Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Ice jam

An ice jam is an accumulation of ice fragments or sheets in a river, stream, or other waterway that restricts or blocks the normal flow of water, often resulting in elevated water levels and potential flooding upstream.^[1] These events typically form when drifting ice encounters obstructions such as river bends, bridges, dams, or changes in channel slope, causing the ice to pile up and impede the current.^[2] Ice jams are classified into two primary types based on their formation: freeze-up jams, which develop during the initial freezing period in early winter when frazil ice (small, needle-like ice crystals) accumulates in turbulent waters, and breakup jams, which occur in late winter or early spring as rising temperatures and snowmelt cause existing ice covers to fracture and mobilize.^[1] Breakup jams are more commonly associated with severe flooding due to the larger volumes of ice involved and the rapid influx of meltwater or rainfall.^[3] They are prevalent in cold-climate regions, including parts of North America such as the northern United States (e.g., Iowa, New York, New England) and Canada, where rivers freeze annually and experience seasonal thaws.^[2]^[4] The effects of ice jams can be profound, including sudden upstream inundation that exceeds normal flood stages even with moderate discharges, as well as downstream hazards from the rapid release of impounded water and ice when a jam breaks, akin to a dam failure.^[5] Such releases can scour riverbeds, damage infrastructure like bridges and homes, and pose risks to human life, with historical events in areas like Iowa causing structures to be displaced and widespread property damage.^[2] Mitigation strategies include structural measures like tension weirs or sloped-block ice control structures to guide ice flow, alongside non-structural approaches such as land-use planning, building code enforcement, and public education on flood preparedness.^[3] Hydrologic modeling tools, such as HEC-RAS approved by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), aid in risk assessment and mapping by analyzing historical ice-jam data from sources like the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Ice Jam Database.^[1]

Definition and Types

Definition

An ice jam is defined as an accumulation of ice floes, sheets, or fragments in a river, stream, or other flooding source that restricts water flow and causes a significant rise in upstream water surface elevation.^[1] This phenomenon reduces the cross-sectional area available for water passage, potentially leading to partial or complete blockage of the channel.^[1] Ice jams may form as floating accumulations, where the ice remains buoyant on the water surface, or as grounded jams, where the ice contacts and rests on the riverbed, exerting additional pressure on the channel.^[6]^[7] Ice jams differ from related river ice phenomena, such as continuous ice cover, which consists of a uniform layer or expanse of ice spanning the water surface without necessarily impeding flow at specific points.^[7] They also contrast with frazil ice, which refers to fine, suspended spicules, plates, or discoids of ice crystals formed in turbulent, supercooled waters, though frazil particles can aggregate to contribute to jam development.^[7] These distinctions highlight ice jams as localized, obstructive buildups rather than widespread or dispersed ice forms. Ice jams arise within the broader context of the seasonal river ice cycle in cold climates, where rivers undergo freeze-up in winter—forming initial ice layers—and subsequent breakup in spring, mobilizing ice pieces that can converge and accumulate.^[8] This cycle provides the prerequisite conditions for jams to develop at bottlenecks like river bends, bridges, or narrow sections.^[2] As a recognized flooding source, ice jams can exacerbate water levels beyond typical seasonal rises.^[1]

Classification

Ice jams are primarily classified into two types based on their timing and formation dynamics: freeze-up jams and breakup jams. Freeze-up jams occur during the early winter period when ice begins to form and accumulate statically in river channels, often leading to gradual blockages as the ice cover develops.^[1] In contrast, breakup jams form in spring as rising temperatures cause the ice cover to melt and break apart, resulting in dynamic movement and rapid accumulation of ice floes that obstruct flow.^[1] Within these primary categories, ice jams can be further subdivided by their structural characteristics and interaction with the riverbed. Floating jams consist of ice primarily on the water surface, allowing some underflow, whereas grounded jams involve ice that contacts and rests on the riverbed, creating more complete obstructions.^[1] Additional sub-classifications include hanging dams, where overhanging ice shelves form from deposited frazil or floes, and full blockages, which span the entire channel width and depth, severely impeding water passage.^[9] In permafrost regions, aufeis-related jams arise from layered overflow ice accumulations that restrict channels, exacerbating blockages during freeze-up.^[10] Classifications are influenced by several key factors, including water velocity, which affects ice transport and deposition; ice thickness, determining jam stability; and channel morphology, such as bends or constrictions that promote accumulation.^[1]

Formation Processes

Freeze-Up Mechanisms

Freeze-up ice jams form through a sequence of physical processes during the onset of winter, when river water temperatures drop below the freezing point under turbulent flow conditions. Initially, frazil ice crystals nucleate in supercooled water, typically when air temperatures cause rapid surface cooling, leading to water temperatures of -0.1°C to -0.5°C. These small, disk- or needle-shaped crystals, ranging from 1 to 4 mm in size, form due to heterogeneous nucleation on suspended particles or bubbles in the water column.^[11] As turbulence persists, the frazil crystals collide and aggregate into larger clusters known as pans or pancake ice, which can reach diameters of 0.3 to 3 m. During continued falling temperatures, these pans are transported downstream by the current and accumulate at natural or anthropogenic constrictions, such as river bends, bridges, islands, or narrow channels, where flow velocity decreases and shear forces promote jamming. This accumulation builds a static ice dam, often referred to as a frazil or hanging dam, which obstructs flow and exacerbates upstream ice buildup. Unlike the dynamic fragmentation and mobilization seen in other phases, freeze-up jams emphasize gradual, static accumulation driven by adhesion and mechanical interlocking of ice floes.^[11]^[12] Key drivers of this process include sudden cold snaps, which accelerate supercooling and ice production rates by enhancing atmospheric heat loss, often increasing frazil volume by factors of 10 to 100 within hours. Low flow rates, typically below 0.5 m/s, reduce the river's capacity to transport ice, allowing pans to settle and stack at constrictions. Wind effects further contribute by pushing floating ice toward shorelines or bends, amplifying accumulation in wind-exposed reaches. The growth of individual frazil crystals is governed by a basic heat balance, where the rate of temperature change in the supercooled water due to latent heat release during ice formation can be approximated as:

\frac{dT}{dt} = \frac{Q_{\text{ice}}}{\rho c_p h}

Here, dT/dt is the rate of temperature increase (°C/s), Q_{\text{ice}} is the heat flux from ice formation (W/m²), \rho is water density (kg/m³), c_p is specific heat capacity of water (J/kg·°C), and h is the effective water layer thickness (m). This relation highlights how latent heat warms the water, limiting further supercooling unless external cooling persists.^[11]^[12] Stability of freeze-up jams depends on factors such as ice thickness relative to flow depth; once the jam grounds by exceeding the channel depth (often 2-5 m in mid-sized rivers), it becomes more resistant to erosion and can persist. These jams are typically short-term, lasting hours to days, unless prolonged freezing conditions maintain low flows and continued ice supply, leading to thicker, more stable structures up to 5-8 m in height.^[11]^[12]

