07070006 kickapoowatersheddiscovery report€¦ · wdnr also gave a brief outline of the kickapoo...

Discovery Report Kickapoo Watershed, HUC 07070006

Crawford County, Monroe County, Richland County, Vernon County Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin Village of Bell Center, Village of Cashton, Village of Eastman, Village of Gays Mills, Village of La Farge, Village of Mount Sterling, Village of Norwalk, Village of Ontario, Village of Readstown, Village of Soldiers Grove, Village of Steuben, Village of Viola, City of Viroqua, Village of Wauzeka, City of Westby, Village of Wilton

June, 2018

Discovery Report, Kickapoo Watershed, HUC 07070006 i

Table of Contents

I. General Information…………………………………………………………………….1

Figure 1. Kickapoo Watershed Map…………………………………………………...2 Table 1. NFIP Participation Status and Population…………………………………..3

II. Watershed Stakeholder Coordination……………………………………………….4

Figure 2. Risk MAP Project Life Cycle………………………………………………...4

i. Discovery Meeting Details……………………………………………………………. 5 III. Data Analysis…………………………………………………………………………….6

Table 2. Discovery Data for the Kickapoo River Watershed………………………..6

i. Data that can be used for Flood Risk Products……………………………………7

Table 3. LiDAR Acquisition Dates……………………………………………………...7 Table 4. USGS Stream Gages………………………………………………………....8 Figure 3. Average Annualized Loss for the Kickapoo River Watershed………….10

ii. Other Data and Information…………………………………………………………..11

Table 5. Hazard Mitigation Plan Status and Availability …………………………...11 Figure 4. Population Distribution in the Kickapoo River Watershed……………....13 Table 6. Recent CAV/CACs in the Kickapoo River Watershed.…………………...14 Table 7. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps Status………………………………...15 Table 8. Summary of Flood Insurance by Community……………………………...15

IV. Risk MAP Needs and Recommendations………………………………………….16

i. Floodplain Studies……………………………………………………………………...16 Table 9. Mapping Needs, Revised AE Zones……………………………………….17 Table 10. Mapping Needs, Revised A Zones……………………………………….17 Table 11. Mapping Needs, New A Zone…………………………………………….18 Table 12. Mapping Needs, Redelineated AE Zones……………………………….18 Table 13. Mapping Needs, Low Priority……………………………………………..18 ii. Mitigation Projects……………………………………………………………………..19 Table 14. Stakeholder Identified Mitigation Needs…………………………………19 iii. Non-Regulatory Products……………………………………………………………20

V. Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..…21

Discovery Report, Kickapoo Watershed, HUC 07070006 1

I. General Information The Kickapoo River Watershed is located in Southwestern Wisconsin and drains 768 square miles, including portions of Monroe, Vernon, Richland, and Crawford Counties. The watershed is dominated by agricultural land use (44%) and forests (41%), with grassland (11.5%), wetlands (<2%), and other uses (1.3%) making up the rest. The basin is entirely within the hilly Driftless Area of Wisconsin, and therefore has relatively steep slopes and rapid runoff. About 46% of the basin contains slopes of 15% or greater and about 23% of the basin’s land has slopes between 8 and 15%.

The main stem of the Kickapoo River is very sinuous, flowing 130 river miles across the 60 mile long watershed. The headwaters are in Monroe County and it flows southwest to the confluence with the Wisconsin River in the Village of Wauzeka (Crawford County). There are several major tributaries to the main stem Kickapoo, including: Moore Creek, Billings Creek, West Fork of the Kickapoo, Reads Creek, and Tainter Creek.

The Watershed has an extensive flood history. Spring floods from snowmelt, moderate precipitation, and ice jams cause road closures and washouts. In the summer, flash flooding spawned by heavy rain and steep terrain has led to evacuations and mudslides. The flood events in August 2007 and June 2008 surpassed historic events and set record crests. As a result, Federal Disaster Declarations were issued for Vernon and Richland Counties in 2007 and for Crawford Monroe, Richland, and Vernon Counties in 2008. Because of the history and more recent record floods, there have been a number of mitigation actions and flood control projects within the watershed. This includes flood-retardation structures, culvert replacements, homeowner buyouts, relocations, and structure elevation.

