Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Chippewa County, Wisconsin 2020-2025
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
CHIPPEWA COUNTY NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
PREPARED BY:
Chippewa County Local Emergency Planning Committee Chippewa County Emergency Management Chippewa County communities
WITH ASSISTANCE BY:
West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission
ADOPTED MONTH XX, 2020 BY THE CHIPPEWA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 A. PLAN PURPOSE ...... 1 B. PLANNING PROCESS ...... 1 C. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING APPROACH ...... 3 D. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ...... 5 E. INCORPORATION OF RELATED PLANS, STUDIES, REPORTS, AND DATA ...... 6 SECTION II. COMMUNITY PROFILE – CHIPPEWA COUNTY ...... 8 A. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION ...... 8 B. NATURAL FEATURES AND ENVIRONMENT ...... 9 C. DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, AND LAND USE PROFILE ...... 13 D. CRITICAL FACILITIES AND EMERGENCY SERVICES ...... 27 E. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ...... 32 SECTION III. ASSESSMENT OF HAZARD CONDITIONS ...... 34 A. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ...... 34 i. Federal Disaster Declarations for Chippewa County ...... 34 ii. Chippewa County Multi-Hazard Prioritization...... 35 iii. Natural Hazards of No Significant Risk ...... 37 B. HAZARDS OF CONCERN ADDRESSED IN OTHER PLANS ...... 40 i. Communicable Disease and Public Health ...... 40 ii. Hazardous Materials Spills ...... 47 iii. Active Threats ...... 53 iv. Cyber-Attack ...... 58 C. RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ...... 63 i. Tornados ...... 54 ii. Thunderstorms and High Winds ...... 80 iii. Winter Storms and Extreme Cold ...... 96 iv. Long-Term Power Outage ...... 110 v. Flooding ...... 120 vi. Wildfire...... 143 vii. Extreme Heat ...... 163 viii. Drought ...... 171 D. CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL HAZARD RISK ...... 178 SECTION IV. CURRENT MITIGATION ACTIVITIES ...... 186 SECTION V. PROGRESS ON 2012 MITIGATION PLAN STRATEGIES ...... 195 SECTION VI. MITIGATION GOALS AND STRATEGIES ...... 200 A. MITIGATION GOALS ...... 200 B. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION STRATEGIES ...... 201 C. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION STRATEGIES (ACTION PLAN)...... 202 i. Severe Weather Mitigation Strategies ...... 202 ii. Flood Mitigation Strategies ...... 203 iii. Wildfire Mitigation & Emergency Access Strategies ...... 204 iv. Agriculture-Specific Strategies ...... 204 v. Other Planning, Policy, & Coordination Strategies ...... 205 vi. Other Communication & Outreach Strategies ...... 206 vii. City & Village (Multi-Jurisdictional) Strategies...... 207 D. IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIORITY PROJECTS ...... 210 E. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE ...... 212
Table of Contents i SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
SECTION VII. PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE PROCESS ...... 214 A. PLAN COORDINATION ...... 214 B. PLAN MAINTENANCE ...... 215 C. PLAN ADOPTION ...... 217
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. Adopting Resolutions and Letter of Participation ...... 218 APPENDIX B. Flood Assessment Methodology ...... APPENDIX C. Stakeholder Interview List ...... Page...... #s will be APPENDIX D. Notice Requesting Public Comment on Draft Plan ...... include...... d in APPENDIX E. Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Facilities...... final...... draft APPENDIX F. Unique Risks and Vulnerabilities by Incorporated Community ...... APPENDIX G. Hazard Mitigation Activities by Incorporated Community ...... APPENDIX H. Chippewa County Dam Inventory ...... APPENDIX I. Natural Hazard Mitigation Toolbox ...... APPENDIX J. Feasibility Analysis of Alternative Mitigation Strategies ...... APPENDIX K. Potential State and Federal Grant Programs for Mitigations Projects ...... APPENDIX L. Summary of Plan Changes since the 2012 Plan ......
SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING THE FEMA PRE-DISASTER MITIGATION (PDM) GRANT PROGRAM
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program has been a primary source of mitigation grant funding in west-central Wisconsin for projects such as community safe rooms, burying elevated power lines in areas prone to outages, and creating/updating local mitigation plans. The PDM Program was recently replaced by the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) Grant Program as a result of the Disaster Relief and Recovery Act of 2018.
Like the PDM Program, proactively mitigating the impacts of natural hazards continues to be the purpose of the BRIC Program and many aspects of the new program are unchanged, including cost-share requirements. Potential grant projects must also continue to align with a current local mitigation plan for local grant eligibility. The new BRIC Program places greater emphasis on funding resilient infrastructure, mitigating lifelines (critical facilities and services), and incorporating nature-based solutions. Capability- and capacity-building activities, such as modernizing building codes, private- public partnerships, and staff training, are also now explicitly eligible as a mitigation grant project.
ii Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION I
SECTION I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan has been prepared as a result of the County’s application for, and award of, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program funds. These funds are disbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM).
The primary focus of the Plan is to The Code of Federal Regulations states... evaluate the County’s potential exposure “The local mitigation plan is the representation of to natural disasters and identify the jurisdiction’s commitment to reduce risks from appropriate mitigation strategies. natural hazards, serving as a guide for decision Chippewa County decided to primarily makers as they commit resources to reducing the limit the scope of this planning effort to effects of natural hazards.” natural hazards at this time, though this (44 CFR Part 201.6, pp 8851) Plan conforms with Federal all hazards mitigation planning requirements.
Development of the Plan will help the County and its communities locate its areas of risk, assess its risks and vulnerabilities, and develop long-term strategies for reducing these risks and vulnerabilities. Through this process, the County can address issues related to the protection of life, property, and critical services, and the reduction of costs associated with disaster relief and rescue efforts. The update and approval of the Plan will also continue to make Chippewa County and participating jurisdictions eligible to apply for future hazard mitigation project funds through the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
B. PLANNING PROCESS Chippewa County contracted with West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission to update its all hazards mitigation plan previously updated and adopted by Chippewa County in August 2012 and approved by FEMA in January 2013. This updated Plan identifies strategies to mitigate the risks and vulnerabilities associated with natural hazards in the County, including its incorporated communities. The former Plan that is being updated will be referred to as the 2012 Plan.
Development of the Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was based on the planning requirements and guidance provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency1 (FEMA) and the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs, Wisconsin Emergency Management.2 As such,
1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Hazard Mitigation Planning and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, 44 CFR Parts 201 and 206 (Washington: Government Printing Office, February 26, 2002) 8844-8854. 2 Wisconsin Emergency Management, Resource Guide to All Hazards Mitigation Planning in Wisconsin. April 2003.
Introduction 1 SECTION I the Plan meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The Plan’s scope is inclusive of all of Chippewa County and is considered a multi-jurisdictional plan under Federal guidelines, with the exception of the City of Eau Claire. The City of Eau Claire primarily lies within Eau Claire County and recently updated its own hazard mitigation plan in coordination with the Eau Claire County plan update. Even so. County Emergency Management will continue to coordinate with the City of Eau Claire and Eau Claire County Emergency Management on hazard mitigation issues as required.
To guide the Plan’s development, the County’s local emergency planning committee (LEPC) agreed to serve as the steering committee for this planning effort. As Table 1 shows, the LEPC represents a range of interests and stakeholders from throughout Chippewa County. In addition to bringing insight on their respective roles, the committee members are also very knowledgeable of the issues and concerns of the County’s residents. The committee was responsible for overseeing the development of the Plan, providing input and review of information and materials, and reviewing and approving the release of the draft Plan prior to the start the adoption process.
Table 1. Chippewa County Local Emergency Planning Committee Name Title/Organization John Andersen Chairperson, Media Rep. Dennis Brown Emergency Management Jerry Clark UW Extension Chad Gudis Highway Department Edward Mishefske Citizen Representative Bob Nelson Citizen Representative Chuck Daly Industry Representative Ron Krueger Citizen Amateur Radio Representative John Bowe HazMat/Fire Department Representative. Chris Cord Emergency Communications Center Dir. Angela Weideman Public Health Officer Brenda Nacke Mayo Clinic Health System – Bloomer Tom Thornton County Board Representative Mark Anderson HSHS St. Joseph’s Hospital Marcy Trubshaw Emergency Management
Update of the Plan began in August 2018. A total of five steering committee meetings were held to discuss the Plan’s development, identify local hazard issues, formulate strategy recommendations, and review the draft Plan. Additional correspondence, including a strategy alternatives and prioritization survey, was distributed via mail.
The general stages of Plan development are summarized in Figure 1 at the end of this section. A summary of Plan changes since the 2012 Plan is provided in Appendix L and includes a brief synopsis of how the steering committee reviewed and analyzed each section of the Plan.
2 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION I
The mapping work as part of the community profile (Section II) and assessment of hazard conditions (Section III) was performed using the ArcGIS Geographic Information System, allowing greater manipulation and analysis due to the use of a consistent base map. Maps included in this Plan are for general planning purposes only and do not constitute legal documents or formal surveys. The flood assessment methodology is further detailed in Appendix B.
A series of key stakeholder interviews, including both public and private sectors, was performed by West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC) staff to further complement the issue and strategy identification process. These interviews included discussions with emergency management personnel from adjacent counties. The majority of these interviews are listed in Appendix C, though additional correspondence, phone calls, and follow-up e-mails often took place. Additional input was received from local town, village, and city governments as described within Section I.C. below.
The LEPC/steering committee review the scope of the 2012 Plan, considered recent severe weather trends, and completed a risk & vulnerability survey. The survey results were used by the committee to determine the Plan scope, which included the addition of extreme heat.
With the guidance provided by these interviews, meetings, and the previously described planning steps, the steering committee discussed and reviewed the changes to each Plan section since the 2012 Plan and developed the updated goals and strategies. In fall 2019, the steering committee released the draft Plan for public review and submittal to Wisconsin Emergency Management for pre-review. Following WEM’s pre-review, the County Board considered and adopted this Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan update at a duly called and noticed public meeting. A copy of the adopting resolution is included in Appendix A.
C. MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLANNING APPROACH The Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan and encompasses all incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within Chippewa County, with the exception of the City of Eau Claire as mentioned previously. All municipalities in Chippewa County with 100-year floodplains identified on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are participants in good standing in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), with the exception of the Village of New Auburn who is working to address their non-compliance status.
All participating jurisdictions in Chippewa County were actively involved in the planning process through the following means: • The steering committee included representation from different areas in the County and numerous organizations. • A customized risk assessment survey with hazard risk map was mailed to each town to identify hazards and potential mitigation strategies.
Introduction 3 SECTION I
• A meeting was held with each participating village and city on the planning effort, and input was obtained on issues or potential strategies. Unique hazard-related issues or strategies for each community were identified. • Additional follow-up contacts were made with local jurisdictions as needed. In fall 2019, draft strategies and key, relevant sections of the Plan were sent to each village and city for further comment.
The following jurisdictions have adopted this Plan update by resolution:
Jurisdiction Adoption Date Chippewa County (encompasses all unincorporated areas) m d, 2020 Village of Boyd m d, 2020 Village of Cadott m d, 2020 Village of Lake Hallie m d, 2020 Village of New Auburn m d, 2020 City of Bloomer m d, 2020 City of Chippewa Falls m d, 2020 City of Cornell m d, 2020 City of Stanley m d, 2020
Adopting resolutions for all of the above jurisdictions are in Appendix A. Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative also participated in the Plan’s development as documented by their letter in Appendix A. The cooperative is potentially eligible for FEMA hazard mitigation grant funding much like a municipality. By actively participating in this Plan’s development, there is increased potential for the electric cooperative to pursue mitigation grant funding for projects within Chippewa County in the future.
4 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION I
D. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT The planning process included the following activities to encourage community input and involvement:
• Steering Committee Meetings. The five steering committee meetings were properly noticed and open to the public. Meeting notices are posted in the County courthouse and online at the County website. • Key Stakeholder Interviews. The community meetings and key stakeholder interviews identified in Appendix C obtained input from many local public and private stakeholders who are also community members. • Consideration of Related Plans. Local comprehensive plans, ordinances, and other pertinent planning documents were considered by the planning consultant and discussed with the steering committee and communities when available and pertinent. During stakeholder interviews and meetings with the cities and villages, participants were asked to identify and consider related plans and ordinances. The results of these discussions were integrated into the appropriate assessment section or recommended strategies which were reviewed by the steering committee, communities, and other stakeholders. A few examples of other planning efforts considered and integrated into this Plan include the State Hazard Mitigation Plan, WDNR wildfire assessments and management plan, the County continuity of government planning effort, and the Emergency Action Plans and maintenance plans for high-hazard dams and other dams. • Town Government Input. As discussed previously, a brief, customized survey was mailed to each town to obtain local input on hazard “hotspots”, vulnerabilities, and potential mitigation strategies. • Request for Public Comment on the Draft Plan. As documented in Appendix D, a public notice was advertised in the County’s official newspaper in October 2020 requesting public comment on the draft Plan, which was available for download online or available for review at the County Emergency Management office. Copies of the meeting notice, as well the draft Plan strategies and other selected sections, were also sent to each municipality for comment. No public comments were received on the draft plan. • Plan Adoption. Following conditional approval of the Plan by Wisconsin Emergency Management, this Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted via resolution by the Chippewa County Board and the incorporated cities and villages of the County at duly called and noticed public meetings.
Introduction 5 SECTION I
E. INCORPORATION OF RELATED PLANS, STUDIES, REPORTS, AND DATA This Plan update includes information and incorporates recommendations from a wide variety of sources, not limited to the following primary sources: • Section II includes statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, USDA Agricultural Census, Wisconsin Department of Revenue tax assessment data, Wisconsin Department of Administration population estimates and projections, and EMSI. • Section III includes NOAA National Climatic Data Center severe weather data as well as climate and severe weather data from the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change. This section also includes data and maps from the State of Wisconsin Hazard Mitigation Plan and the State of Wisconsin Homeland Security Council THIRA & SPR produced by Wisconsin Emergency Management. • Section III includes references to specific studies for various hazard types. For example, the hazardous materials spills subsection included BRRTS data from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and references the 2012 Multi-County Commodity Flow Study. The cyber-attack and active threats sections rely heavily on FBI and other federal- level data sources. • The GIS maps and GIS-based analysis found in Sections II and III were largely produced by WCWRPC with geo-referenced data primarily from Chippewa County and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. • Appendix C includes the list of meetings and stakeholder interviews completed during the process. These interviews frequently yielded reports and additional data that were incorporated into this Plan. • Sections III and IV incorporate or reference municipal & County Emergency Operations Plans and the County Public Health Preparedness Plan as well as various annexes, mutual aid agreements, and partnerships. Threat-specific plans are frequently referenced where applicable, such as Dam Flood Emergency Plan. Comprehensive plans and local regulatory policies are also referenced (e.g., floodplain zoning, stormwater management, driveway regulations, festival permitting).
6 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION I
Figure 1. Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Diagram
Plan Initiation scope: local decision to proceed, contract w/ WCWRPC Plan County roles: mandate to proceed, establish Steering Committee RPC roles: facilitate process and pre-planning Initiation Cmte roles: initial meeting; discuss process and scope
Community Profiling scope: data-collection phase (inventory, stats, uses, trends) local roles: assist w/ data collection, including existing plans Community RPC roles: data collection, analysis, & compilation Cmte roles: review and discuss findings; additional direction if needed Profiling other issues: identification of critical facilities; initial contacts
Hazard Identification scope: update data and re-confirm key hazards local roles: assist w/ data collection (historical records on events) RPC roles: data collection (w/ NOAA data) & facilitation Hazard Cmte roles: review and confirm key hazards Identification
Risk & Vulnerability Assessment scope: identify risks (full history & trends), and vulnerabilities (estimate potential losses to assets) local roles: identify issues, concerns, and “hotspots” Risk & RPC roles: data collection, analysis, & facilitation Vulnerability Cmte roles: review and discuss findings; provide addition insights Assessment Mitigation Planning scope: goals, objectives, strategies, & action plan local roles: identify current activities and progress on 2012 Plan RPC roles: facilitation, analysis & guidance on strategies Cmte roles: update goals; review and prioritize strategies Mitigation other issues: cost-benefits analysis; resource/action plan Planning
Plan Coordination & Maintenance scope: relationship to other plans & future Plan review/updates local roles: help identify links to other plans; vision for reviews RPC roles: facilitation & suggestions Plan Cmte roles: review & modify/amend recommendations other issues: re-assess evaluation process Coordination & Maintenance Plan Adoption scope: Cmte/local agency review -> public comment period -> Cmte re-consideration if needed ->State pre-review -> County & local adoption-> formal State & FEMA approval local roles: facilitate public meetings, notifications, & adoption RPC roles: assist w/ public hearings & modifications to Plan Plan Cmte roles: consider public input & approve draft Plan other issues: special mailings; media Adoption
Introduction 7 SECTION II
SECTION II. COMMUNITY PROFILE – CHIPPEWA COUNTY
The community profile section of the Plan provides background data of the general characteristics of Chippewa County. Included in this section is a description of natural and demographic characteristics, general development trends, and an inventory of critical facilities.
A. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION Chippewa County is in west-central Wisconsin (see Figure 2) and has a total surface area of 666,428 acres, or about 1,041 square miles, of combined land and water area making it the 13th largest county in Wisconsin. The County is comprised of all or parts of 32 civil divisions, consisting of 23 towns, four villages and five cities. The City of Chippewa Falls, population 14,035 is the county seat and largest community in the County. Chippewa County is part of the Eau Claire-Chippewa Falls Metropolitan Statistical Area.
Figure 2. Geographic Location Chippewa County SAMPSON BIRCH CREEK LAKE HOLCOMBE RUBY
New Cornell Auburn
AUBURN BLOOM ER CLEVELAND ESTELLA
Bloomer
COOKS VALLEY WOODM OHR EAGLE POINT ARTHUR COLBURN
HOWARD TILDEN ANSON GOETZ DELMAR
Boyd Stanley Chippewa Falls Cadott
Lake Hallie
WHEATON HALLIE LAFAYETTE SIGEL EDSON Eau Claire
8 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
B. NATURAL FEATURES AND ENVIRONMENT Chippewa County is part of the Western Upland and Northern Highland physiographic provinces of Wisconsin. The region’s surface topography varies from rolling plains to rugged hills and escarpments. The glaciers pushed through this area leaving only a portion of southwest Wisconsin, southeast Minnesota, northern Illinois, and northwest Iowa untouched on their southward march. As one moves south and southwest in the County, the drainage patterns become more defined with fewer swamps and numerous shale and sandstone outcrops. This area beyond the moraines is quite level and comprises much of the County’s best agricultural land. Flambeau Ridge, the County’s highest elevation point, is 1,530 feet above sea level and is in the Town of Birch Creek in the north-central part of the County. Approximately four percent of the County is open water and another seven percent is wetlands. i. Watersheds Shown in Figure 3 are the watersheds that are wholly or partially located within Chippewa County. A watershed is an area of land that drains or “sheds” its water to a lake, river, stream, or wetland. Some watersheds encompass several hundred square miles, while others may be small, covering only a few square miles that drain into a lake.
Figure 3. Chippewa County Watersheds
Community Profile—Chippewa County 9 SECTION II
Watersheds are important to understand since the effects of natural and man-made activities in one area can have a direct impact on other areas. For example, runoff from a heavy rainfall upstream in a watershed will eventually reach the downstream part of the watershed. Chippewa County almost entirely drains into the Lower Chippewa River, with the exception of a small northern part of the County which drains into the Upper Chippewa River Basin. ii. Surface Waters, Floodplains, and Wetlands The Chippewa River and its reservoirs (Lake Wissota, Holcombe Flowage, Cornell Flowage) are the County’s most significant surface water features, roughly bisecting the County from north to south. Chippewa County has a total surface water area of 21,037 acres consisting of 19,335 acres of lakes and 1,702 acres of rivers and streams as shown in Figure 4 on the following page. The County also has 81 miles of trout streams. A number of dams on the Chippewa River maintain reservoirs for hydro-electric power generation. Nearly all potable water in the County is groundwater, though surface waters can be a major source of groundwater recharge. The rivers and lakes of Chippewa County are important recreational resources and have attracted significant shoreland development in many areas.
Generally, the surface waters of Chippewa County are healthy. Three waters were deemed by Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) as outstanding in water quality and free of pollutants, while seventeen others are exceptional waters (high quality, but at risk). But a number of surface waters, including various locations on the Chippewa River, have been deemed impaired by WDNR due to water quality concerns (e.g., phosphorus, polychlorobiphenyls, mercury, sedimentation).
Wetland areas within the watersheds can affect the water levels of rivers and creeks flowing through Chippewa County. Wetlands are defined by State Statute as “an area where water is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to be capable of supporting aquatic or hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation and which has soils indicative of wet conditions.” Wetlands may be seasonal or permanent and are commonly referred to as swamps, marshes, or bogs. Wetland plants and soils have the capacity to store and filter pollutants, replenish groundwater supplies, store floodwaters, and maintain stream flows. The wetland areas within Chippewa County delineated on Figure 4 are identified in the WDNR Wisconsin Wetlands Inventory last updated for Chippewa County in 1996. Wetlands less than five acres in size are generally not identified.
Figure 4 also shows the floodplain areas of Chippewa County as identified in the digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (D-FIRMS) which were made effective March 2010. The floodplain and flood-hazard areas within the County associated with these water bodies are discussed within Section III. Assessment of Hazard Conditions of this report.
10 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
Figure 4. Chippewa County Surface Waters, Floodplains & Wetlands
Community Profile—Chippewa County 11 SECTION II iv. General Climate The climate of Chippewa County is classified as mid-latitude continental. Warm, humid summers and cold snowy winters are the main characteristics. Many factors, such as location, topography, vegetation, and water bodies can influence climate, but the following climate data collected at Bloomer City Hall is provided as a general description of the County’s climate.
At the Bloomer City Hall, the average monthly temperature ranged from 12.5ºF in January to 70.7ºF in July from 1981-2010. Annual precipitation averaged 31.55 inches, with the majority of this occurring as rain. The average annual snowfall was 42.6 inches, over 80 percent occurring during the months of December through March. Chippewa County is susceptible to a range of natural hazards, including flooding. A description of these hazards, along with historical trends and current risks, is included in Section III of this report.
12 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
C. DEMOGRAPHIC, ECONOMIC, AND LAND USE PROFILE i. Population Chippewa County had a 2018 estimated population 64,551, which is a 3.4 percent increase since 2010. Since 1910, Chippewa County’s population has increased at a fairly steady rate, with a period of very little growth during the 1980s, a sizable growth surge between 2000 and 2010.
Figure 5. Chippewa County Historical Population – 1900 to 2018
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000 Population
20,000
10,000
0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2018 Year source: U.S. Census Bureau; Wisconsin Department of Administration
Community Profile—Chippewa County 13 SECTION II
Table 2 below provides population trends for 1960 to 2010 by municipality. Generally, those towns closest to the cities of Chippewa Falls and Eau Claire, and some of the towns along the Chippewa River, grew fastest.
Table 2. Chippewa County Population Trends – 1960 to 2010 Year Percent Change 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 ‘60-‘70 ‘70-‘80 ‘80-‘90 ‘90-‘00 ‘00-‘10 Towns Anson 1,349 1,446 1,590 1,634 1,881 2,076 7.2 10.0 2.8 15.1 10.4 Arthur 784 774 856 756 710 759 -1.3 10.6 -11.7 -6.1 6.9 Auburn 418 408 456 474 580 697 -2.4 11.8 3.9 22.4 20.2 Birch Creek 321 365 540 500 520 517 13.7 47.9 -7.4 4.0 -0.6 Bloomer 870 800 930 880 926 1,050 -8.0 16.3 -5.4 5.2 13.4 Cleveland 645 607 732 758 900 864 -5.9 20.6 3.6 18.7 -4.0 Colburn 832 678 760 731 727 856 -18.5 12.1 -3.8 -0.5 17.7 Cooks Valley 565 610 603 594 632 805 8.0 -1.1 -1.5 6.4 27.4 Delmar 1,123 1,079 1,062 994 941 936 -3.9 -1.6 -6.4 -5.3 -0.5 Eagle Point 2,017 2,224 2,750 2,542 3,049 3,053 10.3 23.7 -7.6 19.9 0.1 Edson 1,167 1,082 1,061 913 966 1,089 -7.3 -1.9 -13.9 5.8 12.7 Estella 542 484 483 449 469 433 -10.7 -0.2 -7.0 4.5 -7.7 Goetz 556 613 607 640 695 762 10.3 -1.0 5.4 8.6 9.6 Hallie 2,530 3,568 4,275 4,531 4,703 161 41.0 19.8 6.0 3.8 -96.6 Howard 702 643 660 625 648 798 -8.4 2.6 -5.3 3.7 23.1 Lafayette 4,188 4,189 4,181 4,448 5,199 5,765 0.0 -0.2 6.4 16.9 10.9 Lake Holcombe 564 648 791 920 1,010 1,031 14.9 22.1 16.3 9.8 2.1 Ruby 504 469 514 464 446 494 -6.9 9.6 -9.7 -3.9 10.8 Sampson 681 724 805 817 816 892 6.3 11.2 1.5 -0.1 9.3 Sigel 703 654 782 736 825 1044 -7.0 19.6 -5.9 12.1 26.5 Tilden 916 963 1,088 1,079 1,185 1,485 5.1 13.0 -0.8 9.8 25.3 Wheaton 1,441 1,782 2,328 2,257 2,366 2,701 23.7 30.6 -3.0 4.8 14.2 Woodmohr 827 872 967 991 883 932 5.4 10.9 2.5 -10.9 5.5 Subtotal: 24,245 25,682 28,821 28,733 31,077 29,200 5.9 12.2 -0.3 8.2 -6.0 Villages Boyd 622 574 660 683 680 552 -7.7 15.0 3.5 -0.4 -18.8 Cadott 881 977 1,247 1,328 1,345 1,437 10.9 27.6 6.5 1.3 6.8 Lake Hallie - - - - - 6,448 - - - - n.a. New Auburn* 383 368 452 459 547 528 -3.9 22.8 1.5 19.2 -3.5 Subtotal: 1886 1919 2359 2470 2572 8,965 1.7 22.9 4.7 4.1 248.6 Cities Bloomer 2,834 3,143 3,342 3,180 3,347 3,539 10.9 6.3 -4.8 5.3 5.7 Chippewa Falls 11,708 12,351 12,270 12,749 12,925 13,661 5.5 -0.7 3.9 1.4 5.7 Cornell 1,685 1,616 1,583 1,541 1,466 1,467 -4.1 -2.0 -2.7 -4.9 0.1 Eau Claire** 724 957 1,657 1,676 1,910 1,981 32.2 73.1 1.1 14.0 3.7 Stanley*** 2,014 2,049 2,095 2,011 1,898 3,602 1.7 2.2 -4.0 -5.6 89.8 Subtotal: 18,965 20,116 20,947 21,157 21,546 24,250 6.1 4.1 1.0 1.8 12.5 Chippewa County* 45,096 47,717 52,127 52,360 55,195 62,415 5.8 9.2 0.4 5.4 13.1 source: U.S. Census Bureau *Portion of New Auburn located in Chippewa County only. **The majority of the City of Eau Claire is located in Chippewa County; the table includes totals for the Chippewa County portion only. ***Portion of Stanley located in Chippewa County only.
14 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
At approximately 62 persons per square mile on average, Chippewa County remains rural overall. With the incorporation of the Village of Lake Hallie and opening of the prison in Stanley, the majority of County’s population now resides in the cities and villages, rather than unincorporated towns.
The average age of Chippewa County residents increased from 37.6 years in 2010, to 41 in 2016. Currently, the 5-17 age cohort makes up the largest portion of the population at 17.1 percent, followed by the 45-54 age at 14.4 percent.
Overall, Chippewa County’s population is relatively homogenous, with 93.5 percent of the population in the white, non-Hispanic racial group in 2017. During the past decade, the population in all racial groups increased, with the Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino groups becoming the largest minority populations in Chippewa County. The County also has sizable Amish and Mennonite populations, in particular in the New Auburn and Boyd-Stanley areas. Language and cultural barriers can pose challenges to education and outreach on weather awareness, available shelters, agricultural best practices, regulations, etc. It is notable that the Amish and Mennonite populations are very self-reliant and can be an important asset to their neighbors following an extreme weather event, as was evident following the 2009 Kentucky Ice Storm.
Figure 6 below shows Chippewa County’s projected population by age group, reflecting that the baby boomer generation is dramatically becoming a larger proportion of the County’s population. Between 2010 and 2040, the number of residents ages 65 and over is projected to nearly double. This trend has serious future implications for services, housing, and the labor force.
Figure 6. Chippewa County Age Group Projections – 2010 to 2040
data source: Wisconsin Department of Administration
Community Profile—Chippewa County 15 SECTION II
Table 3. Chippewa County Population Projections – 2010 to 2040 Census Est. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. Proj. % Change Municipality 2010 2017 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2010-2040 Towns Anson 2,076 2,143 2,235 2,315 2,385 2,430 2,460 18.5 Arthur 759 751 800 820 830 835 835 10.0 Auburn 697 716 750 785 810 835 850 22.0 Birch Creek 517 388 535 540 545 540 535 3.5 Bloomer 1,050 1,112 1,120 1,155 1,185 1,205 1,215 15.7 Cleveland 864 906 880 890 890 880 870 0.7 Colburn 856 806 940 980 1,020 1,045 1,065 24.4 Cooks Valley 805 867 910 965 1,010 1,050 1,085 34.8 Delmar 936 1,168 965 970 975 965 955 2.0 Eagle Point 3,053 3,123 3,380 3,555 3,700 3,825 3,915 28.2 Edson 1,089 1,134 1,135 1,160 1,180 1,195 1,195 9.7 Estella 433 435 425 415 410 400 385 -11.1 Goetz 762 777 820 845 865 880 890 16.8 Hallie 161 149 185 195 200 210 215 33.5 Howard 798 783 855 890 920 940 955 19.7 Lafayette 5,765 5,880 6,235 6,470 6,670 6,810 6,900 19.7 Lake Holcombe 1,031 926 1,085 1,105 1,120 1,130 1,125 9.1 Ruby 494 452 500 505 510 505 500 1.2 Sampson 892 884 950 975 1,000 1,010 1,015 13.8 Sigel 1,044 1,109 1,120 1,170 1,215 1,250 1,270 21.6 Tilden 1,485 1,637 1,650 1,735 1,815 1,880 1,925 29.6 Wheaton 2,701 2,769 2,935 3,060 3,165 3,245 3,295 22.0 Woodmohr 932 955 990 1,015 1,030 1,040 1,045 12.1 Subtotal: 29,200 29,870 31,400 32,515 33,450 34,105 34,500 18.2 Villages Boyd 552 542 545 535 525 510 495 -10.3 Cadott 1,437 1,481 1,500 1,525 1,545 1,555 1,550 7.9 Lake Hallie 6,448 6,603 7,395 7,845 8,245 8,580 8,835 37.0 New Auburn* 528 505 520 520 515 505 490 -7.2 Subtotal: 8,965 9,131 9,960 10,425 10,830 11,150 11,370 26.8 Cities Bloomer 3,539 3,523 3,655 3,705 3,730 3,735 3,710 4.8 Chippewa Falls 13,661 13,939 13,940 14,070 14,110 14,050 13,880 1.6 Cornell 1,467 1,496 1,485 1,485 1,480 1,460 1,430 -2.5 Eau Claire* 1,981 1,783 2,025 2,045 2,055 2,045 2,020 2.0 Stanley* 3,602 3,613 3,690 3,730 3,745 3,730 3,690 2.4 Subtotal: 24,250 24,354 24,795 25,035 25,120 25,020 24,730 2.0 Chippewa County 62,415 63,355 66,155 67,975 69,400 70,275 70,600 13.1 source: U.S. Census Bureau & Wisconsin Department of Administration, Demographic Services Center, October 2008. Projections are pre-release version for research and analysis purposes. * The above table includes only those portions of cities and village located in Chippewa County. In 2018, an estimated 33 additional New Auburn residents lived in Barron County and 6 additional Stanley residents lived in Clark County. An additional 66,014 Eau Claire residents lie in Eau Claire County; the City of Eau Claire in its entirety is included as part of the Eau Claire County hazard mitigation plan.