Breakup Mechanisms

Ice jam breakup mechanisms primarily occur during the spring thaw, when accumulated winter ice becomes mobile and unstable, leading to fragmentation and downstream transport. The process begins with pre-breakup thermal decay, where the ice cover weakens through gradual melting driven by rising air temperatures and solar radiation, reducing ice thickness and structural integrity over days to weeks. This phase is characterized by in situ deterioration without significant movement, as heat transfer from the atmosphere and underlying water erodes the ice sheet, often enhanced by open water leads that increase convective heat exchange.^[13] Breakup initiation follows as snowmelt and rainfall generate rapid runoff, elevating river stages and exerting hydraulic pressure on the decaying ice. Cracking propagates through the ice cover when rising water levels surpass 1.5 to 3 times the ice thickness, fracturing the sheet into large floes that begin to mobilize downstream. This mechanical breakup is triggered by the sudden increase in discharge, which amplifies flow velocities and induces shear forces that exceed the ice's tensile strength, often resulting in a dynamic release of ice fragments.^[13]^[14]^[15] Subsequent ice run formation involves the transport of these floes, which collide and accumulate at channel obstacles such as bends, bridges, slope transitions, or narrow reaches, forming breakup jams. Key drivers include snowmelt-induced velocity increases, which can reach 1.2–1.5 m/s under the ice and initiate erosion; thermal undercutting by warmer river water (around 0.6°C) that melts the ice base at rates up to 1% of discharge volume; and wind shear that imparts additional lateral forces on the ice surface. These factors collectively overwhelm the ice's resistance, with jam strength often analyzed through the force balance equation incorporating interface shear stress: \tau_b + \tau_i = \frac{d\sigma_x}{dx} + \rho' g t S_w, where \tau_b is bed shear stress, \tau_i is ice-water interface shear stress (approximated as \tau_i = \rho g h S for wide channels, with \rho as water density, g as gravity, h as flow depth, and S as water surface slope), \sigma_x is longitudinal stress, \rho' is submerged ice density, t is ice thickness, and S_w is slope.^[13]^[14]^[16]^[1] Jam progression typically features upstream propagation of the jam front as accumulating ice raises water levels, potentially creating multiple jam sites along the river if transport capacity is repeatedly exceeded at constrictions. This upstream advance can extend for kilometers, with the jam toe grounding and forming a porous structure that allows partial flow through interstices, but overall obstruction leads to staged rises of several meters. Brief references to javes—initial push waves from partial ice release—highlight their role in destabilizing upstream sections, though full dynamics are secondary here.^[14]^[16] Instability factors dominate the eventual failure of these jams, including progressive ice sheet thickness reduction below critical thresholds (e.g., less than 20 cm in some cases), which diminishes cohesive strength, and hydraulic forces surpassing the jam's internal resistance modeled via Mohr-Coulomb criteria (\tau = c + \sigma_n \tan \phi, where c is cohesion, \sigma_n is normal stress, and \phi is the friction angle of 20°–45°). When these forces imbalance, jams release suddenly within hours, propagating flood waves downstream and exemplifying the high-risk nature of breakup events compared to static freeze-up accumulations.^[13]^[15]^[1]

Occurrences

Geographical Distribution

Ice jams predominantly occur in the Northern Hemisphere, where mid- and high-latitude regions experience prolonged cold winters that enable extensive river ice formation. These events are widespread across circumpolar areas, affecting up to 60% of river reaches in countries such as Canada, the United States, Russia, and those in Scandinavia.^[17] In North America, notable hotspots include rivers in Alaska, northern states like Minnesota and New York, and Canadian territories, with the CRREL Ice Jam Database documenting over 26,000 records primarily from these U.S. locations.^[18] Specific examples encompass the Mackenzie River in Canada, where ice jams frequently form during spring breakup due to northward flow and melting headwaters; the Yukon River in Alaska and Yukon Territory, prone to jamming in its wide, low-gradient channels; and the Lena River in Siberia, Russia, where thick ice accumulation leads to severe blockages in its extensive basin.^[19]^[20]^[21] In Scandinavia, rivers like the Torne in Sweden and Finland, and the Sjoa in Norway, exhibit regular ice jam activity tied to regional freeze-thaw cycles.^[22]^[23] Enabling environmental conditions for ice jams include cold winters that produce substantial ice covers, typically exceeding 0.5 meters in thickness in subarctic zones, combined with river channel features such as meandering paths, low gradients (often less than 0.1%), and natural constrictions like bends or tributary confluences.^[24]^[25] These factors promote ice accumulation by reducing flow velocity and allowing drifting ice to pile up against stable covers or obstacles. While most occurrences are confined to temperate and subarctic latitudes, rare instances happen at southern limits, such as high-altitude rivers in the tropical Andes where localized freezing can occur, though comprehensive ice covers are uncommon.^[17] Frequency patterns vary by climate zone: in subarctic regions like interior Alaska and northern Canada, ice jams are often annual events during the spring breakup phase, driven by consistent ice formation and melt timing.^[26] In more temperate northern areas, such as parts of the U.S. Midwest and Scandinavia, they are typically episodic, occurring every few years in response to variable winter severity and rapid thaws.^[9] Overall, the circumpolar distribution underscores a Northern Hemisphere dominance, with negligible occurrences in the Southern Hemisphere due to limited river ice extent, except in isolated southern New Zealand and Tasmanian rivers.^[27]

Historical Events

One of the earliest documented major ice jam events occurred on the Peace River in northwestern Alberta, Canada, in 1934, during spring breakup. The jam formed downstream of the town of Peace River, causing water levels to rise rapidly—up to 4.5 meters in as little as six hours in some reaches—leading to widespread inundation of low-lying areas and threatening settlements along the river. Archival accounts from the period highlight how the event disrupted local transportation and agriculture, with observers noting the suddenness of the flood as a key factor in its severity.^[28]^[29] In the United States, the March 1936 flood across the Northeastern region exemplified the destructive potential of ice jams, particularly on rivers like the Connecticut, Susquehanna, and Merrimack. Heavy rains combined with melting snow caused widespread ice breakup, forming massive jams that blocked channels and amplified upstream water levels by several meters, resulting in over 150 deaths and property damages exceeding $250 million (unadjusted for inflation). Early observations from U.S. Geological Survey reports detail how ice rubble piles, some reaching heights of 10 meters, diverted flows into new channels and eroded infrastructure, marking this as one of the most impactful ice-related floods prior to mid-century.^[30]^[31] Analysis of pre-1950 flood records reveals that ice jams played a dominant role in many of North America's most severe historical floods, particularly in northern river systems prone to cold winters and rapid thaws. For instance, events in geographical hotspots like the Peace and Ottawa River basins frequently accounted for peak flood stages in archival ledgers, where open-water flows alone could not explain the observed elevations.^[32] Patterns emerging from these historical events indicate recurrence intervals for major ice jams typically ranging from 1-in-10 to 1-in-50 years, depending on regional climate variability and river morphology, as reconstructed from long-term gauge data and qualitative observations. Pre-1950 documentation, drawn from newspapers, diaries, and rudimentary hydrometric stations, highlights a higher frequency of such events during periods of climatic instability, offering lessons on the vulnerability of unregulated rivers to ice-induced surges.^[33]^[34]

Recent Events

In February 2024, an ice jam formed on the Missouri River near Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota, following warm weather that destabilized the river ice cover.^[35] The North Dakota National Guard deployed helicopters to drop water loads on the jam, successfully mitigating major flooding risks through aerial operations launched on February 29.^[36] Earlier that year, in January 2024, ice jams on the Arkansas River near Florence, Colorado, triggered flood warnings for sections of Fremont County, with high water levels threatening areas along County Road 119.^[37] The National Weather Service reported minor flooding from the jam, which formed due to rapid ice melt from warming temperatures, affecting river parks and low-lying areas without significant structural damage.^[38] In January 2025, the Roaring Fork River experienced multiple ice jam releases near Basalt, Colorado, including a notable event on January 16 that prompted alerts for rapid water level rises downstream toward Glenwood Springs.^[39] This second release of the winter season highlighted the river's vulnerability in Snowmass Canyon, where jams typically form and break, leading to surges reaching downstream areas within 6 to 8 hours.^[40] In March 2025, a breakup ice jam formed on the Fond du Lac River in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, contributing to localized flooding during spring thaw, as recorded in the CRREL Ice Jam Database.^[41] In Alaska, 2023 saw several breakup ice jam events, including a significant jam on the Kobuk and Noatak Rivers in May that caused flooding in the upper valleys, as documented in state emergency reports.^[42] The Defense Technical Information Center's summary of ice jams in Alaska noted that such events, often tied to spring snowmelt, were added to the CRREL Ice Jam Database from sources like National Weather Service observations.^[43] Post-2020 ice jam occurrences have shown increasing variability linked to extreme weather patterns, including warmer winters that shorten ice cover duration and alter breakup timing, as indicated by National Weather Service hydrologic assessments and CRREL database records through 2025.^[44]^[18] These trends reflect broader climate influences, with reduced ice formation in some regions contributing to unpredictable jam formations during variable freeze-thaw cycles.^[45] Recent documentation of ice jams has increasingly relied on satellite imagery from systems like VIIRS for mapping ice extent and real-time National Weather Service reports for on-the-ground validation, enabling faster response to emerging threats.^[46]^[47] This approach has improved monitoring of jam dynamics, such as initial formation and release, across remote areas.

