HERKIMER COUNTY,
NEW YORK
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
Herkimer County
COMMUNITY NAME
COLD BROOK, VILLAGE OF
COLUMBIA, TOWN OF
DANUBE, TOWN OF
DOLGEVILLE, VILLAGE OF
FAIRFIELD, TOWN OF
FRANKFORT, TOWN OF
FRANKFORT, VILLAGE OF
GERMAN FLATTS, TOWN OF
HERKIMER, TOWN OF
HERKIMER, VILLAGE OF
ILION, VILLAGE OF
LITCHFIELD, TOWN OF
LITTLE FALLS, CITY OF
LITTLE FALLS, TOWN OF
MANHEIM, TOWN OF
COMMUNITY
NUMBER
360298
360299
360300
360301
360302
360303
360304
360305
360306
360307
360308
360309
360310
360311
360312
COMMUNITY NAME
COMMUNITY
NUMBER
MIDDLEVILLE, VILLAGE OF
MOHAWK, VILLAGE OF
NEWPORT, TOWN OF
NEWPORT, VILLAGE OF
NORWAY, TOWN OF
OHIO, TOWN OF
POLAND, VILLAGE OF
RUSSIA, TOWN OF
SALISBURY, TOWN OF
SCHUYLER, TOWN OF
STARK, TOWN OF
WARREN, TOWN OF
WEBB, TOWN OF
WEST WINFIELD, VILLAGE OF
WINFIELD, TOWN OF
PRELIMINARY:
September 30, 2011
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER
36043CV000A
360313
360314
361111
360315
361110
361408
360316
361121
360317
360318
360319
360320
360321
360322
360323
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
A1 through A30
V1 through V30
B
C
Initial Countywide FIS Effective Date:
Revised Countywide FIS Date:
New Zone
AE
VE
X
X
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
INTRODUCTION
1
1.1
Purpose of Study
1
1.2
Authority and Acknowledgments
1
1.3
Coordination
5
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
ENGINEERING METHODS
17
3.1
Hydrologic Analyses
18
3.2
Hydraulic Analyses
29
3.3
Vertical Datum
38
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
i
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
Bellinger Brook
Cold Brook
East Canada Creek
Fulmer Creek
Left Channel of Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Moyer Creek
Panels 01P-02P
Panels 03P-04P
Panels 05P-06P
Panels 07P-11P
Panels 12P-15P
Panel 16P
Panels 17P-28P
Panels 29P-34P
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS - continued
EXHIBITS - continued
Exhibit 1 – Flood Profiles - continued
NYDOT Canal
Steele Creek
West Canada Creek Reach 1
West Canada Creek Reach 3
Panels 35P-37P
Panels 38P-56P
Panels 57P-59P
Panels 60P-66P
Exhibit 2 – Flood Insurance Rate Map Index
Flood Insurance Rate Map
iii
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.
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.
2
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.
3
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
4
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 60centimeter resolution natural color orthoimagery from photography dated AprilMay 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.”
5
TABLE 1 – INITIAL AND FINAL CCO MEETINGS
Community
Cold Brook, Village of
Columbia, Town of
Danube, Town of
Dolgeville, Village of
Fairfield, Town of
Frankfort, Town of
Frankfort, Village of
German Flatts, Town of
Herkimer, Town of
Herkimer, Village of
Ilion, Village of
Litchfield, Town of
Little Falls, City of
Little Falls, Town of
Manheim, Town of
Middleville, Village of
Mohawk, Village of
Newport, Town of
Newport, Village of
Norway, Town of
Ohio, Town of
Poland, Village of
Russia, Town of
Salisbury, Town of
Schuyler, Town of
Stark, Town of
Warren, Town of
Webb, Town of
West Winfield, Village of
Winfield, Town of
Initial CCO Date
Final CCO Date
July 7, 19981
*
*
June, 1979
*
May 18, 1994
March 3, 1978
June 29, 19991
*
*
August 19, 1975
November 16, 20001
March 3, 1978
November 21, 19971
May 3, 19991
June, 1979
*
*
*
September 17, 1975
November 21, 19971
February 14, 19951
*
*
*
February 15, 19951
February 15, 19951
*
June 29, 19991
*
*
*
*
*
May 12, 1999
*
*
April 22, 1982
*
June 24, 1999
October 21, 1982
*
*
*
March 1, 1977
May 30, 2001
October 21, 1982
*
*
April 21, 1982
*
*
*
December 16, 1976
*
*
*
*
*
June 10, 1996
June 18, 1996
*
February 2, 2000
*
*
*
*
*
1
Notified by letter
*Data not available
6
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
West Canada Creek Reach 2
West Canada Creek Reach 3
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
West Canada Creek
West Canada Creek Reach 2
Town of Newport
Village of Poland
Town of Russia
West Canada Creek
West Canada Creek Reach 3
As part of this countywide FIS, updated analyses were included for the flooding
sources shown in Table 4, “Scope of Revision.”
7
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
Herkimer/Oneida County boundary
Moyer Creek
From its confluence with the Mohawk River
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
boundary
to
to
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
Beaver Brook
Bellinger Brook
Cold Brook
East Canada Creek
East Canada Creek
Fulmer Creek
Fulmer Creek
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Community
Village of Dolgeville
Village of Herkimer
Village of Cold Brook
Village of Dolgeville
Town of Manheim
Town of German Flatts
Village of Mohawk
City of Little Falls
Town of Danube
Town of German Flatts
8
Most Recent
Model Date
November 1981
December 1976
May 1998
April 2011
April 2011
December 2004
December 2004
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
TABLE 5 – MODEL DATES FOR RIVERINE FLOODING - continued
Stream Name
Most Recent
Model Date
Community
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Mohawk River
Moyer Creek
Moyer Creek
NYDOT Canal
Left Channel of Mohawk River
Steele Creek
Steele Creek
Steele Creek
West Canada Creek Reach 1
West Canada Creek Reach 1
West Canada Creek Reach 2
West Canada Creek Reach 2
West Canada Creek Reach 3
West Canada Creek Reach 3
West Canada Creek Reach 3
Town of Frankfort
Town of Herkimer
Town of Little Falls
Town of Manheim
Town of Schuyler
Village of Frankfort
Village of Herkimer
Village of Ilion
Village of Mohawk
Town of Frankfort
Village of Frankfort
City of Little Falls
City of Little Falls
Town of German Flatts
Town of German Flatts
Town of Litchfield
Town of Herkimer
Village of Herkimer
Town of Newport
Village of Newport
Town of Newport
Village of Poland
Town of Russia
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
April 2011
December 2004
December 2004
November 1981
April 2011
December 2004
December 2004
February 1999
November 2009
November 2009
June 12, 1987
June 12, 1987
January 3, 1997
October 1994
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
Town of
Winfield
Flooding Source(s)/Project Identifier
Steele Creek
Effective Date
April 20, 2000
Type
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.
9
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 1F to
11F and the average annual maximum ranging from 75F to 83F. 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
10
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).
11
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
12
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 lowlying 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
13
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
14
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
15
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.
16
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
Mohawk River downstream of Little Falls
Kast Bridge, New York
Delta Dam near Rome
Near Cohoes
Steele Creek
Otsquago Creek
West Canada Creek at Kast Bridge
3.0
Gage No.
