Osceola County Hazard Mitigation Plan - Part 1 Community Profile

Osceola County Hazard Mitigation Plan Part 1 - Community Profile 1

Contents Planning Area... 5 Overview... 6 Historical Overview... 6 Local Units of Government... 6 Population Trends and Projections... 7 Seasonal Population Fluctuations... 10 Location... 11 Age Distribution... 14 Gender Distribution... 16 Racial Distribution... 17 Educational Level... 18 Primary Language... 19 Housing... 19 Land Use and Zoning... 21 Northeast Quadrant... 24 Northwest Quadrant... 30 Southwest Quadrant... 36 Southeast Quadrant... 42 Climate... 48 Soils... 50 Topography... 50 Water Features & Wetlands... 51 Local Government... 53 Public Safety Services... 54 Transportation... 55 Community Profile Sources & Development... 59 2

Tables & Figures Tables 1.1 Osceola County Population Data by Jurisdiction.8 1.2 Population Trends and Projections, Osceola County 1910-2010..9 1.3 Age Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010..15 1.4 Gender Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 16 1.5 Racial Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010..17 1.6 Educational Level Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010...18 1.7 Housing Tenure Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010..19 1.8a Existing Land Use, Osceola County...22 1.8b Existing Land Use, Northeast Quadrant 24 1.8c Existing Land Use, Northwest Quadrant 30 1.8d Existing Land Use, Southwest Quadrant...36 1.8e Existing Land Use, Southeast Quadrant 42 1.9 Osceola County Climate.48 1.10 Osceola County Local Government 53 1.11 Osceola County Public Safety Services.54 Figures 1.1 Osceola County Communities Map 5 1.2 Population Trends and Projections, Osceola County 1910-2010..9 1.3 Michigan Base Map.12 1.4 Michigan Reference Map 13 1.5 Age Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010..15 1.6 Gender Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 16 1.7 Racial Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010..17 1.8 Educational Level Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010...18 1.9 Housing Tenure Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010..20 1.10 Existing Land Use, Osceola County...23 1.11a Existing Land Use, Northeast Quadrant..25 1.11b Existing Land Use, Highland Township...26 1.11c Existing Land Use, Marion Township (including Village of Marion).26 1.11d Existing Land Use, Hartwick Township 27 1.11e Existing Land Use, Middle Branch Township.27 1.11f Existing Land Use Map, Northeast Quadrant..28 1.11g Future Land Use Map, Northeast Quadrant 29 1.12a Existing Land Use, Northwest Quadrant.31 1.12b Existing Land Use, Burdell Township (including Village of Tustin).31 1.12c Existing Land Use, LeRoy Township (including Village of LeRoy)..32 3

Figures (continued) 1.12d Existing Land Use, Rose Lake Township 32 1.12e Existing Land Use, Sherman Township...33 1.12f Existing Land Use Map, Northwest Quadrant..34 1.12g Future Land Use Map, Northwest Quadrant...35 1.13a Existing Land Use, Southwest Quadrant.37 1.13b Existing Land Use, Lincoln Township..37 1.13c Existing Land Use, Richmond Township (including Reed City and part of Village of Hersey) 38 1.13d Existing Land Use, Cedar Township 38 1.13e Existing Land Use, Hersey Township (including part of Village of Hersey)...39 1.13f Existing Land Use Map, Southwest Quadrant.40 1.13g Future Land Use Map, Southwest Quadrant.. 41 1.14a Existing Land Use, Southeast Quadrant.43 1.14b Existing Land Use, Osceola Township (including part of City of Evart).43 1.14c Existing Land Use, Evart Township (including part of City of Evart)...44 1.14d Existing Land Use, Orient Township 44 1.14e Existing Land Use, Sylvan Township...45 1.14f Existing Land Use Map, Southeast Quadrant..46 1.14g Future Land Use Map, Southeast Quadrant...47 1.15a Average Minimum and Maximum Temperature by Month 49 1.15b Average Precipitation by Month 49 1.16 Osceola County Wetland Map.52 1.17 Annual Average 24-Hour Traffic Volume, 2012 57 1.18 Osceola County Road Map..58 4

Planning Area Osceola County provides emergency management and development review services to the jurisdictions within its boundaries. Since these activities coordinate well with the goals of mitigation planning, a countywide plan approach was selected. The Osceola County Hazard Mitigation Plan has been developed to cover the geographical area of Osceola County, comprised of 22 individual communities, as established by the Memorandum of Agreement for a Multi-Jurisdictional Planning Team. Figure 1.1 Osceola County Communities Map (Source: West Michigan Regional Planning Commission) Townships: Burdell Sherman Highland Marion LeRoy Rose Lake Hartwick Middle Branch Lincoln Cedar Osceola Sylvan Richmond Hersey Evart Orient Cities: Evart Villages: Tustin Marion Reed City LeRoy Hersey 5

Overview The community profile provides information about Osceola County and its jurisdictions regarding various aspects of its physical, social, and economic characteristics. It is designed to familiarize readers with an overview of the communities relevant features, or to draw attention to specific relevant features. In this Hazard Mitigation Plan, the community profile is intended to provide an overview of key county features that either need to be protected from harm, or potentially cause some sort of harm or deleterious effect on the area s quality of life. Historical Overview Organized in 1869, Osceola County is named after the respected Native American Seminole, Chief Osceola. Osceola County, like many Michigan communities, grew rapidly because of its abundant forests and a river system that provided a means to move lumber to market. The county s rapid growth is illustrated by the fact that the 1860 U.S. Census listed only 27 individuals in the area that was to become Osceola County, but that a mere fifteen years later, in 1875, there were about 6,000 individuals in the County. The tremendous growth can be attributed to the lumber industry, the railroads, and farming. Today, Osceola County remains composed largely of rural forest and farm lands and is traversed by US-131 and US-10. The county contains 566 square miles and is the 48th largest in the state. The county seat is Reed City. The county s economy depends on agriculture, forestry, and manufacturing. Osceola County offers many opportunities for hunting, fishing, and boating, and it boasts an impressive recreational trail system and contains a substantial state forest area. Local Units of Government Osceola County s communities consist of two cities, four villages, and 16 townships. In addition to the cities, villages, and townships, there are many unincorporated areas within Osceola County. These areas are covered by township government, but often have a separate sense of community. Table 1.1 lists all 22 of the local units of government with their population data and trends from the United States census. 6

