ADVANCE COPY —————— SUBJECT TO REVISION 
 
 NOTE.—This Paper is not to be y erie before its presentation to the Society, but is to 
 
 be regarded confidential until that date. 
 It is sent out in advance in order to give opportunity to those interested in the subject to 
 
 prepare written or oral discussion for the Society meeting as noted below 
 ___THE PUBLICATION COMMITTEE 
 
 WESTERN SOCIETY OF ENGINEERS 
 
 17th Floor, Monadnock Block, Chicago 
 
 The Society, as a body, is not responsible for the statements and opinions advocated in its publications. 
 
 THE DESIGN oF STORM WATER DRAINS IN A MODERN SEWER 
 SYSTEM. 
 
 Jean Bart Balcomb. 
 To be Presented May 18, 1910. 
 
 OUTLINE. 
 GENERAL FEATURES OF THE PROBLEM. 
 Hyraulic engineering and the city water problem. 
 The city water problem and storm drains. 
 A three-fold view of the question. 
 Essentials of a good system. ; 
 Disposing of sewage. 
 The separate or combined system. 
 Estimating the amount of sewage. 
 NECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS. 
 Typical sewer lengths. 
 Surcharge periods. 
 Permeability of surface. 
 Surface concentration. 
 A RATIONAL SOLUTION. 
 Rainfall data. 
 Typical precipitation curves. 
 Designing the sewers. 
 Numbering sewers. 
 Essentials of the method outlined. 
 Points which commend the above method. 
 AcTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND RESULTS TO BE EXPECTED. 
 Materials of construction. 
 Contracts and specifications. 
 Inspection. 
 Maintenance. 
 Degree of accuracy. 
 
 LIST OF TABLES. 
 
 Table I. Field covered by hydraulic engineering. 
 Table II. Heavy precipitations, giving rates per hour. 
 Table III. Heavy precipitations by 40 min. time periods. 
 Table IV. Heavy precipitations by 20 min. time periods. 
 Table V. Heavy precipitations by 10 min. time periods. 
 
2 
 
 Table VI. List of U. S. weather bureaus, with weights used. 
 
 Table VII. Precipitations used in determining form of 40 
 min. typical rain curve. 
 
 Table VIII. Precipitations arranged symmetrically. 
 
 Table IX. Method of obtaining typical intensities. 
 
 DRAWINGS ILLUSTRATING THE TEXT. 
 
 Fig. 1. Map of U. S. Gauging stations. 
 
 Fig. 2. Precipitation curve, Columbia, Mo. 
 
 Fig. 3. Curves of perviousness. 
 
 Fig. 4. Cumulative method of combining discharges. 
 Fig. 5. Resultant curve for 40 min. period. 
 
 Fig. 6. Plan of main sewers, Kansas City, Mo. 
 
 GENERAL FEATURES OF THE PROBLEM. 
 
 Hydraulic Engineering and the City Water Problem.—Broadly 
 speaking, hydraulic engineering is the art and science of confining 
 water. This confining is always relative rather than absolute, being 
 an approximation toward making an unstable element stable. The 
 city water problem consists in supplying and removing municipal 
 water, its relative position in the hydraulic field being shown dia- 
 erammatically in Table I. 
 
 During recent years great advanca has been made in the con- 
 duct of this branch of municipal affairs. Most cities now have 
 water departments, and not a few have well-organized sewer de- 
 partments. The writer believes the time not far distant when these 
 two departments will be more widely recognized as the comple- 
 ments of each other, and in the more progressive communities be 
 placed permanently in charge of trained technical men of experience 
 and ability. 
 
 Under competent business management, such a department 
 would be in position to benefit most largely from the advice and 
 experience of consulting engineers, and especially would it be 
 possible to plan definitely as to the probable future needs of a city, 
 and then proceed with reasonable assurance of materializing such 
 plans. 
 
 The City Water Problem and Storm Drans.—To most people, 
 among whom may be included a large number of engineers, the 
 sewerage problem means simply taking care of sanitary sewage, 
 not appreciating the fact that some 99% of the flow in sewers 
 would be foreign matter if viewed in this light. The realization 
 that this view comprehends but half the problem has given rise to 
 the economic demand for storm drains, which, though necessarily 
 larger than sanitary sewers, can usually be correspondingly shorter, 
 since natural drainage may be largely utilized. 
 
 A Three-Fold View of the Question—Municipal hydraulic en- 
 gineering deserves consideration from three points of view: the 
 public, the taxpayer, and the engineer. 
 
~» oe eee 
 | 
 
 >. = A 
 
 3 
 
 The public itself has a two-fold interest: to prevent a nuisance 
 and to promote health. The former is by far the more potent in- 
 centive to action, although the latter is of far more vital importance ; 
 and while the danger to health from this menace has been greatly 
 overrated, it has been even more greatly ignored. At present many 
 of the illusions regarding disease from so-called sewer gas have 
 been dispelled, and at the same time a thoroughly active and normal 
 interest has been aroused regarding the need for sanitary condi- 
 tions. 
 
 The taxpayer looks upon sewers and sewage disposal works as 
 necessary evils, the construction of which is to be postponed as long 
 as possible and then accomplished with the smallest possible outlay 
 of cash, regardless generally of kind or quality, or of the future 
 needs of the city. In the role of taxpayers, people are naturally 
 obstructionists, but this point of view is largely lost sight of where 
 the work is carried on by means of bonds or the expense is defrayed 
 from the general treasury; therefore, when feasible, one of these 
 methods will be found advantageous. 
 
 The city engineer too often looks upon the subject as though 
 it were divided into three parts; house drains and fixtures to be 
 left in the hands of plumbers and inspectors, catch basins and the 
 like to be constructed from standard plans on file in his office, large 
 sewers and disposal works to be constructed after consultation with 
 a specialist. The fact is that the specialist should be consulted re- 
 garding the entire system, otherwise how can the different parts 
 be expected to form a complete whole? The natural desire of the 
 engineer is to eliminate the first two points of view, substituting 
 his judgment instead. It is well to bear in mind, however, that 
 they have to be reckoned with, for the possibility of planning and 
 completing a satisfactory system depends almost entirely on their 
 relative ascendency and influence. 
 
 Essentials of a Good System.—Until recent years, and still 
 very largely, sewer systems were constructed haphazard and piece- 
 meal, resulting in inefficiency and unnecessary cost. This can be 
 obviated only by having a comprehensive plan to serve as guide in 
 the design and construction of all sewers. 
 
 This plan should not only be comprehensive, but should be 
 worked out in detail to a far greater degree than is generally 
 assumed. By the very nature of things it will be many years in 
 building, and, in fact, will never be entirely finished. This empha- 
 sizes the néed for an early and rational determination of as many 
 factors as possible, in order to best care for the present and future 
 generations. No system would be considered modern which did 
 not accommodate every building lot for sanitary purposes and sup- 
 plement all gutters for storm runoff. This does not mean that 
 storm drains should run to summits like sanitary sewers; on the 
 contrary, it is usually advisable to allow storm water to flow in 
 the gutters for an entire block or more. The first street inlet, and 
 
 037068 
 
4 
 
 consequent beginning of the sewer, should be placed as far from 
 the summit as can be done without allowing the depth of water in 
 the gutter to become a nuisance during heavy rains. This results 
 in a considerable saving of money and is in accord with the ac- 
 cepted principle that storm drains are designed to supplement, not 
 to replace gutters. 
 
 Another requisite is that sewers shall be constructed water- 
 tight. If it were not for glaring defects of this nature in nearly 
 every city of the land, such a statement would be considered self- 
 evident. The need is especially urgent in sanitary sewers. On the 
 other hand, if there were any great advantage in doing so, storm 
 drains might be constructed with a view to allowing slight infiltra- 
 tion whenever the water table was above them, since at times when 
 it was below there would be but slight objection if water did leak 
 out, especially during the short period of a storm. This would 
 enable them to act as drains in the true sense of the word, keeping 
 the permanent water plane near the level of their invert. The chief 
 objection to this is the additional depth and cost resulting in build- 
 ing them below the levels of cellars. The better way is to lay 
 small drain tile for this purpose, directly below the storm drains, 
 wherever local conditions require the draining of the land. 
 
 The question of allowable velocities is not well understood, 
 in spite of the fact that engineers have had to deal with it for cen- 
 turies. Economy in construction requires that velocities be limited 
 by only two things—the general slope of the surface and possible 
 erosion of the invert. The writer is of the opinion that danger to 
 the latter has been greatly overrated, and is conducting a series of 
 studies at the present time with regard to maximum limits of 
 velocity in hydraulic work. The probability is that 20 ft. per sec. 
 over a good concrete surface is perfectly feasible. With good con- 
 crete construction there is very little danger of the invert cutting 
 out. On the other hand, the velocity must not be so low that the 
 cost of attendance, in the way of cleaning and flushing, is unwar- 
 rantably high. In the case of flat and low-lying territory, like New 
 Orleans for example, this is sometimes overcome by occasional 
 pumping stations. Present opinion favors a minimum velocity of 
 20 in. per sec. during the lowest stages of sanitary sewers. A rule 
 adopted by the writer is to allow 3 ft. per sec. when the sewer is 
 half full, which accomplishes practically the same result and is 
 readily applied when using tables or diagrams. 
 
 Every one recognizes that capacity is a vital consideration ; 
 but while it is of prime importance that sewers be adequate for 
 present needs and future growth, it is not so generally recognized 
 that if they are made unnecessarily large they will be less satis- 
 factory owing to low velocities and high cost of maintenance. This 
 is especially true during the period of years elapsing while the 
 territory served is being built up. It is seldom feasible, as is so 
 often done in the case of water supply mains, to supplement sewers 
 
5 
 
 by constructing parallel ones some years later. For this reason it 
 is evident that the planning of a system to remove the water from 
 a municipality becomes urgent much earlier than comprehensive 
 plans for its supply. 
 
 Another essential is that the system be designed so as to mini- 
 mize hand labor, cleaning the sewers‘as largely as possible by 
 means of flushing with water. It is very desirable also that the 
 flushing be by means of automatic flush tanks discharging at regu- 
 lar intervals, special occasions only being taken care of by using 
 the hose. It requires a large amount of water, even when pur- 
 chased at a high rate from a private company, to equal the cost of 
 inefficient day labor in the cleaning of sewers. 
 
 As a final thought, there are two tests which may be applied in 
 forming a judgment concerning a sewer system: that it shall pro- 
 mote public health and prevent a nuisance, and that the first cost 
 shall be as low as consistent with minimum maintenance charges. 
 
 Disposing of Sewage.—lIt is usually held as a desideratum that 
 disposal works be located to one side and at some distance from a 
 city,—the farther the better. This last is true provided the added 
 cost of construction and maintenance be balanced against any pos- 
 sible nuisance which may be caused in the proximity of the works, 
 with consequent deterioration of property values. It by no means 
 follows that all of the sewage should be disposed of at one point, 
 or even by the same method and to the same extent. 
 
 A popular misconception is that the proper disposition of sew- 
 age presupposes extensive and elaborate appliances; the fact being 
 that it varies all the way from merely an outfall sewer into a stream 
 of water requiring no attention whatever, to a complicated system 
 of settling basins, septic tanks, filters and sludge disposal appliances, 
 requiring a considerable force of skilled and common labor under 
 the direction of scientific experts. The prime requisites are that it 
 be efficient, simple, and economical. 
 
 The Separate or Combined System.—After careful study has 
 been made of the available methods of sewage disposal, it is then 
 possible to logically consider the relative merits of the separate and 
 the combined systems. This is seldom a problem as such, usually 
 resolving itself into supplementing a combined system in the older 
 parts of the city, and in the newer and unsewered portions using 
 the one or the other, depending on local conditions, or frequently 
 a judicious combination of the two. 
 
 In addition to meeting natural conditions, these conclusions 
 must largely satisfy the public point of view, or rather one’s judg- 
 ment as to what that view is and is likely to become; and then com- 
 paring cost ‘estimates of various tentative plans until a system is 
 developed which may be built at as low a figure as is compatible 
 with permanency and adequateness. 
 
 Estimating the Amount of Sewage—To the lay mind, sewage 
 is sewage wherever found; yet the composition of sewage in 
 
6 
 
 America is noticeably unlike that of Europe, a marked difference 
 appearing even in the cities of this country. This difference comes 
 largely in the amount of dilution and in the relative proportions of 
 sanitary sewage, trade wastes, and storm water runoff. Only the 
 latter will be considered in this paper. 
 
 The amount of storm water for which allowance should be 
 made is generally determined by the application of some one of 
 the well-known formulas, such as the McMath, Hering, Burtli- 
 Ziegler, Parmley, Gregory, and others. A very elaborate determi- 
 nation has lately been made by Mr. C. E. Grunsky, member of 
 the American Society of Civil Engineers, in his studies regarding 
 “The Sewer System of San Francisco and a Solution of the Storm 
 Water Flow Problem”. One much easier of application, although 
 not comparable in its analytic grasp of the subject, has been pro- 
 posed by Mr. Carl H. Nordell, Bureau of Sewers, Borough of 
 Queens, New York City. A method having somewhat similar 
 features, and comprehensive in its treatment, has been developed 
 by the writer and is being applied in the work at Kansas City. 
 
 Whatever method is followed, it is necessary to assume some 
 maximum precipitation for which the system will be designed. 
 Then, from local conditions, estimate the runoff to be cared for by 
 the different sewers. 
 
 NECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS AND APPROXIMATIONS. 
 
 Typical Sewer Lengths—By sewer length, in this connection, 
 is meant the time required for water to flow through it, not its 
 length in feet. Deciding upon typical lengths is a matter of judg- 
 ment for each city, sometimes requiring to be changed in different 
 portions of the same city. 
 
 Where the grades are fairly steep, as in Pittsburg, Kansas City, 
 and other places similarly situated, time intervals for main, branch, 
 and lateral sewers may be tentatively assumed at 40, 20, and 10 
 minutes respectively. In Chicago, New Orleans, and other cities 
 having practically level streets, the periods may easily be 60, 30, 
 and 15 minutes, or in extreme cases 2 hours, 1 hour, and % hour, 
 unless there were outlets like the Chicago River, Lake Michigan, 
 and Lake Pontchartrain, making the sewers very short. These 
 cases are merely suggestive, and each city must be considered on 
 its merits; in some cases two typical lengths will suffice, while in 
 others four may be required. These time periods depend on both 
 the absolute and relative length of the different sewers, as well 
 as on the general shape of a city’s typical rain curves. 
 
 A rigidly rational method would consider each sewer as an 
 entity, treating it as though it were the only storm drain in the 
 city. This would mean determining the time of surface concentra- 
 tion, the perviousness of the surface, the frequency with which it 
 would be permissible to flood it, a precipitation curve suited to its 
 individual characteristics, and by means of trial solutions its actual 
 
7 
 
 time length; all of which would be manifestly impossible with the 
 funds available for such work. There is grave question whether 
 the present state of our knowledge would warrant such elaborate 
 treatment, even if taxpayers were willing to pay for it. 
 
