HURRICANE IND12 CHARACTIhISTICS

ZONE

2 AT LOCATION

300

21' nwRHU NOMTH

AN EG N OF

Q

ITR

ATION

P

ETER

ESIGNATIONS

LOW

HODEATF

HIGH

C01TH&L *PRESSUR

INDEX

P0 INCHES

26.67

26.67

26.6?

PENIPHHEAL PRESSURE

-P

INCHES

31.21

31.21

31.21 ADIUS 1* MAXIMUM WIND

LAE RAMDUS NAUT. MI.

38

38

38 TIOU SPEED

v(FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS

1 4

11

22 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED

vX

M.P.H.

138

142

149 INITIAL DIMtNCE-NAJT*.HIJI

PROM 20 MPH WIND

407

372

334 kT SHORE TO MAX. WIND

Note: Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

1Y/Initial distance is distance along traveree froe shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

24*..

rmvEasE-AzimuTH

9o OCEAN BED PhOFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DIETH

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

MIM.

(NAUT.MI. )

FEET

0

0

0.2

20

0.5

25

1.0

32

1.5

37

2.0

43

3.0

55

5.0

59

10.0

66

"12.0

66

14.0

72

15.0

73

20.0

8o

30.0

100

40.0

117

50.0

131

-

o.o noi r" 60.0

270

62.5

6oo

70.0

9W8 LATITUDE % 300 21'

DE*REE AT TRAVERSE

IMID-POINT FROM SHORE

P600-FOOT Dwri Domes LENGTH 62.5 xL'UiIC&L MILEm PMH (IHUTATIONAL COXYTICIENT

-AN

WATER LEVEL (stihz) ESLTIMTE

COEFFICIENT_4 LOTIVI1 FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND SRES CORRECTION FAC!TOR 1.10

WATEh LSVNL

DATA

(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)

PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION

COoMP0MERS

sT

MT

HT

__

_E

E

T

WIND SETUP

16.46 PRESSURE SEUP

3.23 INITIAL

kAT/R LEV.

1.30

NORICAL

6.90

rIDE LEVEL

-

,

-,

tAL-SURGE

ILL WAT12 LLY.

27.90

EET MLW

0'i r

-_

-

j

K

Q

LOCATION JEKYLL

IAT. 310

05' LONG.

81"24.5': TRAVESE-AZImuTH 108 DIXRE',

LENGTH 72.6 NA*TICAL MILES

ISLAND, GEORGIA

PROBBLE MAXIMUM HURICANE INDEX CHARACT10ISTICS

ZONE

2 AT LOCATION

310

56 *DREZ

NORTH

Note:

Maxim=m wind speed is assumed to be on

"the traverse that is to right of storm track a

"distance equal to the radius-to maximum wind.

-!/initial dist ance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline., Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

MLW

(NAuT.mi.

(*

c

0

0

0.2

3.0

0.5

4.o0

1.0

6.o

1.5

6.5

2,0

7.0

3.0

12.0

4.0

20.0

5.0

2365_

6.0

29.5_

7.0

35.5.

8.0

35.0.

10.0

39.5

15.0

49.0.

20.0

57.0.

25.0

65.0

_

30.0

73.0

4.0.0

101.0

50.0

115.0o

60.0

131.0o

"700.

291.0

72.6

600.0

80.0

1,030.0

LATITUD'

300 53'

DRGREE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

S600-FOOT DEPrT

TABLE C.12 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMvI. h'URRICAE (PMH).

STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL LATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

A"

'0

SPEE

OF TANS ATIONn PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

[LOW

HODERATF

HIGH

_ _

_

_)

(n (HT)

C RAL PRESSURE N X

P0 INCHES

26.72

26.72

26.72 PERIPH1RKL PRESSURE

Pn INCHES

31.19

31.19

31.19 RDUSe TO MAXIMUM WIND

IARGE RADIUS NAM. MI.

10

40

40

TRIATrON SPEED

IMUR WIND SPED

yxM.P.H.