The Kickapoo Watershed was chosen by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for the Discovery process, which kicked off in 2017. The goal of Discovery is to work with local communities to better understand local flood risk, mitigation efforts, and spark watershed-wide discussions about increasing resilience for flooding. It also includes evaluating the potential to update effective floodplain maps and mitigation planning needs for the basin. This report documents the coordination with stakeholders, and relevant data collected during the Kickapoo Watershed Discovery.


Figure 1. Kickapoo Watershed Map


Table 1. Kickapoo Watershed Communities

COUNTY CID COMMUNITY POPULATION

(2010) NFIP Status

555551 Crawford County 16,644 PARTICIPATING

550068 Bell Center (Village) 117 PARTICIPATING

550541 Eastman (Village) 428 NOT PARTICIPATING

CRAWFORD 550071 Gays Mills (Village) 491 PARTICIPATING

550542 Mount Sterling (Village) 211 NOT PARTICIPATING

550074 Soldiers Grove (Village) 592 PARTICIPATING

555580 Steuben (Village) 131 PARTICIPATING

555586 Wauzeka (Village) 711 SUSPENDED

550571 Monroe County 44,673 PARTICIPATING

MONROE 550360 Cashton (Village) 1,102 NOT PARTICIPATING

550289 Norwalk (Village) 638 PARTICIPATING

550292 Wilton (Village) 504 PARTICIPATING

RICHLAND 555579 Richland County 18,021 PARTICIPATING

550450 Vernon County 29,773 PARTICIPATING

550456 La Farge (Village) 746 PARTICIPATING

VERNON 550458 Readstown (Village) 415 PARTICIPATING

550590 Viroqua (City) 4,362 NOT PARTICIPATING

550549 Westby (City) 2,200 NOT PARTICIPATING

VERNON/MONROE 550457 Ontario (Village) 554 PARTICIPATING

VERNON/RICHLAND 550460 Viola (Village) 222 PARTICIPATING

VERNON/RICHLAND/ CRAWFORD/MONROE 550630

Ho‐Chunk Nation of Wisconsin NOT SANCTIONED


II. Watershed Stakeholder Coordination The Discovery process is the second phase in FEMA’s Risk MAP Project lifecycle (Figure 2). It kicks off with an investigation of existing terrain, flood hazard data, and flood risk data for development of an initial Discovery map (Figure 1). Further data is gathered through stakeholder coordination and is used to refine the map and scope of the Risk MAP project. As a Cooperating Technical Partner, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) led the Discovery process for the Kickapoo Watershed. In coordination with FEMA and Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM), the WDNR gathered data and identified stakeholders. Community officials, Land Information Officers, Emergency Managers, Tribal Officers, State Agencies, and Federal Agencies were identified as stakeholders and invited to participate in the Discovery process.

Figure 2. Risk MAP Project Life Cycle

The WDNR compiled data from State and Federal databases representing existing analyses and future needs. The stakeholders were then invited to a Discovery Meeting to comment on the data compiled to date and add local flood risk information. Invitations were mail one month prior to the Discovery Meeting. Stakeholders were also invited via


email to participate in a pre-meeting conference call to get better understanding of the process and expectations for the meeting.

On March 21, 2018 the WDNR led the pre-meeting conference call attended by FEMA, WEM, and community officials. The WDNR presented an overview of the Discovery process including the partnership with FEMA, goals, deliverables, and timeline. The WDNR also gave a brief outline of the Kickapoo Watershed and why it was chosen by FEMA for Discovery. The presentation transitioned into specifics about the upcoming Discovery Meeting. The goal was to let the stakeholders know who will attend, the agenda, what type of data to bring to the meeting, and a description of the small group break-out sessions. The call was then open for questions and discussions from stakeholders.

i. Discovery Meeting Details

On March 26, 2018, the Kickapoo Watershed Discovery meeting was hosted by WDNR and held at the Vernon County Erlandson Building, 318 Fairlane Drive, Viroqua, Wisconsin 54665. A total of 39 community stakeholders attended the meeting (see Appendix B). The meeting lasted about 2 hours, including formal presentations and small group discussions.

