Revision as of 11:01, 14 June 2018

Text

Enclosure 3: G.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Combined Events Flood Analysis, Calculation 32-9190280-000, Rev. 0
	ML15072A013
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	06/21/2013
From:	; AREVA
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML15072A008	List: ML15072A009; ML15072A011; ML15072A013; ML15079A430; RS-15-069, Enclosure 2: Areva, Inc., Rev. 1 to 51-9205719-001, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report, Part 1 of 2; RS-15-069, Enclosure 2: Areva, Inc., Rev. 1 to 51-9205719-001, R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Flood Hazard Reevaluation Report, Part 2 of 2;
References
	RS-15-069 32-9190280-000
	Download: ML15072A013 (222)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:Enclosure 3R. E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantCombined Events Flood AnalysisRevision 0(221 Pages) FHR-COMBINED Page 11 of 2310402-01-FOl (Rev. 017,11/19/12)A CALCULATION SUMMARY SHEET (CSS)AREVADocument No. 32 -9190280 -000 Safety Related: 0 Yes 0 NoFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear PowerTitle PlantPURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF RESULTS:The purpose of this calculation is to assess the effect of the combined-effect flood on Deer Creek and Lake Ontarioat the R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant (Ginna). This calculation supports the flood hazard re-evaluation of Ginna.Combined effect flooding was evaluated as per guidance in Appendix H of NUREG/CR-7046. Combined effectflooding discussed in this calculation are the result of adding wave runup to the maximum stillwater elevation of thebounding riverine flood and the Probable Maximum Storm Surge on Lake Ontario, as discussed in Appendix H ofNUREG/CR-7046. The results of the evaluation of the combined-effect flood at Ginna are as follows:1. The bounding combined-effect flooding mechanism at Ginna is the combination of the PMF on the DeerCreek with the 25-year surge (with wind-wave activity) on Lake Ontario and the maximum controlled waterlevel on the Lake. Under this scenario, waves overtop the stone revetment and discharge canal, increasingthe PMF water surface elevations at the northern end of the site by 0.1 ft.2. The Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna including wave effects is calculated to be 272.4 ft,NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.2 ft,NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Control Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 atthe proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House,and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Diesel Generator Building.THE DOCUMENT CONTAINSASSUMPTIONS THAT SHALL BETHE FOLLOWING COMPUTER CODES HAVE BEEN USED IN THIS DOCUMENT: VERIFIED PRIOR TO USECODENERSION/REV CODENERSION/REVCEDAS-ACES v.4.03 USACE HEC-HMS v. 3.5 DI YESFLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Z NO_(FLO-2D)Page 1 of 221 FHR-COMBINED Page 12 of 231A 0402-01-FO1 (Rev. 017, 11/19/12)AR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for RE, Ginna Nuclear Power PlantReview Method: [ Design Review (Detailed Check)[ Alternate CalculationSignature BlockNote: P/R/A designates Preparer (P), Reviewer (R), Approver (A);LP/LR designates Lead Preparer (LP), Lead Reviewer (LR)Project Manager Approval of Customer References (N/A If not applicable)Name Title(printed or typed) (printed or typed) Signature DateN/APage 2 FHR-COMBINED Page 13 of 231A 0402-01 -F01 (Rev. 017, 11/19/12)AREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantRecord of RevisionRevision Pages/Sections/ParagraphsNo. Changed Brief Description / Change Authorization000 All Initial IssuancePage 3 FHR-COMBINED Page 14 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable of ContentsPageSIGNATURE BLOCK ............................................................................................................................. 2RECO RD OF REVISION ....................................................................................................................... 3LIST O F TABLES .................................................................................................................................. 7LIST O F FIGURES ................................................................................................................................ 81.0 PURPOSE .................................................................................................................................. 92.0 ANALYTICAL M ETHODOLOGY ............................................................................................. 92,1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at Ginna .......................................... 122.1.1 Identify Upstream Dams ............................................................................................. 122.1.2 Develop Dam Breach Hydrologic Simulations ............................................................. 122.1.3 Develop Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow tocalculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer Creek .......................... 132,2 Calculate W ind-W ave Effects on Deer Creek ............................................................................. 132.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line Fetch ............................................................... 142.2.2 Calculate the Sustained W ind Speed ........................................................................... 142.2.3 Development of the W ave Height and Period ............................................................ 142.2.4 Development of the W ave Runup ................................................................................ 152,3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the combined-effect offloods caused by Precipitation Events ...................................................................................... 162,4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effect of floodsalong the shores of Enclosed Bodies of W ater ........................................................................... 162.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and themaximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario .................................................. 172.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and themaximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario .................................................. 172.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in-the Lake Ontario ................ 182.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna ................... 193.0 ASSUM PTIONS ....................................................................................................................... 194.0 DESIGN INPUTS ...................................................................................................................... 19Page 4 FHR-COMBINED Page 15 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable of Contents(continued)Page5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS ................................................................ 206.0 CALCULATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 216.1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at Ginna ........................................... 216.1.1 Identify Upstream Dams ............................................................................................. 216.1.2 Perform Dam Breach Hydrologic Simulations ............................................................. 216.1.3 Perform Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow tocalculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer Creek ........................ 216.2 Results of W ind-Generated W ave Effects on Deer Creek ........................................................ 226.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line Fetch ............................................................... 226.2.2 Calculate the Sustained W ind Speed ........................................................................... 226.2.3 Calculate the W ave Height and Period ......................................................................... 226.2.4 Determination of the W ave Runup ............................................................................... 226.3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the floods caused byp recip itation eve nt .......................................................................................................................... 226.4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effect of floodsalong the shores of Enclosed Bodies of W ater ......................................................................... 236.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and themaximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario ......................................................... 236.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and themaximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario .................................................. 236.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario ................ 246.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum W ater Surface Elevations at Ginna ................... 247.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................... 2

48.0 REFERENCES

......................................................................................................................... 25APPENDIX A : DATUM CONVERSION ......................................................................................................... A-1APPENDIX B : NEW YORK STATE INVENTORY OF DAMS ........................................................................... B-1APPENDIX C : DAM BREACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONS ................................................................. C-1APPENDIX D : REACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONS .................................................................................. D-1APPENDIX E: NCDC RAW DATA AND DOCUMENTATION ...................................................................... E-1Page 5 FHR-COMBINED Page 16 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for RE. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable of Contents(continued)APPENDIX F:APPENDIX G:APPENDIX H:APPENDIX I:APPENDIX J:APPENDIX K:APPENDIX L:APPENDIX M:Page2 YEAR W IND SPEED CALCULATION ................................................................................ F-1HEC-HMS INPUTS AND OUTPUTS ........................................................................................ G-1FLO-2D INPUTS/OUTPUTS AND ADDITIONAL FLO-2D RESULTS FOR BOUNDINGALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................................................... H-1CEDAS OUTPUTS ..................................................................................................................... I-1SOFTW ARE VERIFICATION .................................................................................................... J-11 HOUR W ATER LEVEL DATA ........................................................................................... K-125 YEAR SURGE CALCULATION ......................................................................................... L-125 YEAR PRECIPITATION DATA ....................................................................................... M-1Page 6 FHR-COMBINED Page 17 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantList of TablesPageTable 1: Dam Breach Param eters ................................................................................................... 29Table 2: Muskingum-Cunge Parameters ....................................................................................... 30Table 3: Peak Flow with Dam Breach and 72-hour PMP ................................................................. 30Table 4: Probable Maximum Stillwater Elevations at Ginna from Riverine Flooding ....................... 31Table 5: Overtopping Flow Rates for Worst Historic Surge with Wind-Wave Activity ....................... 32Table 6: Overtopping Flow Rates for 25-year Surge with Wind-Wave Activity ................................. 33Table 7: Overtopping Flow Rates for Probable Maximum Surge with Wind-Wave Activity .............. 34Table 8: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverine PMF, worsthistoric surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario .......... 35Table 9: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverine PMF, 25-yearsurge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario .................. 36Table 10: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the 25-year flood in DeerCreek, probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level inLa ke O nta rio .................................................................................................................................. 3 7Page 7 FHR-COMBINED Page 18 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantList of FiguresPageFig ure 1 : Locus M ap ............................................................................................................................ 39Figure 2: Site Layout (Reference 23) .............................................................................................. 40Figure 3: Dam Locations ...................................................................................................................... 41Figure 4: HEC-HMS Basin Model ................................................................................................... 42Figure 5: Total Contributory W atershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach ........................................... 43Figure 6: Mill Creek W atershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach ...................................................... 44Figure 7: Deer Creek Watershed Hydrograph with Dam Breach .................................................... 45Figure 8: Transect Locations for W ave Overtopping ........................................................................ 46Figure 9: Straight Line Fetch over Deer Creek ............................................................................... 46Figure 10: NOAA Station Location Map .......................................................................................... 48Figure 11: Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna (ft, NGVD29) ............................ 49Figure 12: Elevation at Grid Cell (ft, NGVD29) ................................................................................. 50Figure 13: Probable Maximum Flow Depths at Ginna (ft, NGVD29) ................................................ 51Page 8 FHR-COMBINED Page 19 of 231AARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant1.0 PURPOSEThe purpose of this calculation is to assess the combined-effect flood mechanisms for the R.E. GinnaNuclear Power Plant (Ginna). Ginna is located in Ontario, Wayne County, NY along the southern shoreof Lake Ontario. Ginna is protected from flooding from Lake Ontario by a stone revetment. A concrete-lined discharge canal conveys flow from the site to Lake Ontario through the stone revetment. Theconfluence of two streams, Deer Creek (which generally flows west to east) and Mill Creek (whichgenerally flows south to north) is located near the southwestern portion of the site. The streams flowalong the southern portion of the site into Lake Ontario. For the purposes of this calculation, the portionof the stream from the confluence point of Mill Creek and Deer Creek to the discharge point into LakeOntario will be referred to as Deer Creek. A locus map of the site is included as Figure 1. Thiscalculation is to support the flood hazard re-evaluation for Ginna.This calculation uses AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Flow instreams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1), AREVA Document No. 32-9190274-000 "Probable MaximumFlood Elevations at R.E. Ginna" (Reference 2), AREVA Document No. 32-9190276-000 "ProbableMaximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters at R.E. Ginna" (Reference 29), AREVADocument No. 32-9190277-000 "Probable Maximum Storm Surge at R.E. Ginna" (Reference 27) andAREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000 "Wind Generated Waves for R.E. Ginna" (Reference 28) as inputs.This calculation was prepared by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc, under subcontract to AREVA, Inc.Datum: All elevations in this calculation refer to NGVD29 vertical datum unless otherwise noted.Elevations in the Updated Safety Report (UFSAR) reference Mean Sea Level (MSL), which for areasdistant from tidal fluctuations (i.e., Ginna) are considered to be the same as the NGVD29 verticaldatum. To convert elevations from NAVD88 to NGVD29, add 0.69 feet to the NAVD88 elevations(Reference 3, see Appendix A).2.0 ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGYThe calculation methodology is described below. Unless noted otherwise, the methodology used in thecalculation is consistent with the following standards and guidance documents:1. NRC Standard Review Plan, NUREG-0800, revised March 2007 (Reference 4);2. NRC Office of Standards Development, Regulatory Guides:a. RG 1.102 -Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, dated September1976 (Reference 5);b. RG 1.59 -Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2, dated August1977 (Reference 6).3. NUREG/CR-7046 "Design-Basis Flood Estimation for Site Characterization at Nuclear PowerPlants in the United States of America", publication date November 2011 (Reference 7).4. American National Standard for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites(ANSI/ANS 2.8-1992) (Reference 8).Page 9 FHR-COMBINED Page 20 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantThe Hierarchical Hazard Assessment (HHA) approach described in NUREG/CR-7046 (Reference 7)was used for the evaluation of the effects of the combined-effects flood on the Deer Creek at Ginna.The criteria for combined events are provided in NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H. These criteria are:1. Floods Caused by Precipitation EventsThe criteria for floods caused by precipitation events were used as one input to the combined eventresult (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.1). The criteria include the following:" Alternative 1 -A combination of mean monthly base flow, median soil moisture, antecedent orsubsequent rain, the PMP, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the criticaldirection;" Alternative 2 -A combination of mean monthly base flow, probable maximum snowpack, a 100-year snow-season rainfall, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the criticaldirection; and" Alternative 3 -A combination of mean monthly base flow, a 100-year snowpack, snow-seasonPMP, and waves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction.2. Floods Caused by Seismic Dam FailuresThe criteria for floods caused by seismic dam failures (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.2)were also considered. The criteria include:* Alternative 1 -A combination of a 25-year flood, a flood caused by dam failure resulting from asafe shutdown earthquake (SSE), and coincident with the peak of the 25-year flood, and wavesinduced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction;" Alternative 2 -A combination of the lesser of one-half of Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) or the500-year flood, a flood caused by dam failure resulting from an operating basis earthquake(OBE), and coincident with the peak of one-half of PMF or the 500-year flood, and wavesinduced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction.The alternatives presented under floods caused by precipitation events and floods caused by seismicdam failures are bounded by failure of all the dams in the watershed coincident with the PMF. Theriverine flooding combination used for this analysis is therefore failure of dams during the PMF, andwaves induced by 2-year wind speed applied along the critical direction.3. Floods along the Shores of Open and Semi-Enclosed Bodies of WaterThe criteria for floods along the shore of open or semi-enclosed bodies of water (NUREG/CR-7046,Appendix H, Section H.3) do not apply to Ginna since the site is not on an open or semi-enclosed bodyof water.4. Floods along the Shores of Enclosed Bodies of WaterGinna is located along the southern shore of Lake Ontario. Lake Ontario is an enclosed water bodyapproximately 7,300 square miles in surface area. The criteria for floods along the shore of enclosedPage 10 FHR-COMBINED Page 21 of 231AARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plantbodies of water (streamside location) (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.4.2) was considered inthis calculation. The criteria include:* Alternative 1 -A combination of one-half of the PMF or the 500-year flood, surge and seichefrom the worst regional hurricane or windstorm with wind-wave activity and the lesser of the100-year or the maximum controlled water level in the enclosed body of water;" Alternative 2 -A combination of the PMF in the stream, a 25-year surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the lesser of the 100-year or the maximum controlled water level in theenclosed body of water;* Alternative 3 -A combination of a 25-year flood in the stream, probable maximum surge andseiche with wind-wave activity and the lesser of the 100-year or the maximum controlled waterlevel in the enclosed water body.These alternatives were analyzed to determine the controlling combined-effect alternative at Ginna.5. Floods Caused by TsunamisCombined event floods associated with tsunamis are included as part of the analyses required byNUREG/CR-7046 (Appendix H, Section H.5). Evaluation of the potential for tsunamis at the Ginna site(AREVA Document No. 51-9190872-000 "Tsunami Hazard Assessment at R.E. Ginna Nuclear PowerPlant Site" -Reference 26) concluded that tsunamis are not a significant flood-causing mechanism.Therefore, no further analysis of tsunami-induced flooding combined with other mechanisms has beenperformed.The combined event evaluation for Ginna used the following steps:1. Calculate the maximum stillwater elevation (including dam failures) on the Deer Creek at Ginnausing models developed for calculations 32-9190273-000 "Probable Maximum Flood Flow inStreams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1) and 32-9190274-000 "Probable Maximum FloodElevations in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 2).2. Calculate the wind wave effects and wave runup on Deer Creek at Ginna using the CEDAS-ACES v4.3 Computer Program (Reference 9);3. Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the combined-effectflood caused by the Precipitation;4. Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from combined-effectfloods along the Shores of Enclosed Bodies of Water based on AREVA Calculations 32-9190277-000 "Probable Maximum Storm Surge for R.E. Ginna" (Reference 27) and 32-9190279-000 "Wind Generated Waves for R.E. Ginna (Reference 28).5. Determine controlling Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna based on the results fromthe above analysis.Page 11 FHR-COMBINED Page 22 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant2.1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at GinnaFailure of upstream dams during the PMF was analyzed to establish the maximum stillwater elevationat Ginna resulting from riverine flooding mechanism. The methodology used in this analysis isdescribed in Sections 2.1.1 to 2.1.3.2.1.1 Identify Upstream DamsUpstream dams were identified using the New York State Inventory of Dams (NYSID), which ismaintained by the Department of Environmental Conservation (Reference 10, see Appendix B). Damcharacteristics (i.e. height, maximum storage, and dam type) were downloaded from the inventory. Thedam locations were imported into ArcMap 10.0 and converted into a point shapefile.2.1.2 Develop Dam Breach Hydrologic SimulationsA HEC-HMS model of the contributory watersheds at Ginna was developed. The model's hydrologicparameters were consistent with those used in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 "ProbableMaximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1). Note that nonlinear adjustments tounit hydrographs were incorporated in this HEC-HMS model.The identified dams were modeled as reservoir elements in HEC-HMS, and linked to the appropriatesub-basin element with reaches and junctions. Reservoir pool elevations prior to the breaching of thedams were conservatively assumed to be at the top of dam elevation. Dam breach parameters for theHEC-HMS model were selected based on published guidance (References 11, 12, and 13, seeAppendix C).Parameters for dams are described below:a) Breach Method = Overtopping;b) Top Elevation (ft) = Dam Height (ft);c) Bottom Elevation (ft) = 0;d) Side Slope = 0.5 (Reference 12, see Appendix C);e) Average Breach Width = 3 x Dam Height (References 12 and 13, see Appendix C). Publishedreferences indicate typical dam breach widths are between one and five times the dam height(Reference 12) and often about 3 times the dam height for earthen dams (Reference 13);f) Bottom Width (ft) = Average Breach Width -2 x (Side Slope x 1/ x Dam Height);g) Development Time (hr) = 0.17 hours (Based on material composition of Dam and Reference12);h) Trigger Method = Specified Time;i) Trigger Time = Selected such that initiation of the dam breach coincides with the peak PMFfrom the watershed in which the dam is located;Page 12 FHR-COMBINED Page 23 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plantj) Progression Method = Linear;k) Storage Method = Elevation-Area, based on surface area of reservoir and conical volume.River reaches were incorporated in the HEC-HMS model to account for attenuation. The Muskingum-Cunge method was selected and it uses a combination of the conservation of momentum andconservation of mass to simulate river routing. "Routing parameters are recalculated every time stepbased on channel properties and flow depths. It represents attenuation of flood waves and can beused in reaches with a small slope." (Reference 14)Parameters for reaches are described below:a) Reach cross-section = estimated based on the topographic survey of the site (Reference 15);b) Length of reach = the total length of the reach in units of feet (Reference 16). Length wascalculated using the "Calculate Geometry" function of ArcMap 1 0TM;C) Slope = based on the digital elevation model data within the watershed area (Reference 17, seeAppendix D); andd) Manning's roughness coefficient (Reference 20, see Appendix D) = selected based on visualinterpretation of the ground conditions using available orthoimagery (Reference 18, seeAppendix D) and land cover data (Reference 19, see Appendix D).The all-season 72-hr PMP hyetograph used in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 "ProbableMaximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1) was used for this calculation. ThePMP consists of 3 days of 40-percent of the PMP, followed by 3 dry days and followed by 3 days of thefull PMP, in accordance with NUREG/CR-7046 (Reference 7).HEC-HMS internally calculates flow through the user-specified dam breach section based on the weirequation for overtopping dam failures (Reference 14).2.1.3 Develop Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow tocalculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer CreekThe FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000 (Reference 2) was used in thiscalculation. The calculated, combined dam breach and PMF flows in the Deer Creek and Mill Creek atGinna in Section 2.1 were used as inflows within the FLO-2D model to calculate the probable maximumstillwater elevation on the creek at Ginna.2.2 Calculate Wind-Wave Effects on Deer CreekGinna would be susceptible to the formation of wind generated waves on both Lake Ontario and onDeer Creek. The wind generated waves on Lake Ontario were developed in Calculation No. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28). This calculation estimates the wind generated waves on Deer Creek atthe site. The calculation methodology includes the following steps, further described in Sections 2.2.1through 2.2.4, below.1. Calculate the straight line fetch;Page 13 FHR-COMBINED Page 24 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant2. Calculate Sustained Wind Speed:Calculate the 2-year return period wind speed using the fastest 2-minute wind speeddata from National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Station GHCND:USW00014768(Reference 21, see Appendix E), by applying the Gumbel Distribution to the observeddata;3. Calculate wave height and period using CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 wave prediction application;4. Determine the wave runup using CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 wave runup.2.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line FetchThe greatest over water fetch for the most conservative value for wind generated waves on the DeerCreek was determined from the FLO-2D model output showing the inundation extents (Figure 9). Thefetch was considered to be the largest continuous wetted top width across Deer Creek in the vicinity ofthe main power block at Ginna.2.2.2 Calculate the Sustained Wind SpeedThe 10-meter, 2-year annual recurrence interval wind speed was required for the coincident wind wavecalculations as part of the combined-effects flood analysis as per NUREG/CR-7046 (Reference 7). Thefastest daily 10-meter, 2-minute duration wind speed from NCDC Station Global Historical ClimatologyNetwork-Daily (GHCND): USW00014768 (Greater Rochester International Airport, New York), wasused and converted to the equivalent 10-meter, 30 minute duration average wind speed. Conversion ofthe raw data to the 2 year wind speed was done using the following steps:1. The 2-minute wind speed data from NCDC Station GHCND: USWO0014768 was downloadedand imported into ExcelTM in tab delimited format. The period of record for this station was from1996 to 2012, approximately 17 years. Station GHCND: USW00014768 is located at theGreater Rochester International Airport, New York (see Appendix E). The location is flat groundwith no obstruction from trees and buildings and is therefore an appropriate station for use aswind input. This station was the closest station to the site with available data.2. The greatest wind speed from each year during the period of record was selected. The annualmaximum wind speeds were sorted in descending order. The Gumbel Distribution, aGeneralized Extreme Value (GEV) Distribution, was used to calculate the 2 year recurrencewind speed.2.2.3 Development of the Wave Height and PeriodCEDAS-ACES v.4.03, developed by the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, includesan application for determining wave growth over open-water and restricted fetches in deep and shallowwater. The simplified wave growth formula predict deepwater wave growth in accordance to fetch andduration-limited criteria. These formulas are bounded (at the upper limit) by the estimates for a fullydeveloped spectrum (Reference 22). The following variables were developed as input to the programto calculate wave height and period:Page 14 FHR-COMBINED Page 25 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant1. The elevation, duration, observation type, and speed of the observed wind speed from Section2.2.2;2. The air-sea temperature difference (See Appendix F);3. Duration of the final wind speed (See Appendix F);4. Latitude of the Observed Wind Speed (Appendix F); and5. Wind fetch length, as determined through procedures described in Section 2.2.1.2.2.4 Development of the Wave RunupThe runup on impermeable slopes application of the CEDAS-ACES v4.03 software program is basedon an empirical runup equation developed by Ahrens and Titus as described in Reference 22. Windgenerated waves on the Deer Creek will break and runup on the southern end of the power block(Contaminated Storage Building). The effect of wind generated waves on Deer Creek is therefore notexpected to extend beyond the southern end of the plant.2.2.4.1 Development of the Nearshore and Structure SlopesNearshore slopes were estimated from the site topographic survey plan (Reference 15). Because thewater depths vary spatially, an average water depth along the fetch was calculated. Wave growth wasdetermined to be governed by shallow open water conditions. The nearshore slope was determinedbased on the existing site grades along the selected fetch line.In this calculation, the wave runup is calculated against the southern wall of the main power block(building labeled as "plant" in Figure 2). The structure slope was determined based on a vertical wall.2.2.4.2 Development of Wave Runup on Smooth SlopesThe equations for runup on a smooth slope were used. The general equation for runup (R) on smoothslopes is characterized by the following equation:R = CHiThe coefficient C is characterized by the surf similarity parameter ý according to three wave structureregimes (Reference 22):* (t < 2) waves plunging directly on the run-up slope.S(, > 3.5) wave conditions that are nonbreaking and are regarded as standing or surging waves.* (2< t < 3.5) transition conditions where breaking characteristics are difficult to defineThe recommended expressions for coefficient C corresponding to these regimes are defined by thefollowing:Page 15 FHR-COMBINED Page 26 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant* Plunging wave conditions (ý < 2)Cp= 1.002* Nonbreaking wave conditions (,> 3.5)C f b = 1 .1 8 1 0 375 ex p 3 .1 8 71 --.- 0 .5 21L yH,Where:nc = crest height of the wave above the still-water levelHi = incident wave heightTransitional wave conditions (2< ý < 3.5)C, = 1.)C, +( -)ClbWhere:Cp = C coefficient corresponding to plunging wave conditionsClb = C coefficient corresponding to nonbreaking wave conditionsC, = C coefficient corresponding to transitional wave conditions2.3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from thecombined-effect of floods caused by Precipitation Events.Waves that strike structures will run up those structures, resulting in an increase in the height of thewater at the face of the structure. The probable maximum stillwater elevation on Deer Creek at thesouthern end of the plant power block at Ginna resulting from the combined effect of floods caused byprecipitation events was calculated by adding the predicted wave runup on the Deer Creek to thestillwater elevations resulting from the combination of upstream dam failure and the PMF.2.4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effectof floods along the shores of Enclosed Bodies of Water.The alternatives outlined under the criteria for floods along the shore of enclosed bodies of water(Streamside location) (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.4.2) were analyzed to determine thecontrolling alternative at Ginna.Page 16 FHR-COMBINED Page 27 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant2.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activityand the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario.One-half of the PMF was calculated using the HEC-HMS model developed for AREVA Document No.32-9190273-000 (Reference 1). One-half of the PMF was calculated as half the runoff generated fromthe PMP calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000 (Reference 1). All other inputs to theHEC-HMS model were the same as those used in the HEC-HMS model in Reference 1. The worstregional surge on Lake Ontario was determined from water level data contained in AREVA DocumentNo. 32-9190276-000 (Reference 29). See Appendix L. The maximum controlled water level in LakeOntario was determined in AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000 (Reference 27). Overtopping flowrates at the stone revetment resulting from the combination of the worst regional surge and seiche withwind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVADocument No. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28).The calculated overtopping flow rates for the combination of the worst regional surge and seiche withwind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was combined with one-halfthe PMF on Deer Creek using the FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000(Reference 2) to determine the maximum water levels resulting from this alternative.2.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activityand the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario.The PMF in the Deer Creek computed in Reference 1 was used in the analysis of this alternative. The25-year surge on Lake Ontario was calculated from water level data contained in AREVA DocumentNo. 32-9190276-000 (Reference 29, Appendix L) as described in Section 2.4.2.1. The maximumcontrolled water level in Lake Ontario was determined in AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000(Reference 27). Overtopping flow rates at the stone revetment and discharge canal resulting from thecombination of the 25-year surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled waterlevel in Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28).The calculated overtopping flow rates for the combination of the 25-year surge and seiche with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was combined with the PMF onDeer Creek using the FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000 (Reference 2)to determine the maximum water levels resulting from this alternative.2.4.2.1 Calculation of the 25-year SurgeThe 25-year surge water level was calculated based on water level data for Rochester, NY (Reference32) See Appendix L. The location of the Rochester water level station is shown in Figure 10. Themaximum hourly water level in each year was obtained for the 50-year period of record and a frequencyanalysis was performed. The recommended distribution for data set transformations of this type is thelog-Pearson Type III distribution (Reference 33). The 25-year surge water level was calculated asfollows:1. The hourly water level data for each complete year of data available was sorted to determinethe yearly maximum hourly water level (HWL) for each year in the data set. The yearlymaximums were transformed with (base 10) logarithm.2. Sample statistics including mean, number of samples in the data set, standard deviation andskew coefficient were calculated using the following equations.Page 17 FHR-COMBINED Page 28 of 231AARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantNL(N -1)N x (XXJ(N -1)(N -2)where:X = logarithm of annual peak water levelN = number of samples in the data setY = mean of the sample data logarithmsS= standard deviation of the sample dataG= skew coefficient of logarithms3. For skew coefficients from -9.0 to 9.0, the frequency factor coefficients (K) for exceedanceprobabilities from 0.9999 to 0.0001 were determined using the "Tables of K Values" in Appendix3 of USGS Bulletin 17b (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1982). The log of the water levelscorresponding to their respective exceedance probabilities are defined by the followingequation:Log(SurgeWaterLevel) = X + K

