DOCSLIB.ORG

Cohocton River Flood Smart Action Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cohocton River Flood Smart Action Plan Flood Smart Action Plan Cohocton River Acknowledgements THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED BY Flood Smart Communities is a complex, interdisciplinary, and Stevie Adams (TNC) information intensive project that the Core Team could not have done Janet Thigpen (STC) without the help, expertise and talents of so many. The authors wish Dr. Kathryn Bryk Friedman (UB) to thank the following people whose thoughtful contributions of content, reviews, comments and other support helped to shape and WITH CONTENT CONTRIBUTED BY inform this document. Special thanks go to the nine participating Towns Stephanie Yezzi (STC) and Villages for supporting the project and providing their extremely Brian Conley (UBRI) experienced officials and staff: Alison Agresta (TNC) David Richardson (TNC) Town of Avoca: Ken Parsels, Supervisor; LeAnn Wightman, Matthew Sousa (Steuben County Planning) Village Clerk; Chuck Cagle, Code Enforcement Officer Town of Bath: Ron Smith, Supervisor; Ron Dyer, Code IN COLLABORATION WITH Enforcement Officer; John Lysyczyn, Council Person Steuben County Emergency Services, the Towns of Avoca, Bath, Campbell, Cohocton, and Erwin, the Villages of Avoca, Town of Campbell: Terry Brethen, Planning Board Chair; Cohocton, Painted Post and Savona, Steuben County Marvin Rethmel, Code Enforcement Officer Soil and Water Conservation District, Steuben County Planning Department Town of Cohocton: Cheryl Deusenbery, Deputy Supervisor; Chuck Cagle, Code Enforcement Officer; Ray Schrader, Planning Board Chair FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT WAS PROVIDED BY THE Town of Erwin: Rita McCarthy, Town Manager; Bryan Hallgren, Environmental Protection Fund through the New York State Code Enforcement Officer Department of Environmental Conservation with assistance Peter Gledhill, Mayor; LeAnn Wightman, from New York State Senator Thomas F. O’Mara, the Land Village of Avoca: Village Clerk; Chuck Cagle, Zoning Officer Trust Alliance, the Corning Foundation, and the Community Foundation of Elmira-Corning and the Finger Lakes Village of Cohocton: Tom Cox, Mayor; Justin Coats, Public Works; Chuck Cagle, Code Enforcement Officer SUGGESTED CITATION Adams, S.L., J. Thigpen, and K. Bryk Friedman. 2019. Village of Painted Post: Larry Smith, Superintendent of Flood Smart Action Plan: Cohocton River. Bath, NY. Public Works Village of Savona: Brian Scott, Mayor; Ken DeWert, Code Enforcement Officer With gratitude to Jeff Parker, Velynda Parker and Chelsea Barnett (SWCD) for their review of modeling outputs, field work and invaluable expertise; to Chelsea Robertson (STC) and Amy Dlugos (Steuben County Planning) for their support, guidance and advice; and to Kristin France (TNC) and Ellen Weiss (TNC) for their editing and help with organization of information for this plan. Published September 2019 COVER PHOTO Town of Bath © The Nature Conservancy 2 FLOOD SMART ACTION PLAN I COHOCTON RIVER Acronyms ACOE Army Corps of Engineers CRS Community Rating System FDPL Flood Damage Prevention Law FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency Contents FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map Chapter 1: Introduction 4 G/FLRPC Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional The Flood Smart Approach 6 Planning Council Goals, Objectives and Actions 11 LFDPL Local Flood Damage Prevention Law Chapter 2: Community Profiles 16 NFIP National Flood Insurance Program Cohocton Watershed 17 Town of Avoca 34 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Town of Bath 54 Town of Campbell 77 NWI National Wetlands Inventory Town of Cohocton 97 NYS DEC NYS Department of Town of Erwin 117 Environmental Conservation Village of Avoca 136 STC Southern Tier Central Regional Village of Cohocton 155 Planning and Development Council Village of Painted Post 175 SWCD Soil & Water Conservation District Village of Savona 194 SFHA Special Flood Hazard Area Chapter 3: Toolkit 213 Emergency Response 214 TNC The Nature Conservancy Property Damage 219 UB University of Buffalo Planning 223 UBRI University of Buffalo, Regional Institute Education 228 Natural Systems 231 USDA US Department of Agriculture Appendix 237 USEPA US Environmental Protection Agency Appendix A: Vulnerability Assessment 237 USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service Appendix B: Local Land Use Assessment 248 Appendix C: Natural Environment Assessment 440 Appendix D: Community Resilience Building 487 Workshop Synthesis Appendix E: Policy Gap Analysis 493 Appendix F: Floodplain Function Assessment 508 Appendix G: Stream Management 526 Dialogue Synthesis Flash flooding in the Town of Cohocton Photo courtesy of Steuben County Office of Emergency Services. 