The WDNR project team kicked off the meeting with introductions and an overview of the meeting agenda. FEMA followed with a presentation about the Risk MAP process and products. The State Hazard Mitigation Officer from WEM presented details for mitigation planning, funding and regional success stories. To wrap up the formal presentation the National Flood Insurance Program Coordinator from WDNR gave an overview of the NFIP benefits and responsibilities.

The second half of the meeting was dedicated to stakeholders taking a closer look at the Discovery Map. For this break out session, seven tables with regional Discovery Maps were set up for communities to review and discuss local concerns. Each table discussion was facilitated by a WNDR or FEMA representative, who helped the stakeholders mark locations on maps and fill out corresponding comment forms.

Communities were instructed to provide comments regarding the following:

Flood mitigation projects completed or planned Technical data or studies needed to help with mitigation projects Clusters of LOMCs Areas where effective floodplains no longer reflect existing conditions Areas of development that could impact the watershed Areas of frequent flooding, especially road closures/overtopped roads Streams where more detailed study data is needed Locations of observed ice jams


Additional comments were accepted via email until April 30, 2018 for those stakeholders who were unable to attend the meeting. In total, 33 comments were submitted by watershed stakeholders (Appendix C). The comments were compiled and used to help develop a scope of work recommendations for the next phase of a Risk MAP project in this watershed. Communities were then given an opportunity to comment on the report and recommendations. Any additional comments were incorporated into the recommendations.

III. Data Analysis For Discovery, data is collected to get a better understanding of risk in a community and inform recommendations for potential Risk MAP projects. Existing tabular and spatial data was collected for the Kickapoo Watershed from multiple sources and displayed on the Discovery Map, Discovery Report, and/or in the Geodatabase. A list of the data collected, sources, and deliverable is listed in Table 2. In addition, data is categorized into two sections: one listing data that can be used for Risk MAP products, and one section listing other data available for the watershed.

Table 2. Discovery Data for the Kickapoo River Watershed

DATA SOURCE DELIVERABLE

Average Annualized Loss FEMA HAZUS Analysis; U.S. Census Data (2000)

Discovery Report Geodatabase

Community Boundaries FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL)

Discovery Map Geodatabase

Coordinated Needs Management Strategy (CNMS)

FEMA Region V Discovery Map Geodatabase

County Boundaries Wisconsin DNR Discovery Map Geodatabase

DAM Information Wisconsin DNR Dams Inventory Discovery Map Geodatabase

Effective SFHA FEMA NFHL Discovery Map Geodatabase

Flood Insurance Claims FEMA Community Information System (CIS)

Discovery Report

Hazard Mitigation Plan Status Wisconsin Emergency Management Discovery Report

Ice Jams U.S. Army Corp of Engineers ‐ Ice Jam Database


Last CAC Date FEMA CIS Discovery Report

Last CAV Date FEMA CIS Discovery Report

Letters of Map Change FEMA NFHL Discovery Map Geodatabase

Major Roads Wisconsin Dept. of Transportation; FEMA NFHL



Mitigation‐ Acquisition Parcels Wisconsin Emergency Management Discovery Map Geodatabase

NFIP Participation FEMA CIS Discovery Report

Population U.S. Census (2010) Discovery Report

Repetitive Loss FEMA CIS Discovery Report

Stream Gages USGS National Hydrography Dataset Discovery Map Discovery Report Geodatabase

Streams and Rivers FEMA NFHL Discovery Map Geodatabase

Structures FEMA NFHL Geodatabase

Topographic Data Wisconsin Department of Administration

Discovery Map Discovery Report

Watershed Boundaries USGS National Hydrography Dataset Discovery Map Geodatabase

Note: Please see spatial metadata for more information about data set contribution and source.

