Discovery Report
Muskegon Watershed, Michigan HUC 04060102 Clare, Crawford, Kalkaska, Lake, Mecosta, Missaukee, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Osceola, Roscommon, and Wexford Counties.
December 2017
Project Area Community List
Alphabetical Listing Community Name Community Name Community Name Community Name Township of Aetna, Mecosta Co. Township of Aetna, Missaukee Co. Township of Ashland Township of Austin Township of Backus Township of Barton Township of Bear Lake Township of Beaver Creek Township of Big Prairie Township of Big Rapids City of Big Rapids Township of Blue Lake Township of Boon Township of Bridgeton Township of Brooks Township of Butterfield City of Cadillac Township of Caldwell Township of Cato Township of Cedar Township of Cedar Creek, Muskegon Co. Township of Cedar Creek, Wexford Co. Township of Chase Township of Cherry Grove Township of Chippewa Township of Clam Lake Township of Clam Union Township of Colfax Township of Colfax Township of Croton Township of Dalton Township of Dayton Township of Deerfield Township of Denton Township of Egelston Township of Ellsworth Township of Ensley Township of Enterprise City of Evart Township of Evart Township of Everett Township of Forest Township of Franklin Village of Freeman City of Fremont Township of Frost Township of Fruitland Township of Garfield, Clare Co. Township of Garfield, Kalkaska Co. Township of Garfield, Newaygo Co. Township of Gerrish Township of Goodwell Township of Grant, Mecosta Co. City of Grant Township of Grant, Newaygo Co. Township of Green Township of Greenwood Township of Haring City of Harrison Township of Hartwick Township of Hatton Township of Hayes Township of Henderson Village of Hersey Township of Hersey Township of Higgins Township of Highland Township of Hinton Township of Holland Township of Holton Village of Howard City Township of Lake, Missaukee Co. Township of Lake, Roscommon Co. City of Lake City Township of Laketon Village of Lakeview Township of Le Roy Township of Lincoln, Clare Co. Township of Lincoln, Osceola Co. Township of Lyon Township of Maple Valley Village of Marion Township of Marion Township of Markey Township of Martiny City of Mcbain Village of Mecosta Township of Mecosta Township of Middle Branch Township of Millbrook Township of Moorland Village of Morley Township of Morton City of Muskegon Township of Muskegon City of Muskegon Heights Township of Nester City of Newaygo City of North Muskegon City of Norton Shores Township of Norwich, Missaukee Co. Township of Norwich, Newaygo Co. Township of Orient Township of Osceola Village of Pierson Township of Pierson Township of Pine Township of Pinora Township of Pioneer Township of Redding City of Reed City Township of Reeder Township of Reynolds Township of Richfield Township of Richland Township of Rose Lake Township of Riverside City of Roosevelt Park Township of Roscommon Township of Selma Township of Sheridan, Mecosta Co. Township of Sheridan, Newaygo Co. Township of Sherman, Newaygo Co. Township of Sherman, Osceola Co. Village of Stanwood Township of Summerfield Township of Surrey Township of Sylvan Township of West Branch Township of Wheatland Township of Wilcox Township of Winfield
Township of Winterfield
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report i Table of Contents I. General Information ...... 1 II. The Discovery Process ...... 10 III. Data Analysis ...... 11 IV. Flood Study Needs, Levees, and Other Study Information ...... 13 V. Mitigation Needs and Mitigation Planning ...... 24 VI. Compliance, Training, Communication, and Outreach ...... 28 VII. Appendices and Tables ...... 30
List of Tables Table 1. FIS Effective Dates ...... 2 Table 2. CNMS Values ...... 3 Table 3. Significant Flooding in the Muskegon Watershed (1975–2017, based on FEMA disaster declarations, updated 6/1/17) ...... 3 Table 4. NFIP Participation Status ...... 5 Table 5. CAV/CAC ...... 7 Table 6. MHMPs: Status and Availability ...... 8 Table 7. Community Rating System ...... 9 Table 8. Discovery Data able ...... 11 Table 9. Available Risk MAP Project Data ...... 12 Table 10. Flood Study Needs Table ...... 13 Table 11. USGS Stream Gages ...... 17 Table 12 Mitigation Needs by Community ...... 20 Table 13. Mitigation Needs and Assistance ...... 26
List of Figures Figure 1. Discovery Meeting Map ...... 19
List of Appendices
Appendix A - Community Profiles ...... 31 Appendix B - Watershed Discovery Contact Information ...... 139 Appendix C – Post-Meeting Maps ...... 150 Appendix D – Engagement Packets ...... 160
ii Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report I. General Information The Muskegon Watershed is located in north-central Michigan and has a drainage area of approximately 2,738 square miles, making it one of the largest in the state. There are 12 counties and 133 communities within the Muskegon Watershed. Of these counties, substantial portions of Roscommon, Missaukee, Clare, Osceola, Mecosta, Newaygo, and Muskegon Counties fall within the watershed, as well as smaller portions of Kalkaska, Crawford, Wexford, Lake, and Montcalm Counties.
Houghton Lake in Roscommon County is the northernmost source of the Muskegon River. The lake is a popular boating and fishing location, and it supports the communities of Prudenville and Houghton Lake. Flowing southwest, the Muskegon River runs approximately 216 miles and drains into Lake Michigan. Over the course of the river, elevation drops by 575 feet between its source and its mouth. There are numerous small tributaries that feed into the Muskegon River along its length, including Butterfield Creek, Winters Creek, Paris Creek, and Cranberry Creek. Clam River, Middle Branch River, and the Hersey River also intersect with the Muskegon River.
The southwestern portion of the watershed, where the river connects to Lake Michigan, is the most densely populated urban area within the watershed. The cities of Muskegon, North Muskegon, Norton Shores, and Roosevelt Park make up a large part of this density. Muskegon County is the most populated of the counties in the watershed with an estimated 2016 population of 173,408. Other major urban centers are Cadillac, Big Rapids, and Reed City.
As of 2014, the largest industry in the watershed is manufacturing, making up 17.6 percent of the total job market according to Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics of the US Census Bureau. The next highest markets are Health Care and Social Assistance at 15.0 percent, and Retail Trade at 14.4 percent. There are an estimated 64,226 jobs within the watershed’s boundaries.
Land use in the watershed is split evenly between agriculture and forests. One of these forests is Roscommon State Park, found within Roscommon County, which is a common area for recreation. The more densely populated, southern portion of the watershed is relatively urban.
Organizations have formed to advocate for water safety and preservation throughout Michigan. The Muskegon River Watershed Assembly (MRWA) was formed by a group of volunteers in 1998 and was incorporated as a 501(c)(3) organization in 2000. According to its website, the Muskegon River Watershed Assembly is dedicated to the preservation, protection, restoration, and sustainable use of the Muskegon River, the land it drains, and the life it supports, through educational, scientific and conservation initiatives.