Consequences

Flooding and Damage

Ice jams obstruct river flow, creating a backwater effect that causes rapid upstream water level rises, often by several meters depending on jam thickness, river geometry, and discharge.^[1] This elevation increase results from the reduced conveyance capacity downstream of the jam, leading to flood dynamics such as overtopping of banks and ice ride-up, where floating ice sheets climb onto shorelines under pressure from rising water.^[48] Flood extents from these backwater effects can extend several kilometers upstream, inundating low-lying areas and exacerbating overbank flows.^[49] The physical damages from ice jams stem primarily from hydrodynamic forces and ice movement, including severe bank and bed erosion due to increased velocities and turbulence around the jam.^[50] Ice scouring, where abrasive ice blocks grind against the riverbed and banks, can remove sediment layers up to 0.5 to 2 meters deep, undermining foundations and altering channel morphology.^[13] Infrastructure such as bridges faces direct impacts from ice as a battering ram, with colliding floes exerting forces that deform piers, dislodge structural elements, and cause partial or total failure during jam formation or release.^[51] Debris entrained in ice jams, including trees and sediment, amplifies damage by acting as additional projectiles that collide with structures and erode shorelines further.^[52] When jams break, they release a sudden flood wave known as a jave, triggering secondary downstream flooding with high-velocity flows that propagate damage to unprotected areas.^[53] For instance, historical events like the 2018 Yukon River ice jam demonstrated how such releases can compound upstream inundation with downstream surges.^[54]

Environmental Impacts

Ice jams profoundly disrupt aquatic ecosystems by altering habitat availability and water quality. During formation and persistence, ice accumulation reduces the effective channel cross-section and flow velocity, confining fish and invertebrates to narrower refugia and limiting access to feeding grounds. This habitat compression can strand fish in isolated pools or backwaters as ice encases benthic zones, particularly in smaller streams where anchor and frazil ice buildup is prevalent.^[55] Additionally, prolonged ice cover inhibits atmospheric oxygen exchange and photosynthesis, leading to dissolved oxygen depletion beneath the ice, which stresses cold-tolerant species and can cause winterkill events in severe cases.^[56] For instance, in northern rivers like the Liard, suspended sediments mobilized during jam formation further exacerbate oxygen limitations by clogging gills and reducing water clarity essential for aquatic respiration.^[57] Geomorphologically, ice jams drive significant channel reconfiguration through erosive and depositional processes. The toe of an ice jam experiences heightened shear stress—often exceeding 100 Pa—resulting in intense bed and bank scouring that promotes channel migration and widening. In boreal watersheds such as the Necopastic River, recurring jams (more frequent than once every five years) create a distinctive two-level morphology, with upper banks retreating due to ice abrasion and gouging during mechanical breakups. Post-jam releases then facilitate sediment deposition downstream, where javes (sudden jam failures) transport sediment pulses, enriching floodplains but altering substrate composition and habitat heterogeneity. These dynamics, observed on the Athabasca River, can reshape riverine landforms over decades, influencing long-term connectivity between channels and adjacent terrestrial zones.^[58]^[57] Biodiversity in riparian and riverine ecosystems faces cascading alterations from ice jam disturbances. Frequent ice push and flooding scour riparian vegetation, favoring opportunistic annual species over shrubs and trees, which enhances local plant diversity but homogenizes community structure across sites. In wetland complexes like the Peace-Athabasca Delta, ice-jam floods replenish perched basins, sustaining riparian hydrology and supporting diverse avian and mammalian habitats; however, reduced jam frequency due to flow regulation has led to wetland desiccation and biodiversity loss. These events disrupt food webs by timing mismatches in invertebrate emergence and fish spawning, with long-term shifts toward generalist species in affected northern river ecosystems.^[59]^[60] Ice jams interact with climate systems through feedback loops that influence biogeochemical cycles, particularly in northern latitudes. By modulating winter gross primary production (GPP), ice cover suppresses autotrophy under low-light conditions, yet its persistence can retain organic carbon in sediments, with small streams deriving up to 40% of annual GPP from under-ice periods. Jam-induced flooding enhances nutrient and carbon export to floodplains, altering terrestrial-aquatic carbon fluxes; in permafrost regions, this can accelerate thaw and greenhouse gas emissions. As climate warming shortens ice seasons, these feedbacks may intensify, potentially reducing carbon sequestration in boreal rivers while amplifying methane release from exposed wetlands.^[55]

Socio-Economic Effects

Ice jams frequently result in substantial economic losses, with estimates for North America reaching USD 300 million in 2017 alone, encompassing damages to property, infrastructure, and related disruptions. Individual events can vary widely in scale, from $2.9 million in the 1992 Peace River flood in Canada to over $500 million in the 2020 Fort McMurray ice jam flood, which affected urban areas along the Athabasca River. These losses often include inundation of agricultural lands, as seen in the 1997 Peace River event where 20 farm homes were damaged, leading to crop and livestock losses. Navigation disruptions are also common, halting river transport and commercial activities for days or weeks, particularly in northern regions reliant on waterways for shipping goods. Recent minor events, such as ice jams causing localized flooding along Midwest U.S. rivers in January 2024, have led to road closures and minor property damage, underscoring persistent risks.^[19]^[61]^[62]^[63] Social impacts of ice jams extend beyond immediate flooding, prompting large-scale evacuations that disrupt communities and heighten health risks. For instance, the 1997 Peace River ice jam necessitated the evacuation of approximately 4,000 residents, while earlier events like the 1992 flood displaced 3,800 people, straining local emergency services. The combination of cold temperatures and floodwaters exacerbates health vulnerabilities, increasing risks of hypothermia, injury from debris, and secondary issues such as waterborne diseases like leptospirosis due to contaminated runoff. Community displacement can be prolonged, as evidenced by the 1963 Hay River relocation where ice jams prompted the entire downtown area to be moved to higher ground, affecting long-term social cohesion.^[61]^[5] Certain populations face heightened vulnerability to these effects, particularly Indigenous communities in northern regions where ice jams intersect with cultural and subsistence practices. Remote Indigenous groups, such as those along Arctic rivers, experience amplified social and cultural disruptions from altered ice regimes, including loss of traditional travel routes and hunting grounds. Urban-rural disparities further compound risks; transient urban workforces in oil-dependent areas like Fort McMurray show lower mitigation adoption due to short-term residency (e.g., 32% homeownership under 10 years), while rural communities often lack rapid access to evacuation support. Renters and newer residents perceive lower personal risk, delaying protective actions and increasing exposure.^[64]^[62] Insurance plays a critical role in recovery from ice jam events, though coverage gaps persist. Standard homeowners policies typically cover structural damage from ice-related issues like roof leaks but exclude flood inundation, requiring separate flood insurance policies that account for about 25% of claims occurring outside mapped floodplains. Post-event aid from government agencies and organizations facilitates rebuilding, as seen in federal support following the 1997 Fort McMurray and Peace River floods, which helped restore affected homes and businesses. These mechanisms underscore the need for tailored policies in high-risk areas to address both immediate claims and long-term economic recovery.^[65]^[61]

Risk Assessment

Hazard Mapping

Hazard mapping for ice jams involves the identification and visualization of areas prone to flooding from ice accumulations in rivers, aiding in the assessment of potential inundation risks associated with such events. These maps delineate flood-prone zones to support planning and emergency response, distinguishing between static ice jams, which form at fixed locations like bends or confluences, and dynamic jams that may release and propagate downstream. Techniques emphasize spatial analysis to highlight vulnerabilities in cold-region waterways.^[1] Hydraulic modeling serves as a primary method for ice jam hazard mapping, utilizing one-dimensional (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) simulations to represent ice effects on flow. The Hydrologic Engineering Center's River Analysis System (HEC-RAS), the only model approved by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for explicit ice jam analysis, incorporates ice modules that account for resistance and conveyance reductions through Manning's n values and force balance equations. In 1D modeling, ice covers and jams are defined by user-specified thickness and roughness along cross-sections, while 2D approaches treat ice as hydraulic obstructions or integrated flow domain elements for complex inundation patterns. These models follow FEMA's 2023 guidelines, which recommend indirect hydraulic analyses calibrated against historical data for ice-influenced floodplains.^[66]^[1] Geographic Information System (GIS) overlays provide another key approach, layering historical jam sites and river characteristics to produce predisposition indices. For instance, geospatial models segment rivers into short reaches (e.g., 250 m) and combine factors like channel narrowing and sinuosity into an Ice Jam Predisposition Index (IJPI), classifying segments as high, medium, or low risk with accuracies around 77% in validation against observed events.^[67] Radar-derived ice maps from satellites like RADARSAT-2 can be integrated into ArcGIS to overlay ice cover classifications (e.g., fully iced or partially iced reaches), facilitating the identification of accumulation zones.^[47] These methods align with FEMA recommendations for reconnaissance-based mapping of jam-prone locations.^[1] Essential data inputs for these mapping techniques include historical ice jam locations, bathymetric surveys, and ice thickness measurements. Historical records, such as those from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ice Jam Database or USGS National Water Information System, provide event locations and frequencies dating back decades. Bathymetry data, obtained through field surveys or remote sensing, defines channel geometry under ice, while ice thickness—often estimated as equilibrium values or measured via surveys—is critical for modeling conveyance losses. FEMA guidelines specify collecting at least 10 unique ice-affected events with 0.5 ft stage accuracy for direct analysis calibration.^[1]^[68]^[69] Outputs from ice jam hazard mapping typically consist of inundation maps showing flood extents and velocity zones indicating flow hazards, derived from composite hydrographs and water surface profiles. HEC-RAS generates detailed inundation boundaries and velocity distributions (e.g., limited to 5 fps beneath ice unless specified), while GIS overlays produce risk zonation maps. Uncertainty is particularly high for dynamic jams due to variable release scenarios and non-parametric historical data, addressed through sensitivity analyses varying ice thickness and roughness by ±20%. FEMA's 2023 guidance highlights the need for iterative calibration to manage modeling uncertainties in flood elevations.^[66]^[1] Integration of Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) enhances terrain representation in these maps by providing high-resolution digital elevation models (DEMs) for bathymetry and floodplain topography. Airborne LiDAR data processes riverbed and adjacent land surfaces into DEMs, supporting accurate simulation of ice jam inundation in both static (fixed-site) and dynamic (propagating) contexts. This tool is especially valuable for refining channel geometry inputs in hydraulic models, improving overall map precision.