i. Data that can be used for Flood Risk Products

Topographic Data

After severe flooding and federal disaster declarations across much of southern Wisconsin in 2008, a total of 31 counties became eligible for funds to obtain LiDAR through the Community Development Block Grant Emergency Assistance Program (CDBG-EAP) administered by the Wisconsin Department of Commerce. All counties within the Kickapoo Watershed were granted these funds ultimately aimed at improving floodplain mapping. Monroe, Vernon, Richland Counties were funded to obtained countywide LiDAR. Crawford County was awarded the grant to acquired LiDAR data only along the Kickapoo River; however they were able to obtain additional funding to cover the remaining portion of the county. Crawford, Richland, and Vernon County Lidar all meet FEMA’s vertical accuracy threshold (FEMA SID #43) for high specification level and are suitable for to be used for detail studies. The Monroe County Lidar does not pass the highest FEMA standard for vertical accuracy, but does meet the standard for high flood risk in hilly terrain and is suitable for approximate studies in the Kickapoo Watershed.

Table 3. LiDAR Acquisition Dates

Community Date Acquired

Crawford County 2011

Monroe County 2010

Richland County 2010

Vernon County 2010


USGS Gages

The project team identified USGS stream gages within the watershed. The locations are shown on the Discovery Map and a summary is listed in Table 4.

Table 4. USGS Stream Gage

GAGE NUMBER DESCRIPTION

05407400 MORRIS CREEK TRIBUTARY NEAR NORWALK, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05407400

05407470 KICKAPOO RIVER AT STATE HIGHWAY 33 AT ONTARIO, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05407470

05407500 KICKAPOO RIVER AT ONTARIO, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05407500

05407920 KICKAPOO RIVER NEAR ROCKTON, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05407920

05408000 KICKAPOO RIVER AT LA FARGE, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05408000

05408500 KNAPP CREEK NEAR BLOOMINGDALE, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05408500

05408800 BISHOPS BRANCH NEAR VIROQUA, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05408800

05409000 WEST FORK KICKAPOO RIVER NEAR READSTOWN, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05409000

05409500 KICKAPOO RIVER AT SOLDIERS GROVE, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05409500

05409830 NORTH FORK NEDERLO CREEK NEAR GAYS MILLS, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05409830

05409860 SOUTH FORK NEDERLO CREEK NEAR GAYS MILLS, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05409860

05409870 NEDERLO CREEK AT UTICA TN HALL NEAR GAYS MILLS, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05409870

05409890 NEDERLO CREEK NEAR GAYS MILLS, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05409890

05410000 KICKAPOO RIVER AT GAYS MILLS, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05410000

05410490 KICKAPOO RIVER AT STEUBEN, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05410490

05410500 KICKAPOO RIVER‐OLD SITE‐AT STEUBEN, WI https://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/inventory/?site_no=05410500


Average Annualized Loss (AAL) Data

FEMA conducted a national AAL analysis using HAZUS-MH MR4. This consisted of a Level 1 flood analysis, using 2000 Census Data, USGS 30-meter Digital Elevation Models, and regression equations for the development of the floodplains. The analysis was developed to provide a general understanding of the relative flood risk throughout the nation. The data is intended to for relative comparison of risk between areas and not to be used as absolute loss value. The AAL data for the Kickapoo Watershed has been included in the geodatabase and is shown in Figure 3.


Figure 3. Average Annualized Loss for the Kickapoo Watershed.


ii. Other Data and Information

Hazard Mitigation Plans

Hazard Mitigation Plans (HMPs) are prepared for communities to help them reduce long-term risk to life and property from natural hazards. The plans include comprehensive mitigation strategies intended to promote flood-resilient communities. Communities are required to have a HMP as a condition of received certain types of hazard mitigation disaster assistance. In the Kickapoo Watershed HMPs are prepared on the county level, however not all plans are current. Table 5 summarizes the status of HMP in the study area and if a HAZUS analysis is included with the plan.

