Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY NUMBER

36065CV001A

ONEIDA COUNTY, NEW YORK (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER COMMUNITY NAME COMMUNITY NUMBER

ANNSVILLE, TOWN OF 360516 ONEIDA CASTLE, VILLAGE OF 361526 AUGUSTA, TOWN OF 360517 ORISKANY, VILLAGE OF 360538 AVA, TOWN OF 360518 ORISKANY FALLS, VILLAGE OF 361354 BARNEVELD, VILLAGE OF 361569 PARIS, TOWN OF 360539

BOONVILLE, TOWN OF 360519 PROSPECT, VILLAGE OF 361356

BOONVILLE, VILLAGE OF 360520 REMSEN, TOWN OF 360540 BRIDGEWATER, TOWN OF 360521 REMSEN, VILLAGE OF 360541 BRIDGEWATER, VILLAGE OF 360522 ROME, CITY OF 360542 CAMDEN, TOWN OF 360523 SANGERFIELD, TOWN OF 360543 CAMDEN, VILLAGE OF 360993 SHERRILL, CITY OF 360544 CLAYVILLE, VILLAGE OF 360524 STEUBEN, TOWN OF 360555 CLINTON, VILLAGE OF 360525 SYLVAN BEACH, VILLAGE OF 361042 DEERFIELD, TOWN OF 360526 TRENTON, TOWN OF 360556 FLORENCE, TOWN OF 360527 UTICA, CITY OF 360558 FLOYD, TOWN OF 360528 VERNON, TOWN OF 360559 FORESTPORT, TOWN OF 360529 VERNON, VILLAGE OF 360560 HOLLAND PATENT, VILLAGE OF 360530 VERONA, TOWN OF 360561 KIRKLAND, TOWN OF 360531 VIENNA, TOWN OF 360562 LEE, TOWN OF 360532 WATERVILLE, VILLAGE OF 360563 MARCY, TOWN OF 360533 WESTERN, TOWN OF 360564 MARSHALL, TOWN OF 360534 WESTMORELAND, TOWN OF 360565 NEW HARTFORD, TOWN OF 360535 WHITESBORO, VILLAGE OF 360566 NEW HARTFORD, VILLAGE OF 360536 WHITESTOWN, TOWN OF 360567 NEW YORK MILLS, VILLAGE OF 360537 YORKVILLE, VILLAGE OF 360568

PRELIMINARY:

September 30, 2011

VOLUME 1 OF 4

Oneida County

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

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 1

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Purpose of Study 1

1.2 Authority and Acknowledgments 1

1.3 Coordination 10

2.0 AREA STUDIED 12

2.1 Scope of Study 12

2.2 Community Description 17

2.3 Principal Flood Problems 22

2.4 Flood Protection Measures 28

3.0 ENGINEERING METHODS 30

3.1 Hydrologic Analyses 30

3.2 Hydraulic Analyses 53

3.3 Vertical Datum 67

4.0 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT APPLICATIONS 68

4.1 Floodplain Boundaries 69

4.2 Floodways 69

5.0 INSURANCE APPLICATIONS 108

6.0 FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP 110

7.0 OTHER STUDIES 110

8.0 LOCATION OF DATA 116

9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES 116

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 1 – continued

Page FIGURES Figure 1 – Topographic Data Types for Oneida County, NY 9 Figure 2 - Floodway Schematic 108 TABLES Table 1 - Initial and Final CCO Meetings 10-11 Table 2 - Flooding Sources Studied by Detailed Methods 12 Table 3 - Scope of Revision 13 Table 4 - Model Dates for Riverine Flooding 13-15 Table 5 - Stream Name Changes 16 Table 6 - Letters of Map Change 16 Table 7 - Summary of Gaging Stations - Mohawk River 41 Table 8 - Summary of Discharges 43-52 Table 9 - Summary of Stillwater Elevations 53 Table 10 - Manning's "n" Values 65-66 Table 11 - Floodway Data 71-107 Table 12 - Community Map History 112-115

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 2

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles

Beaver Meadow Brook Panel 01P

Big Creek Panels 02P-17P

Canada Creek Panels 18P-24P

Cincinnati Creek Panels 25P-29P

Cobb Brook Panels 30P-32P

Deans Creek Panels 33P-40P

Diversion Channel Panel 41P

Dunn Brook Panels 42P-43P

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 2 – continued EXHIBITS - continued Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles (continued)

East Branch Fish Creek Panels 44P-50P

Fish Creek Panels 51P-56P

Furnace Creek Panels 57P-62P

Hall Brook Panels 63P-65P

Halstead Creek Panel 66P

Lansing Kill Panels 67P-70P

Lindsley Brook Panels 71P-73P

Mad River Panels 74P-77P

Mill Stream Panels 78P-81P

Mohawk River Reach 1 Panels 82P-93P

Mohawk River Reach 2 Panels 94P-98P

Mohawk River Reach 3 Panel 99P

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 3

EXHIBITS - continued Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles (continued)

Mud Creek Panels 100P-103P

Murray Brook Panels 104P-107P

Nail Creek Reach 1 Panel 108P

Nail Creek Reach 2 Panels 109P-114P

Ninemile Creek Panels 115P-123P

Oneida Creek Panels 124P-138P

Oriskany Creek Panels 139P-161P

Reall Creek Panels 162P-164P

Sash Factory Creek Panels 165P-168P

Sauquoit Creek Panels 169P-183P

Sconondoa Creek Panels 184P-197P

Sherman Brook Panel 198P

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 4 EXHIBITS - continued Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles (continued)

Sixmile Creek Panels 199P-202P

St. Marys Brook Panels 203P-204P

Starch Factory Creek Panels 205P-207P

Steuben Creek Panels 208P-211P

Sucker Brook Panels 212P-213P

Taylor Creek Panel 214P

Thompsons Creek Panels 215P-217P

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 1 Panels 218P-221P

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 2 Panels 222P-223P

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS – Volume 4 – continued EXHIBITS - continued Exhibit 1 - Flood Profiles (continued)

Tributary A to Oriskany Creek Panels 224P-225P

Tributary A-1 to Big Creek Panels 226P-227P

Tributary to Canada Creek Panels 228P-229P

Tributary to Delta Lake Panels 230P-233P

Tributary to Mud Creek Panels 234P-235P

Tributary to Sauquoit Creek Panels 236P-237P

Turkey Creek Panels 238P-240P

Watermans Brook Panels 241P-248P

Wells Creek – Big Brook Panels 249P-254P

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 Panels 255P-257P

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 Panels 258P-263P

West Branch Mohawk River Panels 264P-266P

West Branch Unadilla River Panel 267P

West Canada Creek Panels 268P-275P

White Creek Panels 276P-280P

Wood Creek Panels 281P-285P

Exhibit 2 - Flood Insurance Rate Map Index Flood Insurance Rate Map

FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY ONEIDA 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 Oneida County, New York, including: the Cities of Rome, Sherrill, and Utica; the Towns of Annsville, Augusta, Ava, Boonville, Bridgewater, Camden, Deerfield, Florence, Floyd, Forestport, Kirkland, Lee, Marcy, Marshall, New Hartford, Paris, Remsen, Sangerfield, Steuben, Trenton, Vernon, Verona, Vienna, Western, Westmoreland, and Whitestown; and the Villages of Barneveld, Boonville, Bridgewater, Camden, Clayville, Clinton, Holland Patent, New Hartford, New York Mills, Oneida Castle, Oriskany, Oriskany Falls, Prospect, Remsen, Sylvan Beach, Vernon, Waterville, Whitesboro, and Yorkville (hereinafter referred to collectively as Oneida County) and 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 Oneida 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 Oneida 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.

Annsville, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated April 5, 1988, were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., for the Federal Emergency Management Agency

2

(FEMA), under Contract No. EMW-C-1604. That work was completed in August 1986.

Bridgewater, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated October 15, 1981, were prepared by Staunton and Freeman, for FEMA, under Contract No. H-4742. That work was completed in February 1980.

Camden, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated September 7, 1998, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-95-C-4692. That work was completed in July 1996.

Camden, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated August 16, 1988, were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-C-1604. That work was completed in January 1987.

Clayville, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated January 5, 1983, were prepared by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-3945. That work was completed in May 1982.

Clinton, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated November 1, 1984, were prepared by Staunton & Freeman and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA, under Contract No. H-4742. That work was completed in January 1984.

Deerfield, 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.

Floyd, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated September 15, 1983, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4624. That work was completed in July 1981.

3

Holland Patent, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the FIS report dated May 21, 2001, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. 93-C-4145. That work was completed in May 1999.

Additional information was added in and around

the floodplains from data provided by Leonard Jackson Associates. Hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Ninemile Creek were taken from the FIS for the Town of Trenton, Oneida County, New York (FEMA, 1998).

Kirkland, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated October 3, 1984, were prepared by Staunton & Freeman and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4742. That work was completed in December 1983.

Lee, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated August 3, 1998, were prepared by Kozma Consulting Engineers, P.C., for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-94-C-4379. That work was completed in August 1995.

Marcy, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated December 1, 1983, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4624. That work was completed in July 1981.

Marshall, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated March 30, 1982, were prepared by Staunton & Freeman for FEMA under Contract No. H-4742. That work was completed in July 1980.

New Hartford, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated October 18, 1982, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-3945. That work was completed in March 1982.

New Hartford, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated January 5, 1983, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-3945. That work was completed in March 1982.

4

New York Mills, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

original FIS report dated November 16, 1982, and May 16, 1983, FIRM (hereinafter referred to as the 1983 FIS), were performed by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA, under Contract No. H-3945. That work was completed in March 1982.

For the May 4, 2000 revision, the hydrologic and

hydraulic analyses for Sauquoit Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in June 1997.

Oneida Castle, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated July 4, 1989, represent a revision of the original analyses prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4547. The work for the original study was completed in September 1982. The hydraulic analysis for Oneida Creek in the July 4, 1989, revision was prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis.

Oriskany, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated March 15, 1983, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4624. That work was completed in June 1982.

Oriskany Falls, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated July 19, 1982, were prepared by Staunton & Freeman for FEMA under Contract No. H-4742. That work was completed in July 1980.

Paris, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated March 15, 1983, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-3945. That work was completed in June 1982.

Prospect, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated November 20, 2000, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in October 1994.

5

Rome, City of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the original FIS report dated July 3, 1984, and the January 3, 1985, FIRM (hereinafter referred to as the 1985 FIS), were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4624. That work was completed in March 1983.

The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated September 21, 1998, for Wood Creek, were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in December 1996.

Sherrill, City of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated March 15, 1983, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-4547. That work was completed in September 1982.

Sylvan Beach, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analysis from the

FIS dated December 1, 1983 and the FIRM dated June 1, 1984, were prepared by the NYSDEC for FEMA under Contract No. H-4547 and Dewberry & Davis under separate agreement with FEMA. That work was completed in February 1982.

For the June 2, 1999 revision, the hydrologic and

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

Trenton, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated August 16, 1994, for West Canada Creek, Ninemile Creek, Cincinnati Creek, and Steuben Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-91-R-3373. That work was completed in May 1992.

For the January 3, 1997 revision, the 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.

6

For the September 7, 1998 revision, the

hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Cincinnati Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in October 1996.

Utica, City of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated August 1, 1983, were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis under Contract No. H-3945 for FEMA. That work was completed in March 1982.

Vernon, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated August 16, 1988, were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-C-1604. That work was completed in October 1986.

Vernon, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated April 15, 1988, were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-C-1604. That work was completed in October 1986.

Verona, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

original FIS report dated May 4, 1989, for Sconondoa Creek were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-C-1604. That work was completed in February 1987. The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Fish Creek and Wood Creek were performed by Lockwood, Kessler, and Bartlett, Inc., the NYSDEC, and Dewberry & Davis during the preparation of the September 1, 1983, FIS and the March 1, 1984, FIRM for the Town of Vienna and the January 3, 1985, FIS for the City of Rome (FEMA, 1984; FEMA, 1985). The hydrologic and hydraulic analyses for Oneida Creek were performed by the NYSDEC, Staunton & Chow (formerly Staunton & Freeman), and Dewberry & Davis during the preparation of the March 18, 1987, FIS for the Town of Lenox and the August 3, 1989, FIS for the City of Oneida (FEMA, 1987; FEMA, 1989).

7

For the October 20, 1999 revision, the hydraulic analyses for Fish Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in May 1997.

Vienna, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

original FIS report dated September 1, 1983, and FIRM dated March 1, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 1984 FIS), were prepared by Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract No. H-4741. That work was completed in August 1981.

For the Town of Vienna October 20, 1999

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

Waterville, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated February 2, 1982, were prepared by Staunton & Freeman for FEMA under Contract No. H-4742. That work was completed in July 1980.

Western, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated May 4, 1989, were prepared by Edwards and Kelcey Engineers, Inc., for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-C-1604. That work was completed on April 17, 1987.

Westmoreland, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

FIS report dated September 2, 1982, were prepared by Staunton & Freeman for FEMA under Contract No. H-4742. That work was completed in April 1980.

Whitesboro, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

original FIS report dated August 1977 and FIRM dated February 1, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the 1978 FIS), were prepared by Goodkind & O‟Dea, Inc., for the Federal Insurance Administration under Contract No. H-3831. That work was completed in December 1976.

For the May 4, 2000 revision, the hydrologic and

hydraulic analyses for Sauquoit Creek were

8

prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in June 1997.

Whitestown, Town of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

original FIS report dated March 15, 1983, and FIRM dated September 15, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 1983 FIS), were performed by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-3945. That work was completed in March 1982.

For the May 4, 2000 revision, the hydrologic and

hydraulic analyses for Sauquoit Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in June 1997.

Yorkville, Village of: the hydrologic and hydraulic analyses from the

original FIS report dated December 1, 1982, and FIRM dated June 1, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 1983 FIS), for the Mohawk River and Sauquoit Creek were prepared by the NYSDEC and Dewberry & Davis for FEMA under Contract No. H-3945. That work was completed in May 1982.

For the May 4, 2000 revision, the hydrologic and

hydraulic analyses for Sauquoit Creek were prepared by Leonard Jackson Associates for FEMA, under Contract No. EMW-93-C-4145. That work was completed in June 1997.

There are no previous FISs for the Towns of Augusta, Ava, Boonville, Florence,

Forestport, Remsen, Sangerfield, and Steuben, and the Villages of Barneveld, Boonville, and Remsen and there is no previous FIS or FIRM for the Town of Bridgewater; therefore, the previous authority and acknowledgment information for these communities is not included in this FIS.

For this countywide FIS, 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 Corporation was utilized and revised hydraulic analyses for the Mohawk River Reach 1 were developed using detailed methods under FEMA Contract HSFEHQ-09-D-0369, Task Order HSFE02-09-J0002. Original hydrologic analysis done by Michael Baker Corporation was incorporated in Task Order HSFE02-09-J0002. The engineering analyses were incorporated into the countywide DFIRM

9

performed for FEMA by Dewberry & Davis LLC under sub-contract to Leonard Jackson Associates. Work was completed in April 2011. 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. This work was performed for FEMA by Dewberry & Davis LLC under sub-contract to Leonard Jackson Associates. Two types of topographic data were utilized for the countywide analysis. The first type of data is LiDAR and the second type of data is Auto-correlation. 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. The auto-correlation product was developed by Dewberry & Davis LLC under sub-contract to Leonard Jackson Associates for areas within the county, not covered by the LiDAR. The coverage of the two different types of topographic data is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Topographic Data Types for Oneida County, NY

Base map information shown on this FIRM was derived from information provided by the New York Office of Cyber Security & Critical Infrastructure

10

Coordination. This information was produced as 30 centimeter and 60 centimeter resolution natural color orthoimagery from photography dated April 2004. The projection used for the production of this FIRM is New York State Plane FIPSZONE 3102. The horizontal datum was North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83), GRS80 spheroid. Corner coordinates shown on the FIRM are in latitude and longitude referenced to NAD83. Differences in the datum, spheroid, projection, or State Plane 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. The flood elevations in this FIS and FIRM are referenced, in feet, to the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD 88). Refer to section 3.3 for more information about the vertical datum and datum conversion.

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 Oneida

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

TABLE 1 – INITIAL AND FINAL CCO MEETINGS

Community Initial CCO Date Final CCO Date Annsville, Town of February 7, 1984 April 14, 1987 Augusta, Town of * * Ava, Town of * * Barneveld, Village of * * Boonville, Town of * * Boonville, Village of * * Bridgewater, Town of * * Bridgewater, Village of April 1978 May 27, 1981 Camden, Town of May 4, 1994 * Camden, Village of February 7, 1984 April 20, 1987 Clayville, Village of September 7, 1976 August 4, 1982 Clinton, Village of April 1978 May 16, 1984 Deerfield, Town of February 15, 1995

1 June 17, 1996

Florence, Town of * * Floyd, Town of March 2, 1978 April 20, 1983 1Notified by letter

*Data not available

11

TABLE 1 – INITIAL AND FINAL CCO MEETINGS - continued

Community Initial CCO Date Final CCO Date Forestport, Town of * * Holland Patent, Village of July 7, 1999

1 February 1, 2000

Kirkland, Town of April 1978 May 16, 1984 Lee, Town of March 17, 1993 December 5, 1996 Marcy, Town of March 2, 1978 April 20, 1983 Marshall, Town of April 1978 September 22, 1981 New Hartford, Town of September 7, 1976 May 25, 1982 New Hartford, Village of February 3, 1976 August 5, 1982 New York Mills, Village of September 7, 1976

* July 15, 1982 October 3, 1997

1

Oneida Castle, Village of July 13, 1977 October 20, 1982 Oriskany Falls, Village of April 1978 February 16, 1982 Oriskany, Village of March 2, 1978 October 28, 1982 Paris, Town of September 7, 1976 October 21, 1982 Prospect, Village of * February 15, 1995

1

Remsen, Town of * * Remsen, Village of * * Rome, City of March 2, 1978 October 18, 1983 Sangerfield, Town of * * Sherrill, City of July 11, 1977 October 20, 1982 Steuben, Town of * * Sylvan Beach, Village of July 13, 1977

October 14, 1997 April 19, 1983 *

Trenton, Town of February 15, 19951

August 4, 19971

* January 5, 1998

Utica, City of September 7, 1976 October 27, 1982 Vernon, Town of February 8, 1984 September 14, 1987 Vernon, Village of February 8, 1984 March 11, 1987 Verona, Town of February 8, 1984

* March 7, 1988 October 6, 1997

1

Vienna, Town of March 27, 1978 *

April 19, 1983 October 6, 1997

1

Waterville, Village of April 1978 September 22, 1981 Western, Town of February 6, 1984 June 14, 1988 Westmoreland, Town of April 1978 February 16, 1982 Whitesboro, Village of November 30, 1975

* February 24, 1977 October 3, 1997

1

Whitestown, Town of September 7, 1976 *

October 27, 1982 October 3, 1997

1

Yorkville, Village of September 7, 1976 *

July 15, 1982 October 3, 1997

1

1Notified by letter

*No data available

12

2.0 AREA STUDIED

2.1 Scope of Study This FIS covers the geographic area of Oneida 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 Meadow Brook

Big Creek

Canada Creek

Cincinnati Creek

Cobb Brook

Deans Creek

Diversion Channel

Dunn Brook

East Branch Fish Creek

Fish Creek

Furnace Creek

Hall Brook

Halstead Creek

Lansing Kill

Lindsley Brook

Mad River

Mill Stream

Mohawk River Reach 1

Mohawk River Reach 2

Mohawk River Reach 3

Mud Creek

Murray Brook

Nail Creek Reach 1

Nail Creek Reach 2

Ninemile Creek

Oneida Creek

Oneida Lake

Oriskany Creek

Reall Creek

Sash Factory Creek

Sauquoit Creek

Sconondoa Creek

Sherman Brook

Sixmile Creek

St. Marys Brook

Starch Factory Creek

Steuben Creek

Sucker Brook

Taylor Creek

Thompsons Creek

Tributary A to Big Creek

Reach 1

Tributary A to Big Creek

Reach 2

Tributary A to Oriskany

Creek

Tributary A-1 to Big Creek

Tributary to Canada Creek

Tributary to Delta Lake

Tributary to Mud Creek

Tributary to Sauquoit

Creek

Turkey Creek

Unnamed Tributary to Erie

Canal

Watermans Brook

Wells Creek – Big Brook

West Branch Fish Creek

Reach 1

West Branch Fish Creek

Reach 2

West Branch Mohawk

River

West Branch Unadilla

River

West Canada Creek

White Creek

Wood Creek

As part of this countywide FIS, updated analyses were performed for the flooding

sources shown in Table 3, “Scope of Revision.”

13

TABLE 3 – SCOPE OF REVISION Stream Limits of Revised or New Detailed Study

Mohawk River Reach 1 From Herkimer/Oneida county boundary to approximately 1.8 miles upstream of Barnes Avenue

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 4, “Model Dates for Riverine Flooding Sources” below represents the hydraulic modeling dates for the detailed study flooding sources in the county.

TABLE 4 – MODEL DATES FOR RIVERINE FLOODING

STREAM NAME COMMUNITY

MOST RECENT

MODEL DATE

Beaver Meadow Brook Town of Western April 1987

Big Creek Town of Marshall July 1980

Big Creek Village of Waterville July 1980

Canada Creek Town of Lee August 1995

Cincinnati Creek Town of Trenton October 1996

Cobb Brook Town of Camden July 1996

Deans Creek Town of Westmoreland April 1980

Deans Creek Town of Whitestown March 1982

Diversion Channel Village of Holland Patent May 1999

Dunn Brook Town of Western April 1987

East Branch Fish Creek Town of Annsville August 1986

Fish Creek Town of Annsville August 1986

Fish Creek City of Rome March 1983

Fish Creek Village of Sylvan Beach May 1997

Fish Creek Town of Verona May 1997

Fish Creek Town of Vienna May 1997

Furnace Creek Town of Annsville August 1986

Hall Brook Town of Vienna August 1981

Halstead Creek Town of Vienna August 1981

Lansing Kill Town of Western April 1987

Lindsley Brook Town of Marshall July 1980

Lindsley Brook Village of Oriskany Falls July 1980

Mad River Town of Camden July 1996

Mad River Village of Camden January 1987

Mill Stream Town of Vienna August 1981

14

TABLE 4 – MODEL DATES FOR RIVERINE FLOODING - continued

STREAM NAME COMMUNITY

MOST RECENT

MODEL DATE

Mohawk River Reach 1 Town of Floyd July 1981

Mohawk River Reach 1 Town of Marcy July 1981

Mohawk River Reach 1 Village of Oriskany June 1982

Mohawk River Reach 1 City of Rome March 1983

Mohawk River Reach 1 City of Utica April 2011

Mohawk River Reach 1 Town of Whitesboro December 1976

Mohawk River Reach 1 Town of Whitestown March 1982

Mohawk River Reach 1 Village of Yorkville May 1982

Mohawk River Reach 2 Town of Western April 1987

Mohawk River Reach 3 Town of Lee August 1995

Mud Creek Town of New Hartford March 1982

Mud Creek Village of New York Mills March 1982

Mud Creek Town of Whitestown March 1982

Murray Brook Town of Vienna August 1981

Nail Creek Reach 1 City of Utica March 1982

Nail Creek Reach 2 City of Utica March 1982

Ninemile Creek Village of Holland Patent May 1992

Ninemile Creek Town of Marcy July 1981

Ninemile Creek Town of Trenton May 1992

Oneida Creek Village of Onedia Castle July 1989

Oneida Creek City of Sherrill September 1982

Oneida Creek Town of Verona February 1987

Oriskany Creek Village of Clinton January 1984

Oriskany Creek Town of Kirkland December 1983

Oriskany Creek Town of Marshall July 1980

Oriskany Creek Village of Oriskany June 1982

Oriskany Creek Village of Oriskany Falls June 1982

Oriskany Creek Town of Westmoreland April 1980

Oriskany Creek Town of Whitestown March 1982

Reall Creek City of Utica March 1982

Sash Factory Creek Town of Lee August 1995

Sauquoit Creek Village of Clayville May 1982

Sauquoit Creek Town of New Hartford March 1982

Sauquoit Creek Village of New Hartford March 1982

Sauquoit Creek Village of New York Mills June 1997

Sauquoit Creek Town of Paris June 1982

Sauquoit Creek City of Utica March 1982

Sauquoit Creek Town of Whitesboro June 1997

Sauquoit Creek Town of Whitestown June 1997

Sauquoit Creek Village of Yorkville June 1997

15

TABLE 4 – MODEL DATES FOR RIVERINE FLOODING - continued

STREAM NAME COMMUNITY

MOST RECENT

MODEL DATE

Sconondoa Creek Town of Vernon October 1986

Sconondoa Creek Village of Vernon October 1986

Sconondoa Creek Town of Verona February 1987

Sherman Brook Village of Clinton January 1984

Sixmile Creek Town of Floyd July 1981

St. Marys Brook Town of Kirkland December 1983

Starch Factory Creek City of Utica March 1982

Steuben Creek Town of Trenton May 1992

Sucker Brook Town of Westmoreland April 1980

Taylor Creek City of Sherrill March 2008

Thompsons Creek Village of Holland Patent May 1999

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 1 Village of Waterville July 1980

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 2 Town of Marshall July 1980

Tributary A to Oriskany Creek Town of Westmoreland April 1980

Tributary A-1 to Big Creek Reach 1 Town of Marshall July 1980

Tributary to Canada Creek Town of Lee August 1995

Tributary to Delta Lake Town of Lee August 1995

Tributary to Mud Creek Town of New Hartford March 1982

Tributary to Sauquoit Creek Town of New Hartford March 1982

Turkey Creek Town of Kirkland December 1983

Watermans Brook Town of Marshall July 1980

Wells Creek-Big Brook Town of Western April 1987

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 Town of Annsville August 1986

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 Town of Vienna August 1981

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 Town of Camden July 1996

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 Village of Camden January 1987

West Branch Mohawk River Town of Lee August 1995

West Branch Unadilla River Village of Bridgewater February 1980

West Canada Creek Town of Deerfield October 1994

West Canada Creek Village of Prospect October 1994

West Canada Creek Town of Trenton October 1994

White Creek Town of Kirkland December 1983

Wood Creek City of Rome December 1996

Table 5, “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.

