Project Area Community List

Discovery Report

Muskegon Watershed, Michigan

HUC 04060102

Clare, Crawford, Kalkaska, Lake, Mecosta, Missaukee, Montcalm, Muskegon,

Newaygo, Osceola, Roscommon, and Wexford Counties.

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

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 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

List of Appendices Appendix A - Community Profiles ... 31

Appendix B - Watershed Discovery Contact Information ... 139

Appendix C – Post-Meeting Maps ... 150

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.

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),

2/5/1992 (Redding Township) 12/3/2010

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), 9/1/1988 (Big Rapids Township), 6/19/1997 (Fork Township), 7/16/1987 (Village

of Morley)

2/4/2015

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), 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) 7/6/2015

MI Newaygo 9/1/1986 (Ashland Township), 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)

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),

9/30/1988 (Selma Township) Partial Countywide – 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

Number Start Date of Event End Date of Event Event Type Muskegon Counties Affected 465 4/26/1975 4/26/1975

Severe Storms, High Winds &

Flooding Crawford 486 9/30/1975 9/30/1975 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Icing & Flooding Clare, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Osceola 495 3/19/1976 3/19/1976 Severe Storms &

Flooding

Clare, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon,

Newaygo, Osceola, Roscommon 744 9/5/1985 9/28/1985 Severe Storms &

Flooding

Clare, Lake, Mecosta, Montcalm, Muskegon, Newaygo, Osceola 1527 5/20/2004 6/8/2004 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, & Flooding Mecosta, Muskegon, Newaygo 1777 6/6/2008 7/13/2008 Severe Storms, Tornadoes, & Flooding Lake, Missaukee, Osceola, Wexford 4121 4/16/2013 5/14/2013 Flooding Muskegon, Newaygo, _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.

Table 4. NFIP Participation Status

County Full Name Status County Full Name Status

CLARE

Franklin, Township of* Yes

MISSAUKEE

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 Hatton, Township of* No Holland, Township of* No Hayes, Township of* Yes Lake, Township of* No 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

KALKASKA Bear Lake, Township of* No Riverside, Township of* No

Garfield, Township of* No West Branch, Township of* No

LAKE

Chase, Township of* No

MONTCALM

Cato, Township of* No Ellsworth, Township of* No Howard City, Village of* No Pinora, Township of* No Lakeview, Village of* No

MECOSTA

Aetna, Township of No Maple Valley, Township of* No Austin, Township of* No 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

MUSKEGON

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 Martiny, Township of* Yes Fruitland, Township of Yes Mecosta, Village of No Holton, Township of* No Mecosta, Township of Yes Laketon, Township of Yes 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 Wheatland, Township of* No Norton Shores, City of Yes Roosevelt Park, City of No

County Full Name Status County Full Name Status

NEWAYGO

Ashland, Township of* Yes

ROSCOMMON

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 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 Fremont, City of Yes Roscommon, Township of* Yes Garfield, Township of Yes

WEXFORD

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 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

OSCEOLA

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 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

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

of

December 29, 2014

Bridgeton, Township of May 27, 2015 February 6, 2015 Brooks, Township of September 6,

2001 August 4, 2008

July 14, 2010

February 6, 2015

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,

2001

January 8, 2015

Whitecloud, Township of

January 8, 2015

Whitehall, Township of April 28, 2015 Wilcox, Township of January 8, 2015

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

County Approval Date Expiration Date

Clare

http://bit.ly/2Fh5LD8

2016

2021

Crawford

http://bit.ly/2COyMbh

2014

2019

Kalkaska

http://bit.ly/2AGQrw7

Most recent plan not available online

2016

2021

Lake

http://bit.ly/2m7VvEM

2015

2020

Mecosta

N/A

N/A

Missaukee

http://bit.ly/2CQuf8e

Most recent plan not available online

2015

2020

Montcalm

N/A

N/A

Muskegon

http://bit.ly/2CGTM0a

2015

2020

Newaygo

http://bit.ly/2me5VmW

Most recent plan not available online

2015

2020

Osceola

http://www.osceolacountyemd.org/hmp.html

2016

2021

Roscommon

http://bit.ly/2m8U5cZ

2016

2021

Wexford

http://bit.ly/2m5VPDU

2015

2020

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

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

Community Class Current

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}

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

• 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

CRS Status FEMA Community Information

System (CIS) tabular

Dam Information

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) National Inventory of Dams

spatial

Declared Disasters FEMA Region V tabular Demographics/Industry U.S. Census Bureau tabular Disaster Assistance Claims FEMA CIS tabular Effective SFHA FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer

(NFHL) spatial

Existing Flood Study Data

Assessment FEMA (CNMS) spatial

Flood Insurance Claim

Information FEMA CIS tabular

Floodplain Management

Ordinance Level FEMA CIS tabular

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program

Allocations FEMA Region V tabular Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP)

Status HMPs tabular

Data Source Format

Last CAV Date FEMA CIS tabular

Last Final Consultation Coordination Officer Meeting Date

FEMA CIS or Effective FIS tabular

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

Efforts

As identified/requested by Core

Team spatial

Recent/Ongoing FEMA Projects FEMA Mapping Information

Platform, or as known spatial/tabular Repetitive Loss FEMA Region V tabular

Tornado and Seismic Data

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Data, as

requested/relevant

spatial

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 Community Point of Contact Available

Data/Funding Format

Watershed US National Resource Conservation Service

Orthophotography GIS

Watershed (except Crawford and Kalkaska County)

FEMA / MI DEQ LiDAR GIS

Watershed Michigan Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships

Transportation GIS

Watershed Michigan Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships

Surface Water Features

GIS

Watershed Michigan Center for Shared Solutions and Technology Partnerships

Political Boundaries GIS

*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.

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 ID COMMUNITIES FLOODING SOURCE STUDY LENGTH (miles) or LAKE SURFACE AREA (sq. mi.) DESIRED STUDY TYPE REASON STUDY NEEDED LOCAL PRIORITY 1 Township of Sylvan, Township of Evart, City of Evart, Township of Hersey, (Osceola County) Muskegon River

32 miles Approximate County modernization needed. Redelineation based on new LiDAR.

High 2 Village of Hersey, Township of Hersey (Osceola County) Muskegon River

.6 miles Detailed Unverified stream and county modernization needed. High 3 City of Evart, Township of Evart (Osceola County) Muskegon River

.4 miles Detailed Re-study using new LiDAR. County modernization needed.

High

4 Village of Hersey (Osceola County)

Hersey River 1.6 miles Detailed Re-study using new LiDAR. County modernization needed.

High

5 City of Reed City, Township of Lincoln, Township of Richmond (Osceola County)

Hersey River 11.2 miles Approximate County modernization needed. Redelineation based on new LiDAR.

High 6 Township of Hersey (Osceola County) Big Stone Creek

.8 mile Approximate County modernization needed. Redelineation based on new LiDAR.

High 7 Village of Marion, Township of Marion, Township of Middle Branch, Township of Middle Branch River

19 miles Approximate County modernization needed. Redelineation based on new LiDAR.

Sylvan (Osceola County) 8 Township of

Sylvan (Osceola County)

Doc and Tom Creek

1.1 miles Approximate County modernization needed. Redelineation based on new LiDAR.

High

9 Township of Evart (Osceola County)

Sherlock Creek

5.3 miles Approximate County modernization needed. Redelineation based on new LiDAR.

High

10 City of Evart (Osceola County)

Twin Creek 1.3 miles Detailed Unverified stream and county modernization needed. High 11 City of Cadillac, Township of Haring (Wexford County)

Clam River 6 miles Detailed Unverified stream. Restudy requested. Also note Wexford County still in partial countywide format. Low 12 Township of Lyon, Township of Gerrish, Township of Beaver Creek (Roscommon County)

Higgins Lake 16 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified,

approximate lake with numerous LOMAs. Low 13 Township of Lake, Township of Markey, Township of Roscommon, Township of Denton (Roscommon County) Houghton Lake

31.4 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified,

approximate lake with numerous LOMAs. Low 14 Township of Denton, Township of Backus (Roscommon County)

Lake James .3 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified,

approximate lake with numerous LOMAs. Low 15 Township of Freeman (Clare County) Windover Lake

.1 sq. mi. Approximate Unverified, approximate lake.