Table 5. Hazard Mitigation Plans Status and Availability

County Current HMP HAZUS

Issue Date (most recent

HMP)

Expiration Date(most recent

HMP)

Available for

Review Draft inProgress

CRAWFORD N Y July 27, 2012 July 26, 2017 Y Y

MONROE N Y August 30, 2012 August 29, 2017 Y Y

RICHLAND Y Y March 20, 2017 March 19, 2022 Y N/A

VERNON N Y May 6, 2013 May 5, 2018 Y Y

Community Rating System (CRS)

The Community Rating System is a voluntary incentive program that recognize and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements. Currently, none of the communities with in the Kickapoo Watershed participate in CRS. At the Discovery Meeting, the National Flood Insurance Program State Coordinator spoke about the CRS program and the benefits to the community, as well as, the citizens.

CNMS Study Needs

There are 406 miles of mapped streams in the Kickapoo Watershed with Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) shown on FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM). The majority of SFHA are approximate studies (Zone A), with detail studies (Zone AE) accounting for just 80 stream miles. FEMA’s Coordinated Needs Management System (CNMS) database (https://msc.fema.gov/cnms/Default.aspx) categorizes flood studies by validation status. The designations reflect an evaluation of the study since the date the FIRM took effect. The evaluation considers land use changes, new/removed bridges or culverts, and account for recent flood events captured by gage data. A Valid status indicates the study meets FEMA’s current FIRM mapping standards including using up-to–date engineering methodology and no significant changes since the effective date. When a study does not meet the standards, it is given an Unverified status. According to


the database, 321 study miles are Valid and 85 study miles are Unverified. However the project team has determined that an additional 8 miles of detailed studies (Zone AE) on the Kickapoo River mainstem should be considered Unverified because the analysis uses out of date gage analysis.

Levees

There are no levees within the Kickapoo Watershed.

Dams

According the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Dams database, there are 116 dams within the Kickapoo Watershed. A dam is classified by its size and hazard. A Large dam has a structural height of over 6 feet and impounds 50 acre-feet or a structural height of 25 feet or more and impounds more than 15-acre-feet. Every Large dam is given a hazard rating based on the potential for loss of life or property damage should the dam fail. A dam is assigned a rating of High hazard when its failure would probably put lives at risk. There are 17 Large dams in the Kickapoo watershed and 8 of those have a rating of High or Significant hazard.

Demographics

Populations are listed by community in Table 1. The below map illustrates the population of incorporated communities across the study area.


Figure 4. Population distribution in the Kickapoo River Watershed.


Floodplain Management/Community Assistance Visits

The WDNR State NFIP Coordinator initiates and conducts Community Assistance Visits (CAVs) and Community Assistants Contacts (CACs) as part of the floodplain management program. A CAV consists of reviewing local permitting, evaluation a community’s floodplain ordinance, and field tour to assess recent activity within the regulatory floodplain. The NFIP coordinator meets with local officials to discuss the program, potential violations, training opportunities, and recent flood events. A CAC is a less extensive contact between the community and the State NFIP Coordinator. The CAC can be a phone call or brief visit intended to establish or re-establish contact with the community. The purpose is to identify any existing problems and offer assistance if necessary. The most recent CAVs and CACs for NFIP participating communities within the study area are listed in Table 5.

