[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Coastal Zone Information Center @!A te- Avg 4P ka' Vol, ENDIX 14" G 705 G73 G74 1976 oo 1-a i n s. appendix v. 14 AEAT L,*AI<ES BASIN F STU -sA CZIC FILE COPY Great Lakes Basin Framework Study APPENDIX 14 FLOOD PLAINS property of CSC Library COASTAL WE MFORN"MEON CEIrER U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER !!@:T 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON SC 29405-2413 GREAT LAKES BASIN COMMISSION C@D Prepared by Flood Plains Work Group Sponsored by Corps of Engineers, U.S. Department of the Army Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Published by the Public Information Office, Great Lakes Basin Commission, 3475 Plymouth Road, P.O.'Box 999, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106. Printed in 1975. Cover photo by Kristine Moore Meves. This appendix to the Report of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was prepared at field level under the auspices of the Great Lakes Basin Commission to provide data for use in the conduct of the Study and preparation of the Report. The conclusions and recommendations herein are those of the group preparing the appendix and not necessarily those of the Basin Commission. The recommendations of the Great Lakes Basin Commission are included in the Report. The copyright material reproduced in this volume of the Great Lakes Basin Framework Study was printed with the kind consent of the copyright holders. Section 8, title 17, United States Code, provides- The publication or republication by the Government, either separately or in a public document, of any material in which copyright is subsisting shall not be taken to cause any abridgement or annulment of the copyright or to authorize any use or appropriation of such copyright material without the consent of the copyright proprietor. The Great Lakes Basin Commission requests that no copyrighted material in this volume be republished or reprinted without the permission of the author. OUTLINE Report Appendix 1: Alternative Frameworks Appendix 2: Surface Water Hydrology Appendix 3: Geology and Ground Water Appendix 4: Limnology of Lakes and Embayments Appendix 5: Mineral Resources Appendix 6: Water Supply-Municipal, Industrial, and Rural Appendix 7: Water Quality Appendix 8: Fish Appendix C9: Commercial Navigation Appendix R9: Recreational Boating Appendix 10: Power Appendix 11: Levels and Flows Appendix 12: Shore Use and Erosion Appendix 13: Land Use and Management Appendix 14: Flood Plains Appendix 15: Irrigation Appendix 16: Drainage Appendix 17: Wildlife Appendix 18: Erosion and Sedimentation Appendix 19: Economic and Demographic Studies Appendix F20: Federal Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix S20: State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements Appendix 21: Outdoor Recreation Appendix 22: Aesthetic and Cultural Resources Appendix 23: Health Aspects Environmental Impact Statement SYNOPSIS This appendix is part of a coordinated in- ing the past three decades, major flooding teragency study to develop the water and re- problems are increasing in urban and highly lated land resources of the Great Lakes Basin. developed agricultural areas throughout the The appendix consists of an assessment of Basin. Much of the damage and personal the Basin's flood plains and associated pres- tragedy caused by Tropical Storm Agnes, the ent and future problems. most expensive and destructive natural disas- Associated drainage problems are pre- ter in the country's recorded history, which hit sented in Appendix 16, Drainage. Shoreline the Middle Atlantic States in June 1972, was a flooding problems, which are not considered in direct result of expanding development on this appendix, are included in Appendix 12, vulnerable flood plains. Shore Use and Erosion. Flood damage reduction may be ac- Most damaging floods in the Basin have oc- complished through control of rivers or use of curred in the late winter or early spring as a flood plains. Strong efforts must be made to result of rain and snowmelt on frozen or limit flood plain development. Where signifi- nearly saturated ground. Ice jams at the cant encroachment has already occurred, mouths of the rivers emptying into the major levees, dams, and other man-made devices lakes often aggravate the flood situation. In- may be used. Neither method in itself has the tense summer storms have also created de- total answer to flood damage reduction, but structive floods, but these are ordinarily con- both must be proportioned to reduce the fined to local areas. economic and physical hardships inflicted by Despite gains in flood control measures dur- flood waters. v FOREWORD The material used in this appendix was ob- John L. Okay, Soil Conservation Service, tained predominantly from reports published Lansing by Federal and State agencies. The material Stanley R. Qua@ckenbush, Michigan De- was compiled through cooperative efforts of partment of Agriculture the Flood Plains Work Group under leadership Lewis C. Ruch, Mighigan Department of of its cochairmen. Natural Resources, Wetlands Habitat Man- Work group members are listed below: agement Huson A. Amsterburg (Cochairman), U.S. George Skene, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation District Service, East Lansing, Michigan Ralph S. Wadleigh, Soil Conservation Ser- Robert L. Gregory (Cochairman), U.S. De- vice, East Lansing partment of the Army, Corps of Engineers, George H. Watkins, Ohio Department of Detroit District Natural Resources, Three Rivers Watershed Nicholas Barbarossa, New York Conserva- District tion Department, Division of Water Re- Forrest Wicks, Michigan Department of sources Natural Resources, Recreation Resource Linda Blake, Corps of Engineers, Chicago Planning Division District Roy Winkle, Ohio Department of Natural Lee A. Christensen, U.S. Department of Ag- Resources, Division of Water riculture, North Central Resources Group- Larry Witte, Michigan Department of John R. Collis, Corps of Engineers, Detroit Natural Resources, Water Resources Com- District mission Robert K. Fahnestock, State University of Responsibility for particular river basins New York, Fredonia was delegated to the district offices of the U.S. Philip Gersten, Corps of Engineers, Detroit Army Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conser- District vation Service. These include Corps of En- Robert D. Hennigan, New York State Uni- gineers district offices in Buffalo, Chicago, St. versity Water Resources Center, Syracuse Paul, and Detroit, and Soil Conservation Ser- Gene H. Hollenstein, Minnesota Depart- vice State offices in Indiana, Wisconsin, Min- ment of Natural Resources nesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Lt. Kenneth Hofmeister, Corps of Engi- Michigan. neers, Detroit District R. L. Ireland, Cleveland, Ohio Contributions to the study were made by the John H. Ken'naugh, Michigan Grand River Division of Water, Indiana Department of Watershed Council Natural Resources; the Wildlife Division, the Gordon R. Lance, Indiana Department of Hydrologic Survey Division, and the Rec- Natural Resources, Division of Water reation Resource Planning Division of the S. Maiore, Corps of Engineers, Buffalo Dis- Michigan Department of Natural Resources; trict the Maumee Conservancy District; and the Ellick Maslan, U.S. Department of Housing Three Rivers Watershed District of the Ohio and Urban Development, Chicago Department of Natural Resources. Walter S. Mason, New York Department of Cartographic work was prepared by the Na- Agriculture and Markets tional Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra- Charles C. Morrison, Jr., New York Natural tion, Lake Survey Center, U.S. Department of Beauty Commission Commerce. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OUTLINE .................................................................... iii SYNOPSIS ................................................................... v FOREWORD ................................................................. vi LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ xv LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................... xxi INTRODUCTION ............................................................. xxv Methodology ............................................................... xxv General ............................................................. xxv Geographic Study Limits ........................................... xxvii Inventory Procedures .............................................. xxvii Projection Procedures xxvii Problem Analysis Procedures ....................................... xxviii 1 FLOOD PLAINS INVENTORY ........................................... 1 1.1 General Description of Great Lakes Basin ........................... 1 1.2 Lake Superior West, River Basin Group 1.1 .......................... 2 1.2.1 Description .................................................. 2 1.2.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 2 1.2.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 2 1.2.4 Flood Problems ........... .................................. 2 1.2.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 9 1.3 Lake Superior East, River Basin Group 1.2 .......................... 10 1.3.1 Description .................................................. 10 1.3.2 Previous Studies ............ 10 1.3.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 11 1.3.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 11 1.3.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 18 1.4 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Manitowoc River Basin ................................................................ 18 1.4.1 Description .................................................. 18 1.4.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 18 1.4.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 22 1.4.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 22 1.4.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 22 1.5 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Sheboygan River Basin ................................................................ 22 1.5.1 Description .................................................. 22 1.5.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 22 1.5.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 28 1.5.4 Flood Problems ........... .................................. 28 1.5.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 32 vii viii Appendix 14 Page 1.6 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Fox River Basin 32 1.6.1 Description .................................................. 32 1.6.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 32 1.6.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 32 1.6.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 32 1.6.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 33 1.7 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Wolf River Basin 33 1.7.1 Description .................................................. 33 1.7.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 33 1.7.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 34 1.7.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 34 1.7.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 34 1.8 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Oconto River Basin 34 1.8.1 Description .................................................. 34 1.8.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 35 1.8.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 35 1.8.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 35 1.8.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 35 1.9 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Peshtigo River Basin .................................................... 35 1.9.1 Description .................................................. 35 1.9.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 37 1.9.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 37 1.9.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 37 1.9.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 37 1.10 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Menominee River Basin ...... 37 1.10.1 Description .................................................. 37 1.10.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 38 1.10.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 38 1.10.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 38 1.10.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 39 1.11 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin Group 2.2, Milwaukee River Basin ................................................................ 39 1.11.1 Description .................................................. 39 1.11.2 Previous Studies ............ 39 1.11.3 Development in'the Flood Plain .............................. 39 1.11.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 39 1.11.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 42 1.12 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin Group 2.2, Root River Basin 42 1.12.1 Description .................................................. 42 1.12.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 42 1.12.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 42 1.12.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 44 1.12.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 44 1.13 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin Group 2.2, Little Calumet River Basin .... 44 1.13.1 Description .................................................. 44 1.13.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 44 1.13.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 45 1.13.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 45 1.13.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 45 1.14 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin Group 2.3, St. Joseph River Basin ................................................................. 45 1.14.1 Description .................................................. 45 Table of Contents ix Page 1.14.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 47 1.14.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 47 1.14.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 47 1.14.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures .......... ...... 63 1.15 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin Group 2.3, Kalamazoo River Basin ................................................................ 63 1.15.1 Description .................................................. 63 1.15.2 Previous Studies ............ 63 1.15.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 65 1.15.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 65 1.15.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 65 1.16 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin Group 2.3, Grand River Basin 66 1.16.1 Description .................................................. 66 1.16.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 66 1.16.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 67 1.16.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 67 1.16.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 68 1.17 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin Group 2.3, Ottawa Complex .. 69 1.17.1 Description .................................................. 69 1.17.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 69 1.17.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 69 1.17.4 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 69 1.18 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4, Muskegon River Basin ................................................................ 69 1.18.1 Description .................................................. 69 1.18.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 71 1.18.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 71 1.18.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 71 1.18.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 74 1.19 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4, Sable Complex .... 74 1.19.1 Description .................................................. 74 1.19.2 Previous Studies ......... 74 1.19.3 Development in the Flood @I*a'in'* 75 1.19.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 75 1.19.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 75 1.20 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4, Manistee River Basin ................................................................ 75 1.20.1 Description .................................................. 75 1.20.2 Previous Studies ............ 75 1.20.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 75 1.20.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 77 1.20.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 77 1.21 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4, Traverse Complex 77 1.21.1 Description .................................................. 77 1.21.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 77 1.21.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 77 1.21.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 77 1.21.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 79 1.22 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4, Seul Choix-Groscap and Bay de Noc Complexes .......................................... 79 1.22.1 Description .................................................. 79 1.22.2 Previous Studies ......... @l ................................... 79 1.22.3 Development in the Flood ain .............................. 79 1.22.4 Flood Problems ........... .................................. 79 1.22.5 Existing Flood Drainage Prevention Measures ............... 79 x Appendix 14 Page 1.23 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4, Manistique River Basin ................................................................ 79 1.23.1 Description .................................................. 79 1.23.2 Previous Studies ......... @l ................................... 80 1.23.3 Development in the Flood ain .............................. 80 1.23.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 81 1.23.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 81 1.24 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Group 2.4, Escanaba River Basin ................................................................ 81 1.24.1 Description .................................................. 81 1.24.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 82 1.24.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 82 1.24.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 82 1.24.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 82 1.25 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, St. Marys River Basin ... 82 1.25.1 Description .................................................. 82 1.25.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 82 1.25.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 82 1.25.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 82 1.25.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 82 1.26 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, Les Cheneaux Complex .. 83 1.26.1 Description .................................................. 83 1.26.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 83 1.26.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 83 1.26.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 83 1.26.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 83 1.27 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, Alcona Complex ......... 83 1.27.1 Description .................................................. 83 1.27.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 83 1.27.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 83 1.27.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 83 1.27.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 83 1.28 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, Cheboygan River Basin 85 1.28.1 Description .................................................. 85 1.28.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 85 1.28.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 85 1.28.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 85 1.28.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 85 1.29 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, Thunder Bay River Basin 87 1.29.1 Description .................................................. 87 1.29.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 89 1.29.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 89 1.29.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 89 1.29.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 91 1.30 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, Au Sable River Basin ... 91 1.30.1 Description .................................................. 91 1.30.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 91 1.30.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 91 1.30.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 91 1.30.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 91 1.31 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, Rifle River Basin ........ 91 1.31.1 Description .................................................. 91 1.31.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 92 1.31.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 92 1.31.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 92 1.31.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 92 Table of Contents xi Page 1.32 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group 3.1, Au Gres River Basin .... 92 1.32.1 Description .................................................. 92 1.32.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 92 1.32.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 93 1.32.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 93 1.32.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 93 1.33 Lake Huron Central, River Basin Group 3.2, Kawkawlin River Basin 93 1.33.1 Description .................................................. 93 1.33.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 94 1.33.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 94 1.33.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 94 1.33.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 94 1.34 Lake Huron Central, River Basin Group 3.2, Saginaw River Basin 96 1.34.1 Description .................................................. 96 1.34.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 96 1.34.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 101 1.34.4 Flood Problems .......... 101 1.34.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 101 1.35 Lake Huron Central, River Basin Group 3.2, Thumb Complex ....... 105 1.35.1 Description .................................................. 105 1.35.2 Previous Studies ............................................. .105 1.35.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 105 1.35.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 105 1.35.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 105 1.36 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1, Black River Basin .... 107 1.36.1 Description .................................................. 107 1.36.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 107 1.36.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 107 1.36.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 108 1.36.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 108 1.37 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1, St. Clair Complex ..... 108 1.37.1 Description .................................................. 108 1.37.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 115 1.37.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 115 1.37.4 Flood Problems 115 1.37.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 115 1.38 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1, Clinton River Basin ... 1.38.1 Description .................................................. 115 1.38.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 116 1.38.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 116 1.38.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 116 1.38.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 117 1.39 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1, Rouge Complex ....... 117 1.39.1 Description .................................................. 117 1.39.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 118 1.39.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 118 1.39.4 Flood Problems .......... 119 1.39.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ...... 119 1.40 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1, Huron River ia's*i*n* 120 1.40.1 Description .................................................. 120 1.40.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 120 1.40.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 120 1.40.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 121 1.40.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 121 1.41 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4J, River Raisin Basin .... 122 1.41.1 Description .................................................. 122 xii Appendix 14 Page 1.41.2 Previous Studies ............ 122 1.41.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 122 1.41.4 Flood Problems .......... 123 1.41.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 123 1.42 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group 4.1, Swan Creek Complex.. 123 1.42.1 Description .................................................. 123 1.42.2 Previous Studies ......... 124 1.42.3 Development in the Flood @I*a`in** 124 1.42.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 124 1.42.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 124 1.43 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group 4.2, Maumee River Basin.. 124 1.43.1 Description .................................................. 124 1.43.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 124 1.43.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 126 1.43.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 126 1.43.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 129 1.44 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group 4.2, Portage River Basin .. 135 1.44.1 Description .................................................. 135 1.44.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 136 1.44.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 136 1.44.4 Flood Problems ................ :-*********-*****'-***** 139 1.44.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 139 1.45 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group 4.2, Sandusky River Basin 140 1.45.1 Description .................................................. 140 1.45.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 140 1.45.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 140 1.45.4 Flood Problems ................ :*-*******-*************** 141 1.45.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 141 1.46 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group 4.2, Vermilion River Basin 142 1.46.1 Description .................................................. 142 1.46.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 142 1.46.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 142 1.46.4 Flood Problems ................ 143 1.46.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention *T4easures ................ 143 1.47 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group 4.3, Black River Basin ....... 144 1.47.1 Description .................................................. 144 1.47.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 144 1.47.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 144 1.47.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 147 1.47.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ...... *'******** 147 1.48 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group 4.3, Rocky River Basin ....... 148 1.48.1 Description .................................................. 148 1.48.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 148 1.48.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 148 1.48.4 Flood Problems ............................................... 151 1.48.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 152 1.49 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group 4.3, Cuyahoga River Basin ... 154 1.49.1 Description .................................................. 154 1.49.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 154 1.49.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 155 1.49.4 Flood Problems .................... 156 1.49.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention 4easures ................ 156 1.50 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group 4.3, Chagrin River Basin ..... 157 1.50.1 Description .................................................. 157 1.50.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 157 1.50.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 158 Table of Contents xiii Page 1.50.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 159 1.50.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 159 1.51 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group 4.3, Grand River Basin ....... 160 1.51.1 Description .................................................. 160 1.51.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 160 1.51.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 160 1.51.4 Flood Problems 160 1.51.5 Existing Flood Damage I@r*e`ven' t*i:o*n" M**e* a*s*u**r*e's* 160 1.52 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group 4.3, Conneaut Creek Basin ... 161 1.52.1 Description .................................................. 161 1.52.2 Previous Studies ......... 161 1.52.3 Development in the Flood @la*in-.'.- 161 1.52.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 161 1.52.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 161 1.53 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Erie County, Pennsylvania.. 161 1.54 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Smokes Creek Basin ........ 163 1.54.1 Description ................................................... 163 1.54.2 Previous Studies ............ 163 1.54.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 163 1.54.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 166 1.54.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 167 1.55 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Ellicott Creek Basin ........ 172 1.55.1 Description .................................................. 172 1.55.2 Previous Studies ............ 172 1.55.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 173 1.55.4 Flood Problems ................ : * ' 14 * * ' - * - - * * *... * *... * * 173 1.55.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention easures ................ 173 1.56 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Buffalo River Basin ......... 174 1.56.1 Description .................................................. 174 1.56.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 174 1.56.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 175 1.56.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 175 1.56.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 175 1.57 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Tonawanda Creek Basin .... 176 1.57.1 Description .................................................. 176 1.57.2 Previous Studies ......... 177 1.57.3 Development in the Flood @I'ain .............................. 177 1.57.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 177 1.57.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 178 1.58 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Cattaraugus Creek Basin ... 178 1.58.1 Description .................................................. 178 1.58.2 Previous Studies .............................................. 178 1.58.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 178 1.58.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 179 1.58.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 179 1.59 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Scajaquada Creek Basin .... 179 1.59.1 Description .................................................. 179 1.59.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 180 1.59.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 180 1.59.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 180 1.59.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 180 1.60 Lake Ontario West, River Basin Group 5.1, Genesee River Basin .... 181 1.60.1 Description .................................................. 181 1.60.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 183 1.60.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 184 1.60.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 185 xiv Appendix 14 Page 1.60.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 185 1.61 Lake Ontario Central, River Basin Group 5.2, Oswego River Basin .. 188 1.61.1 Description .................................................. 188 1.61.2 Previous Studies ............ 194 1.61.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 195 1.61.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 196 1.61.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ...... : * * * * * * * * *196 1.62 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group 5.3, Black River Basin ....... 202 1.62.1 Description .................................................. 202 1.62.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 202 1.62.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 203 1.62.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 203 1.62.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 203 1.63 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group 5.3, Oswegatchie River Basin 203 1.63.1 Description .................................................. 203 1.63.2 Previous Studies ............................................. 206 1.63.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 206 1.63.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 207 1.63.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 207 1.64 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group 5.3, Grass, Raquette, and St. Regis River Basins .................................................. 208 1.64.1 Description .................................................. 208 1.64.2 Previous Studies ............ 208 1.64.3 Development in the Flood Plain .............................. 209 1.64.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 209 1.64.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 210 1.65 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group 5.3, Perch River Complex .... 210 1.65.1 Description .................................................. 210 1.65.2 Previous Studies ....... 210 1.65.3 Development in the Floo@@I*ain- 210 1.65.4 Flood Problems .............................................. 210 1.65.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures ................ 210 2 FLOOD PROBLEM ANALYSIS ........................................... 211 2.1 Introduction ......................................................... 211 2.2 Flood Damage Reduction Measures .................................. 211 2.2.1 Preventive Measures ........................................ 211 2.2.2 Corrective Measures ......................................... 214 2.3 Potential Solutions .................................................. 217 SUMMARY .................................................................... 281 GLOSSARY .................................................................. 289 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................ 291 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 14-1 Lake Superior West-Previous Studies ............................... 9 14-2 Lake Superior West-Flood Damage Centers ......................... 10 14-3 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 1.1 ................................................ 11 14-4 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 1.1 ............................................................ 12 14-5 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 1.1 ............... 13 14-6 River Basin Group 1.1, Data Summary by County .................... 14 14-7 Lake Superior East-Previous Studies ............................... 17 14-8 Lake Superior-Flood Damage Centers ............................... 17 14-9 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 1.2 ................................................ 18 14-10 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 1.2 ............................................................ 19 14-11 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 1.2 ............... 20 14-12 River Basin Group 1.2, Data Summary by County .................... 21 14-13 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.1 ................................................ 24 14-14 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.1 ............................................................ 27 14-15 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.1 ............... 29 14-16 River Basin Group 2.1, Data Summary by County .................... 30 14-17 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.2 ................................................ 41 14-18 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.2 ................................................. ........... 41 14-19 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.2 ............... 42 14-20 River Basin Group 2.2, Data Summary by County .................... 43 IV xvi Appendix 14 Table Page 14-21 Lake Michigan Southeast, St. Joseph River Basin-Flood Damage Cen- ters .................................................................. 49 14-22 Lake Michigan Southeast, Grand River Basin-Flood Damage Centers 50 14-23 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.3 ................................................ 51 14-24 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.3 ............................................................ 57 14-25 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.3 ............... 59 14-26 River Basin Group 2.3, Data Summary by County .................... 60 14-27 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.4 ................................................ 72 14-28 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.4 ............................................................ 73 14-29 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.4 ............... 76 14-30 River Basin Group 2.4, Data Summary by County .................... 78 14-31 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 3.1 ................................................ 86 14-32 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 3.1 ............................................................ 87 14-33 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 3.1 ............... 88 14-34 River Basin Group 3.1, Data Summary by County .................... 89 14-35 Lake Huron North, Saginaw River Basin-Flood Damage Centers ... 97 14-36 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 3.2 ................................................ 98 14-37 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 3.2 ............................................................ 100 14-38 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 3.2 ............... 102 14-39 River Basin Group 3.2, Data Summary by County .................... 103 14-40 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.1 ................................................ 109 14-41 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 4.1 ............................................................ ill 14-42 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.1 ............... 112 14-43 River Basin Group 4.1, Data Summary by County .................... 113 List of Tables xvii Table Page 14-44 Lake Erie Southwest, Maumee River Basin-Flood Damage Centers. 127 14-45 Minor Channel Improvements ....................................... 129 14-46 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.2 ................................................ 130 14-47 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 4.2 ............................................................ 134 14-48 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.2 ............... 136 14-49 River Basin Group 4.2, Data Summary by County .................... 137 14-50 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.3 ................................................ 149 14-51 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 4.3 ............................................................ 151 14-52 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.3 ............... 152 14-53 River Basin Group 4.3, Data Summary by County .................... 153 14-54 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.4 ................................................ 165 14-55 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 4.4 ............................................................ 167 14-56 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.4 ............... 168 14-57 River Basin Group 4.4, Data Summary by County .................... 169 14-57A River Basin Group 4.4, Average Annual Flood Damages (Auxiliary Data) ................................................................ 170 14-58 Lake Ontario West, Genesee River Basin-Record Floods and Damage Area .................................................................. 186 14-59 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 5.1 ................................................ 187 14-60 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 5.1 ............................................................ 188 14-61 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 5.1 ............... 189 14-62 River Basin Group 5.1, Data Summary by County .................... 190 14-62A River Basin Group 5.1, Average Annual Flood Damages (Auxiliary Data) ................................................................ 191 14-63 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 5.2 ................................................ 197 xviii Appendix 14 Table Page 14-64 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 5.2 ............................................................ 199 14-65 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 5.2 ............... 200 14-66 River Basin Group 5.2, Data Summary by County .................... 201 14-66A River Basin Group 5.2, Nonagricultural Average Annual Flood Dam- ages (Auxiliary Data) ................................................ 202 14-66B River Basin Group 5.2, Agricultural Average Annual Flood Damages (Auxiliary Data) ..................................................... 203 14-67 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 5.3 ................................................ 206 14-68 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 5.3 ............................................................ 207 14-69 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 5.3 ............... 208 14-70 River Basin Group 5.3, Data Summary by County .................... 209 14-71 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.1, Before 1980 220 14-72 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.1, 1980-2000 221 14-73 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.1, After 2000 222 14-74 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.2, Before 1980 223 14-75 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.2, 1980-2000 224 14-76 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.2, After 2000 225 14-77 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, Before 1980 226 14-78 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, 1980-2000 228 14-79 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, After 2000 230 14-80 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.2, Before 1980 232 14-81 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.2, 1980-2000 233 14-82 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.2, After 2000 234 14-83 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, Before 1980 235 14-84 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3,1980-2000 237 14-85 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, After 2000 240 14-86 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.4, Before 1980 243 14-S7 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.4, 1980-2000 244 List of Tables xix Table Page 14-88 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.4, After 2000 245 14-89 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.1, Before 1980 246 14-90 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.1, 1980-2000 247 14-91 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.1, After 2000 248 14-92 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2, Before 1980 249 14-93 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2, 1980-2000 250 14-94 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2, After 2000 252 14-95 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.1, Before 1980 254 14-96 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.1, 1980-2000 255 14-97 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.1, After 2000 256 14-98 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, Before 1980 258 14-99 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, 1980-2000 260 14-100 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, After 2000 262 14-101 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.3, Before 1980 264 14-102 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.3,1980-2000 265 14-103 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.3, After 2000 266 14-104 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.4, Before 1980 267 14-105 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.4,1980-2000 268 14-106 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.4, After 2000 269 14-107 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.1, Before 1980 270 14-108 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.1, 1980-2000 271 14-109 Flood Damage ReductionMeasures, River Basin Group 5.1, After 2000 272 14-110 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2, Before 1980 273 14-111 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2,1980-2000 275 14-112 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2, After 2000 277 14-113 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.3, Before 1980 278 14-114 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.3, 1980-2000 279 14-115 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.3, After 2000 280 xx Appendix 14 Table Page 14-116 Summary by State ................................................... 283 14-117 Summary by Lake Basin .............................................. 286 14-118 Additional Alternatives .............................................. 288 LIST OF FIGURES (Coloredfigures may befound in numerical order at the rear of this volume. Theirfigure numbers are followed by the letter "c.") Figure Page 14-1 Great Lakes Basin Drainage Boundaries ............................. xxvi 14-2 Stage, Damage, Discharge, and Frequency Relationships ............ xxviii 14-3 Lake Superior Basin ................................................. 3 14-4 Lake Michigan Basin ................................................ 4 14-5 Lake Huron Basin ................................................... 5 14-6 Lake Erie Basin ..................................................... 6 14-7 Lake Ontario Basin .................................................. 7 14-8 Lake Superior West-River Basin Group 1.1 ......................... 8 14-9c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 1.1 ............................................ 298 14-10c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 1.1 ...................... 299 14-11 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 1.1 15 14-12 Lake Superior East-River Basin Group 1.2 .......................... 16 14-13c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 1.2 ............................................ 300 14-14c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 1.2 ...................... 301 14-15 Lake Michigan Northwest-River Basin Group 2.1 ................... 23 14-16c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.1 ............................................ 302 14-17c Watershed Design atio n-River Basin Group 2.1 ...................... 303 14-18 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 2.1 36 14-19 Lake Michigan Southwest-River Basin Group 2.2 ................... 40 14-20c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.2 ............................................ 304 14-21c Watershed Design ation-Rive r Basin Group 2.2 ...................... 305 14-22 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 2.2 46 xxi xxii Appendix 14 Figure Page 14-23 Lake Michigan Southeast-River Basin Group 2.3 ................... 48 14-24c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.3 ............................................ 306 14-25c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 2.3 ...................... 307 14-26 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 2.3 64 14-27 Lake Michigan Northeast-River Basin Group 2.4 ................... 70 14-28c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.4 ............................................ 308 14-29c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 2.4 ...................... 309 14-30 Lake Huron North-River Basin Group 3.1 .......................... 84 14-31c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 3.1 ............................................ 310 14-32c Watershed Design ation-Rive r Basin Group 3.1 ...................... 311 14-33 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 3.1 90 14-34 Lake Huron Central-River Basin Group 3.2 ......................... 95 14-35c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 3.2 ............................................ 312 14-36c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 3.2 ...................... 313 14-37 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 3.2 104 14-38 Lake Erie Northwest-River Basin Group 4.1 ........................ 106 14-39c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.1 ............................................ 314 14-40c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 4.1 ...................... 315 14-41 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.1 114 14-42 Lake Erie Southwest-River Basin Group 4.2 ........................ 125 14-43c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.2 ............................................ 316 14-44c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 4.2 ...................... 317 14-45 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.2 145 14-46 Lake Erie Central-River Basin Group 4.3 ........................... 146 14-47c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.3 ............................................ 318 List of Figures xxiii Figure Page 14-48c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 4.3 ...................... 319 14-49 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.3 162 14-50 Lake Erie East-River Basin Group 4.4 .............................. 164 14-51c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.4 ............................................ 320 14-52c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 4.4 ...................... 321 14-53 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.4 171 14-54 Lake Ontario West-River Basin Group 5.1 .......................... 182 14-55c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 5.1 ............................................ 322 14-56c Watershed Design ation-River Basin Group 5.1 ...................... 323 14-57 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 5.1 192 14-58 Lake Ontario Central-River Basin Group 5.2 ........................ 193 14-59c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries - for River Basin Group 5.2 ............................................ 324 14-60c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 5.2 ...................... 325 14-61 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 5.2 204 14-62 Lake Ontario East-River Basin Group 5.3 ........................... 205 14-63c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 5.3 ............................................ 326 14-64c Watershed Design ation-Rive r Basin Group 5.3 ...................... 327 14-65 Estimated Effectiveness of Flood Plain Legislation and Minor Struc- tural Measures ....................................................... 218 INTRODUCTION Flood damage reduction planning is con- engineering feasibility of flood protection cerned'with the development of comprehen- works were also taken into consideration. sive programs to encourage proper use of flood A comprehensive program for flood damage hazard areas and reduce flood damages. The reduction can involve a wide range of alterna- objective of the work group was to make an tives. These can be considered in two broad assessment of the flood plains and their as- concepts: protection through control of water sociated problems. The work includes an in- and prevention through control of the flood ventory of the flood plains to determine the plain. The need for either flood corrective or amount and use, the nature and intensity of flood preventive measures is based on the current flood problems and to predict their level of existing and projected flood damages. direction during the next fifty years. The principal function of corrective measures The study encompasses the five Great is to control flood waters and to reduce dam- Lakes, their connecting channels, the St. ages to existing development in the flood Lawrence River to the international bound- plain, while preventive measures are directed ary, and the land areas of the United States at guiding flood plain development compatible occupying the drainage basin of these waters. with the risk, involved. This is generally ac- The Great Lakes Basin is shown in Figure complished by minimizing exposure to flood 14-1. risk while assuring that development does not Most of the floods in the Great Lakes Basin obstruct flood flows and thereby increase up- occur in the late winter or early spring from stream flood damages. Both systems provide a rainfall and snowmelt on frozen or nearly degree of future flood damage reduction for a saturated ground. The flood situation at this given flood magnitude either by reducing the time is often aggravated by ice jams in the flood stages and frequency, or by controlling channels or at the mouths of rivers emptying flood plain development to minimize damage. into the major lakes. Severe summer storms The output of a flood control program is have also produced floods in the past, but measured in the reduction of flood damages, damages from these floods are usually con- while the input requirements are defined as fined to tributary areas. local protection schemes such as channel mod- Both urban and agricultural damages oc- ifications, levees, reservoirs, or as institu- cur, and in many areas, including the Maumee tional controls such as flood plain regulations and Grand River basins, associated damage and acquisition. A refinement of input re- results from inadequate agricultural drain- quirements would include such items as im- age. Also, a new type of drainage problem has plementation, enforcement, capital, mainte- materialized in recent years. Rapid urbaniza- nance and operation. tion in metropolitan areas has intensified Many of the flood problems and their as- storm runoff, thus overloading drainage sys- sociated damages have been aggravated by tems that have not kept pace with growtb. uncontrolled development in the flood plains. This has created severe damages from sewer The constant spread of urbanization can only back-up. Further flood problems could occur compound a vulnerable situation unless ra- as a result of increased storm runoff due to tional planning guidelines are adopted and en- shifts in land use to recreation and to poor forced to control continued high risk develop- logging practices. ment in these natural flood plains. The need for flood control is based on the analyses of floods, flood plain areas, and flood plain use to determine the magnitude of flood Methodology problems in the Region. Damages are categorized by the land use classifications de- General fined in the Glossary. The physical configura- tion of the flood plain and its influence on the The level of analysis of a Type I comprehen- xxv a" N 5 LEGEND ------- Great Lakes Elcuids, e-9. c> --- --- Subbasime S MINNESOTA ubbcLxLn number M LAKE SUPERIOR M. uth S paniof STATUTE M ------ ol ONTARIO 1.0 40 MICHIPAN-,"" St. Mwye Ri- 0@ 4 All Af ....... Ri- dq @k, R"IAI 13 IT WISCON A. sb, 3 LAKE@URON M % Green say L.& Sm- IGAN ONTARIO LAX cANtDA ;FE7D STATES City i.- R- Sal.. Roochest 0 Muskegon N Milwtauke'l 1- 41 Flirt I ---- --- Buffalo get ne Grand Rapids s- L St. Clat, Rig- NtlSqqNSIN Kenos a ans.ng\, Lee. Kalamazoo Ah Arbor Detroit W4' ILLINOIS @E YOiK 11 0 St. cl.L- Jackson, W, NEW Erie" Chicago I&ICHIGAN,1- "I OHIO -51 -- IICH j ID P4DIANA ILLINOIS Hammon S I Bond oledo art k-\ Cleveland A Lorain OAkro P 1Z z Fort Wayri Z I Lima 0 I N D I A N A I -K 0 H 10 ,Z Introduction xxvii sive study precludes a detailed study of the nated as either urban or rural and existing or flood plain areas. This study is based on read- projected. ily available information. Information Data related to the main stem and principal gathered from personal contacts, as dictated tributaries are recorded on worksheets de- by this type of study, is held to a minimum. In signed specifically for this study. These data parts of the Basin there is little information, have been made a permanent part of the study while in other parts a vast amount of informa- record for subsequent inspection. For reaches tion is available. Under these circumstances a with existing data, the usable portion of this methodology had to be developed that would information is recorded on the work sheet. In use the available information to the maximum most instances, the information must be mod- extent possible. ified in order to be in a form applicable to this study. For reaches where required basic data are Geographic Study Limits not sufficient, various methods are used to esti- mate land use and average annual damages. The Soil Conservation Service and the Army To determine flood plain land use, the natural Corps of Engineers were responsible for guid- flood plain is outlined on U.S. Geological Sur- ing the efforts of the Flood Plains Work Group. vey topographic maps. Because these maps To avoid duplication of work, the flood plains are not available for all areas, other source of the river basins within the Great Lakes maps must be occasionally substituted. Land Basin were divided into two areas. The divi- use is estimated from these maps and from sion of those areas was determined by joint information found in other studies. In some consideration and agreement. The main stem, instances the studies may date back twenty principal (major) tributaries, and highly ur- years and the topographic maps fifty years. In banized areas were the responsibility of the these cases the data are updated to what is Corps of Engineers and the upstream wa- considered as 1970 conditions by using aerial tersheds were the responsibility of the Soil photographs, specific knowledge of the area, Conservation Service. In most instances, and anv other data sources. Because this is a these upstream watersheds are about 250,000 Type I framework study, new field work is acres or less. minimized and maximum use is made of previ- ous studies and surveys. Average annual damages are computed Inventory Procedures using stage-damage, stage-discharge, discharge-frequency, and damage-frequency The flood plains of the main stems and prin- relationships. Total average annual damage is cipal tributaries are divided into workable the area under the damage-frequency curve. reaches. A major factor that dictates the A typical set of these data is presented in Fig- limits of a reach is available data. Because ure 14-2. In case of ice jams, the stage-fre- these data are usually presented on a county quency curve is used. basis, the county line is considered a reach In the upstream areas where CNI data are limit unless further defined by the physical used, it is necessary to estimate a detailed di- characteristics of the flood plain. vision of land use, frequency of flooding, and The basis for assessing the upstream wa- damage values to determine average annual tersheds is the watershed delineation used in damages. This is done by Soil Conservation the Conservation Needs Inventory (CNI)- Service personnel in each of the States in the Small Projects. Unless data are available from Basin. All estimates of potential flood dam- watershed work plans or other river basin ages are prepared for conditions and degree of studies, the CNI information is used. This in- development for the year 1970. dicates the acres with a flooding problem and gives a breakdown of land use between urban and rural sectors. Projection Procedures Responsibilities of the work group include an investigation to determine the nature of To project future flood damages, growth and the flood plains' land uses and general loca- development in the flood plains are evaluated tions and intensity of problems in these flood on the basis of the general trend in the plan- plains. Intensity of the problem is expressed in ning subarea where the flood plain is located. average annual damages and land use in acres Flood damages are projected to reflect poten- of development. These problems are desig- tial damages in future years, assuming exist- xxviii Appendix 14 DISCHARGE IN 1,000 C FS DAMAGE IN i,000,000 DOLLARS __T 612 608 606 604 602 60 STAGE-D SCHARGE STAGE-DAMACE CURVE CURVE 56 594 a to Zo 30 40 so so To ISO so too Ito 120 ISO 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 90 .0 70 Z Go 50 0 1 0 40 30 1Z 20 A. DISCHARGE FREOUENCY rAMAGECURR'EQUn CURVE 'E 0 DISCHARGE IN 1.000 C.FS. DAMAGE IN 1,000.000 DOLLARS FIGURE 14-2 Stage, Damage, Discharge, and Frequency Relationships ing flood protection remains the same, and the measures for the time periods designated as flood risk factor is unchanged. The historical immediate (before 1980), short term (1980- projection base is the dollar value and condi- 2000), and longterm (after 2000) are evaluated tions existing in 1970. for each region where damages are signifi- Indexes of change for total population, total cant. These reduction measures are consid- personal income and per capita income pro- ered in two broad concepts: protection vided by the Economic and Demographic Work through control of water (structural meas- Group are used to develop a range of indexes ures), and prevention through control of the for the years 1980, 2000, and 2020. The range of flood plain (nonstructural measures). Chan- indexes and general knowledge of the study nel diversion, channel modification levees, area are used to project future flood damages floodwalls and flood control reservoirs are and the growth and development in the flood considere@ structural measures. Some of the plain areas. Effects of flood plain management nonstructural measures are building codes, legislation are not considered in projecting public education, flood plain regulation damages from the base year. However, sub- through acquisition and zoning, subdivision sequent analysis of flood damage reduction regulations, flood insurance, flood warning alternatives in the Summary includes esti- systems, and evacuation or relocation. mates of the potential effects of this flood plain Detailed studies to determine which of the management legislation. damage reduction measures would best satisfy the conditions of each of the damage centers were not conducted. For the immediate Problem Analysis Procedures time period damages to existing development in the flood plain can best be reduced by struc- Single-purpose flood damage reduction tural measures. Also, it is assumed that for Introduction xxix this same time period nonstructural measures lar projects of comparable size. Cost estimates cannot be fully implemented except where of nonstructural schemes are considered as existing legislation will permit and enforce- costs that would be required to implement the ment is adequate. Therefore, structural measures. No attempt is made to compute measures are recommended to reduce dam- them at this time, but it is recommended that ages for major damage centers. For the short- studies be conducted to determine the costs of term and long-term time periods, nonstruc- such programs. Cost estimates for structural tural measures are generally recommended. measures include appropriate contingencies In these instances, it is assumed that there (engineering and design, supervision costs are adequate areas nearby suitable for de- and administration) and are based on 1970 velopment as an alternative to flood plain use. price levels. Alternative damage reduction measures Estimated benefits of nonstructural meas- are selected on the basis of urgency of the ures are considered equivalent to the damages problem, physical characteristics of the resulting if no preventive action is taken. stream and surrounding terrain, intensity of Estimated benefits of structural measures, existing flood plain development, needs of the based on experience and previous reports, are area, previous studies, and general knowledge considered to be 95 percent of the urban and 85 of the damage center locations. From these percent of the rural damages that would re- alternatives, a damage reduction scheme is sult if no preventive action is taken. Vast recommended. additional cost required to fully protect a Estimated costs of structural measures are damage center through the use of structural based on experience and cost records of simi- measures is not justified. Section I FLOOD PLAINS INVENTORY 1.1 General Description of Great Lakes Basin low hills, except in minor areas at the east and west ends of the Great Lakes Basin. There- The Great Lakes Basin poses a wide variety fore, overall topography favors infiltration of water and related land problems. The Basin over direct rapid surface runoff. Infiltration is is dominated by the five Great Lakes, rela- also aided because a great portion of the sub- tively small tributary basins, and by the exis- surface material consists of sand and gravel. tence of a number of great metropolitan cen- Initially, flood plain settlement followed the ters which exert primary economic influence need for water transportation. The major and control over the Basin. The Great Lakes tributaries provided low-cost water transpor- are of enormous value as a source of water tation for timber and agricultural products, supply for municipal and industrial consump- and so the early rail and road systems paral- tion. leled these stream networks. Many of the pres- The Basin is defined as the drainage areas ent urban centers had their beginnings along of Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Hu- some type of waterway. Early commercial and ron, Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and those industrial sectors were also concentrated streams entering the St. Lawrence River along the major waterways. Although the ad- within the United States. For the purpose of vantages of such locations have faded with this study, the five Lake basins have been as- technology, the flood hazards they created signed numbers (Figure 14-1). The system of still persist. the Great Lakes extends more than 2,000 Flooding may occur at any time, but miles and has a water surface area of 95,000 throughout the Great Lakes Region, major square miles, of which 64 percent is in the floods and most damaging floods are usually United States. The United States portion in- the result of rain and snowmelt on frozen or cludes a land area of 118,000 square miles and nearly saturated ground. Intense summer a water area of 61,000 square miles. Drainage storms have created destructive floods, but areas in the United States portion range from these are ordinarily confined to local areas. 6,600 square miles for the Maumee River in The tributary flood problems in the Basin, Ohio and 6,300 square miles for the Saginaw while serious, are local problems. The reser- River in Michigan to minor streams of a few voirs, levees, or channel improvements, which square miles flowing directly into the major reduce flood damages on these tributaries, lakes. have little measurable effect on the now regi- The Great Lakes Basin was scoured and men in the Great Lakes system. Many local formed by glaciation. Therefore, its physical features and hydrology differ greatly from flood protection schemes have been proposed those of regions not glaciated. Furthermore, through the years, but few have reached frui- its construction was but recently completed in tion, and the pressure for flood relief usually terms of earth history, and the processes of diminishes with the passage of time. The only stream and shoreline erosion have made only proposals of a B asinwide nature have been the slight changes in the original postglacial to- recommendations for controlling the levels of pography. In general the tributary relief var- the Great Lakes at the outlets of the connect- ies through a narrow range: major stream ing channels. profiles are relatively flat, and tributary sur- Because flood plains are often agricultural- face drainage systems are still rudimentary. ly very productive, there is a continuous The few tributary valleys are not well- program to protect and enhance this resource developed, and they usually follow the lows of through the programs of the Soil Conserva- the glaciated topography. The divides tion Service. Erosion control, improved drain- separating basins are characteristically broad age facilities, and water storage reservoirs are and vary from almost level plains to rolling some of the ongoing projects under P.L. 566 I 2 Appendix 14 being expanded in the upstream watersheds (2) Geological Survey flood-prone area re- of the Great Lakes. ports for portions of the Nemadji, Black, Amni- Solutions to flood problems in the upstream con, White, Montreal, Potato, and Bad Rivers watersheds usually consist of channel im- and North and South Fish Creeks, 1971 provement in the broader flood plains because (3) Preliminary Report, Bayfield Cemetery discharge control sites are not available due to Ravine Watershed, Bayfield County, Wiscon- the topography. Even in the steeper areas, sin, prepared by the Soil Conservation Ser- control structures cannot always be justified vice, August 1970 because the narrow flood plains do not pro- (4) Feasibility study report, East Branch duce sufficient benefits. Montreal River Watershed, Iron County, Wis- For the purpose of data collection, study, consin, and Gogebic County, Michigan, pre- and reporting, each of the five major Lake pared by the Soil Conservation Board, July basins is divided into river basin groups or 1969. complexes and then into individual river ba- sins within these river basin groups. The river basin groups and complexes are shown in Fig- 1.2.2 Development in the Flood Plain ures 14-3 through 14-7. The dominant economic factor in the basin is ore mining. Other important industries scat- 1.2 Lake Superior West, River Basin tered throughout the area include commercial Group 1.1 fishing, fruit growing, and tourist activity. .Logging was at one time the major economic 1.2.1 Description activity, but inadequate conservation prac- tices have all but eliminated this activity. Ag- River Basin Group 1.1 drains an area of ap- riculture is practiced only on a limited basis proximately 9,230 square miles. Of this area, within the region. This is due to the severe 6,142 square miles are in Minnesota, 2,956 climate, the predominance of poorer quality square miles are in Wisconsin, and 132 square soils, and adverse topographic conditions. miles are in Michigan. A basin map and a vi- Present agricultural practices are generally cinity map are shown in Figure 14-8. The basin limited to dairy farming and small grain prod- is characterized by numerous swamps and uction. lakes, particularly in the headwater regions. Although relatively poor industrially and Elevations range from 1,800 feet above sea agriculturally, the land is interconnected by level in the headwaters section to 600 feet an extensive highway and railway network. above sea level at Lake Superior. The Towns serviced by this transportation system tributaries and the main stems follow a rocky are small, due to the lack of industry and ag- course, characterized by chutes, falls, and riculture. Complementing the road and rail rapids. travel network are well developed commercial and recreational harbors on Lake Superior. Navigation upstream on the rivers is ham- 1.2.2 Previous Studies pered by numerous chutes, falls, rapids, and tortuous courses. Corps of Engineers studies include the Bad Dams have been located on the main stems River at Mellen and Odanah, Wisconsin; the and tributaries in the basin. These dams are Montreal River at Hurley, Wisconsin, and normally very small and are actively used only Ironwood, Michigan; the St. Louis River in for the protection of flood plains against ex- Minnesota and Wisconsin; and Ball Park cessive floods. Some of the dams produce hy- Creek at Bayfield, Wisconsin. Of the six droelectric power. However, the dams have a studies listed in Table 14-1, three are congres- reduced storage capacity due to the steep sional project documents and three are flood slope of the rivers and the deposit of sand and control project reports. gravel behind the dam structure. Listed below are additional completed studies: (1) Nemadji River Erosion and Sedimenta- 1-2.4 Flood Problems tion Control Project prepared by the Carlton County, Minnesota, and Douglas County, Wis- Most of the floods in the basin occur in the consin, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, summer, due to intense summer precipitation. January 1971 Less frequent spring floods develop from early oil 0-4 J_j cA ADA LEGEND - - RIVER BASIN GROUP 1.2 RIVER BASIN GROUP NUMBER ..wo.w. NMYORK 2 4 ILLINOIS i 11""MIANIA lj@ ;....A.Al o.lo VICINITY MAP OFTHE DRAINAGE BASINS OF THE GREAT LAKES N A R I aq Y, MINNESOTA a -1. 0. 1.2 T I m c I WISCONSIN ..T r ASSAN. &SIN SCALEIN MILES 47L @@O A .10 40 50 4 Appendix 14 M-EWTA G) 2 N mRK 4 w.m m.Nm-. VICINITY MAP A jIt 2.1 2.4 I C H I N 4? 2.3 2.2 ILLI 01 /,%JJ6"..A I ND I A E@@AL@@ILES LEGEND M I 0 10 20 30 40 50 - - RIVER BASIN GROUP 2.3 RIVER BASIN GROUP NUMBER FIGURE 14-4 Lake Michigan Basin Flood Plains Inventory 5 ((D -NEWTA 4 VICINITY MAP 0 T R-- 1 0 op 0a o 3. JIJ L A- K E H U 0 0 N MIC IGA 3.2 LEGEND SCALE IN MILES - - RIVER BASIN GROUP 0 10 20 30 40 50 3.1 RIVER BASIN GROUP NUMBER FIGURE 14-5 Lake Huron Basin X N T A R 1 4.11 SCALE IN MILES 0 10 20 30 40 -mic IGAN N RK It PENNSYLVANIA 4,2 .3 0 1 V LEGEN RIVER BASIN GAOUP 4.2 RIVER SASfN GROUP NUMBER Flood Plains Inventory 7 2 5 4 VICINITY MAP 0 N 4T A R I Og 5.3 L A K E ONTARIO 5.2 N E W SCALE IN MILES 20 30 40 50 LEGEND - - RIVER BASIN GROUP 5.1 RIVER BASIN GROUP NUMBER FIGURE 14-7 Lake Ontario Basin 8 Appendix 14 Rive, cz::. Brute Lake % 'k COOK 'a.d Marais LAKE Chisholm IA 0 J. Hibbm. eleth 0 0 S,Ive, Bay S ST. LOUIS 0 T.. H.,b-s 1@ 0 APOSTLE ISLANDS 1-i, Ito- (7 0) Baylield Dulutlf ST, uls Cloquet o o APOSTLE ISLANDS *As AID'y" I .-d Pot o CARL ON@ 0 V) w Z w BAD Z' 'CH z U) Iscc) DOUGLAS BAYFIELD LA@IIIAII. %RON LEGEND BOUNC)ARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 2.1 FIGURE 14-8 Lake Superior West-River Basin Group 1.1 Flood Plains Inventory 9 TABLE 14-1 Lake Superior West-Previous Studies Name River City Congress Date Report on Economics Bad River Odanah, Wis. 12 Feb 60 of Flood Control Project on Bad River at Odanah Report on Economics Bad River Mellen, Wis. 5 Feb 60 of Flood Control Project on Bad River at Mellen Bad River at Mellen Bad River Mellen, Wis. H Doc. 17 May 55 and Odanah & Odanah, No. 165 Wis. 84th Cong. Small Flood Project Ball Park Bayfield, Wis. 22 Jun 53 Creek Report on Montreal Montreal Wis. & Mich. H. Doc. 10 Jun 33 River River No. 89, 73rd Cong Improvement of St. St. Louis Minn. & Wis. H. Doc. 10 Jun 33 Louis River River No. 95, 73rd Cong. spring rains which produce much snowmelt County summaries for the main stem and and large ice jams in the main stems. principal tributaries are tabulated in Table Maximum discharges vary from 3,000 to 10,000 14-6. cubic feet per second (efs) depending upon the size of the drainage area and capacity of the 1.2.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention stream. Major floods of record in the basin Measures occurred in July 1942, June 1946, April 1950, June 1958, and August 1960. The major There are two existing structural flood con- reasons for flooding are the inability of the trol projects in the basin. One is a Federal streams to carry large flows, the relative flat- project constructed by the Army Corps of En- ness of the surrounding areas, and the pre- gineers in 1954 on Ball Park Creek at Bayfield, sence of both natural and man-made stream Wisconsin. It consists of a reinforced concrete restrictions. inlet krueture with retaining walls, cutoff Table 14-2 lists flood damage centers lo- walls, and dikes. Also, there is a multiplate cated in the basin. Figure 14-9c identifies the pipe arch steel culvert and a concrete flume time period in which major damages, as de- with a reinforced concrete outfall structure at fined in this study, are first noted within a the shoreline of Lake Superior. In addition, given reach on the main stem and principal two debris barriers were constructed up- tributaries. Table 14-3 depicts the flood plain stream from the inlet structure. The second is damages by reach corresponding to the a project constructed by the State of Min- reaches designated on this figure. Table 14-4 nesota on Mission Creek at Fond du Lac. It depicts upstream flood damages. These dam- consistg of a debris catcher approximately one ages are referenced to the watersheds iden- mile upstream from the city bridge. The loca- tified in Figure 14-10c. Summations of esti- tion of these preventive measures is illustrat- mated annual damages and acres in the flood ed in Figure 14-11. No other flood control proj- plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-5. ects of consequence have been constructed. 10 Appendix 14 TABLE144 Lake Superior West-Flood Dam- general statement as to the amount of rainfall age Centers expected. Rainfall forecasts are not presently Damage Center Flood Year Type Damage River used in flood forecasting. Flood forecasts are Hurley Wis. and 1960 Residential Montreal River presently based on existing conditions. The Ironwood, Mich. Commercial responsibility to warn or alert the Federal, Agricultural 1952 Residential Montreal River military, and civilian authorities, State and Commercial local officials, and the civilian population of Agricult ral 1946 Residenluial Montreal River flood forecasts is the duty of the Defense Civil Commercial Agricultural Preparedness Agency. 1942 Residential Montreal River The second category, flood plain informa- Commercial Agricultural tion and regulation, can be used to guide and Mellen, Wis. 1960 Residential Bad River control developments in flood hazard areas Commercial through flood data and sound flood regula- Agricultural 1949 Residential Bad River tions, thereby preventing an increase in flood Comer ial Agricultural damage. Such controls have been adopted by 1946 Residential Bad River many communities and have been accepted as Commercial Agricultural a practical way to assure safe development 1941 Residential Bad River Commercial and to prevent flood disasters. Some State Agricultural laws provide local governments with the au- Odanah, Wis. 1960 Residential Bad River Commercial thority to regulate development in flood Agricultural plain areas. The adoption of local flood plain 1949 Residential Bad River Commercial regulations would permit the use of these Agricultural areas for facilities having a low flood damage 1946 Residential Bad River Commercial potential and not significantly obstructing Agricultural 1941 Residential Bad River flood flows. A more detailed discussion of flood Commercial plain legislation is contained in Appendix S20, Agricultural State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Ar- Hayfield, Wis. 1960 Residential Ball Park Creek Commercial rangements. 1953 Residential Ball Park Creek Commercial 1951 Residential Ball Park Creek 1.3 Lake Superior East, River Basin Group 1.2 Commerical 1946 Residential Ball Park Creek Commercial 1.3.1 Description 1942 Residential Ball Park Creek Commxercial Fond du Lac, Minn. 1969 Residential Mission Creek River Basin Group 1.2 occupies approxi- 1960 Residential Mission Creek 1958 Residential Mission Creek mately 7,756 square miles, including 7,664 1950 Residential Mission Creek square miles in Michigan and 92 square miles 1909 Residential Mission Creek in Wisconsin. A basin map and a vicinity map Floodwood, Minn. 1960 Residential St. Louis River Commercial are shown in Figure 14-12. The basin is char- Agricultural 1950 Residential St. Louis River acterized by numerous swamps and lakes and Commercial for the most part is covered by forest. Eleva- Agricultural 1948 Residential St. Louis River tions range from 1,980 feet above sea level in the highlands to 600 feet above sea level at Lake Superior. The rivers and streams in pass- Nonstructural preventive measures fall ing from the highlands to the Lake are gener- into two basic categories: advanced warning ally characterized by their rocky courses, and flood plain regulation. Advanced warning steep gradients, falls, and rapids. is a responsibility of the National Weather Service and consists of the issuance of a fore- cast of the possible occurrence of a flood disas- 1.3.2 Previous Studies ter. The extent and severity of floods depend directly on the amount and occurrence of pre- Previous Corps of Engineers studies include cipitation. Rainfall is forecast for the States of flood control reconnaissance studies on the Wisconsin and Michigan by the Weather Ser- Ontonagon River at Ontonagon, Michigan, vice in Chicago and for the State of Minnesota and on the Presque Isle River at Marenisco, by the Kansas City Weather Service. Charac- Michigan; a survey scope study of flood prob- teristics furnished by the forecast include the lems along the lower 33 miles of the Sturgeon time of occurrence (24-hour period), area dis- River; and field reconnaissance reports of tribution (by sectional classification), and a flood problems on Linden Creek at L'Anse, Flood Plains Inventory 11 TABLE 14-3 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 1.1 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLA IN _J _J _J AVERAGE ANNUAL 01 cz cz cx CMD REACH - cr CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES Cr TOTAL REMARKS @- cm 4n UJ LU W W FROM TO =) M e 2 cr (DOLL RS) C, URBAN RURAL 2' C) UJ UJ W URBANIRURAL ST. LOUIS RIVER Bi St. Louis T48N T49N 1970 9,000 25 5 30 Fond Du Lac R15WS8 R15WS5 1980 11,000 25 5 30 Same 2000 16,000 25 5 30 Same 2020 24,000 25 5 30 Same B2 St.Louis T51N T52N 1970 70,000 10 40 3440 90 3400 Floodwood R20WS8 R20WS32 1980 91,000 10 40 3440 90 3400 Same 2000 155,000 10 40 3440 90 3400 Same 2020 260,000 10 40 3440 90 3400 Same Cl BALL PARK CREEK Bayfieldl T50NJ T50N 1970 87,000 10 4 4 18 Hayfield R4WS1 R4WS13 1980 113,000 10 4 4 18 Same 2000 186,000 10 4 4 18 Same 2d2O 313,000 10 4 4 18 Same DI BAD RIVER Ashland T48N T48N 970 69,000 2,000 10 130 1430 370 1200 Onadah R3w S26 R3W S36 980 78,000 3,000 10 130 1430 370 1200 Same 000 96,000 4,000 10 130 1430 370 1200 Same 020 141,000 5,000 10 130 1430 370 1200 Same D2 Ashland T45N T44N 970 28,000 3,000 2 14 222 191 47 Mellen R2WS32 R2WS6 980 35,000 3,000 2 14 222 191 47 Same 000 55,000 6,000 2 14 222 191 47 Same 2020 84,000 6,000 2 14 222 191 47 Same El MONTREAL RIVER Iron T48N T46N 1970 35,000 30 60 445 235 300 Hurley, Ironwood R2ES8 R3E S30 1980 41,000 30 60 5 235 300 Same 2000 579000 30 60 445 235 300 Same 2020 82,000 30 60 445 235 300 Same Michigan, and on the Au Train River at Au an extensive highway and railway network. Train, Michigan. These studies are listed in Towns serviced by this transportation system Table 14-7. are small due to the lack of industry and ag- riculture. Complementing the road and rail travel network are well developed commercial 1.3.3 Development in the Flood Plain and recreational harbors on Lake Superior. Navigation upstream on the rivers is ham- The dominant economic factor in the basin is pered by numerous chutes, falls, rapids, and ore mining. Other important industries scat- tortuous courses. tered throughout the area include commercial There are a few dams present on the main fishing, fruit growing, and tourist activity. stems and tributaries in the basin. These dams Logging was at one time the major economic are generally of small capacity and are used activity, but inadequate conservation prac- for hydroelectric power generation and con- tices have all but eliminated this activity. Ag- servation purposes. The dams on the Ontona- riculture is practiced only on a limited basis gon and Sturgeon Rivers have a limited flood within the region. This is due to the severe storage capacity but are operated during climate, the predominance of poorer quality spring flood periods to reduce downstream soils, and adverse topographic conditions. stages. Present agricultural practices are generally limited to dairy farming and small grain pro- duction. 1.3.4 Flood Problems Although relatively poor industrially and agriculturally, the land is interconnected by Major floods in the basin have usually oc- 12 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-4 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 1.1 a ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W 0: AVERAGE ANNUAL 0 a -A -i z Uj z DAMAGES z 4 IX -j TOTAL W 4 z Mw M YEAR (DOLLARS) -i a z w w a. (n 0 4 0 0 0 3: URBAN U CL 3i: z w @TOTAL 13 URBAN RURAL APOSTLE ISLANDS COMPLEX - MINNESOTA 627 1970 2,100 2,100 250 1,500 3,450 5,200 628 1970 1,100 1,100 175 700 1,725 2,600 629 1970 - -8-0-0 ____@LO 100 500 400 1,000 Total 1970 4,000 4,000 525 2,700 @--,575 8,800 1980 5,100 5,100 525 2,700 5,575 8,800 2000 8,700 8,700 525 2,700 5,575 8,800 2020 15,300 15,300 525 2,700 5,575 8,800 ST. LOUIS RIVER - MINNESOTA 6DOI 1970 300 300 -- 300 100 200 600 6D03 1970 300 300 300 -- 100 400 6D04 1970 300 300 300 100 400 6D05 1970 300 300 300 100 400 6006 1970 7,300 7,300 100 7,000 7,500 400 15,000 6D07 1970 200 200 -- 200 -- -- 200 6DII 1970 500 500 -- 500 400 100 1,000 6D13 1970 10,300 10,300 100 10,000 2,900 2,000 15,000 6D14 1970 1,000 1,000 45 900 1,700 200 2,845 6D15 1970 9,300 9,300 915 7,000 12,500 4,500 24,915 6D16 1970 3,800 3,800 712 2,000 15,400 3,100 21,212 6D18 1970 5,800 5,800 500 1,800 3,800 -- 6,100 6D19 1970 1,000 1,000 200 550 1,250 150 2,150 6D20 1970 500 500 -- 500 500 200 1,200 6D21 1970 1,600 1,600 600 410 490 -- 1,500 6DIOI 1970 900 900 -- 800 600 100 1,500 6DI04 1970 500 - 5LO 500 2 00 500 3,000 Total 1970 4j-,906 43,900 3,f7-2- 33,360 49,140 11,750 97,422 1980 56,200 56,200 3,172 33,360 49,140 11,750 97,422 2000 95,700 95,700 3,172 33,360 49,140 11,750 97,422 2020 167,700 167,700 3,172 33,360 49,140 11,750 97,422 SUPERIOR SLOPE COMPLEX MINNESOTA 61 1970 100 100 50 100 50 200 400 62 1970 500 500 100 200 150 50 500 63 1970 300 300 50 130 100 20 300 66 1970 300 300 30 200 170 100 500 67 1970 300 300 50 200 700 so @@OW Total 1970 1,500 1,500 286 8TO 1-,f-7-0 4-20 2,700 1980 1,900 1,900 280 830 1,170 420 2,700 2000 3,300 3,300 280 830 1,170 420 2,700 2020 5,700 5,700 280 830 1,170 420 2,700 BAD RIVER WISCONSIN 6CI 1970 2,500 2,500 200 100 3,700 300 20 20 -- 40 4,300 6C5 1970 900 900 -- - -- ---- =- -8 2 10 -i- --5-,-400 26-0 - Total 1970 3, 00 100 3,-700 506 20 29--- -2 50 4,300 1980 6,000 6,000 200 100 3,700 300 20 28 2 50 4,300 2000 6,800 6,800 200 100 3,700 300 20 28 2 50 4,300 2020 7,500 7,500 200 100 3,700 300 20 28 2 50 4,300 LAKE SUPERIOR SHORELINE - WISCONSIN 61A 1970 1,000 1,000 300 200 6,450 350 -- 3 2 5 7,300 66A 1970 9,500 9,500 300 150 4,050 300 2 2 -- 4 4,800 67A 1970 2,500 2,500 -- -- -- -- 5 5 -- 10 -- 69A 1970 900 900 150 50 1,250 150 -- -- 5 5 1,600 611A 1970 5,500 5,500 25 25 -- 50_ 19,406 -- - -f- Total 1970 19,400 750 400 11,750 800 32 35 7 4 13,700 1980 34,500 34,500 750 400 11,750 800 32 35 7 74 13,700 2000 38,600 38,600 750 400 11,750 800 32 35 7 74 13,700 2020 43,000 43,000 750 400 11,750 800 32 35 7 74 13,700 Flood Plains Inventory 13 TABLE 14-5 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 1.1 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rural Urban Rural St. Louis 1970 795000 43.1900 120 100.11822 River 1980 102.9000 5651200 120 100JX2 2000 1713000 955700 120 100.1822 2020 284.9000 1673700 120 100JI822 Apostle 1970 87@000 4.1000 is 8.1800 Island 1980 1133000 5.9100 18 8.1800 Complex 2000 186.$000 8.1700 18 8.1800 2020 3131000 15.%300 18 8.1800 Bad River 1970 100.$400 5.1000 611 5.@547 1980 119.1000 6.1000 611 5J547 2000 157P800 102000 611 5.1547 2020 232P50O 11.1000 611 5P547 Montreal 1970 35.$000 - 235 300 River 1980 413000 - 235 300 Complex 2000 57.$000 - 235 300 2020 823000 - 235 300 Superior 1970 19000 1.1500 74 16000 Slope 1980 34.$500 12900 74 16000 Complex 2000 38.7600 31300 74 163400 2020 434000 5)700 74 16.1400 TOTAL 1970 320.$800 54.1400 1.1058 131@869 1980 409.9500 69.9200 1P058 1315869 2000 610.1400 117.1700 1.1058 131P869 2020 954.1500 1991700 15058 131P869 curred as a result of early spring rains and Table 14-8 lists flood damage centers lo- snowmelt runoff, complicated by ice jams at cated in the basin. Figure 14-13c identifies the the river mouths associated with Lake time period in which major damages, as de- Superior shore ice accumulation. There is also fined in this study, are first noted within a occasional flooding from intense summer rain given reach on the main stem and principal storms. Maximum discharges vary from 3,000 tributaries. Table 14-9 shows the flood plain to 15,000 cubic feet per second (efs) depending damages by reach corresponding to the upon the size of the drainage area and capac- reaches designated on this figure. Table 14-10 ity of the stream. Major floods of record in the shows upstream flood damages. Location of basin occurred during March 1912, April 1952, these damages within particular watersheds April 1960, April 1963, and June 1968. The may be seen in Figure 14-14c. Summations of major reasons for flooding are the inability of estimated average annual damages and acres the low banks of the flat flood plains in the in the flood plain are shown by river basin in lowermost river reaches to contain the flood Table 14-11. County summaries for the main flow, and the windblown icejams atthe mouths stem and principal tributaries are tabulated of the rivers that enter Lake Superior. in Table 14-12. 14 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-6 River Basin Group 1.1, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban Rural Minnesota St. Louis 79,000 --- 120 3,400 Wisconsin Bayfield 87,000 --- 18 --- Ashland 97,000 5,000 561 1,247 Iron 35,000 --- 235 300 TOTALS 298,000 5,000 934 4,947 YEAR 1980 Minnesota St. Louis 102,000 --- 120 3,400 Wisconsin Bayfield 113,000 --- 18 --- Ashland 113,000 6,000 561 1,247 Iron 41,000 --- 235 300 TOTALS 369,000 6,000 934 4,947 YEAR 2000 Minnesota St. Louis 171,000 120 3,400 Wisconsin Bayfield 186,000 --- 18 --- Ashland 151,000 10,000 561 1,247 Iron 57,000 --- 235 300 TOTALS 565,000 103,000 934 4,947 YEAR 2020 Minnesota St. Louis 284,000 --- 120 3,400 Wisconsin Bayfield 313,000 --- 18 --- Ashland 225,000 11,000 561 1,247 Iron 82,000 --- 235 300 TOTALS 904,000- 11,000 934 4,947 On main stem and principal tributaries Flood Plains InventorY 15 4111'@@ 00 9 L.k. ohd M.,ass LAKE 0 8.y \@ q t 9- * t CEO V4 <1 - 0 01----11 AeOSUE ISLANDS S At 17 0 'eyfm d Duluth C3 0.q-t 0 0 5 A@hla C TWA ARL w Z' 0 z SCO AYFIELD liv L__A ."D IRON LEGEND BOUNDARIE STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAREA RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES C04ANNEL DIVERSION CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT 01'0 @11- LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS mSMUTIONAL. SCALE IN MILES RESERVOIR Pt,566 WATERSHED PROJECT FIGURE 14-11 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 1.1 16 Appendix 14 KEwEENAW ISLE ROYALE KE EN Laurium C PENIN LA' KEWEENAW COUNT@ Houghton LAKE SUPERIOR S Portage take Ontonagon 0 HURON MT. Y.11- Dog Gogabk Lake S RGEON Marquette I h 0 W.k f el --110 ONAGO s pemingo.,@Negaun ro, GR NO IM AIS \-43ZAGA HOUGHTKN UP:Ne E MT. I ONTONAGON ,4\7 - , - - @@ @* L-GEBIC MARQUETTE c ALGER S//V LAKE SUPERIOR wo Hearted Sauft Ste. Marie D ARMS WHITEFISH ENON BAY Munis.ng 7.hqa"w.- SAULT e.berrY S@ e --'@LUCE ALGER CHIPPEWA DR MMOND C LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAREA, L@@2@ 7w.- RIVER BASIN GROUP RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX "'@@111E 1101,11 SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-12 Lake Superior East-River Basin Group 1.2 Flood Plains Inventory 17 TABLE 14-7 Lake Superior East-Previous Studies Name River C i ty Date Section 205 Flood Ontonagon Ontonagon, Mich. April, 1963 Control Recon. Report Survey Report Sturgeon Not complete Flood Damage Field Linden Creek L'Anse, Mich. July, 1968 Re@on. Report Sect. 205 Flood Presque I.sle Marenisco, Mich April, 1960 Control Recon. Report Flood Damage Field Au Train Au Train, Mich. April, 1969 Recon. Report Flood Plan Infor. Ontonagon Ontonagon, Mich. September, 1970 Report TABLE 14-8 Lake Superior East-Flood Darnage Centers Damage Center Flood Year Type Damage River Ontonagon, Michigan 1912 Commercial Ontonagon Residential 1942 Commercial Ontonagon Residential 1963 Commercial Ontonagon Residential Arnhiem & Pelkie, 1952 Agricultural Sturgeon Michigan 1960 L'Anse, Michigan 1968 Commercial Linden Creek Residential Transportation Marenisco, Michigan 1960 Commercial Presque Isle Residential Transportation Au Train, Michigan 1969 Residential Au Train 18 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-9 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 1.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED ESTI-MATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAi N -1 -1 _J = AVERAGE ANNUAL _-XJ cz CX cz 4D REACH W LJ TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES UJ UJ 13 -1 = (DOLL RS) (n W 2 S UJ FROM TO = X: C1 X: Z/; URBAN RURAL z cD ui W Fl PRESQUE ISLE RIVER Gogebic I T46N T47N 1970 55,000 10 21 405 186 250 R43W S2 R43W S33 1980 56,100 10 21 405 186 250 2000 78,60o 10 21 405 186 250 2020 114,000 10 21 405 186 250 GI ONTONAGON RIVER Ontona- T50N T52N 1970 34,700 60 20 230 110 200 gon R39W S28 R40w S25 1980 37,300 60 20 230 110 200 2000 66,400 60 40 210 110 200 2020 119,400 60 40 210 110 200 11 STURGEON RIVER Houghton T51N T52N 1970 183,300 2030@ 20,300 R34W S16 R33W S6 1980 219,300 2030 20,300 Baraga 2000 325,800 20301 20,300 2020 362,000 20301 20,300 12 Baraga Houghton- Otter 1970 53,000 20 20 Baraga Co. Creek 1980 64,000 20 20 Line 2000 95,600 20 20 2020 106,200 20 20 il FALLS RI R Baraga Mouth L'Anse 1970 28,000 6,000 20 20 4010 50 4,000 1980 34,500 7,300 20 20 4010 50 4,000 2000 57,900 11,000 20 20 4010 50 4,000 2020 96,000 13,000 20 20 4010 50 4,000 K11 AU TRA RIVER Alger T45N T47N 1970 1,000 20 20 R21E S24 R20E S32 1980 1,000 20 20 2000 1,200 20 20 2020 1,300 20 20 ---.L 1.3.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention itowoc County is approximately 34 miles long, Measures the average fall is 6 feet per mile, and the drainage area is 268 square miles. Two signifi- There are no existing Federal flood control cant tributaries, Mud Creek and Branch projects in this basin. River, join the Manitowoc River 30 miles and A discussion of nonstructural preventive 12 miles respectively above the mouth of the measures applicable to this river basin group river. is included in Subsection 1.2.5. The land surface of Manitowoc County ranges from flat marshland to rough and hilly areas. The more conspicuous features are the 1.4 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin sand dunes and marsh and forest area of Point Group 2.1, Manitowoc River Basin Beach, and the kettle moraine, a belt of irregu- lar hills and depressions crossing the county 1.4.1 Description from southwest to northeast. The Manitowoc River, the largest in Man- itowoc County, has a total drainage area of 548 1.4.2 Previous Studies square miles. The length of the longest water course is approximately 70 miles. Location Previous studies are listed below: within River Basin Group 2.1 is shown in Fig- (1) 1970-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ure 14-15. The section of the river in Man- Chicago District, a flood plain information Flood Plains Inventory 19 TABLE 14-10 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 1.2 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN AVERAGE ANNUAL a -1 :4 -1 W cr a w z DAMAGES z 0: 0: z w w< TOTAL z X: YEAR (DOLLARS) w a- a 1: cr w f.- 0 W 0 :) V) 0 z 0 0 ac M 9 0 URBAN 1RURALITOTAL U cc URBANIRURAL I I GRAND MARAIS - MICHIGAN 641 1970 -- 100 100 300 -- -- 300 6N 1970 47,400 100 47,500 100 10 90 400 400 200 6P 1970 -- -- -- 5 -- -- -- 5 Total 1970 47,400 2 5 47,@06 --,TO-5 -10 -90 400 400 505 1980 59,700 400 60,100 405 10 90 400 400 505 2000 100,500 400 100,900 405 10 90 400 400 505 2020 180,100 400 180,500 405 10 90 400 400 505 1 1 KEWEENAW PENINSUIA - MICHIGAN 6H 1970 58,500 1,800 59,300 600 400 1,540 510 -- 1,400 100 1,500 3,050 61 1970 800 1,200 2,000 400 100 10 105 10 10 -- 20 615 633 1970 -- 300 300 100 150 300 -- -- -- 550 634 1970 200 200 60 20 -- 20 100 635 1970 200 200 50 20 10 20 100 636 1970 200 200 60 25 215 215 515 637 1970 10 5 -- -- 15 Total 1970 59,300 3,900 63,200 1,280 -f2 -0 2,-075 8-70 f0- 1,410 -106-- i , 5-2 0 T,-945 1980 74,700 6,900 81,600 1,280 720 2,075 870 10 1,410 100 1,520 43945 2000 125,700 7,800 133,500 1,280 720 2,075 870 10 1,410 100 1,520 4,945 2020 225,300 8,700 234,000 1,280 720 2,075 870 10 1,410 100 1,520 4,945 ONTONAGON 'RIVER - MICHiGAN 6BI 200 200 70 120 160 60 -- -- -- -- 410 6B2 400 400 130 110 300 10 -- 550 6B2A -- 100 100 25 50 175 -- 5 5 250 6B3 1,400 600 2,000 ISO 200 400 15 20 35 780 6B3A 23,400 -- 23,400 500 500 -- 6B4 65,000 - -- @5.Z2-00 1,055 610 1@665 - -- Total 1970 89,800 i'd-od 91,100 fO-5- 78-0 1,-63-5 -TO- -15 1,575 615 2,205 1,990 1980 113,200 2,300 115,500 405 480 1,035 70 15 1,575 615 2,205 1,990 2000 190,400 2,600 193,000 405 480 1,035 70 15 1,575 615 2,205 1,990 2020 341,200 2,900 344,100 405 480 1,035 70 15 1,575 615 2,205 1,990 STURGEON RIVER - MICHIGAN 611 1970 13,300 17,600 30,900 1,925 487 6,168 280 -- 120 -- 120 8,860 611(A) 1970 33100 4,800 7,900 1,540 1,540 6,080 1,370 15 20 45 80 13,530 6II(A)2 1970 -- - 100 100 - 33 40 67 60 -- -- -- -2-0-0 Total 1970 16,400 2@-,5-06 @58-,906 3,,f98- 5,06-7 -12,315 -1,710 -15 1-40 -4-5 200 22,590 1980 20,700 40,000 60,700 3,498 5,067 12,315 1,710 15 140 45 200 22,590 2000 34,800 44,800 79,600 3,498 5,067 12,315 1,710 15 140 45 200 22,590 2020 62,300 50,000 112,300 3,498 5,067 12,315 1,710 15 140 45 200 22,590 1 1 PORCUPINE MOUNTAIN - MICHIGAN 632 1970 200 200 60 70 150 -- -- -- -- -- 280 1980 400 400 60 70 150 280 2000 400 400 60 70 150 280 2020 400 400 60 70 150 280 TAHQUA RIVER - MI 6A 1970 400 -- 400 -- -- -- 5 5 10 -- 6AI 1970 -- 200 200 50 50 -- -- -- 100 Total 1970 TO-O -io-0- --60-0 5-0 5-0 -5- -5 -10 f-06-- 1980 500 400 900 50 50 5 5 10 100 2000 800 400 1,200 50 50 5 5 10 100 2020 1,500 400 1,900 50 50 5 5 10 100 20 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-11 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 1.2 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Porcupine 1970 55P000 200 186 530 Mountain 1980 56@100 400 186 530 Complex 2000 78.1000 400 186 530 2020 1145700 400 186 530 Ontonagon 1970 1245500 1.000 2.1315 2.J90 River 1980 150@500 2.@300 2.@315 2.J90 2000 2565800 2.1600 2.9315 2.J90 2020 4605600 2,3900 23315 2@1190 Keweenaw 1970 59.@300 3P900 1.@520 4.1945 Peninsula 1980 74.9700 6.1900 1P520 4.1945 Complex 2000 125.J00 7.@800 111520 4.7945 2020 2255300 8.1700 1@520 4P945 Sturgeon River 1970 69.1400 205.@800 220 42q890 1980 84.9700 259P300 220 42.9890 2000 130P400 370)600 220 42.1890 2020 168@1500 412.@000 220 42.7890 Grand Marais 1970 48000 200 420 505 Complex 1980 605700 400 420 505 2000 101.J00 400 420 505 2020 181000 400 420 505 Tahquamenon 1970 400 200 10 100 River 1980 500 400 10 100 2000 800 400 10 100 2020 1@500 400 10 100 Huron Mt. 1970 28.1000 6.1000 50 4.1000 Complex 1980 34.1500 7.1300 50 4.@000 2000 575900 115000 50 41000 2020 96.7000 13.1000 50 4.1000 Sault Complex Damage is negligible. TOTALS 1970 385.1000 2175600 4P721 55.1160 1980 4613700 2775000 4@721 55.1160 2000 751.@300 3935,200 4.9721 55.1160 2020 1.@2485000 437JI800 4.P721 55.1160 1 Flood Plains Inventory 21 TABLE 14-12 River Basin Group 1.2, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County (Michigan) --U-r-U-an Rural Urban Rura Alger 1,000 --- 20 --- Baraga (See RBG 2.1) 81,000 6,000 70 4,000 Chippewa --- --- --- --- Gogebic 55,000 --- 186 250 Houghton --- 183,000 --- 20,300 Keweenaw --- --- --- --- Luce --- --- --- Marquette (See RBG 2.1) --- --- --- --- Ontonagon 34,700 --- 110 200 TOTALS 171,700 189,300 386 24,750 YEAR 1980 Alger 1,000 --- 20 --- Baraga (See RBG 2.1) 98,500 7,300 70 4,000 Chippewa --- --- --- --- Gogebic 56,100 --- 186 250 Houghton --- 219,300 --- 20,300 Keweenaw --- --- --- --- Luce --- --- --- --- Marquette (See RBG 2.1) --- --- --- --- Ontonagon 37,300 --- 110 200 TOTALS 192,900 226,600 386 24,750 YEAR 2UOU Alger 1,200 --- 20 --- Baraga (See RBG 2.1) 153,500 11,000 70 4,000 Chippewa --- --- --- --- Gogebic 78,000 --- 186 250 Houghton --- 325,800 --- 20,300 Keweenaw --- --- --- --- Luce --- --- --- Marquette (See RBG 2.1) --- --- --- --- Ontonagon 66,400 --- 110 200 TOTALS 299,100 336,800 386 24,750 YEAR 2020 Alger 1,300 --- 20 --- Baraga (See RBG 2.1) 202,200 13,000 70 4,000 Chippewa --- --- --- --- Gogebic 114,700 --- 186 250 Houghton --- 362,000 --- 20,300 Keweenaw --- --- --- --- Luce --- --- --- --- Marquette (See RBG 2.1) --- --- --- --- Ontonagon 119,400 --- 110 200 TOTALS 437,600 375,000 386 24,750 On main stem and principal tributaries 22 Appendix 14 report along limited areas of the five streams ing such a flood are in the vicinity of the three in Manitowoc County dam sites at Michicot, Shoto, and Manitowoc (2) 1970-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- Rapids. prone area reports along numerous reaches of Figure 14-16c identifies the time period in streams in the basin which major damages, as defined in this study, (3) 1969-U.S. Soil Conservation Service- are first noted within a given reach on the Preliminary Investigation Report, Brillion main stem and principal tributaries. Table Spring Creek Watershed, Calumet and Man- 14-13 shows the flood plain damages by reach itowoc Counties, Wisconsin corresponding to the reaches designated in (4) 1932-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- this figure. Table 14-14 depicts upstream flood Document No. 481, House of Representatives, damages. Location of these damages within 72nd Congress, 2nd Session particular watersheds may be seen in Figure (5) 1912-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- 14-17c. Summations of estimated average an- Document No. 136, House of Representatives, nual damages and acres in the flood plain are 63rd Congress, 1st Session. This report consid- shown by river basin in Table 14-15. County ered extending the navigation channel at summaries for the main stem and principal Manitowoc Harbor. No work was recom- tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-16. mended. (6) 1906-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers- Document No. 3, House of Representatives, 1.4.