3 FLOOD SMART ACTION PLAN I COHOCTON RIVER 3 CHAPTER ONE Introduction Town4 of FLOOD Cohocton SMART© The Nature ACTION Conservancy PLAN I COHOCTON RIVER Flooding on Liberty Street, Bath, 1935. Photo courtesy of the Steuben County Historical Society. Flooding is an unfortunate reality for New York State communities situated in the Cohocton River Watershed. In the latter half of the 20th century, no less than 35 flooding events occurred in the region. The most significant of these was the “Great Flood of 1972” caused by Hurricane Agnes, which, by all accounts, resulted in “complete chaos.” Water rolled over dikes and flood walls; retaining walls were hurled out of the way; bridges were lost; trailers floated down the rivers; and buildings disappeared. Approximately two percent of the entire land area in the region was under water; 30 feet of water covered the Village of Painted Post. Twenty-three fatalities and billions of dollars in damage occurred in Steuben County. As devastating as this flood was, it is sobering to consider that the Cohocton River level measured at the Campbell gauge was even higher during the “Finger Lakes Flood” in 1935. Extensive damage from that flood spurred construction of levees protecting the Villages of Avoca, Bath, and Painted Post. Hurricane Agnes flooding, Bath, 1972. Photo courtesy of Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board. 5 FLOOD SMART ACTION PLAN I COHOCTON RIVER 5 Flooding continues to pose challenges for development along the Cohocton River and in tributary valleys. Micro-storms that cause flash flooding occur more frequently than in years past. Agricultural practices, deforestation, and development alter upland runoff patterns, while sediment, debris, and stream bank erosion alter stream and river conditions. In addition, the current policy environment provides little support to help rural inland communities strengthen their local capacity to address flooding challenges. Although flash floods are common, most instances of flooding in the Cohocton River are “undeclared emergencies” – meaning that flooding events are not large enough to warrant a Presidential emergency declaration that then triggers a flow of funding under the Federal Emergency Management Act. For all these reasons, now is the time for Cohocton River communities to be Flood Smart in addressing flood concerns and challenges. The Flood Smart Approach Flood Smart Communities is an innovative program that works with communities across New York State to proactively strategize about flooding concerns. It is based upon the premise that collaboration among different sectors (public officials, non-government organizations, academics, state agencies) is necessary to address flooding challenges. Developed by The Nature Project partners at the Community Conservancy, Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board, Resilience Building Workshop, 2017. University at Buffalo, and Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, © The Nature Conservancy Flood Smart is not a “one size fits all” approach. Rather, it recognizes that each community has different strengths, needs and challenges. Two critical elements underlying the Flood Smart program are 1) the employment of an Participating evidence-based and collaborative approach to understanding communities, Communities and 2) the engagement and empowerment of local officials because they know the needs of their community best. • Town of Avoca • Town of Bath In 2016, nine communities situated along the Cohocton River committed to • Town of Campbell working with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), Southern Tier Central Regional • Town of Cohocton Planning and Development Board (STC), the Steuben County Planning • Town of Erwin • Village of Avoca Department, the Steuben County Office of Emergency Services, and the • Village of Cohocton University at Buffalo (UB) (the “Core Project Team”) to develop a Flood Smart • Village of Painted Post approach to flooding in this region. • Village of Savona 6 FLOOD SMART ACTION PLAN I COHOCTON RIVER The Flood Smart and safe communities and strive for solutions that Approach: Strengthen provide multiple benefits. Understanding Toward these ends, the Core Project Team