 On the other hand, a number of engineers have developed 
 formulas with the hope of obviating many of the above difficulties. 
 It is now pretty generally admitted that no arrangement of co- 
 efficients is possible, which shall take into account all of the varying 
 conditions and at the same time be sufficiently simple in its applica- 
 tion; at least, that such efforts can be only a partial success until 
 much more data have been secured from which deductions may be 
 made. 
 
 There would seem to be room, however, for rational effort 
 somewhere between these two extremes of treating a city’s 
 sewers as though they were all different or else all alike, and it is 
 this middle ground which the writer has attempted to occupy. To 
 lessen the work which would necessarily result if each sewer were 
 treated independently, typical sewer lengths have been adopted; 
 and to make certain of developing really typical rain curves, the 
 question has been met squarely by deciding on definite surcharge 
 periods, thus setting time limits when a city can better afford to 
 have a sewer flooded than to pay for a larger one. 
 
 Surcharge Periods——It is readily conceded that most cities 
 cannot afford to build storm drains to care for their heaviest pre- 
 cipitations. If this were attempted, Columbus, Ohio, would build 
 for about 4 inches of rainfall, St. Louis and Milwaukee each for 
 5 inches, while Kansas City has experienced a rate of over 7 inches 
 per hour, the average for 40 minutes being nearly 6 inches. As 
 averages for 10, 20, and 40 minutes, the rates given in Table II, 
 were reached during the past 10 years by the cities mentioned. 
 
 It is worth noting in the table that if one were designing for 
 the Shreveport rains there would probably be no need for typical 
 sewer lengths, as its intensity varied less than 5%, whether con- 
 sidered for a period of 10 or of 40 minutes duration. Those at 
 Kansas City and Topeka come next with a variation of about 15%, 
 while the one at St. Louis varies nearly 40%. 
 
 Whatever method is used in computing the required carrying 
 capacity of the sewers, it is necessary either directly or indirectly 
 to decide how frequently a city can afford to have its storm drains 
 flooded rather than to build them larger, and by so doing further 
 increase its burden of debt and expenditure. ‘This is a matter 
 requiring greater judgment than any other confronting the 
 engineer engaged in storm drain design. 
 
 As a question of economics, it resolves itself into the total loss 
 caused by flooding streets and cellars to a greater or less extent, 
 set over against the interest on such additional expenditure as 
 would have prevented the flooding. In this connection it is well 
 
8 
 
 to remember that the loss considered must cover both the damage 
 to property and the inconvenience which results. 
 
 As just indicated, the most careful thought should be given 
 this phase of the subject. Each city will necessarily work out its 
 own surcharge periods, depending on the shape of its rain curves, 
 its financial ability, and the attitude of the people toward mort- 
 gaging the future. | 
 
 In Kansas City it has been decided to design main sewers with 
 the expectation of flooding every 10 years, branch sewers every 
 5 years, and laterals every 2 years. At first thought this seems 
 too frequent in the case of laterals, but when it is borne in mind 
 that they must be designed for 10 minute precipitations, and so must 
 be much larger proportionally than either branch or main sewers, 
 and that flooding in their case means simply carrying the water 
 somewhat further in the gutters, it is readily perceived that true 
 economy is served by making the time interval short. 
 
 Permeability of Surface—It is now universally conceded that 
 the perviousness of areas is only second in importance to the rate 
 of precipitation, as a controlling factor in storm water runoff; 
 since the runoff equals the precipitation less the perviousness. 
 
 The writer believes it preferable to estimate perviousness as 
 depth in inches per hour which a given surface will absorb, rather 
 than a given percentage of the rainfall, since there is little differ- 
 ence in the rate of absorption whether the rainfall be light or heavy, 
 so long as the intensity of the downpour equals or exceeds the 
 rate at which the surface is capable of absorbing it. 
 
 Perviousness depends on the kind and depth both of the sur- 
 face soil and the sub-soil, and whether the surface is barren, covered | 
 with grass, or paved. Paved areas are usually considered im- 
 pervious, but are only relatively so. This is demonstrated by the 
 fact that the runoff from so-called impervious areas never equals 
 the total precipitation. 
 
 In all probability the curve of perviousness is never a straight 
 line; however, as a working basis, to be corrected later by the 
 results of gaging, it has been assumed in Kansas City that paved 
 surfaces absorb water at the rate of 0.50 in. per hour at the be- 
 ginning of a storm, decreasing to 0.25 at the end of 15 minutes, and 
 to 0.00 at the end of 60 minutes; that lawns and other grass sur- 
 faces absorb 0.75 in. at the beginning, decreasing to 0.50 at the end 
 of 30 minutes, and to 0.00 at the end of 120 minutes; that garden 
 and other barren soils absorb 1.00 in. at the beginning, decreasing 
 to 0.75 at the end of 30 minutes, and to 0.00 at the expiration of 
 120 minutes. This is shown graphically in Fig. 3. 
 
 Surface Concentration.—The time required for surface concen- 
 tration depends on the distance to catch basins and the mean slope 
 of the surface. In calculations involving this time, the velocity 
 of flow at Kansas City was assumed, from the meager data avail- 
 able, to be 100 ft. per min. for an unpaved surface having a slope 
 
9 
 
 of 5 ft. to the hundred; other slopes being in proportion. Paved 
 surfaces were assumed at twice the velocity. 
 
 The type of runoff tract used is 330 x 660 ft., being a standard 
 city block. With this as a basis, three typical areas were worked 
 out as follows: Type I, having 20% of paved surface and two- 
 thirds of the remainder barren. Type II, 50% paved and equal 
 portions of barren and lawn surface. Type III, 80% paved and 
 one-third of the remainder barren. 
 
 These are proving satisfactory for study purposes and tenta- 
 tive designs. They give one, two, and three blocks as the respective 
 distances which require 5 minutes, where the slope is 5%. 
 
 A RATIONAL SOLUTION. 
 Rainfall Data.—There can be no doubt that more grave errors 
 in storm drain design have been due to lack of reliable and complete 
 
 ° 1° 20 30 40 so / 60 7° 
 Time in Minutes 
 
 FIG.3- CURVES OF PERVIOUSNESS 
 
 information than to all other causes combined. This realization 
 led the writer, during the preliminary studies in Kansas City, to 
 devote much time and thought to gathering and compiling ex- 
 haustive rainfall data. 
 
 Since automatic records have been kept for but little more 
 than a decade, the records from a single city are insufficient for 
 reliable work, so data have been gathered and tabulated from the 
 entire watershed of the Mississippi River, as shown in Fig. 1. All 
 weather bureaus having automatic records extending over a period 
 of 5 years or more have contributed their heavier precipitations, 
 and the information here presented is believed to be both reliable 
 and complete. 
 
 A careful study of the question has led the writer to conclude 
 that for ranking rains in the order of their intensities, the method 
 of average precipitation is at once simple and adequate, therefore 
 satisfactory. This method has been used in preparing the following 
 
10 
 
 tables. They were computed for the 40, 20, and 10 minute periods 
 by the use of the planimeter, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the areas being 
 taken between the vertical lines, which are equal maximum ordi- 
 nates enclosing the given time intervals. 
 
 The first step, then, after the records are gathered and plotted, 
 is to determine the average intensity of each rain for the different 
 time intervals. It should not be lost sight of that these averages 
 in no wise enter into the computations of sewer discharge, but are 
 
 | BISMARCK 
 
 Cy, 
 
 {e) 
 5 
 Beas 
 PIKANSAS 
 KA IciTy 
 6 
 
 10 
 
 OP 
 WICHITA 
 
 | SPRINGFIELD 
 
 @SHREVEPORT 
 
 VICKSBURG 
 U.S.WEATHER BUREAUS iS 
 
 @ Record less thon 5 Years. 
 @ Record 5 Yeors or over. 
 
 CO 
 ( 
 
 EW ORLEANS 
 Fig. 1. Map Showing U. S. Gauging Stations. 
 
 used merely in the arrangement of the tables. Tables III, IV, and 
 V contain the data so arranged. 
 
 Typical Precipitation Curves.—The matter of greatest impor- 
 tance in planning and designing a storm sewer system is the deter- 
 mination of typical precipitation curves. The exercise of judgment 
 comes mainly in the selection of surcharge periods, the following 
 work being largely a question of mathematics. 
 
11 
 
 It is essential that the rainfall data be from automatic gages 
 which record the depth in inches falling each five minutes. This 
 makes it possible to plot curves showing both the total and rate of 
 precipitation, the usual way being to use time as abscissas and rates 
 per hour as ordinates. 
 
 It is unnecessary to plot the records of all rains, as much time 
 and labor can be saved by setting a minimum limit below which 
 rains will be omitted. The choice of this in no way affects the 
 validity of the method or the correctness of the results secured. 
 For the Mississippi Valley, and the Middle West generally, very 
 satisfactory limits are as follows: a precipitation of 0.25 in. during 
 some five minutes of the storm and a total precipitation of at 
 least an inch of rainfall. 
 
 In order to present clearly the method of computing a typical 
 rain curve, a simple illustration will be used. Suppose a city 
 has ten rains in ten years; it is clear that the‘hardest one occurred 
 once in the ten years; that one equal to or exceeding the next 
 hardest occurred every five years, for it and the hardest both 
 occurred during the ten years, or an average of every five years 
 for the one or the other. The same line of reasoning shows that 
 one equal to or exceeding the fifth hardest occurred every two 
 years. 
 
 The method is still logical no matter how many rains 
 occurred, and if the ten hardest are used, being as many as the 
 number of years considered, it determines what rains may -be 
 expected to flood the sewers for any surcharge periods selected. 
 Since data are used from different gaging stations, it becomes 
 necessary to reduce their records to a common basis. Probably 
 10 is the most convenient one to use, so this will be employed 
 throughout the discussion. If the record has been kept for 
 more than 10 years, say 11 for example, each rain must be 
 weighted by 10/11, using the actual intensity, but taking 11 
 instead of 10 rains into account. Likewise, if the record is avail- 
 able for only 6 years, each rain must be weighted by 10/6. It is 
 hardly necessary to mention: that the longer the record the 
 more satisfactory its use, since interpolating is always preferable- 
 to exterpolating. If some number other than 10 years had been 
 selected as standard, the numerator of the above fractions would ° 
 correspond. 
 
 Another point needs to be considered at this time; all 
 engineers will agree that cities situated in the same drainage 
 basin may be expected to show rain curves somewhat similar in 
 form and intensity, so that the records of all such cities may 
 properly be considered in estimating future probabilities; they 
 will likewise agree that a city’s own rains will be a truer index 
 of what may be expected in the future than the precipitations at 
 other places several hundred miles distant. For this reason, the 
 records have been weighted, giving Kansas City a weight of 7; 
 
12 
 
 cities within 100 miles 6, 200 miles 5, and so on, until those at a 
 distance greater than 500 miles, but still within the Mississippi 
 Valley, are given a weight of 1. 
 
 Table VI, gives the final weights of the different cities, and 
 the method of their computation. These have been obtained as 
 follows: the number of years for which rains are considered is 
 divided by the length of time the record is available, and this 
 quotient is multiplied by the distance weight of the city. For - 
 Topeka, Kansas, this gives 
 
 10+ 8% xk 6=7. 
 
 With surcharge periods of 10, 5, and 2 years already deter- 
 mined upon, the Total final weight is multiplied by 1, 2, and 5 
 
 GER PGE RRES RSS SARA ORRS RAH ROAL ORES Ee SAARI Nese 
 HRSEE RP EASAS ID FROM IA AG RAO RSS MRE BUCHOS HARSH saa seeses 
 Cy BE BERR SEDSERNAHEROIAa eI 
 ERBECRAABESD PARRA ANUE APRON LR eos 
 SER BUSKSS’ GRRE RS FHSS SE SSO ASNAS ZARA ASS 
 
 HH 
 4 
 RCO 
 
 a 
 tT 
 [TY 
 = 
 ‘4 
 
 | 
 [| 
 Y) 
 
 eH 
 YT 
 Bees 
 pele 
 oo 
 rH 
 
 Time in Minutes 
 
 FIG. 2= PRECIPITATION CURVE, COLUMBIA,MO., 
 
 (obtained by dividing 10 by 10, 5, and 2) as given at the bottom. 
 of Table VI. This gives partial totals of 149 to be used with 
 Table III, 298 with Table IV, and 745 with Table V. Opposite 
 these in the tables we find 2.62, 3.26, and 3.42, which are the 
 average intensities of the three typical precipitation curves. 
 
 It now remains to determine the form of each of these curves. 
 The 40 minute curve will be used to illustrate the operation. 
 This is best seen by reference to Table IX, where it will be 
 noticed that ten weights above and ten below have been used. 
 Either more or less rains might have been used, depending on 
 the judgment of the engineer as to how many are required to 
 derive a curve which shall be truly typical in shape. Since the 
 
13 
 
 intensity for the period is in no wise affected, a comparatively large 
 error in judgment results in but slight error in design, thus reducing 
 the personal equation to a minimum. 
 
 Table VII, gives the rains thus selected. The amount of 
 precipitation for each 5 minutes is given, with the beginnings 
 of the rains directly under each cther. In Table VIII, these are 
 arranged symmetrically with regard to their maximum inten- 
 sities, since this arrangement is best adapted to obtaining a curve 
 which shall most nearly represent them in its form character- 
 istics. 
 
 In Table IX, the same arrangement is preserved, but the 
 different values are multiplied by the respective weights of the 
 rains taken from Table III. The columns are then added and 
 the sums divided by 20, since a total of twenty weights was used. 
 In order to obtain ordinate values for plotting, these quotients 
 are multiplied by 12 so as to get rates per hour. These rates 
 
 ae. 
 [| VA 
 | TAZ 
 
 LAL | 
 448) 
 AT 
 aan 
 a8 
 
 Time in Minutes 
 
 FIG. 5- RESULTANT CURVE FOR 40 MIN. PERIOD 
 
 are given in the last line, the curve being shown by the lighter 
 line of Fig. 5. This gives the correct form of the typical pre- 
 cipitation curve desired, but not necessarily its magnitude, which 
 may be either more or less. In the present instance the curve 
 has to be increased slightly in intensity, this being done so as to 
 make the rate for 40 minutes 2.62 in. per hour, as given in the 
 table. The final curve is shown by the heavier line in the 
 figure. 
 
 As previously suggested, the method contemplates the use 
 of a precipitation curve for each typical sewer length, varying 
 in number probably from one to four in different cities. To make 
 the need for this apparent, suppose the rain curve for 40 minute 
 sewers were used for 20 and 10 minute sewers, it would in effect 
 greatly reduce their surcharge periods. 
 
14 
 
 Taking the rain immediately above 2.62, which is the average 
 intensity for 40 minute sewers, the Partial Totals in the different 
 tables are found to be 149, 796, and 1241. Dividing each of these 
 by 149 gives 1, 5.35, and 8.33; then dividing 10 by each of these 
 gives 10, 1.86, and 1.20. In other words, the 40 minute sewer 
 would be flooded every ten years (which had been assumed), 
 the 20 minute sewer a little oftener than every two years and the 
 10 minute sewer a little more frequently than once every fifteen 
 months. 
 
