HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK - rampp-team.com€¦ · Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 36043CV000A HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER

36043CV000A

HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY

NUMBER

COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY

NUMBER COLD BROOK, VILLAGE OF 360298 MIDDLEVILLE, VILLAGE OF 360313

COLUMBIA, TOWN OF 360299 MOHAWK, VILLAGE OF 360314

DANUBE, TOWN OF 360300 NEWPORT, TOWN OF 361111

DOLGEVILLE, VILLAGE OF 360301 NEWPORT, VILLAGE OF 360315

FAIRFIELD, TOWN OF 360302 NORWAY, TOWN OF 361110

FRANKFORT, TOWN OF 360303 OHIO, TOWN OF 361408

FRANKFORT, VILLAGE OF 360304 POLAND, VILLAGE OF 360316

GERMAN FLATTS, TOWN OF 360305 RUSSIA, TOWN OF 361121

HERKIMER, TOWN OF 360306 SALISBURY, TOWN OF 360317

HERKIMER, VILLAGE OF 360307 SCHUYLER, TOWN OF 360318

ILION, VILLAGE OF 360308 STARK, TOWN OF 360319

LITCHFIELD, TOWN OF 360309 WARREN, TOWN OF 360320

LITTLE FALLS, CITY OF 360310 WEBB, TOWN OF 360321

LITTLE FALLS, TOWN OF 360311 WEST WINFIELD, VILLAGE OF 360322

MANHEIM, TOWN OF 360312 WINFIELD, TOWN OF 360323

PRELIMINARY:

September 30, 2011

Herkimer County

NOTICE TO FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY USERS Communities participating in the National Flood Insurance Program have established repositories of flood hazard data for floodplain management and flood insurance purposes. This Flood Insurance Study (FIS) may not contain all data available within the repository. It is advisable to contact the community repository for any additional data. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) my revise or republish part or all of this FIS report at any time. In addition, FEMA may be revise part of this FIS report by the Letter of Map Revision process, which does not involve republication or redistribution of the FIS report. Therefore, users should consult with community officials and check the Community Map Repository to obtain the most current FIS report components. Selected Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) panels for this community contain information that was previously shown separately on the corresponding Flood Boundary and Floodway Map (FBFM) panels (e.g., floodways and cross sections). In addition, former flood hazard zone designations have been changed as follows. Old Zone New Zone A1 through A30 AE V1 through V30 VE B X C X Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date: Revised Countywide FIS Date:

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose of Study 1

1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1

1.3 Coordination 5

2.0 AREA STUDIED 7

2.1 Scope of Study 7

2.2 Community Description 10

2.3 Principal Flood Problems 10

2.4 Flood Protection Measures 15

3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 17

3.1 Hydrologic Analyses 18

3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 29

3.3 Vertical Datum 38

4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 39

4.1 Floodplain Boundaries 39

4.2 Floodways 40

5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 53

6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 54

7.0 OTHER STUDIES 55

8.0 LOCATION OF DATA 58

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 58

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued

Page FIGURES Figure 1 – Floodway Schematic 41 TABLES Table 1 – Initial and Final CCO Meetings 6 Table 2 – Flooding Sources Studied by Detailed Methods 7 Table 3 – Stream Name Changes 7 Table 4 – Scope of Revision 8 Table 5 – Model Dates for Riverine Flooding 8-9 Table 6 – Letters of Map Change 9 Table 7 – Summary of Gaging Stations on East Canada Creek 22 Table 8 – Summary of Gaging Stations on the Mohawk River 23 Table 9 – Summary of Gaging Stations on West Canada Creek 25 Table 10 – Summary of Discharges 26-29 Table 11 – Summary of Stillwater Elevations 29 Table 12 – Manning's "n" Values 37 Table 13 – Floodway Data 42-52 Table 14 – Community Map History 56-57

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles

Beaver Brook Panels 01P-02P

Bellinger Brook Panels 03P-04P

Cold Brook Panels 05P-06P

East Canada Creek Panels 07P-11P

Fulmer Creek Panels 12P-15P

Left Channel of Mohawk River Panel 16P

Mohawk River Panels 17P-28P

Moyer Creek Panels 29P-34P

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued EXHIBITS - continued Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles - continued

NYDOT Canal Panels 35P-37P

Steele Creek Panels 38P-56P

West Canada Creek Reach 1 Panels 57P-59P

West Canada Creek Reach 3 Panels 60P-66P Exhibit 2 – Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map

FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS) 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Study This countywide Flood Insurance Study (FIS) investigates the existence and severity

of flood hazards in, or revises and updates previous FISs/Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the geographic area of Herkimer County, New York, including: the City of Little Falls; the Towns of Columbia, Danube, Fairfield, Frankfort, German Flatts, Herkimer, Litchfield, Little Falls, Manheim, Newport, Norway, Ohio, Russia, Salisbury, Schuyler, Stark, Warren, Webb, and Winfield; and the Villages of Cold Brook, Dolgeville, Frankfort, Herkimer, Ilion, Middleville, Mohawk, Newport, Poland, and West Winfield (hereinafter referred to collectively as Herkimer County).

This FIS aids in the administration of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and

the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This FIS has developed flood risk data for various areas of the county that will be used to establish actuarial flood insurance rates. This information will also be used by Herkimer County to update existing floodplain regulations as part of the Regular Phase of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), and will also be used by local and regional planners to further promote sound land use and floodplain development. Minimum floodplain management requirements for participation in the NFIP are set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations at 44 CFR, 60.3.

In some States or communities, floodplain management criteria or regulations may

exist that are more restrictive or comprehensive than the minimum Federal requirements. In such cases, the more restrictive criteria take precedence and the State (or other jurisdictional agency) will be able to explain them.

1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments

The sources of authority for this FIS are the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968

and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. This FIS was prepared to include all jurisdictions within Herkimer County into a

countywide format. Information on the authority and acknowledgments for each jurisdiction included in this countywide FIS, as compiled from their previously printed FIS reports, is shown below.

Cold Brook, Village of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated December 20, 2000, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed on May 14, 1998.

2

Dolgeville, Village of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated September 16, 1982, were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey for FEMA under Contract No. EWM-C-0080. That study was completed in November 1981.

Frankfort, Town of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated December 20, 2000, for the Mohawk River were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. 95-C-4692. That work was completed in October 1998.

Frankfort, Village of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

original FIS report dated October 3, 1983, and the FIRM dated April 3, 1984, were prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Dewberry & Davis LLC for FEMA under Contract No. H-4624. That work was completed in May 1982.

For the revision dated March 7, 2001, the

hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for the Mohawk River were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. 95-C-4692. That work was completed in October 1998.

Herkimer, Village of: For the original December 1977 FIS report and

the June 1, 1978, FIRM, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses were prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Environmental Engineers, for the Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) under Contract No. H-3832. That work was completed in December 1976.

For the June 17, 2002, revision, the hydrologic

and hydraulic analyses for West Canada Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMN-96-CO-0026. That work was completed in June 2000.

Ilion, Village of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated August 1, 1983, and the FIRM dated February 1, 1984, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4624. That work was completed in May 1982.

3

For the revision dated September 8, 1999, the

hydraulic analysis for the Mohawk River was prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in May 1997.

Litchfield, Town of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated May 7, 2001, for Steele Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. 96-CO-0186. That work was completed in February 1999.

Little Falls, City of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated October 4, 1982, were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey for FEMA under Contract No. EWM-C-0080. That study was completed in November 1981.

Mohawk, Village of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated October 1977 and the FIRM dated April 17, 1978 were prepared by Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., for the FIA under Contract No. H-3832. All field survey data for that study were collected and compiled by Harry R. Feldman, Inc., Civil Engineers and Land Surveyors, under subcontract to Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. That work was completed in September 1976.

For the September 8, 1999, revision, the

hydraulic analyses for the Mohawk River were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in May 1997.

Newport, Town of: From the FIRM revision dated January 17, 1991,

a dam stability analysis for the Newport Hydroelectric Dam, dated June 12, 1987, was performed by Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc. No FIS report was published at that time.

From the January 3, 1997, FIS, the hydrologic

and hydraulic analyses for West Canada Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in October 1994.

4

Poland, Village of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the FIS report dated June 2, 1999, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in October 1994.

Russia, Town of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated June 2, 1999, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in October 1994.

The approximate analysis for Hinckley Reservoir

was obtained from the FIRMs for the contiguous Towns of Ohio and Remsen, New York (FEMA, 1984; FEMA, 1985).

Schuyler, Town of: The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated June 20, 2001, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. 95-C-4692. That work was completed in October 1998.

Additional information was added in and around

the Mohawk River floodplain from data provided by Leonard Jackson Associates. Additional information was added from the previously compiled FIRM for the Town of Schuyler.

There are no previous FISs or FIRMs for the Town of Warren and there are no

previous FISs for the Towns of Columbia, Danube, Fairfield, German Flatts, Herkimer, Little Falls, Manheim, Norway, Ohio, Salisbury, Stark, Webb, and Winfield; and the Villages of Middleville, Newport, and West Winfield; therefore, the previous authority and acknowledgment information for these communities is not included in this FIS.

For this countywide FIS, the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for East Canada Creek and West Canada Creek Reach 1 were performed by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. HSFEHQ-06-D-0162 and Task Order HSFEHQ-06-J-0065. This work was completed in December 2009. The information from the Mohawk River study dated March 2009, developed under the Hazard Mitigation and Technical Assistance Contract HSFEHQ-06-D-0162, Task Order HSFHQ-06-J-0065 by Michael Baker was utilized and revised hydraulic analyses for the Mohawk River were developed using detailed methods under FEMA Contract HSFEHQ-09-D-0369, Task Order HSFE02-09-J0002. Original hydrologic analysis done by Baker was incorporated in Task Order HSFE02-09-J0002. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Fulmer Creek, Moyer Creek, and Steele Creek were preformed buy PAR Government Systems

5

Corporation (PGSC) and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). This work was completed in December 2004. Updated topographic data provided to FEMA was utilized for floodplain delineation of revised detailed study streams, redelineation of unrevised detailed study streams, and delineation of approximate study streams within the county. Detailed study and approximate study streams outside the area of updated topographic data were digitized from the effective FIRMs; this includes the detailed study streams of Cold Brook, portions of Steele Creek, West Canada Creek Reach 2 and West Canada Creek Reach 3. This work was performed for FEMA by Dewberry & Davis LLC under sub-contract to Leonard Jackson Associates. The type of data utilized for the countywide analysis is LiDAR. The LiDAR data were collected by Sanborn Map Company, Inc under contract with New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in the spring of 2008. Base map information for this FIRM was developed from digital orthoimagery provided by the New York State Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure Coordination. This information was produced on 30-centimeter and 60-centimeter resolution natural color orthoimagery from photography dated April-May 2004. The coordinate system used for the production of this FIRM is Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Zone 18, North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83), GRS80 spheroid. Corner coordinates shown on the FIRM are in latitude and longitude referenced to the UTM projection, NAD 83. Differences in the datum, spheroid, projection or UTM zones used in the production of FIRMs for adjacent counties may result in slight positional differences in map features at the county boundaries. These differences do not affect the accuracy of information shown on the FIRM.

1.3 Coordination Consultation Coordination Officer‟s (CCO) meetings may be held for each

jurisdiction in this countywide FIS. An initial CCO meeting is held typically with representatives of FEMA, the community, and the study contractor to explain the nature and purpose of a FIS, and to identify the streams to be studied by detailed methods. A final CCO meeting is held typically with representatives of FEMA, the community, and the study contractor to review the results of the study.

The dates of the initial and final CCO meetings held for jurisdictions within

Herkimer County are shown in Table 1, “Initial and Final CCO Meetings.”

6

TABLE 1 – INITIAL AND FINAL CCO MEETINGS Community Initial CCO Date Final CCO Date Cold Brook, Village of July 7, 1998

1 May 12, 1999

Columbia, Town of * *

Danube, Town of * *

Dolgeville, Village of June, 1979 April 22, 1982

Fairfield, Town of * *

Frankfort, Town of May 18, 1994 June 24, 1999

Frankfort, Village of March 3, 1978

June 29, 19991

October 21, 1982

*

German Flatts, Town of * *

Herkimer, Town of * *

Herkimer, Village of August 19, 1975

November 16, 20001

March 1, 1977

May 30, 2001

Ilion, Village of March 3, 1978

November 21, 19971

October 21, 1982

*

Litchfield, Town of May 3, 19991 *

Little Falls, City of June, 1979 April 21, 1982

Little Falls, Town of * *

Manheim, Town of * *

Middleville, Village of * *

Mohawk, Village of September 17, 1975

November 21, 19971

December 16, 1976

*

Newport, Town of February 14, 19951 *

Newport, Village of * *

Norway, Town of * *

Ohio, Town of * *

Poland, Village of February 15, 19951 June 10, 1996

Russia, Town of February 15, 19951 June 18, 1996

Salisbury, Town of * *

Schuyler, Town of June 29, 19991 February 2, 2000

Stark, Town of * *

Warren, Town of * *

Webb, Town of * *

West Winfield, Village of * *

Winfield, Town of * *

1Notified by letter

*Data not available

7

2.0 AREA STUDIED

2.1 Scope of Study This FIS covers the geographic area of Herkimer County, New York. The areas studied by detailed methods were selected with priority given to all

known flood hazard areas and areas of projected development and proposed construction. All or portions of the flooding sources listed in Table 2, "Flooding Sources Studied by Detailed Methods," were studied by detailed methods. Limits of detailed study are indicated on the Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1) and on the FIRM (Exhibit 2). The areas studied were selected with priority given to all known flood hazard areas and areas of projected development and proposed construction.

TABLE 2 - FLOODING SOURCES STUDIED BY DETAILED METHODS Beaver Brook

Bellinger Brook

Cold Brook

East Canada Creek

Fulmer Creek

Left Channel of Mohawk

River

Mohawk River

Moyer Creek

NYDOT Canal

Steele Creek

West Canada Creek Reach 1



Table 3, “Stream Name Changes,” lists streams that have names in this countywide

FIS other than those used in previously printed FISs for the communities in which they are located.

TABLE 3 – STREAM NAME CHANGES

Community Old Name New Name Town of Herkimer Village of Herkimer

West Canada Creek West Canada Creek Reach 1

Town of Newport Village of Newport


Town of Newport Village of Poland Town of Russia


As part of this countywide FIS, updated analyses were included for the flooding sources shown in Table 4, “Scope of Revision.”

8

TABLE 4 - SCOPE OF REVISION Stream Limits of Revised or New Detailed Study East Canada Creek From confluence with Mohawk River to approximately

3,600 feet upstream of State Highway 29 (East State Street)

Fulmer Creek From confluence with Mohawk River to approximately 798 feet upstream of State Highway 168

Left Channel Mohawk River From confluence with Mohawk River to confluence with Mohawk River

Mohawk River From Montgomery/Herkimer County boundary to Herkimer/Oneida County boundary

Moyer Creek From its confluence with the Mohawk River to approximately 994 feet upstream of County Route 171

Steele Creek From confluence with Mohawk River to approximately

9,103 feet upstream of Spinnerville Gulf Road

West Canada Creek Reach 1 From confluence with Mohawk River to approximately 500 feet upstream of Shells Bush Road

Riverine flooding sources throughout the county have been studied by detailed methods at different times and, prior to this countywide FIS, often on a community-by-community basis. Table 5, “Model Dates for Riverine Flooding Sources” below represents the hydraulic modeling dates for the detailed study flooding sources in the county.

TABLE 5 – MODEL DATES FOR RIVERINE FLOODING

Stream Name Community

Most Recent

Model Date

Beaver Brook Village of Dolgeville November 1981

Bellinger Brook Village of Herkimer December 1976

Cold Brook Village of Cold Brook May 1998

East Canada Creek Village of Dolgeville April 2011

East Canada Creek Town of Manheim April 2011

Fulmer Creek Town of German Flatts December 2004

Fulmer Creek Village of Mohawk December 2004

Mohawk River City of Little Falls April 2011

Mohawk River Town of Danube April 2011

Mohawk River Town of German Flatts April 2011

9

TABLE 5 – MODEL DATES FOR RIVERINE FLOODING - continued

Stream Name Community

Most Recent

Model Date

Mohawk River Town of Frankfort April 2011

Mohawk River Town of Herkimer April 2011

Mohawk River Town of Little Falls April 2011

Mohawk River Town of Manheim April 2011

Mohawk River Town of Schuyler April 2011

Mohawk River Village of Frankfort April 2011

Mohawk River Village of Herkimer April 2011

Mohawk River Village of Ilion April 2011

Mohawk River Village of Mohawk April 2011

Moyer Creek Town of Frankfort December 2004

Moyer Creek Village of Frankfort December 2004

NYDOT Canal City of Little Falls November 1981

Left Channel of Mohawk River City of Little Falls April 2011

Steele Creek Town of German Flatts December 2004

Steele Creek Town of German Flatts December 2004

Steele Creek Town of Litchfield February 1999

West Canada Creek Reach 1 Town of Herkimer November 2009

West Canada Creek Reach 1 Village of Herkimer November 2009

West Canada Creek Reach 2 Town of Newport June 12, 1987

West Canada Creek Reach 2 Village of Newport June 12, 1987

West Canada Creek Reach 3 Town of Newport January 3, 1997

West Canada Creek Reach 3 Village of Poland October 1994

West Canada Creek Reach 3 Town of Russia October 1994 This FIS also incorporates the determinations of letters issued by FEMA resulting

in map changes (Letter of Map Revision [LOMR], Letter of Map Revision – based on Fill [LOMR-F], and Letter of Map Amendment [LOMA]), as shown in Table 6 “Letters of Map Change.”