135

1541

147 INITIAL DISTAxacT-mW.mI

S20 MPH WIND

400

380

336 TSH

TO

-AX,

pMH O

  • HPUTATIONAL COODTICIE3T

AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)

ESTIMATES

CO0 E FF I C I E NTS3 TIMTON

FHICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

WAT

B

.LEVEL

DATA

(AT OPEN OCAS

SORELINE)

PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION

COMPONErTS

ST

HT

WT

S~F

E. E _T

WIND SETUP

20.63 PREESUR,

SETUP

3.34 INITIAL WATES LEW.

1.20

ASTRONOMICAL

8.70

IDE LEVEL

AL-SURGE

STILL VTSuv33.87 TILL WATER Lh`V.

EEIT MLW

TABLE C.13 su5mHAY-PjmTINENT PROBaBLE MAXmIMp. hUICIANE (PmIl),

STORM SURGE (OmPUTATIOMAL

rATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOCATION FOLLY ISIANIL&T. 32e 39' LONG. 79"56.6': TRAVIMSE-AZIMUTH 150

SOUTH CAROLINA

-Note:

Maxi'm- wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

!/Initial distance Is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

PROEABLE MAXIMUM HIURRICANE INDEX CHABAC'M"ISTICS

ZONE

2 AT LOCATION

320

39' DOtEES NORTH

J

SPEED OF TASLTION

PARANMET

DESIGNATIONS

SLOW

MODERATF

HIGH

S(ST)

NO'

NO?

MAL PRESSURE INDEX

P 0INCHES

26.81

26.81

26.81 PERIPHE*AL PRESSURE

'n INCHES

31.13

31.13

31.13 RADIU8 TO MAXIMUM WIND

R09 RADIUJS NAUT.

MI.

40

40

40

&RANSIATION SPEED

?v (FAD SPEED) KNOTS

1 4

13

4AXDOJM WIND SPEED

Vx M.P.H.

134

139

148

[NITIAL DISTANIE-NAUT.MI.1

'PROM

20 MPH WIND

400

364

311 kT SHORE TO MAX.

WIND

II

DEGREE$ LENGTH 57.6 NAUTICAL MILES

PMH OCHPUTATIONAL CO

ZICIENT

AND WATER LEVEL (SURGcE)

ESTIMATES

OCEAN BED P"OFIL

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELDW

SHORE

HIM

(NAUT.HI.)

(FEET)

0

0

0 0.2

10.5

_

0.5

12.0.

_

1.0

14.0

_

1.5

16.5

_

2.0

18.0.

_

3.0

29.5

,

5.0

39.0

-

10.0

460.

_

15.0

56.o

-

20.0

65.o L30.0

85.0.

_

40.0

138.o0

_

50.0

227.0o

-

57.6

6o0.0

_

60.0

1,800.0

LATIT UME

320 25'

DEGREE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

ro600-= DE

BOT1I0M FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS COM=ION FACTOR 1.10

WATEEB

LE~VEL

DATA

(AT OPEN OGAST SHOELINE)

PMHl SPEED OF TRANISLATION

COMPONENTS

ST I

M

__....____

F.E j T

WIND SETUP

17.15 PRESSURE SETUlP

3-*23 INITIAL WATER LEV.

1.00

ST1'ONOOICAL

6.80

rFiD

LEVEL

TOT1AL-SURGE

STILL WATER LW.

28.18 Pwr MLW

_C

(

0,

K.

TABLE C.14 SUMMARy-PETINENT pROBABLE MAXIMUM. hVRRICAMM (PMH),

MWTOM SJRGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOCATION RALEIGH BAY,IAT.

340

54' LONG. 76 15.3': TRAVIMSE-AZIMIUTH

135 WOWPH OAROLINA

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

!/lnitial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind whe

n. leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTMISTICS

IZONE

3 AT LOCATION

34°0

54' DEREE VNOTH

DEREE, LENGTH 35.2 NAUTICAL MILES

K

'0

'C

NORTH CAROLINA

0E

OFTAN-5 ION

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

!SLW

OMODERATF

HIGH

IfNtR PRESSURE INDEX

P, INCHES

26.89

26.89

26.89 LERIPHEAL PRESSURE

Pn INCHES

31.00

31.00

31.00

RtADI1US TO MAXIMUM WIND

LARGE RADIUS NlUT. MI.

35

35

35 IRANS*ATION SPEED

Fv (FOWVARD

SPEED) KNOTS

5

17

38 MAXIMUM WIND SPEED

Vx M.P.H.

