In December 1967, Bulletin No. 15, "A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies," was issued by the Hydrology Committee of the Water Resources Council. The report recommended use of the Pearson Type III distribution with log transformation of the data (log-Pearson Type III distribution) as a base method for flood flow frequency studies. As pointed out in that report, further studies were needed covering various aspects of flow frequency determinations.

In March 1976, Bulletin 17, "Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency" was issued by the Water Resources Council. The guide was an extension and update of Bulletin No. 15. It provided a more complete guide for flood flow frequency analysis incorporating currently accepted technical methods with sufficient detail to promote uniform application. It was limited to defining flood potentials in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability at locations where a systematic record of peak flood flows is available. The recommended set of procedures was selected from those used or described in the literature prior to 1976, based on studies conducted for this purpose at the Center for Research in Water Resources of the University of Texas at Austin (summarized in Appendix 14) and on studies by the Work Group on Flood Flow Frequency.

The "Guidelines" were revised and reissued in June 1977 as Bulletin 17A. Bulletin 17B is the latest effort to improve and expand upon the earlier publications. Bulletin 17B provides revised procedures for weighting a station skew value with the results from a generalized skew study, detecting and treating outliers, making two station comparisons, and computing confidence limits about a frequency curve. The Work Group that prepared this revision did not address the suitability of the original distribution or the generalized skew map.

Major problems are encountered when developing guides for flood flow frequency determinations. There is no procedure or set of procedures that can be adopted which, when rigidly applied to the available data, will accurately define the flood potential of any given watershed. Statistical analysis alone will not resolve all flood frequency problems. As discussed in subsequent sections of this guide, elements of risk and uncertainty are inherent in any flood frequency analysis. User decisions must be based on properly applied procedures and proper interpretation of results considering risk and uncertainty. Therefore, the judgment of a professional experienced in hydrologic analysis will enhance the usefulness of a flood frequency analysis and promote appropriate application.

It is possible to standarize many elements of flood frequency analysis. This guide describes each major element of the process of defining the flood potential at a specific location in terms of peak discharge and exceedance probability. Use is confined to stations where available records are adequate to warrant statistical analysis of the data. Special situations may require other approaches. In those cases where the procedures of this guide are not followed, deviations must be supported by appropriate study and accompanied by a comparison of results using the recommended procedures.

As a further means of achieving consistency and improving results, the Work Group recommends that studies be coordinated when more than one analyst is working currently on data for the same location. This recommendation holds particularly when defining exceedance probabilities for rare events, where this guide allows more latitude.

Flood records are limited. As more years of record become available at each location, the determination of flood potential may change. Thus, an estimate may be outdated a few years after it is made. Additional flood data alone may be sufficient reason for a fresh assessment of the flood potential. When making a new assessment, the analyst should incorporate in his study a review of earlier estimates. Where differences appear, they should be acknowledged and explained.