Risk Calculation

Risk calculation for ice jams involves quantitative estimation of flood probabilities and potential exposures through probabilistic methods that account for the stochastic nature of ice formation, accumulation, and release. These methods typically integrate hydraulic modeling with statistical analysis to determine the likelihood of jam-induced flooding events, enabling informed decisions on infrastructure design and emergency planning.^[13] Probabilistic modeling approaches, such as Monte Carlo simulations, generate thousands of ice jam scenarios by varying input parameters like ice volume and river flow to produce non-exceedance probability profiles for flood levels. For instance, the RIVICE model, developed under Environment Canada, employs stochastic hydraulic simulations to assess jam staging and associated risks, often incorporating historical data for calibration; as of 2025, RIVICE remains in use for operational forecasting in northern rivers.^[70]^[71]^[72] Return period estimation further quantifies event rarity, classifying jams as, for example, 1-in-100-year events based on stage-frequency distributions derived from mixed-population analysis of ice-affected and open-water floods.^[13] A foundational equation in ice jam risk assessment is the general risk formulation:

\text{Risk} = \text{Hazard} \times \text{Vulnerability} \times \text{Exposure}

where hazard represents the probability and magnitude of ice jam flooding, vulnerability denotes the susceptibility of elements at risk to damage, and exposure quantifies the value of assets in affected areas. For ice-specific probability, the likelihood of jam formation P(\text{jam}) is modeled as a function of key hydraulic and ice parameters:

P(\text{jam}) = f(t_i, Q, S)

with t_i as ice thickness, Q as discharge, and S as channel slope; tools like the USACE ICETHK model compute equilibrium jam thickness and profiles using these inputs to inform P(\text{jam}).^[73]^[13] Climate variability is incorporated into these calculations through hindcasting and projection models that adjust probabilities based on changing freeze-thaw cycles and snowpack, often using Bayesian logistic regression to narrow prediction intervals under future scenarios. Sensitivity analysis evaluates the impact of breakup timing variations, revealing how shifts of even a few days can alter jam probabilities by up to 20-50% in vulnerable regions.^[74] Standard frameworks guide these calculations, including the USACE risk assessment process, which emphasizes probabilistic analysis of flood variables like ice effects on stage-discharge relationships for annual exceedance probability (AEP) evaluations. Similarly, Environment Canada's RIVICE framework supports probabilistic ice jam simulations, integrating real-time data for operational risk estimation in northern rivers.^[73]^[71]

Damage Evaluation

Damage evaluation for ice jam events involves systematic protocols to quantify the physical, economic, and environmental impacts following or during an occurrence, enabling informed recovery and future planning. These assessments typically begin immediately after the event to capture perishable evidence, such as high-water marks and debris patterns, and integrate multiple data sources for accuracy.^[1] Post-flood surveys form a core method, where teams conduct on-site reconnaissance to document flood extents, ice thickness, structural damage, and affected infrastructure using photographs, interviews with local residents and officials, and physical indicators like tree scars or scour marks. These surveys help delineate the spatial reach of ice-induced flooding and identify ice-specific damages, such as channel scouring or debris impacts on bridges and buildings. Remote sensing techniques, including historical aerial photography and satellite imagery, complement surveys by mapping large-scale flood boundaries and ice jam locations without ground access risks.^[1] Damages are categorized into direct and indirect types to capture the full scope. Direct damages encompass physical destruction to property, such as structural failures from ice pressure or erosion costs from scouring, often exceeding those from open-water floods due to higher water levels and ice forces. Indirect damages include business interruptions, lost productivity, and relocation expenses, which propagate through economic multipliers to estimate broader community effects like supply chain disruptions. Ice-specific add-ons, such as repair costs for ice gouging on foundations or utilities, are quantified separately to account for the unique abrasive nature of ice jams.^[1]^[75] Depth-damage curves provide a standardized tool for valuing direct property losses, relating flood depth (in meters) to percentage of asset value damaged—for instance, residential structures may incur damages of approximately 35-70% of replacement cost at 1-2 meters of depth above the first floor, adjusted upward for ice impacts.^[76] Software like HAZUS, adapted for ice-adjusted flood simulations, integrates these curves with inventory data to model potential losses, while HEC-RAS hydraulic modeling simulates ice jam scenarios for extent and depth estimation. Economic multipliers, applied to direct losses, help scale indirect impacts.^[1]^[77]

Prediction

Modeling Techniques

Modeling techniques for predicting ice jam formation and behavior rely on computational simulations that integrate hydrodynamic and ice dynamic processes. One-dimensional (1D) river ice models, such as the open-source RIVICE, simulate essential phenomena including ice generation from frazil and border ice, transport of ice floes, and progressive ice cover formation leading to jams. These models solve the fully dynamic Saint-Venant equations for unsteady open-channel flow, coupled with advection equations for ice volume concentration and thickness evolution, enabling prediction of jam initiation and stability along linear river reaches.^[70] Two-dimensional (2D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models incorporating ice processes, such as those based on finite volume methods for coupled flow and ice transport, provide enhanced resolution for lateral variations in velocity, ice concentration, and jamming in meandering or braided channels. These models resolve the shallow-water equations with source terms for ice-induced roughness and momentum exchange, capturing complex interactions like ice arching at bends or confluences that 1D approaches overlook. An example is the comprehensive 2D river ice model that simulates frazil ice evolution, surface ice advection, and jam buildup under varying thermal and hydraulic conditions.^[78] Hybrid stochastic-dynamic models blend deterministic simulations of ice and flow dynamics with probabilistic elements to address variability in breakup timing and jam locations. These approaches use Monte Carlo simulations or ensemble methods within hydrodynamic frameworks to generate scenarios of ice floe distribution and hydraulic forcing, quantifying the likelihood of jam formation at critical sites. A notable implementation is the hybrid ensemble framework that integrates multiple machine learning algorithms with 1D ice process models for short-term jam forecasting on northern rivers.^[79] Core components of these models encompass ice mechanics, hydrology integration, and propagation dynamics. Ice mechanics are represented through constitutive relations for strength, often using beam theory for flexural breakup where critical velocity determines jam failure, alongside shear and compressive criteria based on ice salinity and temperature. Hydrology integration couples ice modules with runoff models to input time-varying discharges that drive ice movement and accumulation. Jam propagation reflects energy release during advance or breakup.^[80]^[70] Validation entails calibrating model parameters, such as ice-water friction coefficients (typically 0.01–0.05) and jam porosity (0.1–0.3), against historical records of water levels, ice thicknesses, and jam extents from events like the 1986 Thames River breakup. Sensitivity analyses reveal robust performance for stable jams but limitations in dynamic scenarios, where rapid ice redistribution or partial releases cause discrepancies up to 20–30% in predicted surge heights due to simplified ice-ice interactions or neglected 3D effects.^[70] Recent advancements since 2020 incorporate artificial intelligence to mitigate uncertainties, with AI-enhanced models using long short-term memory networks trained on historical data to forecast river ice breakup dates, achieving mean absolute errors of 5–8 days as of September 2025. Convolutional neural network and long short-term memory hybrids predict ice jam occurrence with F1-scores up to 0.92, outperforming traditional deterministic models in handling nonlinearities from climate variability, and support applications in probabilistic risk assessment for flood-prone reaches.^[81]^[82]