 Or take the illustration the other way; suppose the rain 
 curve for 10 minute sewers were used for 40 and 20 minute drains, 
 it would have the effect of increasing their surcharge. periods. 
 The average intensity would then be 3.42, opposite 35, 229, and 
 745 in the columns of partial totals. Dividing as before gives 
 final quotients of 42.6, 6.5, and 2; which means that the different 
 classes of sewers would be flooded about every 40, 6, and 2 years 
 respectively. 
 
 The tables can readily be used to determine the surcharge 
 periods for any desired intensity of rain. If a precipitation can 
 be found which will give satisfactory surcharge periods for the 
 different classes of sewers, it would in effect reduce them to one. 
 This is the ideal condition, but should not be expected to occur 
 often in practice. 
 
 Designing the Sewers—With the time length of a sewer 
 approximated and the typical rain determined, it is then only 
 necessary to decide from this rain curve the amount of runoff 
 which will reach the sewer from each runoff tract, and use this 
 in conjunction with the grade that can be secured. With these 
 data in hand, the size of sewer and velocity of flow are readily 
 computed. 
 
 Referring to Fig. 4, it illustrates how the runoff from the 
 different tracts is combined so as to obtain a cumulative effect 
 comparable with actual conditions. It will be noticed that the 
 calculations are all graphical, this method being simple, rapid, 
 and of sufficient accuracy. The different values might be added, 
 but the work would be laborious and there would be greater dan- 
 ger of errors creeping in. By repeating this process wherever 
 more water enters the sewer, the required size is synthetically 
 built up. 
 
 With the velocity of flow determined, the time is computed 
 which will be required for the water to flow from the first catch 
 basin to the second, or to where another sewer joins it, the 
 writer’s practice being to compute time lengths for periods of 
 five minutes or over, using the nearest five minutes in adjusting 
 the curves. Whenever our knowledge of surface concentration 
 shall have become sufficiently definite, it will be advisable to 
 work to minute intervals instead of only to five minutes. 
 
 A curve is then drawn which in magnitude equals the typical 
 
15 
 
 curve multiplied by the area drained, for each of the runoff tracts, 
 the second one being moved toward the right as many minutes 
 as the time required for the water to flow from the first point 
 to the second. This is shown in the figure by Tract 1 and Tract 2. 
 The two curves are then combined by making a new one with 
 ordinates equal to the sum of their ordinates above the lines of 
 Perviousness. This new curve represents the flow below the 
 junction point. 
 
 When the outlet is reached, the shape and magnitude of the 
 last curve gives a correct graphical representation of the resulting 
 flow to be expected at this point. At first glance it would seem 
 
 an 
 
 an 
 
 i+ 4 A 
 SSF eeeeneed aa 0355 S5' 2S doe eee eee eee ~ Sees 
 
 Time in Minutes 
 
 FiG.4@ - CUMULATIVE METHOO OF COMBINING OISCHARGES. 
 
 that much time would be consumed. On the contrary, it is sur- 
 prising how rapidly and certainly results can be obtained. 
 
 To design a sewer for any part of the city, always begin 
 with the laterals and work toward the branches and from that 
 to the main sewers. In other words, follow with the computa- 
 tions the order followed by the water in filling sewers. When- 
 ever advisable the method may be combined with the use of any 
 of the formulas already mentioned. 7 
 
 Numbering Sewers——lf some simple and yet rational system 
 of numbering sewer districts be adopted, it not only saves a 
 great deal of inconvenience but much lost time and frequent 
 errors. This may be illustrated by the method proposed for 
 
16 
 
 Kansas City. By charter the entire territory within the corporate 
 limits is divided into sewer divisions and these into sewer dis- 
 tricts. For purposes of designing, the divisions are subdivided 
 into drainage areas, these into runoff tracts, and these again into 
 sewer districts. See Fig. 6. 
 
 Including the new territory, eight divisions are being pro- 
 posed for the city. These are being divided into drainage areas, 
 not to exceed nine for each division; these again into runoff 
 tracts, not to exceed nine for each area; the tracts being divided 
 in the same way into sewer districts, the highest possible num- 
 ber being 8999. As a matter of convenience, the numbers follow 
 up the sewers. This can best be illustrated by an example. 
 
 Sewer district number 5439 means that it is located in division 5, 
 drainage area 4 of this division, runoff tract 3 of this area, and 
 sewer district number 9 in this tract. It also shows that the 
 property embraced within its limits is located near the center 
 of the city, otherwise it would not be in division 5; that it is near 
 the middle of that division, being area No. 4; that it is in the 
 lower part of the area and the highest part of the tract, as indi- 
 cated by the figures 3 and 9. 
 
 It is not only of great advantage in at once locating a sewer, 
 since the sewer has the same number as the district which it 
 serves, but is of equal importance while designing, since each 
 sewer flows into one of a lower number, thus avoiding occasion 
 for mistakes and so insuring accuracy and rapidity in the work. 
 
 Essentials of the Method Outlined—The emphasis in the 
 method proposed above is placed on the following points: 
 
 Surcharge periods. 
 
 Typical sewer lengths. 
 
 A typical rain curve for each sewer type. 
 
 Method of deducing these curves. 
 
 Method of estimating perviousness. 
 
 Cumulative method of sewer computation. 
 
 Most of the earlier attempts to solve the storm flow problem 
 considered these same features, although frequently not with 
 such explicitness, as the requirements were not then so well 
 understood. Aside from the method of estimating the pervious- 
 ness, only brief consideration is given to the subjects of per- 
 meability and time of surface concentration, since these phases: 
 of the question still wait on the gathering of more data, so that 
 something approaching complete and reliable information may 
 be at hand. 
 
 Points Which Commend the Above Method.—It follows nature 
 in being cumulative in results obtained. 
 
 .It is a combined analytic and synthetic method. 
 
 The direction of storms can readily be allowed for. 
 
 It is adapted to any degree of refinement. 
 
 There is no uncertainty as to where maximum periods occur. 
 
17 
 
 PLAN 
 OF 
 MAIN SEWERS 
 KANSAS CITY, MO 
 
 Seo/e 32 Miles 
 
 SEAN BART BALCOMBE 
 ENGINGER & CNAROE 
 
 GeoW FucterR, 
 Consucting ENGine er 
 
 r- 
 ' 
 ' 
 1 
 ‘ 
 ' 
 ' 
 1 
 1 
 i} 
 ' 
 ‘ 
 ' 
 ' 
 ' 
 ’ 
 ‘ 
 ’ 
 1 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 
 Fig. 6. Plan of Main Sewers—Kansas City, Mo. 
 
18 
 
 It can be used to solve the problem independently, or in con- 
 junction with any other method. 
 
 Wherever it is necessary to exercise judgment, the condi- 
 tions to be met are definite and certain. 
 
 No averages are used in computing capacities, the actual rain 
 variations being followed. 
 
 _ There are no coefficients to be approximated, with conse- 
 
 quent probability of large and uncertain errors. 
 
 It does not depend on formulas or difficult mathematical 
 determinations, yet secures results agreeing with the facts up to 
 the limits of the data available. 
 
 ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION AND RESULTS TO BE EXPECTED. 
 
 Materials of Construction—The decision as to what materials 
 to use in construction has been controlled largely in the past, and 
 still is to some extent, by the materials manufactured or for sale 
 by local firms, through political affiliations, and social friendships. 
 This is being greatly lessened owing to a closer study of the sub- 
 ject my municipal hydraulic engineers, and a larger interest and 
 better understanding by the general public of the needs and 
 requirements of a thoroughly up-to-date sewerage system. 
 
 It may be a matter of surprise to some that rectangular 
 wooden sewers have been built in a number of instances and 
 have given excellent service through a term of years, but finally 
 becoming at least indirectly a public nuisance. It is not be be 
 supposed that any engineer would recommend such construction 
 today, as the defects of wood for this purpose are now well 
 recognized. : 
 
 For large sewers, brick was well-nigh universally used until 
 concrete was found to be a much better material. The use of 
 brick is growing less and less, owing to the large number of 
 joints and the lack of tensile strength in the completed structure. 
 This is emphatically true unless the sewers are lined with cement 
 mortar. A special invert is also required as many serious cases 
 of erosion are on record. The chief reasons for using brick were 
 its cheapness, its availability, the supply of suitable skilled labor, 
 and the ease with which vitrified brick or Belgian blocks could 
 be laid in the invert, after this was found necessary in order to 
 avoid their cutting out where even moderate velocities were 
 used. 
 
 For small sewers, it is generally agreed that vitrified pipe, 
 with bell and spigot joint well caulked and then filled with 
 portland cement mortar, is the best material at hand. At the 
 same time it is fully recognized that such frequent joints make it 
 an undesirable material, partly because it is almost impossible 
 to inspect each individual joint in its entirety, and partly because 
 it is, to say the least, very inconvenient to do good work and 
 make the joints water tight. When laid on steep slopes, the 
 
19 
 
 joints, being of a material foreign to the pipe and adhering only 
 fairly well, make natural places for erosion to begin. This fre- 
 quently continues until water finds its way in or out of the sewer, 
 depending on the level of the water table at different seasons of 
 the year. 
 
 The present concensus of engineering opinion favors the use 
 of concrete, generally reinforced, and either monolithic or in the 
 form of pipe, for nearly all sewers larger than 30 inches inside 
 diameter. Sewers 24 inches to 30 inches are still debatable 
 ground. Concrete pipe with longitudinal bar reinforcement 
 possesses many of the characteristics which must obtain in the 
 sewer construction material of the future. It is to be hoped that 
 a substitute for vitrified pipe may be found, or that a better joint 
 may be devised, or else that it may be found feasible to construct 
 small sizes of concrete pipe with an entirely satisfactory method 
 of joining them. 
 
 Contracts and Specifications——Much good work has been done 
 along this line in the past few years, and yet the present forms 
 of contract and specifications are far from satisfactory. In a 
 letter to Engineering-Contracting, published February 10, 1909, the 
 writer made the following statement, which has not thus far been 
 questioned, and which he wishes to reiterate in the present. in- 
 stance: 
 
 “Tn order to draw up an equitable contract, or judge of 
 one that is drawn, the first requisite is that it shall be fair to 
 both parties, assuming them both to be honest and actuated 
 by right motives. The second is to have it formulated so 
 there is no motive for dishonesty by either party—so that 
 whether an honest or dishonest course is followed it will 
 result in a gain or loss to both parties, never a gain to one 
 and a loss to the other.” 
 
 Of the various modifications and forms proposed, the one 
 which seems to be entirely adequate, and at the same time 
 adapted to existing needs and conditions, may best be described 
 as follows: Cost plus a fixed sum, with bonus and forfeit clause 
 regarding both the time limit and the total expenditures; all 
 extras to be paid for by cost plus a percentage. 
 
 Inspection.—With the old form of contract, it had become 
 tacitly understood that laxity of inspection would counterbalance 
 rigor of contract. The result has been that it often did far more 
 than this. Whereas the specifications called for practically a 
 perfect sewer, the actual construction fell unwarrantably below 
 even reasonable requirements. | 
 
 On the other hand, with the more reasonable forms of con- 
 tract now coming into vogue, it is beginning to be possible to 
 make the work of the inspector something more than a matter 
 of form, and to really get sewers built very closely in accordance 
 with the designs. The writer is firmly of the belief that a reason- 
 
20 
 
 able contract with honest inspection will correct many of the 
 evils from which urban communities now suffer. 
 
 Maintenance.—The maintenance and repair of sewers, having 
 been entirely removed from the engineering department in all of 
 the larger cities, will be passed with a single thought. 
 
 While the day labor employed by cities is in many cases 
 better than it formerly was, yet it is frequently untrustworthy 
 and cannot be depended upon to carry out regulations regarding 
 cleaning and flushing sewers. Also, it is notoriously inefficient. 
 For the sake of economy, it is advisable to place automatic flush 
 tanks at practically all dead ends, and to construct street inlets 
 rather than catch basins, except where the latter are absolutely 
 necessary, depending mainly on flushing to keep the sewers clean. 
 It is also advisable, in sanitary sewers, to see that the building 
 regulations require a vent from the soil pipe to the roof of each 
 building, so that when sanitary sewage conveyed by the separate 
 system has once passed the trap inside of the building, there shall 
 be no other traps until it is finally discharged through the outfall 
 sewer or at the disposal works. 
 
 Degree of Accuracy.—Engineers are prone to approach this 
 problem as though it could be solved exactly. This is the 
 desideratum, but it cannot be even closely approximated until 
 much more experimental work has been done and a large amount 
 of additional data has been gathered, so that judgments may be 
 formed, rules formulated, and the practice standardized. 
 
 Engineers go to great lengths to determine the exact daily 
 consumption per capita and the amounts of water used by manu- 
 facturing concerns, so as to know very closely the amount of 
 house sewage and trade wastes; then very largely guess at the 
 amount of seepage water, after which the figures are increased 
 perhaps 50% to allow for periods of maximum flow; and then 
 the sewer is designed, so that on the basis of these computations 
 it will run two-thirds or three-fourths full during maximum flow. 
 
 In order to arrive at the amount of runoff, engineers make 
 careful estimates of the perviousness of the surface, its general 
 slope and the time of surface concentration; and then arbitrarily 
 assume some depth of rain which may or may not closely 
 approximate the maximum rainfall for that city, or some pre- 
 determined amount less than this maximum. 
 
 This is all necessary, and the writer warmly endorses doing 
 all such work as accurately as possible, laying stress on the 
 refinement of details as rapidly as our knowledge warrants such 
 action, but it should not be expected that absolutely correct 
 results have been attained, after all this is done. Neither is it 
 to be inferred that in this respect the hydraulic engineer is 
 behind the structural, mechanical, or other engineers of the pro- 
 fession. 
 
21 
 
 A sewer system should be designed for 25 years, for 50 years, 
 for all time; and engineers accomplish this with a remarkably 
 small margin of error. Yet no one would think of expecting an 
 architect or structural engineer to build a factory so that it 
 would handle a small output economically and at the same time 
 be capable of caring for the unknown future growth of the busi- 
 ness. If in the erection of a steel frame building or in the con- 
 struction of a machine, where working conditions are pre-deter- 
 mined and the strength and properties of the steel may be found 
 out completely in the laboratory and testing machine, it is 
 deemed necessary to allow factors of safety from 3 to 20; 
 hydraulic engineers are to be congratulated, since many of the 
 conditions with which they deal are difficult and some of them 
 practically impossible to determine, yet withal satisfactory 
 results are achieved. 
 
22 
 
 Table I. 
 N Drainage. 
 aa ; Irrigation. 
 ¥ by Waterworks. 
 Municipal ! Sewerage. 
 
 Hydraulic Engineering 
 
 Table 
 
 City. 
 Kansas City, 
 St. Louis, 
 
 Topeka, Kans:..... 
 Shreveport, La..... 
 