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention 59th Congress, 2nd Session Measures There are no existing Federal flood control 1.4.3 Development in the Flood Plain projects in the river basin. Manitowoc County has adopted flood plain The greater portion of the population of the legislation as a means of guiding and control- Manitowoc River basin is located in Man- ling development in flood plains. Refer to Ap- itowoc, at the mouth of the Manitowoc River. pendix S20, State Laws, Policies and Institu- The population of this city is approximately tional Arrangements for a discussion of flood 40,000 and is increasing. The rural population plain legislation. is also increasing due to an increase in non- farm population. The rural farm population is decreasing. 1.5 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin The character of the county is basically in- Group 2.1, Sheboygan River Basin dustrially oriented, as reflected by the popula- tion trend. Agriculture plays a secondary, al- though important, role in the economy of the 1.5.1 Description county. Manufacturing of consumer goods is the most important industry. The Sheboygan River rises in Fond du Lac There is a harbor at the mouth of the Man- County, Wisconsin, and flows in an easterly itowoc River with a channel dredged and direction into Lake Michigan. The stream bed maintained to a depth of 21 feet. This channel falls approximately 375 feet over the length of extends up to the second railway bridge, ap- the river. The mouth of the Sheboygan River proximately 1.6 miles from the mouth. is located approximately 55 miles north of Milwaukee. Location of the river within River Basin Group 2.1 is shown in Figure 14-15. The 1.4.4 Flood Problems reach from the point where the Mullet River joins the Sheboygan to the mouth of the Major floods occurred in 1912, 1931, 1937, Sheboygan is approximately 39 miles long 1959, and 1966. Although floods resulting from with an average fall of 2.3 feet per mile. heavy thunderstorms during the summer have caused substantial damage, the most serious flooding in this area has occurred in 1.5.2 Previous Studies late winter and early spring. Melting snow coincident with a moderate amount of precipi- Sheboygan Harbor has been the subject of a tation at this time can cause rivers and creeks number of studies by the Corps of Engineers, to break up, causing ice jams and extensive but no study of the river outside of the naviga- flooding. The most seriously flooded areas dur- ble limits of the harbor has been published. Flood Plains Inventory 23 -3n@n- MAP L"ke ft'hog-e IRM4 k&,, I,- R@vcr R,- A41C11i Gq DICKINSO-N C 0/VS/jV o P,.ne RiW MENOM N P-Ppl. I- mounta " . FLOR NCE K-ngsfor@@ j at'. A IR-I-N-E------ - Cd., ME INEE MENOMINEE Rill" D EST QWASHiNGDTC1N ISL 'N A .e. o DE A t @LANCIA PESHTI 0 M OMIN m ar. ette OCONTO ( Oconto St., Bay lbt S awano I ke DOOR smawa OCONTO SAUMICO KEWAUNEE: Iint.n@llle Z Liffle i@ ____ - % 't A@E;on'a $b OUTA F o Ox pl." Bay , I Kewaunee New London ROWN jo MAN TOW C WAUPACA 8.ppleton Kaukau h CAL M-IT SH BOYGA Neenah GRE N AY j it! tl@.' Two R-m E. Pyg.. m ftowoc LEGEND WAUS ARA B.,Ijn O.t*o@h ChtRan BOUNDARIES STATE WINNEBAGO COUNTY F0 D DU LAC S E 'iGA 0 Ri P@' PLANNING AREA Lake Fond du Lac 5b byq., Sheboygan RIVER BASIN GROUP yrno t RIVER BASIN MAR ETTE GREEN LAKE _Wall... OR COMPLEX SCALE IN M;tES 0,l 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-15 Lake Michigan Northwest-River Basin Group 2.1 24 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-13 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.1 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N -J _j -j I -j AVERAGE ANNUAL X .1 .3 !1 C@' REACH DAMAGES zs @ ;-- M TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR cm Uj: FROM TO (DOLL RS) Uj G?2 Uj ME: @ IM, URBAN RURAL LAJ LLJ LW NJ C3 w- URBA RURAL 01 MENOMINEE RIVER Menominee T31N T38N 1970 5.3oo 25 10980 11,005 R27W Sl R29W S2 1980 5,917 25 10989 11,005 2000 7,370 25 10980 11,005 2020 9,170 25 1098* 11,005 01A Menominee Menominee 1970 58,000 70 70 1980 91,800 70 70 2000 197,000 70 70 2020 433,000 70 70 02 Marinette T30N T38N 1970 60,000 16,100 32 73 50 18975 105 19,025 R24E S9 R20E S7 1980 61,300 16,410 32 73 50 1897@ 10,1 19,025 2000 60,600 16,255 32 73 50 1897@ 105 19,025 2020 54,300 14,650 32 73 50 1897 105 19,025 02A Marinette Marinette 1970 100,000 125 125 1980 140,000 125 125 2000 246,000 125 125 2020 391,000 125 125 03 Dickinson T39N T41N 1970 5,066 30 2570 2,600 Includes Kingsford R29w S35 R30W S30 1980 5,580 30 2570 2,600 Same 2000 5,995 30 570 2,600 Same 2020 5,608 30 570 2,600 Same 04 Iron T14N T41N 1970 80 436 436 R31W S25 R31W S16 1980 84 436 436 2000 88 436 436 2020 96 436 436 05 Florence T38N T41N 1970 27,800 1,647 12 30 10 010 42 1,020 R13W S12 R18E S12 1980 27,000 1,547 12 30 10 010 42 1,020 2000 26,000 1,439 12 30 10 010 42 1,020 2020 28,000 1,664 12 30 10 010 42 1,020 06 BRULE RIVER Florence T40N T41N 1970 1,125 6 4247 4,253 R18E S12 R15E S19 1980 1,090 6 4247 4,253 2000 1,049 6 4247 4,253 2020 1,136 6 4247 4,253 07 Forest T41N T41N 1970 4,834 12 5456 5,468 R15E S19 R13E S15 1980 3,575 12 5456 5,468 2000 3,625 12 5456 5,468 2020 4,302 12 5456 5,468 08 Iron T41N T42N 1970 3,138 4761 4,761 R31W S16 R36W S18 1980 3,349 4761 4,761 2000 3,511 4761 4,761 2020 3,834 4761 4,761 0 STURGEON RIVER 09 Dickinso I T38N T41N 1970 8,460 2,420 1 3 7415 4 7,415 Includes Loretto n R29W S23 R28W S27 1980 7,780 2,225 1 3 7415 4 7,415 Same 2000 8,300 2,370 1 3 7415 4 7,415 Same 2020 7,820 2,238 1 3 7409 io 7,409 Same MICHIGAMKE RIVER 010 Iron T41N T44N 1970 2 270 20 6765, 6 785 R31W S16 R31W S25 1980 2:388 20 6765 6:785 2000 2,498 20 6765 6,785 2020 2,726 20 6765 6,785 Flood Plains Inventory 25 TABLE 14-13(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.1 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N cl c) REACH E'i CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES I'- ;-- O@ TOTAL REMARKS z FROM TO (DOLL RS) C' URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL AVERAGE ANNUAL Oll Dickinsor T44N T44N 1970 158 2151 2,151 R31W S25 R30W Sl 1980 145 2151 2,151 2000 155 2151 2,151 2020 159 2151 2,151 012 Marquette T44N T48N 1970 16,900 8,100 2 6 40 6262 168 6,142 R30W Sl R31W S25 1980 16,300 7,810 2 6 40 6262 168 6,142 2000 16,100 7,650 2 6 40 6262 168 6,142 2020 16,600 7,590 2 6 40 6262 168 6,142 013 Baraga T48N T48N 1970 45 133 133 R31W S25 R31W 5 25 1980 47 133 133 2000 49 133 133 2020 54 133 133 PAINT RIVER 014 Iron T41N T44N 1970 21,100 1,574 18 42 15 4395 61 4,409 Includes Gibbs City, Crystal R32W S12 R35W S9 1980 22,100 1,650 18 42 15 4395 60 4,410 Falls, Same 2000 23,200 1,930 18 42 15 4395 65 4,405 Same 2020 25,300 1,887 18 42 15 4395 70 4,400 Same IRON RIVER 015 Iron T42N T43N 1970 51,000 110 257 1225 367 1,225 R34W S29 R36W Sl 1980 53,500 110 257 1225 367 1,225 2000 59,000 110 257 1225 367 1,225 2020 70,800 110 257 1225 367 1,225 PINE RIVER 016 Florence T39N T39N 1970 40 2624 2,624 @Rl 9E S26 R17E S23 1980 39 2624 2,624 2000 37 2624 2,624 2020 41 2624 2,624 PESHTIGO RIVER Pi Marinette Mouth Rat River 1970 22,000 58,440 120 280 4456, 400 44,560 1980 22,400 59,560 130 280 44550 400 44,550 2000 22,200 59,100 120 285 4455 405 44,555 2020 19,990 52,920 160 200 4460 360 44,600 PlA Marinette Peshtigo 1970 44,100 90 210 20 320 1980 61,740 90 210 20 320 2000 108,170 90 210 20 320 2020 172,200 90 210 20 320 OCONTO RIVER Rl Oconto T28N T29N 1970 46,500 9,160 60 140 50 9610 200 9,660 Includes Oconto, Oconto Falls, R21E 520 R7E S13 1980 46,000 9,062 60 138 52 9610 198 9,662 Gillet, Stiles, & Underhill 2000 45,200 8,881 54 140 56 96-10 194 9,668 Same 2020 39,600 7,782 50 120 80 9610 170 9,690 Same FOX RIVER Tl Brown T23N T21N 1970 140,000 2,960 18 42 .230 60 1,230 Includes Greenbay, West Depere, R20E 925 R18E S4 1980 238,000 5,024 20 50 220 70 1,220 Wright.t.- , Dep.r. 2000 595,000 12,610 40 70 .180 110 1,180 Same 2020 .1,520,000 32,100 50 100 140 130 1,140 Same T2 butagamie T21N T19N 1970 140,000 3,320 18 42 230 60 1,230 Includes Kaukana, Kimberly, R18E S4 R17E S27 1980 220,000 5,218 24 48 288 72 1,288 Little Chute, Appleton, Menasha 2000 546,000 12,970 38 70 252 108 1,282 Same 2020 1,300,000 30,920 37 75 1248 112 1,248 Same T3 4innebago T18N T17N 1970 212,000 23,800 20 50 318( 70 13,230 Includes Oshkosh, Winnegone, R16E S26 R13E S31 1980 244,000 27,400 10 30 318( 80 13,220 Butte, Omro, Eureka,,Desmore 2000 330,000 36,940 20 70 315- 90 13,210 Same 2020 456,000 51,210 30 90 311( 120 13,180 Same T4 Jaushara T17N T17N 1970 8,610 10 421( 4,220 R13E S31 R13E S34 1980 9,520 10 421( 4,220 2000 11,031 10 421( 4,220 2020 11,867 10 421( 4,220 1 1 26 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-13(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.1 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN -J _j -j -j = AVERAGE ANNUAL .1 X -X cm 10 REACH COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES REMARKS CODE Ot Wei W (DOLLARS) =DW o: FROM TO X: 2 In V)N URBAN I RURA w , T5 Green T17N T16N 1970 140,000 52,350 25 35 10 26931 60 28,940 Includes Berlin, Princeton Lake R13E S34 RIIE S24 1980 160,000 59,725 35 35 10 28920 70 28,930 Same 2000 185,000 69,226 40 46 10 28910 80 28,920 Same 2020 211,000 79,130 30 60 10 28900 90 28,910 Same WAUPACA RIVER T6 Waupaca Mouth Waupaca 1970 53,600 26,400 292 680 10423 972 10,423 Co. Line 1980 51,400 25,340 292 680 1042. 972 10,423 2000 51,900 25,560 292 680 1042 972 10,423 2020 48,600 24,040 292 680 1042 972 10,423 EMBARRASS RIVER T7 Waupaca New London New London 1970 88,000 160 190 445 14 635 14 Includes New London City Limit City Limit 1980 84,500 150 190 445 14 635 14 Same 2000 85,500 155 190 445 14 635 14 Sam 2020 80,000 145 190 445 14 635 14 Same T8 Outagamie ew London Outagamie 1970 25,400 34,300 56 128 1082 184 10,824 Waupaca 1980 40,500 55,000 100 172 10736 272 10,736 Co. Line 2000 47,000 63,500 110 180 10711 290 10,718 2020 54,800 73,700 116 200 1069 316 10,692 T9 Waupaca Outagamie Shawano 1970 18,200 10,740 22 51 1674 73 1,674 daupaca Waupaca 198Q 17,500 10,330 22 51 1674 73 1,674 'o. Line Co. Line 2000 17,650 10,435 22 51 1674 73 1,674 2020 16,600 9,800 22 51 1674 73 1,674 WOLF RIVER TIO Shawano Shawano Menominee 1970 29,800 11,260 80 18: 11:61 268 11 864 Shawano 1980 28,000 10,590 80 18 11 6 268 11:864 Co. Line 2000 27,400 10,360 80 188 11861 268 11,864 2020 24,800 9,360 80 188 1186 268 11,864 T10A Shawano Shawano 1970 179,250 486 1134 118 1738 1980 168,175 486 1134 118 1738 2000 164,650 486 1134 118 1738 2020 148,640 486 1134 118 1738 WOLF RIVER Tll Langlade 'nominee Post Lakes 1970 65,800 31,100 178 415 16313 593 16,313 anglade Dam 1980 61,400 29,087 178 415 1631J 593 16,313 Co. Line 2000 65,800 31,110 178 415 1630 593 16,313 @L 2020 75,000 36,200 200 430 1627 630 16,276 FOND DU LAC RIVER T12 Fond Do T15N T15N 1970 159 000 704 1646 750 3100 Fond Do Lac City Lac JRJ 7E S15 RI 7E S3 1980 246:000 704 1646 750 3100 Sam 2000 553,000 704 1646 750 3100 Sam 2020 1,230,000 704 1646 750 3100 Sam MANITOWOC RIVER Ul Kanitowoc T19N T19N 1970 21,150 26,350 47 95 7281 142 7,281 Includes Manitowac Rapids, t R24E S29 R21E S31 1980 23,500 29,210 53 108 7270 153 7,270 Collins 2000 30,000 37,490 73 120 7230 193 7,230 Same 2020 37,800 47,240 133 200 7190 233 7,190 Sam UIA Manitowoc)Manitowo 1970 152,350 186 12 198 @ FLOOD PLAIN L @BTOTA AN 1980 232,456 186 12 198 2000 528,215 186 12 198 2020 1,182,710 186 12 198 SHEBOYGAN RIVER U2 3heboyganjR2Tl5N R2T15N 1970 220,000 2,900 28 66 854 94 854 Includes Sheboygan, 3E S23 2E S35 1980 330,000 4,350 28 66 854 94 854 Sheboygan Falls 2000 715,000 9,425 28 66 854 94 854 Same 2020 1,550,000 20,400 28 66 854 94 854 Same Flood Plains Inventory 27 TABLE 14-14 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.1 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN AVERAGE ANNUAL 0 0 -j 4 -1 Mw z MZ to DAMAGES z C" UJ 4 ft Uj z TOTAL 2D YEAR (DOLLARS) 0 x jr w w M a. 0 0 z 41 0 0 cc0 E M 0. z 0 URBAN 1RURALITOTAL URBAN RURAL Mx complj& - WISCONSA 5H22 1970 700 700 200 100 4,650 4,350 9,300 5H23 1970 2,500 2,500 600 600 4,100 700 6,000 5H24 1970 1,000 1,000 200 600 4,150 1,150 6,100 5R25 1970 -- 700 700 240 300 4,500 960 6,000 5H27 1970 2,200 32,000 34,200 4,850 1,100 1,800 2,850 5 5 10 10,600 5H28 1970 2,500 9,300 11,800 875 150 225 250 -- 100 100 1,500 5H29 1970 1,400 15,500 16,900 2,150 900 8,500 1,850 6 6 12 13,400 SE210 1970 18,000 4,500 22,500 1,000 650 2,250 300 35 50 15 100 4,200 5R2ll 1970 -- 12,800 12,800 1,625 575 2,950 1,100 -- -- -- -- 6,250 5H212 1970 21,000 21,000 2,400 1,000 1,900 1,300 6,600 5H213 1970 11,500 11,500 1,250 1,250 6,000 4,000 12,500 5H214 1970 5,500 19,500 25,000 2,000 700 800 2,100 25 25 -- 50 5,600 5H215 1970 800 21,000 21,800 3,800 2,550 3,550 1,600 -- 3 3 6 11,500 5R216 1970 -- 9,500 9,500 1,350 400 600 550 2,900 5H217 1970 -- 10,500 10,500 1,750 850 1,000 1,600 5,200 5H218 1970 8,500 9,500 18,000 1,500 1,450 2,400 5,650 25 85 45 155 11,000 5H219 1970 2,200 13,500 15,700 2,100 1,050 1,150 1,400 -- 20 -- 20 5,700 -5HllA 1970 -- 28,600 28,600 2,800 1,500 300 900 5,500 5H12A 1970 19P800 19,800 2,000 1,000 200 1,700 4,900 5H13A 1970 9P400 9,400 1,100 800 1,200 1,300 4,400 5Hl4A 1970 12,100 12,100 1,150 250 450 850 2,700 5HI 1970 4,900 4,900 700 600 350 350 2,000 5H2 1970 5,000 5,000 1,100 1,800 1,550 950 5,400 5H3 1970 38,500 27,000 65,500 3,000 2,200 2,100 1,400 50 280 50 380 8,700 5H4 1970 15,000 9,300 24,300 1,150 1,450 1,000 2,900 -- 600 -- 600 6,500 5H5 1970 -- 14,300 14,300 1,650 1,000 200 450 3,300 5H6 1970 1,300 1,300 250 350 100 300 1,000 5H7 1970 1,700 1,700 250 100 400 250 1,000 5HO 1970 4,400 4,400 750 600 500 550 2,400 5H9 1970 19,800 19,800 2,300 1,600 950 3,450 8,300 5HlO 1970 2,200 2,200 315 850 585 2,750 4,500 5HIl 1970 3,100 3,100 400 550 500 650 2,100 5H12 1970 3,500 6,100 9,600 1,300 1,850 5,000 4,850 5 35 10 50 13,000 5H13 1970 -- 20,300 20,300 2,450 Boo 400 1,150 -- -- 40 40 4,800 5H14 1970 -- 14,000 14,000 1,500 550 1,050 1,900 -- -- 5,000 5H15 1970 1,500 3,300 4,800 400 650 550 600 20 20 2,200 5H17 1970 -- 3,600 3,600 550 150 300 -- -- -- 1,000 5H18 1970 2,300 39,600 41,900 8,350 1,100 800 3,050 10 10 20 13,300 5H19 1970 -- -- 9,900 9,900 1.L20@ 1,300 500 12390 -- -- -- 4,300 Total 1970 lol;-6-00 454,700 556,600 62,555 35,275 69,510 63,31( 151 1,219 193 1,563 230,650 1980 135,500 650,200 785,700 62,555 35,275 69,510 63,31( 151 1,219 193 1,563 230,650 2000 244,600 827,600 1,072,200 62,555 35,275 69,510 63,31( 151 1,219 193 1,563 230,650 2020 463,600 859,400 1,323,000 62,555 35,275 69,510 63,31( 151 1,219 193 1,563 230,650 GREEN BAY WISCONSIN 59 1970 40,500 40,500 3,700 2,40C 1,000 1,30( -- -- -- -- 8,400 510 1970 23,000 23,000 4,100 1,80C 3,000 6,90( 15,800 511 1970 16,000 16,000 2,000 70C 650 95( 4,300 512 1970 13,500 13,500 1,550 1,05C 1,400 1,20( 5,200 513 1970 42,000 42,000 5,000 1,10( 1,600 2,30( 10,000 514 1970 35,000 18,000 53,000 3,100 40( 500 1,00( 25 60 15 100 5,GOO 515 1970 -- 15,500 15,500 2,000 65( 900 65( -- -- -- -- 4,200 517 1970 3,000 23,500 26,500 3,000 1,25( 2,100 2,05( 15 10 25 8,400 518 1970 1,300 26,500 27,803 3,200 50( 1,650 1,55( 8 4 12 6,900 519 1970 -- 7,500 7,500 900 30( 500 30( -- -- -- 2,000 520 1970 6,500 25,000 31,500 3,000 60( 1,500 1,90( 10 35 30 75 7,000 521 1970 -- -- -- 250 5( 150 25( -- -- -- -- 700 522 1970 1,500 9,300 10,800 1,020 55( 3,700 1,53( 50 75 125 6,800 523 1970 8,500 13,000 21,500 1,000 25( 200 65( 50 50 100 2,100 524 1970 11,000 36,500 47,500 4,300 1,-80( 1,600 2,80( 50 200 50 300 10,500 525 1970 -- 15,500 15,500 2,050 95( 850 75( -- -- -- -- 4,600 526 1970 13,500 23,500 37,000 4,350 1,60( 2,600 75( 70 20 90 9,300 527 1970 -- 9,000 9,000 1,150 1,35( 2,500 1,00( -- -- -- 6,000 528 1970 -- --- 14,500 141500 1,850 2,05( 4,100 1,30( 9,300 Total 1970 90-,306 372,300 452,600 47,520 19,35( 30,500 29,13( -85- -Ii8-8 -f5-4- --92-7 12-6,500 1980 106,800 532,400 639,200 47,520 19,35( 30,500 29,13( 85 488 254 827 126,500 2000 192,700 677,600 870,300 47,520 19 35( 30 500 29,13( 85 488 254 827 126,500 2020 365,400 703,600 130693000 4715201 19:35 30,1500 29,131 85 488 254 827 126,500 (D 0 x nx x pqx x x x x v @e te 0 (D 0 (D > > W (D W It') C+ 0 0 to to w w 0 m 'I '1 -4 -4 't -4 -4 .4 -4 .4 0 0 00 -4 to 0 OD 1 00 @ @ -4 C+ M (D 00000000000000000000 0000 0000 000000 C-t D3 C+ o- &0 0) co I 1 0 1 (D (D (D 01 1!4 10 1 I.Cl IN, I wIw 0 0 9 t4 .4.1,00 OD C+ P., 000010000100 1 0100 0 0000 .00 1 0 U2 00000000 co 0 00 0 t1i 0000 .00 0 Z, -- oq (D t-i C+ rt w tj to -4 .4 0 cn I, CL w (D 000080000000 0 0000 0 0 0 o 0000 0000,00 e- 0000 0000000 0 0 0 C. 0 2 0000 0000 C4 000000 0 ca 0 1, 0, - @g E (D 0 2z to 0 w 0 t4 'I m w In 0 0 I'W@4 -00 ll@ "I I IN) co w 1 .9-. 0 tz,414161 w 10 14 00 'w m 0 00000000000000000000 0000 0000 0000 0 C, 0 0 11 110-0100"0000000000000 0000 0000 0000100 oq (D U2 C'+ @:s 0 @:r . I 1@1 Ir ID m o- WH W- C-V@ 0 -. Ow W . w OW C> M W -4 -4 .4 -j C. m (A 0 0 CA C. 0 0 Ul _wwuw,wOOOOOoOOO COCO 0000- 0000 100 00 100 00 00' Wo En I-@ Clt- 0 0 w w w a> too w 0 w 0 LP 0 cn 0 0 0 0 CA w ba IN) 0 0000 0000.0 0000 0000 coocroo ID < C, N to to wl IN) Hl S, j 1 10 -1 m w to w tol: 10 5. . OC 10 00 Wo 0 1 In m 0) m 0000 000000 0 0000 0000 0 co 0000 0000 0 0 0 0 @i 0 C+ 0) In 0 m m0 w m m 0w 0 w 00 1 00 00 00 00 0 0 CIO 0 -0000 00000 co 0000 Coco 0 0 0 D U' CD C-t- -.oq aq M (D -0 oq 0@ (D Cc+ Z -.1 0 P 0 IN, Cl+ 0 0 (D c+ -4 -3 -41 N 10 CP 100 1 0 Wo 00 00 0000 Coco 0 li M n (D (D C+ (D c+ -0 n M C+ U2 -4 -4 -4 -4 'P@ w II I 1 0 CA 0 0 ND m 0 0 0 Ol: 0 V I I I t I 1 000 0000 d: (D CD (D "', a, PO = I. - 0 (D Z lci @i' p -t. w w w I. IN, w w ba !+ C+ n OOOOt,)&OO IMWIWIW'o"IiI 0 1 1 1 1 0000 4 & .41 orq In wwwwba 000 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0000 00001 0 p " -j- ""h = I V P m @:r M 0 0 IT) Ii n @! p En m oc -4 '1 IN) N w w I C+ C+ 0000 Coco 0000 00 u CA 00,0000 0000000000 0000 0000 000000 Flood Plains Inventory 29 TABLE 14-15 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.1 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Fox River 1970 1052050 659P710 9.1376 3305682 1980 1)694p975 887.@584 9.q453 3305605 2000 2.@913P500 1.Jil.4487 9.9620 330.1438 2020 5.)628.9940 114217,4872 9@1767 330.9291 Sheboygan-Green 1970 4731@800 401@P550 1.1261 1343635 Bay Complex 1980 692P756 565.9 960 1.2272 134.1624 2000 131465.@915 724.9515 1.7312 134.5584 2020 3.@135)910 771@240 1.9352 134P544 Oconto River 1970 60@000 12@260 400 22.9260 1980 64.9000 13.9 462 398 22)262 2000 77.1600 143481 394 22.1266 2020 101)000 13)682 370 22 JP290 Peshtigo 1970 66.11100 65.9940 720 51)560 River 1980 84.1140 70.@260 730 515550 2000 130070 72)800 725 51 3 555 2020 1925100 67.9 120 680 51,600 Menominee 1970 382P160 59P747 1Y883 108.$818 River 1980 471;1480 63.9 006 1;895 1083806 2000 729,9500 67@921 1P907 1085794 2020 1.9 203P820 70JI315 1.1928 108.1773 Menominee - Damage is negligible. Complex Suamico Complex - Damage is negligible. Pensaukee - Damage is negligible. Complex TOTAL 1970 2.@3351010 1P1995207 13.1640 647,955 1980 35007.9351 [email protected] 13;748 6473847 2000 5.016.1885 1.9 991P204 13;958 6473637 2020 10.5261.9770 2P140)229 14,9097 6475498 are defined by the Corps'Flood Plain Informa- which major damages, as defined in this study, tion Study. The river flows between high are first noted within a given reach on the banks for much of its length. The fluctuations main stem and principal tributaries. Table of water level at Sheboygan Harbor result from 14-13 shows the flood plain damages by reach seasonal variations in the level of Lake Michi- corresponding to the reaches designated on gan. Overbank flooding is caused by ice jams. this figure. Table 14-14 depicts upstream flood Figure 14-16c identifies the time period in damages. Location of these damages within 30 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-16 River Basin Group 2.1, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban Rural Michigan -5-iEckinson 8,460 7,644 4 12,166 Iron 72,100 7,112 427 17,617 Menominee 58,000 5,300 70 11,005 Baraga (PSA 1.2) --- 45 --- 133 Marquette (PSA 1.2) 16,900 8,100 168 6,142 Wisconsin Brown 140,000 2,960 60 1,230 Calumet --- --- --- --- Door --- --- --- --- Florence 27,800 2,812 42 7,897 Fond du Lac 159,000 --- 3,100 --- Forest --- 4,834 --- 5,468 Green Lake 140,000 52,350 60 28,940 Kewaunee --- --- --- --- Langlade 65,800 31,110 593 16,313 Manitowoc 173,500 26,350 340 7,281 Marinette 226,100 74,540 950 63,585 Menominee --- --- --- --- Oconto 46,500 9,160 200 9,660 Outagamie 165,400 37,620 244 12,124 Shawano 209,050 11,260 2,006 11,864 Sheboygan 220,000 2,900 94 854 Waupaca 159,800 37,300 1,680 12,111 Waushara --- 8,610 --- 4,220 Winnebago 212,000 23,800 70 13,230 TOTALS 2,100,410 353,807 10,108 241,840 YEAR 1980 Mi-chigan -9i-ckinson 7,780 7,950 4 12,166 Iron 75,600 7,471 439 17,605 Menominee 91,800 5,917 70 11,005 Baraga (PSA 1.2) --- 47 --- 133 Marquette (PSA 1.2) 16,300 7,810 168 6,142 Wisconsin Nr-own 238,000 5,024 70 1,220 Calumet --- --- --- --- Door --- --- --- --- Florence 21,000 2,726 42 7,897 Fond du Lac 24@,000 --- 3,100 --- Forest --- 3,575 --- 5,468 Green Lake 160,000 59,725 70 28,930 Kewaunee --- --- --- --- Langlade 61,400 29,087 540 16,366 Manitowoc 255,956 29,210 351 7,270 Marinette 285,440 75,970 960 63,573 Menominee --- --- --- --- Oconto 46,000 9,062 198 9,662 Outagamie 260,500 60,218 344 12,024 Shawano 196,175 10,590 2,006 11,864 Sheboygan 330,000 4,350 94 854 Waupaca 153,400 35,820 1,680 12,111 Waushara --- 9,520 --- 4,220 Winnebago 244,000 27,400 80 13,220 TOTALS 2,695,351 391,472 10,216 241,732 On main stem and principal tributaries Flood Plains Inventory 31 TABLE 14-16(continued) River Basin Group 2.1, Data Summary by County YEAR 2000 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban Rural Michigan Dickinson 8,300 8,520 4 12,166 Iron 82,200 7,827 451 17,593 Menominee 197,000 7,370 70 11,005 Baraga (PSA 1.2 --- 49 --- 133 Marquette (PSA 1.2) 16,100 7,650 168 6,142 Wisconsin Brown 595,000 12,610 110 1,180 Calumet --- --- --- --- Door --- --- --- --- Florence 26,000 2,525 42 7,897 Fond du Lac 553,000 --- 3,100 --- Forest --- 3,625 --- 5,468 Green Lake 185,000 69,226 80 28,920 Kewaunee --- --- --- --- Langlade 65,800 31,110 593 16,313 Manitowoc 538,215 37,490 391 7,230 Marinette 436,970 75,355 955 63,580 Menominee --- --- --- --- Oconto 45,200 8,881 194 9,666 Outagamie 593,000 76,470 398 11,970 Shawano 192,050 10,360 2,006 11,864 Sheboygan 715,000 9,425 94 854 Waupaca 155,050 36,140 1,680 12,111 Waushara --- 11,031 --- 4,220 Winnebago 330,000 36,940 90 13,210 TOTALS 753,885 452,604 10,426 241,522 YEAR 2020 Michigan DicE-inson 72820 82005 10 12,610 Iron 962100 8,543 466 17,578 Menominee 433,000 9,170 70 11,005 Baraga (PSA 1.2) --- 54 --- 133 Marquette (PSA 1.2) 16,600 7,950 168 6,142 Wisconsin EFr-own 1,520,000 32,100 150 1,140 Calumet --- --- --- --- Door --- --- --- --- Florence 28,000 2,841 42 7,897 Fond du Lac 1,230,000 --- 3,100 --- Forest --- 4,302 --- 5,468 Green Lake 211,000 79,130 90 28,910 Kewaunee --- --- --- --- Langlade 75,000 36,200 630 16,276 Manitowoc 1,220,510 47,240 431 7,190 Marinette 637,400 67,570 910 63,625 Menominee --- --- --- --- Oconto 39,600 7,782 170 9,690 Outagamie 1,354,800 104,620 428 11,940 Shawano 173,340 9,360 2,006 11,864 Sheboygan 1,550,000 20,400 94 854 Waupaca 145,200 33,985 1,680 12,111 Waushara --- 11,867 --- 4,220 Winnebago 456,000 51,210 120 13,180 TOTALS 9,194,370 542,329 10,565 241,383 On main stem and principal tributaries 32 Appendix 14 particular watersheds may be seen in Figure (4) 1967-U.S. Soil Conservation 14-17c. Summations of estimated average an- Service-Preliminary Report, Fond du Lac nual damages and acres in the flood plain are Area Watershed, Fond du Lac County, Wis- shown by river basin in Table 14-15. County consin summaries for the main stem and principal (5) 1966-Technical Study Group, State tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-16. Soil and Water Conservation Committee of Wisconsin, Study of an East Central Wiscon- sin Watershed, Fond du Lac County, Wiscon- 1.5.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention sin Measures (6) 1963-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Review Report on Upper Fox River Naviga- There are no existing Federal flood control tion Project, Wisconsin. A project was not rec- projects in the river basin. Refer to Appendix ommended. S20, State Laws, Policies, and Institutional (7) 1949-Preliminary Examination Re- Arrangements, for a discussion of flood plain port on Fox River and Tributaries, Wisconsin, legislation. for Flood Control and Other Purposes, pre- pared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (not published) 1.6 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin (8) 1931-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Group 2.1, Fox River Basin House Document 212, 72nd Congress, 1st Ses- sion. This report was a preliminary report on navigation, flooding, and power throughout 1.6.1 Description the Fox River basin. This study recommended further study of a flood control plan. The Fox River rises in Columbia County, (9) 1922-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wisconsin, and flows in a northerly direction Document No. 146, House of Representatives, into Green Bay, an arm of Lake Michigan. Lo- 67th Congress, 2nd Session. This is a general cation within River Basin Group 2.1 is shown in study of the Fox River. The report recom- Figure 14-15. Lake Winnebago divides the Fox mends that the Federal government partici- into two distinct regions. The upper section, pate in land reclamation by local interests. It from Portage to Lake Winnebago, is 107 miles also recommends abandonment of the Federal long with a fall of 40 feet. The lower section, navigation project in the upper Fox River. from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay, is 37 miles long and has a fall of 168 feet. The total area drained by the upper and lower Fox is 1.6.3 Development in the Flood Plain approximately 2,000 square miles (upper, 1680, and lower, 320). The main tributaries of The Fox River basin contains numerous the Fox are the White River and the Puchyan towns and cities along the river, the largest River, both on the upper Fox, and the Wolf being Green Bay, Oshkosh, Appleton, Neenah, River, which enters Lake Winnebago. Much of Fond du Lac, and Menasha. Although there is the area along the upper Fox basin is marshy, some agriculture in the plain, it is not signifi- whereas along the lower Fox the river banks cant. Numerous dams and locks are located on are relatively high and the surrounding area the upper and lower Fox. At present, the lower well drained. waterway is used mainly for recreational boating. The locks on the upper Fox River have been sealed since 1958. 1.6.2 Previous Studies Previous studies are listed below: 1.6.4 Flood Problems (1) 1970-Soil Conservation Board, Feasi- bility Study Report, Neenah Slough Wa- In extreme high water periods, some farm- tershed, Winnebago County, Wisconsin land is inundated long enough to prevent (2) 1969-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- crops from being grown that year. Under nor- prone area reports along numerous reaches of mal high water conditions the land usually the streams in the basin drains early enough so that a crop can be (3) 1968-Soil Conservation Board, Feasi- planted. Fond du Lac River, a tributary of the bility Study Report, Fast River Watershed, Fox River, is subject to ice jams causing flood- Brown and Calumet Counties, Wisconsin ing in Fond du Lac. Flood Plains Inventory 33 Figure 14-16c identifies the time period in Poygan and Winneconne, joins the Fox River which major damages, as defined in this study, approximately 10 miles above Oshkosh. Below are first noted within a given reach on the New London it connects directly with three main stem and principal tributaries. Table lakes, Partridge Crop, Cincee, and Partridge, 14-13 shows the flood plain damages by reach which rise and fall with the river. Although corresponding to the reaches designated on the Wolf River is designated as a tributary this figure. Table 14-14 depicts upstream flood of the Fox River, the Wolf is physically the damages. Location of these damages within main river. The Wolf River drainage basin, particular watersheds may be seen in Figure which is quite regular in outline, extends 110 14-17c. Summations of estimated average an- miles along its north-south dimension. Its nual damages and acres in the flood plain are width is 30 miles at the southerly end, 57 miles shown by river basin in Table 14-15. County at a point midway between New London and summaries for the main stem and principal Shawano, and 5 miles near the source. All the tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-16. major tributaries of the stream enter from the west and relatively near the mouth. These in- clude the Waupaca and Little- Wolf Rivers below New London, the Embarrass at New 1.6.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention London, the Red River a few miles above Measures Shawano, and the West Branch a few miles above Keshena. The Shioe River, the principal There are no existing Federal flood control branch on the east bank, joins the Wolf River projects in the river basin. However, there is at Shiocton. In the upper half of its course the some flood storage available in Lake Win- Wolf River flows through a bed of crystalline nebago, especially during winter and spring. rocks lying near the surface. Here the river de- The Federal government regulates the out- scends rapidly. In the 99-mile distance from flow of Lake Winnebago through the Menasha the railroad crossing, 41/2 miles north of Post dam for navigation purposes. The legal limits Lake, to Semples Bridge, 10 miles below of regulation are from 211/4 inches above the Shawano, the river descends 786 feet or 7.94 crest down to the crest of Menasha dam dur- feet per mile. The river flows over many falls ing the navigation season, and an additional and rapids in this section. Near Shawano the drawdown of 18 to 24 inches during winter. river passes from the crystalline rock region to The flood storage thus provided is incidental sandstone strata. A few more miles to operation of the dam in the interest of navi- downstream it enters a region of red clay. gation and power. Below Semples Bridge the river becomes The Cities of Berlin, Kimberly, Menasha, sluggish. From the bridge to Lake Winnebago, and Neenah have adopted flood plain legisla- 117 miles downstream, the river descends only tion as a means of guiding and controlling de- 39.2 feet or 0.335 foot per mile. From the vicin- velopment in flood plains. A discussion of flood ity of Shiocton to the mouth the banks are low, plain legislation is contained in Appendix S20, and in high water the river covers the sur- State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Ar- rounding flats. During flooding conditions the rangements. river expands at various points to several miles in width. Practically all the original for- est growth in the drainage area has been cut. Above Shawano the basin is thinly settled and 1.7 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin second-growth timber covers much of the Group 2.1, Wolf River Basin area. 1.7.1 Description 1.7.2 Previous Studies The Wolf River lies wholly within Wisconsin. Location within River Basin Group 2.1 is Previous studies are listed below: shown in Figure 14-15. It rises in small lakes (1) 1969-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in the central part of Forest County 25 miles Chicago District, Flood Plain Information Re- south of the Michigan boundary, flows nearly port on the Wolf River from Lake Poygan to due south to near Stephensville where it turns Shawano, Wisconsin sharply west and continues westward to be- (2) 1969-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- yond New London, then turns south and prone area reports along numerous reaches of southeast and, after flowing through Lakes the streams in the basin 34 Appendix 14 (3) 1969-U.S. Soil Conservation Service- are first noted within a given reach on the Preliminary Investigation Report, Bear main stem and principal tributaries. Table Creek Watershed, Outagamie County, Wis- 14-13 depicts the flood plain damages by reach consin corresponding to the reaches designated on (4) 1949-Preliminary Examination Report this figure. Table 14-14 depicts upstream flood on Fox River and Tributaries, Wisconsin, for damages. Locations of these damages within Flood Control and Other Purposes prepared particular watersheds may be seen in Figure by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (not pub- 14-17c. Summations of estimated average an- lished) nual damages and acres in the flood plain are (5) 1932-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, re- shown by river basin in Table 14-15. County port from the Chief of Engineers on Wolf summaries for the main stem and principal River, Wisconsin (House Document No. 276, tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-16. 72nd Congress, 1st Session) covering naviga- tion, flood control, power development, and ir- rigation under the provisions of House Docu- 1.7.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention ment No. 308, 69th Congress, 1st Session. This Measures study recommended no action by the govern- ment There are no existing Federal flood control (6) 1925-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, projects in the river basin. Winnebago, House Document 257, 69th Congress, 1st Ses- Waupaca, Outagamie, and Shawano Counties sion. This report recommended a study of the have adopted flood plain legislation as a Wolf River above New London for the purpose means of guiding and controlling development of flood control. on flood plains. A discussion of flood plain legislation appears in Appendix S20, State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrange- 1.7.3 Development in the Flood Plain ments. The Wolf River above Shawano has a flood plain area consisting primarily of forest and 1.8 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin cropland. i Several small communities located Group 2.1, Oconto River Basin on the riverbanks constitute a small portion of the land use. Included in these communities is Shawano, the principal and largest metropoli- 1.8.1 Description tan area in the study. Smaller communities between Shawano and Post Lake include The Oconto River lies wholly within Wiscon- Keshena, Markton, Langlade, Hollister, Lily, sin. Location within River Basin Group 2.1 is and Pearson. shown on Figure 14-15. It rises in the plateau Railroads passing through Shawano are the region of northeastern Wisconsin in a number Soo Line and the Chicago and Northwestern, of small lakes and swamps in the southern both crossing the Wolf River. Further up- part of Forest County, and flows in a direction stream, and running parallel to the river at slightly east of south across Oconto County times, is the Soo Line. State Route 55 is adja- until it passes the southern boundary of that cent to the river for most of the flood plain county, then turns abruptly to the east and under consideration. State Highways 52, 47, flows into Green Bay, an arm of Lake Michi- 22, 64 are also in the flood plain. gan. The mouth of the river is 21/2 miles below the City of Oconto, Wisconsin, approximately 29 miles northeast of Green Bay Harbor and 20 1.7.4 Flood Problems miles southwest of Menominee Harbor. Its drainage basin, which is somewhat irregular A major flood occured in 1888. Since then the in outline, is approximately 70 miles long, fol- river has experienced more than two floods per lowing the general course of the river, and has year. Major floods have occurred in 1912, 1922, an average width of approximately 14 miles. 1950, and 1960. Flood damages have been The total area above the mouth is approxi- minimal, because almost the entire flood plain mately 990 square miles. Its principal is uninhabited and there is little urban land tributaries are the South Branch of the use. Oconto River and McCaslin Brook on the Figure 14-16c identifies the time period in west, and Peshtigo Brook and Little River on which major damages, as defined in this study, the left or east bank. In the upper 35 miles of Flood Plains Inventory 35 its course the river flows over crystalline corresponding to the reaches designated in rocks, and approximately two-thirds of the this figure. Table 14-14 depicts upstream flood total fall is found in this stretch. damages. Location of these damages within On leaving the crystalline rocks, the river particular watersheds may be seen in Figure flows nearly due south for 20 miles over 14-17c. Summations of estimated average sandstone, and in its eastward stretch, it cross- annual damages and acres in the flood plain es limestone. The total fall is approximately are shown by river basin in Table 14-15. Coun- 950 feet, or an average fall of about 83/4 feet per ty summaries for the main stem and principal mile. Practically all of the original forest tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-16. growth has been cut, but there are extensive areas of second growth timber and brush along the river. A small part of the drainage 1.8.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention area is improved farmland. The winter condi- Measures tions are severe. The snowfall is compara- tively heavy and ordinarily remains on the A Federal project was completed in 1956 to ground for long periods. Ice forms from one alleviate flooding in Oconto. This project con- foot to 2 feet in thickness and lasts for approx- sists of channel enlargement for approxi- imately three months. The runoff is approxi- mately two miles of the Oconto River through mately 43 percent of the annual rainfall, Oconto. Flooding in this area was caused by which averages 31.3 inches. frequent ice jams. The total estimated dam- ages prevented by this flood control project are $2,857,000 through 1970. The location of 1.8.2 Previous Studies this protection measure is illustrated in Fig- ure 14-18. Previous studies are listed below: Appendix F20, Federal Laws, Policies, and (1) 1969-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- institutional Arrangements, contains a dis- prone area reports along various reaches of cussion of flood plain legislation. the streams in the basin (2) 1930-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1.9 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Document No. 489, House of Representatives, Group 2.1, Peshtigo River Basin 71st Congress, 2nd Session. This study consid- ered flood problems, navigation, power, and irrigation. No need for improvement was 1.9.1 Description found. The Peshtigo River lies wholly within Wis- consin. Location of the river within River Ba- 1.8.3 Development in the Flood Plain sin Group 2.1 is shown'in Figure 14-15. It rises in the western part of Forest County in the The Oconto River flood plain is relatively northern part of the State and flows in a narrow with little cropland or pastureland. southeasterly direction for approximately 140 There are several small, privately owned miles with total fall of approximately 1,040 dams for power production. feet. The river empties into Green Bay approx- imately 8 miles south of the mouth of the Menominee River. The drainage basin, com- 1.8.4 Flood Problems prising approximately 1,100 square miles, is 80 miles long and averages approximately 14 There is no general flood problem on this miles in width. Its principal tributaries are river because the large floods overflow only a the Rat, Thunder, and Little Peshtigo Rivers relatively small amount of low-value land, in- on the right or west bank and the Big Eagle curring practically no loss. The Cities of and Noque Bay Rivers on the left bank. In Oconto and Oconto Falls are not damaged by the upper two-thirds of its course the river floods. flows through an area of crystalline rocks and Figure 14-16c identifies the time period in in the lower third it crosses successive beds of which major damages, as defined in this study, sandstone and limestone. Severe winters re- are first noted within a given reach on the sult in the formation of fairly heavy ice on the main stem and principal tributaries. Table various pools of the river which sometimes 14-13 depicts the flood plain damages by reach causes trouble in the spring breakup. 36 Appendix 14 7 YICINITY MAP SiA@L IN L.k. Michig-e IRO __j P'Tt Ri,,., f@higarnme Rese-oir@@, eI- R-, 4- We If 4j/C"i/G'4/V DICKINSON WISCO /VS/jV pir,- Ri-1 MENOM vq@__ P.pple'P' [,on Mount. No- Kingsfor Esca aba ------F'LOR-EN-C-E--------- -------- d Ced.r Iti,er iF FOREST @@IASHIkNN ON GT o AD o An ANGLADE I ee s -I M OmI M I ette I ----- - - ----- - ------ Ocont. C1 -k Stu on Bay Lke DOOR )2 Sh.waSn'o' --- -- ------- __O_C0_N_TO KEWAUNEE lintonv#lle o . I Little 1- % . Algorna r OUTA@OMIE 4a@ N, De Green Bay K aunee LEGEND Waupac. BOUNDARIES Ne. lcod.. ko* ROWN STATE (@D [_" Tow C WAUPACA Kaukauna I COUNTY ------------ _mET PLANNING AREA N- _- Iv K rly or Rwer Two Rivers RIVER BASIN GROUP y ito-" Lake 9. O.hk.,h owoc PROTECTION MEASURES WAUS ARA B.'I Chilton CHANNEL DIVERSION CHANNELIMPROVEMENT J FOND DtJ LAC SE GA (Z@ G Ripon LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS Gree@ ILdke Fond du Lac blyg,v, Sheboygan INSTITUTIONAL RESERVOIR MAP ETTE GREEN LAKE 'Wa PIL 566 WATERSHED PROJECT SCALE IN MILES 16 - --- --- ---i 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-18 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for- River Basin Group 2.1 Flood Plains Inventory 37 1.9.2 Previous Studies 1.10 Lake Michigan Northwest, River Basin Group 2.1, Menominee River Basin Previous studies are listed below: (1) 1969-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- prone area reports along various reaches of 1.10.1 Description the streams in the basin (2) 1930-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Menominee Riveris formed bythejunc- Document No. 491, House of Representatives, tion of the Brule and Michigamme Rivers and 71st Congress, 2nd Session. This survey in- flows generally in a southeasterly direction cluded flood control, navigation, irrigation, into Green Bay, an arm of Lake Michigan. Lo- and hydroelectric power. No improvement of cation within River Basin Group 2.1 is shown the river for any of these purposes was rec- in Figure 14-15. The river is 118 miles long and ommended. has a drainage area of 4,070 square miles. The average fall is approximately 4.7 feet per mile. Principal tributaries and their drainage areas, in addition to those mentioned, are the 1.9.3 Development in the Flood Plain Sturgeon River, 427 square miles; the Pine River, 574 square miles; and the Pike River, There has been little development in the 249 square miles. The Menominee and the Peshtigo River flood plain except for the City Brule Rivers form part of the boundary be- of Peshtigo. A number of dams have been con- tween Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of structed for power production. In the vicinity Michigan. of Peshtigo there have been numerous farm The Brule River rises near Brule Lake in developments. Otherwise most of the flood western Iron County. It flows in an easterly plain is woodland or swampland. and southerly direction and drains an area of 1,052 square miles over a length of 42 miles. From Brule Lake to the junction with the Michigamme, the streambed falls 400, feet. 1.9.4 Flood Problems Major tributaries of the Brule are the Iron and Paint Rivers, both draining areas entirely There is no major flood problem in this river in Michigan. The Iron River drains 96.3 square basin. Figure 14-16c identifies the time period miles and the Paint River, 648 square miles. in which major damages, as defined in this The Michigamme River begins at Lake study, are first noted within a given reach ofl Miehigamme and flows almost due south to the main stem and principal tributaries. Table the nominal head of the Menominee River. Its 14-13 shows the flood plain damages by reach drainage area is 726 square miles. The fall in corresponding to the reach designated in this the 69-mile length of the stream is approxi- figure. Table 14-14 indicates upstream flood mately 420 feet. The two main tributaries of damages. Location of these damages within Lake Michigamme are the Peshekee and the particular watersheds may be seen in Figure Spurr Rivers. 14-17c. Summations of estimated average an- The Menominee watershed is in a glaciated nual damages and acres in the flood plain are area characterized by varied topography, in- shown by river basin in Table 14-15. County cluding rugged rocky outcrops and rolling up- summaries for the main stem and principal lands made up of moraines, outwash, and gla- tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-16. cial channels. The river and its branches flow over hard crystalline rocks for two-thirds of its length and over sandstone and limestone for the remaining one-third. In many places the 1.9.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention bed of the river is worn down to these underly- Measures ing rocks, developing numerous rapids and falls. Because of these rapids and the river's There are no existing Federal flood control steep slope, it is not adapted for boat or barge projects in the river basin. Appendix S20, navigation above Menominee Harbor. How- State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Ar- ever it is an important source of water power, rangements, contains a discussion of flood and many of the falls are now occupied by hy- plain legislation. droelectric plants. 38 Appendix 14 Practically all the original forest growth in inee in the interest of navigation. Recom- the drainage basin has been cut, but there are mended no dredging. extensive areas of second-growth timber and brush along the river. Only a small part of the basin is improved farm land, and most of the 1.10.3 Development in the Flood Plain cultivated area lies along the lower one-third of the river. Winter conditions are severe with The major population centers of the heavy snowfalls remaining on the ground for Menominee River basin are generally limited long periods. Ice forms one to two feet thick to the vicinity of Iron Mountain in the central and lasts for approximately three months. The portion and the Menominee-Marinette com- runoff is approximately 41 percent of the an- plex at the river mouth. There are a few other nual rainfall, which averages 30.2 inches. small communities on the Menominee River and its branches which contain little industry. There are also a number of residential de- 1.10.2 Previous Studies velopments, scattered farms, and private hunting and fishing camps adjacent to the Previous studies are listed below: river. However, the river, as a whole, remains (1) 1969-Soil Conservation Board, Feasi- in a seminatural state. bility Study Report, South Branch Little Pop- Agriculture is not a significant factor in the ple River Watershed, Florence and Marinette economy of the basin except near the river Counties, Wisconsin mouth, adjacent to the Cities of Menominee (2) 1969-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- and Marinette. Rainfall in the area is plenti- prone area reports along numerous reaches of ful, and there is little need for irrigation proj- streams in the basin ects. The principal industries of the basin are (3) 1966-U.S. Soil Conservation Service- the mining of iron ore and the manufacturing East Branch Sturgeon River Watershed Work of paper and pulp. Plan, Dickinson County, Michigan A deep-draft harbor is maintained at the (4) 1966-Michigan Department of Conser- mouth of the Menominee River. An abrupt fall vation, Report on Outdoor Recreational Poten- occurs in the river approximately 21/2 miles tial Related to Hydroelectric Developments in from its mouth, and the length of stream the Michigan Portion of the Menominee River below this point constitutes the navigable por- Basin tion of the ri-ver. Above this point the stream (5) 1962-U.S. Soil Conservation Service, contains numerous falls and rapids. The cost Little River Watershed Work Plan, of extending the present navigation project Menominee County, Michigan would far exceed the benefits. (6) 1959-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Because of its steep slope, the Menominee Document No. 113, House of Representatives, River and its tributaries are important water 86th Congress, 1st Session; Menominee River power streams on which there are 20 hydro- and Harbor, Michigan and Wisconsin. Recom- electric plants. In addition to providing mends existing project be modified. adequate power for the surrounding area, (7) 1930-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, these plants have created extensive backwa- published Document No. 141, House of Repre- ter areas which provide excellent recreational sentatives, 72nd Congress, 1st Session. This opportunities. At present adequate recrea- report covers navigation, flood control, power tional facilities are lacking in the river basin. development, and irrigation problems in the There are extensive, relatively unused wil- Menominee Basin. This study considered derness resources in the basin. The potential problems of flooding, navigation, irrigation, use of these resources to meet public recrea- and power. The study recommended that no tional needs is of paramount importance. action be taken. (8) 1899-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Document No. 419, House of Representatives, 1.10.4 Flood Problems 56th Congress, 1st Session. This report consid- ered channel dredging through Menominee Except for Marinette and Menominee, there Harbor for navigation. are no large cities located directly on the (9) 1888-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, banks of the Menominee River to be damaged Document No. 34, House of Representatives, by floods. The water level at Marinette and 51st Congress, 1st Session. This report consid- Menominee is controlled by sluices in dams, ered channel enlargement through Menom- and there is no serious flood damage. The river Flood Plains Inventory 39 flows between high banks for most of its (2) 1970-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- length. Its flow is regulated by numerous hy- prone area reports along various reaches of droelectric plants and two reservoirs. the Milwaukee River and its tributaries and Figure 14-16c identifies the time period in the Menominee, Little Menominee, and Kin- which major damages, as defined in this study, nickinnic Rivers are first noted within a given reach on the (3) 1964-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, main stem and principal tributaries. Table Survey Report for Flood Control on Mil- 14-13 indicates the flood plain damages by waukee River and Tributaries, Wisconsin (not reach corresponding to the reaches desig- published). This study considered levees, res- nated in this figure. Table 14-14 shows up- ervoirs, and channel improvements and con- stream flood damages. These damages are cluded channel diversion to be the most feasi- referenced to the watersheds identified in ble alternative. Figure 14-17c. Summations of estimated av- (4) 1943-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a erage annual damages and acres in the flood preliminary examination report (not pub- plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-15. lished). This study considered reservoirs, County summaries for the main stem and channel improvements, and diversion chan- principal tributaries are tabulated in Table nels. None were found to be economically feas- 14-16. ible. No recommendation was given. 1.10.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention 1.11.3 Development in the Flood Plain Measures Land use in the flood plain varies from the There are no existing Federal flood control highly developed metropolitan area in and projects in the river basin. Appendix S20, around Milwaukee to the forest area in the State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Ar- northern section. The principal economic ac- rangements, contains a discussion of flood tivity in the lower section is manufacturing. A plain legislation. large harbor is maintained at the mouth of the Milwaukee River. The river upstream is navigable by deep-draft vessels for a distance 1.11 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin of 2.9 miles. Due to shallow channels above Group 2.2, Milwaukee River Basin this reach, navigation is limited to small rec- reational craft. 1.11.1 Description 1.11.4 Flood Problems The Milwaukee River rises in Fond du Lac County and flows generally south through Flooding occurs along the Milwaukee River Washington, Ozaukee, and Milwaukee Coun- between Saukville and Milwaukee whenever ties. Location within River Basin Group 2.2 is runoff exceeds 5,000 efs at the stream-gaging shown in Figure 14-19. The stream has a total station in Milwaukee. This has occurred 23 drainage area of 699 square miles and a total times in the last 50 years. Above Saukville length of 99 miles. The section from Fredonia, agriculture is the major flood plain activity. Wisconsin, to the river mouth at Milwaukee is Because most previous floods have occurred in 43 miles long with a fall of approximately 200 early spring prior to planting, little damage feet. Much of the drainage basin in this section has resulted. Below Saukville the flood plain is is either highly developed or rapidly urbaniz- completely urbanized and includes portions of ing. The agriculture in the basin consists eight different urban communities. These primarily of dairying and truck gardening. communities contain approximately 1,100 res- idences and 100 commercial buildings. To date there have been no Corps of Engineers 1.11.2 Previous Studies flood control projects authorized or completed on the Milwaukee River. Previous studies are listed below: Figure 14-20c identifies the time period in (1) 1971-a comprehensive plan for the which major damages, as defined in this study, Milwaukee River watershed by the South- are first noted within a given reach on the eastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Com- main stem and principal tributaries. Table mission 14-17 shows the flood plain damages by reach 40 Appendix 14 7 WASHI'NiGTON CZA13KEE Pot Washington C. V L- Hartford Ced.,vov Ocon,,rrow- Milwaukee Wauk.sha Soott) M@L AVKt@ WAUKESHA WAi-WORTH T MILWAUKEE Racme Elkhom Kpncisha LEGEND 10UNDARIF-S ILLINCItS Zion STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAREA Marengo L.ke fole%t RIVER BASIN GROUP RIVER BASIN M@HENRY Highfand Park 71 OR COMPLEX FIgiri COOK ICHiGAN IN OIANA 0 Wctiogan City A m - I Choste'lop 0 CA Porte JQ @t rhi"ag CRICAG I AUREE ovaiparaiso IAPORrC n point < wli,L PORTER I,AKE: STAAKE SCALE IN MILES 5 10 is go FIGURE 14-19 Lake Michigan Southwest-River Basin Group 2.2 Flood Plains Inventory 41 TABLE 14-17 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN 'a -i -j I -j = AVERAGE ANNUAL .4 zx C) REACH TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES V c' L'i FROM TO (DOLLARS) =) 7: C= CM M: zn V3 @ CD URBAN RURAL E3 Uj Uj uj MILWAUKEE RIVER Vi HilwaukeE T7N T9N 1970 104,600 2,400 194 456 630 650 630 Includes Brown Deer, Glendale R22E S28 R21E S36 1980 154,000 3,560 220 500 56u 720 560 River Mills 2000 282,000 6,500 250 600 430 850 430 Same 2020 494,000 11,130 290 700 290 990 290 Same VIA Milwauke( Milwaukee 1970 32,200 40 140 20 200 1980 47,500 40 140 20 200 2000 87,000 40 140 20 200 2020 151,000 40 140 20 200 V2 Ozaukee T9N T12N 1970 103,250 24,750 250 1110 3165 775 3,750 Includes Grafton, Saukville, R21E S36 R21E S27 1980 201,500 29,370 400 1200 2725 1,840 2,885 Mequon, Fredonia 2000 620,000 90,300 550 1950 2025 2,500 2,025 Same 2020 1,675,000 143,400 750 2750 1025 3,500 1,025 Same ROOT RIVER V3 Racine T3N T4N 1970 10 950 1 000 38 54 1612 338 1,366 R23E S9 R21E S2 1980 17:600 2:018 48 69 1587 430 1,274 2000 46,600 5,350 74 106 1524 660 1,044 2020 112,500 12,920 104 148 1452 930 774 1 LITTLE CALUMET RIVER V4 Lake T36N T36N 1970 [email protected] 32,000 100 900 4160 1,990 3,170 Includes Munster, Hammond, RIOW S12 R7W S9 1980 12,600 000 48,000 110 960 4090 2,130 3,030 Highland, Gary, East Gary 2000 26,000,000 98,700 140 L300 3720 2,800 2,360 Same 2020 53,500,000 204,000 190 L700 3270 3,720 1,440 Same V5 Porter T37N T37N 1970 1,180- 6,700 210 695 210 695 Includes Chesterton, Portage R5W S29 R7W S36 1980 1,640 9,300 210 695 210 695 Same 2000 3,280 18,600 210 695 210 695 Sam 2020 5,270 29,800 210 695 210 695 Same TABLE 14-18 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.2 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W cc 0 -1 ;1 -1 AVERAGE ANNUAL 0 W z < MZ W W 4 DAMAGES z a: 4 a: _j I -i W cr 0: z TOTAL Ix -j < x Cc 2m YEAR (DOLLARS) a M , W Ix W a: 6n U) 0 0 < 0 4 ir CL 0 Cr a 0 URBAN RURAL 3: URBAN R AL z CE CHICAGO MILWAUKEE RIVER -WISCONSIN 51 1970 4,400 4,400 500 250 200 220 1,170 52 1970 10,500 10,500 850 200 200 1,350 2,600 53 1970 -- 28,000 28,000 2,700 500 250 1,600 5,050 5G1 1970 500 7,200 7,700 650 500 200 550 -- 50 50 1,900 5G2 1970 21,000 34,100 55,100 3,400 2,150 2,400 3,250 20 80 20 120 11,200 5G3 1970 -- -- -- 400 300 800 1,300 -- -- -- -- 2,800 5G4 1970 15,000 15,000 1,400 1,800 2,100 2,100 7,400 5G5 1970 8,000 41,800 49,800 3,800 1,350 400 3,150 10 35 20 65 8,700 5G6 1970 -- 14,300 14,300 2,200 100 300 2,800 -- -- -- -- 5,400 5G7 1970 3,800 3,800 600 450 100 450 1,600 5G8 1970 --- 4,400 4,100 450 100 150 120 820 1970 Total 29,606 163,500 193@000 16,950 7,700 7, IVO 16, �90 30 15 35 i8 640 1980 38,400 204,400 242,800 16,950 7,700 7,100 16,890 30 115 90 235 48,640 2000 64,900 237,100 302,000 16,950 .7,700 7,100 16,890 30 115 90 235 48,640 2020 115,000 278,000 393,000 16,950 7,700 7,100 16,890 30 115 90 235 48,640 42 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-19 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.2 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) in Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Ruraf Urban Rural Chicago 1970 836991680 230050 4.1398 58.1251 Milwaukee 1980 13.PO60.9640, 296.9648 5.1765 563884 Complex 2000 27.1103.J80 4563550 7.1455 55P194 2020 5630523770 6793250 9.1785 52.9864 corresponding to the reaches designated in 1.12.2 Previous Studies this figure. Table 14-18 depicts upstream flood damages. Location of these damages within Previous studies are listed below: particular watersheds may be seen in Figure (1) 1969-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- 14-21c. Summations of estimated average an- prone area reports along various reaches of nual damages and acres in the flood plain are the Root River shown by river basin in Table 14-19. County (2) 1965-Southe astern Wisconsin Re- summaries for the main stem and principal gional Planning Commission, Root River Wa- tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-20. tershed Study. This study inventoried needs of the watershed and studied alternative plans of development. The recommended plan 1.11.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention proposes several actions related to water re- Measures source planning, including construction of a multiple-purpose reservoir; restoration of There are no existing Federal flood control Horlick Dam; replacement of restrictive projects in the river basin. The City of West bridges; channel clearing and maintenance; Allis has adopted flood plain legislation as a protection of floodway and flood plains by ac- means of guiding and controlling development quisition and zoning; acquisition and removal in flood plains. Appendix S20, State Laws, of residences subject to severe flooding; and Policies, and Institutional Arrangements, con- flood proofing of others. tains a discussion of flood plain legislation. 1.12.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1.12 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin Group 2.2, Root River Basin At present approximately 90 percent of the residents of the watershed live in incorpo- rated cities and villages, the combined area of 1.12.1 Description which comprises approximately 40 percent of the watershed. These figures emphasize the The Root River rises in Milwaukee County, fact that the Root River watershed is highly Wisconsin, and flows in a southeasterly direc- urbanized in the headwater and outlet areas tion into Lake Michigan. Location of this basin but is predominantly rural elsewhere. within River Basin Group 2.2 is shown in Fig- Economic activity- within the region and ure 14-19. The stream has a total drainage within commuting distance of the Root River area of 197 square miles. The section of the watershed is heavily concentrated in the river within Racine County is approximately manufacture of durable goods. Many of the 22 miles long with a fall of 85 feet. The highly jobs that provide primary support to the popu- urbanized area of the City of Racine is located lation of the watershed are located outside the at the mouth of the river. Outside this ur- watershed within easy commuting distance. banized area, in the southwestern portion of Economic activity in the Root River wa- the watershed, is a singular expanse of rich tershed has been the type that supports the agricultural land. needs of a community that resides within the Flood Plains Inventory 43 TABLE 14-20 River Basin Group 2.2, Data Summary by County* YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban Rural Wisconsin Milwaukee 136,800 2,400 850 630 Ozaukee 103,250 24,750 775 3,750 Racine 10,950 1,000 338 1,366 Indiana Lake 8,418,000 32,000 1,990 3,170 Porter 1,180 6,700 210 695 TOTAL 8,670,180 66,850 4,163 9,611 YEAR 1980 Wisconsin Milwaukee 201,500 3,560 920 560 Ozaukee 201,500 29,370 1,840 2,685 Racine 17,600 2,018 430 1,274 Indiana Lake 12,600,000 48,000 2,130 3,030 Porter 1,640 9,300 210 695 TOTAL 13,022,240 92,248 5,530 8,244 YEAR 2000 Wisconsin Milwaukee 369,000 6,500 1,050 430 Ozaukee 620,000 90,300 2,500 2,025 Racine 46,600 5,350 660 1,044 Indiana Lake 26,000,000 98,700 2,800 2,360 Porter 3,280 18,600 210 695 Total 27,038,880 219,450 7,220 6,554 YEAR 2020 Wisconsin Milwaukee 645,000 11,130 1,190 290 Ozaukee 1,675,000 143,400 3,500 .1,025 Racine 112,500 12,920 930 774 Indiana Lake 53,500,000 204,000 3,720 1,440 Porter 5,270 29,800 210 695 TOTAL 55,937,770 401,250 9,550 4,224 On main stem and principal tributaries 44 Appendix 14 watershed but works elsewhere.7his includes 1.13 Lake Michigan Southwest, River Basin such service activities as supermarkets, chain Group 2.2, Little Calumet River Basin stores, local construction, and light manufac- turing. A well developed deep-draft harbor serves 1.13.1 Description the City of Racine at the mouth of the Root River. It consists of a protected outer harbor The Little Calumet River rises in the and an inner harbor in the lower 3,600 feet of northwestern part of LaPorte County, six the river. Above this point the river is naviga- miles south ofMichigan City, Indiana. Loca- ble only by small craft for a distance of 2.9 tion within River Basin Group 2.2 is illustrat- miles, with depths varying from one to five ed in Figure 14-19. Before construction of feet. Burns Ditch and Burns Waterway in 1926, the stream flowed westerly approximately paral- lel to the south shore of Lake Michigan and 1.12.4 Flood Problems only a few miles from it. It flowed through Porter and Lake Counties in Indiana, and In recent decades flood-damage potential northwesterly through Cook County in Illi- and flood risk have risen from a nuisance level nois to its junction with the Calumet-Sag to substantial proportions, due to increased Channel. Since the completion of Burns Ditch land use of the flood plains in the watershed. and Burns Waterway, the flow of that part Approximately 95 percent of the potential of the stream lying east of Burns Waterway damages are urban, most of which occur to is diverted through an eastern arm of Burns residences. The floods causing the most dam- Ditch to Burns Waterway, and thence into age to urban areas have been due to snowmelt Lake Michigan. In Gary, Indiana, the Little and rainfall occurring in the spring, while Calumet River has been reversed to flow in practically all damages to agriculture have an easterly direction through the Gary arm of been caused by summer rainfall. Most of the the Burns Ditch to Burns Waterway. Actual- flood plain is as yet unoccupied by flood- ly, a flow in this reach of the river may be vulnerable uses and the opportunity still in either direction, as outlets are provided by exists for limiting flood risk by means of land both the Burns Waterway and by the Little use controls. Calumet River westward into Illinois. For Figure 14-20c identifies the time period in all practical purposes, the stream bottom is which major damages, as defined inthisstudy, flat from Hart Ditch through Deep River. The are first noted within a given reach on the total watershed contains 587 square miles, main stem and principal tributaries. Table of which 205 are in Illinois and 382 are in In- 14-17 shows the flood plain damages by reach diana. This study will concern itself only with corresponding to the reaches designated in the portion of the watershed that drains into this figure. Table 14-18 shows upstream flood Lake Michigan through Burns Waterway. damages. Location of these damages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-21c. Summations of estimated average an- 1.13.2 Previous Studies nual damages and acres in the flood plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-19. County Previous studies are listed below: summaries for the main stem and principal (1) 1965-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-20. Flood Plain Information Report, Little Calumet River and Tributaries (2) A series of hydrologic atlases published 1.12.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention by the U.S. Geological Survey for the streams Measures in the State of Illinois draining into Lake Michigan. These atlases include topographic There are no existing Federal flood control maps showing inundated areas by the highest projects in the river basin. Racine has adopted flood known, flood profiles, probable frequen- flood plain legislation to guide and control de- cies of floods, and datum and drainage areas of velopment in flood plains, Appendix S20, State gaging stations. Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrange- (3) Reports published concerning the Illi- ments, contains a discussion of flood plain nois Waterway which include some mention of legislation. the Little Calumet River Flood Plains Inventory 45 1.13.3 Development in the Flood Plain 14-21c. Summations of estimated average an- nual damages and acres in the flood plain are West of Burns Waterway the flood plain is shown by river basin in Table 14-19. County mainly in residential development. This is summaries for the main stem and principal particularly true of the section that flows tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-20. through Gary. East of Burns Waterway the flood plain is generally developed for agricul- ture. There is also an unusual concentration of 1.13.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention highway and railroad crossings which create Measures channel constrictions with insufficient flood-way area. There are no existing Federal flood control projects in the Little Calumet River basin. The Burns Ditch-Burns Waterway System is 1.13.4 Flood Problems regarded as a locally constructed flood control project. The location of this project is illustrat- Due to urban development in the flood ed in Figure 14-22. Without this project the plains, a major flood problem now exists in the flooding situation on the river would be much flood plains of the Little Calumet River. In the worse than it is today. past floods have caused extensive damage to The Cities of Riverdale, Dolton, and agriculture, commercial and manufacturing Calumet City, Illinois; the Cities of Gary and properties, public buildings, utilities, rail- East Gary, Indiana; and the Indiana Counties roads, and streets and highways, as well as of Lake and Porter have adopted flood plain residential property. In addition a health legislation as a means of guiding and control- hazard exists during floods in areas where ling development in flood plains. A discussion contamination of wells is possible fromnooded of flood plain legislation appears in Appendix residential sewage disposal systems, treat- S20, State Laws, Policies, and Institutional ment plant bypass, or sanitary sewer backup Arrangements. and overflow. Past floods indicate the hazard to life is not great because flood waters do not rise rapidly. However, many of the local 1.14 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin levees, formed from spoil banks, are con- Group 2.3, St. Joseph River Basin structed of inadequate cross-section and side slopes. When waters become modestly to ex- tremely high, there is a strong possibility that 1.14.1 Description these levees could fail, catching many people off-guard and causing a disaster. The St. Joseph River rises in Hillsdale Flood problems in the Little Calumet River County, Michigan, tracing a wandering basin arise from both stream overflow and in- course, first northwesterly and then south- adequate storm drainage systems. The prob- westerly to Mishawaka, Indiana. The river lem is complicated by the extreme flatness of then turns northward and discharges into much of the basin and the resulting sluggish Lake Michigan at St. Joseph, Michigan. The character of most streams. descent from its origin is gradual but con- In recent years there has been a tendency stant, being approximately 570 feet in a length for rain storms to produce higher flood stages of 210 miles. The river is fed by springs and than similar storms in the past due to the con- small lakes and is not subject to rapid and tinuing development in the flood plain. Con- excessive rises, nor to extremely low stages of tinued development, which results in further water. Location of this basin within River encroachment of the flood plain, can only ag- Basin Group 2.3 is shown in Figure 14-23. gravate the situation. The basin of the St. Joseph River comprises Figure 14-20c identifies the time period in approximately 4,600 square miles (2,944,000 which major damages, as defined in this study, acres). The drainage basin is approximately are first noted within a given reach on the 100 miles long with an average width of 47 main stem and principal tributaries. Table miles and a maximum width of approximately 14-17 shows the flood plain damages by reach 67 miles at midlength. There are some 400 corresponding to the reaches designated on small lakes in the basin including 300 in this figure. Table 14-18 shows upstream flood Michigan and 100 in Indiana. The proportion damages. Location of these damages within of undrained lakes is smaller in Indiana and particular watersheds may be seen in Figure swamp lands are more extensive. Most of the 46 Appendix 14 WASHINGTON OZAt V West B-d! C,eel@ Port Washington 0 H.'tf.'d C-I.'@.'g -------- --- 'O'on.m.wu@ Mflwauke@ LEGEND BOUNDARIES WestAllis STATE S.-th Nlilwa"kee OKEF COUNTY WAU -KESHA Root PLANN ING AREA WALW RIVER BASIN GROUP Racine Elkhorn PROTECTION MEASURES RAC`INr-@D ------ - ------ -- - ----- CHANNEL DIVERSION Kenosha CHANNELIMPROVEMENT LEVEES AND IF LOODWALLS w I S C2AS@l @1 EN@ S.A.@ __!SE OS.A@ INSTITUTIONAL ILLINOIS Zion RESERVOIR PL-566 WATERSHED PROJECT Waukegan ,Marengo Lake Fwe@t ()C'[email protected] k Highland Park McHENRY i 71 - ------ ---- - KANE E in ig COOK S.int Ch.'I.S'j G 1. -7777 I HIGAN D-U PAGE Calumet City 11 IANA A.-a ferdale Dolton @i) Michigan City G -------- E-t G ry I Che't.'t 0 9 La Porte itt Chicagoll-feights V) I tA PORTE z C,-n Pol.1t WILL PORTER no. LAKE STARKE SCALE IN MILES ,\'e@@@) IC -------- im 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-22 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 2.2 Flood Plains Inventory 47 basin has glacial features such as moraines, adequate and the polluted conditions still pre- till plains, glacial lake plains, and sand dunes. vail in the rivers, other sources of water will be The developed land soils are either well or in- required to serve the basin needs. termittently drained. Agriculture is a significant economic factor in the basin. Of the 2.9 million acres in the basin, approximately 70 percent are farmland, and of this, 1.5 million acres are cropland. In- 1.14.2 Previous Studies vestment in land and buildings is twice the national average. Fruits are extensively Previous studies are listed below: grown and include apples, peaches, pears, (1) 1972, 1971-U.S. Geological Survey- grapes, strawberries, and raspberries. Truck flood-prone area reports for portions of the St. and dairy farming are important to this area. Joseph River, Elkhart River, Little Elkhart A deep-draft harbor is maintained at the River, Christiana Creek, and Cedar Creek mouth of the St. Joseph River, and terminal (2) 1969-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, facilities serve the movement of 50,000 tons of Detroit District, a preliminary comprehensive products annually through the St. Joseph- basin study of the St. Joseph River and its Benton Harbor complex. The basin has main tributaries transportation arteries running throughout (3) 1957-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, its length linking the Detroit-Toledo area with an unpublished report on flood control for the Chicago. The Indiana toll road runs along the Prairie River at Burr Oak, Michigan. A snag- southern edge of the basin and Interstate 94 ging and clearing project was carried out in follows the northern border. Improved State 1958. and Federal highways exist throughout the (4) 1955-Michigan Water Resources region. There is also an intensive network of Commission, a "Report on Water Resource railroads passing through the various com- Conditions and Uses in the Paw Paw River munities to metropolitan areas outside the Basin." The report points out a growing con- basin. flict between uses of water for irrigation and industry. (5) 1951-E. S. Brewer and Sons, Consult- ing Engineers, a preliminary engineering re- 1.14.4 Flood Problems port, "Paw Paw Lake Flood Control Project" (6) 1948-Michigan Department of Con- Major floods occurred in 1908, 1937, 1943, servation, report on the flooding in Paw Paw 1947, and 1950. Urban flooding was experi- Lake due to backwater from the Paw Paw enced during the 1950 flood in major com- River because of insufficient channel capacity munities throughout the basin. The 1947 flood (7) 1933-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, caused minor damages at the communities of Report 308, discussion of the problems of Hartford, Watervliet, and Berrien Springs, water resources and development in the St. Michigan, in addition to those cities damaged Joseph River basin. These reports received during the 1950 flood. Substantial damage oc- unfavorable recommendations because they curred during the 1947 flood at Paw Paw Lake lacked economic justification under Federal and Benton Harbor, Michigan. standards. Table 14-21 lists flood damage centers lo- cated in the basin. Figure 14-24c identifies the time period in which major damages, as de- fined in this study, are first noted within a 1.14.3 Development in the Flood Plain given reach on the main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-23 shows the flood plain The St. Joseph River basin has many com- damages by reach corresponding to the munities that are supported by industry. reaches designated in this figure, and Table Many of these industrial units are located 14-24 shows upstream flood damages. Loca- along the rivers where ample supplies of water tion of these damages within particular wa- continue to be available. Most of the water tersheds may be seen in Figure 14-25c. Sum- used in the basin is obtained from wells, and mations of estimated average annual dam- the river is used primarily for diluting and ages and acres in the flood plain are shown by transporting sewage and waste effluents from river basin in Table 14-25. County summaries these industrial units. In the not too distant for the main stem and principal tributaries future when the well supplies are no longer are tabulated in Table 14-26. (continued on page 63) 48 Appendix 14 mo ALV 77 ------------ - -- KENT G, Sp"13 0 TAWA ANTON 7=S"IAWASSEE _-rCi Grand Have" GI-d Walker G )d GRANO owns CreeA st, J@ "I Lowell Durand rfl-d Riqer OT I NIA ---------- ---- --------- -- I Grand L,dg@ -fland AJ.K-GAf@ Hast-gs Lansing -'y ce'6' Gun take ?I ALAMAZOO I- R [email protected] ON INGHAM 0.q -- ---- --- --- -- --- South Haven N Ru EN AMAZOO CA N 8 CK RI ER Battle Cre K@I- Jack- P.- --.11h 0 M:'."l.' Center 1Z..: Albion! St. Joseph .0 Behlon arto, CASS 0. Dow ac ST. OS A CH HILLSDALE Th,ee R,ve,s Cold at 'o Hdrs ate BuChan 0 Niles ST.JOSEPH j /_ BERRIEN MICHIGAN 0 P.@ INDIANA Eu BEN MICHIGAN hart OHIO South 0 Ang a G-h LAGRANGE I NOBLE ST.. 0 E __kLK ART Plymouth endaliville"/-) LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP VICIN(IY MAP RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX jr, SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-23 Lake Michigan Southeast-River Basin Group 2.3 Flood Plains InventorY 49 TABLE 14-21 Lake Michigan Southeast, St. Joseph River Basin-Flood Damage Centers Damage Center Flood Year Damage Type River Benton Harbor, Mich. 1947 Residential Ox Creek Commercial (St. Joseph River) 1950 Industrial Residential Niles 1943 Commercial St. Joseph River 1950 Industrial Three Rivers 1908 Residential St. Joseph River Commercial 1950 Industrial Portage River Union City 1908 1947 Residential St. Joseph River 1950 Commercial Coldwater River Coldwater 1950 Minor Coldwater River Dowagiac 1950 Minor Dowagiac Creek Constantine 1908 Residential St. JoseDh River 1947 Commercial Pawn River 1950 South Bend, Ind. 1908 1943 Residential St. Joseph River 1950 Commercial Mishawaka 1908 1943 Residential St. Joseph River 1950 Industrial Elkhart, Ind. 1908 Residential 1950 Commercial St.. Joseph River Industrial Elkhart River Goshen 1950 1951 Residential Elkhart River 1954 Other (Parks) Paw Paw Lake, Michigan 1908 Residential Paw Paw Lake 1947 Industrial 50 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-22 Lake Michigan Southeast, Grand River Basin-Flood Damage Centers Damage Center Flood Year Damage Type River Grandville, Michigan 1904 Residential Grand River 1948 Commercial 1950 Industrial Agricultural Grand Rapids 1904 Residential Grand River 1947 1948 Plainfield Township 1907 Residential Grand River 1947 1948 Ada 1904 Residential Grand River Commercial 1948 Industrial 1950 Agricultural Lowell 1904 Residential Grand River 1948 Commercial 1950 Industrial Flat River Agricultural Ionia 1904 Residential Grand River 1948 Commercial 1950 Industrial Agricultural Lyons 1904 Grand River 1947 Residential Commercial Agricultural Mason 1918 Residential Sycamore Creek 1947 Transportation Lansing 1904 Residential Grand River Commercial 1918 Industrial Red Cedar River 1947 Agricultural East Lansing 1947 Residential Red Cedar River Commercial Agricultural Eaton Rapids 1943 Residential Grand River 1947 Commercial 1956 Agricultural Hastings occasional Minor Thornapple River Muir occasional Minor Maple River Maple Rapids occasional Minor Maple River Ovid occasional Minor Maple River Okemos occasional Minor Red Cedar River Williamston occasional Minor Red Cedar River Fowlerville occasional Minor Red Cedar River Flood Plains Inventory 51 TABLE 14-23 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N AVERAGE ANNUAL cl CD REACH DAMAGES ;= , TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR 556 FROM TD (DOLL RS) 22 URBAN RURAL C, W W URBAN RURAL I ST. JOSE RIVER W1 Berrien T4S TSS 1970 5,500 5 13 4985 53 4,950 Includes Berrien Springs R19W S23 R17W S22 1980 6,000 5 17 981 53 4 950 Sam 2000 7,500 7 24 4972 53 4:950 S 2020 9,000 9 35 4959 53 4,950 Sam WIA Berrien Benton 1970 30,000 333 149 482 Harbor 1980 45,000 343 139 482 2000 80,000 370 112 482 2020 165,000 400 82 482 WlB Berrien Niles 1970 26,500 109 51 269 429 1980 37,000 120 50 259 429 2000 70,000 150 40 239 429 2020 145,000 185 30 214 429 INDIANA W2 St.Josepb T38N T37N 1970 1,000 6 130 296 432 R2E S11 R4E S10 1980 2,000 6 140 286 432 2000 31000 10 170 252 432 2020 4,000 10 195 227 432 W2A St.Josepb South Bend 1970 103,000 47 364 251 662 1980 155,000 47 370 245 662 2000 335,000 45 382 235 662 2020 725,000 40 387 235 662 W2B St.Josepb Mishawaka 1970 119,500 62 40 159 261 1980 180,000 62 40 159 261 2000 380,000 62 44 155 261 2020 830,000 60 46 155 261 INDIANA W3 Elkhart T37N T38N 1970 7,500 24 239 1254 1,517 R4E SID R6E S12 1980 9,500 21 250 1246 1,517 2000 17,000 30 300 1187 1,517 2020 30,000 40 340 1137 1,517 W3A Elkhart Elkhart 1970 131,000 115 640 250 1,004 1980 190,000 115 650 240 1,004 2000 420,000 104 670 230 1,004 2020 950,000 105 680 219 1,004 W3B Elkhart Bristol 1970 500 6 3 93 102 1980 1,000 6 5 91 102 2000 1,500 5 10 87 102 2020 2,500 5 25 72 102 MICHIGAN W4 St.Josepb IRS T6S 1970 1,000 7,000 13 125 734 83 6,491 Includes Mottville, & Mendon R13N S23 R8W S6 1980 1,000 8,000 13 122 5728 83 6,491 Same 2000 2,000 12,00o 10 155 5703 83 6,491 Sam 2020 4,000 17,500 10 180 5673 83 6,491 Same W4A St.Joseph Constantin 1970 6,500 10 45 55 1980 8,500 10 45 55 2000 15,000 10 5 40 55 2020 27,000 10 5 40 55 W4B St.Joseph Three 1970 10,000 130 96 19 245 Rivers 1980 14,000 130 100 15 245 2000 29,000 130 100 15 245 2020 60,000 130 100 15 245 W5 Branch T6S T4S 1970 500 64 320 256 2,128 Includes Union City HEW S6 R7W S33 1980 500 65 2319 256 2.128 Sam 2000 1,000 75 2309 256 2,128 Same 2020 2,000 85 2299 256 2,128 Sam W6 alhom T4S T4S 1970 3,000 6 70 2110 377 1,809 Includes Tekonsha R7W S33 R6W S26 1980 4,000 6 75 2105 377 1,809 Same 2000 7,000 6 85 2095 377 1,809 Same 2020 12,000 10 100 2076 377 1,809 S=e 52 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-23(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRESIN FLOOD PLAIN -J _j -j = AVERAGE ANNUAL @X 'a .1 -1 CD REACH DAMAGES @J- TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR FROM TO (DOLL RS) E URBAN RURAL URBANFRURAL PAW PAW RIVER W7 Berrien US T4S 1970 14 13 1656 103 1,580 R19W S23 R18W S13 1980 14 13 1656 103 1,580 2000 14 15 1654 103 1,580 2020 15 15 1653 103 1,580 W7A Berrien Benton 1970 57 32 268 357 Harbor 1980 57 32 268 357 2000 60 30 267 357 2020 60 30 267 357 W7B Berrien Paw Paw 1970 35,000 140 450 230 360 Lake 1980 45,000 140 450 230 360 2000 80,000 145 445 230 360 2020 140,000 155 435 230 360 DOWAGIAC RIVER W8 Berrien T7S T7S 1970 320 320 R17W S22 R16W S6 1980 320 320 2000 320 320 2020 5 315 320 W9 Cass T7S T65 1970 77 1502 339 1,240 Includes Dowagiac R16W S6 R15W S6 1980 77 1502 339 1,240 Same 2000 80 1499 339 1,240 Same 2020 85 1494 339 1,240 Same ELKHART RIVER WIG Elkhart T37N T36N 1970 1,000 39 790 829 R5E S5 R6E S21 1980 1,500 50 779 829 2000 2,500 75 754 829 2020 4,000 100 729 829 WIOA Elkhart Elkhart 1970 47 191 214 452 1980 47 191 214 452 2000 50 190 212 452 2020 50 190 212 452 WIOB Elkhart Goshen 1970 1,500 20 39 351 410 1980 2,000 20 50 340 410 2000 4,000 25 70 315 410 2020 8,500 30 90 290 410 CHRISTIANA CREEK Wil Elkhart @ T37N T38N 1970 36 41 77 R5E S5 R5E S32 1980 36 41 77 Elkhart 2000 36 41 77 2020 36 41 77 PRAIRIE RIVER W12 St.Josepb T65 T65 1970 154 154 R11W S24 R10W S9 1980 154 154 "enterville 2000 2 152 154 2020 4 150 154 W13 St.Joseph US WS 1970 88 88 P19W S15 R9W S23 1980 88 88 Burr Oak 2000 2 86 88 2020 4 84 88 COLDWATER RIVER W14 [ranch T6S T6S 1970 500 65 65 R6W S20 R6W S22 1980 500 65 65 Coldwater 2000 1,000 65 65 1 2020 2,000 65 65 Damages accounted for in reach on St. Joseph River in Elkhart Flood Plains Inventory 53 TABLE 14-23(continued) Plood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I NJ .1 -j z AVERAGE ANNUAL -'X aj .1 C3 REACH COUNTY DAMAGES M Z; TOTAL REMARKS CODE YEAR (DOLL RS) TO FROM URBAN RURAL Z C3 Uj WW URBANFRURAL GRAND RIVER AA2C Kent Cowtock 1970 81,000 415 388 1803 Park Belmont 1980 93,000 480 323 1803 2000 122,000 620 .183 1803 2020 158,000 810 993 1803 AA2D Kent Ada 1970 5,700 20 70 210 100 200 1980 8,000 70 90 140 175 125 2000 13,800 80 100 120 200 100 2020 23,900 80 100 120 210 90 AA2E Kent Lowell 1970 8,400 60 210 561 831 1980 10,100 75 230 526 831 2000 12,600 90 250 491 831 2020 16,800 105 270 456 831 AA3 Ionia T7N T5N 1970 15,210 9721 9,721 R9W Sl R5W S24 1980 15,210 9721 9,721 2000 16,740 9721 9,721 2020 19,030 9721 9,721 AA3A Ionia Saranac 1970 3,400 12 44 299 354 1980 4,250 16 58 280 354 2000 7,800 20 72 262 354 2020 13,600 30 82 242 354 AA3B Ionia Ionia 1970 83,500 102 370 301 773 1980 108,500 112 380 281 773 2000 125,200 112 380 281 773 2020 142,000 122 390 161 773 AA3C Ionia Lyons 1970 4,560 24 88 415 124 403 1980 5,230 24 98 405 134 393 2000 6,840 34 103 390 149 378 2020 7,750 34 113 380 162 365 WD Ionia Portland 1970 5,000 26 92 147 265 1990 7,500 26 97 142 265 2000 10,000 26 102 137 265 2020 12,500 28 105 132 265 AA4 Clinton T5N T5N 1970 80 650 650 R4W S19 R4W S34 1980 90 650 650 2000 140 650 650 2020 190 650 650 AA5 Eaton T4N I N 1970 1,910 143 3448 3,631 R4W S3 R3W S2 1980 2,460 150 3481 3,631 2000 3,720 157 3474 3,631 2020 5,860 184 3447 3,631 AA5A Eaton Grand 1970 22 74 52 148 Ledge 1980 1,400 29 74 45 148 2000 2,400 36 74 38 148 2020 4,100 40 77 31 148 WE Eaton Diamondale 1970 3 22 107 132 1980 1,400 25 22 85 132 2000 2,400 35 22 75 132 2020 4,200 45 27 60 132 AA5C Eaton Eaton 1970 23,800 54 104 93 251 Rapids 1980 33 1011 59 110 82 251 2000 57:1 64 120 77 251 2020 99,9 69 130 52 251 W 54 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-23(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I FLOOD PLAINI AVERAGE ANNUAL 5 CD REACH TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES FROM TO (DOLL RS) 'n U t3 URBAN RURAL uj -1 URBANIRURAL =Q= GRAND RIVER AA6 Ingham TIN TIN 1970 948 29 919 R2W S7 R2W S33 1980 620 948 25 923 2000 880 948 25 923 2020 1,140 948 25 923 AA7 Jackson TIN T3S 1970 1,600 867 567 R2W S33 RIW S12 1980 1,900 5857 5::57 2000 2,700 5857 5,857 2020 3,500 5857 5,857 AA7A Jackson Jackson 1970 134 102 237 473 1980 1,200 144 112 217 473 2000 1,700 154 122 197 473 2020 2,200 164 132 177 473 SYCAMORE CREEK AA8 Ingham T3N T3N 1970 4 592 596 R2W S2 RlW S18 1980 1,000 400 20 576 20 576 2000 1,600 800 35 651 35 561 2020 RED CEDJ RIVER AA9 Ingham UN T4N 1970 2,000 1953 1,953 R2W S7 R2E S31 1980 2,800 1953 1,953 2000 300 4,500 5 20 1928 25 1,928 2020 1,400 7,000 15 40 1898 55 1,898 AA9A Ingham Lansing 1970 90,500 471 1008 1005 2484 1980 108,600 491 968 1025 2484 2000 153,800 511 938 1035 2484 2020 199,100 526 908 1050 2484 AA9B Ingham E. Lansing 1970 405,000 1254 290 1554 1980 650,000 813 491 240 1544 2000 1,580,000 843 511 190 1544 2020 3,720,000 873 531 140 1544 AA9C Ingham Okemos 1970 5,000 222 1447 222 1,447 1980 8,000 70 332 1267 422 1,247 2000 19,500 120 412 1137 572 1,097 2020 46,000 200 492 977 752 917 AA9D Ingham William- 1970 221 550 771 ston 1980 1,400 16 220 535 771 2000 2,400 21 230 520 771 1 2020 4,100 26 240 505 771 LOOKINGGIASS RIVER AAIO Ionia T6N T5N 1970 243 243 R5W S34 R5W $1 1980 100 243 243 2000 110 243 243 2020 130 243 243 AAll Clinton T5N T6N 1970 12,000 15 6680 6,695 R4W S6 RIW S25 1980 2,800 16,300 30 50 6615 95 6,600 2000 4,600 27,400 50 80 6563 155 6,540 2020 6,400 48,100 70 110 6515@ 215 6,480 AA11A Clinton DeWitt 1970 19 83 102 1980 400 29 73 102 2000 1,000 5 34 63 102 2020 2,400 10 39 53 102 Flood Plains Inventory 55 TABLE 14-23(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N AVERAGE ANNUAL 'I 'I -i -j z c@ REACH REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES _: 3 z W UJ FROM TO (DOLL RS) 2W URBAN RURAL Z c@ UA WW KALAMAZOO RIVER yl Allegan T3N TlN 1970 1,890 1091 10,915 R16W S16 RlIW S33 1980 3,140 540 60 80 80 1069 220 10,69S 2000 4,750 1,850 95 140 140 1054 390 10,52S 2020 7,990 2.370 165 200 180 1037 485 10,434 YlA Allegan Allegan 1970 37,200 15 79 40 134 1980 46,200 18 84 32 134 2000 56,500 21 89 24 134 2020 74,400 24 94 16 134 YlB Allegan Otsego 1970 14,300 304 33 1526 382 1,481 1980 19,300 354 113 1396 507 1,35E 2000 23,300 380 163 1320 583 1,28C 2020 59,400 380 163 1320 583 1,28C YlC Allegan Plainwell 1970 9,650 8103 697 143 665 1980 13,000 20 140 648 185 623 2000 22,300 30 180 598 260 548 2020 40,200 90 280 438 460 348 Y2 Kalamazoc 11N TlS 1970 2 400 5, O@ 177 fil 3201 34 3,066 Includes Galesburg and Augusta 1980 31 00 6'10 37 50 R11W S33 R9W S25 16 3039 2,904 Same 2000 6,500 8,800 187 328 2889 654 2,750 Same 2020 11,800 11,000 260 430 2714 832 2,572 Same Y2A Kala@nazo, Kalamazoo 1970 618,300 925 1412 4119 6456 1980 960,000 1,010 1800 3646 6456 2000 2,160,000 1,070 2200 3186 6456 2020 5,132,000 1,140 2600 2716 6456 Y3 Calhoun TlS T3S 1970 1,060 1,700 87 3414 207 3,294 R9W S25 R4W S1 1980 1,890 1,'100 120 180 3201 380 3,121 2000 3,510 1,700 230 230 3041 550 2,961 2020 5,950 1,700 320 270 2911 72C 2,781 Y3A Calhoun Battle 1970 13,500 330 321 1456 907 1,200 Creek 1980 21,800 402 334 1371 1007 1,100 2000 47,600 460 360 1287 1107 1,000 2020 108,000 520 367 1220 1207 900 Y3B Calhoun Albion 1970 320 276 637 670 1980 450 66 27 577 670 2000 800 86 47 537 670 2020 1,440 100 67 503 670 GRAND RIVER AA1 Ottawa T8N T6N 1970 6,000 2,800 745 1320 745 13,213 R16W S21 EL13W S13 1980 8,400 3,900 200 L20 1279; 1220 12,738 2000 14,400 6,700 330 1040 125 1690 12,268 2020 25,200 11,80D 430 1360 22011941 2170 11,788 A&2 Kent T6N WN 1970 6,150 4482 4,482 R13W S13 R8W SID 1980 7,520 4482 4,482 2000 12,150 4482 4,482 2020 12,195 4482 4,482 AAZA Kent Grandville 1970 175,000 232 500 1378 1220 890 1980 262,000 232 620 1258 1420 690 2000 610,000 412 740 968 1620 490 2020 1,400,000 512 860 738 1980 130 AA2B Kent Grand 1970 650,000 1141 2833 1149 5123 Rapids 1980 747,000 1261 2813 1049 5123 2000 975,000 1371 2783 969 5123 2020 1,270,000 1491 2723 909 5123 56 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-23(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAINI -j -j -j -j z AVERAGE ANNUAL I c@ REACH REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES FROM TO (DOLL RS) . = @ CD URBAN RURAL w uJI w MAPLE RIVER AA12 Ionia T7N TBN 1970 is L257 15 1,257 R5W S18 R4W S30 1980 100 10 1262 10 1,262 2000 110 5 1267 5 1,267 2020 125 1272 1,272 AA13 Clinton T8N TEN 1970 789 42 3,747 R4W S30 R3W S5 1980 789 42 3,747 2000 789 42 3,747 2020 789 42 3,747 FLAT Riv6 AA14 Kent WN T7N 1970 000 1,000 R9W S35 R9W S13 1980 1000 1,000 2000 1000 1,000 2020 1000 1,000 AA15 Ionia T7N T8N 1970 36 127 1557 181 1,539 Includes Belding R9W S13 HEW S2 1980 1,000 100 38 132 1550 181 1,539 S@e 2000 1,100 110 43 135 1542 181 1,539 Sam 2020 1,300 130 43 138 539 181 1,539 Same AA16 Montcalml T9N T9N 1970 18 60 506 87 497 Includes Greenville R8w S35 HEW S4 1980 1,400 104 18 60 506 87 497 Sam 2000 2,400 110 18 60 506 87 497 Same 2020 4,200 120 is 60 506 87 497 Sam ROGUE RIVER AA17 Kent T8N T9N 1970 5,750 17 17 3385 61 3,358 R11W S23 R12W 1980 2,000 5,800 48 37 3334 110 3,309 2000 4,200 6,050 80 47 3292 155 3,264 2020 7,500 6,200 90 67 3229 210 3,209 THORNAPPLE RIVER AA18 Kent T6N T5N 1970 1,400 4,600 4 41 3362 45 3,362 Includes Alaska, Cascade, RIOW S34 R10W S35 1980 1,600 5,800 6 44 50 3,357 and Lebarge 2000 2,100 6,900 8 47 3352 55 3,352 Sam 2020 2,720 9,000 10 50 3347 60 3,347 Sam AA19 Barry T4N T3N 1970 640 13,000 32 594 106 4,52 Includes Middleville and glow S2 R8W S16 1990 770 15,600 37 4589 106 4,520 Irving 2000 830 16,900 2 40 4584 106 4,520 Same 2020 1,400 28,600 5 42 4579 106 4,520 Same AA1 A Barry Hastings 1970 2,700 34 115 414 563 1980 3 800 '4 135 384 563 2000 6:500 54 155 354 563 2020 li'l 64 175 324 563 Flood Plains Inventory 57 TABLE 14-24 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.3 a ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W AVERAGE ANNUAL 0 -j -j a w z ;4 w DAMAGES z YEAR w cr M w< w (DOLLARS) x V z Mw TOTAL (L (n 0 w tx 0 e 4 0 0 7- 15 D a. a 1URBAN 1RURALITOTAL z 0 URBAN RURAL ST. JOSEPH! RIVER - MICHIIGAN 5A2B 1970 2,500 -- 2,500 15 15 -- 5AlC 1970 -- 13,600 13,600 2,850 50 50 50 -- -- 3,000 5A2A 1970 14,900 22,000 36,900 1,900 100 -- -- 115 115 2,000 5A4C 1970 2,500 1,100 3,600 125 50 25 50 15 15 250 5A5C 1970 -- 1 700 700 30 20 70 30 -- -- 150 5ASC 1970 3,300 2,400 5,700 250 50 100 130 20 20 530 5ASA 1970 8,200 4,600 12,800 275 300 125 310 50 50 1,010 5A10 1970 -- 100 100 so 50 so 80 -- -- 260 5All 1970 -- 4,900 4,900 640 450 -- -- -- -- 1,090 5A12 1970 10,400 1,800 12,200 400 150 200 250 100 100 1,000 5A1-2A 1970 -- 6,1GO 6,100 315 365 240 420 -- -- -- 1,340 SA13 1970 30,000 7,100 37,100 200 300 500 560 50 -- 150 200 1,560 5A14a 1970 35,500 8,300 43,800 2,000 400 -- -- -- 200 -- 200 2,400 5A30 1970 -- 2,900 2,900 200 100 105 225 630 5A30A 1970 16,400 1,600 18,000 400 - 200 345 205 100 100 1,150 Total 1970 123,700 77,200 200,900 9,635 2,585 1,840 2 - '310 50 615 150 815 16,370 1980 167,000 97,300 264,300 9,635 2,585 1,840 2,310 50 615 150 815 16,370 2000 301,800 115,000 416,800 9,635 2,585 1,840 2,310 50 615 150 815 16,370 2020 573,900 131,200 705,100 9,635 2,585 1,840 2,310 50 615 150 815 16,370 ST. JOSEPJ RIVER - INAANA 5A3 1970 9,800 6,600 16,400 986 829 1,169 3 27 -- 30 3,819 5A4 1970 -- 2,600 2,600 455 260 692 106 -- -- -- 1,513 5A6 1970 1,400 1,400 475 155 62 27 719 5A7 1970 5,200 5,200 663 1,254 2,080 780 4,777 5A8 1970 24,800 2,100 26,900 530 195 245 180 -- 150 150 1,150 5A9 1970 7 700 600 8 300 160 -- 40 -- 43 222 265 200 Total 1970 42,300 18,500 60,800 3,269 2,699 - 3,948 2,262 46 399 445 12,178 1980 57,100 23,300 80,400 3,269 2,699 3,948 2,262 46 399 445 12,178 2000 103,200 27,600 130,800 3,269 2,699 33948 Z,262 46 399 445 12,178 2020 196,300 31,500 227,800 3,269 2,699 3,948 2,262 46 399 445 12,178 1 BLACK RIVER COMPLEX - MICHIGAN 5LL2 1970 13,900 7,500 21,400 1,550 15 5 -- 200 -- 200 1,570 5LL 1970 - O@ 4,000 200 50 50 50 50 300 11600 1970 15,500 9,900 25,400 1-,1-56 --65 55 -2EO - 250 1,870 1980 20,900 12,500 33,400 1,750 65 55 250 250 1,970 2000 37,800 14,800 52,600 1,750 65 55 250 250 1,870 2020 71,900 16,800 88,700 1,750 65 55 250 250 1,870 KALAMAZ00'RIVER - MICIAGAN 5Cl 1970 19,800 19,800 2,300 300 so 60 -- -- 2,710 5CIA 1970 5,100 5,100 590 -- -- 590 5C2 1970 1,600 1,600 120 60 30 10 220 5C4 1970 2,600 2,600 300 50 -- -- 350 5C530 1970 8,700 1,400 10,100 25 45 45 25 10 15 25 140 5C633 1970 -- 56,100 56,100 1,600 260 400 350 -- -- -- 2,610 5C6C 1970 100 100 60 70 50 20 200 5C6b 1970 -- 18,300 18,300 600 300 1,2LO 400 2,500 105,000 1,775 865 -10 -15 8,700 113,700 !@,595 1,68 - Total 1970 25 9,320 1980 11,700 132,300 144,000 5,595 1,085 1,775 865 10 15 25 9,320 2000 21,200 156,500 177,700 5,595 1,085 1,775 865 10 15 25 9,320 2020 40,4001 178,5001 218,900 5,595 1,085 1,775 865 10 15 25 9,320 OTTAWA COMPLEX - MICHIGAN 5KK 1970 700 51:400 52,100 2,340 485 160 80 20 80 100 3,065 1980 900 64 800 65 '700 2'3401 485 160 80 20 80 100 3,065 2000 1,700 76,600 78,300 213401 485 160 80 20 80 100 3,065 2020 3,200 87,400 90,600 2,340 485 160 1 80 20 80 100 3,065 58 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-24(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.3 a ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W jr AVERAGE ANNUAL a -1 4 -j z w a w z I U) DAMAGES z a: 4 cr _j !! V cr m YEAR 9 -1 w At M M z TOTAL W2 (DOLLARS) -i a X M V w a. V) 0 <Z 0 4 0 0 3: a. URBAN RURALITOTAL z URBAN RURAL 5pl to GRAND RIV - MICHIGAN 5P4 1970 143,900 143,900 3,000 500 500 1,016 5,016 5F6 1970 6,100 6,100 237 141 67 97 542 SF4 1970 25,800 25,800 1,000 2,150 60 200 3,410 5F2 1970 -- -- -- 20 120 30 170 5F1 1970 900 900 35 10 5 -- 50 5R123 1970 50,800 50,800 1,767 -- -- -- 1,767 5M12 1970 105,300 105,300 2,028 240 80 177 2,525 5LG3 1970 6,100 -- 6,100 -- -- -- -- 450 2,000 50 2,500 -- 5R4 1970 700 16,700 17,400 650 520 65 65 50 250 -- 300 1,300 5R5 1970 200 23,600 23,800 916 918 916 306 -- -- 100 100 3,056 5R6 1970 600 25,800 26,400 1,000 600 200 200 38 200 -- 238 2,000 5LGI 1970 1,200 7,700 8,900 300 400 100 200 100 400 500 1,000 5M14 1970 -- 4,100 4,100 160 278 740 100 -- -- 1,278 5M15 1970 200 10,000 10,200 390 730 1,580 370 -- 5 80 85 3,070 5MG1 1970 1,300 12,900 14,200 500 220 150 450 100 450 -- 550 1,320 5L6 1970 5,000 11,300 16,300 440 260 1,320 229 300 1,300 435 2,035 2,249 5L4 1970 400 4,100 4,500 160 160 ISO 1,100 30 120 -- 150 1,600 5MG3 1970 1,600 51,500 53,100 2,000 330 710 130 -- 640 640 3,170 5UGI 1970 -- 1,800 1,800 70 40 10 40 160 5M5 1970 -- 21,500 21,500 1,820 362 186 236 2,604 5UG7 1970 500 25,800 26,300 1,000 475 450 1,075 50 130 25 205 3,000 5RC14 1970 5,100 92,800 97,900 3,600 900 1,350 3,150 100 2,000 -- 2,100 9,000 5MG6 1970 -- 10,600 10,600 1,280 170 260 -- -- -- 1,710 5MG7 1970 6,800 6,800 723 96 96 40 955 5MI to 5MIl 1970 272,200 272,200 12,020 13650 1,700 1,130 16,500 5UG8 1970 14,300 14,300 1,816 331 255 152 2,554 5RC9 1970 45,100 45,100 1,750 1,500 500 1,250 5,000 5RC7 1970 100 38,600 38,700 1,500 600 450 450 20 20 40 3,000 5RC3 1970 200 200 8 10 20 22 -- -- 60 5RC4 1970 2,700 2,700 106 70 51 64 -- -- 291 5RC5 1970 100 19,700 19,800 765 382 418 485 15 5 20 2,050 5RCIO 1970 200 9,000 9,200 350 200 200 250 5 40 40 85 1,000 5Rc8 1970 -- 11,300 11,300 440 220 165 275 -- -- -- 1,100 5MG2 A 1970 4,600 5,800 10,400 225 165 295 110 420 1,460 20 13900 795 5MG4A 1970 -- 2,600 2,600 100 -- 300 -- -- -- -- -- 400 5Sl to 5S6 1970 41,600 41,600 1,602 62 200 363 2,227 5S6 1970 4,100 4,100 160 250 130 21 561 5T1 1970 154,200 154,200 7,500 750 500 250 9,000 5T3 1970 100 53,100 53,200 23060 620 320 100 10 15 25 3,100 5T4 1970 100 14,200 14,300 550 215 185 150 35 5 40 1,100 5T5 1970 200 25,800 26,000 1,000 1,000 800 500 -- 100 100 3,300 5T6 1970 1,300 1, 300 25 50 25 -- 100 5T11 1970 38,500 38,500 1,493 993 293 746 3,525 5MG5 1970 14,400 14,400 560 150 10 100 820 5MG8 1970 -- 24,700 24,700 960 -- 480 -- -- -- 160 160 1,440 5LG5 1970 2,300 96,600 98,900 3,748 302 470 30 125 800 25 950 4,550 51Z6 1970 200 33,500 33,700 1,300 600 2,000 -- 40 40 -- 80 3,900 5LG8 1970 200 23,400 23,600 910 595 845 330 -- 80 20 100 2,680 51,G10 1970 1,200 1,300 2,500 60 -- 320 2,300 60 420 -- 480 2,670 5LL 1970 -- 3,900 3,900 150 -- 350 -- -- -- 500 5UG9 1970 -- 7,700 7,703 1,211 80 50 50 -- -- 1,451 5UG10 1970 1,200 11,400 12,600 442 218 218 242 200 300 500 1,120 RCI 1970 -- 700 UU -- - 280 Total 1970 33,400 1,631,700 1,665,100 63-,965 20-,5--8ff 0-,-7-37 IT,- 3" 2,-11-3- 1 1790 980 13,883 126,026 1980 45,100 2,050,800 2,095,900 65,965 20,589 20,737 18,735 2,113 10,790 980 13,883 126,026 2000 81,500 2,4:?5,100 2,506,600 65,965 20,589 20,737 18,735 2,113 10,7901 980 13,883 126,026 2020 155,000 2,766,900 2,921,900 65,965 20,589 20,757 18,735 2,113 10,790 980 13,883 126,026 Flood Plains Inventory 59 TABLE 14-25 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.3 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Ruraf Urban Rural St. Joseph 1970 634.9000 117.9700 7.9 -,AA 503204 River 1980 9075100 1473600 7.t544 50.@204 2000 1.9829.1500 184@600 7 .9 r@A4 50.1204 2020 33841,200 2273200 7 rA4 50.1204 Black River 1970 153500 93900 250 1.1870 Complex 1980 20.9900 12.4500 250 lq870 2000 373800 14.9800 250 IJP870 2020 713900 163800 250 13870 Kalamazoo 1970 7055430 113.090 93264 29lq943 River 1980 .1.)0815po8o 1413990 10.9084 293123 2000 2.1346060 168.9850 10.1829 28.1378 2020 50813590 193.9570 111572 27.1635 Ottawa 1970 700 51.9400 100 3.5065 Complex 1980 900 64.1800 100 31@065 2000 1.4700 763600- 100 33065 2020 33200 873400 100 3.1065 Grand River 1970 1.1585.9000 1,696,800 325477 196,206 1980 2.1119.1850 21129)104 33.1597 195,086 2000 338223970 23531.1120 34)602 194,081 2020 7.93451270 2P9213620 351805 192,878 TOTAL 1970 2.99403630 1,989,690 49.9635 281,288 1980 4.1129.X0 20953994 51.1575 279,348 2000 83038.1430 2.9975.5970 53.9325 277,598 2020 16.@743IJ60 3.%446.1590 553271 275,652 60 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-26 River Basin Group 2.3, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres In St. Joseph River Basin Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban Rural Michigan Berrien 91,500 5,500 1,654 7,210 St. Joseph 17,500 7,000 625 6,491 Branch 500 --- 321 2,128 Calhoun 3,000 --- 377 1,809 Cass --- --- 339 1,240 Shiawassee (See RBG 3.2) --- --- --- --- Indiana -�t-.Joseph 222,500 1,000 923 432 Elkhart 133,000 8,500 2,045 2,346 TOTALS 46.8,000 22,000 6,284 21,656 YEAR 1980 Michigan Berrien 127,000 6,000 1,654 7,210 St. Joseph 23,500 8,000 625 6,491 Branch 500 --- 321 2,128 Calhoun 4,000 --- 377 1,809 Cass --- --- 339 1,240 Shiawassee (See RBG 3.2) --- --- --- --- Indiana Tt-.Joseph 335,000 2,000 923 432 Elkhart 193,000 11,000 2,045 2,346 TOTALS 683,000 27,000 6,284 21,656 YEAR 2000 Michigan 230,000 7,500 1,654 7,210 St. Joseph 46,000 12,000 625 6,491 Branch 1,000 --- 321 2,128 Calhoun 7,000 --- 377 1,809 Cass --- --- 339 1,240 Shiawassee (See RBG 3.2) --- --- --- --- Indiana 1�-t.Joseph 715,000 3,000 923 432 Elkhart 425,500 19,500 2, 045 2,346 TOTALS 1,424,500 42,000 -62284 21,656 YEAR 2020 Michigan Teirrien 450 000 9,000 1,654 7,210 St. Joseph 91:000 17,500 625 6,491 Branch 2,000 --- 321 2,128 Calhoun 12,000 --- 377 1,809 Cass --- 339 1,240 Shiawassee (See RBG 3.2) --- --- --- --- Indiana St. Joseph 1,555,000 4,000 923 432 Elkhart 961,000 34,000 2,045 2,346 TOTALS 3,071,000 64,500 6,284 21,656 On main stem and principal tributaries Flood Plains Inventory 61 TABLE 14-26(continued) River Basin Group 2.3, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Grand River Basin Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County (Michigan) Urban Rural Urban Rural Ottawa 6,000 2,800 745 13,213 Kent 921,500 16,500 9,183 13,292 Ionia 96,460 15,210 1,712 13,163 Clinton --- 12,080 144 11,092 Eaton 23,800 1,910 531 3,631 Ingham 500,500 2,000 5,050 4,915 Jackson --- 1,600 473 5,857 Barry 3,340 13,000 669 4,520 Montcalm. --- --- 87 497 TOTALS 1,551,600 65,100 18,594 70,180 YEAR 1980 Ottawa 8,400 3,900 1,220 12,738 Kent 1,123,700 18,620 9,512 12,963 Ionia 127,180 15,510 1,717 13,158 Clinton 3,200 16,390 239 10,997 Eaton 36,100 2,460 531 3,631 Ingham 769,000 3,820 5,266 4,699 Jackson 1,200 1,900 473 5,857 Barry 4,570 15,600 669 4,520 Montcalm, 1,400 104 87 497 TOTALS 2,074,750 78,304 19,714 69,060 YEAR 2000 Ottawa 14,400 6,700 1,690 12,268 Kent 1,739,600 25,100 9,787 12,688 Ionia 150,940 17,070 1,727 13,148 Clinton 5,600 27,540 299 10,937 Eaton 61,900 3,720 531 3,631 Ingham 1,757,600 6,180 5,456 4,509 Jackson 1,700 2,700 473 5,857 Barry 7,330 16,900 669 4,520 Montcalm 2,400 110 87 497 TOTALS 3,741,470 106,020 20,719 68,055 YEAR 2020 Ottawa 25,200 11,800 2,170 11,788 Kent 2,878,920 27,395 10,217 12,258 Ionia 177,150 19,415 1,735 13,140 Clinton 8,800 48,290 359 10,877 Eaton 108,200 5,860 531 3,631 Ingham 3,973,100 9,740 5,681 4,284 Jackson 2,200 3,500 473 5,857 Barry 12,500 28,600 669 4,520 Montcalm 4,200 120 87 497 TOTALS 7,190,270 154,720 21,922 66,852 On main stem and principal tributaries 62 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-26(continued) River Basin Group 2.3, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Kalamazoo River Basin Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County (Michigan) Urban Rural Urban Rural Allegan 61,150 1,890 659 13,065 Kalamazoo 620,700 5,300 6,796 3,064 Calhoun 14,880 1,700 1,784 4,494 TOTALS 696,730 8,890 9,239 20,623 YEAR 1980 Allegan 81,640 1,690 1,046 12,678 Kalamazoo 963,600 6,300 6,956 2,904 Calhoun 243,140 1,700 2,057 4,221 TOTALS 1,069,380 9,690 10,059 19,803 YEAR 2000 Allegan 106,850 1,850 1,367 12,357 Kalamazoo 2,166,500 8,800 7,110 2,750 Calhoun 51,910 1,700 2,327 3,951 TOTALS 2,325,260 12,350 10,804 19,058 YEAR 2020 Allegan 181,990 2,370 1,662 12,062 Kalamazoo 5,143,800 11,000 7,288 2,572 Calhoun 115,400 1,700 2,597 3,681 TOTALS 5,441,190 15,070 11,547 18,315 On main stem and principal tributaries Flood Plains Inventory 63 1.14.