TABLE 6 – LETTERS OF MAP CHANGE

Community Flooding Source(s)/Project Identifier Effective Date Type Town of Winfield

Steele Creek April 20, 2000 LOMR

The areas studied by detailed methods were selected with priority given to all

known flood hazard areas and areas of projected development and proposed construction.

10

All or portions of numerous flooding sources in the county were studied by approximate methods. Approximate analyses were used to study those areas having a low development potential or minimal flood hazards. The scope and methods of study were proposed to, and agreed upon by, FEMA and Herkimer County.

2.2 Community Description

Herkimer County is located in central New York State. It is bordered on the north by St. Lawrence County; on the east by Hamilton, Montgomery, and Fulton Counties; on the south by Otsego County; on the west by Oneida County; and on the northwest by Lewis County.

The average annual temperature in Herkimer County ranges from 39 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) to 47°F, with an average annual minimum ranging from 1F to 11F and the average annual maximum ranging from 75F to 83F. The average annual precipitation in Herkimer County ranges from 43” to 57”. These temperature and precipitation averages are based on data from 1971 to 2000 (USDA/NRCS, 2006). According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, the population for Herkimer County was 64,519 and the land area was 1,411.25 square miles.

2.3 Principal Flood Problems

Because of extensive flood protection measures, the threat of flooding to the Village of Herkimer has been reduced considerably. However, there are still two areas in the village which are susceptible to flooding. When the levee was built along the west bank of West Canada Creek Reach 1 after the flood of 1910, local materials were used in its construction. Through the years, high water and ice jams have resulted in interior erosion of several sections of the levee, causing seepage and flooding along Pullman, Esther, Grant, and Malcolm Streets (Pullman Flats), whenever the water elevations of West Canada Creek Reach 1 becomes sufficiently high. Conversations with residents of the area indicate that this situation has persisted since at least 1942. In March 1964, heavy rains accompanied by warm weather produced an ice jam on West Canada Creek Reach 1 that raised the water level well over its normal elevation. As a result of the high river stage from this ice jam, seepage through the levee occurred in several locations in the vicinity of the old municipal light plant. Twenty-six homes and two farms were flooded in the Pullman Flats area (USACE, 1970). This situation repeated itself in February 1965, when an ice jam resulted in a water-surface elevation on West Canada Creek Reach 1 more than seven feet above normal. Seepage through the levee flooded Grant, Malcolm, Esther, and Pullman Streets, causing considerable basement flooding to homes in the area. High stages on West Canada Creek Reach 1 are most often the result of ice jams in the vicinity of the Route 5 bridge. West Canada Creek Reach 1 becomes quite flat and wide in this area. The change in the hydraulic characteristics of the

11

channel results in slower velocities, allowing the ice floes to jam together. The problem is compounded by the fact that piers for the Route 5 bridge are at an angle to the main channel, causing a significant obstruction to ice floes trying to pass through the bridge. Ice jams are also responsible for flooding on Bellinger Brook in the vicinity of Church and West German Streets, the other floodprone area in the Village of Herkimer. Serious flooding has occurred in this area in 1948, 1949, and 1971, as a result of ice jams at the Church Street bridge. Local residents can also recall at least two instances in the past 25 years when Bellinger Brook overflowed its banks as tree trunks and other debris became lodged under the Church Street bridge and the Maple Grove Avenue bridge, resulting in minor flooding of streets and cellars. The past history of flooding on streams in the Village of Dolgeville indicates that flooding typically occurs in the late winter and early spring months. Flooding during this portion of the year is usually a result of ice blockages accompanied by the spring rainfall and snowmelt. Flooding may also occur during the late summer months as a result of tropical storms tracking northward along the Atlantic coastline, or due to regional thunderstorm activity. These distinctly different floods, clearwater and those resulting from ice blockages, have seriously flooded the Village of Dolgeville twice since the 1930s. After more than a week of continuous rain, and a heavy rainfall on October 1-2, 1945, East Canada Creek overtopped its banks and inundated the commercial/industrial areas within Dolgeville. The Daniel Green Company experienced severe losses which include damages to the spillway at the Daniel Green Dam, and structural damage to a large building which was washed from its foundation (USACE, December 1970). The total damages associated with the October 2, 1945, flood were estimated at $182,300, according to March 1969 price levels (USACE, December 1970). On March 5, 1979, an ice blockage formed upstream of the State Route 29 bridge causing East Canada Creek to breach the west bank, and inundate the adjacent residential and commercial areas. Floodwaters covered portions of North Main Street and East State Street before the ice moved out of Dolgeville. Additional flooding was experienced along Van Buren Street and Dolge Avenue due to the ice and the low banks. The total damages incurred by the residents and businesses in Dolgeville as a result of the March 1979 ice blockage and flood was $131,478 (James E. Thomas, 1979). Beaver Brook is also sensitive to the late summer storms and regional thunderstorm activity, and may flood independent of East Canada Creek. In July 1976, a summer cloudburst caused Beaver Brook to overtop its banks and flood portions of Dolgeville. The areas most severely affected by this flood were the residences above the Main Street-Slawson Street culvert, and a building owned by the Daniel Green Company on Helmer Street. The total damages associated with this flood were estimated to be $135,000 (USACE, 1978). The peak discharge experienced during the October 2, 1945, flood on East Canada Creek was reported as 19,300 cfs at the State Route 29 bridge (USACE, 1970).

12

The peak discharge associated with the July 1976 flood on Beaver Brook was estimated as 1,050 cfs by the USACE (USACE, 1978). In the Town of Frankfort, flooding can occur in the study area during all seasons, but usually occurs in the late winter and early spring, when the ground is still frozen and snowmelt adds to heavy rainfalls to produce increased runoff. Downstream ice jams, severe thunderstorms and tropical storms have also caused flooding problems. The greatest known flood on the Mohawk River occurred in October 1945. After a week of continuous moderate rainfall, three to five inches of rain fell, creating flood problems for most of the Mohawk Valley. In the Village of Frankfort, one of the most frequent causes of flooding on Moyer Creek is ice jams. This type of flooding in the creek area generally raises the groundwater table and creates a basement flooding problem for area residents (USACE, 1973). In the Town and Village of Frankfort, on March 18, 2003 an ice jam occurred on the Moyer Creek. In the Town of Newport, the Village of Poland, and the Town of Russia, the greatest flood of record on West Canada Creek Reach 3 occurred in October 1945 when the Hinckley Reservoir rose to an elevation of 1,130.2, 5.2 feet above the spillway of Hinckley Dam. In the Village of Ilion, the principal flooding sources are the Mohawk River and Steele Creek. Heavy rainfall, especially in the spring, combined with snowmelt, frequently causes high water and local flooding. Downstream ice jams, severe thunderstorms, and tropical storms have also caused flooding problems. The greatest known flood on Steele Creek occurred on June 11, 1922. Approximately 18 percent of the village was inundated, and the Phillip Street bridge and Whitney Steel bridge were destroyed (USACE, 1973). On March 16, 1989 an ice jam event occurred on Steele Creek in Ilion at one of

the old-arch styled bridges. On January 19, 1997 an ice jam occurred at the Main

Street bridge causing residents to be concerned with potential damage to the gas

line crossing. On January 24, 2003 an ice jam formed at Philips Street bridge

causing water to back up into the basements of surrounding homes (CRREL). Flooding can occur in the Town of Litchfield during all seasons, but usually occurs in the late winter and early spring, when the ground is still frozen and snowmelt adds to heavy rains to produce increased runoff downstream. Ice jams, severe thunderstorms, and tropical storms have also caused flooding problems. The history of flooding on streams in the City of Little Falls indicates that flooding typically occurs in the late winter and early spring months. Flooding during this portion of the year is usually a result of ice blockages accompanied by the spring rainfall and snowmelt. Flooding may also occur during the late

13

summer months as a result of tropical storms tracking northward along the Atlantic coastline, or due to regional thunderstorm activity. These periods of heavy rainfall during the late summer have produced two of the worst floods on record in the Mohawk Valley. On September 22, 1938, and October 2, 1945, the Mohawk River overtopped its banks and inundated the low-lying areas of Little Falls. Approximately 15 acres of developed land adjoining the river, the industrial area to the north and the residential area to the south, were flooded during the October 1945 flood. The City of Little Falls suffered approximately $188,300 (March 1969 price levels) in damages as a result of this flood. The peak discharges experienced during the September 22, 1938, and October 2, 1945, floods were 22,700 cfs and 25,300 cfs, respectively, at the USGS stream gage (No. 01347000) located downstream of Little Falls (USACE, December 1970). The peak water-surface elevation associated with the October 2, 1945, flood was reported as 330.5 feet, at the New York State Barge Canal Lock 17E (USACE, December 1970). Fulmer Creek and Tory Creek are the major areas of flood concern in the Village of Mohawk. Both of these waterways run through the village and have threatened and damaged homes and businesses in the past. Flooding from Tory Creek occurs where the creek passes through a small concrete box culvert, for a distance of about 45 feet, underneath West Main Street. The culvert measures approximately 3.5' by 3.5' at the inlet, but tapers to approximately 3.5' by 1.5' at the outlet. During periods of heavy runoff, this culvert becomes clogged with debris, causing water to back up and overflow on West Main Street, which it follows all the way to Fulmer Creek, about ¼ mile to the east. Although there are a number of businesses in this area that have been flooded in the past as a result of this situation, flooding on Tory Creek was determined to be the result of the inadequate capacity of the culvert. The flooding problem on Fulmer Creek is most often a result of ice jams, usually in the area of the West Main Street bridge. At any time from late December to the middle of March, sheet ice that has formed on Fulmer Creek is susceptible to sudden thawing. When this occurs, the sheet ice breaks up into large chunks, called floes, which are floated downstream by the current. Prior to 1963, when the West Main Street bridge was raised and widened and the pier was removed from the center of the span, this bridge was the site of frequent ice jams because of the constriction caused by the abutment and the pier. Improvement of this bridge has diminished the ice-jam-related flooding in the village considerably, but not completely. Just north of the West Main Street bridge, Fulmer Creek widens, and gravel tends to build up in the streambed, causing ice to catch and jam. This was the cause of a serious flood on February 14, 1971, as well as several less severe ice-jam-related floods on other occasions. The flood of August 31, 1950, is believed to be the largest ever experienced on Fulmer Creek, with a discharge estimated to be 3,250 cfs (USACE, 1973). Dates

14

of some other major floods on Fulmer Creek are September 1921, March 1936, March 1952, January 1962, and February 1971. Also on Fulmer Creek in the Village of Mohawk and Town of German Flatts, On February 14, 1971 an ice jam occurred downstream of the Main Street bridge causing flood damage in the surrounding area. Route 5S was closed between the Villages of Mohawk and Ilion (CRREL). Winter 1977, an ice jam occurred at the railroad bridge causing flooding in the adjacent fields west of the creek. On February 21, 1994 an ice jam occurred at the West Main Street bridge causing flooding on Lock, Charles, Erie, Harter and Devendorf Streets. The streets experienced damage to the pavement and sub-base. Residents on the effected streets were evacuated. On March 7, 1995 ice jammed at Route 5S causing flooding in the nearby fields. Water was reported to have risen to within two feet of the electrical substation on Richfield Street. Route 5S was closed from Warren Street in Mohawk to Otsego Street in Ilion. Sand bags were placed at the substation and the Village Garage to prevent flooding. A crane was brought in to dislodge the ice jam. On February 21, 1996 an ice jam again formed at the Route 5S Bridge with water rising to the top of the stream‟s retaining wall before dissipating. On January 18, 1996 an ice jam occurred on the creek between East Main Street and Route 5S. The jam occurred at the Route 5S bridge and extended upstream. This event resulted in the evacuation of roughly 100 people from their homes, the closing of both Erie Street and Warren Road in the Village, 3 mobile homes in the Brookhaven Trailer Park at Route 168 and pine Bush Road were threatened by flood waters and water was reported to rise to just below the bottom of Route 5S bridge.

The Mohawk River has inundated the land in the northeast corner of the Village of Mohawk, but it is not considered a flooding problem as there is no development on the floodplain and therefore no damage as a result of the flooding. The Mohawk River has also threatened the municipal pumping station at the end of North Richfield Street, but has yet to flood the station or cause any damage. The highest stage ever measured at the USGS gage No. 01347000 on the Mohawk River near Little Falls, New York, which has been recording since 1927, was recorded on March 5, 1964, and corresponds to a discharge of 27,200 cfs (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1962 through 1974; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1968). Prior to this storm, the highest stage recorded at the USGS gage occurred during the October 1945 flood, when the flow on the Mohawk River at Mohawk was calculated to be 25,000 cfs (USACE, 1961). Other significant floods on the Mohawk River in this area occurred in 1910, 1913, 1914, 1936, 1938, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1964, and 1972 (USACE, 1971). More recently, floods in 1996, 1998 and 2006, have caused extensive damage in the County. During January 18-20th, 1996, heavy rains combined with rapid snowmelt caused severe flooding in New York State with damages exceeding 200 million dollars. The USGS gage at Little Falls recorded a peak discharge of 30,700 cfs and the gage at East Creek on East Canada Creek recorded a peak

15

discharge of 17,000 cfs. A similar event (heavy rainfall accompanied with snowmelt) in January of 1998 caused severe flooding on East Canada Creek where the USGS gage station at East Creek recorded a peak discharge of 17,800 cfs; equivalent to a 25 year recurrence interval event. Hinckley Reservoir rose about 26 feet and stored more than 15 billion gallons of water before spilling into the West Canada Creek Reach 3 for the same event. June 28th and 29th, 2006, saw some of the worst flooding in the Mohawk Basin due to heavy rains in central and eastern portions of New York. On average 8 inches of rainfall fell in the Mohawk Basin causing widespread damages exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars in cost. All three counties of Oneida, Herkimer, and Montgomery were declared major federal disaster zone.

2.4 Flood Protection Measures

A number of projects have been undertaken in the Village of Herkimer designed to minimize the possibility of damage to the village from flooding on the Mohawk River, West Canada Creek Reach 1, Bellinger Brook, and Hydraulic Canal. A levee was constructed along the west bank of West Canada Creek Reach 1 by the State of New York in cooperation with local authorities following the flood of 1910. This levee extends for a distance of approximately two miles, upstream of Route 5. In 1936, embankment construction, consisting primarily of dressing the existing levee, was completed with Federal Emergency Relief funds, and the structure has since been referred to as the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Levee. Improvements were made along Bellinger Brook by the Temporary Emergency Relief Administration and the WPA. Completed in January 1940, the work consisted of realignment of the stream and construction of a concrete channel invert and masonry walls. These improvements were damaged by debris and boulders during the flood of September 1950, but the damage has since been repaired. Following the October 1945 flood, which caused extensive damage in the Village of Herkimer, the USACE recommended improvements to existing flood control projects in the Mohawk River Basin, including those in the Village of Herkimer. The flood control project for the village was authorized by the Flood Control Act approved July 3, 1958, and provided for “construction of a blanket levee along the railroad spur parallel to West Canada Creek Reach 1 for 1,535 feet with two closure levees for 650 and 830 feet, respectively; construction along the Mohawk River of levees for 4,530 feet; a gravel blanket along the New York State Thruway embankment for 1,100 feet; a levee on the left bank of Bellinger Brook for 2,310 feet; a sluice gate structure at the intersection of the levee, and an existing hydraulic canal; and interior drainage facilities including a pumping station” (USACE, 1968). Additional improvements to the 1958 project included construction of a second pumping station and stop-log closure structures at Mohawk Street and across the railroad spur track on the east bank of Bellinger Brook. There are nine ponding areas located along the east, west, and south perimeter of the protection works which are used to store excess storm runoff. Seven of these areas

16

are of sufficient size to stop the maximum anticipated inflow within the pond at a level which does not cause flooding of surrounding developed areas. The other two ponding areas are provided with pumping stations which will discharge excess inflow over the levees and maintain a safe water level. A recently completed project by the State of New York protects the Village of Herkimer from excessive discharges in the Hydraulic Canal. A control structure has been constructed at the outlet of Mirror Lake, and the bypass weir in the vicinity of the Hydraulic Canal and Route 28 has been replaced. A levee has been constructed along the southeast bank of the Hydraulic Canal between Mirror Lake and West Canada Creek, and the dam at the southeast corner of Mirror Lake has been raised six feet. This project allows the runoff from 1,300 acres north of the Village of Herkimer to be diverted to West Canada Creek upstream of the village instead of flowing through the village and down the Hydraulic Canal to the Mohawk River. The 1958 levee on West Canada Creek Reach 1 was designed to protect the Village of Herkimer against a discharge of 21,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) on West Canada Creek Reach 1 with a coincidental discharge of 33,800 cfs on the Mohawk River upstream of the confluence of West Canada Creek Reach 1 (USACE, 1970). In the Village of Dolgeville, there have been several flood protection measures taken since the flood of October 1945 within the Village of Dolgeville. The Daniel Green Company and the Village of Dolgeville repaired the spillway at the Daniel Green Company Dam and reconstructed a floodwall along the plant at a higher elevation. Following the March 1979 flood, the USACE was involved in strengthening and repairing the levee, originally constructed by the WPA in 1935, near North Main Street. Ice jams are dynamited by the Village of Dolgeville in an effort to prevent ice blockages and the associated flooding. The Town of Frankfort has no structural flood protection measures that are capable of significantly reducing damage from floodwaters. Delta Reservoir, built for the purpose of water supply to the Erie Canal, provides a minimal amount of flood protection to the area. In the Village of Ilion, the construction of State Route 5S along the abandoned railroad grade has altered the hydraulics of the Mohawk River. While it was not constructed for the purpose of acting as a levee, the new highway embankment has made the floodplain south of the highway an ineffective flow area. Currently there are no flood protection facilities along the Mohawk River within the City of Little Falls. The movable navigation dams operated by the New York Department of Transportation (NYDOT) were not designed to provide flood control (NYDOT, 1980). However, annual dredging of the barge canal right-of-way within the downstream portion of the Mohawk River, has greatly improved the waterway‟s flood handling capability. In the 1930s, under the WPA, riprap was placed along the east bank of Fulmer Creek in the Village of Mohawk from Charles Street upstream of the corner of Firman and Marmet Streets.