Population Trends and Projections Table 1.1 shows Osceola County s population data by jurisdiction, illustrating the population distribution of the county. Osceola s population has grown quickly since 1970 but this was not always the case. From the 1910 through the 1970 Census, Osceola County grew at a relatively slow rate even declining in population three times. This trend was reversed with the 1980 census. Table 1.2 shows Osceola County s population and percentage changes during each census since 1910 as well as population projections until 2030.This information is illustrated in Figure 1.2. The county s population is dispersed over a large area, which often creates issues related to where to provide emergency services and facilities. 7

Table 1.1 Osceola County Population Data by Jurisdiction (Source: US Census Data) Area Population Trends 1980 1990 2000 2010 Michigan 9,262,044 9,295,277 9,938,444 9,883,640 Osceola County 18,928 20,146 23,197 23,528 Cities Evart 1,945 1,744 1,738 1,903 Reed City 2,221 2,379 2,430 2,425 Villages Hersey 364 409 374 350 LeRoy 293 257 267 246 Marion 816 801 836 872 Tustin 264 230 237 230 Townships Burdell 803 917 1,004 1,101 Cedar 235 298 406 455 Evart 1,029 1,229 1,513 1,483 Hartwick 420 504 629 567 Hersey 865 1,046 1,472 1,600 Highland 1,063 1,018 1,207 1,250 LeRoy 565 706 892 956 Lincoln 1,173 1,228 1,629 1,500 Marion 675 644 744 820 Middle Branch 642 695 858 843 Orient 635 686 803 773 Osceola 920 889 1,118 1,076 Richmond 1,649 1,722 1,695 1,554 Rose Lake 847 937 1,231 1,373 Sherman 847 949 1,081 1,042 Sylvan 657 858 1,033 1,099 8

Table 1.2 Population Trends and Projections, Osceola County 1910-2010 (Source: US Census Data) Year 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Osceola 17,889 15,221 12,806 13,309 13,797 13,595 14,838 18,928 20,146 23,197 23,528 25,190 27,486 Population Osceola % +0.2-14.9-15.9 +3.9 +3.7-1.5 +9.1 +27.6 +6.4 +15.1 +1.4 +7.1 +9.1 Change Figure 1.2 Population Trends and Projections, Osceola County 1910-2010 (Source: US Census Data, West Michigan Regional Planning Commission) 30,000 Osceola County 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 9

Seasonal Population Fluctuations Another important population factor to consider is the periodic fluctuation in seasonal population levels and locations. Hazards that are present during tourist seasons should have their risks estimated with respect to the county s peak population. Hazards present primarily during the off-season should have their risks estimated using permanent population figures. It is believed the inflow of seasonal and recreational residents is greatest in the summer (particularly around the holidays of Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day) and during deer hunting season in the month of November. All areas of the county experience seasonal visitors, however it is believed that the inflow is greatest around the county s lakes and the northern half of the county. 10

Location Osceola County is located in the mid-west-central region of Michigan s Lower Peninsula. The county is north of Michigan s more developed areas, but is within an hour s drive of Michigan s larger cities such as Grand Rapids (directly south), Muskegon (southwest), and Midland (southeast). Osceola County is surrounded by Mecosta County on its south, Clare County to its east, Wexford and Missaukee counties on its north, and Lake County to the west. Osceola County is 60 miles east of Lake Michigan, 175 miles north of the Michigan/Indiana border, 145 miles southwest of the Straits of Mackinac, and 90 miles west of Saginaw Bay/ Lake Huron. A number of regional and larger cities are within traveling distance from the county including Grand Rapids (75 miles), Traverse City (60 miles), Lansing (120 miles), Detroit (200 miles), Chicago (260 miles), and Cleveland (350 miles). Figures 1.3 and 1.4 illustrate this information. 11

Figure 1.3 Michigan Base Map (Source: U.S. Geological Survey, 1972 limited update 1990) County boundaries and names, county seats, rivers 12

Figure 1.4 Michigan Reference Map (Source: The National Atlas of the United States of America. General Reference, U.S. Geological Survey 2001) Shaded relief map with state boundaries, forest cover, place names, major highways 13