16 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II ii. Housing As residential growth occurs in Chippewa County, so does the value of improvements which could potentially be vulnerable to hazard events. And the continued population growth in Chippewa County has created a corresponding demand for additional housing as shown in Table 4 below. During the 1980s, population growth in the County was relatively unchanged, while the number of housing units increased nearly 10 percent. Housing growth still outpaced population growth in the 1990s, though the difference narrowed (i.e., +8.5% vs +5.4%). These trends reflect, in part, decreasing household sizes, but also likely reflect the significant seasonal housing development during the past thirty years in some areas of the County.
Table 4. Chippewa County Housing Unit Change • 1980 to 2016 Number of Numerical Percent Year Housing Units Change Change 1980 19,203 1990 21,024 +1,821 +9.5% 2000 22,821 +1,797 +8.5% 2010 26,783 +3,962 +17.4% 2016 27,689 +906 +3.4% Source: 1980, 1990, 2000, & 2010 Census. 2016 American Community Survey
In 2016, approximately 5.5 percent (or 1,536 units) of the County’s total housing supply were seasonal units, which is an increase from 1,442 units in 2010. Seasonal units are used or intended for use only during certain seasons (e.g., beach cottages and hunting cabins) or for weekend or occasional use throughout the year. Seasonal units may also include quarters used for seasonal workers such as loggers. In 2016, over 67 percent of all seasonal units in Chippewa County were concentrated in four towns:
Town of Sampson 423 units (28% of all units in the town) Town of Lake Holcombe 260 units (17% of all units in the town) Town of Birch Creek 183 units (12% of all units in the town) Town of Eagle Point 172 units (11% of all units in the town)
Also of interest, 72.5 percent of all housing units in Chippewa County in 2016 were owner- occupied (not rented). A total of 1,067 housing units (4.3% of all units) in 2016 were mobile homes with over 73.5 percent located in unincorporated towns.
Community Profile—Chippewa County 17 SECTION II iii. Economic Overview The economy of a county is an important determining factor driving land use and development. Table 5 shows the employment trends between 2008 and 2018 by industry sector in Chippewa County. There are over 1,600 payrolled business locations in Chippewa County, resulting in 25,245 jobs.
From 2008 to 2018, jobs increased significantly by 12% in Chippewa County with the average Earnings Per Job around $49,136 as compared to the national average of $59,039. Industries with the greatest job increases include Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services, and Educational Services as shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Chippewa County Establishments & Employment by Industry Sector 2018 2008 - 2017 Payrolled 2008 2018 Industry Sector (2-digit NAICS) 2018 % Location Business Jobs Jobs Change Quotient Locations Manufacturing 125 5,258 5,266 0% 2.53 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 7 <10 221 Insf. Data 2.08 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 52 191 387 103% 1.63 Retail Trade 182 3,257 3,486 7% 1.32 Construction 170 1,249 1,573 26% 1.31 Transportation and Warehousing 105 894 1,082 21% 1.24 Other Services (except Public Administration) 122 930 979 5% 0.98 Health Care and Social Assistance 221 2,593 3,103 20% 0.95 Government 95 3,875 3,821 (1%) 0.94 Accommodation and Food Services 164 1,649 1,955 19% 0.86 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 26 214 296 38% 0.77 Wholesale Trade 71 595 632 6% 0.64 Utilities 1 <10 57 Insf. Data 0.62 Educational Services 9 149 308 107% 0.47 Information 11 356 214 (40%) 0.46 Finance and Insurance 67 484 455 (6%) 0.44 Administrative and Support and Waste 58 266 653 145% 0.43 Management and Remediation Services Management of Companies and Enterprises 9 146 160 10% 0.42 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 90 359 522 45% 0.34 Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 26 67 74 10% 0.20 Totals 1,610 22,533 25,245 12% Source: EMSI
The 2016 median household income in the County was $52,657 compared to the State median household income of $54,610. Over 46 percent of residents worked within the County, while 54 percent of residents work outside the County in 2015.
18 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II iv. Agricultural Overview Chippewa County farmers own and manage approximately 1,409 farms over 356,176 acres, with an average farm size of 270 acres. This includes cropland, rangeland, pasture, tree farms and farm forests. As stewards of the land, farmers use conservation practices, such as crop rotation, nutrient management, and integrated pest management, to protect environmental resources and provide habitat for wildlife. Chippewa County ranks high among all Wisconsin counties in many agricultural statistics including: #1 Acres of rye harvested #1 Number of bison farms #2 Number of turkeys #4 Number of bee colonies #5 Value of poultry and eggs #6 Acres for apple orchards
Chippewa County is home to diverse Figure 7. Top Commodities in the County agriculture with the dairy industry being the most prominent. The County is ranked among the top ten in the number dairy herds and milk cows in the state. It is in the top five percent in the nation in market value of dairy production, with a large cheese manufacturer located in the County. In addition to 60,551 cattle and calves, other livestock in the County includes 276,927 turkeys, 2,449 hogs, 2,384 goats, and 17,135 laying hens and broiler chickens. Source: USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture
Chippewa County ranks in the top five Wisconsin counties in forage and hay production. Corn and corn silage production is also prominent, which compliments the dairy and livestock industry. Other important commodities grown include cattle and calves, sheep and goats, maple syrup, Christmas trees, fruits and vegetables, poultry, and nursery and greenhouse products.
On-farm production and milk sales account for $92.0 million. Four plants process dairy products in Chippewa County. In 2017, Chippewa County ranked 20th in the State of Wisconsin for the total market value of agricultural products sold at over $215 million. This includes values of over $80 million in crops and over $134 million in livestock, poultry, and their products. Figure 7 shows the value of the top commodities in Chippewa County.
The top five crops based on land in acres harvested were: 1. Corn for grain 78,876 acres 2. Soybeans for beans 69,850 acres 3. Hay and haylage 51,889 acres
Community Profile—Chippewa County 19 SECTION II
4. Corn for silage 16,414 acres 5. Oats for grain 2,657 acres
According to UW-Extension’s Chippewa County Agriculture: Value & Economic Impact (2014), agriculture provided 3,387 jobs, or 10 percent, of the County’s workforce of around 33,000 workers. Production jobs include farm owners and managers and farm employees. Agricultural service jobs include veterinarians, crop and livestock consultants, feed, fuel and other crop input suppliers, farm machinery dealers, barn builders and agricultural lenders, to name a few. Processing jobs include those employed in food processing and other value-added industries that support food processors. Every job in agriculture generates an additional 0.56 jobs in the County.
Chippewa County agriculture generates $618 million in economic activity; 12 percent of the County’s total economic activity. Every dollar of sales from agricultural products generates an additional $0.37 of economic activity in other parts of the County’s economy.
• On-farm milk production accounts for 979 jobs, and dairy processing accounts for 672 jobs. • Processing milk into dairy products generates another $238.2 million beyond the $164.8 million in on-farm production and milk sales. • At the County level, each dairy cow generates $4,562 in on-farm sales to producers. • At the state level, each dairy cow generates over $34,000 in total sales. • The direct effect of agriculture equals $449.8 million and includes the sale of farm products and value-added products. • Purchases of agricultural and food processing inputs, services and equipment add another $124.1 million in economic activity. For example, this includes business-to-business purchases of fuel, seed, fertilizer, feed, and farm machinery, as well as veterinary services, crop and livestock consultants and equipment leasing. • This business-to-business activity then generates another $43.9 million in economic activity when people who work in agriculture-related businesses spend their earnings in the local economy. Further, agriculture accounts for $205.3 million, or 9.2 percent, of the County’s total income. This includes wages, salaries, benefits and profits of farmers and workers in agriculture-related businesses. Every dollar of agricultural income generates an additional $0.73 of County income. Economic activity associated with Chippewa County farms and agriculture related businesses also generate $7.8 million in local and state taxes. This figure does not include all property taxes paid to support local schools. If it did, the number would increase dramatically.
It is very unlikely that any single hazard would endanger all livestock or crops, though large proportions could be at-risk from a prolonged, severe drought or the introduction of a new a pest or disease. Large-scale impacts to crops or livestock from a hazard can also have devastating impacts on the local economy, related industries (e.g., food processing), and local service providers. The state of the agricultural economy is tenuous for the local farmer, and a hazard event
20 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
may result in farmers making fewer purchases or getting out of the business altogether. Our local, small town economies are already going through significant transitions with the decreases in the number of farms. Additional farm losses would further impact local businesses (e.g., implement dealers, feed stores, granaries, food processing, banks, and general goods). To compensate for additional farm losses, the costs for such services may also be increased, or the local businesses may close, further burdening the remaining farmers in the area. v. Property Values A disaster event can result in impacts to the natural environment, life and safety, the economy, structures, and personal property. This sub-section provides insight into the taxable improvements and personal property within Chippewa County.
According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, the Table 6. Chippewa County aggregated assessed value for Chippewa County was over 4.9 3 2017 Assessed billion. Table 6 at the right summarizes the 2017 Statement Total Values of Assessments for the County. This reflects the overall rural (not equalized) nature of Chippewa County with a relatively high proportion of the aggregate value in land and a much lower proportion in Land $ 1,259,781,400 personal property when compared to more urban areas. Improvements $ 3,578,438,500 Real Estate $ 4,838,219,900 Personal Prty $ 123,082,090 From 2010 to 2017, the County’s total assessed value of Aggregate $ 4,961,301,990 improvements grew by over $651 million representing a 13.1% increase. Table 7 on the following page further breaks down the 2017 assessed values by primary land use and municipality type.
Not included in values shown in Table 7 are tax-exempt properties. Chippewa County has approximately 68,533 acres of County and State, public resource lands, mostly forested, which are tax-exempt. Governmental facilities, non-profit institutions, and educational facilities constitute the largest portion of those existing improvements not included in Tables 6 and 7, though other facilities on tax-exempt lands owned by non-profit institutions (e.g., churches) are also not included.
3 Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Bureau of Equalization. 2017 Statement of Assessments, Unequalized assessed values are used to best represent the actual value of improvements. Not all assessed values were available for all categories.
Community Profile—Chippewa County 21 SECTION II
Table 7. Chippewa County Assessed Value by Land Use – 2017 Land # Improved Use # Parcels Improvements Total Value parcels All Cities Residential 8,280 $129,475,400 7,499 $690,405,500 $819,880,900 Commercial 1,183 $59,343,100 970 $303,701,000 $363,044,100 Manufacturing 126 $14,765,500 102 $135,263,000 $150,028,500 Agricultural 79 $175,400 0 $0 $175,400 Undeveloped 69 $330,900 0 $0 $330,900 Ag Forest 10 $131,600 0 $0 $131,600 Forest 31 $628,300 0 $0 $628,300 Other 4 $26,300 4 $376,300 $402,600 Totals 9,782 204,876,500 8,575 1,129,745,800 1,334,622,300 All Villages Residential 3,952 $76,251,400 3,293 $381,302,400 $457,553,800 Commercial 565 $56,578,300 386 $132,859,000 $189,437,300 Manufacturing 24 $1,713,700 16 $12,994,700 $14,708,400 Agricultural 232 $648,700 0 $0 $648,700 Undeveloped 129 $721,200 0 $0 $721,200 Ag Forest 38 $452,700 0 $0 $452,700 Forest 47 $1,867,700 0 $0 $1,867,700 Other 26 $274,500 26 $2,306,200 $2,580,700 Totals 5,013 138,508,200 3,721 529,462,300 667,970,500 All Towns Residential 14,268 $582,488,700 12,453 $1,644,078,400 $2,226,567,100 Commercial 630 $28,042,300 492 $91,926,500 $119,968,800 Manufacturing 54 $8,281,400 24 $8,961,200 $17,242,600 Agricultural 12,005 $47,166,500 0 $0 $47,166,500 Undeveloped 9,248 $37,587,700 0 $0 $37,587,700 Ag Forest 4,272 $55,670,200 0 $0 $55,670,200 Forest 4,008 $140,270,800 0 $0 $140,270,800 Other 1,769 $16,889,100 1,772 $174,264,300 $191,153,400 Totals 46,254 916,396,700 14,741 1,919,230,400 2,835,627,100 All Municipalities Residential 26,500 788,215,500 23,245 2,715,786,300 $3,504,001,800 Commercial 2,378 143,963,700 1,848 528,486,500 $672,450,200 Manufacturing 204 24,760,600 142 157,218,900 $181,979,500 Agricultural 12,316 47,990,600 0 0 $47,990,600 Undeveloped 9,446 38,639,800 0 0 $38,639,800 Ag Forest 4,320 56,254,500 0 0 $56,254,500 Forest 4,086 142,766,800 0 0 $142,766,800 Other 1,799 17,189,900 1,802 176,946,800 $194,136,700 Totals 61,049 1,259,781,400 27,037 3,578,438,500 4,838,219,900 source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2017 Statement of Assessments.
22 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II vi. Land Cover and General Development Pattern Chippewa County is located in the Eau Claire-Chippewa Falls Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). The Census Bureau defines a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as a county or counties with a central city of at least 50,000 people, a total population over 100,000 people, and significant social and economic ties which exist between the central city and any outlying counties that are included. The County’s location within this MSA, combined with its proximity to highway and rail arterials and the distribution of surface waters in the County, have all greatly influenced the County’s general development pattern.
Figure 8 on the following page shows the general land cover in Chippewa County based on 2016 satellite imagery. In 2010, the County had an overall population density of about 62 persons per square mile, much lower than the 105 persons per square mile for the State of Wisconsin. Projected growth for the County however indicates an increase in population density to upwards of around 70 persons per square mile by the year 2040. This growth and development inherently increase the vulnerabilities to hazard events and can impact natural drainage systems, resulting in increased stormwater runoff and flooding if not appropriately planned for.
Residential land use accounts for approximately 15 percent of assessed land in Chippewa County. About 31 percent of all residential-improved parcels, and 4.4 percent of all residential-improved assessed acreage in the County, is located within the Cities of Chippewa Falls, City of Eau Claire (part), and Village of Lake Hallie. Residential development in unincorporated areas is typically at low densities within the County, with some higher concentrations of residential development occurring at the edge of forested areas and along or near rivers and lakes.
Commercial land use accounts for close to 1.5 percent of assessed land in the County with manufacturing accounting for roughly 0.4 percent. Approximately 45 percent of all commercial parcels and just over 30 percent of commercial assessed acreage in the County is located within the Cities of Chippewa Falls and Eau Claire and Village of Lake Hallie. Similarly, over 45 percent of manufacturing parcels and over 41 percent of manufacturing assessed acreage is located in these same three municipalities.
The most prevalent land use in Chippewa County is agriculture, with over 49 percent of the assessed land in the County considered agriculture. As seen in Figure 8, the northeast quadrant of the County is predominantly forested; the 33,000-acre Chippewa County Forest accounts for much of these lands. Over 10 percent of the County is assessed as “undeveloped” and when including the acres of public natural resource lands, approximately 78 percent of the County is agricultural, forest, wetlands, surface waters, or is otherwise undeveloped.
Community Profile—Chippewa County 23 SECTION II
Figure 8. Chippewa County Land Cover
24 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II vii. Implications Chippewa County’s demographic, economic, and development trends have many implications for emergency services and hazard mitigation: 1. Increases in population, housing, and other new development increases the vulnerabilities to hazard risks. Growth and new development can also increase the risk of flooding by increasing stormwater runoff, disrupting natural drainage systems, and reducing flood storage. 2. The County’s increasing population and development also results in increasing demand for emergency services, which is a special challenge during current governmental budgetary conditions and when some response providers are struggling to attract/retain volunteers. 3. There is significant geographic variability in the County’s population and development trends. Emergency service’s needs, mitigation priorities, and local resources vary by community and area. Outside the urban area, the County is quite rural, though some rural towns are growing faster than the cities and villages. For rural areas, costs to provide services and emergency response times may be higher. In addition, communications and mitigating potential impacts are often more challenging (e.g., warning systems, public storm shelters). 4. Chippewa County’s population is aging. The 65+ age cohort is projected to nearly double between 2010 and 2040. Demands for senior services in the County will only increase, including for emergency response. The aging population poses unique challenges for emergency preparedness and response services, such as sheltering-in-place, evacuation strategies, and nurturing a new base of volunteer responders. Large numbers of seniors who reside in rural areas may need special attention during a hazard event (e.g., transportation for dialysis during a winter storm, access to medicine). 5. The County has growing populations of ethnic groups (e.g., Hispanic, Asian), largely residing in the Chippewa-Eau Claire urban area and Bloomer area, as well as sizable Amish and Mennonite populations. These populations may have differing expectations of emergency service levels, may not be aware of local emergency procedures or contacts, and may not have knowledge of local hazard risks or event history. For some, English is a second language. 6. Much of Chippewa County’s population has access to resources, tools, equipment, and friends or family to enable them to get through a disaster event, “weather the storm,” clean- up storm damage, and offer support to their neighbors and community. However, this can also pose challenges for volunteer management and clean-up safety following an event. 7. The substantial number of seasonal or recreational housing has implications for local and emergency services, as the demand for services increases sporadically in areas where this type of housing is located. Seasonal units are used or intended for use only during peak times throughout the year (e.g., lake cottages and hunting cabins) or for weekend or occasional use and are often located in areas that may not have full-time police, fire, or emergency medical services available to respond to hazard events. 8. Local officials report that most single-family residential homes have basements. In some areas, there have been significant amounts of new slab-on-grade residential construction and subdivisions during the past decade, especially for duplexes and multi-family units. The lack
Community Profile—Chippewa County 25 SECTION II
of basements may allow development in marginal areas with a higher groundwater table and poorer drainage. And without a basement, these housing units may not have access to a safe room or storm shelter. In contrast, there has been very little new mobile home development, though a significant number of mobile homes do exist in the County with the majority located in unincorporated towns. 9. Chippewa County has a diverse economy and the Chippewa-Eau Claire urban area is a critical service hub for the larger region. While Manufacturing continues to be the largest part of the County’s economy, significant numbers of employees are employed in the health care, retail trade, and governmental/education sectors. Establishments with large-span buildings, large concentrations of employees or customers, and hazardous materials may have higher risks or vulnerabilities to disaster threats. 10. Chippewa County’s many farming and agricultural operations have unique hazard risks and vulnerabilities that should be considered, prepared for, and mitigated, if possible. The large amount of public and private forest lands and shoreland development, with associated outdoor recreational uses and seasonal homes, also has unique risks and challenges. 11. A number of large events, fairs, and festivals in Chippewa County pose unique risks and vulnerabilities that require special preparedness planning. Most notably are the following, which include on-site camping: Chippewa Valley Music Festival Grounds north of Cadott host Country Fest and Rock Fest. Country Fest draws on average 25,000 people a day over its three-day event, while Rock Fest draws up to 35,000 people daily over its four-day event. During severe weather at Rock Fest 2019, it was reported that emergency protocols worked well, though having enough emergency response personnel to manage the situation can be a challenge. Northern Wisconsin State Fairgrounds in Chippewa Falls is host to not only the Northern Wisconsin State Fair, but various smaller events such as Oktoberfest and various shows. Total State Fair attendance in 2016 surpassed 90,000. The annual tubing event on the Chippewa River (FatFar) is advertised as the world’s largest one-day tubing event and has drawn upwards of 10,000 participants in some years. Emergency notification and response can be a special challenge given that this is a water- based event that spans many miles.
The above events attract visitors from throughout northern Wisconsin, many of which who are not be familiar with the area and lack local support systems (e.g., a place to shelter) should an emergency or severe weather strike.
26 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
D. CRITICAL FACILITIES & EMERGENCY SERVICES For this hazard mitigation planning effort, a critical facility is defined as either: (1) a facility in either the public or private sector that provides essential products or services to the general public, is otherwise necessary to preserve the welfare and quality of life in Chippewa County, or fulfills important public safety, emergency response and/or disaster recovery functions; or, (2) a high potential loss facility (e.g., nuclear plant, military installation, extreme hazardous materials plant) with possible substantial secondary impacts resulting from a hazards event. No high potential loss facilities were identified in Chippewa County.
The Chippewa County Emergency Management has been developing a G.I.S. geo-database of the critical facilities in the County. While substantial additions were made to this database during this planning effort, not all facilities are yet mapped. The primary critical facilities, most of which are mapped in Figure 9 on the following page, include: Mapped Potentially Facilities In Floodplain Government Buildings 12 many unmapped 0 4K through 12 Schools 24 0 Hospitals 4 0 Cell Towers 16 0 Police 16 0 Fire Station 23 0 EMS 16 0 EOC 2 0 Prisons & Correctional Facilities 3 0 Long-term Care Facilities (nursing & assisted living) 45 excludes adult family homes 1 Community drinking water wells 12 0 WWTP and Solid Waste 13 0 Mobile Home Parks 25 1 Airports 4 0 Warning/Storm Sirens 22 1 Un-Mapped Facilities Licensed Child Care (by WI Dept of Children & Families) 50 unknown Adult Family Homes 76 0 Power Plants 9 5 Substations 25 2 High Voltage Transmission Line (miles) 257 Natural Gas Pipeline (miles) 32
Community Profile—Chippewa County 27 SECTION II
Figure 9. Chippewa County Critical Facilities
28 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
Not surprisingly, higher concentrations of facilities are located in the cities and villages, especially in the Chippewa Falls and Lake Hallie area. Some facilities, such as transmission lines and substations, were not mapped here for security reasons. Facilities with large amounts of hazardous materials, transportation systems, electric providers, and dams can also be considered critical facilities, but are discussed in greater detail within other sections of this Plan.
As reflected in the table, not all facilities have been mapped. For instance, only 12 governmental buildings are mapped yet Chippewa County has 32 city, village, and town governments, plus any County, State, and Federal governmental buildings. Day care centers and adult family homes have also not been mapped. It is for such reasons that the community meetings and key informant interviews were very important as part of the Plan update process.
The risk and vulnerability assessment (Section III.C.) further analyzes these critical facilities to determine potential impacts by a hazard event. For example, the flood assessment in Section III.C. compares the locations of the mapped critical facilities with the 100-year floodplains and dam shadows, when available.
For reference, the boundaries for fire department and emergency medical services (EMS) response areas within Chippewa County are shown in Figures 10 & 11. Input from these emergency response agencies were sought out and included in this Plan update. These agencies will be actively involved in the implementation of many of the mitigation strategy recommendations in Section IV.
Community Profile—Chippewa County 29 SECTION II
Figure 10. Chippewa County Fire Department Response Areas
30 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
Figure 11. Chippewa County Emergency Services Response Areas
Community Profile—Chippewa County 31 SECTION II
E. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Providing an uninterrupted transportation network is critical to Chippewa County given that residents often travel significant distances for services, critical facilities, and employment. The highway system serving Chippewa County links residents and businesses to the employment centers and services Chippewa Falls, Eau Claire, and other area communities. In 2015, 53.9 percent of employed residents commuted to places of employment outside Chippewa County. Increasing commuter traffic is expected to continue to rise and significantly influence growth and development in the County.
The County’s size and road miles can be a challenge for road crews and emergency personnel during and after a hazard event (e.g., snow removal, downed trees, culvert washouts). Chippewa County maintains over 480 miles of county trunk highway (see Figure 12), reflecting the largely rural nature of much of the County. The 210 miles of highways with State jurisdiction reflect Chippewa County’s location as an important transportation crossroads in west central Wisconsin. The remaining 1,385+ miles of roads in the County are owned by the towns, cities, and villages. The County has a very high number of bridges (about 358), of which nearly 100 are owned by the County and 135 owned by the State of Wisconsin. Seven U.S. and State highways, or portions thereof, in Chippewa County are designated as long-truck routes, in addition to portions of County Highways S and Y.
Rail service in the County is operated by three companies—Union Pacific, Canadian National, and Progressive Rail, with the rail lines more or less paralleling USH 53 and STH 29. The Chippewa Valley Airport is located in the City of Eau Claire within Chippewa County and is an air carrier/cargo facility with commercial passenger flights. A Basic Utility-A airport for smaller aircraft and no commercial service is located east of Cornell. Recreational transportation systems in the County are increasing and include the Old Abe State Trail, which connects Lake Wissota State Park near Chippewa Falls and to Brunet Island State Park in Cornell. The only public transit service in the County is the Chippewa Falls Shared Ride Taxi system.
32 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II
Figure 12. Chippewa County Transportation System
Community Profile—Chippewa County 33 SECTION III
SECTION III. ASSESSMENT OF HAZARD CONDITIONS
In order to effectively evaluate potential hazard mitigation alternatives and develop feasible strategies to address the risks associated with the identified hazards, the County must: • identify and prioritize the natural hazards which are thought to pose the greatest risk to the residents of the County; • profile the extent and severity of past hazard events that have affected the County; and • assess the vulnerability of the community to the risk of future hazard events.
A. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Although Chippewa County could potentially be at risk from a number of different natural hazards, this Plan will attempt to narrow the scope of the hazards that will be addressed to those hazards that pose the most substantial risks. i. Federal Disaster Declarations for Chippewa County Since 1953, there have been six Presidential Declarations for a Major Disaster that included Chippewa County:
May 1969 – Spring flooding due to one of the greatest snow melts of the past century impacted large areas of Wisconsin. April 1973 – Severe storms and flooding over much of Wisconsin. July 1980 – Severe storms and flooding in four counties in west-central Wisconsin. July 1993 – Flooding and severe storms in Summer of 1993 resulted in a declaration for 47 counties. Statewide damages exceeded $740 million. June 2004 – A series of heavy rain events in May and June of 2004 resulted in widespread river, urban, and agricultural flood damage exceeding $268.4 million statewide. September 2016 – Ten Wisconsin counties were included in a declaration due to severe storms, flooding, and mudslides with over $11.3 million in reported public-sector damages, primarily to roads and bridges.
While the above catastrophic events were of sufficient severity to warrant major Federal assistance, there has also been a Presidential Emergency Declaration for drought in 1976 which included Chippewa County. During an emergency declaration, Federal assistance will supplement State and local efforts. Additional agricultural drought declarations are discussed in the drought assessment.
34 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Yet, relying on disaster declarations as a measure of risk can be misleading. To be declared a Federal major disaster, damages must exceed a certain per capita threshold for the county (e.g., dollars in damages per total county population). It is not uncommon that a flood or storm can have devastating impacts on a small area or community, but not meet the per capita threshold since it is based on the county’s total population. For this reason, the risk and vulnerability assessment later in this section must consider other data sources.
For natural hazard event history, the Risk and Vulnerability Assessment in Section III.C. relies heavily on National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) severe storm event data from the National Weather Service (NWS). The NCDC data describes past, reported weather events and the resulting deaths, injuries, and damages associated with these events. NCDC data was further supplemented by other available sources, such as electric cooperative outage data, special reports and studies, community input, and key informant interviews. ii. Chippewa County Multi-Hazard Prioritization At the October 2018 Steering Committee meeting for this Plan update, the general history of hazard threats in Chippewa County was discussed and the scope of the 2012 Mitigation Plan was reviewed. It was discussed that the Plan update would focus on natural hazards significant risk. Committee members were then asked to participate in a hazard risk assessment survey to help prioritize the hazard risks and vulnerabilities for Chippewa County. Identification of the hazards for inclusion in the survey was based on the hazards identified in the Resource Guide to All Hazards Mitigation Planning in Wisconsin prepared by WEM. This list was further amended based on the previous review of historical data for Chippewa County and the scope of the 2012 Plan.
For each hazard, each Committee member was asked to assign a risk RISK VS. VULNERABILITY rating of 0 to 5 to reflect their For purposes of this plan, the following definitions are used: opinion of which hazards pose the greatest risks and vulnerabilities. A RISK: Probability and frequency of occurrence in composite overall average risk the future. rating for each hazard was then VULNERABILITY: If the event occurs, what are the impacts? calculated by totaling the average risk rating from each respondent and dividing by the total number of respondents. The compiled results of the updated survey are shown in Table 8.
For reference, Table 8 also includes the overall relative threat score from the 2018 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) and indicates whether the hazard was included in the 2012 Plan and its section.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 35 SECTION III
Table 8. Chippewa County Hazard Risk & Vulnerabilities Survey Results (October 2019) in Vulner HVA Hazard Risk Avg relative 2012 section of 2012 Plan ability threat Plan? Natural Hazards Riverine or Overbank Flooding 3.3 3.2 3.2 35% x flooding Overland or Stormwater Flooding 3.1 3.2 3.2 59% x flooding Heavy Snowstorm and Blizzards 4.0 3.3 3.7 33-73% x winter storms & extreme cold Ice Storms and Sleet 3.7 3.5 3.6 26-50% x winter storms & extreme cold Winter Kill of Crops 2.4 2.7 2.5 -- x winter storms & extreme cold Extreme Cold 4.0 3.3 3.7 61% x winter storms & extreme cold Forest Fire or Wildfire 3.1 3.3 3.2 38% x wildfire Tornadoes 3.4 4.3 3.9 48% x tornadoes High Winds 3.1 3.7 3.4 -- x thunderstorms & high winds Thunderstorms, Lightning, Hail, etc. 3.9 2.8 3.3 35% x thunderstorms Extreme Heat 2.6 3.0 2.8 56% Drought 2.3 3.2 2.7 32% x drought Livestock Flu and Diseases 2.0 3.2 2.6 -- Landslides or Sinkholes 1.0 2.5 1.8 37% Earthquakes 0.3 2.2 1.2 24% Pandemics/Public Health Disease 2.4 4.2 3.3 40-70% no; briefly referenced Invasive Species & Diseases 1.7 2.5 2.1 -- Technological Hazards Haz Mat Incident - Fixed 2.4 3.3 2.9 55% x hazardous materials spills Haz Mat Incident - Transportation 2.9 3.8 3.3 55% x hazardous materials spills Groundwater Contamination 2.1 2.8 2.5 40% no; some in haz mat Animal Waste Management 1.4 2.0 1.7 -- Long-Term Power Outage 2.0 4.0 3.0 43% x long-term power outage Nuclear Power Plant Incident 0.3 2.5 1.4 21% Dam Failure Flooding 2.1 4.2 3.2 -- x flooding Passenger Air or Rail Incident 2.1 3.5 2.8 37% Human-Induced Hazards Targeted School Violence 2.4 4.3 3.4 -- Active Shooter (non-school) 2.4 4.5 3.5 73% Terrorism, Domestic (all) 2.3 4.5 3.4 -- Terrorism, International (all) 1.9 4.0 2.9 -- Cyber Attacks 2.6 4.3 3.5 74% Civil Unrest or Institutional Riot 1.3 3.3 2.3 27% Terrorism – Critical Infrastructure 1.3 3.7 2.5 --
0 – none; extremely low 3 – moderate; substantial 1 – low; minimal 4 – high; serious 2 – some; of concern 5 – very high; extreme
36 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
After a review of available data and consideration of the relationships between many of these hazards, the Committee determined that those hazards highlighted in yellow above would be the focus of the Plan update assessment, goals, and strategies.