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention For a more detailed discussion of flood plain Measures legislation see Appendix S20, State Laws, Policies, and Institutional Arrangements. The only Federal flood prevention measure undertaken in the area was a local snagging and clearing project in 1958 on the Prairie 1.15 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin River at Burr Oak,. Michigan. This was done Group 2.3, Kalamazoo River Basin under the Flood Control Act of 1937 and supervised by the U.S. Army Corps of En- 1.15.1 Description gineers. Location of this project is illustrated in Figure 14-26. To date no flood control meas- The Kalamazoo River rises in the southern ures have been initiated by non-Federal agen- part of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Hills- cies. There are many small dams and millraces dale County), flows northwesterly for 185 erected by local public and private interests to miles, and empties into Lake Michigan 2 miles serve strictly local purposes. They do little to downstream from the village of Saugatuck. alleviate possible flood damages, and in many The Kalamazoo River basin is approximately cases actually contribute to the raising of 100 miles long with extremes of width ranging flood stages. from 6 to 30 miles, and containing 1,980 square In Indiana and Michigan local authorities miles. All of the principal tributaries except are responsible for defining the flood plain and Portage Creek enter the main river from the specifying or establishing its limits. However, north bank. Only Battle Creek, whichjoins the few if any communities within the St. Joseph river in downtown Battle Creek, and Portage River basin have effective land use regula- Creek at Kalamazoo have any appreciable ef- tions for proper flood plain development. Both fect on the flood problems in the basin. Loca- States have taken steps to provide some tion of this basin within River Basin Group 2.3 Statewide regulations on a broad basis to fill is shown in Figure 14-23. in the gap not provided or considered by local The entire watershed is generally undulat- governments. Some of these laws and their ing with prairie, swamps, and hilly sections features pertinent to flood plain regulation alternating at frequent intervals. Numerous are listed below: small lakes and spring hollows are scattered (1) Michigan Act No. 288 (Public Acts of throughout the watershed, holding ponded 1967) of August 1, 1967. This Act regulates the water part or all of the time. Kalamazoo Lake subdivision of land to control residential build- near the river mouth is the largest lake in the ing development within the flood plain areas. basin. The river is approximately 1,200 feet (2) Michigan Act No. 245 of 1929, Amended above sea level at the eastern end of the basin by Act 167 (Public Act of 1968) of June 17,1968. and drops to 700 feet near Lake Michigan. The This Act provides the Michigan State Water general elevation of the headwater terrain Resources Commission with the powers to im- along the basin edges is 150 to 200 feet above plement the portion of the Act dealing with the river channel. Battle Creek and most of flood plain lands, and grants the Commission the smaller tributaries flow through exten- the authority to make regulations and orders sive swamplands as they approach the main to prevent harmful interference with the dis- channel. The streams of the river basin are not charge and stage characteristics of streams. characterized by rapid erosion, and their sed- (3) The Indiana Flood Control Act, Chapter iment content is generally low. The soils of the 318, (Acts of 1945). This Act directs that the basin are commonly porous which increases flood plains of rivers and streams should not the infiltration, thus materially reducing run- be inhabited and should be kept free and clear off peaks and equalizing the ground water of interference or obstructions that will cause supply reaching the stream. any undue restrictions of the capacity of the floodways. It also directs that the Department of Natural Resources shall consider flood 1.15.2 Previous Studies plain regulation in preventing and controlling floods. Previous studies are listed below: (4) Indiana Planning Act of 1947. This Act (1) U.S. Geological Survey-flood-prone provides for the establishment of planning area report for a portion of Battle Creek, 1972 commissions and the zoning of land. (2) a final report covering the local flood (5) Area Planning Act of 1957. This Act problem at Battle Creek and vicinity, dated provides for area planning departments. February 1950 64 Appendix 14 ONrC7' KENT Sparta Rockford Gree ville 0 AWA Belding E Grand Haven G'.'d Wall X. cl CLINTON SH$AWASSE G nd k\t@ Ionia tjov S'-' C 0 Ow.s 0 Ra re t. John Q. kk,runna L - "I Lowell cl Durand Hudsonville. 0 0 k.ojC'('gqI s Zee and M -2- IONIA Holland ALLEGAN iR Y it Gran Ledge Lansing Hastings God., R,, ob Char otte 0 Mason ,,k p give aton Rapids tseg. Plainwell E ON INGHAM South Have VAN BUREN K AMAZOO CALHOUI JACKSON law azoo K,I-b Battle C reek Jackson aw raw Marshall Albion C, 0 Michigawt Center r age rbor St. Joseph Benton ANCH CASS ST. OSEP HILI!iI)AIE C'. Dow ac h-e Rivers 1%j";. Cold@yatero Hills ate Buchan 0 Niles I st.,gis Cl BERRIEN MICHIGAN ITN A i'e pioe.' TEUBEN4 MICHIGAN South 0 hat Gosh- o An.). OHIO Bend %19 LAGRANGE ST.JO H LK ART L-90we Plymouth endallville"", LEGEND BOUNDARIES MARSHALL STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES CHANNEL DIVERSION 111INHI AP CHANNELIMPROVEMENT L LEVEES AND FLOO DWALLS INSTITUTIONAL RESERVOIR @3 PL-566 WATERSHED PROJECT . . ....... SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-26 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 2.3 Flood Plains Inventory 65 (3) an interim report, dated July 22, 1949, Slightly lesser floods occurred in 1887, 1908, covering the local flood problems at Kala- 1918, 1947, and 1948. The floods of 1854, 1864, mazoo and vicinity 1868, and 1869 are reported to have been (4) survey scope report of the entire greater than those of 1904 and 1908, but there Kalamazoo River basin, made under the pro- are no records of actual stages for these ear- visions of House Document No. 308, 69th Con- lier floods. Lesser floods have occurred at gress, submitted to Congress in January 1932 more frequent intervals, and minor floods al- (5) a consulting engineering firm's report most annually. Since the majority of the re- for Battle Creek in 1927 corded floods have occurred during the spring runoff periods, agricultural losses have been minimal. However, high intensity summer 1.15.3 Development in the Flood Plain storms cause appreciable truck garden and other agricultural loss. The Kalamazoo River basin supports a wide Kalamazoo is built on the lowlands adjacent variety of industries located in many to the Kalamazoo River and its tributary, Por- municipalities. Most of the major industries tage Creek. At the present time many of the are concentrated in the population centers of major industries of the city are located in Kalamazoo and Battle Creek. Other major these areas, and the remaining undeveloped centers are at Allegan, Otsego, Plainwell, lowlands along the river, both upstream and Marshall, and Albion. The transportation downstream from the center of the city, are network is extensive. The terrain does not attractive locations for future industrial ex- confine the roads and railways to the river pansion. The flooding of these lowlands is due valleys. There are many north-south routes entirely to the inability of the natural river (highway and rail) cutting across the east- channel to carry the flood flow at a higher west trend of the basin. stage. The existing bridges have not materi- Agricultural land in the Kalamazoo River ally restricted the flow during past floods be- basin is devoted chiefly to small dairy farms cause these bridges have passages equal to or averaging 100 acres each. Fruits, grains, and greater than the adjacent channel. vegetables are raised to a limited extent. The The development at Battle Creek is similar, rich river bottom lands near Kalamazoo are with the added detriment of having many famous as celery beds. Much of the land is good buildings and bridges encroaching on the for agricultural purposes. However, large river floodway. Other urban areas experienc- areas are swampy or poorly drained, and in ing minor flood damages are Allegan, Otsego, the lower reaches of the basin and the soil is Plainwell, Marshall, and Albion. Problems in too sandy for successful farming. The flood these places are due mainly to encroachment plain of the main river from Plainwell through on the flood plain. Kalamazoo and Battle Creek to Marshall con- Figure 14-24c identifies the time period in sists of fairly level sand and gravel deposits which major damages, as definedinthis study, free from large stones and normally covered are first noted within a given reach on the with loam or clayey loam. These flat areas main stem and principal tributaries. Table comprise the richest farmlands in the basin. 14-23 depicts the flood,plain damages by reach Most of the sites on the Kalamazoo River corresponding to the reaches designated in and its tributaries suitable for water power this figure. Table 14-24 shows upstream flood plants have been developed. In the steepest damages. Location of these daniages within portion of the main river from Allegan to particular watersheds may be seen in Figure above Plainwell there are seven dams develop- 14-25c. Summations of estimated average an- ing a total head of 98 feet. nual damages and acres in the flood plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-25. County summaries for the main stem and principal 1.15.4 Flood Problems tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-26. With rare exception, major floods in the Kalamazoo River basin have occurred as a re- 1.15.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention. sult of heavy spring rains or snow, covering Measures ground already partly saturated, at times when stream stages were already rising. The The "Kalamazoo River Flood Control Proj- worst nood, which had a peak flow of 10,266 ect at Battle Creek, Michigan, and Vicninty," efs, took place at Allegan, Michigan, in 1904. was authorized by the Flood Control Act of 66 Appendix 14 1954, approved September 3,1954. The follow- normal maximum annual flow, but the river ing sections of the plan have been completed valley has flooded to widths of 4,000 feet below under supervision of the U.S. Army Corps of Grand Rapids and Ionia when the banks have Engineers: been overtopped. (1) Kalamazoo River cutoff channel from The surface deposits in the Grand River Monroe Street dam to below confluence of basin are permeable glacial drift of great Battle Creek and old Kalamazoo River chan- depth, so that the major part of precipitation nel runoff ordinarily reaches the stream by perco- (2) widening and straightening of lation. Therefore, low flows are high and well Kalamazoo River channel from confluence sustained in comparison with streams in other with Battle Creek to below Water Works Park sections of the country. downstream, stations 0+00 to 263+30 The Grand River basin has six major (3) portion of Battle Creek, upstream tributaries. The Rogue, Flat, and Maple Riv- Jackson St. Bridge, stations 0+00 to 19+50. ers enter from the north, the Thornapple en- The remainder from stations 19+50 to 90+43 ters from the south, and the Lookingglass and has been deferred at request of city. Red Cedar Rivers enter from the east. The (4) increased stream capacity to 11,000 cfs drainage area of these tributaries comprises below confluence; 1,000 cfs diverted from 60 percent of the total drainage area of the Kalamazoo River to headrace. Upon comple- basin. tion of Battle Creek portion, 84 percent of damages will be eliminated. Location of this project is shown in Figure 14-26. 1.16.2 Previous Studies There are no other improvements by Fed- eral agencies at this time. There are no State One of the main studies and sources of in- flood control projects in the basin. Kalamazoo formation for the Grand River basin is the has performed some dredging to deepen the "Comprehensive Water Resources Study, channel through the city. Grand River Basin, Appendix H," prepared by After the 1947 flood Battle Creek estab- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit lished a flood warning station with a perma- District, under supervision of the Grand River nent chief observer. Battle Creek has attemp- Basin Coordinating Committee. Other studies ted to coordinate its planning and develop- are listed below: ment along a course that would aid flood con- (1) 1971-Flood Hazard Analysis for Plaster trol, but no definite plan has been adopted. Creek, Kent County, Michigan, prepared by Kalamazoo has reclaimed adjacent lowlands the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for park purposes. Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 (2) 1971-Draft Watershed Work Plan for the for a discussion of flood plain legislation Lower Maple River Watershed (Hayworth applicable to this river basin. Creek), Gratiot and Clinton Counties, Michigan-prepared by the U.S. Soil Conser- vation Service 1.16 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin (3) 1970-Flood Plain Information Report, Group 2.3, Grand River Basin Grand River (at Lansing), Michigan- prepared by the Corps of Engineers 1.16.1 Description (4) 1970-Rogue River Watershed Investi- gation, Newaygo and Kent Counties, The Grand River basin has a drainage area Michigan-prepared by the U.S. Soil Conser- of 5,572 square miles. Oval in shape, it is 135 vation Service miles long and has a maximum width of 70 (5) 1969-Flood Plain Information Report, miles. The Grand River itself is 260 miles long Grand River (Ingham and Eaton Counties), and drops 460 feet over its length. Location Michigan-prepared by the Corps of En- within River Basin Group 2.3 is shown in Fig- gineers ure 14-23. The river basin has a steep slope (6) 1969-Flood Plain Information Report, over half its length from its source to Ionia, Grand River (Lookingglass River, Clinton but has a very flat slope for the remainder of City), Michigan-prepared by the Corps of its course to Lake Michigan. Most flood plains Engineers of the Grand River and the major tributaries (7) 1969-Watershed Work Plans for the are broad with only a few feet of water flowing Upper Maple River East and West Wa- in the channels. The stream banks retain the tersheds, Clinton and Shiawassee Counties, Flood Plains Inventory 67 Michigan-prepared by the U.S. Soil Conser- portation paths are not confined to the flood vation Service plain by reason of topography. The roads and (8) 1968-Flood Plain Information Report, rail lines crisscross the basin mainly to link Grand River (Red Cedar River, Ingham City), the many urban centers located along the Michigan-prepared by the Corps of En- main stem of the Grand River. The routes gineers stretch cross-country on the shortest line be- (9) 1962-Interim Survey Report on Flood tween towns. There are more than 100 major Control at Grandville-prepared by the Corps road, highway, and railway bridges crossing of Engineers the Grand River and its tributaries. The (10) 1961-Basin Plan for Great Lakes-St. larger communities, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Lawrence River Basin-prepared by the Jackson, have a significant number of road Corps of Engineers bridges linking the bisected urban districts. (11) 1959-Interim Survey Report on Major The bridges located in areas where flood Drainage and Flood Control for Portage River, problems occur have been well cataloged. Ex- Michigan-prepared by the Corps of En- cept for the new expressway bridges, the vast gineers and Soil Conservation Service, U.S. majority of road bridges create a head loss and Department of Agriculture impede the flow of flood waters. The cost for (12) 1955-Flood Control Review Report mass removal and replacement of all these (Survey Scope) Grand River, Michigan, with bridges would be prohibitive, but definite flood particular reference to Lansing, Michigan, and capacity standards should be designed into all vicinity-prepared by the Corps of Engineers new bridge construction and modernization. (13) 1933-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, More than one-half of the Grand River basin 308 report, discussion of problems of water re- area is cropland, but the agricultural use of sources and development in the Grand River the flood plain lands is minimal. This pattern basin has developed for several reasons: (1) On the river above Portland and on the upper reaches of the tributaries, the flood 1.16.3 Development in the Flood Plain plain is narrow in width and seldom flat. Abrupt changes in grade away from the river The dominant economic factors in the Grand are common. River basin are industry, agriculture, and ex- (2) The soils are not especially fertile, and traction and production of mineral resources. therefore, usually not cultivated. The sources of water supply for industry, (3) Crop damages have been minor because municipalities, and agriculture are mostly most floods usually occur in the late winter or wells, the Grand River itself, and Lake Michi- early spring before the crops are planted. gan. Some of the industries use considerable There are a few farm houses or other rural quantities of water and because the Grand structures in the flood plain. River serves as a major drainage outlet for all Many dams and reservoirs are present on cities in the basin, further urban and indus- the Grand River and its tributaries. These trial development will increase pollution in the dams are normally very small, and most have river and limit its use As a major source of not been used actively for the protection of the water supply. The Grand River basin includes flood plains against excessive river flows. three large metropolitan centers, Jackson, Reservoirs are small and are formed behind Lansing, and Grand Rapids, which all have power and water control dams. Most of the flood plain areas. reservoirs have large growths of vegetation Extensive deposits of sand and gravel qre which have increased organic materials and located throughout the basin, particul rly thus greatly reduced the storage capacity and along the lower reaches of the Grand Rii ,r in recreational area of the reservoirs. Appendix Kent and Ottawa Counties. A large portion of 2, Surface Water Hydrology, contains a com- the sand and gravel is transported by barge on plete listing of existing dam sites in the Grand the Grand River below Grand Rapids. A deep- River basin. draft harbor is maintained at Grand Haven for a distance of approximately 3 miles upriver. This area averaged more than 3 million tons of 1.16.4 Flood Problems cargo, mostly sand and gravel, during the past five years. Most of the floods in the Grand River basin Although many highway and rail routes occur in the spring as warm rains fall on fro- cross the Grand River flood plain, the trans- zen snow-covered ground or on saturated 68 Appendix 14 ground. Frequently temperatures rise rapidly during the 1904 flood. Their effectiveness is before the ice is out of the channel so that the indicated by the fact that flood damage since river's capacity to handle the flow is reduced. their construction has been confined to the Ice jams often form and aggravate the situa- southwestern section of the city which is not tion. Maximum unit discharges in the Grand protected by the walls. The 1948 flood crested River basin reach 11 to 20 efs per square mile within 2 feet of the top of these walls. Because of drainage area, which is higher than the of channel sedimentation and encroachment peaks for adjacent drainage areas in southern of the walls into the natural flood plain, a flood Michigan. Spring floods and high intensity of the 1904 magnitude would probably over- summer floods are normal in the basin, and flow the floodwalls. The streets on both sides localized thunder showers create flood condi- of the Grand River in this section are several tions in upriver communities. These local peak feet below the floodwall and contain the flows usually do not produce flood conditions downtown area of Grand Rapids on the left at communities located further downstream. bank and numerous small service businesses, The major flood of record on the Grand River large and small industries, and residential in March 1904 was caused by moderate rain- areas along the right bank. fall in conjunction with runoff of snow melt The City of Jackson modified the Grand due to high temperatures. Maximum dis- River channel by encasing the river in a con- charges of 54,000 efs at Grand Rapids and crete conduit placed on the existing riverbed 24,500 at Lansing were recorded in 1904. Other through the central business district and by major floods of slightly less intensity occurred widening and straightening the river channel along the main river channel in March 1948, from Jackson Road to Berry Road, approxi- April 1947, March 1918, March 1908, and June mately 8 miles north of Jackson. Most of the 1905. Water surface elevations above flood concrete conduit is exposed, except for a small stage were reached twice in the spring of 1949 section buried under buildings along both and three times in the spring of 1950, due to sides of Michigan Avenue. separate snow melts and high intensity rain- The U.S. Soil Conservation Service, the falls. The urban areas subject to flooding in Clinton County Soil Conservation District, the basin are located primarily along the main and the Clinton County Drain Commission stem of the Grand River and along the lower constructed the Catlin Waters Watershed reaches of the major tributaries. Project and the Muskrat Creek Watershed Table 14-22 lists flood damage centers lo- Project. cated in the basin. Figure 14-24c identifies the Location of these flood damage prevention time period in which major damages, as de- measures is illustrated in Figure 14-26. fined in this study, are first noted within a No other flood control projects of conse- given reach on the main stem and principal quence have been constructed by the Grand tributaries. Table 14-23 depicts the flood plain River basin communities. Low-head power damages by reach corresponding to the dams have been constructed and maintained, reaches designated in this figure. Table 14-24 but the storage capacity of these structures is depicts upstream flood damages. Location of so limited that they have little effect on flood these damages within particular watersheds conditions downstream. may be seen in Figure 14-25c. Summations of Nonstructural preventive measures fall estimated average annual damages and acres mainly into two categories: advance warning in the flood plain are shown by river basin in and flood plain regulation. Table 14-25. County summaries for the main The issuance of forecasts of the possible oc- stem and principal tributaries are tabulated currence of a natural disaster is the responsi- in Table 14-26. bility of the National Weather Service. The extent and severity of floods depend directly on the amount and occurrence of precipita- 1.16.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention tion. The occurrences of rainfall are forecast Measures for the State of Michigan by the Weather Ser- vice in Chicago. Characteristics furnished by Following the March 1904 flood, Grand the forecast include the time of occurrence Rapids spent approximately $1,000,000 for the (24-hour period), area distribution (by sec- construction of flood retaining walls and tional classification), and a general statement levees with accompanying interior drainage. of the amount of rainfall expected. The entire These walls were designed with a 2-foot Grand River basin has radar coverage from freeboard allowance over the stages reached Chicago, Detroit, and Muskegon weather sta- Flood Plains Inventory 69 tions. Rainfall forecasts are not presently 1.17.2 Previous Studies used in flood forecasting. Flood forecasts are presently based on existing conditions. A preliminary investigation report on the Whenever measured rainfall amounts exceed Black River watershed in Ottawa and Allegan 0.5 inches, they are telephoned to the Lansing Counties was prepared in 1962. or Grand Rapids River District Offices. The Lansing District is responsible for flood fore- casting on the Grand River from Jackson to 1.17.3 Development in the Flood Plain Grand Ledge and the Red Cedar River at East Lansing. The Grand Rapids District is respon- The Black River flood plains are primarily sible for the Grand River downstream from agricultural. Severe agricultural flooding and Grand Ledge to Grand Rapids. The responsi- associated drainage problems have occurred bility to warn or alert the Federal, military, as a result of spring rains and snowmelt on and civilian authorities, State and local offi- saturated ground. Damages are tabulated in cials, and the civilian population of this fore- Table 14-24. Location of these damages within cast is the duty of the Defense Civil Prepared- particular watersheds may be seen in Figure ness Agency. 14-25c. Summations of estimated average an- Flood plain information and regulation pre- nual damage and acres in the flood plain are sents the theory that prevention is worth shown by river basin in Table 14-25. many millions of dollars in cures. Flood data and reasonable regulations can be used to guide and control developments in flood 1.17.4 Existing Flood Damage Prevention hazard areas, thereby preventing an increase Measures in flood damage. Such controls have been adopted by many communities and have been No Federal flood control projects have been accepted as a practical way to assure safe de- constructed in the complex. Refer to Subsec- velopment and to prevent flood disasters. tion 1.14.5 for discussion of flood plain legisla- Lansing has adopted flood plain legislation as tion applicable to this complex. a means of guiding and controlling develop- ment in flood plains. The townships of Merid- ian, Delhi, Windsor, and Bath have also 1.18 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin adopted flood plain legislation. Appendix S20, Group 2.4, Muskegon River Basin State Laws, Policies,. and Institutional Ar- rangements, includes a more detailed discus- sion of flood plain legislation. 1.18.1 Description The Muskegon River basin has a drainage 1.17 Lake Michigan Southeast, River Basin area of approximately 2,644 square miles lying Group 2.3, Ottawa Complex in the northwestern part of Michigan's Lower Peninsula. It is an irregularly shaped basin spreading over parts of several counties. Lo- 1.17.1 Description cation within River Basin Group 2.4 is shown in Figure 14-27. The basin is 120 miles long The Black River rises in the southern part of and ranges in width from 10 to 40 miles. The Michigan's Lower Peninsula in Ottawa main stem of the Muskegon River flows 227 County. It flows westerly and empties into miles in a southwesterly direction from its Lake Michigan downstream from the Village source at Houghton and Higgins Lakes to its of Holland. The basin is 24 miles long and 24 mouth at Lake Michigan. The source of the miles wide at the extreme point and is shaped river is in an upland region at an altitude of like a triangle. Location of the complex within more than 1,100 feet, and the river descends River Basin Group 2.3 is shown in Figure 575 feet to Lake Michigan. It descends rather 14-23. gradually and at a uniform rate over most of The entire watershed is generally undulat- its length. There are few rapids or falls, and ing with prairie, swamp, and hilly sections al- most of those originally existing have been ternating at frequent intervals. Many small flooded by backwater from power dams. Aver- lakes and springs are scattered throughout age fall is 21/2 feet per mile with a slope of 4.4 the watershed. Ponded water stands through- feet per mile occurring between Hersey and out the basin for part of the year. Newaygo. There are no large tributaries. The 70 Appendix, 14 SCHOOLCRAFT, ESCANABA e TIQUE DELTA SEU I X GROS ArKINAC A DI NOC@@ &-.f Lake N s'.- Mfthin., Wend igoace Escanaba M.,kine, C@@ 0.4 St.- Wand 0 to j beew h1ad \C, qLt Paws MMeT S-th M-ito. W.MC? J TRIM We LEELA14AU TRA E SENZIE T .-ma CA 0 F,anIdwt Cryaaf take map KAI Al.. LEGEND MISSAUKEE,., i ift take BOUNDARIES a MANISTEE STATE ---u 11@1 COUNTY Man 5tee MANISTEE take KIA, cadi"Ac, PLANNING AREA ORD ROFCPMMON_ RIVER BASIN GROUP k - RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX pw. MUSK ON VICCIN @I Y MA(' ASO" 8Z LANE.,@ OSCEOLA SABLE W 1. OCEANA @"TA Whitba SCALE IN MILES ,MUSKE-mm 05 10 15 213 25 FIGURE 14-27 Lake Michigan Northeast-River Basin Group 2.4 Flood Plains Inventary 71 principal small tributaries are the Clam River There are five dams across the main river. and Hersey Creek from the right bank and the The one at Big Rapids is an old structure, built Little Muskegon River from the left bank. The in the early lumbering days. Three others are river expands into Muskegon Lake 51/2 miles the Croton, Hardy and Rogers Dams which are above the mouth. concrete and earth filled structures used for The drainage basin consists for the most electric-power development. The fifth is the part of high, gently rolling, sandy plains which Reedsburg Dam located in the Deadstream are generally thinly populated and covered area. The pools behind these dams are becom- with second-growth timber. The region is cov- ing increasingly more important as sites for ered with thick glacial drift, and the river has recreation activities. There are also some cut a deep channel through these deposits small dams on the tributaries which have been forming valley banks 50 to 150 feet high along used for power development. None of the dams the lower 125 miles. are provided with locks for navigation pur- poses. Agricultural activity is of minor importance with much of the bottom land in the river val- 1.18.2 Previous Studies ley entirely unsuited for cultivation. Previous studies are listed below: (1) 1960-The Michigan Water Resources 1.18.4 Flood Problems Commission report, "Drought Flow of Michi- gan Streams," gives information on low-flow There have been no general flood problems conditions expected in the basin. in the basin. The flow of the main stem is regu- (2) 1931-A 308 report by the Corps of En- lated by the impounding reservoirs serving gineers, published on December 10, 1931, as the hydropower dams. The maximum flood House Document No. 143, reports on the flow of 14,950 efs occurred in 1913. The average Muskegon River and covers navigation, flood flow by the Newaygo gage is approximately control, power development, and irrigation. It 2000 efs. In the lower half of the Muskegon concluded that flood control was not necessary River the low banks of the river are usually at the time. only a few feet above normal water level, with high valley banks a few hundred feet to one mile apart. These bottom lands are subject to frequent overflows, but because they have 1.18.3 Development in the Flood Plain generally remained unoccupied swamp and brush, damages have been minimal. Through The entire Muskegon River below Houghton the Cities of Newaygo and Big Rapids the Lake was extensively used for logging in the river banks are high, and most flood waters latter part of the 19th century. The forests are contained with little damage. The City of were cut indiscriminately, and the industry Muskegon is not subject to flooding because declined rapidly after 1900. The lumbering ac- the level of Muskegon Lake and the connect- tivities of today are confined mainly to har- ing channel remain at the approximate level vesting the second-growth timber for pulp of Lake Michigan. uses. Many of the population centers of the Figure 14-28c identifies the time period in logging era were abandoned with the demise which major damages, as defined in this study, of the industry and most of the towns existing are first noted within a given reach on the today survive on resort and vacation trade. main stem and principal tributaries. Table The major cities of the basin include Muske- 14-27 shows the flood plain damages by reach gon, a heavy industry and transportation cen- corresponding to the reaches designated in ter surrounding the river mouth at Lake this figure. Table 14-28 shows upstream flood Michigan; Big Rapids, a former furniture cen- damages. Location of these damages within ter 95 miles upstream, now experiencing rapid particular watersheds may be seen in Figure growth under the impetus of expanding 14-29c. Summations of estimated average Ferris State College; and Cadillac, a light in- annual damages and acres in the flood plain dustry and vacation center located in the are shown by river basin in Table 14-29. headwater tributary area, currently reaping County summaries for the main stem and the benefits of the summer-winter sports principal tributaries are tabulated in Table boom. 14-30. 72 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-27 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 2.4 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N -J _j -j -i z REACH AVERAGE ANNUAL .1 @ 1% C@ - TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES U FROM TO (DOLL RS) URBAN RURAL z 5 MUSKEGON RIVER AB1 Muskegon TION TION 1970 3,000 5 20 990( 9,925 R17W S28 R15W S4 1980 1,400 2,800 85 60 60 972( 145 9,780 2000 2,400 4,800 165 100 100 956( 285 9,640 2020 4,400 8,800 200 150 180 939! 410 9,515 AB2 Newago T10N T13N 1970 5,000 40 201( 2,050 R15W s4 R11W Sl 1980 7,000 80 197( 2,050 2000 12,000 100 193( 2,050 2020 22,000 120 195( 2,050 AB3 Mecosta T13N T16N 1970 3,000 30 120 1,230 R11W Sl R9W S5 1980 4,000 65 114( 1,205 2000 5,200 80 108( 1,160 2020 12,200 125 102( 1,145 AB3A Mecosta Big Rapids 1970 4,000 15 3( 45 1980 5,800 40 3( 70 2000 11, 600 80 3! 115 2020 18,600 90 4( 130 WHITE RI4EP AC1 [email protected] RlTIlN RJT12N 1970 2,500 50 3277 3,327 SW S2 6W S4 1980 3,250 70 3257 3,327 2000 4,250 90 3237 3,327 2020 6,000 110 3217 3,327 PERE RITE RIVER AC2 Mason T18N T18N 1970 3,000 30 8700 8,730 R18W S15 R15W S24 1980 500 3,400 40 90 8600 40 8,690 2000 1,500 4,800 70 20 130 8511 190 8:640 2020 41500 5,700 100 40 150 844 40 8 590 MANISTEE RIVER ADI Manistee T21N T23N 1970 2,000 1,000 15 15 1020 15 10,215 R17W Sil R13W S25 1980 2,800 1,400 20 15 45 10158 35 10,195 2000 4,800 2,400 40 20 60 10110 60 10,170 2020 8,800 4,400 60 30 80 1006, 90 10,140 AD2 Wexford T23N T24N 1970 2,000 40 4435 4,475 R13W S25 R9W SI 1980 2,400 120 4355 4,475 2000 2,800 180 4295 4,475 2020 3,600 200 4275 4,475 BOARDMAN RIVER AE1 Grand T27N T27N 1970 2,000 30 4843 4,843 Travers RIIW S2 R9W S25 1980 2,300 60 4813 4,873 2000 3,000 80 4797 4,873 2020 3,800 100 4773 4,873 MANISTIQUE RIVER Alli School- T41N T45N 1970 7,500 5 3000 5 3,000 Includes Manistique craft R16W S13 R13W S36 1980 7,500 300 5 40 2960 5 3,000 Same 2000 7,500 500 15 80 2910 15 2,990 Same 2020 7,500 1,500 20 120 2865 20 2,985 Same AH2 Mackinac T45N Ranistique 1970 28,200 100 300 400 Includes Manistique Lake R13W S36 Lake 1980 36,700 120 280 400 Same 2000 45,100 140 260 400 Same 2020 59,200 150 250 400 Same INDIAN RIVER AH3 School- T41N Indian Lake 1970 29,700 40 1600 1,640 craft R16W S1 Inlet 1980 30,900 80 1560 1,640 2000 31,800 100 1540 1,640 2020 34,700 120 1520 1,640 ESCANABA RIVER AJ1 Delta T39N T41N 1970 2,632 6 3004 3,010 R22W S18 R24W S2 1980 2,847 6 3004 3,010 2000 3,242 6 3004 3,010 2020 3,875 6 3004 3,010 Flood Plains Inventory 73 TABLE 14-28 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.4 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W AVERAGE ANNUAL z w w 5 Mz 0 DAMAGES z < Cc _j5 Q 0: 2D YEAR -jW 't cr ck: w TOTAL z Mw w (DOLLARS) CL 0 :r cr w ix I.- D (n 0 V) 4 z 0 -1 0 0 (L 0 URBAN 1RURALITOTAL V 12 URBANIRURAL MANISTEE OVER - MICHMAN 5F 1970 -- 100 100 300 950 550 -- 1,800 5F2 1970 2,800 -- 2,800 80 1,030 190 65 5 70 1,300 5F3 1970 -- 100 100 25 75 300 125 -- 525 5F3A 1970 -- -- 64 192 118 -- -- 380 -- - -- -65 -5 7-0 4,005 Total 1970 2,800 iOO 3,000 31 919 2,472 983 1980 3,700 300 4,000 31 519 2,472 983 65 5 70 4,005 2000 6'600 400 7,000 31 519 2,472 983 65 5 70 4,005 2020 12,5001 400 1 12,900 31 519 2,472 983 65 5 70 4,005 MUSKEGON RIVER MICHIGAN 511 1970 -- 4,400 4,400 150 -- 350 -- -- -- -- 500 5E2A 1970 1,000 100 1,100 70 so 200 so 2 98 100 400 5E2 1970 -- 2,000 2,000 1,520 550 1,770 455 4,295 5E3 1970 300 300 250 200 550 250 1,250 5E6Al 1970 -- 400 400 200 600 -- -- 800 SE 1970 2,000 18,400 20,400 1 tOLO LUO 3L6 0 10 10 O@ - 110 7,120 Total 1970 3,000 25,600 28,600 9,190 2,950 6,470 1,755 10 102 98 210 14,365 1980 4,000 36,600 40,600 3,190 2,950 6,470 1,755 10 102 98 210 14,365 2000 7,100 46,600 533700 3,190 2,950 6,470 1,755 10 1*02 98 210 14,365 2020 13,400 48;400 61,800 3,190 2,950 6,470 1,755 10 102 98 210 14,365 SABLE COMPLEX MICHIGAN 5DD 1970 100 100 -- 200 -- -- 200 5EE5 1970 100 100 50 200 400 150 800 5HH 1970 -- -- 10 10 900 -- 920 5HHI 1970 100 100 -- 156 1,324 1,480 5HH2 1970 400 400 -- 1,000 4,290 2iOOO 7,290 551 1970 1,700 1,700 40 10 -- 50 548A 1970 2,100 2,100 1,090 1,000 -- 2,090 563 1970 Soo 100 900 -- 115 200 125 20 20 440 5cc 1970 4,600 300 4,900 200 500 500 -- 1,000 -- 1,000 1,200 5EE 1970 100 100 200 -- 200 500 -- -- 20 -20 700 5EE2 1970 -- 300 300 too 1,000 1,720 500 3,320 5EE2A 1970 17,200 17,200 1,500 __@236 20 -- 3,756 Total 1970 5,500 22,500 28,000 4,990 4,627 9,854 2-,i-79 1-,000 4-0 -1,040 22,246 1980 7,300 32,200 39,500 4,990 4,627 9,854 2,775 1,000 40 1,040 22,246 2000 13,000 41,000 54,000 4,990 4,627 9,854 2,775 1,000 40 1,040 22,246 2020 24,600 42,500 67,100 4,990 4,627 9,854 2,775 1,000 40 1,040 22,246 SEUL CHOIX'GROSCAP - MICHIGAN 536A 1970 300 300 200 100 50 50 -- -- -- 400 1980 400 400 200 100 50 50 400 2000 500 500 200 100 50 50 400 2020 600 600 200 100 50 50 400 TRAVERSE COMPLEX MICHIGAN 540 1970 4,000 4,000 -- -- -- -- 100 100 -- 542 1970 1,600 1,600 40 -- 40 -- 5X 1970 -- 100 100 so 300 200 100 -- 680 5BB 1970 200 100 120 375 55 650 547 1970 -- -- 150 600 450 1,200 550 1970 - 40 546 586 Total 1970 5,600 300 5,900 180 610 1-,721 605 40 100 140 3,116 1980 7,400 400 7,800 ISO 610 1,721 605 40 100 140 3,116 2000 13,300 500 13,900 ISO 610 1,721 605 40 100 140 3,116 2020 25,000 600 25,600 ISO 610 1,721 605 40 100 140 3,116 BAY DE NOC CQI1PLEX - MICHIGAN 5T 1970 406 . 100 500 -- 160 -- -- 10 -- -- 10 160 5TI 1970 12,300 12,300 7,500 775 500 250 -- -- 9,025 5T2 1970 32_302 3J410- 2 000 300 300 400 3,000 Total 1970 400 15,700 16,100 9,500 1-3-23-5 8-00 -656 10 10 12,185 1980 500 22,500 23,000 9,500 1,235 800 650 10 10 12,185 9 9@ 2000 900 28,600 29,500 '500 1.,235 800 650 10 10 12,185 2020 1,800 29,700 31,500 '500 1,235 800 650 10 10 12,185 74 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-28(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 2.4 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN AVERAGE ANNUAL WM 0 0 _J XW z W z Mz (A DAMAGES cr W 41 a: 4 _J cr - D _J UJ < M 0: z X W TOTAL YEAR (DOLLARS) _J W UJ D d. 15 1z 0 0 0 Z z -1 0 0 U 0 URBAN 1RURALITOTAL URBANIRURAL I I ESCANABA RIVER - MICHIGAN 5L3 1970 200 200 100 300 1,200 200 1,800 5L4 1970 j-2,0_00 300 6,300 160 160 -1 180 1,100 30 120 150 1,600 Total 1970 6,000 500 6'500 260 460 380 1,306 __36) -72-0 _1@0 3,400 1980 8,000 700 8:700 260 460 1,380 1,300 30 120 150 3,400 2000 14,200 900 15,100 260 460 1,380 1,300. 30 120 150 3,400 2320 26,800 900 27,700 260 460 1,380 1,3GO 30 120 150 3,400 MANISTIQUE RIVER - MICHIGAN 5M 1970 60,000 60,000 400 1,000 100 1,500 5M5 1970 2 2,000 25 25 50 1000 Total 1970 62,000 62,000 425 1,025 100 1,550 1980 82,500 82,500 425 1,025 100 1,550 2000 146,900 146,900 425 1,025 100 1,550 2020 277,100 277,100 425 13025 100 1,550 1.18.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention The total complex drains an area of approxi- Measures mately 1,941 square miles. Its location within River Basin Group 2.4 is shown in Figure There are no structural flood control proj- 14-27. ects in the Muskegon River basin. Although The Pere Marquette basin is approximately the dams along the main stem and some 45 miles long and 25 miles wide at its extreme tributaries serve to regulate river stages, points. The South Branch, the major tribu- their primary purpose is the development of tary, joins the main stem 15 miles from the hydroelectric power. The Corps of Engineers mouth. The terrain is mainly high outwash maintains a navigation channel at 27 feet plains with moraines and till plains. Predomi- through Lake Muskegon, but its influence on nately sandy and gravelly, the soils are ex- upstream river stages is negligible. tremely well drained. The Michigan Water Resources Commission The Big Sable River basin measures approx- has the responsibility and authority to regu- imately 30 miles long and 8 miles wide at its late all development in flood plain areas. This longest and widest points. There are no major authority is of increasing importance as more tributaries, and the river flows into Hamlin and more river frontage is occupied for recrea- Lake before entering Lake Michigan. Terrain tional living. Subsection 1.14.5 contains a dis- and soil features are similar to those of the cussion of flood plain legislation applicable to Pere Marquette basin. this river basin. Measuring approximately 45 miles long,- the White River basin is 15 miles at its widest point. There are no important tributaries, and 1.19 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin the river broadens to form White Lake before Group 2.4, Sable Complex emptying into Lake Michigan. Terrain and soil features are similar to those of the Pere Marquette basin. 1.19.1 Description The Sable complex is primarily drained by 1.19.2 Previous Studies the Pere Marquette River, draining an area of 792 square miles; the White River, draining an Previous studies are listed below: area of 492 square miles; and the Big Sable (1) A "Watershed Work Plan for the Black River, draining an area of 164 square miles. Creek-Mason Watershed" was prepared by Flood Plains Inventory 75 the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in 1963 and 1.19.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention supplemented in 1967. Measures (2) An unfavorable preliminary investiga- tion report dated November 8,1913, was made There are no existing structural flood con- by the Corps of Engineers on the Pere Mar- trol measures in the Pere Marquette basin. quette River. Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legislation applicable to this com- plex. 1.19.3 Development in the Flood Plain The greater portion of the population of the 1.20 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Sable complex is located in the towns near the Group 2.4, Manistee River Basin mouth of the rivers. These localities are largely resort areas with some light industry 1.20.1 Description catering to fruit processing. The hillsides of this region, especially those adjacent to the The Manistee River basin, with.a drainage Lake Michigan shoreline-, are cultivated with area of approximately 2,006 square miles, a variety of orchard crops. The flood plains are has an irregular shape covering several narrow and relatively unoccupied. counties in the northwestern part of the The marsh area surrounding the mouth of Lower Peninsula. Location within River the Pere Marquette River at Ludington is un- Basin Group 2.4 is shown in Figure 14-27. The dergoing land-fill operations for industrial ex- main stem of the Manistee River flows south- pansion. Whether this encroachment will pre- westerly for 170 miles. Just above its mouth at sent discharge problems is yet to be seen. Lake Michigan it widens to form Manistee There are also cottages being built along the Lake with depths from 30 to 45 feet. The basin stream banks for the tourist industry. has a maximum width of 40 miles in the lower half, but contracts in the upper 50 miles into a narrow section only 15 miles wide. The head- 1.19.4 Flood Problems waters originate in an area of small lakes, while the principal tributaries, the Little Flooding has not been a serious problem in Manistee River and the Pine River, enter the the Sable complex in past years. Largely be- main stem from the south. Total fall is 555 feet cause of the thin spread of the population in for an average drop of 31/2 feet per mile. the area, the narrow extent of flood plain de- This watershed is a region of deep glacial velopment, the high filtration rates of the drift (up to 800 feet thick) consisting of mostly soils, and the small expanse of the drainage sandy plains cut in some places by clay ridges. areas, any flooding is local and extremely lim- The river has cut a deep channel through this ited. drift deposit, and the valley banks along the However, the indiscriminate occupation of lower 100 miles are generally 50 to 200 feet stream banks by seasonal homes could easily high and 1/4 to one mile back from the river bed. contribute to increased flood damages. Im- plementation of flood plain regulations is es- sential to prevent serious losses in the future. 1.20.2 Previous Studies Figure 14-28c identifies the time period in which major damages, as defined in this study, The report of 1931, made under the provision are first noted within a given reach on the of House Document 308, 69th Congress, cov- main stem and principal tributaries. Table ered all phases of water resources develop- 14-27 shows the flood plain damages by reach ment in the Manistee River basin. It con- corresponding to the reaches designated in cluded that development of the stream for this figure. Table 14-28 shows upstream flood navigation, water power, flood control, and ir- damages. Location of these damages within rigation was not economically justified at that particular watersheds may be seen in Figure time. 14-29c. Summations of estimated average an- nual damages and acres in the flood plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-29. County 1.20.3 Development in the Flood Plain summaries for the main stem and principal tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-30. On the whole, the basin and flood plain areas 76 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-29 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 2.4 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rurar Urban Rural Muskegon 1970 73000 361600 255 275,570 River 1980 11)200 50.1400 425 27.1400 2000 215100 68.9600 610 27.9215 2020 363400 913400 750 27.9075 Sable Complex 1970 5.1500 281000 1.$040 34.9303 1980 7.9800 38@850 1.1080 341263 2000 14@P500 505050 1.9130 34J@213 2020 291100 54.9200 11180 341163 'Mani.stee 1970 43800 3.1200 85 183695 River 1980 6.%500 4.9100 105 18JI675 2000 11.1400 5.2600 130 18.1650 2020 21.1300 8.1400 160 181620 Traverse 1970 5.9 600 21300 140 7P989 Complex 1980 7.9 400 2.1700 .140 71989 2000 135300 3.q5OO 140 73,989 2020 25P00O 4000 140 7P989 Seul Choix- 1970 - 300 - 400 Groscap 1980 - 400 - 400 Complex 2000 - 500 - 400 2020 - 600 - 400 Manistique 1970 69.2500 57P900 15555 5PO40 River 1980 '90.1000 67%900 13555 55040 2000 154000 771400 13565 51030 2020 2841600 95.9400 11@570 5iO25 Bay de Noe 1970 400 15.1700 10 12.1185 Complex 1980 500 22.9500 10 12.91-85 2000 900 28.9600 10 12.9 185 2020 lP800 29@700 10 12)185 Escanaba 1970 6.9000 31J32 150 6,410 River .1980 8.9000 3.1547 150 63410 2000 14.9 200 41142 150 6.9 410 2020 26)800 150 6010 TOTAL 1:970 98.9800 147.9132 33,235 112.%592 1980 131.9 400 190.9397 3.9465 112062 2000 229.9,800 238092 3.9735 1122092 2020 425.1000 288.9875 3.9960 111.V867 Flood Plains Inventory 77 are sparsely settled. The largest city, Manis- 1.21 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin tee, is located at the mouth of Manistee River Group 2.4, Traverse Complex and has several large industrial operations lo- cated along the shores of Manistee Lake. There are at least 25 highway and railway 1.21.1 Description bridges over the lower 162 miles of the Manis- tee River. Three of the bridges in Manistee are The Boardman River basin, with a drainage of the bascule type. In the lumber boom days of area of approximately 347 square miles, is the the latter 19th century, the river was used largest of this complex. With headwaters in extensively for floating logs to the sawmills. Kalkaska County, the river flows westerly to a Agricultural activity is of minor importance point approximately 7 miles south of Traverse in the basin and the flood plains are little used City and then northerly to its mouth in the for this purpose. There are four water power West Arm of Grand Traverse Bay. Location of developments in the basin, and two dams on the complex within River Basin Group 2.4 is the main stem have a total head of 123 feet. shown in Figure 14-27. The basin measures approximately 32 miles long and 12 miles wide. There are no major tributaries. The only other river of significant size is 1.20.4 Flood Problems the Betsie River, draining an area of 260 square miles. This river has its headwaters River flow is unusually regular in this in Grand Traverse County and flows into watershed. The streams receive much of their Lake Michigan at Frankfort. The main stem supply from springs along the banks. Ordinar- is approximately 40 miles long. ily floods rise only 4 to 5 feet above low water The topography of the area is composed of and overflow only swampy, brush-covered sandy outwash plains interlaced with rela- lands between the high secondary banks. The tively hilly moraines, also having well drained towns and villages are located outside these sandy loam soils. The shoreline in the south- areas and have experienced little if any flood ern portion of the watershed is bordered by damage. The pressures for recreational land large sand dune formations, notably the could create some careless use of these flood- Sleeping Bear dune near Empire, Michigan. prone bottom lands. Local government should exercise enforcement powers to prevent such potentially costly development. 1.21.2 Previous Studies Figure 14-28c identifies the time period in which major damages, as defined in this study, There have been no flood control reports are first noted within a given reach on the published for the Traverse complex. main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-27 shows the flood plain damages by reach corresponding to the reaches designated in 1.21.3 Development in the Flood Plain this figure. Table 14-28 indicates upstream flood damages. Location of these damages Much of the population of this relatively within particular watersheds may be seen in sparsely settled region is concentrated in the Figure 14-29c. Summations of estimated av- towns located at the river mouths along the erage annual damages and acres in the flood Lake Michigan shoreline. Farming is concen- plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-29. trated in fruit orchards and dairying, neither County summaries for the main stem and of which use the flood plains to any extent. The principal tributaries are tabulated in Table attractions of summer-winter sports activities 14-30. have created a heavy demand for recreational lands accompanied by the development of river and lake shoreline properties through- out the area. 1.20.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures 1.21.4 Flood Problems There are no existing structural flood con- trol measures in the basin. Refer to Subsec- Any flood damages reported in the past have tion 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legis- been minor. Charlevoix, Boyne City, and Trav- lation applicable to this river basin. erse City have experienced flood problems. 78 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-30 River Basin Group 2.4, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages_(Pollars) Flood Plain County (Michigan) Urban Rural Urban Rural Delta --- 2,632 --- 3,010 Grand Traverse --- 2,000 --- 4,873 Mackinac --- 28,200 --- 400 Manistee 2,000 1,000 15 10,215 Mason --- 3,000 --- 8,730 Mecosta 4,000 3,000 45 1,230 Muskegon --- 5,500 --- 13,252 Newaygo, --- 5,000 --- 2,050 Schoolcraft 7,500 29,700 5 4,640 Wexford --- 2,000 --- 4,475 TOTALS 13,500 82,032 65 52,875 YEAR 1980 Delta --- 2,847 --- 3,010 Grand Traverse --- 2,300 4,873 Mackinac --- 36,700 --- 400 Manistee 2,800 1,400 35 10,195 Mason 500 3,400 40 8,690 Mecosta 5,800 4,000 70 1,205 Muskegon 1,400 6,050 145 13,107 Newaygo --- 7,000 --- 2,050 Schoolcraft 7,500 31,200 5 4,640 Wexford --- 2,400 --- 4,475 TOTALS 18,000 97,297 295 52,645 YEAR 2000 Delta --- 3,242 --- 3,010 Grand Traverse --- 3,000 4,873 Mackinac --- 45,100 --- 400 Manistee 4,800 2,400 60 10,170 Mason 1,500 4,800 90 8,640 Mecosta 11,600 5,200 115 1,160 Muskegon 2,400 9,050 285 12,967 Newaygo --- 12,000 --- 2,050 Schoolcraft 7,500 32,300 15 4,630 Wexford --- 2,800 --- 4,475 TOTALS 27,800 119,892 565 52,375 YEAR 2020 Delta --- 3,875 --- 3,010 Grand Traverse --- 3,800 --- 4,873 Mackinac --- 59,200 --- 400 Manistee 8,800 4,400 90 10,140 Mason 4,500 5,700 140 8,590 Mecosta 18,600 12,200 130 1,145 Muskegon 4,400 14,800 410 12,842 Newaygo, --- 22,000 --- 2,050 Schoolcraft 7,500 36,200 20 4,625 Wexford --- 3,600 --- 4,475 TOTALS 43,800 165,775 790 52,150 On main stem and principal tributaries Flood Plains Inventory 79 Those at Traverse City were mainly caused 1.22.2 Previous Studies by the inadequacies of local drainage. The pervious soils of the basin help to modify the There have been no flood control reports fluctuations in stream flow. published for the area. Figure 14-28c identifies the time period in which major damages, as defined in this study, are first noted within a given reach on the 1.22.3 Development in the Flood Plain main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-27 shows the flood plain damages by reach The area remains sparsely populated. There corresponding to the reaches designated in are no large towns or villages. Agriculture is this figure. Table 14-29 depicts upstream flood of minor importance and consists of dairying damages. Location of these damages within and hay crops in the upland areas. Forest particular watersheds may be seen in Figure products and tourism provide the main source 14-29c. Summations of estimated average an- of income. Most of the flood plains are occupied nual damages and acres in the flood plain are by swamp forest. shown by river basin in Table 14-29. County summaries for the main stem and principal tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-30. 1.22.4 Flood Problems Minor flood problems exist for the Seul Choix-Groscap and Bay de Noe basins at pres- 1.21.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention ent. Areas subjected to annual overflows are Measures unoccupied and undeveloped. Table 14-28 shows estimated damages by watersheds, Other than a few dams and reservoirs built which are identified in Figure 14-29c. Summa- primarily for power development purposes, tions of estimated average annual damages there are no flood damage prevention meas- and acres in the flood plain are shown by river ures in this basin. The Michigan Water Re- basin in Table 14-29. sources Commission is responsible for regulat- ing all development in the flood plain. Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for discussion of flood plain 1.22.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention legislation applicable to this complex. Measures There are no existing structural flood con- trol measures in the basin. Refer to Subsec- 1.22 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin tion 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legis- Group 2.4, Seul Choix-Groscap and Bay lation applicable to these complexes. de Noc Complexes 1.23 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin 1.22.1 Description Group 2.4, Manistique River Basin The Seul Choix-Groscap basin complex to the east of the Manistique River basin and the 1.23.1 Description Bay de Noe basin complex to the west of the Manistique River basin comprise the greater The Manistique River basin drains an area part of the eastern lowlands in Michigan's of approximately 1,447 square miles and lies in upper Peninsula. Their locations within River the eastern part of the Upper Peninsula. With Basin Group 2.4 are shown in Figure 14-27. headwaters in northeastern Schooleraft The drainage areas of the rivers are small. The County, the river flows southwesterly to its largest is the Whitefish River in the Bay de mouth in Lake Michigan. Location within Noe complex with approximately 300 square River Basin Group 2.4 is shown in Figure miles. Most of the region is characterized by 14-27. Fairly regular in shape, the basin flat plains, intermixed with swamplands and measures approximately 42 miles long and 35 low sand ridges. The area is heavily forested, miles wide. The primary tributaries come to especially with swamp types of cedar, balsam, the main stem from the northwestern part of and spruce. the basin. A unique feature of this basin is the 80 Appendix 14 presence in the headwaters of three large (1) 1960-The Michigan Water Resources lakes-Manistique, North Manistique, and Commission report, "Drought Flow of Michi- South Manistique Lakes. Indian Lake is a gan Streams," gives information on low flow large lake located in the lower reach of Indian conditions expected in the basin. River, a main tributary. (2) 1960-The Michigan Water Resources The basin varies from fairly flat plains near Commission report concerning the May 1960 Lake Michigan to rolling hills interspersed flood was prepared from a reconnaissance of with occasional outcroppings of bedrock to- the area. gether with large expanses of swampland and (3) 1955-A Michigan Conservation De- marsh. The soil in the basin is composed partment report entitled, "North Manistique largely of sand and sand ridges separating the Lake Level Control," was subsequently used marsh areas. in 1958 by the court to establish a legal sum- The Manistique River slopes gradually and mer and winter lake level. is fairly regular along its entire course, except (4) 1949-The "Report of the Manistique at Manistique, where the river breaks Dam Committee," dated October 15, is on file through a limestone escarpment for a fall of 26 with Michigan Conservation Department. feet. Upstream from Manistique, the stream (5) 1948-The Michigan Conservation De- slope averages 1.1 feet per mile. The Manis- partment lake level report for Manistique tique River channel is relatively narrow, shal- Lake was furnished to court hearings on lake low, and tortuous throughout its entire levels. A legal level for Manistique Lake was length. Stream beds of the Manistique River subsequently set at elevation 686.0 (U.S. tributaries, especially in their upper reaches, Geological Survey datum). generally have much steeper slopes which (6) 1944-The Michigan Conservation De- provide rapid runoff. partment report on Indian Lake stabilization provides physical data on the Indian River and structures below Indian Lake. A plan for lake stabilization was presented but was not 1.23.2 Previous Studies implemented. (7) 1943-The Michigan Conservation De- Since 1873 a total of 10 preliminary exami- partment issued a report on the Indian Lake nation and survey reports have been written water surface elevations and the outflow from on the subject of improving the Manistique the lake during June 1943. Data were collected River and its tributaries. Of the 10, only three to form the basis for control works for Indian have dealt with flood control: Lake. (1) 1970-Survey Report Draft on Flood Control in the Manistique River Basin, Michi- gan. The Survey indicated that flood problems 1.23.3 Development in the Flood Plain exist at the City of Manistique, Indian Lake, and Manistique Lake. However, solutions to The valleys of the Manistique River and its these problems were not economically jus- tributaries are generally spacious, with aver- tified by Corps' standards. age widths ranging up to 3 miles in swampland (2) 1966-Small Flood Control Project areas. The valleys are not materially en- Study of the flood problem at Indian Lake, croached upon except for a few bridges and ' originally initiated under the Flood Control other man-made works at problem areas in the Act of 1960. The report concluded that a proj- Manistique River basin. Manistique, located ect to provide a reasonable degree of protec- on the banks of the Manistique River, is the tion against flooding on Indian Lake would only city in the river basin. All the other com- not produce benefits commensurate with munities have populations well below 1,000 costs. each and have been developed for residential (3) 1929-This study was made under the and resort use. The major portions of the flood provision of House Document 308, 69th Con- plains are occupied by swamps and forest land. gress, and covered all phases of water re- More than 90 percent of the Manistique River sources development in the Manistique River basin is occupied by forest growth, and the basin, It concluded that development of the manufacturing of forest products constitutes stream for navigation, water power, flood con- the primary industry. Agriculture plays a trol, irrigation, or any combination of these very minor role in the basin as evidenced by items was not economically justified. the fact that only 2.4 percent of the land area Other reports by State agencies follow: in Schoolcraft County was farmed in 1964. Flood Plains Inventory 81 Transportation systems crossing the region damage potentials. Germfask, Michigan, lo- consist of one main line railroad crossing cated 9 miles downstream from Manistique east-west, one minor railroad north to the Lake, has not experienced flooding because it Lake Superior ports, U.S. Highway 2 running is located on high ground. Seney, located be- east-west through Manistique and the south- side the Fox River 8 miles above the conflu- ern sector of the basin, plus a network of State, ence with the Manistique River, was found to county, and other secondary routes. An 0.8- have surface drainage problems, but no flood mile length of the Manistique River between problems. Resort areas affected include cot- Manistique and Lake Michigan is used for in- tages and homes adjacent to Indian Lake and dustrial and commercial navigation. How- Manistique Lake. Investigations of North and ever, the railroad ferries ceased operating into South Manistique Lakes revealed that, due to Manistique harbor in 1968, and commerce is adequate lake regulation controls, no flood continuing to decline. problems of any major consequence are ex- At present there is one power development perienced. within the basin. A local paper company oper- Figure 14-28c identifies the time period in ates a dam situated on the Manistique River which maj or damages, as defined in this study, at Manistique which supplies water and elec- are first noted within a given reach on the tric power for company operations. The dam is main stem and principal tributaries. Table situated at the tip of the limestone escarp- 14-27 shows the flood plain damages by reach ment which separates the greater part of the corresponding to the reaches designated in basin from Lake Michigan and creates a total this figure. Table 14-28 shows upstream flood head of 26 feet. damages. These damages are referenced to The Manistique River basin is included the watersheds identified in Figure 14-29c. among those areas listed as economically de- Summations of estimated average annual pressed. Processing of forest products and in- damages and acres in the flood plain are creased tourist trade are considered the most shown by river basin in Table 14-29. County significant opportunities for economic recov- summaries for the main stem and principal ery and growth. tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-30. 1.23.4 Flood Problems 1.23.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures Flood have been a problem in the Manis- * tique basin since 1920 when high water caused There are no Federal structural flood con- a washout around the Manistique Dam at trol projects, nor are any authorized for the Manistique. Flood problems have existed for Manistique River basin. Current navigation shorter periods because of later development improvement programs at the mouth of the of these areas. Past floods that have resulted Manistique River have no bearing or effect on in damage occurred in March 1920, April 1922, the flood problems within the basin. The June 1943, April 1952, and May 1960. The May Michigan Water Resources Commission has 1960 flood caused the most damage through- the authority to regulate all development in out the Manistique basin. The storm that pro- flood plain areas. The requirements under the duced the flood was a combination of heavy acts of 1967 and 1968 (Act 288 and Act 167) are rainfall (5 inches to 7 inches) falling on ground intended to be minimum requirements only, saturated with melting snow, which created and local flood plain regulations should be heavy runoffs. Although notable rainstorms adopted to minimize flood damages. have been recorded during the summer and A discussion of flood plain legislation is in- fall, rises of the streams above flood stage cluded in Appendix S20, State Laws, Policies, generally occur in the late winter or early and Institutional Arrangements. spring. Maximum discharge of record occur- red during May 1960 and measured 16,900 efs at Manistique. 1.24 Lake Michigan Northeast, River Basin Banks of the rivers within the basin are low Group 2.4, Escanaba River Basin and are usually overtopped annually. How- ever, the major portion of flooded land is wooded and undeveloped. The only urban area 1.24.1 Description affected to any degree is the City of Manis- Vque. Other communities have minor flood The Escanaba River rises in Marquette 82 Appendix 14 County, Michigan, flows generally southeast- 1.24.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention erly, and empties into Little Bay de Noe near Measures the City of Escanaba. The reach under study is the section of the river within Delta County. It Other than a few dams built primarily for measures approximately 25 miles long and the power development purposes, there are no total fall in this reach is 306 feet. Location flood damage prevention measures in the within the river basin group is shown in Fig- basin. ure 14-27. Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legislation applicable to this river basin. 1.24.2 Previous Studies 1.25 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group There have been no reports on this basin 3.1, St. Marys River Basin published by the Corps of Engineers. 1.25.1 Description The St. Marys River is the connecting 1.24.3 Development in the Flood Plain waterway between Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Location within River Basin Group 3.1 The greater portion of the population of the is shown in Figure 14-30. The true river sec- Escanaba basin is located near the mouth of tion is short, extending only 12 miles down- the river in the City of Escanaba. Outside this stream from the Sault Falls. Below this section area the major developments have been dams is a series of closely connected lakes and bays. and hydroelectric plants, for which the river is The local basin of the St. Marys drains a small ideally suited because of its steep slope. Four and sparsely populated area. such installations are located in Delta County. - Besides providing adequate power for this 1.25.2 Previous Studies surrounding area, these plants have created extensive water areas which provide excellent There have. .been no flood control reports recreational opportunities. published for the basin. 1.25.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1.24.4 Flood Problems The basin is sparsely settled and much of it Minor flood problems exist in the Escanaba is in public ownership. The only urbanized River basin. The river flows between high areas are the twin cities of Sault Ste. Marie, banks for most of its length, and the hydroe- Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Ag- lectric plants help regulate the water level. ricultural activity is minimal in the basin. The only large populated region is at the river Tourist and vacation trade is increasing. mouth where the water level varies only with the fluctuations of Lake Michigan. Figure 14-28c identifies the time period in 1.25.4 Flood Problems which major damages, as defined in this study, are first noted within a given reach on the There are no flood problems in the St. Marys main stem and principal tributaries. Table River basin at this time. 14-27 indicates the flood plain damages by reach corresponding to the reaches desig- nated in this figure. Table 14-28 shows up- 1.25.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention stream flood damages. Location of these dam- Measures ages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-29c. Summations of esti- The river flow is regulated by the Soo Locks, mated average annual damages and acres in the hydropower works, and the compensating the flood plain are shown by river basin in gates located at the falls. This strict regula- Table 14-29. County summaries for the main tion flow (average rate 75,000 cfs) to control stem and principal tributaries are tabulated the level of Lake Superior diminishes flood in Table 14-30. hazards downstream. Flood Plains Inventory 83 1.26 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group Huron. The most noteworthy of these are the 3.1, Les Cheneaux Complex Black River with a drainage area of 65 square miles and the Devils River with a basin of 75 square miles. The Black River basin is largely 1.26.1 Description wooded with extensive marsh areas. The lower river channel lies in clay soil, and the This collection of minor streams occupies river carries little or no sediment. The Devils the eastern end of the Upper Peninsula. The River drains a region of similar topography. In largest streams are the Carp River, draining 1945 the Corps of Engineers performed 132 square miles, and the Pine River, draining emergency clearing and snagging at the 243 square miles. Location of the complex mouth of the river to remove shoal formation. within River Basin Group 3.1 is shown in Fig- ure 14-30. These streams have their outlets in northern Lake Huron, just east of the Mac- kinac Straits. 1.27.2 Previous Studies Previous studies are listed below: 1.26.2 Previous Studies (1) 1967-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- trict, a favorable interim report for a small- There have been no flood control reports boat harbor at Black River published for the complex. (2) 1967-Channel work on Holcomb Creek (a tributary of the Devils River) for agricul- tural drainage designed by Soil Conservation 1.26.3 Development in the Flood Plain Service under authority of P.L. 566 (3) 1962-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- The complex is very sparsely populated and trict, unfavorable report concerning the es- much of the area is within the Marquette Na- tablishment of a harbor of refuge at Devils tional Forest. River (4) 1930-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- trict, a Preliminary Examination Report on 1.26.4 Flood Problems Black River Harbor; survey not recommended There are negligible flood problems in the complex at this time. 1.27.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1.26.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention The complex is sparsely populated, with lit- Measures tle development in the flood plains. There are no large towns in the area. Tourist and vaca- There are no known existing structural tion trade is increasing. flood prevention measures in the complex. Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legislation applicable to this com- plex. 1.27.4 Flood Problems Flooding problems of various degrees have occurred in several places in the complex, but 1.27 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group details are lacking. 3.1, Alcona Complex 1.27.1 Description 1.27.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures This area is situated between the Thunder Bay River basin and the Au Sable River basin. There are no known existing structural Location of the complex within this river basin flood prevention measures in the complex. group is shown in Figure 14-30. It contains Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of several short streams which flow into Lake flood plain legislation. 84 Appendix 14 0 W Im P' Ri- ST. MARYS CHIPPEWA MACKINAC L S CHENEAU E ca,P DRUMMOND ISLAND st@ I a 761jeckinisc, Island Straits of Madin,se Blanc Island C oygan @,k 9-t Lair Rogers City 0 E ISLE 04, PR S so CHEBO"GAN Grand Lake CmEtBOYGAN RFSOUE I E I -t, Lake hun A en.a Gaylord TH NDER BAY Thunder Say OTSEGO @MON 0 ENCY ALP NA "I H.bbed Lake -G,.ylin. A. S@b e ALCONA AU SABLE 1@1`01?13 50@ OSCODA ALCONA LEGEND P&SCO.- 0scoda BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA Au Q, Tawas City - " I "'- R FLE_ U GR@ES RIVER BASIN GROUP RIVER BASIN OGE W OR COMPLEX ARENA_C Rifie Ri@ SA7GINAW BAY SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-30 Lake Huron North-River Basin Group 3.1 Flood Plains Inventory 85 1.28 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group (7) 1936,1938-Corpsof Engineers, Detroit 3.1, Cheboygan River Basin District, unfavorable Preliminary Examina- tion Report on the Crooked and Indian Rivers 1.28.1 Description (8) 1931-Corps of Engineers, unfavorable Preliminary Examination report on the This basin forms an irregular circle with a Cheboygan River diameter of approximately 40 miles and a drainage area of 1,328 square miles. Location 1.28.3 Development in the Flood Plain within River Basin Group 3.1 is shown in Fig- ure 14-30. Twenty-three percent of its surface Most communities in the region exist to pro- area is in lakes and swamps. Three of the vide living essentials for the tourist and vaca- lakes, Mullett Lake, Burt Lake, and Black tion trade. The only town of any size in the Lake, are among the largest inland lakes in actual flood plain is Cheboygan, located near the State. The basin is drained primarily by the the mouth of the Cheboygan River at Lake tributary system including the Maple, Stur- Huron. The city has experienced little flood- geon, Black, Rainy, and Pigeon Rivers. These ing. Most land bordering the streams is forest alljoin the main stem through one of the large and swamp with little settlement. However, inland lakes. The main stem is a short stretch the lakes of the region are surrounded with of approximately 6 miles between Mullett seasonal cottages and an increasing number Lake and Lake Huron. This region has some of of more expensive year-round homes. the most rugged topography in Lower Michi- gan. Relief within the basin is several hundred feet in places. Moraine, outwash, and lakebed 1.28.4 Flood Problems deposits each account for 30 percent of the basin, and the rest is till plain. The most serious flood damage conditions have been caused by high water conditions on 1.28.2 Previous Studies the large lakes, especially Black Lake, where serious losses have been experienced. Periods Previous studies are listed below: of high lake stage occurred in 1943, 1951, 1952, (1) 1965-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- and 1960. Artificial impoundments for power trict, a Detailed Project Report on Flood Con- plants and the large natural lakes have a pro- trol for Black River, Cheboygan County, nounced stabilizing effect on'the stream flow Michigan. A favorable recommendation was below these lakes. The different geological given for channel improvement to relieve high conditions have also created highly variable water conditions on Black Lake. runoff conditions in the basin. (2) 1962-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- Figure 14-31c identifies the time period in trict, a Reconnaissance Report on Flood Con- which major damages, as defined in this study, trol at Black Lake that recommended a de- are first noted within a given reach on the tailed Project Report be authorized main stem and principal tributaries. Table (3) 1960-Separate reports concerning the 14-31 indicates the flood plain damages by April 1960 high water conditions on Black reach, corresponding to the reaches designa- Lake made by United Associates of ted in this figure. Table 14-32 shows upstream Cheboygan, Michigan, and Professor C. 0. flood damages. Location of these damages Wisler of the University of Michigan within particular watersheds may be seen in (4) 1951-Corp's of Engineers, Detroit Dis- Figure 14-32c. Summations of estimated av- trict, favorable Survey Report on the Indian erage annual damages and acres in the flood and Crooked Rivers plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-33. (5) 1948-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- County summaries for the main stem and trict, favorable Preliminary Examination Re- principal tributaries are tabulated in Table port on the Crooked and Indian Rivers 14-34. (6) 1947-Michigan Department of Con- servation, a Preliminary Investigation on Black Lake stabilization. This investigation 1.28.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention provided physical data on the Black River and Measures Alverno Dam and detailed hydrology studies of Black Lake, and presented two alternative The only flood damage reduction measure is plans of improvement. the Little Black River Watershed Project, 86 Appendix 14 Cheboygan County, Michigan, completed in Huron. This increased channel capacity had 1962 by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service the effect of lowering water levels excessively cooperating with the Cheboygan County in Crooked Lake. Therefore the lock and dam Drain Commission and other local sponsors. structure in the Crooked River outlet was The location of this flood damage reduction necessary to maintain satisfactory lake water measure is illustrated in Figure 14-33. levels. The Inland Route Project, completed in The Michigan Water Resources Commission 1968, includes a small lock and dam con- has the authority to regulate all development structed by the Corps of Engineers. It pro- in flood plain areas. Refer to Subsection 1. 14.5 vides a navigation channel for small boats for a discussion of flood plain legislation appli- from Crooked, Burt, and Mullet Lakes to Lake cable to this river basin. TABLE 14-31 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 3.1 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N _J _J _J = AVERAGE ANNUAL .4 .1 CM ca C) REACH - - ;7: TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY DAMAGES CODE YEAR (DOLL RS) (n UJ W UJ FROM TO = Z: 2 2 = C@ M V) V) C-) URBAN RURAL 5 - URBAN RURAL CHEBOYGAN RIVEr ALI Cheboy- T38N T36N 1970 gan RlW S29 R4W S36 1980 2000 2020 AL2 Emmet T36N T35N 1970 R4W S36 R5W S24 1980 2000 2020 BLACK RIVER AL3 Cheboy- T37N T35N 1970 57,500 IOC1217 1,327 gan R11W S17 R2E S5 1980 74,800 210 1117 1,327 2000 103,500 225 1102 1,327 2020 132,300 235 1092 1,327 THUNDER BAY RIVER ANI Alpena T31N T31N 1970 2,000 10 7500 7,510 R6E S25 R5E S19 1980 2,800 200 7310 7,510 2000 200 5,000 20 35o 7140 20 7,510 2020 3,000 6,000 40 40 400 7030 80 7,430 AU SABLE RIVER AR1 Iosco T23N T24N 1970 2000 2,000 R9E S10 R5E S2 1980 1,100 100 1900 2,000 2000 1,600 180 1820 2,000 2020 2,000 200 1800 2,000 AU GRES RIVER AQl Arenac T19N T20N 1970 148,GOO 341C 13,410 R6E S26 R6E S2 1980 167,000 3410 13,410 2000 178,000 341C 13,410 2020 222,000 341C 13,410 RIFLE RIVER AQ2 Arenac T18N T20N 1970 500 3,500 R6E S3 R3E Sl 1980 1,400 130 310 3,500 2000 2,600 260 240 3,500 2020 4,500, 1 14 395001 1 1 00 rloo i Flood Plains Inventory 8 7 TABLE 14-32 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 3.1 a ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W Cr AVERAGE ANNUAL a _j _j 0 W z _j < z W z cr, Z DAMAGES a: < a: _j 'i W< < _j W < ac a: z TOTAL YEAR (DOLLARS) _j 0 X cr W MW W 0- V) 0 a z 0 0 fr CL URBAN I R AL z U cr URBAN RURAL AU GRES - 6FLE COMPLEI MICHIGAN 4N 1970 1,200 1,200 300 400 1,020 150 1,870 4P 1970 1,200 1,200 310 60 600 970 4Q 1970 800 800 185 330 785 420 1,720 4Q1 1970 100 100 is 45 20 10 90 4R 1970 1,100 100 1,200 200 3 7 10 20 200 T --4-,8 Total 1970 1,100 --Y;-400 4,500 810 035 2-,425 580 -3 -7 10 -20 50 1980 1,500 4,900 6,400 810 1,035 2,425 580 3 7 10 20 4,850 2000 2,800 6,200 9,000 810 1,035 2,425 580 3 7 10 20 4,850 2020 5,300 6,400 11,700 810 1,035 2,425 580 3 7 10 20 4,850 CHEBOYGAN COMPLEX - MICHIGAN 4E2 1970 400 400 100 300 100 500 4E3A 1970 300 3 0 80 120 200 Total 1970 700 180 420 100 700 1980 1,000 1,000 180 420 100 700 2000 1,300 1,300 190 420 100 700 2020 1,300 1,300 180 420 100 700 LES CHENEAUX MICHIGAN 4Gl 1970 500 500 3 3 4H 1970 25 5 5 25 431 1970 7 5 5 7 Total 1970 -13 _13 32 500 500 32 1980 700 700 32 13 13 32 2000 1,300 1,300 32 13 13 32 2020 2,400 2,400 32 13 13 32 PRESQUE ISLE COMPLEX - MICHIGAN 4DIC 1970 200 200 50 100 50 200 433 1970 10,000 200 10,200 50 so 900 50 200 250 1,000 434 1970 8,000 8,000 300 -- 200 200 300 Total 1970 18,000 400 18,400 100 150 350 900 50 400 450 1,500 1980 24,300 600 24,900 100 150 350 900 50 400 450 1,500 2000 45,400 700 46,100 100 150 350 900 50 400 450 1,500 2020 86,800 800 87,600 100 150 350 900 50 400 450 1,500 1 1 THUNDER BAY RIVER - MICHIGAN 4C1 1970 800 800 200 1,900 896 200 3,196 4C 1970 4,000 400 4,400 100 100 400 100 100 600 4C3B 1970 300 300 76 114 190 Total 1970 4,000 1,500 5,500 376 2,114 1,296 200 100 100 3,986 1980 5,400 2,100 7,500 376 2,114 1,296 200 100 100 3,986 2000 10,100 2,700 12,800 376 2,114 1,296 200 100 - - 100 3,986 2020 19,300 2,800 22,100 376 2,114 1,296 200 100 - - 100 3,986 ALCONA COMkEX MICHidAN 4C3 1970 600 600 160 180 120 40 500 4B1 1970 6,000 6,000 150 150 Total 1970 6,000 600 6,600 1 Vo 18-0 -120 -40 __f_5O -15-0 500 1980 8,100 900 9,000 160 180 120 40 150 150 500 2000 15,100 1,100 16,200 160 180 120 20 150 150 500 2020 28,900 1,100 30,000 160 180 120 40 150 150 500 1.29 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group flows easterly into Thunder Bay, an arm of 3.1, Thunder Bay River Basin Lake Huron. Location within River Basin Group 3.1 is shown in Figure 14-30. Lakes and swamps make up approximately 25 percent of 1.29.1 Description the drainage area, giving this basin the high- est percentage of such terrain of any river With a drainage area of 1,118 square miles, basin in the Lower Peninsula. The region is this basin is irregular in shape, measuring 40 composed of moraines, outwash, and lake and miles long and 34 miles wide at its extremes. It till plains. The higher lands have thick well- 88 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-33 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 3.1 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Ruraf Urban Rural Les Cheneaux 1970 500 - 13 32 Complex 1980 700 - 13 32 2000 15300 - 13 32 2020 2000 - 13 32 Cheboygan 1970 - 58.1200 - 2>027 River 1980 - 75.@800 - 2'@027 2000 - 104@800 - 2.1027 2020 - 133.1600 - 2J@027 Presque Isle 1970 18.1000 400 450 1.1500 Complex 1980 24)300 600 450 1.1500 2000 45.1400 700 450 lj@500 2020 863800 800 450 1P500 Thunder Bay 1970 4,9000 35500 100 111496 1980 5000 4.1900 100 11.9496 2000 10.9300 7.$700 120 11P476 2020 225300 8.1800 180 11.9416 Alcona Complex 1970 6.9000 600 150 500 1980 8.@100 900 150 500 2000 15.9100 1.1100 150 500 2020 28.9 900 15100 150 500 Rifle-Au Gres 1970 1.7100 151.7400 20 211760 Complex 1980 1.1500 173q3OO 20 211J60 2000 2.@800 1865800 20 21.7760 2020 5000 232.9900 20 213760 Au Sable River 1970 - - - 2.9000 1980 - 1.J00 - 2.1000 2000 - 1.t600 - 25000 2020 - 25000 - 2.7000 St. Marys - Damage is negligible complex TOTAL 1970 29.9600 214ploo 733 39015 1980 40.1000 2565600 733 39.9315 2000 74.1900 302j1700 753 39.1295 2020 1451700 379.@200 813 39.1)235 Flood Plains Inventory 89 TABLE 14-34 River Basin Group 3.1, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County (Michigan) Urban Rural Urban Rural Alpena -7- 2,000 --- 7,510 Arenac --- 148,000 --- 16,910 Cheboygan --- 57,500 --- 1,327 Iosco --- --- --- 2,000 TOTALS --- 207,500 --- 27,747 YEAR 1980 Alpena --- 2,800 --- 7,510 Arenac --- 168,400 --- 16,910 Cheboygan --- 74,800 --- 1,327 Iosco --- 1,100 --- 2,000 TOTALS --- 2473,100 --- 27,747 YEAR 2000 Alpena 200 5,000 20 7,490 Arenac --- 180,600 --- 16,910 Cheboygan --- 103,500 --- 1,327 Iosco --- 1,600 --- 2,000 TOTALS 200 290,700 20 27,727 YEAR 2020 Alpena 3,000 6,000 80 7,430 Arenac --- 226,500 --- 16,910 Cheboygan 132,300 --- 1,327 Iosco --- 2,000 --- 2,000 TOTALS 3,000 366,800 80 27,667 On main stem and principal tributaries drained sands, and most of the southern part plains of the basin. The largest city, Alpena, is is flat and swampy with areas of peat and located at the mouth of the Thunder Bay muck. In the northeastern part is an area of River and is also the biggest Michigan port on limestone sinkholes and fissures. Lake Huron. Streamflow is affected to some degree by the artificial regulation provided by old power dams on the upper tributaries. This, 1.29.2 Previous Studies along with the loss of water through evapora- tion from the large areas of swamps and lakes, The only study that has been made is the accounts for the yields and variations in flows Truax Creek Watershed Work Plan completed experienced in the watershed. by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service in 1969. 1.29.4 Flood Problems 1.29.3 Development in the Flood Plain Flood problems have been minor and ex- There is little development in the flood tremely local in nature. Figure 14-31c iden- 90 Appendix 14 SCALF Vi Pin's Ri- 131 __@IHIPPEWA ,go 11ACYINAC DRUMMOND ISLAND St- I n ce M.cki... Island Stmits, of Mackinac 13 Blanc Island Cl C eboygan Black L. Mull& L.ka, Lalk. Roger s City lp "I I % /V IF Grand Loke is it PR soul@A - ----- ---- CHESOY -S:Q-Ll@ - ------ ---- -- - - - ---- GAN - - --- - -------- Icing Lak@ 12 Alpe- hunde Gaylord Th. di, 8.y c, C1 OTSEGO I IVION 0 ENCY ALP NA H.bb.,d L,ik. LEGEND BOUNDARIES A. Sabl. G'ayli.9 STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAREA @@kFORD SCODA ----- AL-C-0-NA @p RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES CHANNEL DIVERSION C, ity CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT A. T-s C E I I..., LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS INSTITUTIONAL uGEM W RESERVOIR Rifl. Ri, PL 566 WATERSHED PROJECT SAGINAW BAY SCALE IN N41LES L o 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-33 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 3.1 Flood Plains Inventory 91 tifies the time period in which major damages, Corps of Engineers Preliminary Examination as defined in this study, are first noted within Reports. The last one was issued in 1963. a given reach on the main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-31 shows the flood plain damages by reach, corresponding to the 1.30.3 Development in the Flood Plain reaches designated in this figure. Table 14-32 indicates upstream flood damages. Location of There is some light industry at Gaylord and these damages within particular watersheds Grayling located in the upper reaches of the may be seen in Figure 14-32c. Summations of basin. Tourism provides the main source of estimated average annual damages and acres income for the area. Agriculture is of minor in flood plain are shown by river basin in Table significance with a total of 31,000 acres under 14-33. County summaries for the main stem cultivation out of a total 1.15 million acres in- and principal tributaries are tabulated in cluded in the basin. There are four dams on the Table 14-34. main stream between Mio and Oscoda. 1.29.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures 1.30.4 Flood Problems One structural flood damage prevention Flood problems have been minor and ex- measure has been completed by the U.S. Soil tremely local in nature. Figure 14-31c iden- Conservation Service and local sponsors. This tifies the time period in which major damages, is the Sanborn Watershed Project in Alpena as defined in this study, are first noted within County, Michigan. The location of this project a given reach on the main stem and principal is illustrated in Figure 14-33. tributaries. Table 14-31 indicates the flood Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of plain damages by reach corresponding to the flood plain legislation applicable to this river reaches designated in this figure. Table 14-32 basin. shows upstream flood damages. Location of these damages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-32c. Summations of 1.30 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group estimated average annual damages and acres 3.1, Au Sable River Basin in the flood plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-33. County summaries for the main 1.30.1 Description stem and principal tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-34. The Au Sable River basin drains an area of 2,035 miles. The main stem flows in an easterly direction to its mouth at Oscoda on Lake Hu- 1.30.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention ron. Location within River Basin Group 3.1 is Measures shown in Figure 14-30. The Au Sable River basin, irregular in shape, measures approxi- There are no structural flood damage pre- mately 80 miles long and 40 miles wide at its ventive measures in the Au Sable River basin. extremes. With headwaters at elevations of However, stream flow is regulated to some ex- 1,500 feet, the overall gradient averages 5 feet tent by existing hydropower dams. per mile, and the main river receives drainage Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of from approximately 60 percent of the total flood plain legislation applicable to this river drainage area in 30 percent of its total length. basin. The major tributaries include the North Branch, Middle Branch, South Branch, and the Pine Rivers. The hills, valleys, and plains 1.31 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group formed by the retreating glaciers are mostly 3.1, Rifle River Basin well-drained sands except in the extreme southwestern portion of the basin where the 1.31.1 Description surface of the land is relatively low and flat with organic soils. The Rifle River drains an area of 374 square miles that is irregular in shape. The basin is 1.30.2 Previous Studies 40 miles long and varies in width from 5 to 15 miles. Location within River Basin Group 3.1 There have been numerous unfavorable is shown in Figure 14-30. The river falls some 92 Appendix 14 725 feet from its headwaters in a tableland Figure 14-31c identifies the time period in 1,300 feet above sea level to its mouth in Sagi- which major damages, as defined in this study, naw Bay, an arm of Lake Huron. The fall is are first noted within a given reach on the rapid in the upper reaches, while in the lower main stem and principal tributaries. Table part of the basin the river traverses slightly 14-31 indicates the flood plain damages by rolling terrain with a fairly uniform fall. Lakes reach corresponding to the reaches desig- and swamps, all in Ogemaw County, cover ap- nated in this figure. Table 14-32 shows up- proximately 5 percent of the basin. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-32c. Summations of esti- 1.31.2 Previous Studies mated average annual damages and acres in the flood plain are shown by river basin in Previous studies are listed below: Table 14-33. County summaries for the main (1) 1972-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- stem and principal tributaries are tabulated prone area reports for portions of the Rifle in Table 14-34. River (2) 1960-U.S. Geological Survey-floods of May 1959 in the Au Gres and Rifle River Ba- 1.31.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention sins, Michigan Measures (3) Corps of Engineers, Preliminary Examination Report, unfavorable conclusions There are no known structural flood damage preventive measures in the basin. A discus- sion of flood plain legislation applicable to this 1.31.3 Development in the Flood Plain river basin appears in Subsection 1.14.5. The area is sparsely populated, and there are no large towns in the flood plain. Approxi- 1.32 Lake Huron North, River Basin Group mately 30 percent of the area is wooded, and 3.1, Au Gres River Basin much of the remaining area is marginal land no longer used for farming. Most of the de- 1.32.1 Description veloped farmland in the watershed is around the upper half of the western tributaries, The pear-shaped Au Gres River basin, south of Rose City. draining an area of 435 square miles, is 30 miles long with an average width of 15 miles. The Au Gres River flows in a southerly direc- 1.31.4 Flood Problems tion into Saginaw Bay, an arm of Lake Huron. Location within River Basin Group 3.1 is Because the flood area is sparsely popu- shown in Figure 14-30. Major tributaries in- lated, damages are largely confined to farm- clude the East Branch, Big Creek, Cedar lands and facilities, and to secondary roads Creek, and Johnstone Creek. The upper por- and their appurtenant drainage structures. tions of the basin are rolling till plains with The record floods of May 1959 in the Au Gres low relief, while the lower reaches drain a and Rifle River basins resulted from heavy lake plain. rainfall. Peak unit discharges for small drain- age areas (less than 15 square miles) were the highest ever measured in the Lower Penin- 1.32.2 Previous Studies sula of Michigan. For very small areas (ap- proximately one square mile) peak unit dis- Previous studies are listed below: charges were of the same order of magnitude (1) 1959-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- as those for the record Ontonagon River flood trict, a Survey Report on Major Drainage and of August 1942 in the Upper Peninsula. This Flood Control of the Au Gres River, Michigan. \ , The report stated that a serious flood problem storm caused severe damages totaling , $108,000 to bridges and culverts maintained % existed downstream from the Arenac-losco by the County Road Commission. Soil loss County line to U.S. Highway 23 at Au Gres from cultivated fields was very high, and in- \Michigan. The report recommended a plan for termittant drainage channels were severely channel improvement to alleviate flooding of gullied. Damages to improvement structures fa@mlands. also occurred. (2) 1951-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- Flood Plains Inventory 93 trict, a Preliminary Examination Report on 14-31 indicates the flood plain damages by the Au Gres River. The report recommended reach corresponding to the reaches desig- that a survey for flood control be authorized. nated in this figure. Table 14-32 shows up- stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ages within particular watersheds may be 1.32.3 Development in the Flood Plain seen in Figure 14-32c. Summations of esti- mated average annual damages and acres in The population of the basin is rural. The the flood plain are shown by river basin in largest village in the flood plain is Au Gres Table 14-33. County summaries for the main with less than 1,000 residents. The upper stem and principal tributaries are tabulated reaches of the basin are mainly forest land, in Table 14-34. the middle reach is flatter with crop farming and cattle grazing to a considerable degree, 1.32.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention and the lower reaches, although having better Measures quality soils, are not fully used for agriculture because of frequent flooding and poor drain- The principal structural improvements con- age. sist of farm ditches, local drains, and the The Au Gres River has a much steeper pro- Whitney cut-off drain, all constructed by file in the headwaters area than downstream. local interests. The Whitney drain was dug The streambed drops 270 feet in the first 27 to divert the discharge of the East Branch into miles, an average of 10 feet per mile. Below the Lake Huron. During nonflood periods the en- junction with the East Branch, the river flat- tire flow of the East Branch is diverted tens and spreads, the course is crooked, and through this channel. A few small instream the flow is sluggish with the drop being ponds are formed by low weirs in the head- slightly more than two feet per mile. The water areas but these exert little influence on river's width ranges from 100 to 200 feet com- the flow regimen. pared to 40 feet in the middle reach. Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legislation applicable to this river 1.32.4 Flood Problems basin. For the 13-year period between 1942 and 1.33 Lake Huron Central, River Basin Group 1955, 20 separate floods were reported in the 3.2, Kawkawlin River Basin Au Gres River basin, several of them reaching two or more peak stages within a week or two. 1.33.1 Description Melting snow and ice coupled with heavy spring rains create the floods which are aug- The Kawkawlin River drains an irregularly mented by ice jams formed in the narrow shaped area of approximately 220 square sharp bends in the river. The severity of the miles. This area is 18 miles wide and 27 miles flood is more often determined by the size and long at the extremes. Location within River duration of the ice jam than by the discharge Basin Group 3.2 is shown in Figure 14-34. The of the river. The maximum flood flow recorded river has two main tributaries, the North and was 2,300 cfs in April 1952, which corresponds South Branches. These tributaries join to to a frequency of once in 30 years. Approxi- form the main stem of the Kawkawlin River mately 26.5 square miles of bottom land are approximately 41/2 miles above the mouth of flooded periodically. A total of 3,631 acres of the river in Saginaw Bay. this flood plain are cultivated as cropland or The topography of the Kawkawlin River pasture. The remainder consists of woodlot, basin is typical of central Michigan, ranging idle, or other nonagricultural lands. Floods in 'from flatlands to low, rolling hills. The area the area have damaged roads and bridges. Be- consists mainly of lake-plain features formed tween the village of Au Gres and the river during glacial periods. The beaches of former mouth, the water surface during periods of glacial lakes have been flattened out by out- normal flow fluctuates with the levels of Lake wash action to form sand plains in some Huron. places, while in other areas the beach ridges Figure 14-31c identifies the time period in remain intact. Overall relief is slight, the ter- which major damages, as defined in this study, rain rising gradually from 580 feet at the are first noted within a given reach on the mouth to an elevation of 700 feet in the head- main stem and principal tributaries. Table waters. 94 Appendix 14 1.33.2 Previous Studies devoted chiefly to the production of field crops such as corn, beans, wheat, and oats. Previous studies are listed below: (1) 1968-U.S. Soil Conservation Service and Bay County Drain Commission in con- 1.33.4 Flood Problems junction with local sponsors, Tebo Erickson Watershed Work Plan, Bay County, Michigan Records indicate that serious flooding oc- (2) 1966-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- curred during March 1936, February 1938, trict, a Detailed Project Report on Kawkawlin February 1943, February 1944, February River, Michigan, for Flood Control. The report 1945, May 1946, April 1947, March 1948, and recommended channel enlargement and March 1960. Flooding is an almost annual oc- elimination of bridge constrictions for im- currence in early spring. The flood of March provements in flood control, and included de- 1948 was one of the most severe. Peak flow, sign memoranda (project in progress, 1970). estimated at 5,300 cfs, was caused by a 24-hour (3) 1963-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- rainfall of 1.22 inches falling on frozen ground. trict, a Report of Survey on Kawkawlin River, Areas subject to inundation in the Kawkaw- Michigan, for Flood Control. The report de- lin basin are the residential areas along both tailed problems experienced by the area and banks from Saginaw Bay upstream for a dis- proposed solutions. tance of 2.5 miles, and the crop areas located (4) 1959-Soil Conservation Service, U.S. along the upper reach of the main stem and Department of Agriculture, a Survey Report the lower reaches of the two branches. The on Major and Local Drainage for Kawkawlin problem area in the lower reach up to the Vil- River, Michigan lage of Kawkawlin contains approximately (5) 1953-Spicer Engineering Company, 335 homes (1966) and other buildings that are retained by Bay County to study the flood vulnerable to flooding. The agricultural study problems in the Kawkawlin River basin. It upstream shows that 2,300 acres could benefit recommended enlarging the main stem and from drainage improvements. the lower reaches of the North and South Flood conditions have also occurred from Branches. high stages due to ice jams even when the (6) 1953-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- Kawkawlin River discharges were low. Water trict, survey to determine remedial measures levels near the mouth and extending upriver at the mouth of the Kawkawlin River in the several miles are influenced by the stage of interest of flood control Saginaw Bay. With a water surface elevation (7) 1959-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- of 582 feet at the mouth, damage along the trict, a Preliminary Examination Report for main stem begins when streamflows exceed the Kawkawlin River. It recommended that 3,000 cfs. survey scope studies should be initiated be- Figure 14-35c identifies the time period in cause flood control improvements could be which majordamages, as defined inthis study, justified. are first noted within a given reach on the (8) 1940-Corps of Engineers, Detroit Dis- main stem and principal tributaries. Table trict, original Preliminary Examination Re- 14-36 indicates the flood plain damages by port on the Kawkawlin River Flood Problems. reach corresponding to the reaches desig- It recommended no further studies at that nated in this figure. Table 14-37 shows up- time. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-36c. Summations of esti- 1.33.3 Development in Flood Plain mated average annual damages and acres in the flood plain are shown by river basin in Land on both sides of the Kawkawlin River Table 14-38. County summaries for the main in the reach between Saginaw Bay and the stem and principal tributaries are tabulated Village of Kawkawlin is occupied by perma- in Table 14-39. nent residences and summer cottages. The vil- lage is approximately 31/2 miles upstream from the river mouth. From here the lands along 1.33.