 City. 
 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 
 slireveport, sila 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 
 St. “Louis; Mo:57- 
 Columbus, O...... 
 Topeka, Kans.... 
 
 topeka) ssansieasa. 
 St.” Paul, “Minn. : 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 
 Carros ieee ss 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 
 Columbia, Mo..... 
 Little Rock, Ark... 
 Cairo, 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Davenport, Ta:...-. 
 Omaha, N 
 Columbus: Ones 
 Wichita, Kans... ... 
 
 City. 
 
 Shreveport, La.... 
 New Orleans, fas 
 Springfield, Mo... 
 Topeka, Kans... .+ 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 
 Hannibal, 
 Wichita, Kans.... 
 
 Nashville, Tenn... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Little Rock, Ark... 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 
 
 Cincinnal, VOe.. 
 Diabudue lars... 
 Shreveport, La.... 
 Emcoln we iNebsa.. 
 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 
 Wigs 
 Milwaukee, IVY 1Sten ce, 
 Ft.) Worth] lex... 
 Catto, (LU ee ie. 
 
 § Water 
 
 Power | Electrical. 
 _ {Harbor improvements. 
 Transportation {Ship canals. 
 
 River improvement. 
 
 II. Heavy PREcIPITATIONS, 
 
 Fietp CovERED BY HypRAULIC ENGINEERING. 
 
 Givinc Rates PER Hour. 
 
 Time Periods. 
 
 Date 10 min. 
 nie oie, ajece tere ate a Feietotenets ate 8-23-06 6.78 in. 
 Sug: mfoedate o oe elas aerate tek 7 -8-28 6.03 in. 
 wide ete ate ‘cle cisahene tert tarene 6-24-04 5.78 in. 
 clon Ab tials © Shines OREOTe 9-21-00 4.90 in. 
 apate rs eliouereelenstet tier eacetectels 6-28-05 4.74 in. 
 OS aisie alee Se eien eee 7-11-97 4.57 in. 
 Bie le te rehaa eich io ite ohete ketene 7-11-03 4.42 in. 
 SA TAC CERO ERC 8- 2-03 4.02 in. 
 ett Oo RCI Fiche 7-23-05 8.86 in. 
 
 Table III. 
 
 HEAVY PRECIPITATIONS. 
 40 MINUTES, 
 
 Avy. Par- 
 Rate Final tial 
 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 
 
 20 min. 40 min. 
 6.48 in. 6.79 in, 
 4.92 in. 3.66 in. 
 4.64 in. 8.98: in. 
 4.14 in. 8.70 ink 
 8.84 in. 8.82 in. 
 rilikeebae Fs geo Be 
 3.98 in. 3.36 in. 
 8.72 in. 3.48 in. 
 Sif pee aals $:70ein? 
 
 Av. Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 
 
 8-23-06 5.79 7 7 Dodge City, Kans.. 6- 7-99 2.94 38 87 
 6-24-04 3.98 2 9 Wichita, Kans..... 9-17-05 2.92 10 97 
 7-23-05 3.70 4 13 Louisville, Ky..... 8- 8-98 2.90 2 99 
 9-21-00 3.70 8 16 New Orleans, La.. 3-17-04 2.86 1 100 
 7- 8-98 3.66 4 20 Nashville, Tenn... 8-21-02 2.82 2 102 
 Veet e step? Mal 21 New Orleans, La.. 7-19-01 2.81 1 £103 
 8-02-03 3.48 7 28 New Orleans, La.. 7-19-01 2.81 1 £104 
 9-13-01 3.40 7 35 Columbia, Mo..... 8-25-00 2.78 5 109 
 8- 9-02 3.36 2 Sif Oklahoma = Gaetcy. 
 7-11-03 3.36 3 40 Oklawee ee ett cen 6- 4-04 2.78 4 113 
 6-28-05 3.32 3 43 Little Rock, Ark..11-28-05 2.78 3 116 
 3-25-04 3.20 3 46 Kansas City, Mo... 9-14-05 2.77 7 123 
 5-31-02 3.20 5 51 Evansville, Ind.... 8-14-06 2.74 4 127 
 5- 8-00 3.14 3 54 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-97 2.72 2 129 
 6-18-99 3.10 3 57 New Orleans, La.. 7-11-04 2.71 iy 130 
 6- 8-04 3.10 38 60) One ta nom iaerCity, 
 8-25-04 3.09 1 61 Ollaveenen cee 5-29-05 2.70 4 134 
 8-26-07 3.06 7 68 Des Moines, Ia.... 7-14-07 2.67 i) 139 
 7- 6-98 3.03 5 73 Evansville, Ind.... 9- 2-00 2.66 4 143 
 6-23-01 3.02 1 74 Lexington, Ky.... 8-22-00 2.65 1 144 
 7- 6-04 2.96 10 84 Columbia, Mo..... 8-22-05 2.65 5 149 
 (149 weighted rains occur every 10 years.) 
 Av. Par- Av. Par- 
 Rate Final tial Rate Final tial 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 
 6- 1-06 2.62 4 Los Springfield, Mo... 7-19-06 2.44 10 224 
 3-14-03 2.60 1 154 Davenport, Ia..... 9- 9-03 2.44 {é 231 
 7-26-05 2.58 10 164 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-05 2.48 2 233 
 6-24-03 2.58 fe Lie. Ft. Worth, Tex.... 5- 2-06 -2.40 3 236 
 5-21-98 2.56 3 174 Memphis, Tenn.... 8- 9-05 2.38 3 239 
 5-26-06 2.54 5 179 Nashville, Tenn... 9- 4-06 2.38 2 241 
 6-15-05 2.58 10 £189 Nashville, Tenn... 6- 9-08 2.88 2 248 
 9- 1-00 2.53 2 191 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 2.37 ik 244 
 8-14-03 2.51 1 192 Columbia, Mo..... 5-25-03 2.37 5 249 
 9-15-98 2.50 3 £195 Milwaukee, Wis.. 9-17-07 2.36 2 251 
 9- 2-00 2.50 2 197 Lincoln, Neb..... 8-15-00 2.32 6 257 
 7- 5-97 2.50 1 198 Dodge City, Kans.. 8-18-04 2.32 3 260 
 8-15-07 2.50 5 208 #£=Kansas City, -Mo 9- 9-03 2.32 7 267 
 6-27-02 2.47 4 207 Oklahoma City, 
 5-10-05 2.45 6 213 Okla ai. Se eee 5- 5-99 2.32 4 271 
 8-14-03 2.44 1 214 Dodge City, Kans.. 7-19-97 2.82 3° 274 
 
23 
 
 Av. Par- Av. Par- 
 Rate Final tial Rate Final tial 
 City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. Date. per hr. Wt. Ts. 
 New Orleans, La.. 8- 5-98 2.30 1 275 Oklahoma City 
 Kansas City, Mo... 3-24-04 2.30 7 282 2) 2 are Le Bae oe 8-28-00 1.87 4 543 
 PESTON ede Ds dates 8- 8-04 2.30 2 284 Maron So2D-. 4.8 6-24-02 1.86 2 545 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-11-06 2.99 1 285 Topeka, Kans..... 9-22-02 1.85 7 552 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 7-14-07 2.26 7 2992 Louisville, Ky.... 7-10-97 1.84 2 554 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 7-21-07 2.26 3 295 Columbus; Q.. 20. 7-19-00 1.84 1 555 
 Barons Ssh. oo, 5 6-27-05 2.26 2 297 Nashville, Tenn... 7-11-97 1.84 2 557 
 La Crosse, Wis.... 7- 9-03 2.26 5 302 Columbia, Mo.....10- 6-00 1.84 5 562 
 Columbia, Mo..... 6-25-99 2.24 5 307 Lincoln, Nebzs... 8 7-07 1.84 6 568. 
 Shreveport, La.... 4-11-05 9.24 4 311 Lincoln, Neb..... 7-22-02 1.84 6 574 
 + ankton, “S.'D.... 8-23-06) 9:99" "3S! sia St. Paul, Minn.... 9- 5-04 1.84 2 576 
 St. Louis; Mo..... 8- 6-07 -2:20° 4 318 Kansas City, Mo... 9- 5-98 1.84 7 583 
 Little Rock, Ark... 6- 1-98 2.20 3 321 Davenport, Ia..... 9-14-03 1.84 7 590 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.20 5 326 Des Moines, Ia.... 4-22-97 1.83 5 595 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 8-23-98 2.20 2 328 Omalia, Neby 20); 6-26-06 1.82 5 600 
 Gincinnati, (O.05.' 7-22-06 2.19 1 3829 New Orleans, La.. 8-12-06 1.82 1 601 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 6-17-06 2.18 3 382 Ft. Worth, Tex.... 8-11-06 1.82 8 604 
 St. Paul, Minn.... 7-30-04 2.16 2 334 Cincinnati, O..... 8- 3-00 1.81 1 605 
 Wichita, Kans.... 7-14-04 2.16 10 344 Chiearo; Tl. : 25% 7-28-06 1.80 2 607 
 Evansville, Ind.... 9- 2-04 2.16 4 348 St. Paul, Minn.... 7-25-97 1.80 2 609 
 Columbia, Mo..... 9-17-05 2.15 5 353 New Orleans, La.. 6- 7-04 1.80 1 610 
 eureveport, (Lat.i4) 6--7-07 £2.14 4. (4957 Topeka, Kans..... 8- 4-06. 1.80 7 617 
 Columbia, Mo..... 6-14-98 2.12 5 362 Little Rock, Ark.. 4-24-05 1.78 3 620 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 3-31-04 2.12 2 364 New Orleans, La.. 6-20-00 1.78 1 621 
 Cairo Rss eG 6-22-97 2.11 3 367 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-00 1.78 3 624 
 New Orleans, La.. 5-23-07 2.10 1 368 Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 7-98 1.76 5 629 
 St. Paul, Minn.... 8-18-07 2.10 2 370 Huron, © SD. co 8 S-01l eb 76). 9 68) 
 New: Orleans, “La:. 4-17-01 9.08 —"1 “S717 O'klaham a City 
 Ft. Smith, Ark... 6-30-07 2.08 7 378 TAS 9. tah wine aot 8- 7-06 1.76 4 635 
 Des Moines, Ia.... 7-18-04 2.08 5 383 Wasi, Nei. ov f. 7-15-00 1.75 5 640 
 New Orleans, La.. 9-16-01 2.06 1 384 Indianapolis, Ind.. 6- 4-06 1.75 2 642 
 Oklahoma City Columbia, Mo..... 4-24-04 1.74 5 647 
 2) ee 5-23-03 2.06 4 388 Wichita, Kans.... 6- 2-04 1.74 10 657 
 Yankton, S. D..... 9-20-02 2.06 3 391 ot. Goais,, Mo... : 7. 7-29-08 1.73 4 661 
 Valentine, Neb.... 7-21-04 2.06 3 394 Dodge City, Kans.. 5-13-98 1.72 3 664 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 8- 2-05 2.06 7 401 New Orleans, La.. 3-19-05 1.72 1 665 
 Evansville, Ind.... 7-20-04 2.06 4 405 Nashville, Tenn... 6-27-04 1.72 2 667 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 7-23-99 2.06 3 408 Shreveport, *“Ta.. '"4> 9-05) Are" ‘a 971 
 Shreveport, La.... 5- 3-06 2.05 4 412 Shreveport, [La.... 5-21-05 ° “1.72 4°” 675 
 Valentine, Neb.... 7- 9-07 2.04 3 415 furon, S. D...... 8-18-04 1.71°°2 677 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 7-16-06 2.04 3 418 Bismarck, N. D... 6-13-01 1.71 _1 678 
 Cairo, Ill... cesses 6 7-00 2.04 3 421 Kansas City, Mo... 7- 7-02 1.71 7 685 
 St. Paul, Minn... 6-12-99 2.04 2 423 Columbus, O..... 6-14-04 1.71 1 686 
 New Orleans, La.. 7- 4-08 2.04 1 424 Shreveport, La... 7.28.08 1.70 4 690 
 Yankton. S. D.... 7-15-00 2.04 3 427 Columbia, Mo..... 7-18-02 1.68 5 695 
 Springfield, Mo... 6-24-06 2.083 10 487 Dodge City, Kans.. 8- 6-03 1.68 3 698 
 oummbus, Ou... 7-28-02 2.02 1 488 Springfield, Mo.... 8- 7-06 1.68 10 708 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 8- 6-98 2.02 3 441 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5- 3-04 168 3 711 
 Columbia, Mo..... 9-18-04 2.02 5 446 CRIP Oise Liles eo ctrraie 7-30-01 168 3 1714 
 Kansas City, Mo... 5-23-02 2.02 7 453 Dubuque, Ia. .... 9-25-04 1.68 5 719 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-15-01 2.01 1 454 nie, vawer feea ee ce) : ite 
 ichi -2()- tittle IKhock, Ark... 8-25- ‘ 
 Wichita, pean. vay * 5-20-03 2.00 10 464 Tadiandpolisc Ind he 6 0Le Les at eoo 
 Lincoln, Neb..... 5-28-05 2.00 6 470 N Orleans, La.. 9. 9-98 1.65. 1. 730 
 Beach ade t80-0082.00 7 4 ea74 AO Tyee oon 2 Cis 
 ia Crosse, Wis...4 8-94-06 1.98 "5 “479 CTR ae chs we ere 8-12-01 1.64 4 784 
 Yankton, sr D..s- 7514-00 “1.96 43, .482 Springfield, Mo.... 6- 4-04 1.64 10 744 
 Memphis, Tenn....11-19-06 1.96 3 485 Lexington, Ky.... 7-19-02 1.68 1 745 
 Nashville Tenn.... 6- 7-00 1.95 92 487 Des Moines, Ia... 7-19-05 1.62 5 ‘750 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 6- 4-04 1.95 5 492 Memphis, Tenn... 8-18-01 1.62 3 758 
 Lincoln, Neb. .... 7-15-00 1.95 6 498 St: Paul, Minn..,.... 8- 6-98 1.62) 2 “765 
 Ex, V¥ Orth. /P ex... 6-24-09) 1.94. 3°! "501 Nashville, Tenn... 9-14-01 1.61 2 [57 
 Salentine,, MNeb:.. (6-27-05 .1.94 2 2504 Okiahomia City 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 2-99 1.98 2 506 (Dj ee 5-28-03 1.60 4 761 
 Yankton, S. D....-7-10-07 1.92 3 509 Columbia, Mo..... 10-28-00 1.60 5 766 
 New Orleans, La. ...8= 38-02% 1.92” 1° 510 Des Moines, Ia.... 7-16-07 1.60 5 [71 
 St. Paul, Minn....10- 3-03 1.92 2 512 Chicago. Ils... 64 5-24-02° 1.59 2 778 
 New Orleans, La.. ‘4-17-00 -1.91 1 613 New Orleans, La.+:7-18-00 1.59. 4: 774 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 6-22-01 1.90 7 520 Dodge City, Kans.. 7-28-00 1.58. 3 777 
 New Orleans, La..11-22-01 1.90 1 521 Cattcranati,“Owsigak -T2E-08 SLAG iy 778 
 Evansville, Ind.... 7-11-04 1.90 4 525 Hannibal, Mo.....-8- 8-99 1.56 5 783 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 9-25-98 1.89 5 580 Columbia, Mo.....10-16-05 1.56 5 788 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-19-06 1.89 2 532 Louisville, Ky..... 8-16-98 1.55 2 790 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-17-97 1.88 1 533 Omaha,» Neb, ...:..« 8-26-03 1.54 5 795 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 7-28-06 1.88 a 536 Lincoln, Neb...... 8- 4-02 1.54 6 801 
 Yankton, S. D.... 5-24-06 1.88 3 539 Ft. Smith, Ark.... 9- 2-06 1.54 i 808 
 
Av. 
 
 Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 
 City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 
 Bismarck, -N, -D... 6-. 4-05 1.5817" 1° 809 Lincoln, Neb...... 5-24-03 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 5-29-00 1.58 2 811 Ft. Worth, Tex.... 9-21-00 
 Bismarck, Ns Do>.° 6-16-97 -1.63™% (19812 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5-24-07 
 Lotisville; (Ky?) 6-16-02) 49.62. |e si4 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-14-06 
 Columbus,: UOs. 228 8-15-00 bo ees Des Moines, Ia.... 7-23-00 
 St. Louis, Mo... .. 5- 5-00 1.51 4 819 Oklahoma City 
 New Orleans, La..11- 9-98 1.51 1 820 Okla sire one 9-11-06 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 6-05 1.50 7 827% Yankton, S. D.... 9-20-02 
 New Orleans, La..)-7- 5-02: 1:560-'01) 9 °828 a7 64 6) TD 8- 4-00 
 St. Paul, Minn...10- 3-00 1.50 2 +. 830 ae nibs ‘alr eea: 8-10-99 
 St. Louis, Mio.. ein 5-21-98 149 4 834 4 = oy Poser ae 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-25-99 1.49 1 835 New Orleans, La..10- 7-00 
 Topeka, Kans..... 7-81-02 1.48 7 842 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-16-06 
 Columbia, Mo.... 6- 7-98 1.48 5 847 Milwaukee, Wis... 9-14-03 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 3-26-02 1.48 3 850 Kansas City, Mo... 7-19-06 
 Oklahoma City ; St: Paul; Minn i 78> 4205 
 
 Okla paren. 7-20-97 1.46 4 854 Little Rock, Ark... 9-10-99 
 Oklahoma City Milwaukee, Wis.. 6-12-99 
 
 Oklaseaah Seen. 5- 6-00 1.46 4 . 858 Des Moines, Ia... 5-21-03 
 Chicago.) Laem < 7= 0-031. 44. eee ee SOO Kansas City, Mo... 8-21-04 
 Omaha; 7 Neb. 6-16-00 1.44 5 865 Little Rock, Ark...12-13-01 
 Springfield, Ill.... 8- 3-05 1.44 6 871 ELuron aos : . 5- 9-05 
 Springfield, Ill....0/6+ 1-02.° 1.44.9 60877 Oklahoma City 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 5-04 1.44 7 884 Old ack Sener eee 8-25-02 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 5-26-02 1.44 3 887 Des Moines, Ia.... 4-17-00 
 Dodge City, Kans..10- 9-98 1.42 3 890 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 
 
 Table IV. 
 HEAVY PRECIPITATIONS. 
 20 MINUTES. 
 Av. Par- 
 
 City. 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 
 
 New Orleans, La.. 9-30-05 
 New Orleans, La.. 5-30-07 
 Cincinnati, O...... 5-20-02 
 St. Louis; Mo:... .- 7- 8-98 
 St. Paul, Minn.... 8- 9-02 
 Hannibal lo... 8-17-06 
 New Orleans, La.. 8-25-04 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 6-24-04 
 Nashville, Tenn...11-20-00 
 Columbus, Ove. 2 6-23-01 
 
 Des Moines, Ia.... 7-19-04 
 
 Wichita, Kans... . : 9-17-05 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 9-21-00 
 Cohtmbtrss 20. <... 7-11-97 
 
 Columbia, Mo..... 8 
 Nashville, Tenn... 8 
 Davenport, Ia.... 9 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 7- 
 New Orleans, La.. 7 
 
 i, 
 
 4. 
 
 1 
 
 1- 
 
 8- 
 Springfield, Mo.... 6-05 
 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-97 
 Columbia, Mo.... 5-31-02 
 Cairomellian eae ee 6-28-05 
 Hannibal.) Mos. si. 9- 9-03 
 jahFeyense sh JDL ceo. 7- 6-05 
 Louisville, Ky..... 8- 8-98 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 6- 3-04 
 Columbia, Mo..... 6-25-99 
 New Orleans, La.. 3-17-04 
 Nashville, Tenn... 7-19-04 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 3-25-04 
 Shreveport, La.... 7-23-05 
 Topeka, Kans..... 8- 2-03 
 Columbia, Mo..... 8-25-00 
 Wichita, Kans.... 7- 6-04 
 Ft. Worth. Tex... 7- 2-05 
 Lincoln, Neb..... 8-15-00 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 
 6.48 
 6.07 
 5.16 
 5.03 
 4.92 
 4.92 
 4.68 
 4.65 
 4.64 
 4.60 
 4.49 
 4,41 
 4.24 
 4.24 
 4.20 
 4.14 
 4.11 
 4.06 
 4.02 
 4.00 
 3.98 
 3.95 
 3.92 
 3.92 
 3.90 
 3.84 
 3.81 
 3.81 
 3.80 
 3.78 
 3.78 
 Sekt 
 3.75 
 3.74 
 3.74 
 3.72 
 3.72 
 3.72 
 3.70 
 3.68 
 
 eet 
 
 me 
 
 an 
 AWOOIQPEWNOEFOWNNOAIWHENDOMPWHANONHWOOMNOHNONMH UN PHY eH AQ 
 
 ik 
 
 . per hr. Wt. Tis. 
 
 tf 
 8 
 
 157 
 163 
 
 City. Date. 
 Little Kock, Ark... 5-21-98 
 Memphis, Tenn... 6- 7-05 
 Springfield, Mo.... 8-14-05 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Oklat ma cnctic ee 6- 4-04 
 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 7-25-97 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-11-07 
 Cairo Ulece eee 6-13-99 
 Topeka, Kans:.... 9-13-01 
 Davenport, Ia..... 7-10-07 
 Des Moines, Ia.... 5-28-00 
 Hiurona Sa Dee 6-14-01 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 9-99 
 Topeka, Kans..... 6-24-03 
 Kansas City, Mo... 6-22-06 
 Cinemnatiny Ove t-2 2-06 
 Denver, Colo....... 5-27-98 
 New Orleans, La.. 8-22-03 
 Kansas City, Mo... 9-14-05 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-15-01 
 St. Louis, Mo.... 8- 6-07 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Ok aaa ares citer 5-29-05 
 Nashville. Tenn.... 6-15-05 
 Dodge City, Kans. 6- 7-99 
 Davenport, Ia..... 7-10-07 
 New Orleans, La.. 4-17-01 
 Des Moines, Ia.... 7-14-07 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-19-61 
 Columbia, Mo..... 7- 2-05 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 9-30-02 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 6- 4-98 
 New Orleans, La.. 3-14-03 
 Topeka, Kans..... 7-21-04 
 Chicago; Tile. 7-15-06 
 Lexington, Ky.... 8-22-00 
 Louisville, Ky..... 5-31-03 
 Nashville, Tenn.... 9- 1-00 
 Dubuque, “14... . 20. 8-15-07 
 
 (298 weighted rains every 5 years.) 
 
 Av. 
 
 Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 
 1.42 
 1.42 
 1.42 
 1.42 
 1.40 
 
 Av. 
 
 6. 
 
 Hoe WWHNNNMWWNWNNDAKHPANHNWFE TIDWw 
 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 
 
 896 
 899 
 902 
 908 
 913 
 
 917 
 920 
 922 
 927 
 928 
 934 
 936 
 943 
 945 
 948 
 950 
 955 
 962 
 965 
 967 
 
 971 
 
 976 
 977 
 
 Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 per hr. Wt. Tis. 
 
 3.66 
 3.64 
 3.64 
 
 3.62 
 3.60 
 3.60 
 3.58 
 
 owe 
 
 HAVO VQHWVNNHTHWHWR PHQHHHRQIAIWWOTNVQIWHNVHA 
 
 166 
 169 
 179 
 
 183 
 184 
 186 
 187 
 190 
 197 
 204 
 209 
 211 
 213 
 220 
 227 
 228 
 229 
 230 
 237 
 238 
 242 
 
 246 
 248 
 251 
 258 
 259 
 264 
 265 
 270 
 272 
 275 
 276 
 283 
 285 
 286 
 288 
 290 
 295 
 
City. 
 Columbia, Mo..... 
 Nashville, Tenn... 
 ott Louis, . Mow .3 
 St. Louis, Mo..... 
 Little Rock, Ark... 
 
 HiGmron ss «dae oe 
 
 Shreveport, La... 
 
 Dodge City, Kas.. 
 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Chicaso., Tee... 
 Wichita, Kans..... 
 Davenport, Ia..... 
 
 Ste Louis, (Mo. oe 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 
 Lincoln, Neb...... 
 
 Shreveport, La.... 
 Des Moines, Ia.... 
 St.. Louis, Mo.... 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 
 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Cairorediies «Make ss 
 Evansville, Ind.... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Nashville, Tenn... 
 Lincoln, Neb..... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Yankton, S.-D:... 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 
 Date. per hr. 
 
 9-16-05 
 6- 7-00 
 5- 1-99 
 5- 4-02 
 5- 8-00 
 6-12-00 
 6- 106 
 8- 6-98 
 9- 2-00 
 3-30-99 
 8- 5-05 
 7-14-04 
 
 9-01 
 
 2-07 
 2-03 
 7-07 
 5-98 
 
 0-02 
 4-03 
 8- 7-06 
 
 6-22-03 
 
 St. Paul, Minn:...10- 3-03 
 
 DeGrOir es. Le ort: 
 Ft. Worth, Tex.... 
 Wichita, Kans.... 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 
 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 ORAS 3. e Boe. 
 Lexington, Ky..... 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 
 Nashville, Tenn... 
 Evansville, Ind.... 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 
 Fino, 45. Ds 2. : 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Wichita, Kans..... 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 
 Yankton; S. Diz: .; 
 Little Rock, Ark... 
 Starbaul) Minnke.- 
 Lexington, Ky.... 
 Bismarck, N. D... 
 Yanrtone S.cDs. 3 
 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Gra Mss. of Bs «3 
 Kansas City, Mo... 
 Kansas City, Mo... 
 Chicago, Tiles... 
 Evansville, Ind... 
 Lincoln, Neb..... 
 La Crosse, Wis... 
 Nashville, Tenn... 
 Pilon. oo, Lae, 
 St. Louis, Mo..... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Chitago,- TiLiw 
 
 6-27-05 
 6- 5-07 
 
 9-11-06 
 
 NO OH 2 
 i 
 
 ooo 
 
 Oo for) 
 
 % 2 
 ooooos 
 
 Shar 
 i) 
 J 
 
 ' 
 
 Dw 
 
 POH ANA OOP OOo 
 
 oo c'o'o 
 
 8-25-03 
 
 7- 1-01 
 
 WW WW WV WV WWW WW WW OV go 9 09 09 0 G0 08 
 
 Ooo 
 
 Par- 
 Rate Final tial 
 WtwvPis: 
 
 300 
 302 
 306 
 310 
 313 
 315 
 319 
 322 
 324 
 325 
 327 
 337 
 344 
 348 
 351 
 357 
 361 
 366 
 370 
 372 
 373 
 374 
 375 
 381 
 384 
 390 
 391 
 392 
 395 
 399 
 400 
 402 
 408. 
 409 
 412 
 417 
 418 
 420 
 422 
 425 
 435 
 440 
 443 
 
 447 
 448 
 451 
 453 
 457 
 460 
 461 
 464 
 467 
 469 
 470 
 480 
 482 
 485 
 488 
 490 
 491 
 492 
 495 
 
 499 
 506 
 513 
 515 
 519 
 525 
 530 
 532 
 534 
 538 
 539 
 541 
 
 City. 
 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 
 Bisniarck, No D... 
 Evansville, Ind... 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 
 Davenport, Ia..... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 
 St. Paul, Minn.... 
 Yankton, Si Ds. 2 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Evansville, Ind... 
 Denver,” Colo.e... 
 Hannibal, Mo.... 
 
 Little Rock, Ark..11-28-05 
 Dodge City, Kans. 7-23-99 
 
 Columbus, ~O.%. i 
 Evansville, Ind... 
 Hannibal, Mo.... 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 
 St. Paul, Minn... 
 Omaha, Neb....... 
 Valentine, Neb.... 
 Shreveport, La.... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Columbia, Mo..... 
 Chieavon Its. 4.4% 
 Shreveport, La... 
 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Okia se. S32080 33 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 
 Columbia, Mo..... 
 Columbia, Mo..... 
 Topeka, Kans..... 
 Springfield, Mo.... 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 
 Kansas City, Mo... 
 Columbus, Owls. 
 
 Pittron, ou Disses 
 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Kansas City, Mo... 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Lincoln, Neb...... 
 Nashville, Tenn... 
 Shreveport, Laz... 
 Ft. Worth, Tex..!: 
 Little Rock, Ark... 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 
 THurnormeS.- Ds 82% 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Omaha, Nebs fac. . 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Topeka, -Katis.;... 2; 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 
 Valentine, Neb.... 
 Lincoln, Neb...... 
 Kansas City, Mo... 
 
 Wichita, Kans.... 
 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 
 Louisville, Ky..... 
 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Stapeaulee Minn... 
 Shreveport, La.... 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 
 Davenport,, la. 3... 
 
 Yankton. 5S. Dt...) 
 
 Bismarck, N. D... 
 
 Lexington, Ky..... 
 Dodge City, Kans.. 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 
 O1 > Or HB CO OD 
 ' ' 
 
 cs) 
 FA HER 09 © 00 OO 0100 . 
 
 PAD RAD 
 
 Wee ew!) Hae 
 
 rs 
 
 = 
 MEVWONDABAN 
 
 Av. 
 