01347000
013460
01336000
01357500
01342730
01349000
013450
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
17
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.
18
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.
19
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).
20
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 HSFEHQ06-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
21
02020004200East 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
01348000
East Canada Creek
at East Creek, NY
289
1946-2006
Comments
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.
22
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.
02020004090Fulmer 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.
Station Name
Drainage
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
01357500
Mohawk River at
Cohoes, NY
3,450
1913 2006
Discharges regulated
by
Delta
and
Hinckley Reservoirs
Discharges regulated
by
Delta
and
Hinckley Reservoirs
The 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual chance flood discharges were estimated for
the gaging stations in Table 8 by employing Bulletin 17B, Guidelines for
Determining Flood Flow Frequency (Interagency Advisory Committee on Water
23
Data, 1982). The gage analysis was performed using the USGS Peak FQ 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 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.
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.
02020004070Moyer 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
24
basin shape index. Basin storage is defined by USGS as the percentage of area
within the watershed covered by lakes, ponds and swamps.
02020004080Steele 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.
02020004150West 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.
Station Name
01346000
West Canada Creek
at Karst Bridge, NY
Drainage
Area (mi)2
Period of
Record
Comments
560
1913,
1921-2006
Discharges regulated
by
Hinckley
Reservoir
The 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent-annual chance flood discharges were estimated for
the gaging stations in Table 9 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
25
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.
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.
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
BEAVER BROOK
East Canada Creek to
Slawson Street
At the corporate limits of
the Village of Dolgeville
and the Town of Manheim
DRAINAGE
AREA
(sq. miles)
10-PERCENT
PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)
2-PERCENT
1-PERCENT
0.2-PERCENT
2.5
365
365
365
365
2.6
680
1,155
1,350
1,960
*Data not available
26
TABLE 10 – SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued
FLOODING SOURCE
AND LOCATION
BELLINGER BROOK
At Cross Section A
At Cross Section B
COLD BROOK
At confluence with West
Canada Creek
At confluence of first
upstream tributary
At confluence of second
upstream tributary
At confluence of third
upstream tributary
At confluence of fourth
upstream tributary
EAST CANADA CREEK
At East Creek, gage station
01348000
At Montgomery and Fulton
County boundary
At Village of Dolgeville
downstream corporate
limits
FULMER CREEK
At confluence with
Mohawk River
At 100 feet downstream of
Route 168 and Rock Hill
Road
MOHAWK RIVER
At gage station 01347000
near Little Falls
At City of Little Falls
downstream corporate
limits
At 2.9 miles downstream of
confluence with West
Canada Creek, just
downstream of diversion
of the river and canal
DRAINAGE
AREA
(sq. miles)
3.2
2.55
10-PERCENT
PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)
2-PERCENT
1-PERCENT
0.2-PERCENT
685
595
1,200
1,040
1,465
1,260
2,265
1,945
6.2
*
*
1,280
*
5.0
*
*
1,060
*
4.5
*
*
950
*
3.8
*
*
810
*
3.5
*
*
760
*
292
14,600
21,000
24,100
32,500
287
14,500
20,800
23,900
32,100
265
13,500
19,500
22,400
30,100
25.9
1,850
2,710
3,090
3,980
12.8
1,060
1,570
1,800
2,340
1,315
26,200
31,400
33,500
38,000
1,295
26,000
31,100
33,200
37,700
1,279
25,700
30,900
33,000
37,500
*Data not available
27
TABLE 10 – SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued
FLOODING SOURCE
AND LOCATION
MOHAWK RIVER (continued)
At Village of Herkimer
At Village of Ilion
downstream corporate
limits
At Village of Frankfort
downstream corporate
limits
At Herkimer County
upstream limit
MOYER CREEK
At confluence with
Mohawk River
Approximately 1,800 feet
downstream of Furnace
Road and Route 171
STEELE CREEK
At confluence with
Mohawk River
Approximately 1 mile
upstream of Remington
Road
Just upstream tributaries at
approximately station
12600
Just upstream tributaries at
approximately station
1980
Just upstream tributaries at
approximately station
26200
WEST CANADA CREEK
REACH 1
At Kast Bridge
DRAINAGE
AREA
(sq. miles)
10-PERCENT
PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)
2-PERCENT
1-PERCENT
0.2-PERCENT
699
16,200
20,700
22,600
27,000
665
15,500
20,000
21,900
26,300
629
14,900
19,300
21,200
25,500
544
13,300
17,500
19,400
23,500
20.4
1,100
1,620
1,850
2,400
13.8
1,510
2,210
2,520
3,260
26.7
1,980
2,900
3,310
4,280
13.4
350
460
510
620
8.5
790
1,175
1,350
1,760
5.8
522
770
880
1,150
3.5
250
350
400
510
16,200
20,600
22,000
26,200
561
*Data not available
28
TABLE 10 – SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued
FLOODING SOURCE
AND LOCATION
WEST CANADA CREEK
REACH 3
At 0.8 mile upstream of
Old State Road
Above confluence of
Cincinnati Creek
DRAINAGE
AREA
(sq. miles)
10-PERCENT
PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)
2-PERCENT
1-PERCENT
0.2-PERCENT
426.2
*
*
22,900
*
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
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
10% ANNUAL
CHANCE
*
ELEVATION (feet NAVD1)
2% ANNUAL
1% ANNUAL
CHANCE
CHANCE
*
649.0
0.2% ANNUAL
CHANCE
*
1
North 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.
29
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).
30
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 stepbackwater 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 manmade (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
31
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 0.2percent 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
32
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 stepbackwater computer software (USACE, 1991). Starting water-surface elevations for
West Canada Creek Reach 1 were taken from the effective HEC-2 model. Flood
33
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.
02020004200East 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.
02020004090Fulmer 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 HECRAS model is based on cross section geometry generated using manual and semiautomated methods derived from Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
techniques and data.
34
02020004060Mohawk 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.
02020004070Moyer 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 HECRAS model is based on cross section geometry generated using manual and semiautomated methods derived from Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
techniques and data.
35
02020004080Steele 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 HECRAS model is based on cross section geometry generated using manual and semiautomated methods derived from Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
techniques and data.
02020004150West 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 HECGeoRas 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.
36
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
Bellinger Brook
Cold Brook
East Canada Creek
Fulmer Creek
Mohawk River
Moyer Creek
NYDOT Canal
Left Channel of Mohawk River
Steele Creek
West Canada Creek Reach 1
West Canada Creek Reach 3
0.030
0.045
0.025 - 0.035
0.035-0.070
0.025-0.055
0.030-0.052
0.025-0.051
0.00 - 0.045
0.030-0.052
0.026-0.055
0.035-0.070
0.028-0.035
0.07 - 1.00
0.060
0.060 - 0.080
0.013-0.100
0.060-0.2
0.060-0.100
0.040-0.2
0.070
0.060-0.100
0.060-0.2
0.013-0.100
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 6character 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
37
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
38
For more information on NAVD 88, see Converting the National Flood Insurance
Program to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988, FEMA Publication FIA20/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 1and 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
39
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.