Table 6. Recent CAV/CACs in the Kickapoo River Watershed

COUNTY COMMUNITY CAV Opened CAV Closed CAC

Crawford County 12/05/1992 12/04/2007 09/29/2011

Bell Center (Village) N/A N/A N/A

CRAWFORD Gays Mills (Village) 09/07/2010 Open N/A

Soldiers Grove (Village) N/A N/A 09/28/2011

Steuben (Village) N/A N/A N/A

Monroe County N/A N/A 09/22/1994

Monroe Norwalk (Village) 02/20/1992 12/04/2007 N/A

Wilton (Village) N/A 09/27/1995

RICHLAND Richland County 04/15/1992 12/05/2007 12/22/1993

Vernon County 04/19/2017 Open 09/27/1995

VERNON La Farge (Village) N/A N/A 04/16/2009

Readstown (Village) N/A N/A 05/05/2005

VERNON/MONROE Ontario (Village) N/A N/A 05/15/2006

VERNON/RICHLAND Viola (Village) 09/01/2005 07/07/2014 09/23/1993

Regulatory Mapping

The Kickapoo Watershed communities have all had recent countywide maps as part of FEMA’s Map Modernization program or Risk MAP. Although the maps are in digital format, they do not necessarily reflect newer hydrologic or hydraulic study information. The maps display both detailed and approximated studies with varying study dates. The countywide DFIRMs are the most recent mapping activity and the effective dates are list in Table 6. Crawford, Richland, and Vernon County studies were all delineated using LiDAR available (Table 3). Monroe County SFHAs were created using 10-ft and 20-ft USGS contours.


Table 7. Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map Status

COUNTY STATUS Effective Date

CRAWFORD Effective 10/16/2015

MONROE Effective 01/20/2010

RICHLAND Effective 12/08/2016

VERNON Effective 11/02/2012

Large Scale Automated Engineering (LSAE)

The Wisconsin DNR performed Large Scale Automated Engineering (LSAE) for the Kickapoo Watershed. The purpose of the study was to assess the validity of the effective Zone A study reaches within the watershed, and provide new models which can be upgraded to model back Zone A studies in the future. This information was added to the FEMA CNMS database. The corresponding report documenting the methodology and results can be found in Appendix D.

Flood Insurance

FEMA’s Community Information System (CIS) keeps track of current flood insurance policies for each NFIP participating community. For these communities within the Kickapoo Watershed, there has been more than $5 million paid out towards flood loss claims since 1978, and more $1.7 million toward repetitive loss properties. Table 8 summarize the flood insurance characteristics for all participating communities within the study area.

Table 8. Summary of Flood Insurance by Community

Community Policies

in Force

Policies in

A‐Zone

Total Premium

Total Coverage

Total Claims

Total Paid Flood Loss

Rep loss

Total PaidRep loss

Crawford County

35 28 $30,019 $4,838,400 21 $160,722 2 $28,189

Bell Center (Village)

0 N/A N/A N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Gays Mills (Village)

22 22 $13,422 $1,524,600 92 $2,118,517 29 $886,889

Soldiers Grove (Village)

10 8 $9,849 $1,229,200 17 $363,151 6 $81,255

Steuben (Village)

3 3 $4,617 $258,400 13 $324,913 6 $248,734

Monroe County

44 25 $31,924 $6,358,200 19 $260,038 4 $199,622

Norwalk (Village)

9 6 $5,837 $651,500 1 $670 0 $0


Wilton (Village)

1 0 $415 $350,000 0 $0 0 $0

Richland County

20 5 $8,718 $3,495,000 34 $191,410 9 $98,248

Vernon County

47 16 $34,898 $7,315,600 60 $579,758 0 $0

La Farge (Village)

7 7 $14,246 $1,490,500 17 $277,734 2 $36,442

Readstown (Village)

6 4 $9,148 $1,201,700 5 $312,137 0 $0

Ontario (Village)

4 4 $3,033 $157,800 2 $26,950 0 $0

Viola (Village)

9 9 $10,973 $610,800 26 $410,534 4 $172,194

Total: 217 137 $177,099 $29,481,700 307 $5,026,534 62 $1,751,573

IV. Risk MAP Needs and Recommendations The project team has review all the data collected, including from the Discovery Meeting, and has narrowed the scope of the Kickapoo River Watershed Risk MAP project. This section includes recommendations for floodplain studies and potential mitigation activities.

i. Floodplain Studies While DFIRMs have been produced for all of the counties in the watershed, there are still study and mapping needs. Using CNMS and stakeholder input, the Wisconsin DNR has identified areas where a revised or new study is recommended. The goal is to identify those streams where the communities’ flood risk management efforts will most benefit from updated engineering analyses. We have categorized the recommendations by priority level. The final scope of the RiskMAP project moving forward will depend on available funding and resources. High priority recommendations have been added to the Post-Meeting Discovery Map (Appendix E)

High Priority

It is recommended that all Unverified detail studies (Zone AE) in the watershed be revised. These studies and the applicable study lengths are list in Table 9. The Wisconsin DNR has determined that all AE Zones along the mainstream of the Kickapoo River should be classified as Unverified due to the study using out of date stream gage analysis. Those studies miles are included in the table below. All Revised AE studies will require new survey.