Swhere:K = Frequency Factor Coefficient4. The 25-year surge water level was calculated by taking the antilog of the log mean water level.2.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge withwind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario.The 25-year flood in Deer Creek was calculated using the HEC-HMS model developed for AREVADocument No. 32-9190273-000 (Reference 1). The 25-year, 24-hour precipitation depth anddistribution used in the HEC-HMS model were based on reference 31. All other inputs to the HEC-HMS model were the same as those used in the HEC-HMS model in Reference 1. The probablemaximum surge on Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000 (Reference27). The maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was also determined in AREVA DocumentNo. 32-9190277-000 (Reference 27). Overtopping flow rates at the stone revetment and dischargecanal resulting from the combination of the probable maximum surge and seiche with wind-wavePage 18 FHR-COMBINED Page 29 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plantactivity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was calculated in AREVA DocumentNo. 32-9190279-000 (Reference 28).The calculated overtopping flow rates for the combination of the probable maximum surge and seichewith wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario was combined with the25-year flood in Deer Creek to determine the maximum water levels resulting from this alternative.2.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at GinnaThe results from the combined-effect flood alternatives for both floods caused by precipitation eventsand floods along the shores of enclosed bodies of water were analyzed to determine the probablemaximum water surface elevations at Ginna. The alternative that results in the highest water surfaceelevations at Ginna was selected as the controlling combined-effect flood alternative.3.0 ASSUMPTIONSUnverified key assumptions are those requiring confirmation of applicability by users of the calculationand its results. There are no unverified key assumptions in this calculation. The following assumptionswere used in the calculation:" Potential for tsunamis at the Ginna to control flood elevations is not significant and bounded byflooding due to the combination of the PMF and dam breach within the contributory watershedat Ginna (Reference 26)." Reservoir pool elevations prior to the breaching of the dams were at the top of dam elevation." Other assumptions used in calculations to support the combined effect flood evaluation areincluded in Sections 6.1 through 6.5. None of the assumptions require confirmation ofapplicability by users of the calculation prior to use of the calculation results.4.0 DESIGN INPUTS1. The HEC-HMS hydrologic model developed in AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000"Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E. Ginna" (Reference 1).2. Elevation Datum Conversions -elevations in NAVD88 were converted to NGVD29, usingVERTCON: North American Vertical Datum Conversion, by National Geodetic Survey(Reference 3, see Appendix A).3. Dam and Reservoir Storage Characteristics -dam height and reservoir storage capacity ofdams within the contributory watershed area at Ginna based on data provided by New YorkState Department of Environmental Protection (Reference 10, see Appendix B).4. Digital Elevation Model (DEM) -the DEM used for the calculation is the National ElevationDataset (NED) (1/3 arc second) provided by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published in 2011(Reference 17, see Appendix D).5. Land Use -the land use information for the watershed was obtained from the National LandCover Database 2006 (NLCD2006) (Reference 19, see Appendix D).Page 19 FHR-COMBINED Page 30 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant6. Manning's roughness coefficients (Reference 20, see Appendix D).7. The FLO-2D Model developed in AREVA Document No. 32-9190274-000" Probable MaximumFlood Elevations near R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant" (Reference 2)8. Site Location: 41'16'39.34" N, 77°18'31.65" W, see Figure 1.9. Ginna Site Layout (Reference 23).10. NOAA National Climatic Data Center Fastest 2-minute wind speed (tenths of meters persecond) Data: Verified Data, Greater Rochester International Airport, NY, Station IDGHCND:USW00001476889. Retrieved on March 19, 2013. (Reference 21, see Appendix E)Available at: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/review11. 25-Year, 24-hour Precipitation depth and distribution at Ginna (Reference 31, see Appendix M).12. 1-hour water level data for Lake Ontario at Rochester, NY (Reference 29, see Appendix K)5.0 IDENTIFICATION OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS1. ESRI ArcMapTM 10.0, Service Pack 2 (Build 10.0.2.3200)2. HEC-HMS v. 3.5, Build 1417 (USACE HEC, August, 2010)3. FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Model -Build No. 12.01.014. CEDAS-ACES v.4.03ArcMap 10.0 was used to generate graphic outputs of the calculated results and is not subject toverification per AREVA Procedure 0902-30, Section 4.6.Computer Software Certifications for HEC-HMS v.3.5, FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Versionand CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 are provided under separate cover (References 9, 24, and 25). Theinformation contained in Appendix J, as part of the body of this calculation, lists the program version,hardware platform and operating system. HEC-HMS v.3.5, FLO-2D Version 2012.02 ProfessionalVersion and CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 are approved for use under the Microsoft Windows 7 operatingsystem. No open software error notices were in effect at the time of software execution.The CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 program is "Simple Use" per Section 4.7 of 0902-30. The program wasexecuted on a GZA workstation as approved by AREVA.HEC-HMS v.3.5 was tested on the computer used for this document by Kenneth Hunu on March 25,2013. The inputs of the installation tests were the same as those used in the software verificationreport, and the outputs are documented in Appendix J. The results of the test were acceptable.FLO-2D Version 2012.02 Professional Version was tested on the computer used for this document byKenneth Hunu on April 4, 2013. The inputs of the installation tests were the same as those used in thesoftware verification report, and the outputs are documented in Appendix J. The results of the test wereacceptable.Page 20 FHR-COMBINED Page 31 of 231AA R EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantCEDAS-ACES v.4.03 was tested on the computer used for this document by Bin Wang on March 25,2013. The inputs of the installation tests were the same as those used in the software verificationreports, and the outputs are documented in Appendix J. The results of the test were acceptable.6.0 CALCULATIONS6.1 Calculate Maximum Stillwater Elevations on Deer Creek at Ginna6.1.1 Identify Upstream DamsBased on a review of the data in the NYSID (Reference 10), three dams are within the contributorywatershed. Maccines Marsh Dam is located in the Deer Creek Watershed, about 2.5 miles southwest ofGinna. Fruitland Mill Dam and William Daly Marsh Dam are located in the Mill Creek Watershed, about4 and 7.5 miles southwest of Ginna, respectively. The dam coordinates were imported into ArcMap10.0, and the dam locations are shown in Figure 3.All three dams are classified as "Earth" in "Dam Type" according to the NYSID. Field observation andavailable information indicate the dams are likely non-engineered structures. Dam breach parametersfor non-engineered earthen dams were therefore used for this calculation.6.1.2 Perform Dam Breach Hydrologic SimulationsDam breach parameters are summarized in Table 1 (see Appendix C for spreadsheet calculations).HEC-HMS reach parameters are summarized in Table 2 (see Appendix D for spreadsheetcalculations). The HEC-HMS basin model is shown in Figure 4. The dams were modeled as reservoirelements. Junctions 2 and 3 were used to calculate the total corresponding resultant flow from runoffand dam failure for each subwatershed, and Junction 1 was used to calculate the total resultant flowfrom the entire contributory watershed.The calculated total outflow from the Deer Creek Watershed with dam breach is 8,140 cfs, and thecalculated total outflow from the Mill Creek Watershed with dam breach is 20,530 cfs. The resultantcombined peak outflow at Ginna is 28,460 cfs. Breaching of the upstream dams within the Deer Creekand Mill Creek watersheds during the PMF resulted in no significant change in the peak PMF calculatedin Reference 1. These results are presented in Table 3. The HEC-HMS calculated outflow hydrographsfrom the dam breach during the PMF simulation are shown in Figures 5 through 7.Inputs and outputs from the HEC-HMS simulations are included in Appendix G.6.1.3 Perform Hydraulic Simulations with Combined PMF and Dam Breach Outflow tocalculate the probable maximum Stillwater elevation on Deer CreekThe FLO-2D model developed in AREVA Document 32-9190274-000 (Reference 2) was used toestimate the peak stillwater elevation resulting from the combination of upstream dam failures and thePMF. The HEC-HMS calculated flow hydrographs from Section 6.1.2 were used as inflows in the FLO-2D model.The calculated probable maximum stillwater elevations at the site are shown in Table 4. The probablemaximum stillwater elevation is 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft,NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.1 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at thePage 21 FHR-COMBINED Page 32 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantControl Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the StandbyAuxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary FeedwaterPump Building Annex, 258.1 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.3 ft, NGVD29 at the DieselGenerator Building.FLO-2D inputs and outputs are included in Appendix H.6.2 Results of Wind-Generated Wave Effects on Deer Creek6.2.1 Determine the Greatest Straight Line FetchThe inundation extent at Ginna due to the combination of upstream dam failures and the PMF in DeerCreek and Mill Creeks calculated in Section 6.1.3 was used to determine wetted top width for the fetchshown in Figure 9. The total length of the fetch was 870 ft and the average water depth wasdetermined to be 15.7 ft.6.2.2 Calculate the Sustained Wind SpeedUsing the Gumbel Distribution on the 2-minute wind speed data (see Appendix F for ExcelTMspreadsheet and formulas), the 2-year return period wind speed was determined to be 22.5 m/sec or73.9 ft/sec.The Gumbel Distribution yielded a conservative value for the calculated 2-year wind speed. Themodeled values for selected return periods were plotted against the observed data. The calculatedvalue for the 2-year wind speed is nearly the same as the "observed" approximate 2-year wind speed(see Figure F-1, Appendix F). The data from NCDC Station GHCND: USW000014687 is presented inAppendix E.6.2.3 Calculate the Wave Height and PeriodThe wave prediction application of the CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 was used to determine the shallow watersignificant wave height and period.The outputs from the model are provided in Appendix I. The wind duration of 120 minutes wasconservatively used. The wave height was calculated to be 0.7 ft with a wave period of 1.2 seconds.6.2.4 Determination of the Wave RunupThe wave runup on impermeable structures application was selected to calculate the wave runup atGinna from the CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 program. The inputs for the wave runup calculation arepresented in Table 4. Calculated results are shown in Appendix I. The results indicate maximum waverunup at the southern end of the power block at Ginna (south end of Contaminated Storage Building) of0.9 feet.6.3 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna resulting from the floodscaused by precipitation eventThe probable maximum water elevation resulting from the combined-effect flood caused byprecipitation event at Ginna is the combination of this Stillwater elevation and wave runup induced byPage 22 FHR-COMBINED Page 33 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plantthe 2-year wind speed. Wave runup resulting from Deer Creek flooding is not expected to influence thestillwater elevations at the site with the exception of the southern end of the site. The probablemaximum water surface elevations resulting from a precipitation event causing flooding in Deer Creek,in ft, NGVD29 are those stated in Section 6.1.3.6.4 Calculate the Probable Maximum Water Elevation resulting from the combined-effectof floods along the shores of Enclosed Bodies of Water.The results of the alternatives outlined under the criteria for floods along the shore of enclosed bodiesof water (Streamside location) (NUREG/CR-7046, Appendix H, Section H.4.2) are discussed inSections 6.4.1 to 6.4.3.6.4.1 Combination of one-half of the PMF, worst regional surge with wind-wave activityand the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario.The peak flow rate from one-half of the PMF at Ginna is calculated to be 14,230 cfs. The worst regionalsurge is calculated to be 1.3 ft (Appendix L) and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario iscalculated to be 248 ft, NGVD29 (Reference 27). The overtopping flow rates resulting from thecombination of the worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water levelin Lake Ontario are shown in Table 5 (Reference 28).FLO-2D model results from the combination of one-half the PMF, and the overtopping flow ratesresulting from the combination of the worst regional surge with wind-wave activity and the maximumcontrolled water level in Lake Ontario, is shown in Table 8. Flooding at Ginna from this alternative islimited to the Turbine Building, Proposed Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, Screen House and theDiesel Generator Building. Maximum Flood Elevations at the Turbine Building, Proposed AuxiliaryFeedwater Pump Building, Screen House and the Diesel Generator Building are 255 ft, NGVD29, 270ft, NGVD29, 254.9 ft, NGVD29 and 254.9 ft, NGVD29 respectively.6.4.2 Combination of the PMF in Deer Creek, a 25-year surge with wind-wave activityand the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario.6.4.2.1 Calculation of the 25-year SurgeThe 25-year surge elevation on Lake Ontario at Ginna was evaluated using the the recorded hourlywater levels at NOAA Station 9052058 (Reference 32) in Rochester, NY for the period 1962 -2012.The results of the transformation are presented in Appendix L, Table L-1. The calculation of the 25-yrsurge water level is presented in Appendix L, Table L-2.The 25-year surge water level was calculated to be 0.95 feet.6.4.2.2 Combination of PMF in Deer Creek and overtopping flow rates from thecombination of the 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and the maximumcontrolled water level in Lake OntarioThe Deer Creek PMF peak flow rate at Ginna was computed in Reference 1 to be 28,460 cfs. The 25-year surge on Lake Ontario is calculated to be 0.95 ft and the maximum controlled water level in LakeOntario is calculated to be 248 ft, NGVD29 (Reference 27).Page 23 FHR-COMBINED Page 34 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantThe overtopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the 25-year surge with wind-wave activityand the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario are listed in Table 6 (Reference 28).FLO-2D model results from the combination of the PMF with upstream dam failures, and theovertopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the 25-year surge with wind-wave activity andthe maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario is shown in Table 9. The resulting maximum watersurface elevations from this alternative are 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building,272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the Auxiliary Building, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29at the Control Building, 271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the StandbyAuxiliary Feedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary FeedwaterPump Building Annex, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at the DieselGenerator Building.6.4.3 Combination of the 25-year flood in Deer Creek, the probable maximum surge withwind-wave activity and the maximum controlled water level in the Lake Ontario.The peak flow rate from the 25-year storm in Deer Creek at Ginna is calculated to be 3,000 cfs. Thepeak flow of 3,000 cfs results from a total precipitation depth of 3.79 inches over 24 hours. (AppendixM). The probable maximum surge is calculated to be 3.2 ft (Reference 27) and the maximum controlledwater level in Lake Ontario is calculated to be 248 ft, NGVD29 (Reference 27). The overtopping flowrates resulting from the combination of the probable maximum surge with wind-wave activity and themaximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario are shown in Table 7 (Reference 28).FLO-2D model results from the combination of the 25-year storm in Deer Creek at Ginna, and theovertopping flow rates resulting from the combination of the probable maximum surge with wind-waveactivity and the maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario are shown in Table 10. Flooding atGinna from this alternative is limited to the Turbine Building, Screen House and the Diesel GeneratorBuilding due to wave activity (i.e., flooding in Deer Creek due to the 25-yr flood does not affect the site).Maximum Flood Elevations at the Turbine Building, Screen House and the Diesel Generator Buildingresulting from this alternative is 254.9 ft, NGVD29.6.5 Determine the controlling Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at GinnaThe combination of PMF in the Deer Creek at Ginna with the 25-year surge with wind wave activity andthe maximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario yields the highest water surface elevations atGinna (Section 6.4.2). This alternative is therefore the controlling alternative in determining theprobable maximum water surface elevations at Ginna. The Probable Maximum Water SurfaceElevation at Ginna is 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at theAuxiliary Building, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Control Building,271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby Auxiliary FeedwaterPump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex,258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Diesel Generator Building.7.0 RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONSNUREG/CR-7046 presents updated methodologies relative to Regulatory Guide 1.59 which areincorporated into this calculation. These include:Page 24 FHR-COMBINED Page 35 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant* Use of computerized hydrologic, hydraulic and wave height simulation models (i.e., HEC-HMS,FLO-2D and CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 ) to develop the dam breach outflow, maximum floodelevations and wave height;* Identification of specific alternatives (i.e., Appendix H of NUREG/CR-7046) for evaluation incombined effect flooding.The following summarizes the results and conclusions:1. The bounding combined-effect flooding mechanism at Ginna is the combination of the PMF onthe Deer Creek with the 25-year surge with wind-wave activity on Lake Ontario and themaximum controlled water level on the Lake. Under this alternative, waves overtop the stonerevetment and discharge canal, increasing the PMF water surface elevations at the northernend of the site by 0.1 ft.2. The Probable Maximum Water Elevation at Ginna including wave effects is calculated to be272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Reactor Containment Building, 272.6 ft, NGVD29 at the AuxiliaryBuilding, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Turbine Building, 272.4 ft, NGVD29 at the Control Building,271.3 ft, NGVD29 at the All-Volatile Building, 272.8 ft, NGVD29 at the Standby AuxiliaryFeedwater Pump Building, 273.5 ft, NGVD29 at the proposed Standby Auxiliary FeedwaterPump Building Annex, 258.2 ft, NGVD29 at the Screen House, and 258.4 ft, NGVD29 at theDiesel Generator Building.

8.0 REFERENCES

1. AREVA Document No. 32-9190273-000, "Probable Maximum Flood Flow in Streams near R.E.Ginna", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.2. AREVA Document No. 32-9190274-000, "Probable Maximum Flood Elevations in Streams nearR.E. Ginna", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.3. VERTCON -North American Vertical Datum Conversion, by National Geodetic Survey,http:/twww.ngs.noaa.gov/TOOLSNertcon/vertcon.html, revised November 1, 2012, accessedNovember 1, 2012. See Appendix A.4. NUREG-0800, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Standard Review Plan, revisedMarch 2007.5. Regulatory Guides, RG 1.102 -Flood Protection for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 1, UnitedStates Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Standards Development, dated September1976.6. Regulatory Guides, RG 1.59 -Design Basis Floods for Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 2,United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Standards Development, dated August1977.7. Design Basis Flood Estimation for Site Characterization at Nuclear Power Plants -NUREG/CR-7046, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 2011.8. American National Standard for Determining Design Basis Flooding at Power Reactor Sites(ANSI/ANS 2.8 -1992).Page 25 FHR-COMBINED Page 36 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant9. AREVA Document No. 38-9196713-000, "GZA Computer Program Certification for CEDAS-ACES Version 4.03 PC," 2013.10. New York State Inventory of Dams, Department of Environmental Conservation,http://www.dec.ny.gov/pubs/42978.html, revised September 13, 2011, accessed March 12,2013. See Appendix B.11. Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis, State of Colorado Department of Natural ResourcesDivision of Water Resources, Office of the State Engineer Dam Safety Branch, February 2010.See Appendix C.12. Engineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower Projects, Chapter 2 -Selecting andAccommodating Inflow Design Floods for Dams, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC), October 1993, http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide.asp, revised June 28, 2010, accessed February 4, 2013. See Appendix C.13. Uncertainty of Predictions of Embankment Dam Breach Parameters, T. L. Wahl, Journal ofHydraulic Engineering, ASCE, May 2004. See Appendix C.14. Hydrologic Modeling System HEC-HMS Technical Reference Manual, U.S. Army Corps ofEngineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, March 2000.15. Ginna Topo by McMahon LaRue Associates 04-01-12.dwg -Current site topographic andexisting conditions data (in AutoCADTM format), See AREVA Document No. 38-9191389-000.16. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Center, Hydrologic Modeling SystemHEC-HMS, User's Manual, August 2010.17. The National Map, National Geospatial Program (NGP) (http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/),revised April 14, 2008, accessed August 20, 2012. See Appendix D.18. ESRI ArcGIS Online World Imagery map service (http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=10df2279f9684e4 a9f6a7f08febac2a9), revised July 18, 2012 by ESRI, accessed December 17,2012. See Appendix D.19. The National Landcover Database (NLCD) 2006 Land Cover (http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd06_data.php), U.S. Geological Survey, February 2011, Edition 1.0, accessed August 27, 2012. SeeAppendix D.20. Manning's n Coefficients for Open Channel Flow, LMNO Engineering, Research, and Software,Ltd, (http://www.lmnoeng.com/index.shtml), revised February 5, 2013, accessed February 20,2013. See Appendix D.21. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center, Climate DataOnline (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCN D/stations/GHCND: USWO0014768/detail, revised March 18, 2013,accessed March 19 and 21, 2013. See Appendix E.22. Automated Coastal Engineering System Technical Reference, Leenknecht, D., Szuwalski, A.,Version 1.07, September 1992.23. R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR) Revision 23,Constellation Nuclear Energy Group, December 6, 2011 (See AREVA Document No. 38-9191389-000).Page 26 FHR-COMBINED Page 37 of 231AARE VA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant24. AREVA Document No. 38-9192635-00, "Computer Software Certification -FLO-2D Pro", GZAGeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013. See Appendix J.25. AREVA Document No. 38-9191662-00, "Computer Software Certification for HEC-HMS Version3.5 PC", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2012. See Appendix J.26. AREVA Document No. 51-9190872-000 "Tsunami Hazard Assessment at R.E. Ginna NuclearPower Plant Site", 2013.27. AREVA Document No. 32-9190277-000, "Probable Maximum Storm Surge near R.E. GinnaNuclear Power Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.28. AREVA Document No. 32-9190279-000, "Wind Generated Waves near R.E. Ginna NuclearPower Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.29. AREVA Document No. 32-9190276 "Probable Maximum Wind Storm near R.E. Ginna NuclearPower Plant", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.30. AREVA Document No. 32-9190271-000, "Probable Maximum Precipitation for Streams nearR.E. Ginna", GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc., 2013.31. Extreme Precipitation in New York and New England (http://precip.eas.cornell.edu\), Version1.12, by Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) and Northeast Regional ClimateCenter (NRCC), revised October 19, 2011, accessed March 28, 2013.32. NOAA Tides & Currents Great Lakes Water Level Data. Website:http://tidesandcurrents. noaa.gov/stationretrieve.shtml?type=G reat+ Lakes+Water+ Level+ Data,date revised: November 2005, date accessed: August 20, 2012.33. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1982) "Guidelines For Determining Flood Flow Frequency", Bulletin#17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee, U.S. Department of the Interior, Geologic Survey, Office fWater Data Collection, Revised September 1981, Edited March 1982.Page 27 FHR-COMBINED Page 38 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTABLESPage 28 FHR-COMBINED Page 39 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 1: Dam Breach ParametersTop of Average Top ofDam / Bottom Side Brah Bottom Deveacent DamDam Name Height of Breach / Pool of Breach Width Trigger Developmentl Breach1 Slope Width t Method Start SurfaceHeight of Dam Elevation Time (hr) Area(ft) (ft) (ft) (acres)Macinnes 5 0 0.5 15 12.5 Jan 8, 0.17 19Marsh Dam 18:20William Daly 6 6 0 0.5 18 15 Specific Jan 8, 0.17 5Marsh Dam Time 19:10Fruitland Mill 10 10 0 0.5 30 25 Jan 8, 0.17 6Dam I I I I I 1 1 19:201 Elevations are relative. Assigned all reservoir bottoms to be at elevation zero.2 Based on simulation beginning on January 1 at 00:00.3 Used development time of 0.17 hr for earthen dams.Page 29 FHR-COMBINED Page 40 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 2: Muskingum-Cunge ParametersAverage Manning'sReach Length (ft) Bed Width (ft) nSlopeMacinnes Marsh Dam 14550 0.0026 40 0.04William Daly Marsh 56700 0.0041 40 0.04DamFruitland Mill Dam 30410 0.0024 40 0.04Table 3: Peak Flow with Dam Breach and 72-hour PMPHEC-HMS Element Unit 72-hour PMPPeak Outflow from Mill Creek Watershed (cfs) 20,530Peak Breach Outflow from William Daly Marsh (cfs) 480DamPeak Breach Outflow from Fruitland Mill Dam (cfs) 1,910Total Discharge from Mill Creek Watershed (cf s) 20,530Peak Outflow from Deer Creek Watershed (cf s) 8,140Peak Breach Outflow from Maccines Marsh Dam (cfs) 430Total Discharge from Deer Creek Watershed (cfs) 8,140Combined Peak Outflow at Ginna Nuclear Station (cfs) 28,460Page 30 FHR-COMBINED Page 41 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 4: Probable Maximum Stillwater Elevations at Ginna from Riverine FloodingRepresentative Design Basis PMF Peak Maximum MaximumGrid Element Flood Levels Elevation Flow FlowStructure Number (ft, NGVD29) (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps)Reactor Containment 6193 272.0 272.4 2.2 1.1Auxiliary Building 6651 272.0 to 273.8 272.6 2.1 2.8Turbine Building 4364 256.6 258.1 4.1 3.1Control Building 5740 272.0 272.4 2.1 2.1All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0 271.3 0.7 5.3Standby AuxiliaryFeedwater Pump 6879 273.0 272.8 2.7 4.1Proposed StandbyAuxiliary Feedwater 7105 273.8 273.5 3.6 2.9Screen House 3840 256.6 258.1 4.5 3.3Diesel GeneratorBuilding 4014 256.6 258.3 4.7 4.3Page 31 FHR-COMBINED Page 42 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 5: Overtopping Flow Rates for Worst Historic Surge with Wind-Wave ActivityDesignBase Depth at T H, (Ft.) CEDAS Runup CEDAS Over-Length Water Structur Peak Hs (CEDAS Runup Elev Over- topping(ft.) Level e Toe (T) (Ft.) '(t. (NGV topping Reach(NGVD (Ft.) Calc.) (t D29) (cfs.) (cfs)29)1 60 249.2 5.40 10 4.20 3.0 6.55 255.75 0 0.02 88 249.2 5.50 10 4.29 3.0 6.67 255.87 0 0.03 245 249.2 7.30 10 5.69 4.3 8.49 257.69 0.015 3.74 47 249.2 7.70 10 6.00 4.6 14.6 263.8 5.53 259.95 233 249.2 8.20 10 6.39 5.0 9.37 258.57 0.019 4.46 110 249.2 7.30 10 5.69 4.3 8.50 257.7 0.003 0.37 105 249.2 5.70 10 4.44 3.2 6.87 256.07 0 0.0See Figure 8 for Transect LocationsPage 32 FHR-COMBINED Page 43 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 6: Overtopping Flow Rates for 25-year Surge with Wind-Wave ActivityDesign Depth T H0 (Ft.) CEDA CEDAS Over-Transec Lengt Base at Pea Hs (CEDA S Runup Over- toppingt h (ft.) Water Structu k (Ft.) S Runup ENle9) topping Reach(NGVD29) (Ft.) (TT Calc.) (Ft.) (cfs.) (cfs)1 60 248.8 5.00 10 3.85 2.7 6.08 254.88 0 0.02 88 248.8 5.10 10 3.95 2.8 6.21 255.01 0 0.03 245 248.8 6.90 10 5.38 4..0 8.10 256.90 0.005 1.24 47 248.8 7.30 10 5.68 4.3 14.15 262.95 4.13 194.15 233 248.8 7.80 10 6.07 4.7 8.97 257.77 0.007 1.66 110 248.8 6.90 10 5.38 4.0 8.10 256.9 0.001 0.17 105 248.8 5.30 10 4.13 2.9 6.46 255.26 0 0.0See Figure 8 for Transect LocationsPage 33 FHR-COMBINED Page 44 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 7: Overtopping Flow Rates for Probable Maximum Surge with Wind-Wave ActivityDesignBase DepthH (Ft.) CEDAS Runup CEDAS Over-Length Water Structure (CE Hs Elev. Over-Transect (ft.) Level Toe Peak(Ft) (CEDAS Runup (NGV topping Rgc(NGVD (Ft.) (TO) Calc.) (Ft.) D29) (cfs.) (each29) 1 (cfs)1 60 251.1 7.3 10 5.7 4.3 8.4 259.5 0.07 4.22 88 251.1 7.4 10 5.8 4.3 8.5 259.6 0.08 7.03 245 251.1 9.2 10 7.2 5.7 10.2 261.3 0.33 80.94 47 251.1 9.6 10 7.5 6.0 16.7 267.8 15.8 742.65 233 251.1 10.1 10 7.9 6.3 11.1 262.2 0.34 79.26 110 251.1 9.2 10 7.2 5.7 10.2 261.3 0.14 15.47 105 251.1 7.6 10 5.9 4.5 8.7 259.8 0 0.0See Figure 8 for Transect LocationsPage 34 FHR-COMBINED Page 45 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 8: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverinePMF, worst historic surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water levelin Lake OntarioDesign PMF Peak Maximum MaximumBasis Flood Elevation Flow FlowRepresentative Levels (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps)Grid Element (ft, NGVD29)Structure Number NGVD29)ReactorContainment 6193 272.0272.0 toAuxiliary Building 6651 273.8 --Turbine Building 4364 256.6 255.0 1.0 1.2Control Building 5740 272.0 --All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0Standby AuxiliaryFeedwater PumpBuilding 6879 273.0Proposed StandbyAuxiliaryFeedwater PumpBuilding Annex 7105 273.8 270.3 0.4 0.5Screen House 3840 256.6 254.9 1.2 0.4Diesel GeneratorBuilding 4014 256.6 254.9 1.2 1.0Note: "-"implies that the flooding from the scenario does not impact the given location.Page 35 FHR-COMBINED Page 46 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 9: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the riverinePMF, 25-year surge with wind-wave activity and maximum controlled water level in LakeOntarioDesign PMF Peak Maximum MaximumBasis Flood Elevation Flow FlowRepresentative Levels (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps)Grid Element (ft, NGVD29)Structure Number NGVD29)ReactorContainment 6193 272.0 272.4 2.2 1.1272.0 toAuxiliary Building 6651 273.8 272.6 2.0 2.8Turbine Building 4364 256.6 258.2 4.2 3.1Control Building 5740 272.0 272.4 2.0 2.1All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0 271.3 0.7 5.3Standby AuxiliaryFeedwater PumpBuilding 6879 273.0 272.8 2.7 4.0Proposed StandbyAuxiliaryFeedwater PumpBuilding Annex 7105 273.8 273.5 3.6 2.8Screen House 3840 256.6 258.2 4.5 3.3Diesel GeneratorBuilding 4014 256.6 258.4 4.7 4.4Page 36 FHR-COMBINED Page 47 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 10: Peak Water Surface Elevations resulting from the combination of the 25-yearflood in Deer Creek, Probable Maximum Storm Surge with wind-wave activity andmaximum controlled water level in Lake OntarioDesign PMF Peak Maximum MaximumBasis Flood Elevation Flow FlowRepresentative Levels (ft, Depth (ft) Velocity (fps)Grid Element (ft, NGVD29)Structure Number NGVD29)ReactorContainment 6193 272.0 -272.0 toAuxiliary Building 6651 273.8 --Turbine Building 4364 256.6 254.9 0.9 0.8Control Building 5740 272.0 --All-Volatile-Treatment-Building 5286 272.0 -Standby AuxiliaryFeedwater PumpBuilding 6879 273.0 --Proposed StandbyAuxiliaryFeedwater PumpBuilding Annex 7105 273.8 --Screen House 3840 256.6 254.9 1.2 0.9Diesel GeneratorBuilding 4014 256.6 254.9 1.2 0.8Note: "-"implies that the flooding from the scenario does not impact the given location.Page 37 FHR-COMBINED Page 48 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFIGURESPage 38 FHR-COMBINED Page 49 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 1: Locus MapNote: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 39 FHR-COMBINED Page 50 of 231AAREVADocument No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 2: Site Layout (Reference 23)U.nI&;;t _*(adNote: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 40 FHR-COMBINED Page 51 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 3: Dam LocationsNote: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 41 FHR-COMBINED Page 52 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 4: HEC-HMS Basin ModelNote: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 42 FHR-COMBINED Page 53 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 5: Total Contributory Watershed Hydrograph with Dam BreachJtmcuion "JuncUon-l" Results for Run "PMF Darn Breach"25.000 -20.000 -30,00025.000"20,000"' 1IU.UUU010.000I'-p.I-j ý,,9K m -.---* .-.-I2 134 56 1If1 8I I 101 11 1 121Jan20OO-RwLUFW 0afn Breach EWmntnULI4JC1ON-1 ResttuftDkowPage 43 FHR-COMBINED Page 54 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 6: Mill Creek Watershed Hydrograph with Dam BreachJunchon "Junchon-2" Results for Run "PMF Dam Breachua2.UUUU' '15,000"41'11 tV'll'lz,,20.000-__ _it15.000- -________: UIUULRI0Mr5,0001-.J-LKfl f -Y -I .--P q -I P YI21 31 45671 8910 11 i12Jan200-R~m:PW DAM BREACH EkmxwULLHCllOt-2 RzesfiLOutcowPage 44 FHR-COMBINED Page 55 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 7: Deer Creek Watershed Hydrograph with Dam BreachJunction "Junctm-3" Results for Run PMF Darn Breach"9,.UOfl7,000--6,000 -5,000- -__4.oao- ___3,000- -21,00--z A0I UUUJLwn. ~ -I --I -U ~ U -I -RmimW DAM BREACH EBrnnUUNCTON-3 ReafDft~uw9 I 10 1112Jan2000Page 45 FHR-COMBINED Page 56 of 231AAREVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 8: Transect Locations for Wave OvertoppingNote: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 46 FHR-COMBINED Page 57 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 9: Straight Line Fetch over Deer CreekEL=,Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 47 FHR-COMBINED Page 58 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 10: NOAA Station Location MapNote: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 48 FHR-COMBINED Page 59 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 11: Probable Maximum Water Surface Elevations at Ginna (ft, NGVD29)(Combination of PMF on Deer Creek and 25-year Surge with wind-wave activity and themaximum controlled water level in Lake Ontario)Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 49 FHR-COMBINED Page 60 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 12: Elevation at Grid Cell (ft, NGVD29)Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 50 FHR-COMBINED Page 61 of 231AAR EVA Document No. 32-9190280-000Flood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 13: Probable Maximum Flow Depths at Ginna (ft, NGVD29)(Combination of PMF on Deer Creek and 25-year Surge with wind-wave activity and themaximum controlled water level In Lake Ontario)Note: Illegible text or features in this figure are not pertinent to the technical purposes of this documentPage 51 FHR-COMBINED Page 62 of 231AAR EVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX A: DATUM CONVERSIONPage A-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 63 of 231tiý -rut JaTýi A, (1 ajj-4-1 "W.-- d""Alut,VERTCONNAVD 88 minus NGVD 29 Datum Shift ContourContous at 20 cm Wsr#MWai-I um w, 9WN*12(W 14-Wf IwW WW WWm2M tao 18016 140 120 NOw 80 04 20 0 20-H -40Height Difference (cm)See the text version of an article about VERTCON that appeared in the Professional Surveyormagazine, March 2004 Volume 24, Number 3Wasm OWnerW. ?4UW GW W eodtla 4IVy t' LMt flfm~dd " WGS WOemOeWr Jan 24 2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 64 of 231Questions concerning the VERTCON process may be mailed to NGSLatitude: 43 16 40.00Longitude: 77 18 32.00NAVD 88 height: 0.00 FTDatum shift(NAvD 88 minus NGVD 29): -0.689 feetConverted to NGVD 29 height: 0.689 feethttp://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/VERTCON/vertcon2.prl11/1/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 65 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX B: NEW YORK STATE INVENTORY OF DAMPage B-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 66 of 231$. PLMk- F- mw. mw~.0 Go"* mw "Googi. Maps and Earthis*I*, keketog4~g~IkE~ ~ke..ke .4 .oka~.a9M at DECa.*VIftdc... 110.Ub Ca. Or)a "aaatM WWW"toa.D

W- W"a ftoga.,Eoaa ý a..aýk lab..ft aa ý P..CTCa f t CtaOCmat mb"aTaa "c. ECOftDEC La. bg.e bf kat ad. awm~ ea *to Pmwa akj" -a4d'aa aaa"aaOwr 5-f mE nae b 0bcCECass .fae -COltLft C.4- Mp0N,.4"% 7 FHR-COMBINED Page 67 of 231New York State Inventory of DamsName of Dam: Macinnes Marsh DamState ID: 045-2684Hazard Code: ASee below for hazard code definitionYear Completed: imMost Recent Inspection: 1/16/2002CENTRAL LKONTARI~71612009Note -The Hazard Code denotes the downstream hazard potential in the eventof a dam failure:C = High Hazard* = Intermediate HazardA = Low Hazard0 = Null; No hazard code assignedAe~wI I FHR-COMBINED Page 68 of 231New York State Inventory of DamsName of Dam: William Daly Marh DamStats ID: 0451 903Hazard Code: ASee below for hazard code definltionYear Completed: 1963Most Recent Inspection: 116/2002Note -The Hazard Code denotes the downstream hazard potential in the eventof a dam failure;C = High HazardB = Intermediate HazardA = Low Hazard0 = Null; No hazard code assignedAlso Note -This data was exported from DEC's database on 08/30/11. Updatesto data that occurred after 08/30/11 are not reflected here.

FHR-COMBINED Page 69 of 231ANew York State Inventory of DamsName of Dam: Fruitland Mill DamState ID: 045-0330Hazard Code: 0See below for hazard code definitionYear Completed: 1800Most Recent Inspection: 12/31/19801Note -The Hazard Code denotes the downstream hazard potential In the eventof a dam failure:C = High Hazard* = Intermediate HazardA = Low Hazard0 = N01- Nn hmLrd rnrip as.innpr14 FHR-COMBINED Page 70 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Metadata also available asMetadata:" Identification Information" Data Quality Information" Spatial Data Organization Information* Spatial Reference Information" Entity and Attribute Information" Distribution Information" Metadata Reference InformationIdentificationInformation:Citation:Citation_Information:Originator: New York State Department of Environmental ConservationOriginators Division of WaterOriginator: Dam Safety SectionPublicationDate. 20091125Title. Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)GeospatialData_PresentationForm. vector digital dataPublication Information:PublicationPlace. Albany, NYPublisher: New York State Department of Environmental ConservationOnline Linkage:<http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/inventories/details.cfmi?DSID= 1130>Description.Abstract:A point file to show the location of dams in the New York State Inventory of Dams.Purpose.This dataset is used to show the location of dams in New York State's inventory ofdams, and lists selected attributes of each dam.Supplemental Information.1. While we try to maintain an accurate inventory, this data should not be relied uponfor emergency response decision-making. We recommend that critical data, includingdam location and hazard classification, be verified in the field. The presence orabsence of a dam in this inventory does not indicate its regulatory status. Anycorrections should be submitted to the Dam Safety Section with supportinginformation.2. There are approximately 17 dams in this dataset that do not have X Y locations.Time Period of Content.TimePeriod Information:Single_Date/Time.Calendar Date. 20110912Currentness

Reference:

publication datefile:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Dat/NYS_dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 71 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Status:Progress: CompleteMaintenance and UpdateFrequency: AnnuallySpatialDomain:BoundingCoordinates:WestBoundingCoordinate: -79.982799EastBoundingCoordinate." -72.112362NorthBoundingCoordinate: 45.006295South BoundingCoordinate: 40.426335Key,'ords."Theme:ThemeKeyword Thesaurus. ISO 19115 Topic CategoryThemeKeyword: environmentTheme Keyword: 007ThemeKeyword: inlandWatersTheme Keyword." 012ThemeKeyword.: structureThemeKeyword.: 0 17ThemeKeyword: utilitiesCommunicationTheme_Keyword: 019Theme:ThemeKeywordThesaurus: NoneThemeKeyword." custodialThemeKeyword: damTheme Keyword": watercourseThemeKeyword." floodTheme Keyword: hydroelectricTheme_Keyword: storm waterThemeKeyword." recreationTheme Keyword: water supplyPlace:PlaceKeywordThesaurus:Geographic Names Information System<http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic>PlaceKeyword: New York StateAccess Constraints. N/AUseConstraints.1. The NYS DEC asks to be credited in derived products. 2. Secondary Distribution of thedata is not allowed. 3. Any documentation provided is an integral part of the data set.Failure to use the documentation in conjunction with the digital data constitutes misuse ofthe data. 4. Although every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of information,errors may be reflected in the data supplied. The user must be aware of data conditions andbear responsibility for the appropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors,original map scale, collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions.Point ofContact:Contact Information:ContactOrganizationPrimary:ContactOrganization: New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservationContactPerson: Division of Water, Dam Safety SectionContact Address:file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 72 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Address_Type: mailing and physical addressAddress: 625 BroadwayAddress: 4th FloorCity: AlbanyState or Province: NYPostal Code: 12233-3504Country: USAContactVoiceTelephone: 518-402-8151DataSetCredit: NYS DEC, Div. of Water, Dams SectionSecurityInformation:SecurityClassification System. NoneSecurity Classification: UnclassifiedSecurity HandlingDescription: NoneNative Data Set Environment.Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 2; ESRI ArcCatalog9.3.1.3500Data Quality Information:LogicalConsistencyReport: NoneCompletenessReport: NoneLineage:Process_Step:Process

Description:

A feature class is created from data extracted from the Divison of Water's DamSafety Section database. Latitude/Longitude in decimal degrees is calculatedfrom the latitude/longitude degrees, minutes, seconds fields extracted from thedatabase. Data is then projected to NAD83, NYTM Zone 18 from GCS, WGS1984..ProcessDate: 20070501Process_Step:Process

Description:

Updated feature class created from updated data, using latittude and longitudecoordinates from the dataset, converted into decimal degrees.ProcessDate: 20081027Process Step:Process-Description:Updated feature class with newest data set from Dam Safety. New data setconsisted of various changes in field names and field structure. Metadata wasupdated accordingly.ProcessDate: 20091125Process_Step:Process-Description:Updated feature class with newest data set from Dam Safety. New data setconsisted of various changes in field names and field structure. Projected thedata to UTM Zone 18. Metadata was updated accordingly.ProcessDate: 20110912file:///J:/ 170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 73 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Spatial Data Organization Information:DirectSpatialReference Method: VectorPointand_ Vector Object Information.SDTS_TermsDescription:SDTSPointandVectorObjectType: Entity pointPointandVectorObjectCount: 6906SpatialReference Information.HorizontalCoordinate System Definition.Planar:Grid Coordinate System:GridCoordinateSystemName: Universal Transverse MercatorUniversalTransverse Mercator.UTM Zone Number. 18Transverse Mercator.ScaleFactor atCentralMeridian.: 0.999600Longitude of CentralMeridian. -75.000000Latitude_ofProjection Origin: 0.000000FalseEasting: 500000.000000FalseNorthing: 0.000000PlanarCoordinate Information:PlanarCoordinateEncodingMethod.: coordinate pairCoordinate Representation:Abscissa Resolution: 0.000100Ordinate Resolution. 0.000100Planar DistanceUnits: metersGeodeticModel:Horizontal DatumName. North American Datum of 1983EllipsoidName: Geodetic Reference System 80Semi-major Axis. 6378137.000000Denominator ofFlatteningRatio: 298.257222VerticalCoordinate SystemDefinition:Altitude System Definition:Altitude DatumName: NAAltitude Resolution: 1.000000Altitude Distance Units: NAAltitude_Encoding Method.Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontal coordinatesEntity and AttributeInformation.Detailed-Description:Entity Type:EntityTypeLabel: Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Entity Type Definition: Point Feature ClassEntityTypeDefinitionSource: ESRIAttribute.:AttributeLabel: OBJECTIDfile:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 74 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Attribute Definition: Internal feature number.Attribute Definition Source: ESRIAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain:Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.Attribute:Attribute Label. COUNTY NAMAttribute-Definition: Name-of New York State county in which the dam is located.Attribute DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.UnrepresentableDomain: Names.Attribute:Attribute Label. NAMEONEAttribute Definition: Official dam name.Attribute Definition Source: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain: Names.Attribute:AttributeLabel: FEDERALIDAttributeDefinition:The National Dam Inspection Program ID Number in the Inventory of Dams.The first two characters are NY followed by a five digit serial number.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:CodesetDomain:Codeset Name: ID NumberCodesetSource." National Dam Inspection ProgramAttribute:Attribute Label. NAME TWOAttribute Definition: Alternate dam name.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues.UnrepresentableDomain: Names.Attribute.Attribute Label. STATEIDAttributeDefinition:Unique identifier incorporating quad sheet number and serial number of damseparated by a hyphen.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.UnrepresentableDomain: Unique identifier.Attribute:AttributeLabel: LATDEGREEAttribute Definition: Degrees latitude of dam location.Attribute DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Range Domain."Range_DomainMinimum: 0Range_Domain_Maximum: 90AttributeUnits_ofMeasure: degreesAttribute:file:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/I71356-OO.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 75 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Attribute Label: LATMINAttributeDefinition: Minutes latitude of dam location.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues:RangeDomain:RangeDomainMinimum. 0Range_DomainMaximum: 60AttributeUnitsofMeasure: minutesAttribute:Attribute Label. LATSECAttribute Definition: Seconds latitude of dam location.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.'RangeDomain."Range_DomainMinimum: 0Range_DomainMaximum: 60Attribute_Units_ofMeasure: secondsAttribute:Attribute Label. LONG DEGREEAttribute Definition: Degrees longitude of dam location.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain.'Range_DomainMinimum: 0Range_DomainMaximum: 180AttributeUnits_ofMeasure: degreesAttribute:Attribute Label. LONGMINAttribute Definition: Minutes longitude of dam location.Attribute Definition Source: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0Range_DomainMaximum: 60AttributeUnitsof Measure.' minutesAttribute:Attribute Label.' LONG SECAttributeDefinition: Seconds longitude of dam location.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain.'Range_Domain Minimum: 0Range_DomainMaximum: 60AttributeUnits_ofMeasure: secondsAttribute.'Attribute Label.: MUNIAttribute Definition:The name of the municipality in which the dam is located. May accommodatemore than one municipality, each one separated by a comma.Attribute DefinitionSource.: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues:file:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 76 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)UnrepresentableDomain: Names.Attribute:Attribute Label: RIVERSTREAttribute Definition:The official name of the watercourse on which the dam is located. If the streamis not named, enter as a tributary to first larger, named stream in form: TR-stream name.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain: Names.Attribute:Attribute Label: NRCITYNAAttribute Definition: Official name of the nearest downstream community.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain: Names.Attribute:Attribute Label: NR CITY DIAttributeDefinition."Distance, to the nearest mile, from the dam to the nearest downstreamcommunity.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0Range_DomainMaximum: 9999999999AttributeUnitsofMeasure: milesAttribute.Attribute Label: CONSTRTYPAttribute Definition.Type of dam construction. Field can accommodate more than one constructiontype, each one separated by a comma.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.EnumeratedDomain:Enumerated DomainValue: OT -OtherEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Some other construction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: CB -ButtressEnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition: The dam is a buttressconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: CN -Concrete GravityEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is a concrete gravityconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:file:///J:/ 170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Worký/02Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 77 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: ER -RockfillEnumeratedDomain_Value-Definition: The dam is a rockfillconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues:Enumerated Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: LS -Laid Up StoneEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is a laid up stoneconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: MS -MasonryEnumeratedDomainValue Definition. The dam is a masonryconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: MV -Multi-ArchEnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinition: The dam is a multi-archconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. RE -EarthEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is an earthconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. ST -StoneEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is a stone constructiontype.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated Domain Value: TC -Timber CribEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is a timber cribconstruction type.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: VA -ArchEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is an arch constructiontype.EnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source: NYSDECAttribute.Attribute Label. PURPOSESAttribute Definition:The purpose for which the dam is used. Field may accommodate more than onefile:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 78 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)purpose, each one separated by a comma.Attribute Definition Source. NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.EnumeratedDomain:EnumeratedDomainValue: Water Supply -OtherEnumerated DomainValue Definition: The dam is used for watersupply other than primary source.EnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.,Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. Debris ControlEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is used to controldebris.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value. Fish & Wildlife PondEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is used to create fishand wildlife pond.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:EnumeratedDomain.EnumeratedDomainValue: HydroelectricEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is used to producehydroelectric power.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues.:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: IrrigationEnumerated-_DomainValue Definition: The dam is used to supplywater for irrigation.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: NavigationEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is used to supplywater for navigation.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition Source: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value. OtherEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is used for some otherpurpose.EnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated Domain Value. Fire Protection, Livestock, or Farm PondEnumeratedDomain- Value Definition:The dam is used to supply water for fire protection,livestock,irrigation, or is a farm pond dam.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECfile:///J:/l170,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 79 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)AttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated Domain Value: RecreationEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: The dam is used to containwater for recreation.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.'EnumeratedDomain:EnumeratedDomainValue: Water Supply -PrimaryEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: The dam is used as a primarysource water supply.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues:Enumerated Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: TailingsEnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinition: The dam is used to containtailings waste.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: Flood Control/Storm Water ManagementEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition:The dam is used for flood control or for storm water management.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute:Attribute Label.' YEARBUILTAttribute Definition:The year original construction was completed, or the year of the latest majorreconstruction.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain: Dates.Attribute.Attribute Label: DAMLENGTHAttribute Definition."Crest length, in feet, of the dam. Total horizontal distance measured along theaxis at the elevation of the top of the dam between the ends of the dam. Thisincludes spillways, power house sections, and navigation locks where theyform part of the dam retaining structure.Attribute Definition Source.: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0RangeDomainMaximum.: 9999999999Attribute_Units_oLMeasure: feetAttribute.:Attribute Label.' DAM HEIGHTAttribute Definition:Height, in feet to the nearest foot, of the vertical distance of the dam from thelowest point on the crest of the dam to the lowest point in the originalstreambed.file:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/171356-0O.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 80 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)AttributeDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Range Domain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0RangeDomainMaximum: 9999999999AttributeUnits_ofMeasure: feetAttribute:Attribute Label: MAXDISCHRAttribute Definition:The number of cubic feet per second which the spillway is capable ofdischarging when the reservoir is at its maximum designed water surfaceelevation.AttributeDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:RangeDomainMinimum: 0Range_Domain Maximum: 9999999999AttributeUnits-ofMeasure: cubic feet per secondAttribute:Attribute Label. MAXSTORAGAttribute Definition.Volume impounded by the dam, in acre feet, at the maximum attainable watersurface elevation.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0Range_Domain_Maximum. 9999999999Attribute Units_ofMeasure: acre feetAttribute:Attribute Label: NORMALSTOAttribute Definition:Volume impounded by the dam, in acre feet, at the elevation of a single orservice spillway.AttributeDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum. 0Range_DomainMaximum: 9999999999AttributeUnits_of Measure: acre feetAttribute:Attribute Label: SURFACEARAttribute Definition:Reservoir surface area, in acres, at pool elevation of a single or servicespillway.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0RangeDomainMaximum: 9999999999AttributeUnits_ofMeasure: acresfile:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Worko2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 81 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Attribute.AttributeLabel. DRAINAGEAAttribute Definition:The area that draws to the dam on a river or stream, in square miles.AttributeDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues:RangeDomain."RangeDomainMinimum. 0Range_DomainMaximum: 9999999999AttributeUnits ofMeasure: square milesAttribute:Attribute Label: OWNERSAttribute Definition:The name of the owner(s). Field can accommodate more than one owner, eachone separated by a comma.Attribute Definition Source. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain: Names.Attribute:Attribute Label: PI INSPDEAttribute Definition:Army Corps of Engineers Phase I Inspection Report program resultsdescription.Attribute DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute DomainValues:Enumerated Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: Unsafe StabilityEnumeratedDomainValue Definition:Phase I Inspection rated the dam unsafe due to inadequate stability.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:EnumeratedDomain:EnumeratedDomainValue: Unsafe Spillway CapacityEnumeratedDomainValue Definition:Phase I Inspection rated the dam unsafe due to inadequate spillwaycapacity.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.Enumerated Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: Unsafe EmergencyEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Phase I Inspection rated thedam "Unsafe -Emergency"EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: OKEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Phase I Inspection found thatthe dam met safety criteria.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:EnumeratedDomain.file:///J :1170,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 82 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Enumerated DomainValue. NoneEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: No Phase I inspection reportpresent.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute DomainValues.:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: Null/BlankEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: No Phase I inspection reportpresentEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute:Attribute Label. LSTINSPDAttribute Definition:Date of the most recent NYSDEC Dam Safety Section inspection of the dam.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain: Dates.Attribute:Attribute Label: HAZARDCODAttribute Definition: The hazard classification code of the dam.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: AEnumeratedDomain- Value Definition:Class "A" or "Low Hazard" dam: A dam failure is unlikely toresult in damage to anything more than isolated or unoccupiedbuildings, undeveloped lands, minor roads such as town or countyroads; is unlikely to result in the interruption of important utilities,including water supply, sewage treatment, fuel, power, cable ortelephone infrastructure; and/or is otherwise unlikely to pose thethreat of personal injury, substantial economic loss or substantialenvironmental damage.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated Domain Value: BEnumerated-_Domain-_ValueDefinition:Class "B" or "Intermediate Hazard" dam: A dam failure may resultin damage to isolated homes, main highways, and minor railroads;may result in the interruption of important utilities, including watersupply, sewage treatment, fuel, power, cable or telephoneinfrastructure; and/or is otherwise likely to pose the threat ofpersonal injury and/or substantial economic loss or substantialenvironmental damage. Loss of human life is not expected.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain.Enumerated DomainValue. CEnumeratedDomain Value Definition:Class "C" or "High Hazard" dam: A dam failure may result infile:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 83 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)widespread or serious damage to home(s); damage to mainhighways, industrial or commercial buildings, railroads, and/orimportant utilities, including water supply, sewage treatment, fuel,power, cable or telephone infrastructure; or substantialenvironmental damage; such that the loss of human life orwidespread substantial economic loss is likely.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: DEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition:Class "D" or "Negligible or No Hazard" dam: A dam that has beenbreached or removed, or has failed or otherwise no longermaterially impounds waters, or a dam that was planned but neverconstructed. Class"D" dams are considered to be defunct damsposing negligible or no hazard. The department may retainpertinent records regarding such dams.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value. 0EnumeratedDomain-ValueDefinition: Hazard Code has not beenassignedEnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source: NYSDECAttribute:AttributeLabel. QUADAttribute Definition:A letter (A, B, C, D) to designate on which 7.5 quad of the original 15 minutequad the dam is located.Attribute Definition Source. NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:EnumeratedDomain:Enumerated Domain Value: AEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Top left.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: BEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: Top right.Enumerated_DomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.EnumeratedDomain:Enumerated DomainValue: CEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Bottom left.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: DEnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Bottom right.EnumeratedDomainValue-DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute:file:///J:/170,000-179,999/171356/I71356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 84 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Attribute Label: BASINNAMEAttributeDefinition: Name of drainage basin in which the dam is located.Attribute Definition_Source: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain. Names.Attribute.Attribute Label: REGIONNAMAttribute _Definition: DEC region in which the dam is located.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Unrepresent-ableDomain: Names.Attribute:Attribute Label. DIKELENGTAttribute Definition:Crest length, in feet, of all closures, retaining or diversion dikes not directlyattached to main dam.AttributeDefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.RangeDomain."Range _Domain Minimum: 0RangeDomain Maximum: 9999999AttributeUnitsofMeasure. feetAttribute.Attribute Label: SPILLWY TIAttributeDefinition. Single or service spillway.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues.EnumeratedDomain:Enumerated Domain Value. Uncontrolled OverflowEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Uncontrolled Overflow.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: Drop Inlet or RiserEnumerated-_Domain-Value Definition.: Drop Inlet or Riser.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain.EnumeratedDomainValue: Drop StructureEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Drop Structure.EnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source. NYSDECAttributeDomainValues:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated Domain Value: Culvert -No ControlEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Culvert -No Control.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: GatedEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Gated.Enumerated_DomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECfile:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/020Files/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 85 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Attribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated Domain Value: Uncontrolled Overflow with flashboardsEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Uncontrolled Overflow withflashboards.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:EnumeratedDomain:EnumeratedDomainValue. Stop Log sluiceEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Stop Log sluice.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value. Taintor GateEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition. Taintor Gate.EnumeratedDomain_Value__Definition Source: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value. OtherEnumeratedDomainValue-Definition: Other.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: Null/BlankEnumerated-_Domain-Value Definition: Single or service spillwayinformation is not availableEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: NoneEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Single or service spillwayinformation is not availableEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute:Attribute Label: SPILLWY WDAttribute Definition: Total width, in feet, of all spillway facilities.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0RangeDomainMaximum: 9999999999AttributeUnits_ofMeasure: feetAttribute.Attribute Label: SCSAttribute Definition: Dam designed or financed by USDA Soil Conservation Service.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.EnumeratedDomain.Enumerated DomainValue: YEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Dam designed or financed byUSDA Soil Conservation Service.file:///J:/ 170,000-179,999/171356/I71356-00.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 86 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: NEnumerated_DomainValue Defnition. Dam not designed or financedby USDA Soil Conservation Service.EnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source.' NYSDECAttribute.:Attribute Label: EAPDOCDAAttribute Definition.Date on which the dams' emergency action plan was instituted or revised.Required of all high hazard dams.Attribute DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.:UnrepresentableDomain: Dates.Attribute:Attribute Label.: LAST MODIFIAttribute Definition: The most recent date information was edited.Attribute Definition Source: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain: Dates.Attribute:Attribute Label: LAT2Attribute Definition: Decimal Degrees latitude of dam location.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues:RangeDomain:Range_DomainMinimum: 0Range_DomainMaximum: 180Attribute_Units_oLfMeasure.' decimal degreesAttribute:Attribute Label.: LONG2AttributeDefinition: Decimal Degrees longitude of dam location.Attribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:RangeDomain:RangeDomain Minimum: 0RangeDomain Maximum.' 180Attribute_Units_ofLMeasure.' decimal degreesAttribute.'Attribute Label.' SHAPEAttribute Definition: Feature geometry.Attribute DefinitionSource.' ESRIAttributeDomain Values:UnrepresentableDomain.' Coordinates defining the features.Attribute:Attribute Label.' SPILLWY T2AttributeDefinitionSource-: NYSDECAttributeDefinition: Auxiliary or emergency spillway.AttributeDomain Values.'Enumerated Domain.'file:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 87 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Enumerated DomainValue: Grassed Earth ChannelEnumeratedDomainValue Definition. Grassed Earth Channel.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: Channel cut in rockEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Channel cut in rock.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition_Source: NYSDECAttributeDomainValues.:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated DomainValue. Concrete OverflowEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Concrete Overflow.EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:EnumeratedDomain:Enumerated DomainValue. Concrete Overflow with FlashboardsEnumerated-Domain-Value Definition: Concrete Overflow withFlashboards.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. OtherEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Other.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute DomainValues.Enumerated Domain.EnumeratedDomain Value: NoneEnumerated-_Domain-ValueDefinition: Dam does not have an auxiliaryor emergency spillwayEnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. Null/BlankEnumeratedDomainValue Definition. Auxiliary or emergencyspillway information is not availableEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute:Attribute Label: EAPSTATUSAttribute-DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: On fileEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: EAP is on fileEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Definition: Emergency Action Plan StatusAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: NoneEnumeratedDomainValue Definition. There is no EAP on file.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute.file:///J:/l 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 88 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Attribute Label. EAPLSTEXAttribute Definition Source: NYSDECAttribute Definition: Last time an EAP was exercised.AttributeDomain Values.UnrepresentableDomain: Dates.Attribute:Attribute Label: EAP REQAttribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. YEnumeratedDomain_Value Definition: Yes. An EAP is required.Enumerated DomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Definition: An EAP is required for this dam.Attribute DomainValues:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: NEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: No. An EAP is not required.EnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute:Attribute Label: LSTINSPDAttribute-DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Definition: Last time a dam was inspected.AttributeDomain Values.UnrepresentableDomain: Dates.Attribute:Attribute Label: LASTDEFICAttribute DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Definition: Last deficiencies noted during the last inspection.Attribute DomainValues:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: BREnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Man made breachEnumerated Domain_ValueDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue: FAEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Natural failure, breached, orcause unknownEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:EnumeratedDomain:Enumerated DomainValue: MAEnumerated DomainValue Definition: Dam has maintenance issuesEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute DomainValues:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: NAEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: No dam stability analysisEnumerated DomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 89 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Enumerated Domain:EnumeratedDomain Value: NCEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Incompleted/not builtEnumeratedDomainValue_Definition Source. NYSDECAttribute Domain Values.,Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value. NLEnumerated-_Domain-Value Definition: Dam no longer existsEnumeratedDomainValueDefinition_Source. NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. NoneEnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition. No deficiencies were observedEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values:Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value. NSEnumerated-Domain-Value Definition: No spillway capacity analysisEnumeratedDomain-Value DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute DomainValues.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated DomainValue. SAEnumeratedDomain_Value-Definition: Dam has inadequate structuralstabilityEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:Enumerated Domain.Enumerated DomainValue." SCEnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Dam has insufficient spillwaycapacityEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:Enumerated Domain Value: SEEnumeratedDomain-Value Definition: Dam has seepageEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain.Enumerated DomainValue: SREnumeratedDomainValue Definition: Dam has structural issuesEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource. NYSDECAttribute:Attribute Label. FERCSTATUAttributeDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Domain Values:EnumeratedDomain.Enumerated Domain Value: AEnumerated_DomainValue Definition: Application submittedEnumeratedDomainValue Definition Source. NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain:file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-OO.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 90 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Enumerated DomainValue: EEnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition: FERC Licensed Exempt DamEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDomain Values.Enumerated Domain.Enumerated DomainValue: LEnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition. FERC Licensed DamEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute Definition. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission status, if applicableAttribute Domain Values:EnumneratedDomain:Enumerated DomainValue: NullEnumeratedDomain-_Value Definition: Not ApplicableEnumeratedDomainValue DefinitionSource: NYSDECAttribute.-Attribute Label. FERC INFOAttributeDefinitionSource: NYSDECAttributeDefinition: FERC Project NumberAttributeDomain Values.UnrepresentableDomain. Unique IdentifierOverviewDescription:Entity_andAttributeOverview."The names of fields listed in the Attribute Table are the exact column headings in theDAMS Point Attribute Table. Originally, ArcGIS only allowed use often charactersfor field names. The layerfile is running off of aliases. The longer more descriptivenames follow some of the field names in the definition.Entity andAttributeDetailCitation: Dam Safety SectionDistribution Information.Distributor:ContactInformation.ContactOrganizationPrimary:ContactOrganization: New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservationContact Person. Division of Information Services, GIS UnitContactAddress:AddressType: mailing and physical addressAddress: 625 BroadwayAddress. 3rd FloorCity: AlbanyState or Province.: NYPostalCode. 12233-2750Country: USAContactVoiceTelephone: (518) 402-9860Contact_Facsimile Telephone: (518) 402-9031Contact_ElectronicMailAddress: enterpriseGlS@gw.dec.state.ny.usResource Description. New York State Inventory of DamsDistributionLiability:New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) provides thesefile:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%20Files/GIS/Data/NYSdams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 91 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)geographic data "as is". NYSDEC makes no guarantee or warranty concerning the accuracyof information contained in the geographic data. NYSDEC further makes no warranty,either expressed or implied, regarding the condition of the product or its fitness for anyparticular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use lies entirely with the user.Although these data have been processed successfully on a computer system at NYSDEC,no warranty expressed or implied is made regarding the accuracy or utility of the data onany other system or for general or scientific purposes. This disclaimer applies both toindividual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. It is strongly recommended thatcareful attention be paid to the contents of the metadata file associated with these data.NYSDEC shall not be held liable for improper or incorrect use od the data described and/orcontained herein.StandardOrderProcess:Digital-Form:Digital Transfer Information:Format Name: SHPFormatVersionDate." 20080912Transfer Size: 0.183DigitalTransferOption:Online Option.Computer Contact Information:Network Address.'NetworkResourceName.' unknownFees.' noneMetadataReference Information.:Metadata Date.: 20111012Metadata Contact:Contact__nformation:ContactOrganizationPrimary."ContactOrganization: New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservationContact Person: Division of Information Services, GIS UnitContactAddress:Address_Type: mailing and physical addressAddress: 625 BroadwayAddress.: 3rd FloorCity: AlbanyState or Province: NYPostalCode: 12233-2750Country.' USAContactVoiceTelephone: (518) 402-9860ContactFacsimile-Telephone: (518) 402-9031ContactElectronicMailAddress: enterpriseGIS@gw.dec.state.ny.usMetadata Standard Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial MetadataMetadataStandard Version.' FGDC-STD-00 1-1998Metadata Time Convention.' local timeMetadata Extensions:Online_Linkage: <http://www.esri.com/metadata/esriprof80.html>Profile-Name: ESRI Metadata Profile70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%2OFiles/GIS/Data/NYS-dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 92 of 231Inventory of Dams -New York State (NYSDEC)Generated by m_ version 2.9.6 on Thu Nov 03 16:05:54 2011file:///J:/1 70,000-179,999/171356/171356-00.DML/Work%/2OFiles/GIS/Data!NYS dams/... 3/13/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 93 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX C: BREACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONSPage C-1I FHR-COMBINED Page 94 of 231FERC: Hydropower -Safety and Inspection -Engineering Guidelines, FERCFEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSIONEngineering Guidelines for the Evaluation of Hydropower ProjectsPreface =Chapter 1 a -General RequirementsChapter 2 = -Selecting and Accommodating Inflow Design Floods forDamsChapter 3 m -Gravity DamsChapter 4 = -Embankment DamsChapter 5 --Geotechnical Investigations and StudiesChapter 6 --Emergency Action PlansChapter 7 = -Construction Quality Control Inspection ProgramChapter 8 --Determination of the Probable Maximum FloodChapter 9 =n -Instrumentation and MonitoringChapter 10 m -Other DamsChapter 11 = -Arch DamsChapter 12 --Penstock and Water Conveyance Facilities (InPreparation)Chapter 13 = -Evaluation of Seismic Hazards (Draft Version) Read MoreChapter 14 = -Dam Safety Performance Monitoring Program -Updated:July 1, 2005ENGINEERINGGUIDELINESMain PageFinal Dam Safety SurveillanceMonitoring Plan -AppendicesJ and KEmergency Action Plans,Chapter 6 (Final Version)Embankment Dams, Chapter 4(Draft Version)Status of Proposed NewChapters and ProposedRevisionsEvaluation of Seismic Hazards,Chapter 13 (Draft Version)Updated: June 28, 2010http://www.ferc.gov/industries/hydropower/safety/guidelines/eng-guide.asp2/4/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 95 of 231PrefaceThese engineering guidelines have been prepared by the Office of Energy Projects (OEP) to provideguidance to the technical Staff in the processing of applications for license and in the evaluation of damsunder Part 12 of the Commission's regulations. The Guidelines will also be used to evaluate proposedmodifications or additions to existing projects under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission (Commission). Staff technical personnel consist of the professional disciplines (e.g.professional engineers and geologists) that have the responsibility for reviewing studies and evaluatingdesigns prepared by owners or developers of dams.The guidelines are intended to provide technical personnel of the Office of Energy Projects, includingthe Regional Office and Washington Office personnel with procedures and criteria for the engineeringreview and analysis of projects over which the Commission has jurisdiction. In addition, theseguidelines should be used by staff in the evaluation of consultant or licensee/exemptee conductedstudies. The guidance is intended to cover the majority of studies usually encountered by Staff.However, special cases may require deviation from, or modification of; the guidelines. When suchcases arise, Staff must determine the applicability of alternate criteria or procedures based upon theirexperience and must exercise sound engineering judgment when considering situations not covered bythe guidelines. The alternate procedures, or criteria, used in these situations should be justified andaccompanied by any suggested changes for incorporation in the guidelines. Since every dam site andhydropower related structure is unique, individual design considerations and construction treatment willbe required. Technical judgment is therefore required in most analytical studies.These guidelines are not a substitute for good engineering judgment, nor are the proceduresrecommended herein to be applied rigidly in place of other analytical solutions to engineering problemsencountered by staff. Staff should keep in mind that the engineering profession is not limited to aspecific solution to each problem, and that the results are the desired end to problem solving.These guidelines are primarily intended for internal use by OEP stafi but also provide licensees,exemptees, and applicants with general guidance that should be considered when presenting any studiespresented to the Commission under Parts 4 and 12 of the Regulations (18 CFR, Parts 4 and 12).When any portions of the Guidelines becomes outdated, obsolete, or needs revision for any reason, itwill be revised and supplemented as necessary. Comments on, or recommended changes, in theseGuidelines should be forwarded to the Director of the Division of Inspections for consideration andpossible inclusion in future updates. New pages will be prepared and issued with instructions for pagereplacements. FHR-COMBINED Page 96 of 231CHAPTER IISELECTING AND ACCOMMODATING INFLOWDESIGN FLOODS FOR DAMSOctober 1993 FHR-COMBINED Page 97 of 231TABLE 1SUGGESTED BREACH PARAMETERS(Definition Sketch Shown in Figure 1)ValueParameterType of DamAverage width of Breach (BR)(See Comment No. 1)*BR = Crest LengthBR = Multiple SlabsBR = Width of 1 or moreUsually BR _ 0.5 WHD_ BR lt 5HD ..........(usually between ............2HD & 4HD)B3R _ 0.8 x Crest ...........LengthArchButtressMasonry, GravityMonoliths,Earthen, Rockfill,Timber CribSlag, RefuseHorizontal Component of Side 0 _ Z :g slope of valley walls ... ArchSlope of Breach (Z) Z = 0................... Masonry, Gravity(See Comment No. 2)* Timber Crib, Buttress1/4/ 4 Z _ 1 ................. Earthen (Engineered,Compacted)1 _g Z_ 2 .................. Slag, Refuse(Non-Engineered)Time to Failure (TFH) TFH :_ 0.1 ........... Arch(in hours) 0.1 !g TFH _< 0.3 ........... Masonry, Gravity,(See Comment No. 3)* Buttress0.1 _ TFH :g 1.0 ........... Earthen (Engineered,Compacted) Timber Crib0.1 _ TFH _ 0.5 ........... Earthen (Non EngineeredPoor Construction)0.1 _< TFH _ 0.3 ........... Slag, RefuseDefinition:HD -Height of DamZ -Horizontal Component of Side Slope of BreachBR -Average Width of BreachTFH -Time to Fully Form the BreachW -Crest LengthNote: See Page 2-A-12 for definition Sketch*Comments: See Page 2-A-10 A-11October 1993 FHR-COMBINED Page 98 of 231STATE OF COLORADODEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCESDIVISION OF WATER RESOURCESOFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEERDAM SAFETY BRANCHGUIDELINES FOR DAM BREA CH ANAL YSISFebruary 10, 2010Telephone (303) 866-3581Facsimile (303) 866-35891313 Sherman StreetRoom 818 Centennial BuildingDenver, ColoradoWebsite:http://water.state.co.us FHR-COMBINED Page 99 of 231Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis February 10, 2010Table of ContentsList of Variables .......................................................................................................................................... ii1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. I2.0 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................................ 12.1 Colorado Dam Breach Analysis Requirem ents ....................................................................................... 23.0 Dam Breach M echanism s ............................................................................................................................. 53.1 Failure of Rigid Dam Structures .......................................................................................................... 53.2 Overtopping Failure of Earthen D am s ..................................................................................................... 53.3 Piping and Internal Erosion of Earthen Dam s ......................................................................................... 54.0 A Brief H istory of D am Breach Analysis ................................................................................................ 65.0 D am Breach Analysis Tools ......................................................................................................................... 75.1 Com parative Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 75.2 Em pirical M ethods ....................................................................................................................................... 75.3 Physically-Based M odels ............................................................................................................................. 85.4 Param etric M odels ........................................................................................................................................ 85.4.1 Hydrologic M odels ....................................................................................................................................... 85.4.2 Hydraulic M odels ......................................................................................................................................... 86.0 A Tiered D am Breach Analysis Structure ............................................................................................. 96.1 Screening ...................................................................................................................................................... 96.2 Sim ple ......................................................................................................................................................... 106.3 Interm ediate ................................................................................................................................................ 116.4 A dvanced .................................................................................................................................................... 117.0 Recom m endations for D am Breach Analysis ....................................................................................... 117.1 Breach Param eter Estim ation ..................................................................................................................... 127.1.1 Em pirical M ethods ..................................................................................................................................... 127.1.1.1 Piping Failure Considerations w ith Em pirical M ethods ....................................................................... 157.1.1.2 Spreadsheets ............................................................................................................................................... 177.1.2 Physically Based M odels ............................................................................................................................ 197.2 Breach Peak D ischarge Estim ation ....................................................................................................... 197.2.1 Em pirical M ethods ..................................................................................................................................... 197.2.2 Param etric M odels ...................................................................................................................................... 217.2.2.1 Hydrologic M odels ..................................................................................................................................... 217.2.2.2 Hydraulic M odels ....................................................................................................................................... 227.2.2.3 Param eters Com m on to Hydraulic and Hydrologic M odels ................................................................ 257.2.2.3.1 Orifice Coefficients (Cp) ............................................................................................................................. 257.2.2.3.2 W eir Coefficients (C ,) ............................................................................................................................... 277.2.2.3.3 Breach Progressions ................................................................................................................................... 287.3 Breach Flood Routing ................................................................................................................................. 297.4 Hydraulics at Critical Locations ................................................................................................................. 298.0 Lim itations .................................................................................................................................................. 309.0 Annotated Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 31List of AppendicesCase Study Inventory .................................................................................................................................................... AHEC-RAS Example -Upstream Storage Area Connected to a Channel with a Dam that Fails .............................. Bi FHR-COMBINED Page 100 of 231February 10, 2010 Guidelines for Dam Breach AnalysisList of Variables(See Figures l&2)Hb = Height of breach in feet, which is the vertical distance between the dam crest and breach invert.Hw. Maximum depth of water stored behind the breach in feet (usually depth from emergencyspillway crest down to breach invert for a full, fair-weather breach)V. = Reservoir volume stored corresponding to H, in acre-feet (AF)BFF (Breach Formation Factor) = HwV, in acre-feet2 -used for MacDonald & Langridge-Monopolisand Washington State methods only.Ver = Volume of dam eroded in cubic yards during a breach. Used for MacDonald & Langridge-Monopolis and Washington State methods only. This is the same as BavgWav1g for a full breach orD2L for a piping only failure (variables defined below).Bavg= Average breach width in feet. For a trapezoidal section, this is the width of the breach at themid-point, Hb/2.Zb = Side slopes of breach (Zb Horizontal: 1 Vertical).Zd = slopes of downstream face of the embankment (Zd Horizontal: I Vertical).Z. = slope of the upstream face of the embankment (Z. Horizontal: 1 Vertical).Zt = sum of the upstream and downstream embankment slopes, Z, + ZdBb= breach bottom width in feet: Ba9g -HbZbWang = Average width of dam in direction of flow (feet). This is the width at the mid-point ofHb: Wa g= C + Hb (Zu+Zd)2Tf = breach development time in hours.C= width of the dam crest in feet.g = acceleration due to gravity, which equals 32.2 feet/sec2S$= Storage Intensity = V1w/IH-w acre-feet/footER -Erosion Rate = Bavg/Tf feet/hourL = Length of piping hole, feetD = Piping hole height/width (assumed square), feetDHp = Height from center of piping hole to dam crest = Hb -2A,= Surface area of reservoir (acres) at reservoir level corresponding to H"Q = Discharge in cfsQp = Peak dam break discharge at the dam in cfsQr = Routed peak discharge in cfs at a certain distance, X, downstream of the damX = Distance downstream from the dam along the floodplain in milesOso ý Mean soil particle diameter in millimetersA = Area of the piping hole in square feet: D2Cp = Piping orifice coefficientCw = Weir coefficientf= Darcy friction factorr = Instantaneous flow reduction factor = 23.4 AI/Bay9Ko = Froehlich Failure Mode Factorii FHR-COMBINED Page 101 of 231flhluIpllnpQ fnr fl2m 1~P2rh An~a1vQkFe'hrnlrv 1 O_ 2010Guidelin-s for Dam Breach Anal sis Febnl.qrv 10 201.L I............ dI 4L -IFigure 2 -Piping Hole Variable Definition Sketchiii FHR-COMBINED Page 102 of 231Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis February 10, 2010estimate of flood magnitude and velocity at critical locations. HEC-RAS is the most widely usedhydraulic model for dam safety analyses in the United States and can be utilized for steady and unsteadyflow analyses. The latest versions of HEC-RAS (since version 3.0) have a parametric dam breach routinethat can calculate a breach outflow hydrograph within an unsteady flow simulation.Another hydraulic model that has been widely used for unsteady flow analyses is the NWS DAMBRKmodel. The BOSS Corporation has added a graphical user interface while keeping the same numericalgorithm to make the model more user-friendly. This version is called BOSS DAMBRK. The model isbased upon the same basic unsteady routing hydraulic principles as HEC-RAS, but DAMBRK wasspecifically developed for modeling dam failures. The cross-section input requirements for routing dambreak floods require the same number of points to represent every cross section, which limits itsusefulness.6.0 A Tiered Dam Breach Analysis StructureGiven the wide range of conditions that could exist at a dam and in its failure path, and the modelingoptions available, there are many choices to be made while performing a dam breach analysis for a hazardclassification study or to develop inundation maps for emergency preparedness documents. Because dambreach analyses will not always require the most sophisticated tools available, a tiered approach isrecommended. The tiered approach matches the appropriate level of analysis with a given situation. Thegoal is to make the most efficient use of time and available tools while producing results that areappropriately conservative.Table 1 shows a matrix of the tiered dam breach analysis structure. As shown, various tools can beutilized in part or all together, depending on the nature of the analysis that is required. Rows in the tablerepresent the level of analysis and the columns represent a four-step breach analysis process. In general,as the level of analysis increases, so does the level of effort (time) needed to complete it. However, as theanalysis increases in complexity, less conservative assumptions can be used, and the results areconsidered more accurate.6.1 ScreeningAssuming that a presumptive determination (by inspection) of hazard classification is not practical, thefirst level of analysis is Screening. Screening is meant to be a cursory, yet conservative level of analysisthat can be performed rapidly. The analysis ignores dam break hydrograph development. The breachparameters determined from empirical methods are calculated and used for input into the SMPDBK peakdischarge equation, or an orifice equation assuming instantaneous piping hole formation.Empirical routing equations or nomographs can be used to estimate the attenuation of the flood wavedownstream of the dam. One empirical routing equation was developed by the USBR in 1982 "Guidelinesfor Defining Inundation Areas Downstream from Bureau of Reclamation Dams". This equation follows:Qr = l0t09(Q')-O'O1XWhere:X= distance in miles downstream of the dam measured along the flood plain.Q,-- peak discharge in cfs corresponding to distance X.Q,= peak dam break discharge at the dam in cfs.9 FHR-COMBINED Page 103 of 231February 10. 