Age Distribution Osceola County s age distribution differs from Michigan s in a number of ways. In 1990, the county s median age was 33.4, which was nearly one full year older than Michigan s median of 32.6. In 1990, Osceola County had a higher percentage of people between 55 and 84, and a higher percentage of people between 5 and 17. Conversely, the county had a lower percentage of residents between 18 and 44. Other categories (under 5 and 45-54) were similar to Michigan. In 2000, the difference between the county and the state grew. Osceola County s median age of 37.6 was more than two years greater than Michigan s median age of 35.5. In 2000, Osceola County had a higher percentage of people between 55 and 84, and a higher percentage of people between 5 and 17. Conversely, the county had a lower percentage of residents between 18 and 44. Other categories (under 5 and 45-54) were similar to Michigan. These county-state differences are the same as those found in the 1990 ratios. The primary changes that occurred in the county between 1990 and 2000 included the overall aging of the population, with the median age increasing from 33.4 to 37.6 years. The percentage of those in the 5-17, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 85+ age groups increased during the ten-year period, while all others decreased as a percentage. Several groups decreased numerically as well, which is significant since the overall population increased. The age groups that decreased include under 5, 18-24, and 25-34. In 2010 the median age in Osceola County grew even older than 2000 at 41.8 years, more than four years older than in 2000. Also in 2010 Osceola County s median age maintained an average of about two years older than Michigan s 38.9 average age much like the county was two years older in 2000. The percentage of those in the 5-17, 18-24, 25-34 age group decreased during the ten-year period. The percentage of those in the below five years old, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-84, and 85+ age groups increased during the ten-year period. 14

Table 1.3 Age Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) Age Groups Osceola County Michigan Number Percent Percent Under 5 1,454 6.2 6.0 5-19 4,959 21.1 20.7 20-24 1,189 5.1 6.8 25-34 2,356 10.0 11.8 35-44 2,719 11.6 12.9 45-54 3,614 15.4 15.3 55-64 3,229 13.7 12.7 65-84 3,600 15.3 11.8 85 and Over 408 1.7 1.9 Total 23,528 100.0 100.0 Median Age 41.8 -- 38.9 Figure 1.5 Age Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) 25 Percentage of Population 20 15 10 5 Osceola County Michigan 0 Under 5 5-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-84 85 and Over Age Group 15

Gender Distribution In 1990, Osceola County s male-female distribution was almost even, with males accounting for 49.5 percent of the population and females accounting for 50.5 percent. This is a full percentage point more males than in Michigan as-a-whole. The fact that there are more females (in both the county and in Michigan) is normal since women s life expectancy has increased in recent decades to be higher than men s. In 2000, Osceola County s male-female distribution had become closer to matching that of the state. The county s ratio did not change a great deal, but Michigan s male-female ratio narrowed. In 2010, the counties male-female distribution did not change much, but the ratio narrowed even more. Table 1.4 Gender Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) Gender Osceola County Michigan Number Percent Percent Male 11,719 49.8 49.0 Female 11,809 50.2 51.0 Total 23,528 100.0 100.0 Figure 1.6 Gender Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) 51.5 51 50.5 Percentage of Population 50 49.5 49 Male Female 48.5 Osceola 48 County Hazard Mitigation Plan - Part 1 Community Profile Osceola County Michigan 16

Racial Distribution The U.S. Census data provides insight into other social characteristics of our country, state, and of Osceola County s residents. Once again, for comparison purposes, statistics for the State of Michigan are also included. Osceola County is somewhat less diverse than the state as a whole. The racial distribution of Osceola County is different from Michigan s distribution. Table 1.5 shows the County s population distribution compared to that of Michigan. Table 1.5 Racial Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) Race Osceola County Michigan Number Percent* Percent* White 22,791 96.9 78.9 Black 133 0.6 14.2 American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 128 0.6 0.6 Asian or Pacific Islander 49 0.2 2.4 Other Race 43 0.2 1.5 Two or more Races 378 1.6 2.3 Total 23,528 100.0 100.0 *Percentage may not equal 100 due to rounding Figure 1.7 Racial Distribution Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) 120 Percentage of Population 100 80 60 40 20 Osceola County Michigan 0 White Black American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut Asian or Pacific Islander Other Race Two or more Races 17

Educational Level Educational attainment is important for several reasons, many of which connect with quality of life and employability issues. A review of data for individuals age 25 and over shows that Osceola County has a slightly lower percentage of high school graduates and a significantly lower percentage of college graduates when compared to the state as a whole, as illustrated in Table 1.6. Table 1.6 Educational Level Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) Educational Level (Population 25 years and over) Osceola County Percent* Michigan Percent* Less than 9 th grade 4.2 3.5 9 th - 12 th grade, no diploma 9.3 8.1 High school graduate or equivalency 43.1 31.1 Some college, no degree 22.2 23.8 Associate s degree 8.8 8.2 Bachelor s degree 8.4 15.6 Graduate or professional degree 4.1 9.7 *Percentage may not equal 100 due to rounding Figure 1.8 Educational Level Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) Percentage of Population 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Osceola County Michigan 18

Primary Language Primary language is important in mitigation planning when considering mechanisms of warning and communications. The primary language spoken at home in Osceola County is less diverse than Michigan as a whole. A higher percentage of Osceola County households, 95.3%, speak only English at home compared to the State of Michigan, 91.0%. Housing Housing in Osceola County is an important consideration in hazard mitigation since it is where the population lives and makes up a large part of a community s wealth. The location and quality of housing can influence the amount of damage a community sustains in many types of emergencies. In 2010, Osceola County had 13,632 housing units. Of the total figure, 9,222 were occupied, which is a lower percentage than Michigan as a whole, 84.4%, due to the popularity of Osceola County for seasonal housing (i.e. cottages and cabins). These figures show some special needs related to hazard mitigation and housing. Since there are more seasonal residents and weekend visitors there are often different types of emergencies to respond to such as boating or other recreational accidents. The large number of vacant houses can also create problems if property issues go unchecked for long periods of time (i.e. broken pipes, gas leaks, etc.) Table 1.7 Housing Tenure Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) Housing Tenure Osceola County Number Percent of Total Percent of Occupied Units Michigan Percent of Total Percent of Occupied Units Total Housing Units 13,632 100.00 -- 100.00 -- Total Occupied 9,222 67.6 100.00 84.4 100.00 Housing Units Owner-Occupied 7,323 53.7 79.4 62.1 73.5 Units Renter-Occupied 1,899 13.9 20.6 22.3 26.5 Units Vacant Housing Units 4,410 32.4 -- 15.6 -- 19

