Tidal Hudson River Ice Climatology

TIDAL HUDSON RIVER ICE COVER
CLIMATOLOGY
Prepared for:
The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project
NYSDEC Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve
Prepared by:
Nickitas Georgas, Jon Miller, Yifan Wang, Yu Jiang, and David DAgostino
Davidson Laboratory, Stevens Institute of Technology
June 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by the Davidson Laboratory at Stevens Institute of Technology for the Hudson
River Sustainable Shorelines Project.
The authors would like to thank the ice officers and ice breaker personnel of the United States Coast
Guard Sector New York, without whom the present effort would not have been accomplished. We would
especially like to thank LCDR Anne Morrissey (former Sector NY commander), LCDR Edward Munoz
(former Chief, Waterways Management Division, Sector NY), and CWO Kary Moss (former Sector NY ice
officer) for their assistance and provision of the ice report data and for useful correspondence throughout
multiple ice seasons. The author would also like to acknowledge the members of the Hudson River
Sustainable Shorelines Project for their guidance and support, especially Emilie Hauser and Ben Ganon of
the Hudson River National Estuarine Research Reserve (HRNERR), also thank you to John Ladd of the
NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program for making the data publically available.
About the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project

The Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project is a multi-year effort lead by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve, in cooperation with the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley. Partners
in the Project include Cary Institute for Ecosystem Studies, NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program and
Stevens Institute of Technology. The Project is facilitated by The Consensus Building Institute. The Project
fulfills aspects of Goal 2 of the Action Agenda of the Hudson River Estuary Program.
The Project is supported by the National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS) Science
Collaborative, a partnership of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University
of New Hampshire. The Science Collaborative puts Reserve-based science to work for coastal
communities coping with the impacts of land use change, pollution, and habitat degradation in the
context of a changing climate.
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson
River Valley or our funders. Reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not
constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it.
Suggested Citation
Georgas, N., Miller, J. K., Wang, Y., Jiang, Y. and D. DAgostino (2015). Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover
Climatology. Stevens Institute of Technology, TR- 2949; in association with and published by the Hudson
River Sustainable Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Importance of This Study .......................................................................................................................................... 3
Data Source and Profile ..................................................................................................................................... 4
Methods ....................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Statistical Analysis .............................................................................................................................................. 6
Climatology Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 6
Results .......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Discussion .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
References .................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Appendix AMethodology ................................................................................................................................... 18
Statistics and Confidence Intervals ................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix BStatistics and Tables ........................................................................................................................ 21
Region ID and Name ........................................................................................................................................ 21
Ice Occurrence ................................................................................................................................................... 22
Ice Types for Every River Region ................................................................................................................... 22
CDF Analysis results ........................................................................................................................................ 24
Spatial Variation of Cumulative Probability ................................................................................................. 25
Color of Different Ice Type .............................................................................................................................. 26
Appendix CPlots ................................................................................................................................................... 27
Statistical analysis Plots ................................................................................................................................... 27
Climatology Analysis Plots ............................................................................................................................. 44
Appendix DIce Types, definitions and photographs ...................................................................................... 60
Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology
Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The winter ice season (mid-December to late March each year) brings many significant changes to the
water circulation and tides in the Hudson River Estuary. Ice cover thickness is also an important
engineering and design parameter for Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines. To describe ice conditions in
the Hudson, Stevens Institute of Technology has collected and processed US Coast Guard (USCG) daily
ice reports from the tidal Hudson River for the past 11 winter seasons [2004-2015] at 16 different stretches
and ice choke points spanning some 140 miles along the river from the George Washington Bridge in
Manhattan on the south, to Troy, NY on the north.
In association with the NERRS Science Collaborative, this report describes the methodology and results of
climatological and statistical analyses for ice distributions along the Hudson, based on the USCG dataset.
Given the scarcity of ice data in the tidal Hudson, the statistical distributions of ice thickness and ice
cover area (in the form of cumulative probability density functions when ice is present) as well as ice type
information, are meant to provide some guidance on engineering planning studies along the Hudson
River. The tabulated climatological conditions, although based only on 11 years of USCG observations
from the decks of the ice breakers that maintain traffic flow of the Hudson during winter, can form the
beginning of an understanding of how ice grows and finally rots in the tidal Hudsons regions during a
season, and provide a baseline to compare future years by. It is found for example that the latest ice
season, 2014-2015 broke ice thickness records for the months of February and March for most regions of
the tidal Hudson.
The statistics that are presented in this report have been published as georeferenced datasets in the NYS
GIS clearinghouse: http://gis.ny.gov/gisdata/metadata/nysdec.hudson_ice_meta.xml.
Use Limitation
This dataset is based on a compilation of USCG ice reports, which have a limited scope and are empirical.
The scope of the presented datasets are therefore to provide a general picture of the regional ice
climatology in the Tidal Hudson River, and is by no means an accurate description of ice conditions at
any given year. Use at your own risk.
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Importance of This Study
The United States Coast Guard defines the winter ice season in Sector New Yorks tidal waters as the
period beginning December 15 to the end of March each year. During winter ice seasons, a seasonal ice
field grows on the surface waters of the Hudson River Estuary, which, during colder years, can cover the
Hudsons surface from bank to bank. Though the ice cover may vary significantly in extent and thickness
from year to year, Georgas (2012), showed that it can bring many significant changes to the water
circulation and water levels along the Tidal Hudson River and Estuary. When the ice concentration
increases and the cover becomes fast from shore to shore, under-keel ice friction can greatly reduce tidal
currents under the ice cover through frictional dumping, leading to much smaller current magnitudes
and tidal circulation than during warmer winters that ice concentration is more limited. Near Troy, New
York, the reduced tidal flows become smaller relative to the rivers stream flow discharge coming over
the Federal Dam, leading to increased ebb predominance and constantly-downstream flows down to the
port of Albany, NY; In other words, as tides can slow down due to ice friction when ice is fast to the
shore, the geographic extent of the river that flows both ways Mahicantuck in the local Native
American language decreases, and the non-tidal Hudson River may push downstream past Albany.
The frictional tidal dumping from the ice cover can also raise low waters by a couple of feet and reduce
tidal ranges (the difference between tidal high and low waters) by as much as 50% in the northern parts
of the tidal river near Albany and Troy. On the contrary, tidal ranges increase near the southern edge of
the ice field and on Manhattans western shores, currents increase because of tidal wave reflection from
the shore-fast ice cover upstream. These amplified currents can also create stronger vertical mixing
leading to a less stratified lower Estuary and decreasing salt front intrusion.
These ice effects on hydrodynamics, water circulation, salinity intrusion, and local residence times,
increase with ice concentration and ice thickness (Georgas 2012) and can have significant implications to
life and trade within the Hudsons waters and along the Hudsons shores. Commercial navigation and
route scheduling rely on careful timing for the passage of cargo-carriers through tidal waters so that ships
have enough under-keel clearance not to run aground and enough over-head clearance to pass under the
Hudsons bridges, while maximizing tonnage to ensure profitability. The dynamic variations in water
levels caused by the ice explained above and in Georgas (2012) are uncertainty factors that need to be
considered for safe navigation. Habitat and fish (especially through early life stages) can be affected by
hydrodynamics, thus they may be affected by the seasonal ice effects on hydrodynamics, especially in
view of ongoing climate change and predictions for a much warmer climate by the end of this century.
Shoreline engineers planning either hard or soft engineering projects need to also consider the effect
seasonal ice has on exposed structures. Usually, the most critical types of dynamic forces imposed by ice
are horizontal loads on vertical and sloping structures. The magnitude of this type of loading is
dependent on the point where the ice fails by crushing or splitting, which is dependent on its thickness
(USACE 2011). This type of horizontal loading is typically experienced on vertical structures, such as
walls, because their vertical face and height prevent ice from overtopping the structure before breaking
apart. The force imposed by ice riding up over a structure, such as a revetment, is therefore much less than
direct horizontal loading on the face of the revetment. Vertical ice forces include the weight of ice piling
Page 3
up on a structure and the cyclic stresses of the freeze and thaw cycles; they have small impact on
established vegetated shorelines. Adfreeze loads are pressure forces applied to a structure that has become
encased and frozen in ice (Miller and Georgas 2015).
Ice jams (resulting when ice passage in a river section is blocked and the ice piles up upstream) are an
important consideration for in-stream structures in the Hudson River; the USACE ice jam database
(USACE, 2009) lists ice jams having occurred in the tidal Hudson River as recently as 2007 and 1996 at
Catskill, NY and Troy, NY, respectively. Total ice loads are site-specific and very little general guidance
exists for its impacts on sustainable shoreline treatments; however, a good rule of thumb to prevent the
movement of individual stones in stone structures impacted by horizontal ice loads is to size the median
stone diameter (Dn50) to be two to three times greater than the expected maximum winter ice thickness
(Tuthill, 2008). Once a shoreline stabilization project is designed, it is suggested that a maintenance plan
be included to ensure that it maintains stability after significant ice events in the Hudson.
However, quantifiable information on the thickness, distribution, type and the growth-rot cycle of ice on
the Hudson is extremely limited. It was the present studys objective to work on filling in this knowledge
gap, based on statistical and climatological analyses of observations collected from United States Coast
Guard / Sector NY ice reports.
Data Source and Profile