130

137

119 INfiTAL DISTANCE-NAUT.I.i

-"

FROM 2O MP

IND

385

346

280

  1. T SHORE TO

MAX WIND

i._.1..1 P111 aCHPUTATIONAL OOE"ICrIIr AnD WATER MMYE (SURGE) ESTIMATES

COEjFFICXXNT-S

BT

FR)ICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

LSVEL

DATA

(AT OPEN OCAST S)ORELINE)

OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

MWI

I.

0

0

-

0.2

16

0.5

28

1.0

1.0

1.5

4.6

2.0

514

3.0

614

5.0

72

10.0

92 S15.0

U2

20.0

124

30-0

264

35.2

600

40.0

900

LATITUDE % 3,4o4,fl DEGREE AT TRAVIMSE

MID-POINT FO1 SHORE

TABLE C.15 SUHIAMY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUt! hURRICANE (FMH),

STORM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LLVEL

LOCATION OCEAN CITY, LkT. 38e

20' LONG. 75 04.9'; TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH 110

I=REEM LENGTH 59 NAUTICAL MILES

MARYLAND

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTUISTICS

ZONE 4 AT LOCATION

380

20' DWEE NORITH

"SPEE OF TRANSLATION

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SLOW

,ODERATF

HIGH

CENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX

P0 INCHES

27.05

27.05

27.05 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

P

INCHES

30.?7

30.77

30.77 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

LRGE 1ADIUS

IAUT.

MI.

38

38

38

1IWSIATION SPEED

? (y o AMUD

SPEE)

[NOTS

1 10

26

48 IXIElUM WIND SPEED

vS

m.P.H.

124

1133

1146 INITIAL DISTAKCE--NUT.MI.*Y

RM 20 MPH WIND

350

293

251 kT SHORE TO MAX.

WIND

I_

I

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

1 Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi matelv double the Initial distance.

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SHORX

MLW

NA& T.MI

(FEET

0.2

17

0.5

32

.

1.0

29

-

1.5

35

2. 0

4c

-

3.0

38 2

4.0

56

"

-

5.0

61 2

6

71 2

?

56

8

60

9

58

-

10

59

-

11,

65

-

12

64

-

13

70

14

62

214!

II 1i 7 LATITUDE

0 3)8014.~

DEGREE AT TRAVLVS&

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

IR600-FOO

az

--"-K

Ip PMH (THPUTATIONAL CODUICIIVT

AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES

C 0 EFF i C

E H NTS

IOT'iM ,,FRICTION

FACTOR 0.0025 WIND SrTRESS CORMION FACTOR 1.10

W AT E

L SVBL

D ATA

(AT OPEN MAST SHORELINE)

PKH SPEED OF TRANSLATION

COMPONENTS

S

I

NT

H T

_________

F

9E

T1 WIND SETUP

14.30

RESSURE SETUP-

2.83 INITIAL WATER LEV.

1.14 ATNOMICAL

5.00

TIDE LEVEL.

TU-&-SURG,

SILL WATER LEV.

23.27 Vw~ MLK

-

-

(

Q.

LOCATION ATLANTIC

LAT. 39°

21'

LONG. 74"

CITY, NEW JERSEY

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

25': TRAVERSE-AZIMUTH

146 DE*.EEm LENGTH

70

NAUTICAL MILES

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTER2ISTICS

ZONE

4 AT LOCATION

39P

21' DEGREE NORTH

TABLE C.16 SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMU,. HURRICANE (PMH),

STORM SUHGE COMPUTATIONAL DkTA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

K

LA

'0

0

OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BEUOW

SHORE

wLx

-

0

0

_

0.2

10.0

D

0.5

15.0.

_

1.0

22.0

-

2.0

38.0

-

5.0

50.o0

1 10.0

72.0.

-

20.0

90.10

-

30.0

120.0.

_

4o.o

138.0

_

50.0

162.0o

_

60.0

210.0

_

65.0

258.0.

_

70.0

600.0.

-.

0

IATITDE P3

5 DEGREE AT TVERS

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

600-OO

VE

SPEED OF, T_ SLATION

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SIOW

HODERATF

HIGH

,(sT)

(n)

H)

ENTRAL PRESSURE INDEX

P0 INCHS

27.12 R'IPImUA

PRESSURE

P* INCHES

30.70

RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

LARCE RADIUS NAUT. MI.