16

TABLE 5 – STREAM NAME CHANGES

Community Old Name New Name Town of Floyd Town of Marcy Village of Oriskany City of Rome Village of Whitesboro Town of Whitestown City of Utica Village of Yorkville

Mohawk River Mohawk River Reach 1

Town of Western Mohawk River Mohawk River Reach 2

Town of Lee Town of Western

Mohawk River Mohawk River Reach 3

City of Utica Nail Creek Nail Creek Reach 1

City of Utica Nail Creek Nail Creek Reach 2

Town of Sangerfield Village of Waterville

Tributary A to Big Creek Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 1

Town of Marshall Tributary A to Big Creek Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 2

Town of Annsville Town of Vienna

West Branch Fish Creek West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1

Town of Camden Village of Camden

West Branch Fish Creek West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2

This FIS also incorporates the determinations of letters issued by FEMA resulting in map changes (Letter of Map Revision [LOMR], Letter of Map Revision - based on Fill [LOMR-F], and Letter of Map Amendment [LOMA], as shown in Table 6 “Letters of Map Change.”

TABLE 6 – LETTERS OF MAP CHANGE

Community Flooding Source(s)/Project Identifier Effective Date Type City of Sherrill Taylor Creek December 3, 2010 LOMR

City of Utica Unnamed Tributary to the Erie Canal between North-South Arterial Thruway and Locust Drive

November 7, 2001 LOMR

17

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, or where resources were unavailable to conduct more refined and detailed analyses.

The scope and methods of study were proposed to, and agreed upon by, FEMA and

Oneida County. As part of the scoping process at the initial CCO meeting, input from the communities within Oneida County were solicited to help determine areas needed to be restudied.

2.2 Community Description

Oneida County is located in central New York. It is bordered on the north by Lewis County, on the east by Herkimer County, on the south by Madison County, and to the west by Oswego County. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, the population for Oneida County was 235,469 and according to 2010 census data the population is 234,878 and the land area was 1,212.70 square miles. Oneida County is situated in the Mohawk Valley subdivision of the Hudson-Mohawk lowland region of central New York. The area is located mostly on an ancient plateau shaped by glacial activity (J. H. Thompson, 1966). Soils near the Mohawk River are of the Hamlin-Teel and Chenango-Tioga classifications, characterized by a sandy or gravelly substrata. These soils are dominantly well and moderately well drained. Other portions are dominated by medium and moderately coarse textured, frigid soils with fragipans or compact substrata. The most notable classification of this type is the Camroden-Marcy type which is characterized by poorly drained soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, undated). The climate of the county is characteristic of central New York, having warm summers and cold winters with moderate to heavy rainfall. The mean daily temperature ranges from 21 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in January to 69F in July. The average annual precipitation is 40 inches, of which 19 inches become runoff (R. A. Mordoff, 1959). Sauquoit Creek and Mud Creek originate in Oneida County and drain northward through the Village of New York Mills. Mud Creek has its confluence with Sauquoit Creek downstream of the village, while Sauquoit Creek has its confluence with the Mohawk River west of the City of Utica. The east side of the Sauquoit Creek valley is on the west slope of a local high point known as Burrstone Hill (J. H. Thompson, 1966). East Branch Fish Creek, which flows southwest through the Town of Annsville originates in the Town of Martinsburg, approximately 20 miles north of the town. Its drainage area encompasses 189.7 square miles at the downstream corporate limits of the Town of Annsville where it joins Fish Creek to form the southern corporate limits with the Town of Vienna. Upstream of the vicinity of the

18

extension of Slater Road, East Branch Fish Creek forms the eastern corporate limits of the Town of Annsville with the Towns of Lee and Ava. Much of the stream from downstream of State Route 69 to upstream of Palmer Road has rapid flow velocities. Furnace Creek, which flows southeast through the Town of Annsville, originates in the Town of Florence, approximately 3 miles west of the town. Furnace Creek has a total drainage area of 15.3 square miles at its confluence with East Branch Fish Creek immediately upstream of the Main Street bridge in the Town of Annsville. The West Branch Unadilla River, with a drainage area of 20 square miles, is a tributary to the Tioughnioga River. The stream originates in the Town of Bridgewater, just north of the village, and flows south forming the eastern corporate limits of the Village of Bridgewater. West Branch Fish Creek flows in a southeasterly direction and the Mad River flows to the south in the Town of Camden. West Branch Fish Creek, which flows southeast through the Village of Camden originates in the Town of Williamstown, approximately 13 miles northwest of the village. Its drainage area encompasses 119 square miles at the downstream corporate limits. The Mad River, which flows south through the Village of Camden, originates in the Town of Redfield, approximately 12 miles northwest of the village. The Mad River has a total drainage areas of 48 square miles at its confluence with West Branch Fish Creek in the vicinity of the sewage treatment plant in the Village of Camden. Sauquoit Creek begins in the Town of Paris approximately 3 miles west of the Village of Clayville. It flows southeast through the town to the hamlet of Cassville where it turns north to run through Clayville and eventually meet the Mohawk River west of Utica. Sauquoit Creek enters Clayville at the southern boundary and flows north through the center of the village. The floodplain along Sauquoit Creek within Clayville is rural, with some of the land occupied by residential and commercial structures. Sherman Brook originates approximately 2 miles southeast of the Village of Clinton and flows into St. Mary‟s Brook approximately 0.5 mile north of the village. Sherman Brook has a drainage area of 3.8 square miles at the northern corporate limits of the Village of Clinton. In the Town of Floyd, soils near the Mohawk River are of the Hamlin-Teel and Chenango-Tioga classifications, characterized by a sandy or gravelly substrata. These soils are dominantly well and moderately well drained. Other portions are dominated by medium and moderately coarse textured, frigid soils with fragipans or compact substrata. The most notable classification of this type is the Camroden-Marcy type which is characterized by poorly drained soils (U.S. Department of Agriculture, undated).

19

The Mohawk River Reach 1, which flows out of Delta Reservoir to the Hudson River, is the main drainage course in the Town of Floyd. It serves as the entire southern boundary as it meanders from west to east. Sixmile Creek is a tributary of the New York State Barge Canal, and its drainage area covers the southwestern portion of the town. Most of the southeastern portion of the town is drained by Ninemile Creek, a tributary of the Mohawk River. Oriskany Creek, which flows north through the Town of Kirkland, is a tributary of the Mohawk River and has a drainage area of 905 square miles. Where they join Oriskany Creek, St. Mary‟s Brook, White Creek, and Turkey Creek have drainage areas of 6.5, 6.2, and 5.6 square miles, respectively. The Mohawk River Reach 3 flows easterly through the Town of Lee, from its source at the confluence of the East and West Branches Mohawk River for a distance of approximately 0.2 mile to its point of exit into the adjacent Town of Western. Its drainage area is approximately 34.9 square miles at its point of exit from the town. The West Branch Mohawk River flows easterly from the confluence of Egger and Lyman Brooks in the northwest corner of the Town of Lee to its confluence with the Mohawk River Reach 3. Its drainage area is approximately 18.9 square miles at its mouth. Canada Creek, a tributary of Wood Creek in the neighboring City of Rome to the south, flows southerly through the western portion of Lee. Its drainage area near Point Rock Road is approximately 3.8 square miles, which is approximately 5.7 miles upstream from the corporate limits with the City of Rome, where its drainage area is approximately 16.8 square miles. The southerly flowing Tributary to Canada Creek, just east of the hamlet of Lee Center has a drainage area of approximately 2.3 square miles at its confluence with Canada Creek. Sash Factory Creek, a tributary of Fish Creek, also flows southerly through the southwest corner of the Town of Lee and exits to the City of Rome to the south. At its point of exit its drainage area is approximately 4.7 square miles, whereas approximately 1.9 miles upstream, at Kiwanis Road, the drainage area is only approximately 3.9 square miles. The Tributary to Delta Lake, with its mouth near the center of the hamlet of Lake Delta, has a drainage area of about 2.2 square miles at its mouth. Approximately 1.35 miles upstream of County Route 53, its drainage area is approximately 1.3 square miles. The Mohawk River Reach 1, which flows out of Delta Reservoir to the Hudson River, is the mina drainage course in the Town of Marcy. It serves as the entire southern boundary as it meanders from west to east. Ninemile Creek is a tributary

20

of the Mohawk River Reach 1 and its drainage area covers the southwestern portion of the Town of Marcy. Oriskany Creek, which flows north through the Town of Marshall, is a tributary to the Mohawk River Reach 1 and has a drainage area of approximately 59 square miles at the downstream corporate limits of Marshall. Big Creek is a tributary to Oriskany Creek and has a drainage area of approximately 18.6 square miles at the downstream corporate limits of the Town of Marshall. Sauquoit and Mud Creeks originate in Oneida County and drain northward through the Town of New Hartford and the Village of New Hartford to their confluence with the Mohawk River Reach 1, west of the City of Utica. The Mohawk River Reach 1 rises to the north of the City of Rome, New York, approximately 30 miles from Utica. At Rome, the river becomes part of the barge canal. The Mohawk River Reach 1 and the New York State Barge Canal share the same valley between Rome and the City of Cohoes where both flow into the Hudson River. The Hudson River flows to the Atlantic Ocean at New York City. Oneida Creek is the main drainage course in the Village of Oneida Castle. The creek meanders along the southern and western boundaries of the village as it flows north into Oneida Lake, which empties into Lake Ontario. Oriskany Creek is the largest stream flowing through the Village of Oriskany. It has a drainage area of 146 square miles at its confluence with the Mohawk River Reach 1 (USACE, 1975). Oriskany Creek flows northeast through the Village of Oriskany Falls with a drainage area of 29.60 square miles. The Sauquoit Creek valley cuts across the southern part of the Town of Paris in a west-east direction, then turns north and runs through the east-central portion of the town to its exit at the northern corporate limits. Sauquoit Creek, the major drainage course within the town, originates in Paris and flows southeast before turning north near the southern corporate limits. The creek then proceeds north to the northern corporate limits. The floodplain along Sauquoit Creek in Paris is rural and suburban with much of the land occupied by farms. Several small tributaries of Sauquoit Creek drain the eastern portion of the Town of Paris. The Mohawk River Reach 1, which is a tributary of the Hudson River, is the major watercourse in the City of Rome. It flows south out of the Delta Reservoir in the northeastern portion of the city and eventually turns east to form a portion of the corporate limits. Fish Creek and Wood Creek flow into Oneida Lake. Oneida Creek has its headwaters south of the City of Sherrill in Madison County. The creek flows north into Oneida Lake which empties into Lake Ontario. The headwaters of Fish Creek are to the north in the Tug Hill Plateau area. The creek flows south into Oneida Lake which empties into Lake Ontario.

21

The Mohawk River Reach 1 rises to the north of the City of Rome, approximately 30 miles from the City of Utica. Reall Creek and four small tributaries drain the slope of the northern part of the city to the Mohawk River Reach 1. Sauquoit Creek flows along the southwestern extremity of the City of Utica. Nail Creek drains the west-central portion of the city (it is buried underground in a sewer for much of its length), and Starch Factory Creek provides drainage to the east end of Utica. All of these streams discharge to the Mohawk River Reach 1. Sconondoa Creek originates in the Town of Augusta and flows north through the town. It continues to flow in a northwest through the Town of Vernon, Village of Vernon and City of Sherrill. Its drainage area encompasses 40.4 square miles at the confluence with Oneida Creek. Its drainage area encompasses 38.2 square miles at the downstream corporate limits of the Town of Vernon and 34.1 square miles at the downstream corporate limits of the Village of Vernon. Oneida Lake has a surface area of approximately 80 square miles and is located at the western corporate limits of the town. The shoreline of the lake extends approximately 1.9 miles within the Town of Verona. As the largest lake in the Oswego River basin, Oneida Lake has a drainage area of approximately 1,382 square miles. The lake is approximately 21 miles long and from 2 to 5 miles wide. The banks of the lake are low and flat with large areas of swamp on either side. The New York State Barge Canal traversed Oneida Lake and its water levels are regulated by a dam at Caughdenoy (USACE, August 1973). The lake serves as a source of water and a recreational area for the Verona and surrounding residents of communities. Approximately 8.1 miles of the New York State Barge Canal pass through the northern portion of the Town of Verona. Immediately north of the canal is Wood Creek, which flows into the canal at the northwest corner of the Town of Verona. Wood Creek has a drainage area of 2.7 square miles. Stony Creek originates in the Village of Vernon, which is approximately 1 mile southeast of Verona, and flows northeast through the town. Stony Creek has a total drainage area of 18.2 square miles at its confluence with the New York State Barge Canal near the northeastern corporate limits of the Town of Verona. Deans Creek, which flows northeast through the Town of Vernon, originates in the Town of Augusta. It has a total drainage area of 9.3 square miles at the downstream corporate limits of the Town of Vernon. Approximately 1,000 feet of the New York State Barge Canal passes through the southern portion of the Town of Vienna. Immediately north of the canal, Wood Creek Tributaries 1 and 2 flow southwest to join Wood Creek, which flows into the New York State Barge Canal. Wood Creek has a drainage area of 2.7 square miles. Further north, Fish Creek flows along the eastern corporate limits of the town and then flows southwest to the New York State Barge Canal. Fish Creek has a drainage area of 412.5 square miles at its mouth, 410.4 square miles at its

22

confluence with Mill Stream, and 397.7 square miles at its confluence with Sash Factory Creek at the Vienna-Annsville corporate limits. West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 forms a portion of the northern corporate limits of the town, flowing east to its confluence with Fish Creek. West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 has a drainage area of 195.4 square miles at its confluence with Cold Brook. Mill Stream flows south from near Pine Road to its confluence with Fish Creek and has a drainage area of 1.7 square miles at that point. Halstead Creek, located in northern Vienna, flows north to its confluence with West Branch Fish Creek, where it has a drainage area of 1.5 square miles. In southwestern Vienna, Hall Brook and Murray Brook flow south into Oneida Lake, draining 5.8 and 4.7 square miles, respectively. Yeager Creek, Pine Creek and their tributaries are located in eastern Vienna and flow south to their confluences with Fish Creek. West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 Tributaries 1 through 5 flow north to join West Fish Creek along the northern corporate limits of Vienna. Faulkner Creek, Starkwater Creek, and Fields Brook flow northeast to their confluences with the Little River. Little River South Branch Tributaries 1 through 4, Brockway Brook, Gorton Brook and its tributary flow north to their confluences with Little River South Branch, Little River South Branch flows into the Little River. In the southwestern portion of the town, Cold Spring Brook and its tributary flow south, through the Village of Cleveland, into the Oneida Lake. Godfrey Creek and its tributary, Cemetery Brook and its tributary, Swampy Creek and Eckel Pond Creek also flow south into Oneida Lake. Big Creek flows northerly through the Village of Waterville and is joined by Tributaries A Reach 1 and A-1 to Big Creek flowing from the east. At the northern corporate limits of the village, Big Creek has a drainage area of 10 square miles. Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 1 has a drainage area of 5.43 square miles at its confluence with Big Creek. Tributary A-1 to Big Creek has a drainage area of 3.5 square miles at its confluence with Tributary A Reach 1. Oriskany Creek, flowing south through the Town of Westmoreland, is a tributary to the Mohawk River Reach 1 with a drainage area of 103 square miles. Deans Creek and Sucker Brook flow into Oriskany Creek.

2.3 Principal Flood Problems

The history of flooding in Oneida County indicates that flooding can occur during any season of the year. The heaviest precipitation occurs in December, January, June, and July. However, most major floods have occurred in March, April, and May and are usually the result of spring rains and snowmelt. Storms resulting in floods in the early summer months are often associated with tropical storms moving north along the Atlantic coast. During the winter, flooding has been a threat when ice jams impede the free flow of floodwaters.

The history of flooding in the Town of Annsville indicates that flooding may occur during any season of the year. A number of major floods have occurred during the century, including a flood on June 22, 1972, which impacted the Oswego River basin and caused extensive damage to residential and commercial

23

areas of the town (Rome Daily Sentinel, 1972). The peak discharge at USGS gaging station No. 04242500 on East Branch Fish Creek at Taberg was 14,500 cubic feet per second (cfs), with an estimated return period of 33 years. Damages during this flood in the East Branch Fish Creek area included partial inundation of Main Street, the Trailer Park, Water Street, and the farm adjacent to the Trailer Park at the east side of Water Street. Flood damages in the Furnace Creek area were concentrated to the Main Street area.

Another severe flood occurred in the town on December 31, 1984. The peak discharge at USGS gaging station No. 04242500 was 21,600 cfs, with an estimated return period of 175 years. Flood damages from this flood included partial inundation of Main, Water, and Church Streets. Portions of the abutments around Palmer Road bridge were washed out (Rome Daily Sentinel, 1984). Based on the USGS gage record the other major events include the floods in April 1993 and April 2009. The discharges recorded for these events are 11,100 cfs and 10,900 cfs respectively . There are no recorded, damaging floods on the West Branch Unadilla River in the Village of Bridgewater. However, there is some basement flooding in the area adjacent to State Route 8 which causes minimal damage. In the Village of Camden, a number of major floods have occurred during the century, including a flood on June 22, 1972, which impacted the Oswego River basin and caused extensive damage to residential and commercial areas of the village (Rome Daily Sentinel, 1972). The peak discharge at USGS gaging station No. 04252500 on East Branch Fish Creek at Taberg was 12,800 cfs with an estimated return period of 33 years. The same flood discharge was recorded for floods that occurred in April 1982 and December 1984. Based on the USGS gage records, in recent past major floods also occurred in April 1993, January 1998 and June 2006. The discharge corresponding to these events are 10,300 cfs, 12,100 cfs and 11,600 cfs respectively. Flood damage in the West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 area includes partial inundation of Railroad and Mexico Streets near the Camden Wire Company, the Treatment Plant Access Road, and the Forest Park Pedestrian Bridge. Flood damage in the Mad River includes partial inundation of River and Wolcott Hill Roads, and Camden Central High. In the Village of Clayville, the greatest known flood on Sauquoit Creek occurred in March 1936, although the flood frequency was not determined (USACE, 1974). Intense rains fell on a heavy cover of snow and ice, and the creek overflowed its banks in several areas. In June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes caused high water levels on Sauquoit Creek, which resulted in some erosion of the creek banks. In the Town of Deerfield, the greatest flood of record on West Canada Creek occurred in October 1945 when the Hinckley Reservoir rose to an elevation of 1,130.2 feet, 5.2 feet above the spillway of Hinckley Dam.

24

The Mohawk River Reach 1 is the major source of flooding in the Town of Floyd. Heavy rainfall, especially occurring in the spring, combined with snowmelt, frequently causes high water and local flooding. More recently, floods in 1996, 1998 and 2006, have caused extensive damage in the Mohawk Basin. During January 18-20th, 1996, heavy rains combined with rapid snowmelt caused severe flooding in New York State with damages exceeding 200 million dollars. 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 zones. In the Village of Holland Patent, before the construction of the flood control Diversion Channel, there was frequent flooding in the Village of Holland Patent from Thompson‟s Creek. Since its construction, there have been no unobstructed flooding events. The principal flood problem in the Town of Kirkland is along Oriskany Creek in the hamlet of Kirkland. Flooding in this area is due to insufficient channel capacity. The greatest known flood on Oriskany Creek occurred in March 1936. No recurrence interval has been established for the flood. In the Town of Marcy, the Mohawk River Reach 1 is the major source of flooding, especially in the spring due to heavy rainfall and snowmelt. Major floods in the Town of New Hartford and the Villages of New Hartford and New York Mills occur most frequently in the spring or during the winter as a result of snowmelt combined with heavy rainfall. Severe flooding occurred in March 1936 as a result of rainfall and snowmelt, and in October 1945 as a result of intense rainfall. Although flow on Sauquoit Creek usually remains within the channel banks, the risk of flooding on the downstream portions of the stream is increased due to the deposition of eroded material from upstream, which reduces the hydraulic capacity of the channel. In the Town of New Hartford, most of the development is along the downstream portions of Sauquoit Creek. In the Village of New Hartford, although the flow on Sauquoit Creek usually remains within the channel banks, the risk of flooding on the downstream portions of the stream is increased due to the deposition of eroded material from upstream which reduces the hydraulic capacity of the channel. The principal flooding source in the Village of Oneida Castle is Oneida Creek which has its headwaters south of Oneida Castle in Madison County. Flooding along the creek has been a recurrent problem, mainly occurring during the first eight months of the year. There is very little storage capacity in the basin, and the lower portion of the creek is relatively flat. Many of the bridges that span Oneida Creek are obstructive to the flow.

25

Major reported flooding and damage to property occurred in 1891, 1922, 1936, 1950, 1959, 1972, 1976 and 1996. USGS records of flood flows and flood crest elevations are available at the stream gaging station (No. 04243500, period of record 1951-2010) on Oneida Creek at the City of Oneida. Based on the gage record, some minor flooding events occurred in January 1999, May 2000, June 2006 and March 2007. The discharges corresponding these events are 5,260 cds, 4,730 cfs, 4,840 cfs and 4,490 cfs respectively. The flood of June 1922 was reported to be more severe than the 1891 flood with damage to crops, buildings, highways, and bridges from the Village of Munnsville to Oneida Lake (USACE, 1973). The flood of June 22, 1972, caused extensive damage throughout the basin. The area around State Route 5 in Oneida Castle was inundated by Oneida Creek. The gage at the City of Oneida recorded a discharge of 9,260 cfs which is approximately a 2-percent annual chance flood (USACE, August 1973). In the Village of Oriskany, the largest flood of record on Oriskany Creek was in March 1936, when intense rain fell on a heavy cover of snow and ice (USACE, 1975). The greatest known flood on the Mohawk River Reach 1 occurred in October 1945. After a week of more or less continuous moderate rainfall, 3 to 5 inches of rain fell, creating flooding problems for most of the Mohawk Valley (USACE, 1975). In the Town of Paris, although the flood-flow frequency was not determined, the greatest flood known to have occurred on Sauquoit Creek was the March 1936 flood (USACE, 1975). Intense rains fell on a heavy cover of snow and ice, and Sauquoit Creek overflowed its banks in several areas. In June 1972, Tropical Storm Agnes brought high-water levels to Sauquoit Creek which resulted in some erosion of creek banks. In the Village of Prospect, the greatest flood of record on West Canada Creek occurred in October 1945 when the Hinckley Reservoir rose to an elevation of 1,130.2 feet, 5.2 feet above the spillway of Hinckley Dam. In the City of Rome, the principal flooding sources are the Mohawk River, Fish Creek, and Wood Creek. The Mohawk River and Wood Creek both have had overbank flooding in the developed area of the city. Along the canal system, the Mohawk River floods across the valley. Flooding from Fish Creek occurs in a rural area of the city. The principal flooding source in the City of Sherrill is Oneida Creek. Flooding along the creek has been a recurrent problem, mainly occurring in the first eight months of the year. There is very little storage capacity in the basin, and the lower portion of the creek is relatively flat. Many of the bridges which span Oneida Creek are obstructive to the flow.