2010Guidelines for Dam Rreach AnalvsisFebruarv 10 2010The hydraulic conditions at critical locations downstream of the dam can usually be determined withnormal depth calculations as long as steady, uniform flow is a valid assumption (i.e. no significantbackwater effects in the vicinity of the section).Because the screening level of analysis is very conservative, it can be used to determine if further analysisis required. It is expected that, if the hydraulics calculated at critical locations indicate a specific hazardclassification with a screening-level analysis, then more sophisticated analyses would not likely result in ahigher hazard classification. So if a screening analysis indicates a Low Hazard, no further analysis isrequired. If the screening analysis indicates High or Significant Hazard, a more accurate, lessconservative approach may show a lower hazard classification and additional analysis may be warrantedto demonstrate this depending on the situation.Note that the screening level of analysis does not lead to inundation maps which are required forSignificant and High Hazard dams. The minimum level of analysis required to develop inundations mapsis the next level: Simple.6.2 SimpleThe Simple level of analysis is slightly more sophisticated than the screening analysis. Results of theSimple level of analysis may provide the necessary conclusion, or may indicate that the intermediate oradvanced approach is warranted. This analysis uses the recommended empirical methods to determinethe breach parameters and then uses a hydrologic parametric model (HEC-HMS or HEC-1) to compute abreach hydrograph. The hydrologic tool can then be used to route the flood downstream to criticallocations. At that point, a steady-state hydraulic model can be used to calculate the hydraulic conditionswhere required.10 FHR-COMBINED Page 104 of 231Guidelines for Dam Breach Analysis February 10, 2010The Simple approach is considered moderately conservative. In most cases, it is not as conservative asthe Screening level because the breach hydrograph typically has a smaller peak due to the parametricmodeling of the breach formation, and the hydrologic routing typically results in flood wave attenuationby the time it reaches critical locations. A steady-state hydraulic model can then be used to accuratelypredict hydraulic conditions at critical locations. The results of the steady-state hydraulic model can beused to create inundation mapping for Emergency Action Plans. If this method results in a borderlinesituation, it may be necessary to employ a more advanced approach.6.3 IntermediateThe Intermediate approach lies between the simple approach and advanced approach in accuracy andsophistication. Similar to the simple approach, it uses empirical equations to determine the breachparameters (geometry and failure time). Those dimensions are then input into a hydrologic parametricmodel (HEC-HMS or HEC-1) to calculate the breach flood hydrograph which is then input into ahydraulic model (HEC-RAS) in an unsteady flow simulation to route the flood downstream and calculatethe hydraulic conditions at critical locations.This approach may not be as accurate as the advanced approach for piping failures of smaller damsbecause the usage of HEC-1 and HEC-HMS to develop the dam break hydrographs may not model thisprocess as accurately as HEC-RAS or DAMBRK. However, it may be just as accurate as the advancedapproach for overtopping scenarios or for piping failures of larger dams. This approach is a viable optionfor developing flood inundation mapping for Emergency Action Plans.6.4 AdvancedThe Advanced approach is the most rigorous level of analysis. Similar to the Simple approach, it usesempirical equations to determine the breach parameters (geometry and failure time). Those dimensionsare then input into a hydraulic parametric model (HEC-RAS or DAMBRK) to calculate the breach floodFor DAMBRK the hydrograph is then input into (HEC-RAS) in an unsteady flow simulation to route theflood downstream and calculate the hydraulic conditions at critical locations. For HEC-RAS, the damfailure simulation and downstream routing is performed in the same simulation.The increased accuracy of the Advanced approach comes at the expense of more time required todevelop, debug and refine the unsteady hydraulic model. This level of analysis can be time consuming,particularly if the downstream drainage is complex and critical sections are located well downstream.7.0 Recommendations for Dam Breach AnalysisThe recommendations presented herein for modeling dam breaches are intended to provide the mostrealistic dam breach flood estimates while still being appropriately conservative. For the purposes ofthese recommendations, the term "conservative" means an analysis that tends to overestimate themagnitude and impacts of the dam breach flood. For example, an increase in the estimate of averagebreach width for a given development time leads to an increase in the peak breach discharge andassociated impacts downstream. Being appropriately conservative at this time is warranted because of theneed for better physically-based modeling of the erosion processes of dam failures, which is still in thedevelopmental stage. These recommendations are based on case studies performed on a range of damswithin Colorado. A summary of the case study results is presented in Appendix A.11 FHR-COMBINED Page 105 of 231Uncertainty of Predictions of Embankment DamBreach ParametersTony L. Wahl1Abstract: Risk assessment studies considering the failure of embankment dams often require the prediction of basic geometric andtemporal parameters of a breach, or the estimation of peak breach outflows. Many of the relations most commonly used to make thesepredictions were developed from statistical analyses of data collected from historic dam failures. The prediction uncertainties of thesemethods are widely recognized to be very large, but have never been specifically quantified. This paper presents an analysis of theuncertainty of many of these breach parameter and peak flow prediction methods. Application of the methods and the uncertainty analysisare illustrated through a case study of a risk assessment recently performed by the Bureau of Reclamation for a large embankment damin North Dakota.DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2004) 130:5(389)CE Database subject headings: Dam failure; Uncertainty analysis; Peak flow; Erosion; Dams, embankment; Risk management.IntroductionRisk assessment studies considering the failure of embankmentdams often make use of breach parameter prediction methods thathave been developed from analysis of historic dam failures. Simi-larly, predictions of peak breach outflow can also be made usingrelations developed from case study data. This paper presents ananalysis of the uncertainty of many of these breach parameter andpeak flow prediction methods, making use of a previously com-piled database (Wahl 1998) of 108 dam failures. Subsets of thisdatabase were used by other investigators to develop many of therelations examined.The paper begins with a brief discussion of breach parametersand prediction methods. The uncertainty analysis of the variousmethods is presented next, and finally, a case study is offered toillustrate the application of several breach parameter predictionmethods and the uncertainty analysis to a risk assessment recentlyperformed by the Bureau of Reclamation for a large embankmentdam in North Dakota.Breach ParametersDam-break flood routing models [e.g., DAMBRK (Fread 1984)and FLDWAV(Fread 1993)] simulate the outflow from a reservoirand through the downstream valley resulting from a developingbreach in a dam. These models focus their computational efforton the routing of the breach outflow hydrograph. The develop-ment of the breach is not simulated in any physical sense, butrather is idealized as a parametric process, defined by the shape ofthe breach, its final size, and the time required for its development(often called the failure time). Breaches in embankment dams areusually assumed to be trapezoidal, so the shape and size of thebreach are defined by a base width and side slope angle, or moresimply by an average breach width.The failure time is a critical parameter affecting the outflowhydrograph and the consequences of dam failure, especially whenpopulations at risk are located close to a dam so that availablewarning and evacuation time dramatically affect loss of life. Forthe purpose of routing a dam-break flood wave, breach develop-ment begins when a breach has reached the point at which thevolume of the reservoir is compromised and failure becomes im-minent. During the breach development phase, outflow from thedam increases rapidly. The breach development time ends whenthe breach reaches its final size; in some cases, this may alsocorrespond to the time of peak outflow through the breach, but forrelatively small reservoirs the peak outflow may occur before thebreach is fully developed. The breach development time as de-scribed above is the parameter intended to be predicted by mostfailure time prediction equations.The breach development time does not include the potentiallylong preceding period described as the breach initiation phase(Wahl 1998), which can also be important when consideringavailable warning and evacuation time. This is the first phase ofan overtopping failure, during which flow overtops a dam andmay erode the downstream face, but does not create a breachthrough the dam that compromises the reservoir volume. If theovertopping flow were quickly stopped during the breach initia-tion phase, the reservoir would not fail. In an overtopping failure,the length of the breach initiation phase is important, becausebreach initiation can potentially be observed and may thus triggerwarning and evacuation. Unfortunately, there are few tools pres-ently available for predicting the length of the breach initiationphase.During a seepage-erosion (piping) failure, the delineation be-tween breach initiation and breach development phases is lessapparent. In some cases, seepage-erosion failures can take a greatdeal of time to develop. In contrast to the overtopping case, theJOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 389'Hydraulic Engineer, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau ofReclamation, Water Resources Research Laboratory D-8560, P.O. Box25007, Denver, CO 80225-0007. E-mail: twahl@do.usbr.govNote. Discussion open until October 1, 2004. Separate discussionsmust be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date byone month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE ManagingEditor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-sible publication on June 25, 2002; approved on September 25, 2003.This paper is part of the Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 130,No. 5, May 1, 2004. ©)ASCE, ISSN 0733-9429/2004/5-389-397/$18.00. FHR-COMBINED Page 106 of 231loading that causes a seepage-erosion failure cannot normally beremoved quickly, and the process does not take place in full view,except that the outflow from a developing pipe can be observedand measured. One useful way to view seepage-erosion failures isto consider three possible conditions:1. Normal seepage outflow, with clear water and low flow rates;2. Initiation of a seepage-erosion failure with cloudy seepagewater that indicates a developing pipe, but flow rates are stilllow and not rapidly increasing. Corrective actions might stillbe possible that would heal the developing pipe and preventfailure.3. Active development phase of a seepage-erosion failure inwhich erosion is dramatic and flow rates are rapidly increas-ing. Failure cannot be prevented.Only the length of the last phase is important when determiningthe breach hydrograph from a dam, but both the breach initiationand breach development phases may be important when consid-ering warning and evacuation time. Again, as with the overtop-ping failure, there are few tools available for estimating the lengthof the breach initiation phase.Predicting Breach ParametersTo carry out a dam-break flood routing simulation, breach param-eters must be estimated and provided as inputs to the dam-breakand flood routing simulation model. Several methods are avail-able for estimating breach parameters; a summary of the availablemethods was provided by Wahl (1998). The simplest methods(Johnson and Illes 1976; Singh and Snorrason 1984; Bureau ofReclamation 1988) predict the average breach width as a linearfunction of either the height of the dam or the depth of waterstored behind the dam at the time of failure. Slightly more sophis-ticated methods predict more specific breach parameters, such asbreach base width, side slope angles, and failure time, as func-tions of one or more dam and reservoir properties, such as storagevolume, depth of water at failure, depth of breach, etc. All ofthese methods are based on regression analyses of data collectedfrom actual dam failures. The database of dam failures used todevelop these relations is relatively lacking in data from failuresof large dams, with about 75% of the cases having a height lessthan 15 m (Wahl 1998).Physically based simulation models are available to aid in theprediction of breach parameters. None are widely used at thistime, but the most notable is the National Weather Service(NWS)-BREACH model (Fread 1988). These models simulatethe hydraulic and erosion processes associated with flow over anovertopping dam or through a developing piping channel.Through such a simulation, an estimate of the breach parametersmay be developed for use in a dam-break flood routing model, orthe outflow hydrograph at the dam can be predicted directly. Theprimary weakness of the NWS-BREACH model, and other simi-lar models, is the fact that they do not adequately model theheadcut-type erosion processes that dominate the breaching ofcohesive-soil embankments (e.g., Hanson et al. 2002). Recentwork by the Agricultural Research Service (e.g., Temple andMoore 1997) on headcut erosion in earth spillways has shownthat headcut erosion is best modeled with methods based on en-ergy dissipation.Predicting Peak OutflowIn addition to the prediction of breach parameters, many investi-gators have proposed simplified methods for predicting peak out-390 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004flow from a breached dam. These methods are used forreconnaissance-level work and for checking the reasonability ofdam-break outflow hydrographs developed from estimated breachparameters. This paper considers the relations by Kirkpatrick(1977), SCS (1981), Hagen (1982), Bureau of Reclamation(1982), MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984), Singh andSnorrason (1984), Costa (1985), Evans (1986), Froehlich (1995b),and Walder and O'Connor (1997).All of these methods, except Walder and O'Connor, arestraightforward regression relations that predict peak outflow as afunction of various dam and/or reservoir parameters, with therelations developed from analyses of case study data from realdam failures. In contrast, Walder and O'Connor's method is basedupon an analysis of numerical simulations of idealized casesspanning a range of dam and reservoir configurations and erosionscenarios. An important parameter in their method is an assumedvertical erosion rate of the breach; for reconnaissance-level esti-mating purposes, they suggest that a range of reasonable values is10 to 100 m/h, based on an analysis of case study data. Themethod makes a distinction between so-called large-reservoir/fast-erosion and small-reservoir/slow-erosion cases. In large-reservoir cases, the peak outflow occurs when the breach reachesits maximum depth, before there has been any significant draw-down of the reservoir. In this case, the peak outflow is insensitiveto the erosion rate. In the small-reservoir case, there is a signifi-cant drawdown of the reservoir as the breach develops, and thusthe peak outflow occurs before the breach erodes to its maximumdepth. Peak outflows for small-reservoir cases are dependent onthe vertical erosion rate and can be dramatically smaller than forlarge-reservoir cases. The determination of whether a specificsituation is a large- or small-reservoir case is based on a dimen-sionless parameter incorporating the embankment erosion rate,reservoir size, and change in reservoir level during the failure.Thus, so-called large-reservoir/fast-erosion cases can occur evenwith what might be considered "small" reservoirs and vice versa.This refinement is not present in any of the other peak flow pre-diction methods.Developing Uncertainty EstimatesIn a typical risk assessment study, a variety of loading and failurescenarios are analyzed. This allows the study to incorporate vari-ability in antecedent conditions and the probabilities associatedwith different loading conditions and failure scenarios. The un-certainty of key parameters (e.g., material properties) is some-times considered by creating scenarios in which analyses are car-ried out with different parameter values and a probability ofoccurrence assigned to each value of the parameter. Although theuncertainty of breach parameter predictions is often very large,there have previously been no quantitative assessments of thisuncertainty, and thus breach parameter uncertainty has not beenincorporated into most risk assessment studies.It is worthwhile to consider breach parameter prediction un-certainty in the risk assessment process because the uncertainty ofbreach parameter predictions is likely to be significantly greaterthan all other factors, and could thus dramatically influence theoutcome. For example, Wahl (1998) used many of the availablerelations to predict breach parameters for 108 documented casestudies and plot the predictions against the observed values. Pre-diction errors of +/-75% were not uncommon for breach width,and prediction errors for failure time often exceeded one order ofmagnitude. Most relations used to predict failure time are conser-FHR-COMBINED Page 107 of 231Von Thun & Gillette (1990)Froehlich (1995)Reclamation (1988)aEM300250300 r.300250250 I200 200.. 200150 150 .150100 .. 1" .10062,50 50* 50 2 .0 I I I 2 2 I 0 I I I 2 0 I 1 I I I0 50100 150200 250 300 050 100150 200 250 300 050100 150200 250300-100Oo 101000 r.1000e4*%~IV.10010I.I-.. ,.. ..1,, ...1 10 100 1000Observed Breach Width (meters)1 10 100 1000 1 10 100 1000Observed Breach Width (meters) Observed Breach Width (meters)Fig. 1. Predicted and observed breach widths (Wahl 1998), plotted arithmetically (top) and on logarithmic scales (bottom)vatively designed to underpredict the reported time more oftenthan they overpredict, but overprediction errors of more than one-half of an order of magnitude did occur several times.The first question that must be addressed in an uncertaintyanalysis of breach parameter predictions is how to express theresults. The case study datasets used to develop most breach pa-rameter prediction equations include data from a wide range ofdam sizes, and thus, regressions in log-log space have been com-monly used. Fig. I shows the observed and predicted breachwidths as computed by Wahl (1998) in both arithmetically scaledand log-log plots. In the arithmetic plots, it would be difficult todraw in upper and lower bound lines to define an uncertaintyband. In the log-log plots, data are scattered approximatelyevenly above and below the lines of perfect prediction, suggestingthat uncertainties would best be expressed as a number of logcycles on either side of the predicted value. This is the approachtaken in the analysis that follows.The other notable feature of the plots in Fig. I is the presenceof some significant outliers. Possible sources of these outliersinclude the variable quality of the case study parameter observa-tions being used to test the predictions and the potential for mis-application of some of the prediction equations in the analysisdescribed here due to lack of detailed firsthand knowledge of eachcase study situation. Such problems should not affect a carefulfuture application of these prediction equations to a specific case,and we do not wish for them to affect the present analysis of theuncertainties of the methods themselves. Admittedly, much of thescatter and the appearance of outliers are probably due to theinherent variability of the data caused by the variety of factorsthat influence dam breach mechanics, and this variability shouldbe preserved as we analyze the uncertainties of the predictionequations. To exclude the truly anomalous data (the statisticaloutliers) and retain the characteristic variability, an objective out-lier exclusion algorithm was applied (Rousseeuw 1998). The se-lected algorithm has the advantage that its performance is itselfinsensitive to the presence of the outliers, which overcomes acommon problem encountered when attempting to exclude outli-ers.The uncertainty analysis was performed using the databasepresented in Wahl (1998), with data on 108 case studies of actualembankment dam failures, collected from numerous sources inthe literature. The majority of the available breach parameter andpeak flow prediction equations were applied to this database ofdam failures, and the predicted values were compared to the ob-served values. Computation of breach parameters or peak flowswas straightforward in most cases. A notable exception was thepeak flow prediction method of Walder and O'Connor (1997),which requires that the reservoir be classified as a large- or small-reservoir case. In addition, in the case of the small-reservoir situ-ation, an average vertical erosion rate of the breach must be esti-mated. The Walder and O'Connor method was applied only tothose dams that could be clearly identified as large-reservoir(where peak outflow is insensitive to the vertical erosion rate) orsmall-reservoir with an associated estimate of the vertical erosionrate obtained from observed breach heights and failure times. Twoother facts should be noted:I. No prediction equation could be applied to all 108 dam fail-ure cases, due to the lack of required input data for the spe-cific equation or the lack of an observed value of the param-eter of interest. Most of the breach width equations could betested against about 70 to 80 cases, the failure time equationsagainst 30 to 40 cases, and the peak flow prediction equa-tions against about 30 to 40 cases.2. The testing made use of the same data used to originallydevelop many of the equations (since the 108-dam databasewas compiled from these and other sources), but each equa-tion was also tested against additional cases, the numbervarying depending on the method. This should provide a fairindication of the ability of each equation to predict breachparameters for future dam failures. (It is difficult to say ex-actly how many additional cases were analyzed for eachmethod, since the exact number of failures used to developeach method is not indicated clearly in literature for allmethods, and some are based on a combination of statisticalanalysis of case studies and physically based theory.)JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING 0 ASCE / MAY 2004 / 391 FHR-COMBINED Page 108 of 231A step-by-step description of the uncertainty analysis methodfollows:1. Plot predicted versus observed values on log-log scales.2. Compute individual prediction errors in terms of the numberof log cycles separating the predicted and observed value,ei= logl0(-)-log0(xl)=Iog10(x/x), where ei is the predic-tion error, i is the predicted value, and x is the observedvalue.3. Apply the outlier-exclusion algorithm to the series of predic-tion errors computed in Step 2. The algorithm is describedby Rousseeuw (1998).* Determine T, the median of the ei values. T is the estima-tor of location.* Compute the absolute values of the deviations from themedian, and determine the median of these absolute devia-tions (MAD).* Compute an estimator of scale, SMAD= 1.483*(MAD).The 1.483 factor makes SMAD comparable to the standarddeviation, which is the usual scale parameter of a normaldistribution.* Use SMAD and Tto compute a Z score for each observation,Zi= (ei- T)/SMAD, where the ei's are the observed predic-tion errors, expressed as a number of log cycles.* Reject any observations for which IZJl>2.5.* If the samples are from a perfect normal distribution, thismethod rejects at the 98.7% probability level. Testingshowed that application to normally distributed data wouldlead to an average 3.9% reduction of the standard devia-tion.4. Compute the mean, e, and the standard deviation, Se, of theremaining prediction errors. If the mean value is negative, itindicates that the prediction equation underestimated the ob-served values, and if positive the equation overestimated theobserved values. Significant over or underestimation shouldbe expected, since many of the breach parameter predictionequations are intended to be conservative or provide enve-lope estimates, e.g., maximum reasonable breach width, fast-est possible failure time, etc.5. Using the values of e and S., one can express a confidenceband around the predicted value of a parameter as{E- 10-e-2S.,j. 10-e+2S}, where i is the predicted value.The use of +/- 2Se approximately yields a 95% confidenceband.Table 1 summarizes the results. The first two columns identifythe method being analyzed, the next two columns show the num-ber of case studies used to test the method, and the next twocolumns give the prediction error and the width of the uncertaintyband. The last column shows the range of the prediction intervalaround a hypothetical predicted value of 1.0. The values in thiscolumn can be used as multipliers to obtain the prediction intervalfor a specific case.Although the detailed data are not shown in Table 1, predictionerrors and uncertainties also were determined prior to applyingthe outlier exclusion algorithm to determine its effect. Outlierexclusion reduced the values of Se by at least 5% up to about 20%in most cases. Since this exceeds the 3.9% reduction one wouldexpect when applying the algorithm to a normally distributeddataset, it suggests that true outliers were excluded rather thanjust occasional extreme values that one would expect in normallydistributed data. The use of outlier exclusion did not materiallychange the results of the study (i.e., the same methods had thelowest uncertainty before and after outlier exclusion). One no-table fact is that the outlier exclusion algorithm reduced Se by 30392 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004to 60% for two of the breach width equations (Bureau of Recla-mation 1988; Von Thun and Gillette 1990) and four of the peakflow equations [Kirkpatrick 1977; SCS 1981; Bureau of Reclama-tion 1982; Singh and Snorrason 1984 (the first of the two equa-tions shown in Table I)]. All of these prediction equations arebased solely on the dam height or water depth above the breachinvert, suggesting that dam height by itself is a poor predictor forbreach width or peak outflow.Summary of Uncertainty Analysis ResultsThe four methods for predicting breach width (or volume of ma-terial eroded, from which breach width can be estimated) all hadabsolute mean prediction errors less than one-tenth of an order ofmagnitude, indicating that on average their predictions are ontarget. The uncertainty bands were similar (+/-0.3 to +/-0.4 logcycles) for all of the equations except the MacDonald andLangridge-Monopolis equation, which had an uncertainty of+/-0.82 log cycles.The five methods for predicting failure time all underpredictthe failure time on average, by amounts ranging from about one-fifth to two-thirds of an order of magnitude. This is consistentwith the previous observation that these equations are designed toconservatively predict fast breaches, which will cause large peakoutflows. The uncertainty bands on all of the failure time equa-tions are very large, ranging from about +/-0.6 to +/- I order ofmagnitude, with the Froehlich (1995a) equation having the small-est uncertainty.Most of the peak flow prediction equations tend to overpredictobserved peak flows, with most of the "envelope" equationsoverpredicting by about two-thirds to three-quarters of an order ofmagnitude. The uncertainty bands on the peak flow predictionequations are about +/--0.5 to -1 order of magnitude, except theFroehlich (1995b) relation which has an uncertainty of +/-0.32order of magnitude. In fact, the Froehlich equation has both thelowest prediction error and smallest uncertainty of all the peakflow prediction equations.ApplicationTo illustrate the application of the uncertainty analysis results, acase study is presented. In January 2001 the Bureau of Reclama-tion conducted a risk assessment study for a large embankmentdam in North Dakota (Fig. 2). Two potential failure modes wereconsidered: (I) Seepage erosion and piping through foundationmaterials, and (2) seepage erosion and piping through embank-ment materials. No distinction between the two failure modes wasmade in the breach parameter analysis, since most methods usedto predict breach parameters lack the refinement needed to con-sider differences in breach morphology for such similar failuremodes. Breach parameters were predicted using most of the meth-ods discussed earlier in this paper, and also by modeling with theNWS-BREACH model.The potential for failure and the downstream consequencesfrom failure increase significantly at higher reservoir levels, al-though the likelihood of occurrence of high reservoir levels islow. The reservoir rarely exceeds its top-of-joint-use elevation(the water surface elevation corresponding to the maximumamount of storage allocated to joint use, i.e., flood control and FHR-COMBINED Page 109 of 231Table 1. Uncertainty Estimates for Breach Parameter and Peak Flow Prediction EquationsNumber of case studies Mean Width ofBefore After prediction uncertainty Prediction intervaloutlier outlier error band, +/- 2S, around hypotheticalReference Equation exclusion exclusion (log cycles) (log cycles) predicted value of 1.0Breach width equationsBureau of Reclamation (1988)MacDonald andLangridge-Monopolis (1984)Von Thun and Gillette (1990)Froehlich (1995a)Failure time equationsMacDonald andLangridge-Monopolis (1984)Von Thun and Gillette (1990)Von Thun and Gillette (1990)Froehlich (1995a)Bureau of Reclamation (1988)Peak flow equationsKirkpatrick (1977)SCS (1981)Hagen (1982)Bureau of Reclamation (1982)Singh and Snorrason (1984)Singh and Snorrason (1984)MacDonald andLangridge-Monopolis (1984)MacDonald andLangridge-Monopolis (1984)Costa (1985)Costa (1985)Costa (1985)Evans (1986)Froehlich (1995b)Walder and O'Connor (1997)B_85= 3h wVt= 0.0261 ( V,,.h j)0_769 earthfillVar= 0.00348( Vbh)j0.52 nonearthfills(e.g., rockfills)Bag = 2.5h,.+ C,B0g = 0.1803KoV232ho19tf= 0.0179 er3tf=0.015h,, highly erodibletf=0.020h,.+ 0.25 erosion resistanttf = Bag /(4h,.) erosion resistantif=pBg/(4hý,+6l) highly erodibletf=0.00254( V,)5'3hb 09tf= 0.011 (Bavg)Q,= 1.268(h.+ 0.3)2_5Q,= 16.6(hw)j'5Q, = 0.54(S. hd)°05Qp= 19.1(h,.) '.5 envelope eq.Qp= 13.4(hd)'"89Q,= 1.776(S)0.47Qp = 1. 154( Vý.h u.)0.412Q,,= 3.85(V,.h j)0_41 ' envelope eq.Qp= 1.122(S)0.57Qp= O.981(S. h a)0.42Qp= 2.634(S. hd)544Qp=0.72(Vj.)0'3Qp = 0.607( V1_295kh,;24)Qp estimated by computational andgraphical method using relativeerodibility of dam and volume ofreservoir80 70 -0.09 +/-0.4360 58 -0.01 +/-0.8278 70 +0.09 +/-0.3577 75 +0.01 +/-0.3937 35 -0.21 +/-0.8336 34 -0.64 +/-0.9536 35 -0.38 +/-0.8434 33 -0.22 +/-0.6440 39 -0.40 +/-1.020.45-3.30.15-6.80.37-1.80.40-2.40.24-I10.49-400.35-170.38-7.30.24 -270.28-6.80.23 -2.40.07-2.10.20-2.10.23-1.90.08-5.40.15-3.70.05-1.10.02-2.10.17-4.70.04-1.220.06-4.40.53-2.30.16-3.63838313838353734323032283436-0.14+0.13+0.43+0.19+0.19+0.17+0.13+/-0.69+/-0.50+/-0.75+/-0.50+/--0.46+/-0.90-0.7037 36 +0.64 +/-0.70353131393222353030393121+0.69+0.05+0.64+0.29-0.04+0.13+/- 1.02+/-0.72+/-0.72+/--0.93+/-0.32+/-0.68Note: All equations use metric units (M, M3, m3/s). Failure times are computed in hours. Where multiple equations are shown for application to differenttypes of dams (e.g., earthfill versus rockfill), a single prediction uncertainty was determined, with the set of equations considered as a single algorithm.conservation purposes), and has never exceeded an elevation of440.7 m. Four potential reservoir water surface elevations at fail-ure were considered in the study:* Top-of-joint-use, elevation: 436.67 m, reservoir capacity ofabout 45.6X 106 m3,* Elevation 438.91 m, reservoir capacity of about 105X 106 Mi3,* Top-of-flood-space (the design maximum reservoir levelreached during the temporary storage of flood runoff), eleva-tion 443.18 m, reservoir capacity of about 273X 106 M3, and* Maximum design water surface, elevation: 446.32 m, storageof about 469X 106 M3.For illustration purposes, only the results from the top-of-joint-use and top-of-flood-space cases are presented here.Dam DescriptionThe case study dam is located a few kilometers upstream from acity with a population of about 15,000. It was constructed by theBureau of Reclamation in the early 1950's. The dam is operatedby Reclamation to provide flood control, municipal water supply,and recreational and wildlife benefits.The dam is a zoned-earth fill with a height of 24.7 m above theoriginal streambed. The crest length is 432 m at an elevation of448.36 m and the crest width is 9.14 m. The design includes acentral compacted zone I of impervious material, and upstreamand downstream zone 2 of sand and gravel, shown in Fig. 3. Theabutments are composed of Pierre Shale capped with glacial till.The main portion of the dam is founded on a thick section ofJOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 393 FHR-COMBINED Page 110 of 231Fig. 2. Aerial photo of the dam and reservoir considered in the casestudy applicationalluvial deposits. Beneath the dam, a cutoff trench was excavatedto the shale on both abutments, but between the abutments, foun-dation excavation extended to a maximum depth of 7.6 m, and didnot provide a positive cutoff of the thick alluvium. The alluviumbeneath the dam is more than 37 m thick in the channel area.There is a toe drain within the downstream embankment nearthe foundation level, and a wide embankment section to helpcontrol seepage beneath the dam, since a positive cutoff was notconstructed. Based on observations of increasing pressures in thefoundation during high reservoir elevations and significant boilactivity downstream from the dam, eight relief wells were in-stalled along the downstream toe in 1995 and 1996. To increasethe seepage protection, a filter blanket was constructed in lowareas downstream from the dam in 1998.Results-Breach Parameter EstimatesPredictions were made for average breach width, volume oferoded material, and failure time. Side slope angles were not pre-dicted because equations for predicting breach side slope anglesare rare in literature; Froehlich (1987) offered an equation, but inhis later paper (I 995a), he suggested simply assuming side slopesof 0.9:1 (horizontal:vertical) for piping failures. Von Thun andGillette (1990) suggested using side slopes of 1:1, except forcases of dams with very thick zones of cohesive materials whereside slopes of 0.5:1 or 0.33:1 might be appropriate.After computing breach parameters using the many availableequations, the results were reviewed and judgment applied to de-velop a single predicted value and an uncertainty band to be pro-vided to the risk assessment study team. These recommendedvalues are shown at the bottom of each column in the tables thatfollow.Breach WidthPredictions of average breach width are summarized in Table 2.Table 2 also lists the predictions of the volume of eroded embank-ment material made using the MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis equation, and the corresponding estimate of averagebreach width.The uncertainty analysis described earlier showed that theReclamation equation tends to underestimate the observed breachwidth, so it is not surprising that it yielded the smallest values.The Von Thun and Gillette equation and the Froehlich equationproduced comparable results for the top-of-joint-use scenario, inwhich reservoir storage is relatively small. For the top-of-flood-space scenario, the Froehlich equation predicts significantly largerbreach widths. This is not surprising, since the Froehlich equationrelates breach width to an exponential function of both the reser-voir storage and reservoir depth. The Von Thun and Gillette equa-tion accounts for reservoir storage only through the Cb offsetparameter, but Cb is a constant for all reservoirs larger than12.3X 106 m3, as was the case for both scenarios.Using the MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis equation, theestimate of eroded embankment volume and associated breachwidth for the top-of-joint-use scenario is also comparable to theother equations. However, for the top-of-flood-space scenario, theprediction is much larger than any of the other equations, and infact is unreasonable because it exceeds the dimensions of thedam.The prediction intervals developed through the uncertaintyanalysis are sobering for the analyst wishing to obtain a definitiveresult, as the ranges vary from small notches through the dam toa complete washout of the embankment. Even for the top-of-joint-use case, the upper bounds for the Froehlich equation andthe Von Thun and Gillette equation are equivalent to about one-half of the length of the embankment.Failure TimeFailure time predictions are summarized in Table 3. All of theequations indicate increasing failure times as the reservoir storageincreases, except the second Von Thun and Gillette relation,which predicts a slight decrease in failure time for the top-of-flood-space scenario. For both Von Thun and Gillette relations,the dam was assumed to be in the erosion resistant category.The predicted failure times exhibit wide variation, and the rec-ommended values shown at the bottom of Table 3 are based onmuch judgment. The uncertainty analysis showed that all of thefailure time equations tend to conservatively underestimate actualfailure times, especially the Von Thun and Gillette and Reclama-tion equations. Thus, the recommended values are generally acompromise between the results obtained from the MacDonaldIAJI~ td~m QSACtd day, sand. ad F"WcnPadsdbyTop -.E 2251 ow" Qag2 44.30 m Sctudsd mndyaa MW "ýWWnPWdy "Vpad ."_ I's- 061-MPAWW1 .. '11K-E. 4,31 nW & oW t 124mbc laym0".61-%ni 4Xu 03 ..- omaa.-- ';e~n .i :1/4 1:,:. ~ RIVAER BED~V*2:1OkLSOf ffa Oror CIAMI of' -W*~- ~w" TFos"iEcvf 0*p *711MAXIMUM sEcTIoNFig. 3. Cross section through the case study dam394 /JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 FHR-COMBINED Page 111 of 231Table 2. Predictions of Average Breach WidthTop of joint use, elevation of 436.68 m Top of flood space, elevation of 443.18 mPredicted breach 95% prediction Predicted breach 95% predictionEquation width (m) interval width (m) intervalBureau of Reclamation (1988) 39.0 17.7-129 58.5 26.2-193Von Thun and Gillette (1990) 87.5 32.3-157 104 38.4-187Froehlich (1995a) 93.6 37.5-225 166 66.4-398MacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 146,000 22.200-991,000 787,000 118,000-5.350.000Volume of erosion (mi3)Equivalent breach width (m) 85.6 12.8-582a 462' 69.2-3140'Recommended values (m) 90 35-180 165 60-400'Exceeds actual embankment length.and Langridge-Monopolis and Froehlich relations. Despite thisfact, some very fast failures are documented in literature, and thispossibility is reflected in the prediction intervals determined fromthe uncertainty analysis.Results-Peak Outflow EstimatesPeak outflow estimates are shown in Table 4, sorted in order ofincreasing peak outflow for the top-of-joint-use scenario. Thelowest peak flow predictions come from those equations that arebased solely on dam height or depth of water in the reservoir. Thehighest peak flows are predicted by those equations that incorpo-rate a significant dependence on reservoir storage. Some of thepredicted peak flows and the upper bounds of the prediction limitswould be the largest dam-break outflows ever recorded, exceed-ing the 65,000 mi3/s peak outflow from the Teton Dam failure.(Storage in Teton Dam at failure was 356X 106 M3). The length ofthe reservoir (about 48 km) may help to attenuate some of thelarge peak outflows predicted by the storage-sensitive equations,since there will be an appreciable routing effect in the reservoiritself that is probably not accounted for in the peak flow predic-tion equations.The equation offered by Froehlich (I 995b) clearly had the bestprediction performance in the uncertainty analysis, and is thushighlighted in Table 4. This equation had the smallest mean pre-diction error and narrowest prediction interval by a significantmargin.The results for the Walder and O'Connor method are alsohighlighted. As discussed earlier, this is the only method thatconsiders the differences between the so-called large-reservoir/fast-erosion and small-reservoir/slow-erosion cases. This damproves to be a large-reservoir/fast-erosion case when analyzed bythis method (regardless of the assumed vertical erosion rate of thebreach-within reasonable limits), so the peak outflow will occurwhen the breach reaches its maximum size, before significantdrawdown of the reservoir has occurred. Despite the refinementof considering large- versus small-reservoir behavior, the Walderand O'Connor method was found to have uncertainty similar tomost of the other peak flow prediction methods (about +/-0.75 logcycles). However, among the 22 case studies to which the methodcould be applied, only four proved to be large-reservoir/fast-erosion cases. Of these, the method overpredicted the peak out-flow in three cases, and dramatically underpredicted in one case(Goose Creek Dam, South Carolina, failed 1916 by overtopping).Closer examination showed some contradictions in the data re-ported in literature for this case. On balance, it appears that theWalder and O'Connor method may provide reasonable estimatesof the upper limit on peak outflow for large-reservoir/fast-erosioncases.For this application, results from the Froehlich method wereconsidered to be the best estimate of peak breach outflow, and theresults from the Walder and O'Connor method provided an upperbound estimate.NWS-BREACH SimulationsSeveral simulations runs were made using the NWS-BREACHmodel (Fread 1988). The model requires input data related toreservoir bathymetry, dam geometry, the tailwater channel, em-bankment materials, and initial conditions for the simulated pip-ing failure.The results of the simulations are very sensitive to the eleva-tion at which the piping failure is assumed to develop. In all casesanalyzed, the maximum outflow occurred just prior to the crest ofthe dam collapsing into the pipe; after the collapse of the crest, alarge volume of material partially blocks the breach and the out-flow becomes weir controlled until the material can be removed.Thus, the largest peak outflows and largest breach sizes are ob-Table 3. Failure Time PredictionsTop of joint use, elevation of 436.68 m Top of flood space, elevation of 443.18 mEquation Predicted failure time (h) 95% prediction interval Predicted failure time (h) 95% prediction intervalMacDonald and Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 1.36 0.33-14.9 2.45' 0.59-26.9Von Thun and Gillette (1990), tf=f(h,,) 0.51 0.25-20.4 0.64 0.31-25.6Von Thun and Gillette (1990), tf=f(B,hJ) 1.68 0.59-28.6 1.33 0.47-22.6Froehlich (1995a) 1.63 0.62-11.9 4.19 1.59-30.6Bureau of Reclamation (1988) 0.43 0.10-11.6 0.64 0.15-17.4Recommended values 1.5 0.25-12 3.0 0.3-17'Predicted erosion volume exceeded total embankment volume; total embankment volume was used in the failure time equation.JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 395 FHR-COMBINED Page 112 of 231Table 4. Predictions of Peak Breach OutflowTop of joint use, elevation of 436.68 m Top of flood space, elevation of 443.18 mPredicted peak outflow 95% prediction Predicted peak outflow 95% predictionEquation (m3/s) interval (m3/s) intervalKirkpatrick (1977) 818 229-5,570 2,210 620-15,100SCS (1981) 1,910 439-4,590 4,050 932-9,710Bureau of Reclamation (1982) (envelope) 2,200 439-4,620 4.660 932-9,780Froehlich (1995b) 2,660 1,410-6,110 7,440 3,940-17,100MacDonald/Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 4,750 714-17,600 11,700 1,760-43,400Singh/Snorrason (1984), Qp=f(hd) 5,740 1,320-10,900 5,740 1,320-10,900Walder and O'Connor (1997) 6,000 960-21,400 12,200 1,950-43,500Costa (1985), Qp=f(S*hd) 6,220 1,060-29,200 13,200 2,240-61,900Singh/Snorrason (1984), Qp=f(S) 7,070 570-38,200 16,400 1,310-88,400Evans (1986) 8,260 496-36,300 21,300 1,280-93,700MacDonald/Langridge-Monopolis (1984) 15,500 776-17,100 38,300 1,910-42,100(envelope)Hagen (1982) 18,100 1,270-38,100 44,300 3,100-93,000Costa (1985), QP=f(S*hd) (envelope) 25,300 1,010-30,900 55,600 2,220-67,800Costa (1985), Qp=f(S) 26,100 521-54,700 72,200 1,440-152,000tained if the failure is initiated at the base of the dam, assumed tobe at an elevation of 423.67 m. This produces the maximumamount of head on the developing pipe, and allows it to grow tothe largest possible size before the collapse occurs. Table 5 showssummary results of the simulations. For each initial reservoir el-evation, a simulation was run with the pipe initiating at an eleva-tion of 423.7 m, and a second simulation was run with the pipeinitiating about midway up the height of the dam.There is a wide variation in the results depending on the as-sumed initial conditions for the elevation of the seepage failure.The peak outflows and breach widths tend toward the low end ofthe range of predictions made using the regression equationsbased on case study data. The predicted failure times are withinthe range of the previous predictions, and significantly longerthan the very short (0.5 to 0.75 h) failure times predicted by theBureau of Reclamation (1988) equation and the first Von Thunand Gillette equation.ConclusionsThis paper has presented a quantitative analysis of the uncertaintyof various regression-based methods for predicting embankmentdam breach parameters and peak breach outflows. The uncertain-ties of predictions of breach width, failure time, and peak outflowTable 5. Results of National Weather Service-BREACH Simulationsof Seepage-Erosion FailuresInitial water Initial Breachsurface elevation Peak Time-to-peak width atelevation of piping outflow, outflow, tp time /p(m) failure (m) (m3/s) (h) (m)Top of joint use436.68 423.7 2,280 3.9 15.7436.68 430.1 464 2.1 6.5Top of flood space443.18 423.7 6,860 4.0 24.7443.18 430.1 1,484 1.4 10.3396 / JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004are large for all methods, and thus it may be worthwhile to incor-porate uncertainty analysis results into future risk assessmentstudies when predicting breach parameters using these methods.Predictions of breach width generally have an uncertainty ofabout +/- 1/3 order of magnitude, predictions of failure time haveuncertainties approaching +/- I order of magnitude, and predictionsof peak flow have uncertainties of about +/--0.5 to +/- I order ofmagnitude, except the Froehlich peak flow equation, which has anuncertainty of about +/- 1/3 order of magnitude.The uncertainty analysis made use of a database of informa-tion on the failure of 108 dams compiled from numerous sourcesin literature (Wahl 1998). Those wishing to make use of this da-tabase may obtain it in electronic form (Lotus 1-2-3, MicrosoftExcel, and Microsoft Access) on the Internet at http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulicsjlab/twahl/The case study presented here showed that significant engi-neering judgment must be exercised in the interpretation of pre-dictions of breach parameters. The results from use of the physi-cally based NWS-BREACH model were reassuring because theyfell within the range of values obtained from the regression-basedmethods. However, at the same time, they also helped to showthat even physically based methods can be highly sensitive to theassumptions of the analyst regarding breach morphology and thelocation of initial breach development. The NWS-BREACHsimulations demonstrated the possibility for limiting failure me-chanics that were not revealed by the regression-based methods.NotationThe following symbols are used in this paper:Bay = average breach width (m);Cb = offset factor in the Von Thun and Gillette breachwidth equation, varies as a function of reservoirvolume;e = average prediction error;ei = individual prediction errors, log cycles;hb = height of breach (m);hd = height of dam (m);h,, = depth of water above breach invert at time offailure (m); FHR-COMBINED Page 113 of 231Ko = overtopping multiplier: 1.4 for overtopping; 1.0 forpiping;MAD = median of absolute deviations from T;Qa = peak breach outflow (m3/s);S = reservoir storage (M3);Se = standard deviation of the errors;SMAD = estimator of scale derived from the median of theabsolute deviations, analogous to standard deviation;T = median of the errors, an estimator of location;tf = failure time (h);Ve = volume of embankment material eroded (m3);V,, = volume of water stored above breach invert at timeof failure (m3);= predicted value of parameter;x = observed value of parameter; andZi = standardized error.ReferencesBureau of Reclamation. (1982). Guidelines for defining inundated areasdownstream from Bureau of Reclamation dams, Reclamation PlanningInstruction No. 82-11, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau ofReclamation, Denver, 25.Bureau of Reclamation. (1988). "Downstream hazard classificationguidelines." ACER Tech. Memorandum No. 11, U.S. Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, 57.Costa, J. E. (1985), "Floods from dam failures." U.S. Geological Survey,Open-File Rep. No. 85-560, Denver, 54.Evans, S. G. (1986). "The maximum discharge of outburst floods causedby the breaching of man-made and natural dams." Can. Geotech. J.,23(4), 385-387.Fread, D. L. (1984). DAMBRK: The NIWS dam-break flood forecastingmodel, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology, Silver Spring,Md.Fread. D. L. (1988) (revised 1991). BREACH: An erosion model forearthen dam failures, National Weather Service, Office of Hydrology,Silver Spring, Md.Fread, D. L. (1993). "NWS FLDWAV model: The replacement of DAM-BRK for dam-break flood prediction." Dam Safety '93, Proc., l0thAnnual ASDSO Conf., Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Lex-ington, Ky., 177-184.Froehlich, D. C. (1987). "Embankment-dam breach parameters." Hy-draulic Engineering, Proc. 1987 ASCE National Conf on HydraulicEngineering, New York, 570-575.Froehlich, D. C. (1995a). "Embankment dam breach parameters revis-ited." Water Resources Engineering, Proc. 1995 ASCE Conf on WaterResources Engineering, New York, 887-891.Froehlich, D. C. (1995b). "Peak outflow from breached embankmentdam." J. Water Resour Plan. Manage. Div, Am. Soc. Civ. Eng..121(1), 90-97.Hagen, V. K. (1982). "Re-evaluation of design floods and dam safety."Proc., 14th Congress of Int. Commission on Large Dams, Intema-tional Commission on Large Dams, Paris.Hanson, G. J., Cook, K. R., and Temple, D. M. (2002). "Research resultsof large-scale embankment overtopping breach tests." 2002 ASDSOAnnual Conf, Association of State Dam Safety Officials, Lexington,Ky.Johnson, F. A., and lles, P. (1976). "A classification of dam failures." Int.Water Power Dam Constr., 28(12), 43-45.Kirkpatrick, G. W. (1977). "Evaluation guidelines for spillway ad-equacy." The evaluation of dam safety, Engineering FoundationConf, ASCE, New York, 395-414.MacDonald, T. C., and Langridge-Monopolis, J. (1984). "Breachingcharacteristics of dam failures." J. Hydraul. Eng., 110(5), 567-586.Rousseeuw, P. J. (1998). "Chapter 17: Robust estimation and identifyingoutliers." Handbook of statistical methods for engineers and scien-tists, 2nd Ed., H. M. Wadsworth Jr., ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,17.1-17.15.Singh, K. P., and Snorrason, A. (1984). "Sensitivity of outflow peaks andflood stages to the selection of dam breach parameters and simulationmodels." J. Hvdrol.. 68, 295-310.Soil Conservation Service (SCS). (1981). "Simplified dam-breach rout-ing procedure." Tech. Release No. 66 (Rev. I), 39.Temple, D. M., and Moore, J. S. (1997). "Headcut advance prediction forearth spillways." Trans. ASAE, 40(3), 557-562.Von Thun, J. L., and Gillette, D. R. (1990). "Guidance on breach param-eters." Internal Memorandum, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau ofReclamation, Denver, 17.Wahl, T. L. (1998). "Prediction of embankment dam breachparameters-A literature review and needs assessment." Dam SafetyRep. No. DSO-98-004, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclama-tion, Denver.Walder, J. S., and O'Connor, J. E. (1997). "Methods for predicting peakdischarge of floods caused by failure of natural and constructed earthdams." Water Resour Res., 33(10), 12.JOURNAL OF HYDRAULIC ENGINEERING © ASCE / MAY 2004 / 397 Table 1 from TextTop of Top ofHeight of Dam / Bottom of Side Slope Average Bott DamPool Bec Breach Btom Trigger Breach Start Development SufeBreach (ft) Wdth (ft) Method Time2 Time (hr) urfaceElevation (ft) Width (ft) Area(ft) (acres)Macinnes Marsh Dam 5 5 0 0.5 15 12.5 Jan 8, 18:20 0.17 19William Daly Marsh Dam 6 6 0 0.5 18 15 Specific Time Jan 8, 19:10 0.17 5Fruitland Mill Dam 10 10 0 0.5 30 25 Jan 8, 19:20 0.17 6Assumed reservoir bottom elevation at zero.2 Based on simulation beginning on January 1 at 00:00.3 Used development time of 0.5 hr for earthen dams.00COCD0Table 1 FormulasA B C D E F G H I J K1DTop of Dam Bottom Top ofHeight of / Pool of Side Average Bottom Width Trigger Breach Start Development DamDam Name Breach E Slope Breach 2 3 Surface(ft) Elevation Breach (--) Width (ft) (ft) Method Time Time (hr) Area2(ft) (ft) (acres)3 Macinnes Marsh Dam 5 5 0 0.5 =3*B3 =F3-2*0.S*B3/2 Jan 8, 18:20 0.17 194 William Daly Marsh Dam 6 6 0 0.5 =3*B4 =F42*0.5*B4/2 Specif Jan 8, 19:10 0.17 55 Fruitland Mill Dam 10 10 0 0.5 =3*B5 =F5-2*0.5*B5/2 Jan 8, 19:20 0.17 66 Assumed reservoir bottom elevation at zero.7 2 Based on simulation beginning on January 1 at 00:00.8 3 used development time of 0.17 hr for earthen dams. FHR-COMBINED Page 115 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX D: REACH PARAMETER CALCULATIONSPage D-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 116 of 231SECTION 1.0DEM METADATA FHR-COMBINED Page 117 of 231 FHR-COMBINED Page 118 of 231Digital Elevation Models (DEM) -New York State" Identification Information" Data-Quality Information" Spatial Reference Information" Entity and Attribute Information" Distribution Information" Metadata Reference InformationIdentification-Information:Citation:Citation-Information:Originator: U.S. Geological SurveyPublicationDate: UnknownPublication Time: UnknownTitle: Digital Elevation Models (DEM) -New York StatePublicationlInformation:Publication-Place: Reston, VAPublisher: U.S. Geological SurveyOnlineLinkage: http://cugir.mannlib.cornell.edu/datatheme.isp?id=2 3Description:Abstract: A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) contains a series of elevations ordered fromsouth to north with the order of the columns from west to east. The DEM isformatted as one ASCII header record (A-record), followed by a series of profilerecords (B-records) each of which include a short B-record header followed by aseries of ASCII integer elevations per each profile. The last physical record of theDEM is an accuracy record (C-record). The 7.5-minute DEM (10- by 10-m dataspacing, elevations in decimeters) is cast on the Universal Transverse Mercator(UTM) projection (the quads UTM zone can be found in the header record (RecordA)) in the North American Datum of 1927. It provides coverage in 7.5- by 7.5-minuteblocks. Each product provides the same coverage as a standard USGS 7.5-minutequadrangle, but overedges are published as separate DEM files. Coverage isavailable for all quads completely contained within New York State, plus someadditional ones falling along the borders and containing significant area of theState's land.Purpose: DEMs can be used as source data for digital orthophotos and as layers ingeographic information systems for earth science analysis. DEMs can also serve astools for volumetric analysis, for site location of towers, or for drainage basindelineation. These data are collected as part of the National Mapping Program.Supplemental Information: 7.5-minute DEMs have rows and columns which vary inlength and are staggered. The UTM bounding coordinates form a quadrilateral (notwo sides are parallel to each other), rather than a rectangle. The user will need topad out the uneven rows and columns with blanks or flagged data values, if arectangle is required for the user's application. Some software vendors haveincorporated this function into their software for input of standard formatted USGShttp://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform~xml=36dea.xml8/0218/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 119 of 231DEMs.TimePeriodof Content:TimePeriod Information:Single Date/Time:CalendarDate: unknownCurrentness.