40

r1RASIATION SPEED

r! (F*ORWARD

spra)KNOTS

i

49 D(IUM WIND SPEED

V.

K.P.H.

142 INIrIAL DISTAMCE-11A

.MI.A

ROM 20 MPH WIND

A~T MSHORE

TO

. yMAX*WN

PMH OCMPUTATIONAL COOEFICIENT

AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)

ESTIMATES

"C

0 E F F I C I E N T 5 BOTTOM FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

Lh VEL

DATA

(AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)

PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION

ODMPONENTS

ST

i MT

Hr F

3 E

T.T

WIND SETUP

15.32 PRESSURE SETUP

2.5?

INITIAL WATER LEV*

1.10

1AUMNOMICAL

5.70

r I IDL L-V

"AL-SURGE

2 STILL WATER L.

ET MLW.

TABLE C.17 SUI4AM

Y-PERTINENT PROBABLE HAXIMUJ. hWHRICANE (PMH),

STORM M:RGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER LEVEL

LOCATION LONG ISLAND.LAT. 410 00' LONG. 7i201.8%' TRAVEiSE-AZIMUTH 166 CONNECTICUT

DECREEa LENGTH 68.4 NAUTICAL MILES

r'

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

HMU

(HAUT. mi.)

JFEgrE

0

0

_ 0.2

22

0.5

38

_

1.0

43

_

1.5

53

2.0

67

-

3.0

82

-

5.0

102

_

10.0

132

_

15.0

145

_

20.0

170

30.0

212

40.0

240

50.0

260

-

60.0

302

68.4

6O0

70.0

870

1ATITUDE

.

400 27'

DEGREE AT TRAVERSE

ID-POINT FHOM SHORE

60o-Foz DFTr'

PMH (XMPUTATIONAL COEWFICIENT

AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)

ESTIMATES

COEFFIC-1ENTS

BO1`nf FRICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND sbfRESS CORREMION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

LEV EL

DATA

(AT OPEN MAS SWORELINS)

PMH SPEED OF TRANSLATION

COMPONENTS

ST I

MT

u S

_ _E

E

T

WIND SETUP

8.73 PRESSURE SETUP

2.46 INITIAL WATIR LEV.

0.97

&STONONICAL

3.10

TIDE LEVEL

WTAL-SURGE

STILL WATER LWV.

15.26 E1EET MLW

(

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HUHRICkNE INDEX CHARAC'IMtISTICS

ZONE

4 AT LOCATION

410

00' DXMEE NORTH

SPEED OF TRANSLATION

PARAMTER DESIGNATIONS

SLOW

HODEATF

HIGH

M2?I1AL PRESSURE INDEX

P0 INCHES

27.26

27.26

27.26 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

P

INCHES

30.56

30.56

30.56 RADIUS TO MAXIMUM WIND

LARERADIS NAUT. MI.

.8

48

48 mRANSLATION SPEED

?,v (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS

115

34

51

1AXlMUM WIND SPEED

vx M.P.H.

115

126

136 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAWTeMIJ/

FROM 20 MPH WIND

346

293

259 kT SHORE TO MAX.

WIND

r

Q

SUMMARY-PERTINENT PRtJBA.LE MAXIMUI,. hhIRICANE

LOCATION WATCH HILL

LAT.

43?18.9w LONG.

71 POINT, RHODE ISLAND

PROBABLE MAX IMUM HURRlCANE INDEX CHARACTISTICS

ZONE

4 AT LOCATION

  • 41

19'

REE NORTH

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the--raverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius to maximum wind.

1/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm

-diameter between 20 mph iaovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

K

TABLE C.18 (nMH),

STORM SUHGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT MATER LEVEL

50 : T1RAVERSE-AZIMUTH 166 DE*REE: LENGTH

84 NAUlICAL MILES

OCEAN BED PROFILE;

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BELOW

SHORE

MWI

NAUT

MI

(FELT)

0

0

0.2

28

_

0.5

40

1.0

77

_

1.5

98

2.0

119

_

3.0

117

4.0

114

_

5.0

128

6.0

114

-

7.0

113

8.0

117

9.0

118

10.0

93

11.0

70

12.0

65 S

3.0

51 L4.o

56

15.0

77?