26

Major reported flooding and damage to property within the City of Sherrill occurred in 1891, 1922, 1936, 1950, 1959, and 1972. Records of flood flows and flood crest elevations are available at the USGS stream gaging station (No. 04243500, period of record 1950-1981) on Oneida Creek at the City of Oneida. Based on the gage record, some minor flooding events occurred in January 1999, May 2000, June 2006 and March 2007. The discharges corresponding these events are 5,260 cds, 4,730 cfs, 4,840 cfs and 4,490 cfs respectively. The flood of June 1922 was reported to be more severe than the 1891 flood, with damage to crops, buildings, highways, and bridges from Munnsville to Oneida Lake (USACE, 1973). The flood of June 22, 1974, caused extensive damage throughout the basin. Flooded sewers were the main problem in Sherrill, and several locations had to be pumped. The June 1974 flood had a discharge of 9,260 cfs, approximately a 2-percent annual chance recurrence interval (USACE, August 1973). In the Village of Sylvan Beach, the principal sources of flooding are Oneida Lake and Fish Creek. The highest flood level on Oneida Lake was 11.84 feet, during the 1972 flood caused by Tropical Storm Agnes. Record flooding on Fish Creek occurred during the same storm as determined at the East Branch gage at Taberg (USACE, August 1973). Scattered flooding occurred throughout the village during the 1972 storm, mainly in the vicinity of Fish Creek Oxbows and the marshy areas of the village. Recorded damaging floods on the Mohawk River Reach 1 and Sauquoit Creek in the area of the City of Utica date back to the early 1900s. Floods causing significant damage occurred in 1910, 1913, 1914, 1936, 1950, 1951, 1960, 1964, 1972, 1996, 1998 and 2006. Many of these floods occurred in the spring as a result of snowmelt combined with rainfall. The devastating flood of March 1936 was caused by 4.6 inches of rainfall on a heavy snow cover, causing a snowmelt equivalent to approximately 3 inches of water. The October 1945 flood was caused by intense rainfall of 4.2 inches in a 24-hour period and locally is considered the greatest flood of record. Using a peak flow computed for the Mohawk River Reach 1 at Leland Avenue in Utica, the flood had a recurrence interval of approximately 70 years (USACE, 1981). Ice jams at bridges have also caused localized flooding on Sauquoit Creek (USACE, 1981). More recently, floods in 1996, 1998 and 2006, have caused extensive damage in the Mohawk Basin. During January 18-20th, 1996, heavy rains combined with rapid snowmelt caused severe flooding in New York State with damages exceeding 200 million dollars. 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 zones. In the Town of Vernon and the Village of Vernon, flooding along the Sconondoa Creek has been a recurrent problem. There is very little retention capacity in the basin, and the creek is subject to flash floods and ice jamming. On June 22, 1972,

27

a major flood occurred, which caused extensive damage to residential and commercial areas of the Oswego River basin (Rome Daily Sentinel, 1972). The flood causing the most damage in the Town of Vienna occurred in June 1972 as a result of Tropical Storm Agnes, which passed through the Oswego River basin between June 21 and 22. During this period, many areas in the Oswego River basin received record amounts of rainfall. Peak stages from the flood were measured at 374.2 feet at Cleveland, New York, and 373.8 feet at Brewerton, New York. These flood levels are 5.2 and 4.8 feet higher, respectively, than the normal pool elevation of 369 feet for Oneida Lake (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1970). The shoreline of Fish Creek and Fish Creek Landing experienced the most severe damage from the flood. The flood of June 1972 had an approximate recurrence interval of 0.2-percent annual chance (USACE, August 1973). In May 1972, one month before Tropical Storm Agnes caused flooding in the area, flooding due to spring runoff occurred along the lake shoreline. The highest flood elevation recorded for Oneida Lake between 1925 and 1972 was 374.9 feet in 1936. This flood was 0.7 foot higher than that during Tropical Storm Agnes, but the damage was not as severe due to limited development at that time. Town of Vienna officials have reported that flooding has occurred along Fish Creek near the canal due to ice jams. Flooding is also occasionally experienced near Mill Stream. Recorded damaging floods on the Mohawk River Reach 1 in the area of the Village of Whitesboro dated back to the early 1900s. Floods causing significant damage have occurred in 1910, 1913, 1914, 1936, 1945, 1950, 1951, 1960, 1964, 1972, 1996, 1998 and 2006. Many of these floods occurred in the spring of the year as a result of snowmelt combined with rainfall. For instance, the devastating flood of March 1936 was caused by a moderate rainfall of 4.6 inches on a heavy snow cover, causing a snowmelt equivalent to approximately 3.0 inches of water. However, the October 1945 severe flood was caused by an intense rainfall of 4.2 inches in a 24-hour period, and the 1972 flood was caused by the tropical storm “Agnes” which dropped up to 8 inches of rainfall as it passed over the drainage area (USACE, 1975). More recently, floods in 1996, 1998 and 2006, have caused extensive damage in the Mohawk Basin. During January 18-20th, 1996, heavy rains combined with rapid snowmelt caused severe flooding in New York State with damages exceeding 200 million dollars. 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 zones. The flood problem in the Village of Whitesboro can be considered twofold. The area along the banks of Sauquoit Creek from the railroad upstream to the Whitesboro Street bridge is subject to fluvial flooding from both Sauquoit Creek and the Mohawk River Reach 1. The drainage area for Sauquoit Creek is 62 square miles and 440 square miles for the Mohawk River

28

Reach 1. As a result of this large difference in drainage areas, flooding along Sauquoit Creek can occur for high-intensity rainfalls of relatively short duration with little effect on the Mohawk River Reach 1; whereas a longer duration storm of less intensity can result in flooding of the Mohawk River Reach 1 with the backwater creating flooding on the Sauquoit Creek. This situation results in damages which can be considered as separate events. The damaged area from Whitesboro Street upstream to State Route 69 is subject to flooding from Sauquoit Creek alone. Flooding from both the Mohawk River Reach 1 and Sauquoit Creek is the result of insufficient channel capacity and the continued development in the floodplain with little regard for the consequences (USACE, 1975). Ice jams at the bridge have also caused localized flooding on Sauquoit Creek (USACE, 1975).

2.4 Flood Protection Measures

There are no flood protection facilities along any of the streams studied in the Village of Camden and none are planned for installation. Non-structural measures of flood protection are currently utilized to aid in the prevention of future flooding. The community currently adheres to and implements the minimum standards as set forth in the Flood Insurance Program. The USACE constructed a flood control project just west of Elm Street at Thompson‟s Creek in 1973 (USACE, November 13, 1973). The project consists of a concrete wall with a one-foot wide notch and diversion channel. This diversion channel has been identified as a flooding source studied by detailed methods and named Diversion Channel. Low flows for Thompson‟s Creek pass through the notch and continue downstream. High discharges spill out to the diversion channel and flow west towards Willow Creek. There are no known structural flood protection measures in existence within the Town of Lee. In an effort to minimize the risk of flood hazards and to minimize public and private losses due to flooding, the Town of Lee, in 1989, amended its earlier local law as Local Law No. 1, known as the Town of Lee Flood Damage Prevention Law (Town of Lee, 1989). The only structural flood protection measure in the Town of New Hartford is the detention basin along Mud Creek at the Sangertown Square shopping mall. The detention basin and outlet structure were designed to maintain the stream characteristics and the storage capacity along Mud Creek since a portion of the natural storage provided by the wetlands in that area was removed for the placement of the mall. In an effort to prevent flooding along Sauquoit Creek and Mud Creek, the Village of New York Mills annually removes silt and gravelly material from the stream channel where eroded material from upstream has been deposited. There are no flood protection measures along Oneida Creek above the Village of Oneida Castle. Below the village, the City of Oneida has constructed a dike on the western bank of the creek. The dike was constructed from 1949 to 1952 and was

29

made of material removed from the streambed and placed to the known flood level. A COE Floodplain Information report indicated the dike probably confines the flow and causes slightly higher upstream flooding through Oneida Castle (USACE, 1973). One small dam is located on Oriskany Creek within the Village of Oriskany Falls just downstream of Cassidy Street; however, this structure provides no flood protection to the community. There are no flood control measures on Sauquoit Creek within the Town of Paris. Several dams are located within the town, but they are not regulatory and do not serve flood storage purposes, as they are silted in. In the City of Rome, there are no flood protection structures on Fish Creek or Wood Creek. Although not built for flood protection, the Delta Reservoir provides the City of Rome with some flood protection from the Mohawk River Reach 1. In the Oneida Creek area, there are no flood protection works above the City of Sherrill that would give the community any protection. Below Sherrill, the City of Oneida constructed a dike from 1949 to 1952 on the western bank of the creek. The dike was made mainly of material removed from the river bed and placed to the known flood level. A USACE Floodplain Information report for Oneida Creek indicates that the dike probably confines the flow and causes slightly higher upstream flooding through Sherrill (USACE, 1973). The Sherrill Reservoir is a small water-supply reservoir located within the city. It does not provide any flood protection. There are no flood protection works in the Fish Creek basin above the Village of Sylvan Beach that give the village protection. There are two small structures used for water supply and power generation, but neither have any flood allocation. Fill and breakwater improvements have been made since 1972 at the south end of the village. At the north end of the village, drainage improvements have been made to the area east of Pleasant Avenue. In the Town of Trenton, the three large dams within the study reach of West Canada Creek primarily serve the purpose 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. The Trenton and Prospect Dams provide only minimal flood protection and capability. Town ordinances in Vienna restrict development within the designated flood hazard areas (Town of Vienna, Ordinance Book, undated). The only other flood protection measure, existing or planned, is the participation of the community in the NFIP. There are no structures or non-structural flood protection measures, existing or planned, in the Towns of Annsville, Camden, Kirkland, Marshall, Verona, Vernon,

30

Western, and Westmoreland; and the Villages of Bridgewater, Clayville, Clinton, New Hartford, Oriskany Falls, Vernon, and Waterville. The USACE, New York District, published a report titled Reconnaissance Report for Sauquoit Creek and Mohawk River in the Village of Whitesboro, in which possible flood control measures were reported (USACE, 1975). These measures include structural improvements of levees and floodwalls at various locations and non-structural improvements consisting of condemnation of the structures or, if it is reasonable, raising the structure and flood proofing the structure. The Delta Reservoir on the Mohawk River Reach 1 near the City of Rome effectively regulates the 150-square-mile drainage area of the river above this point. The small dams on Sauquoit Creek are used to reduce some of the erosion potential of the stream by decreasing velocity. They also aid in lessening ice jams but are not regulatory and do not serve flood storage purposes (USACE, 1981).

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

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

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

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

31

Precountywide Analyses

In the Village of New York Mills, for the 1983 FIS, peak discharge-frequency relationships for Mud Creek were obtained from a USACE report as determined using the USACE HEC-1 flood hydrograph computer program (USACE, 1981; USACE, September 1981). For the May 4, 2000, revision, the NYSDEC utilized the HEC-1 computer program to update the hydrologic analysis for Sauquoit Creek due to increased development in the drainage basin. In the Town of Annsville, for East Branch Fish Creek, USGS gaging station No. 04242500 at Taberg has provided measurements of flow from April 1924 to the present (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1924-1984). A log-Pearson Type III statistical analysis was performed with the records from this station and the results were used to determine the flood frequencies for East Branch Fish Creek. This methodology conforms with the uniform technique for determining flood frequencies as set forth in Bulletin 17B (Water Resources Council, 1981). The hydrologic analysis for Furnace Creek followed a procedure outlined in the USGS publication Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This procedure relates drainage area and storage percent to a series of regression equations for the western region. Discharges were computed for specific recurrence intervals by substituting the applicable values into the corresponding regression equations. The hydrologic analyses for Fish Creek and West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 in the Towns of Verona and Vienna and the Village of Sylvan Beach were obtained from the FIS for the Town Vienna (FEMA, 1999). The peak discharge-frequency relationships in that study were also determined by a statistical analysis of the discharge records at USGS gaging station No. 04242500 on East Branch Fish Creek at Taberg, New York. The analysis was performed for a 54-year period of record, from 1924 to 1977, using a log-Pearson Type III method as outlined in Bulletin 17A (Water Resources Council, 1977). The peak discharges were transferred to the various locations along Fish Creek using the following equation:

Qu = Qg(Au/Ag)a

Where Qu and Qg are the discharges at the selected ungaged site and gaged site, respectively, and Au and Ag are the corresponding drainage areas. A value of 0.74 was used for “a” based on Water-Supply Paper 1677 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1965). In the Village of Bridgewater, discharge-frequency data for the West Branch Unadilla River were obtained from a regional analysis of stream-flow gages in the area. A linear correlation was made for the gages to relate the logarithm of the peak flows and the logarithm of the drainage area at the gages. The analyses at the gages were supplied by the USGS and followed the standard log-Pearson Type III method outlined by the Water Resources Council (Water Resources Council, 1976).

32

In the Town of Camden, the hydrologic analyses for Cobb Brook were prepared using equations from Zembrzuski and Dunn (1979) (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). These equations relate basin storage and drainage data for the western regions to regression equations. Discharges for specific recurrence intervals were then computed based on these values of basin storage and drainage area. In the Village of Camden, the hydrologic analysis for West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 followed a procedure outlined in the USGS publication Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island (Geomaps of Mineola, New York, 1995). This procedure relates drainage area and storage percent to a series of regression equations for the western regions. Discharges were computed for specific recurrence intervals by substituting the applicable values into the corresponding regression equations. In the Town and Village of Camden, the hydrologic analysis for the Mud River followed a procedure presented in the Federal Highway Administration publication Runoff Estimates for Small Rural Watersheds and Development of a Sound Design Method (U.S. Department of Transportation, 1977). This procedure relates basin characteristics such as drainage area, storage area, and precipitation to a series of regression equations for a given region. Discharges were computed for specific recurrence intervals by substituting the appropriate values into the corresponding regression equations. In the Village of Clayville, peak discharge-frequency relationships for Sauquoit Creek were obtained from a USACE report as determined the USACE HEC-1 flood hydrograph computer program (USACE, 1981; USACE, 1970) In the Village of Clinton, peak discharge-frequency relationships for Sherman Brook were developed using USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-83 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This report developed regression equations for use in determining discharges for streams in New York. In the Town of Deerfield and the Village of Prospect, peak discharges on West Canada Creek 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 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979; USACE, 1974; Water Resources Council, 1976; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963; U.S. Department of the Interior, 1982; USACE, September 1981). The inflow to Hinckley Reservoir from its 372-square-mile drainage basin was 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).

33

In the Town of Floyd, the 1-percent annual chance discharge for the Mohawk River Reach 1 was obtained from the USACE (USACE, 1975). The 1-percent annual chance flows are based on a log-Pearson analysis of the long-term USGS gages on the Mohawk River Reach 1 and a regression analysis of the log-Pearson results. The 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent annual chance discharges were computed using a method developed by the USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1961). Discharge data for Sixmile Creek were developed using a drainage area-ratio method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). In the Village of Holland Patent, the USACE HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package (USACE, September 1981) was utilized to determine peak discharges for Thompson‟s Creek. The HEC-1 model analyzed the USACE flood control structure at Elm Street and the resulting diversion from Thompson‟s Creek to Willow Creek. Peak discharges on Ninemile Creek were calculated using the USGS analysis “Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). The equations utilized the parameters of drainage area, channel slope, and precipitation, and related basin storage and drainage area to regression equations. Discharges for specific recurrence intervals were then computed based on these values of basin storage and drainage area. In the Town of Kirkland, for the streams studied by detailed methods, peak discharge-frequency relationships were developed using USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-83 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This report developed regression equations for use in determining discharges for streams in New York. In the Town of Lee, peak discharges of the selected recurrence intervals were determined using the procedures and regression equations for rural ungaged streams outlined in the USGS report, Water Resources Investigations 90-4197, and the Water Resources Council Bulletin No. 17A (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991; Water Resources Council, 1977). For the Mohawk River Reach 3, the West Branch Mohawk River, and Tributary to Delta Lake, which are in Hydrologic Region No. 2 of New York State, the following equation was used:

Q = K(DA)v (SL)

w(ST + 1)

x(p – 20)

y(EL)

z

where Q is the stream discharge, DA is the drainage area in square miles, SL is the main channel slope in feet per mile, ST is the basin storage in percent of the total basin drainage area, p is the mean annual precipitation in inches, and EL is the average main channel elevation in feet; whereas K, v, w, x, y, and z are functions of the frequency. The values used for K, v, w, x, y, and z were as follows:

34

Frequency (Percent Annual Chance) K v w x y z

10 9.77 0.891 0.251 -0.209 1.019 -0.273 2 16.30 0.887 0.236 -0.256 1.066 -0.302 1 19.10 0.887 0.230 -0.275 1.086 -0.311

0.2 25.60 0.889 0.218 -0.318 1.134 -0.327 For Canada Creek, Tributary to Canada Creek, and Sash Factory Creek, which are in Hydrologic Region No. 1 of New York State, the following equation was used:

Q = K(DA)w(ST + 1)

x(p – 20)

y(F)

z

where Q, DA, ST, and p are as above, and F is the basin forested area in percent of total basin drainage area; whereas K, w, x, y, and z are functions of the frequency. The values used for K, w, x, y, and z were as follows:

Frequency (Percent Annual Chance) K w x y z

10 130 0.881 -0.526 0.961 -0.490 2 250 0.868 -0.544 0.919 -0.510 1 306 0.864 -0.548 0.899 -0.508

0.2 441 0.858 -0.553 0.853 -0.496 In the Town of Marcy, the 1-percent annual chance discharge for the Mohawk River Reach 1 was obtained from the USACE (USACE, 1975). The 1-percent annual chance flows are based on a log-Pearson analysis of the long-term USGS gages on the Mohawk River and a regression analysis of the log-Pearson results. The 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent annual chance discharges were computed using a method developed by the USGS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1961). Discharge-frequency values for Ninemile Creek were determined using USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-83 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This report presents techniques for estimating the magnitude and frequency of floods at ungaged sites on unregulated rural streams in New York, excluding Long Island. Discharge-frequency data and basin characteristics of 220 gaging stations in New York and adjacent states were used in multiple linear regression analyses to develop equations for floods that range in recurrence interval from 2 to 100 years. Discharges for the 0.2-percent annual chance flood were obtained from graphic extrapolation. Separate equations were developed for northern, southeastern, and western regions of New York.

35

In the Town of Marshall, discharge-frequency data for Lindsley and Watermans Brooks and Oriskany and Big Creeks were obtained from a regional analysis of stream-flow gages in the area. A linear correlation was made for the gages to relate the logarithm of the peak flows to the logarithm of the drainage area at the gages. The analysis at the gages was obtained from the USGS and followed the standard log-Pearson Type III method as outlined by the Water Resources Council (Water Resources Council, 1976). Discharge-frequency data for Tributaries A and A-1 to Big Creek were developed using a Bureau of Public Roads regional method (U.S. Department of Commerce, November 1963). This method relates geological and hydrological regions, drainage areas and channel slope to peak discharge by use of correlation graphs. In the Towns of Hartford and Paris and the Village of New Hartford, peak discharge-frequency relationships for Sauquoit Creek, Mud Creek, Tributary to Sauquoit Creek and Tributary to Mud Creek were obtained from a USACE report as determined using the USACE HEC-1 flood hydrograph computer program (USACE, August 1981). In the Village of Oneida Castle, flood discharges for the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance recurrence intervals at the Oneida gage were obtained from a log-Pearson Type III analysis (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1981). Data for Oneida Creek within the village were developed using the drainage area-ratio method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). In the Village of Oriskany, the 1-percent annual chance discharge for Oriskany Creek was obtained from the USACE (USACE, 1975). This discharge, as well as the 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent annual chance discharges, were developed by a USGS regional method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1961). The 1-percent annual chance discharge for the Mohawk River Reach 1 was also obtained from the USACE (USACE, 1975). The 1-percent annual chance flows were based on a log-Pearson analysis of three long-term USGS gages on the Mohawk River Reach 1 and a regression analysis of the log-Pearson results. The gages are located near Rome (Delta Dam, No. 01336000, 58 years of record), near Little Falls (No. 01347000, 53 years of record), and near Cohoes (No. 01357500, 62 years of record). The 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent annual chance discharges were computed by a USGS regional method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1961). In the Village of Oriskany Falls, discharge-frequency data for Oriskany Creek was obtained from a regional analysis of stream-flow gages in the area. A linear correlation was made for the gages to relate the logarithm of the peak flows and the logarithm of the drainage area at the gages. The analysis at the gages was obtained from the USGS and followed the standard log-Pearson Type III method as outlined by the Water Resources Council (Water Resources Council, 1976). Discharge-frequency data for Lindsley Brook was developed using a Federal Highway Administration regional method (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963).

36

This method relates geological and hydrological regions, drainage areas and channel slope to peak discharge by use of correlation graphs. In the City of Rome, for the 1985 FIS, the 1-percent annual chance discharge for the Mohawk River Reach 1 was obtained from the USACE (USACE, 1974). The 1-percent annual chance flows were based on a log-Pearson Type III analysis of three long-term USGS gages on the Mohawk River (Delta, Little Falls, and Cohoes) and a regression analysis of the log-Pearson results (Water Resources Council, 1977). The 10-, 2-, and 0.2-percent annual chance discharges were computed by a USGS method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1961). Peak discharges for Wood Creek were developed using USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-83 and were compared with the Federal Highway Administration and Bureau of Public Roads methods (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979; Federal Highway Administration, 1977; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963). For the September 21, 1998, revision, peak discharges were calculated using the USACE HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Program and known historical high-water marks (USACE, 1981). The Wood Creek drainage area was divided into four sub-areas: (1) the area downstream of the railroad culverts; (2) the ponding area formed by the railroad berm and Erie Boulevard; (3) the area that is diverted through the relief culvert and over the railroad berm; and (4) the area upstream of Erie Boulevard. The inflow hydrograph of Erie Boulevard was routed through the ponding area and diverted to the wetland. The high-water mark for a 2-percent annual chance recurrence interval was known at the relief culvert. This known high-water mark was used to calibrate the HEC-1 computer model for the 10-, 2-, and 1-percent annual chance recurrence intervals. In the City of Sherrill, flood discharges for the 10-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2-percent annual chance floods at the Oneida Creek gage were obtained from a log-Pearson Type III analysis (Water Resources Council, 1981). These discharges agreed closely with the peak discharges determined in the USACE Flood Plain Information report for Oneida Creek (USACE, 1973). Hydrologic data for Sherrill were developed using the drainage area-ratio method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). In the Town of Trenton, peak discharges on West Canada Creek 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, 1981). The inflow to Hinckley Reservoir from its 372 square mile drainage basin was calculated by a USGS analysis, “Regionalization of Flood Discharges for Rural, Unregulated Streams in New York, excluding Long Island,” which utilized gage data throughout New York State to formulate regional regression equations (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991). The HEC-1 computer program was used to evaluate the discharges over the spillways of the Hinckley, Trenton, and Prospect Dams. The starting water-surface elevation of Hinckley Reservoir was assumed to be 1226 ft, representing the average annual maximum elevation of the regulated reservoir. The results of this

37

analysis are in close agreement with the gage data upstream and downstream of the study reach. The study reach of West Canada Creek includes a diversion dam, which is used to divert flow to Cincinnati Creek. This study assumes that the flow from West Canada Creek is not diverted to Cincinnati Creek. Peak discharges on Cincinnati Creek, Ninemile Creek, and Steuben Creek were calculated through the use of the USGS analysis “Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island” (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). The equations utilized the parameters of drainage area, channel slope, and precipitation, and related basin storage and drainage area to regression equations. Discharges for specific recurrence intervals were then computed, based on these values of basin storage and drainage area. As discussed above, the analysis of Cincinnati Creek assumed no flow diversion from West Canada Creek. In the City of Utica, peak discharge-frequency relationships for the Mohawk River Reach 1 and the New York State Barge Canal were based on two USACE studies (USACE, 1974; USACE, 1975). For Sauquoit Creek and Tributary to Sauquoit Creek, peak discharge-frequency relationships were obtained from a USACE report as determined using the USACE HEC-1 flood hydrograph computer program (USACE, 1981; USACE, 1981). Peak discharges for Reall Creek were determined using the USGS Water Resources Investigation 79-83 method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This method developed regression equations for use in determining discharges in New York. For the Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal, the 1% annual chance discharge was computed in two TR-55 hydrologic models, both dated September 15, 1992. One model used to determine the headwater elevation and flow conveyed by the upstream culvert and one was used to determine the headwater elevation, tailwater elevation, and flow conveyed by the downstream culverts (FEMA, 2001). Peak discharges for Nail Creek Reach 1 and Nail Creek Reach 2 were determined from Special Report 38, which developed regression equations to compute discharges in New Jersey (State of New Jersey, 1974). Special Report 38 was applicable in this study due to the large influence of urbanization. Discharges for the upstream portion of Starch Factory Creek were developed using the USGS Water Resources Investigation 79-83 method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). For the downstream portion, taking into account the effects of urbanization, the following transfer equation was used:

QII = QI(AII/AI)0.85

Discharge-frequency data for the portion of Oneida Creek bordering the Town of Lenox were obtained from the FIS for the Town of Lenox (FEMA, 1987). In that study, the discharges were developed using data obtained from USGS gage No. 04243500 in the City of Oneida, which has 26 years of systematic record. Log-Pearson analyses were performed following guidelines outlined in Bulletin 17B (Reference 9). The gage discharges were transferred to other points along Oneida

38

Creek using the USGS method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). For the portion of Oneida Creek bordering the City of Oneida, the discharges were obtained from the FIS for the City of Oneida (FEMA, 1989). In that study, the discharges were developed from a log-Pearson Type III analysis at the Oneida Creek gage. Other data in that study were developed using a drainage area-ratio method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). The hydrologic analysis of Sconondoa Creek followed a procedure presented in the USGS Publication Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This procedure relates drainage area and storage percent to a series of regression equations for the western region. Discharges were computed for specific recurrence intervals by substituting the applicable values into the corresponding regression equations. Although the portion of Wood Creek bordering the Town of Vienna is controlled by Fish Creek, the peak discharges were developed using the synthetic unit hydrograph methods outlined by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1972). These data were taken from the FIS for the Town of Vienna (FEMA, 1984). The peak discharges were verified by methods outlined by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) (Department of Transportation, 1977). Peak discharges for the portion of Wood Creek that borders the City of Rome were developed using USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-83 and were compared with the FHWA and Bureau of Public Roads methods (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979; Federal Highway Administration, 1977; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963). These data were taken from the FIS for the City of Rome (FEMA, 1985). In the Town of Vernon, the hydrologic analysis for Sconondoa Creek followed a procedure presented in the USGS Water Resources Investigations 79-83 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This procedure relates drainage area and storage percent to a series of regression equations for the western region. Discharges were computed for specific recurrence intervals by substituting the applicable values into the corresponding regression equations. In the Village of Vernon, the hydrologic analysis for Sconondoa Creek followed a procedure in the USGS publication Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This procedure relates drainage area and storage percent to a series of regression equations for the western region. Discharges were computed for specific recurrence intervals by substituting the applicable values into the corresponding regression equations. In the Towns of Vienna and Verona, City of Rome, and Village of Sylvan Beach, the peak discharge-frequency relationships for Fish Creek and West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 were determined by a statistical analysis of the discharge records at USGS gaging station No. 04242500, located on East Branch Fish Creek at Taberg,

39

New York. The analysis was performed for a 54-year period of record, from 1924 to 1977, using the log-Pearson Type III method (Water Resources Council, 1977). The peak discharges for Mill Stream were developed using methodology from the Bureau of Public Roads publication, Peak Rates of Runoff from Small Watersheds (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1961). The discharges were verified by the Department of Transportation, FHWA methodology (Department of Transportation, 1977). The peak discharges for Hall Brook and Halstead Creek were developed using methodology developed by the FHWA and verified using the Bureau of Public Roads publication methodology (Department of Transportation, 1977; U.S. Department of Commerce, 1961). The peak discharges for Murray Brook were developed using FHWA methodology and verified using the U.S. Department of Agriculture, SCS publication, A Method for Estimating Volume and Rate of Runoff in Small Watersheds (Department of Transportation, 1977; U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1973). Although Wood Creek was eliminated from the Town of Vienna detailed study, the peak discharges were developed using the synthetic unit hydrographic methods outlined by the SCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1972). The peak discharges were verified by methods outlined by the FHWA (Department of Transportation, 1977). In the Village of Waterville, discharge-frequency data for Big Creek was obtained from a regional analysis of stream-flow gages in the area. A linear correlation was made for the gages to relate the logarithm of the peak flows and the logarithm of the drainage area at the gages. The analysis at the gages was supplied by the USGS and followed the standard log-Pearson Type III method as presented by the Water Resources Council (Water Resources Council, 1976). Discharge-frequency data for Tributaries A and A-1 to Big Creek were developed using a FHWA regional method (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1963). This method relates geological and hydrological regions, drainage areas, and channel slope to peak discharges by use of correlation graphs. In the Town of Western, the hydrologic analysis for the Mohawk River Reach 2, Lansing Kill, Big Brook, Dunn Brook, Beaver Meadow Brook, and Wells Creek followed a procedure presented in the USGS Publication Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island, Water Resources Investigations 79-83 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This procedure relates drainage area, storage percent, and mean annual precipitation to a series of regression equations for the northern region. Discharges were computed for specific recurrence intervals by substituting the applicable values into the corresponding regression equations.