Monitoring Methods

Monitoring ice jams relies on a combination of in-situ sensors, remote sensing technologies, and observational networks to provide real-time data on ice cover, movement, and potential flood risks. These methods enable authorities to track ice accumulation, detect jam formation, and issue timely alerts, complementing predictive models by supplying empirical observations.^[47] River gauges, operated by agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and integrated into National Weather Service (NWS) systems, measure water stage and velocity to identify anomalies indicative of ice jams. For instance, sudden rises in stage height at gauging stations, like those on the Mohawk River, signal ice-induced backwater effects, while acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) attached to gauges quantify ice floe velocities, often revealing reductions below 0.7 m/s that promote jamming.^[83]^[84] These instruments provide continuous data, essential for distinguishing ice-influenced flows from open-water conditions.^[85] Remote sensing techniques enhance coverage over large or inaccessible areas, with synthetic aperture radar (SAR) satellites such as Sentinel-1 and RADARSAT-2 detecting ice extent and type by analyzing backscatter from surface roughness, even under cloud cover or darkness. SAR imagery classifies features like frazil pans or intact ice sheets, mapping jam locations with resolutions of 5–20 m, as demonstrated in monitoring the Saint-François River in Québec. Drones equipped with high-resolution RGB cameras offer localized visualization, capturing detailed images of jam structures at sub-centimeter scales, such as during a 2019 deployment over a 6-km river section.^[47] Established networks facilitate data integration and sharing; the NWS maintains a volunteer River Ice Spotter Network, where observers report ice cover percentages, trends, and jam locations weekly or during events, supporting flood warnings across U.S. rivers. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) contributes through specialized tools, including ice jam motion detectors installed on rivers like the Kennebec, which alert to ice movement via acoustic or seismic signals. CRREL also supports broader databases compiling historical ice data for analysis. Electromagnetic (EM) sensors, often ground-based or towed, probe ice thickness by measuring conductivity contrasts between ice and water, achieving accuracies within 5–10 cm, as used along the Red River for pre-jam assessments.^[86]^[84]^[87]^[88] Early warning systems incorporate thresholds derived from these observations, such as accumulated freezing degree-days exceeding 50°F-days (about 28°C-days) combined with river velocities dropping below 0.7 m/s, signaling potential jam initiation at bends or constrictions. NWS spotter reports and gauge data trigger alerts when stage rises exceed 1.5 times the estimated ice thickness, enabling proactive evacuations.^[85]^[84] Challenges in monitoring include limited winter access to remote sites, where harsh conditions hinder gauge maintenance and drone flights, and data gaps in sparsely instrumented areas, exacerbating uncertainties in underrepresented regions like northern Canada or Alaska. Optical remote sensing is further constrained by persistent cloud cover during freeze-up, while SAR struggles with fine-scale features on narrow rivers narrower than 100 m.^[47]^[43]

Mitigation

Structural Measures

Structural measures for mitigating ice jams involve engineered physical interventions designed to control ice movement, promote controlled breakup, or reduce the potential for accumulation in vulnerable river sections. These include ice booms, which are temporary or semi-permanent barriers that retain floating ice while permitting water passage, thereby preventing uncontrolled ice runs that could form jams downstream. Weirs, often low-head structures with sluiceways or permeable designs, facilitate the retention of ice in designated areas to allow gradual melting and controlled release during breakup. Channel dredging maintains adequate depth and width to enhance ice conveyance and minimize constriction points where jams might form. Additionally, artificial ice weakening techniques, such as deploying explosives for blasting or introducing warm water discharges to thin the ice cover, weaken the ice sheet in advance to avert sudden fragmentation and jamming.^[13]^[89]^[90] Design of these measures emphasizes resistance to ice-induced forces, particularly dynamic loads from moving ice sheets or floes. Structures must be sized to withstand ice impact forces, commonly estimated using the formula for dynamic pressure: F = 0.5 \rho_{\text{ice}} v^2 A, where F is the force, \rho_{\text{ice}} is the density of ice (approximately 917 kg/m³), v is the velocity of the approaching ice, and A is the projected area of contact. This equation approximates the kinetic energy transfer during ice-structure collision, guiding the selection of materials like steel or concrete for booms and weirs. Placement is critical at river bends, bridges, or confluences where ice accumulation is prone, ensuring anchors and foundations resist overturning from combined ice, water, and wind loads. For weirs and booms, hydraulic criteria such as a Froude number below 0.08 and flow velocities under 0.7 m/s are targeted to maintain stability during ice retention. Dredging operations focus on removing sediment to achieve target channel capacities, often using amphibious excavators for efficiency in ice-affected reaches. Artificial weakening methods require precise timing, informed briefly by ice breakup predictions, to maximize efficacy without refreezing risks.^[91]^[13] Notable examples illustrate practical applications. In Alaska, ice breakers and mechanical excavators are deployed along rivers like Chester Creek in Anchorage to fragment and remove ice proactively, supporting navigation and reducing jam risks in urban areas, with ongoing operations documented as of 2023. On the Peace River in Canada, control structures including low-head weirs and regulated dam releases integrate structural elements to manage ice progression, stabilizing covers and averting severe jams near the Peace-Athabasca Delta. Other implementations include floating tire booms on the Hardwick River in Vermont since 1983, which retain ice upstream, and a 2.7-meter-high weir with sluiceways on the Israel River in New Hampshire, installed in 1982 to direct ice flow safely.^[43]^[92]^[13] These measures have demonstrated substantial effectiveness in reducing ice jam frequency and severity at tested sites. For instance, ice booms and weirs on the Israel River have prevented major flooding events since their installation, while dusting and mechanical weakening on Alaska's Yukon River have notably lowered jam occurrences through proactive ice reduction. Overall, properly designed structural interventions can decrease jam frequency by 50-70% in controlled applications, depending on site hydraulics and maintenance, though success varies with environmental conditions and operational timing.^[13]^[43]^[84]

Non-Structural Measures

Non-structural measures for managing ice jam risks emphasize regulatory, planning, and community-oriented strategies that avoid or minimize exposure to flooding without relying on physical infrastructure. These approaches integrate land-use controls, preparedness protocols, and risk communication to enhance resilience in vulnerable northern riverine areas. By focusing on prevention and response, they complement structural interventions like dikes or ice booms, promoting sustainable flood risk reduction. Zoning regulations play a critical role in restricting development within ice jam floodplains to limit human exposure and potential damages. In regions like Wisconsin, floodplain zoning ordinances incorporate freeboard elevations to account for heightened flood levels from ice jams, debris, and wave action, ensuring new constructions are elevated or prohibited in high-risk zones. Similarly, spatial planning policies prevent urban expansion into flood-prone areas, as outlined in economic frameworks for flood damage avoidance. These regulations are enforced through local ordinances modeled on state guidelines, such as those from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, which mandate mapping and zoning for all floodplains susceptible to ice-induced overflows. Emergency preparedness plans are essential for coordinated response to ice jam events, involving multi-agency coordination and preemptive actions. In the United States, programs under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommend establishing disaster preparedness initiatives that include monitoring ice conditions, alerting residents, and mobilizing resources before breakup seasons. These plans often incorporate floodplain management participation, where communities develop tailored protocols for ice jam scenarios, such as early warnings and resource allocation. Public awareness campaigns educate residents on ice jam hazards, fostering proactive behaviors like monitoring river conditions and preparing personal kits. Initiatives through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) highlight spring flooding risks from ice jams during late winter, using social media and educational materials to promote insurance uptake and evacuation readiness. Such campaigns, supported by local authorities, have been effective in northern communities by disseminating information on ice movement patterns and safe distances from rivers. Insurance mechanisms provide financial protection against ice jam flood losses, with policies specifically designed to cover riverine inundation events. The NFIP's Standard Flood Insurance Policy includes coverage for damages from ice jam overflows, reimbursing eligible losses to structures and contents in participating communities. For high-risk areas, buyout programs facilitate the voluntary acquisition and relocation of properties, converting floodplains to open space. In New York State, the Resilient NY Flood Mitigation Initiative targets ice jam-prone streams like Eighteenmile Creek for buyouts, reducing long-term exposure through state-funded purchases that prioritize repetitive loss properties. Community-based approaches leverage local expertise and protocols to build adaptive capacity, particularly in northern regions. Integration of Indigenous knowledge enhances ice jam management by incorporating traditional observations of ice breakup timing and flood indicators, as demonstrated in James Bay, Ontario, where Cree community insights inform mitigation research and mapping. In the Northwest Territories, guidelines explicitly recommend consulting Traditional and Indigenous Knowledge for understanding ice trends and refining flood hazard assessments. Evacuation protocols, embedded in these community frameworks, emphasize rapid response: residents are advised to follow local authority directives, using pre-planned routes to higher ground and avoiding frozen rivers, as per National Weather Service and Ready.gov guidelines for flood events. Evaluations of non-structural measures highlight their advantages in cost-effectiveness compared to structural alternatives, often featuring lower upfront investments and minimal ecological disruption. Studies on ice jam flood risk management indicate that non-structural options, such as zoning and awareness, yield higher benefit-cost ratios by averting damages through avoidance rather than post-event recovery, with economic analyses showing reduced residual risks at fractions of structural costs. For instance, participatory planning integrating community input has proven economically viable in socio-ecological systems, balancing direct flood damage mitigation with long-term resilience.