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 1
Regulatory Mapping The majority of the Muskegon Watershed communities have received recent countywide Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) updates under the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Map Modernization Program. The effective dates of the most recent Flood Insurance Studies (FISs) are presented below. The effective data are a combination of both detailed and approximate analyses with varying effective dates.
Table 1. FIS Effective Dates
State County Initial FIRM Date (s) Countywide FIRM Date
MI Clare 6/17/1986 (City of Clare), 12/3/2010 2/5/1992 (Redding Township) MI Crawford 4/17/2012 4/17/2012 MI Kalkaska 8/5/1977 - MI Lake 9/1/1986 - MI Mecosta 9/1/1986 (City of Big Rapids), 2/4/2015 9/1/1988 (Big Rapids Township), 6/19/1997 (Fork Township), 7/16/1987 (Village of Morley) MI Missaukee No FIRMs No FIRMs MI Montcalm 11/15/1984 (Eureka Township), - 11/2/1983 (Greenville Township), 9/30/1988 (Reynolds Township) MI Muskegon 8/1/1986 (Egelston Township), 7/6/2015 9/1/1986 (Fruitland Township), 4/3/1978 (Laketon Township), 5/1/1978 (City of Montague), 2/18/1981 (City of Muskegon Heights), 8/1/1977 (Muskegon Township), 6/1/1977 (City of Muskegon), 5/2/1977 (City of North Muskegon), 9/15/1977 (City of North Shores), 5/17/1989 (Ravenna Township), 1/16/1981 (White River Township), 10/15/1980 (City of Whitehall), 5/17/198 (Village of Ravenna) MI Newaygo 9/1/1986 (Ashland Township), 2/18/2015 9/4/1986 (Bridgeton Township), 7/3/1986 (Brooks Township), 9/30/1978 (Croton Township), 8/10/1979 (City of Fremont), 9/29/1986 (Garfield Township), 9/27/1991 (Lincoln Township), 9/1/1986 (City of White Cloud)
2 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report MI Osceola 2/1/1987 (Village of Marion), - 2/1/1988 (City of Evart), 9/30/1988 (Evart Township), 9/30/1988 (Osceola Township), 9/4/1991 (Village of Hersey) MI Roscommon 1/18/2012 1/18/2012 MI Wexford 3/18/1996 (City of Cadillac), Partial Countywide – 9/30/1988 (Selma Township) 8/3/1998
Coordinated Needs Management Strategy The Coordinated Needs Management System (CNMS) is FEMA’s spatial tool for tracking flood study data update needs. Analysis of the CNMS data for the Muskegon Watershed is completed. Analyzed studies have been identified as “valid,” “unverified,” or “unknown.” A VALID status considers a study to be New, Validated, and Updated Engineering (NVUE) compliant. An UNVERIFIED status means a study has not passed Critical and Secondary checks and may either be assigned resources for restudy in a future fiscal year, or is currently being restudied. An UNKNOWN status could result from multiple factors, such as the following: a study evaluation is planned and in the queue, currently being assessed; an evaluation has been deferred; or the evaluation is incomplete. The current status of the CNMS geospatial data for the Muskegon Watershed is presented on the Final Discovery Map and in Table 2.
Table 2. CNMS Values
Type Detailed (Mi) Approximate (Mi) Zone X (Mi) Total (Mi) Assessed 0 0 3 3 Verified 41 84 0 125 Valid 25 253 0 278 Total 66 338 3 406
Disaster History Seven disaster declarations have been made for counties in the Muskegon Watershed since 1975. Most disaster declarations were issued for severe storms and flooding. Table 3 lists the significant flooding events that have occurred in the watershed since 1975.
Table 3. Significant Flooding in the Muskegon Watershed (1975–2017, based on FEMA disaster declarations, updated 6/1/17)
Disaster Muskegon Counties Start Date of Event End Date of Event Event Type Number Affected Severe Storms, 465 4/26/1975 4/26/1975 High Winds & Crawford Flooding Severe Storms, Clare, Mecosta, 486 9/30/1975 9/30/1975 Tornadoes, Icing Montcalm, Muskegon, & Flooding Newaygo, Osceola Severe Storms & Clare, Mecosta, 495 3/19/1976 3/19/1976 Flooding Montcalm, Muskegon,
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 3 Newaygo, Osceola, Roscommon Clare, Lake, Mecosta, Severe Storms & 744 9/5/1985 9/28/1985 Montcalm, Muskegon, Flooding Newaygo, Osceola Severe Storms, Mecosta, Muskegon, 1527 5/20/2004 6/8/2004 Tornadoes, & Newaygo Flooding Severe Storms, Lake, Missaukee, 1777 6/6/2008 7/13/2008 Tornadoes, & Osceola, Wexford Flooding Muskegon, Newaygo, 4121 4/16/2013 5/14/2013 Flooding Osceola
National Flood Insurance Program Many communities in the Muskegon Watershed participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which is designed to make communities more resilient in the face of disaster through local enforcement of compliant floodplain management ordinances, and the availability of flood insurance. NFIP-participating communities are also eligible for disaster assistance when there is a Presidential disaster declaration. Table 4 lists the NFIP status of all communities in the watershed.