Low

16 Township of Redding (Clare County)

Green Creek .4 mile Approximate Unverified stream reach. Low 17 Township of Reynolds, (Montcalm County) Little Muskegon River

10.5 miles Approximate Unverified stream, county modernization needed. Low 18 Township of Reynolds, (Montcalm County) Tamarack Creek (Reach 1 and 2)

8.5 miles Approximate Unverified stream, county modernization needed. Low 19 Township of Backus (Roscommon County) North Branch Denton Creek

.2 mile Approximate Unverified stream reach off of Lake James.

20 Muskegon Charter Township, City of Muskegon, City of North Muskegon, Township of Laketon (Muskegon County) Muskegon Lake

6.6 sq. mi. Detailed Unverified lake. Low

21 Township of Bridgeton, Township of Ashland, City of Newaygo, Township of Brooks (Newaygo County) Muskegon River

26.4 miles Detailed Seasonal flooding and potential new

development. Unverified stream with ongoing USACE study along this reach could be leveraged. High 22 Township, of Freeman, Township of Redding, Township of Winterfield, Township of Summerfield (Clare County) Muskegon River

38.6 miles Approximate Unverified stream reach. Low 23 Township of Lincoln (Clare County) Hemlock Creek

3 miles Approximate Study requested by county for floodplain management

purposes. Also, this stream is upstream of Doc and Tom Lake which has numerous LOMAs.

High

24 Township of Clam Lake (Wexford County)

Berry Lake .1 sq. mi. Approximate or Detailed

Community identified this unmapped lake as potential flooding source. County modernization needed. Low 25 Township of Lake (Missaukee County) Lake Missaukee 3.1 sq. mi. Approximate or Detailed Community identified this unmapped lake as potential flooding source. Unmapped lake has development and erosions concerns. County modernization needed. Low 26 Township of Egelston (Muskegon County)

Wolf Lake .4 sq. mi. Approximate or Detailed

Community identified this unmapped lake with potential drainage issue and development concerns.

27 Village of Lakeview, Township of Cato (Montcalm County) Tamarack Lake .5 sq. mi. Approximate or Detailed Community identified this unmapped lake as potential flooding source. County modernization needed. Low 28 Township of Greenwood, Township of Lincoln (Clare County)

Lily Lake .3 sq. mi. Approximate or Detailed Community request for re-study. Approximate lake with numerous LOMAs. High 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

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

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

Table 12 Mitigation Needs by Community MAP ID COMMUNITIES MITIGATION ISSUE IDENTIFIED MITIGATION ACTION NEEDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

8 City of Big Rapids (Mecosta County)

Flooding Mitigate flooding of commercial and school

property along Mitchell Creek.

Depth and Analysis Grids

13 City of Big Rapids (Mecosta County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structures (WWTP, Schools, and Hospital) with the highest relative vulnerability.

Depth and Analysis Grids

14 City of Big Rapids (Mecosta County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structures (Schools and Nursing Home) with the highest relative vulnerability.

Depth and Analysis Grids

15 City of Big Rapids, Township of Big Rapids (Mecosta County)

Flooding Flooding of homes and parks from Muskegon River in the south side of City of Big Rapids.

Depth and Analysis Grids

55 City of Cadillac (Wexford County)

Flooding Downtown Cadillac urban flooding at Mitchell St & Granite St. Stormwater Management Assessment 56 City of Cadillac (Wexford County)

Dam Safety Dam (outlet to Clam River) undersized with increase in lake surface area.

Dam Failure Impact Analysis 58 City of Cadillac

(Wexford County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (energy supplier).

Depth and Analysis Grids

40 City of Evart (Osceola County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (WWTP).

Depth and Analysis Grids

47 City of Evart (Osceola County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (Water wells and their power source). Wells are at 5th St on Twin Creek.

