NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY EARTHDUAKE A - rLunu EDA U.S. DEVELUPMENT ADMINISTRATION Norlhwest Regional Planning Commissaon [Irwin-H5; 5pm? ?u r15 Northwest Wisconsin Flood Impact Study HAZUS-MH Level 2 Analysis November, 2018 This report was prepared by Northwest Regional Planning Commission using Federal funds under award number 06-69-06049 from the Economic Development Administration, Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration or the U.S. Department of Commerce. Additional funds to support this project came from the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC)and Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NWRPC). Table of Contents 2016 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 REGIONAL FLOOD STUDY OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................. 8 HAZUS-MH ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 STUDY REGION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10 HAZUS-MH FLOOD MODEL .................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 USER-DEFINED FACILITIES (UDF) ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Digitization Process Model............................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 USER-DEFINED FACILITY ATTRIBUTES .................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Required HAZUS-MH Attributes ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Replacement Cost............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Content Cost ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 16 Number of Stories .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 Foundation Type .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 16 First Floor Height ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Area ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 User Defined Facility ID...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Occupancy Class .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 OCCUPANCY CLASS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 VULNERABLE AND CRITICAL FACILITIES ................................................................................................................................................................................. 19 CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ......................................................................................................................................................................................................21 TERRAIN SURFACE MODEL ................................................................................................................................................................................. 23 HYDRO-FLATTENING ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 MOSAICING ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 TERRAIN HYDROPROCESSING (PRE-PROCESSING) ........................................................................................................................................................... 25 PLACING CUTLINES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29 TERRAIN PROCCESSING (HAZUS-MH) ............................................................................................................................................................. 32 HYDOLOGIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35 FLOOD DEPTH GRIDS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 40 DEPTH GRID ANOMALIES...................................................................................................................................................................................................................41 DEPTH GRID MOSAIC PROCESS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................42 LOSS ESTIMATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 DAMAGE-DEPTH FUNCTIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................44 RESULTS SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 45 STRUCTURES IMPACTED...................................................................................................................................................................................................................47 ESTIMATED BUILDING LOSSES .........................................................................................................................................................................................................47 ESTIMATED CONTENT LOSSES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 ESTIMATED INVENTORY LOSSES ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 DEBRIS GENERATION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 49 BUILDING AND LOSS ESTIMATES ...................................................................................................................................................................... 65 ASHLAND COUNTY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 66 BAYFIELD COUNTY ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 85 i BURNETT COUNTY ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 112 DOUGLAS COUNTY .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 133 IRON COUNTY.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 161 SAWYER COUNTY .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................177 WASHBURN COUNTY ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................203 MITIGATION MECHANISMS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 221 ECONOMIC IMPACT ON RURAL COMMUNITIES ................................................................................................................................................................................. 221 RURAL ECONOMIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 221 RESPONDING TO RISKS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 222 ADAPTATION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 224 LOCAL RESPONSES TO FLOODING IN NORTHERN WI...................................................................................................................................................................... 225 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR CRITICAL FACILITES AND INFRASTRUCTURE ............................................................................................. 227 WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES (WWTF’S) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 227 MUNICIPAL WELLHEADS (HIGH CAPACITY WELLS)........................................................................................................................................................................ 227 ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 227 PIPELINES, PIPELINE PUMP STATIONS, & PIPELINE MAINTENANCE STATIONS ............................................................................................................................... 227 LOCAL GOVERNMENT..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 228 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 228 FIRE AND EMS, HOSPITALS & LAW ENFORCEMENT ....................................................................................................................................................................... 228 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 228 DAMS/LEVEES.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 228 CRITICAL FACILITES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FLOOD ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................................... 229 MODELED IMPACTS TO LOCAL ROADWAYS..................................................................................................................................................................................... 233 STRATEGIES FOR PREPARING FOR RESILIENCY ........................................................................................................................................... 235 FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO A FLOOD ..................................................................................................................................... 235 FEMA MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAMS ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 236 INTERIOR MODIFICATION/ RETROFIT MEASURES...........................................................................................................................................................................239 Basement Infill ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................239 Abandon Lowest Floor ....................................................................................................................................................................................................239 Elevate Lowest Interior Floor.......................................................................................................................................................................................239 WET FLOODPROOFING MEASURES ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 240 Flood Openings ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 240 Elevate building Utilities.................................................................................................................................................................................................. 241 Floodproof Building Utilities.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 242 Flood Damage-Resistant Materials............................................................................................................................................................................. 242 DRY FLOODPROOFING MEASURES ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 243 Passive Dry Floodproofing System............................................................................................................................................................................. 243 BARRIER MEASURES ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 243 Floodwall with Gates and Floodwall without Gates ................................................................................................................................................. 243 Levee with Gates and Levee without Gates .............................................................................................................................................................. 244 CASE STUDY OF FLOOD MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – DARLINGTON, WI .......................................................................................................................................... 245 FLOOD RECOVERY PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 248 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) ....................................................................................................... 248 Mitigation Funding Provided through Section 406 of the Stafford Act ............................................................................................................ 249 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance.......................................................................................................... 249 Wisconsin Disaster Fund (WDF) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 251 EXTERNAL COUNTY & TRIBAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR LIST .................................................................................................................. 253 PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 254 Emergency Declarations ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 254 ii MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 254 NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 255 REGULATORY TECHNIQUES ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 256 LAND USE PLANNING .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 256 HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 256 PLANNING FOR FLOOD RESILIENCE ................................................................................................................................................................ 257 WHY PLAN?.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 257 COUNTYWIDE HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 257 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 258 FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 259 EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN ............................................................................................................................................................................................................260 RECOVERY PLANNING – BUILD BACK SAFER AND STRONGER .......................................................................................................................................................260 Resources for flood recovery and recovery planning.......................................................................................................................................... 262 OTHER LOCAL PLANS AND PROGRAMS .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 262 COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 262 ZONING .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................263 WATERBODIES AND BUFFERS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................263 Runoff Management ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ 264 PUBLIC ROADS.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 265 CULVERT ASSET MANAGEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................................... 267 ROAD AND CULVERT PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FLOOD WATERS ..............................................................................................................................................268 Plunge pools, stream bank scour, & sediment deposits ......................................................................................................................................268 DEBRIS ACCUMULATION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................269 Perched outlet ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................269 ROAD OVERTOPPING ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 270 CULVERT FAILURE CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 271 CREATING A CULVERT INVENTORY ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 273 EXAMPLE INVENTORY FORM ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 274 PHOTOGRAPH LOG PAGE............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 275 CURRENTLY EXISTING CULVERT DATA FOR NORTHWEST WISCONSIN ............................................................................................................................................ 275 LIMITATIONS OF FINDING “DAMAGED LOCATIONS” ........................................................................................................................................................................ 276 CULVERT SIZING PROCEDURES FOR 1% (100 YEAR FLOOD) PEAK FLOW ..................................................................................................................................... 277 MITIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR CULVERTS AND ROADS ..............................................................................................................................280 RETAINING WALLS ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................280 SLOPE ROUNDING AND REVEGETATION........................................................................................................................................................................................... 281 REVEGETATION ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 281 SOIL BIOENGINEERING .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 282 INVASIVE SPECIES ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 284 BIOTECHNICAL STABILIZATION ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 285 ROADWAY DIPS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 285 LOW WATER CROSSINGS, OVERTOPPING, AND FORDS ..................................................................................................................................................................286 PERMEABLE FILL WITH CULVERT ARRAY ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 287 RAISED CULVERT INLETS ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................288 ENERGY DISSIPATERS AND DEBRIS RACKS ...................................................................................................................................................................................289 STREAM CHANNEL MODIFICATION STRUCTURES............................................................................................................................................................................289 RECONNECTING CUTOFF WATER BODIES .......................................................................................................................................................................................290 ENGINEERED LOG JAM COMPLEXES................................................................................................................................................................................................ 291 BEAVER POND STRUCTURES ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 292 WETLAND MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 292 iii FLOOD PREVENTION TECHNIQUES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES .......................................................................................294 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.......................................................................................................................................................298 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DRINKING WATER ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................................299 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER UTILITIES ................................................................................................................................................................... 300 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR BOOSTER STATIONS AND OTHER PUMPS ............................................................................................................................................ 300 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS .......................................................................................................................................... 301 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR CHEMICAL AND OTHER STORAGE..........................................................................................................................................................302 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR INSTRUMENTATION AND ELECTRICAL CONTROLS ..................................................................................................................................302 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR POWER SUPPLY .................................................................................................................................................................................. 303 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM LIFT STATIONS ...................................................................................................................................................304 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR HEADWORKS ........................................................................................................................................................................................305 TABLES Table 1: 2016 Northwest Wisconsin Flood, Damage to homes/businesses ........................................................................................................................3 Table 2: 2016 Northwest Wisconsin Flood, Damage to Public Infrastructure...................................................................................................................3 Table 3: 2016 CDBG, Emergency Assistance Program Grants ..............................................................................................................................................3 Table 4: Occupancy Class .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Table 5: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY COUNTY, 100-YR FLOOD EVENT ......................................................................................................................................... 45 Table 6: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY COUNTY, 500-YR FLOOD EVENT ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Table 7: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY OCCUPANCY CLASS, 100-YR FLOOD EVENT .................................................................................................................... 46 Table 8: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY OCCUPANCY CLASS, 500-YR FLOOD EVENT ...................................................................................................................47 Table 9: ESTIMATED CONENT LOSSES ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 48 Table 10: ESTIMATED INTENTORY LOSSES .................................................................................................................................................................................. 49 Table 11: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – ASHLAND COUNTY ............................................................................................................................................ 66 Table 12: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – BAYFIELD COUNTY ........................................................................................................................................... 85 Table 13: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – BURNETT COUNTY ........................................................................................................................................... 112 Table 14: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – DOUGLAS COUNTY .......................................................................................................................................... 133 Table 15: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – IRON COUNTY ................................................................................................................................................... 161 Table 16: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – SAWYER COUNTY .............................................................................................................................................177 Table 17: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – WASHBURN COUNTY .....................................................................................................................................203 Table 18: COUNTY SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION (THOUSANDS $)– REGION ......................................................................................................................... 226 Table 19: CRITICAL FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE SITE IMPACTS: 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSSES - REGION ................................................................................................................................................... 232 Table 20: CRITICAL FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE SITE IMPACTS: 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSSES - REGION .................................................................................................................................................. 233 Table 21: Regionwide Potential Roadway Impacts, 100-year Flood Scenario (miles) ................................................................................................ 233 Table 22: Regionwide Potential Roadway Impacts, 500-year Flood Scenario (miles) .............................................................................................. 233 Table 23: NFIP PARTICIPATION, REGION ................................................................................................................................................................................... 255 Table 24: POTENTIAL CULVERT DATA SOURCES, REGION ..................................................................................................................................................... 276 FIGURES Figure 1: 2016 FLOOD HYDROGRAPH .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: 2016 FLOOD DAMAGE (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUBAWARDS) ................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3: 2016 FLOOD IMPACTS, TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 4: HAZUS MODEL FLOW DIAGRAM ......................................................................................................................................................................................12 Figure 5: USER-DEFINED STRUCTURES (DIGITIZED BUILDING FOOTPRINTS) ......................................................................................................................14 Figure 6: VULNERABLE FACILITIES ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 7: CRITCAL INFRASTRUCTURE .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8: FAILED REACHES (HAZUS RIVERINE HYDRAULICS) ................................................................................................................................................ 37 iv Figure 9: USGS STREAMGAGES ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 38 Figure 10: HAZUS DERIVED FLOOD BOUNDARY ......................................................................................................................................................................... 39 Figure 11: DAMAGE DEPTH CURVES, RESIDENTIAL 1 OCCUPANCY CLASS .............................................................................................................................44 Figure 12: ESTIMATED STRUCTURE IMPACTED (100 YEAR EVENT) ........................................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 13: ESTIMATED STRUCTURES IMPACTED (500 YEAR EVENT) ..................................................................................................................................... 51 Figure 14: ESTIMATED BUILDING LOSSES (100 YEAR EVENT) ................................................................................................................................................. 52 Figure 15: ESTIMATED BUILDING LOSSES (500 YEAR EVENT) ............................................................................................................................................... 53 Figure 16: ESTIMATED CONTENT LOSSES (100 YEAR EVENT) ................................................................................................................................................. 54 Figure 17: ESTIMATED CONTENT LOSSES (500 YEAR EVENT) ................................................................................................................................................ 55 Figure 18: ESTIMATED DEBRIS GENERATION (100 YEAR EVENT)............................................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 19: ESTIMATED DEBRIS GENERATION (500 YEAR EVENT) ...........................................................................................................................................57 Figure 20: FLOOD DEPTH GRID, DOUGLAS COUNTY ................................................................................................................................................................. 58 Figure 21: FLOOD DEPTH GRID, BAYFIELD COUNTY .................................................................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 22: FLOOD DEPTH GRID, ASHLAND COUNTY ................................................................................................................................................................. 60 Figure 23: FLOOD DEPTH GRD, IRON COUNTY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 61 Figure 24: FLOOD DEPTH GRID, BURNETT COUNTY .................................................................................................................................................................. 62 Figure 25: FLOOD DEPTH GRID, WASHBURN COUNTY ............................................................................................................................................................. 63 Figure 26: FLOOD DEPTH GRID, SAWYER COUNTY ................................................................................................................................................................... 64 MAPS T47 & 48N, R4W (C. ASHLAND, T. GINGLES, T. SANBORN)................................................................................................................................................................ 67 T47 & 48N, R3W (T. GINGLES, T. SANBORN) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 68 T47 & 48N, R2W (T. SANBORN)......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 69 T45 & 46N, R4W (T. WHITE RIVER, T. MARENGO).............................................................................................................................................................................. 70 T45 & 46N, R3W (T. SANBORN, T. WHITE RIVER, T. ASHLAND) ........................................................................................................................................................... 71 T45 & 46N, R2W (C. MELLEN, T. SANBORN, T. MORSE) .....................................................................................................................................................................72 T43 & 44N, R4W (T. MARENGO, T. GORDON) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 73 T43 & 44N, R3W (T. MORSE, T. GORDON) ..........................................................................................................................................................................................74 T43 & 44N, R2W (C. MELLEN, T. MORSE, T. GORDON) .......................................................................................................................................................................75 T43N, R1W (T. JACOBS) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 76 T41 & 42N, R4W (T. SHANAGOLDEN, T. CHIPPEWA)............................................................................................................................................................................. 77 T41 & 42N, R3W (T. SHANAGOLDEN, T. CHIPPEWA) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 78 T41 & 42N, R2W (T. SHANAGOLDEN, T. JACOBS, T. PEEKSVILLE, T. CHIPPEWA) ................................................................................................................................ 79 T41 & 42N, R1W (V. BUTTERNUT, T. JACOBS, T. PEEKSVILLE, T. CHIPPEWA, T. AGENDA) ................................................................................................................... 80 T41 & 42N, R1E (T. AGENDA) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 81 CITY OF ASHLAND.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 82 VILLAGE OF BUTTERNUT ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 83 CITY OF MELLEN .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 84 T51 & 52N, R3, 4, & 5W (T. BAYFIELD, T. RUSSELL) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 87 T49 & 50N, R9W (T. ORIENTA) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 88 T49 & 50N, R8W (T. PORT WING, T. ORIENTA) ................................................................................................................................................................................. 89 T49 & 50N, R7W (T. PORT WING, T. CLOVER) ................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 T49, 50 & 51N, R6W (T. BELL, T. WASHBURN) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 91 T49 50 & 51N, R5W (T. BAYFIELD, T. BAYVIEW, T. WASHBURN) ....................................................................................................................................................... 92 T48, 49 & 50N, R4W (C. BAYFIELD, C. WASHBURN, T. BAYVIEW, T. BAYFIELD, T. BARKSDALE)....................................................................................................... 93 T47 & 48N, R9W (T. OULU, T. HUGHES) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 94 T47 & 48N, R8W (T. TRIPP, T. IRON RIVER, T. KEYSTONE) ................................................................................................................................................................ 95 T47 & 48N, R7W (T. WASHBURN, T. BARKSDALE, T. PILSEN, T. KEYSTONE) ...................................................................................................................................... 96 T47 & 48N, R6W (T. WASHBURN, T. BARKSDALE, T. PILSEN, T. KEYSTONE)...................................................................................................................................... 97 T47 & 48N, R5W (T. WASHBURN, T. BARKSDALE, T. EILEEN) ............................................................................................................................................................ 98 T45 & 46N, R9W (T. HUGHES, T. BARNES)........................................................................................................................................................................................ 99 v T45 & 46N, R8W (T. DELTA, T. DRUMMOND) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 100 T45 & 46N, R7W (T. DELTA, T. DRUMMOND) ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 101 T45 & 46N, R6W (V. MASON, T. MASON, T. GRANDVIEW) ................................................................................................................................................................ 102 T45 & 46N, R5W (T. KELLY, T. LINCOLN).......................................................................................................................................................................................... 103 T43 & 44N, R9W (T. BARNES) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 104 T43 & 44N, R8W (T. DRUMMOND, T. CABLE) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 105 T43 & 44N, R7W (T. DRUMMOND, T. CABLE) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 106 T43 & 44N, R6W (T. GRANDVIEW, T. NAMAKAGON) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 107 T43 & 44N, R5W (T. GRANDVIEW, T. NAMAKAGON, T. MARENGO) ..................................................................................................................................................... 108 CITY OF BAYFIELD ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 109 VILLAGE OF MASON ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 110 CITY OF WASHBURN ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................111 T41 & 42N, R16 & 17W (T. SWISS, T. BLAINE) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 114 T41 & 42N, R15W (T. BLAINE, T. SWISS) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 115 T41 & 42N, R14W (T. BLAINE, T. WEBB LAKE)..................................................................................................................................................................................... 116 T39 & 40N, R19W (T. WEST MARSHLAND) .........................................................................................................................................................................................117 T39 & 40N, R18W (T. WEST MARSHLAND, T. UNION) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 118 T39 & 40N, R17W (T. LINCOLN, T. UNION) ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 119 T39 & 40N, R16W (V. WEBSTER, T. OAKLAND, T. MEENON).............................................................................................................................................................. 120 T39 & 40N, R15W (T. JACKSON, T. SAND LAKE) ............................................................................................................................................................................... 121 T39 & 40N, R14W (T. SCOTT, T. RUSK) ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 122 T37 & 38N, R20W (T. GRANTSBURG, T. ANDERSON) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 123 T37 & 38N, R19W (V. GRANTSBURG, T. GRANTSBURG, T. ANDERSON) ............................................................................................................................................. 124 T37 & 38N, R18W (T. WOOD RIVER, T. TRADE LAKE)........................................................................................................................................................................ 125 T38N, R17W (T. DANIELS) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 126 T38N, R16W (V. SIREN, T. SIREN) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 127 T38N, R15W (T. LA FOLLETTE) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 128 T37 & 38N, R14W (T. DEWEY, T. ROOSEVELT) .................................................................................................................................................................................. 129 VILLAGE OF GRANTSBURG..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 130 VILLAGE OF SIREN ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 131 VILLAGE OF WEBSTER ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 132 T49N, R13, 14, & 15W (C. SUPERIOR) ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 135 T49N, R10 & 11W (T. LAKESIDE, T. CLOVERLAND) .............................................................................................................................................................................. 136 T47 & 48N, R15W (T. SUPERIOR, V. OLIVER) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 137 T47 & 48N, R14W (C. SUPERIOR, T. SUPERIOR, V. OLIVER, V. SUPERIOR) ....................................................................................................................................... 138 T47 & 48N, R13W (C. SUPERIOR, T. PARKLAND, T. OAKLAND).......................................................................................................................................................... 139 T47 & 48N, R12W (T. LAKESIDE, T. AMNICON, T. HAWTHORNE, V. POPLAR) ..................................................................................................................................... 140 T47 & 48N, R11W (T. LAKESIDE, T. CLOVERLAND, T. MAPLE, T. HAWTHORNE, T. AMNICON, V. LAKE NEBAGAMON, V. POPLAR) ......................... 141 T47 & 48N, R10W (T. CLOVERLAND, T. MAPLE, T. BRULE, V. LAKE NEBAGAMON) ............................................................................................................................. 142 T45 & 46N, R15W (T. SUMMIT) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 143 T45 & 46N, R14W (T. SUMMIT) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 144 T45 & 46N, R13W (T. OAKLAND, T. GORDON, T. BENNETT, T. SOLON SPRINGS) ............................................................................................................................... 145 T45 & 46N, R12W (T. HAWTHORNE, T. BENNETT, T. SOLON SPRINGS, V. SOLON SPRINGS) ............................................................................................................. 146 T45 & 46N, R11W (T. HAWTHORNE, T. BENNETT, T. HIGHLAND, T. SOLON SPRINGS, V. LAKE NEBAGAMON) ...................................................................................... 147 T45 & 46N, R10W (T. HIGHLAND) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 148 T43 & 44N, R15W (T. DAIRYLAND) .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 149 T43 & 44N, R14W (T. DAIRYLAND) .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 150 T43 & 44N, R13W (T. GORDON, T. WASCOTT).................................................................................................................................................................................... 151 T43 & 44N, R12W (T. SOLON SPRINGS, T. GORDON, T. WASCOTT) ................................................................................................................................................... 152 T43 & 44N, R11W (T. GORDON, T. WASCOTT) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 153 T43 & 44N, R10W (T. GORDON, T. WASCOTT)................................................................................................................................................................................... 154 VILLAGE OF LAKE NEBAGAMON.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 155 vi VILLAGE OF OLIVER............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 156 VILLAGE OF POPLAR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 157 VILLAGE OF SOLON SPRINGS ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 158 CITY OF SUPERIOR ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 159 VILLAGE OF SUPERIOR .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 160 T47 & 48N, R1E & 1W (T. GURNEY, T. SAXON, T. KIMBALL) ............................................................................................................................................................... 162 T45 & 46N, R1W (T. GURNEY, T. SAXON, T. ANDERSON) ................................................................................................................................................................... 163 T45 & 46N, R1E (T. SAXON, T. KIMBALL, T. ANDERSON, T. KNIGHT) .................................................................................................................................................. 164 T45, 46 & 47N, R2E (C. HURLEY, C. MONTREAL, T. KIMBALL, T. PENCE, T. CAREY)......................................................................................................................... 165 T45 & 46N, R3E (T. OMA) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 166 T44N, R1W (T. ANDERSON) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 167 T43 & 44N, R1E (T. KNIGHT).............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 168 T43 & 44N, R2E (T. PENCE, T. CAREY, T. MERCER) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 169 T43 & 44N, R3E (T. OMA, T. MERCER).............................................................................................................................................................................................. 170 T43 & 44N, R4E (T. OMA, T. MERCER) ................................................................................................................................................................................................171 T41 & 42N, R2E (T. MERCER, T. SHERMAN) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 172 T41 & 42N, R3E (T. MERCER, T. SHERMAN) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 173 T41 & 42N, R4E (T. MERCER, T. SHERMAN) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 174 CITY OF HURLEY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 175 CITY OF MONTREAL............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 176 T41 & 42N, R9W (C. HAYWARD, T. LENROOT, T. HAYWARD).............................................................................................................................................................. 179 T41 & 42N, R8W (T. LENROOT, T. ROUND LAKE, T. HAYWARD) .......................................................................................................................................................... 180 T41 & 42N, R7W (T. SPIDER LAKE, T. ROUND LAKE) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 181 T41 & 42N, R6W (T. SPIDER LAKE, T. ROUND LAKE) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 182 T41 & 42N, R5W (T. SPIDER LAKE, T. ROUND LAKE) ......................................................................................................................................................................... 183 T39 & 40N, R9W (T. BASS LAKE, T. SAND LAKE) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 184 T39 & 40N, R8W (T. BASS LAKE, T. HAYWARD, T. SAND LAKE, T. COUDERAY) ................................................................................................................................ 185 T39 & 40N, R7W (T. HUNTER, T. COUDERAY, T. RADISSON) ............................................................................................................................................................ 186 T39 & 40N, R6W (T. HUNTER, T. OJIBWA) ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 187 T39 & 40N, R5W (T. WINTER, V. WINTER)........................................................................................................................................................................................ 188 T39 & 40N, R4W (T. DRAPER).......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 189 T39 & 40N, R3W (T. DRAPER) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 190 T37 & 38N, R9W (T. SAND LAKE, T. EDGEWATER) ............................................................................................................................................................................. 191 T37 & 38N, R8W (T. COUDERAY, T. METEOR, V. COUDERAY) ........................................................................................................................................................... 192 T37 & 38N, R7W (T. COUDERAY, T. RADISSON, T. WEIRGOR, V. COUDERAY, V. EXELAND, V. RADISSON) ........................................................................................ 193 T37 & 38N, R6W (T. OJIBWA, T. RADISSON, T. MEADOWBROOK)..................................................................................................................................................... 194 T37 & 38N, R5W (T. WINTER) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 195 T37 & 38N, R4W (T. WINTER) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 196 T37 & 38N, R3W (T. WINTER) .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 197 VILLAGE OF COUDERAY ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 198 VILLAGE OF EXELAND ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 199 CITY OF HAYWARD ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................200 VILLAGE OF RADISSON.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 201 VILLAGE OF WINTER ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 202 T41 & 42N, R13W (T. MINONG, T. CHICOG)....................................................................................................................................................................................... 205 T41 & 42N, R12W (T. MINONG, T. CHICOG, T. BROOKLYN, V. MINONG).............................................................................................................................................206 T41 & 42N, R11W (T. FROG CREEK, T. GULL LAKE) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 207 T41 & 42N, R10W (T. FROG CREEK, T. STINNETT) .............................................................................................................................................................................208 T39 & 40N, R13W (C. SPOONER, T. CASEY, T. EVERGREEN)............................................................................................................................................................209 T39 & 40N, R12W (C. SPOONER, T. BROOKLYN, T. TREGO, T. SPOONER) ......................................................................................................................................... 210 T39 & 40N, R11W (T. SPRINGBROOK, T. CRYSTAL) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 211 T39 & 40N, R10W (T. BASS LAKE, T. STONE LAKE) .......................................................................................................................................................................... 212 vii T37 & 38N, R13W (C. SHELL LAKE, T. BASHAW, T. BARRONETT)...................................................................................................................................................... 213 T37 & 38N, R12W (C. SHELL LAKE, C. SPOONER, T. BEAVER BROOK, T. SARONA) ........................................................................................................................... 214 T37 & 38N, R11W (T. MADGE, T. LONG LAKE) .................................................................................................................................................................................... 215 T37 & 38N, R10W (T. BIRCHWOOD, V. BIRCHWOOD) ........................................................................................................................................................................ 216 VILLAGE OF BIRCHWOOD....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 217 VILLAGE OF MINONG ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 218 CITY OF SHELL LAKE ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 219 CITY OF SPOONER ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 220 viii 2016 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD Multiple rounds of severe thunderstorms impacted northwest Wisconsin on Monday, July 11th and Tuesday, July 12th, 2016. During a 24-hour period the parts of region received historically heavy rainfall, with 8 to 12 inches of precipitation falling in some areas. Some of the most intense rainfall occurred in a swath extending from northern Burnett County, northeasterly through northern Iron County. Heavy rains quickly caused rivers to rise, to in some cases – historic levels. A US Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage on the Bad River near Odanah (Ashland County) rose from 300 cubic feet per second to a record peak streamflow of 40,000 cubic feet per second in only 15 hours. In addition to the heavy rainfall, a bow echo windstorm moved across northern Iron County and caused tremendous damage at Saxon Harbor. The marina and campground were devastated by the floodwaters of Oronto Creek, a steep-gradient Lake Superior tributary which had been rerouted during harbor construction in 1965. The heavy rainfall caused flash flooding across the region caused widespread and severe damage to roads and infrastructure, homes, businesses, and public facilities. In Ashland County, floodwaters overtopped U.S. Highway 2, resulting in the temporary closure of a major thoroughfare across northern Wisconsin. Travel across much of northwestern Wisconsin was not advised due to inundated roadways and washouts. The timing of these storms also coincided with the peak of tourist season in the region. Tragically, there were four lives lost as a result of the storm. Among those lost were 58-year-old Mitch Koski, former mayor of the City of Montreal, WI and Iron County Board Supervisor. Koski was checking on the well-being of campers at Saxon Harbor when the bridge over Oronto Creek washed out, sweeping his vehicle downstream. County, state and local government mobilized quickly in the wake of the disaster. Many of the area's roadways were inundated with water and debris and were impassible. With many of the major transportation corridors closed, long detours were necessary to navigate through the impacted region affecting residents and commerce. While highway crews were busy addressing road and bridge impacts, local emergency managers were busy assessing losses at harbors and marinas on Lake Superior. The full force of the storm hit northern Iron County and completely destroyed the marina and campground at Saxon Harbor. At the time of the storm, the marina was housing 70 boats, of which, at least 12 were destroyed, 19 beached, and 6 sunk and were later recovered. The Iron County Forestry boat, which became unmoored during the storm was last reported in the vicinity of Michigan’s Keweenaw Peninsula, nearly 100 nautical miles northeast. 1 The Bad River Nation was also severely impacted by the storm. More than 46 homes within reservation boundaries were affected by flooding, ten of which were completely destroyed. In the wake of the storm, the reservation was completely cut off from regular access to food, water, and medical supplies. The fish hatchery and wild rice operations of the Bad River Tribe also sustained major damage. Figure 1: 2016 FLOOD HYDROGRAPH Bad River White River Beartrap Creek Whittlesey Creek Streamflow (cubic feet per second) 100,000 10,000 1,000 100 10 1 1-Jul-16 6-Jul-16 11-Jul-16 16-Jul-16 21-Jul-16 26-Jul-16 31-Jul-16 Region wide, the flood event impacted over 350 homes and left behind tens of millions of dollars in public sector damage. In response to the disaster, the Wisconsin Emergency Operations Center was elevated to a Level 1 (full activation), with agency personnel from the Department of Administration, Department of Transportation, Department of Natural Resources and other state, federal and volunteer agencies coordinating resources. On July 12, 2016, a state of emergency was declared for the affected counties and state agency resources were directed to support response and recovery efforts. Emergency response efforts were supported by volunteer organizations including the American Red Cross, local volunteer fire departments, AmeriCorps, Team Rubicon, statewide tribal organizations and the Civil Air Patrol. Private sector business partners also provided resources and supplies to aid flood victims. On August 9, 2016, a Presidential Disaster Declaration for public assistance was granted for the counties of Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Florence, Iron, Sawyer, and Washburn, and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa. The severe flooding also impacted the agricultural industry in northwest Wisconsin, resulting in crop losses and reduced yields. Consequently, an agricultural disaster declaration was designated on September 29th, 2016 for the counties of Ashland, Bayfield, and Iron, as well as the five neighboring counties of Douglas, Price, Sawyer, Vilas, and Washburn. 2 Table 1: 2016 Northwest Wisconsin Flood, Damage to homes/businesses County Ashland Bad River Band Bayfield Douglas Iron Sawyer Washburn TOTAL Affected/Minor Damage 140 30 20 2 13/1 112 6 323/1 Major Damage 2 6 10 0 12/2 0 9 39/2 Destroyed 0 10 0 0 0 0 1 11 Table 2: 2016 Northwest Wisconsin Flood, Damage to Public Infrastructure County Total Losses Ashland $7,295,923 Bad River Band $3,403,054 Bayfield $5,422,000 Burnett $405,000 Douglas $797,585 Florence $47,000 Iron $15,778,000 Oneida $3,500 Price $34,000 Sawyer $2,197,000 Washburn $3,000,000 Wisconsin DNR (trails) $100,000 TOTAL $38,540,199 Table 3: 2016 CDBG, Emergency Assistance Program Grants County Total Grants Ashland $66,017.57 Bayfield $75,865.48 Sawyer $64,473.10 Iron $2,160.00 Total $208,516.15 3 Total $500,000 $1,104,000 $150,000 $500 $235,000/$40,000 $100,000 $500,000 $2,629,500 Eta-.- Granfsburg a. ?Fr - ?SI'ren - . NORTHWEST WISCONSIN I5 FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 2016 FLOOD DAMAGE (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM SUBAWARDS) "\Supenbr OII?ver? ?0 BAYHELD lshlan'd ?7 . Ca Hurley . Montreaf II a. Spooner he? Lake a $115 .r Birchwood l(Eoudera rI' Radfsson Exea?aIId I I NORTH DAMAGE TYPE DEBRIS REMOVAL PROTECTIVE MEASURES BRIDGES WATER CONTROL FACILITIES PUBLIC BUILDINGS PUBLIC UTILITIES RECREATIONAL OR OTHER NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAzus i hollhw?? {egmm mm my: mum nan NORTHWESTWISCONSIN FLOODIMPACT STUDY HANS 2016 FLOOD IMPACTS . "\Superfor 'il . Oliver 4 a; '5 . Washbum 1M . - BAYFIELD .. War .5 -. .- COUNTY - . COUN . -, Sofonf'Sp?ggs: 511;? . . .. SAXON HARBOR MARINA CAMPGROUND DESTROYED COUNTY NORTH I FATALITY ROAD CLOSURE A TRAVEL DISRUPTION UAMHGE HIGH WATER) NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAzus i WEE mum-er ?gm-u mm anmm mm NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STU DY HAZUS 3? law-w .. mu [mu USH 2, Bad River, Ashland County Bad River, Odanah, Ash/and County Saxon Harbor, Iron County I .. A, Olonto Creek, lion County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAZUS Structural Impacts Rapidly rising floodwaters quickly overtook a number of structures in low?lying areas. Over 350 structures were affected in the region, with 11 completely destroyed. The community of Odanah on the Bad River Reservation experienced some of the worst devistation, with a total of 10 structures lost. The federal disaster declaration did not cover businesses or homeowners as the level of damage in these areas did not meet the loss thresholds for federal relief. Limited CDBG-EAP funds were available to assist qulaified private property owners. Public Infrastructure Impacts The 2016 flood exposed a number of vulnerabilities in the region?s infrastructure. The intense flood waters washed out numerous roads and bridges across the region. Many of the road and transporta- tion system impacts were attributed to undersized culverts, which were incapable of handling the excessive floodwaters. Flooding also impacted local wastewater utilities, resulting in a 70,000 overflow at the City of Washburn wastewater treatment plant. The storm also resulted in the complete devistation of the marina and campground at Saxon Harbor. Transportation System Impacts Flooded and washout roadways resulted in numerous road closures across the region lasting from several days to several weeks. Major state and federal highways were impassible, including US Highway 2 and 63 and State Highway 13. Long detours made travel in the region difficult and hindered emergency response access to many areas. Many of the roadways impacted in the 2016 flood were also impacted in a 2018 flood. Canadian National Railway also closed a section of track from Ashland to Glidden due to issues from the flooding. Health Impacts The storms of July 11?12th resulted in the loss of four lives. The event also resulted in numerous injuries and medical emergency calls to local first responders. Transportation system disruptions resulted in some communities and residents being temporarily cut off from access medical care. Many homes across the region were without electricity fro several days, and residents were required to boil water for home use and consumption. REGIONAL FLOOD STUDY OVERVIEW During the period of July 11-12, 2016, seven counties in Northwest Wisconsin including Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Sawyer, and Washburn and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Chippewa Tribe, were struck by historic severe storms and flooding that caused severe flood events throughout the region. Transportation infrastructure was heavily damaged when flood waters rose above the surface of roads and bridges. Many primary and secondary arterial roadways and culverts were washed out in the wake of the elevated water level experienced over a short time period. Damage to homes and businesses across the region was substantial, with over $2.6 million in losses reported. Damage to public infrastructure was even more significant, with $38 million reported. One of the region’s most critical economic assets, Saxon Harbor, was completely destroyed and the major roadways bisecting northern Wisconsin were completely shut down. Business disruption and impacts to commerce were also significant as many communities were left completely isolated due to road closures. These counties had not anticipated, nor were they prepared to respond to an event of this historic magnitude. In the wake of the storm, county and local emergency response plans were implemented and the Wisconsin Emergency Operations Center was activated. In consultations with the Governor’s Cabinet secretaries, county and local government officials expressed grave concerns about the state of local infrastructure, the need for better resiliency planning and the economic impacts of flooding on the tourism-dependent economy of northern Wisconsin. While many of repairs to the flood damage in northern Wisconsin have been completed, the reconstruction of Saxon Harbor is still in progress. Across this region of Wisconsin there has been very limited efforts to identify, evaluate, and address critical infrastructure in the event of future natural disasters- particularly the economic impact susceptibility related to business commerce, emergency services, transportation, communication, and utilities. Furthermore, there is virtually nothing in place to address community resiliency and business recovery after major storm events occur. In 2013, a pilot flood resiliency study project was completed by the Northwest Regional Planning Commission (NWRPC) for Taylor County, Wisconsin, which demonstrated the potential impacts of historic flood events, pre-identified likely impact areas and assessed the economic impacts to communities, businesses and residents. The study was incorporated into the county’s hazard mitigation plan and now serves as a point of reference to guide flood mitigation activities across the county, which in turn, improves resiliency. This proposal would replicate the process model developed under the 2013 Taylor County pilot project for the seven counties (including the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa) of northwestern Wisconsin impacted by the historic severe storm event of July, 2016 (Presidential Disaster Declaration DR-4275). This process model uses FEMA’s HAZUS software to estimate potential flood losses and to identify structures, businesses, economic assets and community infrastructure impacted by a historic flood event. The HAZUS model will allow for the identification of vulnerable areas that may require planning consideration. Understanding flood risk will allow communities to assess the level of readiness and preparedness to deal with a flood disaster before it occurs. Model results will provide decision makers with the information and tools needed to decide on how to allocate resources for most effective and efficient response and recovery. Effective local leadership is crucial to economic development, disaster resilience, and economic 8 recovery activities in northwest Wisconsin communities. This project includes an outreach component to engage with local governing bodies and communities to help them understand why identifying and managing risks, proactively reducing vulnerabilities and improving response and recovery capabilities are key to promoting economic development resilience across the region. This program will not only advance flood resilience, it also would improve and protect water quality and riparian and shoreline habitat. HAZUS-MH HAZUS is a nationally applicable standardized methodology that contains models for estimating potential losses from earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. HAZUS uses Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to estimate physical, economic, and social impacts of disasters. It graphically illustrates the limits of identified high-risk locations due to earthquake, hurricane, flood, and tsunami. Users can then visualize the spatial relationships between populations and other more permanently fixed geographic assets or resources for the specific hazard being modeled, a crucial function in the pre-disaster planning process. The HAZUS module provides varying levels of analysis based on the level of expertise of the user and the availability of locally-derived data inputs. Under a basic analysis, HAZUS generates a simplified analysis using the default national databases and parameters contained in the HAZUS software package. This is commonly referred to as the “out of the box” analysis, as no external data sources or parameter manipulation are required. An advanced analysis requires more detailed information on local hazard conditions than is provided by the default national databased included in HAZUS. National default inventories may be replaced by user-defined inputs of buildings, essential facilities or other infrastructure. More detailed topographic data, such as LiDAR (light detection and ranging) can be used to produce accurate maps and bare-earth terrain models. The HAZUS flood model uses ground elevation to determine flood depth of a particular area. Advanced analysis using HAZUS generally requires more user expertise. 