17

During the summer of 1974, at the suggestion of the USACE, the county dug a trench approximately 5 feet deep down the center of Fulmer Creek. The purpose of the trench was to keep water moving in a deep and narrow channel during ice breakup, to prevent jamming. In the Town of Newport, the three large dams within the study reach of West Canada Creek Reach primarily serve the purposes of hydroelectric generation and water supply impoundment. However, Hinckley Reservoir is seasonally regulated and has significant flood control capability if the reservoir is at its lowest regulated level, with a usable storage of approximately 76,000 acre-feet (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 1991; Charles T. Main, 1988; New York Power Authority, 1980). In the Town of Schuyler, there are no flood protection measures existing at this time which affect flooding along the Mohawk River. Delta Reservoir, built for the purpose of water supply to the Erie Canal provides a minimal amount of flood protection to the area.

The following tabulation lists various stream gage locations found within the county:

Location Gage No. Mohawk River downstream of Little Falls 01347000 Kast Bridge, New York 013460 Delta Dam near Rome 01336000 Near Cohoes 01357500 Steele Creek 01342730 Otsquago Creek 01349000 West Canada Creek at Kast Bridge 013450

3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS For the flooding sources studied in detail in the county, standard hydrologic and hydraulic

study methods were used to determine the flood hazard data required for this FIS. Flood events of a magnitude which are expected to be equaled or exceeded once on the average during any 10-, 50-, 100-, or 500-year period (recurrence interval) have been selected as having special significance for floodplain management and for flood insurance rates. These events, commonly termed the 10-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year floods, have a 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent chance, respectively, of being equaled or exceeded during any year. Although the recurrence interval represents the long term average period between floods of a specific magnitude, rare floods could occur at short intervals or even within the same year. The risk of experiencing a rare flood increases when periods greater than 1 year are considered. For example, the risk of having a flood which equals or exceeds the 100-year flood (1-percent chance of annual exceedence) in any 50-year period is approximately 40 percent (4 in 10), and, for any 90-year period, the risk increases to approximately 60 percent (6 in 10). The analyses reported herein reflect flooding potentials based on conditions existing in the

18

county at the time of completion of this FIS. Maps and flood elevations will be amended periodically to reflect future changes.

3.1 Hydrologic Analyses

Hydrologic analyses were carried out to establish peak discharge-frequency

relationships for each riverine flooding source studied by detailed methods affecting the county.

For each community within Herkimer County that had a previously printed FIS

report, the hydrologic analyses described in those reports have been compiled and are summarized below.

Precountywide Analyses

In the Village of Herkimer, discharge-frequency relationships for the Mohawk River, upstream of West Canada Creek Reach 1, were determined by a procedure outlined in the USACE regional frequency study (USACE, 1974). This method is based on historical maximum peak flows for 230 gaging stations in the Upper Delaware and Hudson River basins including USGS Gaging Station Nos. 013460 at Kast Bridge, New York, and 013470 near Little Falls, New York. This procedure takes into account drainage area, main channel slope, main channel length, surface storage, mean basin elevation, precipitation characteristics, and soil characteristics. The flows calculated by this method for selected recurrence intervals compared very favorably with those published in previous reports (USACE, 1961 & 1973). Discharge-frequency relationships were developed for West Canada Creek Reach 1 at Herkimer by employing a standard log-Pearson Type III analysis as outlined by the Water Resources Council (Water Resources Council, 1967 & 1976). This analysis was performed on 56 years of discharge records compiled by the USGS for Gaging Station No. 013460 at Kast Bridge, New York, 4.0 miles upstream from the confluence with the Mohawk River. Because of the small basin size of the Bellinger Brook watershed (3.2 square miles), the number of methods available for prediction of discharge-frequency relationships for this waterway were limited. The methods employed in this study take into account watershed characteristics such as drainage areas, geographical location, main channel slope, main channel length, storage, rainfall, vegetative cover, soil characteristics, and impervious area, and were developed by the Soil Conservation Service (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973; Anderson, D. G., 1974; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1961). Conversations with community officials and residents of the Church Street area of Bellinger Brook were very helpful in determining historical high-water marks at the Church Street bridge during ice-free conditions. Discharges developed by the aforementioned methods were then applied in a backwater analysis on Bellinger Brook, and the resulting water-surface elevations were compared with historical elevations and checked for reasonableness.

19

In the Village of Cold Brook, hydrologic analyses were performed by the NYSDEC to establish the peak discharge-frequency relationships for the flooding sources studied in detail affecting the community (NYSDEC, 1994). The 1-percent annual chance flood flows were calculated by a USGS analysis, Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York, Excluding Long Island, which used gage data throughout New York to formulate regional regression equations (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991). The areas of shallow flooding located along Cold Brook are caused by the flooding along Cold Brook diverging into drainage ditches located along State Route 8. These areas of sheet flow were identified during the preparation of this FIS. In the Village of Dolgeville, the hydrology developed by the USACE for the floodplain information report for East Canada Creek has been adopted for use in this study. For the detailed study of Beaver Brook, the hydrologic analysis was determined using methods presented in a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Publication (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1977). This method is similar to the USGS procedure in that it utilizes regional regression equations which are dependent on drainage and storage areas, precipitation and channel slope parameters. The primary difference between these methods lies with the difference in drainage area magnitudes. The USGS procedure is not sufficiently accurate when used with drainage basins less than 10 square miles, whereas the USDOT method is considered accurate with drainage areas less than 10 square miles. Beaver Brook hydrology in the vicinity of Slawson Street was adjusted to reflect the results of the hydraulic analysis which indicated that a majority of the total runoff overtops the culvert at Slawson Street, continuing overland by sheet flow to East Canada Creek. Recognizing that the topography precludes the return of this runoff to Beaver Brook, the hydraulic analysis restricts the discharge in the reach downstream of Slawson Street to the amount accommodated by the culvert. The total runoff is assumed to be conveyed by Beaver Brook and its overbanks upstream of Slawson Street. For the Towns of Frankfort and Schuyler and the Villages of Frankfort and Ilion, the 1-percent annual chance discharge for the Mohawk River was obtained from the USACE (USACE, 1973; USACE, 1974). The 1-percent annual chance discharge was based on a regression analysis of the log-Pearson analysis of 3 long-term USGS gages on the Mohawk River. These gages are USGS gage No. 01336000 at Delta Dam near Rome (period of record – 58 years), USGS gage No. 01347000 near Little Falls (period of record – 53 years), and USGS gage No. 01357500 near Cohoes (period of record – 62 years). The 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent annual chance discharges were computed using a USGS method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1961). For the Town of Litchfield FIS, regression equations and procedures outlined in USGS Report 90-4197 were utilized to determine discharge-frequency data for Steele Creek (U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, 1991). USGS gage number 01342730 for Steele Creek at Ilion was used to weight the peak discharge calculations.

20

For the detailed study of the Mohawk River, the hydrology was originally developed by the USGS using a log-Pearson Type III analysis, at gage No. 01347000, located approximately 3 miles downstream of the City of Little Falls (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). Subsequently, the USACE developed hydrology at this gage using the techniques indicated in the publication Regional Frequency Study, Upper Delaware and Hudson River Basins, New York District (USACE, 1974). The USACE-generated hydrology was used in this study to insure continuity with current studies. Recognizing that the discharge conveyed by the NYDOT Canal is limited to the amount which overtops the guard gates at the upstream separation, the discharges of the 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance floods were determined from rating curves developed for weir flow over the gates. The 10-percent annual chance discharge remains below the crest of the guard gates, therefore, it is not conveyed by the canal. For the Village of Mohawk, discharge-frequency relationships for the Mohawk River, upstream of West Canada Creek Reach 1, were determined by the USACE, using the procedure outlined in Regional Frequency Study, Upper Delaware and Hudson River Basins, New York District. This method is based on historical maximum peak flows for 230 gaging stations in the Upper Delaware and Hudson River basins, including USGS gaging station No. 013460 on West Canada Creek at Kast Bridge, New York, and No. 013470 on the Mohawk River near Little Falls, New York. The gage at Kast Bridge has been recording since 1920 and the gage at Little Falls has been recording since 1927 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1968). This procedure takes into account drainage area, main channel slope, main channel length, surface storage, mean basin elevation, precipitation characteristics, and soil characteristics. The flows calculated by this method for selected recurrence intervals compare favorably with those published in previous reports (USACE, 1973; USACE, 1961). To develop flows for Fulmer Creek, an ungaged watershed, analyses were performed on Otsquago Creek, a nearby watershed with similar characteristics. The USGS has maintained a stream flow gage (No. 01349000) on Otsquago Creek from October 1949 to the present; stage and discharge records are available for this period. A standard log-Pearson Type III analysis was performed on Otsquago Creek as outlined by the Water Resources Council (Water Resources Council, 1967; Water Resources Council, 1976). Results of the log-Pearson Type III analysis were compared with several regional frequency analyses, and the Robison method of regional frequency analysis was adopted for Fulmer Creek, because it gave results that compared most favorably with the recorded information on the Otsquago Creek basin (F. L. Robison, 1961). In the Town of Newport, peak discharges on West Canada Creek Reach 3 were calculated through the preparation of a basin-wide hydrologic analysis which incorporated regional frequency equations, gage data, and the USACE HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Computer Program (USACE, 1987). The inflow to Hinckley Reservoir from its 372 square mile drainage basin was calculated by a USGS analysis which utilized gage data throughout New York State to formulate regional regression equations (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991).

21

In the Village of Poland, the 1-percent annual chance flood discharge for West Canada Creek Reach 3 used in this FIS is 22,900 cfs, with a drainage area of 426.2 square miles. This discharge was computed at a point approximately 0.8 mile upstream of Old State Road at the corporate limits between the Towns of Newport and Russia.

Countywide Analyses In the wake of the severe 2006 floods, FEMA commissioned revised hydrologic and

hydraulic analyses for several flooding sources within the Upper Susquehanna River basin in New York State. The analyses resulted in new technical information that will support mitigation and recovery efforts through the production of revised hydrologic and hydraulic models and work maps that can be used to update FISs and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The hydrologic analyses for this study were provided under the Hazard Mitigation and Technical Assistance Contract HSFEHQ-06-D-012, Task Order HSFHQ-06-J-0065 by Michael Baker. For the FIS the original hydrology was utilized without any modifications.

For ease of use, information on the methodology used to study different streams is

organized based on 11-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). The USGS has developed the 8-digit HUC system as a hierarchical classification system of hydrologic drainage basins in the United States. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, in conjunction with the USGS, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture, developed 11- digit HUCs for classification at the subwatershed level.

The HUC hierarchy corresponds to codes with 2, 4, 6, 8 and 11 digits. In

decreasing area (increasing number of digits in the HUC) order each is made up by several of the contiguous watersheds of lower hierarchy. The first two digits of the HUC are the code for the Regional Boundary (e.g., 02, for the Mid-Atlantic Region). The next two digits of the HUC are the code for the Subregional boundary (e.g., 0202, Upper Hudson). The next two digits are the code for the Accounting Unit (e.g., 020200, the Upper Hudson basin). The next two digits of the HUC are the Cataloging Unit (e.g., 02020004, Mohawk). The last three digits of the HUC are the code for the NRCS Watershed Boundary (e.g., 02020004390, Stony Clove).

In Herkimer County, revised analyses were performed for the East Canada Creek, Fulmer Creek, Mohawk River, Moyer Creek, Steele Creek, and West Canada Creek Reach 1 in some portion of the following HUC 11 units: 02020004090 - Fulmer Creek 02020004200 - Lower East Canada Creek 02020004150 - Lower West Canada Creek 02020004060 - Nine Mile Creek to Sterling Creek 02020004080 - Steele Creek 02020004070 - Sterling Creek to West Canada Creek

22

02020004200- East Canada Creek Statistical analysis of the USGS stream gage data in the Mohawk River Basin was conducted to determine the peak flow discharges. For establishing peak discharges at ungaged locations, a USGS transfer equation method was applied. Table 7, “Summary of Gaging Stations on East Canada Creek,” shows a list of gaging stations used in the analysis.

TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF GAGING STATIONS ON EAST CANADA CREEK

Station No.

Station Name Drainage

Area (mi)2

Period of Record

Comments

01348000 East Canada Creek at East Creek, NY 289 1946-2006

Discharges unregulated

The 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual chance flood discharges were estimated for

the gaging stations in Table 7 by employing Bulletin 17B, Guidelines for

Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water

Data, 1982). The gage analysis was performed using the USGS PeakFQ software

which performs floodflow-frequency analyses in accordance with Bulletin 17B

(USGS, 2006). The analysis approach described in Bulletin 17B assumes the

logarithms of annual peak flows fit a Pearson Type III distribution. These

procedures are not applicable to flood data from regulated watersheds but are

shown to be applicable to data for the Mohawk River and West Canada Creek.

The annual peak flow data for East Canada Creek are unregulated so there is no

question of the applicability of Bulletin 17B. The annual peak data for the

frequency analyses were retrieved from the USGS web site

(http://water.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/sw).

Peak flow discharges for recurrence intervals 10, 2, 1 and 0.2 percent annual

chance were computed at specific sites along the stream reaches using the

procedures and methodologies recommended in the USGS Scientific Investigation

Report (SIR) 2006 – 5112 and in concurrence with the Appendix C: Guidance for

Riverine Flooding Analyses and Mapping of the FEMA’s Guidelines and

Specification for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners.

The locations along the different river reaches to compute peak flow discharge

were identified using the guidelines set forth in the New York Flood Hazard Data

Collection (HSFEHQ-06-D-0612) Task Order #0065. Specifically these locations

are: upstream of major tributaries, stream gage locations, downstream of

population centers and control structures, and at most effective FIS discharge

locations. In addition, as a rule of thumb, the distance between adjacent discharge

locations was generally not allowed to exceed 5 miles, however, in a few cases

this distance is as high as 8.5 miles.

http://water.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/sw

23

The computation of drainage areas at the required flow change locations was

performed using GIS tools. The base GIS data used is the National Hydrography

Dataset Plus (NHDPlus) which uses the USGS 30 meter Digital Elevation Models

(DEM) and NHD hydrography information to create a „hydrologically correct‟

DEM (HydroDEM). This HydroDEM is used to delineate the drainage areas

automatically. 02020004090- Fulmer Creek Peak discharges developed using a standard log-Pearson Type III analysis on Otsquago Creek, a nearby watershed with similar characteristics. To calculate stream discharges, the revised hydrologic analysis used the standardized regional regression equations detailed in USGS publication 90-4197 Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York, Excluding Long Island, (USGS, 1991). This procedure relates runoff discharge to the mean annual precipitation and several other parameters based on watershed basin characteristics within a number of geographically distinct regions in New York State. The study area is in Region 5 and has parameters including mean annual precipitation, drainage area, main channel slope, basin storage and basin shape index. Basin storage is defined by USGS as the percentage of area within the watershed covered by lakes, ponds and swamps. 02020004060 Mohawk River Statistical analysis of the USGS stream gage data in the Mohawk River Basin was conducted to determine the peak flow discharges. For establishing peak discharges at ungaged locations, a USGS transfer equation method was applied. Table 8, “Summary of Gaging Stations on the Mohawk River,” shows a list of gaging stations used in the analysis.