Reference:

ground conditionStatus:Progress: CompleteMaintenance~and UpdateFrequency: IrregularSpatialDomain:Bounding-Coordinates:WestBounding- Coordinate: -79.77EastBounding- Coordinate: -71.85NorthBounding.Coordinate: 45.02SouthBounding-Coordin ate: 40.49Keywords:Theme:Theme KeywordThesaurus: NoneThemeKeyword: digital elevation modelTheme Keyword: digital terrain modelTheme-Keyword: hypsographyThemeKeyword: altitudeThemejKeyword: heightTheme.Keyword: landformsTheme Keyword: reliefTheme-Keyword: topographyTheme-Keyword: rasterThemejKeyword: gridTheme-Keyword: cellTheme:ThemeLKeywordi. Thesaurus: Library of Congress Subject HeadingsThemejKeyword: HydrographyTheme-Keyword: Digital MappingTheme Keyword: Digital mapping -- AutomationThemeLKeyword: Cartography -- AutomationTheme-Keyword: New York (State) -- Dept. of Environmental ConservationTheme:Theme Keyword_ Thesaurus: ISO 19115 Topic CategoryThemeLKeyword: elevationTheme-Keyword: 006Place:PlaceKeywordThesaurus: Department of Commerce, 1987, Codes for theIdentification of the States, The District of Columbia and the Outlying Areas ofthe U.S., and Associated Areas (Federal Information Processing Standard 5-2):Washington, Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards andTechnology (http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs/fip5-2.htm)Place-Keyword: New YorkPlace-Keyword: 36http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transfonn'?xml=36dea.xmi /0218/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 120 of 231PlaceLKeyword: NYPlace:Place KeywordThesaurus: Library of Congress Subject HeadingsPlace Keyword: New York (State)Place:Place Keyword Thesaurus: Geographic Names Information Systemhttp://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublicPlace-Keyword: New York StateAccessConstraints: NoneUse. Constraints: 1. The NYS DEC and the U.S. Geological Survey asks to be credited in derivedproducts. 2. Secondary Distribution of the data is not allowed. 3. Any documentationprovided is an integral part of the data set. Failure to use the documentation inconjunction with the digital data constitutes misuse of the data. 4. Although every efforthas been made to ensure the accuracy of information, errors may be reflected in the datasupplied. The user must be aware of data conditions and bear responsibility for theappropriate use of the information with respect to possible errors, original map scale,collection methodology, currency of data, and other conditions.Point ofContact:ContactInformation:ContactOrganization Primary:Contact Organization: New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation. Division of WaterContactPosition: Watershed Geographic Information Technologies Support Group,ChiefContactAddress:AddressType: mailing and physical addressAddress: 625 BroadwayAddress: 4th floorCity: AlbanyState-or Province: New YorkPostal Code: 12233-3500ContactVoice...Telephone: 518-402-8259ContactElectronicMailAddress: watergis@gw.dec.state.ny.usContactInstructions: All questions regarding metadata and/or data should gothrough the internal DEC contact.NativeData Set Environment: 24,000 scale hypsographic contour linework drawn byphotogrametric, plane table or other methods by USGS, US Army Corp of Engineers,Tennessee Valley Authority or others. Linework copied onto stable-base mylar. Rasterimage of linework created by USGS, Reston, with Optronics drum scanner at an apertureof 20um, to give an equivalent resolution of 1024 DPI. Raster data converted to vectorwith line-center algorithm in LT4X v. 3.1, 11/11/93, by John Dabritz of InfotecDevelopment Inc. Grid elevations calculated with 8-profile weighted linear interpolation,with cubic smoothing of slope at the contour line as per algorithm in above mentionedLT4X v. -export in DEM format, UTM meters, -grid height and width of 10 mt, -clipping(overedge) coordinate in UTM mt, -input coord feet or meters (depending on sourcematerial), output in meters/decimeters, -DEM grid points which are on a profile sectionlonger than 80 mt are smoothed by passing the grid through a low pass-filter twice. Thefilter size (see below) is of 9 cell diameters (aprox 9 mt). The purpose here is to leavehttp://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform?xml=36dea.xml8/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 121 of 231well-contoured areas untouched while smoothing areas of less than 5-2.5% slope (to lessenstreaking in flat areas typical of multiple-profile DEM derivation). -cubic smoothing ofelevation profile across contours to 35% of the distance between adjacent contours.These profiles have a smaller, but still discontinuous change in slope at contourintersection than if not rounded. -9 cell diameter for smoothing reach, -use all 8directions (from grid point to N, S, E, W ,NE, NW, SE, SW) for each cell, -no line feeds.export dem <contour data name> 2 10.00 10.00 2 1 4 80 2 0.35 9 8 0CrossL Referen ce:CitationInformation:Originator: US Geological SurveyPublicationDate: unknownTitle: Digital Elevation Model (DEM)OnlineLinkage: http://eros.usgs.gov/guides/dem.htmlData-Quality Information:AttributeAccuracy:AttributeAccuracyReport: 10 mt gridding cell spacing is the maximun that can bemeaningfully extracted from hypsography contour lines. This allows very goodhypsographic contour reproduction in all areas except very flat ones.Elevation resolution_ is 1 decimeter (0.1 meter). Elevation accuracy is 24,000contour data, i.e. plus/minus half the contour interval.LogicaLConsistencyReport: The fidelity of the relationships encoded in the data structure ofthe DEM are automatically verified using a USGS software program upon completion ofthe data production cycle. The test verifies full compliance to the DEM specification.Completeness..Report: DEM visually inspected using Delta3D version 2.0, 1995 by John Dabritzand S. Phan of Infotec Development Inc. Checked for completness and drainagecharacteristics matching the USGS Hydrography Digital Line Graphs published at thesame time as the model. Further validation for logical consistency performed previous tosubmission for archiving.PositionaLAccuracy:HorizontalPositional_Accuracy:HorizontalPositionalAccuracyReport: The horizontal accuracy of the DEM isexpressed as an estimated root mean square error (RMSE). The estimate of theRMSE is based upon horizontal accuracy tests of the DEM source materials withequal to or less than intended horizontal RMSE error of the DEM. The testing ofhorizontal accuracy of the source materials is accomplished by comparing theplanimetric (X and Y) coordinates of well-defined ground points with thecoordinates of the same points as determined from a source of higher accuracy.Quantitative HorizontalPositionaLAccuracyAssessment:HorizontaLPositional AccuracyValue: 3 meters (estimated)HorizontalPositionalAccuracy.Explanation: Digital elevation models meethorizontal National Map Accuracy Standards (NMAS) accuracyrequirements.VerticalPositionalAccuracy:VerticaLPositionaLAccuracy.Report: A vertical RMSE of one-half of the contourinterval of the source map is the maximum permitted. Systematic errors mayhttp://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transformxml=36dea.xml8/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 122 of 231not exceed the contour interval of the source graphic. Level 2 DEMs have beenprocessed or smoothed for consistency and edited to remove identifiablesystematic errors.Quantitative VerticalPositionalAccuracyAssessment:VerticalPositionalAccuracy. Value: 6 to 8 metersVerticalPositionalAccuracy.Explanation: DEMs meet vertical National MapAccuracy Standards (NMAS) accuracy requirements. Vertical PositionalAccuracy Vaue varies with each quad.Lineage:Source Information:Source Citation:Citation-Information:Originator: U.S. Geological SurveyPublicationDate: UnknownPublication Time: UnknownTitle: AlbanyPublicationInformation:Publication.Place: EROS Data Center, SDPublisher: U.S. Geological SurveyType-of Source-Media: mylar separate from original color separation plateSource_ Time-Period of Content:Time-Period Information:SingleDate/Time:.CalendarDate: unknownSource-Currentness

Reference:

ground conditionSourceCitation-Abbreviation: CONTOUR1Source_ Contribution: elevation values for interpolationSourceLInformation:Source- Citation:Citation Information:Originator: U.S. Geological Survey or National Geodetic Survey (NGS) (ed.)PublicationDate: UnknownPublication-Time: UnknownTitle: project controlPublicationInformation:PublicationPlace: EROS Data Center, SDPublisher: U.S. Geological SurveyType-of Source-Media: field notesSourceTime-Period..of Content:Time-Period Information:Single-Date/Time:Calendar Date: unknownSourceCurrentnessL

Reference:

ground conditionSource Citation-Abbreviation: CONTROL1SourceContribution: ground control pointsSource-Information:SourceCitation:Citation-Information:http://cugir.mannlib.comell .edu/transformxml=36dea.xml8/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 123 of 231Originator: U.S. Geological Survey (ed.)PublicationDate: UnknownPublication_ Time: UnknownTitle: photo ID numberPublicationInformation:PublicationPlace: EROS Data Center, SDPublisher: U.S. Geological SurveyType.ofLSource-Media: transparencySource TimePeriod..of Content:TimePeriodInformation:Single..Date/Time:Calendar Date: unknownSourceCurrentness

Reference:

ground conditionSource Citation-Abbreviation: PHOTO1SourceContribution: elevation values from photogrametryProcess Step:Process

Description:

The process can be seen as divided into several tasks, each withassociated sub-processes. A. Original Data Source Preparation: 1. The UnitedStates Geological Service (USGS) office of Map Production (Mid ContinentMapping Center, Rolla, MO) selects the most recent original printing plates(1:24,000 or 1:25,000 scale) for each published quadrangle map. These platesare archived under controlled environmental conditions and are producedfrom the original map scripting materials onto dimensionally stable material(Mylar). A copy of the separate is made by contact methods ontophotosensitive, opaque, dimensionally stable material. The separate plate copyis shipped to the USGS Mapping Applications Center (Reston, VA). 2. The MACscans the separate plate with an Ektaprint (a.k.a. Optronics) drum scanner withan aperture of 24um (corresponding to a linear resolution of approx 1030 DPI)into a run-length encoded (RLE) formatted raster file. Contours lines havetypically a thickness of 25 to 30 pixels. The file, typically between 10 and 20 Mb,would be checked for completeness and distortion. If satisfactory MACforwards both the raster file, the plate separate and the correspondingpublished quadrangle to the digitization workshop at the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation Water GIS unit in Albany, NY. B.Raster file batch processing 1. The raster file was loaded into Line Tracer for XWindows (LT4X, Infotec Inc., Portland, Oregon) version 3.1. With it isgeoregistered and trimmed of any excess margin. 2. The file is put through anautomated raster-to-vector batch process in which a vector following thecenter of the raster line is created, with a minimum vertex separation of 25pixels. Once the vector has been calculated and the topology of the resultantdata established, the resolution of the original raster was reduced to 500 DPI, toallow faster processing in the succeeding steps. C. Vector Contour Edit, EdgeMatching and Labeling. 1. The vectorized contours are edited carefully tocorrect any line breaks, vector webbing (due to pen thickness or lack ofresolution of the originals drafting process), labels and special line symbols(depressions, road fills, etc). 2. The contours are labeled with theircorresponding elevations, as tagged in the original material. 3. The eightadjoining maps' vector contours are brought in and checked against those ofhttp://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform?xml=36dea.xml8/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 124 of 231the map being edited. Vectors of matching labels are snapped together if the gap isless than 3 line-thicknesses. Otherwise they are tagged as "disagreement in theoriginal" (see DLG standards for hypsography layer). For each border only oneof the maps is edited. 4. An independent quality control check of contour editsand labeling is carried out. 5. The Digital Elevation Model is interpolated in abatch process (see "Native Dataset Environment" above). D. DEM Edit andQuality Control 1. The resultant DEM is loaded in Delta3D (Infotec Inc.,Portland, OR) v. 2.1, together with the corresponding hydrography vectors. TheDEM is checked for the presence of irregular patterns, in which case it isreturned to the previous process; water body height (e.g. in large lakes) is setfor all grid cells within the water body; and drainage along vector streams isenforced by lowering cells higher than the upstream one along the stream.Water retention areas (wetlands, marshes...) are not modified except for streamentrance and exit. -Edge matching with the adjoining eight DEMs. 2. Fromthirty to thirty-five height reference markers are collected from thecorresponding cultural separate for the quadrangle. These are compared toheights as read from the DEM and an statistical RMS is calculated, this isrecorded in the DEM's C record. 3. The quadrangle record A is filled andchecked for consistency. 4. A final DEM-formatted elevation dataset for thequadrangle is recorded. E. Final Quality Control and Databasing 1. The DEM fileis shipped to USGS's Rocky Mountain Mapping Center (Boulder, CO). There itundergoes a separate quality control process which essentially mimics D. 2. Thecorresponding quality control flags are established. The DEM is sub-sampled to30 mt grid spacing and the resultant file is forwarded to USGS's EROS DataCenter, were it is catalogued into the National Elevation database. The 10 mtgrid spacing file is returned to NYS DEC, from where it is forwarded to CornellUniversity's Mann Library.Process_Date: UnknownSpatialtReferencejinformation:Horizon tal Coordinate System-Definition:Planar:GridCoordinate.System:GridCoordinate System.Name: Universal Transverse MercatorUniversal TransverseMercator:UTMZoneNumber: 17 or 18 or 19TransverseMercator:ScaleFactor atCentralMeridian: .9996Longitude.of CentralMeridian: +075.000000Latitude-of Projection-Origin: +00.000000FalseEasting: 0FalseNorthing: 0PlanarCoordinate-Information:Planar Coordinate.EncodingMethod: row and columnCoordinateRepresentation:AbscissaResolution: 10http://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform'?xml=36dea.xmi /0218/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 125 of 231OrdinateResolution: 10PlanarDistanceUnits: MetersGeodetichModel:HorizontalDatumName: North American Datum of 1927Ellipsoid Name: Clarke 1866Semi-major Axis: 6378206.4Denominator ofFlattening-Ratio: 294.9787Vertical-Coordinate System-Definition:Altitude.SystemnDefinition:AltitudeDatumName: National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929AltitudeResolution: 1AltitudeDistance. Units: decimetersAltitudeEncoding-Method: Explicit elevation coordinate included with horizontalcoordinatesEntity.and AttributelInformation:OverviewDescription:Entity.andAttribute-Overview: The digital elevation model is composed of an elevationvalue linked to a grid cell location representing a gridded form of a topographic maphypsography overlay. Each grid cell entity contains an 8-character value between -32,767.0 and 32,768.0.Entity.and..AttributeDetaiiCitation: U.S. department of the Interior, U.S. GeologicalSurvey, 1992, Standards for digital elevation models: Reston, VA, a hypertextversion of the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) is available at:http://eros.usgs.gov/guides/dem.html (see Cross Reference)DistributionInformation:Distributor:ContactInformation:ContactOrganization-Primary:Contact Organization: Mann LibraryContactAddress:AddressType: mailingAddress: Cornell UniversityCity: IthacaState-or Province: NYPostal Code: 14853Country: USAContactVoice -Telephone: 607-255-5406ContactElectronicMaiLAddress: mann ref@cornell.eduDistributionLiability: Although these data have been processed successfully on a computersystem at the U.S. Geological Survey, no warranty expressed or implied is maderegarding the accuracy or utility of the data on any other system or for general orhttp://cugir.mannlib-comell.edu/transform?xml=36dea.xmi /0218/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 126 of 231scientific purposes, nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty. Thisdisclaimer applies both to individual use of the data and aggregate use with other data. Itis strongly recommended that careful attention be paid to the contents of the metadatafile associated with these data. Neither the U.S. Geologial Survey nor the New York StateDepartment of Environmental Conservation shall be held liable for improper or incorrectuse of the data described and/or contained herein. Cornell University provides thesegeographic data "as is." Cornell University makes no guarantee or warranty concerningthe accuracy of information contained in the geographic data. Cornell University furthermakes no warranty either expressed or implied, regarding the condition of the productor its fitness for any particular purpose. The burden for determining fitness for use liesentirely with the user. Although these files have been processed successfully oncomputers at Cornell University, no warranty is made by Cornell University regardingthe use of these data on any other system, nor does the fact of distribution constitute orimply any such warranty.StandardOrder Process:DigitalForm:DigitaL TransferInformation:Format Name: DEMFileDecompression_ Technique: zipDigitaL Transfer_.Option:OnlineOption:Computer Contact Information:NetworkAddress:NetworklResource Name:http://cugir.niannlib.cornell.edu/datatheme.isp?id=23Fees: NoneMetadata Reference Information:MetadataDate: 20080414MetadataReviewDate: 20080414Metadata Contact:Contact Information:ContactOrgan ization.Primary:Con tact Organization: New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservationContactPosition: Division of Information Services; GIS UnitContactAddress:AddressL Type: mailing and physical addressAddress: 625 BroadwayAddress: 3rd floorCity: AlbanyState or Province: New YorkPostal Code: 12233-2750ContactVoice Telephone: 518-402-9860ContactFacsimileTelephone: 518-402-9031ContacLElectronic MailAddress: enterpriseGIS(gw.dec.state.nyushttp://cugir.mannlib.comell.edu/transform'?xml=36dea.xmi /0218/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 127 of 231Metadata_Standard_Name: FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial MetadataMetadata_StandardVersion: FGDC-STD-001-1998http://cugir.manniib.comnell.edu/transformi~xml=36dea.xml8//218/20/2012 FHR-COMBINED Page 128 of 231SECTION 2.0ORTHOIMAGERY REFERENCE FHR-COMBINED Page 129 of 231ArcGIS -World Imagery Page 1 of 4Resource Center Show: Web Content Only Help Sign InFind maps, applications and more...World ImageryThis map service presents satellite imagery for the world and high-resolution imagery for the United States and other areas aroundthe world.C' Map Serice by esriLast Modified: January 29, 2013(29 ratings, 555,806 views)Sign in to rate this item.Facebook TwitterDescriptionThis map was last updated December 2012. World Imagery provides one meter or better satellite and aerial imagery in many parts of theworld and lower resolution satellite imagery worldwide. The map includes NASA Blue Marble: Next Generation 500m resolution imageryat small scales (above 1:1,000,000), i-cubed ISm eSAT imagery at medium-to-large scales (down to 1:70,000) for the world, and USGS15m Landsat imagery for Antarctica. The map features 0.3m resolution imagery in the continental United States and O.6m resolutionimagery in parts of Western Europe from DigitalGlobe. In other parts of the world, 1 meter resolution imagery is available from GeoEyeIKONOS, i-cubed Nationwide Prime, Getmapping, AeroGRID, IGN Spain, and IGP Portugal. Additionally, imagery at different resolutionshas been contributed by the GIS User Community.To view this map service now, along with useful reference overlays, click here to open the Imagery with Labelsweb map.Tip: This service is one of the basemaps used in the ArcGIS.com map viewer and ArcGIS Explorer Online. Simply click one of those links to launchthe interactive application of your choice, and then choose Imagery or Imagery with Labels from the Basemap control to start browsing the imagery.You'll also find this service in the Basemap gallery in ArcGIS Explorer Desktop and ArcGIS Desktop 10.i-cubed Nationwide Prime is a seamless, color mosaic of various commercial and government imagery sources, including Aerials Express 0.3 to 0.6mresolution imagery for metropolitan areas and the best available United States Department of Agriculture Farm Services Agency (USDA FSA) NationalAgriculture tmagery Program (NAIP) imagery and enhanced versions of United States Geological Survey (USGS) Digital Ortho Quarter Quad (DOQQ)imagery for other areas.The coverage for Europe includes AeroGRID 1m resolution imagery for Belgium, France (Region Nord-Pas-de-Calais only), Germany, Luxembourg, andThe Netherlands and 2m resolution imagery for the Czech Republic, plus 1m resolution imagery for Portugal from the Instituto Geogrsfico Portugu~s.For details on the coverage in this map service, view the list of Contributors for the World Imagery Map.View the coverage maps below to learn more about the coverage for the high-resolution imagery:* World coverage map: Areas with high-resolution imagery throughout the world.* Imagery update maps for United States and Western Europe: Areas where imagery was updated in this release.Metadata: This service is metadata-enabled. With the Identify tool in ArcMap or the ArcGIS Online Content Viewer, you can see the resolution,collection date, and source of the imagery at the location you click. The metadata applies only to the best available imagery at that location. You mayneed to zoom in to view the best available imagery.To compare this service with the other imagery services available through ArcGIS Online, use the Imagery comparison app.Reference overlays: The World Boundaries and Places service is designed to be drawn on top of this service as a reference overlay. This is what getsdrawn on top of the imagery if you choose the Imagery With Labels basemap in any of the ArcGIS clients.The World Transportation service is designed to be drawn on top of this service to provide street labels when you are zoomed in and streets and roadswhen you are zoomed out.There are three ready to use web maps that use the World Imagery service as their basemap, Imagery, in which both reference layers are turned off,Imagery with Labels, which has World Boundaries and Places turned on but World Transportation turned off, and Imagery with Labels andTransportation, which has both reference layers turned on.Feedback: Have you ever seen a problem in the Esri World Imagery Map that you wanted to see fixed? You can use the Imagery Map Feedback webmap to provide feedback on issues or errors that you see. The feedback will be reviewed by the ArcGIS Online team and considered for one of ourupdates.ArcGIS Desktop use: This service requires ArcGIS 9.3 or more recent. If you are using ArcGIS 9.2, use the Prime Imagery map service in your map toget the best free imagery available to you. Note that the Prime Imagery map service is in extended support and is no longer being updated.The World Imagery map service is not available as a globe service. If you need a globe service containing imagery use the Prime Imagery (3D) globeservice. However note that this is no longer being updated by Esri.http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=l 0df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a92/1/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 130 of 231ArcGIS -World Imagery Page 2 of 4Tip: Here are some famous locations as they appear in this map service. The following URLs launch the Imagery With Labels andTransportation web map (which combines this map service with the two reference layers designed for it) and take you to specificlocations on the map using location parameters included in the URL.Grand Canyon, Arizona, USAGolden Gate, California, USATaj Mahal, Agra, IndiaVatican CityBronze age white horse, Uffington, UKUluru (Ayres Rock), AustraliaMachu Picchu, Cusco, PeruOkavango Delta, BotswanaScale Range: 1:591,657,528 down to 1:1,128Coordinate System: Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere (WKID 102100)Tiling Scheme: Web Mercator Auxiliary SphereMap Service Name: World-ImageryArcGIS Desktop/Explorer URL: http://services.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/servicesArcGIS Desktop files: MXD LYR (These ready-to-use files contain this service and associated reference overlay services. ArcGIS 9.3 or more recentrequired).ArcGIS Server Manager and Web ADF URL: http://server.arcgisonline.com/arcgis/services/World-Imagery/MapServerREST URL for ArcGIS Web APIs: http://server.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World_Imagery/MapServerSOAP API URL: http://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/services/Worldjlmagery/MapServer?wsdlAccess and Use ConstraintsSesri-This work is licensed under the Web Services and API Terms of Use.View Summary I View Terms of UseMap ContentsWorld Imageryhttp://services.arcgisonline.com/ArcGIS/rest/services/World-Imagery/MapServerPropertiesTags world, imagery, basemap, satellite, aerial, community, community basemap, orthophotos, maps, AFA25O baseCredits Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, Getmapping, Aerogrid, [GN, IGP, and the GIS User CommunitySize 1 KBExtent Left:- 180 Right: 180Top: 85 Bottom: -85Comments (18) algreene2 (January 31, 2013)[ failed to mention that my post below was in response to the speed issues of having the online layer in an mxd.lgreene2 (January 31, 2013)If you turn off all your layers (except the aerial image), switch to data view, export to jpg making sure that you export a wld file, you can then pullthis in as a raster image. Define projection if you plan to use outside of that particular .mxd.tosa.yasunari@gmail.com (January 22, 2013)Please make sure that each resolution has the same time frame. We were looking at the Atlanta airport. The lower resolution image is the old imagewhere one of the runways is missing the pavement ;-). The higher resolution image has the new runway clearly seen.http://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=1 0df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a92/!/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 131 of 231ArcGIS -World Imagery Page 3 of 4Dorothee (November 14, 2012)The data was last updated on the 15.11.12 but that's misleading because although there is more detailed imagery available for regional Australia, inmy particular area of interest (near Moranbah, QLD) the Imagery is from between 2004 and 2008. Most of the Mines in that area were developedlater than that. Brisbane City Imagery is from 2003...acoffin (November 7, 2012)I want to use this base map (North America) in a printed map that will be published as a project fact sheet (noncommercial, quasi-academicpublication). Can you tell me what the appropriate attribution should be for this product? Esri? i-cubed?MissJesie (November 4, 2012)what pherout said helps me now,thankstomstonel947 (September 4, 2012)How do I find if there is archival imagery for a region? I am hoping to go back perhaps 10 years for a region in the upper great plains.pherout (August 21, 2012)Setting the data frame's extent to a clipped area of interest seems to help make working with these basemaps a lot more tolerable -Right click, dataframe properties, data frame, clip options, clip to shape, specify shape, current visible extent. Took me a hot minute to figure that out. Hope it mighthelp some others.Emergell (May 24, 2012)Use a higher spec computer, keep panning to a minimum, set bookmarks to avoid excessive panning, download an aerial insteadkphaneuf (May 10, 2012)Why when I switch to layout view does the map get blurry?mahabal (February 7, 2012)just recently uploaded this layer to ArcGIS 9.3.1 but the image is just BLACK.tmmoc (January 18, 2012)If you do most of your editing in the layout view (if that's possible for your kind of work) it doesn't lag. Having these kinds of files open in the dataview causes my computer to lag, so I do everything I can (editing attribute tables, drawing in property lines, etc.) from the layout view.nice2835 (December 27, 2011)I'd suggest that when you open it within arc-map 10. just zoom to one of your data layers, and it will load the images from there.margaretannsclass (November 28, 2011)And i just like piechino-is@hotmail.com (September 28, 2011)I'm using an Intel Core 2 6700 at 2.66GHz with 2 G RAM ... it's not a very fast machine but I am on a university network in a university computerlab so I expect the problem is one of bandwidth. It lags but not so much that I can't keep productive momentum.snelsonbanff (September 20, 2011)That doesn't really make sense though -it's very fast when I use the same service in my FLEX viewer, but as soon as I drop the same service intoArcMap it's too slow to use.tbwester (September 16, 2011)They are interenet based, so you need a fast connection.snelsonbanff (September 14, 2011)Hmm, everytime I try to use these basemaps inside ArcMap 10 -it makes ArcMap so slow it's un-useeble. Any suggestions as to why, or how toovercome this?Sign in to add a comment.Esricom I Terms of Use I Privacy I Contact Us I Report Abusehttp://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=l 0df2279f9684e4a9f6a7f08febac2a92/1/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 132 of 231SECTION 3.0NATIONAL LANDCOVER DATABASE METADATA FHR-COMBINED Page 133 of 231Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium (MRLC)National Land Cover Database (NLCD)Product DescriptionData DownloadsLegendStatsticsReferencesNLCD 2001Product DescriptionData DownloadsLegendstatisticsReferencesRetrofit Land Cover ChangeProduct DescriptionData DownloadsLegendReferencesNLCD 1992Product DescriptionData DownloadsLegendstatstieaReferencesCover Database 2006National Land Cover Database 2006(NLCD2006) Is a 16-class land coverdassification scheme that has beenapplied consistently across theconterminous United States at a spatialresolution of 30 meters. NLCD2006 Isbased primarily on the unsuperviseddasslfication of Land.EhcThemai Mapper+ (ETM+) circa 2006satellite data. NLCD2006 also quantifiesland cover change between the years2001 to 2006. The NLCD2006 land cover change product was generated by comparingspectral characteristics of Landset imagery between 2001 and 2006, on an Individualpath/row basis, using protocols to identify and label change based on the trajectory fromNLCD2001 products. It represents the first time this type of 30 meter resolution land coverchange product has been produced for the conterminous United States. A formal accuracyassessment of the NLCD2006 land cover change product is planned for 2011.Generation of NLCD2006 products helped to identify some issues in the NLCD2001 land coverand percent developed imperviousness products only (there were no changes to theNLCD2001 percent canopy). These issues were evaluated and corrected, necessitating areissue of NLCD2001 products (NLCD2001 Version 2.0) as part of the NLCD2006 release. Amajority of the NLCD2001 updates occurred in coastal mapping zones where NLCD2001 waspublished prior to the completion of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) 2001 land cover products. NOAA C-CAP2001 land cover has now been seamlessly integrated with NLCD2001 land cover for allcoastal zones. NLCD2001 percent developed imperviousness was also updated as part of thisprocess.Preferred NLCD2006 citation: Fry, 3., Xian, G., 3in, S., Dewitz, 3., Homer, C., Yang, L,Barnes, C., Herold, N., and Wickham, 3., 2011. Completion of the 2006 National Land CoverDatabase for the Conterminous United States, PEMRS, Vol. 77(9):858-864.Other MRLC Program Publications for NLCD2006Wickham, J.D., Stehman, S.V., Gass, L, Dewltz, 2., Fry, I.A., and Wade, T.G. 2013. Accuraassessment of NLCD 2006 land cover and imoervious surface Remote Sensing ofEnvironment, Vol. 130, pp. 294-304.Xian, G., Homer, C.G., Bunde, B., Danielson, P., Dewitz, J.A., Fry, -.A., and Pu, R., 2012,flntWf,,ln -.hJn I In i -.r k..n. M r11 nA t inn fl..lf W M14 ,.1.u -Geocarto International, v. 27, no. 6, p. 479-497.Xlan, G., Homer, C., Dewitz, J., Fry, J., Hossein, N., and Wickham, 1., 2011. The Chaoeimpervious surface area between 2001 and 2006 in the conterminous UnitedState.Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, Vol. 77(8): 758-762.XMan, G, Homer, C, and Fry, -. 2009.cover classification to 2006 by usino 1imaQerv crlanoe amr.moaan nemoteSensing of Environment, Vol. 113, No. 6. pp. 1133-1147.To view and print the PDF you must obtain and install the Acrobat& Reader, available at nocharge from Adobe Systems.http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2006.php FHR-COMBINED Page 134 of 231IdentificationInformation:Citation:Citation-Information:Originator: U.S. Geological SurveyPublication-Date: 20110216Title: NLCD 2006 Land CoverEdition: 1.0GeospatialData_.Presentation_.Form: remote-sensing imageSeries-Information:Series Name: NoneIssue-Identification: NonePublication-Information:PublicationPlace: Sioux Falls, SDPublisher: U.S. Geological SurveyOtherCitationDetails:

References:

(1) Homer, C., Huang, C., Yang, L., Wylie, B., & Coan M., (2004). Development of a 2001 NationalLand Cover Database for the United States. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 70, 829 -840.(2) Jin, S., Yang, L., Xian, G., Danielson, P., Fry, J., and Homer C., (2011). A multi-indexintegrated change detection method for updating the National Land Cover Database (In Preparation).(3) Nowak, D. J., & Greenfield, E. J., (2010). Evaluating the National Land Cover Database treecanopy and impervious cover estimates across the conterminous United States: A comparison with photo-interpreted estimates. Environmental Management, 46, 378 -390.(4) Wickham, J. D., Stehman S. V., Fry, J. A., Smith, J. H., & Homer, C. G., (2010). Thematicaccuracy of the NLCD 2001 land cover for the conterminous United States. Remote Sensing of Environment,114, 1286 -1296.(5) Xian, G., Homer, C., and Fry, J., (2009). Updating the 2001 National Land Cover Database landcover classification to 2006 by using Landsat imagery change detection methods. Remote Sensing ofEnvironment, 113, 1133-1147.(6) Xian, G., and Homer C., (2010). Updating the 2001 National Land Cover Database impervioussurface products to 2006 using Landsat imagery change detection methods. Remote Sensing of Environment,114, 1676-1686.The USGS acknowledges the support of USGS NLCD 2006 Land Cover Mapping Teams in development of datafor this map.Online-Linkage: http://www.mrlc.govDescription:Abstract:The National Land Cover Database products are created through a cooperative project conducted by theMulti-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) Consortium. The MRLC Consortium is a partnership of federalagencies (www.mrlc.gov), consisting of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA), the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (NPS), the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the USDA Natural Resources ConservationService (NRCS). Previously, NLCD consisted of three major data releases based on a 10-year cycle. Theseinclude a circa 1992 conterminous U.S. land cover dataset with one thematic layer (NLCD 1992), a circa 200150-state/Puerto Rico updated U.S. land cover database (NLCD 2001) with three layers including thematic landcover, percent imperviousness, and percent tree canopy, and a 1992/2001 Land Cover Change Retrofit Product.With these national data layers, there is often a 5-year time lag between the image capture date and productrelease. In some areas, the land cover can undergo significant change during production time, resulting inproducts that may be perpetually out of date. To address these issues, this circa 2006 NLCD land coverproduct (NLCD 2006) was conceived to meet user community needs for more frequent land cover monitoring(moving to a 5-year cycle) and to reduce the production time between image capture and product release.NLCD 2006 is designed to provide the user both updated land cover data and additional information that canbe used to identify the pattern, nature, and magnitude of changes occurring between 2001 and 2006 for theconterminous United States at medium spatial resolution.For NLCD 2006, there are 3 primary data products: 1) NLCD 2006 Land Cover map; 2) NLCD 2001/2006Change Pixels labeled with the 2006 land cover class; and 3) NLCD 200.6 Percent Developed Imperviousness.Four additional data products were developed to provide supporting documentation and to provide informationfor land cover change analysis tasks: 4) NLCD 2001/2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness Change; 5) NLCD2001/2006 Maximum Potential Change derived from the raw spectral change analysis; 6) NLCD 2001/2006 From-ToChange pixels; and 7) NLCD 2006 Path/Row Index vector file showing the footprint of Landsat scene pairs usedto derive 2001/2006 spectral change with change pair acquisition dates and scene identification numbersincluded in the attribute table.In addition to the 2006 data products listed in the paragraph above, two of the original release NLCD2001 data products have been revised and reissued. Generation of NLCD 2006 data products helped to identifysome update issues in the NLCD 2001 land cover and percent developed imperviousness data products. Theseissues were evaluated and corrected, necessitating a reissue of NLCD 2001 data products (NLCD 2001 Version2.0) as part of the NLCD 2006 release. A majority of NLCD 2001 updates occur in coastal mapping zones whereNLCD 2001 was published prior to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Coastal ChangeAnalysis Program (C-CAP) 2001 land cover products. NOAA C-CAP 2001 land cover has now been seamlesslyintegrated with NLCD 2001 land cover for all coastal zones. NLCD 2001 percent developed imperviousness wasalso updated as part of this process.Land cover maps, derivatives and all associated documents are considered "provisional" until a formalaccuracy assessment can be conducted. The NLCD 2006 is created on a path/row basis and mosaicked to createa seamless national product. Questions about the NLCD 2006 land cover product can be directed to the NLCD FHR-COMBINED Page 135 of 2312006 land cover mapping team at the USGS/EROS, Sioux Falls, SD (605) 594-6151 or mrlc@usgs.gov.Purpose: The goal of this project is to provide the Nation with complete, current and consistent publicdomain information on its land use and land cover.Supplemental-Information:Corner Coordinates (center of pixel, projection meters)Upper Left Corner: -2493045 meters(X), 3310005 meters(Y)Lower Right Corner: -177285 meters(X), 2342655 meters(Y)TimePeriod_ofContent:TimePeriodInformation:Range-of-Dates/Times:BeginningoDate: 20050211Ending-Date: 20071003Currentness-

Reference:

ground conditionStatus:Progress: In workMaintenance-andUpdateFrequency: Every 5 YearsSpatial-Domain:Bounding-Coordinates:WestBoundingCoordinate: -230.232828EastBoundingCoordinate: -63.672192North_BoundingCoordinate: 52.877264SouthBoundingCoordinate: 21.742308Keywords:Theme:ThemeKeywordThesaurus: NoneTheme-Keyword: Land CoverThemeKeyword: GISTheme-Keyword: U.S. Geological SurveyTheme-Keyword: USGSTheme-Keyword: digital spatial dataTheme:ThemeKeywordThesaurus: ISO 19115 CategoryTheme_Keyword: imageryBaseMapsEarthCoverTheme-Keyword: 010Place:Place_KeywordThesaurus: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1995, Countries, dependencies, areas of specialsovereignty, and their principal administrative divisions, Federal Information Processing Standard 10-4,):Washington, D.C., National Institute of Standards and TechnologyPlaceKeyword: United StatesPlace-Keyword: U.S.Place-Keyword: USAccess-Constraints: NoneUseConstraints: NonePointofContact:Contact-Information:ContactOrganizationPrimary:ContactOrganization: U.S. Geological SurveyContact_.Position: Customer Services RepresentativeContact_Address:Address-Type: mailing and physical addressAddress: USGS/EROSAddress: 47914 252nd StreetCity: Sioux FallsState-orProvince: SDPostalCode: 57198-0001Country: USAContact_Voice_Telephone: 605/594-6151Contact_FacsimileTelephone: 605/594-6589Contact_.Electronic_Mail_A.ddress: custserv@usgs.govHoursof_Service: 0800 -1600 CT, M -F (-6h CST/-5h CDT GMT)Contact-Instructions:The USGS point of contact is for questions relating to the data display and download from this website. For questions regarding data content and quality, refer to:http://www.mrlc.gov/mrlc2k.asp or email: mrlc@usgs.govDataSetCredit: U.S. Geological SurveySecurity-Information:SecurityClassificationSystem: NoneSecurity-Classification: UnclassifiedSecurityHandlingDescription: N/ANativeDataSetEnvironment: Microsoft Windows XP Version 5.1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 3; ESRI ArcCatalog9.3.0.1770Data_Quality_Information:Attribute_Accuracy:Attribute_.AccuracyReport: Data quality information for the NLCD 2001 re-issued base unchanged pixels isreported in the manuscript: Wickham, J., D., Stehman, S. V., Fry, J. A., Smith, J. H., & Homer, C. G.,(2010), Thematic accuracy of the NLCD 2001 land cover for the conterminous United States, Remote Sensing ofEnvironment, 114, 1286 -1296. Accuracy for the NLCD 2006 changed pixels is currently being assessed.QuantitativeAttribute__AccuracyAssessment:AttributeAccuracy_Value: UnknownAttributeAccuracy_.Explanation: This document and the described landcover map are considered"provisional" until a formal accuracy assessment is completed. The U.S. Geological Survey can make noguarantee as to the accuracy or completeness of this information, and it is provided with the understandingthat it is not guaranteed to be correct or complete. Conclusions drawn from this information are theresponsibility of the user. FHR-COMBINED Page 136 of 231LogicalConsistencyReport: The NLCD 2006 final seamless products include: 1) NLCD 2006 Land Cover map,2) NLCD 2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness ; 3) NLCD 2001/2006 Change Pixels labeled with the 2006 landcover class; 4) NLCD 2001/2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness Change; 5) Maximum Potential SpectralChange; 6) NLCD 2001/2006 From -To Change pixels; 7) NLCD 2006 Path Row Index.Completeness-Report: This NLCD product is the version dated February 14, 2011.Positional-Accuracy:HorizontalPositionalAccuracy:HorizontalPositional_AccuracyReport: N/AVertical-PositionalAccuracy:VerticalPositional_AccuracyReport: N/ALineage:Process-Step:ProcessDescription:Landsat image selection and preprocessing. For the change analysis, a two-date pair of Landsatscenes was selected for each path/row restricting temporal range to reduce the impact of seasonal andphenological variation. A pre-processing step was performed to convert the digital number to top ofatmosphere reflectance using procedures similar to those established for the NLCD 2001 mapping effort (Homeret al., 2004). Reflectance derivatives, including a tasseled-cap transformation and a 3-ratio index, weregenerated for each scene to use in the modeling process as independent variables. Where present, clouds andcloud shadows were digitized for masking.NLCD 2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness (Final Product) and Percent Developed ImperviousnessChange Analysis. Because the four NLCD developed classes are derived from a percent imperviousness mappingproduct, an overview of steps required to update the NLCD 2001 imperviousness to reflect urban growthcaptured in 2006 era Landsat imagery is provided here (Xian, et al., 2010). First, 2001 nighttime lightsimagery from the NOAA Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) was imposed on the NLCD 2001impervious surface product to exclude low density imperviousness outside urban and suburban centers so thatonly imperviousness in urban core areas would be used in the training dataset. Two training datasets, onehaving a relatively larger urban extent and one having a smaller extent, were produced through imposing twodifferent thresholds on city light imagery. Second, each of the two training datasets combined with 2001Landsat imagery was separately applied using a regression tree (RT) algorithm to build up RT models. Twosets of RT models were then used to estimate percent imperviousness and to produce two 2001 syntheticimpervious surfaces. Similarly, the same two training datasets were used with 2006 Landsat imagery to createtwo sets of RT models that produce two 2006 synthetic impervious surfaces. Third, the 2001 and 2006synthetic impervious surface pairs were compared using both 2001 impervious surface products to retain 2001impervious surface area (ISA) in the unchanged areas. The 2006 DMSP nighttime lights imagery was thenemployed to ensure that non-imperviousness areas were not included and that new impervious surfaces emergedin the city light extent. After this step, two 2006 intermediate impervious surfaces were produced. Finally,the two intermediate products and 2001 imperviousness were compared to remove false estimates in non-urbanareas and generate a 2006 impervious surface estimate. Imperviousness threshold values used to derive theNLCD developed classes are: (1) developed open space (imperviousness < 20%), (2) low-intensity developed(imperviousness from 20 -49%), (3) medium intensity developed (imperviousness from 50 -79%), and (4) high-intensity developed (imperviousness > 79%). During this process, inconsistencies in the NLCD 2001 PercentDeveloped Imperviousness product were corrected with the new product, NLCD 2001 Percent DevelopedImperviousness Version 2.0, included as part of the NLCD 2006 product release.Land Cover Change Analysis. For the NLCD 2006 Land Cover Update, a new change detection method,Multi-Index Integrated Change (MIIC), was developed to capture a full range of land cover disturbance andpotential land cover change patterns for updating the National Land Cover Database (Jin, et al., InPreparation). Recognizing the potential complementary nature of multiple spectral indices in detection ofdifferent land cover changes, we integrated four indices into one model to more accurately detect true landcover changes between two time periods. Within the model, normalized burn ratio (NBR), change vector (CV,Xian, et al., 2009), relative change vector (RCV), and normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI) arecalculated separately for the early date (circa 2001) and late date (circa 2006) scenes. The four pairs ofindices for the two dates are differenced and then evaluated in a final model conditional statement thatcategorizes each pixel as either biomass increase, biomass decrease, or no change. Individual path/row rawresults from this change analysis process are assembled into a seamless national product to form the NLCD2001/2006 Maximum Potential Change map. The integrated change result is clumped and sieved to produce arefined change/no-change mask used below.NLCD 2006 Land Cover Classification. Land cover mapping protocols used during NLCD 2006 processingare similar to those used to label the NLCD 2001 product (Homer, et al., 2004), but applied on a path/rowbasis instead of multiple path/row MRLC zones (Xian, et al., 2009). Classification was achieved usingdecision tree modeling that employed a combination of Landsat imagery, reflectance derivatives, andancillary data (independent variables) with training data points (dependent variable) collected from arefined version of the NLCD 2001 land cover product. Training points were randomly sampled and limited tothose areas that were determined to be unchanged between 2001 and 2006 during the MIIC spectral changeanalysis process. Training data for pixels changed to developed land cover were not collected since thefour classes in urban and sub-urban areas were mapped separately using a regression tree modeling method(described in the Imperviousness Change Analysis process steps above). Post classification modeling andhand-editing were used to further refine the decision tree output. Following classification, the 2006 landcover was masked with the change/no-change result (captured during the MIIC change analysis modeling) toextract a label for spectrally changed pixels. Labeled change pixels were then compared to the NLCD 2001land cover base to exclude those pixels identified as spectral change, but classified with the same label asthe corresponding 2001 pixel. NLCD 2006 percent developed impervious pixels, identified as changed, wereextracted to NLCD developed class codes using NLCD 2001 legend thresholds for developed classes and added tothe change pixel map. This intermediate change pixel product was generalized using the NLCD Smart Eliminatetool with the following minimum mapping units (mmu) applied: 1 acre (approximately 5 ETM+ 30 m pixelpatch) for developed classes (class codes 21, 22, 23, and 24); 7.12 acres (approximately 32 ETM+ pixelpatch) for agricultural classes (class codes 81 and 82); and 2.67 acres (approximately 12 ETM+ pixel patch)for all other classes (class codes 11, 12, 31, 41, 42, 43, 52, 71, 90, and 95). The smart eliminateaggregation program subsumes pixels from the single pixel level to the mmu pixel patch using a queensalgorithm at doubling intervals. The algorithm consults a weighting matrix to guide merging of cover typesby similarity, resulting in a product that preserves land cover logic as much as possible. During the NLCD FHR-COMBINED Page 137 of 2312006 analysis and modeling process, inconsistencies in the NLCD 2001 Land cover product were corrected withthe new product, NLCD 2001 Land Cover Version 2.0, included as part of the NLCD 2006 product release.NLCD 2006 Land Cover (Final Product). Additional processing steps were designed to create the finalNLCD 2006 land cover map. Individual path/row change pixel results were assembled to form an intermediateseamless national product. This seamless change pixel map was reviewed and edited to remove regionalinconsistencies. Refined NLCD 2006 change pixels were then combined with the re-issued NLCD 2001 Land CoverVersion 2.0, and the resulting image was smart-eliminated to a 5-pixel mmu. This final step eliminatedsingle pixels and patches less than 5 pixels in extent that appeared as a result of combining the separateimages.NLCD 2006 Change Pixels (Final Product). A comparison of the NLCD 2001 re-issued base and the NLCD2006 Land Cover was necessary to extract a final version of the NLCD 2006 Change Pixels. In a model, pixelsthat were labeled with the same land cover class code were removed and only those pixels that did not agreein the two classifications were retained as final NLCD 2006 Change Pixels.NLCD 2001/2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness Change (Supplementary Raster Layer). The NLCD 2001Percent Developed Imperviousness Version 2.0 and the NLCD 2006 Percent Developed Imperviousness werecompared in a model to provide the user community with a layer that highlights imperviousness change between2001 and 2006.NLCD 2006 Maximum Potential Spectral Change (Supplementary Raster Layer). A raster layer containingall pixels identified in the raw change detection process and additional pixels identified as changed inNOAA C-CAP 2001-2006 change products. Raw change includes areas of biomass increase (value 1) and biomassdecrease (value 2) with background (127) and clouds (value 250) identified separately. Only a portion ofthese pixels were ultimately selected as real change during our final protocols. This product was assembledfrom individual path/row MIIC raw change results.NLCD 2006 From-To Change Pixels (Supplementary Raster Layer). Although similar to the NLCD 2006change pixel map, the from-to change pixel image was derived from a direct comparison between the re-issuedseamless NLCD 2001 Land Cover Version 2.0 Map and the seamless NLCD 2006 Land Cover Map. An index value foreach possible change combination was assigned using a from-to change matrix with sequentially numbered cells(see matrix and index values in entity and attribute section). Pixels are labeled with an index valuecreated from a matrix of every possible change combination (see entity and attribute information fordetails).NLCD 2006 Path/Row Index (Supplementary Vector Layer). To create seamless national layers fromindividually processed path/rows required assembly of components. The path/row index identifies eachLandsat scene pair footprint and includes a Landsat acquisition date attribute and scene identificationnumber attribute for each scene pair used during the NLCD 2006 change analysis and land cover modelingprocess. The mosaic was made using a model to code each footprint with the appropriate path/row value usinga <path>0<row> scheme. For example, all pixels in the footprint for path 29/row 30 would be value 29030 inthe path/row index vector file.Landsat data and ancillary data used for the land cover prediction -For a list of Landsat scenes and scene dates by path/row used in this project, please see:appendixlnlcd2006-scene-list-by-path-row.txtData Type of DEM composed of 1 band of Continuous Variable Type.Data Type of Slope composed of 1 band of Continuous Variable Type.Data Type of Aspect composed of 1 band of Categorical Variable Type.Data type of Position Index composed of 1 band of Continuous Variable Type.Data type of 3-ratio index composed of 3 bands of Continuous Variable Type.SourceUsedCitationAbbreviation: Landsat ETM, Landsat TM, DEM, USGS/EROSProcess-Date: UnknownSourceProduced-CitationAbbreviation: USGS NLCDProcessContact:Contact-Information:ContactOrganizationPrimary:ContactOrganization: U.S. Geological SurveyContact-Position: Customer Service RepresentativeContactAddress:AddressType: mailing and physical addressAddress: USGS/EROSAddress: 47914 252nd StreetCity: Sioux FallsStateorProvince: SDPostal_Code: 57198-0001Country: USAContactVoiceTelephone: 605/594-6151ContactFacsimileTelephone: 605/594-6589ContactElectronicMailAddress: custserv@usgs.govHours-ofService: 0800 -1600 CT, M -F (-6h CST/-5h CDT GMT)Process-Step:ProcessDescription: Metadata imported.SOurce_UsedCitationAbbreviation: C:\DOCUME-l\jfry\LOCALS-l\Temp\xm193.tmpProcessDate: 20110211ProcessTime: 16103000 FHR-COMBINED Page 138 of 231SpatialDataOrganizationInformation:Direct-SpatialReferenceMethod: RasterRasterObjectInformation:RasterObjectType: PixelRow_Count: 104424ColumnCount: 161190Vertical-Count: 1SpatialReferenceInformation:Horizontal_CoordinateSystemDefinition:Planar:Map-Projection:Map_Projection_.Name: Albers Conical Equal AreaAlbers_Conical_Equal_Area:StandardParallel: 29.500000Standard_.Parallel: 45.500000Longitudeof_Central_Meridian: -96.000000Latitude-ofProjection-Origin: 23.000000False__Easting: 0.000000False-Northing: 0.000000PlanarCoordinateInformation:PlanarCoordinateEncodingMethod: row and columnCoordinate-Representation:Abscissa-Resolution: 30.000000Ordinate-Resolution: 30.000000PlanarDistanceUnits: metersGeodetic Model:Horizontal_Datum_.Name: North American Datum of 1983Ellipsoid_Name: Geodetic Reference System 80Semi-majorAxis: 6378137.000000Denominatorof_FlatteningRatio: 298.257222EntityandAttribute_Information:Detailed-Description:Entity-Type:EntityTypeLabel: LayerilEntityTypeDefinition: NLDC Land Cover LayerEntityTypeDefinitionSource: National Land Cover DatabaseAttribute:Attribute-Label: ObjectIDAttribute-Definition: Internal feature numberAttributeDefinitionSource: ESRIAttributeDomainValues:UnrepresentableDomain: Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated.Attribute:Attribute-Label: CountAttribute-Definition: A nominal integer value that designates the number of pixels that have eachvalue in the file; histogram column in ERDAS Imagine raster attributes tableAttributeDefinitionSource: ESRIAttributeDomainValues:UnrepresentableDomain: IntegerAttribute:Attribute-Label: ValueAttribute-Definition: Land Cover Class Code Value.AttributeDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsAttributeDomainValues:Enumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 11EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Open Water -All areas of open water, generally with less than25% cover or vegetation or soilEnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 12Enumerateo_DomainValueDefinition: Perennial Ice/Snow -All areas characterized by a perennialcover of ice and/or snow,generally greater than 25% of total cover.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomain Value: 21EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Developed, Open Space -Includes areas with a mixture of someconstructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account forless than 20 percent of total cover. These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housingunits, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, oraesthetic purposes.EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 22EnumeratedDomain_ValueDefinition: Developed, Low Intensity -Includes areas with a mixture ofconstructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 20-49 percent of total cover. Theseareas most commonly include single-family housing units.EnumeratedDomain_Value_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 23Enumerated_DomainValueDefinition: Developed, Medium Intensity -Includes areas with a mixture ofconstructed materials and vegetation. Impervious surfaces account for 50-79 percent of the total cover.These areas most commonly include single-family housing units.Enumerated_DomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions FHR-COMBINED Page 139 of 231Enumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 24EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Developed, High Intensity -Includes highly developed areaswhere people reside or work in high numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses andcommercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80 tol00 percent of the total cover.EnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 31EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) -Barren areas of bedrock, desertpavement, scarps, talus, slides, volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits andother accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 41EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Deciduous Forest -Areas dominated by trees generally greaterthan 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree speciesshed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomain..Value: 42EnumeratedDomain-ValueDefinition: Evergreen Forest -Areas dominated by trees generally greaterthan 5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75 percent of the tree speciesmaintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage.EnumeratedDomain_.ValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomain_.Value: 43EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Mixed Forest -Areas dominated by trees generally greater than5 meters tall, and greater than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species aregreater than 75 percent of total tree cover.EnumeratedDomainValue_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainLValue: 51EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Dwarf Scrub -Alaska only areas dominated by shrubs less than20 centimeters tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This type is often co-associated with grasses, sedges, herbs, and non-vascular vegetation.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomain_.Value: 52EnumeratedDomainValue_Definition: Shrub/Scrub -Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meterstall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs,young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 71EnumeratedDomain.ValueDefinition: Grassland/Herbaceous -Areas dominated by grammanoid orherbaceous vegetation, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject tointensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 72EnumeratedDomainValue_Definition: Sedge/Herbaceous -Alaska only areas dominated by sedges andforbs, generally greater than 80% of total vegetation. This type can occur with significant other grasses orother grass like plants, and includes sedge tundra, and sedge tussock tundra.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 73EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Lichens -Alaska only areas dominated by fruticose or folioselichens generally greater than 80% of total vegetation.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 74EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Moss- Alaska only areas dominated by mosses, generally greaterthan 80% of total vegetation.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 81EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Pasture/Hay -Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legumemixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennialcycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 82Enumerated-DomainValue-Definition: Cultivated Crops -Areas used for the production of annualcrops, such as corn, soybeans, vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such asorchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20 percent of total vegetation. This classalso includes all land being actively tilled.EnumeratedDomain__Value_DefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class DescriptionsEnumeratedDomain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 90EnumeratedDomainValue_.Definition: Woody Wetlands -Areas where forest or shrub land vegetationaccounts for greater than 20 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturatedwith or covered with water.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions FHR-COMBINED Page 140 of 231Enumerated-Domain:EnumeratedDomainValue: 95EnumeratedDomainValueDefinition: Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands -Areas where perennialherbaceous vegetation accounts for greater than 80 percent of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate isperiodically saturated with or covered with water.EnumeratedDomainValueDefinitionSource: NLCD Legend Land Cover Class Descriptions FHR-COMBINED Page 141 of 231SECTION 4.0MANNING'S COEFFICIENT REFERENCE Mauiovi a vahie. cumq)d fvom the nrienc~es hootd mtda iur o n Raf wde as wgaed refinmun at dho bottom of this pag. Mamuing ui ha so =itks.To: LS pwmRwPe(mahraltrw aýIm aw U0416 Dier Po0.0300--0350O40ýý-tony h Cobbles*7oody~m-0.0220.03-0-0.035-n009zM0[S.dohSle (P) _ _ __.tdi _(an-Metalshmwc--WA-f a&d9.011ý-013~.0M20.010ý.025Obusled ConafztOýWooW-0.035-.050-).075).150.012ý.014W0290.025 --j .012}. 0130018-0w025-.009-0.011 FHR-COMBINED Page 143 of 231SECTION 5.0SLOPE CALCULATION FHR-COMBINED Page 144 of 231Slope Claculation for Muskingum-Cunge RoutingMacinnes Fruitland William DalyMarsh Dam Mill Dam Marsh DamUpstream Elevation (ft) 400 430 500Downstream Elevation (ft) 280 270 270Reach Distance Between Elevations (ft) 45400 30240 56690Slope s (-) 0.0026 0.0053 0.0041Slope Claculation FormulasA B C DMacinnes Marsh1 Dam Fruitland Mill Dam William Daly Marsh Dam1 Dam2 Upstream Elevation (ft) 400 430 5003 Downstream Elevation (ft) 280 270 2704 Reach Distance Between Elevations (ft) 45400 30240 566905 Slope s (-) =(B2-B3)/B4 =(C2-C3)/C4 =(D2-D3)/D4 FHR-COMBINED Page 145 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX E: NCDC RAW DATA AND DOCUMENTATIONNote: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has beenarchived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor.The path to the file is:\cold\GeneraI-Access\32\32-9190280-000\officiaIPage E-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 146 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX F: 2 YEAR WIND SPEED CALCULATIONF.1Wind Speed CalculationStep 1: Maximum Wind Speeds from each year for the period of record (Station: GHCND USW00014768)YearMax (.1 m/s)Max (m/s)1996 192 19.21997 264 26.41998 304 30.41999 232 23.22000 201 20.12001 259 25.92002 264 26.42003 228 22.82004 215 21.52005 192 19.22006 246 24.62007 197 19.72008 268 26.82009 197 19.72010 201 20.12011 228 22.82012 232 23.2Step 2: Uetermine the 2 year return period wind spee using the Gumbel DistributionPeak Wind ReturnYear Speed (m/s) Rank Gringorten Period(years)1998 30.4 1 0.03 30.572008 26.8 2 0.09 10.971997 26.4 3 0.15 6.692002 26.4 4 0.21 4.812001 25.9 5 0.27 3.752006 24.6 6 0.32 3.081999 23.2 7 0.38 2.612012 23.2 8 0.44 2.262003 22.8 9 0.50 2.002011 22.8 10 0.56 1.792004 21.5 11 0.62 1.622000 20.1 12 0.68 1.482010 20.1 13 0.73 1.362007 19.7 14 0.79 1.262009 19.7 15 0.85 1.182005 19.2 16 0.91 1.101996 19.2 17 0.97 1.03Period of Record (years)17.00Mean Peak Wind Speed (m/s) 23.06Standard Deviation 3.29a 2.569_ 21.58sV-6afff = ýZ- O.5772cgxv, = t -cxhin(- in(p))Return Period (years) I Nonexceedance I Exceedance I Wind SpeedPage F-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 147 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantProbability Probability (m/s)500 0.998 0.002 37.5200 0.995 0.005 35.2100 0.99 0.01 33.450 0.98 0.02 31.625 0.96 0.04 29.810 0.9 0.1 27.450 0.98 0.02 31.62 0.5 0.5 22.573.86058 ft/secPage F-2 FHR-COMBINED Page 148 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantF.2 Wind Speed Calculation FormulasPage F-3 FHR-COMBINED Page 149 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantModeled Wind Speed versus Obsved Wind Speed4035 UObserved Wind SpeedExceedance ProbabilityU 1-~--~--P-IUU3U7~ 2520l 154'..A10501 10 100Return Period (Years)Figure C-1: Modeled Wind Speed versus Observed Wind Speed1000Page F-4 FHR-COMBINED Page 150 of 231AAR EVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX G: HEC-HMS INPUTS AND OUTPUTSPage G-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 151 of 231DamFailureBasin: Dam FailureLast Modified Date: 13 March 2013Last Modified Time: 13:28:34Version: 3.5Filepath Separator: \Unit System: EnglishMissing Flow To Zero: NOEnable Flow Ratio: NoAllow Blending: NoCompute Local Flow At Junctions: NoEnable Sediment Routing: NoEnable Quality Routing: NoEnd:subbasin: Mill Creek WatershedCanvas X: 309913.96877561207Canvas Y: 4785464.710326405Area: 10.82Downstream: Junction-2Canopy: NoneSurface: NoneLossRate: SCSPercent Impervious Area: 0.0Curve Number: 89.4Transform: User-Specified UHUnit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Mill CreekBaseflow: NoneEnd:Reservoir: W. D. Marsh DamCanvas X: 310391.9083864886Canvas Y: 4783335.486876718Downstream: Junction-2Route: Controlled OutflowRouting Curve: Elevation-AreaInitial Elevation: 6Elevation-Area Table: William Daly Marsh DamAdaptive Control: OnMain Tailwater Condition: NoneAuxiliary Tailwater Condition: NoneDam Breach: Overtop BreachDam Breach Outlet: MainBreach Top Elevation: 6Breach Bottom Elevation: 0Breach Bottom Width: 15Left Side Slope: 0.5Right side slope: 0.5Trigger Type: TimeTrigger Time: 8 January 2000, 19:10Development Time: 0.5Progression Type: LinearEnd Dam Breach:Evaporation Method: Zero EvaporationEnd Evaporation:End:Reservoir: F.M. DamCanvas X: 309549.26459730905Canvas Y: 4788290.232357093Downstream: Junction-2Route: Controlled OutflowRouting Curve: Elevation-AreaInitial Elevation: 10Elevation-Area Table: Fruitland Mill DamAdaptive Control: OnMain Tailwater Condition: NoneAuxiliary Tailwater Condition: NonePage 1 FHR-COMBINED Page 152 of 231DamFailureDam Breach: Overtop BreachDam Breach Outlet: MainBreach Top Elevation: 10Breach Bottom Elevation: 0Breach Bottom width: 25Left Side slope: 0.5Right Side Slope: 0.5Trigger Type: TimeTrigger Time: 8 January 2000, 19:20Development Time: 0.5Progression Type: LinearEnd Dam Breach:Evaporation Method: Zero EvaporationEnd Evaporation:End:Junction: Junction-2Canvas X: 309751.4991067121Canvas Y: 4790009.2256870195Downstream: Junction-1End:Subbasin: Deer Creek watershedCanvas X: 308267.7507324683Canvas Y: 4792259.101159017Area: 3.65Downstream: Junction-3Canopy: NoneSurface: NoneLossRate: SCSPercent Impervious Area: 0.0Curve Number: 90.4Transform: User-specified UHUnit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Deer CreekBaseflow: NoneEnd:Reservoir: M.M. DamCanvas X: 307729.15401268116Canvas Y: 4793413.506595305Downstream: Junction-3Route: Controlled OutflowRouting Curve: Elevation-AreaInitial Elevation: 5Elevation-Area Table: Macinnes Marsh DamAdaptive Control: OnMain Tailwater Condition: NoneAuxiliary Tailwater Condition: NoneDam Breach: Overtop BreachDam Breach Outlet: MainBreach Top Elevation: 5Breach Bottom Elevation: 0Breach Bottom width: 12.5Left side Slope: 0.5Right side slope: 0.5Trigger Type: TimeTrigger Time: 8 January 2000, 18:20Development Time: 0.5Progression Type: LinearEnd Dam Breach:Evaporation Method: Zero EvaporationEnd Evaporation:End:Junction: Junction-3Canvas X: 309105.82537261426Canvas Y: 4793216.900747756Downstream: Junction-iEnd:Page 2 FHR-COMBINED Page 153 of 231DamFailureJunction: Junction-1Description: Combination of Deer Creek and Mill Creek FlowsCanvas X: 312413.7098393652Canvas Y: 4794305.967682988End:Basin schematic Properties:Last View N: 4795132.499925232Last View S: 4779897.500216865Last View W: 305301.5002035737Last View E: 313628.50023320835Maximum view N: 4795132.499925232Maximum view S: 4779897.500216865Maximum View W: 305301.5002035737Maximum View E: 313628.50023320835Extent Method: Elements MapsBuffer: 10Draw Icons: YesDraw Icon Labels: YesDraw Map Objects: NoDraw Gridlines: NoDraw Flow Direction: NoFix Element Locations: NoFix Hydrologic order: NoMap: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMapMap File Name: ):\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-00.DML\Work Files\GIS\Data\Watersheds\Deer Creekwatershed\GlobalwatershedNY.shpMinimum Scale: -2147483648Maximum scale: 2147483647Map shown: YesMap: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMapMap File Name: J:\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-00.DML\Work Files\GIS\Data\watersheds\Mill Creekwatershed2.shpMinimum scale: -2147483648Maximum Scale: 2147483647Map Shown: YesEnd:Page 3 FHR-COMBINED Page 154 of 231Fruitland Mill Dam Elevation-Area FunctionPaired Data Name: Fruitland Ki- DamDesciption: I IData Source: _T,. ... ..- ]Units:r __ _AElevalaon t Area (AC)0.0 0.08.0 3.510.0 6.07"0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1g 0Elevation (F'r) FHR-COMBINED Page 155 of 231Macinnes Marsh Dam Elevation-Area Functionk, Paired Data jTa GraphName: Madimes Marsh DamDescripltion: H J-Data Source: [Manual.ntry-Units: FT:ACPIPaired Data Table Graph [20-18_16--14--12--a)ýz 8-0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Elevation (FT) FHR-COMBINED Page 156 of 231William Daly Marsh Dam Elevation-Area FunctionPaired DataName: Widiam ~aIV Marsh DamDescription: F7IkL% ird Data =Table Graph [5.4-a.)0 1 2 3Elevation (FT)4 5 6 FHR-COMBINED Page 157 of 231.ftett G""4 PW 5kStatol'Rux: 01.lan2000, 00:0End of Run: 133ai2D00, DOW0Canpute That: 2GIar2013, 11:43:54Asion Runi: PW~ Dan BreachBasin Model. Dam f1fieM e mlgc Model: 72hrFWControl Specificatons: 12-day9XMw SMiW~r 7AementsMokxn Units #I ()AC-FT140kolo* I *,ýag Arem IPeakD~dwmgej TOo~e 1konineIein 0" Z(C I I (1Mill Creek Watershed 10.82 20528.7 083an2000, 19:40 4L36W. D. Marsh Dam 0.00 483.3 083an2000, 19:50Read'-3 0.00 1L4 09Ja2000, 00:10F.M. Dam 0.00 1910.4 083a2000, 19:50Reach-2 0.00 490.8 083an2000, 21:00Ainction-2 10.82 20528.7 083an2000, 19:40 41.41Deer Creek Watershed 3.65 8138.2 08Jan2000, 18:50 41.48M.M. Dam 0.00 425.1 083an2000, 19:00Reach-i 0.00 216.2 063an2000, 20:20,ruction-3 3.65 8138.2 083an2000, 18:50 41.64Junction-1 14.47 28460.4 08Jan2000, 19:20 41.47 FHR-COMBINED Page 158 of 231Jm*ondpTRwhtrbfaJnUDvhred"kumRO A O&LVMWjbRwM BWBwmtFA PmGuk~mROWPAFRDM &&M~ OM MTMVIRSf RuinkwgRim:P1 DA &WAC BemvtREAC Rintjflo FHR-COMBINED Page 159 of 231JwftokWRe"*f&ziPUDan&ud-K ObtK WtCIONibw.ROW AFVtM &fHfwWOA Ratk~b FHR-COMBINED Page 160 of 2311/2 PMF & 25 Year Flood Basin FileBasinLArcIIINLA.basinBasin: Basin 1-ArcII-INLALast Modified Date: 13 September 2012Last Modified Time: 13:07:38version: 3.5Filepath Separator: \unit System: EnglishMissing Flow To Zero: NoEnable Flow Ratio: NOAllow Blending: NoCompute Local Flow At Junctions: NoEnable sediment Routing: NoEnable Quality Routing: NOEnd:subbasin: Mill creek watershedcanvas x: 309397.98409064166Canvas Y: 4788810.645207537Area: 10.82Downstream: Junction-1Canopy: Nonesurface: NoneLossRate: SCSPercent Impervious Area: 0.0curve Number: 89.4Transform: user-Specified UHunit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Mill CreekBaseflow: NoneEnd:Subbasin: Deer Creek watershedCanvas X: 308370.4034651506canvas Y: 4792943.30641875Area: 3.65Downstream: Junction-1Canopy: NoneSurface: NoneLossRate: SCSPercent Impervious Area: 0.0curve Number: 90.4Transform: user-Specified UHunit Hydrograph Name: Adjusted Deer CreekBaseflow: NoneEnd:Junction: Junction-1Description: combination of Deer Creek and Mill creek FlowsCanvas X: 312413.7098393652Canvas Y: 4794305.967682988End:Basin schematic Properties:Page 1 FHR-COMBINED Page 161 of 2311/2 PMF & 25 Year Flood Basin FileBasin.lArcIIlNLA.basinLast view N: 4795132.499925232Last view S: 4779897.500216865Last view W: 305301.5002035737Last view E: 313628.50023320835Maximum View N: 4795132.499925232Maximum View S: 4779897.500216865Maximum view w: 305301.5002035737Maximum View E: 313628.50023320835Extent Method: Elements MapsBuffer: 10Draw Icons: YesDraw Icon Labels: YesDraw Map objects: NoDraw Gridlines: NoDraw Flow Direction: NoFix Element Locations: NoFix Hydrologic order: Nomap: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMapMap File Name: J:\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-OO.DML\WorkFiles\GIS\Data\Watersheds\Deer creek watershed\GlobalwatershedNY.shpMinimum Scale: -2147483648Maximum Scale: 2147483647Map Shown: YesMap: hec.map.aishape.AiShapeMapMap File Name: J:\170,000-179,999\171356\171356-00.DML\WorkFiles\GIS\Data\watersheds\Mill creek watershed2.shpMinimum Scale: -2147483648Maximum Scale: 2147483647Map Shown: YesEnd:Page 2 FHR-COMBINED Page 162 of 231Project: GINNA PMF Simulation Run: 1/2 PMFStart of Run:End of Run:Compute Time:01Jan2000, 00:0013Jan2000, 00:0028Mar2013, 11:34:06Basin Model: Basin 1-ArcllNLAMeteorologic Model: 72hrPMPControl Specifications: 12-dayHydrologic Drainage Area Peak DischargeTime of Peak VolumeElement (M12) (CFS) (IN)Mill Creek Watershed 10.82 10264.3 08Jan2000, 19:40 20.68Deer Creek Watershe 3.65 4069.1 08Jan2000, 18:50 20.74Junction-1 14.47 14230.2 08Jan2000, 19:20 20.69 FHR-COMBINED Page 163 of 231Ih~n14 rok teiVsfor Rm niI2PW-Ruz:lfl MFamMIICREKYATERMWfouS~m~-Rwrlfl PM Buns .CREES(VATEWB WD RsM-Rm:172 PF~f ivutWIREWA1ERM E~ebA eqm ~Lms FHR-COMBINED Page 164 of 231Wb* Teer Creek W*W b* for Pkm '10 PWHM,-~VoVI0.5ta.01.0t1.5V-2loM5!U-Rtnl72 IFS ..tMCERCEKWMMMRSREDR$*tru4-RK172 rVEFuuutDEERcRME MOM M*itft-Run:172 PFW &oBEAUtE8 MRE WET8RM WRoeut LsmnlsbuLf I72 PkF tDEER MEKYJSE O RnitBusb FHR-COMBINED Page 165 of 231Ar&'kd*I'R%*trPbVPW0i.-Riinl?2FiF BintA)JMlN. Ruittdm......FaI2PW inTEROW DRUOM WO--- Rzl2FWNW~miMHVATMGf~fmt&d FHR-COMBINED Page 166 of 231Project: GINNA PMF Simulation Run: 25 Year StormStart of Run:End of Run:Compute Time:01Jan2000, 00:0004Jan2000, 00:00OlApr2013,16:41:52Basin Model: Basin 1-ArclIINLAMeteorologic Model: 25-YRControl Specifications: 3-dayHydrologic Drainage Area Peak Discharc Time of Peak VolumeElement (M12) (CFS) (IN)Mill Creek Watershed 10.82 2137.2 O0Jan2000, 17:00 2.66Deer Creek WatersheV3.65 894.6 OlJan2000, 16:00 2.76Junction-I 14.47 2995.0 01Jan2000, 16:30 2.69 FHR-COMBINED Page 167 of 231Wb* CWWaS~e RA orP gnYarSC0.129 too 1200ouumI ia13J2D-Rw2YefhuhnsimlM GREEK YMTRflDRutt*Wm -Rm2YEMSTOrM&=tVK= ERSHED *Lws-W YOSN ft B=ML MBEE WATER Rafft -- kOWSTOFiMtEWMUQWMMMWWW~m FHR-COMBINED Page 168 of 231SAbWC AWaWeRotfo Rn 4Yo tbnUGO ~ U0.10.1"IC"I.00.3t0.41-0.510.6"IL12:0 O0z 12o1JaQDm 02Ju1~220-bOReff 5Yw~M&WDR~KTWH ED Restciad-Rw2YWWSM BwERMRWT9W~ED Oinkw~W YER MW~wTOEW~ERMHuMM WA)MLouRWr2YEAR $TQORVWREEftDWMTMbtsb FHR-COMBINED Page 169 of 231Jkidm 'kinpon.1' ~for Rm 5 YefcSWGiu2001100mm~J-b RnYw sm &tMC1ON. Rmtftbw.W YwaNm BmnutiOW VATM RWAk~ib---WYWSWM&MMQWsTmWDj&w FHR-COMBINED Page 170 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX H: FLO-2D INPUTS/OUTPUTS ANDADDITIONAL FLO-2D RESULTS FOR BOUNDINGALTERNATIVEPage H-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 171 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFLO-2D INPUTS AND OUTPUTSNote: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has beenarchived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor.The path to the file is:\cold\General-Access\32\32-9190280-000\officialPage H-2 FHR-COMBINED Page 172 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantADDITIONAL FLO-2D RESULTSPage H-3 A~la~~ Ifw 73sf F.HRMOMM Page 174 of23135 70 140 FIR-COMBINED Page 175 of 231J*61*!+A F.-o0MBNED Pogp 176 of 231Logenoat Cd cWoru,f rn%Ad-+1 FHR-COMBINED Page 177 of 231Element: (4364) -North of Turbine Building258.50 T -258.00 I-Flood Elevation at North of Turbine Building257.50 -Design Basis Flood Level -257.00 I --j -256.50 -, I IiiiIM6i255.00254.50 1 --254.00 * ¶ --253.50 i .. L i -010 20 30 40 so 60Time (hours) FHR-COMBINED Page 178 of 231Element: (3840) -South of Screen House258.50258.00257.50257.00256.50-aU,256.00I255.50u 255.00254.50254.00253.50253.00SI I I I --1Flood Elevation at South of Screen House i-- Basis Flood Level ---I--------------------_-----iI-. .----------.......... ---0.0010.0020.0030.00Time (hours)40.0050.0060.00 FHR-COMBINED Page 179 of 231Element: (4014) -North of Diesel Generator Building259.00 -I It--'- --Flood Elevation at North of DieselGenerator Building-Design Basis Flood Level258.00 ----257.00{-I256.00 --255.00 -I -254.00 I253.00 1 ..0 10 20 30 40 50 60Time (hours) FHR-COMBINED Page 180 of 231Element: (6193) -East of Reactor Containment273.00272.50272.00.2IL271.50271.00I I I I I II I I it I I --_Flood Elevation at East of Reactor Containment-IDesign Basis Flood Level----t ------ ----.- ---- I- --, -- ___270.50270.00269.500102030Time (hours)405060 FHR-COMBINED Page 181 of 231Element: (5286) -All-Volatile-Treatment Building272.o00Flood Elevation at All-Volatile-Treatment Building-Design Basis Flood Level I271.80 -271.60 -J-I r-271.00 zt --270.80 ----r ~ r 1270.60 ----270.40 i0 10 20 30 40 so 60Time (hours) FHR-COMBINED Page 182 of 231Element: (6651) -East of Auxiliary Building274.00273.50273.00U1272.50272.00271.50-.-II 1I--Flood Elevation at East of Auxiliary Building-Design Basis Flood LevelI II I ' i.--K--271.00270.50270.000102030Time (hours)405060 FHR-COMBINED Page 183 of 231Element: (5740) -East of Control Building272.50272.00271.50271.00270.50270.00010 20 30 40 50Time (hours)60 FHR-COMBINED Page 184 of 231274.00273.50273.00272.50272.00w 271.50271.00270.50270.00269.50Element: (7105) -Proposed Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump BuildingAnnexý I ý ..ý I .I I ý .I I I I I I-* *

