Hazard Mitigation Planning Team

Home , Chengwatana State Forest, Undertaking (The Nevers)

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Plan Goals and Authority...... 2 1.2 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) ...... 2 1.3 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) ...... 3 1.4 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) ...... 3 1.5 Participation ...... 3

Section 2: Mitigation Plan Update ...... 4 2.1 Planning Process ...... 4 2.1.1 Plan Administrators ...... 6 2.1.2 Emergency Manager Role and Responsibilities ...... 6 2.1.3 The Mitigation Steering Committee ...... 6 2.1.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team ...... 7 2.1.5 Participating Jurisdictions...... 8 2.1.6 Meetings and Participation ...... 9 2.1.7 Additional Meetings and Participation ...... 12 2.1.8 Partners and Stakeholders ...... 13 2.1.9 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans and Studies ...... 14 2.1.10 Participation and Data Request ...... 16 2.1.11 Summary of the Planning Process & Significant Plan Updates ...... 17 2.2 Changes Made During this Plan Update ...... 17

Section 3: Community Profile ...... 19 3.1 General Overview ...... 20 3.1.1 Historical Setting ...... 21 3.1.2 City & Township Government ...... 22 3.1.3 Incorporated Municipalities of Chisago County ...... 22 3.1.4 Townships of Chisago County ...... 25 3.2 Physical Characteristics ...... 27 3.2.1 Climate and Precipitation ...... 27 3.2.2 Geology ...... 30 3.2.3 Hydrology ...... 32 3.2.4 Chisago County Hydrology ...... 33 3.2.5 Rivers, Lakes, Wetlands ...... 33 3.2.6 Groundwater ...... 35 3.2.7 Watersheds ...... 36 3.2.8 Land Cover ...... 38 3.2.9 Ecology ...... 38 3.2.10 Soil ...... 39 3.2.11 Topography ...... 41 3.2.12 Land Use ...... 41 3.3 Population and Demographics ...... 46 3.3.1 Projected Population ...... 46 3.3.2 Comparable Growth ...... 46

ii 3.3.3 Population by Age Groups ...... 47 3.3.4 Households ...... 47 3.3.5 Special Populations ...... 48 3.4 Cultural Conditions ...... 50 3.4.1 Race and Ethnicity ...... 50 3.4.2 Level of Education ...... 51 3.4.3 Socioeconomic Conditions: Income ...... 51 3.4.4 Employment ...... 52 3.4.5 Occupation ...... 52 3.4.6 Commercial Trends ...... 52 3.4.7 Faith Based Community ...... 53 3.4.8 Economic Conditions ...... 54 3.4.9 Superfund ...... 54 3.4.10 Future Development ...... 55 3.4.11 Crime ...... 55 3.5 Critical Infrastructure ...... 56 3.5.1 Roads ...... 56 3.5.2 Railroads ...... 57 3.5.3 Air Transportation ...... 58 3.5.4 Transit ...... 58 3.5.5 Trails ...... 58 3.5.6 Pipelines ...... 59 3.5.7 Sewer and Water Systems...... 61 3.5.8 Public Wastewater Treatment Facilities ...... 61 3.5.9 Water Control Structures ...... 64 3.5.10 Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund ...... 64 3.5.11 Public Water Accesses ...... 64 3.5.12 Emergency Response Capabilities ...... 66 3.5.13 Medical Facilities ...... 66 3.5.14 Fire Services ...... 68 3.5.15 Public Safety ...... 70 3.5.16 Emergency warning systems ...... 70 3.5.17 Communication Facilities ...... 70 3.5.18 Utilities ...... 71 3.5.19 Power Facilities ...... 71 3.5.20 Energy Sector ...... 71 3.5.21 Schools ...... 72

Section 4: Risk Assessment ...... 74 4.1 Hazard Profile ...... 74 4.1.1 Risk Assessment Process ...... 76 4.1.2 Probability of Future Occurrences ...... 76 4.1.3 Hazard Impact...... 77 4.1.4 Impact Magnitudes ...... 78 4.2 Risk ...... 79 4.3 Flood ...... 81 4.3.1 Flood Risk ...... 81

iii

4.3.2 Flood History in Chisago County ...... 82 4.3.3 Major Declared Disasters for Flood ...... 83 4.3.4 Mitigation in the Past Five Years ...... 83 4.3.5 Vulnerability ...... 85 4.3.6 Flood and Climate Change ...... 89 4.3.7 Relationship to other Hazards ...... 90 4.4 Hazardous Material ...... 91 4.4.1 Hazardous Materials Risk ...... 92 4.4.2 Hazardous Material History in Chisago County ...... 92 4.4.3 Presidential Declared Disasters for Hazardous Material ...... 92 4.4.4 Mitigation in the Past Five Years ...... 92 4.4.5 Vulnerability ...... 93 4.4.6 Hazardous Material Release and Climate Change ...... 93 4.4.7 Relationship to other Hazards ...... 93 4.5 Infectious Disease ...... 94 4.5.1 Definitions of Infectious Diseases included in the table below ...... 94 4.5.2 Infectious Disease Risk ...... 96 4.5.3 Infectious Disease History in Chisago County ...... 97 4.5.4 Presidential Declared Disasters for Infectious Disease ...... 98 4.5.5 Mitigation in the Past Five Years ...... 98 4.5.6 Vulnerability ...... 98 4.5.7 Infectious Disease and Climate Change ...... 98 4.5.8 Relationship to other Hazards ...... 98 4.6 Severe Summer Storms ...... 99 4.6.1 Severe Summer Storms Risk ...... 100 4.6.2 Severe Summer Storms History in Chisago County ...... 100 4.6.3 Mitigation Actions for the Past Five Years...... 102 4.6.4 Vulnerability ...... 103 4.6.5 Severe Summer Storms and Climate Change ...... 103 4.6.6 Relationship to other Hazards ...... 103 4.7 Structural Fires and Wildfires ...... 104 4.7.1 Structural Fire Risk ...... 104 4.7.2 Fire History in Chisago County ...... 104 4.7.3 History of Wildfires in Chisago County ...... 105 4.7.4 Presidential Declared Disasters for Fire ...... 105 4.7.5 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years ...... 106 4.7.6 Vulnerability ...... 106 4.7.7 Fire and Climate Change ...... 107 4.7.8 Relationship to other Hazards ...... 107 4.8 Tornado ...... 108 4.8.1 Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale ...... 108 4.8.2 Tornado Risk...... 109 4.8.3 Tornado History in Chisago County ...... 110 4.8.4 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years ...... 112 4.8.5 Vulnerability ...... 112 4.8.6 Tornado and Climate Change ...... 112 4.8.7 Relationship to Other Hazards ...... 112

4.9 Water Supply Contamination ...... 113 4.9.1 Water Contamination Risk ...... 113 4.9.2 Water Supply Contamination History in Chisago County ...... 113 4.9.3 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years ...... 119 4.9.4 Water Supply Contamination and Climate Change ...... 121 4.9.5 Relationships with Other Hazards ...... 121 4.10 Winter Storms ...... 122 4.10.1 Severe Winter Storms Risk ...... 123 4.10.2 Severe Winter Storms History in Chisago County ...... 123 4.10.3 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years ...... 124 4.10.4 Vulnerability ...... 124 4.10.5 Severe Winter Storms and Climate Change ...... 125 4.10.6 Relationship to other Hazards ...... 125 4.11 Risk Assessment Summary ...... 125

Section 5: Capability Assessment ...... 133 5.1 What Is A Capability Assessment? ...... 133 5.1.1 Conducting the Capability Assessment ...... 133 5.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Plans, Policies, Programs and Ordinances ...... 133 5.1.3 Recommendations ...... 134 5.2 Fiscal, Technical, Administrative and Political Capabilities ...... 135 5.2.1 Technical Capability ...... 135 5.2.2 Recommendations ...... 136 5.2.3 Fiscal Capability ...... 136 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 136 5.3 Administrative Capability ...... 137 5.3.1 Recommendations ...... 137 5.4 Political Capability ...... 137 5.4.1 Recommendations ...... 138 5.5 Conclusions on Local Capability ...... 138 5.6 Linking the Capability Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Mitigation Strategy ...... 139

Section 6: Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Strategies ...... 140 6.1 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Development ...... 141 6.2 Strategies/Projects ...... 141 6.2.1 Mitigation Goals ...... 142 6.2.2 Hazard/Project Relationship...... 142 6.3 Project Prioritization ...... 149 6.4 Implementation Process ...... 160 6.5 Mitigating Projects ...... 160 6.6 Existing and New Plan Implementation ...... 170

Section 7: Monitor and Maintain the Mitigation Plan ...... 173 7.1 Development and Acceptance ...... 173 7.2 Process ...... 173 7.3 Evaluation ...... 174 7.4 Evaluation Criteria ...... 175

7.5 Update ...... 175 7.6 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ...... 176 7.7 Continued Public Involvement ...... 176 7.8 The Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee ...... 177 7.9 Participating Jurisdictions ...... 177

Appendix A: Inventory of Hazard Mitigation Programs, Policies, and Funding ...... 178

Appendix B: Historical Storm Events for Chisago County ...... 192

Appendix C: Participation………………………………………………………………………………………..211

List of Tables and Figures Figure 1: Planning Process ...... 5 Table 1: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Members and Local Officials ...... 7 Table 2: Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Table ...... 8 Table 3: Participating Jurisdictions ...... 8 Table 4: Five-Set Meetings Table ...... 10 Table 5: Date and Purpose of Meetings ...... 12 Table 6: Existing Plans and Studies Utilized in the Update ...... 14 Table 7: Participation Table (Data request) ...... 16 Figure 2: Map of Chisago County ...... 21 Figure 3: Minor Civil Divisions Chisago County ...... 27 Figure 4: Average Daily Temperatures ...... 28 Table 8: Average Temperature in Chisago County, Minnesota ...... 29 Figure 5: Average Annual Precipitation ...... 29 Table 9: Average Precipitation/Snowfall in Chisago County, Minnesota ...... 30 Figure 6: Bedrock Geology of Chisago County ...... 32 Figure 7: Shoreland of Chisago County ...... 34 Table 10: Principal Aquifers ...... 35 Figure 8: Chisago County Watersheds ...... 37 Table 11: Ecology ...... 38 Figure 9: Soils of Chisago County ...... 39 Table 12: Chisago County Land Use Statistics ...... 41 Figure 10: Land Use in Chisago County ...... 43 Table 13: Chisago County Population Projection...... 46 Table 14: Population of Chisago County since 1960 ...... 46 Table 15: Population Growth for Chisago County and Nearby Counties since 1990 ...... 46 Table 16: Chisago County’s Population by Age Groups in 2010 (U.S. Census) ...... 47 Table 17: Population, Households, and Average Household Size of Chisago County (U.S. Census) ...... 47 Table 18: Children ...... 48 Table 19: Elderly ...... 48 Table 20: Females ...... 49 Table 21: Population with a Disability ...... 49 Table 22: Institutionalized Population in Chisago County ...... 49 Table 23: Chisago County Poverty ...... 49 Table 24: Population of Chisago County by Race ...... 50 Table 25: Language Spoken at Home in Chisago County ...... 51 Table 26: Level of Education for Chisago County ...... 51 Table 27: Income and Benefits per Household in 2012 Chisago County ...... 51 Table 28: Employment Status in Chisago County Estimates from 2008-2012 ...... 52 Table 29: Occupations in Chisago County (Estimates from 2008-2012) ...... 52 Table 30: Employer Establishments ...... 53 Table 31: Breakdown of population affiliated with religious congregations ...... 53 Table 32: Most Common Industries in Chisago County ...... 54 Table 33: Chisago County Farm Profile ...... 54 Table 34: Crimes Known in 2015-2016 in Chisago County ...... 55 Figure 11: Chisago County Roadways ...... 57

vii

Table 35: FRA Railroad Track Classification ...... 57 Figure 12: Chisago County Transportation Map ...... 58 Figure 13: Pipeline Map Chisago County ...... 60 Figure 14: Chisago County Wastewater Treatment Facilities ...... 62 Figure 15: Chisago County Sanitary Sewers ...... 63 Table 36: Chisago County Dams ...... 64 Table 37: Public Water Accesses ...... 65 Figure 16: Chisago County Hospitals and Clinics ...... 67 Figure 17: Chisago County Ambulance Service Area ...... 68 Table 38: Fire Services in Chisago County ...... 69 Figure 18: Fire Response Districts ...... 69 Figure 19: Emergency Facilities in Chisago County ...... 70 Table 39: Heating Fuel for Households in Chisago County ...... 72 Figure 20: Schools in Chisago County ...... 72 Table 40: Hazards Identified for the Hazard Risk Assessment ...... 75 Table 41: Frequency/Probability ...... 77 Table 42: Regional Classification ...... 77 Table 43: Impact Assumptions ...... 78 Table 44: Impact Magnitude Ratings Descriptors ...... 78 Table 45: Impact Descriptors ...... 79 Table 46: Flood Hazard Risk Assessment ...... 82 Table 47: Declared Disasters for Flood in Chisago County ...... 83 Table 48: Hazard Mitigation Projects ...... 85 Figure 21: Chisago County HAZUS-MH Analysis (100-Year Flood) Map ...... 86 Table 49: Flood Vulnerability for Facilities in Chisago County ...... 86 Table 50: Building Loss and Exposure in Chisago County ...... 87 Figure 22: Chisago County HAZUS-MH Total Economic Loss Map ...... 87 Figure 23: Flood Damage Exposure in Chisago City ...... 88 Figure 24: Flood Damage Exposure in the center of Rush City ...... 89 Table 51: Hazardous Materials Risk by City for Chisago County...... 92 Table 52: Infectious Disease Risk by City in Chisago County ...... 97 Table 53: Communicable Disease and Number of Occurrences ...... 97 Table 54: National Weather Service Warning Terminology ...... 99 Table 55: Severe Summer Storms Risk by City in Chisago County ...... 100 Table 56: Thunderstorms in Chisago County from 2009 to 2015...... 101 Table 57: Major Declared Disasters for Severe Summer Storms for Chisago County ...... 102 Table 58: Fire Hazard Risk Assessment ...... 104 Table 59: Structural Fire Data for Chisago County from 2007 to 2013 ...... 105 Table 60: Fire Department Responses and Dollar Loss as Reported Via Minnesota Fire Incident Reporting System (MFIRS) ...... 105 Table 61: Declared Disasters for Chisago County ...... 106 Figure 25: Average Annual Number of Tornadoes per State ...... 108 Table 62: Fujita scale...... 109 Table 63: Tornado Risk by City in Chisago County ...... 109 Figure 26: Tornado Track for Chisago County ...... 111 Table 64: Major Declared Disasters for Tornado (Disaster declared for Chisago County)...... 111 Table 65: Water Contamination Risk by City in Chisago County ...... 113

viii

Figure 27: Nitrate Contamination in Minnesota Communities ...... 116 Table 66: Rank of Lakes Monitored ...... 118 Figure 28: 2014 Water Quality Monitoring Sites in Chisago County ...... 119 Table 67: NWS Warning Terminology Table ...... 122 Table 68: Winter Storms Risk by City in Chisago County ...... 123 Table 69: Major Declared Disasters for Winter Storms ...... 124 Figure 29: Disaster Declarations by Region in Minnesota ...... 126 Table 70: Chisago County Hazard Prioritization ...... 127 Table 71: Center City Hazard Prioritization ...... 127 Table 72: Chisago City Hazard Prioritization ...... 128 Table 73: Harris Hazard Prioritization ...... 128 Table 74: Lindstrom Hazard Prioritization ...... 129 Table 75: North Branch Hazard Prioritization ...... 129 Table 76: Rush City Hazard Prioritization ...... 130 Table 77: Shafer Hazard Prioritization ...... 130 Table 78: Stacy Hazard Prioritization ...... 131 Table 79: Taylor Falls Hazard Prioritization ...... 131 Table 80: Wyoming Hazard Prioritization ...... 132 Table 81: Unincorporated Chisago County Hazard Prioritization ...... 132 Table 82: Plans Policies Programs and Ordinances in Place ...... 134 Table 83: Assessment of Local Capability ...... 135 Table 84: Hazards Mitigated by Each Proposed Project ...... 143 Table 85: Prioritization Criteria ...... 150 Table 86: Project Score Card ...... 151 Table 87: Mitigation Projects ...... 160 Table 88: Programs/Policies/Plans ...... 170 Table 89: Jurisdictional Process for Mitigation Incorporation ...... 171 Table 90: Mitigation Strategies ...... 171 Table 91: Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Schedule ...... 175 Table B.1 Winter Weather Historical Events ...... 192 Table B.2 Summer Storm Historical Events ...... 194 Table B.3 Tornado Historical Events ...... 202 Table B.4 Flood and Flash Flood Historical Events ...... 202 Table B.5 Wildfire Historical Events...... 202

Section 1: Introduction

Every day, unforeseen circumstances threaten Chisago County. Possibilities ranging from loss of life to loss of property, or jobs can be experienced from natural, technological, and human-made hazards.

Hazard mitigation in Chisago County has become an increased priority due to an emphasis placed on preventing disasters and reducing damage prior to an actual event occurring. The stimulus of this is the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that units of local government (cities, townships, and counties) have an approved mitigation plan in order to receive mitigation grant funding from disasters occurring after November 1, 2004. The purposes of the Disaster Mitigation Act were fourfold:

1. Revise sections of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. 2. Govern costs of federal disaster assistance. 3. Organize a national program for pre-disaster mitigation. 4. Streamline dispensation of disaster relief.

Hazard mitigation planning is a collaborative process that jurisdictions undertake to develop a plan that outlines how they will protect themselves from hazards. FEMA requires that this planning process occurs in all counties in states across the nation. Failure to comply with these requirements will result in a County or local government unit not being eligible for certain aspects of federal mitigation funding.

Mitigation actions implemented today will reduce the disaster recovery dollars needed for tomorrow. Hazard mitigation breaks the recurring damage/loss cycle. Mitigation is currently accomplished in several ways: construction, prevention, planning, and education. It is through these mitigation methods that a balance between the constructed and natural environments is achieved.

The overall goals of the hazard mitigation plan for Chisago County are to get people, property, jobs, and natural resources out of harm’s way. The plan is organized in five related, but distinct areas that the planners believe will provide Chisago County and participating jurisdictions the most flexibility to achieve the noted goals. The following sections are included:

1. County Profile – This chapter contains information on the County’s history, demographics, physical features, infrastructure, and emergency response 2. Hazards Profile – This chapter identifies and profiles the various hazards addressed in the plan 3. Risk Assessment – This chapter provides a risk assessment for each local governmental unit covered in the plan 4. Goals, Objectives, and Mitigation Strategies – This chapter identifies the specific mitigation steps the participating jurisdictions have committed to achieving the goals of the plan 5. Plan Administration – This chapter outlines how the plan will be administered.

The plan provides guidelines for dealing with present and future hazards. More specific steps are outlined in the County emergency response plans, watershed plans, County water management plans and zoning ordinances. The written plan does not replace existing operational mitigation plans currently in use, but supplements them, helping to reinforce and/or improve present and future mitigation. The finished plan depicts a unified and continuous effort and commitment by many dedicated people in Chisago County, all

participating jurisdictions, as well as Minnesota Homeland Security Emergency Management, and FEMA.

1.1 Plan Goals and Authority The goals of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan are to:

• Increase community understanding of emergency management and build support for hazard mitigation • Develop, promote, integrate, and track mitigation strategies • Continue to improve and enhance the County's emergency management program • Increase the economic stability, core values, and quality of services of the County • Increase mitigation resources to eliminate or minimize harm done to people, property, jobs, and natural resources in Chisago County by natural and manmade hazards

The Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan has been developed in accordance with requirements set forth in the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 establishes the framework for pre-disaster hazard mitigation planning and provides the legal basis for state, local, and tribal mitigation planning requirements. The newly introduced Section 322 highlights the importance of coordinating hazard mitigation efforts among state, local, and tribal jurisdictions. Under 44 CFR §201.6 local governments must have a FEMA approved hazard mitigation plan in order to apply for and/or receive mitigation funding through existing hazard mitigation assistance program to offset the cost of mitigation activities, jurisdictions can collaborate with federal organizations and programs. The following are just three of these programs.

1.2 Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to states and local governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. Authorized under Section 404 of the Stafford Act and administered by FEMA, HMGP was created to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters.

The program enables mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. These mitigation measures include:

• Acquisition of real property from willing sellers and demolition or relocation of buildings to convert the property to open space use • Retrofitting structures and facilities to minimize damages from high winds, flood, or other natural hazards • Safe room construction. • Elevation of flood prone structures • Development and initial implementation of vegetative management or invasive species programs • Minor flood reduction projects that do not duplicate the flood prevention activities of other Federal agencies • Localized flood control projects, such as certain ring levees and floodwall systems, Emergency Manager designed specifically to protect critical facilities • Post-disaster evaluations of potential building codes and or modifications • Hazard mitigation planning

1.3 Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides funds to states, territories, Indian tribal governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects

prior to a disaster event. These activities include3T:

• Voluntary acquisition of real property in flood plains and or property repeatedly damaged by flooding • Elevation of existing public or private structures • Construction of safe rooms for public or private structures that meet FEMA requirements • Hydrologic and hydraulic studies/analyses • Engineering and drainage studies for project design and feasibility • Protective measures for utilities, water, sewer, roads and bridges, and storm water management to reduce/eliminate long-term flood risk

1.4 Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) FMA implements cost-effective measures to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) structures. State-level agencies, tribes, and local governments are eligible sub-applicants through Homeland Security Emergency Management (HSEM). Eligible projects include:

• Acquisition, structure demolition, or structure relocation with the property deed restricted for open space uses in perpetuity • Elevation of structures • Dry flood proofing of non-residential structures • Minor structural flood control activities • Repetitive flood claims • Severe Repetitive Loss

1.5 Participation Effective mitigation planning does not occur in a vacuum. It requires the entire community to be involved in the mitigation planning process. Thus, the planning process and its ability to identify, engage, and include the entire community is just as important as the plan itself. Throughout the mitigation planning process, Chisago County invited all of the jurisdictions to attend mitigation planning meetings, participate in workshops, and provide input and feedback in the development of the mitigation plan. The following jurisdictions were represented in updating the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update:

Center City, Chisago City, Harris, Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming, Chisago County

In addition to the jurisdictions, efforts were made to invite the public to participate in the planning process.

Section 2: Mitigation Plan Update

Effective planning efforts result in high quality and useful plans; however, written plans are only one element in the process. The planning process is as important as the plan itself. A successful planning process forges partnerships and brings together a cross-section of government agencies, the public, and other stakeholders to reach consensus on how to achieve the desired outcome and resolve a community issue.

Applying an inclusive and transparent process adds validity to the plan. The result is a common set of community values and widespread support for directing financial, technical, and human resources to an agreed upon action. The planning process was an integral part of the Chisago County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. This section describes Chisago County’s planning process and the hazard mitigation plan evolution.

FEMA Requirements Addressed in this Section:

Requirement §201.6(b) an open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:

§201.6(b) (1) an opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;

§201.6(b)(2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia and other private and non‐profit interests to be involved in the planning process; and

§201.6(b) (3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information.

§201.6(c) (1) The plan shall document the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.

§201.6(c) (4) (I) The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five‐year cycle.

§201.6(c) (4) (iii) The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

2.1 Planning Process To help guide the mitigation update, the Chisago County Steering Committee, and by extension, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team followed the 10-step process listed below. The planning process is based on the FEMA guidance for mitigation planning. The following graph is a visual representation of the planning process used throughout the plan update cycle.

Figure 1: Planning Process

In addition to the listed process, it is important to note that several key stakeholders reviewed the hazards and their effects on people and property, identified ways to reduce and prevent damage, and recommended the most appropriate and feasible measures for implementation. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team organized the current plan and updated procedures, reviewed existing plans and programs, and coordinated with stakeholders and the public. The Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee coordinated with key agencies and other organizations to provide insight and discussion throughout the planning process.

2.1.1 Plan Administrators Because mitigation planning is an all-inclusive process, the involvement of the Chisago County Emergency Manger, Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee, Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, and participating jurisdictions was crucial. To accommodate this requirement, these key groups were assigned various duties and responsibilities. These responsibilities were created to ensure the mitigation plan was comprehensive, reflected the goals of Chisago County, and fulfilled the requirements of the mitigation planning process. The groups worked closely with several key stakeholders who helped to shape the plan.

2.1.2 Emergency Manager Role and Responsibilities Scott Sellman, the Chisago County Emergency Manager, was ultimately responsible for completing the hazard mitigation plan update, ensuring that all identified mitigation activities were incorporated into comprehensive strategies that protect the County and its participating jurisdictions. The Chisago County Emergency Manager orchestrated the update process, led the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee and Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, as well as consolidated and solidified stakeholders across the County. The following includes a summary of the duties and responsibilities of the Emergency Manager:

• Oversee the planning process • Ensure the plan met the needs of the County, citizens, and complied with the code of federal regulations • Selection of the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee members • Chair the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee • Lead the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team • Take attendance and documenting all meetings • Point of contact for the plan and planning process • Ensure the plan was up to date and maintained; i.e., as outlined in the “Monitor and Maintain” section of this plan • Work within and between the participating jurisdictions and other key stakeholders to ensure the plan represented the entire County • Ensure that participating jurisdictions were included in the planning update. • Invite the public to participate and post all updated milestones for review and comment.

2.1.3 The Mitigation Steering Committee A vital component of the Chisago County 5-year mitigation update effort was to identify the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee and jurisdictional officials. Identification of this core group was important in ensuring implementation and support of the mitigation planning process. Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee members and local officials were included in the planning process for their knowledge of the County, cities, and community services.

Table 1: Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Members and Local Officials Organization Title Title Name Chisago County Emergency Manager Scott Sellman Chisago City Mayor Bob Gustafson Center City Mayor Larry Houger Harris Mayor Diane Miller Lindstrom Mayor Keith Carlson North Branch Mayor Kirsten Hagen- Kennedy Rush City Mayor Dan Dahlberg Shafer Mayor Dan Vogel Stacy Mayor Mark Utecht Taylors Falls Mayor Michael D. Buchite Wyoming Mayor Eric Peterson Chisago County Commissioner Mike Robinson Amador Township Supervisor /Chari Lin Strong Chisago Lakes School District Grounds/Building Supervisor Tim Burton Center City EM/Admin Terrie Trudeau Chisago City Emergency Manager Kevin Stenson Harris City Clerk Joanne Dargay Lindstrom Emergency Manager Kevin Stenson North Branch Emergency Manager Dan Myer Rush City Administrator Amy Mell Rush City Emergency Manager Bob Carlson Stacy Emergency Manager Joe Meyer Taylors Falls Emergency Manager Adam Berklund Wyoming Emergency Manager Paul Hoppe Chisago County Engineer Joe Triplett Chisago County Environmental Services Kurt Schneider Director Chisago County Public Health Jodi Budde Lakes Region EMS Director of Operations Ben Wasmund

Note: The Chisago County Emergency Management provided this list of Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee Members and Jurisdictional officials.

The Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee and local officials were responsible for ensuring the following:

• Oversee the plan and ensure its relevance to the changing situation of the County • Monitor and evaluate the mitigation strategies • Ensure documents reflect current hazard/risk analysis, development trends, code changes and risk perceptions of the County • Ensure the plan was up to date and maintained as outlined within the plan • Provide guidance to the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team • Approve the plan update and processes used to complete the plan

2.1.4 Hazard Mitigation Planning Team The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team provided technical guidance, documented the planning process, and wrote the mitigation plan update. The Chisago County Emergency Manager served as the coordinating

entity of the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team.

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team facilitated the overall plan development to ensure the Hazard Mitigation Plan and Chisago County met the requirements of DMA 2000. Beyond administration, content organization, and text development, the following duties summarize the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team’s responsibilities.

• Organize and guide all meetings • Review all documents provided by the Emergency Manager and participating jurisdictions • Provide technical assistance • Guide the plan development to adhere to DMA 2000 requirements • Model disasters • Conduct a capability assessment • Conduct a risk assessment • Create a hazard and community profile • Attend and facilitate all the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee meetings

Table 2: Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Table Member Organization Title Scott Sellman Chisago County Emergency Manager Michael Kemp Integrated Solutions Consulting Project Manager Kimberly Pleva-Berka Integrated Solutions Consulting Planner

2.1.5 Participating Jurisdictions Another important aspect of the planning administration process was the inclusion and involvement of the participating jurisdictions. The jurisdictions in the following table participated in the planning efforts of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Table 3: Participating Jurisdictions Participating Jurisdictions Center City, Chisago City, Harris, Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming, Chisago County

The jurisdictions participated in the plan by providing information, attending meetings and giving substantive feedback regarding their jurisdiction and the overall mitigation plan update process. The participating jurisdictions were key participants in the general planning process, hazard identification, risk assessments, and the mitigation strategy update process.

The jurisdictions were responsible for the following:

• Ensure their participation in the mitigation planning process • Provide relevant information pertinent to their jurisdictions • Ensure that within their own jurisdictions, the mitigation plan would be integrated into other planning mechanisms, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate • Work with the Chisago County Emergency Manager and mitigation planning committee as part of the iterative planning process

• Provide information concerning past mitigation actions and creating new mitigation actions • Provide comments and review of the plan’s community profile, hazard profile, risk assessment, capability assessment, mitigation goals, and maintenance and management section

Each jurisdiction participating in the plan update acted as an official conduit between their respective jurisdictions and their citizens. The insight offered by and provided to the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team by the jurisdictions was invaluable in ensuring the plan represented the entire County.

2.1.6 Meetings and Participation To kick off the planning process, a series of conference calls were held between Chisago County personnel and the Planning Team to help organize the planning process. During these meetings, goals of the planning update were created, priorities were set, responsibilities delegated, and key stakeholders and public participants were identified.

While the kickoff meeting participants discussed several issues, some of the key outcomes included the following important planning details:

• Due to concerns with time commitments and available County resources, it was communicated to the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team that correspondence would be in electronic format as much as possible (conference calls, electronic document management systems, and email) • It was understood that the County would be responsible for ensuring participation and providing requested documents and resources needed to complete the planning process • The Emergency Manager would take and keep all records, notes, and attendance of all meetings • The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team would complete a community profile, hazard profile, risk assessment, capability assessment, and update mitigation actions as per their contract with Chisago County. In addition and to ensure the involvement of the County stakeholders, the planning process would be an iterative process with the planning team organizing all sections of the plan and local support providing data, reviewing and approving all sections of the plan.

At the request of the Chisago County Emergency Manager, meetings were to serve as both planning and steering meetings. It was additionally requested that the planner starts each meeting with a tutorial concerning general mitigation issues and concepts. It was a concern that those attending the meetings may have limited experience and knowledge of hazard mitigation. The agenda for the rest of the meetings included an overview of the actual planning process, updates of the planning process and comments and approval of various sections of the plan.

To ensure open communication and input, all of the noted meetings were open to the public. Invitations for the outlined meetings included announcements via the County and city websites, postings in the newspaper of record, mass emails, and direct invites. The following outlines the planning meetings.

Table 4: Five-Set Meetings Table Meeting 1 2 3 4 5 Number Date Feb. 17,2015 June 9, 2015 Aug 22, 2015 Aug 25, 2016 Dec. 19, 2016 Location Center City MN Center City MN Center City MN Center City MN Center City MN Meeting Focus Kickoff Meeting/ Community Hazard Profile/Risk Mitigation Actions Plan Approval Community Profile/Hazard Assessment Profile profile/Risk Assessment

Phase One Meeting Kickoff (Feb. 17, 2015): The focus of the meeting was to set the stage for the planning process, set expectations, and to ensure the plan would accurately represent the makeup of the County and participating jurisdictions. An invitation to this meeting was provided to all of the participating jurisdictions and city and County organizations. The Chisago County Emergency Manager sent the invitations using existing County contacts.

The meeting was well attended and input from those in attendance proved invaluable. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team provided an introduction of the planning process, a general understanding of mitigation, introduced the concept of the community profile, and allowed for general planning discussions.

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team also provided an overview of the planning process and suggested a timeline for completion. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team also presented the mitigation crosswalk and noted the required elements of the plan. Finally, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team lead a discussion concerning the importance of using an iterative process, as well as emphasizing the importance of feedback, input, and communication within and between each jurisdiction. As such, the group decided to organize the plan into five phases.

Outcomes: The major outcome of the meeting was the understanding that the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team would provide drafts of the community profile to the Steering Committee for review. Once the Steering Committee approved the draft, it would be released to the jurisdictions and stakeholders for comment and review. Once the section completed the review, process it would consider completed. It was noted the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team and stakeholders would create the community profile (and subsequent sections of the plan) using this iterative process.

Other outcomes of the meeting concerned the issue of notification and participation. It was understood that several methods would be used to inform the team, stakeholders, and the public of the mitigation process. The steering committee agreed that each jurisdiction would be responsible for communication within their jurisdictions. To note, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team further advised each jurisdiction request that the mitigation planning process and updates be included as an item in their respective city council meetings. Finally, it was suggested for those jurisdictions that have a regular newsletter, to include information about the mitigation planning projects. To ensure everyone’s efforts were coordinated and recorded, it was requested that all the actions used to encourage participation to be reported to the County Emergency Manager.

NOTE: Utilizing the each jurisdiction’s normal government process (city council meetings) ensures the mitigation planning process is inserted into official records and communicated to each jurisdiction’s respected citizenry.

Phase Two Kickoff Meeting (June 9, 2015) The second meeting was the kick-off the second phase of the planning process. This kick-off meeting led to a series of meetings held traditionally, electronically, and via phone with each of the participating jurisdiction’s representatives and key stakeholders. The purpose of the second series of meetings was to present and complete the risk assessment and hazard profile.

Outcomes: Outcomes of the meetings included the introduction of the hazard profile, risk assessment and capability assessment and the subsequent gathering of information and data concerning the hazard profile, risk assessment, and capability assessment. Once the data was gathered and organized, the documents were presented to the Steering Committee to ensure their accuracy and relevance. Upon validating the noted information, the Steering Committee allowed the Mitigation Planning Team to start the third phase of the planning process.

Phase Three Kickoff Meeting (Aug 22, 2015): This phase of the plan consisted of a series of meetings that resulted in the completion, review, and acceptance of the hazard profile, risk assessment and capability assessment. In addition, the Mitigation Planning Team presented an outline for a maintenance section to be included in the plan.

Outcomes: Outcomes of this phase included a decision on what disasters were to be included in the mitigation planning update and planning process, and approval of the capability assessment, hazard profile, and risk assessment process. Another outcome of this phase of the planning process was the acceptance by the Steering Committee of the proposed plan maintenance outline.

Phase Four Kickoff Meeting (Aug 25, 2016): This phase of the plan was organized around updating and finalizing the mitigation projects to be included in the mitigation plan update. The primary purpose of this series of meetings was an extension of the past practice of conducting a series of meetings/communications to elcite particaption. As many participants and key stakeholders as possible were included in the completion of the mitigation project section of the plan.

Outcomes: All of the participating jurisdictions provided input regarding mitigation projects. In addition, the Emergency Manager used the Chisago County paper of record and the Chisago County Webpage to invite the public to participate in this process and comment on the plan in general. The result of this planning effort resulted in the creation of a list of mitigation actions, a cost-benefit analysis, and the final approval the mitigation project chapter of the Chisago County Mitigation Plan update. Another outcome of the fourth planning phase was the completion, review, and acceptance of the final “Plan Maintenance” section of the plan.

Phase Five (Dec 19, 2016): The purpose of these meetings was to approve the final iteration of the plan. Each jurisdiction, key stakeholder and the public (via invitations on the Jurisdictional websites and the Chisago County paper of record) was given a chance to review the plan and provide comment. Thus, the plan approval process lasted for approximately two months (Dec 2016-Jan 2017).

Outcomes: With the jurisdictions approving the final iteration of the plan, the Emergency Manager deemed the plan approved. The plan was sent for in for state and federal review.

2.1.7 Additional Meetings and Participation Several meetings and communications were utilized to complete the five phases of the planning process. The Chisago County Emergency Manager was the primary facilitator and leader of these meetings and communications. These additional meetings provided the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team with additional information and insights that were vital to the plan update as well ensured every phase of the planning process was approved by each participating jurisdictions. Participants included officials from all of the County’s jurisdictions, key stakeholders from various organizations, subject matter experts, regional and state officials, and the public.

Below is a comprehensive list of all the meetings that occurred over the entire planning process. The dates, a general synopsis of what occurred, who participated and general notes are provided in the following table. Meetings occurred in both traditional formats and conference calls.

Table 5: Date and Purpose of Meetings Meetings with Key Stakeholders, the Community, and Other Interested Parties Date Purpose Forum Participants Feb. Chisago County Hazard Plan Plenary Mitigation Planning Team, 17,2015 Update Kick-Off Meeting, Mitigation Steering Committee, Community profile Participating Jurisdictions, and the Public March 7, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Chisago County Fire Chief’s 2015 Plan Update Community profile Association June 9, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Mitigation Planning Team, 2015 Plan Community/Hazard Profile Mitigation Steering Committee, and Risk Assessment Participating Jurisdictions, and the Public Oct. 6, 2015 Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Chisago Lakes Rotary Club Plan Update Community profile Nov.3, 2015 Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Chisago County Emergency Plan Update Community profile Preparedness Committee May 31, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Chisago County Fire Chief’s 2016 Plan Update Community profile Association June 14, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Chisago County Emergency 2016 Plan Community/Hazard Profile Preparedness Committee and Risk Assessment Aug 22, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Mitigation Planning Team, 2015 Plan Community/Hazard Profile Mitigation Steering Committee, and Risk Assessment Participating Jurisdictions, and the Public Aug 25, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Mitigation Planning Team, 2016 Plan Mitigation Projects Mitigation Steering Committee, Participating Jurisdictions, and the Public Aug 26,2016 Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Mitigation Planning Committee, Plan Mitigation Projects Mitigation Steering Committee,

Meetings with Key Stakeholders, the Community, and Other Interested Parties Date Purpose Forum Participants Aug. 29, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Rush City 2016 Plan Mitigation Projects Oct. 18, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plenary Chisago County Emergency 2016 Plan Mitigation Projects Manager, Planning Committee Dec. 19, Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan Approval Mitigation Planning Team, 2016 Plan Approval Mitigation Steering Committee, Participating Jurisdictions, and the Public NOTE: Chisago County Emergency Manager was responsible for creating this table and/or any notes and signup sheets resulting from the noted meetings.

In addition to traditional methods of public involvement and as a means to increase participation, online surveys were also offered to the public. These surveys proved to be a valuable instrument to gather data, garner local support, and ensure community participation.

2.1.8 Partners and Stakeholders Involving partners and stakeholders in the mitigation planning process assists in obtaining a thorough and comprehensive understanding of the County’s diverse programs, facilities, operations, community vulnerabilities, hazard risks, existing and planned developments and projects, and opportunities to implement mitigation strategies. To facilitate involvement in the mitigation update, the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee and Planning Team met with and/or used resources provided by a variety of local, regional, state, and federal authorities. Where appropriate, contacts were also made with regional, state and federal agencies and other external organizations to determine how their programs could support the mitigation efforts.

The following is a list of those organizations that were used as resources and/or are actively supporting Chisago County’s mitigation efforts: • U.S. Geological Survey • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • U.S. Department of the Interior • National Weather Service • Federal Emergency Management Agency • Chisago County Emergency Management • Chisago Lake Area School District • Chisago Lakes High School • Chisago Lakes Primary School • Taylors Falls Elementary School • Chisago Lakes Community Education • Trio Wolf Creek Charter School • North Branch School District • East Central Energy • Heartland Power Cooperative • Great River Energy Cooperative • Comfort Lake - Forest Lake Watershed District

• Lake Improvement District • Chisago County Commissioners • Chisago County City/County Planner • Chisago County Superintendent of schools and the mayors and city councils of Center City, Chisago City, Harris, Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming and Chisago County

2.1.9 Review and Incorporation of Existing Plans and Studies These plans included, but were not limited to, mitigation plans from surrounding jurisdictions, FEMA guidance documents, emergency-services documents, contingency plans, community plans, federal, local, state regulations/ordinances, and other similar public domain documents. No copyright protections can be claimed in original US government works for this document or any of the resources used in this report.

The following table is a list of the public domain plans and other documents the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team used to guide the hazard mitigation plan update. Sources are also listed and cited within the document.

Table 6: Existing Plans and Studies Utilized in the Update Existing Plans and Studies Utilized in the Update Plans/Studies/Guides and their use in Plans/Studies/Guides Author creating this plan This resource was used to inform the American Fact Finder US Census Bureau development Chapter 3, the Community Community Facts Profile section of this document. This resource was used to inform the 2012 Agricultural Census for US Department of Agriculture development Chapter 3, the Community Chisago County Profile section of this document. This document was used to inform Chapter Draft National Climate The US global Change Research 4, the Risk Assessment section of this Assessment for Minnesota Program document. 2013 Report of the This document was used to inform Chapter Interagency Climate 4, the Risk Assessment section of this Adaptation Team report Climate Adaptation Team document. “Adapting to Climate Change in Minnesota” This document was used to inform the Drinking Water Report for Water Supply Contamination section in Communities in Chisago Minnesota Department of Health Chapter 4, the Risk Assessment section of County this document. 2014 Minnesota Motor This document was used to inform Chapter Minnesota Department of Vehicle Crash Facts 4, the Risk Assessment section of this Transportation Summary document. 2013 Minnesota Department This document was used to inform the of Health Annual Summary of Minnesota Department of Health infectious disease section in Chapter 4, the Communicable Diseases Risk Assessment section of this document. Fire In Minnesota Report from This document was used to inform the the State Fire Marshall for State of Minnesota Fire Marshall structural fire section in Chapter 4, the Risk years 2007-2013 Assessment section of this document Potential Cost Savings from Congressional Budget Office This document was used to inform the

Existing Plans and Studies Utilized in the Update Plans/Studies/Guides and their use in Plans/Studies/Guides Author creating this plan the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (2007) planning process as identified in Chapters Program 1,2 and 5 These documents were used to inform the How-to-Guide (Series 386–1, FEMA planning process as identified in Chapters 2, 3, 4, & 5) 1,2 and 5 This document was used to inform the NFIP Community Rating FEMA flooding section in Chapter 4, the Risk System Assessment section of this document. This document was used to inform the National Flood Insurance FEMA flooding section in Chapter 4, the Risk Program Assessment section of this document. This document was used to inform the Hazus-MH: Flood Event Chisago County flooding section in Chapter 4, the Risk Report for Chisago County Assessment section of this document. This document was used to inform Chapter National Oceanic Atmospheric Storm Events Database 4, the Risk Assessment section of this Administration document. This document was used to inform the hazardous material section in Chapter 4, The Right-to-Know Network Center for Effective Government the Risk Assessment section of this document. This document was used to inform the 2014 Minnesota All--Hazard State of Minnesota community profile Chapter 3 and risk Mitigation Plan assessment Chapter 4 sections. Chisago County Local Water This document was used to inform Management Plan; 2013- Chisago County community profile Chapter 3 section of this 2023 document. This document was used to inform the 2012 Tornado History Project Tornado History Project Tornado section in Chapter 4, the Risk for Chisago County, MN Assessment section of this document. This document was used to inform the 2008 Chisago County Hazard community profile Chapter 3, risk Chisago County Mitigation Plan assessment Chapter 4 and mitigation project Chapter 6 sections. This document was used to inform the risk Wind Science & Engineering Texas Tech University assessment Chapter 4 and mitigation Research Center projects in chapter 6 Chisago County Land Use Minnesota Geospatial Information This document was used to inform the Analysis Office community profile Chapter 3. This document was used to inform the Watershed Information Department of Natural Resources community profile Chapter 3. This document was used to inform the Comfort Lake - Forest Lake Comfort Lake - Forest Lake community profile Chapter, Risk Watershed District Data Watershed District Assessment Chapter 4 and mitigation Project section Chapter 6. Designation of Infested This document was used to inform the Department of Natural Resources Waters and Aquatic Invasive invasive species section in Chapter 4, the

Existing Plans and Studies Utilized in the Update Plans/Studies/Guides and their use in Plans/Studies/Guides Author creating this plan Species Prevention Program Risk Assessment section of this document. This document was used to inform the Risk Chisago County Emergency Chisago County Emergency assessment Chapter 4 and mitigation Operations Plan Management Project section Chapter 6 Chisago County Land Chisago County Commissioners This document was used to inform the Use/Zoning Ordinance Office mitigation Project section Chapter 6 Note: All Plans/Studies/Guides that were indirectly and or directly used to create and or guide this plan update are listed in this table. In addition, any Plans/Studies/Guides that was directly quoted and or where information was directly taken the Plans/Studies/Guides is also properly cited within the body of this document.

2.1.10 Participation and Data Request The success of the plan update was heavily dependent on the cooperation of the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee, participating jurisdictions, and the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team created a timeline for the plan update, which included plan phases, which provide direction on what would be required to complete each phase. Plan instructions included noting who should participate, which documents should be provided to the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team for review, how to review documents, and the overall planning process. This information was shared with the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee and participating jurisdictions. The information was regularly maintained and updated throughout the planning process

The planning process used to complete the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan update was an iterative process; iterative meaning, as sections of the plan were prepared, the Emergency Manager, the Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee, and participating jurisdictions reviewed the draft and provided comments and/or suggestions for improvement. The input and feedback provided were then incorporated into the draft and finalized. The following table is a representation of the planning phases used in this iterative planning process of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan update.