TABLE 8 – SUMMARY OF GAGING STATIONS ON THE MOHAWK RIVER

Station No.


Area (mi)2

Period of Record

Comments

01336000 Mohawk River near Rome, NY 152

1928 - 2006

Discharges regulated by Delta Reservoir

01347000 Mohawk River near Little Falls, NY 1,342

1913, 1928 -2006

Discharges regulated by Delta and Hinckley Reservoirs

01357500 Mohawk River at Cohoes, NY 3,450

1913 - 2006

Discharges regulated by Delta and Hinckley Reservoirs




24

Data, 1982). The gage analysis was performed using the USGS Peak FQ software





shown to be applicable to data for the Mohawk River The annual peak flow data

for East Canada Creek are unregulated so there is no question of the applicability

of Bulletin 17B. The annual peak data for the frequency analyses were retrieved

from the USGS web site (http://water.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/sw).




















automatically. 02020004070- Moyer Creek Did not have peak discharges developed; rather their flood extents were delineated from topographic maps. Specifically, Moyer Creek‟s 100-year flood extent was delineated using 1:24,000 scale topographic maps with a 3-meter contour interval. To calculate stream discharges, the revised hydrologic analysis used the standardized regional regression equations detailed in USGS publication 90-4197 Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York, Excluding Long Island, (USGS, 1991). This procedure relates runoff discharge to the mean annual precipitation and several other parameters based on watershed basin characteristics within a number of geographically distinct regions in New York State. The study area is in Region 5 and has parameters including mean annual precipitation, drainage area, main channel slope, basin storage and


25

basin shape index. Basin storage is defined by USGS as the percentage of area within the watershed covered by lakes, ponds and swamps. 02020004080- Steele Creek Did not have peak discharges developed; rather flood extents were delineated from topographic maps. Specifically, Steele Creek‟s 100-year flood extent was delineated using 1:4,800 scale topographic maps with a contour interval of 5 feet. To calculate stream discharges, the revised hydrologic analysis used the standardized regional regression equations detailed in USGS publication 90-4197 Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York, Excluding Long Island, (USGS, 1991). This procedure relates runoff discharge to the mean annual precipitation and several other parameters based on watershed basin characteristics within a number of geographically distinct regions in New York State. The study area is in Region 5 and has parameters including mean annual precipitation, drainage area, main channel slope, basin storage and basin shape index. Basin storage is defined by USGS as the percentage of area within the watershed covered by lakes, ponds and swamps. An annual flow frequency analysis was developed following the Bulletin 17B guidelines, using the PEAKFQ software for the Steele Creek Gage. The gage has 20 years of records with systematic records from 1965 to 1986 and one historic peak in 2000. The results of this analysis were used as bases for comparing the results of the regression equations. 02020004150- West Canada Creek Reach 1 Statistical analysis of the USGS stream gage data in the Mohawk River Basin was conducted to determine the peak flow discharges. For establishing peak discharges at ungaged locations, a USGS transfer equation method was applied. Table 9, “Summary of Gaging Stations on West Canada Creek,” shows a list of gaging stations used in the analysis.

TABLE 9 – SUMMARY OF GAGING STATIONS ON WEST CANADA CREEK

Station No.


Area (mi)2

Period of Record

Comments

01346000 West Canada Creek at Karst Bridge, NY 560

1913, 1921-2006

Discharges regulated by Hinckley Reservoir




Data, 1982). The gage analysis was performed using the USGS PeakFQ software




26


shown to be applicable to data for the Mohawk River and West Canada Creek.

The annual peak flow data for East Canada Creek are unregulated so there is no

question of the applicability of Bulletin 17B. The annual peak data for the

frequency analyses were retrieved from the USGS web site

(http://water.usgs.gov/ny/nwis/sw).




















automatically. A summary of the drainage area-peak discharge relationships for all the streams

studied by detailed methods is shown in Table 10, "Summary of Discharges."

TABLE 10 – SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10-PERCENT 2-PERCENT 1-PERCENT 0.2-PERCENT

BEAVER BROOK

East Canada Creek to

Slawson Street 2.5 365 365 365 365

At the corporate limits of

the Village of Dolgeville

and the Town of Manheim 2.6 680 1,155 1,350 1,960

*Data not available


27

TABLE 10 – SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)



BELLINGER BROOK

At Cross Section A 3.2 685 1,200 1,465 2,265

At Cross Section B 2.55 595 1,040 1,260 1,945

COLD BROOK

At confluence with West

Canada Creek 6.2 * * 1,280 *

At confluence of first

upstream tributary 5.0 * * 1,060 *

At confluence of second

upstream tributary 4.5 * * 950 *

At confluence of third


At confluence of fourth


EAST CANADA CREEK

At East Creek, gage station

01348000 292 14,600 21,000 24,100 32,500

At Montgomery and Fulton

County boundary 287 14,500 20,800 23,900 32,100

At Village of Dolgeville

downstream corporate

limits 265 13,500 19,500 22,400 30,100

FULMER CREEK

At confluence with

Mohawk River 25.9 1,850 2,710 3,090 3,980

At 100 feet downstream of

Route 168 and Rock Hill

Road 12.8 1,060 1,570 1,800 2,340

MOHAWK RIVER

At gage station 01347000

near Little Falls 1,315 26,200 31,400 33,500 38,000

At City of Little Falls


limits 1,295 26,000 31,100 33,200 37,700

At 2.9 miles downstream of

confluence with West

Canada Creek, just

downstream of diversion

of the river and canal 1,279 25,700 30,900 33,000 37,500

*Data not available

28


FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)



MOHAWK RIVER (continued)

At Village of Herkimer 699 16,200 20,700 22,600 27,000

At Village of Ilion


limits 665 15,500 20,000 21,900 26,300

At Village of Frankfort


limits 629 14,900 19,300 21,200 25,500

At Herkimer County

upstream limit 544 13,300 17,500 19,400 23,500

MOYER CREEK

At confluence with

Mohawk River 20.4 1,100 1,620 1,850 2,400

Approximately 1,800 feet

downstream of Furnace

Road and Route 171 13.8 1,510 2,210 2,520 3,260

STEELE CREEK

At confluence with

Mohawk River 26.7 1,980 2,900 3,310 4,280

Approximately 1 mile

upstream of Remington

Road 13.4 350 460 510 620

Just upstream tributaries at

approximately station

12600 8.5 790 1,175 1,350 1,760



1980 5.8 522 770 880 1,150



26200 3.5 250 350 400 510

WEST CANADA CREEK

REACH 1

At Kast Bridge 561 16,200 20,600 22,000 26,200

*Data not available

29


FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)



WEST CANADA CREEK

REACH 3

At 0.8 mile upstream of

Old State Road 426.2 * * 22,900 *

Above confluence of

Cincinnati Creek 374.0 * * 20,100 *

*Data not available

In the Village and Town of Newport, a 1% annual chance flood elevation was established for West Canada Creek Reach 2 from a dam stability analysis for the Newport Hydrologic Dam, dated June 12, 1987. A summary of peak elevation-frequency relationships is shown in Table 11, “Summary of Stillwater Elevations.”

TABLE 11 - SUMMARY OF STILLWATER ELEVATIONS

FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION

ELEVATION (feet NAVD1)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 2

From Newport Hydrologic Dam to a point

approximately 1000 feet upstream of the

Village of Newport/Town of Newport

corporate limits * * 649.0 *

1North American Vertical Datum of 1988

*Data Not Available

3.2 Hydraulic Analyses

Analyses of the hydraulic characteristics of flooding from the source studied were carried out to provide estimates of the elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals. Users should be aware that flood elevations shown on the FIRM represent rounded whole-foot elevations and may not exactly reflect the elevations shown on the Flood Profiles or in the Floodway Data tables in the FIS report. For construction and/or floodplain management purposes, users are encouraged to use the flood elevation data presented in this FIS in conjunction with the data shown on the FIRM.

30

Cross sections for the flooding sources studied by detailed methods were obtained from field surveys. All bridges, dams, and culverts were field surveyed to obtain elevation data and structural geometry.

Locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses are shown on the

Flood Profiles (Exhibit 1). For stream segments for which a floodway was computed (Section 4.2), selected cross section locations are also shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2). Flood profiles were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations for floods of the selected recurrence intervals.

For each community in Herkimer County that has a previously printed FIS report,

the hydraulic analyses described in those reports have been compiled and are summarized below.

Pre-Countywide Analyses

Cross-section data for the Village of Cold Brook were obtained from field survey and contract plan documents (NYSDOT Contract #D257213) by the Stetson-Harza Company for Cold Brook from the downstream village corporate limits to NYSDOT Bridge #1004720 and from NYSDOT Bridge #1004730 to the upstream village corporate limits (Stetson-Harza, 1993; Stetson-Harza, 1996). Cross-section data for the stretch of river between NYSDOT Bridge #1004720 to Bridge #1004730 were provided from field survey by Boulder Consultants (Boulder Consultants, 1997). Cross-section data for sections in the model downstream of the westerly corporate limit were derived from USGS topographic mapping from cross-section data provided by Stetson-Harza (Stetson-Harza, 1993; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1982). Within the Village of Cold Brook, the below-water sections were obtained by field measurement. All bridges and culvert measurements were obtained from the NYSDOT Contract #D257213 plans and specifications, with exception to the Military Road culvert, which was field surveyed by Boulder Consultants to obtain accurate elevation data and structural geometry. Cross sections for the backwater analyses of East Canada Creek and Beaver Brook in the Village of Dolgeville were obtained from aerial photographs flown in December 1979, at a scale of 1:9,600 (Quinn and Associates, 1979). Cross sections for the backwater analyses of the Mohawk River and the NYDOT Canal in the City of Little Falls were obtained from aerial photographs flown in December 1979, at a scale of 1:9,600 (Quinn and Associates, 1979). For the Village of Mohawk FIS, cross sections for Fulmer Creek were obtained from field surveys and from an Erdman Anthony Associates Flood Plain Information Report (USACE, 1971).

31

Cross-section data for West Canada Creek Reach 3 in the Town of Newport were obtained from topographic maps (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1945, et cetera). Water-surface elevations of floods of selected recurrence intervals for Beaver Creek, Cold Brook, East Canada Creek, Fulmer Creek, Mohawk River, Steele Creek, and West Canada Creek Reach 3 were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program, which is based on Bernoulli‟s energy theorem and Manning‟s friction formula (USACE, 1973; 1974; & 1968). In the Village of Dolgeville, the HEC-2 computer model for East Canada Creek was calibrated using high water marks obtained from the USACE Flood Plain Information report (USACE, 1970), and the October 2, 1945, discharge. Supercritical flow computations, utilizing HEC-2 were conducted for the portion of Beaver Brook for the reach downstream of the Slawson Street culvert. Calibration of the Beaver Brook model was performed using high water marks obtained by field reconnaissance, and the July 1976 discharge. The elevation of the ponding area east of Dolge Avenue in the vicinity of High Falls dam, which results from the overtopping of the roadway is based on the 1-percent annual chance flood elevations for East Canada Creek, as determined using HEC-2. Starting water-surface elevations for East Canada Creek, Cold Brook, Mohawk River, NYDOT Canal, Steele Creek, and West Canada Creek Reach 3 were calculated using the slope/area method. For Beaver Brook, two sets of starting water-surface elevations were used in the hydraulic computations. The stream was divided into two segments by a long box culvert in the vicinity of Slawson Street and Main Street. For the portion of Beaver Brook downstream of the culvert, starting water-surface elevations were computed using slope/area methods at the confluence with East Canada Creek. For the remainder of Beaver Brook, starting water-surface elevations were computed using the water-surface elevations at the culvert outlet and culvert hydraulics according to a U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads Publication (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1965). For the Mohawk River in the City of Little Falls, all hydraulic computations were based on the assumption that New York State Barge Canal movable dams were not in place. The HEC-2 computer model for the Mohawk River was calibrated using high water marks produced by the March 21, 1980, discharge. Selection of this discharge was based on the confidence that the flood marks would accurately approximate an open channel flow condition. The natural (ice blockages), or man-made (NYDOT dams) restrictions frequently encountered during the periods of peak flows were not present at this time. Floodmarks for the Mohawk River were obtained during field reconnaissance from residents or commercial establishments located along the river. Hydraulic computations for the Mohawk River are complicated by the possibility of portions of the total discharge being conveyed by different routes, either the natural channel or the NYDOT Canal, which is a separate alignment through most of the City of Little Falls. The presence of a small island in the natural channel, near the

32

upstream bifurcation adds to the problem. In addition, guard gates at the upstream end of the canal and Lock 17E at the downstream end limit the quantity of runoff which can be transmitted by the canal. Recognizing that the guard gates are always closed during flood events and that either the upstream or downstream door of the lock is always closed, conveyance in the canal is limited to that which overtops the guard gates and the lock. However, a low left bank on the canal upstream of the lock permits all discharge that enters the canal by breaching the guard gates to exit to the natural channel upstream of the lock. Initial hydraulic computations, assigning all discharge to the natural channel indicated that the 10-percent annual chance discharge would not breach the guard gates, however, the larger discharges will overtop the gates permitting some discharge to be conveyed through the canal. A rating curve was developed for the guard gates up to the elevation of the 0.2-percent annual chance flood for all discharge in the natural channel. Using this rating curve and the initial computation, divided flow computations were attempted seeking concurrence of the computed water-surface elevation immediately upstream of the bifurcation. Several combinations of discharge assigned to each channel were attempted for each flood event, iterating a final solution. Recognizing that all discharge exits from the NYDOT Canal upstream of Lock 17E, which maintain a set water-surface elevation in the canal, the established A Zone for the NYDOT Canal is limited to the canal itself. Starting water-surface elevations were calculated on Fulmer Creek at cross-section A using Manning‟s friction formula, assuming normal depth and uniform flow. For the 1977 Village of Herkimer FIS, flows for the Mohawk River at Herkimer were determined using a regional frequency analysis developed by the USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center. The USACE‟s earlier design memorandum (USACE, 1961) had indicated that the peak flow for the October 1945 flood at Herkimer was 25,000 cfs, with this flood having a recurrence interval of about 100 years. The same design memo had also indicated that the observed coincidental peak flow for the same October 1945 flood on West Canada Creek Reach 1 at Kast Bridge was 16,000 cfs. The USGS gaging station downstream on the Mohawk River at Little Falls recorded a peak flow of 25,300 cfs for this same storm. Little Falls recorded a peak flow of 25,000 cfs for this same storm. (This flow was adjusted upward to 30,000 cfs to account for flow bypassing the gage via the Barge Canal.) It is obvious, therefore, that a significant attenuation of coincidental peak flows (varying from 29 to 38 percent for recurrence intervals of 10 to 500 years) take place because of the substantial amount of natural valley storage between Herkimer and Little Falls. Consequently, similar adjustments were made to the incremental flows, to enable calculation of a starting water-surface elevation and discharge for the Mohawk River upstream of the confluence with West Canada Creek Reach 1. Flows developed for selected recurrence intervals for the Mohawk River at Herkimer were first combined with flows of corresponding recurrence intervals for West Canada Creek Reach 1. Peak flows were assumed to coincide, thus making them additive, with the sum gradually reduced from just downstream of the confluence, to agree with developed flows for corresponding recurrence intervals for

33

the Mohawk River at Little Falls. To determine a starting water-surface elevation for each flood flow analyzed, the peak flow at Little Falls was increased gradually in an upstream direction (to coincide with the significant attenuation brought about by the substantial valley storage), to equal the coincidental peak flows at the confluence of the Mohawk River and West Canada Creek Reach 1. The converging depth method was utilized to confirm the water-surface elevation at the confluence. Upstream of the confluence, flows were reduced to those tabulated for the Mohawk River at Herkimer for the selected recurrence intervals. For the 1977 Village of Herkimer FIS, starting water-surface elevations were calculated on West Canada Creek Reach 1 at cross section A by using Manning‟s friction formula, assuming normal depth. Flood profiles were calculated for West Canada Creek Reach 1, and these were combined with the water-surface elevation of the Mohawk River at the confluence with West Canada Creek Reach 1 for the respective recurrence intervals (Exhibit 1). Because the tongued land at the confluence of the Mohawk River is inundated by water-surface elevations of 380 feet above the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29) or greater, the West Canada Creek Reach 1 profile from the confluence of the Mohawk River to the railroad a point approximately 0.383 mile downstream of the abandoned railroad on West Canada Creek Reach 1 is controlled by water-surface elevations of the Mohawk River for floods of the selected recurrence intervals. For this reason, the West Canada Creek Reach 1 profile is nearly flat from approximately 600 feet downstream of the abandoned bridge to the vicinity of the railroad bridge, where West Canada Creek Reach 1 bends to the east and takes on the slope of the Mohawk River. To determine starting water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals on Bellinger Brook, it was assumed that the stream channel and overbank area upstream of the Route 5 bridge acted as a natural storage area. With an assumed downstream water-surface elevation of 390 feet NGVD 29, computed flood hydrographs were routed through this storage area by using the functional rate of storage method (outline in Fair & Geyer), applying both weir and orifice flow to the outlet (Fair, 1954). Elevation 390 was selected as a reasonable Mohawk River stage which might be expected when serious flooding occurs in Bellinger Brook. The normal Mohawk River stage at the confluence of Bellinger Brook is approximately 385 feet, and the elevation of the 1-percent annual chance flood elevation at this location is approximately 391.5. The converging depth method was utilized to confirm the water-surface elevation at the corporate boundary. The ponding areas located along the perimeter of the flood protection works were designed by the USACE (USACE, 1973). They are shown as approximate study areas because it is impossible to predict flood elevations accurately in these areas. The elevation reference mark used in this study is shown on the maps. For the 2002 Village of Herkimer FIS revision, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer software (USACE, 1991). Starting water-surface elevations for West Canada Creek Reach 1 were taken from the effective HEC-2 model. Flood

34

profiles were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations for floods of the selected recurrence intervals (Exhibit 1). Countywide Analyses

For ease of use, information on the methodology used to study different streams is organized based on 11-digit HUC. See Section 3.1 for more explanation on the HUC system. 02020004090 - Fulmer Creek 02020004200 - Lower East Canada Creek 02020004150 - Lower West Canada Creek 02020004060 - Nine Mile Creek to Sterling Creek 02020004080 - Steele Creek 02020004070 - Sterling Creek to West Canada Creek In Herkimer County, revised analyses were performed for the East Canada Creek, Fulmer Creek, Mohawk River, Moyer Creek, Steele Creek, and West Canada Creek Reach 1.