40

In the Town of Westmoreland, discharge-frequency data for Sucker Brook, Oriskany and Deans Creek, and Tributary A to Oriskany Creek were obtained from a regional analysis of stream-flow gages in the area. A linear correlation was made for the gages to relate the logarithm of the peak flows and the logarithm of the drainage area at the gages. The analysis at the gages was supplied by the USGS and followed the standard log-Pearson Type III method outlined by the Water Resources Council (Water Resources Council, 1976). In the Town of Whitestown, for the 1983 FIS, the peak discharge-frequency relationships for the Mohawk River Reach 1 were based on two USACE studies (USACE, 1975; USACE, 1975). Peak discharge-frequency relationships for Mud Creek were obtained from a USACE report as determined using the USACE HEC-1 flood hydrograph computer program (USACE, 1974; USACE, 1981). For Oriskany Creek and Deans Creek, peak discharge-frequency relationships were determined using the USGS Water Resources Investigation 79-83 method (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1979). This report developed regression equations for use in determining discharges for streams in New York State. For the May 4, 2000, revision, NYSDEC utilized the HEC-1 computer program to update the hydrologic analysis for Sauquoit Creek due to increased development in the drainage basin. In the Village of Whitesboro, for the 1978 FIS, the discharge-frequency data for the Mohawk River Reach 1 were obtained from the discharge-frequency curves (USACE, 1975). The 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance discharges were determined by using a straight line extrapolation of the log-probability plot of the computed discharges. This analysis agreed with the USACE report For the May 4, 2000, revision, the NYSDEC utilized the HEC-2 computer program to update the hydrologic analysis for Sauquoit Creek to increased development in the drainage basin. In the Village of Yorkville, for the 1983 FIS, peak discharge-frequency relationships for the Mohawk River Reach 1 were based on two USACE studies (USACE, 1975; USACE, 1975). For the May 4, 2000, revision, the NYSDEC utilized the HEC-1 computer program to update the hydrologic analysis for Sauquoit Creek due to increased development in the drainage basin.

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 FIRMs. The hydrologic analyses for this study were provided under the Hazard

41

Mitigation and Technical Assistance Contract HSFEHQ-06-D-012, Task Order HSFHQ-06-J-0065 by Michael Baker. For the FIS the original hydrology was utilized without any modifications.

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

organized based on 11-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC). The USGS has developed the 8-digit HUC system as a hierarchical classification system of hydrologic drainage basins in the United States. NYSDEC, the USGS, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, developed 11-digit HUCs for classification at the sub-watershed 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 of 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 Sub-regional 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 Oneida County, revised detailed analyses were performed for the Mohawk River

in portions of the following HUC 11 units: 02020004060- Mohawk River 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 7, “Summary of Gaging Stations,” shows a list of gaging stations used in the analysis.

TABLE 7 – SUMMARY OF GAGING STATIONS – 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

Discharges regulated by Delta and Hinckley

01357500 Mohawk River at Cohoes, NY 3,450

1913 - 2006

Discharges regulated by Delta and Hinckley

42

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

for the gaging stations in Table 4 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 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.

For streams studied by detailed methods, 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. For streams studied by approximate methods, peak discharge – drainage area

relationship was used to compute 1% annual discharges using USGS Scientific Investigation Report (SIR) 2006 – 5112. For approximate streams 10 meter USGS Digital Elevation Models (DEM) was used to delineate watershed boundary.

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

studied by detailed methods is shown in Table 8, "Summary of Discharges."

43

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

BEAVER MEADOW

BROOK

At confluence with Big

Brook 6.7 699 1,084 1,249 1,710

BIG CREEK

At confluence with Oriskany

Creek 18.59 1,595 2,215 2,500 3,150

A point approximately 64 feet

downstream of Bogan Road 15.44 1,380 1,915 2,150 2,725

A point approximately 100

feet downstream of private

drive to sewage treatment

plant 12.63 1,200 1,665 1,885 2,385

At Corporate limits of Town

of Marshall/Village of

Waterville 10.00 1,010 1,400 1,575 1,990

CANADA CREEK

At City of Rome/Town of

Lee corporate limits 16.8 1,510 2,170 2,460 3,120

Upstream of the confluence

of Tributary to Canada

Creek near Wilkinson Road 13.0 1,150 1,660 1,880 2,390

Upstream of the confluence

of an unnamed tributary near

Church Street 9.8 930 1,350 1,530 1,950

Near the intersection of Lee

Center Taberg Road and

Slone Road 7.3 820 1,190 1,350 1,730

Upstream of the confluence

of an unnamed tributary to

Canada Creek near Eames

Cemetery 3.8 430 640 730 930

CINCINNATI CREEK

At confluence with West

Canada Creek 52.2 * * 5,450 *

At Town of Trenton/Village

of Barnevald corporate

limits 46.0 * * 5,450 *

Upstream of confluence of

Steuben Creek 26.0 * * 2,855 *

Upstream of confluence of

Cady Brook 18.1 * * 2,015 *

44

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

COBB BROOK

At confluence with West

Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 10.2 1,258 2,067 2,491 3,500

DEANS CREEK

At the confluence with

Oriskany Creek 30.0 1,969 2,990 3,458 4,600

At Town of

Westmoreland/Town of

Whitestown corporate limits 28.96 2,185 3,030 3,400 4,300

Upstream of confluence of

Sucker Brook 17.08 1,450 2,065 2,310 2,920

Upstream of Station Hill

Road 11.36 1,115 1,550 1,730 2,185

DIVERSION CHANNEL

At confluence with Willow

Creek * 70 95 100 120

DUNN BROOK

At confluence with Lansing

Kill 1.1 222 361 431 615

EAST BRANCH FISH

CREEK

At the confluence with Fish

Creek 189.7 11,175 15,505 17,520 22,650

At USGS gaging station No.

04242500 188.0 11,100 15,400 17,400 22,500

FISH CREEK

At the confluence with the

New York State Barge

Canal 412.5 18,390 23,520 26,080 31,511

At confluence of Mill Stream 410.4 18,320 23,430 25,980 31,390

At confluence of Sash

Factory Creek 397.7 17,900 22,890 25,380 30,670

FURNACE CREEK

At confluence with East

Branch Fish Creek 15.3 953 1,427 1,662 2,250

Approximately 375 feet

downstream of Glenmore

Road 11.4 822 1,252 1,467 1,990

45

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

HALL BROOK

At confluence with Oneida

Lake 5.8 640 1,085 1,270 1,620

HALSTEAD CREEK

At confluence with West

Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 1.5 212 351 407 500

LANSING KILL

At confluence with Mohawk

River Reach 2 27.4 2,555 3,985 4,669 6,400

Upstream of Dunn Brook 20.4 2,007 3,133 3,671 5,100

LINDSLEY BROOK

At Township of

Marshall/Village of

Oriskany Falls corporate

limits 7.20 1,310 2,000 2,325 3,150

At confluence with Oriskany

Creek 7.20 985 1,500 1,745 2,365

Upstream of confluence of

Buckley Mill Creek 1.93 445 650 750 990

MAD RIVER

At confluence with West

Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 48.0 4,096 7,264 8,583 12,500

MILL STREAM

At confluence with Fish

Creek 1.7 240 370 440 590

MOHAWK RIVER REACH 1

At the upstream corporate

limits of City of Utica 545 14,230 19,740 127,500 28,470

At the downstream corporate

limits of Town of Marcy 542 14,230 19,740 22,500 25,470

Upstream of the confluence

of Sauquoit Creek 440.0 12,150 16,850 19,200 24,290

Upstream of the confluence

of Oriskany Creek 275.0 8,730 12,110 13,800 17,460

At the corporate limits of

City of Rome/Town of

Floyd/City of Utica 175 6,000 8,340 9,500 12,020

At the USGS gage at the

Delta Reservoir Dam 150 5,000 6,930 7,900 10,000

46

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

MOHAWK RIVER REACH 2

Upstream of Delta Lake

Reservoir 123.5 7,309 11,097 12,852 17,100

Upstream of Wells Creek 93.5 5,817 8,835 10,233 13,900

Upstream of Lansing Kill 48.8 3,438 5,184 5,988 8,000

MOHAWK RIVER REACH 3

At Town of Lee/Town of

Western corporate limits 34.9 2,230 3,030 3,370 4,230

MUD CREEK

At the confluence with

Sauquoit Creek 11.5 544 626 677 1,020

At Town of

Whitestown/Town of New

Hartford corporate limits 10.9 532 628 648 998

Upstream of State Route 5A 9.77 508 600 620 949

Upstream of abandoned

railroad 9.52 759 1,083 1,181 1,998

Upstream of Genesee Street

culvert 7.73 858 1,407 1,518 2,228

Upstream of State Route 5A

(second crossing) 3.51 335 476 501 657

MURRAY BROOK

At confluence with Oneida

Lake 4.7 511 863 1,008 1,370

NAIL CREEK REACH 1

At the confluence with the

Mohawk River Reach 1 4.95 1,394 2,137 2,568 3,750

NINEMILE CREEK

At Powell Road 57.1 4,570 7,160 8,400 12,000

At upstream corporate limits

of Town of Trenton/Village

of Holland Patent 44.2 * * 6,825 *

At downstream corporate

limits of Village of Holland

Patent/Town of Trenton 38.3 * * 6,115 *

Upstream of confluence of

Beaver Brook 29.1 * * 5,000 *

At County Road 91 18.9 * * 3,600 *

47

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

ONEIDA CREEK

At confluence with Oneida

Lake 145.9 7,353 10,712 12,351 16,200

Upstream of confluence of

Black Creek 133.9 7,006 10,228 11,803 15,300

At confluence of Brandy

Brook 126.0 6,769 9,896 11,376 15,000

At confluence of unnamed

tributary just upstream of

Interstate 90 116.0 6,446 9,443 10,860 14,300

Upstream of confluence of

Sconondoa Creek 78.0 4,300 6,358 7,362 9,800

At the confluence of Taylor

Creek 70.0 3,857 5,718 6,634 8,800

ORISKANY CREEK

At the confluence with the

Mohawk River Reach 1 146 6,690 10,002 11,493 15,000

Upstream of Deans Crek 105.7 5,212 7,818 8,994 12,000

At the corporate limits of the

Town of

Westmoreland/Town of

Whitestown 102.75 5,610 7,785 8,700 11,000

At the corporate limits of the

Town of Kirkland/Town of

Westmoreland 95.17 6,030 9,210 10,820 14,400

Downstream of the

confluence of St. Mary‟s

Brook 94.38 5,995 9,150 10,750 14,300

Downstream of the

confluence of White Creek 82.65 5,420 8,300 9,760 13,900

Downstream of the

confluence of Turkey Creek 70.07 4,775 7,345 8,650 11,800

At the downstream corporate

limits of the Town of

Marshall/Town of Kirkland 58.56 3,750 5,200 5,850 7,350

Upstream of confluence with

Big Creek 38.12 2,715 3,765 4,250 5,375

A point approximately 73 feet

downstream of Hyning Road 34.04 2,520 3,495 3,900 4,925

At corporate limits of Town

of Marshall/Village of

Oriskany Falls 29.60 2,250 3,120 3,530 4,425

Downstream of the

confluence of Turkey Creek 6.50 770 1,260 1,510 2,165

48

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

REALL CREEK

At the confluence with the

New York State Barge

Canal 8.99 1,034 1,650 1,949 2,950

SASH FACTORY CREEK

At the Town of Lee/City of

Rome corporate limits 4.7 410 590 670 850

Approximately 150 feet

downstream from Kiwanis

Road 3.9 330 470 540 690

SAUQUOIT CREEK

At the confluence with

Mohawk River Reach 1 61.9 6,148 8,831 10,177 13,100

At Main Street Bridge 60.1 6,014 8,702 10,120 13,205

At Stuart Court Extended 59.4 5,873 8,707 10,222 13,150

At State Route 5A 47.1 5,192 7,651 9,141 12,000

At the corporate limits of

Town of New

Hartford/Town of

Whitestown 47.11 3,899 6,516 7,011 10,523

Upstream of railroad (second

crossing) 43.66 3,394 5,681 6,124 9,504

At the corporate limits of

Village of Hartford/City of

Utica 43.4 3,899 6,516 7,011 10,523

Upstream of railroad (third

crossing) 41.12 3,254 5,399 5,801 8,949

Upstream of City of

Utica/Town of New

Hartford corporate limits 40.19 3,161 5,242 5,634 8,790

Upstream of Kellogg Road 36.96 2,920 4,838 5,226 8,227

Upstream of railroad (fourth

crossing) 32.55 2,387 4,038 4,390 7,011

Upstream of Elm Street 28.53 2,074 3,486 3,786 6,025

Upstream of Pinnacle Road 17.6 1,633 2,628 2,882 4,717

Upstream of Holman City

Road 13.2 1,185 1,914 2,187 3,515

Upstream of Main Street 11.9 915 1,577 1,744 2,776

Upstream of Oneida Street 8.9 872 1,394 1,512 2,300

Upstream of State Route 8 6.4 598 1,016 1,104 1,706

49

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

SCONONDOA CREEK

At mouth 40.4 3,104 4,830 5,712 7,950

At the Town of Vernon/Town

of Verona corporate limits 38.2 2,942 4,577 5,412 7,500

At Williams Street 36.4 2,862 4,463 5,282 7,300

At the downstream corporate

limits of Village of Vernon 34.1 2,693 4,201 4,971 7,100

At the upstream corporate

limits of Village of

Vernon/Town of Vernon 28.1 2,615 4,166 4,969 7,000

At Norton Road 25.3 2,457 3,935 4,702 6,750

At State Route 26 in Town of

Augusta 22.2 2,209 3,545 4,238 6,000

SHERMAN BROOK

At Village of Clinton/Town

of Kirkland corporate limits 3.8 515 850 1,025 1,700

SIXMILE CREEK

At the confluence with the

New York State Barge

Canal 14.3 1,230 1,880 2,183 3,017

ST. MARY‟S BROOK

At its confluence with

Oriskany Creek 6.50 770 1,260 1,510 2,165

STARCH FACTORY CREEK

At the confluence with the

Mohawk River Reach 1 7.03 715 1,116 1,310 1,816

STEUBEN CREEK

At mouth 19.9 * * 2,780 *

Upstream of confluence of

Shepards Brook 14.1 * * 2,000 *

SUCKER BROOK

At confluence with Deans

Creek 9.3 960 1,340 1,505 1,880

TAYLOR CREEK

At 600 feet upstream of

Betsinger Road 5.57 * * 436 *

50

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

THOMPSON‟S CREEK

At confluence with Ninemile

Creek 0.73 185 220 235 285

TRIBUTARY A TO BIG

CREEK REACH 1

At confluence with Big Creek 5.43 640 1,020 1,205 1,630

Upstream from confluence of

Tributary A-1 to Big Creek 1.43 325 480 550 725

TRIBUTARY A TO BIG

CREEK REACH 2

Upstream from confluence of

Tributary A-1 to Big Creek 1.43 325 480 550 725

TRIBUTARY A-1 TO BIG

CREEK TRIBUTARY 1

At confluence with Tributary

A to Big Creek 3.5 465 650 730 910

TRIBUTARY A TO

ORISKANY CREEK

At confluence with Oriskany

Creek 6.0 755 1,100 1,260 1,650

TRIBUTARY TO CANADA

CREEK

At the confluence with

Canada Creek near

Wilkinson Road 2.3 190 270 310 390

TRIBUTARY TO DELTA

LAKE

At the confluence with Delta

Lake 2.2 270 390 440 570

At the upstream face of Lee

Center Taberg Road bridge 1.3 170 250 280 360

TRIBUTARY TO MUD

CREEK

At confluence with Mud

Creek 3.15 400 687 743 1,105

TRIBUTARY TO

SAUQUOIT CREEK

At confluence with Sauquoit

Creek 2.52 350 558 591 823

51

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

TURKEY CREEK

At its confluence with

Oriskany Creek 5.60 690 1,130 1,360 1,920

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY

TO ERIE CANAL

Approximately 520 feet

upstream of Riverside Drive .71 * * 298 *

WATERMANS BROOK

At confluence with Oriskany

Creek 2.00 290 430 495 650

WELLS CREEK-BIG

BROOK

At confluence with Mohawk

River Reach 2 24.8 2,194 3,410 3,987 5,475

At confluence with Wells

Creek 19.1 1,750 2,714 3,170 4,300

At State Route 274 10.4 1,158 1,826 2,148 2,975

WEST BRANCH FISH

CREEK REACH 1

At confluence with Fish

Creek 197.9 10,680 13,660 15,145 18,300

At confluence of Cold Brook 195.4 10,580 13,530 15,000 18,130

WEST BRANCH FISH

CREEK REACH 2

Approximately 1.5 miles

downstream of Town of

Camden/Village of Camden

corporate limits 131.2 4,648 6,554 7,478 9,700

At Town of Camden/Village

of Camden corporate limits 119.3 4,290 6,058 6,914 8,900

At a point approximately 0.8

mile upstream of confluence

of Cobb Brook 67.2 2,516 3,555 4,056 5,200

WEST BRANCH MOHAWK

RIVER

Upstream of the confluence

with the Mohawk River

Reach 3 18.9 1,300 1,780 1,980 2,480

Upstream of the confluence

of Ava Brook 14.2 980 1,330 1,470 1,820

52

TABLE 8– SUMMARY OF DISCHARGES - continued

FLOODING SOURCE

AND LOCATION

DRAINAGE

AREA

(sq. miles)

PEAK DISCHARGES (cfs)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

WEST BRANCH

UNADILLA RIVER

At downstream Village of

Bridgewater/Town of

Bridgewater corporate limits 20.0 1,850 2,700 3,150 4,100

WEST CANADA CREEK

Approximately 0.5 mile

upstream of Old State Road

at the corporate limits of

Town of Newport/Town of

Russia 426.2 * * 22,900 *

Upstream of confluence of

Cincinnati Creek 374.0 * * 20,100 *

WHITE CREEK

At its confluence with

Oriskany Creek 6.20 750 1,220 1,465 2,050

WOOD CREEK

Downstream side of New

York State Barge Canal 8.8 214 332 355 490

At railroad 8.8 450 619 682 880

At West Erie Boulevard 8.6 483 681 731 900

At West Liberty Street 7.6 370 532 610 790

Above the confluence of an

unnamed tributary 5.2 233 329 375 480

At confluence with New

York State Barge Canal 2.7 267 347 384 460

*Data not available

The USGS gaging station (No. 04-2460.00) on Oneida Lake at Brewerton provided the basis for the analysis of elevation levels on Oneida Lake (U.S. Department of the Interior, published annually 1924-1984). Outflow values for Oneida Lake were determined through the application of log-Pearson Type III analysis to 27 years of gage records. A summary of peak elevation-frequency relationships for Oneida Lake is shown in Table 9, “Summary of Stillwater Elevations.”

53

TABLE 9 - SUMMARY OF STILLWATER ELEVATIONS

FLOODING SOURCE AND LOCATION

ELEVATION (feet NAVD1)

10% ANNUAL

CHANCE

2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

1% ANNUAL

CHANCE

0.2% ANNUAL

CHANCE

ONEIDA LAKE

Entire shoreline 371.3 372.3 372.7 373.7

UNNAMED TRIBUTARY TO ERIE

CANAL

At approximately 520 feet upstream of

Riverside Drive * * 413.95 *

1North American Vertical Datum of 1988

*Data Not Available

3.2 Hydraulic Analyses

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

Each incorporated community within Oneida County, has a previously printed FIS report. The hydraulic analyses described in those reports have been compiled and are summarized below. Precountywide Analyses In the Town of Annsville, cross sections for the backwater analyses of East Branch Fish Creek and Furnace Creek were obtained from aerial photographs at a scale of 1:6,000 (Konski, 1984). Cross sections for the backwater analyses of Fish Creek and West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 were obtained by photogrammetric methods from topographic maps at a scale of 1:4,800 with a contour interval of 5 feet (Lockwood, 1978).

54

For the Village of Bridgewater, cross sections for the backwater analysis of the West Branch Unadilla River were obtained from aerial photographs flown in April 1979, at a negative scale of 1 inch equals 200 feet (Quinn and Associates, 1979). For the Town of Camden, cross sections for the flooding sources studied by detailed methods were obtained from aerial surveys at a scale of 1:2,400, with a contour interval of 4 feet (Geomaps, 1995). For the Village of Camden, cross sections for the backwater analyses of West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 and the Mad River were obtained from aerial photographs at a scale of 1:6,000 (Konski Engineers, 1984). For the Village of Clayville, work maps at a scale of 1:2,400 with a contour interval of 5 feet were prepared from aerial photographs (Quinn and Associates, 1975). Cross sections were obtained by field measurement. The baseline used for horizontal control was also obtained by field survey. Cross sections were located at close intervals above and below bridges, at natural control sections along the stream length, and at significant changes in ground relief and land use or land cover. The cross sections were plotted on the work maps, and channel reach lengths were determined between sections along the centerline of the channel. Overbank reach lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. For the Village of Clinton, cross sections for the backwater analyses were obtained from topographic maps compiled from aerial photographs (Quinn and Associates, 1979). For West Canada Creek in the Town of Deerfield and the Village of Prospect and all flooding sources studied by detailed methods in the City of Rome, the Town of Trenton and the Villages of Holland Patent and Sylvan Beach, cross sections were obtained from field surveys. For the Town of Floyd, cross section data for above-water surfaces were obtained from topographic maps compiled by photogrammetric methods (Frederick R. Pokorny, 1979). In-bank cross sections were obtained by field measurement. Cross sections were located at close intervals above and below bridges, at natural control sections along the stream length, and at significant changes in ground relief and land use or land cover. Overbank reach lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. The baseline used for horizontal control was also obtained by field survey. For the Town of Kirkland, cross sections for the backwater analyses were obtained from topographic maps compiled from aerial photographs (Quinn and Associates, 1979). For the Town of Lee, cross section data for the backwater analyses were obtained from aerial photographs at a scale of 1:16,800 that were used to produce

55

topographic maps of a scale 1:4,800 with a contour interval of 4 feet (MS Technologies, 1993). For the Town of Marcy, cross section data for above-water surfaces were obtained from topographic maps compiled by photogrammetric methods (Frederick R. Pokorny, 1979). In-bank cross sections were obtained by field measurement. Cross sections were located at close intervals above and below bridges, at natural control sections along the stream length, and at significant changes in ground relief and land use or land cover. Overbank reach lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. The baseline used for horizontal control was also obtained by field survey. For the Town of Marshall, cross sections for the backwater analyses of streams studied by detailed methods were obtained from aerial photographs flown in April 1979 at a negative scale of 1:14,400 (Quinn and Associates, 1979). For the Town and Village of New Hartford, work maps at a scale of 1:2,400 with a contour interval of 5 feet were prepared from aerial photographs for the streams studied by detailed methods (Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, 1976). Cross sections and the baseline used for horizontal control were obtained by field measurement. Cross sections were located at close interval above and below bridges, at natural control sections along the stream length and at significant changes in ground relief, land use or land cover. Cross sections were plotted on the previously mentioned maps and channel reach lengths were determined between sections along the centerline of the channel. A profile baseline was used for a few meandering portions of Mud Creek, following the path of flow. Overbank reach lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. For the 1983 Village of New York Mills FIS, cross sections were obtained by field measurement. The baseline used for horizontal control was also obtained by field survey. Cross sections were located at close stream intervals above and below bridges, at natural control sections along the stream length, and at significant changes in ground relief, land use, and land cover. Cross sections were plotted on the work maps, at a scale of 1:2,400, with a contour interval of 5 feet, prepared from aerial photographs, and channel reach lengths were determined between cross sections along the centerline of the channel (Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, of Liverpool, New York, 1976). Overbank reach lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. For Mud Creek, cross sections used in the detailed analysis are located outside the corporate limits. For the Village of New York Mills May 4, 2000 revision, cross-section data for Sauquoit Creek were obtained from photogrammetric surveys, except for the portions below-water which were field surveyed. For the Village of Oneida Castle, the Town of Paris, and the City of Sherrill, cross section information for above-water surfaces was obtained by field survey. In-bank cross sections were obtained by field measurement. Cross sections were located at close intervals above and below bridges, at natural control sections along the stream

56

length, and at significant changes in ground relief and land use or land cover. The base line used for horizontal control was obtained by field survey. Overbank stream lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. For the Village of Oriskany, cross section information for the above-water surfaces was obtained from the COE (USACE, 1975). In-bank cross sections were obtained by field measurement. The baseline used for horizontal control was also obtained by field survey. Cross sections were located at close intervals above and below bridges, at natural cross sections along the stream length, and at significant changes in ground relief and land use or land cover. The cross sections were plotted on maps at a scale of 1:2,400 with a contour interval of 5 feet (Phillips and Associates, 1975). Channel reach lengths were determined between sections along the centerline of the channel. Overbank reach lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. For the Village of Oriskany Falls, cross sections for the backwater analyses of the flooding sources studied in detail were obtained from aerial photographs flown in April 1979 at a negative scale of 1 inch = 1,200 feet (Quinn and Associates, 1979). For the City of Utica, work maps at a scale of 1:2,400 and a contour interval of 5 feet were prepared from aerial photographs for all streams studied in detail (Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, 1976). Cross sections were obtained by field measurement. Cross sections were located at close intervals above and below bridges, at natural control sections along the stream length, and at significant changes in ground relief and land use or land cover. The cross sections were plotted on the work maps, and channel reach lengths were determined between sections along the centerline of the channel. Overbank reach lengths were measured along the approximate centerline of the effective out-of-channel flow area. For the Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal, certified site plans, titled “Riverside Mall Expansion Grading Plan for Physical Map Revision,” dated March 2, 2000, at a scale of 1”=40‟, with a contour interval of 1 foot, were used for manhole locations, culvert inverts, and orientation of culvert series (FEMA, 2001). For the Town and Village of Vernon, cross sections for the backwater analyses of Seconondoa Creek were obtained from aerial photographs at a scale of 1:6,000 (Konski Engineers, 1984).