Depth and Analysis Grids

32 City of Evart (Osceola County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (WWTP). Depth and Analysis Grids 26 City of Muskegon (Muskegon County) Roadway Flooding Frequent flooding of Causeway. Depth and Analysis Grids 29 City of North Muskegon (Osceola County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (waste water). Depth and Analysis Grids 30 City of North Muskegon (Osceola County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (pump stations, water supply).

Depth and Analysis Grids

MAP ID COMMUNITIES MITIGATION ISSUE IDENTIFIED MITIGATION ACTION NEEDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE

36 City of Reed City (Osceola County)

Dam Safety Dam near Reed City overtops and impacts homes behind the dam (near Apache Rd).

Dam Failure Impact Analysis 7 Clare County Infrastructure Seasonal conditions lead to

nuisance flooding. Community working with road commission to redo culverts and improve drainage.

Stormwater Management Assessment

23 Missaukee County Flooding County ditches overwhelmed with flood waters.

Stormwater Management Assessment 24 Missaukee County Roadway

Flooding

Water present on 7-mile Rd, north of swamp, during flood conditions.

Stormwater Management Assessment 25 Missaukee County Roadway

Flooding Undersized culvert on Simpson Rd. Stormwater Management Assessment 27 Muskegon County Roadway

Flooding

Frequent flooding of Maple Island Road

Depth and Analysis Grids 28 Muskegon County Flooding Inundation concerns Fair Lake

Bridge. Depth and Analysis Grids 31 Township of Big Prairie (Newaygo County)

Dam Safety Significant flooding could occur if the Hardy Dam is breached. Dam Failure Impact Analysis 9 Township of Big Rapids (Mecosta County)

Infrastructure Undersized culverts increase flooding along Winters Creek at 13 Mile Rd. Stormwater Management Assessment 20 Township of Big Rapids (Mecosta County)

Infrastructure Enlarge storm drains,

detention/retention basins and mitigate development along Winters Creek. Stormwater Management Assessment 11 Township of Big Rapids, Township of Mecosta (Mecosta County)

Flooding Seasonal flooding with ice jams and erosion along Muskegon River south of the City of Big Rapids.

Community noted a USACE study for this area

Depth and Analysis Grids 22 Township of Butterfield (Missaukee County) Roadway Flooding

Undersized culvert Jeffs Rd, south of Kelly Rd. Stormwater Management Assessment 48 Township of Evart (Osceola County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (aquifer wells) along Muskegon River.

Depth and Analysis Grids

5 Township of Freeman (Clare County)

Infrastructure Flooding along Norway Creek caused by undersized culvert and waterway debris.

Stormwater Management Assessment

MAP ID COMMUNITIES MITIGATION ISSUE IDENTIFIED MITIGATION ACTION NEEDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 17 Township of Green Charter (Mecosta County) Roadway Flooding

Roadway flooding in area near 180th Ave and 23 Mile Road.

Stormwater Management Assessment 21 Township of Haring

(Wexford County)

Infrastructure 131th Rd Bridge over Clam River experiences high water during flooding.

Depth and Analysis Grids

59 Township of Haring (Wexford County)

Flooding Urban flooding at Mitchell St along Clam River.

Stormwater Management Assessment 60 Township of Haring

(Wexford County)

Planning Assess effects of flooding on existing critical structure (WWTP). Depth and Analysis Grids 49 Township of Hartwick (Osceola County)

Flooding Bridge crossing and cabins along Middle Branch River susceptible to flooding. Depth and Analysis Grids 41 Township of Hartwick (Osceola County)

Infrastructure Culvert issue on 90th Ave. Stormwater Management Assessment 42 Township of

Hartwick (Osceola County)

Flooding Hicks Creek, large beaver dam / pond area causing flooding, around 110th Ave, north of 15 mile.

Depth and Analysis Grids

37 Township of Hersey (Osceola County)

Flooding Residential flooding concerns at the confluence of Cat Creek, Mud Creek, and Big Stone Creek.

Depth and Analysis Grids

38 Township of Hersey (Osceola County)

Flooding Residential flooding concerns along Muskegon River south of Village of Hersey.

Depth and Analysis Grids

34 Township of Hersey (Osceola County)

Flooding Mitigate flooding along Muskegon River. Houses damaged from flooding.