02020004200- East Canada Creek For the natural run the starting water surface elevation was determined using the slope method. A slope of 0.010542 was used for East Canada Creek, while known water surface elevations were used as starting water surface conditions for the floodway. HEC-RAS, Version 3.1.3, was used for the hydraulic analysis. Floodplain delineation was performed using Arc-GIS 9.2 and HEC-GeoRas 3.2 tools. The hydraulic model was calibrated using the 2006 flood elevation information based on high water marks captured by URS Corporation after the flood event of June 2006. At high water mark 36-UNY-01-011, located at 121 North Main Street in the Village of Dolgeville, the elevation of the June 2006 flood event was 796.40 feet NAVD 88; the computed water surface elevation using the June 2006 flood discharge was 796.59 feet NAVD 88 for a difference of 0.19 feet. Calibration efforts consisted of changing Bridge Modeling Approach to the energy only method for the State Highway 29 bridge, changing Manning‟s n values, and making minor adjustments to the cross-section geometry. 02020004090- Fulmer Creek

Water surface elevations for floods of the selected recurrence intervals were

computed using the USACOE Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis

System (HEC-RAS) river modeling software program (Version 3.0.1). The HEC-

RAS model is based on cross section geometry generated using manual and semi-

automated methods derived from Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

techniques and data.

35

02020004060- Mohawk River The Danish Hydraulic Institute‟s (DHI) MIKE 11 Version 2007 software was used to perform the hydraulic analysis. Watershed Concept‟s Watershed Information System (WISE) and ArcGIS 9.2 computer software were used as pre-processors for inputs to the hydraulic model and postprocessor for delineation of the floodplains. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HydrologicEngineering Center – River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) Version 4.0 was also used primarily for assistance to set up the initial floodway run. The field survey data for the natural cross-sections was overlain over the terrain TIN and cross-sections were drawn along the survey data and extended across the floodplain. The software WISE was used to extract the station-elevation points along the cross-sections. In general, survey data were used to develop the channel portion of the cross-section geometry while the TIN was the source of overbank topography. Field survey data was given priority in places where both survey data and LiDAR points were present. Some nudging and minor edits were performed on the cross-sections for reasonability when the survey data and the LiDAR data showed a horizontal discrepancy.

The Mohawk River Reach 1 floodplain located in Oneida County was analyzed by

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) under the Federal Emergency Management Agency‟s (FEMA‟s) Hazard Mitigation and Technical Assistance Program (HMTAP) Contract Number HSFEHQ -06-D-0162. The hydraulic models, developed by Baker were developed by DHI Water & Environment using the 2007 version of the MIKE 11 software, and reflected navigable season conditions where water-surface elevation is controlled through a series of dams (some movable) and locks. The navigation season occurs from May to November.

RAMPP utilized the above information using MIKE 11, Version 2008 (Service

Pack 3) with the weir level-width data of the crested weirs representing movable dams to reflect data provided by NYS Canal for those dams without debris blockage. No other modification or revision was done to the Baker Mike 11 model, and no other component of the multiple profile models has been revised. 02020004070- Moyer Creek






techniques and data.

36

02020004080- Steele Creek






techniques and data. 02020004150- West Canada Creek Reach 1 For the natural run the starting water surface elevation was determined using the slope method. A slope of 0.002857 was used for West Canada Creek Reach 1, while known water surface elevations were used as starting water surface conditions for the floodway. HEC-RAS, Version 3.1.3, was used for the hydraulic analysis. Floodplain delineation was performed using Arc-GIS 9.2 and HEC-GeoRas 3.2 tools. Cross section elevations were extracted from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The DEM was generated by combining overbank elevation data from an aerial Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey with data from a traditional field survey of the stream channel and its immediate overbank areas. All bridges, culverts, dams, and other hydraulic obstructions were field surveyed to provide data on elevation, orientation, and structural geometry. For Fulmer Creek, Moyer Creek, and Steele Creek, detailed structural geometry for bridges and culverts was also obtained from NYSDOT as-built drawings where they were available. All field survey data for structures and stream channels were provided by NYSDEC. For East Canada Creek and West Canada Creek Reach 1, hydraulic cross-sections were cut from the digital terrain model for the HEC-RAS hydraulic model with a spacing of 500- to 1,000-foot intervals. Survey data were used to develop the channel portion of the cross-section geometry and the TIN was the source of the overbank topography. The cross-section geometries located at the immediate upstream and downstream faces of a structure were obtained by blending the surveyed and digital topographic data in 3-D analyst. In addition to bridge and culvert crossings, surveyed channel portion and digital overbank topographic data were also blended in 3-D analyst at the natural valley cross-sections that were surveyed. For non-surveyed natural valley cross-sections, the channel geometry was interpolated from the nearest available surveyed data along the stream and the overbank topography was derived from the TIN.

The hydraulic analyses for this FIS were based on unobstructed flow. The flood

elevations shown on the profiles are thus considered valid only if hydraulic structures remain unobstructed, operate properly, and do not fail.

37

Roughness factors (Manning's "n") used in the hydraulic computations were chosen by engineering judgment and were based on field observations of the streams and floodplain areas. Roughness factors for all streams studied by detailed methods are shown in Table 12, "Manning's "n" Values."

TABLE 12 - MANNING'S "n" VALUES

Stream Channel “n” Overbank “n” Beaver Brook 0.030 0.07 - 1.00

Bellinger Brook 0.045 0.060

Cold Brook 0.025 - 0.035 0.060 - 0.080

East Canada Creek 0.035-0.070 0.013-0.100

Fulmer Creek 0.025-0.055 0.060-0.2

Mohawk River 0.030-0.052 0.060-0.100

Moyer Creek 0.025-0.051 0.040-0.2

NYDOT Canal 0.00 - 0.045 0.070

Left Channel of Mohawk River 0.030-0.052 0.060-0.100

Steele Creek 0.026-0.055 0.060-0.2

West Canada Creek Reach 1 0.035-0.070 0.013-0.100

West Canada Creek Reach 3 0.028-0.035 0.050-0.080 Qualifying bench marks within a given jurisdiction that are cataloged by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and entered into the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) as First or Second Order Vertical and have a vertical stability classification of A, B, or C are shown and labeled on the FIRM with their 6-character NSRS Permanent Identifier. Bench marks cataloged by the NGS and entered into the NSRS vary widely in vertical stability classification. NSRS vertical stability classifications are as follows:

Stability A: Monuments of the most reliable nature, expected to hold

position/elevation well (e.g., mounted in bedrock) Stability B: Monuments which generally hold their position/elevation well

(e.g., concrete bridge abutment) Stability C: Monuments which may be affected by surface ground

movements (e.g., concrete monument below frost line) Stability D: Mark of questionable or unknown vertical stability (e.g.,

concrete monument above frost line, or steel witness post) In addition to NSRS bench marks, the FIRM may also show vertical control monuments established by a local jurisdiction; these monuments will be shown on the FIRM with the appropriate designations. Local monuments will only be

38

placed on the FIRM if the community has requested that they be included, and if the monuments meet the aforementioned NSRS inclusion criteria. To obtain current elevation, description, and/or location information for bench marks shown on the FIRM for this jurisdiction, please contact the Information Services Branch of the NGS at (301) 713-3242, or visit their Web site at www.ngs.noaa.gov. It is important to note that temporary vertical monuments are often established during the preparation of a flood hazard analysis for the purpose of establishing local vertical control. Although these monuments are not shown on the FIRM, they may be found in the Technical Support Data Notebook associated with this FIS and FIRM. Interested individuals may contact FEMA to access this data.

3.3 Vertical Datum

All FISs and FIRMs are referenced to a specific vertical datum. The vertical datum provides a starting point against which flood, ground, and structure elevations can be referenced and compared. Until recently, the standard vertical datum in use for newly created or revised FISs and FIRMs was the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29). With the finalization of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88), many FIS reports and FIRMs are being prepared using NAVD 88 as the referenced vertical datum. All flood elevations shown in this FIS report and on the FIRM are referenced to NAVD 88. Structure and ground elevations in the community must, therefore, be referenced to NAVD 88. It is important to note that adjacent communities may be referenced to NGVD 29. This may result in differences in base flood elevations across the corporate limits between the communities. Prior versions of the FIS report and FIRM were referenced to NGVD 29. When a datum conversion is effected for an FIS report and FIRM, the Flood Profiles, base flood elevations (BFEs) and ERMs reflect the new datum values. To compare structure and ground elevations to 1-percent annual chance flood elevations shown in the FIS and on the FIRM, the subject structure and ground elevations must be referenced to the new datum values. As noted above, the elevations shown in the FIS report and on the FIRM for Herkimer County are referenced to NAVD 88. Ground, structure, and flood elevations may be compared and/or referenced to NGVD 29 by applying a standard conversion factor. The conversion factor to NGVD 29 is +0.264. The BFEs shown on the FIRM represent whole-foot rounded values. For example, a BFE of 102.4 will appear as 102 on the FIRM and 102.6 will appear as 103. Therefore, users that wish to convert the elevations in this FIS to NGVD 29 should apply the stated conversion factor(s) to elevations shown on the Flood Profiles and supporting data tables in the FIS report, which are shown at a minimum to the nearest 0.1 foot.

NGVD 29 = NAVD 88 + 0.264

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/

39

For more information on NAVD 88, see Converting the National Flood Insurance Program to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, FEMA Publication FIA-20/June 1992, or contact the Spatial Reference System Division, National Geodetic Survey, NOAA, Silver Spring Metro Center, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 (Internet address http://www.ngs.noaa.gov).

4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS The NFIP encourages State and local governments to adopt sound floodplain management

programs. To assist in this endeavor, each FIS provides 1-percent annual chance floodplain data, which may include a combination of the following: 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance flood elevations; delineations of the 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplains; and 1-percent annual chance floodway. This information is presented on the FIRM and in many components of the FIS, including Flood Profiles, Floodway Data tables, and Summary of Stillwater Elevation tables. Users should reference the data presented in the FIS as well as additional information that may be available at the local community map repository before making flood elevation and/or floodplain boundary determinations.

4.1 Floodplain Boundaries

To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent annual chance flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. The 0.2-percent annual chance flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the county. For the streams studied in detail, the 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section. For Fulmer Creek, Moyer Creek and Steele Creek cross section elevations were

extracted from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM). The DEM was generated by

combining overbank elevation data from an aerial Light Detection and Ranging

(LiDAR) survey with data from a traditional field survey of the stream channel

and its immediate overbank areas. For both detailed and approximate studies, all

bridges, culverts, dams, and other hydraulic obstructions were field surveyed to

provide data on elevation, orientation, and structural geometry. Detailed structural

geometry for bridges and culverts was also obtained from NYSDOT as-built

drawings where they were available. All field survey data for structures and

stream channels were provided by NYSDEC. The 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries are shown on the

FIRM (Exhibit 2). On this map, the 1-percent annual chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of the areas of special flood hazards (Zones A and AE), and the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundary corresponds to the boundary of areas of moderate flood hazards. In cases where the 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries are close together, only the 1-percent annual chance floodplain boundary has been shown. Small areas within the floodplain boundaries

40

may lie above the flood elevations but cannot be shown due to limitations of the map scale and/or lack of detailed topographic data.

For the streams studied by approximate methods, only the 1-percent annual chance

floodplain boundary is shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2).

4.2 Floodways Encroachment on floodplains, such as structures and fill, reduces flood-carrying

capacity, increases flood heights and velocities, and increases flood hazards in areas beyond the encroachment itself. One aspect of floodplain management involves balancing the economic gain from floodplain development against the resulting increase in flood hazard. For purposes of the NFIP, a floodway is used as a tool to assist local communities in this aspect of floodplain management. Under this concept, the area of the 1-percent annual chance floodplain is divided into a floodway and a floodway fringe. The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent floodplain areas, that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1-percent annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. Minimum federal standards limit such increases to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The floodways in this FIS are presented to local agencies as minimum standards that can be adopted directly or that can be used as a basis for additional floodway studies.

The floodways presented in this FIS were computed for certain stream segments on

the basis of equal conveyance reduction from each side of the floodplain. Floodway widths were computed at cross sections. Between cross sections, the floodway boundaries were interpolated. The results of the floodway computations are tabulated for selected cross sections (Table 13). The computed floodways are shown on the FIRM (Exhibit 2). In cases where the floodway and 1-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries are either close together or collinear, only the floodway boundary is shown.

Portions of the floodway for East Canada Creek and West Canada Creek Reach 3

extend beyond the county boundary. Encroachment into areas subject to inundation by floodwaters having hazardous

velocities aggravates the risk of flood damage, and heightens potential flood hazards by further increasing velocities. A listing of stream velocities at selected cross sections is provided in Table 13, "Floodway Data." In order to reduce the risk of property damage in areas where the stream velocities are high, the community may wish to restrict development in areas outside the floodway.

Near the mouths of streams studied in detail, floodway computations are made

without regard to flood elevations on the receiving water body. Therefore, "Without Floodway" elevations presented in Table 13 for certain downstream cross sections of East Canada Creek are lower than the regulatory flood elevations in that area, which must take into account the 1-percent annual chance flooding due to backwater from other sources.

41

The area between the floodway and 1-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe encompasses the portion of the floodplain that could be completely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the 1-percent annual chance flood by more than 1.0 foot at any point. Typical relationships between the floodway and the floodway fringe and their significance to floodplain development are shown in Figure 1, Floodway Schematic.