Table 7: Participation Table (Data request) Information noted as being validated by jurisdictions

3 3 -

Phase 4 4 Phase This spreadsheet is a 1 Phase Phase 3 Phase documentation of the involvement of participating Jurisdictions 2 Phase 2015 assessment assessment assessment Profile and Risk Risk and Profile Review and Fina and Review Community Profile Community Projects Mitigation Data Gathering and and Gathering Data Hazard Hazard of Completion Feb. 17,2015 Feb. Aug 25, 2016 25, Aug Dec. 19, 2016 Phase 5 5 Phase 2016 19, Dec. June 9, Aug 22, 2015 22, Aug Center City X X X X X Chisago City X X X X X Harris X X X X X Lindstrom X X X X X North Branch X X X X X Rush City X X X X X

Information noted as being validated by jurisdictions Shafer X X X X X Stacy X X X X X Taylors Falls X X X X X Wyoming X X X X X Chisago County X X X X X Note: The above table does not represent actual meetings, but rather an iterative planning process. The table shows timeframes of when the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team requested data and/or feedback, when data was verified by the jurisdictions and which jurisdictions participated in the process. Furthermore, a signed document certifying Chapter 2, this table, and that each jurisdiction actively participated in the creation of this document and the mitigation planning update processes listed in Appendix C.

2.1.11 Summary of the Planning Process & Significant Plan Updates The following section provides a bulleted overview of the planning process and the major changes that occurred to this plan during the update. The planning update as conducted in the following phases:

• Community Profile Creation • Hazard Profile o Hazard selection • Risk Assessment Conducted o Impact (assumptions and magnitudes) o Risk o Disaster modeling • Mitigation Strategy Creation o Update of existing strategies o Creation of new strategies o Prioritizing strategies • Final Plan Approval o Plan overview created o Plan monitoring created o Plan maintenance created o The mitigation plan was reconciled with the most current language used in planning/information/codes etc. used by the participating jurisdictions

2.2 Changes Made During this Plan Update The update of the mitigation plan used an iterative planning process for making several changes and enhancements to the previous version of the mitigation plan. The following section provides an overview of the significant updates reflected within this plan.

• The overview of community profile sections changed to reflect the recent census data (2010) and changes within the County • Several variables were included in the community profile that did not previously exist • The mitigation goals were updated • A capability assessment was conducted • The hazard risk assessment was completed and updated to account for the disasters and changes within the community that had occurred in the past five years

• The overview of mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies was updated to reflect new goals, new objectives, and new strategies • Processes were created to ensure governance and accountability of the plan • A monitor and maintenance section was created to ensure the plan remains updated • Three hazard scenarios were modeled (flood, tornado, and hazard material release) • Mitigation Strategies/Projects for each participating jurisdiction were developed, with each jurisdiction identifying at least one new action that did not exist in the previous plan.

The following sections constitute the actual mitigation update and are a culmination of all the participants’ effort. The information in each section plays an integral role in the mitigation planning process and is interdependent on the entirety of the planning process. For assistance in using this document and/or to be involved in future mitigating planning processes, please contact Chisago County’s Emergency Manager.

Section 3: Community Profile

In many jurisdictions, including Chisago County, a detailed and in-depth community profile is developed as a key element of the County Hazard Mitigation Plan; however, its utility goes far beyond this plan alone. The community profile is an overview of the political governance, economy, geography, climate, population, community assets, future development and trends, and commercial and industrial make-up of Chisago County. The community profile provides the County with a solid foundation for developing a common operational picture for the mitigation, but can also be referenced for other activities, such as THIRA, emergency training, exercises and actual incidents. Specifically, this profile serves to recognize and familiarize the reader with the potential impacts a hazard, specifically: people, property, jobs, natural resources, and crops. This information provides a general picture of the make-up of Chisago County.

To complete the community profile, the Emergency Manager and his representatives contacted numerous agencies, conducted research, and examined several technical reports and records. These organizations included, but were not limited to MN State Historical Society, Chisago County Social Services, fire departments throughout the County, MN Forest Service, Regional Public Health, law enforcement, National Weather Service, United States Census Bureau, and the Chisago County Soil and Water Conservation District.

The following pages provide a broad range of information that serves to provide a context for the subsequent sections in this plan. This information is divided into five categories:

1. General Historical Overview 2. Physical Characteristics 3. Population and Demographics 4. Community Conditions 5. Critical Infrastructure

This information was used in a subsequent assessment section to determine the type and magnitude of the County’s risks.

Several documents were essential in the writing of this plan. The excerpts below recap these resources for providing the general environment of Chisago County.

A correctly written hazard mitigation plan will secure the life, wellness, and security of its residents, avert repetitive damages due to various hazards, and furnish a faster recovery process when a disaster does occur. In addition, there is an increased sense of cooperation and communication among the public as well as an increased possibility for funding recovery and reconstruction projects.

3.1 General Overview Chisago (shuh-SAH-go) County is in east-central Minnesota on the Wisconsin border. It is roughly 35 miles north of the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area. The County is well served and accessed by several major highways. Interstate Highway 35 runs north-south through the western portion of the County and US Highway 8 runs east-west through the southern portion of the County.

Chisago County is, like many other counties in Minnesota, very influenced by the Swedish immigrants that settled there in the middle of the 19th century. It was here Vilhelm Moberg made his research for his trilogy The Emigrants in the 1950s. His fictional characters Karl-Oskar and Kristina Nilsson from the Ljuder parish in Smaland, Sweden, settled around the lake Ki-Chi-Saga (which was later renamed Lake Chisago). The heritage of the early settlers is still honored by the annual Karl Oskar Days in Lindstrom.

The population of the County is expected to continue to grow, in part, because of the proximity of the County to the metropolitan area. The County attracts residents who work in the metropolitan area, but who seek the quality of life that the County offers. The County also attracts tourists (many of whom are from the metropolitan area) who visit the County to enjoy its scenery and recreation opportunities. In particular, Wild River State Park, Interstate State Park, the Saint Croix River, Chengwatana State Forest, Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, and the lakes attract many recreation enthusiasts to the County. Although Chisago County is a rural County, its proximity to the metropolitan area and its natural amenities contribute to its significance in the region.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the County has a total area of 1,146 km² (442 mi²). 1,082 km² (418 mi²) of it is land and 64 km² (25 mi²) of it is water. The total area is 5.62% water. The adjacent counties are Pine County, Minnesota (north); Burnett County, Wisconsin (northeast); Polk County, Wisconsin (east); Washington County, Minnesota (south); Anoka County, Minnesota (southwest); Isanti County, Minnesota (west); and Kanabec County, Minnesota (northwest).

Center City has been the County seat since 1875. Its name refers to its central location between Chisago City and Taylors Falls. There are ten cities, and ten townships in Chisago County. The incorporated cities include Center City; Chisago City; Harris; Lindstrom; North Branch; Rush City; Shafer; Stacy; Taylors Falls; and Wyoming. Townships are Amador; Chisago Lake; Fish Lake; Franconia; Lent; Nessel; Rushseba; Shafer; Sunrise; and Wyoming.

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan and ECRDC research

Figure 2: Map of Chisago County

Source: Google Images

3.1.1 Historical Setting Early settlers from the Indian word Ki-Chi-Saga that means “fair and lovely waters” derived the area now known as Chisago County. In the early 1800s, the area was a vast area of forests, lakes, wetlands, and prairies. The Chippewa people were the primary residents. However, in accordance with an 1837 treaty, the Chippewa moved out of the area and an influx of European-American settlers arrived. Chisago County was organized in 1851. Logging became the key industry in the area. Sawmills developed in Taylors Falls, Sunrise, and Kost, but by 1914, most of the forests had been cleared and the logging industry declined. Agriculture then became the dominant industry.

Today, agriculture is still the primary land use in the County, but the County is rapidly changing. It is one of the fastest growing non-metropolitan counties in Minnesota, in part, because of its proximity and accessibility to the Minneapolis/Saint Paul metropolitan area and, in part, because of the attraction of its abundant natural amenities. While much has changed over the years, Chisago County is still known for it's natural amenities – its rivers, lakes, wetlands, and forests. One goal of the Chisago County Comprehensive Plan is to help guide the County in preserving and enhancing the natural amenities that have historically been important and will continue to be important, to the residents of the County.

Sieur duLuth, a French Canadian, was the first known white man to enter Chisago County in his travels down the St. Croix River in 1679. During the next one hundred years, the French and English established trading posts at what are now known as Taylors Falls and Sunrise. The 1837 treaty in which the Ojibway and Dakota Indians ceded all lands between the St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers opened the Chisago County area to settlement by the white man. In 1837 as well, a man named Jesse Taylor arrived in the location that would later bear his name, Taylors Falls. The first steamboats arrived at Taylors Falls a a year later in 1838.

During the remaining decades of the 19th century, logging became the key industry in the Chisago County area. There were mills in Taylors Falls, Sunrise, and Kost. Transporting the logs down the river to the mills

caused navigational difficulty with the steamboats coming up the river, as well as causing erosion to the banks of the rivers and numerous log-jams. Nevers Dam, the largest wooden dam ever built, began operation in 1890 and controlled the flow of logs down the river until 1912.

In 1848, the Chisago Lakes Area (Chisago City, Lindstrom, and Center City) was surveyed for the federal government. The County was officially founded in 1851, and Taylors Falls became the first County seat. The first mail delivery to Taylors Falls took place in 1851. In 1853, the road from Stillwater to Taylors Falls was completed, and a stage run opened. The first bridge to cross the St. Croix River was completed at Taylors Falls in 1856. Ferryboats crossed the St. Croix River at Sunrise and Rush City. In 1868, the military road, which traversed the entire County from north to south, was opened. Railroads followed as an important method of transportation. The St. Paul-Duluth Railroad, which crossed the County from north to south, was completed in 1870.

In 1865, the County seat was moved from Taylors Falls to Chisago City. It was later moved to Center City in 1875, and a courthouse was built. Although the County seat remains in Center City, two subsequent votes to move it have failed – in 1899 to move to North Branch, and in 1989 to move to Branch.

Agriculture was and still is to a large degree, the prime industry in the County, with livestock, row crops, vegetables and turf being the primary activities. One of the largest potato equipment manufacturers of its time, the Splittstoser Company, was based in North Branch. Many creameries were opened in the County to serve the dairy herds. Today, beef cattle have replaced many of the dairy herds.

The Swedes and other Scandinavian ethnic groups are the most known settlers in Chisago County; however, the Germans, French, English and other groups helped to develop the County as well.

3.1.2 City & Township Government Within Chisago County, there are ten incorporated cities and ten townships. Each of the incorporated cities has their own planning and zoning regulations. In the southern portion of the County, many of the infrastructure issues are the same and some infrastructure items are being consolidated or being conducted in a joint effort; such as a joint wastewater treatment facility, police services, and library services.

A brief summary of the ten incorporated municipalities and ten townships of Chisago County are listed below.

3.1.3 Incorporated Municipalities of Chisago County Center City Center City has been the County seat since 1875. Its name refers to its central location between Chisago City and Taylors Falls. It is the state’s oldest continuously inhabited Swedish settlement. The first post office was named Centre City in 1858, then Chisago Lake in 1863, then back to Centre City in 1877 until 1893 when the current name/spelling was adopted. The village was not officially incorporated until 1903. The Chisago County Government center and jail continue to be located in Center City. In 2010, the population of Center City was 628 residents. Center City has a mayor-elect and four council members.

Chisago City Chisago City was first platted for village lot development in 1855 and was incorporated in 1906. It served as the County seat from 1865 to 1875. Chisago City is located on Minnesota Highway 8, just ten miles east

of Interstate Highway 35 and only 35 miles northeast of Minneapolis-St. Paul. The city is approximately two square miles, had a population of 4,967 in the 2010 census, and is located in what is known as the Chisago Lakes Area of Chisago County. It is a city that is rapidly expanding its residential and commercial properties. Lakes and scenic park areas surround the entire city. Recently in 2005 after a contested case annexation approximately 5,000 acres from Wyoming Township was annexed into the city of Chisago City. Chisago City’s comprehensive plan was adopted in 2002 and has been updated due to the addition of the nearly 5,000 acres added to the city’s jurisdiction. Chisago City has a mayor-council form of government. The city council consists of a mayor and four council members, who are elected at large. The mayor and the council members serve four-year terms.

Harris Harris is a relatively small quiet rural community. It has a large land base of 12,800 acres and a relatively small population. Much of the City is in agricultural or open space uses and is largely undeveloped at this time. The City of Harris is located in northern Chisago County and has Interstate 35 running through it. Harris is one of the oldest established communities in Chisago County. The Harris area first settled during the latter half of the 1850 is when homesteaders of mainly Swedish origin migrated into northern Chisago County. In 1873, the first plat for the townsite of Harris was filed with the County. A small settlement sprang up along the railroad line and took its name in honor of Philip S. Harris, a prominent officer of the early St. Paul and Duluth Railroad. On July 22, 1884, the Town of Harris was incorporated. It initially included 24 square miles of territory. Three years later, Harris was officially incorporated as a village with 20 square miles. Four sections were returned to the jurisdiction of Sunrise Township. Harris has a mayor and four council members and a City Clerk. In the 2010 census, Harris had a population of 1,132 residents.

Lindstrom Incorporated in 1894, the City of Lindstrom serves as the center of the Chisago Lakes area with its many recreational opportunities. Within close proximity to the Twin Cities Metro, Lindstrom has retained its small town character, with a special emphasis on Swedish heritage. The City is working to increase quality commercial development, while at the same time preserving the small town atmosphere. The 2010 census estimated the population of Lindstrom at 4,442 people. Although not incorporated until 1894, the initial settlement of the area around Lindstrom took place during the early and mid-1850. At that time, the similarity of the area's topography to that of the Swedish countryside brought Scandinavian homesteaders up the St. Croix River from Stillwater. They moved inland from Taylors Falls and Franconia to the greater Chisago Lakes area. The construction of a branch rail line by the St. Paul and Duluth Railroad through the Chisago Lakes communities in the 1880s helped speed area development. Within a few short years, the Chisago Lakes Area grew with new resorts, seasonal cabins, and the necessary supporting businesses. Many of the area's residents are descendants of those original Scandinavian settlers and they continue to take pride in their Swedish heritage. A statue of the trilogy's main characters, Karl Oskar and his wife Kristina, stands in the center of Lindstrom as a tribute to those early men and women who set an example for the conscientious, hardworking descendants who still populate the area. Lindstrom has a mayor with four council members and a full-time administrator.

North Branch North Branch is named for the north branch of the Sunrise River. The village was platted in 1870 when the railroad through the area was finished and incorporated in 1881. Also known as the “hub of the potato belt”, 527 rail cars of potatoes were shipped from the local station in the fall of 1911. In 1901, Branch Township was split off from the village; it was reunited with the village in 1994. The current City of North

Branch was formed in 1994 from the consolidated cities of Branch and North Branch. The total area after consolidation was 36 square miles. The City of North Branch has a mayor-council form of government and a city administrator, as well as full-time planning and engineering staff. The city also has a planning commission, park board, and an economic development authority. A comprehensive plan was adopted in 1995 after the cities merged and this plan was updated in 2003. The City of North Branch has recently emerged as one of the fastest growing communities in Minnesota percentage wise. In 2010, North Branch had a population of 10,125. The population is expected to almost double to 16,000 people by 2020.

Rush City Rush City, located in northern Chisago County, is approximately 4 miles west of the Wisconsin border and is about 55 miles north of the Minneapolis/St. Paul Metropolitan Area with Interstate 35 running through the city. Rush City occupies an area of approximately 1,800 acres. The original settlement of Rush City was known as Rushseba and was located on the Government Road a few miles east of the present-day City. The original settlement included a flourmill, stagecoach stop, and a sawmill. Logging was a main industry in the area and later agriculture. Potato crops were one of the main industries in Rush City. The first school opened in 1856 and the first post office in 1859. In 1869, the railroad was built and the town moved to the present-day location. The City became a municipal corporation in 1873 and a statutory city in 1974. The population of Rush City in 2010 was 3,079 residents.

Shafer Shafer is a city in transition from rural to urban in nature and is rapidly growing. The city is situated along both sides of US Trunk Highway 8 approximately six miles west of the Wisconsin border. The city of Shafer was first settled by Swedes in 1853 and called Taylors Falls. It was renamed in 1873 for Jacob Shafer who as early as 1847 cut hay in the local meadows. The village was settled and its first post office established in 1881 when the railroad arrived. As many as six trains a day passed through the village in its prime. The city was incorporated in 1922 and originally developed because of the influence of the now abandoned railroad branch line that extended east-west through the community. The 2010 census indicated that the city of Shafer had a population of 1,045 residents. The City occupies approximately 428 acres of which 63.5% is developed with urban uses. Due to a number of wetlands within the city limits, 107 acres remain within the corporate limits to accommodate most types of future land uses. The City of Shafer has a mayor-council form of government and a planning commission, which makes recommendations to the council on planning and zoning related issues. Shafer adopted a comprehensive plan in 1999, which was revised in 2002.

Stacy The city of Stacy is located along the Interstate 35 corridor on the western edge of Chisago County. Stacy was originally called Middle Branch for its location near the middle of the bank of the Sunrise River; it was renamed in honor of Dr. Stacy B Collins, an early resident when the railroad came through. The post office was established in 1873. The village was not incorporated until 1923. Stacy has a mayor-council form of government. In 2010, the population of Stacy was 1,456 residents.

Taylors Falls Taylors Falls is located on the eastern edge of Chisago County nestled on the banks of the St. Croix River. Taylors Falls played a key role in the early settlement of the County as a logging town and a steamboat landing. The city served as the County seat from 1851 to 1865. The largest log jam ever recorded in Minnesota occurred here in June 1886 on the St. Croix River and stretched for two miles. Today tourism is the major industry of the city as many of the historical resources still, exist in the city as well as the location

of adjacent Interstate Park. Taylors Falls has a mayor-council form of government, a planning commission, park commission, heritage preservation commission and an economic development commission. The population of Taylors Falls in 2010 was 976 residents.

Wyoming The city of Wyoming is located in southwestern Chisago County along the Interstate 35 corridor approximately 30 miles north of the Twin Cities. The Carlos Avery Wildlife area is located directly to the west and northwest of Wyoming. Wyoming derived its name from Wyoming Valley in Pennsylvania. A colony of German and Dutch families from that region originally settled here in 1855. One of the early settlers, Lucius Trombler built a three-story hotel that was the first stop north of St. Paul on both the stagecoach and railroad lines. The village was platted in 1869, after the completion of the St. Paul and Duluth Railroad. Ten years later a branch line was built from Wyoming to Taylors Falls and operated until 1948. The city of Wyoming has a mayor-council form of government, a full-time city administrator, a planning commission, parks and recreation board, and economic development authority. In 2010 the census count for the city was 7,791 residents.

3.1.4 Townships of Chisago County There are ten townships in Chisago County. Townships came into existence in the County during the 19th century to provide infrastructure – roads, fire, and police protection- for people living outside cities.

Amador Township The St. Croix River forms the township boundary on the north and east. Amador Township was organized October 11, 1859. The township of Amador contains a small-unincorporated village of Almelund, founded by John Almquist, and located along Minnesota State Highway 95. Northern States Power Company once owned many acres of land in Amador Township that is now a part of the Wild River State Park. Amador Township does have its own fire hall. Almelund Threshing Show is an annual festival that recreates scenes from early farm harvest days. Today Amador Township is primarily home to farms and country homes. Wild Mountain Recreation Area is also located in Amador Township.

Chisago Lakes Township The Chisago Lakes Township was organized in 1858. Known for its lakes, the township surrounds the Chisago Lakes communities of Center City, Chisago City, and Lindstrom. Most of the history of the township is found in the history of these three cities.

Fish Lake Township Fish Lake Township is named for its lake and the outflowing creek. The township was organized three years after the end of the Civil War in 1868, the same year Fish Lake separated from Sunrise Township. The Township of Fish Lake contains a small-unincorporated village of Stark, named after Lars Johan Stark, the postmaster that served from 1867 to 1875.

Franconia Township Franconia Village was organized and platted in 1858 but not incorporated until 1887. The village was dissolved by the Legislature in 1897. Franconia Township was settled and named by Ansel Smith in 1852. Today Franconia Township contains the world famous “Hazelden” alcohol and drug treatment center in the extreme northwest edge of the township. Franconia is also home to the Franconia Sculpture Park, the outdoor, rotating collection of over 75 contemporary sculptures highlighting the creative talents of local, national and international artists, and the largest in Minnesota. Franconia Township today is home to

mostly commuters and small farmers.

Lent Township The Township of Lent was originally a part of Wyoming Township until it was separated by the action of Chisago County in 1870. However, representatives of the new town continued to meet with Wyoming until an organizational meeting in March 1882. An important portion of the Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area is located within Lent Township. The township is home to small businesses and people who commute to employment in the Twin Cities.

Nessel Township Nessel Township was named after its earliest pioneer Robert Nessel. The township was separated from Rushseba and organized in 1871. The township contains Rush Lake and the small-unincorporated area of Rush Point.

Rushseba Township Rushseba is named for the Rush River and Rush Lake and after the Ojibwa name “seba” or “sippi” meaning river. The Township was organized in 1858. The St. Croix River forms the eastern boundary of the township.

Shafer Township Organized first as Taylors Falls the name was changed to Shafer in 1873. The biggest spur to growth in the township’s history was the arrival of the railroad in 1881.

Sunrise Township The Township of Sunrise contains the Sunrise River and the unincorporated village of Sunrise. The township was organized on October 26, 1858, and was much larger than it is now due to the fact that the original contained what is now the City of Harris, old Branch Township, and the present township of Fish Lake. Wild River State Park follows the St. Croix River across Sunrise Township. The township remains home to residences and small farms.

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

Figure 3: Minor Civil Divisions Chisago County

Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

3.2 Physical Characteristics The physical characteristics of Chisago County are very important to the hazard mitigation process. It can dictate how great of an effect a particular disaster will have upon the land and its people. Physical characteristics such as climate, precipitation, and geology can enhance the effects of one disaster while acting as a barrier toward another. Rivers and lakes are just a few of the many examples of landforms that show scars of past disasters. It is through greater understanding of the land and it is aspects that a higher comprehension of hazard risk and a superior grasp of mitigation are achieved

3.2.1 Climate and Precipitation The climate of a region is determined by the monthly or longer weather pattern conditions that exist within a specified area. Minnesota experiences a continental climate with four climatic seasons within a calendar year. A continental climate is characterized by the annual temperature variances due to the lack of significant bodies of water with frigid winters and hot humid summers. In northern Minnesota, spring characteristically lasts from early March to early May with an average temperature of 36 degrees Fahrenheit. Summer lasts from late May to late August with an average temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit; with the highest record temperature of 114 degrees Fahrenheit in July of 1936 in the city of Moorhead. Fall lasts from mid-September to mid-November with an average temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit. Winter lasts from early December to late February with an average temperature of 6 degrees Fahrenheit; with the lowest record temperature of -60 degrees Fahrenheit in February 1996 in the city of Tower. The northern regions experience an average of 31 inches of precipitation each year; with an

average 19 inches of rainfall and in the spring and summer seasons and an average 70 inches of snowfall in the fall and winter seasons; with a record season snowfall of 175 inches in 1949-1950 near the city of Grand Portage. Characteristically, Minnesota experiences two blizzards annually within each winter season with a record maximum of 36 inches total blizzard-specific snowfall in January 1994 near the city of Finland. The northern regions of Minnesota experience slight variations in climatic conditions from their southern counterparts. According to Figure 4, the average daily temperature for Figure 4: Average Daily Temperatures the County is between 41 and 43 degrees F. On average, there are 196 sunny days per year in Chisago County. The July high is around 82 degrees. The January low is 1 degree. At the national weather station in nearby Cambridge, MN, on January 23, 1935, the lowest temperature on record was recorded at -42 o F. The highest temperature (109 o F) on record was recorded on July 14, 1936.

Source: Minnesota State Climatology Working Group http://climate.umn.edu/climatology.htm

Table 8: Average Temperature in Chisago County, Minnesota Month Average Daily Average Daily Maximum Average Daily Minimum Temperature o F o F o F January 9.0 19.0 -1.0 February 17.1 26.9 7.3 March 28.5 37.9 19.0 April 43.8 54.8 32.7 May 56.9 68.7 45.1 June 65.2 76.5 53.9 July 69.9 80.9 58.9 August 67.3 78.0 56.6 September 57.4 68.2 46.7 October 45.7 56.2 35.2 November 29.4 37.6 21.1 December 15.5 24.2 6.8 Yearly Average 42.1 52.4 31.9 Yearly Extreme n/a 102 -41 Source: National Water and Climate Center

Figure 5: Average Annual Precipitation Figure 5 displays the State’s average annual precipitation (1981-2010), as determined by the Minnesota Climatology Working Group. Notice that the County received between 30 and 31 inches of precipitation annually over this period. The precipitation averages are presented in Table 9. The highest average precipitation is during the month of June. Annual snowfall for the County is approximately 44 inches; however, this represents only a small portion of the annual precipitation due to the low moisture content of snow. Even so, minor flooding can occur in the spring because of a number of factors including a deep, late winter snowpack, frozen soil prohibiting the infiltration of water, and rapid snowmelt due to an intrusion of warm air and precipitation.

Table 9: Average Precipitation/Snowfall in Chisago County, Minnesota Month Precipitation Snowfall in Inches in Inches January 1.02 9.6 February 0.67 5.5 March 1.37 7.6 April 2.07 2.0 May 3.21 0.0 June 4.44 0.0 July 4.30 0.0 August 4.10 0.0 September 3.02 0.0 October 2.32 0.4 November 1.89 6.3 December 0.85 7.6 Yearly Totals 31.26 44.0 Source: National Water and Climate Center

3.2.2 Geology The geology of Minnesota is based on a specific region of the earth’s crust. The state's geology is defined by three specific periods; the formation of Precambrian rock, the formation of Sedimentary rock, and the Ice Ages.

Precambrian Minnesota’s oldest rock formations date back 2,700 million years. The Precambrian bedrock varies in age from Achaean (approximately 2,700 million years) to Paleoproterozoic (approximately 2,200 to 1,800 million years). Minnesota's oldest rocks, the Lower Precambrian gneiss rocks, lie in alternating belts within the northern half of the state and much of the Minnesota River Valley. The granitic gneiss rock is formed when granite and other rocks were subjected to intense heat and pressure within the earth crust from magma flows, causing a chemical and structural change, to form large crystals. Gneiss rocks also underline portions of the Minnesota River Valley dating back 3,600 million years. Volcanic rocks began their formation 2,700 million years ago when lava escaped the earth crust through rifts in the sea floor. These volcanic formations are found throughout Minnesota's portion of the Canadian Shield, from the northern half of the state to the Minnesota River Valley. The volcanic debris, sand, mud, and gravel released into the nearby waters settled to form layers of sedimentary rock. The Achaean rocks are volcanic rocks that metamorphosed into greenstone that underlie portions of the terrain that are well exposed in the northeastern regions Minnesota. Tectonic activity folded many of these rock formations forming faults, or slippage planes. During this period of tectonic activity, the Panokean Mountains formed, extending from east-central Minnesota through northern Wisconsin and Michigan. From the folds occurring during this period, the Thomson formation was created southwest of Duluth. Finally, a collision of crustal plates produced the Great Lakes Tectonic Zone, extending across the state from Morris and Alexandria toward Duluth.

Sedimentary The tectonic events left areas of high relief above the low basin of the Midcontinent rift. Over the next 1,100 million years, the uplands were worn down and the rift filled with sediments, forming rock ranging in thickness from several hundred meters near Lake Superior to thousands of meters further south. Approximately 550 million years ago, the state went through cycles of repeated undulation with

waters from the shallow sea. The land mass of what is now North America ran along the equator, and Minnesota had a tropical climate. Sedimentary rocks from the Cretaceous age were deposited roughly 65 to 100 million years ago over a broad area of Minnesota that extended as far north as the western end of the Mesabi Iron Range. Subsequent erosion has removed most of these strata, leaving only scattered outliers throughout the region. The Cretaceous rocks were deposited on top of weathered Precambrian bedrock.

Ice Age The state of Minnesota has been through several Ice Ages, glacial advance, dating back to two million years ago during the Quaternary Period. The most recent glacial advance was the Wisconsin Glaciation that spanned approximately 100,000 to 10,000 years ago. This glaciation drastically remodeled most of Minnesota, by lobes of glacial ice pushed in different directions across the landscape. There were three distinctive lopes, the Wadena Lope, the Rainy and Superior Lobes, and Des Moines Lobe, that created the current surface features of the state. The Wadena Lope advanced from the north several times across Minnesota’s landscape with the last advance creating the Alexandria moraine, the Itasca moraine, and the drumlin fields spanning Otter Tail, Wadena, and Todd counties. The Rainy and Superior Lobes advanced several times from the northeast with its last advanced leaving rock formations of basalts, gabbro, granite, iron formation, red sandstone, slate, and greenstone from the northeastern half of Minnesota to the Twin Cities. The Des Moines Lobe advanced from the northwest across Minnesota and into Iowa leaving rock formations of limestone, shale, and granite fragments, which developed into the prairie soils found in the region. Southern regions of the state were untouched by the last ice age leaving driftless area, where land was not advanced by the glacial till or drift. The landscape features more bedrock exposures, the rivers and streams are more developed, resulting in more efficient drainage systems and advanced erosion.

Figure 6: Bedrock Geology of Chisago County

Source: GIS Department, December 2004

3.2.3 Hydrology Hydrology is the study of the movement, distribution, and quality of water throughout Earth. The hydrology of Minnesota is a system of groundwater (aquifers), lakes, watersheds, wetlands, and a network of rivers and streams. Aquifers are areas of rock below the ground surface that can produce sufficient amounts of water to efficiently supply the communities within the region. There are three different types of aquifers; unconfined, is where the water table is able to move freely without interference due to the lack of aquitard, a non-permeable formation, semi-confined, is where the water table is partially confined due to semi- permeable formations, and confined, is where the water table is completely confined by non-permeable formations above and below the body of water. The amount of groundwater available is dependent on the amount of precipitation the region receives each year. Minnesota’s ground water system supplies approximately 75 percent of the state’s drinking water and approximately 90 percent of the agricultural irrigation. Minnesota’s ground water system is comprised of a system of six provinces of different aquifers;

the Cambrian-Ordovician Aquifer system, Lower Cretaceous Aquifers, Paleozoic Aquifers, Sand and Gravel Aquifers, and the Upper Carbonate Aquifer. The provinces include the Metro Province, the South-Central Province, the Southeastern Province, the Central Province, the Western Province, and the Arrowhead Province.

A watershed is a physical area where water from streams, rivers, lakes, and wetlands drain into the surrounding land. Minnesota has 8 water basins, 81 major watersheds, and 5,600 minor watersheds. Minnesota also has 11,842 lakes (over 10 acres), 6,964 rivers and streams (69, 200 miles), 9.3 million acres of wetlands, and borders Lake Superior, which is the world’s largest freshwater body.

3.2.4 Chisago County Hydrology Chisago County’s lakes, streams, and groundwater are some of its most significant resources. They are vulnerable to pollution from a wide variety of human activities and or disasters. Water quality has become one of the most important environmental issues facing the County and state. Water is used for domestic and residential purposes, industry, agriculture, and recreation. The health, safety, and welfare of the public are directly linked to the County’s water supply.

3.2.5 Rivers, Lakes, Wetlands There are extensive waters and wetlands in Chisago County. The County has primary responsibility for the enforcement of regulations to protect these waters through the administration of the County Shoreland and Floodplain Management Regulations. The County regulations conform to the most current shoreland rules established by the Department of Natural Resources. The Wetlands Conservation Act of 1991 provided the County with responsibility for administration of the Act. This includes a review and approval of all applications for altering wetland areas in the County as well as permitting, monitoring and assistance with mitigation.

One primary function of wetlands is their ability to act as groundwater recharge zones. They serve the function of storing runoff from storms or snowmelt; if they are developed, more severe flooding of the watershed is likely. In addition to development concerns associated with wetlands, they serve as habitat for various unique or endangered species. Chisago County has a variety of endangered species that make wetlands their habitat. Among these are the Blandings Turtle, Lake Sturgeon, Butterfly Mussel, American Bittern, and the Wood Turtle. It is for these reasons that wetlands should be protected as permanent open space with no development allowed.

Some major concerns relating to surface water quality and drainage are erosion control, current drainage practices and regulations, and chemical pollution and sedimentation from runoff. Non-point source pollutants can be traced to two primary sources: land development and agricultural practices. Urbanized land development generally increases the volume of runoff, as well as the concentration of pollutants in the runoff. Detention ponds are a means of mitigating these impacts.

Agriculture is also a contributor of non-point source pollutants. Non-point source pollution occurs because of intensive land cultivation and husbandry practices and appears in three different forms: soil erosion; agriculture supplements such as nutrients, pesticides, and herbicides; and animal waste products. Each of the sources, when allowed in water bodies, smother aquatic bodies changing the aquatic environment by limiting light penetration of the water and resulting in the transmissions of toxins to area water bodies.

Many of the lakes in the County have already been widely developed; the Lindstrom, Center City, and

Chisago City lakes area being a good example. Although it is inevitable that the desire for further development around water bodies will continue into the future, it is important to recognize the impacts of development on the surface and groundwater quality of the lakes, rivers, and wetlands and to prevent further degradation. There are specific issues dealing with future development that will affect the County related to surface water management that the County will need to address or participate in, in the future.

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

Figure 7: Shoreland of Chisago County

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

The St. Croix River is the eastern border of Chisago County and it forms the border between Minnesota and Wisconsin. The St. Croix River is a tributary of the Mississippi River. The river is a National Scenic Riverway under the protection of the National Park Service. The protected area includes The Dalles of the St. Croix River, a scenic gorge, located near Interstate Park. The St. Croix is a popular recreational river.

Common uses include boating, fishing, camping and canoeing. Highways along both sides of the river offer scenic drives, historical tours, and other common tourist activities. There are many parks and public lands along the St. Croix River in Chisago County.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the County has a total area of 442 square miles, of which, 418 square miles of it is land and 25 square miles of it, (5.62%) is water.

Wetlands are also considered protected waters and are numerous throughout the County. One of two regulatory agencies (Army Corps of Engineers or the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources) regulates them.

3.2.6 Groundwater Groundwater is Chisago County’s most abundant water resource. Groundwater aquifers are deposits or rock formations that store and transport water in interconnected pores and cracks. Highest yields come from alluvial deposits along major river valleys; yields from sand and gravel in glacial outwash plains usually offer good supplies of groundwater.

Residents of Chisago County obtain their water solely from groundwater resources. The municipal wells provide water for the residents of the major cities. Rural residents are served by individual wells. Groundwater is also used by industries.

An aquifer is a sedimentary (limestone, dolomite or sandstone) rock formation, which holds and yields large amounts of groundwater. An aquifer recharge area is the area of interchange between the surface water and the aquifer. It is the principal area of adding water to the groundwater resource. Two principal aquifers, the Jordan Aquifer and Mount Simon-Hinckley Aquifer, exist in the County. The Jordan Aquifer is located in the southeast portion of the County near the St. Croix River. The Mount Simon-Hinckley Aquifer exists below the entire County and is found closest to the surface (just below the top soils) in the northern half of the County. The principal recharge area for this aquifer is the St. Croix River and large parts of the cities of North Branch and Harris; along with Sunrise and Lent Townships. The characteristics of the two principal aquifers are as follows:

Table 10: Principal Aquifers Jordan Mount Simon-Hinckley Water Yields Large Volumes Large Volumes Importance Principal water source-Twin Cities Principal water source-Chisago Metro Area County Thickness 0-50 feet N/A Depth from Surface 0-100 feet 100-400 feet Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

Probably the most important aspect of the aquifers underlying Chisago County is domestic water supply. The County is on the northern edge of the unique geological Twin City Artesian Basin. Both the Jordan Aquifer and the Mount Simon-Hinckley Aquifer are part of the Artesian Basin. Seventy-five percent of the groundwater supplied to the Twin City area comes from the Jordan and Prairie-de-Chien formations to the Artesian Basin. The Jordan is partially recharged (surface water added to it) in Chisago County. Essentially all large domestic water users in the County obtain their water from the Mount Simon-Hinckley Aquifer.

Use of surface water and groundwater for irrigation is also a significant use in the County. At the present time, 27 irrigation well permits have been issued by DNR for groundwater sources and 18 permits for surface water sources. Much of this water returns to the aquifer through percolation and there is no evidence to date of groundwater “mining” that is, extraction of such large volumes that result in drawdowns and actual loss of aquifer capacity. Even if irrigation was to increase in the County in years ahead, quality of water resources from both ground and surface water quality is an immediate environmental issue than depletion of the resource. The aquifer recharge area provides a critical interchange of surface water to groundwater and of groundwater to surface water. Not only are the groundwater supplies replenished through the recharge area but also the movement of groundwater to the surface contributes water to streams, lakes, and rivers sustaining them through drought periods. Critical aquifer recharge areas occur in coarse soils and peat where percolation is rapid.

Susceptibility is based upon the ability of the soil to absorb contaminants, transform them into inert substances, and dilute them to be inactive or control the rate at which they flow to the aquifer. A significant area of land in Chisago County is highly or very highly susceptible to groundwater contamination in a relatively short period from when potential contaminants are introduced to the soil. This is an area of concern for the County and supports a need to adopt strong policies that will provide protection of groundwater in the County and the surrounding areas.

The Mount Simon Hinckley/Fond du Lac bedrock aquifer is the main source of groundwater for the County. The Franconia/Ironton/Galesville aquifer extends into the southern part of the County and serves the Chisago Lakes area, a part of Franconia Township and southern Wyoming Township. A part of the Mount Simon Hinkley aquifer underlies the Anoka Sand Plain, has moderate (years to decades) to low (decades to a century) sensitive ratings to water-borne contaminants. The sandy soils aggravate aquifer contamination at a much faster rate than loam or clay soils. This becomes more of a concern for future development with individual sewage treatment systems in areas such as the Anoka Sand Plain where the sensitivity rating is very high (hours to months) to high (weeks to years).

The impact of actions within Chisago County regarding groundwater extends beyond the County’s boundaries. Contamination of groundwater in the County from herbicides, fertilizers or ineffective on-site septic systems can greatly affect the quality of water retrieved from wells located in and outside Chisago County. Alternately, indiscriminate use of groundwater supply in more urbanized areas can affect the availability of groundwater used for private wells in Chisago County. Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

3.2.7 Watersheds Minnesota has forty-six watershed districts. Water-related problems are solved and prevented by these units. There are three watersheds that occur in Chisago County: the Rum Watershed District, the Snake Watershed District, and the Lower St. Croix Watershed District. The boundaries of a watershed differ from the political boundaries of a County in that the watershed boundary is dependent upon the local bodies of water. A water-related event such as a flood knows no boundaries, so it is important to manage water and practice mitigation and conservation on a watershed basis.

Figure 8: Chisago County Watersheds

3.2.8 Land Cover The DNR (Department of Natural Resources) has inventoried the original vegetation of the State through its Presettlement Vegetation Database. Presettlement vegetation was determined by analyzing the detailed maps and records of early surveyors (circa 1895). The purpose of this database was to enable analysis of presettlement vegetation patterns for determining natural community potential and patterns of disturbance. Prior to settlement, Chisago County was predominately covered with upland prairie and prairie wetland vegetation; however, large stands of hardwood trees were commonly found throughout the northern portion of the County. The upland prairie occupied a wide variety of landforms, including beach ridges and swales, glacial lakebeds, morainic hills, steep bluffs, and rolling till plains. Big bluestem and Indian grass occupied the deep soils of the moist uplands, while little bluestem and side oats grama covered the thin soils of the dry uplands. In general, bluejoint, prairie cordgrass, rushes and sedges dominated the lowland areas and wetlands. The oak woodland and brushland was a common ecotonal type between the prairie and deciduous forest. Fire, more than topography or climate, was the primary factor influencing the location and extent of this type of vegetation. The oak woodland and brushland ranged from small groves of trees intermixed with open prairie, to communities of scrub forest and dense scrub thicket. The dominant tree species were bur and pin oak. Maple-basswood forests were dominated by elm, basswood, sugar maple, and red oak. These forests were highly sensitive to fire. As a result, their boundaries were in large part controlled by the frequency of fire. The forests were restricted to areas where natural firebreaks (such as rivers, lakes, and rough topography) prevented the spread of fire from the adjacent prairie lands.

3.2.9 Ecology The ecology of Minnesota is a relationship between organisms and their environments. With the combination of Minnesota’s geology, hydrology, and climate the state's ecology is broken down into a classification system, by Minnesota Department of Natural Resources of Provinces, Sections, Subsections, Land Type Associations, Land Types, and Land Type Phases.

Table 11: Ecology Minnesota Ecology Classification Criteria Provinces are units of land defined using major climate zones, native vegetation, Provinces and biomes such as prairies, deciduous forests, or boreal forests. There are 4 Provinces in Minnesota. Sections are units within Provinces that are defined by the origin of glacial deposits, Sections regional elevation, distribution of plants, and regional climate. Minnesota has 10 sections. Subsections are units within Sections that are defined using glacial deposition Subsections processes, surface bedrock formations, local climate, topographic relief, and the distribution of plants, especially trees. Minnesota has 26 subsections. Land Type Associations are units within Subsections that are defined using glacial Land Type landforms, bedrock types, topographic roughness, lake and stream distributions, Associations wetland patterns, depth to ground water table, soil parent material, and pre- European settlement vegetation. Minnesota has 291 land type associations. Land Types are units within Land Type Associations that are defined using pre- Land Types European settlement vegetation, historic disturbance regime, associations of native plant communities, wetland distribution, and soil types. Land Type Phases are units within Land Types that are defined using a native plant Land Type Phases community class, soil type, and topography.

3.2.10 Soil Chisago County has a variety of natural amenities that offer scenic and recreational opportunities for residents and visitors in the County. Rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, bluffs and woodlands create growth and development opportunities but require careful management to prevent misuse and overcrowding.

There is a considerable amount of undeveloped land in Chisago County; much of it is subject to various environmental constraints to potential development. There are environmental factors include surficial geology and soils; aquifers, aquifer recharge areas and groundwater supply and quality; surface waters, wetlands, and drainage; erosion control; shoreland management overlay areas; woodlands; wildlife habitat corridors; native plant communities, rare species and sites of biodiversity; and aggregate resources.

The generalized soils are shown on the map below. The soils and surface geology are important factors that need to be identified in order to understand the occurrence and movement of groundwater and its relation to the aquifers in the County. Present soil features are an important consideration affecting land use decisions, including onsite sewage treatment systems design, agriculture and irrigation practices.

Figure 9: Soils of Chisago County

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

Two underlying geologic features dominate the surface geology of the County: the Grantsburg Sublobe Till deposits (an extension of the Des Moines Lobe) and the Superior Lobe Outwash deposits. The Superior Lobe consists of well-drained sand and gravel. The Grantsburg Sublobe consists of gray till with fine sandy loam or silty clay loam surface textures. The Anoka Sand Plain located in the west central part of the County resulted from the large amounts of Lacustrine Sand deposited by the Grantsburg Sublobe. The Grantsburg Sublobe, including the present day Anoka Sand Plain, covers the majority of the County from the northwestern corner to the southeastern corner, excluding the St. Croix River Valley in the northeast- central part of the County.

Soils in the County range from excessively well drained to very poorly drained. The Anoka Sand Plain regions in the western part of the County are where many of the excessively well drained soils are located; this parallels the area where the sensitivity of the aquifer contamination is the highest. Evaluation of soil suitability as it relates to on-site sewage treatment systems is also dependent upon the level of the water

table in the area; a higher water table will accentuate the circumstances, whereas a lower water table could reduce the impact of less suitable soils on potential groundwater contamination.

The majority of the soils in the southeastern part of the County are the Nebish-Talmoon Association. These soils are nearly level to very steep, well drained and very poorly drained loamy soils. Major uses of these soils are cropland, hayland, and pasture. Main management concerns on these soils are erosion on slopes and wetness.

The soils mentioned make up 43% of the soils in the County. There is one organic soil association in the County that is found around Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area, Rush Lake and close to the St. Croix River in Sunrise Township. These are very poorly drained soils, with primary uses being specialty crops, sod, pasture, and wildlife land. These soils are also considered to have severe soil limitations for on-site sewage treatment systems as they typically have poor percolation rates and “ponding” may occur.

3.2.11 Topography The highest elevation in Chisago County is located in the Amador Township at 1,130 feet. The overall average elevation of the County is 925 feet.

3.2.12 Land Use A great majority of land in Chisago County remains largely undeveloped, primarily in agricultural use, woodlands or wetlands. The majority of development has occurred in the southwest area of the County and along I-35 on the western side of the County and the Northern (Rush City) Lakes area.

The lakes around Wyoming, Lindstrom, Chisago City and Center City have attracted significant residential development over the past 20-30 years and continue to be an area of growth, given the proximity to employment centers in the eastern Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. The development also continues to occur along I-35, north of the County border.

Commercial development is found primarily with incorporated cities in the County. Unincorporated centers, such as Almelund, Rush Point, Sunrise and Stark also have a limited amount of commercial uses. Increased interest in commercial sites has occurred over the past several years along Highway 8, primarily in Wyoming.