focused on an evidence-based approach to understanding of Participating the participating communities. Members of the Core Communities Project Team conducted interviews with municipal Over a two-year period, the Core Project Team worked officials to gain a better understanding of strengths, with the participating communities to develop a barriers and challenges of flood management; Flood Smart approach for the Cohocton River. The conducted a vulnerability assessment (Appendix overarching goal of this approach was to reduce A); an assessment of land use plans and regulations flooding vulnerability within the Cohocton River (Appendix B); an assessment of stream flow and municipalities with coordinated and collaborative natural infrastructure (Appendix C); synthesized flood risk
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Flood Event of 5/27/1946 - 5/29/1946
    Flood Event of 5/27/1946 - 5/29/1946 Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chemung 16.00 5/28/1946 23.97 132,000 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 5/28/1946 37.74 -9,999 Major Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Elmira 12.00 5/28/1946 21.20 -9,999 Major Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Lindley 17.00 5/28/1946 22.87 75,000 Major Chemung Tioga River Steuben Steuben West Cameron 17.00 5/28/1946 18.09 17,600 Moderate Chemung Canisteo River Steuben Steuben Juniata Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Spruce Creek 8.00 5/27/1946 9.02 5,230 Minor Juniata Little Juniata River Huntingdon Huntingdon Main Stem Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Bloomsburg 19.00 5/29/1946 25.20 234,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Columbia Columbia Susquehanna Danville 20.00 5/29/1946 25.98 234,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Montour Montour Susquehanna Harper Tavern 9.00 5/28/1946 9.47 7,620 Minor Swatara Swatara Creek Lebanon Lebanon Harrisburg 17.00 5/29/1946 21.80 494,000 Moderate Lower Main Stem Susquehanna River Dauphin Dauphin Susquehanna Hogestown 8.00 5/28/1946 9.43 8,910 Minor Conodoguinet Conodoguinet Creek Cumberland Cumberland Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 4 Marietta 49.00 5/29/1946 54.90 492,000 Major Lower Main Stem Susquehanna River Lancaster Lancaster Susquehanna Penns Creek 8.00 5/27/1946 9.79
    [Show full text]
  • Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014
    Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: 2005-2014 NY 6 NTN Stations 9 7 10 8 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 Western Shore 12 15 14 Potomac 16 13 17 Rappahannock York 19 21 20 23 James 18 22 24 25 26 27 41 43 84 37 86 5 55 29 85 40 42 45 30 28 36 39 44 53 31 38 46 MD 32 54 33 WV 52 56 87 34 4 3 50 2 58 57 35 51 1 59 DC 47 60 62 DE 49 61 63 71 VA 67 70 48 74 68 72 75 65 64 69 76 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network: All Stations NTN Stations 91 NY 6 NTN New Stations 9 10 8 7 Susquehanna 11 82 Eastern Shore 83 12 Western Shore 92 15 16 Potomac 14 PA 13 Rappahannock 17 93 19 95 96 York 94 23 20 97 James 18 98 100 21 27 22 26 101 107 24 25 102 108 84 86 42 43 45 55 99 85 30 103 28 5 37 109 57 31 39 40 111 29 90 36 53 38 41 105 32 44 54 104 MD 106 WV 110 52 112 56 33 87 3 50 46 115 89 34 DC 4 51 2 59 58 114 47 60 35 1 DE 49 61 62 63 88 71 74 48 67 68 70 72 117 75 VA 64 69 116 76 65 66 73 77 81 78 79 80 Prepared on 10/20/15 Table 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 3/4/1964 - 3/7/1964
    Flood Event of 3/4/1964 - 3/7/1964 Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Campbell 8.00 3/5/1964 8.45 13,200 Minor Chemung Cohocton River Steuben Steuben Chemung 16.00 3/6/1964 20.44 93,800 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 3/5/1964 30.34 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Elmira 12.00 3/6/1964 15.60 -9,999 Moderate Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Lindley 17.00 3/5/1964 18.48 37,400 Minor Chemung Tioga River Steuben Steuben Delaware Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Walton 9.50 3/5/1964 13.66 15,800 Minor Delaware West Branch Delaware Delaware Delaware River James Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Lick Run 16.00 3/6/1964 16.07 25,900 Minor James James River Botetourt Botetourt Juniata Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Spruce Creek 8.00 3/5/1964 8.43 4,540 Minor Juniata Little Juniata River Huntingdon Huntingdon Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 4 Main Stem Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Towanda 16.00 3/6/1964 23.63 174,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Bradford Bradford Susquehanna Wilkes-Barre 22.00 3/7/1964 28.87 180,000 Moderate Upper Main Stem Susquehanna River Luzerne Luzerne Susquehanna North Branch Susquehanna Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category