To describe ice conditions on the Hudson, we collected and processed US Coast Guard daily ice reports
from the tidal Hudson River for the past 11 winter ice seasons (datasets a and b below). The ice season
starts on December 15th and ends on March 31st of each year. Out of these 11 ice seasons, only the last 8
winter seasons (dataset b) include data from USCG for the 7 listed ice choke points (areas of river-ice
congestion) in the Hudson (Figure 1).
a) 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
b) 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015
Stevens Institute of Technology obtained the USCG daily ice reports either directly from USCG/Sector
NY by mail in print form, for the period December 15 2009 to February 10 2011, post-marked February 11
2011; by downloading daily from the USCG Sector NY ice portal: https://homeport.uscg.mil, for the rest
of February 2011 to March 2015 and; by downloading from the Moran Shipping online archives of daily
USCG port of New York and New Jersey updates: http://nynj.ports.moranshipping.com, for dates prior
to April 2009.
The daily USCG reports divide the Tidal Hudson River into 16 regions (Figure 1). The reports record the
ICE TYPE, ICE THICKNESS RANGE, and PERCENT COVERAGE for each region and day. The ICE
TYPE report entry denotes the type(s) of ice that was present on that river region on that day. Pictures
and definition for each ice type can be found in Appendix D. Based on the USCG definition (USCG, 2015),
ICE THICKNESS is measured in inches as accurately as possible, and in as many places as the varying
thickness warrants. This variation is then tabulated for each region as an ice thickness RANGE.
PERCENT COVERAGE is defined by USCG as the percentage of water surface covered by ice to the total
surface area at a specific location or over a defined area.
Page 4
Figure 1: The sketch map of 16 Hudson River ice regions based on the USCG Sector NY definitions.
Page 5
METHODS
In order to describe ice condition on the Hudson, two approaches were used: a) statistical analysis that
focused on the use of an extreme value distribution to probabilistically describe the observed ice
thickness and ice concentration during times that ice is present on the river, with the coastal engineer in
mind, and b) ice climatology analysis, for a more general audience. In this section, we briefly explain our
methodology and provide an example. Details on the statistical approach, especially for ice thickness
ranges, can be found in Appendix A.
Statistical Analysis
For each of the 16 Hudson River regions defined by USCG (Figure 1) we computed the number of days
that ice was present in the Hudson within each winter ice season. We report the number of days with ice
as a percent of all winter ice season days with USCG observations, and call this recorded ice
occurrence.
We then created empirical cumulative probability density functions (CDF) based on all daily ice thickness
and %-ice-cover data from the days that had ice on that region. A Generalized Extreme Value
Distribution (GEV) was then used to fit the empirical CDF for both ice thickness and percent ice cover,
and provide tabulated probability percentiles at 50%, 75%, 90%, and 95% probabilities. Statistical
confidence intervals were also calculated for each percentile, as well as the corresponding actual regional
daily variations for these percentiles, which were then plotted. Finally, the occurrence of each ice type
reported during ice days was summarized and plotted as a bar chart. An example for Region 1 (River
Stretch from George Washington Bridge to Tappan Zee Bridge) is seen in Figure 2.
Climatology Analysis
A climatology analysis was carried out for both thickness range and coverage. The winter ice season was
divided into 7 stages by splitting each month in half:
Stages:
1) Late December
2) Early January
3) Late January
4) Early February
5) Late February
6) Early March
7) Late March
Daily values within each stage were then considered, and averaged across all 8 (for choke points) to 11
(for river stretches) winter ice seasons. In this case, all observations were considered in the averages,
including days with no ice reported. For ice thickness range, the lows and highs of the daily ranges were
considered independently, creating a climatology low and climatology high range estimate for each
stage. The means for each stage were tabulated, and plots comparing each of the past 11 ice seasons to the
average climatology were created. Figure 3 is an example of the climatology analysis for Region 1.
Page 6
Figure 2: Top panel: Reported ice thickness (inches) and percent ice cover (%) from 2005-2015. Middle
panel: CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function; empirical and GEV-fit) for ice thickness and percent
cover. For ice thickness, dotted lines show the 50% and 95% percentile ice thickness calculated for that
region during days with ice, while horizontal bars show the expected ice thickness ranges for these
percentiles. Bottom panel: Bar chart shows the probability of occurrence, in percent form, for each kind of
ice type, based on the reports when ice was present.
Page 7
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
Mean High (in)
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.0
Record High (in)
3.0
3.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
Year record occurred
(2010)
(2014)
(2009)
(2005/2015)
(2015)
(2015)
a Mean Coverage (%)
0.1
2.8
11.1
10.7
6.3
2.1
0.0
Figure 3: Top panel: Climatology analysis for Thickness. Light green bars show the climatological
Records per stage: The maximum ice thickness recorded over the whole 11 year period for each stage.
Actual recorded maximum thicknesses observed within each stage and year are also shown (yellow thick
bars). The black lines show the climatologically Average Ice Thickness Range while the red lines show the
Actual Mean Range recorded during that stage and ice season. Bottom panel: Climatology analysis for
Coverage. The heights of the thick light green bars represent the Climatologically Average Coverage. The
heights of the narrower bars show the Actual Average Coverage recorded during that stage and ice
season. The color of bar represent the prevalent ice type recorded during that stage and ice season (the
type that had the higher percent occurrence during that stage and season). Tables shows the values of the
climatological averages and the record highs.
Page 8
RESULTS
An important parameter we wanted to quantify with this work is the 95% cumulative probability for ice
thickness, which can inform an engineer on the thickness of ice cover that would be expected to be
surpassed only 5 out of 100 ice days. Using the statistical analysis described in the Methods section and,
in more detail, in Appendix A, we were able to calculate both the 95th percentile cumulative probability of
the representative ice thickness for a given region, as well as a representative ice thickness range for that
percentile across that region. For example, for region 1 (River Stretch: George Washington Bridge to
Tappan Zee), the 95% region-wide representative ice thickness is around 5.7 inches and, within that
region, the 95% thickness is expected to vary between 4.2 inches and 7.2 inches (Figure 4). Ice thickness in
that southern-most Region 1 is the least one of all 16 river regions, which is to be expected. There are 12
regions where the 95-percent region-wide representative ice thickness is greater than 10 inches. At region
9 (Choke Point: Esopus Meadows), the 95th percentile representative ice thickness reaches a maximum of
12.1 inches, with an expected within-region variation from 11.1 inches to 13.1 inches.
Figure 4: 95% Cumulative Probability of regional ice thickness and its within-region expected variation.
See Figure 1 for location of regions.
With regard to Ice Type, the most prevalent in the southern regions 1 to 7 is Drift Ice, in regions 8 to 15 is
Brash Ice, and for the last northernmost region of the Tidal Hudson River it is Fast Ice (Table 3).
All statistical analysis results are shown in Appendix-B. The results of the climatology analysis are
included in Appendix-C.
Page 9
DISCUSSION
Figure 5: Ice Occurrence (% of winter ice season days during which ice was present in the river) for each
of the 16 USCG River Regions. See Figure 1 for location of regions.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of ice occurrence in the 16 regions based on the 11 past ice seasons (8 past
ice seasons at choke points). It shows the regional variation for the presence of ice on the river. There is a
general increase of ice occurrence from the southern-most regions of the Hudson to the north where ice
occurs more days in the season. The most ice appear in region 12 (River Stretch: Kingston to Catskill).
Interestingly, in the northernmost regions from Catskill (region 14) to Troy (region 16) ice occurs slightly
less, except at the Stuyvesant anchorage choke point (region 15).
Figure 6: Ice thickness percentiles in the 16 regions, in inches. See Figure 1 for location of regions.
Figure 6 shows that the Cumulative Probability of Ice Thickness varies with location too, especially at the
boundaries of the estuarine and freshwater regions of the tidal Hudson, and especially near West Point
where the rivers width decreases dramatically and its sinuosity increases (see region 3, Jones Point to
West Point, and regions 4 and 5, at and north of West Point; Figure 6). Region 4 (Choke Point: West Point),
region 5 (River Stretch: West Point to Newburgh), and region 9 (Choke Point: Esopus Meadows) tend to
have thicker ice compared to other regions. A drop in thickness occurs at region 6 which includes the
Page 10
wider Newburgh Bay. Except for the first three regions and region 6, the 95% Cumulative Probability for