The following table shows a breakdown of land use and cover from the Land Management Information Center:

Table 12: Chisago County Land Use Statistics Description Acres % Acres Urban and Industrial 4107 1.5 Farmsteads and Rural residences 5893.5 2.1 Rural Residential Development 1111.6 0.4 Complexes Other Rural Developments 384.6 0.1 Cultivated Land 98187.7 34.7 Transitional Agricultural Land 511 0.2 Grassland 56944.2 20.1 Grassland-Shrub-Tree Complex 8383 3

Description Acres % Acres (Deciduous) Grassland-Shrub-Tree Complex 353.4 0.1 (Coniferous) Deciduous Forest 73888.4 26.1 Coniferous Forest 6725.9 2.4 Water 16150.7 5.7 Wetlands 9802.5 3.5 Gravel Pits and Open Mines 401.5 0.1 Bare Rock 0 0 Exposed Soil 16.3 <0.1 Total 115,722 100% Source: Chisago County Land Use and Cover State of Minnesota 1988 - 1990

Figure 10: Land Use in Chisago County

Factors Influencing Chisago County Land Use The land use situation in the County has not been static but has been constantly changing, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Over time, a multitude of factors has shaped and changed land characteristics, affecting and altering policies and decisions. The present situation has been influenced by characteristics of population, culture, geographical location, natural resource base, and many other factors. A brief review of some of the major influences is presented here to summarize their relationship to land use.

1. Geographical Location The County is located in the glaciated east-central area of Minnesota, bounded on the east by the St. Croix River. The river was a major transportation route at the time of original settlement because it was navigable by steamboat as far upstream as Taylors Falls. The County lies roughly one hour drive from the center of the Twin Cities en route to Duluth.

2. Cultural Influences The original settlers of Chisago County came from predominately an agricultural background. Subsistence agriculture on homesteads set the pattern for farm size, which has altered little in later years despite influences such as increased land prices, types of crops grown, and combining of smaller farms into larger landholdings or breaking up of large farms through inheritance or sale.

3. Population Characteristics The population of the County was relatively stable until the last decade when it showed a rather marked increase and a continuing increase is expected. With more people coming into the County there has been a corresponding increase in demand on agricultural and open lands for urban and residential uses.

4. Natural Resource Base The soil quality of Chisago County ranges from very good to unsuitable for agriculture and/or development. Originally, much of the land was covered by forest or oak savannah. Numerous areas of poorly drained or steeply sloping land could not be used for agriculture or residential development. The County has little in the nature of mineral wealth but is adequately supplied with water resources, which have attracted both early settlers and recent in-migrants.

5. Residential Development Patterns The major development corridors in the County are located around the northern lakes (Rush Lake, Goose Lake, Fish Lake, and Horseshoe Lake), adjacent to Interstate 35, in the southern lakes area and along Highway 8. In addition, new home construction is distributed throughout the County.

Some factors affecting land use in Chisago County in the past that are still affecting land use in the County today include:

6. Population Increase Perhaps the single most important factor affecting land use in Chisago County today and in the near future is the rapidly growing population. In-migration of new families has created a demand for more residential areas and support services, leading to the conversion of agricultural and open space lands to urban uses.

7. Transportation System Interstate 35, in conjunction with the remaining highway network within the County, has increased the accessibility of the County to the Twin City Metropolitan Area. People now find it quite feasible to commute to a job in the city and still reside in a relatively uncrowded environment.

8. Zoning Laws Past and present zoning laws have had the goal of protecting agricultural lands from urbanization. Scattered small acreages have been developed for residential use.

9. Recreational Demand Chisago County has the potential for providing recreational uses of the land; uses which have increased in importance in recent years. The Wild River State Park and Interstate Park have become important influences on the area as a major recreational area.

The Federal government has acquired extensive shoreland property along the St. Croix River; however, the majority of land protected near the river is regulated through overlay management districts in the County Zoning Ordinance. The State owns title to and manages the state parks and wildlife management areas. A portion of the Upper St. Croix River in northern Chisago County is designated as the Chengwatana State Forest. Chisago County has adopted overlay management standards for all other protected waters in the County. Special management concerns and programs have been established for the St. Croix River, Sunrise River, Sunrise Lake, and Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area. State-owned land accounts for a significant portion of land in the County. Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area consists of about 8,000 acres, Wild River State Park 7,000 acres, Interstate State Park 295 acres, and Chengwatana State Forest 250 acres.

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

3.3 Population and Demographics

3.3.1 Projected Population Chisago County is rapidly becoming one of the fastest growing non-metropolitan area counties in the State of Minnesota. It is projected that between 2010 and 2030, Chisago County the County will grow by 7.2 percent. The County’s proximity and accessibility to the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area and its natural amenities are two factors that are greatly influencing this growth. There are expected to be increased pressures for more growth in the County in the next 10-20 years, as people continue to view larger lots in the rural areas as an attractive alternative to suburban development.

Table 13: Chisago County Population Projection 2010 2030 2060 Change Percent Change Population Population Population 2010-2013 Change 2010-2016 Percent Change 53,877 57,769 55,914 3,892 7.2 % 2,037 3.8% increase increase Source: US Census

Table 14: Population of Chisago County since 1960 Year 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Est. 2013 Population 13,419 17,492 25,717 30,521 41,101 53,887 5,761 Percent +5.9% +30.4% +47.0% +18.7% +34.7% +31.1% -0.2% Change Source: US Census

3.3.2 Comparable Growth One of the best ways to compare the County’s rate of population growth is to examine the growth rates of neighboring counties. Table 15 accomplishes this by including demographic information for the following counties: Chisago, Isanti, Kanabec, and Pine.

Table 15: Population Growth for Chisago County and Nearby Counties since 1990 % Change % Change County 1990 2000 2010 1990-2000 1990-2010 Chisago 30,521 41,101 53,887 34.7 31.1 Isanti 25,921 31,287 37,816 20.7 20.9 Kanabec 12,802 14,996 16,239 17.1 8.3 Pine 21,264 26,530 29,750 24.8 12.1 Source: US Census

The statistics that appear in Table 15 indicate that Chisago County has experienced above average population growth since 1990. In fact, the County was the top County in the overall percentage of population increase among the four counties compared.

3.3.3 Population by Age Groups Table 16 shows the breakdown of Chisago County’s population by age categories for 2010. While Chisago County’s total population has witnessed steady growth in recent years, the rate of population growth among the elderly (65 and older) has been significantly higher. The State Demographic Center projects the percent increase in elderly population will continue to grow at a larger rate than that of the total population over the next 30 years (Minnesota’s Changing Counties: The Next 30 Years). It is during this time frame that the “baby boomers” will reach their retirement age. This is a strong indicator of the increasing need for many senior-related services, including senior housing and transit services.

Table 16: Chisago County’s Population by Age Groups in 2010 (U.S. Census) Total Population Number Percent Under 5 years 3,310 6.1 5 to 9 years 3,855 7.2 10 to 14 years 4,131 7.7 15 to 19 years 3,852 7.1 20 to 24 years 2,631 4.9 25 to 29 years 3,087 5.7 30 to 34 years 3,243 6.0 35 to 39 years 3,657 6.8 40 to 44 years 4,467 8.3 45 to 49 years 5,012 9.3 50 to 54 years 4,313 8.0 55 to 59 years 3,430 6.4 60 to 64 years 2,652 4.9 65 to 69 years 2,081 3.9 70 to 74 years 1,401 2.6 75 to 79 years 1,085 2.0 80 to 84 years 825 1.5 85 years and over 855 1.6 Median age (years) 39.0 ( X ) Source: US Census

3.3.4 Households Table 17 shows the number of households in Chisago County. Although knowing the total number of people and households is important, these numbers allow an average County household size to be established (the average number of people living in each household).

Table 17: Population, Households, and Average Household Size of Chisago County (U.S. Census) Households by Type Number Percent Total households 19,470 100.0 Family households (families) 14,389 73.9 With own children under 18 years 6,730 34.6 Husband-wife family 11,884 61.0 With own children under 18 years 5,215 26.8 Male householder, no wife present 963 4.9 With own children under 18 years 567 2.9 Female householder, no husband present 1,542 7.9

47 Households by Type Number Percent With own children under 18 years 948 4.9 Nonfamily households 5,081 26.1 Householder living alone 3,960 20.3 Male 1,974 10.1 65 years and over 521 2.7 Female 1,986 10.2 65 years and over 1,155 5.9 Source: US Census

3.3.5 Special Populations Special Population is a term used to express a disadvantaged group for example populations with disabilities, minors, and the elderly. Special populations often require accommodations for physical, mental or emotional differences. Emergency service providers must carefully consider special populations. The following tables illustrate four subgroups of special populations in Chisago County: elderly, children, females, and individuals with a disability.

The first table (table 18) outlines the number of households with children. The factor that makes this table noteworthy is that the majority of households with children are married couples.

Table 18: Children Subject 2010 Census Data (US Census Bureau) Family households with children 6,730 Married couples with children 5,215 Single mothers with children 948 Single fathers with children 567 Source: US Census

The elderly table is a recap of earlier stated County population data of just the 65 years old and older population. Currently, the number of 65 and older makes up 11.6% of the total County population, but this number will increase exponentially as the baby boomers age.

Table 19: Elderly Subject 2010 Census Data (US Census Bureau) 65 to 69 years old 2,081 70 to 74 years old 1,401 75 to 79 years old 1,085 80 to 84 years old 825 85 years and older 855 Total 6,247 Source: US Census

The female population table represents the number of females in the County. An interesting point shown in this table is there are not many females under the age of 18 in the County. The majority of the female population is adult aged.

Table 20: Females Subject 2010 Census Data (US Census Bureau) Female Population 26,147 18 years and older 19,346 65 years and older 3,347 Source: US Census

Table 21 outlines the population in Chisago County with a disability. The table is an overview of the total of those with a disability condition recognized in the 2010 census. According to the US Census Bureau, 10.2 percent of Chisago County’s population has a disability.

Table 21: Population with a Disability Disability Status of the Civilian Non-Institutionalized Population Number Percent Total Civilian Non-institutionalized Population 52,066 100% With a disability 5,314 10.2% Under 18 years 13,679 13,679 With a disability 475 3.5% 18 to 64 years 32,338 32,338 With a disability 2,858 8.8% 65 years and over 6,049 6,049 With a disability 1,981 32.7% Source: US Census

According to the US Census Bureau, 2.3% of Chisago County’s population is considered institutionalized.

Table 22: Institutionalized Population in Chisago County In group quarters Number Percent Institutionalized population 1,256 2.3 Male 1,097 2.0 Female 159 0.3 Non-institutionalized population 417 0.8 Male 273 0.5 Female 144 0.3 Source: US Census

The following table is the percent of people in Chisago County who fall below the state poverty levels.

Table 23: Chisago County Poverty Subject Minnesota State Demographic Center Data All ages below poverty 7.1% Source: US Census

3.4 Cultural Conditions The state of Minnesota has a rich cultural history dating back over 5,000 years ago with inhabitation of the region following the last Ice Age. The state’s first inhabitants being Native Americans with the dominate tribes being the Dakota and Ojibwa (also called Chippewa or Anishinabe) Indians with cave drawings called petroglyphs found in several state parks throughout the region, such as in Jeffers Petroglyphs near Comfrey. Ancient burial mounds can also be found throughout the state.

The first European explorers came to the Minnesota region in the early 1600’s by Etienne Brule, in 1623 or 1624. Groseilliers and Radisson, however, in 1654 to 1660, are generally regarded as the first explorers of the region. These first explorations ultimately resulted in French sovereignty over Lake Superior. Fort Snelling was the first permanent European settlement in Minnesota in 1825. The earliest settlers were primarily from the East Coast with most immigration from Germans and Scandinavians by the late 1860’s.

Minnesota became the 32nd state in the union in 1858. On October 27, 1849, nine large Minnesota counties were created. Among them were Benton, Dahkotah, Itasca, Ramsey, Mahkahta, Pembina, Wabasha, Washington, and Wahnata. Of those Benton, Dakota, Itasca, Ramsey, Wabasha, and Washington holds original name. With the creation of Kittson County on March 9, 1878, Pembina County no longer existed. When Minnesota was organized as a state, 57 of the present 87 counties were established. The last County to be established was Lake of the Woods County in 1923.

3.4.1 Race and Ethnicity There is not cultural diversity based on race and ethnicity within Chisago County, with 95.8 percent of the County identified as White by the 2010 U.S. Census.

Table 24: Population of Chisago County by Race Race Number Percent Total population 53,887 100.0 One Race 53,217 98.8 White 51,621 95.8 Black or African American 645 1.2 American Indian and Alaska Native 324 0.6 Asian 478 0.9 Asian Indian 26 0.0 Chinese 39 0.1 Filipino 34 0.1 Japanese 8 0.0 Korean 69 0.1 Vietnamese 26 0.0 Other Asian 276 0.5 Source: US Census

The following table illustrates that there is a distinct majority regarding the language spoken in the homes of residents of Chisago County, with 96.2% of residents speaking only English at home and only 1.8% of residents speaking Spanish.

Table 25: Language Spoken at Home in Chisago County Language Spoken at Home Number Percent Population 5 years and over 50,354 50,354 English only 48,448 96.2% Language other than English 1,906 3.8% Speak English less than "very well" 739 1.5% Spanish 900 1.8% Speak English less than "very well" 418 0.8% Other Indo-European languages 484 1.0% Speak English less than "very well" 97 0.2% Asian and Pacific Islander languages 308 0.6% Speak English less than "very well" 141 0.3% Other languages 214 0.4% Speak English less than "very well" 83 0.2% Source: US Census

3.4.2 Level of Education The next table indicates the level of education of the residents of Chisago County. This indicates that of the population in Chisago County 25 and over, the majority of the County has graduated from high school and attended some college.

Table 26: Level of Education for Chisago County Educational Attainment Number Percent Population 25 years and over 35,856 35,856 Less than 9th grade 379 1.1% 9th to 12th grade, no diploma 2,182 6.1% High school graduate (includes equivalency) 13,074 36.5% Some college, no degree 9,330 26.0% Associate's degree 4,095 11.4% Bachelor's degree 4,805 13.4% Graduate or professional degree 1,991 5.6% Percent high school graduate or higher (X) 92.9% Percent bachelor's degree or higher (X) 19.0% Source: U.S. Census 2010

3.4.3 Socioeconomic Conditions: Income The income per household in Chisago County as of 2012 can tell a lot about the County as a whole. There are 19,669 households in the County. The income range with the highest number of households is the $50,000-$74,999 range, with the second largest income range being $75,000-$99,999. These statistics indicate that almost half the households in the County have income ranges within the lower to mid-middle class.

Table 27: Income and Benefits per Household in 2012 Chisago County Income and Benefits Number Percent Total households 19,669 19,669 Less than $10,000 633 3.2% $10,000 to $14,999 795 4.0% $15,000 to $24,999 1,359 6.9%

Income and Benefits Number Percent $25,000 to $34,999 1,789 9.1% $35,000 to $49,999 2,477 12.6% $50,000 to $74,999 4,367 22.2% $75,000 to $99,999 3,491 17.7% $100,000 to $149,999 3,243 16.5% $150,000 to $199,999 1,041 5.3% $200,000 or more 474 2.4% Median household income (dollars) 66,592 (X) Mean household income (dollars) 75,494 (X) Source: US Census

3.4.4 Employment The following table indicates that the unemployment rate in Chisago County is actually more than the national average. The national average unemployment rate was 6.9% in 2010 and the unemployment rate in Chisago County in 2010 was 7.3%.

Table 28: Employment Status in Chisago County Estimates from 2008-2012 Employment Status Number Percent Population 16 years and over 41,509 41,509 In labor force 28,534 68.7% Civilian labor force 28,522 68.7% Employed 26,438 63.7% Unemployed 2,084 5.0% Armed Forces 12 0.0% Not in labor force 12,975 31.3% Civilian labor force 28,522 28,522 Percent Unemployed (X) 7.3% Source: U.S. Census Bureau

3.4.5 Occupation The following table shows that the majority of occupations by people in Chisago County are in either Sales or Office occupations or Management, Business, Science or Service Occupations. These two occupation type categories make up more than half of the occupations in the County.

Table 29: Occupations in Chisago County (Estimates from 2008-2012) Occupation Number Percent Civilian employed population 16 years and over 26,438 26,438 Management, business, science, and arts occupations 8,597 32.5% Service occupations 4,567 17.3% Sales and office occupations 5,943 22.5% Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations 3,383 12.8% Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 3,948 14.9% Source: US Census

3.4.6 Commercial Trends As of 2012, there was 1,206 employer establishments in Chisago County, MN. The following table outlines the type of sector and the number of establishments for each sector.

Table 30: Employer Establishments Type of Establishment Number of Establishments Total for all sectors 1206 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting 7 Utilities 3 Construction 218 Manufacturing 81 Wholesale trade 54 Retail trade 154 Transportation and warehousing 57 Information 13 Finance and insurance 46 Real estate and rental and leasing 45 Professional, scientific, and technical services 76 Management of companies and enterprises 3 Administrative and support and waste management and remediation 66 services Educational services 9 Health care and social assistance 131 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 27 Accommodation and food services 85 Other services (except public administration) 127 Industries not classified 1 Source: US Census

3.4.7 Faith Based Community In Chisago County, the faith-based community is strong. The majority of the County is predominantly Lutheran with Catholicism ranking second.

Many churches offer services, which can supplement the plans and recovery efforts of a community. Table 31 outlines the number of adherents making it possible to identify the larger religious bodies.

The faith-based communities have had a long history of providing a communication and reaction conduit for those expressing an interest in disseminating information.

Table 31: Breakdown of population affiliated with religious congregations Name Evangelical Catholic New Testament The Evangelical Lutheran Church Association Covenant Church Church in Independent Baptist America Churches/Other Fundamental Baptists Adherents 9,570 (47.4%) 6,355 (31.5%) 429 (2.1%) 424 (2.1%) Congregations 10 (25.6%) 5 (12.8%) 2 (5.1%) 3 (7.7%)

3.4.8 Economic Conditions Table 32 shows the most common industries in the County and displays the number and percentages for each industry.

Table 32: Most Common Industries in Chisago County Industry Number Percent Civilian employed population 16 years and over 26,438 26,438 Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 303 1.1% Construction 2,844 10.8% Manufacturing 4,232 16.0% Wholesale trade 973 3.7% Retail trade 2,832 10.7% Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 1,351 5.1% Information 196 0.7% Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing 1,256 4.8% Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste 2,109 8.0% management services Educational services, and health care and social assistance 6,041 22.8% Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services 1,736 6.6% Other services, except public administration 1,261 4.8% Public administration 1,304 4.9% Source: US Census

Table 33 outlines the profile for Chisago County about farms. The table outlines the percent change seen from 2007 to 2012. The acreage of land used for farms and number of farms has decreased in the time period indicated, however, the average size of farms has increased by 3 percent. This is critical information because agriculture is a big industry in the County.

Table 33: Chisago County Farm Profile Percent Information 2012 2007 Change Number of Farms 832 867 -4 Land in Farms 113,744 115,280 -1 Average Size of Farm 137 acres 133 acres +3 Source: U.S. Census of Agriculture

3.4.9 Superfund A Superfund site is an uncontrolled or abandoned place where hazardous waste is located, possibly affecting local ecosystems or people. Sites are listed on the National Priorities List (NPL) upon completion of Hazard Ranking System (HRS) screening, public solicitation of comments about the proposed site, and after all comments have been addressed.

Over the past 20+ years, Superfund has located and analyzed tens of thousands of hazardous waste sites, protected people and the environment from contamination at the worst sites, and involved states, local communities, and other partners in the cleanup. Superfund measures its cleanup accomplishments through various criteria including construction and post construction completions of hazardous waste sites.

There are currently no Superfund sites in Chisago County. The County status is “active” based on the U.S.

Department of Environmental Protection Agencies Superfund website.

Source: U.S. Department of Environmental Protection Agency

3.4.10 Future Development Current economic trends for the region are as follows: 1. Aspects of agriculture have plummeted in recent years. Counties in the region with the most population loss often are agriculturally dependent. Population loss is an important issue in many counties. 2. Employment in the region has increased since 1990, but it is not an even growth. The gain is not enough to prevent population loss. Large losses are seen in agriculture and self-employment. 3. Some recent growth in the service and retail portions of the workforce is related to outside visitors coming to the region and surrounding areas for recreational purposes. Agricultural lands and natural areas are a majority of the landscape in the region. The ensuing environment befits the preferences of a rural population.

3.4.11 Crime The following table outlines the number and type of crime in Chisago County from 2015-2016.

Table 34: Crimes Known in 2015-2016 in Chisago County

Source: Chisago County

3.5 Critical Infrastructure The term built environment refers to the human-made surroundings that provide the setting for human activity, ranging in scale from personal shelter and buildings to neighborhoods and cities that can often include their supporting critical infrastructure (bridges, water treatment, highways, etc.) and key resource (schools, museums, etc.) assets. The built environment is a material, spatial, and cultural product of human labor that combines physical elements and energy in forms necessary for living, working and playing. In urban planning, the phrase connotes the idea that a large percentage of the human environment is fabricated, and these artificial surroundings are so extensive and cohesive that they function as organisms in the consumption of resources, disposal of wastes, and facilitation of productive enterprise within its bounds.

The County’s infrastructure and facilities are important for its normal functioning and the health, safety, and general welfare of its residents. This section identifies Chisago County’s important critical infrastructure and facilities, including subsections on transportation, schools, medical facilities, waste facilities, and historic sites.

Chisago County’s transportation system is composed of roads, highways, airports, public transit, railroads, and trails. This system is designed to serve all of the residents, business activities, agriculture, and tourism.

3.5.1 Roads Roadways are categorized under the agency that is responsible for their maintenance. The State is responsible for the Federal Interstate, US Trunk Highways (USTH), Minnesota Trunk Highways (MNTH), and State Park roads. The County is responsible for County State-Aid Highways (CSAH) and County roads (CR). Other roadways, including Municipal State-Aid roads (MSA), Townships roads, and Municipal roads, are the responsibility of the local city or township. The following table shows the roadway system in Chisago County according to its current jurisdiction.

Figure 11: Chisago County Roadways Chisago County Roadway Jurisdiction Summary

Source: Chisago County Transportation Plan, 2005

3.5.2 Railroads There is one commercial rail company operating on rail track age in Chisago County. The St. Croix Valley Railroad Company operates a 37-mile line from North Branch to Hinckley along Interstate 35. Approximately 16 miles of this line is located within Chisago. According to Minnesota Department of Transportation (MN DOT) information, there is an average of two trains per week operating at a maximum speed of 25 mph. Also according to MN DOT information, there were no vehicle/train crashes in the County from 2001 to 2003.

Table 35: FRA Railroad Track Classification

Class Freight Speed (mph) Passenger Speed (mph) One 10 15 Two 25 30 Three 40 60 Four 60 80 Source: Chisago County Transportation Plan, 2005

The efficiency of a railroad is affected by the physical condition of the rail lines. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) track classification is based upon the physical characteristics of the roadbed, track geometry, and track structure. There are four different track classifications with maximum freight and passenger speeds (Table 14). Characteristics related to the roadbed include drainage and vegetation. Track geometry includes gauge, alignment, elevation, and surface. Track structure involves ballast, ties, rail, spikes, joints, and switches. These characteristics determine the allowable operating speeds for each rail line.

The weight restriction of a particular line has a great effect on the movement of grain traveling through the County. The most efficient means for rail shipment of grain is by 100-ton hopper cars. Such cars have a gross weight of 263,000 pounds. Without access to a rail with strength to handle these hopper cars, a shipper must choose between small rail cars or truck transportation. Both the CP/Soo and BNSF rail lines are designated to handle over 263,000 pounds. As a result, the CP/Soo and BNSF rail lines both bear over 10,000,000 gross tons of freight annually.

3.5.3 Air Transportation The Rush City Regional Airport is located in the northeast area of Rush City. It is owned and operated by Rush City and is currently the only public use airport in the County. Currently, 21 aircraft are based on this field, which amounts to approximately 21 flights per day. The airport is most commonly used by General Aviation traffic. The paved runway at this airport is 4,400 feet long and 75 feet wide. It is aligned northwest to southeast with runway numbers of 16 and 34. There are two separate GPS instrument approaches, for pilot use in adverse weather, that lead to Runway 34. A Non- Directional Beacon (NDB) provides navigation and up-to-date weather information to pilots. Other visual aids on the airport include a rotating green and white beacon, Visual Approach Slope Indicators (VASI), and a lighted wind cone. Jet fuel and 100LL is available 24 hours per day from a credit-card style pump. Source: Chisago County Transportation Plan, 2005

3.5.4 Transit Chisago County is not part of the seven-County area covered by the Metropolitan Council and therefore is not served by Metro Transit. However, the County is served by Arrowhead Transit, which operates within the County borders. Curb to curb service is provided from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The service is available to anyone in the County who requests it and all of the vehicles are Americans with Disability Act (ADA) accessible. Bus service is not provided on government holidays and reservations are suggested by noon the working day before travel.

In addition, the County has two existing park and pool lots. Located near the Interstate 35 and USTH 61 interchange, a Wyoming lot provides 57 spaces. On average days, 25 – 30 spaces are filled with users. The other site is located off Bench Street in the City of Taylors Falls. No information was available on the usage of this site. A third Park-and-Pool project is currently being analyzed at CSAH 17 and Interstate 35 in Lent Township. This potential lot depends upon the results of the CSAH 17/Interstate 35 Interchange Study currently underway. Source: Chisago County Transportation Plan, 2005.

3.5.5 Trails Trails currently provide important connections between population centers in the County. There is one existing trail in Chisago County. The Sunrise Prairie Trail is 24 miles long and connects North Branch, Stacy, and Wyoming with Forest Lake in Washington County. This trail follows the original Burlington Northern Railroad line constructed in 1867-1870. The trail passes through areas of hardwood forest, deep marsh wetlands, the Sunrise River and the towns of Wyoming and Stacy, surrounded by various rural and urban areas. The bituminous trail is for biking, in-line skating, and hiking and the parallel-unpaved trail is for snowmobiles and horses. This trail follows the abandoned Burlington-Northern railroad right-of-way. It connects to the Hardwood Creek Trail in Washington County. Additional trails are being planned with the goal of connecting state, County, and community parks, schools, and major employers within the County.

Figure 12: Chisago County Transportation Map

58 Source: Chisago County Transportation Plan, 2005

3.5.6 Pipelines There are gas transmission pipelines, seen in blue on the map below, and hazardous liquid pipelines, seen in red on the map below, which runs through Chisago County. The hazardous liquid pipelines run through or near Rush City, Harris, Stark, North Branch, Wyoming, and Stacy. The gas transmission pipelines run through or near Rush City, Harris, North Branch, Lindstrom, Stacy, Shafer, and Stark. The energy transportation network of the United States consists of over 2.5 million miles of pipelines. That is enough to circle the earth about 100 times. Approximately 3,000 companies, large and small, operate these pipelines. Based on data generated from annual reports to PHMSA from pipeline operators, the network includes approximately:

59 • 175,000 miles of onshore and offshore Hazardous Liquid pipeline; • 321,000 miles of onshore and offshore Gas Transmission and Gathering pipelines; • 2,066,000 miles of Gas Distribution mains and service pipelines; • 114 active LNG Plants connected to our gas transmission and distribution systems; and • Propane Distribution System pipelines.

Although pipelines exist in all fifty states, most of us are unaware that this vast network even exists. This is due to the strong safety record of pipelines and the fact that most of them are located underground. Installing pipelines underground protects them from damage and helps protect our communities as well.

Most hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines are located underground in rights-of-way (ROW). A ROW consists of consecutive property easements acquired by, or granted to, the pipeline company. The ROW provides sufficient space to perform pipeline maintenance and inspections, as well as a clear zone where encroachments can be monitored and prevented.

Figure 13: Pipeline Map Chisago County

Source: NPMS Public Viewer (www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov) Pipeline operators are required to post brightly-colored markers along their ROW to indicate the presence of – but not necessarily the exact location of – their underground pipelines. Markers come in a variety of shapes and sizes. They contain information about the nearby pipeline as well as emergency contact information for the company that operates it.

Gas distribution systems consist of distribution main lines and service lines. Distribution main lines are generally installed in underground utility easements alongside streets and highways. Distribution service lines run from the distribution main line into homes or businesses. Aboveground markers do not generally indicate distribution main and service lines.

Pipelines play a vital role in our daily lives. Cooking and cleaning, the daily commute, air travel and the heating of homes and businesses are all made possible by the readily available fuels delivered through pipelines.

These routine activities really add up, in terms of energy use. Natural gas provides for fully 24% of our country’s total energy consumption, and petroleum provides for another 39%. Because such huge volumes of hazardous liquids and gas must be transported, the only feasible way to do so is through pipelines. Pipelines do not crowd our highways and waterways as trucks and barges would, nor do they contribute to traffic congestion or highway accidents. (U.S. Department of Transportation)

3.5.7 Sewer and Water Systems Due to the rapid growth of the County, wastewater treatment is an important issue for the County, cities, and townships to keep under review. As part of the 1994 County Comprehensive Plan process issues relating to water quality and waste management were raised. The County determined that it was important to identify and resolve issues relating to wastewater treatment, either municipal or individual. Therefore, in 1999, the County conducted a study called The Chisago County Wastewater Project – Developing Sustainable Wastewater Treatment Options for Growing Counties, to establish a planning process with statewide application to identify wastewater treatment alternatives to open water discharges. The project took place from July 1999 to June 2001. A thirty-member task force was established to address and develop a set of recommendations for the County on issues relating to wastewater treatment, either municipal or individual.

A complete inventory of all ten wastewater treatment facilities in the County was completed. A detailed accounting was completed of all septage brought into and taken out of the County, pumped within the County, and land applied within the County. The soils survey for the County was analyzed and a listing of which soils are appropriate for land application was developed. The number of individual sewage treatment systems in the County was identified and the volume of septage pumped per year was calculated, based on records turned into the County by pumpers. An extensive windshield inventory was also conducted that identified general locations in the shoreland areas of the County with non-complaint residential septic systems.

3.5.8 Public Wastewater Treatment Facilities There are currently eight public wastewater treatment facilities located in Chisago County. These are all Class D facilities except for the Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Commission (CLJSTC), which is a Class C and is explained below. The wastewater treatment facilities are shown below.

Figure 14: Chisago County Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Source: Chisago County

Rush Lake and one is a mobile home park/campground facility in North Chisago Lake Township. The Chisago Lakes Joint Sewage Treatment Commission was established in 1985 and is made up of the Cities of Chisago City, Lindstrom, Center City and Chisago County. The system operated by CLJSTC recently constructed an upgraded facility as a mechanical plant. The cities of Stacy and Wyoming have discontinued use of their individual plants and have connected to the new CLJSTC plant. The North Branch system was recently upgraded and designed to accommodate future projected growth of the city. Harris is in the process of upgrading its wastewater plant. As noted in the table above all systems have discharge routes that eventually lead to the St. Croix River with the exception of Blue Waters.

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

Figure 15: Chisago County Sanitary Sewers

(Note: The map will be updated to reflect the connections for Stacy and Wyoming.) Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

3.5.9 Water Control Structures Table 36 lists the four water control structures that have been classified as dams by the DNR.

Table 36: Chisago County Dams Name Location Nevers Dam North Branch Rush Creek Dam Rush City Sunrise River Pool 1 Dam Stacy Sunrise River Pool 3 Dam Chisago City Source: Minnesota DNR

3.5.10 Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund The Federal Clean Water Act authorizes a Clean Water State Revolving Fund program to provide funds to finance water pollution control projects. Under the Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) awards annual capitalization grants to each state to capitalize a State Revolving Fund (SRF), which the State can then use to provide loans for both point source (wastewater) and nonpoint source water pollution control projects. As part of its capitalization grant application, each State must annually prepare an Intended Use Plan (IUP) that describes the intended use of the available funds.

The Minnesota Legislature has established the Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund under Minn. Statutes Section 446A.07 to receive the Federal capitalization grants and State matching funds. The Minnesota Public Facilities Authority is responsible for managing the funds and its assets. The Authority is also responsible for the financial administration of the point source (wastewater) loan program, including reviewing applicants, setting the rates, terms, and conditions of the loans.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is responsible for preparing the annual IUP and for setting wastewater project priorities and reviewing wastewater projects to ensure they meet technical and environmental requirements. The MPCA, the Minnesota Department of Agriculture and the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development administer nonpoint source loan programs.

Sources: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Division of Waters Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

3.5.11 Public Water Accesses The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), through its Public Water Access Program, manages over 1,500 trailers and carries in boat accesses on Minnesota's lakes and rivers. These accesses usually remain open 24 hours a day unless posted and are patrolled by conservation officers. There is no fee for their use. However, accesses located within a State Park require a daily or annual State Park sticker. The Public Water Access Program also provides other water access amenities such as fishing piers and shore fishing sites for those who may not have a boat. Fishing piers and shoreline enhancements are barrier free and are generally operated and maintained by local units of government.

The goal of the Public Water Access Program is to provide free access to Minnesota's lakes and rivers. The program strives to meet the increasing demand on the State's water resources for all boating activities. The Public Water Access Program works year round on acquisition, development, and

maintenance of water access sites. Funds to provide public accesses are derived through boat license fees and a portion of gas tax revenues attributed to motorboats. In addition, funding is periodically provided through the Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (LCMR) and the State Bonding Program.

Table 37 provides information on the 33 public water accesses that are located in Chisago County, as well as fishing piers within the County.

Table 37: Public Water Accesses Water Body Name Ramp Type Administrator Chisago / So. Lindstrom Lake Concrete DNR Chisago/ So. Lindstrom Lake Fishing Pier City Chisago/ So. Lindstrom Lake Fishing Pier DNR Comfort Lake Concrete DNR Fish Lake Concrete County Goose Lake Concrete DNR Green Lake Concrete DNR Horseshoe Lake Concrete DNR Kroon Lake Concrete DNR Little Horseshoe Lake Concrete Township Little Lake Concrete DNR Little Green Lake Concrete City North Center Lake Concrete DNR North Center Lake Fishing Pier City Rush Lake (East) Concrete DNR Rush Lake (West) Concrete DNR Rush Lake Fishing Pier County Stevens Creek Carry In NPS Old Railroad Bridge Carry In NPS Ferry Landing Carry In Township Sunrise Landing Concrete DNR Wild River S.P. Access Concrete DNR Taylor Falls Concrete City Lion’s Club Interstate State Park Concrete Township Franconia Earth NPS Osceola Concrete NPS South Center Lake Concrete DNR Spider Lake Concrete DNR Sunrise Pool No. 1 Carry In DNR Sunrise Pool No. 2 Carry In DNR Sunrise Pool No. 3 Carry In DNR Sunrise River carry in DNR Sunrise River Carry in County Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Division of Trails and Waterways

3.5.12 Emergency Response Capabilities A County’s ability to respond to an emergency or event is based on service areas, facilities, and equipment. An understanding of response times and abilities is critical in protecting the citizens of Chisago County. The existing facilities and equipment in the County are intended to address local needs and support regional needs. Chisago County is considered a mutual aid County, provides, and receives support from adjacent counties. The following summary and description serve as an inventory of the response facilities for Chisago County.

3.5.13 Medical Facilities Health care service is provided in Chisago County by a variety of agencies and health service facilities. There are five clinics located in the County and one hospital. Clinics are located in Chisago City, North Branch (2), Rush City and a clinic/hospital is located in the City of Wyoming. The County Public Health Nursing Center from an office in Center City provides other health care. A County Health and Human Services building is scheduled to open in North Branch in 2007.

Facilities located in areas adjacent to the County provide additional health services. Health care facilities provided to the County can be regarded as adequate for present needs. Other health care facilities in adjacent counties are readily accessible to Chisago County residents. These other facilities are located in Braham, Cambridge, Pine City, Forest Lake, Osceola, Wisconsin, St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin, and the Metropolitan Area. Any inadequacies in health care facilities within the County are covered to some extent by the adjacent health care units. Health care facilities in Chisago County compare favorably with those for the entire state.

Ambulance service is available within 20 miles of any location in the County. The Lakes Region EMS covers the majority of the County. With the far northwestern portion of the County being serviced by Allina Medical, the Taylors Falls Region being serviced by St. Croix Valley EMS and the North Memorial Medical Transportation servicing the far southwestern corner of the County. Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

Figure 16: Chisago County Hospitals and Clinics

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

Figure 17: Chisago County Ambulance Service Area

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

3.5.14 Fire Services The fire departments in Chisago County are all volunteer. The fire districts cover the entire County. There are fourteen fire departments that service Chisago County; three are located outside the County (Cambridge, Braham, and Forest Lake). The Fire District Service Areas are shown on the map below. The Department of Natural Resources is responsible for fire protection on state forest and park land. The DNR works closely with local fire units for protection of these lands through contracting agreements. Both the U.S. Forest Service and the DNR work closely with local firefighters whenever danger of woodland and urban fires is elevated.

The following fire departments are located in Chisago County.

Table 38: Fire Services in Chisago County Almelund Fire - Rescue Center City Fire & Rescue 15740 Maple Ln 335 Burns Ave Almelund, MN 55002 Center City, MN 55012 City of Harris Fire Department The city of Taylors falls 53565 Gladstone Ave 637 First St Harris, MN 55032 Taylors Falls, MN 55084 Lindstrom Fire Dept. North Branch Fire Dept. 12995 Lake Blvd. 37917 Forest Blvd Lindstrom, MN 55045 North Branch, MN 55056 Rush City Fire Dept. Shafer Franconia Fire & Rescue Po Box 556 30325 Redwing Ave Rush City, MN 55069 Shafer, MN 55074 Stacy Lent Area Fire Department, Fire Department Wyoming Fire Department 33155 Hemmingway Ave 26885 Forest Blvd Stacy, MN 55079 Wyoming, MN 55092

A map of the Chisago County Fire Response Districts follows:

Figure 18: Fire Response Districts

Figure 19: Emergency Facilities in Chisago County

3.5.15 Public Safety The Chisago County Sheriff’s Office is responsible for the unincorporated areas of the County. In addition, several municipalities within the County contract with the Sheriff’s Office for law enforcement services in lieu of having their own police department. These include Harris, Stacy, Center City Cities of Rush City and Taylors Falls. The, Wyoming and North Branch each have its own police department. The Cities of Lindstrom and Chisago City have combined law enforcement agencies to one department to service both cities.

Currently, Chisago County has outgrown its jail capacity at its current jail and is currently undertaking a jail/justice center needs assessment for determining future space and location needs.

3.5.16 Emergency warning systems NOAA Weather Radio is used for warning citizens of storm events. The County also has tower mounted emergency service antennas and sirens, which are part of the County 911 system.

3.5.17 Communication Facilities Frontier Telephone Company services the southern and most of the eastern communities. Qwest, with an office in Cambridge (Isanti County), services the northern portion of Chisago County from North Branch to Rush City. There are numerous wireless communications towers owned and occupied by various service providers throughout the County. New towers are occasionally proposed to be built within the County, and it appears that as the County’s population grows more towers will be proposed in the future. The County is

currently exploring the possibility of proactively designating specific sites for future towers in locations where they allow effective communication but also cause the least amount of aesthetic concern.

Radio and television services to the County are provided from outside the County. Most of this service is provided by Minneapolis/St. Paul stations. Booster towers are located throughout the County.

There are two independent newspapers operating in the County: the Chisago County Press, located in Lindstrom, which was established in 1898, and the ECM Post Review, located in North Branch, which was formed from a merger of the Rush City Post and the North Branch Review. The Cambridge Star and Forest Lake Times also serve portions of the County.

3.5.18 Utilities Northern Natural Gas Company and Minnesota Energy service the incorporated areas of Chisago County and some of the rural areas located near the pipeline. Pumping sites are located along the pipeline in strategic locations. A petroleum products pipeline operated by Magellan Pipeline Company also runs through the County parallel to Highway I-35.

Xcel Energy, East Central Electric Association, and Connexus provide electric power for the County. Xcel services in the southern and eastern sections of the County, while East Central Electric Association and Connexus operate in the western sections of the County.

3.5.19 Power Facilities Minnesota has two nuclear power plants. These power plants are not located in Chisago County or any of the surrounding counties. Although a nuclear problem with these plants would affect Chisago County, it is not a direct hazard. The Chisago County EOP has a detailed section about what to do in the event of a nuclear or radiologic exposure, including the management of evacuees.

For security reasons, individual plants and substations will not be mapped out. Please see the emergency management staff for more information about this topic.

3.5.20 Energy Sector The Minnesota State Energy Sector Partnership was created in 2009 by the Governor’s Workforce Development Council and is a statewide initiative to forge an integrated and demand-driven system of education, training, and support services in energy efficiency and renewable energy industries. A three- year, $6 million U.S. Department of Labor grants, funds MSESP.

The Minnesota State Energy Profile indicates that Minnesota was ranked fourth in the nation in ethanol production capacity in 2013. Even though Minnesota is 21st in the nation in population in 2011, was 29th in residential per capita energy use despite its very cold winters. About 46% of the electricity generated in Minnesota came from coal-fired electric power plants in 2013; most of its coal supply was brought in by rail from Montana and Wyoming. There are two nuclear power plants near Minneapolis-St. Paul, the Monticello reactor, and the Prairie Island I and II reactors, which accounted for 21% of Minnesota’s net electricity generation in 2013. Minnesota ranked seventh in the nation in net electricity generation from wind energy in 2013; its net generation was 8 million megawatt hours in 2013, an increase of 5.9% from 2012.

The following table outlines the most common heating fuel for households in Chisago County.

Table 39: Heating Fuel for Households in Chisago County House Heating Fuel Number Percent Occupied housing units 19,669 19,669 Utility gas 13,160 66.9% Bottled, tank, or LP gas 2,906 14.8% Electricity 1,903 9.7% Fuel oil, kerosene, etc. 420 2.1% Coal or coke 16 0.1% Wood 827 4.2% Solar energy 0 0.0% Other fuel 358 1.8% No fuel used 79 0.4% Source: US Census Bureau 3.5.21 Schools At one time Chisago County had 62 school districts within the County. Today there are only seven. Three of those districts are complete with the County’s boundary (Chisago Lakes, North Branch, and Rush City); three are school districts located in communities outside of the County (Braham, Cambridge, and Forest Lake); and there is one common district #323 in the southeast of Franconia Township that sends their students across the St. Croix River to Osceola Wisconsin Public Schools. The school districts are committed to quality education and to ensuring that adequate facilities are available for the County's educational and recreational needs. The schools also serve as artistic, performing art, and community centers.

Figure 20: Schools in Chisago County

Source: Chisago County Comprehensive Plan, 2007

73 Section 4: Risk Assessment

A risk assessment is critical to mitigation and comprehensive emergency management in that it allows communities to measure and better understand the potential impact of hazards on their communities. Conducting a risk analysis is a multi-step process. The risk assessment process includes identifying hazards, profiling hazard events, determining how frequent hazards occur, and determining both the type and magnitude of hazards impact. A risk assessment provides the means for emergency managers and community leaders to develop mitigation actions and to prioritize resource needed to address operational activities and to ultimately help a community become more resilient (Schwab, Eschelbach, and Brower, 2007).

FEMA Requirements Addressed in this Section:

§201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type, location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.

§201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. All plans approved after October 1, 2008, must also address NFIP insured structures that have been repetitively damaged by floods. The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of:

§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): (A) The types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas;

§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): (B) An estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in … this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.

§201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): (C) Providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.

§201.6(c)(2)(iii): For multi‐jurisdictional plans, the risk assessment section must assess each jurisdiction’s risks where they vary from the risks facing the entire planning area.

4.1 Hazard Profile The first step in conducting risk analyses is to identify which hazards are the most probable to impact one’s community. With regard to Chisago County’s mitigation plan update, an all-inclusive list of hazards was considered for inclusion in the plan update. The Planning Team reviewed several sources to include Chisago County’s previous hazard mitigation plan, hazards identified by FEMA (Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment), the Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan, mitigation plans of other neighboring counties and other technical documents. In addition to reviewing the region’s mitigation plans, the planning team analyzed past declared disasters and spoke to local experts and residents. To elicit input from both officials and citizens, a public meeting was also held with the results distributed to all of the participating jurisdictions.

74 The planning team’s efforts resulted in a comprehensive list of hazards (blizzard, cyber crime, civil disobedience, dam failure, drought, earthquake, fire, floods, hazardous material incidents, infectious disease, ice storms, lightning, power outage, rainstorm, subsidence, terrorism, tornadoes, transportation incidents, windstorms, and wildfire). Once the initial hazard list was established, it was presented to the Chisago County Mitigation Steering Committee for discussion and consideration.

While 20 hazards were originally identified as options to be included in the mitigation plan, the Steering Committee noted that the hazards were too broad and were possible should be condensed. With input from the planning team on how to infuse efficiency into the planning process and feedback from the public, the number of hazards was reduced from 20 to 8 As suggested by the Planning Team and approved by the Steering Committee (June 7, 2015) the following changes were made:

• Summer and winter storms were expanded so that they both respectively took into account damage caused by rain wind, ice, snow, and cold. • Infectious disease was included as it included communicable diseases were as communicable diseases do not include infectious diseases. • Drought will not be included as it was not included in the latest state HMP (HMP are not set up to address issues associated with drought). • Issues of, electric failure should be eliminated as it will be treated as a consequence of a hazard rather than hazard itself. • The hazards of political unrest, Aircraft Incidents, cyber crime and terrorism etcetera are 1) not natural hazards; 2) are addressed in other plans. • While Hazardous Material is not a natural hazard, the preliminary investigation seems to suggest that the County and or its jurisdictions are at a significant risk of hazmat events (Rail, Highway, and Industry) and as such, will be included in the plan update. • Transportation hazard will be eliminated and or represented by other hazards (HAZMAT).