P * * * *
P 4 P 4 P
P 4 P 4 P 4 P ! P--Flood Elevation at Proposed StandbyAuxiliary Feedwater Pump Building Annex/Design Basis Flood LevelI -I---*b-~- ------ --]-~.- ---------II ti~i I-- --{--~----- -------i-- --------I- ----~-+-~- ---01020130Time (hours)405060 FHR-COMBINED Page 185 of 231Element: (6879) -West of Standby Auxiliary Feedwater Pump Building273.50 -_ _273.00 ---Flood Elevation at West of StandbyAuxiliary Feedwater Pump Building-225 --Design Basis Flood Level272.50 ----- --272.00 --271.50 _270.50270.00 W -L----------- --269.50 ---I j0 10 20 30 40 50 60Time (hours)

FHR-COMBINED Page 186 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX I: CEDAS OUTPUTSPage I-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 187 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant1.1 Wind Wave PredictionProject: Ginma Wind Wave Run UpGroup: Ginna Run Up CalculionCase: Wave Prediction Deer Creek -southWindspeed AdAuMent and Wave GrowthEl of Obeervd Wnd (Zets) 3M lkduW DeepopsWider-Oboed W-nd Spetd (U ) rAk Se Temp. DO. (d -V7.00 IFOur o Oberved Wiod (Dm0 20 7vMDOr dF Fna WMnd (Duwf) 0MMLAt of Obeervaeo (LAl) 4325WMd Feld Lemk (F)Eq Mindra Wind Sed(Aquaesd VWinmd speed (sWatve He foWave PealodWAve Growth: Dee"Page 1-2 FHR-COMBINED Page 188 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nudear Power Plant1.2 Wave Runup PredictionProject: Ginna Wind Wave Run UpGroup: Gna Run Up Case: Wave Runup Deer Creek -southWave Fluup and Overtopping on kIpenreable StructuresWane t~~: kreguiarFlt estmale: RuimeSic"e twoe: SmoothBreammn crlelsd:0.780hiciwde wane hIs MN0.740dftPeak wao period (: 1210 0COTAN of nmhom slope (cot ph): 40.000WMier depthi at sitruclre Ine (do): 5200 It__OTANo oabrUc. M .op .(co t.: o0 VStbucte height above toe (hs):l 0o0.o0 n IPage 1-3 FHR-COMBINED Page 189 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX J: SOFTWARE VERIFICATIONSECTION 1.0 SOFTWARE CERTIFICATIONSECTION 2.0 POST CALCULATION VALIDATION RESULTSPage J-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 190 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantSECTION 1.0: SOFTWARE CERTIFICATION FHR-COMBINED Page 191 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantCEDAS VERSION 4.03Program Capability / Intended UseThe CEDAS v.4.03 computer program was originally developed by the Army Corp of Engineers toaccompany the Coastal Engineering Manual. CEDAS v.4.03 is a comprehensive collection of coastalengineering software. Veri-Tech, Inc. purchased the software suite and enhanced the existing modelswith windows-based interface with graphics. The module of CEDAS used for the calculations of waveprediction, setup, and runup at Ginna is ACES.ACES is an interactive computer based design and analysis system in the field of coastal engineeringcontaining six functional areas. These functional areas include wave prediction, wave theory, wavetransformation, structural design, wave runup, and littoral processes.PurposeThe purpose of this Computer Program Certification is to document that CEDAS v.4.03 is anacceptable computer software program for its intended use in calculating wave prediction, setup, andrunup for Flood Hazard Re-evaluation Project sites, in accordance with AREVA's Controlled DocumentNo.0402-01 (Rev.43, dated September 2012). The certification methodology, documentation andresults of CEDAS v.4.03 are presented below.MethodologyTo perform the certification of wave prediction and runup, a computer analysis was performed usingCEDAS v.4.03 for benchmark calculations presented in the Automated Coastal Engineering SystemUser's Guide (Reference 1). The output wave predictions and wave runup of the CEDAS v.4.03computer analysis are then compared to the results of the benchmark CEDAS v.4.03 calculations runon a GZA workstation. For wave setup, CEDAS v.4.03 results were compared to those results from anexample calculation as part of the USACE Coastal Engineering Manual Chapter 4, Part II (Reference3). This certification methodology is consistent with AREVA Controlled Document Nos.0402-01(Rev.43, dated September 2012) and 0902-30 (Rev.6, dated September 2012).Upon achieving a good agreement between the calculated results and the benchmark calculation, theaccuracy of the software is verified and validated.InputsThe example calculation selected for the software certification is consistent with the intended use forFlood Hazard Re-evaluation Projects. Inputs to CEDAS v.4.03 for calculating wave prediction are asfollows: FHR-COMBINED Page 192 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantParameter Description GZA ACES User's GuideElevation of observed wind speed 60 ft 60 ftObserved Wind Speed 30 knots 30 knotsAir-sea temperature difference -9 deg F (equivalent) -5 deg CDuration of observed wind speed 1 hr 1 hrDuration of final wind speed 3 hr 3 hrLatitude of wind observation 45 deg 45 degWind Observation type Overwater (ship) Overwater (ship)Wind Fetch Option Open Water Open WaterOpen water wave growth equation Deep DeepLength of wind fetch 60 mi 60 miThe example calculation selected for the software certification is consistent with the intended use forFlood Hazard Re-evaluation Projects. Inputs to CEDAS v.4.03 for calculating wave runup are asfollows:Parameter Description GZA ACES User's GuideIncident wave height 7.5 feet 7.5 feetWave period 10 seconds 10 secondsCotan of nearshore slope 100 100Water depth at structure toe 12.5 feet 12.5 feetCotan of structure slope 3 3Structure'height above toe 20 feet 20 feetEmpirical coefficient (alpha) 0.076463 0.076463Empirical coefficient (QO') 0.025 0.025Onshore wind velocity 59.073 ft/sec (equivalent) 35 knotsThe example calculation selected for the software certification is consistent with the intended use forFlood Hazard Re-evaluation Projects. Inputs to CEDAS v.4.03 for calculating wave setup are asfollows:Parameter Description GZA USACE CEM Chapter 4 Part IIBeach slope 0.01 0.01Deep water wave height 2 feet 2 feetPeriod 10 seconds 10 secondsResultsResults by CEDAS-ACESThe inputs and outputs to CEDAS ACES v.4.03 are shown in Figures 1 and 2. The calculated predictedwave height and period are 4.74 feet and 4.65 seconds. The calculated wave runup is 21.366 feet,respectively. FHR-COMBINED Page 193 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 1: Wave Prediction Calculator ScreenProject: Grand Gulf Wind Wave Run UpGroup: Verification and ValidationCase: Wave Prediction VerificationWindspeed Adjustment and Wave GrowthBr- crib da0.7M0I-I-Overwater (ship) Deep openwaterE of Observed wind (Zob)Observed Wind Speed (Uobs)Air Sea Temp. Diff. (dT)Dur of Observed WAnd (DurO)Dur of Final Wind (DurF)Lat. of Observation (LAT)ResultsWind Fetch Length (F)Eq Neutral Wind Speed (U.)Adjused Wind Speed (Ua)Wave Height (Hmo)Wave Period (Tp)60.0030.00-9.001.003.0045.00feetknotsdeg FhourshoursdogWave Growth:DeepWave Growth: Deep FHR-COMBINED Page 194 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFigure 2: Wave Runup Calculator ScreenProject Grand Gulf Wind Wave Run UpGroup: Vedfwcion & VAdalonCase: Smooth Slope RunupWave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable StructuresWave type: Irregular Slope type: SmoothRate estimate: Runup and OvertoppingBreaking criteria: 0.710ncMdt sMg ant Mwv M (M): 7.500 tRunu for inicnt ve (R):pPeak wave pedod (T): 1.000 Onshoe dnd velocty (U):I N.O$73fthwcCOTAN of narshore slope (cot pld):l 0.000 DI significat wro veWater deth at tcture toe (dsl:l 12.SO0ft Readtve heigh (dCOTAN of structure slope (cot thet): &0"o Wave st5ee0pns lo/T):StMM h above toe (hs): M0."ofOep coef(AIw o-IOadI I OveoppiNg COqQ'O:l 0.025jI * ¶Ovropn ae IQ):_________________ J I_________ -- -Figure 3: Setup Calculator Screen FHR-COMBINED Page 195 of 231AF E llood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantProject Grand Gulf Wind Wave Run UpGroup: Verflcation & ValldionCase: Setup VerificationWave Setup Across Surf ZoneA-Mra4on of wraft to):TKRH (uwreac-4d)n b (Sl-9ANOM nLsecly0em-o.01ooooM10.0000001immORwdO, dfMutt zoos-tx -sum Wawwimi. iiswfzýWideMWOMM FHR-COMBINED Page 196 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantResults from the ACES User's GuideTables 1 and 2 show the example inputs and outputs to the CEDAS v.4.03 for wave prediction andwave runup.Table 1: Wave Prediction inputs/outputs example from Reference IACES User's Guide Wave PredictionExample 2 -Shipboard Wind Observation -Open-Water Fetch -DeepwaterWave EquationsInputMain Input Screenitem Symbol YaJiiM initiElevation of observed wind Zob 60 ftObserved wind speed Uob. 30 knotsAir-sea temperature difference AT -5 deg CDuration of observed wind DUR I hrDuration of final wind DUR 3 hrLatitude of wind observation LAT 45 degWind Observation Type -> Overwater (ship)Wind Fetch Option -> Open WaterOpen-Water Wave Growth Equations RequestorOpen-Water Wave Growth Equation -> DeepLength of wind fetch F 60 miOutputhItm Symbol Value MaimEquivalent neutral wind speed U. 27.71 knotsAdjusted wind speed Us 36.18 knotsWave height H,. 4.74 ftPeak wave period Tp 4.65 secWave Growth: Deepwater Duration- limited1-1-18Windspeed Adjustment and Wave Growth FHR-COMBINED Page 197 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantTable 2: Wave Runup inputs/outputs example from Reference IACES User's GuideWave Runup, Tranmission. and OvertoppingExample 8 -Irregular Wave -Smooth Slope Runup and OvertoppingInputlitemIncident wave heightWave periodCotan of nearshore slopeWater depth at structure toeCotan of structure slopeStructure height above toeOvertoppD itemEmpirical coefficient(computed)Empirical coefficientOnshore wind velocityH,Tcotd,cot 0h,aQ.0UValue7.5010.00100.0012.503.0020.00VnJMftsecftft0.0764630.02535.000knOutputDeep waterWave heightRelative heightWave steepnessRunupOvertopping rateSymbolH.o/gT'2QY1111M ulkill6.3861.9570.00198521.3662.728ftftft3/s-ft5-2t-14Wave Runup and Overtopping on lmpmnnmable Structuree FHR-COMBINED Page 198 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantResults from the USACE Coastal Engineering ManualFigure 4: Results from the USACE Coastal Engineering Manual EM-1110-2-1100 Part II(Change 1) 31 July 2003EXAMPLE PROBLEM 11-4-2FIND:Setup across the surf zone.GIVEN:A plane beach having a I on 100 slope, and normally incident waves with decpwatcr height of 2 m andperiod of 10 sec (see Example Problem 1]-4-1).SOLUTION:The Incipient breaker height and depth were determined in Example Problem 11-4-I as 2.7 m and 3.2 m,respectively. The breaker index is 0.84, based on Equation 11-4-5.Setdown at the breaker point is determined from Equation 11-4-21. At breaking, Equation 11-4-21 simplifies t1= -1/16 ,b2 d., (sinh 2&d/L 2/I.., and ll, = y, d6), thus=-1/16 (0.84)2 (3.2) =-0.14 mSetup at the still-water shoreline is determined from Equation 114-24i, --0.14 + (3.2 + 0.14) + 1/(1 + 8/(3 (.84))) = 0.56 mThe gradient in the setup is determined from Equation 11-4-23 asdi/dx = I/(I + 8/(3 (0.84)Y)XI/100) = 0.0021and from Equation 11-4-25, Ax = (0.56)/(1/100 -0.0021) = 70.9 m, andF_ = 0.56 + 0.0021(64.6) -0.65 mFor the simplified case of a plane beach with the assumption of linear wave height decay, the gradient in thesetup is constant through the surf zone. Setup may be calculated anywhere in the surf zone from the relation r"= ;-F + (di/dx)(xb -x), where x. is the surf zone width and x = 0 at the shoreline (x is positive offshore).x.m E h.m I q. m334 3.3 -0.14167 1.7 0.210 0.0 0.56-71 -0.7 0.71Setdown at breaking is -0.14 m, net setup at the sfill-water shoreline is 0.56 m, the gradient in the setup is0.0021 m/m, the mean shoreline is located 71 m shoreward ofthe still-water shoreline, and maximum setup is0.71 in (Figure 11-4-10).,=.71mFigure 11-4-10. Example problem 11-4-211-4-16Surf Zone Hydrodynamic FHR-COMBINED Page 199 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantComparison of ResultsThe comparison between CEDAS-ACES v.4.03 and benchmark calculations from Reference 1 arepresented in Table 3 below.Table 3: Summary of Calculated ResultsCalculation Output CEDAS USACE ACES User's Percentv.4.03 CEM Ch.4 Manual DifferencePart II benchmarkWave Wave Height 4.74 ft -4.74 ft 0.0%Prediction Wave Period 4.65 sec -4.65 sec 0.0%Wave Runup Runup 21.366 ft -21.366 ft 0.0%Wave Setup Max setup .66 m .65 m -_1.5%The results indicate no difference of the computed runup and wave prediction by CEDAS-ACES fromthe benchmark calculation results in Reference 1. Results for wave setup indicated a minor (less than2%) error compared to the example calculation provided in Reference 3.The percent difference is insignificant and believed to be a result of:1. More input parameters were used by the software than the hand calculation using Reference 3.2. Inherent variability in the hand calculation (i.e. rounding error).Therefore, CEDAS v.4.03 is determined to be acceptably accurate for its intended use for waveprediction, setup, and runup at GGNS.CEDAS-ACES User's Manual I DocumentationThe CEDAS-ACES User's Guide is filed with the project records. The source code is proprietary andnot readily available or distributed by the software vendor.Known DeficienciesAll known deficiencies of the software have been reviewed and have no effect on the accuracy of thedata created by this software. By monitoring the software provider's website, notifications of errors(bugs) and updates are evaluated for significance and resolved.Program Access/SecurityThis example calculation, selected for the software certification, is consistent with the intended softwareapplication Flood Hazard Re-evaluation projects. The computer software certification analysis wasperformed on the GZA workstation used for the calculation:* System Name:" Version:" Computer Name:* Processor* Memory:Microsoft Windows 072002, Service Pack 301-BONAVIntel Corem2 Duo CPU2.96 GB of RAM FHR-COMBINED Page 200 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantThe software is maintained on designated computers as an executable file to prevent unauthorizedediting. Access to each computer is password protected to restrict access and deletion. Passwords areselected by the employee. The GZA headquarters in Norwood, Massachusetts maintains the computersoftware on the following designated computers.Computer Name Program Name01-wangbin CEDAS v.4.03REFERENCES1. "Automated Coastal Engineering System Users Guide", Coastal Engineering Research Center,Leenknecht, David; Szuwalski, Andre, Version 1.07, September 1992.2. "Automated Coastal Engineering System Technical Reference", Coastal Engineerng ResearchCenter, Leenknecht, David; Szuwalski, Andre, Version 1.07, September 1992.3. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). Coastal Engineering Manual, Report Number EM 1110-2-1100 Part II Chapter 4 Surf Zone Hydrodynamics, U.S. ACE Coastal and HydraulicsLaboratory -Engineer Research and Development Center, Waterways Experiment Station -Vicksburg, Mississippi, August 2008. FHR-COMBINED Page 201 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantUSACE HEC-HMS VERSION 3.5 AND FLO-D2 VERSION 2012.02Note: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has beenarchived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor.The path to the file is:IcolIdGeneraI-Accessl32132-91 9O28O-OOO1officiaI FHR-COMBINED Page 202 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantSECTION 2.0: POST-CALCULATION VALIDATION RESULTSHEC-HMS v3.5 was tested on the computer used for this document by Kenneth Hunu on March 25,2013. The inputs for the installation test were the same as those used in the software verificationreports (Reference 25). The results of the installation test were acceptable. FHR-COMBINED Page 203 of 231Project: Post-Project-VerificationSimulation Run: Run 1 Subbasin: Subbasin-1Start of Run:End of Run:Compute Time:24Jan2012, 00:0025Jan2012, 00:0025Jan2013, 09:00:11Volume Units: INBasin Model:Meteorologic Model:Control Specifications:Basin 1Met 1Control 1Computed ResultsPeak Discharge:Total PrecipitationTotal Loss:Total Excess:2317.5 (CFS)5.00 (IN)1.63 (IN)3.37 (IN)Date/Time of Peak Discharge:Total Direct Runoff:Total Baseflow:Discharge :24Jan2012, 06:203.37 (IN)0.00 (IN)3.37 (IN) FHR-COMBINED Page 204 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantFLO-2D Pro Version 2012.02 was tested on the computer used for this document by Kenneth Hunu onApril 4, 2013. The inputs for the installation test were the same as those used in the softwareverification reports (Reference 24). The results of the installation test were acceptable. FHR-COMBINED Page 205 of 231BASE(C) COPYRIGHT 1989, 1993, 2004 J. S. OBRIENTHIS FLO-2D COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROGRAM IS PROTECTED BYU. S. COPYRIGHT LAW. UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, SALESOR OTHER USE FOR PROFIT IS PROHIBITED (17 USC 506).INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 1HOUR CFS0.00 0.0.50 2000.2.00 2000.INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 2HOUR CFS0.00 0.0.50 2000.2.00 2000.INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 3HOUR CFS0.00 0.0.50 2000.2.00 2000.INFLOW HYDROGRAPH AT NODE 4HOUR CFS0.00 0.0.50 2000.2.00 2000.THIS OUTPUT FILE WAS CREATED ON: 4/ 4/2013 AT: 15: 6:25Pro Model -Build No. 12.09.01MODEL TIME = 0.10 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 536.NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL.2 NO DISCHARGE AT THE SPECIFIED CROSS SECTIONS *AT THIS TIMESTEPCROSS SECTION # 177 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0078 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0079 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0080 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CROSS SECTION # 1