40
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
41
Figure 1
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
Beaver Brook
A
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
1
DISTANCE
6,920
WIDTH
(FEET)
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
REGULATORY
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
1
32
122
11.1
826.8
826.8
826.8
0.0
2
25
34
28
23
19
23
17
27
14
96
155
92
86
88
112
74
106
65
11.1
6.8
10.3
11.1
10.8
8.4
10.3
7.2
11.6
801.9
819.2
839.7
874.3
919.8
942.8
961.4
984.3
1,001.2
801.9
819.2
839.7
874.3
919.8
942.8
961.4
984.3
1,001.2
802.0
820.2
839.7
874.3
919.8
943.4
961.4
984.9
1,002.0
0.1
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.8
Cold Brook
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
1
2
6,720
2
7,445
2
8,105
2
9,247
2
10,647
2
11,942
2
12,962
2
14,112
2
14,812
Feet above confluence with East Canada Creek
Feet above confluence with West Canada Creek Reach 3
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
BEAVER BROOK – COLD BROOK
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
East Canada Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
2
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
464
1,887
2,513
3,080
4,034
4,806
5,710
6,552
7,225
9,123
9,548
11,523
13,611
17,169
19,496
21,929
22,969
23,930
24,306
24,767
25,610
26,994
29,618
30,886
33,265
35,285
428
301
317
406
309
293
376
171
267
239
582
1,621
1,813
638
421
193
201
94
166
187
319
927
1,559
476
296
454
1
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
2,389
2,214
3,730
3,838
2,304
2,549
2,772
1,682
2,791
1,604
5,731
29,732
30,569
6,211
2,089
1,642
1,625
1,328
1,958
2,221
2,215
12,328
33,852
11,613
8,968
19,051
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
10.1
10.9
6.5
6.3
10.5
9.5
8.7
14.3
8.6
15.0
4.2
0.8
0.8
3.9
11.5
14.6
14.7
18.0
12.2
10.8
10.8
1.9
0.7
2.1
2.7
1.3
REGULATORY
320.1
322.8
329.7
330.9
333.1
335.6
340.5
345.1
351.2
444.6
465.0
508.2
508.3
508.3
518.2
533.2
540.0
543.9
548.9
553.3
561.3
669.4
669.5
669.5
669.7
669.7
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
315.5
322.8
329.7
330.9
333.1
335.6
340.5
345.1
351.2
444.6
465.0
508.2
508.3
508.3
518.2
533.2
540.0
543.9
548.9
553.3
561.3
669.4
669.5
669.5
669.7
669.7
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
315.9
323.8
330.1
331.3
333.4
336.6
341.0
345.3
351.4
444.6
465.3
508.4
508.4
508.5
518.4
533.2
540.3
544.8
549.0
553.5
561.5
669.4
669.5
669.6
669.7
669.7
0.4
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.3
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
3
1
Feet above confluence with Mohawk River
Width extends beyond county boundary
3
Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from the Mohawk River
2
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
EAST CANADA CREEK
FLOODING SOURCE
1
CROSS SECTION
DISTANCE
East Canada Creek (continued)
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ
AK
AL
AM
AN
37,192
38,681
39,346
41,041
42,134
43,196
43,581
43,660
43,747
45,063
45,754
46,462
47,380
48,547
1
2
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
2
WIDTH
(FEET)
236
210
197
553
285
105
260
293
384
160
217
205
243
209
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
9,297
8,747
1,521
5,320
1,641
1,181
1,599
1,660
4,947
1,355
1,503
1,532
1,826
1,910
2.6
2.7
15.7
4.2
13.7
19.0
14.0
13.5
4.5
16.5
14.9
14.6
12.3
11.7
REGULATORY
669.7
669.8
716.3
750.3
754.8
767.0
775.2
779.2
790.8
794.9
800.3
807.1
812.8
822.9
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
669.7
669.8
716.3
750.3
754.8
767.0
775.2
779.2
790.8
794.9
800.3
807.1
812.8
822.9
669.7
669.8
716.3
750.7
754.8
767.0
775.2
779.2
791.1
794.9
800.4
807.2
813.6
823.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.8
0.7
Feet above confluence with Mohawk River
Width extends beyond county boundary
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
EAST CANADA CREEK
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
Fulmer Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
1
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
1
DISTANCE
1,564
2,171
2,584
2,744
3,581
3,876
6,231
6,447
8,407
10,438
10,809
12,079
12,805
14,002
15,289
17,222
19,831
WIDTH
(FEET)
349
74
97
120
110
123
73
42
81
79
131
134
145
151
98
92
134
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
1,050
479
535
471
668
674
414
255
568
315
384
580
434
810
556
331
610
3.4
7.5
6.7
7.6
5.3
5.3
8.6
14.0
6.3
11.4
9.3
6.2
8.2
4.4
6.4
10.8
5.9
REGULATORY
391.7
396.0
399.1
400.1
407.5
409.2
434.1
435.5
463.2
485.3
491.0
507.8
516.7
534.5
553.4
574.8
615.3
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
391.7
396.0
399.1
400.1
407.5
409.2
434.1
435.5
463.2
485.3
491.0
507.8
516.7
534.5
553.4
574.8
615.3
391.7
396.1
399.2
400.1
408.4
410.1
434.2
435.5
463.6
485.3
490.9
508.0
516.9
535.1
553.5
575.0
615.4
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
Feet above confluence with Mohawk River
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
FULMER CREEK
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
Mohawk River
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
1
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
1,850
6,026
10,160
12,770
17,483
22,771
25,114
31,055
35,663
41,141
47,934
50,446
55,394
58,925
61,527
63,997
68,999
72,292
74,833
76,363
80,306
82,908
88,558
93,110
97,135
101,808
577
545
346
378
934
818
777
322
312
480
365
375
363
898
503
1,172
1,106
1,391
715
520
285
419
498
379
782
282
1
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
6,833
7,193
4,792
6,204
9,434
10,083
9,972
7,132
12,566
8,838
6,987
7,137
6,009
7,900
6,002
10,096
6,048
7,814
5,602
5,047
3,342
5,232
6,811
6,395
7,704
5,454
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
6.6
4.7
7.0
5.4
3.5
3.3
3.3
4.7
2.6
3.7
4.7
4.6
5.5
4.2
5.5
3.3
5.4
4.2
4.0
4.5
6.8
4.3
3.2
3.4
2.8
3.9
REGULATORY
320.5
322.9
325.1
327.6
328.8
329.8
330.0
330.8
332.2
370.5
371.5
372.0
372.7
373.6
374.7
376.4
378.2
379.6
381.5
382.8
387.5
388.9
389.9
390.4
390.9
391.4
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
320.5
322.9
325.1
327.6
328.8
329.8
330.0
330.8
332.2
370.5
371.5
372.0
372.7
373.6
374.7
376.4
378.2
379.6
381.5
382.8
387.5
388.9
389.9
390.4
390.9
391.4
321.2
323.8
326.1
328.1
329.3
330.3
330.7
331.5
332.9
370.6
371.6
372.0
372.9
373.9
375.0
376.9
378.6
380.0
381.9
383.1
388.0
389.3
390.4
390.9
391.4
391.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 14,063 feet downstream of Rocky Rift Mohawk Dam)
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
MOHAWK RIVER
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
Mohawk River (continued)
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ
1
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
105,714
113,493
115,972
122,073
126,554
130,119
134,559
139,570
141,144
142,979
425
894
1,119
1,076
966
795
1,614
1,677
1,228
1,658
1
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
6,535
9,015
9,431
9,674
8,635
8,456
15,538
14,316
9,969
15,437