The following chart provides a summary of the final hazards identified in the hazard risk assessment:

Table 40: Hazards Identified for the Hazard Risk Assessment

Natural Hazards Technological Hazards

Infectious Disease Hazardous Material Flood Structure Fire Severe Summer Storms (Hail, Heat, Lightning, Rain, Thunder, & Wind) Water Supply Contamination Tornado Wildfire Severe Winter Storms (Blizzard, Extreme Cold & Ice Storms)

4.1.1 Risk Assessment Process At the most fundamental level, both DHS and FEMA recognize that risk is equal to frequency X consequence (R = FC) of a hazard. More specifically, the risk is based on the premise that in order to have a certain level of risk there must be a probability or likelihood of a hazardous event to occur. Likewise, if the event does occur, it must have an impact or consequence. The following section outlines the methodology used to determine Chisago County’s risk.

To assess hazards and determine risk, the planning team proposed that a methodology based on probability and impact be utilized. First, each hazard was researched, documented, and assessed for frequency and impact. Then, the hazard frequency and impacts were compiled for all of the individual hazard assessments. Once this data was compiled, the frequency and impact calculations were tabulated to obtain a matrix of risk scores. The risk methodology as highlighted above was presented to the steering committee during the December 10, 2014, steering/planning meeting.

4.1.2 Probability of Future Occurrences The probability of future occurrences is commonly determined by using the frequency of past events to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. In the case of Chisago County, the hazard analyses and update was based on the County’s historical data, the written record and information provided by citizens of Chisago County, and input from participating jurisdictions. When possible, a 50-year period was used to determine the probability (note, not all hazards report 50 years of data). The data used for all the hazard probabilities can be found in Appendix B.

The method used in the Chisago County’s plan for standardizing the scale of probability values was based on the probability as shown below. The metrics for these classifications have been modified to reflect the 50-year reoccurrence interval used for this risk assessment and properly reflect the scale for the probabilities that was analyzed.

76 Table 41: Frequency/Probability Level ID Description Index Value Index Value Rare with no documented history of Unlikely .5 occurrences or events. Annual probability of less than 0.001 Rare occurrences of at least one documented or anecdotal historic Possible 1 event. Annual probability that is between 0.01 and 0.001 Likely occurrences with at least two or more documented historic Likely 2 events. Annual probability that is between 0.1 and 0.01 Highly Likely Frequent events with a well-documented history of Highly Likely 3 occurrence. The annual probability that is greater than 0.1.

One issue to note is that hazard data is often reported regionally versus being isolated to a single community. When determining risk, regional reporting can present a challenge in that multiple communities are noted as being impacted versus individual cities or counties. For example, NOAA might report that a severe storm affecting the Southwestern part of Chisago County while not directly indicating the city of Wyoming as being affected. As such, to ensure each jurisdiction (or in the example--- Wyoming) is accounted for, a quadrant system was used.

The quadrant used in the Risk Analyses simply arranged Chisago County and its cities into the regional reporting categories (Central Chisago, Southcentral Chisago, Northcentral Chisago, Northwestern Chisago, Southwestern Chisago, Northeastern Chisago, and Southeastern Chisago). For tabulating hazards frequency, the following Regional Classification Table demonstrates which cities are associated with each jurisdiction.

Table 42: Regional Classification Regional Classification Central North Branch, Unincorporated Chisago County Southcentral Center City, Lindstrom, Unincorporated Chisago County Northcentral Harris, Rush City, Unincorporated Chisago County East central Shafer, Taylors Fall, Unincorporated Chisago County West central Stacy, Unincorporated Chisago County Northwestern Unincorporated Chisago County Southwestern Wyoming, Unincorporated Chisago County Northeastern Unincorporated Chisago County Southeastern Unincorporated Chisago County Note: The quadrant system was only used when the Hazard data used regional indications and did not directly indicate a community.

4.1.3 Hazard Impact When conducting a risk analysis, creating a probability of a hazard occurrence is just one of several steps one must take to determine risk. To determine risk one must also take in account both impact assumption and affect magnitudes.

Impact assumptions describe how hazards influence the County and or its cities. The specific set of impact assumptions listed below were selected for Chisago County’s hazard risk analyses. The listed impact

77 assumptions were chosen as they 1) can be caused by several different hazard events; 2) are mostly independent of each other; 3) each can be (to certain degrees) mitigated; 4) are often cited in the disaster literature (Center Comprehensive Emergency Management Research. 2015). In addition, 5) are commonly used in disaster planning.

Table 43: Impact Assumptions Impact Assumptions Casualties/Trauma Non-Critical injuries that require medical attention. Disruption of communication including mobile and wired phone, radio, television, Communication, Lack thereof and satellite. Continuity of Government Disruption of County government normal operations. Dry, wet, hazardous, organic or inorganic materials that need to be cleared and Debris properly disposed of. Emergency Services Fire, Rescue, and Medical services are either overwhelmed or unable to respond Disrupted/Limited normally. Hazardous conditions require the evacuation from either a specific site or larger Evacuation Needs area within the County. Fatalities Death due to the hazard. Hazardous Material Release Hazard event causes a hazard material release as a secondary hazard. Overwhelm of First First responders are overwhelmed or unable to respond. Responders Mass Care Needs Hazard event requires emergency sheltering of citizens. Physical Damage / Asset Loss or damage to the built environment. Destruction Power, Disruption/Outages Inability to supply power to end users or lack of enough power. Transportation, County roads, sidewalks, and public transit are obstructed or unable to function Disruption/Failure normally. Economic Loss Hazard causes loss or disruption to economic assets.

4.1.4 Impact Magnitudes Disaster is loosely determined by when a jurisdiction’s capacity is exceeded or when the jurisdiction no longer has the capacity to cope with the hazard. To quantify impact assumptions, it is necessary to determine the magnitude that hazard might have on a jurisdiction. The metric for impact magnitude consisted of a number of descriptors that are normally associated with a jurisdiction's capability and capacity to respond to, mitigate, and or recover from hazed events. A full list of these magnitude ratings is presented in the Impact Magnitude Rating table below.

Table 44: Impact Magnitude Ratings Descriptors Rating Descriptors 0 Hazard has no foreseeable effect specific to the impact assumption (rare). The impact is present but is extremely light having relatively no notable adverse effect 1 on the jurisdiction. The impact has an effect on the Jurisdiction but does not always require next level 2 government intervention.

Rating Descriptors Impact necessitates a County response or deployment of resources, impact disrupts 3 normal/planned community functions. 4 Impact requires EOC operations or other coordinated response efforts. The cost of impact exceeds a threshold of being unusually detrimental or disruptive to 5 the Jurisdiction. The impact is taxing on County's resources and has a widespread effect on the 6 greater community. The impact has an extended response / short-term recovery duration exceeding 36 7 hours and some long-term recovery needs. 8 Impact exceeds County and municipal response capabilities/capacities. Long-term recovery planning needed, State or Federal resources needed to aid 9 response and recovery from the impact. The impact is so great it disrupts basic County function for an extended period and 10 causes secondary hazards.

The final steps in calculating consequence (affects score) is to Risk Scoring Key provide a magnitude of each impact. Once each impact is 0 – 3.23 Little To No Risk assigned a magnitude rating, the sums of each impact are 3.24 - 5.49 Low Risk added together and divided by 14 (the number of impact assumptions). The maximum impact score for each event could 5.5 - 7.74 Moderate Risk be 10 while the minimal score could be zero. 7.75 - 9 High Risk

As noted by the steering committee, the challenge with using this model is to quantify hazard impacts so that they use similar scales and are easily interpreted without inserting bias.

To account for bias, it was decided that once the data was calculated, it would be placed on a dedicated web page for open review and comment by the steering committee, participating jurisdictions, and public. The emergency manager was responsible for informing the public, steering committee and participating jurisdictions that the information was available for review and to provide comment. The hazard risk assessment was reviewed over 90 times, with input occurring from each of the participating jurisdictions. In instances where the findings provided by the jurisdictions were inconsistent with the written record, the average of the two data sets was used to determine the County’s hazard frequencies.

Table 45: Impact Descriptors Level ID Description Index Value Index Value No Impact No action required. 0 Low (Less than 3.33) Minimal action required. 1 Moderate (3.34-7.45) Action required with present resources. 2 High (7.5-10) County resources are overloaded and additional help is required. 3

4.2 Risk This section is a summary of risks and the factors that contributed to the overall risk score for each hazard. Data was derived from Chisago County’s past mitigation plan, readily available data (internet searches, disaster database), and records provided by Chisago County and the participating jurisdictions. The individual hazard profiles were the basis that informed the hazard risk analysis process. The probability, impact and risk hazard event data was analyzed for each of the listed hazards and for each of the

participating jurisdictions in the County.

To satisfy the risk equation proved earlier (i.e. Risk = Frequency X Consequence), a final risk score for each jurisdiction was generated. The risk was determined by multiplying the probability index number by the hazards consequence index number (i.e. Consequence = Impact Assumption X Impact Magnitude / 14). Risk scores range from 0-9 and are categorized as Little to No Risk (score of 0 to 3.23), Low Risk (score of 3.24 to 5.49), Moderate Risk (score of 5.5 to 7.74) and High Risk (score of 7.5 or higher). The table to the right summarizes the risk-scoring key.

To assist the reader in understanding how risk was determined an example is provided.

EXAMPLE: Over the past 50 years, hazard X occurred 40 times. From this information, it can be determined that this hazard is highly likely to reoccur and is recorded with a probability index score is equal to three. Additionally, the hazard impact assessment suggests the hazard will have a moderate impact on the jurisdiction (70/14= 5) and as such the hazard’s impact index score is equivalent to two. The hazard risk score is calculated based on the probability (3) multiplied by the impact (2), to give an overall risk score of 6 or Moderate Risk.

It should be noted that because some select hazards were grouped, there might be inflation with regard to probability and impact. For example, summer storms include instances of hail, thunderstorms, and severe winds. Thus, the number of events and impact will rise causing the risk to also rise.

Another consideration is this model uses both the written record and record as reported by Chisago County citizens. Therefore, there may be ambiguity with regard to occurrence and impacts provided in written record. Additionally, while some hazard events technically occur outside of the legal boundaries of a jurisdiction, the effect of these hazards are still felt by those living in the jurisdiction. Thus, it is common for participants to note hazards such as wildfire and or invasive species as having an impact on their respective jurisdictions regardless of that hazard technically occurring outside the boundaries of their legal jurisdiction. Finally, one must also consider the influence of perception when assessing a hazard’s magnitude. For example, one might say an event was worse or less severe than officially reported. Such as the perception that a severe storm generated an actual tornado; however, in reality, the event generated severe, straight-line winds.

It should be noted that considerations such as these occur in all data analyses. However, such incommodes do not influence the overall purpose of mitigation or diminish the analyses. Matter of fact, It can be argued that including both qualitative and quantitative data has made the model more accurate as it accommodates for risk perceptions and expertise of those living in Chisago County.

4.3 Flood Flooding is the accumulation of water within a water body (e.g., stream, river, lake, or reservoir) and the overflow of excess water onto adjacent floodplains. Floodplains are lowlands, adjacent to water bodies that are subject to recurring floods. Floods are natural events that are considered hazards only when people and property are affected. Nationwide, hundreds of floods occur each year, making it one of the most common hazards in all 50 states and U.S. territories (FEMA, 1997). There are a number of categories of floods in the U.S., including the following:

• Riverine flooding, including overflow from a river channel • Flash Floods • Fluctuating lake levels • Coastal flooding on the North Shore of Lake Superior • Debris flow

While there is no sharp distinction between riverine floods, flash floods, ice jam floods, and dam-break floods, these types of floods are widely recognized and may be helpful in considering the range of flood risk and appropriate responses. The most common type of flooding event is riverine flooding, also known as overbank flooding. Riverine floodplains range from narrow, confined channels in the steep valleys of mountainous and hilly regions, to wide, flat areas in plains and coastal regions. The amount of water in the floodplain is a function of the size and topography of the contributing watershed, the regional and local climate, and land use characteristics. In steep valleys, flooding is usually rapid and deep, but of short duration, while flooding in flat areas is typically slow, relatively shallow, and may last for long periods. The cause of flooding in large rivers is typically prolonged periods of rainfall from weather systems covering large areas. These systems may saturate the ground and overload the rivers and reservoirs in numerous smaller basins that drain into larger rivers. Localized weather systems (i.e., thunderstorms) may cause intense rainfall over smaller areas, leading to flooding in smaller rivers and streams. Annual spring floods, due to the melting of snowpack, may affect both large and small rivers and areas.

A flash flood is defined as a rapid and extreme flow of high water into a normally dry area, or a rapid water level rise in a stream or creek above a predetermined flood level, beginning within six hours of the causative event (e.g., intense rainfall, dam failure, ice jam). However, the actual time threshold may vary in different parts of the country. Ongoing flooding can intensify to flash flooding in cases where intense rainfall results in a rapid surge of rising floodwaters. (National Weather Service, 2012). The definition of a flash flood per the Minnesota Climatology Working Group is “the occurrence of six inches or more rainfall within a 24 hour period.” The size of a flash flood is measured via area in square miles over which a four-inch or more rainfall occurs. The rationale for using this criterion is that a rainfall of six inches in a 24-hour period will produce a river flow in equivalent to that in a 100-year return period in Minnesota and that four-inch and greater rainfall generally leads to reports of increased erosion or other economic damages. Ice jam floods usually occur in the spring and are most likely to occur where the channel slope naturally decreases, when culverts freeze solid, in reservoir headwaters, near natural channel constructions (e.g., bends and bridges), and along shallows.

4.3.1 Flood Risk The overall risk for flooding in Chisago County is High, and the probability that a flood will occur each year is highly likely. Data from 2009 to 2014 was used to determine the risk for each of the cities and the

81 County as a whole. There are certain cities within Chisago County, which are at an increased risk such as Chisago City, Rush City, Stacy and the unincorporated areas of the County.

Table 46: Flood Hazard Risk Assessment Flood City Probability Impact Risk Center City Highly Likely High High Chisago City Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Harris Highly Likely Low Little to No Lindstrom Highly Likely Low Little to No North Branch Highly Likely High High Rush City Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Shafer Highly Likely Low Little to No Stacy Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Taylors Falls Highly Likely Low Little to No Wyoming Highly Likely High High Chisago County Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Total Highly Likely High High *The probability is based upon data available from 1996-2014

4.3.2 Flood History in Chisago County The following information was provided by the April 2012 Flood Insurance Study for Chisago County, MN from the FEMA website. The Flood Insurance Study for Chisago County outlined the principal flood problems within the County. The study included the following communities: Center City, Chisago City, Harris, Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls Wyoming and the Unincorporated Areas of Chisago County.

In Chisago County, several large floods have occurred on the St. Croix River, the two most notable being the 1950 and 1965 floods. The 1950 storm was the largest recorded flood stage on the St. Croix River basin. According to the MN DNR and Wisconsin Table 2 – Streams Newly Studied by Approximate Methods (continued) 6 Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the 1965 flood, which neared the one percent annual chance flood, produced significantly higher flood stages on the reach of the St. Croix River below Taylors Falls due to the backwater effects of the Mississippi River (MN DNR and WDNR, 1973). More recent flooding occurred on April 27, 2001, and April 12, 1997, and neared the magnitude of the 1965 flooding.

Additionally, the Minnesota 2014 All-Hazard Mitigation Plan indicated that from July 1-July 11, 2011 there was a period of severe storms, flooding, and tornadoes, which caused $19,186,379 in public assistance needed, and a disaster declaration was made on July 28, 2011. This flood affected 14 counties including Chisago County.

82 4.3.3 Major Declared Disasters for Flood Of the aforementioned floods, there have been seven floods in the last 50 years in Chisago County that have been declared a disaster by FEMA. These disasters were all major declared disasters, which is when the President believes an event 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. The beginning and ending date of the incident are included for these declared disasters, as well as information on the type of assistance program that was provided. Of these declared disasters, five have had Individual Assistance Programs declared and all seven have had Public Assistance Programs declared.

Table 47: Declared Disasters for Flood in Chisago County IH IA PA HM Declaration Disaster Incident Title Incident Incident Disaster Program Program Program Program Date Type Type Begin End Date Close Declared Declared Declared Declared Date Out Date No No Yes Yes 7/28/2011 DR Severe SEVERE 7/1/2011 7/11/2011 Storm(s) STORMS, FLOODING, AND TORNADOES No Yes Yes Yes 5/16/2001 DR Flood SEVERE 3/23/2001 7/3/2001 11/6/2013 WINTER STORMS, FLOODING, AND TORNADOES No No Yes Yes 6/1/1996 DR Flood FLOODING 3/14/1996 6/17/1996 3/9/2005 AND SEVERE STORMS No Yes Yes Yes 7/17/1975 DR Severe SEVERE 7/17/1975 7/17/1975 11/6/1981 Storm(s) STORMS, TORNADOES & FLOODING No Yes Yes Yes 8/1/1972 DR Flood SEVERE 8/1/1972 8/1/1972 3/9/1977 STORMS & FLOODING No Yes Yes Yes 4/18/1969 DR Flood FLOODING 4/18/1969 4/18/1969 4/15/1974 No Yes Yes Yes 4/11/1965 DR Flood FLOODING 4/11/1965 4/11/1965 1/29/1970 Source: FEMA

4.3.4 Mitigation in the Past Five Years Mitigation actions for flooding from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated the mitigation actions for flooding were to eliminate non-conforming structures in the identified 100-year floodplain by correcting the failure and buying out structures from willing sellers. Additionally, the County wanted to encourage the City of Harris and the City of Rush City to participate in NFIP. Finally, Chisago County wanted new 100-year flood maps of all County jurisdictions by encouraging local jurisdictions and the County to prepare new floodplain maps.

Kost Dam Road Stabilization Project for Erosion Control: Erosion along Kost Dam Road has been a recurring problem for many years. The stretch between County Road 11 and Locke Avenue was targeted for implementation of several erosion control practices in conjunction with a bridge replacement project being undertaken by Sunrise Township in 2012. Best

Management Practices, which have been installed, include vegetative swales, rock chutes, diversions, earthen ditch checks, and infiltration basins. These practices will slow water down, filter it, and allow possible infiltration before the runoff reaches the Sunrise River.

Flood Insurance Study: The Flood Insurance Study for Chisago County, MN provided the following information from April 2012 from the FEMA website. The Flood Insurance Study for Chisago County outlined the Flood Protection Measures within Chisago County. Numerous structures located adjacent to Green Lake, Little Green Lake, and the Chisago Chain of Lakes is subject to flooding from high lake levels. The lakes are essentially landlocked and lacked adequate outflow capacity. Local interests, through the development of a series of drop structures, culverts, and ditches were successful in lowering the lake elevations by draining water to the Sunrise River and ultimately to the St. Croix River.

National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): While several of the mitigation strategies include elements of the NFIP, the County and participating, jurisdictions’ participation in the program is considered an action in and of its self. Thus, the following narrative describes the County’s participating jurisdictions’ involvement and future commitment to the program.

The NFIP 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. 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.

In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in response to the rising cost of taxpayer-funded disaster relief for flood victims and the increasing amount of damage caused by floods. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) manages the NFIP and oversees the floodplain management and mapping components of the Program. Nearly 20,000 communities across the United States and its territories participate in the NFIP by adopting and enforcing floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes federally backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters, and business owners in these communities.

The following communities are members of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP): Center City, Chisago City, Unincorporated Areas of Chisago County, Harris, Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls and Wyoming. Through continuous monitoring, identifying at risk properties, education and using building codes and ordinances Chisago County and the participating jurisdictions will continue to work with NFIP to ensure compliance and reduce their flood risk.

In addition, there have been a number of long-term hazard mitigation measures through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) through FEMA. The purpose of this program is to reduce the loss of life and property due to natural disasters and to enable mitigation measures to be implemented during the immediate recovery from a disaster. HMGP is available when authorized under a presidential major

disaster declaration, in the areas of the State requested by the governor. The following chart shows the HMGP which have occurred in the last five years in Chisago County along with the project title, amount, and other relevant data.

Table 48: Hazard Mitigation Projects

Sub- Cost grantee Share Incident Disaster Project Project Project Sub- FIPS Project Perce Date Type Title Type Title Project Description Counties Status grantee Code Amount ntage 07/25/ Severe SEVERE 91.1: Chisago The County will CHISAG Approve Chisago 11350 $33,416.00 75% 2013 Storm(s) STORMS Local County update their hazard O d City , Multihaz Hazard mitigation plan STRAIG ard Mitigatio through the HT LINE Mitigatio n Plan appropriate planning WINDS n Plan process. AND FLOODI NG Source: FEMA

4.3.5 Vulnerability Much exist in Chisago County concerning vulnerability and flood hazards. Structures and populations, which lie within the floodplain in Chisago County, are at an increased risk of damage or loss of property because of flooding. Anyone living near a waterway is also at an increased risk especially in the springtime when there is the potential for heavy rain and sudden snowmelt. Any properties with improperly maintained flood control structures or property located in low elevations is also at an increased risk.

The following map is the Chisago County HAZUS-MH Analysis 100-year Flood Boundary Map. This map was created by the Polis Center as part of the Flood Analysis for Chisago County as part of the Minnesota Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. The flood analysis for Chisago County was released in 2009 and HAZUS-MH was used to generate the flood depth grid for a 100-year return period.

Figure 21: Chisago County HAZUS-MH Analysis (100-Year Flood) Map

Source: Chisago County

The following information was provided by the Minnesota All-- Hazard Mitigation Plan from 2014 and outlines the vulnerabilities to Chisago County from flooding.

The Minnesota All-- Hazard Mitigation Plan from 2014 identified the flood vulnerability of schools, hospitals, fire stations and police stations. The updated state data was used in the 2013 100-yr HAZUS flood analysis. 6,089 structures were in the database with 180 of these structures to be found in the in the 100- year floodplain. Approximately three percent of the profiled structures were found to be in the floodplain. This may be an overestimation since the analysis did not take into account elevation and data errors. Chisago County data was included and is provided below. The total facilities in Minnesota for schools, hospitals, fire stations and police stations were 57.

Table 49: Flood Vulnerability for Facilities in Chisago County County Total Facilities Facilities in 100-year Total Exposure of Floodplain Facilities Chisago 57 5 $278,474,000

The Minnesota All- Hazard Mitigation Plan from 2014 also outlined the County flood vulnerability of structures by building class. Occupancy class aggregates the estimated building loss for all counties. These losses are calculated from the General Building Stock inventory. The General Building Stock inventory provided with the HAZUS-MH tool did not change from 2010 to 2013 when the analysis was run.

The 100-yr flood boundaries changed, however, when ten counties loss estimates were recalculated using new DFIRMs in Carver, Fillmore, Freeborn, Kittson, Mahnomen, Marshall, Mower, Norman, Roseau, and Wilkin Counties. In summary, 10,678 structures or 0.5 of the total building stock in the state were found to be a potentially damaged because of the new analysis. The estimated total building loss is estimated to be $3,360,275,000 or 0.8% of the total building value in the state. The following outlines the estimated total damaged buildings, exposure, economic and building loss for Chisago County. The Minnesota All- Hazard Mitigation Plan analyzed the data and ranked the highest counties vulnerable to floods based on building loss. Chisago was not among the highest eight in the state.

Table 50: Building Loss and Exposure in Chisago County County Estimated Total Damaged Total Building Total Economic Building Loss Total Buildings Buildings Exposure X Loss X $1000 X$1000 $1000 Chisago 18,724 102 $3,053,754 $83,473 $40,175

The indemnity claims for a flood on crops from 2000-2013 was also reported in the Minnesota All- Hazard Mitigation Plan from 2014. According to this, Chisago County did not report any claims for a flood on crops from 2000-2013.

Flood Analysis for Chisago County: Included from the report by the Polis Center as part of the Flood Analysis for Chisago County from the Minnesota Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan was a 100-year flood map including the Chisago County Total Economic Loss. This map shows the census blocks and the total economic loss. HAZUS-MH estimates 22 census blocks with losses exceeding one million dollars.

Figure 22: Chisago County HAZUS-MH Total Economic Loss Map

Figure 23 shows the census block located on the east side of Chisago city and west of Lake Green overlaid with the flood boundary and orthophoto. Census block # 270251105002028 has an estimated building loss of $ 2.6 million and a total economic loss of $4.4 million. The overlay shows significant flooding in this census block and few buildings are at risk.

Figure 23: Flood Damage Exposure in Chisago City

Figure 24 shows the census block located in the center of Rush City overlaid with the flood boundary and orthophoto. Census block # 270251102001064 has an estimated building loss of $761 thousand with a total loss of $2.7 million. The overlay shows moderate flooding in this census block and few buildings are at risk

Figure 24: Flood Damage Exposure in the center of Rush City

A HAZUS-MH Shelter Requirement Analysis was part of the Flood Analysis for Chisago County from the Minnesota Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan. This Shelter Requirement Analysis estimates the number of households that are expected to be displaced from their homes due to the flood and the associated potential evacuation. HAZUS-MH also estimates those displaced people that may require accommodations in temporary public shelters. The model estimates 999 households may be displaced due to the flood. Displacement includes households evacuated from within or very near to the inundated area. Of these 1,623 people (out of a total population of 41,101) may seek temporary shelter in public shelters.

4.3.6 Flood and Climate Change The Minnesota All- Hazard Mitigation plan stated that as Minnesota’s climate changes, the quantity, and character of precipitation is changing. Average precipitation has increased in the Midwest since 1900, with more increases in recent years. According to the Draft National Climate Assessment (NCA), the Midwest has seen a 45% increase in very heavy precipitation (defined as the heaviest one percent of all daily events) from 1958 to 2011. This precipitation change has led to increased magnitude of flooding.

4.3.7 Relationship to other Hazards Flooding is related to various other hazards such as severe storms because severe and/or slow moving thunderstorms and spring snowmelt can contribute to flooding and under the right conditions can cause flash flooding. Flooding can also be related to dam failure because flood events have the potential to compromise the structural integrity of dams, which could lead to more severe flood events. Additionally, flooding can be related to infectious disease because wastewater spills are a possible consequence of flooding. Public health can be affected because the incidence of infectious diseases can increase with wastewater spills.

4.4 Hazardous Material Hazardous materials are materials that if released, can pose a threat to human health or the environment. Hazardous material releases can cause long/short term health effects, damage to property, expensive cleanup/contractor costs, serious injury, and even death. Hazardous materials are stored and transported throughout Minnesota and the Nation in various quantities. Hazardous materials are transported by various methods such as railcars, barges, air cargo and trucks. Hazardous materials incidents can occur in two ways: (1) a release from a bulk storage unit at a fixed facility, and (2) the accidental release of a hazardous material during handling. The handling of a hazardous material includes the transportation, off-loading, and physical handling of the hazardous material.

The release of a hazardous material during handling would most likely be the initial responsibility of the facility or carrier. If the facility or carrier could not contain the release, then resources would need to be mobilized to remediate the release. Once a hazardous material release is recognized, immediate action must be taken to respond to the release to preserve health and safety and reduce the impact to the neighboring community and the environment. Hazardous material releases in highly populated areas could result in either evacuation or “shelter-in-place” situations. A hazardous material release may be a rare occurrence, but one major release could have a significant impact on a region.

Fixed Facilities: Hazardous materials being used or stored at industrial facilities and in buildings is defined as a fixed facility hazardous material release hazard. Fixed facilities include industrial facilities that store hazardous materials required for their processing or facilities that store hazardous materials that result from an industrial process. An uncontrolled release or mishandling of hazardous materials from a fixed facility may result in possible injury or fatality, severe financial loss or liability, contamination, and disruption of critical infrastructure.

Transport: A hazardous material is a substance or material, which has been determined by the Secretary of Transportation to be capable of posing an unreasonable risk to health, safety, and property when transported in commerce, and which has been so designated. Transported hazardous materials are classified into one of nine hazard classes. The hazard class is the category of a hazard assigned to a hazardous material according to 49 CFR 173 and the HMT. If a material falls into any of the following classes, it is considered a hazardous material:

• Class 1 – Explosives • Class 2 – Gasses • Class 3 -- Flammable Liquids (and Combustible Liquids) • Class 4 -- Flammable Solids; Spontaneously Combustible Materials; Dangerous when Wet Materials • Class 5 -- Oxidizers and Organic Peroxides • Class 6 -- Toxic Materials and Infectious Substances • Class 7 -- Radioactive Materials • Class 8 -- Corrosive Materials • Class 9 -- Miscellaneous Dangerous Goods

In Minnesota, of the various modes of transporting hazardous materials, rail and truck are by far the most common means of shipment. Interstate freight movement is distributed among rail, truck, and water modes.

Truck: Although rail transports larger gross tonnage of hazardous materials, the number of truck traffic counts carrying hazardous materials shipments is greater. This is due to the larger volumes involved in a single rail shipment. The majority of hazardous materials transport is conducted on Federal or State highways.

4.4.1 Hazardous Materials Risk There is a little to no overall risk for hazardous material in Chisago County. Data from 2009-2014 for the County was available by cities that have been affected. The overall probability that the County will experience a hazardous material event is likely.

Table 51: Hazardous Materials Risk by City for Chisago County HAZMAT City Probability Impact Risk Center City Possible Low Little to No Chisago City Likely Low Little to No Harris Possible Low Little to No Lindstrom Likely Low Little to No North Branch Possible Low Little to No Rush City Possible Low Little to No Shafer Possible Low Little to No Stacy Possible Low Little to No Taylors Falls Possible Low Little to No Wyoming Possible Low Little to No Chisago County Possible Low Little to No Total Likely Low Little to No *Note frequency data was only available from 1982-2014

4.4.2 Hazardous Material History in Chisago County The data from Chisago County for hazardous material incidence from the Right to Know Network for the years of 2009-2014 was gathered as part of this report. During those years, there was three hazardous material incidents resulting in no hospitalizations or injuries. There were no reported fatalities, property damage or need for evacuation. These three incidents took place in the cities of Lindstrom and Chisago.

Source: The Right to Know Network provides data from the Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) database reported to the National Response Center.

4.4.3 Presidential Declared Disasters for Hazardous Material There have not been any reported presidential declared disasters related to hazardous material for Chisago County.

4.4.4 Mitigation in the Past Five Years Mitigation actions for hazardous material and contamination from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated the mitigation action for hazardous material and contamination was to inform

92 emergency personnel and other potentially affected parties about hazardous materials located in and transported through the County. Additionally, they wanted a trained and equipped hazardous materials County response team in place.

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as SARA Title III, was enacted in November 1986 to enable state and local governments to adequately prepare and plan for chemical emergencies. Facilities that have spilled hazardous substances, or that store, use, or release certain chemicals are subject to various reporting requirements. Common EPCRA topics include emergency planning; hazardous chemical inventory reporting; chemical information; toxic chemical release reporting; risk management plans, and the toxics release inventory (TRI) database. The TRI database includes facilities that manufacture (including importing), process, or otherwise use a listed toxic chemical above threshold quantities. Facilities covered by EPCRA must submit an emergency and hazardous chemical inventory form to the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the local fire department annually. This report also called a Tier I or Tier II, includes basic information including facility identification; employee contact information for emergencies and non-emergencies; and site specific information including facility description, chemical types and descriptions, releases or incidents, and chemical storage capacity, capabilities, and locations.

4.4.5 Vulnerability Within Chisago County, there are areas, which are more susceptible to hazardous material spills. Transportation routes, such as roadways and railways within Chisago County are more vulnerable. Trains and trucks can carry various hazardous materials, which if there was a derailment or crash could pose a threat to those motorists or residents within the area. The areas within the County surrounding pipelines are also vulnerable. Land used for agricultural purposes also has the potential to be more vulnerable because of hazardous material that may be used to treat the land.

4.4.6 Hazardous Material Release and Climate Change There is no documented link between hazardous material and climate change.

4.4.7 Relationship to other Hazards Hazardous material incidences can have an impact on public health. Any hazardous material release or spill has the potential to have an impact on public health or safety.

93 4.5 Infectious Disease Infectious diseases are disorders caused by organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi or parasites. Many organisms live in and on our bodies. They are normally harmless or even helpful, but under certain conditions, some organisms may cause disease. Some infectious diseases can be passed from person to person. Some are transmitted by bites from insects or animals, and others are acquired by ingesting contaminated food or water or being exposed to organisms in the environment. Signs and symptoms vary depending on the organism causing the infection but often include fever and fatigue. Mild complaints may respond to rest and home remedies, while some life-threatening infections may require hospitalization. Vaccines can prevent many infectious diseases, such as measles and chickenpox. Frequent and thorough hand washing also helps protect you from infectious diseases. The following hazard analysis includes relevant national, state, and county level (if available) disease outbreak information. It is important to note that Minnesota is divided into eight regions that house local public health agencies in Minnesota.

4.5.1 Definitions of Infectious Diseases Campylobacteriosis is an infection by the Campylobacter bacterium, most commonly C. jejuni. It is among the most common bacterial infections of humans, often a foodborne illness. It produces an inflammatory, sometimes bloody, diarrhea or dysentery syndrome, mostly including cramps, fever, and pain. Animals farmed for meat are the primary source of campylobacteriosis.

Cryptosporidium is a microscopic parasite that causes the diarrheal disease cryptosporidiosis. Both the parasite and the disease are commonly known as "Crypto.” There are many species of Cryptosporidium that infect animals, some of which also infect humans. The parasite is protected by an outer shell that allows it to survive outside the body for long periods and makes it very tolerant to chlorine disinfection. While this parasite can be spread in several different ways, water (drinking water and recreational water) is the most common way to spread the parasite. Cryptosporidium is a leading cause of waterborne disease among humans in the United States.

West Nile virus (WNV) is most commonly transmitted to humans by mosquitoes. You can reduce your risk of being infected with WNV by using insect repellent and wearing protective clothing to prevent mosquito bites. There are no medications to treat or vaccines to prevent WNV infection. Fortunately, most people infected with WNV will have no symptoms. About 1 in 5 people who are infected will develop a fever with other symptoms. Less than 1% of infected people develop a serious, sometimes fatal, neurologic illness.

Giardiasis is a diarrheal disease caused by the microscopic parasite Giardia. A parasite is an organism that feeds off another to survive. Once a person or animal (for example, cats, dogs, cattle, deer, and beavers) has been infected with Giardia, the parasite lives in the intestines and is passed in feces (poop). Once outside the body, Giardia can sometimes survive for weeks or months. Giardia can be found in every region of the U.S. and around the world.

Escherichia coli (abbreviated as E. coli) are bacteria found in the environment, foods, and intestines of people and animals. E. coli are a large and diverse group of bacteria. Although most strains of E. coli are harmless, others can make you sick. Some kinds of E. coli can cause diarrhea, while others cause urinary tract infections, respiratory illness and pneumonia, and other illnesses.

Haemophilus influenza (including Hib) is a bacterium that can cause a severe infection, occurring mostly in infants and children younger than five years of age. In spite of its name, Haemophilus influenza does not cause influenza (the "flu"). It can cause lifelong disability and be deadly. There are six identifiable types of Haemophilus influenza bacteria (a through f) and other non- identifiable types (called nontypeable). The one that most people are familiar with is Haemophilus influenza type b or Hib. A vaccine can prevent disease caused by Hib, but not the other types of Haemophilus influenza.

HIV is a virus spread through body fluids that affect specific cells of the immune system, called CD4 cells, or T-cells. Over time, HIV can destroy so many of the cells that the body cannot fight off infections and disease. When this happens, HIV infection leads to AIDS.

Lyme disease is caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi and is transmitted to humans through the bite of infected black legged ticks. The black legged ticks are mostly found in the forested areas of north and east central Minnesota. The black legged tick may also be found in forested areas outside of Central Minnesota. An infected tick may bite people while they are camping or hiking. Typical symptoms include fever, headache, fatigue, and a characteristic skin rash called erythema migrans. If left untreated, the infection can spread to joints, the heart, and the nervous system. Lyme disease is diagnosed based on symptoms, physical findings (e.g., rash), and the possibility of exposure to infected ticks. Laboratory testing is helpful if used correctly and performed with validated methods. Most cases of Lyme disease can be treated successfully with a few weeks of antibiotics. Steps to prevent Lyme disease include using insect repellent, removing ticks promptly, applying pesticides, and reducing tick habitat. The ticks that transmit Lyme disease can occasionally transmit other tickborne diseases as well.

Anaplasmosis is a vector-borne bacterial disease caused by a bite from a black legged tick. For Anaplasmosis bacteria to transfer to humans, the tick must be attached for 12 to 24 hours. As with Lyme disease, the black legged tick is found in forested areas in north central and east central Minnesota. Symptoms of Anaplasmosis include fever (over 102° F), severe headache, muscle aches and chills with shaking. Other symptoms may include nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea and change in mental status. Tetracycline antibiotics are typically prescribed for the infection.

Meningococcal disease can refer to any illness that is caused by the type of bacteria called Neisseria meningitidis. Meningococcal disease is a contagious infection spread by close contact with an infected person, such as living together or kissing. Quick medical attention is extremely important if meningococcal disease is suspected.

Pertussis, also known as a whooping cough, is a highly contagious respiratory disease. It is caused by the bacterium Bordetella pertussis. Pertussis is known for uncontrollable, violent coughing which often makes it hard to breathe. After fits of many coughs, someone with pertussis often needs to take deep breaths which result in a "whooping" sound. Pertussis most commonly affects infants and young children and can be fatal, especially in babies less than 1 year of age. The best way to protect against pertussis is immunization.

Salmonellosis is an infection with bacteria called Salmonella. Most persons infected

95 with Salmonella develop diarrhea, fever, and abdominal cramps 12 to 72 hours after infection. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days, and most persons recover without treatment. However, in some persons, diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be hospitalized. In these patients, the Salmonella infection may spread from the intestines to the bloodstream, and then to other body sites and can cause death unless the person is treated promptly with antibiotics. The elderly, infants, and those with impaired immune systems are more likely to have a severe illness.

Chlamydia is a common STD that can infect both men and women. It can cause serious, permanent damage to a woman's reproductive system, making it difficult or impossible for her to get pregnant later on. Chlamydia can also cause a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy (a pregnancy that occurs outside the womb).

Gonorrhea is a sexually transmitted disease (STD) that can infect both men and women. It can cause infections in the genitals, rectum, and throat. It is a very common infection, especially among young people ages 15-24 years.

Streptococcus pneumonia bacteria, or pneumococcus, can cause many types of illnesses. Some of these illnesses can be life-threatening. Pneumonia, which is an infection of the lungs, can be caused by many different bacteria, viruses, and even fungi. Pneumococcus is one of the most common causes of severe pneumonia. Besides pneumonia, pneumococcus can cause other types of infections too, such as ear infections, sinus infections, meningitis, and bacteremia. Some of these infections are considered “invasive.” Invasive disease means that germs invade parts of the body that are normally free from germs. For example, pneumococcal bacteria can invade the bloodstream, causing bacteremia, and the tissues and fluids surrounding the brain and spinal cord, causing meningitis. When this happens, the disease is usually very severe, causing hospitalization or even death.

Tuberculosis (TB) is caused by a bacterium called Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The bacteria usually attack the lungs, but TB bacteria can attack any part of the body such as the kidney, spine, and brain. If not treated properly, TB disease can be fatal. TB is spread through the air from one person to another. The TB bacteria are put into the air when a person with TB disease of the lungs or throat coughs, sneezes, speaks, or sings. People nearby may breathe in these bacteria and become infected.

4.5.2 Infectious Disease Risk There is little to no overall risk for infectious disease in Chisago County. Data from 2013 for Chisago County was used to determine this risk. The data was not available for each individual city, so the probability, impact, and risk ratings are the same for every city in the County.

Table 52: Infectious Disease Risk by City in Chisago County Infectious Disease City Probability Impact Risk Center City Highly Likely Low Little to No Chisago City Highly Likely Low Little to No Harris Highly Likely Low Little to No Lindstrom Highly Likely Low Little to No North Branch Highly Likely Low Little to No Rush City Highly Likely Low Little to No Shafer Highly Likely Low Little to No Stacy Highly Likely Low Little to No Taylors Falls Highly Likely Low Little to No Wyoming Highly Likely Low Little to No Chisago County Highly Likely Low Little to No Total Highly Likely Low Little to No

4.5.3 Infectious Disease History in Chisago County The following data represents communicable diseases that have been reported to the Minnesota Department of Health in 2013 for Chisago County. The infectious disease occurrences, which are the highest in the County, are Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD), Chlamydia Trachomatis, which had 87 cases and the other infectious diseases, which have a high number of occurrences, are Lyme disease. Lyme disease had 35 occurrences and is a vector-borne bacterial disease caused by a bite from a black legged tick. The black legged tick is found in forested areas in north central and east central Minnesota.

Table 53: Communicable Disease and Number of Occurrences Communicable Disease- Chisago County Occurrences Human Anaplasmosis 7 Campylobacteriosis 9 Cryptosporidiosis 2 West Nile 0 Escherichia Coli 0 Giardiasis 3 Haemophilus Influenza invasive disease 1 AIDS 0 Lyme disease 35 Neisseria Meningitidis invasive disease 0 Pertussis 7 Salmonellosis 8 Chlamydia Trachomatis (STD) 87 Gonorrhea (STD) 3 Streptococcus Pneumoniae invasive disease 5 Streptococcal invasive disease - Group A 0 Streptococcal invasive disease - Group B 6 Tuberculosis 0 Viral Hepatitis, Type A 0 Viral Hepatitis, Type C 0 Source: Annual Summary of Communicable Diseases Reported to the Minnesota Department of Health, 2013

4.5.4 Presidential Declared Disasters for Infectious Disease No presidential declared disasters for infectious disease in the past five years.

4.5.5 Mitigation in the Past Five Years Mitigation actions for infectious disease from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated the mitigation action for infectious disease was to educate and inform the public by supporting and maintaining education and awareness programs that keep the County health and safe from infectious disease.

4.5.6 Vulnerability In Chisago County, there are certain populations of people who are more susceptible to infectious disease. The elderly and children are at an increased risk of becoming infected with airborne diseases because of weakened immune systems and spending more time in crowded settings, which more easily spread airborne diseases such as schools and nursing homes. There is also increased the risk of tick and mosquito-transmitted diseases, such as Lyme Disease, Anaplasmosis, and West Nile Virus because of possible exposure in forested areas of the County. Individuals who spend time outside or in these forested areas are at an increased risk.

4.5.7 Infectious Disease and Climate Change According to the World Health Organization, changes in infectious disease transmission patterns are a likely major consequence of climate change. There are three categories of research into the linkages between climatic conditions and infectious disease transmission. The first examines evidence from the recent past of associations between climate, variability, and infectious disease occurrence. The second looks at early indicators of already-emerging infectious disease impacts of long-term climate change. The third uses the above evidence to create predictive models to estimate the future burden of the infectious disease under projected climate change scenarios.

Types of diseases, which are impacted by climate change, are vector-borne and water-borne diseases. Important determinants of vector-borne disease transmission include vector survival and reproduction, the vector’s biting rate, and the pathogen’s incubation rate within the vector organism. Vectors, pathogens, and hosts each survive and reproduce within a range of optimal climatic conditions: temperature and precipitation are the most important, while sea level elevation, the wind, and daylight duration are also important. Human exposure to waterborne infections occurs by contact with contaminated drinking water, recreational water, or food. This may result from human actions, such as improper disposal of sewage wastes, or be due to weather events. Rainfall can influence the transport and dissemination of infectious agents, while temperature affects their growth and survival.

Source: World Health Organization

4.5.8 Relationship to other Hazards Flood and drought conditions are associated with infectious disease because food and waterborne disease outbreaks can be sparked by flood and drought conditions. Food and water can become contaminated during flood and drought conditions, which can negatively affect the public’s health. Norovirus, Salmonella, and E. coli are also associated with waterborne illness outbreaks, which are usually caused by drinking water contaminated by animal or human waste. Additionally, standing water from flooding can cause the mosquito population to increase, making West Nile Virus more likely.

98 4.6 Severe Summer Storms In Chisago County, thunderstorms occur mostly in the late spring and summer months. Thunderstorms are strongest when there is a strong temperature gradient occurring often in association with a cold frontal boundary. When warm moist air rises into colder regions of the atmosphere, the rapid cooling makes precipitation form, because colder air can hold less water vapor than warm air. The combination of upper air jet streams, a cold front, and an influx of moist air from the South can result in strong thunderstorms in the Midwest.

Thunderstorms usually develop and dissipate by going through three stages. In the first developing stage, a large cumulus cloud appears where there is little rain or lightning present. At its mature stage, high winds, hail, lightning and tornadoes are most likely to occur. On average, the length of time is between 10 to 30 minutes, but stronger storms may continue. Also during this time, the clouds will appear dark blue and sometimes black and green. In a storm dissipating stage, rainfall increases as the storm releases its energy. Strong winds may still be present as it dissipates.

Table 54: National Weather Service Warning Terminology National Weather Service Warning Terminology Severe A Severe Thunderstorm Watch means that strong thunderstorms capable of producing Thunderstorm winds of 58 mph or higher and/or hail 3/4 inches in diameter or larger are possible. Watch Severe Thunderstorm Watches are generally issued for 6-hour periods. Severe A Severe Thunderstorm Warning means that thunderstorms capable of strong winds Thunderstorm and/or large hail are occurring or could form at any time. Severe Thunderstorm Warning Warnings are generally in effect for an hour or less. A Flash Flood Watch means heavy rain leading to flash flooding is possible. Flash Flood Flash Flood Watch Watches may be issued up to 12 hours before flash flooding is expected to begin and may last as long as 48 hours. Flash Flood A Flash Flood Warning means that flooding is occurring or will develop quickly. Warning

There are several hazardous elements to a severe storm:

Downbursts: Downbursts are strong, concentrated, straight-line winds created by falling rain and sinking air that can reach speeds of 125 mph and are often associated with intense thunderstorms. Downbursts may produce damaging winds at the surface and the damage can be severe enough to be thought of as caused by a tornado.