 2.92 
 2.92 
 2.92 
 2.92 
 2.91 
 2.91 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.90 
 2.88 
 2.88 
 2.88 
 2.88 
 2.88 
 2.86 
 
 2.86 
 
 2.86 
 2.86 
 2.85 
 2.84 
 2.84 
 2.84 
 2.83 
 2.82 
 2.82 
 
 2.81 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 2.79 
 2.09 
 2.78 
 2.78 
 Pritts 
 2.07 
 2.77 
 2.76 
 2.76 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.75 
 2.74 
 2.74 
 2.74 
 2.74 
 2.74 
 2.74 
 
 2.63 
 2.62 
 2.62 
 
 Otc & p PWT RPWODWORPREWWOH RE wDmMWe SaRe 
 
 he 
 
 ed 
 PORWR WNYRUOHH WHYS RAWNQHDOHE OH WWI WWORDOHQIEWE WA 
 
 Par- 
 Rate Final tial 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 
 
 546 
 547 
 551 
 553 
 560 
 561 
 564 
 566 
 569 
 570 
 574 
 575 
 580 
 583 
 586 
 587 
 591 
 596 
 599 
 601 
 606 
 609 
 613 
 614 
 619 
 621 
 625 
 
 629 
 632 
 635 
 641 
 646 
 653 
 663 
 665 
 672 
 673 
 675 
 676 
 683 
 684 
 690 
 692 
 696 
 699 
 702 
 709 
 711 
 714 
 715 
 720 
 721 
 723 
 724 
 731 
 736 
 739 
 745 
 752 
 762 
 769 
 770 
 772 
 773 
 774 
 776 
 780 
 782 
 784 
 791 
 794 
 795 
 796 
 799 
 800 
 
26 
 
 Av. Par- Av. Par- 
 Rate Final tial Rate Final tial 
 City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 
 Valentine, Neb..... 6-27-05 2.62 3 803 Yankton, S. D... 5-24-06 - 23.83" Segaoe 
 LaCrosse, Was..../ 7-31-07 - 2:62 69/808 Omaha, (Nebis....: 7-15-00 2.32- 6 21i4 
 Wichita, Kans..... 6- 2-04 2.62 10 818 Valentine, Neb.... 7- 9-07. 2.382 $8 1114 
 St. Louis, Mo..... 5-21-98 2.62 4 822 Shreveport, La. 5- 7-07 2,382 4 1118 
 Wichita, Kans..... 8-16-07 2.61 10 882 Springfield, Mo... 6-24-06 2.381 10 1128 
 Kansas City, Mo... 8-15-03 2.61 7% 889 New Orleans, La.. 7-18-00 2.31 1.1129 
 Oklahoma City Evansville, ‘Ind... 5-31-07 2.30 4 1133 
 Ola. aes 5- 6-99 2.61 4 843 Columbia, Mo.... 7-18-02 2.30 5 1188 
 Nashville, Tenn.... 7-11-97 2.61 2 845 Little Rock, Ark.. 9-10-99 2.30 3 1141 
 Evansville, Ind.. ” 7-11-04 9/6011 490 849 New Orleans, La.. 7-17-97 2.29 1 1142 
 St. Louis, Mo.. 5-81-03. 2160 4 7*868-. Lincoln, ~ Nev. 2.5 9-14-06 2.28 6 1148 
 Memphis, Tenn.. 8-30=97% 2.608 34) 856 Yankton, S. D... 9-20-02 2.28 3.1151 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 2-99 2.60 2 858 Columbus, O..... 7-19-00 2.28 1 1152 
 Wichita, Kans..... 6- 2-05 2.59 10 9868 Nashville, Tenn.. 6-27-04 2.28 2 1154 
 Oklahoma City Omaha, Nebiecie. - 6-16-00 2.26 5 1159 
 Oldant Sooetus 5-28-08 2.58 49 “gT2 Chicago,, I. =. 5-24-02 2.26 2 1161 
 Ft. Smith, Ark.... 8-26-04 2.58 .7 879 Des Moines, Ia.. 7-23-00 2.25 . 6 1166 
 Little Rock, Ark... 7-29-00 2.58 3 882 Dodge City, Kans.10- 9-98 2.24 3 1169 
 Davenport, Ia..... 9-14-03 2.58 7 889 Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.24 6 1174 
 St. Paul, Minn.... 8- 5-98 2.58 2 891 Lincoln, Neb..... 8- 7-07 2.24 6 1180 
 Des Moines, Ia.... 4-22-97 2.57 5 896 Indianapolis, Ind.. 5-29-00 2.23 2 1182 
 Kansas City, Mo... 7- 7-02 2.57 7% 908 New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-98 2.23 1 1183 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 8-24-04 2.56 q 910 SEL alls Minn... 6-12-99 2.22 2 1185 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 4-99 2.56 5 915 Oklahoma City 
 Springfield, Ill..... 5- 5-01 2.56 6 921 Okla. ......... 8-25-02 2.22 4 1189 
 Columbia, Mo..... 5-25-03 2.56 5 926 Des Moines, Ia... 4-17-00 2.21 5 1194 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 5-98 2.56 7 933 New Orleans, La.. 9- 9-98 2.18 1 1195 
 Caize Salles 6- 7-00 2.56 8 9386 Dubuque, Ia...... 9-25-04 2.18 5 1200 
 Ft. Worth, Tex.... 5- 3-04 2.54 3 939 St. Paul, Minn... 8- 4-05 2.18 2 1202 
 Lexington, Ky..... PET9202'4 2164 .. 1) 7940 Des Moines, la... 7-16-07 2.18 5 1207 
 Shreveport, La.... 4- 2-05 2.54 4 944 New Orleans, La.. 7-25-99 2.17 1 1208 
 Bismarck, N. D.... 6- 4-05 2.54 1 945 Des Moines, Ia... 7-18-04 2.17 5 1213 
 Columbia, Mo.....10-16-05 2.58 5 950 Columbia, Mo.... 4-24-04 2.16 5 1218 
 Columbia, Mo...... 4-25-02 2.52 5 955 LaCrosse, Wis... 8- 4-05 2.14 5 1228 
 Lincoln, Neb...... 7-22-02 2.52 6 961 ‘Topeka, Kans..... 7-31-02 2.12 7 1230 
 Evansville, Ind.... 7-10-05 2.52 4 965 Cincinnati, O..... 7-21-03 2.12 1 1231 
 New Orleans, La.. 3-19-05 2.50 1 966 Chicago, Ill...... 7- 9-03 2.12 2 1233 
 Memphis, Tenn....11-19-06 2.50 38 969 Louisville, Ky.... 6-15-02 2.12 2 1235 
 Cincinnati, O...... 5-29-99 2.50 1 970 Yankton, S. D... 9-20-02 2.08 3 1238 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 8-18-01 2.48 3 973 St. Paul, Minn...10- 3-00 2.08 2 1240 
 New Orleans, La.. 7- 7-98 2.48 1 974 Huron, S: D,... «8-18-04. 207-53 alaee 
 Evansville, Ind.... 6- 2-04 2.48 4 978 Oklahoma City 
 Columbus, O...... 7-20-97 2.48 1 979 Okla. ......-.-- 5- 6-00 2.05 4 1246 
 Kansas City, Mo... 9- 9-03 2.48 7 986 arrose Lisiige oon ee 7-30-01 2.04 3 1249 
 New Orleans, La..11-22-01 2.48 1 987 Dodge City, Kans. 7-28-00 2.02 .8 1252 
 Oklahoma City Oklahoma City 
 Oklari sen : 8-11-02 2.46 4 991 Okla ete. 8-12-01 2.00 4 1256 
 Cincinnati, ase 8- 3-00- 2.46 1 992 Springfield, Ill.... 8- 3-05 2.00 6 1262 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 7-21-07 2.46 2 994 Springfield, Mo... 8- 7-06 2.00 10 1272 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 8-25-99 2.46 3 997 Columbia, Mo.... 6- 7-98 1.98 5 1277 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 6-22-04 2.46 3 1000 Indianapolis, Ind.. 6- 4-06 1.97 2 1279 
 Springfield, Mo.... 6- 4-04 2.45 10 1010 Ft. Worth, Tex.. 9-21-00. 1:96 38 1282 
 New Orleans, La.. 5-23-07 2.45 1 1011 St. “Paul, “Minn. . 27-25-97 1.94 492 1284 
 Columbia, Mo..... 10-28-00 2.44 5 1016 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-03 1.94 3 1287 
 ancoin; sNebme ua 8- 4-02 2.44 6 1022 Topeka, Kans..... 8- 4-06 1.98 7 1294 
 Se Ope Ka eS ats fe. terae 9-22-02 2.42 7 1029 Omaha, Neb...... 8-26-08 1.92 5 1299 
 Oklahoma City Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 5-04 1.92 7 1806 
 Oicla Rea ese Seaton 23-03 2.42 4 1033 New Orleans, La..11- 9-98 1.90 1° 180% 
 Oklahoma City Oklahoma City 
 Oklagiiec eeitecstas 8- 7-06 2.42 4 10387 Okla: Big cee nies 5-21-03 1.90 4-13 Lt 
 Ft. Worth, Sex...10-21-00 2.42 38 1040 Milwaukee, Wis... 6-12-99 1.90 2 1813 
 St. Paul, Minn.... 8-18-07 2.42 2 1042 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5-24-07 - 1.86° S87 °i3me 
 Evansville, Ind.... 5-30-00 2.42 4 1046 Hiuronyeia eae 8- 4-00 1.85 2 1318 
 Caiz0 ds snseaiars Se 6-22-97 2.42 3 1049 Des Moines, Ia... 5-21-03 1.84 5B 13238 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 4-24-05 2.40 3 1052 Ft. Smith, Ark... 9- 2-06 1.82 7 1330 
 Springfield, Ill.... 6- 1-02 2.40 5 1057 Nashville, Tenn... 9-14-01 1.80 2 18382 
 St. Louis, Mo.... 7-29-03 2.40 4 1061 Dodge City, Kans. 8- 6-03 1.80 3 1335 
 St: Louis, Mo.... 5- 6-00 2.89 4 1065 Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 7-98 1.76 5 13840 
 Wichita, Kans.....10-30-03 2.38 10 1075 |New Orleans, La..10- 7-00 1.76 1 13841 
 Columbia, Mo....10- 6-00 2.87 5 1080 Lincoln, Neb...... 5-10-05 1.76 6 13847 
 Valentine, Neb... 7-11-06 2.86 3 1083 Dodge City, Kans. 5-13-98 1.72 3 1850 
 Ft. Worth, Tex.. 8-11-06. 2.36 3 :1086 Columbus, O..... 8-15-00 1.72 1 13851 
 New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-02 2.84 1 108%  MHannibal, Mo..... 8-10-99 164 65 1356 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 6-05 2.34 7 1094 New Orleans, La.. 7- 5-02 1.63 1 1357 
 St! Paul; Minn...) 7-80-04, 22:32 <2" 1096 Louisville, Ky.... 3-16-98 1.60 2 1859 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 7-19-06 2.82 7 1103 lekotgeyelqmrsts) 1D) s5 ae 5- 9-05 1.68 2 1861 
 
City. Date. per hr. Wt. Ts. City. 
 Bincolm, Neb. .... 5-24-03 1.55 6 1367 Little Rock, Ark..12-31-01 1.44 
 Oklahoma City New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 1.26 
 OC ae Fades sw ice 7-20-97 1.44 4. 1371 Lincoin, Neb..... 9-16-06 1.10 
 Table V. 
 HEAVY PRECIPITATIONS. 
 10 MINUTES. 
 Avy. Par- Av. 
 Rate Final tial 
 City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 
 PgEON a, Ose. soe 6-14-01 7.34 2 2 New Orleans, La.. 8-25-03 4.38 
 New Orleans, La.. 9-30-05 7.06 1 3 St. Louis, Mo.... 5- 1-99 4.38 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 8-23-06 6.78 7 10 Springfield, Mo... 7-26-05 4.38 
 New Orleans, La.. 5-30-07 6.50 1 lah Nashville, Tenn... 7-19-04 4.37 
 Des Moines, Ia... 7-19-04 6.12 5 16 Yankton, S22) 7. .07-15-00 4:36 
 St. lowis,-- Mo... .c 7 8-98" (6.03 4 20 Yankton, S.D..2.. 8-18-99 4:35 
 Springfield, Mo... 5-31-06 6.01 10 30 Wichita, Kans.... 7- 6-04 4.35 
 New Orleans, La.. 8-25-04 5.93 1 31 Louisville, Ky.... 8- 8-98 4.35 
 Indianapolis, Ind. 9-30-02 5.84 2 33 New Orleans, La.. 7- 6-04 4.31 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 6-24-04 65.78 2 35 Lincoln, Neb..... 7-31-03 4.31 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 8-17-06 5.64 5 40 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-05 4.30 
 Columbia, Mo..... 7- 2-05 5.62 5 45 Kansas City, Mo.. 6-22-06 4.80 
 Cimcinnati,—O.. S<2 5-20-02 5.61 1 46 Lincoln, Neb..... 7-15-00 4.28 
 Wichita, Kans. 9-17-05 5.50 10 56 New Orleans, La.. 3-80-99 4.27 
 Omaha, Clb acta os 7- 6-98 5.46 5 61 St. Louis, Mo.... 5- 4-02 4.26 
 Columpus: Ors eae 6-23-01 6.39 1 62 iincoln.= Neb. ...:: 8-17-97 4.26 
 Louisville, Ky..:.. 5-31-03 5:36 2 64 Topeka, Kans..... 9-13-01 4.24 
 Sieeaulor Minn. .0.5= 9-02. 6:30 > 12 66 Hannibal, Mo.... 8-13-04 4.24 
 Memphis, Tenn.... 3- 9-01 5.28 38 69 Ft. Worth, Tex... 7-28-06 4.22 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 5-26-06 5.23 5 74 Dodge City, Kans. 6- 4-98 4.22 
 Nashville, Tenn...11-20-00 5.22 . 2 76 Oklahoma City 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 9-17-07 5.20 2 78 ORM oe ton tacts 6- 4-04 4.18 
 Denver; Colo... . 7: 5-27-98 5.02 1 79 New Orleans, La.. 6-22-03 4.18 
 Columbia, Mo.... 6-25-99 5.02 5 84 Little Rock, Ark.. 5- 8-00 4.16 
 Hannibal, sMo..2. 9- 4-98 4.97 5 89 Ft. Worth. Tex... 6-20-06 4.16 
 Indianapolis, Ind. 8- 9-99 4.96 2 91 Little Rock, Ark.. 5-12-05 4.14 
 St. Louis, Mo.... 6-13-00 4.94 4 95 Lexington, Ky.... 7-28-04 4.14 
 Fes orth, * ex... 9-21-00 4.90 4 98 Ft. Worth, Tex... 6- 5-07 4.14 
 Davenport, Ia..... 8-26-07 4.89 7 105 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 4.14 
 Lincoln, Neb..... 8-15-00 4.82 6 111 Indianapolis, Ind.. 7-25-97 4.13 
 icone 9, - Dis... 7- 6-05 4.80 2 kes Topeka, Kans.... 7-21-04 4.13 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-15-01 4.80 ° 1 114 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-19-01 4.12 
 Chicagos Ils. ...: .. 8= 5-00, 4:76 ~2 116 New Orleans, La.. 7-19-01 4.08 
 Garros Ulver ss 6-28-05 4.74 3 119 Valentine, Neb.... 8- 2-04 4.08 
 Davenport, sla... < 6--9-05 4.72 7% 126 Gatto, MALE oe50 6-13-99 4.06 
 Ht. Worth, Tex.4.5.3-25-04 .4.72 3 129 Cmcinnatin-O 8. > <1 7-22-06 4.05 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 7- 2-05 4.70 3 132 Evansville, Ind... 7-11-04 4.04 
 Des Moines, Ia... 7-19-05 4.67 5° 187 Evansville. Ind. 5- 8-00 4.02 
 Columbia, Mo... 8-22-05 =4.64 -5 ©1492 Topeka, Kans..... 8- 2-03 4.02 
 New Orleans, La.. 3-17-04 4.62 1 143 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 3.99 
 Nashville, Tenn... 6-15-97 4.61 2 145 Shreveport, La... 6- 1-06 3.98 
 Des Moines, Ia... 5-28-00 4.60 5 150 Bismarck, N. D... 6-13-01 3.98 
 GolumbusieQ@.. 2a 7-11-97 4.57 1 151 New Orleans, La.. 7-10-07 3.97 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-18-01 4.57 1 152 Davenport, Ia..... 9-25-04 3.96 
 Evansville, Ind... 8- 5-03 4.56 4 156 Topeka, Kans.... 6-24-03 3.96 
 Chicas wi Ll yes cen. 7-1 5-06 m4-5o- ee, sre Ol Ft. Worth, Tex.. 5- 2-06 3.94 
 Ft. Worth, Tex...-6-. 3-04. 4.52 os 159 MT LO SS aek ) cuce ns 8- 8-04 3.93 
 Nashville... Penn... .8-21-02 :4.52. 2 171 New Orleans, La.. 8- 5-07 3.92 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 9- 9-03 4.51 5 166 St. Paul, Minn... 8- 5-98 3.92 
 Dodge City, Kans. 8- 6-98 4.50 3 169 Des Moines, Ia... 7-14-07 3.92 
 New, Oricangs la,» 4017-01 «4650, ele 172 Oklahoma City 
 dua Crosses Wiss... 4/-- 9-03 4250> 9 5: \ 177 Ciclate oO kac ote. 5- 6-00 3.92 
 Columbia, Mo..... 5-31-02 4.49 5 182 Nashville, Tenn 6- 7-00 3.91 
 Nashville, Tenn... 7-10-97 4.48 2 184 Columbia, Mo..... 6-14-98 3.90 
 Columbia, Mo. - 8-25-00 4.46 5 189 Topeka, Kans..... 9-22-02 3.90 
 Nashville, Tenn... 6-28-00 4.45 2 191 Dodge City, Kans. 6- 7-99 3.90 
 St. Louis, Mo..... 8- 6-07 4.44 4 ° 195 Columbus, O..... 6-14-04 3.89 
 @olumbia.qMo. =... 9-16-05 4.42 5 200 Little Rock, Ark.. 9-15-98 3.88 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-11-03 4.42 3 203 Dodge City, Kans. 8-18-04 3.88 
 Dodge City, Kans. 6-17-06 4.42 3 206 Dodge City, Kans. 6- 7-99 3.88 
 New Orleans, La. .12-22-07 4.41 1 207 Wichita, Kans..... 8- 1-03 38.88 
 Davenport, Ja.... 7-10-07 4.40 7 214 New Orleans, La.. 3-14-03 3.88 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 5-21-98 4.38 3 217 Gincimration O enian « 5-29-99 3.87 
 