Extreme heat was added to this Plan and was not part of the 2012 Plan’s scope. Four hazard types would be included more briefly, largely since there are typically not included as a natural hazard— Communicable Disease, Hazardous Materials Spills, Active Threats, and Cyberattack.
Of the selected natural hazards, only flooding, wildfire, and, perhaps, power outages have geographic areas or locations of higher risk, as will be discussed later in Section III.C. Most of the hazards could occur anywhere in Chippewa County and have no definable risk area, making an event difficult to predict. iii. Natural Hazards of No Significant Risk Although there are other hazards that could potentially impact the County, there are very few or no records of the following events occurring in Chippewa County in the NOAA database or the local impacts were very low when such events have occurred. To meet the comprehensive requirements for developing an all hazard mitigation plan, these other natural hazards are identified and described below. It is important to note that these hazard events may still pose some threat to the community, but they were considered by the Steering Committee as either: having a minimal chance of occurring, posing a minimal Figure 13. Landslide Hazards widespread risk to the safety of residents or in Wisconsin property, or only offering very limited mitigation options.
Landslides & Land Subsidence The term landslide includes a wide range of ground movement, such as rock falls, deep Chippewa failure of slopes, and shallow debris flows. County Although gravity acting on a steep slope is the primary reason for a landslide, there can be other contributing factors. Erosion by surface waters or excess weight from rain, snow or man- made structures may stress weak slopes to failure. Slope material that becomes saturated with water may develop a debris flow or mudflow.
The USGS Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States4 (excerpt for Wisconsin in Figure 13) identifies no large- source: U.S. Geologic Service. Landslide Overview Map of the scale landslide risks for the Chippewa County Conterminous United States.
4 U.S. Geological Survey. Landslide Overview Map of the Conterminous United States.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 37 SECTION III
County. Definitions of steep slopes can vary, though slopes of 12% or greater are generally considered to be steep.
According to the USGS topographic maps and U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service soil maps for Chippewa County, there are about 78,000 acres that potentially steep slopes, representing about 12 percent of the total Chippewa County land area. The majority of these steep slopes are located in the northern and western portions of the County. Additional localized and site-specific variations in topography and slope may exist. Past glacial activity has created some topography in Chippewa County that is scenic but may also be sensitive to development in some areas.
While steeper areas exist, the area’s soils pose more of a gradual erosion risk, rather than the sudden, large-scale movement of ground associated with landslide hazards. Stormwater runoff can result in serious riverbank erosion and washouts concerns for some locations, which will be discussed in the flooding assessment. Wildfire events in areas of steep slope or along waters can also create landslide risks.
Land subsidence is an event in which a portion of the land surface collapses or settles. Common locations of subsidence are in areas having karst topography or in areas in which large quantities of groundwater have been withdrawn. Chippewa County is not an area of significant karst topography which could contribute to land subsidence. There are no records of substantial damage or injury from large landslides or land subsidence within Chippewa County.
Earthquakes Figure 14. U.S. Geological Survey According to the U.S. Geological Earthquake Hazard-Shaking Map Survey, there have been 19 earthquake events in Wisconsin, with none noted for west-central Wisconsin. Where readings are available, these events were relatively small, most being 3.0-3.8 on the Richter Scale in size and the largest being an intensity of 5, which may be strong enough to crack some plaster, but not cause serious damage. Due to the lack of recent events, some geologists question whether many of these events were true earthquakes, but rather quarry collapses, blasts, etc.
The nearest active earthquake fault source: U.S. Geological Survey. Earthquake Hazard in the Heart of the Homeland.
38 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
USGS PGA values map for the United States with a 10 percent chance of being exceeded over 50 years; Chippewa County is a non-affected area.5
University of Wisconsin-River Falls students and geologists have studied an ancient major fault line which is located approximately 2 miles south of Hudson, WI, and extends north towards Willow River State Park and west towards Hastings, MN. Called the Hastings Fault, it has characteristics similar to the New Madrid Fault; but there has been no evidence of any motion on the Hastings Fault for the last 400 million years. While an earthquake along the Hastings Fault could be catastrophic, geologists estimate that no significant effects on this fault will likely occur within the next few millions of years. As such, the earthquake threat to Chippewa County is considered very low.
Fog Fog is low-level moisture that can reduce visibility. It can occur in isolated low-lying areas or be a widespread event that can cover several counties. In general, fog is often hazardous when the visibility is reduced to 1/4 mile or less. Thick fog reduces visibility, creating a hazard to motorists as well as to air traffic. Airports may close because of heavy fog. The intensity and duration of fog varies with the location and type of fog. Generally, strong winds tend to prevent fog formation. In Chippewa County, fog occurs infrequently and is typically a short-term weather event lasting only for portions of a day. The NCDC database has one Chippewa County record for a dense fog event, which occurred in November 2007 and included much of west central Wisconsin.
Coastal Hazards (Hurricanes, Tsunamis, Tidal waves, Waterspouts, etc.) Coastal hazards can cause increases in tidal elevations (storm surges), high winds, and erosion caused by tropical cyclones (such as hurricanes) or the sudden displacement of water (such as tsunamis from earthquakes). Chippewa County is located in the upper Midwest, approximately 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean, 1,200 miles from the Gulf of Mexico, and 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Chippewa County also has no large inland lakes within its boundaries. Such coastal hazards have no direct impact Chippewa County, and only occasionally indirectly impact the region in the form of thunderstorms which are discussed separately.
5 U.S. Geologic Service. Peak Acceleration (%g) with 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years. map.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 39 SECTION III
B. HAZARDS OF CONCERN ADDRESSED IN OTHER PLANS The hazards briefly described in this sub-section pose a risk for Chippewa County. The Steering Committee desired to bring attention to these hazards by their inclusion here, but decided to not include a full risk and vulnerability assessment within this Plan update for one or more of the following reasons: • Most are not typically included in a county-level mitigation plan. • Most are largely addressed through other intensive planning and preparedness efforts for which Chippewa County Emergency Management does not have a lead role. Instead of duplicating and repeating these planning activities within this Mitigation Plan, this sub- section recognizes that these risks exist and refers to other existing plans and programming to mitigate these risks. • The current risk for Chippewa County is relatively low.
This approach does not diminish the importance or the efforts to prepare for these other risks.
i. Communicable Disease and Public Health According to the Federal Center for Disease Control, a communicable disease is an illness caused by an infectious agent or its toxins that occurs through the direct or indirect transmission of the infectious agent or its products from an infected individual or via an animal, vector or the inanimate environment to a susceptible animal or human host. An epidemic occurs when a disease affects a greater number of people than is usual. A pandemic is a global disease epidemic.
Communicable Disease Risk and Vulnerability The 2019 Health Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) prepared by the Northwest Wisconsin Healthcare Emergency Readiness Coalition (NWW-HERC), of which Chippewa County Public Health is a member, rated a global/major infectious disease outbreak as a 40% overall risk with a moderate probability (2-3 events every 30 years), moderately high impacts, and substantial-to- moderate available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (1.5). The threat of a local or regional infectious disease outbreak was ranked fourth highest among all threats with a 70% overall risk with a significantly higher probability (4+ events/30 years), but more moderate impacts. The HVA also identified pharmaceutical supply shortage as a relatively high overall risk at 64%.
An influenza pandemic (or pandemic flu) occurs when a new influenza virus emerges for which there is little or no immunity in the human population, begins to cause serious illness, and then easily spreads person-to-person worldwide. The potential risk of transmission, vulnerabilities, and impacts can vary widely by type of virus and availability of vaccines. Viruses can also mutate and increase in deadliness and spread more easily.
40 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Historically, the 20th century saw three large pandemics of influenza impacting the United States: • 1918 influenza pandemic caused at least 675,000 U.S. deaths and up to 50 million deaths worldwide. • 1957 influenza pandemic caused at least 70,000 U.S. deaths and 1-2 million deaths worldwide. • 1968 influenza pandemic caused about 34,000 U.S. deaths and 700,000 deaths worldwide.
Beginning in 2009, there was significantly increased attention to pandemic flu at the state and regional level due to zoonotic diseases capable of being transmitted between animals and humans. Swine Flu (H1N1) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO) in June 2009 and resulted in about 17,000 deaths worldwide before the pandemic was declared over in August 2010. During the H1N1 outbreak from April 2009 through March 2010, an estimated 43-88 million H1N1 cases and 192,000-398,000 H1N1-related hospitalizations were estimated to have occurred in the United States according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC).6 The CDC further estimated that 8,720 to 18,050 H1N1-related deaths occurred during the same timeframe. H1N1 in the United States continues to spread and there is some concern about the long-term effectiveness of current vaccines. During the 2010-2011 influenza season, five cases of Novel Influenza A viruses were reported in the United States, including one in Wisconsin and two in Minnesota; all patients fully recovered from their illness.
More recently, a highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak (H5N2) struck the United States in April 2015. In adjacent Barron County, 650,000 turkeys were euthanized as a result. A milder, low pathogenic strain of H5N2 would occur in March 2017 requiring quarantine and monitoring of poultry operations in the region. Though the H5N1 virus usually does not infect people, rare cases of human infection have been reported. There is no human immunity and no commercial vaccine is available. A recent study showed that it is possible for avian flu viruses (and bacteria like Salmonella) to enter groundwater from a large source of poultry fecal waste, though the risk of virus transmission from groundwater to people is not known.7 To date, there has been no known human-to-human transmission of avian (or bird) flu.
As of August 2019, the United States was not experiencing an influenza pandemic according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control (see COVID-19 discussion at the end of this subsection). The CDC stated that it is impossible to predict when the next pandemic will occur or how bad a future
6 U.S. Center for Disease Control. CDC Estimates of 2009 H1N1 Influence Cases, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States, April 2009-March 13, 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/estimates/April_March_13.htm 7 Borchardt, Mark A. et. al. Avian Influenza Virus RNA in Groundwater Wells Supplying Poultry Farms Affected by the 2015 Influenza Outbreak. Environmental Science & Technology Letters. 2017, 4, p268-272.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 41 SECTION III pandemic will be, so advanced planning is needed.8 A great variety of mitigation and planning measures for pandemics has been undertaken over past two decades since the SARS epidemic in 2002-2003. The Avian Flu (H5N1, H5N2) and Swine Flu (H1N1) outbreaks have further increased awareness, cooperation, monitoring, and planning for large-scale disease or viral outbreak. Activities are being undertaken at all levels of government—from international to local.
The Center for Disease Control continues to monitor other communicable disease threats and issue related travel health notices. Mosquito-borne illnesses, such as Yellow Fever, Malaria, and the Zika virus have among the most common concerns over the past three years. Zika virus in particular has received increased attention due to the risk of severe birth defects and the potential to transmit the disease through sex. Mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus have been reported in a large portion of the world, including most of Mexico, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, and large parts of Africa and Southeast Asia. Cases of Zika spread by local mosquitoes have also been reported in Florida and Texas.
As of summer 2019, the Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo is experiencing an outbreak of Ebola Virus Disease (EVD), which is the second largest outbreak since the virus was discovered in 1976. As of July 31, 2019, the World Health Organization states that a total of 2,713 EVD cases were reported with a 67% fatality rate.9 EVD is a rare, but often fatal, zoonotic disease that can be spread through contact with an infected fruit bat or nonhuman primate, but can also spread from person to person through direct contact with bodily fluids. There have been no reported Ebola cases in the United States since 2014. Diagnosing EVD is difficult since symptoms require 8-10 days on average to manifest. Currently, there is no approved vaccine or treatment for EVD.
Immunizations (or vaccinations) for more common or preventable viruses and diseases, such as Whooping Cough (Pertussis), Polio, Diphtheria, Measles, and Mumps, have been in the news in recent years. Some members of the public choose to delay, skip, or reject vaccinations for themselves and/or their family. But avoiding vaccinations puts family members, friends, and the community at risk. From January-July 2019, over 1,150 individual cases of measles were confirmed in the United States, the greatest number since 1992 and since measles was declared eliminated in 2000. Most cases were among persons who were not vaccinated. Chippewa County Public Health has been also been seeing increased cases of Tuberculosis (TB), Hepatitis B & C, and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs); there is currently no vaccine for Hep C and many of the most common STDs.
According to the Wisconsin Environmental Public Health Data Tracker, 76.9% of two-year old residents in Chippewa County in 2017 were immunized, which was about the same in 2013.10 However, with infectious disease, it is important to also consider what is going on within in the larger region. For example, to the east in Clark County, the 2017 immunization rate drops to 43%, in part due to the large Plain Community. The CDC maintains a wealth of educational information at their website regarding vaccines and immunizations: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/index.html
8 https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/monitoring/current-situation.html 9 https://www.who.int/csr/don/02-august-2019-ebola-drc/en/ 10 https://dhsgis.wi.gov/DHS/EPHTracker/#/map
42 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Communicable Disease Prevention and Control Within Chippewa County, the County Public Health Department has been the primary coordinating entity on communicable disease and pandemic flu, working in conjunction with many partners (e.g., County Emergency Management, NWW-HERC, area health care providers, State agencies). The following are some key points and activities: • Chippewa County Public Health has developed a Public Health Emergency Plan (PHEP) specific to the County, which covers the standard 15 public health preparedness capabilities:
• The PHEP serves as a core resource among local health departments and is a focal point within the NWW-HERC, which can provide mutual aid if needed. The PHEP includes situational-specific components (e.g., Mass Clinic Plan, Pandemic Flu Plan) as well as general education, monitoring and response procedures under an “all hazards approach” not specific to pandemic flu or other specific threat. Review and update of these plans is a continuing process. The PHEP is periodically tested, in cooperation with partners, through drills and exercises. The PHEP includes an educational component with emphasis on prevention and control (e.g., recognizing symptoms, vaccinations, and personal preparedness). There is a high degree of necessary coordination between the County’s Emergency Operations Plan maintained by Emergency Management and the PHEP. County Public Health is currently going through public health accreditation, which is increasing familiarity with the PHEP; County Emergency Management is part of the local accreditation team. • The PHEP includes an At-Risk Populations component, including exploring strategies related to identifying and locating persons who are at greater risk during times of emergencies. At-risk populations include seniors and any person with a disability, especially when living alone without a caregiver. For emergency notification and response, increased attention is being given to persons with a hearing or vision disability. Low- income households have fewer resources and are generally less resilient to a disaster. As of 2016, 10% of Chippewa County households were below the poverty level and an additional 26% were earning more than the poverty level, but less than the basic cost of living for the County.11 Emergency contacts are obtained by County Public Health during
11 United Way. 20018 ALICE Report. https://unitedwaywi.site-ym.com/page/2018ALICE
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 43 SECTION III
client intake and Public Health will often check-on at risk clients during or following an emergency or disaster event, such as during extreme heat. • County and local agencies and health care facilities have a very strong partnership as reflected by periodic meetings to review and/or develop public health preparedness plans. These partners continue to share information, plans, resources, and policies. Many key staff and partners have ICS/NIMS training and are informed of emerging trends. County Public Health has also proactively contacted and offered support to home health care operators receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding in their efforts to meet Federal emergency preparedness requirements. • Recent tornados in the region have increased awareness of the post-disaster impacts on mental health for persons experiencing the event as well as emergency responders, volunteers, and other supporting agencies. County Public Health advocates for the inclusion of mental health support as part of disaster recovery plans. • Public panic could ensue should a public health emergency occur, such as a pandemic flu outbreak. Getting the word out quickly and providing accurate information from a trusted source is critical. Security and related enforcement could become a major issue at pharmaceutical distribution sites, area hospitals, and at other such locations. • In addition to monitoring and preparing for communicable diseases, Chippewa County Public Health continues to work cooperatively with County Emergency Management on general public emergency and disaster preparedness education and can be a vital partner during any such educational initiatives recommended in this Mitigation Plan update. County Public Health resources and additional educational materials are available at their webpage: https://www.co.chippewa.wi.us/government/public-health
Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) NOTE: The COVID-19 pandemic struck as this Mitigation Plan update was nearing completion. As of Spring 2020, the information and impacts regarding this pandemic—medical/health, economic, and societal—are rapidly changing and the number of cases is escalating daily. This brief section was added to recognize the seriousness of this threat and is not a complete assessment.
As of early 2020, the United States is facing one of its worst public health crises in modern history. On December 31, 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) learned of an unknown illness causing pneumonia in people in Wuhan, China. On January 11, 2020, the first death from this new disease, caused by a novel coronavirus, was reported in China. With global travel, the virus began to spread across borders, and the first U.S. case was confirmed on January 21. By January 30, the virus had spread globally to the extent that WHO declared it a public health emergency of international concern. On February 11, WHO named the disease caused by the virus Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19). Coronaviruses were also responsible for the 2012-15 outbreaks of Middle
44 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) and the 2003 epidemic of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS).
According to the CDC, COVID-19 is a respiratory illness that can spread from person to person. The virus is thought to spread mainly between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet) through respiratory droplets produced when an infected person coughs or sneezes. It also may be possible that a person can get COVID-19 by touching a surface or object that has the virus on it and then touching their own mouth, nose, or possibly their eyes, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads. Seniors and any persons with underlying, high-risk health conditions were at higher risk of severe illness, though no person is immune to the disease.
Persons with COVID-19 have had mild-to-severe symptoms of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Complications can be severe, including pneumonia in both lungs, multi-organ failure, and, in some cases, death. As of March, there is currently no approved vaccine to protect against COVID-19 and there are no specific antiviral treatments approved for use, though a variety of promising trials are underway. Thus, the disease has been best managed by preventative measures (e.g., good hygiene practices) and reducing transmission (e.g., social distancing).
The outbreak spread quickly. By early March 2020, there have been over 116,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and over 4,000 deaths in at least 114 counties across the globe. On March 11, 2020, WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, noting that this is the first pandemic caused by a coronavirus. As of March 24, WHO reported over 375,000 confirmed cases and over 16,300 deaths in 195 counties. The CDC reported that the U.S. had over 44,000 confirmed cases and 544 deaths, with at least six cases in all 50 states.
Approach to Managing the COVID-19 Pandemic COVID-19 is impacting the world at all geographic and societal levels. At the global scale, COVID-19 is monitored by WHO. This global organization works to analyze data, provide advice, coordinate with partners, help countries prepare, increase supplies, exchange information, and manage expert networks. Countries around the world take differing approaches to managing public health crises such as COVID-19, which can have significant effects on the local and global economy.
In the U.S., the Federal response has been multi-agency, with the White House Coronavirus Task Force charged with "coordinat[ing] and oversee[ing] the Administration's efforts to monitor, prevent, contain, and mitigate the spread" of COVID-19. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has been primarily responsible for Federal monitoring and public awareness, including providing guidance to citizens, organizations, businesses, and health care facilities on how to prepare for,
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 45 SECTION III limit, and manage community transmission of COVID-19. The Federal government has taken some policy action in response, such as increased screening at airports, closing international borders to travel, certain suspensions and waivers, and aggressive moves by the Federal Reserve. Congress has also taken a number of emergency funding actions to increase the ability to respond, increase health care capacity, and help mitigate the negative economic impacts to services, businesses, and individuals.
In Wisconsin, the Department of Health Services (DHS) provides resources for citizens, community officials, and community health care facilities working in concert with county public health offices. Key information provided by DHS includes status and level of concern at the state level, guidance for self-monitoring, preventative measures and fact sheets, and traveler guidance. Like many other states, Governor Evers issued increasingly more strict orders during March to reduce the spread, such as limiting group gatherings and the March 24th “Safer at Home” order that closed non-essential businesses.
Nearly every business and organization in Wisconsin has already been impacted. Social distancing has become part of society’s lexicon and everyday life. Many schools and events were cancelled. There have been shortages of certain goods and services, while the stock market plunged, unemployment exploded, and some economists are predicting a recession or depression.
The terrible situations in China and northern Italy, and later the United States, have increased awareness of the demands that this virus has placed on the health care system. Health care facilities and states across the Nation are reporting shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health care workers, such as masks. Health care facilities, states, and local governments, often with FEMA, Army National Guard, and private-sector assistance are preparing for a potential (or eventual) surge of cases so that an appropriate level of care can be provided. There were Ventilator Shortage Was Anticipated indications that parts of the United States could The shortage of ventilators was not run out of ventilators as cases peak. It is for such unforeseen. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic reasons that the social distancing policies have in October 2019, Chippewa County been so important as part of the effort to “flatten Emergency Management suggested that this the curve” and reduce the peak number of cases plan update highlight the shortage of available to a number than can be better managed by the medical ventilation equipment. During an health care system. influenza or similar pandemic, there were concerns that a lack of personal ventilators Locally, Chippewa County has been very active could be a factor in the number of fatalities. in engaging many area private-, public-, and non- profit sector partners to help manage COVID-19 mitigation, response, and recovery. In particular, Chippewa County Public Health administers a COVID-19 Partner Group with an email list of over 200 stakeholders/providers and these actions are organized through an Incident Command System (ICS) structure with over 20 different specified roles, teams, task forces, and functional units. As of summer 2020, it is not certain how long this pandemic will last, the long-term health impacts for many of those infected, and whether there will be future outbreaks. A firm timeline for an approved anti-viral treatment and an effective vaccine is also not available, though there is reason to be hopeful. Undoubtedly, there will be many lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic that will help us prepare for and mitigate future communicable disease outbreaks of this nature.
46 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III ii. Hazardous Materials Spills There are many definitions and descriptive names being used for the term “hazardous material,” each of which depends on the nature of the problem being addressed. Unfortunately, there is no one list or definition that covers everything. Any these lists are always growing; at any one time, the EPA has an average of 300 new chemicals under review that are being proposed for commerce. The United States agencies involved, as well as state and local governments, have different purposes for regulating hazardous materials that, under certain circumstances, pose a risk to the public or the environment.
For purposes of this brief section, the term “hazardous materials” is used broadly and encompasses all hazardous materials, hazardous chemicals, hazardous wastes, and toxic chemicals as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation, OSHA, and the EPA. Further, this section only focuses on point sources of hazardous contaminants due to an accidental or malicious spill or release; this brief section does not discuss non-point sources (e.g., nitrates, phosphorus, atrazine, bacteria), though related surface and ground water quality concerns do existing within the County.
Hazardous Materials Risks and Vulnerability Overall, the 2019 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rated transportation-related hazardous materials releases/explosions higher than fixed-site incidents. The HVA gave transportation-relation incidents a 40% risk over a ten-year period given their moderate probability (2), low vulnerability (1.3), and moderate available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (2.0 internal, 2.0 external). Fixed sites received a 20% overall risk rating with a low (1) probability of occurrence. The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
A hazardous materials spill or release can occur virtually anywhere in the County due to transportation accident, illegal dumping, improper chemical handling, leaking storage tank, or other accident. Hazardous materials are part of daily life around us. Such materials and chemicals are used by our businesses and industry, in our public facilities and utilities, by our local agricultural operations, and in our homes. A release or spill of such materials can present special risks to humans and the environment at the time of disaster as well as pose substantial difficulties and necessitate special precautions for post-disaster clean-up.
In a 2019 survey as part of this Plan update, County fire departments generally rated all HazMat incident types (i.e. fixed sites, highway, rail, agriculture) as being of equal concern, with fixed sites (e.g., ethanol explosion) rated higher by two departments. Two towns identified fixed sites and one commented on railroad risks. During city and village meetings, transportation-related spills were often a higher concern due to uncertainties of the chemicals involved. One fire department also noted manure pits and confined spaces as a higher concern.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 47 SECTION III
Nearly 58 percent of all spills in Wisconsin are petroleum-related; and 49 percent of all spills occur at industrial-related facilities, automotive-related facilities, or on the roadways.12 Spills at private properties account for nearly twelve percent of all spills. More than fourteen percent of spills each year in Wisconsin are contained and/or recovered before they impact the environment. Surface water spills account for more than fifteen percent, while spills to groundwater occur more than seven percent of the time. The vast majority of reported hazardous materials incidents in Wisconsin result from the loading, unloading, and transportation of hazardous materials. As the above HVA results reflect, Chippewa County’s hazard materials risk can be divided into two general categories—spills at fixed sites and transportation-related spills.
FIXED SITES: The impacts of most, smaller hazardous materials spills tend to be very localized, though they can still cause damage, injury, and/or contamination. Fixed site or locations with larger quantities of hazardous materials have the potential to cause greater harm to a community or the area’s environment should a release occur, so such sites are more strictly regulated.
Under the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), there are thousands of facilities in Wisconsin that plan and report the use/storage of certain potentially hazardous chemicals based on the type and quantity of the substances. As of March 2020, there were 32 active EHS Planning facilities and 65 other Tier Two Reporting facilities located within Chippewa County, which is an increase since the previous mitigation plan update. A Tier Two facility, by law (SARA Title III), is required to prepare or have available a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical present at the facility and must submit annual reports to Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM), Chippewa County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and the local fire department. EHS (Extremely Hazardous Substances) facilities store and/or use one of over 300 chemicals with extremely toxic properties, and must also maintain the MSDS and prepare annual reports. EHS Planning facilities have extremely hazardous substances in such quantity (thresholds vary by chemical type) that an emergency plan must be prepared by the owner/operator to WEM and the LEPC. Storage access security plans are maintained, practiced, and reviewed routinely. There are a number of exemptions from these reporting requirements, including retail gas stations, hazardous wastes regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, substances used in routine agricultural operations by the end-user, tobacco products, wood products, food products regulated by the Food & Drug Administration, and hospitals.
The majority of these facilities are located within incorporated areas, with the largest concentration within the City of Chippewa Falls. For security reasons, the names, addresses, and types of chemicals at each of these facilities are not included within this report, but are on file at the Chippewa County Emergency Management Office for reference as needed. During steering committee meetings and the key informant interview process, no unique natural hazard vulnerabilities were identified for any of the Tier Two or EHS facilities. A G.I.S. database with the locations of these facilities is maintained by Chippewa County Emergency Management and was used to compare to these locations to the official flood insurance rate maps. Three EHS facilities were identified as potentially being located within a 100-year floodplain or in a dam shadow, but no flood-related history or risks for these facilities were noted.
12 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “Hazardous Substance Spills in Wisconsin”. July 2014.
48 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Chippewa County has three active Superfund properties listed in the EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database, one of which is on the National Priority List (NPL): • National Presto Industries, Inc. (Eau Claire) – A variety of contaminants (metals, PAH, PCBs, Petroleum Hydrocarbon, VOCs) had entered the soil, groundwater, and surface water. This site was listed on the National Priority List in 1986. Physical clean-up has been completed. Current human exposures at the site and contaminated ground water migration are under control. • Better Brite III (Chippewa Falls) – This is a brownfields site at a former plating and polishing industry. Contaminants were stabilized at this site in 1987-1988, with EPA- funded/financed clean-up in 1997. • Schneider AE & Son (Chippewa Falls) – Removal of contaminants at this salvage yard occurred in 1993-1994.
A portion of a fourth Superfund site is also located within Chippewa County in the City of Eau Claire—the Eau Claire Municipal Well Fields. According to the CERCLIS database, there is a “direct relationship between the contaminants at the [Presto Industries Superfund] site and those found at the Eau Claire Municipal Well Field.”13 Groundwater contamination from volatile organic compounds (VOCs) has been identified at both locations. VOC’s are a group of commonly used chemicals found in fuels, degreasers, solvents, cosmetics, drugs, and dry-cleaning solution. Potential or actual human exposures are currently under control, but does demonstrate the potential risks of hazardous materials to water supplies. The City of Eau Claire municipal water supply is monitored closely and is in compliance with Clean Water Act standards.
The Bureau for Remediation & Redevelopment Tracking System (BRRTS) maintained by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources provides information on hazardous materials spills and the investigation and clean-up of contaminated sites. The BRRTS database has 931 records for Chippewa County from 1976 to present. Over 90% of these records fall into one of three categories: • 438 records are Spills, with two related to abandoned containers. Spills are smaller events, where a cleanup is generally completed within 60 to 90 days, then confirmed by laboratory analysis. • 330 are associated with Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST). Typically, the site has soil and/or groundwater contaminated with petroleum, which includes toxic and cancer-causing substances. However, given time, petroleum contamination naturally breaks down in the environment (biodegradation). The far majority of LUST reports are from prior to 2010. • 68 are Environmental Repair (ERP) reports that have contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Examples include industrial spills (or dumping) that need long-term investigation, buried containers of hazardous substances, and closed landfills that have caused contamination. The ERP activities include petroleum contamination from above-
13 Environmental Protection Agency, “Website: NPL Fact Sheets for Wisconsin: National Presto Industries, Inc.”, www.epa.gov/R5Super/npl/wisconsin/WID006196174.htm, March 4, 2004.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 49 SECTION III
ground (but not from underground) storage tanks. Unlike Spills, which are typically reported and cleaned up quickly, LUST and ERP sites many times are undiscovered or go unreported for long periods of time until after significant contamination occurs.
About 14% of the reports (129) did not require remediation action. Of the 920 records, 24 have an “open” status, indicating that the activity is still in need of cleanup or the cleanup is underway. From 1/1/2010 to 10/1/2019, there have been 130 new BRRTS reports for Chippewa County or about 15 reports per year, though the frequency of reports has decreased in recent years. Of the reports since 2010, 63% were Spills and 25% required no action.
TRASPORTATION-RELATED SPILLS: During this Plan update, transportation-related hazardous materials spills (e.g., highways, railroads) were frequently mentioned by communities as a greater concern than EPCRA-regulated fixed sites since it is not known what HazMat is being transported through the County at any given time, making it more difficult to plan for and respond to. Further, while there is a higher risk of transportation spills nearer Federal and State highways due to traffic volumes, such spills could potentially occur anywhere along roadways and railroad lines, as well as at airports.
In 2012, a Multi-County Commodity Flow Study was completed by Five Bugle Training & Consulting, LLC to attempt to provide insight into the types of hazardous materials moving through the region. This study included Chippewa, Dunn, Eau Claire, and St. Croix counties. As part of the study, 25 hours were spent observing HazMat placards at seven locations in Chippewa County, typically at key intersections of well-travelled highways. Based on placards, 45 instances of EPCRA Tier Two hazardous materials were identified as being transported during the study period. The study suggests that the “majority of hazardous materials being transported…is either not placarded or not listed in the Tier II report” being provided to County Emergency Management. A complete list of hazardous materials transported by rail was not available.