4 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report Table 4. NFIP Participation Status
County Full Name Status County Full Name Status Franklin, Township of* Yes Aetna, Township of* No Freeman, Village of Yes Butterfield, Township of* No Frost, Township of No Caldwell, Township of No
Garfield, Township of Yes Clam Union, Township of* No
Greenwood, Township of Yes Enterprise, Township of* No Harrison, City of Yes Forest, Township of* No CLARE Hatton, Township of* No Holland, Township of* No Hayes, Township of* Yes Lake, Township of* No MISSAUKEE Lincoln, Township of* No Lake City, City of* No
Redding, Township of Yes Mcbain, City of* No
Summerfield, Township of Yes Norwich, Township of* No Surrey, Township of Yes Pioneer, Township of* No Winterfield, Township of No Reeder, Township of* No CRAWFORD Beaver Creek, Township of* Yes Richland, Township of* No Bear Lake, Township of* No Riverside, Township of* No KALKASKA Garfield, Township of* No West Branch, Township of* No
Chase, Township of* No Cato, Township of* No LAKE Ellsworth, Township of* No Howard City, Village of* No Pinora, Township of* No Lakeview, Village of* No Aetna, Township of No Maple Valley, Township of* No Austin, Township of* No MONTCALM Pierson, Village of* No
Big Rapids, Township of Yes Pierson, Township of No
Big Rapids, City of Yes Pine, Township of* No Chippewa, Township of* No Reynolds, Township of* Yes Colfax, Township of No Winfield, Township of* No Deerfield, Township of* Yes Blue Lake, Township of* No Grant, Township of No Cedar Creek, Township of* Yes
Green, Township of Yes Dalton, Township of* No
Hinton, Township of No Egelston, Township of Yes MECOSTA Martiny, Township of* Yes Fruitland, Township of Yes Mecosta, Village of No Holton, Township of* No Mecosta, Township of Yes Laketon, Township of Yes MUSKEGON Millbrook, Township of* No Moorland, Township of* No
Morley, Village of Yes Muskegon, City of Yes
Morton, Township of Yes Muskegon, Township of Yes Sheridan, Township of* No Muskegon Heights, City of Yes Stanwood, Village of No North Muskegon, City of Yes Norton Shores, City of Yes Wheatland, Township of* No Roosevelt Park, City of No
* No Special Flood Hazard Areas
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 5
County Full Name Status County Full Name Status Ashland, Township of* Yes Backus, Township of* No Barton, Township of* No Denton, Township of Yes
Big Prairie, Township of* No Gerrish, Township of No Bridgeton, Township of Yes Higgins, Township of* Yes Brooks, Township of Yes Lake, Township of Yes ROSCOMMON Croton, Township of Yes Lyon, Township of No Dayton, Township of Yes Markey, Township of No Ensley, Township of* Yes Nester, Township of* No
Everett, Township of* No Richfield, Township of* No NEWAYGO Fremont, City of Yes Roscommon, Township of* Yes Garfield, Township of Yes Boon, Township of* No Goodwell, Township of* No Cadillac, City of* Yes Grant, City of* No Cedar Creek, Township of* Yes Grant, Township of* No Cherry Grove, Township of* Yes
Newaygo, City of Yes WEXFORD Clam Lake, Township of* No Norwich, Township of* No Colfax, Township of* No Sheridan, Township of Yes Haring, Township of* No Sherman, Township of Yes Henderson, Township of* No Wilcox, Township of* Yes Selma, Township of* No Cedar, Township of* No
Evart, City of* Yes Evart, Township of* Yes Hartwick, Township of* No Hersey, Village of* Yes Hersey, Township of* Yes Highland, Township of* No
Le Roy, Township of* No Lincoln, Township of* No OSCEOLA Marion, Village of* Yes Marion, Township of* No Middle Branch, Township of* Yes Orient, Township of* No
Osceola, Township of* Yes Reed City, City of* No Richmond, Township of* Yes Rose Lake, Township of* No Sherman, Township of* Yes Sylvan, Township of* Yes
* No Special Flood Hazard Areas
6 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report Community Assistance Visits and Community Assistance Contacts The Community Assistance Visit (CAV) is scheduled by FEMA to comprehensively assess an NFIP community’s floodplain management program, as well as its knowledge and understanding of NFIP requirements. The purpose of the CAV is also to provide assistance to the community in remedying identified program deficiencies and violations. The Community Assistance Contact (CAC) provides a means to establish or reestablish contact with an NFIP community to determine what problems or issues, if any, exist and to offer assistance, if necessary. Table 5 lists CACs and CAVs that have occurred in the area.
Table 5. CAV/CAC
Community CAV CAC Aetna, Township of February 2, 2015 Ashland, Township of August 28, 2001 February 28, 1994 Big Rapids, City of December 30, 2014 Big Rapids, Township December 29, 2014 of Bridgeton, Township of May 27, 2015 February 6, 2015 Brooks, Township of September 6, February 6, 2015 2001 August 4, 2008 July 14, 2010 Croton, Township of January 7, 2015 Ensley, Township of February 6, 2015 Fork, Township of December 30, 2014 Fremont, City of January 7, 2015 Fruitland, Township of June 3, 2003 Garfield, Township of February 6, 2015 Lincoln, Township of February 6, 2015 Martiny, Township of January 2, 2015 Mecosta, Township of December 29, 2014 Morely, Village of December 30, 2014 Morton, Township of December 30, 2014 Muskegon, City of September 14, 2015 Newaygo, City of September 26, January 8, 2015 2001 Whitecloud, Township January 8, 2015 of Whitehall, Township of April 28, 2015 Wilcox, Township of January 8, 2015
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 7
Mitigation Planning Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plans (MHMPs) are prepared to assist communities in reducing their risk to natural hazard events. The plans are used to develop strategies for risk reduction and to serve as a guide for all mitigation activities in the county or community. The available MHMPs obtained and reviewed for this Discovery Project are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. MHMPs: Status and Availability
Approval Expiration County Date Date Clare 2016 2021 http://bit.ly/2Fh5LD8 Crawford 2014 2019 http://bit.ly/2COyMbh Kalkaska http://bit.ly/2AGQrw7 2016 2021
Most recent plan not available online Lake 2015 2020 http://bit.ly/2m7VvEM Mecosta N/A N/A Missaukee http://bit.ly/2CQuf8e 2015 2020
Most recent plan not available online Montcalm N/A N/A Muskegon 2015 2020 http://bit.ly/2CGTM0a Newaygo http://bit.ly/2me5VmW 2015 2020
Most recent plan not available online Osceola 2016 2021 http://www.osceolacountyemd.org/hmp.html Roscommon 2016 2021 http://bit.ly/2m8U5cZ Wexford 2015 2020 http://bit.ly/2m5VPDU
Mitigation Concerns During the Discovery process, many communities expressed interest in possible mitigation activities to minimize risk. For example, some of the communities have expressed an interest in pursuing mitigation efforts on repetitive loss properties. Communities also expressed concerns over roadway and property flooding associated with undersized and/or antiquated stormwater
8 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report infrastructure. Additionally, concerns were shared about dam safety with regard to structure, as well as a desire to obtain a better understanding of the related risk.
Community Rating System One community in the Muskegon Watershed participates in the Community Rating System (CRS), a voluntary program that rewards communities when they exceed the minimum NFIP floodplain management requirements. Table 7 lists the only community currently eligible to participate in the CRS along with its class information.
Table 7. Community Rating System Current Community Class Effective Date Township of Brooks, Newaygo County 8* 10/1/2011 *Class 8 communities have obtained CRS credits that entitle their residents to a 10-percent discount on their flood insurance premiums.
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 9
II. The Discovery Process The FEMA Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program provides quality hazard and risk data as well as other services to enable state and local governments to take preemptive measures that will minimize the increasing risk and losses from natural hazards. Discovery is an important part of the Risk MAP program, as the process documents local needs that may be addressed through a Risk MAP project.
During Discovery, which is performed on a watershed basis, FEMA’s core team of federal and state partners engage communities in discussions about desired flood studies that would inform FIRM updates and FIS reports. In addition, Discovery includes discussions about local flood risk, risk from other hazards, local mitigation actions that would reduce risk if implemented, and best practices for mitigation planning. Following Discovery, a Risk MAP project may be funded with the goal of addressing the documented study and mitigation needs.