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention the main stem to the confluence of the north Measures and south branches and along these streams are used mostly for agriculture. In 1959, 60 Two Corps of Engineers projects have been percent of the drainage basin was farmland authorized in the Kawkawlin River basin. Flood Plains Inventory 95 L A K E HURON Port Austi Caseville cl. KAWKAWLIN ti. TH 8 z CLARE GLADWIN Bad A. e Harbor Beach are SAGINAW SAY N HURON cob I P land 9 xville Mount Plea nt Bay lity ISABELL MIDLAND y St. Louis AGINAW Alin Sagiraw Vassar Ithaca TUSCOLA Chesaning GRATIOT SAGINAW a Mount Morris Flint Flushing Lapeer Owosso e Swartz Cre k I Durand GENESEE LAPEE@R Fe ta LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA @I.C ITI A:. -rs RIVER BASIN GROUP o RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX SCALE IN MILES ------ ------- -------- -------- 0 5 10 r, 20 FIGURE 14-34 Lake Huron Central-River Basin Group 3.2 96 Appendix 14 A clearing and snagging project was com- Saginaw River basin is 6,260 square miles or pleted in April 1956, providing a channel 100 approximately 2 percent of the Great Lakes feet wide, 2,000 feet long, and 5 feet below low Basin. The total drainage area tributary to water datum through a bar at the mouth of the the Saginaw River at Saginaw reaches 125 Kawkawlin River into Saginaw Bay. This was miles east and west and 125 miles north and done to alleviate flooding conditions along the south. The drainage area and runoff of the main stem caused by backup from ice jams basin is distributed between the major forming against the bar. tributaries as follows: Flint River, 1,168 The second, completed in November 1970, square-mile drainage area and 580 cfs average provides for channel improvements of approx- runoff; Shiawassee River, 1,398 square-mile imately 10,000 feet in the lower reach up- drainage area and 680 cfs average runoff; Cass stream from the first project to Euclid Street. River, 920 square-mile drainage area and 460 It also increases the flow area through the efs average runoff; Tittabawassee River, 2,562 Detroit and Mackinac Railway Bridge by the square-mile drainage area and 1,760 efs aver- addition of extra spans. With the flood control age runoff. improvements, virtually all damage potential In the uplands of the basin the topography along the lower reach of the main stem of the is gently rolling. Some areas reach an eleva- Kawkawlin River is eliminated. However, it is tion of 1,300 feet, whereas the elevation of possible that flooding and subsequent damage land adjacent to the Saginaw River varies could still be caused by ice jams forming at the from 585 to 590 feet. Throughout the basin river mouth. It is considered that the im- there are numerous low-lying areas along provements will reduce the severity of ice jam the streams. These areas provide natural formations. The location of each of these pre- water storage which are effective in reducing ventive measures are depicted in Figure flood peaks. The upper portions of the Flint 14-37. and Shiawassee River basins have large num- There have been no flood control improve- bers of small inland lakes. ments by other Federal agencies in the basin. However, Bay County has improved several agricultural land drains which flow into both 1.34.2 Previous Studies the north and south branches, and many property owners have constructed retaining Previous studies are listed below: walls along the main stem. (1) 1972-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- A steady demand in land development for prone area reports for portions of Farmers residential purposes has taken place near the Creek mouth of the Kawkawlin River. This trend (2) 1971-U.S. Soil Conservation Service, shows no signs of abating, even though the Draft Watershed Work Plan for State Road flood threat is recognized. Zoning restrictions Drain, Shiawassee County, Michigan against further development would be of (3) 1971-U.S. Soil Conservation Service, value in preventing an increase in flood dam- Preliminary Information Report, Indian ages. Such zoning controls are the prerogative Creek Watershed, Lapeer County, Michigan of the Michigan Water Resources Commission (4) 1963-Corps of Engineers, General De- and local enforcement agencies. Refer to Sub- sign Memorandum for Flood Control on the section 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain Cass River at Frankenmuth, Michigan. This legislation applicable to this river basin. develops the project plan for flood protection measures at this locality. (5) 1962-Corps of Engineers, General De- 1.34 Lake Huron Central, River Basin Group sign Memorandum for Flood Control on the 3.2, Saginaw River Basin Flint River at Flint, Michigan. This develops the project plan for flood protection measures 1.34.1 Description at this locality. (6) 1960-Corps of Engineers, General De- The watershed of the Saginaw River and its sign Memorandum for Flood Control on the tributaries resembles the shape of a butterfly. Saginaw River, Michigan, and tributaries. The river's mouth at Saginaw corresponds to This develops the current project plan for the its head and the areas drained by the principal areas included in the Saginaw River Flood tributaries form the butterfly wings. Location Control Project. within River Basin Group 3.2 is shown in Fig- (7) 1958-Flood Control Act (P.L. 85-500), ure 14-34. The total drainage area of the approved July 3, authorizing a project sub- Flood Plains Inventory 97 TABLE 14-35 Lake Huron North, Saginaw River Basin-Flood Damage Centers Damaee Center Flood Year Damage Type River Sanilac Flats 1948 Agricultural Cass River 1950 Highways East, Middle & 1951 if South Branches 1954 1958 Vassar 1942 Commercial Cass River & 1943 Residential Moore Drain 1946 it 1948 if Frankenmuth 1942 Commercial Cass River 1943 It 1948 1950 Flint 1943 Industrial Flint River, 1947 Commercial Swartz & Thread 1948 Residential Creek 1956 Corunna & 1947 Commercial Shiawassee River Owosso 1948 Residential 1950 1956 Midland _J19 Industrial Tittabawassee 1942 Residential River & Chippewa 1948 River 1950 1959 City of Saginaw 1904 Commercial Saginaw River 1912 Industrial confluence of tribu- 1916 Residential taries Shiawassee Flats 1942 Agricultural Cass, Flint, 1948 Shiawassee & 1950 Tittabawassee Rivers Flood of 'Record; flood year represents partial list. 98 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-36 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 3.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N AVERAGE ANNUAL -j -i' 1 a or REACH TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES CODE FROM TO (DOLL RS) c@ 2: Z_;G L, C) URBAN RURAL :! CDW W W 0: URBANIRURAL SAGINAW RIVER ASI Bay T14N T13N 1970 1,000 10 10 2500 120 2,400 Includes Bay City R5E S2 R5E S16 1980 1,400 100 20 2400 220 2,300 Same 2000 2,400 200 20 2300 320 2,200 Same 2020 4,200 300 20 2200 520 2,000 Same AS2 Saginaw T13N T11N 1970 10,000 500 300 5800 1800 4,800 Includes Saginaw, Milwaukee R5E S16 R4E S2 1980 14,000 650 330 5620 2000 4,600 and Carrollton 2000 24,000 800 200 350 5450 2200 4,400 Same 2020 42,000 1000 400 5200 2400 4,200 Same AS3 Saginaw Shiawassee Flats 1970 472,000 5820 58,200 1980 76,400 490,000 200 58000 200 58,000 2000 158,000 550,000 200 300 5770 500 57,700 2020 252,800 624,000 400 400 5740 800 57,400 TITTARAWASSEE RIVER. AS4 Saginaw TION T8N 1970 2,000 3050 3,050 R3E S22 R3E S6 1980 400 2,400 50 20 2980 70 2,980 2000 1,600 3,200 80 40 2930 130 2,920 2020 4,000 4,400 100 60 2890 170 2,880 AS5 Midland T13N T14N 1970 1,000 100 1,100 R3E S7 R2E S8 1980 2,000 980 980 2000 3,000 880 880 2020 4,000 780 780 AS5A Midland Midland 1970 174,000 25 150 200 375 1980 259,000 120 190 186 495 2000 415,000 200 230 165 595 2020 918,000 280 270 145 695 SHIAWASSEE RIVER AS6 Saginaw TION T8N 1970 2910 2,810 R3E S22 R3E s6 1980 1,200 2810 2,810 2000 1,500 2810 2,810 2020 1,900 2810 2,810 AS7 Shiawass e T8N T7N 1970 500 500 R3E S6 R3E S22 1980 500 500 2000 500 500 2020 500 500 AS7A Shiawass e Owosso Corunna 1970 59,000 30 90 100 220 1980 65,000 50 100 70 220 2000 899000 80 100 40 220 2020 118,000 110 110 220 FLINT RIVER AS8 Saginaw TION T9N 1970 510 510 R4E S6 R5E S4 1980 1,200 510 510 2000 1,500 510 510 2020 1,900 510 510 AS9 Genesee T9N T8N 1970 2,000 1 4 2700 55 2,650 Includes Flnshing T5E S4 R7E S28 1980 2,400 5 15 2685 55 2,650 Same 2000 3,200 30 20 2655 75 2,630 Same 2020 4,100 50 30 2625 95 2,610 Same AS9A Genesee Flint 1970 55,000 60 100 300 460 1980 77,000 100 90 270 460 2000 132,000 160 80 220 460 2020 231,000 220 60 180 460 Flood Plains Inventory 99 TABLE 14-36(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 3.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN _J _J _J _J = AVERAGE ANNUAL .4 't X 01 REACH COUNTY DAMAGES = r- ;= @_- am TOTAL REMARKS CODE YEAR i- cr- U=J L=U Cc UA FROM TO (DOLL RS) FE V) rn U URBAN RURAL Z CD W W UJ URBAN RURAL CASS RIVER AS10 Saginaw T11N T11N 1970 2,000 20 10 3740 150 3,620 Includes Franketnuth R4E S3 ME S26 1980 2,600 200 70 20 3680 210 3,650 Same 2000 4,000 400 100 50 3620 280 3,490 Same 2020 7,800 600 120 70 3580 330 3,440 Same AS11 Tuscola T11N T13N 1970 2,000 5825 5,825 R6E S25 R11E S12 1980 3,000 5825 5,825 2000 4,000 5810 5,810 2020 6,000 5770 5,770 AS13J Tuscola Vassar 1970 155,000 30 95 50 175 1980 138,000 20 70 85 175 2000 153,000 70 70 50 190 2020 198,000 120 90 20 230 KAWNLIN RIVER AR1 Bay T15N T15N 1970 3,800 5,000 10 50 2000 60 2,000 Includes Kawkawlin R5E 333 R3E S26 1980 4,600 6,000 10 70 1980 80 1,980 Same 2000 5,700 7,500 20 80 40 1920 100 1,960 Same -SEBEWAIN RIVER 2020 7,600 9,000 20 100 60 1880 120 1,940 Same AT1 Huron T15N T15N 1970 4,000 40 100 150 290 R9E 37 R9E S8 1980 4,100 40 110 140 290 2000 4 5001 40 120 130 290 2020 5:800 50 120 120 290 1 1 - I I I_ I I I I I I stantially in accordance with the recom- Sanilac Flats area, Flint, Midland, Shiawas- mendations of the Chief of Engineers in House see Flats, and the Saginaw River near Document 346, at an estimated cost of $16 Saginaw. It determined that flood control million measures were economically feasible and that (8) 1955-House Document No. 346, 84th a survey for flood control and allied purposes Congress, containing the recommendations of be made for the Saginaw basin. the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of (11) 1946-House of Representatives, Engineers, for flood control measures in the Committee on Flood Control, requesting that Saginaw River basin at the following all previous reports be reviewed to determine localities: Middle and South Branches of the the feasibility of improving the Saginaw River Cass River, at Vassar on the Cass River, at or its tributaries for flood control and other Frankenmuth on the Cass River, at Flint on purposes the Flint River, at Corunna on the Shiawassee (12) 1945-Corps of Engineers, Prelimi- River, at Owosso on the Shiawassee River, at nary Examination Report for the Pinconning Midland on the Tittabawassee River, at the River, Michigan, in relation to flood control Shiawassee Flats on the lower reaches of the and small-craft navigation. It concluded that four principal tributaries further surveys were not justified. (9) 1950-Corps of Engineers, Preliminary (13) 1941-Corps of Engineers, a Survey Examination Report for the Saganing River, Report of the Saginaw River with a view to Michigan, with a view to determining the ad- control floods. The report recommended that visability of providing flood protection. Flood such a project could not be economically jus- control projects were not justified at that time tified at that time. and further surveys were not recommended. (14) 1936-Flood Control Act approved (10) 1948-Corps of Engineers, a Prelimi- June 22 authorizing the Preliminary Exami- nary Examination Report Review favoring a nation of the Saginaw River for possible flood project survey and indicating that serious flood control measures. The report recognized the problems exist at Frankenmuth, Vassar, the flood problems at Saginaw, Midland, and the 0 A Z@ .0 C: 0> >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 0 "1 -3 > > > > > > > 5' 13 0 00 ww 0000wom 0 0 W@ 00 0 0 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 "o W@ 00000 00 00 0 coo 00 00 000 00 00000000 0000000000000 0 0 0000 000 0 1 1 0 C& I O'W w w'w'v'o 0 4 w cy, 0 0 0 0 @ I : : : : -4 W A' : 0000 0 0 0 0 00001 coo 0 coo 0000 00 0000 0000 0000 0 0 0 0000- 000 0 000 0000 0000 0000 0 000 0 0 t4 O.N M M m 4H wow m (n 0 >4 . m ':4. -40@M&"OAWWoooo 0 0 -4 OW to 1 00 H a, m .4 0000000000000 00 J@g 8 8 0 0 0 1 00000000000000000000000 0000 000000 00 0000 000 0 00 0@000000000 000 coo 00000000 0000 000000000000000000000 0 0000000 0 to H H M 00 o 0 .0.1 .P@ co 0 OD W .4wow W@l w w H N w ko I 'P @- ? 'P@ - @ F, , , '!'@ @ IF, '!@ 1:4 wum W" @OW'WHM ww m 09001000000000 w w w 0 WID @w 8 w WA 00 lo I w I m w q 0 00000000000 0000 0 00000 coo 00000 000000 0000000000000000000 0000 0 00 0000 00000 000 0 00000 0000000 0 0000000000000000000 0000 00 lom.wo- I 0 lwomoowool 0 0 P. m 0 0 0 0 M 0 1 mmomomo 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 1 000 'D 0 P.000-0-0000 0 0 w 00- 00 &0000&0000000 .0 00 0) 0 m 0) 0 0 " 0 w 0 0 000010 w @000&om oqow 0 q 0 qm 0 OD OD 00 00 0 10 000 -0 0, 00 on 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0 00000000t.00 000 0 ow 0 "0 m - 0 00 & & 0 0 WWWN I wwww 0000 21 &.D-44wm&oo @ 0 omqw m w q MW W w wl 0 @' 0 00 ww 00@00 0000 & 4 4 a 0 ww t' w a w o @Woowwowoa wq w 0 W w M 0 W 0 0 10 0000 00 w 0@00000000 0-M 0 0000 -OW-4000000ocnooo 000 0000 00 to www 4,W, q q wwwwo0woo H w wwww@ll w q 05.lowowowl: lWl'WHO"W'MWW wwooq,. 0000000 (Dwtoto omo@ 00 10 ID ID to 0 000 10000000 0 0 & 0 0 "0 000000" 0 0 0 0 Ln wo 00 ow 0 w w 0 n m 0) 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 C, 104 100 10, WO 0 10 w 0 " : : : : o" 1 1 : : 1 " : ww'Dw 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ow 0 0 0 00 10000 1 1 0 1 1 1 co, 04 O'C'00 owl w cn MOD W w 0000 oloo 0 00 00 0 0000 o0ow 0 0 0 molmal 000 0 000 0 mmo 00 000 I I . . . . I - - I - - - I I I I I 0 m 0 W W OD 1 0 W " " w 00 0 cho. w g 'Omz@oO"OgOOWMWWODO OCOM40DO00WOW00 W4 q q 0 OWM&OO&O"Omoo 0. 11000000000000000000000 000400mooo Flood Plains Inventory 101 Shiawassee Flats. The report did not recom- 1.34.4 Flood Problems mend a survey, but concluded that the cost of any flood measures necessary to provide com- The four main tributaries, the Tittabawas- plete protection from extreme floods could not see, Cass, Shiawassee, and Flint Rivers, are be justified. streams with watersheds of different sizes, shapes, intensities of precipitation, patterns (15) 1931-Corps of Engineers, a Prelimi- of interior drainage, channel slopes, and cor- nary Examination Report for Flood Control on responding flow habits. The records show that the Tittabawassee River and the Chippewa damaging floods in the Saginaw basin nearly River at Midland, Michigan, and downstream. always occur in the spring and most commonly The report concluded that complete control of in the last half of March or the early part of floods would be impractical and uneconomical April. Major floods are for the most part without prior improvements to the Saginaw caused by the melting of snow on the water- River. shed, reinforced and accelerated by warm spring rains. Many summer and fall rain storms, although heavy, have produced only moderate rises in the streams. The record 1.34.3 Development in the Flood Plain flood on the Saginaw River at Saginaw occur- red in March 1904, and was estimated at 68,000 The Saginaw River basin presents a unique efs. Records of flooding in the Saginaw area combination of highly industrialized urban date back to 1873. During ordinary low water centers and highly developed agricultural seasons, the river levels respond to the water production. Major production centers include levels in Saginaw Bay. Bay City and Saginaw on the Saginaw River, The floods in the Saginaw River basin may Flint on the Flint River, and Midland on the be classified in two categories: those which Tittabawassee River. Medium-sized urban cen- are general throughout the entire basin, and ters located on the main streams include those which are local and limited to one or two Owosso and Corunna on the Shiawassee tributaries without serious rises in the others. River, Frankenmuth and Vassar on the Cass The general floods seem to recur with an aver- River, Mt. Pleasant on the Chippewa River, age frequency of once in six or seven years. Clare on the Tobacco River, and Alma on the However, on any given tributary, the fre- Pine River. In Flint the river banks are oc- quency may be once in every two or three cupied by the assembly plants of a large au- years. tomobile manufacturer. Commercial and resi- Table 14-35 lists flood damage centers in the dential development has also encroached into basin. Figure 14-35c identifies the time period the river floodway here and in the other urban in which major damages, as defined in this centers mentioned previously. On the farm- study, are first noted within a given reach on lands between these communities the basin the main stem and principal tributaries. Table produces a dry bean and sugar beet crop that 14-36 indicates the flood plain damages by ranks high in national output. Many other reach corresponding to the reaches desig- field crops are produced in the region, one of nated in this figure. Table 14-37 shows up- the richest agricultural areas in Michigan. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- .ages within particular watersheds may be The headwater areas of the Saginaw River's seen in Figure 14-36c. Summations of esti- tributaries are readily adaptable to the con- mated average annual damages and acres in struction of small reservoirs, and public and the flood plain are shown by river basin in private agencies have constructed more than Table 14-38. County summaries for the main 70 dams on some of the more favorable sites. stem and principal tributaries are tabulated The purposes of these dams vary from hydro- in Table 14-39. electric power to regulation of inland lake levels. The main stem of the Saginaw River has 1.34.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention only a very slight slope. However, the natural Measures channel is wide and has been improved through most of its length for navigation by The flood control structures proposed for ships of the Great Lakes fleet. the Cass River at Frankenmuth, Michigan, in 102 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-38 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 3.2 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Kawkawlin 1970 3,800 19,600 60 7,240 Complex 1980 4,600 25,100 80 7,220 2000 5,700 30,300 100 7,200 2020 7,600 35,100 120 75180 Saginaw 1970 5795700 759,200 75011 1895136 River 1980 8015700 8695700 7,761 188,386 2000 152855200 1,0035800 85626 1875521 2020 2,351,900 1,147,900 9,576 1865571 Thumb 1970 85400 113,800 370 575750 Complex 1980 10,100 1495100 370 57,750 2000 155500 177,500 370 57 5 750 2020 26,500 203,700 370 57,750 TOTAL 1970 591,900 892,600 7,441 2545126 1980 816,400 15048,900 8,211 253,356 2000 1,306,400 1,211,600 9,096 252,471 2020 2,386,000 1,3865700 105066 251,501 the Corps of Engineers, Detroit District, Gen- The Soil Conservation Service has three eral Design Memorandum No. 2, dated flood control and major drainage works proj- November 1963, were initiated and construc- ects under construction. These projects are tion was completed in 1968. The protection the Middle Branch of the Cass River Water- now afforded allows for a flood flow approxi- shed, Sanilac County, Michigan, the South mately 50 percent greater than any past re- Branch of the Cass River Watershed, Sanilac corded flood. and Lapeer Counties, Michigan, and the Mis- teguay Creek Watershed, Saginaw, Shiawas- Work on the flood control measures for the see, and Genesee Counties, Michigan. Flint River at Flint, Michigan, are currently under way. Section A was completed in 1968, The location of completed preventive meas- and section B was completed in the fall of 1970. ures is depicted in Figure 14-37. These provide protection from floods greater than any experienced in the past. This protec- The U.S. Weather Bureau has established a tion results in an exceedence frequency of less flood plain warning system on the main than two percent. Construction on the remain- tributaries of the Saginaw River. Key obser- ing sections of the project, sections C and D, vers report river gage data and rainfall was scheduled for completion in 1974. amounts to a central office in Lansing, Michi- gan. Here the data are analyzed, flood stages The Soil Conservation Service has two proj- are predicted, and the information is dissemi- ects completed under authority of P.L. 566. nated to the public through communication These projects are the Farm Creek-Lee Drain media. Watershed, Gladwin County, Michigan, and Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for discussion of the Jo Drain Watershed, Midland County, flood plain legislation which is applicable to Michigan. this river basin. Flood Plains Inventory 103 TABLE 14-39 River Basin Group 3.2, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain Urban Rural Urban Rural Bay 4,800 5,000 180 4,400 Genesee 57,000 --- 515 2,650 Huron 4,000 --- 290 --- Midland 174,000 1,000 375 1,100 Saginaw 12,000 474,000 1,950 72,990 Shiawassee (Planning Subarea 2.3) 59,000 --- 220 500 Tuscola 155,000 2,000 175 5,825 Clare --- --- --- --- Gladwin --- --- --- --- Gratiot --- --- --- --- Isabella --- --- --- --- Lapeer --- --- --- --- TOTALS 465,800 482,000 3,705 87,465 YEAR 1980 Bay 6,000 6,000 300 4,280 Genesee 79,400 515 2,650 Huron 4,100 290 --- Midland 259,000 2,000 495 980 Saginaw 93,400 495,000 2,480 72,460 Shiawassee (Planning Subarea 2.3) 65,000 --- 220 500 Tuscola 138,000 3,000 175 5,825 Clare --- --- --- --- Gladwin --- --- --- --- Gratiot --- --- --- --- Isabella --- --- --- --- Lapeer --- --- --- --- TOTALS 644,900 506,000 4,475 86,695 YEAR 2000 Bay 8,100 7,500 420 4,160 Genesee 135,200 --- 535 2,630 Huron 4,500 --- 290 --- Midland 415,000 3,000 595 880 Saginaw 187,600 556,600 3,110 71,830 Shiawassee (Planning Subarea 2.3) 89,000 --- 220 500 Tuscola 153,000 4,000 190 5,810 Clare --- --- --- --- Gladwin --- --- --- --- Gratiot --- --- --- --- Isabella --- --- --- --- Lapeer --- --- --- --- TOTALS 992,400 571,100 5,360 85,810 YEAR 2020 Bay 11,800 9,000 640 3,940 Genesee 235,100 --- 555 2,610 Huron 5,800 --- 290 --- Midland 918,000 4,000 695 780 Saginaw 306,600 632,800 3,700 71,240 Shiawassee (Planning Subarea 2.3) 118,000 --- 220 500 Tuscola 198,000 6,000 230 5,770 Clare --- --- --- --- Gladwin --- --- --- --- Gratiot --- --- --- --- Isabella --- --- --- --- Lapeer --- --- --- --- TOTALS 1,793,300 651,800 6,330 84,840 On main stem and principal tributaries 104 Appendix 14 5 LAKE HURON r7@ Port Austi Z Caseville q@ C CCO Ill 0. 1) . Harbor Beach GLADWIN Clare SAGINAW BAY Bad A.e . CI Chippe Cl Cl HURON .01! Midland Mount Plea nt Ess ville Bay City It ISABEL BAY % Caro* St. Louis Alrn Saginaw F,a,,kenm th Vassar Ithaca IIIA - Q, Chesaning TUSCOLA TIOT -SAGINAW Mount M.,- Flint Flushing Cl Laoeer 'S-t@ f urand ENESEE LAP, F MA ...Ily LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES @A CHANNEL DIVERSION CHANNELIMPROVEMENT LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS INSTITUTIONAL RESERVOIR PL-566 WATERSHED PROJECT SCALE IN MILES 0 5 to 15 20 FIGURE 14-37 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 3.2 Flood Plains Inventory 105 1.35 Lake Huron Central, River Basin Group metropolitan area directly to the south. It is 3.2, Thumb Complex still primarily a rural agricultural area and also serves as a recreational outlet, especially along the shoreline of Lake Huron, for the neighboring population centers. Because of 1.35.1 Description the water supply available from Saginaw Bay and Lake Huron, many of the main towns and This region is not influenced by any single industries of the basin are situated near the river basin but is made up of several small shores. rivers and streams which drain the section of The small size of the individual basins and land outlining the shores of the Thumb of the the relatively flat topography precludes the Lower Peninsula. Location of this complex development of reservoir sites. In fact, during within River Basin Group 3.2 is shown in Fig- the summer months some of the streams have ure 14-34. This complex occupies an area of had no flow. However, at other seasons some approximately 1,400 square miles, but the streams have overflowed their banks on sev- largest drainage area of any one stream is eral occasions. that of the Pinnebog River draining 171 square miles. Other major streams of the re- gion are: Willow Creek, draining 100 square miles; the Pigeon River, draining 156 square miles; the Sebewaing River, draining 110 square miles; and Wiscoggin Creek. 1.35.4 Flood Problems This areaistypicalof the lands draining into Even though the rivers and drainage areas the southern portion of Lake Huron. In gen- are small, this region is not without flood prob- eral, ground surfaces do not have a uniform lems. Flood damages have occurred at Sebe- relief, but are broken by occasional low ridges waing, Michigan, in 1935, 1942, and 1948. The interspaced by level areas. The maximum ele- flood overflows in 1935 and 1948 were inten- vation in the area is 850 feet above sea level, sified by ice jams and the flood of June 1948 and stream slopes average 11.5 feet per mile was created by a severe rainstorm. However, until their egress into Lake Huron at approx- other flooding has been extremely local and imately 577 feet (L.W.D.). has caused only minor damages to cropland in most cases. Figure 14-35c identifies the time period in which majordamages, as defined inthis study, are first noted within a given reach on the 1.35.2 Previous Studies main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-36 indicates the flood plain damages by Previous studies are listed below: reach corresponding to the reaches desig- (1) 1945-Corps of Engineers, Definite nated in this figure. Table 14-37 shows up- Project Report for Sebewaing River at Sebe- stream flood damages. Location of these dam- waing, Michigan ages within particular watersheds may be (2) 1939-a Survey for Flood Control with seen in Figure 14-36c. Summations of esti- a favorable comment mated average annual damages and acres in (3) 1936-a Preliminary Examination the flood plain are shown by river basin in which produced an unfavorable recommenda- Table 14-38. County summaries for the main tion stem and principal tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-39. 1.35.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1.35.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention The drainage areas discussed here are a Measures part of the portion of Michigan commonly re- ferred to as the Thumb area. This portion of A flood control project of limited scope was the State is under the influence of the Detroit completed in 1948 along the Sebewaing River 106 Appendix 14 M s-Ir 1. .,Lfs N W 0 z a BLACK SANILAC 0 Port uron ST. Ct'Al ST. CLAIR OAKLAND MACOMB \ St. Clair ii,1 LIVINGSTON Holly RoAso *Richmond 0 C@-Lske Orion 4 CLI.NTON Chester marine City 19 Pontiac New Belti[nore 0 H0.0111 P/z@ Anchor Be Algon .0. Mt. Clemens M111.1d 0 Red 0 0 00 0 o HURON PI)mo th o /LAKE ST CLAIR @D Chelsea ROUGE Ann Arbor Yo" nti -iz VVASHTENAW c k LEGEND Flat Milap 0a BOUNDARIES Tecumseh STATE COUNTY RAISIN PLANNING AREA Morro RIVER BASIN GROUP Hu n Adrian 0, RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX Blissfield , ,@ ---) / \'It- \LENAWEE -MICHIGAN M6, ROE OHIO SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-38 Lake Erie Northwest-River Basin Group 4.1 1 Flood Plains Inventory 107 in the Village of Sebewaing, Michigan, by the most are unnamed. Major tributaries enter- Corps of Engineers. Channel enlargement of ing from the west include Elk Creek, which approximately two miles with a capacity of joins the Black near Sandusky, and Mill 7,500 cfs was provided from the confluence of Creek, which joins the river closer to its State.and Columbia Drains to the break- mouth. Both of these streams rise in the waters in Saginaw Bay. This provided protec- southwestern corner of the basin. tion for a flood frequency of 15 years. Caseville, Michigan, at the mouth of the Pi- geon River, has a small-boat harbor con- 1.36.2 Previous Studies structed in 1964 by the Corps of Engineers. Among other features, it provides a channel 8 Previous studies are listed below: feet deep and 60 feet wide extending 1,000 feet (1) 1972-U.S. Geological Survey-flood- upstream in the Pigeon River. This increased prone area reports for portions of Black River channel capacity undoubtedly helps to allevi- (2) 1971-Soil Conservation Service, Pre- ate overflow conditions. liminary Investigation Report for Elk Creek There are no other structural projects for Watershed, Lapeer and Sanilac Counties, flood control by other governmental or local Michigan agencies at this time. The Michigan Water Re- (3) 1970-Corps of Engineers, Detailed sources Commission has the authority to regu- Project Report on the Black River at Port Hu- late all development in the flood plain areas. ron. It concerns an improved navigation The need is steadily increasing for well- channel for approximately 2V2 miles above the developed regulations to prevent a buildup of existing project limits. flood damages in the flood plains. Refer to (4) 1969-Corps of Engineers, Flood Dam- Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain age Survey of the Black River at Port Huron legislation applicable to this complex. (unpublished) (5) 1951-Corps of Engineers, Review Sur- vey Report (unpublished) considering two 1.36 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group separate recreational boating improvements 4.1, Black River Basin requested by local interest. One of these was for the extension of a navigable channel 10 feet deep from the end of existing project to 1.36.1 Description the confluence with the Black River drainage canal. The Black River basin is the northernmost basin in this river basin group and in the southeastern Michigan study area. This 1.36.3 Development in the Flood Plain roughly triangular-sh aped basin drains an area of 711 square miles in Sanilac, St. Clair, The Black River has cut well below the adj a- Lapeer, and Huron Counties. Location within cent plain in its upper reaches, and this River Basin Group 4.1 is shown in Figure stream erosion has created a gorge more than 14-38. 100 feet deep at the confluence with Mill The land surface in this area is principally a Creek. Mill Creek and the smaller tributary broad, flat plain nestled between morainal streams in the lower reaches of the Black hills which form its boundaries. and dictate its River have also become deeply incised. Elk drainage patterns. These hills, although not Creek and other tributaries in the upper pronounced, provide local topographic con- reaches of the basin have not cut substantially trast. Old beach lines, formed during succes- into the plain. Most major stream channels sive stages of ancestral glacial lakes, are are well developed, but to drain much of the marked by local steepening of the land surface flat areas between, ditches and drains have and also provide contrast in the topographic been constructed to convey overland runoff. setting. Elevations in the basin range from Construction of many of these drains was 579 feet at the mouth of the Black River to completed around 1900 to reclaim the land for slightly more than 1,000 feet in the vicinity of agricultural use. Brown City at the western edge. Little effort has been made to use streams in In its downstream course the Black River is the Black River basin for water supply or joined by a number of streams, almost all of other resource development. Minor dams have which enter from the west. Those streams en- been constructed for mill ponds and related tering from the east are generally small and uses, but most have been abandoned. Because 108 Appendix 14 Black River and Mill Creek are deeply incised mated average annual damages and acres in in their lower reaches, favorable sites for the the flood plain are shown by river basin in construction of dams are attainable but unde- Table 14-42. County summaries for the main veloped because of the extended low flows in stem and principal tributaries are tabulated the streams. There are 48 lakes and ponds in Table 14-43. within the basin, ranging in size from the 120 acres in Elk Lake to less than 5 acres. Most of the lakes and ponds are small, more than half 1.36.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention being less than 5 acres in size. The natural Measures lakes lie in the morainal areas to the south- west. Elsewhere, lakes are primarily ponded There have been no structural projects on gravel pits or areas flooded for wildlife. the main stem of the Black River for flood Settlement in the Black River basin can still control purposes. The Corps of Engineers be generally classified as rural. Villages and completed a navigation channel in 1931 which cities are small and owe a large part of their provided a 16-foot channel including a settling economic life to agriculture. Port Huron, basin approximately 2 miles upstream. Be- the 14rgest city, has a population approach- cause of the lack of commercial water trans- ing 40,000. The other communities have popu- portation, this channel has not been main- lations generally less than 2,000. Some light tained in recent years. industrial development has occurred in vari- Five dams have been inventoried in the ba- ous towns, but 80 percent of the basin area is sin, and only one was constructed as a flood used for farming, with dairying providing retarding structure. This dam on the North most of the agricultural income. The area is Branch of Mill Creek is part of the North well served by the Michigan State Highway Branch Watershed Protection and Flood Pre- network, including Interstate 94 which termi- vention Project under the supervision of the nates at Port Huron, as well as three rail lines Soil Conservation Service. Included in this providing freight service across the basin. scheme are 12.5 miles of multiple-purpose im- provement work below the dam and 3 miles of -channel improvement on Brant Lake Drain 1.36.4 Flood Problems beginning approximately 2 miles above the dam. Location of this preventive measure is For the most part, flood damage in the Black illustrated in Figure 14-41. River basin is concentrated at the City of Port The Michigan Water Resources Commission Huron and immediate vicinity. Upstream and has the authority to regulate all development tributary urban areas have had few overland in the flood plain areas. Refer to Subsection flooding problems, and floods that have occur- 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legislation red have been caused mainly by deficient applicable to this river basin. drainage. Damage to farmlands has been local, and for the most part, minor in degree. In recent years floods occurred at Port 1.37 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group Huron in 1943,1947, and 1949. Ice jams are the 4.1, St. Clair Complex major causes of the stream overflows in this area. At that time the districts affected by these floods were mostly unsettled river bot- 1.37.1 Description tomlands. Today, under the pressure of urban - expansion and encroachment, these districts This complex consists of the basins of the are the sites of new home developments, and Pine River, Belle River, and several small the toll in property damage could be extensive. creeks flowing independently into Anchor Figure 14-39c identifies the time period in Bay, an arm of Lake St. Clair. Location of the which majordamages, as defined inthis study, complex within River Basin Group 4.1 is illus- are first noted within a given reach on the trated in Figure 14-38. The Pine River drains main stem and principal tributaries. Table an area of 194 square miles. This river rises in 14-40 indicates the flood plain damages by morainal hills and flows in a generally south- reach corresponding to the reaches desig- easterly direction to the St. Clair River. Its nated in this figure. Table 14-41 depicts up- tributaries are all relatively small and many stream flood damages. Location of these dam- have intermittent flow. The basin area is a ages within particular watersheds may be level-to-gently-undulating glacial plain inter- seen in Figure 14-40c. Summations of esti- rupted by stream valleys and by a series of Flood Plains Inventory 109 TABLE 14-40 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.1 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N -i -i = AVERAGE ANNUAL ':x cd z -Z CD REACH - - ;7--- IOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES 'r 'j = ;; "- Uj Q= W Ul @T Uj Uj FROM TO (DOLLARS) 2 e W- CD URBAN RURAL - Uj URBANFRURAL BLACK RIVER Aul St. Clail RlT6N IT6N 1970 127,500 400 2100 3000 5500 6E S11 R 6E S2 1980 165,800 440 2160 2900 5500 2000 216,800 480 2220 2800 5500 2020 306,000 520 2280 2700 5500 PINE RIVER T4N T7N 1970 5420 5,420 AV1 St. Clail RI 7E S304 R13E S22 1980 1,300 5420 5,420 2000 200 1,500 60 40 5320 100 5,320 2020 700 1,700 120 80 5220 240 5,180 BELLE RIVER AV2 T3N T5N 1970 800 200 50 50 3600 200 3,500 St-Clair I R16E S12 P15E S7 1980 1,000 300 70 70 3560 220 3,480 2000 1,200 500 90 90 3520 240 3,460 2020 1,600 800 110 120 3370 290 3,410 CLINTON RIVER AW1 Macomb River Oakland Co 1970 2,069,000 125,800 2233 3339 2733 2,839 Mouth Line 1980 3,215,800 126,400 2453 3119 2913 2,659 2000 10,223,400 127,400 40 2673 2859 3173 2,399 2020 L1,717,000 127,000 200 2893 2319 3653 1,919 AW2 Oakland Macomb Co. T3N 1970 6,400 1,800 80 480 2160 600 2,120 Line R10E S27 1980 10,900 3,000 100 540 2080 680 2,040 2000 24,700 5,600 120 620 1980 800 1,920 2020 54,600 14,200 160 740 1820 1000 1,720 RED RUN AAIN T2N TIN 1970 8,300,000 160 568C 640 11,840 640 AW3 Macomb I R13E S19 R11E S14 1980 7,450,000 320 756C 4600 11,880 600 2000 .400,000 480 956C 2440 11,940 540 2020 1,000,000 640 040( 1440 11,940 540 RIVER ROUGE 'AX1 Wayne T2S TlS 1970 1,579,000 1700 522C 1060 7980 RIIE S45 RIDE S5 1980 2,039,400 1860 528( 840 7980 2000 3,369,900 2040 532C 629 7980 2020 5,571,300 2200 538( 400 7980 AX2 Oakland TIN T2N 1970 140,000 70 8C 550 1550 150 RIDE S32 R11E S8 1980 224,000 120 13f 450 1600 100 2000 518,000 195 18( 325 1650 50 2020 1,176,000 270 23C 200 1700 AW yne T2S T2S 1970 57,500 500 50C 500 3500 Lower Branch RIOE S665 R9E S29 1980 69,000 550 55( 400 3500 Same 2000 80,500 600 60( 300 3500 Same 2020 92,000 700 70C 100 3500 Same AX4 ayne T2S T2S 1970 5,300 520 000 2520 Middle Branch RIOE S10 R9E S3 1980 6,400 560 960 2520 Same 2000 7,400 600 920 2520 Same 2020 8,500 680 840 2520 Same AX5 yne TIS TlS 1970 55,200 376 376 Upper Branch RIOE S21 R10E SIB 1980 66,200 376 376 Same 2000 77,300 376 376 Same 2020 88,300 376 376 Same BELL BRANCH AX6 Wayne RJTIS TIS 1970 37 600 845 845 OR S21 RIOE S13 1980 48:900 845 845 2000 18, 8451 845 2020 35 845 845 110 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-40(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.1 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N -j -i -i = AVERAGE ANNUAL d -X .1 C) REACH ;-, P: - CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES TOTAL REMARKS FROM TO (DOLL RS) U C3 URBAN RURAL Uj L 0= C' 0= HURON RIVER AYI Monroe T5S T5S 1970 1,000 400 400 RIOE S25 R10E S6 1980 1,300 400 400 2000 2,200 400 400 2020 1,000 2,700 60 340 60 340 AY2 Wayne T5S T3S 1970 1.000 600 710 10250 1340 9,620 RJOE S25 R7E S24 1980 2,500 600 30 81o 1012( 1600 9,360 2000 2,200 60 1000 990( 1760 9,200 2020 5,300 600 80 1100 9771 1920 9,040 AY2A Wayne Rockwood 1970 80,000 55 400 600 1055 1980 104,000 ilo 440 505 1055 2000 176,000 170 470 415 1055 2020 296,000 200 530 325 1055 AY2B Wayne Flat Rock 1970 120,000 228 100 328 1980 144,000 10 238 80 328 2000 168,000 20 248 60 328 2020 192,00( 30 2581 40 328 AY3 Washtenaw T3S TIS 1970 10,55( 800 30 50 1384 554 920 includes Ann Arbor, Dexter R7E S24 R5E S31 1980 17,26( 1030 110 120 1234 654 820 and Delta Ydlls 2000 40,60( 1050 220 200 1044 774 700 Same 1 2020 97,10( 1570 330 245 879 595 Same AY3A Washtenaw Ypsilanti 1970 150,00( 200 75 275 1980 187,50 225 50 275 2000 285,00 250 25 275 2020 412,50 275 275 RAIS EVER BA1 Monroe T7S T7S 1970 5,60C 2,000 70 100 5878 250 5,798 R9E Sll R6E S7 1980 6,80( 3,500 80 110 5858 250 5,798 2000 10,40( 5,100 100 110 5838 250 5,798 2020 16,OOC 7,500 130 115 5803 250 5,798 BAIA Monroe Dundee 1970 8,50C 30 100 130 1980 11,00C 30 20 80 130 2000 18,70C 40 30 60 130 2020 31,40C 40 50 40 130 R&2 Lenawee T7S T6S 1970 5,800 1,000 20 192 6,570 R5E S12 R4E S15 1980 6,400 2,200 30 80 6652 192 6,570 2000 8,700 3,000 40 80 6642 192 6,570 2020 12,000 4,200 40 100 6622 192 6,570 BA2A Lenawee Blissfield 1970 8,000 30 70 200 300 1980 8,800 40 80 180 300 2000 12,000 60 100 140 300 2020 16,800 60 100 140 300 RA3 Lenawee T6S T6S 1970 37 380 37 380 Includes Adrian R4E S29 R3E SIO 1980 800 500 37 20 360 57 360 Same 2000 1,200 1,000 40 27 350 67 350 Same 2020 2,200 1,500 40 37 3401 771 340 Same beaches which were formed by glacial lakes. slopes in excess of 10 feet per mile are common. Elevations in the basin range from 578 feet at The Belle River also rises in morainal hills the mouth of the Pine River to 850 feet in the and flows in a southeasterly direction to the northwest corner. Stream gradients are small, St. Clair River. This basin is long and narrow, averaging falls of less than 10 feet per mile. 40 miles in length, and generally less than 10 However, in the headwaters of most streams, miles in width. Because this is a narrow basin, mrr -.,+ qwwwwwwwwww@ W!@ W W W 0 0 1. C. W W oow (D cl' W W N 0 C+ C+ 0 C+ H w N W a 0 to to w to BowwwwDow oowwwww 0 M -4 -4 -4 -4 -4 @3 @3 -4 -4 OOM-4-4qq-4q W a OD @ -4 q -4 -1 q -4 -4 @ w 0 % @ @ q @4 00000000000000 00000000 0 a m C+ 000000 00000000 0000000 C+ C+ In W -4 W C, & -4 M 0 W W o H to m to !OP @, W . , !D,?D e to W & W W W I I w to W,4 0. 1 C+ 0 0 0 W IC. 0 W W CP W o -.41 w to m 00 00000 00 '7' C, 0 0 0 0 000 0 000000 0 .0. al co 00000 I 0 00 00 81 0 0 00 coo 0 000000 0 coo C"D M I z (D m to I m m OD @j a) 0 m w 0 t, t, q e >4 13 W W W I I IF 0 lc@ OD M -4 0 O-Owomogosqowo-og - w ol -4 (11 M -4 OD 4 'W 'W -1 0 W -4 -4 0 A 0 OD w V 000000000 0 00C 0 0 0 0 0 8 40 WO 0000 0000 00 000 000000000 000000000 0 0 0 C, 0 0 00,0000000 0000000 2 1 -- . - --- L @o 0 W to N tn q.11 Q1 -4 0, OD 0 Cn 0 w w (A w 0 4 CO 0 10 @ r lp?@ -4 < . ., 1:111!1"?"p V. J e IF:, e (D @OCDCOJOUI OD &M mww 0 0 0 W@Owqmww 0 to CA omwmwotn -4 W 00 W W w V, 000080000000000 000000000 0000 0 00000000 0 0 0 0 0000 0000000000 000000000 0000 0 C, 000 0 000rooooo 0 0 0 o[c, 0 tj I @ I @ 1@ WWI 0000 C+ CD .4.0 IF , , , , , 0 wwwww@ww@ 0,0,001,00 0 6 10 ILI w wwwwo.oqo 110) 0 4 & A A0000omq0to w " In M m 00 000 00000-0 woooowo"w '0- 00001000-80000 0000 00 w 0) 0 .I W W W W w 1 1 -4 q q q to 0 CA CD 01 OD 0 0000 OD 0 N 0 W W W W .8 w w w w 0 w 0 0000000 0 CA cm (A 0 coo 0 0 Ln 0 0 CA 0 0 0 tn CA 0000100 0 wwwwooo ba I CA 000000otno 0, 'o C+ 0 tn 010 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 0 0 0000 W W W WIA OD 0 @ W 0000 0 0 to tD H 0 MOOMIMAONO 00 OD OD OD 00 1 0 0000 0 00 0000 0 ol@ C, C+ (D 00000 a 0 m 0 'j, w 0 go 0 w 0. 0 Q, 0 C> 00 0 o 0 0000 00 ( (D D (D q q to I to to 'w 0, m C+ q -4 -4 m 00 W wl: W 0000woo 00 Ln 0 00 0 00 02 0 wl 0000 0 0 oloo 000010 CQ 0 0 o 0 W W W W 0 W W to to 0 m o o coo -0 w- -w w- -M 00 -w 00 Go . .1 00 uw N W ml tz I tn 0 w w 000 0 0 00001 00 00001 0 0 t" 0 CA OD GO w 00 w 0 m w w tA 0 0 0 , to W w W 0 0 0 CA W W (D 0 0 00 00 00 00 W m 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 8 0000 0 0000 0000 0000 4 0 a C+ 0 0 0 W M@ W .4 M C+ -4 -4 -4 A W W W W w w t) to o 0 0 0 0 0 A W 0 owo 000000 wwwwwwooo wwwwooo C', On @:l 0000000 0 000 0 000 0 U,0 t 000 -4 -4 0 0000&0000 mommooo 112 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-42 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.1 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Black River 1970 1303200 74.1800 51540 103707 1980 169.1400 883300 5@540 lov)707 2000 223.1000 1093200 5.@540 10.J07 2020 3173300 129000 55540 10.1707 St. Clair 1970 23900 221.5000 35700 50P016 Complex 1980 33800 262 100 3 720 49.996 5 .1 1 2000 6>300 324.5400 33840 49@1876 2020 11.1100 3843500 45030 49@686 Hurory River 1970 3663850 254030 55,433 51.9075 1980 462,360 300,330 5)793 505715 2000 685.1400 3715750 6.9073 50P435 2020 1.90263200 4401870 6JP398 50.9110 Swan Creek 1970 4045900 55.1700 731510 19.1380 Complex 1980 5423600 65.J00 7.1510 19080 2000 935,300 81000 7.1510 19.1380 2020 1P700.$600 96000 7@510 19080 Raisin River 1970 798,230 1070.1500 31743 69073 1980 1.10663000 1.1619.@900 3P763 69.1453 2000 1>830000 2j-005,700 3,773 69,443 2020 333133700 2.53793000 3P783 69033 Rouge Complex 1970 1.@8743600 - 1619 771 150 1980 2.1453.@900 - 165821 100 2000 45135.)800 - 16>871 50 2020 7.@0753100 - 165,921 - Clinton 1970 2051375.1400 1275600 153173 5.1599 River 1980 30.1676,J00 129000 151473 5.9299 2000 48@6485100 1335000 15.9913 4.9859 2020 52.9771.1600 141>200 16.1593 41,179 TOTAL 1970 235953@080 2.1104.1030 57JI870 2065,400 1980 353374.J60 2.9465.J30 58.@620 205.9650 2000 56064.1300 3.9025050 59.9520 204.1750 2020 663215)600 3)571.$370 60.J75 203095 Flood Plains Inventory 113 TABLE 14-43 River Basin Group 4.1, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County (Michigan) Urban Rural Urban Raral Lenawee 13,800 1,000 529 6,950 Livingston --- --- --- --- Macomb 20,369,000 125,800 14,573 3,479 Monroe 14,100 3,000 380 6,198 Oakland 146,400 1,800 2,150 2,270 St. Clair 128,300 200 5,700 8,920 Sanilac --- --- --- --- Washtenaw 160,550 830 829 920 Wayne 1,935,600 600 17,944 9,620 TOTALS 22,767,750 133,230 42,105 38,357 YEAR 1980 Lenawee 16,000 2,700 549 6,930 Livingston --- --- --- --- Macomb 30,665,800 126,400 14,793 3,259 Monroe 17,800 4,800 380 6,198 Oakland 234,900 3,000 2,280 2,140 St. Clair 166,800 1,600 5,720 8,900 Sanilac --- --- --- --- Washtenaw 204,760 1,030 929 820 Wayne 2,480,400 600 18,204 9,360 TOTALS 33,786,460 140,130 42,130 37,607 YEAR 2000 Lenawee 21,900 4,000 559 6,920 Livingston --- --- --- Macomb 48,623,400 127,400 15,113 2,939 Monroe 29,100 7,300 380 6,198 Oakland 542,700 5,600 2,450 1,970 St. Clair 218,200 2,000 5,840 8,780 Sanilac --- --- --- --- Washtenaw 325,600 1,050 1,049 700 Wayne 3,965,400 600 18,364 9,200 TOTALS 53,726,300 147,950 43,755 36,707 YEAR 2020 Lenawee 31,000 5,700 569 6,910 Livingston --- --- --- --- Macomb 52,717,000 127,000 15,593 2,459 Monroe 48,400 10,200 440 6,138 Oakland 1,230,600 14,200 2,700 1,720 St. Clair 308,300 2,500 6,030 8,590 Sanilac --- --- --- --- Washtenaw 509,600 1,570 1,154 595 Wayne 6,392,400 600 18,524 9,040 TOTALS 61,237,300 161,770 45,010 35,452 On main stem and principal tributaries 114 Appendix 14 VWMI Y MAP 0 z ---------------- 0 C AIR OAKL,AND Hotly J LIVIN@N 06on i i M.-o Oty C, N- 19" 9, ponw, "I". @,Al.... C: erling 0),-,, Mif d cl ... . .... .. ------ 10 --- D 0 0 Plymouth 0 LAKE ST. CLAIR C Ise. Ann A, Uo yo.RaMi 67 LEGEND BOUNDARIES WA Flat Rock STATE ............. .............. . .......... U COUNTY OG PLAN IN I NG AREA T-wmeh RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES Hu n Ad,t- CHANNEL DIVERSION Bhssfi@ !Id CHANNELIMPROVEMENT LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS INSTITUTIONAL NLENAWIFE MIC'HIGAN 11 ONROE. RESERVOIR M" f'", OHIO PL-566 WATERSHED PROJECT SCALIF IN MILES . ..... ........ .... .. .... . 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-41 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.1 Flood Plains Inventory 115 southerly into Lake St. Clair. It drains an area of Engineers has compiled survey reports for of old lake plain and has a very. slight stream Algonac, Marine City, and St. Clair at various gradient. times. Most of the flood overflows in these cities can be blamed on ice jams and packs in the local stream and the St. Clair River. 1.37.2 Previous Studies Figure 14-39c identifies the time period in which majordamages, as defined inthis study, There have been no studies for flood control are first noted vaithin a given reach on the purposes in the St. Clair' complex. main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-40 indicates the flood plain damages by reach corresponding to the reaches desig- 1.37.3 Development in the Flood Plain nated in this figure. Table 14-41 indicates up- stream flood damages. Location of these dam- The natural drainage network within the ages within particular watersheds may be various basins is not well developed. For this seen in Figure 14-40c. Summations of esti- reason, ditches and drains have been con- mated average annual damages and acres in structed to convey some of the runoff. Most the flood plain are shown by river basin in stream channels are cut less than 10 feet Table 14-42. County summaries for the main below the adjacent land surface, except in the stem and principal tributaries are tabulated lower reaches where the streams have become in Table 14-43. incised as deep as 30 feet into the glacial plains. Because of the small flows for extended 1.37.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention periods of time each year, no effort has been Measures made to construct dams to use the flow of streams. Small stream gradients and narrow No flood control projects have been initiated stream valleys also reduce the potential for in the complex. Occasional ice jams in the St. development through dam construction. Clair River are cleared by Coast Guard ice Population in the complex is principally breakers. The Michigan Water Resources rural with agriculture constituting the major Commission has the authority to regulate all land use. Towns and cities are small. The development in the flood plain areas. Subsec- largest is St. Clair at the mouth of the Pine tion 1.14.5 contains a discussion of flood plain River. Except for some seasonal homes along legislation applicable to this river basin. the St. Clair River, expansion of the Detroit metropolitan area has not reached into this complex. 1.38 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group Although the St. Clair River is one of the 4.1, Clinton River Basin major connecting channels in the Great Lakes Seaway, no deep water ports have been es- tablished in this reach. State and local roads 1.38.1 Description grid the area while Interstate Highway 94 slashes across in a northeasterly direction. The Clinton River drains 741 square miles in The Grand Trunk and Western Railroad pro- four counties of southeast Michigan. Location vides the necessary transportation for bulk within River Basin Group 4.1 is shown in Fig- materials in and out of the region. ure 14-38. A fan-shaped basin, it is approxi- mately 32 miles long and 36 miles wide at its extreme parts. The northeast and south por- 1.37.4 Flood Problems tions of the basin are gently sloping to flat lands facing Lake St. Clair, and the northwest The St. Clair complex has not experienced one-third has rolling glacial topography. severe flood damage or hardship. Those com- Lakes are interspersed throughout this sec- munities in the upper reaches of the basins tion and act as natural reservoirs in the have little trouble from overland flooding be- drainage system. Among the several cause the drainage areas are small and the tributaries coming into the main stem from stream gradients adequate. Several of the the north are the North Branch with Deer towns located at the mouths of the major Creek, the Middle Branch, Stoney Creek, and streams where they empty into the St. Clair Paint Creek. The main tributary entering River have reported flood problems. The Corps from the southern part of the basin is Red 116 Appendix 14 Run. Elevations range from more than 1,000 The upstream area, comprising approxi- feet in the hilly western parts to 575 feet at the mately half the total watershed, contains egress into Lake St. Clair. numerous inland lakes interconnected by marshy lands and small streams. This area is not suited to cultivation and is mainly devoted 1.38.2 Previous Studies to pasture and dairy farming. The stream slopes in the central portion are somewhat Previous studies are listed below: steeper as a result of the drop from the glacial (1) 1970-Corps of Engineers, Interim moraines. Several potential multiple-purpose Survey Report on Flood Control, Major reservoir sites are located on the Clinton Drainage, and Allied Purposes for Red Run River and its major tributaries in the general Drain and Lower Clinton River, Clinton River vicinity of Rochester and north of Mt. Clem- Basin, Michigan. It recommended increased ens. These sites have not been developed due channel capacities for Red Run and sections of to the intense rate of urbanization that has the Clinton River (House Document No. 91- been occurring in the river valleys. The 431, 91st Congress, 2nd Session). This report is Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, a part of the Comprehensive Water Resources State of Michigan agency, has been purchas- Study for Southeastern Michigan authorized ing much of the flood plain of the Clinton River in 1965 by P.L. 89-298, 89th Congress. A proj- in recent years and. developing the lands into ect was authorized by the 1970 Flood Control park areas. The flood plain area between the Act, P.L. 91-611, 91st Congress, H.R. 19877, Cities of Utica and Rochester has been set which was approved on December 31, 1970. aside for recreational use. This agency is also Construction of the project is contingent upon developing a recreational area by impounding the receipt of funds. Stoney Creek with low-head dams as a portion (2) 1970-Soil Conservation Service, Pre- of the project. Another development is Met- liminary Investigation Report on the North ropolitan Park on the shores of Lake St. Clair Branch of the Clinton River, Macomb County, just below the mouth of the Clinton River. Michigan (3) 1965-Flood Plain Information Report, Clinton River (Middle Branch), Michigan 1.38.4 Flood Problems (4) 1964-Flood Plain Information Report, Clinton River (Main River and Branch), Major flood problems still persist in the Michigan Clinton River basin. The areas around Mt. (5) 1964-Flood Plain Information Report, Clemens and Pontiac, and areas served by the Clinton River (North Branch), Michigan Red Run Drain have experienced considerable (6) 1948-Corps of Engineers, a review of damage. Other minor problems exist at the survey report on the Clinton River with a Rochester, Yates, and Utica along the main view to flood protection on the Red Run, stem, and Fra 'ser on Harrington Drain. Two printed as House Document No. 628, 80th Con- flood control projects were completed in the gress (2nd). It recommended an 11-mile long early 1950s to help alleviate the conditions channel improvement. around Mt. Clemens and the Red Run Drain. (7) 1946-Corps of Engineers, a survey re- However, the urbanization of the area has in- port on the flood problems of Mt. Clemens, creased to such a degree that the capacities of printed as House Document No. 694, 79th Con- the projects have been overtaxed, and the gress (2nd). It recommended a cut-off channel areas are again plagued by runoff and drain- to reduce flood damages. age problems. (8) 1939-Corps of Engineers, a survey re- Floods have occurred in the Mt. Clemens port on flood control initiated following a pre- area for many years. The largest floods were liminary examination report that indicated in 1902 '22,800 efs; 1938, 14,500 efs; 1943, 14,600 flood problems along the lower reaches of the cfs; and 1947, 21,600 cfs. Above Mt. Clemens, Clinton River from the junction of the branches, mostly ag- ricultural lands are flooded. Although consid- erable amounts of water have overflowed 1.38.3 Development in the Flood Plain these plains, little damage has been done. At Mt. Clemens the flooding is limited to 700 The area occupied by the Clinton River acres, mostly in residential sections. Much of basin is under heavy urbanization pressures. the property along the river banks is in parks, This is especially true in the lower reaches. gardens, or unoccupied parcels of land. Below Flood Plains Inventory 117 Mt. Clemens the flood plain is not well defined, weir at the upstream end of the canal main- being generally low and flat. The stage of Lake tains normal flow in the natural channel St. Clair has considerable effect on the mag- through Mt. Clemens and also prevents ero- nitude of the acreage flooded. During high sive velocities resulting from low lake level or stages as much as 1,000 acres may be inun- moderate flood flows. dated, while at low lake stages the flooded The Corps of Engineers Red Run Project area is much restricted. In this area there are was approved by the Flood Control Act of 1948. approximately 200 houses and cottages. There This project consisted of widening and deepen- is little cultivation, and vacant property is un- ing the existing channel from Royal Oak to its dergoing real estate development. confluence with the Clinton River, a distance The Pontiac area has experienced floods of approximately 12 miles. The project, com- over a similar period of time. Serious damages pleted in 1954, provided for a maximum capac- occurred in the floods of 1938, 1943, and 1947. ity of 7,000 efs at its downstream end. Records indicate that flood peaks are primar- Communities and townships in the Clinton ily the result of flash runoff of storm rainfall River basin known to have adopted flood plain from within the city, and this condition can be legislation as a means of guiding and control- expected to intensify with urban growth. The ling development in flood plains are the Cities lakes and marshes upstream of Pontiac serve of Mt. Clemens, Sterling Heights, and Utica as natural regulating basins, and thus save and the Townships of Shelby and Clinton. the city from more serious flood loss. Refer to Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of The Red Run drains 70 square miles of fairly flood plain legislation applicable to this river level ground in the most southern section of basin. the Clinton River basin. Investigations made by the Corps of Engineers indicate that flood damages due to heavy storm runoff have not 1.39 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group been due to the Red Run overflowing its 4.1, Rouge Complex banks, but rather by backwater effect in the sewers due to high water in Red Run. The channel improvement project of 1951 relieved 1.39.1 Description this situation temporarily, but the concen- trated growth in the region has once more The Rouge complex is a fan-shaped basin overtaxed the drainage facilities of Red Run. that drains an area of 467 square miles in Oak- Figure 14-39c identifies the time period in land, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties. Loca- which major damages, as defined in this study, tion within River Basin Group 4.1 is shown in are first noted within a given reach on the Figure 14-38. The land surface of the River main stem and principal tributaries. Table Rouge basin ranges from hilly or moderately 14-40 indicates the flood plain damages by undulating topography in the west and north reach corresponding to the reaches desig- to relatively flat terrain to the southeast. Ele- nated in this figure. Table 14-41 lists upstream vations in the headwater area to the north- flood damages. Location of these damages west generally range between 900 and 1,000 within particular watersheds may be seen in feet above mean sea level. In the flatter lands Figure 14-40c. Summations of estimated av- of the southeast sector elevations are approx- erage annual damages and acres in the flood imately 600 feet. Dividing these two topo- plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-42. graphically different areas are a series of County summaries for the main stem and beach lines which traverse the River Rouge principal tributaries are tabulated in Table basin in a southwest to northwest direction. 14-43. These beaches, formed by glacial lakes, are marked by a local steepening of land surface. In its downstream course the Rouge is joined 1.38.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention by a number of tributaries, most of which Measures enter from the west or northwest. The major tributaries include the Upper, Middle, and To assist flood runoff in the Mt. Clemens Lower Rivers Rouge, The largest stream en- vicinity, the Corps of Engineers completed tering from the east is Evans Ditch with a construction of a large cutoff channel in 1951. drainage area of 11.1 square miles. From an The channel runs from Mt. Clemens to Lake elevation of 735 feet at the inner margin of the St. Clair and has a capacity together with the old glacial beach, the ground surface descends lower reach of the Clinton River of 15,000 cfs. A at a slope of approximately 8 feet to the mile 118 Appendix 14 and meets the Detroit River at an elevation of favorably recommended an investigation of 573 feet. survey scope on flood control in the River Rouge and its tributaries. (12) 1949-U.S. Geological Survey, "Flood 1.39.2 Previous Studies and Stream-Flow Characteristics on the River Rouge Basin," dealing with discharge hydro- Previous studies are listed below: graphs, stream-flow data, the magnitude and (1) 1970-Flood Plain Information Report, frequency of floods, and the magnitude of the River Rouge (Lower Rouge at Wayne), Michi- April 1947 flood if the storm center were gan placed over the River Rouge basin (2) 1969-Corps of Engineers, a reconnais- sance study, under Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act, initiated to determine the 1.39.3 Development in the Flood Plain feasibility of a small flood control project on the Main Branch of River Rouge near Bir- The River Rouge complex drains the highly mingham, Michigan. urbanized area of Detroit and its immediate (3) 1969-Corps of Engineers, Post Flood environs. Throughout the basin major river Report of Southeast Michigan Flood, June channels are well developed with stream beds 25-27, 1968, concerned with the flooding along ranging from 20 to 30 feet below the adjacent the Clinton, Saline, Raisin, and Huron Rivers, land surface. Although their courses are well and the River Rouge and its tributaries dur- developed, smaller streams have not cut sub- ing this period stantially into the supporting plain. Where (4) 1966-Flood Plain Information Report, urbanization is extensive, drainage patterns River Rouge (Main Branch), Michigan have been altered, and ditches and drains are (5) 1966-Corps of Engineers, a snagging used to convey runoff. In Detroit and adjacent and clearing project for flood control on the areas storm sewers are used to transport sur- Upper Rouge authorized under Section 208 of face flow. the 1954 Flood Control Act. However, work In much of the basin, flood plains have been was indefinitely suspended as a result of no used to good advantage through the develop- local cooperation. ment of parks, golf courses, and other recrea- (6) 1965-Corps of Engineers, Design tion facilities. However, encroachment onto Memorandum (No. 1) for River Rouge Flood the flood plains, the filling in of flood plain Control Project, Michigan valleys, and the addition of bridges and other (7) 1963-Flood Plain Information Report, obstruction to free flow have resulted from River Rouge (Upper River Rouge at Far- urban development. The lower reach of the mington), Michigan Rouge is lined with heavy industrial develop- (8) 1959-Corps of Engineers, Survey Re- ments. Other reaches usually influence port on Flood Control of River Rouge, Michi- nearby residential areas or commercial busi- gan, submitted. The study was concerned with ness communities where main arteries cross the flood and related water-use problems of the Rouge or its tributaries. The upper reaches the entire basin area. It concluded that a seri- are beset by the intrusions of residential sub- ous flood problem existed.in areas along the divisions and shopping plazas. Areas that main stem between the navigation turning were once devoted to agriculture are fast dis- basin and Michigan Avenue. It recommended appearing. a channel improvement project for this prob- Because of low flows in the basin for ex- lem area. tended periods of time each year, little effort (9) 1957-Wayne County Road Commis- has been made to construct dams to use sion, "Flood of the River Rouge," prepared by stream flow. Dams have been erected and consulting engineers, studying hydrological stream flow used for mill ponds, lake im- effects on the Rouge basin and recommended poundments, or small ponds from which water various channel improvements may be withdrawn for municipal supply, irri- (10) 1957-City of Detroit, as Supplement I gation, or fire protection. At one time the Mid- to County report, recommending channel im- dle River Rouge had a structure used for provement on the main stem from the turning power generation, but this has been discon- basin to the Eight Mile Road tinued. The only remaining use for the low- (11) 1951-Corps of Engineers, a Prelimi- head dams is for maintaining a head over in- nary Examination Report completed as au- takes for irrigation supplies and lake im- thorized by the Flood Control Act of 1948. It poundment. Flood Plains Inventory 119 1.39.4 Flood Problems immediate area. Four lives were lost as a re- sult of high turbulent waters. This flood The River Rouge tributary system follows a peaked at 21.7 feet, and the flood of 1947 radiating pattern throughout the fan-shaped reached a peak of 23.0 feet at the Plymouth basin. Flood stages of the Lower, Middle, and Road gage of the River Rouge. Upper Rouge tend to be coincidental with the Figure 14-39c identifies the time period in flood stage of the main stem of the River which major damages, as defined in this study, Rouge at the respective junction points. As a are first noted within a given reach on the consequence, the downstream reach of the main stem and principal tributaries. Table main channel is subjected to hazardous flood 14-40 indicates the flood plain damages by discharges. Channel capacities of the main reach corresponding to the reaches desig- stem and the major tributaries are small and nated in this figure. Table 14-41 shows up- overbank flooding occurs frequently. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- Throughout most of the basin, notably up- ages within particular watersheds may be stream from Michigan Avenue, bottomland seen in Figure 14-40c. Summations of esti- flooding is confined within sharply defined mated average annual damages and acres in valleys associated with the streams. Highway the flood plain are shown by river basin in crossings of the River Rouge streams are high Table 14-42. County summaries for the main enough to avoid inundation during minor stem and principal tributaries are tabulated flooding. However, the flood of record, which in Table 14-43. occurred in April 1947, covered all highway bridges up to 51/2 miles upstream from the river mouth. Railroad bridges located at 1.39.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention higher elevations suffered only minor service Measures disruptions and bridge scouring during the 1947 flood. Construction of the River Rouge Flood Con- Downstream from Michigan Avenue the trol Project in Wayne County, Michigan, marked valley associated with the upper began in the summer of 1970. This project es- reaches of the River Rouge is no longer evi- sentially provides the improvements recom- dent. Natural ground levels extending for mended in the survey report submitted by the great distances on each side of the stream are Detroit District Corps of Engineers in 1959. only 15 to 20 feet higher than low water profile. This scheme will enlarge and straighten the High flood stages inundate large areas of land main river channel from Michigan Avenue to in that reach of the river between the turning the turning basin and will provide a design basin and Michigan Avenue. Additional areas flood flow of 24,000 cfs compared to an esti- are subject to basement flooding in this reach. mated 1980 discharge of 19,000 efs. With these In many cases local flooding is due to causes improvements there is a one percent chance of not related to stages of the River Rouge. In- flooding, and should flooding occur, the im- adequate sewers or drainage ditches were dis- provements will eliminate 96 percent of the covered to be the primary cause of isolated average annual damages. problem areas. Studies have indicated that There are no other existing flood control high river stages occur several hours after projects in the River Rouge basin. The Corps local storm outlet discharges. It was deter- of Engineers maintains an improved deepwa- mined that basement damages occurring dur- ter navigation channel from the mouth to 2.9 ing high stages of the River Rouge are caused miles upstream. The Ford Motor Company has by basement floor elevations lower than the constructed several small power dams across river high water elevation at the storm outlet. the River Rouge, but these dams have been The highest flood discharge in the basin dur- long abandoned and contribute only a minor ing the period of record occurred in April 1947. amount of storage capacity during flood Heavy rains falling on relatively impervious periods. ground produced a peak stage almost four feet Non-Federal local agencies have taken greater than any previously recorded. Of the steps to help alleviate the flood problem. 2.95 inches of rainfall measured during this These measures consist primarily of dis- storm, the equivalent of 2.5 inches was meas- couraging private development of the flood ured as surface runoff. Approximately 4,300 plains, public purchasing of river valley lands acres were inundated by this flood. Another for development into parks and recreational serious flood occurred during June 25 to 27, sites, and enlarging of restrictive bridges 1968, following 2.6 inches of rainfall over the along the valley parkways by allowing the 120 Appendix 14 highway paralleling the stream to pass under 1.40.2 Previous Studies the highway crossing the stream. In high flood flows the overbank flood waters use the park- Previous studies are listed below: way bridge openings. It is expected that the (1) 1972, 1971-U.S. Geological Survey- communities in Oakland and western Wayne flood-prone area reports for much of Huron Counties that are undergoing rapid transfor- River and Mill Creek mation from rural to urban development will (2) 1967-Corps of Engineers, Interim recognize the annual flooding that occurs in Survey Report on the Lower Huron River for the valleys and will follow the pattern ini- Flood Control, considering channel improve- tiated by Detroit and Wayne County of re- ment downstream of Telegraph Road. Inves- stricting development in the flood plains by tigations were not completed. municipal purchase. (3) 1966-Corps of Engineers, Interim Farmington and Beverly Hills have adopted Survey Report on Mill Creek. This report rec- flood plain legislation as a means of guiding ommended an impounding reservoir on this and controlling development in flood plains. major tributary to provide storage for flood Redford Township has also adopted flood plain control, water supply, and recreation. The re- legislation. Subsection 1.14.5 contains a dis- port is being reevaluated in light of the South- cussion of flood plain legislation applicable to eastern Michigan Water Resources Study. this river basin. (4) 1963-U.S. Department of Health, Edu- cation, and Welfare, Public Health Service; Report on Water Resources Study, Huron River Basin, Michigan; a study of potential 1.40 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group needs and value of water for municipal, in- 4.1, Huron River Basin dustrial, and water quality control purposes (5) 1958-Corps of Engineers, Preliminary Review of Report on Huron River and 1.40.1 Description Tributaries, Michigan, for Flood Control. It concluded flood control schemes are economi- The Huron River basin drains parts of seven cally unfeasible. counties in southeastern Michigan and has a (6) 1957-Michigan Water Resources drainage area of 923 square miles. The Huron Commission, "Water Resource Conditions and River discharges into Lake Erie at Pointe Uses in the Huron River Basin;" a com- Mouillee, which is located 5 miles below the prehensive study including hydrology, water mouth of the Detroit River. Location within use, resource improvement, floods, and flood River Basin Group 4.1 is shown in Figure control 14-38. The main stem is 125 miles long and has (7) 1956-Michigan Department of Con- a total fall of 430 feet of which 70 percent oc- servation, "Huron River-Seven Lakes Level curs in the upper basin above the City of Ann Control" to develop means of controlling lake Arbor. From the mouth of the Huron to Ann levels to reduce flooding Arbor the basin is narrow, averaging 5 miles (8) 1948-Michigan Department of Con- in width. Above Ann Arbor the basin fans out servation, "Portage Lake Level Control and irregularly to form the upper basin which cov- Hi-Land Lakes Control" to develop means of ers 80 percent of the total area. This upper controlling laki! level to reduce flooding basin contains approximately 340 lakes and (9) 1931-Corps of Engineers, Preliminary impoundments. Examination Report on the Huron River. This The upper basin topography is formed from report considered improvement of the river glacial moraines consisting of rolling hills, for navigation, water power, land reclama- flatlands, and lakes. There are extensive de- tion, and flood control. It concluded potentials posits of sand and gravel in this area. The are unfavorable and no further study was rec- terrain below Ann Arbor is relatively flat, con- ommended. taining primarily clay and silt deposits. There are two primary tributaries of the Huron River: Portage Creek and Mill Creek. 1.40.3 Development in the Flood Plain Portage Creek drains a 79-square-mile area and joins the Huron 76 miles upstream. The Presently land is being converted from ag- Mill Creek watershed is approximately 135 ricultural to urbanized uses in many parts of square miles in area and joins the Huron at the basin, especially downstream from Ann the City of Dexter, 58 miles upstream. Arbor. In addition to the Ann Arbor-Ypsilanti Flood Plains Inventory 121 complex, other communities located along the flood. Another serious flood that caused wide- river are Belleville, New Boston, Flat Rock, spread damage in the Huron River basin oc- and Rockwood. Deposits of silica sand and curred from the heavy rains of June 25 to 27, limestone are quarried and sold commercially 1968. During that time the Huron reached a in the Rockwood-Flat Rock area. The Silica flow of 4,600 efs at Ann Arbor. The 1918 flow Sand Corporation has erected dikes around its was estimated to have a 1.5 percent chance of quarry along the lower Huron to prevent river occurrence in one year. Nine other floods have overflows from drowning its operation. In- been recorded which have from 5 to 20 percent dustrial corridors have developed in the basin chance of occurrence in one year. along major rail lines and traffic arteries The two main tributaries of the Huron River which lead from Detroit. Some portions of the contribute differently to the flood flows ex- lower Huron River have attained growth well perienced on the main stem. The headwaters ahead of previous predictions. of Portage Creek flow through a chain of in- Upstream from Ann Arbor, the Huron- land lakes which produce a natural ponding Clinton Metropolitan Park Authority has re- area for this stream flow, thus leveling off served much of the flood plain for "Metro peak flows into the Huron River. The other Park" recreation areas. There are also large large tributary, Mill Creek, has very fast tracts in the lower Huron River valley for this runoff with virtually no natural ponding purpose. The agricultural land still in produc- areas, thereby producing high instantaneous tion is changing toward truck farming with peak flows into the Huron River just north of increased acreage devoted to hiah value crops. Dexter. The high peaks from Mill Creek are The largest towns in the upper reach are Dex- felt in Ann Arbor the same day as the runoff ter and Milford in the headwater area. occurs in this tributary, while the peaks from There are seven small hydroelectric dams the areas upstream from Hudson Mills are not and associated impoundments on the lower observed in Ann Arbor until three of four days Huron River and two in the upper portions of later. This first peak from Mill Creek is appar- the basin. Most of these dams were built be- ently the most damaging single force in flood- fore 1920 by the Detroit Edison Company and ing Ann Arbor and downstream areas. the Ford Motor Company. The maximum head Figure 14-39c identifies the time period in at any one plant is 33 feet. As a source power which major damages, as defined in this study, production, these plants are obsolete, and are first noted within a given reach on the those of the Detroit Edison Company are no main stem and principal tributaries. Table longer in use. New developments of hydroelec- 14-40 indicates the flood plain damages by tric plants are unlikely due to the lack of suit- reach corresponding to the reaches desig- able sites that could produce significant nated in this figure. Table 14-41 indicates up- amounts of power. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-40c. Summations of esti- 1.40.4 Flood Problems mated average annual damages and acres in the flood plain are shown by river basin in Flooding has occurred in scattered localities Table 14-42. County summaries for the main throughout the basin, particularly in the low stem and principal tributaries are tabulated areas adjacent to the river from Flat Rock to in Table 14-43. its mouth as well as along the the shores of some upland lakes through which the river flows. The communities of Ann Arbor, Ypsi- 1.40.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention lanti, Flat Rock, and South Rockwood have Measures suffered flood damages in the past. Huron River floods occur most often in the A dike was constructed around the Silver spring. However, the largest floods are more Creek subdivision, locatedjust upstream from likely to occur in the summer. Both types of the mouth of the Huron River, to prevent floods are generally caused by storms that flooding due to high water in Silver Creek and cover the entire basin. The maximum flood of the Huron River. The project, completed in record occurred in 1918 when the flow re- April 1953, consisted of raising existing dikes corded at Ann Arbor was 5,840 cfs. Although and earthfill. the Ann Arbor gage was not in operation at The Corps of Engineers has initiated sur- the time, it appears that the flood of 1947 was veys for a tentative plan of channel rectifica- the same or slightly greater than the 1918 tion between Flat Rock and Rockwood. Local 122 Appendix 14 government agencies and private citizen is rather rapid, so the stream gradients in the groups have undertaken several projects to downstream reaches are nearly flat. The up- lessen flood damage potentials. stream area of the watershed is dotted with 85 Several years ago local interests completed small lakes which are often interconnected a snagging and clearing project between Flat with marsh. The tributary system of the River Rock and Rockwood for the dual purposes of Raisin is well distributed throughout the ba- recreational boating and flood damage reduc- sin. The principal tributaries are the Saline tion. It is doubtful if any benefits from the River, Black Creek, Wolf Creek, and North and action are still being realized. South Macon Creeks. The Washtenaw County Drain Commission has built a new Huron River dam to maintain 1.41.2 Previous Studies legal water surface elevations at Portage and Base Line Lakes. Operation of such- a dam Emergency flood damage surveys have been would alter the regimen of the Huron River conducted as needed at localized areas: both for low flows and flood hydrographs, (1) In 1972 the U.S. Geological Survey pub- Studies are being conducted for the Drain lished flood-prone area reports for portions of Commission to establish a regulating plan. the River Raisin and Saline River. Most of the former hydroelectric facilities (2) A negative Preliminary Investigation have been sold to local municipalities. The Report was prepared for the Saline River in Huron River Watershed Council has initiated 1970 by the Soil Conservation Service. a coordinated effort among various dam own- ers and operations in the lower Huron River basin in an attempt to improve control of high 1.41.3 Development in the Flood Plain and low river flows. The study of the water problems in this basin has been expanded The River Raisin basin is largely rural with from concentration on a flood control problem medium-sized towns well dispersed throughout to multiple-purpose water resource problems. the area. Monroe at the mouth of the river is The Michigan Water Resources Commission the only Michigan deep-draft harbor on Lake has the authority to regulate all development Erie. Adrian, a city of similar size, is an in- in the flood plain areas. Refer to Subsection dustrial and college community located in the 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legislation upper tributary sector. Approximately 50 per- applicable to this river basin. cent of the basin's population is centered in and around these two towns. Other population centers within the flood plain are Dundee and 1.41 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group Tecumseh on the main stem and Milan and 4.1, River Raisin Basin Saline on the Saline River. Several limestone quarries are in operation in the eastern por- tion of the basin, and a large cement manufac- 1.41.1 Description turing plant is located at Dundee, Michigan. Major industrial expansion of both the au- The River Raisin basin is roughly circular in tomotive and chemical industries is underway shape with the overall diameter being approx- in the Tecumseh-Adrian area. imately 37 miles. The basin is connected to The earliest dams on the River Raisin were Lake Erie by the main stem. Location within constructed to furnish water power for the op- River Basin Group 4.1 is shown in Figure eration of grist mills and lumber mills. In the 14-38. Of the total watershed area of 1,050 early 1900s several dams were built to produce square miles, only 22.7 miles are in Ohio. The hydroelectric power for small shops manufac- basin is similar to the others in southeastern turing automobile parts for the Ford Motor Michigan because the soil was deposited and Company. During the past half century many topography formed by the ancient ice sheets dams and mills have been allowed to deterio- and glacial lakes which covered the area. The rate. The only unit supplying commercial eastern portion, which occupies slightly less quantities of electrical power is the Southeast than half the basin, is lake plain, while the Michigan Electrical Cooperative plant at western section is primarily moraines and Tecumseh which operates on a 24-foot head. till plain with a small area of outwash in the There are other small dams in the basin built northwest. by individuals or companies for lake level con- The basin headwaters originate 530 feet trol, farm ponds, or other purposes. Their above the Lake Erie lake level, but the decline value for flood control is inconsequential. Flood Plains Inventory 123 This area of Michigan includes much ag- flood damages. Location of these damages ricultural wealth. More than 70 percent of within particular watersheds may be seen in Lenawee and Monroe counties is cropland. Figure 14-40c. Summations of estimated av- These counties rank in the top 100 of the na- erage annual damages and acres in the flood tion in the production of certain field and plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-42. truck crops. Agricultural lands not in use are County summaries for the main stem and found in the areas of less productive soils or principal tributaries are tabulated in Table rough topography, such as the Irish Hills dis- 14-43. trict in northwest sector of the basin. Al- though once covered with extensive stands of hardwoods, the remaining forest growth is 1.41.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention now concentrated in the river bottoms and Measures farm woodlots. Even though the transportation network of Coast Guard ice breakers are used to al- the basin was one of the first developed in leviate occasional flood-causing ice jams. Michigan, urban growth has not been particu- Applications have been filed for assistance larly influenced by these pioneer road and rail under provisions of the Watershed Protection routes. New residential development is con- and Flood, Prevention Act (P.L. 5N), adminis- centrated in the Adrian-Tecumseh district tered by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. and near Monroe. That agency has divided the basin into five watersheds for examination to determine pos- sible improvements. However, no structural 1.41.4 Flood Problems flood control schemes have been effected by governmental agencies to date. Preliminary Although the River Raisin basin is not con- investigations revealed that the sites for flood sidered a major flood area of the State, many control reservoirs lacked sufficient capacity to acres of agricultural land are flooded annu- be effective, but there is a possibility that flood ally. The problem is actually a combination of control could be provided by channel im- flooding and poor land drainage. There are provements in some tributaries. two general areas in the basin where this prob- The River Raisin Watershed Association, lem exists. One is upstream from the City of formed in 1963, endorsed the general goal of Saline on the Saline River, and the other is eliminating the basin problems through con- between Adrian and Dundee on the main stem struction of a chain of dams. However, no proj- and lower reaches of Black Creek near ects have actually been started by this organi- Blissfield, where it joins the Raisin River. zation. Some cropland is also flooded along the South The River Raisin is one of Michigan's more Branch in the vicinity of Adrian. Communities intensely used streams. Municipal, commer- that have experienced flood damages are cial, and industrial uses of the waters limit its Monroe, Milan, Saline, and Tecumseh. The re- potent.ial for increased use and demand close gional flood that hit Southeast Michigan in regulation to prevent disintegration of this June 1968 caused heavy damage at Saline valuable water resource. Refer to Subsection where a small dam was washed out, creating 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain legisla- municipal and bridge damage. There was also tion applicable to this river basin. a small dam failure at Tecumseh, and dam- ages to buildings and the municipal water sys- tem at Milan. Monroe has suffered minor 1.42 Lake Erie Northwest, River Basin Group flooding problems created by ice jams in the 4.1, Swan Creek Complex restricted channels during winter thaws or spring runoffs. A 20-square-block area was 1.42.1 Description flooded by such an occurrence in late January 1969. The streams in this area, notably Swan Figure 14-39c identifies the time period in Creek and Stony Creek, are small and not of which major damages, as defined in this study, major importance. These streams lie within 30 are first noted within a given reach on the miles of Lake Erie, with the basin headwaters main stem and principal tributaries. Table 100 feet above the lake. The individual basins 14-40 shows the flood plain damages by reach are parallel, narrow strips which penetrate corresponding to the reaches designated in directly into the drainage area. Location this figure. Table 14-41 indicates upstream within River Basin Group 4.1 is shown in Fig- 124 Appendix 14 ure 14-38. The coastal land along the Lake is 1.43 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group often marsh or land only slightly above lake 4.2, Maumee River Basin levels. High water of Lake Erie often inun- dates these areas, and they are generally un- developed. However, much of the shore area 1.43.1 Description has been developed for fish and wildlife pur- poses. The Maumee River basin drains a fan- shaped area of approximately 6,586 square miles (4,215,040 acres). This includes 1,260 1.42.2 Previous Studies square miles in Indiana, 470 square miles in Michigan, and 4,856 square miles in north- In 1962 the Corps of Engineers took a recon- western Ohio. Location within River Basin naissance. survey of flood conditions in the vi- Group 4.2 is shown in Figure 14-42. The basin cinity of Newport, Michigan. is one of the largest and most important tributaries of the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system. The Maumee River originates at Fort 1.42.3 Development in the Flood Plain Wayne, Indiana, at the confluence of the St. Marys and St. Joseph Rivers and flows north- east for a distance of approximately 130 miles Because the areas in the lower reaches of to Lake Erie at Toledo, Ohio. these streams are subject to frequent inunda- The Maumee River has four principal tion from either overland flooding or high tributaries: The St. Joseph, St. Marys, Tiffin, water levels in Lake Erie, they have remained and Auglaize Rivers. The St. Joseph and Tiffin relatively undeveloped except for pasture Rivers rise in the hills of southern Michigan land and wildlife refuge developments. There and flow southerly to join the main stream. are several beachside communities along the The St. Marys and Auglaize Rivers head up in shores and embayments of Lake Erie. the morainal divide near Wapakoneta, Ohio, and flow northerly to join the Maumee River. The topography of the Maumee River basin 1.42.4 Flood Problems varies from gently rolling plains to hilly areas. The topographic relief of the basin roughly The lower reaches of these minor streams resembles a huge saucer, relatively flat at the are subject to almost annual flooding to some center and higher around the rim except for degree. The community of Newport, Michigan, the northeast portion toward Lake Erie. Ele- on Swan Creek suffered some flood damages in vations range from 1,100 feet on the northern 1949 and again in 1956. The Corps of Engineers rim in Michigan and 970 feet on the southern conducted a reconnaissance survey at the re- edge in Ohio to 650 feet at the center of the quest of local citizens, but efforts have not basin and 570 feet above sea level at the continued because of the lack of local coopera- Maumee River mouth. Although the basin has tion. Flood problems seem to be compounded relatively little topographic relief, except in by restricting drains. Several beach com- the upper reaches of the main tributaries, the munities suffered heavy damages in the Lake stream slopes are sufficiently steep to facili- Erie storm of 1966 which lashed the west shore tate fairly rapid runoff. with high winds and waves. Table 14-41 indicates estimated damages by watersheds which are identified in Figure 1.43.2 Previous Studies 14-40c. Summations of estimated average an- nual damages and acres in the flood plain are There is a long list of studies and reports on shown by river basin in Table 14-42. the Maumee River basin for flood control ex- tending from 1871 to recent years. The latest authorization is a letter from the Chief of En- 1.42.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention gineers dated January 16, 1947, directing that Measures a flood control survey be undertaken for the Maumee basin in compliance with the Flood There are no existing structural flood pre- Control Act of 1944 and the River and Harbor vention measures in the complex. Refer to Act of 1945. Two urban area reports have re- Subsection 1.14.5 for a discussion of flood plain ceived favorable recommendations. These are legislation. the Interim Survey Report on Flood Control at Flood Plains Inventory 125 s LAKE ERIE 11IC11I N er' i e M;.." Say 0 0 Montpel r LUCAS T/I . d o Kelly, Wand OTTAWA C'.ek Port Clint JAM 0! FULTON I .. I L BryanO 1@17 .0 - e Snd.@Jcy Bay & /' DEFIANCE Napol ,eon Mm. ffle** Bowlinll(Gree Vo Sandousky ,., Auburn'0.1 0 SS INT- / IF 4ont ERIE /SA US 10 Defianc ORT GE Bellev 1 0 Norwalk W D F oria H HENRY JTiffin RON-V ILION Paulding. PUTNAM MAUMEE slancbed i-r IQ-- 0 1 lard ON F rt Wayn PAULDII SENECA HUR VAN RT CRAWFORD ALLEN rey SAN LISKY Van Wart ALLEN HA COCK D lp s U4.1 an sky Bucyru Lima Ada YANDOT ADAMS MERCER AU LAIZE Celina ap onet St. Marys LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP ,A RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-42 Lake Erie Southwest-River Basin Group 4.2 126 Appendix 14 Findlay, Ohio, dated April 1962, and the industry. In recent years considerable man- Interim Survey Report on Flood Control on ufacturing has been developed in most of the the Blanchard River at Ottawa, Ohio, dated communities, which in turn has been a factor November 1964. The proposed project at Ot- for increasing population. The flood plains are tawa has been authorized but not funded. Due crossed by numerous railroads and highways to the lack of local interest, the proposed proj- linking the area to the large industrial centers ect at Findlay has not been authorized. to the east and west. As of 1971, the Soil Conservation Service has A large portion of the land within the flood completed the following studies: area of the Maumee River basin has been im- (1) Work Plans for the Little Auglaize proved by years of scientific farming. Most of River Watershed-Van Wert, Paulding, Put- this land has been tiled and drained. Im- nam and Mercer Counties, Ohio; the Middle provements along both the St. Marys and Au- Branch of the Little Auglaize River glaize Rivers have been built to reduce flood- Watershed-Paulding and Van Wert Coun- ing and improve drainage. ties, Ohio; the Prairie-Hoaglin Branch of the Little Auglaize Watershed-Paulding and Van Wert Counties, Ohio; and a draft work plan for 1.43.4 Flood Problems Upper Tiffin (Bean Creek)-Fulton and Wil- liams Counties, Ohio, and Hillsdale and The major floods of record in the Maumee Lenawee Counties, Michigan basin have been caused by warm rains falling (2) Preliminary Investigation and Work on snow-covered and frozen ground. Occa- Plan in progress on Flat Rock Creek, Pauld- sional flooding is caused by intense summer ing and Van Wert Counties, Ohio, and Adams thunderstorms. Floods overflow agricultural and Allen Counties, Indiana lands during the growing season in the upper (3) Preliminary Investigation on Swan reaches of the tributaries and urban property Creek, Fulton, Henry, and Lucas Counties, along those rivers from the headwaters to Ohio Napoleon, Ohio. Periodic floods have resulted (4) Beaver Creek (Maumee) Preliminary in the inundation of lowlands along the St. Investigation-Henry, Wood, Putnam, and Marys River and a considerable portion of the Hancock Counties, Ohio urban area in the City of Fort Wayne. It has (5) Lower Tiffin Preliminary Investi- been estimated that along the St. Marys River gation-Fulton, Williams, Defiance, and more than 16,000 acres of productive farmland Henry Counties, Ohio are flooded on an average of once every two Flood Plain Information Reports completed years. Flooding along the St. Joseph River in the Basin are as follows: bottomlands is not as extensive. (1) November 1970-Maumee River at The flood of March 1913, caused by a heavy Napoleon, Ohio spring rainfall, produced the greatest runoff (2) October 1970-Maumee River and Au- and peak flow throughout the entire Maumee glaize River at Defiance, Ohio River basin. The peak discharge of the (3) May 1968-Auglaize River at Wapa- Maumee River near Toledo was estimated at koneta, Ohio 222,000 efs. This rate, which occurred on (4) June 1967-Ottawa River at Lima, Ohio. March 27, 1913, is approximately three times As of 1971 the U.S. Geological Survey pub- the maximum reported for any other flood. lished flood-prone area reports for portions of Other serious flooding was experienced in the Maumee River and portions of its follow- 1943 and 1944 over most of the basin, while ing tributaries: Blanchard, St. Joseph, St. areas along the tributaries have suffered Marys, Wolf Creek, Swan Creek, Towner localized *floods during other years. Creek, Fairfield Ditch, Halfway Creek, Ten Table 14-44 lists flood damage centers lo- Mile Creek, Ottawa River, and Cedar Creek. cated in the basin. Figure 14-43c identifies the time period in which major damages, as de- fined in this study, are first noted within a 1.43.3 Development in the Flood Plain given reach on the main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-46 indicates the flood The basin was developed early because of its plain damages by reach corresponding to the rich farmlands. In later years a considerable reaches designated in this figure. Table 14-47 part of the population in this area had concen- shows upstream flood damages. Location of trated in small communities for the purpose of these damages within particular watersheds handling the business of a prosperous farming may be seen in Figure 14-44c. Summations of Flood Plains Inventory 127 TABLE 14-44 Lake Erie Southwest, Maumee River Basin-Flood Damage Centers Flood Damage Damage Center Year Type River Defiance, Ohio 1913 Residential Auglaize River 1930 Commercial Tiffin River 1943 Industrial Maumee River 1950 Findlay, Ohio 1913 Residential 1927 Commercial Blanchard River 1937 (2) Industrial 1943 1944 Agricultural Ottawa, Ohio 1903 Residential 1913 Commercial Blanchard River 1950 Industrial 1959 Agricultural Fort Wayne, Indiana 1913 Residential St. Joseph River 1943 Commercial Maumee River 1944 Industrial Agricultural St. Marys River 1959 Residential St. Marys R. (Fairfield Ditch) Toledo, Ohio 1907 Residential 1913 Maumee River Auburn, Indiana 1913 Commercial Cedar Creek 1943 Residential Annual Agricultural (St. Joseph River) Rural Areas 1937 Agricultural Auglaize River Fulton County, Ohio 1937 Agricultural Bean Creek (Tiffin River) Napoleon, Ohio 1913 Residential 1943 Commercial Maumee River 1936 Agricultural Other Florida, Ohio 1913 Commercial Grassy Creek 1943 Residential (Maumee River) Grand Rapids, Ohio 1913 Residential 1943 Commercial Maumee River 1950 Other 1959 128 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-44(continued) Lake Erie Southwest, Maumee River Basin-Flood Damage Centers Flood Damage Damage Center Year Type River Perrysburg, Ohio Frequent Residential Grassy Creek (Maumee River) Swan Creek (Toledo) 1945 Residential Swan Creek 1947 (Maumee River) 1950 Oakwood, Ohio 1913 Residential Auglaize River 1943 Commercial 1950 Wapakoneta, Ohio 1913 Residential Auglaize River 1950 Commercial 1959 Industrial 1963 Agricultural Residential Van Wert, Ohio 1959 Commercial Town Creek Agricultural (Auglaize River) Gordon Creek Annually Agricultural (Maumee River Flat Rock Creek Annually Agricultural (Auglaize River) Grassy Creek Annually Agricultural (Maumee River) Little Auglaize River Annually Agricultural (Auglaize River) Blanchard River Annually Agricultural (Auglaize River) Outlet Ditch Annually Agricultural (Blanchard River) Ottawa River Annually Agricultural (Auglaize River) Hog Creek Annually Agricultural (Ottawa River) St. Marys River Annually Agricultural (Maumee River) Flood Plains Inventory 129 TABLE 14-45 Minor Channel Improvements Agency Year Location Project Cost Wood County 1883 Jackson Cut-off Diversion Not Known between Yellow Creek Channel, and Maumee River Wood County 1910 Same Clean-Up Not Known Jackson Cut-off Wood-Hancock 1926-27 Middle Branch from Channel $ 258,344 Hoytsville to New Improvement Rochester Civilian Con- 1936-37 Portions of Bull Clean-up $ 6,000 servation Creek and Corps Deepening Wood County 1939 North Branch from Clean-up $ 32,000 Jackson Cut-off to and near Portage Deepening estimated average annual damages and acres limited nature instituted by local authorities: in the flood plain are shown by river basin in (1) The City of Fort Wayne has constructed Table 14-48. County summaries for the main two water supply dams on the St. Joseph stem and principal tributaries are tabulated River. in Table 14-49. (2) The City of Fort Wayne has built dikes In most cases major rural drainage and to protect limited areas. flood control problems on tributaries of the (3) Local dredging and dike building to con- Maumee River are limited to the flood plains trol spring floods have been performed in Bean of the stream. The flood problems of the urban Creek in the Tiffin River basin. areas are the result of constricted reaches of (4) Numerous drainage ditches have been the river, inadequate channel capacities, en- constructed throughout the basin area to croachment on the natural flood plain, or com- facilitate runoff. binations of these causes. Nonstructural prevention measures arise mainly through flood plain regulation and zoning laws. The Indiana Flood Control Act, 1.43.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Chapter 318 (Acts of 1945), directs that the Measures flood plains of rivers and streams should not be inhabited and should be kept free and clear No Federal projects for flood control exist on of interference or obstructions that will cause the Maumee River or any of its tributaries. undue restrictions of the capacity of the There is a navigation project currently main- floodways. The Act also states that the De- tained for the lower 7 miles of the Maumee partment of Natural Resources shall consider River which extends for 18 miles through flood plain regulation in preventing and con- Maumee Bay into Lake Erie. trolling floods. The Indiana Planning Act of The Soil Conservation Service has two proj- 1947 provides for the establishment of plan- ects under construction: the Little Auglaize ning commissions and the zoning of land. The Watershed-Van Wert, Paulding, Putnam and Area Planning Act of 1957 provides for area Mercer Counties, Ohio; and the Middle Branch planning departments. It was not until 1965 (Little Auglaize) Watershed-Paulding and that regulatory authority was consolidated Van Wert Counties, Ohio. They also have a and invested in the Department of Natural project authorized for construction, the Resources. Permits or approval must be ob- Prairie-Hoaglin Branch (Little Auglaize)- tained from this department before any chan- Paulding and Van Wert Counties, Ohio. nel encroachment or development in the flood There have been some improvements of a plain can occur. 130 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-46 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATEO ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N -j -j -j = zx cl z AVERAGE ANNUAL j -X -0 REACH DAMAGES - - @i @ c-i t TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY YEAR cc CODE w -. -. = FROM TO (DOLL RS) URBAN RURAL 225: L" w w URBAN RURAL tj w M Ir MAUMEE RIVER BBI Lucas T9S T5N 1970 160 15 56 6 2078 299 1,856 R8E S21 R9E S7 1980 210 1,450 20 66 8 2061 299 1,856 2000 870 2,500 30 91 10 2024 319 1,836 2020 2,340 5,000 35 111 12 1999 324 1,826 BBlA Lucas Toledo Maumee 1970 1294 1294 Perrysburg Rossard 1980 19400 1294 1294 2000 2,900 1294 1294 2020 6,200 1294 1294 BBIB Lucas Grand 1970 22,500 9 101 626 736 Rapids 1980 24,750 15 140 581 736 2000 31,500 22 160 559 736 2020 40,500 29 180 527 736 BB2 Henry T5N T4N 1970 15,500 6 30 5223 6 5,253 R9E S7 R6E S18 1980 17,000 8 40 521 8 5,251 2000 500 20,200 18 50 519 18 5,241 2020 1,000 24,800 28 60 517 28 5,231 BB2A Henry Napoleon 1970 11,800 137 281 75 1175 1980 15,340 140 312 72 1175 2000 27,140 155 337 68 1175 2020. 47,200 180 362 63 1175 BR2B Henry Florida 1970 14,000 51 8 135 1980 15,400 51 7 135 2000- 18,200 61 7 135 2020 22,400 69 6 135 BB3 Defiance T4N T4N 1970 15,000 32 415 4,181 R5E S13 R3E S31 1980 1,500 19,400 9 46 413 25 4,163 2000 4,000 20,100 15 60 4112 45 4,148 2020 7,000 23,400 25 70 4092 65 4,122 BB3A Defiance Defiance 1970 21,500 148 516 712 1376 1980 28,200 160 550 660 1376 2000 49,700 180 560 630 1376 2020 86,000 200 570 600 1376 BB4 Paulding T3N T2N 1970 9,450 3 2737 20 2,720 HIE 527 RlE S31 1980 9,500 3 2737 20 2,720 2000 11,300 3 2737 20 2,72Q 2020 14,200 3 2737 20 2,720 BB5 Allen T2N T30N 1970 16,000 20 376( 3,780 RlE S31 R12E Sl 1980 29400 18,400 10 20 375C 30 3,750 2000 9,200 27,600 35 30 3715 65 3,715 2020 18,200 45,800 60 35 3680 95 3,685 BB5A Allen Fort Wayne 1970 1,774,000 50 180 530 760 1980 2,306,200 70. 190 500 760 2000 4,080,200 95 195 470 760 2020 7,096,OOQ 120 200 440 760 ST. JOSEPH RIVER BB6 Allen T30N T32N 1970 259000 3840 3,840 R13E S5 R14E S5 1980 35,000 3840 3,840 2000 2,000 65,000 30 3810 30 3,811y 2020 10,000 115,000 10 50 3780 60 3,780 BB6A Allen Fort Wayne 1970 140 65 330 535 1980 155 70 310 535 2000 165 80 290 535 2020 165 100 270 535 BB6B Allen Cedarvill@ 1970 15,000 330 100 460 5 and Leo 1980 24,000 15 370 7 460 2000 60,000 30 380 50 460 2020 143,000 35 400 25 460 BB7 DeKalb T31N T34N 1970 10,000 7,500 10 4066 4,076 R14E S5 R15E S28 1980 11,000 8,300 10 4066 4 6 14,000 10,500 05 10 0 61 2000 26 4 26 4:0.50 2020 17,000 1 129800 40 403 40 4,036 Damages accounted for in Fort Wayne on Reach in Maumee River. Flood Plains Inventory 131 TABLE 14-46(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.2 ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N REACH LOCATION -J -j -i -j = AVERAGE ANNUAL 4 4 -:z !5 C3 M TOTAL REMARKS REACH DAMAGES - U, COUNTY YEAR I-- = CODE V) UJ FROM TO (DOLLARS) URBAN RURAL W Uj W URBAN RURAL ST. MARY'S RIVER BB8 Allen T30N T29N 1970 9,750 2810 2,810 R12E Sl R13E S34 1980 11,700 2810 2,810 2000 16,580 2810 2,810 2020 23,400 2810 2,810 BB8A Allen Fort Wayne 1970 2760 3320 2950 9030 1980 2800 3430 2800 9030 2000 2900 3480 2650 9030 2020 2960 3570 25001 9030 BB9 Adams T29N T27N 1970 16,400 5081 5,088 R13E S34 R15E S26 1980 18,000 5081 5,088 2000 22,900 5081 5,088 2020 1,000 26,800 20 5o6l 20 5,068 BB9A Adams Decatur 1970 22,000 64 72 78: 917 1980 28.600 70 80 76@ 917 2000 50,600 80 90 747 917 Z020 88,000 100 110 707 917 BB10 AuGlaize T6S T6S 1970 81,000 38 162 424 624 R4E S3 R4E SID 1980 105,300 44 186 394 624 St. Mary'i 2000 186,300 70 210 344 624 2020 324 000 105 235 284 624 AUGLAIZE RIVER BB11 Paulding T3N TIN 1970 500 4,500 15 28$C 15 2,880 R4E S17 R4E S12 1980 1,500 5,000 20 10 2865 30 2,865 2000 5,500 6,000 20 30 2845 50 2,845 2020 12,500 7,500 25 50 2820 75 2,820 BB11A Paulding Oakwood 1970 7,600 18 58 9 85 1980 7,600 18 58 9 85 2000 9,120 20 60 5 85 2020 11,400 22 61 2 85 BBIIB Defiance Defiance Accounted for in Reach on BB12 Putnam TIN T2S 1970 20,000 82 704 7,127 Kaumee River R4E S12 R5E S16 1980 20,000 82 704 7,127 2000 24,000 82 7045 7,127 2020 30,000 82 7045 7,127 BB13 Allen T2S T4S 1970 7,400 2935 2,935 R5E S16 R5E S15 1980 8,140 2935 2,935 2000 10,360 2935 2,935 2020 12,580 2935 2,935 BB14 AuGlaize T4S T5S 1970 18,750 11 2449 2,460 R5E S15 R6E S28 1980 22,500 13 2447 2,460 2000 26,250 15 244! 