Table 9. Mapping Needs, Revised AE Zones

Flooding Source Study Length

(Miles) Study Type

Bear Creek 2.13 AE

Cook Creek 0.9 AE

Johnson Valley Creek 0.99 AE

Kickapoo River 47.83 AE

Knapp Creek 0.78 AE

North Bear Creek 0.35 AE

Otter Creek 3.48 AE

Sheridan Creek 0.69 AE

South Bear Creek 0.39 AE

Warner Creek 3.28 AE

Weister Creek 0.61 AE

West Fork Kickapoo River 5.99 AE

Total: 67.42

It is also highly recommended to revise all Zone A studies in Monroe County. Large Scale Automated Engineering (LSAE) was performed to assess the validly of the effective Zone A study reaches. The majority of effective A Zones in Monroe County did not meet FEMA Floodplain Boundary Threshold for the risk class. A full description of the LSAE and comparison to the effective floodplains is available in Appendix D. All Revised A Zones will be modeled with structures. Table 10 identifies the reaches and study miles recommended to update to model backed Revise Zone A.

Table 10. Mapping Needs, Revised A Zones


(Miles) CNMS STATUS Study Type

Billings Creek 2.89 UNVERIFIED A

Brush Creek 3.76 VALID A

Cook Creek 3.89 UNVERIFIED A

Moore Creek 11.55 UNVERIFIED A

Poe Creek 4.46 UNVERIFIED A

Unnamed Tributary to Kickapoo River 2.38 VALID A

Unnamed Tributary to Moore Creek 2.33 UNVERIFIED A

Unnamed Tributary 1 to Brush Creek 0.71 VALID A

Unnamed Tributary 2 to Brush Creek 1.57 VALID A

Total: 33.54


During the Discovery process a new Dam Failure Analysis (DFA) was identified for Tri-Creek Structure No. 1 in Monroe County. The analysis was submitted during the comment period and can be seen in Appendix F. This study along Moore Creek should be used for a new model backed Zone A.

Table 11. Mapping Needs, New A Zones


(Miles) Study Type

Moore Creek 9.79 A

Given that Monroe County effective maps were modeled using 10’ and 20’ contours, it is recommended to redelineate Brush Creek and Upper Brush Creek Zone AE study using the 2010 LiDAR. This study includes areas in both Monroe and Vernon Counties and the study miles are given in Table12.

Table 12. Mapping Needs, Redelineated AE Zones


(Miles) CNMS STATUS Study Type

Brush Creek/ Upper Brush Creek

Vernon County 0.03 VALID AE

Monroe County 0.09 VALID AE

Total 0.12

Low Priority

The project team has identified lower priority mapping needs for the Kickapoo Watershed Risk MAP project. This includes Revise Zone A studies along the mainstem of the Kickapoo River. These studies are model backed and categorized as Valid but could be revised to tie in to the previously recommended Revised AE Zones (Table 9). Also a low priority is two new detail studies in Vernon County requested by stakeholders. The reaches and study miles for all low priority recommendations are given in Table 13.

Table 13. Mapping Needs, Low Priority


(Miles) CNMS STATUS

Effective Study Type

New Study Type

Kickapoo River 84.8 Valid A A

Silver Creek 1.12 Valid A AE

Reads Creek 7.66 Valid A AE

Total: 93.58


ii. Mitigation Projects In the Discovery meeting, stakeholders were asked to identify locations which might benefit from a flood mitigation project. Mitigation interest included culvert replacements, inundated roads, slope stabilization, at-risk residential homes, and stream gages. Table 12 summaries the mitigation needs identify by the stakeholders. The associated locations have also been added to the Post-Meeting Discovery Map (Appendix E) and full comments are available in Appendix C.