Figure 1.9 Housing Tenure Comparison, Osceola County and Michigan, 2010 (Source: US Census Data) Percentage of Total *Percentage of Occupied 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Osceola County Michgian 20

Land Use and Zoning Osceola County adopted a master land use plan in late 2002. Additionally, eight of the sixteen townships within the county have enacted zoning ordinances. These include Richmond, Osceola, Cedar, LeRoy, Hartwick, Highland, Sherman, and Burdell Townships. Zoning represents a legal means for communities to regulate private property to achieve orderly land use relationships. The zoning ordinance consists of an official zoning map and the zoning ordinance text. The official zoning map divides the communities into different zones or districts within which certain uses are permitted and others are not. The zoning ordinance text notes the uses which are permitted and establishes regulations to control various issues. Local control of land use, as provided for by zoning, is an accepted legal practice. The principles on which zoning is based include the need to: Balance the interests of all landowners and residents with the rights of individual landowners; Help provide a long term vision for the community; Protect the environment; Ensure development is adequately served by roads and utilities; Achieve the quality of life desired by residents; Provide fair and consistent review of development needs; and, Protect the public health, safety and welfare. 21

Osceola County is a rural county with almost three-quarters of its population located in the townships. The majority of its residential, retail, and industrial development has occurred in the county s southernmost half. No historic districts have been established or are currently proposed within the county. The county s existing land use is detailed in Table 1.8a and illustrated in Figure 1.10. Tables 1.8b-e, Existing Land Use Distribution, identify general land use distribution as of 2001. Distribution is shown by quadrants and each of the townships within those quadrants (with cities and villages counted as within those township areas). Figures 1.11 through 1.14, a-e, illustrate existing land use distribution for the county as well as by quadrant and each township within the quadrant. Figures 1.11 through 1.14, f-g, illustrate existing and future land use maps, respectively. The Future Land Use Plan is not a parcel-by-parcel plan for the future, but shows the general goals of the county down to quarter sections, or sometimes quarter-quarter sections or smaller. Table 1.8a Existing Land Use, Osceola County Area Total Acres Total % Total Acres Agricultural Commercial Industrial Modular Multiple- Family Open Space Public Single Family Water (not included in total) 364,905 151,429 610 2,067 46 0 198,070 4,169 8,518 3,571 100.0 41.5 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 54.3 1.1 2.3 1.0 22

Figure 1.10 Existing Land Use, Osceola County Osceola County Agricultural (41.50%) Commercial (0.20%) Industrial (0.60%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (54.30%) Public (1.10%) Single Family (2.30%) 23

Northeast Quadrant The Northeast Quadrant contains the townships of Highland, Hartwick, Marion, and Middle Branch, as well as the Village of Marion. The land use distribution is not equal across the four township areas (and the Village of Marion). Highland and Marion townships have higher proportions of agriculture. Hartwick and Middle Branch townships have higher proportions of open space. Middle Branch Township has a large percentage of the Single-Family land use distribution, while Marion has a high percentage of the Commercial and Public land uses. When compared to the other quadrants, the Northeast quadrant has the highest concentration of agriculture, but the lowest proportion of open space, single family, public, and industrial uses. Only one quadrant (Northwest) has a lower concentration of commercial uses. The quadrant has 384 acres of surface water, accounting for 0.4 percent of the area, which is the smallest amount of water of the county s four quadrants. Table 1.8b Existing Land Use, Northeast Quadrant Area Total Acres Agricultural Commercial Industrial Modular Multiple- Family Open Space Public Single Family Water (not included in total) Total 92,850 46,111 89 125 0 0 44,720 310 1,499 384 Acres Total % 100.0 49.7 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 48.2 0.3 1.6 0.4 Highland 23,877 14,877 34 33 0 0 8,784 16 134 26 Marion 23,639 14,726 0 25 0 0 8,294 248 347 25 Hartwick 22,627 9,409 11 64 0 0 13,037 6 101 37 Middle Branch 22,707 7,099 44 3 0 0 14,605 40 917 16 24

Figure 1.11a Existing Land Use, Northeast Quadrant Northeast Quadrant Agricultural (49.70%) Commercial (0.10%) Industrial (0.10%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (48.20%) Public (0.30%) Single Family (1.60%) 25

Figure 1.11b Existing Land Use, Highland Township Highland Agricultural (62.31%) Commercial (0.14%) Industrial (0.14%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (36.79%) Public (0.07%) Single Family (0.56%) Figure 1.11c Existing Land Use, Marion Township (including Village of Marion) Marion Agricultural (62.30%) Commercial (0.00%) Industrial (0.11%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (35.09%) Public (1.05%) Single Family (1.47%) 26

Figure 1.11d Existing Land Use, Hartwick Township Hartwick Agricultural (41.58%) Commercial (0.05%) Industrial (0.28%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (57.62%) Public (0.03%) Single Family (0.45%) Figure 1.11e Existing Land Use, Middle Branch Township Middle Branch Agricultural (31.26%) Commercial (0.19%) Industrial (0.01%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (64.32%) Public (0.18%) Single Family (4.04%) 27