For the Town of Verona, flood elevations and floodplain boundaries for Wood Creek, from its confluence with the New York State Barge Canal to approximately 1.55 miles downstream of State Route 46, and the New York State Barge Canal Tributary area controlled by flooding from Fish Creek. Consequently, profiles and other hydraulic information have not been included for Wood Creek. Cross sections for the backwater analyses were obtained from aerial photographs (Konski, 1984).

57

For the Town of Vienna, cross sections for the backwater analyses of the streams studied by detailed methods were obtained by photogrammetric methods (Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, 1978). Flood elevations and floodplain boundaries for Wood Creek, for its entire length within the community, are controlled by flooding from Fish Creek. Consequently, profiles and other hydraulic information have not been included for Wood Creek. For the Village of Waterville, cross sections for the backwater analyses of the streams studied by detailed methods were obtained from aerial photographs taken in April 1979 (Quinn and Associates, 1979). For the Town of Western, cross sections for the backwater analyses of the Mohawk River, Lansing Kill, Big Book, Dunn Brook, Beaver Meadow Brook, and Wells Creek were obtained from aerial photographs (Konski Engineers, 1984). For the Town of Westmoreland, cross sections for the backwater analyses of Deans and Oriskany Creeks, Sucker Brook and Tributary A to Oriskany Creek were obtained from aerial photographs flown in April 1979 at a negative scale of 1 inch = 200 feet (Quinn and Associates, 1979). It was determined that certain bridges would have little effect on the 1 percent annual chance flood elevations and, consequently were not included in the HEC-2 analyses (USACE, 1968). These bridges are included on the profiles but their elevations are not shown. For the Town of Whitestown 1983 FIS, cross sections were obtained by field measurement. The cross sections were plotted on work maps at a scale of 1:2,400 with a contour interval of 5 feet, prepared from aerial photographs, and channel reach lengths were determined between sections along the centerline of the channel (Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, 1976). For the 2000 revision, cross section data for Sauquoit Creek were obtained from photogrammetric surveys, except for the portions below-water, which were field surveyed. For the Village of Whitesboro 1978 FIS and the 2000 revision, cross section data for Sauquoit Creek were obtained from photogrammetric surveys, except for the portions below-water which were field surveyed. For the Village of Yorkville 1983 FIS, cross sections were obtained by field measurements and plotted on work maps at a scale of 1:2,400, with a contour interval of 5 feet, prepared from aerial photographs, and reach lengths were determined between sections along the centerline of the channel (Phillips, O‟Brien, and Gere, 1976). For the 2000 revision, cross section data for Sauquoit Creek were obtained from photogrammetric surveys, except for the portions below-water which were field surveyed.

For the Town of Annsville, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, February 1977; USACE, June 1974; USACE, May 1974). Flood profiles were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations for the floods of the selected recurrence intervals. The computer models for East

58

Branch Fish Creek and Furnace Creek were calibrated using historic floodwater marks from the floods of June 22, 1972 and December 31, 1984. Starting water-surface elevations for East Branch Fish Creek and Furnace Creek were calculated using the slope/area method. For Fish Creek, the starting water-surface elevations were taken from COE recorded flood levels of Oneida Lake. The starting water-surface elevations for West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 were taken from the water-surface elevations of Fish Creek at its confluence with West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1.

For the Village of Bridgewater, water-surface elevations of the floods of selected

recurrence intervals were computed through the use of the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1968). Starting water surface elevations for the West Branch Unadilla River were calculated using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Camden, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1991). Starting water-surface elevations for the Mad River and West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 were obtained from the FIS for the Village of Camden (FEMA, 1988). Starting water-surface elevations for Cobb Brook were calculated using the slope/area method.

For the Village of Camden, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step backwater computer program (USACE, 1977). The computer model was calibrated using historic floodwater marks from the flood of June 22, 1972. Starting water-surface elevations for West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 and the Mad River were calculated using the slope/area method.

For the Village of Clayville, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). The program applies theorems for total energy and friction loss to calculate the water-surface profile for any cross section of a waterway. Starting water-surface elevations for Sauquoit Creek were determined using the slope/area method.

For the Village of Clinton, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1976). Starting water-surface elevations for Sherman Brook were determined by the slope/area method. The flooding in Clinton caused by Oriskany Creek was taken from the FIS for the Town of Kirkland (FEMA, 1984).

For the Town of Deerfield, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step backwater program (USACE, 1991). Starting water-surface elevations were calculated using the slope/area method.

59

For the Town of Floyd, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). Starting water-surface elevations for the Mohawk River Reach 1 were determined using the COE Flood Plain Information report for Utica, Whitesboro, and Oriskany, New York (USACE, 1974). Starting water-surface elevations for Sixmile Creek were determined using the 2-year flood elevation of the Mohawk River Reach 1.

For the Village of Holland Patent, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1982). Starting water-surface elevations were calculated using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Kirkland, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1976). Starting water surface elevations for the streams studied by detailed methods were determined by the slope/area method.

For the Town of Lee, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence

intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1991). The calculated water-surface elevation of the Mohawk River Reach 3 at the confluence of the West Branch Mohawk River was adopted as the starting water-surface elevation for the West Branch Mohawk River. Starting water-surface elevations for the remaining streams were calculated using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Marcy, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). Starting water-surface elevations for the Mohawk River Reach 1 were determined using the COE Flood Plain Information report for Utica, Whitesboro, and Oriskany, New York (USACE, 1974). Starting water-surface elevations for Ninemile Creek were determined using the 2-year flood elevation of the Mohawk River.

For the Town of Marshall, water-surface elevations for the floods of selected

recurrence intervals were computed through the use of the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1968; USACE, 1976; USACE, 1974). Starting water-surface elevations for Oriskany Creek were taken from the FIS for the Town of Kirkland (FEMA, 1984). All other water-surface elevations were computed using the slope/area method.

For the Town and Village of New Hartford, water-surface elevations for the streams

studied by detailed methods were calculated using the COE HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles Computer Program (USACE, 1973). The slope/area method, which uses the slope of the energy grade line and the discharge to determine starting water-surface elevations, was utilized for the streams studied by detailed methods.

60

For the 1983 Village of New York Mills FIS, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, October 1973). Starting water-surface elevations were determined using the slope/area method.

For the Village of New York Mills May 4, 2000 revision, water-surface elevations

of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1987). The starting water-surface elevation for the revised portion of Sauquoit Creek was established by matching the water-surface elevation in the Town of Whitestown.

For the Village of Oneida Castle, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1976). Starting water-surface elevations for Oneida Creek were obtained from the FIS for the City of Oneida (FEMA, Unpublished).

For the Village of Oriskany, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). For the Mohawk River Reach 1, the HEC-2 backwater run was started at Utica and run continuously through Utica, Whitesboro, and Oriskany. The 1 percent annual chance flood starting water-surface elevation for the run at Utica was taken from a COE Flood Plain Information report (USACE, 1975). Only the 1 percent annual chance flood elevation was given in the COE report. Starting water-surface elevations for the 10 percent, 2 percent, and 0.2 percent annual chance flood profiles were determined from a flow versus elevation curve made from the two COE points and approximated zero flow elevation point. Starting water-surface elevations for Oriskany Creek were determined using the slope/area method.

For the Village of Oriskany Falls, water-surface elevations of floods of selected

recurrence intervals were computed through the use of the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1968). The starting water-surface elevations for the Oriskany Creek were taken from the FIS for the Town of Marshall (FEMA, 1982). The starting water-surface elevations for Lindsley Brook were computed using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Paris, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence

intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). The program applies theorems for total energy and friction loss to calculate the water-surface profile for any cross section of a waterway. Starting water-surface elevations were determined using the slop/area method.

For the Village of Prospect, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1991). Starting water-surface elevations were calculated using the slope/area method.

61

For the 1985 FIS and the 1998 revision for the City of Rome, water-surface elevations of floods of selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1991). Starting water-surface elevations for the Mohawk River Reach 1 and Wood Creek were calculated using the slope/area method. Starting water-surface elevations for Fish Creek were taken from flood levels for Oneida Lake, as recorded by the USACE. For the 1998 revision, starting water-surface elevations for Wood Creek were determined based on critical depth occurring at the triple culvert downstream of the Erie Canal outlet structure.

For the City of Sherrill, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1976). The program applies theorems for total energy and friction loss to calculate the water-surface profile for any cross section of a waterway. Starting water-surface elevations for Oneida Creek were determined using the slope/area method.

For the Village of Sylvan Beach, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1976). Starting water-surface elevations were determined using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Trenton 1997 FIS, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1982). For the 1998 revision, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1991). Starting water-surface elevations for Cincinnati and Steuben Creeks were obtained from the FIS for the Town of Trenton where these streams were studied up to, but not inside, the corporate limits (FEMA, 1997).

For the City of Utica, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence

intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). The program applies theorems for total energy and friction loss to calculate the water-surface profile for any cross section of a waterway. Starting water-surface elevations for all streams except Sauquoit Creek were determined using the slope/area method. Starting water-surface elevations for Sauquoit Creek were obtained from the FIS for the Town of New Hartford (FEMA, Unpublished).

For the Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal, the 1% annual chance water-surface

elevations through the upstream and downstream culvert series, were obtained from undated hydraulic hand calculations using modified Federal Highway Administration and Virginia Department of Transportation procedures (FEMA, 2001).

For the Town and Village of Vernon, water-surface elevations of floods of the

selected recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1977). The HEC-2 computer model was calibrated

62

using historic floodwater marks primarily from the flood of June 22, 1972. The starting water-surface elevations for Sconondoa Creek were calculated using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Verona, water-surface elevations of floods of selected recurrence

intervals for Fish Creek and for the remainder of the flooding sources studied in detail were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1987; USACE, 1977). Starting water-surface elevations for Fish Creek were taken from the USACE recorded flood levels for Oneida Lake. Starting water-surface elevations for Oneida Creek were obtained from the FIS for the Town of Lenox (FEMA, 1987). Starting water-surface elevations for Sconondoa Creek were calculated using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Vienna, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1976; USACE, June 1974; USACE, May 1974; USACE, 1987). Starting water-surface elevations for Fish Creek were taken from the USACE recorded flood levels for Oneida Lake. Starting water-surface elevations for Hall Brook, Halstead Brook, Mill Stream, and Murray Brook were calculated using the slope/area method. For West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1, the starting water-surface elevations were taken from the water-surface elevations of Fish Creek at its confluence with West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1.

For the Village of Waterville, water-surface elevations for floods of selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1968). Starting water-surface elevations for Big Creek were taken from the FIS for the Town of Marshall (FEMA, unpublished). Starting water-surface elevations for Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 1 and Tributary A-1 to Big Creek were determined using the slope/area method.

For the Town of Western, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected

recurrence intervals were computed using the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1977). This computer model was calibrated using historic floodwater marks primarily from the flood of June 22, 1972. Starting water-surface elevations for the flooding sources studied in detail were calculated using the slope/area method. A stage-discharge curve for the Delta Dam, available from the NYSDEC, was used to develop the 10 percent, 2 percent, 1 percent, and .2 percent annual chance flood backwater elevations affecting the Mohawk River. Storage at Delta Reservoir was not accounted for.

For the Town of Westmoreland, water-surface elevations of floods of selected

recurrence intervals were computed through the use of the COE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1968). Starting water surface elevations for Deans and Oriskany Creeks were taken from slope/area calculations at the corporate limits. Starting water-surface elevations for Sucker Brook and Tributary A to Oriskany Creek were determined from the elevation at their confluences with Deans and Oriskany Creeks, respectively.

63

For the Town of Whitestown 1983 FIS, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). Starting water-surface elevations for the streams studied by detailed methods were determined using the slope/area method. For the 2000 revision, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1987). Starting water-surface elevations for Sauquoit Creek were calculated using the slope/area method. For the Village of Whitesboro 1978 FIS, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973; USACE, June 1974; USACE, May 1974). USACE reports were used to determine the water-surface profiles for the Mohawk River Reach 1 (USACE, June 1974; USACE, 1975). The intermediate Regional Flood and the Standard Project Flood profiles in the USACE‟s reports were developed using a Backwater-Any Cross Section computer step-backwater model (USACE, 1967). To check this model, slope-area calculations were performed at various cross sections for the 10 percent and 1 percent annual chance flood discharges using the slope of hydraulic grade line from the Intermediate Regional Flood. These calculations agreed with the elevations discharge rating curve in the 1975 USACE report. The 1 percent annual chance profile was taken directly from the USACE‟s Intermediate Regional Flood. The 10 percent, 2 percent and 0.2 percent annual chance flood profiles were obtained using the USACE‟s rating curve and the Intermediate Regional Flood hydraulic grade line slope. For the Village of Whitesboro 2000 revised FIS, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1987). The starting water-surface elevation was established by matching the water-surface elevation within the Town of Whitestown. For the Village of Yorkville 1983 FIS, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1973). Starting water-surface elevations for the Mohawk River Reach 1 were determined using the slope/area method. For the 2000 revision, water-surface elevations of floods of the selected recurrence intervals were computed using the USACE HEC-2 step-backwater computer program (USACE, 1987). Starting water-surface elevations for Sauquoit Creek were determined using the slope/area method.

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 an explanation of the HUC system.

64

02020004060- Mohawk River Reach 1

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. For all detailed, revised streams, field survey was obtained for both natural stream cross sections as well as hydraulic obstructions such as bridges, culverts, dams, and weirs. This information was combined with a LiDAR product that is a mass point dataset with an average point spacing of 1 meter (m). This information was preprocessed using the HEC GeoRAS interface for ArcGIS 9.1. The interface prepared the geometry file for HEC-RAS and was eventually used to visualize results from the simulations. HEC-RAS Version 3.1.3 was used for the hydraulic analyses. GeoRAS Version 4.2.92 for ArcGIS 9.2 was used to generate the required geometry file from the developed terrain. Check RAS Version 1.4 was used to verify the models.

65

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. Flood profiles were drawn showing computed water-surface elevations for floods of the selected recurrence intervals.

For most streams studied by approximate methods, floodplains were developed using the USACE HEC-GeoRAS and HEC-RAS computer programs assuming normal depth. The backwater effects associated with bridges and other structures located within the floodplain were not incorporated into the Zone A areas developed for streams.

For streams studied by approximate methods, roughness factors (manning‟s “n”)

used in the hydraulic computations were chosen based on National Land Cover Dataset (NLCD) 2001 products. Channel roughness coefficient were assigned based on engineering judgment.

For streams studied by detailed methods, 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 10, "Manning's "n" Values."

TABLE 10 - MANNING'S "n" VALUES

Stream Channel “n” Overbank “n” Beaver Meadow Brook 0.030-0.032 0.060-0.090

Big Creek 0.045-0.055 0.035-0.060

Canada Creek 0.030-0.035 0.065-0.095

Cincinnati Creek * *

Cobb Brook 0.012-0.035 0.065-0.070

Deans Creek 0.035-0.045 0.040-0.070

Diversion Channel 0.030 0.060

Dunn Brook 0.026-0.040 0.030-0.100

East Branch Fish Creek 0.035-0.054 0.070-1.000

Fish Creek 0.030-0.090 0.049-0.250

Furnace Creek 0.022-0.037 0.070-1.000

Hall Brook 0.005-0.125 0.020-0.250

Halstead Creek 0.040-0.090 0.050-0.250

Lansing Kill 0.020-0.038 0.045-1.000

Lindsley Brook 0.045 0.035-0.050

Mad River 0.012-0.035 0.065-1.000

Mill Stream 0.015-0.120 0.040-0.250

Mohawk River Reach 1 0.030-0.052 0.060-0.105

Mohawk River Reach 2 0.023-0.043 0.040-1.000

66

TABLE 10 - MANNING'S "n" VALUES - continued Stream Channel “n” Overbank “n” Mohawk River Reach 3 0.035-0.040 0.060-0.095

Mud Creek 0.015-0.040 0.040-0.150

Murray Brook 0.015-0.065 0.060-0.150

Nail Creek Reach 1 0.018-0.045 0.045-0.090

Nail Creek Reach 2 0.015-0.045 0.045-0.090

Ninemile Creek 0.030-0.040 0.050-0.100

Oneida Creek 0.035 0.055-0.08

Oriskany Creek 0.030-0.060 0.030-0.100

Reall Creek 0.030-0.060 0.050-0.080

Sash Factory Creek 0.030-0.035 0.060-0.095

Sauquoit Creek 0.025-0.055 0.045-0.150

Sconondoa Creek 0.015-0.030 0.060-0.090

Sherman Brook 0.040 0.055-1.000

Sixmile Creek 0.035 0.040

St. Marys Brook 0.050-0.060 0.035

Starch Factory Creek 0.015-0.035 0.080

Steuben Creek * *

Sucker Brook 0.030 0.040

Thompsons Creek 0.035 0.060

Tributary A-1 to Big Creek 0.030 0.06

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 1 0.035-0.055 0.050-0.055

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 2 0.035-0.055 0.050

Tributary A to Oriskany Creek 0.040-0.060 0.050

Tributary to Canada Creek 0.030-0.035 0.060-0.095

Tributary to Delta Lake 0.030-0.035 0.060-0.095

Tributary to Mud Creek 0.013-0.035 0.035-0.080

Tributary to Sauquoit Creek 0.025-0.040 0.060-0.075

Turkey Creek 0.060 0.040

Watermans Brook 0.040-0.020 0.035-0.045

Wells Creek-Big Brook 0.021-0.035 0.050-0.100

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 0.040-0.090 0.100-0.250

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 0.012-0.035 0.065-0.070

West Branch Mohawk River 0.035-0.040 0.060-0.085

West Branch Unadilla River 0.040 0.080

West Canada Creek 0.028-0.035 0.050-0.080

White Creek 0.060 0.040

Wood Creek 0.017-0.065 0.022-0.080

*Data not available

67

For FIRM panels dated July 16, 2004, or later, qualifying bench marks within a given jurisdiction that are cataloged by the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) and entered into the National Spatial Reference System (NSRS) as First or Second Order Vertical and have a vertical stability classification of A, B, or C are shown and labeled on the FIRM with their 6-character NSRS Permanent Identifier. Bench marks cataloged by the NGS and entered into the NSRS vary widely in vertical stability classification. NSRS vertical stability classifications are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

68

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 Oneida 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 +0.5. The conversion between the datums may be expressed as an equation:

NGVD 29 = NAVD 88 + 0.5 foot

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

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

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

69

4.1 Floodplain Boundaries To provide a national standard without regional discrimination, the 1-percent

annual chance flood has been adopted by FEMA as the base flood for floodplain management purposes. The 0.2-percent annual chance flood is employed to indicate additional areas of flood risk in the county. For the streams studied in detail, the 1- and 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain boundaries have been delineated using the flood elevations determined at each cross section.

Between cross sections, the boundaries were interpolated using bare earth digital elevation data provided by Oneida County. The point elevation data is comprised mostly of LiDAR with some spot heights generated from aerial photography flown within the same year in support of digital orthophotography acquisition. Water-surface elevation triangulated irregular networks (TINs) were created from the model cross sections and intersected with the bare earth ground TIN to produce the floodplain corridor. The resulting floodplains were smoothed and incorporated in the DFIRM.

Similarly, using datum-converted effective flood profiles for non-revised, detailed

streams, all flood boundaries were made current with the topography supplied by the county to FEMA.

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 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

70

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 11). 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 the Onedia Creek and West Canada Creek 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 11, "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 11 for certain downstream cross sections of Cincinnati Creek, Halstead Creek, Lindsley Brook, Mill Stream, Mud Creek, Oneida Creek, Oriskany Creek, Sauquoit Creek, Sconondoa Creek, Sixmile Creek, St. Mary‟s Brook, Starch Factory Creek, Turkey Creek and White 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.

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 2, Floodway Schematic.

71

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Beaver Meadow Creek A 910

1 59 141 8.9 692.5 692.5 692.5 0.0

Big Creek A 4,720

2 205 444 5.6 781.4 781.4 782.4 1.0

B 7,6802 320 1,062 2.4 811.5 811.5 812.3 0.8

C 11,7602 47 215 11.6 862.0 862.0 862.2 0.2

D 15,4642 59 556 4.5 922.6 922.6 922.6 0.0

E 16,7952 50 470 5.3 945.7 945.7 946.6 0.9

F 19,2352 100 430 5.0 978.0 978.0 978.6 0.6

G 26,1752 42 224 8.4 1,074.2 1,074.2 1,074.2 0.0

H 28,9202 70 203 7.7 1,114.2 1,114.2 1,114.2 0.0

I 31,1202 44 149 10.5 1,156.5 1,156.5 1,156.5 0.0

J 31,5662 86 769 2.0 1,195.3 1,195.3 1,195.3 0.0

K 33,9662 100 318 5.0 1,209.2 1,209.2 1,210.2 1.0

1

Feet above confluence with Big Brook 2Feet above confluence with Oriskany Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

BEAVER MEADOW CREEK – BIG CREEK

72

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Canada Creek A 1,420 41 272 9.0 485.1 485.1 486.1 1.0 B 1,750 48 259 9.5 486.9 486.9 487.6 0.7 C 4,610 48 239 10.3 505.3 505.3 506.3 1.0 D 7,370 170 775 3.2 514.7 514.7 515.5 0.8 E 10,680 160 739 3.3 525.5 525.5 526.5 1.0 F 12,090 70 272 9.1 533.5 533.5 533.5 0.0 G 13,670 70 221 11.1 548.8 548.8 548.8 0.0 H 17,340 137 330 7.4 588.1 588.1 588.8 0.7 I 18,885 38 191 9.9 602.1 602.1 602.5 0.4 J 19,455 30 230 8.2 608.3 608.3 608.5 0.2 K 20,575 95 275 6.8 615.7 615.7 615.7 0.0 L 22,740 45 180 8.5 633.2 633.2 633.4 0.2 M 22,970 80 400 3.4 635.7 635.7 635.9 0.2 N 25,555 110 419 3.2 647.1 647.1 647.8 0.7 O 25,730 65 242 5.6 647.5 647.5 648.4 0.9 P 28,470 65 231 3.2 666.3 666.3 667.3 1.0 Q 30,000 30 91 8.0 679.1 679.1 679.3 0.2 R 31,370 50 108 6.7 696.1 696.1 696.1 0.0 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 15,75 feet downstream of Thomas Road)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

CANADA CREEK

73

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Cincinnati Creek A 400

1 56 425 12.8 720.9 717.8

3 718.7 0.9

B 3,0001 86 742 7.3 727.5 727.5 728.5 1.0

C 5,7001 67 567 9.6 733.2 733.2 734.1 0.9

D 7,8001 154 1,134 4.8 738.1 738.1 738.8 0.7

E 9,6001 303 1,620 3.4 741.6 741.6 742.5 0.9

F 11,5551 81 662 8.2 745.2 745.2 745.6 0.4

G 13,5001 198 1,273 4.3 750.6 750.6 751.5 0.9

H 14,3701 209 2,559 2.1 760.4 760.4 760.4 0.0

I 15,6001 544 2,266 2.4 760.6 760.6 760.6 0.0

J 17,1001 105

3 519 10.5 765.8 765.8 765.9 0.1

K 18,1001 136

3 823 6.6 770.7 770.7 771.6 0.9

L 19,7851 68 278 10.3 782.3 782.3 782.5 0.2

M 22,3001 101 319 8.9 806.9 806.9 807.3 0.4

N 24,5001 64 252 11.3 847.4 847.4 847.5 0.1

O 25,4001 42 231 12.4 876.4 876.4 877.2 0.8

P 26,8851 47 227 12.6 902.0 902.0 902.0 0.0

Q 27,6851 50 232 12.3 936.4 936.4 936.6 0.2

R 28,7501 56 241 11.8 950.2 950.2 950.3 0.1

Cobb Brook A 950

2 205 458 5.4 479.1 479.1 479.9 0.8

B 2,6202 140 376 6.6 502.2 502.2 502.4 0.2

C 4,7502 74 284 8.8 540.2 540.2 541.0 0.8

D 6,5002 79 285 8.7 561.6 561.6 562.5 0.9

1

Feet above confluence with West Canada Creek 2Feet above confluence with West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from West Canada Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

CINCINNATI CREEK - COBB BROOK

74

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Deans Creek A 2,000

1 180 1,001 3.5 473.4 473.4 473.6 0.2

B 3,8001 180 663 5.2 476.6 476.6 477.3 0.7

C 6,6101 202 847 4.0 488.4 488.4 489.3 0.9

D 12,1901 109 465 7.5 510.4 510.4 511.3 0.9

E 14,6341 120 471 4.9 519.5 519.5 519.6 0.1

F 17,7741 163 325 7.1 528.0 528.0 528.9 0.9

G 20,9541 160 386 6.0 537.3 537.3 537.8 0.5

H 25,5141 370 688 3.4 553.9 553.9 553.9 0.0

I 28,8141 327 620 3.7 562.0 562.0 562.0 0.0

J 32,6341 375 704 3.3 572.9 572.9 572.9 0.0

K 37,0941 151 1,033 1.7 606.0 606.0 607.0 0.0

L 39,6541 207 725 2.4 607.0 607.0 607.0 0.0

M 42,7341 116 256 6.8 637.0 637.0 637.9 0.9

Diversion Channel A 100

2 * * * 654.2 * * *

B 6002 * * * 666.5 * * *

Dunn Brook A 1,048

3 15 27 15.7 740.2 740.2 740.2 0.0

1

Feet above confluence with Oriskany Creek 2Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 160 feet downstream of State Route 274)