the rest of the 12 regions are all above 10 inches.
Figure 7: Ice Coverage Distribution within each of the 16 Regions. See Figure 1 for location of regions.
Figure 7 shows that, generally, ice coverage within a given region increases from south to north, which is
reasonable because not only the temperature is decreasing but also the salinity is decreasing. The figure
shows that from region 4 (Choke Point: West Point) and upstream, 70% or more of each regions area is
expected to be covered for at least half of the winter ice seasons duration. On the contrary, shore to shore
ice cover is extremely unlikely in the southern, wider and saltier regions; Only 5 out of 100 days are
expected to have over 80-90% areal ice coverage there.
The above-mentioned spatial patterns are also visible in the maps shown on Figure 8.
Figures 9 and 10 show maps of the progression of regional ice coverage within each stage of the winter
season based on the climatological averages calculated here. Figures 11 and 12 show the same
progression for thickness growth and rot/break-up. As time goes by, results show that ice typically
grows until sometime in February when it starts breaking up.
Page 11
Figure 8: This figure shows maps from the tidal Hudson River ice statistics GIS layer. It shows the spatial variation of statistically-derived ice
quantities. Generally, ice occurrence at the northern part is larger than that at the southern part of the river. However, both occurrence and ice
thickness peak at the central part of the river. Downstream, the most prevalent ice type tends to be Drift Ice while upstream it is Brash Ice and
finally Fast Ice near Troy. In terms of areal ice coverage, the narrower northern parts can fill with ice from shore to shore more days than the wider
southern parts of the river.
Page 12
Figure 9: This figure shows maps from the tidal Hudson River Ice Climatology GIS layer on Ice Coverage %. Shown from left to right are the
seven stages of the winter ice season (late Dec, early Jan, late Jan, early Feb, late Feb, early Mar, late Mar). Here, different colors represent the ice
coverage of each region: the whiter the more ice coverage; dark blue is open waters. The upstream regions within the red box can be better seen in
Figure 10.
Page 13
Figure 10: This figure shows maps from the upstream regions mentioned in Figure 9 from the tidal Hudson River Ice Climatology GIS layer on Ice
Coverage %. Shown from left to right are the seven stages of the winter ice season (late Dec, early Jan, late Jan, early Feb, late Feb, early Mar, late
Mar). Comparison of the later stages between Figures 9 and 10 reveals that these northern tidal Hudson Regions have less ice coverage during
March than the southern part. It is likely that river flow pushes the broken ice from these regions down to the south.
Page 14
Figure 11: This figure shows maps from the tidal Hudson River Ice Climatology GIS layer on Ice Thickness (inches). It shows ice thickness (values
increase from blue to white color) during each of the seven stages of the winter ice season (late Dec, Early Jan, Late Jan, Early Feb, Late Feb, Early
Mar, Late Mar), from left to right. Ice thickness typically increases from Late Dec to Late Jan and then decreases. Some regions in center part of
tidal Hudson River have ice thickness that is still growing, but most decrease, and this decrease shows up with a time lag as a decrease in spatial
ice coverage (Figure 9). The upstream regions within the red box can be better seen in Figure 12.
Page 15
Figure 12: This figure shows maps from the upstream regions mentioned in Figure 11 from the tidal Hudson River Ice Climatology GIS layer on
Ice Thickness (inches). It shows ice thickness (values increase from blue to white color) during each of the seven stages of the winter ice season
(late Dec, Early Jan, Late Jan, Early Feb, Late Feb, Early Mar, Late Mar), from left to right.
Page 16
REFERENCES
Georgas, N., 2012. Large Seasonal Modulation of Tides due to Ice Cover Friction in a Mid-Latitude Estuary,
Journal of Physical Oceanography. 42(3), 352-369.
Miller, J.K., and N. Georgas, 2015. Hudson River Physical Forces Analysis: Data Sources and Methods. Stevens
Institute of Technology, TR- 2946; in association with and published by the Hudson River Sustainable
Shorelines Project, Staatsburg, NY 12580, http://hrnerr.org
Rubin, D., 1978. Multiple Imputations in Sample Surveys A phenomenological Bayesian approach to
nonresponse. Educational Testing Service, 28pp.
Tuthill, A., 2008. Ice Considerations in the Design of River Restoration Structures, ERDC/CRREL TR-08-2.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2009. CRREL Ice Jam Database, CRREL TR-99-2.
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011. Coastal Engineering Manual: Fundamentals of Design, EM 1110-2-1100.
US Coast Guard, 2015. Ice Definitions. Homeport NY Icebreaking Operations. Accessed online, 2015:
https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/portDirectory.do?tabId=1&cotpId=2
Page 17
APPENDIX A--METHODOLOGY
Statistics and Confidence Intervals
The goal of CDF analysis is to figure out the likelihood of how thick the ice in one river region will be. In
this aspect, we have to face two problems. One is the limited number of samples from 11 ice seasons and
the second is that we do not have enough information about what the daily thickness ranges in the USCG
reports really say about the distribution of ice within a given region that day.
We addressed both problems simultaneously using a non-parametric statistical imputation approach
(Rubin 1978). We first generated 50 random numbers inside of each daily thickness range in each region
to expand the number of samples [500 were also tested and the results were nearly identical]. Without
knowledge of a statistical distribution within each range, we considered these 50 random numbers as 50
independent thickness samples within that different region. This random imputation technique is more
reasonable in terms of sampling the distribution of ice thickness than using, say, the mid-point of each
daily range. Next, we performed CDF analysis of all these ice thickness samples (50 samples per
observation day for all ice seasons) in order to find the 50%, 75%, 90% and 95% percentiles, among which
the 95% percentile can be a really useful parameter for engineering planning. We then calculated the 95%
confidence intervals of the GEV fit for each of these four percentiles using Rubins formula (Rubin 1978,
equation 1-1). In Eq. 1-1, the first term represents the mean level of the variate and the second term
represents the variation of variate within each imputation. Here, the variate is the confidence interval.
CI rubin
1 50
1
cib CI bias (1 )
50 b 1
50
(1-1)
In which,
50
CI bias (cib
b 1
1 50
cib )2
50 b1
(1-2)
For instance, in one river region, say we had a thickness range in one day which was 2-4 inches. We
generated 50 random numbers (thicknesses) in the range of 2-4 inches. We did the same thing for each
thickness range we had for that region. If we choose the first random thickness sample of every range,
and do CDF analysis for these chosen thicknesses, we can get a confidence interval. This confidence
interval is cib in Equation 1-1, while b=1. And so on, for the rest of the 50 random drawings. After using
Rubins formula we get a variational confidence interval for all samples (Figure 13).
Page 18
Variational
C.I. from
Rubin
Grand
Mean
C.I.
Figure 13: The difference between two Confidence Intervals (C.I.) for the Generalized Extreme Value
(GEV) distribution fit can be seen in this figure. The blue C.I. is the variation confidence interval after
using Rubins equation to account for the variation of each imputations C.I. compared to the overall
grand mean C.I. (which considers all imputations together).
By doing the CDF analysis based on imputation we calculated robust confidence intervals through
Rubins non-parametric formula for the GEV fit of the four percentiles of representative region-wide ice
thickness. Within each region however, we also want to consider the possible spatial variation of ice
thickness. To do that, sub-sampled CDF analyses were completed for each ice sample within each
percentiles confidence interval. For example, if a days range was 2-4 inches, the length of within-region
spatial range for that day was 2 inches. For the subsampled CDFs, we chose those daily thickness ranges
whose mid-points were located within Rubins confidence interval for a specific percentile. We then
retrieved the median of the length of those thickness ranges for that percentile; and so on for the other
percentiles. We regard this median as a representative range for the spatial variation of ice thickness for
each percentile (Table 5).
For instance, after doing the imputed CDF, we get a result that there are 95% possibility that thickness
will be less than 10 inches, and Rubins 95% variational confidence interval for that percentile is from 9 in
to 11 in. Then we find those thickness range whose mid-point was located between 9-11 inches and find
out the length of these thickness ranges. They may be, for example, [2 in, 4 in, 4 in, 5 in, 9 in]. The median
Page 19
is 4 in. I.e., we have 95% confidence that the representative thickness for that region as a whole will not
exceed 11 inches (the upper limit of the confidence interval) more than 5 winter days in 100. Since this
thickness however may further vary spatially within that region an extra 4 inches, one could say with 95%
confidence that ice thickness will not exceed 15 inches more than 5 winter days in 100 anywhere within
that region. In other words, a conservative value for the 95% percentile would be:
[Upper-95%-C.I. of the 95-percentile] + median 95-percentile range.
Page 20
APPENDIX B--STATISTICS AND TABLES
Region ID and Name