Figure 1.11f Existing Land Use Map, Northeast Quadrant 28

Figure 1.11g Future Land Use Map, Northeast Quadrant 29

Northwest Quadrant The Northwest Quadrant contains the townships of Burdell, LeRoy, Rose Lake, and Sherman. The quadrant also contains the villages of LeRoy and Tustin. The land distribution is not equal across the four township areas (and the villages). LeRoy and Sherman townships have a higher proportion of agricultural uses, while Burdell and Rose Lake townships have more open space. Rose Lake Township has a large proportion of the single family uses and LeRoy Township has a large percentage of public uses. When compared to the other quadrants, the Northwest quadrant is almost tied for the least amount of agriculture, but has the most open space. It is also nearly tied for the lowest amount of single-family land uses and it has the least commercial uses. The largest concentration of modular housing is located in the quadrant (in Burdell Township). The quadrant has 1,149 acres of surface water, accounting for 1.2 percent of the area, which is the second largest amount of water of the county s four quadrants. Table 1.8c Existing Land Use, Northwest Quadrant Area Total Acres Agricultural Commercial Industrial Modular Multiple- Family Open Space Public Single Family Water (not included in total) Total Acres 92,308 33,886 67 359 46 0 55,122 1,255 1,573 1,149 Total % 100.0 36.7 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.0 59.7 1.4 1.7 1.2 Burdell 23,835 7,223 21 52 46 0 15,883 352 256 133 LeRoy 22,411 9,119 20 172 0 0 12,425 502 174 104 Rose Lake 22,312 6,554 0 77 0 0 14,714 16 952 782 Sherman 23,750 10,990 26 58 0 0 12,100 385 191 120 30

Figure 1.12a Existing Land Use, Northwest Quadrant Northwest Quadrant Agricultural (36.70%) Commercial (0.10%) Industrial (0.40%) Modular (0.10%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (59.70%) Public (1.40%) Single Family (1.70%) Figure 1.12b Existing Land Use, Burdell Township (Including Village of Tustin) Burdell Agricultural (30.30%) Commercial (0.09%) Industrial (0.22%) Modular (0.19%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (66.64%) Public (1.48%) Single Family (0.56%) 31

Figure 1.12c Existing Land Use, LeRoy Township (Including Village of LeRoy) LeRoy Agricultural (40.69%) Commercial (0.09%) Industrial (0.77%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (55.44%) Public (2.24%) Single Family (0.46%) Figure 1.12d Existing Land Use, Rose Lake Township Rose Lake Agricultural (29.37%) Commercial (0.00%) Industrial (0.35%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (65.95%) Public (0.07%) Single Family (3.50%) 32

Figure 1.12e Existing Land Use, Sherman Township Sherman Agricultural (46.27%) Commercial (0.11%) Industrial (0.24%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (50.95%) Public (1.62%) Single Family (0.51%) 33

Figure 1.12f Existing Land Use Map, Northwest Quadrant 34

Figure 1.12g Future Land Use Map, Northwest Quadrant 35

Southwest Quadrant The Southwest quadrant contains the townships of Lincoln, Richmond, Cedar, and Hersey. The quadrant also contains the Village of Hersey and the City of Reed City. The land distribution is not equal across the four township areas (and the village and city). Richmond Township has a higher proportion of agricultural uses, while Lincoln, Cedar and Hersey Townships have more open space (especially Cedar Township). Richmond and Hersey Townships have a large proportion of the single-family uses and Richmond and Lincoln Townships have a large percentage of public uses. Hersey and Richmond Townships have a larger portion of industrial than the other two townships and Richmond has the majority of commercial uses. When compared to the other quadrants, the Southwest quadrant falls in the middle related to open space and agriculture. The quadrant has the highest percentage of single-family, public, industrial, and commercial land uses of the county, due to the quadrant s inclusion of Hersey and Reed City (the county seat), and its location at the intersection of US-131 and US-10. The quadrant has 665 acres of surface water, accounting for 0.7 percent of the area, which is the second smallest amount of water of the county s four quadrants. Table 1.8d Existing Land Use, Southwest Quadrant Area Total Acres Agricultural Commercial Industrial Modular Multiple- Family Open Space Public Single Family Water (not included in total) Total Acres 89,817 37,284 218 1,322 0 0 46,462 1,794 2,737 665 Total % 100.0 41.5 0.2 1.5 0.0 0.0 51.7 2.0 3.0 0.7 Lincoln 22,628 9,802 20 191 0 0 11,660 602 351 244 Richmond 22,415 13,360 194 284 0 0 6,666 857 1,055 60 Cedar 22,417 4,619 0 0 0 0 17,491 3 304 351 Hersey 22,357 9,503 4 847 0 0 10,645 332 1,027 10 36

Figure 1.13a Existing Land Use, Southwest Quadrant Southwest Quadrant Agricultural (41.50%) Commercial (0.20%) Industrial (1.50%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (51.70%) Public (2.00%) Single Family (3.00%) Figure 1.13b Existing Land Use, Lincoln Township Lincoln Agricultural (43.32%) Commercial (0.09%) Industrial (0.84%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (51.53%) Public (2.66%) Single Family (1.55%) 37

Figure 1.13c Existing Land Use, Richmond Township (Including Reed City and part of Village of Hersey) Richmond Agricultural (59.60%) Commercial (0.87%) Industrial (1.27%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (29.74%) Public (3.82%) Single Family (4.71%) Figure 1.13d Existing Land Use, Cedar Township Cedar Agricultural (20.60%) Commercial (0.00%) Industrial (0.00%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (78.03%) Public (0.01%) Single Family (1.36%) 38

Figure 1.13e Existing Land Use, Hersey Township (Including part of Village of Hersey) Hersey Agricultural (42.51%) Commercial (0.02%) Industrial (3.79%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (47.61%) Public (1.48%) Single Family (4.59%) 39