Climate Adaptation Strategies

Climate change has led to observable alterations in river ice regimes that influence ice jam formation. Warmer winter temperatures have resulted in thinner ice covers, with trends showing reductions of 0.8–1.8 cm per year in Yukon rivers and 0.3–2.0 cm per year in Russian rivers.^[64] In the Peace River basin, models project a approximately 20 cm decrease in maximum ice thickness by the 2050s, representing a 10-30% reduction relative to historical averages of 60-100 cm in similar northern systems.^[64] Additionally, ice breakup timing has shifted earlier, advancing by 1.4–3.5 days per decade across Canadian rivers, often by 1-2 weeks in recent decades due to accelerated melt from rising air temperatures.^[64] These changes contribute to more variable ice jam frequency, with CMIP6 models indicating dynamic patterns in mid-latitude regions like eastern Europe and North America, where altered freeze-thaw cycles can enhance midwinter breakups and jamming potential.^[93] Projections under CMIP6 scenarios forecast further intensification of these trends, with river ice duration decreasing globally by 8.4 days per 1 °C rise in mean surface air temperature. This relationship can be expressed as:

\Delta D = -8.4 \times \Delta T_{\text{air}}

where \Delta D is the change in ice duration (days) and \Delta T_{\text{air}} is the change in air temperature (°C), linking warming directly to shorter ice seasons and reduced jamming capacity in high Arctic areas due to thinner, more fragmented covers.^[93] Conversely, mid-latitude regions may experience increased extreme ice jam events from more frequent dynamic breakups driven by variable runoff and precipitation, though overall frequency could decline in regulated systems like the Yellow River, where hot spots shift downstream.^[64]^[94] Post-2023 CMIP6 analyses highlight these regional disparities, projecting up to 16.7 days earlier breakups by 2100 in affected basins, filling gaps in earlier assessments by incorporating multimodel ensembles for more robust future scenarios.^[93] Recent studies as of 2025 have advanced adaptation strategies. For instance, interpretable machine learning models for ice-jam flood predictions, developed in 2025, integrate dynamic ice processes to improve early warning systems. In Fort McMurray, Canada, a 2025 analysis emphasizes socio-economic factors in community resilience, promoting integrated structural and non-structural measures. Additionally, research on the Yellow River highlights atmospheric teleconnections, such as the Arctic Oscillation, influencing ice-jam floods, informing adaptive reservoir operations to reduce risks by 2100. An overview of river ice flood mitigation published in February 2025 underscores the role of ice jam removal and site resilience assessments in minimizing flood potential.^[95]^[62]^[94]^[96] To address these evolving risks, adaptation strategies emphasize integrating climate projections into planning. Updated risk models incorporate CMIP6 data with river ice simulations and machine learning to probabilistically forecast ice jam flood severity, enabling optimized flow regulation in cascade reservoirs to balance hydropower and flood control under SSP scenarios.^[97] Resilient infrastructure designs, such as elevating buildings on piers or fill in flood-prone areas, enhance protection against ice jam inundation, as implemented in Prince George, British Columbia, where a 1.0 m freeboard allowance accounts for intensified events.^[98] Policy shifts, including adaptive water management in the Yellow River basin, focus on monitoring atmospheric teleconnections like the Arctic Oscillation to preempt jam shifts and reduce flood occurrences by 2100 through targeted reservoir operations.^[94] These approaches prioritize dynamic responses to climate-driven variability, ensuring long-term community resilience without relying on static historical baselines.