From 1971 to 2016, Wisconsin has had a total of 10,958 reported hazardous materials transportation incidents. This total is comprised of 10,498 highway incidents (95.8%), 266 rail incidents (2.4%), 188 air incidents (1.7%), 2 other incidents (>0.1%), and 0 water incidents (0.0%). The total cost for all reported incidents is approximately $57 million dollars. These incidents included 175 involving a crash or derailment, 68 causing or contributing to personal injury, 59 causing or contributing to an evacuation, 38 closing a major transportation arterial or facility, and seven causing or contributing to a fatality.
50 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Approximately half of the above reported costs ($26.6 million) were from the 1996 Weyauwega Train Derailment. In March 1996, a train consisting of two locomotive units, 68 loaded freight cars and 13 empty freight cars derailed at Weyauwega, Wisconsin. The train included sixteen cars with hazardous materials—seven cars of liquid petroleum gas, seven cars of
Source: National Transportation Safety Board Report, CHI 96 FR propane, and two cars of sodium hydroxide. 010, Derailment/Hazardous Material Release, Wisconsin Central, A fire engulfed many of the cars LTD, Weyauwega, Wisconsin, August 16, 1997. themselves as well as an adjacent feed mill. About 3,155 residents were immediately evacuated, with approximately 2,300 residents evacuated for sixteen days due to the fire and leaking chemicals. Two U.S. highways were also closed as well as several county highways. Additional issues arose when numerous residents illegally began to re-enter the evacuation area to retrieve pets left behind.
Sometimes, hazardous materials spills can be the result of natural hazard events. For instance, on June 7, 1980, a Chicago & Northwestern train derailed in Chippewa County due to a flash flood which washed out the tracks. Three cars of #6 fuel oil were torn open, and 86,000 gallons spilled. Containment dikes were built and most of the oil was recovered.
Larger transmission pipelines that carry larger quantities of energy resources (e.g., petroleum products, natural gas) were also identified as a hazardous materials spill concern by some communities. Smaller distribution pipelines can have similar threats, but typically at a smaller scale, such as a person accidently hitting a pipeline while digging. Natural disasters, like tornadoes and earthquakes, can place pipelines at risk for leaks and service disruptions. Pipeline providers are required to have emergency response plans for such disasters. More information on pipeline safety and preparedness can be found at www.pipelineawareness.org. County Emergency Management maintains records, contact information, and plans for the pipeline transmission lines in Chippewa County. Some communities expressed frustration with response times of a natural gas provider.
In short, hazardous substances and materials can have a wide variety of harmful impacts to people, property, and the environment, including wildlife, air, soil, groundwater, and surface water. These
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 51 SECTION III substances can be in solid, liquid, gaseous, or semi- solid form, which can often be difficult to detect or Public Officials Have An contain if a release does occur. Impacts may be ACTIVE ROLE in immediate, as in the case of fire, explosion, or Pipeline Safety and Security physical harm to bystanders (e.g., fire, inhalation, chemical burns, radioactivity). And some impacts • Be aware of pipeline facility locations can be longer-term, such as degraded water quality, in your area. illness among wildlife, corrosion, or increases in • Report suspicious individuals or health problems (e.g., cancer, birth defects). The activities immediately. magnitude of the vulnerability zone and potential for fire or explosion also varies by substance type • Be aware of signs of leakage (e.g., sight, smells, sounds) (e.g., gas vs. solid) and by environmental conditions (e.g., wind speeds, access to surface or • Watch for and report unauthorized groundwater, temperature). In extreme cases, digging along pipeline right-of-way. damage and contamination can be at such levels as • Address pipelines in your emergency to make a property or infrastructure (e.g., roads, response procedures; work with your water supplies) unusable or uninhabitable for pipeline company. lengthy periods. Evacuation of nearby residents • Know that pipeline company may be needed. Recovery and clean-up costs can employees and contractors carry also vary widely depending on the type of photo ID and will show it to you upon hazardous material, amount released, and request. conditions at the site (e.g., soil type, temperature). source: Pipeline Association for Public Awareness There are many available resources which discuss the potential impacts of the release of hazardous substances. One such source is the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s Toxic Substances Web Portal (www.cdc.gov/Features/ToxicSubstances) which provides information about toxic chemicals and related health effects.
Hazardous Materials Preparedness and Mitigation The municipalities of Chippewa County generally defer to County Emergency Management and the local fire department to address hazardous materials risks. Hazard materials spill response is addressed within a countywide Hazardous Materials Response Strategic Plan, which is an annex of the Chippewa County Emergency Operations Plan. Exercises are conducted regularly to drill plans and capabilities. All fire departments have had some training at the operations level for hazardous materials response. Many law enforcement and other first responders have completed recognition training should they arrive first on the scene.
When a chemical incident exceeds the capabilities, gear, or expertise of a local fire department, the Wisconsin Hazardous Materials Response System can be activated. As mentioned previously, the West Central Wisconsin Regional Response Team, based in the Chippewa Falls and the Eau Claire fire departments, is a Type I Team. The type of team (Type I through IV) varies by level
52 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III of capability. The Type I team is available to respond to the most serious of spills and releases requiring the highest level of skin and respiratory protective gear. This includes all chemical, biological, or radiological emergencies requiring vapor-tight Level A gear with self-contained breathing apparatus.
As discussed previously, those EPCRA facilities storing and using hazardous materials also have responsibilities to prevent such spills if possible, but to plan for and mitigate such releases should they occur. The Chippewa County Local Emergency Preparedness Committee (LEPC) WC WI Regional Response Team Practice Drill meets regularly to review EHS facility plans and explore other opportunities to prepare Chippewa County and its residents for a hazardous materials spill event. Generally, the LEPC feels that fixed sites, such as hospitals and industrial facilities, have been doing a good job with planning, exercises, and improved monitoring. However, there is room to improve prevention and preparedness for transportation-related spills.
iii. Active Threats
Over the past two decades, the Figure 15. National active shooter incidents, 2000-2018 number of active threat incidents has been increasing nationally (Figure 15), and there has been growing interest in Chippewa County among community businesses and organizations (e.g., churches, a campground) in related training, active shooter site assessment, security hardening, and response plans. For purpose of this Mitigation Plan, Source: U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations, 2018. an active threat incident occurs when an individual (or group) displays a weapon, having made threats, and shown intent to cause harm or act out violence. A weapon includes any firearm, knife, vehicle, or other instrument that can cause bodily harm, injury, or death. Such incidents can include: • Active shooters—one or more subjects who participate in a random or systematic shooting spree with the intent to continuously harm or kill others. • Bombs and/or bomb threats—any explosive device or bomb on or near a target, regardless of the method of delivery (e.g., pipe bomb, car bomb) or whether the threat is real or a hoax.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 53 SECTION III
• Hostage situations—one or more subjects hold people against their will in order to hold off authorities, often threatening to harm the victims if approached. The hostage-taker(s) may issue demands, often including the release of the hostages.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines active shooter as “a person or persons actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area.” In most cases, active shooters use a firearm, though they may be using other weapons as well (e.g., explosives, knife), and there is no pattern or method to their selection of victims. Three or more killings in a single incident is the federal definition of mass killing.
Active Threats Risks and Vulnerabilities The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) identified 212 active shooter incidents in the United States between 2000 and August 2016.14 Active shooter incidents identified by the FBI do not include gang or drug violence, or individuals who shoot family members in their own homes. The frequency of active shooter events has been increasing, with an average of 19 events per year from 2010 to August 2016.
The largest majority of these 212 events (43%) occurred at commerce locations, such as retail stores, malls, non-profit organizations, and manufacturing plants. While not technically meeting the Federal active shooter definition of occurring in a “confined space,” 25 of the incidents (12 percent) occurred in open spaces, such as on public roadways, in parking lots, or involving multiple locations. As discussed previously,
Active shooter casualties have increased over the past two decades, from just seven killed in 2000 to 85 in 2018. The October 2017 Las Vegas Strip massacre, which killed 58 individuals and left 546 injured, remains the largest mass shooting in modern U.S. history. This event contributed to 2017 being the largest year for mass shooting casualties at 138, with an additional 591 wounded. There have been at least 21 mass shootings with 124 people killed over the first nine months of 2019.15
Wisconsin is not immune to this threat. Between 1982 and February 2020, there have been five mass shootings (4+ people killed) in Wisconsin. And closer to home, in July 2019 a shooter killed three family members and injured two others at two residences in the Town of Lafayette and Village of Lake Hallie within Chippewa County.
Profiles of Communities with Mass Shootings – A study by Patrick Alder at the Martin Prosperity Institute16 analyzed Stanford University data of 307 mass shootings in 223 places
14 Federal Bureau of Investigation. Active Shooter Incidents in the United States from 2000-2016. https://www.fbi.gov/file- repository/activeshooter_incidents_2001-2016.pdf/view 15 https://abcnews.go.com/US/deadly-mass-shootings-month-2019/story?id=63449799 16 https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/03/where-do-mass-shootings-take-place/554555/
54 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III occurring between 1971 and 2016. Alder’s conclusions were that mass shootings were experienced by communities of all sizes, income levels, and racial diversities: • 33 percent happened in communities of 10,000 to 49,000 people (4.4% of all communities this size). • 27 percent took place in communities of less than 10,000 people (0.5% of all communities this size). • The mean household income for communities which had experienced mass shootings was $65,900, while the United Sates mean household income was $77,866. Seven percent of mass shootings took place in communities with average household incomes of $130,000 or more. • Approximately 24 percent of mass shootings happened in white-minority communities, while 76 percent of mass shootings were experienced in communities with majority white populations.
The Plan Steering Committee ranked active shooter as a relatively moderate- risk of occurring in Chippewa County, but the highest vulnerability in terms of potential impacts (e.g. injuries, death) should an event occur. Predicting the active shooter risk for Chippewa County (about 65,000 population) is difficult, if not impossible, given the national average rate of 19 events per year for the U.S. population of over 323 million. Based on the Wisconsin and national trends, we can say that rural areas and smaller communities, such as Chippewa County, are not immune to active shooter events, though the risk is higher in areas of higher population density.
Explosives Incident Trends – The 2016 Explosives Incident Report, prepared by the United States Bomb Data Center, examines the incident data reported in the Bomb Arson Tracking System and analyzes trends from 2012 to 2016.17 Explosive incidents refer to bombings, accidental explosions and undetermined explosions. The number of explosive incidents declined over the five-year period from 1,242 in 2012 to 699 in 2016. Resulting injuries and fatalities are also falling, from 115 fatalities in 2012 to just 9 in 2016. Most of the victims are injured or killed in accidental explosions rather than intension explosions.
Terrorism and Other Active Threats – Long-term trend data from a single governmental source on terrorism and other types of active threats is limited and it is likely that some thwarted attacks have not been publicly announced. According to one database18, of 201 incidents between 2008 - 2016, far-right extremists were behind 115 of the incidents (35% foiled) with nearly a third involving fatalities, while Islamist domestic terrorism resulted in 63 cases (76% foiled) with 13% involving fatalities. Left-wing ideologies, including ecoterrorism and animal rights, were relatively rare with 19 incidents. In recent years, we have also seen the growth of new threats, such as the use of a vehicle as a weapon (e.g., Berlin-December 2016, New York Times Square-
17 United Sates Bomb Data Center. (2017). 2016 Explosives Incident Report. 18 https://apps.revealnews.org/homegrown-terror/
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 55 SECTION III
May 2017, London Bridge-June 2017, Barcelona-August 2017, New York-October 2017). Such data demonstrates the importance of remaining objective and alert to potential warning signs.
Vulnerable Locations and Critical Facilities – While active shooter threats are difficult to predict, some locations are considered to be more vulnerable than others due to historical evidence and trends. Locations of increased vulnerability include places of commerce, educational facilities, governmental facilities, houses of worship, and health care facilities. However, again, active threats can occur at any workplace or community gathering place.
Active Threats Preparedness and Mitigation Due to the great variety in the type and sizes of these locations, there is no “one size fits all” solution to mitigating active threat risks. It is advisable to take an “all threats” approach rather than focusing on a single type or profile of active threat. Preparedness and mitigation activities generally fall into one of the following categories.
General Education and Awareness - It is important to recognize that Chippewa County and Wisconsin are not immune to active shooter or workplace violence events. Education is important to increase public awareness of warning signs as well as what to expect and what to do should an event occur. Without education and preparedness, initial reactions are often disbelief, denial, shock, or failure to act. It is also important for bystanders and victims to know how to act once law enforcement arrives on the scene.
Planning and Exercises – Given that the related risks, vulnerabilities, opportunities, and regulatory requirements can vary greatly by location, most preparedness planning occurs at the business, facility, gathering place, or school district level, including larger events and festivals. Active threat preparedness planning can encompass preparedness actions, situational awareness, de-escalation, incident mitigation, and post-event actions, including policy changes, mental health support, and counseling programs.
Various guides and materials are available to assist with above, including materials for the general public and pertinent to most place of employment, with additional preparedness and response guides for specific types of businesses and facilities (e.g., health care, schools, retail establishments). The Disaster Ready Chippewa Valley (DRCV) website has a collection of active shooter and workplace violence guides, pamphlets, and weblinks from sources such as FEMA, OSHA, and others at: www.disasterreadychippewavalley.org
Site Assessment, Security Hardening, and Communications - Many of the above referenced guides include ideas and recommendations for security hardening and other control measures. For example, OSHA’s Recommendations for Workplace Violence Prevention Programs for Late-Night Retail Establishments includes security checklists and workplace control checklists (environmental, engineering, and administrative practices); this guide is available at the above link. Site assessment should include ensuring a safe gathering place should an event occur.
56 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Partnerships and Continued Coordination - Key to all of the above are effective partnerships and repetition. The excellent working relationships between local law enforcement and school administrative staff serve as a model for their entire community. Tactical training can be extended to other emergency responders, such as fire and EMS, and include any specialized roles (e.g., PIO, 9-1- 1 communication, crowd control). It is important to nurture such relationships should be created before disaster strikes. Equally critical to response (and preventing panic) is repetition in training, exercises, and drills to ensure everyone knows their roles and how to respond.
Some Key Active Threat Preparedness Activities in Chippewa County • While there is not a formal, countywide active threats preparedness/training program at this time, some members of County and local law enforcement have received active shooter instruction, such as ALICE (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate). ALICE is an approach on how individuals and organizations can more proactively handle the threat of an aggressive intruder or active shooter event. Some local law enforcement have worked with schools, businesses, or other gathering places on related training and exercises. • The public schools have plans, while the approach (e.g., ALICE, Run-Hide-Fight, CESA template) varies by school or district. Most have numbered doors or have taken other security assessment and hardening measures. Additional planning and exercises with all responders would enhance plans, including a tactical EMS component, if desired by the school district. • Some businesses and other gathering places have also participated in active threats training and/or developed their own related plans and policies. Disaster Ready Chippewa Valley (a local 501(c)3), in cooperation with partners such as Chippewa Valley Technical College and the Eau Claire Police Department, have conducted a number of active threat and workplace violence workshops that have been well attended by businesses and other organizations throughout the region.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 57 SECTION III iv. Cyber-Attack For purposes of this report, cyberattack is defined as a malicious computer-to-computer attack through cyberspace that undermines the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of a computer (or network), data on that computer, or processes and systems controlled by that computer.
Cyberattack Risk The December 2008 report by the Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency states: “America’s failure to protect cyberspace is one of the most urgent national security problems facing the new administration.”19 In a 2017 survey of U.S. executives, cyberattacks was ranked as #2, misuse of technologies #3, and data fraud/theft #5 among the top global risks for doing business in the United States within the next ten years.20 For perspective, terrorism ranked #1, natural catastrophes #6, and extreme weather events #10.
The 2018 Government Outlook issued by the non-profit Center for Internet Security, Inc. and its Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center21 included the following regarding cyberattack threats for the near future: • Financial gain will remain the most prevalent cybercrime motivation and the majority of cyber incidents affecting local governments will continue to be opportunistic in nature. One area of growth will be in profit maximization per attack, rather than increasing the number of attacks. • Risks are expanding beyond traditional computer networks to include apps, Internet of Things, social media, public engagement tools, smart cities, cloud computing, mobile devices, point of sales systems, etc. • Third parties are playing an increasing role in local government cybersecurity and cybersecurity workforce demand is outstripping supply. Use of third-party storage and outsourcing has the potential to increase data breaches. • There is growing need for cybersecurity staff to communicate to executives in business (non-technical) terms and having good, soft people skills. Mitigation efforts are moving beyond basic cybersecurity hygiene to more detailed efforts and protocols. • Cyber threat actors are highly likely to continue using malspam, malvertising, and, while rare, remote desktop protocol attacks as initiation vectors, though tactics can shift.
19CSIS Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency, December 2008. 20 World Economic Forum. http://reports.weforum.org/global-risks-2018/global-risks-of-highest-concern-for-doing-business-2018/#country/USA 21 https://www.cisecurity.org/white-papers/2018-sltt-government-outlook/
58 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
• Cybercrime is increasing in sophistication and includes well-crafted social targeting and engineering (e.g., more accurate phishing emails and scams). • Extortion and ransomware attacks will continue to increase. • Industrial control systems are a wildcard. Known vulnerabilities exist in some systems, though such systems have not been a major target. • Health care is a popular target, including for ransomware and extortion attempts. • The 2018 mid-term elections refocused attention on security of election systems.
Despite the perceived risk, it is important to keep these numbers in perspective. One commonly referenced survey (Ontrack Data International, 2002) estimates that 44 percent of data loss is from hardware malfunction and another 32 percent from human error. Only seven percent was reported to be from computer viruses.
The State of Wisconsin Homeland Security Council Threat and Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment (THIRA & SPR), completed by Wisconsin Emergency Management in 2016, includes a cyber incident section that states “the cyber incident hazard is rapidly evolving and any attempt to describe recent historical occurrences will be limited.” Due to the growing frequency, diversity, and sophistication of such attacks, this Plan does not attempt to predict future probability.
No data source was identified during this Plan update that provides a history of attacks, impacts, and losses within Chippewa County or the region. However, within west-central Wisconsin, several communities have experienced cyberattacks. For instance, Eau Claire County has been targeted twice. During the second attack in January 2010, overseas hackers acquired credentials through a computer virus which allowed the hackers to attempt to transfer nearly $800,000 from the County’s accounts. The County’s financial institution helped thwart the robbery attempts in both cases, demonstrating the importance of security partnerships with those providing such services to municipalities. Eau Claire County has taken additional security steps to further help prevent such crimes.
Chippewa County’s cities and village reported that they have not experienced a significant cyberattack or data breach. Many local governments have experienced non-targeted attacks, such as malware and viruses, that were acquired through web-surfing and email “phishing”; employee education is key to preventing such attacks. One community stated that a local business had experienced a ransomware attack.
Cyberattack Vulnerability All computers, networks, and many other computerized devices share general vulnerabilities to viruses, trojans, malware, denial of service attacks, and data loss. But the primary vulnerabilities of public concern to cyberattack may also vary by those being attacked as summarized in Table 9.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 59 SECTION III
Table 9. Cyberattack Vulnerabilities by Victim Type of Victim Primary Vulnerabilities of Public Concern Government Access to confidential data to possibly steal, alter, or delete information. Website hacking and other disruption of public services or voting systems. As experienced within the region, hackers may attempt to obtain access to local government bank accounts, financial information, etc.
Healthcare Facilities Access to confidential patient records protected by HIPPA as well as billing and and Services insurance information. These facilities have been the target of ransomware attacks. Hacker attacks of critical systems (e.g., power), software, and medical equipment also a vulnerability. Power Grid and Short- or long-term power outage. Damage to equipment. Lack of redundancy Utilities in systems and shared systems can increase risks and vulnerabilities.
Transportation Disturbance of traffic signals resulting in confusion, traffic congestion and/or accidents. Financial Institutions Access to personal information (bank accounts) resulting in theft and/or identity theft. As more banking is performed online, financial institutions have been very proactive on cyber-security issues. Schools Districts Access to confidential data to possibly steal information or alter/delete it. Disruption of educational services. For public schools, cyber-security issues are frequently addressed in cooperation with CESA. Given that students are increasingly using computers and mobile devices in the classrooms, the risk of viruses, malware, etc., is high.
The growing sophistication of cyberattacks could cause serious problems, such as: • Failure of critical infrastructures. The CIA reports that malicious activities against information technology systems have caused the disruption of electric power capabilities in many regions overseas. For example, in December 2015, three Ukrainian power companies experienced power outages impacting approximately 225,000 customers for one to six hours due to remote cyber intrusions. This was the first known, successful cyberattack on a power grid. A year later, a similar attack resulted in a power cut for part of Kiev. In today’s world, broadband technology is a path of attack to utilities and communications. Given that infrastructure often shares systems and grids across large areas, the vulnerability from a single attack is increased. • Exploiting global financial services. In November 2008, payment processors at an international bank were compromised, permitting fraudulent transactions at more than 130 automated teller machines in 49 cities within a 30-minute period.22 In another case, a U.S. retailer in 2007 experienced data breaches and loss of personally identifiable information that compromised 45 million credit and debit cards.23
22 www.bankinfosecurity.com/article.php?art_id=1197, February 5, 2009. 23 www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/retailer-tjx/reports-massive-data-breach-952, January 17, 2007.
60 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
• Systemic loss of U.S. economic value. According to the Internet Crime Complaint Center, U.S. losses have climbed from $265 million in 2008 to over $2.7 billion in 2018, with the top three crime types in 2018 reported by victims being non-payment/non-delivery, extortion, and personal data breach.24 There was also a concentration of victims and financial losses, however, among individuals over the age of 50.
Cyberattack Preparedness and Mitigation Key Federal Resources • DHS National Cyber Security Division, Control Systems Security Program (CSSP) – works to reduce industrial control system risks within and across all critical infrastructure and key resource sectors by coordinating efforts among federal, state, local, and tribal governments as well as industrial control systems owners, operators, and vendors.25 • DHS United States Cyber Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) – strives to improve the nation’s cybersecurity, coordinates information sharing, and manages cyberattack risks.26 US-CERT partners with private and public sector critical infrastructure owners and operators to enhance cybersecurity. US-CERT offers a variety of cyber-security assessment tools; businesses that provide critical infrastructure may be eligible for additional audit and planning support. Visit: www.us-cert.gov/ccubedvp/assessments.
• FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center & Recovery Asset Team. Victims of cyberattack are encouraged to report the attack to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) at https://www.ic3.gov. Cases may be referred to the FBI’s Recovery Asset Team, which was created in February 2018. The Recovery Asset Team has had success in recovering funds lost in business email compromise scams, such as perpetrators infiltrating businesses’ email accounts and requesting fraudulent wire transfers or gift card purchases. Key State Resources • Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs – Wisconsin is a home rule state and this agency is available to support local governments during cyber-incident response. • Wisconsin Department of Justice, Wisconsin Statewide Information Center (WSIC) – WSIC is the state’s primary fusion center, which shares information and intelligence among numerous partners and stakeholders. • State of Wisconsin Department of Administration, Division of Enterprise Technology, Office of Security – provides information to Wisconsin residents, educators, and businesses on cyber risks and ways to stay protected online and monitors the state cyber- domain on a 24-hour basis. This office has also established regional-level cyber-response
24 https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/ic3-releases-2018-internet-crime-report-042219, April 22, 2019 25 http://www.us-cert.gov/control_systems/ 26 http://www.us-cert.gov/about-us/
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 61 SECTION III
teams should a local government or business require technical support due to a significant data breach.
Other Preparedness and Mitigation Actions How an entity responds to a cyberattack can limit or increase its liabilities. Basic measures, such as keeping computer operating systems and virus/firewall software update, can go far to avoiding many threats. However, even with the best email filters, some spam and cyber threats will still get through. Employees are an integral part of a cybersecurity system and are often the last line of defense. Train employees to recognize suspicious emails, web sites, billings, and other identity theft threats. Red flags include differences in shipping, billing, and return addresses; similar (but slightly different) business names and web links; and many large orders from a new customer. If uncertain, follow-up with phone calls, web searches, etc. should be performed.
It can be valuable to have a cyber-security and response plan with a technical team and a separate executive team, with clear roles and responsibilities for each. Regular exercising of the plan will minimize stress and allow increasing focus on decisions, rather than the process and procedures. Such exercises can include a cyberattack vulnerability assessment, including evaluating employee awareness through fake phishing. An organization’s cyber-security and/or continuity plans should also include how data will be backed-up off-site or in the cloud, how this data is to be recovered following an event, and whether the recovery location meet the organization’s technology needs. Some industries, such as health care and utility providers, have their unique risks, data-security rules, and cyber-security and response support networks.
In short, the risk and sophistication of cyberattack continues to grow and the level of protection and preparedness among the communities and businesses in Chippewa County varies significantly. All cities and villages now back-up their digital data off-site or “in the cloud.” Cybersecurity actions, such as off-site or cloud data back-up, also mitigate risks associated with fires, tornado, flooding, equipment failure, accidental data deletion, etc. The following websites offer a starting point for exploring this topic further: www.dhs.gov/topic/cybersecurity www.dhs.gov/stopthinkconnect-toolkit blogs.sans.org/securingthehuman/files/2012/12/STH-SecurityAwarenessRoadmap-Email.jpg www.nist.gov/cyberframework
62 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
C. RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT This section assesses the natural hazards identified previously as having the highest overall disaster threat to Chippewa County. For the purposes of this Plan, some hazards have been grouped into related hazard threats to better organize and describe the extent of the potential risk and vulnerability.
The assessment for most hazards includes the following sub-sections: • Northwest Wisconsin Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (HVA) summary of probability, vulnerabilities, and capabilities rankings completed in 2019. • Risk Assessment defines the hazard, identifies past events, and discusses the probability of reoccurrence. • Vulnerability Assessment analyzes the potential impacts to people, property, and critical facilities. The vulnerability assessment for critical facilities is expanded upon in Appendix E. • Unique Jurisdictional Risks and Vulnerabilities discusses the related hazard risks and vulnerabilities for participating cities and villages which are further expanded upon by the table and maps in Appendix F.
As noted previously, most natural hazard events facing County residents do not have defined hazard areas and often affect large areas, or are even multiple counties, such as a drought or an ice storm.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 63 SECTION III
i. Tornados
Tornados are often linked with severe thunderstorm events. It is sometimes difficult to determine the difference between the impacts of a tornado versus very high winds. As such, the discussion in this sub- section includes significant overlap with high winds within the thunderstorm assessment.
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2019 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rates tornados as a 48 percent risk over a ten-year period given their moderate probability (3), moderate vulnerability (1.7), and substantial available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat internally (1.3) and externally (1.5). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
Risk Assessment—Tornados The Hazard A tornado is a relatively short-lived local occurrence composed of an intense rotating column of air, extending from a thunderstorm cloud system. It is nearly always visible as a funnel, although its lower end does not necessarily touch the ground. Windspeed in a tornado, although never accurately measured, are between 100 and 200 miles per hour; however, some tornados may have winds exceeding 300 miles per hour.
For reference, the following are the National Weather Service definitions of a tornado and funnel cloud: Tornado - A violently rotating column of air that is touching the ground. Funnel Cloud - A rapidly rotating column of air that does not touch the ground.
A tornado path averages four miles but may reach up to 100 miles in length. Widths average 300 to 400 yards, but tornados have cut swaths a mile or more in width. Severe tornados, or groups of two or three funnels, can also travel together. On the average, tornados move between 25 and 45 miles per hour, but speeds over land of up to 70 mph have been reported. Tornados rarely last more than a couple of minutes over a single spot or more than 15 to 20 minutes in a ten-mile area, but their short periods of existence do not limit their potential devastation. Similar in potential impact, high-wind events, straight-line winds, derechos, and downbursts are defined within the Thunderstorms and High Winds section.
Shown in Table 10 is the Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale, the accepted tornado magnitude measurement rating which is based on damage estimates for a three second wind gust. The EF
64 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
scale replaced the original Fujita scale in 2006 and takes into account 28 different damage indicators for a more accurate indication of tornado strength. The EF scale has higher wind speed thresholds; thus, a larger percentage of tornados will fall within the EF0 category than would have been rated F0 on the Fujita scale. A lower percentage will fall in each of the higher categories. Tornados recorded on or before January 31, 2007 will not be re-categorized.
Table 10. Tornado Magnitude Measurement (Enhanced Fujita (EF) Scale) Operational Wind Speed Relative Frequency EF-Scale (miles per hour) Character of Damage (percent) EF0 (GALE) 65-85 Minor or No Damage 53.5 EF1 (WEAK) 86-110 Moderate Damage 31.6 EF2 (STRONG) 111-135 Considerable Damage 10.7 EF3 (SEVERE) 136-165 Severe Damage 3.4 EF4 (DEVASTATING) 166-200 Devastating damage 0.7 EF5 (INCREDIBLE) Over 200 Extreme damage <0.1 source: National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
The following types of damage could be expected for each EF-Scale tornado: EF0 Some damage to chimneys; breaks branches off trees; pushes over shallow-rooted trees. EF1 Peels surface off roofs; mobile homes badly damaged or overturned; moving autos pushed off roads; attached garages may be destroyed. EF2 Roofs torn off well-constructed homes; mobile homes demolished; large trees snapped or uprooted; light-object missiles generated; cars lifted off ground. EF3 Entire stories of well-constructed homes destroyed; trains overturned; trees debarked. EF4 Well-constructed houses leveled; cars thrown and large missiles generated. EF5 Strong frame houses lifted off foundations and carried considerable distances; automobile- sized missiles fly through the air in excess of 100 meters; trees debarked; steel reinforced concrete structures badly damaged.
The destructive power of the tornado results primarily from its high wind velocities and sudden changes in pressure. Wind and pressure differentials probably account for 90 percent of tornado- caused damage. Tornados are generally associated with severe storm systems which are often accompanied by hail, torrential rain, flooding, and intense lightning.
Regional Trends On the basis of 40 years of tornado history and more than 100 years of hurricane history, the United States has been divided into four zones that geographically reflect the number and strength of extreme windstorms. Zone IV has experienced the most and the strongest tornado activity with wind speeds of up to 250 mph, and includes all of Chippewa County (see Figure 16).
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 65 SECTION III
Wisconsin lies along the northern edge of Figure 16. Design Wind Speed Map the nation's maximum frequency belt for of Wisconsin tornados (known as "tornado alley") which extends northeastward from Oklahoma into Iowa and then across to Michigan and Ohio. Generally, the frequency and severity of tornado events decreases as one travels north.
Tornados have occurred in Wisconsin in every month except February, as shown in Figure 17 below. Wisconsin’s tornado season runs from the beginning of April through September. The most severe tornados typically occur during April, May, and June.
Many tornados strike in late afternoon or early evening. However, tornados have occurred during other times of the day. Adapted from ”Design Wind Speed” map from FEMA’s “Taking Personal property damage, deaths, and Shelter from the Storms: Building a Saferoom in Your House” injuries have and will continue to occur in Wisconsin.