Microbursts: Microbursts can form from intense thunderstorms. A microburst is a convective downdraft with an affected outflow area of fewer than two miles wide and peak winds lasting less than five minutes. Microbursts may induce dangerous horizontal or vertical wind shears, which can cause property damage (and adversely affect aircraft performance).

Hail: Hail is ice crystals that form within a low-pressure front due to warm air rising rapidly into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. Frozen droplets that gradually accumulate on the ice crystals until having developed sufficient weight to fall to the ground create the physical formation of hailstones. The size of hailstones is a direct function of the severity and size of the storm. Significant damage does not result until the stones reach 1.5 inches in diameter,

which occurs in less than half of all hailstorms.

Lightning: Lightning, which occurs during all thunderstorms, can strike anywhere. Generated by the buildup of charged ions in a thundercloud, the discharge of a lightning bolt interacts with the best-conducting object or surface on the ground. The air in the channel of a lightning strike reaches temperatures higher than 50,000°F. The rapid heating and cooling of the air near the channel cause a shock wave that produces thunder.

Flash Floods: Some thunderstorms can produce large amounts of rain in a short period. These large quick rains can rapidly accumulate in storm drains and streams increasing water flow quickly. Flash floods are the number one cause of deaths associated with thunderstorms...more than 140 fatalities each year in the United States. Most of these fatalities occur in rural areas at night when it is harder to see if a road is too flooded to transverse.

4.6.1 Severe Summer Storms Risk The overall risk for severe summer storms in Chisago County is moderate, and the probability that a severe summer storm will occur each year is highly likely. Data from 2009 to 2015 was used to determine the risk for each of the cities and the County as a whole. The cities, which are at an increased risk based on historical events, are Harris, Rush City, and Stacy.

Table 55: Severe Summer Storms Risk by City in Chisago County Severe Summer Storms City Probability Impact Risk Center City Highly Likely Low Little to No Chisago City Highly Likely Low Little to No Harris Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Lindstrom Highly Likely Low Little to No North Branch Highly Likely Low Little to No Rush City Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Shafer Highly Likely Low Little to No Stacy Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Taylors Falls Highly Likely Low Little to No Wyoming Highly Likely Low Little to No Chisago County Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Total Highly Likely Moderate Moderate

4.6.2 Severe Summer Storms History in Chisago County Thunderstorms can occur anywhere in the world and at any time of the day; however, in Chisago County they are most likely to occur between the months of May and August. All thunderstorms produce lightning and thunder. Some have the potential to produce damaging straight-line winds, large hail, heavy rain, flooding, and tornadoes. A thunderstorm is classified as “severe” when it contains either singly, or a combination of, hail 3/4" or greater, winds gusting in excess of 50 knots (57.5 mph), and/or tornado. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided the history of thunderstorm events in Chisago County. From 2009 to 2015, there have been 18-recorded events of severe summer storms (which include thunderstorm wind, high wind, heavy rain and excessive heat) in Chisago County. The table below lists these 18 events with the location they occurred within Chisago County. Other information included is the date, time, magnitude, and any deaths/injuries or damage incurred. A comprehensive list of

100 the last 50 years of data can be found in Appendix B.

Table 56: Thunderstorms in Chisago County from 2009 to 2015

Location County/Zone Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD CST- Thunderstorm 56 kts.

STACY CHISAGO CO. 08/03/2009 22:00 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. 08/03/2009 22:05 6 Wind EG 0 0 15.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. 07/27/2010 17:40 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

STARK CHISAGO CO. 07/27/2010 17:53 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

CITY CHISAGO CO. 07/27/2010 18:00 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 59 kts.

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. 08/10/2010 17:51 6 Wind MG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 65 kts.

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. 08/12/2010 19:41 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K NORTH CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

BRANCH CHISAGO CO. 08/20/2010 02:18 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. 07/01/2011 17:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 250.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 61 kts.

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. 07/01/2011 17:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 250.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

STACY CHISAGO CO. 07/01/2011 18:05 6 Wind EG 0 0 250.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 55 kts.

ALMELUND CHISAGO CO. 07/01/2011 19:50 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- Excessive

(ZONE) (ZONE) 07/18/2011 12:00 6 Heat 0 0 0.00K 0.00K NORTH CST- Thunderstorm 56 kts.

BRANCH CHISAGO CO. 08/02/2011 07:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. 08/03/2012 22:40 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST-

STACY CHISAGO CO. 06/20/2013 12:00 6 Heavy Rain 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 61 kts.

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. 09/19/2013 09:50 6 Wind EG 0 0 100.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- 39 kts.

(ZONE) (ZONE) 06/16/2014 17:00 6 High Wind ES 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Totals: 0 0 865.00K 0.00K Source: NOAA

Hailstorms are also common during the summer months because hail is ice crystals that form within a low- pressure front due to warm air rising rapidly into the upper atmosphere and the subsequent cooling of the air mass. The size of hailstones is a direct function of the severity and size of the storm. Significant

101

damage does not result until the stones reach 1.5 inches in diameter, which occurs in less than half of all hailstorms. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided the history of hail events in Chisago County. From 2009 to 2015, there have been 12 recorded events of severe hail events in Chisago County. A comprehensive list of the last 50 years of data can be found in Appendix B. This list of events indicates the location, date, the size of hail, deaths/injuries and damage incurred from these hail events.

Of the aforementioned severe summer storms, there have been four severe summer storms in the last 50 years in Chisago County that has been declared a major disaster by FEMA. These disasters were all major declared disasters, which is when the President believes an event 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. Of these declared disasters, two have had Individual Assistance Programs declared and all four have had Public Assistance Programs declared. The begin and end date of the incident are included in the Major Declared Disasters for Severe Summer Storms for Chisago County below. Information on the type of assistance program, which was provided, is also included in the table.

Table 57: Major Declared Disasters for Severe Summer Storms for Chisago County IH IA PA HM Declaration Disaster Incident Title Incident Incident Disaster Program Program Program Program Date Type Type Begin End Date Close Declared Declared Declared Declared Date Out Date SEVERE STORMS, Severe No No Yes Yes 7/28/2011 DR FLOODING, 7/1/2011 7/11/2011 Storm(s) AND TORNADOES FLOODING AND No No Yes Yes 6/1/1996 DR Flood 3/14/1996 6/17/1996 3/9/2005 SEVERE STORMS SEVERE Severe STORMS, No Yes Yes Yes 7/17/1975 DR 7/17/1975 7/17/1975 11/6/1981 Storm(s) TORNADOES & FLOODING SEVERE No Yes Yes Yes 8/1/1972 DR Flood STORMS & 8/1/1972 8/1/1972 3/9/1977 FLOODING Source: FEMA

4.6.3 Mitigation Actions for the Past Five Years Mitigation actions for severe storms and extreme temperatures from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated that the mitigation action for violent storms and extreme temperatures was to provide safe and accessible shelter to residents from severe storms by ensuring residents have safe shelter. Another mitigation strategy was to have an adequate warning system for all County residents. Lastly, the County indicated they wanted infrastructure protected and wisely used as well as supporting relief to people affected by temperature extremes.

102

4.6.4 Vulnerability All residents within Chisago County are potentially vulnerable to severe summer storms, especially those who live in a trailer or mobile homes and who are in areas without shelter. Additionally, those who are participating in recreational activities in Chisago County during the summer months are at an increased risk. Severe summer storms happen each year in Chisago County and have the potential to produce high winds, conditions for tornadoes, hail, and lightning.

4.6.5 Severe Summer Storms and Climate Change According to Kunkel et al. 2013, annual average temperatures across the Midwest show a trend towards increasing temperatures. The trend calculated over the period 1895-2012 is equal to an increase of 1.5°F. Increases in temperature among the Midwest region may increase the amount of precipitation or severe storms that occur during the typical season.

The 2014 National Climate Assessment also indicated that regional climate models (RCMs) project increased spring precipitation (nine percent in 2041-2062 relative to 1979-2000) and decreased summer precipitation (by an average of about eight percent in 2041-2062 relative to 1979-2000) particularly in the southern portions of the Midwest. Increases in the frequency and intensity of extreme precipitation are projected across the entire region. An increase in extreme precipitation can lead to an increase in flooding events.

According to the Federal Advisory Committee Draft National Climate Assessment (NCA), other trends in severe storms, including the numbers of hurricanes and the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds are uncertain. Since the impact of more frequent or intense storms can be larger than the impact of average temperature, climate scientists are actively researching the connections between climate change and severe storms (National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee, 2013).

4.6.6 Relationship to other Hazards Structural fires have the potential to be related to summer storms because lighting strikes may ignite a structural fire. Flood, tornado, and high winds may also cause structural fires in their aftermath. Downed power lines, natural gas leaks or other sources of ignition initiated by natural hazards may spark a fire in structures. Routes to structures may be restricted due to flooding or debris from storms. Flooding also can be related, because heavy rain from summer storms can cause flooding from frequent storms or storms causing high levels of rainfall during a short period. Tornadoes develop out of thunderstorms, where there is already a steady, upward flow of warm, low-pressure air to get things started. Hail can also occur as part of thunderstorms and can cause damage depending on the size and duration of the hail.

103

4.7 Structural Fires and Wildfires This section addresses both fires to property and wildfires. According to the Minnesota All- Hazard Mitigation Plan from 2014, structural fires have many causes: cooking, heating, open flame and arson are the typical leading causes each year. Other causes include careless smoking, misuse of materials, improper storage, equipment/appliance malfunctions, improper building wiring, industrial mishaps, and instances such as train derailments or transportation collisions.

A wildfire is an uncontrolled fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures. Wildfires often begin unnoticed, spread quickly, and are usually signaled by dense smoke that may fill the area for miles around. Wildfires can be human-caused through acts such as arson, unattended campfires, or can be caused by natural events such as lightning. Wildfires can be categorized into four types. The first type is wildfires, which are fueled primarily by natural vegetation in grasslands, brush lands, and forests. The second types are firestorms, which occur during extreme weather (e.g., high temperatures, low humidity, and high winds) with such intensity that fire suppression is virtually impossible. These events typically burn until the conditions change or the fuel is exhausted. The third types are interface or intermix fires, which occur in areas where both vegetation and structures provide fuel. The fourth and final type are prescribed fires and prescribed natural fires which are intentionally set or natural fires that are allowed to burn for beneficial purposes.

4.7.1 Structural Fire Risk The overall risk for structural fires in Chisago County is High, and the probability that a structural fire will occur each year is highly likely. Data from 2009 to 2014 was used to determine the risk for each of the cities and the County as a whole. The cities of Center City, North Branch, and Wyoming are at high risk; the other cities in the County and Chisago County proper are at moderate or little to no risk.

Table 58: Fire Hazard Risk Assessment Fires City Probability Impact Risk Center City Highly Likely High High Chisago City Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Harris Highly Likely Low Little to No Lindstrom Highly Likely Low Little to No North Branch Highly Likely High High Rush City Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Shafer Highly Likely Low Little to No Stacy Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Taylors Falls Highly Likely Low Little to No Wyoming Highly Likely High High Chisago County Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Total Highly Likely High High

4.7.2 Fire History in Chisago County The table below outlines the historical structural fires that have taken place in Chisago County from the Minnesota Department of Public Safety. The data was provided by the annual Fire in Minnesota Report and is based on numbers provided by Minnesota fire departments. The report includes information on fire causes, fatalities, and trends. The highest total loss from structural fires in Chisago County during the years of 2007-2013 occurred in 2009 with a total of $2,608,705. From the data below, one can also see

104

that the most fire runs were made in 2012 and the most other runs were in 2013.

Table 59: Structural Fire Data for Chisago County from 2007 to 2013 Year Fire Runs Other Runs Total Loss Fire Rate Average Loss per Fire Fire Deaths 2013 156 758 $776,650 424 $6,813 0 2012 233 620 $1,213,151 254 $6,385 1 2011 173 667 $416,790 366 $3,158 0 2010 206 688 $881,000 327 $5,953 0 2009 201 640 $2,608,750 331 $17,868 1 2008 154 647 $657,000 417 $5,664 1 2007 205 631 $2,163,250 336 $15,023 0 Source: Fire In Minnesota Report from the State Fire Marshall for years 2007-2013

The table below provides the data by Fire Department within Chisago County as well as the number of fires, non-fires and dollar loss per fire department. One can see the North Branch Fire Department responded to the most fires with 34. The Wyoming Fire Department responded to the most non-fires with 313 non-fire responses and Wyoming had the largest dollar loss with a total of $361,700.

Table 60: Fire Department Responses and Dollar Loss as Reported Via Minnesota Fire Incident Reporting System (MFIRS) Fire Department County Fires Non-Fires Dollar Loss Almelund Chisago 9 66 $50,000 Center City Chisago 13 10 $143,500 Chisago City Chisago 13 51 $32,000 Harris Chisago 3 1 $0 Lindstrom Chisago 16 59 $0 North Branch Chisago 34 102 $93,650 Rush City Chisago 24 41 $59,500 Shafer Franconia Chisago 9 91 $0 Stacy-Lent Chisago 16 51 $36,300 Taylor Falls Chisago 2 1 $0 Wyoming Chisago 14 313 $361,700 Source: Fire in Minnesota Report from the State Fire Marshall for 2013

4.7.3 History of Wildfires in Chisago County According to the 2014 Minnesota All--Hazard Mitigation Plan, the Carlos Avery Management Area located in Anoka and Chisago counties was the site of fires in 2000 and 2009 that burned approximately 2,900 acres and four homes. The management area is a mix of 2/3 wetland and 1/3 upland. The wildfire vulnerability assessment from the 2014 Minnesota All--Hazard Mitigation Plan stated that the average fires per year in Chisago County are 11 with an average of five acres burned per fire. The average cost per acre is $588 and the total cost from wildfires for Chisago County from 200-2010 was $401,068. This information is based on data from 10/14/2003 through 10/13/2013.

4.7.4 Presidential Declared Disasters for Fire Of the aforementioned fires, there has been one fire in the last 50 years in Chisago County, which has been declared a disaster by FEMA. This disaster had a Public Assistance Program declared.

105 Table 61: Declared Disasters for Chisago County IH IA PA HM Declaration Disaster Incident Title Incident Incident Disaster Program Program Program Program Date Type Type Begin End Date Close Declared Declared Declared Declared Date Out Date No No Yes No 10/20/2000 FS Fire MN - 10/19/2000 11/2/2000 5/4/2005 CARLOS EDGE FIRE COMPLEX - 10/19/2000 Source: FEMA

4.7.5 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years Mitigation actions for fire from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated the mitigation actions for wildfire were to reduce the risk of wildfires by minimizing the amount of fuel in areas prone to wildfires, minimizing the risk of wildfire in park systems and drawing upon multiple jurisdictions to prevent the spread of wildfires. Additionally, Chisago County wanted to protect structures from wildfires in residential areas by minimizing impact. The final mitigation action was to educate the public about wildfire prevention and response to keep residents safe.

Mitigation actions for structural fire from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated the mitigation action was to protect structures from fire by improving prevention and response efforts of the County. An additional action was to educate and inform the public on measures they can take to reduce risk to life and property.

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has also adopted the Firewise Program. As more people build homes in the forests and fields of Minnesota, firefighters are less able to protect people’s assets while combating a wildfire. The main view of this program is to protect homes from fire by having the communities resolve potential problems before these problems become fire hazards. Such mitigation activities include thinning of trees, road improvement, and the introduction of additional fire hydrants to deficient areas.

4.7.6 Vulnerability Structural failures, such as inadequate design, older homes, poor maintenance, natural gas explosion or human factors (neglect or human error); can lead to increased vulnerability to fires. Most structural failures occur within residential homes and low-occupancy buildings where there are fewer people around to notice serious issues that could lead to a collapse or fire. There have been some structural collapses involved in commercial and industrial facilities that have caused numerous fatalities and injuries, but such incidents are rare and are usually due to overloading or design flaws. However, the majority of fatalities due to structure collapse involve residential structures.

The following factors contribute significantly to wildfire behavior: topography, and weather. Concerning topography, as slope increases, the rate of wildfire spread increases. South facing slopes are also subject to greater solar radiation, making them drier and thereby intensifying wildfire behavior. However, ridge tops may mark the end of wildfire spread, since fire spreads more slowly or may even be unable to spread downhill. Regarding wildfire, the most variable factor affecting wildfire behavior is the weather. Important weather variables are temperature, humidity, the wind, and lightning. Weather events ranging in scale from localized thunderstorms to large fronts can have major effects on wildfire occurrence and behavior. Extreme weather, such as high temperatures and low humidity, can lead to extreme wildfire activity. By

106

contrast, cooling and higher humidity often signal reduced wildfire occurrence and easier containment. In addition, structures in jurisdictions that mix with forests, peat bogs, and prairies are vulnerable to damages to wildfires.

4.7.7 Fire and Climate Change According to the 2014 National Climate Assessment, temperatures are predicted to rise in the state of Minnesota into mid-century and this could lead to more extreme heat events. The increase in a number of extreme heat events could increase loads on electrical grids, causing increasing possibility of structural fires due to overloaded electrical grids. In addition, lightning strikes can cause structural fires and several types of extreme weather events have already increased in frequency and/or intensity due to climate change, and further increases are projected, according to the 2014 National Climate Assessment.

According to the Minnesota, All Hazard Mitigation Plan from 2014, droughts and associated fires have been happening throughout Minnesota’s history. While there was no apparent change in drought duration in the Midwest over the past century (Dai 2010), the average number of days without precipitation is projected to increase in the future (Kunkel, K.E. et al, 2013). Temperatures are predicted to rise, which could lead to more extreme heat events and associated wildfire risks.

As Minnesota’s climate changes, weather fluctuations between drought and extreme rain events and increasing temperatures will lead to changes in forest composition and/or distribution. The northern boreal forest may give way to more deciduous forests or grassland, with a period of dying or diseased trees during the transition. This weather fluctuation can lead to dry conditions that may cause increased fire risk in both grassland and forest environments. National and global studies agree that wildfire risk will increase in the region, but few studies have specifically looked at wildfire potential in the assessment area. At a global scale, the scientific consensus is that fire risk will increase by 10 to 30 percent due to higher summer temperatures (IPCC 2007).

4.7.8 Relationship to other Hazards Wildfires and structural fires are associated with other hazards such as summer storms, drought, flood and severe winter storms. As a natural hazard, a wildfire is often the direct result of a lightning strike that may destroy personal property and public land areas, especially on the state and national forest lands. Drought is an associated hazard because drought conditions cause high temperatures and dry conditions, which can increase the risk of fires.

Summer storms are related because lighting strikes may ignite a structural fire. Windstorms that result in structural damage to structures increases the fuel load, which may escalate the risk of a structural fire. Flood, tornado, and high winds may also cause structural fires in their aftermath. Downed power lines, natural gas leaks or other sources of ignition initiated by natural hazards may spark a fire in structures. Routes to structures may be restricted due to flooding or debris from storms. Winter storms, such as blizzards or ice storms, may impair the movement of response vehicles and decrease response time to structural fires. The reduced response time could potentially increase the amount of damage.

107 4.8 Tornado Tornadoes can and do occur in all months of the year; however, the most tornadoes usually occur during severe thunderstorms in the warm months in Chisago County. Tornadoes are defined as violently rotating columns of air extending from thunderstorms to the ground, with wind speeds between 40-300 mph. They develop under three scenarios: (1) along with a squall line; (2) in connection with thunderstorm squall lines during hot, humid weather; and (3) in the outer portion of a tropical cyclone. Funnel clouds are rotating columns of air not in contact with the ground; however, the column of air can reach the ground very quickly and become a tornado.

Figure 25: Average Annual Number of Tornadoes per State

Source: NOAA

4.8.1 Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale On February 1, 2007, the National Weather Service adopted “Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale”. The EF Scale evaluates and categorizes tornado events by intensity. Both the original Fujita Scale and the EF Scale estimate the intensity of a tornado (3-second gust speed) based on the magnitude of damage.

The original scale had a lack of damage indicators and with the increasing standards for buildings; a rating of tornadoes was becoming inconsistent. The EF Scale evaluates tornado damage with a set of 28 indicators (see NOAA website). Each indicator is a structure with a typical damage description for each magnitude of a tornado. The Fujita Scale Table is both a breakdown of the Fujita Scale and a comparison to the Enhanced Fujita Scale.

108

Table 62: Fujita scale FUJITA SCALE DERIVED EF SCALE OPERATIONAL EF SCALE 3 3 Fastest 1/4-mile Second Second 3 Second F Number EF Number EF Number (mph) Gust Gust Gust (mph) (mph) (mph) 0 40-72 45-78 0 65-85 0 65-85 1 73-112 79-117 1 86-109 1 86-110 2 113-157 118-161 2 110-137 2 111-135 3 158-206 162-209 3 138-167 3 136-165 4 207-260 210-261 4 168-199 4 166-200 5 261-318 262-317 5 200-234 5 Over 200 Source: NOAA

Tornadoes can be from twenty feet in width to larger than a mile on the ground and are transparent until the vortex fills with water vapor, dust, dirt, or debris. Uniquely dangerous are rain-wrapped tornadoes. If there is heavy rainfall near a tornado, a tornado can become masked or wrapped in the rainfall and become hidden. During a possible tornado event, the National Weather Service issues warning to the public to take shelter even if no tornado is visible, because it may be rain-wrapped or not coming from a west, southwest direction unlike the majority of storms in the Midwest.

According to the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Severe Storms Laboratory thunderstorms develop in warm, moist air in advance of eastward-moving cold fronts. These thunderstorms often produce large hail, strong winds, and tornadoes. Tornadoes in the winter and early spring are often associated with strong, frontal systems that form in the Central States and move east.

4.8.2 Tornado Risk The overall risk for tornadoes in Chisago County is Moderate, and the probability that a tornado will occur each year is highly likely. Data from 2009 to 2014 was used to determine the risk for each of the cities and the County as a whole. The cities of North Branch, Rush City and Wyoming are at higher risk.

Table 63: Tornado Risk by City in Chisago County Tornado Storms City Probability Impact Risk Center City Possible Low Little to No Chisago City Possible Low Little to No Harris Possible Low Little to No Lindstrom Possible Low Little to No North Branch Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Rush City Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Shafer Possible Low Little to No Stacy Possible Low Little to No Taylors Falls Possible Low Little to No Wyoming Highly Likely Moderate Moderate Chisago County Likely Low Low Total Highly Likely Moderate Moderate

109

4.8.3 Tornado History in Chisago County Tornadoes in Minnesota peak in the months of June and July. The typical time of day for tornadoes in Minnesota ranges between 4:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. Most of these are minor tornadoes, with wind speeds under 125 miles per hour. A typical Minnesota tornado lasts approximately ten minutes, has a path length of five to six miles, is nearly as wide as a football field, and has a forward speed of about thirty-five miles an hour and affects less than 0.1% of the County warned. According to the 2014 Minnesota All- Hazard Mitigation Plan, Chisago County has a mean frequency of 3.32 tornadoes per year, which was averaged from 2005-2012.The history of tornado events in Chisago County was provided by National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). From 2009 to 2014, there have been three recorded events of tornadoes in Chisago County. A comprehensive list of the last 50 years of data can be found in Appendix B.

According to records, the most recent tornado in Chisago County was on June 21, 2013, in the city of Wyoming. This tornado was an EF0 and was a half mile in length and 50 yards wide. Dozens of trees were uprooted or snapped along a half-mile long path around Ashton Lake in Wyoming. Some trees landed on houses, fences, and sheds with the greatest damage on the northeast side of the lake. There were no reported deaths, injuries, or crop damage from this tornado. There was reported $100,000 in property damage because of this tornado event.

The 2014 Minnesota All--Hazard Mitigation Plan also included the mean tornado frequency by the County for the years of 1950-2012. For this range, the frequency events per year for Chisago County was 3.32, which ranked 45th in the state.

The following image shows the tornado track for the tornadoes, which, have occurred in the County from 1954 to 2014. There have been 16 tornadoes in Chisago County during this timeframe, with zero fatalities and four injuries. The numbers on the map correspond to the Fujita Scale number for each tornado that is a scale from 0-5, with zero being the least severe and five being the most severe.

110

Figure 26: Tornado Track for Chisago County

Source: Tornado History Project for Chisago County, MN

Of the aforementioned summer storms, there has been three tornado or severe storm incidences, which have been declared a disaster by FEMA in the last 50 years in Chisago County. These disasters were all major declared disasters, which is when the President believes an event 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. Of these declared disasters, two have had Individual Assistance Programs declared and all three have had Public Assistance Programs declared. The beginning and ending date of the incident are included for these declared disasters, as well as information on the type of assistance program that was provided.

Table 64: Major Declared Disasters for Tornado (Disaster declared for Chisago County) IH IA PA HM Declaration Incident Title Incident Incident Disaster Program Program Program Program Date Type Begin End Date Close Out Declared Declared Declared Declared Date Date No No Yes Yes 7/28/2011 Severe SEVERE 7/1/2011 7/11/2011 Storm(s) STORMS, FLOODING, AND TORNADOES No Yes Yes Yes 5/16/2001 Flood SEVERE 3/23/2001 7/3/2001 11/6/2013 WINTER STORMS, FLOODING, AND TORNADOES No Yes Yes Yes 7/17/1975 Severe SEVERE 7/17/1975 7/17/1975 11/6/1981 Storm(s) STORMS, TORNADOES & FLOODING Source: FEMA

111

4.8.4 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years There were no mitigation actions for tornadoes from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan, however, there were four mitigation actions for violent storms and extreme temperatures, which included mitigation actions, which would aid in tornado events.

4.8.5 Vulnerability The most active “tornado month” in Chisago County is June (33% of all occurrences), with July next (28% of all occurrences, and then May (17% of all occurrences). During these three months, over 75 percent of all tornadoes occur when many people may be enjoying outdoor recreational activities in Chisago County. Tornadoes have never been reported in the Chisago County during December, January, and February.

Schools, hospitals, fire departments, police departments and other critical facilities are also at increased vulnerability because if they would become damaged during a tornado. The County would need to rely on other facilities within the County or surrounding counties depending upon the amount of damage. Trailer parks, mobile homes and other areas where there are limited sheltering options are also at an increased risk.

4.8.6 Tornado and Climate Change According to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the main climate change connection to tornadoes is via the basic instability of the low-level air that creates the convection and thunderstorms in the first place. Warmer and moister conditions are the keys for unstable air and the oceans are warmer because of climate change. However, some studies state that trends in severe storms including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds are uncertain. Since the impact of more frequent or intense storms can be larger than the impact of average temperature, climate scientists are actively researching the connections between climate change and severe storms (National Climate Assessment Development Advisory Committee, 2013).

4.8.7 Relationship to Other Hazards Tornadoes can lead to flooding and cause high winds, which have the potential to cause many additional hazardous situations or events. Downed power lines, natural gas leaks or other sources of ignition initiated by natural hazards may spark a fire in structures. Routes to structures may be restricted due to debris from storms. Flooding also can be related, because heavy rain from summer storms, which cause tornadoes, can cause flooding from frequent storms or storms causing high levels of rainfall during a short period. Hail can also occur as part of tornadoes and can cause damage depending on the size and duration of the hail.

112

4.9 Water Supply Contamination Water supply contamination is the introduction of point and non-point source pollutants into public groundwater and/or surface water supplies. Microbiological and chemical contaminants can enter water supplies. Chemicals can leach through soils from leaking underground storage tanks, feedlots, improperly cased and managed wells and waste disposal sites. Pesticides from farm fields, manure from feedlots and contaminants from wastewater treatment plants can also be carried to lakes and streams during heavy rains or snow melt.

4.9.1 Water Contamination Risk The overall risk for water supply contamination in Chisago County is little to no, but the probability that a winter storm will occur each year is highly likely. Data from 2009 to 2015 was used to determine the risk for each of the cities and the County as a whole. Data from annual drinking water reports, water quality studies, and statewide data was used to determine the risk.

Table 65: Water Contamination Risk by City in Chisago County Water Contamination City Probability Impact Risk Center City Unlikely Low Little to No Chisago City Unlikely Low Little to No Harris Unlikely Low Little to No Lindstrom Unlikely Low Little to No North Branch Unlikely Low Little to No Rush City Unlikely Low Little to No Shafer Unlikely Low Little to No Stacy Unlikely Low Little to No Taylors Falls Unlikely Low Little to No Wyoming Unlikely Low Little to No Chisago County Unlikely Low Little to No Total Unlikely Low Little to No

4.9.2 Water Supply Contamination History in Chisago County City of Lindstrom The City of Lindstrom issued the results of monitoring done on its drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The information was from the 2014 Drinking Water Report for the City of Lindstrom. The City of Lindstrom provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source: two wells ranging from 595 to 615 feet deep that draw water from the Mt. Simon aquifer. The Minnesota Department of Health has determined that the source(s) used to supply the drinking water is not particularly susceptible to contamination. No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. There were trace amounts of fluoride, copper, and lead from the drinking water report in 2013.

City of Center City The City of Center City issued the results of monitoring done on its drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2013. This information was provided by the 2013 City of Center City Drinking Water Report. The City of Center City provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source: a 620-foot deep well that draws water from the Franconia-Mt. Simon aquifer. The Minnesota Department of

113 Health has determined that the source(s) used to supply the drinking water is not particularly susceptible to contamination. No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. There were trace amounts of arsenic, barium, combined radium, fluoride, copper, and lead from the drinking water report in 2012.

City of Chisago City The City of Chisago City issued the results of monitoring done on its drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2014. This information was provided by the 2014 City of Chisago City Drinking Water Report. The City of Chisago City provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source: three wells ranging from 344 to 401 feet deep that draw water from the Tunnel City-Wonewoc and Multiple aquifers. The Minnesota Department of Health has determined that the source(s) used to supply the drinking water is not particularly susceptible to contamination. No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. There were trace amounts of barium, fluoride, nitrate, chlorine, copper, lead, and TTHM from the drinking water report in 2013.

City of Rush City The City of Rush City issued the results of monitoring done on its drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2014. This information was provided by the 2014 City of Rush City Drinking Water Report. The City of Rush City provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source two wells ranging from 219 to 220 feet deep that draw water from the Mt. Simon and St. Peter-Prairie Du Chien-Mt. Simon aquifers. No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. There were trace amounts of barium, fluoride, chlorine, halocetic acids, TTHM, copper, lead and combined radium from the drinking water report in 2013.

City of Shafer The City of Shafer issued the results of monitoring done on the drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The City of Shafer provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source: three wells ranging from 550 to 617 feet deep that draw water from the Wonewoc-Mt.Simon and Mt. Simon aquifers. No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. There were trace amounts of arsenic, fluoride, TTHM, chlorine, copper and lead from the drinking water report in 2013.

The City of Stacy The City of Stacy issued the results of monitoring done on the drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2014. The City of Stacy provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source: two wells ranging from 495 to 575 feet deep that draw water from the Mt. Simon aquifer. The Minnesota Department of Health has determined that the source(s) used to supply the drinking water is not particularly susceptible to contamination. No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. There were trace amounts of alpha emitters, barium, combined radium, fluoride, haloacetic acids and TTHM from the drinking water report in 2013.

114 The City of Wyoming The City of Wyoming issued the results of monitoring done on the drinking water for the period from January 1 to December 31, 2013. The City of Wyoming provides drinking water to its residents from a groundwater source: three wells ranging from 650 to 803 feet deep that draw water from the Mt. Simon and Franconia-Mt. Simon aquifers. The Minnesota Department of Health has determined that the source(s) used to supply the drinking water is not particularly susceptible to contamination. No contaminants were detected at levels that violated federal drinking water standards. However, some contaminants were detected in trace amounts that were below legal limits. There were trace amounts of alpha emitters, arsenic, barium, combined radium, fluoride, haloacetic acids, chlorine, total coliform bacteria, copper, lead, and TTHM from the drinking water report in 2013.

Nitrate Levels in Minnesota Drinking Water According to the State of Minnesota Office of the Governor website a publication dated May 6, 2015, indicated that Governor Mark Dayton and Health Commissioner Dr. Ed Ehlinger released the findings of the state’s annual drinking water report, which show nitrate levels in drinking water supplies are of increasing concern in Minnesota. Elevated levels of nitrate – which can lead to Blue Baby Syndrome in infants and other adverse human health effects – have caused an increasing number of Minnesota communities to install expensive nitrate treatment systems to ensure their water supplies are safe to drink. Some communities have resorted to temporarily distributing bottled water to their residents after detecting unsafe levels of nitrates in their drinking water. The report, which was compiled by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), also shows that as much as 10 percent of small (“non-community”) drinking water systems in the state have source water with elevated levels of nitrate – which is a significant cause of concern for human health. The following figure shows that there are no communities with source water impacted by nitrate in Chisago County. There are also no communities with source water with nitrate above the drinking water standards. There were also no non-community water systems with nitrate MCL violations in 2014 in Chisago County.

The Minnesota Department of Health indicated that it is often difficult to pinpoint where the nitrate in drinking water comes from because there are so many possibilities. The source of nitrate and nitrogen may be from runoff or seepage from fertilized soil, municipal or industrial wastewater, landfills, animal feedlots, septic systems, urban drainage, or decaying plant material. The Minnesota Department of Health website also stated that Federal law requires that public water systems be tested for nitrate, but testing is not required for residential wells. If your infant will be drinking water from a private well, you should have an inexpensive test done for nitrate, in addition to the usual test for bacterial contamination. Many private laboratories can test water samples for nitrates. In some Minnesota counties, well owners can arrange with their local public health department to have their wells tested.

115 Figure 27: Nitrate Contamination in Minnesota Communities

Source: Minnesota.gov

2014 Chisago County Water Quality and Aquatic Invasive Species Monitoring Report The following information was provided by the 2014 Chisago County Water Quality and Aquatic Invasive Species Monitoring Report. The purpose of the 2014 Chisago County Water Quality and Aquatic Invasive Species Monitoring program is to help achieve goals identified in the Chisago County Local Water Management Plan and the Chisago Lakes Lake Improvement District Water Resource Management Plan. Past water quality, monitoring has been useful in determining long-term water quality trends. In addition, water quality monitoring data is essential for completing the Total Maximum Daily Load Studies within the County. Continuing the water quality monitoring will help determine progress in obtaining water quality goals. Visual inspections of the lakes were conducted looking for changes in the abundance or locations of aquatic invasive species, especially Eurasian Watermilfoil and Curly-leaf Pondweed. Potential interference with navigation was the primary consideration. Seventeen lakes were monitored through this program in 2014.

Four of these lakes (Chisago, North Center, Spider, and Goose) had two monitoring locations each. Each lake was monitored five times, once a month, May through September. Samples were collected at the deepest part of the lakes.

116

Trophic Levels are included in the table and the definitions are provided below to assist the reader in better interpreting the information:

• Trophic State Index: A formula used to determine the Trophic Level of a lake. Total Phosphorus, Chlorophylla and Secchi Transparency will each have an individual Trophic Level that allows the parameters to be compared to one another when the actual values cannot be compared. • Oligotrophic: Clearwater, oxygen throughout the year in the hypolimnion (area below the thermocline or cold layer that separates the upper mixed portion of the lake and the lower calm portion of the lake). Water may be suitable for an unfiltered water supply. Salmon can occupy these lakes. • Mesotrophic: Water is moderately clear, increasing the probability of lack of oxygen in the hypolimnion during summer. Iron, manganese, taste, and odor problems worsen. Walleye population may be predominant. • Eutrophic: The hypolimnion is without oxygen the majority of the year. There may be problems with the macrophyte plant population. Blue-green algae blooms may occur. The water supply may have episodes of severe taste and odor. Only warm water fisheries are present. Nuisance macrophytes, algae blooms, and very low transparency may discourage swimming and boating. • Hypereutrophic: Dense algae and macrophytes present. Rough fish dominate the fish population. The possibilities of summer fish kills exist.

The following table provides the lakes, which were monitored and ranks them based upon the grade, trophic state index, and other classifications.

117

Table 66: Rank of Lakes Monitored

118 Figure 28: 2014 Water Quality Monitoring Sites in Chisago County

4.9.3 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years Mitigation actions for winter storms from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated the mitigation action for water supply contamination were to stop contaminants from entering groundwater and protect wellhead areas. They also indicated they wanted to provide safe drinking water to residents at all times by providing adequate drinking water in the event of groundwater contamination.

According to the 2013-2023 Chisago County Local Water Management Plan, Chisago County’s emphasis in conducting inspections and replacing septic systems is due to the following primary reasons:

119

• All of the drinking water in the County comes from groundwater. Septic systems that are not meeting current standards for operation can contaminate groundwater with pollutants that are harmful to public health. Of particular concern is fecal coliform, which causes illness in both humans and animals. • The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has placed many of the lakes and streams in the County on the impaired waters list. Septic systems that do not meet State standards can leach septage directly to surface water, or through a groundwater to surface water connection, thus contributing to the impairment of the water body. • Chisago County’s mission is to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public. It is essential that the County continue to work toward the repair and replacement of Imminent Threat to Public Health and failing septic systems to fulfill that mission. Providing financial assistance to homeowners through State grants or the County’s septic loan program is a key factor in the success of that mission. Additional funding is needed to assist homeowners with the repair or replacement of their septic systems. The financial need outweighs the funding available at this time.

Wellhead Protection Plan for the City of Harris In March 2014, the Minnesota Department of Health approved the Wellhead Protection Plan Amendment for the City of Harris. This plan has been prepared in conjunction with several local, County, state agencies, provides an assessment of the city’s source waters, and contains goals, objectives and action strategies for the potential sources covered by the plan.

As part of the Wellhead Protection Plan process, we identified the Drinking Water Supply Management Area (DWSMA) and assessed the vulnerability of our water supply. We also documented measures to help protect the city's water supply from potential sources of contamination.

The City of Harris relies on groundwater for its drinking water supply. The City owns and operates wells that draw water from groundwater aquifers located several hundred feet underground. Groundwater aquifers are vulnerable to contamination from human land surface activities. Protection of our water supply means preventing contamination within the area that supplies water to the city's wells. This effort is all about providing a safe water supply to residents and to proactively protect human health for all those with wells within the protection area.

One of the most effective contamination protection initiatives includes the identification and sealing of unused wells that are located within the wellhead protection area. An unused, unsealed well can provide an open channel between the land surface and an aquifer; and can act as a drain, allowing surface water runoff and debris to enter the groundwater and contaminate it.

An unused well is a well that is no longer used, is not sealed, and may be buried or forgotten. The process to seal a well includes clearing debris from the well and then filling it with a special grout material. A professional must do the sealing of an unused well.

120 conjunction with a bridge replacement project being undertaken by Sunrise Township in 2012. Best Management Practices, which have been installed, include vegetative swales, rock chutes, diversions, earthen ditch checks, and infiltration basins. These practices will slow water down, filter it, and allow possible infiltration before the runoff reaches the Sunrise River.

Statewide Mitigation Actions According to the Minnesota Department of Health website, there are a number of programs and services in place in the state of Minnesota to protect groundwater from contamination to keep drinking water supplies are safe for human consumption.

Programs in state and local government agencies are responsible for protecting groundwater from contamination so that drinking water supplies from water are safe for human consumption. The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) has many roles in this effort including protecting water, ensuring that drinking water from wells is tested and is safe and recommending cleanup of contaminated sites. Other state agencies also have diverse and important roles in ensuring that the drinking water from wells is safe for human consumption.

4.9.4 Water Supply Contamination and Climate Change According to the Environmental Protection Agency, climate change can have a variety of impacts on surface water, drinking water, and ground water quality. Higher water temperatures and changes in the timing, intensity, and duration of precipitation can affect water quality. Higher air temperatures (particularly in the summer), earlier snowmelt, and potential decreases in summer precipitation could increase the risk of drought and or flood.

4.9.5 Relationships with Other Hazards Water supply contamination can be linked to various other hazards. Private wells and community water supplies can become contaminated by human and animal waste from infectious disease. In addition, lakes, streams, pools or water parks could also become contaminated by infectious disease from humans and/or animals. A spill or release of hazardous waste could also have an impact on a surrounding area’s water supply. Lastly, wastewater treatment plant failure can occur if facilities are not adequately protected from flooding or protection is compromised. Water supplies can become contaminated by the untreated wastes. Sewer back-up and flood waters can contaminate wells through well cap or vent.

121 4.10 Winter Storms Severe winter storms vary in size and strength and include heavy snowstorms, blizzards, freezing rain, sleet, ice storms, and blowing and drifting snow conditions. Extremely cold temperatures accompanied by strong winds can result in wind chills that cause bodily injuries such as frostbite and death. In the Midwest, Canadian and Arctic cold fronts that push snow and ice deep into the interior region of the United States cause winter storms. Severe winter storms can shut down highways, down power lines, take down trees and tree limbs, create hazardous driving conditions, hypothermia, fires from personal heating units such as heated blankets, flooding, and deaths to the young and elderly who can be exposed to the severe weather for prolonged periods of time. Blizzards are the most severe form of winter storms and are associated with large amounts of falling or blowing snow with wind gusts in excess of 35 mph. When these types of conditions exist the National Weather Service may issue a “Blizzard Warning”, or if such storm is expected, they may issue a “Winter Storm Watch”.

Severe winter storm occurrences tend to be very disruptive to transportation and commerce. Trees, cars, roads, and other surfaces develop a coating or glaze of ice, making even small accumulations of ice extremely hazardous to motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The most prevalent impacts of heavy accumulations of ice are slippery roads and walkways that lead to vehicle and pedestrian accidents; collapsed roofs from fallen trees and limbs and heavy ice and snow loads; and felled trees, telephone poles and lines, electrical wires, and communication towers. Severe storms can cause the disruption of telecommunications and power for days. Heavy snow or accumulated ice can also isolate people from assistance or services. The National Weather Service issues a Wind Chill Advisory for Minnesota when widespread wind chills of -40°F or lower with winds of at least ten miles per hour (mph) expected. In some parts of southern Minnesota, the threshold may be -35°F. A Wind Chill Warning is issued when widespread wind chills of -40°F in northern Minnesota and -35°F in southern with winds greater than ten mph are expected.

The National Weather Service can be credited with providing at least 48 hours forewarning of a severe winter storm. This can give time for residents and governments to prepare for the storm such as stockpiling resources, prepping snow-moving equipment, and making plans. The NWS Warning Terminology Table breaks down the different types of advisories, watches, and warnings and when they are used.

Table 67: NWS Warning Terminology Table National Weather Service Warning Terminology Winter Weather Alert for ice, cold weather, or snow that can range from 2 - 6 inches. Advisory Alert for severe winter weather with a high possibility in the next few days resulting in Winter Storm Watch high accumulations of snow or ice. Winter Storm Warning Severe weather (ice, snow, cold) are about to begin or have already started. Snow condition resulting in high winds, snowdrifts, lack of visibility, and threatening Blizzard Warning conditions when traveling and to those exposed to the weather. High accumulations of ice that will cause dangerous travel and problems to power Ice Storm Warning infrastructure. Heavy Storm Warning Snow accumulation of 6 or more inches. Source: NOAA

The wind chill temperature is how cold people and animals feel when outside. Wind chill is based on the

122 rate of heat loss from exposed skin caused by wind and cold. As the wind increases, it draws heat from the body, driving down skin temperature and eventually the internal body temperature. Therefore, the wind makes it feel much colder. If the temperature is zero degrees Fahrenheit and the wind are blowing at 15 mph, the wind chill is -19 F. At this wind chill temperature, exposed skin can freeze in 30 minutes. The National Weather Service issues a Wind Chill Advisory for Minnesota when widespread wind chills of -40 F or lower with winds at least 10 miles per hour (mph) are expected.

4.10.1 Severe Winter Storms Risk The overall risk for severe winter storms in Chisago County is little to no, but the probability that a severe winter storm will occur each year is highly likely. Data from 2009 to 2015 was used to determine the risk for each of the cities and the County as a whole. All the cities and overall County probability, impact and risk are the same because data was not available by individual city.

Table 68: Winter Storms Risk by City in Chisago County Winter Storms City Probability Impact Risk Center City Highly Likely Low Little to No Chisago City Highly Likely Low Little to No Harris Highly Likely Low Little to No Lindstrom Highly Likely Low Little to No North Branch Highly Likely Low Little to No Rush City Highly Likely Low Little to No Shafer Highly Likely Low Little to No Stacy Highly Likely Low Little to No Taylors Falls Highly Likely Low Little to No Wyoming Highly Likely Low Little to No Chisago County Highly Likely Low Little to No Total Highly Likely Low Little to No

4.10.2 Severe Winter Storms History in Chisago County Severe winter storms occur each winter season in Chisago County. The types of severe winter storm events that are reported for Chisago County include blizzard, severe cold, heavy snow and winter storms as provided by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. Some of the most notable severe winter storms in Chisago County occurred in 2014. In 2014 in Chisago County there were five extreme cold/wind chill events recorded during a three-month span.

National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided the history of severe winter storm events in Chisago County. From 2009 to 2015, there have been 24-recorded events of severe winter storms in Chisago County. A comprehensive list of the last 50 years of data can be found in Appendix B.

Of the aforementioned severe winter storms, there has been one winter storm in the last 50 years in Chisago County, which has been declared disasters by FEMA. This was a major declared disaster, which is when the President believes an event 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. This declared disaster had both Individual and Public Assistance Programs declared.