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
3.2
2.3
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.4
1.3
1.4
2.0
1.3
REGULATORY
392.4
398.4
399.0
399.8
401.1
402.2
403.0
403.6
403.8
404.5
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
392.4
398.4
399.0
399.8
401.1
402.2
403.0
403.6
403.8
404.5
392.6
398.5
399.1
400.0
401.5
402.8
403.5
404.1
404.3
405.4
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.9
Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 14,063 feet downstream of Rocky Rift Mohawk Dam)
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
MOHAWK RIVER
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
REGULATORY
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
Moyer Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
1,158
1
1,535
1
1,970
1
2,612
1
3,261
1
3,490
1
3,926
1
5,127
1
5,889
1
6,624
1
7,555
1
9,181
1
9,927
1
10,424
1
11,557
1
12,466
1
14,200
1
103
69
61
62
66
45
63
87
107
81
80
110
71
102
92
78
61
415
319
307
434
373
291
321
270
372
411
337
291
444
228
309
379
316
6.5
8.5
8.8
6.2
7.2
9.3
8.4
10.0
7.3
6.6
8.0
9.3
6.1
9.4
8.8
7.1
8.6
397.5
406.4
414.9
424.4
430.4
432.9
436.7
450.6
458.5
470.6
481.7
508.8
521.6
528.1
545.3
558.3
587.7
397.5
406.4
414.9
424.4
430.4
432.9
436.7
450.6
458.5
470.6
481.7
508.8
521.6
528.1
545.3
558.3
587.7
397.5
406.5
415.3
424.5
430.6
433.1
437.0
450.6
459.0
470.9
482.0
508.8
521.7
528.1
545.3
558.4
587.9
0.0
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
NYDOT Canal
A
B
3,540
2
4,670
2
155
150
175
210
0.6
0.5
368.6
372.3
368.6
372.3
369.4
373.1
0.8
0.8
1
2
Feet above confluence with Mohawk River
Feet above Lock 17E
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
MOYER CREEK – NYDOT CANAL
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
1
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
295
813
645
686
468
447
327
1,359
388
344
298
265
275
272
220
317
517
283
597
223
397
136
126
147
134
148
12.5
4.5
5.7
5.4
7.9
8.2
11.2
2.7
9.5
10.7
12.4
13.9
13.4
13.5
12.4
8.6
3.6
6.6
3.2
8.4
4.7
9.9
10.7
9.2
10.1
5.9
REGULATORY
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
Steele Creek
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
1
3,336
4,190
5,114
5,937
6,369
6,763
8,229
9,058
9,994
11,573
16,934
19,035
19,744
20,239
22,377
24,982
26,622
29,277
30,377
32,097
33,627
35,567
37,817
40,077
41,557
43,532
64
69
89
67
60
86
95
154
78
97
56
44
49
48
41
68
123
111
145
61
80
45
36
60
75
94
408.4
419.9
424.6
435.7
436.3
444.4
459.1
475.3
482.6
508.3
603.4
665.9
689.2
706.6
770.3
827.1
855.8
878.6
913.3
941.4
970.0
994.4
1,033.6
1,080.9
1,107.6
1,139.9
408.4
419.9
424.6
435.7
436.3
444.4
459.1
475.3
482.6
508.3
603.4
665.9
689.2
706.6
770.3
827.1
855.8
878.6
913.3
941.4
970.0
994.4
1,033.6
1,080.9
1,107.6
1,139.9
408.4
420.7
424.9
436.7
437.2
445.1
459.1
475.5
482.8
508.3
603.4
665.9
689.2
706.6
770.5
827.5
856.1
878.8
914.0
941.8
970.0
994.4
1,033.6
1,080.9
1,107.6
1,139.9
Feet above confluence with Mohawk River
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
STEELE CREEK
0.0
0.8
0.3
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
1
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
REGULATORY
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
Steele Creek (continued)
AA
AB
AC
45,447
47,797
48,727
82
37
45
124
187
165
7.1
2.1
2.4
1,178.1
1,212.2
1,212.4
1,178.1
1,212.2
1,212.4
1,178.1
1,212.8
1,213.3
0.0
0.6
0.9
West Canada Creek Reach 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
1,638
3,170
4,283
4,449
5,693
6,555
7,312
7,540
8,935
10,041
11,041
11,827
12,972
13,102
425
277
547
491
459
481
599
546
635
390
352
355
288
306
4,701
3,050
4,756
4,831
4,224
4,150
5,466
4,454
4,431
3,253
4,339
3,680
2,770
3,099
4.7
7.3
4.7
4.6
5.3
5.4
4.1
5.0
5.0
6.9
5.1
6.1
8.1
7.2
382.2
385.7
390.1
390.5
392.5
395.2
396.5
396.5
399.6
405.1
408.1
409.3
413.5
414.2
382.2
385.7
390.1
390.5
392.5
395.2
396.5
396.5
399.6
405.1
408.1
409.3
413.5
414.2
382.3
386.0
390.4
390.8
392.7
395.5
396.9
396.9
400.1
406.1
409.1
410.1
413.7
414.4
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.2
0.2
1
Feet above confluence with Mohawk River
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
STEELE CREEK – WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 1
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
West Canada Creek Reach 3
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
1
2
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
700
2,300
3,900
5,500
7,200
9,500
11,000
12,500
14,000
15,400
16,900
19,500
21,100
22,300
24,300
25,200
26,700
28,200
30,000
32,000
35,800
39,500
42,800
45,900
47,800
49,600
180
206
180
584
2
330
2
450
2
562
2
240
2
241
2
210
2
204
2
200
2
195
2
200
2
300
2
349
2
210
2
221
2
250
2
265
2
422
2
214
2
158
2
296
2
209
2
160
2,034
2,408
2,285
4,118
4,300
4,499
5,886
2,897
2,981
2,864
2,531
2,878
2,892
2,815
3,716
3,959
2,765
3,206
3,013
3,545
3,372
1,902
1,521
3,067
2,612
1,673
11.3
9.5
10.0
5.6
5.3
5.1
3.9
7.9
7.7
8.0
9.0
8.0
7.9
8.1
6.2
5.8
8.3
7.1
7.6
6.5
6.8
10.6
13.2
6.6
7.7
12.0
1
REGULATORY
689.1
692.0
693.7
695.6
696.9
698.2
699.0
699.6
702.1
703.5
704.6
707.2
708.0
709.7
711.2
711.9
712.4
714.3
715.7
717.6
719.9
723.7
728.8
734.2
740.5
745.1
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
WITH
FLOODWAY
INCREASE
689.1
692.0
693.7
695.6
696.9
698.2
699.0
699.6
702.1
703.5
704.6
707.2
708.0
709.7
711.2
711.9
712.4
714.3
715.7
717.6
719.9
723.7
728.8
734.2
740.5
745.1
689.5
692.6
694.5
696.6
697.8
699.1
700.0
700.3
702.5
703.9
705.1
707.8
708.9
710.5
712.0
712.9
713.3
715.1
716.5
718.5
720.5
724.3
729.3
734.8
741.5
745.9
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.8
Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 200 feet downstream of Old State Road)
Width extends beyond county boundary
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
FLOODING SOURCE
CROSS SECTION
West Canada Creek Reach 3
(continued)
AA
AB
AC
AD
AE
AF
AG
AH
AI
AJ
1
2
BASE FLOOD
WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION
(FEET NAVD)
FLOODWAY
2
DISTANCE
WIDTH
(FEET)
51,400
54,300
56,000
61,400
63,350
64,600
65,400
70,100
75,400
76,700
150
2
270
2
241
2
110
2
397
2
250
2
619
2
463
2
501
2
238
1
2
SECTION
AREA
(SQUARE
FEET)
1,280
1,493
12,523
1,088
7,097
1,350
23,072
15,262
12,148
5,578
MEAN
VELOCITY
(FEET PER
SECOND)
15.7
13.5
1.6
18.5
2.8
14.9
0.9
1.3
1.7
3.6
REGULATORY
765.2
947.1
1,027.9
1,071.4
1,085.1
1,118.5
1,174.0
1,174.0
1,174.0
1,174.2
WITHOUT
FLOODWAY
765.2
947.1
1,027.9
1,071.4
1,085.1
1,118.5
1,174.0
1,174.0
1,174.0
1,174.2
WITH
FLOODWAY
765.5
947.1
1,028.0
1,072.1
1,085.2
1,118.5
1,174.0
1,174.0
1,174.0
1,174.4
Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 200 feet downstream of Old State Road)
Width extends beyond county boundary
TABLE 13
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOODWAY DATA
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
INCREASE
0.3
0.0
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
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.