2,460 2020 31,880 20 244( 2,460 BBI41, AuGlaize Wapakoneta 1970 4,060 148 12 22 182 1980 5,300 154 12 16 182 2000 9,300 158 12 12 182 2020 16,240 163 12 7 182 OTTAWA RIVER BB15 Allen T4S T3S 1970 34 126 194 354 R6E S2 R7E S30 1980 34 126 194 354 Lima 2000 34 126 194 354 2020 34 126 194 354 BLANCHARD RIVER BB16 Putnam TIN TIN 1970 50,000 14667 14,667 R4E S12 R7E S26 1980 50,000 1466Z 14,667 2000 5 0 55,000 201 31 14647 so 14,617 2020 12 000 63,000 60 6 14541 120 14,547 *Damages accounted for in Fort Wayne on Reach in Maumee River. 132 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-46(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N -i -j -i = AVERAGE ANNUAL d .1 z @X C@' REACH COUNTY DAMAGES TOTAL REMARKS CODE YEAR FROM TO (DOLL RS) V) W =) 2: 2 e C5 URBAN RURAL n M V) V) U URBANIRURAL - @Q Q= BB16j Putnam Ottawa 1970 279,000 158 550 79 787 1980 362,700 160 555 72 787 2000 641,700 162 565 60 787 2020 1,116,000 170 575 42 787 BLANCHARD RIVER BB17 Hancock TIN TIN 1970 40,000 050 9,050 R8E S24 R11E S17 1980 44,000 9050 9,050 2000 7,000 57,000 50 50 950 100 8,950 2020 14,000 66,000 100 100 8850 200 8,850 BB17A Hancock Findlay 1970 1,110,000 408 1428 204 2040 1980 1,443,000 468 1428 144 2040 2000 2,553,000 488 1448 104 2040 2020 4,440,000 508 1458 74 2040 TIFFIN RIVER BB18 Defiance UN T5N 1970 7,000 2531 2,531 R4E S27 R4E S3 1980 7,700 2531 2,531 2000 9,100 2531 2,531 2020 11,200 2531 2,531 BB181 Defiance Brunersburg 1970 32,000 66 66 and 1980 35,000 66 66 Evansport 2000 41,600 66 66 Channel Diversion 2020 51,200 66 66 not practical. BB19 Williams T5N T7N 1970 8,000 2902 2,902 R4E S3 R4E S22 1980 8,800 2902 2,902 2000 10,400 2902 2,902 2020 12,800 2902 2,902 PORTAGE RIVER BCl Ottawa T6N T6N 1970 15 1110 15 1,110 R17E S6 R13B S27 1980 20 1105 20 1,105 2000 25 1100 25 1,100 2020 30 1095 30 1,095 BC2 Sandusky T6N T5N 1970 11,70( 38 625 38 625 Includes Woodville R13E S27 R12E SI 1980 2,000 13,20( 40 623 40 623 Same 2000 4,000 22,90( 43 620 43 620 Same 2020 6,000 40,80( 45 618 45 618 Same BC3 Wood T5N T5N 1970 5,80C 11 266 70 207 Includes Pemberville R12E Sl R12E S10 1980 1,000 5,40( 15 262 70 207 Same 2000 1,500 7,20C 20 257 70 207 Same 2020 2,700 7,70C 25 252 70 207 Same SANDUS RIVER BD1 Sandusky T6N UN 1970 97,30( 250 9016 9,266 R16E S28 R15E S32 1980 9,800 152,70 35 278 8953 35 9,231 2000 21,700 340,60 41 322 41 9,225 2020 46,000 723,00( 48 370 8848 48 9,218 BDlA Sandusky Fremont 1970 433,500 135 565 400 IIOC 1980 680,600 150 627 322 IIOC 1980 1,517,300 174 729 197 1100 2000 3,194,900 182 798 120 1100 BD2 Seneca T3N TIN 1970 4,000 88,20( 20 4724 20 4,724 R15E S5 R14E S36 1980 10,500 123,30C 42 4702 42 4,702 2000 21,500 203,10( 49 4695 49 4,695 2020 45,500 534,40C 57 4687 57 4,687 B112A Seneca Tiffin 1970 43,800 25 367 133 529 1980 65,500 27 407 41 525 2000 134.900 32 443 50 525 2020 278,900 35 440 391 525 Flood Plains Inventory 133 TABLE 14-46(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N _j _j _j 'X 4 c:x REACH AVERAGE ANNUAL ' - CD TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES CODE V) W FROM TO (DOLLARS) 2 E URBAN RURAL z - uj uj uj U CC C= Cr I SANDUSKY RIVER BD3 Wyandot T15 T15 1970 52,100 2730 2,730 R14E Sl R14E S17 1980 4,400 76,500 is 2715 15 2,715 2000 8,900 154,200 17 2713 17 2,713 2020 18,800 326,100 20 2710 20 2,710 BD4 Crawford T3S T3S 1970 61,500 12 86 103 205 R16E SIl R16E Sl 1980 90,300 13 96 9E 205 (Bucyrus) 2000 193,600 15 111 79 205 2020 404,100 18 127 60 205 HURON RIVER BEI Erie T6N T4N 1970 30,900 171254" 2,710 ,R22W Sl R23W Sl 1980 47,200 18 2517 2,704 2000 107,500 224 2470 2,694 2020 229,300 258 2425 2,683 BEIA Erie Huron 1970 5,500 5 5 5 15 1980 8,800 6 6 9 15 2000 17,600 7 6 2 15 2020 37,100 8 7 15 BEIB Erie Milan 1970 89,000 5!) 55 1980 136,200 61 61 2000 307,700 71 71 2020 660,400 75 7 82 BE2 Huron T4N T4N 1970 7,200 2 5 183 190 R23W S4 R23W S4 1980 10,800 2 6 182 190 Monroevill( 2000 22,900 3 6 181 190 2020 48,800 3 7 180 190 NORWALK CREEK BE3 Huron T4N T4N 1970 39,600 14 7 245 151 115 R23W Sl R23W S4 1980 59,500 16 8 242 156 110 2000 126,400 18 9 239 161 105 2020 269,000 21 10 225 168 98 VERMILION RIVER BE4 Erie T6N T5N 1970 3,600 570 570 R20W Sl R20W S2 1980 1,600 5,700 5 565 5 565 2000 3,800 13,600 6 564 6 564 2020 8,000 26,900 7 563 7 563 BE4A Erie Vermilion 1970 100,500 60 70 5 20 155 1980 157,300 60 70 5 20 155 2000 378,500 60 80 5 10 155 41 2020 807,200 60 80 5 10 155 BE5 Lorain T6N T5N 1970 6,200 20 495 515 R19W R19W 1980 1,500 9,600 5 22 488 5 610 2000 3,900 23,800 6 26 483 6 509 1 1 1 12020 8,300 61,600 1 1 71 30 478 7 508 Three Indiana counties within the Maumee cies of the State shall notify and furnish in- River basin, De Kalb, Allen, and Adams, have formation to the Division of Water on State adopted flood plain legislation to guide and facilities that may be affected by flooding. control development in the flood plain. Garret This information is required to avoid the un- and New Haven, Indiana, have adopted flood economical, hazardous, or unnecessary use of plain legislation. flood plains in connection with State facilities. In Ohio the power to adopt and enforce zon- The amendment further reads that where ing regulations is delegated to political sub- economically feasible, departments and agen- divisions. The enabling statutes are Sections cies of the State and political subdivisions re- 303.02, 519.02, and 713.07 of the Revised Code. sponsible for existing publicly owned facilities The General Assembly of the State of Ohio has shall apply flood proofing measures to reduce passed an amendment to House Bill No. 314 potential flood damage. which states that all departments and agen- Watershed authorities have been given the 0u I:$ t@ u cl u t:1 u 0 t@ t:l w uu u u t:l u @ tv u 0ononon n 0 0 0 0.1 W 1 0 0 w 00 MID ID OD 0 0 (n w 0 0 W w & w 0 w -'o W W @ . . H 0 0 w 0 0 w 0 0 w 0 w w to w 0 w 0 0 w tD w tD w w w to 0 0 0 w 0 to 0 tD 0 ID 0 ID 0 w W 0 M @ -4 @ @ -4 -,4 @ @ @ @ -4 @ -4 @ -4 -4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ W 0 % -4 @ -4 @ @ , 000000000000000000000000000 00000000 0 00000 0000000000000 0) 0 1 1 0 01 OD 0 0 01 0 m 0 w 0 W -1 000 0 C. m 1 0) L41, w > 00 0 0 0000 0 000 0 c 0 0 a 0 0 , , , 0 00001.100 0 0 0 00 '0@ I 1 "00 1 woo I I i I 'onI ,I I I 1 00 1 1 1 1 z 0000 0 000 0 0 00 W owww -4 to w W 0,.W",WWW& N w 0 W 0 0 W 1590. w Tw m W 0 0 to w w @4 Ctno t2l OD 00 0 0 00 1 000 000000000000000000000oo 0000 000000000 - coo 0000000000 8 C) 0 0 0 0 0 0000000 0 0 0 0 0 r.-o -0 Cc, 00 -0 Cc, 00, '00 No -0 =0 J@ loo 0 0 W w w 0 co m -4 . w 0 W CA w m w & & M 0 0 5owomo,"001W 0 21. :4 800@0000@mmoml IWMHOMM@ 0, , , 0 W 000000000000000000000000000 0000000000000 00000000 00 0 0 -0.000..0000.0000000000000000000 0 Ito 11 0 W 0 w w w w 1!0 --- I . ..... . ... WOWNCM0001 In " W 11 W 8 0 -1 . 1 0 0 0 W -4 @ -4 -41`6@O V W M M -4'cn -4 -4 -4.4 -4 w 0 0, W @0.210.00CIOWI W OD @ W 0 0 0 000000000moooo 000 M 0 0 0 0 @ M 0 m 0 0 0 a 0 W001.10000 ww"W00000000ow www ww NMI.10 W -.4 w w wwwww@ IWODWA I 1 0 m w m Go @ 0 00 0 m & tD 0 0 wW @ 0 0000 00 040WOW&O OD 00 00 M 00 @ 0 m A .410 0 00 0_- CA OD 0 V 0000 00000000000000 .4 .4 0000co," W-@;, , I m I CD m 0 a, I 01@14 loo Olw V 1 0 o M'o w co w. -0 wowmOO00000moo CA 0 0 ol 00 0 w @ 0 'o Un 0 o ooo'o,..,00,0,. 0@, cc , w @ 'o 'o N w w w w 00 0 0 0 w I I I 0 w w to -4 -4 0 0 0 @ W 0 00 0 W 0 ow 00, ow MO 14 14 twn ww wo wo wo No wo -0000 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000-01 co w 0 0 0 wo 0 0 0 0 0 It 'N 'M w WON w two M@ (00 010 "o W ID W 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 (A M OD OD 0j 10, woo wo CA 0 0 CP 4 m 0 0 C, 00, Im, to W W In M 0 M MI: 0 w 0 0 0 0 0 C-i W 000 00 0 0 0 cfl@ 0 0 0 0 CA W I J J OD 00 0 W W -4 0 W W.P. 0 M W 0 wl 0 0 to 0 101020.@WRW 00 M OD r@ -4 W -4 W W CD 4 0 W 0 Oo o0ow W w 'o to -4 cc 0 0 CA C. 0 0 "N "N @.-- -0 104 W 10, 00, -0 'o Am 'to@ w ow wul Um 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 m m owoowut@ 0 rJ2 W 11 0 00 00 OD u tv t:j 0 tv C+ > > > > cn i+ 'D (D (D CD " 0 @d (D jU2w C+ 0* C+ tj w H ::, (1) @:s o ocwowowwo W 0 W -4 0 w -4 rp 00000000000 0000000000 000000000 w n p z C+ C+ C+ C+ (D 0 , (D C+ 602 0 w 5 q+ lt@ (D Z ,A C+ P1 (D 0 It @:r m j , a n (D 00000 0 22 - I , : : I I I I I I M 01 n (D M (D R I c (D o bd 00000 0 C+ (D no m 0 0 ;a z C+ C+ n cs (D rL (D 0 11 C+ U2 W n 0 0 n@5M 0 q w 0 A -4 0 c C+ C-t- rn -L a " CA @o 13 t& 0 .4 tO 0 A. 0 0 0 :@ ::@ @@ C+ @31 r 1?1 r If, - 1@ - (D @:;" '0 '4 'W '. M 0 0 W M OD 10 " Ln 'W '4 C-+ ld Z. > ;o, 4 M CD 00000000000 00000 0000, (D 00004 00000, 0 000000000 C+ (D 0- 0' _0 @!(8 0 0 0 0 0 0 @( 00000 100000 (D (cD+' > 0 112 ID 0,) (D @j (D @:r 0 W . -.-.o (D c+ n Z m 0 DD 0 . . . . . . "a OW -4 10 1 0 '00 00' 08, (D (,D 0 1 -4 p (D ('D n 0 CA 00 @ w m 0) '00 m 0'm'w'(D'w > 0 00000000000 0000000000 0 0 0 0 1@1,10 0 0 0 0 J.J. J. C+ rt 00000000000 0000000000 000000000 0 --@ p - @i r, 0 @o w zD) 5* C-+- (D C+ C+ 8' 'C@ C+ 0 0- E. n C+ @3" P1 Z (D 21 (D wwwwqwl: c (D 02 (D (D Z' q : , (D 0) 0 0) (D I tzwww-400 0 0 m 0 C+ - 00 M 0 0 W CA 0 -4 W-W N 0 --o 0, 0000 c+ (D c+ vmw@@ mmmmwm -0 (D P1 00000 q qlo- m OD (3, (D CA 0, 0 '1 0 (D (D M to 0 ro @. . @ i : : . @,, -, - - @ m w '-. - - w o mWoooma 0 w ID ID to w 0 C+ c+ (D c+ @j 0, CD C+ C+ M to w 0 LQ 0 (D 0 0 0) IN 17, CD C* C, co o m (D M ot 0 m 0 (D 0 C-t- m (D + c 14., In 14. 0 c@ (t 4 m CcD+ Z. @@ Z, 0 (D 0 0 C+ M m ;o w t7' 0 (D to CD 0 -4 w 0 www W&WtDw 0 w 0 0 N . & m & 0 C+ m (D C-+ 0 0 000 000000 0 0 w 0 0 OD 0 & w P, 'D 0 136 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-48 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.2 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Maumee 1970 3.16015920 2.16805850 22.@891 249.1554 River 1980 4.@679.@200 35293@1990 225973 249.9472 2000 8.1269.@830 [email protected] 23.1274 249@171 2020 14035.@280 4.7937JI560 23A03 248.1842 Toussaint- 1970 10.1300 847.9300 768 47.1841 Portage 1980 16.1600 1.1047,@600 775 47.@834 Complex 2000 29.1600 1.1341.4200 783 47.X6 2020 53.1300 1.95675000 790 47.9819 Sandusky 1970 619.9000 929.7500 25145 643242 River 1980 962.@000 1.@2175900 2.@217 64P170 2000 2)076.7200 1.1850)600 2;@232 64.@155 2020 4.9318.1100 2P860.1700 2.7250 64@137 Huron- 1970 277.@600 1503000 686 9.9525 Vermilion 1980 4235000 198P000 707 9P504 Complex 2000 946.4600 317.1600 724 9.9487 2020 1.1993.@000 509.9800 744 95467 TOTALS 1970 41508P820 [email protected] 26@490 371.9162 1980 65080@800 5.17573490 26.1672 370.5980 2000 11.9322.1230 7.1713.1990 27.@013 370.5639 2020 205799.1680 9.1875.1060 275387 3705265 stream slopes throughout the central and 1.44.2 Previous Studies lower reaches of the river. There are no known impoundments on the Portage River and its In 1972 the U.S. Geological Survey pub- tributaries, and there are no potential sites lished a flood-prone area report for portions of available. Small quantities of water are ob- Rocky Fork Creek. tained from the river channels for agricul- The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Detroit tural use by small low-head structures which District, issued a "Report of Preliminary have been placed across the river bottom. Examination of the Portage River and Its The stream pattern of the basin consists of a Tributaries with Particular Reference to the single channel threading throughout the Middle Branch in Ohio" in August 1940. A lower 30 miles of the basin. Three major channel improvement project of 33 miles was tributaries, the North Branch, Middle recommended, and a channel cleaning pro- Branch, and East Branch, meet at the gram of 20 miles from Pemberville to Oak Har- same general confluence. Basin soils are clays bor, Ohio, was also included. and mucks in the downstream reaches, and sands, gravels, and admixtures of clays in the headwater regions. Total drainage area is ap- 1.44.3 Development in the Flood Plain proximately 575 square miles. The Wolf, Crane, Turtle, and Toussaint Creeks and other Because most areas are suitable for farm- smaller streams are included in the Portage ing, a large portion of the acreage in the Por- River basin. tage River basin is under cultivation, except Flood Plains Inventory 137 TABLE 14-49 River Basin Group 4.2, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban -R-ur-aT Indiana Adams 22,000 16,400 917 5,088 Allen 1,789,000 50,750 10,785 10,430 De Kalb 10,000 7,500 --- 4,076 Ohio Allen --- 7,400 354 2,935 Auglaize 85,060 18,750 806 2,460 Crawford 61,500 --- 205 --- Defiance 53,500 22,000 1,442 6,718 Erie 195,000 34,500 225 3,280 Fulton --- --- --- --- Hancock 1,110,000 40,000 2,040 9,050 Henry 25,800 15,000 1,316 5,253 Huron 46,800 --- 341 115 Lorain (PSA 4.3) --- 6,200 --- 515 Lucas 22,660 --- 2,329 1,856 Mercer --- --- --- --- Ottawa --- --- 15 1,110 Paulding 8,100 13,950 120 5,600 Putnam 279,000 70,000 787 21,794 Sandusky 433,500 109,000 1,138 9,891 Seneca 47,800 82,200 545 4,724 Van Wert --- --- --- --- Williams --- 8,000 --- 2,902 Wood --- 5,800 70 207 Wyandot --- 52,100 --- 2,730 TOTALS 4,189,720 560,050 23,435 100,734 YEAR 1980 Indiana Adams 28,600 18,000 917 5,088 Allen 2,332,600 65,100 10,815 10,400 De Kalb 11,000 8,300 10 4,066 Ohio Allen --- 8,140 354 2,935 Auglaize 110,600 22,500 806 2,460 Crawford 90,300 --- 205 --- Defiance 64,700 27,100 1,467 6,693 Erie 303,900 52,900 236 3,269 Fulton --- --- --- --- Hancock 1,443,000 44,000 2,040 9,050 Henry 30,740 17,000 1,318 5,251 Huron 70,300 --- 346 110 Lorain (PSA 4.3) 1,500 9,600 5 510 Lucas 26,360 1,450 2,320 1,856 Mercer --- --- --- --- Ottawa --- --- 20 1,105 Paulding 9,100 14,500 135 5,585 Putnam 362,700 70,000 787 21,704 Sandusky 692,400 165,900 1,175 9,854 Seneca 76,300 123,300 567 4,702 Van Wert --- --- --- --- Williams --- 8,800 --- 2,902 Wood 1,000 5,400 70 207 Wyandot 4,400 76,500 15 2,715 TOTALS 5,659,500 738,490 23,617 100,552 On main stem and principal tributaries 138 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-49(continued) River Basin Group 4.2, Data Summary by County YEAR 2000 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain -- County Urban Rural Urban RuraT Indiana Adams 50,600 22,900 917 5,088 Allen 4,151,400 109,680 10,880 10,335 De Kalb 14,000 10,500 26 4,050 Ohio Allen --- 10,360 354 2,935 Auglaize 195,600 26,250 806 2,460 Crawford 193,600 --- 205 --- Defiance 95,300 28,800 1,487 6,673 Erie 709,600 121,100 247 3,258 Fulton --- --- --- --- Hancock 2,560,000 57,000 2,140 8,950 Henry 45,840 20,200 1,328 5,241 Huron 149,300 --- 351 105 Lorain (PSA 4.3) 3,900 23,800 6 509 Lucas 35,270 2,500 2,349 1,836 Mercer --- --- --- --- Ottawa --- --- 25 1,100 Paulding 14,620 17,300 155 5,565 Putnam 646,700 79,000 837 21,744 Sandusky 1,543,000 363,500 1,184 9,845 Seneca 156,400 253,100 574 4,695 Van Wert --- --- --- --- William --- 10,400 --- 2,902 Wood 1,500 7,200 70 207 Wyandot 8,900 154,200 17 2,713 TOTALS 10,575,530 1,318,790 23,958 100,211 YEAR 2020 Indiana Adams 89,000 26,800 937 5,068 Allen 7,267,200 184,200 10,940 10,275 De Kalb 17,000 12,800 40 4,036 Ohio Allen --- 12,580 354 2,935 Auglaize 340,240 31,880 806 2,460 Crawford 404,100 --- 205 --- Defiance 144,200 34,600 1,507 6,653 Erie 1,512,700 258,200 259 3,246 Fulton --- --- --- --- Hancock 4,454,000 66,000 2,240 8,850 Henry 70,600 24,800 1,338 5,231 Huron 317,800 --- 358 98 Lorain (PSA 4.3) 8,300 51,600 7 508 Lucas 49,040 5,000 2,359 1,826 Mercer --- --- --- --- Ottawa --- --- 30 1,095 Paulding 23,900 21,700 180 5,540 Putnam 19128,000 93,000 907 21,674 Sandusky 3,246,900 763,800 1,193 9,836 Seneca 324,400 534,400 582 4,687 Van Wert --- --- --- --- Williams --- 12,800 --- 2,902 Wood 2,700 7,700 70 2007 Wyandot 18,000 326,100 20 2,710 TOTALS 19,418,080 2,467,960 24,332 99,837 On main stem and principal tributaries Flood Plains Inventory 139 at the mouth of the river where there are The average discharge is 311 efs with a patches of swampland. Before settlement the maximum of 11,500 cfs. Average yearly runoff land was almost completely covered with for the period 1928 to 1950 equaled 9.1 inches timber, and land drainage was so slow that compared to an average precipitation of 30 in- swamps were abundant even in the rolling ches. country to the south. The land was cleared and The report of 1940 makes no estimate of later drained with extensive systems of tile flood stages for a maximum storm condition drains. The land has been worked and de- because damages would be confined princi- veloped by good farming methods which have pally to the inundation of farmlands. This not seriously depleted the fertility of the soil. report also indicates that under such condi- Agriculture is general but large tomato crops tions an interchange of water between are concentrated around Bowling Green, a the Middle and North Branches would occur. canning center, and soy beans have also be- The flood plain slopes very gradually from the come a major cash crop. channel banks. Above Rudolph the flood plain Some depleted oil fields are scattered is nearly flat so that a considerable amount of throughout the southern portion of the basin. valley storage would result. The only other natural resources consist of According to residents, the most severe gravel and limestone quarries and some peat flood occurred in July 1929. Some residents bogs worked by local inhabitants. along the Portage River state that periodic The area is crossed by four major railroads flooding occurs every two or three years. and is served by a network of highways and Examination of discharge records discloses roads which connect the principal cities and that the flow at the Woodville gage in 1929 communities. The Portage River is navigable (6,000 cfs) was not large compared with that for light-draft vessels from Port Clinton at which frequently occurs during the spring or Lake Erie to Oak Harbor, a distance of 12 miles late winter break-up. Those floods which are above the mouth. This section of the river has called the most severe are the most damaging not been subject to flood damage. but not necessarily the greatest from the standpoint of flood discharge or river stage. Other important floods in the Portage River 1.44.4 Flood Problems basin occurred in May 1933, June 1937, and July 1969. These floods were all caused by high Northern Ohio is not subject to the storms of intensity storms. The principal damage re- intense precipitation that occur south of the sulting from floods in the Portage River basin Lake Erie-Ohio River divide. Flood-producing is the loss of crops during the growing season. storms in the Ohio Valley may extend north- Figure 14-43c identifies the time period in ward and encompass the Portage River basin, which major damages, as defined in this study, but past records indicate that the intensity of are first noted within a given reach on the precipitation is less than that which occurs in main stem and principal tributaries. Table southern Ohio. The average annual precipita- 14-46 depicts the flood plain damages by reach tion for northern Ohio is slightly more than 35 corresponding to the reaches designated in inches, but due to topographic or other this figure. Table 14-47 depicts upstream flood reasons, there is a considerable variation in damages. Location of these damages within average precipitation between the various particular watersheds may be seen in Figure localities within this section of the State. The 14-44c. Summations of estimated average an- Portage River basin, being comparatively low, nual damages and acres in the flood plain are receives less precipitation than does most of shown by river basin in Table 14-48. County northern Ohio. However, the runoff factor for summaries for the main stem and principal the basin appears rather large. The compara- tributaries are tabulated in Table 14-49. tively low rate of infiltration appears to be caused by the proximity of the rock to the 1444.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention ground surface and the character of the over- Measures lying topsoils. Under the worst meteorological and ground conditions it is estimated that a At the present time the Corps of Engineers runoff of 10 inches might occur from a 24-hour has no flood control projects in the Portage rainfall. Runoff gages are located at Wood- River or its tributaries. Minor channel im- ville, Pemberville, and Bowling Green, Ohio. provements which have been initiated by The Woodville gage records the drainage from other Federal and non-Federal agencies are 433 square miles or 72 percent of the basin. listed in Table 14-45. 140 Appendix 14 Aside from the current State and conser- (7) 1961-Department of Natural Re- vancy district programs there are no known sources, comprehensive flood control report nonstructural flood control projects. The on the Sandusky River basin farming community has shown foresight; very (8) 1959-Ohio State Division of Water, few worthwhile farm buildings are located plan for formation of a dam and lake on Spicer within the area subject to inundation. Creek; reduction in flood flow limited to im- Refer to Subsection 1.43.5 for discussion of mediate downstream area flood plain legislation which is applicable to (9) 1959-Corps of Engineers, Buffalo Dis- this river basin. trict, review report of previous studies includ- ing flood control by means of reservoirs, levees,and channel improvements. The report 1.45 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group concluded that channel improvement projects 4.2,- Sandusky River Basin at Fremont and Bucyrus with alterations to sewers and drainage systems were economi- cally justified. Other conclusions were that 1.45.1 Description the project at Tiffin, Ohio, was not justified, that the reservoir site at Mexico, limited in The Sandusky River drains the second capacity, would aid flood control but was not largest area in northwestern Ohio, 1,420 economically justified, and that the reservoir square miles. This river and its tributaries upstream of Bucyrus was justified for multi- drain all or part of eight Ohio counties. Loca- purpose use. tion within River Basin Group 4.2 is shown (10) 1950-Scioto, Sandusky Conservancy in Figure 14-42. The basin has maximum di- District, report recognized need for basinwide .mensions of 50 miles east-west and 60 miles plan. Recommendations included water sup- north-south. The main stem of the river has ply and flood control reservoirs and local flood a total length of 130 miles. There are no large protection systems. lakes or other prominent topographic fea- (11) 1949-Scioto, Sandusky Conservancy tures in the basin. The elevation at the river District, preliminary investigation of flood source is 1,093 feet, and at its mouth, 573 problems on Tymochtee Creek between Mar- feet. Streams flow in shallow valleys following seilles and mouth. It investigated reservoir, the general surface slope. Bottomlands along channel improvement, and levees. the river and its tributaries vary in width from (12) 1947-Corps of Engineers, study of 1/4 to 3/4 mile. The average fall of the Sandusky canal from Lake Erie to Ohio River. The study River equals 3.9 feet per mile, and the channel showed flood control benefits to be small for slopes of tributaries equals 12 feet per mile. the Sandusky River basin. (13) 1941-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, survey report for flood control. This report in- 1.45.2 Previous Studies cluded studies of reservoirs, levees, and chan- nel improvement. Previous studies are listed below: (1) 1972-U.S. Geological Survey, flood- prone area reports for portions of the San- 1.45.3 Development in the Flood Plain dusky River and Little Sandusky River (2) 1971-U.S. Geological Survey, flood- The Sandusky River basin is identified by no prone area reports for Pipe Creek, Mills Creek single outstanding resource or raw material. and Plum Brook Approximately 90 percent of the land is de- (3) 1971-Soil Conservation Service, pre- voted to agriculture. In spite of flood hazards, liminary investigation report on upper Honey the areas along the river and its tributaries Creek, Crawford, Huron, and Seneca Counties, are used as cropland. Ohio The Sandusky basin has a well-developed (4) 1969-U.S. Geological Survey, flood- network of highways and improved connect- prone area reports for portions of the San- ing roads. Several railroads serve the area, dusky River and Tymochtee Creek running generally across the basin rather (5) 1964-Flood Plains Information Re- than along the valleys and so remain rela- port, Sandusky River, Ohio tively unimpaired by flooding except within (6) 1961-Corps of Engineers, Buffalo Dis- the immediate Fremont area. Gradual urban- trict, initiated Flood Plain Information ization is takingrplace, especially around the Studies in the basin cities, with the construction of shopping Flood Plains Inventory 141 plazas and other retail outlets on the peri- The flooded area of the City of Bucyrus phery of the towns. is confined by the topography to a relatively narrow strip through the city, almost wholly on the right bank of the river, containing a 1.45.4 Flood Problems combination of long established residential areas with a number of commercial and small Historical records show that serious flood- industrial units. A large portion of the flooded ing occurred in February 1833, January 1847, area is either completely undeveloped or is February 1883, and January, February, and being used for park and athletic purposes. March 1904. However, no reliable data are Figure 14-43e identifies the time period in available regarding discharges, stages, or which major damages, as defined in this study, damages for floods prior to 1913. Major floods are first noted within a given reach of the of record occurred in March 1913, and January main stem and principal tributaries. Table and February of 1959. Less significant flood- 14-46 indicates the flood plain damages by ing also occurred in January 1930, June 1937, reach corresponding to the reaches desig- and March 1963. nated in this figure. Table 14-47 shows up- Between Sandusky Bay and Fremont, resi- stream flood damages. Location of these dam- dences on or near the river bank, some of ages within particular watersheds may be which are occupied all year, often incur heavy seen in Figure 14-44c. Summations of esti- flood damages. In many cases these resi- mated average annual damages and acres in dences have been constructed in spite of flood the flood plain are shown by river basin in hazard, because other features make sites at- Table 14-48. County summaries for the main tractive. Minor damages to agricultural and stem and principal tributaries are tabulated highway units also occur in this reach. in Table 14-49. In the City of Fremont the right bank of the Sandusky is a commercial and residential dis- trict. The commercial units are located along 1.45.5 Existing Flood Dimage Prevention East State Street and the remainder of the Measures flooded area is a concentrated middle-class residential development of two-story, single- The only Federal measure undertaken in family units. The left bank is composed of in- the area was a navigation project adopted dustrial, commercial, and two-story residen- March 3,1867, for the Sandusky River from its tial units. Also located on the left bank is the mouth to Fremont. In 1903 the Board of En- downtown business district centered along gineers for Rivers and Harbors reported that Front Street. The sewage treatment plant and further improvement of this reach of the river water filtration plant and a large city park was inadvisable. Abandonment of the project (Rodger Young Memorial Park) are also lo- was recommended in House Document No. cated on this bank. 467, 69th Congress, 1st Session, but no action The City of Tiffin has remained relatively has been taken on the recommendation. free from major flood damage since the com- Therefore, it is subje 'et to Section 10 of the pletion of a local protection project shortly Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899, after the 1913 flood. Damages as a result of which requires that all work in navigable wa- flooding are now confined primarily to the low ters of the United States must be authorized areas upstream and downstream of the flood by the Department of the Army prior to its walls. The inundated area upstream of the commencement. Permits must be obtained for walls consists almost entirely of the low-lying, all structures which are proposed within the partially developed residential area known Sandusky River channel. locally as Mechanicsburg. The inundated area After the 1913 flood, the City of Tiffin and downstream from the flood walls lies alongthe Seneca County enlarged the river channel left bank of the river and consists of older, through the central part of the city and built middle-class residential units. concrete walls on both banks. The @hannel of Between Fremont and Tiffin tne flood plain the lower part of Rock Greek was similarly is confined to a relatively narrow strip improved to prevent damage by backwater through the area known as Ballville. From from the river. Ballville southward to the northern boundary A flood control project now under construc- of Tiffin, the flood plain is occupied almost tion for Fremont is designed to eleminate the entirely by farms, with occasional flooding damage in the city from a discharge of 50,000 relatively near nonfarm homes. cfs which under ice-free conditions occurs on 142 Appendix 14 the average of once every 133 years. It would and a maximum length of 34 miles. Location also eliminate damage from high stages re- within River Basin Group 4.2 is shown in Fig- sulting from ice jams up to a stage that would ure 14-42. The Vermilion River picks up the occur on the average of once every 80 years. As tributaries of Clear Creek from the west and far as practicable, stages will be lowered by Buck Creek from the east in Ashland County. enlarging and realigning the channel, and In Huron County the Southwest Branch and levees or walls will be provided to contain the Indian Creek enter from the west and the East reduced stages. Pressure conduits will be con- Branch enters the river from the east. The structed to provide for runoff from areas East Fork enters the river from the east in above the design flow line. Pumping will be Erie County. No major tributaries enter the provided for runoff from areas below the de- river in Lorain County. The river has a rela- sign flow line. Ponding areas will be used tively flat slope throughout its length, averag- where possible to reduce peak pumping loads. ing less than 8 feet per mile. All of the Major features are: tributaries except the East Fork are charac- (1) channel enlargement and partial re- terized by relatively broad but well-defined alignment in a 10,450-foot reach of the San- valleys. The Vermilion River itself flows dusky River, including a 2,000-foot-long con- through a relatively wide valley section trol channel to provide the transition to na- throughout most of its length. In the upper 15 tural levels at the upstream end miles within Ashland County the valley is de- (2) construction of 18,300 feet of levees and fined by moderately sloping sides up to 100 3,500 feet of flood walls feet or more above the stream bed. The central (3) construction of three pumping stations 23 miles of the river within Huron County are along the west bank at Minnow Creek, Bir- less well defined and the adjacent high ground chard Street, and Liberty Street, and one averages only 50 feet above the stream bed. pumping station on the east bank at Pine Near the Village of Wakeman, 21 miles up- Street stream from the mouth, the river starts a With the exception of the City of Fremont, meandering course to the Lake through a there is no zoning at present within Sandusky gorge averaging 100 feet in depth and ranging County. In 1962 a proposal was submitted in from 200 feet to 2,000 feet in width. The valley Sandusky County for zoning on a countywide walls broaden out and disappear approxi- basis. The referendum was defeated by the mately one mile upstream from the river people of the county. Fremont has a zoning mouth at a point just upstream from the prin- ordinance but it is in no way related to regula- cipal development of the City of Vermilion. tion or use of the flood plain. Within Seneca County, the situation is essentially the same. The City of Tiffin and Pleasant and Clinton 1.46.2 Previous Studies Townships have zoning ordinances, but in all cases the ordinances have no reference to reg- Previous studies are listed below: ulation or use of the flood plain. Refer to Sub- (1) 19 7 1-flood -prone area report for por- section 1.43.5 for a discussion of flood plain tions of Vermilion River legislation applicable to this river basin. (2) 1970-flood-prone area reports for por- The National Weather Service in Columbus, tions of the Huron River, east and west Ohio, predicts peak flood stages along the branches of the Huron River, and Norwalk Sandusky River. Creek (3) 1970-Flood Plain Information Report, Huron River, Ohio (4) 1970-Flood Plain Information Report, 1.46 Lake Erie Southwest, River Basin Group Vermilion River (Erie, Lorain, and Huron 4.2, Vermilion River Basin Counties, Ohio) (5) 1965-Flood Plain Information Report, Vermilion River, Ohio, from Lake Erie to Mill 1.46.1 Description Hollow The Vermilion River has its source in the Savannah Lakes of Ashland County and flows 1.46.3 Development in the Flood Plain generally north for a distance of nearly 59 miles into Lake Erie. The watershed has a The City of Vermilion in Erie County has an maximum width of a little more than 16 miles excellent small boat harbor, one of the largest Flood Plains Inventory 143 on the Great Lakes. A maintained channel 100 mainder of the flooded area has no significant feet wide and 12 feet deep extends to deep development. Some of the more accessible water in the Lake and upstream approxi- areas are cultivated, but much of the flood mately 1,200 feet from the Vermilion River plain is in woodland. The Mill Hollow Reserva- mouth. These facilities not only provide access tion of the Lorain County Metropolitan Park for the large number of recreation craft but system is on both banks of the river at the also provide access and mooring for a number upstream limit of the study area. of Lake Erie fishing boats. Vermilion is well known as a summer resort, and the flood- prone area within Erie County is part of the 1.46.4 Flood Problems large water-oriented development of the city. The low-lying shore areas adjacent to the The greatest flood of record along the Ver- river have been dredged out to form lagoons to milion River occurred in July 1969, and other increase the amount of shoreline available. serious flooding occurred in March 1913, Feb- This makes it possible for the individual prop- ruary 1951, May 1956, January and February erty owner to have boat and dock facilities at 1959, and March 1963. The March 1913 flood is his home. The area downstream from Liberty regarded as a historical flood because it oc- Avenue (U.S. Route 6 and Ohio Route 2) has curred before formal record keeping of flood been developed for some time and contains a stages began with the establishment of the large development of fine residential homes. U.S. Geological Survey gage in March 1950. In the area immediately upstream from Lib- There have undoubtedly been other floods erty Avenue similar development has begun that occurred before 1913 and between 1913 recently. The lagoons and boat facilities have and 1950, but no factual data are available. been constructed, but residential develop- The 1913 flood was great enough so that some ment has taken place more slowly, partly be- high water marks are still noticeable and cause of recent flooding. The commercial units newspaper accounts are still available. Floods in the flooded area are fisheries, boat marinas, on the Vermilion River are often accom- and one restaurant, which line the river's panied by ice jams so that resulting flood edge. The city water plant and sewage treat- stages are higher than they would be from ment plant are also situated close to the river river discharge alone. bank downstream from Liberty Avenue and Figure 14-43c identifies the time period in are affected during high water periods. Im- which major damages, as defined in this study, mediately downstream from the Erie County are first noted within a given reach on the boundary on the right bank is a development main stem and principal tributaries. Table of summer cottages known as Vermilion River 14-46 indicates the flood plain damages by Park. The development contains nearly 50 reach corresponding to the reaches desig- cottages, most of which are not occupied nated in this figure. Table 14-47 shows up- during the cold weather months. stream flood damages. These damages are Portions of the City of Vermilion in Lorain referenced to the watersheds identified in County lie along the right bank of the Vermil- Figure 14-44c. Summations of estimated av- ion River upstream to the Mill Hollow Park erage annual damages and acres in the flood Reservation. The portion of the city within the plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-48. flood plain is relatively undeveloped. Al- County summaries for the main stem and though there are several camping and recrea- principal tributaries are tabulated in Table tion sites in the area, there are few permanent 14-49. structures. In spite of the steep slopes, some of the area is cultivated and crops of hay, winter wheat, and corn are normally grown. 1.46.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Brownhelm Township in Lorain County ex- Measures tends along the left bank of the Vermilion River from the county line to the upstream The Coast Guard is called upon almost an- limit of the study area. The only major de- nually to break ice in the Vermilion River to velopment within the flooded area in the alleviate floods caused by ice jams or the township is the Olympic Club area just up- threat of flooding due to ice jams. stream of the Erie County line. This is a sum- There are zoning resolutions in the City of mer residential area containing approxi- Vermilion and in Brownhelm Township, and mately 25 summer cottages along with conces- there are subdivision regulations and building sion buildings and playground areas. The re- codes within the City of Vermilion. Refer to 144 Appendix 14 Subsection 1.43.5 for a discussion of flood plain maintained depth of 27 feet. This reach lies legislation applicable to this river basin. within the Federal navigation project of A P.L. 566 project has been constructed on Lorain Harbor. From this point southward, the Huron River in the March Run Watershed, the river channel gradually narrows until its Crawford, Richland and Huron Counties, average width at the confluence is approxi- Ohio. Location of this project is illustrated in mately 150 feet. The banks of the channel are Figure 14-45. A harbor improvement at the relatively low in this reach, but the river flows mouth of the Vermilion River, a Federal proj- in a meandering course to the Lake through a ect, is still subject to periodic dredging to deep gorge which varies from 40 to 90 feet in maintain the project depth. A new entrance depth and from 300 to 2,000 feet in width. The and the extension of the dredged channel to Black River channel bottom is below mean the Liberty Avenue bridge with a depth of 8 lake level ior approximately 6 miles from its feet were authorized in 1958. These proposed mouth. From this point to the confluence, the improvements are classified as inactive at thalweg rises approximately 60 feet resulting present by the Corps of Engineers. in an average slope of 5 to 6 feet per mile. The east and west branches of the Black River merge in Elyria in the area known as 1.47 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group Cascade Park. Less than one-half mile above 4.3, Black River Basin the confluence there is a waterfall on each branch of the river. Flows from the wa- tersheds of the east and west branch fall 40 to 1.47.1 Description 50 feet at these waterfalls before combining to form the main stem running to Lake Erie. Be- The watershed has a maximum width of ap- cause of this difference in elevation, flood proximately 22 miles and a maximum length stages upstream of the waterfalls are not af- of 34 miles. From the City of Elyria southward fected by ice j ams, lake stage, or other hydrau- the Black River consists of two branches: the lic conditions which affect flood stages in the east branch which drains approximately 217 river below the cascades. The average slopes square miles, and the west branch which of the thalwegs of the east and west branches drains approximately 175 square miles. The are approximately 8 feet and 5 feet per mile, east branch measures 56 miles, including a respectively. section at the upper end known as the West Fork. The flow on this branch originates in Ashland and Medina Counties, flows eastward 1.47.2 Previous Studies for a distance of 13 miles, then turns north- ward picking up the tributaries of East Fork, As of 1972 the U.S. Geological Survey had Coon, Crow, Salt, and Willow Creeks. It finally published flood-prone area reports for por- joins the flow from the west branch within the tions of the following tributaries of the Black City of Elyria. The west branch of the Black River: east and west branches, East Fork, River has a total length of 43 miles. Originat- Plum Creek, Willow Creek, and Wellington ing in Ashland County, it flows generally Creek. northeasterly to its confluence with the east The Flood Plain Information Report, Black branch in Elyria. Tributaries of the west River, Ohio, from Lake Erie to Carlisle Town- branch are considerably larger than those of ship, dated June 1964, was reprinted July 1968 the east branch, the most notable being Char- and May 1970. lemont, Plum, and Wellington Creeks. From the confluence of the east and west branches the Black River flows northward, then west- 1.47.3 Development in the Flood Plain ward, for a total distance of approximately 15 miles, finally terminating at Lake Erie in the Because the Black River is confined to a City of Lorain. The only major tributary in relatively deep gorge throughout much of its this reach is French Creek which flows west- length, and because those areas where wide erly and enters the Black River 5 miles from overland flow does occur have had relatively its mouth. Location within River Basin Group light development, the floods of 1913 and 1959 4.3 is shown in Figure 14-46. caused little damage in comparison with many From the mouth of the Black River to ap- of the river basins in Ohio. The City of Lorain proximately 3 miles upstream, the river chan- is endowed with an excellent harbor. The nel has a width of from 200 to 400 feet and a Corps of Engineers maintains a minimum Flood Plains Inventory 145 LAKE ERIE MICHI N M@urnee say 0 M.ntp Ili r LUCAS Toledo OTTAWA Kellys Island LLIAMS C,.e AL Bryan 0 FULTON a ort Chnt a Sandusky Bay Maumee ?0 0 --&EFIANCE Napoleon Bowling G ee Sandusk Ve illmn 0 F NO A.b.,n rnont o SA us Y Defianc 0 Nolwall, HENRY W D Paulding. C, PUTNAM Fo 0,ia T fin lay I Wi I.,d PAULDI Blanch SENECA HUR N Fort VA FIT F. -@RAWFORD arey C I a. We(t ALLEN D lp S ucyru Ott." Upper a @ky Ad. L ii YANDOT S MERCER U LA ZE Celina a onet St Mary$ LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES VICIN11Y M4P CHANNEL DIVERSION CHANNELIMPROVEMENT LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS j INSTITUTIONAL & RESERVOIR PL-566 WATERSHED PROJECT J:- A SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-45 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.2 146 Appendix 14 9 onneaut C Asht [a .b z C, Geneva z 0 cn Fairport Harbor Ri- Jeffer ]@ ,< .Painesville Grand 0 < > z V lk LAKE GRAND > U ASHTABULAI CHAGRIN A A0 Lorain Black Ri- 0 Elyria GEAL)PA berlin 0 CU)*HO BLA K- CKY CUYAHOGA 0 Wallin on Medina 0 Rove,no LORAIN MEDINA PORTAGE SUMMIT LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAIR VICINITY MAP EA S-IF I. ILE' RIVER BASIN GROUP o wim RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX % ow@ SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-46 Lake Erie Central-River Basin Group 4.3 Flood Plains Inventory 147 dredged depth of 27 feet for a distance of ap- just upstream from the Route 20 bridge and a proximately 3 miles from the mouth of the private hunting club occupies a portion of the Black River. Both banks of the river have be- flood plain just north of Parsons Road. The come heavily industrialized, and at the pre- Metropolitan Park System has acquired a sent time Lorain has the largest freshwater small tract near Parsons Road in the flood shipyard in the world. The river is well con- plain of the east branch. However, on both fined within the channel in this area during branches there still exist large tracts of un- high discharges. Consequently, the only major used land, much of which is heavily wooded. damage from high water during the floods of July 1969 and January 1959 was the result of debris being drawn into the water intakes at 1.47.4 Flood Problems U.S. Steel. In the reach through Sheffield Township The six largest floods on the Black River in the flood plain of the Black River is confined to decreasing order of magnitude occurred in a deep gorge which is completely undeveloped July 1969, March 1913, January 1959, May and quite inaccessible at present. A few farm 1956, February 1959, and June 1937. Of these, roads extend to the bottomland, and some only the 1969, 1959, and 1965 floods were re- land has been cultivated. However, the major corded at the U.S. Geological Survey gage in portion of the area appears to be unused at Cascade Park. present. In general the March 1963 flood was moder- In the northern portion of the City of Elyria ate. Floods equaling or exceeding its dis- land use in the bottom land is primarily ag- charge occur about every other year. How- ricultural and recreational. The Elyria sew- ever, because of a severe ice jam on the east age treatment plant is located approximately branch above the East Bridge Street dam, the 10.5 river miles from the mouth. From this river stage upstream approached the flood point southward to the waterfalls on the east level of 1959. and west branches, the flood plain is used al- The most severe floods in the history of the most entirely for recreation. One obvious ex- Black River have produced relatively light ception is the Ford Road dump, located damages, mostly to residential property. slightly upstream from the sewage treatment There is no record of loss of life during these plant. From this point southward the flood floods. plain is occupied successively by Spring Valley Figure 14-47c identifies the time period in Golf Club, Cherry Ridge Golf Club, and Cas- which major damages, as defined in this study, cade and Elywood Parks in Elyria. These are first noted within a given reach bn the parks offer the residents of the area a play- main stem and principal tributaries. Table ground and athletic field, and facilities for hik- 14-50 indicates the flood plain damages by ing, picnicking, and swimming. From the con- reach corresponding to the reaches desig- fluence the east and west branches course nated in this figure. Table 14-51 indicates up- through the heart of downtown Elyria. The stream flood damages. Location of these dam- flood plain is bordered by commercial and res- ages within particular watersheds may be idential land uses, but for the most part the seen in Figure 14-48c. Summations of esti- developed land lies above the flood level of mated average annual damages and acres in 1959. Moving to the south boundary of the City the flood plain are shown by river basin in of Elyria, flood plain land use is primarily res- Table 14-52. County summaries for the main idential. stem and principal tributaries are tabulated In the northern part of Carlisle Township in Table 14-53. land use is again essentially residential in na- ture. In this area many homeowners have beautifully landscaped the rear portion of 1.47.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention their property which lies within the flood Measures plain. In most cases the builders constructed the houses well above previous flood levels. There have been no structural Federal flood Further south on the branches of the Black control or allied projects constructed nor are River there is a general decrease in residen- any anticipated at this time within the Black tial use and an increase in agricultural use. River basin, except for the harbor develop- Some flood plain land in this township is also ment at the river mouth. There are three dams used for recreational purposes. On the west on the east branch and four on the west branch two private golf courses are located branch. The Mussey Avenue Dam (west 148 Appendix 14 branch) is used in connection with the intake Falls are relatively steep, averaging 60 feet of water for the Republic Steel plant. A small per mile. Upstream from Olmsted Falls the dam is located just upstream of Parsons Road river slope averages 2 feet per mile. Bridge (west branch). Water is pumped from this point to the New Oberlin reservoir lying approximately one-half mile to the west. The 1.48.2 Previous Studies remaining dams have been erected by local public and private interests to serve strictly Previous studies are listed below: local purposes. All the dams contribute to the (1) Flood Plain Information Report, West raising of flood stages. Branch, Rocky River, Ohio, Cuyahoga and Lo- The City of Elyria has an ordinance which rain Counties, dated 1970 prohibits dumping in or obstructing water (2) Flood Plain Information Report, Rocky courses. The ordinance was in effect at the River, Ohio, in the Cities of Rocky River and time revetment for the Medical Arts Building Lakewood, dated 1968 was constructed on the east branch. Although (3) a report on the harbor submitted to Con- the encroachment became a local issue, the gress on November 10, 1936, recommending an ordinance was not enforced. east pier 900 feet in length and an entrance There are zoning restrictions in nearly all of channel 100 feet wide with a depth of 10 feet. the townships and incorporated villages and The recommended improvements were au- cities of Lorain County at the present time. thorized by the River and Harbor Act, ap- However, it appears that there are no subdivi@ proved August 26, 1937. sion regulations, building codes or zoning or- (4) an interim Report on Rocky River Harbor dinances with provisions that affect or regu- submitted to Congress, and approved March 2, late the use of land with respect of flood risk. 1945. This report recommended the modifica- Refer to Subsection 1.43.5 for a discussion of tion to the existing project previously dis- flood plain legislation applicable to this river cussed. basin. (5) a preliminary examination of the south shores of Lake Erie with a view to the estab- lishment of harbors and harbors of refuge for 1.48 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group light-draft commercial fishing vessels and for 4.3, Rocky River Basin recreational craft submitted on July 19, 1946. Rocky River was one of 33 locations recom- mended for further studies of survey scope. 1.48.1 Description (6) because of the severity of the January 1959 flood, a reconnaissance report on Rocky Rocky River flows into Lake Erie between River in 1962 at the request of the County the Cities of Lakewood and Rocky River, 6.5 Commissioners, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, to miles west of the main entrance to Cleveland determine the feasibility of improving Rocky Harbor and 21.5 miles east of Lorain Harbor. River for flood control. The report recom- Location within River Basin Group 4.3 is mended that no further study for flood control shown in Figure 14-46. The river has two prin- in the vicinity of the mouth of Rocky River be cipal branches. The east branch rises in North made at that time due to the lack of economic Royalton in southern Cuyahoga County, flow- justfication, but that alleviation of flood dam- ing southerly then northwesterly. The west ages be considered as a project in the au- branch rises in Medina County and flows thorized navigation study. northerly to join the east branch to form the Rocky River 12 miles above the mouth. In their upper reaches the two branches flow 1.48.3 Development in the Flood Plain with moderate slopes in broad valleys. As they approach they drop in a series of cascades into In recent years suburban development has deep narrow gorges. The west branch has a occurred in the Rocky River basin as a result number of falls and rapids in the vicinity of of the westward expansion of the Cleveland Olmsted Falls. Below the confluence the main metropolitan area. Rocky River Harbor is a river flows through a narrow, winding, rock- desirable basing point for recreational craft in walled valley, 100 to 120 feet below the level of the populous Cleveland area. The only other the adjacent ground. The width of the valley existing small boat facilities of any magnitude floor is approximately 300 feet, and access is are at Cleveland Harbor itself. However, boat- difficult. The Rocky River slopes in Olmsted ing activity at Rocky River is free of interfer- Flood Plains Inventory 149 TABLE 14-50 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRESIN FLOOD PLAIN -j -i ' AVERAGE ANNUAL c'x 'z zx C25 REACH P- COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES a-: U = C= TOTAL REMARKS @- 1= di :z cl V) 2UJ W CODE (DOLLARS) FROM TO e URBAN RURAL 6 uj w URBANFRURAL BLACK RIVER BF1 Lorain T7N T5N 1970 196 196 R18W R17W 1980 6,100 12 184 16 180 2000 15,300 40 156 47 149 2020 32,900 55 141 70 126 BFlA Lorain Lorain 1970 900 5 5 302 302 1980 12,600 10 10 292 302 2000 33,600 15 15 282 302 2020 68,200 272 302 BF1B Lorain Elyria 1970 38,300 15 10 368 393 1980 59,000 18 12 363 393 2000 147,500 25 17 351 393 2020 318,700 30 20 343 393 SPERRY CREEK BF2 Cuyahoga T7N T7N 1970 9,600 17 62 65 144 R15W R15W 1980 13,300 21 76 47 144 2000 24,600 28 103 13 144 2020 52,600 28 103 13 144 ROCKY RIVER BF3 Cuyahoga T7N T5N 1970 24,000 26,000 10 4125 2315 1,870 R14W R13W 1980 44,600 36,200 10 20 4105 2335 1,850 2000 83,600 67,800 10 27 4098 2342 1,843 2020 179,200 145,300 10 32 4093 2347 1,838 BF3A Cuyahoga Rocky S.Lakewood 1970 21,000 12 15 3 30 River 1980 29,200 12 15 3 30 2000 54,900 12 15 3 30 2020 117,600 12 15 3 30 BF4 Cuyahoga T6N T6N 1970 62500 650 650 R15W R15W 1980 2,500 9,100 6 644 6 644 2000 4,700 16,900 8 642 8 642 2020 10,100 36,300 10 640 10 640 BF5 Lorain T5N T5N 1970 14,300 1610 1,610 R15W R15W 1980 4,600 22,000 25 1585 210 1,400 2000 11,500 55,100 33 1577 282 1,327 2020 25,000 119,000 4C 1570 343 1,267 CUYAHOGA RIVLR BGl Cuyahoga T17N T5N 1970 131,700 17,900 76 4o 1930 371 1,675 R12W R11W 1980 192,100 24,900 93 61 1892 467 1,579 2000 360,700 46,600 126 83 1837 632 1,414 2020 772,500 100,100 153 101 1792 769 1,277 BGIA Cuyahoga Cleveland 1970 194,400 400 880 1280 1980 269,600 491 789 1280 2000 506,400 665 615 1280 2020 1,084,500 808 472 1280 BG2 Summit T5N T2N 1970 190,700 14,600 199 105 2770 589 2,485 R12W R10W 1980 275,500 21,200 245 129 2700 724 2,330 Akron & Peninsola 2000 564,400 43,200 330 174 2570 977 2,097 1 2020 1,216,600 93,600 401 212 2461 1189 1,885 TINKER'S CREEK BG3 Cuyahoga T6N T6N 1970 9,200 4,000 27 1116 137 1,006 R12W R10W 1980 12,80C 5,600 33 1110 168@ 975 2000 24,000 10,500 45 1098 228 915 2020 51,400 22,400 54 1089 276 867 BG4 summit T5N T5N 1970 27,900 6,400 8 73 954 81 954 R10W RIOW 1980 40,500 9,200 10 90 935 100 935 2000 82,600 19,000 13 121 901 134 901 2020 178,800 40,500 16 148 871 164 871 150 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-50(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.3 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N _J _J = AVERAGE ANNUAL -'X 'I cz X C) TOTAL REMARKS REACH DAMAGES CODE COUNTY YEAR V) LU W FROM TO (DOLL RS) =) Z: C:@ M V) V) Z@ CD URBAN RURAL cuj UJ Li URBAN RURAL CHAGRIN RIVER BHl Lake TION T9N 1970 15,100 7,700 15 45 1315 115 1,260 RIOW RJOW 1980 25,500 12,900 18 55 L302 141 1,234 2000 64,200 32,800 25 75 275 191 1,184 2020 138,200 70,500 30 91 254 233 1,142 BHIA Lake Eastlake 1970 143,400 25 110 785 920 1980 242,300 31 135 754 920 2000 608,660 42 183 695 920 2020 1,310,300 50 222 648 920 B112 Cuyahoga T8N WN 1970 20,900 4,200 55 35 1335 370 1,055 R10W R9W 1980 29,100 5,700 68 43 1314 426 999 2000 54,500 10,400 91 58 1276 529 a96 2020 116,900 22,500 ill 71 1243 615 810 GRAND RIVER BIl Lake T11N T11N 1970 2,800 2,500 14 1280 14 1,280 R8W R6W 1980 4,800 4,300 18 1276 18 1,276 2000 13,400 11,100 23 1271 23 1,271 2020 28,800 23,900 28 1266 28 1,266 BIIA Lake Painesville 1970 10,200 2,200 20 1050 26 810 1980 20,700 3,700 5 25 1040 27 795 2000 51,900 9,400 10 33 1027 29 774 2020 111,600 20,100 20 40 1010 32 750 B12 Ashtabul TIIN T10N 1970 18,000 8,100 2 90 1491 9 1,493 R5W R4W 1980 28,100 11,900 2 117 1464 117 1,466 2000 54,900 23,500 3 157 1423 157 1,426 2020 119,000 50,600 4 192 1387 192 1,391 CONNEAUT REEK BJI Ashtabul@ T14N T13N 1970 12,400 1850 1,850 RlW RlW 1980 3,600 18,300 12 1838 12 1,838 2000 7,200 36,900 17 17 1,833 2020 15,600 77,600 20 20 1,830 BJIA Ashtabulz Conneaut 1970 5,600 10 210 220 1980 8,300 12 208 220 2000 16,200 17 203 220 2020 35,100 20 200 220 BJ2 Erie T13N Erie-Craw- 1970 19,700 5 3905 3,900 RlW ford Coun- 1980 3,700 29,000 6 12 3892 12 3,898 ty Line 2000 7,800 61,800 8 17 3885 17 3,893 2020 16,700 131,700 10 20 3880 20 3,890 BJ3 Crawford Erie-Craw- Conneaut 1970 9,300 2140 2,140 ford Co. Lake 1980 4,200 13,700 10 10 2120 20 2,120 Line 2000 9,100 29,100 13 13 2114 26 2,114 2020 19,400 62,100 16 20 2104 36 2,104 BJ3A Crawford Conneaut- 1970 3,000 5 65 70 Ville 1980 4,400 6 64 70 2000 9,400 8 62 70 2020 20,100 10 60 70 ence from commercial navigation and the above the public dock. There are no other pub- damages of polluted water. There are no com- lic facilities, such as boat hoists, repair shops, 7 71 mercial terminals at the harbor. The public or onshore storage. These are provided by dock constructed by the City of Lakewood for local marina operators. Private docks and landing small boats is on the east bank of the commercial marinas have been built along the river just upstream from the Detroit Avenue banks of the river and along the shores of the bridge. The Cleveland Metropolitan Park Dis- Yacht Club Island and Clifton Park Lagoon to trict has provided a launching ramp and park- provide facilities for recreational craft. These ing facilities on park property a short distance generally consist of walkways supported on Flood Plains Inventory 151 TABLE 14-51 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 4.3 a ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W a: AVERAGE ANNUAL 0 0 _J q Z W Z Z 0: 4 r, WZ 0 DAMAGES it _J .4 W < Z MW 0: YEAR _J :3 _J W< TOTAL W (DOLLARS) a X a: W a- V) t- 0: o 0 0 @Z 4 0 0 URBAN 1RURALITOTAL 03 a- 3' Z 0 URBAN RURAL ASHTABULA -CONN COMPLEX - OHI@ 30D 1970 1,700 200 1,900 10 10 10 20 200 200 50 317 1970 600 12,400 13,000 100 300 500 300 200 200 1,200 318 1970 700 700 so 150 200 200 600 Total 1970 2,300 13,300 15,600 160 460 710 520 400 400 1,850 1980 2,700 17,000 19,700 160 460 710 520 400 400 1,850 2000 4,700 19,900 24,600 160 460 710 520 400 400 1,850 2020 8,500 22,700 31,200 160 460 710 520 400 400 1,850 GRAND RIViR OHIO 3152 1970 6,100 1,700 7,800 100 125 15 55 5 75 225 3153 1970 3,900 1,100 5,000 75 25 75 15 35 50 175 3154 1970 27,500 27,500 1,300 1,775 6,700 2,025 11,800 3155 1970 100 100 50 100 50 200 31555 1970 7,300 7,300 335 150 500 480 1,465 3156 1970 23400 2,400 120 530 550 365 1,565 ,3157 1970 300 900 1,200 100 400 600 400 50 50 1,500 316 1970 97,600 119,000 216)600 1,815 110 115 1,060 500 1,300 500 2,300 3,100 Total 1970 107,900 160,000 267,900 3,845 3,040 8,765 4,380 530 1,440 505 2,475 20,030 1980 140,300 206,400 346,700 3,845 3,040 8,765 4,380 530 1,440 505 2,475 20,030 2000 239,500 241,600 481,100 3,845 3,040 8,765 4,380 530 1,440 505 2,475 20,030 2020 437,000 275,200 712,200 3,845 3,040 8,765 4,380 530 1,440 505 2,475 20,030 BLACK - RCICKY COMPLEX OHIO 311 1970 2,700 16,600 19,300 1,000 500 500 1,000 200 -- 200 3,000 3121 1970 2,500 75,200 77,700 390 410 300 300 300 1,100 3122 1970 600 27,500 28,100 1,285 1,200 1,400 10 45 -- 55 3,885 313 1970 185,200 31,500 216,700 1,600 750 1,350 500 965 2,110 100 3,175 4-200 1 - - -_ -!-- -3-,_ E2,185 Total 1970 191,000 150,800 341,800 4,275 2 860 3,550 1,500 1,275 2,355 00 730 1980 248,300 194,500 442,800 4,275 2,860 3,550 1,500 1,275 2,355 100 3,730 12,185 2000 424,000 227,700 651,700 4,275 2,860 3,550 1,500 1,275 2,355 100 3,730 12,185 2020 773,600 259,400 1,033,000 4,275 2,860 3,550 1,500 1,275 2,355 100 3,730 12,185 CHAGRIN RIVER - OHIO 314 1970 9,300 9,300 550 50 400 150 1,150 1980 12,000 12,000 550 50 400 150 1,150 2000 14,000 14,000 550 50 400 150 1,150 2020 16,000 16,000 550 50 400 150 1,150 1 CUYAHOGA RIVER - OHIO 3B1 1970 37,000 37,000 850 850 3B2 1970 21,700 21,700 1,078 152 660 210 2,100 3B21 1970 53,500 5,700 59,200 240 10 50 50 50 50 350 3B22 1970 69,900 69,900 800 300 100 1,200 Total 1970 53,500 134,300 187,800 2,968 162 1,010 360 50 50 4,500 1980 69,600 173,200 242,800 2,968 162 1,010 360 50 50 4,500 2000 118,800 202,800 321,600 2,968 162 1,010 360 50 50 4,500 2020 216,700 231,000 447,700 2,968 162 1,010 360 50 50 4,500 timber piling and are of temporary construc- 1.48.4 Flood Problems tion, being placed and removed every season. These facilities occupy the entire river front- Most of the units that are susceptible to s age that is uitable for economical develop- flo od damage are located in the lower reach of ment. the basin. Damage to these units can be either There is little likelihood of any future com- caused by high stages resulting from i@e jam- mercial development in Rocky River within ming conditions accompanied by a moderate the study area. All available dock space and amount of runoff or by excessive runoff alone. river frontage is owned or controlled by or- Historical documents indicate that the ganizations or individuals interested primar- maximum stage of record occurred in March ily in its development for recreational boating. 1913 and was caused by excessive runoff. The 152 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-52 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.3 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rur7l_ Urban Rural Black-Rocky 1970 284.1800- 197.1600 61914 l6q5ll Complex 1980 420.1200 2615800 7P166 16.1259 2000 799@700 367P500 7JI279 165146 2020 [email protected] 900 560.1000 7069 16.9 056 Cuyahoga 1970 6075400 177.1200 21508 10.1620 River 1980 8613100 2343100 2@4789 10.1339 2000 1.1656@900 322.1100 3.9301 95@827 2020 [email protected] 487@900 3.9728 9.1400 Chagrin 1970 179.1400 21.@200 1.9405 3.9465 Complex 1980 296.9900 30.9600 1P487 3083 2000 727.1300 57.9200 1.1640 3.1230 2020 1.9565.1400 108@900 1.7768 3.9102 Grand River 1970 138.1900 172.9800 2)839 23,613 1980 1933900 226.9300 23885 23,577 2000 3591)700 285 600 2 951 23,501 2020 696000 369.1800 3.1015 23,437 Ashtabula- 1970 lOJ'900 54.9700 690 9P750 Conneaut 1980 26P900 78.1000 734 9.J06 Complex 2000 54000 146.1700 750 9.1690 2020 115000 294ploo 766 9.1674 TOTALS 1970 1P221000 623.@500 14056 63,959 1980 1.9799.1000 830JI800 15.1061 63,254 2000 3.95984000 15179ploo 15'@921 62 - 394 2020 7074.9800 1.9820.2700 16.1646 61,669 second highest stage of record occurred on stream flood damages. Location of these dam- June 29, 1924, and was the result of a tornado. ages within particular waitersheds may be The greatest flood known to have occurred in seen in Figure 14-48c. Summations of esti- recent years was on January 22, 1959. It was mated average annual damages and acres in caused by an ice jam at the Norfolk and West- the flood plain are shown by river basin in ern Railway bridge. Other damaging floods Table 14-52. County summaries for the main have occurred in January 1952, June 1947, Au- stem and principal tributaries are tabulated gust 1935, March 1933, January 1929, March in Table 14-53. and December 1927, and February 1926. Figure 14-47c identifies the time period in which major damages, as defined in this study, 1.48.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention are first noted within a given reach on the Measures main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-50 indicates the flood plain damages by There are no structural flood control proj- reach corresponding to the reaches desig- . ects in the basin. However, in the period 1904 nated in this figure. Table 14-51 shows up- to 1907, rock was dredged from the Rocky Flood Plains Inventory 153 TABLE 14-53 River Basin Group 4.3, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in - Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban Rural Ohio Ashtabula 23,600 20,500 310 3,343 Cuyahoga 410,800 58,600 4,647 6,256 Lake 171,500 12,400 1,309 3,350 Lorain (See RBG 4.2) 39,200 14,300 695 1,806 Summit 218,600 21,000 670 3,439 Pennsylvania Crawford 3,000 9,300 70 2,140 Erie (PSA 4.4) --- 19,700 --- 3,910 TOTALS 866,700 155,800 7,701 24,244 YEAR 1980 Ohio Ashtabula 40,000 30,200 349 3,304 Cuyahoga 593,200 81,500 4,856 6,047 Lake 293,300 20,900 1,354 3,305 Lorain (See RBG 4.2) 82,300 22,000 921 1,580 Summit 317,000 30,400 824 3,285 Pennsylvania Crawford 8,600 13,700 90 2,120 Erie (PSA 4.4) 3,700 29,000 12 3,898 TOTALS 1,338,100 227,700 8,406 23,539 YEAR 2000 Ohio Ashtabula 73,300 59,400 394 3,259 Cuyahoga 1,113,400 152,200 5,193 5,710 Lake 738,100 53,300 1,430 3,224 Lorain (See RBG 4.2) 207,900 55,100 1,025 1,476 Summit 647,000 62,200 1,111 2,998 Pennsylvania Crawford 18,500 29,100 96 2,114 Erie (PSA 4.4) 7,800 61,800 17 3,893 TOTALS 2,811,000 473,100 9,266 22,679 YEAR 2020 Ohio Ashtabula 169,700 128,200 432 3,221 Cuyahoga 2,384,800 326,500 5,471 5,432 Lake 1,588,900 114,500 1,501 3,158 Lorain (See RBG 4.2) 444,800 119,000 1,108 1,393 Summit 1,394,600 134,400 1,353 2,756 Pennsylvania Crawford 39,500 62,100 106 2,104 Erie (PSA 4.4) 16,700 131,700 20 3,890 TOTALS 6,039,000 1,016,400 9,991 21,954 On main stem and principal tributaries 154 Appendix 14 River for use as core stone in the construction river valley is approximately 1/2-mile wide and of breakwaters at Cleveland Harbor, Ohio. A is bordered by hills rising from 100 to 500 feet depth of 12 feet was generally secured up- above the valley floor. Numerous small stream from the Detroit Avenue highway streams and runs indent these side. hills. A bridge. The Cleveland Yacht Club from time to relatively distinct escarpment divides the time has dredged alongside their bulkhead to basin between an upland plateau and the lake provide adequate depths for mooring of mem- plain. The upland soils in the area have de- bers'vessels. The Clifton Park Lagoon Associ- veloped from glacial till. These soils have silt ation has dredged its lagoons to 9 feet. Other or clay loam textures with slow internal organizations and individuals have done drainage. Along the flood plains of the minor amounts of dredging in the vicinity of streams, on glacial outwash areas, and in their docks. areas that were occupied in prehistoric times When ice jams in the river entrance cause a by Lake Erie, the soils are partly of lacustrine flooding threat, they are broken by a Coast and partly of alluvial origin. These soils have Guard ice breaker. loam, sandy loam, or gravelly loam textures. At present only the Township of Columbia There are small, scattered areas of poor has flood plain regulations. In 1967 the town- drainage where peats and mucks have de- ship established a flood plain district to pro- veloped. tect the public and encourage the establish- The Cuyahoga River watershed is roughly ment of recreational facilities in the flood "U" shaped with a long eastern arm, as the plain. It was created for the areas along Rocky result of drainage changes during glaciation. River that were flooded in January 1959. In the upper reaches of the Cuyahoga River, Refer to Subsection 1.43.5 for a discussion of above Cuyahoga Falls, the channel is shallow flood plain legislation applicable to this river and cuts through glacial drift with a fall of 4 basin. feet per mile. At Cuyahoga Falls, where the river cuts through the Pennsylvania sandstone, the drop is 200 feet in 11/2 miles. In 1.49 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group the lower northward course, the river flows in 4.3, Cuyahoga River Basin a preglacial valley, with a fall of approxi- mately 5 feet per mile. Relatively steep stream slopes characterize 1.49.1 Description Tinkers Creek below the City of Bedford. On the average the stream drops 40 feet per mile. The Cuyahoga River basin comprises an Above Bedford the slope is flatter, dropping an area of approximately 810 square miles in average of 5 feet per mile. The stream slope on northeastern Ohio. Parts of the Counties of Big Creek is generally steep, varying from 25 Cuyahoga, Geauga, Medina, Portage, Stark, feet per mile near the mouth to 80 feet per mile and Summit are within the basin. Location near the source. within River Basin Group 4.3 is shown in Fig- ure 14-46. The Cuyahoga River rises 10 miles northeast of Burton in Geauga County. It 1.49.2 Previous Studies flows in a southerly direction to near the vil- lage of Hiram Rapids, then southwesterly and The Buffalo District of the Corps of En- westerly, passing through Mantua, Kent, and gineers initiated a flood control study for a Cuyahoga Falls to its confluence with the Lit- portion of the Cuyahoga River, as authorized tle Cuyahoga River at Akron. From there it by the Flood Control Act of 1968. The scope of flows generally north to Lake Erie at Cleve- the study was expanded by the River and land. The main tributaries of the river are Big, Harbor Act of 1970 into the Cuyahoga River Mill, Tinkers, and Chippewa Creeks, Mud Basin Restoration Study which authorized Brook, the Little Cuyahoga River, Congress the investigation, study, and undertaking of Lake Outlet, and the Cuyahoga River west measures in the interests of water quality, en- branch. vironmental quality, recreation, fish and The watershed, except for the gently sloping wildlife, and flood control for the entire area approximately 3 miles wide bordering on Cuyahoga basin. The First Interim Report of Lake Erie, consists of rolling hills and con- the Cuyahoga River Restoration Study was tains some natural small lakes and ponds. The published in September 1971. The projects Cuyahoga River rises at an elevation of 1,300 proposed by the report include a pilot sedi- feet. From Cuyahoga Falls to its mouth, the ment removal program, harbor debris re- Flood Plains Inventory 155 moval, recreational improvements at two lo- ered feasible. The consultants concluded that cations on the river, and flood control im- other flood detention reservoirs on the provements for Big Creek in the vicinity of the Cuyahoga would not be feasible, but that a Cleveland Zoo. reservoir site on Furnace Run in Summit In 1971 the Geological Survey published County possesses good potential for recrea- flood-prone area reports for portions of the tional use. Cuyahoga River and portions of its tributaries A report on sedimentation in the Cuyahoga including Tinkers, Indiana, Mud, Yellow, and River basin, prepared by the Soil Conserva- Brandywine Creeks. tion Service, Department of Agriculture, in A special report, "Dredging and Water Qual- 1952, contains some data pertinent to this pres- ity Problems in the Great Lakes," was pre- ent study. The report discusses sediment pared by the Buffalo District of the Corps of sources and loads in tributaries and the main Engineers. Dated March 1969, the report was stream. submitted to the Office of the Chief of En- Reports were submitted to Congress on gineers on June 20, 1969. Preparation was au- November 13,1942, and May 21,1946. The first thorized by the Chief of Engineers on report was an unfavorable preliminary November 22, 1966, to comply with Executive examination concerned with flood control for Order No. 11288 issued in furtherance of the Cuyahoga River and tributaries. The report purpose and policy of the Federal Water Pollu- submitted May 21, 1946, was printed as House tion Control Act as amended (33 USC 466). The Document No. 629, 79th Congress, 2nd Ses- plan presented in the special report provided sion, and recommended against construction the most feasible alternative means for dis- of a settling basin at that time. posing of materials dredged from the Cleve- land Harbor navigation channels during maintenance. Historically, dredged materials 1.49.3 Development in the Flood Plain have been dumped in deep water in Lake Erie. The plan includes construction of a settling The Cuyahoga basin is highly developed. basin in the Cuyahoga River upstream from Cleveland, one of the major industrial centers the channels. of the United States, is located in Cuyahoga The Buffalo District of the Corps of En- County and lies partly within the basin. The gineers, published in July- 1968 a flood plain remainder of that part of the flood plain in information report on Cuyahoga River, Big Cuyahoga County is predominantly industrial Creek, and Tinkers Creek, all within and commercial in character. The flood plain Cuyahoga County. It was prepared in re- has developed rapidly in recent years, due to sponse to a request from the Cuyahoga County the accessibility of highway and railroad Regional Planning Commission through the transportation and its close proximity to Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Its Cleveland. In the vicinity of Rockside Road purposes were to aid in the understanding of there is a scattering of residential units. The local flood problems and to provide guidance in small manufacturing cities of Ravenna, Kent, selection of the best uses for lands subject to and Cuyahoga Falls, and the major part of overflow. Among other things, it defines and Akron, an important industrial city, are lo- illustrates the'ake@l extent and profile of cated in the southern part of the Cuyahoga flooding that would be associated with recur- basin. The area adjacent to Akron contains rence of an intermediate regional flood (de- many small suburban residential com- fined as one of 100-year frequency-equal to munities. Other small villages scattered the January 1959 flood), recurrence of the throughout the basin serve primarily as trad- maximum flood of record (March 1913), and an ing centers for the rural areas of the wa- occurrence of the standard project flood. tershed. Some commercial development has The Board of County Commissioners, recently occurred at Mantua, one of the small Cuyahoga County, Ohio, acting with the com- villages in the upper Cuyahoga River. The missioners of six other counties in 1959, re- Cleveland and the Akron Metropolitan Park tained the Stanley Engineering Company to Districts have large holdings devoted to park prepare a report on "Flood Control Studies, and recreational purposes within the wa- Cuyahoga, Chagrin, and Rocky Rivers, Ohio." tershed limits in Cuyahoga and Summit Coun- The consulting engineers' report of August 15, ties respectively. The development of the re- 1960, recommended construction of a dam and mainder of the basin is agricultural. reservoir on Tinkers Creek. Channel im- The development in the flood plain along provement below Route 21 was also consid- Tinkers Creek is predominantly residential in 156 Appendix 14 character. There is alsd a sprinkling of com- Figure 14-47c identifies the time period in mercial buildings and a large undeveloped which major damages, as defined in this study, area on the left bank of the creek. A small are first noted within a given reach on the portion of the land has been cleared for ag- main stem and principal tributaries. Table ricultural purposes. 14-50 indicates the flood plain damages by The development along Big Creek near the reach corresponding to the reaches desig- confluence with the Cuyahoga River is com- nated in this figure. Table 14-51 shows up- mercial and industrial in character. The land stream flood damages. Location of these dam- is almost completely developed with buildings ages within particular watersheds may be very close to the creek banks. From a point seen in Figure 14-48c. Summations of esti- approximately one-half mile above the mouth, mated average annual damages and acres in extending upstream to West 25th Street the flood plain are shown by river basin in bridge, the flood plain is predominantly va- Table 14-52. County summaries for the main cant and inaccessible. A large industrial plant stem and principal tributaries are tabulated and the Cleveland Zoo cover a large portion of in Table 14-53. the flood plain above the West 25th Street bridge. Dairy farming is the principal agricultural 1.49.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention activity of the Cuyahoga basin. General farm Measures crops produced include timothy and clover hay, oats, corn, wheat, and potatoes. Fruit and There are no existing or authorized struc- nursery stock are produced in the northerly tural flood control projects within the study part of the basin. area. Federal funds have been used to con- Improved Federal, State, and county high- struct, improve, and maintain as a deep-draft ways traverse the area. The watershed is navigation channel the lower 5.8 miles of the served by one or more lines of four railroads, Cuyahoga River in Cleveland. Although that the Baltimore and Ohio; Erie-Lackawanna; project is not considered a flood control proj- Norfolk and Western; and Penn Central rail- ect, hydraulic studies indicate that as a re- roads. Three local lines at Cleveland handle sult of the navigation improvements, a re- freight between industrial plants and trunk currence of the 1913 flood in the lower 5.8 miles lines: Cuyahoga Valley Railway; Newburgh of the river would be confined within the and South Shore Railway; and River Terminal channel. Railway. At Akron the Akron and Barberton Runoff from the upper Cuyahoga River Belt Railroad serves the industrial plants, basin is modified to some extent by existing Commercial airfields regularly served by the reservoirs, the effects of which are felt some- large transportation lines are the Cleveland what downstream in the -study area. These Hopkins Airport, 12 miles southwest of Cleve- reservoirs provide domestic and industrial land; the Cleveland Lakefront Airport, near water supply and some flood control, and the mouth of the Cuyahoga; and the Akron- have been partially financed with Federal Canton Airport, 10 miles south of Akron. funds. They are briefly described as follows: (1) The Mogadore Reservoir, which controls 12 square miles of the headwaters of Little 1.49.4 Flood Problems Cuyahoga River, was constructed by the Works Project Administration and the City of Storms,,causing serious flooding in the Akron. The Federal share of total costs was Cuyahoga River basin, occurred in March $900,000. The reservoir supplies raw water to 191.3, June 1947, January 1952, October 1954, industries in Akron via the channel o-1 the Lit- and January 1959. Themaximum flood re- -tle Cuyahoga River. corded by the Independence gage on the (2) The East Branch Reservoir, located Cuyahoga River occurred in January 1959. north of Burton on the Cuyahoga River, regu- Heavy rain augmented by snowmelt caused lates river flow to Lake Rockwell Reservoir, extensive damage in the lower Cuyahoga the principal water supply reservoir of the River basin. The peak discharge at the gage is City of Akron. The Federal share of total costs calculated to have been 23,000 efs. The was $258,000. The reservoir impounds approx- maximum flood of historical record occurred imately 4,600 acre-feet of water from a drain- in March 1913. The peak discharge for that age area of approximately 18 square miles. flood is estimated to have been 30,000 efs at the (3) The Lake Rockwell Reservoir on the gage site. Cuyahoga River is located approximately 2 Flood Plains Inventory 157 miles northeast of Kent and was constructed miles, then north-northeasterly 5 miles, and by the City of Akron for water supply. It con- then westerly 9 miles to its junction with the trols 205 square miles of drainage area and main stem 5 miles upstream from Lake Erie. has a considerable modifying effect on floods Other tributaries are of short length and in the upper basin. drain small areas. (4) The La Due Reservoir is located just The watershed, except for a gently sloping north of Hiram Rapids and controls approxi- plain four miles wide bordering on Lake Erie, mately 30 square miles of drainage area. The consists of rolling hills separated by deep val- reservoir was also constructed by the City of leys. The valleys, except near the headwaters, Akron for water supply. vary from 100 to 300 feet deep and up to one- A project has been authorized for construc- half mile. in width. Hilltop elevations vary tion under P. L. 566 on the Black Brook wa- from 1,100 to 1,350 feet above mean sea level. tershed in Portage County, Ohio. The slopes of the hills and the abrupt shale Refer to Subsection 1.43.5 for a discussion of cliffs of the valleys are cut by numerous flood plain legislation applicable to this river streams and gullies. A few small natural lakes, basin. At present, Independence and ponds, and marshy areas are located in the Twinsburg, Ohio, are known to have flood headwaters. Bass Lake, the largest of the plain legislation as does the Township of lakes, approximately 3 miles southwest of Ravenna. Although the remaining com- Chardon, has a surface area of 0.2 square munities within the study area do not have miles. A small dam has been built on its outlet specific provisions to regulate building within to control the outflow. In the flood flats near the flood plain or to regulate the use of land the mouth, the stream divides into several with respect to flood risk, development within channels, two of which extend to the lake known flooded areas is usually discouraged by shore. During normal flows only one of these local governments unless construction is channels is open. The smaller, more eastern above known flood levels. one is closed by a sand bar. At times the sand bar also tends to close the main channel. The rocks underlying the Chagrin River 1.50 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group watershed are of sedimentary origin. There 4.3, Chagrin River Basin are outcrops of sandstone or shale formations at many points along the main stem and tributaries. Outcroppings of the Berea Grit 1.50.1 Description (sandstone) form the upper and lower cataracts at Chagrin Falls. Overburden of the The Chagrin River drains an area of 268 watershed derives from glacial till. Alluvial square miles in northeastern Ohio and flows deposits, derived from erosion of the till and into Lake Erie 15 miles east of Cleveland. The exposed rock formations, are present along watershed is elliptical in shape, approximately the stream bottoms and comprise the flood 30 miles long north-to-south, and 17 miles wide flats near the mouth of the main stem. east-to-west. Location within River Basin The main stream has a number of falls and Group 4.3 is shown in Figure 14-46. The main rapids in the vicinity of Chagrin Falls, but stream rises one-half mile west of Chardon, from there to Lake Erie, it has a relatively Ohio, at an elevation of 1,340 feet above mean regular slope. sea level, flows southeasterly approximately 2 The Aurora Branch has abrupt breaks in miles and then southwesterly approximately 2 slope near its source and near its j unction with miles to Bass Lake. From there it flows 18 the main stem. The east branch has a gener- miles sourhwesterly to the confluence with ally regular and moderately steep slope the Aurora Branch and then north 26 miles to throughout. Lake Erie. The Aurora Branch, draining 57 square miles in the southern part of the basin, rises 3 1.50.2 Previous Studies miles southeast of Aurora Station at an eleva- tion of 1,150 feet, and flows north-north The Buffalo District of the Corps of En- westerly 16 miles to the junction with the gineers published a flood plain information main stream. The east branch, draining 51 report on Chagrin River in Lake and square miles in the northeastern part of the Cuyahoga Counties in July 1968. It was pre- basin, rises 2 miles west of Chardon at an ele- pared in response to a request of the Cuya- vation of 1,290 feet, and flows southwesterly 5 hoga County Regional Planning Commis- 158 Appendix 14 sion through the Ohio Department of Na- River are almost completely residential. One tural Resources. Its purposes were to aid in major exception is the area downstream from the understanding of local flood problems and Lake Shore Boulevard in the City of Eastlake to provide guidance in selection of the best where several small-boat marinas and a yacht uses for lands subject to overflow. Among club are located. Another is the area of light other things it defines and illustrates the industries just upstream from the Lakeland areal extent and profile of flooding that would Freeway bridges in the City of Willoughby. be associated with occurrence of an inter- Eastlake began to develop in 1922 as a recrea- mediate regional flood (defined as one of 100- tion and resort area. However, the summer year frequency), occurrence of a flood of the cottages soon were converted to year-round magnitude of the January 1959 flood, and an homes, and the area now contains primarily occurrence of the standard project flood. small residential units of frame construction. In May 1963 the Buffalo District completed The area has expanded greatly. New construc- a "Review of Reports for Flood Control and tion in the area has also gradually increased in Allied Purposes, Chagrin River, Ohio." size and value. Homes with basements are not The Board of County Commissioners, common so that damage is not serious at shal- Cuyahoga County, Ohio, acting with the com- low overflow depths. A large trailer court is missioners of six other counties in 1959, re- located on the downstream side of Lake Shore tained a consulting engineering firm to pre- Boulevard. The sewage treatment plant lo- pare a report on "Flood Control Studies, cated in the flood plain in Eastlake does not Cuyahoga, Chagrin and Rocky Rivers, Ohio." serve the homes in the flood-prone area. The The consulting engineers' report, dated Au- outfall for this plant extends several thousand gust 15, 1960, recommended improvement of feet into Lake Erie from the end of Erie Road. the lower 2 miles of river channel and con- The residences near the Chagrin River have struction of a pair of jetties to protect the individual septic tanks. Almost all local mouth of the river. The consultants concluded streets in the area are closed during flooding that flood detention reservoirs on the Chagrin as is Lake Shore Boulevard which crosses would not be feasible but that a reservoir site the channel. on the Aurora Branch possesses good poten- The Chagrin River valley from upstream of tial for a water supply reservoir. Willoughby to Chagrin Falls is relatively nar- Reports were submitted to Congress May 7, row and contains only scattered development. 1942, and April 24, 1947. Both were unfavor- Most of the area has been agricultural with able survey reports concerned with flood con- the flood-prone area either actively cultivated trol for the Chagrin River. In each case only or used as pasture and grazing land. Except in the area near the mouth was studied in detail, Willoughby Hills and Gates Mills, residential and considered improvements consisted of development is scattered with the majority of channel enlargement and straightening in the buildings above the valley floor. In Wil- lower mile of the river, and construction of loughby Hills approximately 50 homes in the parallel piers at the mouth. vicinity of Trailard Drive and 20 homes along One other report, the Preliminary Exami- Milan Drive are located within the flood plain. nation of the Shores of Lake Erie for Harbors Agricultural damage is not extensive and resi- and Harbors of Refuge for Light-Draft Ves- dential damage, outside of Willoughby Hills, is sels, dated July 18, 1946, is also pertinent to largely a matter of inconvenience. In the the present study. The mouth of the Chagrin areas of scattered development only a few of River, one of the localities studied in that re- the lowest-lying homes are affected. However, port, was recommended for further study when the lowlands become flooded the con- in a survey report on the proposed shallow necting roads are closed in several places. navigation improvements. The considered There are no large industries in the Chagrin improvement for the locality was similar to River basin. There are, however, several small that considered in the flood control studies manufacturing companies in Chagrin Falls under review, consisting of deepening and and Willoughby which produce paper bags, straightening in the lower reach of the river chairs, road machinery, commercial laundry and construction of parallel piers at the equipment, and machinery parts. mouth. Agricultural activities in the watershed in- clude production of nursery stock, truck crops, 1.50.3 Development in the Flood Plain fruits and berries, and general farm crops in support of dairying. General farm crops in- The flood-prone areas along the Chagrin clude timothy and clover hay, oats, corn, Flood Plains Inventory 159 wheat, and potatoes. water behind the jam and causes flooding of Improved Federal, State and county high- low areas in Willoughby and Eastlake. Jams ways traverse the area. The Penn Central may also form at sharp bends or at shoals in Railroad and the Norfolk and Western Rail- the river. Thus flooding often occurs in these way cross the basin in Willoughby. areas even when river discharges are low. Willoughby obtains some of its domestic Figure 14-47c identifies the time period in water supply from the Chagrin River. Other which majordamages, as defined inthis study, communities obtain their water from wells or are first noted within a given reach on the from Lake Erie via the Ohio Water Service main stem and principal tributaries. Table Company of the City of Cleveland. The river is 14-50 indicates the flood plain damages by used by all adjacent communities for disposal reach corresponding to the reaches desig- of sewage effluent. Pollution has not been re- nated in this figure. Table 14-51 shows up- ported as an impediment to other uses of wa- stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ter. There are several small developments for ages within particular watersheds may be power on the river, only two of which are pres- seen in Figure 14-48c. Summations of esti- ently operated for that purpose. The greater mated average annual damages and acres in part of the power demand in the region is the flood plain are shown by river basin in supplied by the Cleveland Electric Illuminat- Table 14-52. County summaries for the main ing Company, which has facilities fully stem and principal tributaries are tabulated adequate for present and prospective needs. in Table 14-53. The area from the Chagrin River mouth to Lake Shore Boulevard in Eastlake has been extensively developed for basing of small boats and is subject to heavy recreational 1.50.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention traffic. There are three boating clubs and four Measures commercial marine establishments. A private airport is located in Hunting Valley and a polo There are no existing Federal structural club is in Moreland Hills. flood control projects in this basin. In October 1960 residents of a flood area in the Village of Willoughby Hills completed a local channel improvement consisting of straightening a 1.50.4 Flood Problems short reach of existing channel and excavat- ing a section of a new channel across a mean- Records of stream flows and newspaper rec- der. Most of the necessary equipment and ords for periods when flows were not recorded labor was donated. The effectiveness of their indicate that major floods occurred in the work is not yet known, because no high dis- Chagrin River basin in March 1913, January charges have occurred since it was completed. 1929, June 1931, March 1948, October 1954, and During the summer local interests in January 1959. Floods have caused minor Eastlake attempt to keep a minimum naviga- basinwide damage or damage in parts of the tion channel open through the sand bar at the basin, particularly in the lowermost reaches, mouth of the Chagrin River. Usually this is at more frequent intervals. Most of the major accomplished by issuance of a permit to a floods have been due to rain on snow-covered commercial dredging concern to which the or frozen ground, resulting in rapid runoff sand has utilitarian value, so the material has equal to or greater than the rainfall. The been removed without charge. The life of each maximum recorded discharge, 28,000 cfs, oc- channel is short, and its effectiveness is gen- curred during the March 1948 flood as a result erally lost in the next major storm. of intense rainfall concentrated over the lower Present regulations for the communities in portion of the basin after prolonged cold the basins, with the exception of Willoughby weather. and Eastlake, do not have specific provisions In the lowermost reaches of the Chagrin to regulate building within the flood plain, or River, flooding is aggravated by the sand bar to regulate the use of land with respect to flood in Lake Erie across the river mouth. The bar risk. However, such regulations are possible affects river stages during high discharges, through counties, municipalities, and town- hampers small boat operation, and in the ships under their regular zoning and building spring restricts passage of river ice. River ice code statutes. Refer to Subsection 1.43.5 for a jammed on the bar, often combined with wind- discussion of flood plain legislation applicable rowed ice piled up by the Lake, impounds to this river basin. 160 Appendix 14 1.51 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group It is also a commercial lake fishing center. 4.3, Grand River Basin Painesville is a manufacturing, commercial, and transportation center. The upper or southern end of the Grand River valley has 1.51.1 Description large areas of swamp and brush land. Agricul- ture has developed in the valley bottom to only The Grand River originates northwest of a moderate degree. Dairy farming, the princi- Warren, Ohio. It flows generally in a north pal agricultural pursuit, and truck gardening direction for 25 miles from its source, then are developed in the middle and lower reaches west another 20 miles to Painesville, Ohio. It of the valley. Vineyards and orchards thrive in enters Lake Erie at Fairport Harbor. Location the lower valley where the length of the grbw- within River Basin Group 4.3 is shown in Fig- ing season is increased by proximity to Lake ure 14-46. There are numerous small Erie. tributaries, but no major ones. The river is largely in its natural state except for the de- 1.51.4 Flood Problems velopment of Fairport Harbor at its mouth, a mill dam at Painesville, and a water supply Flood events at Painesville have been re- dam at Harpersfield. ported as early as 1823, with fairly continuous newspaper accounts since 1849. During this 1.51.2 Previous Studies period prior to records the highest flood prob- ably occurred in 1887 and the second highest Previous studies are listed below: in March 1913. The discharges at Painesville (1) 1972-flood-prone area report for por- for these two floods are estimated to be 22,500 tions of the Grand River and Cowles Creek and 20,500 efs, respectively, as compared with (2) 1969-flood-prone area report for por- a discharge of approximately 10,000 efs at tions of the Grand River and Ashtabula River flood stage. Other high floods occurred in 1878 (3) 1965-Review of Reports on Lake and 1893. The maximum flood of record oc- Erie-Ohio River Canal, Pittsburgh- curred on January 22, 1959, and had a dis- Ashtabula Route via Beaver-Mahoning- charge of 21,100 efs at the gaging station near Grand River Valleys. Although this report Madison. concluded that the canal was economically Figure 14-47c identifies the time period in feasible, approval of the report by higher au- which major damages, as defined in this study, thority was not received. are first noted within a given reach on the (4) 1959-Great Lakes Harbors Study, main stem and principal tributaries. Table Interim Report on Fairport Harbor, Ohio. The 14-50 indicates the flood plain damages by report recommended modification of the exist- reach corresponding to the reaches desig- ing project for Fairport Harbor to provide nated in this figure. Table 14-51 indicates up- depths of 29 feet in the approach channel, 28 stream flood damages. Location of these dam- feet in the outer harbor, 27 and 28 feet in the ages within particular watersheds may be Grand River except in the 8-foot section of the seen in Figure 14-48c. Summations of esti- existing project, and 21 feet in an enlarged mated average annual damages and acres in turning basin. the flood plain are shown by river basin in (5) 1947-Review of Reports on Lake and Table 14-52. County summaries for the main Ohio River Canal, Pitt sb urgh-As htabul a stem and principal -tributaries are tabulated Route. The report concluded that the con- in Table 14-53. struction of a canal to connect Lake Erie with the Ohio River is practicable from engineering 1.51.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention and navigation viewpoints and that the bene- Measures fits that would result would be sufficient to justify construction of the canal. There have been no Federal structural flood control or allied projects constructed, and none are anticipated at this time within the 1.51.3 Development in the Flood Plain Grand River basin, except for the harbor de- velopment at the river mouth. The Grand River valley contains practically Refer to Subsection 1.43.5 for a discussion of no industrial development except for Fairport flood plain legislation applicable to this river Harbor at the mouth of the river on Lake Erie. basin. Flood Plains Inventory 161 1.52 Lake Erie Central, River Basin Group high flows in Thatcher Run and probably some 4.3, Conneaut Creek Basin high water in Conneaut Creek. Figure 14-47c identifies the time period in which major damages, as defined in this study, 1.52.1 Description are first noted within a given reach on the main stem and principal tributaries. Table Conneaut Creek rises in Crawford County, 14-50 indicates the flood plain damages by Pennsylvania, near Conneautville and reach corresponding to the reaches desig- flows northerly for 28 miles where it turns nated in this figure. Table 14-51 shows up- west for 22 miles, crossing the Ohio- stream flood damages. Location of these dam- Pennsylvania border. The creek then turns ages within particular watersheds may be east-northeast and flows 13 miles to Con- seen in Figure 14-48c. Summations of esti- neaut, Ohio, where it empties in Lake Erie. It mated average annual damages and acres in drains approximately 100,000 acres in Penn- the flood plain are shown by river basin in sylvania and 24,000 acres in Ohio. Location Table 14-52. County summaries for the main within River Basin Group 4.3 is shown in Fig- stem and principal tributaries are tabulated ure 14-46. in Table 14-53. 1.52.2 Previous Studies 1.52.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures Previous studies are listed below: (1) a flood-prone area report on portions of There are no Federal flood control or allied Conneaut Creek, published in 1970 projects constructed nor are any anticipated (2) a Survey Report for Flood Control on at this time within the Conneaut Creek basin. Conneaut Creek in the vicinity of Conneaut- A clearing and snagging project in the ville, Pennsylvania, dated 1966 Borough of Conneautville was completed in 1949 at a Federal cost of $13,500. In 1962 the Borough of Conneautville began replacement 1.52.3 Development in the Flood Plain of the 600-foot culvert which carries Thatcher Run under the business district. Work was There is a furniture factory in the Borough started on the upstream end and approxi- of Conneautville where wood is glued into mately 210 feet of 7-foot diameter corrugated sheets and shipped to another location. There metal pipe was installed. The project was are two grocery stores, a lumber yard, a bank, stopped after available funds were expended and other assorted small commercial estab- and no further work has been done. The loca- lishments in the community. Many of these tion of this project is illustrated in Figure establishments are in the center of the town 14-49. where they receive some damage from flood- Refer to Subsection 1.43.5 for a discussion of ing. flood plain legislation applicable to this basin. 1.52.4 Flood Problems 1.53 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, 1 Erie County, Pennsylvania The Borough of Conneautville is subject to flooding from Conneaut Creek and from a Erie and Crawford Counties are the only small tributary, Thatcher Run. Flooding oc- counties in Pennsylvania that are within the curs biennially to some degree and is usually Great Lakes Basin. The portion of Erie County caused by intense warm weather storms. On draining into Conneaut Creek and. Crawford July 24, 1967, a flash flood on Thatcher Run County as it relates to Conneaut Creek are causes relatively high damages in Conneaut- discussed with River Basin Group 4.3 in Sub- ville. On August 3, 1967, a flood on Conneaut section 1.52. Creek in Conneautville caused severe flood- Tributaries in Erie County include Elk, ing. Severe flooding also occurred in October Walnut, Crooked, Turkey, and Raccoon 1954, June 1947, July 1941, and June 1937. The Creeks. Elk Creek and Walnut Creek are the 1954 highwater occurrence was caused by largest of these, draining areas of approxi- high flows in Conneaut Creek alone, while mately 99 square miles and 38 square miles, other highwater occurrences were caused by respectively. Crooked Creek drains 20 square 162 Appendix 14 6&, 0 ".