9 STUDY REGION The study region includes the 7 counties of northwest Wisconsin under the 2016 federal disaster declaration DR-4276. This include the counties of Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Iron, Sawyer and Washburn. Within this geographic region, there are 148 units of local government and 5 tribal nations. 10 HAZUS-MH FLOOD MODEL The HAZUS-MH Flood Model allows end users to perform a wide range of flood hazard analyses using default databases, user-defined databases or a combination of the two. The analyses performed in HAZUS-MH can be used to support planning and flood mitigation activities. The HAZUS-MH Flood Model can be used to assess both riverine and coastal flooding and estimates potential damage to buildings, essential facilities, transportation lifelines, utility lifelines, vehicles and agricultural crops. Analysis option within the HAZUS-MH module include: • • • • • Studies of specific return intervals of floods (e.g., 100-year or 500-year return intervals). Studies of discharge frequencies, including analysis of discharges from specific streams and the exposure to buildings and population from the resultant flooding. Studies of annualized losses from flooding. Quick Look assessments, which allows the user to quickly evaluate potential flooding from specific flood depths at specific locations. What if scenarios, which allow users to evaluate the consequences of specific actions, such as the introduction of flow regulation devices, acquisition of floodprone properties and other mitigation measures. The riverine flood hazard analysis module uses characteristics, such as frequency, discharge and ground elevation to estimate flood depth, flood elevation and flow velocity. Economic losses resulting from floods are estimated by HAZUS-MH using depth-damage functions (DDFs) which correlate inundation depth to building and content losses. 11 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Hm Figure 4: HAZLIS MIJDEL FLIJW DIAGRAM Usar' dafinas a study area and craatas a "Ragiun" Apply "Raglan" tn Inventory Apply hazard boundary to invantury 12 USER-DEFINED FACILITIES (UDF) The key General Building Stock (GBS) databases in HAZUS-MH include square footage by occupancy and building type, building count by occupancy and building type, valuation by occupancy and building type, and general occupancy mapping. Under a level 1 analysis residential structures are derived from Census 2010 and non-residential structures are derived from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B). In order to greatly improve the accuracy of the outputs derived from HAZUS-MH, the default GBS was replaced with user-defined facilities (UDFs) which reflect the actual building footprints as identified through LiDAR, aerial imagery and field reconnaissance. For modelling purposes, UDFs within the project area was pre-identified within a preliminary inundation zone created by executing a level 1 analysis using USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED) topographic data. It was assumed that all structures identified within flood hazard boundary created using NED data would also be affected in a scenario using LiDAR topographic data. To provide context, all adjacent structures were also digitized. The flood hazard boundary was buffered by ¼ mile and UDF footprints within boundary file were digitized. A total of 36,062 user-defined facilities were identified within the seven-county project area. Several attributes were assigned to the UDFs in ArcGIS®. Attribute data is used by HAZUS-MH to determine flood impacts and model estimated losses. HAZUS requires seven model attributes, including occupancy, building type, replacement cost, year built, number of stories, foundation type and first floor height. 13 14 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN HAZUS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY USER-DEFINED STRUCTURES (DIGITIZED BUILDING FOOTPRINTS) Superior oriv?"':13: .: ..fa :vg Aghian'd x? WMFHEMEE .62. mm @7ng DIGITIZATION PROCESS MODEL Step 1: Run level 1, 500-year flood model to create inundation grid. Step 2: Intersect inundation grid with tax parcels Step 3: Use aerial imagery to determine which parcels have structures. Step 4: Create building footprints, differentiate primary and secondary structures and assign UDF attributes. 15 USER-DEFINED FACILITY ATTRIBUTES UDF ATTRIBUTE ADDRESS LATITUDE LONGITUDE OWNER NAME PARCEL ID OCCUPANCY TYPE* REPLACEMENT COST* CONTENT COST* NUMBER OF STORIES* AREA (SQUARE FEET)* FOUNDATION TYPE* FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT* DATA SOURCE Parcel Address Building Footprint Centroids Building Footprint Centroids Parcel Owner Name Parcel identification Number Visual Interpretation of Aerial Imagery Estimated Fair Market Value HAZUS Multiplier Based on Occupant Visual Interpretation of Aerial Imagery Calculated Based on Footprints Visual Interpretation of Aerial Imagery Visual Interpretation of Aerial Imagery Tax Assessment Data NWRPC NWRPC Tax Assessment Data Tax Assessment Data NWRPC Tax Assessment Data NWRPC NWRPC NWRPC NWRPC NWRPC *Required HAZUS-MH Attribute REQUIRED HAZUS-MH ATTRIBUTES REPLACEMENT COST This attribute was populated using the estimated fair market value data (EFMV) included in the Wisconsin Statewide Parcel GIS data. For parcels without EFMV, median values for other buildings with the same given occupancy classification were substituted. CONTENT COST This attribute is an estimated dollar value of the contents of a flood impacted structure. Since the actual value is unknown, HAZUS-MH default contents values were used. These values are derived by taking a percentage of the Replacement cost and multiplying by a given value based on Occupancy class NUMBER OF STORIES This attribute is simply the number of stories a given structure contains. It was derived from various sources including aerial imagery, Bing “Birds-Eye” imagery, & Google Maps/Street View imagery. FOUNDATION TYPE This attribute refers to the base below a flood a flood impacted structure. In the case of this analysis all buildings were either assigned as having a basement (single family/multi-family residential) or being built on a slab (lakefront property & mobile homes). Assigning a foundation type affects how the damage depth curve is applied to a structure. For example, a structure with a basement is likely to have more substantial damage than a mobile home, at a given flood depth. 16 FIRST FLOOR HEIGHT This attribute describes the height above ground of a buildings first floor. This attribute can be populated in a few ways. For instance, it can be supplied from tax assessor information (if available), field measurement, or by measuring from the door threshold to ground surface in oblique imagery. In the case of this analysis, we used HAZUS-supplied values based on foundation type. AREA This attribute is the total area of a structure, in square feet. It is used to derive inventory costs for some commercial and industrial occupancy classes. This value does not include accessory buildings, attached garages or patios and decking. This value was calculated based on building footprints, in ArcGIS®. USER DEFINED FACILITY ID A numerical unique identifier given to each structure in the analysis. OCCUPANCY CLASS HAZUS-MH groups buildings with similar valuation, damage and loss characteristics into a set of pre-defined categories for analysis. 17 OCCUPANCY CLASS Occupancy class is important in determining economic loss, since building value is primarily a function of building use. Occupancy classifications assigned to buildings in the study region were assigned through aerial photo interpretation, tax roll information and research. CODE RES 1 RES2 RKS3 RES4 RES5 RES6 COM 1 COM2 COM3 COM4 COM3 COM6 COM7 COM8 COM9 COM 10 IND1 IND2 IND3 IND4 IND5 IND6 AGR1 REL1 GOV1 GOV 2 EDU1 HDU2 Table 4: Occupancy Class RESIDENTIAL Single Family Dwelling Mobile Home Multi Family Dwelling Temporary Lodging Institutional Dormitory Nursing Home COMMERCIAL Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Personal and Repair Services Professional/Technical/ Business Services Banks Hospital Medical Office/Clinic Entertainment & Recreation Theaters Parking INDUSTRIAL Heavy Light Food/Drugs/Chemicals Metals/Minerals Processing High Technology Construction AGRICULTURE Agriculture RELIGION/NON-PROFIT Church/Membership Organization GOVERNMENT General Services Emergency Response EDUCATION Schools/Libraries Colleges/Universities 18 Contents Value (%) 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 100 100 50 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 100 100 150 100 150 VULNERABLE AND CRITICAL FACILITIES Critical community facilities include those that provide essential emergency services to the community and should be functional after a flood. These facilities include hospitals, police stations, fire stations, emergency medical services and educational institutions. HAZUS-MH includes national datasets which identify a range of essential facilities across the country. The default data provided by HAZUS-MH was determined to be incomplete for the study region, thus supplemental data was created to create a comprehensive profile of these assets across the region. Because these assets are tax exempt functions of government, they have no assessed or fair market valuation. 19 20 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Ham?s 00 (3 VULNERABLE FACILITIES . {gag NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Supen'w Washbm: GIiver . - A HAzus "3 - AmendHudey .1. 5. -_Monfrea}? 33. 3:M?ir'en s. - ?mama .NORTH opner TI EDUCATIONALINSTITUTION I WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY I LAWENFORCEMENT I COUNTYGOVERNMENT I Shall-Lake 3? . aw x, WBP houmret ?9 ma Minn-r1; Lam? .. I HOSPITAL luv- mu {m CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE Critical infrastructure is defined as the transportation and utility infrastructure that provides communities with communications, water, power, mobility and other necessities for both continuity of governance and economic health. HAZUS-MH provides limited default data, but due to the sensitive nature of these facilities, national datasets are typically unavailable. Therefore, it is usually necessary for local communities to provide the data for analysis. 21 22 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN A11 FLOODIMPACTSTUDY 5" 00 0" ;b CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE . NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY upen'w' Azus xi XX hm? xx xx?? ?3 ?x Wimuw? 79?} .o nzgm?gs' . . xx I. . '3in xx xx BRIDGE ??11 R: 1* ROAD STREAM "3 5? $1 a; x" >25; xx? ELECTRICIALSUBSTATION . IX xZi??. xxPIPELINE ARM-W NWRP XXI XX XX) :5 a 3; mum-er ?gm-Ia mm ram-m I in? mu uu TERRAIN SURFACE MODEL HAZUS-MH uses a digital elevation model (DEM) to generate stream channel and floodplain morphology. DEM accuracy is also important in modeling flood depths, which HAZUS-MH uses to estimate flood losses. The most precise elevation data available for the study area is Light Detection and Ranging data (LIDAR). LIDAR is a surveying method that uses pulses of light which reflect of off objects (building, trees, ground, etc.) and then are recaptured by a sensor. These sensors are usually attached to an aircraft, which follows a pre-determined flight path, ensuring complete coverage for a project area. In most cases a county. By measuring the differences in return time and wavelength of the reflected light pulses, detailed 3D representations of scanned objects can be developed. The sensor’s collection of these light pulses, or “returns” (once post processed) creates a 3-dimensional point cloud. Each one of point in the cloud is classified with an x, y, & z coordinates and can also contain additional information. Each county included in our study area has its own collection of point clouds which are stored as LAS datasets. These datasets are massive in size. Multiple terabytes of storage were required to house them and the processing of this amount of data was incredibly time consuming. LIDAR data was available for each of the seven counties in the project area. As drainage areas do not necessarily correspond to jurisdictional boundaries, it was necessary to process terrain data outside of the project area boundary in order to develop accurate hydraulic models. This external area includes portion of St. Louis, Carlton, Pine, Kanabec, Chisago and Washington Counties in Minnesota and Gogebic and Ontonagon Counties in Michigan. In Wisconsin, the external area includes portions of St. Croix, Polk, Barron, Rusk Price Vilas and Oneida Counties. While supplemental LIDAR data was available for the external area in Minnesota and some counties in Wisconsin, this information was not available for Michigan. In cases where LIDAR was unavailable, US. Geological Survey (USGS) National Elevation Data (NED) at a resolution of 1/3rd arc second (10 meters) was used. NED data tiles were downloaded from the U.S. Geological Survey and processed in HAZUS with LIDAR data sets to produce a seamless elevation layer. County LIDAR data sets were received as either LAS point cloud data files or digital elevation models derived from LAS points. For some counties, DEMS were hydro-flattened, while others were not. Hydro-flattening is the process of creating a LiDAR-derived DEM in which water surfaces appear / behave as they would in traditional topographic DEMs created from photogrammetric digital terrain models (DTMs). For counties with LIDAR-based DEMs which were not flattened and for which hydro break lines were available, manual hydro-flattening was conducted. 23 LIDAR data sets for the project area were produced by different vendors with widely varying standards and definitions with regards to how classes were derived. LIDAR-based DEMSs data were digitally combined to produce a project area mosaic. For all areas where LIDAR coverage was unavailable, supplemental NED 10m DEMs were used. Due to resolution differences between LIDAR-based DEMs and 10m NED data, the entire project area was resampled to a 5m cell size. HYDRO-FLATTENING Additional processing was done to several individual county LAS datasets through a process called hydro-flattening. Hydro flattening is a process in which break lines around bodies of water are generated as part of the LiDAR collection post-processing. These break lines identify areas where data collection identifies elevation variability over water bodies. These areas are then given a value at the shoreline (or a downstream trending value, in the case of a flowing river) and “flattened” to the given value. This eliminates any erroneous values that would otherwise disrupt the directional flow of a water body. MOSAICING Each county’s LiDAR data also had varying degrees of accuracy and data specifications. These disparate datasets needed to be merged into a single uniform contiguous dataset in order to develop a depth grid. Due to the lack of LiDAR data availability in The Western Upper Peninsula of Michigan, 1/3 arc-second National Elevation Dataset (NED) was substituted (which was necessary to complete Iron and Ashland County’s Analyses). A 5m cell size was chosen to for our elevation data. This means that each pixel in the elevation data was 5m x 5m on the ground. A 24 5m pixel size required us to develop our raw LIDAR data at 5m cells and re-sample our areas with NED coverage (10m cell size) to match our LIDAR data. Due to the varying collection methods and temporal differences of the individual county LiDAR datasets, there were varying degrees of cohesiveness between neighbor counties (or even states, as along the Minnesota/Wisconsin border). Based on how the LiDAR data had been post-processed (hydroflattened vs. not hydro-flattened), some counties data had up to a 12m (40ft) of difference in elevation where it adjoined a neighbor county. These inaccuracies created artificial “walls” or “falls” across water bodies, which needed correction for creation of a depth grid. Erroneous elevation data was carefully removed from county datasets (where it existed) and was replaced by neighboring county data, which was more likely to contain accurate elevation values. Once the elevation inaccuracies were thoroughly cleaned, the data was mosaiced into a single seamless and contiguous surface. This elevation surface could then be run through FEMA’s HAZUS-MH software to develop the 100-year and 500-year depth grids used in the analysis. TERRAIN HYDROPROCESSING (PRE-PROCESSING) Hydrologic conditioning (HC) is the process of modifying a digital elevation model (DEM) to alter flow routing and drainage. The most common practice of HC is to remove “digital dams” or barriers within the DEM that block the hypothetical flow of water typically associated with road crossings and other obstructions. One method of removing barrier features is to “burn” the stream through the obstruction to force flow downstream using “cutlines.” Cutlines are manually placed in areas when an obstruction to flow occurs that should be “burned through”. This will more accurately depict the flow of water over the earth’s surface. Accurate elevation data is critical for this analysis to be accurate. The DEMs used in this report, were obtained from a variety of local, state and national datasets. Hydro conditioning was conducted using the DEM RASTER (UNFILLED) 25 FLOW DIRECTION FLOW ACCUMULATION RASTER Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework (ACPF) GIS toolset, developed by the United States Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS). Processing was conducted on the ArcGIS® 10.5.1 platform. 26 FILLED RASTER FLOW NETWORK The first step of this process is to add the DEM raster file of the area that will be analyzed to ArcMap®. The DEM must be represented in meters for the following steps to work correctly. This allows the D8 Terrain Processing tool to be run. This tool only requires an unfilled DEM of 27 the Flood analysis area and performs a series of operations to derive key output layers which will be used in the cutline burning process. The D8 tool first performs a fill operation on the DEM which raises the elevation values within all the depressions so that so that water will “pour” out of any depression and will create a continuous flow network across the watershed. Second, the tool applies a D8 Flow Routing algorithm to the filled DEM to create a flow direction raster. Each pixel is assigned a number that is associated with a direction that the water is flowing. The next step uses the flow direction raster to generate a flow accumulation raster. This flow accumulation raster adds up all the contributing pixels that “flow” into other pixels. Lastly, the D8 Terrain processing tool creates a hillshade raster that is used for visual purposes when analyzing the DEM. The objective of the next step (Flow Network Definition) is to generate a Flow Network based on the flow direction and flow accumulation raster created by the first tool. A value of 10 acres was given to the area threshold which helps create a rough overlay of rivers and streams in the area. The smaller the threshold value, the more detailed the stream network will be. There is a fine line between being too detailed and being too broad. In glacial landscapes, like northwest Wisconsin, an area threshold of 10 acres is recommended. DEPTH GRID RASTER The third step involves using the Identify Impeded Flow tool to hydro-condition the original unfilled DEM raster. It is an iterative process by which the topographic data in the DEM is modified to more accurately represent water flow. This tool generates a depth grid raster that represents the differences between the unfilled and filled DEM developed in the previous terrain processing tool. The depth grid raster can be used as a visual aid for the manual hydroconditioning process to identify obstructions to flow that should be “burned through” by placing cutlines. Several steps have to be taken before the final tool can be run. There are various layers that need to be added, as well as changes in symbology that will aid in the 28 identification of potential culvert locations. High quality aerial imagery, accurate road data and hydrology lines are added in ArcGIS®. Aerial imagery can help confirm whether a culvert is present or not. Updated road and stream data is also helpful in identifying road-stream crossings where a culvert is likely to be present. PLACING CUTLINES Using the hillshade, DEM, depth grid raster, roads, and flowlines as a guide, cutlines were manually placed at locations where our data indicated the likely presence of a culvert. Cutlines were drawn from a higher to a lower elevation using the DEM to verify elevation. A new feature class was created containing the region-wide cutlines. . OBSTRUCTED FLOW (LIKELY CULVERT OR BRIDGE) 29 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN . FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HMS Wily-59% EDTLINE, WITH DEPTH GRID RASTER FINAL DEM WITH ELITLINES (UPDATED DEPTH GRID) 30 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 5192115 FINAL DEM WITH ELILVERT DEM 31 TERRAIN PROCCESSING (HAZUS-MH) Due to the large file size of LIDAR-based DEMs and processing limitations of HAZUS-MH, terrain processing was conducted at the individual county scale. The project area composite DEM was used as the base elevation model from which each county study region was created. The HAZUS-MH flood hazard analysis consists of three stages: stream delineation, hydrologic analysis to determine stream discharge, and hydraulic analysis to determine flood depth and extent. 32 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN - I FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAZUS Study Region DEM (Douglas County) Study Region Watersheds (Douglas County) 33 Delineating Stream Network (Douglas County) HAZUS-MH computes a synthetic stream network based on the drainage areas calculated from the DEM. An input for parameter for the threshold drainage area allows the user to define the minimum accumulation area draining to a stream network. The smaller the threshold drainage area, the more detailed the stream network generated in HAZUS. Processing time is also a consideration when using the complex and topographically detailed LIDAR-based DEMs. While using a very small drainage area (0.5 square miles) created a more detailed stream network, it also occasionally resulted in erroneous data when processing flood depth grids creating an artificial “gridding effect” in the output raster. Using a larger drainage area of 5.0 square miles proved to be most effective in characterizing rural stream networks, while reducing or eliminating the gridding effect. Using a 5 square mile drainage threshold value also produced a synthetic stream network which very accurately reflected the actual 1:24,000 stream network. For urban areas, the threshold drainage area was reduced to 0.5 square miles without generating the gridding effect, so it appears that region size and/or processing capability may be a limiting factor in determining optimal threshold drainage area. 34 HYDOLOGIC ANALYSIS The objective of hydrologic analysis in HAZUS-MH is to calculate rainfall-runoff characteristics for watersheds and identify discharge values in streams. HAZUS-MH implements hydrologic analysis through built-in regression equations to determine discharge-frequency relationships for each reach and include gage and main stream adjustment. Regression equations within HAZUS-MH include derived variables including catchment area, mean catchment elevation and slope, and channel length; along with default localized parameters including temperature, precipitation, soil type, forest cover and snowfall. The HAZUS default database contains stream gage records from across the United States which are used to adjust the regression results based on comparison with other watersheds across the country with similar hydrologic characteristics. Upon completion of the hydrologic analysis, an output peak discharge table is generated with discharges computed at each reach’s upstream and downstream nodes for return periods of 2, 5, 10, 25, 50, 100 and 500 years. HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS HAZUS-MH uses the derived discharge values and stream channel morphology calculated under the hydrologic analysis to compute flood elevations at stream cross-sections. Within HAZUSMH, the hydraulic analysis is performed using Manning’s equation with a friction slope equal to the slope of the reach to estimate flood elevations. Inputs include discharge, cross-section descriptions [channel slope, cross-section geometry and friction factors for inundated areas], and 2-D flow fields, varying Manning’s n, bridge geometries, expansion/contraction coefficients and subcritical/super-critical flow. Outputs include flood elevations at cross-sections, energy head, flood velocity, flood depths and extents. The model is greatly simplified in HAZUS-MH. 35 Inputs include peak discharge, cross-section geometries, 1-D flow field and constant Manning’s n for sub-critical flow. Only flood elevations at cross-sections, flood depth and extent grids are generated. HAZUS estimates the initial floodplain by buffering the reaches [buffer distance = 10 * Q0.5]. Flow centerlines are determined and cross-section lines are placed normal to the flow centerline at intervals of 1000 feet. Manning’s equation determines the flood elevations at the stream cross-sections and HAZUS interpolates elevations between cross-sections to create a flood surface. DEM z (height) values are subtracted from the flood surface elevation to produce a flood depth grid, which depicts inundation areas and the estimated depth of floodwater along corresponding reaches. HAZUS-MH allows for the incorporation if user-defined depth grids from third-party sources, such as Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) files or depth grids interpolated from FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Hydraulic analysis may be performed for a single return period, multiple return periods or for a specific discharge, if available. USGS stream gage sites typically collect discharge data, which can be used to interpolate projected inundation for a given river stage. Unfortunately, this region of Wisconsin – while having an abundance of rivers and streams – has relatively few stream gages. There are 45 gage sites with a historical record varying from 192 to 32,300 day and 12 active recording sites within the sevencounty project area. Failed Reaches In running the riverine hydraulic analysis using HAZUS-MH, there were river reaches that the software was unable to process. These are considered failed reaches, with not output generated. HAZUS-MH developers classify failed reaches as “…reaches that have been processed in the hydraulics process, but for some reason, do not produce a flood depth grid.”1 In lieu of the software not being able to build a depth grid for these reaches (using the 5m LiDAR data), portions of a previously developed depth grid, using 10m USGS National Elevation Dataset (NED), were used as surrogates. These 10m reaches were resampled down to a 5m cell size to match the LiDAR generated depth grid. There were also a few cases where the reach processing failed in both the 5m and the 10m scenarios. In these cases, no depth grid was available for these reaches. The distribution of failed reaches, by return period, is illustrated in the table below. 1 HAZUS-MH User Manual, p 3-71 36 Figure 8: FAILED REACHES (HAZUS RIVERINE HYDRAULICS) Return Period 100- Year Flood Event 500-Year Flood Event Reaches failed in LiDAR Elevation Data Reaches failed in LiDAR & NED Elevation Data 39 56 12 5 37 38 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN "Am IS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY USGS STREAMGAGES ?mum. ..uu Solon?b?ngs 'B?wngm . NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAzus . ?gwmm - "h?yif 5 I. I (3oner .x ?xqiand. Radisson? 4.. Butternut .. STREAMGAGE (PEIOD OF RECORD) 0 - 1000 DAYS 1001 - 2500 DAYS 2501 - 5000 DAYS 5001 - 10000 DAYS 10001 - 20000 DAYS 20001 - 30000 DAYS ACTIVE SITES ~0000+r . hammer kc ma Ham-n; Lamm WEE I I NORTHWEST WISCONSIN an B. FLOOD IMPACT STUDY - "u FLOOD BOUNDARY ?mm: - MODELED FLOOD BOUNDARY UGO-YEAR) NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAzus FLOOD DEPTH GRIDS A HAZUS-MH flood depth grid is created by subtracting (cell-by-cell) the ground elevation, contained in the DEM grid, from the flood elevations at cross sections. This raster data set contains grid cells which depict the depth of water (in feet) within the inundation zone (flood hazard boundary). 40 DEPTH GRID ANOMALIES Overall, depth grid generation in HAZUS-MH met expectations relative to the spatial area of inundation and flood depth. 41 DEPTH GRID MOSAIC PROCESS Due to processing limitations within HAZUS-MH, a single region-wide depth grid could not be created using the software. The data set was too large and the software’s memory limitations were exceeded. The HAZUS-MH support help desk advised to either increase the cell size of our elevation data (lowering its resolution, in which case LIDAR data would cease to be relevant) or break the region into smaller sections, and develop the depth grids individually. To develop a regional depth grid, the hydraulic and hydrological processing was completed at the census tract level, by county, and the cities and villages were processed individually. Once these individual depth grids were completed, they were mosaiced together, using a mosaic method in which the largest cell value (or flood depth) was used for areas with overlapping coverage. 42 LOSS ESTIMATION Loss estimation modelling was conducted using an ArcGIS® Python® Script developed by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). Developed in 2018, this script uses the Python programming language to estimate losses from user defined features (UDFs). It was developed specifically for users of high-resolution depth grids, developed from LIDAR data. Using this script allowed our analysis workflow several time saving measures, over the traditional HAZUS-MH method. These improvements included eliminating the creation of duplicate data and geoprocesses, bypassing entry of our UDFs into the HAZUS Comprehensive Data Management System (CDMS) for standardization, and processing power. The script analyzes UDFs at roughly 10 times the speed of using the HAZUS-MH software. Like HAZUS-MH, the script calculates damages to buildings, content, & inventory through depth damage functions and also models debris generation. The script was developed using identical methodology for assessing damage to UDFs and debris generation, as outlined in the HAZUS technical manual (FEMA, 2011). However, the DOGAMI does not take into account the analysis of the default HAZUS-MH essential facilities inventory. Our research found the default HAZUS-MH inventory lacking for our region and we developed our own essential facility and infrastructure inventories. The inventories we developed are more robust, complete, and spatially accurate than the inventories included in the HAZUS-MH software. In addition to damage and debris generation, the DOGAMI script also calculates minimum and maximum replacement time (in days), adding a time element to the analysis. This replacement time analysis is not available using HAZUS-MH. 43 DAMAGE-DEPTH FUNCTIONS Figure 11: DAMAGE DEPTH CURVES, RESIDENTIAL 1 OCCUPANCY CLASS In the DOGAMI script, flood damages to structures are estimated based on building values (estimated fair market value) and flood depth. The script uses the same flood depth damage functions (DDF’s) as HAZUS-MH and can be customized if supplemental local information is available. Damage depth curves for use structure type and occupancy class to estimate the percent of the building value that is damaged. Flood depth damage curves relate feet of inundation with percent of building damage depending on the structure type and occupancy class. These curves are derived from national data; however, because the curves are applied to regional building types and basin specific hydrology, the results are applicable to the basin. Content and inventory damages are based on structure value (fair market value) and the type of structure evaluated. 100 90 80 70 PERCENT DAMAGE 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -4 ' -2 ' 0 ' 2 ' 4 ' 6 ' 8 ' 10 ' 12 ' 14 ' 16 ' 18 ' 20 ' 22 ' 24 ' FLOOD DEPTH R11N USACE - IWR one story, no basement, Structure 1 Story R11B BCAR - Jan 2011 one story, w/ basement, Structure (B14) 1 Story R12N FIA two floors, no basement, Structure, A-Zone 2 Story R12B FIA (MOD.) two floors, w/ basement, Structure, A-Zone 2 Story R13N FIA three or more floors, no basement, Structure, A-Zone 3 Story R13B FIA (MOD.) three or more floors, w/ basement, Structure, A-Zone 3 Story R1SN FIA split level, no basement, Structure, A-Zone Split Level R1SB FIA (MOD.) split level, w/ basement, Structure, A-Zone Split Level 44 Flood depth grids created in HAZUSMH were imported into the DOGAMI script, along with user defined facility (UDF) point files. UDF point data contained structure attribute information needed to execute the analysis, including occupancy class, foundation type, building height (stories) and content values (fair market value). The script then processed the input data to derive loss estimates. RESULTS SUMMARY The analysis concluded that 1,022 structures would be impacted under the 100-year scenario and 1,318 structures under the 500-year scenario. A 100-year flood has an annual exceedance probability of 1%, meaning it’s likely to occur once every 100 years. The annual exceedance probability of a 500-year flood is 0.2%, meaning an event at this magnitude is likely to occur once every 500 years. Regionwide, loss estimates under the 100-year scenario were $15.2M and $24.0M under the 500-year scenario. The model estimates that 12 critical community assets/facilities would be impacted under the 100-year scenario and 17 under the 500-year scenario. Table 5: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY COUNTY, 100-YR FLOOD EVENT County ASHLAND BAYFIELD BURNETT DOUGLAS IRON SAWYER WASHBURN GRAND TOTAL Structures Impacted Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Debris Generated Losses (tons) 92 78 $ $ 582,162 796,776 $ $ 456,098 340,749 $ $ 47,840 - 138 67 45 396 206 1022 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,034,886 644,579 399,383 7,640,836 3,129,779 15,228,401 $ $ $ $ $ $ 923,344 632,320 579,651 5,867,389 1,865,586 10,665,137 $ $ $ $ $ $ 31,034 113,681 204,919 41,355 438,829 1,002 1,139 1,508 506 682 6,001 2,205 13,043 Table 6: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY COUNTY, 500-YR FLOOD EVENT County ASHLAND BAYFIELD BURNETT DOUGLAS IRON SAWYER WASHBURN GRAND TOTAL Structures Impacted Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Estimated Inventory Debris Generated Losses Losses (tons) 114 114 $ $ 875,091 1,610,034 $ $ 738,537 611,690 $ $ 124,599 207 1,408 1,848 180 100 48 475 287 1,318 $ $ $ $ $ $ 2,767,118 1,120,682 249,664 11,874,777 5,500,003 23,997,369 $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,449,384 733,852 196,964 8,857,823 3,629,578 16,217,828 $ $ $ $ $ $ 39,815 9,924 318,409 188,619 681,573 1,993 943 443 12,054 3,493 22,182 45 Table 7: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY OCCUPANCY CLASS, 100-YR FLOOD EVENT Occupancy Class Ashland Bayfield Burnett Douglas Iron Sawyer Washburn 6 Grand Total 6 4 6 3 18 1 1 5 7 2 10 19 5 1 6 18 4 38 3 3 8 19 AGR1 COM1 3 2 COM10 COM2 1 COM3 3 1 1 3 COM4 COM8 2 6 1 5 2 3 3 1 4 1 2 3 1 6 EDU1 GOV1 GOV2 IND2 5 1 REL1 RES1 66 62 124 55 RES2 6 2 4 5 RES3A 2 RES3D 1 326 143 812 5 2 24 1 2 1 2 26 17 1 RES6 TOTAL 4 2 4 RES4 36 3 92 78 138 67 45 396 52 1 206 1022 Roughly 80 percent of the potentially affected structures are single family homes (RES1). Estimated impacts to businesses were notable in both return periods, with more than 8 percent of potentially affected structures classified as either commercial or industrial. Most businesses potentially impacted tend to be small businesses (COM 8, entertainment & recreation), although some larger businesses were also identified. Potential impacts to general government services (GOV1) include wastewater treatment facilities, town halls, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource facilities and park/recreation assets. Critical assets which are potentially impacted include electrical substations and dams. 46 Table 8: ESTIMATED LOSSES BY OCCUPANCY CLASS, 500-YR FLOOD EVENT Occupancy Class Ashland Bayfield Burnett Douglas Iron AGR1 COM1 3 1 2 1 Sawyer Washburn Grand Total 2 9 11 5 8 20 1 1 5 7 1 14 22 6 1 8 COM10 COM2 1 COM3 3 COM4 1 COM5 1 COM8 4 1 1 7 3 2 4 2 1 1 3 23 6 48 3 3 9 23 EDU1 GOV1 5 3 GOV2 IND2 6 2 4 1 2 3 2 9 1 IND6 REL1 1 1 1 1 3 5 RES1 82 92 161 87 40 384 206 1052 RES2 5 3 3 6 1 12 3 33 RES3A 2 2 RES3D 1 1 6 RES4 4 2 4 17 1 RES6 TOTAL 32 114 114 180 100 48 475 65 1 287 1318 STRUCTURES IMPACTED This value represents a count of the number of buildings which intersect the flood depth grid for a given return period. In some cases, buildings may intersect the flood boundary but have no projected losses. In these cases, the estimated depth of inundation was insufficient to cause damage. ESTIMATED BUILDING LOSSES The estimated direct economic losses to buildings associated with a given return period. Building values were derived from tax assessment data using the “estimated fair market value” parameter. Estimated Fair Market Value is calculated by dividing the properties total assessed valued by the average assessment ratio for the municipality. Damage-depth functions within the model correlate inundation depth from the flood depth grid with the estimated percent structure damage derived from the damage-depth curve. The estimated percent damage is multiplied by the estimated fair market value to obtain the building loss statistic. 47 ESTIMATED CONTENT LOSSES Building content values are estimated using a multiplier value which is based on occupancy class. The multiplier is applied to the estimated fair market value to derive an estimate of the value of personal property contained within the structure. The default HAZUS-MH DDF lookup table contains the damage-depth curve data used to estimate content losses. Like building loss estimation, content losses are estimated based on flood depth and occupancy class. Estimated Fair Market Value x Content Value Multiplier = Estimated Content Value Estimated Content Value x Content Loss Percent (from damage-depth curve) = Estimated Content loss Table 9: ESTIMATED CONENT LOSSES CODE Occupancy Class Contents Value (%) CODE RES 1 RES2 RKS3 RES4 RES5 RES6 COM 1 COM2 COM3 COM4 COM3 COM6 COM7 COM8 Single Family Dwelling Mobile Home Multi Family Dwelling Temporary Lodging Institutional Dormitory Nursing Home Retail Trade Wholesale Trade Personal and Repair Services Professional/Technical Banks Hospital Medical Office/Clinic Entertainment & Recreation 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 150 150 100 COM9 COM 10 IND1 IND2 IND3 IND4 IND5 IND6 AGR1 REL1 GOV1 GOV 2 EDU1 HDU2 Occupancy Class Theaters Parking Heavy Light Food/Drugs/Chemicals Metals/Minerals Processing High Technology Construction Agriculture Church/Membership Organization General Services Emergency Response Schools/Libraries Colleges/Universities Contents Value (%) 100 50 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 100 100 150 100 150 ESTIMATED INVENTORY LOSSES Depending on Occupancy Class, the business Inventory Cost is calculated based on type of business and the building’s square footage. To estimate business inventory losses, percent damage (determined from the depth-damage function) was multiplied by the total inventory value. Area (square feet) x Annual Sales (per square foot) x Business Inventory Percent of Sales = Inventory Cost Inventory cost x Inventory Damage Percent (from damage-depth curve) = Estimated Inventory loss 48 Table 10: ESTIMATED INTENTORY LOSSES Annual sales per square Occupancy Class foot AGR1 $ 148 COM1 $ 53 COM2 $ 77 IND1 $ 713 IND2 $ 226 IND3 $ 697 IND4 $ 656 IND5 $ 437 IND6 $ 768 Business Inventory percent of sales 8% 13% 10% 5% 4% 5% 3% 4% 2% DEBRIS GENERATION Debris removal includes the clearance, removal, and/or disposal of items such as trees, sand, gravel, building components, wreckage, vehicles, and personal property following a flood event. The HAZUS-MH damage-depth functions used by the DOGAMI script calculate total debris is a combination of finish, structure, and foundation debris estimates. This figure is based on occupancy class, square footage, foundation type, and depth-in-structure. Debris removal and cleanup costs vary based on location and the nature of debris materials. FEMA generally does not cover the costs associated with debris removal from private property. 49 ?Mv Irwret ?9mm mm. not a Lana-nun": NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY - 9-: El] . 35mm Hangman 1' HBMH 003M ,3 z- l? l- ALNOOD MM. 11:3 Eng uansavw N?%%I?gvam II 3m NMXIJIJHB ME EIDEH HEIAMVS Uil?FdI?Il am EEl?lclS NI mums :Idl?ll mm! NHHEIHSVM (.LNHAH ?900. saumamus aaikusa 0 mm Aams 0,0 0 50 SHHEIHH Mrl-nmi NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 53-92- 3Hi- 3an ll -3 :1 . 3?33?"?5 33'3?? uwsva .mem 1' .HIIHFS H- AanO) Emu? 113 Eng 1 . uansavw HEIAMVS A-LN n03 Wm 8 VNI ?il?FdI?Il EM HEW NAIHIJIJHB 3W1 SEEM unnmnun 33mm 33".th mnaun I mum Hum "mam HJMH SHHEIHH NIJHI I . a go 00' 0 005) SMVH NISNODSIM .LSEIMHLUON ,w ?sum. g? 1: umn NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY - - un'nun'nml - In'nun'nsl - nn'nun'nm m'nnu?szl - - mm! ALNDOD Hunmww NEIHIIH ITO) HEIAMVS WW SHHEIHH mm {mm VNIJHIS Hanna?: HHDH: Harman ENHOD um 153:? EIDHJ 52 n0) ?v19nom E: (mam wank-oat) CELLVIAILLSEI A0015 13mm: 0001:: NISNODSIM .LSEIMHLUON mum-w ?9mm Mann mm?, i NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY -m?uu?nm - un?nuu?uml - - mm {mm VNIJHIS Hanna?: - - HESUUH - 33mm NEIHIS mm - - MN {1 03 UIJIJM 3m ?03 iN?lS . uansavw mm HEIAMVS AviN 133:? SSIJI _nnv>wwm iHnImI {103 mm unmaw I . avaA-oos) $35501 CIEI.LVIAII.LSEI 0 mm was lDleNl 00015 0 NISNODSIM 153MHLUON NIH nu EIDHJ 53 IINHIIS 1 HEBHH Q?L?ng? I 1m] 54 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN HAZUS mun-um. - mun - I. FLOOD IMPACT STUDY ESTIMATED CONTENT LOSS EVENT) Pl] RT WINE LAKESIDE PIIRKUINIJ AMMIEIJN MAPLE TRIPP HUGHES URKLANIJ HAWTHIJRNE EBA ESTA SUMMIT mm DO LAS ??nwms HUIINE FREE CREEK STINNHT LAKE WE JAEKSDN SEDIT EASEY PRI NEBRUU WEST BED a MIRSHLANIJ EVERBREEN DUNE @3an STDNE 2 LAKE SAND man 0 HEM ER DEWEY BASHAW RUHK HEDGE MEIEUR LIJNE LIIKE RRIJNEIT DEEWAIER ES HELL BLIIHER RUSSELL a 0 EAWIEW WASHHURN ?In? BIAWEIEJLQ EILEEN :1 COUNTY BIHBLES MASUN KELLY 3URNEY .. WHITE RW ER IJIIBIIL 1 NURSE ANDERSIJN PENEE BRAND KNIEHT CAREY MMIIKIIEIJN . BEVILLE 0 IIBEIIDA SHERMAN UT LDSSES mun - - - - Imuununn - NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAzus i mum-er ?gm-u mm ~9me ,Ian 0 a NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HMS ?o a0 0 ESTIMATED CONTENT LOSSES (500-YEAR EVENT) URIENTA WASHHURN TRIPP EILEEN :1 MASUN LINBULN LAKESIDE ULILLI SUPERIUR HRULE HUGHES .1 a I . I BENNETT C(ouwl?n??m SUMMIT 55 BRAND VIEW ANEKSIILLE COU AEEHIJA SHERMAN I- . JAEKSDN WA I ESTIMITTEEI I *1 COUNTY . SAWYER HEMER .2 SIREN LAFIJLLETIE DEWEY . RIVER WEE Isuunnun - Isuunnm sanunnun I _l BARRIJNEIT SERENA LHNELAKE Iznuunnun . - Imunnuun - magnum WEST NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY ?m 'In'uM.? 'u um. ml min inn. mnuam .fu 3r. .. mu WWRP hollhw?t ?9mm mm. 10MrE-m13 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY aaz-au- wat- - 35mm EAEISDIJH IHI - amen mm 91-15 L-l HEIAMVS F103 Sltl?il'l VMI 1n- 3m NMXIJIJHB WHHEIHS wnaav ?3mm HHS A?mnm 311mg my: snag 333"" uansavw 1531a 0 (CI J- ?an3 man :10 SHHEIHH I ?Md :Idl?ll 5mm unamm [Imam . I . umanmn .NOILWEINEID SIHHEICI GELLVIAILLSEI . A-lmn-le SMVH NISNODSIM Lsamuwou 56 .. '90!me ?gm mm. NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY MUSEUM NOHI will? 95mm- saga-au- tL-Bt- Human .EMHIJIGH .- ??noa :1 HEIAMVS EEIIJWI :l .I ir 3m usmnus mm #an03 WM lama ?manna a a A NHHEIHSVM umaamn 59a?. .NOILVEIEINEID SIHSEI 57 wan-005) CI QOJO NI 0001:! SNODSIM NORTHWEST WISCONSIN 2' FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HA "ms FLOOD DEPTH GRID DOUGLAS COUNTY, WI Lakeside NORTH rah..- J. .- Lake LN?-fnbagiaman . .. .. Jami - Fro C'r?Ek - 5% 9 i 58 FLOOD DEPTH HIGH LOW NORTHWEST WISCONSIN nm .5 FLOOD IMPACT STUDY NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY FLOOD DEPTH GPID BAYFIELD COUNTY, WI 1 Linc?/n J?r Grandview 4? '1 3? ?5 Namakagon Spider/aka 2V FLOOD DEF TH g) 59 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAZUS FLOOD DEPTH GRID ASHLAND COUNTY, WI \g I . Marengo Gordon ,HIGH TO, NORTH 6O NORTHWEST WISCONSIN ,n "ms we? . NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HMS FLOOD DEPTH GRID IRON COUNTY, WI FLOOD DEFTI-I I 62 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HAZUS FLOOD DEPTH GRID BURNETT COUNTY, WI ?a HIGH W30 0007:! LOW Grantsbur?l ?1 If. (E Granrsburg NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Loan-num- NORTHWEST wusconsm FLOOD IMPACT STUDY HANS FLOOD DEPTH GRID WASHBURN COUNTY, WI .v m? a 5..Webb mne 'Lake I Scotq Sand lake Rusk BB Ab I 7 Spooner (?33 I I I Beaver Brook 2 4 as Bashaw I ,r-ShellLake ?u ?tr . A I 3 Barronett 1? Serena LongJake HIGH FLOOD DEPTH LOW NORTHWEST WISCONSIN I fleames Came . FLOOD IMPACT STUDY ?ms FLOOD DEPTH GRID SAWYER COUNTY. WI 64 Gouderay 9 H1630 NORTHWEST WISCONS FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Murmur d. 5m ?ing.? mxmn? BUILDING ASHLAND COUNTY Table 11: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – ASHLAND COUNTY HAZUS 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - ASHLAND COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted C. OF MELLEN T. OF AGENDA T. OF ASHLAND T. OF CHIPPEWA T. OF GINGLES T. OF GORDON T. OF JACOBS T. OF MARENGO T. OF MORSE T. OF PEEKSVILLE T. OF SANBORN T. OF SHANAGOLDEN T. OF WHITE RIVER V. OF BUTTERNUT GRAND TOTAL 17 2 1 21 1 8 10 1 1 2 2 3 1 22 92 Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 74,495.00 33,789.00 207,621.00 7,859.00 70,128.00 31,921.00 34,296.00 3,415.00 4,978.00 4,827.00 108,833.00 582,162.00 77,857.00 11,816.00 72,087.00 2,607.00 20,295.00 46,933.00 19,188.00 1,204.00 1,871.00 1,829.00 200,411.00 456,098.00 7,326.00 10,413.00 30,101.00 47,840.00 Debris Generated (tons) 234 13 0 144 1 117 135 5 7 7 7 15 1 316 1002 HAZUS 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - ASHLAND COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted C. OF MELLEN T. OF AGENDA T. OF ASHLAND T. OF CHIPPEWA T. OF GINGLES T. OF GORDON T. OF JACOBS T. OF MARENGO T. OF PEEKSVILLE T. OF SANBORN T. OF SHANAGOLDEN T. OF WHITE RIVER V. OF BUTTERNUT GRAND TOTAL 12 2 2 24 1 8 16 3 2 12 4 2 26 114 Estimated Building Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 86,218.00 50,609.00 7,995.00 263,865.00 8,967.00 89,271.00 86,810.00 7,590.00 7,226.00 127,432.00 41,208.00 97,900.00 875,091.00 66 Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 12,514.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ 36,561.00 $ $ $ $ $ 17,201.00 $ 58,323.00 $ 124,599.00 112,561.00 17,150.00 3,140.00 85,691.00 2,844.00 25,171.00 264,883.00 1,796.00 2,551.00 70,234.00 14,072.00 138,444.00 738,537.00 Debris Generated (tons) 237 21 3 171 1 115 428 22 7 55 20 3 325 1,408 ACKLEY RD # A B 13 £ ¤ 2 dd Lake Superior JOHNSON RD T47 & 48N, R4W, ASHLAND COUNTY REYKDAL RD BAY FR O NT RD T. BARKSDALE £ ¤ 2 T. SANBORN d Beartrap Creek MCDONALD RD Lake Superior X " ) " ) d d d HOLMES RD d Fish Creek FishFish Creek Creek ) "" ) d " ) " ) C. ASHLAND Wood Creek Wood Slough Creek Slough HUHN RD " ) " ) d OLD AIRPORT RD GRIFFITH RD BEASER RD HEGLUND RD T. EILEEN ( ! BUTTERWORTH RD d WEISTER RD 13 112 T. GINGLES DAHLSTROM RD ASHLAND BAYFIELD RD HEGSTROM RD Beartrap Creek WAKEFIELD RD Beartrap Creek D ROM R HEGST # # # White River IDA BOBB RD White River T. KELLY # ! (! ( d NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:60,890 White River BEASER RD KLAUS RD PARK RD B A CHAPEK RD PEARCE RD A B BEASER RD COUNTY LINE RD " ) HIGHLAND RD HOLMES RD d T. WHITE RIVER # POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T47 & 48N, R3W, ASHLAND COUNTY Sand Cut Slough Kakagon Slough Wood Creek Slough Lake Superior Lake Superior Bad River Slough ! ( ! (! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! (! ( (! ! £ ¤ " ) 2 dd Kakagon River ! ( MIL T. SANBORN ! ( X X LE R RD " ) Alex Pond Bad River £ ¤ BEAUGARD RD 2 Rins Creek GOVERNM ENT RD HOLMES RD C. ASHLAND MCDONALD RD X BEAR TRAP RD d Honest John Lake LAKE RD (1) BA Y F ACKLEY RD JOHNSON RD REYKDAL RD RO NT RD Beartrap Creek HUHN RD White River STONE RD Pictured Rock Lake GO V ER N ME NT RD OLD AIRPORT RD HOLMES RD GRIFFITH RD Wolfs Pond Sugarbush Lake # ! ( PEARCE RD 13 HEGS TR Sugarbush Creek OM R D Lost Lake FAL LS Camerons Creek RD IDA BOBB RD PARK RD B A T. GINGLES T. #WHITE RIVER NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,480 # POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T47 & 48N, R2W, ASHLAND COUNTY Kakagon River Bad River Slough White River Lake Superior Honest John Lake ( ! MIL L ( ! X X ER R ) " D Alex Pond LAKE RD (1) LAKE RD (1) MA D GOVERNMENT RD Rins Creek IG A N RD Bad River T. SANBORN T. SAXON £ ¤ 2 GO VE RN ME NT R D Pictured Rock Lake Wolfs Pond # Sugarbush Lake T. GURNEY Sugarbush Creek FIR E LA NE RD OLD US H1 0R D FAL Lost Lake LS X ELM HOIST RD ZEROS RD RD BIRCH HILL RD # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:74,410 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X White River Flowage PARK RD IDA BOBB RD T. GINGLES T. EILEEN # (! ! ( #d T45 & 46N, R4W, ASHLAND COUNTY TAPANI RD Rock Creek W FIRE LANE RD Thornapple Creek OLBY RD (1) White River T. SANBORN REDINGER RD B A 13 CHARLES JOHNSON RD 112 D T. WHITE RIVER REDINGER RD ER DARK CORNER RD SALO RD MAPLE RIDGE RD G RID LE AP Moonshine Lake BLAKEMAN RD B A T. KELLY KELLY RD SCHWIESOW RD SCHWIESOW RD DEER CREEK RD # YONKOVICH RD M PETRIN RD JOLMA RD B A 112 ) " JOLMA RD BERWEGER RD TODY RD VAN ORNUM RD RD E Brunsweiler River LONG RD HEINO RD ( ! ) " SOSIN RD RS PETE " ) Marengo River ! ( RIEMER RD ARGO RD OSREDKAR RD d ! ( " ) ") WILDCAT RD RD C BE CK M AN # FOUR CORNERS STORE RD STENM AN RD PELTO RD HAGER RD ER R D Birch Lake Long Lake Indian Lake ! ( ER T OB RD T. MARENGO MIN ) " Morgan Creek ER A LL AK ER R ER PP N H OE ! ( MILE RD D SPRING BROOK RD D NORTH YORK RD ! ( Marengo ( ! ( ! ( ! # E SNAK # # Beaverdam Lake T RAIL # RD ASHLAND BAYFIELD RD T. GRANDVIEW HAKALA RD Lake # Bass Lake SPRINGBROOK RD T. ASHLAND BROENIMAN RD SIMO R D LOVERS LANE RD BASS LAKE RD HANNINEN RD ! ( INDIAN LAKE RD T KYS ! ( EADE RD RD ! ( # 13 NO RTH YO RK T. LINCOLN B A NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:87,140 Lake Three # POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS # MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - HANSON RD T. MORSE RASMUS ON Trout Brook RD BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X PARK RD # ELM HOIST RD IDA BOBB RD T. GINGLES Thornapple Creek Elm Creek T45 & 46N, R3W, ASHLAND COUNTY # TAPANI RD ELM HOIST RD W FIRE LANE RD B A 13 T. SANBORN CHARLES JOHNSON RD BLAKEMAN RD Moonshine Lake DARK CORNER RD Potato River T. WHITE RIVER ( ! JOLMA RD B A 112 JUSULA RD JOLMA RD ( ! GOVERNMENT RD VAN ORNUM RD Marengo River Bad River Brunsweiler River ( ! " ) )" " ) C SE AQ U IS TR C D B A DAVIS RD PELTO RD # # 13 PUFAL RD d ( ! KLEINSTEIBER RD LONG RD SCHLIES RD SOSIN RD RIEMER RD ) " ) " d EADE RD T. MORSE RD ( ! # # # ) " HANSON RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,650 (! C. MELLEN ( d ) ! " KORNSTEAD RD QUARRY RD # Loon Lake GILGEN RD # # Murphy Lake C SPRING BROOK RD NORTH YORK RD # 13 " ) Trout Brook Beaverdam Lake B A T. ASHLAND MILE RD Tyler Forks HAUGEN RD SPRINGBROOK RD ( ! BROENIMAN RD SIM O R D BASS LAKE RD # Bass Lake ER P PN H OE GOLF COURSE RD RD T. MARENGO NORT H YORK HANNINEN RD ( ! POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - (! ( (! ! ( ! #! ( X ( ( ! (! ! d (d ! ( ! d ( ! (! ! d ) ( " BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ZEROS ELM HO IST RD T45 & 46N, R2W, ASHLAND COUNTY # ELM HOIST RD # ) " FALLS RD Potato River T. SANBORN CURRY RD ( (! (! ! ! ( T. GURNEY Barr Creek B A 169 ( ! VOGUE RD JUSULA RD ( ! Vogue Creek Bad River Marengo River WILL RD STRICKER RD RD WILL RD DAVIS RD Camp Four Creek T. ANDERSON T. MORSE d GOLF COURSE RD POPKO RD T. ASHLAND B A Tyler Forks 169 13 BECKER RD COUNTY LINE RD B A Murphy Lake Montreal Creek " ) C Loon Lake MO HAUGEN RD ( ! # OR ER D GILGEN RD REVAI RD IST PUFAL RD QU KLEINSTEIBER RD SE A SCHLIES RD ( ! KORNSTEAD RD B A 77 d C. MELLEN ( ! ) " )d " ! ( (! ! (! ( ( X ! ( ! ( ! # ( ! ( ! dd ")!( !(dd NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,390 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # E SNAK # TRAIL # RD T. LINCOLN T. ASHLAND ASHLAND BAYFIELD RD Trout Brook # HAKALA RD T43 & 44N, R4W, ASHLAND COUNTY HANSON RD # SNAKE Spring Seitz Brook Lake Beaverdam Lake Lake Three O NS HA NR TRL RD Gilbert Lake Beaver Lake T. GRANDVIEW English Lake Potter Lake Toskis Creek Mineral Lake F OX Tea Whisky Creek Lake FAR T. MORSE MR D Camp Six Creek # RD # John Frank Lake MINERAL LAKE RD WIS CO RA SM USON D Hardscrabble Creek Coffee Lake SN AK E TR L Marengo River T. MARENGO Edies Creek # CO NLEY RD CO NL EY RD Mccarthy Creek Spruce Lake " ) GG FO Blaser Creek ON RD NAMAKAG RE ST RD 183 Moquah Lake TN RD 42 Brunsweiler River Spider Lake D 34 4 RD DE R AIL GRA E TR ST R F OR E K SNA OL D ID SP D L ER McCarthy Lake AK ER D T. NAMAKAGON Iron River WILD F OR RD ESS ERN EST RD 193 " ) PR D GG BC OR Duck Lake JO Chippewa Lake Mud Lake West Twin Lake T. GORDON FOREST RD 182 East Twin Lake Dingdong Creek " ) # # White Bass Lake Buffalo Lake # ! ( ! (! ( LAK ER D ! ! (( Upper ( ! Clam BU FF A LO Red Ike Creek West Fork Chippewa River Range Line Lake !# ( B A 77 Little Clam Lake Woodtick Lake Dead Horse Slough B A # # 77 T. SHANAGOLDEN RD T. SPIDER LAKE Lake HE Y Hadley Lake Cranberry Lake 195 TEWES RD Muskie Springs Lake S T RD F OR E MAT RD M LA KE FIVE F OR EST RD 347 Day Lake FOREST RD 182 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,230 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # # T. ASHLAND # Beaverdam Lake NR Brunsweiler River D C. MELLEN! ( # (! ! ( English Lake John Frank Lake MINERAL LAKE RD RD COUNTY (1) SO T43 & (! ( ) ! " "d ) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( X ! ( ! # ( ! ( ! ( ! 44N, R3W, ASHLAND (d ! ( ! dd ( ! (! ! d ) ( " " ) GG N FOLEY RD N HA RA SM USON QUARRY RD # Lake Three Trout Brook HANSON RD KORNSTEAD RD # City Creek # Potter Lake LAKE DR Mineral Lake Hardscrabble Creek T. MORSE Beaver Lake W LAKE DR B A Bad River Camp Six Creek 13 Meder Lake T. MARENGO CONLEY RD Edies Creek LO NG LA RD CON LEY KE RD CON L EY RD Long Lake Mccarthy Creek " ) GG FO RE ST RD Minnow Creek 183 FORES T RD 354 THOLE RD MORSE RD Brush Creek ID SP B A 13 L ER McCarthy Lake AK ER D SC H Iron River OC HR SC H FOREST RD 182 T. GORDON FOREST RD 181 FOREST RD 182 D OC HR D ) " Spillerberg Lake East Twin Lake HENNES RD F OR EST FOREST RD RD 181 347 Dingdong Creek TEWES RD WILDE RD # # Dead Horse Slough B A 77 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,280 Torrey Lake B A 77 T. SHANAGOLDEN Moose River POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Dryden Creek EDER RD BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ( ! B A REVAI T. ASHLAND d B A (! ( ) ! " )d " KORNSTEAD RD 77 77 T43 & 44N, R2W, ASHLAND COUNTY !! ( (! ( ( X ( #! (! ( ! (! ! C.dMELLEN (d ! d (( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! d ) ! " Tyler Forks N FOLEY RD (1) ! ( (! ! ( # City Creek # McCarthy Lake LAKE DR Bad River T. MORSE W LAKE DR B A 13 LAKE CAROLINE Eureka Lake # Beaver Lake Meder Lake Lake Galilee Twin Lakes RD East Twin Lake Dollar Lake Snowshoe Lake Maki Lake CA RO L INE LA KE R D T. ANDERSON Caroline Lake # CONLEY RD MORS LONG LA KE RD RD MINN IE C REEK RD TROTT RD Long Lake E LINE Minnie Creek LONG LAKE RD Minnow Creek NIG REI N OW Ditmans Lake CA M MORSE RD CA MP K RD Dry Lake RD DRY LAKE d THOLE RD N RD RD MIN EK CRE PE FORES T RD 354 RD OLD MORSE RD HR SC H FOREST RD 181 D OC Magee Creek HR Knab Lake D T. GORDON Spillerberg Lake ) " ST R ERNE Summit Lake Spillerberg Creek Wolf Lake D HANNES RD OC T. JACOBS OLD MO RSE RD SC H B A 13 " ) N 181 MACKEN BERG RD FOREST RD HENNES RD THUNDERSTICK Gordon Lake WILDE RD RD THORP RD East Fork Chippewa River GEAR RD D Dryden Creek ! ( CHARLES WOLF RD MELZ R ! ( B A 13 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,900 KINNEY RD B T. SHANAGOLDEN A 77 Torrey Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - T. PEEKSVILLE BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. ANDERSON Minnie Creek NIG RE IN RD BUNTE SHACK RD T43N, R1W, ASHLAND COUNTY D CA MP K R BUNTE SHACK RD LAFEBER RD CA M PE RD Ditmans Lake E RS LAK E RD Magee Creek HANNES RD T. JACOBS LAFEB ER RD CAMMERERS LAKE RD Wolf Lake CA M MER Dryden Creek Augustine Lake " ) N MACKENBERG RD CK RD MERC ER R D Cammerer Lake E FOR D ST R T. GORDON 9 RP RD East Fork Chippewa River Augustine Creek ES E FIR IDE LN ( ! KINNEY RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:50,790 E SIDE F IRE LN T. PEEKSVILLE SILV ER C POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - REE KR D BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # ( (! ! ( !! ( Upper ! ( FED Christy Lake West Torch River ( ! RD 339 T41 & 42N, R4W, ASHLAND COUNTY 8 RD 16 Pole Lake Little Clam Lake F OR E ST Lower Clam Lake McLaren Lake MCLAREN LAKE RD HE Y MAT Delano Lake Red Ike Lake Bentley Lake Noble Lake # RD Hadley Lake T. GORDON # 77 F OR E ST (# ! B A Clam Lake FOREST RD 335 BU FF A LO LAK ER D Buffalo Lake # ( ! ERA L FO R E ST Ike Lake # B A 20 8 ( ! " ) GG Cattail Lake East Torch River FOREST RD 337 Red Ike Creek RD Torch River W est Fork Chippewa River # FOREST RD 170 ( ! 