123

Table 69: Major Declared Disasters for Winter Storms IH IA PA HM Declaratio Disaste Inciden Title Incident Inciden Disaster Progra Progra Progra Progra n Date r Type t Type Begin t End Close m m m m Date Date Out Date Declare Declare Declare Declare d d d d No Yes Yes Yes 5/16/2001 DR Flood SEVERE 3/23/200 7/3/200 11/6/201 WINTER 1 1 3 STORMS, FLOODING, AND TORNADOE S Source: FEMA

4.10.3 Mitigation Actions in the Past Five Years Mitigation actions for Severe storms and extreme temperatures from Chisago County’s November 2008 All Hazard Mitigation Plan stated that the mitigation action for severe storms and extreme temperatures was to provide safe and accessible shelter to residents from severe storms by ensuring residents have safe shelter. Another mitigation strategy was to have an adequate warning system for all County residents. Lastly, the County indicated they wanted infrastructure protected and wisely used as well as supporting relief to people affected by temperature extremes.

4.10.4 Vulnerability According to the 2014 Minnesota All- Hazard Mitigation Plan, the topography, land-use characteristics and winter climate of western and southern Minnesota cause this area to be particularly vulnerable to blowing and drifting snow. For an average winter season, taxpayers in Minnesota spend approximately $100 million in snow removal costs, with Minnesota Department of Transportation expending $41 million. In the event of a winter season with anomalously high snowfall and exceedingly strong winds, as was the case for much of the state during the winter of 1996-97, the cost of snow removal can soar to $215 million. Transportation systems, electrical distribution systems, and structures are vulnerable to winter storms throughout the entire state. These vulnerabilities impact human safety, disrupt distribution of government services, cause economic disruptions and damage structures.

Transportation systems in Chisago County that have the potential to be impacted by severe winter weather are airports and roadways. There are airports in Chisago County which could potentially be impacted and prevent flights from coming in or going out in the event of a winter storm. Roadways can be treacherous or impassable during severe winter storms making it difficult for individuals to get essential items such as food and medical care. It can also make it difficult for emergency vehicles to get to those people who are experiencing some type of emergency during a severe winter storm.

Severe ice or snowstorms can disrupt telecommunications and power for days. Such storms can also cause exceptionally heavy snowfall that persists for days, resulting in heavy flooding. The most prevalent impacts of heavy accumulations of ice or snow are slippery roads and walkways that lead to vehicle and pedestrian accidents. In addition, heavy snow loads can cause roofs to collapse trees and limbs to break as well as damaged telephone poles and lines, electrical wires, and communication towers. Children and the elderly are also at an increased risk when there is extreme cold. Children who need to walk to school or stand outside at a bus stop are at an increased risk of frostbite due to the potential of additional time

124

outside in the cold. The elderly and those living in poverty may not have the resources to pay higher electrical bills in the winter months to keep their homes warm. If power is lost during the winter months, it can also cause dangerously cold temperatures inside and those with limited resources may find themselves with no place warm to go. Slippery roads and walkways also pose a threat to the safety of people, especially the elderly, who are more prone to falls. Individuals who live in rural or isolated areas are also at an increased risk for winter storms.

4.10.5 Severe Winter Storms and Climate Change Severe winter storms are a yearly occurrence in Chisago County. The current climate change, which is occurring within the Midwest region, has the potential to increase the severe winter storm frequency within the Midwest, including Minnesota. Severe winter storms can have a large impact on public safety in Minnesota. This will continue, with a possible increase in snowstorm frequency and annual total snowfall. Severe winter weather is often a cause of power outages. Pressures on energy use, reduced reliability of services, potential outages and a potential rise in household costs for energy are major climate change risks to public health.

4.10.6 Relationship to other Hazards Severe winter storms have relationships to other hazards such as flooding and structural fires. Snowmelt from heavy snows can cause localized flooding which can cause dangerous conditions for residents and motorists. It can also destroy property and infrastructure such as roads. In addition, heavy winter snowstorms can cause power outages that may cause residents to use alternative heating methods, which can increase the risk of structural fires. 4.11 Risk Assessment Summary Chisago County is still at risk to hazards despite its efforts to mitigate natural hazards. Within Chisago County and its participating jurisdictions, flooding and summer storms are the hazards that have had the highest number of disaster declarations. Flooding and summer storms have also had the highest amount of mitigation actions, so one can recognize that Chisago County is taking steps towards mitigating the impact and risk of flooding and summer storms on the County. Chisago County lies within the region in Minnesota that has a moderate number of disaster declarations in the entire state. Taking a closer look at the figures below one can see that Chisago County, in particular, has between seven and nine disaster declarations between 1964 and 2013.

125

Figure 29: Disaster Declarations by Region in Minnesota

Source: FEMA

This mitigation plan update identified 9 hazards (structural fire and wildfire are grouped into one hazard profile) as having a potential impact on Chisago County. In taking a more in-depth look at each of the hazards and determining the frequency with which they occur in Chisago County and calculating the impact and risk potential on the community, mitigation actions can be identified and prioritized accordingly. Of the nine hazards in Chisago County, the hazards with the highest impact potential are a flood and structural fire/wildfire. These hazards are highly likely to occur in Chisago County each year and have a high-risk potential for the community. Other hazards, such as severe summer weather have a highly likely probability of occurring each year, but their impact on the community is not as significant and there is less risk potential related to these hazards.

Through Chisago County’s risk analysis, it was determined that the cities of North Branch and Wyoming have the highest number of moderate or high impact and risk analysis ratings compared to other cities in the County. North Branch and Wyoming both had high impact and risk analysis ratings for flood and structural fire/wildfire and Moderate impact and risk analysis for Tornado. This is important information for mitigation actions and prioritizing the cities of North Branch and Wyoming among the other cities in the County. A more detailed look at the jurisdictions and which hazards were at the High, Moderate, and Low- level prioritization can be seen in tables 70-81 below.

Table 70 shows the hazard prioritization for Chisago County as a whole while Tables 74 through 84 show

126

the hazard prioritization for each individual city in Chisago County including Center City, Chisago City, Harris, Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylor Falls, Wyoming and unincorporated Chisago County.

Table 70: Chisago County Hazard Prioritization

Level Hazard

• Flood High • Structural Fire/Wildfire

Moderate • Severe Summer Weather

• Severe Winter Weather • Infectious Disease Low • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination • Tornado

Table 71: Center City Hazard Prioritization Center City Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

• Flood High • Structural Fire/Wildfire

Moderate • None

• Severe Summer Weather • Severe Winter Weather • Infectious Disease Low • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination • Tornado

127

Table 72: Chisago City Hazard Prioritization Chisago City Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

• Flood Moderate • Structural Fire/Wildfire

• Severe Summer Weather • Severe Winter Weather • Infectious Disease Low • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination • Tornado

Table 73: Harris Hazard Prioritization Harris Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

Moderate • Severe Summer Weather

• Structural Fire/Wildfire • Flood • Severe Winter Weather Low • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination • Tornado

128

Table 74: Lindstrom Hazard Prioritization Lindstrom Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

Moderate • None

• Severe Summer Weather • Structural Fire/Wildfire • Flood • Severe Winter Weather Low • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination • Tornado

Table 75: North Branch Hazard Prioritization North Branch Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

• Flood High • Structural Fire/Wildfire

Moderate • Tornado

• Severe Summer Weather • Severe Winter Weather Low • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination

129

Table 76: Rush City Hazard Prioritization Rush City Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

• Flood • Severe Summer Weather Moderate • Structural Fire/Wildfire • Tornado • Severe Winter Weather • Infectious Disease Low • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination

Table 77: Shafer Hazard Prioritization Shafer Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

Moderate • None

• Flood • Severe Summer Weather • Structural Fire/Wildfire • Tornado Low • Severe Winter Weather • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination

130

Table 78: Stacy Hazard Prioritization Stacy Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

• Flood Moderate • Severe Summer Weather • Structural Fire/Wildfire

• Tornado • Severe Winter Weather Low • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination

Table 79: Taylor Falls Hazard Prioritization Taylor Falls Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

Moderate • None

• Structural Fire/Wildfire • Severe Summer Weather • Flood • Tornado Low • Severe Winter Weather • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination

131

Table 80: Wyoming Hazard Prioritization Wyoming Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

• Structural Fire/Wildfire High • Flood

Moderate • Tornado

• Severe Summer Weather • Severe Winter Weather Low • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination

Table 81: Unincorporated Chisago County Hazard Prioritization Unincorporated Chisago County Hazard Prioritization Level Hazard

High • None

• Flood Moderate • Severe Summer Weather • Structural Fire/Wildfire

• Tornado • Severe Winter Weather Low • Infectious Disease • Hazardous Material • Water Supply Contamination

132

Section 5: Capability Assessment

5.1 What Is A Capability Assessment? The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a given jurisdiction to implement mitigation strategies. More specifically, the capability assessment helps to determine what mitigation actions are likely to be successfully implemented given the fiscal, technical, administrative and political framework of a jurisdiction. A capability assessment also provides an opportunity to assess existing plans, policies and current processes already in place. A capability assessment is required for plan approval. This chapter outlines how the mitigation capabilities of Chisago County and the jurisdictions participating were assessed, the results of the assessment and recommendations to improve their mitigation capacity.

5.1.1 Conducting the Capability Assessment To yield insight into the jurisdiction’s capability to mitigate hazards, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team administered a multi-part self-assessment that consisted of two surveys. The first survey collected information regarding existing local plans, policies, programs, and ordinances. Additionally, the survey asked the participants to assess how much influence various mitigation elements (plans, policies, programs, and ordinance) had on the governance of their jurisdictions. The second survey consisted of questions regarding the fiscal, technical, administrative and political will of the participating jurisdiction. Participants were asked to determine their capability with regard to the various administrative categories. Representatives from Chisago County and the jurisdictions identified as participating in the plan update were invited to participate.

5.1.2 Hazard Mitigation Plans, Policies, Programs and Ordinances An evaluation of existing plans, programs, and policies was conducted as a means to provide insight into how mitigation was achieved in the past and how might it be achieved in the future. An assessment was conducted to determine if and/or what plans existed and if they were utilized in the governance of the jurisdiction’s mitigation activities. Finally, participants were asked to rank their capability with regard to mitigation and how comprehensive (interconnected) the identified local plans, policies, programs, and ordinances were. The following are the results of the self-assessment.

133

Table 82: Plans Policies Programs and Ordinances in Place Evaluation of Existing Plans, Policies, and Ordinances • HMP: Hazard Mitigation Plan • CIP: Capital Improvements Plan (that regulates • DRP: Disaster Recovery Plan infrastructure in hazard areas) • CLUP: Comprehensive Land Use Plan • COMP: Comprehensive Plan • FMP: Floodplain Management Plan • REG-PL: Regional Planning • SMP: Stormwater Management Plan • HPP: Historic Preservation Plan • EOP: Emergency Operations Plan • ZO: Zoning Ordinance • COOP: Continuity of Operations Plan • NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program • SARA: SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan • BC: Building Codes • TRANS: Transportation Plan

PL - ZO BC CIP HPP DRP FMP EOP SMP HMP NFIP CULP FDPO Score SARA COOP COMP TRANS REG

Plans Jurisdiction Chisago X X X X X X X X X X X X M County Chisago City X X X X X X X X L Center City X X X X X X X X X M Harris X X X X X X X X X X L Lindstrom X X X X X X X X X M North Branch X X X X X X X X X M Rush City X X X X X X X X X M Shafer X X X X X X X L Stacy X X X X X X X X X M Taylors Falls X X X X X X X X X L Wyoming X X X X X X X X X M Note: Scores of High, Moderate and Limited were determined by a self-assessment of the jurisdictions.

The first part of the capability assessment survey indicated that there is generally a low or moderate degree of existing plans, policies, and ordinances used to conduct mitigation. The survey results indicated that jurisdictions do associate their hazard mitigation plan and or the actions listed in it with the actual mitigation that has occurred. Due to comprehensive mitigation planning, many of the participating jurisdictions indicated that they have Low to moderate capabilities with regard to the use of local plans, policies, programs, and ordinances used to mitigate hazards. All indications suggest that Chisago County institutes actions that will enhance its ability to support a comprehensive mitigation program.

5.1.3 Recommendations It is obvious that mitigation actions are occurring across Chisago County and within the participating jurisdictions. Furthermore, the inclusion of the mitigation plan is self-reported to be an important part of comprehensive planning within the jurisdictions. It is recommended that those jurisdictions that reported their overall capability as moderate continue to include the mitigation plan and activities into their existing

134 plans. Furthermore, it is recommended that efforts should be made to unify the County and participating jurisdictions so that mitigation efforts are coordinated and reporting of these activities is centralized. Furthermore, the County and jurisdictions should agree on a management process and establish a governance committee to oversee the mitigation planning process, evaluate mitigation actions, report mitigation actions for the inclusion of plan updates, and other activities that will help to support a comprehensive mitigation plan program. Finally, this current iteration of the plan update should reflect the noted recommendations by including a management strategy to strengthen capabilities and ensure the County’s mitigation program is treated and managed as a true existing program.

5.2 Fiscal, Technical, Administrative and Political Capabilities

As part of the capability assessment, each jurisdiction self-assessed their unique technical, fiscal, administrative, and the political will to conduct mitigation projects. The Assessment of Local Capability Table provides an overview of each jurisdiction’s rankings. An “L” indicates limited capability, an “M” indicates moderate capability, and an “H” indicates high capability. The results of the self-assessment are listed below.

Table 83: Assessment of Local Capability An “L” indicates low capability; an “M” indicated moderate capability; and an “H” indicates high capability. Jurisdiction Technical Capability Fiscal Capability Administrative Capability Political Capability Chisago County M H H H Chisago City M H H M Center City L M M M Harris L L L L Lindstrom M M M M North Branch M H H H Rush City L M M M Shafer L M M L Stacy L L L L Taylors Falls L L L L Wyoming M H H H Note: Scores of High, Moderate and Limited were determined by a self-assessment of the participating jurisdictions.

5.2.1 Technical Capability With regard to the Chisago County Mitigation Plan, “Technical Capability” was defined as possessing the skills and tools needed for making decisions regarding mitigation activities, programs, and policies. The concept of “technical” was left to the participants to self-define; however, several examples were provided to assist the participant in competing for the survey. For instance, having accesses to and/or being able to use geographic information systems (GIS) and database management capabilities would be an indication of possessing the technical capabilities needed to make informed decisions regarding mitigation activities. Not having the ability to manage grants and not having a working knowledge of mitigation programs would be an indication of not possessing the technical capabilities needed to make informed decisions regarding mitigation programs or policies.

135

Predictably, this self-survey did produce the typical association between a jurisdiction’s size and technical capability. The analyses of the responses to the capability assessment indicated that there is generally a moderate technical capability with the larger jurisdictions reporting and limited technical capabilities with smaller jurisdictions. Thus, the overall results of the technical capability assessment highlight the notion that the existing capability of most jurisdictions could be improved.

5.2.2 Recommendations Local Mitigation Action Plans should include strategies that will strengthen the technical capabilities of the jurisdictions and County. While there is a wide range of technical resources across the County and municipal governments, the development of a systematic protocol for sharing resources could significantly increase the level of technical capability to analyze natural hazards and develop meaningful actions to reduce their impact. The development of regional mitigation actions could also be used to assist in this effort. In all, Chisago County and its cities might rely on its existing partners (Watersheds, Regional partners, etc.) and local and county departments to ensure those without resources are successful.

5.2.3 Fiscal Capability With regard to the Chisago County Mitigation Plan, the fiscal capability was defined as having the fiscal resources available to implement mitigation policies and projects. It was noted that fiscal capability might take the form of grants received, locally based revenue sources, or other means to fund mitigation activities. For instance, the costs associated with mitigation policy and project implementation varies widely. In some cases, policies are tied primarily to staff costs associated with the creation and monitoring of a given program. In other cases, funding is linked to a project, such as property acquisition that can require a substantial commitment from local, state, and federal funding sources.

The analyses of the responses to the capability assessment indicated that there is a high, moderate and limited fiscal capability at the County and respective municipal levels. In this instance, jurisdictional fiscal capability does not seem to be influenced by the population in that larger jurisdictions seemed to rate their ability the same or lower than less populated jurisdictions. Rather, fiscal responsibly seems to be a product of a jurisdiction’s need to mitigate and historical use of the various mitigation programs.

(NOTE: Population size is not always correlated with risk. The risk of a smaller population can be equal to or even greater than the risk of more populated areas. However, more populated jurisdictions typically have larger tax bases and or more resources to address their risk).

5.2.4 Recommendations To evaluate the fiscal capabilities needed to implement mitigation policies and projects, jurisdictions should ask several basic questions:

• Does the action require a monetary commitment? • Does the action require staff resources? • Can jurisdictions combine resources with other counties or municipalities to address identified problems? • Is the jurisdiction willing to commit local revenue on a sustained or one-time basis?

In order to implement mitigation projects and policies, some monetary commitment or staff resources will be required. Resources may take the form of a non-federal match requirement or the cost associated with staff time devoted to mitigation policy development and implementation. County and municipal

136

governments should consider combining financial and staff resources to achieve efficiencies in implementing mitigation activities to address hazards across the region. It is important to consider that hazards tend to impact regions and not just individual jurisdictions; thus, combining resource is often a benefit to multiple jurisdictions.

Finally, if local governments have access to ongoing sources of revenue, the comprehensive and sustained effort can be achieved. As such, jurisdictions are encouraged to create mitigation based revenue resources. For example, a storm-water management fee or the development of a budgetary line item that specifically addresses hazard mitigation could be adopted.

5.3 Administrative Capability With regard to the Chisago County Mitigation plan, the administrative capability was defined as the ability to complete the necessary administrative elements of typical mitigation activities and projects. Examples include the availability of jurisdictional staffing, ability to document mitigation progress, grant reporting, and the existing organizational resources needed to implement mitigation strategies.

The analysis of the Administrative Capability Assessment indicated there is low, moderate and high administrative capability throughout Chisago County. Note, the County indicated it had a high level of capability, while the city of Lawton indicated they had a limited administrative capability.

Typically, the administrative capability is not related to the size of the jurisdictions. Like most jurisdictions, Chisago County, and its cities’ administrative capability are dependent upon the makeup and relationships of the jurisdictions rather than the resources or population of the jurisdictions.

5.3.1 Recommendations The enhancement of administrative capability may be achieved through County/municipal training, outreach and mentoring. Specifically, sharing resources within jurisdictions might improve jurisdictions administrative capabilities. In addition, efforts to demonstrate the impacts of mitigation across a jurisdiction’s governmental functions might increase awareness and buy-in. Finally, training of jurisdictional personnel with regard to mitigation related programs and/or the purpose of mitigation can increase specific knowledge skills and abilities.

5.4 Political Capability One of the most difficult and sensitive capabilities to evaluate involves the political will of a jurisdiction to enact meaningful mitigation policies and projects. With regard to the Chisago County Mitigation plan, the fiscal capability was defined as the level of interest that both the citizens and government officials of a given jurisdiction have in conducting mitigation projects. Examples of a political capability included the existence of special interest groups organized around disaster and/or hazed-related causes. The fact of a jurisdiction having recently had a significant or reoccurring event. The jurisdiction’s history of conducting mitigation projects and the willingness of elected officials to allocate resources to hazard disaster and/or mitigation projects.

According to the results of the self-assessment, Chisago County, and its participating jurisdictions had contrasting levels of political capability to enact meaningful and proactive mitigation actions. As with the previously discussed capabilities, Chisago County self-reported a high degree of political capability to support mitigation projects. The City of Devils Lake indicated it had a moderate level of political capability

137

to support mitigation projects. In addition, the city of Lawton and all other cities self-reported a limited level of political capability to support mitigation projects.

5.4.1 Recommendations Political support from elected officials can prove to be critically important. Thus, past events, including flooding, tornadoes, and major winter storms should be used to educate elected officials regarding the merits of mitigation planning. When possible, local governments who have implemented hazard mitigation projects should attempt to assess their effectiveness following future events.

Documenting mitigation projects and policies that work is a high priority among FEMA officials. Therefore, local government staff should work with North Dakota Department of Emergency Services and FEMA officials following disasters to evaluate past mitigation projects. The results should be presented to locally elected officials in order to provide real-world examples of how mitigation can protect lives and property.

Finally, County extension offices are good resources for training, education, and validation. Working with the state's land-grant university (North Dakota State University) and County extension offices can provide a wealth of knowledge concerning hazard impact and the steps taken to mitigate them.

5.5 Conclusions on Local Capability The capability of jurisdictions in Chisago County varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As such, County- level government and the larger municipal governments typically scored the same as smaller municipalities. Thus, an important consideration in this plan update should be the concept of comprehensive planning with the integration of mitigation planning efforts made both between and within the participating jurisdictions.

In addition to ensuring mitigation planning efforts are integrated, strategies should be crafted to match the respective jurisdiction’s reality. For example, if a jurisdiction does not have the political will to mitigate the harm caused by high winds, i.e., building a storm shelter, strategies directly stating that the jurisdiction is to build a storm shelter will not be as successful as strategies aimed at fostering education and building consensus. As such, strategies should use a building block approach starting at the most achievable goal and build up to larger goals and eventually achieve the ultimate goal. (Create awareness for the need of a storm shelter, identify partners and build consensus regarding those who deem a storm shelter a worthy endeavor, identify funding concerning how to pay for the project, and then finally build the storm shelter)

Throughout the capability assessment and update process, it was evident that effort has been placed in the management of Chisago County’s mitigation program. Thus, it is recommended that the County and its cities continue to put effort into ensuring that its mitigation program is actively managed, utilized and referenced in other planning documents and resources be shared between and within the County and its various cities. Furthermore, it is recommended that a formal management process is created to ensure mitigation planning continues to operate at high-level and beyond the tenure of the current staff, leaders and elected officials.

The Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update contained in this plan provides a method to assist the process of managing the County’s mitigation program. However, in order to succeed generationally, it will require clearly articulating the benefits of participating in and sustaining the mitigation planning process and related mitigation based programs. One of the best ways to obtain local buy-in and long-term success is the education, identification, and implementation of achievable mitigation actions. Thus, while promoting

138

the mitigation plan is the responsibility of all agencies, it is highly recommended that the Chisago County Emergency Manager lead this effort. As such, it is recommended that a plan consisting of goals, timeframes, and milestones be created for the Chisago County Emergency Manager to create a sustainable mitigation program. Furthermore, in the next mitigation plan update, the emergency manager’s efforts and progress should be measured and included.

5.6 Linking the Capability Assessment, the Risk Assessment, and the Mitigation Strategy The conclusions of the Capability Assessment and Risk Assessment serves as the foundation for a meaningful hazard mitigation strategy. During the process of identifying the goals and mitigation actions, each jurisdiction must consider not only their level of hazard risk but also their existing capability to minimize or eliminate that risk. In jurisdictions where the overall hazard risk is considered to be MODERATE, and local capability is considered LIMITED, then specific mitigation actions that account for these conditions should be considered. This may include less costly actions such as minor ordinance revisions or public awareness activities. If necessary, specific capabilities may need to be improved in order to address recurring threats. Similarly, in cases where the hazard vulnerability is LIMITED and overall capability is MODERATE, more emphasis can be placed on actions that may affect future vulnerability such as guiding development away from known hazard areas.

139

Section 6: Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Strategies

The Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Strategy section describe how Chisago County intends to reduce or eliminate potential losses. The Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Strategies section provides a framework for the County and participating jurisdictions to mitigate the effects of natural hazard events on their population, economy, and property. The mitigation strategy is the coordinated effort of agencies and partners to develop and implement a comprehensive range of inventive and effective natural hazard mitigation actions.

Mitigation Strategy Approach • Establish mitigation goals and objectives that aim to reduce or eliminate long-term vulnerability to natural- hazard events • Identify and analyze a comprehensive range of hazard-specific mitigation strategies that aim to achieve the goals and objectives of the mitigation strategy • Describe how Chisago and participating jurisdictions will prioritize, implement, and administer mitigation strategies

The Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Strategy section is an extension of the previous sections of this report and incorporates the findings of the hazards risk assessment to assist in prioritizing mitigation actions. In addition, the Mitigation Goals, Objectives, and Strategies section provide consideration of the findings of the capability assessment to identify mitigation actions that are manageable and address potential capability gaps. Finally, a maintenance and management section describes how the strategies are to be managed and accounted for in future updates.

FEMA Requirements Addressed in this Section The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team developed the mitigation strategy consistent with the process and steps presented in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) How-To-Guide: Developing the Mitigation Plan (FEMA 386-3).

§201.6(c)(3) The plan shall include the following: A mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.

§201.6(c)(3)(i) The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long‐term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.

§201.6(c)(3)(ii) The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure. All plans approved by FEMA after October 1, 2008, must also address the jurisdiction’s participation in the NFIP, and On- Going compliance with NFIP requirements, as appropriate.

§201.6(c)(3)(iii) The hazard mitigation strategy shall include an action plan, describing how the action

140

identified in paragraph (c)(3)(ii) of this section will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.

§201.6(c)(3)(iv) For multi‐jurisdictional plans, there must be identifiable action items specific to the jurisdiction requesting FEMA approval or credit of the plan.

6.1 Mitigation Goals, Objectives, & Development While Chisago County and its cities have engaged in several mitigation actions over the past five years, the area remains at risk. As noted in the past iterations of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan those hazards posing the most risk due to frequency and impact include flood and severe winter/summer storms. While this plan still focuses on those priorities, new to this plan iteration is the emphasis placed on hazardous material incidents. Another area of emphasis new to this iteration of the Chisago County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan is its focus on comprehensive practices. Many of the projects were created with an emphasis on incorporating plans and projects from multiple agencies/jurisdictions. Finally, this plan and its projects are a reflection of both at existing and future development. Many of the projects of this plan were created to ensure Chisago County and participating jurisdictions are infusing resilience and sustainability into their future endeavors.

The update includes the creation of five new all-encompassing mitigation goals versus the four hazard specific goals that were listed in the immediate past iteration of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, this update eliminates completed projects from the past plan, reassesses the validity of past projects as well as adds new projects. The mitigation projects were derived from the updated community profile, hazard profile, a robust 28-point risk assessment and with the input from the local governments and citizens.

6.2 Strategies/Projects The process of creating new mitigation projects commenced with the planning team meeting with each of the jurisdictions. Based on the concepts found in FEMA Publication 386-3, these meeting included an overview of what mitigation projects, how to identify potential projects, a review of the past plan and an overview of the purpose of the mitigation plan as set by FEMA, the State of MN and the Mitigation Steering Committee. Attendees were instructed to review the existing mitigation goals, objectives, and strategies of the previous plan to determine what had been accomplished over the past five years, what projects were currently relevant and what new projects should be added to the update. Subsequently, the Mitigation Steering Committee, key stakeholders, and public attendees discussed the current mitigation goals, objectives and strategies, and provided feedback on where modifications to the goals, objectives and projects were needed.

In the evaluation of mitigation strategies, stakeholders were instructed to consider the following criteria: • Funding Options & Cost • Staff Time • Feasibility ((the findings of the capability assessment) • Population Benefit • Property Benefit • Values Benefit • Maintenance

141

• Hazard Rating

In the evaluation and creation of projects, stakeholders were asked to assess each potential project in terms of eliminating risk and probability of success. Stakeholders were also requested to consider and provide direct and indirect costs and benefits with indirect costs and benefits being defined as intangible things such as social effects.

Upon completion of the mitigation project creation/evaluation process, the stakeholders provided a comprehensive list of desired strategies to the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team who subsequently organized the lists into common themes as well as evaluated and prioritized the submitted projects. Once the arranged actionable projects, the mitigation strategies were shared with stakeholders. Stakeholders were asked to accept, reject, modify, and or re-rank/prioritize the projects.

Once the data from all of the jurisdictions was again received, the Hazard Mitigation Planning Team again reorganized the data into a comprehensive list of strategies. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team, who refined the list by eliminating duplication, providing succinctness, and generally organizing the strategies into a comprehensive and workable format, then reviewed the list. Once the refinement was complete, the mitigation strategies list was again shared with the participating jurisdictions and stakeholders for additional comment. After all of the comments were received and incorporated, a final list of strategies was made public for review and comment. The final comment and review section lasted approximately one month, ending at the end of June 2016. . The following is a summary of the mitigation update planning process: 1) New goals 2) Prioritization Criteria 3) Implementation Process 4) Projects 5) Mitigation Strategy Implementation and Administration

For this update, the mitigation goals were reorganized to be more general and all encompassing. The goals were also increased from four to five. The mitigation goals were chosen and created by the Mitigation Steering Committee with input from those wishing to participate.

6.2.1 Mitigation Goals • Increase community understanding of emergency management and build support for hazard mitigation • Develop, promote, integrate and track mitigation strategies • On Going to improve and enhance the County's emergency management program • Increase the economic stability, core values, and quality of services of the participating jurisdictions • Increase mitigation resources to eliminate or minimize harm done to people, property, jobs, and natural resources in Chisago by natural and manmade hazards

6.2.2 Hazard/Project Relationship The hazard project relationship table establishes that each of the hazards has at least one project assigned to it. Most hazards have multiple projects assigned to them.

142

Table 84: Hazards Mitigated by Each Proposed Project

Projects flood) flash Flooding (riverine and Failure Levee / Dam Wildfire Windstorms Tornadoes Hail Lightning Storms Winter Erosion Land Subsidence Drought Heat Extreme Release Material Hazardous Disease Infectious and Vehicles) Fires (Structures Transportation Incidents Supply Contamination Water Work with the Minnesota DNR to X include prescribed burning on all County lands and parks. Apply FIREWISE wildfire X susceptibility model to determine areas most prone to wildfires. Provide educational material to X all recreationalists entering County, State & City Parks Remove debris and vegetation X around frequently used areas on an annual basis. Implement FIREWISE program to X X assess risks to structures and identify needed responses. Amend zoning regulations to X X include vegetation and wood storage restrictions around homes in cities and neighborhoods that might be at risk. Implement an education program X X for home/property owners especially in identified risk areas (Carlos Avery Wildlife Management Area and other forested areas) on Best Management Practices for reducing or minimizing wildfire risk. Work with neighborhood X X associations, churches, schools and service clubs to provide materials to the public on “best practices” for property maintenance against fire hazard. Establish and inform those X X X X residents living in “at risk” areas of

143

Projects flood) flash Flooding (riverine and Failure Levee / Dam Wildfire Windstorms Tornadoes Hail Lightning Storms Winter Erosion Land Subsidence Drought Heat Extreme Release Material Hazardous Disease Infectious and Vehicles) Fires (Structures Transportation Incidents Supply Contamination Water shelter locations and evacuation routes within Chisago County and Cities. Educate residents about the X National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Conduct, update and adopt X floodplain mapping for the cities’ and County Incorporate Floodplain and land X use maps into zoning ordinance Assess all public facilities in the X County and cities with regard to storm safety, shelter adequacy and limitations. Identify and map community X shelters that could be used by manufactured home parks and other residents that do not have safe shelter on their property. Continue to Develop and update a X X safe shelter plan for the County and cities including shelters, shelter capacity and transportation or evacuation routes. Continue to evaluate the County’s X X X and cities current warning system from both a mechanical and public use standpoint. Continue to assess the adequacy X X X of the County and cities civil defense siren system adding sirens were needed Acquire AWS real-time weather X X X X X X monitoring stations for all County school systems and emergency communities center (ECC).

144

Continue to assess all hazards X plan to limit travel on state highways, County highways and major roads during hazardous driving conditions. Encourage County zoning X X ordinances and County subdivision regulations to require burial of all new power distribution and telephone lines before any new subdivision plat will be approved or building permit be issued. Encourage the cities’ planning commissions and city councils to adopt similar language in their ordinances. Continue to Work with city staff X and planning commission to develop language for inclusion in the city’s official controls that will prohibit the planting of tree species in lines easements or right-of-ways. Evaluate the readiness of public X buildings for the preventing damage from lightning. Work with power companies and X X X electrical cooperatives to ensure power sources and electric feeds are lopped where feasible. Continue to train and equip X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X emergency response personnel. Continue to Identify structures for X elderly and other at-risk populations who lack effective air- conditioning and insulation. Develop plan that addresses X

145

Projects flood) flash Flooding (riverine and Failure Levee / Dam Wildfire Windstorms Tornadoes Hail Lightning Storms Winter Erosion Land Subsidence Drought Heat Extreme Release Material Hazardous Disease Infectious and Vehicles) Fires (Structures Transportation Incidents Supply Contamination Water insulation and air-conditioning needs of the County’s residences particularly those housing at risk populations. Develop and or adopt ordinances X for a water restriction plan during water shortage periods. Establish a water conservation X program to identify conservation opportunities in public buildings and provide education to the public on conservation techniques. Continue to Drill monitoring wells X into each of the County’s major aquifers at appropriate locations and or continue to monitor aquifer levels and water quality. Continue to work with local media X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X in disseminating information on potential risks and ways of addressing them. Continue County education and X immunization programs. Develop a public education plan X to make residents aware of the resources available to them about infectious diseases. Maintain a Website to provide X citizens with information about public health and infectious diseases. Annually Review and update the X Chisago County Emergency Operations & Mitigation Plans that outlines procedures for dealing with infectious diseases. Work with state and federal X

146

Projects flood) flash Flooding (riverine and Failure Levee / Dam Wildfire Windstorms Tornadoes Hail Lightning Storms Winter Erosion Land Subsidence Drought Heat Extreme Release Material Hazardous Disease Infectious and Vehicles) Fires (Structures Transportation Incidents Supply Contamination Water agencies to identify and address infectious diseases that have the potential to impact the County and region. Continue to work with the hospital X and local clinics in addressing infectious diseases. Continue to work with the state X Department of Health in tracking infectious diseases in the County. Continue to analyze and adopt X the environmental health regulations. Continue to assess, update and X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X develop mitigation and other emergency related plans to work with and coordinate efforts among local units of government. Draft and or enforce an ordinance X X X requiring prompt removal of snow around commercial and industrial buildings in order to ensure access to fire and other emergency equipment. Continue to Identify roadways of X X X insufficient width to handle fire trucks and establish priorities and approaches for addressing deficiencies. Provide school programs to youth, X focusing on stoves, smoke detectors, fire safety, and evacuation. Provide public education to X homeowners, focusing on chimney inspections, electrical systems, flammable materials, heating systems, household

147

Projects flood) flash Flooding (riverine and Failure Levee / Dam Wildfire Windstorms Tornadoes Hail Lightning Storms Winter Erosion Land Subsidence Drought Heat Extreme Release Material Hazardous Disease Infectious and Vehicles) Fires (Structures Transportation Incidents Supply Contamination Water chemicals and evacuation. Provide staff resources to fire X X X departments to assist them in identifying areas of high risk involving hazardous material. Develop Geographic Information X X Systems capability to map locations of fixed facilities using hazardous materials and associated transportation corridors. Map knew locations of hazardous X X material/waste sites by working directly with the Pollution Control and other Agencies. Continue to educate affected X parties about the various hazardous materials that are in the County and cities. Annually review the Contingency X Plan with the Prairie and Island Monticello power plants Continue to expand the use of X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X mutual aid agreements and memoranda of understanding to improve coordination and responses among state, local and federal agencies and appropriate private-sector parties. Reestablish the septic system X X inspection and pumping/maintenance program. Continue the abandoned well- X X sealing program within the County and cities. Continue to assess and or modify X X a County wellhead protection ordinance for public and private

148

6.3 Project Prioritization To ensure continuity from the immediate past iteration of the mitigation plan the Mitigation Steering Committee decided that the action prioritization methodology would remain the same. Thus, the philosophy and methodology remained intact from the immediate past iteration of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. As such, it is again noted that each of the proposed projects has value, however, time and financial constraints do not permit all of the proposed actions to be implemented immediately. By prioritizing the actions, the most critical, cost-effective projects can be achieved in the short term. The prioritization of the projects serves as a guide for choosing and funding projects, however, depending on the funding sources, some actions may be best achieved outside the priorities established here.

To ensure that community goals and other factors are taken into account when prioritizing projects, a

149 prioritization model that uses the following factors was again used: cost, staff time, feasibility, population benefit, property benefit, values benefit, maintenance, and hazard rating.

• Cost considers the direct expenses associated with the project such as material and contractor expenses. • Staff time evaluates the amount of time needed by a local government employee to complete or coordinate the project. • Feasibility assesses the political, social, and/or environmental ramifications of the project and the likelihood such a project would proceed through permitting, public review processes, and/or private business implementation. • Population benefit considers the possible prevention of deaths and injuries through the project’s implementation. • Property benefit estimates the reduction of property losses, including structures and infrastructure, from the hazard being mitigated. • Values benefit considers the economic, ecologic, historic, and social benefits of the project. • Maintenance rates the amount of work required to keep the mitigation measure effective and useful. • Hazard rating is based on the results of the risk assessment and is a measure of the history, probability, severity, and vulnerabilities of the hazard.

Each of the factors was ranked qualitatively for each of the projects. The methods used to assign a category and the associated score is defined in Table 88. The highest possible score is 30. Some factors have a greater range than others, thus indicating a higher weighting. These weightings allow for appropriate prioritization of the project. More specifically, 11 of 30 points account for benefits (population benefit, property benefit, and values benefit), 11 of 30 points account for direct and indirect costs (cost, staff time, and maintenance), 5 of 30 points account for the hazard rating (incorporates hazard probability and impacts; see Section 4.5), and 3 of 30 points account for project feasibility.

Table 85: Prioritization Criteria Factor Threshold Rating Score Little to no direct expenses Low 5 Low- Less than $5,000 Moderate 4 Cost (Range: 1-5) $5,000-$25,000 Moderate 3 Moderate- $25,001-$100,000 High 2 Greater than $100,000 High 1 Less than 10 hours of staff time Low 3 Staff Time (Range: 1-3) 10-40 hours of staff time Moderate 2 Greater than 40 hours of staff time High 1 Positive support for the project High 3 Feasibility (Range: 1-3) Neutral support for the project Moderate 2 Negative support for the project Low 1

150

Factor Threshold Rating Score Potential to reduce more than 20 casualties Very High 4 Population Benefit Potential to reduce 6-20 casualties High 3 (Range: 1-4) Potential to reduce 1-5 casualties Moderate 2 No potential to reduce casualties Low 1

Potential to reduce losses to more than 20 buildings or severe damages to infrastructure Very High 4 Property Benefit Potential to reduce losses to 6-20 buildings or substantial (Range: 1-4) damages to infrastructure High 3 Potential to reduce losses to 1-5 buildings or slight damages to infrastructure Moderate 2 No potential to reduce property losses Low 1 Provides significant benefits to economic, ecologic, historic, or social values High 3 Values Benefit Provides some benefits to economic, ecologic, historic, or social (Range: 1-3) values Moderate 2 No or very little benefit to economic, ecologic, historic, or social values Low 1

Maintenance Requires very little or no maintenance Low 3 (Range: 1-3) Requires less than 10 hours per year Moderate 2 Requires more than 10 hours per year High 1 See Hazard Risk (Chapter Three) High 3 Hazard Rating See Hazard Risk (Chapter Three) Moderate 2 (Range: 1-5) See Hazard Risk (Chapter Three) Low 1

The following table provided an overview of all of the projects and priority scorecard. As previously noted the scorecard allows on to determine the feasibility of a project and otherwise prioritize projects.

Table 86: Project Score Card

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Chisago County & the Work with the Minnesota DNR to include cities of Chisago, prescribed burning on all County lands and 5 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 21 Center, Harris, parks.

151

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Apply FIREWISE wildfire susceptibility Lindstrom, North model to determine areas most prone to 5 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 22 Branch, Rush City, wildfires. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Provide educational material to all Lindstrom, North recreationalist entering County, State & City 3 2 3 1 1 3 2 3 18 Branch, Rush City, Parks Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Remove debris and vegetation around Lindstrom, North 3 2 3 2 1 3 2 3 19 frequently used areas on an annual basis. Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Implement FIREWISE program to assess Lindstrom, North risks to structures and identify needed 5 2 3 2 4 3 2 3 22 Branch, Rush City, responses. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Amend zoning regulations to include cities of Harris, North vegetation and wood storage restrictions Branch, Rush City, 5 2 3 2 4 3 2 3 24 around homes in cities and neighborhoods Shafer, Stacy, Taylors that might be at risk. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Implement an education program for cities of Chisago, home/property owners especially in identified Harris, Lindstrom, North risk areas (Carlos Avery Wildlife 4 2 3 1 4 2 2 3 21 Branch, Rush City, Management Area and other forested areas) Shafer, Stacy, Taylors on Best Management Practices for reducing Falls, Wyoming or minimizing wildfire risk.

152

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE The cities of Chisago, Work with neighborhood associations, Center, Harris, churches, schools and service clubs to Lindstrom, North provide materials to the public on “best 5 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 24 Branch, Rush City, practices” for property maintenance against Shafer, Stacy, Taylors fire hazard. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Establish and inform those residents living in Center, Harris, “at risk” areas of shelter locations and Lindstrom, North 5 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 20 evacuation routes within Chisago County and Branch, Rush City, Cities. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Educate residents about the National Flood 4 2 3 1 4 1 2 2 19 Lindstrom, North Insurance Program (NFIP) Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Conduct, update and adopt floodplain Lindstrom, North 3 1 3 1 4 1 2 2 17 mapping for the cities’ and County Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Incorporate Floodplain and land use maps Lindstrom, North 4 2 3 1 4 3 2 2 21 into zoning ordinance Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Assess all public facilities in the County and Lindstrom, North cities with regard to storm safety, shelter 4 1 3 1 1 2 2 3 17 Branch, Rush City, adequacy and limitations. Shafer, 2Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & The Identify and map community shelters that cities of Chisago, could be used by manufactured home parks 3 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 16 Center, Harris, and other residents that do not have safe

153

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Lindstrom, North shelter on their property. Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Develop and update a safe Center, Harris, shelter plan for the County and cities Lindstrom, North 5 1 3 4 1 1 2 3 21 including shelters, shelter capacity and Branch, Rush City, transportation or evacuation routes. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to evaluate the County’s and cities Lindstrom, North current warning system from both a 5 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 21 Branch, Rush City, mechanical and public use standpoint. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to assess the adequacy of the Lindstrom, North County and cities civil defense siren system 4 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 22 Branch, Rush City, adding sirens were needed Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Acquire AWS real-time weather monitoring Center, Harris, stations for all County school systems and Lindstrom, North 3 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 19 emergency communities center (ECC). Branch, Rush City,

Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to assess all hazards plan to limit Center, Harris, travel on state highways, County highways Lindstrom, North 4 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 20 and major roads during hazardous driving Branch, Rush City, conditions. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Encourage County zoning ordinances and cities of Chisago, County subdivision regulations to require 5 2 3 1 2 2 2 1 18 Center, Harris, burial of all new power distribution and Lindstrom, North telephone lines before any new subdivision

154

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Branch, Rush City, plat will be approved or building permit be Shafer, Stacy, Taylors issued. Encourage the cities’ planning Falls, Wyoming commissions and city councils to adopt similar language in their ordinances. Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Work with city staff and planning Center, Harris, commission to develop language for inclusion Lindstrom, North in the city’s official controls that will prohibit 4 3 3 1 1 2 2 1 17 Branch, Rush City, the planting of tree species in lines Shafer, Stacy, Taylors easements or right-of-ways. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Evaluate the readiness of public buildings for Lindstrom, North 4 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 19 the preventing damage from lightning. Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Work with power companies and electrical Lindstrom, North cooperatives to ensure power sources and 4 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 18 Branch, Rush City, electric feeds are lopped where feasible. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to train and equip emergency Lindstrom, North 1 1 3 4 4 1 2 3 19 response personnel. Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County Continue to Identify structures for elderly and other at-risk populations who lack effective 5 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 19 air-conditioning and insulation. Chisago County Develop plan that addresses insulation and air-conditioning needs of the County’s 4 1 3 4 1 1 2 1 17 residences particularly those housing at risk populations. The cities of Chisago, Develop and or adopt ordinances for a water Harris, Lindstrom, restriction plan during water shortage 5 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 15 Center North Branch, periods. Rush City, Shafer,

155

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Establish a water conservation program to Center, Harris, identify conservation opportunities in public Lindstrom, North 4 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 16 buildings and provide education to the public Branch, Rush City, on conservation techniques. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Drill monitoring wells into each of Center, Harris, the County’s major aquifers at appropriate Lindstrom, North 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 14 locations and or continue to monitor aquifer Branch, Rush City, levels and water quality. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to work with local media in Lindstrom, North disseminating information on potential risks 5 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 17 Branch, Rush City, and ways of addressing them. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County Continue County education and immunization 4 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 16 programs. Chisago County Develop a public education plan to make residents aware of the resources available to 4 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 16 them about infectious diseases. Chisago County Maintain a Website to provide citizens with information about public health and infectious 4 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 16 diseases. Chisago County Annually Review and update the Chisago County Emergency Operations & Mitigation 4 1 3 2 1 1 2 1 15 Plans that outlines procedures for dealing with infectious diseases. Chisago County Work with state and federal agencies to identify and address infectious diseases that 5 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 17 have the potential to impact the County and region. Chisago County Continue to work with the hospital and local 5 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 17 clinics in addressing infectious diseases.