@ I AlhtabW. AV, 0 G--a -po,t H@ ------------I z Willoughby > CC)l East Lake t ------------ ASHTABUtAl C I n Lorain c Black Rivei Twinsburg Ely"a t GCAUGA - - --------- ------- -- ---------- l(Ob,ertin CUYAH OGA 0 We Ifington Medina 0 R-n- LORAIN on LEGEND BOUNDARIES MEDINA PORTAGE STATE COUNTY SUMMIT PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION M ASURES CHANNEL DIVERSION CHANNELIMPROVEMENT -Al LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS INSTITUTIONAL '4'* RESERVOIR PL-566 WATERSHED PROJECT SCALE IN MILES F-@@ 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-49 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.3 Flood Plains Inventory 163 miles, Turkey Creek 8 square miles, and Rac- lated land resources in the Erie-Niagara ba- coon Creek 9 square miles. All are direct sin. tributaries to Lake Erie. Location within (2) 1965-A flood plain information report on River Basin Group 4.4 is shown in Figure Smokes Creek within the City of Lackawanna 14-50. was completed by the Corps of Engineers in There are no known published flood control February 1965. It was prepared in response to reports for the Great Lakes Basin within Erie a request of the Erie-Niagara Basin Regional County. Water Resources Planning Board. Its pur- There are no major flood problems existing poses were to aid in the understanding of local in the area at this time. Table 14-55 indicates flood problems and to provide guidance in estimated damages by watersheds which are selection of the best uses for lands subject to identified in Figure 14-52c. Summations of es- overflow. timated average annual damages and acres in (3) 1959-A review report on Smokes Creek the flood plain are shown by river basin in for flood control in the vicinity of Lack- Table 14-56. awanna, New York, was submitted by the There are no existing structural flood con- District Engineer to the Division Engineer in trol measures in the area. Refer to Appendix compliance with resolutions of the Committee S20, State Laws, Policies, and Institutional on Public Works of the House of Repre- Arrangements, for a discussion of flood plain sentatives and the Committee on Public legislation. Works of the United States Senate, adopted on March 16,1954, and May 16,1955, respectively. This review report was submitted to Congress 1.54 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, on July 8, 1959, and published in House Docu- Smokes Creek Basin ment No. 200, 86th Congress, Ist Session. It recommended that a Federal project be au- thorized for flood protection at Smokes Creek, 1.54.1 Description New York. (4) 1956-The report of the New England- The Smokes Creek basin, located entirely New York Inter-Agency Committee was sub- within Erie County, New York, includes the mitted to Congress June 18, 1956, and printed Village of Orchard Park, parts of the City of as Senate Document No. 14, 85th Congress, 1st Lackawanna, the Village of Blasdell, and the Session. It recommended study of Smokes Towns of Aurora, Elma, Hamburg, Orchard Creek but did not discuss plans of improve- Park, and West Seneca. Location within River ment. Basin Group 4.4 is shown in Figure 14-50. (5) 1942-A preliminary examination, The two branches of the creek rise on the which considered channel improvements and north slope of the Allegheny Plateau and flow reservoirs for the protection of the City of in a generally northwesterly direction across Lackawanna, was submitted to Congress the Lake Erie plain to their junction in the March 18, 1942. No plan was found to be fea- City of Lackawanna. The main stem then sible, and no project was recommended. The flows westward 1.7 miles to enter Lake Erie 6 report was not printed. miles south of the point where the Lake empties into the Niagara River at Buffalo. Stream slopes in this basin follow the general 1.54.3 Development in the Flood Plain topography closely and the flood plain is very poorly defined. Smokes Creek drains 31 square The Lackawanna plant of the Bethlehem miles at the confluence, divided nearly equally Steel Company occupies both banks of the between the north and south branches. lower 1.1 miles of Smokes Creek. The company has raised the general level of the area and is continuing to fill offshore areas in the Lake. 1.54.2 Previous Studies None of the Bethlehem property was damaged during past floods because the buildings were Three reports concerning local flood protec- situated on fills above the maximum flood ele- tion on Smokes Creek have been submitted vations. For its manufacturing operations the and are included in the listing below: company pumps large quantities (up to 400 efs) (1) 1970-The Erie-Niagara Basin Planning of water from Lake Erie. Much of this is dis- Board published its basin plan in 1970 for de- charged through an open ditch and pipes to velopment and management of water and re- Smokes Creek. The steel company provides 164 Appendix 14 LAKE ONTARIO z NIAGARA Z* rt Niag ra Fa Is N onawanda leek WIQ, Grand I and ONAWANDA-BUIVALID Batavia* 'Buffalo- &e* s Elli@Ott C, Sc.i.o..da Cr Lancas tDP1 % @@ @@ Eas t Aur ra o HambLir 'm C'. Sp ringvii le cat Dunkirk ERIE CATTARAUGUS 0 Fredonia V Nips &- __j W t teld z Presque Isle 0 Salamanca Eric @ Jamestown Olean z Z: Z uJ CHAUTAUQUA NEWYORK CATTARAUGUS CL L_ - - I PENNSYLVANIA z 0 Corry Uj Union City 0 ERIE T@ - LEGEND _7 @ICINIT@ MAP BOUNDARIES sc, Ir, .11FS 0 51, W. STATE COUNTY @41r I PLANNINGAREA RIVER BASIN GROUP w, RIVER BASIN /----- -- OR COMPLEX SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-50 Lake Erie East-River Basin Group 4.4 Flood Plains Inventory 165 TABLE 14-54 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.4 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N _j _j = AVERAGE ANNUAL c'm c'm d S c@' REACH TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES Uj CODE V) W Uj W W FROM TO (DOLL RS) =D X: 2 2 C= 7: v' v'Lj c" URBAN RURAL C3 LLJ UJ Uj URBANIRURAL CATTARAUGUS CREEK BLI Erie Mouth Erie-Wyo- 1970 14,400 18,600 3 30 4648 39 4,642 Ming Co. 1980 20,100 28,800 3 33 4645 43 4,638 Line 2000 38,700 59,300 4 39 4638 51 4,630 2020 73,500 121,200 4 44 4633 57 4,624 BLla Erie Gowanda 1970 2,800 11 42 68 121 1980 4,100 12 47 62 121 2000 8,500 14 56 52 121 2020 17,700 16 62 43 121 BL2 Chautauqux Mouth Chautauqua 1970 23,400 5,000 7 45 182 833 322 745 Catt Co. 1980 33,300 7,100 a 50 1009 342 725 Line 2000 64,600 14,000 9 58 1000 380 637 2020 124,200 26,700 10 67 990 406 661 BL3 Cattarau- C71sautaqua- Cattarau- 1970 3,800 2056 2,056 gus Cattaragus gus-Wyo- 1980 6,700 2056 2,056 Co. Line Ming Co. 2000 12,800 2056 2,056 Line 2020 24,500 2056 2,056 BL3A Cattarau- Gowanda 1970 32,000 60 90 103 253 gus 1980 44,500 61 100 92 253 2000 86,100 63 117 73 253 2020 163,600 64 133 56 253 BL4 @yoming Catt-Wyo- Arcade 1970 5,500 24 77 387 161 337 Ming Co. City 1980 7,500 26 85 387 178 320 Line Limit 2000 15,300 31 100 367 209 289 2020 28,400 36 114 348 239 259 BIG SISTER CREEK BMI Erie Mouth Interstate 1970 5,300 10 390 400 90 1980 7,700 11 389 400 2000 16,100 13 387 400 2020 33,400 15 385 400 SMOKES CREEK BM2 Erie Mouth Orchard 1970 12,800 23 812 835 Park 1980 18,700 26 809 835 2000 39,300 30 805 835 2020 80,300 34 801 835 BM2A Erie Lackawanna 1970 16,000 120 200 135 455 1980 23,500 120 200 135 455 2000 49,100 120 200 135 455 2020 100,600 120 200 135 455 CAZENOVIA CREEK BM3 Erie Confluence Holland 1970 88,300 22,900 55 135 2705 480 2,415 with Buffa- 1980 129,800 36,600 61 172 2662 532 2,363 lo River 2000 270,200 76,400 71 202 2622 624 2,271 2020 555,400 156,700 81 230 2584 711 2,184 BM3A Erie Buffalo 1970 66,000 20 250 290 560 1980 97,000 20 250 290 560 1 2000 202,000 20 250 290 560 BUFFALO @EV 2020- 415,000 20 250 290 560 BM4 Erie Confluence Erie-Wyo- 1970 16,200 12,300 30 170 1450 400 1,250 ith Buffal Ming Co. 1980 23,800 18,100 33 189 1428 444 1,206 0River ILine 2000 49,500 37,600 39 221 1390 520 1,130 2020 101,900 77,300 44 252 1358 592 1,058 166 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-54(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 4.4 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLA IN _J _J = AVERAGE ANNUAL -'a 'X zx C3 REACH TOTAL REMARKS CODE COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES 255 -X UJ FROM TO (DOLLARS) 2 M, @M_ 2: V) V U C@ URBAN RURAL C:) LLJ Uj' ul URBAN RURAL CAYUGA C XK BM5 Erie "'onfluence Erie-Wyo- 1970 47,000 7,000 56 187 2718 1776 1,184 with Buff ming Co. 1980 69,100 10,300 62 207 2641 1776 1,184 lo River Line 2000 143,900 21,500 73 243 2644 1776 1 184 2020 295,600 44,100 83 277 2600 1776 1:184 ZLLICOTT CREEK BM6 Erie Conflu nce Erie-Gene- 1970 217,000 5,800 262 3670 10588 9588 4,832 with Tona- see Co. 1980 319,000 8,500 291 4073 10059 10641 3,779 wanda Crk Line 2000 664,100 17,700 341 4771 1130@ 12464 1,956 2020 1,365,000 14,500 388 5432 8600 14190 230 TONAWANDA CREEK I BM7 Erie Mouth Erie-Gene- 1970 34,300 109,200 125 562 /14.')g 687 21,450 see Co. 1980 50,500 160,500 139 624 21374 763 21,374 Line 2000 105,100 333,900 162 731 2124@ 893 21,244 2020 272,700 686,400 185 832 21120 1017 21,120 1 BM8 Niagara Mouth Niagara- 1970 45,800 85,400 65 852 LIV-11 917 21,037 Genesee Co 1980 66,900 124,700 73 945 2093@ 1017 20,937 Line 2000 155,000 288,800 85 1101 20762 1192 20,762 2020 360,300 671,500 96 1261 20597 1397 20,597 BM9 Genesee Erie - Genesee- 1970 7,300 45,500 14 133 12881 147 12,888 Niagara Wyoming 1980 10,300 63,900 15 148 12872 163 12,872 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 21,800 135,100 18 173 12844 191 12,844 2020 43,300 268,600 21 197 12817 118 12,817 SCAJAQUADA CREEK BM10 Erie Confluence Lancaster 1970 228,200 260 2772 500 3532 with 1980 335,500 260 2872 400 3532 Niagara 2000 698,300 260 2972 300 3532 River 2020 1,435,400 260 2972 300 3532 sedimentation basins for its effluent. How- cipally along Electric and South Park Av- ever, the natural creek sediment, plus a enues. Between the north and south branches certain amount of sediment which escapes the just east of South Park Avenue lies a large, sedimentation basins, creates shoal areas relatively undeveloped tract also belonging to near the mouth of the creek which must be the Diocese of Buffalo. The Diocese plans to removed from time to time. Littoral drift from develop a large portion of this land as a ceme- the west along the shore of Lake Erie also tery sometime in the future. forms an obstructive bar across the mouth of the creek. Upstream from Hamburg Turnpike, the 1.54.4 Flood Problems main stem is bordered on the south bank by a residential area known as Bethlehem Park, Since industrial development of the basin and on the north by industrial development. was begun in aproximately 1900, major flood- From Bethlehem Park to 0.1 mile beyond the ing has been reported in 1903, 1936, 1937, 1953, confluence (a distance of approximately 1,600 1955, 1956, and 1957, with minor flooding at feet), the flood plain lies completely within more frequent intervals. The greatest flood, railroad property. Except for the Holy Cross according to available information, was that Cemetery, owned by the Diocese of Buffalo of March 1, 1955, when 2.3 inches of rainfall in and lying east of South Park Avenue, the re- eight hours on frozen ground produced a peak maining development in the flood plain is resi- inflow of 4,900 cfs into the flood area at Lack- dential or commerical in nature. Commercial awanna. A rainfall of slightly more than 2 establishments make up a small percentage of inches in six hours fell on saturated ground the total development and are centered prin- May 25, 1953, and produced a peak inflow of Flood Plains Inventory 167 TABLE 14-55 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 4.4 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN a a -A 4 _J W CC AVERAGE ANNUAL 0 W DAMAGES Z W W< D _J Z TOTAL W YEAR (DOLLARS) a M I--- W MW V) 0 Ir 0 0 D 4 Z < 0 0 TO 3: URBAN 1RURALITOTAL Z URBANIRURAL I I ERIE CHAUTAUQUA COMPLEX - PENNSYLVANIA 31 1970 1,200 2,400 3,600 300 240 120 30 20 10 60 660 32 1970 too 700 800 45 135 8 8 180 33 1970 200 1,800 2,000 100 250 100 15 15 450 34 1970 5,000 2,800 7,800 550 100 50 50 175 25 250 700 Total 1970 6,500 7,700 14,200 950 635 405 80 195 58 333 1,990 1980 8,500 10,700 19,200 950 635 405 80 195 58 333 1,990 2000 14,600 13,700 28,300 950 635 405 80 195 58 333 1,990 2020 26,000 15,000 41,000 950 635 405 80 195 58 333 1,990 CATTARAUGUS CREEK - NEW YORK 44 1970 25,000 13,300 38,300 2,655 1,630 400 525 10 160 10 180 5,210 55 1970 200 1,000 1,200 105 456 120 80 - 6 6 761 Total 1970 2_5 _,200 14,300 39,500 2, 7-6 0 2,086 520 @0_5 10 166 10 186 5,971 1980 32,800 20,000 52,800 2,760 2,086 520 605 10 166 10 186 5,971 2000 56,400 25,500 81,900 2,760 2,086 520 605 10 166 10 186 5,971 2020 100,800 27,900 128,700 2,760 2,086 520 605 10 166 10 186 5,971 1 1 ERIE - CHAUTAUQUA COMPLEX - NEW YORK 114 1970 1,000 500 1,500 1,230 160 123 50 450 950 100 1,500 1,563 114A 1970 1,000 1,000 30 to 5 5 5 15 40 38 1970 500 900 1,400 225 50 25 100 50 50 200 300 197 1970 500 500 100 40 15 10 - - -::_ 165 Total 1970 2,500 11900 4,400 1, 5-8 5 260 138 85 555 1,005 155 1,715 2,068 1980 3,200 2,700 5,900 1,585 260 138 85 555 1,005 155 1,715 2,068 2000 5,600 3,400 9,000 1,585 260 138 85 555 1,005 155 1,715 2,068 2020 10,000 3,700 13,700 1,585 260 138 85 555 1,005 155 1,715 2,068 TONAWANDA COMPLEX - NEW YORK 56 1970 400 400 90 90 180 1 1970 38,000 400 38,400 40 40 10 10 10 30 40 100 203 1970 500 500 200 150 30 380 57 1970 800 800 240 20 75 90 - - 425 148 1970 4,700 300 5,000 50 40 5 5 10 35 5 50 100 240 1970 2,000 7,000 9,000 515 275 180 360 10 10 1,330 241 1970 2,700 2,700 540 650 130 1,320 241A 1970 33,600 33,600 1,200 660 610 2,230 4,700 242 1970 100 100 5 25 30 243 1970 3,000 100 3,100 40 5 5 10 20 20 50 50 245 1970 2,000 2,000 4,000 400 50 100 330 5 5 15 25 880 Total 1970 49,700 47 900 -9-7-60-0 3- 320 T 9-80 9-85 _3 2-10 -35 _16-0 40 175 9,495 1980 64,600 67,100 131,700 3,320 1,980 985 3,210 35 100 40 175 9,495 2000 111,300 85,300 196,600 3,320 1,980 985 3,210 35 100 40 175 9,495 2020 1,981.800 93,400 292,200 3,320 1,980 985 3,210 35 100 40 175 9,495 4,150 efs. In March 1957 a rainfall of 2.2 inches seen in Figure '14-52c. Summations of esti- on partially frozen ground resulted in a peak mated average annual damages and acres in inflow of 3,700 cfs. As a result of clearing and the flood plain are shown by river basin in snagging operations in 1954, stages in the 1955 Table 14-56. County summaries for the main flood were approximately the same as in 1953, stem and principal tributaries are tabulated although the flows were greater in 1955. in Table 14-57. Figure 14-51c identifies the time period in which major damages, as defined in this study, are first noted within a given reach on the 1.54.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention main stem and principal tributaries. Table Measures 14-54 indicates the flood plain damages by reach corresponding to the reaches desig- A structural flood control project was com- nated in this figure. Table '14-55 shows up- pleted on Smokes Creek in August 1970. The stream flood damages. Location of these dam- improvements consisted principally of chan- ages within particular watersheds may be nel enlargement on the entire main stem and 168 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-56 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 4.4 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban -Ru-ral Urban Rural Erie-Chautauqua 1970 9,000 9,600 2,048 4,058 Complex 1980 11,700 13,400 2,048 4,058 2000 20,200 17,100 2,048 4,058 2020 36,000 18,700 2,048 4,058 Cattaraugus 1970 103,300 41,700 1,082 13,751 Creek 1980 142,300 62,600 1,123 13,710 2000 269,600 111,600 1,200 13,633 2020 508,200 20OY300 1,262 13,571 Tonawanda- 1970 587,600 354,100 15,185 75,786 Buffalo' 1980 854,500 516,100 16,526 74,445 Complex 2000 1,772,000 1,051,700 18,850 72,121 2020 3y7O8,700 2,126,200 21y051 69,920 Scajaquada 1970 228,200 --- 3,532 --- Creek 1980 335,500 --- 3,532 --- 2000 698,300 --- 35532 2020 1,435,400 --- 32532 --- TOTAL 1970 928,100 405,400 21,847 93,595 1980 1,344,00o 592-,100 23,229 92,213 2000 2,760,100 1,180,400 25,630 89,812 2020 5,688,300 2,345,200 27,893 87,549 the lower reaches of the north and south $49,200. Local interests were not required to branches. Location of the prevention measure provide a guarantee of maintenance. No is illustrated in Figure 14-53. To obtain the further work will be done under this author- required channel area for flood flows without ity. replacing a large number of bridges, t 'he proj- The City of Lackawanna sponsored a Works ect plan called for considerable channel Project Administration project under which deepening as well as widening. At the mouth the north branch was straightened between of the creek, jetties were constructed on each South Park Avenue and the Baltimore and side of the channel to prevent obstruction of Ohio Railroad. As a result of this improve- the mouth by littoral drift. The project plan ment, the area flooded by the north branch in was designed to provide a nondamaging chan- 1955 was less than that flooded in 1936, al@ nel capacity of 2,500 cfs on each branch and though the rate of discharge was greater in 5,000 efs on the main stem at the confluence. 1955. Two short overflow channels have been This provides protection against a 40-year constructed, one by the city on the south flood on the main stem and a 30-year flood on branch upstream from South Park Avenue each branch. The project was limited to this and the other by Bethlehem Steel Company degree of protection by the maximum capacity near the mouth. Both provide additional ca- of many of the existing bridges, particularly at pacity for high flows and both are dry at nor- the lower end in BethlehemSteel Company mal flows. property. When these bridges are eventually Present regulations for communities do not replaced with bridges of greater clearance, the include specific provisions to regulate build- project will be able to carry higher discharges ing within the flood plain or to regulate the use without additional damage. Clearing and of land with respect to flood risk, although snagging was done on the main stem and its development within known flood areas is usu- two branches between Hamburg Turnpike ally discouraged by local governments. and South Park Avenue in 1954 at a cost of Although zoning regulations have been in Flood Plains Inventory 169 TABLE 14-57 River Basin Group 4.4, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County Urban Rural Urban Rural New York Cattaraugus 32,000 3,800 253 2,056 Chautauqua 23,400 5,000 322 745 Erie 730,200 193,900 17,638 37,008 Genesee (PSA 5.1) 7,300 45,500 147 12,888 Niagara 45,800 85,400 917 21,037 Wyoming (PSA 5.1) 5,500 --- 161 337 Pennsylvania Erie (See RBG 4.3) --- --- --- --- TOTALS 844,200 333,600 19,438 74,071 YEAR 1980 New York Cattaraugus 44,500 6,700 253 2,056 Chautauqua 33,300 7,100 342 725 Erie 1,072,400 289,200 18,867 35,779 Genesee (PSA 5.1) 10,300 63,900 163 12,872 Niagara 66,900 124,700 1,017 20,937 Wyoming (PSA 5.1) 7,500 --- 178 320 Pennsylvania Erie (See RBG 4.3) --- --- --- --- TOTALS 1,234,900 491,600 20,820 72,689 YEAR 2000 New York Cattaraugus 86,100 12,800 253 2,056 Chautauqua 64,600 14,000 380 687 Erie 2,229,400 601,800 20,996 33,650 Genesee (PSA 5.1) 21,800 135,100 191 12,844 Niagara 155,000 288,800 1,192 20,762 Wyoming (PSA 5.1) 15,300 --- 209 289 Pennsylvania Erie (See RBG 4.3) --- --- --- --- TOTALS 2,572,200 1,052,500 23,221 70,288 YEAR 2020 New York Cattaraugus 163,600 24,500 253 2,056 Chautauqua 124,200 26,700 406 661 Erie 4,632,900 1,213,900 23,011 '31,635 Genesee (PSA 5.1) 43,300 268,600 218 12,817 Niagara 360,300 671,500 1,357 20,597 Wyoming (PSA 5.1) 28,400 --- 239 259 Pennsylvania Erie (See RBG 4.3) --- --- --- --- TOTALS 5,352,700 2,205,200 25,484 68,025 On main stem and principal tributaries 170 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-57A River Basin Group 4.4, Average Annual Flood Damages (Auxiliary Data) Stream 1967 1980 2020 Tonawanda Creek $ 463,400 $ 491,000 $ 521,900 Bull Creek 13,500 18,900 34,100 Ellicott Creek 244,500 761,300 1,640,000 Scajaquada Creek 185,500 200,000 234,000 Cayuga Creek 36,400 213,200 218,800 Buffalo Creek 38,400 78,800 120,200 Cazenovia Creek 181,200 209,600 241,400 Tannery Brook 19,500 19,500 19,500 Smokes Creek 22,700 37,200 50,400 North Branch 18 Mile Creek 2,600 7,100 43,400 Cattaraugus Creek At Gowanda 321,000 321,000 321,000 At Mouth 33,400 45,500 71,400 Thatcher Brook 4,400 4,400 4,400 TOTALS $1,566,500 $2,407,800 $3,520,500 This table from the Erie-Niagara River Basin Report is supplied by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Differences in this table and those previously presented occur as a consequence of variances in study criteria, principally methodology of damage projection. The Erie-Chautauqua complex is not included in the above totals. effect for the communities within this study not meant to regulate the flood plain, it does area for a number of years, there are no provi- help prevent encroachment of streams, sions that regulate the use of land with re- thereby helping to reduce future flood dam- spect to flood risk. However, the State of New ages. Part IIIA states, in part, that no person York enabling statutes that permit city zon- or public corporation shall change, modify, or ing specify in Chapter 21, Article 2-A, Section disturb the course, channel or bed of any 24, that "such regulations shall be designed to stream or shall erect, reconstruct, or repair secure safety from fire, floods and other dan- any dam or impoundment structure without a gers, and to promote the public health and permit from the Department of Environmen- welfare . . . ... The State of New Yoik Town tal Conservation (formerly from the Water Law, Section 263, states "such regulations Resources Commission). The full text of the shall be made in accordance with comprehen- Act can be found in Chapter 955 Sections 429 sive plan and design to lessen congestion in a-g of the Laws of New York State 1965. the street to secure safety from fire, floods, While Federal agencies can prevent unwise panic and other dangers to promote health Federal and Federally assisted construction .and general welfare. . . ." Also, Section 277, in the flood plains and provide information concerning planning boards and official maps, and guidance on flood hazard areas, State and states that "land shown on such plats shall be local leadership. in flood plain management is of such a character that it can be used safely essential if flood plain management is to be- for building purposes without danger to come effective. Regulations of flood plain health or peril from fire, flood or other usage by zoning, subdivision regulations, menace." The 1965 Legislature of New York building codes, and other police power meas- State passed amendments adding Part IIIA, ures can be done only by State or local gov- Use and Protection of Waters, to Article 5 of ernments. Legislation should be passed by the the Conservation Law. Although Part IIIA is State of New York requiring local com- Flood Plains Inventory 171 LAKE ONTARIO .z NIAGARA Lockport Niag ra Fa I 0 N ona@anda eek L -IZN- Grand I d atavia 0" Ellico" S u a I Sc.i.q..d. C,eek C1 Cl Eas Hann rg Springville. Cal"a" a Dunkirk ERIE 4- 0 Fredonia,,-- "'- --j We trie-ld J z Presque I'l < 0 Salamanca Erie @ James @n 00jean z z z LIJ CHAUTAUQUA NEWYORK CATTARAUGUS CL L -- --j- I PENNSYLVANIA z 0 Corry Uj ERIE Union City 0 a. LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP VICINITY MAP SCAL MMUES PROTECTION MEASURES 0 '90 iG" n@z CHANNEL DIVERSION CHANNELIMPROVEMENT LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS INSTITUTIONAL RESERVOIR FLOOD PREVENTION PROJECT SCALE IN MILES I- - ----- ---- 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-53 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 4.4 172 Appendix 14 munities with existing or potential flood prob- surface is interrupted by three east-west lems to establish flood plain regulations. As- trending escarpments known as the Niagara, sistance is available through the Corps of Onondaga, and Portage Escarpments, the lat- Engineers'Flood Plain Management Services ter forming the northern edge of the Al- program. Refer to Appendix S20, State Laws, legheny Plateau. The lowland belts delineated Policies, and Institutional Arrangements, for by the escarpments are named, from north to a discussion of flood plain legislation. Current south, the Ontario Plain, the Huron Plain, and land management and conservation programs the Lake Erie Plain. From its headwaters on should be continued and accelerated by local the Portage Escarpment, Ellicott Creek flows interests in cooperation with the Department over the Lake Erie Plain for approximately of Agriculture in order to reduce runoff from two-thirds of its length before cutting north- the rural lands in the basin. ward across the Onondaga Escarpment onto the Huron Plain, and thenjoiningthe Niagara River. The bedrock underlying the western portion 1.55 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, of the lowland consists of sedimentary strata: Ellicott Creek Basin limestone, dolomite, shale, siltstone, and sandstone. This bedrock surface is covered largely with glacial deposits associated with 1.55.1 Description Wisconsin stage glaciation. Ellicott Creek, the largest tributary of Ton- awan,da Creek, drains an area of approxi- 1.55.2 Previous Studies mately 110 square miles in Erie, Genesee, and Wyoming Counties. Location within River Previous studies are listed below: Basin Group 4.4 is shown in Figure 14-50. The (1) 1970-the Erie-Niagara Basin Planning source of the principal tributary, Elevenmile Board and its basin plan in 1970 for develop- Creek, is 22 miles east of Buffalo, at an ment and management of water and related elevation of 1,300 feet above mean sea level. It land resources in the Erie-Niagara basin joins Crooked Creek to form Ellicott Creek, (2) 1970-Survey Report for Flood Control which flows in a northwesterly direction into and Allied Purposes, Ellicott Creek, New the canalized section of Tonawanda Creek at York. The District Engineer recommended an elevation of 564 feet. There are three that a Federal project be authorized on El- named tributaries to Ellicott Creek: Elev- licott Creek to provide a dam and multiple- enmile Creek, draining 10.4 square miles; purpose reservoir for flood control, water sup- Crooked Creek, draining 6.1 square miles; and ply, water quality, recreation, and fish and Spring Creek, also draining 6.1 square miles. wildlife, in the Towns of Alden and Darien, and The topography of the watershed varies from channel enlargement and appurtenant work flat lands near the mouth to steep hills around for flood control in the Towns of Tonawanda the headwaters. Near the headwaters the and Amherst at an estimated cost of stream flows through steep valleys and is fed $19,810,000. by small streams and gullies from hillsides. (3) 1968-a flood plain information report on The slope of the stream varies from 2 feet per Ellicott Creek between the mouth of the creek mile in the flatlands near its mouth to 70 feet and a point 22 miles upstream near the Village per mile near the headwaters. There is a pre- of Bowmansville was completed by the Corps cipitous drop of 60 feet over a length of approx- of Engineers in January 1968. It was prepared imately 0.2 miles at the Village of Wil- in response to a request from the Erie-Niagara liamsville, just below a small dam constructed Basin Regional Water Resources Planning in 1929 as a flood control measure. Ellicott Board. Its purposes were to aid in the under- Creek pursues a very meandering course and standing of local flood problems and to provide measures approximately 47 miles in a basin guidance in selection of the best uses for lands roughly 27 miles long. subject to overflow. The Ellicott Creek watershed lies within the (4) 1939-a preliminary examination of El- western portion of the Erie-Ontario lowland licott Creek for flood control, submitted in which is bounded on the north by Lake On- April 1939. No work was recommended, after tario and on the south by the Allegheny consideration of a reservoir and local protec- Plateau. The generally flat-to-rolling lowland tion. The report was not published. Flood Plains Inventory 173 1.55.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1.55.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures Development in the first mile of Ellicott Creek is commercial and industrial. Then, In 1929 the Village of Williamsville, at a cost through the remainder of the City of Ton- of $64,000, executed a flood control project just awanda, the Township of Tonawanda, and upstream on Ellicott Creek from Main Street the Town of Amherst to the upper limit of Wil- consisting of a new channel 1,100 feet long liamsville, development is essentially resi- with a bottom width of 70 feet. The existing dential of varying degrees of intensity, inter-' channel immediately upstream from the new spersed with parks, golf courses, shopping cen- channel was cleaned, deepened, and widened ters, and vacant land. A large sparsely de- for a distance of approximately 1,400 feet, and veloped area on the left bank in Amherst has a small gate-controlled dam at the lower end of been acquired by the State University of New the new channel was constructed. The gates York, which has started construction of a new are normally closed to maintain a pool for campus. Upstream from Williamsville, the ba- scenic purposes and ate opened as needed to sin, once entirely agricultural, is gradually provide extra channel capacity for flood flows. changing to suburban residential develop- In 1932 the Town of Amherst made channel ment whose intensity is greatest near Buffalo. improvements on Ellicott Creek at a cost of In the interim, many of the farms have either $25,000, consisting of cleaning, deepening, and been combined into larger units for dairy and widening the creek upstream from the Wil- general farming or are dormant, with the liamsville village limit for a distance of 2,800 buildings in use but the land uncultivated. feet. This project was financed in conjunction The upstream portion of the basin is used with a State-county work relief organization. mainly for agricultural purposes. Later that year the Village of Williamsville, under the Public Works Administration, did some widening and levee work upstream from the town project. The cost of these improve- 1.55.4 Flood Problems ments was $15,000, but the extent of the proj- ect is not known. These projects afforded pro- Historical documents state that two floods tection to the immediately adjacent land, and of approximately 'equal magnitude occurred in increased the efficiency of the flood control March 1916 and January 1929. The greatest project described in the preceding paragraph. known flood in the study area occurred on The Federal government expended $75,700 March 17,1936. The maximum recorded flood in 1958 and 1959 for clearing and snagging a 7- at the Williamsville gage occurred in March mile reach of Ellicott Creek between Sheridan 1960. Other large floods also occurred in June Drive and Niagara Falls Boulevard. Mainte- 1937, March 1940, March 1954, March 1956, nance has been performed by local interests. January 1959, and March 1963. Other floods Erie County constructed a diversion channel probably occurred before 1916, but no definite between Ellicott Creek and Tonawanda Creek dates or stages could be established because of in 1965 at a cost of approximately $300,000. the lack of development and records in the Because Ellicott Creek normally reaches peak area at the time. flood stages earlier than Tonawanda Creek, Figure 14-51c identifies the time period in the channel will divert part of the high flow on which major damages, as defined in this study, Ellicott Creek to Tonawanda Creek. The are first noted within a given reach on the trapezoidal channel located just downstream main stem and principal tributaries. Table from Niagara Falls Boulevard is approxi- 14-54 indicates the flood plain damages by mately 2,000 feet long and has a maximum reach corresponding to the reaches desig- bottom width of 120 feet. One culvert was con- nated in this figure. Table 14-55 depicts up- structed near the Tonawanda Creek end of the stream flood damages. Location of these dam- channel to pass the flows under an existing ages within particular watersheds may be highway. seen in Figure 14-52c. Summations of esti- Present regulations for communities, with mated average annual damages and acres in the exception of the Town of Royalton in the flood plain are shown, by river basin in Niagara County and the Village and Town of Table 14-56. County summaries for the main Cheektowaga, New York, do not have specific stem and principal tributaries are tabulated provisions to regulate building within the in Table 14-57. flood plain, or to regulate the use of land with I 174 Appendix 14 respect to flood risk, although development The sources of the streams in the rugged within known flood areas is usually discour- upper part of the watershed are located on the aged by local governments. Refer to Subsec- western edge of the Allegheny Plateau, and tion 1.54.5 for discussion of flood plain legisla- are separated from the watershed to the south tion applicable to this basin. by a terminal glacial moraine. The lower val- ley lands lie on the eastern edge of the interior lowlands. The rock strata form an outcrop pat- 1.56 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, tern of east-west trending bands. All the rock Buffalo River Basin formations that outcrop in the basin are Mid- dle and Upper Devonian in age. The types of 1.56.1 Description rock are limestone, shale, siltstone, and sandstone. The ridge and valley slopes of the The watershed of Buffalo River and its watershed are composed of a heavy-textured tributaries, Buffalo, Cayuga, and Cazenovia soil consisting of silt loam and silty clay loam Creeks, is located in the west central part of underlain by heavy plastic or hard compact the State of New York. It is roughly triangular silty clay loam subsoils. The subsurface drain- in shape with the apex at the mouth of the age of these soils is poor, and their absorptive creek in Buffalo, New York, and the base, ap- capacity is limited. The creek bottomlands proximately 25 miles long, 30 miles to the consist of sandy or gravelly soils or light, eas- southeast. The area of the watershed is 446 ily worked surface soils grading downward square miles. Location within River Basin into sandy and gravelly friable subsoils. Group 4.4 is shown in Figure 14-50. Buffalo Creek rises near Java, New York, and flows through the center of the watershed in a north- 1.56.2 Previous Studies westerly direction. Cayuga Creek rises near North Java Station, flows generally westerly Previous studies are listed below: through the northern part of the watershed, (1) The Soil Conservation Service in 1970 joining Buffalo Creek approximately 9 miles published a Preliminary Investigation Report upstream from the mouth of the Buffalo on Tannery Brook Watershed in Erie County, River. Little Buffalo Creek, rising approxi- New York.' mately midway between Folsomdale and (2) The Erie-Niagara Basin Regional Water Bennington Corners, flows northwesterly to Resources Planning Board published its basin join Cayuga Creek approximately one mile plan in 1970 for development and manage- southeast of Lancaster. Cazenovia Creek is ment of water and related land resources in formed by its east and west branches, which the Erie-Niagara Basin. rise near the southern oorner of the wa- (3) The Buffalo District of the Corps of En- tershed, flow northerly approximately 5 miles gineers published flood plain information re- apart and join west of East Aurora; then the ports on Buffalo Creek in April 1966, creek flows generally northwesterly joining Cazenovia Creek in October 1966, and Cayuga Buffalo River approximately 6 miles above its Creek in May 1967. They were prepared in re- mouth. sponse to a request of the Erie-Niagara Basin The topography of western New York re- Regional Water Resources Planning Board. sembles an irregular flight of steps, consisting The purpose of the reports was to aid in the of a series of nearly level plains separated by understanding of local flood problems and to steep escarpments rising to the south. The provide guidance in selection of the best uses highest of these plains, the Allegheny for lands subject to overflow. Plateau, has been eroded deeply at its north- (4) A survey scope report was completed by ern edge by the upper reaches of Cayuga, Buf- the District Engineer on November 1, 1946 falo, and Cazenovia Creeks. The steep slopes of and was submitted to Congress November 7, this region, which are not heavily wooded, 1949. The report considered improvements to cause rapid runoff and continual erosion. To reduce flood damages along the lower reaches the north, below the Portage Escarpment, is of Cayuga, Buffalo, and Cazenovia Creeks and the Erie Plain which contains the lower the possibility of combining water supply for reaches of the streams. The eroded material Lockport and other places with flood control is deposited in the flatter lower reaches of storage in a reservoir on the watershed. Al- the streams, obstructing the channels and though an economically feasible plan could leading to further bank erosion at points have been developed to supply water from a where flows are concentrated. reservoir on the watershed to the Buffalo Flood Plains Inventory 175 suburban area, it did not appear that the cost ing residential areas, a park, and a golf course. of water at Lockport could be reduced by a The urbanized areas within the city that.are gravity supply from this watershed, and the occasionally affected by floods are principally probable benefits from flood control would not residential with a scattering of commercial justify Federal participation. There was no and public establishments which have been feasible local protection project. Accordingly, subject to damage in the past. In the Township no improvement was recommended in this re- of West Seneca several residential subdivi- port. sions and a large plaza have been affected by (5) A survey report on Cayuga, Buffalo, and floods in the past. Cazenovia Creeks, submitted to Congress July 23,1941, was subsequently published in House Document No. 326,77th Congress, 1st Session, 1.56.4 Flood Problems and was the basis for authorization of the existing project at Lancaster on Cayuga Records of stream flows and information Creek. The report was unfavorable with re- from previous reports indicate that major spect to flood protection improvements at floods occurred in February and March 1904, otherlocations. Adefinite project report dated January 1929, June 1937, March 1942, March July 1, 1943, was prepared prior to the con- 1955, March 1956, and January 1959. Most of struction of the project at Lancaster. the major floods have been due to rain on fro- (6) House Document No. 574, 78th Congress, zen ground augmented by snowmelt. In the 2nd Session contains a survey report on the January 1959 flood, flow conditions were subject watersheds by the Department of Ag- further aggravated by ice jams. The riculture describing an investigation of pro- maximum flood of historical record on Cayuga grams of water flow retardation and'soil ero- Creek occurred in June 1937. sion prevention in aid of flood control and of Figure 14-51c identifies the time period in stream bank protection. That report recom- which major damages, as defined in this study, mended a prog!ram of farmland treatment, are first noted within a given reach on the and retirement and reforestation of submar- main stem and principal tributaries. Table ginal land, to be consummated jointly by the 14-54 indicates the flood plain damages by Department of Agriculture and appropriate reach corresponding to the reaches desig- State and local agencies. nated in this figure. Table 14-55 shows up- stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ages within particular watersheds may be 1.56.3 Development in the Flood Plain seen in Figure 14-52c. Summations of esti- mated average annual d 'amages and acres in The Cayuga Creek flood plain is relatively the flood plain are shown by river basin in undeveloped at present. However, one small Table 14-56. County summaries for the main community, Bellevue in the Township of stem and principal tributaries are tabulated Cheektowaga, has occasionally been affected in Table 14-57. by flooding. The affected development in this locality is principally residential with a total of approximately 50 homes subjected to dam- 1.56.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention age in the past. Minor damage to farm build- Measures ings, equipment, and crops occurs throughout its length. A Federal structural flood control project at The Buffalo Creek flood plain is relatively Lancaster, New York, was authorized by the undeveloped at present. However, three small Flood Control Act of 1941. The project con- communities are occasionally affected by sisted of clearing and improving the Cayuga flooding: Gardenville in the Township of West Creek channel from Park Boulevard in the Vil- Seneca, and Blossom and Elma in the Town- lage of Lancaster downstream to Penora ship of Elma. The development in these Street in the Village of Depew; constructing localities is principally residential with a scat- earth levees and steel sheet pile flood walls; tering of commercial units subjected to dam- and altering existing drainage facilities. Lo- age in the past. Minor damage to farm build- cation of this project is shown in Figure 14-53. ings, equipment and crops occurs throughout The project was completed by contract in July its length. 1949 except for a Rap gate on the head wall of a The Cazenovia Creek flood plain within the 60-inch pressure culvert. The gate was install- City of Buffalo is completely utilized, includ- ed in 1953. Total Federal cost for the com- 176 Appendix 14 pleted project was $797,300, and contributed within known flooded areas is usually dis- funds added another $28,000. It was estimated couraged by local governments. by local interests that they incurred costs of Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of $311,200. The project is maintained by the flood plain legislation applicable to this basin. State of New York. A clearing and snagging operation was performed on Cazenovia Creek in West Seneca from Ridge Road upstream to 1.57 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Mill Road in 1947. The Federal cost was Tonawanda Creek Basin $24,900, and no maintenance of the project by local interests was required. In 1942 the Town of Lancaster widened 1.57.1 Description Cayuga Creek from the sewage disposal plant in Lancaster, downstream to Transit Road in Tonawanda Creek is the largest tributary of Depew, a distance of approximately one mile. the Niagara River, joining it 13 miles from The channel was enlarged to a 90-foot bottom Lake Erie and draining an area of 648 square width and the cost to the town was $58,000. miles in Erie, Niagara, Orleans, Genesee, and The Soil Conservation Service has done Wyoming Counties in western New York. Lo- some bank protection and channel straighten- cation within River Basin Group 4.4 is shown ing on both Buffalo and Cazenovia Creeks to in Figure 14-50. It rises in the highlands in reduce erosion along the waterways. A by- Wyoming County near North Java at an eleva- product of this work was flood reduction in tion of 1,900 feet above mean sea level and some areas. flows generally northward between steep hills The City of Buffalo has employed several through Varysburg and Attica to Alexander, means to alleviate flooding from Cazenovia from where it meanders through flat land to Creek within its boundaries. The most signifi- Batavia at an elevation of 890 feet. It then cant work was construction of levees in turns abruptly westward, and then northerly Cazenovia Park. After the January 1959 flood, to the Tonawanda Indian Reservation. From a levee was constructed on the left bank of the that point it forms the boundary between the creek. The top was set at the 1959 flood eleva- Niagara and Erie Counties, meandering gen- tion. In 1962 another flood occurred in the area erally westerly to confluence with Niagara and while the levee prevented damage to the River at elevation 564 feet. The lower 121/2 left bank, flooding on the right bank was al- miles west of Pendleton form a part of the New most as severe as in 1959. The left bank levee York State Barge Canal and have a navigable precluded use of a large portion of the park for depth of 12 feet. an ice storage area and even though the dis- The principal tributary to the mainstream charge in 1962 was far less than the 1959 flow, in the upper part of the watershed is Little the ice collected and jammed in the park area Tonawanda Creek. This stream rises approx- and caused right bank overflow. To protect the imately 3 miles south of Dale and follows a right bank another levee was constructed @in generally northerly course for 18 miles to 1964 along Beyer Street. The second levee also enter Tonawanda Creek from the east 5 miles had the top set at the 1959 flood elevation. above Batavia. Other tributaries are the East Previously the right bank of Cazenovia Creek Fork which joins the creek downstream from for 900 feet downstream from Union Road in North Java, Stoney Brook which enters from West Seneca was filled, raised, and protected the east at Varysburg, Crow Creek which also with concrete bag riprap in 1960. A low levee enters from the east above Attica, and Bowen beginning at Sunbriar Drive and extending Creek which enters from the south just up- downstream for 600 feet was begun in 1963 by stream of East Pembroke. the builders of a new housing development in The headwaters of Tonawanda and Little the area. At present it is open-ended and af- Tonawanda Creeks rise in the steep foothills of fords little protection, but if it were completed the Allegheny Plateau. The lower portions of it would protect the area from a flood of the the two streams and the watershed of Bowen magnitude of the January 1959 flood. Creek are in the rolling flatlands of the Erie Present regulations for the communities, Plain. Hilltop elevations in the headwaters except for Elma on Buffalo Creek and Cheek- range up to 2,100 feet above mean sea level. towaga on Cayuga Creek, do not have specific The valleys in this region are generally deep provisions to regulate building within the and narrow, and their sides are indented by flood plain, or to regulate land use with re- short, steep gullies. Tonawanda and Little spect to flood risk. However, development Tonawanda Creeks enter the plains region Flood Plains Inventory 177 near elevation 940 feet, 8 miles south of 1.57.3 Development in the Flood Plain Batavia. In this region, which generally com- prises the remainder of the watershed, slopes Between the Cities of Tonawanda and North are generally flat. Elevations of the land in the Tonawanda development is primarily con- Batavia-East Pembroke area range from 910 fined to boat houses, both private and com- feet to 870 feet. Watershed divides on the mercial, and a scattering of residential homes. plains are poorly defined, and swampland oc- Upstream from the City of Tonawanda to the curs in many locations. confluence of the Barge Canal, much of the Overburden in the Tonawanda Creek wa- area is developed for recreational use such as tershed consists generally of glacial till in the parks, public boat marinas and golf courses. headwaters, lacustrine deposits in the plains, The development along Ransom Creek from and recent alluvial formations along stream its mouth to the confluence of Black Creek is bottoms and in swamps. The underlying rocks rapidly changing from an agricultural to a res- are of sedimentary origin. There are outcrops idential area. Most new construction is of in- of sandstone, shale, and limestone at a dividual homes rather than large sub- number of points along the course of the creek. divisions. Development within the Black The Onondaga limestone outcropping north Creek basin is still primarily agricultural, al- and west of Batavia forms a barrier which though an increase in individual residential deflects the creek westward until it reaches units is evident. The largest concentration of Indian Falls. flood damage is in the Hamlet of Wolcottsburg. The majority of development in the Mud Creek basin is agricultural with a scattering of 1.57.2 Previous Studies farm homes, farm buildings, and individual residential units throughout the area. The Previous studies are listed below: only exceptions are a large trailer court con- (1) 1970-The Erie-Niagara Basin Planning sisting of 75 trailers located on the left bank of Board issued its basin plan in 1970 for de- Mud Creek, just upstream of Minnick Road, velopment and management of water and re- and the Hamlet of Wolcottsville where a lated land resources in the Erie-Niagara number of residential units and a few public basin. and commercial buildings are located. Up- (2) 1967-Flood Plain Information Report on stream from Ditch Road the flood plain has Tonawanda Creek and its Affected been incorporated into the "Tonawanda Game Tributaries, Erie and Niagara Counties. It Management Area," operated by the New was prepared in response to a request of the York State Conservation Department. Erie-Niagara Basin Regional Water Re- sources Planning Board. Its purposes were to aid in the understanding of local flood prob- 1.57.4 Flood Problems lems and to provide guidance in selection of the best uses for lands subject to overflow. Historical documents indicate that the (3) 1961-Favorable survey report for Flood greatest floods in the basin occurred in March Control, Tonawanda Creek in the vicinity of 1865 and were equalled again in March 1904. Batavia, New York. During a 5-year period At the time of these floods a dam existed up- there were 3 floods greater than or nearly stream from the Main Street bridge in the City equal to the flow for which the completed proj- of Tonawanda, thereby aggravating the flood ect on Tonawanda Creek at Batavia was de- situation upstream from this point. The dam signed. A plan of improvement consisted of was originally constructed as part of the Erie enlarging a 13,330-foot reach of channel, pro- Canal in the spring of 1823. It was estimated tecting a 1,300-foot length of bank, construct- that the removal of the dam in 1918, along with ing a levee 3,200 feet long, and other appur- the modernization of the Barge Canal, low- tenant works. ered Tonawanda Creek approximately 6 feet. (4) 1945-A favorable survey report pro- Severe floods have also occurred in 1889, 1893, posed local protection in the vicinity of the 1894, 1896, 1902, 1916, 1940, and 1960. Other City of Batavia and served as the basis for large floods have occurred in 1936, 1942, 1954, subsequent authorization by the Flood Con- 1955, 1956, 1957, and 1959. tract Act of June 1948. Figure 14-51c identifies the time period in (5) The U.S. Geological Survey-A flood- which maj or damages, as defined in this study, prone area report was issued for a portion of are first noted within a given reach on the Tonawanda Creek. main stem and principal tributaries. Table 178 Appendix 14 14-54 indicates the flood plain damages by largest tributary, the south branch, joins the reach corresponding to the reaches desig- main stream 21 miles above the mouth and nated in this figure. Table 14-55 lists up- drains an area of approximately 100 square stream flood damages. Location of these dam- miles. Cattaraugus Creek falls over 1,200 feet ages within particular watersheds may be in its upper 54 miles and slightly less than 200 seen in Figure 14-52c. Summations of esti- feet in its lower 16 miles. There are numerous mated average annual damages and acres in tributaries of Cattaraugus Creek. the flood plain are shown by river basin. in Table 14-56. County summaries for the main stem and principal tributaries are tabulated 1.58.2 Previous Studies in Table 14-57. Previous studies are listed below: (1) 1969-Development of Water Resources 1.57.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention in Appalachia, Part V, Vol. 13 Measures (2) 1968-Flood plain information reports on Cattaraugus Creek for the areas Irving, Sun- The only Federal structural measure un- set Bay, Gowanda, and Arcade by the Corps of dertaken on Tonawanda Creek was a flood con- Engineers. They were prepared in response to trol project completed in the City of Batavia in a request from the Erie-Niagara Basin Re- 1956. Location of the project is shown in Fig- gional Water Resources Planning Board. ure 14-53. The project, completed in 1956, pro- (3) 1964-Coast of Lake Erie, Interim Report vided for the following: widening the channel on Cattaraugus Creek Harbor, New York. It of Tonawanda Creek for approximately 2 miles has been determined that the plan of im- below the municipal dam in Batavia; bank provement that will most economically and ef- protection, where required, and minor chan- fectively serve the purposes involved would nel clearing above the municipal dam for a provide for the following: breakwaters in Lake distance of approximately 1.5 miles; and Erie aggregating approximately 2,300 feet in structural relocations as required. length; a berm extending from the inner end of Present regulations for communities, with the north breakwater northerly to high the exception of the Town of Royalton in ground; a channel generally 100 feet wide with Niagara County, do not have specific provi- a depth of 8 feet from deep water in the Lake sions to regulate building within the flood upstream to a maneuvering area; a maneuv- plain or land use with respect to flood risk. ering area 300 feet by 600 feet with a depth of 6 However, development within known flood feet, and from there a channel upstream 1,600 areas is usually discouraged by local govern- feet long with a depth of 6 feet, with a riprap- ments. ped friction section through the New York Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of Central Railroad bridge; and two short levees flood plain legislation applicable to this basin. on the left bank. In addition to the benefits to navigation and flood control, breakwaters (with little additional cost for providing rail- 1.58 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, ings), walkways, and related onshore facilities Cattaraugus Creek Basin would provide benefits from use for sport fish- ing. (4) 1956-Survey report on the Cattaraugus 1.58.1 Description Creek basin authorized by a House Committee resolution of July 23, 1956, and a Senate Com- The Cattaraugus Creek basin is located in mittee resolution of June 2, 1956, to provide for Chautauqua, Cattaraugus, Allegany, Wyom- study of flood problems in the basin upstream ing, and Erie Counties and encompasses a from the mouth of the creek total drainage area of 554 square miles. Loca- (5) The U.S. Geological Survey-a flood- tion within River Basin Group 4.4 is shown in prone area report for a portion of Cattaraugus Figure 14-50. Creek The creek is approximately 70 miles long, rises at an elevation of 1,900 feet above mean sea level, and flows westerly to enter Lake 1.58.3 Development in the Flood Plain Erie near Irving 25 miles south of Buffalo. The watershed is irregular in shape, 45 miles long The Cattaraugus Reservation of the Seneca from east to west, and 22 miles wide. The Nation of New York Indians occupies the en- Flood Plains Inventory 179 tire northern side of the creek in the lower two- 1.58.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention mile reach. Development in this reach is Measures cottage-type homes. Undeveloped areas near the mouth are used mainly for agricultural There is no existing Federal structural proj- purposes. The flood plain in the City of Gow- ect for improvement of Cattaraugus Creek anda is extensively developed with residen- Harbor, nor is there any existing structural tial, commercial, industrial, and public proper- flood control project on Cattaraugus Creek. ties. Sunset Bay and Hanford Bay are summer At the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek local resort areas with typical seasonal, residential, interests have constructed a dike which alle- and commercial developments. The commu- viates damages due to high water, and local nity of Irving is primarily residential, with interests periodically dredge the sandbar at some commercial establishments. The unde- the mouth which reduces the chance of ice veloped areas in the reach from Gowanda to jamming. The Village of Gowanda has made Arcade are used for agricultural purposes. channel improvements and constructed drop The Town of Arcade is a large rural area with a structures on Thatcher Brook which have small population, located in the foothills of the done much to decrease flooding. Improve- Allegany Plateau. Residential development in ments to Cattaraugus Creek by local interests the Village of Arcade is essentially older, consist of retaining walls and bank protection single-family homes and is considered primar- to prevent erosion and contain high flows. ily low density. Arcade's industrial heritage, Present regulations for communities do not which dates back to the early 1800s, is diver- have specific provisions to regulate building sified and essentially light industry. Arcade within the flood plain or regulate land use has been the center of a milk processing indus- with respect to flood risk. However, develop- try for more than half a century and is the ment within known flood areas is usually dis- location of the world's largest powdered milk couraged by local governments. plant. Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of flood plain legislation applicable to this basin. 1.58.4 Flood Problems 1.59 Lake Erie East, River Basin Group 4.4, Damaging floods along Cattaraugus Creek Scajaquada Creek Basin date back 100 years. The resort areas near the mouth of the creek have been developed primarily in the last 30 years, so good informa- 1.59.1 Description tion on flood events prior to that time is not available. Significant flooding occurred at the Scajaquada Creek drains to the Black Rock mouth of the Cattaraugus Creek in March Canal in the Niagara River at Buffalo, New 1942, June 1944, April 1947, March 1955, March York. It is a small stream, flowing generally 1956, January 1957, January 1959, February from east to west, with a total drainage area of 1961, and March 1963; at Gowanda in March only 24.4 square miles, all in Erie County. The 1942, June 1940, September 1939, August 1967, watershed measures 14 miles in overall length 1861, 1894, 1902, 1904, 1913, 1918, and 1937; and east and west, by approximately 3 miles in at Arcade in July 1902 and September 1967. width north and south. It includes parts of the Figure 14-51c identifies the time period in Town of Lancaster, the Village of Depew, the which major damages, as defined in this study, Town of Cheektowaga, and the City of Buffalo. are first noted within a given reach on the Location within River Basin Group 4.4 is main stem and principal tributaries. Table shown in Figure 14-50. 14-54 indicates the flood plain damages by The topography upstream from the City of reach corresponding to the reaches desig- Buffalo is gently rolling, varying from 760 feet nated in this figure. Table 14-55 shows up- in elevation near the headwaters in the Town stream flood damages. Location of these dam- of Lancaster to 630 feet near the Buffalo- ages within particular watersheds may be Cheektowaga line. Just upstream from the seen in Figure 14-52c. Summations of esti- Buffalo-Cheektowaga line at Pine Ridge Road, mated average annual damages and acres in the creek enters a covered conduit and is car- the flood plain are shown by river basin in ried in the conduit a distance of 3.7 miles under Table 14-56. County summaries for the main Buffalo to a point just downstream from Main stem and principal tributaries are tabulated Street. After a short steep fall the open stream in Table 14-57. enters Delaware Park Lake and then proceeds 180 Appendix 14 to the Black Rock Canal at an elevation of 572 the creek channel. In total the flood area ex- feet. tends over a distance of 10 miles, but it is gen- The region of western New York, which in- erally very narrow in width, lying close to the cludes the Scajaquada Creek watershed, con- main stem except in Cheektowaga. In Cheek- sists of a series of terraces or platforms sepa- towaga development is almost entirely resi- rated by north west-facing escarpments. De- dential with a scattering of public and com- scending in a direction northward from the mercial facilities. Downstream from the con- Allegheny Plateau of northern Pennsylvania, duit in the City of Buffalo, development near the terraces are named the Erie, Huron, and the creek is primarily industrial, but the Ontario Plains and the escarpments that facilities most vulnerable to flooding are the separate them are named the Portage, Onon- Scajaquada Expressway, the Casino Building daga, and Niagara Escarpments. The head- in Delaware Park, and the Forest Lawn waters of Scajaquada Creek are in the Erie Cemetery. Plain, and the main stem crosses the Onon- daga Escarpment into the Huron Plain near Main Street in Buffalo. All of the strata dip 1.59.4 Flood Problems quite uniformly to the south approximately 30 feet to the mile and strike approximately Scajaquada Creek has a relatively short his- east-west. The rock strata consist of black cal- tory of flood damage. Significant flooding is careous shales of the Marcellus formation and known to have been experienced on at least resistant Onondaga limestone of Middle De- five occasions prior to 1957, without appreci- vonian age. The strata have been only slightly able damage, in 1936,1937,1942,1944 and 1947. disturbed, and no significant faults or folds The upper portion of the watershed was not as are known. However, the strata do contain developed then, and damages were concen- fractures called joints. During the Pleistocene trated downstream from the covered conduit. era there were glacial advances and with- Major flooding in the watershed occurred in drawals during which great ice sheets spread August 1963 and September 1967. These were over the area. Therefore, the overburden con- the only floods in which substantial damages sists largely of glacial drift. were incurred. The August 1963 flood was the maximum flood known to have occurred on Scajaquada Creek. The 1963 and 1967 floods 1.59.2 Previous Studies resulted from intense rainstorms over the wa- tershed and rapid runoff due to its largely Previous studies are listed below: urban character. This was true of all other (1) 1969-a flood plain information report in known floods. Although there were instances the Towns of Cheektowaga and Lancaster, when snowmelt and ice jams were contribut- Erie County, New York ing factors, their significance was limited. (2) 1968-Review of Reports for Flood Con- Figure 14-51c identifies the time period in trol, Scajaquada Creek and Tributaries, New which major damages, as defined in this study, York. Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, are first noted within a given reach on the recommended that a Federal project be au- main stem and principal tributaries. Table thorized to provide improvements to 9,100 feet 14-54 indicates the flood plain damages by of the Scajaquada Creek channel and 16,800 reach corresponding to the reaches desig- feet of tributary channel, levees totaling 4,000 nated in this figure. Table 14-55 indicates up- feet, all within the Town of Cheektowaga at an stream flood damages. Location of these dam- estimated total cost of $1,915,000, based on ages within particular watersheds may be 1968 price levels. seen in Figure 14-52c. Summations of esti- (3) 1946-a preliminary examination of mated average annual damages and acres in Scajaquada Creek for flood control by the the flood plain are shown by river basin in Corps of Engineers, Buffalo District, in De- Table 14-56. County summaries for the main cember. It was concluded at that time that im- stem and principal tributaries are tabulated provements could not be economically jus- in Table 14-57. tified. 1.59.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention 1.59.3 Development in the Flood Plain Measures The area subject to flooding is adjacent to A section of covered conduit enclosing Flood Plains Inventory 181 Scajaquada Creek between Main Street and bor on Lake Ontario at an elevation of 247 feet. the Buff alo-Cheektowaga line was con- The topography of the southern portion, the structed by the City of Buffalo from 1921 to upper basin upstream of Mount Morris Dam, 1928. is steep and rugged, while in the northern por- In 1938 the Town of Cheektowaga, with tion the lower basin is gently rolling. If the WPA aid, extended the conduit upstream to slope characteristics of the basin are studied, Pine Ridge Road, constructed an open con- it becomes apparent that there is a great con- crete approach channel extending 300 feet up- trast between the upper and lower basins as stream, and further improved the main stem the Genesee River changes from a flashy, channel to a point 6,000 feet above Pine Ridge steep stream to a sluggish, meandering river. Road. In Letchworth State Park, just upstream from In 1950 the Corps of Engineers completed a Mount Morris Dam, the river drops from an clearing and snagging project 7,700 feet long, elevation of 1,080 feet to 768 feet over three entirely within the Village of Depew. successive falls, flowing through a deep gorge In 1959 the Town of Cheektowaga made im- cut in rock. It then enters the broad lower provements throughout the length of the Genesee valley at the Village of Mount Morris. main stem from Pine Ridge Road to the From this point to Rochester, the valleys are downstream limit of the Village of Depew. A flat alluvial plains up to 3 miles wide and were clearing and snagging project was performed subject to frequent flooding before the con- in the 6,000-foot section previously improved struction of Mount Morris Dam. At Rochester in 1938. In 1962 the channel improvement was the river drops over three falls from elevation continued upstream into the Village of Depew 513 to 247 feet, the elevation of Lake Ontario. to a point 6,600 feet above Dick Road. The headwater stream slopes in Pennsylvania In 1964 the Village of Depew and the Town of are up to 102 feet per mile, from the New York Lancaster, with the financial assistance of the boundary to Letchworth State Park the aver- Federal government under the accelerated age stream slope is 9 feet per mile, and be- public works program, improved the 2-mile tween Rochester and Mount Morris the aver- reach upstream from Transit Road. age stream slope is 0.8 feet per mile. Present regulations for the communities, The largest tributary of the Genesee River except for the Town of Cheektowaga, do not is Canaseraga Creek. It has a drainage area of have specific provisions to regulate building 334 square miles and joins the Genesee River within the flood plain, or to regulate land use just downstream from Mount Morris. In many with respect to flood risk. However, develop- respects it is a miniature duplicate of the ment within known flooded areas is usually larger Genesee basin in that its upper reaches discouraged by local governments. Refer to above the Village of Dansville are steep and Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of flood plain rugged, while its lower valley is a flat alluvial legislation applicable to this basin. plain which is frequently flooded for several months at a time. The Genesee basin contains six major lakes 1.60 Lake Ontario West, River Basin Group and numerous ponds. Four lakes in the lower 5.1, Genesee River Basin basin are natural and considered a part of the Finger Lake chain. In the upper basin there are two lakes, one natural and one artificial. 1.60.1 Description The total surface area of these lakes amounts to 13.5 square miles. The New York State The Genesee River basin covers 2,479 Barge Canal crosses the Genesee River at square miles, mostly in western New York, grade just south of Rochester. with a small portion, 96 square miles, in The basin is largely agricultural except in northwestern Pennsylvania. It is roughly el- the urban Rochester area. The lower basin liptical in shape, with a north-south major valleys are devoted to raising truck crops, axis of approximately 100 miles and a grain, and cattle. The soils are considered maximum width of 40 miles. Location within among the most fertile in New York State. The River Basin Group 5.1 is shown in Figure area west of the Genesee Basin and bounded 14-54. The river rises in the Allegheny high- approximately by the Canal, the Niagara lands in Potter County, Pennsylvania, at an River, and Lake Ontario has been included in elevation of 2,500 feet and flows approxi- Planning Subarea 5.1. The land is flat-to- mately 157 river miles in a generally north- gently-rolling and slopes downward from its ward direction to its mouth at Rochester Har- southern boundary to bluffs along the lake- 182 Appendix 14 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 NIAGARA-ORLEANS I.A state 8.,g. ce,,.1 a lb Rochester Medina Brockpo t Le@jston Niagara Fa;A""- AN@ B xk V C' k Grand Island Batal 0 OE LIVINGSTON GENESE com, s @,O Lake HweoIye Lake GENESEE H-Imk Lake Cwadice rake Dansvill 0 WYOMING 411sville NEWYO@K PENNSYLVANIT LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY fy MAP PLANNING AREA 11,11 1@ .11 ES RIVER BASIN GR@ RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-54 Lake Ontario West-River Basin Group 5.1 Flood Plains Inventory 183 shore. The soils range from moderately to port was authorized by Chief of Engineers, highly productive and comprise one of the ma- January 6, 1961. Construction of the project jor fruit and vegetable crop producing regions was started in October 1966 and was com- in New York State. pleted July 24, 1968. (8) 1959-a review of reports on the Genesee River, in the vicinity of Dansville, 1.60.2 Previous Studies New York, with respect to Canaseraga Creek, authorized by resolution adopted by the Com- Existing Federal projects and studies in the mittee on Public Works, House of Repre- Genesee River basin (by the Corps of En- sentatives, June 3, 1959. This Corps study was gineers, unless otherwise noted) are as fol- concurrent with a study by the Soil Conserva- lows: tion Service under Public Law 566, 83rd Con- (1) 1969-Flood Plain Information Report, gress. The Canaseraga Creek study by both Black Creek and Genesee River, New York agencies was combined with the Genesee (2) 1969-Genesee River Basin Compre- River Basin Comprehensive Study. hensive Study of Water and Related Land (9) 1958-a study of flood problems at Hon- Resources eoye Lake and Honeoye Creek, initiated by the (3) 1969-Development of Water Resources Soil Conservation Service in 1958 under Public in Appalachia, Office of Appalachian Studies Law 566, 83rd Congress (4) 1964-a joint Federal-State pollution (10) 1954-a comprehensive study by the study that included the Genesee River basin New England-New York Inter-Agency Com- with the Great Lakes-Illinois River Basins mittee, conducted under the general author- Project. This project began studying the Lake ity of Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of Ontario basin in 1964 under authority of Sec- 1950, Public Law 516,81st Congress, and other tion 3(a) of Public Law 84-660, as amended. acts. Chapter XXXIII of this report was a de- The project report is "Lake Ontario and St. tailed study of the Genesee River and was Lawrence River Basins, Water Pollution completed in 1954. Problems and Improvements Needs, June (11) 1953-an unfavorable preliminary 1968." examination of the Allegheny-Genesee wa- (5) 1962-a design memorandum for recti- terway barge navigation, submitted to Con- fication of deficiencies in a completed flood gress April 13, 1953 protection project in Wellsville, New York, au- (12) 1953-a snagging and clearing project in thorized by the Office of the Chief of En- Canaseraga Creek from Groveland Station to gineers on March 22, 1962. The report was the Genesee River, completed in 1954 submitted to a higher authority on April 22, (13) 1953-a snagging and clearingproject in 1966. Keshequa Creek, in the vicinity of Nunda, (6) 1961-flood control project for Red Creek, New York, completed in 1955 Monroe County, New York, authorized by the (14) 1951-a snagging and clearing project River and Harbor Act of 1966, Public Law 89- on the Genesee River and Dyke Creek at 789, approved November 7, 1966. This project Wellsville, New York, completed in 1951 was initiated by the Soil Conservation Service (15) 1950-flood control project at in 1961 under authority of Public Law 566, Caledonia, New York, authorized by the Flood 83rd Congress, and the Corps of Engineers Control Act of 1950, Public Law 516, 81st Con- was requested to participate in October 1961 gress, approved May 17, 1950. This project has under authority of Public Law 685, 84th Con- been classified as deferred for restudy. gress. As the study developed, thescope of the (16) 1950-flood control project at Wells- project exceeded the limitations of Public Law ville, New York, authorized by the Flood Con- 685, 84th Congress, and the study was trans- trol Act of 1950, Public Law 516, 81st Congress ferred by authority of the Office of the Chief of approved May 17, 1950. Construction was in- Engineers, March 20, 1963, to the Genesee itiated July 1956 and substantially completed River Basin Comprehensive Study. An interim November 1957. report was submitted in August 1965 and pub- (17) 1949-a review of reports on the lished in Senate Document No. 107, 89th Con- Genesee River with particular reference to gress, 2nd Session. Angelica Creek, Allegany County, New York, (7) 1961-a reconnaissance report on Oatka authorized by resolution adopted by the Creek at Warsaw, New York, for flood control Committee on Public Works, House of Repre- under Public Law 685, 84th Congress, submit- sentatives, May 27, 1949. The report sub- ted September 27, 1960. Detailed project re- mitted March 18, 1955, found that improve- 184 Appendix 14 ments were not considered justified. remedies. In 1928 the City Manager of Roches- (18) 1948-a survey report dated March 12, ter enlarged the scope of an investigation for a 1948, and published in House Document No. Civic Center for the City of Rochester to in- 232,81st Congress, 1st Session, recommending clude the general subject of flood protection. A channel improvements for flood control at detailed report referred to as the "Fisher Re- Wellsville and Caledonia, New York port" on flood conditions was published in (19) 1948-flood control project at Dansville 1937. and vicinity, New York, authorized by the The New York State Water Pollution Con- Flood Control Act of 1948, Public Law 858,80th trol Board published Survey Report No. 1 on Congress, approved June 30, 1948. This project the Upper Genesee River Drainage Basin in has been placed in an inactive category. 1955 and Survey Report No. 2 on the Lower (20) 1945-a survey report dated July 30, Genesee River Drainage Basin in 1961. These 1945, and published in House Document No. reports recommended classification and as- 206, 80th Congress, 1st Session, recommend- signed standards of quality and purity for var- ing channel improvements in Canaseraga ious reaches of the tributaries and main stem Creek for flood control in the vicinity of of the Genesee River. Dansville, New York The U.S. Geological Survey has published a (21) 1944-Mount Morris Dam and Reser- flood-prone area report for a portion of voir, authorized by Section 10 of the Flood Canaseraga Creek. Control Act, Public Law 534, 78th Congress, approved December 22, 1944. Construction was initiated in March 1948 and completed in 1.60.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1952. (22) 1943-a proposed plan for development The Genesee River basin has one major of the Genesee River basin by the Federal urban center, Rochester, spread along both of Power Commission, prepared February 1943 its banks for the last 11 miles before it enters (23) 1941-a preliminary examination and Lake Ontario. Many of the major industries of survey for flood control on the Genesee River Rochester are along these banks and the river authorized under Section 6 of the Flood Con- is presently heavily polluted in this reach. The trol Act, Public Law 738, 74th Congress, ap- river passes through the business district, res- proved June 22, 1936. This survey report, idential areas, and a rapidly growing subur- dated May 16, 1941, and published in House ban area. To the south of Rochester the river Document No. 615, 78th Congress, 2nd Ses- flows through mainly agricultural lands. sion, recommended construction of an earth- Small communities, dating from the days filled dam in the Genesee River near Mount when water was needed to run the mills, dot Morris. its banks. Wellsville is the only large village Other studies are listed below: in the upper basin that sustains industrial, The State of New York in 1889-1893 in- commercial, and residential damage from vestigated the possibility of reservoirs on the river overflow. Genesee River for water supply for the Erie Agriculture is the main factor in the Canal. The first sites studied included several economy of the basin upstream from Roches- in the Mount Morris Gorge, but because of the ter. Approximately 55 percent of the land is development of other water supply sources for classified as cropland and pasture, while 35 the canal, the State of New York did not pro- percent is classified as forested. The majority ceed with development of reservoirs on the of the cropland is rich bottomland which is Genesee River. subject to overflow from the river. The Water Supply Commission of the State In the past several railroads followed the of New York, between 1907 and 1910, made a valley and crossed it, but today most of these study of the Genesee River for flood control railroads have abandoned their tracks and and power. Two sites were found for multiple- improved State and county highways have re- purpose reservoirs, one near Mount Morris placed them. The New York State Thruway and the other near Portageville. crosses the valley, but well above any flood In 1905 a special committee was appointed profile. by the Mayor of Rochester and another com- There are numerous artificial controls in mittee was appointed by the Chamber of the Genesee River basin. The major one is the Commerce to investigate and report on flood Federal Mount Morris Dam and Reservoir on conditions. A report was submitted covering which construction was begun in March 1948 the history of previous floods and suggesting and completed in June 1952. It is a concrete Flood Plains Inventory 185 gravity dam with an ungated ogee spillway conditions. Winter and spring floods are usu- 550 feet long with the crest 175 feet above the ally the result of frontal precipitation on satu- sireambed and is operated solely for flood con- rated or frozen ground or on melting snow trol. Other artificial controls in the Genesee cover. However, floods have occurred from basin include the following: melting snow cover alone. (1) a series of run-of-river structures for hy- On Canaseraga Creek, the largest of the droelectric power, developed in the falls Genesee River tributaries, agricultural flood- reaches at Rochester by the Rochester Gas ing occurs in the lower 15 miles every spring and Electric Company and whenever there is a heavy rain. The ag- (2) a State-operated gated dam in Rochester ricultural lands drain slowly and have had for regulation of the elevation of the New York ponded water on them up to 100 days. This State Barge Canal, which crosses the Genesee agricultural area under flood conditions is an River at grade just upstream from Rochester. excellent waterfowl habitat area. Table 14-58 Its elevation is maintained at approximately lists the largest floods of record, types of flood, 513 feet during the navigation season, and it is and general damage areas. provided with guard gates on either side of the Figure 14-55c identifies the time period in river to prevent high flows from entering the which major damages, as defined in this study, canal, are first noted within a given reach on the (3) a dam and reservoir, operated by the main stem and principal tributaries. Table Rochester Gas and Electric Company, on 14-59 indicates the flood plain damages by Caneadea Creek, an upper basin tributary reach corresponding to the reaches desig- which enters the Genesee at river mile 108 on nated in this figure. Table 14-60 depicts up- the main stem. Power is not produced at this stream flood damages. Location of these dam- dam, its purpose being to augment low flows ages within particular watersheds may be downstream. seen in Figure 14-56c. Summations of esti- (4) a dam on Hemlock Lake in the Honeoye mated average annual damages and acres in Creek basin, operated by the City of Roches- the flood plain are shown by river basin in ter, to provide water supply to that city Table 14-61. County summaries for the main (5) a dam on Conesus Lake outlet to main- stem and principal tributaries are tabulated tain adequate lake levels for recreation on in Table 14-62. thatlake (6) a dam on the Genesee River just below Mount Morris, operated by the Rochester Gas and Electric Company for power. The plant is 1.60.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention basically run-of-river, and releases from the Measures Corps'Mount Morris Dam are held at or above 300 cfs when natural flows permit to provide There are several Corps structural projects flow for the R. G. & E. Dam. completed in the Genesee River basin. The (7) a concrete arch-type dam on Wiscoy major project is the single-purpose Mount Creek 3 miles upstream from the Genesee Morris Dam and Reservoir. Location of this River. This dam provides storage and part of preventive measure is shown in Figure 14-57. the head for a Rochester Gas and Electric This dam controls 44 percent of the Genesee Power development at Wiscoy. River basin. It controls mainstem flows from (8) a concrete and sheet pile drop-structure the upper basin as they flow into the broad across the Genesee River at Wellsville. It was flood plain of the lower basin. It also protects constructed by the Corps as part of a local Rochester. The reservoir has a capacity of flood protection project. 337,400 acre-feet of water and cost $23,400,000 (9) a low dam just upstream from Wellsville to build. It has eliminated approximately for public water supply to the village $1,000,000 in average annual damage each year since its completion in 1952. A local flood protection project for the Vil- 1.60.4 Flood Problems lage of Wellsville was completed in 1957. The project consisted mainly of channel enlarge- Damaging floods on the Genesee River basin ment on the Genesee River and Dyke Creek have occurred in all months of the year except and the construction of three control struc- August. Summer floods are in general tures. Since its completion, the flow for the localized in a part of the watershed and are flood of record has been revised and presently usually the result of convectively unstable air advanced engineering for rectification of de- 186 Appendix 14 ficiencies in the completed project is under 1915, through the commercial and business way. sections of the city. These flood walls were Another small Corps project for local flood built to protect against the flood of record. protection was completed in 1968 on Oatka They have eliminated most of the damage in Creek at Warsaw, New York. This project con- downtown Rochester. sists of channel enlargement, several high In use since 1954 in the Genesee River basin velocity sections, and a control structure. is a river flood forecasting system developed Several clearing and snagging projects have by the Hydrologic Services Division of the been completed as listed previously in Subsec- Weather Service and put into use by the per- tion 1.60.2. The benefits from these projects sonnel of the Rochester Weather Service of- have been minor. fice. At the same time, a system for dissemina- There is also one major flood control project tion of the flood forecast information was de- by a local government in the basin. The City of veloped through the cooperation of commer- Rochester built protective flood walls, around cial radio and television news departments, TABLE 14-58 Lake Ontario West, Genesee River Basin-Record Floods and Damage Area Damage Flood Date Type Type Major Location 1865 - March Snowmelt & Rain Commercial Rochester Agricultural Mt. Morris to Rochester 1875 - March Rain Commercial Rochester 1889 - June Rain Commercial Upper Basin and Dansville Agricultural Upper Basin and Canaseraga Cr. 1894 - May Rain Agricultural Upper and Lower Basin 1896 - April Snowmelt Agricultural Lower Basin 1902- March Snowmelt Commercial Rochester Commercial Upper Basin Agricultural Upper and Lower Basin 1902 - July Rain Agricultural Lower Basin and Canaseraga Cr. 1913 - March Snowmelt & Rain Commercial Rochester Residential Rochester Agricultural Upper and Lower Basin 1916 - March Snowmelt Agricultural Upper and Lower Basin 1916 - May Rain Agricultural Upper and Lower Basin 1927 - December Rain Agricultural Lower Basin & Canaseraga Cr. 1935 - July Rain Commercial Upper Basin Agricultural Upper Basin & Canaseraga.Cr. 1936 - March Snowmelt & Rain Agricultural Upper Basin &.Canaseraga Cr. 1942 - July Rain Commercial Upper Basin Agricultural Upper Basin 1950 - March Snowmelt & Rain Residential Rochester Agricultural Upper and Lower Basin 1950 - November Rain Residential Upper Basin Commercial Upper Basin 1960 - April Snowmelt Agricultural Upper Basin & Canaseraga Cr. Flood Plains Inventory 187 TABLE 14-59 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 5.1 ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N REACH LOCATION AVERAGE ANNUAL cm cx CD REACH DAMAGES C3 @; @- - TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY YEAR Cr US W cl CODE V) W W FROM TO (DOLL RS) =) Z: e E! = ') (-@ C, uj URBAN RURAL c. rFNESEE RIVER B01 Monroe Mouth Monroe 1970 28,200 5150 5,150 Livingston 1980 40,900 5114 5,114 Co. Line 2000 889800 5065 5,065 2020 191,800 5003 5,003 BOIA Monroe Rochester 1970 46,400 65 150 115 325 1980 67,400 72 167 122 361 2000 146,500 83 189 139 410 2020 316,600 94 218 160 472 B02 Livingstai Monroe- Livingston 1970 4,100 1430 1,430 Livingston Allegany 1980 700 5,500 12 1416 12 1,418 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 1,400 11,400 34 1396 34 1,396 2020 2,800 23,000 68 1362 68 1,362 B03 Wyoming R.R.Bridge Wyoming- 1970 1,000 300 300 at Portage Allegany 1980 1,300 300 300 Co. Line 2000 2,800 300 300 2020 5,200 300 300 B04 Allegany Wyoming Penn.-New 1970 1,000 18,100 20 2,491 Allegany York State 1980 1,400 24,600 3 25 2483 22 2,489 Co. Line Line 2000 2,500 45,900 4 29 2478 25 2,486 2020 4,400 80,100 4 33 2474 29 2,482 B04A Allegany Wellsville 1970 34,500 1980 46,900 50 90 480 2000 87,200 63 113 304 480 2020 152,700 72 130 278 480 BLACK CREEK B05 Monroe Mouth Monroe- 1970 19,500 38,400 17 135 9542 674 9,020 Genesee 1980 28,400 55,800 19 150 9525 746 8,946 Co. Line 2000 61,600 120,800 21 170 9503 849 8,845 1 2020 133,200 261,100 25 196 9473 978 8,716 RED CREEK B06 Monroe Mouth Lehigh- 1970 65,800 200 353 144; 2000 Station 1980 95,400 222 392 138f 2000 Bridge 2000 207,200 252 445 1W 2000 1 2020 448,000 290 512 119E, 2000 CONESUS LAKE B07 Living- Northend Southend 1970 2,200 149 964 149 964 ston 1980 3,000 164 948 165 948 2000 6,200 188 925 188 925 2020 12,500 216 897 216 897 GANAS A CREEK B08 Living- Mouth Steuben 1970 71,100 10000 10,000 ston Co. Line 1980 959300 10000 10,000 EIAI 2000 196,300 10000 10,000 1 2020 399,700 1000( 10,000 HONEOYE LAKE B09 Ontario Northend Southend 1970 1,300 65 1159 65 1,159 1980 1,900 72 1152 72 1,152 2000 4,300 82 1142 82 1,142 2020 9,200 94 1130 94 19130 188 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-60 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 5.1 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W cr AVERAGE ANNUAL _J -1 2: , W Z !5 MZ (n DAMAGES Z a: < I--- W< cr 4 :3 _J W < a: Z TOTAL W 2m YEAR (DOLLARS) _J I.- a X Cr I--- W D a. 0 0 =) 41 Z 0 4 0 0 0, URBAN RURALITOTAL a- 3: U 0: [URBAN RURAL GENESEE RIVER - NEW YORK 10 1970 700 700 200 200 400 200 1,000 17 1970 12,000 300 12,300 100 200 200 400 400 200 1,000 500 23 1970 100 100 25 65 10 8 108 32 1970 2,400 2,400 300 650 100 150 1,200 1970 100 55,500 55,600 2,110 225 110 130 10 10 2,575 51 1970 600 500 1,100 100 234 150 10 8 45 2 55 494 73 1970 200 3,200 3,400 300 100 75 25 20 5 25 500 94 1970 11,300 14,500 25,800 1,685 2,145 325 545 205 715 105 1,025 4,700 255 1970 300 10,800 11,100 1,300 500 100 100 25 25 50 2,000 256 1970 600 7,100 7,700 820 430 210 455 15 25 11 51 1,915 257 1970 300 3,000 3,300 300 170 225 5 25 25 700 258 1970 2,200 2,200 245 500 100 40 885 259 1970 1,500 1,500 175 1,000 300 25 1,500 260 1970 100 100 20 60 50 175 305 261 1970 900 400 1,300 76 220 30 30 10 65 5 80 356 262 1970 300 300 50 204 30 2( 304 263 1970 300 700 1,000 160 390 84 8( 1 24 25 714 264 1970 200 200 30 164 60 3( 284 138 1970 400 5,300 5,700 887 300 800 55( 6 28 37 71 2,537 128 1970 400 600 1,000 55 302 50 E 7 21 2 30 412 Total 1970 27,400 f0_9 , 4-0 0 1_36,800 9-,_938 T, 8-5 9 3-,4 0-9 2,78Z 652 1,403 392 2,447 22,989 1980 35,900 161:900, 197,800 8,938 7,859 3,409 2,782 652 1,403 392 2,447 22,989 2000 62,200 191 500 253,700 8,938 71859 3,409 2,783 652 1,403 392 2,447 22,989 2020 112,300 215,500 327,800 8,938 7,859 3,409 2,783 652 1,403 392 2,447 22,989 NIAGARA ORLEANS COMPLEX - NEW YORK 94 1970 11,300 14,500 25,800 1,685 2,145 325 545 205 715 105 1,025 4,700 246 .1970 800 800 60 15 15 Ic 100 247 1970 600 600 155 30 45 7( 300 248 1970 800 800 170 50 60 2( 300 249 1970 1,800 1,800 200 100 150 15( 600 250 1970 2,100 2,100 170 50 80 10( 400 251 1970 1,000 1,700 2,700 200 50 50 10( 100 100 400 252 1970 3,000 200 3,200 50 20( 100 100 50 250 250 69 1970 2,600 2,600 190 50 50 1( 300 143 1970 185,600 185,600 8,300 200 300 30( 9,100 36 1970 15,60 15,600 1,500 100 300 30( - 2,200 Total 1970 15,300 226,300 241,600 1-2-,-680 2-,790 1-, 3-7 5 1,805 305 915 155 !-,3-75 18,650 1980 20,000 334,900 354,900 12,680 2,790 1,375 1,805 305 915 155 1,375 18,650 2000 34,700 396 000 430,700 12,680 2,790 1,375 1,805 305 915 155 1,375 18,650 1 2020 1 62,700 1 445:1101 508,500112,680 12,790 1,375 1,805 3051 9151 155 1 1,375 1 18,650 city-county radio networks, Civil Defense Lake Ontario, the Genesee River basin, the communications facilities, fire bureau net- Mohawk River basin, and the Black River ba- works, and newspapers. sin. It has a total drainage area of 5,099 square Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of miles. Location within River Basin Group 5.2 flood plain legislation applicable to this basin. - is shown in Figure 14-58. The Oswego River is formed by the junction of the Seneca and Oneida Rivers at Three Rivers. From this 1.61 Lake Ontario Central, River Basin Group junction it flows 23 miles northwest to Lake 5.2, Oswego River Basin Ontario at Oswego. The river has been canalized and has a fall of 188 feet concen- trated at seven sites by dams and locks having 1.61.1 Description lifts which vary from 10 to 27 feet. The direct drainage area of the Oswego River is 150 The Oswego River basin is situated in west- square miles. central New York State and is bounded by the The largest tributary of the Oswego River is basins of small streams which empty into Seneca River. This river, which is 62 miles long, Flood Plains Inventory 189 flows in a northeasterly direction between It drains an area of 714 square miles. Keuka Seneca Lake and Three Rivers and drains an Lake drains into Seneca Lake. area of 3,467 square miles. The river has been (4) Onondaga Lake enters the Seneca River canalized throughout, with its fall of 82 feet 8 miles above Three Rivers, draining a total of having been concentrated at dams equipped 301 square miles. with locks. Three of these locks, whose com- (5) Owasco Lake Outlet has its source in bined lift equals 63.5 feet, are in the 11 miles Owasco Lake and drains an area of 225 square between Seneca Lake and Seneca Falls. Above miles, entering Seneca River from the south, 9 Seneca Falls the dam at Waterloo controls the miles above Cross Lake. levels of Seneca Lake, and below Seneca Falls (6) Oneida River, which combines with the the dam at Mud Lock controls Cayuga Lake. Seneca River to form the Oswego River, has a Major tributaries to Seneca River are listed drainage area of 1,504 square miles. It is 18 below. miles long and meanders in a westerly direc- (1) The Clyde River, largest of the Seneca tion from Oneida Lake to Three Rivers. Parts tributaries, is formed by the junction of of the Oneida River have been canalized and Canandaigua Outlet and Ganargua Creek at combined with land cuts across bends to form Lyons 19 miles above Seneca River. The total a 9-mile-long canal between the same points. drainage area is 895 square miles, of which 309 Of the total drainage area of 1,504 square are drained by Ganargua Creek and 445 by miles, 151 'square miles drain directly into Canandaigua Outlet. Oneida River. Oneida Lake, the largest in the (2) Cayuga Lake, one of the two largest of the basin, has a surface area of 80 square miles. It Finger Lake group, is 37 miles long and varies is 21 miles long and from 2 to 5 miles wide. in width from one to three miles. The lake has Major tributaries to Oneida Lake are listed a surface area of 66.9 square miles and is 431 below. feet deep at its deepest point northwest of (a) Fish Creek with its east and west Heddens Point. It drains an area of 780 square branches comprises the largest stream system miles. Seneca Lake drains into this lake. tributary to Oneida Lake. The Fish Creek sys- (3) Seneca Lake, one of the two largest and tem drains an area of 423 square miles north deepest of the Finger Lakes, is 35 miles long and northeast of Oneida Lake and enters the and varies in width from one to three miles. lake at the eastern end. Its two branches drain The lake has a surface area of 66.6 square nearly equal areas above their junction at miles and is 633 feet deep at its deepest point. Blossvale. TABLE 14-61 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 5.1 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban RuraT Urban Ruray, Niagara-Orleans 1970 15,300 226,300 1,375 18,650 Complex 1980 20,000 334,900 1,375 18,650 2000 34,700 396,000 1,375 18,650 2020 62,700 445,800 1,375 18)650 Genesee River 1970 198,200 270,300 6,160 53,503 1980 281,000 385,300 6,307 53,356 2000 579,100 657,500 6,515 53,148 2020 1,191,700 1,176,400 6,784 52,879 TOTAL 1970 213,500 496,600 7,535 72,153 1980 301,000 720,200 7,682 72,006 2000 613,800 1,053,500 7,890 71,798 2020 1,254,400 1,622,200 8,159 71,529 190 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-62 River Basin Group 5.1, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated-Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County (New York) - Urban Rural Urban Rural Allegany 35,500 18,100 500 2,491 Livingston 25,200 75,200 149 12,394 Monroe 131,800 66,600- 2,999 14,170 Ontario (PSA 5.2) 1,300 --- 65 1,159 Genesee (See RBG 4.4). --- --- --- --- Wyoming (See RBG 4.4) --- 1,000 --- 300 TOTALS 170,800 160,900 3,713 30,514 YEAR 1980 Allegany 48,300 24,600 502 2,489 Livingston 3,700 100,800 177 12,366 Monroe 191,200 96,700 3,109 14,060 Ontario (PSA 5.2) 1,900 --- 72 1,152 Genesee (See RBG 4.4) --- --- --- Wyoming (See RBG 4.4) --- 1,300 --- 300 TOTALS 245,100 223,400 3,860 30,367 YEAR 2000 Allegany 89,700 45,900 505 2,486 Livingston 7,600 207,700 222 12,321 Monroe 415,300 209,600 3,259 13,910 Ontario (PSA 5.2) 4,300 --- 82 1,142 Genesee (See RBG 4.4) --- --- --- --- Wyoming (See RBG 4.4) --- 2,800 --- 300 TOTALS 516,900 466,000 4,068 30,159 YEAR 2020 Allegany 157,100 80,100 509 2,482 Livingston 15,300 422,700 284 12,259 Monroe 897,800 452,900 3,450 13,719 Ontario (PSA 5.2) 9,200 --- 94 'lJ30 Genesee (See RBG 4.4) --- --- Wyoming (See RBG 4.4) --- 5,200 --- - 300 TOTALS 1,079,400 960,900 4,337 29,890 *On main stem and principal tributaries Flood Plains Inventory 191 TABLE 14-62A River Basin Group 5.1, Average Annual Flood Damages' (Auxiliary Data) Main Stem Tributary Avg. Annual Reach Reach Damage Remarks 1. Rochester $ 5,000 (2) 2. Chili --- Black Cr. 16,850 Red Cr. 26,300 (3) 3. Avon 5,750 Oatka Cr. 4,500 Oatka Cr. (Warsaw) 39,200 (4) Honeoye Cr. 3,000 4. Genesee 450 Conesus Lake 2,500 Keshequa Cr. 3,000 Canaseraga Cr. 64,650 (5) 5. Mt. Morris --- (6) 6. Portageville 1,650 Wiscoy Cr. 3,000 7. Fillmore 2,250 8. Belfast 500 Angelica Cr. 7,800 9. Belvidere 350 Van Campen Cr. 1,230 10. Belmont 700 11. Scio 5,300 12. Wellsville 23,800 (7) 13. Stannards Cor. 2,400 14. Shongo 2,450 Cryder Cr. 3,990 15. Pennsylvania --- (6) (1) This table, from the Genesee River Basin Coordinating Committee Report, is supplied by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (2) Left bank Genesee River only (3) Local protection project authorized 1966--Senate Document No. 107, 89th Congress, 2nd Session (4) Construction local protection project initiated October 1966 (5) Only existing flood damages are shown (6) No significant damages (7) Modification existing project--Design Memorandum for Rectification of Deficiencies in Completed Local Protection Project Wellsville, N. Y., April 1966 192 Append ix 14 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 C 110@ @o(V State Barge Cana/ Rochester Albmn ockp-t L.ckpo, t S Niagara F ----- - ---- iIj Ce, G-d wand ---------------- - OE LIV)NGS@TON 00 7 7SE i ----- -------------- OEM, ---- ----------- take CI 1\ Honeo,ve L@ke He I Lake C.- rke D.n.-II WYOMING ---- -- -------------- --- ------ ALLEGAN@ .9. LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES CHANNEL DIVERSION CIIW01sville CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS INSTITUTIONAL NEWYO@K RESERVOIR PENNSYLVANIA PL-566 WATERSHED PROJECT VICINI Fy MAP WA, I O't, 1 .. . ........ ...... SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-57 Existing Flood Damage Protection Measures for River Basin Group 5.1 Flood Plains Inventory 193 S Cc"k OS G LMON 0, 014 1 0, Oswego Fultj Cam en WAYNE wood Rome WAYNE-C UGA OneidaLake Ne. (o,k Sa winsvite State j Barge C-al Yen, stt. B,rge c0ax Clyde Sene'. Syrac e On., 0 ,Utica __almyra 0 Lyon. 0 0 Newark 0 ONT 10 19 Aubur 0SW GO W.te,l.. S . F.- ON DA A C- 0 anandaigua ON HERKIMER Genevatill ONEIDA Cananda C.y.q 0 0 Sk-f.4 *Ham,Jton La '91, "- I- ------- L.k. 'Lwke YATES Se- MADISON Penn Yan Lake CAYU SENECA K..k. Lake Ithaca K,,,s Glen TOMPKINS SCHUYLER LEGEND BOUNDARIES T@ 2,2' Q. STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA U RIVER BASIN GROUP RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-58 Lake Ontario Central-River Basin Group 5.2 194. Appendix 14 (b) Chittenango Creek drains 326 square protection on Cayuga Inlet. The project, which miles and enters Oneida Lake near was completed in 1969, consisted of a concrete Bridgeport. The watershed is triangular in drop structure and included facilities for a fish shape with its apex at Oneida Lake and its passage at the head of an improved channel base 20 miles wide located 27 miles south of the and a closure structure, channel widening and lake. realigning for approximately 5,000 f6et down- (c) Oneida Creek drains a hook-shaped stream from the drop structure, and replace- area of 147 square miles to the south of Oneida ment of a railroad bridge just below the drop Lake. structure. The project is designed for dis- (7) The New York State Barge Canal was charge that has a recurrence interval in the completed about 1918 and provides for a 12- order of one in 100 years. foot draft. It follows a land line, locking down (8) Design Memorandum for Local Flood to Oneida Lake, crosses the lake, and goes Protection at Auburn, New York (completed down the Oneida River to Three Rivers. The project, 1962) canal then goes up the Seneca and Clyde Riv- (9) Detailed Project Report for Flood Con- ers to Lyons. From Lyons it goes west on a trol, "Onondaga Creek at Nedrow, New York" land line, leaving the basin near Macedon and (completed project, 1963) continuing to lock up (seven locks in all) to the (10) 1959-A Reconnaissance Report on Genesee River at the south edge of Rochester. Keuka Outlet at Penn"Yan, New York, for im- The Oswego Branch of the canal uses the Os- provement for flood control submitted by the wego River between Three Rivers and Os- District Engineer June 10, 1959. This was fol- wego. lowed by a detailed project report. The project, although economically feasible, was not con- 1.61.2 Previous Studies structed because of lack of local cooperation. A plan of operation recommended that Keuka Previous studies are listed below: Lake be controlled as nearly as may be possi- (1) 1970-Soil Conservation Service Pre- ble to remain between a maximum elevation of liminary Investigation Report on the Rome 713.5 and a minimum elevation of 712.0. Muck Watershed, Oneida County, New York; (11) 195 6-Re view of Report for Flood Con- Flint Creek Watershed, Ontario and Yates trol, "Marsh Creek at and in the Vicinity of Counties, New York Geneva, New York." The report was au- (2) 1968-Flood Plain Information Report, thorized by the Committee on Public Works, Canandaigua Outlet, Ontario and Wayne House of Representatives, October 16, 1951. Counties, New York The report, submitted December 14,1956, rec- (3) 1967-Flood Plain Information Report, ommended the following improvements: Canandaigua Lake, New York widening and deepening the existing channel, (4) 1967-Flood Plain Information Report, realigning a portion of it, and installing clo- Seneca Lake, New York sure structures on storm sewers entering the (5) 1967-A Review of Reports for Flood creek. Control, "Chittenango Creek, New York," (12) 1947-In response to the request of dated 1967, authorized by resolution adopted local interests, an investigation into the pos- by the Committee on Public Works, House of sibility of cleaning and enlarging the outlet Representatives, August 24, 1961. The report, channel between Owasco Lake and State Dam submitted March 27, 1967, recommended that under the general authority of Section 2 of the improvements were not considered economi- Flood Control Act approved August 1937, as cally justifiable. Local improvements were amended (completed project, 1949) considered on Limestone and Butternut (13) Definite Project Report on Local Flood Creeks, tributaries of Chittenango Creek. Re- Protection on Onondaga Creek at Syracuse, tention reservoirs were considered on all New York (completed project, 1951) three creeks. (14) 1941-The Flood Control Act of 1941 (6) 1967-Flood Plain Information Report, authorizing construction of a local improve- Cayuga Lake, New York ment project at Ithaca, consisting of channel (7) 1960-A Review Report on Cayuga enlargements, levees, and related works on Inlet for flood control in the vicinity of Ithaca, Cascadilla and Fall Creeks. Construction has New York, submitted and published in House not been started. Document No. 204, 86th Congress. It recom- (15) 1940-A Survey Report on the Oswego mended that a project be authorized for flood River Watershed, prepared by a Special Board Flood Plains Inventory 195 of Officers, submitted to Congress June 17, 1.61.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1940, and published as House Document No. 846, 76th Congress, 3rd Session. The report The Finger Lakes area has been the desti- recommended construction of local improve- nation of vacationists for many years, and ments for flood control at eight localities, in- considerable recreational activity takes place cluding a project on Cascadilla and Falls around these lakes (Skaneateles, Owasco, Creeks at Ithaca. The Board found that im- Cayuga, Seneca, Keuka, and Canandaigua) provement of Cayuga Inlet was not warranted each summer. The principal recreation ac- at that time. tivities include swimming, boating, picnick- (16) 1939-The Survey Report for Flood ing, camping, touring, hunting, hiking, and Control in the Oswego River Watershed sub- winter sports. Recreation in general is a major mitted by the Board of Officers, February 1939 influence in the economy of the basin and ex- (revised October 1939). The Board recom- penditures in connection with recreation by mended that a project be undertaken subject vacationists, tourists, and sportsmen consti- to certain conditions of local cooperation. tute the principal source of revenue for a (17) 1937-Report of Preliminary Exami- number of towns and communities. State and nation, dated April 17,1937, authorized by the county parks contain nearly 10,000 acres of Flood Control Acts of April and June 1936, and the land in the basin. submitted by a Special Board of Officers. It There are a variety of establishments and recommended that surveys be made for the accommodations for the tourist and va- purpose of planning flood control improve- cationist. Private summer homes and camps ments at Montour Falls and was followed by a dot the shores of most lakes, and hotels, Definite Project Report on Local Flood Pro- motels, cabins, cottages, tourist homes, and tection at Montour Falls, New York (com- related establishments are distributed gener- pleted project, 1953). ally throughout the basin. Roseland Park at (18) Definite Project Report on Local Flood the foot of Canandaigua Lake is perhaps the Protection at Watkins Glen, New York. The largest commercial amusement park in the authorized project consisted of enlarging the Finger Lakes area. At Watkins Glen the an- channel of Glenn Creek through the village, nual Grand Prix sports car race is an event protecting the banks, constructing flood walls, which attracts many visitors from far and replacing one highway bridge, and adding near. spans to one highway and one railroad bridge. The Erie Canal, constructed between 1817 A review of the economics of the local im- and 1825, led to rapid development of the basin provement project at Watkins Glen, New and to a demand for branch canals. The York, was authorized by the Chief of En- Oneida Lake Canal was built in 1835 from New gineers on October 2, 1957. Based on this London to the lake. The Oswego Canal, from study, the plan of improvement was not Syracuse to Oswego, was built between 1825 economically justified, and it was recom- and 1829. The Cayuga and Seneca Canal, fol- mended that the authorized project be clas- lowing the Seneca River from near Mon- sified as inactive. tezuma to Geneva with a short branch to (19) 1937-The Report of the Preliminary Cayuga Lake, was built between 1826 and Examination, authorized by the Flood Control 1829. An extension at Ithaca was built in 1869. Acts of April and June 1936, submitted by the The Crooked Lake Canal between Dresden Special Board of Officers, April 1937. It rec- and Penn Yan, parallel to Keuka Outlet, was ommended that surveys be made to determine built between 1831 and 1833, and abandoned in flood control plans for Syracuse and other 1877. The Erie Canal was enlarged twice be- localities. fore 1890 and was abandoned for navigation in (20) 1927-Report of Onondaga Creek 1918 when the New York State Barge Canal Flood Prevention submitted to the Mayor and was completed. It provides for a draft of 12 Council of Syracuse by the Syracuse Inter- feet, whereas the Erie Canal only provided a cepting Sewer Board in 1927. The work rec- draft of approximately 4 feet. ommended in that report was essentially the Except in the Tug Hill area, agriculture is same as that in the authorized project. well developed. Dairying is carried on (21) The U.S. Geological Survey-flood- throughout the entire basin. General farm prone area reports for portions of Seneca and crops and some dairy products are produced Oneida Rivers and Lerg, Butternut, and along the Oswego River. In the central low- Limestone Creeks land, particularly in drained swamp areas, 196 Appendix 14 vegetables are intensively cultivated. Along 1.61.