77 Kelly Lake ELF T. SPIDER LAKE FOREST RD 338 RD 335 RD E ST F OR FOREST RD 176 T. SHANAGOLDEN FEDERAL FOREST RD 176 FOREST RD 168 Moose River Little Moose River LF ERA FORE S T RD 16 6 Black Creek E ST OR FORE S T RD 16 MOO SE L AKE RD FOREST RD 1240 # FOREST RD 164 GG East Fork Chippewa River OR ES TR D1 73 ( ! ( ! Bear ( ! ( ! Lake ! ( Snoose Lake T. WINTER FORE ST RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,580 172 !! ( ( ! (( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Cub Lake ( ! ! ( OLD GRADE RD # FO Black Lake RE ST RD 172 LF ER A FED Venison Creek Fishtrap Creek Hay Creek 326 RD Snag Lake T. CHIPPEWA " ) Burd Lake Hungry Run E ST F OR T. ROUND LAKE 4 F OR E ST 174 FOREST RD 164 RD 162 RD # R BE A LAK ER T. DRAPER D POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X EWES RD T. GORDON Torrey Lake B A 77 B A EDER RD SCHMIDT RD FO R E ST RD 168 FOREST RD 335 T41 & 42N, R3W, ASHLAND COUNTY Seagels Lake Muskellunge Creek FO R E ST R D 16 6 st Torch River ( ! Dryden Creek 77 Muskellunge Lake East Torch River # PIEPER RD Moose River T. SHANAGOLDEN FOREST RD 170 FOREST RD 338 Gates Lake 335 T RD RE S ) " FOREST RD 1285 BAY RD AY RD # FOREST RD 168 ( ! RIGH T OF W FO RE ST RD 166 FOREST RD 167 Kenyon Springs KENYON RD Bay Spring FO RE S T RD 16 6 Black Creek FEDERAL FOREST DEVELOPMENT 327 Pelican Lake ( ! East Fork Chippewa River FOREST RD 164 FO RE S T RD 16 4 FO R E ST R D 16 3 FOREST RD 164 T. CHIPPEWA Hungry Run BEAR LAKE RD FOREST RD 1240 Reins Creek D1 63 FO RE ST R 326 ST R D Hay Creek RD GG FO R E E ST FO R " ) 162 Fishtrap Creek ( ! ( ! Bear ( ! ( ! Lake ! ( Camp Fourteen Creek !! ( ( ! (( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Cub Lake R BE A LAK E T. DRAPER RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:87,010 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - Price County BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ( ! ! ( CHARLES WOLF RD MELZ R D Dryden Creek B A 13 LUTZ RD EDER RD T. GORDON KINNEY RD B A 77 T41 & 42N, R2W, ASHLAND COUNTY GEAR RD Torrey Lake " ) Meyer Lake Trout Lake # ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ) " ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Seagels Lake SINKHOLE RD Muskellunge Lake T. JACOBS ) " # ( ! HAUSCHILD RD X T. PEEKSVILLE d PIEPER RD NAGEL RD MCCARTHY RD RD 166 Muskellunge Creek F OR E ST RE LN (! ! ( N LENZ RD SCHMIDT RD T. SHANAGOLDEN E SIDE FI B A KEMPF RD 13 PEEKSVILLE RD Gates Lake East Fork Chippewa River ) " Schraum Creek AY RD # ( ! RIGH T OF W WALLOW RD FOREST RD 1285 BAY RD FOREST RD 167 Kenyon Springs BOLIER RD KENYON RD Kempf Springs DEVELOPMENT 327 FEDERAL FOREST NEW SHANAGOLDEN RD ( ! B A 13 WAGNER VOGT RD Bay Spring Pelican Lake Camp Four Lake Bullhead Lake MCKINNEY RD BE AR LA KE RD CHIPPEWA Spiller Creek BEAR LAKE RD TOWN HALL RD Pine Creek Reins Creek BUSH RD T. MAIL ROUTE RD 163 RD F OR E ST BEAR LAKE RD Slim Lake RADLINGER RD BLUE MOON RD FOREST RD 164 ) " WEST RD WEST RD V. BUTTERNUT STANGLE RD FO RE ST R D1 63 WITTE RD T. DRAPER NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,840 " ) TY B COU N OL D Beaver Creek COUNTY LINE RD B BONESS RD FLEMMING RD Camp Fourteen Creek ERNST LN WEINBERGER RD Price County POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ) "" ) # ! ( ( ! X ( ! Augustine Creek T. GORDON FI R EL ( ! N T. KNIGHT " ) SILV E (! ! ( N LENZ RD T41 & 42N, R1W, ASHLAND COUNTY RE LN Meyer Lake Trout Lake # ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ) " ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! RC REE KR SILVE R CREE K RD D COLBY JOHN RD (1) T. JACOBS E SIDE FI UBE L RD D MELZ R 13 KINNEY RD B A ID E ( ! East Fork Chippewa River CHARLES WOLF RD ES STR E GEAR RD SINKHOLE RD PINE PLAN T HAUSCHILD RD X ATION RD d 13 FIRE S ON Hildebrandt Creek Butternut Creek ) " PEEKSVILLE RD PEEKSVILLE RD MAS TER MCCARTHY RD B A KEMPF RD LN T. PEEKSVILLE NAGEL RD Schraum Creek Cycle Lake POCIASK RD GWINN RD BOLIER RD NORTH RD B A WAGNER VOGT RD 13 Bullhead Lake Lindbergh Lake BIRCHW OOD LN Little Butternut Lake Luebke Lake McKaskel Lake BASSWOOD LN Bosner Creek # KE RD TOWN HALL RD MAIL ROUTE RD T. CHIPPEWA ) " WEST RD WEST RD NORTH PARK RD # WILLOW LN B N TY C OU OL D ERNST LN Butternut Lake 1:86,200 BALSAM LN RD BONESS RD ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! d Smith Creek Flambeau River ( ! " ) B Price County B NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY CREAMERY RD CREAMERY RD A RK HP Beaver Creek Blueberry Lake T SOU FLEMMING RD COUNTY LINE RD Parker Lake STANGLE RD WITTE RD WEINBERGER RD " ) ) " ( ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ) " ( ! ) " ( ! ( ! ! ( (! ! ( (! ! (d (! ( ! ( ! (! (# ! ( ! ( ! V. BUTTERNUT X ( ! T. AGENDA BLUEBERRY RD AGENDA RD Pine Creek F # Spiller Creek BEAR LAKE RD " ) FLAMBEAU RD BE AR LA BUSH RD RADLINGER RD BLUE MOON RD Slim Lake ORCHARD RD MCKINNEY RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T RE S RD 9 CHIP PE WA ( ! N T. JACOBS T41 & 42N, R1E, ASHLAND COUNTY ID ES Augustine Creek IR EF SILV E EL FI RE LN (2 ) T. KNIGHT # RC REE KR SILVE R CREE K RD D A SW LINE RD R EEK COLBY JOHN RD (1) D ATION CR PINE PLAN T MP STR EUB EL R D RODDIS Hurd Creek East Fork Chippewa River RD RE T. MERCER ( ! RD LN U NA T IRE " ) Hildebrandt Creek MAS TER SO N F FF T. PEEKSVILLE Butternut Creek SR A EA R OM D Turtle Flambeau Flowage Cycle Lake Minnow ) Lake " RODDIS LINE RD POCIASK RD BEAU FLA M DAM RD GWINN RD Little Butternut Lake " ) Bosner Creek # ORCHARD RD # Deer Creek # ELMWOOD RD T. AGENDA F Swamp Creek F BASSWOOD LN " ) N RD PINEHAVE McKaskel Lake BIRCHWOOD LN Lindbergh Lake Luebke Lake BLUEBERRY RD T. SHERMAN ) " AGENDA RD Parker Lake # Blueberry Lake Flambeau River H OF KE R N LA FMA D Hay Creek Flowage CREAMERY RD CREA MERY RD # V. BUTTERNUT FLAMBEAU RD WILLOW LN d Smith Creek BALSAM LN Creeds Flowage Hoffman Lake # Hoffman Creek T SOU Hay Creek AR K HP Hay Lake RD ( ! Price County " ) B NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,670 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X CITY OF ASHLAND, ASHLAND COUNTY Lake Superior EP LAK ARK RD MACK RD # D E ST TOLL RD E RAIL 6TH SUM RD R ARK AL P d VE 2 HA 26 T £ ¤ d S T RI INDU d DR X MCDONALD RD KNIGHT RD ) " ) " " ) ) "" ) A d ) " d d d d Wood Creek Slough WOODBURY LN Lake Superior ) " JUNCTION RD B A 137 ) " BINSFIELD RD CRE E K MAPLE LN B A BA YC I TY 112 SUMMIT RD W FARM RD CITY HEIGHTS RD HOLMES RD d ) " OLD AIRPORT RD " ) K GRIFFITH RD BEASER RD COUNTY LINE RD d B A 13 BUTTERWORTH RD PEARCE RD d TL EB EA RT RA ) " LIT WEISTER RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:42,690 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT P K EE CR RAP CREEK ART BE BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X NORTH PARK RD TAMARACK LN # " ) F CEMETERY RD W IOWA ST CH UN DIT ST. CECELIA RD N MAIN N 4TH ST ST ASH LN BEAR LAKE RD N 3RD ST B A 13 ST N 4TH ST W MICHIGAN ST N 2ND ST S 3RD ST W ILLINOIS Parker Lake ) " ) " # W MIN NESOTA ST CHARLIE FISCHER ST # WEST RD d CREAMERY RD SOUTH PARK RD K REE TC U RN B BU TT E LAKE VIEW DR X OLD C O U N TY BUSH RD VILLAGE OF BUTTERNUT, ASHLAND COUNTY NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:13,780 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X E BUTLER RD MEMORY LN B A 169 DR W TYLER AVE WHITE AVE d LN T AVE ) " S WEST ST W BENNET MO NT RE AL C ) " OLSO ASHLAND AVE # MOORE ST d RE EK N RD HARING ST HILLCREST DR CHICAGO AVE LINCOLN IRON ST E LAYMAN DR ELM YMAN CEMETERY DR A J SULLIVAN DR W LA DR LAZORIK DR PROSPECT ST E ETT FAY ER RIV BAD d X AVE d B A 77 IS T CHR JEFFERSON AVE LUT Z RD GG B A 13 HIGH ST ) " 2ND AVE DRAKE ST " ) MONROE ST d THOMAS ST 3RD AVE BERKSHIRE DR E LAK DR HENRY ST GOLF COURSE RD CITY OF MELLEN, ASHLAND COUNTY TY CI PINECREST LN DEVILS CREEK K EE CR NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:11,040 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X BAYFIELD COUNTY Table 12: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – BAYFIELD COUNTY HAZUS 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - BAYFIELD COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted T. OF BARKSDALE T. OF BARNES T. OF BAYFIELD T. OF BAYVIEW T. OF BELL T. OF CABLE T. OF CLOVER T. OF DELTA T. OF DRUMMOND T. OF GRAND VIEW T. OF IRON RIVER T. OF KELLY T. OF KEYSTONE T. OF LINCOLN T. OF ORIENTA T. OF PORT WING V. OF MASON GRAND TOTAL 3 25 2 1 7 2 6 2 8 3 2 1 1 7 2 5 1 78 Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,160.00 386,859.00 30,064.00 844.00 24,705.00 32,384.00 54,462.00 127,962.00 15,400.00 28,498.00 18,585.00 1,680.00 33,580.00 15,115.00 16,898.00 6,580.00 796,776.00 85 1,252.00 137,575.00 9,891.00 9,553.00 8,864.00 11,146.00 17,211.00 47,133.00 4,026.00 12,049.00 14,018.00 161.00 12,866.00 6,402.00 6,698.00 41,904.00 340,749.00 - Debris Generated (tons) 31 313 17 6 44 6 44 15 84 36 20 27 41 48 44 360 3 1,139 HAZUS 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - BAYFIELD COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted T. OF BARKSDALE T. OF BARNES T. OF BAYFIELD T. OF BAYVIEW T. OF BELL T. OF CABLE T. OF CLOVER T. OF DELTA T. OF DRUMMOND T. OF EILEEN T. OF GRAND VIEW T. OF IRON RIVER T. OF KELLY T. OF KEYSTONE T. OF LINCOLN T. OF NAMAKAGON T. OF ORIENTA T. OF OULU T. OF PORT WING T. OF TRIPP V. OF MASON GRAND TOTAL 3 37 4 2 9 4 7 3 12 1 4 5 1 1 7 2 2 1 7 1 1 114 Estimated Building Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 3,160.00 777,918.00 66,238.00 0 2,785.00 45,260.00 40,251.00 84,348.00 197,339.00 490.00 17,950.00 247,964.00 21,468.00 1,680.00 60,070.00 0 5,680.00 0 23,871.00 6,236.00 7,326.00 1,610,034.00 86 Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,245.00 271,633.00 21,015.00 0 19,087.00 20,142.00 12,818.00 27,697.00 66,737.00 980.00 6,897.00 66,407.00 18,015.00 161.00 18,486.00 0 2,304.00 0 8,798.00 2,268.00 47,000.00 611,690.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207.00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 207.00 Debris Generated (tons) 31 718 40 18 46 25 49 19 121 4 54 142 27 41 57 22 31 2 372 26 3 1848 T51 & 52N, R3, 4 & 5W, BAYFIELD COUNTY T. LA POINTE RIDGE RD Sand River HYDE RD Lake Superior Lake Superior BLUEBERR Y RD N BIG SA # D BAY RD (1) ENGHOL M RD Raspberry River Frog Creek Red Cliff Creek K RD T. RUSSELL PETERSON HILL RD EAGLE ISLAND RD OL D CTH OLD CTH K RD EMIL RD MAWIKWE RD B A 13 VAL L EC H O # " ) North Pikes Creek " ) J RD EY ZS U LT SCH LL VA HO EC 1:88,620 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT WA MP RD T. BELL NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY # X COMPTON RD HAPPY HOLLOW RD T. BAYFIELD " ) B A EY R D Saxine Creek SOPER RD LA MONT RD 13 BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T49 & 50N, R9W, BAYFIELD COUNTY T. PORT WING B A AIRPORT RD AIRPORT RD # Iron River BENSON RD AIRPORT RD SEVERSON RD HARPER RD EVERGREEN RD TAR PAPER ALLEY EVERGREEN RD SEVERSON RD ORIENTA FALLS RD SING RD WEST H EL EAST ORIENTA FALLS RD OLD 13 RD Fish Creek LANDON RD OLD 13 RD ( ! ( ! EVERGREEN RD 13 Lake Superior T. ORIENTA TAR PAPER ALLEY FRONEY RD East Fork Iron River ( ! RHANS RD TAR PAPER ALLEY PLUTY RD KAUKAMO RD AIRPORT RD GREEN RD " ) B AIRPORT RD MIDDLEMAN RD BOULEVARD RD T. CLOVERLAND SORENSON RD HAUTALA RD T. OULU NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:52,970 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ON R !" ( ) ) " T49 & 50N, R8W, BAYFIELD COUNTY X E AC EPL FIR D OL 13 LENAWEE RD B A RD RD Lake Superior Cranberry River T. CLOVER 13 E UV TO ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( TOUVE RD RD MATTHEWS R ( ! X d ")") B A SEVERSON RD ARNEY RD LANDON RD OLD 13 RD ALMSTEAD RD Flag River MORRISON RD AIRPORT RD EVERGREEN RD ! ( ( ! WHITE BIRCH RD (1) AIRPORT RD EVERGREEN RD BECKMAN RD JARDINE RD # T. ORIENTA ) " A MORRISON RD SOUTH FAY RD EVERGREEN RD AIRPORT RD SEVERSON RD T. PORT WING EAST FAY RD WEST FAY RD BENSON RD PORT WING LINE RD FRO NEY RD Iron River SORENSON RD SORENSON RD KAUKAMO RD AIRPORT RD ! ( Kolin Creek X LE A BA TT AIRPORT RD ) " E RD East Fork Iron River HESSEY RD T. WASHBURN T. TRIPP T. OULU NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:76,990 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - X D ER EA BASE FEATURES CRITICALATTLFACILITIES B U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X d (! (! ( !! ( TOUVE RD 13 d Lake Superior T49 & 50N, R7W, BAYFIELD COUNTY ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( d ) " ) " Lost Creek Number One d (" ! )d ) " T RD SHORT CU 13 KLEMIK RD X Cranberry River B A BARK RIVER RD NICOLETTI RD B A NORTH STONE RD ( ! Lake Superior Lost Creek Number Two BUSCHE TOW N RD Bark River E FI R D OL 13 LENAWEE RD 13 RD PL T. CLOVER ACE RD E UV TO RD Little Siskiwit Lake d RIV E R RD RD "" ) ) D Perch Lake T. BELL SOUT H STONE RD MATTHEWS RD TOUVE RD YR CK RO L U ND (! (! ( ( ( ! !! TOUVE RD ( ! S WED B A RK Siskiwit Lake !! ( ( ALM STEAD RD N BOUNDARY RD LENAWEE RD ARNEY RD MORRISON RD WHITE BIRCH RD (1) E CAMPBELL RD FEDERAL FOREST 680 RD Flag River JARDINE RD T. PORT WING ## Lenawee Creek N BOUNDARY EX # SEVEN MILE RD EAST FAY RD MORRISON RD LEN AWEE RD R FO D SAN PR TR A ES TR AL FO R EST 436 RD 36 D2 D BLASTING SITE Lake Lenawee AXE RD T. WASHBURN RA L BA TT LE FEDERAL FOR E FED FOR T. ORIENTA EST R 251 D D XE R EST 693 RD ER ET OW E RD WE RY LEN A EB LE A FED ERA L FOR BLU BA TT R HESSEY RD TR ES RE FO Moose Lake ST - - D POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT 7R 42 1:104,850 AL NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Rib Lake ER E TTL D FED BA ER AX D6 91 T. TRIPP FO R SORENSON RD Crystal Lake FED ER BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X 13 T49, 50 & 51N, R6W, BAYFIELD COUNTY E SPIRIT POINT RD Saxine Creek X ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( d ) " ) " Lost Creek Number One d 13 Siskiwit River NORTH T. BAYFIELD A ST KLEMIK RD RD GE N RD BUS CHE TOW Bark River PRATT RD S RD HENKIN T RD SHORT CU 13 HAPPY HOLLOW RD B A # B A NORTH STONE RD ( ! NICOLETTI RD Lost Creek Number Two HAPPY HOLLOW RD Lake Superior BARK RIVER RD MOUNTAIN RD STAR ROUTE Little Siskiwit Lake d RD RD CKY RO Perch Lake RF TTE BU " ) C T. BELL SOUTH STONE RD TTHEWS RD ( ! DR JODI RD 105 RD OLD C T. CLOVER D IEL LOST LAKE RD R RIVE RD LUND SWED BARK Siskiwit Lake LENAWEE RD N BOUNDARY RD E CAMPBELL RD FEDERAL FOREST 680 RD FORE ST FE DER N BOUNDARY EX ## SEVEN MILE RD Lenawee Creek EST 43 6 RD 36 C TRA D PR BLASTING SITE Lake Lenawee FEDERAL FOREST 694 RD NORTH MAPLE HILL RD FEDERAL FOREST 437 RD (1) RD 697 BATTLE AXE RD FEDERAL FOR EST 695 FEDERAL FOR EST 693 RD RD T. WASHBURN S MAPLE HILL RD D YR RR BE UE BL PAU 27 RD 1:103,580 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - LSO D NR CHURCH CORNER RD T4 ES OR NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Moose Lake PAJALA RD F AL ER FE D FO RE ST RD 69 1 TO W ER RD 103 " ) D SAN LEN AW EE VA N FOR E ST WEST MAPLE HILL RD LEN AWEE RD D2 TR ES FOR AL FOR RD 102 T. BAYVIEW Crystal Lake FORE ST d Sand River B A BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ST O NE RD # " ) ) " SCH R EY ALL ULT OV ZS H EC WA MP R D T49, 50 & 51N, R5W, BAYFIELD COUNTY D P RATT RD HENKI N ECHO VALLEY RD NORTH HAPPY HOLLOW RD GE RD MOUNTAIN RD GOTCHLING RD S RD STA T. BAYFIELD # STAR ROUTE STAR ROUTE KY RD Perch Lake # J AM M ER C RO H IL T BU LD F IE DR SKI HILL RD WHITING RD D OLD C J OD I R TER D T. BELL LR " ) C 10 RD TL L IT I OU ES XR D WHIT T ING RD LOST LAKE RD 5 NE RD NE RD TO ELA EST FI R NS TH VA F OR 103 B A 13 KJARVICK RD RD Lake Superior ( ! RD 102 MC CULLOCH RD FOREST I SM T. BAYVIEW Sioux River " ) SN I EM ES T OR D NN IEM ES T OR D C NORTH MAPLE HILL RD 695 RD T. WASHBURN OLD C RD WEST MAPLE HILL RD T RD 69 7 FEDERAL FOREST 437 RD (1) FEDERA L FOREST MAKI RD ) " FEDERAL FOREST 694 RD FORES S MAPLE HILL RD " ) C ) " H OV E LN LSO NR D ) " )" " C. WASHBURN ) ) " ) " RD U PA 1:85,600 CHURCH CORNER RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - d d MCKINLEY ST 436 T. RUSSELL X BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ) " T. RUSSELL " ) J RD SCH UL T Z SW EY ALL OV ECH AMP RD T48, 49 & 50N, R4W, BAYFIELD COUNTY RD S RD HENKIN GOTCHLING RD PRAT T ECHO VALLEY RD NORTH T. BAYFIELD d RD X " ) H X T. LA POINTE ) " " ) ) " ( ! Lake Superior D WH IT T ING HS UT SO RE HO RD RD LOST LAKE R UX SIO # # ( ! ( ! ( ! E TLE LIT 13 RVIC WHITING RD B A Y SE L RD H IL SKI HILL RD # FERR Pikes Creek MER JAM R RD ) " d ) " STAR ROUTE DD IEL ) C. BAYFIELD #" # STAR ROUTE RF TTE BU RE HO HS RT NO ( ! 102 D 10 E LAN TR E FIR TH VA NS TO NE I SM FOR ES MC CULLOCH RD FOREST RD RD 3 KJARVICK RD B A 13 T. BAYVIEW SN IEM EST O RD NN IEM ES TO RD Sioux River MAKI RD ) " NORTH MAPLE HILL RD WEST MAPLE HILL RD OLD C RD S MAPLE HILL RD ) " " ) D ) " )" " ) C. WASHBURN ) " CHURCH CORNER RD NNEBO RD T. WASHBURN d") MCKINLEY RD R ON ULS PA E LN HOV C X d Kakagon Slough Lake Superior Kakagon River WANNEBO RD NEVERS RD Wood Creek Slough ENGO RD WEDAL RD BREVAK RD T. SANBORN NOLANDER RD BA Y F NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:110,300 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - JOHNSON RD # REYKDAL RD RON TR D T. BARKSDALE ! ( (! ! ( Beartrap Creek ( (! (! ! ( !! ( BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X B AIRPO MIDDLEMAN RD BOULEVARD R T. ORIENTA " ) HAUTALA RD T47 & 48N, R9W, BAYFIELD COUNTY T. CLOVERLAND PUDAS RD " ) ( ! SEVEN MILE RD K KA U HOOVER LINE RD H Bois Brule River East Fork Iron River N HISSA RD R AMO FAIRVIEW RD D ERIKKILA RD " ) A BOULEVARD RD ( ! ( ! T. OULU " ) T. TRIPP d MANNIK RD BAYFIELD LINE RD RANKINSON RD ( ! RANGE LINE RD AIRPORT RD B Reefer Creek )# " d " ) Dechamps Creek LAVIN RD Iron River " ) RD A BAIN RD FIRE LA MORTEN SON RD # CARLSON RD KI WS 2 WILLS RD (3) S SHORE GRADE RD WN HALL RD Russell Lake LINGREN RD 27 Mud Lake ) " Jones Lake Richardson Lake GALLAGER RD Lindgren Lake R PERO Wright Lake LAKE MAN Peterson Lake # Perch Lake H Mullenhoff Lake # Bismarck Lake Rogers Lake Jesse Lake Ahmeek Lake 2 # Spider Lake Iron Lake £ ¤ Half Moon Lake Moon Lake Hostrawser Lake Carroll Lake Camp Eleven Lake B A Crystal Lake HUGHES TO ANDERSON RD Hoodoo Lake Deep Lake Dahl Creek T. HUGHES # " ) ) " # OR £ ¤ X Little Bois Brule River # LO OLD HWY 2 RD ( ! " ) ) " Fire Lake # ( ! Spring Lake Simpson Lake Muskeg Creek COUNTY LINE RD Bois Brule River X# SPRING LAKE RD RD SZNAIDER RD HOLLANDER RD RD T. BRULE JACK MILLER RD Jackman Lake KE R D H KO HO CCC SQUARE RD OULU ROCK RD EAST VIEW RD " ) HOOPER RD ) " KORPI RD WEST COLBY RD LEPPANEN RD MUSKEG RD ( ! RAIVALA RD HOOVER LINE RD FF " ) Lost Lake T. IRON RIVER RUTH LAKE RD SAND RD D Frick Lake Bass Lake Nestle Lake Lake Ruth ( ! Camp Two Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,140 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - T. DELTA BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X AIRPORT AIRPORT RD T. PORT WING T. CLOVER T47 & 48N, R8W, BAYFIELD COUNTY HESSEY RD T. ORIENTA AUTALA RD TTL BA East Fork Iron River XE EA RD N HISSA RD FEDE R AL ( ! MCLEAN RD KAU T. WASHBURN OR KAM D FAIRVIEW RD Dechamps Creek " ) A RD HAHN D LE A XE R HOOPER RD KORPI RD D d d Silver Sack Lake LAVIN RD LAVIN RD TN Jackman Lake ( ! A ! ( ( ! MORTENSON RD ( ! Buskey Bay Rogers Lake Jesse Lake RUTH LAKE RD Lake Ruth Camp Two Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,530 T. DELTA Lake Nokomis Twin Bear Lake T. KEYSTONE Duck Crooked Lake Lake Hart Lake 34 Bass Lake Nestle Lake T. IRON RIVER Lake Millicent Cat Lake McCarry Lake Buck Lake Island Lake T RD 2 T. HUGHES D Five Island Lake Finger Lake Toothpick Lake Eagle Lake Inch Lake Hildur Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - Lester Lake - Mystery Getsey Lake Lake Tub Lake ST 425 RD Bismarck Lake Pike Lake AKE R FEDE RAL FO RE Lost Lake L PINE Pine Lake D D Mullenhoff Lake # FIRE TOWER RD RD LAKE MA N " ) AKE R Nw Twin Lake Twin Lakes FORES Ahmeek Lake Perch Lake H Honey Lake RD Wright Lake Iron Lake # Y2 ALLAGER RD PINE L Spider Lake HW Richardson Lake Peterson Lake # OL D Russell Lake Moon Lake Hostrawser Lake T. PILSEN Wentzel Lake RD Jones Lake Half Moon Lake LA KE Dahl Creek Mud Lake 2 Lake River 3R OR LO # £ ¤ Sawdust Lake RE S T 22 WS KI RD " ) ) " Topside Lake HART Crystal Lake F OR Loon Lake HART LAKE RD # Deep Lake Mirror Lake RD 242 EST Angus Lake # ( ! Spring Lake Simpson Lake Johnson Lake Long Lake JACK X# SPRING LAKE RD FIRE LAKE RD Fire Lake Hobbs Lake L FO " ) 46 E RA Iron River RD Bladder Lake FED EAST VIEW RD T. BARKSDALE R AKE ER L Bailey Lake D BLA D "# ) d BA IL EY L AK ER D TN R D1 BA T T RANGE LINE RD AIRPORT RD Muskeg Creek MANNIK RD BAYFIELD LINE RD RAIVALA RD MUSKEG RD d WEIDENAR RD T. TRIPP T. OULU FORE S T 24 8 Camp One Lake Wolf Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X RD T. CLOVER T. PORT WING T. ORIENTA 69 1 HESSEY RD FEDERAL FO RD RE ST RD RD FO 27 RE ST 236 RD Hoist Lake T4 ES FORE S T 24 8 OR FEDE R AL Moose T47 & 48N, R7W, BAYFIELD COUNTY Lake F AL Rib Lake D ER TL ER FED T BA X EA Cabin Lake Sunken Camp Lakes T. WASHBURN FO FEDE RA L RE ST 685 RD MCLEAN RD FED ER AL F OR E ST 24 8 Horseshoe Lake RD LE A XE R D RE ST HAHN AL F O RD FEDE R D TN R D1 D BA T T 236 R T. TRIPP AL FO T 23 RE S RE ST D 239 R 7 RD KE R D d d Silver Sack Lake FEDE R L FO E RA T. BARKSDALE A ER L Bailey Lake D BLA D BA IL FED EY L AK ER Summit Lake FEDERAL FOREST 242 RD LAVIN RD TN Bladder Lake RD 46 CHERRYVILLE RD ( ! ! ( T. PILSEN HW Y2 RD Honey Lake D AKE R T. IRON RIVER FEDE RE S T 419 ST 2 L FO RE FO AL ER OL D L PINE MOQUAH FED Wentzel Lake Pine Lake RAL F RD Topside Lake Sawdust Lake Lake River E RA Loon Lake FED Angus Lake D F OR 37 R Mirror Lake T RD 242 ES FIRE TOWER RD Johnson Lake RD ( ! Long Lake OR E S T 236 ( ! Nw Twin Lake Twin Lakes Spider Lake " ) Buck Lake Island Lake PIT RD G £ ¤ 2 North Fish Creek Eagle Lake L FO FEDE RAL FO RE E RA FED 34 Twin Bear Lake T RD 2 Hart Lake FORES Duck Crooked Lake Lake ST 425 RD RE S T 22 HART LAKE RD 3R D Lake Nokomis Five Island Lake Finger Lake Toothpick Lake Inch Lake H " ) Lester Lake Getsey Mystery Lake Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,490 Tub Lake Camp One Lake # SU S T. KEYSTONE IE N KA KEYSTONE RD " ) E Boris Lake ( ! T. DELTA POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - # RD - T. MASON BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. CLOVER RE ST Lake FO FO RE 4 ST Long Lake 27 RD FO FEDE RA L RE ST 685 E RA L FO RD RE S T 25 1 RD WANNEBO RD T. WASHBURN A L FO FEDE R STRECKER RD FED Cabin Lake Sunken Camp Lakes FEDERAL FO RE ST 236 RD AL ER Hoist Lake PAJALA RD FED RD 69 1 T47 & 48N, R6W, BAYFIELD COUNTYMoose Rib Lake 24 8 Horseshoe Lake RD BREVAK RD E ST FEDERA L FOREST OR 0 LF ENGO RD Sioux River RD 50 E RA 429 RD RE ST FED A L FO FEDE R RE ST 236 R North Fork Whittlesey Creek D COZY CORNER RD FEDERAL FOREST 245 RD L FO A L FO FEDE R E RA McGinnis Lake ( ! 239 R 7 RD RE ST T 23 RE S # T. BARKSDALE D RANGE RD FED Summit Lake FOREST 242 RD CHERRYVILLE RD CHERRYVILLE RD CHERRYVILLE RD CHERRYVILLE RD R BA N RO # RD KARABA RD FED MOQUAH CROSS RD ER AL FO FED RE E RA ST 2 37 R D FEDE ) " FISH CREEK RD RE ST T. PILSEN RA L F O RD RE S T 419 L FO G PINE CREE K RD 236 R D " ) Lake Louise PIT RD North Fish Creek £ ¤ OLD US 2 2 # £ ¤ " ) G KLOBUCHER RD 2 ) " RASPOTNIK RD £ ¤ 2 IE N KA # RD KEYSTONE RD £ ¤ 63 " ) E Boris Lake " ) F ( ! T. MASON NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,730 T. EILEEN PEZDERIC RD SU S DENNIS RD KALGREN RD # YACHINICH RD COLBY RD T. KEYSTONE South Fish Creek POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - CURRY RD Spider Lake T. KELLY BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X N LSO RD " ) )" " ) ) " d d COUNTY T47 & 48N, R5W, BAYFIELD X C. WASHBURN " ) PAJALA RD CHURCH CORNER RD MCKINLEY RD U PA Long Lake WANNEBO RD A L FO FEDE R STRECKER RD NEVERS RD RD 50 429 RD RE ST Sioux River T. WASHBURN ENGO RD ENGO RD BREVAK RD FEDERA L FOREST 0 WEDAL RD Bono Creek NOLANDER RD North Fork Whittlesey Creek FEDERAL FOREST 245 RD T. BARKSDALE # COZY CORNER RD McGinnis Lake ( ! B A 13 RANGE RD # Lake Superior ) " Whittlesey Creek CHERRYVILLE RD CHERRYVILLE RD CHERRYVILLE RD ( ! d !! ( ( ) " d ( ! Fish Creek # KARABA RD CROSS RD FIS H CREEK RD North Fish Creek d d d "" ) ) ) " B A 137 d South Fish Creek £ ¤ OLD US 2 d ) " C. ASHLAND Fish Creek Spring G PINE CREE K RD ) " " ) ) "" ) d HEGLUND RD BEASER RD T. PILSEN ) " ) " VERNERS RD 2 HAGSTROM RD # COUNTY LINE RD 112 COLBY RD RASPOTNIK RD DENNIS RD ASHLAND BAYFIELD RD T. EILEEN £ ¤ WOODLAND RD # HEGSTROM RD WAKEFIELD RD # # # T. GINGLES Beartrap Creek GILLES RD CURRY RD PEZDERIC RD 63 DAHLSTROM RD KLAUS RD BEASER RD HIGHLAND RD B A CHAPEK RD ) " BEASER RD YACHINICH RD T. KEYSTONE White River B A 118 " ) F NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,580 T. KELLY FRANCISKOVICH RD KLOBUCHER RD WEISTER RD ) " POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - !! ( ( #d BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ! Saunders ( Pond T. BRULE Lake Ruth T45 & 46N, R9W, BAYFIELD COUNTY T. IRON RIVER Muskellunge Lake PERO RD Bois Brule River Camp Two Lake D L AK ER Rush Lake VOLKER RD HUFFGARD RD MORELAND LAKE RD Big Lake " ) A HUGHES TOWN LINE RD B A CANTHOOK LAKE RD COUNTY LINE RD 27 RD STER RD N CHURCH MOORE RD HUFFGARD RD VOLKER RD WEB MOTTS RD BINGO RD West Eightmile Lake AIRPORT RD EIGHT MILE LAKE BECK RD S T. DELTA W DELTA RD HALFWAY RD RADIO STATION RD " ) East Eightmile Lake RD T. HIGHLAND Blue Lake STER RD Nancy Lake Travers Lake WEB MUCK LAKE RD Ducetts Lakes MOORE RD Bass Lake " ) A Wilderness Lake Claire Lake MU Camp Nine Lake RR BARNES RD AY KE LA ISLAND LAKE RD ( ! Sand Bar Lake Hopkins Lake B A 27 A Tomahawk Lake Priest Lake Little Island Lake KAUFMAN RD SLETNER RD HALL RD T. DRUMMOND Kelly Lake Ellison Lake Mirror Lake JENRICH RD BECK RD " ) MOORE RD D RD ! ( Paradise Lake T. BARNES LITTLE ISLAN Sand Lake Loon Lake BARNES RD RD ( ! (( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ! ( Muck Lake CHENEY LAKE RD !! ( ( Twin Lake D ELL R CO RR ( ! "" ) ) " ) Y Y Henderson Lake N ER " ) ( ! NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,370 Sweet Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - D Shunenberg Lake Robinson Lake DR Pickerel Lake Pease Creek SP ON KE LA LD EW I ID L Idlewild Lake TAR RD D T. GORDON ( ! " ) LAK CONNOR'S RD N PEASE RD Catherine Lake ROBINSON LAKE RD Beauregard Lake Silver Lake K IE T. HUGHES MU S ! ( ( ! ( ! Trout Lake WEBSTER RD RUSH LAKE RD BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Muskellunge Lake Toothpick Lake " ) Eagle Lake H EAGLE LAKE RD Bear Lake # ( !! ( L AK ER D WEBSTER RD MU S K IE T. HUGHES Silver Lake Happles Lake " ) A T CA N H OO KL AKE Basswood Lake L TA W DE RD Square Lake RD Frog Lake STER WEB RD A Bufo Lake Anderson Lake Lee Lake Camp Nine Lake BARNES RD REYNARD LAKE RD Dry Well Lake JAHN'S RD T. BARNES Wabigon Lake Pond Lake KAUFMAN RD CUT OFF RD Bass Lake Mud Lake Beaver Lake Physa Muck Lund Lake Lake Lake Planorbis Lake Chelonia Lake Perch Flakefjord Lake Lake Clay Lake Reynard Lake Wishbone Lake Line Lake Stratton Ponds Nelson Lake JENRICH RD SLETNER RD HALL RD White River WARNER RD Bear Pond " ) # Hollibar Lake Bellevue Lake Rainbow Lake Wilderness Nancy Lake Claire Lake Lake Travers Lake Sawmill Lake ROCKY RUN RD Tower Lake A ELT RD ND East Eightmile EIGHT M ILE LAKE Lake RD Lake Bullhead # South Fork White River BECK RD West Eightmile Lake CA MP TWO RD KN OLLS RD Lake Two W DELTA Lake # Everett Lake T. DELTA W DELTA RD Camp One Lake antom ake Mud Flat Heart Lake Lake West Lake Steelhead Lake CANTHOOK LAKE RD L Lake Delta Bell Lake Spirit Lake Canthook Lake Sand Lake Swede Lake SCENIC DR RD Tub Lake Mystery Getsey Lake Lake T45 & 46N, R8W, BAYFIELD COUNTY Wolf Ph Bog Lake Hildur Lake ( ! Trout Lake Lester Lake CAMP ONE RD Camp Two Lake Nestle Twin Lake Bear Lake DELTA-DRUMMOND RD T. IRON RIVER Lake Ruth Mirror Bullhead Lake Lake Esox Rana Lake Lake Armstrong Lake T. DRUMMOND Balsam Pond Cisco Lake Jorgenson Lake BECK RD Kelly Lake Twin Lake Long Lake Branch Flynn Lake # HO LL R D ) " " ) D DR SP ON TAR D PEASE RD ER LONGVIEW RD LAK Shunenberg Lake Sweet Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,140 " ) N POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - £ ¤ 63 Pease Creek - X E N AD " ) ( ! ! Pigeon ( ( Lake ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! GR ( ! ( ! ( ! Drummond Lake RE Mountain Lake TU AS EP RS E CO RR ( ! # Mill Pond Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X d NL AKE OW # Everett Lake Basswood Lake Steelhead Lake KNOLLS RD LT A W DE RD Square Lake Frog Lake " ) ) " H # Lake Two Three Lake # South Fork White River SANDOR RD South Fish Creek Kern Creek Hollibar Lake REITEN RD WHIT CUT OFF RD # E RIV ER R D HO SNA TM White River Bass Lake ROCKY RUN RD RS AN T. MASON KE RD TR L HANSON RD West Lake Canthook Lake Sawmill Lake E SUTHERLAND RD H SUT REYNARD LAKE RD Dry Well Lake JAHN'S RD Wabigon Lake Armstrong Lake Jorgenson Lake Perch Lake STAR LAKE RD Anodanta Lake Little Star Boggy Lake Pond Star Lake Nymphia Lake Arrowhead Mirror Lake Bullhead Lake LakeRana Esox Lake Lake Overby Lake Johnson Springs Cisco T. DRUMMOND Lake Pot Lake Long Lake Branch HO RS EP Egg Lake # AS TU RE GR AD Drummond Lake ( ! NYMPHIA LAKE RD N SWEDEN DR # Flynn Lake T. GRANDVIEW Tank Lake OL D OU T H 63 S Jader Creek G BUR S ON RD £ ¤ X 63 S SWEDEN DR OLD 63 S # Mill Pond Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,790 D LONGVIEW RD ROSS R N CUT AC ) " ) " " ) 36 RD E ( ! Johnson Creek Cranberry Lake Stratton Ponds Nelson Lake Balsam Pond Broadax Line Lake Lake Lund Lake RD Lee Lake Physa Muck Lake Lake Planorbis Lake Chelonia Lake Flakefjord Lake Clay Lake Reynard Lake Wishbone Lake ARNIE CA Bufo Lake Anderson Lake ! Pigeon ( ( ! ( Lake ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! Hanson Creek Beaver Lake Bear Pond Pond Lake Kern Lake RLSON Rainbow Lake RD RD Mud Lake Teacup WARNER RD Lake ND A ELT Tower Lake A ERL ND Bellevue Lake WICKLUND RD K " ) T. DELTA RD H OO Hay Lake Lake Delta Lake Bullhead ND T CA N E LAK Swede Lake Bell Lake Spirit Lake SCEN IC DR RD Deep Lake CA MP TWO RD Camp Two Lake Phantom Lake Mud Flat Heart Lake Lake LU # ( ! ! ( Wolf Lake ER D T45 & 46N, R7W, BAYFIELD COUNTY PIKE RIVER RD AKE R Bear Lake ! ( Camp One Lake SO D Hildur Lake Tub Lake CAMP ONE RD H Mystery Getsey Lake Lake MASON DELTA RD Lester Lake " ) ( ! Finger Lake Toothpick Lake DELTA-DRUMMOND RD G LE L T. IRON RIVER d NL AKE OW EN D R KE RD LA DEER LICK POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Sage Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. EILEEN " ) F T45 & 46N, R6W, BAYFIELD COUNTY SANDOR RD MOONSHINE ALLEY RD " ) E VRANES RD BENOIT RD FRANCISKOVICH RD T. KEYSTONE ( ! ) " OLAF JOHNSON RD 63 T. KELLY " ) E ( ! FAITH CHURCH RD VER RD HO RS TM SNA K AN RD ET RL White River BEEBE RD # HANSON RD # E RI £ ¤ REITEN RD T. DELTA WHIT South Fish Creek WICKLUND RD SO D ER LU ND RD MASON DELTA RD Schramm Creek HO T. MASON LUND RD SUTHERLAND RD H SUT SUTHERLAND RD RD LMS ) " X ) " ) " V. MASON E RL RD ( #! BROWN RD WILSON RD RD DERSON YDERSTAD RD AND BILL AN Hanson Creek d ( ! Johnson Creek Star Lake T. GRANDVIEW T. DRUMMOND Little Star Boggy Lake Pond ( ! Nymphia Lake X Jader Creek O 63 S U TH DYBEDAL RD d Siegal Lake Olson Lake TUTTLES LN Deer Lake ( ! KO SKI R D RD 63 S SWEDEN DR OLD 63 S OLD GRA DE RD £ ¤ " ) D CUT AC Pre-Emption Creek 36 RD S ON OL D DYBEDAL RD E ( ! ) " Tank Lake RD G BUR N ALTAMONT RD # RLSON Pot Lake £ ¤ 63 ARNIE CA Springs Eighteenmile Creek NYMPHIA LAKE RD N SWEDEN DR #Johnson T. LINCOLN Long Lake Branch ( ! RO SS R Lake Osborn D CAMP EIGHT RD DE ER LICK LAKE RD Sage Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,400 CAMP EIGHT RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X E ALTAMONT R GILLES T. EILEEN B A 118 T45 & 46N, R5W, BAYFIELD COUNTY FRANCISKOVICH RD MOONSHINE ALLEY RD VRANES RD BENOIT RD OLBY RD (1) T. MASON MAPLE RIDGE RD " ) E ! ( SR OL M LE AP D GE RD YONKOVICH RD PETRIN RD ) " X ( #! YDERSTAD RD ARGO RD OSREDKAR RD ! ( RS PETE WILSON RD ) " TODY RD BROWN RD RD " ) HEINO RD ! ( E d ! ( T. WHITE RIVER M " ) ) " V. MASON RD R ID ROY ANDERSON RD H LUND RD DE RSON 112 T. KELLY AITH CHURCH RD BILL AN B A RDD KELLY Ra BEEBE RD OLAF JOHNSON RD 63 SCHWIESOW RD DEER CREEK RD # £ ¤ SUTHERLAND RD Rock Creek White River Schramm Creek # ! ( ( ! #d White River Flowage BERWEGER RD " ) F REDINGER RD # AN RD WILDCAT RD BE CK M T. LINCOLN Long Lake Branch HAGER RD LI NCOLN ¤ T. GRANDVIEW £ FOUR CORNERS STORE RD Eighteenmile Creek RD N ALTAMONT RD 63 STENMAN RD Marengo River # LOVERS LANE RD X ( ! INDIAN LAKE RD ( ! DYBEDAL RD E DYBEDAL RD ) " T KYS d ER R D Birch Lake Indian Lake Olson Lake TUTTLES LN ( ! ( (! ! ( ! Deer Lake Long Lake ) " RD T. MARENGO Morgan Creek E ALTAMONT RD KO SKI R D ( ! ( ! ER T OB OLD GRADE RD " ) D ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! TRAIL RD ASHLAND BAYFIELD RD CAMP EIGHT RD CAMP EIGHT RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,770 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - HAKALA RD " ) D Marengo Lake E SNAK Pre-Emption Creek BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ER Y Y D RD KE EW I LD LA KE ( ! ## RD ! ( Tars Creek # ( ! Connor Lake D 27 Pond Lake (! (! ( #! " ) Y Barnes Lake Big Brook Ounce River CRANBERR JOHNSON RD Big Brook Lake Y LAKE RD # Cranberry Lake E MAIL RD Eau Claire River Camp Lake RD !! ( ( (! (! !! ( ( E AK ( ! RL ( ! # EEK RD T. DRUMMOND WE ! ( ( ! A N CR BEARSDA LO SCHAEFER RD MULLIG Mimi Lake Lower Eau Claire Lake Upper Bearsdale Springs ER Devils Lake Mulligan Creek B A PE A S E SHORE RD PE AS E # ( ! # ( ! # ( ( ! (! ! ETSCH LN ! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! Upper Eau Claire Lake ST R LO Middle Eau Claire Lake D ( ! ! ( Mud Lake ! ( ( ! ( ! (# ! DR Smith Lake Birch Lake Bony Lake RD SP ON ( ! BEARSDALE RD Lund Lake ID L Pease Creek Hyatt Spring T AR LA LD EW I ID L Idlewild EA Lake ST D Sweet Lake Shunenberg Lake Robinson Lake Pickerel Lake T43 & 44N, R9W, BAYFIELD COUNTY T. GORDON PEASE RD LAK " ) T. HIGHLAND DENVER RD RNESS DR Otter Creek EAST MAIL RD # T. BARNES TH CO P PE ER D P CO P IN ERM E LO OP T. CABLE B A 27 T. WASCOTT HU TC H RD West Fork Totagatic River Haymaker Creek Hills Mill Creek RA BB IT SOU IN RM 43 R D Dawn Lake Totagatic Lake Cole Creek Fuller Lake TOTAGA T. LENROOT Totagatic River # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,690 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X TIC RD PEASE RD ER D DR SP ON Hyatt Spring T AR ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! # N d NL Mill Pond Lake T43 & 44N, R8W, BAYFIELD COUNTY # ( ! " ) BEARSDALE RD Smith Lake Upper Eau Claire Lake Pease Creek D Shunenberg Lake LONGVIEW RD LAK Sweet Lake AKE OW EN D R Grass Lake BIRCHWOOD RD ( ! RE SE TTLEMEN BEARSDALE RD 63 Lake Horseshoe EEK RD Camp Lake BEARSDALE RD BEARSDALE RD Lake Half Moon Lake Holly LAK BLUE MOON RD Lake Dinner Camp Hammil Lake Big Brook Lake T. BARNES Lake Wilipyro Little Rosa Rosa Lake Lake Ounce River Little Brook Henry Lake Otter Creek Motyka Lake W CABLE LAKE RD D AK ER D M RD d NA U GH 63 Porter Lakes KA V A £ ¤ Perry Lake " ) # # MCNAUGHT RD Namekagon River OLE LAKE RD RANDYSEK RD ( ! TIMBER TRL SUNSET RD Fuller Lake Totagatic River TOTAGA TIC RD - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH # 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT T. SPIDER LAKE ER SEELEY FIRE TOW T. LENROOT Pacwawong Lake 1:86,020 YL TRAIL INN RD R PER Big Brook West Fork Totagatic River NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY LIPKE RD Price Lake X )d " ( ! Totagatic Lake Bass Lake E RD 43 R ) " Picture Lake ) " Hills Mill Creek Lake Owen LE LA K T. CABLE Ole Lake RD E CAB Cable Lake Dawn Lake SUNSET RD IO N d Wiley Lake Fondeau Creek West Lake Lerche Lake EO TAT NS WE BA UER RD Samoset Lake Smear Lake N PINE ROCK RD d X RD AN CR HO RD LLY LAKE S PINE ROCK RD MULLIG Stewart Lake T. DRUMMOND Lake Sixteen Pond Lake Barnes Lake £ ¤ RK Connor Lake T RD EM A Tars Creek Upper Bearsdale Springs TEL ## RD PEA SE LONGVIEW RD Long Lake Bra RD OW EN D R KE RD LA DEER LICK NL Grass Lake AK ND WE R W HORSESHOE RD # T RD £ ¤ Stewart Lake HO LAK EO W S EN TAT IO N D EN T. GRANDVIEW R Ryberg Lake Northeast Lake Ramstead Creek Eighteenmile Creek Eighteenmile Springs Creek Coburn Lake M ON N DIA KE D D LA R Lake Ree LAK BLUE MOON RD S PINE ROCK RD E RD ! ( ( ! Hammil Lake OW RD Lake Holly Lake Dinner Camp A KE Porcupine Lake RG BEARSDALE RD N PINE ROCK RD Lake Sixteen Bass Lake Lake Owen SL Adeline Lake E RY B Lake Lake Horseshoe Half Moon Crane Lake T. DRUMMOND 63 RD LLY LA KE Little Hidden Lake Roger Lake Long Lake Branch LONGVIEW RD RE SETTLEMEN CU T ACR O EO BIRCH WOOD RD Sage Lake Deer Lick Lake OTTO OLSON DR T43 & 44N, R7W, BAYFIELD COUNTY AKE RD NL SS R D d Mill Pond Lake RSE S H OE # N E HO LONGVIEW RD " ) ACROSS ) " Diamond Lake KIMBALL RD TE R YR BA D Crystal Lake TAHK D E RD ER D Perry Lake Porter Lakes South Porter Lake Jo Ann Lake d Fivemile Creek OLD D RD Twin Lakes M ( ! Hidden Lake ( ! T. CABLE FRELS RD OLE LAKE RD T. NAMAKAGON Rock Lake Cap Creek RANDYSEK RD Trail Lake # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,470 KR AR EM T. SPIDER LAKE ROCK LAKE RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Frels Lake Hildebrand Birch Lake Lake McClaine Camp Lake Four Lake TEL T. LENROOT D SUNSET RD TIMBE R TRL Pacwawong Lake Namekagon Lake South Twin Lake " ) KAV AN A UG H RD # # MCNAUGHT RD ( ! ( ! DAM RD W CABLE LAKE RD LAK TRAIL INN RD Y RR PE S LAKE OWEN DR X Big Brook 63 KE R H LA O DA # )d " £ ¤ Namekagon River Price Lake ) " SUNSET RD ( ! # LE LAK Cable Lake West Lake Lerche Lake Lake Tahkodah E RD LIPKE RD LAK Motyka Lake TA L Picture Lake E CAB Wiley Lake Southwest Lake ) " d Fondeau Creek PIONEER RD S CRY Little Rosa Rosa Lake Lake Henry Lake Sugar Bush Lake OT Lake Wilipyro Smear Lake Little Brook BA UER RD Samoset Lake RO CK LAKE RD Emerson Lake Spring Lake Star Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X CU T AC ROSS R D Porcupine Lake Lake Lizzie R KE D D LA R LAK Friedbauer Lake E RD Diamond Lake Trapper Lake Taylor Creek KIMBALL RD Sugar Bush Lake Bass Lake Jackson Creek Lake Knotting Lake Ree Club Lake Holmes Lake Atkins Lake E RD N ON DIAM RG Northeast Lake D GRAD Ryberg Lake KE DR T. GRANDVIEW TRIANGLE DR Eighteenmile Creek Coburn Lake RD CLU B LA " ) Ramstead Creek CO Bullhead Lake OL D D OE R RS E S H Lake Sixteen E HO D EN East West Davis Lake Davis Lake Spruce Lake Adeline Lake RY ANS RD OW W IS ATKINS LAKE LN A KE T. LINCOLN CAMP EIGHT RD Pre-emption Creek Pond T. DRUMMOND Lake Owen Taylor Lake PIONEER RD PIONEER RD OL D LAK E RD Lake Tahkodah TA L Crystal Lake Cranberry Lake Jackson Lake S CRY Southwest Lake GRA DE RD ( ! # " ) D # D KE R LA Namekagon River ( ! Tank Lake Namekagon Lake DAM RD GA Fivemile Creek OLD D RD ISC M GA R T. CABLE Hidden Lake Casper Lake RD CREEK RO CK LAKE Ghost Lake GH OS T Rock Lake CH IPP EW M T. NAMAKAGON FRELS RD Cap Creek " ) H RD MCCANN SPRINGS RD South Twin Lake M Castle Creek RD Garden Lake Twin Lakes " ) KE N LA R DE N RD ( ! # Little Bass Lake EHRNA SL Little Hidden Lake D OLD GRADE RD Deer Lick Lake SS R D CUT ACR O W HORSESHOE RD # Eighteenmile Creek Springs " ) OTTO OLSON DR Sage T43 & 44N, R6W, BAYFIELD COUNTY Lake E RY B DAH Lake Osborn RD Trail Lake Frels Lake Hildebrand Birch Lake Lake McClaine Lake ROCK LAKE RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,570 Emerson Lake Spring Lake McCloud Lake Star Lake Patsy Lake T. SPIDER LAKE POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Grant Hope Lake Lake East Fork Ghost Creek Evelyn Lake Ghost Creek BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X A LAKE R E TR A " ) T. LINCOLN CAMP EIGHT RD CAMP EIGHT RD IL RD ( ! D ASHLAND BAYFIELD RD HAKALA RD T43 & 44N, R5W, BAYFIELD COUNTY SNA KE Seitz Lake OLD GRADE RD CO TRL W IS Pre-emption Creek Pond RD Spring Brook WIS CO East West Davis Lake Davis Lake CLU B LA RD Beaver Lake KE DR Whisky Creek F OX Tea Lake FAR MR D " ) Lake D Lizzie Holmes Lake Club Lake KE TR L T. MARENGO # GRAD E RD Friedbauer Lake Bullhead Lake OL D Trapper Lake Taylor Lake Taylor Creek Spruce Lake Blaser Creek PION EER RD NAMAKAG Cranberry Lake ON RD TN RD 42 OL D GRA DE RD " ) D 34 4 RD D EN DE R D GA R AIL GRA Little Bass Lake RD T. NAMAKAGON EHRNAN Tank Lake E TR OL D # K SNA D ST R F OR E Namekagon Lake Castle Creek RD LAKE T. GORDON WILD EST RD 193 PR D Garden Lake F OR RD ESS E RN Duck Lake BC OR ) " " ) Chippewa Lake Mud Lake Casper Lake RD " ) Dells Lake 1:85,770 # Range Line Lake F AL OL AKE Red Ike Creek Hadley Lake - - !# ( Lake MCLAREN LAKE POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT Lower Clam Lake S T RD F OR E # ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( !! ( Upper ( Clam ! RD Buffalo Lake BU F RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY T. SPIDER LAKE Muskie Springs Lake MAT CREEK Evelyn Lake Grant Lake Lake Five East Fork Ghost Creek McCloud Lake Lynch Creek RD GH OS T Ghost Creek # M RD Ghost Lake Day Lake H EY DE LLS LAKE FIVE M MCCANN SPRINGS RD " ) RD JO A LAKE CH IPP EW B A 77 Little Clam Lake RD TRIANGLE DR T. GRANDVIEW Atkins Lake Coffee Lake Marengo River SN A Jackson Creek ATKINS LAKE LN Bass Lake # BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X 195 MEYERS - OLSON RD MARTIN RD CITY OF BAYFIELD, BAYFIELD COUNTY B A AV E 13 OCC RICE AVE D S 5TH ST S 8TH ST S 7TH ST RVICE OLD MILITARY RD B A 13 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:9,000 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT FERRY SE S 1ST ST S 2ND ST BROAD ST S 9TH ST N 2ND S N 7TH ST N 8TH ST S 10TH ST S 11TH ST WILSON AVE S 3RD ST R N 4TH ST Y MANYPENNY AVE S 4TH ST R N 6TH E ET 10TH ST EM ST C WASHINGTON AVE N 5TH ST RICE AVE N 9TH ST N FRONT ST N 1ST ST LY N D E M BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X EE K CR HOLMS RD G IN S PR VILLAGE OF MASON, BAYFIELD COUNTY LUND RD X " ) £ ¤ 63 S CEMETERY RD E ST TRILLUM LN " ) DEP O ) " LAND RD T RD MAS O NM A IN E ) " H NORT N FO X L EAGLE AVE LVD H TS B ST IG ERN L HUM BIRD WERDEN AVE WHITE RIVER N MASO BIBON RD ST MAIN WILSO N RD # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:8,280 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X GARY RD E OAK RD IER 5T H A V JACKSO N RD RD " ) BRATLEY DR WOODLAND DR C WILLIAMSON RD GRAND VIEW BLVD FOR T EW CITY OF WASHBURN, BAYFIELD COUNTY HILLSIDE DR 10TH AVE W SHADOW DR B A 13 E ST 4T H " )" ) H 5T ST E 6T H 5TH AVE W 8TH AVE W ST E 12TH ST W " ) D 3R ST E " ) d THOMPSO NC RE E " ) K B A JONES RD 11TH AVE W 13 d OMAHA ST W BIGLOW ST WD LAKEVIE R THOMPSON ST X Lake Superior JS H RD T FAULKNER RD SUMMIT RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:20,040 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X R SUPERIO AVE Lake Superior BURNETT COUNTY Table 13: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – BURNETT COUNTY HAZUS 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - BURNETT COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses T. OF ANDERSON T. OF BLAINE T. OF DANIELS T. OF DEWEY T. OF GRANTSBURG T. OF JACKSON T. OF LA FOLLETTE T. OF LINCOLN T. OF MEENON T. OF OAKLAND T. OF ROOSEVELT T. OF RUSK T. OF SAND LAKE T. OF SIREN T. OF SWISS T. OF TRADE LAKE T. OF UNION T. OF WEBB LAKE T. OF WOOD RIVER V. OF GRANTSBURG GRAND TOTAL 2 3 17 3 6 1 7 4 24 10 2 3 2 13 3 25 4 3 3 3 138 $ 52,889.00 $ 76,410.00 $ 334,046.00 $ 73,699.00 $ 79,290.00 $ 3,080.00 $ 95,250.00 $ 31,426.00 $ 441,722.00 $ 243,533.00 $ 3,039.00 $ 190,444.00 $ 14,680.00 $ 304.00 $ 32,077.00 $ 260,784.00 $ 71,090.00 $ 13,440.00 $ 851.00 $ 16,832.00 $ 2,034,886.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 112 15,732.00 22,371.00 139,606.00 22,561.00 42,726.00 848.00 30,262.00 11,021.00 202,826.00 89,340.00 755.00 84,858.00 2,631.00 557.00 63,298.00 155,163.00 31,156.00 1,215.00 344.00 6,074.00 923,344.00 31,034.00 31,034.00 Debris Generated (tons) 19 14 215 20 41 15 47 51 227 74 9 371 18 54 21 177 62 24 11 38 1,508 HAZUS 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - BURNETT COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted T. OF ANDERSON T. OF BLAINE T. OF DANIELS T. OF DEWEY T. OF GRANTSBURG T. OF JACKSON T. OF LA FOLLETTE T. OF LINCOLN T. OF MEENON T. OF OAKLAND T. OF ROOSEVELT T. OF RUSK T. OF SAND LAKE T. OF SCOTT T. OF SIREN T. OF SWISS T. OF TRADE LAKE T. OF UNION T. OF WEBB LAKE T. OF WOOD RIVER V. OF GRANTSBURG GRAND TOTAL 3 3 20 3 8 1 7 4 29 12 1 7 4 1 25 6 28 6 6 3 3 180 Estimated Building Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 55,845.00 86,663.00 367,347.00 77,503.00 207,878.00 3,080.00 149,945.00 45,420.00 634,770.00 304,648.00 209,604.00 31,066.00 6,806.00 7,771.00 64,238.00 344,636.00 113,355.00 25,048.00 6,725.00 24,770.00 2,767,118.00 113 Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ 16,428.00 $ 24,475.00 $ 157,089.00 $ 23,469.00 $ 87,262.00 $ 1,131.00 $ 45,669.00 $ 16,956.00 $ 481,258.00 $ 110,214.00 $ $ 90,125.00 $ 12,261.00 $ 2,674.00 $ 4,778.00 $ 75,859.00 $ 192,624.00 $ 42,411.00 $ 50,903.00 $ 3,173.00 $ 10,625.00 $ 1,449,384.00 $ $ $ 39,815.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 39,815.00 Debris Generated (tons) 31 19 263 20 155 15 55 51 304 91 6 397 26 9 135 51 201 78 37 11 38 1,993 T. BLAINE T41 & 42N, R16 & 17W, BURNETT COUNTY Minnesot a 5 Island Lake TOWER RD Tabor Lake B A Robie Lake WH ITE TAI L DR sota Staples Lake Bass Lake 77 Minn e N STAPLES LAKE RD NELSON RD OLD 35 RD Berg Lake LAKE 26 RD B A 77 T. SWISS ! ( TOWER RD " ) " ) Burlingame Lake MIN ER V A RD X BROEFFLE RD ! ( # ST CROIX TRL Saint Croix River # ! ( ! ( B A Loon Creek 35 FLOWAGE DR ! ( Cranberry Lake Yellow River " ) NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:61,050 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT Long Lake Hayden Lake HAYDEN LAKE RD Round Lake F BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Gull Lake Minerva Lake LL S GU TRL T. JACKSON ) " ( ! T. DAIRYLAND McGraw Upper Tamarack River MCGRAW LAKE RD Lake T41 & 42N, R15W, BURNETT COUNTY BIG MCGRAW RD BIG MC AW GR RD B A 35 Hay Creek T. BLAINE PERKINS TRL # Little McGraw Lake ST CROIX TRL Minnesota FOREST LN SNOW MOBILE TRL Glendenning Creek Saint Croix River L RD N MARKVILLE RD STATE LINE RD BIG H IL Perkins Creek SM ARK V IL LE Saint Croix River North Channel RD ( ! SN O ( ! ( ! WM OB IL E TR Namekagon River L MCKEE TRL DOGTOWN RD SPRINGBROOK TRL B A 35 Island Lake OLD 35 RD HAUS RD Dogtown Springs T. WEBB LAKE McElroy Lake Greenwood Lake " ) Staples Lake LAKE 26 RD Berg Lake Stone Lake MIN A ERV PEARLY SWAMP RD Falk Lake # Eagle Lake Gull Lake S GU L L L TR NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,130 Little Bear Lake LOON LAKE DAM LN #Loon EAGLE LAKE RD Hayden Lake HAYDEN LAKE RD Minerva Lake Sanks Lake DR Cranberry Lake Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - Ferry Lake 26 LAKE RD LAKE 26 RD - AKE ( ! ( ! Big Bear Lake ( ! Mud Lake Loon Creek ( ! ) " Twentysix Lake Spring # ! ( LL FLOWAGE DR ( ! ! ( Webb Lake S TA RD # Webb Creek Y CR Briggs Lake Thatcher Lake Myrick Lake Johnson Lake Schaaf Lake Little Round Lake Twentysix Lake LAKE 26 RD TOWER RD ( ! Floyd Lake CCC RD T. SWISS Fawn Lake LOON CREEK TRL Robie Lake LAKES DR 77 B A EAGLE LAKE RD B A Fenton Lake 77 AIRFIELD RD TOWER RD Bass Lake RD Deer Lake SNOWMOBIhLEhTRL (3) N STAPLES LAKE RD NELSON RD H Tabor Lake N WEBB LAKE Des Moines Lake Long Lake Hanscom Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X " ) H T. DAIRYLAND DRY LANDING RD N CO UNTY McGraw Lake MC Sand Lake RD Clemens Creek Hay Creek SNOW MOBILE TRL FOREST LN PERKINS TRL ST CROIX TRAIL RD # Richart Lake FIVE MILE RD Bradley Lake NANCY LAKE RD NAMEKAGON TRL T. MINONG RL COUNTY LINE RD ILE T Lake Nancy TR L Bass Lake SNOWMOBILE TRL (3) USE T. WEBB LAKE Thatcher Lake Fawn Lake B A 77 ( ! 77 Prinel Lake Schaaf Lake Little Round Lake Twentysix Lake NAMEKAGON TRL T. SWISS Big Bear Lake ) " Twentysix Lake Spring Ferry Lake Miniature Lake " ) H AKE LOON CREEK TRL DR Little Bear Lake LOON LAKE DAM LN #Loon Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,080 Lost Lakes Lost Lake Mckenzie Creek T. CHICOG ZEHM RD LL S TA ( ! ( ! Oak Lake # Lucerne Lake Y CR Sanks Lake RD JENNY Frog Lake Meeker Run Lake 26 LAKE RD LAKE 26 RD N NICABOYNE LAKE RD FROG LAKE RD Myrick Lake Johnson Lake Pear Lake ( ! B A ) " ( ! RIVER RD Webb Lake Deer Lake Fenton Lake Webb Creek # ! ( EEK DR L HO McElroy Lake Greenwood Lake ( ! Saginaw Lake ( ! RD RD WEBB CR CHO O N WEBB LAKE Stulen Lake ! ( ( ! Namekagon River RE D S DOGTOWN RD MCKEE TRL Dogtown Springs HAUS RD Floyd Lake MIS TY Totagatic River BURIAN PL IL E BRIDGE RD OB ZIE RD WM LOWER MCKEN SN O B OG R D ( ! GBROOK TRL North Lang Lake Spring Lake Warner Lake MOB BIG H IL ST CROIX TRL Saint Croix River Perkins Creek Eagle Lake Scovils Lake SNOW L RD No Mans Lake FIRE TRL T. BLAINE Saint Croix River North Channel Mud Lake Beartrack Lake Little McGraw Lake ST CROIX TRL Little Sand Lake BIG SAND RD COUNTY LINE DR BIG LINE RD GOMULAK FIRE LN BIG MCGRAW RD AW GR DRY LANDING RD MCGRAW LAKE RD T41 & 42N, R14W, BURNETT COUNTY LITTLE SAND RD ONE MILE RD ( ! Des Moines Lake Hanscom Lake NICABOYNE LAKE RD Long Lake Nicaboyne Lake Lily Lake Fish Lake Cranberry Lake T. SCOTT ( ! POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - Lower McKenzie Lake - # T. CASEY BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Saint Croix River T39 & 40N, R19W, BURNETT COUNTY G BAN NORWAY POINT RD RD SADLERS ta o ne s n i M MURPHY RD BUGGERT LAKE RD FOXES LANDING RD Buggert Lake " ) F Fuhrmam Lake SPAULDING RD SPAULDING RD HAR DW O GE RD # Rice Lake W REFUGE RD OD RID GE TRL N REFU LARSON RD # Cranberry Flowage # GILE RD # T. WEST MARSHLAND PETE NELSON RD East Brook SPAULDING RD ta e so South Refuge Flowage Dike 4 Flowage Dike 6 Flowage PETE NELSON RD # PAINT MINE RD n Min GILE RD BLOOM RD # # Pine Brook NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:53,380 Phantom Lake GALESKY RD # # Upper Hay Creek Flowage FERRY RD T. GRANTSBURG ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! # Erickson Flowage # SPAULDING RD BISTRAM RD GILE RD SODERBECK RD BISTRAM RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Whiskey Creek BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X a Min ne sot T39 & 40N, R18W, BURNETT COUNTY N RIVER RD Saint Croix River LISK RD Bluff Lake CLAM DAM RD T. UNION S RIVER RD ( ! Clam River ota HIGHLAND RD ne s Min " ) F River Flowage CUTLER RD #Clam Dody Brook PEET RD BAN GR SADLERS RD NORWAY POINT RD HIGHLAND RD CURREY RD !# ( LINCOLN RD DI K E RD # Dike 1 Flowage # Phantom Lake RYLANDER RD # KLARQUIST RD N FORK DIKE RD # Sandberg Flowage # # KLARQUIST RD # Paulson Flowage WELLMAN RD North Fork Flowage # Erickson Flowage T. LINCOLN # Pumphouse Ditch LUNDQUIST RD ## # # E REFUGE RD # BISTRAM RD # # Dike 6 Flowage PETE NELSON RD South Refuge Flowage Phantom Lake Bypass Upper Phantom Flowage " ) # PHANTOM LAKE RD T. GRANTSBURG NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:82,670 E REFUGE RD LUNDQUIST RD Upper Hay Creek Whiskey Creek Flowage ( ! LHOTKA RD Upper N Fk Flowage # BLOOM RD ( ! ! ( BEAL RD KLOTZ RD ICE HOUSE BRIDGE RD # Cranberry Flowage # Dike 2 ## Flowage OLINGER RD MA IN LARSON RD RD T. WEST MARSHLAND Reisinger Lake # W REFUGE RD SPAULDING RD N REFU GE Zalesky Pond GE RD Rice Lake Monson Lake Currey Flowage JAMES RD # Fuhrmam Lake N REFU Reed Lake ) " E REFUGE RD BUGGERT LAKE RD FOXES LANDING RD F MURPHY RD " ) Buggert Lake S RIVER RD D REED LAKE RD # D BJORKLUND RD T. DANIELS T. WOOD RIVER POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. SWISS RR D Hayden Lake RD IVE OLD 35 RD N BAILEY RD LISK RD Yellow River PARDUN RD " ) F FF T. OAKLAND U Little Yellow Lake HIGHLAND RD Chase Lake Lone Star Echo Lake Lake ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ) " Dody Brook " ) C ( ! Yellow Lake DVORAK RD ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( !! ( S RIVER RD PEET RD REED LAKE RD JAMES RD OLINGER RD " ) LEE RD HIGHLAND RD WELCH RD Reed Lake ( ! FF PERI DA RD ) " (# ! ( ! ! ( BEAL RD ( ! OLSON RD HELSENE RD KLOTZ RD T. WEST MARSHLAND D d T. MEENON T. LINCOLN SMITH RD # ) " SNOWMOBILE TRL (3) # ( ! D N FORK DIKE RD Sandberg Flowage MIDTOWN RD LUNDQUIST RD KLARQUIST RD # ) " " ) D NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY T. DANIELS OLSON RD Blomberg Lake # POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Fish Lake OLD 35 T. WOOD RIVER AIRPORT RD DANIEL JOHNSON RD BJORKLUND RD 1:82,960 ( ! X 35 " ) # WELLMAN RD Paulson Flowage B A ( ! # MOLINE RD CLARK RD ICE HOUSE BRIDGE RD KLARQUIST RD # BLACK BROOK RD OLD STH 35 AR THOMA RD LHO TK # ) " V. WEBSTER ) ) " " FAIRGROUND RD LHOTKA RD LINCOLN RD RYLANDER RD 35 Fremstadt Lake " ) Rahn Lake CUTLER RD S RIVER RD Clam River S BAILEY RD T. UNION ( ! B A Buffalo Lake " ) LEE RD River Flowage RD CLAM DAM RD PASS Bass Lake ) " #Clam WO OD LAND ! ( ( ! ( ! N BASS LAKE RD 35 OLD Kreiner Lake FRENCH RD Minnesota E YELLOW RIVER RD N RIVER RD Bluff Lake HAYDEN LAK PAR DU N Saint Croix River F NR T39 & 40N, R17W, BURNETT COUNTY Round Long Lake Lake " ) T. SIREN BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X B A 70 # ( ! ( ! ( ! LEE RD ) " Yellow Lake Myre Lake Tanda Lake T. JACKSON Johnson Lake Mud Lake Benach Lake " ) T GRAVESTEN RD North Lake Devils Lake Conners Lake LILY LAKE RD V. WEBSTER ) " ) ) " " FAIRGROUND RD " ) d B A ( ! X N BASS LAKE NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:82,490 T. SIREN 70 LEGHORN DR KRUGER RD B A HERMAN JOHNSON RD # OLD 35 AIRPORT RD Lower Clam Lake Pike Lake B A ( ! 70 Mallard Slough (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! Tamarack Lake ( ! POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Taylor Lake Owl Lake Viola Lake d Big Sand Lake T. LA FOLLETTE BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ANCHOR INN RD SNOWMOBILE TRL (3) ) " Fish Lake ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( MIDTOWN RD Tucker Lake COMPEAU RD #! ( PIKE BEND RD DONG O KRUGER RD LA RD PETERSON RD ) " OLSON RD ) " T. SAND LAKE D # Horseshoe Lake ( ! OLD STH 35 SMITH RD " ) D RD ( ! # MOLINE RD " ) Money Lake T. MEENON 35 BLACK BROOK RD Sunfish Lake X T. LINCOLN CLARK RD ( ! # HELSENE RD Clam River THOMA RD Austin Lake RD OKERLUND RD KRAUSE RD LEE RD ( ! AU STIN LAKE # A Lily Lake PERI DA RD OLSON RD " ) Peterson Lake A ) " Tomoe Lake Ann Lake # " ) FF Point Lake Keizer Lake # ( ! ( ! ( (! !! ( " ) Lost Lake BUSHEY RD C T. UNION Phernetton Lake Crystal Lake BUSHEY RD Echo Lake MORO RD LAKE RD C C " ) ( ! " ) " ) Little Base Lake T. OAKLAND Lone Star Lake ( ! Mingo Lake Crooked Lake FOX RD Fremstadt Lake Ham Lake JOHNSON LAKE RD " ) U DVORAK RD JOHNSON LAKE RD OLD 35 RD " ) 35 MAIL RD MINNOW LAKE RD SON D UN R PAR D PARDUN RD B A Buffalo Lake FF Little Yellow Lake RD JENSEN RD Bass Lake T39 & 40N, R16W, BURNETT COUNTY L SEIBEN RD RD Yellow River ) " CCC PASS R LL T Our Lake Minnow Lake Love Lake Bricher Lake 35 OLD WO ODLAND ( ! ( ! ! ( N BASS LAKE RD FRENCH RD E YELLOW RIVER RD Kreiner Lake S GU JOH N RR IVE NR HAYD EN LAKE RD Gull Lake Minerva Lake CCC RD F Hayden Lake EAGLE LAKE RD " ) Long Lake HAYDEN LAKE RD Round Lake D T. SWISS # Gull Lake Bogey Lake Culbertson Lake Culbertson Springs " ) C Myre Lake " ) C Lang Lake Crystal Lake Point Lake # GRAVESTEN RD Conners Lake Peterson Lake Tomoe Lake " ) Ann Lake X Spring Brook Buck Lake Owl Lake Taylor Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:82,990 Big Sand Lake d ROLLING GREEN RD Spring Brook Springs BIRCH HAVEN RD d T. LA ( FOLLETTE ! + - 100 YR 500 YR + - GREENFIE SHRIDER RD A T. DEWEY B 70 " ) ) MODELED FLOOD DEPTH " POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS ( AGRICULTURE ! ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT Black Creek LARRABEE RD Viola Lake ANCHOR INN RD 70 BIRCH RD TOWN HALL RD BIRCH HAVEN RD T. RUSK D B A ( ! T. SIREN Lost Lake DON G OLA R D Tucker Lake Pike Lake Tamarack Lake BLACK BR LESLIE RD " ) R LAKE ! ( EMERSON RD PETERSON RD Mallard Slough (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! D ( ! BUCK Lower Clam Lake Baker Lake Temple Lake !! ( ( ) " COMPEAU RD ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! !! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! Yellow River Horseshoe Lake #! ( PIKE BEND RD D GR DIN LAN NS A M NOR GASLYN CREEK RD GASLYN RD Bass Lake T. MEENON Swamp Lake Little Mallard Lake RD T. SAND LAKE Mallard Lake LE R MAP RD Pratt Lake GASLYN LILY LAKE RD KRAUSE RD OKERLUND RD Austin Lake Sunfish Lake N BASS LAKE Lower Twin Lake Gaslyn Lake Round Lake # Money Lake Upper Twin Lake Mollete Lake ( ! X OAK LAKE RD ( ! Green Lake MALLARD LAKE RD Lake " ) A Sand Lake A #Lily AU STIN LAKE RD " ) Pine Lake PRATT RD Keizer Lake North Lake AUGUSTINE RD d ALD EN RD JOHNSON LAKE RD Mud Lake T. SCOTT Birch Island Lake Oak Lake " ) Benach Lake " ) LONG LAKE RD T. JACKSON BUSHEY RD T Fish Lake Cadotte Lake Coruick Lake Bartash Lake Phernetton Lake FOX RD Johnson Lake Hanscom Lake Shoal Lake Culbertson Creek Tanda Lake Clam River Long Lake Loon Lake MORO RD ON L AKE RD Crooked Lake JOH NS JOHNSON LAKE RD Ham Lake SEIBEN RD CCC RD MAIL RD MINNOW LAKE RD T. OAKLAND Devils Lake # EAGLE LAKE RD Our Lake Minnow Lake Little Base Lake Little Bear Lake T39 & 40N, R15W, BURNETT COUNTY RL LL T S GU Love Lake T. SWISS BEAVER DAM RD Minerva Lake LOON LAKE DAM LN Eagle Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Little Bear Lake # Fish Lake Nicaboyne Lake SECTION 1 RD Goose Lake " ) Rooney Lake LONG LAKE RD Lindy Lake Crescent Lake SWIS S CHRISTNER RD A Behr Lake T. JACKSON OAK LAKE RD Upper Twin Lake Sand Lake IN R PEP D Dubois Lake Lower Twin Lake DUBOIS RD " ) Grass Lake # # Smith Lake GASLYN CREEK RD " ) Benoit Lake H GASLYN RD ( ! " ) G ( ! ! ( ( ! Yellow River Lipsett Lake Baker Lake Temple Lake ( ! ( ! DOCK LAKE RD T. EVERGREEN ( ! POPPLE RD R LAKE D SL EEP GREENFIELD RD B A 70 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY TOWN HALL RD SHRIDER RD 1:83,150 YELLOW RIVER RD MOORE RD CARLTON RD ) " ) " BEAVER DAM RD BUCK Spring Brook Springs " ) ) " CARLTON RD YELLOW RIVER RD ROLLING GREEN RD d T. LA FOLLETTE H BIRCH RD LARRABEE RD BIRCH HAVEN RD JELLEN RD " ) d T. DEWEY Y HO LLOW RD TRAILS END RD Spring Brook Perch Lake Ellsworth Lake # Black Creek Buck Lake Rocky Ridge Lake KE RD EMERSON RD A D BLACK BROOK RD LESLIE RD X BIRCH HAVEN RD " ) Wilkerson Lake T. RUSK " ) Big Sand Lake LA DOCK Rice Lake LE R MAP !! ( ( Mckenzie Creek COUNTY LINE RD Little Mallard Lake T. SAND LAKE Bass Lake Little Bass Lake A GASLYN RD Lost Lake RD ZIE RD FOX RD RD L HIL BIG MCK EN Gaslyn Lake Pratt Lake Swamp Lake T. CASEY McKenzie Lake Eagle Lake OLD A RD ( ! Green Lake G DIN LAN NS MA Durand Lake Middle McKenzie Lake Clubhouse Lake Deep Lake Oak Lake " ) Lake DEEP HOLLOW RD T. SCOTT " ) Pine Lake (Deer ! TRL AUGUSTINE RD d CARSON RD LOWER MCKENZIE RD Birch Island Lake Coruick Lake Bartash Lake Round Lake Mystery Lake DEER HOLLOW RD H Shoal Lake Casey Creek T39 & 40N, R14W, BURNETT COUNTY ( ! KESSLER RD # Lower McKenzie Lake DEER LAKE RD Cadotte Lake # T. CHICOG Lily Lake Cranberry Lake Hanscom Lake Loon Lake Bogey Lake T. WEBB LAKE Long Lake B A 70 Poquettes Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - PERCH LAKE RD LOON LAKE DAM LN T. SWISS T. BASHAW BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X SODERBECK RD GRA V EL PIT R D T37 & 38N, R20W, BURNETT COUNTY B A 70 # Wood River ne s ot a ( ! WEST RIVER RD Min SKOG RD T. GRANTSBURG WR IVER STOLTE RD RD Fish Lake Benson Brook BENSON RD # Dueholm Flowage W RIVER RD SHOGREN RD PLEASANT PRAIRIE RD # # # " ) # CEMETERY RD # T. ANDERSON LN ALSTAD RD RD T UN CO BIRNSTENGEL RD IRE TY F PLEASANT PRAIRIE RD N COU JOH NS O N Minnesota O (1) RL YT 1) RL ( TY T W RIVER RD N COU Saint Croix River OELTJEN RD OELTJEN RD COUNTY LINE RD Polk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:72,990 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X FERRY RD Upper Whiskey Creek Hay Creek Flowage GRELL RD # # # BORG RD LARSON RD # Hay Creek Flowage RD MCLAIN RD SODERBECK RD F RA " ) Phantom Lake LA T37 & 38N, R19W, BURNETT COUNTY PHANTOM LAKE RD ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! E REFUGE RD SPAUL SODER # N FORK DR " ) D X B A T. WOOD RIVER # Wood River d SOLNESS RD # Fish Lake # WOOD LAKE RD # B A 48 LANG RD T. GRANTSBURG Logging Creek S WILLIAMS RD Town Road Flowage Tobe Lake CROSSTOWN RD MCCUNE RD SKOG RD HICKERSON RD WEST RIVER RD Saint Croix River TOBE LAKE RD ) " SMESTAD RD ( ! NORTH RD (! !! ( ( V. GRANTSBURG )" " ) ( ! 70 # " )" )" ) N WILLIAMS RD SODERBECK RD GRA V Minnesot a EL P IT RD Hay Creek ASSEMBLY RD " ) BENSON RD # # # # Isaac Lake BUCKLAND RD BUCKLUND RD ## # Daniels # SHOGREN RD M-Y RD T. TRADE LAKE North Fork Trade Grettum River Flowage # WILLIAMS RD HICKORSON RD WR IVE R STO LTE RD RD Y B A 48 E RIVER RD # T. ANDERSON O JIMMY CARTER RD " ) # O CEMETERY RD # N RD (! ! ( ( ! ( !! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( Big ( ! Trade Lake ( ! B A 87 ALSTAD RD ANDERSON RD ) " ( ! MED CH IL L RD BIRNSTENGEL RD NS O Bass Lake " ) # J OH SPOOK DR Dueholm Flowage BASS LAKE RD Flowage # ( ! " ) Z 1) RL ( NTY LINE RD E RIVER RD TY T Trade River #! (# 1:85,530 # COUNTY LINE Polk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Orr Creek POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - GABRIELSON LAKE RD CEDAR POINT RD N CO U OELTJEN RD Holmes Lake Pickle Lake Gabrielson Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X SPAUL # " ) LUNDQUIST RD RA MEYER RD N FORK DR " ) Wood River B A ) " ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! 70 SHEARMAN RD V. GRANTSBURG )" " ) NA N WILLIAMS RD T. WOOD RIVER CHURCH RD N MUD HEN LAKE NORTH RD (! !! ( ( T. DANIELS HEGGE RD N FORK DR D # " )" )" ) Wilson Lake N " ) X RANGE LINE RD D LPHA DR BORG RD # " ) RD # # Hay Creek Flowage LA " ) T. LINCOLN T37 & 38N, R18W, BURNETT COUNTY North Fork Wood River SHEARMAN RD PHANTOM LAKE RD # F E REFUGE RD Upper Whiskey Creek Phantom Hay Creek Lake Flowage D BJORKLUND RD # Mud Hen Lake KEMP F RD ) " " ) M " ) d T. GRANTSBURG CROSSTOWN RD SMESTAD RD MCCUNE RD RE N SH O WOOD LAKE RD B A Wood Lake LANG RD HICKERSON RD 48 ASSEMBLY RD W ELBOW LAKE RD Muskrat Lake Hunters Lake Silver Lake SPIRIT LAKE RD " ) Little Trade Lake # (! ! (( ! ( !! ( ( (! (! ! ( ! ( Big ! ( ! Trade Lake ! ( B A 87 ( ! MED CH ILL R D ) " " ) Z Orr Creek # # E COUNTY LINE RD MORNIN G DOVE LN Pine Lake LUNDEEN RD # " ) Spirit Creek Z Round Lake # ( ! # GABRIELSON LAKE RD CEDAR POINT RD #! (# Pickle L ake # Polk County Gabrielson Lake ( ! # ROUND LAKE RD E RIVER RD ( ! # Holmes Lake T. TRADE LAKE !" ( (! ! ( ) ( ! ( ! # O Trade River Spook Lake FREEDOM DR BASS LAKE RD E RIVER RD Bass Lake " ) COUNTY LINE ( ! Rice Lake RD SPOOK DR # # 48 ATE # # B A AG ## Daniels Flowage ANDERSON RD ! ( ( ! # M-Y RD Spirit Lake North Fork Trade Grettum River Flowage T. ANDERSON MAREK RD Peterson Lake BUCKLAND RD BUCKLUND RD # WILLIAMS RD HICKORSON RD Y Isaac Lake Dunham Lake # " ) Little Wood Lake ( ! # BLOMGREN RD ( ! DR LITTLE WOOD LAKE RD SOLNESS RD Logging Creek S WILLIAMS RD # Indian Lake # Polk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,540 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X KLA T. LINCOLN " ) D T38N, R17W,BJORKLUND BURNETT COUNTY RD RANGE LINE RD SHEARMAN RD T. WEST MARSHLAND Blomberg Lake DANIEL JOHNSON RD OLSON RD # Wilson Lake " ) N SPANGBERG RD SWENSON RD Big Doctor Lake DAN IEL Doctor Lake Mud Hen Lake KEMPF RD T. DANIELS DANIELS 70 RD PETERSON RD # B A 70 WALDORA RD WALDORA ) " FOSBERG RD ( ! ( ! Wood River Ward Lake KOLANDER RD Dunham Lake # " ) W Little Dunham Lake ELBOW LAKE RD Lind Lake VAN LOO RD Hunters Lake Elbow Lake ( ! COUNTY LINE RD Black Lake Polk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:47,920 Swamp Lake ELBOW LAKE RD OLD 35 Little Wood Lake WOOD CREEK RD ( (! ! ! ( POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - S EAST RD BLOMGREN RD CARLSON RD Indian Lake RD JOHN NELSON RD ( !! ( (! ! (( (! ! ( ! ( (! ! (! (! (! ! ( ( ! ( (! ! SHEARMAN RD CHURCH RD North Fork Wood River WOOD CREEK RD TOLLANDER RD N MUD HEN LAKE RD JOH NSO N - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X OLD 35 70 Taylor Lake ! ( ( ! LAMPHERE RD ( ! Big Doctor Lake OHN SON RD ! ( ( ! ( ! TYLER RD LJ ( ! CLAM LA K V. SIREN ) " B A E DR (1) ( ! Clam Lake RD E LAK OR Crooked Lake L TAY ! ( ( ! ( ! HIDEAWAY RD FISH LAKE RD (1) Fish Lake Tamarack Lake ! ( MALONE RD B A Mallard Slough ! ( ( (! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! POLANSKY RD T38N, R16W, BURNETT COUNTY Lower Clam Lake HERMAN JOHNSON RD T. MEENON AIRPORT RD LEGHO KRUGER RD ) " ) " T. LA FOLLETTE 70 ) " X T. SIREN ) " Clam River Clear Lake D FAN " ) Sand Lake BURNIKEL RD North Fork Clam River Put Lake ) " Long Lake B RL ANCER T IMME RD D GANDY NYBERG RD EE Silver Lake D NR NYREN RD B A 35 Swamp Lake ( !! ( ( ! LYNCH BRIDGE RD # BURNIKEL RD ROCK RIDGE RD S EAST RD RD GODFREY LAKE RD Y FRE GOD RD SELVIG Elbow Lake MORSE RD JOHN NELSON RD WALDORA RD NYBERG RD GORDON RD Little Deep Lake Godfrey Lake Baker Lake Polk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:48,610 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X B A 70 Big Sand Lake T38N, R15W, BURNETT COUNTY Mallard Slough ANCHOR INN RD Taylor Lake B A 70 " ) X E VES LY R NELSON RD MALONE RD T. LA FOLLETTE HOW E RD Bass Lake OAK RD WILLIAMS RD D Warner Lake BERTRAM RD CRANBERRY MARSH RD ER ) " SHRIDER RD " ) ) " ( ! Cranberry Lake CULBERTSON RD d ( ! Rohr Lake D DAKE RD TWIN LAKE RD North Fork Clam River " ) MOSER RD KODY RD Pokegama Lake MALONE RD Twin Lakes X MANGELSEN RD South Twin Lake KENT LAKE RD ( ! Kent Lake ! ( ( ! " ) B ( ! SAND RD " ) B ( ! Y ST LES RD Spencer Lake Little Bass Lake ROOT RD INDIAN CREEK RD COYOUR RD HERRICK RD DR (1) T. SAND LAKE Viola Lake Owl Lake Spring Brook Springs BIRCH HAVEN RD d TOWN LINE RD Polk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:51,160 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X B A T37 & 38N, R14W, BURNETT COUNTY 70 Poquettes Lake SPAULDING RD Glendenning Lake X BAS H A W VA E LY VES WILLIAMS RD LLEY RD " ) O RD RD LAKEVIEW CHURCH RD " ) LLE YV Bashaw Lake T. DEWEY BASHAW LAKE RD MANGELSEN RD T. LA FOLLETTE Bashaw # #Trout Springs SWISS CHALET RD I SW ( ! Little Bass Lake Spencer Lake BROOK DR " ) B D # Starkey Lake SAND RD SAND RD ( ! ( ! S R ET SPRING LAKE RD ( ! BAKKER RD SAND RD Bass Lake BASHAW STORE RD ( ! L HA SC " ) ROOT RD H HILLTOP RD ( ! E PIN BAKKER RD # VA L LEY Heart Lake LN # Buck Lake ) " # " ) Leach Lake # T. ROOSEVELT LE A South Fork Clam River CH L AK ER D DELANO LN 32 LA K E KE R Threety Two Lake Shallow Lake Barron County 1:86,980 T. BARRONETT PERSHING R OF F E R LA Sand Creek NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 63 Offers Lake BOYD LN MADISON LN RD # £ ¤ Kinny Lake J Y 63 LN #" ) WOODYARD RD OL D TIMBERLAND RD Places Lake Severson Lake H WA Peacock Lake N NE LSO S HEART LAKE RD Krantz Creek SPRING LAKE RD Polk County EE HIG " ) HEART LAKE RD ( ! ( # ! GLENDENNING RD " ) Bashaw Outlet T. BASHAW Bashaw Brook TOWN HALL RD # B " ) B PINE TREE LN X VA MOSER RD " ) IEW RD VA LLE YV IEW X Pokegama Lake Yellow River OAK RD ) " OAK RD PLAIN VIEW RD " ) PERCH LAKE R B A TOWN HALL RD 70 " ) ) " T. RUSK d SHRIDER RD COUNTY LINE RD GREENFIELD RD KING RD T. SAND LAKEd BEAVER Big Sand Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - D Chain Lake Mill Pond Deer Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # VILLAGE OF GRANTSBURG, BURNETT COUNTY UN DITCH BORG RD Whiskey Creek Flowage # # WHISKEY C GRELL RD Hay Creek Flowage " ) F K REE " ) D LINDEN ST N NELSON ST W CREX AVE HARMON AVE PARK ST AIRPORT RD W INDUSTRIAL AVE E BENSON AVE WHITETAIL DR N RUSSELL ST VIOLET CIR SKI SLIDE ST BENSON RD N PINE ST BENSON RD AIRPORT DR BORG RD REEK YC HA E HARRISON AVE NORTH RD # WO OD X RIV ER PARK ST GARY ST JACKSON AVE E MADISON AVE MAPLE ST ) " ) " ) " GE AVE W SAINT GEOR R ND LSO WO E JAMES ST ) " " ) W SKYLINE DR B A S RUSSELL ST GATEWAY ST 70 B A RUSSEL RD 48 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:22,130 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS COUNTY -WASTEWATER TREATMENT d X OLD 35 VILLAGE OF SIREN, BURNETT COUNTY Crooked Lake S SHORE DR LIND RD (1) SOUTH SHORE DR ALDEN RD E DOCTOR LAKE TRL 1ST AVE Big Doctor Lake Larson Lake HERMAN JOHNSON RD 4TH AVE LAKE ST 3RD AVE " ) 1ST ST LAKE 1ST AVE RD B 70 LONG B A " ) RAILROAD AVE ELLIS AVE MAIN ST CAPES ST ) " 3RD AVE NYBERG RD X LONG LAKE RD GANDY DANCER TRL Kapes Lake OLSON ST TO W ER R D BALLP ARK ST CEMETERY ST CLEAR LAKE ST CLEMENSON DR Long Lake B A 35 BIRCH RD FAN D TRL DANCE R Clear Lake GANDY BIRCH R D DR NYBERG RD EN GARD EEN RD WALDORA RD TEWALT RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:17,540 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X VILLAGE OF WEBSTER, BURNETT COUNTY YELLOW RIVER CHELMO RD INDUSTRIAL ST E " ) FF OAK ST E OAK ST W POPLAR ST E BALSAM ST W BLUEGILL AVE N STURGEON AVE N ASH ST W BASS AVE N AUSTIN LAKE RD HICKORY ST W OLD STH 35 MAIN ST W MAIN ST E " ) ) " CEDAR ST E PIKE AVE S ) " BIRCH ST E ALDER ST W ALDER ST E " ) X STENGEL RD FAIRGROUND RD PERCH AVE N FIR ST E FIR ST W d B A OLD STH 35 35 X N BASS LAKE RD R VE CL AM RI NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:17,880 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X DOUGLAS COUNTY Table 14: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – DOUGLAS COUNTY HAZUS 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - DOUGLAS COUNTY Municipality C. OF SUPERIOR T. OF AMNICON T. OF BRULE T. OF CLOVERLAND T. OF DAIRYLAND T. OF GORDON T. OF HAWTHORNE T. OF HIGHLAND T. OF LAKESIDE T. OF OAKLAND T. OF SOLON SPRINGS T. OF SUPERIOR T. OF WASCOTT V. OF LAKE NEBAGAMON V. OF SOLON SPRINGS GRAND TOTAL Structures Impacted Debris Generated (tons) Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses 1 1 4 1 2 11 2 9 5 2 7 1 11 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 6,921.00 79,874.00 12,280.00 1,497.00 148,401.00 2,366.00 171,427.00 3,425.00 1,224.00 22,372.00 7,738.00 121,747.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 53,406.00 28,370.00 4,545.00 204.00 54,252.00 328.00 291,975.00 1,354.00 481.00 13,894.00 44,091.00 101,514.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - 1 6 48 12 11 120 7 61 33 9 42 2 85 2 8 67 $ $ $ 6,988.00 58,319.00 644,579.00 $ $ $ 4,493.00 33,413.00 632,320.00 $ $ $ - 12 57 506 133 HAZUS 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - DOUGLAS COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted T. OF AMNICON T. OF BRULE T. OF CLOVERLAND T. OF DAIRYLAND T. OF GORDON T. OF HAWTHORNE T. OF HIGHLAND T. OF LAKESIDE T. OF OAKLAND T. OF SOLON SPRINGS T. OF SUPERIOR T. OF WASCOTT V. OF LAKE NEBAGAMON V. OF OLIVER V. OF SOLON SPRINGS GRAND TOTAL 5 6 1 4 20 2 10 10 4 7 1 18 2 1 8 100 Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 37,647.00 125,417.00 18,787.00 19,836.00 212,537.00 3,540.00 205,229.00 124,559.00 6,208.00 29,223.00 3,627.00 243,095.00 12,224.00 1,465.00 69,848.00 1,120,682.00 134 12,569.00 41,279.00 6,224.00 10,735.00 76,255.00 492.00 331,217.00 36,483.00 2,427.00 17,244.00 504.00 91,206.00 7,415.00 533.00 40,444.00 733,852.00 Estimated Inventory Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - Debris Generated (tons) 52 90 12 16 232 7 78 98 16 42 5 217 12 7 57 943 T49N, R13, 14 & 15W, DOUGLAS COUNTY Lake Superior Minnesota d " ) ) " ) " )" " ) C. SUPERIOR " ) " ) " ) Lake Superior d # d d " ) ! ( Mud Lake B A 105 ! ( " )V. OLIVER )" T. SUPERIOR V. " ) SUPERIOR X NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:81,230 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT T. PARKLAND BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X B A 13 T49N, R10 & 11W, DOUGLAS COUNTY CLEVEDON RD Lake Superior JACK PINE DR Smith Creek Lake Superior ! ( BRULE RIVER RD RUDOLPHS RD BURHANS RD T. CLOVERLAND ! ( T. LAKESIDE TEPOEL DR Middle River NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:74,820 DANIELSON RD T. MAPLE POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT T. BRULE BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # CLEVEDON RD ALFALFA LN 13 BECKS RD PETERSON RD Poplar River B A 13 # " ) " ) B A PALM RD Bois Brule River BALSAM BEND GREEN ACRES RD JACK PINE DR WINDY LANE RD PETERSON RD CLEVED ON Bardon Creek " ) H PLUTY RD RD Pearson Creek T47 & 48N, R15W, DOUGLAS COUNTY C. SUPERIOR ( ! B A 105 ( ! Pokegama River ) "" ) Minnesota Saint Louis River V. OLIVER X IRONDALE RD E Red River " ) IRONDALE RD W " ) T. SUPERIOR C MIDBON RD # MILLER RD BARNES RD ) "" ) Nemadji River STATION RD Black River B A 35 MAN IT O UV ALL EY R D ) " REED MERRILL RD # DEDHAM RD Minnesota ( ! # " ) B JAKE SCHMIDT RD RD WARRING ROCKS RD T. SUMMIT POLISH RD " ) Interfalls Lake POINT OF South Fork Nemadji River # W # # # NORTH RD TOWN LINE RD (1) NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,980 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - TOWN LINE RD BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # d ) " a Saint Louis River T47 & 48N, R14W, DOUGLAS COUNTY ( ! Mud Lake B A 105 ( ! ) " Pokegama River ) "" ) V. SUPERIOR V. OLIVER " ) X Z Nemadji River B A 35 T. PARKLAND DARROW RD ( ! LYMAN LAKE RD sot Minne C. SUPERIOR IRONDALE RD E VALLEY BROOK RD " ) PINE ST A W " ) KRONBERG RD T. SUPERIOR C IRONDALE RD RIVORD RD # WINDMILL RD " ) " ) C JOHNSON RD KERWIN RD ) "" ) MABEL NELSON RD STATION RD BAUMGARTNER RD Black River 35 MAN IT O UV A LL EY R D # NEWMAN RD E ) " NEUMAN RD EASTMAN RD DEDHAM RD REED MERRILL RD ( ! # " ) B B POLISH RD JAKE SCHMIDT RD ROCKS RD RD POIN T OF T. SUMMIT WARRING " ) # TUFF RD # T. OAKLAND B A # # TORGERSON RD Interfalls Lake # TOWN LINE RD (1) CONLEY RD LEGGATE RD KEITH RD Copper Creek " ) A OAKLAND RD MIDBON RD MILLER RD TWIN CREEK RD KOENEN RD OTTO RD TOWN LINE RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,830 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X d # ) " T47 & 48N, R13W, DOUGLAS COUNTY T. LAKESIDE S CAMP AMNICON RD C. SUPERIOR Dutchman Creek ) " V. SUPERIOR B A " ) (! ! ( ( !! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! 13 Z B A £ ¤ DARROW RD Bluff Creek " ) UU PAPINEAU RD ( ! Morrison Creek 2 LYMAN LAKE RD 35 T. PARKLAND " ) K VALLEY BROOK RD ) " U Amnicon River ) " E ) " " ) " ) " ) KRONBERG RD C ( ! £ ¤ STONES RD HUPPERT RD RIVORD RD # WINDMILL RD C S ROCKMONT RD A 53 SNOOKY RD PINE ST " ) SMITH RD Nemadji River BAYFIELD RD JOHNSON RD KERWIN RD T. SUPERIOR WAY RD E ROCKMONT RD " ) TWIN CREEK RD K ABRAHAMSON RD MIKROT RD MABEL NELSON RD Middle River SWAMP RD BAUMGARTNER RD Little Amnicon River # " ) NEUMAN RD TURBETT RD T. HAWTHORNE ( ! JACKSINO RD A RANGE LINE RD " ) OAKLAND RD KOENEN RD Silver Creek " ) OTTO RD B " ) L NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,140 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - S KIP RD Copper Creek ) " OLD 11 RD TUFF RD T. OAKLAND CONLEY RD TORGERSON RD KEITH RD D BRANNEN RD " ) Black River OVER R ) " " ) B LEGGATE RD CROS S PINE GROVE RD JACKSINO RD V V EASTMAN RD NEWMAN RD E T. AMNICON BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X PETERSON RD Lake Superior X CON RD Miller Creek AMNICON RIVER RD Middle River T. LAKESIDE ENGDAHL RD (! ! ( ( !! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! B A d ANDERSON RD 22 RD 13 ( ! Amnicon River " ) UU PAPINEAU RD Hanson Creek T. PARKLAND " ) " ) " ) U Morrison Creek BARDON CREEK RD ( ! TWENTY TWO RD N " ) ) " ( ! " ) P S SPA ULD ING RD " ) C # X TWENTY TWO RD S T. AMNICON WAY RD # V. POPLAR # # WILLOX RD LACKSON RD ABRAHAMSON RD MIKROT RD " ) ) " ( ! E ROCKMONT RD Little Amnicon River K 2 BAYFIELD RD BAYFIELD RD " ) £ ¤ ") SNOOKY RD S ROCKMONT RD ( ! STONES RD HUPPERT RD D MOONSHINE RD SMITH RD E " ) WENTWORTH RD 2 K ) " 13 B A £ ¤ Poplar River PINE CENTRAL RD S CAMP AMNICON RD Dutchman Creek PALM RD MIDDLE RIVER RD # C. SUPERIOR Hanson Creek PETERSON RD AMNI E CA MP AMNICON RIVER RD T47 & 48N, R12W, DOUGLAS COUNTY # T. OAKLAND SWAMP RD # ( ! ( ! £ ¤ 53 " ) " ) V JACKSINO RD PINE GROVE RD CROSSO VER RD ) " P " ) E " ) D BRANNEN RD ) " TURBETT RD T. HAWTHORNE SO UT H SH ORE GRAD B " ) LASCH RD GUN CLUB LN " ) B " ) S KIP RD 1:93,610 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - MCGIV ERN LN L NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Steele Lake T JACKSINO RD Silver Creek " ) E HS 18 T RANGE LINE RD OLD 11 RD ( ! Twin Lakes BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X GREEN ALFALFA LN Poplar River T47 & 48N, R11W, DOUGLAS COUNTY BECKS RD PETERSON RD MIDDLE RIVER RD AMNICON RIVER RD " ) ) " PALM RD T. CLOVERLAND T. LAKESIDE AMNICON RIVER RD " ) O ( ! d JARVI RD PINE CENTRAL RD F " ) BARDON CREEK RD Haukkala Creek ( ! AUTIO RD JAMISKA RD MOONSHINE RD TWENTY TWO RD N T. AMNICON " ) O HARJU RD " ) P ( ! Middle River T. MAPLE HEINO RD £ ¤ ") 2 # " ) ) " LINDGREN RD WUORI RD GONSCHOREK LOOP X HILL RD D WALLIN RD (1) FF " ) WENTWORTH RD Hanson Creek " ) ESKOLIN RD ANDERSON RD "" ) ) T. BRULE £ ¤ 2 V. POPLAR # # ( ! GRAHAM RD 22 RD 13 ( ! TWENTY TWO RD S GULLEY RD B A " ) 13 SMITH CREEK RD B A # DANIELSON RD TEPOEL DR BLUEBERRY RD " ) # F BELLWOOD PIT RD # DUMP RD LACKSON RD WILLOX RD ( ! " ) D ( ! BELLWOOD PIT RD EAS " ) Blueberry Creek P Nebagamon Creek Minnow Lake T. HAWTHORNE " ) B Pine Lake " ) D " ) Twin Lakes POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - PETERSON RD 1:86,130 B MCGIVERN LN NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY " ) YR D Steele Lake " ) ! ( ( ! T HS E ) " 18T " ) V. LAKE NEBAGAMON Little Steele Lake EST R E F OR ORE GRAD LASCH RD SOUT H SH T. HIGHLAND BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X BOULEVAR GREEN A " ) " ) T. CLOVERLAND CLEVEDON RD ALFALFA LN T47 & 48N, R10W, DOUGLAS COUNTY BECKS RD B H Bois Brule River " ) PUDAS RD " ) DANIELSON RD TEPOEL DR SEVEN MILE RD O ERIKKILA RD B A 13 SMITH CREEK RD ( ! JARVI RD " ) F ( ! T. OULU " ) " ) " ) FF FF ( ! " ) ) " H MILLER RD COUNTY LINE RD BELLWOOD PIT RD OLD HWY 2 RD ( ! 2 BELLWOOD PIT RD EAST Nebagamon Creek Bois Brule River V. LAKE NEBAGAMON ) " ( ! ( ) ! " # Hoodoo Lake ANDERSON RD SCHIESSER RD Minnow Lake Little Bois Brule River 27 1:86,060 HILLTOP RD EST R YR D PETERSON RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Bass Lake Carroll Lake LINGREN RD ) " Lindgren Lake SAND RD B T. HUGHES Camp Eleven Lake B A " ) Pine Lake S SHORE GRADE RD AFTERHOURS RD Blueberry Creek Muskeg Creek £ ¤ X WILLS RD (3) " ) ) " ( ! F OR F CARLSON RD DUMP RD " ) 2 SZNAIDER RD £ ¤ BLUEBERRY RD BAIN RD # GRAHAM RD CLEVEDON RD 2 RD " ) £ ¤ T. MAPLE "" ) ) KO HO WUORI RD T. BRULE CCC SQUARE RD GONSCHOREK LOOP OULU ROCK RD LINDGREN RD HEINO RD B Reefer Creek RANKINSON RD ( ! O HARJU RD " ) WEST COLBY RD LEPPANEN RD AUTIO RD JAMISKA RD HOLLANDER RD HILL RD ESKOLIN RD Haukkala Creek WALLIN RD (1) FF BOULEVARD RD GULLEY RD T. HIGHLAND POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # " ) W TOWN LINE RD (1) " ) T. SUPERIOR TOWN LINE RD B NORTH RD T45 & 46N, R15W, DOUGLAS COUNTY " ) MOE NR ) " BB # BRIETZMAN LAKE RD DROLSON RD PATZAU FOXBORO RD D RANCON RD PELKEY RD Black River SCH O Summit Lake OL F OR E ST R D " MILCHESKY ) RD MILC Minnesota B A 35 D SA MR BA L BI G FOXBORO CHAFFEY RD # Breitzman Lake BRIE TZM AN LAKE RD Balsam Creek T. SUMMIT PIONEER TRL DIETZ RD THOMPSON RD GRUHLKE RD CHAFFEY FOXBORO RD # CARLSON RD MATLOCK RD SUMMIT TRL Minnesota Lake Seventeen SUMMIT TR L B A 35 Black Lake TOWE R FIRE LN (2) FALL RD T. DAIRYLAND NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,700 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X HE SK Y TOWN LINE RD (1) " ) T. SUPERIOR TOWN LINE RD B T45 & 46N, R14W, DOUGLAS COUNTY " ) # SCH O OL F Reichuster Lake RANCON RD ) " BB BRIETZMAN LAKE RD OTTO RD One Buck Lake Lake Newman Amnicon Lake O RE ST R D S RD TRI LAKE ) " B A 35 HE SK Dowling Lake Y RD T. OAKLAND Black River Mud Lake # Breitzman Lake Scout Lake # OLIPHANT RD MILC Amnicon River BRIE TZM AN LAKE RD W LYM AN LAKE RD " ) A JOHN SCHMIDT RD PIONEER TRL CHAFFEY FOXBORO RD DIETZ RD T. SUMMIT Bear Creek HUNTERS TRL # CARLSON RD SUMMIT TRL BEAR LAKE RD Bear Lake Lake Seventeen SUMMIT TR L B A 35 T. GORDON TOWE R FIRE LN (2) FALL RD JAC Crotte Creek T. DAIRYLAND NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,440 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X KS O NB OX T RANGE JACKSI OAKLAND " ) OTTO RD S KIP RD B NAJT RD OKERSON LN Reichuster Lake One Buck Lake Lake Newman Long Lake Round Lake S RD TRI LAKE Scout Lake ( !! ( Mud Lake W LYM AN LAKE A # Three Bucks Lakes Lyman Lake # " ) Amnicon River OLIPHANT RD Dowling Lake T. HAWTHORNE Deer Lake # ( ! RD MAKI RD Amnicon Lake T45 & 46N, R13W, DOUGLAS COUNTY Cranberry Creek " ) L T. BENNETT RD MOOSE LAKE RD RD GRE G ERSO N JOHN SCHMIDT LUCAS RD T. OAKLAND PISON RD T. SUPERIOR Moose Lake Bear Creek HUNTERS TRL T. SUMMIT LUCAS RD BEAR LAKE RD Bear Lake Moose River T. GORDON T. SOLON SPRINGS PIERCE RD PASKE RD WORMER RD " ) A NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,430 NB OX TR L # Moose Br Flowage BECK RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - WATE RBURY RD Crotte Creek KS O Buckety Creek ROOS RD JAC BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X RANGE LI D 53 T. HAWTHORNE IBSEN RD Middle River TOWN LINE RD Round Lake Lake Minnesuing KLANG RD T. OAKLAND Three Bucks Lakes # Kaspar Creek PETERSON RD " ) E Cranberry Creek " ) MINNESUING ACRES DR BENNETT RD BENNETT RD # MAKI RD Lyman Lake Twin Lakes Poplar River ( ! Amnicon River ( !! ( B HALLBERG RD OKERSON LN £ ¤ ( ! Deer Lake " ) MCGIVERN LN T45 & 46N, R12W, DOUGLAS COUNTY S KIP RD " ) " ) JACKSON RD JACKSINO " ) L T HS E B " ) 18T " ) " ) " ) ) " L L OL D RD PISON RD VEN E LE T. BENNETT HAGMAN RD MOOSE LAKE RD GRE G ERSO N RD FIRE TOWER RD STONE CHIMNEY RD Moose Lake " ) P Gilbert Lake East Fork Moose River HEYER RD £ ¤ 53 SJOBERG RD T. SOLON SPRINGS AA ( ! ! ( ! (( ! PIERCE RD Lake of the Woods Upper Saint Croix Lake " ) PASKE RD Big Spring N SCE IC D BAKKEN RD TOM GREEN RD Moose River Mills Lake West Fork Bois Brule River R ( ! " ) A " ) Buckety Creek " ) BECK RD FERGUSON RD Flowage CUT ACROSS RD ) " ( ! Ferguson Lake # WATE RBURY RD ( ! X NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,410 Long Lake Bass Lake FIRE LANE RD RAMEL RD T. GORDON Island Lake LORD RD # BALDWIN AVE ROOS RD # Moose Br ) " LONG LAKE RD A A OSSMANN RD " ) ( (! (! ! ! ( V. SOLON SPRINGS MUSKRAT LAKE RD WORMER RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Saint Croix River # BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Y EST R T HS D " ) YR EST R F OR V. LAKE NEBAGAMON D PETERSON RD T. HAWTHORNE HALLBERG RD 53 MCGIVERN LN £ ¤ T. BRULE B T45 & 46N, R11W, DOUGLAS COUNTY Poplar River Pine Lake F OR 18T " ) JACKSON RD IBSEN RD MINNESUING RD TOWN LINE RD Gander Lake Cream Lake SCHALLER RD (1) " ) L S ( !! ( McDougal Springs OL D VEN E LE Bois Brule River Blue Springs HAZEL PRAIRIE RD RD T. HIGHLAND TURKEY FARM RD "" ) ) STONE CHIMNEY RD N SA " ) P Mills Lake ON DM RD COMMISKEY RD FIRE TOWER RD ANDERSON RD " ) KELLY RD HAGMAN RD Cedar Island Ponds VAPA RD ROSS RD MINNESUING ACRES DR T. BENNETT " ) ) " Whisky Lake Coffee Lake D Anderson Lake DR E AN " ) I SL PETERSON RD AR Kaspar Creek RD D CE OAKDA LE RD Lake Minnesuing BENNETT RD BENNETT RD LA R K HA JERSETT RD Gilbert Lake Smith Lake Big Spring N SCE IC D LOST LAKE RD R ( ! T. SOLON SPRINGS ROSS RD ( ! ! ( ! (( ! Cheney Lake BAKKEN RD AA CHENEY LAKE RD JERS ETT RD Lake of the Woods Upper Saint Croix Lake " ) CHENEY LAKE RD SANDMON RD SJOBERG RD 53 " ) A V. SOLON SPRINGS A Island Lake LORD RD # ) " Mud Creek Twin Lakes ( ! SUTFIN RD CUT ACROSS RD ) " E AK RD OSSMANN RD TL RA Long Lake Bass Lake ( ! X Saint Croix River T. GORDON # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,240 Boot Lake E BEAUREGARD LA TOWN LINE RD FIRE LANE RD RAMEL RD Mud Creek Springs DUCK POND RD SK SIMMS LAKE RD MU ( ! LONG LAKE RD BALDWIN AVE " ) MUSKRAT LAKE RD ) " ( !! (( ! ( ! COMMISKEY RD HEYER RD £ ¤ Shoberg Lake Beaupre Springs Flamang Lake Flat Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X HILLTO D YR EST R ( ! T. BRULE F OR Pine Lake YR CCC RD RUSH LAKE RD Rush Lake ! ( ( ! ( ! T. HUGHES VOLKER RD HUFFGARD RD Big Lake MINNESUING RD AR I SL AN OAKDA LE RD ANDERSON RD HUGHES TOWN LINE RD ( ! ( !! ( Bois Brule! ( (! River B A 27 COUNTY LINE RD VAPA RD HALFWAY RD S McDougal Springs T. HIGHLAND HAZEL PRAIRIE RD MOORE RD " ) KELLY RD HUFFGARD RD RADIO STATION RD SCHALLER RD (1) VOLKER RD Gander Lake Cream Lake ( ! D Whisky Lake Coffee Lake DR Anderson Lake T. BENNETT RD D CE LA R K HA MORELAND LAKE RD EST R Lucius Lake F OR V. LAKE NEBAGAMON D PETERSON RD T45 & 46N, R10W, DOUGLAS COUNTY "" ) ) AIRPORT RD " ) S T. BARNES D MOORE RD COMMISKEY RD DM ROSS RD N SA R ON BINGO RD Blue Springs MOTT S RA VINE RD MOTTS RD MUCK LAKE RD MOORE RD Bass Lake JERSETT JERSETT RD RD Blue Lake MU RR AY Smith Lake LA KE Shoberg Lake RD CHENEY LAKE RD ( ! (( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ! ( Muck Lake CHENEY LAKE RD CHENEY LAKE RD ISLAND LAKE RD ( ! ROSS RD COMMISKEY RD Jack Pine Lake B A 27 Black Fox Lake " ) " ) A A Mud Creek Twin Lakes ( ! SUTFIN RD Catherine Lake Boot Lake " ) " ) Y NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,280 RD KE EW I LD LA T. GORDON Flamang Lake "" ) ) N ID L Flat Lake Little Island Lake Ellison Lake Mirror Lake E BEAUREGARD LAKE RD TOWN LINE RD Tomahawk Lake Priest Lake Beauregard Lake Rock Lake DUCK POND RD SIMMS LAKE RD Mud Creek Springs Sand Bar Lake Hopkins Lake Paradise Lake CONNOR'S RD SANDMON RD LOST LAKE RD Loon Lake D RD T. SOLON SPRINGS Sand Lake LITTLE ISLAN MOORE RD Cheney Lake MOORE RD ( ! !! ( ( POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Idlewild Lake EA S TI Pickerel Lake DL EW BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES IL D LA KE U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " RD STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. SUMMIT T43 & 44N, R15W, DOUGLAS COUNTY East Branch Hay Creek B A 35 Toad Creek # MOOSE RD MOOSE RD SWEDISH HIGHWAY Minnesota # # Chases Brook Dingle Creek PERKINS RD T. DAIRYLAND ( ! ! ( ( ! KINGSDALE RD ( ! Radigan Flowage # Minnesota "d ) ) " TN RD TT B A 35 ( ! # " ) T Thompson Creek Rock Creek Boyles Brook " ) T " ) ) " ( ! McGraw Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - MCGRAW LAKE RD T. BLAINE NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY ROCKY BROOK TRL Upper Tamarack River NORTH RD ANDREWS RD ( ! Hay Creek 1:86,170 KNUTSON RD LUNDQUIST RD N FIRE LN SWEDISH HIGHWAY Spruce River BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. SUMMIT T43 & 44N, R14W, DOUGLAS COUNTY T. GORDON # Toad Creek Crotte Creek B A 35 Sheosh Creek ( ! " ) M MOOSE RD # Chases Brook T. DAIRYLAND Thompson Creek ( ! ! ( ( ! # KNUTSON RD "d ) ) " D DR LAN Y IS # " ) T ROCKY BROOK TRL TN RD TT B A 35 ( ! K RD KLE Radigan Flowage CROTT E BROO CROTTE BROOK TRL LUNDQUIST RD ( ! " ) T Buckley Springs Rock Creek T. WASCOTT TRL " ) T ONE MILE RD TN RD F RO CKY BROOK VELIE RD Saint Croix River TWO MILE RD Upper Tamarack River BUC KINGSDALE RD # CROTTE BROOK R Hay Creek ROCKY BROOK TRL Boyles Brook DEER TRACK RD DEER TRACK RD E RIV D ER R C CUT A RD ROSS ( ! McGraw Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,180 T. BLAINE N CO UN POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - T. MINONG TY LINE RD Sand Lake ONE MILE RD LITTLE SAND RD DRY LANDING RD Little Sand Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. SUMMIT WATE RBURY RD T43 & 44N, R13W, DOUGLAS COUNTY TR L T. SOLON SPRINGS OX ROOS RD BU R MA RD JAC KSO NB Moose River # Crotte Creek Sheosh Creek Arnold Creek Lord Creek ( ! " ) " ) M M Spring Creek T. GORDON W MA IL DR FLOWAGE LN Thompson Creek CROTTE BROOK RD ( ! Saint Croix Flowage ( ! # T. DAIRYLAND FIRE HILL RD " ) H F IS IT E WH Webb Lake RD LA KE DR IS L AN Scott Lake EY K RD KL CROT TE BROO BU C # LAND RD E Y IS D L BUCK Spider Lake APP LE IS LAND RD LOST LAKE RD Y BUCKLE Y KE R H LA WHIT E FIS LOST LAKE T. WASCOTT Apple Lake RD Cranberry Spring VELIE RD TWO MILE RD SUNSET DR Buckley Springs Saint Croix River Person Lake ONE MILE RD TN RD F T Pickerel Lake Cranberry Lake Crystal Lake " ) Bardon Lake APPLE LAKE RD Wilson Lake Snipe Lake SOUTH MAIL RD D DR LAN Y IS KLE BUC ROCKY BROOK TRL EE K RD (1) # Deer Lake CA RP 'S CR Buckley Creek D Round Lake CROTTE BROOK TRL Loon Lake DEER TRACK RD S RD C R OS CUT A E RD T. BLAINE NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,090 ONE MILE RD LIN N CO UNTY Sand Lake Little Sand Lake T. MINONG POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - ( ! Minong Flowage A UD RD Bond Lake ) " ( ! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! LITTLE SAND RD LITTLE SAND RD LANDING RD ( ! ( ! ISLAND VIEW RD RD ( ! !! ( ( ( ( ! ! KIMBAL LAKE RD DEER TRACK RD ER E RIV UT L IA ! ( ( ! Totagatic River Bergen Creek BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X OSSMANN FERGUS # Ferguson Lake RAMEL RD FIRE LANE RD ( ! X WATE RBURY RD T43 & 44N, R12W, DOUGLAS COUNTY T. SOLON SPRINGS LEUSMAN RD Saint Croix River FERGUSON RD Lower Ox Lake # BU R MA RD Leo Creek CE METERY RD ROOS RD Moose River # BIRD SANCTUARY RD MEADE CHURCH LN KEY RD RD RD STU C Arnold Creek LOWER OX LN PLANTA TION RD # GROUSE RD Bird Sanctuary BLake I £ ¤ Lower Ox Creek 53 " ) M Spring Creek Lord Creek PRAIRIE LN T. GORDON CREST VIEW LN ! ( Eau Claire River W MA IL DR ES TC R OI XR D FLOWAGE LN YC ( ! FIRE HILL RD ER HL AK ER WH D IT E F IS G Grover Lake WHIT E FIS Kreide Lake Person Lake Crystal Lake T. WASCOTT Bergen Springs 53 LEA DE RD RL Wascott Lake AKE Sullivan Lake Red Lake RD ( ! Minong Flowage ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( (! ! (! ( ( ! ( ! LITTLE SAND RD ) " " ) ( ! ( ! ISLAND VIEW RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,140 Buffalo Lake Miles Lake KE R S LA MILE Peterson Lake T. MINONG D POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - d Muck Lake BUFFALO LAKE RD Bergen Creek ( ! ) " T MILES LAKE RD KIMBAL LAKE RD ( ! !! ( ( ( ( ! ! ( ! LEG GR D Loon Lake RD £ ¤ Bond Lake U L IA R PU SULLIVAN LAKE RD Pickerel Lake D TAU ES EM Wagner Lake Cranberry Lake CLAIRE LAWLER IN E OS Bardon Lake RD Cranberry Spring Harriet Lake Two Mile Lake CEMETERY RD LOST LAKE Eau Claire River Flowage " ) One Mile Lake Long Lake H LA KE R D Rainbow Lake Apple Lake APPLE LAKE RD EE K RD (1) Wilson Lake Snipe Lake SOUTH MAIL RD CA RP 'S CR Deer Lake # Spider Lake Round Lake Buckley Creek AK LOST LAKE RD Webb Lake RD BA SS L Scott Lake LAND RD E Y IS LA KE L BUCK APP LE IS LAND RD ) " D Y BUCKLE Y !! ( ( ( )! " ( ! ( ! ! ( " ) CO U N TR # IR Saint Croix Flowage ( ! NEWSOME RD ( ! - Crott Lake T. FROG CREEK BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X OSSMANN R T43 Flat & 44N, R11W, DOUGLAS COUNTY FLAMANG RD Lake BIRD SANCTUARY RD 53 " ) M Upper Ox Creek DOETSCH LN SWENSON LN OD FLAMANG RD RD Swenson Lake T. GORDON CREST VIEW LN CREST VIEW LN PRAIRIE LN Upper Ox Lake ! ( RD Simms Lake ES TC R OI XR D FLAT LAKE RD WO O D CONNORS MEADOW RD £ ¤ Lower Ox Creek CABIN LN RD Whiteside Lake LOWER OX LN PLANTATION RD GROUSE RD Bird Sanctuary Lake L F IE GERMANN RD # Y BA WO Lower Ox Lake Horseshoe Springs D DR GERMANN RD CE ME TERY RD T. SOLON SPRINGS Saint Croix River Metzger Lake FLAT LAKE RD Leo Creek BI R D E BEAUREGARD LAKE RD Flamang Lake # DE CHURCH LN T. HIGHLAND TOWN LINE RD ( ! X LEUSMAN RD OND RD RAMEL RD LAKE RD Long Lake FIRE LANE RD " ) Y N TR YC IR ! ( ( ! ( )! " ( ! # BA SS L AK ER D Eau Claire River Flowage " ) G One Mile Lake Harriet Lake R PU ES I NE OS CH AIN SULLIVAN LAKE RD DE RL Mulligan Lake D (1) Crooked Lake T. WASCOTT £ ¤ 53 Lower Chain Lake Sullivan Lake Clyde Lake MIL AK ES L Frahm Lake " ) Totagatic River Sawyer Lake G CH E EV E R d Muck Lake BUF FALO LAKE RD Miles Lake LEG GR Buffalo Lake BURNS RD ) " SNAKE LAKE RD RED LAKE DR Red Lake RD Snake Lake Snake Creek D AKE LA KE R Upper Chain Lake Bergen Springs CEMETERY RD LEA Wascott Lake KREEL RD (1) RD EM Bergen Creek Thorn Lake Alexander Lake CLAIRE LAWLER RD Mahogany Marsh Lake RD (3) Kreide Lake Haugen Lake EAST MAIL RD CROO KE D LA KE Two Mile Lake Sauntrys Pocket Lake ( ! Grover Lake NEWSOME RD Rainbow Lake LAWLER BRIDGE RD # RD Y WILLAMS DR SNAKE LAKE RD " ) ) " SAWYER LAKE RD ! ( ( ! Eau Claire River CO U ( ! MCCUMBER RD Saint Croix Flowage Little Simms Lake Crott Lake Peterson Lake T. MINONG E RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,890 Loon Lake d POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - # Colton Flowage CRITICAL FACILITIES # BASE FEATURES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Beauregard Lake LA KE E BEAUREGARD LAKE RD RD CK POND RD MS LAKE RD Boot Lake TOWN LINE RD LD ID L RD CA BIN IL D LA KE Bony Lake RD Middle Eau Claire Lake T. GORDON DOETSCH LN SWENSON LN DOETSCH LN SCHAEFER RD RD GERMANN RD WO OD FLAMANG RD " ) Y RD CONNORS MEADOW RD D # ( ! # Eau Claire River Y LAKE RD CRANBE RR E MAIL RD JOHNSON RD (# ! ( ! (! !! ( ( ER ( ! AK ! ( ( ! !! ( ( (! Little Simms Lake Devils Lake L ER Y 27 W LO " ) B A Mimi Lake Lower Eau Claire Lake CREST VIEW LN Simms Lake # ! (( ! # ( ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ( #! Swenson Lake WO O D Birch Lake ! ( ( ! ( ! (# ! LN E SHORE RD GERMANN RD Upper Ox Creek WILLAMS DR EW Robinson Lake Mud Lake CABIN LN Upper Ox Lake ID L LO ST R RD SAND Whiteside Lake Lower Ox Creek ST D FLAMANG RD BA Horseshoe Springs Pickerel Lake Idlewild EA Lake Lund Lake Metzger Lake ELD YFI EW I T43 & 44N, R10W, DOUGLAS COUNTY Flamang Lake T. BARNES DE NVER RD WILDERNESS DR MCCUMBER RD # Sauntrys Pocket Lake Haugen Lake " ) G EAST MAIL RD EAST MAIL RD Mahogany Marsh Lake Thorn Lake Alexander Lake # Ounce River Goose Lake KREEL RD (1) TH CO R PP E E MIN INE L M PE R COP RD OOP SNAKE LAKE RD T. WASCOTT Clyde Lake H RD SAWYER LAKE RD RED LAKE DR 27 Haymaker Creek CHE EVER RD Frahm Lake HU TC Snake Creek B A RA BB IT " ) Snake Lake CROOKE D LAKE RD (3) SOU SNAKE LAKE RD Crooked Lake G Upper Chain Lake Lower Chain Lake BURNS RD d T. SOLON SPRINGS Cole Creek Totagatic Loon River Lake # # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,340 Colton Flowage T. LENROOT # POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - SEELEY FIRE LN BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # VILLAGE OF LAKE NEBAGAMON, DOUGLAS COUNTY DELEO LN BATES RD DEGERMAN RD Minnow Lake " ) E LIMITS F MINNOW LAKE RD " ) P RAILROAD ST ST " ) B 3RD ST N ) " B " ) Lake Nebagamon TIMBE R RID Lydon Lake ROWE RD GE RD WANGA RIN RD CLEVELAND RD MI NN E SU IN G MARSIK RD CR EE K Deer Lake PETERSON RD JOHNSON RD Pine Lake S PHILLIPS RD CHURCH RD REEK RD MAPLE C " ) REEK MATTSON NC MO GA BA E N " ) R RD HAUSE WEYER HANSON RD Little Steele Lake D ROA RAIL LARSON DR WASGREN RD KNOLL RD LAK E BLV D E LAKE BLVD S " ) ANDERSON RD LAKE BLVD S P MINNESUING ACRES DR OAKDALE RD Lake Minnesuing Plate Lake MINNESUING RD Sunfish NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:35,370 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT FRANCIS WILLARD RD CRITICAL FACILITIES Lake BASE FEATURES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X VILLAGE OF OLIVER, DOUGLAS COUNTY IRONDALE AVE Mud Lake MINNESOTA ST NORTHERN DR MISSABE ST ALCOTT AVE COUNTRY LANE DR B A STATE ST MITCHELL AVE GRAND AVE 105 ) ) " " BROADWAY AVE BROOKLYN AVE MILWAUKEE AVE ST L COREY AVE OU IS RI VE R ERIE ST DETROIT ST CARNEGIE ST 3RD AVE " ) W AMA RIV ER PHIPPS ST LITTLE POKEG LAKE AVE HARDING ST NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:14,220 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X DEER PRI CENTER NORTH LINE RD VILLAGE OF POPLAR, DOUGLAS COUNTY WOOD RD MIDWAY RD N CEDAR RD POPL AR R RIVE R MIDDLE OAK RD IV LAKE CREEK IN K EE MA CR AR DR ON VIL LAG ER D RD 2 " )" ) ST £ ¤ 2 " ) P S WIEHE DR # MAPLE DR POPLAR DR D POND DR # MIDWAY RD ELM RD " ) E LAKEVIEW RD W LAKEVIEW RD PINE RD PINE RD E HOMESTEAD RD W HOMESTEAD RD E HOMESTEAD RD S WIEHE DR MAPLE DR BALSAM DR S WEST LINE RD # MIDDLE RIVER RD # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:29,610 " ) BAYFIELD RD E BA N POPL £ ¤ X BAYFIELD RD E BAYFIELD RD W BAYFIELD RD W N WIEHE DR FIR RD ER WESTLINE RD " ) POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X VILLAGE OF SOLON SPRINGS, DOUGLAS COUNTY E BOUNDRY RD S 3RD ST E MERTZIG PKWY £ ¤ CEDAR AVE MAPLE AVE " ) GIESEN DR 53 WALNUT AVE B53 Upper Saint Croix Lake PINE AVE CEMETERY RD PARK AVE LORD RD MAIN ST " ) A LIMPACH DR S HUGHES AVE # ) " OD WO OSSMANN RD S 2ND ST W RYDEN DR S 5TH ST W MARION AVE " ) LAKE AVE S BALDWIN AVE K EE CR IUS RK PA LUC LUCAS AVE S 1ST ST W ) " SMITH DR JACKPINE AVE PLUNTZ DR E ARCH U RY CL B RD WHITE BIRCH AVE PETTIT DR CEMETERY RD " ) HILLSIDE ST PRE B53 BOULDER DR DR HILL TOP RD VOS T BILLER LOOP FAVELL ST 53 RAILROAD ST CEMETERY RD £ ¤ D LAN FI L LL N FIRE LANE RD LEO CR EE RAMEL RD X NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:15,780 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT K BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X d " ) £ ¤ 2 RI N " ) ER UIS RIV N E CR EE K CRE EK JOHN AV E BUT LE R AV E JOHN AV E BANK S AV E HAMMOND AV E OGDE N AV E BE AR LOGAN AV E OGDE N AV E JOHN AV E 1:81,630 OLD 35 R D NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT 13 CH MA NC AL BRIGHT RD B A Z DU T N 7 6TH ST LYMAN LAKE RD N 7 5TH ST C RA W F O R D C R EE K OGDE N A V E X BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X RE EK CR EE K OGDE N AV E HUGHITT AV E OAK ES A V E BANK S A V E CE ME TE RY RD POKEGAMA RD " ) N 7 3RD ST T LE POK E GAM A RIV ER MIT CHELL AVE BROA DW AY AVE ST 71ST ST 35 LI T CORE Y AVE N 7 0TH B A E MIL WAUK EE AVE N 69TH ST AV LAKE AVE MOCCASIN MIKE RD ND 3RD AVE " ) N 68TH ST JOHN AV E PHI PPS ST N 66TH ST N 67 TH ST HUGHITT AV E W D " ) N 65TH ST OGDE N AV E ) " N 42 AV EE A GR HARDING ST CARNEGIE ST RD 64 TH ST N BA NK S AV E ERIE ST DE TROIT ST 105 ES AVE BROOK LYN AVE OIN T CITY LIMITS RD B A OAK GRAND AVE 105 d d NE D NR " ") ) B A NP FF IN ST AV ONS I BL U ER L IV A BILLINGS DR N SO # WIS C JI RIV S UL B A 35 d EK " ) RI VE R TN EW E CR N TO M AD A AM AL COT T AVE COUNT RY LANE DR ST AT E ST Lake Superior BARDON AVE EG S 42ND " ) " ) HILL AVE POK IRONDALE AVE MINNE SOTA ST NO RT HERN DR MISSABE ST R 53 58TH ST N Mud Lake AD £ ¤ ALBANY AVE ST LO MA ) " " ) )" CUTTER RD " ) UU MOR RISO N NP RAILROAD ST Min n IN MA eso ta CITY OF SUPERIOR, DOUGLAS COUNTY JOHN AVE VILLAGE OF SUPERIOR, DOUGLAS COUNTY BUTLER AVE 64TH ST N HUGHITT AVE OGDEN AVE BANKS AVE CEMETERY RD OAKES AVE N 65TH ST N 66TH ST N 67TH ST ) " JOHN AVE RIV ER BANKS AVE PO KE GA MA OAK OGDEN AVE HAMMOND AVE N 68TH ST VE ES A BANKS AVE LOGAN AVE N 69TH ST N 70T H ST 35 NEMADJI RIVER JOHN AVE B A OGDEN AVE 71ST ST OGDEN AVE N 73RD ST N 75TH ST X N 76TH ST HUGHITT AVE JOHN AVE OGDEN AVE ALBRIGHT RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:8,940 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X IRON COUNTY Table 15: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – IRON COUNTY HAZUS 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - IRON COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted C. OF HURLEY C. OF MONTREAL T. OF ANDERSON T. OF CAREY T. OF GURNEY T. OF KIMBALL T. OF MERCER T. OF OMA GRAND TOTAL 15 1 1 1 1 4 12 10 45 Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 161,962.00 1,440.00 6,840.00 2,806.00 5,669.00 91,227.00 123,583.00 5,856.00 399,383.00 313,406.00 353.00 52.00 1,407.00 1,662.00 121,798.00 138,339.00 2,634.00 579,651.00 Debris Generated (tons) 55,712.00 57,969.00 113,681.00 221 12 15 11 14 286 67 56 682 Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses Debris Generated (tons) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ HAZUS 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - IRON COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted C. OF HURLEY C. OF MONTREAL T. OF CAREY T. OF GURNEY T. OF KIMBALL T. OF MERCER T. OF OMA GRAND TOTAL 5 1 1 4 3 20 14 48 Estimated Building Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 33,748.00 5,660.00 9,031.00 14,200.00 159,628.00 27,397.00 249,664.00 161 28,777.00 1,936.00 3,900.00 8,079.00 144,041.00 10,231.00 196,964.00 9,924.00 9,924.00 62 12 7 70 86 131 75 443 T47 & 48N, R1E & 1W, IRON COUNTY Lake Superior West Branch Graveyard Creek an g Michi " ) A Oronto Creek HARBOR DR # T. SAXON BERGS RD B A 122 Saxon Falls Flowage Montreal River d FIRE LANE RD " ) B RD T. GURNEY AR SE SEPPI RD D SR T PAYET E RD ZEROS RD SANDS RD d# X £ ¤ 2 " ) " ) RD LAKEHEAD RD LOWER # 1:75,980 CLEMENT RD CARLSONS RD UPPER RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT T. KIMBALL BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Fourche Creek VALLEY RD D 0R H1 BIRCH H 2 SITAN US ILL RD OLD X £ ¤ ZEROS RD £ ¤ 2 X T45 & 46N, R1W, IRON COUNTY " ) B ) " " ) RD LO WER CLEMENT RD CARLSONS RD UPPER RD # FALLS RD ) " Potato River FREBURG RD Lawrence Creek CURRY RD Beaver Pond ( (! (! ! ! ( T. SANBORN B A 122 T. SAXON T. GURNEY MAGIERA RD Barr Creek B A 169 VOGUE RD Tyler Forks SULLIVAN RD Vogue Creek WILL RD POPKO RD CASEY SAG RD Camp Four Creek ( ! T. MORSE Erickson Creek d ) " d T. ANDERSON B A 77 Rouse Creek Montreal Creek MO CA R O LI NE LAK E RD COUNTY LINE RD BECKER RD Upson Lake OR KE RD WILL RD STRICKER RD Weber Lake Mead Creek 77 NE LAK d CA RO LI REVAI RD D O BRIEN LA ER B A NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,530 E RD Mud Creek POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - T. KNIGHT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X D Montreal River SANDS RD d# £ ¤COUNTY T45 & 46N, R1E, IRON X 2 2 CLEM ENT RD CARLSONS RD RIVER RD Fourche Creek LAKEHEAD RD RD VALLEY RD B UPPER RD ( ! OLD 10 RD CONHARTOSKI FREBURG RD HARMA RD Mud Creek Beaver Pond RD Lawrence Creek RIVERSIDE DR £ ¤ " ) ) " " ) LO WER d PARK RD SR AR SE B A 122 West Fork Montreal River T. KIMBALL VALLEY RD T. SAXON MAGIERA RD # ( ! KIMBALL RD T. GURNEY ) " SULLIVAN RD MP RD Weber Lake X ) " " ) E T. ANDERSON Erickson Creek RICCA RD T. PENCE East River ( ! d ) " d SNAKE TRACK RD CASEY SAG RD 77 d d Upson Lake Rouse Creek B A ISLAND LAKE RD Alder Creek SP RING CA Potato River C. MONTREAL B A 77 Turntable Creek O BRIEN LA KE RD CAR O LINE LAK E RD ISLAND LA KE R D T. KNIGHT CAROLI Mead Creek NE LAK E RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,970 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ( ! Montreal River T45, 46 & 47N, R2E, IRON COUNTY Michigan E NORTH DR d DEFER RD d# RIVERSIDE DR £ ¤ Fourche Creek RIVER RD VALLEY RD West Fork Montreal River ( ! OLD 10 RD CONHARTOSKI CENTER DR # ! ( ( ( ! ! ( ! RANGE VIEW DR DIVISION ST # VALLEY RD ) " " ) HARMA RD RD T. KIMBALL T. SAXON ( ! TOWN PARK DR PARK RD LAKEHEAD RD 2 d ! ( ( # ! ( ! ! ) ( " ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! C. HURLEY d ) " X OLD TEN RD # KIMBALL RD DUPONT RD )! " C. MONTREAL )( " ( ! 77 n RD FLO WA GE RICCA RD £ ¤ 51 " ) C LAMPI RD " ) CC KOEHMSTE DT RD (1) KUUSISTO RD East River SNAKE TRACK RD CENTER DR ISLAND LAKE RD Gile Flowage RIVERSIDvE RD d d ( ! higa Mic " ) # ) " B A ) " E KNIGHT RD DUP ONT RD X MP RD SP RING CA ) " S CAREY DR Alder Creek ANEN RD " MUT ) T. PENCE WB HR Linnunpuro Creek D LYON RD ISLAND T. KNIGHT NC RA LAKE RD Potato River LAHTI RD MOSINEE RD RIVERSIDE DR T. CAREY ISLAND LAKE R D PALMQUIST RD FALLS RD Lake One Creek Turntable Creek NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:97,610 T. OMA POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ) " d T45 & 46N, R3E, IRON COUNTY C. HURLEY DUPONT RD OLD TEN RD # higa Mic Gile Flowage n DUPONT RD ) " CENTER DR £ ¤ 51 " ) " ) CC KUUSISTO RD LAMPI RD C KOEHMSTEDT RD (1) ) " RIVERSIDE RD KNIGHT RD Montreal River MUTANEN RD Linnunpuro Creek LYON RD T. OMA T. CAREY LAHTI RD MOSINEE RD RIVERSIDE DR PALMQUIST RD Michiga n N BASS LAKE RD Black River NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:56,720 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T44N, R1W, IRON COUNTY B A 77 C AR O L Mead Creek KE INE LA RD Mud Creek KE McCarthy Lake RO CA Maki Lake A EL L IN SHIRLEY LAKE RD Shirley Lake RD T. ANDERSON CARO L INE L AKE R D Tyler Forks Caroline Lake E MORS D LINE R Minnie Creek T. JACOBS NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:49,710 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X CA ROLI Mead Creek NE LAK T43 & 44N, R1E, IRON COUNTY E RD RD SHIRLEY LAKE West Fork Montreal River Fifteen Lake LA PLEA SANT T. ANDERSON LAKE RD East Twin Lake Twin Sack Lake Lake Leclair Creek RD PLEASANT LAKE Tyler Forks A PLE Twin Lakes South Twin Lake LAK E Ruby Lake RD Island Pleasant Lake Lake Outlet T. CAREY SAN Shine Shine Lake Creek TL AKE RD BE ND RD T. KNIGHT LA KE (2) Lake Six SIX R D T. MERCER RD CHIPP E WA FI RE LN BUNTE SHACK RD Horseshoe Lake Mud Lake A PLE Pleasant Lake T SAN SS CRO ( ! GERRY RD I NE O'Brien Lake MER ( ! CA M T. JACOBS E RS LAK ER D SWA MP CREEK BUNTE SHACK RD Swamp Creek CAMMERERS LAKE RD L RO CA D W BRANCH RD RD Shirley Lake R KE T. PENCE LAKE ISLAND Mud Creek DUCK LAKE RD Duck Lake Augustine Lake MERC ( ! Cammerer Lake ER R D E ST F OR RD CHIPPE WA 9 Augustine E FIRE ID Creek E S LN ( ! East Fork Chippewa River FI RE LN (2 ) Hurd Creek T. AGENDA # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,600 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. OMA T43 & 44N, R2E, IRON COUNTY T. PENCE CAMP 7 RD Lake One Creek East Creek ) " W BRANCH RD D LAKE R ISLA ND Laymans Creek Fifteen Lake Montreal River Lake One West Fork Montreal River Sack Twin Lake Lake PL S IS LAND Ruby Lake Horseshoe Lake D SR R OS " ) G # ( ! ) " LAKE RD Mud Creek Pine Lake Mud Lake Island Pleasant Lake Lake Outlet d ( ! ( ! ! ( Little Pine Lake A PLE Pleasant Lake T. CAREY ( ! GERRY RD RD PLEASA NT LAKE KE C LA A NT EA S Obadash Lake N SA TL AKE RD BE ND RD £ ¤ 51 LA KE Lake Six D MOOSE LAKE RD Moose Lake CHIPP EW A FIRE LN (2) T. KNIGHT SIX R SWA MP CREEK RD Lac de Beaumont t Fork Chippewa River ( ! RUS S Moose Creek T. MERCER ELL B R OT HER S RD d Dollar Lake Dollar Creek ( ! CHIPPEWA FIRE LN (2 ) Hurd Creek Second Black Lake Swamp Creek # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,300 First Black Lake Lake of the Falls LA K EO HE FT FAL LS WEBER RD Weber Lake Pike Lake RD Davis Lake " ) FF Turtle River # ( ! ( ! POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X N BASS LAKE RD Michigan T43 & 44N, R3E, IRON COUNTY South Fork Black River CAMP 7 RD Lake One Creek ) " NB ER KICH L AK AK RD ASS T. CAREY D Laymans Creek Little Oak Lake Montreal River d Beaver Lake Lake Ten Little Pine Lake D G ( ! ( ! ! ( ER " ) Barrel Spring Lake Lake Dorothy Pine Lake AK # ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! COLLINS RD Vivrgin Creek ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! Lake Barbara Courtland Lake MOOSE LAKE RD Moose Lake Weber Creek Cramer Lake # D EN R EE T EL L B RO T H ERS R T. MERCER D Dollar Lake Dollar Creek Second Black Lake Lake of the Falls Twin Lake HA N Oxbow Lake Sells Lake Hazel Lake Bear Lake Kinder Lake # S PA LAK EO FT HE R LLS Weber Lake ( ! ! ( Pike Bluegill Lake Lake £ ¤ 51 Feely Lake D FA Davis Lake " ) FF Lost Lake "" ) )d ( ! Lake Tahoe Crystal Lake HADL E Y RD Krupka Lake Little Pike Lake Mercer Lake # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:85,580 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Little Paul Martha Lake Lake Little Turtle River BE AVER RD Plantation Lake Net Lake Margaret Lake Payment Lake ( !! ( #Lake ( ! Spring Lake # # # SS Rice Smith WEBER RD Lake Spider Lake # Cille Lake Echo Lake d First Black Lake H LS RD RU S S " ) RU SS EL May Lake NAT Moose Creek SHAYS MILL RD ( ! THR Jankewitz Lake Lac de Beaumont Clear Lake Deertail Lake Evelyn Creek CRAMER LAKE RD 51 Hawk Lake Pork & Beans Lake Long Lake Long Lake Creek £ ¤ # American Lake Lake Evelyn ) " LAKE RD A Oak Lake KL OA Obadash Lake L SS BA Bass Lake D N DR T. OMA R KE ATIO DESPER Lake One S ISLA ND Black River Grand Portage Lake San Domingo Lake Martha Lake Harper Brush Lake Lake d X BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # # Michiga Black River NB E LAK RD D COLLINS RD American Lake Lake Evelyn " ) G ( ! ( ! ! ( Barrel Spring Lake Lake Dorothy Long ( Lake! # Virgin Creek # Hill Lake D AKE R OWL L G Dumbbell Lake Pardee Lake Camp Twelve Lake Pork & Hawk Beans Lake Lake Lake Barbara " ) Jeannie Lake Negro Lake Lakes Owl Lake Virgin Lake R KE LA ! ( ( ! ( ! K OA L Cranberry Lake Woods Lake Little Oak Lake Oak Lake ATION DR DESPER SS BA Bass Lake Hewitt Lake Swamp Lake T. OMA D ER AK T43 & 44N, R4E, IRON COUNTY n Otter Lake KICH AK RD A SS Pardee Creek Lake Ten Oriole Lake ( Fisher ! Lake Clear Lake Long Lake Creek ( ! Oxbow Lake # Hazel Lake Spring Lake Kinder Lake # NS P ASS # # # Little Geyser Paul Martha Lake Lake Lake Little Turtle River BEAVER RD Echo Lake ( ! ( !! ( # Bluegill Lake £ ¤ 51 " ) FF Krupka Lake # "" ) )d ( ! Lake Tahoe Little Pike Lake Flannagan Lake Mercer Lake Grand Portage Lake d XNORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:83,180 EC LAK AR IR North Bass Lake J Martha Lake San Domingo Lake ( ! CED " ) DuPage Lake Woodson Lake Allen Lake Saskatoon Lake North Pine Lake Belding Lake Norway Pine Lake Harper Brush Lake Lake Trap Lake Cedar Lake T. MERCER Margaret Net Lake Lake Payment Lake Wallace Lake Judd Lake Tamarack Lake Seven Acres Lake CIRCLE LILLY RD Rice Lake Plantation Lake ADE 2 RD RD Turtle River Sells Lake GR RAILROAD LS RUSSEL Spider Lake # Cille Lake Bear Lake East Twin Lake Catherine Lake Beaver Lake Little Oxbow Lake Twin Lake May Lake Twin Lakes Vilas County Cramer Lake Deertail Lake (! ! ( # # SHAYS MILL RD " ) H Evelyn Creek CRAMER LAKE RD T HA South Fork Black River South Bass Lake # Kelly Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL#FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X CHIP PEW A FIRE LN (2) T. KNIGHT Hurd Creek T41 & 42N, R2E, IRON COUNTY " ) FF # First Black Second Lake Black Lake Third Black Lake # ( ! ( ! Popko Lake Fox Lake Altman Lake A SW LINE RD KIMMEAR RD (1) RODDIS MP Lipp Lake One Man Lake ( ! Kyle Lake R EEK Little Turtle River ! ( ( ! CR D Fourmile Creek Lake of the Falls T. MERCER Trude Lake ( ! Sand Lake # Nokomis Lake Ruth Lake SR A EAR OM D Minnow RODDIS LINE RD ) Lake " BE AU FLA M DAM RD T. AGENDA # Swamp Creek " ) FF FLOWAGE RD Turtle Flambeau Flowage Fawn Lake South Sister Sister Lakes Lake Flambeau River Lake Nine BOOT L Vincent Lake Island Lake ELMWOOD RD # Boot Lake French Lake A KE R D # Ess Lake Deer Creek T. SHERMAN Otter Lake Otter Creek Norma Lake Charnley Lake AMystery B Lake F H OF MAN LAK E RD Hay Creek Flowage McDermott Lake # Little Muskie Lake Lower Springstead Lake Mcdermott Creek Beaver Creek Creeds Flowage Hoffman Lake LITTLE MUSKIE RD 182 Stone Lake Keough Lake Upper Springstead Lake # Marty Lake Hoffman Creek Hay Creek Hay Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:87,260 Price County POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Krupka Lake EY RD Third Black Lake # X ! ( ( ! 51 Deer Lake Brandt Lake T. MERCER North Grant Lake Wilson Lake Trude Lake Sand Lake £ ¤ RD ! ( ( ! Turtle Flowage 51 Little Turtle River Voss Lake KE RD One Man Lake ( ! Kyle Lake July Lake June Lake #Little WY Fierek Lake Popko Lake Fox Lake Altman Lake d Mercer Lake Little Flannagan Pike Lake Lake Turtle River DE ER LA KIMMEAR RD (1) HADL DH FF Crystal Lake OL " ) H RD T41 & 42N, R3E, IRON COUNTY FT Frog Lake LANDING Lake of the Falls EO MURRA Y LA K First Second Black Black Lake Lake B A 47 # Grant Lake Nokomis Lake Ruth Lake MURRA Y LANDIN G RD Manitowish River Flambeau River B A Turtle Flambeau Flowage 182 Reimer Creek Fawn Lake Mirror Lake South Sister Sister Lakes Lake T. SHERMAN # 182 Marty Lake Upper Springstead Lake BE ARSK Lower Springstead Lake ULL RD Ferry Lake Springstead Creek Hourglass Lake Emerson Lake Rice Lake Creek Bearskull Lake Rice Lake Big Pine Lake Price County 1:86,470 Little Cap Henry Lake Cap Henry Lake Lehto Lake SKU L Bass Lake L RD Duck Lake Thompson Creek NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY BE A R Randall Randall Creek Lake D Muskie Lake D RD SP RINGS TEA B A " ) KE R D Little Muskie Lake Mcdermott Creek Beaver Creek Teal Lake West Randall Lake LA FERRY McDermott Lake LITTLE MUSKIE RD Mystery Lake Goose Lake AKE R RD Keough Stone Lake Lake Charnley Lake Leach Lake ALL L LAKE Ess Lake Norma Lake E RD DUCK LAKE RD Boot Lake French Lake Otter Lake Otter Creek R LAK Reimer Lake BOO T Vincent Lake Island Lake MIRRO RA N D FLOWAGE RD # Bear River POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Pine Creek Vilas County BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Krupka Lake Little Pike Lake Flannagan Lake #Little Brush Lake San Domingo Lake Mercer Lake d # South Allen Woodson Lake Lake Kelly Lake Bass Lake T41 & 42N, R4E, IRON COUNTY T. MERCER X Little Turtle River Circle Lily Creek # Plunkett Lake £ ¤ WY Turtle Flowage DH OL 51 R 51 D DE ER LA Voss Lake ( ! Lake Tahoe KE RD # Deer Lake MURRAY Grant Lake YB Frog Lake Manitowish River SAN D LANDING RD North Grant Lake EAC H RD Brandt Lake B A 47 Lost Creek Cub Lake Little Bear Lake POWELL RD MURRAY LANDIN G RD Turtle Flambeau Flowage Vilas County Sandy Beach Lake Mud Lake Flambeau River #Little B A Bear 47 Creek Sherman Lake Reimer Creek Mirror Lake Reimer Lake Birch Lake E RIVER TRL West Randall Lake R TR L E RIVE D Ferry Lake Townline Lake ER LAK ALL Thomas Lake Bass Lake L RD DUCK LAKE RD K UL Big Pine Lake Pine Creek Duck Lake Doud Lake Negani Lake Reservation Line Lake Grey Lake Vilas County Rice Lake Black Lake Munnomin Lake RL BEA RS Lehto Lake RT I VE WR Bearskull Lake Little Cap Henry Lake Cap Henry Lake Fat Lake D Hourglass Lake Emerson Lake Rice Lake Creek Randall Randall Creek Lake RAN D LAKE R Springstead Creek T. SHERMAN Bear River FE RRY BEARSK ULL RD E RD 182 " ) Muskie Lake R LAK Leach Lake B A Goose Lake Teal Lake MIRRO Cranberry Lake Price County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:87,350 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X £ ¤ 2 CITY OF HURLEY, IRON COUNTY LARUE DR PRIVATE EAGLE BLUFF RD " ) # Michigan LARUE CT D RANGE VIEW DR EK " ) KA M IN SK IC RE 4TH AVE N 6TH AVE N 5TH AVE N 10TH AVE N OAK ST # TN ITE ST ) " GERMANIA ST ST N 1ST 2ND S TACON MONTREAL LAKE DR RIVER d £ ¤ d " ) ODA D NAH 51 RD D GLE RIN R B A 77 ODANAH RD PENNSYLVANIA AVE RICE RD S CAREY DR ENGLE RD AN KOK OG ST PENCE ST SUPERIOR ST Lake Lavina " ) C BRUNELL RD NIMIKON ST AVE HILL OLD TEN RD MCCROSSEN RD NORMAN ST # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:20,180 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X REAL RD CITY OF MONTREAL, IRON COUNTY SAXON RD W ES TF " ) D OR KM ON TRE AL RI V ER B A 77 ODANAH R PENNSYLVANIA AVE QUEBEC AVE A HILL ARI ONT X VE E WASHINGTON AV A OHIO VE OHIO AVE MINNESOTA AVE B NUM ER KOKO PENCE ST " ) SUPERIOR ST MICHIGAN AVE MICHIGAN AVE ENGLE RD T GA N S MCCROSSEN RD 4R D NORMAN ST # INDIANA AVE D OI ILLIN B A TRIMBL E S AVE AVE Gile Flowage HILLTOP DR 77 SE AL DE RC RE EK BUGNI R ST LM NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:16,110 BRUNELL RD NIMIKON ST SAXON RD O ST " ) POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY - d X SAWYER COUNTY Table 16: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – SAWYER COUNTY HAZUS 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - SAWYER COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted C. OF HAYWARD T. OF BASS LAKE T. OF COUDERAY T. OF DRAPER T. OF EDGEWATER T. OF HAYWARD T. OF HUNTER T. OF LENROOT T. OF OJIBWA T. OF RADISSON T. OF ROUND LAKE T. OF SAND LAKE T. OF SPIDER LAKE T. OF WEIRGOR T. OF WINTER V. OF COUDERAY V. OF EXELAND GRAND TOTAL 74 17 10 27 1 54 22 8 65 28 19 1 10 32 24 1 3 396 Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ 737,521.00 $ 217,456.00 $ 124,348.00 $ 423,219.00 $ 12,699.00 $ 1,431,369.00 $ 278,549.00 $ 219,409.00 $ 1,625,699.00 $ 578,273.00 $ 291,070.00 $ 21,721.00 $ 185,065.00 $ 961,916.00 $ 522,158.00 $ 3,533.00 $ 6,831.00 $ 7,640,836.00 $ 1,198,313.00 $ 132,725.00 $ 52,225.00 $ 225,693.00 $ 4,590.00 $ 1,085,157.00 $ 359,083.00 $ 114,158.00 $ 1,046,697.00 $ 630,180.00 $ 171,627.00 $ 6,400.00 $ 81,159.00 $ 445,413.00 $ 291,376.00 $ 2,370.00 $ 20,223.00 $ 5,867,389.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 177 54,855.00 150,064.00 204,919.00 Debris Generated (tons) 1,148 79 238 396 22 799 196 146 1,166 365 207 35 189 715 268 18 14 6,001 HAZUS 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - SAWYER COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted C. OF HAYWARD T. OF BASS LAKE T. OF COUDERAY T. OF DRAPER T. OF EDGEWATER T. OF HAYWARD T. OF HUNTER T. OF LENROOT T. OF OJIBWA T. OF RADISSON T. OF ROUND LAKE T. OF SAND LAKE T. OF SPIDER LAKE T. OF WEIRGOR T. OF WINTER V. OF COUDERAY V. OF EXELAND GRAND TOTAL 89 21 10 30 5 59 22 11 77 40 32 1 11 34 29 1 3 475 Estimated Building Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,078,738.00 790,190.00 139,435.00 492,648.00 101,125.00 1,562,087.00 350,745.00 260,454.00 3,290,933.00 1,104,390.00 434,130.00 20,748.00 225,678.00 1,251,924.00 757,348.00 5,669.00 8,535.00 11,874,777.00 178 Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses $ 2,090,656.00 $ 448,629.00 $ 55,820.00 $ 256,883.00 $ 83,522.00 $ 1,070,954.00 $ 471,898.00 $ 135,519.00 $ 1,874,476.00 $ 958,279.00 $ 245,134.00 $ 6,319.00 $ 101,805.00 $ 574,025.00 $ 451,975.00 $ 3,663.00 $ 28,266.00 $ 8,857,823.00 $ 99,341.00 $ $ $ $ $ 219,068.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 318,409.00 Debris Generated (tons) 1,259 163 271 444 1,665 916 216 205 4,188 903 389 35 200 805 363 18 14 12,054 # Totagatic Lake T. BARNES T. WASCOTT T. CABLE TOTAGA TIC RD T41 & 42N, R9W, SAWYER COUNTY Totagatic River SEELEY FIRE LN Sabin Lake P ON SABIN RD K DU C D DR Cold Brook # # PET E RSON R B A 27 T. FROG CREEK Tag-Alder Creek J OL Totagatic Flowage Frog Creek LY F IS HER MA NR D T. LENROOT # ( ! L RD PFEIFER RD L SM A Osgood Lake Bullhead Lake T Smith Lake ) " £ ¤ COMPANY LAKE RD LEO'S RD ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! OLSON RD ) " Indian # School Lake GORUD RD CHIPPANAZIE RD M - PIKE RD ( ! ( ! ! ( CO HILL RD HAYWARD RD # T. STINNETT NU E RS RY RD T. ROUND LAKE ( ! Little Round Lake Chippanazie Lake Chippanazie Creek PHIPP'S FIRE LANE RD ( ! # CHIPPANAZEE RD Elm Creek Phipps Spring # 63 77 ( ! Phipps Flowage NELSON LAKE RD B A Porcupine Lake Milny Lake " ) 27 ( ! TAG ALDER RD Nelson Lake B A !! ( ( D SIMONS RD TAG ALDER TRL WOZNY RD OLSEN RD Mosquito Brook ( ! Mosquito Brook Spring # T. HAYWARD ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! #! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( d ( ! ( ! ) " ( ! ( ! ( ! ) ! " (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ( (! ! ) ! " ) " ( ( ! )! " ( ! (! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! (! ! ( ! ! (! (! ( ( (! ( ( (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ( d #! (! ! ( ! ( " ! ) ( ! C.! (HAYWARD B A 77 PENINSULA RD PENINSULA RD " ) K CHIPPEW A TRL PHELAN RD " ) B ( ! # X ( ! ( ! £ ¤ 63 ( ! E Phipps Lake !! ( ( d NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,180 " ) d BOYS CAMP RD # Cole Creek Spring Lake Creek ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - # NYBERG RD T. BASS LAKE X Upper Grindstone Spring BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. CABLE TOTAGA TEL ER RD BOEDECKER RD SABIN RD ( ! Smith Lake Silverthorn Lake PETE RSON R !! ( ( D ( (! ! UM FI RE LANE R ) " E RD P'S F AN E HE L ALLEN RD ( ! # LEO'S RD ( ! McClaine Lake HILDRE TH RD ( ! Mosquito Brook ( ! Mosquito Brook Spring SCHELLER RD 77 PHIPPS FIRE LN PHIPP'S FIRE LANE RD Farnsworth Lake Davies Lake Tiger Cat Flowage Mirror Lake # # LOWER TWIN LAKE RD B A NELSON LAKE RD 63 ( ! Spider Lake Phipps Spring £ ¤ BOYS CAMP RD PHIP Osgood Lake Milny Lake Bullhead Lake LA K E D Porcupine Lake IRE L RD PADDOCK RD THANN T. SPIDER LAKE LAN L SMA PFEIFER RD OO T. LENROOT 63 Namekagon River TAG ALDER RD " ) OLD OO RD £ ¤ Nelson Lake TELEMARK RD ( ! PEDERSON RD SIMONS RD Tag-Alder Creek RD J AN ET R D TAG ALDER TRL SEE LEY FIRE TOW # Sabin Lake Totagatic River T41 & 42N, R8W, SAWYER COUNTY Pacwawong Lake EM AR K RD TIC RD Mossback Lake # T. ROUND LAKE ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! #! (! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! (d ! (! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( (! ! ( ! )! " ( (! (! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ( ! (! ( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! d#!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( ") !(!( !(!( Hayward Lake C. HAYWARD ! ( (# ! # # Clear Lake T. HAYWARD B A 77 Burns Lake Lake Placid Round Lake PENINSULA RD " ) Lovejoy Lake K CHIP L PE WA TR PHELAN RD " ) B Mud Lake d " ) E d NYBERG RD Phipps Lake !! ( ( NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY X T. BASS LAKE " ) POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - # " ) ( Little ! NN ROUND LAKE SCHOOL RD # 1:86,620 TIGER CAT RD OLSON RD Indian School Lake ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! !! ( (( ! ( (! ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! GEIST RD # SUNSET R Totagatic Lake T. BARNES Round Lake B Squaw Lake T. HUNTER BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Reed Lake SUNSET RD Trail Hildebrand Birch Lake Lake Lake T. CABLE Namekagon River KR D T41 & 42N, R7W, SAWYER COUNTY # Johnson Lake ER RD BOEDECKER RD ( ! Horseshoe Lake ET R D ( ! Eagle Nest Lake North Lake AN E TELEMARK RD LA K E HEL Fawn Lake Holmes Lake Sickles Lake One Shoe Lake RD J AN OLD OO RD Wilson Creek Filing Shed Lake Smith Lake T. LENROOT Star Lake Camp Four Lake TEL EM AR ROCK LAKE RD SEE LEY FIRE TOW Pacwawong Lake T. NAMAKAGON Beaver Lake Stearns Lake R UP PE LAN FIRE PHIP P 'S ALLEN RD Whiplash Lake ( ! ( (! ! ( ! Little Ole Lake Lewis Lake N BRA DT R D Teal Lake Ole Lake Dead Lake RD BOYS CAMP RD ( ! ) " MORGAN OO UPPER A RD " ) RD Lost Land Lake NE LSON RD PADDOCK RD E LANE PEDERSON RD UM FIR E RD THANN A RD T. SPIDER LAKE HAHNS RD Spider Lake Clear Lake Wilson Lake Davis Lake ( ! Hay Creek Springs ( ! 320 West Camp Camp Four Four Lakes Currier TWIN LAKE RD 6 Lake Lake # GEIST RD ! ( (# ! # " ) Lovejoy Lake Mud Lake # ( Little ! " ) Round Lake Squaw Lake # ! ( (# ( (! ! #! Callahan Lake ! ( B T. HUNTER # ( ! " ) B Reed Lake ROUND LAKE SCHOOL RD Chippewa Lake # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:87,110 FEDERAL FOREST RD 319 Hay Creek d NN A CHIEF RIVER RD T. HAYWARD " ) " ) T. ROUND LAKE Round Lake d Trout Lake MOOSE LAKE RD ( ! Burns Lake Lake Placid TIGE R CAT RD # Foo Lake Byrd Rush Lake Lake # Davies Lake Tiger Cat Flowage 77 FOREST RD Farnsworth Lake Mirror Lake B A FE DERAL HILDRE TH RD Mukwonago Lake PETERS RD McClaine Lake Dead Creek Spring # RYD RD 77 LOWER TWIN LAKE RD B A SCHELLER RD "" ) ) POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Moss Creek BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X " ) S Trail Hildebrand Birch Lake Lake Lake McClaine Lake T. CABLE ROCK LAKE RD T41 & 42N, R6W, SAWYER COUNTY Spot Star Lake FOREST RD 206 Horseshoe Lake North Lake Christy Creek Beaver Lake RAR UPP E Stearns Lake Turtle Lake Spruce Lake D One Shoe Lake Lynch Lake HAHNS RD Lynch Creek Spider Lake Whiplash Lake Ghost Lake Bullhead Catfish Lake Lake Perch Lake DT R D Ole Lake Dead Lake RD NELS ON RD N BRA Davis Lake RAL FEDE ST F OR E 5 RD 17 LF OR ES TR D2 04 Meadow Lake Balsam Creek Flowage # B A Two Deer Lake Teal River ER A Ghost Creek T. SPIDER LAKE Teal Lake Lewis Lake FED ) " Little Ole Lake UPPER A RD ( ! Lost Land Lake MORGAN Clear Lake Goodwin Lake 03 Sickles Lake # FORES T RD 2 Eagle Nest Lake Holmes Lake Wilson Lake East Fork Ghost Creek FEDER AL Wilson Creek Filing Shed Lake Lake FEDERAL FOR EST RD 328 ) Camp Four Lake Evelyn Lake Grant Lake Hope Lake TEWS RD(FE D Johnson Lake McCloud Lake Patsy Lake Chip Lake Boos Lake 77 Goodman Lake # # "" ) ) B A 77 Dead Creek Spring Mukwonago Lake RYD RD Byrd Rush Lake Lake Hay Creek Springs # West Fork Chippewa River " ) S FEDERAL FOREST RD 32 0 # TWIN LAKE RD 6 Teal River Flowage Foo Lake West Camp Camp Four Four Lakes Currier Lake Lake T. ROUND LAKE Bulldog Springs ) " # Trout Lake MOOSE LAKE RD ( ! ! ( LF I S LA ND RD CA MP A KE RD Moose River Hay Creek " ) ( ! FEDERAL FOREST RD 319 CHIEF RIVER RD Moss Creek RD SE L A WO !! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! MOO " ) Snipe Lake ( ! ( ! ! ( !! ( ( ! ( # ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! Moose Lake MOOS E LA KE RD # ( ! ( (! ! # (# ! Tamarack Lake # ( ! " ) B Chippewa Lake # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,290 Weasel Creek T. HUNTER Beaver Lake Creek POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - T. WINTER BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X D B A Lynch Creek # FED Goodwin Lake Christy Lake Christy Creek 339 RD # ( ! ERA L FO R E ST RD ( ! 20 8 " ) GG Cattail Lake FO RE S T RD 2 03 Red Ike Creek FEDER AL FED ER A LF OR ES TR D2 04 Torch River Ike T. SPIDER LAKE Lake # B A # ( ! 77 Kelly Lake ELF Ghost Creek Perch Lake RAL FEDE RD FO RE D ST R 175 # Two Deer Lake FEDERAL FOREST RD 176 Meadow Lake Balsam Creek Flowage Boos Lake Chip Lake Teal River East Torch River FOREST RD 176 Ghost Lake Teal Lake EST McLaren Lake ( ! Pole Lake F OR Lower Clam Lake Little Clam Lake RD Delano Lake Red Ike Lake Bentley Lake Noble Lake East Fork Ghost Creek 77 ( ! MCLAREN LAKE Spot Lake FEDERAL FOR EST RD 328 Upper Clam Lake RD HE Y MAT Lake Lynch Lake !# ( Hadley Lake T41 & 42N, R5W,Grant SAWYER COUNTY Lake Hope Turtle Lake Spruce Lake LAK ER T. NAMAKAGON Evelyn Lake Beaver Lake A LO Buffalo Lake BU FF McCloud Lake T. SHANAGOLDEN Partridge Crop Lake Goodman Lake # # Little Moose River Teal River Flowage West Fork Chippewa River T. ROUND LAKE Moose River LF S ERA " ) FED E ST OR # RD 174 # Bulldog Springs ) " ( ! ( ! ! ( !! ( ( ! ( ( ! # WO ! ( LF I S LA ND RD CA MP MOO MOO RD SE L A KE T. CHIPPEWA RD FOREST RD 164 SE L Burd Lake Tamarack Lake Weasel Creek D1 73 RD Snag Lake 1:86,380 Venison Creek 172 RD RE ST FO Snoose Lake T. DRAPER FOREST RD POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - Black Lake # T. WINTER NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY Fishtrap Creek OR ES TR MOOS E LA KE ER AL F RD ( ! FED A KE ( ! Moose Lake ST RD 174 (! ! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! # FEDERAL FO RE ! ( ( ! ( ! - 172 BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. STINNETT T. X HAYWARD d £ ¤ ( ! Loon Lake Spring Lake Creek ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( Spring Lake ROT HR COL B D ( ! Petty Lake " ) MCG R LA NE ST O King Lake " ) ( ! ) " B A Bean Brook Springs KE R Devils Lake 27 RD Hub Lake D ! ( " ) Schoolhouse Lake # d dd Gurno Lake LAKESHORE RD RAYS RD Lac Courte Oreilles Ring Lake KELLNER RD LAKE RD Durphee Lake KK STONE LAKE RD EDGEWOOD DR Johnson Lake # " ) Tripp Lake ( ! ) )" " Minnemac Lake RD E Lake Twenty-seven K ER MOY " ) Grindstone Lake Windigo Lake RD HEN KS AW ( ! ( ! ! ( ) " METCALF RD METCALF RD X " ) N !! ( ( A "" ) ) 70 SAND LAKE RD Sand Lake Little Sand Lake B A 70 " ) DAWN RD STRABEL RD BB ! ( #! ( ( ! # ## ! ( ( ! RD PO TATO RD Billy Boy Flowage FLEM ING B A Whitefish Lake # Sand Creek WALTER RD Stone Lake " ) F B A 27 ( ! Pearce Lower Lake Holly Lake Ham Lake HAM LAKE LN Little Stone Lake " ) d STONE LAKE RD X Cranberry Bog d BOYLAN RD T. COUDERAY # Hungry Lake Surette Creek Couderay River ( ! Snag Lake DEVILS LAKE RD T. SAND LAKE PANK RD LAKE RD T. STONE LAKE FROEMEL RD HIGHLAND RD E Graveyard Springs Grindstone Creek K Lower Grindstone ( Spring ! T. BASS LAKE " ) Christner Lake E Murray Williams Lake Lake Island Lake WILLIAM S RD R OCHU Bean Lake Upper Adina Lake Colbroth Lake X Grindstone T39 & 40N, R9W, SAWYER COUNTY Spring # RAINBOW RD Lake D BOW RAIN # Mud RD ( ! ROHLF RD N BEAVER LAKE RD Beaver Lake WAKEFIELD RD E !! ( ( Namekagon River NYBERG RD Phipps Lake ANDERSON RD " ) E HIGH LINE RD BOYS CAMP RD 63 " ) d HIGH LINE RD ( ! ( ! CO TEY RD Hauer Spring " ) B ( ! ! ( NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:84,370 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X d " ) E NYBERG RD X Phipps Lake !! ( ( Spring Lake Green Lake NI RD BOSTO " ) ( ! IAN IND ER L AK Sunfish Lake " ) NN Indian Lake D # ! ( ) )" " Gurno Lake GURNO LAKE RD # TIGER MUSKY RD HIGHLAND RD # T. HUNTER Chippewa Lake Lake Twenty-seven Johnson Lake Durphee Lake " ) KK Lac Courte Oreilles DAG GET T RD ! ( ( ! " ) CC ) " X AVE LARSEN RD T. COUDERAY 27 T. SAND LAKE # N KI WA BAG DEVILS LAKE RD ASHEGON FIRE LN DR Ashegon Lake " ) CC Eddy Creek Spring T. RADISSON Eddy Creek SMITH RD HAM LAKE LN Pearce Lake Lower Holly Lake Ham Lake Billy Boy Flowage B A ( ! ERRY Blueberry Lake RD # ) " BL UE B Pike Lake Whitefish Lake # ## ! ( E RD FLEM ING Sand Creek N PO TATO RD Surette Creek Hungry Lake Couderay River ( ! # R ITH SM CO TEY RD Devils Lake D Devils Creek Hauer Spring ) " NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:84,260 BORRIE RD ( ! ! ( POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - RYAN RD F SO UTH SHOR " ) Whitefish (! ! ( Creek " ) Crystal Lake Lost Lake T. HAYWARD ) " E T. BASS LAKE Schoolhouse Lake Pine Island Lake GREEN LAKE TREPANIA RD " ) K Lower Grindstone Spring Grindstone Lake RD D HIGH LINE RD FROEMEL RD ) " Windigo Lake SE Y KEL R ND ! ( ( ! Squaw Lake Creek Lake Reed Lake E LD'S Grindstone Creek Williams Murray Lake Island Lake Lake T. ROUND LAKE Squaw Lake R WO E B # Graveyard Christner Springs Lake " ) " ) OSPREY RD HIGH LINE RD LLIAMS RD ROUND LAKE SCHOOL RD Grindstone Spring Petty Adina Lake Lake # Little Round Lake T39 & 40N, R8W, SAWYERUpperCOUNTY # ( ! # BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X d " ) NN # ( ! " ) Mud Lake B Little Round Lake T39 & 40N, R7W, SAWYER COUNTY Squaw Lake ( ! # ( ! Moss Creek Reed Lake " ) B Hay Creek # " ) S ) " OSPREY RD R SE Y KEL D ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( Pine Island Lake # R WO E LD'S R ND Green Lake D GREEN LAKE Squaw Lake Creek James Lake D Chippewa Lake Sunfish Lake " ) NN Indian Lake T. HUNTER T. HAYWARD Bunker Lake GURNO LAKE RD " ) # # CC # TIGER MUSKY RD Two Boys Lake DAG GET T SCOTT LAKE RD Lake Chippewa ) " James Slough RD " ) CC E RD SO UTH SHOR ) " BLUE BERR # Carpenter Lake E RD WAG FLO X Blueberry Creek Blueberry Lake Y AVE Pike Lake BLUEBERRY FIRE LN " ) CC T. RADISSON N T. OJIBWA ASHEGON FIRE LN R KI D WA BAG Ashegon Lake CC " ) Eddy Creek Spring TOWER RD " ) H SMITH RD Eddy Creek Devils Lake # T. COUDERAY D Devils Creek POLISH RD RYAN RD R ITH SM King Creek HELSING RD R AKE Crystal Lake Lost Lake NI RD BOSTO NL ( ! Glover Lake # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:84,220 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # ( ! " ) B Tamarack Lake T. ROUND LAKE Moss Creek Hay Creek # Beaver Lake Creek " ) T39 & 40N, R6W, SAWYER COUNTY Weasel Creek S West Fork Chippewa River ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ! ( ( (! ! Venison Spring Venison Creek Fawn Lake ( ! Venison Lake James Lake Chippewa Lake FORE ST ROAD 304 Goose Lake Little Cranberry Lake T. HUNTER " ) B Hunter Lake Two Axe Lake Bunker Lake HEMLOCK HAVEN RD " ) # CC Barker Lake ( !! ( (! Two Boys Lake SCOTT LAKE RD # Carpenter Lake "B T. WINTER ) E RD WAG FLO X ( (! ( ! (! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! Lake Chippewa ) " James Slough ( !! ( East Fork Chippewa River # ( ! d ( ! ! ( EAST FORK RD !! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Blueberry Creek Knapp Stout Creek Chapple Creek DAM RD BLUEBERRY FIRE LN Chippewa River " ) W Mud Lake FADN ESS RD ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( T. RADISSON T. OJIBWA TOWER RD ( ! ! ( ( ! # " ) CEMETERY ( ! G Crawford Creek R ABO POLISH RD NE ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! RD Crazy Horse Creek ( ! NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:84,340 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - DORSCHEID RD " ) HELSING RD King Creek RD H THORSEN RD V. WINTER ) " " ) THOMPSON RD B A 70 X BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ) " FEDER Snoose Lake # T. CHIPPEWA 17 FOREST RD T39 & 40N, R5W, SAWYER COUNTY Weasel Creek K AC BL Venison Spring R KE LA D Snoose Creek Venison Creek Fishtrap Lake Venison Lake CLOVER RD Blaisdell Lake Fishtrap Creek ( ! # (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! East Fork Chippewa ( River ! # ( ! CI C AK R ( ! ! ( ( (! ! GLENWOOD RD FORE ST T. HUNTER LOG FISH TRAP RD RD LODGE FISHTRAP LAKE RD Blue Gill Lake BARKER LAKE RD ROAD 304 # ( ! ! ( ( ! R RD Fawn Lake Little Cranberry Lake 2 CL OV E West Fork Chippewa River Black Lake T. ROUND LAKE UNIVERSAL DR Hunter Lake HEMLOCK HAVEN RD Chippewa Lake ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( T. WINTER ( ! RD RATH KE ( !! ( (! SAGERT RD KNOWLES RD Barker Lake ( !! ( N RD BL ACK DA Perch Lake " ) Black Dan Lake B Lake Chippewa ( ! ! ( # ( ! d Knapp Stout Creek DAM RD T. OJIBWA South Barber Lake " ) W # BURLUM RD Mud Lake Chippewa River Loretta Lake ( ! # # # Barber Lake !! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! Chapple Creek T. DRAPER Island Lake EAST FORK RD ( ! UNCLE TOMS RD Two Axe Lake # CLOVER RD S B A 70 FADN ESS RD ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( LARSON RD Brunet River ! ( ( ! ( ! SUNDLING RD # ( ! G ER D ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! DORSCHEID RD " ) Casey Creek RD Crawford Creek # CEMETERY ORN Tamarack Lake ( ! ( ! THORSEN RD V. WINTER ) " " ) BUTLER RD TOWER RD Lake Winter ( ! THOMPSON RD B A 70 X NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:84,370 ) " POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X D(F E RD ST FOR E Snoose Lake # 17 FOREST RD CLOVER RD East Fork Chippewa ( River ! T RD D6 RES TR Lake " ) 20) L FO FOR ES GG GLENWOOD RD ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! D(F ED D # AK R ( ( ! ! (! ! (Blaisdell CLOV ER R FISHTRAP LAKE RD ( ! FED E RA CIC Fishtrap Creek 161 FISH TRAP RD OLD GRADE RD UNIVERSAL DR E ST R D 162 # T39 & 40N, R4W, SAWYER COUNTY ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! D DGE R LOG L O (! ! ( ! ( Swanson Creek 162 Fishtrap Lake Blue Gill Lake D ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( Snoose Creek # R AKE RL S T RD L Mud Lake D BEA RE FED FO K AC BL ER AK ( ! ! ( 2 Bear Lake Cub Lake T. CHIPPEWA OLD GRADE RD T. ROUND LAKE FED FO R T. WINTER SAGERT RD KNOWLES RD T. DRAPER DOLAND RD Loretta Lake Island Lake ( ! # # # Barber Lake HATHAWAY RD Black Dan Lake LUDS LN RD RATH KE ( ! N RD BLACK DA Perch Lake ) " ) " ( ! B A # B A 70 South Barber Lake # # CLOVER RD S Flyblow Creek " ) M EASTERH OUSE RD BURLUM RD UNCLE TOMS RD 70 Brunet River Thornapple River ( ! SUNDLING RD # ( ! Lake Winter ( ! Casey Creek BUTLER RD TOWER RD ( ! NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:84,250 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! Bear Lake Cub Lake T. CHIPPEWA T39 & 40N, R3W, SAWYER COUNTY R BE A E L AK RD Swanson Creek ES T RD Price County R FED F O RES T RD 161 FEDERAL FOREST RD 161 162 E RA L FO " ) FED F OR ES T R D 162 OLD GRA DE RD FED GG T. DRAPER DOLAND RD HATHAWAY RD ) " ) " Log Creek ( ! " ) EE Pine Creek B A 70 Flyblow Creek " ) M ( ! ! ( ( ! PA YNE FARM R D Thornapple River Price County EASTERHOUSE RD TN RD 78 ( ! LINCOLN BLVD SNU SS B LVD (3) Hanson Lake Pelican Lake Mason Lake Champagne Lake Evergreen Lake T. WINTER NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:84,910 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X DAWN R Snag Lake ) " Slim Creek # Alder Creek Sissabagama Lake SISSABAGAMA RD LN " ) F Osprey Lake Little Sissabagama Lake Bodens Lake F IR OOD HW BIR C Spider Lake # 1 Sams Lake TH AY R ER D Spute Lake Squaw Creek # Wise Lake # " ) O WO F Rock Lake Lake Chetac " ) McDermott Lake ( ! Sugarbush Lake LE DA RD 6 YR D Knuteson Lake Knuteson Creek Thomas Garbutt Lake Lake Lost Lake ) " 1 COMET RD River Lake T Nice Lake RD Red Cedar Springs Pickerel Lake Matson Lake Spider Lake Chain AKE 2 T. BIRCHWOOD IT L D EL R Vollmers Lake # Heron Lake GREEN LAKE RD 36 Peufald Lake Green Lake MM SU CHAP E LN Superior Lake Benson Creek Buff Lake Sawmill Otter Deep Camp Lake Lake Lake Lake Mallard Fawn Lake Lake Bridge Beartrap Lake Lake Telstar County Lake Line Lake T. METEOR ) " B A 48 ( ! Deer Creek ( ! Birch Lake T. EDGEWATER D ( ! Balsam Lake ZETTEL RD " ) F ( (! ! ( ( (! ! ( ! (! ! (! !#! ( ( V. BIRCHWOOD ) " RUCH RD ) " Bennett Lake " ) ORTWIG LN GUELDNER LN Pine Island Lake T. COUDERAY YARNELL RD Wolf Lake Scoot Lake Rogers Lake Summit Lake SCENIC RD 4 Loyhead Lake T. SAND LAKE Mud Lake Saddle Lake Swift Creek Beverly Lake 0 West Lake Nick Lake Devils Creek ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! WOODALE RD 6 OOD FIRE Surette Creek HAUER RD DR 2 BIRCHW d Slim Lake O RE Slim Creek Flowage Y RD 27 ( ! ! ( ( ( ! (! ! ( ! # E SH OL L B A ( "! ) E SHORE DR 20 CON N T37 & 38N, R9W, SAWYER COUNTY CLEARY RD Horseshoe Lake Couderay River Hauer Spring B RADTKE RD # T. STONE LAKE X Deer Lake STONY HILL RD 10 ( !! ( Sucker Creek # Rusk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:87,230 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ( ! Surette Creek B A 27 ( ! # Alder Creek (! ! ( (V. ! # )" " COUDERAY ) ) " BEAVERBROOK RD JOS R CHAFER RD Swift Creek Rock Creek T. COUDERAY T. SAND LAKE F IC K (! ! (! ( HAUER RD " ) RD Devils Creek SH EP T ) " Summit Creek d T37 & 38N, R8W, SAWYER COUNTY # BORRIE RD ( ! ! ( RYAN RD Hauer Spring ( ! Beverly Lake Rogers Lake Summit Lake OLD COUDERAY RD B A Couderay River 27 ORTWIG LN d ER D1 Benson Creek 2 Weirgor Lake YARNELL RD 0 SCENIC RD 4 DR 2 O RE Weirgor Springs COMET RD Wise Lake Little Weirgor Creek VIERCK LN WO OD AL ER D6 ZESIGER LN Maple Spring FAIRMAN LN # YR D Knuteson Lake T. METEOR # R AP PLEBEE RUCH RD T. EDGEWATER B A 48 ) " ) " B A GUELDNER LN 48 VALLEY VIEW RD WOODALE RD 6 Deer Creek GADWELL RD " ) ) " ) " " ) DEER LAKE RD C Deer Lake # V. EXELAND X HANSON RD ZETTEL RD T. WEIRGOR BJELLAND LN E SH WIEGOR RD C D EL R # T. RADISSON Lost Lake " ) CHAP Red Lake Chetac Cedar Springs CEMETARY RD CEMETARY RD IRISH RD LAK LOST LAKE RD M IT M SU POLISH RD STONY HILL RD 10 TAYLOR RD # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:87,110 Rusk County POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X POLISH RD T37 & 38N, R7W, SAWYER COUNTY HELSING RD # " ) BEAVERBROOK RD METNIK RD ! ( Rock Creek Couderay River B A V. RADISSON ) " ) " 27 OLD COUDERAY RD ! ( ! ( !! ( ( ! ( ( (! ! ! ( ( (! (! ! ! ( ! ( ! T. RADISSON IRVINE DR Weirgor Springs Miller Lake 40 ZESIGER LN FAIRMAN LN T. WEIRGOR Little Weirgor Creek Boribo Lake ! ( ( ! ( ! ! (( Villard Lake South Lake ! ( B A ( ! ! ( ( C # BJELLAND LN ) " " ) ) ! " ) " ( ! ( V. EXELAND " ) D ! ( DRUWE RD B A 48 ! ( Windfall Lake ( (! ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! X MORROW RD MANSKY RD SIHSMANN RD IRISH RD HANSON RD T. MEADOWBROOK Chippewa River Jacques Lake GADWELL RD PASANEN RD ! ( KLINGER RD VALLEY VIEW RD T. METEOR Brunet River STANKOWSKI RD Murphy Lake ! ( 48 " ) GORDON RD EWERT RD !! ( (! ( ( ! ! ( R APPLEBEE EER LAKE RD # Maple Spring REPPERT RD B A TOWNLINE RD TOWNLINE RD ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! (( ! ! ( ( ! VIERCK LN BUGYIE BLVD SWEDE RD WIEGOR RD Weirgor Lake # CEMETARY RD CEMETARY RD Lost Lake OLD 70 !! ( ( X # White Birch Lake # White Birch Creek COUNTY LINE RD TAYLOR RD Rusk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,430 ) " T. OJIBWA ! ( ( ! ( !! ( ( (! ! (! ! ( ( ! ! (! ( ! ( (! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( (! ! EASTLUND RD LOST LAKE RD d POLISH RD ! ( ! ( ! ! (( HOFFMAN RD T. COUDERAY ! ( # ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ((! ! ! ( ( ( ( (! ! (! ! ! (! ! (( ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! (! ( ( ( ! (! ! (! (! H JOS R CHAFER RD RD Crazy Horse Creek JOHNSON RD ! (! ( R RIV E LUND RD ! ( ! (V. # )" " COUDERAY ) ) " SH E ! (! (! ( PT IC KR D BORRIE RD RYAN RD Eddy Creek Pond POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Crawford Creek ABO POLISH RD HELSING RD T37 & 38N, R6W, SAWYER COUNTY R RIV E " ) ! ! ( (! ( (! ( ( ! ! (! ( (! (! ! ( (! ! ! (! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ( ! (! ( ! ( ! ! (! ( (! ( METNIK RD H " RADISSON ) V. ! ( ) " Grimh Flowage # ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! D B A 70 X G W # ! ( ! ! (( ! ( ! (! (! !( # T. OJIBWA OLD HWY 70 SQUIRES RD Y 70 OLD HW OLD 70 HANSON RD OLD 70 T. RADISSON # T. WINTER BRUNET LN B A 27 IRVINE DR Miller Lake Boribo Lake T. WEIRGOR ( ! Murphy Lake South Lake Hogsback Creek PASANEN RD Nail Creek ! ( # ) " Chippewa River HOGSB " ) D Jacques Lake ! ( DRUWE RD 48 ACK RD # ! ( Windfall Lake ( ! (! ( ! ! ( ( ! ! ( ! ( SIHSMANN RD MORROW RD LUND RD B A OLD D RD STANKOWSKI RD ! ( ( !! ( Villard Lake OLD D RD !! ( (! ( ! ( ( ! T. MEADOWBROOK Hess Lake GORDON RD EWERT RD JOHNSON RD ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( OLD J 40 Elm Creek TOWNLINE RD TOWNLINE RD HOFFMAN RD B A BUGYIE BLVD SWEDE RD Brunet River OLD J ( ! ! ( REPPERT RD NSKY RD EASTLUND RD ! ( ! (! ( ! ( ( (! ! ( ! ( (! ! (! ! ( ! ( (! ( ( ! ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( WILEY RD KOEPPLOR RD HIGHLAND RD ! ( ) " " ) ! ( " )!!(!( !( !(!(!( ! ! ( (( ! (! ) " THOMPSON RD ! ( ! ! ( ! (( ( !! ! ( (( ! ! ( ! ( ( ! ! ( (! (! ( ! ! ( ! ( ! (! ( X ! ( ! ! ( ( RD Crazy Horse Creek R R NE White Birch Lake THORNAPPLE GRADE # White Birch Creek COUNTY LINE RD Rusk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,390 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ) " " ) V. WINTER B A 70 X T37 & 38N, R5W, SAWYER COUNTY ) " W ( ! WILEY RD KOEPPLOR RD T. OJIBWA # SLATTERY RD # LAKE WINTER RD S " ) ( ! !! ( ( ( Lake ! Winter THOMPSON RD TOWER RD ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! OLD HWY 70 # " ) W SQUIRES RD OLD HW Y 70 Brunet River OLD 70 # HANSON RD HIGHLAND RD # BRUNET LN Boss Creek North Branch Tupper Creek Thornapple Spring T. RADISSON Thornapple River OLD J Elm Creek THORNAPP LE GRADE T. WINTER Hogsback Creek Tupper Creek Nail Creek BISSELL GRADE RD OLD D RD EG ACK RD TH OR NA PP L HAYSTACK RD HOGSB RA DE # T. MEADOWBROOK Little Thornapple River OLD J GRADE T LN THORNAPP LE WES # Rusk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,480 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. DRAPER TOWER RD T37 & 38N, R4W, SAWYER COUNTY " ) Beaver Creek M BEAR LN # SLATTERY RD ( ! # " ) W " ) W ( ! ! ( ( ! # # T. WINTER Connors Lake Boss Creek # Connors Creek THORNAPPLE GRADE North Branch Tupper Creek Thornapple Spring Deer Creek THORNAPP LE GRADE Hegmeister Lake OR TH WEST LN Little Thornapple River Flambeau River T LN South Fork Flambeau River WES Tupper Creek NA PP LE HAYSTACK RD GR AD E BISSELL GRADE RD Thornapple River ( ! Rusk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,210 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Mason Lake T. DRAPER Evergreen Lake T37 & 38N, R3W, SAWYER COUNTY Swamp Lake Price County Beaver Creek LAK E OF T H E PIN ES ! ( NS ON R D ! ( ! ! ( ( JO H Lake of the Pines Connors Lake T. WINTER " ) W # Connors Creek Connors Spring IC PR Deer Creek EC REE KR D Flambeau River Hegmeister Lake " ) M Price County M Bull Creek Price Creek South Fork Flambeau River WEST LN " ) Bear Creek Skinner Creek Flowage ! ( Rusk County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,380 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X RE EK VALESH ST VILLAGE OF COUDERAY, SAWYER COUNTY ED DY C " ) # VALESH RD SHEPTICK RD CC Eddy Creek Pond ST TI C # SH EP OMAHA RD PASHA R HOFFE ) " RD RYAN RD ST ) " ) " COUDERAY RI VER B A 27 S LIMIT RD WARWICK RD JOS R CHAFER RD OLD COUDERAY RD 27 RD ER HOFER RD B A D SAN NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:9,840 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X KLINGER RD VITCENDA RD CARLSON LN EK LITTL E 5 TH KLINGER RD CANADAY RD BARTLETT AVE LINCOLN AVE A VITCENDA LN WE IRG OR CR E CANADAY RD VILLAGE OF EXELAND, SAWYER COUNTY ST 5TH ST WASHINGTON AVE ) " GRANT AVE 4TH ST 3RD ST ) " " ) ) " B A 48 C S WAN CREEK PLACE ST RK DR IRISH RD ELM PARK DR (2) SWARTZ RD A BALL P SCHWARTZ RD Balsam Lake X NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:10,190 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X OLSON RD Indian School Lake HOSPITAL RD SAWYER RD ROY RD K CREE AKE TH L SMI DEER LN B A 27 W GUARD ST N FIRST ST ILLINOIS AVE RADIO HILL RD N ROY RD T HS ) " ) " " ) HAMBLIN ST ON A T FIF d " ) ) " DAV IS RANCH RD ST POPPE RD T HS NYMAN AVE IN MA T SIX # HAYW ARD C T RADIO HILL RD AVE " ) N DO PETERS ON RD JOHNSON ST FOURTH ST LLA NE ND THIRD ST R B RA DR LAKE DR # " )") D LAURA R LINDHOLM DR (2) METCALF RD B R ED DG WINTER DR RICKCO LN OO K BR CAROL DR B A 27 ING SPR EC LAK PARK RD K REE FAIRWAY RD BENSO N RD CINDY AVE EK KADLEC RD M NA OG RE NR D R VE RI RAVEN RD £ ¤ 63 ON AG NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:20,590 ABBY LN WH EE LE R STRESS RD OLKER RD d TOWNE VIEW RD RD RY SE R NU K RO CK CR EEK RD HEINZ RD E RS Hayward Lake LEE RD GREENWOOD LN E RIV OO DYN O EY DL BR BOULDER CT LEIN RD BEAL AVE EDWARD ST PINE CREST DR OAKRIDGE DR MYER RD N THIRD ST COUNTY HILL RD SMITH RD WITTWER ST CITY OF HAYWARD, SAWYER COUNTY WEST LN POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X PFEISTER DR VILLAGE OF RADISSON, SAWYER COUNTY " ) H OGLVIE AVE BELILLE ST JOSEPH AVE N WOODMAN AVE RAYNOR ST RAILROAD ST CHURCH ST H HIG LA N AY RIV ER WISCONSIN AVE HOME ST DD R BROADWAY AVE OGDEN AVE HIGHLAND DR MARTIN AVE S CRAWFORD AVE S "" ) ) CHURCH ST CO UD ER 27 ) " MARTIN AVE N CRAWFORD AVE N SCOTT ST B A DESMITH LN (2) OGD A EN VE B A 40 H GRIM DAM RD STASIK LN POTTERS RD Grimh Flowage X POLISH RD RIV E RD R RIVER DR OGDEN AVE # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:6,960 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X CEMETERY RD VILLAGE OF WINTER, SAWYER COUNTY LEBEOUF AVE " ) RTI MA T NS B A 70 L RAI D ROA AVE AVE ELLEN ST UF STRO AVE CRAWFORD ST P KNAP MAIN ST N NORWOOD TRAILER CT W B A ) " CRAWFORD ST PARK ST MARION AVE 70 ARNTZ ST HAZEL AVE GROVE AVE GROVE AVE ELLEN ST GROVE AVE ) " MACARTHUR AVE " ) THOMPSON RD W CRAWFORD ST MCCLAINE AVE NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:9,030 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X WASHBURN COUNTY Table 17: HAZUS FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES – WASHBURN COUNTY HAZUS 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - WASHBURN COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted Estimated Building Losses Estimated Content Losses Estimated Inventory Losses C. OF SHELL LAKE C. OF SPOONER T. OF BARRONETT T. OF BASHAW T. OF BASS LAKE T. OF BIRCHWOOD T. OF CASEY T. OF CHICOG T. OF CRYSTAL T. OF EVERGREEN T. OF MINONG T. OF SPOONER T. OF SPRINGBROOK T. OF STONE LAKE T. OF TREGO V. OF BIRCHWOOD V. OF MINONG GRAND TOTAL 50 10 1 2 1 1 5 6 8 4 12 6 1 1 64 13 21 206 $ 603,169.00 $ 29,239.00 $ 87.00 $ 41,527.00 $ $ 138,917.00 $ 42,281.00 $ 40,935.00 $ 30,235.00 $ 18,615.00 $ 128,102.00 $ 27,356.00 $ $ $ 1,849,403.00 $ 160,202.00 $ 19,711.00 $ 3,129,779.00 $ 468,019.00 $ 141,682.00 $ 2,004.00 $ 12,650.00 $ $ 69,137.00 $ 15,693.00 $ 39,467.00 $ 11,488.00 $ 7,277.00 $ 178,247.00 $ 10,653.00 $ $ $ 792,291.00 $ 67,720.00 $ 49,258.00 $ 1,865,586.00 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 203 6,639.00 464.00 34,252.00 41,355.00 Debris Generated (tons) 527 281 121 34 7 37 25 31 253 24 71 32 5 3 523 120 111 2,205 HAZUS 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSS ESTIMATES - WASHBURN COUNTY Municipality Structures Impacted C. OF SHELL LAKE C. OF SPOONER T. OF BARRONETT T. OF BASHAW T. OF BASS LAKE T. OF BIRCHWOOD T. OF CASEY T. OF CHICOG T. OF CRYSTAL T. OF EVERGREEN T. OF LONG LAKE T. OF MINONG T. OF SPOONER T. OF SPRINGBROOK T. OF STINNETT T. OF STONE LAKE T. OF TREGO V. OF BIRCHWOOD V. OF MINONG GRAND TOTAL 64 13 1 4 3 1 7 6 13 4 1 28 10 2 2 1 79 15 33 287 Estimated Building Losses $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 1,176,475.00 101,451.00 571.00 52,899.00 41,358.00 166,181.00 52,944.00 104,648.00 40,996.00 59,972.00 534,049.00 143,252.00 13,103.00 1,503.00 2,710,953.00 262,634.00 37,014.00 5,500,003.00 Estimated Content Losses $ 1,513,642.00 $ 192,011.00 $ 3,132.00 $ 16,408.00 $ 12,012.00 $ 80,020.00 $ 19,359.00 $ 66,486.00 $ 17,181.00 $ 22,873.00 $ $ 306,735.00 $ 60,687.00 $ 9,964.00 $ $ 591.00 $ 1,116,618.00 $ 104,403.00 $ 87,456.00 $ 3,629,578.00 204 Estimated Inventory Debris Losses Generated (tons) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 146,416.00 3,037.00 1,216.00 37,950.00 188,619.00 784 306 121 91 38 37 38 35 461 24 7 240 64 7 8 3 901 146 182 3,493 LINE RD Sand Lake ( ! Minong Flowage Bergen Creek SMITH BRIDGE RD N CO UNTY LITTLE SAND RD Little Sand Lake ISLAND VIEW RD LITTLE SAND RD MOB ( ! ! ( RL Sherman Lake D B OG R MIS TY S LA KE R D ! ( ( ! ( ! EEK DR Webb Creek NANCY LAKE RD ) " Adventure Lake Horseshoe Lake Mosquito Lake Pokegama Lake Big Bass Lake Middle North Twin Lake Lake ( ! South Twin Lake BRIDGE RD WEBB CR Sleepy Eye Lake Bughouse Lake Banks Lake Bass Lake ( ! ! (( ! TWIN LAKE RD COUNTY LINE RD ILE T K BA N Gilmore Lake Little Bass Lake HACKBARTH RD SNOW Namekagon River Saginaw Lake L LAKE RD Lake Nancy I Totagatic River D HR MA RS NANCY LAKE Rice Lake ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( " ) ( ! # NANCY LAKE RD Barrens Spring # 1 # ( ! KI MBAL FIVE MILE RD T. MINONG Horseshoe Spring Bradley Lake ( ! ( ! Lower Kimball Lake # Richart Lake !! ( ( Middle Kimball Lake RD ST CROIX TRAIL RD ROTHE DR ! ( ( ! ( ! SMITH BRIDGE RD Spring Lake Warner Lake T. BLAINE Upper Kimball Lake BEAR TRACK RD Scovils Lake Beartrack Lake ST CROIX TRL OLD LOG CABIN RD THREE MILE RD Mud Lake COUNTY LINE DR GOMULAK FIRE LN Clemens Creek DRY LANDING RD BIG SAND RD POKEGAMA RD T. WASCOTT T. DAIRYLAND T41 & 42N, R13W, WASHBURN COUNTY ! ( ( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! Chicog Lake BRANCEL RD RD KIMBAL L ROSS ONE MILE RD C CUT A B A 77 B A # # 77 RD Cloverleaf Lake USE L HO CHO O Prinel Lake RD JENNY EL DE ERFI HOIN ( ! T. WEBB LAKE ED VILL Oak Lake # D RD Lost Lakes Little Chicog Creek " ) K R T. CHICOG Matthews Lake Wilcox Lake ZIE RD Hointville Lake East Wilcox Lake West Wilcox Lake " ) LOWER MCKEN N NICABOYNE LAKE RD Meeker Run Lake Frog Lake ) " BURIAN PL 77 Chicog Creek Stuntz Brook RAPPLEY RD RE D S RIVER RD Pear Lake ( ! B A FROG LAKE RD (# ! McLain Lake MACK LAKE RD F T. BROOKLYN Lost Lake Mack Lake BRAMER RD ZEHM RD CABOYNE LAKE RD Casey Creek LONELY LN WILDERNESS RD ER D 1:86,100 AK NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY DL T. SCOTT Lower McKenzie Lake # T. CASEY ROSE WOOD RD ( ! Mckenzie Creek AN # Nicaboyne Lake ISL Lily Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X KIMBAL LAKE ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! LITTLE SAND RD ! ( ( ! Peterson Yoekel Lake Lake Minong ROTHE DR ! ( ( ! Shell Creek £ ¤ 53 # ! ( ( ! Frog Creek Rice Lake # ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( Gilmore " ) I RD SMITH BRIDGE RD Mosquito Lake South Twin Lake Round Lake BRANCEL RD Little Bass Lake HACKBARTH RD North Twin Lake Bond Lake LAKESIDE RD Big Bass Lake Bughouse Lake Tucker Lake BROOKLYN RD Horseshoe Lake Little Frog Creek ) " B A 77 OAK TREE DR L LAKE KI MBAL TWIN LAKE RD Sherman Lake Adventure Lake Pokegama Lake POKEGAMA RD D HR MA RS ( !! ( ! ( ( ! !! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( " ! ( ! ( ! ) ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! V. MINONG ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! NANCY LAKE RD ) " # X # Sleepy Eye Lake # FROG CREEK RD ( ! # # Lake RD WEST BEAR TREE RD ( ! ( ! ( ! TAYLOR LAKE RD T. FROG CREEK Lakeside Lake Chicog # # Lake McLain Lake (# ! Chicog Creek D RD East West Wilcox Wilcox Lake Lake IDE RD 77 LA KES T. CHICOG B A ) " EL DE ERFI T41 & 42N, R12W, WASHBURN COUNTY # # Lake Nancy D !! ( ( Lower Kimball Lake NANCY LAKE KE R S LA MILE SMITH BRIDGE RD ISLAND VIEW RD OLD LOG CABIN RD Miles Lake Totagatic River T. MINONG ! ( ( ! ( ! Middle Kimball Lake BEAR TRACK RD Bergen Creek !Flowage ( Upper Kimball Lake Crott Lake BUFFALO LAKE RD Little Chicog Creek " ) K RAPPLEY RD Matthews Lake Wilcox Lake £ ¤ T. GULL LAKE 53 T. BROOKLYN Stuntz Brook GULL CREEK RD MACK LAKE RD " ) HAYNES RD F Mack Lake BRAMER RD EAST RD PALMER DR Namekagon River Silver Lake ISL Mckenzie Creek AN DL AK ER D LONELY LN WILDERNESS RD ROSE WOOD RD T. CASEY NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,480 GARDNER LAKE RD WESTERN LAKE RD " ) F ) " POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - Gull Lake Gardner Lake T. SPRINGBROOK BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Crott Lake Peterson Yoekel Lake Lake BUFFALO LAKE RD KE R S LA MILE T41 & 42N, R11W, WASHBURN COUNTY D T. WASCOTT Loon Lake d TOTOGATIC TRL ( ! ! ( Totagatic River # Colton #Flowage Derosier Lake " ) G COLTON RD £ ¤ 53 WOZNY RD T. MINONG Frog Creek WEST BEAR TREE RD T. FROG CREEK # X ON E RR D # B A A GG ) " Sink Creek 77 NW !! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( " ! ( ! ( ! ) ( ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! V. MINONG ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! # # FROG CREEK RD J OH # TAYLOR LAKE RD # Taylor Lake LL Lakeside Lake RD Little Frog Creek Fish Lake HA Round Lake LAKESIDE RD Tucker Lake JOHN WAGGONER RD OAK TREE DR Bond Lake Rainy Lake T. BROOKLYN LA KES Lost Lake " ) IDE RD M £ ¤ HALL RD T. GULL LAKE Stuntz Brook 53 Sugar Bush Lake SUGAR BUSH RD T. STINNETT Tranus Lake GULL CREEK RD HAYNES RD " ) F F NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,390 # # Hay Creek ASP RD Gardner Lake " ) ) " ) " HALL RD GARDNER LAKE RD WESTERN LAKE RD Gull Lake Deer Lake Namekagon River Brinkman Lake T. SPRINGBROOK POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - TRANUS LAKE RD HADDICK RD Silver Lake " ) ( ! Hay Lake EAST RD PALMER DR ELLIOTT RD LEE RD T. BASS LAKE BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Loon Lake T41 & 42N, R10W, WASHBURN COUNTY # SEELEY FIRE LN # Colton #Flowage Derosier Lake T. BARNES Totagatic River K DUC " ) G COLTON RD P ON DR D Cold Brook # WOZNY RD WOZNY RD # # T. FROG CREEK # B A 27 J OL Totagatic Flowage LY F IS HER ON E RR D Frog Creek J OH NW AG G # B A 77 Nelson Lake T. LENROOT JOHN WAGGONER RD Sink Creek " ) T Smith Lake HA LL RD OLSEN RD Rainy Lake B A COMPANY LAKE RD 77 Elm Creek Lost Lake T. GULL LAKE " ) Chippanazie Lake # M CHIPPANAZEE RD SUGAR BUSH RD ( ! ) " ASP RD Hay Creek Deer Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,960 GORUD RD CO HILL RD # C. HAYWARD Stanberry Lake LEE RD Namekagon River R NU RY SE X ( ! ( ! T. BASS LAKE ( ! POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - d d Spring Emerald Lake Creek Spring BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X RD ( ! £ ¤ 63 # Brinkman Lake T. SPRINGBROOK HAYWARD RD T. HAYWARD TRANUS LAKE RD ) " ( ! ! ( T. STINNETT ELLIOTT RD Hay Lake CHIPPANAZIE RD M - PIKE RD ( ! BOYS CAMP RD HALL RD Sugar Bush Lake Tranus Lake # Little Round Lake Chippanazie Creek HALL RD # Cole Creek T. WASCOTT ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( # # Lower McKenzie Lake ROSEWOOD RD T39 & 40N, R13W, WASHBURN COUNTY ( ! SECTION 1 RD LOWER MCKENZIE RD Middle McKenzie Lake T. SCOTT Eagle Lake D IN R PEP Dubois LR HIL Dunn Lake Sunfish Lake ( ! Loon Lake Bass Lake " ) E Spring Lake Rappy Lake " ) K RAPPY LAKE RD Little Casey Lake ( ! FOX RD Rocky Ridge Creek ( ! T. TREGO ) " ( ! Jerry Lake ( ! ! ( (! ! ( PAIR O LAKES RD McKinley Lincoln Lake Lake " ) d ( ! Mckenzie Creek ( ! ( (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! Trego ( ! ( ! Lake (! ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! (( ! E STUMPH RD # # Smith Lake Goose Lake Rigler Lake Tower Lake Grass Lake Lost Lake SUNFISH LAKE RD Tomahawk Lake Little Bass Lake DUBOIS RD SPRING LAKE RD Casey Lake BIG MCK ENZIE RD McKenzie Lake D ( ! # d # Boyle Brook LOWER MCKENZIE RD Clubhouse Deep Lake Lake Namekagon River Mud Lake DEEP HOLLOW RD Behr Lake Lake Lake CHRISTNER RD A FOX RD G Rocky Ridge Lake KELLER RD Perch Lake Ellsworth Lake Casey Creek RD ( ! ( ! LA DOCK Rice Lake N A Wilkerson Lake LEY VAL Lipsett Lake " ) " ) LE LITT COUNTY LINE RD " ) " ) K Cable Lake T. EVERGREEN SUNSET LN KE RD LITTLE VALLEY RD DOCK LAKE RD Dock Lake Little Cable Lake T. SPOONER DOCK LAKE RD CARLTON RD DOCK LAKE RD Whisky Cranberry Creek Lake " ) JELLEN RD A ) " T. RUSK MOORE RD POPPLE RD SL EEP Poquettes Lake Y H OL LOW RD CARLTON RD T. DEWEY B A 70 NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:83,430 " ) CARLTON RD Dago Creek Springs Cyclone Lake GREENF IELD RD ( ! PERCH LAKE RD YELLOW RIVER RD TOWER HILL RD Yellow River # TRAILS END RD LD A RD (Deer ! Leisure Lake Island Lake LINCOLN LAKE RD Lindy Lake " ) ( ! ! ( CASEY LAKE RD OAKRIDGE DR PIERCE HOMESTEAD RD LOWER MCKENZIE RD CARSON RD ! ( ( ! T. CASEY ISLAND LAKE RD DEER HOLLOW RD Mystery Lake T. BROOKLYN LEISURE LAKE RD DEER LAKE RD Rooney Lake LONELY LN WILDERNESS RD D Nicaboyne Lake ER AK T. CHICOG DL AN ISL T. WEBB LAKE ( ! ( ! ( ! B A 70 Tony Lake X LOOP RD T. BASHAW Tozer Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - dd C. SPOONER ) " ) " ! !! ( (! (! ! ( # ! ( ( (! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( d d Randall Lake Beaver Brook ) BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES " U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ER LAK T. CHICOG T. GULL LAKE Silver Lake D " ) LONELY LN WILDERNESS RD F GARDNE Mckenzie Creek ) " Gardner Lake Gull Lake " ) F # T39 & 40N, R12W, WASHBURN COUNTY T. SPRINGBROOK Leisure Lake £ ¤ ( ! ( (! ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! RAPPY LAKE RD Little Casey Lake ( ! PAIR O LAKES RD ISLAND LAKE RD McKinley Lincoln Lake Lake NORTH RD Earl Springs Bean Brook WHALEN LAKE RD ( ! ( ! Jerry Lake Whalen Lake BARRETT RD (! ! ( ! ( ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ! ( (! ((! ! (! Trego (! ! (! Lake (! (! ( T. TREGO Whalen Creek ROSS RD ! ( Trego ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Pond (! ! (! ! ( ( ! ((! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( ! ) " £ ¤ 63 E Veazie FURCHTENICHT RD Springs Veazie Creek SCHAUB RD FOX RD E # # VEAZIE RD " ) d " ) Namekagon River OAK HILL RD 9TH ST ) " Rappy Lake POW RD T. CASEY LINCOLN LAKE RD SUNFISH LAKE RD 10TH ST SPRING LAKE RD Dunn Lake LAKESIDE RD ( ! # d # Boyle Brook ( ! Whalen Springs 53 Casey Lake Gull Creek Springs SAY HI RD Island Lake Mud Lake Tomahawk Lake D OAKRIDGE DR PIERCE HOMESTEAD RD Sunfish Lake IDE R SAY HI RD ! ( ( ! ( ! ! ( LAK ES T. BROOKLYN LEISURE LAKE RD 5TH AVE # LE LITT Spring Lake B A TOWER HILL RD ( ! X LOOP RD Tozer Lake Randall Lake Beaver Brook ) " NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:83,860 Spooner Lake 2ND AVE ) " T. CRYSTAL Yellow River 1ST AVE ! !! ( (! (! ! ( # ( ( (! ( ! ! ( ! ( (! ! ( d d Evergreen Lake # ( ! Pine Brook SPOONER LAKE RD ( ! ( ! dd " ) ) " C. SPOONER Tony Lake " ) ! ( (! ! ( ( ( ! #!! ( ( ! ) " Anah Springs A MANN RD H " ) Cyclone Lake Little Spooner Lake " ) A Dago Creek Springs 53 LITTLE VALLEY RD DOCK LAKE RD Whisky Cranberry Creek Lake Dilley Lake ) " £ ¤ Little Cable Lake DOCK LAKE RD Potato Creek 9TH ST T. EVERGREEN T. SPOONER SUNSET LN 10TH ST Cable Lake 4TH AVE CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN RD RD " ) Goose Lake 70 Little Mackay Creek Spring K BLOOMING VALE RD LEY VAL Casey Creek KELLER RD 9TH ST " ) N B A 70 T. BEAVER BROOK POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - 70 # # # Crystal Brook BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X GARDNER Silver Lake Gardner Lake " ) F ) " # T39 & 40N, R11W, WASHBURN COUNTY Gull Creek Springs Bass Lake Mud Lake £ ¤ 63 Green Lake POW RD D LN R M WINTON RD Spring Lake Whalen Creek T. BASS LAKE Deep Lake " ) FIRE Savage Springs Namekagon River Earl Springs WHALEN LAKE RD T. TREGO d ) " BASS LAKE RD SAY HI RD Whalen Lake TRIPP RD Gull Creek NORTH RD LAKESIDE RD TOWN HALL RD MAIN RD Whalen Springs 53 ( ! MAIN RD £ ¤ Spring Creek Springs HENDRICK'S RD T. SPRINGBROOK FIRE LN RD T. BROOKLYN CASEY RD LARSON R D SAY HI RD IDE R HAMILTON RD LAK ES Brinkman Lake Hay Creek T. GULL LAKE Gull Lake WILLERS RD ROSS RD ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! (! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( ) " ( ! £ ¤ 63 " ) E ( ! Mackay Creek # # # Veazie FURCHTENICHT RD Springs Veazie Creek 8TH ST 10TH ST 5TH AVE 5TH AVE # Lucky Lake 4TH AVE Spooner Lake Anah Springs " ) A Evergreen Lake MANN RD Little Spooner Lake T. SPOONER # ( ! T. STONE LAKE " ) ( ! Mackay Springs Pine Brook 9TH ST 53 CRYSTAL MOUNTAIN RD £ ¤ A T. CRYSTAL Dilley Lake " ) 8TH ST BLOOMING VALE RD Potato Creek ) " KOCH RD 5TH ST OAK HILL RD Bean Brook Spring ( ! 9TH ST VEAZIE RD Little Mackay Creek Spring Bean Brook Westenberg Creek N YT O SL A ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! 2ND AVE # " ) Dugan Run 10TH ST Westenberg M Spring Dugan Lake Little Dugan Lake 1ST AVE ( ! 1ST AVE Potato Lake 9TH ST SPOONER LAKE RD 70 # # # NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:83,880 B A Crystal Lake Crystal Brook WOHLFORD RD B A DUGAN LAKE RD ! ( ( ( ! #!! ( ( ! POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - 70 Reflection Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # 63 ( ! Namekagon River TRIPP RD D LN R D " ) FIRE D R ER MOY ( ! Bean Brook RD HEN KS AW D Tripp Lake EDGEWOOD DR STONE LAKE RD LAKE RD Lac Courte Oreilles ( ! WAKEFIELD RD X MELTON RD T. CRYSTAL Little Stone Lake " ) A N YTO SLA RD T. STONE LAKE d "" ) ) B A 70 WALTER RD Mackay Springs d BOYLAN RD LAKE RD " ) A STONE LAKE RD 5TH ST Ring Lake METCALF RD METCALF RD KOCH RD Sand Lake Little Sand Lake Stone Lake ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! SAND LAKE RD Dugan Lake B A 1:84,420 " ) B Horseshoe Lake RADTKE RD NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY T. BIRCHWOOD Snag Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - CLEARY RD WOHLFORD RD 70 BB T. SAND LAKE DAWN RD Potato Lake Crystal Lake " ) STRABEL RD Little Dugan Lake ( ! 1ST AVE DUGAN LAKE RD " ) Westenberg M Spring Dugan Run PANK RD # Potato Creek BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X Hub Lake LAKESHORE RD RAYS RD KELLN ER RD Mackay Creek 27 d dd # Bean Brook Spring B A RD Bean Brook Springs KE R MAIN RD MCG R LA NE ST O King Lake WILLERS RD 5TH AVE Colbroth Lake Windigo Lake E Devils Lake ( ! RAINBOW RD ( ! T. BASS LAKE Mud Lake Spring Lake ROT HR Bean Lake DEER LN WINTON RD Green Lake # D COL B HENDRICK'S RD MAIN RD Bass Lake ( ! ROHLF RD N BEAVER LAKE RD Beaver Lake d ) " Deep Lake M E R BOW RAIN BASS LAKE RD " ) Loon Lake " ) ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ! ( Spring Lake Creek ANDERSON RD ( ! TOWN HALL RD Savage Springs £ ¤ LARSON RD FIRE LN RD CASEY RD T. SPRINGBROOK d X T. HAYWARD d ! ( ( ! T. STINNETT T39 & 40N, R10W, WASHBURN COUNTY Brinkman Lake BOYS CAMP RD ASP RD HALL RD Hay Creek Deer Lake D T. EVERGREEN 70 B A LOOP RD 70 Glendenning Lake PLAIN VIEW RD OAK RD BA SH A W VA LLEY O RD IEW LLE YV RYDBERG RD Beaver Lodge Pond VA " ) K SAW Y ER LLE YV IEW RD # VA T. DEWEY ) " # BROOK DR Bashaw Brook Bashaw Trout Springs # # C SS ) " HA SPRING LAKE RD BAKKER RD BASHAW STORE RD I SW PINE TREE LN SWISS CHALET RD B D # B ## Long Lake ) " ( ! Heart Lake HEART LAKE RD HEISTERK ( (! ! (! ! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ( (! ! (! ! ( ( ! ( ! (( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ( (! ! LITTLE LONG LAKE RD HILLTOP RD BAKKER RD " ) ( ( ! ! ) " " ) ) " HILLTOP RD C. SHELL LAKE ( ! ! ( (! ! (! ( ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! Ripley Lake HEART LAKE RD £ ¤ 63 T. BARRONETT CH L AK ER Grassy Lake D Offers Lake KE R D Shallow Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,570 T. SARONA SILO RD Leaman Lake PERSHING RD PERSHING RD OF F E R LA Chain Lake Mill Pond GRASSY LAKE RD BOYD LN D Welsh Lake Johnson Lake Pine Lake LE A South Fork Clam River # Y 63 OL D HIG Leach Lake Little Grassy Lake " )d H WA # GLENDENNING RD Kinny Lake LEHMANN LAKE RD " ) Round Lake OL WOODYARD RD J STONE RD Y6 3 WA #" ) T. ROOSEVELT FREY RD IG H Buck Lake Severson Lake Shingle Camp Lake DH SPRING LAKE RD Spring Lake N WOODYARD RD S HEART LAKE RD Krantz Creek # 253 X ! ( # B A Sawyer Creek Starkey Lake SAND RD ( ! ( # ! d 63 OLD B RD SAND RD Leonard Lake WOODCRAFT RD £ ¤ Sawyer Creek Springs T. BASHAW " ) R LET # T. BEAVER BROOK ! ( ( ! AKEVIEW CHURCH RD Beaver Brook Harrison Lake LONE STAR RD " ) T. SPOONER ) " Yellow River RD Randall Lake GROUSE RD SPAULDING RD Tozer Lake GREENFIELD RD KING RD Lake COUNTY LINE RD T37 & 38N, R13W, WASHBURN COUNTY Poquettes d d ! ( (! ! ( TOZER LAKE RD B A C. X SPOONER RD T. RUSK # ( !! ( ( ! ! ( ( ! ( ! CREEK OW R GREENF H OL L PERCH LAKE R SLEE P Y # COUNTY LINE RD COUNTY LINE RD Boyer Creek Barron County POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. SPOONER C.X SPOONER Tozer Lake Randall Lake 70 B A 70 # # # T37 & 38N, R12W, WASHBURN COUNTY ) " TOZER LAKE RD Harrison Lake # FENANDER RD Glendennon Lake Holmes Lake BOBCAT RD Schullenberger Lake LONE STAR RD LEES OME LAKE RD Oak Lake K SAW Y ER # ) " # B A 253 B ) " ( ! Browns Lake Little Devil Lake " ) P ) " Pavlas Lake DH OL # D Shallow Lake Big Devil Lake Johnson Lake T. BARRONETT Little Kekegama Lake Mccune Lake McCune Lake T. SARONA Fenton Lake SILO RD LONG LAKE AVE Leaman Lake Kingelm Lake PIERCE RD Bear Creek GRASSY LAKE RD PERSHING RD Boyer Creek COUNTY LINE RD COUNTY LINE RD Barron County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,740 £ ¤ 53 Monday Lake Haugen Lake Bear Lake POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X ER D ) " LAUNDROMAT RD # LAK D T. LONG LAKE Star Lake LS " ) LITTLE KEGEMA RD SCHOOL HOUSE RD Little Grassy Lake Yechout Lake " )d KEGEMA RD IG H WA Y6 3 GROUSE RD STONE RD FREY RD Welsh Lake B AUDUBON RD Lost Lake Round Lake " ) Twin Lake Miller Lake Ripley Lake Chinty Lake DE V I Sport Lake Chain Lake Little Ripley Lake Shingle Camp Lake LEHMANN LAKE RD Casper Lake Stone Lake HEART LAKE RD Grassy Lake 53 C. SHELL LAKE ! ( (! ! (! ( ! ( ( ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! Pine Lake £ ¤ HEISTERKAMP RD (! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! (! ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( ! (! ! ( ! (! ! ( ! ( ( ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ! (! ! ( (! ! ( ! ( ( ! LITTLE LONG LAKE RD HILLTOP RD # BURMA RD ! ( T. MADGE ( ( ! ! ) " " ) ) " Long Lake D Moody Lake " ) X RR DE Deep Lake Beaver Brook HUBIN RD 63 # # AN # £ ¤ Sawyer Creek Springs Sawyer Creek OLD B RD d WOODCRAFT RD FEN LAPCINSKI RD ) " Leonard Lake BOOT LAKE DR CREEK " ) T. BEAVER BROOK LA N G T. BASHAW RD # Leesome Lake Alder Lake MOODY LAKE RD RYDBERG RD Beaver Lodge Pond Crystal Brook RD Yellow River B A WILDCAT RD d d Spooner Lake LA N D T. EVERGREEN LAKE RD !! (! (! ! ( # ( ( (! ( ! ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ( ! ( ! B T. CRYSTAL A 70 FENANDER RD Glendennon Lake Holmes Lake BOBCAT RD Baker Lake Schullenberger Lake LEES OME LAKE RD Oak Lake AN T. BEAVER BROOK D Harmon Lake Leesome Lake " ) M Moody Lake DR D ) " BAKER RD LA N G # LAN Ripley Lake # " ) B Stauffer Lake T. MADGE Deep Lake Beaver Brook HARMON LAKE RD Seymour Lake Watson Lake Ole Lake MacRae Lake Lutz Lake " ) " ) P DE V I LS Big Devil Lake Stone Lake LAK ER Mud Lake D Twin Lake Miller Lake Peters Lake T. BIRCHWOOD AUDUBON RD Little Mud Lake ) " Pavlas Lake M Long Lake Yechout Lake " ) Elbow Lake Red Lake Bass Lake BURMA RD T. SARONA " ) LAPCINSKI RD Sport Lake STOWE RD Pollywog Lake BERRY RD Browns Lake Casper Lake LONG LAKE RD 53 Chinty B Lake ELVER RD BOOT LAKE DR £ ¤ Little Devil Lake RE D Loon Lake LAK ER D Elizabeth Lake D Lazy Island Lake KEGEMA RD ) " Mccune Lake Eliza Lake VINCE NT RD McCune Lake T. LONG LAKE LONG LAKE AVE Floyd Lake Berry Lake LAUNDROMAT RD ITTLE KEGEMA RD Little Kekegama Lake " ) # Fenton Lake D Kingelm Lake PIERCE RD Bear Creek CHURCH RD CHURCH RD Monday Lake Haugen Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,690 " ) M LAKKEN RD £ ¤ 53 Brill River BRILL RD Star Lake PIONEER RD # RR DE Alder Lake MOODY LAKE RD FEN # Lake HARMON LAKE RD Crystal Brook T. STONE LAKE Reflection T37 & 38N, R11W, WASHBURN COUNTY WOHLFORD RD WILDCAT RD # # # Potato Lake Crystal Lake TODD RD ER LAKE RD Spooner Lake T. SPOONER ( ! Barron County POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X T. CRYSTAL Crystal Lake Baker Lake Horseshoe Lake Lake CON N Slim Creek Flowage BIRCHW Harmon Lake T. MADGE O LL Y RD OO D FIRE Sissabagama Lake SISSABA GA LN Osprey Lake West Lake " ) B TODD RD BAKER RD Wolf Lake Ole Lake Pine Island Lake LN Superior Lake BIR C HW OO DF IR E MacRae Lake STOWE RD Peufald Lake Mud Lake BERRY RD ELVER RD LONG LAKE RD Peters Lake Bodens Lake Spider Lake # 1 Sams Lake TH RE D Loon Lake T. LONG LAKE Long Lake LAK ER Elbow Lake D Spider Lake Chain Pickerel Lake T. EDGEWATER Eliza Lake T. BIRCHWOOD Knuteson Creek Thomas Garbutt Lake Lake Lake Chetac McDermott Lake ) " ( ! Sugarbush Lake B A 48 Bennett Lake VINCE NT RD ( ! " ) ( ! Birch Lake " ) D D " ) T ( ( ! ( ! ( (! ! ( ! (! ! (! !#! ( ( V. BIRCHWOOD ) " Balsam Lake X " ) F Sucker Creek ( !! ( BRILL RD Brill River " ) Rock Lake " ) Nice Lake CHURCH RD PIONEER RD D River Lake Spute Lake ( ! " ) Heron Lake Green Lake T Floyd Lake Berry Lake # M R ER Lost Lake Lazy Island Lake Buff Lake F Red Lake Bass Lake CHURCH RD AY Matson Lake Little Mud Lake Elizabeth Lake Sawmill Otter Deep Camp Lake Lake Lake Lake Mallard Fawn Lake Lake Beartrap Bridge Lake Telstar Lake County Lake Line Lake Vollmers Lake PEUFALD RD Nick Lake Little Sissabagama Lake GREEN LAKE RD 36 Pollywog Lake Saddle Lake Loyhead Lake Scoot Lake Watson Lake T. SAND LAKE Slim Lake # Stauffer Lake ( ( ! ( ! (! ! # Slim Creek # HARMON LAKE RD Snag Lake CLEARY RD T37 & 38N, R10W, WASHBURN COUNTY Reflection " ) B RADT KE RD WOHLFORD RD 70 HARMON LAKE RD B A T. STONE LAKE Potato Lake ( ! Rusk County Barron County NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:86,690 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! ( RESIDENTIAL ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT - - BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X # T VILLAGE OF BIRCHWOOD, WASHBURN COUNTY " ) DD " ) D MAPLE TERRACE DR 13 " ) HINMAN DR KN AP M ILL ER RD Birch Lake ST LAP E LAK OI N TD R # LAKE " ) AVE D R RTE B A 48 RD MAIN ST AVE " ) ) " CHETAC AVE ORCHARD AVE KUNZ E ST C CHETA AVE ELM VREELAND ST ST WILSON ST LOOMIS ALGOMA ST N HA EDE VANCE ST BIRCH AVE PARK AVE X WHITE ST WILSON ST FULLER ST SLOCUM ST CEDAR AVE CEDAR AVE MAIN ST VANCE ST BRACKLIN ST BALSAM AVE NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:10,060 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X DR AM P VILLAGE OF MINONG, WASHBURN COUNTY NORTH LIMITS RD BU SIN ESS 5 3 # 2ND AVE DR OLD MILL RD WALLACE ST SHELL CREEK RD (1) JONES DR BRESLER DR SHELL CREEK RD SHEL DAVIS ST FINC H 3RD AVE EK L CRE B A Bondy Lake " ) ) " RICHARDS AVE JONE S ST 77 MAIN ST 1ST ST 2ND ST 4TH AVE APPLE ST 8TH AVE STIGNEY ST HOUSTON AVE WALNUT ST PINE ST B ST 7TH AVE ROY ST BOND AVE GREENHAVEN ST ST MAIN 2ND ST RAILR O AD ST 53 WEST LIMITS RD LINK AVE HILLTOP DR WALNUT ST SOUTH LIMITS RD BUSINESS 53 SOUTH LIMITS RD A RO T DS T MAIN S IL RA MP B RA OLD USH 53 NEWTON DR £ ¤ X ST INDUSTRIAL DR NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:11,650 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X APP RD CALDWELL RD NEW CITY OF SHELL LAKE, WASHBURN COUNTY KN " ) K C ER BLACKJACK RD WY SA EK RE " ) LIN D £ ¤ # NORTH LAKE DR 63 # DONOVA N ) " COVE RD T EAS " ) 8TH AVE B ) " " ) E DR LAK OLD HWY B AVE LAKE DR SPUR B X " ) EAST L Long Lake Shell Lake R MERRITT DR AKE D R W LAKE D SEMM ST 1ST AVE BASHAW ST LILJA AVE HILLTOP RD Round Lake ROUND LAKE DR Chain Lake L LITT " ) E RI D PLEY E DR LA K OLD CTH D Little Ripley Lake STONE RD SHINGLE CAMP RD FAWN RD SOUTH LIMITS RD Shingle Camp Lake NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:28,770 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT FREY RD BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X LITTLE VALLEY RD CROOKED RD CITY OF SPOONER, WASHBURN COUNTY Little Cable Lake FAIRWAY DR IZ HOR N K BEAR PATH LN ON L " ) £ ¤ 63 " ) H " ) A ) " BITTERSWEET DR TOWER HILL RD MILLER RD NORT H £ ¤ 53 DR ERIE ST 1ST ST ROCKY RIDGE RD TOWER HILL RD LA N D dd PAULSON DR OJIBWA RD ) " Tony Lake 1ST ST B A 70 # X W BEAVER BROOK RD dd ) " GREEN VALLEY RD SCHRICKER RD PET DR BE AV ER BR OO K RANDALL LAKE RD Randall Lake LUTHER RD WILBUR DR YELLOW RIV ER FRONT ST S EM ST BEAVER BROOK RD 70 AUTO L N B A ORCHARD RD ) " GRANT ST HILL DR GREEN VALLEY RD £ ¤ A B 63 SCOTT DR 253 # MERLES WAY NORTHWEST WISCONSIN FLOOD IMPACT STUDY 1:28,310 POTENTIAL FLOOD IMPACTS MODELED FLOOD DEPTH 100 YR 500 YR ( AGRICULTURE ! + + ( COMMERCIAL ! RESIDENTIAL ( ! ( GOVERNMENT ! ( INDUSTRIAL ! ( EDUCATIONAL ! ( OTHER ! POSSIBLE ROAD/BRIDGE IMPACT AREA POSSIBLE IMPACT SEGMENT Harrison Lake BASE FEATURES CRITICAL FACILITIES U.S. HIGHWAY ) EDUCATION " STATE HIGHWAY ) COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER " COUNTY HIGHWAY ) FIRE & EMS " LOCAL ROADS ) HOSPITAL " STREETS ) LAW ENFORCEMENT " RIVERS & STREAMS ) LOCAL GOVERNMENT " LAKES # DAM CITIES & VILLAGES SUBSTATION TOWNS WASTEWATER TREATMENT COUNTY d X MITIGATION MECHANISMS ECONOMIC IMPACT ON RURAL COMMUNITIES A large part of the Northwest region of Wisconsin is currently classified as being rural. Wisconsin’s rural areas account for much of the state’s economic and social well-being. Although disproportionate to its population, rural areas provide natural resources that much of the state and country relies on for food, energy, water, forests, recreation, national character, and quality of life. Rural economics and the integrity of the community are intricately connected to these natural systems. Very heavy precipitation events have intensified in recent decades in most U.S. regions and this trend is projected to continue. Projected changes in flood frequency based on climate projections and hydrologic models have recently begun to emerge and suggest that flood frequency and severity increases may occur in the Northeast and Midwest. Increasing heavy precipitation is an important contributing factor, but flood magnitude changes also depend on specific watershed conditions (including soil moisture, impervious area, and other humancaused alterations). Many rural communities are already facing considerable risk to their infrastructures, livelihoods, and quality of life from observed and projected changes in the climate. This climate volatility will progressively make the way of life harsher for many of those living in Northwest Wisconsin. RURAL ECONOMIES Rural communities are intricately tied to natural resources for their livelihoods and social structures. Major flooding due to increased precipitation is already currently affecting rural communities in Northwest Wisconsin. They will progressively increase over the years and will impact the abilities of rural economic activities (like forestry and recreation) to thrive. Rural communities are often characterized by their natural resources and associated economic activity. Dominant economic drivers include agriculture, forestry, energy, outdoor recreation, and tourism. In addition, many rural areas with appealing landscapes are increasingly reliant on second-home owners and retirees for their tax base and community activities. Changes in seasonality and intensity of precipitation will increase costs of runoff containment. Because many rural communities are less diverse than urban areas in their economic activities, changes in the viability of one traditional economic sector will place disproportionate stresses on community stability. Businesses are often the center of small communities’ economies, drawing in tourism dollars and ensuring a healthy community. The loss of any one business has disproportionate consequences to the community than being in a large urban area. Businesses accrue economic loss due to flooding through several reasons: • Direct damage to business property (damage to facility, equipment, vehicles, inventory, etc.). • Income loss due to closing a business for a period of time. • Employees unable to report to work due to flooding. • Income loss due to street closures limiting customer access. 221 • • Income loss due to customers unable to access on or off-street parking. Lack of property insurance that covers floods or that includes disruption coverage. Tourism is another significant contributor to rural economies. Changes in the length and timing of seasons, temperature, precipitation, and severe weather events can have a direct impact on tourism and recreation activities by influencing visitation patterns and tourism-related economic activity. All the counties in the study region have been highlighted as a county based on recreation except for Iron County which is highlighted as a manufacturing county. This indicates the immense role that tourism and recreation plays in these Northwest Wisconsin Counties. Changing environmental conditions, such as wetland loss and increased risk of natural hazards such as wildfire, flash flooding, storm surge, river flooding, drought, and extremely high temperatures can alter the character and attraction of rural areas as tourist destinations. Economic Dependence, Source: USDA Economic Research Service 2013 Short-term downturns in regional tourism are often experienced after a flooding event. Although the impact on tourism infrastructure and the time needed to return to full operating capacity may be minimal, images of flood affected areas and assumptions of the state of recovery often lead to cancellations in bookings and a significant reduction in tourist numbers. RESPONDING TO RISKS Rural communities face particular geographic and demographic obstacles in responding to and preparing for flooding risks. In particular, physical isolation, limited economic diversity, and higher poverty rates, combined with an aging population, increase the vulnerability of rural communities. Systems of fundamental importance to rural populations are already stressed by remoteness and limited access. Relatively rapid changes in demographics, economic activity, and climate are particularly challenging in rural communities, where local, agrarian values often run generations deep. Changing rural demographics, influenced by new immigration patterns, fluctuating economic conditions, and evolving community values add to these challenges – especially with regard to the impacts of flooding. Modern rural populations are generally older, less affluent, and less educated than their urban counterparts. Rural areas are characterized by higher unemployment, more dependence on government transfer payments, less diversified economies, and fewer social and economic resources needed for resilience in the face of major changes. In particular, the combination of an aging population and poverty increases the vulnerability of rural communities to major flooding events. There has been a trend away from manufacturing, resource extraction, and farming to amenity222 based economic activity in many rural areas of the United States. Expanding amenity-based economic activities in rural areas include recreation and leisure, e-commuting residents, tourism, and second home and retirement home development. This shift has stressed traditional cultural values and put pressure on infrastructure and natural amenities that draw people to rural areas. Changes in climate and weather are likely to increase these stresses. Rural components of transportation systems are particularly vulnerable to risks from flooding. Since rural areas often have fewer transportation options and fewer infrastructure redundancies, any disruptions in road, rail, or air transport will deeply affect rural communities. Power and communication outages resulting from extreme events often take longer to repair in rural areas, contributing to the isolation and vulnerability of elderly residents who may not have cell phones. The lack of cellular coverage in some rural areas can create problems for emergency response during power failures. Rural communities rely on various transportation modes, both for export and import of critical goods. Frequent flooding will result in increased erosion and maintenance costs for local road and rail systems, as well as changes in stream flows and predictability that will result in increased maintenance costs for waterways. Events that affect rail traffic would be particularly damaging to rural communities that depend upon these systems to get commodities to market. Health and emergency response systems also face additional demands from substantial direct and indirect health risks associated with flooding events. Indirect risks, particularly those posed by emerging and reemerging infectious diseases, are more difficult to assess, but pose looming threats to economically challenged communities where health services are limited. Direct threats (such as storm events and coastal and riparian flooding) tend to be more associated with specific local vulnerabilities, so the risks are somewhat easier to assess. The socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of rural areas interact with flooding to create health concerns that differ from those of urban and suburban communities. Older populations with lower income and educational levels in rural areas spend a larger portion of their income on health care than their urban counterparts. Moreover, health care access declines as geographic isolation increases. Overall, rural residents already have higher rates of ageadjusted mortality, disability, and chronic disease than do urban populations. These trends are likely to be exacerbated by flooding events. Governments in rural areas are generally ill-prepared to respond quickly and effectively to large-scale events, although individuals and voluntary associations often show significant resilience. Health risks are exacerbated by limitations in the health service systems characteristic of rural areas, including the distance between rural residents and health care providers and the reduced availability of medical specialists. The effects of flooding on mental health merit special consideration. Rural residents are already at a heightened risk from mental health issues because of the lack of access to mental health providers. The primary care physicians who form the backbone of rural health care often have heavy caseloads and lack specialized training in mental health issues. Additionally, patients referred to mental health specialists often experience significant delays. The frequency and distribution of infectious diseases is also projected to increase with rising 223 temperatures and associated seasonal shifts. Increased rates of mutation and increased resistance to drugs and other treatments are already evident in the behavior of infectious disease-causing bacteria and viruses. In addition, changes in temperature, surface water, humidity, and precipitation affect the distribution and abundance of disease-carriers and intermediate hosts, and result in larger distributions for many parasites and diseases. Rural residents who spend significant time outdoors have an increased risk of exposure to these disease-carriers, like ticks and mosquitoes. ADAPTATION Responding to additional challenges from flooding impacts will require significant adaptation within rural transportation and infrastructure systems, as well as health and emergency response systems. Governments in rural communities have limited institutional capacity to respond to, plan for, and anticipate flooding impacts. Extreme events (such as storms and floods) are expected to have widespread impacts on the provision of services from state, regional, local, and tribal governments. Emergency management, energy use and distribution systems, transportation and infrastructure planning, and public health will all be affected. Rural governments often depend heavily on volunteers to meet community challenges like fire protection or flood response. In addition, rural communities have limited locally available financial resources to help deal with the effects of climate change. Small community size tends to make services expensive or available only by traveling some distance. Local governance structures tend to de-emphasize planning capacity compared to urban areas. While 73% of metropolitan counties have land-use planners, only 29% of rural counties not adjacent to a metropolitan county have one or more planners. Moreover, rural communities are not equipped to deal with major infrastructure expenses. Even in communities where there is increasing awareness of flooding risks and interest in comprehensive adaptation planning, lack of funding, human resources, access to information, training, and expertise provide significant barriers for many rural communities. If rural communities are to respond adequately to future flooding events, they will likely need help assessing their risks and vulnerabilities, prioritizing and coordinating projects, funding and allocating financial and human resources, and deploying information-sharing and decision support tools. There is still little systematic research on the vulnerability of rural communities and there is a need for additional empirical research in this area. Impacts due to flooding will cross community and regional lines, making solutions dependent upon meaningful participation of numerous stakeholders from federal, state, local, and tribal governments, science and academia, the private sector, non-profit organizations, and the general public. Effective adaptation measures are closely tied to specific local conditions and needs and take into account existing social networks. The economic and social diversity of rural communities affects the ability of both individuals and communities to adapt to flooding, and underscores the need to assess flooding impacts on a local basis. The quality and availability of natural resources, legacies of past use, and changing industrial needs affect the economic, environmental, and social conditions of rural places and are critical factors to be assessed. 224 Successful adaptation to flooding requires balancing immediate needs with long-term development goals, as well as development of local-level capacities to deal with flooding. Potential flood mitigation responses are likely to significantly affect rural communities, with both positive and negative effects. Decisions regarding adaptation responses for both urban and rural populations can occur at various scales (federal, state, local, tribal, private sector, and individual) but need to take interdependencies into account. Many decisions that significantly affect rural communities may not be under the control of local governments or rural residents. Given that timing is a critical aspect of adaptation, as well as mitigation, engaging rural residents early in decision processes about investments in public infrastructure, protection of shorelines, changes in insurance provision, or new management initiatives can influence individual behavior and choice in ways that enhance positive outcomes of adaptation and mitigation. LOCAL RESPONSES TO FLOODING IN NORTHERN WI When the July 11th, 2016 storm hit Northwest Wisconsin, it caused damage to multiple roads and streets, hampering work commutes and truck routes alike. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation and Ashland County had to create a new detour for car traffic that was about 40 miles longer than the normal route that connected the City of Ashland to the City of Mellen. After a couple of weeks, a shorter alternative route was created. However, it wasn’t until several months later that the route between the two Cities was fully operational. This closure impacted thousands of motorists every day and had an unknown impact on the movement of goods through the region. In the same storm that year, Saxon Harbor in Iron County experienced tremendous losses and damages to its harbor. Dozens of boats, trucks, and boat slips were damaged beyond repair. A county campground that brought in campers from around the state was destroyed as well. Business for Harbor Lights, a 40-year-old local restaurant, has been down 60% according to its owner. The harbor and campground are not expected to be fully running until the summer of 2019, nearly three years after the flooding event. The impacts of this flood have a significant economic impact for Iron County. Saxon Harbor earned $130,000 annually in revenue from camping and docking fees. Approaching close to three years of zero income represents a significant financial hit for Iron County that is home to about 5,700 people. Furthermore, the loss of around 2,000 people visiting the area on a summer weekend has had indirect economic consequences to the county. Although damage to county, state, and federal roads have significant impacts on residents and industry, damage to forest roads can just as equally hamper and disable movement of lumber for the timber industry. This is especially prevalent in Northern Wisconsin where the timber industry makes up a large part of the economy. Making things even more difficult for the distribution of timber is that often time’s overweight permits are suspended for truckers traveling through the region after a severe flood. Trucks can only haul 80,000 pounds and they often have longer detours than passenger vehicles. Great Lakes Timber Professionals Association Executive Director Henry Schienebeck said, “The suspension of permits is a good thing to preserve roads, but that means logging truck companies will be hauling less and making less money. Because mills don’t keep a lot of wood on inventory, it is important to have a steady flow of wood being delivered. Hauling less wood means that it will take more 225 truckloads to generate the same amount of raw product to them.” Therefore, depending on how long and which roads are closed for repairs, will determine whether the timber companies can keep up with demand. The June 16th flood in 2018 that hit the region shut down numerous roads and caused millions of dollars in damages throughout the region. The popular U.S. Highway 2 route connecting the City of Superior with parts of Bayfield and Ashland County was damaged and caused it to be closed down for nearly three months during peak tourism season. This major route through northern Wisconsin averages 4,230 people driving east to west each day. The impacts of this flood have been felt by business owners. The owner of Solstice Outdoors in Ashland has stated that business has been down at least 90 percent. When the flood waters carry in clay sediments, it turns the bay red which in turn, discourages potential customers. Dave Sorenson, who runs Dave’s Fishing Charters out of Bayfield, said he is doing about half as much business as a normal summer. Flooding has clear direct and indirect impacts on the economy in many ways. In the following figure, sales tax revenue can be seen over the past five years for the summer months (May-September) in the region. During this span of time, two severe floods impacted the area in July of 2016 and June of 2018. During the year 2016 when the region was impacted by flooding, four counties had lower sales tax revenue than the previous year when there was no major flood. Table 18: COUNTY SALES TAX DISTRIBUTION (THOUSANDS $) – NORTHWEST REGION 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 Ashland 620 611 544 535 511 Bayfield 528 503 466 491 469 Burnett 506 478 437 440 412 Douglas 1791 1690 1617 1924 1884 Iron 197 195 191 186 186 Sawyer 948 860 852 842 747 Washburn 606 571 547 551 534 County Sales Tax Distributions ($000s) over the summer months from May-September from 2014-2018. Source: WI Department of Revenue Not only do washouts, closed stores, and road closures negatively impact businesses, but so does the spread of misinformation following a flooding event. Without relevant and updated information being advertised throughout the region, customers and their dollars will avoid traveling to the region due to unfound assumptions about the state of the region. Ensuring detours are posted as soon as safely is possible while also communicating that the town, city, or region is open for business can help from discouraging customers immediately after a flooding event. 