Figure 1.13f Existing Land Use Map, Southwest Quadrant 40

Figure 1.13g Future Land Use Map, Southwest Quadrant 41

Southeast Quadrant The Southeast quadrant contains the townships of Osceola, Evart, Orient, and Sylvan. The quadrant also contains the City of Evart. The land distribution is not equal across the four township areas (and the city). Agriculture is distributed evenly across the quadrant, but Evart Township has a smaller percentage of open space than the other townships. Evart Township has a larger proportion of single-family and public uses. When compared to the other quadrants, the Southeast quadrant has the smallest percentage of agriculture, but has a larger proportion of open space than two of the other quadrants. The quadrant has almost as much single family space as the Southwest quadrant and also has the second highest percentage of commercial uses. The quadrant has 1,373 acres of surface water, accounting for 1.5 percent of the area, which is the largest amount of water of the county s four quadrants. Table 1.8e Existing Land Use, Southeast Quadrant Area Total Acres Agricultural Commercial Industrial Modular Multiple- Family Open Space Public Single Family Water (not included in total) Total Acres 89,930 34,148 236 261 0 0 51,766 810 2,709 1,373 Total % 100.0 38.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.0 57.6 810 2,709 1,373 Osceola 22,308 8,369 81 134 0 0 12,618 528 579 51 Evart 22,559 9,244 40 82 0 0 11,873 227 1,092 811 Orient 22,621 8,250 91 39 0 0 13,829 38 373 391 Sylvan 22,442 8,285 24 6 0 0 13,446 17 665 120 42

Figure 1.14a Existing Land Use, Southeast Quadrant Southeast Quadrant Agricultural (38.00%) Commercial (0.30%) Industrial (0.30%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (57.60%) Public (0.90%) Single Family (27.09%) Figure 1.14b Existing Land Use, Osceola Township (Including part of City of Evart) Osceola Agricultural (37.52%) Commercial (0.36%) Industrial (0.60%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (56.56%) Public (2.37%) Single Family (2.60%) 43

Figure 1.14c Existing Land Use, Evart Township (Including part of City of Evart) Evart Agricultural (40.98%) Commercial (0.18%) Industrial (0.36%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (52.63%) Public (1.01%) Single Family (4.84%) Figure 1.14d Existing Land Use, Orient Township Orient Agricultural (36.47%) Commercial (0.40%) Industrial (0.17%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (61.13%) Public (0.17%) Single Family (1.65%) 44

Figure 1.14e Existing Land Use, Sylvan Township Sylvan Agricultural (36.92%) Commercial (0.11%) Industrial (0.03%) Modular (0.00%) Multiple-Family (0.00%) Open Space (59.91%) Public (0.08%) Single Family (2.96%) 45

Figure 1.14f Existing Land Use Map, Southeast Quadrant 46

Figure 1.14g Future Land Use Map, Southeast Quadrant 47

Climate Osceola County s weather, like all of Michigan, has a strong influence on its way of life, affecting agriculture, housing, recreation, transportation and other activities and infrastructure. Table 1.9 and Figures 1.15a and b provide information about the area s climate. In Osceola County, January is generally the coldest month (29.2 F average daily maximum temperature) and August tends to be the warmest month (80.8 F average daily maximum temperature). June has the highest average precipitation (3.58 inches) and February has the lowest average precipitation (1.56 inches) but also has the greatest average depth of snow. Prevailing winds are from the West, and although the county regularly receives hazardous weather patterns that travel over Lake Michigan, it is far enough away from the lake that the intervening land tempers some of these conditions a bit. Table 1.9 Osceola County Climate (Source: US Department of Agriculture) Temperature ( F) Precipitation (inches) Average Average Average Month Average Daily Daily Average Depth of Daily Maximum Minimum Snow January 29.2 12.9 21.5 1.81 6.1 February 31.1 12.6 21.9 1.56 8.3 March 40.2 20.1 30.2 1.76 8.0 April 55.5 31.4 43.5 2.06 1.4 May 68.4 42.2 55.3 3.05 0 June 77.6 51.9 64.8 3.58 0 July 77.0 54.9 66.0 2.39 0 August 80.8 54.0 67.4 3.43 0 September 71.7 46.2 59.0 3.37 0 October 59.9 36.4 48.2 2.29 0 November 43.9 26.9 35.4 2.59 2.4 December 32.6 18.6 25.6 1.71 3.8 Year 55.7 34.0 44.9 29.60 -- 48

Figure 1.15a Average Minimum and Maximum Temperature by Month (Source: US Department of Agriculture) 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Average Daily Maximum Temperature ( F) Average Daily Minimum Temperature ( F) Figure 1.15b Average Precipitation by Month (Source: US Department of Agriculture) 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Average Precipitation (inches) Average Precipitation (inches) 49