Table 1: Region ID information. This table lists the stretch of the river corresponding to the Region ID.
This information is displayed in a map in Figure 1.
REGIONID
NAME
River Stretch: George Washington Bridge to

Tappan Zee Bridge
River Stretch: Tappan Zee Bridge to Jones Point
River Stretch: Jones Point to West Point
Choke Point: West Point
River Stretch: West Point to Newburgh
River Stretch: Newburgh to Poughkeepsie
Choke Point: Crum Elbow
Choke Point: Hyde Park Anchorage
Choke Point: Esopus Meadows
10
River Stretch: Poughkeepsie to Kingston
11
Choke Point: Silver Point
12
River Stretch: Kingston to Catskill
13
Choke Point: Hudson Anchorage
14
Choke Point: Stuyvesant Anchorage
15
River Stretch: Catskill to Albany
16
River Stretch: Albany to Troy
Page 21
Ice Occurrence
Table 2: The ice occurrence of different river region. The occurrence based on ice data of 11 ice seasons.
REGION ID
OCCURENCE(%)
14.5
34.5
34.9
53.7
54.8
60.9
63.9
63.6
66.3
10
69.2
11
63.7
12
70.8
13
61.5
14
53.7
15
63.8
16
49.6
Page 22
Ice Types for Every River Region