NO DISCHARGE *CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00158 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00159 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00160 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CROSS SECTION # 2
NO DISCHARGE *CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FTCROSS SECTION # 3233 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00234 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00235 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00236 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CROSS SECTION # 3
NO DISCHARGE *Page 1 FHR-COMBINED Page 206 of 231BASECROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FTMIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.36 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) =30.00 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.67MODEL TIME = 0.20 HOURS TOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 1383.NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL.CROSS SECTION # 177 6.00 3.22 -626.86 3.91 -3.3478 6.00 3.22 -626.89 3.92 -3.1579 6.00 3.22 -625.84 3.91 -3.1480 6.00 3.22 -625.19 3.92 -3.33CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 2504.79 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 3.89 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 3.22 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00158 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00159 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00160 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CROSS SECTION # 2
NO DISCHARGE *CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FTCROSS SECTION # 3233 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00234 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00235 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00236 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00CROSS SECTION # 3
NO DISCHARGE *CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 0.00 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 0.00 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 0.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 0.00 FTMIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.35 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.51 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.43MODEL TIME = 0.30 HOURS TOTAL TIMES7NODE BED ELEV. DEPTH Q-OUTCROSS SECTION # 177 6.00 4.47 -1051.9578 6.00 4.47 -1052.0779 6.00 4.47 -1051.4280 6.00 4.47 -1047.25CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 4202.68 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 4.70 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 4.47 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 3.95 -877.72158 3.00 3.95 -877.73TEP NUMBER = 2542.MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL.4.724.724.734.724.464.46-4.03-3.80-3.80-4.00-3.81-3.59Page 2 FHR-COMBINED Page 207 of 231BASE159 3.00 3.95 -877.39160 3.00 3.95 -875.65CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 3508.49 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 4.44 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 3.95 FT4.474.47-3.59-3.80CROSS SECTION #3233 0.15 3.34 -603.73234 0.15 3.34 -603.58235 0.15 3.34 -602.47236 0.15 3.34 -604.40CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 2414.17 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 3.62 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 3.34 FT3.623.623.613.63-3.09-2.91-2.91-3.09MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.05 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.42MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.31MODEL TIME = 0.40 HOURSNODE BED ELEV. DEPTHTOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 3068.Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL.CROSS SECTION # 177 6.00 5.52 -1471.1778 6.00 5.52 -1471.0679 6.00 5.52 -1471.0180 6.00 5.52 -1470.83CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 5884.06 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.33 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 5.52 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 5.19 -1328.7S158 3.00 5.19 -1328.25159 3.00 5.19 -1328.11160 3.00 5.19 -1328.07CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 5313.18 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.12 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 5.19 FTCROSS SECTION # 3233 0.15 4.97 -1173.76234 0.15 4.97 -1174.87235 0.15 4.97 -1173.07236 0.15 4.97 -1174.78CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 4696.48 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 4.73 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 4.97 FTS.345.345.345.345.135.135.135.13-4.56-4.30-4.29-4.56-4.38-4.13-4.13-4.384.734.734.724.73-4.04-3.81-3.80-4.04MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.42 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) =0.95 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.69MODEL TIME = 0.50 HOURSNODE BED ELEV. DEPTHTOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 3438.Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL.1777879CROSS SECTION #6.00 6.446.00 6.446.00 6.44-1882.63-1882.63-1882.635.865.865.86-5.00-4.71-4.71Page 3 FHR-COMBINED Page 208 of 231BASE80 6.00 6.44 -1882.63CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7530.53 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.85 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.44 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 6.19 -1757.61158 3.00 6.19 -1757.61159 3.00 6.19 -1757.61160 3.00 6.19 -1757.61CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7030.43 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.68 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.19 FTCROSS SECTION # 3233 0.15 6.05 -1630.78234 0.15 6.05 -1630.78235 0.15 6.05 -1630.78236 0.15 6.05 -1630.78CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 6523.11 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.39 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.05 FT5.86-5.005.685.685.685.685.405.405.405.40-4.85-4.57-4.57-4.85-4.61-4.34-4.34-4.61MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.92MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) =1.03 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.97MODEL TIME = 0.60 HOURSNODE BED ELEV. DEPTHTOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 3846.Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL.CROSS SECTION # 177 6.00 6.79 -1992.4878 6.00 6.79 -1992.4879 6.00 6.79 -1992.4880 6.00 6.79 -1992.48CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7969.91 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.87 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.79 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 6.74 -1974.05158 3.00 6.74 -1974.05159 3.00 6.74 -1974.05160 3.00 6.74 -1974.05CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7896.20 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.74 FTCROSS SECTION # 3233 0.15 6.71 -1944.82234 0.15 6.71 -1944.82235 0.15 6.71 -1944.82236 0.15 6.71 -1944.82CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7779.29 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.79 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.71 FT5.875.875.875.87-5.01-4.73-4.73-5.015.865.865.865.86-5.00-4.71-4.71-5.005.795.795.795.79-4.95-4.66-4.66-4.95MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) =0.92 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.88Page 4 FHR-COMBINED Page 209 of 231BASEMODEL TIME = 0.70 HOURSNODE BED ELEV. DEPTHTOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER = 4269.Q-OUT MAX. VEL. AVE. VEL.CROSS SECTION # 177 6.00 6.82 -1999.1378 6.00 6.82 -1999.1379 6.00 6.82 -1999.1380 6.00 6.82 -1999.13CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7996.52 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 6.82 -1997.04158 3.00 6.82 -1997.04159 3.00 6.82 -1997.04160 3.00 6.82 -1997.04CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7988.16 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FTCROSS SECTION # 3233 0.15 6.81 -1993.78234 0.15 6.81 -1993.78235 0.15 6.81 -1993.78236 0.15 6.81 -1993.78CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7975.11 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.85 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.81 FT5.865.865.865.86-5.00-4.72-4.72-5.005.865.865.865.865.855.855.855.85-5.00-4.72-4.72-5.00-5.00-4.71-4.71-5.00MIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) =0.86 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85MODEL TIME = 0.80 HOURSNODE BED ELEV. DEPTHTOTAL TIMESTEP NUMBER =Q-OUT MAX. VEL.CROSS SECTION # 177 6.00 6.82 -1999.9078 6.00 6.82 -1999.9079 6.00 6.82 -1999.9080 6.00 6.82 -1999.90CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7999.60 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FTCROSS SECTION # 2157 3.00 6.82 -1999.66158 3.00 6.82 -1999.66159 3.00 6.82 -1999.66160 3.00 6.82 -1999.66CROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7998.63 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FT5.865.865.865.865.865.865.865.865.865.865.865.864692.AVE. VEL.-5.00-4.72-4.72-5.00-5.00-4.72-4.72-5.00-5.00-4.72-4.72-5.00233234235236CROSS SECTION # 30.15 6.82 -1999.280.15 6.82 -1999.280.15 6.82 -1999.280.15 6.82 -1999.28Page 5 FHR-COMBINED Page 210 of 231BASECROSS SECTION DISCHARGE = 7997.14 CFSAVERAGE CROSS SECTION VELOCITY = 5.86 FPSCROSS SECTION FLOW WIDTH = 200.00 FTAVERAGE CROSS SECTION DEPTH = 6.82 FTMIN. TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.84 MAX. TIMESTEP(SEC.) =0.85 MEAN TIMESTEP(SEC.) = 0.85MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE VALUES FOR FLOODPLAINNODE10ELEVATION15.37MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.98TIME0.80MAX VEL5.98DEPTH6.66TIME0.S0NODE20ELEVATION15.07MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.97TIME0.80MAX VEL5.97DEPTH6.64TIME0.50NODE30ELEVATION14.62MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.95TIME0.80MAX VEL5.95DEPTH6.62TIME0.50NODE40ELEVATION14.32MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.95TIME0.80MAX VEL5.95DEPTH6.60TIME0.50NODE50ELEVATION13.87MAX DEPTH115.676.825.990.805.996.670.501115.376.825.980.805.986.660.502114.926.825.960.805.966.630.503114.626.825.950.805.956.620.504114.176.82215.676.825.990.805.996.670.501215.376.825.980.805.986.660.502214.926.825.960.805.966.630.503214.626.825.950.805.956.620.504214.176.82315.676.825.990.805.996.670.501315.226.825.970.805.976.650.502314.926.825.960.805.966.630.503314.476.825.950.805.956.610.504314.176.82415.676.825.990.805.996.670.501415.226.825.970.805.976.650.502414.926.825.960.805.966.630.503414.476.825.950.805.956.610.504414.176.82515.526.825.980.805.986.660.501515.226.825.970.805.976.650.502514.776.825.960.805.966.620.503514.476.825.950.805.956.610.504514.026.82615.526.825.980.805.986.660.501615.226.825.970.805.976.650.502614.776.825.960.805.966.620.503614.476.825.950.805.956.610.504614.026.82715.526.825.980.805.986.660.501715.076.825.970.805.976.640.502714.776.825.960.805.966.620.503714.326.825.950.805.956.600.504714.026.82815.526.825.980.805.986.660.501815.076.825.970.805.976.640.502814.776.825.960.805.966.620.503814.326.825.950.805.956.600.504814.026.82915.376.825.980.805.986.660.501915.076.825.970.805.976.640.502914.626.825.950.805.956.620.503914.326.825.950.805.956.600.504913.876.82Page 6 FHR-COMBINED Page 211 of 2316.82VELOCITY5.93TIME0.80MAX VEL5.93DEPTH6.60TIME0.51NODE60ELEVATION13.57MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.93TIME0.80MAX VEL5.93DEPTH6.60TIME0.51NODE70ELEVATION13.12MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.92TIME0.80MAX VEL5.92DEPTH6.60TIME0.52NODE80ELEVATION12.82MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.91TIME0.80MAX VEL5.91DEPTH6.60TIME0.52NODE90ELEVATION12.37MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.90TIME0.80MAX VEL5.90DEPTH6.60TIME0.53NODE100ELEVATION12.07MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.89TIME0.805.940.805.946.600.515113.876.825.930.805.936.600.516113.426.825.920.805.926.600.517113.126.825.920.805.926.600.528112.676.825.910.805.916.600.529112.376.825.900.805.940.805.946.600.515213.876.825.930.805.936.600.516213.426.825.920.805.926.600.517213.126.825.920.805.926.600.528212.676.825.910.805.916.600.529212.376.825.900.805.940.805.946.600.515313.726.825.930.805.936.600.516313.426.825.920.805.926.600.517312.976.825.910.805.916.600.528312.676.825.910.805.916.600.529312.226.825.900.80BASE5.940.805.946.600.515413.726.825.930.805.936.600.516413.426.825.920.805.926.600.517412.976.825.910.805.916.600.528412.676.825.910.805.916.600.529412.226.825.900.805.940.805.946.600.515513.726.825.930.805.936.600.516513.276.825.920.805.926.600.527512.976.825.910.805.916.600.528512.526.825.900.805.906.600.539512.226.825.900.805.940.805.946.600.515613.726.825.930.805.936.600.516613.276.825.920.805.926.600.527612.976.825.910.805.916.600.528612.526.825.900.805.906.600.539612.226.825.900.805.940.805.946.600.515713.576.825.930.805.936.600.516713.276.825.920.805.926.600.527712.826.825.910.805.916.600.528712.526.825.900.805.906.600.539712.076.825.890.805.940.805.946.600.515813.576.825.930.805.936.600.516813.276.825.920.805.926.600.527812.826.825.910.805.916.600.528812.526.825.900.805.906.600.539812.076.825.890.805.930.805.936.600.515913.576.825.930.805.936.600.516913.126.825.920.805.926.600.527912.826.825.910.805.916.600.528912.376.825.900.805.906.600.539912.076.825.890.80Page 7 FHR-COMBINED Page 212 of 231MAX VEL5.89DEPTH6.61TIME0.53NODE110ELEVATION11.62MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.89TIME0.80MAX VEL5.89DEPTH6.62TIME0.54NODE120ELEVATION11.32MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.88TIME0.80MAX VEL5.88DEPTH6.62TIME0.54NODE130ELEVATION10.87MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.87TIME0.80MAX VEL5.87DEPTH6.64TIME0.55NODE140ELEVATION10.57MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.87TIME0.80MAX VEL5.87DEPTH6.67TIME0.56NODE150ELEVATION10.12MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME5.906.600.5310111.926.825.890.805.896.610.5311111.626.825.890.805.896.620.5412111.176.825.880.805.886.630.5513110.876.825.870.805.876.640.5514110.426.825.860.805.866.690.575.906.610.5310211.926.825.890.805.896.610.5311211.626.825.890.805.896.620.5412211.176.825.880.805.886.630.5513210.876.825.870.805.876.640.5514210.426.825.860.805.866.690.575.906.610.5310311.926.825.890.805.896.610.5311311.476.825.880.805.886.620.5412311.176.825.880.805.886.630.5513310.726.825.870.805.876.650.5614310.426.825.860.805.866.690.57BASE5.906.610.5310411.926.825.890.805.896.610.5311411.476.825.880.805.886.620.5412411.176.825.880.805.886.630.5513410.726.825.870.805.876.660.5614410.426.825.860.805.866.680.575.906.610.5310511.776.825.890.805.896.610.5411511.476.825.880.805.886.620.5412511.026.825.870.805.876.640.5513510.726.825.870.805.876.650.5614510.276.825.860.805.866.720.585.906.610.5310611.776.825.890.805.896.610.5411611.476.825.880.805.886.620.5412611.026.825.870.805.876.640.5513610.726.825.870.805.876.660.5614610.276.825.860.805.866.720.585.896.610.5310711.776.825.890.805.896.610.5411711.326.825.880.805.886.630.5412711.026.825.870.805.876.640.5513710.576.825.870.805.876.670.5614710.276.825.860.805.866.720.585.896.610.5310811.776.825.890.805.896.620.5411811.326.825.880.805.886.620.5412811.026.825.870.805.876.640.5513810.576.825.870.805.876.670.5614810.276.825.860.805.866.720.585.896.610.5310911.626.825.890.805.896.620.5411911.326.825.880.805.886.630.5412910.876.825.870.805.876.650.5513910.576.82S.870.805.876.670.5614910.126.825.860.805.866.820.80Page 8 FHR-COMBINED Page 213 of 231BAS E0.80NODE160ELEVATION9.82MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE170ELEVATION9.37MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE180ELEVATION9.07MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE190ELEVATION8.62MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE200ELEVATION8.32MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE210ELEVATION15110.126.825.860.805.866.820.801619.676.825.860.805.866.820.801719.376.825.860.805.866.820.801818.926.825.860.805.866.820.801918.626.825.860.805.866.820.802018.1715210.126.825.860.805.866.820.801629.676.825.860.805.866.820.801729.376.825.860.805.866.820.801828.926.825.860.805.866.820.801928.626.825.860.805.866.820.802028.171539.976.825.860.805.866.820.801639.676.825.860.805.866.820.801739.226.825.860.805.866.820.801838.926.825.860.805.866.820.801938.476.825.860.805.866.820.802038.171549.976.825.860.805.866.820.801649.676.825.860.805.866.820.801749.226.825.860.805.866.820.801848.926.825.860.805.866.820.801948.476.825.860.805.866.820.802048.17Page 91559.976.825.860.805.866.820.801659.526.825.860.805.866.820.801759.226.825.860.805.866.820.801858.776.825.860.805.866.820.801958.476.825.860.805.866.820.802058.021569.976.825.860.805.866.820.801669.526.825.860.805.866.820.801769.226.825.860.805.866.820.801868.776.825.860.805.866.820.801968.476.825.860.805.866.820.802068.021579.826.825.860.805.866.820.801679.526.825.860.805.866.820.801779.076.825.860.805.866.820.801878.776.825.860.805.866.820.801978.326.825.860.805.866.820.802078.021589.826.825.860.805.866.820.801689.526.825.860.805.866.820.801789.076.825.860.805.866.820.801888.776.825.860.805.866.820.801988.326.825.860.805.866.820.802088.021599.826.825.860.805.866.820.801699.376.825.860.805.866.820.801799.076.825.860.805.866.820.801898.626.825.860.805.866.820.801998.326.825.860.805.866.820.802097.87 FHR-COMBINED Page 214 of 2317.87MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE220ELEVATION7.57MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE230ELEVATION7.12MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY5.86TIME0.80MAX VEL5.86DEPTH6.82TIME0.80NODE240ELEVATION6.82MAX DEPTH6.82VELOCITY0.00TIME0.80MAX VEL0.00DEPTH0.00TIME0.006.825.860.805.866.820.802117.876.825.860.805.866.820.802217.426.825.860.805.866.820.802317.126.825.860.805.866.820.806.825.860.805.866.820.802127.876.825.860.805.866.820.802227.426.825.860.805.866.820.802327.126.825.860.805.866.820.806.825.860.805.866.820.802137.726.825.860.805.866.820.802237.426.825.860.805.866.820.802336.976.825.860.805.866.820.80BASE6.825.860.805.866.820.802147.726.825.860.805.866.820.802247.426.825.860.805.866.820.802346.976.825.860.805.866.820.806.825.860.805.866.820.802157.726.825.860.805.866.820.802257.276.825.860.805.866.820.802356.976.825.860.805.866.820.806.825.860.805.866.820.802167.726.825.860.805.866.820.802267.276.825.860.805.866.820.802366.976.825.860.805.866.820.806.825.860.805.866.820.802177.576.825.860.805.866.820.802277.276.825.860.805.866.820.802376.826.820.000.800.000.000.006.825.860.805.866.820.802187.576.825.860.805.866.820.802287.276.825.860.805.866.820.802386.826.820.000.800.000.000.006.825.860.805.866.820.802197.576.825.860.805.866.820.802297.126.825.860.805.866.820.802396.826.820.000.800.000.000.00MASS BALANCE INFLOW -OUTFLOW VOLUME* INFLOW (ACRE-FEET) *WATERINFLOW HYDROGRAPH 363.84* OUTFLOW (ACRE-FT) *OVERLAND FLOWFLOODPLAIN STORAGEWATER92.43Page 10 FHR-COMBINED Page 215 of 231BASE271.41363.84FLOODPLAIN OUTFLOW HYDROGRAPHFLOODPLAIN OUTFLOW AND STORAGETOTALS *TOTAL OUTFLOW FROM GRID SYSTEM 271.41TOTAL VOLUME OF OUTFLOW AND STORAGE 363.84SURFACE AREA OF INUNDATION REGARDLESS OF THE TIME OF OCCURRENCE:(FOR FLOW DEPTHS GREATER THAN THE "TOL" VALUE TYPICALLY 0.1 FT OR 0.03 M)THE MAXIMUM INUNDATED AREA IS: 13.77 ACRESCOMPUTER RUN TIME IS : 0.00049 HRSTHIS OUTPUT FILE WAS TERMINATED ON: 4/ 4/2013 AT: 15: 6:27Page 11 FHR-COMBINED Page 216 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantCEDAS-ACES 4.03 was tested on the computer used for this document by Bin Wang on March 25,2013. The inputs for the installation test were the same as those used in the software verificationreports (Reference 9). The results of the installation test were acceptable.Project: Glinna Wind Wave Run UpGroup: Post VerflcatonCase: Smooth Slop Runup 342512013Wave Runup and Overtopping on Impermeable StructuresWave type: brgulr Slope type: SmoothRate esfmate: Runp and OvertoppingBredna cttera:i 0.7W.cident- signiicman_ wav- ht (HI): 7--f Runup tor atCOTAN of neuhou e (cot phil I"o.oo IWater depth at stuctr toe (ds): 12- ftCOT of uctur slope (cot Usets):j 3.,_o_Structure height above toe (ha): 20.0ft nC_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I I I _ _

FHR-COMBINED Page 217 of 231AAR EVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nudear Power PlantProject: Ginna Wind Wave Run UpGroup: Post VerilicationCase: Wave Prediction Verification 3/2512013Windspeed Adjustment and Wave Growth0.71I-I-ouewmr aymww) [nopewasiw8 of Oibe e-e Wind (Zobs)Obesd oind Speed (Uo)AP Sea TOmp. Duf. (drl)Omr s ObWeved Wod (Dm0)Dur of Rina rWnd Lat. of Obervaulon (LAT)ResultsWind Feth LengM (F)Eq Nutra Wnd Speed (Up)A4usefd Wkd Sped (OW)Wov He I'M !(ao)awa Poriod (Op)3.0A3A045M0betdeg FhourshotadogWove Growth:DMP FHR-COMBINED Page 218 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX K: 1 HOUR WATER LEVEL DATANote: Due to the size of the data in this appendix, the information has beenarchived in the AREVA file management system, ColdStor.The path to the file is:\cold\GeneraI-Access\32\32-9190280-000\officiaIPage K-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 219 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX L: 25 YEAR SURGE CALCULATIONPage L-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 220 of 231Table L-1: Rochester, NY Yearly Maximums and Logarithmic TransformationsYear Surge (m) Log(Surge)1989 0.3962 -0.4021996 0.3146 -0.5021964 0.3003 -0.5221986 0.2476 -0.6062001 0.2462 -0.6091974 0.236 -0.6272006 0.2268 -0.6441992 0.2229 -0.6522000 0.2218 -0.6541973 0.2202 -0.6571988 0.2048 -0.6891999 0.2047 -0.6892008 0.2026 -0.6931993 0.1995 -0.7001984 0.1954 -0.7091972 0.184 -0.7352011 0.1787 -0.7481994 0.1763 -0.7542003 0.1744 -0.7581966 0.1721 -0.7641977 0.1676 -0.7761985 0.1664 -0.7791981 0.1661 -0.7802007 0.1661 -0.7801998 0.163 -0.7882010 0.1595 -0.7971968 0.1589 -0.7991983 0.1587 -0.7991965 0.1523 -0.8172009 0.1446 -0.8401991 0.1398 -0.8541980 0.139 -0.8571990 0.1384 -0.8591967 0.1356 -0.8681969 0.1328 -0.8771982 0.1327 -0.8771971 0.1316 -0.8811975 0.131 -0.8832002 0.1305 -0.8841979 0.1302 -0.8851963 0.1297 -0.8872005 0.1296 -0.8871995 0.1289 -0.8901997 0.1251 -0.9031978 0.1245 -0.9051962 0.122 -0.9141976 0.1206 -0.9191987 0.1158 -0.9361970 0.1084 -0.9652004 0.0991 -1.004 FHR-COMBINED Page 221 of 231I A I B I CH1 Table L-1: Rochester, NY Yearly Maximums and Logarithmic Transformations2 Year Surge in) Log(Surge)3 1989 0.3962 =LOG(B3)4 1996 0.3146 =LOG(B4)5 1964 0.3003 =LOG(BS)6 1986 0.2476 =LOG(B6)7 2001 0.2462 =LOG(B7)8 1974 0.236 =LOG(B8)9 2006 0.2268 =LOG(B9)10 1992 0.2229 =LOG(B1O)11 2000 0.2218 =LOG(B11)12 1973 0.2202 =LOG(B12)13 1988 0.2048 =LOG(B13)14 1999 0.2047 =LOG(B14)15 2008 0.2026 =LOG(B15)16 1993 0.1995 =LOG(B16)17 1984 0.1954 =LOG(B17)18 1972 0.184 =LOG(B18)19 2011 0.1787 =LOG(B19)20 1994 0.1763 =LOG(B20)21 2003 0.1744 =LOG(B21)22 1966 0.1721 =LOG(B22)23 1977 0.1676 =LOG(B23)24 1985 0.1664 =LOG(B24)25 1981 0.1661 =LOG(B25)26 2007 0.1661 =LOG(B26)27 1998 0.163 =LOG(B27)28 2010 0.1595 =LOG(B28)29 1968 0.1589 =LOG(B29)30 1983 0.1587 =LOG(B30)31 1965 0.1523 =LOG(B31)32 2009 0.1446 =LOG(B32)33 1991 0.1398 =LOG(B33)34 1980 0.139 =LOG(B34)35 1990 0.1384 =LOG(B35)36 1967 0.1356 =LOG(B36)37 1969 0.1328 =LOG(B37)38 1982 0.1327 =LOG(B38)39 1971 0.1316 =LOG(B39)40 1975 0.131 =LOG(B40)41 2002 0.1305 =LOG(B41)42 1979 0.1302 =LOG(B42)43 1963 0.1297 =LOG(B43)44 2005 0.1296 =LOG(944)45 1995 0.1289 =LOG(B45)46 1997 0.1251 =LOG(B46)4711978 0.1245 =LOG(B47)48 1962 0.122 =LOG(B48)49 1976 0.1206 =LOG(B49)50 1987 0.1158 =LOG(B50)51 1970 0.1084 =LOG(B51)52 2004 0.0991 =LOG(B52) FHR-COMBINED Page 222 of 231Table L-2: Statistical Analysis of Maximum Hourly Surge Water Level Data at Rochester, NYNo. Years in Record 50Average Surge Water Level (SWL) (m) 0.173Average Log of SWL -0.78Variance Log of SWL (m) 0.01591Stdev Log of SWL (m) 0.12613Skew (Sy) 0.80Skew = 0.80Return Period Exceedance Probability K Log SWL (m) SWL (m) SWL (ft)2 0.5 -0.132 -0.797 0.160 0.515 0.2 0.780 -0.682 0.208 0.6710 0.1 1.336 -0.612 0.245 0.7825 0.04 1.993 -0.529 0.296 0.9550 0.02 2.453 -0.471 0.338 1.09 FHR-COMBINED Page 223 of 231AI B I C I DE F1 Table L-2: Statistical Analysis of Maximum Hourly Surge Water Level Data at Rochester, NY2 No. Years in Record =COUNT('Table L-1'!A3:A52)3 Average Surge Water Level (SWL) (m) =AVERAGE('Table L-1'!B3:BS2)4 Average Log of SWL =AVERAGE('Table L-1'!C3:C52)5 Variance Log of SWL (m) =VAR(Table L-1'!C3:C52)6 Stdev Log of SWL (m) =STDEV('Table L-1'!C3:C52)7 Skew (Sy) =SKEW('Table L-1'!C3:C52)810 Skew = =B711 Return Period Exceedance Probability K Log SWL (m) SWL (m) SWL (ft)12 2 =1/A12 -0.13199 =SB$4+(C12*$BS6) =10^D12 =E12"3.208413 5 =1/A13 0.77986 =SB$4+(C13*SBS6) =10^D13 =E13*3.208414 10 =1/A14 1.3364 =$B$4+(C14*$B$6) =10AD14 =E14"3.208415 25 =1/A15 1.99311 =SB$4+(C15*SB$6) =10AD15 =E15"3.208416 50 =1/A16 2.45298 =$B$4+(C16*SB$6) =10^D16 =E16"3.2084 FHR-COMBINED Page 224 of 231AAREVAFlood Hazard Re-evaluation -Combined Events Flood Analysis for R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power PlantAPPENDIX M: 25 YEAR PRECIPITATION DATAPage M-1 FHR-COMBINED Page 225 of 231 FHR-COMBINED Page 226 of 231Extreme Precipitation Tables: 43.277°N, 77.31 FWExtreme Precipitation TablesNortheast Regional Climate CenterData represents point estimates calculated from partial duration serie& All precipiation amounts are displayed in inchesSmoothing NoState New YorkLocation near 1487 Lake Road, Ontario, NY 14519, USALongitude 77.3 10 degrees WestLatitude 43.277 degrees NorthElevation 270 feetDate/Time Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:52:45 -0400Page 1 of IExtreme Precipitation EstimatesI5min 10min 15min 30min 60min 120min Ihr 2hr 3hr 6hr I12hr 24hr 48hr Iday 2day 4day 7day IOdaylyr 0.26 0.40 0.49 0.66 0.81 0.92 lyr 0.70 0.90 1.03 1.27 1.53 1.85 2.07 lyr 1.64 1.99 2.39 2.87 3.30 lyr2yr 0.30 0.47 0.57 0.78 0.96 1.09 2yr 0.83 1.06 1.19 1.47 1.77 2.17 2.43 2yr 1.92 2.34 2.75 3.26 3.73 2yr5yr 0.35 0.55 0.68 0.93 1.18 1.35 5yr 1.02 1.32 1.49 1.80 2.18 2.66 2.99 5yr 2.35 2.88 3.35 3.92 4.48 5yr10yr 0.41 0.62 0.77 1.08 1.39 1.59 10yr 1.20 1.55 1.76 2.11 2.55 3.10 3.51 10yr 2.74 3.37 3.90 4.51 5.15 1Oyr25yr 0.49 0.74 0.92 1.32 1.73 1.97 25yr 1.49 1.93 2.20 2.60 3.15 3.79 4.32 25yr 3.36 4.16 4.76 5.44 6.20 25yr50yr 0.56 0.85 1.06 1.52 2.04 2.33 50yr 1.76 2.28 2.60 3.05 3.70 4.42 5.07 50yr 3.91 4.87 5.54 6.26 7.14 50yr70 0yr 0.64 0.97 1.22 1.76 2.41 2.75 100yr 2.08 2.69 3.09 3.58 4.36 5.16 5.94 100yr 4.56 5.71 6.45 7.21 8.21 lOOyr200y r 0 .7 4 1.12 1.4 1 2 .0 5 2 .8 5 3 .2 6 200 y r 2 .4 6 3 .18 3 .6 8 4 .2 1 5 .12 6 .0 1 6 .9 7 2 0 0 y r 5 .3 2 6 .7 1 7 .5 1 8 .3 0 9 .4 6 2 0 0 y r500yr 0 .90 1.34 1.73 2.51 3.57 4.07 500yr 3.08 3.98 4.63 5.22 6.37 7.38 8.62 500yr 6.53 8.29 9.18 1001 11.40 500yrLower Confidence Limits5min 10min 15min 30min 60min 120mrin Ihr 2hr 3hr 6hr l2hr 24hr 48hr Iday 2day 4day 7day lOdaylyr 0.21 0.33 0.40 0.54 0.66 0.74 lyr 0.57 0.72 0.83 1.07 1.41 1.71 1.81 lyr 1.51 1.74 2.20 2.55 2.98 lyr2yr 0.29 0.45 0.55 0.75 0.92 1.03 2yr 0.80 1.01 1.15 1.41 1.71 2.12 2.38 2yr 1.87 2.28 2.69 3.18 3.65 2yr5yr 0.33 0.50 0.62 0.86 1.09 1.23 5yr 0.94 1.20 1.35 1.65 2.01 2.50 2.82 5yr 2.21 2.71 3.14 3.69 4.23 53r10yr 0.36 0.55 0.68 0.95 1.22 1.38 10yr 1.06 1.35 1.51 1.85 2.24 2.81 3.19 10yr 2.49 3.07 3.50 4.10 4.68 lOyr25yr 0.40 0.61 0.76 1.09 1.43 1.61 25yr 1.24 1.57 1.75 2.14 2.58 3.25 3.77 25yr 2.88.3.63 4.03 4.71 5.37 25yr50yr 0.44 0.67 0.84 1.20 1.62 1.80 50yr 1.40 1.76 1.95 2.40 2.86 3.64 4.27 50yr 3.22 4.1t 4.49 5.23 5.94 50yr1OOyr 0.49 0.73 0.92 1.33 1.82 2.01 IOOyr 1.57 1.97 2.15 2.67 3.17 4.06 4.84 lO vr 3.59 4.65 5.01 5.80 6.57 IOOyr200yr 0.53 0. 80 1.01 47 205 2.26 200yr 1.77 2.21 2.38 2.98 3.49 4.53 5.48 200yr 4.01 5.27 5.55 6.42 7.25 200 yr500yr 0.60 0.90 1.15 1.67 2.38 2.62 500yr 2.05 2.56 2.72 3.44 3.97 5.21 6.48 500yr 4.61 6.23 6.34 7.34 8.26 500yrUpper Confidence Limits5m in 10m in 15m i r 30m i r 60m i r 120m in Ilhr 2hr 3hr 6hr 12hr 24hr 48hr Iday 2day 4day 7day 10daylyr 0.29 0.45 0.55 0.74 0.91 1.02 lyr 0.78 1.00 1.14 1.40 1.72 1.99 2.26 lyr 1.76 2.17 2.57 3.05 3.54 lyr2yr 0.31 0.49 0.60 081 1.00 1.13 2yr 0.86 1.11 1.25 1.52 1.85 2.26 2.50 2yr 2.00 2.40 2.85 3.34 3.85 2yr5yr 0.38 0.59 0.74 1.01 L .28 1.48 5yr 1.11 1.44 1.63 1.95 2.34 2.85 3.19 5yr 2.52 3.07 3.56 4.14 4.75 5yr10yr 0.45 0.70 0.87 1.21 1.56 1.81 10yr 1.35 1.77 2.00 2.38 2.83 3.42 3.84 10yr 3.03 3.70 4.24 4.88 5.60 10yr25yr 0.58 0.88 1.09 1.56 2.05 2.40 25yr 1.77 2.35 2.64 3.09 3.65 4.38 4.93 25yr 3.87 4.74 5.36 6.08 6.96 25yr50yr 0.68 1.04 1.30 1.86 2.51 2.96 50yr 2.16 2.89 3.27 3.78 4.42 5.26 5.95 50yr 4.65 5.72 6.40 7.19 8.23 50yr100yr 0.82 1.24 1.55 2.24 3.07 3.65 10 0yr 2.65 3.57 4.04 4.60 5.38 6.36 7.18 100yr 5.63 6.91 7.66 8.49 9.72 Io0yr200yr 098 147 1.86 270 3.76 4.51 200yr 3.25 4.41 5.02 5.62 6.53 7.67 8.66 200yr 6.79 8.33 9.16 10.03 11.49 200yr5 0 0yr 7.2 5 1 .85 2 3 8 3 4 6 4 .9 3 5 .9 8 5 0 0y r 4 .2 5 5 .84 6 .6 9 7 .3 5 8 .4 7 9 .8 4 11 .13 5 0 0y r 8 .7 1 10 .70 1 1.6 2 12 .5 3 14 .3 5 ;0 0 y r~ oeeyAISfile:///C:AJsers/christine.suhonen/Downloads/output%20( 1 ).htm3/28/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 227 of 231Precipitation Distribution CurvePage 1 of 5Precipitation Distribution(43.224N, -77.347W) -25yr -SmoothedIw-E1.0-0.9-0.8-0.7-0.6-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.1 -0.0-.. ...... .............. ............. ........ .. .... ... ... ..... ............. .". ..... .....". ..........i" ' i '- ' " i ' --i ---- --..-- ---."..."" " -' '- i ......'-- " -' " " ...............i -.-:: -.-.-..i .....-..: i ...i .......... ...-.- ..-- .- -.-.- .... .......... ........... ................... .... ............... ... ... .....: ! :..............* .! CJ!n ae Center... ................... ......... .ii i i -i i ! ...... ......i ~ i '-............. .i ........I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I0 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24Duraton (hours)Time 25yr Accumulation(hours) (dimensionless)0.0 0.00000.1 0.00080.2 0.00160.3 0.00240.4 0.00320.5 0.00400.6 0. 00490.7 0.00570.8 0.00650.9 0.00741.0 0.00821.1 0.00911.2 0.00991.3 0.01081.4 0.01171.5 0.0126http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php?13644828466523/28/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 228 of 231Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 2 of 51.6 0. 01341.7 0.01431.8 0.01521.9 0.01612.0 0.01702.1 0.01802.2 0.01892.3 0.01982.4 0.02072.5 0.02172.6 0.02262.7 0.02362.8 0.02452.9 0.02553.0 0.02643.1 0.02743.2 0.02843.3 0.02933.4 0.03033.5 0.03133.6 0.03233.7 0.03333.8 0.03433.9 0.03534.0 0.03634.1 0.03744.2 0.03844.3 0.03944.4 0.04054.5 0.04154.6 0.04264.7 0.04364.8 0.04474.9 0.04585.0 0.04685.1 0.04795.2 0.04905.3 0.05015.4 0.05125.5 0.05235.6 0.05345.7 0.05455.8 0.05565.9 0.05686.0 0.05796.1 0.05956.2 0.06126.3 0.06296.4 0.06466.5 0.06636.6 0.06816.7 0.06996.8 0.07176.9 0.07357.0 0.07547.1 0.07737.2 0.07927.3 0.08117.4 0.08307.5 0.0850http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php?1 364482846652.3/28/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 229 of 231Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 3 of 57.6 0.08707.7 0.08907.8 0.09107.9 0.09308.0 0.09518.1 0.09728.2 0.09938.3 0.10158.4 0.10368.5 0.10588.6 0.10808.7 0.11038.8 0.11258.9 0.11489.0 0.11719.1 0.12029.2 0.12339.3 0.12669.4 0.13009.5 0.13359.6 0.13719.7 0.14099.8 0.14479.9 0.148710.0 0.152810.1 0.157010.2 0.161310.3 0.165810.4 0.170310.5 0.175010.6 0.181910.7 0.189110.8 0.196710.9 0.204811.0 0.213211.1 0.223311.2 0.234111.3 0.245411.4 0.257311.5 0.269711.6 0.291711.7 0.314911.8 0.346611.9 0.390812.0 0.470812.1 0.609212.2 0.653412.3 0.685112.4 0.708312.5 0.730312.6 0.742712.7 0.754612.8 0.765912.9 0.776713.0 0.786813.1 0.795213.2 0.803313.3 0.810913.4 0.818113.5 0.8250http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php?] 3644828466523/28/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 230 of 231Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 4 of 513.6 0.829713.7 0.834213.8 0.838713.9 0.843014.0 0.847214.1 0.851314.2 0.855314.3 0.859114.4 0.862914.5 0.866514.6 0. 870014.7 0.873414.8 0.876714.9 0.879815.0 0.882915.1 0.885215.2 0.887515.3 0.889715.4 0.892015.5 0.894215.6 0.896415.7 0.898515.8 0.900715.9 0.902816.0 0.904916.1 0.907016.2 0.909016.3 0.911016.4 0.913016.5 0.915016.6 0.917016.7 0.918916.8 0.920816.9 0.922717.0 0. 924617.1 0.926517.2 0. 928317.3 0.930117.4 0.931917.5 0.933717.6 0.935417.7 0.937117.8 0.938817.9 0.940518.0 0.942118.1 0.943218.2 0.944418.3 0.945518.4 0.946618.5 0.947718.6 0.948818.7 0.949918.8 0.951018.9 0.952119.0 0.953219.1 0. 954219.2 0.955319.3 0.956419.4 0.957419.5 0.9585http://precip.eas.cornell.edu/data.php? 13644828466523/28/2013 FHR-COMBINED Page 231 of 231Precipitation Distribution Curve Page 5 of 519 .6 0.959519.7 0.960619.8 0.961619.9 0.962620.0 0.963720.1 0.964720.2 0.965720.3 0.966720.4 0.967720.5 0.968720.6 0.969720.7 0.970720.8 0.971620.9 0.972621.0 0.973621.1 0.974521.2 0.975521.3 0.976421.4 0.977421.5 0.978321.6 0.979321.7 0.980221.8 0. 981121.9 0.982022.0 0.983022.1 0.983922.2 0. 984822.3 0.985722.4 0.986622.5 0.987422.6 0.988322.7 0.989222.8 0.990122.9 0.990923.0 0.991823.1 0.992623.2 0.993523.3 0.994323.4 0.995123.5 0.996023.6 0.996823.7 0.997623.8 0.998423.9 0.999224.0 1.0000http://precip.eas.comell.edu/data.php? 13644828466523/28/2013}}

ML15072A013: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:01, 14 June 2018

Contents

Text

48.0 REFERENCES

8.0 REFERENCES

Reference:

Description:

Description:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Description:

References:

Reference:

Navigation menu

ML15072A013: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:01, 14 June 2018

Text

48.0 REFERENCES

8.0 REFERENCES

Reference:

Description:

Description:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Reference:

Description:

References:

Reference:

Navigation menu

Search