Depth and Analysis Grids

54 Township of Markey (Roscommon

County)

Infrastructure Culvert replacement along northside of Houghton Lake.

Stormwater Management Assessment 18 Township of Martiny (Mecosta County) Roadway Flooding

Roadway flooding on 17 Mile Road going towards Evan Lake. Stormwater Management Assessment 16 Township of Mecosta (Mecosta County)

Flooding Seasonal flooding with ice jams along this section of Muskegon River south of the City of Big Rapids.

Depth and Analysis Grids

19 Township of Mecosta (Mecosta County)

Flooding Park gets standing water from Macks Creek, near 8 Mile Road.

Stormwater Management Assessment

MAP ID COMMUNITIES MITIGATION ISSUE IDENTIFIED MITIGATION ACTION NEEDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 12 Township of Mecosta (Mecosta County)

Infrastructure Undersized culverts have resulted in road washouts near 8 Mile Road. Stormwater Management Assessment 10 Township of Morton (Mecosta County)

Infrastructure Undersized culverts increase flooding at county drain and 9 Mile Rd. Stormwater Management Assessment 43 Township of Osceola (Osceola County)

Flooding Spring Hill Camps at

Muskegon River susceptible to flooding.

Depth and Analysis Grids

33 Township of Osceola (Osceola County)

Flooding Mitigate flooding along Muskegon River. Flood event in 2013 resulted in numerous homes destroyed. Depth and Analysis Grids 1 Township of Redding (Clare County) Roadway Flooding Roadway Flooding at Stockwell Rd & Dishwash Creek. Stormwater Management Assessment 2 Township of Redding (Clare County)

Flooding Cabins along the Muskegon River experience seasonal flooding. Depth and Analysis Grids 4 Township of Redding (Clare County) Roadway Flooding

Flooding along Cook Avenue from Muskegon River.

Stormwater Management Assessment 6 Township of Redding (Clare County) Roadway Flooding

Seasonal conditions along the Muskegon River cause roadway Flooding at M61/Temple Drive. Stormwater Management Assessment 35 Township of Rose Lake (Osceola County)

Infrastructure Incorrect culvert piping creates flooding issues in the

township. Stormwater Management Assessment 57 Township of Selma (Wexford County)

Flooding West end of Mitchell Lake experiences flooding. Stormwater Management Assessment 45 Township of Sylvan (Osceola County) Roadway flooding

Frequent roadway flooding at 30th Ave and Sylvan Rd.

Depth and Analysis Grids 46 Township of Sylvan (Osceola County) Roadway flooding

Frequent roadway flooding at 50th Ave.

Depth and Analysis Grids 44 Township of Sylvan

(Osceola County)

Flooding Repetitive flooding of subdivision along Muskegon River. Depth and Analysis Grids 3 Township of Winterfield (Clare County) Roadway Flooding

Roadway flooding along the Muskegon River, near Church Bridge area. Stormwater Management Assessment 50 Township of Highland (Osceola County)

Flooding Seasonal nuisance flooding occurs in the township.

Stormwater Management Assessment 53 Township of Sylvan (Osceola County) Roadway flooding

Muskegon River covers 50th near river road makes

Depth and Analysis Grids

MAP ID COMMUNITIES MITIGATION ISSUE IDENTIFIED MITIGATION ACTION NEEDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE impassable to emergency vehicles. 39 Village of Hersey (Osceola County) Roadway flooding

Roadway flooding on Birch St. Depth and Analysis Grids 51 Village of Marion

(Osceola County)

Flooding Flooding near fairground buildings. Stormwater Management Assessment 52 Village of Marion (Osceola County)

Dam safety 100 year old dam needs replacement.

Dam Failure 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.

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.

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

Action

Suggested Technical Assistance

Grant Township Mitigate Structures in the SFHA

Depth and Analysis Grids Lake County

Muskegon County Newaygo County Roscommon County

Lake County Identify and Address Stormwater Issues

Stormwater Management Assessment Muskegon County

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 technical assistance from State and Federal Planners Montcalm County

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,

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.

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

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.