Soils Ten primary soil associations exist within Osceola County. A soil association is an area of land that has a distinctive proportion of soil types. It normally consists of one or more major soils and at least one minor soil. Two different soil associations may contain the same soil types, but in different proportions. The soil survey of Osceola County shows that much of the land is suitable for crops. Soil associations #4 through #6 (Isabella-McBride-Montcalm, Nester-Kawkawlin-Sims, and Nester-Kalkaska-Menominee) are the most suitable for growing crops. These soils cover approximately 40% of the county s land area. Nester-Kawkawlin-Sims (Menominee) Association - well drained to very poorly drained loamy soils on level to undulating uplands Rubicon-Croswell-Au Gres Association - well drained to somewhat poorly drained sandy soils on level to undulating plains Lupton-Markey-Wheatley Association - poorly drained and very poorly drained muck and sand soils in stream valleys Topography Glacial activity as recently as 12,000 years ago made a major impact on Osceola County s topography. Most of Osceola County is a hilly moraine, formed between the Lake Michigan and Lake Huron lobes of the ice sheet that covered the county many years ago. The glaciated material that makes up this moraine was estimated to be 1,200 feet thick in the north-central part of the county. There also are two glacial till plains in the county. One is in the southwestern part of the county and the other is in the eastern and northeaster portion of the county. Two major outwash plains are a part of the topography. One is along the Muskegon River in the eastern and southeastern part of the county. The other is in the northwestern corner of the county and extends into Wexford County. Elevations range from around 1,000 feet above mean sea level to about 1,300 feet, with the highest areas located in the north-central part of the county. The county s highest elevation, located near Dighton in Sherman Township, is 1,690 feet above mean sea level and is also the highest elevation in Michigan s Lower Peninsula. The lowest elevation in Sherman Township (1,266 feet) is higher than most other townships highest points. The lowest elevation in Osceola County is 988 feet above mean sea level in Hersey Township, along the valley of the Muskegon River. 50

Water Features & Wetlands Figure 1.16 shows various water features in the county, including streams, lakes, and watersheds. Major features include the Muskegon River, which enters the county on the east side (Sylvan Township) and travels west through Evart to exit the county on its southern border (Hersey Township). The Hersey River flows south through Reed City and the Village of Hersey before flowing into the Muskegon River. Many other streams and creeks flow into the Muskegon River in Osceola County. The Muskegon River eventually flows through Big Rapids and into Lake Michigan at the City of Muskegon. In addition to the Muskegon River, the Hersey River, and the many streams and creeks that flow into the Muskegon River, there are several other smaller rivers and streams in Osceola County. The Middle Branch River is one of the larger rivers and flows through the county s northeast quadrant. In the county s northwest quadrant, several streams including North Branch, East Branch, Beaver Creek, and Sprague Creek, make up a portion of the Pine River Watershed. The Pine River is near the Osceola/ Lake County border. Osceola County, like most counties in Michigan, has several lakes. None of the lakes are very large compared to lakes in surrounding counties (Lake Mitchell, Lake Cadillac, Lake Missaukee, Houghton Lake, Higgins Lake, Portage Lake, Bear Lake, Hardy Dam Pond and others) but the many smaller lakes provide recreation opportunities and are popular for residential development. Some of the county s larger lakes include Rose Lake, Hogback Lake, Wells Lake, and Silver Lake (Rose Lake Township); Diamond Lake (Burdell Township); Sunrise Lake and Hicks Lake (Hartwick Township); Big Lake (Orient Township); Big Stone Lake, Tiff Lake, and Saddlebag Lake (Evart Township); Todd Lake (Lincoln Township); and Center Lake (Sherman Township). 51

Figure 1.16 Osceola County Wetland Map (Source: Michigan Department of Environmental Quality) 52

Local Government Government facilities may have a large impact on how emergencies are handled. They provide services to the public such as shelter in times of disasters. They also serve as a way to distribute information on how to handle emergencies and disasters. Table 1.10 Osceola County Local Government Osceola County Osceola County 301 West Upton Reed City, MI 49677 Cities Evart 200 South Main Street Evart, MI 49631 Hersey P.O. Box 82 Hersey, MI 49639 Le Roy 101 South Bevins Street Le Roy, MI 49655 Burdell 310 South Neilson Street Tustin, MI 49688 Osceola 8995 95th Avenue Evart, MI 49631 Lincoln 20920 9 Mile Road Reed City, MI 49677 Evart 200 South Main Street Evart, MI 49631 Rose Lake 15953 West 16 Mile Road Le Roy, MI 49655 Middle Branch 2963 15 Mile Road Marion, MI 49665 Hersey 108 South Main Street Hersey, MI 49639 Sylvan 4866 Sylvan Road Evart, MI 49631 Villages Townships Reed City 227 East Lincoln Reed City, MI 49677 Marion 118 East Main Street Marion, MI 49665 Tustin 310 South Neilson Street Tustin, MI 49688 Le Roy 101 Bevins Street Le Roy, MI 49655 Cedar 9115 170th Avenue Reed City, MI 49677 Richmond 4575 Park Street Reed City, MI 49677 Marion 204 East Main Marion, MI 49665 Hartwick 9042 15 Mile Road Evart, MI 49631 Sherman 14929 21 Mile Road Tustin, MI 49688 Orient 2972 30th Avenue Sears, MI 49679 Highland 21009 110th Avenue Marion, MI 49665 53

Public Safety Services Table 1.11 Osceola County Public Safety Services Law Enforcement Michigan State Police Post #62 (231) 832-2221 825 South Chestnut Street Reed City, MI 49677 Evart City Police Department (231) 734-5911 137 N River Street Evart, MI 49631 Evart Volunteer Fire Department (231) 734-5521 PO Box 661 Evart, MI 49631 Hersey Township Fire Department (231) 832-4633 200 South Main Street Hersey, MI 49639 Le Roy - Rose Lake Fire Department (231) 768-5351 100 South Main Street Le Roy, MI 49655 Osceola County EMS 306 North Patterson/220 th Ave Reed City, MI 49677 Fire Services Lincoln Township Fire Department (231) 832-3255 Box 120 Reed City, MI 49677 Emergency Medical Emergency Management Osceola County Emergency Management (231) 832-6172 4325 North Patterson/220 th Ave Reed City, MI 49677 Meceola Central Dispatch (231) 796-2221 20701 Northland Dr. Paris, MI 49338 Osceola County Sheriff (231) 832-2288 325 West Upton Reed City, MI 49677 Reed City Police Department (231) 832-3743 227 E Lincoln Ave Reed City, MI 49677 Marion Community Fire Department (231) 743-6801 9615 West Pine Road Marion, MI 49665 Reed City Fire Department (231) 832-5334 227 East Lincoln Street Reed City, MI 49677 Tustin Area Fire Department (231) 829-3551 220 South Nielson Street Tustin, MI 49688 Reed City Hospital, Osceola County 7665 220th Avenue Reed City, MI 49677 54