FLOODWAY SCHEMATIC Figure 1

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY

BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION

(FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Beaver Brook A 6,920

1 32 122 11.1 826.8 826.8 826.8 0.0

Cold Brook A 6,720

2 25 96 11.1 801.9 801.9 802.0 0.1

B 7,4452 34 155 6.8 819.2 819.2 820.2 1.0

C 8,1052 28 92 10.3 839.7 839.7 839.7 0.0

D 9,2472 23 86 11.1 874.3 874.3 874.3 0.0

E 10,6472 19 88 10.8 919.8 919.8 919.8 0.0

F 11,9422 23 112 8.4 942.8 942.8 943.4 0.6

G 12,9622 17 74 10.3 961.4 961.4 961.4 0.0

H 14,1122 27 106 7.2 984.3 984.3 984.9 0.6

I 14,8122 14 65 11.6 1,001.2 1,001.2 1,002.0 0.8

1

Feet above confluence with East Canada Creek 2Feet above confluence with West Canada Creek Reach 3

TA

BL

E 1

3

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

HERKIMER COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

BEAVER BROOK – COLD BROOK


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH2

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

East Canada Creek A 464 428 2,389 10.1 320.1 315.5

3 315.9 0.4

B 1,887 301 2,214 10.9 322.8 322.8 323.8 1.0 C 2,513 317 3,730 6.5 329.7 329.7 330.1 0.4 D 3,080 406 3,838 6.3 330.9 330.9 331.3 0.4 E 4,034 309 2,304 10.5 333.1 333.1 333.4 0.3 F 4,806 293 2,549 9.5 335.6 335.6 336.6 1.0 G 5,710 376 2,772 8.7 340.5 340.5 341.0 0.5 H 6,552 171 1,682 14.3 345.1 345.1 345.3 0.2 I 7,225 267 2,791 8.6 351.2 351.2 351.4 0.2 J 9,123 239 1,604 15.0 444.6 444.6 444.6 0.0 K 9,548 582 5,731 4.2 465.0 465.0 465.3 0.3 L 11,523 1,621 29,732 0.8 508.2 508.2 508.4 0.2 M 13,611 1,813 30,569 0.8 508.3 508.3 508.4 0.1 N 17,169 638 6,211 3.9 508.3 508.3 508.5 0.2 O 19,496 421 2,089 11.5 518.2 518.2 518.4 0.2 P 21,929 193 1,642 14.6 533.2 533.2 533.2 0.0 Q 22,969 201 1,625 14.7 540.0 540.0 540.3 0.3 R 23,930 94 1,328 18.0 543.9 543.9 544.8 0.9 S 24,306 166 1,958 12.2 548.9 548.9 549.0 0.1 T 24,767 187 2,221 10.8 553.3 553.3 553.5 0.2 U 25,610 319 2,215 10.8 561.3 561.3 561.5 0.2 V 26,994 927 12,328 1.9 669.4 669.4 669.4 0.0 W 29,618 1,559 33,852 0.7 669.5 669.5 669.5 0.0 X 30,886 476 11,613 2.1 669.5 669.5 669.6 0.1 Y 33,265 296 8,968 2.7 669.7 669.7 669.7 0.0 Z 35,285 454 19,051 1.3 669.7 669.7 669.7 0.0 1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River 2Width extends beyond county boundary

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from the Mohawk River

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

EAST CANADA CREEK


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH2

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

East Canada Creek (continued) AA 37,192 236 9,297 2.6 669.7 669.7 669.7 0.0 AB 38,681 210 8,747 2.7 669.8 669.8 669.8 0.0 AC 39,346 197 1,521 15.7 716.3 716.3 716.3 0.0 AD 41,041 553 5,320 4.2 750.3 750.3 750.7 0.4 AE 42,134 285 1,641 13.7 754.8 754.8 754.8 0.0 AF 43,196 105 1,181 19.0 767.0 767.0 767.0 0.0 AG 43,581 260 1,599 14.0 775.2 775.2 775.2 0.0 AH 43,660 293 1,660 13.5 779.2 779.2 779.2 0.0 AI 43,747 384 4,947 4.5 790.8 790.8 791.1 0.3 AJ 45,063 160 1,355 16.5 794.9 794.9 794.9 0.0 AK 45,754 217 1,503 14.9 800.3 800.3 800.4 0.1 AL 46,462 205 1,532 14.6 807.1 807.1 807.2 0.1 AM 47,380 243 1,826 12.3 812.8 812.8 813.6 0.8 AN 48,547 209 1,910 11.7 822.9 822.9 823.6 0.7 1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River 2Width extends beyond county boundary

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

EAST CANADA CREEK


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Fulmer Creek A 1,564 349 1,050 3.4 391.7 391.7

391.7 0.0

B 2,171 74 479 7.5 396.0 396.0 396.1 0.1 C 2,584 97 535 6.7 399.1 399.1 399.2 0.1 D 2,744 120 471 7.6 400.1 400.1 400.1 0.0 E 3,581 110 668 5.3 407.5 407.5 408.4 0.9 F 3,876 123 674 5.3 409.2 409.2 410.1 0.9 G 6,231 73 414 8.6 434.1 434.1 434.2 0.1 H 6,447 42 255 14.0 435.5 435.5 435.5 0.0 I 8,407 81 568 6.3 463.2 463.2 463.6 0.4 J 10,438 79 315 11.4 485.3 485.3 485.3 0.0 K 10,809 131 384 9.3 491.0 491.0 490.9 0.1 L 12,079 134 580 6.2 507.8 507.8 508.0 0.2 M 12,805 145 434 8.2 516.7 516.7 516.9 0.2 N 14,002 151 810 4.4 534.5 534.5 535.1 0.6 O 15,289 98 556 6.4 553.4 553.4 553.5 0.1 P 17,222 92 331 10.8 574.8 574.8 575.0 0.2 Q 19,831 134 610 5.9 615.3 615.3 615.4 0.1 1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

FULMER CREEK


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mohawk River A 1,850 577 6,833 6.6 320.5 320.5 321.2 0.7 B 6,026 545 7,193 4.7 322.9 322.9 323.8 0.9 C 10,160 346 4,792 7.0 325.1 325.1 326.1 1.0 D 12,770 378 6,204 5.4 327.6 327.6 328.1 0.5 E 17,483 934 9,434 3.5 328.8 328.8 329.3 0.5 F 22,771 818 10,083 3.3 329.8 329.8 330.3 0.5 G 25,114 777 9,972 3.3 330.0 330.0 330.7 0.7 H 31,055 322 7,132 4.7 330.8 330.8 331.5 0.7 I 35,663 312 12,566 2.6 332.2 332.2 332.9 0.7 J 41,141 480 8,838 3.7 370.5 370.5 370.6 0.1 K 47,934 365 6,987 4.7 371.5 371.5 371.6 0.1 L 50,446 375 7,137 4.6 372.0 372.0 372.0 0.0 M 55,394 363 6,009 5.5 372.7 372.7 372.9 0.2 N 58,925 898 7,900 4.2 373.6 373.6 373.9 0.3 O 61,527 503 6,002 5.5 374.7 374.7 375.0 0.3 P 63,997 1,172 10,096 3.3 376.4 376.4 376.9 0.5 Q 68,999 1,106 6,048 5.4 378.2 378.2 378.6 0.4 R 72,292 1,391 7,814 4.2 379.6 379.6 380.0 0.4 S 74,833 715 5,602 4.0 381.5 381.5 381.9 0.4 T 76,363 520 5,047 4.5 382.8 382.8 383.1 0.3 U 80,306 285 3,342 6.8 387.5 387.5 388.0 0.5 V 82,908 419 5,232 4.3 388.9 388.9 389.3 0.4 W 88,558 498 6,811 3.2 389.9 389.9 390.4 0.5 X 93,110 379 6,395 3.4 390.4 390.4 390.9 0.5 Y 97,135 782 7,704 2.8 390.9 390.9 391.4 0.5 Z 101,808 282 5,454 3.9 391.4 391.4 391.8 0.4 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 14,063 feet downstream of Rocky Rift Mohawk Dam)

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

MOHAWK RIVER


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mohawk River (continued) AA 105,714 425 6,535 3.2 392.4 392.4 392.6 0.2 AB 113,493 894 9,015 2.3 398.4 398.4 398.5 0.1 AC 115,972 1,119 9,431 2.2 399.0 399.0 399.1 0.1 AD 122,073 1,076 9,674 2.1 399.8 399.8 400.0 0.2 AE 126,554 966 8,635 2.4 401.1 401.1 401.5 0.4 AF 130,119 795 8,456 2.4 402.2 402.2 402.8 0.6 AG 134,559 1,614 15,538 1.3 403.0 403.0 403.5 0.5 AH 139,570 1,677 14,316 1.4 403.6 403.6 404.1 0.5 AI 141,144 1,228 9,969 2.0 403.8 403.8 404.3 0.5 AJ 142,979 1,658 15,437 1.3 404.5 404.5 405.4 0.9 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 14,063 feet downstream of Rocky Rift Mohawk Dam)

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

MOHAWK RIVER


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Moyer Creek A 1,158

1 103 415 6.5 397.5 397.5 397.5 0.0

B 1,5351 69 319 8.5 406.4 406.4 406.5 0.1

C 1,9701 61 307 8.8 414.9 414.9 415.3 0.4

D 2,6121 62 434 6.2 424.4 424.4 424.5 0.1

E 3,2611 66 373 7.2 430.4 430.4 430.6 0.2

F 3,4901 45 291 9.3 432.9 432.9 433.1 0.2

G 3,9261 63 321 8.4 436.7 436.7 437.0 0.3

H 5,1271 87 270 10.0 450.6 450.6 450.6 0.0

I 5,8891 107 372 7.3 458.5 458.5 459.0 0.5

J 6,6241 81 411 6.6 470.6 470.6 470.9 0.3

K 7,5551 80 337 8.0 481.7 481.7 482.0 0.3

L 9,1811 110 291 9.3 508.8 508.8 508.8 0.0

M 9,9271 71 444 6.1 521.6 521.6 521.7 0.1

N 10,4241 102 228 9.4 528.1 528.1 528.1 0.0

O 11,5571 92 309 8.8 545.3 545.3 545.3 0.0

P 12,4661 78 379 7.1 558.3 558.3 558.4 0.1

Q 14,2001 61 316 8.6 587.7 587.7 587.9 0.2

NYDOT Canal A 3,540

2 155 175 0.6 368.6 368.6 369.4 0.8

B 4,6702 150 210 0.5 372.3 372.3 373.1 0.8

1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River 2Feet above Lock 17E

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

MOYER CREEK – NYDOT CANAL


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Steele Creek A 3,336 64 295 12.5 408.4 408.4 408.4 0.0 B 4,190 69 813 4.5 419.9 419.9 420.7 0.8 C 5,114 89 645 5.7 424.6 424.6 424.9 0.3 D 5,937 67 686 5.4 435.7 435.7 436.7 1.0 E 6,369 60 468 7.9 436.3 436.3 437.2 0.9 F 6,763 86 447 8.2 444.4 444.4 445.1 0.7 G 8,229 95 327 11.2 459.1 459.1 459.1 0.0 H 9,058 154 1,359 2.7 475.3 475.3 475.5 0.2 I 9,994 78 388 9.5 482.6 482.6 482.8 0.2 J 11,573 97 344 10.7 508.3 508.3 508.3 0.0 K 16,934 56 298 12.4 603.4 603.4 603.4 0.0 L 19,035 44 265 13.9 665.9 665.9 665.9 0.0 M 19,744 49 275 13.4 689.2 689.2 689.2 0.0 N 20,239 48 272 13.5 706.6 706.6 706.6 0.0 O 22,377 41 220 12.4 770.3 770.3 770.5 0.2 P 24,982 68 317 8.6 827.1 827.1 827.5 0.4 Q 26,622 123 517 3.6 855.8 855.8 856.1 0.3 R 29,277 111 283 6.6 878.6 878.6 878.8 0.2 S 30,377 145 597 3.2 913.3 913.3 914.0 0.7 T 32,097 61 223 8.4 941.4 941.4 941.8 0.4 U 33,627 80 397 4.7 970.0 970.0 970.0 0.0 V 35,567 45 136 9.9 994.4 994.4 994.4 0.0 W 37,817 36 126 10.7 1,033.6 1,033.6 1,033.6 0.0 X 40,077 60 147 9.2 1,080.9 1,080.9 1,080.9 0.0 Y 41,557 75 134 10.1 1,107.6 1,107.6 1,107.6 0.0 Z 43,532 94 148 5.9 1,139.9 1,139.9 1,139.9 0.0 1


TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

STEELE CREEK


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Steele Creek (continued) AA 45,447 82 124 7.1 1,178.1 1,178.1 1,178.1 0.0 AB 47,797 37 187 2.1 1,212.2 1,212.2 1,212.8 0.6 AC 48,727 45 165 2.4 1,212.4 1,212.4 1,213.3 0.9 West Canada Creek Reach 1 A 1,638 425 4,701 4.7 382.2 382.2 382.3 0.1 B 3,170 277 3,050 7.3 385.7 385.7 386.0 0.3 C 4,283 547 4,756 4.7 390.1 390.1 390.4 0.3 D 4,449 491 4,831 4.6 390.5 390.5 390.8 0.3 E 5,693 459 4,224 5.3 392.5 392.5 392.7 0.2 F 6,555 481 4,150 5.4 395.2 395.2 395.5 0.3 G 7,312 599 5,466 4.1 396.5 396.5 396.9 0.4 H 7,540 546 4,454 5.0 396.5 396.5 396.9 0.4 I 8,935 635 4,431 5.0 399.6 399.6 400.1 0.5 J 10,041 390 3,253 6.9 405.1 405.1 406.1 1.0 K 11,041 352 4,339 5.1 408.1 408.1 409.1 1.0 L 11,827 355 3,680 6.1 409.3 409.3 410.1 0.8 M 12,972 288 2,770 8.1 413.5 413.5 413.7 0.2 N 13,102 306 3,099 7.2 414.2 414.2 414.4 0.2 1


TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA

STEELE CREEK – WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 1


BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

West Canada Creek Reach 3 A 700 180 2,034 11.3 689.1 689.1 689.5 0.4 B 2,300 206 2,408 9.5 692.0 692.0 692.6 0.6 C 3,900 180 2,285 10.0 693.7 693.7 694.5 0.8 D 5,500 584 4,118 5.6 695.6 695.6 696.6 1.0 E 7,200 330

2 4,300 5.3 696.9 696.9 697.8 0.9

F 9,500 4502 4,499 5.1 698.2 698.2 699.1 0.9

G 11,000 5622 5,886 3.9 699.0 699.0 700.0 1.0

H 12,500 2402 2,897 7.9 699.6 699.6 700.3 0.7

I 14,000 2412 2,981 7.7 702.1 702.1 702.5 0.4

J 15,400 2102 2,864 8.0 703.5 703.5 703.9 0.4

K 16,900 2042 2,531 9.0 704.6 704.6 705.1 0.5

L 19,500 2002 2,878 8.0 707.2 707.2 707.8 0.6

M 21,100 1952 2,892 7.9 708.0 708.0 708.9 0.9

N 22,300 2002 2,815 8.1 709.7 709.7 710.5 0.8

O 24,300 3002 3,716 6.2 711.2 711.2 712.0 0.8

P 25,200 3492 3,959 5.8 711.9 711.9 712.9 1.0

Q 26,700 2102 2,765 8.3 712.4 712.4 713.3 0.9

R 28,200 2212 3,206 7.1 714.3 714.3 715.1 0.8

S 30,000 2502 3,013 7.6 715.7 715.7 716.5 0.8

T 32,000 2652 3,545 6.5 717.6 717.6 718.5 0.9

U 35,800 4222 3,372 6.8 719.9 719.9 720.5 0.6

V 39,500 2142 1,902 10.6 723.7 723.7 724.3 0.6

W 42,800 1582 1,521 13.2 728.8 728.8 729.3 0.5

X 45,900 2962 3,067 6.6 734.2 734.2 734.8 0.6

Y 47,800 2092 2,612 7.7 740.5 740.5 741.5 1.0

Z 49,600 1602 1,673 12.0 745.1 745.1 745.9 0.8

1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 200 feet downstream of Old State Road) 2Width extends beyond county boundary

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA



BASE FLOOD


(FEET NAVD)


WIDTH2

(FEET)

SECTION

AREA

(SQUARE

FEET)

MEAN

VELOCITY

(FEET PER

SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY

WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

West Canada Creek Reach 3 (continued) AA 51,400 150

2 1,280 15.7 765.2 765.2 765.5 0.3

AB 54,300 2702 1,493 13.5 947.1 947.1 947.1 0.0

AC 56,000 2412 12,523 1.6 1,027.9 1,027.9 1,028.0 0.1

AD 61,400 1102 1,088 18.5 1,071.4 1,071.4 1,072.1 0.7

AE 63,350 3972 7,097 2.8 1,085.1 1,085.1 1,085.2 0.1

AF 64,600 2502 1,350 14.9 1,118.5 1,118.5 1,118.5 0.0

AG 65,400 6192 23,072 0.9 1,174.0 1,174.0 1,174.0 0.0

AH 70,100 4632 15,262 1.3 1,174.0 1,174.0 1,174.0 0.0

AI 75,400 5012 12,148 1.7 1,174.0 1,174.0 1,174.0 0.0

AJ 76,700 2382 5,578 3.6 1,174.2 1,174.2 1,174.4 0.1

1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 200 feet downstream of Old State Road) 2Width extends beyond county boundary

TA

BL

E 1

3



FLOODWAY DATA


53

5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS For flood insurance rating purposes, flood insurance zone designations are assigned to a

community based on the results of the engineering analyses. The zones are as follows: Zone A Zone A is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS by approximate methods. Because detailed hydraulic analyses are not performed for such areas, no base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone.

Zone AE Zone AE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance floodplains that are determined in the FIS by detailed methods. In most instances, whole-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone AH Zone AH is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1-percent

annual chance shallow flooding (usually areas of ponding) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Whole-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone AO Zone AO is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the areas of 1-percent

annual chance shallow flooding (usually sheet flow on sloping terrain) where average depths are between 1 and 3 feet. Average whole-foot depths derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown within this zone.