53
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 0.2percent 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 1percent 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
54
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.
55
COMMUNITY
NAME
Cold Brook, Village of
INITIAL
IDENTIFICATION
FLOOD HAZARD
BOUNDARY MAP
REVISIONS DATE
February 11, 1977
FIRM
EFFECTIVE DATE
FIRM
REVISIONS DATE
July 3, 1985
December 20, 2000
March 29, 1974
June 11, 1976
July 16, 1982
April 5, 1974
June 18, 1975
July 3, 1985
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
January 28, 1977
April 17, 1985
December 20, 2000
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
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
Columbia, Town of
Danube, Town of
Dolgeville, Village of
Ilion, Village of
TABLE 14
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY
INITIAL
IDENTIFICATION
FLOOD HAZARD
BOUNDARY MAP
REVISIONS DATE
FIRM
EFFECTIVE DATE
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
November 1, 1974
July 2, 1976
July 3, 1985
COMMUNITY
NAME
Middleville, Village of
Norway, Town of
Ohio, Town of
Poland, Village of
Russia, Town of
January 3, 1975
March 8, 1974
September 24, 1984
June 4, 1976
November 1, 1974
July 18, 1985
June 7, 1974
July 16, 1976
July 3, 1985
Schuyler, Town of
March 15, 1974
January 21, 1977
July 3, 1985
Stark, Town of
June 7, 1974
July 30, 1976
May 15, 1985
Warren, Town of
June 28, 1974
Webb, Town of
July 18, 1975
Winfield, Town of
June 2, 1999
June 2, 1999
Salisbury, Town of
West Winfield, Village of
FIRM
REVISIONS DATE
June 20, 2001
July 30, 1982
February 15, 1974
August 20, 1976
July 3, 1985
March 1, 1974
June 18, 1976
July 3, 1985
TABLE 14
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY
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.
58
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.
59
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.
60
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).
Development Feasibility Study.
Hinckley Reservoir Hydroelectric
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.
61
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (June 1974).
Application of the HEC-2 Bridge Routines.
HEC-2 Training Document No. 6,
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.
62
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). 7.5Minute 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.
63
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 904197. 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.”
64
760
750
750
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
740
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
0
400
800
1200
1600
2000
2400
2800
3200
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH EAST CANADA CREEK
3600
4000
4400
4800
5200
BEAVER BROOK
01P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
760
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
770
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
770
780
CLINE STREET
THE 10%, 2%, AND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
PROFILES ARE COINCIDENT WITH THE 1% ANNUAL
CHANCE ELEVATION IN THIS AREA
FLOOD PROFILES
790
SOUTH HELMER AVENUE
780
800
CULVERT
SLAWSON STREET
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
790
810
SOUTH MAIN STREET
STATE ROUTE 167
VAN BUREN STREET
800
HOWARD STREET EXTENSION
810
SHALLOW FLOODING
PRIVATE ROAD
CONFLUENCE WITH
EAST CANADA CREEK
1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER
FROM EAST CANADA CREEK
840
830
830
820
820
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE
IS TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
810
810
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
800
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
790
5200
5600
6000
6400
6800
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
7200
7600
8000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH EAST CANADA CREEK
BEAVER BROOK
840
02P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
850
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
850
FLOOD PROFILES
LIMIT OF STUDY
ABANDONED RAILROAD
860
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
860
405
400
400
395
395
390
390
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
H
385
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
D
A
0
B
200
400
600
800
G
C
1000
E
1200
1400
1600
STREAM BED
F
1800
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 1875 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF CHURCH STREET
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
2000
BELLINGER BROOK
405
03P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
410
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
410
FLOOD PROFILES
CHURCH STREET
HIGH SCHOOL FOOT BRIDGE
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
415
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
415
445
425
420
420
415
415
410
410
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
405
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
K
I
2000
J
2200
STREAM BED
L
M
2400
N
O
2600
2800
3000
P
3200
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 1875 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF CHURCH STREET
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
BELLINGER BROOK
425
04P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
430
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
430
FLOOD PROFILES
435
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
435
440
LIMIT OF STUDY
440
MAPLE GROVE AVENUE
WEST GERMAN STREET
445
880
880
860
860
840
840
E
820
820
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
800
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
STREAM BED
A
780
6400
B
6800
7200
C
7600
8000
D
8400
8800
9200
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
9600
10000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
10400
10800
*DATA NOT AVAILABLE
COLD BROOK
900
05P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
900
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
920
FLOOD PROFILES
STATE ROUTE 8
STATE ROUTE 8
940
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
920
LIMIT OF STUDY
940
980
960
960
I
940
940
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
920
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD*
STREAM BED
F
900
10800
11200
11600
12000
G
12400
12800
H
13200
13600
14000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
14400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
14800
15200
*DATA NOT AVAILABLE
15600
COLD BROOK
980
06P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
1000
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1000
FLOOD PROFILES
1020
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
LIMIT OF STUDY
STATE ROUTE 8
STATE ROUTE 8
STATE ROUTE 8
STATE ROUTE 8
MILITARY ROAD
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1020
380
360
360
340
340
320
320
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
300
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
0
B
1000
2000
C
D
3000
E
4000
F
G
5000
H
6000
I
7000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
8000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
9000
07P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
380
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
400
FLOOD PROFILES
400
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
420
EAST CANADA CREEK
440
OLD STATE ROAD
420
STATE HIGHWAY 5
CONFLUENCE WITH
MOHAWK RIVER
440
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
460
1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER
FROM MOHAWK RIVER
RAILROAD
460
500
480
480
O
P
460
460
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
440
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
K
L
M
N
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
J
420
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
08P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
500
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
520
FLOOD PROFILES
520
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
540
EAST CANADA CREEK
DAM
DAM
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
540
680
COUNTY ROUTE 108
(INGHAMS MILLS ROAD)
680
600
580
580
560
560
Y
540
540
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
520
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Q
22000
23000
R
24000
S
T
U
25000
V
26000
27000
W
28000
29000
X
30000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
31000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
32000
33000
34000
35000
EAST CANADA CREEK
600
09P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
620
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
620
FLOOD PROFILES
640
DAM
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
640
660
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
660
700
680
680
660
660
640
640
620
620
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
DAM
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
700
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
600
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Z
35000
AA
36000
37000
AB
38000
AC
39000
AD
40000
41000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
42000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
EAST CANADA CREEK
720
10P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
720
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
740
FLOOD PROFILES
740
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
760
CONFLUENCE OF
BEAVER BROOK
760
800
780
780
760
760
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
AI
740
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
AH
AE
42000
AF
43000
AJ
AG
STREAM BED
AK
44000
45000
46000
AL
AM
47000
AN
48000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
49000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
EAST CANADA CREEK
800
11P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
820
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
820
FLOOD PROFILES
840
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
STATE HIGHWAY 29
(EAST STATE STREET)
DAM
DOLGE AVENUE
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