20.0

131

-0

1

0

2~

gO

0

245 LATITUiE

0 400 38'

DEIREE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINT FROM SHORE

IT 600-2

=

DEFA

K

'r

6,

""SPEED

F *A

STION

PARAMETER I(SIPNATIOE.OS

5

35

1IGH

, ,, (sT_

)

" N '0

( r)

10 INCHES

27.29

27.29

27.29 P a INCHES

30.54

30.54

30.54 UaDIS TO

MAXIMUM WIND

IARG RADIUS NAUT. MI.

49

49

4 XIMUM MIND SPEED

VA

M.P.H.

113

126

134 INITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MI .1 FROM 20 MPH WIND

348

284.

255 AT S HO VE IQ MA*X

, WI

-

PMH OC?1PUTATIONAL COOVFICIMN

AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE) ESTIMATES

C O

F F I

E ENT S

IX*OT*IV

YICTION FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORRECTION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

LEVE.L

DATA

(AT OPEN OCAST SHORELINE)

PIH SPEED OF TRANSIATION

COMPONENTS

STI

MT

-IH

F

E

E"

T _.

WIND SETUP

10.01 PRESSURE SETUP

2.42 INITIAL WATER LEV.

0.96

.STRON0MIC.L

4.00

POTAhL-SURGE

STILL WATER LLk.

17.39 T*-r-LW

TABLE C.19 SUPARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUk HURRICANE (PFH),

STORM SUGIO

COMPUIATIONAL LATA AND RESULTANT WATER)LEVEL

LOCATION HAMPTON

LT. 420

57' 1ONG. 70"47.l' 'i TRAVQtSE-AZIML

115 cH

NEW H&HPSHIRE

Note:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to. the radius to maximum wind.

F-Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum wind when leading

20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

C

PROR&BI

MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARAC.!tISTICS

ZONE 4 AT LOCATION

420

57' DEGRE NORTh S'

... lSPEE OF THMANS AION

PARAMETER IESIGNATIONS

SIOW

HODESATF

HIGH

.

  • -(sT)

(,.,r)

,

CElAL PRESSURE INDEX

.-

P 0INCHES

27.44

27.44

27.44 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

Pn INCHES

30.42

30.42

30.42 RADIUS T0 NAXIMUM WIND

LARG

RADIUJS FAUT. KI.

57

57

57 TANSLATIGN SPEED

iy (FOWARD SPEED) KNOTS

1 1?

37

52 MAXINUM WIND SPEED,

Pvx

.. ,.

107o

118 n

1 INITIAL DiAmcE.-RWT.mI.ND

F!ROM 20MPH WIND ,-

353

290

262

4T SHORE TO WA. WIND

1........

DWRE{E

LENG'H

40

NAUTICAL MILS

C

r Uf, OCEAN BED PROFILE

TRAVERSE

WATER

DISTANCE

DEPTH

FROM

BIOW

SHORE

MLN

(k,.TMi.){

(FFE*)

-

0

0

-

0.2

8

-

0.5

40

-

1.0

64

-

1.5

82

,

2.0

100

-

3.0

105

-

5.0

156

-

10.0

258

-

15.0

336

-

20.0

266

-

25.0

210

-

30.0

322

-

35.0

433

40,0

6OO

IATITUDI

0 42 0 48'

DEIREE AT TRAVERSE

MID-POINT FHOM SHORE

TM 60o-=OOT DEPTm

  • M OCIPUTTIONAL COiFICIENT

AND WATER LEVEL (StkGE) ESrIMATES

COEFF

I C I ENTS

kOnO' FRICTION FA¥ 02 0.0025 WIND STRESS CGURLCTION FACTOR 1.10

WATER

L-VEL

DATA

(AT OPEN GCAST SHORELINE)

PMH SPEED CF TRANSLATION

COMPONENTS

ST

I

ITT

I

hi F

E

E"

T

WIND SETUP

4.25 PRESSURE S'IMP

2.23 INITIAL WAT1.

LEV.

0.83 M NORICAL

10.50

VIDE LEVEL

TAL-SURGE

  • TILL WATER L67,.