Figure 17. Wisconsin Tornado Events by Month • 1844 to 2015
source: WEM THIRA based on NWS, Milwaukee/Sullivan, 2016
66 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
From 1980 to 2015, Wisconsin experienced 44 significant tornado events, including twelve EF-3, three EF-4, and one EF-5 tornado. Figure 18 below shows that Chippewa County has had a moderately high number of reported tornados between 1844 and 2015.
Figure 18. Wisconsin Tornado Events • 1844 to 2018
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 67 SECTION III
The potential destructiveness of tornados continues to remain fresh in the minds of west-central Wisconsin residents due to three substantial tornado events in recent memory: • On June 18, 2001, an F3 tornado with a 27-mile path hit the Village of Siren approximately 70 miles to the northwest, resulting in three deaths, 16 injuries, 167 destroyed homes, and 280 damaged homes. • On September 2, 2002, about fifteen miles to the north, an F3 tornado hit the City of Ladysmith, injuring 37 and resulting in over $20 million in damage. • More recently, on May 16, 2017, an EF3 tornado caused over $10.1 million in damages along an 83-mile track from southeastern Polk County then northeast into Price County. 160 homes were affected, including 40 destroyed. Six businesses were also impacted, including six turkey burns with a loss of about 25,000 birds. Just north of Chippewa County, the tornado struck a mobile home park near Chetek resulting in one fatality and at least 25 injuries. Tornado warnings were issued with adequate time for most persons to seek shelter, though the mobile home park lacked a safe room. The devastation, limited access, number of responders, and darkness all contributed to significant challenges at the mobile home park for providing services to survivors, coordinating response efforts, and centralizing command. This event also Did you know? demonstrated the importance of good volunteer and donation management and tracking. The ninth deadliest tornado in U.S. history occurred in New Farther back in time, the 1899 New Richmond tornado Richmond in June 1899 with to the west remains one of the top-10 deadliest in United 117 confirmed deaths and States history. over 200 injured.
Local Events From January 1993 through 2019, there have been five tornado and four funnel cloud event reports for Chippewa County. This translates to one tornado event report every 5.2 years and one funnel cloud report every 6.5 years. However, one storm system can spawn multiple tornados or there can be multiple reports for a single tornado. For example, four tornado events in Table 11 are associated with the same July 15, 1980 storm. The numbers of tornado reports in the past two decades are significantly down compared to the 1970s and 1980s, which had a combined total of seventeen events, or one report every 1.2 years.
Shown in Table 11 are the tornado and funnel cloud events reported for Chippewa County to the National Climatic Data Center since 1950. Additional events have likely gone unreported if not confirmed or the impacts were not significant, in particular for funnel cloud events for which data was not kept until 1993. Given the uncertainty of older, historic data, this risk analysis focuses primarily on those events occurring in recent years.
The tornado events reported in Table 11 have resulted in five deaths, 93 injuries. Of those, three of the deaths and fifty of the injuries where the result of the June 4, 1958, Jim Falls tornado which resulted in almost $2 million in reported damages and was part of the same storm which produced the devastating Colfax tornado. An additional tornado as part of this same 1958 storm touched down in the Cadott area, resulting in three injuries and over $19.1 million in damages, though the
68 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
tornado did not strike the village itself. Altogether nearly $40 million in estimated property damage has been reported since 1950.27 No associated crop damage was reported, but it undoubtedly occurred.
All the tornados in Table 11 occurred during the months of April through September. Most of the events occurred between the hours of 3:00 PM and 9:00 PM, with only two events reported for the morning hours.
The July 30, 1977, tornado, that ripped through the Bloomer area was the most destructive event in Table 11. Over $105.1 million in damages was reported from this event, with about 100 homes destroyed and 50 others seriously damaged within the City of Bloomer. Though not included in the NCDC data, the August 1, 1977, issue of the Stevens Point Daily Journal reported one death near from Stevens Point Daily Journal, 8/1/77, p1 Cornell associated with this tornado.
This was not the first serious tornado for the Bloomer area. An August 1924 tornado caused destruction along a five-mile path from New Auburn to Bloomer and reached a width of up to ½ mile which resulted in 2-3 deaths, many injuries, and significant property damage, including partially demolishing the Bloomer Canning Factory.
27 unadjusted for inflation
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 69 SECTION III
Table 11. Chippewa County Tornado Events – 1950 through January 2020 Date Time Magnitude Deaths Injuries Property Damage Crop Damage Funnel Clouds 5/30/1998 11:30 PM 0 0 0 0 6/5/1999 5:15 PM 0 0 0 0 7/8/1999 5:20 PM 0 0 0 0 7/14/2010 3:01 PM 0 0 0 0 Tornados 5/10/1953 7:20 PM F4 0 0 2,500,000 0 6/4/1958 6:45 PM F4 3 50 250,000 0 6/4/1958 7:00 PM F3 0 3 2,500,000 0 6/22/1958 2:00 PM F1 0 0 30 0 5/4/1959 9:12 AM Not Rated 0 0 0 0 6/26/1959 1:20 PM Not Rated 0 0 0 0 5/24/1965 11:45 PM F1 0 0 2,500 0 8/1/1967 4:55 PM F1 0 0 250,000 0 6/23/1971 5:00 PM F1 0 0 25,000 0 9/28/1971 2:15 PM F3 0 3 250,000 0 6/15/1976 2:00 AM F1 0 0 25,000 0 7/30/1977 6:35 PM F4 0 20 25,000,000 0 7/30/1977 7:00 PM F2 1 8 2,500,000 0 8/6/1977 9:00 PM Not Rated 0 1 2,500 0 6/19/1979 10:50 PM F1 0 0 250,000 0 7/15/1980 8:40 PM F2 1 5 2,500,000 0 7/15/1980 8:45 PM F0 0 0 0 0 7/15/1980 8:45 PM F1 0 0 2,500 0 7/15/1980 9:07 PM F0 0 0 0 0 7/14/1981 6:00 PM F1 0 0 25,000 0 9/12/1982 6:17 PM F1 0 0 250,000 0 9/12/1982 6:45 PM F1 0 0 25,000 0 6/7/1984 9:00 PM F2 0 0 250,000 0 5/30/1985 11:46 PM F1 0 0 250,000 0 5/24/1989 7:30 PM F0 0 0 25,000 0 9/6/1995 5:45 PM F0 0 0 10,000 0 6/7/2005 5:10 PM F0 0 0 0 0 8/21/2013 4:24 PM EF0 0 0 25,000 0 7/12/2016 1:05 AM EF0 0 0 25,000 0 9/24/2019 7:50 PM EF3 0 3 3,000,000 0
5 93 $39,942,530 $0 source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Damage estimates not adjusted for inflation.
70 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
The most recent significant event occurred on September 24, 2019, when a tornado struck the Town of Wheaton just before 8:00 PM. This nocturnal EF-3 tornado had a six-mile path and was the strongest September tornado in Wisconsin since the 2002 tornado in Ladysmith. At least 29 homes were damaged, one home was destroyed, and one mobile home was overturned with a resident experiencing injuries. A mini storage facility and business were also destroyed, and several barns and outbuildings experienced major damage. Three semi-trucks on State Highway 29 were overturned, with one driver injured. The preliminary damage assessment was estimated at more than $3 million. High winds associated with this stormfront caused widespread roof damage and downed trees throughout the larger region with Governor Evers declaring a State of Emergency in Chippewa, Clark, and Dunn counties as a result. A few lessons from this event were: • There was a large demand for emergency generators to operate emergency lights, etc. The Town Hall lacked power and emergency lights, and were unable to operate/open doors. • The Communications Center was inundated with calls. • It was not a MABAS call. If it had been, reimbursement for some responders would not have been available. • Debris on roads impacted response. • Consider potential homeless. There was a report of a person living in a storage building. • Volunteer management can be a challenge, especially in these times of social media. Get an official message out early, monitor for/respond to rumors or unsanctioned messages, and discourage volunteers until ready to manage (not Day 1). Enforce policy to prevent volunteer injury. • Similarly, donations management can also be a challenge.
On the evening July 21, 2020, a storm cell produced a series of funnel clouds along Highway 29 in southern Chippewa County from the Town of Wheaton to the City of Cadott. The National Weather Service confirmed a high-end EF0 tornado with wind speeds reaching 85 mph touched down in Cadott. The tornado ripped part of the roof off St. Rose of Lima Catholic Church, knocked down power lines and trees, and caused minor damage to numerous homes. Due to its recent occurrence, damage cost estimates are not yet available, and the event is not included in Table 11.
Relative Level of Risk The Chippewa County Plan Update Steering Committee rated tornados as the County’s highest natural hazard vulnerability in terms of potential impacts, but with a moderate risk or probability. Based on the number of reports since 1993, it is probable that a tornado will continue to touch down and be reported for Chippewa County once about every 5-6 years, with some years potentially having multiple tornado reports.
Although the improvement of technology has enabled meteorologists to better identify and predict the conditions that are favorable for tornado development, there is no precise way to predict the formation, location, and magnitude of a tornado. And, there is no predictable pattern that can be used to accurately predict future tornado events.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 71 SECTION III
Vulnerability Assessment—Tornados & High Winds Since the potential impacts similar to those of tornados, high wind vulnerabilities are discussed within this section, though their risk assessment (e.g. history, frequency) is discussed with thunderstorms.
Potential Impacts Tornados and high winds have no defined hazard area within Chippewa County. Due to the unpredictable nature of tornados and lack of specific hazard areas, the assessment of potential community impacts as a result of a tornado is difficult to quantify. Did you know?
Tornados and high winds are capable of killing or 25% of businesses do not re-open injuring residents and damaging or destroying homes, following a major disaster. businesses, public buildings, infrastructure, and natural – The Institute for Business & Home Safety resources. This destruction can occur as a result of high winds or by airborne debris that can be carried by the tornado. Tornados can uproot trees and topple power lines, impacting the supply of electrical service to local homes and businesses. Roadways can also be blocked by debris, and debris can accumulate in rivers or stormwater systems and contribute to washouts or flooding.
All above-ground structures are vulnerable to a tornado or strong high winds. As discussed previously, Chippewa County has about $3.6 billion in assessed improvements, plus personal property, most of which would be vulnerable during such events. This total does not include structures located on tax-exempt properties such as municipal buildings, churches, and certain utilities.
Further, damaged buildings may pose additional safety concerns due to structural instability, damage to electrical systems, or gas leaks. Specific data on the structural condition of buildings in Chippewa County is not available. In addition to direct impacts to buildings, economic losses can be experienced when a business sustains direct damage from the event or when supporting infrastructure (e.g., utilities, services) are not available for extended periods. Such a business closure may be temporary but could have large impacts on the local economy and related services, while some smaller or struggling business may fail.
Based on a review of the community and past tornado impacts, it was determined that the following general types of properties/populations are especially vulnerable to tornado and high wind events: • Manufactured and mobile homes, especially those which are unanchored • Homes with crawlspaces (elevated and more susceptible to lift) • Buildings with large spans (e.g., airport hangars, pole barns, gyms, factories) • Residents in slab-on-grade structures without access to a safe-room or storm shelter • Campgrounds, trailers, and resort properties without storm shelters • Above-ground power lines, especially in wooded areas
72 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
• Larger gatherings (i.e., Northern WI State Fairgrounds, Country/Rock Fest grounds) • Sites/buildings storing large quantities of hazardous materials • Critical facilities and historic sites, due to their high value to the community
Mobile homes, in particular, are vulnerable to tornado and high wind events. According to the National Weather Service, between 1995 and 2002, there were 415 tornado fatalities in the United States. Forty-one percent (41%) of these fatalities occurred in mobile homes, which constitute just 7.5 percent of the nation’s housing supply. As discussed previously, Chippewa County has about 1,000 mobile homes constituting around four percent of the total housing supply. This is in line with the 3.5 percent of statewide housing units that are mobile homes. Nearly 75% of these mobile home units are located in the unincorporated towns. Figure 19 shows the location of the 25 licensed manufactured home communities (includes mobile home parks) in Chippewa County. Eleven of these 25 parks are located within city or village limits and 14 are located in towns. To the knowledge of local officials, many of these manufactured home communities do not offer an on-site storm shelter or have convenient access to a public community safe room.
Throughout most areas of the region, new mobile home development is minimal, with other types of manufactured or prefabricated homes often becoming a preferred option of affordable housing. The number of mobile homes has decreased since 2010, while other housing types have increased. These alternative units are typically well-secured to a permanent foundation, but sometimes lack a basement or safe room for a storm shelter. Data on homes with crawlspaces or without basements is currently not collected as part of the Federal census and is not available. Significant numbers of new homes, apartments, and other housing facilities in the County are being built slab-on-grade without a basement or crawlspace.
While few, if any, buildings can withstand the direct impact of a large-magnitude tornado, large- span structures can be particularly vulnerable to high wind damage. Data on the number of large- span structures in Chippewa County is not available, though some, such as school gymnasiums, are of greater risk as reflected in the critical facilities vulnerability assessment. Most of these large-span buildings tend to be large storage buildings, garages, or barns which are common throughout the County. Many of these are relatively inexpensive to construct and are used for storage or livestock. Of greater vulnerability, due to contents and risk of injury or death, are industries or big-box commercial buildings that have large-span structures. Most of these are located near or within the incorporated areas. There were no historic buildings, natural areas, or environmental characteristics within the Chippewa County that were identified as being uniquely vulnerable to tornados or high winds.
Agricultural-Related Damages (e.g., barns/structures, livestock, crops) Historical documents and testimony demonstrate that the County’s livestock barns and many other agricultural-related structures are quite vulnerable to high winds and tornados, including during the September 2019 tornado event. While no crop damage from tornados has been reported to the National Climatic Data Center for Chippewa County, such damage undoubtedly occurs but may be covered by crop insurance and not reported to NCDC and/or discussed in official damage reports.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 73 SECTION III
Figure 19. Warning Sirens and Licensed Manufactured Home Communities
74 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Fairground, Festivals, and Outdoor Activities Campgrounds and events that host large numbers of people pose significant vulnerabilities, especially given that many of these persons are visitors without a local shelter option. Tents and trailers at campgrounds in wooded areas are particularly vulnerable to tornado and high wind events as was experienced nearby in the City of Cumberland (Barron County) during a summer 2010 windstorm where injuries occurred. The 2009 Chippewa County Outdoor Recreation Plan stated that there were seven public and 35 private campgrounds in the County. Chippewa County owns and operates three campgrounds: o Morris-Erickson Park located in the Town of Sampson o Pine Point Park located in the Town of Birch Creek o Otter Lake Park located in the Town of Colburn
During the town hazard mitigation surveys for this update and previous mitigation plan updates, the Town of Sampson also identified Morris-Erickson Park as a location particularly vulnerable to tornados and high winds, along with a number of additional resorts, homes, or areas on or near Salisbury Lake, Round Lake, Sand Lake, and Twin Lake. The Town of Cleveland also identified three campgrounds which would be vulnerable—two along the Chippewa River and a large one at Rock Lake. A number of campgrounds also exist in the Tilden area. The Town of Eagle Point noted that access to campgrounds can be difficult during an emergency and the campground on O’Neil Creek has about 400 sites and can have up to 3,000 visitors during a busy weekend. At least two municipalities also own and operate a campground—Chapman Park in the City of Stanley and Birch Creek Park in the Town of Birch Creek. Undoubtedly, the other campgrounds in the County share similar vulnerabilities.
None of these County parks have storm shelters, a storm siren, or a 24-hour caretaker. Stanley Fire Department personnel do attempt to warn campers at Otter Lake if severe weather is approaching. Potential shelters are limited to small block bathrooms which are insufficient in size. It was suggested that the Eagle Point Fire Department could potentially serve as a storm shelter for nearby campgrounds, but may require hardening.
There are also two State Parks with camping in Chippewa County—Lake Wissota State Park and Brunet Island State Park. Shower buildings are available as shelters, and the Cornell school is also available for Brunet Island visitors. 24-hour staff is not available on-site at either park, though rangers do reside in the area. Ranger patrol vehicles with PA systems are used to alert visitors when severed weather warnings are issued. There is no siren coverage at Lake Wissota, though the siren from Cornell can be faintly heard at Brunet Island. It is important that park staff is contacted by local and County emergency services and/or dispatch in case of threat or emergency, and emergency personnel should be acquainted with the layout and staffing of each park. Brunet Island has a potential added challenge in that access/egress to the mainland is via a single bridge; boats or helicopter would be required for access to the developed park areas if the bridge would become unusable.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 75 SECTION III
As noted previously, Chippewa County is host to a number of large fairs and festivals, most notably the Country Fest/Rock Fest grounds near Cadott and the Northern Wisconsin State Fairgrounds in Chippewa Falls, both of which offer on-site camping. On-site storm shelters or safe rooms built to FEMA standards are not available at either location. Many of the State Fairgrounds events host youth (e.g., 4-H exhibitors, equestrian events), which is a special population requiring added preparedness and protection. There is strong interest in pursuing mitigation grant funding for a community safe room as part of a planned new building at the State Fairgrounds, especially for overnight guests/campers, workers, and smaller events. The City of Bloomer also noted a need for a safe room at their fairgrounds.
No festivals or major events in the County or region have experienced a tornado since New Richmond in 1899, though there has been damages, injuries, and deaths associated with high winds and lightning at festival grounds that will be discussed in the thunderstorm section. State Fairgrounds staff did note that a tornado or thunderstorm/high wind warning occurs during an event nearly every year, often with very short warning.
Loss Estimates The first tornado loss estimate in Table 12 for Chippewa County was taken from the Wisconsin THIRA. The State of Wisconsin Homeland Security Council THIRA & SPR (updated 2017) provides projected average annual county loss estimates in 2015 dollars for tornado events from 1950-2015 based on historic data from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The data shows that Chippewa County has a relatively high tornado risk and vulnerability: • Chippewa County ranked 6th in the State in terms of highest total reported property and crop damages due to tornados ($40,607,800 in 2015 numbers), with more tornado events (28) than the State average of 20.1 per county for the time period. • The County ranked 13th among Wisconsin’s 72 counties in terms of average property & crop damage losses per tornado event ($1,450,279) • The County has had many tornado-related injuries and some deaths in the past. The County is ranked 3rd highest in the State in terms of estimated annual losses due to injury ($392,727 per year) and in the top ten for annual losses due to death. On average, each injury was given a monetary value of $288,000 per injury, while deaths were given a monetary value of $6.9 million per death based on FEMA guidance for benefit-cost calculations
The loss estimates for thunderstorm-related high winds below were developed by WCWRPC using a similar approach based on the NCDC data from 1993-2019 provided later in the Thunderstorms sub-section, unadjusted for inflation. While 4.6 high wind events have occurred annually during the time period, the reported losses per event were minimal compared to the average tornado damage.
It must be kept in mind that the estimates in Table 12 are largely based on those events reported to the NCDC and some damages and injuries likely have gone unreported. Crop and forest damages are often not included in the above numbers, especially if covered by crop insurance. When considering this data, keep in mind that the majority of County’s population and assessed
76 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
improvements are located in the cities and villages, especially near and within Chippewa Falls, so event location would have a very major impact on actual future losses.
Continuing changes in land-use and development patterns will influence the County’s potential for future exposure to tornados. As discussed previously, Chippewa County is continuing to grow and develop. This creates an increasing exposure to the number of residents and properties that are at risk from future tornado events.
Table 12. Chippewa County Tornado & High Wind Loss Estimates Tornado Loss Estimates for Residential Units (Wisconsin Emergency Management) Avg. Damage Estimated Future Annual Estimated Future Annual Loss per Tornado Annual Loss Probability (injury and death) (1950-2015) (property & crops) $1,450,279 0.42 $615,270 $915,454 (28 events) Tornado Loss Estimates for Residential Units (WCWRPC w/ 2016 EF0 and 2019 EF3 events) Avg. Damage Estimated Future Annual Estimated Future Annual Loss per Tornado Annual Loss Probability (injury and death) (1950-2019) (property & crops) $1,331,418 0.45 $605,190 $928,545 (30 events) Thunderstorm-Related High Wind Loss Estimates (WCWRPC) Avg. Damage Estimated Future Annual Estimated Future Annual Loss per Event Annual Loss Probability (injury and death) (1993-2019) (property & crops) $40,000 4.6 $184,615 $265,846 (120 events) source: State of Wisconsin Homeland Security Council THIRA & SPR, updated January 2017; National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); and West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC). Estimates not adjusted for inflation.
Vulnerable Critical Facilities All critical facilities are susceptible to being hit by a tornado. A more robust assessment of community assets (critical facilities) and their susceptibility to tornados and other hazard events is located in Appendix E. Above-ground electrical infrastructure is particularly vulnerable to tornados and high winds and is discussed later in Section III C iv. Long-Term Power Outage. Other critical facilities without emergency power generators are especially vulnerable during a long-term outage.
Except for highway travelers, no critical facilities were identified as being significantly impacted by tornados in recent years. However, the vulnerability assessment did yield that tornados and high winds represent the highest vulnerability and risk to the critical facilities of Chippewa County. Schools were of special concern due to: • large numbers of individuals present, including school-age children or when being used as a storm shelter in some communities • most having large span areas, such as gyms and theaters, which are especially vulnerable to tornados and high winds.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 77 SECTION III
The inventory of critical facilities identifies 24 public schools in Chippewa County, most all of which likely meet the above criteria. Long-term care and assisted-living facilities are also vulnerable due to the age and/or health of residents. Most of these facilities are also single-story structures for reasons of mobility and have a designated storm shelter area, instead of a basement. Chippewa County also has five nursing homes and about 100 other licensed long-term care or assisted living facilities (i.e., residential care apartment complexes, adult family homes, CBRFs).
Hospitals were also identified as being of significant concern due to their potentially vulnerable population, emergency response functions, and importance to the community. Chippewa County has three hospitals located in Chippewa Falls (St. Joseph’s Hospital,193 beds), Bloomer (Mayo Clinic Health System–Chippewa Valley, 25 beds), and Stanley (Ascension Our Lady of Victory Hospital, 24 beds). Two communities, Cornell and Eau Claire (portion in Chippewa County), have airports with hangars, structures, and aircraft which can be particularly vulnerable to tornados and high winds.
Unique Jurisdictional Risks or Vulnerabilities—Tornados & High Winds During the planning process, each incorporated area was analyzed to provide insight into the extent of its vulnerabilities to tornados and high wind events. The extent of the vulnerabilities identified by the communities was largely limited to recent events, mobile home parks, slab-on-grade construction, and public storm shelters as summarized in the Unique Jurisdictional Risk or Vulnerabilities Table in Appendix F. Appendix G summarizes current mitigation efforts for each incorporated community.
As mentioned previously, the Village of New Auburn, City of Bloomer, and City of Cornell areas have all had historic tornado events that included deaths and significant damage. Many other communities noted that there have been tornado touchdowns in close proximity, but the events have missed the incorporated areas. The cities and villages reported that high straight-line winds are more common. Downed trees, roof damage, and scattered debris are the most commonly noted types of wind damage. Power loss due to downed trees is also fairly common in some of the older neighborhoods or residential areas built in former pine plantation.
Many communities noted that most homes have basements, but the number of slab-on-grade homes, duplexes, and multi-family housing units have increased over the past decades. All of the cities and village have some mobile homes, though there has been very little new mobile home park development or expansion. Hospitals, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, group quarters, municipal campgrounds, festival areas, and industrial areas were also mentioned as higher vulnerability by some communities.
Stanley identified the Stanley Correctional Institution managed by the State of Wisconsin as an unique vulnerability. Other than the high hazard dams, the prison is the only facility in Chippewa County that meets the FEMA definition of a High Potential Loss Facility. The prison had a June 2019 inmate population of 1,589 with 372 staff on its 100-acre site.
78 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
As discussed in Appendix G, only Cornell and Stanley have designated spaces for the general public to use as storm shelters and there is significant interest in community safe room or storm hardening projects in many of the communities as reflected in the strategy recommendations in Section VI.C.
Overall, the level of vulnerability to the cities and villages increases with development density, population density, type of development, and value of improvements. And as more growth and development occur, this vulnerability also increases. As such, cities and villages are the highest vulnerability areas, as well as those areas with higher populations, larger numbers of housing units, and higher assessed value per square mile described previously in Section II. Community Profile.
Alert Warning Sirens The public relies on alert warning sirens for outdoor notification of potentially NWS-Duluth approaching storms or tornados. However, with increasing use of smart phones, there is some anecdotal evidence from interviews that the reliance on sirens and NOAA All Hazards Radios in Chippewa County is decreasing.
Figure 19 previously showed the location of the warning sirens in Chippewa County. The sirens are activated selectively in Chippewa County based on the projected path of severe weather or other hazard event. The sirens are tested monthly. Xcel Energy Siren, WI - June 2001 Tornado has installed nine emergency sirens with voice capability along the Chippewa River in Chippewa and Eau Claire counties, though these sirens are currently only programmed for dam-failure or related flooding warnings.
Some community sirens are aging and not all have battery backup. There is still some continued concern with sirens being triggered when no severe weather is in the immediate area, but this appears to have improved significantly since the last plan and may be a more localized concern in the western part of the County. During interviews and community meetings, the need for continued or increased public education on emergency notifications, what sirens mean, and appropriate actions to take was mentioned a number of times.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 79 SECTION III
ii. Thunderstorms and High Winds
Thunderstorms encompass lightning, heavy rains, high winds, and hail, and are intricately linked with some of the other hazards, such as tornados and flooding. Due to the similarities in impacts, the vulnerabilities associated with high winds are largely discussed as part of the previous tornado sub- section (III.C.i.) and are not repeated here. Flooding as a result of heavy rains is analyzed as part of the flooding sub-section (III.C.v.).
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2019 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rates severe thunderstorms as a 35 percent risk over a ten-year period given their moderate probability (2), low vulnerability (1.2), and substantial available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (1.0 internal, 1.0 external). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
Risk Assessment—Thunderstorms The Hazard Thunderstorms are severe and violent forms of convection produced when warm, moist air is overrun by dry, cool air. As the warm air rises, thunderheads (cumuli-nimbus clouds) form which cause the strong winds, lightning, thunder, hail, and rain associated with these storms. The National Weather Service definition of a severe thunderstorm is a thunderstorm event that produces any of the following: winds of 58 miles per hour or greater (often with gusts of 74 miles per hour or greater), hail 3/4 inch in diameter or greater, or a tornado.
The thunderheads formed may be a towering mass six miles or more across and 40,000 to 50,000 feet high. They may contain as much as 1.5 million tons of water and enormous amounts of energy that often are released in the form of high winds, excessive rains, and three violently destructive natural elements: lightning, hail, and tornados.28
A thunderstorm often lasts no more than 30 minutes, as an individual thunderstorm cell frequently moves between 30 to 50 miles per hour. Strong frontal systems, though, may spawn more than one squall line composed of many individual thunderstorm cells. These fronts can often be tracked from west to east. Because thunderstorms may occur singly, in clusters, or as a portion of large storm lines, it is possible that several thunderstorms may affect a single area in the course of a few hours.
28 Tornados and high wind vulnerabilities (potential impacts) are discussed separately in Section III.B.ii.
80 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Lightning can strike anywhere. Lightning is formed from the build-up of an electrical charge in a cloud. When this charge is big enough, the air ionizes and a discharge occurs with another cloud, the ground, or the best conducting object. The resulting electric charge reaches temperatures higher than 50,000F. This rapid heating and subsequent cooling causes the air to expand and contract, which results in thunder.
Hail is the accumulation of ice crystals due to warm, moist air rising rapidly into the freezing temperatures of the upper atmosphere. When frozen droplets accumulate enough weight, they fall as precipitation. Hail or sleet occurs when these frozen ice balls do not fully melt upon descent, and they can reach the size of softballs.
High winds are those winds of 58 miles per hour or greater. High winds can affect much larger areas than a tornado and occur for a longer period of time. More intense types of high winds are downbursts or straight-line winds.
Straight-line winds are often responsible for most of the wind damage associated with a thunderstorm. These winds are often confused with tornados because of similar damage and wind speeds. However, the strong and gusty winds associated with straight-line winds blow roughly in a straight line unlike the rotating winds of a tornado.
Downbursts (straight-line winds) are unrelated to tornados but can have similar impacts and destructive power. A downburst is a strong, violent downdraft, initiated by rapidly descending rain and/or rain-cooled air beneath a thunderstorm. The result is an outburst of straight-line winds on or near the ground in a single direction. They may last anywhere from a few minutes in a small- scale micro-burst to periods of up to 20 minutes or longer, known as a macro-burst. Wind speeds in downbursts can reach 150 mph, which is similar to that of a strong tornado.
Downburst damage is often highly localized, typically covering 2.5 miles or less in width, and resembles that of tornados. A long-lived, widespread, and quickly travelling thunderstorm event producing numerous downbursts along its path is known as a derecho. The last major derecho event impacting Wisconsin in July 1995 included parts of nine states and one Canadian providence. Damages in Minnesota alone from this event were estimated at over 5 million downed trees and exceeded $30 million in 1995 dollars.29 There are significant interactions between tornados and downbursts, and a tornado's path can also be affected by downbursts. Because of this, the path of a tornado can be very unpredictable.
High-wind risks and past events are discussed here due to their relationship to thunderstorms and the method of data collection by the National Climatic Data Center, though the destructive impacts and vulnerabilities related to thunderstorms with high, straight-line winds are at times difficult to distinguish from the concentrated cyclical winds of a tornado. It is not uncommon for there to be spirited local debate over whether damage is the result of high, straight-line winds (as officially recorded) or a tornado. Further, tornado and thunderstorm/high wind events are very often part of
29 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Derecho Series in July of 1995 webpage. http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/casepages/jul1995derechopage.htm#2nd1995.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 81 SECTION III
the same storm cell, making it a challenge to distinguish the impacts. High wind impacts were discussed previously as part of the tornado vulnerability assessment.
Local Events Thunderstorms are the most common natural hazard event for Chippewa County. Shown in Table 13 is a listing of severe thunderstorms that have been reported to the National Climatic Data Center for Chippewa County from 1950 through 2019. Data prior to 1980 is limited; more complete data is available since 1993.
From January 1993 through December 2019 Chippewa County experienced 224 severe thunderstorm events consisting of: • 119 high wind, strong wind, or thunderstorm wind events on 68 separate days • 4 heavy rain events on 4 days • 10 lightning events on 8 days • 91 hail events on 50 days
As the number of lightning events reflects, many events are not reported unless damage occurs. Other risks associated with thunderstorms that have been documented with these storms include the potential for excessive rains, leading to flash flooding and the potential to spawn tornados which is discussed in other sections.
Many of the events reported in Table 13 are for the same storm cells recorded for different parts of the County; multiple reports within a single day for large storm cells are not uncommon. So, while Chippewa County averaged 8.7 reported thunderstorm events per year, this represented 4.4 thunderstorm event days per year. Table 13 also shows that thunderstorms can occur throughout the year, with the highest frequency during the months of May through August.