Table 3: Ice Types of every river region with their respective percent occurrence.
REGION
Drift
Brash
Fast
Plate
Floe
Grease
Frazil
Slush
Pancake
Hummocked
Rafted
Skim
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
92.0
77.4
6.5
11.3
3.2
1.6
1.6
86.2
72.5
15.0
8.5
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.6
88.4
72.9
12.9
8.4
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
0.6
80.2
73.7
19.4
14.2
2.8
0.4
2.0
0.8
0.4
77.4
76.0
23.7
10.8
2.8
0.4
2.5
0.7
0.4
82.7
80.8
18.9
8.7
3.3
1.6
0.7
0.3
79.0
75.4
19.0
11.8
2.0
0.3
2.0
1.3
0.7
2.0
72.1
73.7
24.6
13.8
2.0
0.3
1.0
0.7
1.0
64.4
72.8
29.0
17.3
1.2
0.3
1.2
0.3
0.9
10
73.6
73.9
25.0
13.6
2.6
0.3
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
11
63.9
67.9
39.4
18.1
1.1
0.4
1.1
1.1
12
65.3
74.1
36.9
12.7
3.3
0.8
1.1
0.3
0.6
13
58.5
71.3
43.8
15.1
2.3
1.1
0.4
0.4
14
58.0
73.2
42.4
15.6
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
15
61.6
69.9
39.4
13.0
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.3
16
42.0
44.9
61.4
24.4
0.6
1.1
0.6
0.6
Page 23
Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) Analysis Result

Table 4: CDF Analysis result for both ice thickness and coverage.
THICK_50P
THICK_75P
THICK_90P
THICK_95P
AREA_50P
AREA_75P
AREA_90P
AREA_95P
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
REGION_ID
2.1
3.1
4.5
5.7
32.5
48.5
65.8
78.6
2.6
3.7
5.3
6.5
35
52.8
72.4
86.8
2.5
3.7
5.2
6.5
35.4
53.4
73.2
88.6
4.0
6.0
8.8
11.1
71.3
94.8
100
100
4.1
6.3
9.4
11.9
70.7
86.5
100
100
3.7
5.5
7.8
9.8
70.0
84.2
93.5
100
3.5
5.5
8.4
11.1
78.1
92.1
100
100
3.8
5.9
8.7
11.1
74.1
92.5
100
100
4.1
6.3
9.4
12.1
82.6
100
100
100
10
4.1
6.3
9.1
11.5
81.5
92.3
100
100
11
4.3
6.3
8.7
10.4
87.6
100
100
100
12
4.3
6.4
8.9
10.7
80.9
100
100
100
13
4.9
7.1
9.5
11.2
87.8
100
100
100
14
4.1
6.0
8.3
10.0
87.0
100
100
100
15
4.3
6.4
8.8
10.6
78.3
94.8
100
100
16
4.5
6.6
8.8
10.4
100
100
100
100
Page 24
Spatial Variation of Cumulative Probability

Table 5: Spatial (Within-Region) Variation of Each Cumulative Probability.
RANGE_50
RANGE_75
RANGE_90
RANGE_95
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
(inches)
REGION ID
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
3.5
2.5
2.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
1.0
4.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
4.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
3.5
2.0
2.0
10
3.0
4.0
4.0
2.0
11
3.0
4.0
2.0
4.0
12
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
13
3.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
14
3.0
3.5
3.0
2.0
15
3.0
3.0
2.0
4.0
16
3.0
2.0
2.5
4.0
Page 25
Color of Different Ice Type