    [Show full text]
  • Susquehanna Riyer Drainage Basin
    'M, General Hydrographic Water-Supply and Irrigation Paper No. 109 Series -j Investigations, 13 .N, Water Power, 9 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR HYDROGRAPHY OF THE SUSQUEHANNA RIYER DRAINAGE BASIN BY JOHN C. HOYT AND ROBERT H. ANDERSON WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1 9 0 5 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittaL_.__.______.____.__..__.___._______.._.__..__..__... 7 Introduction......---..-.-..-.--.-.-----............_-........--._.----.- 9 Acknowledgments -..___.______.._.___.________________.____.___--_----.. 9 Description of drainage area......--..--..--.....-_....-....-....-....--.- 10 General features- -----_.____._.__..__._.___._..__-____.__-__---------- 10 Susquehanna River below West Branch ___...______-_--__.------_.--. 19 Susquehanna River above West Branch .............................. 21 West Branch ....................................................... 23 Navigation .--..........._-..........-....................-...---..-....- 24 Measurements of flow..................-.....-..-.---......-.-..---...... 25 Susquehanna River at Binghamton, N. Y_-..---...-.-...----.....-..- 25 Ghenango River at Binghamton, N. Y................................ 34 Susquehanna River at Wilkesbarre, Pa......_............-...----_--. 43 Susquehanna River at Danville, Pa..........._..................._... 56 West Branch at Williamsport, Pa .._.................--...--....- _ - - 67 West Branch at Allenwood, Pa.....-........-...-.._.---.---.-..-.-.. 84 Juniata River at Newport, Pa...-----......--....-...-....--..-..---.-
    [Show full text]
  • The New York State Flood of July 1935
    Please do not destroy or throw away this publication. If you have no further use for it write to the Geological Survey at Washington and ask for a frank to return it UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Harold L. Ickes, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. C. Mendenhall, Director Water-Supply Paper 773 E THE NEW YORK STATE FLOOD OF JULY 1935 BY HOLLISTER JOHNSON Prepared in cooperation with the Water Power and Control Commission of the Conservation Department and the Department of Public Works, State of New York Contributions to the hydrology of the United States, 1936 (Pages 233-268) UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1936 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D. C. -------- Price 15 cents CONTENTS Page Introduction......................................................... 233 Acknowledgments...................................................... 234 Rainfall,............................................................ 235 Causes.......................................................... 235 General features................................................ 236 Rainfall records................................................ 237 Flood discharges..................................................... 246 General features................................................ 246 Field work...................................................... 249 Office preparation of field data................................ 250 Assumptions and computations.................................... 251 Flood-discharge records........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018
    Summary of Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Suspended-Sediment Loads and Trends Measured at the Chesapeake Bay Nontidal Network Stations for Water Years 2009–2018 Prepared by Douglas L. Moyer and Joel D. Blomquist, U.S. Geological Survey, March 2, 2020 The Chesapeake Bay nontidal network (NTN) currently consists of 123 stations throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Stations are located near U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream-flow gages to permit estimates of nutrient and sediment loadings and trends in the amount of loadings delivered downstream. Routine samples are collected monthly, and 8 additional storm-event samples are also collected to obtain a total of 20 samples per year, representing a range of discharge and loading conditions (Chesapeake Bay Program, 2020). The Chesapeake Bay partnership