3 Feet above confluence with Lansing Kill *Floodway not computed

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

DEANS CREEK – DIVERSION CHANNEL – DUNN BROOK

75

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

East Branch Fish Creek A 14,370

1 134 1,386 12.6 479.3 479.3 479.3 0.0

B 17,7641 319 2,213 7.9 505.2 505.2 505.2 0.0

C 25,5641 325 1,940 9.0 586.7 586.7 586.7 0.0

Fish Creek A 1,435

2 1,660 6,877 3.8 375.3 375.3 375.9 0.6

B 2,8852 1,507 13,047 2.0 375.9 375.9 376.5 0.6

C

5,5702 2,419 12,897 2.0 376.3 376.3 377.1 0.8

D 9,0302 2,296 9,876 2.6 377.2 377.2 378.0 0.8

E 11,4302 2,877 14,172 1.8 378.5 378.5 379.3 0.8

F 11,9852 2,688 7,293 3.6 378.5 378.5 379.3 0.8

G 14,1752 2,250 12,555 2.1 379.8 379.8 380.7 0.9

H 17,2002 2,521 13,142 2.0 380.6 380.6 381.5 0.9

I 19,2302 2,250 9,536 2.7 381.3 381.3 382.3 1.0

J 21,9152 4,650 20,548 1.2 383.3 383.3 384.3 1.0

K 25,2652 4,430

4, 22,498 1.1 384.0 384.0 385.0 1.0

L 26,9202 5,880 16,839 1.5 384.0 384.0 385.0 1.0

M 30,5002 6,630 26,156 0.9 385.8 385.8 386.8 1.0

N 35,6952 2,860 13,092 1.9 387.2 387.2 388.2 1.0

O 37,0852 800 7,871 3.3 387.7 387.7 388.7 1.0

P 39,6152 199 3,699 7.0 388.6 388.6 389.6 1.0

Q 40,9702 404 7,349 3.5 390.3 390.3 391.2 0.9

R 43,3752 549 6,355 4.1 392.0 392.0 392.8 0.8

S 45,0902 1,649 13,764 1.8 393.2 393.2 394.1 0.9

T 46,5902 264 5,293 4.9 393.7 393.7 394.6 0.9

U 48,0252 450 6,556 3.9 394.6 394.6 395.5 0.9

1

Feet above confluence with Fish Creek 2Feet above confluence with New York State Barge Canal

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

EAST BRANCH FISH CREEK – FISH CREEK

76

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Fish Creek (continued) V 49,375

1 299 5,548 4.7 395.2 395.2 396.2 1.0

W 50,8101 305 5,376 4.8 396.1 396.1 397.0 0.9

X 51,4851 584 8,305 3.1 396.6 396.6 397.6 1.0

Y 52,5201 539 8,021 3.2 397.1 397.1 398.1 1.0

Z 53,6801 305 5,376 4.8 397.6 397.6 398.5 0.9

AA 54,8051 299 6,576 3.9 398.5 398.5 399.5 1.0

AB 56,2501 824 17,588 1.4 398.9 398.9 399.9 1.0

AC 57,3401 819 9,695 2.6 398.9 398.9 399.9 1.0

AD 58,1251 522 7,073 3.6 399.2 399.2 400.2 1.0

AE 58,6901 277 4,916 5.3 399.2 399.2 400.2 1.0

AF 59,7851 369 7,538 3.4 400.8 400.8 401.8 1.0

AG 60,6601 489 9,084 2.8 401.3 401.3 402.3 1.0

AH 62,2001 1,114 19,465 1.3 401.7 401.7 402.7 1.0

AI 63,3901 1,399 24,166 1.0 401.9 401.9 402.9 1.0

AJ 64,3951 1,450 21,833 1.1 402.2 402.2 403.2 1.0

AK 65,6801 3,349 52,153 0.4 402.5 402.5 403.5 1.0

AL 67,3101 4,199 47,342 0.5 402.7 402.7 403.7 1.0

AM 68,8851 2,499 22,212 1.1 403.3 403.3 404.3 1.0

AN 70,2251 2,140 11,977 2.1 405.3 405.3 406.3 1.0

Furnace Creek A 1,784

2 44 155 10.7 535.7 535.7 535.7 0.0

B 3,0022 37 179 9.3 555.5 555.5 555.5 0.0

1

Feet above confluence with New York State Barge Canal 2Feet above confluence with East Branch Fish Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

FISH CREEK – FURNACE CREEK

77

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Hall Brook A 270

1 178 620 2.0 376.0 376.0 377.0 1.0

B 1,2851 145 301 4.2 392.3 392.3 392.3 0.0

C 1,5501 368 2,211 0.5 401.7 401.7 401.7 0.0

D 1,8401 119 802 1.5 402.1 402.1 402.1 0.0

E 2,2651 49 202 6.2 402.3 402.3 402.3 0.0

F 2,8751 68 315 4.0 410.0 410.0 410.7 0.7

G 3,2301 63 314 4.0 417.1 417.1 417.8 0.7

H 3,6501 41 317 4.0 420.6 420.6 420.9 0.3

I 4,1401 98 599 2.1 423.0 423.0 423.8 0.8

J 4,5201 91 518 2.4 423.0 423.0 423.8 0.8

K 5,0051 43 128 9.8 423.0 423.0 423.8 0.8

L 5,3151 316 2,536 0.5 428.3 428.3 429.2 0.9

Halstead Creek A 60

2 14 85 4.7 461.3 448.2

3 449.2 1.0

B 7402 69 283 1.4 461.3 452.6

3 453.4 0.8

C 1,4652 78 102 3.9 461.3 460.6

3 460.8 0.2

D 1,8602 49 209 1.9 464.7 464.7 465.5 0.8

E 2,3502 83 1,035 0.3 489.6 489.6 489.8 0.2

F 2,6402 195 2,806 0.1 489.6 489.6 489.8 0.2

1

Feet above confluence with Oneida Lake 2Feet above confluence with West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

HALL BROOK – HALSTEAD CREEK

78

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Lansing Kill A 1,240

1 172 552 8.5 655.7 655.7 655.7 0.0

B 7,6301 273 1,146 4.1 673.8 673.8 674.8 1.0

C 14,9071 176 563 8.3 700.3 700.3 700.4 0.1

D 21,3011 47 269 13.7 739.4 739.4 739.4 0.0

Lindsley Brook A 82

2 80 188 9.3 943.9 941.9

4 942.9 1.0

B 1,0842 88 289 6.0 952.2 952.2 953.1 0.9

C 2,9522 129 506 1.5 990.8 990.8 991.7 0.9

Mad River A 1,680

3 465 2,684 3.2 481.7 481.7 482.1 0.4

B 3,5773 287 1,597 5.4 489.1 489.1 490.0 0.9

C 7,6933 220 983 8.7 513.0 513.0 513.0 0.0

D 9,2003 346 1,194 7.2 524.3 524.3 525.1 0.8

E 11,1003 167 951 9.0 539.6 539.6 540.5 0.9

F 13,7003 236 1,023 8.4 557.0 557.0 557.8 0.8

G 15,3003 340 1,057 8.1 570.1 570.1 570.6 0.5

H 16,9003 227 1,615 5.3 587.5 587.5 588.4 0.9

1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 2 4Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Oriskany Creek

2Feet above confluence with Oriskany Creek

3Feet above confluence with West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

LANSING KILL – LINDSLEY BROOK – MAD RIVER

79

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mill Stream A 855 55 339 1.2 379.8 379.0

2 379.8 0.8

B 955 49 293 1.4 379.8 379.02 379.8 0.8

C 1,200 47 285 1.5 379.8 379.12 380.0 0.9

D 1,690 31 157 2.8 379.8 379.12 380.1 1.0

E 2,425 99 371 1.1 379.8 379.42 380.4 1.0

F 3,065 189 362 1.2 379.8 379.8 380.8 1.0 G 3,725 53 165 2.6 380.9 380.9 381.7 0.8 H 4,015 15 73 5.9 381.9 381.9 382.9 1.0 I 4,325 103 434 1.0 388.7 388.7 389.0 0.3 J 4,535 109 162 2.7 388.7 388.7 389.0 0.3 K 4,745 19 49 8.9 393.4 393.4 394.2 0.8 L 5,105 25 103 4.2 405.2 405.2 406.2 1.0 M 5,325 84 1,797 0.2 433.9 433.9 434.1 0.2 N 5,665 54 679 0.6 433.9 433.9 434.1 0.2 O 5,805 24 233 1.8 433.9 433.9 434.1 0.2 P 7,000 100 224 1.9 464.9 464.9 465.8 0.9 Q 7,110 210 840 0.5 476.4 476.4 477.2 0.8 R 7,380 159 272 1.6 476.7 476.7 477.6 0.9 1

Feet above confluence with Fish Creek 2Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Fish Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

MILL STREAM

80

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mohawk River Reach 1 A 1,667 1,658 22,964 0.7 404.9 404.9 405.7 0.8 B 6,304 461 5,427 3.1 405.1 405.1 405.8 0.7 C 11,147 1,229 9,915 1.7 406.0 406.0 406.6 0.6 D 24,782 1,064 11,485 1.6 411.6 411.6 412.2 0.6 E 31,540 3,350 32,461 0.6 411.8 411.8 412.5 0.7 F 34,519 2,714 27,861 0.6 411.8 411.8 412.6 0.8 G 38,015 3,970

44,337 0.5 413.8 413.8 414.8 1.0

H 40,675 3,940

41,432 0.5 413.8 413.8 414.8 1.0 I 42,315 3,780

36,282 0.6 413.8 413.8 414.8 1.0

J 43,865 3,040

19,494 1.0 413.9 413.9 414.9 1.0 K 44,095 2,890

20,395 0.9 413.9 413.9 414.9 1.0

L 46,035 1,280 11,259 1.7 414.1 414.1 415.1 1.0 M 46,475 1,110 13,425 1.4 414.5 414.5 415.4 0.9 N 47,955 1,565

11,029 1.7 414.7 414.7 415.6 0.9

O 53,175 2,520

12,793 1.5 415.8 415.8 416.6 0.8 P 53,315 2,470 17,019 1.1 416.4 416.4 417.0 0.6 Q 56,815 1,740

13,458 1.4 416.8 416.8 417.4 0.6

R 59,915 1,747

12,145 1.6 417.2 417.2 417.8 0.6 S 62,645 1,880

16,639 1.2 417.5 417.5 418.2 0.7

T 64,135 1,930

15,900 1.2 417.7 417.7 418.4 0.7 U 65,595 1,900

12,736 1.5 417.9 417.9 418.6 0.7

V 68,945 1,930 11,997 1.2 418.5 418.5 419.3 3

0.8 W 70,915 1,980

13,098 1.1 418.8 418.8 419.7 0.9

X 74,185 2,210

11,906 1.2 419.1 419.1 420.1 1.0 Y 76,335 2,230

12,909 1.1 419.4 419.4 420.4 1.0

Z 80,386 2,500

14,722 0.6 419.6 419.6 420.6 1.0 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 12,775 feet downstream of Leland Avenue)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

MOHAWK RIVER REACH 1

81

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mohawk River Reach 1 (continued) AA 81,676 2,800

19,098 0.5 419.7 419.7 420.7 1.0

AB 84,716 3,000

9,893 1.0 419.8 419.8 420.8 1.0 AC 86,366 2,900

13,192 0.7 420.1 420.1 421.1 1.0

AD 89,496 2,600 9,323 1.0 420.6 420.6 421.5 0.9 AE 92,566 2,300 11,867 0.8 420.9 420.9 421.7 0.8 AF 94,816 2,750

8,899 1.1 421.3 421.3 422.1 0.8

AG 96,646 2,200

6,703 1.4 421.8 421.8 422.6 0.8 AH 97,996 1,800

5,218 1.8 422.5 422.5 423.4 0.9

AI 99,446 1,600 5,758 1.6 423.5 423.5 424.4 0.9 AJ 101,306 600 3,280 2.9 424.4 424.4 425.3 0.9 AK 101,821 400 6,539 1.2 425.2 425.2 426.1 0.9 AL 102,981 260 4,531 1.8 425.2 425.2 426.1 0.9 AM 104,891 250 4,482 1.8 425.2 425.2 426.1 0.9 AN 106,301 250 4,154 1.9 425.3 425.3 426.2 0.9 AO 107,476 250 4,502 1.8 425.3 425.3 426.2 0.9 AP 108,862 209 3,886 2.1 425.4 425.4 426.3 0.9 AQ 110,222 260 4,405 1.8 425.5 425.5 426.4 0.9 AR 111,787 240 4,322 1.9 425.5 425.5 426.4 0.9 AS 112,177 240 4,325 1.9 425.5 425.5 426.4 0.9 AT 113,942 240 4,170 1.9 425.6 425.6 426.5 0.9 AU 115,637 254 4,918 1.6 425.7 425.7 426.5 0.8 AV 117,427 300 6,037 1.3 425.7 425.7 426.5 0.8 AW 119,007 170 2,600 3.1 431.0 431.0 431.2 0.2 AX 120,017 205 1,538 5.2 431.1 431.1 431.3 0.2 AY 121,102 157 1,217 6.6 435.8 435.8 435.9 0.1 AZ 121,432 168 1,159 6.9 436.1 436.1 437.0 0.9 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 12,775 feet downstream of Leland Avenue)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

MOHAWK RIVER REACH 1

82

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mohawk River Reach 1 (continued) BA 122,612 568 1,409 5.7 440.3 440.3 440.4 0.1 BB 124,112 178 1,403 5.7 441.8 441.8 442.3 0.5 BC 125,642 108 795 10.1 446.8 446.8 446.9 0.1 BD 126,822 252 2,187 3.7 450.0 450.0 450.3 0.3 BE 128,122 180 1,554 5.2 450.9 450.9 451.4 0.5 BF 129,442 140 1,330 6.1 452.5 452.5 453.0 0.5 BG 130,727 300 2,171 3.7 454.5 454.5 454.8 0.3 BH 132,587 191 1,556 5.2 456.6 456.6 456.8 0.2 BI 133,792 304 2,161 3.7 459.0 459.0 459.8 0.8 BJ 135,622 150 1,188 6.8 461.5 461.5 462.4 0.9 BK 136,647 244 1,875 4.3 463.6 463.6 464.3 0.7 BL 137,822 140 1,065 7.6 465.4 465.4 465.8 0.4 BM 138,642 123 1,121 7.2 467.1 467.1 467.7 0.6 BN 139,922 101 954 8.4 470.4 470.4 470.8 0.4 BO 141,842 140 1,318 6.1 474.9 474.9 475.3 0.4 BP 143,742 163 1,539 5.2 477.1 477.1 477.9 0.8 BQ 145,262 108 1,207 6.7 478.7 478.7 479.7 1.0 BR 146,732 152 1,638 4.9 480.8 480.8 481.6 0.8 BS 148,052 116 1,042 7.7 482.4 482.4 483.0 0.6 BT 149,717 136 1,303 6.1 485.3 485.3 486.0 0.7 BU 151,207 128 1,211 6.5 487.8 487.8 488.3 0.5 BV 152,037 150 1,777 4.4 489.0 489.0 489.4 0.4 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 12,775 feet downstream of Leland Avenue)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

MOHAWK RIVER REACH 1

83

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mohawk River Reach 2 A 9,514

1 875 4,249 3.0 570.3 570.3 570.4 0.1

B 20,6191

143 936 10.9 614.2 614.2 615.0 0.8 Mohawk River Reach 3 A 600

2 54 263 12.8 924.6 924.6 924.8 0.2

1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 3,600 feet downstream of County Road 53) 2Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 1,050 feet downstream of confluence of East and West Branches Mohawk River)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

MOHAWK RIVER REACH 2 - MOHAWK RIVER REACH 3

84

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Mud Creek A 1,200

1 62 140 4.8 453.5 452.5

3 453.2 0.7

B 2,5631 83 189 3.4 459.5 459.5 459.8 0.3

C 4,5831 47 82 7.5 464.5 464.5 464.5 0.0

D 5,9081 123 813 1.5 476.8 476.8 477.3 0.5

E 6,5851 227 1,317 0.9 479.1 479.1 479.2 0.1

F 7,7351 420 1,056 1.2 479.2 479.2 479.4 0.2

G 8,7251 275 297 4.1 479.3 479.3 479.8 0.5

H 11,6051 44 126 9.7 491.2 491.2 491.4 0.2

I 14,1121 254 2,095 0.7 504.6 504.6 505.6 1.0

J 15,2221 370 1,617 0.9 504.7 504.7 505.7 1.0

K 16,5221 230 272 5.2 508.1 508.1 508.5 0.4

L 17,5721 47 176 2.9 513.8 513.8 514.4 0.6

M 18,5721 43 228 2.2 517.7 517.7 517.7 0.0

Murray Brook A 315

2 55 157 6.3 375.2 375.2 376.2 1.0

B 5152 23 112 8.9 383.7 383.7 383.7 0.0

C 6552 45 191 5.2 384.4 384.4 384.9 0.5

D 1,2552 31 98 10.2 395.5 395.5 395.5 0.0

E 1,5052 27 94 10.6 401.6 401.6 401.6 0.0

F 2,0452 39 106 9.4 419.9 419.9 419.9 0.0

G 2,6352 54 159 6.3 435.0 435.0 435.0 0.0

H 2,9152 56 125 8.0 442.2 442.2 442.9 0.7

I 3,6752 29 134 7.5 462.6 462.6 463.1 0.5

1

Feet above confluence with Sauquoit Creek 2Feet above confluence with Oneida Lake

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Sauquoit Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

MUD CREEK – MURRAY BROOK

85

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Nail Creek Reach 1 A 1,225

1 270 1,245 2.1 414.9 414.9 414.9 0.0

Nail Creek Reach 2 A 115

2 45 157 2.8 476.1 476.1 476.5 0.4

B 5492 46 150 2.9 480.0 480.0 480.0 0.0

C 1,4012 38 98 4.5 483.6 483.6 483.6 0.0

D 1,8212 36 81 5.5 485.3 485.3 485.3 0.0

E 2,7412 16 88 5.0 489.0 489.0 489.1 0.1

F 3,2412 27 63 7.0 491.1 491.1 491.3 0.2

G 4,0212 36 69 6.4 498.3 498.3 498.3 0.0

H 6,6752 30 56 7.9 543.7 543.7 543.7 0.0

I 7,6452 26 54 8.2 560.8 560.8 560.8 0.0

J 8,9252 24 53 8.4 601.3 601.3 601.3 0.0

Ninemile Creek A 1,700

3 358 1,403 6.0 503.7 503.7 504.0 0.3

B 2,6603 263 1,451 5.8 506.3 506.3 507.1 0.8

C 4,1003 141 990 8.5 510.5 510.5 511.1 0.6

D 5,0703 253 2,126 4.0 512.9 512.9 513.6 0.7

E 6,6903 500 2,448 3.4 516.3 516.3 516.8 0.5

F 8,7503 244 1,408 6.0 523.7 523.7 524.3 0.6

G 10,4663 404 3,239 2.6 532.8 532.8 532.8 0.0

H 12,7763 458 2,185 3.8 537.3 537.3 538.1 0.8

1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 1 2Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 368 feet downstream of Burrstone Road)

3Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 10,380 feet downstream of State Route 291)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

NAIL CREEK REACH 1 – NAIL CREEK REACH 2 – NINEMILE CREEK

86

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1 WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Ninemile Creek (continued) I 14,585 178 1,036 6.6 547.7 547.7 548.6 0.9 J 15,985 81 513 13.3 552.4 552.4 552.6 0.2 K 17,295 131 776 8.8 559.4 559.4 559.9 0.5 L 19,185 168 1,151 5.9 567.3 567.3 567.9 0.6 M 20,685 217 1,414 4.3 572.5 572.5 573.2 0.7 N 21,861 203 651 9.4 578.1 578.1 578.1 0.0 O 22,885 191 532 9.4 581.7 581.7 581.7 0.0 P 24,285 201 648 7.7 589.9 589.9 589.9 0.0 Q 26,185 193 501 10.0 602.4 602.4 602.4 0.0 R 27,085 146 609 8.2 613.7 613.7 614.7 1.0 S 29,285 131 562 8.9 629.4 629.4 629.8 0.4 T 30,885 83 494 10.1 641.8 641.8 642.8 1.0 U 32,885 113 606 8.3 656.4 656.4 657.0 0.6 V 34,555 113 701 7.1 666.6 666.6 667.5 0.9 W 36,585 75 486 10.3 679.0 679.0 679.9 0.9 X 37,885 145 596 8.4 688.5 688.5 689.2 0.7 Y 40,205 112 619 8.1 699.8 699.8 700.1 0.3 Z 42,385 100 546 9.2 709.3 709.3 709.9 0.6 AA 44,485 66 455 11.0 722.4 722.4 723.3 0.9 AB 45,549 74 489 10.2 727.7 727.7 728.4 0.7 AC 46,885 146 663 7.5 735.8 735.8 735.8 0.0 AD 49,085 111 564 8.9 743.9 743.9 744.3 0.4 AE 50,200 75 530 6.8 753.4 753.4 753.9 0.5 AF 51,385 57 312 11.6 757.6 757.6 757.8 0.2 AG 53,335 61 322 11.2 768.8 768.8 769.1 0.3 AH 55,185 81 695 5.2 782.1 782.1 783.1 1.0 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 10,380 feet downstream of State Route 291)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

NINEMILE CREEK

87

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH2 (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Oneida Creek A 565 165 3,173 3.7 372.7 372.5

3 373.2 0.7

B 1,735 115 1,566 7.5 372.7 372.63

373.2 0.6 C 4,710 388 2,824 4.2 375.8 375.8 376.5 0.7 D 6,235 679 4,739 2.5 376.8 376.8 377.6 0.8 E 10,475 359 3,376 3.5 379.3 379.3 380.2 0.9 F 12,155 468 3,157 3.7 380.1 380.1 380.9 0.8 G 12,535 135 1,480 8.0 380.2 380.2 381.1 0.9 H 12,840 390 3,661 3.2 381.9 381.9 382.5 0.6 I 13,485 608 4,352 2.7 382.1 382.1 382.8 0.7 J 14,935 613 2,210 5.3 382.8 382.8 383.2 0.4 K 15,686 163 1,476 8.0 384.1 384.1 384.8 0.7 L 17,060 217 1,885 6.3 386.8 386.8 387.8 1.0 M 21,276 514 3,334 3.5 393.3 393.3 394.2 0.9 N 23,463 529 4,809 2.5 397.2 397.2 398.1 0.9 O 25,934 365 3,755 3.1 397.7 397.7 398.6 0.9 P 29,344 226 2,060 5.7 398.4 398.4 399.4 1.0 Q 32,694 587 5,533 2.1 402.2 402.2 403.2 1.0 R 36,154 251 2,008 5.7 406.7 406.7 407.7 1.0 S 41,364 848 5,411 2.1 411.5 411.5 412.4 0.9 T 43,664 858 4,984 2.3 412.3 412.3 413.1 0.8 U 47,534 95 1,693 6.7 417.1 417.1 417.7 0.6 V 48,379 180 2,471 4.6 418.3 418.3 418.5 0.2 W 53,159 430 4,667 2.3 421.0 421.0 421.8 0.8 X 56,499 520 5,164 2.1 422.9 422.9 423.7 0.8 Y 59,954 350 3,977 2.7 425.2 425.2 425.8 0.6 Z 63,626 965

5,746 1.3 426.5 426.5 427.3 0.8

1

Feet above confluence with Oneida Lake 2Width extends beyond county boundary

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Oneida Lake

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

ONEIDA CREEK

88

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH2 (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Oneida Creek AA 66,867 1,165

2,089 3.5 427.8 427.8 428.2 0.4

AB 68,147 791

2,037 3.6 431.3 431.3 431.7 0.4 AC 70,091 93 886 8.3 441.3 441.3 441.3 0.0 AD 72,167 629 4,699 1.6 445.5 445.5 445.5 0.0 AE 75,052 920 2,577 2.9 446.3 446.3 446.4 0.1 AF 77,107 502 2,399 2.8 450.3 450.3 450.6 0.3 AG 78,447 531 1,944 3.6 453.9 453.9 454.5 0.6 AH 80,157 704 3,024 2.3 456.3 456.3 457.0 0.7 AI 82,257 909 2,959 2.3 458.1 458.1 458.8 0.7 AJ 84,577 770 1,450 4.8 462.2 462.2 462.5 0.3 AK 86,162 704 1,815 3.8 464.4 464.4 465.1 0.7 AL 86,875 318 891 7.8 466.0 466.0 466.0 0.0 AM 88,055 225 2,165 3.2 472.9 472.9 473.9 1.0 AN 89,045 250 1,919 3.6 473.3 473.3 474.3 1.0 AO 89,925 285 1,172 5.9 474.0 474.0 474.9 0.9 AP 91,112 175 1,016 6.8 478.0 478.0 478.8 0.8 AQ 92,222 105 840 8.2 483.4 483.4 483.6 0.2 AR 92,462 75 864 8.0 484.7 484.7 484.7 0.0 1

Feet above confluence with Oneida Lake 2Width extends beyond county boundary

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

ONEIDA CREEK

89

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Oriskany Creek A 3,985 460 2,404 4.8 418.5 417.7