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention the northern fringe of the basin and the Measures Finger Lakes fruit growing predominates. Grapes are grown along Canandaigua and There are several Corps structural projects Keuka Lakes. At Hammondsport, Penn Yan, completed in the Oswego River basin. A brief and Naples, the specialty is wine. Nursery summary of these projects is as follows: stock is grown at Geneva and Newark. (1) Syracuse-This project, on Onondaga Industry is highly developed in the basin. A Creek, consists of two sections. Onondaga great variety of articles is produced in the vil- Reservoir, located 4 miles south of Syracuse, lages, nearly all of which have one or more provides 18,200 acre-feet of storage. The earth small industry. The principal industrial cen- dam is 1,780 feet long with a maximum height ter is Syracuse where chemicals, electrical of 67 feet. A side channel spillway in the east equipment, steel, typewriters, pottery, and abutment has a crest length of 200 feet. Out- machinery are manufactured. flow from the reservoir is limited by the capac- ity of a 6.5-foot diameter ungated conduit to a maximum of 1,270 cubic feet per second with a full reservoir. The other portion of the project 1.61.4 Flood Problems is 2.1 miles of channel widening, deepening, and straightening of the creek in the southern Flooding occurs in the Oswego River basin part of Syracuse. Location of the preventive at any time of the year and there is usually measure is shown in Figure 14-61. some flooding every year. High flows occur (2) Montour Falls-This project consists of nearly every spring from a combination of works on Catharine Creek and a tributary, melting snow and rainfall. Summer storms Shequaga Creek. It is designed to protect the usually affect only small areas. Although the Village of Montour Falls against a repetition basin comprises a total of 5,099 square miles, of the maximum flood of record. Catharine its principal flood problems occur at points Creek was diverted into a new channel, 7,200 where the tributary drainage area is 200 feet long. A levee 8,200 feet long was con- square miles or less. Due to regulation pro- structed along the west side of the new chan- vided by the basin's lakes, damages along the nel with a gated culvert to provide flow in the main stream are relatively low. old channel for sanitation. Improvements on Shequaga Creek include a stilling basin (at the The flood during July 7 and 8, 1935, caused foot of the fall where the stream enters the the greatest damage of any single flood. Dam- village), a concrete conduit with two barrels, age occurred principally in the headwaters of each 14.5 feet square and 560 feet long, and the western part of the basin. The levels of enlargement of 1,800 feet of channel with a Seneca and Cayuga Lakes reached record levee on the south bank 140 feet long. heights and some damage was reported along (3) Moravia-The project at Moravia con- the Seneca River. Flooding was widespread in sists of improvements along Owasco Inlet, Mill June 1922, November 1927, June 1930, August Creek, and Dry Creek. The channel of Mill 1937, August 1938, April 1940, July 1942, May Creek was enlarged for a length of 4,500 feet. A and June 1947, and March 1950. levee 2,200 feet long was constructed along the north bank of Dry Creek, short sections of the Figure 14-59c identifies the time period in channel were enlarged, and a span was added which major damages, as defined in this study, to a railroad bridge. The channel of Owasco are first noted within a given reach on the Inlet was cleared for 5.4 miles to provide a main stem and principal tributaries. Table getaway channel and improve the carrying 14-63 indicates the flood plain damages by capacity of the other two streams, thereby re- reach corresponding to the reaches desig- ducing flood stages locally between Moravia nated in this figure. Table 14-64 indicates up- and Owasco Lake. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- (4) Geneva-The project consists of widen- ages within particular watersheds may be ing and deepening the channel from Seneca seen in Figure 14-60c. Summations of esti- Lake to about 800 feet upstream of the Lehigh mated average annual amages and acres in Valley Railroad. Abutments of three bridges the flood plain are shown by river basin in were underpinned and short sections of con- Table 14-65. County summaries for the main crete walls were constructed. stem and principal tributaries are tabulated (5) Auburn-The project consists of im- in Table 14-66. proving the outlet between Owasco Lake and Flood Plains Inventory 197 TABLE 14-63 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 5.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N AVERAGE ANNUAL C) REACH rr, " @- ;: TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY DAMAGES @- = = = @' CODE YEAR Uj Uj Uj FROM TO (DOLLARS) V) W URBAN RURAL uj w URBANFRURAL Ck: OSWEGO ER BQ1 Oswego Mouth Seneca 1970 2,800 10 10 141 161 Oneida R. 1980 3,900 13 13 135 161 Junction 2000 8,400 16 16 129 161 2020 17,300 20 20 121 161 BQ2 Onondaga Onondaga- Seneca- 1970 40 40 Oswego Co. Oneida R. 1980 500 3 37 3 37 Line Junction 2000 1,100 4 36 4 36 2020 2,600 5 35 5 35 SENECA E BQ3 Onondaga Junction Onondaga- 1970 59,500 15 75 157 2924 3,171 Oswego- Cayuga 1980 93,500 19 97 202 2853 3,171 Oneida Co. Line 2000 220,800 25 124 259 2763 3,171 Rivers 2020 506,300 31 153 320 2667 3,171 BQ4 Cayuga Cayuga- Cayuga- 1970 4,400 29 15 8142 8,186 Onondaga Seneca 1980 6,300 37 19 8130 8,186 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 12,800 48 25 8113 8,186 2020 25,900 59 31 8096 8,186 BQ5 Wayne Wayne- Seneca- 1970 1,900 2985 2,985 Cayuga Wayne 1980 3,500 5 2980 2,985 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 8,000 15 2970 2,985 2020 18,200 26 2959 2,985 BQ6 Seneca Seneca- Seneca- 1970 400 7,000 8 37 6204 8 6,241 Cayuga- Ontario 1980 600 11,400 10 51 6188 10 6,239 Wayne Co. Line 2000 1,300 24,200 13 80 6156 13 6,235 Co. Lines 2020 2,700 50,900 16 109 6124 16 6,233 AKE BQ7 Seneca Seneca- Seneca- 1970 1,200 600 16 55 85 620 536 240 Yates Schuyler 1980 1,900 1,000 21 71 110 574 544 232 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 3,900 2,000 26 91 140 519 545 231 2020 8,100 4,000 32 112 173 459 491 285 BQ8 Schuyler Seneca- Yates- 1970 700 300 10 30 25 790 1030 25 Schuyler Schuyler 1980 1,100 500 13 39 32 971 1023 32 Line Co. Line 2000 2,100 900 16 49 41 949 1014 41 2020 4,600 2,000 20 61 51 923 1004 51 BQ9 Yates @CSOeneca- Yates- 1970 1,200 5 20 70 120 215 Yates Schuyler 1980 1,700 6 26 90 93 215 Cc Line Co. Line 2000 4,400 8 33 116 58 215 2020 8,600 10 41 123 41 215 KEUKA LAKE BQ10 Yates Seneca- Yates- 1970 12,600 20 118 162 380 680 Lake Steuben 1980 14,100 26 152 187 315 680 Inlet Co. Line 2000 35,600 30 152 187 311 680 2020 69,400 33 152 187 308 680 BQlI Steuben Yates- Yates - 1970 9,700 11 100 100 189 400 Steuben Steuben 1980 14,200 14 129 129 128 400 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 24,900 18 150 129 103 400 1 2020 48,600 18 150 129 103 400 CANANDAIGUA LAYE & OUTLET BQ12 Wayne Wayne- Wayne- 1970 6,400 10,100 59 35 9996 218 9,812 Seneca- Ontario 1980 9,800 19,900 76 45 54 9915 281 9,809 Cayuga Co. Line 2000 22,200 45,100 98 57 172 9763 360 9,730 Co. Line 2020 50,500 102,600 120 71 288 9611 444 9,646 BQ13 Ontario Wayne- Ontario- 1970 1,700 9,200 114 175 70 3211 410 3,160 Ontario Yates 1980 2,500 13,500 147 226 90 3101 529 3,041 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 5,600 30,400 188 288 115 2979 677 2,893 2020 12,100 65,500 232 357 143 2836 836 2,734 BQ14 Yates Ontario- Ontario- 1970 1,400 3 10 191 45 58 Yates Yates 1980 2,000 4 13 22 58 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 5,100 5 16 25 12 58 2020 10,100 6 20 31 1 58 198 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-63(continued) Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 5.2 REACH LOCATION ESTIMATED EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N -i -i -i AVERAGE ANNUAL 4 cz cz X 33 REACH - 0= TOTAL REMARKS COUNTY YEAR DAMAGES QC U U.1 CODE Uj X X (DOLL RS) V) UJ =, M, FROM TO C3 Z7; L-j URBAN RURAL W W UJ URBAN RURAL U 0: = 0= CAYUGA LAKE BQ15 Cayuga Cayuga- Cayuga- 1970 8,700 4 34 143 160 341 Seneca Tompkins 1980 12,800 5 44 184 108 341 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 24,900 7 56 181 91 341 2020 50,000 8 69 152 112 341 BQ16 Seneca Seneca- Seneca- 1970 8,700 2 42 164 379 587 Cayuga Tompkins 1980 13,100 2 54 212 319 587 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 28,000 3 69 271 244 587 2020 59,100 4 86 334 163 587 BQ17 Tompkins@Tompkins- Tompkins- 1970 4,400 4 30 56 250 340 Seneca Cayuga 1980 7,000 4 39 72 225 340 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 18,100 6 50 92 192 340 2020 44,900 8 61 114 157 340 OWASCO LAKE AND OUTLET BQ18 Cayuga Seneca South end 1970 2,700 7 75 20 1453 1,555 River 1980 3,700 9 96 26 1424 1,555 2000 8,000 11 124 33 1357 1,555 2020 16,000 14 153 41 1347 1,555 SKANEATELES LAKE AND OUTLET BQ19 Onondaga Onandaga- Onondaga- 1970 9,200 2,500 17 51 15 1535 54 1,564 Cayuga Cortland 1980 14,500 4,100 21 66 19 1512 70 1,548 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 34,000 9,400 28 84 25 1481 89 1,529 2020 78,200 21,000 34 104 31 1449 110 1,508 BQ20 Cayuga Onondaga- Cortland- 1970 200 6 10 100 116 Cayuga Cayuga 1980 200 8 13 95 116 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 600 10 16 90 116 2020 1,200 12 20 84 116 BQ21 Cortlan Onondaga- Cortland- 1970 2 1 3 50 56 Cortland Cayuga 1980 300 2 1 4 49 56 Co. Line Co. Line 2000 600 3 2 5 46 56 1 1 2020 1,500 4 2 6 44 56 OTISCO LAKE AND OUTLET BQ22 Onondag Mouth at South end 1970 2,000 2,400 18 86 11 1139 66 1,254 Onondaga of Lake 1980 3,100 3,800 24 111 14 1171 86 1,234 Lake 2000 7,300 8,900 29 142 18 1131 109 1,211 2020 16,900 20,700 37 175 14 1094 135 1,185 ONONDAGA LAKE BQ23 Onondaga North end South end 1970 3,100 90 467 557 1980 4,800 90 467 557 2000 11,500 90 467 557 2020 26,400 90 467 557 ONEIDA E AND IA',E BQ24 Oswego Oswego Oswego- 1970 35,500 13 33 196 4002 4,244 River Oneida 1980 50,800 17 42 253 3932 4,244 Co. Line 2000 105,400 21 55 323 3845 2,244 2020 220,800 26 61 400 3751 2,244 BQ25 Onondaga Oswego Roudell 1970 43,100 14 25 213 2243 2,495 River 1980 67,600 17 32 274 2172 2,495 2000 159,800 23 42 305 2125 2,495 2020 366,500 26 49 338 2082 2,495 BQ26 Oneida Oneida- Oneida 1970 1,600 23,800 18 27 150 935 32 1,098 Oswego City 1980 2,400 34,700 23 35 174 895 41 1,089 Co. Line Boundary 2000 4,800 71,700 29 45 156 900 53 12077 2020 9,700 144,000 36 55 137 902 66 1,064 BQ27 Madison Onondaga- Oneida 1970 800 17,600 10 20 90 1241 14 1,347 Madison City 1980 1,300 27,800 12 26 116 1209 18 1,343 Co. Line Boundary 2000 2,900 64,800 16 35 148 1164 23 1,338 2020 6,900 151,000 20 40 184 1117 28 1,333 CHITTE GO CREEK BQ28 Onondaga Mouth at 18 Mile 1970 4,400 828 828 Oneida Creek 1980 7,100 10 818 828 Lake 2000 16,300 13 815 828 2020 37,600 16 812 828 B029 Madison Mouth at 18 Mile 1970 4,300 7 825 832 Oneida Creek 1980 6,900 9 823 832 Lake 2000 15,900 12 820 832 2020 37,200 14 818, 832 Flood Plains Inventory 199 TABLE14-64 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, 'River Basin Group 5.2 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN W M AVERAGE ANNUAL 4 x w w z < cr Z (n DAMAGES Z4 cr < M :5 1 w 00 YEAR -i -i W cr 0: z w< TOTAL W2 (DOLLARS) t-- a :c jr W w a. Gn 0 :) :) 9 0 z ct 0 0 Ixa 2 cr CL 0 URBAN 1RU'RALITOTAL ou z URBAN RURAL I I OSWEGO RIVER .-K 462 1970 200 200 -- 20 20 -- 433 1970 -- 49,700 49,700 785 -- -- 785 5 1970 600 46,100 46,700 4,600 800 200 400 10 40 50 6,000 12 1970 16,000 -- 16,000 -- 20 -- 10 -- 175 75 250 30 71 1970 26,000 2,500 28,500 550 1,300 1,050 100 800 15000 200 2,000 3,000 122 1970 1,200 18,900 20,100 850 1,500 700 700 30 60 10 100 3,750 127 1970 -- 86,500 86,500 790 -- 640 445 -- -- -- -- 1,875 142 1970 -- 2,300 2,300 200 200 100 200 -- -- -- -- 700 419 1970 2,500 2,800 5,300 450 550 75 25 75 100 25 200 1,100 423 1970 -- 300 300 100 20 20 10 -- -- -- -- 150 424 1970 -- 2,000 2,000 300 50 100 50 -- -- -- 500 425 1970 800 1,600 2,400 400 600 1,500 500 30 20 50 3,000 426 1970 -- 36,300 36,300 600 100 100 -- -- -- -- 800 11 1970 300 130,000 130,300 2,550 450 1,500 288 2 22 47 71 4,788 29 1970 -- 200 200 50 50 200 100 -- -- -- -- 400 30 1970 -- 26,000 26,000 325 175 -- -- -- -- -- -- 500 52 1970 700 600 1,300 150 220 80 50 5 60 85 150 500 68 1970 18,000 1,400 19,400 443 74 221 512 200 221 -- 421 1,250 137 1970 2,300 1,800 4,100 410 500 500 4,590 30 120 10 160 6,000 140 1970 4,100 1,000 5,100 428 72 158 -- 1 54 -- 55 658 150 1970 300 4,300 4,600 250 315 225 1,125 4 15 40 59 1,915 434 1970 -- 3,000 3,000 874 1,750 550 650 -- -- -- -- 3,824 435 1970 6,000 6,000 451 415 1,510 215 2,591 436 1970 200 200 70 50 200 100 420 439 1970 -- 2,200 2,200 175 50 75 12 312 441 1970 200 200 400 20 20 435 2 21 1 22 477 442 1970 100 400 500 80 320 400 20 10 10 820 443 1970 100 600 700 60 40 60 115 1 7 2 10 275 446 1970 -- 700 700 122 165 218 70 -- -- -- 575 447 1970 1,000 1,000 290 89 112 60 551 448 1970 -- 100 100 10 10 -- -- 20 450 1970 2,000 2,600 4,600 750 610 340 40 5 195 200 1,740 451 1970 -- 1,100 1,100 289 178 342 70 -- -- -- 879 453 1970 -- 10,200 10,200 850 100 -- 50 -- -- -- 1,000 454 1970 300 31,900 32,200 1,700 600 1,800 1,550 10 5 5 20 5,650 455 1970 -- 9,400 9,400 800 600 750 1,000 -- -- -- 3,150 456 1970 400 2,300 2,700 350 200 600 850 8 22 30 2,000 458 1970 -- 2,700 2,700 789 454 734 2,402 -- -- -- 4,379 459 1970 1,000 1,000 300 90 250 100 740 461 1970 -- 1,000 1,000 125 75 100 -- 300 --f-6 , 1-00 1 -- - Total 1970 490,900 567 000 2T,336 1 , 2 .5,845 16,411 1,211 2,167 500 3,878 67,404 1980 102,000 687,300 789,300 22,336 12,812 5,845 16,411 1,211 2,167 500 3,878 67,404 2000 184,200 824,700 1,008,900 22,336 12,812 .5,845 16,411 1,211 2,167 500 3,878 67,404 2020 342,500 937,600 1,280,100 22,336 12,812 5,845 16,411 1,211 2,167 500 3,878 67,404 SALMON - P@ERCH - NEWYORK 92 1970 600 1,700 2,300 400 800 580 20 10 40 50 100 1,800 393 1970 -- 100 100 25 75 40 10 -- -- -- -- 150 - -f-- - - -16-20 -30 -10 -40 -50 1-00 Total 1970 600 800 400 425 875 1980 800 2,500 3,300 425 875 620 30 10 40 50 100 1,950 2000 1,500 3,000 4,500 425 875 620 30 10 40 50 100 1,950 2020 2,700 3,400 6,100 425 875 .620 30 10 40 50 100 1,950 WAYNE - C YUGA COMPLEX NEW YOJ 20 1970 4,000 -- 4,000 -- -- -- -- 150 100 50 300 -- 253 1970 8,000 3,700 11,700 1,060 400 1,000 1,115 300 202 101 603 3,575 116 1970 100 7,000 7,100 350 -- 450 -- -- 4 -- 4 800 427 1970 200 1,400 1,600 540 20 110 47 5 5 40 50 717 428 1970 -- 23,700 23,700 1,300 50 500 150 200 200 2,000 429 1970 4,300 4,300 700 50 200 50 -- -- 1,000 430 1970 6,300 6,300 250 -- 50 -- 300 431 1970 2,100 2,100 310 100 130 160 700 432 1970 2,600 2,600 100 -- 200 -- 300 Total 1970 12,300 51,100 63,400 :F, 6-10 0 2,640 1,522 455 311 391 1,157 9,392 1980 16,500 71,500 88,000 4,610 620 2,640 1,522 455 311 391 1,157 9,392 2000 29,800 85,800 115,600 4,610 620 2,640 1,522 455 311 391 1,157 9,392 2020 55,400 97,600 153,000 4,610 620 2,640 1,522 455 311 391 1,157 9,392 200 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-65 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 5.2 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban Rur7l' Urban Rural Wayne-Cayuga 1970 12.9300 515100 11157 94392 Complex 1980 165500 715500 15157 95392 2000 291800 855800 1.9157 93392 2020 55.9400 97.@600 1.1157 9.9392 Oswego River 1970 103.@200 769P900 6@803 119.9495 1980 1445500 11,112.1700 7.1040 119'@258 2000 280.9900 l.1779.J00 75322' 118.$976 2020 5613200 3'9038@500 7.1570 118.9728 Salmon River 1970 600 1.9800 100 1.4950 Complex 1980 800 231500 100 1.@950 2000 1.1500 3.9000 100 1.@950 2020 2.1700 3000 100 1.1950 TOTALS 1970 116.1100 822.9800 8.1060 130.1837 1980 161.7800 1.1186.9700 8.9297 1305600 2000 312.9200 11868.@500 83579 1303318 2020 619.7300 3.1139,9500 8.1827 130.3070 the State Dam, rehabilitation of the State constructed walls and levees along the banks. Dam, and adoption of an operation schedule These improvements have practically elimi- under which maximum use would be made of nated flood damage from Sixmile Creek. these improvements to hold lake stages and (8) About 1870, in connection with an outlet discharges within nondamaging limits. enlargement of the Erie Canal, the State con- (6) Ithaca-The project consists of a con- structed reservoirs on Chittenango Creek at crete drop structure at the head of the im- Erieville, on Limestone Creek near DeRuyter, proved channel and wing levees from the ends and on Butternut Creek near Jamesville, and of the drop structure to high ground; a closure regulating works for Cazenovia Lake on a structure where the left bank crosses a rail- tributary of Chittenango Creek. road; widening and realigning the channel for about 4,800 feet downstream of the drop (9) In Fayetteville a levee was constructed structure; and widening on its present align- along the west bank of Limestone Creek from ment for approximately 4,300 feet at its the West Genesee Street bridge to a point 1,600 downstream end, the latter reach extending feet upstream. This levee was completed in into Cayuga Lake. Between these two wid- 1918. ened reaches flows will be divided between two (10) In 1935 improvements partially fi- channels, the existing channel which will be nanced with Federal aid in the Village of Chit- maintained at its present capacity, and a new tenango on Chittenango, Creek consisted of channel 6,000 feet long. Two new highway deepening, widening, and realigning the creek bridges and a railroad bridge near the drop channel for 4,200 feet through the village. The structure were replaced. In addition, the proj- New York State Department of Public Works, ect includes facilities at the drop structure for in 1938, extended the improved channel an fish passage and fish trappings to provide for additional 1,000 feet. research and lamprey control. The channel (11) A P.L.-566 watershed project has been between the drop structure and Taber Street constructed by the Soil Conservation Service is wide enough for a three-lane crew-racing on Cowaselon Creek in Madison County, New course. York. (7) After a flood in 1905 the City of Ithaca Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of enlarged the channel of Sixmile Creek and flood plain legislation applicable to this basin. Flood Plains Inventory 201 TABLE 14-66 River Basin Group 5.2, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain .County (New York) Urban Rural Urban Rural Cayuga --- 16,000 --- 10,198 Cortland --- --- --- 56 Madison 800 21,900 14 2,179 Oneida 1,600 239800 32 1,098 Onondaga 14,300 111,900 677 9,352 Ontario (See RBG 5.1) 1,700 9,200 410 3,160 Oswego --- 38,300 --- 4,405 Schuyler 700 300 1,030 25 Seneca 1,600 16,300 544 7,068 Steuben --- 99700 --- 400 Tompkins --- 49400 --- 340 Wayne 6,400 12,000 218 12,857 Yates --- 15,200 --- 953 TOTALS 27,100 279,000 2,925 52,091 YEAR 1980 Cayuga --- 23,000 --- 10,198 Cortland --- 300 --- 56 Madison 1,300 34,700 18 2,175 Oneida 2,400 34,700 41 1,089 Onondaga 22,900 176,100 716 9,313 Ontario (See RBG 5.1) 2,500 13,500 529 3,041 Oswego --- 549700 --- 4,405 Schuyler 1,100 500 1,023 32 Seneca 2,500 25,500 554 7,058 Steuben --- 14,200 --- 400 Tompkins --- 79000 --- 340 Wayne 9,800 239400 281 12,794 Yates --- 17,800 --- 953 TOTALS 42,500 425,400 3,162 51,854 YEAR 2000 Cayuga --- 46,300 --- 10,198 Cortland --- 600 --- 56 Madison 2,900 80,700 23 2,170 Oneida 4,800 71,700 53 1,077 Onondaga 53,900 415,200 759 9,270 Ontario (See RBG 5.1) 5,600 30,400 677 2,893 Oswego --- 113,800 --- 4,405 Schuyler 2,100 900 1,014 41 Seneca 5,200 54,200 558 7,054 Steuben --- 249900 --- 400 Tompkins --- 18,100 --- 340 Wayne 22,200 53,100 360 12,715 Yates --- 45,100 --- 953 TOTALS 96,700 9559000 3,444 51,572 YEAR 2020 Cayuga --- 93,100 --- 10,198 Cortland --- 1,500 --- 56 Madison 6,900 188,200 28 2,165 Oneida 9,700 144,000 66 1,064 Onondaga 124,100 952,100 807 9,222 Ontario (See RBG 5.1) 12,100 65,500 836 2,734 Oswego --- 283,100 --- 4,405 Schuyler 49600 15,600 1,004 51 Seneca 10,800 114,000 507 7,105 Steuben --- 48,600 --- 400 Tompkins --- 44,,900 --- 340 Wayne 50,500 120,800 444 12,631 Yates --- 88,100 --- 953 TOTALS 218,700 2,100,900 3,692 51,324 On main stem and principal tributaries 202 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-66A River Basin Group 5.2, Nonagricultural Average Annual Flood Damages* (Aux- iliary Data) Existing 1980 2020 Basin 284,000 433,200 2,141,500 Lakes Canandaigua 9,400 13,700 67,000 Cayuga 21,800 32,900 153,800 Seneca 4,000 6 _,200 27,300 Keuka 21,800 27,700 114,400 Owasco 1,700 2,400 10,100 Skaneateles 600 1,300 5,900 Otisco 1,700 2,700 14,700 Oneida 75,100 112,800 539,400 Lake Outlets Canandaigua 10,400 15,800 79,900 Owasco 1,000 1,300 5,900 Skaneateles 11,300 17,800 96,000 Otisco (Ninemile Cr.) 2,700 4,200 22,900 Barge Canal (Erie Div.) 119,800 190,300 985,900 Cayuga-Seneca Canal 2,700 4,100 18,300 This table, from the draft of the tentative Oswego River Basin Report, is supplied by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Differences in this table and those previously pre- sented occur as a consequence of variances in study criteria, prin- cipally methodology of damage projection. 1.62 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group northwesterly 73 miles to Deferiet, and then 5.3, Black River Basin westerly 24 miles to Dexter where it enters Black River Bay, an arm of Lake Ontario. Its 1.62.1 Description principal tributaries are Moose River, drain- ing 212 square miles; Beaver River, draining The Black River drains an area of 1,916 334 square miles; Deer River, draining 102 square miles in the southwestern part of the square miles; and Woodhull Creek, draining 98 Adirondack region of northern New York. Its square miles. basin is located east of Lake Ontario. The basin adjoins the St. Lawrence drainage basin on the north and east, the Hudson River basin 1.62.2 Previous Studies on the east and south, and the Oswego River basin and the drainage basins of small Previous studies are listed below: streams that empty into Lake Ontario on the (1) 1954-the Resources of the New south and west. Location within River Basin England-New York Region, Part II, Chapter Group 5.3 is shown in Figure 14-62. It is ap- XXXI, Black River Basin, New York proximately 75 miles wide in an east-west di- (2) 1949-a report considering local im- rection and 40 miles from north to south at the provements in the Carthage-Lyons Falls widest point. The river rises in North Lake, reach. flows southwesterly 15 miles to a point near its (3) 1944-the Panther Mountain reservoir confluence with Little Black Creek, then project, approved by Congress under P.L. Flood Plains Inventory 203 TABLE 14-66B River Basin Group 5.2, Agri- Herrings, Carthage, West Carthage, Beaver cultural Average Annual Flood Damages' (Aux- Falls, Lyons Falls, and Lyondale. Watertown iliary Data) also manufactures paper-mill machinery, 2 air brakes, and textiles, and is the principal Exi ting business and commercial center of northern New York State. Basin 434,100 Barge Canal 1.62.4 Flood Problems Wa-Ont-Ya Area 115,200 Flooding in the Black River basin occurs at Eastern Oswego Area 8,000 any time of the year, and has been more fre- quent in the middle reaches of the river be- Local Areas tween Carthage and Lyons Falls. The combi- nation of heavy spring rainfall and melting Wa-Ont-Ya 281,200 snow with the breaking up of river ice often Chemung3 6,600 causes flood conditions in this reach of the Cayuga Lake --- basin. Although flooding in the reach between Eastern Oswego 146,300 Carthage and Lake Ontario is less frequent, the damage is serious because it affects in- dustrial and residential areas. The maximum 1This table, from the draft of the recorded flood occurred in April 1928, but the tentative Oswego River Basin flood of December 1901 was estimated to be Report, is supplied by the New greater. York State Department of Environ- Failure of a dam at McKeever in 1947 caused damage along the Moose River but ordinarily mental Conservation. there is little flood damage in the basin. 2Less acreage or intensity in Figure 14-63c identifies the time period in agriculture in the future would which major damages, as defined in this study, tend to lower these figures; are first noted within a given reach on the higher acreage or intensity might main stem and principal tributaries. Table 14-67 indicates the flood plain damages by increase them. reach corresponding to the reaches desig- 3Oswego basin portion of Board nated in this figure. Table 14-68 shows up- area only. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-64c. Summations of esti- 534, 78th Congress, enacted December 22, mated average annual damages and acres in 1944. The authorization expired in 1951, be- the flood plain are shown by river basin in cause assurances of local cooperation had not Table 14-69. County summaries for the main been furnished. stem and principal tributaries are tabulated (4) the U.S. Geological Survey-a flood- in Table 14-70. prone area report for a portion of the Black River 1.62.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures 1.62.3 Development in the Flood Plain There are no structural flood contrpl proj- Flooding in the Black River basin affects the ects in the basin. flatlands between Lyons Falls and Carthage. Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of The land is used almost entirely for agricul- flood plain legislation applicable to this river tural purposes. Dairying is the principal activ- basin. ity and the land is devoted to pasture or rais- ing hay, corn, and some grain for feed. Land, 1.63 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group subject to frequent flooding, is largely wild 5.3, Oswegatchie River Basin grass, pasture, or meadow. The principal industry is the manufacture of 1.63.1 Description paper and paper products. There are mills at Dexter, Brownville, Watertown, Deferiet, The Oswegatchie River drains an area of 204 Appendix 14 ,ce co Od 4. d C,..k s Creek OS G 0 oo 0 Oswego Camden Fulton WAYN E Oneida Lake Rome 13. Ne. York fate S,.,. Barg. at Clyde cl @@bca C. at a Syrac,, 0 Lyons L to Newa, ONTAR C11 Aubu, -Waterloo S Falls ON NDA I cl 1 1 n.r,d.ig.. CI Oft 'I HERKIMER Geneva* Lake ONEIDA C...nd.,g.. C.Y.9a _____L ke -------------- take YATES MADISON S.__ cl per, Y,m 1,1e CAYU A SENECA KeukaLake I i Ilh.,,. 'Cl LEGEND atk- len BOUNDARIES cl TOMPKINS STATE SCHU, FR COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP PROTECTION MEASURES CHANNEL DIVERSION CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT it- LEVEES AND FLOODWALLS INSTITUTIONAL RESERVOIR PL 566 WATERSHED PROJECT SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-61 Existing Flood @Damage,Protection Measures for River Basin Group 5.2 Flood Plains Inventory 205 M ena Riyer Ogdrmburg Potsdam Caf ton .4t .1 Black GRASS RAQUETTE-ST. RE is G neu M "el \Tupper Lak C-.":, PERCH Cranberry Lake 0 WEGATCHIE NCE a C, e. Rive, 9ifl.afer Reiervoir,// Raqu,H. ak@ LAKE BLACK Ftilt.n Lake@ R) ONTARIO JEFFERSON "'e, Moo e v11-11, LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP RIVER BASIN OR COMPLEX SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 is 20 FIGURE 14-62 Lake Ontario East-River Basin Group 5.3 206 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-67 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Main Stem and Principal Tributaries, River Basin Group 5.3 . REACH LOCATION ESTIMATE '0 EST I MATED ACRES I N FLOOD PLA I N REACH AVERAGE ANNUAL 4 -- !'@ ' @@ 5 COUNTY DAMAGES Fr u- TOTAL REMARKS CODE YEAR L' LU FROM TO (DOLL RS) uJ: e E! X V) C, URBAN RURAL c) W Uj LLJ URBAN RURAL L o' BLACK RIVER BSI Jefferson Mouth Jefferson- 1970 6,000 25 10 1 5 '001 Lewis 1980 200 25 10 1900 1 9,5 Co. Line 2000 16,800 26 10 18991 1,935 2020 34,800 28 11 18961 1,935 BS2 Lewis Jefferson- Moose 1970 147,600 18009 18,000 Lewis River 1980 187,800 1800@ 18,000 Co. Line Lyons and 2000 379,300 1800. 18,000 Falls 2020 815,700 1800( 18,000 OSWEGATCHIE RIVER BT1 St. Law- @Mouth Governeur 1970 800 9,700 7 63957 17 3,953 rence 1980 1,000 13,000 7 63957 17 3,953 2000 2,300 27,400 7 63957 18 3,952 2020 4,700 56,800 7 63957 19 3,951 GRASS RIV@Mo BUl St Law uth Middle 1970 11,100 20 53355 3,380 re@ce Branch 1980 15,000 20 53355 3,380 2000 31,200 20 53355 3,380 2020 66,700 21 63353 3,380 RAQUETTE IVER BU2 Franklin Mouth St. Law- 1970 30 30 rence - 1980 30 30 Franklin 2000 30 30 Co. Line 2020 30 30 BU3 St. Law- St. Law- Carry 1970 10,500 55 1400 1,455 rence rence Falls 1980 14,200 55 1400 1,455 Franklin Reservoir 2000 29,600 58 1397 1,455 Co. Line 2020 61,500 61 1394 1,455 ST. REGI9 RIVER BU4 Franklin U.S./ St. Law- 1970 300 ifooo 5 1406 11 19400 Canada rence - 1980 300 1,400 5 1406 11 1,400 Border Franklin 2000 900 10800 5 1406 11 1,400 Co. Line 2020 1,800 5,800 6 1405 12 1,400 BU5 St. Law- St. Law- Confluence 1970 300 390 390 rence rmce- with West 1980 300 390 390 Franklin Branch 2000 900 390 390 Co. Line 2020 1,800 3901 390 1,603 square miles. Location within River 1.63.2 Previous Studies Basin Group 5.3 is shown in Figure 14-62. The upstream half of the watershed lies on the The Resources of the New England-New northwestern slopes of the Adirondack Moun- York Region, Part II, Chapter XXVIII, St. tains between elevations of 600 and 2,200 feet, Lawrence Drainage Basin, New York, dated with small areas in the extreme southeast 1955, is the only previous study. portion of, the watershed approaching 3,000 feet. Small lakes, ponds, and swampy areas occur throughout the area. The lower half of 1.63.3 Development in the Flood Plain the basin lies almost entirely between eleva- tions of 200 and 600 feet and is relatively flat. The principal industries in the basin are The largest tributary is Indian River, drain- mining and paper making. There are paper ing 559 square miles in the southwestern and mills at Newton Falls, Harrisville, Natural western part of the watershed. Dam, and Ogdensburg. The principal agricul- Flood Plains Inventory 207 TABLE 14-68 Flood Plain Damage Summary, Upstream Watersheds, River Basin Group 5.3 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ACRES IN FLOOD PLAIN a a _J W Cr AVERAGE ANNUAL W _J .4 .4 X W z .1 - - Cr Z DAMAGES z 0: < 0: _J U 4 D _J W 4 FX ac z W4 TOTAL YEAR (DOLLARS) cr MW W2 I--- (L W 6 (z D 0 0 D =) 2 9 9z 0 4 0 0 Ir a URBAN 1RURALITOTAL 3:: z 0 URBAN RURAL BLACK RIVER NEW YORK 34 1970 200 3,500 3,700 1,080 435 140 40 5 10 5 20 1,695 405 1970 200 200 60 100 840 1,000 407 1970 1,700 1,700 520 248 100 868 408 1970 1,700 1,700 480 320 25 20 845 409 1970 100 100 30 20 100 25 175 410 1970 100 100 20 80 700 Soo 411 1970 200 200 75 100 25 200 412 1970 1,400 1,400 300 700 200 300 13500 413 1970 100 2,500 2,600 700 590 10 9 2 8 10 1,309 414 1970 100 900 1,000 145 700 770 130 4 4 2 10 1,745 416 1970 2,200 2,200 500 1,020 50 45 1,615 417 1970 3,000 1,400 4,400 400 300 200 100 75 75 50 200 1,000 Total 1970 3,400 15,900 19,300 T, 3-10 T_,533 5-4 0 1-,369 8-6 -97 5-7 -240 12,752 1980 4,300 21,900 263200 43310 4,533 23540 1,369 86 97 57 240 12,752 2000 7,400 27,000 34,400 4,310 4,533 23540 1,369 86 97 57 240 12,752 2020 13,500 30,400 43,900 4,310 4,533 2,540 1,369 86 97 57 240 123752 GRASS-RAQdETTE - ST. REGIS COMPLEX NEW YORK 351 1970 5,000 53000 500 500 358 1970 600 600 100 500 600 362 1970 23000 2,000 500 800 400 1,700 310 1970 100 100 75 125 200 Total 1970 5,000 2,700 73700 600 1,375 525 500 500 2Y5OO 1980 63400 3,700 10,100 600 1,375 525 500 500 2,500 2000 11,000 4,600 15,600 600 1,375 525 500 500 2,500 2020 19,900 53200 15,100 600 1,375 525 500 500 2,500 OSWEGATCHIE RIVER - NEW YORK 381 1970 300 300 50 150 1 0 400 1980 400 400 50 150 180 20 400 2000 500 500 50 150 180 20 400 2020 600 600 50 1 150 180 20 400 tural areas are west of Edwards and Natural which major damages, as defined in this study, Bridge. Tourists, hunters, and fishermen are are first noted within a given reach on the important sources of income in many parts of main stem and principal tributaries. Table the watershed, particularly at Black, 14-67 indicates the flood plain damages by Bonaparte, and Cranberry Lakes. Camp. reach corresponding to the reaches desig- Drum Military Reservation occupies a large nated in this figure. Table 14-68 indicates up- area in the southwestern part of the wa- stream flood damges. Location of these dam- tershed. ages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-64c. Summations of esti- mated average annual damages and acres in 1.63.4 Flood Problems the flood plain are shown by river basin in Table 14-69. County summaries for the main Floods are not a serious problem in the St. stem and principal tributaries are tabulated Lawrence drainage basin. High flows occur in Table 14-70. nearly every spring from a combination of melting snow and rainfall. Records of flood 1.63.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention h M damage in t e Oswegatchie Watershed are easures sparse. Recent records indicate that reported damages have generally occurred at the time The only structural measure is a deep draft of the spring runoff, but not always at the time harbor maintained at Ogdensburg at the of the peak runoff, because many overflows mouth of the Oswegatchie River. are due to ice jams. At Gouveneur approxi- Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of mately 25 residential units suffer damage. flood plain legislation applicable to this river Figure 14-63c identifies the time period in basin. 208 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-69 Data Summary by River Basin, River Basin Group 5.3 Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres (Dollars) In Flood Plain River Basin Year Urban---- Rural Urban Rural Black River 1970 3.1400 169@9500 240 32.1687 1980 4.000 217.@900 240 32JI687 2000 7000 4235100 240 32.@687 2020 13.9500 88OP900 240 32P687 Oswegatchie 1970 800 10.@000 17 4.9353 River 1980 1.9 000 135400 17 4)353 2000 2.1300 27.@900 18 4052 2020 4P700 575400 19 4051 Grass-Raquette- 1970 55300 25.9600 511 9P155 St. Regis 1980 6.1700 34.1600 511 9.9155 Complex 2000 11.9900 69.1100 511 9JI155 2020 215700 1415000 512 9.9154 Perch River 1970 - - - - Complex 1980 - - - - 2000 - - - - 2020 - - - - TOTAL 1970 9P500 2055100 768 46.7195 1980 12.7000 2651900 768 46.9195 2000 215000 520.9100 769 465194 2020 395900 1P079.1300 771 463192 1.64 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group Mountain Lake, situated in the central part of 5.3, Grass, Raquette, and St. Regis River the Adirondack Plateau at an elevation of Basins 1,790 feet above mean sea level. The largest tributary is Bog River which drains 133 1.64.1 Description square miles west of the main stream. Cold River enters from the east, draining 84 square Location of these river basins are shown in miles. Jordan River drains 49 square miles of Figure 14-62. The Grass River drains an area swampy area on the east side of the basin. of 676 square miles in St. Lawrence County. The St. Regis River drains an area of 852 The south branch, largest of the three square miles. The basin is generally rectangu- branches, rises on the slopes of Long Tom lar in shape, 42 miles long in a northwesterly Mountain in the southeastern part of the direction, and 20 miles wide. The southern county and is the outlet for Lake Massawepie portion of the basin lies on the northern slopes at an elevation of 1,500 feet, the largest body of of the Adirondack Mountains. The largest water in the watershed. The total length from tributary, Deer River, enters at Helena, 7 the sources of the south branch to the mouth is miles above the mouth, and drains 193 square 110 miles, and the total fall is 1,600 feet. The miles on the east side of the basin. principal tributaries are Little River, drain- ing 136 square miles, and Harrison Creek, draining 84 square miles. 1.64.2 Previous Studies The Raquette River drains an area of 1,256 square miles. The source of the river is Blue The Resources of the New England-New Flood Plains Inventory 209 TABLE 14-70 River Basin Group 5.3, Data Summary by County YEAR 1970 Estimated Average Annual Estimated Acres in Damages (Dollars) Flood Plain County (New York) Urban Rural Urban Rural Franklin 300 1,000 11 1,430 Jefferson --- 6,000 --- 1,935 Lewis --- 147,600 --- 18,000 St. Lawrence 800 31,600 17 9,178 TOTALS 1,100 186,200 28 30,543 YEAR 1980 Franklin 300 1,400 11 1,430 Jefferson --- 8,200 --- 1,935 Lewis --- 187,800 --- 18,000 St. Lawrence 1,000 42,500 17 9,178 TOTALS 1,300 239,900 28 30,543 YEAR 2000 Franklin 900 2,800 11 1,430 Jefferson --- 16,800 --- 1,935 Lewis --- 379,300 --- 18,000 St. Lawrence 2,300 89,100 18 9,177 TOTALS 3,200 488,000 29 30,542 YEAR 2020 Franklin 1,800 5,800 12 1,429 Jefferson --- 34,800 --- 1,935 Lewis --- 815,700 --- 18,000 St. Lawrence 4,700 186,800 19 9,176 TOTALS 6,500 1@043,100 31 30,540 On main stem and principal tributaries York Region, Part II, Chapter XXVIII, St. important sources of income in the southern Lawrence Drainage Basin, New York, dated part of the watershed. 1955, is the only previous study. 1.64.4 Flood Problems 1.64.3 Development in the Flood Plain Floods are not a serious problem in the St. Outside of the Massena area there are few Lawrence drainage basin. High flows occur industries located in the watershed. Agricul- nearly every spring from a combination of ture is confined to the northern part of the melting snow and rainfall. Floods that have watershed and consists of dairying and re- occurred appear to be due to ice jams rather lated activities. The southern part is not than to high discharges. suited to agriculture and is covered with Figure 14-63c identifies the time period in second-growth timber. A considerable growth which major damages as defined in this study of hardwood remains standing above Sylvan are first noted within a given reach on the Falls on the west branch due to its inaccessi- main stem and principal tributaries. Table bility. Tourists, hunters, and fishermen are 14-67 indicates the flood plain damages by 210 Appendix 14 reach corresponding to the reaches desig- Location within River Basin Group 5.3 is nated in this figure. Table 14-68 shows up- shown in Figure 14-62. stream flood damages. Location of these dam- ages within particular watersheds may be seen in Figure 14-64c. Summations of esti- 1.65.2 Previous Studies mated average annual damages and acres in the flood plain are shown by river basin in The Resources of the New England-New Table 14-69. County summaries for the main York Region, Part II, dated 1955, is the only stem and principal tributaries are tabulated previous study. in Table 14-70. 1.65.3 Development in the Flood Plain 1.64.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures The complex is sparsely populated and has little development in the flood plains. At the present time there are no structural flood control projects in the basin. Subsection 1.54.5 contains a discussion of 1.65.4 Flood Problems flood plain legislation applicable to these ba- sins. There are negligible flood problems in the complex at this time. 1.65 Lake Ontario East, River Basin Group 5.3, Perch River Complex 1.65.5 Existing Flood Damage Prevention Measures 1.65.1 Description There are no known existing structural The Perch River complex is 486 square miles flood prevention measures in the complex. in size and is composed of several relatively Refer to Subsection 1.54.5 for a discussion of small streams. The largest is the Perch River flood plain legislation applicable to this com- which has a drainage area of 98 square miles. plex. Section 2 FLOOD PROBLEM ANALYSIS 2.1 Introduction tion measures for the special time periods des- ignated as immediate (before 1980), short term Because the nature and extent of flood prob- (1980 to 2000), and long term (after 2000). The lems vary appreciably among the river basins subsequent tables denote these alternative of a region, comprehensive plans are needed to flood damage reduction measures. Multipur- guide the development, use, and conservation pose consideration of reservoirs may result in of the resources of major drainage basins. their use at a time period earlier than indi- There has been a tendency among land-use cated. planners in the United States to think that flood plain regulation would provide the whole answer, just as in the past engineers tended to 2.2 Flood Damage Reduction Measures think that flood protection works provided the solution. If future flood control efforts are con- 2.2.1 Preventive Measures fined only to the construction of engineering works, while the nation's citizens continue to An institutional alternative, legislative develop its flood plains without regard for regulation of uses in flood plain areas for flood flood losses, expenditures of Federal funds loss control, may be undertaken at the State or alone will nationally have to exceed $510 mil- local levels through the adoption of one or lion annually to keep flood losses from increas- more regulatory tools. Flood plain zoning is a ing. It has been shown in urban areas that legal tool that is widely used by local and State protection leads to continued invasion of the agencies to control and direct the develop- flood plain, and unless catastrophic losses oc- ment of land within the flood plain. Such zon- cur, there tends to be a progressive crowding ing attempts to insure the safekeeping of into the lowlands to enjoy the benefits of these lands for the public health and welfare. cheaper accessibility, transportation, and Flood plain zoning should be a part of a com- waste disposal. prehensive zoning program for the entire Therefore, it should be recognized that pre- area. Local authorities should take into ac- ventative methods of containing future flood count flood limitations in plans for public damages may necessarily go hand in hand facilities such as roads, sewers, parks, water with the methods for reducing existing flood supply, and other public and private installa- damages. Thus, an engineering project for tions. Designated floodways may be zoned for controlling floods in one portion of the flood the purpose of passing flood waters and other plain may be accompanied by local regulations limited uses that do not conflict with that pri- preventing further encroachment into other mary purpose. The ordinances may also estab- sections of the flood plain. Neither method lish regulations for the flood plain areas out- provides the total answer. Prevention and side the floodway. These include designating protection must be proportioned in a manner elevations below which certain types of de- best suited to reduce the economic and physi- velopment cannot be constructed. Zoning cal hardships inflicted by flood waters. needs should be anticipated and regulations This section consists of two parts. The first initiated beforehand, even in land presently part reviews the two methods of flood damage rural or undeveloped. reduction measures that are available for con- Another institutional alternative, building sideration: protection through control of flood codes, are legislative regulations for flood re- waters (structural measures) and prevention duction control that may be adopted by a local through control of the flood plain (nonstruc- governing body. These codes can set forth tural measures). The second part examines standards for the construction of buildings each river basin group for significant damage and other structures for the purpose of pro- totals and recommends flood damage reduc- tecting the health, safety, and general welfare 2441 212 Appendix 14 of the public. Well written and properly en- damage-prone development. Unless such con- forced building codes can effectively reduce cessions are made, open land adjacent to damages in the flood plain. Existing codes are communities tends to be assessed in a manner generally more related to fire and health pro- reflecting potential development values. This tection than to flood prevention. Some re- increasing tax burden soon rises to the -point quirements that should be specified in a build- where the land can no longer be used profit- ing code to reduce flood damages are listed ably for farming or other open-space use. Zon- below. ing changes to match the tax levy soon lead to (1) Prevent flotation of buildings from more intensive use of the flood plain. However, their foundations by requiring proper anchor- one problem in devising a preferential tax age. scheme is in defining an acceptable method for (2) Establish basement elevations and recapture of unassessable tax value if open- minimum first floor elevations consistent with space lands are ultimately developed. A potential floods. number of political, administrative, constitu- (3) Require structural strength sufficient tional, and other legal barriers may also stand to withstand water pressure and high velocity in the way of its use. water flows. A large portion of past flood damages could (4) Restrict use of materials that deterio- have been averted if the public had had a bet- rate rapidly when exposed to water. ter understanding of the risks involved by (5) Prohibit equipment that might be building in a flood hazard area. To prevent hazardous to life when submerged, such as further encroachment into the flood plain, chemical storage, boilers, or electrical equip- planning agencies at all levels as well as the ment. general public need to be made more aware of A third legislative flood loss reduction the hazards and extent of flooding. The U.S. measure is the institutional alternative of Army Corps of Engineers, in an attempt to aid subdivision regulation. Subdivision regula- local planning agencies and to inform the tions are used by local governments to specify people, has been publishing Flood Plain In- the manner in which land may be divided. formation Reports since 1960. A flood plain These may state the required width of streets, information study is an engineering analysis requirements for curbs and gutters, size of of a basin's hydrology and the stream's hy- lots, elevation of building floors, size of flood- draulics. Based upon currently accepted ways, and other points pertinent to the com- criteria and guidelines, this information is munity welfare. Not only can personal welfare applied in establishing depths and frequency benefit, but various municipal costs such as of flooding for selected design floods including maintenance of streets and utilities can be re- the highest flood recorded. duced during flood periods. Subdivision regu- The objectives of a Flood Plain Information lations provide an effective means for control- Report are listed below. ling construction in presently undeveloped (1) The report should compile and present flood plain areas. The following typical provi- in clear and useful form all pertinent informa- sions which could be added to regulations tion relative to past and potential flood would be helpful in preventing flood damage: hazards including identification of areas sub- (1) Show the extent of flood plains on sub- ject to inundation by floods of various mag- division maps. nitudes. (2) Show floodway limits or encroachment (2) It should encourage wise use of river lines. valleys by providing a basis for State or local (3) Prohibit fill in channels and floodways regulation of flood plain uses, promoting the that would restrict flow. preparation of land use plans that preserve an (4) Require that subdivision roads be adequate channel to accommodate flood flows. above the elevation of a selected flood level. (3) It should publicize in an understand- (5) Require that each lot contain a building able form information to guide interests in site with an elevation above a selected flood either local or general areas of concern. level. (4) It should minimize the need for flood Another legislative flood loss reduction control.projects to protect future development measure is the institutional alternative of tax that would have otherwise have been built in incentives-Tax adjustments for land dedi- the flood plain, thereby perpetuating the con- cated to agriculture, recreation, conservation, cepts of environmental preservation. or other open space uses may be effective in In addition to the Corps'flood plain informa- preserving existing flood plains from tion studies, flood hazard analysis studies are Flood Problem Analysis 213 conducted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Ser- been made available to a limited number of vice, and the U.S. Geological Survey prepares communities and will be extended to others maps delineating flood-prone areas. with flood problems. This program provides The effectiveness of State and local flood existing structures with a lower than actuar- plain management programs will largely de- ial rate made possible through government pend on data like that presented in flood plain subsidy, while structures erected later will information studies, the flood hazard analysis pay the full-risk premium. The Secretary of studies, and on the flood-prone area maps. It is Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is therefore important that programs such as authorized to carry out studies to determine these be properly funded and expanded to where insurance will be made available and to meet the rapidly increasing needs. establish premium risk rates once the eligibil- Public education is necessary both to obtain ity for insurance has been established. Since pertinent legislation and to alert the public to December 31, 1971, no flood insurance cover- the inherent dangers associated with en- age has been provided or renewed under the croachment into a flood plain. A program of program unless the community has adopted public education should be designed to land-use and control measures for flood familiarize the general populace with the var- hazard areas which meet HUD requirements. ious means that can be used to reduce flood Weather modification is another area offer- hazards. Other methods besides the protec- ing possibilities for preventing the occurrence tive approach for reducing flood damages of floods and their resulting damage. The state must be presented to the public. Most citizens of this science is such that no definite predic- understand engineering projects for flood pro- tions can be made as to the definite reduction tection, but much remains to be done in the or increases in flood damages that might be way of public education before the ordinary caused by modifications in weather condi- person is equally familiar with such an alter- tions. Such phenomena as inadvertent in- native as regulating the use of flood plains so creases in average and intense precipitation that high hazard areas are in parks rather have been noted over metropolitan areas with than expensive homes, or with the use of flood air pollution problems. As more information proofing techniques so that damage can be becomes available, this factor must be consid- minimized. ered in the planning effort. Newspapers and periodicals can acquaint The institutional alternative, alternative the public with such alternatives and can re- land use and restriciions, forms an integral mind the community of its flood history, the part of any flood plain management program extent of previous floods, and the magnitude by providing for low damage usage, e.g., recre- of possible extraoirdinary floods. Civic organi- ation or agriculture. When such a program is zations can initiate flood plain information part of a broader land use control program, the programs and can place warning signs mark- needs of the entire area must be considered by ing flood-prone areas and high water marks. restricting floodways and flood plain fringe Motion pictures produced by governmental lands to particular use. The particulars of water resource agencies can be forceful in de- such a program will depend upon the availabil- picting flood disasters and their remedies. ity of alternative sites and the suitability of These should be made readily available to stu-' flood-prone land for special applications. This dent groups, civic organizations, and legis- interest in and control of flood hazard areas lators concerned with the general welfare. may encourage an integrated approach in If established on a sound and equitable managing the flood plain and provide for basis, flood insurance, an institutional alter- broader community land use. native, could provide still another supplement Regulatory programs for land use in flood- to the many programs for reducing flood dam- prone areas should take into account the most age. However, insurance rates should realisti- desirable service from the viewpoint of the cally reflect the flood risk in order to avoid general welfare and the needs and rights of encouragement of improper development of the property owner. In comparing the applica- flood plains. There are cases of damage caused tion of protective measures to regulatory pro- by floods whose intensity has been influenced grams, one must define the environmental ob- by upstream changes in the watershed. For jective to determine what the public wants such situations modest levels of flood insur- and expects as well as what is needed. It is not ance are appropriate. at all impracticable to think of rather inten- Indeed, under the National Flood Insurance sive use of flood plains in circumstances that Program (Act of 1968), flood insurance has would lead to very slight flood losses. The prob- '214 Appendix 14 lem is not one of prohibiting any kind of use of and preventative actions by prohibiting appli- the flood plain, but of finding maximum util- cations for projects in any flood plains iden- ity, taking into account not only the flood loss- tified by the Corps of Engineers or Soil Con- es that would result, but also the benefits servation Service unless measures for protec- accrued from such usage. Land use regulation tion from flooding are assured and will not can be developed to foster the wise choice of cause any adverse effects downstream. Also flood plain use. the A-95 State and Regional Clearinghouse All the preventative measures previously process and the comments they generate enumerated will have little impact without could be used to identify problem projects. the establishment of methods for effective im- plementation and enforcement of ongoing programs. Many States and some localities 2.2.2 Corrective Measures have regulations governing flood plain use. But lax enforcement has largely nullified A comprehensive program of flood damage their influence and voluntary measures have control for a particular river basin may in- proven ineffective. clude any or all of the known methods for flood Most authorities agree that the State has damage reduction or prevention. A sound and the key role in any widespread exercise of the economically efficient flood damage reduction various legal methods of regulating flood plain program for a river basin with extensive development because police powers rest basi- urba:n and rural flood-prone areas should cally with the State and not with the Federal normally include a balanced combination of government or municipalities. A technically most known damage reduction measures. staffed State agency may be in a better posi- Such a combination of measures could logi- tion than a local unit to consider regulations cally be viewed as a unified and comprehen- and other uses which have extra-municipal sive flood plain management program. This effects and require special expertise usually program might include the traditional struc- not available at the local level. However, effec- tural means of controlling or regulating the tive enforcement and implementation of ongo- river. Engineering works are still the stan- ing programs at the State level can be ob- dard and most reliable methods of reducing tained only through adequate funding of these flood losses at present. The chief methods programs. which technology provides are listed below. The most direct form of controlling future (1) Flood runoff can be reduced by land flood losses is by setting encroachment lines. treatment, although this alone is effective Several States actively regulate the building only to a limited degree and in very rare situa- of structures or the filling of channels with a tions. view to prevent any encroachment that would (2) Peak rates can be reduced by storage of increase flood stages. The Corps of Engineers the flood runoff in reservoirs. and the Soil Conservation Service are requir- (3) Peak stages can be decreased by in- ing that communities agree to regulate flood creasing the channel capacity. plain use as a condition of building protection (4) The flow of water can be confined works. Other direct methods of regulation are: through the construction of levees and walls. restricting loans for construction in flood- Reliance should not be placed solely upon prone areas; prohibiting construction unless any one measure because it is a rare situation plans are first approved by the appropriate in which flood protection, or flood warning, or agency; establishing zoning ordinances that any of the other methods will be completely specify the kind of use that can be made of a effective if used alone. particular area; and creating subdivision reg- Flood protection can be achieved by provid- ulations that indicate the conditions in which ing reservoirs with control structures to col- new urban development can take place. The lect and delay excessive runoff to reduce flood realignment of exercising authority by con- stages. Appendix 2, Surface Water Hydrology, stitutional changes in some States may even lists potential reservoir sites for each of the be required. river basin groups in this study. The function The Federal Housing Authority housing of reservoirs is to store water when stream- program, water and sewer constructions flow is excessive and to release it gradually grants, loans and guarantees, the FHA flood after the threat of flooding has passed. insurance program, and Department of Various degrees of protection through res- Transportation highway and airport funds ervoir storage may be obtained through de- could be used as an instrument for remedial velopment of either tributary or main stem Flood Problem Analysis 215 reservoirs or combinations of these. If prop- mated flood levels, and adequate roadway erly designed, dams are not subject to failure. height above projected flood levels. However, they do not necessarily protect Flood proofing can be provided most effec- against the maximum probable flood. It has tively and economically in the design of new been demonstrated in the Tennessee valley construction, and it can be applied success- that a system of large multipurpose reservoirs fully to existing facilities under certain cir- may not succeed in preventing all losses at a cumstances. Usually flood proofing is suitable nearby damage center, but it may reduce the only where moderate flooding with low stage, frequency of great floods. low velocity, and short duration is experi- Levees and floodwalls protect the populace enced. The following are common methods for and exposed property by acting as a barrier flood proofing: and confining floodwater to a floodway where (1) seepage control it would cause little damage. Levees are earth (2) sewer adjustment embankments, whereas floodwalls are generr (3) permanent closure ally concrete or steel walls. They are built in (4) openings protected the flood plain near the normal stream and (5) interiors protected should be located to provide maximum protec- (6) protective coverings tion while encroaching as little as possible on (7) fire protection natural floodways. (8) appliance protection Flood stages can be reduced by improving (9) utility adjustments flow conditions within the channel and by in- (10) roadbed protection creasing the stream's carrying capacity. (11) elevation or raising Methods generally used to obtain channel im- (12) temporary removal provements are: (13) proper salvage (1) straightening and removing bends, (14) watertight caps thus increasing flow velocities (15) proper anchorage (2) deepening and widening to increase ca- (16) underpinning pacity of waterway (17) timber treatment (3) clearing to remove brush, trees, and (18) deliberate flooding other obstructions to permit unrestricted flow (19) structural design (4) lining with concrete to increase effi- (20) reorganized use ciency of flow by decreasing flow friction Flood warning and evacuation systems pro- (5) diverting floodwater through bypass vide means of reducing a substantial part of channel construction the ordinary flood loss. If a flood peak can be Flood proofing through structural changes forecast in sufficient time to permit occupants offers a more direct means of reducing losses to take emergency measures, it is possible to to individual establishments in the flood plain. reduce losses in urban areas from 10 to 30 per- Flood proofing has merit in one or more of the cent and by a substantial amount in agricul- following situations: tural areas. Structural changes combined (1) where the traditional type of flood pro- with warning systems make it possible to tection is not feasible carry out an efficient flood proofing program. (2) where individuals desire to solve their In fact, some structural changes such as flood problems without collective actior., or emergency bulkheads can be put into opera- where collective action is not possible tion only with sufficient warning time. Ex- (3) where activities dependent on riverside perience has shown that a combination of locations require flood protection adequate flood warning with structural A common type of adjustment is in the de- measures may render a very complex urban sign of roads, bridges, and earthworks so they area largely free from flood losses. will not be damaged at times of high water The National Weather Service (NWS) of the by the greater velocities and high satura- National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tions that result from floods. Without tration (NOAA) provides river and flood fore- adequate waterway openings, the embank- casts for selected portions of the Great Lakes ments for the bridge approaches tend to im- Basin. This service is confined to flood crest pound water, thus increasing flood heights forecasts for these areas. There are still sev- upstream. Accordingly, future stream cross- eral river basins with flood hazards that are ings, particularly in urban areas, should be not currently served by flood forecast pro- designed to provide adequate waterway open- grams. ings, adequate bridge clearance above esti- River district office locations and the river 216 Appendix 14 basin area they serve are in Lansing, Michi- is community action. It is essential that gan (the Grand River above Grand Ledge, communities establish an appropriate local Michigan and the Saginaw River basin); organization that can receive and disseminate Grand Rapids, Michigan (the Grand River flood warnings swiftly to the public. Every below Grand Ledge, Michigan); Fort Wayne, member of the community should know what Indiana (the Maumee River basin); Akron, a forecast river height means in terms of his Ohio (the Vermilion, Cuyahoga, and Chagrin own situation. Community preparedness River basins); and Rochester, New York (the means that everyone can take positive emer- Genesee River basin). gency steps in the face of imminent disaster. These river and flood forecast services are Evacuation routes can be established, an supported by weather surveillance radar lo- emergency coordination can be manned, Red cated at Weather Service Offices in Min- Cross shelters can be designated, and neapolis, Minnesota; Chicago, Illinois; De- municipal and enforcement officials can be troit, Michigan; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; fully mobilized in advance of a destructive and Buffalo, New York. These facilities are flood. operated on a continuous basis and have the Permanent evacuation of developed areas capability for detection and evaluation of pre- subject to periodic inundation involves the ac- cipitation within a radius of 125 nautical quisition of lands by purchase (through exer- miles. These continuous radar observations cise of the powers of eminent domain, if neces- are an effective source of information for the sary), removal of damageable property, and issuance of flash flood warnings. The radar relocation of the population from such areas. can also be used to record photographically Lands acquired in this manner could be used precipitation patterns which provide recorded for agriculture, parks, or other purposes that data over areas where rain gage installations would not interfere with flood flows or result are impractical or nonexistent. Other local- in material damage from floods. use radar is at Cleveland, Ohio; Flint, Michi- Such a system may be applied in conjunction gan; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and Muskegon, with urban renewal programs and used to re- Michigan. At certain locations weather infor- store the economic welfare of flood-blighted mation and warnings are broadcast continu- community areas that do not lend themselves ously 24 hours a day. Messages include to other methods of control. The Federal weather and radar summaries together with Urban Renewal Program provides substantial detailed local and area forecasts. assistance to municipalities burdened with Future requirements for the Great Lakes such conditions. Such a redevelopment pro- hydrologic forecast program include: gram should include flood control works where (1) expansion of the river and flood fore- necessary as well as setting aside the lower cast program to provide service to the remain- flood plain areas for parks, open spaces, athlet- ing areas that have flood hazards ic fields, and other uses not subject to sub- (2) development of continuous flow fore- stantial damages by flooding. To maximize the casts for selected rivers for water quality and employment of these lands, the outer fringes quantity management of the flood plain can be used by new flood- (3) Great Lakes inflow-outflow forecasts, proofed structures. both monthly and annually, to aid in opera- Proper watershed land treatment is a basic tional decisions and management of the element in a comprehensive flood prevention hydrologic resources of the Basin program. The concept of land treatment is to (4) expansion of the river and rainfall data improve land and water management on each network to more clearly define and document individual ownership in such a way that sur- the water resources of the Basin and to pro- face water runoff is reduced. vide more definitive data for future studies Land treatment includes water control (5) expansion of the VHF continuous measures, such as terraces and waterways; weather broadcast program measures to protect the soil from erosion and When a flood emergency exists the National to increase infiltration rates, e.g., strip crop- Weather Service usually has primary respon- ping, contouring, and the planting of grass sibility for flood forecasts. The local Defense and cover crops; and the hydrologic improve- Civil Preparedness Agency office establishes ment of forest lands. evacuation procedures and the U.S. Army In addition to increasing infiltration rates Corps of Engineers contributes technical and reducing water surface runoff, land assistance in constructing temporary flood- treatment measures reduce erosion and works. However, the key to effective response sedimentation, and thus maintain the capac- Flood Problem Analysis 217 ity of streams and reservoirs to carry flood crease in the future. This is because of the flows. Studies by the Soil Conservation Ser- time lag between the adoption of legislative vice in the Midwest indicate that a watershed tools and their general acceptance and en- land treatment program can reduce flows forcement. Therefore, it is necessary to modify from 7 to 10 percent. - the potential flood damages indicated in Sec- Disaster relief is the most direct means of tion 1 to reflect the preventive measures ef- dealing with flood losses. This is administered fected by management measures. It was esti- by the American Red Cross and a wide range mated that only 10 percent of the nonagricul- of government agencies that assist with res- ture flood damage, as the result of growth be- cue, public health, transport, and financial tween 1970 and 1980, would be reduced. Be- aid. However, a problem lies in the policy of tween 1980 and 2000, the reduction would be 40 extending assistance without assurances that percent, and between 2000 and 2020, 75 per- the sufferer will not return to his old place in cent of the damage would be prevented. the flood plain. The dimensionless curves shown in Figure Minor measures that would contribute to 14-65 depict the shape of the unrestricted the control of flood waters are periodic stream damage growth curve and the increasing ef- maintenance and ice formation control. fectiveness of flood plain legislation in reduc- A maintenance program for removing the ing damage increments due to growth. The collection of debris and accumulation of jams, third line depicts a theoretical zero growth especially around bridge piers, would aid line or 100 percent effectiveness in preventing stream velocities and remove the dangers of additional construction within the flood plain. artificially created high water stages due to In reality this line would not be straight be- such damming action. Such a program would cause increased personal property would be require regular funding to maintain its effec- added to existing structures while deprecia- tiveness. tion would tend to lower valuation and sub- Another method, although still in the re- sequent damage totals. For simplicity the line search and investigative stages, would be a was drawn straight. system for the control of ice formations. Many For urban areas several factors must be communities at the mouths of the rivers enter- viewed concurrently when considering flood ing the Great Lakes suffer from water over- damage reduction measures: flows created by the damming action of ice (1) the trend to develop damageable prop- packs. This damage often occurs even though erty in the flood plain the stream stages are at their lowest. An air- (2) the retarding effect of flood plain legis- bubbling system has proved successful under lation and other nonstructural damage reduc- limited conditions but has not yet received ing programs wide-spread use or acceptance. (3) the social pressures for permanent pro- tection against lost economic opportunities, health hazards, and the danger to human life 2.3 Potential Solutions and other related demands While it is idealistic to program flood dam- Estimated potential flood damages indi- age reduction via nonstructural means, the cated in Section 1 were based on the premise realistic fact is that some flood plain develop- that use and further development of flood ment will take place. For such developed plains would continue to take place. Local, areas, corrective measures are desirable for State, and Federal governments are aware of flood damage reduction. When this approach the tremendously high damage potential in- is applied, it will have to withstand the rigor- herent in the unrestrained occupation of flood ous principles of economic and design analy- plain lands. They also recognize that much of sis. the flood plains will be used in one form or In the rural areas along the main stem and another. Therefore, adequate management is principal tributaries, some significant dam- essential to maintain efficient land use and ages occur, but in most instances these are not minimize undesirable effects. Wherever pos- serious enough to warrant the consideration sible, the use of flood-prone areas by develop- of alternative corrective measures for damage ments that would suffer little or no damage reduction purposes. Recommendations in from flood waters would contribute to an at- these areas are for preventative measures to tractive high quality environment. preserve the flood plains with low potential It is also assumed that the benefits from damage uses such as permanent pasture, flood plain management programs will in- selective crops, parks, and valley preserves. 218 Appendix 14 is no guarantee that this will prevent all fu- ture flood damages. Too often in the past, con- struction of a flood control scheme has only served to intensify the problem by creating a false sense of security, and thus encouraging increased development in the "protected" flood plain. A corrective measure should be a component of a comprehensive flood plain management program that can control the type and extent of development. The impact on the environment of all stages of develop- ment must be determined and plans to pre- serve and enhance environmental qualities must be formulated. Individual rights versus those of the public welfare must be clarified and codified if a management program is to be successful. Tables 14-71 through 14-115 indicate alter- natives that could be implemented during des- ignated time periods to arrest the predicted NO.NEW CONSTRUCTION IN FLOOD PLAIN growth of potential flood damages. Although I I I requirement figures do not reflect reduction in 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 potential damage growth due to the effects of YEAR existing and future flood plain legislation, this FIGURE 14-65 Estimated Effectiveness of amount is taken into account and is reflected Flood Plain Legislation and Minor Structural in the estimated damage reduction figures of Measures feasible structural alternatives for all the main stems and principal tributaries in the The damage data for the upstream wa- Great Lakes Basin. The amount is in the pro- tershed have been computed by using the portion discussed earlier (see the example). The Conservation Needs Inventory of problem estimated damage reduction figures for up- areas, estimated frequency of flooding, and stream watersheds do not include effects of damageable values for crops determined in flood plain legislation, due to the rural nature Public Law 566. Rural and urban damages for of upstream areas. Other than the damage re- upstream areas are presented by a watershed duction included in the alternative structural number. The information listed in Tables measures for the main stems and principal 14-71 through 14-85 indicates the watersheds tributaries, estimated damage reduction and with significant flood damages that appear related costs, as the result of proposed favorable for project action. Projects were nonstructural measures, have not been com- selected on a priority basis with those having puted due to insufficient data. For a rationale the most intense problems recommended in of selection of reduction measures see the sub- the earlier time periods. section Problem Analysis Procedures in the Although a major corrective measure is rec- Introduction and the earlier discussion in this ommended and ultimately constructed, there section. Flood Problem Analysis 219 EXAMPLE Niles, Michigan 1 2 3 4 5 Estimated Column 1 Column 1 Revised Average Annual Percent times minus Damage Year Damages ($1000)* Difference Effective Column2 Column3 Estimate 1970 26.5 1980 37.0 10.5 10 1.1 9.4 35.9 2000 70.0 33.0 40 13.2 19.8 55.7 2020 145.0 75.0 75 56.3 18.7 74.4 Taken from Table 14-23 Referring to the short term time period of Table 14-84 the estimated damage reduction is $67,300 for Niles, Michigan. This figure includes the following: Estimated Damage Item Reduction Reduction due to effects of flood plain legislation on growth 1970 to 1980 (taken from Column 3, above table) $ 1,100 1980 to 2000 (taken from Column 3, above table) 13,200 Reduction due to effects of structural measures (Revised damage estimate from above calculation times estimated effectiveness of structural measures) 55.7 x 0.95 53,000 Total $67,300 220 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-71 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.1, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (1980i 1.1 409 5 131.9 69 2 SUPPLY (1 970) 1 1 - - NEED (1980) 1.1 409.5 131.9 69.2 MAIN STEM AND PRI`NCIPAL TRIBUTARIES ST. LOUIS RIVER FOND DU LAC FLOODWOOD 0.1 86.6 320 300 20 HALL PARK CREEK HAYFIELD BAD RIVER ODANAH 0.4 74.2 180 170 10 MELLEN MONTREAL RIVER HURLEY, IRONWOOD S 6D13 66A 6DI5 24.9 14.0 400 260 140 61) 06 15.0 11.0 750 490 260 6D 18 6.1 8.7 400 260 140 611A 6D 16 67A 6 C ,I 627 2.5 1,300 845 455 6D21 628 TOTAL -0. 8 51.2 36.2 3,350 2,325 025 *ALTERNATIVE (I ) Structural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 221 TABLE 14-72 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.1, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) 0, ell PROBLEM AREA REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (200o) 610.4 131.9 117.7 SUPPU (19 80) 0.5 160.8 51.2 36.2 NEED (2000) 0.6 449.6 80.7 a1.5 RNMAIN STEM AAND PH 14CIPAL TRIBUTARIES ST. LOUIS RIVER FOND DU LAC FLOODWOOD 62.0 BALL PARK CREEK HAYFIELD 178.3 1,800 1,620 180 W RIVER ODANAH 17.5 MELLEN 0.2 52.4 600 540 60 MONTREAL RIVER HURLEY IRONWOOD UPSTRi@M WATERSHAS 6D15 2.0 6D 1.0 6DO6 1.0 627 1.1 61A 6D 19 6D14 2.8 1.7 135 88 47 SDI 01 6C5 69A 629 1.0 1.3 380 247 133 6DII 6DI04 TOTAL 0.2 310.2 3.8 8.1 2,915 2,495 420 *ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 222 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-73 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.1, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTI ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURALi" (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell 0 REMARKS '@p 4c, REQUIREMENTS (2 020) 1.1 954.5 131.9 199.7 SUPPLY (2000, 0.7 471.0 55.0 44.3 NEED (2020) 0.4 483.5 76.9 155.4 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES ST. LOUIS RIVE FOND DU LAC FLOODWOOD 10.7 BALL PARK CREEK HAYFIELD 125.4 BAD RIVER ODANAH 44.4 MELLEN 28.6 MONTREAL RIVER HURLEY, IRONWOOD UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 6D15 1.0 6DO6 2.0 6DIS 1.3 627 0.4 628 2.6 2.1 1,000 650 350 6D19 2.1 2.0 260 170 90 6D14 0.2 629 0.1 62 6D20 63 66 :7 DOI 6 03 GDO4 4 .6 158 103 55 6DO5 6DO6 61 TOTAL 0 302.1 5.1 9.7 1,418 S23 495 *ALTERNATIVE (I r ) Stmctural '08t Flood Problem Analysis 223 TABLE 14-74 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.2, Before 1980 1 ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION MEASURES URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA (p 0 bp 4@ 0 0 REMARKS ek e REQUIREMENTS (IS.0) 4.7 461-7 5.2 277.0 SUPPLY (1970) 1 - - NEED 1 1 4.7 461.7 5.2 277.0 MAIN STEM AND PdNC;PAL TRIBIkARIESI PRESQUE ISLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS ONTONAGON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS STURGEON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS FALLS RIVE L'ANSE 0.1 32.8 320 300 20 AUTRAIN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 60 6H 6N 0.4 57.0 0.2 265 172 93 11 0.1 21.0 8.8 20. 680 442 238 B3A 0.5 28.0 159 103 56 611(A) 6133 TOTAL 1.1 138.8 9.0 20.0 1,424 1 *ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 224 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-75 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.2, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTIO ESTIMATED COST URBAN (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 0 '4, EMARKS e0 'b REQUIREMENTS (20010) 751.3 4.7 55.2 393.2 UPPLY (1 980) 1.1 138.8 9.0 20.0 NEED @2000) 3.6 612.5 46.2 373.2 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES PRESQUE ISLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ONTONAGON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS STURGEON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS FALLS RIVER L'ANSE 21.7 AUTRAIN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 6N 38.0 61 1 14.0 2.0 6B3A 19.0 :I B2 6A :33 34 635 636 TOTAL 0 92.7 0 2.0 J- 0 0 *ALTERNATIVE Flood Problem Analysis 225 TABLE 14-76 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 1.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS Ilk 0 z 0 REQUIREMENTS (2020) 4 7 1,248.0 55.2 437 SUP LY (2000) 1:1 231.5 9.0 22'08 P NEED (2 020) 3.6 1,016.5 46.2 415.8 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES PRESQUE ISLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD P I S LA NS ONTONAGON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS STURGEON RIVER RURAL FLOO PLA, NS FALLS RIVER L'ANSE 37.6 AUTRAIN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 6N 75.0 0.1 611 29.0 3.0 :113A 37.0 BI 632 6AI 641 6B2A 611(A)2 6p 637 TOTAL 0 178.6 0 3.1 0 0 0 -ALTERNATIVE 226 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-77 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 53@ G11 10 01 10 REMARKS C, REQUIREMENTS (If 13-7 3,007 4 547 L,.00.3 (1970) - NUEPPLY(I 13.7 S r 980) 3,007.4 '47. 1,600.3 180) MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBI6111EA MENOMINEE RIVER MENOMINEE MARINErrE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BRULE RIVER RURAL FLOW PLAINS STURGEON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS MICHIGAMKE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PAINT RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS IRON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PIKE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PESHTIGO RIVER PESHTIGO RURAL FLOOD PLAINS OCONTO RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS FOX RIVER GREEN BAY DE PERE APPLETON OSHKOSH RURAL FDOOD PLAINS WAUPACA RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS EMBARRASS RIYEE NEW LONDON RURAL F14M PLAINS WOLF RIVER WOLF RIVER DESIG- SHAWANO NATED AS COMPONENT RURAL FLOOD OF NATIONAL WILD & PLAINS SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM :@ *@ * : *1 * -ALTERNATIVE Flood Problem Analysis 227 TABLE 14-77(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA sp A Ilk REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (1980 SUPPLY (1970) NEED (1980) MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES DU RIVER FOhD DU LAC * * * * * * KAXM)WO5@ F@T_@ER MANITOWOC * . * * * * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * * SHEBOYGAN RIVER SHEBOYGAN * * * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * * UPSTREAM WATERSHEbS 5H3 8.7 33.0 620 403 217 WOLF RIVER DESIG- 514 0.1 44.0 5.0 22.0 188 122 66 NATED AS COMPONENT 524 0.3 14.0 11.0 45.0 2,1 24 1,381 743 OF NATIONAL WILD & 513 10 0 51.0 936 608 328 SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM 5HIS 0.1 2.9 13:0 48.0 279 181 98 59 .4 4 .0 600 3 0 210 526 0.1 17.0 :.3 299,0 2, 372 1, 5942 $30 IN27 5201 SHI A 518 0.1 1.6 6.9@ 32.0 124 81 43 517 5H214 5H4 510 TOTAL I L 1 0.7 79.5 1 72.1 309.0 1 71243 1 4,708- 1 2,535 1 * ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 228 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-78 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) V4 b PROBLEM AREA -0 k REMARKS 0 0 REQUIREMENT (2060) S :.) I I I 1 1 14:1 5.316.9 647* 991 .2 UPPLY (19 0 79.5 72 3 .0 NEED (2000) 13. 5,23, .4 S75: 1,60892.2 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL! TRIB@TARIES MENOMINEE RIVER MENOMINEE; * MARINETTE * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BRULE RIV RURAL FLA)OD PLAINS STURGEON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS MICHIGAMME RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PAINT RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLA INS RON RIVI@@ L RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS PINE RIV RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PESHTIGO RIVER PESHTIGO RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS OCONTO RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS @SW RIVER GREEN BAY BE PERE APPLETON OSHKOSH RURAL FLOOD PLAINS WWPACA RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLA INS EMBKRR ASjMER NEW LONDON RURAL FLOOD PLAINS WOLaFEIVER WOLF RIVER DESIG- HATED AS COMPONENT SHAWANO OF NATIONAL WILD & RURAL FLOOD SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM' PLAINS *ALTERNATIVE Flood Problem Analysis 229 TABLE 14-78(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell REMARKS 017 REQUIREMENTS (2000) SUPPLY (1980) NEED (2 000) 1 1 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUFARIE; FOND DU LAC RIVER FOND DU LAC MANITOWOC RIVER MANITOWOC RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SHEBOYGAN RIVER SHEBOYGAN RURAL FLODO PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS WOLF RIVER DESIG- NATED AS COMPONENT 5H3 9.0 OF NATIONAL WILD & 514 36.0 6.0 SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM 524 11.0 11.0 513 14.0 5H18 13.0 59 14 0 526 14.0 6:0 518 1.4 9.0 5H210 0.1 41.0 4.2 6.9 344 224 120 5H215 523 5H212 5H13 0.1 4:01 31:0 160 104 5r 5H12 A 0.L ..0 13 94 248 161 .1 5H9 8.3 31.0 270 176 94 5H218 5H29 0.1 3.2 13.0 24.0 110 72 38 SKI 511 511 5 219 0.1 5.0 5.7 21.0 140 91.0 49.0 5H15 4.2 24.0 174 113 61 525 528 5H5 5HI4A 5.0 22.0 630 410 220 512 SH2 11 5H14 5H28 5H213 522 5H217 5.2 16.0 245 159 86 5H 4.3 10 186 121 65 5 2 1, 390 904 19 .1 4.9 31 0 486 5H216 2.9 15.0 82 53 29 5H13 A 527 519 516 5H2 5HI 5H15 5H8 5933 504 5KJO 533 5917 5H11 2.1 4,8 84 55 29 5K30 5H23 TOTAL 0-.5 19- --IT, -@i@ -T--T -T-i,--4i--1T,-42o 1 i .4 -ALTERNC.TIVE 230 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-79 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA !N Qc 06 REMARKS Ike I V@ 0 4-11 1.,2.@:. .41. 2,141 "':2 UPPLY (20 0) S1 S 0 1.2 199 49., NEED (2..) L2.9 10,062.7 497.6 1,543.1 REQUIREMENTS(2020 I MAIN STEM AND PRI@CXPAL TRIBT@ARIES' MENOMINEE RIVER MENOMINEE MARINETTE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BRULE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS STURGEON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS MICHIGAMME RIVER RURAL FLOW PLAINS PAINT RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS IRON RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PINE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PESHTIGO RIVER PESHTIGO RURAL FLOOD PLAINS OCONTO RIVER RURAL FIOOD PLAINS FOX RIVER GREEN RAY DE PERE APPLE'" OSHKOSH RURAL FLOOD PLAINS EMARRASS RIVER NEW LONDON RURAL FLOW PLAINS FOND DU LAC RIVER FOND DU LAC MANITOWOC RIVER MANITOWOC 0.2 1152.1 7,800 7,500 300 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS *ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 231 TABLE 14-79(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.1, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell REMARKS .C, REQUIREMENTS (2020) SUPPLY (2000) NEED (2 02 0) MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES SHEBOYGAN RIVER SHEBOYGAN 0.1 1512.6 10,400 10,000 400 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS WAUPACA RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS WOLF RIVER WOLF RIVER DESIG- SHAWANO NATED AS COMPONENT RURAL FLOOD OF NATIONAL WILD & PLAINS SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 5R3 1.0 WOLF RIVER DESIG- 514 71.0 1.0 NATED AS COMPONENT 524 13.0 3.0 OF NATIONAL WILD & 513 2 0 SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM 5HI8 4.8 3:0 59 20 526 27.0 3.0 518 2.6 1.0 59210 37.0 0.3 5H13 2.0 5H12A 7.0 0.6 5H9 1.0 514218 0.1 IL.O 1.5 15.0 751 488 263 5H29 2 1.0 SH2 19 4:r', 1.0 51 1.0 5 115 1 14 A .0 SH 17 1.0 5HI9 1,0 5H126 1.0 5H21 0.1 SH11 0.2 51110 4.5 3.5 505 328 177 530 5H 5K7 5H6 5Kl(A) 531 5H24 5K4 5H22 5H25 5N 5K5 5pi 5NI 5K3(A) 5K I 521 TOTAL 0.3 2,844.4 6.0 40.7 19,456.0 18,316 1,140 ,ALTERNATIVE 11) Structural Cost 232 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-80 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.2, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) tp, e PROBLEM AREA ob EMARKS REQUIREMENTS (1980 5.8 13,060.7 56.9 296.7 NEED (1980) 5.8 13,060.7 56.9 296.7 SUPPLY (197 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUrAR &c MILWAUKEE RIVER MILWAUKEE RURAL FL400D PLAINS BOOT RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LITTLE CALMW RIVER MUNSTER, HAMMOND HIGHLAND, GARY & EAST GARY 2.0 11,990.9 @.q 45.7 100,000 80,000 20,000 RURAL FLO= PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 5G2 0.1 26:00 1.1:71 36.0 103 67 36 0. 10 5G5 1 0.0 8.7 44.0 396 257 139 53 5 30.0 1,245 809 335 TOTAL 2.2 12,026.9 27.6 155.7 101,744 81,133 20,510 * ALTERNATIVE (1) Stmetumi Cost @01 Flood Problem Analysis 233 TABLE 14-81 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.2, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell 'b' Ile .4" REMARKS x, S 2 1 55.7 NEED (2000) 5 3 15,076.9 7.6 300.9 RE11UIREMENTS 121) 7.5 2 UPPL_ H --t- 2 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES MILWAUKEE RIVER MILWAUKEE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ROOT RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LITTLE CALUMET RIVER MUNSTER, HAMMDND HIGHLAND, GARY & EAST GARY 12,999.0 49.2 RURAL FLDOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 5G2 18,0 6.0 5GS 7.0 8. 53 5.0 0 5G4 T.4 212 138 74 SG6 5 .4 18.00 166 108 58 52 2.6 13.0 206 134 72 TarAL 1 0 1 13,023.7 115.4 117.2 584 1 380 204 1 *ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost @ 13" @.4 .0 3 234 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-82 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTI ESTIMATED COST' URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 1.1kell REMARKS e -0 REQUIRDERNTS (2020) 9 8 56,052.8 52.9 679.3 SUPPLY (2000) 2..2 25 050.6 43.0 272.9 NEED (2020) 1 7 6 31:002.2 9.9 406.4 MAIN sTEm AND PRi6&L'TRxBurARIEE AULWAUKEE RIVER IWILWAUKEE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 1.5 1,663.4 7,500 7,000 500 ROUT RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LITTLE CALUIAM RIVER HAMMOND, MUNSTER, HIGHLANU, GARY, & EAST GARY 27,156.3 123.9 RURAL FIAX)D PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 5G2 34.0 7.0 5r ,5 13.0 8.0 53 6.0 5G4 4.0 SG6 3.0 52 2.0 5G1 51 5G8 5G7 1.6 5.5 207 5G3 TUTAL 1.5 2.,...7 1.6 159.4 7,707 7,000 500 *ALTERNATIVE (1) Stmctural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 235 TABLE 14-83 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) b, PROBLEM AREA ell 0 REMARKS Co&% DO k 0 o REQUIREHENTS (1980) 51.6 4,129 8 2 2,49S. (1970) - - SUPPLY 980) 51.6 7::88 2,496.0 NEED (I 1 1 4,129.8 27 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES ST* JOSEPH @LVER BENTON HARBOR NILES SOUTH BEND MISHAWAKA 0.3 172.3 1,800 1,650 150 ELKHART BRISTOL CONSTANTINE THREE RIVERS 0.2 13.3 170 155 15 RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS PAW PAW RIVER PAW PAW LAKE 0.2 42.8 580 530 50 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS DOWAGIAC RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ELKHART RIVER GOSHEN RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PRAIRE RIVER CENTERVILLE BURR OAK EAST COLDWATER RIVER COLDWATER KALAMAZOO RIVER ALLEGAN OTSEGO PLAINWELL KALAMAZOO 6.1 913.7 15,115 13,395 1,720 BATTLE CREEK ALBION RURAL FLOOD PLAINS GRAND RIVER GRANDVILLE 2.0 249.3 2,469 2,372 97 GRAND RAPIDS COMSTOCK PARK k REUDW ADA LOWELL SARANAC IONIA LYONS PORTLAND GRAND LEDGE DL-ONDALE EATON RAPIDS 3.1 76.3 1,120,5 1,120,5 JACKSON RURAL FLDOD PLAINS LYCAHORE CREEK RURAL FLAM PLAINS -ALTERNATIVE (1) Stmctural Cost 236 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-83(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA "0 0 0't, I REMARKS 10 114. 10 'k REQUIREMEWS (1980) SUPPU (1970) NEED (1980) 11 1 1 1 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBt6RIES RED CEDAR RIVER LANSING, H. LANSING 3.5 68s.3 7,294 7,294 OREMOS WILLIAMSTON RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LOOKINGGIASS RIVER DWTr RURAL FLOOD PLAINS MAPLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS FLAT RI RURAL FLOW PLAINS ROUGE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RASTINGS RURAL FLOOD P INS LA UPSTREAMMATERSHEDS SUL to SmIl 16.0 292 6,574 4;273 2,301 5TI 5PI to 5P4 5.0 154 -3,736 2,428 11308 5M12 2.5 112 .921 599 322 51,G5 5RC14 5C6B 6.1 60.0 6,148 3,996 2,152 5T3 SMG3 SKK 0.3 1.0 3.0 55.0 2,300 1,495 805 5K123 1.8 54.0 1,076 699 377 5P Xg 5A14B SSI. to 5S6 2.2 44.0 SOL 521 280 5RC7 5TI 1 SA13 5AZA 0.1 19.0 3 24.0 936 608 328 SIMS TOTAL 15.8 2,176.0 4.. 11 795.0 51,040.51 41,135.5 91905 ALTERNATIVE 11) Stmctuml cost Flood Problem Analysis 237 TABLE 14-84 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA els e et;@' REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (2001 3.3 8 038.4 277 2,976. 198 0 10 795. S 000) ':4 NEED 2 236.. 2,181.0 UPPLY ( 0) 15. 2 11 (2 37 : 5,86 1 1 1 1 15 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES ST. JOSEPH RIVER BENTON HARBOR NILES S 0.4 67.3 1,000 950 50 OUTH BEND 0.6 322.5 2,600 2,400 200 MISHAWAKA 194.0 ELKHART 1.4 403.9 5,000 4,600 400 BRISTOL CONSTANTINE THREE RIVERS 14.6 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PAW PAW RIVER PAW PAW LAKE 43.7 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS DOWAGIAC RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ELKHART RIVER GOSHEN RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PRAIRIE RIVER CENTERVILLE * * * . * . BURR OAK * * * * * * E. COLDWATER RIVER COLDWATER * * * * * * !@@LAMAZOO RIVER ALLEGAN * * * * . * OTSEGO PLAINWELL KALAMAZOO 1,164.0 BATTLE CREEK ALBION RURAL FLOOD PLAINS TWR-AIIIR- GRANDVILLE 337.6 GRAND RAPIDS COMSTOCK PARK & BELOW ADA HOW L SARALAC IONIA LYONS PORTLAND GR=A IEDGE 0, EATON RAPIDS 30.8 JACKSON RURAL FLOOD PLAINS @YqAMORE CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS -ALTERNATIVE 1) Stmetural Cost 238 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-84(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3,1980-2000 ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTI ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION MEASURES URBAN RURAL Lq (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS 0 RED C @AR RIVER LANSING, E. LANSING 869.8 OKEKO WILLIAMSmN RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LDOKINGGLASS RIVER DEWITT RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ALAPLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS FLAT RIVER RURAL FLIDO PLAINS ROGUE RIVER RURAL FLOG PLAINS THORNAPPLE RIVER HASTINGS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 5M1 to 5K11 54.0 5PI to SP4 29.0 5M12 21.0 5C6B 11.0 5KK 0.7 10.0 5R123 10.0 5A14T3 0.2 53.0 2.4 9.3 1,375 894 481 5S1 to 5S6 9.0 5A2A 15,0 4.0 5A8 0.2 58.0 1.1 2.7 608 395 213 5R6 5UG 5T5 SF4 5MG8 5R5 5LG8 5UG5 2.6 27.0 427 278 149 5LL2 0.2 32.0 1.6 10.0 1, 560 1,014 546 5RC5 5C 1 0.1 4.9 2.7 8.1 6,600 4,290 2,310 5C6D 5.30A 0.1 18.0 1.1 1.8 432 281 151 5R4 SA3 5L6 5MG5 5T4 5UG8 2.6 18.0 290 189 101 5MG1 5AlC 5ASA 5UG 10 5A.12 0*1 24,0 1,2 2,3 364 237 127 PRC8 5MCH 1.7 13.0 23 1 150 81 SMG A 5M15 5C53D *ALTERNATIVE (1) structural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 239 TABLE 14-84(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3,1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA e Q@' 'b- e REMARKS \0 UPSTREAM WATERSHFTS 5RC10 SL4ai TI)TAL 3.3 3,653.8 17.0 240.2 487 15,678 4,809 ALTERNATIVE (o Structural Cost 240 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-85 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTIO ESTIMATED COST URBAN (1970 PRICE LEVEL) X PROBLEM AREA 0 K_" EMARKS 41 REQUIREIIENTS (2020) 3 16 743 2 275 1 3,446.6 5 . SUPPLY (2000) 19'. @ 5:829:8 7*1 1,035.2 NEED (2020) 35.2 10,913.4 218.0 2,411.4 S5 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES ST. JOSEPH RIVEF BENTON HARBOR NILES 74.0 SOUTH BEND 3 4 6 MISHAWAKA 4295:4 ELKHART 524.3 BRI TOL CONSTANTINE THERE RIVERS 30.6 R AL 'GO URPLAFINS D PAW PAW RIVER PAW PAW LAKE 59.3 RURAL FL4DOD PLAINS DOWAGIAC RIVER RURAL M`GOD PLAINS ELKHART RIVER GOSHEN RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PRAIRIE RIVER CENTERVI BURR OAK E. COLDWATER RIVER COLDWATER KAIAKAZOO RIVER ALLEGAN OTSEGO PLAINWELL KALAMAZOD 2,929.9 BATTLE CREEK ALBION RURAL FLOW PLAINS GRAND RIVER GRANDVILLE 780.1 GRAND RAPIDS COMSTOCK PARK ADA& BELOW LIDWELL SARANAC IONIA LYONS PORTLAND GRAND LEDGE DIAHONDALE MTON RAPIDS 42.7 JACKSON RURAL PbOOD MAINS SYCAUORR CREEK RURAL FLOOD MAINS -ALTERNATIVE Flood Problem Analysis 241 TABLE 14-85(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell N@j 0 RIP "11@ 1@ e" 'b- bf- el REMARKS RED CEDAR RIVER LANSING, R. LANSING 2,128.3 OKEMOS WILLIAMSTON RURAL FLOOD. PLAINS LOOKINGGLASS RIVER DEWITT RURAL FLOOD PLAINS MAPLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS FLAT RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ROGUE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS THORNAPPLS RIVER HASTINGS RURA FI@OD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 5MI to 5M11 4B.0 5P1 to 5P4 27.0 5MI2 19.0 5C6B 10.0 5KK 1.6 9.0 5R123 9.0 5A14B 47.0 0.7 5SI to 5S6 7.0 5A2 31.0 4.0 5A8 41.0 0.4 5UG5 4.0 5LL2 29.0 1.0 SCI 4.4 1.1 5A30A 16.0 0.3 5UGS 3.0 5A12 22.0 0.2 5MG' 2.0 r 5A9 0.3 34.0 0.2 0.9 448 291 157 5UG9 1.5 11.0 119 77 42 5MG7 1.0 10.0 128 83 45 5LG3 5F6 5A12A 5A8 C SA7 5C IA 0.5 7.4 300 195 105 5AII 51,4 5S6 5M14 5 O'l 7.0 0.3 3.5 2,240 1,456 784 5LL 5A4 5A30 5RC 5MG4A 5C4 5A4 C ALTERNATIVE (1) StruCtural Cost 242 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-85(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.3, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 0 0 00 q REMARKS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS SAZB 51Z10 SUGI 5C SAE STE SF1 SA5 C RC1 SRC3 5C6 5A10 0.3 0.1 525 341 184 51* TOTAL --tT622.2 3.8 178.5 3,760 0-4 71 2,443 1,317 ALTERNATIVE m Struct-wai cost Flood Problem Analysi8 243 TABLE 14-86 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.4, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell, REMARKS "Z Ilk G, REQUIREMENTS (19 10) 5 1314 12 4 190.4 SUPPLY (1970) NEED (1980) 3.5 131.4 12.4 0.4 3 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES MUSKEGON RIVE BIG RAPIDS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS WHITE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PERE MARQUETTE PERE MARQUETTE RIVER BEING STUDIED FOR IN- RIVER CLUSION IN NATIONAL RURAL FLOOD WILD & SCENIC RIVER PLAINS SYSTE14 MANISTEE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * BOARDMAN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * KANISTIQUE RIVER MANISTIQUE * * MANI STIQUE LAKE * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * . LNDIM _@IVE@ INDIAN LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * ESCANABA RI@ER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * PERE 14ARQUETTE RIVER UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS BEING STUDIED FOR IN- CLUSION IN NATIONAL 5E WILD & SCENIC RIVER SEE2A 3.8 21 296 192 104 SYSTE14 5TI 5CC 1.0 5.8 1.2 0.4 204 133 71 511 0.5 5.4 276 180 96 540 STZ 5F2 0.1 3.5 1.3 680 442 238 548A 2.1 2.5 156 101 55 5E2 551 0.1 2.1 156 101 55 542 IOTAI. 1.1 9.3 9.0 31.4 1,769 1,149 619 *ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 244 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-87 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.4, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (2000) 3 7 229.: 112.(] 238 4 SUPPLY (1980) 1:1 9. 9. 31 :4 NEED (2000) 2.6 220.5 103.1 207.0 RAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIE MUSKEGON RIVER BIG RAPIDS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS WHITE RIVER RURAL FLDOD PLAINS PERE MARQUETTE PERE MARQUETTE RIVER @JVER BEING STUDIED FOR IN- RURAL FLOOD CLUSION IN NATIONAL PLAINS WILD & SCENIC RIVER SYSTE14 MANISTEE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS MANISTIQUE RIVER MANISTIQUE * * MANISTIQUE LAKE * BUR 'AL FLOOD PLAINS * * INDIAN RIVER INDIAN LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * . ESCANXRA RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * . UPSTREAM WATERSHLS PERE MARQUETTE RIVER BEING STUDIED FOR IN- 5E 0.1 4.5 7.1 28.0 2,996 @,947 1,049 CLUSION IN NATIONAL SEE2A 6.0 WILD & SCENIC RIVER 5CC 4.2 0.1 SYSTEM S11 1 4 *F2 2.7 0:1 548A 0.: 551 0. SE2A 563 ST 5HR2 SE6A1 0.8 5.4 730 475 255 SE3 SEE2 3.3 0.5 816 530 286 536A 0.4 0.4- 120 78 42@ SBB SEE 0-7 0.1 340 221 11S TOTAL j 0@11:@I.4 12-.1 43-2 5.002 3 , 2@. L,15L -ALTERNATIVE (1) Str-tUral Cst Flood Problem Analysis 245 TABLE 14-88 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 2.4, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS 0 REQUIREMENTS (2020) 4 0 425 1111.? 288.9 SUPPLY (2000) 1 2 20 7 21.3 74.6 1 2 .8 404.3 90.6 214.3 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES MUSKEGON RIVER BIG RAPIDS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS WHITE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PERE MARQUETTE PERE MARQU M E RIVER RIVER BEING STUDIED FOR IN- RURAL FLOOD CLUSION IN NATIONAL PLAINS WILD & SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM MANISTEE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BOARDMAN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS MANISTIQUE RIVER MANISTIQUE MANISTIQUE LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS INDIAN RIVER INDIAN LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ESCANABA RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS PERE MARQUETTE RIVER BEING STUDIED FOR IN- 5E 2.0 CLUSION IN NATIONAL 5EE2A 1.0 WILD & SCENIC RIVER 50C 9.2 <0.1 SYSTEM 511 0.3 5F2 5.8 548A 0.2 551 0.1 5HH2 5E6A, 0.6 5EE2 < 0.1 536A 0.1 SEE 0.1 5F 5F3 5DD 5EE5 5LUI1 5X 5F3A 51111 547 550 TOTAL *ALTERNATIVE 246 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-89 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.1, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 0 4@ REMARKS CP Ilk REQUIREMENTS (1980 "0 :3, 256.6 SUPPLY -(1970) - NEED (1980) 0.7 40.0 39.3 256.6 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL IRIBUTARIES CHEBOYGAN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BLACk RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 1.3 71.1 510 460 50 THUNDER BAY RIVEE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS AD SABLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS AD GRES RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 12.7 158.7 0 3,900 2,400 1,500 # ADDITIONAL BENEFITS TO BE GAINED FROM LAND RIFLE RIVER ENHANCEMENT FROM RURAL FLOOD IMPROVED DRAINAGE. PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSaLs 433 43 4BI 4 4NC 4P TOTAL -ALTERNATIVE 0 0 14.0 229.8 4,410 2,860 1,550 (I ) St-tural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 247 TABLE 14-90 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.1, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA e ell c2 & /61 e@ e REMARKS ell, 0 REQUIREMENTS (2000) 02 1 1 29.98 SUPPLY (1980) .0 2 25.3 72 -0:: MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES CHEBOYGAN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BLACK RIVE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 27.9 THUNDER BAY RIVER RURAL FLOO PLAINS AU SABLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS AD GRES RIVER RURAL FLOO PLAINS 10.7 RIFLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHF@S 4R 4Q 4CI 3.2 1.2 1,700 1,110 590 4C3 4 r ,I 4E2 TOTAL 10--, 3.2 39.8 1,700 1,110 5.1. *ALTERNATIVE (I)Structural Cost REMARKS 248 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-91 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.1, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) 5p, PROBLEM AREA 414 Nli REMARKS 4 REQUIRENEWS (2 0 8 145.7 39.2 379.2 SUPPLY (2000) - 17.2 269.6 NEED (2020) I I I 1 0.8 145.7 22.0 109.6 MAIN STEM AM PRINCIPAL TRIBUIARIES CNEBOTGAN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BLACK RIVER RURAL FL400D PLAINS 48.9 TRUNDER SAY RI RURAL FLIDOD PLAINS AU SABLE RIVER RURAL FLAW PLAINS AD GH RIVER RURAL FLOW PLAINS 43.5 RIFLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSH16 4A 0.1 5.3 0.2 0.1 1,525 990 535 4Q 4cl 0.6 4C3 4GI 4E2 4C3B a 4ESA 4DIC 4Q]. 