17.81 EETr MLW

I

K

LOCATION GREAT

LAT.

W$O3304'

LONG.

67'

SPRUCE ISLAND. MAINE

otej:

Maximum wind speed is assumed to be on the traverse that is to right of storm track a distance equal to the radius-to maximum wind.

y/Initial distance is distance along traverse from shoreline to maximum

ind when leading i 20 mph isovel intersects shoreline.

Storm diameter between 20 mph Isovels is approxi mately double the initial distance.

30': TRAvERS

OCEAN BE

TRAVERSE

DISTANCE

FROM

SHORE

(NuT.MI.

0

_

0.2

-

0.5

-

1.0

_

1.5

-

2.0

_

3.0

-

4.0

_

5.0

1 0.0

_

15.0

20.0

-

30.0

10.0

50.0

-

60.0

70.0

-

120.0

130.0

1'Ii0

180.0

IATITUDE

DFRFZ AT

MID-POiNT

,E-AZIMUTH

148 ED PROFILE

PROBABLE MAXIMUM HURRICANE INDEX CHARACTrERISTICS

I ZO.E

4 AT LOCATION

440

31 DEGREE

NOW'TH

INO 600-FOOT DEPT'

Dif-REEs LFNGTH 178.6 NAUTICAL MILES

K

TABLE C.20

SUMMARY-PERTINENT PROBABLE MAXIMUI. hUWRICANE (PMH).

STOIRM SURGE COMPUTATIONAL DATA AND RESULTANT WATER L*VEL'

K

WATER

DEMT

BELOW

MLW

FEET

0

50

96

"95

125

125

165

247

188

233

438

570

271

511 NIL

4

1,620

4 o17df TRAVERSE

FROM SHORE

SPEE OF TRANSLTION

PARAMETER DESIGNATIONS

SLOW

HODERATF

HIGH

.EMLPRESSURE

INDEX

-

P0 INCHES

27.61

27.61

27.61 PERIPHERAL PRESSURE

Pn INCHES

30.25

30.25

30.25

ýRDU TO MXMWIND

IARGE RADIUS NAUT.

MI.

  • 64

64

64 TRASIATION SPEED

V (FORWARD SPEED) KNOTS

I 19

39

53

"Vx M.P.H.

102

114

122 TINITIAL DISTANCE-NAUT.MID

"

1P

%A

PMH 001PUTATIONAL COEFFICIE2IT

AND WATER LEVEL (SURGE)

ESTIMATES

C 0 E F F . C I E N T S

BTJOh F'HzICT'ON FACTOR 0.0025 WIND STRESS CORHEHTION FACTOR 1.10

w.Tz*,

L,'v1L

DATA

(AT OPEN CCAST SHORELINE)

'PMH SPEED OF TRANSIATION

COMPONENTS

ST

I

MT

HT

F

E

E

T

WIND SETUP

9.73 PRESSURE SLTJP

1.82 INITIAL WATEW LEV.

0.56 ASTRONOMICAL

16.00

TIDE LEVEL-

-

tOTAL-SURGE

28.1 STILL WAT*R LLV.

EETL"

MLW

TABLE C.21 OCEAN BED PROFILES

PASS

CRYSTAL

CHESAPEAKE

CI*RISTI"

RIVER

ST. LUCIE

BAY MOUTH

HAMPTON BEACH*

Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Nautical Miles from Depth, Miles from Depth.

Miles from Depth, Miles from Depth, Miles from Depth, Shore ft.

I4LW

Shore ft.

HLW

Shore f

t. MLW

Shore

- ftj MLW

Shore ft, MLW

1

2

5

10

15

20

30

40

50

60

70

77

0.55

2.31

6.25

8.33

31.4

100

113

127

3

9

12

13

35

36

40

52

90

160

335

600

0.1

10

16

18.7

3

10

14

9

50

180

300

600

10

90

390

600

5

10

30

50

55

62

44

56

102

178

240

600

0.5

4

10

25

44

20

120

250

250

600

  • As developed for Seabrook r

70

0%

G%

C

t

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, *W0

FIRST CLASS MAIL.

.

POSTAGE 6 FEES PAID

USNRC

PERMIT N&. 0-67


Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=Regulatory_Guide_1.59&oldid=5446629"