Discovery begins with compiling national data about communities in the watershed from FEMA and other sources. For the Muskegon Watershed, the project team mailed letters to all identified stakeholders approximately four weeks prior to the Phase I Meetings, along with meeting logistics and an engagement packet on the Risk MAP process. A copy of the letter and the list of identified stakeholders are included in Appendix B of this report. Emails with the invitation letters and engagement packets were then sent to all contacts with email addresses two weeks before the meetings. Additionally, follow-up phone calls were made to all contacts with phone numbers to remind them of the meetings and to ensure that they had received their county engagement packet.
Between October 30 and November 9, the project team held 13 Discovery meetings for the watershed communities. At the Discovery meetings, discussions with participants identified mapping and mitigation technical assistance needs as well as other community assistance opportunities for training, compliance support, mitigation planning support, and local communication.
The Discovery meetings were attended by 78 individuals representing 44 communities (see Appendix B) within the watershed. Meetings were held as follows:
• October 30, 2017 in Cadillac, at 2 PM and 5 PM, at the Cadillac Wexford Public Library, 411 S. Lake St., Cadillac, MI 49601 • October 31, 2017 in Houghton Lake at 1 PM and 4 PM, at the Houghton Lake Public Library, 4431 W. Houghton Lake Dr., Houghton Lake, MI 48629 • November 1, 2017 in Marion at 5 PM, at the Marion Public Library, 120 E. Main St., Marion, MI 49665 • November 2, 2017 in Reed City, at 2 PM and 5 PM, at the Reed City Depot, 200 N. Chestnut St., Reed City, MI 49677 • November 6, 2017 in Big Rapids, at 2 PM and 5 PM, at the Mecosta Services Building, 14485 Northland Dr., Big Rapids, MI 49307 • November 7, 2017 in Lakeview, at 2 PM, at the Lakeview Community Center, 309 S. Lincoln St., Lakeview, MI 48850
10 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report • November 8, 2017 in Newaygo, at 3 PM, at the Newaygo Commissioners Room, 1087 E. Newell St., White Cloud, MI 49349 • November 9, 2017 in the City of Muskegon, 10 AM and 2 PM, at Muskegon Community College, 221 Quarterline Rd. Muskegon, MI 49442
III. Data Analysis For Discovery, data are collected and used to inform participants as they make decisions and recommendations for a future Risk MAP project. Additionally, Risk MAP project decisions are based, in part, on the availability of certain datasets that can be used in mapping studies, technical assistance for mitigation projects, and/or the development of certain flood risk products that are beneficial for a variety of uses, including local planning and risk awareness.
Data from a variety of sources were compiled to help facilitate the Muskegon Watershed Discovery process. The data were used to develop community profiles which contain information about flood studies, disaster history, and demographics from FEMA databases and other federal sources. Available spatial data were incorporated into the Discovery Map, which served as an agenda for meeting discussions. The data were intended to inform participants as they discussed flood studies, flood risks, risks from other hazards, potential mitigation actions that would help reduce risk, and other local issues and concerns. Data compiled for the Muskegon Watershed Discovery process are listed in Table 8.
Table 8. Discovery Data able
Data Source Format FEMA Community Information CRS Status tabular System (CIS) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dam Information (USACE) National Inventory of spatial Dams Declared Disasters FEMA Region V tabular Demographics/Industry U.S. Census Bureau tabular Disaster Assistance Claims FEMA CIS tabular FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer Effective SFHA spatial (NFHL) Existing Flood Study Data FEMA (CNMS) spatial Assessment Flood Insurance Claim FEMA CIS tabular Information Floodplain Management FEMA CIS tabular Ordinance Level Hazard Mitigation Grant Program FEMA Region V tabular Allocations Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) HMPs tabular Status Individual Assistance FEMA Region V tabular
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 11
Data Source Format Last CAV Date FEMA CIS tabular Last Final Consultation Coordination Officer Meeting FEMA CIS or Effective FIS tabular Date Letters of Map Change FEMA NFHL (locations) spatial Levee Information USACE National Levee Database spatial Mitigation Projects FEMA data.gov tabular NFIP Participation FEMA CIS tabular Past Mitigation Projects FEMA data.gov tabular Public Assistance FEMA Region V tabular Recent Community Mitigation As identified/requested by Core spatial Efforts Team FEMA Mapping Information Recent/Ongoing FEMA Projects spatial/tabular Platform, or as known Repetitive Loss FEMA Region V tabular National Oceanic and Atmospheric Tornado and Seismic Data Administration Data, as spatial requested/relevant Variances FEMA CIS tabular Specific types of data are necessary to develop high-quality flood studies and Risk MAP flood risk products, and funding is needed to extend Risk MAP project opportunities. Before and during the Discovery meetings, communities provided information to FEMA about available data or studies that should be considered in determining a future Risk MAP project. This information is included in Table 9.
Table 9. Available Risk MAP Project Data
Available Community Point of Contact Format Data/Funding Watershed US National Resource Orthophotography GIS Conservation Service Watershed (except FEMA / MI DEQ LiDAR GIS Crawford and Kalkaska County) Watershed Michigan Center for Shared Transportation GIS Solutions and Technology Partnerships Watershed Michigan Center for Shared Surface Water GIS Solutions and Technology Features Partnerships Watershed Michigan Center for Shared Political Boundaries GIS Solutions and Technology Partnerships
*The asterisks denote data that have been received to date, but have not been assessed for validity to be incorporated into the FIRMs as a new study.
12 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report IV. Flood Study Needs, Levees, and Other Study Information The CNMS is FEMA’s spatial tool for tracking flood study data update needs. During Discovery, communities also identify local study update needs. During the Discovery meetings, the CNMS data and local study requests are reviewed by participating local officials who then prioritize flood study needs. All studies identified by communities are documented and considered in determining a Risk MAP project scope.
Table 10 below lists several of the flood study needs identified as priorities by communities. All flood study needs identified by communities are shown on the Final Discovery Map as “Desired Study Areas.”
Table 10. Flood Study Needs Table
MAP COMMUNITIES FLOODING STUDY DESIRED REASON STUDY LOCAL ID SOURCE LENGTH STUDY NEEDED PRIORITY (miles) or TYPE LAKE SURFACE AREA (sq. mi.)