Table 6: Color of different ice Type.
Ice Type
Color
Drift
Dark Green
Brash
Brown
Fast
Orange
Plate
Red
Floe
Purple
Page 26
APPENDIX C--PLOTS
Statistical Analysis Plots
Brief explanation of the plots that follow per Hudson Region is given below:
Top panels: Reported ice thickness (inches) and percent ice cover (%) from 2005-2015. Medium panels:
CDF (Cumulative Distribution Function; empirical and GEV-fit) for ice thickness and percent cover. For
ice thickness, dotted lines show the 50% and 95% percentile ice thickness calculated for that region during
days with ice, while horizontal bars show the expected ice thickness ranges for these percentiles. Bottom
panel: Bar chart shows the probability of occurrence for each kind of ice type, based on the reports when
ice was present.
Page 27
Figure 14: Statistical Analysis for Region 1, George Washington Bridge to Tappan Zee Bridge. In this
region, ice has historically occurred 14.5% of days during the analyzed winter ice seasons. The most
prevalent ice type for this region has been Drift. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report,
conditions with ice thicker than 5.7 (4.2 to 7.2 at the 95% confidence level), and areal ice coverage
greater than 78.6%, are only expected during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter
ice season, or, equivalently, during only 1 day of an ice season.
Page 28
Figure 15: Statistical Analysis for Region 2, Tappan Zee-Jones Point. In this region, ice has historically
occurred 34.5% of days during the analyzed winter ice seasons. The most prevalent ice type for this
region has been Drift. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker
than 6.5 (5.5 to 7.5 at the 95% confidence level), and areal ice coverage greater than 86.8%, are only
expected during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently,
during only 2 days of an ice season.
Page 29
Figure 16: Statistical Analysis for Region 3, Jones Point-West Point. In this region, ice has historically
region has been Drift. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker
than 6.5 (5.25 to 7.75 at the 95% confidence level), and areal ice coverage greater than 88.6%, are only
expected during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently,
during only 2 days of an ice season.
Page 30
Figure 17: Statistical Analysis for Region 4, Choke Point: West Point. In this region, ice has historically
occurred 53.7% of days during the analyzed winter ice seasons (Note: data were only available after
December 2007). The most prevalent ice type for this region has been Drift, though Brash ice has also
occurred with similar frequency. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report, conditions with
ice thicker than 11.1 (10.1 to 12.1 at the 95% confidence level), are only expected during 5% of days
with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently, during only 3 days of an ice
season. When ice is present, it may fill that region from bank to bank, (100% ice cover), 23.5% of the time
on average, or, equivalently, during 14 days of an ice season.
Page 31
Figure 18: Statistical Analysis for Region 5, West Point-Newburgh. In this region, ice has historically
region has been Drift, though Brash ice has also occurred with similar frequency. Based on the statistical
analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker than 11.9 (10.9 to 12.9 at the 95%
confidence level), are only expected during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice
season, or, equivalently, during only 3 days of an ice season. When ice is present, it may fill that region
from bank to bank, (100% ice cover), 13% of the time on average, or, equivalently, during 8 days of an ice
season.
Page 32
Figure 19: Statistical Analysis for Region 6, Newburgh-Poughkeepsie. In this region, ice has historically
region has been Drift, though Brash ice has also occurred with similar frequency. Based on the statistical
analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker than 9.8 (7.8 to 11.8 at the 95% confidence
level), are only expected during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or,
equivalently, during only 3 days of an ice season. When ice is present, it may fill that region from bank to
bank, (100% ice cover), 8% of the time on average, or, equivalently, during 5 days of an ice season.
Page 33
Figure 20: Statistical Analysis for Region 7, Choke Point: Crum Elbow. In this region, ice has historically
December 2005). The most prevalent ice type for this region has been Drift, though Brash ice has also
ice thicker than 11.1 (10.6 to 11.6 at the 95% confidence level), are only expected during 5% of days
with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently, during only 3 days of an ice
season. When ice is present, it may fill that region from bank to bank, (100% ice cover), 19% of the time on
average, or, equivalently, during 13 days of an ice season.
Page 34
Figure 21: Statistical Analysis for Region 8, Choke Point: Hyde Park Anchorage. In this region, ice has
historically occurred 63.6% of days during the analyzed winter ice seasons (Note: data were only
available after December 2005). The most prevalent ice type for this region has been Brash, though Drift
ice has also occurred with similar frequency. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report,
conditions with ice thicker than 11.1 (10.1 to 12.1 at the 95% confidence level), are only expected
during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently, during only
3 days of an ice season. When ice is present, it may fill that region from bank to bank, (100% ice cover),
20% of the time on average, or, equivalently, during 14 days of an ice season.
Page 35
Figure 22: Statistical Analysis for Region 9, Choke Point: Esopus Meadows. In this region, ice has
available after December 2005). The most prevalent ice type for this region has been Brash, though Drift
ice has also occurred with similar frequency. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report,
conditions with ice thicker than 12.1 (11.1 to 13.1 at the 95% confidence level), are only expected
during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently, during only
4 days of an ice season. When ice is present, it may fill that region from bank to bank, (100% ice cover),
26% of the time on average, or, equivalently, during 18 days of an ice season.
Page 36
Figure 23: Statistical Analysis for Region 10, Poughkeepsie-Kingston. In this region, ice has historically
region has been Brash, though Drift ice has also occurred with similar frequency. Based on the statistical
analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker than 11.5 (10.5 to 12.5 at the 95%
season.
Page 37
Figure 24: Statistical Analysis for Region 11, Choke Point: Silver Point. In this region, ice has historically
December 2005). The most prevalent ice type for this region has been Brash, though Drift ice has also
ice thicker than 10.4 (8.4 to 12.4 at the 95% confidence level), are only expected during 5% of days with
ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently, during only 3 days of an ice season.
When ice is present, it may fill that region from bank to bank, (100% ice cover), 35% of the time on
average, or, equivalently, during 24 days of an ice season.
Page 38
Figure 25: Statistical Analysis for Region 12, Kingston-Catskill. In this region, ice has historically
region has been Brash. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker
than 10.7 (8.7 to 12.7 at the 95% confidence level), are only expected during 5% of days with ice on that
river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently, during only 4 days of an ice season. When ice
is present, it may fill that region from bank to bank, (100% ice cover), 28% of the time on average, or,
equivalently, during 21 days of an ice season.
Page 39
Figure 26: Statistical Analysis for Region 13, Choke Point: Hudson Anchorage. In this region, ice has
available after December 2005). The most prevalent ice type for this region has been Brash. Based on the
statistical analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker than 11.2 (9.2 to 13.2 at the 95%
season.
Page 40
Figure 27: Statistical Analysis for Region 14, Choke Point: Stuyvesant Anchorage. In this region, ice has
available after December 2005). The most prevalent ice type for this region has been Brash. Based on the
statistical analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker than 10.0 (9.0 to 11.0 at the 95%
season.
Page 41
Figure 28: Statistical Analysis for Region 15, Catskill-Albany. In this region, ice has historically occurred
63.8% of days during the analyzed winter ice seasons. The most prevalent ice type for this region has
been Brash, though Drift ice has also occurred with similar frequency. Based on the statistical analysis
described in this report, conditions with ice thicker than 10.6 (8.6 to 12.6 at the 95% confidence level),
are only expected during 5% of days with ice on that river stretch during the winter ice season, or,
equivalently, during only 3 days of an ice season. When ice is present, it may fill that region from bank to
bank, (100% ice cover), 23% of the time on average, or, equivalently, during 16 days of an ice season.
Page 42
Figure 29: Statistical Analysis for Region 16, Albany-Troy. In this region, ice has historically occurred
49.6% of days during the analyzed winter ice seasons. The most prevalent ice type for this region has
been Fast Ice. Based on the statistical analysis described in this report, conditions with ice thicker than
10.4 (8.4 to 12.4 at the 95% confidence level), are only expected during 5% of days with ice on that
river stretch during the winter ice season, or, equivalently, during only 3 days of an ice season. When ice
is present, it may fill that region from bank to bank, (100% ice cover), 50% of the time on average, or,
equivalently, during 27 days of an ice season.
Page 43
Climatology Analysis Plots
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.0
0.1
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.0
Mean High (in)
0.0
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.0
Record High (in)
3.0
3.0
8.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
0.0
(2010)
(2014)
(2009)
(2005/2015)
(2015)
(2015)
Mean Coverage (%)
0.1
2.8
11.1
10.7
6.3
2.1
0.0
Figure 30: Region 1 in general has the lowest ice thickness and coverage of any of the 16 analyzed Tidal
Hudson River regions, as it is further south near the New York / New Jersey Harbor and has saline
estuarine waters.
Page 44
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.1
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.5
0.2
Mean High (in)
0.1
1.2
2.0
2.2
1.1
1.0
0.3
Record High (in)
3.0
18.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
2.0
(2010)
(2010)
(2011)
(2011)
(2005/2015)
(2015)
(2014)
Mean Coverage (%)
0.3
19.3
25.1
22.1
7.9
6.4
1.6
Figure 31: For region 2, the thickest ice appears in Early January. On average, the ice has been thicker in
Late January and Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Late January.
Mean ice prevalent types are Drift and Brash.
Page 45
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.2
Mean High (in)
0.1
1.3
2.1
2.1
1.0
1.0
0.3
Record High (in)
3.0
18.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
2.0
(2010)
(2010)
(2009)
(2011)
(2005 /2015)
(2015)
(2014)
Mean Coverage (%)
0.3
20.6
25.0
22.7
8.3
6.4
1.6
Late January and Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Late January.
Mean ice prevalent types are Drift and Brash.
Page 46
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.1
1.7
2.3
3.2
1.8
2.1
0.6
Mean High (in)
0.2
2.5
3.8
4.9
3.3
3.7
1.0
Record High (in)
5.0
12.0
12.0
24.0
12.0
14.0
4.0
(2015)
(2011 /2015)
(2015)
(2014)
52.8
36.1
32.3
11.8
(2010)
Mean Coverage (%)
2.7
(2010/2011) (09/11 /15)