226 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR CRITICAL FACILITES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES (WWTF’S) Wastewater systems collect domestic and industrial liquid waste products and convey them to treatment plants through collection and conveyance systems and pump (lift) stations. These facilities tend to be highly vulnerable to flooding due to the fact that they’re generally sited in low lying areas adjacent to waterways. The release of untreated or partially treated sewage is relatively common during major flood events, posing a serous hazard to nearby waterways. The loss of power at wastewater treatment facilities or pumping (lift) stations may also cause a short or long-term disruption of services. Furthermore, floodwaters can inundate electrical equipment and controls at pump stations located wholly or partially below grade and/or in flood-prone areas. The conveyance system (pipeline network) is also vulnerable to flood inundation and flood-borne debris impact damage. Erosion can expose pipes resulting in fracturing and the inflow pressurization during a flood event can also damage pipelines. MUNICIPAL WELLHEADS (HIGH CAPACITY WELLS) A wellhead is the land area which contributes water to municipal wells. The zone of contribution (ZOC) of a well is where recharging precipitation enters a groundwater system and eventually flows to the well. Many communities have established wellhead protection areas (WHPA’s) to protect the surface and subsurface area surrounding municipal wells. One of the greatest threats to a community’s water supply is contamination, chemical, or biological flooding. Our analysis examined the proximity of estimated inundation areas in relation to the mapped wellhead protection area provided by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and an estimated wellhead protection area of 1,200 radial feet. The 1,200-foot radius is the minimum wellhead protection area permitted by WDNR. ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS Electric substations and transmission lines were identified using digital data provided by the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (WPS) and verified using digital orthophotography and field survey. Inundation of a substation can result in an extended power disruption for a large number of customers. Restoring a flooded substation takes significantly longer than repairing a downed power line damaged by high winds or ice storms. PIPELINES, PIPELINE PUMP STATIONS, & PIPELINE MAINTENANCE STATIONS Pipelines in the project area were identified using the National Pipeline Mapping System, which contains information about hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines under the jurisdiction of U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). The key concern relative to pipeline safety in the event of a flood is the integrity of the pipeline itself. Exposed lines are subject to sagging and leaking. Flood debris and the hydrodynamic stresses caused by floodwaters can also contribute to line failure and the release of contaminants into the environment. 227 LOCAL GOVERNMENT The mapped locations of town halls within the project area. These facilities generally house most operations of the administrative functions of town government. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS The mapped locations of all educational institutions within the project area. Educational institutions are high-value facilities, which serve essential community functions. FIRE AND EMS, HOSPITALS, & LAW ENFORCEMENT The mapped locations of all fire departments and emergency medical services (EMS) facilities within the project area. These high-value assets are considered critical community services which would be essential to flood response and recovery. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES Hazardous materials are those chemicals, reagents or substances that exhibit physical or health hazards, whether the materials are in a usable or waste state. Neither HAZUS-MH nor the DOGAMI script directly estimate damage caused by the release of hazardous materials, nor does either model estimate the probabilities of such a release occurring. The user can, however, overlay hazardous materials storage locations and the flood depth grid to identify those areas where hazardous materials sites may be exposed to flooding. Hazardous materials storage site data for the project area were obtained from Wisconsin Emergency Management. This information is collected under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The database for the project area contains records for 527 hazardous materials storage sites, mostly located within cities and villages. Where only a physical address was provided, records were manually geocoded to determine the likely physical location of the identified facility. Given the imprecise nature of the methodology, this analysis should only be considered as a general guide. DAMS/LEVEES Dams are included in the utilities assessment as a cartographic input only. HAZUS – MH/DOGAMI do not provide an analysis option for the dam failure hazard. 228 CRITICAL FACILITES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FLOOD ASSESSMENT Utility Wastewater Treatment Facilities Municipal Wellheads (High Capacity Wellswithin the potential flooding scenario) Municipal Wellheads (High Capacity Wellswithin 1,200 feet of a potential flooding scenario) Electrical Substations Description Flood events can cause extensive damage to wastewater infrastructure. • Infrastructure damage, possibly resulting in service interruptions • Pipe breaks due to washouts, which could result in sewage spills or low water pressure throughout the service area • Debris blockage at an intake or unearthed water and wastewater lines due to falling trees • Loss of power and communication lines • Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) • Water quality changes to source waters and treated effluents, including increased turbidity, increased nutrients and other potential contaminants • Restricted access to the facility due to debris, flood waters and damage to roadways from washouts and sinkholes • Loss of water quality testing capability due to restricted facility and laboratory access and damage to utility equipment High capacity wells provide the primary water supply to communities and businesses in Municipalities throughout the region. Flooding can cause elevated bacteria and/or pollutants in well water. Potential Impacts 100-YR 500-YR Port Wing Wastewater Port Wing Wastewater Treatment Facility Treatment Facility Mellen Wastewater Treatment Mellen Wastewater Treatment Facility Facility Butternut Wastewater Butternut Wastewater Treatment Facility Treatment Facility Webster Wastewater Treatment Webster Wastewater Treatment Facility Facility Solon Springs Wastewater Solon Springs Wastewater Treatment Facility Treatment Facility Bad River Water/Wastewater Bad River Water/Wastewater Treatment Facility Treatment Facility High capacity wells provide the primary water supply to communities and businesses in Municipalities throughout the region. Flooding can cause elevated bacteria and/or pollutants in well water. Electric substations are critical to the functionality of the electric grid. Their transformers boost the voltage to very high levels which enables efficient transmission across long distances. Substations which are located in flood prone areas potentially put the electrical grid at risk. 15 Municipal Wellheads 15 Municipal Wellheads 167 Municipal Wellheads 170 Municipal Wellheads Town of Trego (1 substation) Town of White River (1 substation) City of Hayward (1 substation) Village of Butternut (1 substation) 229 Town of Trego (1 substation) Town of White River (2 substations) City of Hayward (2 substations) Village of Butternut (1 substation) Town of Bell (1 substation) Utility Description Pipelines During floods, the extreme forces of the floodwaters, floating debris, natural erosion and water pressure from high water can adversely affect pipelines. Flood waters may also change the landscape, exposing pipelines and increasing vulnerability to damage. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. operates the Lakehead System pipeline that enters Douglas County in the Town of Superior and extends east through, Bayfield, Ashland and Iron County. It also extends southward through Ashland County and into Clark County. This line is used to transport oil and petroleum related products from Canada to the U.S. Northern Natural Gas operates a natural gas pipeline that extends form Rib Lake northwesterly into Price County. Local Government In the event of a flood, town halls can often serve as the headquarters for relief operations. Having a place where information and decisions are disseminated is vital to the resiliency of the community during a flooding event. Potential Impacts 100-YR Town of Superior (8 Crossings) Town of Parkland (3 Crossing) Town of Oakland (10 Crossings) Town of Amnicon (7 Crossings) Village of Poplar (4 Crossings) Town of Maple (2 Crossings) Town of Brule (2 Crossings) Town of Oulu (1 Crossing) Town of Hughes (2 Crossings) Town of Trip (2 Crossings) Town of Iron River (2 Crossings) Town of Barksdale (3 Crossings) Town of Pilsen (2 Crossings) Town of Eileen (7 Crossings) City of Washburn (1 Crossing) Town of Bayview (2 Crossings) Town of Bayfield (1 Crossing) Town of Gingles (6 Crossings) Town of Sanborn (5 Crossings) Town of Morse (3 Crossings) City of Mellen (1 Crossing) Town of Gordon (2 Crossings) Town of Jacobs (1 Crossing) Town of Peeksville (3 Crossings) Village of Butternut (1 Crossing) Town of Saxon (2 Crossings) Town of Kimball (5 Crossings) City of Montreal (1 Crossing) City of Hurley (1 Crossing) Village of Grantsburg (3 Crossings) Town of Solon Springs (2 Crossings) Town of Gordon (2 Crossings) Town of Wascott (1 Crossing) Town of Frog Creek (1 Crossing) Town of Stinnett (4 Crossings) Town of Bass Lake (1 Crossing) Town of Sand Lake (2 Crossings) Village of Butternut Town Hall Town of Crystal Town Hall 230 500-YR Town of Superior (8 Crossings) Town of Parkland (3 Crossing) Town of Oakland (10 Crossings) Town of Amnicon (7 Crossings) Village of Poplar (2 Crossings) Town of Maple (2 Crossings) Town of Brule (2 Crossings) Town of Oulu (1 Crossing) Town of Hughes (2 Crossings) Town of Trip (2 Crossings) Town of Iron River (2 Crossings) Town of Barksdale (3 Crossings) Town of Pilsen (2 Crossings) Town of Eileen (7 Crossings) City of Washburn (1 Crossing) Town of Bayview (2 Crossings) Town of Bayfield (1 Crossing) Town of Gingles (6 Crossings) Town of Sanborn (5 Crossings) Town of Morse (3 Crossings) City of Mellen (1 Crossing) Town of Gordon (2 Crossings) Town of Jacobs (1 Crossing) Town of Peeksville (3 Crossings) Village of Butternut (1 Crossing) Town of Saxon (2 Crossings) Town of Kimball (5 Crossings) City of Montreal (1 Crossing) Village of Grantsburg (3 Crossings) Town of Solon Springs (3 Crossings) Town of Gordon (2 Crossings) Town of Wascott (1 Crossings) Town of Frog Creek (1 Crossing) Town of Stinnett (4 Crossings) Town of Bass Lake (2 Crossings) Town of Sand Lake (2 Crossings) Village of Butternut Town Hall Town of Crystal Town Hall Town of Jacobs Town Hall Utility Schools Fire or EMS Hospitals Law Enforcement Hazardous Waste Description Potential Impacts Damaged or flooded schools can disrupt life for entire communities exposing students to potentially life-threatening situations and makes property vulnerable to serious damage or destruction. Emergency response services are critical to providing for the wellbeing of its residents in times of a flooding event. Being compromised in any way can impact the safety of those in need. Ensuring that these facilities response time won’t be slowed will potentially save lives during a flooding event. Without a fully functioning hospital, the lives of its residents will be at risk. Flood waters can damage essential equipment, knock out power, or slow medical treatment for its patients. Other direct damages can include losses in infrastructures, lifeline installations, and medical supplies. Indirect costs are unforeseen expense after emergencies such as increased risk of outbreaks due to loss of laboratory or diagnostic support. The law enforcement’s job it to provide a safe environment for people’s lives and property during the event of a flood. Looting, crime, and flooded roads create a challenging situation for law enforcement. Flooded police stations will hurt the ability for law enforcement to protect and serve. Animal waste, coal ash, toxic chemicals, and untreated human sewage are of great concern to communities facing flooding. Flood waters can spread the pollution that can impact people’s health, drinking water, or wellbeing of their property. Each village or town is exposed to hazardous materials traveling on their streets or to industrial installations that could endanger the surrounding populations if they malfunction. 100-YR 500-YR None None None None None None None None City of Hayward (Auto Waste) Town of Daniels (Auto Waste) Village of Butternut (Manufacturing Waste) 231 City of Hayward (Auto Waste) Town of Daniels (Auto Waste) Village of Butternut (Manufacturing Waste) Utility Description Pipeline Pump/ Maintenance Stations Flooding can severely hamper the ability of a pump station to operate normally. The loss of even just one pipeline pump station can disrupt distribution patters as well as put the surrounding environment at risk. Equally as vital is the smooth operation of maintenance stations that keep the pipeline running free of problems. When access is limited or equipment is damaged by flooding, it endangers the integrity of the pipeline. Dams and levees are artificial barriers constructed across waterways for purposes of water control, storage or diversion. Floods resulting from dam/levee failure are usually associated with heavy precipitation, runoff from snowmelt, or flood conditions. The area immediately below the dam is at greatest risk, as flood discharges decrease as the flood wave moves downstream. Dam or levee failure could result from poor design or construction, operational mistakes and oversights, or the magnitude of floodwaters could simply exceed the design capacity of the structure. Dam or levee failures pose serve threats to life and property in downstream areas. These structures can fail with little or no advance warning. Dams/Levees Potential Impacts 100-YR 500-YR None None 176 Dams Insufficient data to perform analysis (Dam Failure) Table 19: CRITICAL FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE SITE IMPACTS: 100-YEAR FLOOD LOSSES - REGION County Ashland Bayfield Burnett Douglas Iron Sawyer Washburn Grand Total Critical Facilities 4 1 1 1 0 0 1 8 Infrastructure (count of intersections with flood depth grid) 56 75 66 71 20 64 70 422 232 Hazardous Materials Storage Sites 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 176 Dams Insufficient data to perform analysis (Dam Failure) Table 20: CRITICAL FACILITIES/INFRASTRUCTURE/HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STORAGE SITE IMPACTS: 500-YEAR FLOOD LOSSES - REGION County Ashland Bayfield Burnett Douglas Iron Sawyer Washburn Grand Total Critical Facilities 6 1 1 1 0 0 1 10 Infrastructure (count of intersections with flood depth grid) 55 77 68 68 21 56 74 419 Hazardous Materials Storage Sites 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 MODELED IMPACTS TO LOCAL ROADWAYS Table 21: Regionwide Potential Roadway Impacts, 100-year Flood Scenario (miles) Road Type US. Highway State Highway County Highway Town Road Street Forest Road Total Ashland Bayfield Burnett Douglas Iron Sawyer Washburn Region 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.4 4.8 2.0 2.1 2.1 0.8 0.2 4.3 0.3 11.7 2.8 2.9 5.1 3.9 1.1 3.2 3.6 22.7 26.3 40.0 26.3 22.9 6.7 29.7 24.5 176.3 0.1 0.4 3.5 2.0 0.7 0.4 0.1 7.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.4 0.7 0.0 2.9 4.7 31.3 46.9 37.0 30.6 10.1 38.6 32.8 227.3 Table 22: Regionwide Potential Roadway Impacts, 500-year Flood Scenario (miles) Road Type US. Highway State Highway County Highway Town Road Street Forest Road Total Ashland Bayfield Burnett Douglas Iron Sawyer Washburn Region 6.6 0.2 1.1 0.0 1.6 0.3 1.5 2.0 2.2 1.6 2.6 0.7 0.5 6.6 0.5 14.8 3.3 3.7 5.9 4.7 1.5 4.1 4.6 27.8 207.7 27.9 47.6 30.2 28.3 8.1 36.8 29.0 0.1 0.6 3.8 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.1 8.4 0.0 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.7 0.0 3.4 6.7 33.7 55.2 43.2 38.2 12.6 49.6 39.6 272.0 The analysis of potentially impacted roadways found that 227.3 miles of roadway would be impacted by the 100-year scenario and 272.0 miles of roadway under the 500-year 233 scenario throughout the region. In both flood scenarios, town roads accrued the highest number of potential miles of roadway impacted over all other road types. They accounted for approximately 78 percent of the potentially impacted roadways in a 100year flood and 76 percent of roadways in a 500-year flood scenario. Bayfield County had the greatest number of potentially impacted miles of roadway in both flood scenarios. In a 100-year flood scenario, Bayfield County would potentially face 46.9 miles of impacted roadways while in a 500-year flood scenario, they could expect 55.2 miles of roadway to be possibly impacted. All counties in the study region had higher number of estimated damaged miles of roadway in a 500-year flood scenario than a 100-year flood scenario. 234 STRATEGIES FOR PREPARING FOR RESILIENCY Natural disasters and their effects will continue to impact Northwest Wisconsin and the local economy. How we respond to these occurrences, or more importantly how we change the landscape must be examined to include a review of existing infrastructure, housing, commercial buildings, and local government facilities to determine potential impact from disaster and what recovery options exist. Flooding can impact a wide area by inundating buildings and damaging infrastructure. Our economy needs to be resilient in the face of natural disasters. Resiliency is tied to a community and region being able to minimize future risks. Community leaders must engage in identification and assessment of risks that could impede economic activity after a disaster that could result in temporary or even permanent business closures. Aquifer storage and recovery, floodplain and stream restoration, flood diversion and storage, or green infrastructure methods may support communities in reducing the risks associated with the impacts of flood and drought conditions. The HAZUS analysis has identified impacts to infrastructure, housing, commercial buildings, and local government facilities based on flooding scenarios. County and local community recognition of these impacts is important to implement strategies for future improvements and disaster planning measures. Significant flooding of the transportation network has been identified throughout the county that will negatively impact economic stability during floods. Preparing for future flood events is necessary to protect the economic viability of local business and employment of area residents. While several approaches to resiliency and flood recovery will be necessary, taking steps to incorporate future actions can speed recovery when floods occur and prevent potential flood damage. There are several ways that buildings can be damaged during flooding. These risks include water damage, hydrostatic pressure exerted by water and saturated soils, hydrodynamic pressure caused by moving water, and damage from large objects and debris propelled by water and wind during a storm. Retrofitting existing buildings can help minimize the damage caused during flooding events. Particular care should be taken when considering the impacts of climate change on vulnerable populations. As cited by Boston’s Chief Resilience Officer, Dr. Atyia Martin, vulnerable populations can include children, the elderly, the sick, the disabled, renters, low-income communities, minority residents, those with less than a high school education, and those with limited English proficiency. FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT CAN PROVIDE ASSISTANCE PRIOR TO A FLOOD To accommodate flood water during storm events and in order to reduce the risk that homes, businesses, and critical infrastructure will be damaged, communities can acquire or protect land in flood-prone locations. Communities can partner with private property owners and conservation organizations such as land trusts or other organizations to purchase land outright or acquire conservation easements on undeveloped properties along a riparian corridor. These tools ensure that the land remains in an undeveloped state and retains its ability to accommodate floodwater. Eligible communities may also work with FEMA and Wisconsin Emergency Management to identify properties that have been repeatedly flooded, and when funding is available, coordinate buyouts of those properties through FEMA grant programs. FEMA administers three grant programs to assist communities in mitigating the effects of natural hazards: the Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program, the Hazard Mitigation Grant 235 Program (HMGP), and the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program. State, Tribal, and local government agencies may apply through the States to receive funds for these programs. FEMA requires these applicants to meet a specific set of requirements when applying for the funds to ensure that proposed projects meet the program requirements, Federal environmental laws and regulations, and cost-effectiveness requirements. FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) Program grants help with planning and performing projects to reduce future flood losses. These may include lifting, buying, or moving National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)-insured structures. FMA provides funds yearly to reduce or remove risk of flood damage to NFIP insured buildings. FEMA MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAMS Program At a Glance Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) FEMA Flood Mitigation Assistance Program grants help with planning and performing projects to reduce future flood losses. These may include lifting, buying or moving National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)-insured structures. FMA provides funds yearly to reduce or remove risk of flood damage to NFIP insured buildings. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) FEMA gives Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funding to states to perform long-term hazard reduction after a major disaster. The purpose is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters. HMGP funds also support reduction and removal of hazards during the immediate recovery from a disaster. Section 404 of the Stafford Act authorizes the program. Funds are for projects to reduce or prevent loss from future disasters. Projects must provide a long-term solution to a problem. One example is lifting a home to reduce the risk of flood damage instead of using sandbags and pumps to fight the flood. Potential savings must be more than the cost of the project. Funds can help protect public or private property. 236 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) FEMA provides Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program grants to help plan and direct hazard mitigation projects before a disaster. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risk to the population and structures. Funded projects also reduce the need for federal funding in actual disasters. FEMA gives funding to states, territories and tribes in line with applicable law and current budget. PDM grants are competitive. Program Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) State, territorial, and tribal governments, and certain non- profits may apply. Individual homeowners and businesses may not apply but a community may apply on their behalf. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program funds are available only within a presidentially declared disaster area. State, territorial and tribal governments and certain non-profits may apply. Homeowners and businesses may not apply but a community may apply on their behalf. Eligible Activities The FMA allows buying property, destroying, moving or lifting structures. It also allows dry flood proofing of nonresidential structures, small local flood reduction projects, and plans to prevent flood damage. Projects must have the effect of reducing the risk of flood to NFIP insured property, buildings, and structures. A state governor asks for help in a presidentially declared disaster. HMGP funds are available within the declared disaster area. Utility projects must meet the following criteria: • Conform to the State’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. • Benefit the disaster area. • Meet all environmental requirements. • Solve a problem. • Be cost-effective. Cost Sharing Federal: up to 75 percent. Non-federal: 25 percent. Repeat and severe repeat loss properties may be eligible for Federal cost share: up to 100 percent. Federal: 75 percent. Nonfederal: 25 percent. Nonfederal matches can mix cash and in-kind sources (for example labor or materials). The non-federal cost share usually cannot include other federal funds. Eligible Applicants 237 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) State, territorial and tribal governments and certain non-profits may apply. Homeowners and businesses may not apply but a community may apply on their behalf. The PDM allows buying property and destroying, moving or lifting structures. It also allows dry flood proofing of nonresidential structures, small local flood reduction projects and remodeling of existing buildings and facilities. Other types of projects allowed are safe room construction, infrastructure retrofit, soil stabilization, and hazard mitigation planning. Federal: up to 75 percent. Non-federal: 25 percent. “Small and impoverished communities” as defined in Section 203 of the Stafford Act may receive 90 percent federal share. Program Applications Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA) States have primary responsibility for selecting and directing mitigation activities. Funds for the FMA program are limited. The state point of contact for the FMA program is the WI Hazard Mitigation Officer. Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) Contact your local government to apply for an HMGP grant. Local governments should contact the WI Hazard Mitigation Officer. The state selects eligible projects and sends them to the FEMA Regional Office for review. The time required for review depends on the complexity of the project. The state selects eligible projects and sends them to the FEMA Regional Office where they are reviewed for compliance with Federal laws and regulations. The time required for review depends on the complexity of the project. Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program (PDM) States are responsible for selecting and directing mitigation activities. Funds for the PDM program are limited. The state point of contact for the PDM program is the WI Hazard Mitigation Officer. In most cases, the best thing a homeowner can do to reduce their premiums on flood insurance while mitigating the most flood damage, would be to elevate their structure above the base flood elevation (BFE). Structural elevation oftentimes is not feasible based on various building characteristics. Characteristics may include: townhomes, connected row houses; older homes; mid-rise multi-family buildings, etc. It should also be noted that the one and only method that will prevent any future flooding damage is to move the house to a safe location that is out of the flood plain. This is costly and time consuming, but it will ensure the best results. Because this is difficult for most homeowners to achieve, a variety of other mitigation techniques will be described to reduce flooding damage to one’s home. It is critical that the homeowners follow all the rules and regulations when applying these changes to their home. This may require hiring a qualified contractor, obtaining building permits, or even the need for an elevation or engineering certificate. 238 INTERIOR MODIFICATION/ RETROFIT MEASURES BASEMENT INFILL This mitigation technique fills a basement that is below the BFE, up to grade (ground level) with compacted soil or pea gravel. Parts of the basement wall that are not completely covered by fill, will have to have flood openings installed to allow automatic entry and/or exit of flood waters. Any utilities in the basement must be elevated or waterproofed to protect them from damage or loss of function from flooding. This technique has been proven to be effective at reducing damage to the building and its contents. It is critical to ensure the flood openings are routinely maintained so that they will open in a flooding event. This method will lead to a decrease in square footage and of possible living or rental space. Basement infill is a relatively high-cost measure that has an expected life span of 30 to 50 years. Flood insurance premiums could be lowered based on how high the raised height of the lowest floor is. It should be noted that this method is restricted to areas that will experience low flood depths at low velocities. ABANDON LOWEST FLOOR This method requires the homeowner to vacate the lowest floor of a two-floor building. Flood openings will have to be installed to allow automatic entry and/or exit of flood waters. Any utilities in the basement must be elevated to protect them from damage or loss of function from flooding. This technique has been proven to be effective at reducing damage to the building and its contents. It is critical to ensure the flood openings are routinely maintained so that they will open in a flooding event. This technique will lead to a decrease in square footage and of possible living or rental space. Abandoning the lowest floor is a relatively high-cost measure that has an expected life span of 30 to 50 years. Flood insurance premiums could be lowered based on the new lowest floor living level. ELEVATE LOWEST INTERIOR FLOOR This measure elevates the lowest interior floor of a residential building. This usually can only be done in buildings with high ceilings. Any sections below the lowest elevated interior floor walls have to be either filled to create a stem wall or retrofitted with flood openings that allows automatic entry and/or exit of floodwaters. Any utilities in the basement must be elevated to protect them from damage or loss of function from flooding. Raising the lowest floor of buildings has been proven to be effective at reducing damage to the building and its contents. 239 It is critical to ensure the flood openings are routinely maintained so that they will open in a flooding event. This technique can lead to a decrease in square footage and of possible living or rental space. Elevating the lowest interior floor is a relatively high-cost measure that has an expected life span of 30 to 50 years. Flood insurance premiums could be lowered based on the new lowest floor living level. Home at the end of a block of several elevated homes across street from Darlington’s new ball fields. Lots and homes all are raised above the Base Flood Elevation for this neighborhood and were not flooded during the June 2008 flood. Photo: Barbara Ellis, FEMA WET FLOODPROOFING MEASURES FLOOD OPENINGS This technique involves installing openings in foundation, enclosure walls, or garage doors that are below the BFE that allow automatic entry and exit of floodwaters to prevent collapse from the immense pressure created from standing water. Flood openings have been proven to be effective at reducing structural damage to buildings. It is critical to ensure the flood openings are routinely maintained so that they will open in a flooding event. Installing flood openings is a relatively low-cost measure that has an expected life span of 15-20 years. Flood insurance premiums could be lowered if the lowest floor is rated at a higher elevation. 240 The dwelling depicted below sustained flood damage during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The homeowner undertook measures to make the dwelling more flood resistant in the future. The structure was retrofitted using some of the techniques featured in this publication. These techniques include elevating utilities, basement infill, and installation of flood openings. These combined measures will serve to make the dwelling much more flood resistant and have the added benefit of reducing flood insurance premiums ELEVATE BUILDING UTILITIES This method moves all building utility systems and associated equipment (e.g., furnaces, septic tanks, and electric and gas meters) to protect utilities from damage or from loss of function during a flood. Building utility systems can be raised using elevated pedestals, moving equipment to higher floors, and by building an elevated utility room. Elevation of building utilities has been proven to be effective at reducing or eliminating utility damage during a flood. 241 The elevation of building utility systems may expose them to damage from other natural hazards, such as high winds and earthquakes. This method is a relatively moderate-cost measure that has an expected life span of 15 to 20 years. Discounts are currently available for elevating building utilities based on where they are relocated or anchored down. FLOODPROOF BUILDING UTILITIES This measure floodproofs all building utility systems and associated equipment to protect it from damage or loss of function from flooding. Some techniques include placing outdoor equipment behind flow walls or placing indoor equipment behind a wall or in a watertight, passive utility enclose. This system is subject to restriction related to flood conditions (threefoot maximum flood depth, low velocity, short duration) and building conditions. Floodproofing building utilities can be effective at reducing or preventing utility damage during a flood. It is critical to ensure the floodproofing systems are routinely maintained so that they will close during a flooding event. Floodproofing residential building utility systems is a relatively moderate-to-high-cost measure that has an expected life span of 15 to 20 years. There are currently no discounts or decreases in premiums under the current program. Elevated electrical panel at the Pecatonica River Trails Campground (Darlington, WI) Photo courtesy: WDNR, Michelle Staff FLOOD DAMAGE-RESISTANT MATERIALS This mitigation technique involves the installation of flood damage-resistant materials such as non-paper-faced gypsum board and terrazzo tile flooring for building materials and furnishing below the BFE to reduce damages accrued from flooding events. Flood damage-resistant materials have been proven to be effective at mitigating non-structural damage to buildings in a low-velocity flood. It is critical to use materials and assemblies that meet FEMA requirements. 242 The use of flood damage-resistant materials is a relatively moderate-cost measure that has an expected life span of 10 to 20 years. There are currently no discounts or decreases in premiums under the current program. DRY FLOODPROOFING MEASURES PASSIVE DRY FLOODPROOFING SYSTEM This method involves coating or covering the home to protect it against flood waters. The materials must be impervious to floodwater and certified and constructed to a maximum of three feet above ground level. Dry floodproofing can be an effective way of reducing or eliminating building and contents damage during a flood. Homeowners may need to reinforce walls and floor slabs to withstand the immense pressure the flood waters will create. This setup would also require the installation of a drainage and back-up emergency power system. The use of a dry floodproofing system is a relatively high-cost measure that has an expected life span of 15 to 30 years with extensive annual maintenance costs and is usually reserved for historic sites. There are currently no discounts or decreases in premiums under the current program. BARRIER MEASURES FLOODWALL WITH GATES AND FLOODWALL WITHOUT GATES This method creates a floodwall made of reinforced concrete that surrounds the residential building. This should only be constructed to a maximum height of four feet above ground level. The floodwall with gates will have passive flood gates that are designed to open or close 243 automatically when flood waters are present. The floodwall without gates uses vehicle ramps or pedestrian stairs rather than gates to access the property. Sump pumps or an internal storage system along with a back-up emergency power supply are needed to collect and remove floodwater that accumulates behind the floodwalls during a flooding event. This method can be effective at reducing or eliminating building and contents Typical masonry floodwall with engineered closures, which protected the Oak damage during a flood. Grove Lutheran School in Fargo, ND, from flooding in 2001 (source: FEMA, Flood Floodwalls are really only cost Control America, LLC effective when flood depths do not exceed approximately four feet. There are also potential community and design restrictions related to building of the floodwall. This is a relatively high-cost measure that has an expected life span of 50 years. Other cost considerations entail professionally designed plans that meet floodplain management requirements, ensure that the floodwall will not divert floodwaters or adversely impact bordering properties and that the floodwall and its drainage system will meet the flood protection design standards. There are currently no discounts or decreases in premiums under the current program. LEVEE WITH GATES AND LEVEE WITHOUT GATES This option is similar to the floodwall, but the barrier is created by installing an earthen levee around a home with a clay or concrete core constructed to a maximum of six feet above ground level. This method can be built with passive flood gates that are designed to open or close automatically when flood waters are present. The levee without gates uses vehicle ramps or pedestrian stairs rather than gates to access the property. Sump pumps or an internal storage 244 system along with a back-up emergency power supply are needed to collect and remove floodwater that accumulates behind the levee during a flooding event. This method can be effective at reducing or eliminating building and contents damage during a flood. Residential levees can only be designed to withstand low velocity, low debris, and short duration flood events. This is a relatively high-cost measure that has an expected life span of 50 to 100 years. Other cost considerations entail professionally designed plans that meet floodplain management requirements, ensure that the floodwall will not divert floodwaters or adversely impact bordering properties and that the floodwall and its drainage system will meet the flood protection design standards. There are currently no discounts or decreases in premiums under the current program. CASE STUDY OF FLOOD MITIGATION TECHNIQUES – DARLINGTON, WI Darlington, WI — Located in the southwestern corner of Wisconsin, this rural city was founded beside the Pecatonica River and officially given the name of Darlington in 1869. Darlington is also the county seat and home of the Lafayette County Fair. During the past 172 years, this beautiful community has been at odds with the Pecatonica River. Numerous times the river wreaked havoc with its destructive force, leaving a trail of mud, debris and bacteria, contributing financial stress to both families and businesses. Repetitive flooding deteriorated structures and lowered property values. Owners experienced substantial loss of business during the times of flooding, cleanup, and repair. The buildup of mold and mildew in constantly flooded structures led to unhealthy conditions in the buildings. Most of the buildings date back to the mid-1800s and are of considerable historic importance. The continual flooding is well documented and photographed from 1937 and into the 1950s. As townspeople tired of the onslaught of the relentless river, many considered leaving town for good. Others closed long-time businesses and abandoned properties that were quickly becoming unsalable. Property values plummeted. It had become painfully clear that the multiple floods of the past 50 years had taken a terrible toll on Darlington. Outside of a store in historic Downtown Darlington. Photo: WDNR After the 1993 flood, the community adopted four goals, as part of a comprehensive plan, in order to retain the historic and community value of Darlington’s Main Street as well as to mitigate against future flood damage: Pecatonica River Darlington, WI Photo: WDNR 1. Preserve the historic downtown business district 2. Restore the downtown economic base. 245 3. Develop an urban river open space park and recreation area. 4. Eliminate or substantially reduce flood damage in the future. The success in reaching the city’s goals depended on forming an interagency coalition and promoting the cooperation of government — local, state, and federal— and businesses. Multiple agencies contributed grants and/or expertise to the projects. In developing the mitigation goals, officials ensured efforts were locally based by involving civic leaders, business owners, and residents in the planning. The plan included acquisition and demolition of businesses adjacent to the river that are subject to severe flood damage. Historic buildings in the downtown business district were retrofitted while maintaining their historic character. The engineered solution was to build a vestibule area Former Darlington Mayor Bev Anderson and FEMA as you step into the front door, at street level. Mitigation Specialist Chuck Black inspect stanchions Steps lead up to the elevated first floor level, and and drain cover at top of steps leading in a Main Street business. It is at this point that flood shields a floodwall separates the vestibule level from the are attached when flooding is imminent. Photo: first floor. Elevating the old businesses above Wisconsin DMA flood levels was completed by the removal of entire first floors and filling existing basements with as much as nine feet of compacted pea gravel to new levels of four feet above the original first-floor elevation. New concrete slabs were then poured over the filled basements, with some slabs placed 13 feet above the original basement elevation. The downtown district wasn’t Darlington’s only concern though. Adjacent neighborhoods and businesses also were being swamped by flood waters. As part of the town’s total mitigation plan, other projects included elevating approximately 55 affected homes and their utilities above the base flood elevation (BFE) and filling in their basements with crushed rock. Some homes had concrete walls erected on the exposed sides prone to flooding. The city acquired and demolished 13 commercial properties and developed a 33-acre business park up and away from the floodplain for relocated and new businesses. The vacated land near the river was turned into a riverside park with a 1.2-mile paved trail, campground, and open green space. A portion of a 39-mile tri-county multi-use trail also runs through the park. To help address the downtown flooding problem, flood shields were designed to prevent flood waters from entering the downtown businesses. Made of a corrosion-proof aluminum, the shields would be clamped to rigid steel stanchions. The stanchions were to be cast into the top concrete entry portals, leading into the structure. Darlington officials approved fabrication of the flood shields at a total cost of about $200,000. Each of the 150 shields are numbered and lettered for the specific buildings on which they would be installed. Early warning from flood gauges up-river at Calamine, WI, affords Darlington at least eight hours’ notice before flood waters reach the town. 246 Property owners were required to purchase flood insurance if they did not already have a policy. A major benefit of the entire project was a dramatic increase in property values city -wide. One city office official estimates that property values for the refurbished commercial buildings along the old main street have nearly doubled. During the two most recent Wisconsin floods, those of 2007 and 2008, the City of Darlington was “armored and Floodproofing the vestibule of a storefront, Photo: FEMA ready.” The flood shields stopped virtually all floodwater from entering businesses, elevated buildings and utilities prevented further damage, and the residents and business owners were afforded peace of mind in knowing they were protected this time. This case study highlights that planning and implementing an effective flood mitigation plan in place can save time, money, and the fabric of the local community. Having a reliable warning system is crucial to allow the community to deploy the necessary flood mitigation tools, while also allowing them to evacuate if necessary. Elevating utilities and homes, relocating, the use of flood walls have been proven to mitigate the impacts of flood waters. Restored and retrofitted building in Downtown Darlington, WI. Photo: FEMA 247 FLOOD RECOVERY PROGRAMS In the event of a flood that has caused damage in a county or community, there are several recovery programs in the state of Wisconsin that can provide assistance. They consist of: ➢ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA) ➢ Mitigation Funding Provided through Section 406 of the Stafford Act ➢ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Individual Assistance ➢ Wisconsin Disaster Fund (WDF) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (PA) The FEMA Public Assistance (PA) grant program provides assistance to State, Tribal, and local governments and certain types of private non-profit (PNP) organizations to help reimburse costs associated with damage to public infrastructure such as roads and bridges so that communities can quickly respond to and recover from major disasters or emergencies. FEMA funds the program, which WEM administers in the state. In order to be eligible for a Presidential Disaster Declaration, the event must overwhelm state and local response and recovery efforts, meet countywide damage thresholds ($3.68 per capita) and meet a statewide damage threshold ($1.46 per capita) of $8,303,000.00 using the 2010 census. Once approved by the President, FEMA provides 75% reimbursement of eligible documented costs, the State of Wisconsin provides up to 12.5% of eligible documented costs, and the local government’s share is 12.5%. Through the program, FEMA provides supplemental federal disaster grant assistance for debris removal, life-saving emergency protective measures, and the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged publicly-owned facilities, and the facilities of certain PNP organizations. The PA program also encourages protection of these damaged facilities from future events by providing assistance for hazard mitigation measures during the recovery process. To request a federal disaster declaration, the Governor must request FEMA to come to the impacted county or counties and conduct a damage assessment of damaged public infrastructure such as roads and bridges. A FEMA inspector will determine if the damage is eligible under the federal program. The information gathered from a damage assessment will be provided to the Governor who will then request the President to approve a federal disaster declaration. Additional information on FEMA’s public assistance program provides responsibilities, resources, fact sheets, and forms about the program. • Local Governments, State or Tribal Agencies, Private Nonprofits: - Perform damage assessments Work with state or tribe to determine funding amount and priorities for HMGP Encourage community members’ involvement in hazard mitigation decisionmaking Prepare and submit the grant application to the state or tribe Determine sources of funding for non-federal match After FEMA approval, sign and implement the grant agreement Issue necessary permits Manage and monitor the progress of the project and ensure compliance Conduct final inspections and prepare for closeout 248 MITIGATION FUNDING PROVIDED THROUGH SECTION 406 OF THE STAFFORD ACT The FEMA PA program provides funding to restore a damaged facility to its pre-disaster design, function, and capacity; however, during the repair work, opportunities to mitigate future damages in cost-effective ways often present themselves. The Section 406 Mitigation Program provides funding to an applicant to reduce potential of future, similar disaster damages. Some examples of this would include: • • • • • • Upsizing a repetitively washed out culvert Replacing a metal culvert with a cement culvert Elevating a road surface Elevation of equipment and control in a wastewater treatment plant Burying of overhead power lines Installing gabion baskets, riprap, or geotextile fabric to reduce or control erosion on a steep slope There are different means to determine cost-effectiveness of particular mitigation measures. FEMA must approve proposed hazard mitigation projects before they can be incorporated. If you would like to include hazard mitigation into an open or future project, please contact our office for more information. Section 406 provides discretionary authority to fund mitigation measures in conjunction with the repair of the disaster-damaged facilities. These opportunities usually present themselves during the repair efforts. The mitigation measures must be related to eligible disaster-related damages and must directly reduce the potential for future, similar disaster damages to the eligible facility. This work is performed on the parts of the facility that were actually damaged by the disaster and the mitigation provides protection from subsequent events. Mitigation measures must be cost-effective, technically feasible, and in compliance with statutory, regulatory, and executive order requirements. In addition, the measure cannot cause a negative impact to the facility's operation or surrounding areas, or susceptibility to damage from another hazard. Section 406 hazard mitigation funding and Section 404 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding are two distinct programs that can sometimes be used together to more completely fund a hazard mitigation project and promote resilience. Section 406 mitigation funding can be used to restore parts of the facility that were actually damaged by the disaster to provide protection from subsequent events. Section 404 funding can then be used to provide future protection to the undamaged parts of the facility. Leveraging 404 and 406 funds in a concerted effort facilitates project scoping and development while extending the use of limited 404 funds. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE For the State of Wisconsin to qualify an Individual Assistance Declaration, FEMA inspectors would look to confirm 582 (according to CFR 44) homes major damaged or destroyed. Major damage to manufactured homes is described as the residence has been displaced from the foundation, block or piers and other structural components have been damaged. Destroyed is the structure is a total loss; frame is bent, twisted or otherwise compromised; missing the roof covering or the structural ribbing has collapsed for the majority of the roof system. For conventionally built homes, major damage is considered partial failure to structural elements of 249 the roof, walls, or foundation. Destroyed is complete failure of two or more major structural components (walls, foundation, or roof) or only foundation remains. To request a federal disaster declaration, the Governor must request FEMA to come to the impacted county or counties and conduct a damage assessment of damaged homes and businesses. A FEMA inspector will determine if the damage is eligible under the federal program. The information gathered from a damage assessment will be provided to the Governor who will then request the President to approve a federal disaster declaration. • Home/Primary Residence: FEMA’s Individuals and Households Program (IHP) provides financial and/or direct assistance to eligible applicants. FEMA provides housing assistance to individuals and families who have lost their homes as a result of a presidentially-declared disaster. If you are a renter or homeowner you may qualify for assistance. By law, FEMA assistance cannot duplicate the assistance you receive from your insurance company, but you may receive assistance for items not covered by insurance. If your home was impacted by a major disaster, we recommend that you apply for assistance. o Meet with community officials to decide on the type of mitigation project for your property o Check with the community to see whether community is supporting an application and whether your property can be included o Take photographs of damage and/or existing conditions o Maintain and organize papers or document damages o Complete and submit paperwork in a timely manner as requested by the community to support the grant application o Pay part of the project cost, if requested by the community o After approval of the project, work with your community to implement the mitigation project o Comply with the local community to ensure closeout of the project In an Individual Assistance Declaration, the Individual Assistance program provides assistance to individuals and households, which may include: o Housing Assistance includes Temporary Housing such as rental assistance. o Repair provides financial assistance to help homeowners repair or replace disaster damage to their primary residence not covered by insurance. The assistance is intended to repair the home to a safe and sanitary condition. o Other Needs Assistance (ONA) provides disaster assistance for some of your other disaster-caused expenses including medical and dental, child care, funeral and burial, essential household items, moving and storage, vehicle, some clean-up items, and other miscellaneous items. More information can be found at fema.gov/individualdisaster-assistance. o Crisis Counseling – Assists individuals and communities in recovering from the effects of natural and human-caused disaster through the provision of communitybased outreach and psycho-educational services. o Disaster Case Management - A time-limited process that involves a partnership between a case manager and a disaster survivor to develop and carry out a Disaster Recovery Plan. o Disaster Unemployment Assistance –Purpose is to provide unemployment benefits and reemployment services to individuals who have become unemployed as a result 250 o o • of a Presidential disaster declaration and who are not eligible for regular State Unemployment Insurance. Disaster Legal Services – This service is provided for survivors of presidentially declared major disasters only. Disaster legal advice is limited to cases that will not produce a fee. Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (D-SNAP) – Through D-SNAP, USDA Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) is able to quickly offer short-term food assistance benefits to families suffering in the wake of a disaster. Business: FEMA does not offer assistance for small businesses impacted by a presidentially-declared disaster. However, we do partner with the Small Business Administration (SBA), which offers low interest loans for business damages. Learn more about the business loan application process. • Secondary Home: FEMA does not offer assistance for your secondary home. Federal guidelines only allow us to provide housing assistance when your primary residence is impacted by a presidentially-declared disaster. WISCONSIN DISASTER FUND (WDF) The Wisconsin Disaster Fund (WDF) is a state-funded reimbursement program that allows local governmental units – namely, counties, cities, townships, villages, and tribal units of government – to recoup costs incurred while responding to and recovering from disaster events. The state reimburses 70% of eligible costs after the local governmental unit submits a complete WDF application. The fund does not cover individuals, businesses, the agricultural sector, costs associated with snow storms, damages covered by insurance, nor does it provide funds for mitigation activities. The fund does reimburse public disaster costs under three categories of work: debris clearance, protective measures, and road and bridge repair. How to Apply County Emergency Management Directors submit the following documents: 1. Within 24 hours of an event: Affected counties submit a UDSR (“Uniform Disaster Situation Report”) to WEM, which provides basic information regarding the event. 2. Within 30 days of the event: A County Notification Form is submitted to WEM, which lists local jurisdictions seeking WDF reimbursement and their estimated recovery costs. Within 60 days of the event, local governmental units – known as “Applicants” – submit the following documents after all recovery work is complete: 1. The Applicant Request for State Public Assistance. • Also, a Disaster or Emergency Declaration will need to be submitted, which can be a state, county, or local declaration, as long as it covers the Applicant’s jurisdiction. 2. The Local Documentation “Toolkit” which allows the WDF office to interpret what the Applicant is claiming on a cost-by-cost basis. This is only submitted when ALL work is complete and documented. • All supporting documentation which includes timesheets for labor costs, invoices and cancelled checks for materials and contract work, and other supporting documents as needed. 251 The documentation submitted by local Applicants, especially the Toolkit and supporting materials, can be difficult to complete without prior knowledge of the WDF documentation process; therefore, applicants are encouraged to watch the WDF applicant briefing below. After watching the video, Applicants will learn that WDF reimbursement is based on documented costs in labor, equipment usage, purchased materials (such as gravel), and contracted work, as long as the work falls under one of the eligible categories of work: debris clearance, protective measures, and road and bridge repair. WDF Contact Information Wisconsin Disaster Fund Coordinator Phone: 608-242-3259 Email: widisasterfund@wisconsin.gov WDF Resources for County Emergency Managers UDSR Form (PDF) County Notification Form (Excel download file) WDF Resources for Local Applicants Applicant Request for State Public Assistance (Word document download file) Applicant Documentation Toolkit (Excel download file) Wisconsin Disaster Fund Administrative Plan Wisconsin Disaster Fund Guidance Video Any other questions or concerns should be directed to your corresponding county or tribal emergency manager listed below. 