156

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Chisago County Continue to work with the state Department of Health in tracking infectious diseases in 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 15 the County. Chisago County Continue to analyze and adopt the 4 2 3 2 1 1 2 1 16 environmental health regulations. Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to assess, update and develop Center, Harris, mitigation and other emergency related plans Lindstrom, North 4 1 3 2 4 2 2 1 19 to work with and coordinate efforts among Branch, Rush City, local units of government. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming The cities of Chisago, Draft and or enforce an ordinance requiring Center, Harris, prompt removal of snow around commercial Lindstrom, North and industrial buildings in order to ensure 5 2 3 1 4 3 2 3 23 Branch, Rush City, access to fire and other emergency Shafer, Stacy, Taylors equipment. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Identify roadways of insufficient Center, Harris, width to handle fire trucks and establish Lindstrom, North 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 24 priorities and approaches for addressing Branch, Rush City, deficiencies. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming The cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Provide school programs to youth, focusing Lindstrom, North on stoves, smoke detectors, fire safety, and 4 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 17 Branch, Rush City, evacuation. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & cities of Chisago, Provide public education to homeowners, Center, Harris, focusing on chimney inspections, electrical Lindstrom, North systems, flammable materials, heating 4 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 18 Branch, Rush City, systems, household chemicals and Shafer, Stacy, Taylors evacuation. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Provide staff resources to fire departments to Center, Harris, assist them in identifying areas of high risk 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3 16 Lindstrom, North involving hazardous material. Branch, Rush City,

157

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming

Chisago County Develop Geographic Information Systems capability to map locations of fixed facilities 2 2 3 2 4 2 2 1 16 using hazardous materials and associated transportation corridors. Chisago County Map known locations of hazardous material/waste sites by working directly with 4 2 3 2 4 1 2 1 17 the Pollution Control and other Agencies. Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to educate affected parties about Lindstrom, North the various hazardous materials that are in 5 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 16 Branch, Rush City, the County and cities. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County Annually review the Contingency Plan with 5 2 3 4 1 1 2 1 19 the Prairie and Island Monticello power plants Chisago County & the Continue to expand the use of mutual aid cities of Chisago, agreements and memoranda of Center, Harris, understanding to improve coordination and Lindstrom, North 5 2 3 4 4 2 2 1 23 responses among state, local and federal Branch, Rush City, agencies and appropriate private-sector Shafer, Stacy, Taylors parties. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Reestablish the septic system inspection and Lindstrom, North 4 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 15 pumping/maintenance program. Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue the abandoned well-sealing Lindstrom, North 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 14 program within the County and cities. Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming

158

Affected Areas Strategies

Cost TimeStaff Feasibility Population Benefit Benefit Property Benefit Values Maintenance Hazard Rating TOTAL SCORE Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to assess and or modify a County Lindstrom, North wellhead protection ordinance for public and 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 14 Branch, Rush City, private wells. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to define, assess and or update Lindstrom, North 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 14 wellhead protection areas. Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County Continue to provide private well inspections 3 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 14 to residents. Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue readiness, planning, and Lindstrom, North cooperation regarding ingestion for Prairie 5 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 17 Branch, Rush City, Island and Monticello power plants. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming The City of Wyoming Add and Update Weather Warning System 2 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 18

The city of Shafer Add a Storm Shelter to Trailer Parks 1 1 1 4 1 1 2 3 14

The cities of North Provide Flood area improvement at Birch St. Branch & Grand Ave. Separate storm sewer line 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 2 15 added on at Grand Ave. from Birch St. to the Sunrise River Chisago County Identify access and functional Needs, ( at Risk Individual’s) in the County and map their 5 2 2 1 4 2 2 2 20 locations and define how they will be notified and served in an emergency

159

6.4 Implementation Process A critical component of any mitigation program is the implementation of the mitigation projects. The proposed and prioritized projects are shown in Table 90 with the associated responsible stakeholders, resources needed, and goal timeframes for the projects. The timeframes are defined as follows: • Near Term: Within 0-3 years • Mid Term: Within 3-6 years • Long Term: Within 7-10 years • Ongoing: Initiated in the near, mid, or long term and continuing

Note: Some projects may be best achieved outside of the goal timeframes depending on the funding and staff resources available. Others may not be feasible in the goal timeframe due to financial, staff, or political limitations. This prioritized list, however, allows the County, city, and towns to focus on the projects with the greatest benefits. The following is a table of complete actions in order of their priority score. The Table also illustrates the jurisdiction(s) owning the project, coordinating agency, resources and the goal frame of each project.

6.5 Mitigating Projects Mitigation strategies are the foundation of a truly effective emergency management program. Mitigation, as

• Mitigation creates safer communities by reducing losses of life and property • Mitigation enables individuals and communities to recover more rapidly from disasters • Mitigation lessens the financial impact of disasters on individuals, the Treasury, state, local and tribal communities

The County and participating jurisdictions recognize the importance of incorporating mitigation into the overlapping emergency management functions (prepare, respond, recover), existing local and state building codes, zoning ordinances, and various plans (land use, community development, water improvement development, etc.). For this reason, the comprehensive all-hazard mitigation strategies also identified strategies that would, and will, improve the County's and participating jurisdiction’s emergency management capabilities, while creating communities that are resilient in the face of disaster.

Table 87: Mitigation Projects

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE The cities of Chisago, Center, Work with neighborhood associations, Harris, Lindstrom, churches, schools and service clubs to Staff Time, Ongoing, North Branch, Rush provide materials to the public on “best Fire Depts. City/County Short- 24 City, Shafer, Stacy, practices” for property maintenance Budgets, Term Taylors Falls, against fire hazard. Wyoming

160

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Chisago County & the cities of Harris, Amend zoning regulations to include Emergency Ongoing, North Branch, Rush vegetation and wood storage Management, Staff Time Short- 24 City, Shafer, Stacy, restrictions around homes in cities and Cities Term Taylors Falls, neighborhoods that might be at risk. Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Identify roadways of Center, Harris, insufficient width to handle fire trucks Ongoing, Lindstrom, North County and and establish priorities and Staff time Short- 24 Branch, Rush City, City approaches for addressing Term Shafer, Stacy, deficiencies. Taylors Falls, Wyoming The cities of Chisago, Center, Draft and or enforce an ordinance Harris, Lindstrom, requiring prompt removal of snow County and Short North Branch, Rush around commercial and industrial Staff time 23 City term City, Shafer, Stacy, buildings in order to ensure access to Taylors Falls, fire and other emergency equipment. Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to expand the use of mutual Center, Harris, aid agreements and memoranda of Lindstrom, North understanding to improve coordination Emergency Staff Time Ongoing 23 Branch, Rush City, and responses among state, local and Management Shafer, Stacy, federal agencies and appropriate Taylors Falls, private-sector parties. Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Apply FIREWISE wildfire susceptibility Chisago Lindstrom, North model to determine areas most prone County, Fire Staff time Ongoing 22 Branch, Rush City, to wildfires. Officials Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & Fire the cities of Chisago, Departments, Implement FIREWISE program to Ongoing, Center, Harris, Emergency assess risks to structures and identify Staff Time Short- 22 Lindstrom, North Management, needed responses. Term Branch, Rush City, USDA, Shafer, Stacy, NRCS

161

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to assess the adequacy of Cities, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North the County and cities civil defense Emergency Staff Time Long- 22 Branch, Rush City, siren system adding sirens were Management Term Shafer, Stacy, needed Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago CouA2:E21nty & the cities of Chisago, Public Center, Harris, Work with the Minnesota DNR to Officials, Fire Short- Lindstrom, North include prescribed burning on all Staff time 21 Departments, Term Branch, Rush City, County lands and parks. MN DNR Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Emergency Center, Harris, Management, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Incorporate Floodplain and land use Cities, Staff Time Long- 21 Branch, Rush City, maps into zoning ordinance Chisago Term Shafer, Stacy, County Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & Implement an education program for the cities of Chisago, home/property owners especially in Fire Harris, Lindstrom, identified risk areas (Carlos Avery Ongoing, Departments, Staff Time, North Branch, Rush Wildlife Management Area and other Short- 21 Emergency City Budgets City, Shafer, Stacy, forested areas) on Best Management Term Management, Taylors Falls, Practices for reducing or minimizing Wyoming wildfire risk. Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to evaluate the County’s and Cities, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North cities current warning system from Emergency Staff Time Long- 21 Branch, Rush City, both a mechanical and public use Management Term Shafer, Stacy, standpoint. Taylors Falls, Wyoming

162

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Develop and update a Center, Harris, safe shelter plan for the County and Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Emergency cities including shelters, shelter Staff Time Long- 21 Branch, Rush City, Management capacity and transportation or Term Shafer, Stacy, evacuation routes. Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Establish and inform those residents Emergency Lindstrom, North living in “at risk” areas of shelter Short- Response Staff Time 20 Branch, Rush City, locations and evacuation routes within Term Personnel Shafer, Stacy, Chisago County and Cities. Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to assess all hazards plan to MNDOT, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North limit travel on state highways, County Emergency Staff Time Short- 20 Branch, Rush City, highways and major roads during Response Term Shafer, Stacy, hazardous driving conditions. Personnel Taylors Falls, Wyoming Identify access and functional Needs, ( at Risk Individual’s) in the County Continues County and Chisago County and map their locations and define Staff Time and long 20 Public Health how they will be notified and served in term an emergency Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Acquire AWS real-time weather Emergency Ongoing, Lindstrom, North monitoring stations for all County Response City Budgets Long- 19 Branch, Rush City, school systems and emergency Personnel, Term Shafer, Stacy, communities center (ECC). NWS Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Emergency Ongoing, Educate residents about the National Center, Harris, Response Staff Time Short- 19 Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Lindstrom, North Personnel Term Branch, Rush City,

163

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Shafer, Stacy, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Staff Time Remove debris and vegetation around Lindstrom, North City and and Short- frequently used areas on an annual 19 Branch, Rush City, County Government Term basis. Shafer, Stacy, Budgets Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & Emergency the cities of Chisago, Response, Center, Harris, First HMGP, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Continue to train and equip emergency Responder FEMA, State Long- 19 Branch, Rush City, response personnel. Agencies, Budgets Term Shafer, Stacy, County and Taylors Falls, Cities Wyoming Continue to Identify structures for Emergency Public Ongoing, elderly and other at-risk populations Response Health, Chisago County Long- 19 who lack effective air-conditioning and Personnel, HMGP, Term insulation. Public Health FEMA, State Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to assess, update and Center, Harris, develop mitigation and other County, City and Ongoing, Lindstrom, North emergency related plans to work with Emergency County Short- 19 Branch, Rush City, and coordinate efforts among local Management Budgets Term Shafer, Stacy, units of government. Taylors Falls, Wyoming Emergency Annually review the Contingency Plan Management Ongoing, Chisago County with the Prairie and Island Monticello Prairie and Staff Time Long- 19 power plants Island Term Monticello Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Emergency Center, Harris, Evaluate the readiness of public Management, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North buildings for the preventing damage Cities, Staff Time Long- 19 Branch, Rush City, from lightning. Chisago Term Shafer, Stacy, County Taylors Falls, Wyoming

164

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE City Budget, Ongoing, Add and Update Weather Warning The City of Wyoming City FEMA, Short- 18 System HMGP Term Chisago County & cities of Chisago, Provide public education to Center, Harris, Fire homeowners, focusing on chimney Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Departments, inspections, electrical systems, Staff Time Short- 18 Branch, Rush City, Emergency flammable materials, heating systems, Term Shafer, Stacy, Management, household chemicals and evacuation. Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, State, County Provide educational material to all Ongoing, Lindstrom, North and City recreationalist entering County, State Staff time Long- 18 Branch, Rush City, officials (park & City Parks Term Shafer, Stacy, boards) Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, City and Center, Harris, Work with power companies and County, Lindstrom, North electrical cooperatives to ensure Emergency Short- Staff Time 18 Branch, Rush City, power sources and electric feeds are Management, Term Shafer, Stacy, lopped where feasible. Power Taylors Falls, Companies Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Work with city staff and Center, Harris, planning commission to develop County and Ongoing, Lindstrom, North language for inclusion in the city’s Staff Time, city Long- 17 Branch, Rush City, official controls that will prohibit the Budget governments Term Shafer, Stacy, planting of tree species in lines Taylors Falls, easements or right-of-ways. Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Emergency Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Conduct, update and adopt floodplain Response Staff Time Short- 17 Branch, Rush City, mapping for the cities’ and County Personnel Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming

165

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Develop plan that addresses insulation Emergency Public and air-conditioning needs of the Response Health, Short Chisago County 17 County’s residences particularly those Personnel, HMGP, Term housing at risk populations. Public Health FEMA, State Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Assess all public facilities in the Ongoing, Lindstrom, North County and cities with regard to storm Emergency Staff Time Long- 17 Branch, Rush City, safety, shelter adequacy and Management Term Shafer, Stacy, limitations. Taylors Falls, Wyoming Work with state and federal agencies Ongoing, to identify and address infectious Public Chisago County Public Health Long- 17 diseases that have the potential to Health Term affect the County and region. Continue to work with the hospital and Ongoing, Public Chisago County local clinics in addressing infectious Public Health Long- 17 Health diseases. Term Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to work with local media in Lindstrom, North Emergency disseminating information on potential Staff Time Ongoing 17 Branch, Rush City, Management risks and ways of addressing them. Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Map knew locations of hazardous Ongoing, material/waste sites by working directly Chisago Chisago County Staff time Long- 17 with the Pollution Control and other County Term Agencies. The cities of Fire Chisago, Center, Departments, Harris, Lindstrom, Provide school programs to youth, Ongoing, Emergency North Branch, Rush focusing on stoves, smoke detectors, Staff Time Short- 17 Management, City, Shafer, Stacy, fire safety, and evacuation. Term School Taylors Falls, Districts Wyoming Chisago County & Continue readiness, planning, and Emergency the cities of Chisago, Ongoing, cooperation regarding ingestion for Management, Center, Harris, Staff Time Long- 17 Prairie Island and Monticello power Prairie Island Lindstrom, North Term plants. and Branch, Rush City,

166

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Shafer, Stacy, Monticello Taylors Falls, power plants Wyoming Develop Geographic Information Systems capability to map locations of Ongoing, Chisago Chisago County fixed facilities using hazardous Staff time Long- 16 County materials and associated Term transportation corridors. Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Chisago Center, Harris, County and Continue to educate affected parties Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Cities, Fire about the various hazardous materials Staff time Long- 16 Branch, Rush City, Departments, that are in the County and cities. Term Shafer, Stacy, Emergency Taylors Falls, Management Wyoming Emergency Continue County education and Response Public Short Chisago County 16 immunization programs. Personnel, Health, Term Public Health Develop a public education plan to Ongoing, make residents aware of the resources Public Chisago County Public Health Long- 16 available to them about infectious Health Term diseases. Maintain a Website to provide citizens Ongoing, Public Chisago County with information about public health Public Health Long- 16 Health and infectious diseases. Term Chisago County & The cities of Identify and map community shelters Chisago, Center, that could be used by manufactured Harris, Lindstrom, Emergency Short home parks and other residents that Staff Time 16 North Branch, Rush Management term do not have safe shelter on their City, Shafer, Stacy, property. Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Watershed, Establish a water conservation Emergency Center, Harris, State/County program to identify conservation Management, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Budget, City opportunities in public buildings and Chisago Short- 16 Branch, Rush City, Budget, provide education to the public on Watershed, Term Shafer, Stacy, FEMA, conservation techniques. NRCS, Taylors Falls, HMGP Wyoming

167

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Maintain a Website to provide citizens Ongoing, Public Chisago County with information about public health Public Health Long- 16 Health and infectious diseases. Term Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Provide staff resources to fire Ongoing, Lindstrom, North departments to assist them in Fire Staff Time Short- 16 Branch, Rush City, identifying areas of high risk involving Departments, Term Shafer, Stacy, hazardous material. Taylors Falls, Wyoming Ongoing, Continue to analyze and adopt the Public Chisago County Public Health Long- 16 environmental health regulations. Health Term Continue to work with the state Ongoing, Public Chisago County Department of Health in tracking Public Health Long- 15 Health infectious diseases in the County. Term Annually Review and update the Chisago County Emergency Emergency Ongoing, Public Chisago County Operations & Mitigation Plans that Management, Long- 15 Health outlines procedures for dealing with Public Health Term infectious diseases. The cities of Watershed, Chisago, Harris, Emergency State/County Lindstrom, Center Develop and or adopt ordinances for a Ongoing, Management, Budget, City North Branch, Rush water restriction plan during water Short- 15 City County, Budget, City, Shafer, Stacy, shortage periods. Term NRCS, FEMA, Taylors Falls, HMGP Wyoming Provide Flood area improvement at Birch St. & Grand Ave. Separate City Budget, Ongoing, The cities of North storm sewer line added on at Grand City FEMA, Short- 15 Branch Ave. from Birch St. to the Sunrise HMGP Term River Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Reestablish the septic system Ongoing, Lindstrom, North County and inspection and pumping/maintenance Staff Time Long- 15 Branch, Rush City, City program. Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming

168

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and and Agencies Goal Timeframe Resources Needed Resources TOTAL CBA SCORE Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Continue the abandoned well-sealing County and Staff Time Long- 14 Branch, Rush City, program within the County and cities. City Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Continue to assess and or modify a Ongoing, Lindstrom, North County and County wellhead protection ordinance Staff Time Long- 14 Branch, Rush City, City for public and private wells. Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North Continue to define, assess and or County and Staff Time Long- 14 Branch, Rush City, update wellhead protection areas. City Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming Ongoing, Continue to provide private good County and Chisago County Staff Time Long- 14 inspections to residents. City Term Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Continue to Drill monitoring wells into Emergency Center, Harris, Watershed, each of the County’s major aquifers at Management, Ongoing, Lindstrom, North State/County appropriate locations and or continue Chisago Long- 14 Branch, Rush City, Budget, City to monitor aquifer levels and water Watershed, Term Shafer, Stacy, Budget quality. NRCS, Taylors Falls, Wyoming City Budget, Ongoing, The city of Shafer Add a Storm Shelter to Trailer Parks City FEMA, Short- 14 HMGP Term

The development of this plan has provided Chisago and its participants with a unique opportunity to assess current capabilities, identify gaps, and evaluate the strategies needed to improve the ability to protect the County and participating jurisdictions.

169

6.6 Existing and New Plan Implementation Chisago and participating jurisdictions feel that it is imperative to make mitigation a way of life for its participating jurisdictions, agencies, and general community. In order to implement sustainable and resilient strategies, it is essential to integrate mitigation into other community planning initiatives. As such, existing planning mechanism was used to assist the Mitigation Steering Committee and local jurisdictions in identifying areas where hazard mitigation information and/or actions may be incorporated.

During the planning process, the County and participating jurisdictions were asked to investigate opportunities to incorporate mitigation measures that would meet the goals and objectives of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. In addition, the County and participating jurisdictions were asked to ensure the implementation and alignment of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan into existing programs/policies as outlined in Table 91 shown below (see Capability Assessment).

Table 88: Programs/Policies/Plans Mitigation Integration/ Programs/Policies/Plans Represented Jurisdictions Alignment Required Chisago County, Chisago City, Center City, Harris,Lindstrom, Storm Management Plan Ongoing North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy Taylors Falls & Wyoming Continuity of Operations Plan Ongoing Chisago County Comprehensive Plan Ongoing All Participating Jurisdictions Transportation Plan Ongoing Chisago County Regional Plan Ongoing Chisago County Chisago Emergency Operations Ongoing All Participating Jurisdictions Chisago County, Chisago City, Center City, Harris,Lindstrom, Flood Management Plan Ongoing North Branch, Rush City, Stacy Taylors Falls & Wyoming Chisago Zoning Ordinances Ongoing All Participating Jurisdictions Chisago County, Chisago City, Center City, Harris,Lindstrom, NFIP Ongoing North Branch, Rush City, Stacy Taylors Falls & Wyoming Minnesota State All-Hazard Mitigation Plan Yes I/A All Participating Jurisdictions Minnesota State Building Code Yes I/A All Participating Jurisdictions NOTE: This table represents areas where the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan update may be incorporated. The actual implementation process is outlined below.

One of the implementation steps of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan is to revise all of the aforementioned plans to incorporate the mitigation actions identified in this document. To accomplish the integration of mitigation actions, the Chisago Emergency Manager will contact the individuals responsible for the above-listed plans and request that those documents incorporate or reference relevant portions of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan when and where appropriate

170

Revisions to these documents will follow the revision or amendment guidelines established for each plan. In addition, the Chisago Emergency Manager will send a letter to the pertinent organizations to ensure the incorporation of said documents with the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Table 89: Jurisdictional Process for Mitigation Incorporation Jurisdiction Form of Governance Point of Contact Chisago City Mayor Bob Gustafson Center City Mayor Larry Houger Harris Mayor Diane Miller Lindstrom Mayor Keith Carlson North Branch Mayor Kirsten Hagen- Kennedy Rush City Mayor Dan Dahlberg Shafer Mayor Dan Vogel Stacy Mayor Mark Utecht Taylors Falls Mayor Michael D. Buchite Wyoming Mayor Lisa Iverson Chisago County Commissioner Mike Robinson

As Chisago County and its Cities develop new plans, such as capital improvement plans, and existing plans are updated, the new plans and updates will utilize the hazard information and projects identified in the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan for consideration and inclusion. Given that limited planning mechanisms exist in the County and jurisdictions, the information in the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be valuable for future planning efforts. Table 90 shows examples of projects and how they can be incorporated into existing and future planning documents. Note that some proposed mechanisms may not be feasible at this time due to the staff, technical expertise, and financial resources need to implement the program.

Table 90: Mitigation Strategies Estimated Revision Existing or Mitigation Strategies or Anticipated Plan Creation Timeframe Adopt building codes that require disaster resistance to hazards such as severe thunderstorms, the wind, Near Term* Building Codes tornadoes, floods, wildfire, winter storms, terrorism, and earthquakes. When developed, consider and include projects Capital related to hazard mitigation, such as transportation Long Term* Improvement Plans and public utility infrastructure improvements, in the capital improvements schedule. Adopt ordinances that create disaster resistance such Ordinances as mowing and fire reduction ordinances and flood Mid Term ordinances. Update or create zoning ordinances to limit Zoning Near Term* development in high hazard areas. Integrate the operational, response, training, and Chisago preparedness needs that are not directly tied to Emergency Mid Term mitigation into the County’s emergency operation Operations Plan plan

171

Estimated Revision Existing or Mitigation Strategies or Anticipated Plan Creation Timeframe Incorporate elements of the risk assessment Chisago Growth and mitigation strategy into the County’s growth Near Term Policy policy, considering sustainability and disaster resistance a top priority. Include elements of the risk assessment and Chisago mitigation strategy in the County’s subdivision Subdivision Near Term regulations, considering sustainability and disaster Regulations resistance a top priority. Note: Some activities such as building codes and land use regulations are more easily implemented by some communities than others because of the community, planning, and enforcement resources available.

172

Section 7: Monitor and Maintain the Mitigation Plan

The Monitor and Maintain the Mitigation Plan section of the Chisago County (2016) Hazard Mitigation Plan describes the formal process that will ensure the mitigation plan remains an effective and relevant document. This section establishes the method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan during the five-year plan update cycle. It also establishes how Chisago County will maintain community involvement in the plan.

Maintenance Approach • Incorporate hazard mitigation actions into existing planning mechanisms • Determine how mitigation projects and actions will be monitored • Establish indicators of effectiveness or success • Develop an evaluation and revision schedule to ensure the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan is up-to-date at the end of the five-year-cycle • Establish a process for public input and community involvement during the planning cycle

FEMA Requirements Addressed in this Section The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team created the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan maintenance strategy consistent with the process and steps presented in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) How-To Guide: Bringing the Plan to Life (FEMA 386-4). The following FEMA requirements are addressed in this section: • Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(I): The plan maintenance process shall include a section describing the method and schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five-year cycle. • Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(ii): The plan shall include a process by which local governments incorporate the requirements of the mitigation plan into other planning mechanisms such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans where appropriate. • Requirement §201.6(c)(4)(iii): The plan maintenance process shall include a discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.

7.1 Development and Acceptance Maintaining the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan is crucial if Chisago County is to have a comprehensive mitigation program. As such, this section creates a maintenance timeline, assigns accountability, and creates oversight and governance policies.

The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team created the Monitor and Maintain Section of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The section was presented to the Chisago Emergency Manager for comment and buy in. Upon some very slight modifications, the section was presented to the Mitigation Steering Committee, participating jurisdictions, and the public for comment and approval.

7.2 Process During the five-year planning cycle, the Chisago Emergency Manager will undertake the following

173 initiatives: • Collect annual information from the agencies involved in implementing mitigation projects or activities identified in the Mitigation Strategy section of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan • Maintain and update the mitigation action table • Conduct site visits and obtain reports of completed or initiated mitigation actions to incorporate in the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan revision as needed • Research and document new natural disaster information pertaining to Chisago County during the planning cycle and incorporate into a revised risk assessment section as needed • Organize (at a minimum) annual meetings with each of the participating jurisdictions and County commissioners to discuss relevant hazard mitigation issues, provide status updates, and discuss available grant opportunities • Organize biannual meetings with Mitigation Steering Committee members to discuss relevant hazard mitigation issues, provide status updates, and discuss available grant opportunities • Coordinate, compile, and disseminate hazard mitigation funding information and applications • Convene a meeting of the Mitigation Steering Committee within a timely period following a natural disaster, when funding is announced to prioritize and submit potential mitigation actions for funding and/or at the direction of the Emergency Manager

The above activities outline plan maintenance during the four years leading up to the fifth year of the planning cycle (2016-2021). Beginning in August 2017, the Chisago Emergency Manager will reconvene the Planning Team to discuss and update the status of the hazard mitigation actions listed in the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Chisago Emergency Manager will be responsible for ensuring the compilation, documentation, and incorporation of all changes derived from the activities listed above into a revised plan document.

7.3 Evaluation The Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be evaluated annually to determine the effectiveness of its projects, programs, and policies. The Chisago Emergency Manager will be responsible for scheduling and organize the planning meetings, collecting, analyzing and incorporating annual reports, and providing revised drafts to the Mitigation Steering Committee. Each year, the Mitigation Steering Committee members will assess the current version of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan and determine the improvements necessary for the plan update. The Chisago Emergency Manager will evaluate the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan to determine if other agencies should be added.

A thorough examination of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan will take place during the fifth year of the process to ensure Chisago County has an updated hazard mitigation plan at the end of the planning cycle. The Mitigation Steering Committee will review the goals and action items to determine their relevance to changing situations in the County, as well as changes in state or federal policy, and to ensure they are addressing current and expected conditions. The Mitigation Steering Committee will look at any changes in County resources that may influence the plan implementation (such as funding), and program changes to determine the need for reassignment. The Mitigation Steering Committee will review all portions of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan to determine if this information should be updated or modified given any newly available data.

174

7.4 Evaluation Criteria • Are the mitigation actions effective? • Are there any changes in land development that affect mitigation priorities? • Do the goals, objectives, and action items meet social, technical, administrative, political, legal, economic, and environmental criteria in the previously noted analysis? • Are the goals, objectives, and mitigation actions relevant given any changes in Chisago County? • Are the goals, objectives, and mitigation actions relevant given any changes to state or federal regulations or policy? • Is there any new data that affects the Risk Assessment portion of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan?

7.5 Update The Chisago Emergency Manager will ensure the Mitigation Steering Committee updates the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan every five years to reflect the results of the annual reports and on-going plan evaluation. Throughout the planning cycle, the Chisago Emergency Manager will ensure that new information is compiled and incorporated into the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The Chisago Emergency Manager will also incorporate recommended comments expressed by FEMA in the initial review into the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan revision. At the end of the planning cycle, the Mitigation Steering Committee will submit the updated Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan to the State Emergency Management Office and FEMA for review. After FEMA has approved the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan, the County will again formally adopt the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. The following table is an outline of how the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be updated upon FEMA-approval:

Table 91: Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan Update Schedule Timeframe Participant Outcome Mitigation Steering Reconvene Planning Committee to First Quarter 2017 Committee, Participating discuss mitigation action progress and Jurisdictions possible plan improvements. Mitigation Steering Reconvene Planning Committee to First Quarter 2018 Committee, Participating discuss mitigation action progress and Jurisdictions possible plan improvements. Mitigation Steering Reconvene Planning Committee to First Quarter 2019 Committee, Participating discuss mitigation action progress and Jurisdictions possible plan improvements. Mitigation Steering Committee, Participating Fourth Quarter 2019 Apply for plan update grant funding Jurisdictions, County Commissioners Mitigation Steering Reconvene Planning Committee to First Quarter 2020 Committee, Participating discuss mitigation action progress and Jurisdictions possible plan improvements. Reconvene Hazard Mitigation Planning Team Mitigation Steering and begin Fourth Quarter 2020 Committee, Participating plan update. Jurisdictions, MN HSEM Coordinate monthly meetings with

175

Timeframe Participant Outcome Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee. Mitigation Steering First Quarter 2021 Committee, Participating Continue plan update. Jurisdictions, MN HSEM Mitigation Steering Fourth Quarter 2021 Committee, Participating Submit plan to FEMA for final approval Jurisdictions, MN HSEM

7.6 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms As part of the local capability assessment conducted during the planning process, the Mitigation Steering Committee identified current plans, programs, policies/ordinances, and studies/reports that will augment or help support mitigation planning efforts. The Mitigation Steering Committee will meet on an annual basis, and will be the mechanism for ensuring the County integrates hazard mitigation into its future planning activities. Following plan approval and adoption, the Mitigation Steering Committee and participating jurisdictions will work to incorporate, where applicable, the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan into the planning mechanisms identified in the mitigation action section.

Throughout the plan maintenance cycle, the Chisago Emergency Manager will work with the County and participating jurisdictions to integrate hazard mitigation goals and actions into the general operations of Chisago County agencies. The Chisago Emergency Manager will work with agencies to identify opportunities as outlined below:

• Update work plans, policies, or procedures to include hazard mitigation concepts • Identify potential mitigation funding within capital and operational budgets • Issue plans, policies, executive orders, regulations, or other directives to carry out mitigation actions • Add hazard mitigation elements to redevelopment plans

7.7 Continued Public Involvement Chisago County is dedicated to continued public involvement in the hazard mitigation planning and review process. During all phases of plan maintenance, the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback. The Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan will be maintained and available for review on the County website. Individuals will have an opportunity to submit comments for the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan update at any time. The Chisago Emergency Manager will compile all comments and present them at the annual Mitigation Steering Committee meetings, where members will consider them for incorporation into the revision. To help publicize the revised Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan six months prior to the submission of the 2021 Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan update, Chisago County will post a notice in the Chisago County paper of record requesting feedback on an updated draft plan. The Hazard Mitigation Planning Team will hold community involvement meetings with representatives from academic institutions, the private sector, community groups, and neighboring jurisdictions. This will provide the public an opportunity to express their concerns, opinions, or ideas about any updates/changes that are proposed to the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan.

176

7.8 The Hazard Mitigation Steering Committee The Mitigation Steering Committee oversees changes and modifications to the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and will regularly review each goal and objective to determine its relevance to the changing situation of the County. The Mitigation Steering Committee will also monitor and evaluate the mitigation strategies in the current iteration of the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan to ensure that the document reflects current hazard/risk analysis, development trends, code changes, and risk perceptions.

The Mitigation Steering Committee and the participating jurisdictions agree that outreach and input will be solicited throughout the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan’s lifecycle through workshops, presentations, meetings, the internet, and other public information and education campaigns.

To ensure the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan is up to date and relevant, the Mitigation Steering Committee will meet as per their mandate and/or at the direction of the Chisago County Emergency Manager.

7.9 Participating Jurisdictions Participating jurisdictions are key stakeholders within the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan, and as such, have agreed to be an active participant in the mitigation process. Participating jurisdictions may, but are not required, to be active Mitigation Steering Committee members.

Participating jurisdictions are welcome to attend mitigation-planning meetings and review the minutes of said meetings. The participating jurisdictions have agreed to ensure the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan is current and relevant. Participating jurisdictions agree to provide updates of appropriate activities occurring within their jurisdictions on a regular basis, and/or at the direction of the Chisago County Emergency Manager.

Participating jurisdictions have agreed to ensure that mitigation planning is integrated into other planning mechanisms within their own jurisdictions, such as comprehensive or capital improvement plans, when appropriate. Jurisdictions also agree to work with the Chisago County Emergency Manager to identify areas of plan integration, as well as provide regular progress reports of the integration of the mitigation plan into existing and or new plans. Conversely, the Chisago Emergency Manager agrees to ensure participating jurisdictions are included in the planning process, particularly when plan updates will affect the participating jurisdictions, and when or if changes are made to the Chisago County Hazard Mitigation Plan. Furthermore, the participating jurisdictions agree to work with the Chisago Emergency Manager and Mitigation Steering Committee when requested.

177

Appendix A: Inventory of Hazard Mitigation Programs, Policies, and Funding

Federal Agencies and Programs U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) General information on mitigation planning, hazards, disaster assistance programs, current disasters, etc.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) HMGP assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation measures following Presidential disaster declarations. Funding is available to implement projects in accordance with State, Tribal, and local priorities.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) PDM provides funds on an annual basis for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster. The goal of the PDM program is to reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while at the same time, also reducing reliance on Federal funding from actual disaster declarations.

Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA) FMA provides funds on an annual basis so that measures can be taken to reduce or eliminate the risk of flood damage to buildings insured under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

National Flood Insurance Plan Detailed information on the National Flood Insurance Program and other mitigation activities

Hazard Mitigation Funding Under Section 406 (Public Assistance) Section 406 provides discretionary authority to fund mitigation measures in conjunction with the repair of the disaster-damaged facilities.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) To provide leadership in a partnership effort to help conserve, improve, and sustain our natural resources and environment

Community Facility Grants Assistance for the development of essential community facilities. Grant funds can be used to construct, enlarge, or improve community facilities for health care, public safety, and community and public services.

Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) The program is for emergency measures, including the purchase of flood plain easements, for runoff retardation and soil erosion prevention to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood or any other natural occurrence is causing or

178

has caused a sudden impairment of the watershed.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Provides technical assistance, cost-share payments, and incentive payments to assist crop, livestock, and other agricultural producers with environmental and conservation improvements to their operations.

Wetlands Reserve Program A voluntary program offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance wetlands on their property. Provides technical and financial support to help landowners.

Conservation Easements In cooperation with Minnesota BWSR, funding for conservation easements on frequently flooded lands is available. One of many Reinvest in Minnesota (RIM) - NRCS partnerships.

Farm Service Agency (FSA) Disaster Assistance Programs available, include: Conservation Loans Conservation Reserve Program Emergency Conservation Program Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program Emergency Farm Loans

U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)

Economic Development Administration (EDA) To generate jobs, help retain existing jobs, and stimulate industrial and commercial growth in economically distressed areas of the U.S.

U.S. Census Bureau Profile of Minnesota and each Minnesota County

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

NOAA, Coasts Provides detailed information on coastal water issues, including the Great Lakes

NOAA, National Climatic Data Center Current and historical archive of climatic data and information

NOAA, Drought Information Center Updated drought conditions including monitors and outlooks

NOAA, National Severe Storms Laboratory Comprehensive information on severe weather research

NOAA, National Weather Service (NWS) Provides all available weather information including warning updates

179

Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) A program designed to provide improved river and flood forecasting and water information. AHPS provides a suite of graphical and numeric products over the Internet to assist community leaders and Emergency Managers in making better life- and cost-saving decisions about evacuations and movement of the property before flooding occurs.

Flood Inundation Mapping This interactive web page shows the spatial extent of possible or expected flooding in a given area. It can be used to show if roadways and structures will be impacted by floodwaters. At the limited number of forecast locations where inundation maps are currently available, this web page is accessed by clicking on the inundation-mapping tab on the hydrograph webpage. In collaboration with partners, this product will be expanded to new locations.

Flash Flood Guidance The North Central River Forecast Centers issues Flash Flood Guidance throughout the day for every County in their area. The river forecast centers determine one, three and 6-hour flash flood guidance values for all counties and 12 and 24-hour values for parts of the eastern United States. Flash Flood Guidance estimates the average number of inches of rainfall for given durations required to produce flash flooding in the indicated County.

North Central River Forecast Center Contains a variety of seasonal products including the Spring Hydrologic Outlook

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Planning programs include Flood Risk Management, Planning Assistance to States, Flood Plain Management Services, and Silver Jackets.

Planning Assistance to States (PAS) Funded annually by Congress. Federal allotments for each State or Tribe from the nation-wide appropriation are limited to $2,000,0000 annually, but typically are much less. Individual studies, of which there may be more than one per State or Tribe per year, generally cost $25,000 to $75,000. The studies may be phased over several years and cover a wide range of water resource planning activities. PAS studies are cost shared on a 50 percent Federal-50 percent non-Federal basis. The entire local sponsor contribution may be work in kind, and WRDA 2007, Section 2013 provided authority for 100 percent Federal funded PAS studies for hydrologic, economic, and environmental data and analyses.

Floodplain Management Services A full range of technical services and planning guidance on flood and floodplain issues is provided upon request. These services are generally made available to other federal, state, and local agencies, but nongovernmental organizations and individuals may also use some and are 100 percent federally funded.

Regional Flood Risk Management Team This Regional Flood Risk Management Team (RFRMT) will integrate pre-flood mitigation with a long-term strategy to plan and implement pre- and post-flood emergency actions, while developing promising nonstructural alternatives and other flood risk mitigation actions recognized to reduce future flood risk within the region.

180

Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) Engineering and technology for use in cold regions

Flood Damage Reduction Studies & Projects Flood damage reduction is one of the primary missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As such, the Corps of Engineers may undertake studies and build projects to reduce and/or minimize flood damages. The Corps of Engineers may investigate flooding problems and opportunities in response to directives, called authorizations, from the Congress. Congressional authorizations are contained in public laws and in resolutions of either the House Public Works and Transportation Committee or the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Continuing Authorities Program Under the Continuing Authorities Program (CAP), legislation authorizes the Corps of Engineers to plan, design, and construct certain types of water resource and ecosystem restoration projects without additional and specific congressional authorization. The purpose is to implement projects of limited scope and complexity. Each authority has specific implementation guidelines, total program, and per-project funding limits.

Funding: Studies are cost shared 50/50 during feasibility. Most projects are cost shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent local during implementation unless otherwise noted.

Small Flood Control Projects authorized by Section 205 of the 1948 Flood Control Act. Per-project: Federal-funding limit of $7 million. Designed to implement projects that reduce overland flood damages. Projects must be engineering sound, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable.

Emergency Streambank Protection Projects authorized by Section 14 of the 1946 Flood Control Act. Per- project Federal funding limit of $1.5 million. Designed to protect essential public facilities threatened by flood-induced erosion.

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration authorized by Section 206 of the 1996 Water Resources Development Act. Per-project Federal funding limit of $5 million. Designed to develop aquatic ecosystem restoration and protection projects that improve the quality of the environment, are in the public interest, and are cost effective.

Project Modifications for the Improvement of the Environment authorized by Section 1135 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act. Federal funding limit of $5 million. Designed to modify existing Corps projects for improving environmental quality.

Section 524 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000: Minnesota Dams Provides for inventory, inspection, modification and/or rehabilitation of dams originally constructed by the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration, and Works Projects Administration (WPA) in Minnesota. Oversight of 361 of the original 417 WPA dams falls to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through the office of the State Dam Safety Engineer. The rest are owned and operated by individual counties and the National Park Service.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Regulates dams that generate electric hydropower.

181

U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) Excellent source of natural disaster information (earthquakes, drought, floods, etc.).

Real-Time Data for Minnesota Streamflow Users can select data from multiple sites using a broad set of filters, such as by state, County, watershed and a latitude/longitude box. This new web service can benefit users with programs that download tab- delimited real-time data from 138 gages. This data is also available in coordination with NWS-AHPS and the Corps of Engineers websites, although USGS quality assures and maintains the data.

Water Watch The site displays maps, graphs, and tables describing real-time, recent, and past streamflow conditions for the United States. The real-time information generally is updated on an hourly basis. The stream gage- based maps show conditions for real-time, average daily, and 7-day average stream flow. The real-time streamflow maps highlight flood and high flow conditions. Water Watch also includes tables of current streamflow information and locations of flooding.

Flood Watch In coordination with USGS's Water Watch, Website the state map shows the location of stream gages where the water level is above flood or at high flow. High flow conditions are expressed as percentiles that compare the current (i.e., within the past several hours) instantaneous flow value to historical daily mean flow values for all days of the year.

Water Alert The U.S. Geological Survey Water Alert service sends e-mail or text messages when certain parameters measured by a USGS data-collection station exceed user-definable thresholds.

StreamStats A Web-based Geographic Information System (GIS) that provides users with access to an assortment of analytical tools that are useful for water-resources planning and management, and for engineering design applications.

USGS Programs in Minnesota Details USGS activities in Minnesota.

Earthquake Hazards Program Up- to-date information on world seismicity.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Community Development Block Grants Disaster grants are used to rebuild resilient communities after a disaster.

Disaster Recovery Assistance Disaster relief and recovery assistance in the form of special mortgage financing for rehabilitation of impacted homes.

Neighborhood Stabilization Program

182

Funding for the purchase and rehabilitation of foreclosed and vacant property in order to renew neighborhoods devastated by the economic crisis.

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Provides funding for mitigation activities such as snow fences and living snow fences as part of construction funding

U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Provides training and advocacy for small firms.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Provides a full listing of all federal programs available to state and local governments; federally recognized Indian tribal governments; domestic public, quasi- public, and private profit and nonprofit organizations and institutions; specialized groups; and individuals.

State Agencies and Programs This section is an inventory of state programs that are important to mitigation efforts statewide. Additional information for agencies with programs that may assist in mitigation efforts are listed with applicable programs and funding the program may offer. The following also lists programs utilized by the state of Minnesota to assist with implementation of mitigation actions. A brief description of each program follows, as does funding information.

Minnesota Department of Administration (ADMIN) Provides services to government agencies: information technology, facilities and property management, graphic and geographic information systems data and software.

Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) Responsible for the regulation of pesticides, fertilizers, food safety and feed including emergency response, state Superfund authority and financial assistance for agricultural entities.

Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) Assist local governments to manage and conserve water and soil resources.

Program: Reinvest In Minnesota (RIM) Funding Minnesota's premier conservation easement program on privately owned lands.

Program: Reinvest In Minnesota -Wetlands Reserve Program, RIM-WRP Funding administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts implement the RIM-WRP partnership. Conservation easements on frequently flooded lands.

Minnesota Department of Commerce (COMM) The Market Assurance Division in the Department of Commerce regulates insurance companies & agents, banks, and real estate.

183

The Office of Energy Security within the Department of Commerce manages energy assistance funds and provides information and assistance to consumers and businesses on home improvements, financial assistance, renewable technologies, and utility regulations.

Program: Consumer Response Team (CRT) The Minnesota Department of Commerce Consumer Response Team (CRT) is comprised of investigators who respond to consumer phone calls specifically about insurance. The CRT attempts to resolve disputes between consumers and the insurance industry informally. In the Twin Cities, metro area calls (651) 296- 2488 or statewide toll-free at 800-657-3602.

Program: Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) Assists income eligible households with emergency repair and replacement services. The Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) uses energy conservation techniques to reduce the cost of home energy. Correcting health and safety hazards and potentially life-threatening conditions is the first consideration in WAP activities. Households where one or more members have received TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) or SSI (Supplemental Security Income) within the last 12 months.

Households at or below 200% of Federal Poverty Income Guidelines are income eligible for WAP. Homeowners and renters may be income eligible for WAP.

Priority is given to households with at least one elderly or disabled member and to customers with the highest heating costs.

Funding: Federally funded through the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Health and Human Services.

Program: Energy Assistance Program (EAP) The Energy Assistance Program (EAP) helps pay home heating costs. Households with the lowest incomes and highest energy costs receive the greatest benefit.

Households who are at or below 50 percent of the state median income are eligible. The size of the grant is based on household size, income, fuel type, and energy usage. Households with the lowest income and highest fuel costs receive the highest grants. Funds are available for renters or homeowners.

Funding: Federally funded through the U.S. Federally funded through U.S. Department of Human Services

Program: Office of Energy Security (OES) The OES works to communicate the preparedness actions of utilities that serve areas affected by disasters. The OES and Public Utilities Commission (PUC) coordinate responses from utilities with regard to restoration activities and typically work through single points of contact at utilities and utility associations. The OES makes information available through its Energy Information Center on energy conservation measures that homeowners may pursue in the event of an emergency that affects the supply or distribution of energy to an area of the state.

Minnesota Emergency Medical Services Regulatory Board (EMSRB) Provides leadership for emergency medical care for the people of Minnesota.

184

Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) To advance the economic vitality of Minnesota through trade and economic development, including the provision of employer and labor market information.

Program: Public Facilities Authority (PFA) The authority administers and oversees the financial management of three revolving loan funds and other programs that help local units of government construct facilities for clean water (including wastewater, stormwater, and drinking water) and other kinds of essential public infrastructure projects Funding: Provides municipal financing programs and expertise to help communities build public infrastructure that preserves the environment, protects public health, and promotes economic growth.

Program: Small Cities Development Program The purpose is to provide decent housing, a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low-and-moderate income to cities and townships with populations under 50,000 and counties with populations under 200,000. Funding Provides federal grants from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to local units of government. State program rules subdivide grant funds into three general categories: Housing Grants, Project Facility Grants, and Comprehensive Grants. Public Facility Grants could include projects involving storm sewer projects and flood control projects.

Program: Greater Minnesota Business Development Public Infrastructure Grant Program The purpose is to stimulate new economic development, create or retain jobs in Greater Minnesota, through public infrastructure investments. Funding: Provides grants to cities of up to 50% of the capital costs of the public infrastructure necessary, which expand or retain jobs in the area, increase the tax base, or which expand or create new economic development. Eligible projects include, but not limited to wastewater collection and treatment, drinking water, storm sewers, utility extensions, and streets.