1 Township of Muskegon 32 miles Approximate County modernization High Sylvan, Township River needed. Redelineation of Evart, City of based on new LiDAR. Evart, Township of Hersey, (Osceola County) 2 Village of Hersey, Muskegon .6 miles Detailed Unverified stream and High Township of River county modernization Hersey (Osceola needed. County) 3 City of Evart, Muskegon .4 miles Detailed Re-study using new High Township of Evart River LiDAR. County (Osceola County) modernization needed. 4 Village of Hersey Hersey River 1.6 miles Detailed Re-study using new High (Osceola County) LiDAR. County modernization needed. 5 City of Reed City, Hersey River 11.2 miles Approximate County modernization High Township of needed. Redelineation Lincoln, based on new LiDAR. Township of Richmond (Osceola County) 6 Township of Big Stone .8 mile Approximate County modernization High Hersey (Osceola Creek needed. Redelineation County) based on new LiDAR. 7 Village of Marion, Middle 19 miles Approximate County modernization High Township of Branch River needed. Redelineation Marion, Township based on new LiDAR. of Middle Branch, Township of
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 13
Sylvan (Osceola County) 8 Township of Doc and Tom 1.1 miles Approximate County modernization High Sylvan (Osceola Creek needed. Redelineation County) based on new LiDAR. 9 Township of Evart Sherlock 5.3 miles Approximate County modernization High (Osceola County) Creek needed. Redelineation based on new LiDAR. 10 City of Evart Twin Creek 1.3 miles Detailed Unverified stream and High (Osceola County) county modernization needed. 11 City of Cadillac, Clam River 6 miles Detailed Unverified stream. Low Township of Restudy requested. Haring (Wexford Also note Wexford County) County still in partial countywide format. 12 Township of Higgins Lake 16 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified, Low Lyon, Township approximate lake with of Gerrish, numerous LOMAs. Township of Beaver Creek (Roscommon County) 13 Township of Houghton 31.4 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified, Low Lake, Township Lake approximate lake with of Markey, numerous LOMAs. Township of Roscommon, Township of Denton (Roscommon County) 14 Township of Lake James .3 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified, Low Denton, Township approximate lake with of Backus numerous LOMAs. (Roscommon County) 15 Township of Windover .1 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified, Low Freeman (Clare Lake approximate lake. County) 16 Township of Green Creek .4 mile Approximate Unverified stream Low Redding (Clare reach. County) 17 Township of Little 10.5 miles Approximate Unverified stream, Low Reynolds, Muskegon county modernization (Montcalm River needed. County) 18 Township of Tamarack 8.5 miles Approximate Unverified stream, Low Reynolds, Creek (Reach county modernization (Montcalm 1 and 2) needed. County) 19 Township of North Branch .2 mile Approximate Unverified stream Low Backus Denton Creek reach off of Lake (Roscommon James. County)
14 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 20 Muskegon Charter Muskegon 6.6 sq. mi. Detailed Unverified lake. Low Township, City of Lake Muskegon, City of North Muskegon, Township of Laketon (Muskegon County) 21 Township of Muskegon 26.4 miles Detailed Seasonal flooding and High Bridgeton, River potential new Township of development. Ashland, City of Unverified stream Newaygo, with ongoing USACE Township of study along this reach Brooks (Newaygo could be leveraged. County) 22 Township, of Muskegon 38.6 miles Approximate Unverified stream Low Freeman, River reach. Township of Redding, Township of Winterfield, Township of Summerfield (Clare County) 23 Township of Hemlock 3 miles Approximate Study requested by High Lincoln (Clare Creek county for floodplain County) management purposes. Also, this stream is upstream of Doc and Tom Lake which has numerous LOMAs. 24 Township of Clam Berry Lake .1 sq. mi. Approximate Community identified Low Lake (Wexford or Detailed this unmapped lake as County) potential flooding source. County modernization needed. 25 Township of Lake Lake 3.1 sq. mi. Approximate Community identified Low (Missaukee Missaukee or Detailed this unmapped lake as County) potential flooding source. Unmapped lake has development and erosions concerns. County modernization needed. 26 Township of Wolf Lake .4 sq. mi. Approximate Community identified Low Egelston or Detailed this unmapped lake (Muskegon with potential County) drainage issue and development concerns.
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 15
27 Village of Tamarack .5 sq. mi. Approximate Community identified Low Lakeview, Lake or Detailed this unmapped lake as Township of Cato potential flooding (Montcalm source. County County) modernization needed. 28 Township of Lily Lake .3 sq. mi. Approximate Community request High Greenwood, or Detailed for re-study. Township of Approximate lake Lincoln (Clare with numerous County) LOMAs.
Levees According the Army Corps of Engineer’s National Levee Database, there are no certified levees within the Muskegon Watershed.
Drainage Analysis To aid in the identification of mapping needs in the Muskegon River watershed, an automated process was performed to identify streams that meet certain drainage area criteria that have not been studied. The drainage area criteria chosen included a 5-square mile threshold for streams in rural areas and a 2-square mile threshold for streams in developed areas. A mosaiced 10-meter digital elevation model (DEM) was created from 10-meter USGS elevation data downloaded from USDA Geospatial Data Gateway (https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov). This DEM was constructed to cover the entire Muskegon River HUC 8 watershed. USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowlines containing the known locations of stream channels, flow paths through waterbodies, culverts, bridges, etc., were downloaded from the USGS web site. The DEM and the USGS NHD flowlines were input into the DEM Reconditioning (AGREE) tool of Arc Hydro. Arc Hydro burned the USGS NHD flowlines into the DEM, and thus produced a hydrologically- correct DEM (HDEM). Next, sinks were filled, flow direction and flow accumulation analyses were performed on the HDEM. Stream layers were developed based on the two and five square mile flow accumulation thresholds. The stream layers were compared to the existing CNMS inventory to identify stream reaches meeting the drainage area thresholds that are unmapped. See Figure 1 for the location of unmapped streams that were identified because of this analysis.
16 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report USGS Gages The project team identified U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gages in the watershed that provide streamflow information to help meet local and national needs. The locations of the gages are shown on the Discovery Map and listed in Table 11.