One death and 16 injuries associated with these storms were given in the NCDC database. The single death and two injuries are attributed to a June 7, 1987 storm. Ten of the injuries were the result of flying debris when strong thunderstorm winds struck the Chippewa Valley Rock Fest north of Cadott on July 14, 1995. Two men were injured by lightning strikes while attending Country Fest in June 2014. Damage was reported for 24 events, with crop damage only reported for a single event in July 1997. However, the NCDC database is not inclusive of all damage estimates from hazards in the County. Damages to buildings and crops, as well as general debris clean-up costs, are often under-reported and no damage data for any thunderstorm event was estimated prior to 1993.
In terms of damage, the May 19, 1996, thunderstorm was likely the most significant in recent decades, with high winds the primary cause of the damages. Nearly $2.4 million in damages was reported (2010 dollars) throughout the County, including the collapse of an airplane hangar northeast of New Auburn. The Cadott area was especially hard hit, with roofs blown off six houses, and the library roof partially torn off. Significant water damage occurred at the Cadott Area Historical Society. And a barn collapsed three miles south of Cadott, which killed ten cattle.
82 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Table 13. Severe Thunderstorm Events – 1950 through December 2019 Chippewa County Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage Thunderstorm or High Wind REGIONAL 5/23/55 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/7/57 11:45 AM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/2/61 9:50 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/16/62 11:00 PM 55 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/27/63 6:41 PM 52 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/6/64 12:33 PM 60 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/15/65 11:32 AM 53 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/24/65 11:52 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/27/65 5:24 PM 50 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/23/65 4:36 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/6/66 5:13 PM 78 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/30/67 10:50 PM 59 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/22/67 10:24 PM 53 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/15/68 9:50 PM 56 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/20/68 10:15 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/21/68 1:22 AM 60 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/6/68 10:48 AM 80 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/6/69 9:00 PM 50 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/17/70 4:07 PM 62 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/1/70 11:39 PM 51 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/2/70 n/a 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/12/70 12:23 PM 65 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/21/70 4:01 AM 63 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/17/71 8:00 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/7/71 10:24 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/14/72 9:28 AM 50 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/9/73 4:08 PM 50 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/18/73 10:09 AM 60 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/13/73 8:37 PM 61 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/8/79 8:54 AM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/16/79 12:20 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/19/79 10:25 PM 55 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/29/79 8:45 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/3/79 2:16 PM 50 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/1/79 7:15 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/7/80 3:21 AM 53 0 0 0
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 83 SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage REGIONAL 6/27/80 10:19 AM 65 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/27/80 8:33 PM 55 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/14/81 6:40 AM 51 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/14/81 6:40 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/14/81 6:40 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/14/81 7:30 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/29/82 1:50 PM 52 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/30/83 10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/3/83 1:38 PM 52 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/19/83 3:45 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/19/83 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/19/83 4:20 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/19/83 4:25 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/19/83 4:40 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/7/84 8:45 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/7/84 9:33 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/14/84 3:27 PM 51 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/14/84 3:50 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/14/84 5:00 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 4/23/85 9:00 AM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 4/23/85 9:23 AM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/6/85 1:40 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/7/87 4:35 PM 0 2 (1) 0 0 REGIONAL 6/7/87 5:05 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/23/87 2:20 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/23/87 2:45 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/23/87 3:15 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/3/88 8:20 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/24/89 7:06 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/12/90 6:35 PM 63 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/12/90 6:40 PM 62 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/12/90 6:50 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/13/90 10:00 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/28/91 10:45 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/28/91 11:00 PM 0 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/28/91 11:30 PM 0 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/12/95 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/12/95 8:00 AM 0 0 0 0 CADOTT 7/14/95 6:42 PM 52 10 0 0
84 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage HALLIE 8/13/95 2:22 AM 0 0 0 0 HALLIE 8/13/95 2:22 AM 0 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 5/19/96 1:50 AM 60 0 800,000 0 CADOTT 5/19/96 2:00 AM 65 1 900,000 0 BOYD 5/19/96 2:10 AM 65 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 8/7/96 n/a 52 0 0 0 CADOTT 8/7/96 n/a 50 0 0 0 EAU CLAIRE ARPT 7/1/97 9:30 PM 58 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/1/97 9:55 PM 55 0 0 0 CADOTT 7/1/97 10:10 PM 60 0 80,000 250,000 CADOTT 7/1/97 10:15 PM 60 0 0 0 CADOTT 7/1/97 10:15 PM 60 0 0 0 BLOOMER 5/15/98 6:25 PM 55 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 6/25/98 1:36 AM 60 0 0 0 EAU CLAIRE 6/25/98 1:36 AM 52 0 0 0 EAU CLAIRE 6/25/98 1:51 AM 50 0 0 0 CADOTT 6/25/98 2:00 AM 60 0 40,000 0 STANLEY 6/25/98 2:02 AM 55 0 0 0 BLOOMER 6/5/99 5:15 PM 52 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/6/99 5:45 PM 50 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/6/99 8:30 PM 50 0 0 0 CORNELL 7/8/99 5:30 PM 55 0 0 0 BOYD 7/8/99 5:45 PM 55 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/30/99 6:32 PM 52 0 0 0 STANLEY 7/30/99 7:20 PM 55 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/8/00 6:55 PM 50 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/8/00 7:07 PM 65 0 0 0 BLOOMER 7/8/00 7:15 PM 50 0 0 0 BLOOMER 5/1/01 6:55 PM 55 0 0 0 BLOOMER 5/1/01 7:10 PM 60 0 500,000 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/11/01 5:35 PM 61 0 0 0 BLOOMER 6/11/01 6:10 PM 65 0 600,000 0 JIM FALLS 6/18/01 9:30 PM 60 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/17/02 n/a 70 1 300,000 0 BLOOMER 6/25/02 7:25 PM 60 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/25/02 8:19 PM 55 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/25/02 8:25 PM 55 0 0 0 TILDEN 6/25/02 8:30 PM 55 0 0 0 CORNELL 6/25/02 8:30 PM 55 0 0 0
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 85 SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/25/02 8:40 PM 55 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 9/1/02 11:25 PM 55 0 0 0 REGIONAL 4/18/04 1:00 PM 52 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 5/9/04 6:18 PM 52 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 5/9/04 6:25 PM 52 0 0 0 STANLEY 5/12/04 2:35 PM 55 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 6/5/05 1:34 PM 50 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/5/05 3:35 PM 50 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/7/05 5:20 PM 71 0 0 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 6/7/05 5:48 PM 57 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/7/05 5:52 PM 57 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 6/20/05 2:15 PM 52 0 0 0 COUNTYWIDE 6/24/05 7:20 AM 52 0 0 0 BLOOMER 6/27/05 7:35 PM 52 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 6/29/05 11:10 PM 55 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/17/05 10:20 PM 52 0 0 0 COUNTYWIDE 7/23/05 11:00 AM 52 0 125,000 0 STANLEY 8/9/05 3:30 PM 52 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 3/25/07 5:00 PM 50 0 0 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 6/20/07 9:56 PM 52 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/3/07 2:10 PM 55 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/3/07 2:43 PM 55 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/8/07 3:25 PM 54 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 7/8/07 3:45 PM 52 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/26/07 4:35 PM 52 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/26/07 4:50 PM 52 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/26/07 5:00 PM 52 0 0 0 CORNELL 8/28/07 3:36 AM 55 0 0 0 CORNELL 8/28/07 1:02 PM 52 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 5/25/08 6:10 PM 55 0 0 0 STANLEY 5/25/08 6:40 PM 55 0 0 0 BLOOMER 7/25/08 3:05 PM 58 0 0 0 CADOTT 9/2/08 2:09 PM 55 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 7/27/10 7:45 PM 65 0 25,000 0 CORNELL 8/11/10 n/a 52 0 0 0 CORNELL 8/13/10 6:30 PM 52 0 0 0 REGIONAL 10/26/10 6:00 PM 35 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/9/11 10:30 AM 55 0 25,000 0 NEW AUBURN 7/19/11 7:55 PM 56 0 0 0
86 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage JIM FALLS 7/19/11 8:05 PM 56 0 0 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 7/19/11 8:10 PM 56 0 15,000 0 NEW AUBURN 7/23/11 9:57 PM 52 0 0 0 CADOTT 7/23/11 10:41 PM 52 0 0 0 STANLEY 7/23/11 10:51 PM 56 0 5,000 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 5/24/12 3:28 PM 61 0 100,000 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 5/24/12 3:30 PM 61 0 50,000 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 5/24/12 3:30 PM 61 0 500,000 0 TILDEN 6/20/12 3:56 PM 50 0 0 0 STANLEY 9/4/12 4:30 PM 56 0 0 0 BATEMAN 5/19/13 6:03 PM 52 0 10,000 0 BATEMAN 5/19/13 6:05 PM 56 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 6/21/13 4:30 AM 52 0 0 0 CORNELL 8/6/13 9:06 PM 52 0 0 0 BOYD 8/6/13 9:12 PM 56 0 50,000 0 NEW AUBURN 7/12/15 10:45 PM 52 0 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 7/12/15 11:00 PM 57 0 0 0 STANLEY 7/12/15 11:35 PM 56 0 100,000 0 BATEMAN 7/18/15 1:25 AM 52 0 0 0 EAGLETON 7/24/15 9:20 PM 56 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/24/15 9:25 PM 56 0 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 5/31/16 2:43 PM 56 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/10/16 3:25 PM 52 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/21/16 4:30 AM 56 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 6/11/17 9:15 AM 56 0 0 0 STANLEY 6/11/17 9:55 AM 52 0 0 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 6/17/18 3:01 PM 56 0 0 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 6/17/18 3:09 PM 56 0 0 0 CADOTT 7/12/18 6:40 PM 65 0 0 0 CORNELL 7/12/18 6:40 PM 61 0 0 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 8/26/18 1:25 PM 56 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 8/27/18 5:49 PM 50 0 0 0 BATEMAN 7/15/19 3:00 PM 56 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/19/19 5:20 PM 61 0 0 0 EAGLETON 7/19/19 5:35 PM 61 0 0 0 EAU (AIRPORT) 9/2/19 10:48 PM 51 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 9/24/19 7:28 AM 52 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 9/24/19 7:26 PM 56 0 25,000 0
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 87 SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage Lightning CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/13/1997 11:40 PM 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 3/29/1998 6:05 PM 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 10/4/2005 12:46 PM 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 10/4/2005 12:51 PM 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 10/4/2005 2:22 PM 0 0 0 CORNELL 8/11/2007 5:00 AM 0 100,000 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/8/2008 9:00 PM 0 100,000 0 NORMA 9/3/2010 2:00 PM 0 15,000 0 CADOTT 6/27/2014 3:00 PM 2 0 0 BATEMAN 5/15/2017 1:30 PM 0 60,000 0 Heavy Rain BATEMAN 8/21/2013 5:51 PM 0 0 0 EAGLETON 7/6/2015 2:00 AM 0 0 0 BLOOMER 5/31/2016 2:30 PM 0 0 0 BLOOMER 8/16/2016 3:00 PM 0 0 0 Hail REGIONAL 5/12/1956 10:10 AM 1.5 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/10/1959 5:33 PM 3 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/10/1959 6:37 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/18/1962 3:00 PM 1 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/29/1962 4:33 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/29/1962 4:55 PM 3 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/11/1963 8:30 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/4/1964 4:32 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/6/1964 12:33 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/28/1964 12:27 PM 2.25 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/7/1965 1:00 AM 1 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/15/1965 11:32 AM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/27/1965 7:00 PM 1.5 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/8/1965 5:45 PM 1.5 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/8/1967 6:30 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/10/1968 8:00 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/17/1970 4:10 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/17/1970 4:15 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/21/1970 4:20 AM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/11/1973 12:10 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/21/1973 1:30 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/17/1981 12:00 PM 1.75 0 0 0
88 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage REGIONAL 7/17/1981 1:00 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/20/1981 11:15 AM 1.5 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/20/1981 12:30 PM 1 0 0 0 REGIONAL 7/29/1982 1:50 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/26/1985 N/A 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 6/10/1986 8:50 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 9/26/1986 3:59 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/28/1988 3:00 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 5/23/1989 9:25 PM 1.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/29/1992 4:23 PM 0.75 0 0 0 REGIONAL 8/29/1992 4:30 PM 0.88 0 0 0 ROME 8/12/1995 8:15 AM 1.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 8/12/1995 8:35 AM 1.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 8/12/1995 8:35 AM 1.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 8/12/1995 8:55 AM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 8/12/1995 8:55 AM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 8/25/1996 4:00 PM 0.75 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 8/25/1996 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 TILDEN 8/25/1996 6:35 PM 0.75 0 0 0 CADOTT 8/25/1996 8:40 PM 1.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 3/29/1998 6:00 PM 0.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 3/29/1998 6:05 PM 1.75 0 0 0 STANLEY 3/29/1998 6:05 PM 0.75 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 3/29/1998 6:10 PM 1.25 0 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 5/12/1998 3:35 PM 0.75 0 0 0 EAU CLAIRE ARPT 5/12/1998 4:00 PM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 5/12/1998 4:17 PM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 5/15/1998 5:55 PM 1 0 0 0 STANLEY 9/25/1998 11:35 PM 1.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/6/1999 5:17 PM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/6/1999 5:21 PM 0.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/6/1999 8:30 PM 0.75 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/8/2000 6:45 PM 0.75 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 7/8/2000 7:00 PM 0.75 0 0 0 STANLEY 7/8/2000 7:50 PM 0.75 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 8/8/2000 6:05 PM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 9/11/2000 1:45 AM 0.88 0 0 0 LAKE HALLIE 9/11/2000 3:12 PM 1.75 0 0 0 LAKE HALLIE 9/11/2000 3:39 PM 0.75 0 0 0
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 89 SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/23/2001 9:45 AM 1 0 0 0 CADOTT 6/18/2001 8:56 PM 1.75 0 0 0 BOYD 7/30/2001 2:20 PM 1 0 0 0 STANLEY 7/30/2001 2:40 PM 1.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/18/2002 3:12 PM 1.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/18/2002 3:15 PM 1.75 0 0 0 BLOOMER 6/25/2002 7:25 PM 1.75 0 0 0 CORNELL 6/25/2002 8:18 PM 0.75 0 0 0 STANLEY 8/11/2002 6:10 PM 0.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/17/2004 10:44 PM 1 0 0 0 EAGLETON 8/8/2004 4:40 PM 0.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/5/2005 3:35 PM 0.88 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/24/2005 7:20 AM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 6/24/2005 7:22 AM 1.75 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 6/24/2005 7:25 AM 1.75 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 8/9/2005 1:30 PM 1 0 0 0 CADOTT 6/24/2006 11:55 AM 0.75 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 7/1/2006 7:40 AM 0.75 0 0 0 BLOOMER 7/30/2006 5:33 AM 1 0 0 0 CORNELL 6/20/2007 7:25 PM 0.75 0 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 5/25/2008 5:55 PM 1.75 0 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 5/25/2008 5:55 PM 1.75 0 0 0 TILDEN 5/25/2008 6:05 PM 2.75 0 0 0 STANLEY 5/25/2008 6:40 PM 0.75 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 7/6/2008 8:22 PM 0.88 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 7/10/2008 6:50 PM 0.75 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 7/16/2008 10:00 AM 0.88 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 7/16/2008 10:15 AM 0.88 0 0 0 ANSON 7/16/2008 10:18 AM 1 0 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 7/16/2008 12:00 PM 0.75 0 0 0 CRESCENT 4/24/2009 4:25 PM 1 0 0 0 CRESCENT 4/24/2009 4:35 PM 0.88 0 0 0 CRESCENT 4/24/2009 4:40 PM 1 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 4/24/2009 6:25 PM 0.88 0 0 0 BLOOMER 4/24/2009 7:42 PM 0.75 0 0 0 NORMA 7/21/2009 5:45 PM 1 0 25,000 0 CADOTT 7/14/2010 11:15 AM 0.75 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 7/20/2010 2:49 PM 1.75 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 4/9/2011 4:45 PM 1.25 0 0 0
90 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Injuries Property Crop Location Date Time Magnitude (Deaths) Damage Damage BLOOMER MUNI ARPT 4/10/2011 3:36 PM 1 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 4/10/2011 3:45 PM 1.75 0 0 0 NEW AUBURN 4/10/2011 3:45 PM 0.75 0 0 0 HOWARD 5/11/2011 10:15 AM 0.75 0 0 0 IRVINE 5/22/2011 3:07 PM 1 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 8/23/2011 2:40 PM 0.88 0 0 0 COLBURN 8/23/2011 2:59 PM 1 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 5/20/2012 11:50 AM 1 0 0 0 BLOOMER 5/24/2012 3:20 PM 0.88 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 9/4/2012 2:50 PM 0.75 0 0 0 BLOOMER 5/31/2013 6:00 PM 1 0 0 0 BLOOMER 5/31/2013 6:14 PM 0.88 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 5/31/2013 6:19 PM 0.75 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 7/7/2014 12:50 PM 1.5 0 0 0 HOLCOMBE 7/7/2014 12:55 PM 1.75 0 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 5/31/2016 2:40 PM 0.75 0 0 0 BLOOMER 8/19/2016 3:20 AM 0.75 0 0 0 BLOOMER 9/21/2016 11:45 AM 1 0 0 0 JIM FALLS 9/21/2016 12:10 PM 1.25 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/9/2017 9:04 PM 0.88 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/9/2017 9:05 PM 0.75 0 0 0 BLOOMER 6/11/2017 9:20 AM 1 0 0 0 STANLEY 5/25/2018 3:55 PM 1 0 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 5/28/2018 9:10 PM 1 0 0 0 329 Events 16 (1) $4,550,000 $250,000 Source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Compared to its neighbors in Wisconsin, Chippewa County has experienced a comparable number of hail events in recent decades (see Figure 20). From 1982 to 2019, there have been 99 events reported for Chippewa County.
The National Weather Service is able to forecast and track thunderstorms that are capable of producing severe weather conditions such as high winds, hail, lightning, and possibly tornados. Although the improvement of technology has enabled meteorologists to better forecast and monitor thunderstorms, there is no precise way to make long-term predictions of location, severity, and associated risks. As reflected in Table 13, the lack of clear trends make it difficult to project the impacts of future thunderstorm events.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 91 SECTION III
Figure 20. Reported Hail Events in Wisconsin
92 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Relative Level of Risk Based on recent trends, it is expected that Chippewa County will average of 4 to 5 severe thunderstorm, high wind, and hail event days each year, with many of these days yielding multiple reports. The highest frequency of these events will occur during the months of April through August. As will be discussed in Section III.D., climate change has the potential to influence the frequency and severity of storm events, though the available data is insufficient to make a reliable risk prediction.
Vulnerability Assessment—Thunderstorms Potential Impacts Thunderstorms have no defined hazard area within Chippewa County. Due to the irregular nature of these events and lack of specific hazard areas, the impacts as a result of a thunderstorm are difficult to quantify. As Table 13 showed, most thunderstorm events occur with minimal negative impacts; and this trend will likely continue.
In general, thunderstorms, high winds, and associated hazards can cause damage to houses or property, uproot trees, and topple (or cause lightning damage to) above-ground power or telephone lines. Above-ground power lines are especially vulnerable in wooded areas with significant residential development, such as older neighborhoods and Note: new subdivisions within pine plantation, where adjacent trees can be blown down onto the lines. Roadways can also be High wind vulnerability is blocked by debris; and debris can accumulate in rivers or further explored as part of stormwater systems, contributing to washouts or flooding. the tornado sub-section.
Severe thunderstorms can cause injury or death from lightning, falling trees, downed power lines, and high-wind impacts. They may cause power outages, disrupt telephone service, and severely affect radio communications and surface/air transportation, which may seriously tax the emergency management capabilities of the affected municipalities. Stormwater and other flooding impacts are discussed separately as part of the flooding hazard assessment in Section III.C.v.
Hail can cause serious injury and damage to buildings, personal property (vehicles), and crops. The most significant damage occurs when hailstones reach a diameter of 1.5 inches, which happens in less than half of all such storms. Hail and high winds can also cause significant damage to trees, landscaping, and agricultural crops. Given the lack of reported hail damage in the County to date, it is not possible to reliably project future damages.
Lightning can result in injury, start fires, spook livestock, short-out electrical systems, cause widespread losses of power, and even cause death. Between 1995 and 2002, there were 364 deaths due to lightning in the United States. in Wisconsin, insurance records show that annually, one out of every fifty farms are struck by lightning or has a fire which may be caused by lightning. Large outdoor gatherings can also be particularly vulnerable to lightning strikes that may result in injuries or death.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 93 SECTION III
Based on key informant interviews, past-event history, and a review of the community, it was determined that the following general types of facilities and community assets are most vulnerable to thunderstorm (non-flooding) events: • Mobile homes, especially those unanchored (high winds) • Large-span buildings and buildings with many windows (high winds, hail) • Above-ground power lines, especially in wooded areas (high winds, lightning) • Outdoor events where large numbers are gathered (high winds, lightning) • Agricultural crops and barns (high winds, hail. lightning)
Overall, most thunderstorms result in minor damage to most buildings and structures, though all improvements and structures are potentially vulnerable to varying degrees. Older, deteriorating structures may be more vulnerable, though the condition of a structure is not inherently linked to age. Some more common impacts include leaks and flooding basements during heavy rains; damage to personal property or windows due to hail; or wind damage to roofs, trees, vehicles, etc. Thunderstorm damage to structures is typically remedied by the individual owner, utilizing insurance as needed, and is not officially reported to Emergency Management officials or other governmental entity. However, some high, straight-line wind events can approach tornado velocity, effectively yielding the same vulnerabilities as a tornado event, especially for mobile homes. Please refer to the vulnerability assessment for tornados in the previous section for a discussion of the potential vulnerabilities due to high winds. Lightning strikes to power lines, homes, and barns are not an uncommon occurrence.
The continuing changes in land-use and development patterns can influence the County’s future exposure to thunderstorms. As discussed in the community profile, the County is continuing to grow and develop. This creates an increasing exposure to the number of residents and properties that could be at risk from future events. Although new development is managed to ensure adequate protective services are provided and construction is governed by the most current building codes, continued growth increases the vulnerability to hazard events.
Vulnerable Critical Facilities A more robust assessment of the community assets (critical facilities) and their susceptibility to thunderstorms is located in Appendix E. The vulnerability assessment shows that utilities and infrastructure, and, in particular, above-ground power and communication lines, have the greatest vulnerability to thunderstorm events from downed power lines and lightning strikes. Facilities with large numbers of windows or large amounts of glass are also vulnerable to hail and high winds (e.g., schools, hospitals).
High winds and lightning can also affect radio communications and antennas, potentially impacting weather warning systems and the coordination of emergency response providers. Power or communications outages as a result of thunderstorm events can indirectly affect the function of other critical facilities (e.g., hospitals, schools, government offices). Risks and vulnerabilities associated with power outages are discussed the following Long-Term Power Outage subsection.
94 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Unique Jurisdictional Risks or Vulnerabilities—Thunderstorms Like tornados and winter storms, thunderstorms pose no risks or vulnerabilities unique to individual jurisdictions. The level of vulnerability increases with development density, population density, age/condition of structures, and value of improvements. As such, cities and villages are the highest vulnerability areas as well as those areas of with higher populations, larger numbers of housing units, and higher assessed value per square mile described previously in Section II.C. of the Community Profile.
During community meetings on this project, high straight-line winds were the most frequently mentioned risks, with power loss, falling tree limbs, and damage to structures (e.g., roofs, mobile homes, siding) being the most significant concern. The vulnerabilities related to high winds were largely covered as part of the tornado section or the long-term power outage section for electric outages.
Any notable differences between municipalities regarding their vulnerability to thunderstorms are further discussed in the Unique Jurisdictional Risk or Vulnerabilities Table in Appendix F.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 95 SECTION III
iii. Winter Storms and Extreme Cold (including blizzards and ice storms)
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2019 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rates moderate ice storms as a 50 percent risk over a ten-year period given their moderate probability (2), low vulnerability (1.2), and substantial to moderate emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (1.8 internal, 1.5 external). Severe ice storms were rated as a lower risk at 26 percent; however their impacts are rated as moderate (2.3) and capacity to handle these events is moderate both internally (2.3) and externally (2.5). Extreme cold and blizzards had higher risks at 61 and 73 percent, respectively, with more substantial capabilities both internally and externally (1.5) to manage extreme cold events than blizzards (2.0). Both were given a moderate probability (2) with moderate to high vulnerability/impacts (2.7). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
Risk Assessment—Winter-Related Events The Hazard Winter-related events can vary in size and strength and include heavy snowstorms, blizzards, freezing rain, sleet, ice storms, and blowing and drifting snow conditions. A variety of weather phenomena and conditions can occur during winter storms. The following are National Weather Service-approved descriptions of winter storm elements: Heavy Snowfall: The accumulation of six or more inches of snow in a 12-hour period, or eight or more inches in a 24-hour period. Winter Storm: The occurrence of heavy snowfall accompanied by significant blowing snow, low wind chills, sleet, or freezing rain. Blizzard: The occurrence of sustained wind speeds in excess of 35 miles per hour accompanied by heavy snowfall or large amounts of blowing or drifting snow. Ice Storm: An occurrence where rain falls from a warm and moist upper layer(s) of the atmosphere to colder and dryer layer(s) at or near the ground, freezes upon contact with the ground, and accumulates on exposed surfaces. Freezing Drizzle/Rain: The effect of drizzle or rain freezing upon impact on objects that have a temperature of 32º Fahrenheit or below.
The above winter storm events may be accompanied by extreme cold. Dangerously cold conditions can be the result of extremely cold temperatures or the combination of cold temperatures and high winds. The combination of cold temperature and wind creates a perceived temperature known as “wind chill.” Wind chill is the apparent temperature that describes the
96 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
combined effect of wind and air temperatures on exposed skin. When wind blows across the skin, it removes the insulating layer of warm air adjacent to the skin. When all factors are equal, the faster the wind blows, the greater the heat loss. As winds increase, heat is carried away from the body at a faster rate, driving down both the skin temperature and, eventually, the internal body temperature. Shown in Table 14 are the calculated wind chill temperatures as a result of specified air temperatures and wind speed.
Table 14. Wind Chill Table (Wind Chill Values in Degrees Fahrenheit) Temperature Wind Speed (MPH) (F) 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 30 25 21 19 17 16 15 14 13 12 25 19 15 13 11 9 8 7 6 5 20 13 9 6 4 3 1 0 -1 -2 15 7 3 0 -2 -4 -5 -7 -8 -9 10 1 -4 -7 -9 -11 -12 -14 -15 -16 5 -5 -10 -13 -15 -17 -19 -21 -22 -23 0 -11 -16 -19 -22 -24 -26 -27 -29 -30 -5 -16 -22 -26 -29 -31 -33 -34 -36 -37 -10 -22 -28 -32 -35 -37 -39 -41 -43 -44 -15 -28 -35 -39 -42 -44 -46 -48 -50 -51 -20 -34 -41 -45 -48 -51 -53 -55 -57 -58 Source: National Weather Service
Regional Trends Most winter storm events are typically regional in nature and are not limited to a localized area or single community. However, levels of snowfall or ice accumulations can vary significantly over relatively short distances. Much of the snowfall in Wisconsin occurs in small amounts of between one and three inches per occurrence. Heavy snowfalls that produce at least eight to ten inches of accumulation occur on average only five times per season. True blizzards are rare in Wisconsin. They are more likely to occur in northwestern Wisconsin than in southern portions of the State, even though heavy snowfalls are more frequent in the southeast. However, blizzard-like conditions can exist during heavy snowstorms when gusty winds cause the severe blowing and drifting of snow.
Both ice and sleet storms can occur at any time throughout the winter season from October into April. Early- and late-season ice and sleet storms are generally restricted to northern Wisconsin. Otherwise, the majority of these ice storms during the winter months occur in southern Wisconsin. In a typical winter season, there are 3 to 5 freezing rain events; and a major ice storm occurs on a frequency of about once every other year. If a half-inch of rain freezes on trees and utility wires, extensive damage can occur, especially if accompanied by high winds that compound the effects of the added weight of the ice. There are also between three to five instances of glazing (less than 1/4 inch of ice) throughout the State during a normal winter.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 97 SECTION III
The following are some of the winter storm record-breaking events for Wisconsin: Record Location County Date Magnitude 24-hour snow Neillsville Clark December 27-28, 1904 26 inches accumulation Seasonal snow Hurley Iron Winter 1996-97 25.2 feet accumulation Snowless streak Milwaukee Milwaukee March 4-December 18, 2012 288 days Coldest Couderay Sawyer February 4, 1996 -55° F temperature
Local Events Since 1970, the average annual snowfall for Chippewa County has been 45 to 55 inches, almost half of which occurred during the months of December and January. According to the National Weather Service, the worst snowstorms in the State of Wisconsin from 1881 to present that potentially included Chippewa County are:
• March 2-4, 1881 - Southern / Central - Blizzard - 2 to 4 feet of snow. Drifts to 20 feet. Milwaukee reported 28.5 inches. • January 15, 1887 - Southern / Central - Snowstorm - 2 feet of snow. Huge drifts. Did You Know?
• December 27-28, 1904 - Southern / Central - Heavy snow/ice. 26 The State of inches of snow at Neillsville (Clark County). Wisconsin 24-hour • January 30-February 1, 1915 - Southern / Central - Heavy snow snowfall record of / ice – severe glazing. 10 inches of snow in Milwaukee. 26 inches was set in Neillsville in • February 12-14, 1923 - Statewide - Blizzard - Heavy snow - December 1904. severe drifting. • February 8-10, 1936 - Statewide - Blizzard - severe drifting. • November 6-8, 1943 - Statewide - Heavy snow/ice - 10 to 18 inches of snow. Roads blocked for several days. • January 28-30, 1947 - Southern / Central - Blizzard - 10 to 27 inches. Drifts to 15 feet. Roads blocked. • January 22-23, 1982 - North half - Blizzard - 10 to 20 inches. Superior had 19 inches. • November 30 - December 2, 1985 - Statewide (except southeast corner) - Widespread snows of 10 to 18 inches. Madison had about 10 inches. • October 31 - November 2, 1991 - Northwest / West Central - Blizzard - "Halloween Storm" - 15 to 30 inches, 6 to 10 foot drifts. 30 inches in Burnett, Douglas, Polk, and St. Croix counties. • January 26-27, 1996 - Statewide - Heavy snow - 6 to 18 inches. Localized amounts of 16 to 18 inches fell along a line from La Crosse to Green Bay. In Chippewa County, over 11 inches of snow fell within a 24-hour period.