 Av. 
 Rate Final tial 
 
 Par- 
 
 27 
 
 Av. 
 
 Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Ts. 
 
 3 
 
 1374 
 
 1 13875 
 6 1381 
 
 Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tls. 
 
 bel 
 COWWWORH 
 
 a 
 
 mt 
 RPHOWWWH WIND AVWHWWRIQH HH HYP PH WWHURWHWHWWOW ee WWHWARPREARVWOAH DW 
 
 218 
 222 
 232 
 234 
 237 
 240 
 250 
 252 
 253 
 259 
 261 
 268 
 274 
 275 
 279 
 285 
 292 
 297 
 300 
 303 
 
 307 
 308 
 Bilal 
 314 
 317 
 318 
 321 
 322 
 324 
 331 
 333 
 334 
 337 
 340 
 341 
 345 
 349 
 356 
 357 
 3858 
 359 
 360 
 367 
 374 
 377 
 379 
 380 
 382 
 387 
 
 391 
 393 
 398 
 405 
 408 
 409 
 412 
 415 
 418 
 428 
 429 
 430 
 
City. 
 
 Shreveport, La... 
 Memphis, Tenn... 
 GIT. Ls aeetnete 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 
 New Orleans, La. 
 St... Louis, Mo... 
 Springfield, Ill... 
 Pron aOum ee 
 Ghieago Til cee 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Okla. 
 St. - Paul, 
 
 Stacaul Minnie: 
 New Orleans, La. 
 Dodge City, Kans. 
 Stasloms eiio..: 
 Lexington, Ky... 
 New Orleans, La. 
 Kansai: 
 Kansas City, Mo. 
 Davenport; 1a... 7. 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Wichita, 
 
 Okla. 
 
 Columbia, 
 Ft. 
 
 Valentine, 
 
 Lincoln, 
 
 City. 
 
 Springfield, Mo... 
 
 St. Paul, Minn... 
 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 
 Chicago, Illic.... 
 D 
 
 Huron, 
 
 Ft. 
 Springfield. 
 
 Lexington, 
 
 Memphis, Tenn... 
 Wankton, o72 ).: 
 Evansville, Ind.. 
 Shreveport, La... 
 New Orleans, La.. § 
 Bismarck;; N.1 Da, 
 
 Huron, S. 
 Louisville, 
 
 Shreveport, 
 Cincinnati, 
 
 Davenport, Ia.... 
 Lexington, Ky... 
 Columbia, Mo.... 
 New Orleans, La. . 
 IMO fase 
 Worth, .Tex.. 
 Kansas City. Mo.. 
 Hannibal, Mo.... 
 Wachita. Kans. dar 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 
 WerWaerb Sp bh. 2 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 Wichita, Kans?s 3. 
 New Orleans, La.. 
 New Orleans. La.. 
 INIED ape 
 St."Panl- Milinn 7/2: 
 Vankton, SheD-i=. 
 Topeka, Kans..... 
 Nebo. 3 
 
 vil 
 
 oe ee 
 
 Fe. Warth, cbex..; 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 
 Smith, Ark... 
 WMOms. 
 Memphis, Tenn... 
 St. Lois. Alo. 3. 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 
 New Orleans. La.. 
 RY ates 
 
 Dae 
 Ws ke 
 Des Moines, Ia.. 
 
 Cie me ae} 
 
 Dodge City. Kan 
 lekehnoroy, “Sy IW Aye 
 
 Av. Par- 
 Rate Final tial 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 
 
 7-23-05 3.86 4 434 
 6- 7-05 3.86 3 4387 
 8- 7-06 3.86 3 440 
 8-12-00 3.85 2 442 
 6-20-00 3.84 1 443 
 7-24-00 3.84 4 447 
 8- 7-07 3.83 6 453 
 7-20-07 3.88 2 455 
 7-28-06 3.82 2 457 
 5- 6-99 3.81 461 
 . 6-28-01 3.80 463 
 9- 5-04 3.80 465 
 4-17-00 3.80 466 
 7-23-99 3.78 469 
 7- 4-99 3.78 473 
 8-23-05 3.78 474 
 Hol be eae 475 
 6--2-04 Ga 485 
 9- 5-98 6 492 
 9- 1-05 3) 499 
 
 bear See 
 
 1 
 oS 
 rs 
 
 DAIADADAABADAAARIRAAWAONIWWNS J 3 
 
 Oo 
 
 co 
 WWWHWWWWWwWWWwWwwwwwwwww wwo0 
 MWUNVNWUVWRPARARMWVWDOOWWHEA 
 
 ANIWNWWHHOHWHIOTNRWOAIH OH QP WIOHRH PR WH WWE 
 On 
 fal 
 ~ 
 
 EB OMAIWIDNDRAWWOWOWDAIWINO 
 WWNWHWWH HH HHW HWHHNWH WD 
 CO D> HE He Ft OD 2D OTH 00 HH OT Ft et et DW HR CO 
 oS 
 On 
 
 Ne) 
 ae 
 i) 
 er) 
 i) 
 
 (745 weighted rains every 2 
 
 Av. Par- 
 Rate Final tial 
 Date. perhr. Wt. Ts. 
 
 8-14-05 3.42 10 755 
 9-25-06 3.42 2 . 757 
 8-24-03 3.42 1 758 
 5-11-05 3.42 2 760 
 6-27-05 3.41 ne Se (hare 
 5- 3-04 3.40 3 765 
 8-23-98 | 3.389" 2° 767 
 6-30-07 3.39 7 774 
 7-19-06 3.38 10 784 
 8- 9-05 3.38 3 787 
 5-31-03 3.87 4 791 
 3-24-04 3.36 7. 798 
 8-22-03 3.35 1 799 
 5-10-05 3.35 1 800 
 11-19-06 3.34 3 803 
 . 8-23-06 3.34 _3 806 
 . 7-20-04 3.384 4 810 
 sw-2L-Od. 8 ean 45° ole 
 9-16-01 3.33 1 815 
 10- 1-98 3.83 1' 816 
 6-24-02 3.33 2 818 
 7-10-97 3.32 2 . 820 
 4-22-97 3.32 5 | 825 
 5- 7-07 3.381 4 829 
 8- 3-00. 3.30 1 830 
 7-19-97 3.30 3. 8383 
 6-12-00 3.830 2 8385 
 
 City. 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 7- 6-04 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Ckigehc asetn  ok 5-29-05 
 Denver, Colo..... 
 Ft. Smith, Ark... 8 
 Des Moines, Ia... 7-1 
 Dodge City, Kans.: 7-21-07 
 Shreveport, La... .16 
 La Crosse, Wis... 7-21-07 
 Little Rock, Ark. .11-28-05 
 
 Columbia, Mo..... 9-18-04 
 Evansville, Ind... 9- 2-00 
 New Orleans, La.. 6-27-04 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 9- 2-00 
 New Orleans, La.. 3-14-03 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-31-04 
 Shreveport, La.... 4- 2-05 
 St. Paul, Minn... 8- 4-05 
 Omaha Neb... oct 7-18-07 
 Wichita, Kans.... 6- 2-05 
 Wichita, Kans.... 8-16-07 
 Wichita, Kans.... 5-20-03 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 8-21-04 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Okla’ c.cteenre aah. 5- 5-99 
 Bismarck, N. D.. 6- 4-05 
 Dubuque, glasa.. a. 8-15-07 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8-19-06 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 5-24-05 
 CincinnatizO. vo. 7- 5-97 
 Columbus, O....... 7-28-02 
 Oklahoma City 
 
 Oblate ace 9-11-06 
 Nashville, Tenn... 9- 4-06 
 Hannibal, sev: o 7- 7-98 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 8- 2-99 
 Nashville, Tenn... 9- 1-00 
 Evansville, Ind... 6- 2-04 
 Buront Osean 8- 8-01 
 Dodge City. Kans. 8-16-07 
 Yankton, S. D... 7-14-00 
 Liricoln, “Neb: 3 =< 8- 4-02 
 Omaha, Neba.. oa. 6-26-06 
 
 years. ) 
 
 City. Date 
 @:k 1a hieamia City 
 
 Okla wie see 8- 7-06 
 Shreveport, La.... 5- 8-06 
 Chicago. Liles ee 7- 1-01 
 Shreveport, La.... 7-23-02 
 Valentine, Neb... 7-11-06 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 5-23-02 
 Nashville. Tenn... 7-11-97 
 Topeka, Kans..... 7-28-01 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 8-25-99 
 Evansville, Ind... 8-14-06 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-00 
 St. Paul, Minn.:.10- 3-03 
 New Orleans, La.. 6- 4-05 
 St. Louis, Mo.... 5- 5-00 
 Yanktons Si) yee 0207 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 7-19-06 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 6-05 
 Nashville, Tenn... 6-27-04 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 4-24-05 
 Springfield, Mo... 6- 4-04 
 Columbia, Mo.....10-28-00 
 Columbus, O:-.- 7-19-00 
 
 St lsOis eh Ost. sae 
 Valentine, Neb... 7- 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 Lexington, Ky.... 7-19-02 
 
 2 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 6-2 
 
 Av. Par- 
 Rate Final tial 
 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 
 
 3.60" 2 eee Doe 
 3.60 4 595 
 3.00 ee 596 
 3.58, V7 9200s 
 3.57. =D S3G08 
 3.06 3 611 
 3.56 4 615 
 3.56 5 4620 
 3.56 38 623 
 8.54 5 628 
 8.54 4 632 
 8.54 au 633 
 8.54. 2 635 
 3.54 1 636 
 3.53 2 638 
 3.53 4 642 
 3.52 2 644 
 3.52 5 649 
 3.52 10 659 
 3.50 10 669 
 3.50 10 679 
 3.50 7 686 
 3.50 4 690 
 3.00) ae 691 
 3.50 5 696 
 3.49 2 698 
 3.48 Reo 
 3.46 1 706 
 3.46 1 707 
 38.46 4 y Gilat 
 3745 92 713 
 3.44 5 718 
 3.445 “Based 
 3.44 2 722 
 3.44 4 726 
 3.44 2 728 
 3.44 3 731 
 3.43 Sas 
 3.42... 6. 720 
 3.42 5 745 
 Av. Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 
 .per hr.. Wt. Ts. 
 