uses results from this monitoring network to focus restoration strategies and track progress in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. Methods Changes in nitrogen, phosphorus, and suspended-sediment loads in rivers across the Chesapeake Bay watershed have been calculated using monitoring data from 123 NTN stations (Moyer and Langland, 2020). Constituent loads are calculated with at least 5 years of monitoring data, and trends are reported after at least 10 years of data collection. Additional information for each monitoring station is available through the USGS website “Water-Quality Loads and Trends at Nontidal Monitoring Stations in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed” (https://cbrim.er.usgs.gov/). This website provides State, Federal, and local partners as well as the general public ready access to a wide range of data for nutrient and sediment conditions across the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In this summary, results are reported for the 10-year period from 2009 through 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds Within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
    Appendix – Priority Brook Trout Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Appendix Table I. Subwatersheds within the Chesapeake Bay watershed that have a priority score ≥ 0.79. HUC 12 Priority HUC 12 Code HUC 12 Name Score Classification 020501060202 Millstone Creek-Schrader Creek 0.86 Intact 020501061302 Upper Bowman Creek 0.87 Intact 020501070401 Little Nescopeck Creek-Nescopeck Creek 0.83 Intact 020501070501 Headwaters Huntington Creek 0.97 Intact 020501070502 Kitchen Creek 0.92 Intact 020501070701 East Branch Fishing Creek 0.86 Intact 020501070702 West Branch Fishing Creek 0.98 Intact 020502010504 Cold Stream 0.89 Intact 020502010505 Sixmile Run 0.94 Reduced 020502010602 Gifford Run-Mosquito Creek 0.88 Reduced 020502010702 Trout Run 0.88 Intact 020502010704 Deer Creek 0.87 Reduced 020502010710 Sterling Run 0.91 Reduced 020502010711 Birch Island Run 1.24 Intact 020502010712 Lower Three Runs-West Branch Susquehanna River 0.99 Intact 020502020102 Sinnemahoning Portage Creek-Driftwood Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.03 Intact 020502020203 North Creek 1.06 Reduced 020502020204 West Creek 1.19 Intact 020502020205 Hunts Run 0.99 Intact 020502020206 Sterling Run 1.15 Reduced 020502020301 Upper Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.07 Intact 020502020302 Kersey Run 0.84 Intact 020502020303 Laurel Run 0.93 Reduced 020502020306 Spring Run 1.13 Intact 020502020310 Hicks Run 0.94 Reduced 020502020311 Mix Run 1.19 Intact 020502020312 Lower Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek 1.13 Intact 020502020403 Upper First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek 0.96
    [Show full text]
  • Planning Commission 433 River St., Ste
    Wm. Patrick Madden Steven Strichman Mayor Commissioner of Planning Monica Kurzejeski Phone: (518) 279-7166 Deputy Mayor [email protected] Planning Commission 433 River St., Ste. 5001 Troy, New York 12180 Meeting Minutes January 28th, 2021 @ 6:00 pm The Planning Commission of the City of Troy, New York conducted a public hearing on Thursday, 28 January, 2021 at 6:00pm via Zoom Conferencing, in order to hear and decide on proposals for development as follows: 6:00pm – Meeting called to order Commissioners in Attendance Deirdre “Dede” Rudolph (DR), Anthony Mohen (AM), Sara Wengert (SW) Commissioners Absent Suzanne Spellen (SS), Barbara Higbee (BH) Also in Attendance Andy Brick (Planning and Zoning Attorney), Aaron Vera (Executive Secretary) Consent PLPC 2021 0001 – St. Peter’s Parish at 5th and Hutton (101.30-8-32 & 101.30-8-33) Change of Use (SEQR Type II) (101 .30-8-32) Renovate an existing 6-unit residential building (rectory) into an 8-unit apartment building. Existing footprint to remain. (101 .30-8-33) Renovate an existing 3-unit apartment building. Existing footprint to remain. • Applicant Presentation. • BH in attendance. • Request for public comment. No comment. • SS in attendance. • AM motion to approve, SW seconded. Absent Yes No Abstain Recused Deirdre Rudolph X Sara Wengert X Suzanne Spellen X Barbara Higbee X Anthony Mohen X Motion to approve passed, 5-0. Page 1 of 4 City of Troy Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 28 January, 2021 Old Business PLPC 2020 0046 – 770 Pawling Ave. (112.84-4-2) Site Plan Review (Type II SEQR) J & J Apartments, LLC is proposing to occupy an existing commercial space with three (3) residential units.