Table 11. USGS Stream Gages
Gage Number Station Name and Location 4122150 Muskegon River at Mouth at Muskegon, MI 4122100 Bear Creek near Muskegon, MI 4122000 Muskegon River at Newaygo, MI 4121944 Little Muskegon River near Oak Grove, MI 4121970 Muskegon River near Croton, MI 4121900 Little Muskegon River near Morley, MI 4121650 Muskegon River at Big Rapids, MI 4121500 Muskegon River at Evart, MI 4121300 Clam River at Vogel Center, MI 4121000 Muskegon River near Merritt, MI 4120500 Higgins Lake Outlet near Roscommon, MI
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 17
Recommendations Recommendations are based on local priorities, historic FEMA flood study priorities, and local risk reduction goals. Each recommendation also takes into consideration the limited funding available for flood studies. These recommendations, along with the complete set of data in the appendices, will be reviewed by FEMA before Risk MAP projects are decided. Recommendations are as follow:
• Perform a FIRM modernization project for Osceola County. Special flood hazard areas have already been developed through a previous Risk MAP project and include the following streams: Muskegon River, Hersey River, Big Stone Creek, Middle Branch River, Doc and Tom Creek, Sherlock Creek, and Twin Creek. For impacted communities by stream, see Table 10. o Detailed re-studied stream miles: ▪ Muskegon River – 1 mile; this mileage could be expanded to connect the detailed studies that exist between City of Evart and Village of Hersey. ▪ Hersey River – 1.6 miles ▪ Twin Creek – 1.3 miles o Approximate re-delineated stream miles: ▪ Muskegon River – 32 miles ▪ Hersey River – 11.2 miles ▪ Middle Branch River – 19 miles ▪ Big Stone Creek – 0.8 miles ▪ Doc and Tom Creek – 1.1 miles ▪ Sherlock Creek – 5.3 miles • Perform approximately 30 miles of leverage incorporation for a detailed study along the Muskegon River in Township of Bridgeton, Township of Ashland, City of Newaygo, and Township of Brooks (Newaygo County). A United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) detailed study is currently taking place in partnership with Newaygo County and the USGS. • Update detailed study for Muskegon Lake, which is currently unverified in CNMS. For community and lake surface area information, see Table 10. • Perform or update approximate study for several major lakes within the watershed. For community and lake surface area information, see Table 10. o Currently mapped lakes – Higgins Lake, Houghton Lake, Lake James, Windover Lake, and Lily Lake o Unmapped lakes – Berry Lake, Lake Missaukee, Tamarack Lake, and Wolf Lake
18 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report
Figure 1. Discovery Meeting Map
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 19
Table 12 Mitigation Needs by Community
MAP COMMUNITIES MITIGATION IDENTIFIED NEEDED ID ISSUE MITIGATION ACTION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 8 City of Big Rapids Flooding Mitigate flooding of Depth and (Mecosta County) commercial and school Analysis Grids property along Mitchell Creek. 13 City of Big Rapids Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Mecosta County) existing critical structures Analysis Grids (WWTP, Schools, and Hospital) with the highest relative vulnerability. 14 City of Big Rapids Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Mecosta County) existing critical structures Analysis Grids (Schools and Nursing Home) with the highest relative vulnerability. 15 City of Big Rapids, Flooding Flooding of homes and parks Depth and Township of Big from Muskegon River in the Analysis Grids Rapids (Mecosta south side of City of Big County) Rapids. 55 City of Cadillac Flooding Downtown Cadillac urban Stormwater (Wexford County) flooding at Mitchell St & Management Granite St. Assessment 56 City of Cadillac Dam Safety Dam (outlet to Clam River) Dam Failure (Wexford County) undersized with increase in Impact lake surface area. Analysis 58 City of Cadillac Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Wexford County) existing critical structure Analysis Grids (energy supplier). 40 City of Evart Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Osceola County) existing critical structure Analysis Grids (WWTP). 47 City of Evart Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Osceola County) existing critical structure Analysis Grids (Water wells and their power source). Wells are at 5th St on Twin Creek. 32 City of Evart Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Osceola County) existing critical structure Analysis Grids (WWTP). 26 City of Muskegon Roadway Frequent flooding of Depth and (Muskegon County) Flooding Causeway. Analysis Grids 29 City of North Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and Muskegon (Osceola existing critical structure Analysis Grids County) (waste water). 30 City of North Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and Muskegon (Osceola existing critical structure Analysis Grids County) (pump stations, water supply).
20 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report MAP COMMUNITIES MITIGATION IDENTIFIED NEEDED ID ISSUE MITIGATION ACTION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 36 City of Reed City Dam Safety Dam near Reed City overtops Dam Failure (Osceola County) and impacts homes behind the Impact dam (near Apache Rd). Analysis 7 Clare County Infrastructure Seasonal conditions lead to Stormwater nuisance flooding. Community Management working with road commission Assessment to redo culverts and improve drainage. 23 Missaukee County Flooding County ditches overwhelmed Stormwater with flood waters. Management Assessment 24 Missaukee County Roadway Water present on 7-mile Rd, Stormwater Flooding north of swamp, during flood Management conditions. Assessment 25 Missaukee County Roadway Undersized culvert on Stormwater Flooding Simpson Rd. Management Assessment 27 Muskegon County Roadway Frequent flooding of Maple Depth and Flooding Island Road Analysis Grids 28 Muskegon County Flooding Inundation concerns Fair Lake Depth and Bridge. Analysis Grids 31 Township of Big Dam Safety Significant flooding could Dam Failure Prairie (Newaygo occur if the Hardy Dam is Impact County) breached. Analysis 9 Township of Big Infrastructure Undersized culverts increase Stormwater Rapids (Mecosta flooding along Winters Creek Management County) at 13 Mile Rd. Assessment 20 Township of Big Infrastructure Enlarge storm drains, Stormwater Rapids (Mecosta detention/retention basins and Management County) mitigate development along Assessment Winters Creek. 11 Township of Big Flooding Seasonal flooding with ice Depth and Rapids, Township of jams and erosion along Analysis Grids Mecosta (Mecosta Muskegon River south of the County) City of Big Rapids. Community noted a USACE study for this area 22 Township of Roadway Undersized culvert Jeffs Rd, Stormwater Butterfield Flooding south of Kelly Rd. Management (Missaukee County) Assessment 48 Township of Evart Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Osceola County) existing critical structure Analysis Grids (aquifer wells) along Muskegon River. 5 Township of Freeman Infrastructure Flooding along Norway Creek Stormwater (Clare County) caused by undersized culvert Management and waterway debris. Assessment
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 21