39.9
48.3
Figure 33: For region 4, the thickest ice appears in Early February. On average, the ice has been thicker in
Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Early February. Mean ice
prevalent types are Drift and Brash.
Page 47
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.1
1.4
2.7
3.3
2.2
2.1
0.9
Mean High (in)
0.2
2.1
5.0
5.4
3.4
3.4
1.4
Record High (in)
5.0
10.0
30.0
24.0
18.0
18.0
5.0
(2010)
(2009 /2010)
(2005)
(2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2015)
Mean Coverage (%)
1.8
34.1
52.4
55.7
37.6
28.5
14.7
Figure 34: For region 5, the thickest ice appears in Late January. On average, the ice has been thicker in
Late January and Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Early February.
Mean ice prevalent types are Drift, Brash, and Fast.
Page 48
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.3
1.2
2.8
2.8
2.3
2.5
1.2
Mean High (in)
0.5
2.0
4.9
4.5
3.8
4.2
2.1
Record High (in)
5.0
10.0
18.0
12.0
12.0
24.0
6.0
(2010)
(2009)
(2011)
(2011 /2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2015)
Mean Coverage (%)
7.3
33.8
55.1
56.7
51.2
34.5
25.0
Figure 35: For region 6, the thickest ice appears in Early March. On average, the ice has been thicker in
Late January. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Early February. Mean ice prevalent
types are Drift and Brash.
Page 49
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.5
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.3
3.5
1.7
Mean High (in)
0.7
2.8
4.9
3.8
3.6
4.8
3.1
Record High (in)
5.0
12.0
18.0
12.0
12.0
24.0
6.0
(2009)
(2010 /2011)
(2011)
(2015)
(2014 /2015)
Mean Coverage (%)
19.4
42.5
64.8
43.0
34.0
(2009 /2015) (2009 /2015)

51.1
45.6
Late January. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Late January. Mean ice prevalent
types are Drift, Brash, and Fast.
Page 50
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.4
1.9
3.0
3.3
2.2
3.2
1.5
Mean High (in)
0.6
2.7
4.8
5.0
3.7
4.4
3.1
Record High (in)
5.0
12.0
12.0
18.0
12.0
24.0
6.0
(2009/2010)
(2011)
(2011)
(2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2015)
Mean Coverage (%)
17.4
37.0
64.2
62.6
43.9
39.1
32.4
Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Late January. Mean ice prevalent
Page 51
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.6
2.0
3.4
3.9
2.5
3.6
1.9
Mean High (in)
0.8
2.9
5.2
5.8
3.9
4.8
3.7
Record High (in)
8.0
12.0
18.0
24.0
14.0
20.0
6.0
(2013)
(2009)
(2015)
(2015)
69.3
52.5
45.5
46.1
(2009)
Mean Coverage (%)
21.5
(2010 /2011) (2010 /2011)

45.6
68.5
Figure 38: For region 9, the thickest ice appears in Early February. On average, the ice has been thicker in
prevalent types are Drift, Brash, Fast, and Plate.
Page 52
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.6
2.1
3.1
3.8
2.6
3.5
1.8
Mean High (in)
0.9
3.2
5.4
5.6
4.4
5.5
3.8
Record High (in)
8.0
16.0
13.0
12.0
12.0
24.0
6.0
(2009)
(2010)
(2010)
(2015)
(2015)
Mean Coverage (%)
20.0
43.8
68.6
49.6
40.2
(09/11/15) (2009/2015)
66.2
57.3
Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Late January. Mean ice prevalent
Page 53
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Mean Low (in)
0.5
1.7
2.7
3.5
Mean High (in)
0.8
2.4
4.5
Record High (in)
4.0
10.0
10.0
(2010)
(2010)
Mean Coverage (%)
22.1
43.8
Late
Early Mar
Late Mar
2.8
3.1
1.8
5.0
4.4
5.0
3.7
12.0
12.0
16.0
6.0
(2015)
(2015)
52.1
50.0
Feb
(09/10/11/15) (10/11/15) (2015)