Table 12. Stakeholder Identified Mitigation Needs

Location Discovery Map ID

Subject(s) Mitigation Interest Comment

Crawford County

3 Overtopped Road Alternate route inundated at times.

Crawford County

4 Reoccurring Flooding Area inundated year round

Village of Gays Mills

5 Overtopped Road Highway 171 bridge across Kickapoo River is impassable during rain events.

Crawford County

6 Overtopped Road County Highway B bridge at Tainter Creek, east approach is low and is

impacted during flooding.

Village of Gays Mills

7 Overtopped Trail Stump Dodger Trail impacted by floods.

Vernon County

9 Reoccurring Flooding Highway 14 repeated flooding from

Read Creek

Vernon County

10 Overtopped Road Highway 82 washes out regularly.

Village of Readstown

11 Reoccurring Flooding Repeated flooding, evacuations,

washed out bridges.

City of Viroqua

12 Stream Flow Constriction Residential Homes At‐Risk

Water backs up at culvert and floods near buy home. Interest in stormwater

detention up stream.

Vernon County

13 Erosion Should, ditch, and culvert washed out.

Vernon County

14 Stream Flow Constriction Ice Jam on Knapp Creek Tributary

Vernon County

15 Reoccurring Flooding Recurring flooding along Cary Road and

Dell Road.

Vernon County

16 Reoccurring Flooding Erosion

Hall Creek‐ recurring flooding, washing out culvert and gravel.

Vernon County

17 Slope Stability Park Road ‐ landslides.

Vernon County

18 Reoccurring Flooding Recurring flooding from Sea Branch on

first flood of home.


Vernon County

20 Residential Homes At‐Risk Evacuations when Jersey Valley Dam is

breached.

Village of Viola

21 Reoccurring Flooding Highway 56 frequently floods.

Richland County

22 Reoccurring Flooding Recent reoccurring flooding along

Camp Creek.

Vernon County

23 Overtopped Road Stream Flow Constriction

Flooding overtopping road, and undersized culvert causing water to

back up east of County HWY S.

Vernon County

24 Erosion Sheet flow causing road wash out (Gore Hollow Rd). Request to re‐direct runoff.

Vernon County

26 Stream Flow Constriction Undersized culvert at Valley Ave and

Silver Creek.

Vernon County

27 Stream Flow Constriction Repeated damage to culvert and roadway during floods. Request to upsize culvert and create spillway.

Vernon County

28 Stream Flow Constriction

Water backing up behind culverts along Cheyenne Creek at Cheyenne Rd,

Scenic Dr, and Dead End Rd. Possible replace with bridges.

Vernon County

29 Stream Flow Constriction Log and ice jam along Kickapoo River at Winchel Valley Road causing flooding

and road closures.

Vernon County

30 Reoccurring Flooding Erosion

Repeat flooding causing road closures and loss of gravel.

Village of Ontario

32 Stream Gage Public Notification

Request new stream gage station for Brush Creek to contribute to public

notification of flooding.

iii. Non-Regulatory Products

Non-regulatory flood risk products provide information to communicate a more complete flood risk in their community. The datasets are meant to go beyond the simple identification of the flood hazards and inform actions that can be taken to reduce flood risk. Depth grids are a non-regulatory product which will not only show where flooding can happen, but also how deep the water will get and how that depth will affect economic losses. The project team recommends utilizing flood depth grids in the Kickapoo Watershed to help stakeholders understand the impact of the flooding on the community and plan for potential mitigation to reduce the impact.


V. Appendix and Tables

Appendix A: Kickapoo Discovery Map

Appendix B: Discovery Meeting Stakeholder Sign In Sheets

Appendix C: Stakeholder Comment Forms

Appendix D: Kickapoo Watershed Automated Engineering Report

Appendix E: Post Meeting Discovery Map

Appendix F: Tri-Creek Structure No. 1 Dam Failure Analysis Summary

07070006 kickapoowatersheddiscovery report€¦ · wdnr also gave a brief outline of the kickapoo...

Documents