MAP COMMUNITIES MITIGATION IDENTIFIED NEEDED ID ISSUE MITIGATION ACTION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 17 Township of Green Roadway Roadway flooding in area near Stormwater Charter (Mecosta Flooding 180th Ave and 23 Mile Road. Management County) Assessment 21 Township of Haring Infrastructure 131th Rd Bridge over Clam Depth and (Wexford County) River experiences high water Analysis Grids during flooding. 59 Township of Haring Flooding Urban flooding at Mitchell St Stormwater (Wexford County) along Clam River. Management Assessment 60 Township of Haring Planning Assess effects of flooding on Depth and (Wexford County) existing critical structure Analysis Grids (WWTP). 49 Township of Flooding Bridge crossing and cabins Depth and Hartwick (Osceola along Middle Branch River Analysis Grids County) susceptible to flooding. 41 Township of Infrastructure Culvert issue on 90th Ave. Stormwater Hartwick (Osceola Management County) Assessment 42 Township of Flooding Hicks Creek, large beaver dam Depth and Hartwick (Osceola / pond area causing flooding, Analysis Grids County) around 110th Ave, north of 15 mile. 37 Township of Hersey Flooding Residential flooding concerns Depth and (Osceola County) at the confluence of Cat Creek, Analysis Grids Mud Creek, and Big Stone Creek. 38 Township of Hersey Flooding Residential flooding concerns Depth and (Osceola County) along Muskegon River south Analysis Grids of Village of Hersey. 34 Township of Hersey Flooding Mitigate flooding along Depth and (Osceola County) Muskegon River. Houses Analysis Grids damaged from flooding. 54 Township of Markey Infrastructure Culvert replacement along Stormwater (Roscommon northside of Houghton Lake. Management County) Assessment 18 Township of Martiny Roadway Roadway flooding on 17 Mile Stormwater (Mecosta County) Flooding Road going towards Evan Management Lake. Assessment 16 Township of Mecosta Flooding Seasonal flooding with ice Depth and (Mecosta County) jams along this section of Analysis Grids Muskegon River south of the City of Big Rapids. 19 Township of Mecosta Flooding Park gets standing water from Stormwater (Mecosta County) Macks Creek, near 8 Mile Management Road. Assessment
22 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report MAP COMMUNITIES MITIGATION IDENTIFIED NEEDED ID ISSUE MITIGATION ACTION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 12 Township of Mecosta Infrastructure Undersized culverts have Stormwater (Mecosta County) resulted in road washouts near Management 8 Mile Road. Assessment 10 Township of Morton Infrastructure Undersized culverts increase Stormwater (Mecosta County) flooding at county drain and 9 Management Mile Rd. Assessment 43 Township of Osceola Flooding Spring Hill Camps at Depth and (Osceola County) Muskegon River susceptible to Analysis Grids flooding. 33 Township of Osceola Flooding Mitigate flooding along Depth and (Osceola County) Muskegon River. Flood event Analysis Grids in 2013 resulted in numerous homes destroyed. 1 Township of Redding Roadway Roadway Flooding at Stormwater (Clare County) Flooding Stockwell Rd & Dishwash Management Creek. Assessment 2 Township of Redding Flooding Cabins along the Muskegon Depth and (Clare County) River experience seasonal Analysis Grids flooding. 4 Township of Redding Roadway Flooding along Cook Avenue Stormwater (Clare County) Flooding from Muskegon River. Management Assessment 6 Township of Redding Roadway Seasonal conditions along the Stormwater (Clare County) Flooding Muskegon River cause Management roadway Flooding at Assessment M61/Temple Drive. 35 Township of Rose Infrastructure Incorrect culvert piping creates Stormwater Lake (Osceola flooding issues in the Management County) township. Assessment 57 Township of Selma Flooding West end of Mitchell Lake Stormwater (Wexford County) experiences flooding. Management Assessment 45 Township of Sylvan Roadway Frequent roadway flooding at Depth and (Osceola County) flooding 30th Ave and Sylvan Rd. Analysis Grids 46 Township of Sylvan Roadway Frequent roadway flooding at Depth and (Osceola County) flooding 50th Ave. Analysis Grids 44 Township of Sylvan Flooding Repetitive flooding of Depth and (Osceola County) subdivision along Muskegon Analysis Grids River. 3 Township of Roadway Roadway flooding along the Stormwater Winterfield (Clare Flooding Muskegon River, near Church Management County) Bridge area. Assessment 50 Township of Flooding Seasonal nuisance flooding Stormwater Highland (Osceola occurs in the township. Management County) Assessment 53 Township of Sylvan Roadway Muskegon River covers 50th Depth and (Osceola County) flooding near river road makes Analysis Grids
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 23
MAP COMMUNITIES MITIGATION IDENTIFIED NEEDED ID ISSUE MITIGATION ACTION TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE impassable to emergency vehicles. 39 Village of Hersey Roadway Roadway flooding on Birch St. Depth and (Osceola County) flooding Analysis Grids 51 Village of Marion Flooding Flooding near fairground Stormwater (Osceola County) buildings. Management Assessment 52 Village of Marion Dam safety 100 year old dam needs Dam Failure (Osceola County) replacement. Impact Analysis
V. Mitigation Needs and Mitigation Planning During the Discovery meetings, the project team and participating local officials discussed hazard risks, including known flooding issues. The discussions encouraged community involvement in mitigation planning, as well as the identification of potential mitigation actions to address risks from floods and other hazards. Other Discovery meeting discussion topics included technical assistance needs that would help communities advance mitigation actions, assess the level of local interest in advancing mitigation, and identify known challenges or opportunities.
Communities are required to adopt a Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) to be eligible to seek grant funding for mitigation projects. HMPs are also a responsible and important part of community planning. Communities provided information about their involvement with mitigation planning during the Discovery process.
Identifying flood and other hazard risks is the first step to reducing a community’s vulnerability to hazards. During the Muskegon Watershed Discovery, communities provided information about local risks, mitigation needs, and risk-reducing actions. Table 12 contains a summary of the identified mitigation needs. The entirety of mitigation needs that were identified by communities are listed in a table in the Appendix and shown on the Discovery Map as “Mitigation Needs.”
Recommendations Mitigation Planning
Mecosta and Montcalm Counties either have an expired HMP, or do not have a HMP. Providing technical assistance to these counties and to their emergency management agencies may offer them better access to both pre- and post-disaster mitigation funds. The funding available from the flood events in 2013 and 2014 exemplify the benefits these communities would have derived from having access to funds only available to communities with HMPs.
24 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report Community Safe Room
Lake, Muskegon, and Newaygo Counties have all expressed interest in developing community shelters/safe rooms in areas of high-risk populations, such as manufactured home parks, school buildings, and outdoor community parks.
Structural Mitigation
Grant Township in Clare County, as well as Lake, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Roscommon Counties, would like to pursue structural mitigation activities on frequently flooded structures within their communities. Some of these structures are on the repetitive loss list.
Development of GIS Layers and Shapefiles
Crawford, Lake, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Roscommon Counties would like to enhance their existing GIS capabilities. Improved GIS databases can assist these counties in the development of response plans, land use plans, and future comprehensive planning. Flood risk review products developed as a part of this long-term process may also be incorporated by the local communities for the purpose of improving their GIS systems.
Plan Integration
Clare, Lake, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Roscommon Counties have all expressed interest in further incorporating their local hazard mitigation plans into other planning mechanisms. The work and information developed from mitigation planning would be useful for a number of planning initiatives. However, the actual process for this incorporation can be complex. Providing technical assistance could help cultivate a complete planning suite for these counties and their communities.
Stormwater Infrastructure
Lake, Muskegon, and Newaygo Counties have expressed interest in potential upgrades to their existing stormwater systems. These counties experience flooding events associated with stormwater. Many of their communities’ stormwater systems become overloaded because they are combined with sanitary sewers and contain insufficient infrastructure to pass the quantity of water. Some of these communities requested assistance in evaluating stormwater flooding issues to inform planning and design of stormwater infrastructure. Technical assistance may be available through FEMA and the state that would greatly assist the communities in developing a local stormwater management plan.