61.7
63.4
53.8
Early February and Early March. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Early February.
Page 54
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.5
1.8
3.2
4.0
3.3
2.6
1.7
Mean High (in)
0.9
2.8
5.4
5.8
5.4
4.8
4.3
Record High (in)
5.0
10.0
24.0
12.0
18.0
16.0
8.0
(2010)
(2010)
(2011)
(2015)
(2015)
Mean Coverage (%)
22.8
49.2
65.3
51.8
52.3
(09/11/15) (2011/2015)
69.6
60.7
Figure 41: For region 12, the thickest ice appears in Late January. On average, the ice has been thicker in
Page 55
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.5
1.7
2.8
4.1
3.8
2.9
1.7
Mean High (in)
0.6
2.4
4.6
5.9
5.5
4.7
3.0
Record High (in)
4.0
10.0
13.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
7.0
(2010)
(2010)
(2010)
(2010)
(2009/2015)
(2015)
(2014)
Mean Coverage (%)
23.0
39.4
62.4
62.6
57.7
46.6
42.5
Figure 42: For region 13, the thickest ice appears in Early February and Early March. On average, the ice
has been thicker in Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Late January
and Early February. Mean ice prevalent types are Drift, Brash, and Fast.
Page 56
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.5
1.3
1.8
3.3
2.7
2.0
0.8
Mean High (in)
0.5
1.9
3.4
4.7
4.6
3.3
1.4
Record High (in)
3.0
8.0
8.0
12.0
12.0
10.0
4.0
(2015)
(2014 /2015)
36.4
25.6

Mean Coverage (%)
(2010/2013) (2009 /2015) (09/14/15) (10/11/15) (2014 /2015)

19.2
36.5
55.1
60.0
47.8
Figure 43: For region 14, the thickest ice appears in February. On average, the ice has been thicker in
Page 57
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.5
1.6
2.6
3.7
2.8
2.3
1.2
Mean High (in)
0.6
2.5
5.1
5.5
4.7
4.4
2.6
Record High (in)
4.0
18.0
16.0
12.0
18.0
16.0
8.0
(2010)
(2009)
(2009)
(2011 /2015)
(2015)
(2015)
(2014)
Mean Coverage (%)
20.7
38.5
60.5
63.3
50.1
38.9
34.3
Figure 44: For region 15, the thickest ice appears in Early January and Late February. On average, the ice
has been thicker in Early February. In terms of coverage, the most ice coverage appears in Early February.
Page 58
Climatology
Late Dec
Early Jan
Late Jan
Early Feb
Late Feb
Early Mar
Late Mar
Mean Low (in)
0.2
1.4
1.9
2.5
2.8
1.6
0.6
Mean High (in)
0.4
2.1
3.4
3.9
3.6
2.2
0.8
Record High (in)
4.0
18.0
16.0
12.0
10.0
12.0
6.0
(2010)
(2009)
(2009)
(2015)
(2005/2009)
(2015)
(2014)
Mean Coverage (%)
15.6
46.7
51.1
60.8
46.5
31.8
2.7
Page 59
APPENDIX D. USCG ICE TYPES, DEFINITIONS AND

PHOTOGRAPHS (PROVIDED BY USCG)
BRASH ICE -Conglomerates of small ice cakes and chunks that have been broken off from other ice
formations. These conglomerations coalesce an<l refreeze into irregularly shaped masses, one to six fed in
diameter, usually with sharp projections Brash ice can extend all the way to the bottom of an ice-congested
waterway.
Page 60
DRIFT ICE- Any unattached ice formation . Any area of ices other than fast ice.
FAST ICE -Immobili zed ice formations. Ice so firmly frozen into place (along the shore or held by islands)
that winds and water currents cannot dislodge the formation.
Page 61
FLOE - Detached segments of floating ice sheets. The following shows the recognized categories of floe
measurement. Only cake to medium floe ice sheets are found in the Hudson.
Cake Floe
(0-20 meters across)
Small Floe
(20-l00 meters across)
Medium Floe
(100-5 00 meters across)
Big Floe
(500-2000 meters across)
Page 62
FRAZIL ICE Fine spicules or ice crystals that float freely and individually in the water.
GREASE ICE - Where the water surface is completely covered by frazil but the ice crystals have not yet
begun to freeze together. The surface has a greasy, matte appearance and may look like an oil slick.
Page 63
HUMMOCKED - Pressure-formed piles of ice usually jagged in appearance.
ICE EDGE -The boundary, at any given time, of the open sea and ice of any kind, whether drifting or fast.
Page 64
PLATE ICE - Flat ice with approximately uniform thickness and without ridges/windrows.
PANCAKE ICE - Predominantly circular pieces of ice. Pieces are one to eight feet across with raised rims
resulting from the pieces striking against one another.
Page 65
PRESSURE RIDGE - A line or wall of broken ice forced upward and downward by pressure. This is
usually formed when two floes collide with each other.
RAFTED ICE - A type of ice formed by one floe overriding another. Some parts of the overlap will trap
water, which may freeze and cement the two floes together. Other parts will trap air and take on
characteristic white appearance.
Page 66

Tidal Hudson River Ice Climatology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tidal Hudson River Ice Climatology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TIDAL HUDSON RIVER ICE COVER

About the Hudson River Sustainable Shorelines Project

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 2

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Data Source and Profile

2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Mean Low (in)

Mean High (in)

Record High (in)

Year record occurred

a Mean Coverage (%)

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

APPENDIX B--STATISTICS AND TABLES

Region ID and Name

River Stretch: George Washington Bridge to

River Stretch: Tappan Zee Bridge to Jones Point

River Stretch: Jones Point to West Point

Choke Point: West Point

River Stretch: West Point to Newburgh

River Stretch: Newburgh to Poughkeepsie

Choke Point: Crum Elbow

Choke Point: Hyde Park Anchorage

Choke Point: Esopus Meadows

River Stretch: Poughkeepsie to Kingston

Choke Point: Silver Point

River Stretch: Kingston to Catskill

Choke Point: Hudson Anchorage

Choke Point: Stuyvesant Anchorage

River Stretch: Catskill to Albany

River Stretch: Albany to Troy

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Ice Types for Every River Region

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) Analysis Result

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Spatial Variation of Cumulative Probability

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Color of Different Ice Type

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology

Tidal Hudson River Ice Cover Climatology