Program: Minnesota Redevelopment Grant Program The purpose is to provide grants to assist development authorities with costs related to redeveloping blighted industrial, residential or commercial properties. Funding: Grants pay up to 50% of eligible redevelopment costs for a qualifying site, with a 50% local match. Grants can pay for land acquisition, demolition, infrastructure improvements, stabilizing unstable soils, ponding, environmental infrastructure, building construction, design and engineering and adaptive reuse of buildings.

Minnesota Management & Budget (MMB) Expedite fiscal management during a state disaster. Assist with funding issues when federal assistance is not provided.

Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Detailed information on services and current events affecting the citizens of Minnesota.

Minnesota’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Review and Compliance: The SHPO consults with federal and state government agencies to identify historic properties in government project areas and advise on ways to avoid or reduce adverse effects on

185

those properties.

Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) Provides low- and moderate-income housing and resources.

Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS) Provides health care, economic assistance, and other services for those in need.

Minnesota Department of Labor & Industry (DLI) Assist with investigations when workers are injured, and detect air contaminants caused by chemical or geological agents, and assessing hazards. Statewide building codes and construction planning and inspection.

Metropolitan Council Provides information on economic development and planning for anticipated growth in the seven-County metro areas –Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Ramsey, Scott, and Washington Counties.

Program: Livable Communities Grant Program The Council awards grants to participating communities in the seven-County area to help them, among other things, create development or redevelopment that demonstrates the efficient and cost-effective use of land and infrastructure, a range of housing types and costs, commercial and community uses, walkable neighborhoods and easy access to transit and open space. Funding four different accounts to enable communities through the region to carry out their development plans, and leverage millions of dollars in private and public investment while providing jobs and business growth.

Minnesota Department of Military Affairs - National Guard (DMA) Information on the capabilities of the Minnesota National Guard.

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) The Financial Assistance Directory provides summary level information on all of the Department of Natural Resources' financial assistance programs. The department offers a wide variety of financial assistance programs to cities, counties, townships, non-profits, schools, private individuals and others. See MN DNR website. Categories include: • Aquatic Invasive Species • Enforcement (snowmobile & OHV safety) • Fire Protection Programs • Forest management • Gifts and donations • Habitat improvement • Land conservation • Recreation (general, trails, and water) • Road Improvements • Water

MN DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources

186

The conservation of natural systems and the maintenance of biodiversity. Water education information is available on and discusses floodplain management, flood mitigation, drought/water supply, dam safety, flood warning, climatology, and lake and stream gaging.

Program: Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Assistance: Flood Damage Reduction (FDR) Program To provide technical and financial assistance to local governmental units for conducting flood damage reduction studies and for planning and implementing flood damage reduction measures. Funding A maximum of 50% of total eligible project costs up to $150,000 with grants more than $150,000 requiring approval by the Legislature.

Program: Dam Safety Grants To improve the safety and condition of publicly owned dams and water level control structures. Funding Reimbursement of costs, up to 50% for repairs, up to 100% for removals. Grants ranged from $25,000 to $1,000,000

Program: Wetland Tax Exemption Program To provide a financial incentive to maintain wetlands in their natural state and to promote an awareness of wetland values. Funding: Qualifying areas are exempt from property taxes that remain in effect as long as wetland meets the requirements set forth in the statutes.

Program: 54TFireWise in Minnesota The Minnesota FireWise Project is working with local communities by passing federal Fire Plan funds through to local communities as grants for various "on-the-ground" activities including homeowner, mitigation education, home site assessment, access improvement, and dry hydrants. It involves community groups including fire and emergency services, local schools, city staff (i.e. foresters, planners), and local interest groups. Funding: Grant request for 50:50 cost-share funding for assessment & planning, education & mitigation activities. Initial grant request may be for a small amount ($15,000) until FireWise Action Plan is developed. Second grants are available to implement additional actions.

Program: Forest Stewardship Program To provide technical advice and long-range forest management planning to interested landowners. All aspects of the program are voluntary. Plans are designed to meet landowner goals while maintaining the sustainability of the land. The entire property except active farming. Funding: For the state has cost share program to help defer the costs of implementation of forest management activities. Must enroll forested lands into the Sustainable Forestry Incentive Act or 2c Managed Forest Land to be eligible for property tax relief programs

Program: Minnesota State Climatology Office The State Climatology Office workgroups exist to study and describe the climate of Minnesota. Each of its members concentrates its efforts on specific topical areas in which climate plays a significant role.

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (PCA) Provides pollution control information for Minnesota.

Program: Stormwater Program

187

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) is the delegated permitting authority for Minnesota of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Permits are required for most construction activities designed to limit polluted discharges and implement the best management practices.

Funding: The Clean Water Revolving Fund, also known as the Clean Water State Revolving Fund or simply SRF, is established under the Federal Clean Water Act and state law to make loans to for both point source (wastewater and stormwater) and nonpoint source water pollution control projects. The PFA prepares an annual Intended Use Plan (IUP) based on a Project Priority List developed by the MPCA. The IUP describes the projects and activities eligible for funding during the state fiscal year.

Program: Interagency Climate Adaptation Team A collaboration of state agencies with the purpose of addressing climate change issues in the state. Other MPCA work related to mitigation: • Preparing for homes and businesses for floods • Preparing wastewater treatment plants for floods • Preparing feedlots for floods • Minnesota Department of Public Safety (DPS) State Fire Marshal, Office of Communications, Office of Pipeline Safety Team, State Patrol, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Alcohol and Gambling, Enforcement and Office of Traffic Safety.

MN DPS Homeland Security and Emergency Management (HSEM) This site contains information on Emergency Management.

Program: Minnesota Recovers Task Force: Minnesota’s Official Disaster Information Center Minnesota Recovers is the state’s clearinghouse for all information about floods, tornadoes and other natural disasters that strike Minnesota communities. Information about federal, state and local government disaster assistance efforts is available on this website. Funding: Application for community financial assistance is available. Depending upon disaster, different types of funding become available. Flood-Control Grants, Small Cities Development Program, and Public Facilities Authority funding information are available here.

Minnesota Office of the State Archaeologist Conduct research into the prehistoric and historic archeology of Minnesota.

Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MNSCU) Provide information about Higher education in Minnesota.

Minnesota Department of Transportation (DOT) Comprehensive transportation issues in Minnesota.

University of Minnesota University of Minnesota's mission of education, research, and public engagement; our academic scope; and our statewide presence are marks of distinction and position us well to address the critical problems of this new century.

188

Other Organizations The following is a list of associations and organizations that may fund, educate or in some way assist mitigation in the state. The list is a resource for local mitigation planners and has been utilized by the state in the update of this plan.

American Red Cross Provide relief to victims of disasters and help people prevent, prepare for, and respond to emergencies.

American Water Works Association Information on safe water resources.

League of Minnesota Cities A membership organization dedicated to promoting excellence in local government. The League serves its more than 800 member cities through advocacy, education and training, policy development, risk management, and other services.

Association of Minnesota Counties A broad range of services to its members, including education, communications, and intergovernmental relations. AMC works closely with the legislative and administrative branches of government in seeing that legislation and policies favorable to counties are enacted.

Association of State Dam Safety Officials General Information about dams and dam safety in the US.

Mid-America Earthquake Center (MAE) One of three national earthquake engineering research centers established by the National Science Foundation.

Minnesota Geological Survey (MGS) The University outreach center for the science and technology of earth resources in Minnesota.

Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts (MAWD) Provides educational opportunities, information and training for watershed district managers and staff through yearly tours, meetings and quarterly newsletters.

Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (MASWCD) Provide voluntary, incentive-driven approaches to landowners for better soil and cleaner water. Provide private landowners with technical assistance to implement a wide variety of conservation practices.

Minnesota Independent Insurance Agents See calendar for NFIP training.

National Association of Counties (NACO) NACO is the only nation-wide organization representing County governments.

Minnesota Natural Resource Conservation Service Locally based NRCS staff work directly with farmers, ranchers, and others, to provide technical and

189 financial conservation assistance.

National Drought Mitigation Center Information on drought preparation and risk management.

National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) NEMA is the professional association of state, pacific, and Caribbean insular state emergency management directors.

Natural Hazard Mitigation Association NHMA is an association for those in the hazard mitigation profession by offering a workshop and bringing expertise and experience to organizations, communities or regions with mitigation planning, training, outreach and implementation.

Association of Minnesota Emergency Managers (AMEM) AMEM is the professional association of Emergency Managers in Minnesota.

National Energy Foundation This is the site for kids, parents, and teachers, with a focus on water conservation in the home.

National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Provides scientifically based fire codes and standards, research, training, and education.

National Lightning Safety Institute Independent, non-profit consulting, education and research organization focusing on lightning safety.

Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado Clearinghouse for natural hazards information. Publishes the Natural Hazards Observer.

WeatherREADY The goal of Weather Ready is to raise national awareness of the need to prepare for severe weather. Sponsored by the Weather Channel

Societal Aspects of Weather-Injury and Damage Statistics Contains societal impact data for weather-related disasters.

The Disaster Center Provides news and information on current disasters, and the emergency management field.

The Disaster Research Center (University of Delaware) Research center for the preparation and mitigation of natural and technological disaster for groups, organizations and communities.

The Tornado Project Offers tornado books, posters, and videos.

190

United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction Increase public awareness of hazard and risk issues for the reduction of disasters in modern societies, motivate public administration policies and measures to reduce risks, and improve access to science and technology for risk reduction in local communities.

University of Wisconsin Disaster Management Center The center's goal is to help improve the emergency management performance of non-governmental organizations, local and national governments, and international organizations, through a comprehensive professional development program in disaster management.

191

Appendix B: Historical Storm Events for Chisago County

Table B.1 Winter Weather Historical Events

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD

Totals: 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/17/1996 09:00 CST Blizzard 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/23/1996 21:00 CST Heavy Snow 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 11/20/1996 02:00 CST Heavy Snow 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/14/1996 13:00 CST Heavy Snow 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/23/1996 05:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/03/1997 17:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/13/1997 00:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/08/1999 00:30 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/28/2000 02:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/29/2001 19:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 11/26/2001 04:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/08/2002 18:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/14/2002 08:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 02/02/2003 18:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 11/22/2003 18:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/09/2003 03:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

192

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/01/2005 10:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/21/2005 10:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/13/2005 20:00 CST Heavy Snow 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/29/2005 19:00 CST Heavy Snow 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/12/2006 12:00 CST Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 02/24/2007 01:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/01/2007 00:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/01/2007 09:30 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/31/2008 07:00 6 Heavy Snow 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 04/01/2008 00:00 6 Heavy Snow 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 04/10/2008 13:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/30/2008 06:15 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/23/2009 20:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 11/13/2010 01:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 11/29/2010 06:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/11/2010 00:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 02/20/2011 12:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/22/2011 15:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 02/28/2012 17:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/09/2012 01:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

193

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 02/10/2013 05:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/04/2013 12:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 04/11/2013 03:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 04/18/2013 11:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/04/2013 06:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- Extreme Cold/wind

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/05/2014 17:00 6 Chill 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/14/2014 03:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- Extreme Cold/wind

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/23/2014 06:00 6 Chill 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- Extreme Cold/wind

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/27/2014 04:00 6 Chill 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 01/30/2014 04:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 02/20/2014 10:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- Extreme Cold/wind

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 02/27/2014 06:00 6 Chill 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- Extreme Cold/wind

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/02/2014 03:00 6 Chill 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 04/03/2014 13:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 04/16/2014 01:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 11/10/2014 05:00 6 Winter Storm 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Totals: 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

Table B.2 Summer Storm Historical Events

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD

Totals: 0 0 5.826M 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/23/1965 14:50 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 05/15/1969 16:30 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

194

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 06/18/1973 11:30 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.75

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 05/19/1975 15:06 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 09/10/1975 21:00 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/30/1977 16:05 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 08/18/1980 01:20 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 09/03/1980 20:30 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 2.50

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/17/1981 09:45 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 05/04/1982 16:25 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/17/1982 02:50 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/03/1983 12:40 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/19/1983 15:40 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.75

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 04/12/1985 15:30 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 04/21/1985 21:50 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 06/16/1985 17:15 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 06/10/1986 15:45 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 06/10/1986 15:45 CST Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/19/1986 01:03 CST Wind 52 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.50

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 08/29/1987 20:10 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 06/28/1988 07:25 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

195

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 1.00

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/28/1988 07:25 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 06/30/1989 16:48 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 08/21/1989 18:55 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 05/28/1991 21:10 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.75

Rush City CHISAGO CO. MN 05/30/1994 14:25 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 0.75

Chisago City CHISAGO CO. MN 07/19/1994 16:55 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 08/25/1994 17:00 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

Center City CHISAGO CO. MN 07/21/1995 19:10 CST Wind 0 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

North Branch CHISAGO CO. MN 08/18/1995 22:58 CST Wind 61 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 10/29/1996 21:00 CST High Wind 64 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 06/28/1997 14:30 CST Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 07/01/1997 19:30 CST Wind 55 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 07/13/1997 20:35 CST Wind 55 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 07/13/1997 20:50 CST Wind 55 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 06/25/1998 00:56 CST Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 03/17/1999 11:00 CST High Wind 55 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 0.88

SHAFER CHISAGO CO. MN 06/05/1999 15:30 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 0.75

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 07/13/1999 22:32 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 07/23/1999 01:05 CST Wind 60 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm

SHAFER CHISAGO CO. MN 07/30/1999 17:15 CST Wind 50 kts. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

196

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 0.75

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. MN 07/25/2000 17:00 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 4.00

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 05/01/2001 16:55 CST Hail in. 0 0 2.000M 0.00K 1.75

TAYLORS FALLS CHISAGO CO. MN 05/01/2001 17:00 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.20

ALMELUND CHISAGO CO. MN 06/11/2001 16:30 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 2.75

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/18/2001 05:05 CST Hail in. 0 0 400.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 70 kts.

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/18/2001 05:10 CST Wind E 0 0 60.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 50 kts.

TAYLORS FALLS CHISAGO CO. MN 07/17/2001 22:30 CST Wind E 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.75

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/25/2002 18:43 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 0.75

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 06/25/2002 18:45 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 65 kts.

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 06/25/2002 18:50 CST Wind E 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.75

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/25/2002 19:00 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 55 kts.

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/27/2002 13:35 CST Wind E 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.75

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 08/03/2002 15:02 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 55 kts.

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/24/2003 19:35 CST Wind EG 0 0 500.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 55 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 07/03/2003 00:10 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 07/14/2003 17:30 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/14/2003 17:45 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO 52 kts.

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 04/18/2004 13:00 CST High Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 04/18/2004 16:00 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.00

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 04/18/2004 16:17 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

197

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD Thunderstorm 50 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 04/18/2004 16:40 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 50 kts.

SHAFER CHISAGO CO. MN 04/18/2004 18:09 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 50 kts.

SHAFER CHISAGO CO. MN 05/09/2004 17:03 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 58 kts.

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 05/30/2004 18:28 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 0.88

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 05/30/2004 18:28 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 1.75

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. MN 05/30/2004 18:30 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 06/05/2004 16:00 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. MN 06/05/2004 16:00 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 0.75

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 08/08/2004 17:35 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 55 kts.

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. MN 09/23/2004 13:35 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO 35 kts.

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 12/12/2004 06:00 CST Strong Wind ES 0 0 0.10K 0.00K 0.75

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 06/13/2005 19:15 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2005 12:10 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

CENTER CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2005 12:35 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/27/2005 17:53 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/29/2005 20:30 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/23/2005 09:55 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 52 kts.

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 07/23/2005 10:00 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 54 kts.

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 10/04/2005 16:28 CST Wind MG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 55 kts.

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/25/2006 19:30 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

198

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD 0.88

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 08/23/2006 02:00 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Thunderstorm 55 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 08/23/2006 02:30 CST Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K 0.75

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 08/24/2006 23:53 CST Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 04/21/2007 11:48 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.40

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2007 16:05 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2007 16:10 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.25

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2007 16:15 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 4.25

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2007 17:30 6 Hail in. 0 0 2.000M 0.00K CST- 0.88

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2007 17:34 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.75

ALMELUND CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2007 17:50 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 55 kts.

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 07/08/2007 13:25 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/26/2007 15:01 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 08/13/2007 19:57 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.88

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 08/28/2007 00:58 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.75

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 08/28/2007 01:00 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.50

CENTER CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 08/28/2007 01:05 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.00

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 05/25/2008 16:02 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 55 kts.

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/11/2008 19:15 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

SUNRISE CHISAGO CO. MN 07/19/2008 14:30 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 08/06/2008 13:35 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

199

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD CST- Thunderstorm 55 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 09/23/2008 15:40 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. MN 07/24/2009 05:47 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 56 kts.

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 08/03/2009 22:00 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 08/03/2009 22:05 6 Wind EG 0 0 15.00K 0.00K CST- 1.75

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/17/2010 19:40 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/27/2010 17:40 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

STARK CHISAGO CO. MN 07/27/2010 17:53 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/27/2010 18:00 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 59 kts.

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 08/10/2010 17:51 6 Wind MG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 65 kts.

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. MN 08/12/2010 19:41 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 08/20/2010 02:18 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.50

BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 05/10/2011 21:50 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 05/10/2011 22:14 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.88

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 07/01/2011 17:08 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 61 kts.

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. MN 07/01/2011 17:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 250.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

HARRIS CHISAGO CO. MN 07/01/2011 17:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 250.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/01/2011 18:05 6 Wind EG 0 0 250.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 55 kts.

ALMELUND CHISAGO CO. MN 07/01/2011 19:50 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST-

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 07/18/2011 12:00 6 Excessive Heat 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 56 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 08/02/2011 07:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

200

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD CST- 0.88

CHISAGO CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 05/24/2012 12:52 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 50 kts.

LINDSTROM CHISAGO CO. MN 08/03/2012 22:40 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.88

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 05/31/2013 14:17 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.00

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 05/31/2013 14:53 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

ALMELUND CHISAGO CO. MN 06/17/2013 11:35 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST-

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/20/2013 12:00 6 Heavy Rain 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 61 kts.

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. MN 09/19/2013 09:50 6 Wind EG 0 0 100.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

STARK CHISAGO CO. MN 05/08/2014 20:39 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CHISAGO CHISAGO CST- 39 kts.

(ZONE) (ZONE) MN 06/16/2014 17:00 6 High Wind ES 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.75

CENTER CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 09/03/2014 19:10 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 0.75

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 04/01/2015 12:47 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. MN 06/29/2015 15:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 1.00K 0.00K CST- 3.00

RUSH PT CHISAGO CO. MN 06/29/2015 15:55 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 2.50

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 06/29/2015 16:20 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K RUSH CITY CST- 1.00

MUNI ARPT CHISAGO CO. MN 06/29/2015 16:22 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- 1.00

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 06/29/2015 16:50 6 Hail in. 0 0 0.00K 0.00K RUSH CITY CST- Thunderstorm 56 kts.

MUNI ARPT CHISAGO CO. MN 07/12/2015 20:35 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 52 kts.

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 07/12/2015 20:50 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K CST- Thunderstorm 56 kts.

ALMELUND CHISAGO CO. MN 07/12/2015 20:55 6 Wind EG 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Totals: 0 0 5.826M 0.00K

201

Table B.3 Tornado Historical Events

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD

Totals: 0 0 225.00K 0.00K

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/10/1966 23:35 CST Tornado F0 0 0 25.00K 0.00K

CHISAGO CO. CHISAGO CO. MN 07/20/1987 07:32 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

Wyoming to CHISAGO CO. MN 05/30/1994 15:00 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

ALMELUND CHISAGO CO. MN 07/09/1999 11:28 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

CENTER CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 07/09/1999 11:35 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

PALMDALE CHISAGO CO. MN 07/09/1999 11:45 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

STACY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/24/2003 19:50 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 05/30/2004 18:28 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/11/2005 15:23 CST Tornado F0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 08/19/2009 15:00 CST-6 Tornado EF0 0 0 100.00K 0.00K

RUSH CITY CHISAGO CO. MN 06/17/2010 19:44 CST-6 Tornado EF0 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

WYOMING CHISAGO CO. MN 06/21/2013 02:46 CST-6 Tornado EF0 0 0 100.00K 0.00K Totals: 0 0 225.00K 0.00K

Table B.4 Flood and Flash Flood Historical Events

Location County/Zone St. Date Time T.Z. Type Mag Dth Inj PrD CrD Totals: 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

CHISAGO (ZONE) CHISAGO (ZONE) MN 04/06/1997 06:00 CST Flood 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

CHISAGO (ZONE) CHISAGO (ZONE) MN 04/01/2001 12:00 CST Flood 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

NORTH BRANCH CHISAGO CO. MN 06/24/2003 21:00 CST Flash Flood 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

COUNTYWIDE CHISAGO CO. MN 09/12/2005 22:15 CST Flash Flood 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

COUNTYWIDE CHISAGO CO. MN 10/04/2005 18:15 CST Flash Flood 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

CHISAGO (ZONE) CHISAGO (ZONE) MN 10/04/2005 23:00 CST Flood 0 0 0.00K 0.00K Totals: 0 0 0.00K 0.00K

Table B.5 Wildfire Historical Events Wildfire Years Acres Burned Evacuation Needed? Carlos Avery Management Area 2000 and 2009 10,000 Yes

202 Appendix C: Participation

Hazard Profile Public Survey

Hazard profile Steering Committee Survey Chisago County (Hazard Profile Recommendation)

The first step in conducting risk analyses is to create a hazard profile. The first step in creating a hazard profile is identifying which hazards are most likely to have an impact on a community. With regard to the Chisago County mitigation plan update, an all-inclusive list of hazards was considered for inclusion in the plan update. The Planning Team reviewed several sources to include Chisago County’s previous hazard mitigation plan, hazards identified by FEMA in the Multi-Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment publication, the most recent iteration of the Minnesota State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, and mitigation plans of other counties in MN. In addition to reviewing the region’s mitigation plans, the planning team reviewed the record for declared disasters, searched several hazard related database (NOAA, FEMA, USGS, NHC etc.) conducted a basic internet search and completed a county wide public survey.

203

Findings: The planning team’s effort to create an all-inclusive list of hazards resulted in a comprehensive list of hazards. These hazards are listed below: Possible Hazards for Inclusion in the HMP aircraft incidents blizzard, cybercrime civil disobedience communicable disease dam failure drought Earthquake energy shortage fire Floods Hail hazardous material incidents infectious disease ice storms lightning power outage rainstorm subsidence Terrorism tornadoes transportation incidents Windstorms wildfire water supply contamination

Recommendations While the results of the search identified several hazards (24 total), it would not be prudent or realistic to include all of the noted hazards in the 2015 update. With respect to hazard risk and its effect on the participating jurisdictions, many of these hazards are very similar. As such, including them all in the plan would simply result in mass duplication concerning mitigation strategies. In addition, many of these hazards are not aligned with the purpose of this planning update and or federal program…Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning. As such, to ensure efficiency and program alignment, the planning team suggests the noted hazards be paired down to the 9 hazards identified below (See the proposed hazard table). Proposed Hazards (Chisago) Political Natural Hazards Technological Hazards Hazards Infectious Disease Hazardous Material Terrorism Flood Structure Fire Water Supply Structure Fire Contamination Sever Summer Storms (Hail, Heat, Lightning, Rain, Thunder &

Wind) Tornado Wildfire Sever Winter Storms (Blizzard, Extreme Cold & Ice Storms)

The planning team feels that the proposed hazard are both broad enough to delimit Chisago County’s risk to hazards, but concise enough to create a manageable and realistic plan.

The following rational was used to create the aforementioned hazard list. • Drought will not be included (HMP are not set up to address issues associated with drought). • Flooding takes into account dam failure. • Sever summer storms will take into account damage caused by hail, heat, lightning, rain, thunder & wind).

204

• Sever winter storms will take into account damage caused by blizzard, extreme cold & ice storms). • The hazards of political unrest, aircraft incidents, cybercrime, water contamination and terrorism etcetera are 1) not natural hazards; 2) are addressed in other plans. • While hazardous material is not a natural hazard, ISC’s preliminary investigation seems to suggest that Chiago County and or its jurisdictions are at a significant risk of hazmat events (Rail, Highway, Industry) and as such, ISC strongly encourages this hazard be included in the plan update.

NEXT STEPS ISC will ask that the Steering Committee formally accept ISC’s recommendations to include the proposed list of hazards for inclusion in the 2015 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update.

Supporting Data Hazards in the State Plan (MN) Natural Hazards Technological Hazards Political Hazards Dam/Levee Failure Hazardous Material Incidents Drought Fire Earthquake Nuclear Erosion Transportation Incidents Extreme Heat Water contamination Flooding Hail Infectious Disease Land Subsidence Lightning Tornado Wild land Fires Windstorms Winter Storms Hazards in the Last Plan (Chisago) Natural Hazards Technological Hazards Political Hazards Extreme Temperature Fire Terrorism Drought Hazardous material Flooding Water Supply Contamination Infectious Disease Violent Storm (Winter, Summer & Tornado) Wildfire Proposed Hazards (Chisago) Natural Hazards Technological Hazards Political Hazards Infectious Disease Hazardous Material Flood Structure Fire Summer Storms (Thunder, Water Supply Contamination Lightning, Hail Wind) Tornado

205

Hazards in the State Plan (MN) Wildfire Winter Storms (Blizzard,

Ice, extreme cold)

Capability Assessment Public Survey: CAPABILITY SELF-ASSESSMENT SURVEY

What is A Capability Assessment The purpose of conducting a capability assessment is to determine the ability of a given jurisdiction to implement a mitigation strategy. As in any planning process, based on an understanding of those jurisdictions that are tasked with strategy implementation, it is important to know what actions are feasible. More specifically, the capability assessment helps to determine what mitigation actions are likely to be implemented over time given the fiscal, technical, administrative and political framework of the jurisdiction. It also provides an opportunity to assess existing plans, policies and processes in place. What follows is a basic self-assessment survey that will allow us to identify the extent of continuity, advantages and strengths existing within your cities and county. Conducting the Capability Self-Assessment Survey The Capability Assessment takes approximately 30 minutes to an hour to complete. The survey is comprised of three parts: 1. An evaluation of existing plans, policies and ordinances. (Part 1) 2. An assessment of jurisdictional capabilities. (Part 2) 3. In-kind match data collection. (Part 3)

Part 1- Existing Plans Policies and Ordinances: Part 1 of the self-assessment is meant to identify existing plans utilized in the governance of your jurisdiction. • Within table one (Existing Plans Policies and Ordinances); please identify your jurisdiction by placing an X in the column directly to the right of the city name. • Within table one, find and review the row identified as “Plans, Policies and Ordinances.” If you are unsure of the acronyms used in the table, please consult the key located at the top of the table. • Moving across the row from your jurisdiction, with an X indicate what plans, policies and ordinances exist and or are used by your jurisdiction. If you are unsure if a certain plan, policy and ordinance is used simply, leave the column blank. • While plans, policies and ordinances may exist, sometimes they exist in name only. Meaning while plans, policies and ordinances might exist, they may not be used in the governance of your Jurisdiction. In the very last Column “Score” Indicate to the best of your ability, the degree to which you believe the totality of the plans, policies and ordinances you noted as existing are actually utilized. Please use “H” for highly used; “M” for moderately used and an “L” for low use.

Table 1

206

Evaluation of Existing Plans, Policies and Ordinances • HMP: Hazard Mitigation Plan • CIP: Capital Improvements Plan (that regulates • DRP: Disaster Recovery Plan infrastructure in hazard areas) • CLUP: Comprehensive Land Use Plan • COMP: comprehensive PLAN • FMP: Floodplain Management Plan • REG-PL: Regional Planning • SMP: Storm water Management Plan • HPP: Historic Preservation Plan • EOP: Emergency Operations Plan • ZO: Zoning Ordinance • COOP: Continuity of Operations Plan • FDPO: Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance • SARA: SARA Title III Emergency Response Plan • NFIP: National Flood Insurance Program • TRANS: Transportation Plan • BC: Building Codes

PL - ZO BC CIP HPP DRP FMP EOP SMP HMP NFIP CULP FDPO SARA

COOP COMP TRANS REG

Plans Score Jurisdictio

n Chisago

County Center City Harris Lindstrom North Branch Rush City Shafer Stacy Taylors Falls Wyoming

Part 2 Assessment of Local Capability: Part two of this self-assessment is used to determine the technical, administrative/institutional, fiscal and political capabilities of your jurisdiction. • Please review the capability definitions below (technical, administrative/institutional, fiscal and political). • Within table two, please identify your jurisdiction by placing an X in the column directly to the right of the city name. • Locate the categories (technical, administrative/institutional, fiscal and political) at the top of the table. With the row assigned to your jurisdiction indicate what you believe are your Jurisdiction’s capabilities. Use “H” for a high level of capability; “M” for a moderate level of capability and “L” for a low level of capability. • NOTE there are no right or wrong answers!

207

Capability Definitions: • Technical capability can be defined as possessing the skills and tools needed to improve decision-making, including the development of sound mitigation actions. • Fiscal capability or the ability to take financial action is closely associated with the amount of money available to implement policies and projects. This may take the form of grants received or state and locally based revenue. • Administrative and institutional capability is defined as jurisdictions staffing abilities and the existing organizational structures needed to implement mitigation strategies. • Political capability is the level of interest that both the citizens and government officials of a given jurisdiction has in conducting mitigation projects. Assessment of Local Capability Table 2

Assessment of Local Capability— Multi Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan An “L” indicates low capability; an “M” indicated moderate capability; and an “H” indicates high capability. Jurisdiction Technical Capability Fiscal Capability Administrative Capability Political Capability Chisago County Center City Harris Lindstrom North Branch Rush City Shafer Stacy Taylors Falls Wyoming

Part 3 In-kind Match Part three of this self-assessment survey is meant as a way to fulfill the Chisago County’s obligation in providing in-kind match. As such, please provide the requested information. Please indicate the amount of time spent completing this self-assessment: ______Please provide the date you completed the document: ______Please provide your Official Title: ______Please print your name: ______Please sign your name: ______

Thank you for your time and effort! If you have any questions please contact Scott Sellman Chisago County Emergency Manager.

208

Mitigation Actions Survey:

Chisago County Mitigation Plan Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Harris, Lindstrom, North Branch, Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Falls, Wyoming

The Following is a list of proposed projects to be incorporated into the County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard mitigation plan. Per state and federal requirements, the plan is required to be updated every 5 years. It is encouraged that citizens of Chisago County and its respective cities be an active part of this update process. Please review and provide your input concerning the identified projects to be include in the updated plan below. Feedback may include, but is not limited to the following:

• Adding new projects to the recommendation list • Voicing your opinion for and or against any of the recommended projects • Providing any additional details deem pertinent to the recommended projects. • Modifying any of the provided information pertaining to the recommended projects

All feedback should be provided to the Chisago County Emergency Manager. One can provide input verbally or in writing, what is important is that we receive your feedback.

If you have any questions, please Contact Scott Sellman at

Director Scott R. Sellman Emergency Management Chisago County Cell- (651) 775-9973

Thank you for your Assistance!

Projects to be include in the Plan Update:

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

Chisago County & the Work with the cities of Chisago, Center, Minnesota DNR to Public Officials, Fire Harris, Lindstrom, North include prescribed Departments, MN Staff time Short-Term Branch, Rush City, burning on all county DNR Shafer, Stacy, Taylors lands and parks. Falls, Wyoming

209

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

Chisago County & the Apply FIREWISE cities of Chisago, Center, wildfire susceptibility Harris, Lindstrom, North Chisago County, model to determine Staff time Ongoing Branch, Rush City, Fire Officials areas most prone to Shafer, Stacy, Taylors wildfires. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Provide educational cities of Chisago, Center, material to all State, County and Harris, Lindstrom, North Ongoing, Long- campers entering City officials (park Staff time Branch, Rush City, Term County, State & City boards) Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Parks Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Remove debris and Staff Time Harris, Lindstrom, North vegetation around and City and County Short-Term Branch, Rush City, camping areas on an Government Shafer, Stacy, Taylors annual basis. Budgets Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Implement FIREWISE cities of Chisago, Center, Fire Departments, program to assess Harris, Lindstrom, North Emergency Ongoing, Short- risks to structures and Staff Time Branch, Rush City, Management, Term identify needed Shafer, Stacy, Taylors USDA, NRCS responses. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Amend zoning cities of Harris, North regulations to include Branch, Rush City, vegetation and wood Shafer, Stacy, Taylors storage restrictions Emergency Ongoing, Short- Staff Time Falls, Wyoming around homes in Management, Cities Term cities and neighborhoods that might be at risk. Chisago County & the Implement an cities of Chisago, Harris, education program for Lindstrom, North Branch, home/property Rush City, Shafer, Stacy, owners especially in Taylors Falls, Wyoming identified risk areas (Carlos Avery Wildlife Fire Departments, Staff Time, Ongoing, Short- Management Area Emergency City Budgets Term and other forested Management, areas) on Best Management Practices for reducing or minimizing wildfire risk. The cities of Chisago, Work with Fire Depts. Staff Time, Ongoing, Short-

210

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

Center, Harris, Lindstrom, neighborhood City/County Term North Branch, Rush City, associations, Budgets, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors churches, schools Falls, Wyoming and service clubs to provide materials to the public on “best practices” for property maintenance against fire hazard. Chisago County & the Establish and inform cities of Chisago, Center, those residents living Harris, Lindstrom, North in “at risk” areas of Emergency Branch, Rush City, shelter locations and Response Staff Time Short-Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors evacuation routes Personnel Falls, Wyoming within Chisago County and Cities. Chisago County & the Educate residents cities of Chisago, Center, Emergency about the National Ongoing, Short- Harris, Lindstrom, North Response Staff Time Flood Insurance Term Branch, Rush City, Personnel Program (NFIP) Shafer, Stacy, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Conduct, update and Emergency Harris, Lindstrom, North adopt floodplain Ongoing, Short- Response Staff Time Branch, Rush City, mapping for the cities’ Term Personnel Shafer, Stacy, Taylors and county Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Incorporate Emergency Harris, Lindstrom, North Floodplain and land Ongoing, Long- Management, Cities, Staff Time Branch, Rush City, use maps into zoning Term Chisago County Shafer, Stacy, Taylors ordinance Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Assess all public cities of Chisago, Center, facilities in the county Harris, Lindstrom, North and cities with regard Emergency Ongoing, Long- Staff Time Branch, Rush City, to storm safety, Management Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors shelter adequacy and Falls, Wyoming limitations. Chisago County & The Identify and map cities of Chisago, Center, community shelters Harris, Lindstrom, North that could be used by Emergency Branch, Rush City, manufactured home Staff Time Short term Management Shafer, Stacy, Taylors parks and other Falls, Wyoming residents that do not have safe shelter on

211

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

their property. Chisago County & the Continue to Develop cities of Chisago, Center, and update a safe Harris, Lindstrom, North shelter plan for the Branch, Rush City, county and cities Emergency Ongoing, Long- Staff Time Shafer, Stacy, Taylors including shelters, Management Term Falls, Wyoming shelter capacity and transportation or evacuation routes. Chisago County & the Continue to evaluate cities of Chisago, Center, the county’s and Harris, Lindstrom, North cities current warning Cities, Emergency Ongoing, Long- Staff Time Branch, Rush City, system from both a Management Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors mechanical and Falls, Wyoming public use standpoint. Chisago County & the Continue to assess cities of Chisago, Center, the adequacy of the Harris, Lindstrom, North county and cities civil Cities, Emergency Ongoing, Long- Staff Time Branch, Rush City, defense siren system Management Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors adding sirens were Falls, Wyoming needed Chisago County & the Acquire AWS real- cities of Chisago, Center, time weather Harris, Lindstrom, North monitoring stations Branch, Rush City, for all county school Emergency Ongoing, Long- Shafer, Stacy, Taylors systems and Response City Budgets Term Falls, Wyoming emergency Personnel, NWS communities center (ECC).

Chisago County & the Continue to assess cities of Chisago, Center, the all hazards plan to Harris, Lindstrom, North limit travel on state MNDOT, Branch, Rush City, highways, county Emergency Ongoing, Short- Staff Time Shafer, Stacy, Taylors highways and major Response Term Falls, Wyoming roads during Personnel hazardous driving conditions. Chisago County & the Encourage county cities of Chisago, Center, zoning ordinances Harris, Lindstrom, North and county Power Companies Ongoing, Short- Branch, Rush City, subdivision and city/county Staff Time Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors regulations to require governments Falls, Wyoming burial of all new power distribution and

212

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

telephone lines before any new subdivision plat will be approved or building permit be issued. Encourage the cities’ planning commissions and city councils to adopt similar language in their ordinances. Chisago County & the Continue to Work with cities of Chisago, Center, city staff and planning Harris, Lindstrom, North commission to Branch, Rush City, develop language for Shafer, Stacy, Taylors inclusion in the city’s County and city Staff Time, Ongoing, Long- Falls, Wyoming official controls that governments Budget Term will prohibit the planting of tree species in lines easements or right-of- ways. Chisago County & the Evaluate the cities of Chisago, Center, readiness of public Emergency Harris, Lindstrom, North Ongoing, Long- buildings for the Management, Cities, Staff Time Branch, Rush City, Term preventing damage Chisago County Shafer, Stacy, Taylors from lightning. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Work with power cities of Chisago, Center, companies and Harris, Lindstrom, North electrical City and County, Branch, Rush City, cooperatives to Emergency Staff Time Short-Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors ensure power Management , Falls, Wyoming sources and electric Power Companies feeds are lopped where feasible. Chisago County & the Emergency cities of Chisago, Center, Continue to train and Response, First HMGP, Harris, Lindstrom, North Ongoing, Long- equip emergency Responder FEMA, State Branch, Rush City, Term response personnel. Agencies, County Budgets Shafer, Stacy, Taylors and Cities Falls, Wyoming Chisago County Continue to Identify Emergency Public Health, structures for elderly Response Ongoing, Long- HMGP, and other at-risk Personnel, Public Term FEMA, State populations who lack Health

213

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

effective air- conditioning and insulation. Chisago County Develop plan that addresses insulation and air-conditioning Emergency Public Health, needs of the county’s Response HMGP, Short Term residences Personnel, Public FEMA, State particularly those Health housing at risk populations. Watershed, The cities of Chisago, , Develop and or adopt State/County Harris, Lindstrom, Center ordinances for a Emergency Budget, City Ongoing, Short- North Branch, Rush City, water restriction plan Management, City Budget, Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors during water shortage County, NRCS, FEMA, Falls, Wyoming periods. HMGP Chisago County & the Establish a water cities of Chisago, Center, conservation program Harris, Lindstrom, North to identify Watershed, Branch, Rush City, conservation Emergency State/County Shafer, Stacy, Taylors opportunities in public Management, Budget, City Ongoing, Short- Falls, Wyoming buildings and provide Chisago Watershed, Budget, Term education to the NRCS, FEMA, public on HMGP conservation techniques. Chisago County & the Continue to Drill cities of Chisago, Center, monitoring wells into Harris, Lindstrom, North each of the county’s Emergency Watershed, Branch, Rush City, major aquifers at Management, State/County Ongoing, Long- Shafer, Stacy, Taylors appropriate locations Chisago Watershed, Budget, City Term Falls, Wyoming and or continue to NRCS, Budget monitor aquifer levels and water quality. Chisago County & the Continue to work with cities of Chisago, Center, local media in Harris, Lindstrom, North disseminating Emergency Branch, Rush City, information on Staff Time Ongoing Management Shafer, Stacy, Taylors potential risks and Falls, Wyoming ways of addressing them. Chisago County Continue county Emergency education and Response Public Health, Short Term immunization Personnel, Public programs. Health

214

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

Chisago County Develop a public education plan to make residents aware Ongoing, Long- of the resources Public Health Public Health Term available to them about infectious diseases. Chisago County Maintain a Website to provide citizens with Ongoing, Long- information about Public Health Public Health Term public health and infectious diseases. Chisago County Annually Review and update the Chisago County Emergency Emergency Operations & Ongoing, Long- Management, Public Public Health Mitigation Plans that Term Health outlines procedures for dealing with infectious diseases. Chisago County Work with state and federal agencies to identify and address Ongoing, Long- infectious diseases Public Health Public Health Term that have the potential to affect the county and region. Chisago County Continue to work with the hospital and local Ongoing, Long- Public Health Public Health clinics in addressing Term infectious diseases. Chisago County Continue to work with the state Department Ongoing, Long- of Health in tracking Public Health Public Health Term infectious diseases in the county. Chisago County Continue to analyze and adopt the Ongoing, Long- Public Health Public Health environmental health Term regulations. Chisago County & the Continue to assess, cities of Chisago, Center, update and develop City and County, Emergency Ongoing, Short- Harris, Lindstrom, North mitigation and other County Management Term Branch, Rush City, emergency related Budgets Shafer, Stacy, Taylors plans to work with

215

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

Falls, Wyoming and coordinate efforts among local units of government. The cities of Chisago, Draft and or enforce Center, Harris, Lindstrom, an ordinance North Branch, Rush City, requiring prompt Shafer, Stacy, Taylors removal of snow Falls, Wyoming around commercial County and City Staff time Short term and industrial buildings in order to insure access for fire and other emergency equipment. Chisago County & the Continue to Identify cities of Chisago, Center, roadways of Harris, Lindstrom, North insufficient width to Branch, Rush City, handle fire trucks and Ongoing, Short- County and City Staff time Shafer, Stacy, Taylors establish priorities Term Falls, Wyoming and approaches for addressing deficiencies. The cities of Chisago, Provide school Center, Harris, Lindstrom, programs to youth, Fire Departments, North Branch, Rush City, focusing on stoves, Emergency Ongoing, Short- Staff Time Shafer, Stacy, Taylors smoke detectors, fire Management, Term Falls, Wyoming safety and School Districts evacuation. Chisago County & cities Provide public of Chisago, Center, education to Harris, Lindstrom, North homeowners, Branch, Rush City, focusing on chimney Fire Departments, Shafer, Stacy, Taylors inspections, electrical Ongoing, Short- Emergency Staff Time Falls, Wyoming systems, flammable Term Management, materials, heating systems, household chemicals and evacuation. Chisago County & the Provide staff cities of Chisago, Center, resources to fire Harris, Lindstrom, North departments to assist Ongoing, Short- Branch, Rush City, them in identifying Fire Departments, Staff Time Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors areas of high risk Falls, Wyoming involving hazardous material. Chisago County Develop Geographic Ongoing, Long- Chisago County Staff time Information Systems Term

216

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

capability to map locations of fixed facilities using hazardous materials and associated transportation corridors. Chisago County Map known locations of hazardous material/waste sites Ongoing, Long- by working directly Chisago County Staff time Term with the Pollution Control and other Agencies. Chisago County & the Continue to educate Chisago County cities of Chisago, Center, affected parties about and Cities, Fire Harris, Lindstrom, North the various Ongoing, Long- Departments, Staff time Branch, Rush City, hazardous materials Term Emergency Shafer, Stacy, Taylors that are in the county Management Falls, Wyoming and cities. Chisago County Annually review the Emergency Contingency Plan Management Prairie Ongoing, Long- with the Prairie and Staff Time and Island Term Island Monticello Monticello power plants Chisago County & the Continue to expand cities of Chisago, Center, the use of mutual aid Harris, Lindstrom, North agreements and Branch, Rush City, memoranda of Shafer, Stacy, Taylors understanding to Emergency Falls, Wyoming improve coordination Staff Time Ongoing Management and responses among state, local and federal agencies and appropriate private-sector parties. Chisago County & the Continue the septic cities of Chisago, Center, system inspection Harris, Lindstrom, North Ongoing, Long- and County and City Staff Time Branch, Rush City, Term pumping/maintenanc Shafer, Stacy, Taylors e program. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Continue the cities of Chisago, Center, abandoned well Ongoing, Long- County and City Staff Time Harris, Lindstrom, North sealing program Term Branch, Rush City, within the county and

217

Projects Partners Jurisdictions Coordinating Agencies and Goal Timeframe Goal Resources Needed Resources

Shafer, Stacy, Taylors cities. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County & the Continue to assess cities of Chisago, Center, and or modify a Harris, Lindstrom, North county wellhead Ongoing, Long- County and City Staff Time Branch, Rush City, protection ordinance Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors for public and private Falls, Wyoming wells. Chisago County & the cities of Chisago, Center, Continue to define, Harris, Lindstrom, North assess and or update Ongoing, Long- County and City Staff Time Branch, Rush City, wellhead protection Term Shafer, Stacy, Taylors areas. Falls, Wyoming Chisago County Continue to provide private well Ongoing, Long- County and City Staff Time inspections to Term residents. Chisago County & the Continue readiness, Emergency cities of Chisago, Center, planning and Management, Harris, Lindstrom, North cooperation regarding Ongoing, Long- Prairie Island and Staff Time Branch, Rush City, ingestion for Prairie Term Monticello power Shafer, Stacy, Taylors Island and Monticello plants Falls, Wyoming power plants. The City of Wyoming Add and Update City Budget, Ongoing, Short- Weather Warning City FEMA, Term System HMGP The city of Shafer City Budget, Add a Storm Shelter Ongoing, Short- City FEMA, to Trailer Parks Term HMGP The cities of North Provide Flood area Branch improvement at Birch St. & Grand Ave. City Budget, Separate storm sewer Ongoing, Short- City FEMA, line added on at Term HMGP Grand Ave. from Birch St. to the Sunrise River NOTE: The list projects are simply proposed and there is no guarantee that projects will be completed. In addition, jurisdictions are not obligated to complete any of the listed projects. All projects in listed in the mitigation plan are simply suggestions based on an informed assessments and recommendation.

218

Public Meeting Announcements:

219

220

221

222

223

Website Invite:

224

225

226

City Participation:

227

228

229

230

231

232

Meeting Sign in:

233

234

235

236

237

238