840
400
400
380
380
G
H
360
360
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
0
500
1000
1500
B
2000
C
2500
D
E
3000
3500
F
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
4000
4500
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
5000
5500
6000
6500
FULMER CREEK
420
12P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
420
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
440
FLOOD PROFILES
COLUMBIA STREET
STATE HIGHWAY 28
MAIN STREET
STATE ROUTE 5S
440
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
CONFLUENCE WITH
MOHAWK RIVER
1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER FROM MOHAWK RIVER
480
460
460
440
440
L
M
420
420
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
I
6500
7000
7500
8000
J
8500
9000
9500
10000
10500
K
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
11000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
11500
12000
12500
13000
FULMER CREEK
480
13P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
500
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
500
FLOOD PROFILES
520
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
520
540
PRIVATE DRIVE
PRIVATE DRIVE
540
560
540
540
520
520
500
500
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
N
13000
13500
14000
O
14500
15000
P
15500
16000
16500
17000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
17500
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
18000
18500
19000
19500
FULMER CREEK
560
14P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
580
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
580
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
600
FLOOD PROFILES
620
CONFLUENCE OF
FORD CREEK
STATE HIGHWAY 168
600
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
STATE HIGHWAY 168
CONFLUENCE OF
TROUT CREEK
620
660
640
640
620
620
600
600
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Q
19500
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
20000
20500
21000
21500
22000
22500
23000
23500
24000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
24500
FULMER CREEK
660
15P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
680
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
680
FLOOD PROFILES
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
STATE HIGHWAY 168
CONFLUENCE OF
FLAT CREEK
700
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
700
360
360
350
350
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
LEFT CHANNEL OF MOHAWK RIVER
370
1800
16P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
370
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
380
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD PROFILES
CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
LITTLE FALLS DAM
LOCK STREET
CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
380
320
310
310
C
D
300
300
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
0
1000
2000
B
3000
4000
5000
6000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
7000
8000
9000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
10000
11000
12000
13000
MOHAWK RIVER
17P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
320
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
330
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD PROFILES
HERKIMER COUNTY
CONFLUENCE OF
EAST CANADA CREEK
LIMIT OF FLOODING
AFFECTING COMMUNITY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
330
320
310
310
300
300
G
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
E
13000
14000
15000
16000
17000
F
18000
19000
20000
21000
22000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
23000
24000
25000
26000
MOHAWK RIVER
320
18P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
330
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
330
FLOOD PROFILES
CONFLUENCE OF UNNAMED
NO.1 TO MOHAWK RIVER
ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
CONFLUENCE OF
CRUM CREEK
340
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
340
340
340
330
330
300
290
290
270
CONFLUENCE OF UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY NO.3 TO MOHAWK RIVER
280
280
270
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
260
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
H
26000
27000
28000
29000
30000
31000
I
32000
33000
34000
35000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
36000
37000
MOHAWK RIVER
300
19P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
310
STATE ROUTE 169
CONFLUENCE OF
NYDOT CANAL
310
CONFLUENCE OF UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY NO.2 TO MOHAWK RIVER
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
L.C. = 358.9
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
320
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
320
FLOOD PROFILES
T.O.R. = 365.9
T.O.R = 404.4
370
310
STATE ROUTE 167
320
320
K
310
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
J
36000
37000
38000
39000
40000
41000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
42000
43000
44000
45000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
46000
47000
48000
49000
MOHAWK RIVER
330
20P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
330
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
340
CONFLUENCE OF
LEFT CHANNEL OF MOHAWK RIVER
340
LITTLE FALLS DAM
CONFLUENCE OF
NYDOT CANAL
350
CONFLUENCE OF
LEFT CHANNEL OF MOHAWK RIVER
350
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
360
FLOOD PROFILES
L.C. = 397.4
SOUTH ANN STREET
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
360
SOUTH WILLIAMS STREET
370
380
LITTLE FALLS DAM
380
360
350
350
N
O
340
340
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
L
49000
50000
M
51000
52000
53000
54000
55000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
56000
57000
58000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
59000
60000
61000
62000
MOHAWK RIVER
360
21P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
370
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
370
FLOOD PROFILES
380
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
CONFLUENCE OF
BARGE CANAL
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
380
370
360
360
R
S
350
350
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
340
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
P
62000
63000
64000
Q
65000
66000
67000
68000
69000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
70000
71000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
72000
73000
74000
75000
MOHAWK RIVER
370
22P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
380
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
380
FLOOD PROFILES
390
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
CONFLUENCE OF
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 1
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
390
380
370
370
INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 90
(NEW YORK STATE THRUWAY)
360
T
75000
76000
U
77000
78000
79000
80000
360
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
V
81000
82000
83000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
84000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
85000
86000
87000
88000
MOHAWK RIVER
380
23P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
390
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
390
CONFLUENCE OF BARGE CANAL
400
FLOOD PROFILES
410
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
CONFLUENCE OF
FULMER CREEK
E MAIN STREET
(MOHAWK STREET)
HERKIMER SPILLWAY
420
400
SOUTH WASHINGTON STREET
STATE HIGHWAY 922B
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
410
CONFLUENCE OF UNNAMED
TRIBUTARY NO.4 TO MOHAWK RIVER
420
390
390
380
380
CONFLUENCE OF
STEELE CREEK
370
370
360
360
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
W
88000
X
89000
90000
91000
92000
93000
Y
94000
95000
96000
97000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
98000
99000
100000
101000
MOHAWK RIVER
400
24P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
400
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
410
FLOOD PROFILES
410
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
420
CENTRAL AVENUE
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
420
430
380
380
370
370
AB
360
360
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Z
101000
102000
AA
103000
104000
105000
106000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
107000
108000
109000
110000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
111000
112000
113000
114000
MOHAWK RIVER
390
25P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
390
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
400
FLOOD PROFILES
400
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
410
CONFLUENCE OF
ERIE CANAL
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
410
420
CONFLUENCE OF
MOYER CREEK
RAILROAD STREET
420
FRANKFORT SPILLWAY
430
390
380
380
AE
370
370
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AC
114000
115000
116000
AD
117000
118000
119000
120000
121000
122000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
123000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
124000
125000
126000
127000
MOHAWK RIVER
390
26P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
400
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
400
FLOOD PROFILES
410
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
410
390
380
380
AH
370
370
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
360
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AF
127000
128000
129000
AG
130000
131000
132000
133000
134000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
135000
136000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
137000
138000
139000
140000
MOHAWK RIVER
390
27P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
400
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
400
FLOOD PROFILES
410
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
410
COUNTY BOUNDARY
410
410
400
400
MOHAWK RIVER
420
380
380
370
370
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AI
140000
141000
AJ
142000
143000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
144000
145000
146000
147000
148000