References

[1]
[PDF] Guidance for Flood Risk Analysis and Mapping - FEMA
Nov 1, 2023 · An ice jam is defined as an accumulation of ice in a river ... jams are predominant in ice-jam-caused flooding. Therefore, breakup ...
[2]
[PDF] Ice Jams & Flooding - National Weather Service
What is an ice jam? Pieces of floating ice carried with a stream's current can accumulate at any obstruction to the stream flow. These ice jams can develop ...
[3]
Ice Jams | Northeast States Emergency Consortium
Ice jams occur when warm temperatures and heavy rain cause snow to melt rapidly. Snow melt combined with heavy rains can cause frozen rivers to swell.Missing: effects | Show results with:effects
[4]
Ice Jam Flooding - NYSDEC
Ice jams are an accumulation of ice at a given location in a river which restricts the flow of water. Even through ice jam events occur frequently in New ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[5]
Ice-Jam Flooding Including Debris (MH0608) - UNDRR
A sudden release of the 'ice jam' can cause a flood wave similar to that caused by a dam break, to move downstream. Both meltwater and heavy rainfall in steep ...
[6]
[PDF] Appendix F Guidance for Ice-Jam Flooding Analyses and Mapping
Feb 1, 2002 · Floating-type jams are considered to be those where the ice is not grounded to the channel ... whether grounded- or floating-type jams are typical ...
[7]
https://icejam.sec.usace.army.mil/ords/f?p=1001:8
[8]
What is an Ice Jam? - NESDIS - NOAA
An ice jam, or ice dam, happens when chunks of ice clump together to block the flow of a river. Ice jams are caused by melting snow and ice in the ...
[9]
[PDF] ETL 1110-2-576 - USACE Publications
May 1, 2011 · If conditions are right, additional floes and slush may be drawn beneath the initial ice cover to deposit there in the form of a hanging dam.<|control11|><|separator|>
[10]
(PDF) Ice Jams: Causes and Effects - ResearchGate
Apr 4, 2020 · ... jamming is the sharp wave (jave for short) that is generated upon ice jam release. At present, dynamic aspects of breakup can best be ...
[11]
Aufeis fields as novel groundwater-dependent ecosystems in the ...
Aufeis form when river channels are restricted by ice, creating groundwater habitats under unfrozen sediments, and may be widespread in the Arctic.
[12]
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2022.1054040
[13]
https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2-1612.pdf
[14]
[PDF] EM 1110-2-1612 - USACE Publications
Oct 30, 2002 · This manual provides guidance for ice control, ice jam prevention, and solutions for ice problems on rivers used for navigation.
[15]
[PDF] ERDC/CRREL TR-06-7, Design of Breakup Ice Control Structures
Mar 7, 2006 · The primary purpose of a breakup ice control structure (ICS) is to retain a breakup ice run upstream of a traditional ice jam problem area and ...
[16]
[PDF] breakup ice jam forecasting based on neural network ... - IAHR 2019
In general, breakup ice jams occurring during periods of thaw can be classified into thermal breakup and mechanical breakup. During the thermal breakup process ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[17]
[PDF] River predisposition to ice jams: a simplified geospatial model
Jul 6, 2017 · During freeze-up, the slower-moving reaches freeze first and will likely present a thicker, more re- sistant ice cover at breakup.
[18]
Hydrometeorological Characteristics of Ice Jams on ... - AMS Journals
Ice jams are common cold-season events in many mid- and high-latitude countries around the world (Rokaya et al. 2018) that affect up to 60% of river reaches in ...
[19]
CRREL Ice Jam Database
Introduction The Ice Jam Database is maintained by the Ice Engineering Group at CRREL and currently consists of over 18,000 records from across the US.Missing: geographical distribution
[20]
Trends in the Timing and Magnitude of Ice-Jam Floods in Canada
Apr 11, 2018 · In unregulated rivers and streams, northwest and some central-south regions of Canada are observed to experience increased peak flows while ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[21]
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2021.689941/full
[22]
Serpentine (Floating) Ice Channels and their Interaction with ...
In this study, we use optical and radar remote sensing to map ice frozen to the riverbed (bedfast ice) vs. ice, resting on top of the unfrozen water layer.
[23]
River Ice Breakup in Torne River, Sweden / Finland - Climate Trends
Aug 29, 2021 · Breakup of the river ice generally occurs during May. The breakup results in ice-jams and subsequent surges in river flows. https://www ...
[24]
Surface flow and ice rafting velocities during freezing and thawing ...
The main aim of the study is to determine changes in surface flow velocity during river ice freezing and melting periods.
[25]
Freeze‐Up Ice Jams and Channel Hydraulics Cause Hazardous ...
Apr 26, 2025 · A higher density of OWZs was found along the Innoko River (2.8 per 10-km of river) compared to the Iditarod and Koyukuk rivers (1.3 per 10-km of ...
[26]
Modelling of ice jam floods under past and future climates: A review
May 1, 2022 · These results suggest that ice cover duration in northern rivers has decreased across the Northern Hemisphere in response to warming ...Missing: geographical | Show results with:geographical
[27]
Ice Breakup Reconnaissance Approach in Alaska
Water levels upstream of such jams increase due to the stopped ice that increases the hydraulic resistance in the channel. Only minor flooding of upstream ...
[28]
Study Shows Earth's River Ice Is Rapidly Declining
Jan 2, 2020 · “We found that almost all the river ice is located in the Northern Hemisphere with only rivers in southernmost portions of New Zealand, ...
[29]
Pioneering on Peace River - The Atlantic
It rose seven feet last night in a few hours. We have seen an ice jam raise the water ten feet in six hours, and it has been known to rise as much as fifteen ...
[30]
[PDF] The 2020 river ice breakup in northern Alberta, part II - CRIPE
A series of ice jams and ice runs on the Peace River resulted in significant flooding along 750 km of river from the community of Sunny Valley to the Slave ...
[31]
[PDF] THE FLOODS OF MARCH 1936 - USGS Publications Warehouse
Areas covered by the reports on the floods of March 1936 in the northeastern United States. discharges, and other characteristics of these floods are of ...
[32]
Historic Flood March 1936 - National Weather Service
An example of the severe ice damage occurred at Holyoke Dam. An ice jam above the dam initally resulted in the Connecticut River cutting a new channel on the ...
[33]
Why Ottawa bombs its frozen rivers - BBC News
Feb 24, 2011 · While the river does not freeze solid, the work takes place at the base of a waterfall where the ice is about 3m thick (almost 10 feet).
[34]
Effects of climate on mid‐winter ice jams - Wiley Online Library
Feb 21, 2002 · A comparison of the 1976 and the 1987 St. John River ice jam flooding with emphasis on antecedent conditions. In Proceedings of the Workshop ...
[35]
A Canadian River Ice Database from the National Hydrometric ...
Aug 24, 2020 · This data article describes the original research data set produced by this near 20-year effort: the Canadian River Ice Database (CRID).
[36]
Discussion of “Frequency of ice-jam flooding of Peace-Athabasca ...
Dec 3, 2018 · At the PAD, the Peace River has experienced a spring ice-jam flood probability of 3%–17% since circa CE 883 while for the Athabasca River, ...
[37]
Climate impacts on extreme ice-jam events in Canadian rivers
Abstract River ice jams can produce extreme flood events with major social, economic and ecological impacts throughout Canada. Ice breakup and jamming.
[38]
Ice Jam Forming on the Missouri River in Bismarck/Mandan Area
ICE JAM FORMING ON MISSOURI RIVER... Warm weather last week caused the loss of the ice on the Missouri River through the Bismarck and Mandan area.
[39]
North Dakota National Guard Fights Missouri River Ice Jams
The day before, a large ice jam caused the Missouri River to quickly rise above minor flooding levels, passing 14.5 feet and flooding low-lying areas along the ...
[40]
Ice jams cause flooding along the Arkansas River in Florence - KOAA
Jan 17, 2024 · A flood warning was in effect until Thursday afternoon along the Arkansas River in Fremont County due to ice jams.<|separator|>
[41]
Ice dam in river causes flooding in Fremont County - KRDO
Jan 17, 2024 · On Jan. 17, emergency management reported an ice jam and flooding at the river park here in Florence. Fire officials say the Arkansas River has ...
[42]
Roaring Fork Conservancy - Facebook
Rating 4.9 (19) Jan 16, 2025 · At approximately 2:50pm earlier today, Thursday, January 16, 2025, the Roaring Fork River had its second ice jam release this winter.
[43]
Ice Jam Releases in Roaring Fork Watershed - Facebook
Rating 4.9 (19) Jan 22, 2025 · The water from the last two ice jam releases reached Glenwood 8 and 6 hours, respectively, after they went through Basalt. In fact, the ice jam ...
[44]
[PDF] SITUATION REPORT 23-142 • MAY 22, 2023 - State of Alaska
May 23, 2023 · Upper Kobuk and Noatak Valleys: Flooding Warning issued for an Ice Jam now in effect until 2:15 pm AKDT Tuesday for flooding caused by an Ice ...
[45]
[PDF] Summary of Ice Jams and Mitigation Techniques in Alaska - DTIC
May 1, 2023 · Aufeis can be defined as a “sheet-like mass of layered ice formed on the ground surface, or on river or lake ice, by freezing of successive.
[46]
Office of Water Prediction - 2024 National Weather Service
Mar 21, 2024 · The 2024 National Hydrologic Assessment offers an analysis of flood risk, water supply, and ice breakup and ice jam flooding for spring 2024.
[47]
Climate Change Indicators: Seasonal Temperature | US EPA
A trend toward warmer winters is consistent with observed reductions in snow (see the Snowfall, Snow Cover, and Snowpack indicators) and shorter ice seasons ( ...Missing: jam frequency CRREL
[48]
[PDF] An Automated System to Monitor River Ice Conditions Using Visible ...
Oct 10, 2023 · This study introduces a novel satellite-based system for river ice mapping using VIIRS imagery that addresses the existing operational gap and ...
[49]
Full article: How Ice Mapping Can Help Manage and Prevent Ice Jams
Sep 23, 2024 · We focus on the Saint-François River (Quebec), which is known for recurrent ice jam-induced floods. This study addresses monitoring deficiencies ...
[50]
Current status and advancement suggestions of ice-jam flood hazard and risk assessment
### Summary of Economic Costs, Historical Data, and Social/Vulnerability Aspects of Ice-Jam Floods
[51]