4H 431 TOTAL - - - - - - - - L 0.1 5.3 0.2 93.1 1,525 990 33-S *ALTERNATIVE Structural CoSt Flood Problem Analysis 249 TABLE 14-92 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DA14AGE REDUCTION ' ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL -0970 PRICE LEVEL) - PROBLEM AREA Nli '\ 0-41 REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (1980) 2 6.4 53 4 1,043.9 SUPPLY (@ 970) - - NEED (1.80) 8.2 16 .1. S3.4 @,.43.9 MAIN STEM AND PRINC, TRIBUTARIES SAGINAW RIVER SAGINAW SHIAWASSEE FLATS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS NITTARAWASSEE RIVER MIDLAND 0.6 246.5 2,900 2,725 175 RURAL FLOOD FLAX NS * * SH14WASSEE RIVER OWOSSO & CORUNNA * * * RURAL FLOOD .PLAINS * * FLINT RIVER FLINT * * * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * * CASS RIVER VASSAR RURAL FLOOD PLAINS KAWKAWLIN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SEELEWAING RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 445 0.1 0.7 21.0 49.0 4,690 3,042 1,638 4A9 9.0 43.0 2,460 1,599 861 4A4D 23.o 0.2 0,2 1,380 892 483 4A4ALA 442 0.1 3.0 1-2 32.0 375 244 131 4A4A4 5.0 29.0 528 343 185 4A6 4A3A 4A2B 0.4 1-1,0 6.6 7*8 1,775 1,154 621 4AS 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.1 1,590 1,034 556 4AIE2 4A4E2 5.5 17.0 924 601 323 4A230 0.2 0.5 3.5 8.0 4,472 2i9O7 1,565 4W 4.2 17.0 2,100 1,365 735 4A1E TOTAL k TERNA T I VE 285 3 56.1 204.1 23,194 15,906 7,Z73 st".t-i C..t J 5 3 250 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-93 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (2000) 9 .2.5 1,211.6 SUPPLY (1980) 1 285.3 56.1 204.1 9 NEED (2000) 7 2 1,021.1 '96.4 1,007.5 MAIN STE39 AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES SAGINAW RIVER SAGINAW SHIAWASSEE FLATS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS TITTARAWASSEE RIVER MIDLAND 15l.3 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * SHIAWASSEE RIVER OWOSSO k CORUNNA * 0.2 85.1 1,050 820 230 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS FLINT RIVER FLINT * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * CASS RIVER VASSAR * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * KAWXA,WL,XN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * SEBMWAING RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * UPSTREAM WATERS] r 445 0.6 9.0 4AD 8.0 4A4D 19.0 442 2.4 6.0 4A4A4 5.0 4A2 9.0 1.6 4A5 0.4 13.2 4AI92 4A4E2 4.0 4A230 0.4 1.5 4W 3.0 4AI 0.1 0.9 3.6 16.0 1,850 1,203 647 443S 4.0 15.0 530 345 185 4A4 5A 4T1A 2.1 10.0 3,869 2,515 1,354 4A2F 4A4A3A 4V 4A261 4AIS 4A2CI 0.4 [email protected] 3.31 2*6 2,293 1,491 1102 4A4A 4A4A 4A4815 *ALTERNATIVE (1) Stmt@al C.St Flood Problem Analysis 251 TABLE 14-93(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2,1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES I ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST @B@AN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS 0 Ilk 01 0 0 0 0 0 UPSTREAM WATMWHEDS 4A2G 444 22.0 5.9 6,800 4,420 2,380 4A4E 4A4 4A4CAI 0.1 3.3 3.2 6.1 3,198 2, 079 1,119 0.8 293.4 38.2 93.9 19,590 -M TOTAL 12,873 1.7 *ALTERNATIVE 1) Structural Cost 252 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-94 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 0 C:b, Ike REMARKS REQUIREKENTS (2020) 2,386.0 251.5 1,396 7 3 SUPPLY (2000) 1 2.7 568.7 94.3 298:0 7.4 1,817.3 1, 7. ;@j 1,088.7 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES SAGINAW RIVER S -INAW AG SHIAWASSEE FLATS 0.5 252.3 54.8 589.3 18,000 14,400 3,600 RURAL FLOOD PIA71NS T17TARAWASSEE RIVER KIDLAND 496.7 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SHIAWASSEE RIVER OWOSSO & CORUNNA 28.6 RURAL FLOOD -PLAINS FLINT RIVER 'FLINT RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CASS RIVER VASSAR RURAL FLOOD PLAINS KAWKAWLIN RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SEEMING RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHiDS 445 1.1 9.0 4A9 7.0 4A4D 38.0 442 4.6 5.0 4A4A4 5,0 4A2B LS.O 1.6 4AS 1.0 0.2 4AIE2 0.1 6.6 3.4 24.0 4,389 2,853 I,S36 4A4E2 3.0 0230 0.8 1.5 4W 3@O 0.9 2.10 443 3.0 4T1 1.0 4A2C 9.0 0.4 4A4A 0.2 13.0 2.3 5.4 1,050 683 367 444 0.8 4A4Al 3.0 0.9 4A2E 4AJA 1.0 5.5 I,Z47 all 436 4A2 F2 4AIE3 4AIE4 4U 440 4.1 1:378 896 4112 j 4A4F 2@1 2.1 2 390 1,547 633 4A3C ALTERNCT.IVE 11) Structuml Cost Flood Problem Analysis 253 TABLE 14-94(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 3.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 4AXI 4A4F4 0.5 2:1 920 600 320 4T1A 2.2 2 - 210 137 73 4A18 0.6 2.1 2 ', 76 1,414 762 4A2D 4A3D 446 452 4AICI 4AIC 4.1 0.1 2,320 1,508 812 4A3R 4A4A3 4A7A 4A4F2 WrAL 0.9 881.7 72 681.6 34,070 24,849 9,221 ALTERNATIVE structural Cost 254 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-95 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.1, Before 1980 1 ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTIO@.] (,ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION MEASURES URBAN RURAL 970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell 141 ell REMARKS REQUIREMENTS0)(19 0) 58 6 35,374 51 2,465.7 0) SUPPLY (19 0) NEED (1980)7 58.6 35,31-.: 205.7 2,465.7 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES BLACK RIVER PORT HURON 5.0 157.7 2,100 1,950 150 RURAL FL400D PLAINS PINE RIVER RURAL FL'OOD PLAINS BELLE RI RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CLINTON RIVER & RED RUN DRAIN RURAL, URBAN FLOOD PLAINS 3.4 29,170.0 167,000 121,000 46,000 RIVER ROWE DEARBORN 5.0 117:3.0 35,000 26,000 9,000 PROJECT UNDER BIRMINGHAM 0,2 9.9 810 450 360 CONSTRUCTION URBAN FLADO PLAINS BELL BRANCH URBAN FLOOD PLAINS HURON RIVER ROCKWOOD FIAT ROCK YPSILANTI RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RAISIN RIVER DUNDEE MISSFIELD RURAL FLIOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 3M 0.2 133.0 35.0 1,150.0 3,900 2,535 1,365 331 0.8 478.0 3.3 171.0 4,320 2,808 1,512 3G 5.5 204.0 5,540 3,601 1,939 3FI 0.3 1.0 18.0 193.0 6 634 4 312 2.322 31 1.9 191.0 6.0 21.0 5:830 3,790 2,040 3K 1.0 214,0 O@2 0.2 1 290 839 451 3J 4.8 211.0 1.3 2.6 6 660 4,329 2,331 330 0.3 113.0 11.0 15.0 1,025 666 359 TOTAL 22,91 32,551.6 1 80.31 1,756.8,1 240@109 1 172,280 1 67,829 1 *ALTERNATIVE 11) St-tural Cost 8 Flood Problem Analysis 255 TABLE 14-96 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.1, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST I URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 15 Ilk REMARKS 0 e 0 e e REQUIREMENTS (2000) 59 5 56,464:3 04 3025,4 S "1980) 22:9 32 ,551 6 80.3 1,75 (2000) 36.6 23,912.7 124 .5 1,26 NUPPLY MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES BLACK RIVER PORT HURON 49.5 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PINE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BELLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CLINTON RIVER & RED RUN DRAIN RURAL. URBAN FLOOD PLAINS 18,369.0 RIVER ROUGE DEARBORN 1,266.0 BIRMINGHAM 121.8 URBAN FLOOD PLAINS BELL BRANCH URBAN FLOOD PLAINS HURON RIVER ROCKWOOD FIAT ROCK YPSILANTI RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RAISIN RIVER DUNDEE BLISSFIELD RURAL FLAX)D PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 3M 9:'0 275.0 33 1 34 .0 40.0 3G2 4 .0 3F 0.7 495.0 31 138.0 7.0 3K 156.0 0.1 3j 151.0 0.6 330 R2-0 4.0 3EI 0.1 .2.0 2.6 8.2 600 390 210 3G4D 9.4 84 7,120 4:31201 2,4292 3F2A 1.0 1.0 5.9 69.0 2 070 1 5 7 0 3L 0.1 91.0 0.2 5.8 1,125 731 394 3DE4 0.9 22.0 360 234 12: 3J1 0.3 1.7 1.2 16.0 760 494 26 3G30 3.5 4.6 28.0 12.0 2700 1,755 945 3E2 0.6 1B.0 0.8 1.8 5:850 3,803 2,047 1 :1 1 - I I I TOTAL T- 1 7.3- [9 13,385 1 7,200 1 5.61 21,04 4 -0 ".3..5 20,585 ALTERNATIVE J)St-t- 1 Cost 256 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-97 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.1, After 2000 1 ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTIO ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION MEASURES URBAN (1970 PRICE LEVEL) b PROBLEM AREA 1@ 0, 69 REMARKS Ilk REQUIREMENTS (2020)1 1 1 60: 11 66,,215.6 03.5 3,571.4 SUPPLY ( 2000 28 1 53 598.9 129. 2,396.3 NEED (2020) ) I I 1 32.3 12,616.7 74. 1:175.1 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES BLACK RIVER PORT HURON 88.9 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PINE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BELLE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CLINTON RIVER & RED RUN DRAIN RURAL, URBAN FLOOD PLAINS 3,992.0 RIVER ROUGE DEARBORN 2,147.0 BIRMINGHAM 286.1 URBAN FLOOD PLAINS BELL BRANCH UR FLOOD PLAINS HURON RIVER ROCKWOOD FLAT ROCK YPSILANTI RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RAISIN RIVER DUNDEE BLISSFIELD RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 3M 188.0 265.0 331 674.0 40,0 3G 46.0 3F1 1.4 44.0 31 264.0 5.0 3K 302.0 3j 297.0 0.7 330 160.0 4.0 3EI 125.0 1.8 3G4D 16.0 3F2A 0-8 13.0 3L 75.. 1.2 3DE4 4.0 3JI 1.4 3.0 3'30 3.7 2.0 r 3E3 7.7 19.0 7,208 4,685 2,523 3E2 0.6 332.0 0.8 2.2 5,850 3,803 2,047 3G4 0.1 10.0 1.3 10.0 0 42 231 1 11 .':6 3F2 2.5 6.0 '0 5.3 00 4 48: 2 415 3G3 3E4 5.0 6,8 7,200 4,680 2,520 1 :1 1 1 1 1 *ALTERNPTIVE 'I ) structural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 257 TABLE 14-97(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.1, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) b PROBLEM AREA R 1@1- REMARKS 00 0' UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 333 0.2 0,9 3.9 380 247 133 3E6 0.1 8.3 0.6 0.5 2 652 1,724 928 3F2 3E5C 0.5 0.7 8116 5,304 21 856 3F2 1.6 0.3 7500 488 262 TOTAL 3.5 8,673.8 39,760 25,845 75 . . I I I I I I I I I I *ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 258 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-98 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTIO ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell - 101 .- 'b\ REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (1980) 26 7 6,080.8 371 C 5,757.5 SUPPLY (1970) NEW (1980) 26.7 6,080.8 371.( 5,757.5 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES MAUMEE RIVER BEING MAUMEE RIVER STUDIED FOR INCLUSION IN NATIONAL WILD & TOLEDO SCENIC RIVER SYSTE14 PERRYSBURG ROSSFORD MAUMEE GRAND RAPIDS NAPOLEON FLDRIDA DEFIANCE FORT WAYNE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ST. JOSEPH RIVA CEDARV ILLE & LED RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ST. MARYS RIVER DECATUR ST. M"YS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS AUGLAIZE RIVER OAKWOOD WAPAKONETA RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BLANCHARD RIVER OTTAWA 0.7 345.0 5 900 5 015 885 FINDLAY 1.9 1, 372,5 0 000 15,000 5,000 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS TIFFIN RIVER BRUNERSBURG EVANS PORT RURAL FLOOD PLAINS POR'LAGE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SANDUSKY RIVER FR NT 1.0 647.8 8,820 8,100 PROJECT UNDER CON- TIFFIN STRUCTION. TO BE BUCYRU COMPLETED BY 1980. FTTRAL FLOOD PLAINS .HURON.RIVER HURON MILAN RURAL FIAW PLAINS VERMILION RIVER VERMILION RURAL FLOOD PLAINS -ALTERNATIVE (1) stmcturai cost Flood Problem Analysis 259 TABLE 14-98(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA n 90. REMARKS C' Z; I \0 '; ee;l 011 0 M UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS MAUMEE RIVER BEING 361 0.4 8.4 32.0 593 2,573 1,672 901 STUDIED FOR INCLUSION 3D47 IN RATIONAL WILD & 3D290 SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM 3D45 11.0 241.0 4,020 2,613 1,407 3D4 3C7 10.0 215.0 2,139 1,426 713 3D452 0.2 95.0 7.0 130.0 2,500 1,625 875 31 9.0 178.0 818 532 296 3DO5 3C 11 0.1 79.0 5.8 88'0 3,721 2,480 1,241 3D451 7.3 130.0 1,733 1,126 607 3C1O 0.1 13.0 8.1 109.0 4,808 3,205 1,603 3D32 3B18 3DIO 3D46 3C3 5.4 76.0 106 69 37 381 1.3 75.0 900 585 315 3DI TWOTAL 4.4 96.9 1,835.0 58,038 13,870 43,448 -ALTERNATIVE (1) Stru,ctural Cost 260 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-99 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE.REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970, PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA b \0 Ilk REMARKS REQUIREME S(200 1 27 22 1370-1 7 714.0 .SUPP "13 0:7 1 5 Ly (19 So 4:04 2, 56 96' 0 NEED 22.6 8761 .5 273. 5 79 0 (2000) MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES MAUMEE RIVER MAUMEE RIVER BEING STUDIED FOR INCLUSION TOLEDO a a IN NATIONAL WILD & PERRYSBURG SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM RO SFoRD MASUME a a GRAND RAPIDS NAPOLEON FLIORIDA DEFIANCE a a a FORT WAYNE 9.3 3,914.2 49,100 44,200 4,900 RURAL FL00 PLAINS ST. JOSEPH RIVER CEDARVILLE & LEO RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ST. MARYS RIVER DECATUR a a a a ST. MARYS a 0.6 178.0 2,300 2,070 230 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS a BLANCHARD RIVER OTTA 270.6 FINDLAY a 1,076.7 RURAL FLA)OD PLAINS * * a TIFFIN RIVER BRUNERSBURG a * * a a a EVANS PORT a a * a a * RURAL FL4DOD PLAINS * * a F '@AGE RIVEI@ !:qL RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * * a LI@NDUSnL RIVER FREMONT a 802.4 TIFFIN 0.5 129.7 1,700 1,550 ISO BUCYRUS a 0.2 188.0 15,000 12,000 3,000 RURAL FLOO, PLAINS a a HURON RIVER HURON a a a MILAN a 0.2 295.3 3,000 2,800 200 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * * a VERMILION RIVER VERMILION RURAL FLOOD PLAINS AUGLAIZE RIVER OAKWOOD a a a a WAPAKONETA a . a RURAL FLOOD PLAINS *ALTERNATIVE 1) structural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 261 TABLE 14-99(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2,1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REMARKS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS MAUMEE RIVER BEING 361 6.6 162.0 STUDIED FOR INCLUSION 3 45 67.0 IN NATIONAL VXLD & 3C7 59.0 SCENIC RIM SYSTEM 3D452 74.0 36.0 31 48.0 3C11 61.0 24.0 3D451 35.0 3C10 9.0 30.0 3C 21.0 381 21.0 310 0.1 7.7 3.8 44.0 7,133 4,636 2,497 3D5 2.2 79.0 2,050 1,333 717 35 3.3 76.0 380 247 133 3D2 3C6 4.0 75.0 1,168 779 389 3D41 3C9 O'l 1.1 4.5 67.0 1,658 1,105 553 3D49 3.0 58.0 660 429 231 3D3 3C8 0.1 3.8 3.5 52.0 2,578 1,670 908 3 291 3D Oj 2.2 2.0 47.0 468 312 156 3C22 1.4 43.0 1,515 1,010 505 3D4 2.0 37.0 1,673 1,115 558 C 3C 2.0 37.0 1,713 1,142 571 3D443 0.4 37.0 3.0 14,0 4,125 2,750 1,375 %) 1D TOTAL T.7,057.3 - J L L 34.7 1,132.0 -r96,2.1 1 79,148 1 17,0731 ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 262 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-100 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell "C REMARKS e REQUIREMENTS (2020) 27.4 20,7 9.7 370..1 1,,175 .1 SUPPLY (2000) 16.0 9,6 8.0 131 E , 967.0 NEED (2020) 1 1 11.4 11,181.7 238.E 6,908.1 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES MAUMEE RIVER MAUMEE RIVER BEING TIDLEDO STUDIED FOR INCLUSION PERRYSBURG IN NATIONAL WILD & ROSSFORD SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM MAUMEE GRAND RAPIDS NAPOLEON FLORIDA DEFIANCE FORT WAYNE 2,978.3 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ST. JOSEPH RIVEJ LRV::D' RC:AL PLAINS ST. MARYS RIVER DECATUR ST. MARYS 137.0 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS AIMLAIZE RIVER OAKWOOD WAPAKONETA RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BLANCHARD RIVER OTTAWA 468.4 FINDLAY 1, 8r2.9 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS TIFFIN RIVER BRUNERSBURG EVANS PORT RURAL FLOOD PLAINS PORTAGE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SANDUSKY RIVER FREMONT 1,656.7 TIFFI 142.2 BUCYRUS 207.8 RURAL FIOOD PLAINS HURqN RIVER HURON MILAN : 345.9 RURAL FL10OD PLAINS VERMILION RIVER VERMILION RURAL FLOOD PLAINS *ALTERNATIVE Flood Problem Analysis 263 TABLE 14-100(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 16 REMARKS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS MAUMEE RIVER BEING STUDIED FOR INCLUSION 361 12.0 119.0 IN NATIONAL WILD & 3D45 48.0 SCENIC RIVER SYSTEM 3C7 43.0 3D452 L44.0 26.0 31 36.0 3C11 119.0 18.0 3D451 26.0 3ClO 19.0 22.0 3C3 15.0 381 15.0 310 65.0 7.0 3D5 13.0 35 12.0 3C 12.0 3C: 0.9 11.0 3D49 10.0 3C8 3.2 6.0 3C2 1.9 8.0 3D2 7.0 3C5 6.0 3C4 6.0 3D43 31.0 3.0 32 0.2 5.4 0.8 24.0 608 405 303 37 0.2 22.0 240 160 80 3D4A 3D2B 1.4 17.0 168 109 59 3DlB 3.9 17.0 339 220 1 30 0.1 9.0 0.: 13.0 425 276 141: 3D44 0. 13.0 1, 040 676 364 3DI 3D3A 3D292 0.4 11.0 21 14 7 3D2A 3D17 33 0.4 6.3 100 65 35 383 0.1 4.3 0.3 4.7 314 204 110 3DICI 3DIB 39 0.1 2.1 ill 72 39 3DIA 384 0.1 9.3 6 4 2 34 0.1 0.7 280 197 93 30 0.1 0,4 0.1 0.2 202 131 71 3DI30 382 0.1 0.1 33 22 11 385 0.1 0.1 35 23 12 TOTAL 0.5 8,214.3 9.21 609.5 1 3,922 1 2,578 1 1,454 1 ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 264 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-101 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.3, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTIO q ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA e C e \5R REMARKS REQUIRMIENTS 980) 1:-11 1.799.0 63.3 830.8 SUPPLY (1970) - - - NEED (1980) 1.1 1,799.0_ 63.3 930.8 KAIN STEM AND P INCIPAL TRIBL77TARI BLACK RIVER LORAIN ELYRIA RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SPERRY CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ROCKY RIVER ROCKY RIVER LAKEWOOD RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CUYAHOGA RIVER BROOKLYN HGTS VALLXY VIEW 1.6 426.2 8,080 5,584 2,496 INDEPENDENCE AKRON RURAL FLOOD PLAINS TINKERS CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CHAGRIN RIVER FASE .9 230.7 3,500 2,800 700 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS GRAND RIVER PAINESVILLE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CONNEAUT CREEK CONNEAUT .2 7.9 500 400 100 CONNEAUTVILLE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 313 3,2 229.0 4.2 35.0 1,067 693 374 36 2 3 120.0 3.1 131.0 1,068 694 3 4 .121 0 3 3.1 1.1 92.0 2 681 1,743 938 3B22 1.2 76.0 438 285 153 3B21 0.1 66.0 0.4 6.2 64 ) 416 224 3BI 0.9 40.0 90D 585 315 TOTAL .6 @,..2.@ _9 31..2 1.,.74 13,@O. 5,674 1 1 1 - -- - -4. ALTERNATIVE (1) Stmctural Cost Plood Problem Analys;s POff TABLE 14-102 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.3, 1980-2000 I ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST REDUCTION MEASURES URBAN RURAL 1970 PRICE LEVEL) -z,- PROBLEM AREA 0 10, REMARKS > Y REQUIREMENTS (2000 98.0 62. 7.1 SUPPLY (1980) 1 082.9 0. 370.2 7,3 2 515.1 1. 808.9 I 1,, 9 5 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES BLACK RIVER LADRAIN ELYRIA RURAL FLIDOD PLAINS SPERRY CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ** ROCKY RIVER ROCKY RIVER ** . * LAKEWOOD ** . * fiURAL FLOOD PLAINS CUYAHOGA RIVER INDEPENDENCE VALLEY VIEW 381.2 BROOKLYN HGTS. AKRON 'RURAL FL10OD PLAINS TINKERS CREEK RURAL FLOOD .PLAINS CHAGRIN RIVER EASTLAKE 3S5.3 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS GRAND RIVER PAINESVILLE ** RURAL FLOOD PLAINS *. CONNEAUT CREEK CONNEAUT CONNEAUTVILLE 7.7 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 313 161.0 5.0 316 $6.0 22.0 3121 2.2 14.0 3B22 14.0 3B21 46.0 1.1 371 8.0 3122 0.1 1.1 .3.9 1.1.0 2,341 1,522 81 3154 12.0 35.0 1,895 1,232 6693 3B2 311 3.0 21.0 ISO 117 63 317 : * 0.2 1,2 1.2 16.0 932 606 326 3L4 1.1 12.0 1,366 a" 478 3152 31555 1.5 9.3 448 291 157 TOTAL D.3 1,041.7 22,7 192.4 7,162 -,r- -15- ALTERNATIVE (-) Struc tural Cost 266 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-103 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.3, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) S31 0 PROBLEM AREA 0 0 '0 Ilk REMARKS 6.6 7:474:: 6L- 820.7 9 SUPPLY (2000) 1', 71 2 121, 33. 11 562.6 REED (2020) "'50.2 1,258.1 REQUIREMENTS (20203 KAIN STEM AND PRINCIPA@ TRIRUTART] -S BLACK RIVER LORAIN ELYRIA RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SPERRY CREEK RURAL FLADOD PLAINS ROCKY RIVER ROCKY RIVER LAKEWOOD RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CUYAKOGA RIVER INDEPENDENCE & VALLEY V EW 13P 'OOKLYN HGTS. 948.0 AKRON RURAL FLOOD PLAINS TINKERS CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS R@ @RINRIVE@R EASTLAKE 693.4 AURAL PLAINS @RAND RIVER PAINESVILLE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RONNFAUT CREEK CONNEAUT CONNEAUTVILL 18.6 RURAL FL40OD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHED@ 313 322.0 6.0 31:1 1.59.0 21.0 31 4.3 14.0 3922 14.0 3R2 1 94.0 1.0 3BI 6.0 312 1.0 5.0 3154 5.0 311 3.0 317 0.9 2.0 314 2.0 31555 1.7 3153 0.1 15.0 0.2 1.6 259 168 91 3156 30D 31 57 0.1 1.0 1.5 1.3 410 267 143 318 0.6 1.0 178 116 62 3155 0.2 0.1 280 182 98 1 1 ..21 TOTAL 2,267.2 2.51 84. -1 1 1,M 1 1.3 3., ALTERNATIVE (I ) Structural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 267 TABLE 14-104 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.4, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 0 NO REMARKS @N e`@ 'k REQUIREMENTS (1980) 23.2 1,344.0 92 592.1 SUPPLY (1970) 1 - - - 23.2 1,344.0 92. 592.1 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES CATrARAUrUS R14 GOWANDA I : : * : * * RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BIG SISTER CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SUDKES CREEK LACKAWANDA NUMEROUS RAILROAD ALTERATIONS MAKE PROJECT RURAL FLOOD NON-FEASIBLE PLAINS CAZENGVIA CREEK BUFFALO & RURAL FLOM PLAINS BUFFALO RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CAYUGA CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 1.7 6S.7 1,120 1,000 120 ELLICOTT CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 11.8 415.3 3.6 8.1 7,700 7,300 400 TOTAL COST $19.8 MILLIOk 39% CHARCEABLE TO FLOOD IONAWANDA CREEK CONTROL. R,;;;@ FLOOD PIA@ INS RURAL FLOOD PLA114S 3.3 319.3 1,915 1,800 115 UPSTREAM WATERS1 1 0.1 47.0 0.1 0.5 862 560 302 44 0.2 31.0 5.2 16.0 L02 66 36 241A 4.7 40.0 285 185 100 240 0.1 2.5 1.3 8.3 110 72 38 34 148 TOTAL 17.21 880.8 r1l 12.1 1 12,094 1 10,@83_ -ALTERNATIVE (1) St-tural Cost 268 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-105 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.4, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) eel PROBLEM AREA zell ob\ REMARKS Ilk REQUIR NIS (2 25.6 2,760.1 89.8 1,180.4 SUPPLY (1980) 17.2 880*814.9 72.9 NEED (2000) 8.4 1,879.3 74.9 1,107.5 000 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES CATTARAUGUS RIVER GOWANDA 1 .3 90.9 25,000 20,000 5,000 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BIG SISTER CREEK RURAL BLOOD PLAI NS SMOKES CREEK LACKAWANDA * RURAL FLOOD I PLAINS * CAZENOVIA CREEK BUFFALO & RURAL FLOOD 1.2 454.1 2.1 69;5 27,000 21,600 5,400 PLAINS BUFFALO RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CAYUGA CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 73.6 ELLICOTT CREEK RURAL FWOD PLAINS 474.0 8.9 TONAWANDA CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 2.2 271.1 52.1 728.@ 27,000 21,600 5,400 @@AQYADJ@ CREEI RURAL FLOOD PLA INS 351.9 UPSTREAM WA 1 34.0 0.1 44 22.0 4.0 241A 240 21.0 1 2,7 245 0.1 4:3 0,9 3.0 BOB 520 280 31 243 241 1.3 4.1 450 293 157 33 114 TOTAL J-fll 3.81 1,777.7 156.41 831.9 1 $0,250 64,0.41-.,2.7 ALTERNATIVE (1) Structu@al C.St Flood Problem Analysis 269 TABLE 14-106 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 4.4, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 0", 'k -REMARKS REQUIR NTS (2020) 27*1 5688.3 87.5 2,.45.2 SUPPLY (2000) 21. 2:.658.5 71.3 904.8 6.9 3 29.6 16.2 1,440. 4 MAIN STEM AND PRINC PAL TRIBUTARIES NO I CATTARAUGUS RIVER 85.0 BIG SISTER CREEK- RURAL FIDOD PLAINS SMOKES CREEK LACKAWANDA RURAL FLOW PLAINS CAZBNOV1A CREEK BUFFALID & RURAL FLOOD 492.1 82.3 PLAINS BUFFALO RIVER RURAL FLOW PLAINS CAYUGA CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 149.6 ELLICOTT CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 1,059.5 TONAWANDA CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 389.5 857.0 SCAJAQUADA CREEK I --1 727.9 UPSTREAM VATERSH 1 64.0 0.1 44 42.0 2.0 241A 5.0 240 a.3 1.0 245 3.3 0.3 241 0.4 3: 114A 32 S, 197 203 56 242 6.7 TOrAL 3,016.4 AL TERMT I VE 270 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-107 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.1, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTID ESTIMATED COST URBAN (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell 10 e REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (1980) 7 7 301.0 72.0 657.7 SUPPLY(1970) - - r NEED (1980) 7 7 301. 72.0 '57.7 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES GENESEE RIVER ROCHESTER WELLSVI LLE 0.1 44.6 780 730 50 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS BLACK CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RED CRE15K RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 0.7 90.8 4,070 3,800 270 CONESUS LAKE RURAL FLOOO PLAINS RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 9.5 90.7 8,000 6,400 1,600 HONEOYE LAKE RURAL FWOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 143 9.1 234 5,225 3,396 1,829 33 94 1.0 14.0 4.7 18.0 1,850 1,202 648 36 17 255 256 138 73 257 TOTAL I.. @4.-4 123-31 342.7 1 1.,.25 15,528 4,397 ALTERNATIVE 11) Structural Cost Flood Problem Analysis 271 TABLE 14-108 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.1, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) VIC, 1Z5;�@ PROBLEM AREA C J b Ilke REMARKS e RE(4111REMENTS (200 7.9 613.8 71.8 1,053.5 1.8 149 4 23.3 342 7 6. 1 464 :4 48.0 710:8 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPA@ TRIBUTARIES GENESEE RIVER ROCHESTER WELLSVILLE 39.1 RURAL FL400D PLAINS 8.8 143.1 137,000 109,600 27,400 BLACK CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RED CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 108.t, 0ONESUS LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS CANASERAGA CREEI RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 97.9 HONEOYE LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 143 42.0 94 10.0 3.0 252 251 69 32 258 250 249 259 261 51 157-.@ 137 000 109,600 27,400 TOTAL 2131.0 (@LTERNATIVE 1) Structural Cost 272 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-109 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.1, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA Nn" REMARKS 10 01 REQUIREMENTS (2020) 8.2 1,254.4 71.5 1,622 2 S Ly (2000) 1 1.8 307 0 32.1 6238:7 NEED (2020)00 6.4 947:4 38.4 99 5 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES GENESEE RIVER ROCHESTER WELLSVILLE 64.7 RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 149.3 BLACK CREEK RURAL FIOOD PLAINS RED CREEK RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 237.8 OONESUS LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS cANAsERAGA CREEK- RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 200.9 H@I@ffE LAYE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WA 128 263 246 248 10 247 262 264 260 23 143 35.0 94 2 1 0 3'22*@ 0 387.* 0 0 TOTAL 2 9 -ALTERNATIVE Flood Problem Analysis 273 TABLE 14-110 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION I ESTfMATEO COST URBAN RURAL 1 (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 94@ REMARKS 0 A 0 REQUIREMENTS (1980) 8.3 161.8 130.6 1 SUPPLY -970) - 0.( 1 186.7 go) 3 261.8 13 NEED (. I I MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIB&ARIES OSWEGO RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SENECA RIVER RURAL FLIDOD PLAINS SENECA LAKE RURAL FLIDOD PLAI NS LAKE REGULATION KEUKA LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION CANANDAIGUA LAKE & OUTLET RURAL FIODD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION LML RMULATION OWASM UKE & OMEf RURAL FLOOD PLAINS 1 .1 1* LAKE REGULATION SKANEATELES LAKE & OUTLET RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS LAKE REGULATION OTISCO LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS LAKE REGULATION ONONDAGA LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS LAKE REGULATION ONEIDA LAKE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LANE REGULATION CHITTENANOO ERIM RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSH16S 0.1 0.4 4.8 155.0 3,157 2,052 1,105 27 07 54.0 545 354 191 433 0:8 59.0 558 363 195 5 426 0.4 41.0 450 293 157 454 3.0 24.0 248 161 87 71 30 428 -ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Cost 274 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-110(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 0 0 X 0 0 REMARKS C' 'b REQUIREMENTS (1980) SUPPLY (1970) NEED (1980) UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 122 6 0.3 20.0 O'l 153 54 253 453 TOTAL ITIT, 333.0 1 S'11@-[3,322 1,789 -ALTERNATIVE (1) St@cturai Cost Flood Problem Analysis 275 TABLE14-111 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2,1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA ell c; k REMARKS 1@z Ilk REQUIREMENTS (2010) "2:2 130:3 68 SUPPLY (198o) 0 4 9 . 333:o NEED (2000) 8.2 291.8 120.5 1,535.5 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES OSWEGO RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS SENECA RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS SENECA LAKE RURAL FLOOD PIA INs LAKE REGULATION KEUKA LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION CANANDAIGUA LAKE & OUTLET RURAL FLOOD PLAI NS LAKE REGULATION CAYUGA LAKE RUR L FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION OWASCO LAKE & OU@LET RURAL FLOOD PLAINS * F* LAKE REGULATION SKANEATELES LAKE-& OUTLET RURAL FLOOD PLA 1NS * * @ LAKE REGULATION OTISCO LAKE UTLET RURAL FLIDO PLA INS LAKE REGULATION ONONDAGA LAKE RURAL FLOG PLA INS LAKE REGULATION ONEIDA LAKE & RIVER RURAL FLA)OD PLAI NS LAKE REGULATION CHITTENANGO LAKE RURAL FLOOD PIA INS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 11 0.3 31.0 1 7 I1.o 433 12.0 426 454 58-oo 12 17.0 455 116 430 435 419 -ALTERNATIVE 276 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-111(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2,1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 53\ C REMARKS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 140 o.1 9.4 0.7 1.5 532 346 186 150 450 429 137 20 434 456 458 432 425 92 TOTAL 11 26.7 1 0-71 ...5 1 532 346 '86 *ALTERNATIVE (1 structural cost Flood Problem Analysis 277 TABLE 14-112 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA INV) "I 0 0 'k REMARKS REQUIREKENTS (2 1 1 11.8 619 .3 1130.1 3,139 5 SUPPLY (200G) 0*5 47.1 10. 401 .5 NEED (2020) 0110 8.3 572.2 119. 2,738.0 I MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAL TRIBMARIFS OSWEGO RIVER RURAL FU)OD PLAINS SENECA RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS SENECA LAKE RURAL FtjDOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION KEUKA LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION CANANDAIGUA LAKE OUTLET RURAL FIA)OD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION CAYUGA LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION OWASCO LAKE & OU W RURAL FLOOD PLAINS -1 1 LAKE REGULATION SKANEATELES LAKE & UTLET RURAL rLJOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION OTISCO LAKE &OUTLET RURAL FLADOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION ONONDAGO TAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION ONEIDA LAKE L RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION CHITTENANGO LAKE RURAL FLOOD PLAINS LAKE REGULATION UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 11 0.5 25.0 127 8.0 433 10.0 426 6.0 4,14 5.0 12 31.0 0.1 140 8.6 0.3 142 439 431 424 427 -AL ;ERNA ;I VIE 278 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-112(continued) Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.2, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA @e ell ell I V, ("I e REMARKS UPSTREAM WAT REDS 52 451 447 459 461 443 446 442 441 423 29 436 462 393 448 TOTAL 54,4 0 0 -t TI *ALTERNATIVE TABLE 14-113 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.3, Before 1980 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 41 Ilk REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (1910) 1 12 0 46.2 265.9 SUPPLY (1970) - - NEEDS (1980) 0.1 12.0 46.2 265.9 1 1 1 1 1 0 MAIN STEM AND PRINC InRIB IES BLACK RIVER RURAL FU)OD PLAINS OSWEGATCHIE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS GRASS RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RAQUME RIVER RURAL FLOO PLAINS STo REGIS RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERER& 351 417 34 413 416 362 1,7 2.4 1,200 780 420 TOTAL 0 0 t1.7 r2.4 1,200 780 4201 ALTERNATIVE (1) Structural Coat Flood Problem Analysis 279 TABLE 14-114 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.3, 1980-2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA REQUIREMENTS (2000) .1 1 21 6 146 120.1 I:1 S PLY (1980) 7 2 4 NUMP (2000) 0.1 21.6 44.5 5 17:7 0 MAIN STEM AND PRINCIPAI! TRIBL6RIE@' BLACK RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS OSWEGATCHTE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS GRASS RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS RAQUETTE RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS ST. REGIS RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERSHEDS 362 0.5 407 408 412 414 358 TOTAL 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 *ALTERNATIVE 280 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-115 Flood Damage Reduction Measures, River Basin Group 5.3, After 2000 REDUCTION MEASURES ESTIMATED DAMAGE REDUCTION ESTIMATED COST URBAN RURAL (1970 PRICE LEVEL) PROBLEM AREA 'k REMARKS REQUIREMENTS (2020 39 9 46.2 SUPPLY (2000) 2.21 "O"@., NEED (2020) 0.1 39.9 44 .0 1,076.9 0*1 MAIN STEM AND PRiNciPAL Tmurmm BLACK RIVER RURAL FLOOD PLAINS OSVEGATCHIE RIVER RURAL FLDW PLAINS GRASS RIVER RURAL FbDOD PLAINS RAQUETTE RIVER RURAL FLOW PLAINS ST. REGIS RIVER RURAL FWW PLAINS UPSTREAM WATERS036 362 0.3 405 411 310 0.2 0.2 400 260 140 409 410 TOTAL 0 0 0 400 2 0 140 OALTERNATIVE (1) Struct@al Co.t SUMMARY It is the purpose of this appendix to complete mated acres in the flood plain are tabulated by an overall appraisal of present and future State and by Lake basin in Tables 14-116 and flood problems involving the flood plains of the 14-117. The Great Lakes Basin totals are also river basins and complexes within the Great noted in these same tables. To point out the Lakes Basin. Its content and accuracy are potential and extent of major floods, the term consistent with a framework study. The prin- average annual damages was used. Future cipal sources of data used were prior studies damages were determined by projecting esti- and reports. These data have been updated to mated 1970 damages, using indexes of change. reflect prices and conditions of development These ind *exes were based upon growth factors for the base year 1970. Where data were either provided by the Economic and Demographic incomplete or missing, they were developed Work Group as well as present and historical using methods discussed in this appendix. As- factors. Detailed information on economic sociated drainage problems are presented in growth projections is contained in. Appendix Appendix 16, Drainage. Flooding problems 19, Economic and Demographic Studies. along the shoreline have not been considered The study of upstream watershed problems in this appendix, but are included in Appendix included analysis of drainage problems as well 12, Shore Use and Erosion. as flood problems. Areas indicated as subject Despite the gains earned by flood protection to flooding may also have a drainage problem. works, flood damages are increasing at a rate There is a possible overlap of problem areas faster than encountered in previous years. with the Appendix 16, Drainage. Damages Encroachment of the flood plains continues listed are those due to flooding only. without significant change. Major flood prob- During the final phases of these investiga- lems exist in urban and highly developed ag- tions, Tropical Storm Agnes hit the Middle At- ricultural areas throughout the Great Lakes lantic States in June 1972. The storm ac- Basin. Property has been damaged and de- counted for 122 dead, and it was the most ex- stroyed and lives have been lost. Interruption pensive and destructive natural disaster in of services and impairment of productive ca- the country's recorded history. Damages pacity have resulted in irreparable losses. Ag- caused by flooding reached a record total of ricultural production has been reduced approximately 3.1 billions of dollars. Exten- through deposition of infertile overwash on sive flooding occurred in hundreds of com- fertile crop- and pastureland and irrigation munities. Farms were destroyed and homes installations such as pumping stations or dis- were demolished. Highway and railroad tribution channels have been damaged. bridges were ripped out. Business and indus- Projections on future conditions in the Ba- tries as well as highways and utilities were sin indicate that without flood control or pre- damaged and destroyed. Damages would have ventive measures, and with continued use been higher were it not for the flood control and development of the flood plains, average capacities of existing projects. annual damages could be as high as Although the areas hardest hit by Agnes $222,720,000 given the economic conditions were in the States of Pennsylvania and New and development expected by the year 2020. York and outside the Great Lakes Basin, the These suppositions were used in order to storm did play havoc with some of the Basin's have a standard base throughout the Basin streams, particularly in the State of New for the assessment of its flood plains and York. However, data in this appendix were not their associated flooding problems. This is not reanalyzed to reflect the effects of Agnes due to say that there will be little regulation of the to the late stage that the study was in at the flood plains in the future. On the contrary, time the storm occurred. many States are accelerating their flood plain Adequate flood plain management is essen- management programs. A summation of esti- tial to maintain proper land use so that flood mated average annual damages and esti- hazards may be kept to a minimum. Much of 2,81 282 Appendix 14 the damage and personal tragedy caused by term period (1980 to 2020), and $113 million in Tropical Storm Agnes was the direct result of the long-term period (after 2020). Costs for up- overdevelopment in the flood plains. Flood stream watersheds (noted in the tables) are plain management combines proper use with for measures to alleviate both the flood and reduced risk, thus achieving optimum use of drainage problems and are duplicated in the flood plains with consideration for both Appendix 16, Drainage. Estimated costs are private and public benefits and related costs. based on experience and cost records of previ- The wise use of flood plains, in areas where ous studies and projects. there is little demand for development, is in Proposed structural measures, which in- the form of parks and open space or agricul- clude the anticipated effects of existing and tural crops that would help to maintain an future flood plain legislation, would reduce attractive and high quality environment. the potential average annual flood damages in Where the pressure for land for development the immediate time period from approxi- is high, structural flood control measures may mately $85,179,000 to $26,562,000; in the be necessary, with full consideration to social short-term period from approximately and environmental factors as well as material $142,752,000 to $31,549,000; and in the long- output. However, first consideration should be term period from approximately $222,720,000 the nonstructural approach. to $44,598,000. Damage reduction as the result Flood damage reduction may be ac- of proposed nonstructural measures, other complished through control of water (correc- than that for flood plain legislation which is tive measures) or through control of the use of included in the above figures, has not been the flood plain (preventive measures). The computed in this appendix due to insufficient need for flood corrective or flood preventive available data and the nature of a framework measures is based on the level of existing and study. It is recommended that studies be con- projected flood damages. It should be recog- ducted in the future to determine flood dam- nized that neither method provides the total age reduction and related costs for nonstruc- answer. Prevention and correction must be tural measures. proportioned in a manner best suited to re- As a result of Tropical Storm Agnes, the duce the economic and physical hardships in- New York State Department of Environmen- flicted by flood waters. tal Conservation recommended additional al- In the selection of the flood damage reduc- ternatives (Table 14-118). tion measures indicated in Tables 14-71 It is unrealistic to expect to prevent all flood through 14-115, attention was given to vari- damages because of the cost of protection ous preventive and corrective measures that when compared to the losses prevented and appeared to be the most practical and econorn- other uses that may preclude complete flood ical, including estimated effectiveness of protection. However, an-economicallyjustifi- existing and future flood plain legislation. It able degree of flood protection can be achieved should be noted that multipurpose consid- through flood plain legislAtion, consistent erations of reservoirs may result in their use with environmental and social considerations at a time period earlier than indicated in these and other resources used. tables. A primary consideration in the selec- Current flood plain land use practices fall tion of future damage reduction measures is short of future needs. It is therefore recom- their environmental and social effects on the mended that an accelerated effort be initiated Great Lakes Basin. Potential structural to expand and enforce flood plain manage- measures are estimated to cost approximately ment programs through political and legal $1,059 million by the year 2020, which would means. To be fully effective, adequate funding include $550 million in the immediate time to carry out plans and to enforce regulations period (before 1980), $396 million in the short- must be provided. Summary 283 TABLE 14-116 Summary by State Es timated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres River Basin (Dollars) In Flood Plain State Group Year ban Rural Urban Rural Minnesota 1.1 1970 79,000 49,400 120 112,322 1.1 1980 102,000 63,200 120 112,322 1.1 2000 171,000 107,700 120 112.322 1.1 2020 284,000 188,700 120 112,322 Wisconsin 1.1 1970 241,800 5,000 938 19,547 1.1 1980 307,500 6,000 938 19,547 1.1 2000 439,400 10,000 938 19,547 1.1 2020 670,500 11,000 938 19,547 2.1 1970 2,143,450 1,167,406 12,069 592,727 2.1 1980 2,767,771 1,565,977 12,165 592,631 2.1 2000 4,926,685 1,953,288 12,363 592,433 2.1 2620 9,544,050 2,099,707 12,481 591,865 2.2 1970 280,500 191,650 2,198 54,386 2.2 1980 459,000 239,348 3,425 53,159 2.2 2000 1,100,500 339,250 4,445 52,139 2.2 2020 2,547,500 445,450 5,855 50,729 TOTALS 1970 2,665,750 1,364,056 15,205 666,660 1980 3,534,271 1,811,325 16,528 665,337 2000 6,466,585 2,302,538 17,746 664,ilg 2020 12,762,050 2,556,157 19,274 662,141 Michigan 1.2 1970 385,000 217,400 4,721 55,160 1.2 1980 461,700 277,000 4,721 55,160 1.2 2000 751,300 393,200 4,721 55,160 1.2 2020 1,248,000 437,800 4,721 55,160 2.1 1970 191,560 31,801 1,571 55,228 2.1 1980 239,580 34,295 1,583 55,216 2.1 2000 390,200 37,916 1,595 55,204 2.1 2020 717,720 40,522 1,616 55,633 2.3 1970 2,542,830 1,961,690 46,222 266,332 2.3 1980 3,544,730 2,459,694 48,162 264,392 2.3 2000 6,794,730 2,925,870 49,912 262,642 2.3 2020 14,030,860 39377,090 51,858 260,696 2.4 1970 98,800 147,132 3,235 112,592 2.4 1980 131,400 190,397 3,465 112,362 2.4 2000 229,800 238,392 3,735 112,092 2.4 2020 425,000 ' 288,875 3,960 111,867 3.1 1970 29,600 214,100 733 39,315 3.1 1980 40,000 256,600 733 39,315 3.1 2000 74,900 302,700 753 39,295 3.1 2020 145,700 379,200 813 39,235 3.2 1970 591,900 892,600 7,441 254,126 3.2 1980 816,400 1,0439900 8,211 253,356 3.2 2000 1,306,400 1,211,600 9,096 252,471 3.2 2020 2,386,000 1,386,700 10,066 251,501 4.1 1970 23,953,080 2,104,030 57,870 206,400 4.1 1980 35,374,760 2,465,730 58,620 205,650 4.1 2000 56,464,300 3,025,350 59,520 204,750 4.1 2020 66,215,600 3,571,370 60,775 203,495 4.2 1970 - 20,100 - 5,893 4.2 1980 - 24,900 - 5,893 4.2 2000 - 31,800 - 5,893 4.2 2020 - 36,800 - 5,893 TOTALS 1970 27,792,770 5,589,053 121,793 995,046 1980 40,608,750 6,752,516 125,495 991,344 2000 66,011,630 8,166,828 129,332 987,507 2020 859168,880 9,518,357 133,809 983,480 284 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-116(continued) Summary by State Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres River Basin (Dollars) In Flood Plain State Group Year 1Wban Rural Urban Rural Indiana 2.2 1970 8,419,180 38,700 2,200 3,865 2.2 1980 12,601,640 57,300 2,340 3,725 2.2 2000 26,003,280 117,300 3,010 3,055 2.2 2020 53,505,270 233,800 3,930 2,135 2.3 1970 397,800 28,000 3,413 14,956 2.3 1980 585,100 36,300 3,413 14,956 2.3 2000 1,243,700 50,100 3,413 14,956 2.3 2020 2,712,300 69,500 3,413 14,956 4.2 1970 1,821,000 135,050 11,702 34,014 4.2 1980 2,372,200 166,300 11,742 33,974 4.2 2000 4,216,6oo 238,480 11,823 33,893 4.2 2020 7,373,200 334,300 11,917 33,799 TOTALS 1970 2,219,980 169,750 15,325 49,665 1980 2,958,940 211,900 15,365 49,625 2000 5,462,980 307,180 15,446 49,544 2020 10,090,770 433,600 15,540 49,450 Ohio 4.2 1970 2,687,820 4,452,500 14,788 331,255 4.2 1980 3,708,600 5,566,290 14,930 331,113 4.2 2000 7,106,230 7,443,710 15,190 330,853 4.2 2020 13,426,480 9,503,960 15,470 330,573 4.3 1970 1,218,400 594,500 14,286 57,909 4.3 1980 1,786,700 788,100 14,959 47,236 4.3 2000 3,571,700 1,088,200 15,808 56,387 4.3 2020 7,418,600 1,626,900 16,520 55,675 TOTALS 1970 3,906,220 5,047,000 29,074 389,164 1980 5,495,300 6,354,390 29,889 388,339 2000 10,677,930 8,531,910 30,998 387,240 2020 20,845,080 11,130,860 31,990 386,248 New York 4.4 1970 921,600 397,700 21t514 919605 4.4 1980 1,335,500 581,400 22,896 90,223 4.4 2000 2,7459500 1,166,700 25,297 87,822 4.4 2020 5,662,300 29330,200 27,560 85,559 5.1 1970 213,500 496,600 7,535 72,153 5.1 1980 301,000 720,200 7,682 72,006 5.1 2000 613,800 19053,500 7,890 71,798 5.1 2020 1,254,400 1,622,200 8,159 71,529 5.2 1970 116,100 822,800 8,060 130,837 5.2 1980 161,800 1,186,700 8,297 1309600 5.2 2000 312,200 1,868,500 8,579 130,318 5.2 2020 619,300 3,139,500 89827 130,070 5.3 1970 9,500 205,100 768 46,195 5.3 1980 12,000 265,900 768 46,195 5.3 2000 21,600 520,100 769 46,194 5.3 2020 39,900 19079,300 771 46,192 TOTALS 1970 1,260,700 19922,200 37,877 340,790 1980 1,810,300 2,764,200 39,643 339,024 2000 .3,693,100 49608,800 42,535 336,132 2020 7,575,900 8,171,200 45,317 3339350 Summary 285 TABLE 14-116(continued) Summary by State Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres River Basin (Dollars) In Flood Plain State Group Year Urban RuraT Urban Rural Pennsylvania 4.3 1970 3,000 29,000 70 6 050 4.3 1980 12,300 42,700 102 6:018 4.3 2000 26,300 90,900 113 6,007 4.3 2020 56,200 193,800 126 5,994 4.4 1970 6,500 7,700 333 1,990 4.4 1980 8,500 10,700 333 1,990 4.4 2000 14,600 13,700 333 1,990 4.4 2020 26,000 15,000 333 1,990 TOTALS 1970 9,500 36,700 403 8,040 1980 20,800 53,400 435 8,008 2000 40,900 104,600 446 7,997 2020 82,200 208,800 459 7,984 Great Lakes 1970 46,351,920 14,210,159 221,787 2,564,857 Basin Totals 1980 67,130,181 18,048,931 229,605 2,557,029 2000 118,524,125 24,228,256 239,423 2,547,221 2020 190,308,880 32,411,674 250,229 2,536,415 286 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-117 Summary by Lake Basin Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres River Basin (Dollars) In Flood Plain Lake Basin Group Year urban Rural Urban Rural Superior 1.1 1970 320,800 1,058 131,869 1.1 1980 409,500 69,200 1,058 131,869 1.1 2000 610,400 1179700 1,058 131,869 1.1 2020 954,500 199,700 1,058 131,869 1.2 1970 385,000 217,600 4,721 55,160 1.2 1980 461,700 277,000 4,721 55,160 1.2 2000 751,300 393,200 4,721 55,160 1.2 2020 1,248,000 437,800 4,721 55,160 TOTALS 1970 705,800 272,000 5,779 187,029 1980 871,200 346,200 5,779 187,029 2000 1,361,700 510,900 5,779 187,029 2020 2,202,500 637,500 5,779 187,029 Michigan 2.1 1970 2,335,010 1,199,207 13,640 647,955 2.1 1980 3,007,351 1,600,272 13,748 647,847 2.1 2000 5,316,885 1,991,204 13,958 647,637 2.1 2020 10,261,77@) 2,140,229 14,097 647,498 2.2 1970 8,699,680 2309350 4,398 58,251 2.2 1980 13,060,640 296,648 5,765 56,884 2.2 2000 27,1039780 456,550 7,455 55,194 2.2 2020 56,052,770 679,250 9,785 52,864 2.3 1970 2,940,630 1,989,690 49,635 281,288 2.3 1980 4,129,830 2,495,994 519575 279,348 2.3 2000 8,038,430 2,975,970 53,325 277,598 2.3 2020 16,743,160 3,446,590 55,271 275,652 2.4 1970 98,800 147,132 3,235 112,592 2.4 1980 131,400 190,397 3,465 112,362 2.4 2000 229,800 238,392 3,735 112,092 2.4 2020 425,000 288,875 3,960 111,867 TOTALS 1970 14,074,120 3,566,379 70,908 1,100,086 1980 20,329,221 49583,311 74,553 1,096,441 2000 40,688,895 5,662,116 78,473 1,092,521 2020 83,482,700 6,554,944 83,113 1,087,881 Huron 3.1 1970 29,600 214,100 733 39,315 3.1 1980 40,000 256,600 733 39,315 3.1 2000 74,900 302,700 753 39,295 3.1 2020 145,700 379,200 813 39,235 3.2 1970 591,900 892,600 7,441 254,126 3.2 1980 816,400 1,043,900 8,211 253;356 3.2 2000 1,306,400 1,211,600 9,096 252,471 3.2 2020 2,386,000 1,386,700 10,066 251,501 TOTALS 1970 621,500 1,106,700 8,174 293,441 1980 856,400 1,300,500 8,944 292,671 2000 1,381,300 1,514,300 9,849 291,766 2020 2,531,700 1,765,900 10,879 290,736 Erie 4.1 1970 23,953,080 2,104,030 57,870 206,400 4.1 1980 35,374,760 2,465,730 58,620 205,650 4.1 2000 56,4649300 3,025,350 59,520 204,750 4.1 2020 66,215,600 3,571,370 60,775 203,495 4.2 1970 4,508,820 4,607,650 26,490 371,162 4.2 1980 6,080,800 5,757,490 26,672 370,970 4.2 2000 11,322,230 7,713,990 27,013 370,639 4.2 2020 20,799,680 9,875,060 27,387 370,265 Summary 287 TABLE 14-117(continued) Summary by Lake Basin Estimated Average Annual Damage Estimated Acres River Basin (Dollars) In Flood Plain Lake Basin Group Year Urban Rural Urban Rural Erie (Con- 4 3 1970 1,221,400 623,500 14,356 63,959 tinued) 4.3 1980 1,799,000 830,800 15,061 63,254 4.3 2000 3,598,000 1,179,100 15,921 62,394 4.3 2020 7,474,800 1,820,700 16,646 61,669 4.4 1970 928,100 405,400 21,847 93,595 4.4 1980 12344,000 592,100 23,229 92,213 4.4 2000 2,760,100 1,180,400 25,630 89,812 4.4 2020 5,688,300 2,345,200 27,893 87,549 TOTALS 1970 30,611,400 7,740,580 120,563 735,116 1980 44,598,560 9,646,120 123,582 732,087 2000 74,144,630 13,098,840 128,084 727,595 2020 100,178,380 17,612,330 132,701 722,978 Ontario 5.1 1970 213,500 496,600 7,535 72,153 5.1 1980 301,000 720,200 7,682 72,006 5.1 2000 613,800 1,053,500 7,890 71,798 5.1 2020 1,254,400 1,622,200 8,159 71,529 5.2 100 116,100 822,800 8,060 130,837 5.2 1980 161,800 1,186,700 8,297 130,600 5.2 2000 312,200 1,868,500 8,579 130,318 5.2 2020 619,300 3,139,500 8,827 130,070 5.3 1970 9,500 205,100 -768 46,195 5.3 1980 12,000 265,900 768 46,195 5.3 2000 21,600 520,100 769 46,194 5.3 2020 39,900 1,079,300 771 46,192 TOTALS 1970 339,100 1,524,500 16,363 249,185 1980 474,800 2,172,800 16,747 248,801 2000 947,600 3,442,100 17,238 248,310 2020 1,913,600 5,841,000 17,757 247,791 Great Lakes Basin Totals 1970 46,351,920 14,210,159 221,787 2,564,857 1980 67,130,181 18,048,931 229,605 2,557,029 2000 118,524,125 24,228,256 239,423 2,547,221 2020 190,308,880 32,411,674 250,229 2,536,415 288 Appendix 14 TABLE 14-118 Additional Alternatives River Basin Group Location Reduction Measure 5.1 Wellsville Reservoir (Stannard) Conesus Lake Lake Regulation Silver Lake Lake Regulation and Institutional Honedge Lake Lake Regulation 5.2 Ley Creek Institutional and Local Protection Chittenango Creek Reservoir Oneida Lake and River Channel Modification Owasco Lake and Outlet Reservoir Cayuga Lake Reservoir Canandaigua Lake and Outlet Reservoir Seneca River Channel Modification Oswego River Channel Modification GLOSSARY average annual damages-the weighted yearly analyses. The term is often used to refer to average of all flood damages that would be the maximum flood of known record. expected to occur under specified economic conditions and developmerit. Such damages flood plain-that portion of a river valley, ad- are computed on the basis of the expectancy jacent to the river channel, which is built of in any one year of the amounts of damage sediments during the present regimen of the that would result from events throughout stream and which is covered with water the full range of potential magnitude. when the river overflows its banks at maximum flood stages. design flood-the peak discharge value adopted as the basis for design and opera- flood plain zoning-an ordinance adopted by tion of a particular project. local or State governments that recognizes the hazards inherent in flood plains and re- flood-the temporary overflowing of a river or stricts the allowable uses of the flood plains stream inundating lands not normally cov- to uses which are compatible with these ered by water. A flood is usually caused by flood hazards. torrential rainfalls or snowmelt, sometimes aggravated by ice jams. floodway-those portions of a stream channel and its adjacent flood plains that are neces- flood damage-the loss resulting from floods sary to carry floodwaters. Any decrease in within the flood plains of rivers and streams the cross-sectional area of a floodway usual- and excluding the Great Lakes shoreline. ly results in higher flood stages. The damages are caused by inundation, ponding, velocity of water, and deposition of highly urbanized area-a city, town, or other sediment. In this appendix damages have area occupied by residences, public or com- been classified according to land use. These mercial buildings, and industrial struc- are direct physical losses. Floods may also tures. The occupied area is essentially con- create indirect losses (loss of time, disrup- tinuous. tion of production, and emergency ac- tivities) and intangible damages, including land use classifications- loss of human life and human suffering. (1) industrial-includes all industrial buildings, parking areas, adjacent yards, flood damage prevention measures- and landscaped grounds. Included are re- (1) structural-a program for reducing search and clerical office facilities, ware- flood damages by means of controlling the houses, mining and other extractive indus- water through engineering works such as tries, steel mills, and private utilities. levees, channel improvements, and reser- (2) commercial-includes buildings, park- voirs. ing areas, and other land directly related to (2) nonstructural-a program for reducing retail and wholesale trade, personal, busi- or preventing flood damages by means of ness and professional services. This cate- controlling the use of the flood plain. Exam- gory includes small industrial or public ples of these measures are flood plain regu- buildings that occur in predominantly com- lation through acquisition and zoning, flood mercial areas, residences over commercial warning and evacuation systems, and flood uses, and recreational boat marinas. It in- insurance protection. cludes most buildings and related grounds belonging to public or quasi-public agencies, flood of record-any flood for which there is governments, or organizations that are reasonably reliable data useful in technical commonly referred to as institutions. This 289 290 Appendix 14 would encompass medical facilities, educa- land in vegetables, fruits and nuts, and all tional facilities, religious institutions, gov- hayland including tame and wild hay. ernmental, administration, and service (8) pasture-range-land in grass or other buildings, military installations, sewage long-term forage growth used primarily for treatment and water treatment plants, air- grazing, does not include rotation hayland ports, and railroad facilities. pasture and hayland. The land may contain (3) residential-all forms of residential use shade or timber trees if the canopy is less are included (single family and multifamily than 10 percent, but the principal plant houses, town houses, apartment buildings, cover must be such as to identify its use as mobile home parks, etc.) with the exception permanent grazing land. of farmsteads, residential recreation, and (9) woodland-land at least. 10 percent other noncontiguous residences. In general stocked by forest trees of any size, or for- a residential area will consist of four or more merly having had such tree cover, and not residential buildings adjacent to each other. currently developed for nonforest use. The Included within this category are churches, minimum area for classification of forest elementary schools, small neighborhood land is one acre. Roadside, streamside, and parks, and small isolated commercial build- shelterbelt strips of timber must have a ings, such as a neighborhood grocery store crown width at least 120 feet wide to qualify within the boundaries of the residential as forest land. Unimproved roads and trails, area. streams, or other bodies of water or clear- (4) transport ation-includ e s railroad ings in forest areas shall be classed as forest, rights-of-way, highways, roads, and bridges. if less than 120 feet in width. Does not include buildings at a railroad ter- (10) other rural-all land in the Great minal. Lakes Basin not classified as cropland, pas- (5) open urban-includes all vacant and ture and range, forest land, urban built-up undeveloped urban and recreation lands. areas, and water area. It includes Privately owned outdoor recreation lands farmsteads, farm lanes, idle land, wildlife such as golf courses or tennis clubs are also areas, built-up urban areas of less than 10 included, as are parks, amusement parks, acres, farm roads, filling stations, rural non- and cemeteries. farm residences, country churches, (6) residential recreation-includes all res- cemeteries, school grounds, feed lots, ditch idential facilities such as cottages and banks, fence and hedge rows, coastal dunes, lodges located along rivers and lakes used unused marshes, and strip mines, borrow for recreational activities. and gravel pits. . (7) cropland-includes land currently till- major damage (map designation)-damage that ed, land with harvested crops, failed crops ' exceeds an average annual damage of summer fallow, idle cropland, cropland in $20,000, within a given study reach. cover crops or soil improvement crops not harvested or pastured, rotation pasture, minor damage (map designation)-damage and cropland being prepared for crops, or that has an average annual damage, within newly seeded crops. Cropland also includes a given study reach, of $20,000 or less. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alpena Soil Conservation District, Montmo- Central Lapeer and Sanilac Soil Conservation rency Soil Conservation District, Truax Creek Districts and South Branch of Cass River, Intercounty Drainage Board, Alpena County Frost, Gerstenberger, Duff, Canter, Fraiser, Drain Commissioner, Montmorency County Weaver, and Peters Drainage Districts, "Work Drain Commissioner, and Montmorency Plan, South Branch of Cass River Watershed, Township Board, "Work Plan, Truax Creek, Sanilac and Lapeer Counties, Michigan," Montmorency and Alpena Counties, Michi- 1961. gan," August 1969. Cheboygan, City of, and Cheboygan Soil Con- Alpena Soil Conservation District and San- servation District assisted by U.S. Depart- born Township Board assisted by U.S. Soil ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Ser- Conservation Service and Forest Service, vice and Forest Service, "Work Plan for Little "Work Plan for Sanborn Watershed (Devils Black River Watershed, Cheyboygan County, River) Alpena and Alcona Counties, Michi- Michigan," May 1957. gan," January 1959. Clinton County Soil Conservation District and Bay County Soil Conservation District and Catlin-Waters Drainage District, "Watershed Bay County Drain Commissioner, "Work Plan, Work Plan, Catlin-Waters, Reynold s- Session Tebo-Erickson Watershed Bay County, Watershed, Clinton County, Michigan," Feb- Michigan," 1968. ruary 1966. Beard, Leo R., Statistical Methods in Hydrol- Clinton County Soil Conservation District and ogy, U.S. Army Engineers District, Sac- Morris Drain Drainage District, "Watershed ramento, California, January, 1962. Work Plan, Muskrat Creek Watershed, Clin- ton County, Michigan," October 1969. Black Brook Conservancy District, Portage County Commissioners, and Portage Soil and Erie-Niagara Basin Regional Water Re- Water Conservation District, "Black Brook sources Planning Board, West Seneca, New Watershed Work Plan-Portage County, York, "Erie-Niagara Basin Comprehensive Ohio." Water Resources Plan," December 1969. Black Creek Drainage District and Mason Farm Creek-Lee Drain Drainage District and County Soil Conservation District, "Wa- Gladwin Soil Conservation District, "Work tershed Work Plan, Black Creek-Mason (Ma- Plan, Farm Creek-Lee Drain Watershed, son County), Michigan," 1964. Gladwin County, Michigan," July 1965. Celeryville Conservancy District, Crawford Jo Drain Inter-County Drainage District and Soil and Water Conservaton District, Rich- Midland Soil Conservation District, "Work land Soil and Water Conservation District, Plan, Jo Drain Watershed, Midland County, and Huron Soil and Water Conservation Dis- Michigan," October 1964. trict, "Marsh Run Watershed Work Plan- Crawford, Richland, and Huron Counties, Knutilla, R. L., U.S. Department of Interior, Ohio." Geological Survey, "Flow Characteristics of Michigan Streams," June 1967. Central Lapeer, Sanilac, and St. Clair County Soil Conservation Districts and North Branch Mercer County Soil and Water Conservation of Mill Creek and Brant Lake Drainage Dis- District and Dark Soil and Water Conserva- tricts, "North Branch of Mill Creek Watershed tion District, "Upper Wabash Watershed Work Plan," 1962. Work Plan-Mercer and Dark Counties, Ohio." 291 292 Appendix 14 Michigan Department of Conservation, U.S. 70th Congress, 1st Session, House Docu- "Menominee River Basin," 1966. ment No. 171, (1927), Menominee River Basin. Michigan, University of, Department of En- U.S. 71st Congress, 2nd Session, House Docu- vironmental Health, in cooperation with ment No. 489, (1930), Oconto River Basin. Michigan Water Resources Commission, "Drought Flow of Michigan StreaTns," 1960. House Document No. 491, (1930), Peshtigo River Basin. Michigan Water Resources Commission, "Wa- ter Resource Conditions and Uses in the Au U.S. 72nd Congress, 1st Session, House Docu- Sable River Basin, Michigan," 1966. ment No. 141, (1930), Menominee River Basin. , "Water Resource , House Document Conditions and Uses in the River Raisin Ba- No. 276, (1932), Fox River Basin. sin," 1965. U.S. 72nd Congress, 2nd Session, House "Water Resources of Document No. 481, (1932), Manitowoc River the Clinton River Basin," 1953. Basin. Ohio Water Commission, Department of U.S. 73rd Congress, 2nd Session, House Docu- Natural Resources, "The Northwest Ohio ment No. 28, (1934), Menominee River Basin. Water Development Plan," 1967. U.S. 76th Congress, 1st Session, House Docu- Saginaw, Shiawassee County, and Genesee ment No. 228, (1938), Menominee River Basin. Soil Conservation Districts and Misteguay Creek, Savage Drain, Peart Drain, North U.S. 83rd Congress, 2nd Session, Senate Creek Orser, Rush Bed Creek, Onion Creek Document No. 98, (1951), Kalamazoo River and Porter Creek Drainage Districts, "Work Basin. Plan, Misteguay Creek Watershed (Saginaw, Shiawassee, and Genesee Counties), Michi- U.S. 84th Congress, 2nd Session, Senate gan," 1960. Document No. 53, (1950), Kalamazoo River Basin. Sanilac Soil Conservation District and Middle Branch of Cass River, Hyslop, and Branch of U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Grand Middle Branch Drainage Districts, "Work River Basin Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, Middle Branch of Cass River, Sanilac Planning Study, Appendix M-Agriculture," County, Michigan," 1964. 1967. Southeast Wisconsin Regional Planning "The Southeast Wis- Commission, "Root River Watershed Study," consin River Basin, Technical Report No. 1965. March 1969. U.S. 51st Congress, 1st Session, House Docu- U.S. De .partment of Agriculture, Department ment No. 34, (1888), Menominee River Basin. Conservation Needs Inventory, Washington, U.S. 56th Congress, 1st Session, House Docu- D.C., "National Handbook for Updating the ment No. 419, (1899), Menominee River Basin. Conservation Needs Inventory," August 1966. This also includes computer output material U.S. 59th Congress, 2nd Session, House Docu- relative to the inventory, updating output ment No. 3, (1906), Manitowoc River Basin. years, 1966-1967, and includes data for all Basin States. U.S. 63rd Congress, 1st Session, House Docu- ment No. 136, (1912), Manitowoc River Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conser- vation Service, "Michigan Watershed Prog- House Document ress Report (Public Law 566)," July 1970. No. 228, (1913), Menominee River Basin. , "Ohio Public Law U.S. 67th Congress, 2nd Session, House Docu- 566 Watershed Progress Report," January ment No. 489, (1922), Fox River Basin. 1970. Bibliography 293 "Watershed Status the Towns of West Seneca, Cheektowaga and Report, Public Law 506, Wisconsin," January Lancaster," May 1967. 1970. ii1r10Qd F1611" Infvr- U.9. Department of the Army, Corp,5 of En- mation Report, Cayuga Lake," July 1967. gineers, Buffalo District, Coast of Lake Erie, Interim Report, "Cattaraugus Creek Harbor, "Flood Plain Infor- New York," December 1964. mation Report, Chagrin River in the Counties of Lake and Cuyahoga, Ohio," July 1968. Design Memoran- it dum for Rectification of Deficiencies in Com- Flood Plain Infor- pleted Local Protection Project, Wellsville, mation Report, Cazenovia Creek, New York, New York," April 1966. in the City of Buffalo and Town of West Seneca," October 1966. Design Memoran- dum on Local Flood Protection, Smokes Creek "Flood Plain Infor- at Lackawanna, New York," June 1963. mation Report, Cuyahoga River, Big Creek and Tinkers Creek, Cuyahoga County, Ohio," "Detailed Project July 1968. Report for Flood Control, Keuka Outlet at Penn Yan, New York," June 1960. "Flood Plain Infor- mation Report, Cuyahoga River-Cuyahoga "Flood Plain Infor- and Summit Counties, Ohio," September, mation Report, Black Creek and Genesee 1969. River in the Towns of Chili and Riga, Monroe County, New York," September 1969. "Flood Plain Infor- mation Report, Ellicott Creek in the City of Flood Plain Infor- Tonawanda and the Towns of Tonawanda, mation Report, Black River, Ohio-From Amherst, Cheektowaga, and Lancaster, Erie Lake Erie to Carlisle Township," June 1964, County, New York," January 1968. revised July 1968. "Flood Plain Infor- "Flood Plain Infor- mation Report, Rocky River in the Cities of mation Report, Buffalo Creek, New York, in Rocky River and Lakewood, Cuyahoga the Towns of Elma and West Seneca," April County, Ohio," July 1968. 1966. "Flood Plain Infor- Flood Plain Infor- mation Report, Seneca Lake," June 1967. mation Report, Canandaigua Lake, New York," May 1967. "Flood Plain Infor- mation Report, Smokes Creek, City of Lack- Flood Plain Infor- awanna, New York," February 1965. mation Report, Canandaigua Outlet in the 44 Counties of Ontario and Wayne, New York," Flood Plain Infor- December 1968. mation Report, Tonawanda Creek, and Its Af- fected Tributaries, Erie and Niagara Coun- "Flood Plain Infor- ties," August 1967. mation Report, Cattaraugus Creek and "Genesee River Thatcher Brook in Irving, Sunset Bay and Gowanda, New York," February 1968. Basin-Interim Report for Flood Control, Red Creek, Monroe County, New York," 1965. "Flood Plain Infor- I "Genesee River mation Report, Cattaraugus Creek in the Vil- Basin-Study of Water and Related Land Re- lage and Town of Arcade, Wyoming County, sources," 1969. New York," July 1969. 41 Interim Review of "Flood Plain Infor- Report for Flood Control-Tonawanda Creek mation Report, Cayuga Creek, New York in in the Vicinity of Batavia, New York," 1961. 294 Appendix 14 , "Report of Flood, "Flood Plain Infor- 17-18 March 1963, Cattaraugus Creek, New mation Report, Wolf River-Shawano to Lake York," May 1963. Poygan," 1969. -, "Report of Flood, "Survey Report for 27-29 September 1967 in Western New York," Flood Control, Milwaukee River and 19 December 1967. Tributaries, Wisconsin, November 1964. , "Review of Report U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of En- for Flood Control, Sandusky River, Ohio," gineers, Detroit District, "Black River Basin 1962. Flood Damage Study, Port Huron, Michigan," 1969. "Review of Report on Smokes Creek for Flood Control," 1958. "Detaile& -Project Report on Flood Control for Kawkawlin "Review of Reports River, Michigan," 1966. for Flood Control and Allied Purposes, Cayuga, Buffalo and Cazenovia Creeks, New "Flood Control on York," 1967. the Saginaw River, Michigan, and Tributaries, Design Memorandum No. I," December 1960. "Review of Reports for Flood Control and Allied Purposes, Cha- "Flood Control on grin River, Ohio," 1962, revised 1964. Saginaw River, Michigan, and Tributaries, Design Memorandum No. 2," November 1963. "Review of Reports for Flood Control and Allied Purposes, "Flood Control on Cuyahoga River, Ohio," 1969. Saginaw River, Michigan, and Tributaries, Design Memorandum No. 3," 1964. "Review of Reports for Flood Control, Chittenango Creek, New "Flood Plain Infor- York," 1967. mation Report on the Grand River at Lan- sing 9' 1970. "Review of Reports on Moose and Black River-Carthage and "Flood Plain Infor- Lyons," October 1949. mation Report on the Lookingglass River," 1969. "Survey Report for Flood Control and Allied Purposes, Ellicott "Flood Plain Infor- Creek, New York," 1970. mation Report on the Lower River Rouge, Wayne, Michigan and Vicinity," 1970. "Survey Report for Flood Control on Conneaut Creek at and in the "Flood Plain Infor- Vicinity of Conneautville, Pennsylvania," mation Report on the Main Branch of the Clin- 1966. ton River," 1964. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of En- , "Flood Plain Infor- gineers, Chicago District, (Draft) "Survey Re- mation Report on the Main, River Rouge, port for Flood Control and Recreation Naviga- Evans Ditch, and Franklin Branches in tion, Little Calumet River, Illinois and In- Wayne and Oakland Counties," 1966. diana," November 1969. , "Flood Plain Infor- "Flood Plain Infor- mation Report, Little Calumet River and mation Report on the Middle Branch of the Tributaries, Illinois and Indiana," June 1965. Clinton River," 1965. Flood Plain Infor- "Flood Plain Infor- mation Report, Manitowoc County, Wiscon- mation Report on the North Branch of the sin," May 1970. Clinton River," 1964. Bibliography 295 "Flood Plain Infor- U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of En- mation Report on the Red Cedar River," 1968. gineers, Milwaukee District, "A Preliminary Examination Report on Fond du Lac River," "Flood Plain Infor- (unpublished) 1937. mation Report on the Upper Grand River," 1969. 11 "A Preliminary Examination Report on Milwaukee River," "Flood Plain Infor- (unpublished). mation Report, River Rouge at Farmington," 1963. , "Flood Control Re- view Report (of survey scope) on Kalamazoo "Grand River Basin River, at Battle Creek, Michigan," Appendices Comprehensive Water Resources Planning A, B, C, D, and E, March 1950. Study, Appendix H-Flood Control," May 1970. , Report under the provisions of House Document No. 308, 69th "Interim Survey Congress, covered all phases of water resource Report on Flood Control, Major Drainage, and development in the Manistee River Basin, Allied Purposes for Red Run Drain and Lower Michigan, 1931. Clinton River, Clinton River Basin, Michi- gan," 1970. , "Survey Report on Fond du Lac River and Tributaries, Wiscon- "Past Flood Report sin," 1942. of Southeast Michigan Flood, 25-27 June 1968," 1969. "Survey Report on Kalamazoo River at Kalamazoo, Michigan," "Preliminary Re- July 1949. view of Report on Huron River and Tributaries, Michigan for Flood Control," 26 U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of En- May 1958. gineers, North Central District, Chicago, Illi- nois, "Basic Plan for Great Lakes-St. Law- "Report of Prelimi- rence River Basin," September 1961. nary Examination for Flood Control, Portage River and Tributaries, Ohio," August 1940. U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of En- gineers, Office of Appalachian Studies, Cin- "Survey Report on cinnati, Ohio, "Development of Water Re- Flood Control of Manistique River Basin, sources in Appalachia," December 1969. Michigan," September 1970. , "Survey Report on U.S. Department of Health, Education and Flood Control on the Maumee River, Indiana Welfare, Public Health Service, Chicago, and Ohio," (to be published). Illinois, "Report on Water Resources Study, Huron River Basin, Michigan," August 1963. "Survey Report on Flood Control of River Rouge, Michigan," De- U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological cember 1959. Survey, "Floods of May 1959 in the AuGres '"Survey Report on and Rifle River Basins, Michigan," 1960. Major Drainage and Flood Control of AuGres River, Michigan," 1959. "Southeastern Michi- "Survey Report on gan Water Resources Study Technical Paper #1, Gazetteer of the River Rouge Basin," the Saginaw River, Michigan and its March 1969. Tributaries," January 1954. 'Southeastern Michi- Unfavorable Report gan Water Resources Study Technical Paper on the St. Joseph River Basin, Michigan and #2, Gazetteer of the Belle River Basin," June Indiana, (unpublished). 1969. 296 Appendix 14 ,"Southeastern Michi- Maumee Watershed Conservancy District, gan Water Resources Study Technical Paper Putnam County Commissioners, and Putnam #3, Gazetteer of the Black River Basin," Soil and Water Conservation District, "Little April 1969. Auglaize River Watershed Work Plan-Van Wert, Paulding, Putnam and Mercer Counties, Van Wert County Commissioners, Van Wert Ohio." Soil and Water Conservation District, Mercer County Soil and Water Conservation District, Wayne Soil and Water Conservation District, Paulding Soil and Water Conservation Dis- Wayne County Commissioners, Medina trict, Maumee Watershed Conservancy Dis- County Commissioners, Medina Soil and trict, Putnam County Commissioners and Put- Water Conservation District, and Muskingum. nam Soil and Water Conservation District, Watershed Conservancy District, "Chippewa "Middle Branch (Little Auglaize@-Paulding Creek Watershed Work Plan-Medina and and Van Wert Counties, Ohio," 1967. Wayne Counties, Ohio," 1969. Van Wert County Commissioners, Van Wert White, Gilbert F., Department of Geography, Soil and Water Conservation District, Paul- University of Chicago, and Cook, Howard L., ding Soil and Water Conservation District, O.C.E., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Maumee Watershed Conservancy Dis- Washington, D.C., Making Wise Use of Flood trict, "Prairie-Hoaglin Branch (Little Plains, 1962. Auglaize)-Paulding and Van Wert Counties, Ohio," 1967. Wiitala, S. W., "Magnitude and Frequency of Floods in the United States, Part 4, St. Law- Van Wert County Commissioners, Van Wert rence River Basin," Geological Survey Water Soil and Water Conservation District, Paul- Supply Paper 1677, United States Govern- ding Soil and Water Conservation District, ment Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1965. 298 Appendix 14 -11C, VICINITY MAP SCALE .1N MILES 0 so IN Rive, c=C!@;, Brute Lake 1P COOK Ae rand Marais LAKE -a /A" Chisholm, t. 0 @ Irginta 11, Hibbing ,,EVeleth 0 9. 9fa SilVer Bay 9L Two Harbors 0 0 loodwood o G> APOSTLE ISLANDS W+ Pi OGQ 82 0 C1 0 ST. Uls Duluth Bayfiel Cloquet 0 S enor :B1 ne 0Ashla Di CARLT-1A VMW 0 Pot, 0 Mell.n nwood (nz D2 S &Hurley Z L) z W A4I CH'GA SC() DOUGLAS RAYFIF1 r) LEGEND BOUNDARIE ASH LA 14 D IRON STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP REACH DESIGNATION Al LIMITSOF REACH Figure 14-9 POTENTIAL FLOOD AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION DAMAGE AREAS ON MAIN STEM DAMAGE AREAS. AND PRINCIPAL TRIBUTARIES FOR 1970 MAJOR RIVER BASIN GROUP 1.1 1980 MAJOR 2000 MAJOR 2020 MAJOR MINOR (LESS THAN $20,000) SCALE IN MILES ri 11@@' 210-1@25 FIGURE 14-9c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 1.1 Appendix 14 299 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES 50-100 621(,, 62 626 a Lake 623 624 616 618 V - 620 61 C 619 IV rand Marais Babbitt 6DO3 LAKE 613 615 Aurora Chisholm 8"i IrgI 0" V Hitgoin 61305 Eveleth 612 6DI01 6 04 611 0 w6h 61 Silver Bay D08 6D ' 6DII 6 a OR 69 67 68 6D15 6D13 66 Two Harbors 64 0 G> loui, 6DI04 0 62 6 APOSTLE ISLANDS s 6D17 G 60 65 0 6j)18 02 ul ayfield S . S.P S? at 6 03 65A 66A c:@4 enor ?. D a 629 61A 64A A a 62A 67A 6C 6CI CARLTIDN@ 0 63A 6C4 ot, to 1-1 6 nwood 628 194 11 z 6C2 6 OA A4/CHIG z co A/V 6CI CO DOUGLAS AYFIELD Ul ASHLAND [RON LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAREA RIVER BASIN GROUP WATERSHED 3DI WATERSHED NUMBER SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-10c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 1.1 300 Appendix 14 KEWEENAW ISLE ROYALE Laurium 0 s KEWEENAW COUNTY Houghton LAKE SUPERIOR Portoge Le Ontonagon GI 12 11 Yellow Dog AV Gogebi@ Lake Marquette W Wakefiel cz,_0 F, Ishperning : F e. ,_O.@Negaunee INrorvwood HOUGHTON "@EARA A K1 ONTONAGON CGOGEBIC A4/C MARQUETTE co/v, 3//v ALGER I@k LAKE SUPERIOR Hearted Sault Ste. Marie WHITEFISH BAY W a Munising T.h ',,@LeUC rry Q E ALGER CHIPPEWA LEGEND BOUNDARIES VICINITY MAP STATE S@LE IN MILES COUNTY o .10D PLAN N ING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP REACH DESIGNATION Al LIMITSOFIREACH ALA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION DAMAGEAREAS- =@- 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR 2000 MAJOR 2020 MAJOR SCALE IN MILES "@@ISIE @R.YAI MINOR (LESS THAN $20,000) 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE14-13c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 1.2 Appendix 14 801 l(EWEF@= ISLE ROYALE aur, M XFWFKNAW COUNTY 61 .-1-7- WE 9UPPIOR 4. 611 Ontonagon 634 632 Yellow 005 Sj 684 611A 6 H? 6K Marquette 0 CAD 9t ic Lake 6EII tza,_ Waketew rav,@ '11, 0 \ @ 6133 Negaiin P Ironwood 641 -6N 0@ I UGHTO r ElAkAGA am 6H NTO GON 1 --f- , 11F kict tcec 8?C A41 6S2 MARQUME IN/ - Stiv ALGER 6 LAKE SUPERIOR 643 645 60 Sault Ste. Marie 6A BAY 6N W N, 0 M nwf@g 6A4 6A2 646 New 6A CHIPPEWA VICINV(Y MAP LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLAN14ING AREA RWER BASIN GROUP SCALE IN MILE:S WATERSHED WATERSHED NUMBER 0 5 10 15 20 25 14-14c Watershed Desirnation-Ptiver Basin Group 1.2 302 Appendix 14 VICINITY MAP ... SCALEIN MILES 013 ke Michigarnme 10"0' 012 0 \t- 014 Phig.- Rerer-, Iron River 08 DICKINSON '04 07 06 C /NV pipe Rive 05 016 IMENOM POPPle a' ron Mount 0 03.140- FLOR CE King!ford Esca aba ARIN Ceder FORES@ 02 01 Lj QWA=ON A&I An NGLA E Pi 01 ee M OMINEE ar tte Sgo 2 PlA RI Oconto Stu on Bay TIO She o ke DOOR Shawano 110A SHAW'N' OCONTO 0 KEWAUNEE 0 Algoma lintonvil aT9 OUTA MIE LEGEND T Ti Green Bay Pere Kewaunee BOUNDARIES aupaca New London ROWN STATE Opp T6 40 Appleto:, MA TOW C COUNTY WAUPACA Kaukauna PLANNING AREA Menash RIVER BASIN GROUP Neenah* 0.1 CAZ@@ w, Iii Two Rivers REACH DESIGNATION ke Poyge o Al LIMITS OF REACH T3 Manitowoc AIA 0 Ul MUNICIPALITY LOCATION WAUS ARA Berlin24@ shk SIT Chilton UIA T5 WINNEBAGO DAMAGE AREAS FOND DU LAC S E YGA L ------ Z-= 1970 MAJOR 0 Ripon 1980 MAJOR Green Lake Fond du Lac bo Sheboygan 2000 MAJOR T12 mtpi U2 2020 MAJOR -MAR ETTE GREEN LAKE I 4au..n MINOR (LESSTHAN $20,000) _-,.71.rtta a SCALE IN MILES Pz;;-.4 - Pz1--il 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-16c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.1 Appendix 14 303 VICINITY MAP wES %K2D IRO 4Z 5KIC SK2 5KID SKII 5P3 If 5K Iron R v 's, SK3B 1 2 KINSON 5KI 5K3C SC 5P2 5K3 SK4 pi" Riwor SP 51. 5KS K5- K34 6K3I m 0 N rwa rn SK7 FNCE Kin sford E a 533 5.11 5.02 5.13 ARIN 5KIO 51433 50 5KI SN A 5.14 FOREST 51,11 H22 WASHINGTON 4- 5.15 51<12 ISLAND 91 530 4 5 23 Antigo LA LAD 5,17 Me I as 5,16 S. mINEE t. 5H24 513 512 513 Oconto 5H26 Stu n say 5H29 fm Shawan 0 $26 R 525 22 527 SHAW Oc 0 51,1210 W UNEE "'210 [I nvilk Itifflo 524 % A goma 5H213 5 Z@3 520 51,1212 SH2 I Ge n S ty 5H28 De ewau a a aca 1-119_@@ 518 5H215 01P ew rr@on OWN 5H216 5H21 let to MA T c A-,-, AUPACA,,, KI au SH2 19 L M 14 515 SH12 Ai Neen h7 514A 5H218 5HI? 5H 4A to Two Rivers 5HIO mi yo@ Mantowoc LEGEND WA ARA Orlin Chilton 6 512 BOUNDARIES STATE r,@Iz j Y_ t RIVER 0AVlN [email protected], WATERSHED MA TT GRE N_LAK 59 ?D1 YVATM511LE) NUMUR SCALE IN MILES FIGURE 14-17c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 2.1 0 5 10 15 20 25 304 Appendix 14 VICINITY MAP @A ... SCALE IN MILES 0 @0 1@0 l< U WASHINGTON OZALIKEE IA-A West Band 'Otto': ej V2 C,eek Port Washington A- 0., He rtford Cedarburg 0 Oconomowoc V1 Milwaukee LEGEND Waukesh @ V1A) BOUNDARIES a STATE COUNTY South Milwaukee MILWAUKEE PLANNING AREA WALWORTH WAUKESHA Root RIVER BASIN GROUP V REACH DESIGNATION A Racine LIMITS OF REACH Elkhorn ' --"% A@A MUNICIPALITY LOCATION RACIRr N DAMAGE AREAS - Kenosha W S 1970 MAJOR WI@OqS@IN KENOSHA\ 1980 MAJOR ILLINOIS Zion 2000 MAJOR OHarvard 2020 MAJOR MINOR (LESSTHAN $20,000) Waukegan 0 Marengo Lake Forest 0 Crystal Lake McHENRY LAKE Highland Park 3@ KANE Igin COOK Saint Charles 0 Chicago Ime, ICHIGAN DU PAGE Aurora 0 Michigan City R Gary Chesterto Joliet V5 C) 0 La Porte 4 Hammond Chicago Heights @ U) < Va I p a ra so LA PORTE 3: z Crown P t -1--) J.z WILL PORTER Kno. LAKE STARKE SCALE IN MILES 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-20c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.2 Appendix 14 305 VICINITY MAP A SCALE IN MILES 5G 0 WIN) 5G2 G,1 WASHING 0 0 5 7 West 5 C,.@k Port Washington 0 Hartfor CedqLrb r 5135 5 57 00conornowoc, Milwaukee WaukeshP LEGEND 56 BOUNDARI S 55 South Milwaukee MIL AUKE STATE WALWORTH WAUKESHA Root 54 1 COUNTY PLANNING AREA 53 RIVER BASIN GROUP A Racine WATERSHED Elkhorn RACI 52 3131 WATERSHED NUMBER W16:&E Kenosha 1W s WI@04S@I HI 51 ILLINOIS 0 Zion 014arvard Waukegan 0 Marengo Lake Forest 0 Crystal -a ke McHENRY LAKE Highland Park 3@ KANE -51A 0 Elgin COOK 53A 5 5 6 Saint Charles 0 0 Chicago 7- 52A ICHIGAN 511 DU PAGE 541 IN A A Aurora 5BIA if hig n Ci 5EI4 5EII R Chest Joliet .1unA 0 0 La Porte 582 hicago Heights @ 5EI5 .1, 5EI3 *Valparaiso zn LA PORTE: < % 0 Crown Po,nt -I-) -J WILL PORTER Knox LAKE STARKE @ 7rGf3@ OPIUM 14-91@ W.",J@@j 306 Appendix 14 MO CAL KENT S Gree Ville Parta _AWA Rockford SHIAWASSEE kA17Co ock Park Beldin LINTON ve)@ A2C 15 Lons AA13 Grand He Walker ca a AA 0 nd A@A to 0 Owo so N AA2A R s AA3 Ionia nac ny C,eek 0St. Joh Q. -kkorunna V`@&, Grandville Low 3 AA11A Durand Hudsonville. Ad a E DewitgjaO River AA18 2D AA2 rtland Vi I ovi A s Zeeland 11 ,/@@ 'i IONIA E. Lan ing AA9B Holland ALLEGAN Y 4 Okem s AA9C Grand Le ge AA5 Lansi gAA9 O-AA19 AA5A Wi lia ton AA9D Hastings e r ve 1A Diamo dale AA AA Y1 Gun Lake B Mas YIA Chat 0 Allegan �r ton Rapids AA5C ack le 1P ON AA6 INGHAM Otse Plainwell C11 South Haven VAN BUREN Y1B MAZOO r e3A CALHOUN@ 17SON Y2 Battle C eek Ka a Y3 AA7A Ri,er larr zoo Jackson paw Paw Y; A 0 Michig Center aw @aw arsha Albio Paw Paw Lake Portage Y3B W7 W7B W6 St. Joseph Benton h arbor W1A W7A - CASS ST. OSEP 5 INCH ILLSDALE 0 Dow ac W1 W W4B W14/ Hills ale hree Riv rs C Id ateiiiiiiiiiii Consta in ente I e Buchanf, Niles WIS WN 12 SturgisW13 BurC.Oak BEIR IEN 0 I H IGAN 21 1 A W3 3BBi ist %%'t- Pigeo, TEUBE. MICHIGAN art W3A @el 0 Ariga OHIO out 10 W10A Mi Goshen sha ka Bend W10 W2B W2A LAGRANGE ST. JOSEPH ELK ART Ligonie NOBLE 0Plymouth endallvilleo) LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP REACH DESIGNATION Al >@ LIMITS OF REACH AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION E-1A UPER)OR VICINITY MAP DAMAGE AREAS- CA1-1 SCALE IN MILES 1970 MAJOR 0 50 1 0 1980 MAJOR 2000 MAJOR LAKE 0' 2020 MAJOR M I NO R (LESS THAN $20,000) ,A ONTAR tA ONTAR C111DI 1E.10R tot o"K, --A SCALE IN MILES l'-=1 05 10 15 20 25 FlUUM 14-Z4c Fotential Flood Damage Arvao un Main;5tVM and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.3 MON CAL Appendix 14 307 5F1 5R2 5RI 5F2 5F3 51`4 ENT 5M13 5R4 5 51`5 51`7 5 G8 a5R6 51`6 G ee v lie 5 1 51011 51V19 5M8 Roc for CLIN IN SHIAWASSEE 5RZ 5R8 Iding Wiv &. G6 C, 51`8 5M7/ V Grand Have FaIK r 5 6 51VI3 5Lk- M5 X-0 0 In 0 'ds reek S3 *Corunna LG7 a OG9 0 tst ohn 5JJ 5M 5S2 5 15M N G 5G11 I 5S4 5T rDurand sn e. 5T3 5T12 s a a 'o 514 .12 0 blit 10 1 co @@9 Holland EGAN Y 5MG3 5RC6 5KK @z @, , TGr. . - g 5RC4 5C1 @k T 5 5MG2A .11? 5RC2 a n s ver S. Gun ta e 513 11 -Z" 1@1 n 9 5 5T ci 5C4 at In EIDICS 5C530 War U 2 5RC7 Otsegor H@km amwe I IWO) B MAZ e CALHOUN -JACKSO South Haven 51-1- 5C3 5C5 5"e, 5C6B 6 5PI Battle Creek 5P4 5b5 Rj,er larr a oo Kala 5CGC 5UG ks 5UG3 0CE Center PEI@ Paw w Paw 5C6 Marshall Albion 5UG1 Po aa MG2 5AI 5U 5A14B 5A11 Sc e ento 0 6,- St. Joseph 5A2Al-- 5A8A 5A9C 556- 5A2A CA S SEP N H HILLSDA 0 ac 5 k8 5A13 5C6D1 5AC ." " 5A3C 5A30 5A2B hrei Pi. C at Hills ale 1A'2C 5A7 OA 5A12 hanf 0 Nie@ 5A4 S rgis EN !R MIGMGAN 5A6C 5 A-9 I N TEUBEN MICHIGAN DIANA rep 5A2 0 hart 0 Ang a OHIO Sout 5A6 5A3 5A LAN ST. JOSEPH LK ART 'Lionie_,@a NOBLE Plymouth endalivilleo/I 0 MARSHALL LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAREA RIVER BASIN GROUP VICINITY MAP WATERSHED SCALE IN MILES 3D1 WATERSHED NUMBER 0 @0 160 LAKE HUPON 13 g ONTOO A IEIYOR PENNSYL-1A -o SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-25c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 2.3 308 Appendix 14 SCHOOLCRAF-r L anistique Lake DELIA AH1 4 H3 grevoort Lake AJI Manistique rdina, Island St.. nace ladston 11@@ j Straits of Mackinac Bois Bla c Island Escanaba IV to Boaver Island G O\C- 0\ p0- Charlevoix Petosk y X MMET La a Charlevoix I 13.yne,@, North Manitou Island CHARLEVO N LEGEND J@Q I.Etl Mnilu Island J BOUNDARIES IT IS STATE Glen Torch Lake ANTRIM COUNTY Lake PLAN IN ING AREA LEELANAU RIVER BASIN GROUP BENIE r.V.rSe City 0 0 il @ Is REACH DESIGNATION Frankfort Crystal Lake, 0 AE1 `---AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION GRANCITRAVERSE K LKASKA MISSAUKEE ins Lake or in DAMAGE AREAS AD2 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR Portage Houghtm Lake 2000 MAJOR take Lake ill" 2020 MAJOR Manistee MANIS EE Cadillac MINOR (LESS THAN $20,000) WE FORD ROSCOMMON Sable R,* Ludin ACn A. VICINITY MAP MASON &D LAKE OSCEOLA SCALE IN MILES Big Rap 5 A83A AS M ECOSTA e"' OCEANA Fremont C1 hitehall AB2 ABI, NE AYGO SCALE IN MILES MUSKEGON 1 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-28c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 2.4 Appendix 14 309 SCH LCgAF-t 5L4A ST 6N MI -, %, k- M..i@fi,.. take L3 50A SLZ ST 1 5U , - I 5T2 5 M 5S 5LI IFJ-TA 0 5M q17 KINNC R M4 5 6. Sm-1 L.k. Marustique 11 n ce 1. \ Mackinac Island 535 Strait, of Mackinac go;, Slant Island Escanaba 534 *1% 10 e 38 0 5X %@? qf, to key Charlevoix 5 ; MMET 540 to North Manitou Island CHAR .E2 542 '1 - 543 ilL. South MaKtu Island 4828 Torch RIM C4- 544 Oka 542A 1@p LEU y 45 565 e y BENZIE @ravers Cit) 5Z Sos M'o SAA Frankfort LEGEND 564- *06, SAA AA1 5FS 5FSA 51`@Al 13OUNDARIES 546 5BB G @mv K LKAS STATE MISSA E iggins tako COUNTY F2 SF4 5E6 PLANNING AREA 5 5E60 RIVER BASIN GROUP k, 5F take Ill E6C1 WATERSHED Monist MANISTEE Ca , . 2@1>1 WATERSHED NUMBER 4 w 5E6 ROSC. MMON S63 **@- - 1 5tb bb 61 pa's ISH 5tt SE4 48A 5 4ALAA5A -cs mAsom Ja K OSCEOLA --A S-E 1@ ILES 6FF1 4.@ 5EF5 5A 0 5FF 5CE2 Jq itr plos 553 549 1 w4a. SH02 5EZ ow 5GG 0, cr ti COSTA C NA SHH2 I.mont E2Aj White I5E'; NEWAYGO SSIA 0Muskegon SCALE IN MILES MUSKFI.ON 0 5 10 16 20 2% FIGURE 14-29c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 2.4 310 Appendix 14 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES 0 so Pine River o" CHIPPEWA MACKINAC tot Carp DRUMMOND ISLAND St. I @7:ckinac, Island Straits of Mackinac 1Q, is Blanc Island eboygan ALI Burt La AL3 Black AL uliet Lake eke Rogers City 0 G@andl Lake CH. BOYGAN PRESQUE1 E Long Lake AN1 Alpena 9 Gaylord Thunder Say OTSEGO 4;?ca MON 0 ENCY ALP NA Hubbard Lake LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE Grayling A. Sable Ri COUNTY PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP 1"ORD $00 OSCODA ALCONA REACH DESIGNATION 10SCO Al ARI AlA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION O.c.d. LIMITS OF REACH DAMAGEAREAS- Au Tawas City E t Tawas r 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR 2000 MAJOR I OGE W 2020 MAJOR ARENAC MINOR (LESS in AQ1 THAN $20,000) AQ2 SAGINAW BAY SCALE IN MILES L 0-_-4 ---- i_@ 0 5 10 15 20 -YEAR WHICH MAJOR DAMAGES ARE FIRST NOTED FOR REACH DESIGNATED; MORE THAN $20,000. FIGURE14-31c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 3.1 Appendix 14 311 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES 431 4GI Pine 6P 4G CHIPPEWA 4H CKINAC 4F 448 to, Corp River 4HI 430 430 @47 DRUMMOND ISLAND St. I nace, inac Island Straits of Mackinac, Bois Blanc Island eb Ban 4113A 4C 4 IA 538 433 4E ou Mull Lake L 4D Rogers City 61 4J 434 V 0 4D1C 4 B r\4Cl 4EI d,: nd ;%14 4E2 . CH GAN QUE] E L 4 I C 4C 101 S L Und A. I, na IM C 2B 4 2 a Ga ford 4E1A 4C3 ThUrKlOr 88Y 4B2B C, 4C2 435 TSEGO 4@1,zj MON 0 ENC - 436 4K HU Lake 4C2C 4L 41312C 4132 Alu Sable Grayling 4131 so 482A 4BA C FORD OSCODA ALCONA 02CI 4B 0SC Oscoda 3 4M 438 LEGEND 0 4N ALI Tawas a E t Tawas 4Q1 BOUNDARIES 439 STATE OGEM W 4Q 4A COUNTY PLANNINGAREA RENAC RIVER BASIN GROUP Rifle 4P 450 WATERSHED 3D1 WATERSHED NUMBER 4R SAGINAW BAY SCALE IN MILES L 1@ 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-32c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 3.1 312 Appendix 14 s L A K E HURON Port Austi Caseville C a LADWIN SAGINAW BAY Bad Axe. a Harbor Beach ATI Rj f HURON Cphippe A A A R Mill land Ess xville Mount Pleas nt AS5 AS1 Bay City ISABEL q. MIDLAND BAY AS2 Car St. Louis AS11 Alm As aginaw S3 ASIO@ Vassar Rivw AS1 IA .Ithaca 10 AS6 ASS TUSCOLA Chesaning GRATIOT AGINAW AS9 a Mount Morri's Flint IS7 S9 j4AS7 Flus Lapeer korruna A5 OSSO *S.artz Creek Durand LAPEER GENESEE Fame& ..Oily LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANNINGAREA RIVER BASIN GROUP REACH DESIGNATION Al LIMITS OF REACH AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES DAMAGE AREAS - o w1w 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR ow@ 2000 MAJOR 2020 MAJOR M I NOR (LESS THAN $20,000) SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE14-35c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 3.2 Appendix 14 313 L A K E HURON 4Q 4A41C, I 4A4G2 A401,4@ Port Au%ti 4R 4G Case 444 CLARE 4x 4X G 440 Harbor Beach re 4A4E 411 4S SAG?NAW RAY Bad Axe 0 4AAA5 4A4E1 413 452 445 V 443 W 4A4F2 K RON 4A4C 4T idland 4V tl'5 lint Pile ji 40 E@ - 4AJAa Say Ay 442 41-1 4A30 3G41 I )SA 4A BAY 4A3C 446 4AIDI IL 4A4A1 St. LOW 4AIE4 Sagin w 4Ar, A36 4AXI Z Vassar 4A3 4 19 4 2 4A2FZ S TUSC chs; 4A230 4A2F TIOT w Mount ar V lint A2H Al 4A2A F)-sh@ng Lapeer Owo 0 S.ar-tz creek 4AZG Dur nd GENESEE Font 4A2B .Hoify 4AIC 4AA 8 4AICI LEGEND BOUNDARIES 5TATE ft".0' VICINtTY MAP COUNTY SCALI I" 11"El PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP WATERSHED WATERSHED NUMBER @T 10, 0" --i SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-36c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 3.2 314 Appendix 14 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES 5-0 Im 0 s z SAN I LAC AL11 0 Po uron ST. CL IR AVI OAKLAND /I MACO B ,-- AV2 St. C ii? LIVINGSTON Holly Z),-.ke Orion Romeo -Rich.on AW2 Rochester Marine City J@ New Baltimore* Pontiac,", 0 Howell (-A-1. , y Algona P/U. AW1 M Cl mer s M mill I'd i, AW3 0 AX5 AX2 D 0 1___@orthwlle- WAYNE AX( 0 Plymouth 0 De it LAKE ST. CLAIR D Chelsea AY3 AX4 '?4V, AY3A Ann Arbor Ypsilanti AX3 V LEGEND C, AY2 BOUNDARIES IL AY28 STATE WASHTENAW lat Rock COUNTY Milan PLANNING AREA 00 Ro wood RIVER BASIN GROUP A A Tecumseh BA1A AY1 REACH DESIGNATION BA3 undee BA1 Al LIMITS OF REACH / - dt onme AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION Adrian BA2 Hu n DAMAGE AREAS - lissfield 1970 MAJOR BA2A 1980 MAJOR 2000 MAJOR \LENAWEE ICHIGAN 2020 MAJOR OHIO M I NOR (LESS THAN $20,000) SCALE IN MILES lll-llllllllllllllllllli @ 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-39c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.1 Appendix 14 315 VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES N 0 S'I Im 0 z 3G4D 5 z 3134 3G4C NILAC 313 B 3G4A 3G2 Po uron 0 3G3 454 IR OAKLAND MA:CD IS 0 0 3131A 3G1A1 a, St. Clair LIVINGSTON Holly 3G1E1 3G ichmond %ke rion 3G1E "G.2 G@', ester 8 Marine *ty 4@ 0 19 Pontiac New Sal imoreo 3G30 0 Howell Anchor y Algonac C1 Mt. Clemens Milfor 0 ze 3F2C Red V a 3F 3H1 0 3HIA 3F2A 0 N th Ile I WAY E 0 7 3H1B P ymo th 0 LAKE ST. CLAIR o Chelsea 3F1 3HIC 0. Ann bo I nti 3F 0 3H3) 3E2 3 1 3E6 WAS TENAW Flat ck Milan Ir, 31 LEGEND Tecumseh 3K 3J 330 BOUNDARIES 3E5 3E3 3LI STATE Adrian _04ef 3L Monroe \,,I- COUNTY Hu n PLANNING AREA 31M RIVER BASIN GROUP BlIssfiel WATERSHED 3 E! @@Adna 3E4 3DE4 3ji 3D1 WATERSHED NUMBER \LENAWEE ICHIGAN MbNROE OHIO SCALE IN MILES 0 5 1 15 FIGURE 14-40c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 4.1 316 Appendix 14 N S LAKE ERIE MICHI@N M, aumee Bay B Montpel" r LUCAS Toled ej Kellys island OTTAWA cree LLIAMS Bi Port C Dr<AL FULTON Bi 10 Sandusky Bay Bryan 0 Grand Ra s 0 C1 BBlBWUM 0 BE1A IANC 1 0 BC2 Sandusky Huron Ve ilion DEF ur. E Napoleon owling Gree BE4A A burn Brunersb & BBA BB B, 1, ornont El BE5 B B 7 X1 Evansport BC3 09 B Fi ida SA US Y BDIA ERIE B 4 " Z, 0 _ Bellev BEIB Mil dbqalle & o < Defian 1313213 Mon,oev-ille ItNorwalk B83 BB613 ES BI HENR, W D BE2 @ fNoAw-alk BB6 Fo oria Cree BB4 C PUTNAM BE3 Pauldingq BBI, BD2 iffin 885 Oakwood BB16 Ri a, BD2A 0 Wi lard 131311 a Findlay ort Wayn PAULDI BB12 BB17 BB17 SEN CA BB5A A VAN ART Ottawa CRAWFORD LL6 B8 A A& BB16A 0 BD 7 ALLEN Carey PBB9 Van Wert HANCOCK Bucyru p S River BD4 Decatur ita a Upper an sky BB9A BBI Ad. Lima YANDOT BB ------ - MERCER LAIZE a onet.,@ Celina BB14 BB14 t. Marys B 10 LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY T, PLAN N ING AREA S@00,, VICINITY MAP RIVER BASIN GROUP A.A- SCALE IN MILES REACH DESIGNATION 100 Al >@ LIMITS OF REACH MUNICIPALITY LOCATION HVRoN C@.... ONT DAMAGEAREAS* -7 tot 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR w 2000 MAJOR 2020 MAJOR SCALE IN MILES *"R MINOR (LESS 0 5 10 15 20 25 THAN $20,000) FIGURE 14-43c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.2 Appendix 14 317 N waki, 31318 LAKE ERIE 3D32 MICHI N enmile Maumee Say 4 0 3DO5 /1,3 r 1*1 3D3 LUCAS 7 0 @Nj Kellys Island MIDIA 3DL ,@% / -I 1> ) 34 LLIA S 5D5 'DXr-<A L Bryano,1431 /FULTON /32 - Sandusky Bay 30C / u 3 D O@3@ 0 37 @DID DEFIA 35 San(jus y/ DID DI Na ole n Gre6 382 4P A burn 31349 36 C'y e nrInt 7/ 1 et 'Defian 3D4 SA Bellev orwal 3DO 361 I HENRY W D 0 ria 3C3 38 3D4B Paul ingo PUTNAM I 31343 3132 3C5 Iffin 3C6 3D 4 River F 3C7 0 i lard Fort'Wa,yvn PAyjLO HU 0 AN R ZSU4AI 3CIO CRAWFORD 3D4A2 ALL`E v- Carey Cq 3D451 aWe LLEN HANCOCK 3C9 f3D45 S ucyru 3132C D292 R' r Ottawa Upper A Adl 0 3D2B D29 YANI 0 AU L 3CI/ MERCER 1111 Celina ap onela/@ 3D46 St. Mary 313291 LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY -T@ PLANNING AREA VICINITY MAP RIVER BASIN GROUP CIIADA SCALEIN MILES WATERSHED CH- 0 50 100 3D1 WATERSHED NUMBER WISCOISIN KE HMON M.- OWT-09 ot --A SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 25 FIGURE 14-44c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 4.2 318 Appendix 14 BJ1A orneaut Bi 0 Ashtabula B-11 -0 ERIE ? abo 7- AWFORD' 0 Geneva 0 z Conn ille C, Fairport Harbor er 8J3 Painesvill Grand Jefferson 0 < B11A 0 B112 ast Lake > 4- EIHIA LAKE BH1 Lakewood & Rocky River B H 2 .4@ ASHTABULAI BF3A Lorai Creek Cie land BFn,A Spa' BF1 Black Rive, BF2 BG1A Tirtken, 0 Elyria BF4 BF3 / BG3 GEALIGA BF1B BG1 Oberlin F5 BG4 0 0 UYAHOGA 0 13G 0 Wellington Medina 0 Raven", LEGEND LORA C --@" BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY MEDINA PORTAGE PLAN IN ING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP REACH DESIGNATION Al LIMITS OF REACH AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION DAMAGE AREAS 1970 MAJOR VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES Z==@ 1980 MAJOR 2000 MAJO 2020 MAJOR MINOR (LESSTHAN $20,000) o"' SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 FIGURE14-47c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.3 Appendix 14 819 S, nneaut 30E c V ma ePAwrw b Fairport Hairbor 0 Painesville ,,I R;-, J.ffe on 317 0 30D 3151 3157 z KE 31 3 lip 3152 154 3155 30B 314 3OG ASH SUL o,ain (e (and 0 81.ck im 30C 82 156 555 312 GEAU 311 0 ria 3131 A ,,I. Oberli eu 3122 313 iR 3121 OWej'n on 313@ I R Medina 0 1. IRAIN kron 3B2 MEDINA PORTAGE SUMMIT LEGEND BOUNDARIES WCINITY MAP STATE SCALE IN MILES COUNTY 50 PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP -ON WATERSHED 3D1 WATERSHED NUMBER c- SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-48c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 4.3 320 Appendix 14 LAKE ONTARI z NIAGARA V Irt Niag ra Fa IS B Tonaw GENESEE N onawanda BM7 k Grand I and BM6 a-avi Ilico, BM9 S B alo Scaicquodc Creek EIM BM10 BM EIM4 5 00 St u Lack ann 8st1FQVM3 C' W 0 ING B 2 Hamburg BMI Sister Creek etall us Cr. Springville . Dunkirk EII-2 ERIE BL1 0 BI-4 4- Fredonia ;-ow a BL3 BL3A V --j BLIA We 11.1d z Presque Isle 0 Salamanca Erie ;,- 13: @ Jamestown *Olean (n W z .1@ z . z W CHAUTAUQUA NEWYORK CATTARAUGUS 0- L I PENNSYLVANIA z 0 Corry 0 W ERIE e Union City a. LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLANN ING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP I.E S-OR VICINITY MAP REACH DESIGNATION CANADA SCALE IN MILES Al LIMITS OF REACH 0 50 1 AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION @KE HURON DAMAGEAREAS* C, AR CANADA IoN 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR 10, P-N-V-A 2000 MAJOR 2020 MAJOR MINOR (LESS THAN $20,000) SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE14-51c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 4.4 Appendix, 14 321 LAKE ONTARIO z NIAGARA Z' Lockport Niag ra Fa s 241A 245 onawand 239 - - -\ 143 N 242 N w nda Clee 3 w Grand I and -- 241 246 Batavia EllicO Scoiaquada Creek Buffalo 57 Lincas 148 astA r a 203 -He burg is. 72 56 C 0, . Q,, 44 Springvilll , C eta%) US C - D nkir 114 ERIE 4. 0 Fred /. 38 onia 55 198 _@j We t ield 197 z Presque Isle 34 o Salamanca Erie ;R- I @: @ Jame! In CO LLI a Olean "I-i z, z z LdL CHAUTAUQUA NEWYORK CATTARAUGUS (L 0 32 33 PENNSYLVANIA i z 31 0 Corry 0 Uj ERIE 0 Union City (L LEGEND BOUNDARIES .-E.T. LAKE SMRIOR VICINITY MAP STATE COUNTY CANIM SCALE IN MILES PLANNING AREA zoo I 0 RIVER BASIN GROUP -E WATERSHED WISCOISIN HURON 31DI WATERSHED NUMBER -1-1 A. NTAR t! 'E.YOR tot 0- SCALE IN MILES 0 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-52c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 4.4 322 Appendix 14 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 Of, 0 jotV State Barge Canal a 0Albion Rochester 0 Medina Brockport B01A To Lewiston Lockport -5qLEANS Niagara Fay/ B ack B06 ai B05 Red Creek Grand Island B01 *Bata)ia MO ROE LIVINGSTON GENESEI@ B02 Conesu saw Lake B07 B Honeoye Lake /r emlock Lake anadice rake B03 B08 Dansvill WYOMING ALLEGANY LEGEND S Q. BOUNDARIES STATE COUNTY B04 PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP Al REACH DESIGNATION AIA LIMITS OF REACH MUNICIPALITY LOCATION DAMAGE AREAS B04A ellsville 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR 2000 MAJOR INIEWYO@K 2020 MAJOR PENNSYLVANIA M I NOR (LESS THAN $20,000) LARE SUPER101I, VICINITY MAP SCALE IN MILES C11GA 0 50 100 "RE -ON ONTARIO CANA.A 'A PEIISYLIINIA L11-11 SCALE IN MILES 0.10 10 15 FIGURE 14-55c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 5.1 Appendix 14 323 L A K E 0 N T A R 1 0 250 a 251 69 (()rV State Bar e Can.1 36 252 246 248 a 0 Albion oches r ?Z@ 249 0 Medina 143 Brock 253 2 (a L ton Lockport 254 LEAN Nia - a 243 Creek a i 33 17 20 Grand Island 242 *Bata)ia 1\10 256 0 OE ex LVINGST N 255 GENESEI@ 48 138 Co esus 124 rsaw 94 73 L ke Honeoye Lake Hem k 257 nadice Cake La 258 10 6&, Dansvill 0 ww AL EGAN cl: 259 260 261 23 32 LEGEND 128 262 263 BOUNDARIES eJlsvHt STATE 264 COUNTY PLAN N ING AREA NEWY -f6-0@1 RIVER BASIN GROUP PENNSYLVANIA@ WATERSHED 3DI WATERSHED NUMBER EsoTA LAKE SUPERIOR VICINITY MAP CANADA SCALE IN MILES .'C.IGI 0 5 0 100 LAKE HURON CANA.A IX E ONTOO PEIISYLIANI. SCALE IN MILES -A.A I 1 0 5 10 15 FIGURE 14-56c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 5.1 324 Appendix 14 4z J@E @,7 C Greek S G 0 0 Oswego Camden Fulton SQ24 BQ26 01 Rome 2 Oneida If. tate yk Clyde BQ5 BQ4 BQ3 B I sville BQ27 Barge Canal S BQ23 EIQ2 IZI. Utica St. BQ29 We Be Syrac e Oneid Palmyra 0 yons ONTARIO Newark BQ19 0 2 SQ13 BQ18 aterloo S a Falls A bur ON NDA A C.@ enovia 0 ananclaigua BQ6 Oti- HERKIMER Geneva Lake ONEIDA Canandaigua B 15 IS 0 1. La *Hamilton BQ7 Ce a Lake L. Lake -- YATES SQ21 MADISON BQ14 Penn Yen Lake /',-\ B010 BQ1 CAYU jBQ11 BQ ENECA Keuka Lake BQ16 BQ8 Ithaca LEGEND BOUNDARIES atkins Glen STATE TOMPKINS COUNTY SCHUYLER PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP REACH DESIGNATION Al LIMITS OF REACH VICINITY MAP AlA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION SCALE IN MILES DAMAGEAREAS- 0 WIW 1970 MAJOR Z. 1980 MAJOR Ij 2000 MAJOR 2020 MAJOR M I NOR (LESS THAN $20,000) I.DIMI SCALE IN MILES L 12@2@ . 1 1. 15 20 FIGURE 14-59c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 5.2 Appendix 14 325 *"a, Od N 39 92 392 Cree 393 394 G 39 10 397 396 OSW go 43 398 1\ 400 399 423 424 432 0 426 Cam an Fult n 428 142 427 WAY E 0 430 431 421 25 C1, Rome 429 98 Oneida take Naf@tw York fate 6 Be w Vill 422 '94,rge Canal 435 462 463 York" S, Ily a 455 453A 127 4@11 Utica - iI,,, S rac Oneid & Palmy a ns 5 Newark ,b ONTARIO 43 45 Aubu 90 71 11- 419 437 439 W erloo S ON NDA A 434 C - daigua 452 HERKIMER Ia Vae 445 ONEIDA Cana kaig 7 ay a 0 a 1. La Hamilton I La' AS" 52 YATES 441, 5 MADISON 438 t@ Son P IT Lake 449 458 744 444@ -- C YU S 6ECA 4 K uka Lak 450 140 442 atkins Itha _,Ilen 68 37 j 4"3 TOMPKINS SCHUYLER LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE VICINITY MAP COUNTY SCALEIN MILES PLANNING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP WATERSHED 3DI WATERSHED NUMBER 0.10 SCALE IN MILES 5 10 15 20 FIGURE 14-60c Watershed Designation-River Basin Group 5.2 326 Appendix 14 BIJ2 BIJ4 ena BIJ3 BUS N Bul River s 0 gdensburg cb Potsdam Cant Black ac BTI Lake, G neu el TuPPerLak 0 Cranberry Lake ST. LAONCE tertow EIS1 6 arthage Beaver Stillater Reservoir LAKE Lowville BS2 Fulton Lakes Raquette ake ONTARIO JEFFERsol,4 ef Moose SCALE IN MILES I 1!-@ 0 5 10 15 20 LEGEND 13OUNDARIES STATE COUNTY PLAN N ING AREA RIVER BASIN GROUP LAKE SUPERIM VICINITY MAP CANADA SCALE IN MILES REACHEIESIGNATION c.- -So loo Al LIMITS OF REACH LAKE AIA MUNICIPALITY LOCATION HuwN S ONTA DAMAGE AREAS CA11DA N-y- 1970 MAJOR 1980 MAJOR o"o 2000 MAJOR 2020 MAJOR M I NOR (LESS THAN $20,000) FIGURE 14-63c Potential Flood Damage Areas on Main Stem and Principal Tributaries for River Basin Group 5.3 Appendix 14 J.97 @A\ 'Aa 62 '17 `0 -Ark /0 37? S ON take 46 355 354 34 370 @s a 444 343, 2 4 364 342 387 386 417 wotartim 338 339 4 337 41@ 42 M44V 410 LAKE ONTARPO 40t 403 moose A@4 4(3@ 465 SM,6 @N WLES vwInWo MOV LEGEND BOUNDARIES STATE kAO COUNTY PIAMNINGAREA WATVISKE0 MOMBEK 301 FIGURE 14-64c Watershed Desigtv4tion-River Basin Group 5.3 w4w Or Wl@ ,40 DATE DUE OM 3P % iO 4 qg, --ft"N W % of New York Affljwoh A fl, IL Agriculture'--,". Army of Commerce of Health, Education & Department ous.*ng'& Urban vtopment Department of the Interior Department of id Ice S S% t Department of @ t e DepartMent of Transportation N Environmental Protection Agency Federal Power Commission 3 6668 14106 2903