149000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 14063 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF ROCKY RIFT MOHAWK DAM
150000
28P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
390
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
390
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
DIKE ROAD
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
420
430
FLOOD PROFILES
RAILROAD
430
410
400
400
390
390
380
380
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
370
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
0
200
400
600
800
1000
B
1200
1400
C
1600
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
1800
2000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
2200
2400
2600
MOYER CREEK
410
29P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
420
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
420
FLOOD PROFILES
MAIN STREET
430
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
430
CONFLUENCE WITH
MOHAWK RIVER
1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER FROM MOHAWK RIVER
440
430
430
420
420
H
410
410
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
D
2600
E
2800
3000
3200
F
3400
G
3600
3800
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
4000
4200
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
MOYER CREEK
440
30P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
450
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
450
FLOOD PROFILES
SWIMMING ROAD
460
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
460
470
460
460
450
450
K
440
440
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
I
5200
5400
5600
5800
J
6000
6200
6400
6600
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
6800
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
7000
7200
7400
7600
7800
MOYER CREEK
470
31P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
480
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
480
FLOOD PROFILES
STATE ROUTE 5-S
490
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
490
510
500
500
480
480
M
470
470
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
L
7800
8000
8200
8400
8600
8800
9000
9200
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
9400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
32P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
490
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
490
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
BRICE ROAD
510
MOYER CREEK
520
FLOOD PROFILES
520
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
530
STATE ROUTE 171
530
550
540
540
530
530
P
520
520
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
N
10400
O
10600
10800
11000
11200
11400
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
11600
11800
12000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
12200
12400
12600
12800
13000
MOYER CREEK
550
33P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
560
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
560
FLOOD PROFILES
570
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
570
580
570
570
560
560
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
550
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Q
13000
13200
13400
13600
13800
14000
14200
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
14400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
MOYER CREEK
34P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
580
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
590
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD PROFILES
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
STATE ROUTE 171
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
590
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
LOCK 17E
350
350
340
340
330
330
320
320
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
310
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
300
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LOCK 17E
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
NYDOT CANAL
360
35P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
360
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
THE 10%, 2%, AND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL
CHANCE ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
FLOOD PROFILES
370
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
370
THE 10% AND 2% ANNUAL CHANCE
FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION
TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
350
340
340
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
2800
3000
3200
3400
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
3600
3800
4000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LOCK 17E
4200
4400
36P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
350
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
360
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
370
360
2600
NYDOT CANAL
FLOOD PROFILES
STATE ROUTE 167
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
370
THE 10%, 2% AND 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE
FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION
TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
360
350
350
340
340
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
B
4400
4600
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
4800
5000
5200
5400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LOCK 17E
NYDOT CANAL
360
37P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
370
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
370
FLOOD PROFILES
380
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
GUARD GATES
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
THE10% AND 2% ANNUAL CHANCE
FLOOD PROFILES ARE TOO CLOSE TO THE
380 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD ELEVATION
TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THIS AREA.
390
390
380
380
370
370
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
STEELE CREEK
400
38P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
400
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
410
FLOOD PROFILES
ABANDONED RAILROAD
STATE ROUTE 5 S
410
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
CONFLUENCE WITH
MOHAWK RIVER
1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER FROM MOHAWK RIVER
410
400
400
C
390
390
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
2600
2800
3000
3200
B
3400
3600
3800
4000
4200
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
4400
4600
4800
5000
5200
STEELE CREEK
410
39P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
420
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
420
FLOOD PROFILES
430
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
THIRD STREET
SECOND STREET
MAIN STREET
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
430
440
430
430
420
420
410
410
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
D
5200
5400
5600
5800
E
6000
6200
6400
F
6600
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
6800
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
7000
7200
7400
7600
7800
STEELE CREEK
440
40P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
450
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
450
FLOOD PROFILES
PHILIP STREET
FOOTBRIDGE
OTSEGO STREET
460
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
460
470
460
460
I
450
450
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
440
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
G
7800
8000
8200
H
8400
8600
8800
9000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
9200
9400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
9600
9800
10000
10200
10400
STEELE CREEK
470
41P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
480
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
480
FLOOD PROFILES
490
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
WHITNEY STREET
RICHFIELD STREET
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
490
510
510
500
500
490
490
480
480
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
J
10400
10600
10800
11000
11200
11400
11600
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
11800
12000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
12200
12400
12600
12800
13000
STEELE CREEK
520
42P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
520
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
530
FLOOD PROFILES
540
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
530
CONFLUENCE OF
UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO STEELE CREEK
SPINNERVILLE GULF ROAD
540
560
550
550
540
540
530
530
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
520
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
13000
13200
13400
13600
13800
14000
14200
14400
14600
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
14800
15000
15200
15400
15600
STEELE CREEK
560
43P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
570
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
570
FLOOD PROFILES
580
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
580
630
620
620
610
610
600
600
590
590
580
580
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
570
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
K
15600
15800
16000
16200
16400
16600
16800
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
17000
17200
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
17400
17600
17800
18000
18200
STEELE CREEK
630
44P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
640
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
640
FLOOD PROFILES
650
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
650
720
720
690
690
680
680
670
670
660
660
N
650
650
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
640
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
L
630
18200
18400
18600
18800
19000
M
19200
19400
19600
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
19800
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
20000
20200
20400
STEELE CREEK
700
45P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
700
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
710
FLOOD PROFILES
710
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THIS AREA.