Transportation Several modes of transportation are available within Osceola County, but movement into, out of, and within the county is primarily by the use of private automobiles. Osceola County is served by a number of major transportation routes, including two interstate highways (US-10 and US-131) and three state highways (M-61, M-115, and M-66). US-131 serves as Western Michigan s primary north-south corridor and crosses the western portion of Osceola County in a north-south direction. Annual Average 24-Hour Traffic Volumes are illustrated in Figure 1.17. Commercial traffic averages range from 1,500 to 1,700 vehicles per day. Access points in Osceola County currently exist at US-10 (Reed City), 11 Mile Road (Ashton), 14 Mile Road (LeRoy), and 20 Mile Road (Tustin). US-131 links Osceola County to Big Rapids, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, and other points to the south; and Cadillac to the north (as well as Traverse City, Petoskey, and the Straits of Mackinac). US-10 serves as one of the state s major east-west corridors and crosses the southern portion of Osceola County in an east-west orientation. The two-lane road is an unlimited access surface highway (unlimited in the sense of not having access limited to only the use of directional entrance/exit ramps). Average 24-hour traffic volumes range from 5,100 vehicles east of Evart to 8,300 vehicles east of Reed City. Commercial counts average 520 daily vehicles across the entire length of the county. US-10 widens to four lanes in areas around Reed City and Evart. US-10 links Osceola County to Baldwin and Ludington to the west, and Clare, Midland, and Bay City to the east. M-66 crosses the eastern portion of Osceola County in a north-south orientation. The two-lane road has unlimited access. Average 24-hour traffic volumes average 2,500 vehicles across the length of the county. Commercial traffic volumes average 170 vehicles across the entire county. M-66 links Osceola County to many smaller communities to the south, eventually crossing I-96 near Ionia and I-94 at Battle Creek. To the north are Lake City and Kalkaska. M-115 is a two-lane, full-access road that crosses Osceola County s northeast corner. Traffic counts range from 5,000 to 6,400 vehicles, with commercial 24-hour counts averaging 610 vehicles. M-115 links the county s northeast quadrant to Cadillac (to the north) and US-27 (to the southeast). There is also a connection with surface highway M-61 in the northeast of the county. Although only a few miles of this highway is located in Osceola County, it provides direct access from M-66 and M-115 to the city of Harrison, and the cities of Gladwin and Standish, beyond. 55

In addition to the state and federal routes described, the county and individual communities maintain a complete local system of streets and roads. The Osceola County Road Commission maintains local roads and bridges. Generally roads and bridges are maintained in good condition, although they include a combination of both paved and graveled surfaces. County roads are named in an organized manner beginning from the south, as you travel to the north, they are named by mile in increasing order. Beginning from the east, as you travel to the west, roads are named by avenue in one-mile increments in increasing order. Major local connectors include Class A roads from the Village of Hersey leading to both US-10 and 210th Avenue and 80th Avenue, which connect US-10 and M-115. Osceola County Road Commission 800 South Chestnut Street Reed City, Michigan 49677 Osceola County is the Michigan Department of Transportation s North Region Office, which serves Osceola and 23 other counties. Although one active railroad passes through the northeast corner of the county, there are no longer any active passenger rail services serving the area. Osceola County does not have any water ports. The closest such transportation nodes are located in the communities of Ludington and Manistee which are approximately 50 miles west of the county. The Evart Municipal Airport is the only airport located within Osceola County. The airport is primarily used for business and industry and does not have regularly scheduled passenger flights. Depending on your location within the county, the closest major airport may be found in Grand Rapids, Saginaw, or Traverse City. Mecosta-Osceola Area Transit Authority provides community transportation within those two counties. Specific routes and times are not used, but for a small fee individuals will be transported to any location within the two counties. In addition, the Indian Trails bus line located in Reed City provides bus service into and out of the county. 56

Figure 1.17 Annual Average 24-Hour Traffic Volume, 2012 (Source: Michigan Department of Transportation) 57

Figure 1.18 Osceola County Road Map (Source: Google Maps) 58

Community Profile Sources & Development The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team utilized a variety of plans and studies when producing the original drafts of this document. The Osceola County Future Land Use Plan, completed November 2002, was used extensively for information about the county s physical features, demographics, and other information. The Future Land Use Plan also included an extensive review of all of the individual land use plans within the county. Both plans also used the USDA Soil Survey, other community plans, and plans/information maintained by the Osceola County Emergency Management Department. The Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy maintained by the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission was used in conjunction with US Census data. Finally, since each community had opportunities to include information in the plan, each community contributed information based upon their own more locally specific experiences and sources of information. Staff from the Emergency Management and Homeland Security Division of the Michigan Department of State Police completed additional refinements to the plan, with the approval of the Osceola Emergency Management Department and Osceola County Mitigation Planning Team. That additional information, along with National Weather Service records (available online through the National Climatic Data Center), was used to update many sections of the document. This added information was provided to and distributed among planning team members and local jurisdiction representatives for review, before a final draft was made available for public review and input according to the Outreach & Involvement Strategy. 59