Zone AR

Area of special flood hazard formerly protected from the 1-percent annual chance flood event by a flood control system that was subsequently decertified. Zone AR indicates that the former flood control system is being restored to provide protection from the 1-percent annual chance or greater flood event.

Zone A99 Zone A99 is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas of the 1-percent

annual chance floodplain that will be protected by a Federal flood protection system where construction has reached specified statutory milestones. No base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone.

54

Zone V Zone V is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Because approximate hydraulic analyses are performed for such areas, no base flood elevations are shown within this zone.

Zone VE Zone VE is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to the 1-percent annual

chance coastal floodplains that have additional hazards associated with storm waves. Whole-foot base flood elevations derived from the detailed hydraulic analyses are shown at selected intervals within this zone.

Zone X Zone X is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to areas outside the 0.2-

percent annual chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, and to areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the 1-percent annual chance flood by levees. No base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone.

Zone D Zone D is the flood insurance rate zone that corresponds to unstudied areas where

flood hazards are undetermined, but possible. 6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP The FIRM is designed for flood insurance and floodplain management applications. For flood insurance applications, the map designates flood insurance rate zones as described

in Section 5.0 and, in the 1-percent annual chance floodplains that were studied by detailed methods, shows selected whole-foot base flood elevations or average depths. Insurance agents use the zones and base flood elevations in conjunction with information on structures and their contents to assign premium rates for flood insurance policies.

For floodplain management applications, the map shows by tints, screens, and symbols, the

1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplains. Floodways and the locations of selected cross sections used in the hydraulic analyses and floodway computations are shown where applicable.

The current FIRM presents flooding information for the entire geographic area of Herkimer

County. Previously, separate Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and/or FIRMs were prepared for each identified flood-prone incorporated community and the unincorporated areas of the county. This countywide FIRM also includes flood hazard information that was presented

55

separately on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), where applicable. Historical data relating to the maps prepared for each community are presented in Table 9, "Community Map History."

7.0 OTHER STUDIES

Because it is based on more up-to-date analyses, this FIS supersedes the previously printed FISs for the communities with Herkimer County.

Information pertaining to revised and unrevised flood hazards for each jurisdiction within

Herkimer County has been compiled into this FIS. Therefore, this FIS supersedes all previously printed FIS Reports, FHBMs, FBFMs, and FIRMs for all of the incorporated areas within Herkimer County.

COMMUNITY

NAME

INITIAL

IDENTIFICATION

FLOOD HAZARD

BOUNDARY MAP

REVISIONS DATE

FIRM

EFFECTIVE DATE

FIRM

REVISIONS DATE

Cold Brook, Village of February 11, 1977 July 3, 1985 December 20, 2000

Columbia, Town of March 29, 1974 June 11, 1976 July 16, 1982

Danube, Town of April 5, 1974 June 18, 1975 July 3, 1985

Dolgeville, Village of February 15, 1974 September 26, 1975 March 16, 1983

Fairfield, Town of March 29, 1974 July 9, 1976 July 30, 1982 October 18, 1988

Frankfort, Town of March 1, 1974 May 28, 1976 April 17, 1985 December 20, 2000

January 28, 1977

Frankfort, Village of March 22, 1974 May 28, 1976 April 3, 1984 March 7, 2001

German Flatts, Town of March 29, 1974 August 20, 1976 May 15, 1985

Herkimer, Town of March 8, 1974 May 28, 1976 April 17, 1985

Herkimer, Village of May 10, 1974 May 28, 1976 June 1, 1978 June 17, 2002

Ilion, Village of February 8, 1974 June 11, 1976 February 1, 1984 September 8, 1999

Litchfield, Town of March 15, 1974 April 9, 1976 September 24, 1984 May 7, 2001

Little Falls, City of March 8, 1974 December 12, 1975 April 4, 1983

Little Falls, Town of April 5, 1974 March 19, 1976 March 28, 1980

Manheim, Town of March 8, 1974 March 19, 1976 May 1, 1985

TA

BL

E 1

4



COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY

COMMUNITY

NAME

INITIAL

IDENTIFICATION

FLOOD HAZARD

BOUNDARY MAP

REVISIONS DATE

FIRM

EFFECTIVE DATE

FIRM

REVISIONS DATE

Middleville, Village of May 17, 1974 April 30, 1976 July 3, 1985

Mohawk, Village of March 22, 1974 April 2, 1976 April 17, 1978 September 8, 1999

Newport, Town of November 15, 1974 August 5, 1985 January 17, 1991

Newport, Village of March 29, 1974 April 16, 1976 July 3, 1985 April 2, 1991

Norway, Town of November 1, 1974 July 2, 1976 July 3, 1985

Ohio, Town of January 3, 1975 September 24, 1984

Poland, Village of March 8, 1974 June 4, 1976 July 18, 1985 June 2, 1999

Russia, Town of November 1, 1974 June 2, 1999

Salisbury, Town of June 7, 1974 July 16, 1976 July 3, 1985

Schuyler, Town of March 15, 1974 January 21, 1977 July 3, 1985 June 20, 2001

Stark, Town of June 7, 1974 July 30, 1976 May 15, 1985

Warren, Town of June 28, 1974

Webb, Town of July 18, 1975 July 30, 1982

West Winfield, Village of February 15, 1974 August 20, 1976 July 3, 1985

Winfield, Town of March 1, 1974 June 18, 1976 July 3, 1985

TA

BL

E 1

4



COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY

58

8.0 LOCATION OF DATA Information concerning the pertinent data used in preparation of this FIS can be obtained

by contacting FEMA, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Division, 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1337, New York, New York 10278.

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

Anderson, D. G. (1974). Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2001-C, “Effects of Urban Development on Floods in Northern Virginia.” Boulder Consultants. (May 20, 1997). Hydraulic Cross Section and Field Survey Data. Charles T. Main of New York, Inc., for New York Power Authority. (October 1988). Hinckley Dam Failure Flood Study. Department of Commerce 1961, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 40, Revised 1963, Washington, D.C.

Department of Agriculture. 1964. Chapter 9 Hydrologic Soil Cover Complexes. Natural Resource Conservation Service. Revised 1969. Washington, D.C. Fair, G. M. and Geyer, J. C. (1954). Water Supply and Wastewater Disposal. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 20, 2001, Flood Insurance Rate Map; June 20, 2001, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Schuyler, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 17, 2002, Flood Insurance Rate Map; June 17, 2002, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Herkimer, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 7, 2001, Flood Insurance Rate Map; May 7, 2001, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Litchfield, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 7, 2001, Flood Insurance Rate Map; March 7, 2001, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Frankfort, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (December 20, 2000, Flood Insurance Rate Map; December 20, 2000, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Cold Brook, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (December 20, 2000, Flood Insurance Rate Map; December 20, 2000, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Frankfort, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C.

59

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 8, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; September 8, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Ilion, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 8, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; September 8, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Mohawk, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Newport, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Poland, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Russia, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 2, 1991, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Newport, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (October 18, 1988, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Fairfield, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Danube, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Middleville, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Norway, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Salisbury, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Village of West Winfield, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C.

60

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Winfield, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 15, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of German Flatts, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 15, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Stark, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 1, 1985). Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Remsen, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 1, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Manheim, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 17, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Herkimer, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 24, 1984). Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of Ohio, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 24, 1984, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Ohio, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 4, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; April 4, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, City of Little Falls, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 16, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; March 16, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Dolgeville, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 30, 1982, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Webb, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 16, 1982, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Columbia, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 28, 1980, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Little Falls, Herkimer County, New York. Washington, D.C.

61

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (Letter dated August 27, 1991). Dam Elevation Data, Project Numbers 2701-NY and 3211-NY. F. L. Robison. (1961). U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. “Floods in New York, Magnitude and Frequency,” Circular 454. James E. Thomas, Engineer. (March 9, 1979). Administrator, Village of Dolgeville, Personal Communication. New York Department of Transportation, Canal Maintenance, Section 3. (January 1980). Information regarding Canal Operation provided by Blase Jurica, Personal Communication. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. (April 1994). Cold Brook Village Flood Plain Study. New York Power Authority. (September 1980). Hinckley Reservoir Hydroelectric Development Feasibility Study. PAR Government Systems Corporation. September 19, 2003, Fulmer, Moyer, Steele – Existing Conditions Hydrology and Hydraulics Report. PAR2000/01 2000-003 Task 107. Shaun Gannon (author). Stetson-Harza. (December 12, 1996). Reconstruction on Route 8 Plans and Specifications (NYSDOT Contract #D257213). Stetson-Harza. (December 1993). N.Y.S. Route 8 Hydraulic Cross Sections. Quinn and Associates, Inc., of Horsham, Pennsylvania. (Flown in December 1979, unpublished). Aerial Photography, Photograph Scale 1:9,600 and Topographic Map Scale 1:4,800, Contour Interval 5 Feet. Dolgeville, Herkimer County, New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (May 1991). HEC-2 Water-Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (September 1981, Revised March 1987). HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (September 1978). Reconnaissance Report for Beaver Brook, Fink Brook, Thresher Brook, East Canada Creek, and Timmerman Creek. New York, New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (1975). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River, Oriskany, New York, to Rome, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (1974). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River – Sauquoit Creek – Oriskany Creek, Utica, New York, Whitesboro, New York, Oriskany, New York. New York.

62

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (June 1974). HEC-2 Training Document No. 6, Application of the HEC-2 Bridge Routines. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (November 1974). Regional Frequency Study, Upper Delaware and Hudson River Basin, New York District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (1973). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River-Moyer Creek, Ilion, New York, to Utica, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (1973). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River – Fulmer Creek – Steele Creek, Herkimer, New York, to Ilion, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (October 1973). HEC-2 Water-Surface Profiles, Users‟ Manual. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (March 1973). Herkimer, New York, Flood Emergency Practice Exercise. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (December 1970). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River, Little Falls to St. Johnsville and East Canada Creek, Dolgeville, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (January 1970). Mohawk River Basin, Modifications to Existing Flood Control Project, West Canada Creek, Herkimer, New York, General Design Memorandum. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (December 1968 with updates). Computer Program 723-X6-L202A, HEC-2 Water-Surface Profiles. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (March 1968). Mohawk River and Catskill Creek, New York, Review of Reports for Flood Control. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (March 1961). Mohawk River Basin, Herkimer Flood Control Project, Herkimer, New York, General Design Memorandum. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory Ice Jam Database from web site http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ierd/ijdb. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (Revised April 1973). Technical Paper 149, “A Method for Estimating Volume and Rate of Runoff in Small Watersheds.” U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cartography & Geospatial Center. (2006). “Processed Annual Average Temperature.” Vector dataset.

http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/ierd/ijdb

63

U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cartography & Geospatial Center. (2006). “Processed Annual Maximum Temperature.” Vector dataset. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cartography & Geospatial Center. (2006). “Processed Annual Minimum Temperature.” Vector dataset. U.S. Department of Agriculture/Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Cartography & Geospatial Center. (2006). “Processed Annual Precipitation.” Vector dataset. U.S. Department of Commerce. (Revised 1972). Climatography of the United States, No. 60-30, Climate of New York. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. (March 1965). Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 5, Hydraulic Charts for the Selection of Highway Culverts. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce. (April 1961). Hydraulic Design Series, No. 2, Peak Rates of Runoff from Small Watersheds. W. D. Potter (author). U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (1991). Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York, Excluding Long Island. Richard Lumia (author). Albany, New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (July 1979). Water Resource Investigations 79-83, Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island. Thomas J. Zembrzuski, Jr. and Bernard Dunn (authors). Albany, New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (Newport, New York, 1982). 7.5-Minute Series Topographic Maps, Scale 1:24,000, Contour Interval 20 feet. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (1968). Water-Supply Paper 1672, Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States, Part 1B, North Atlantic Slope Basin, New York to New York River. Richard H. Tice (author). Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Resources Data for New York, Part 1 – Surface Water Records, 1962 through 1974. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (1961). Floods in New York, Magnitude and Frequency. Albany, New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (Forestport, New York, 1945; Boonville, New York, 1955; Oriskany, New York, 1955). 15-Minute Series Topographic Maps.

64

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (October 1977). Report No. FHWA-RD-77-159, Runoff Estimates for Small Rural Watersheds and Development of A Sound Design Method. Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003 Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics Consortium from web site http://www.epa.gov/mrlc. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Water Resources Data, New York, Water Year 2002, Volume 1 Eastern New York, excluding Long Island. Water Data Report NY-02-01. Troy, New York. Butch, G.K., Murray, P.M., Herbert, G.J., Weigel, J.F. (authors). U.S. Geological Survey. 1991. Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York Excluding Long Island. Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4197. Albany, New York. Lumia, Richard (author).

U.S. Geological Survey. 1982. Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency. U.S. Water Resources Council, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data. Bulletin #17B of the Hydrology Subcommittee. Revised 1981. Reston, Virginia. Water Resources Council. (March 1976). Bulletin No. 17, “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency.” Water Resources Council. (December 1967). “A Uniform Technique for Determining Flood Flow Frequencies.”

740

750 750

760 760

770 770

780 780

790 790

800 800

810 810

0 400 800 1200 1600 2000 2400 2800 3200 3600 4000 4400 4800 5200

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH EAST CANADA CREEK

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

BEA

VER

BR

OO

K

01P

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

PR

IVA

TE R

OA

D

HO

WA

RD

ST

REET

EX

TEN

SIO

N

SO

UT

H H

ELM

ER

AV

EN

UE

CLI

NE S

TR

EET

PROFILES ARE COINCIDENT WITH THE 1% ANNUAL

THE 10%, 2%, AND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

CHANCE ELEVATION IN THIS AREA

CULVERT

SHALLOW FLOODING

SO

UT

H M

AIN

ST

REET

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 1

67

SLA

WS

ON

ST

REET

LEGEND

0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD



STREAM BED

CROSS SECTION LOCATION

EA

ST

CA

NA

DA

CR

EEK

1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER

FROM EAST CANADA CREEK

VA

N B

UR

EN

ST

REET

790

800

810 810

820 820

830 830

840 840

850 850

860 860

5200 5600 6000 6400 6800 7200 7600 8000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH EAST CANADA CREEK

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

BEA

VER

BR

OO

K

02P

A

LIM

IT O

F S

TU

DY

AB

AN

DO

NED

RA

ILR

OA

D

IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCEELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY

THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE

LEGEND





STREAM BED


385

390 390

395 395

400 400

405 405

410 410

415 415

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

BELL

ING

ER

BR

OO

K

03P

A B C

D

E F

G

H

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

HIG

H S

CH

OO

L FO

OT

BR

IDG

E

CH

UR

CH

ST

REET

LEGEND





STREAM BED


*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 1875 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF CHURCH STREET

405

410 410

415 415

420 420

425 425

430 430

435 435

440 440

445 445

2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

BELL

ING

ER

BR

OO

K

04P

I J

K

L M N O P

LIM

IT O

F S

TU

DY

WES

T G

ER

MA

N S

TR

EET

MA

PLE

GR

OV

E A

VEN

UE

LEGEND





STREAM BED


*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 1875 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF CHURCH STREET

780

800

820 820

840 840

860 860

880 880

900 900

920 920

940 940

6400 6800 7200 7600 8000 8400 8800 9200 9600 10000 10400 10800

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

CO

LD B

RO

OK

05P

A B C D

E

LIM

IT O

F S

TU

DY

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 8

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 8

LEGEND

0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*


2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*


STREAM BED


*DATA NOT AVAILABLE

900

920

940 940

960 960

980 980

1000 1000

1020 1020

10800 11200 11600 12000 12400 12800 13200 13600 14000 14400 14800 15200 15600

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

CO

LD B

RO

OK

06P

F G H

I

LIM

IT O

F S

TU

DY

MIL

ITA

RY

RO

AD

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 8

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 8

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 8

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 8

LEGEND

0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*




STREAM BED


*DATA NOT AVAILABLE

300

320 320

340 340

360 360

380 380

400 400

420 420

440 440

460 460

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

EA

ST

CA

NA

DA

CR

EEK

07P

A B C D E F G H I

RA

ILR

OA

D

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 5

OLD

ST

AT

E R

OA

D

LEGEND





STREAM BED


1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATERFROM MOHAWK RIVER

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

420

440

460 460

480 480

500 500

520 520

540 540

9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

EA

ST

CA

NA

DA

CR

EEK

08P

JK L M N

O P

DA

M

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED


520

540 540

560 560

580 580

600 600

620 620

640 640

660 660

680 680

22000 23000 24000 25000 26000 27000 28000 29000 30000 31000 32000 33000 34000 35000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

EA

ST

CA

NA

DA

CR

EEK

09P

Q R S T U V W X

Y

(IN

GH

AM

S M

ILLS

RO

AD

)