    [Show full text]
  • Canisteo Flood Damage Reduction Project
    CANISTEO FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT Department of Environmental Conservation Operated and Maintained by: New York State Region 8 Counties: Chemung, Genesee, Livingston, Monroe, Ontario, Orleans, Schuyler, Seneca, Steuben, Wayne, Yates PROJECT LOCATION The Village of Canisteo, Steuben County, New York, is located along the south side of the Canisteo River, a tributary of the Susquehanna River which is 40 miles upstream from the City of Corning. Page 1 of 6 Canisteo Flood Damage Reduction Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION The local flood-protection works for Canisteo consist of a system of earth levees with appurtenant drainage structures plus three check dams. • The levees include a run of about 8,000 feet on the right bank of the Canisteo River, beginning at high ground about 1,600 feet southwest of New York State Route No. 36 on the northwest side of the Village. The levee crosses Route 36 and continues for about 100 feet where it turns in a southeasterly direction and extends parallel to the Canisteo River, for about 5,400 feet where it turns southwesterly and extends about 1,000 feet to its termination at Route 36 on the southeast side of the Village. • Also included are about 7,400 feet of levee on the left banks of Purdy and Bennett Creeks, beginning at the Route 36 bridge over Bennett Creek and extending upstream along the left bank of Bennett Creek to Purdy Creek, and then continuing upstream along the left bank of Purdy Creek crossing Greenwood Street (State Route 248), to terminate at high ground about 900 feet upstream of Greenwood Street.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Event of 6/21/1972 - 6/27/1972
    Flood Event of 6/21/1972 - 6/27/1972 Appomattox Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Farmville 16.00 6/22/1972 29.70 33,100 Major Appomattox Appomattox River Cumberland Prince Edward Matoaca 10.00 6/27/1972 14.60 22,800 Moderate Appomattox Appomattox River Chesterfield Chesterfield Mattoax 21.00 6/25/1972 34.08 31,100 Major Appomattox Appomattox River Amelia Amelia Brandywine Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Chadds Ford 9.00 6/22/1972 16.56 23,800 Major Christina Brandywine Creek Delaware Delaware Wilmington 11.00 6/23/1972 15.49 29,000 Major Christina Brandywine Creek New Castle New Castle Chemung Site Flood Stage Date Crest Flow Category Basin Stream County of Gage County of Forecast Point Campbell 8.00 6/21/1972 10.86 27,400 Moderate Chemung Cohocton River Steuben Steuben Campbell 8.00 6/23/1972 11.16 32,000 Major Chemung Cohocton River Steuben Steuben Chemung 16.00 6/23/1972 31.62 189,000 Major Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Corning 29.00 6/23/1972 40.71 228,000 Major Chemung Chemung River Steuben Steuben Elmira 12.00 6/23/1972 25.20 235,000 Major Chemung Chemung River Chemung Chemung Lawrenceville 13.00 6/23/1972 17.26 40,500 Major Chemung Cowanesque River Tioga Tioga Created On: 8/16/2016 Page 1 of 10 Lindley 17.00 6/23/1972 26.27 128,000 Major Chemung Tioga River Steuben Steuben Mansfield 12.00 6/22/1972 17.98 24,200 Major Chemung Tioga River Tioga Tioga West Cameron 17.00 6/23/1972 23.48 43,000 Major Chemung
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
    AN INVENTORY OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT STATIONS AND TYPE OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR PENNSYLVANIA STREAMS United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Open-File Report 1972 AN INVENTORY OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT STATIONS AND TYPE OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR PENNSYLVANIA STREAMS 1947-70 By Arthur N. Ott and Allen B. Commings United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Open-File Report 1972 CONTENTS Page Introduction5 1 Published sediment data 5 4 Measurement and analysis of suspended sediment samples 5 4 Definition of terms 5 4 Station name and location 5 4 Station number 5 4 Drainage area 5 4 Period of record 5 5 Sampling frequency 5 5 Sediment transport curve 5 5 Sediment concentration frequency 5 5 Sediment trend analysis 5 5 Particle size 5 5 Alphabetical list of sediment stations with type of sediment data available 5 8 List of sediment stations in downstream order 5 19 References 5 24 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Map showing location of suspended sediment stations in Pennsylvania, 1947-70, exclusive of the lower Delaware River basin 5 2 2.Map showing location of suspended sediment stations in the lower Delaware River basin, Pennsylvania, 1947-705 3 3.Sediment transport curve with selected data showing relation of sediment discharge to water discharge, Juniata River at Newport, 1951-705 6 4.Double mass accumulation of annual suspended sediment discharge versus water discharge, Juniata River at Newport, 1951-705 7 II AN INVENTORY OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENT STATIONS AND TYPE OF DATA ANALYSIS FOR PENNSYLVANIA STREAMS, 1947-70 Arthur N.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Inundation Maps for Elmira, Corning, Chemung, and Erwin, New York
    Flood Inundation Maps for Elmira, Corning, Chemung, and Erwin, New York November 2019 Prepared by NY Silver Jackets Partnership Chemung River Flood Inundation Mapping TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 STUDY AREA ...................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 LEVERAGED DATA ............................................................................................................ 4 2 INUNDATION MAPPING ................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 MODIFICATION TO HEC-RAS FLOW FILE ........................................................................ 5 2.2 INUNDATION MAPPING DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 6 2.3 FINAL MAPPING AREAS .................................................................................................... 7 3 INUNDATION MAPPING LIMITATIONS .......................................................................................... 9 3.1 UNCERTAINTY ................................................................................................................... 9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1. Chemung River Study Area Figure 2.1. Frequency Curve Correlation
    [Show full text]