252 EXTERNAL COUNTY & TRIBAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR LIST Last updated July 23, 2018 *Listed A-Z by County/Tribe Last First Business Region County/Tribe E-mail Address Name Name Phone Tank Dorothy Northwest Ashland County Corbine Tony Tribes Bad River Band Victorson Jan Northwest Bayfield County Tolbert Jim Northwest Burnett County Kesler Keith Northwest Douglas County Ofstad Stacy Northwest Iron County Riedell Matthew Tribes Lac Courte Orielles Band Tillmans Will Tribes Red Cliff Chippewa Tribe Sanchez Patricia Northwest Sawyer County Buck Taylor Northwest Washburn County Physical Address 220 6th St. (715) 685-7640 dorothy.tank@ashlandcountysheriff.us East, Ashland, ext. 456 WI 54806 Chief Blackbird Center, 72682 Maple St., PO (715) 682-7123 anagrant@badriver-nsn.gov Box 39, Odanah, WI 54861 117 E Sixth Street, PO Box (715) 373-6113 jvictorson@bayfieldcounty.org 423, Washburn, WI 54891 7140 County Road K, #127, (715) 349-2171 jtolbert@burnettcounty.org Siren, WI 54872 1316 N. 14th St. Suite 10, (715) 395-1391 kkesler@douglascountywi.org Superior, WI 54880-1674 300 Taconite St., Suite 226, (715) 561-3266 sofstad@ironcountywi.org Hurley, WI 54534 13394 West Trepania Rd., (715)634-0347 Matthew.riedell@lco-nsn.gov Hayward, WI 54843 88385 Pike (715) 779-3707 Road, Hwy 13, None ext 2228 Bayfield, WI 54814 10610 Main Street, Suite (715) 634-2004 psanchez@sawyercountygov.org 89, Hayward, WI 54843 421 Hwy 63, PO (715) 468-4730 cbuck@co.washburn.wi.us Box 429, Shell Lake, WI 54871 253 PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS It is important to note two types of disaster declarations provided for in the Stafford Act: emergency declarations and major disaster declarations. Both declaration types authorize the President to provide supplemental federal disaster assistance. However, the events related to the two different types of declaration and scope and amount of assistance differ. EMERGENCY DECLARATIONS The President can declare an emergency for any occasion or instance when the President determines federal assistance is needed. Emergency declarations supplement State and local or Indian tribal government efforts in providing emergency services, such as the protection of lives, property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States. The total amount of assistance provided for in a single emergency may not exceed $5 million. The President shall report to Congress if this amount is exceeded. Requirements: The Governor of the affected State or Tribal Chief Executive of the affected Tribe must submit a request to the President, through the appropriate Regional Administrator, within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident. The request must be based upon a finding that the situation is beyond the capability of the State and affected local governments or Indian tribal government and that supplemental federal emergency assistance is necessary to save lives and protect property, public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a disaster. In addition, the request must include: • • • • Confirmation that the Governor or Tribal Chief Executive has taken appropriate action under State or Tribal law and directed the execution of the State or Tribal emergency plan; A description of the State and local or Indian tribal government efforts and resources utilized to alleviate the emergency; A description of other federal agency efforts and resources utilized in response to the emergency; and A description of the type and extent of additional federal assistance required. MAJOR DISASTER DECLARATIONS The President can declare a major disaster for any natural event, including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or drought, or, regardless of cause, fire, flood, or explosion, that the President determines has caused damage of such severity that it is beyond the combined capabilities of state and local governments to respond. A major disaster declaration provides a wide range of federal assistance programs for individuals and public infrastructure, including funds for both emergency and permanent work. Requirements: The Governor of the affected State or Tribal Chief Executive of the affected Tribe must submit the request to the President through the appropriate Regional Administrator within 30 days of the occurrence of the incident. The request must be based upon a finding that the situation is beyond the capability of the State and affected local 254 governments or Indian tribal government and that supplemental federal assistance is necessary. In addition, the request must include: • • • • • Confirmation that the Governor or Tribal Chief Executive has taken appropriate action under State or Tribal law and directed execution of the State or Tribal emergency plan; An estimate of the amount and severity of damage to the public and private sector; A description of the State and local or Indian tribal government efforts and resources utilized to alleviate the disaster; Preliminary estimates of the type and amount of Stafford Act assistance needed; and Certification by the Governor or Tribal Chief Executive that the State and local governments or Indian tribal government will comply with all applicable cost sharing requirements. NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM (NFIP) The National Flood Insurance Program is a federal program created by Congress to mitigate future flood losses nationwide through sound, community-enforced building and zoning ordinances and to provide access to affordable, federally-backed flood insurance protection for property owners. The NFIP is designed to provide an insurance alternative to disaster assistance to meet the escalating costs of repairing damage to buildings and their contents caused by floods. Participation in the NFIP is based on an agreement between local communities and the federal government that states that if a community will adopt and enforce a floodplain management ordinance to reduce future flood risks to new construction in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs), the federal government will make flood insurance available within the community as a financial protection against flood losses. Communities not participating in the NFIP are subject to certain restrictions. If a nonparticipating community has identified flood prone areas, federal financial assistance such as a VA loan or a mortgage from a federally regulated or insured bank will not be available. Also, the community will not be eligible for federal assistance if a federally declared flooding disaster occurs; no direct federally insured loans or grants will be available; and no structures will be eligible for flood insurance. Table 23: NFIP PARTICIPATION, REGION Community Name Ashland County Bayfield County Burnett County Douglas County Iron County Sawyer County Washburn County City of Ashland City of Mellen Village of Butternut City of Bayfield Date of Participation 2/15/1978 9/1/1988 11/20/1991 2/4/1981 4/1/1988 9/14/1990 6/8/1998 9/30/1977 11/19/1986 Unknown 9/18/1985 Current Effective Map Date 2/15/1978 12/16/2011 8/19/2008 2/2/2012 4/1/1988 9/14/1990 10/2/2012 9/30/1977 11/19/1986 5/14/1976 12/16/2011 Community Name Village of Oliver Village of Poplar Village of Lake Nebagamon Village of Solon Springs City of Hurley City of Montreal City of Hayward Village of Couderay Village of Winter Village of Radisson Village of Exeland 255 Date of Participation 2/2/2012 9/1/1986 8/15/1978 8/15/1978 4/6/1973 11/4/1988 11/1/1979 Suspended DNP 9/1/1986 9/1/1986 Current Effective Map Date 2/2/2012 2/2/2012 2/2/2012 2/2/2012 11/14/1975 11/4/1988 11/1/1979 Suspended DNP 9/1/1986 9/1/1986 Community Name Village of Mason City of Washburn Village of Grantsburg Village of Webster Village of Siren City of Superior Village of Superior Date of Participation DNP 11/2/1995 2/2/1989 8/19/2008 8/19/2008 4/3/1978 DNP Current Effective Map Date DNP 12/16/2011 8/19/2008 8/19/2008 8/19/2008 2/2/2012 DNP Community Name City of Spooner City of Shell Lake Village of Birchwood Village of Minong Red Cliff Lac Courte Oreilles Bad River Date of Participation 4/2/1979 9/16/1988 9/30/1988 9/1/1986 12/16/2011 DNP DNP Current Effective Map Date 10/2/2012 10/2/2012 10/2/2012 10/2/2012 12/16/2011 DNP DNP DNP= Community does not participate in the National Flood Insurance Program REGULATORY TECHNIQUES Floodplain zoning applies to counties, cities and villages in Wisconsin. Section 87.30, Wis. Stats., requires that each county, village and city shall zone, by ordinance, all lands subject to flooding. Chapter NR 116, Wis. Admin. Code requires all communities to adopt reasonable and effective floodplain zoning ordinances within their respective jurisdictions to regulate all floodplains where serious flood damage may occur within one year after hydraulic and engineering data adequate to formulate the ordinance becomes available. LAND USE PLANNING Counties in Northwest Wisconsin and several local governments have adopted comprehensive plans. These plans examine existing land use patterns, make recommendations for future development patterns, and contain goals, objectives and actions relating to transportation, housing, economic development, and land use. Each community is required to update comprehensive plans at least once every ten years. HAZARD MITIGATION PLANNING County Hazard Mitigation Plans identify strategies to address flooding and other natural disasters. Mitigation plans are a prerequisite to obtaining mitigation funding through certain FEMA grant programs. While typically prepared at the county scale, local jurisdictions can receive credit for planning by participating in the countywide process. 256 PLANNING FOR FLOOD RESILIENCE It is ideal to start off with what it means to be a flood resilient community. A flood resilient community is one in which residents and institutions have the capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from flooding with minimal outside assistance. By becoming more resilient, communities are not just prepared to survive a major event, but are poised to adapt to everchanging conditions and thrive. In order to better achieve that outcome, the community can follow several guidelines to becoming a flood resilient community. • Manage water where it falls. Land use activities throughout a watershed should utilize good stormwater management practices that prevent rapid runoff into streams and rivers. This may be as simple as maintaining soil cover and vegetation to slow water down and allow it to soak into the ground. When the soil is covered with buildings, pavement, or other impervious surfaces, engineered stormwater management practices may be needed. • Make room for water. The highest risk areas near rivers, streams, wetlands, and lakes should be kept free from vulnerable development. The natural functions of these areas are to store and slow floodwaters, thus providing relief for other areas. • Live with floods. In flood-prone areas with existing development and areas where future development will be permitted, measures can be taken to enhance safety and reduce the potential for damage. • Education the public. If residents and business owners are knowledgeable about potential flood risks, they can make informed decisions that balance those risks with other concerns. An independent study by the National Institute of Building Sciences found that every dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of four dollars. Therefore, it should be seen as a fiduciary responsibility of local government to thoughtfully consider initiatives that reduce the potential impacts of hazards within their jurisdictions. WHY PLAN? Good planning makes better places to live. Effective planning protects the natural environment while enhancing economic well-being and the quality of life in general. Planning helps communities document their current conditions, visualize what their communities could be in the future, and develop strategies to meet those goals. In keeping with the duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare, local governments should address flood hazards whenever any type of plan is developed for areas with flood risks. Integrating flood safety into a community’s plans provides a basis for addressing these issues through policies, practices, regulations, and investment decisions. COUNTYWIDE HAZARD MITIGATION PLANS State and local governments develop Hazard Mitigation Plans to review the hazards facing a community and recommend long-term actions to reduce threats to safety health, and property. 257 A local Hazard Mitigation Plan that is approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a prerequisite to obtaining FEMA mitigation funding. Countywide multi-hazard mitigation plans are updated on a five-year cycle. In order to qualify for mitigation grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a municipality must participate in the planning process and adopt the hazard mitigation plan. This municipal involvement enables incorporation of local priorities, concerns, and recommendations. In order to facilitate implementation, it is recommended that the findings and recommendations also be integrated into comprehensive plans and municipal operations. The hazard mitigation plan can also be a valuable source of information about local hazards, vulnerability of communities to those hazards, and recommendations for mitigating the risks. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING A comprehensive plan presents the long-term vision for a municipality, along with goals and polices to help achieve that vision. It is used as a strategic tool for guiding development and investment decisions to achieve a healthy and balanced community. A comprehensive plan serves three key functions: • • • Expression of a community’s desires: Comprehensive plans can address a variety of issues, including land use, housing, community services, public safety, economic development, transportation, infrastructure, natural resources, and recreation. Guide to decision-makers: The comprehensive plan is the blueprint upon which municipal land use regulations are based. Legal document: Provides evidence of coordinated effort and rationale for adoption of specified actions. Municipalities can lay the foundation for improved flood resilience through their comprehensive plans. The plan specifies how a community should be developed and where development should not occur. The planning process provides an opportunity to assess flood risks, integrate flood safety into the community’s goals, balance flood risks with other community priorities, and develop strategies for prohibiting or mitigating flood-prone development. Uses of the land can be tailored to match the land’s hazards, directing development to areas that are less vulnerable. Hazardous areas can be reserved for parks, golf courses, backyards, wildlife refuges, natural areas, or similar compatible uses. Steps in Comprehensive Planning 1. Research: This includes mapping of natural and human-made features; documentation of existing conditions, assessment of probable future trends, anticipation of potential problems, analysis of environmental and economic constraints, and identification of key issues. 2. Community goals and objectives: The process of setting goals and objectives should be an open one that includes citizens and groups who have a stake in the outcome. The plan must strike a balance between multiple interdependent issues and diverse viewpoints. A future land use map can be developed to illustrate how the community intends to grow over time. 258 3. Policy formation: Assess the options available for achieving the goals and objectives, including land use regulations, capital projects, development guidelines, and operating procedures. 4. Plan implementation: A comprehensive plan is not a law and cannot be enforced. It only has an effect when implemented through regulatory and non-regulatory actions. 5. Review and updating: Because conditions change over time, it is important for the community to conduct a periodic review of problems and progress and update the plan when warranted. FLOODPLAIN PROTECTION Flooding is a natural process. The amount of water in a stream or river varies seasonally and with intermittent extreme events. Natural features of an undeveloped stream system, including the floodplain, can moderate the severity of extreme events: • Stream channels adjust to changing conditions (amount of water and sediment) to establish a dynamic equilibrium. Relocating a stream or disrupting the natural features within the channel can contribute to increased flooding or erosion damage while the channel adjusts its location and shape to restore a balanced condition. • The floodplain is an important part of a stream system because it provides a place for water to spread out during high flows. This slows down the water and dissipates energy, which reduces the potential for streambank erosion. Storage of water on the floodplain also reduces the amount of flooding that occurs downstream. A river or stream that becomes disconnected from its floodplain due to berms or high banks is often a stream with erosion problems and downstream flooding. • Floodplain vegetation enhances the ability of the floodplain to slow down and store water, while also stabilizing the stream system. Above ground, the trunks and leaves slow down the flow and dissipate energy, while the roots stabilize the soil and banks. Retaining or restoring plants along the bank of a stream, called a riparian buffer, is the easiest and most effective way to protect a stream system. • Wetlands are areas that contain shallow water during all or part of the year. Whether they are located in the floodplain or in upland areas, wetlands store water and slow down the rate at which water reaches streams, and thus alleviate the flood potential. Wetlands also improve water quality and provide habitat for wildlife. Natural systems can play a major role in mitigating hazards. An important flood damage reduction strategy is to preserve and restore the flood protection capacity of natural systems. Retention of natural floodplain features lessens the severity of flooding and also means that those areas do not contain development that will be susceptible to flood damage. Preservation of natural features outside of the floodplain can also help to reduce flooding. Communities may also capitalize on undeveloped land for recreational use, scenic value, and wildlife benefits. What landscape features affect flooding? The amount of flood water depends on the amount of water that drains off the landscape. So, preservation or restoration of natural drainage features anywhere in the landscape can attenuate flood peaks. Natural features to consider include: 259 • Wetlands can be located near streams or in other parts of the watershed. Regardless of location, they are valuable for slowing down and storing water. • Forests: Vegetation throughout the watershed, especially mature forests, uses large amounts of water, reducing the amount that drains into streams. Plants also slow down runoff, especially on slopes, which spreads out the timing of water reaching streams and reduces peak flows. Vegetation also serves as a carbon sink, removing CO2 from the atmosphere (and thus mitigating climate change). Harvesting of timber, like other land use changes, should incorporate drainage controls to avoid downhill and water quality impacts. • Soil: During rainfall and snow-melt events uncompacted soil absorbs large amounts of moisture. Some water infiltrates downward and recharges groundwater resources. Additional soil moisture is returned to the atmosphere by plants. Any activity that includes grading, soil compaction, or concentration of runoff can contribute to downslope drainage problems or flooding. • Slopes: Development on steep slopes can be challenging due to difficulties with managing drainage and preventing erosion, as well as safe access roads. Disturbance of vegetation and soils in these areas may contribute to water quality impairment, downslope drainage or sediment problems, and even landslides. EMERGENCY ACTION PLAN The best way to prepare for flooding is to develop a proactive plan for storm response. An Emergency Action Plan outlines procedures and chains of command during any disaster, including flooding, in order to facilitate effective and efficient response. Municipalities can work with county agencies, local fire departments, school districts, and other entities to develop or update a plan. What is included in an Emergency Action Plan? Although every plan is different, an Emergency Action Plan should include the following: • Identify known hazards and steps that can be taken to reduce their occurrence or impact. • Contain a notification system for officials and agencies who are designated to respond to emergencies. • Describe emergency operations procedures, such as the activation and coordination of resources, and basic strategies for responding to various incidents. • Describe how the community’s resources will be organized, lines of authority, and chain of command. • Describe the communications systems that will be used. • Assign responsibilities for various aspects of emergency response. • Contain resource lists to quickly obtain information, contacts, and equipment. RECOVERY PLANNING – BUILD BACK SAFER AND STRONGER After a flood or other disaster, there may be opportunities and community support for taking actions that reduce the affected areas’ exposure to future damages. A Disaster Recovery Plan can allow communities to plan for safe reconstruction following a natural disaster. If a 260 community identifies in advance the desired land use in various parts of the floodplain, they are prepared to pursue funding for buyouts of flood-damaged structures in areas more suitable for use as open space. The goals of recovery planning are generally to Increase the speed of recovery, Promote effective use of resources, and Increase the opportunity for community betterment. How-to guidance: “Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation,” American Planning Association, PAS Report 576, www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/103445. • • • When should a Disaster Recovery Plan be prepared? Ideally, the Recovery Planning process is conducted during normal times, without the pressures of disaster response and recovery. However, most municipalities lack the capacity and interest to undertake pre-disaster recovery planning beyond the broad community goals included in Hazard Mitigation and Comprehensive Plans and short-term recovery recommendations in an Emergency Action Plan. It is more likely that Recovery Planning by municipalities will be conducted in the aftermath of a severe flood or other disaster. A flood is always an opportunity to highlight where changes are needed. During and after a flood or other disaster, emergency management activities focus on protecting lives and property, then getting things back to “normal” as quickly as possible. However, if the community is restored to the “normal” that existed before the flood, then the same flood problems are likely to occur again and the opportunity for improving the community and building resilience will be lost. A post-disaster Recovery Plan must quickly address the following questions: • What areas should be cleared or not restored to pre-disaster conditions? • What areas should incorporate retrofitting as part of reconstructions? • What areas could be allowed to repair without delays? • What changes should be made during rebuilding to make the community more resilient or sustainable? The key points to remember while making these planning decisions are: • The area will flood again someday. • It could be worse next time. • The community can do things to make it better next time. Incorporating planning into the busy flood recovery process will take time, leadership, and participation of local stakeholders (elected officials, emergency personnel, planners, businesses, human service providers, civic organizations, and—of course—residents). To buy time, a temporary reconstruction moratorium can freeze reconstruction in the affected area until decisions can be made about who can rebuild, who must mitigate, and who can make repairs and reoccupy right away. Public information and involvement are essential for developing a successful flood recovery plan. The plan will address subjects that are central to the lives of those who live in the affected area. It will determine where they live and work in the future, and their lives may be held in limbo until the plan is completed. Dealing with the needs and emotional responses from 261 these residents needs to be conducted in a “listen and gather information” mode rather than a “plan presentation” mode. RESOURCES FOR FLOOD RECOVERY AND RECOVERY PLANNING o o o o o “Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation,” American Planning Association, PAS Report 576, www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/103445. How-to guidance for communities to start their mitigation planning and disaster recovery planning processes. “Planning and Building Livable, Safe & Sustainable Communities: The Patchwork Quilt Approach,” Natural Hazard Mitigation Association, http://nhma.info/publications Information about programs that provide technical assistance and funding to support post-disaster recovery. “NAI How-To Guide for Planning,” Association of state Floodplain Managers, July 2014, http://floods.org/ace-images/PlanningFinal6_16_16.pdf. Planning tools and case studies to help communities develop plans that “aim high” and reduce adverse impacts from flooding. FEMA webpage, “Part 2. Recovery Planning,” http://www.fema.gov/resourcesplan-post-disaster- recovery. Links to tools, case studies, example plans, and other resources to help communities with post-disaster recovery planning. OTHER LOCAL PLANS AND PROGRAMS Communities undertake a variety of planning efforts, each focused on particular assets or concerns. Since the objective of each plan is to improve the community in some way, long-term resilience should be a consideration for any local plan. In the flood-prone Northwest region, planning for long- term resilience must include consideration of flood risks. Recommendations in the previous sections of this guide can be used to integrate flood resilience into other local planning efforts, including: • • • • • • • Watershed plan Economic development strategy Capital improvement plan Local waterfront revitalization plan Open space or natural resource plan County water quality strategy Facility plan COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM The Community Rating System (CRS) is a FEMA financial incentive program to promote adoption of stronger policies to reduce flood damage. If communities document that they have policies and programs that reduce the risk of flood damage, they can be rewarded with a reduced flood insurance rate for all landowners within the municipality. Information about this program is at: https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-rating-system 262 ZONING What is zoning? Zoning is a land use tool that regulates development by dividing a community into zones or districts and setting development criteria for each zone or district. The zoning law specifies the uses that are permitted in each zone, requirements for structural characteristics, site layout requirements, and procedural matters. Dimensional requirements may include minimum lot sizes, building setbacks, lot coverage restrictions, and building height requirements. Because zoning is a tool for directing different kinds of development to appropriate areas within a community, zoning regulations can be used to prevent flood damage and to protect natural resources by limiting uses in high-risk and environmentally-sensitive areas. WATERBODIES AND BUFFERS What is a riparian buffer? A riparian buffer is the area along a stream, river, or lakeshore where vegetation is retained to act as a buffer between the water and the adjacent land. Because it is natural for streams to flood and for stream channels to change course over time, keeping this buffer area free of development means that buildings and roads are located away from the waterbody in safer locations. Preventing development near streams and lakes also preserves many natural benefits, particularly if the riparian buffer contains a variety of types of plants— trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs. The beneficial functions of vegetated stream buffers include: • • • • • • • • Slow water during high flows Stabilize banks Reduce erosion Promote sediment deposition in the floodplain Filter nutrients and other pollutants Moderate water temperature Provide wildlife habitat and corridors Enhance the scenic beauty Locating development away from stream and river banks is the most effective way to protect the development from the frequent flooding and erosion that occur along streams. Well-established vegetation on streambanks and in adjacent riparian areas is generally the best and least expensive long-term protection for a stream system. Streams and rivers are active systems that cause flooding and erosion of adjacent areas. Maintaining a vegetated buffer adjacent to streams, rivers, wetlands, and lakes keeps development away from these high-risk areas, while providing multiple benefits for water quality, stream functions, and wildlife. Local ordinances and codes can be used to limit or prohibit certain types of (or all) development within stream corridors or near waterbodies. These local restrictions can be adopted as part of a zoning code, as a stand-alone ordinance, or as part of other regulations. What is a wetland? Wetlands are areas that are submerged much of the time and support unique forms of vegetation. Because wetlands store stormwater runoff, their preservation can have valuable flood protection benefits. Development in or adjacent to wetlands is regulated by state and federal permit programs, which local governments can support by providing information and assistance as needed. A municipality can also enact a local wetland law. 263 However, local involvement in regulating wetlands is generally limited to indirect regulation through subdivision and site plan review laws, which should guide development so as to avoid areas of a site that would inappropriately affect a wetland. RUNOFF MANAGEMENT Runoff can worsen flooding. If a stream is flooding frequently, it is possible that development in the surrounding area might be contributing to the problem. Development often converts pervious surfaces (such as soil), which might have previously absorbed rainfall, to impervious surface (such as concrete or pavement), which increases stormwater runoff. Grading, lawns, roads, drainage ditches, and other drainage “improvements” can also increase the speed of runoff, resulting in more water reaching the creek at the same time. Managing stormwater onsite reduces additional flow to flood-prone areas, while also protecting water quality. What is poor drainage or urban flooding? Poor drainage flooding is when heavy rainfall or snowmelt overwhelms drainage systems. This is sometimes called urban flooding (or pluvial flooding), but it occurs in rural areas also. Because damage is caused by runoff before it reaches a stream, it can cause damage far from streams in areas where the flood risk is not shown on floodplain maps. Factors that contribute to flood and erosion damage from poor drainage include: • Increased runoff due to pavement and other impermeable surfaces that prevent water from soaking into the soil. • Increased runoff due to removal of vegetation. Bare ground can generate almost as much runoff as pavement, particularly if the soil is compacted. Mowed lawns are not nearly as effective at intercepting and soaking up water as forests. • Concentrated flow due to grading and construction of drainage ways, which enable water to move at higher velocities, causing erosion and allowing water to reach streams quicker. What is green infrastructure? “Green infrastructure includes a wide array of practices at multiple scales that manage wet weather and that maintains and restores natural hydrology by infiltrating, evapotranspiring, harvesting and using stormwater. On a regional scale, green infrastructure is the preservation and restoration of natural landscape features, such as forests, floodplains and wetlands, coupled with policies such as infill and redevelopment that reduce overall imperviousness in a watershed. On the local scale, green infrastructure consists of siteand neighborhood-specific practices, such as bioretention, trees, green roofs, permeable pavements and cisterns.” (Source: US Environmental Protection Agency website, https://www.epa.gov/wifia/learn-about-wifia-program#questions.) 1. Avoid or minimize disturbance by preserving natural features or using conservation design techniques. Preserving contiguous forests, stream buffers, floodplains, and wetlands can slow the rate of runoff and protect water quality by filtering and infiltrating polluted water. 2. Reduce the impacts of development by decreasing impervious cover. Reducing impervious surfaces such as buildings, roads, driveways, and parking lots reduces the speeds and volumes of runoff as well as the amount of pollutants that are collected on site and washed into waterbodies. 264 3. Manage the remaining impacts of development by using natural features and runoff reduction practices to slow down the runoff, promote infiltration and evapotranspiration, and minimize the need for structural “end-of-pipe” practices. Using practices such as bioswales, rain gardens, rain barrels, green roofs, and vegetation can help manage runoff by allowing it to be collected, distributed, and filtered. The green infrastructure approach for stormwater management should be incorporated into the early stages of review for development and subdivision proposals. Guidance and checklists to assist Planning Boards with this have been prepared by the Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council, “Green Infrastructure Planning Design Guidelines,” 2016, www.gflrpc.org/uploads/5/0/4/0/50406319/giplanningdesignguidelines.pdf. Areas with known flooding problems New development should be designed and constructed in a manner that accommodates any known flooding or drainage problems, regardless of whether it is located within a mapped floodplain. This can be achieved by including the following requirement in zoning, site plan review, and subdivision regulations: “When a land development project is within or adjacent to any area with known flooding problems or known high ground water, the elevations of buildings should be above the observed, anticipated or computed water levels. The effect of such development on upstream and downstream reaches of the watercourse and adjacent properties shall be considered and adequate protective measures shall be implemented.” PUBLIC ROADS By their very nature, road systems are subject to flooding. Roads sometimes follow along waterways, bridges often constrict flood flows, and roadside drainage ditches intercept hillside drainage and concentrate it along the roadway. Flooded and washed out roadways can be extremely hazardous to the traveling public. The National Weather Service reports that almost half of all flash flood fatalities occur in vehicles. 2 In the course of maintaining and repairing public roads, a community may have opportunities to improve flood resilience of the road system and reduce the impact on waterways. “FloodResistant Local Road Systems: A Report Based on Case Studies” (American Lifelines Alliance, January 2005, https://www.floods.org/PDF/ALA_Flood_Roads_January2005.pdf.) identifies the following practices that improve flood resistance: • • • Improving flood resistance: hydraulics: Improvements to hydraulic performance are examined, and protection against scour is incorporated for every new crossing and for replacements of existing crossings. Record keeping: labor, equipment, and materials: Documentation of work performed, including labor, equipment, and materials, is maintained by road segment and crossing location; records are filed to facilitate identification of changes in conditions over time. Periodic inspections: A formalized program of periodic inspection of waterway crossings to identify, document, and monitor, over time, conditions known to contribute to vulnerability to flood damage is essential. 265 • • • • • • Functional partnerships: adjacent communities: Interjurisdictional partnerships are formed to cost-effectively co-operate to provide for the overall safe functioning of local road networks. Funds for flood recovery: Provisions are made for some anticipated flood-related expenditures that exceed the normal budget so that funds are not diverted from routine maintenance and scheduled capital improvements. Bridge construction crew and equipment: In-house crew capabilities and available heavy equipment are sufficient to construct the types and sizes of the most prevalent waterway crossings in the local road system. Partnerships: state and federal agencies: Awareness of state and federal programs that provide technical and financial assistance is maintained; partnerships are identified and are pursued. Watershed and stream morphology approaches to flood problems: It is recognized that watersheds and streams are systems and that solutions to site-specific problems may involve off-site elements. Staff development: Personnel are trained and cross trained, both in-house and through external opportunities, in the skills required to perform agency tasks. Roadside ditches don’t just capture road runoff. They also intercept about 20 percent of runoff from adjacent hillslopes. Each ditch provides a high velocity sluiceway that rapidly shunts water, debris, and contaminants into downstream waterways. These ditch networks increase the magnitude of peak stream heights and contribute directly to flooding. Road ditches also contribute to water pollution and degrade aquatic habitat. Information about “re-plumbing” roadside ditches to reduce contributions to flooding can be found in the publication “Replumbing the Chesapeake Watershed: Improving roadside ditch management to meet TMDL water quality goals.” 266 CULVERT ASSET MANAGEMENT The United States of America has the world’s biggest transportation network system. The industrial growth during 1950s marked a rapid development in construction of high speed, high-capacity roadway infrastructure. Today, the United States has 3,981,521 miles of roadway of which 46,726 miles belong to national highway system, 2,318,043 miles are paved roadway and 1,624,207 miles are unpaved roadway, which is the largest in the world. During the construction of these roadways, billions of culverts were installed under them. As the philosophical saying, “out of sight is out of mind,” more importance has been given to preserving the physical infrastructure on the surface like roadway, pavements, bridges, guardrails, etc., than underground infrastructure. Various theories, models, framework and management plans are developed to track, inspect, maintain, and repair the surface infrastructure. However, the invisible critical components of culverts have been neglected. The location and condition of these pipes comes to notice only when there is a problem such as settlement or complete failure of a roadway. The deterioration of culvert pipes and other components is a growing problem for transportation agencies. The deterioration of pipes because of their increasing age or change of service conditions such as increasing flow due to changing watershed conditions increases the wear and tear of these pipes. Various structural, hydrological, environmental and economical (lack of proper maintenance) factors, may accelerate the deterioration process. Drainage infrastructure systems (culverts, storm sewers, outfall, and related drainage elements) represent an integral portion of Department of Transportations’ assets that routinely require inspection, maintenance, repair, and renewal. Failure of these systems is costly for DOTs both directly due to the replacement of the failed system and indirectly due to the time and money and even in some cases lives lost for the users of the highway. Therefore, drainage infrastructure systems are in need of special attention in terms of proactive/preventive asset management strategy. The variety in material types, shapes, backfill materials, types of roads located above, and environmental conditions make every single culvert unique in terms of its behavior and durability. There have been many studies in order to identify the key parameters affecting culvert behavior but the success rate in providing standard solutions to the problems remained to be low. Had the culvert behavior been completely understood it would have been much easier to manage the culvert inventory by timely renewal and repair efforts. Wide geospatial distribution of drainage infrastructure assets further complicates the management of these assets. Therefore, the first and most important step in the culvert asset management procedure should be the establishment of a database consisting of asset inventory and asset condition information. By monitoring this database, the department of transportation officials will be able to identify the critical culverts before failure and to take necessary steps in a timely manner to repair, rehabilitate, or replace these culverts. Additional culvert asset management benefits include: • Up-to-date inventory • Reducing failures through inspections • Reducing emergency repair costs and unplanned financial burden • Better budget planning for repair and replacement • Long term ability to identify actual life-cycle and performance of various pipe materials 267 ROAD AND CULVERT PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH FLOOD WATERS PLUNGE POOLS, STREAM BANK SCOUR, & SEDIMENT DEPOSITS An undersized culvert produces an ‘hourglass effect’ with the upstream segment widening due to sediment deposition, while at the same time a downstream plunge pool scours a wide area. The formation of a scour hole or streambank erosion on the downstream side of the crossing provides evidence that an existing crossing is undersized and/or not properly aligned (slope or skew). The primary cause of this phenomenon on the downstream is the ‘fire-hose’ effect of high velocities through the crossing. Scour can also destabilize the end sections and roadbed. If a culvert is not to be replaced, scour hole protections such as riprap and/or grade control should be considered. Scour holes can be seen in the adjacent air photo. They are typical of undersized culverts and are found throughout the region in a variety of topography. The accumulation of sediment on the upstream side of the crossing provides evidence that an existing crossing is undersized. When there is a stage increase of the headwater elevation (ponding) it causes a change in water Photo: Google Maps© surface slope. The slower water drops a portion of its load of suspended solids (gravel and silt). Vegetation can also become established on these deposits, thus compounding the adverse impact to the crossing’s hydraulics. There are no longterm solutions other than replacement with a properly designed culvert. Without replacement, maintenance crews can expect to regularly remove these deposits in order to maintain hydraulic capacity. Failure to do so may increase potential for road overtopping. 268 DEBRIS ACCUMULATION A crossing that does not pass debris is vulnerable to plugging and failure during a flood event. A properly sized crossing will pass debris (including ice). If there is a history of debris maintenance at a location, it indicates the opening is too small. The replacement crossing should be redesigned with a properly sized crossing. Woody debris is a problem in many parts of Wisconsin. Photo: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources PERCHED OUTLET Perched crossings are those that have a drop of water level at the downstream end of a culvert. These are common obstacles to upstream movement of aquatic species. This situation can be due to several reasons, including improper invert elevation at installation. If a culvert has both an upstream aggradation deposit and a perched situation, it is due to an undersized culvert. A stream’s interrupted bedload capacity, due to an undersized opening, causes both upstream aggradation (sediment deposits) and causes the Perched culvert along the North Shore of Lake Superior in Minnesota. stream to perch the outlet when Photo: MN DNR water picks up downstream material as it re-establishes bedload carrying capacity. If a perched culvert has no upstream aggradation, there are velocity issues (downstream scour hole) that have continued unchecked. In flood conditions perched culverts can backcut and undermine the culvert and associated road grade. Options to reestablish fish passage are either complete replacement with properly sized culvert or retro-fitting the outlet with grade control such as rock rapids (series of weirs). 269 ROAD OVERTOPPING An extreme example of what can happen with overtopping. Photo: MN DNR Increased frequency or higher than predicted water depths during road overtopping is an obvious indicator that the crossing is no longer functioning within the desired parameters. This is caused when floodwaters flow unimpeded across roads. This can be dangerous and costly, causing erosion, shear stress, and scour. This can eventually lead to a breach or washout of the entire roadway. Raising the roadway to prevent overtopping is not a feasible solution, as flood plain law does not allow moving the problem elsewhere by backing up the water. 270 CULVERT FAILURE CASE STUDIES A culvert was partially washed out at U.S Highway 53 near Solon Springs, Wisconsin in June 2018. The damage occurred when the area was hit in excess of ten inches of rain. This closed two southbound lanes for over two weeks during peak tourist season. This cost $170,000 to replace the two culvert pipes. The washout on a bridge over the Black River on State Highway 35 near Pattison Sate Park in Douglas County closed down that area for several weeks. This was hit by the same storm as described previously. There was a partial collapse of the bridge and the north shoulder was washed out. This was a $950,000 project to repair the pavement, the shoulder along the highway, and to replace concrete slabs that lead to the bridge. Wisconsin Highway 53 near Solon Springs sustaining damage from the June 18, 2018 flood. Photo: Wisconsin State Patrol and County Emergency Officials Wisconsin Highway 35 over Black River sustains damage from flash flooding in Pattison Sate Park in Douglas County on June 18, 2018. Photo: Wisconsin Department of Transportation 271 A road was completely washed out on U.S Highway 2 at North Fish Creek in Bayfield County in the same storm that impacted the two previous case studies. This closed down this popular northern route for over two months, creating extensive detours and becoming a $2.2 million project to replace the previous culvert with a bridge. Ideally it should be able to handle a similar sized flood in the future. On July 11, 2016 a storm dropped upwards of 11 inches onto the 17 square mile watershed that holds Saxon Harbor in Iron County. The flood waters washed out a bridge as well as a 90-foot-long by 10 feet high culvert on Highway A. Both the bridge and culvert have been replaced with an improved bridge that can handle greater amounts of water flow, costing millions of dollars. U.S. Highway 2 near Ino has been washed out between County Highway G and Tomich Road in Bayfield County on June 18, 2018. Photo: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Saxon Harbor, Wisconsin, after a devastating storm in early July, 2016. Photo: Wisconsin DNR 272 A culvert was completely blown out on State Highway 13 near Highbridge, Ashland County, WI in July 2016. It washed out hundreds of cubic yards of fill material. According to the DOT, the highway gets a daily volume of 2,700 vehicles. The replacement of the culvert with a flood resistant bridge carried a price tag of $2.8 million. The new bridge withstood the flooding in June 2018 that hit the region, accruing minimal damage. People observe part of Wisconsin Highway 13, washed out after heavy rains, south of Highbridge in Ashland, Wis., Tuesday, July 12, 2016. Storms carrying tornadoes, torrential rain and powerful winds damaged homes, deposited a snowplow in a tree and flooded highways in north-central Minnesota and northern Wisconsin. Photo: Jeff Peters, AP. The case studies highlighted indicate that flooding is becoming a greater issue that is overwhelming an outdated and undersized culvert system. Other factors, such as corrosion, overloading, ground movement, heaving, etc. may also contribute to failure. Identify and gauging the amount of damage that certain culverts are prone to flooding is a difficult task. Having a strong approach to infrastructure asset monitoring can greatly reduce risk and costs. CREATING A CULVERT INVENTORY →Having a current inventory of assets. →Documenting the condition of those assets, using a condition assessment procedure. →Demonstrating that the assets are being preserved at a determined condition benchmark. →Estimating the actual cost to maintain and preserve the assets. Asset Inventory Developing Asset Strategy Condition Assessment Capital Budgeting and Funding To start inventorying culverts, it is ideal to have a generic and effective way of taking and recording data. Collaborating with surrounding communities and counties to create a data sheet that can be used by all parties will help create a uniform dataset that can benefit everyone. 273 EXAMPLE INVENTORY FORM Survey ID Site ID Road Name Milepost Watershed Stream Name Date Time Book # Crew Lat. Long. Culvert Description: Pipes numbered left to right facing downstream Units 1 2 Culvert Type Culvert Material Structure Type Inlet Type Inlet Apron Length ft. Inlet Width ft. Inlet Height ft. Substrate Depth Inlet ft. Rust Line Height Inlet ft. Sedimentation at Inlet? Y/N Outlet Type Outlet Apron Length ft. Outlet Width ft. Outlet Height ft. Outfall Type Substrate Depth Outlet ft. Corrugation Depth in. Corrugation Width in. Culvert Length ft. Embedded? Y/N Embedded Depth ft. Condition Rating (5= best) 1 to 5 Outfall Height ft. Pipe Gradient % Water Depth at Outlet ft. Max Gradient % Length of Max Gradient ft. Stream Gradient % Backwatered? Y/N Stream Approach Angle Habitat Elements Dominant substrate Subdominant Substrate Upstream Downstream 274 Inlet Outlet 3 4 5 PHOTOGRAPH LOG PAGE Maintaining a photograph log page is very important. Having detailed notes and clear photographs can help explain a typical structures or site conditions that cannot be covered in the data sheets. This can save time and money in the long run if done thoroughly. The photograph log page is a log of all photographs in the order they were taken. It is also helpful to record the numbers the camera assigns each photograph. Move obstructions like tree branches out of the way to allow a clear, unobstructed view of the culvert. Make sure the lens is clean, is not fogged, and does not have water droplets on it. Check photographs after taking them to be sure they are in focus and clear of obstructions and contain all the information intended. Required photographs include: • • • • • • • • • • Site Marker. The Survey ID, road name, and date are written on a whiteboard and photographed. This is the first photograph taken at each site. View of the road surface at the crossing site. View from the culvert looking downstream at the tail crest and beyond. View from downstream of the tailwater control (or about 50 feet downstream if there is no tailwater), looking upstream at the culvert(s). The photograph should show the culvert outlet type, condition, road embankment, and the tailwater control if present. If the site has more than one culvert, take pictures of the culverts as a group and each inlet and outlet separately. If there is a large outlet perch, photograph this with the survey rod for scale. View from an upstream location (looking downstream), showing the culvert inlet type, condition, and road embankment. This photograph should show channel roughness (substrate, debris, vegetation, etc.) and culvert inlet conditions. Photographs from the inlet and outlet showing the interior of the culvert. These photographs are used to show rust line height, and, if present, culvert damage, multiple grades, and/or obstructions. Photographs of the inlet and outlet at close range showing detail of perches, rust lines, and anything else interesting to the site. Views from the culvert looking upstream and downstream. These photographs should show vegetation and general channel type directly upstream and downstream of the culvert but outside of the culvert’s influence. A photograph of typical stream substrate and other channel roughness elements upstream of the culvert’s influence. An object of known size, such as a measuring stick or field notebook, should be used as a reference. Once the process has been completed and the community has a robust culvert inventory, a risk assessment can be conducted to identify suspect culvert locations that are vulnerable to flooding. With the current data for the NW Region of Wisconsin, very little is known about the integrity of thousands of culverts. A strong inventory can save time, money, damage to property, and possible injury and loss of life. CURRENTLY EXISTING CULVERT DATA FOR NORTHWEST WISCONSIN Accurate and recent culvert inventories range in robustness throughout Northwest Wisconsin. Previous identified locations of culverts were used as an aid in the creation of drawing “cutlines” 275 for the modeling of the flooding scenarios. Areas that were marked as having a culvert, usually had a culvert at that area and allowed an accurate “cutline” to be drawn. The data from the varying sources, often times overlap as both parties will have identified the same culvert. Culvert data can be seen from the following sources. The data created by NWRPC is in part based on the preexisting culvert data. Table 24: POTENTIAL CULVERT DATA SOURCES, REGION Data Source Location (County) Ashland County Highway Department (Land Records Office) Bad River Watershed Association Bayfield County Highway Department (Land Records Office), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bayfield County Land and Conservation Department Douglas County Highway Department (Land Records Office) National Bridge Inventory National Forest Service *Northwest Regional Planning Commission WI Department of Transportation WI Department of Natural Resources Ashland Ashland/Bayfield/Iron Bayfield Number of Identified Culverts 260 1141 302 Douglas Ashland, Iron, Sawyer Ashland, Sawyer Ashland, Barron, Bayfield, Burnett, Douglas, Oneida, Iron, Polk, Price, Rusk, Sawyer, St. Croix, Vilas Ashland, Iron Bayfield, Douglas 425 99 92 14,140 14 136 * Denotes data created with the aid of previously existing culvert datasets. LIMITATIONS OF FINDING “DAMAGED LOCATIONS” With the use of this culvert inventory, along with the aid of Lidar data, aerial imagery, and the Agricultural Conservation Planning Framework tool in ArcGIS, potential culvert locations were created and applied to the model. A total of 14,140 culverts were drawn through this manner. It should be noted that these are potential culvert locations and that they have not been field checked or verified. Again, the data created is based on tools used in ArcGIS and aerial imagery. It is purely an estimation of possible impediments to the flow of water. The tools used in ArcGIS help shows areas of ponding on the earth’s surface. Areas of ponding would then indicate a likely culvert location, but at times aerial imagery showed evidence of no impediment. The aerial imagery used in this process ranged in release date. This may have allowed time for the installation of culverts after the imagery was published to what is actually there. 276 CULVERT SIZING PROCEDURES FOR 1% (100 YEAR FLOOD) PEAK FLOW There are several methods to estimate the size (diameter) of a culvert that should be installed in a stream crossing that is to be constructed or upgraded. Determining the right size (diameter) culvert first requires estimating the peak flood discharge that can be expected at each stream crossing during the 100-year flood. Once the peak discharge of the streamflow is known, then the size of the culvert can be determined. Method 1. The Rational Method of Estimating 100-Year Flood Discharge This technique is best employed for estimating 100-year flood discharges for small ungauged forested watersheds. This method assumes the stream sites have the same geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics. The information needed can be easily obtained from local rain gages and topographic maps. This method reflects the local environment well and therefore is most effective with watersheds smaller than 200 acres. Method 2. The USGS Magnitude and Frequency Method for Estimating 100-Year Flood Discharge The USGS technique is based on a set of empirical equations based on precipitation and run off data collected from more than 700 stream gaging stations. This method assumes the 100-year design storm uniformly covers large geographic areas and that watershed characteristics are homogenous. This way is beneficial because mean annual precipitation data are readily available, the equations are based on a wide variety of gage data, including rain and snow events, and because the mean basin elevation is easy to determine from USGS topographic maps. However, it generalizes vast geographic areas and can over and under estimate at the local watershed level so it is ideal for larger watershed areas (>100 acres). Method 3. Flow Transference Method for Estimating 100-Year Flood Discharge For proposed stream crossings that are located in or nearby a hydrologically similar watershed that has a long-term gaging station, the 100-year design flood flow can be calculated for the one that has no gaging station. The 100-year discharge is calculated by adjusting for the difference in drainage area between the two watersheds. This is under the assumption that both stream sites have similar geomorphic and hydrologic characteristics. Watersheds that are geographically closer and are more similar will produce better results using this method. Again, once discharge is computed, the size of the culvert can be determined using the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Culvert Capacity Nomograph. 277 Federal Highway Administration chart for sizing concrete pipe culverts with inlet control. Source: FHWA 278 The FHWA method is a commonly used tool throughout the U.S. to determine the culvert diameter based on calculated design stream flow and headwater depth ration. Depending on the culvert “entrance type’ will impact the size of the culvert used. Culvert entrances range from projecting (barrel shaped) inlets to mitered or beveled inlets. Calculating the “Headwater Depth Ratio” for the proposed stream crossing is the next step. This is ratio of the height of the fill where water would begin to spill out of the crossing to the bottom of the culvert to the diameter or rise of the culvert inlet. Using the correct chart from the FHWA, the correct projected inlet culvert can be determined for a 100-year flood event. For streams that are especially woody and full of sediment, plugging is a common concern. Using either an oval or arch culvert will reduce the potential for culvert plugging. Another method is to apply secondary treatments such as flared inlets or trash barriers for suspected culverts that are likely to plug. 279 MITIGATION TECHNIQUES FOR CULVERTS AND ROADS RETAINING WALLS Description: Retaining walls stabilize slopes where erosion and safety is a concern. There are four basic retaining wall classifications: mechanically stabilized backfill, driven cantilever pile, tieback, and gravity. Application: Retaining walls are primarily used to stabilize inherently weak sections of ground, to minimize damage from surrounding erosive forces, or at any location where a vertical slope is needed. Construction and function vary by ecoregion. Unstable slopes, or slopes eroding continuously into roads, ditches, and streams may benefit from retaining walls. Large fractures forming along a slope may indicate a potential Here in Mesa Verde National Park, a retaining wall ensures water will not erode the future slump or slide that road. Photo: FHWA needs reinforcement. Retaining walls can be used on both cut and fill slopes and can physically separate roads from channels. Considerations: Along streams, retaining walls may straighten the stream segment, increase water velocity, eliminate vegetation, and decrease shading. This may harm aquatic life, make access to the stream difficult for wildlife, and increase bank erosion, sedimentation and water temperature. Designers must weigh the benefits of controlling sediment production, preserving slopes, and stabilizing roads against other impacts retaining walls may have on a stream. Retaining walls require geotechnical investigations prior to design. Ground water infiltration behind a retaining wall can cause failure if wall drainage is not provided. Construction methods must be true to the design. Aesthetics play an important part in roadway design. Working with landscape architects assures a pleasing and appropriate design. Soil nail walls allow for vertical or near vertical slopes without footings. This minimizes exposure to erosion and reduces the area of environment impacted. The shot-crete facing provides a natural rock appearance and texture, and provides habitat for cliff dwelling wildlife. Construction costs and methods depend on the retaining wall. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Retaining walls stabilize slopes, reduce erosion, and if faced with shot-crete, provide a natural rugged look. Eliminated output of soil and debris to ditch. 280 SLOPE ROUNDING AND REVEGETATION Description: Slope rounding and revegetation lays back hillslopes to a natural angle of repose to reduce runoff and sediment transport, and to promote vegetation re-establishment. Seeding or planting often follows slope shaping. Application: Use slope rounding and revegetation where there is potential for the site to erode, slump or fail, and cause damage and/ or create hazardous conditions to roadways, water bodies, structures, and property. This technique works on slopes disturbed by natural events such as fire and landslides, or human-disturbed slopes such as road cuts and fills, borrow areas, waste areas, or timber harvest areas. Size and severity of disturbance, and slope steepness, dictates the level of slope rounding and revegetation required. Project sequence usually requires reshaping hillsides with heavy equipment, spreading grass seed and protective mulch, then implementing soil bioengineering and biotechnical stabilization projects. The change in slope can reduce the amount of erosion incurred. Photo: Washington State DOT Considerations: Native plant species should be used when replanting to avoid introducing exotic invasive species that could adversely affect other ecosystem components. Using plant species attractive to wildlife may increase the risk of disturbance or mortality by attracting them to the road. Treatments implemented immediately after disturbances reduce negative effects from unstable slope conditions. Monitor recently completed projects to check plant survival. In areas where excessive runoff and erosion could be a problem, visit sites during and immediately following runoff events. Annual checking and documentation of newly treated sites is recommended. Harsh growing sites may require multiple plantings or temporary irrigation. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Stabilized slopes have minimal onsite and offsite sediment movement, are aesthetically pleasing, and provide better conditions for vegetation reestablishment. REVEGETATION 281 Revegetation Description: Roads are often constructed adjacent to streams and floodplains, resulting in excessive degradation and removal of riparian vegetation. Riparian and wetland vegetation are critical to regulating stream microclimate, providing food and cover for wildlife, and controlling erosion and surface runoff. Removal of vegetation for road construction and associated land management activities creates a need for effective riparian-wetland vegetation restoration. Depending on the source of impacts, numerous techniques can be used to reestablish vegetation or allow stressed vegetation to recover. Application: Replanting of riparian areas has been successful nationwide, especially along major stream and river corridors. If hydrology is to be restored, it may be delayed 2–3 years to allow seedlings to become well established. Indicators of appropriate use include: (1) lack of understory vegetation; (2) elevated browse height on trees and shrubs; (3) fragmented forest and riparian corridors; (4) sediment loading and turbidity in adjacent streams; (5) elevated stream temperatures; (6) erosion and soil compaction; (7) the need to enhance effectiveness of wildlife crossing structures. Considerations: Techniques to reduce compaction and erosion Revegetation in the beginning stages for Chester Creek, MN. Photo: City of Duluth. may need to be applied to accelerate vegetation recovery. Replanting riparian forest considerations are: soil permeability, hydrologic alterations, wind-borne seed sources, adjacent forest blocks, current recreational use, and wildlife and fish species present. Restoration will be most effective if the replanted site is reconnected to the adjacent stream or river channel. If the replanted site is connected to other forest blocks, wildlife requiring large forest blocks will benefit. Additional considerations are the presence of sensitive species or current recreational use of the area. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Improved riparian vegetation, increased wildlife and fisheries habitat, improved water quality, decreased erosion, decreased fragmentation, larger habitat blocks for area-sensitive wildlife species if the replanted site is connected to other forest blocks SOIL BIOENGINEERING Soil Bioengineering Description: Biotechnical stabilization and soil bioengineering stabilization both use live vegetation as important structural as well as aesthetic components. Soil bioengineering is a specialized subset of biotechnical stabilization that uses live plant parts 282 (roots and stems) as the main structural and mechanical elements in a slope protection system to stabilize surface erosion features and shallow rapid landslides. Soil bioengineering treatments provide sufficient stability so that native vegetation and surrounding plants can gain a foothold to eventually take over this role. Successful implementation of soil bioengineering stabilization requires knowledge of the factors governing the mass and surficial reinforcements and drains, and the hydraulic and mechanical effects of slope vegetation. Application: Live staking is branch cuttings inserted into the ground to stabilize shallow earthen slips and slumps. Live cribwalls are box-like structures constructed of timbers, backfilled with soil, then planted with branch cuttings extending outward. Cribwalls cannot resist large, lateral earth stresses. Live fascines are long bundles of branch cuttings bound together into cigar-like Live cribwall construction. Source: U.S. Forest Service structures to reduce surface erosion on steep rocky slopes where digging is difficult. On long or steep slopes, intense runoff can undermine fascines near drainage channels. Brushlayering can stabilize hillslopes and channel banks with horizontal and vertical plantings of live plant cuttings. Buried cuttings provide immediate site reinforcement. Secondary soil stabilization occurs as buried stems take root, and leafed-out cuttings provide a natural look. Branchpacking is used to repair small slumps or holes by alternating layers of live branch cuttings and compacted backfill. As plant cuttings grow, trapped sediment refills holes, and roots increase soil stability. This technique is not effective in slump areas greater than four feet deep or five feet wide. Gully repair in small gullies can be accomplished by alternating layers of live branch cuttings and compacted soil. This technique immediately reinforces soil, reduces runoff velocities, and provides erosion barriers. Log terracing uses earthen terraces reinforced with logs to reduce slope length and steepness. Terraces provide stable areas for plantings that further stabilize the sites. Considerations: Soil bioengineering is an effective solution that may need to be used with a geotechnically engineered system. Plant species vary depending on ecoregion and soil conditions. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Soil bioengineering techniques stabilize surface erosion and shallow rapid landslides, reduce excess surface/subsurface drainage, and strengthen soils. 283 INVASIVE SPECIES Description: Exotic plants and animals can disrupt ecological processes with invasive behavior or growth patterns. Roaded riparian areas and wetlands are particularly vulnerable because roads facilitate infestation. Brown-headed cowbirds follow roads up riparian areas and lay their eggs in other birds’ nests. Invasive mussels damage water systems and native species. Noxious weeds crowd out native species and cause erosion by reducing soil cover. Application: The following control strategies apply primarily to noxious weeds, but some apply to all invasive species. Prevention: Power wash equipment before entering worksites; inspect and pre-treat infested access roads, gravel and borrow sources for weeds prior to use; limit active road construction sites to necessary vehicles. Limit grain-feeding livestock near riparian areas to reduce spread of brown-headed cowbirds. Identification: Consult with local extension office, county weed superintendent, or forest weed specialist on weeds currently at worksites; know potential invaders from adjacent areas; watch for all life stages. Prioritization: Differentiate invasive weed species from more common non-invasives. Attack small or outlying populations or new invaders first. Develop threshold strategies: competitive species (control), moderately competitive (suppress or contain), non-competitive (defer). Treatment: Fill in bare ground with fast growing native cover species, weed-free mulch, geotextiles or crushed rock. Over-seed with certified weed-free compatible or native seed. Fertilize to encourage competitive growth of native species. Use biological controls to control seed production on existing widespread weed populations, and herbicides for a definitive response in smaller populations. Monitoring: Evaluate effectiveness of integrated pest management programs. Map existing and expanding populations or new invasions. Modify treatment to increase control. Considerations: Pre-treating access roads and borrow sources will not deplete existing noxious weed seed banks. Identification of noxious species can be a problem because early growth stages and some native non-invasive species look similar. During treatment program development, consider erosion potential, high water tables or surface water, sensitive plants, recreation areas, cost, equipment or skill needs, and application timing. Factor cost and timing into monitoring effectiveness. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Protection or restoration of existing native biodiversity, erosion control and forage production for livestock and wildlife. 284 BIOTECHNICAL STABILIZATION Description: Biotechnical stabilization and soil bioengineering both use live vegetation as important structural as well as aesthetic components. Biotechnical stabilization uses mechanical elements in combination with plants to arrest and prevent slope failures and erosion, and biological and mechanical elements are integrated and complementary. Biotechnical stabilization integrates living vegetation and inert structural or mechanical components such as concrete, wood, stone, and geofabrics to reinforce soil and stabilize slopes. Geofabrics are made from synthetic polymers or from natural materials such as jute and coir. Application: Engineers usually use inert systems for slope stabilization and erosion control. Reasons for widespread use include availability, ease of installation, familiarity, existence of standards, and acceptance by specifiers. Inert materials are presumed to have predictable and invariant properties, but even inert materials slowly degrade, decompose, and decay with time. Vegetation can be incorporated into any of the following retaining structures, revetments, or inert ground covers that are porous or that have openings (interstices). Retaining Structures: • Rock breast walls • Gravity walls (gabions, crib, and bin walls) • Articulated block walls • Reinforced earth structures (stacked and backfilled three dimensional webs) Revetment Systems: • Riprap (quarry stone, rubble, natural rock) • Gabion mattresses • Concrete facings (gunnite and concrete filled mattresses) • Cellular confinement systems (three-dimensional webs that cover the surface and are backfilled with aggregate above) • Articulated block systems (concrete blocks linked by cables or other methods) Ground Covers: • Artificial mulches (fiberglass roving and cellulose fibers) • Blankets, mats, and nettings (slope coverings that protect the surface and promote/enhance the growth of vegetation) • Cellular confinement systems (three-dimensional honeycomb webs that cover the surface and are backfilled with soil or aggregate) Considerations: Many inert systems or products lend themselves to integrated or combined use with vegetation. For plant survival, moisture and sunlight must be available. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Biotechnical methods can stabilize cut and fill slopes along highways or streambanks. ROADWAY DIPS 285 Roadway Dips Description: Roadway dips modify roadway drainage by altering the road template and allowing surface flows to frequently disperse across the road. Application: Roadway dips have applications nationwide, even on steep grades. They disperse surface water flows and reduce erosion in areas where sediment loading to a water body is a concern. Roadway dips may replace or supplement culverts for cross drainage, especially where existing culverts fail often or require high maintenance. Roadway dips may help solve erosion, ditch sloughing, culvert failures, cascading effects from overtopping culverts, high maintenance costs, and hydrologic disconnectivity. Considerations: Roadway dip design and construction vary by road management objectives. Consider traffic limitations and install the proper length of dip to ensure that the design vehicle can be accommodated (logging truck, chip van, horse trailers, cattle trucks). See design manuals for dip spacing and depth. Depending on traffic volume and kind, warning signs may be needed to alert drivers to road changes. Dips may be used up to 10–15% road slope. Steeper slopes require longer dips. In some cases, riprap and/or asphalt can be used to harden the dip and disperse water for wet weather conditions or year-round roads. Roadway dip spacing is critical. Placement may be at ditch relief culverts or change in grade. This technique reduces maintenance, and it is important for grader operators to understand the need for the dip so they do not blade out the structure. Potential Outcome/Benefits Roadway: dips reduce maintenance costs, sediment transport, the need for culverts, and the risk of catastrophic road or slope failure. They can lower traffic speeds to facilitate wildlife crossings. LOW WATER CROSSINGS, OVERTOPPING, AND FORDS Description: Low water crossings pass water and transport debris over a road continuously or intermittently. Types of low water crossings include vented fords, un-vented fords, and low water bridges. These structures can range from simple, stream-grade elevation, native-surfaced crossings to larger more massive structures. Allowing water to overtop roads is one of the most cost-effective options to mitigate flood damage. If successful, a flood can simply inundate a road and then recede with minimal damage to the integrity of the roadway. Application: Low water crossings may be used on lower standard roads where continuous access is not required. They are ideal for channel systems that transport debris and bed load 286 during high water events and for roads that will not receive periodic maintenance. Low water crossings require special designs to pass fish and aquatic organisms. Considerations: Low water crossings construction materials include riprap, concrete, asphalt, Jersey barriers, and native materials. Geosynthetics may be used to provide separation of materials, subgrade support and restraint. The low-lying elevation of U.S. Highway 2 and intact floodplain allowed flood flows to spread out and overtop the road without causing major damage. Photo: WI Emergency Management Potential Outcome/Benefits: Benefits include lower construction costs, reduced maintenance and potential for catastrophic road failure. Ponding water increases infiltration. Decreased fill heights result in fewer cleared acres and maintained riparian vegetation diversity. A low water crossing over a culvert disperses flow, reduces water velocity, and channel bank erosion. The potential consequences of catastrophic road failure are less due to reduced fill amounts, lower water velocity, and more erosion-resistant construction materials PERMEABLE FILL WITH CULVERT ARRAY Permeable Fill with Culvert Array Description: Permeable fills are generally used to cross meadows and promote the passage of sheet and subsurface flows with minimum flow concentration and maximum spreading. The road base and/or subbase is constructed of relatively large, preferably angular, uniformly graded rock to allow uninterrupted ground and surface water flow. Culverts within the permeable fill and above the drainage grade allow ponding of the water and percolation through the fill. The installing of culvert with the invert elevation at a higher elevation than the meadow elevation can promote seepage and infiltration. Application: Roads crossing wet meadows act as barriers to subsurface and sheet flow, resulting in altered hydrology and a loss of meadow functions. This technique may be used on ephemeral channels or meadow systems to promote water passage Photo: U.S. Forest Service and maintain and restore wet meadow systems, or in high meadow areas that do not experience significant flooding. This technique is not recommended 287 in flash flood prone areas, or for fish bearing perennial streams unless passage is provided in the main channel. Permeable fill can be used in areas where the road restricts ground water flow, causing drier conditions in downslope areas. Considerations: When a multiple culvert array is used, the culvert spacing should imitate the natural flood plain so flows are not restricted to a narrow section of the meadow. Design culverts to carry 100-year storm events. Install all culverts at the same elevation to avoid headcutting at the lower ones. Culverts may require outlet energy dissipaters. Fill heights should be kept to a minimum to reduce consolidation pressures on underlying soils. To reduce costs, keep culverts short and minimize fill volume. In areas with large woody debris or significant bedload, adding an overtopping structure or ford, will provide passage of water and debris. Design culverts to allow unrestricted passage for all life stages of amphibians, fish or small wildlife. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Permeable fills can maintain and/or restore natural wet meadow hydrology and result in maintained or restored wildlife habitat, vegetation diversity, and water storage. RAISED CULVERT INLETS Description: Culvert inlet elevations are raised by constructing a dike around the culvert or by installing a culvert elbow. Application: Raised culvert inlets installed on ephemeral channels keep water on the land longer and promote infiltration. These techniques are applicable in all ecoregions. Inlets can be installed onto new or existing installations. Locate these on low gradient stream systems, in large or small floodplains. They can create and enhance wetlands in a watershed. Indicators include vertical instability such as head cutting and eroding banks in straight stretches, loss of meander patterns, lowered groundwater tables, and a change or loss of upstream riparian and wet meadow vegetation. Prefabricated elbows and bands are inexpensive and easy to install. A variety of materials, including rock, timbers, concrete drop inlets, or multiplate culverts, succeed as dikes. Considerations: Some results of raised culvert inlets may be: • Creation of a wetland environment • Reduced passage of fish, aquatic organisms and small animals • Restricted transport of debris and bedload • A fixed water level Potential Outcome/Benefits: Increased riparian vegetation vigor and diversity, reduced flood flashiness, sediment basin creation above the culvert, raised water table and increased infiltration and reduced headcutting. 288 ENERGY DISSIPATERS AND DEBRIS RACKS Description: Energy dissipaters and aprons, used at culvert inlets and outlets, reduce water velocities, and prevent erosion. Dissipaters include riprap, vegetated ditches, concrete or steel baffles, and tiger teeth. Riprap is an apron of coarse rock installed on a cut or fill slope can prevent erosion and undercutting at culvert outlets and at other drainage outlets. Covering the exposed soil with rocks helps protect it from being wash away. Debris racks at culvert inlets can prevent clogging. Another alternative other than rocks is to apply a flexible concrete geogrid mat over the ground that can provide protection to the soil. Application: Energy dissipaters and aprons can protect steep slopes and erosive soils by reducing water velocity, dispersing flows, and preventing channeling or undercutting at the culvert outlet. Dissipaters and aprons function on single or multiple culverts (arrays) during storm and normal flow events. Culverts experiencing frequent debris clogging or plugging may benefit from debris (trash) racks. Debris racks at culvert inlets deflect large woody debris and bedload from the channel before it enters and clogs the culvert. The area directly surrounding the culvert is covered in geotextile fabric, followed by a layer of clean, sediment free riprap. Photo: WI DNR Considerations: If racks become clogged, flows will overtop the road and may cause catastrophic failure. Install debris racks only when regular maintenance is possible. When passage of debris and bedload is necessary, debris racks are a common culvert treatment, but may not be the best long-term solution. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Energy dissipaters and aprons can reduce water velocity and potential erosion. Debris racks deflect debris and bedload preventing culvert clogging or plugging. STREAM CHANNEL MODIFICATION STRUCTURES Description: These techniques protect road embankments from channel scour and erosion. They can mitigate for loss or alteration of riparian vegetation, and restore riparian terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Application: Roads are often constructed adjacent to river or stream channels and may serve as a source of sediment (surface erosion and road fill failure). Roads constructed adjacent to channels can influence channel meander pattern and geometry. This can straighten the channel, reduce channel complexity, cause loss or alteration of native riparian vegetation, and degrade terrestrial and/or aquatic habitats. In-channel structures can be installed to alter or modify channel flows either above or below channel crossing structures to improve fish passage. This technique has application within each ecoregion in the country. 289 A constructed meander stream modification that slows water. Photo: WA Department of Fish and Wildlife Indicators include the presence of road prism or embankment failures, undermined channel banks below the road, need for frequent high maintenance or reconstruction, change in channel classification type, change in native vegetation, change in terrestrial and/ or aquatic habitat quantity and quality, and change in fish or wildlife habitat access. Considerations: Install these structures at the lowest flow period of the year to reduce the amount of heavy equipment disturbance causing sedimentation and turbidity. These techniques are designed for small stream channels (2–3 order channels) and are not appropriate in large stream or river channels. Usually this technique is most effective in a series of in-channel and/or channel bank structures. Potential Outcome/Benefits: In-channel and channel bank structures can reduce the higher maintenance or reconstruction costs resulting from road prism failures due to channel scour and erosion. RECONNECTING CUTOFF WATER BODIES Description: Culverts and bridges can reconnect side channels, ponds, wetlands and cut-off channel meanders within floodplains that have become isolated or cut off from the main channel due to the construction of a road prism. Application: Roads constructed within the floodplain and adjacent to rivers or streams may isolate or cut off portions of the natural channel or wetland network. This can straighten the channel; increase water velocities, and cause loss or degradation of valuable aquatic and terrestrial riparian habitats. Structures can be installed within the road prism to create as many reconnections as needed to meet one or more of the following resource objectives: (1) restore access and use of historic fish and wildlife habitats; (2) restore hydrology and significant aquatic habitat (an increase in channel meander and channel length or the amount of wetland surface area); (3) increase the channel or wetland diversity. 290 Indicators for use include (1) seasonal or year-round movement or migration of wildlife or fish species is impeded by the road; (2) a noticeable loss of fish and/or wildlife habitat (change in food, cover, and shelter); (3) the presence of non-native vegetation and /or animals. Considerations: Reconnecting water bodies to active river and stream channels within floodplains could increase the risk for damage from high flow events, such as flood flows to road and channel crossing structures. These structures require medium to high annual maintenance, especially in systems that move significant amounts of bedload and coarse woody debris. Restoring historic habitats and access to those habitats could increase the incidents of human interactions with fish and/or wildlife species (disturbance, poaching, etc.). Potential Outcome/Benefits: Reconnecting floodplain water bodies can result in significant restoration of aquatic habitat quality and quantity, such as fish access to spawning or rearing habitat. Other benefits could be the long-term recovery of floodplain structure and function such as moderating effects of flood flows, increased channel or wetland diversity, and restored native riparian wetland vegetation. ENGINEERED LOG JAM COMPLEXES Description: Log jam complexes are multiple log structures placed in rivers and streams to protect channel banks, roadways, and other adjacent features. This is a similar technique to the stream channel modification technique. Application: Log jam complexes protect roadways adjacent to river channels by emulating natural river processes. Log jam complexes are usually placed in series or in combinations. These structures are suitable for larger channels, 3rd order or higher. Engineered log jams are one type of log jam complex and can have up to 500 wood pieces. Log jam structures can: 1) stabilize channel banks and protect roads using native materials; 2) deflect and catch large woody debris in transport; 3) promote establishment of vegetated riparian areas such as channel banks and in-channel riparian islands; 4) improve and create new fish habitats; 5) restore and maintain natural river system characteristics. Considerations: Install log jam complexes at the lowest flow period of the year to reduce disturbance to the riparian area by heavy equipment. Use sediment reduction treatments as necessary. Use techniques to keep fish away from the construction area. Consider the proximity of these structures and the potential risk to other public and private property located downstream before and during project implementation. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Benefits provided by engineered log jams include: 1) initiation of channel scour and deposition around the structures; 2) retention of woody debris in transport within the river system; 3) increase in channel complexity such as meander pattern and geometry; 4) restoration and improvement of aquatic and terrestrial habitats. 291 BEAVER POND STRUCTURES Description: Roads passing through riparian and wetland areas may act as dikes or dams impeding water flow. Beavers are attracted to this ponded water because they can impound water with little additional work by simply blocking or plugging culverts. Several water control structures, such as beaver pond levelers, have been developed to facilitate water movement through beaver dams and roads subject to beaver activity. These devices can maintain the valuable fish and wildlife habitat created by beavers while reducing damage to roads and other structures because they allow water movement but prevent complete removal of water from the ponded area. Application: These structures maintain wetland habitat created by beavers and lower the water level of these ponds, reducing the risk of road erosion. Beavers search for leaks along the road berm or embankment and detect leaks by the sound and velocity of moving water. Beaver pond levelers lower pond water levels by extending the water intake well beyond the road berm or embankment and dispersing the water through a perforated pipe instead of one large culvert opening. This technique is appropriate when (1) beavers dam culverts and other road outlet structures; (2) the road prism is saturated; (3) beavers cause road erosion caused by beaver ponds built above the culvert inlet. Considerations: Beaver pond leveler structures maintain ponded water levels above road/channel crossings during normal flow conditions. They are typically not designed to transport runoff from large storm events. Major roads should also contain nearby spillway areas to transport high flows (floods) across roads. Potential Outcome/Benefits: Expected benefits include (1) maintaining fish and wildlife habitat created by beaver ponds; (2) reducing damage to adjacent roads, (3) maintaining floodwater storage; (4) maintaining the water purification functions of beaver ponds. WETLAND MAINTENANCE Description: Roads located near riparian areas and wetlands may contain culverts that alter the natural hydrography of these water bodies. These culvert placements often set the water level either above or below natural levels. Most wetlands have seasonally fluctuating water tables allowing plants and animals to fulfill their annual life cycle requirements. Certain wetland maintenance techniques, such as stop-log structures, maintain water levels of wetlands located upstream from roads, simulating the natural hydrology throughout the year. Habitat for native fish, wildlife, and plant species can be maintained and restored by this technique. Application: These structures are commonly used along most of the diked, dammed and drained river floodplains across the U.S. to restore and maintain wetland functions where hydrology has been altered and is no longer capable of functioning naturally. Structures such as stop-log structures have application on most forest and rangeland ecosystems, especially where roads traverse wetlands and marshes that naturally have seasonal variations in water levels. Depending upon the debris-loading situation at each site, different types of stop-log structures (as shown in these photos) can be used to reduce or prevent the plugging of culvert inlets. Indicators for use include: (1) existing wetland crossings; (2) the presence of tree mortality; (3) change in vegetative species composition 292 Considerations: Traditional stop-log structures should not be used alone, or where fish or aquatic invertebrate passage is a management objective. Stop-log structures can be modified to allow increased fish passage, but complementary fish passage structures are preferred. Consider traffic and roadbed loads when choosing among available corrugated metal pipe and reinforced concrete pipe structures. Maintaining the seasonal and annual desired water levels for forested wetlands and freshwater marshes will vary according to resource and road management objectives in each ecoregion. Potential Outcome/Benefits: More diverse and natural plant community, and maintained or restored habitat for fish and wildlife species Example: https://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr102_2.pdf 293 FLOOD PREVENTION TECHNIQUES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER UTILITIES Flooding is one of the most common hazards in the United States, causing more damage than any other severe weather-related event. It can occur from swollen rivers, heavy rains, spring snowmelt, levee or dam failure, local drainage issues, and water distribution main breaks. Impacts to drinking water and wastewater utilities can include loss of power, damage to assets and dangerous conditions for personnel. As storms become more frequent and intense, flooding will be an ongoing challenge for drinking water and wastewater utilities. Drinking water and wastewater utilities are particularly vulnerable to flooding. A wastewater treatment plant is at greatest risk for flooding when it’s sited in a low-lying area near the body of water where it discharges its final effluent. Heavy inflows from storm events can also overwhelm a treatment plant, resulting in discharges of diluted effluent into nearby lakes or rivers. Instances of flood-induced overflow (bypass wastewater) occurring at wastewater facilities in northwest Wisconsin are well documented. The City of Ashland wastewater utility experienced 20 overflow events in a 5-year period. Much of the region, including the City of Ashland experienced 500-year flood events in 2012, 2016, and 2018. The increased magnitude and frequency of these events is cause for great concern with regard to wastewater utility flood resiliency. There are four basic steps involved in increasing your utility’s resilience to flooding. ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ Step 1 – Understand the Threat of Flooding Step 2 – Identify Vulnerable Assets & Determine Consequences Step 3 – Identify & Evaluate Mitigation Measures Step 4 – Develop Plan to Implement Mitigation Measures To help you through this process, work with a team of your partners and stakeholders. This team could include your utility staff (e.g., operators, supervisors, and field staff), other partners from local government (e.g., town engineer, public works staff, floodplain managers, emergency response personnel) and state government (e.g., primacy agency staff, hazard mitigation officers). It will be helpful to hold a kick-off meeting with this team to discuss goals and responsibilities to complete the assessment and implement mitigation measures. The four steps should be completed sequentially; however, they do not have to be completed all at once. Complete the steps as time and resources permit. Flooding depends on various factors including rainfall, topography, river-flow, and drainage. The threat of flooding is based on the likelihood that such a flooding event will occur. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is a resource to help you. FEMA produces maps of a “100-year flood” (a flood event that has a one percent chance of occurring in a given year) and a more catastrophic “500-year flood” (a flood event that has a two tenths of a percent chance of occurring in a given year). NWRPC has also developed maps that highlight areas of concern. Maps produced by NWRPC are not to replace those created by FEMA. Step 1 – Understand the Threat of Flooding To better understand the threat of flooding, your utility should first examine historical flooding data and review Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Maps. • Review utility records of past flooding events to come up with a description of damage to the utility. Also look at newspapers, historical data, local flood plain 294 • • • information, and talk to hazard mitigation experts to create a picture of previous floods. Identify which potential sources of flooding could impact your utility like flash floods, swollen rivers, spring thaw, levee/dam failure, non-natural causes (e.g., main breaks) or coastal flooding. Identify which floodplains your utility system is located within and create a chart of critical equipment and where that compares to the flood plain. Floodplain maps can be viewed online at https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home. Decide on what flooding threat your utility wants to prepare for (e.g., 100-year flood, 500-year flood) Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of Hayward Utility System 100-Year Floodplain (Flood Reaches Elevation (1110 ft.) 500-Year Floodplain (Flood Reaches Elevation (1113 ft.) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Intake (1108 ft.) Treatment (1112 ft.) Distribution/Collection (1110 ft.) Storage Tank (1120 ft.) Pump Stations (1112 ft.) ✓ ✓ Step 2 – Identify Vulnerable Assets & Determine Consequences Often located in low lying areas, water and wastewater utilities are particularly vulnerable to flooding. Water and debris can inundate the facility, thereby damaging equipment and structures and causing power outages. Such impacts can lead to various consequences including costly repairs, disruptions of services, hazardous situations for personnel, and public health advisories. In this step, identify the assets that are vulnerable to flooding and determine 295 the resulting consequences to those assets and to overall utility operations. Using this information and your judgment, determine the assets/operations that you will need to protect from flooding. It is important to understand how your drinking water or wastewater utility may be impacted by flooding events so that you can identify appropriate mitigation actions to eliminate or reduce asset damage and prevent service disruptions. To identify which key utility assets/operations are vulnerable to flooding, you should conduct an onsite inspection to locate assets and document elevations. Compare these elevations with the threat elevations in the FEMA Flood Map. The assets/operations that are vulnerable to flooding and that result in significant consequences for the utility are candidates for mitigation and protection. Below are instructions for evaluating vulnerabilities of assets and the resulting consequences at your utility. • • • • • Measure elevations of critical utility assets to determine key operation that could be damaged from flooding. Evaluate the consequences based on replacement costs and the impacts to facility operations. Based on those the prior assessments, determine priority need for mitigation to improve flood resilience. Evaluated routes to and from the utility. Are they out of the danger zone and can the utility be accessed in a case of a flood? Conduct a wastewater utility risk assessment. Utilize the Vulnerability SelfAssessment Tool (VSAT) tool developed by USEPA. VSAT is a risk assessment application for water, wastewater, and combined utilities of all sizes. It allows utilities to assess their vulnerabilities to both man-made and natural hazards and evaluate potential improvements to enhance their security and resilience. https://vsat.epa.gov/vsat/ Step 3 – Identify & Evaluate Mitigation Measures First, identify possible mitigation measures that can protect the key vulnerable assets and operations prioritized in Step 2. Then, evaluate which mitigation measures make sense to pursue and implement. To improve your utility’s flood resilience, you should identify and evaluate which mitigation measures to pursue based on cost, effectiveness, and practicality. It is possible that some mitigation measures could be implemented at little to no cost to your utility. Below are instructions for evaluating mitigation measures at your utility. • Determine your utilities minimum requirements to maintain critical services during a flood. • Identify and evaluate what mitigation measures the utility can put in place to protect against damage. • What is it vulnerable to? Access? Flooding to the facility and where is the water entering in? Sump pump to take water out, if it can take it out faster than it comes in. • Short term- sand bagging. Plan how to get to and from the facility. • Test generators weekly. • Records retention back up at city hall or other building outside of floodplain 296 • Make a short-term plan and long term. Assign levels of risk and make list of minimum things that have to be done prior to a flood. Step 4 – Develop Plan to Implement Mitigation Measures Your utility will need to develop a plan to implement mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate asset damage and service disruptions during flooding. The plan should be revisited periodically and address actions, schedule, funding, responsibilities, etc. For example, flood mitigation measures that involve major capital and infrastructure investments should be integrated into the utility’s overall scheduling in the asset management planning process (e.g., phasing in flood-resistant pumps). Now that you have selected mitigation measures, develop a plan to implement them. • Conduct a cost benefit analysis to find identify which mitigation measures are most cost effective and critical to increasing resiliency to flooding. Build these mitigation plans into your budget. Apply to local/state/federal funding/bonds to help implement these measures. • Create an implementation plan for the appropriate mitigation measures with specific timeframes. • Look at age of infrastructure and figure out when things have to be replaced and implement gradual replacement program so it’s not a onetime financial hit. Mitigation Measures for Drinking Water and Waste Water Assets It is important for drinking water and wastewater utilities to protect their buildings and other structures from floods. This includes any entryways, both obvious (e.g., doors, windows, floor drains) and not so obvious (e.g., wiring conduits, overflow drains, cracks) where water can enter structures. Significant damage can result from flood waters entering a building; water can damage or destroy the structure, process equipment, communications and controls, records and field and administrative equipment. Flood waters can also restrict access to the facility. These impacts could result in loss of service for your customers and significant repair costs for the utility. Utilities should establish emergency monitoring and warning systems (alarm systems where possible), emergency preparedness protocols and evacuation procedures for all buildings and facilities. Prevent buildings from flooding. - Caulk and/or seal wall and floor openings (e.g., windows, doors, garages) - Install backflow prevention devices on sewers and drains. - Install waterproof protection (e.g., removable/semi-permanent structures, sealed doors, shields) for building entry points (e.g., windows, doors, garages). - Build floodwalls, levees or berms around the treatment plants. Protect critical components if buildings do flood. - Ensure that staff know the protocol on how and when to shut down and start up power and gas supplies, electrical controls, operating systems, and other equipment in system facilities. - Create locations outside the flood zone where utility equipment (e.g., heavy equipment, vehicles, replacement parts, backup generators, pumps) can be stored permanently or temporarily, to prevent damage from flood waters. - Prepare alternative routes to the treatment plant if it is blocked by floodwater or debris. Consult with other entities (e.g., Department of Transportation) to consider alternate road/transportation options (e.g., watercraft). 297 Elevate or move equipment (e.g., computers, control centers, laboratories) to higher and safer ground to prevent them from being damaged. - Always have a stock of spare parts. Maintain operations when the electrical grid is down. - Have a backup generator stored above the base flood elevation incase the electricity goes out. Maintain continuity of operations during flooding. - Regularly backup electronic and paper files that are either on-site or off-site. This should include all permits, compliance documentation, designs and as-built drawings, process diagrams, operations and maintenance records, standard operating procedures, operations data, and other vital information. - Create a plan to operate the facility remotely if the buildings become inaccessible. - Create interconnections or other partnership opportunities to share resources services with neighboring water utilities. - MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS Wastewater treatment plants are typically located at low elevations and near a receiving water body, which may pose a significant flood risk to a facility. Flood waters can wash out primary and secondary clarifiers, aeration tanks and chlorine contact chambers, as well as upset bioreactors. Other impacts from flood waters include damage to mechanical and electrical equipment/controls, interference with biosolids handling and disposal systems as well as washing of contaminants into the treatment train. Treatment plants that are still operational during a flood need to be prepared to accommodate higher flow rates and increased pollutant loads. Prevent treatment plant from flooding. - Install permanent physical barriers like levees or floodwalls to protect the entire facility from flooding. - Integrate green infrastructure in the areas surrounding the plant to divert flood waters away. - Install a flood water pumping system and/or channel system to divert flood waters. - Separate combined sewers to reduce the amount of flow to the treatment plant in a flood. - Increase the capacity of storage tanks to manage overflows for future treatment. Protect critical components if treatment plant does flood. - Bolt down air tanks to prevent them from floating away if flooded. - Develop the capability to temporarily remove and safely store vulnerable components before a flood. - Waterproof electrical components. - Elevate or relocate individual assets, vertically extend the walls of a treatment structure (e.g., clarifier, basin, tank) above flood stage, and/or flood-proof structures to prevent the seepage of flood water. - Buy submersible motorized and electrical equipment. - Prepare alternative routes to the treatment plant if it is blocked by floodwater or debris. Maintain treatment plant operations when the electrical grid is down and/or access routes are blocked. - Increase capacity size of the chemical and fuel storage tanks. 298 Install more energy efficient equipment to increase the longevity of the fuel supply for backup generators. - Replace motorized equipment with a diesel driven or dual-option counterparts. - Purchase backup generators or find an alternative energy supply. Have a means of bypassing normal treatment plant operations when necessary. - Install an external connection to the facility’s compressed air system to allow a portable air compressor to be activated if the main air compressor becomes damaged. - Establish a call list of multiple companies that can provide “pump around” services in an emergency. - Consider starting a regionalization project to divert the flow of wastewater to an alternate system for emergency wastewater collection and conveyance. - MITIGATION MEASURES FOR DRINKING WATER ASSETS Flooded rivers and lakes can pose threats to source water intake structures by clogging them with excess silt/debris or by physically damaging them with debris. Flood waters that do enter the intake may carry increased contaminant loads and/or turbidity levels that may impact water treatment plant processes. Distribution system piping and appurtenances that are underground, along culverts and under bridges can be washed out by fast and high flowing flood waters. Finished water storage tanks also can be damaged by the force of flood waters. Groundwater sources also may be prone to damage. Flood waters can overtop wellheads, causing damage to the casings as well as contaminating the well water. Shallow wells near a flood zone can be contaminated even if the wellhead itself has not been overtopped. Distribution lines for groundwater sources can be equally vulnerable to flooding. Prevent structures from flooding. - Relocate or elevate pump houses and distribution system apparatuses that are vulnerable to flooding. Protect critical components if intake, distribution and storage of finished water do flood. - Protect and reinforce surface water intake pipes from debris, erosion and excessive silt. The installation of a jetty or breakwater can also keep debris/silt away from the structures. Another option is to install/upgrade the screen at the intake to prevent debris from building up. - Waterproof, elevate or re-enforce distribution system appurtenances (i.e., fire hydrants, valve vaults) susceptible to flooding or damage from debris. - Install submersible pumps or waterproof pump motors. - Ensure that distribution lines across streams are sufficiently below the streambed. Maintain delivery of safe drinking water during flooding. - Sign up for U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) alerts for stream and river gauges: Water Alert - Install monitoring equipment upstream of intake pipes to provide vital raw water conditions prior to a flooding event. - Prepare alternative routes to intake structure and/or pump house if it is blocked by floodwater or debris. - Create a plan to completely fill water storage tanks prior to a flooding event. - Ensure that there are spare parts to repair critical equipment. - Create interconnections or other partnership opportunities to share resources or to facilitate emergency public water supply services with neighboring water utilities. 299 MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR GROUNDWATER UTILITIES Prevent well field/pump house from flooding. - Procure temporary flood barriers (e.g., sandbags) for use in minor floods. - Elevate the land directly surrounding the well field so water does not accumulate near the well. Ensure that the casing terminates at least 12 inches above ground level. Also, extend well casing above the flood zone. - Relocate or elevate well field house pump houses to be above the flood zone. Protect critical components if groundwater intake and supply do flood. - Seal the top of well casings, waterproof well caps, and extend vents above the flood zone elevation. - Maintain the integrity of surface seals outside casings and check that there has been no soil settling or that no cavity has developed around the outside of well casings where surface water would be able to flow down to the aquifer. - Install submersible pump or waterproof pump motors and other critical equipment. Maintain delivery of safe drinking water during flooding. - Create a plan to completely fill water storage tanks prior to a flooding event. - Prepare alternative routes to intake structure and/or pump house if it is blocked by floodwater or debris. MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR BOOSTER STATIONS AND OTHER PUMPS Flood waters can severely damage pumps, thereby impacting the entire drinking water system from intake through distribution. Similarly, loss of facility power could render pumps inoperable without adequate backup power. Vulnerable water facility control systems include pump controls, variable frequency drives, electrical panels, motor control centers, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. Prevent booster stations from flooding. - Procure temporary flood barriers (e.g., sandbags) for use in minor floods. - Install permanent barriers (e.g., flood walls, levees, sealed doors). Protect critical components if booster stations do flood. - Develop the capabilities to temporarily remove and safely store crucial components in advance of a flooding event. - Waterproof, relocate or elevate motor controls, variable frequency drives, computer and electrical panels. - Shut down power to systems prior to a flood to mitigate damage to electrical components. - Replace non-submersible pumps with submersible pumps. - Replace standard electrical conduits with sealed, waterproof conduits. - Installing sump pumps for below-ground facilities to provide additional time to take other mitigations measure. - Replace below-grade booster stations with an above-grade station that is above the flood stage. Maintain pumping operations when the electrical grid is down. - Store temporary or replacement pumps out of the flood zone. 300 Install energy efficient utility systems to extend the fuel supply for backup generators in a flooding event. - Replace pumps with diesel driven or dual-option counterparts. - Weigh the option of having generators or an alternative energy supply. Maintain pumping operations. - Maintain a call list of multiple companies that can provide “pump around” services in an emergency. - Stock extra portable pumps or specialized parts to repair damaged pumps. Consider having major components of specialized high capacity pumps on hand as well. - MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANTS Flood waters may inundate a treatment facility and wash out open tanks and filter beds, damage mechanical equipment, render electrical power and controls useless, spoil finished water storage, deposit debris on-site, or wash contaminants into the treatment process. Flood waters may also alter source water chemistry and turbidity, posing treatment challenges to utilities that continue to operate during a flood. For example, residence times may need to be significantly longer following a flood to attain safe drinking water standards due to high turbidity and the potential influence of contaminants in the flood waters. Prevent structures from flooding. - Erect physical barriers like flood walls, levees or have the ability to deploy temporary systems that can achieve the necessary protection. - Install green infrastructure within and/or outside of the treatment plant to attenuate, divert, or retain flood water. - Install flood water pumping systems and/or channel/culvert systems to collect and divert flood water way from the treatment plant. Protect critical components if the treatment plant does flood. - Develop the capabilities to temporarily remove and safely store crucial components in advance of a flooding event. - Waterproof electrical component (e.g., pump motors, monitoring equipment) and circuitry. - Elevate, relocate or cap individual assets to prevent damage from flood waters; vertically extend the walls of a treatment structure (e.g., basin, tank, filter) above flood stage; and/or flood-proof/seal structures to prevent seepage of flood water into the treatment train. - Install submersible motorized and electrical equipment. Maintain delivery of safe drinking water during flooding. - Closely monitor the quality of water entering the treatment plant and be able to alter the treatment process for high levels of contaminants or increased turbidity. Further, develop guidelines now and prepare for what type of adjustments would have to be made to make changes in treatment during a flood. - Have on hand portable, handheld testing equipment in case the permanent mounted testing equipment fails due to a flooding event. - Connect with firms or enter partnerships to share resources or to facilitate emergency public water supply services with neighboring water utilities. 301 Maintain operation of treatment plant if electrical grid is down. - Install energy efficient utility systems to extend the fuel supply for backup generators in a flooding event. - Replace pumps with diesel driven or dual-option counterparts. Increase storage capacity in preparation for floods. - Create a plan to completely fill water storage tanks prior to a flooding event. - Determine if increasing the plants emergency water storage would be beneficial (as opposed to water age/quality concern). MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR CHEMICAL AND OTHER STORAGE After a flooding event, adequate supplies of chemicals and fuel are vital to maintain utility operations during the days and weeks that follow. Chemicals are needed for continued treatment of water and wastewater and fuel is needed to run equipment including emergency generators. Flooding may impact these resources in several ways. Deliveries of chemicals and fuels can be disrupted if access to the facility is restricted due to high flood waters or debris. Without necessary chemicals or fuels, utility service could be disrupted for a prolonged period of time. Storage tanks are also at risk of being damaged from a flooding event. For example, chemical or fuel tanks that are not properly secured can be carried away, damaged, or ruptured, potentially resulting in leaks and spills that may contaminate utility assets and the environment. - Elevate or relocate tanks above base flood elevation levels or erect physical barriers or secure the tanks to the ground. Ensure there are larger capacity chemical storage tanks to service the plant through an emergency until the supply chain can be restored. Create emergency contract provisions with multiple fuel and chemical suppliers and inform them of estimated fuel/chemical needs. Verify fuel and chemical tanks are topped off prior to a known flooding event. For groundwater drawn systems, obtain or get access to a portable chlorinator. MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR INSTRUMENTATION AND ELECTRICAL CONTROLS Instrumentation, electrical controls, and electrical wiring are critical components of drinking water and wastewater treatment processes and should be protected from flood damage to prevent a potential service interruption. Motor Control Units (MCUs) may be co-located with the equipment they monitor/control or they may be located in a central control room. Typically, MCU clusters are co-located with the pumps and other equipment that they control. With some modification they can be made more resilient to flooding. Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems also may be at risk of failure during a flood. Loss of SCADA systems can impact operations and data collection in operations centers, treatment facilities, processes and remote locations in distribution and collection systems such as valve chambers and pump stations. Utilities should be able to monitor and control operations manually if instrumentation and controls are off-line due to flooding impacts. Protect instrumentation and electrical control from flood damage. - Elevate or relocate instruments, control centers, and motor control units. - Ensure a cache of spare parts to restart operations as soon as possible. 302 Have portable equipment available if the permanent equipment stops functioning due to flooding events. - Waterproof or buy waterproof models of instruments and controls. - Inform staff to shut down non-essential electrical equipment and controls prior to a flood. Maintain continuity of operations (e.g. redundant controls at another location) if instrumentation and controls are damaged by a flood. - Install redundant controls at another location or create remote access capabilities. - Train staff to be able to operate the water plant manually. - MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR POWER SUPPLY Floods often result in power outages that have major implications for drinking water and wastewater utilities. Without a backup solution, outages can disrupt service leading to boil water advisories, sewer backups, or the discharge of raw sewage. To ensure continued service in the event of a power outage, a utility should consider a number of different strategies (e.g., backup generators, alternative/auxiliary source of power, energy efficient equipment) to run the critical components of its system keeping in mind that the minimum level of service required after a flood may differ from “normal” demands. Deciding on a strategy requires that you identify and evaluate your facility’s sources, reliability, redundancies, and critical power needs. Long before a flood, take measures to reduce the duration of power outages. - Establish a list of key utility facilities (e.g., intake works, pump stations) that require critical power restoration and include the physical locations of the facilities and their corresponding power company account numbers. Be sure to communicate this information with the power company during an outage to expedite electricity restoration. - Increase the priority of power restoration to your utility’s facilities. - Consider installing two independent power lines to your utility to avoid a complete shutdown if power is lost during a flood. Create a reliable connection to your power supply by installing a substation or through a dedicated feeder between the power station and the treatment plant. Secure backup generators. - Record the size and type of backup generator, along with the voltage, phase configuration, horsepower/amperage, fuel, etc. - Connect pump stations to a portable generator. Ensure that the two systems can be connected quickly when the time is needed. - Maintain a call list of various venders that rent portable generators and enter into an agreement to allow the sharing of backup generators during a flood event. - Install your own portable or permanent generators that can be run on multiple fuels. Secure a source of fuel for backup generators. - Fill fuel storage tanks prior to a flood. - Create an agreement with your fuel supplier and provide estimates of fuels needs in the case of a loss of power. Maintain communication with your local emergency management agencies for priority in receiving fuel supplies in an emergency. - Have the capability for your utility’s vehicles to carry fuel tanks. - Perform an energy audit of your facility to identify areas that could be replaced with a more energy efficient appliance. 303 - Purchase additional/larger fuel storage tanks. Install an alternative energy system. - Consider installing solar panels or wind turbines to supplement your backup power supply. - Install cogeneration units and/or a waste heat recovery system at wastewater treatment plants to reduce or eliminate dependence on the grid. Prepare/protect electrical connections/equipment. - Shut down electrical equipment prior to a flood event to minimize damage. - Create “start and connect” checklists for all critical equipment in the facility. - Equip generators and motors with disconnect fittings that can be taken off before a flood and then restored. - Ensure existing electrical panels have an easy and effective way of connecting to external portable generators. - Waterproof electrical connections/motor controls/junction boxes. - Elevate or relocate electrical vaults and service panels. MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR COLLECTION SYSTEM LIFT STATIONS Lift stations are typically located at the lowest points in gravity-fed sewer systems and are therefore prone to flooding. Lift stations are also vulnerable to power outages. When lift stations lose power and do not have adequate emergency power, untreated sewage can back up into homes and businesses, flood streets, or run off into local waterways. This presents a serious threat to public health and the environment. Utilities should analyze various lift station failure scenarios (using flood stage in the flood zone for hydraulic calculations) and determine potential impacts to help inform mitigation decisions. Mitigation decisions will also depend on the type of lift station (e.g., wet or dry well), location (above or below grade), existing enclosure and ancillary equipment (e.g., minimal electrical/mechanical control equipment versus grit chambers, screens, electrical panels and other equipment). Prevent lift stations from flooding. - Procure temporary flood barriers (e.g., sandbags) for use in minor floods. - Ensure that flood lines will remain over the anticipated flood stage to prevent floodwaters from entering the lift station. - Install gates and backflow prevention devices on influent and emergency overflow lines to prevent flood waters from entering. - Erect permanent physical barriers (e.g., flood walls or levees). - Integrate green infrastructure in the areas surrounding the lift station to divert flood waters away. Protect critical components if lift stations do flood. - Install unions in the conduit system to reduce the time required to repair damaged sections. - Install cogeneration unites and/or a waste heat recovery system to reduce or eliminate dependence on the grid. - Develop the capability to temporarily remove and safely store vulnerable components before a flood. - Waterproof electrical components, controls, and circuitry. - Elevate or relocate electrical components above the anticipated flood stage. - Install submersible pumps, flow meters, and gate/valve operators. 304 - Elevate a below-grade lift station above the flood stage. Maintain lift station operations when the electrical grid is down. - Update electrical equipment to be more energy efficient. - Replace pumps with a diesel driven or dual-option counterparts. Have a means of bypassing normal lift station operations when necessary. - Have on hand a call list of multiple venders that can provide “pump around” services in a flood event. - Ensure you have portable pumps to restore operation of the lift station if it loses power during an event. - Consider starting a regionalization project to divert the flow of wastewater to an alternate system for emergency wastewater collection and conveyance. MITIGATION OPTIONS FOR HEADWORKS The headworks includes the structures and equipment at the beginning of the wastewater treatment plant, such as gates and flow controls, metering equipment, pumps, mechanical screens, and grit removal systems. This equipment is often at a lower elevation compared to the rest of the facility, increasing its vulnerability to flooding. If the headworks is off-line due to flooding, the rest of the plant would be inoperable. A failure of the headworks without a relief or bypass may also create backwater effects on the collection system that could flood streets and basements. Utility operators should identify how a headworks failure would affect the collection system and wastewater treatment plant performance using flood water elevations in the flood zone for hydraulic calculations and then implement the appropriate mitigation measures. Protect critical headworks components from flooding. - Install nonelectrical backup controls where possible. - Develop the capability to temporarily remove and safely store vulnerable components before a flood. - Install mechanical screens that can handle higher than normal sand, grit, trash and debris loading during and after a flood event. - Waterproof or elevate critical components to the plant (e.g., motor control unites, instrumentation, electrical panels, etc.) - Elevate, relocate or anchor pumps, screen motors, and other mechanical/electrical equipment. Maintain headworks operation when the electrical grid is down. - Consider installing a generator just for the headworks that is secure and has sufficient output. - Replace pumps with a diesel driven or dual-option counterparts. 305