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED


CO

UN

TY

RO

UT

E 1

08

600

620 620

640 640

660 660

680 680

700 700

720 720

740 740

760 760

35000 36000 37000 38000 39000 40000 41000 42000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

EA

ST

CA

NA

DA

CR

EEK

10P

Z AA AB AC AD

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED


BEA

VER

BR

OO

K

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

740

760 760

780 780

800 800

820 820

840 840

42000 43000 44000 45000 46000 47000 48000 49000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

EA

ST

CA

NA

DA

CR

EEK

11P

AE AF AG

AH

AI

AJ

AK AL AM AN

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

DO

LGE A

VEN

UE

DA

M

(EA

ST

ST

AT

E S

TR

EET

)

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 2

9

360 360

380 380

400 400

420 420

440 440

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

FU

LMER

CR

EEK

12P

A B C D E F

G

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

S

MA

IN S

TR

EET

CO

LUM

BIA

ST

REET

LEGEND





STREAM BED


MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER FROM MOHAWK RIVER

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 2

8

H

420 420

440 440

460 460

480 480

500 500

520 520

540 540

6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500 13000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

FU

LMER

CR

EEK

13P

I J K

L M

PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E

PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E

LEGEND





STREAM BED


500 500

520 520

540 540

560 560

580 580

600 600

620 620

13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 16500 17000 17500 18000 18500 19000 19500

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

FU

LMER

CR

EEK

14P

N O P

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 1

68

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 1

68

FOR

D C

REEK

LEGEND





STREAM BED


TR

OU

T C

REEK

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

600 600

620 620

640 640

660 660

680 680

700 700

19500 20000 20500 21000 21500 22000 22500 23000 23500 24000 24500

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

FU

LMER

CR

EEK

15P

Q

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 1

68

LEGEND





STREAM BED


FLA

T C

REEK

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

350 350

360 360

370 370

380 380

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

LEFT

CH

AN

NEL

OF M

OH

AW

K R

IVER

16P

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

LOC

K S

TR

EET

LIT

TLE

FA

LLS

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED


300 300

310 310

320 320

330 330

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

17P

A B

C D

LIM

IT O

F FL

OO

DIN

G

LEGEND





STREAM BED


EA

ST

CA

NA

DA

CR

EEK

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM

AFFE

CT

ING

CO

MM

UN

ITY

300 300

310 310

320 320

330 330

340 340

13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

18P

E F

G

RO

CK

Y R

IFT

MO

HA

WK

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED



CR

UM

CR

EEK

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

NO

.1 T

O M

OH

AW

K R

IVER

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F U

NN

AM

ED

260

270 270

280 280

290 290

300 300

310 310

320 320

330 330

340 340

26000 27000 28000 29000 30000 31000 32000 33000 34000 35000 36000 37000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

19P

H IS

TA

TE R

OU

TE 1

69

LEGEND





STREAM BED


T.O.R. = 365.9

L.C. = 358.9


CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

FN

YD

OT

CA

NA

L

TR

IBU

TA

RY

NO

.2 T

O M

OH

AW

K R

I VER

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F U

NN

AM

ED

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F U

NN

AM

ED

TR

IBU

TA

RY

NO

.3 T

O M

OH

AW

K R

I VER

310 310

320 320

330 330

340 340

350 350

360 360

370 370

380 380

36000 37000 38000 39000 40000 41000 42000 43000 44000 45000 46000 47000 48000 49000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

20P

J

K

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

LIT

TLE

FA

LLS

DA

M

SO

UT

H W

ILLI

AM

S S

TR

EET

SO

UT

H A

NN

ST

REET

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 1

67

LIT

TLE

FA

LLS

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED


LEFT

CH

AN

NEL

OF

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

LEFT

CH

AN

NEL

OF

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

T.O.R = 404.4

L.C. = 397.4


CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

FN

YD

OT

CA

NA

L

340 340

350 350

360 360

370 370

380 380

50000 51000 52000 53000 54000 55000 56000 57000 58000 59000 60000 61000 62000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

21P

L M

N O

BA

RG

E C

AN

AL

LEGEND





STREAM BED


49000

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F


340

350 350

360 360

370 370

380 380

390 390

62000 63000 64000 65000 66000 67000 68000 69000 70000 71000 72000 73000 74000 75000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

22P

P Q

R S

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

LEGEND





STREAM BED


WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

1


360 360

370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

420 420

75000 76000 77000 78000 79000 80000 81000 82000 83000 84000 85000 86000 87000 88000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

23P

T U V

SO

UT

H W

AS

HIN

GT

ON

ST

REET

INT

ER

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 9

0

HER

KIM

ER

SP

ILLW

AY

E M

AIN

ST

REET

LEGEND





STREAM BED


(MO

HA

WK

ST

REET

)

ST

AT

E H

IGH

WA

Y 9

22

B

(NEW

YO

RK

ST

AT

E T

HR

UW

AY

)


CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

FFU

LMER

CR

EEK

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F B

AR

GE C

AN

AL

CO

NFL

UEN

CE O

F U

NN

AM

ED

TR

IBU

TA

RY

NO

.4 T

O M

OH

AW

K R

I VER

360 360

370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

420 420

88000 89000 90000 91000 92000 93000 94000 95000 96000 97000 98000 99000 100000 101000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

24P

W X Y

CEN

TR

AL

AV

EN

UE

LEGEND





STREAM BED



ST

EELE

CR

EEK

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

360 360

370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

420 420

430 430

101000 102000 103000 104000 105000 106000 107000 108000 109000 110000 111000 112000 113000 114000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

25P

Z AA

AB

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

FR

AIL

RO

AD

ST

REET

FRA

NK

FO

RT

SP

ILLW

AY

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ER

IE C

AN

AL


CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

MO

YER

CR

EEK

370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

114000 115000 116000 117000 118000 119000 120000 121000 122000 123000 124000 125000 126000 127000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

26P

AC AD

AE

LEGEND





STREAM BED



360

370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

127000 128000 129000 130000 131000 132000 133000 134000 135000 136000 137000 138000 139000 140000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

27P

AF AG

AH

LEGEND





STREAM BED



370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

420 420

430 430

141000 142000 143000 144000 145000 146000 147000 148000 149000 150000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

28P

AI AJ

CO

UN

TY

BO

UN

DA

RY

RA

ILR

OA

D

DIK

E R

OA

D

LEGEND





STREAM BED


140000


370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

420 420

430 430

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

YER

CR

EEK

29P

A B C

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

MA

IN S

TR

EET

LEGEND





STREAM BED



MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

410 410

420 420

430 430

440 440

450 450

460 460

2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

YER

CR

EEK

30P

D E F G

H

SW

IMM

ING

RO

AD

LEGEND





STREAM BED


440 440

450 450

460 460

470 470

480 480

490 490

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

YER

CR

EEK

31P

I J

K

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

-S

LEGEND





STREAM BED


470 470

480 480

490 490

500 500

510 510

520 520

530 530

7800 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600 9800 10000 10200 10400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

YER

CR

EEK

32P

L

M

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 1

71

BR

ICE R

OA

D

LEGEND





STREAM BED


520 520

530 530

540 540

550 550

560 560

570 570

10400 10600 10800 11000 11200 11400 11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

YER

CR

EEK

33P

N O

P

LEGEND





STREAM BED


550

560 560

570 570

580 580

590 590

13000 13200 13400 13600 13800 14000 14200 14400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

MO

YER

CR

EEK

34P

Q

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 1

71

LEGEND





STREAM BED


300

310

320 320

330 330

340 340

350 350

360 360

370 370

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)

STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LOCK 17E

FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

NY

DO

T C

AN

AL

35P

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AI L

ED

ST

UD

Y

THE 10%, 2%, AND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUALCHANCE ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY

LEGEND





STREAM BED


LOCK 17E

340 340

350 350

360 360

370 370

2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

NY

DO

T C

AN

AL

36P

A

TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATIONFLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THETHE 10%, 2% AND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 1

67

LEGEND





STREAM BED


THE 10% AND 2% ANNUAL CHANCEFLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATIONTO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY

340 340

350 350

360 360

370 370

380 380

4400 4600 4800 5000 5200 5400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

NY

DO

T C

AN

AL

37P

B

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

GU

AR

D G

AT

ES

LEGEND





STREAM BED


THE10% AND 2% ANNUAL CHANCE

FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE

1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION

TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THIS AREA.

370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

38P

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

S

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER


AB

AN

DO

NED

RA

ILR

OA

D

390 390

400 400

410 410

420 420

430 430

2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600 3800 4000 4200 4400 4600 4800 5000 5200

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

39P

A B

C

LEGEND





STREAM BED


MA

IN S

TR

EET

SEC

ON

D S

TR

EET

TH

IRD

ST

REET

410 410

420 420

430 430

440 440

450 450

460 460

5200 5400 5600 5800 6000 6200 6400 6600 6800 7000 7200 7400 7600 7800

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

40P

D E F

LEGEND





STREAM BED


OT

SEG

O S

TR

EET

PH

ILIP

ST

REET

FO

OT

BR

IDG

E

440

450 450

460 460

470 470

480 480

490 490

7800 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200 9400 9600 9800 10000 10200 10400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

41P

G H

I

LEGEND





STREAM BED


RIC

HFIE

LD S

TR

EET

WH

ITN

EY

ST

REET

480 480

490 490

500 500

510 510

520 520

530 530

540 540

10400 10600 10800 11000 11200 11400 11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

42P

J

LEGEND





STREAM BED


SP

INN

ER

VIL

LE G

ULF

RO

AD

UN

NA

MED

TR

IBU

TA

RY

TO

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

CO

NFLU

EN

CE O

F

520

530 530

540 540

550 550

560 560

570 570

580 580

13000 13200 13400 13600 13800 14000 14200 14400 14600 14800 15000 15200 15400 15600

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

43P

LEGEND





STREAM BED


570

580 580

590 590

600 600

610 610

620 620

630 630

640 640

650 650

15600 15800 16000 16200 16400 16600 16800 17000 17200 17400 17600 17800 18000 18200

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

44P

K

LEGEND





STREAM BED


630

640

650 650

660 660

670 670

680 680

690 690

700 700

710 710

720 720

18200 18400 18600 18800 19000 19200 19400 19600 19800 20000 20200 20400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

45P

L M

N

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THIS AREA.

THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS

TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD

700

710

720 720

730 730

740 740

750 750

760 760

770 770

780 780

790 790

20400 20600 20800 21000 21200 21400 21600 21800 22000 22200 22400 22600 22800 23000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

46P

O

LEGEND





STREAM BED


REM

ING

TO

N R

OA

D

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE ISTOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY

770

780

790 790

800 800

810 810

820 820

830 830

840 840

23000 23200 23400 23600 23800 24000 24200 24400 24600 24800 25000 25200 25400 25600

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

47P

P

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODTHE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS

ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY

820

830

840 840

850 850

860 860

870 870

880 880

25600 25800 26000 26200 26400 26600 26800 27000 27200 27400 27600 27800 28000 28200

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

48P

Q

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E

FO

OT

BR

IDG

E

FO

OT

BR

IDG

E

THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE ISTOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY

870

880 880

890 890

900 900

910 910

920 920

930 930

28200 28400 28600 28800 29000 29200 29400 29600 29800 30000 30200 30400 30600 30800

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

49P

R

S

LEGEND





STREAM BED


PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E

PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1




910

920 920

930 930

940 940

950 950

960 960

970 970

980 980

30800 31000 31200 31400 31600 31800 32000 32200 32400 32600 32800 33000 33200 33400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

50P

T

LEGEND





STREAM BED


FO

OT

BR

IDG

E

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

950

960 960

970 970

980 980

990 990

1000 1000

1010 1010

33400 33600 33800 34000 34200 34400 34600 34800 35000 35200 35400 35600 35800 36000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

51P

U

V

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

990

1000 1000

1010 1010

1020 1020

1030 1030

1040 1040

1050 1050

1060 1060

36000 36200 36400 36600 36800 37000 37200 37400 37600 37800 38000 38200 38400 38600

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

52P

W

LEGEND





STREAM BED


1040

1050

1060 1060

1070 1070

1080 1080

1090 1090

1100 1100

1110 1110

38600 38800 39000 39200 39400 39600 39800 40000 40200 40400 40600 40800 41000 41200

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

53P

X

LEGEND





STREAM BED


JO

NES

HIL

L R

OA

D

FO

OT

BR

IDG

E




1090

1100 1100

1110 1110

1120 1120

1130 1130

1140 1140

1150 1150

41200 41400 41600 41800 42000 42200 42400 42600 42800 43000 43200 43400 43600 43800

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

54P

Y

Z

LEGEND





STREAM BED


FO

OT

BR

IDG

E

PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E

PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E




1140

1150 1150

1160 1160

1170 1170

1180 1180

1190 1190

1200 1200

43800 44000 44200 44400 44600 44800 45000 45200 45400 45600 45800 46000 46200 46400

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

55P

AA

LEGEND





STREAM BED


PR

IVA

TE D

RIV

E

JO

HN

SO

N R

OA

D




1190

1200 1200

1210 1210

1220 1220

46400 46600 46800 47000 47200 47400 47600 47800 48000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ITIO

NS

)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

ST

EELE

CR

EEK

56P

AB

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

LEGEND





STREAM BED


PR

IVA

TE R

OA

D

FO

OT

BR

IDG

E

JO

RD

AN

VIL

LE R

OA

D




ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

1

48200 48400 48600 48800

AC

360 360

370 370

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

420 420

430 430

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

1

57P

A B C D

E

RA

ILR

OA

D

AB

AN

DO

NED

RA

ILR

OA

D

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 5

LEGEND





STREAM BED


1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATERFROM MOHAWK RIVER

CO

NFL

UEN

CE W

ITH

MO

HA

WK

RIV

ER

380 380

390 390

400 400

410 410

6500 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TIY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

1

58P

F G H I J K

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED


390

400 400

410 410

420 420

430 430

11500 12000 12500 13000 13500 14000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

1

59P

L M

N

LIM

IT O

F D

ET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

SH

ELL

S B

US

H R

OA

D

LEGEND





STREAM BED


660 660

680 680

700 700

720 720

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

3

60P

A B C D E F

G H

LIM

IT O

FO

LD S

TA

TE R

OA

D

RA

ILR

OA

D

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 2

8

ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 2

8 (C

REEK

RO

AD

)

LEGEND





STREAM BED

CROSS SECTION LOCATION(N

OR

TH

MA

IN S

TR

EET

)

DET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y

*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD

680 680

700 700

720 720

13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000 21000 22000 23000 24000 25000 26000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

3

61P

J K L M N

O P

LEGEND





STREAM BED



I

680 680

700 700

720 720

740 740

26000 27000 28000 29000 30000 31000 32000 33000 34000 35000 36000 37000 38000 39000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

3

62P

Q R S T U

CR

EEK

RO

AD

LEGEND





STREAM BED


ST

AT

E R

OU

TE 2

8


700 700

720 720

740 740

760 760

780 780

39000 40000 41000 42000 43000 44000 45000 46000 47000 48000 49000 50000 51000 52000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

3

63P

V W X Y

Z AA

DO

VER

RO

AD

LEGEND





STREAM BED



52000 53000 54000 55000 55000 56000 57000 58000 59000 60000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

3

64P

LEGEND





STREAM BED


920

940

960

980

1000

1020

1040

1060

AB ACT

REN

TO

N D

AM

54000

1080 1080

1060

1040

1020

1000

980

960

940

760

780

800

820

840

860

880

900

920

940 940

920

900

880

860

840

820

800

780

760


1040

1060

1080 1080

1100 1100

1120 1120

1140 1140

1160 1160

1180 1180

60000 61000 62000 63000 64000 65000 66000 67000 68000 69000 70000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

3

65P

AD AE AF AG

MIL

ITA

RY

RO

AD

PR

OS

PEC

T D

AM

LEGEND





STREAM BED



1120 1120

1140 1140

1160 1160

1180 1180

1200 1200

1220 1220

1240 1240

70000 71000 72000 73000 74000 75000 76000 77000 78000

ELE

VA

TIO

N IN

FEET

(N

AV

D 8

8)


FED

ER

AL

EM

ER

GEN

CY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T A

GEN

CY

HER

KIM

ER

CO

UN

TY

, N

Y(A

LL J

UR

ISD

ICT

ION

S)

FLO

OD

PR

OFIL

ES

WES

T C

AN

AD

A C

REEK

REA

CH

3

66P

AH AI AJ

HIN

CK

LEY

RO

AD

HIN

CK

LEY

DA

M

LEGEND





STREAM BED

CROSS SECTION LOCATIONLI

MIT

OF

DET

AIL

ED

ST

UD

Y


HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK - rampp-team.com€¦ · Federal Emergency Management Agency FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER 36043CV000A HERKIMER COUNTY, NEW YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS) COMMUNITY

Documents