Advancement in ice-jam flood risk management: Integrating dynamic ...
These ice jams can result in a rapid flooding event due to the rise in the backwater level upstream of the ice jam (Ackermann & Shen, 1983). Ice-jam flooding ...
[52]
Full article: Ice-jam flood delineation: Challenges and research needs
As an aid for ice-jam flood mapping, recent methods for classification of river ... The nature and structure of a hanging dam in a gravel-bed river (In ...
[53]
[PDF] Hydraulic and Physical Properties Affecting Ice Jams - DTIC
Hydraulic and Physical Properties Affecting Ice Jams. 5b. GRANT NUMBER. 5c ... shear stress acting on the particles. Essentially, the method relies on ...
[54]
[PDF] Ice Jams at Highways and Bridges-Causes and Remedial Measures
Flooding of roadways and the damaging or destroying of bridges are the moot common effects of ioe jam&, but in- creased bank erosion and upstream flooding ...
[55]
River Ice Jam - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
River ice jams are defined as accumulations of ice that obstruct river flow, causing extreme flood events with significant impacts on infrastructure, ...
[56]
Development of an Ice Jam Flood Forecasting System for the Lower ...
The slush ice and ice blocks may accumulate to form ice jams, leading to backwater effects and substantial water level rise. The small bottom slope of the ...
[57]
Spring Breakup on the Yukon: What Happens When the Ice Stops ...
Oct 26, 2021 · That same day, upstream at Dawson, a run of ice and water passed town and caused water levels there to rise 8 feet (2.5 m). What was already a ...
[58]
The Ecology of River Ice - Thellman - 2021 - AGU Journals - Wiley
Aug 17, 2021 · Many of the world's rivers are ice-covered during winter months but increasing evidence indicates that the extent of river ice will shift substantially as ...
[59]
River and Lake Ice Processes—Impacts of Freshwater Ice on ... - MDPI
Within rivers and lakes, dissolved oxygen depletion can occur due to continued respiration, coupled with often low primary productivity, and the prevention of ...Missing: stranding | Show results with:stranding
[60]
Effects of River-Ice Breakup on Sediment Transport and Implications ...
The 1987 high SSCs could be related to an upstream release of an ice jam. In 1993, SSCs rose to 291 mg/L (at 2280 m3/s) just before breakup and peaked at ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[61]
https://waterportal.ca/ice-jams/
[62]
Sustainable Ice-Jam Flood Management for Socio-Economic and ...
River ice jams can also cause devastating flood events, leading to detrimental impacts on aquatic ecosystems (for example, reduced fish habitat), property, and ...
[63]
Effects of river ice on riparian vegetation | Request PDF
Aug 10, 2025 · ... Ice jams are another important disturbance with consequences for riparian vegetation, such as modifying riparian morphology (Uunila, 1997).
[64]
Ice Jams: frazil ice, freeze up, and floods - Canada WaterPortal
Oct 28, 2017 · As more frazil pans accumulate, the edge of the ice cover (known as the ice front) starts moving upstream of the jam location. Ice fronts ...
[65]
Enhancing community resilience to ice-jam floods through ... - Nature
May 2, 2025 · This study investigates the socio-economic and psychological factors influencing residents' ice-jam flood mitigation decisions in Fort McMurray, Canada.
[66]
Effects of climate change on river-ice processes and ice jams
Cold, clear nights promote ice production; increased cloud coverage could delay freeze-up and reduce frazil production. On the other hand, overcast skies delay ...
[67]
[PDF] Ice Jams and Flooding
Approximately 25 percent of flood insurance claims were for structures that were located outside of the mapped floodplain areas. Flood insurance premiums for ...
[68]
[PDF] HEC-RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual
The routines that import HEC-2 and UNET data were developed by Ms. Joan Klipsch. The routines for modeling ice cover and wide river ice jams were developed by ...
[69]
https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis
[70]
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/9/5/314
[71]
Ice‐jam flood risk assessment and mapping - Wiley Online Library
Mar 25, 2016 · The specific objective of this study is to incorporate ice-jam numerical modelling tools (eg RIVICE, Monte-Carlo simulation) into flood hazard and risk ...
[72]
https://iwaponline.com/hr/article/54/5/648/94601/Development-of-an-ice-jam-flood-forecasting
[73]
[PDF] Risk Assessment for Flood Risk Management - USACE Publications
Jul 17, 2017 · The risk framework is a decision-making process that comprises three tasks: risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management, which can ...
[74]
Considering Uncertainty of Historical Ice Jam Flood Records in a ...
Feb 26, 2024 · The Peace-Athabasca Delta in Alberta, Canada has numerous perched basins that are primarily recharged after large ice jams cause floods (an ...Missing: major | Show results with:major
[75]
Evaluation of the implications of ice‐jam flood mitigation measures
Jan 18, 2021 · These studies found that dredging has the potential to reduce ice-jam backwater staging, as well as subsequent flooding. Dredging was also ...Missing: rise | Show results with:rise
[76]
Hazus: A standardized methodology for flood risk assessment in ...
Jul 24, 2013 · Examples of depth-damage curves are given in Figures 2 3 , where the damage expressed as percent replacement cost is directly associated with ...Flood Model · Flood Hazard · Damage And Loss Estimation
[77]
RIVICE—A Non-Proprietary, Open-Source, One-Dimensional River ...
May 2, 2017 · RIVICE is a one-dimensional, fully-dynamic wave model that mimics key river ice processes such as ice generation, ice transport, ice cover progression.Missing: 1D | Show results with:1D
[78]
Comprehensive two-dimensional river ice model based on ...
The model is capable of determining the velocity field, the distribution of water temperature, the concentration distribution of frazil ice, the transport of ...Missing: ICEPRO | Show results with:ICEPRO
[79]
A hybrid ensemble modelling framework for the prediction of ...
A hybrid ensemble framework that leverages a number of machine learning techniques was developed for the prediction of river ice jams with a one-day lead time.
[80]
River Ice Dynamics and Ice Jam Modeling - ResearchGate
Sep 17, 2020 · A coupled two-dimensional model for river ice dynamics is developed for simulating ice movement and jamming in river reaches with complex ...Missing: ICEPRO | Show results with:ICEPRO
[81]
Long Short‐Term Memory Model to Forecast River Ice Breakup ...
Sep 20, 2025 · The proposed model predicts river ice breakup as well as the likelihood and severity of ice jam flooding but requires regular site assessments ( ...
[82]
Convolutional neural network and long short-term memory models ...
Apr 22, 2022 · Ice-jam prediction can be addressed as a binary multivariate time-series classification. Deep learning techniques have been widely used for time ...
[83]
Mohawk River Ice Jam Monitoring - New York Water Science Center
The difference, measured in feet, can be monitored in near-real time, or over time, to determine if the backwater may be increasing or decreasing. To ...
[84]
[PDF] New Hampshire Silver Jackets river Ice Workshop
CRREL Ice Jam Database. ▫ Overview. ▫ Data Sources. ▫ New York Ice Jams. ▻ Records for NY in IJDB. ▻ General overview. Page 26. Innovative solutions for a ...Missing: geographical distribution
[85]
[PDF] River Ice Spotter Training - National Weather Service
Nov 20, 2024 · Ice jam forecasts are heavily based upon past conditions. •Typically cannot forecast: • Exact location of where ice jam will occur. • Exact time ...
[86]
Mapping, Monitoring, and Prediction of Floods Due to Ice Jam and ...
In this study, observations from operational satellites are used to map and monitor floods due to ice jams and snowmelt.Missing: gauges | Show results with:gauges
[87]
Volunteer River Ice Spotter Network - National Weather Service
River ice spotters share important information such as extent of ice cover, ice cover trends, and location of ice jams which is very important for issuing ...Missing: CRREL electromagnetic sensors early thresholds
[88]
[PDF] River Ice Data Instrumentation - DTIC
Hydraulic engi- neers may be most concerned with collecting pre- vious ice data, such as ice thickness and high wa- ter marks, for designing flood control ...
[89]
[PDF] Measuring Ice Thicknesses along the Red River in Canada Using ...
Nov 4, 2010 · To assist ice jam mitigation by cutting and breaking up the river ice cover before the flood season and to support the operation of the Red ...<|separator|>
[90]
[PDF] Ice Jam Flood Mitigation Methods
– Excavators; dredging machines. – Ice breakers ... Structural ice jam mitigation methods. Ice booms. • Barrier which will stop ice and allow water to flow.
[91]
[PDF] UPDATED - ice jams on north dakota rivers - Water Resources
Mar 11, 2014 · Ice jams cause increases in upstream water levels, and may, at the same time, cause downstream water levels to drop. If the increase in upstream ...
[92]
[PDF] CHAPTER 6 - Ice Force on Structures
Oct 30, 2002 · Ice forces on structures come from moving ice sheets, drifting floes, and dynamic/static loads from ice failure, wind, water, and thermal ...
[93]
Operational River Ice Forecasting on the Peace River – Managing ...
Alberta Environment and BC Hydro jointly manage flows on the Peace River to influence freeze-up and break-up in an attempt to reduce the risk of ice jam ...<|separator|>
[94]
Future Global River Ice in CMIP6 Models under Climate Change in
This study employed the CMIP6 data and a river ice model to predict global river ice changes in response to climate change.Missing: ICEPRO | Show results with:ICEPRO
[95]
Ice-related flooding in the lower Yellow River driven by atmospheric ...
Jun 4, 2025 · Our findings show that ice-jam floods are strongly influenced by large-scale atmospheric teleconnections, including the Arctic Oscillation, ...
[96]
Changes in future ice-jam flood severity of a regulated cascade ...
The hazard stems from the fact that backwater of ice jams can cause water depths several times higher than open water flooding with the same flow (Rokaya et al ...Missing: health | Show results with:health
[97]
[PDF] Implementing Climate Change Adaptation - City of Prince George
Climate change is affecting the number and severity of flooding events that are occurring, and that are expected to occur in the future.