780
770
760
760
750
750
STATE ROUTE 51
740
730
730
O
720
720
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
710
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
700
20400
20600
20800
21000
21200
21400
21600
21800
22000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
22200
22400
22600
22800
23000
46P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
740
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
STATE ROUTE 51
770
STEELE CREEK
780
FLOOD PROFILES
790
REMINGTON ROAD
790
820
820
810
810
800
800
P
790
790
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
780
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
770
23000
23200
23400
23600
23800
24000
24200
24400
24600
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
24800
25000
25200
25400
25600
STEELE CREEK
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
47P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
830
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
830
FLOOD PROFILES
840
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
STATE ROUTE 51
840
870
870
STEELE CREEK
880
FLOOD PROFILES
FOOTBRIDGE
FOOTBRIDGE
PRIVATE DRIVE
STATE ROUTE 51
860
850
850
840
840
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
830
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Q
820
25600
25800
26000
26200
26400
26600
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
26800
27000
27200
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
27400
27600
27800
28000
28200
48P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
860
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
880
910
900
900
890
890
S
880
880
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
870
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
R
28200
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
28400
28600
28800
29000
29200
29400
29600
29800
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
30000
30200
30400
30600
30800
STEELE CREEK
910
49P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
920
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
920
FLOOD PROFILES
STATE ROUTE 51
930
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
930
PRIVATE DRIVE
PRIVATE DRIVE
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
950
940
940
930
930
920
920
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
910
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
T
30800
31000
31200
31400
31600
31800
32000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
32200
32400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
32600
32800
33000
33200
33400
STEELE CREEK
950
50P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
960
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
960
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
970
STATE ROUTE 51
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
970
FLOOD PROFILES
980
FOOTBRIDGE
980
990
980
980
970
970
V
960
960
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
950
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
U
33400
33600
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
33800
34000
34200
34400
34600
34800
35000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
35200
35400
35600
35800
36000
STEELE CREEK
990
51P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
1000
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1000
FLOOD PROFILES
STATE ROUTE 51
STATE ROUTE 51
1010
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1010
1040
1030
1030
1020
1020
1010
1010
1000
1000
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
990
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
W
36000
36200
36400
36600
36800
37000
37200
37400
37600
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
37800
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
38000
38200
38400
38600
STEELE CREEK
1040
52P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
1050
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1050
FLOOD PROFILES
1060
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1060
1090
1080
1080
1070
1070
1060
1060
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1050
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
X
1040
38600
38800
39000
39200
39400
39600
39800
40000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
40200
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
40400
40600
40800
41000
41200
STEELE CREEK
1090
53P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
1100
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1100
FLOOD PROFILES
1110
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1110
FOOTBRIDGE
JONES HILL ROAD
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THIS AREA.
1130
1120
1120
1110
1110
Z
1100
1100
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1090
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Y
41200
41400
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
41600
41800
42000
42200
42400
42600
42800
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
43000
43200
43400
43600
43800
STEELE CREEK
1130
54P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
1140
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1140
FLOOD PROFILES
1150
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1150
PRIVATE DRIVE
FOOTBRIDGE
PRIVATE DRIVE
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THIS AREA.
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
1180
1180
1170
1170
1160
1160
1150
1150
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1140
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AA
43800
44000
44200
44400
44600
44800
45000
45200
45400
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
45600
45800
46000
46200
46400
STEELE CREEK
55P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
1190
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1190
FLOOD PROFILES
1200
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
JOHNSON ROAD
PRIVATE DRIVE
1200
STEELE CREEK
FLOOD PROFILES
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
JORDANVILLE ROAD
STATE ROUTE 51
FOOTBRIDGE
PRIVATE ROAD
1210
1210
AC
1200
1200
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1190
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AB
46400
46600
46800
47000
47200
47400
47600
47800
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
48000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
48200
48400
48600
48800
56P
(ALL JURISDITIONS)
1220
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1220
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
THE 2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD PROFILE IS
TOO CLOSE TO THE 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
ELEVATION TO BE SHOWN SEPARATELY
420
390
380
380
360
370
STATE ROUTE 5
370
E
360
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
0
500
1000
1500
B
2000
2500
3000
C
3500
4000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
D
4500
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
5000
5500
6000
6500
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 1
390
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
400
ABANDONED RAILROAD
400
FLOOD PROFILES
410
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
410
57P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
CONFLUENCE WITH
MOHAWK RIVER
420
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
430
1% ANNUAL CHANCE BACKWATER
FROM MOHAWK RIVER
RAILROAD
430
400
390
390
380
380
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
G
F
6500
7000
H
7500
I
8000
8500
9000
J
9500
10000
K
10500
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
11000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
11500
58P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
400
HERKIMER COUNTIY, NY
410
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD PROFILES
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 1
DAM
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
410
420
410
410
400
400
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
390
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
N
L
11500
STREAM BED
M
12000
12500
13000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
13500
14000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE CONFLUENCE WITH MOHAWK RIVER
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 1
59P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
420
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
430
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD PROFILES
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
SHELLS BUSH ROAD
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
430
700
680
680
G
H
660
660
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
A
0
B
1000
2000
C
3000
4000
D
5000
E
6000
7000
F
8000
9000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
10000
11000
12000
13000
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
60P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
700
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
720
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD PROFILES
STATE ROUTE 28 (CREEK ROAD)
RAILROAD
STATE ROUTE 28
(NORTH MAIN STREET)
LIMIT OF
DETAILED STUDY
OLD STATE ROAD
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
720
700
O
P
680
680
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
I
13000
14000
J
15000
K
16000
17000
L
18000
19000
M
20000
21000
N
22000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
23000
24000
25000
26000
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
61P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
700
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
FLOOD PROFILES
720
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
720
720
700
700
680
680
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
Q
26000
R
27000
28000
S
29000
30000
T
31000
32000
U
33000
34000
35000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD
36000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
37000
38000
39000
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
62P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
720
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
740
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
FLOOD PROFILES
CREEK ROAD
STATE ROUTE 28
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
740
740
720
720
Z
AA
700
700
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
V
39000
W
40000
41000
42000
43000
X
44000
45000
46000
Y
47000
48000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
49000
50000
51000
52000
63P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
740
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
760
FLOOD PROFILES
760
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
780
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
DOVER ROAD
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
780
1060
1060
900
900
1040
880
880
1020
1020
860
860
1000
1000
840
840
980
980
820
820
960
960
800
800
940
940
1040
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
780
780
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
920
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AB
760
52000
53000
54000
760
55000
54000
AC
55000
56000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
57000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD
58000
59000
60000
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
920
64P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
920
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1080
FLOOD PROFILES
1080
TRENTON DAM
940
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
940
1140
1120
1120
1100
1100
1080
1080
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1060
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AD
1040
60000
61000
AF
AE
62000
63000
64000
AG
65000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
66000
67000
68000
69000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD
70000
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
1140
65P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
1160
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1160
FLOOD PROFILES
PROSPECT DAM
MILITARY ROAD
1180
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1180
1160
1160
1140
1140
HINCKLEY DAM
1120
1120
LEGEND
0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
10% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
STREAM BED
AH
70000
AI
71000
72000
73000
74000
75000
AJ
76000
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
77000
78000
STREAM DISTANCE IN FEET ABOVE LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY*
*LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET DOWNSTREAM OF OLD STATE ROAD
WEST CANADA CREEK REACH 3
1180
66P
(ALL JURISDICTIONS)
1180
HERKIMER COUNTY, NY
1200
LIMIT OF DETAILED STUDY
1200
FLOOD PROFILES
1220
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
1220
ELEVATION IN FEET (NAVD 88)
1240
HINCKLEY ROAD
1240