98 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
• March 13-14, 1997 - West Central / Northeast - Snowstorm - 12 to 28 inches. 28 inches at Wautoma in Waushara County. • January 21-22, 2005 - Statewide - Blizzard (gusts to 50 mph) - 6 to 15 inches. Although winds gusted up to 50 mph in some areas and visibilities were reduced to less than 1/4 mile due to falling or blowing snow, many areas did not experience these conditions for 3 hours or more to classify as a full blizzard. Nonetheless, heavy snow and very windy conditions created near white-out conditions especially in the south and east. The heaviest totals occurred near Lake Michigan due to additional lake effect, where some areas ended up near 15 inches. • March 18-19, 2005 – West-central – Winter Storm – 18 to 23 inches in a swath from southern Buffalo County to western Jackson County, with 12 to 15.6 inches in La Crosse County. The maximum of 23 inches occurred in northwestern Jackson County. • March 13-14, 2006 – West-central to North-central– Winter Storm – 17 to 32 inch swath from St. Croix County northeast to Iron County. Thundersnow enhanced the accumulations. Very poor visibility resulted from gusty winds around 30 mph and drifting resulted in hundreds of accidents. Locals said it was the worst storm since the 1980s. • February 23-26, 2007 – West-central (through southern and eastern Wisconsin) – Blizzard - Two-round storm, with one overnight the 23rd to 24th, and the second round overnight the 24th into the 25th. Leftover snow accumulations continued overnight the 25th into the 26th. In counties surrounding La Crosse, 8 to 15.6 inches (Galesville) fell in round one, while round two produced 6 to 12.5 inches (Sullivan NWS office) over the southern three-fourths of the State. The leftover snow added another 1 to 4 inches, except for 6 to 14 inches from New London into Door County. Many locations totaled 20 to 25 inches for this long-duration two- punch episode from around La Crosse to Port Washington and a small part of Door County. Gusty winds generated snow drifts up to 5 to 7 feet in height. • December 8-9, 2009 – Nearly statewide – Winter Storm – Large area of 12 inches or more. • December 10-12, 2010 – Nearly statewide – Winter Storm/Blizzard – Large area of 6 to 23 inches. Snowfall averaged 14 inches across Chippewa County. There were reports of thundersnow. Northwest to north winds gusted 30 to 50 mph with some whiteouts reported in exposed areas. A high number of vehicle crashes and stalled vehicles occurred across the region. A number of carbon monoxide poisonings also occurred when heating vents were blocked by accumulating snow, though no local fatalities were reported. The weight of the snow load collapsed the Metrodome’s roof in Minneapolis, MN. • March 22-23, 2011 – Northern and central portion of the State – This late season winter storm resulted from a strong area of low pressure interacting with a cold air mass in place across the upper Midwest. Moderate to heavy snow fell late the 22nd, continuing into much of the day on the 23rd, bringing 5-10” of snow to the northern half of the state. About 11 inches fell across Chippewa County. Thunderstorms developing in Iowa moved northeast into colder air, resulting in locally heavy snow with numerous reports of thunder and lightning. This resulted in higher totals across northeast parts of the state where 12-18 inches fell. Sleet and freezing rain mixed in for central parts of the state with some heavy ice accumulations. Gusty easterly winds produced near-blizzard conditions for northeast parts of the state and also helped to bring down a 2,000 foot media broadcast tower near Fairchild in combination with heavy
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 99 SECTION III
ice accumulations. Green Bay recorded a two-day storm total of 17.8 inches, the biggest snowstorm in over 120 years and the third largest recorded snowstorm. • May 2013 – A late, heavy, and wet snowfall resulted in heavy snow loads across the region, with severe damage to roofs and structures in some neighboring counties. Snowfall amounts in Chippewa County ranged from 9 to 11 inches. About 400 buildings were impacted in nearby Barron County, with many of the collapsed buildings being arm building or accessory structures; some animal deaths did occur. Roof collapses from heavy snow loads and ice damming would again cause damages to many buildings in the region in February 2014. • Winter 2014-2015 Polar Vortex - In winter 2014-2015, Wisconsin experienced a polar vortex. That happens when the cold air cell that is usually centralized in the Arctic splits into smaller cells and those cells travel farther south, cooling the northern hemisphere continents more than normal and warming the Arctic. Statewide, it was the fifth coldest December through February stretch on record with fourteen locations in the state setting new record low average temperatures. Unfortunately, the record cold temperatures also coincided with a propane shortage throughout the Midwest. Many residences in the rural parts of the state rely on propane for heat. When the shortage hit, many people had to move to shelters or stay with friends or relatives. Staying in other places was an option for some, but when home temperatures drop, permanent damage can occur when water pipes freeze and burst. Because of the shortage, propane prices soared; and those without standing contracts spent a lot more than they had planned on. Extremely low temperatures and lack of snow cover resulted in frost depths of up to 10 feet in the region and caused immense damage to infrastructure for many cities and villages. According to nearby Amery Public Works in Polk County, when one pipe was cut into in May, the line was still frozen. As reflected in Appendix F, except for Cadott and Chippewa Falls, most cities and villages of Chippewa County did not experience the extensive damage and service disruptions from water utility freeze-ups that many of their neighboring communities in Clark and Barron counties did. • January 21-23, 2018 - A major winter storm developed across the central Rockies Sunday January 21st, and moved northeast across the Plains, and into the Upper Midwest by early Tuesday morning, January 23rd. A swath of heavy snow fell from south central, into east central Minnesota, as well as portions of west central Wisconsin Monday, January 22nd. The heaviest snow fell along a line from south central Minnesota, near St. James, northeast to the southern part of the Twin Cities Metro area, and into west central Wisconsin near Hudson, Rice Lake and Ladysmith. Another area in west central Wisconsin around Eau Claire and Chippewa Falls reported near a foot. • April 13-15, 2018 - A prolonged snowstorm event with historic snowfall totals for the month of April, started Friday, April 13th, and lasted until late Sunday night April 15th. This storm produced record snowfall amounts, along with the highest snowfall amounts so far into the month of April. The first part of the storm developed early Friday morning with bands of showers and embedded thunderstorms moving northward along the Minnesota-Iowa border. By the late morning, and into the afternoon, surface temperatures cooled in west central Wisconsin where the precipitation changed over to snow. By Saturday afternoon, snowfall rates of 1 to 2 inches per hour were common. Strong northeast winds developed in the morning and held in the 15 to 25 mph range, with gusts of 30 mph through the afternoon and early evening. At times, surface visibility was around one half to one quarter of a mile, especially
100 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
in open country. The Eau Claire airport had three consecutive days (14, 15, & 16) of holding temperatures in the 20s or very low 30s to break records for the lowest high temperature of the day. About 13 inches accumulated near Chippewa Falls and Ladysmith, while Spring Valley held the state total for the event with 15 inches. • January – February 2019 Artic Mass, Heavy Snowfall, and Blizzard – The winter of 2019 brought about wind chills not seen since 1995-96 and record single-month snowfall totals across western Wisconsin. A surge of Arctic air moved southward from Monday afternoon, January 28th, through Wednesday evening, January 30th following a late January weekend storm system that brought measurable snowfall to west central Wisconsin. Wind chill values averaged between 45 and 59 degrees below zero from Tuesday afternoon through Wednesday morning. The coldest measured wind chill of -59F in west central Wisconsin was at the Menomonie airport. Following the extreme cold, a series of heavy snow and winter storm events dropped over 30 inches of snow by February 20th, breaking monthly snowfall records across west central Wisconsin. Heavy snowfall on the evening of Saturday, Feb. 23rd through early Sunday morning, led to storm totals of 8 to 12 inches across the County. This event culminated with blizzard conditions on Sunday afternoon. Winds were sustained over 30 mph, with gusts of 45 mph at times during the height of the storm. The snowpack became extremely heavy after this event, and due to the weight of the snow, many large-span buildings experienced roof cave-ins. On April 10th, a late-season winter storm moved through with gusting winds, freezing rain/sleet, and snowfall totals of 7-10 inches in the County.
Shown in Table 15 is a listing of winter storm and extreme cold events that have been recorded by the National Climatic Data Center for Chippewa County since 1993. Prior to 1993, winter storm data for Chippewa County was not available through the National Climatic Data Center.
Table 15. Chippewa County Winter-Related Events – 1993 through July 2019 Property Date Time Event Type Deaths Injuries Damage Winter Storm Events 1/17/1996 9:00 PM Ice Storm 0 0 0 1/18/1996 5:00 AM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 1/26/1996 2:00 PM Blizzard 0 0 0 1/29/1996 5:00 AM Blizzard 0 0 0 2/8/1996 N/A Winter Weather 0 0 0 3/24/1996 1:00 AM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 11/15/1996 1:00 AM Ice Storm 0 0 0 11/23/1996 N/A Heavy Snow 0 0 0 12/14/1996 4:00 PM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 12/23/1996 9:00 AM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 3/13/1997 1:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/4/1998 5:00 PM Ice Storm 0 0 0 3/8/1999 8:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/12/2000 10:00 AM Heavy Snow 0 0 0
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 101 SECTION III
Property Date Time Event Type Deaths Injuries Damage 1/29/2001 7:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/12/2001 N/A Heavy Snow 0 0 0 1/13/2002 7:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/31/2002 12:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/1/2002 N/A Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/8/2002 6:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/14/2002 8:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/2/2003 8:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/9/2003 3:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/26/2004 N/A Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/1/2004 2:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/5/2004 N/A Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/1/2005 2:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/21/2005 2:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/18/2005 6:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/12/2006 8:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 11/10/2006 1:00 AM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 2/23/2007 3:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/1/2007 N/A Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/1/2007 10:15 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/22/2007 8:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/31/2008 10:00 AM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 4/1/2008 N/A Heavy Snow 0 0 0 12/30/2008 3:15 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/26/2009 5:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 10/12/2009 6:00 AM Winter Weather 0 0 0 12/8/2009 12:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/23/2009 7:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/10/2010 11:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/20/2011 11:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/22/2011 6:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/28/2012 4:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/9/2012 4:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/19/2012 11:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/27/2013 12:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/10/2013 6:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 4/10/2013 3:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 5/2/2013 6:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/14/2014 6:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0
102 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Property Date Time Event Type Deaths Injuries Damage 1/30/2014 6:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/20/2014 4:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 11/10/2014 4:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/2/2016 11:30 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/23/2016 12:30 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/23/2017 11:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/22/2018 7:30 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 3/30/2018 11:30 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 4/3/2018 5:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 4/13/2018 9:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 1/27/2019 9:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/5/2019 2:00 PM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 2/7/2019 9:00 AM Heavy Snow 0 0 0 2/12/2019 N/A Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/20/2019 4:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 2/24/2019 11:00 AM Blizzard 0 0 0 3/9/2019 5:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 4/10/2019 2:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 11/26/19 9:00 PM Winter Storm 0 0 0 12/30/19 12:00 AM Winter Storm 0 0 0 73 Events 0 0 0 Extreme Cold Events 1/31/1996 5:00 AM Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 2/1/1996 N/A Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 1/15/1997 5:00 PM Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 2/10/2008 2:00 AM Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 2/19/2008 6:00 PM Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 1/15/2009 N/A Cold/Wind Chill 1 0 0 1/5/2014 10:00 PM Extreme Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 1/27/2014 4:00 AM Extreme Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 1/17/2016 6:00 AM Extreme Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 1/29/2019 5:00 PM Extreme Cold/Wind Chill 0 0 0 10 Events 1 0 0 source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)
Since 1993, Chippewa County has experienced 2.8 winter storm events and 0.4 extreme cold events per year. All events reported were regional or statewide in nature, also affecting areas outside Chippewa County. These winter-storm events were further characterized by:
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 103 SECTION III
• 3 blizzards (two in 1996 and one in 2019) • 12 heavy snowfall events • 55 winter storm and weather events (mix of snow, ice, wind) • 3 ice storms
Nearly all winter weather and extreme cold events occurred during the months of November through March. Just six events occurred outside these months: early winter weather in October 2009, winter storms in April and May 2013, two separate winter storms in April 2018, and a winter storm in April 2019. All events reported were regional or statewide in nature, also affecting areas outside Chippewa County. Two deaths associated with the above storms occurred in Dunn and Eau Claire counties due to exposure to extreme cold:
• January 1996 – An Elk Mound resident died of exposure after her car had become stranded during blizzard conditions. • February 1996 – An Eau County woman died of exposure after accidently locking herself in her garage. Also, a 77 year old woman was found dead outside her home during an extreme cold event in January 2009. Additional deaths and injuries as a result of traffic accidents, frost bite, etc., associated with these events likely occurred, but were not reported to the National Weather Service.
Based on County Highway Department winter storm reporting to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, salt, sand, and other de-icing and anti-icing agents have been required much more frequently in recent years. For example, during the 2016-2017 winter season, Chippewa County reported 63.3 inches of snow from 22 snow, sleet, and freezing rainstorms that cost the County Highway Department $2,028,369 in material, equipment, and labor for State & Federal highways. For comparison, Winter 2016-2017 was less severe across west-central Wisconsin compared to the previous five-year average.
Drifting of snow on many of the roads of Chippewa County is common during winters when snow and high winds are present, though this has been less of a problem in recent years due to weather patterns and improved equipment. The following snow drifting and accident “hotspots” were identified during the planning process: • US Highway 53 and State Highway 29, including interchanges. Specifically mentioned was STH 29 at the curve south and west of Boyd and between CTH “T” and 103rd Street in the Town of Wheaton. • STH 78, especially between 105th Avenue to CTH “S” • STH 124, especially between 115th Avenue north to CTH “SS” and CTH “S” to STH 64. • All of STH 40 in the Town of Bloomer. • Miscellaneous smaller stretches of roads, especially in western areas of the County.
104 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
• Roundabouts are prone to snow accumulation and “plugging up.” Adjacent landscaping, dirt piles, and structures can contribute to drifting and complicate snow removal.
The most frequently winter-related concern mentioned during meetings and interviews was winter travel on the U.S. Highway 53 and State Highway 29 due to the speeds and traffic volumes involved. Overall, 91 vehicle crashes occurred on State and Federal highways in Chippewa County during Winter 2016-2017, which is more than any other county in northwest Wisconsin except Eau Claire County, which had 144. The crash rate per 100 million vehicle miles of 21 was slightly higher than the Statewide average of 18, but much less than St. Croix County (70), which was the highest rate in Wisconsin. Further, winter-related driving concerns are exacerbated by increasing speeds and “distracted driving” incidents (e.g., accident related to cell phone use), that one local official described as a growing epidemic. In addition to Highways 53 and 29, State Highway 40 north of Bloomer and County Highway “J” were identified as “accident prone” areas.
Some plantings have taken place adjacent to some highways (e.g., STH 29) to help mitigate the drifting of snow. When landowners have allowed, the County has used a grader to mound dirt and create temporary “snow fences” in some other hotspots. To date, there has been no landowner participation in the WDOT program that reimburses farmers to leave some row crops standing along highways for the winter.
Relative Level of Risk The plan update Steering Committee ranked heavy snowstorms and blizzards and extreme cold as the second highest natural hazards facing Chippewa County in terms of combined risk and vulnerability, second only to tornados. Ice storms and sleet also ranked fourth highest overall, though they ranked higher than both snowstorms and extreme cold in terms of vulnerability.
The reoccurrence of winter storm events for Chippewa County is expected to be consistent with recent trends, averaging 2.5 to 3 severe winter storm events each year, with extreme cold events occurring approximately every other year. Snowy, slushy, or icy conditions on roadways from less severe events could be much more frequent. Should Wisconsin’s climate change as will be discussed in Section III.D., Chippewa County could experience warmer, shorter, and wetter winters overall, which could mean fewer extreme cold events, but with increased potential for heavy snow and ice storms.
Vulnerability Assessment—Winter-Related Events Winter storms have no defined hazard area within Chippewa County, and as the data previously showed, these storms tend to be regional in nature. Due to the lack of specific hazard areas and the rarity of serious blizzards and major ice storms, the assessment of community impacts as a result of winter storms is difficult to quantify.
Winter storms pose a serious health and safety threat to area residents and can result in significant damage to property and infrastructure. Heavy snow or accumulated ice can: cause the structural collapse of buildings; down power lines, severely affecting electrical power distribution; cause accidents (e.g., traffic crashes, slipping/falling); and restrict mobility of emergency assistance or
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 105 SECTION III
access to services. Most structures in the County were built to standards that considered snow loads and needed insulation, so this aspect was deemed a relatively low concern. During the December 2010 snowstorm, some furnace exhaust vents on private homes in the region were blocked by accumulating snow which did result in some illnesses and had the potential to be deadly. These events are often accompanied by cold temperatures, which can be deadly as the circumstances surrounding the 1996 event demonstrate.
Accidents and Exposure It does not require a disaster to experience traffic-related or exposure injuries during the winter months. The previous pages discuss the history of winter-related vehicle accidents in Chippewa County and locations of higher accident risk. According to the National Weather Service, approximately 70 percent of serious injuries resulting from winter storms are vehicle accidents, with prolonged exposure to the cold constituting another 25 percent. County and local road crews are continuing to explore the latest winter road maintenance techniques for effectiveness and efficiency. The County Highway Department will install snow fencing, if allowed, along areas of highway that are prone to drifting.
Prolonged exposure to the cold can cause frostbite or hypothermia and become life threatening. When exposed to cold temperatures or low wind chills, one’s body begins to lose heat faster than it can be produced. The result is hypothermia or abnormally low body temperature. A body temperature that is too low can affect the brain, making the victim unable to think clearly or move well. This makes hypothermia particularly dangerous because a person may not know it is happening and will not be able to do anything about it. Hypothermia occurs most commonly at very cold temperatures but can occur even at cool temperatures (above 40°F) if a person becomes chilled from rain, sweat, or submersion in cold water. Victims of hypothermia are most often elderly people with inadequate food, clothing, or heating; babies sleeping in cold bedrooms; children left unattended; adults under the influence of alcohol; mentally ill individuals; and people who remain outdoors for long periods such as the homeless, hikers, hunters, etc.
Frostbite is an injury to the body that is caused by freezing. Frostbite causes a loss of feeling and color in affected areas. It most often affects the nose, ears, cheeks, chin, fingers, or toes. Frostbite can permanently damage the body, and severe cases can lead to amputation.
Long-Term Power Loss Of great concern is the long-term loss of power due to ice storms, winds, and/or heavy snows, especially during extremely cold temperatures. Long-term power loss poses one of the greatest hazard vulnerabilities facing Chippewa County and the region. This threat is discussed within the special analysis on long-term power outages in Section III.C.iv.
During a period of power loss and extreme cold, warming shelters could be activated. About 40 such potential heating/cooling shelter locations have been identified in the County, but have not been activated in the past. Some communities may look to the Red Cross to provide such shelters, though some shelters may not have emergency power generators.
106 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Winter Kill and Frost Impacts on Agricultural Crops Overall, Chippewa County farmers are aware of the winter-related agricultural risks and most use best management practices to mitigate these risks. Winter crops are vulnerable to winter kill during periods of extreme cold without sufficient snow on the ground to help act as an insulator. Four inches of snow cover will allow up to a 20ºF difference in temperature between the soil and air and will prevent the premature breaking of dormancy during temporary warm spells. Some amount of winter kill is fairly frequent and can be expected almost annually; more substantial winter kill events can be expected to occur one or two seasons each decade on average (about a 10% to 20% chance per year) based on recent trends. Late-spring frosts can also damage crops, especially fruit trees.
Alfalfa is especially vulnerable to winter kill, compared to other forage crops. In 2002-2003, winter kill combined with drought during summer 2004 to reduce feed for cattle and create significant hardships for some Chippewa County producers. At about $1,500 of additional feed per mature cow for a year and with 31,600 head of cattle in the County, feed replacement costs can accumulate quickly. Since alfalfa is a relatively low-value crop, Wisconsin State Journal, Sept. 10, 1974. it is typically uninsured. These additional costs can result in less of revenue to the individual producer and can be added costs to manufacturers (e.g., dairies, grocery stores, food processing) and consumers. Late fall alfalfa or hay cuttings can further contribute to winter kill since time is not allowed for adequate re-growth of ground cover, which provides an additional insulating blanket. Periods of freezing and thawing in the spring can also contribute to frost heaving within certain types of soils, leading to additional crop damage.
While less frequent, early frosts can also severely impact agricultural crops. The most significant early frost in recent history transpired in September 1974. This severe frost event occurred on multiple nights, included much of northern and western Wisconsin, and stretched as far south as Kansas. Some counties in the region lost more than 80 percent of the soybean and corn crops. Combined with the impacts of a summer drought, the soybean and corn losses were near 100 percent in nearby Dunn, Chippewa, and Eau Claire counties. In today’s dollars, the total statewide
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 107 SECTION III
crop losses as a result of the September frost were estimated at more than $520 million. And late frosts can also be a concern for different crops. In 2010, a late frost and snow in mid-May hit western Wisconsin while apple trees were blossoming. Production at some orchards in the region decreased by thirty to fifty percent. Cherry, grape, and strawberry crops were also impacted.
Summary of Potential Vulnerabilities The following general types of facilities and community assets were determined to be most vulnerable to winter storm events: • Residents and travelers • Vulnerable populations, such as homeless and elderly (especially during extreme cold) • Above-ground power lines, especially in wooded areas • Agricultural crops
Although the improvement of technology has enabled meteorologists to better forecast and track winter storms, there is no precise way to predict the location and severity of their associated risks. As shown in Table 15, there is no predictable pattern of occurrence, associated risk characteristics, and resulting damage that can be identified and used to make detailed projections on future winter storm events.
Overall, there is a very low vulnerability to structures in Chippewa County due to winter storms. Some occasional roof damage due to ice damming or bursting of inadequately buried water lines can be expected, but such damage is almost always isolated, not officially reported, and/or remedied by the homeowner with an insurance claim. It is unfeasible to maintain a database accurately detailing the structural condition of all $5.7 billion in assessed improvements in Chippewa County to determine which structures may be more vulnerable to the impacts of future winter storm events.
The continuing changes in land-use and development patterns can influence the County’s potential for future exposure to winter storms. As discussed previously, Chippewa County is continuing to grow and develop. This creates an increasing exposure to the number of residents and properties that could be at risk from future winter storm events.
Vulnerable Critical Facilities A more robust assessment of the community’s assets (critical facilities) and their susceptibility to winter storms is located in Appendix E. The greatest winter storm-related vulnerability for Chippewa County’s critical facilities is the widespread loss of electric power. The risks and vulnerabilities related to this threat, and the need for emergency power generation, is discussed in Subsection III.C.iv.
While there are few long-term physical impacts on roads from a hazard mitigation perspective, travel upon sidewalks, roads, and bridges is hazardous under icy or heavy snow conditions as discussed previously. Such road conditions can also impair the function of critical facilities (e.g., staffing at hospitals or schools) and increase emergency response time. Roads in shaded, wooded areas can be especially icy and hazardous. Drifting and accident “hotspots” were previously identified. The County Highway Department also has a one larger and one smaller “scene” trailers
108 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
for emergency support, traffic control, etc.; additional trailers desired for ancillary sites for large events and to reduce response times. Gates are available for most on-ramps for Highways 53 & 29, but there is insufficient barricades for all.
The winter 2014-2015 polar vortex demonstrated the vulnerability of water utilities, especially laterals and poorly insulated plumbing systems, to extreme cold. Ice-damming is a winter or spring-melt phenomenon which is also related to flooding. Though infrequent, ice dams may occasionally contribute to flooding problems on rivers. Yet, most ice-damming problems have been limited to culverts and stormwater drainage systems, with the exception of the Cobban Bridge, which has had some past problems with debris build-up. Repairs to the Cobban Bridge in the 1990s reduced this risk, though the bridge was closed in 2017 due to safety issues; construction on a replacement bridge is scheduled for 2022. Flooding vulnerability is assessed later in this document.
Unique Jurisdictional Risks or Vulnerabilities—Winter Storms Winter storms pose no unique risks or vulnerabilities to individual jurisdictions. These are typically large-area or regional events, occurring countywide. The level of vulnerability increases in areas of higher population, development density, and supportive infrastructure as described previously in Section II. Community Profile. There were few notable differences between municipalities regarding the vulnerability of winter storm events as discussed in the Unique Jurisdictional Risk or Vulnerabilities Table in Appendix F.
Some incorporated communities reported occasional and scattered water line freeze-ups or breaks with the 2014-2015 Polar Vortex season being the worst in recent history for Cadott and Chippewa Falls as discussed previously; Stanley reported that freeze-ups were worse in Winter 2018-2019. Water-dripping programs are often used to mitigate potential damage. As budgets allow, older water lines potentially more prone to breaks are typically replaced and buried deeper as part of street projects. Some mobile homes can be more vulnerable to the water pipe breakage since the lines are often less insulated than standard home construction.
Loss of power due to the damage to overhead power lines was a larger winter-related concern for the cities and villages, though no municipality reported neighborhoods that were more uniquely prone to such events. Section III.C.iv., Long Term Power Outage, discusses the availability of emergency power generation for municipalities and public utilities.
The participating cities and villages did not identify specific local streets that were uniquely prone to ice accumulation or drifting. The exception was the City of Chippewa Falls which needs to temporarily shut down some steep streets on the east side of Duncan Creek one to three times each winter on average. Heavy snow loads in early 2019 caused the collapse of the community building roof in Stanley and related snow melt resulted in minor flooding at the New Auburn Village Hall.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 109 SECTION III
iv. Long-Term Power Outage
Many of the highest-rated natural hazard events facing Chippewa County have the potential to cause an extended and widespread loss of electrical power. Above-ground power lines and transmission towers can be damaged by ice storms, heavy snows, tornados, and high straight-line winds. Elevated power lines in wooded areas have the greatest vulnerability. Such infrastructure can also be damaged by wildfire, lightning, and flooding, though the impacts are typically much more localized. Human action and equipment failure can also result in power loss.
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2019 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rated the risk of major external power outage as a 43% over a ten-year period given its moderate probability (2.0), moderate impacts (1.8), and moderate available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (2.0 internal, 2.0 external). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
Risk Assessment – Long-Term Power Outage There is no standard definition of a “long-term power outage.” For purposes of this Plan, a long- term power outage (LTPO) event is an unplanned loss of electrical power lasting more than 48 hours and impacting a large number of customers and/or critical services.
Three natural hazard threats pose the biggest power loss threat within Chippewa County: a large ice storm, possibly in conjunction with heavy/wet snow; the high winds associated with unstable summertime weather patterns; or high winds during a blizzard. Extended heat waves can also trigger power outages due to the strain on the power grid as the demand for electrical power increases for air conditioning, etc. However, it is large ice storms that often pose the greatest threats due to the potential to affect entire regions during times of year when the vulnerabilities due to the loss of power are at their highest.
According to the National Climatic Data Center database from 1993 through April 2020 , there have been three ice storm events reported for Chippewa County, all occurring in the 1990s. In January 1996, freezing rain produced ice accumulations up to three inches in some areas of the region resulting in scattered power outages that were relatively short in duration. A 1998 event caused above-ground fiber optic phone cables to break, creating problems for customers in eastern Minnesota trying to use long distance phone service.
Even so, the risk of a long-term event is very real. For example, the March 1976 ice storm was one of the worst natural disasters to hit Wisconsin; though Chippewa County was not one of the
110 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
22 counties which were part of this disaster declaration. Ice accumulations of up to five inches were reported, and high winds of 60 mph made the situation worse. Up to 100,000 people were without power at the height of this storm. Serious winter or ice storms in central Wisconsin also occurred in December 1904, February 1922, February 1936, and November 1943, though data on the impacts are limited.
In January 1998, an ice storm hit the Montreal area and left over four million residents without power. Some areas were without power for over three weeks. The January 2009 ice storm which hit Kentucky resulted in $616 million in damages, 36 fatalities, and 700,000 customers without power at its peak; 50,000 customers were still without power after two weeks, and it took 38 days for full restoration. Ice and heavy snow in the late fall when leaves are still on the trees can exacerbate outages as trees and branches collapse under the combined weight. This was the case during the Halloween 2011 nor’easter which broke many snowfall records in the northeastern U.S. and left approximately 1.7 million customers without power.
from Eau Claire Daily Telegram, March 12, 1962 The threat of extended power loss is not limited to large, regional, and multi-state winter storms. Localized or shorter- term outages lasting a few hours can be deadly or destructive if not prepared. For example, the March 1962 event that struck the Eau Claire area left many without electric or telephone service for an extended period. And in 2011, one death occurred in Clark County when a tornado knocked out electricity for an oxygen machine.
While the focus of power loss is often on ice storms due to their widespread nature, other natural events can also result in a sizable loss of power. In fact, high winds and falling trees appear to be a more frequent cause of widespread loss of power due to a natural hazard event. “The Big Wind” struck the Eau Claire area on July 15, 1980, with high winds and tornados causing great damage to property, trees, and power lines, as well as one death and numerous injuries. Power on
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 111 SECTION III
the south side of Eau Claire would not be restored for five to seven days, with electric crews putting in 16-18 hours each day.30
In July 1991, a particularly violent and widespread straight-line wind (or derecho) lasted 17 hours and stretched from South Dakota to western Pennsylvania, including parts of Wisconsin. This event caused over $100 million in damage and resulted in power loss to nearly one million customers. In Chippewa County, some customers were without power for up to two weeks. A similar event in May 1998 blew through central Wisconsin resulting in at least $500 million damage and over two million people were without electrical power, some for over 10 days.
Widespread power outages in Chippewa County occurred in Winter 1994 (ice storm) and the summers of 2000 and 2001 (lightning, high winds); most of these outages was due to trees falling on overhead power lines. High winds in October 2010 left about 44,000 Xcel Energy customers in the Upper Midwest without power at different times over a two-day stretch; about 300 customers lost power in the Eau Claire-Chippewa Falls area during this event. On May 24, 2012, straight- line winds hit the Chippewa Valley leaving nearly 6,700 Xcel customers (about 5,200 of which were City of Eau Claire residents) without power.
Other wind and storm events have resulted in localized power losses in the Chippewa County, though the long-term loss of power exceeding 48 hours is quite rare and has been limited to a very small number of customers in recent history. The 2011 Burnett County straight-line wind left some areas without power for about a week. And in July 2016, severe thunderstorms left about 250,000 Xcel Energy customers in the Twin Cities metropolitan area without power.
Closer to home, high winds caused widespread outages in Chippewa County in July 2019; tornados as part of this storm front were reported in Polk, Barron, and Clark counties. Some trees up to 15 inches in diameter were uprooted. Some Chippewa County residents were without power for up to 48 hours. Trees and power lines fell upon and blocked some roadways; electric providers were very concerned that some people continued to drive by downed lines that were still “hot”. To restore power, Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative requested mutual aid assistance from other cooperatives through their R.O.P.E. system.
There are two primary electrical providers in Chippewa County: Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative (serves approximately 56% of the County area) Xcel Energy (serves approximately 30% of the County area).
The remaining 14 percent of the County area is served by five additional cooperatives (Barron Electric, Clark Electric, Dunn County Electric, Eau Claire Electric, and Jump River Electric), the Bloomer Electric Utility, and the Cadott Light & Water Municipal Utility.
A look at recent power outages in Table 16 for Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative provides further insight into the potential risk. The table includes power service provider/supplier outages, which are a transmission-related issue and outside the control of the Electric Cooperative.