These same counties, along with the City of Clare and Roscommon County, have expressed interest in developing and implementing re-channeling projects combined with drainage improvements in order to alleviate local flooding. Using potential flood risk review products developed through this process may help these Counties determine areas which could benefit from these re-channeling efforts.
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 25
Dam Safety
Lake, Osceola, Roscommon, and Clare Counties have concerns regarding high-hazard dams in their jurisdictions. Some officials have expressed structural concerns about their dam, and others emphasized the need to properly evaluate the potential risk to the population if their dam were to fail.
Emergency Generators
Clare, Crawford, Lake, Muskegon, and Newaygo Counties all expressed interest in acquiring generators that would be used for emergency response. These generators are applicable projects under the HMA grant programs. Providing technical assistance to these counties in preparing their grant applications would assist in their procurement of these generators.
Public Education and Outreach
Lake, Missaukee, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Osceola Counties expressed a need for increased public education and outreach regarding the effects of hazards and the benefits of mitigation. Supporting communities in communicating risk to their residents should assist officials in preparing these areas for future events, potentially lessening the impacts of those events.
Table 13. Mitigation Needs and Assistance
Community Identified Mitigation Suggested Technical Action Assistance Grant Township Mitigate Structures in the Depth and Analysis Grids Lake County SFHA Muskegon County Newaygo County Roscommon County Lake County Identify and Address Stormwater Management Muskegon County Stormwater Issues Assessment Newaygo County Clare County Minimize Dam Failure Risk Dam Failure Impact Analysis Lake County Osceola County Roscommon County Mecosta County Mitigation Planning Delivery of G-318 and other Montcalm County technical assistance from State and Federal Planners
Recommendations Depth and Analysis Grids
Local hazard mitigation plan reviews and conversations with Discovery meeting attendees highlight the need for more information to support the acquisition/relocation/elevation of at-risk structures within flood hazard areas. Depth and analysis grids are recommended for Lake,
26 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report Muskegon, Newaygo, and Roscommon Counties in previously identified priority areas for buyouts. This will allow them to prioritize future buyouts based on expected future damages.
Roscommon County identified, in their hazard mitigation plan, that they would like to identify and map flood-prone areas. As of now, that information does not exist for the entire County. They would like to acquire this information so that they can accurately assess their flood vulnerability.
Lake, Muskegon, and Newaygo Counties have identified in their mitigation plan that they wish to acquire property within the floodplain. By acquiring properties within the floodplain, these counties can reduce their total flood risk.
Crawford, Lake, Muskegon, and Newaygo counties would like technical assistance developing the GIS layers needed to assist in planning and emergency response. This data is necessary to understand what flood hazards exist at specific elevations. Spatial data, in the form of depth grids, are essential in determining what structures may require mitigation.
Structural projects can be used to physically alter the risk that is associated with flooding. In their mitigation plans, Lake, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Roscommon Counties all identified that they would like to pursue structural projects to either remove, relocate, or elevate existing structures from flood hazard areas.
Dam Failure Impact Analysis
Clare, Lake, Osceola, and Roscommon Counties would like to take steps to minimize the effects of dam failure and have requested assistance to identify the potential risks and impacts associated with a dam failure. These counties experienced failures and breaches during the events in 2013 and 2014. As a result, understanding the potential impacts of dam failures would greatly assist these areas in their future planning efforts.
Stormwater Management Assessment
Lake, Muskegon, and Newaygo Counties have identified the enlargement of storm drains and detention/retention basins as priorities. Completing a stormwater management assessment would be the first step in directing future efforts to address this issue. Additionally, Clare, Osceola, and Roscommon Counties have identified re-channeling projects combined with drainage projects in their hazard mitigation plans. A stormwater management assessment could assist these counties in focusing their efforts and funding most effectively.
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 27
VI. Compliance, Training, Communication, and Outreach Discovery includes documenting other local concerns, issues, and information that reflect a community’s unique efforts in risk communication, floodplain management, and risk reduction. In addition to mapping and mitigation needs, local officials shared valuable information about their local floodplain management programs, training interests, outreach programs, residents’ expected response to new flood studies, and local government meetings where project information can be shared.
Training Needs Technical Assistance Training
Clare, Lake, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Roscommon Counties’ hazard mitigation plans included mitigation actions that would benefit from grant support from the HMA grant programs or HMGP funds should a Presidential disaster declaration occur. These counties and their jurisdictions would benefit from workshops for local officials on grant opportunities and the application process to aid them in receiving available mitigation funds.
Community Rating System Exploration
Lake, Muskegon, and Newaygo Counties have expressed interest in joining the Community Rating System to reduce flood insurance costs for their residents. Working with the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality would benefit these communities and potentially increase standards while reducing their flood insurance costs.
Public Outreach
Public Risk Awareness Awareness of risk is the first step in acting to reduce risk. Communities that participated in Discovery provided some insight into their residents’ level of risk awareness. Only a few communities in the watershed stated that some level of outreach regarding flooding, tornados, and other natural hazards would be beneficial for local stakeholders.
Options for supporting these communities in their effort to increase local risk awareness include:
• Individual and group meetings or workshops that focus on public outreach techniques
• Development of flood risk (non-regulatory) datasets and information about how to use them to communicate risk to the public
• Review of the community’s existing communication process and recommendations for improvement, and
• Education engagement tools such as sample press releases, website content, risk awareness brochures, and other tools.
Local outreach programs about risk can build upon existing or past efforts, such as those used to inform the public during disasters or to explain local issues. Outreach programs can also take
28 Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report advantage of ongoing communication about mitigation projects or programs to ensure citizens understand the benefits of these activities.
With support such as communication templates and information, Lake, Missaukee, Muskegon, Newaygo, and Osceola Counties have all expressed interest in taking a proactive approach to educating their citizens about risk, and the steps they can take to protect themselves. A webpage could host information about local regulations and communities’ effective FIRMs, along with data developed locally or through Risk MAP projects such as depth grids, high-risk areas, and current or planned risk reduction projects. Additionally, a workshop providing templates, examples, best practices, general information, and examples of how datasets can be used to support risk education may be helpful to communities that wish to begin or expand a local risk awareness program.
Flood Study Outreach Some communities may object to new flood study data. Additional customized engagement efforts may be helpful in bringing about local acceptance of new floodplain delineations. Specifically, Osceola County would anticipate mixed reactions from residents to new study data based on past experiences.
To encourage flood study acceptance, Risk MAP partners may wish to attend local city council and county commissioners’ meetings during the study process to provide risk information and encourage support for the findings. A state or FEMA representative at this meeting could take advantage of the opportunity to promote the flood study as well as discuss risk, mitigation, and compliance concepts with these decision-makers. A Community Assistance Visit (CAV) scheduled around these meeting dates could meet several goals at once. It may be valuable to connect with other communities receiving Risk MAP project support to identify similar meeting opportunities.
Muskegon Watershed Discovery Report 29