2 418.2 0.5

B 4,175 400 3,117 3.7 421.1 421.1 421.1 0.0 C 4,865 170 1,607 7.1 421.9 421.9 421.9 0.0 D 5,175 180 2,128 5.4 425.1 425.1 425.2 0.1 E 5,455 210 2,092 5.5 426.1 426.1 426.1 0.0 F 7,040 185 1,684 6.8 427.7 427.7 427.8 0.1 G 7,930 166 981 11.7 430.2 430.2 430.3 0.1 H 10,290 330 2,436 4.7 435.9 435.9 436.7 0.8 I 12,100 190 4,351 2.6 442.2 442.2 442.9 0.7 J 13,910 141 832 13.8 443.6 443.6 443.6 0.0 K 16,320 500 4,706 2.4 455.0 455.0 455.3 0.3 L 19,510 172 1,523 7.5 458.0 458.0 458.7 0.7 M 22,460 210 1,623 7.1 464.3 464.3 464.6 0.3 N 23,860 440 2,106 5.5 466.6 466.6 467.6 1.0 O 27,130 125 904 10.0 476.3 476.3 477.1 0.8 P 28,680 350 1,958 4.6 481.2 481.2 482.0 0.8 Q 32,370 153 1,093 8.2 492.1 492.1 492.8 0.7 R 34,270 212 1,429 6.3 498.7 498.7 499.7 1.0 S 36,700 208 1,252 6.9 505.5 505.5 506.3 0.8 T 39,225 296 2,141 5.1 516.2 516.2 516.8 0.6 U 40,590 225 1,779 6.1 518.5 518.5 518.8 0.3 V 42,150 1,130 5,015 2.1 520.5 520.5 521.0 0.5 W 43,370 1,087 3,889 2.8 527.1 527.1 527.3 0.2 X 44,980 900 5,964 1.8 528.0 528.0 528.8 0.8 Y 47,376 802 2,989 3.6 534.8 534.8 535.6 0.8 Z 50,406 548 1,867 5.8 544.8 544.8 545.4 0.6 1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 1 2Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Mohawk River Reach 1

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

ORISKANY CREEK

90

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Oriskany Creek (continued) AA 52,336 530 2,013 5.3 552.9 552.9 553.5 0.6 AB 54,143 686 2,170 5.0 564.3 564.3 564.4 0.1 AC 57,243 1,000 2,578 4.2 577.0 577.0 577.8 0.8 AD 59,360 87 819 13.1 586.1 586.1 587.0 0.9 AE 62,640 625 2,348 4.2 603.9 603.9 603.9 0.0 AF 65,440 57 679 14.4 619.3 619.3 620.1 0.8 AG 67,680 260 1,096 8.9 628.7 628.7 628.7 0.0 AH 69,030 200 1,105 8.8 639.6 639.6 640.0 0.4 AI 71,255 157 1,210 8.1 654.2 654.2 654.4 0.2 AJ 73,384 378 2,516 3.4 665.7 665.7 666.1 0.4 AK 74,904 258 1,001 8.6 669.6 669.6 669.8 0.2 AL 75,944 489 1,634 5.3 676.7 676.7 677.3 0.6 AM 77,544 747 2,252 3.8 683.6 683.6 684.3 0.7 AN 79,424 428 1,183 7.3 695.7 695.7 695.8 0.1 AO 80,844 398 1,576 5.5 704.6 704.6 705.6 1.0 AP 83,304 298 1,028 8.4 722.0 722.0 722.1 0.1 AQ 86,320 380 1,441 4.1 737.3 737.3 738.3 1.0 AR 96,400 150 611 7.0 805.4 805.4 806.1 0.7 AS 99,300 120 800 5.3 827.8 827.8 827.8 0.0 AT 105,860 225 533 7.3 871.0 871.0 871.0 0.0 AU 107,540 274 822 4.7 881.6 881.6 882.5 0.9 AV 112,340 109 447 8.7 911.7 911.7 911.7 0.0 AW 117,193 94 358 9.9 946.6 946.6 947.0 0.4 AX 118,743 150 935 3.8 985.5 985.5 986.4 0.9 AY 120,063 274 457 7.7 989.9 989.9 990.3 0.4 1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 1

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

ORISKANY CREEK

91

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Reall Creek A 230

1 61 244 8.0 410.3 410.3 411.3 1.0

B 1,0461 70 302 6.5 418.8 418.8 418.8 0.0

C 1,4011 93 346 5.6 422.0 422.0 422.0 0.0

D 1,7251 70 382 5.1 425.5 425.5 425.5 0.0

E 2,0201 82 451 4.3 426.1 426.1 426.1 0.0

F 2,2801 67 267 7.3 426.5 426.5 426.5 0.0

G 2,6751 65 226 8.6 428.7 428.7 428.7 0.0

H 3,3601 71 304 6.4 432.7 432.7 432.7 0.0

I 3,5911 69 496 3.9 434.0 434.0 434.0 0.0

J 4,8861 57 250 7.8 442.0 442.0 442.0 0.0

Sash Factory Creek A 792

2 10 71 9.4 429.9 429.9 430.4 0.5

B 1,8972 20 65 10.3 444.7 444.7 444.8 0.1

C 2,7822 13 58 11.5 464.7 464.7 464.9 0.2

D 5,1022 65 113 5.9 524.2 524.2 524.2 0.0

E 6,4172 14 58 11.6 533.4 533.4 533.5 0.1

F 7,6072 63 308 2.2 537.5 537.5 538.2 0.7

G 10,0772 18 68 8.0 554.2 554.2 555.1 0.9

1

Feet above confluence with New York State Barge Canal 2Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 966 feet downstream of NY State Route 69)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

REALL CREEK – SASH FACTORY CREEK

92

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1 WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Sauquoit Creek A 5,700

453 1,961 5.2 413.7 410.2

2 411.1 0.9

B 6,660 351 2,845 3.6 417.6 417.6 417.9 0.3 C 8,150 440 2,914 3.5 421.4 421.4 421.5 0.1 D 9,510 400 2,925 3.5 426.5 426.5 426.5 0.0 E 10,730 541 2,660 3.8 428.0 428.0 428.0 0.0 F 12,990 162 1,206 8.5 444.0 444.0 444.5 0.5 G 14,920 210 2,185 4.7 449.3 449.3 450.3 1.0 H 17,200 138 1,115 6.3 462.8 462.8 463.7 0.9 I 17,970 99 745 9.4 465.4 465.4 466.1 0.7 J 20,525 100 1,102 6.4 478.8 478.8 479.3 0.5 K 23,068 87 677 10.4 493.1 493.1 493.1 0.0 L 24,332 87 465 13.2 508.4 508.4 508.4 0.0 M 26,897 62 456 13.4 526.2 526.2 526.6 0.4 N 28,696 80 692 8.8 541.9 541.9 542.5 0.6 O 29,281 52 523 11.7 535.5 535.5 544.3 0.8 P 30,029 80 647 9.0 549.2 549.2 549.7 0.5 Q 31,736 83 474 12.2 564.5 564.5 564.5 0.0 R 35,159 200 727 7.8 590.4 590.4 591.4 1.0 S 38,784 63 519 10.1 621.6 621.6 622.0 0.4 T 40,694 95 430 12.2 638.9 638.9 638.9 0.0 U 42,330 80 495 10.6 649.9 649.9 650.2 0.3 V 43,680 150 770 6.8 659.3 659.3 659.7 0.4 W 46,861 66 547 8.0 695.7 695.7 696.6 0.9 X 48,551 100 462 9.5 711.2 711.2 711.4 0.2 Y 50,701 56 412 9.2 728.8 728.8 729.1 0.3 Z 52,480 60 317 11.9 737.3 737.3 737.8 0.5 1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 1 2Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Mohawk River Reach 1

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

SAUQUOIT CREEK

93

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1 WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Sauquoit Creek (continued) AA 52,610 80 662 5.7 757.7 757.7 757.7 0.0 AB 56,685 119 586 6.5 779.3 779.3 780.3 1.0 AC 59,215 90 525 7.2 806.2 806.2 806.9 0.7 AD 59,276 69 469 6.1 808.9 808.9 808.9 0.0 AE 65,206 30 196 14.7 868.2 868.2 868.5 0.3 AF 65,401 44 545 4.0 876.6 876.6 876.6 0.0 AG 67,169 60 385 5.7 896.2 896.2 896.2 0.0 AH 67,584 46 215 10.2 899.2 899.2 899.7 0.5 AI 69,229 42 188 11.6 927.2 927.2 927.2 0.0 AJ 69,460 63 300 7.3 929.6 929.6 930.0 0.4 AK 70,585 81 228 9.6 944.2 944.2 944.2 0.0 AL 70,805 50 749 2.3 961.0 961.0 961.0 0.0 AM 71,165 60 660 2.6 961.1 961.1 961.1 0.0 AN 71,590 56 450 3.9 961.1 961.1 961.2 0.1 AO 72,840 60 185 9.4 977.8 977.8 978.1 0.3 AP 73,085 50 370 4.7 985.2 985.2 985.3 0.1 AQ 74,245 44 173 10.1 987.8 987.8 987.8 0.0 AR 74,956 32 370 4.7 1,004.7 1,004.7 1,004.7 0.0 AS 75,201 42 223 7.8 1,007.3 1,007.3 1,007.3 0.0 AT 76,055 40 259 6.7 1,024.7 1,024.7 1,025.2 0.5 AU 76,945 55 227 7.7 1,027.7 1,027.7 1,028.5 0.8 AV 77,114 85 556 3.1 1,031.7 1,031.7 1,032.6 0.9 AW 77,398 85 433 4.0 1,032.2 1,032.2 1,033.0 0.8 AX 78,445 45 178 9.8 1,050.4 1,050.4 1,050.4 0.0 AY 79,785 37 185 9.4 1,065.1 1,065.1 1,065.9 0.8 AZ 79,976 38 208 8.4 1,070.7 1,070.7 1,070.7 0.0 1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 1

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

SAUQUOIT CREEK

94

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Sauquoit Creek (continued) BA 81,578

1 80 469 2.4 1,096.2 1,096.2 1,097.1 0.9

BB 85,0481 36 113 9.8 1,138.1 1,138.1 1,138.2 0.1

BC 86,2551 36 197 5.6 1,150.5 1,150.5 1,151.0 0.5

BD 87,5951 24 136 8.1 1,168.6 1,168.6 1,168.6 0.0

BE 88,0951

41 251 4.4 1,178.3 1,178.3 1,178.8 0.5 BF 91,390

1 60 153 7.2 1,215.3 1,215.3 1,216.2 0.9

Sconondoa Creek A 1,370

2 330 1,286 4.4 425.9 422.8

4 423.4 0.6

B 5,6102 66 544 9.9 435.4 435.4 435.4 0.0

C 14,9012 771 1,374 3.9 453.4 453.4 453.4 0.0

D 26,0962 224 856 6.2 521.5 521.5 522.3 0.8

E 35,7162 310 901 5.5 579.0 579.0 579.4 0.4

F 38,0482 51 350 14.2 591.7 591.7 592.1 0.4

G 40,7532 86 630 7.9 612.3 612.3 612.3 0.0

H 46,9812 263 849 5.9 664.1 664.1 664.4 0.3

I 56,2102 105 729 6.8 716.2 716.2 717.0 0.8

J 64,3372 343 906 5.2 756.4 756.4 756.7 0.3

K 68,8462 185 700 6.1 782.0 782.0 782.5 0.5

Sherman Brook A 390

3 220 984 1.0 577.6 577.6 578.1 0.5

B 5903 36 193 5.3 577.8 577.8 578.3 0.5

C 1,0303 127 213 4.8 590.9 590.9 591.2 0.3

D 1,1453 227 375 2.7 591.8 591.8 592.3 0.5

1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 1 4Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Oneida Creek

2Feet above confluence with Oneida Creek

3Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is located approximately 822 feet from downstream side of the culvert at Utica Street)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

SAUQUOIT CREEK – SCONONDOA CREEK – SHERMAN BROOK

95

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Sixmile Creek A 222

1 40 181 12.1 422.0 419.8

3 419.8 0.0

B 3771 77 510 4.3 423.8 423.8 423.8 0.0

C 1,5771 71 460 4.7 424.6 424.6 424.9 0.3

D 4,5771 113 834 2.6 426.2 426.2 426.6 0.4

E 6,3771 41 231 9.4 426.9 426.9 427.3 0.4

F 6,9771 500 3,575 0.6 431.4 431.4 432.3 0.9

G 7,9521 137 483 4.5 431.4 431.4 432.3 0.9

H 9,0421 106 403 5.4 434.3 434.3 434.8 0.5

St. Mary’s Brook A 570

2 150 610 2.5 528.5 527.2

4 528.2 1.0

B 2,0602 330 963 1.6 531.0 529.6

4 530.0 0.4

C 3,4702 220 347 4.3 531.5 531.5 531.5 0.0

D 4,5832 195 592 2.6 536.5 536.5 537.5 1.0

E 6,2832 209 342 4.4 540.5 540.5 541.2 0.7

F 8,3832 179 412 3.7 549.5 549.5 550.3 0.8

G 9,7232 107 253 6.0 557.8 557.8 558.7 0.9

1

Feet above confluence with New York State Barge Canal 4Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Oriskany Creek

2Feet above confluence with Oriskany Creek

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Mohawk River Reach 1

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

SIXMILE CREEK – ST. MARY’S BROOK

96

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Starch Factory Creek A 470

1 30 182 7.2 405.0 404.6

3 404.6 0.0

B 1,5301 30 142 9.3 408.8 408.8 409.7 0.9

C 1,7951 59 230 5.7 411.3 411.3 411.9 0.6

.

D 4,8001 26 185 7.1 438.4 438.4 438.4 0.0

E 5,3201 50 315 4.2 442.9 442.9 442.9 0.0

F 6,3851 58 177 7.4 448.5 448.5 449.1 0.6

G 8,4971 62 192 6.8 470.0 470.0 470.0 0.0

H 10,3921 48 161 8.1 485.3 485.3 485.4 0.1

I 10,5851 50 214 6.1 488.8 488.8 488.8 0.0

J 11,5151 38 202 6.5 505.6 505.6 505.6 0.0

K 13,4621 39 127 10.3 531.1 531.1 531.2 0.1

L 14,1471 38 173 7.6 542.6 542.6 542.6 0.0

M 16,0401 60 222 5.9 580.5 580.5 580.5 0.0

Steuben Creek A 710

2 60 368 7.5 774.8 774.8 775.2 0.4

B 1,3802 196 1,569 1.8 777.1 777.1 777.3 0.2

C 2,0702 295 1,905 1.5 777.2 777.2 777.5 0.3

D 4,6702 285 1,782 1.6 777.5 777.5 777.9 0.4

E 7,1702 265 1,431 1.9 778.1 778.1 778.7 0.6

F 9,6702 296 1,117 2.5 779.7 779.7 780.6 0.9

G 12,1702 343 1,186 2.3 780.7 780.7 781.7 1.0

H 14,9702 192 758 3.7 784.3 784.3 785.3 1.0

I 16,2852 150 513 5.4 786.0 786.0 786.8 0.8

J 17,8702 368 1,615 1.7 788.2 788.2 789.2 1.0

1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 1 2Feet above confluence with Cincinnati Creek

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Mohawk River Reach 1

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

STARCH FACTORY CREEK – STEUBEN CREEK

97

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Sucker Brook A 1,340

1 63 414 3.6 517.0 517.0 517.9 0.9

B 3,3201

206 768 2.0 519.2 519.2 519.6 0.4 C 6,380

1 375 1,138 1.3 519.6 519.6 520.5 0.9

D 9,6401 355 753 2.0 522.7 522.7 523.4 0.7

Taylor Creek A 14,530

2 34 110 4.5 499.6 499.6 500.1 0.5

B 15,6052 146 219 4.0 507.7 507.7 508.4 0.7

C 16,2052 29 93 5.7 510.0 510.0 510.6 0.6

Thompsons Creek A 480

3 23 22 4.7 598.9 598.9 598.9 0.0

B 8323 17 18 5.5 609.0 609.0 609.0 0.0

C 1,2533 15 26 3.8 625.9 625.9 626.0 0.1

D 2,0883 41 85 1.2 645.8 645.8 645.8 0.0

E 2,5833 20 76 1.3 658.5 658.5 658.7 0.2

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 1 A 165

4 37 134 9.0 1,165.9 1,165.9 1,165.9 0.0

B 4194 59 299 4.0 1,179.7 1,179.7 1,179.7 0.0

C 1,0594 37 142 8.5 1,194.4 1,194.4 1,194.5 0.1

D 1,2084 53 768 1.6 1,208.5 1,208.5 1,208.6 0.1

E 1,7924 84 634 1.9 1,214.0 1,214.0 1,214.9 0.9

F 2,7924 105 347 3.5 1,214.7 1,214.7 1,215.5 0.8

G 3,6824 100 327 3.7 1,222.1 1,222.1 1,222.9 0.8

H 4,1864 26 171 3.2 1,233.5 1,233.5 1,233.5 0.0

1

Feet above confluence with Deans Creek 3Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 1,158 feet downstream of Park Place)

2Feet above confluence with Oneida Creek

4Feet above confluence with Big Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

SUCKER BROOK – TAYLOR CREEK – THOMPSONS CREEK – TRIBUTARY A TO BIG CREEK REACH 1

98

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Tributary A to Big Creek Reach 2 A 1,000

1 55 109 5.1 1,253.3 1,253.3 1,254.2 0.9

B 2,1201 29 65 8.5 1,275.0 1,275.0 1,275.0 0.0

Tributary A to Oriskany Creek A 1,850

2 61 209 6.0 510.5 510.5 510.9 0.4

B 3,9202 82 341 3.7 520.6 520.6 521.6 1.0

C 7,3302 100 309 4.1 530.0 530.0 531.0 1.0

Tributary A-1 to Big Creek A 480

3 80 278 2.6 1,225.1 1,225.1 1,226.1 1.0

B 9653 80 217 3.4 1,230.0 1,230.0 1,230.4 0.4

C 2,1083 100 169 4.3 1,233.5 1,233.5 1,234.5 1.0

D 2,2523 31 141 5.2 1,237.6 1,237.6 1,238.4 0.8

E 3,0523 87 168 4.3 1,240.8 1,240.8 1,241.6 0.8

1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is Approximately 1,045 feet downstream of Old Bridge Abutments 2Feet above confluence with Oriskany Creek

3Feet above confluence with Tributary A to Big Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

TRIBUTARY A TO BIG CREEK REACH 2 – TRIBUTARY A TO ORISKANY CREEK – TRIBUTARY A-1 TO BIG CREEK

99

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Tributary to Canada Creek A 320

1 15 49 6.4 596.1 596.1 597.1 1.0

B 1,1251 18 38 8.2 620.5 620.5 620.5 0.0

C 1,3201 15 35 8.8 627.3 627.3 627.4 0.1

D 2,1701 24 41 7.5 651.0 651.0 651.0 0.0

Tributary to Delta Lake A 1

2 25 79 5.5 541.3 541.3 542.3 1.0

B 9602 11 40 10.9 556.6 556.6 557.5 0.9

C 2,2802 8 36 12.1 587.1 587.1 587.4 0.3

D 2,7602 16 63 7.0 596.6 596.6 597.2 0.6

E 3,1052 16 80 5.5 604.1 604.1 605.0 0.9

F 4,2202 14 69 6.4 615.6 615.6 616.4 0.8

G 5,2602 90 512 0.9 628.8 628.8 629.6 0.8

H 6,3252 25 78 5.7 630.7 630.7 631.2 0.5

I 6,7402 40 182 2.4 634.0 634.0 634.7 0.7

J 7,9802 20 44 6.3 642.0 642.0 642.5 0.5

K 9,1602 40 63 4.4 677.4 677.4 677.4 0.0

Tributary to Mud Creek A 1,100

3 94 177 4.2 523.4 523.4 524.2 0.8

B 1,7633 44 90 8.2 530.1 530.1 530.1 0.0

C 2,8833 43 90 8.3 544.7 544.7 544.8 0.1

1

Feet above confluence with Canada Creek 2Feet above confluence with Delta Lake

3Feet above confluence with Mud Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

TRIBUTARY TO CANADA CREEK – TRIBUTARY TO DELTA LAKE – TRIBUTARY TO MUD CREEK

100

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Tributary to Sauquoit Creek A 560

1 35 86 6.9 505.3 505.3 506.0 0.7

B 8701 58 358 1.7 515.5 515.5 515.5 0.0

C 1,3621 79 562 1.1 517.3 517.3 517.3 0.0

D 1,6941 105 483 1.2 523.6 523.6 523.6 0.0

E 2,1461 61 310 1.9 529.5 529.5 529.5 0.0

F 2,7661 60 362 1.6 534.7 534.7 534.7 0.0

G 3,1411 14 62 9.5 537.2 537.2 538.2 1.0

Turkey Creek A 320

2 75 227 6.0 665.6 661.7

3 662.7 1.0

B 1,3402 113 229 5.9 675.2 675.2 675.7 0.5

C 2,6502 40 159 8.6 691.4 691.4 692.3 0.9

Watermans Brook A 3,800

2 22 55 9.0 807.6 807.6 807.6 0.0

B 5,7302

156 670 0.7 835.2 835.2 836.1 0.9 C 8,530

2 19 57 8.7 879.2 879.2 879.9 0.7

1

Feet above confluence with Sauquoit Creek 2Feet above confluence with Oriskany Creek

3Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Oriskany Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

TRIBUTARY TO SAUQUOIT CREEK – TURKEY CREEK – WATERMANS BROOK

101

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Wells Creek / Big Brook A 2,973

1 78 307 13.0 599.3 599.3 599.3 0.0

B 7,1811

43 199 15.9 636.7 636.7 636.7 0.0 C 9,493

1 84 563 5.6 673.2 673.2 673.2 0.0

D 11,8031 73 273 11.6 691.6 691.6 691.6 0.0

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 A 365

2 1,599 6,052 2.5 405.3 405.3 406.2 0.9

B 7152 1,318 8,185 1.8 407.1 407.1 408.0 0.9

C 1,0652 1,898 11,432 1.3 407.6 407.6 408.4 0.8

D 1,4852 1,099 6,263 2.4 408.7 408.7 409.4 0.7

E 2,2102 739 6,182 2.4 411.6 411.6 412.3 0.7

F 3,3652 1,648 9,562 1.5 412.0 412.0 412.9 0.9

G 4,5852 1,234 6,855 2.2 413.8 413.8 414.3 0.5

H 5,5452 619 4,785 3.1 415.4 415.4 416.1 0.7

I 6,3202 1,034 8,746 1.7 419.0 419.0 419.6 0.6

J 6,5302 1,529 14,256 1.0 419.1 419.1 419.8 0.7

K 6,8502 1,389 10,362 1.4 419.1 419.1 419.8 0.7

L 7,9952 1,703 10,027 1.5 420.3 420.3 420.9 0.6

M 8,5352 1,673 8,945 1.6 420.9 420.9 421.5 0.6

N 9,2152 1,571 8,876 1.7 421.7 421.7 422.3 0.6

O 10,0852 1,521 9,248 1.6 422.5 422.5 423.2 0.7

P 10,6452 2,005 13,163 1.1 423.0 423.0 423.6 0.6

Q 11,2852 2,049 7,102 2.1 423.6 423.6 424.2 0.6

R 12,0502 2,531 9,723 1.5 424.9 424.9 425.6 0.7

1

Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 2 2Feet above confluence with Fish Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

WELLS CREEK / BIG BROOK – WEST BRANCH FISH CREEK REACH 1

102

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 1 (continued) S 13,075 1,749 10,431 1.4 426.2 426.2 427.0 0.8 T 13,460 1,549 9,492 1.5 426.6 426.6 427.4 0.8 U 14,055 324 2,529 5.9 427.6 427.6 428.3 0.7 V 14,310 237 1,961 7.6 429.2 429.2 429.8 0.6 W 16,085 304 2,924 5.1 437.6 437.6 438.5 0.9 X 17,500 674 5,374 2.7 441.3 441.3 442.3 1.0 Y 19,060 169 2,349 6.3 447.0 447.0 447.6 0.6 Z 20,445 129 2,522 5.9 450.7 450.7 451.5 0.8 AA 20,710 144 2,275 6.5 450.8 450.8 451.6 0.8 AB 21,275 494 6,404 2.3 451.9 451.9 452.9 1.0 AC 23,960 199 3,330 4.5 454.9 454.9 455.6 0.7 AD 24,230 224 4,192 3.5 455.2 455.2 455.9 0.7 AE 24,460 269 4,515 3.3 455.7 455.7 456.3 0.6 AF 24,605 249 4,432 3.4 455.7 455.7 456.3 0.6 AG 24,730 224 3,604 4.1 455.8 455.8 456.3 0.5 AH 25,435 149 2,877 5.2 456.1 456.1 456.7 0.6 AI 26,520 174 3,136 4.7 456.7 456.7 457.5 0.8 AJ 27,685 149 3,021 4.9 458.1 458.1 458.8 0.7 AK 28,680 659 9,135 1.6 459.5 459.5 460.4 0.9 AL 29,715 274 4,728 3.1 460.4 460.4 461.3 0.9 AM 30,770 311 5,689 2.6 461.3 461.3 462.3 1.0 AN 30,955 298 5,306 2.8 461.3 461.3 462.3 1.0 AO 32,295 864 15,234 0.9 461.9 461.9 462.9 1.0 AP 33,360 459 8,349 1.7 462.2 462.2 463.2 1.0 1

Feet above confluence with Fish Creek

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

WEST BRANCH FISH CREEK REACH 1

103

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

West Branch Fish Creek Reach 2 A 900

1 107 902 8.3 463.4 463.4 464.2 0.8

B 1,9001 122 1,265 5.9 465.3 465.3 465.8 0.5

C 3,2851 92 873 8.6 469.0 469.0 469.0 0.0

D 5,8851 1,054 5,391 1.4 471.1 471.1 471.4 0.3

E 12,3951 450 915 4.4 478.6 478.6 478.7 0.1

F 13,9691 56 304 13.4 493.5 493.5 493.5 0.0

G 17,5071 310 2,508 1.6 516.9 516.9 517.9 1.0

H 21,6001 176 1,611 2.5 520.1 520.1 521.1 1.0

I 23,4001 293 2,018 2.0 520.9 520.9 521.8 0.9

J 26,0001 241 1,764 2.3 521.7 521.7 522.6 0.9

K 28,7501 312 2,240 1.8 523.3 523.3 524.3 1.0

L 30,2501 438 2,756 1.5 524.3 524.3 525.3 1.0

M 32,7001 484 3,579 1.1 524.9 524.9 525.9 1.0

N 34,5501 298 2,188 1.9 525.2 525.2 526.2 1.0

West Branch Mohawk River A 390

2 32 188 10.6 935.9 935.9 936.5 0.6

B 1,8502 40 169 11.7 956.8 956.8 956.8 0.0

C 3,0352 40 205 7.2 971.2 971.2 971.9 0.7

D 4,8802 40 168 8.7 987.7 987.7 988.0 0.3

E 6,5002 55 234 6.3 996.4 996.4 996.5 0.1

F 7,0002 30 133 11.1 999.9 999.9 1,000.1 0.2

West Branch Unadilla River A 1,975

3 238 1,294 2.4 1,176.7 1,176.7 1,177.6 0.9

B 4,5873 437 2,633 1.2 1,179.7 1,179.7 1,180.6 0.9

1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 2177 feet downstream of Brewer Road) 2Feet above confluence with Mohawk River Reach 3

3Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 3551 feet downstream of U.S. Route 20)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

WEST BRANCH FISH CREEK REACH 2 – WEST BRANCH MOHAWK RIVER – WEST BRANCH UNADILLA RIVER

104

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

2

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

West Canada Creek A 1,550 330 4,300 5.3 696.7 696.7 697.6 0.9 B 3,050 586 5,371 4.3 697.7 697.7 698.4 0.7 C 4,050 450 4,499 5.1 698.0 698.0 698.9 0.9 D 5,550 562 5,886 3.9 698.8 698.8 699.8 1.0 E 7,050 240 2,897 7.9 699.4 699.4 700.1 0.7 F 8,550 241 2,981 7.7 701.9 701.9 702.3 0.4 G 9,950 210 2,864 8.0 703.3 703.3 703.7 0.4 H 11,450 204 2,531 9.0 704.4 704.4 704.9 0.5 I 14,050 200 2,878 8.0 707.0 707.0 707.6 0.6 J 15,650 195 2,892 7.9 707.8 707.8 708.7 0.9 K 17,350 200 2,815 8.1 709.5 709.5 710.3 0.8 L 18,850 300 3,716 6.2 711.0 711.0 711.8 0.8 M 19,750 349 3,959 5.8 711.7 711.7 712.7 1.0 N 21,250 210 2,765 8.3 712.2 712.2 713.1 0.9 O 22,750 221 3,206 7.1 714.1 714.1 714.9 0.8 P 23,450 183 2,454 9.3 714.3 714.3 715.1 0.8 Q 24,550 250 3,017 7.6 715.5 715.5 716.3 0.8 R 26,550 265 3,548 6.5 717.4 717.4 718.3 0.9 S 30,350 422 3,374 6.8 719.7 719.7 720.3 0.6 T 34,050 214 1,911 10.5 723.4 723.4 724.1 0.7 U 37,350 158 1,522 13.2 728.6 728.6 729.1 0.5 V 40,450 296 3,067 6.6 734.0 734.0 734.6 0.6 W 42,350 209 2,612 7.7 740.3 740.3 741.3 1.0 X 44,150 160 1,673 12.0 744.9 744.9 745.7 0.8 Y 45,950 150 1,280 15.7 765.0 765.0 765.3 0.3 Z 48,850 270 1,493 13.5 946.9 946.9 946.9 0.0 1

Feet above County Boundary 2Width extends beyond county boundary

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

WEST CANADA CREEK

105

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

West Canada Creek (continued) AA 50,550

1 241

3 12,523 1.6 1,027.7 1,027.7 1,027.8 0.1

AB 53,5501 136

3 766 26.2 1,045.7 1,045.7 1,046.0 0.3

AC 55,9501 110

3 1,088 18.5 1,071.2 1,071.2 1,071.9 0.7

AD 57,8751 397

3 7,097 2.8 1,084.9 1,084.9 1,085.0 0.1

AE 59,1501 250

3 1,350 14.9 1,118.3 1,118.3 1,118.3 0.0

AF 59,9501 619

3 23,072 0.9 1,173.8 1,173.8 1,173.8 0.0

AG 64,6501 463

3 15,262 1.3 1,173.8 1,173.8 1,173.8 0.0

AH 69,9501 501

3 12,148 1.7 1,173.8 1,173.8 1,173.8 0.0

AI 71,2501 238

3 5,578 3.6 1,174.0 1,174.0 1,174.1 0.1

White Creek A 80

2 31 181 8.1 601.0 595.9

4 596.9 1.0

B 6402 37 140 10.5 604.1 604.1 604.7 0.6

C 1,2302 31 137 10.7 614.4 614.4 614.4 0.0

D 1,5652 82 171 8.6 620.3 620.3 620.3 0.0

E 2,3382 143 251 5.8 630.7 630.7 630.7 0.0

F 3,3632 27 121 12.1 648.4 618.4 648.4 0.0

G 4,4932 49 185 7.9 662.5 662.5 663.1 0.6

1

Feet above County Boundary 4Elevation computed without consideration of backwater effects from Oriskany Creek

2Feet above confluence with Oriskany Creek

3Width extends beyond county boundary

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

WEST CANADA CREEK – WHITE CREEK

106

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Wood Creek A 1,907 71 270 1.3 426.5 426.5 426.5 0.0 B 4,207 72 185 1.9 426.8 426.8 426.8 0.0 C 6,527 42 160 2.2 427.3 427.3 427.3 0.0 D 7,917 58 227 1.6 427.5 427.5 427.5 0.0 E 8,939 53 311 1.1 427.8 427.8 427.8 0.0 F 9,427 62 392 1.7 429.3 429.3 429.3 0.0 G 10,732 60 303 2.2 429.4 429.4 429.5 0.1 H 11,897 38 171 4.0 429.8 429.8 430.2 0.4 I 12,447 33 134 5.1 430.6 430.6 430.8 0.2 J 13,142 66 186 3.9 435.5 435.5 435.5 0.0 K 13,410 23 73 10.1 437.1 437.1 437.1 0.0 L 13,680 43 111 5.5 438.2 438.2 438.2 0.0 M 14,083 47 197 3.1 443.6 443.6 443.6 0.0 N 14,273 27 141 4.3 443.8 443.8 443.8 0.0 O 15,149 23 93 6.5 448.3 448.3 448.3 0.0 P 15,434 35 151 4.0 449.5 449.5 449.5 0.0 Q 15,685 24 162 3.8 450.4 450.4 450.4 0.0 R 16,395 30 111 5.1 451.2 451.2 451.2 0.0 S 17,355 24 85 4.4 453.8 453.8 453.8 0.0 T 17,905 25 53 7.1 456.0 456.0 456.0 0.0 U 18,415 113 415 0.9 460.7 460.7 461.4 0.7 V 19,160 188 947 0.4 460.7 460.7 461.4 0.7 W 19,888 102 270 1.4 461.0 461.0 461.9 0.9 X 20,404 84 286 1.3 462.8 462.8 463.6 0.8 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 2,675 feet downstream of Fort Bull Road)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

WOOD CREEK

107

FLOODING SOURCE FLOODWAY BASE FLOOD

WATER-SURFACE ELEVATION (FEET NAVD)

CROSS SECTION DISTANCE1

WIDTH (FEET)

SECTION AREA

(SQUARE FEET)

MEAN VELOCITY (FEET PER SECOND)

REGULATORY WITHOUT

FLOODWAY WITH

FLOODWAY INCREASE

Wood Creek Y 20,839

40 151 2.5 463.6 463.6 464.3 0.7

Z 21,612 30 126 3.0 465.1 465.1 465.3 0.2 AA 22,147 113 522 0.7 465.3 465.3 465.6 0.3 AB 23,617 40 186 2.0 465.4 465.4 465.8 0.4 AC 24,352 45 290 1.3 468.1 468.1 468.4 0.3 AD 25,642 45 156 2.4 468.2 468.2 468.6 0.4 AE 26,542 40 107 3.5 470.5 470.5 470.7 0.2 AF 27,869 127 480 0.8 477.0 477.0 477.9 0.9 AG 28,669 30 121 3.1 477.1 477.1 478.0 0.9 AH 29,459 38 118 3.2 478.2 478.2 479.0 0.8 AI 30,569 74 145 2.6 480.6 480.6 481.2 0.6 1

Feet above Limit of Detailed Study (Limit of Detailed Study is approximately 2,675 feet downstream of Fort Bull Road)

TA

BL

E 1

1

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

FLOODWAY DATA

WOOD CREEK

108

FLOODWAY SCHEMATIC Figure 2 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.

109

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.

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

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

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

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

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

percent annual chance floodplain, areas within the 0.2-percent annual chance floodplain, and to areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1-percent annual chance flooding where the contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, and areas protected from the

110

1-percent annual chance flood by levees. No base flood elevations or depths are shown within this zone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

County. Previously, separate Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and/or FIRMs were prepared for each identified flood-prone incorporated community of the county. This countywide FIRM also includes flood hazard information that was presented separately on Flood Boundary and Floodway Maps (FBFMs), where applicable. Historical data relating to the maps prepared for each community are presented in Table 12, "Community Map History."

7.0 OTHER STUDIES The USACE prepared a report on Tropical Storm Agnes in the Oswego River basin

(USACE, 1973). The USACE published a Flood Plain Information Report for the Mohawk River, Sauquoit

Creek, and Oriskany Creek in 1974 (USACE, 1975). The USACE also published a Flood Plain Information Report for the Mohawk River from Oriskany to Rome in 1975 (USACE, 1975). Data in those reports were used in the preparation of the Village of Oriskany FIS.

A Storm Water Management Report was prepared of the Sangertown Square shopping mall

along Mud Creek in the Town of New Hartford (Raymond Keyes Engineers, P.C., 1978). Peak discharges presented in that report, which were utilized in designing the water storage facilities at the mall, are based on a different hydrologic method and are higher than those used at the same site in the study for the Town of Hartford FIS.

111

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

This is a multi-volume FIS. Each volume may be revised separately, in which case it supersedes the previously printed volume. Users should refer to the Table of Contents in Volume 1 for the current effective data of each volume; volumes bearing these dates contain the most up-to-date flood hazard data.

112

COMMUNITY

NAME

INITIAL

IDENTIFICATION

FLOOD HAZARD

BOUNDARY MAP

REVISIONS DATE

FIRM

EFFECTIVE DATE

FIRM

REVISIONS DATE

Annsville, Town of June 28, 1974 November 21, 1975 April 5, 1988

Augusta, Town of September 13, 1974 April 9, 1976 May 1, 1985

Ava, Town of June 28, 1974 September 10, 1976 February 1, 1985

Barneveld, Village of August 30, 1974 June 18, 1976 April 17, 1985 March 23, 1999

Boonville, Town of September 6, 1974 July 23, 1976 July 3, 1985

Boonville, Village of May 31, 1974 April 16, 1976 April 17, 1985

Bridgewater, Village of May 17, 1974 June 11, 1976 April 15, 1982

Camden, Town of September 6, 1974 July 2, 1976 May 1, 1985 September 7, 1998

February 4, 1977

Camden, Village of June 21, 1974 August 6, 1976 August 16, 1988

Clayville, Village of May 24, 1974 July 30, 1976 July 5, 1983

Clinton, Village of February 15, 1974 May 28, 1976 May 1, 1985

Deerfield, Town of August 2, 1974 May 28, 1976 April 17, 1985 June 2, 1999

Florence, Town of September 13, 1974 June 25, 1976 April 17, 1985

Floyd, Town of August 9, 1974 June 18, 1976 March 15, 1984

TA

BL

E 1

2

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY

113

COMMUNITY

NAME

INITIAL

IDENTIFICATION

FLOOD HAZARD

BOUNDARY MAP

REVISIONS DATE

FIRM

EFFECTIVE DATE

FIRM

REVISIONS DATE

Forestport, Town of June 28, 1974 September 10, 1976 April 17, 1985

Holland Patent, Village of May 17, 1974 June 25, 1976 April 17, 1985 May 21, 2001

Kirkland, Town of August 24, 1974 May 14, 1976 April 3, 1985

Lee, Town of June 28, 1974 July 16, 1976 June 5, 1985 August 3, 1998

Marcy, Town of September 20, 1974 April 30, 1976 June 1, 1984

Marshall, Town of August 2, 1974 July 9, 1976 September 3, 1982

New Hartford, Town of May 31, 1974 May 28, 1976 April 18, 1983

New Hartford, Village of February 22, 1974 May 28, 1976 July 5, 1983

New York Mills, Village of June 7, 1974 June 18, 1976 May 16, 1983 May 4, 2000

Oneida Castle, Village of November 26, 1976 None September 15, 1983 July 4, 1989

Oriskany Falls, Village of November 22, 1974 June 18, 1976 January 19, 1983

Oriskany, Village of February 22, 1974 July 30, 1976 September 15, 1983

Paris, Town of August 2, 1974 None September 15, 1983

Prospect, Village of November 15, 1974 July 9, 1976 July 30, 1982 November 20, 2000

TA

BL

E 1

2

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY

114

COMMUNITY

NAME

INITIAL

IDENTIFICATION

FLOOD HAZARD

BOUNDARY MAP

REVISIONS DATE

FIRM

EFFECTIVE DATE

FIRM

REVISIONS DATE

Remsen, Town of October 18, 1974 June 18, 1976 May 1, 1985

Remsen, Village of March 4, 1977 None September 24, 1984

Rome, City of August 30, 1974 May 21, 1976 January 3, 1985 September 21, 1998

Sangerfield, Town of June 28, 1974 May 25, 1975 June 5, 1985

Sherrill, City of March 8, 1974 May 28, 1976 September 15, 1983

Steuben, Town of June 28, 1974 July 9, 1976 September 24, 1984

Sylvan Beach, Village of May 31, 1974 January 16, 1976 June 1, 1984 June 2, 1999

May 14, 1976

Trenton, Town of August 30, 1974 July 9, 1976 May 1, 1985 August 16, 1994

January 3, 1997

September 7, 1998

Utica, City of April 25, 1975 None February 1, 1984

Vernon, Town of August 16, 1974 June 25, 1976 August 16, 1988

Vernon, Village of March 8, 1974 June 11, 1976 April 15, 1988

Verona, Town of September 13, 1974 July 9, 1976 May 4, 1989 October 20, 1999

TA

BL

E 1

2

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY

115

COMMUNITY

NAME

INITIAL

IDENTIFICATION

FLOOD HAZARD

BOUNDARY MAP

REVISIONS DATE

FIRM

EFFECTIVE DATE

FIRM

REVISIONS DATE

Vienna, Town of September 13, 1974 June 25, 1976 March 1, 1984 October 20, 1999

Waterville, Village of June 14, 1974 June 18, 1976 August 2, 1982

Western, Town of August 2, 1974 July 23, 1976 May 4, 1989

Westmoreland, Town of August 30, 1974 June 25, 1976 March 2, 1983

Whitesboro, Village of February 22, 1974 May 21, 1976 February 1, 1978 May 4, 2000

Whitestown, Town of September 13, 1974 June 2, 1976 September 15, 1983 May 4, 2000

Yorkville, Village of February 22, 1974 August 6, 1976 June 1, 1983 May 4, 2000

TA

BL

E 1

2

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

ONEIDA COUNTY, NY (ALL JURISDICTIONS)

COMMUNITY MAP HISTORY

116

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

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. (October 1977). Runoff Estimates for Small Rural Watersheds. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 21, 2001, Flood Insurance Rate Map; May 21, 2001, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Holland Patent, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 7, 2001). Letter of Map Revision, Unnamed Tributary to Erie Canal, City of Utica, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (November 20, 2000, Flood Insurance Rate Map; November 20, 2000, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Prospect, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Rate Map; May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of New York Mills, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Rate Map; May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Whitesboro, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Rate Map; May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Whitestown, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Rate Map; May 4, 2000, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Yorkville, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (October 20, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; October 20, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Verona, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (October 20, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; October 20, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Vienna, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C.

117

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map; June 2, 1999, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Deerfield, Oneida 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 Sylvan Beach, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 23, 1999, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Barneveld, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 21, 1998, Flood Insurance Rate Map; September 21, 1998, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, City of Rome, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 7, 1998, Flood Insurance Rate Map; September 7, 1998, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Trenton, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 7, 1998, Flood Insurance Rate Map; September 7, 1998, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Camden, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (August 3, 1998, Flood Insurance Rate Map; August 3, 1998, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Lee, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 5, 1998, Flood Insurance Rate Map; April 5, 1988, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Annsville, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (January 3, 1997). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Trenton, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (August 3, 1989). Flood Insurance Study, City of Oneida, Madison County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 4, 1989, Flood Insurance Rate Map; July 4, 1989, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Oneida Castle, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 4, 1989, Flood Insurance Rate Map; May 4, 1989, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Western, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (August 16, 1988, Flood Insurance Rate Map; August 16, 1988, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Camden, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C.

118

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (August 16, 1988, Flood Insurance Rate Map; August 16, 1988, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Vernon, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 15, 1988, Flood Insurance Rate Map; April 15, 1988, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Vernon, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 18, 1987). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Lenox, Madison County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Boonville, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 5, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Sangerfield, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 1, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Augusta, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 1, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map; November 1, 1984, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Clinton, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (May 1, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Remsen, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 17, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Florence, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 17, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Forestport, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 17, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Boonville, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 3, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map; October 3, 1984, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Kirkland, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C.

119

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (February 1, 1985, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Ava, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (October 3, 1984). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Kirkland, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 24, 1984, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Remsen, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 24, 1984, Flood Insurance Rate Map). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Steuben, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (June 1, 1984, Flood Insurance Rate Map; December 1, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Marcy, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 15, 1984, Flood Insurance Rate Map; September 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Floyd, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (February 1, 1984, Flood Insurance Rate Map; August 1, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, City of Utica, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; March 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Oriskany, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; March 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Paris, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; March 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, City of Sherrill, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 5, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; January 15, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Clayville, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (July 5, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; January 5, 1983, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of New Hartford, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C.

120

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 18, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; October 18, 1982, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of New Hartford, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (March 2, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; September 2, 1982, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Westmoreland, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (January 19, 1983, Flood Insurance Rate Map; July 19, 1982, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Oriskany Falls, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (September 3, 1982, Flood Insurance Rate Map; March 30, 1982, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Marshall, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (August 2, 1982, Flood Insurance Rate Map; February 2, 1982, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Waterville, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (April 15, 1982, Flood Insurance Rate Map; October 15, 1981, Flood Insurance Study report). Flood Insurance Study, Village of Bridgewater, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (undated). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Bridgewater, Oneida County, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (unpublished). Flood Insurance Study, Town of Marshall, New York. Washington, D.C Federal Emergency Management Agency. (unpublished). Flood Insurance Study, Town of New Hartford, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (unpublished). Flood Insurance Study, City of Oneida, New York. Washington, D.C. Federal Highway Administration. (October 1977). Report No. FHWA-RD-77-158, Runoff Estimates for Small Rural Watersheds and Development of a Sound Design Method, Volumes I and II. Washington, D.C. Frederick R. Pokorny. (1979). Topographic Maps compiled by photogrammetric methods, Major Watercourses of New York. Scale 1:4,800, Contour Interval 5 feet. Mineola, New York. Geomaps. (1995). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, Camden, New York. Scale 1:2,400, contour interval 4 feet. Mineola, New York.

J. H. Thompson. (1966). Geography of New York State, Syracuse, New York. Syracuse University Press.

121

Konski Engineers, P.C. (December 1984). Aerial Photographs, Annsville, New York. Scale 1:6,000. Syracuse, New York. Konski Engineers, P.C. (December 1984). Aerial Photographs, Camden, New York. Scale 1:6,000. Syracuse, New York. Konski Engineers, P.C. (December 1984). Aerial Photographs, Vernon, New York. Scale 1:6,000. Syracuse, New York. Konski Engineers, P.C. (December 1984). Aerial Photographs, Verona, New York. Scale 1:6,000. Syracuse, New York. Konski Engineers, P.C. (December 1984). Aerial Photographs, Western, New York. Scale 1:6,000. Syracuse, New York. Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc. (April 1978). Topographic Mapping of Fish Creek, Fish Creek West Branch, Wood Creek, Mill Stream, Halstead Creek, Hall Brook and Murray Brook, Vienna, New York. Scale 1:4,800, Contour Interval 5 Feet. Syosset, New York. Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker). Draft Hydraulic Report, Mohawk River

– Study, New York Flood Hazard Data Collection Analysis, FEMA-0065-DR-

NY, September 04, 2009. MS Technologies, Inc. (December 1993). Aerial Photography, Scale 1:16,800, Topographic Map, Scale 1:4,800, Contour Interval 4 feet. Union, New Jersey. Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, under subcontract to NYSDEC. (1976). Aerial Photographs, Town of New Hartford, New York. Scale 1:2,400. Liverpool, New York. Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, under subcontract to NYDEC. (1976). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, City of Utica, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 Feet. Liverpool, New York. Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, under subcontract to NYDEC. (1976). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, Village of New York Mills, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 Feet. Liverpool, New York. Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, under subcontract to NYDEC. (1976). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, Town of Whitestown, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 Feet. Liverpool, New York. Phillips, O‟Brien & Gere, under subcontract to NYDEC. (1976). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, Village of Yorkville, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 Feet. Liverpool, New York.

122

Phillips and Associates. (1975). Topographic Mapping in the Vicinity of Major Watercourses in New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 feet. Liverpool, New York. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (April 1979). Aerial Photography, Village of Oriskany Falls, New York. Photographic Scale 1:1,200 and Topographic Map Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 feet. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (1979). Aerial Photography, Town of Marshall, New York. Scale 1:14,400. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (1979). Aerial Photography, Village of Bridgewater, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 feet. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (1979). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, Clinton, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 feet. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (1979). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, Kirkland, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Internal 5 feet. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (1979). Topographic Maps compiled from aerial photographs, Village of Waterville, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Internal 5 feet. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (1979). Vicinity of Major Water Courses in Westmoreland. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Internal 5 feet. Horsham, Pennsylvania. Quinn and Associates, Inc. (1975). Topographic Mapping in the Vicinity of Major Water Courses, New York. Scale 1:2,400, Contour Interval 5 feet. Horsham, Pennsylvania. R. A. Mordoff, (1959). Cornell Miscellaneous Bulletin 33, The Climate of New York State. Ithaca, New York. Raymond Keyes Engineers, P.C. (November 1, 1978). Storm Water Management Report, Town of New Hartford. Elmsford, New York. Rome Daily Sentinel. (December 31, 1984). Volume 104. Rome, New York. Rome Daily Sentinel. (June 22, 1972). Volume 91. Rome, New York. State of New Jersey, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Resources, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey. (1974). Special Report 38, Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in New Jersey with Effects of Urbanization. Stephen J. Stankowski (author). Trenton, New Jersey.

123

Town of Lee. (October 23, 1989). Local Law No. 1, Amended Local Law Flood Damage Prevention. Town Board of the Town of Lee, Oneida County, New York. Town of Vienna. Ordinance Book. Vienna, New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (May 1991). HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Version 4.6.2. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (March 1987). HEC-2 Water-Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (September 1982). HEC-2 Water-Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (September 1981). HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (August 1981). Sauquoit Creek Basin Study, Hydrologic and Hydraulic Planning Models, Oneida County, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (October 1973, updated February 1977). HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (November 1976). HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (October 1973, updated August 1976). HEC-2 Water Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (1975). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River, Oriskany to Rome, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (1975). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River-Sauquoit Creek-Oriskany Creek, Utica, Whitesboro, and Oriskany, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1975). Reconnaissance Report for Sauquoit Creek and Mohawk River in the Village of Whitesboro. New York.

124

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (June 1974). Application of the HEC-2 Bridge Routines, Training Document No. 6. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (June 1974). Flood Plain Information – Mohawk River – Sauquoit Creek – Oriskany Creek. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (June 1974). Sauquoit Creek Basin Study, Hydrologic and Hydraulic Planning Models, Oneida County, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (May 1974). Floodway Determination Using Computer Program HEC-2, Training Document No. 5. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (1974). Flood Plain Information, Mohawk River, Sauquoit Creek, and Oriskany Creek, Utica, Whitesboro, and Oriskany, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (1974). Regional Frequency Study, Upper Delaware and Hudson River Basins, New York District. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (October 1973). HEC-2 Water-Surface Profiles, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District. (August 1973). Report of Flood, Tropical Storm Agnes, June 21-23, 1972, Oswego River Basin. Buffalo, New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District. (July 1973). Floodplain Information, Oneida Creek, New York. New York. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (October 1970). HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (December 1968). Computer Program 723-X6-L202A HEC-2 Water-Surface Profiles. Davis, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center. (June 1967). Backwater-Any Cross Section, Generalized Computer Program. Davis, California. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Generalized Soil Map of New York, Scale 1:250,000.

125

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (April 1973). A Method for Estimating Volume and Rate of Runoff in Small Watersheds. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. (August 1972). National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, Hydrology. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau. (1961, Revised 1963). Technical Paper No. 40, Rainfall Frequency Atlas of the United States. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. (November 1963). Estimating Peak Rates of Runoff from Small Watersheds in Portions of New York. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads. (1961). Peak Rates of Runoff from Small Watersheds. Washington, D.C. 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, Water Resources Division. (1982). Drainage Areas of New York Streams, by River Basins – A Stream Gazetteer. Lloyd A. Wagner (author). Albany, New York. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Office of Water Data Collection, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data. (Revised September 1981). “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency,” Bulletin 17B. Reston, Virginia. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (July 1979). Water Resources Investigations 79-83, Techniques for Estimating Magnitude and Frequency of Floods on Rural Unregulated Streams in New York State Excluding Long Island. Albany, New York. Thomas J. Zembrzuski, Jr. (author). U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (1970). Bulletin 68, Characteristics of New York Lakes, Part I, Gazetteer of Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs. P. E. Greeson and F. L. Robinson (authors). Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (1965). Water-Supply Paper 1677, Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States, Part 4, St. Lawrence River Basin. S. W. Wiitala (author). Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (1961). Floods in New York, Magnitude and Frequency. Albany, New York.

126

U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. (Published annually 1924-1984). Water Resources Data for New York, Part 1, Surface Water Records. Albany, New York. 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. Water Resources Council. (Revised September 1981). “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency,” Bulletin 17B. Washington, D.C. Water Resources Council. (June 1977). “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency,” Bulletin 17A. Washington, D.C. Water Resources Council. (March 1976). “Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency,” Bulletin 17. Washington, D.C.