 839 
 843 
 845 
 852 
 848 
 859 
 861 
 868 
 871 
 875 
 878 
 880 
 881 
 885 
 888 
 895 
 902 
 904 
 907 
 917 
 922 
 923 
 924 
 928 
 931 
 934 
 
 an 
 WW RHE ONIOWNONRAIWRPHUWWHRWAQHOAIW ROR 
 
 29 9 09 29 49 29 99 99 99 09 99 99 99 09 99 99 49 49 09 2949 49 G9 99 29 O9 
 Set HW WVINVWMWNVWVWNVWNNONVWNNWWWWW 
 
 PRIA AWDDODNDDOOCOOCHVNNWNVKEKFUIAAAWWDWOD 
 
29 
 
 Av. Par- 
 Rate Final tial 
 City. Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. City. 
 Nashville, Tenn... 6- 9-08 38.13 2 9386 #New Orleans, La..10- 7-00 
 New Orleans, La.. 6- 7-04 8.12 1 987 New Orleans, La.. 5-23-07 
 Memphis, Tenn... 7-16-06 3.12 3 940 Columbia, Mo..... 10- 6-00 
 Oklahoma City St. Louis, Mo.... 7-29-03 
 Re lew era co 6 osee 5-28-03 3.12 4 944 St. Paul, Minn... 7-80-04 
 Columbia, Mo..... 5-25-03 3.12 5 949 Milwaukee, Wis... 7-21-07 
 Kansas City, Mo... 6-22-01 3.12 7 956 Ft. Worth, Tex... 5-24-07 
 Des Moines, Ia... 4-17-00 3.12 5 961 Yankton, S. D... 9-20-02 
 Columpus:, Ones ac 7-20-97 8.10 1 962 #$=/MHannibal, Mo..... 6- 4-04 
 Oklahoma City Milwaukee, Wis... 9-14-03 
 Rates we te oe 8-25-02 3.10 4 966 ##Dodge City, Kans. 7-28-00 
 Springfield, Mo... 6-24-06 3.10 10 976 New Orleans, La.. 7- 4-03 
 Lamcoiny = INGDs. on. 8- 4-07 8.10 6 982 Dubuque, Ta...... 9-25-04 
 Columbia. Mo.....- 4-25-02 8.09 5 987 Davenport, Ia..... 9- 9-03 
 LE Witnorals Oop Bee ae 6-17-04 38.08 2 ° 989 La Crosse, Wis... 8- 4-05 
 New Orleans, La..11-22-01 3.08 1 990 St. Paul, Minn... 8-18-07 
 Dodge City, Kans.10- 9-98 3.08 3 993 St. Paul, Minn... 7-25-97 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-11-06 3.07 1 994 Little Rock, Ark.. 7-29-03 
 Valentine, Neb... 7- 6-07 3.06 3 997 Valentine, Neb.... 6-27-05 
 Wichita, Kans.....10-30-08 3.04 10 1007 Oklahoma City 
 New Orleans, La..11- 9-98 3.02 1 1008 Ole aee eae 5-21-03 
 Columbia, Mo..... 4-24-04 3.02 5 1013 Dodge City, Kans. 8- 6-03 
 New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-02 3.01 1 1014 Memphis, Tenn... 5-26-02 
 Lincoln, Neb..... 5-28-05 3.00 6 1020 ‘Omaha, Neb...... 8-26-03 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 8-15-03 3.00 7 1027 Huron, S. D..... 8-18-04 
 Oklahoma City New Orleans, La.. 3-19-05 
 CU Age wat an ec es 5-23-03 3.00 4 1081 Nashville, Tenn... 9-14-01 
 Springfield, Ill... 5- 5-01 3.00 6 1037 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-14-06 
 Denver, Colo..... 6- 2-00 3.00 ib aleexe: Tincoln: (Nebo. 2. 8- 7-07 
 Evansville, Ind... 9- 2-04 3.00 4 1042 Omaha, Neb...... 6-16-00 
 Ft. Worth, Tex... 6-24-03 3.00 3 1045 Springfield, Mo... 8- 7-06 
 Memphis, Tenn... 6-23-99 2.99. 3 1048 Cairo, Ill......... 7-30-01 
 Evansville, Ind... 7-10-05 2.98 4 1052 Cairo, Ill......... 6-22-97 
 Yankton, S. D.... 9-20-02 2.98 3 1055 Evansville, Ind. 5-31-07 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 7- 4-99 2.98 5 1060 Des Moines, Ia... 5-21-03 
 Des Moines, Ia... 7-18-04 2.97 5 1065 Milwaukee, Wis... 6-12-99 
 Topeka, Kans..... 7-31-02 2.87 7 1072 St. Paul, Minn... 6-12-99 
 oe pager Osa . 9-21-00 2.96 38 1075 Indianapolis, Ind.. 6- 4-06 
 ansas City, Mo.. 7-14-07 2.96 7 1082 - 
 New Orleans, La.. 8- 3-98 2.95 1 1083 Se ee 8-11-02 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.93 5 1088 Topeka Kans 8- 4-06 
 Omaha, Neb...... 7-15-00 2.92 5 1098 py betas QAaieess: 3 P50 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 9- 9-08 2.92 7 1100 Goinchay Ti’) 3. 3.05 
 Memphis, Tenn... 8-30-97 2.92 3 1103 Ci abi Mo Fae 7-18-02 
 en io 7 te 6- 7-00 2.92 38 1106 Hoace City. Kan. 5413.98 
 Bismarck, N. D.. 6-16-97 2.92 1.1107 Fie pooh’ Ack... 9.10.99 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-25-99 2.92 1 1108 sp Panta if 
 Memphis, Tenn... 3-26-02 
 New Orleans, La.. 7- 7-98 2.90 1 1109 WewOrleancals 9- 9-98 
 New Orleans, La.. 8- 5-98 2.90 1 1110 py TP GAHS tA-- Fe Oe 
 Indianapolis, Ind.. 5-29-00 2.90 2 1112 Fe Worth Tex.” 3-11.06 
 Louisville, Ky..... 3-16-98 2.90 2 1114 ee Achar) kod ead 
 Chicago, Ill.:..... 7- 9-03 2.90 2 1116 Oklahoma City 
 Evansville, Ind... 5-30-00 2.90 4 1120 Okla. Sool sieee at sia 8-12-01 
 St, Paul, Minn...10- 3-00 2.90 2 1122 Ft. Smith, Ark... 9- 2-06 
 Memphis, Tenn... 8-18-01 2.88 3 1125 Columbus, O..... 8-15-00 
 Chiraco. Tl. o5 525 5-24-02 2.87 2 1127 New Orleans, La.. 7- 5-02 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-18-00 2.86 1 1128 Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 5-04 
 Hannibal, Mo..... 8- 8-99 2.86 1 1129 Oklahoma City 
 Cincinnati, 25 3. 7-21-03 2.85 1 1180 Octal Ss ccs evans 38 7-20-97 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 2-05 2.84 7 1187 Little Rock, Ark. .12-13-01 
 Louisville, Ky.... 6-15-02 2.883 2 1139 Kansas City, Mo.. 7- 7-02 
 Ht- Worth: = lex. 2210-21-00. 52.890 =3 1142 Des Moines, Ia... 7-23-00 
 Springfield, Ill... 6- 1-02 2.82 6 1148 New Orleans, La.. 4-25-07 
 New Orleans, La.. 7-17-97 2.81 1 1149 Lincoln, Neb...... 5-24-03 
 Lincoln, Neb...... 7-22-02 2.80 6 1155 Lincoln, Neb...... 9-16-06 
 Lincoln, Neb...... 5-10-05 2.80 6 1161 Hannibal, Mo..... 8-10-99 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 6- 1-98 2.80 3 1164 Columbia, Mo..... 6- 7-98 
 Table VI. 
 Years Yearsof Dist. Final Years 
 Cities. considered. record. wght. wght. Cities. 
 Kansas City, Mo.. 10 10 7 7 Hannibal, Mo..... 10 
 ‘opeka,, Katisi.... 10 8% 6 7 Columbia, Mo..... 10 
 Wichita, Kans.... 10 f 5 10 Springfield, Mo... 10 
 Lincoln, Neb...... 10 gis 5 6 Oklahoma City 
 Omaha, Neb...... 10 11 5 5 Okla: .. ce. sege- 10 
 Des Moines, Ia... 10 11 5 6 Davenport, Ia..... 10 
 
 Av. 
 
 Par- 
 
 Rate Final tial 
 Date. per hr. Wt. Tis. 
 
 2.80 
 2.80 
 2.78 
 2.78 
 2.78 
 2.76 
 2.74 
 2.73 
 2.73 
 2.72 
 2.72 
 
 WNW NNN VYVNYVNVNVVVWNWNY 
 DUST OL CLOT OUD D DADA DADDY DAD 
 EP POIDDDOOCOR KF WWWRH ODO 
 
 Pet et et PE Pe EL RL 2D 2] 
 DAIAIAWWDOOOHHY 
 AWDHSOROD 
 
 9% 
 10 
 
 5 
 10% 
 
 6 
 
 WWW OP WWOAIMDHDVWHWONW OP WWWHWNWONAHWNWOAIWWWONDF OHH 
 
 WWE WWWODW=2 » 
 
 AIA AHAVW Nee QI Pp 
 
 Years of Dist. 
 considered. record. wght. 
 
 mr ON 
 
 1165 
 1166 
 1171 
 1175 
 1177 
 1179 
 1182 
 1185 
 1190 
 1192 
 1195 
 1196 
 1201 
 1208 
 1213 
 1215 
 1217 
 1220 
 1223 
 
 1227 
 1238 
 1230 
 1235 
 1240 
 1241 
 1243 
 1249 
 1255 
 1260 
 1270 
 1273 
 1276 
 1280 
 1285 
 1287 
 1289 
 1291 
 
 1295 
 1302 
 1304 
 1310 
 1315 
 1318 
 1321 
 1324 
 1325 
 1327 
 1330 
 
 1334 
 1341 
 1342 
 1343 
 1350 
 
 1354 
 1357 
 1364 
 1369 
 1370 
 1376 
 1382 
 1387 
 1392 
 
 Final 
 weht. 
 
 5) 
 5 
 10 
 4 
 7 
 
30 
 
 Years Yearsof Dist. Final Years Yearsof Dist. Final 
 
 Cities. considered. record. wght. wght. Cities. considered. record. wght. wght. 
 Springfield, Ill.... 10 64% 4 6 Chicago}: TH. sca 10 11 2 a 
 St; #Lonis; WMo®. aa 0 11 4 4 Indianapolis, Ind.. 10 ala 2 2 
 ter Smith peArks S10 6 4 % Louisville, Ky.... 10 11 2 2 
 Dodge City, Kans. 10 11 3 3 Nashville, Tenn... 10 pun 2 2 
 Wankton, S, D.2; 10 10% 8 3 Shreveport, La.... 10 514 2 4 
 La Crosse, Wis... 10 6 3 5 Pueblo, Colo... .... 10 8 1 1 
 Dubuque, Ja...... 10 5% 38 5 Denver, Colo..... 10 Dy 1 1 
 Evansville, Ind... 10 8 3 4 Bismarck, gNie Ds. oO 11 1 af 
 Cairo, alll o5 sie 10 104% 8 3 Columbus, O...... 10 Tete 1 
 Memphis, Tenn... 10 11 3 3 Gincinnati, +O x sss 10 as | 1 1 
 Little Rock, Ark.. 10 vail 3 3 exineton, IS yse.. o.20 9 nf 1 
 Ft. worth, Tex... 10 VY 2 3 New Orleans, La.. 10 tit 1 at 
 Valentine, Neb.... 10 6 2 3 _— 
 Maron; Saba. 3 10 10 2 2 Total final weight. ....sd:avsene .-149 
 St.» Paul; sMinn...9 10 11 2 2 Twice the: final -weight. ... .<ci « spelsts 298 
 Milwaukee, Wis... 10 au 2 2 Five times the final weight..... 745 
 
40° 
 
 40° 
 80° 
 
 or’ 
 
 oT’ 
 9T° 
 
 6.’ 
 T0° 
 
 a 
 6o° 
 
 VSS otek Gs-b erie 
 LOG ce OF Lb eT: 
 Fike oboe SL-c: .OT G 
 ETE. UE OR LOS 
 SOB o Lee OG an coe 
 OCR OR ee AV 79: 
 COmeoS ie Gd ie SC: 
 LO eek Ose Ome 2.05 
 Os OS 4 8. 
 
 09° 
 
 GL'S 89°F 
 96° 68° 
 
 Sg rhs 
 Ost Sls 
 240° 66° 
 
 89° 99°T 
 Ost OLG 
 Io” 9S" 
 
 ZT 82'T 
 
 I 319\\ 
 
 “ON 
 
 OCT 96 
 OL S803 
 90°C 8ST 
 02 96° 
 Li ees 
 6s" 
 
 os- OF 
 LG, 6G: 
 98 98 
 
 USAT) SIYSIOM 943 Aq poTdn[NW IIA 1qeL JO yey} st eIeq oyL 
 
 CCM GL ams OeutO (s 
 SO Seat 0 Lege Cor) oo: 
 Com Lae LoL 
 
 205 607 905 
 Ome? 0 en OL S0> 
 
 TEO* 206%, - TS" 
 CG eee Ge ose 00) 
 Gomme CGM—e () Gre a0) 
 LO SOs OTs Dee 
 LO 80s) 80s 2 CT) 
 LO eer Os DOES a S07 
 Tie UG Se Lor Pe SL; 
 
 ‘sonUIY ¢ YORY OZ sayouy ur yydoq Burary ‘aang urey peosidAyT ‘ul OF JO wi07 
 
 Mile 
 ce" 
 0° 
 ol’ 
 cv’ 
 oT 
 
 tS" 
 vo 
 6G" 
 
 Loe 
 
 éT 
 Te" 
 
 "BIJ Ul UMOYS Se ‘fedItjaWIWIAS SI 
 
 rs 
 or’ 
 0c" 
 9s" 
 &T 
 8c" 
 
 96° 
 40° 
 Lv 
 
 98° 
 
 Te 
 83° 
 
 96° 
 sv" 
 oo" 
 oF 
 Ie’ 
 6&" 
 
 Fr 
 66° 
 6S" 
 Cy 
 98° 
 6&" 
 
 er 
 7 
 LT” 
 ace 
 98° 
 9° 
 
 6S" 
 OL’ 
 Ts" 
 
 ve" 
 
 8c" 
 96° 
 
 0G" 
 rem 
 03° 
 0G" 
 Go" 
 LT 
 
 0e° 
 Gs’ 
 LS. 
 90° 
 co" 
 60° 
 
 rT" 
 
 7 
 
 80° 
 90° 
 Ie 
 60° 
 
 tT" 
 6s" 
 06° 
 80° 
 TS" 
 60° 
 
 40° 
 co 
 
 80° 
 Go" 
 60° 
 
 ‘S[BAIOJUT ayNUIPL ATT 
 
 240° 
 40° 
 80° 
 F0° 
 6G" 
 80° 
 
 *S[PAIOJUT SINUIP OAT 
 
 8h GL: 
 40’ 10° 
 LS mamOGe 
 RST Keke 
 0° 
 cs 
 
 00° 
 VOSS 
 40° 
 
 LO 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 ‘S[BAIOJUT oyNuUIyW 
 
 C8 GS 
 40° 
 80° 
 
 ‘InoduMoq 94} jo 8uruulseq wo 
 
 40° 
 
 ra oD SH 1G 
 
 ‘ON 
 
 yUsMIISUCIIV 9} ey} Jdooxy 
 
 SI RA BON ONAL PERO CNS C8 
 
 ‘QA0qV 24} sv ames sy TL 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 . 
 
 SATT P2ITsIOM 
 ‘soljisuajuy [eordAy, Suruiejqg JO poyjey, BuIMOYS “XT 29eL 
 
 eee ee eee ee eestor eee 
 
 J siete eT ATINOFT 
 aBeIIAY 
 
 Oc*** [BIOL 
 
 eoee roves 
 
 Hr HH 10 
 ra MOD SHLD 
 
 ee eee Preysursds 
 
 ee 6 606. @ 8 ao 6 © 8-6 8 6 eo ele a im suezITIO MIN 
 6 6. 6G, 0 6 0.6 s we 6 0 6.8 wee = 6 enn Ss yiodsaaIyS 
 ee erquin{o,) 
 
 eee eee ee see ee eee ewe ee eee 
 
 Ce 
 
 eeeee 
 
 eeeee 
 
 . 
 
 u0jSUIXe'T 
 dT[IASURA 
 
 —santg 
 
 ITA PSeL 
 
 “OW “ppysurids 
 “eT ‘suBatIOQ MAN 
 steerer GrodaaaiysS 
 eeeee ‘OW ‘eIquin[o) 
 ‘U0 SUIXa'T 
 
 Sy Sess sie Cem iameds Raat kee U |} ‘OT [TASURAT 
 
 SUIUIWII9}9q] UL pes~, suoredoa1g 
 
 —sontg 
 
 TTA SARL 
 
ugg 
 
 059257946