30 Hoffland, Lukas. “Spearhead Echo: The Storm of 1980”, LukasLight, Eau Claire, WI, 2005.
112 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Table 16. Average Outages by Cause – Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative
Outage 2018 5-Year Average Cause % of outage hours Power Service Provider 0.0% 13.3% Extreme Storm Event (outages >1 hr/member) 20.3% 19.3% Prearranged/Planned 4.3% 5.6% All Other Service Interruptions 34.6% 39.2% # of Outages 347 avg. 455/yr # Customers Affected 4,286 avg. 4,680/yr Total Outage Hours 7,332 avg. 9,526/yr source: Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative, 9/5/19
The table suggests that about 20% of all service interruptions are due to an extreme storm event (e.g., ice, high winds). Most of these outage events are fairly localized; on average, about ten customers are affected. And most events are short-term; on average, there are about two outage hours per customer. The Electric Cooperative noted that until the 2019 storm, their outage numbers had been improving significantly in recent years, in part due to proactive clearing of overhanging branches within right-of-way. For example, the Electric Cooperative averaged 675 outages per year from 2000-2014 with 22,397 outage hours.
The risk of a cyber-attack on the power grid has been increasingly in the news as will be discussed further in subsection III.B.iv. A cyber-attack could result in a large-scale or regional loss of power, since such an attack would likely target the power generating facilities or transmission infrastructure. The vulnerabilities or impacts are significantly less for the local distribution systems. Hacking of billing systems or digital electric meters is possible, but would likely not result in a widespread, long-term outage.
In summary, a widespread, long-term power outage event covering most or all of Chippewa County would be rare, but the potential does exist. Based on discussions with personnel from area electric providers, it is estimated that only about five or six long-term power outage events have likely impacted the region during the past century, but these have not approached the scale of the 1976 Wisconsin, 1998 Montreal, or 2009 Kentucky outages.
Areas of Higher Risk All above ground/overhead power lines have a higher risk of producing an outage due to ice, winds, tree damage, etc. The loss of power due to falling limbs and trees has been largely mitigated through proactive, aggressive tree-trimming programs by the electric providers serving Chippewa County. Tree trimming also reduces the wildfire ignition risk.
Xcel Energy, Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative, and local municipalities were asked to identify areas of higher outage risk or prone to outages. Xcel Energy did report occasional outages from winds or ice but did not identify any specific problem areas within the County.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 113 SECTION III
Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative reported that some areas of higher risk identified in the 2012 Mitigation Plan had been mitigated through burying or replacement. Generally, overhead lines located in forested areas and/or aging lines continue to be a priority for burying or replacement through attrition as resources and/or grant funding allows; the Cooperative plans to continue this policy. To date, the Electric Cooperative has not received FEMA mitigation grant funds for such projects.
The Cooperative identified the following specific areas of overhead electrical lines of concern: • Areas in the central and eastern parts of the Town of Sampson, including along 117th Street (Plummer Road), the Long Lake area southeast of Highway 40, the Hodge/South Shattuck Lakes area along County Highway M, and along 167th Street. This landscape is dominated by forest, wetlands, and kettle lakes, which adds to the challenges of providing electric services. • The Rock Lake and Eagle Lake area along 153rd Street in the Town of Cleveland has a similar landscape. • In the northern Town of Eagle Point, the 175th Street/175 Avenue area, which includes Howe Lake, Upper Twin Lake, and Boot Lake, is also largely forested and prone to potential outages. • The south end of Lake Holcombe in the towns of Lake Holcombe and Birch Creek are also of particular concern, in part due to the concentration of residences and businesses. This includes the wooded residential and small business area east 250th Street that is south of Park Road and north of County Highway M • Due to its importance of providing power to many local residents and businesses, the lines running, 260th Avenue from 250th Street (County CC) to its intersection with County Highway M runs through some wooded areas and is an elevated vulnerability.
Power loss due to falling trees is not limited to the unincorporated areas. Residential neighborhoods with older trees or built within wooded areas of cities and villages are also vulnerable to outages. No cities, villages, or towns identified specific areas as being uniquely prone to power outages.
Vulnerability Assessment – Long-Term Power Outage While rare, the impacts and costs of a long-term power outage event can be tremendous, and the Steering Committee viewed this threat as one of the greatest natural hazard concerns for Chippewa County. Extended power loss in Chippewa County due to a storm event would likely involve many downed trees and power lines. Downed lines present safety hazards for residents, travelers, and emergency responders. Response can be further hampered by blocked roads from power lines and debris.
114 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Replacement costs for power lines vary based on physical site conditions, but are approximated as follows: Single Phase – Overhead: $85,000/mile Single Phase – Underground: $56,000/mile Three Phase – Overhead: $185,000/mile Three Phase – Underground: $100,000/mile
Estimated mileage of all elevated power lines in Chippewa County is not available. However, in the entire Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative system, there is approximately 800 total miles of overhead lines. With forest being the predominate land cover for about 35 percent of Chippewa County, a significant portion of these overhead lines are most at risk of damage due to falling trees or limbs.
Given the above replacement costs, the potential damages to overhead power lines from a severe storm event in Chippewa County could easily be in the millions. While Xcel Energy serves less area, it does serve a larger percentage of total customers in the County, including most cities and villages.
Based on recent experiences elsewhere in the United States, it is not unrealistic to imagine a significant portion of the County’s population, businesses, and facilities could be without power for one to three weeks should a 50- or 100-year event occur. Following the 2009 picture from Mark Garland, Kentucky Div of Emgy Mgmt Kentucky storm, 37 percent of affected customers were still without power after one week and seven percent were without power after two weeks. During the Kentucky event, carbon monoxide from improper generator use was the largest cause of death. But it must be remembered that the potential impacts in Chippewa County could be much more severe—Kentucky’s temperature warmed well above freezing following their ice storm. In comparison, the local daily mean January temperature of 11.9ºF 31 could prove quite deadly should power be lost, and transportation systems hindered for an extended time. This is discussed more in the winter storms assessment.
Long-term power outage (LTPO) planning has been receiving increased attention in Wisconsin during the past decade. Realizing the seriousness of this threat, Chippewa County Emergency Management, local officials, electric providers, and other local stakeholders participated in a series
31 National Climatic Data Center. Amery Station Climatography, 1971-2000. http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/climatenormals/clim20/wi/470904.pdf
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 115 SECTION III
of regional-level workshops and tabletop exercises in 2010 on this topic. More recently, a number of additional critical infrastructure workshops have been locally hosted by Disaster Ready Chippewa Valley and Wisconsin Emergency Management. Lessons learned from these workshops have been considered when identifying strategy recommendations for this plan update. Based on these workshops and exercises, the following groups and critical facilities were identified as being especially vulnerable or important during a long-term power outage event: • Independent Special Populations (e.g., seniors, disabilities) • Long-Term Care Facilities and Hospitals • Municipal Utilities and Emergency Fuel • Emergency Response Providers, Communications, & Operations Centers • Emergency Shelters and Food Distribution Sites (i.e., schools)
The large population of the urban area and the very rural nature of many other parts of the County pose challenges to the identification and tracking of residents who may have special needs during a LTPO event (e.g., dialysis, oxygen/ventilator, medicines). Seniors living alone are of special concern. The Town of Lafayette noted that mobile homes can be especially vulnerable during power outages in winter due to poor insulation, risk of freezing water lines, etc.
Special Populations Social isolation, fixed incomes/poverty, and physical and/or mental health conditions can all present special challenges to emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. Seniors living alone in rural areas are of special concern.
In 2018, Chippewa County had an estimated 15,462 residents ages 60 and over, over 24 percent of its total population. Of this age group, 78 percent reside outside of the City of Chippewa Falls. Cities, villages, and towns outside Chippewa Falls had 78 percent of the County’s total population in 2018, demonstrating that the senior population is fairly evenly distributed across the County between rural and urban areas. As discussed earlier, the number of County residents ages 65 and over is projected to nearly double between 2010 and 2040.
The Chippewa County Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) provides nutrition and support services to seniors and disabled in the County at four senior dining locations and a restaurant as well as delivering meals to about 150 additional residents through its meals-on- wheels program. Meals-on-wheels participants also receive a supply of emergency meals should regular service be disrupted. Such services are an important means of tracking and reaching out to the County’s special needs population during a disaster, though such services could be disrupted during a long-term power loss event.
The ADRC has been promoting individual emergency planning for senior and special needs clients, with emergency communications networks and other preparedness actions. Emergency contact information is collected from clients upon entering the meals-on-wheels program and the County is exploring ways to best integrate such information with the new mass notification system. ADRC also works with County Emergency Management, Public Health, and other partners for the distribution of hazard awareness and preparedness educational materials through the ADRC
116 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
monthly newsletter with a circulation of about 2,000 issues. Similarly, Chippewa County Public Health maintains emergency contact information for their clientele and will check on the health of at-risk clients during or following a disaster event. To help identify, reach out, and direct services to at-risk populations, Chippewa County relies on coordination with various public-, non-profit, and private-sector service providers.
Local electric providers give preference to “critical accounts” that have an important safety or health role, such as hospitals. Providers also encourage household planning. For example, the following statement is provided to Xcel Energy’s “critical accounts”: “An approved medical designation on the customer’s account does not guarantee uninterruptible utility service or immediate restoration of utility service. Inform customers of the importance of having a household backup plan in place for use of their medical equipment should a disruption of utility service occur.”
As previously discussed in Section II.D., Chippewa County has numerous nursing homes and assisted living facilities, the majority of which are located in the City of Chippewa Falls. During a long-term power outage event, most of these facilities would initially shelter-in-place, though medicine, equipment, and municipal water and sewer would become very serious concerns after the first 24-48 hours if power is not restored. Past regional power outage exercises have increased attention to these concerns.
Vulnerability of Communities, Critical Facilities, and Businesses The availability of emergency power generators for utilities, communications, shelters, emergency operations, fuel sources, long-term care facilities, and other critical facilities is crucial to mitigating the potential impacts of a long-term power outage (LTPO) event. Many municipal buildings (e.g., city/village halls) also perform an important emergency operations center (EOC) role should disaster strike. Further, demands may be high on limited fuel sources for response vehicles, electric crews, and power generators. No formal inventory of emergency power generator availability has been performed in the County.
The Chippewa County Highway Department has a generator at their facilities for emergency fuel, lighting, doors, etc. During community meetings, a number of emergency power generator needs were identified by the participating cities and villages: Bloomer – Fire department lacks an emergency power generator but has a portable one available. No generator is dedicated to the dam. Chippewa Falls – There are many critical facilities without generators. The city hall is partially wired for an existing generator. Generators for public works are available, but they could use additional fixed and/or portables for some wells and lift stations. It is unknown if the street department gas pumps can operate on a generator. More public education and shelter agreements are needed for long-term power loss.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 117 SECTION III
Cornell – The City could explore larger conductor and power line ice prevention options as mitigation projects. There is no generator at the WWTP or Cornell Ambulance. Stanley – Power loss is a concern for assisted living and long-term care facilities. Generators are not available at the city hall/police department or fire hall/storm shelter. Boyd – There is one power line into the community, and it does not have redundancy. A six-hour power outage occurred in 2018 when the line broke. The fire dept./EOC and village hall/back-up EOC do not have generators, and the fire hall doors cannot be opened without power. Cadott – A portable generator would be helpful for the lift stations and water system. If power loss occurred, it would activate a heating or cooling shelter. Lake Hallie – No emergency power generator needs were noted. New Auburn – No emergency power generator needs were noted.
The Town of Lafayette also identified a need for back-up generator for their town hall; it is believed that many of the towns also lack generators for their town halls/EOCs and/or town shops. The community meetings and stakeholder interviews were also used to update the critical facilities vulnerability assessment table in Appendix E. This assessment suggests that ice storms, tornados, and high winds are the largest threats to power loss, though there is a growing cyber-threat given national and international incidences in recent years (see Cyber-Attack assessment section).
Likely due to the high demand for generators, Wisconsin Emergency Management has not included emergency power generators on its priority list for hazard mitigation grant funding at this time, unless the generator is part of another eligible project (e.g., community safe room). Even less frequently common are agreements for emergency fueling should an event last multiple-days and exhaust local fuel supplies.
Long-Term Power Outage Preparedness & Communication In short, a long-term, widespread power outage is one of the greatest natural hazard vulnerabilities facing the Chippewa County and the region. As the Kentucky experience shows, total costs in response and damages can be in the tens of millions or greater. Significant threats to life and safety exist due to downed lines, fire, improper generator use, loss of access to medical treatments, extreme cold, and loss of food and other utilities.
Cooperation, communication, and planning with power providers and critical facilities are key to preparing for and mitigating the impacts of power loss. Based on discussions with representatives from Xcel Energy, Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative, and other area electric providers, the following should be considered:
118 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
• Involving utility providers in disaster event exercises and incident command system (ICS) training is very important. It is recommended that critical facilities drill their outage plans and provide the electric provider with 24/7 contact information. Advanced notice for such trainings and workshops is required due to the time commitments involved. In lieu of more formal exercises, even periodic, less formal “sitdowns” can be valuable, including the sharing of any “lessons learned” following an outage event. • Communication between electric providers and utilities, emergency management personnel, service providers, and local communities can be vital during a LTPO event to help protect the safety of responders and residents. This includes notifying electric restoration crews of known road washouts, flooding areas, etc. For a major disaster, utilities may provide a liaison at the County Emergency Operations Center. • Electric providers have a strong mutual aid network should it be needed, such as the Restoration of Power during an Emergency (ROPE) system for cooperatives. It is important to remember that during a large event, mutual aid support may come from communities throughout North America. Staging, logistics, tracking, and related administration for such efforts can be tremendous challenges. • During a disaster or power outage, electric providers can often “ping meters” to help identify areas with outages, possible downed power lines, etc. • Some utilities and electric providers maintain lists of critical clients or medical accounts (e.g., oxygen) that will be given a preference for power restoration, but the availability of this service varies by provider. • Electric providers and utilities have a key public informational role during an outage. In addition to working with media and social media (Facebook), most providers, have web- based power outage maps that are close to “real time”. • It is important that emergency response and public-sector road crews understand the risks of working near downed power lines and how power is restored. • More public education may be needed on safety issues during a power outage, avoiding downed power lines, how to get information during an outage (e.g., media, websites, mobile apps), and how power is restored. • To assist in such educational efforts, the Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative has a high voltage demonstration trailer that it takes to schools, highway departments, emergency response agencies on a three-year rotating basis or as requested.
The following websites of area electric providers is a great place to start: https://www.xcelenergy.com/outages_and_emergencies https://www.cvecoop.com/outages.php
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 119 SECTION III
v. Flooding (including dam failure, riverine, & stormwater flooding)
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2017 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rates flooding as a 35% risk over a ten-year period given its moderate probability (2), low to moderate vulnerability (1.8), and moderate-to- substantial available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (1.5 internal, 1.5 external). The HVA give flash flooding a higher overall risk (58%), with the same probability (2) and moderate vulnerability (2.2). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities
Risk Assessment--Flooding The Hazard Flooding is the only serious natural hazard facing Chippewa County that has definable areas of higher risk, with the possible exception of wildfire. As such, flooding receives the greatest level of analysis within this Plan.
Flooding is defined as a general condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land from the overflow of inland waters, or the unusual and rapid accumulation or runoff of surface waters from any source. Often, the amount of damage from flooding is directly related to land use. If the ground is saturated, stripped of vegetation, or paved, the amount of runoff increases and contributes to flooding. Additionally, debris carried by the flood can damage improvements and infrastructure or can obstruct the flow of water and further add to flooding. For Chippewa County, flooding can be further subdivided into three primary types: (1) lake or riverine flooding, (2) overland or stormwater flooding, and (3) flooding resulting from dam failure.
Lake or Riverine Flooding (Overbank) - Major floods in Wisconsin have, for the most part, been confined either to specific streams or to locations which receive intense rainfall in a short period of time. Flooding which occurs in the spring due to snow melt and/or a prolonged period of heavy rain is characterized by a slow buildup of flow and velocity in rivers, streams, or lakes over more than six hours and often over a period of days. This buildup continues until the river, stream, or lake overflows its banks for as long as KEY DEFINITION a week or two, then slowly recedes. Generally, the timing and location of A 100-year flood has a 1% chance of being this type of flooding is fairly equaled or exceeded in any given year. predictable and allows ample time for evacuation of people and property.
120 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
For regulatory purposes, the terms “100-year flood” and “floodplain” are commonly used. A 100- year flood, often referred to as a regional flood, special flood hazard area, or base flood, is a flood that has a one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. This can be misleading as a 100-year flood is not a flood that will occur once every 100 years. The 100-year flood, which is the standard used by most Federal and State agencies, is used by the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) as the standard for floodplain management and to determine the need for flood insurance.
A floodplain is that land which has been or may be covered by floodwater during a flood event and includes the floodway and flood fringe areas (see Figure 15). The floodway is the channel of a river or stream and those portions of the floodplain adjoining the channel required to carry the regional flood discharge. Since it is associated with moving water, the floodway is the most dangerous part of the floodplain. The flood fringe is the portion of the floodplain outside of the floodway, which is covered by flood water during the regional flood and is generally associated with the storage of water rather than flowing water. The flood fringe is also that part of the floodplain in which development may be allowed in some communities, subject to floodplain development standards.
Figure 15. Elements of a Floodplain Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 121 SECTION III
The regional flood elevation is the elevation determined to be representative of large floods known to have occurred in Wisconsin or which may be expected to occur on a particular lake, river, or stream at a frequency of one percent during any given year. The flood protection elevation is an elevation which is 2 feet above the regional flood elevation as defined by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Development is sometimes allowed within the flood fringe if the structure is raised above the flood protection elevation. However, development in the flood fringe can decrease important floodwater storage; hydraulic analysis is often needed to ensure that the development will not result in increased flooding in adjacent areas or farther downstream.
Often, the term “floodplain” is used inappropriately by assuming that floodplains are limited to the 100-year floodplain boundary. This is not the case, and a floodplain can be identified for a 200-year flood, 500-year flood, or other such level of risk.
The 100-year floodplain is a guide for regulatory and insurance purposes. Floods greater than a 100-year regional flood event can and do occur. Nationwide, approximately 25 percent of all National Flood Insurance Program claims are for structures outside the 100-year floodplain. This is a surprisingly high number, since many homes or structures outside the 100-year floodplain do not have flood insurance; and flood insurance is typically not required by lending institutions for mortgages on structures not within the 100-year floodplain. But this demonstrates that most properties are at risk of flooding to some degree.
Generally, the 100-year floodplain should be considered the high flood-hazard risk area. The 100- year floodplains are shown as the “A” zones on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Nationwide, 26 percent of the 100-year floodplains experience or exceed a 100-year flood event within a typical 30-year mortgage period. The 500-year floodplains (the shaded “X” zones on the FIRM maps) are the medium-risk flood-hazard areas. The remaining unshaded “X” zones on the FIRM maps should be considered the low-risk flood-hazard areas.
Also, high-hazard flood areas can exist which are not shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps. And floodplains can change in hazard risk and size as development occurs or with other physical changes in the environment. Municipalities can take the initiative to have new flood risks added to the FIRM maps as a Letter of Map Change (LOMC) or otherwise consider them during their planning and regulatory processes. Allowing inappropriately planned development to occur with knowledge of such potential hazards could be a source of potential liability for a community should a flood event occur which impacts the development.
Updated FIRMs for Chippewa County were made effective in February 2009, then amended in April 2014, and are available in a digital format (D-FIRMs). The accuracy of the D-FIRMs remains a concern for local officials and residents. Since 2009, Chippewa County has completed a light detection and ranging (LiDAR) remote-sensing project, which provides much improved topographical/contour data on which more accurate floodplain boundaries can be determined, though this information was not used for the current, effective FIRMs.
122 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Overland or Stormwater Flooding – This type of flooding which occurs primarily from surface runoff as a result of intense rainfall is referred to in this Plan as overland flooding, but is sometimes called stormwater flooding. These flooding events tend to strike quickly and end swiftly. If 6” of rain falls on 2,000 square feet of roof and concrete (about the size of a typical roof, driveway, and garage), 1,000 square feet of stormwater will run off from that single home.
Flash flooding (Overbank or Overland) is more difficult to distinguish and can, in fact, be either riverine (overbank) or overland flooding. In this Plan, flash flooding has been grouped with overland flooding due to its often unpredictable nature and the intense, rapid rise and velocity of the water levels. For prediction and warning purposes, floods are classified by the National Weather Service into two types: those that develop and crest over a period of approximately six hours or more and those that crest more quickly. The former are referred to as "floods" and the latter as "flash floods." Like overland flooding, flash flooding is typically the result of intense rainfalls, possibly in conjunction with already saturated soils, though very sudden snow melts can also contribute to overland or flash flooding.
Areas with steep slopes and narrow stream valleys are more vulnerable to overland and flash flooding, as the water can achieve high velocity in a short time. Developed areas with substantial impervious surfaces can further contribute to overland and flash flooding. Flash floods often occur in smaller watersheds or are very localized, and are not necessarily reflected on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Flash flooding can also be the result of dam failure. Generally, Chippewa County has not had significant overland or overbank flooding problems from groundwater fluctuation and seepage compared to some other counties in the region.
Dam Failure - According to the FEMA Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, dam failure is defined as a: “Catastrophic type of failure characterized by the sudden, rapid, and uncontrolled release of impounded water or the likelihood of such an uncontrolled release. It is recognized that there are lesser degrees of failure and that any malfunction or abnormality outside the design assumptions and parameters that adversely affect a dam's primary function of impounding water is properly considered a failure. These lesser degrees of failure can progressively lead to or heighten the risk of a catastrophic failure. They are, however, normally amenable to corrective action. (FEMA 148).”
Dam failure can occur from structural problems at the dam, hydrologic problems, malfunction of equipment, or human error in the monitoring or release of water. As such, dam failure can occur with little or no warning and on clear days with no rain, unlike the other types of flooding.
Older dams which have been poorly maintained have a larger potential of dam failure. Hydrologic problems may occur when there is heavy precipitation or snow melt, resulting in more water being impounded than by design or more than the spillway can handle, resulting in adjacent flooding, overtopping, or structural failure. A partial or complete failure of a dam can release great amounts of water, leading to loss of life and substantial damage downstream. A dam failure may lead to additional failures of other downstream dams. And the sudden, prolonged disappearance of an
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 123 SECTION III
impoundment due to dam failure can also have serious impacts on wildlife habitat, recreation, and tourism.
Regional Flooding Trends Low-lying areas of those Wisconsin counties that border the Wisconsin and Mississippi rivers and many nearby tributaries, including the Chippewa River, are prone to riverine flooding. As development has increased, agricultural flooding in some areas has increased as well. Shoreline development has also increased both the risk and vulnerabilities to flooding. Since the 1960s, the number of homes along northern Wisconsin lakes has increased over 216 percent. Wisconsin Emergency Management estimated in 2011 that over 11,600 buildings in Wisconsin would be damaged from a 100-year flooding event. Nationwide, floodplains have been slowly increasing in size due to increases in runoff and decreases in flood storage areas.
Flooding is the principal cause of damage in 29 of 43 Presidential Disaster Declarations and one of six Presidential Emergency Declarations in Wisconsin from 1971 through April 2011. From 1971 until 1993, the total flood damages in Wisconsin were estimated at $352 million. In June 1993, flooding over large areas of the State, including Chippewa County, resulted in over $740 million in estimated damages from this single event. Even worse flooding damage was experienced in Wisconsin in June 2008, with damages estimated at roughly $763 million.
There have been very few dam failures in Wisconsin that resulted in major damages or loss of life. The June 1993 flood event included the failure of an embankment associated with the Hatfield Dam on the Black River which contributed to flooding damage downstream in the City of Black River Falls. In 2002, a small privately owned dam in Osceola washed out and caused significant damage to a mobile home park. In June 2008, the Lake Delton Dam broke, which resulted in mudslides that washed out a number of homes. Many of Wisconsin’s approximately 3,800 dams are small logging or milling dams built prior to 1900 and have little or no associated vulnerabilities. Between 1990 and 1995, more than 75 dam failures were documented in Wisconsin. Several of these incidents resulted in injuries and serious property damage, but no loss of life.
Local Flooding Events Chippewa County has a long history of flooding, with early flood reports focusing on the Chippewa Falls area. Heavy rains in September 1884 resulted in the destruction of bridges across Duncan Creek and the Chippewa River, washed out rail lines, ruined crops, destroyed forty buildings in Chippewa Falls, and resulted in some loss of life. Log booms broke at numerous mills releasing an estimated forty million feet of logs down the river which swept everything in their path. In today’s dollars, the estimated damages in Chippewa Falls would be approximately $24,000,000.
Later, a series of five floods between 1934 to 1943 in Chippewa Falls resulted in over $5.7 million in damage in today’s dollars.
Since 1953, there have been six Federal Major Disaster Declarations that included Chippewa County—May 1969, April 1973, July 1980, July 1993, May/June 2004, and September 2016. All
124 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
six of these events involved flooding, though high winds were the primary source of damages in the County for some of these events.
1884 Chippewa River Flood from Harper’s Weekly
In recent decades, most of the County’s rivers and lakes stay within their banks during heavy rains or spring run-off. For those areas prone to overbank flooding, precautions have been implemented to mitigate flood damage, such as floodplain zoning and dam controls. The most significant flooding problems over the past decade have occurred when natural or man-made drainage and stormwater systems have been unable to handle heavy rain events, especially in low-lying areas or when the ground is already saturated.
In Table 17, the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) identified 19 flood event reports for Chippewa County since 1993; flood events were not reported to NCDC prior to 1993. With the exception of the 2016 event, Table 17 also indicates that flood-related damage has been relatively low in recent years, though damages are frequently under-reported or go unreported. No injuries or deaths in Chippewa County associated with these events were reported. Numerous reports of basement flooding were made. It is notable that only four of the NCDC-recorded flood events occurred in March, April, or May with the other event occurring in the summer and fall months. This trend is consistent with the growing emphasis on overland and flash flooding projects in the County over the last two decades.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 125 SECTION III
Table 17. Chippewa County Flood Events in NCDC Database – 1993 through 2019 Property Crop Location Date Time Type Damage Damage 4/3/97 6:00 AM Flood 0 0 CADOTT 8/23/99 6:00 PM Flood 10,000 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 9/10/00 9:25 PM Flash Flood 0 0 COUNTYWIDE 8/1/01 8:00 AM Flash Flood 50,000 0 NORTH PORTION 6/25/02 9:05 PM Flash Flood 0 0 NORTH PORTION 9/5/02 4:00 PM Flash Flood 50,000 0 COUNTYWIDE 6/7/05 6:50 PM Flash Flood 5,000 0 CORNELL 8/11/10 N/A Flash Flood 0 0 (EAU) ARPT 6/18/11 8:00 PM Flash Flood 0 0 TILDEN 7/16/11 8:30 AM Flash Flood 0 0 JIM FALLS 7/6/15 5:00 AM Flash Flood 0 0 BATEMAN 9/2/15 2:30 PM Flash Flood 0 0 BLOOMER 9/17/15 9:00 AM Flash Flood 25,000 0 CHETEK 5/31/16 3:30 PM Flash Flood 0 0 BLOOMER 8/16/16 6:15 PM Flash Flood 0 0 ALBERTVILLE 9/21/16 7:00 PM Flash Flood 882,000 0 BATEMAN 7/12/17 2:30 AM Flash Flood 25,000 0 ALBERTVILLE 3/15/19 N/A Flood 0 0 CHIPPEWA FALLS 4/18/19 12:30 PM Flash Flood 100,000 0 19 events $1,147,000 0 source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC); damage estimates not adjusted for inflation.
A closer review of some of the recent flood events in Chippewa County provides a better understanding of the frequency, characteristics, and damages related to flooding in the County:
June/July 1993 Heavy rains in June 1993 washed out dams, damaged roads, and flooded structures in many areas of the region. Agricultural crops were most severely impacted by flooding combined with continued wet weather. In the area, this event is best known for the extensive flooding on the Black River, including a dam failure which flooded 90 structures in the City of Black River Falls in Jackson County to the south. Eau Claire County would later undertake flood mitigation efforts, including the buy-out of some floodprone structures, as a result of this event.
June/July 2000 Severe thunderstorms accompanied by heavy rains, high winds, and stormwater flooding struck the region. This event was part of a Presidential Disaster Declaration, though it is strangely absent from the NCDC database.
September 2000 Following heavy rains, this stormwater flash flood event was the most substantial in Chippewa County since 1986. Roads, culverts, and residences were damaged and a Sheriff’s Department squad car was lost due to overland flooding. Flood damages were widespread across the southern half of the County as reported by the communities: Village of Boyd culvert & road washout on Boundary Road $15,000-$20,000 Town of Howard culvert & road washout on 70th Street unknown
126 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Town of Sigel 7 road washouts $40,000-$50,000 Town of Colburn road washouts unknown Town of Edson culvert & road washout on 370th St unknown Town of Eagle Point 2 culvert washouts on 150th St $2,000-$3,000 Town of Delmar 4 road washouts & 1 culvert repair unknown Town of Lafayette road washouts $20,000-$30,000 Town of Wheaton road washouts unknown Town of Anson shoulder damage along 162nd St. < $500 Town of Hallie road and shoulder damage (4 locations) est. $4,500 Town of Tilden 6 road washouts est. $4,500 Town of Goetz road washouts est. $9,000 Town of Arthur 2 shoulder washouts $2,000-$3,000 Village of Cadott 10 road/ditch washouts + alley grading $4,300 Sheriff’s Dept. squad car (self insured) est. $27,000 Highway Dept. building and contents fully insured
Some residential sub-divisions also experienced run-off problems, though more attention is now being given to site design by local governments and builders.
June/July 2001 Though some flooding damage did occur as part of this event, most of the damages were associated with high winds and the tornado which struck the City of Siren in Burnett County to the northwest.
September 2002 For Chippewa County, this event had characteristics similar to the 2000 events with stormwater flooding and high winds as a result of thunderstorms. More than five inches of rain fell within a few hours in parts of the region. In the Village of Osceola in Polk County, a dam failed which caused significant damages in a mobile home park. But on a regional scale, the local damages associated with this event were overshadowed by the tornado which struck the City of Ladysmith in Rusk County to the north.
May/June 2004 This was Chippewa County’s third Presidential Disaster Declaration over a four- year period. A series of weather systems moved across large parts of the State and generated thunderstorms that dumped heavy rains. Statewide damage estimates exceeded $268.4 million.
September 2016 Widespread flash flooding occurred across southern Chippewa County due to extreme rainfall rates, and amounts of 5 to 8 inches fell in less than 6 hours causing flooding. Damage assessments found that three homes sustained major damage and 52 had minor damage. Total damages related to homes and businesses were estimated at $400,000. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation reported numerous roads washed out or closed in Chippewa and Eau Claire Counties during the height of the storm. Some vehicles were swept into culverts and ditches as roadways became flooded. The Canadian National Railroad had 50 feet of track wash out in Stanley, and near Wheaton. Damage to public infrastructure (roads, bridges, trails) were estimated at $382,000.
April 2019 Chippewa County has had one significant dam break in recent history. On April 18, 2019, the top portion of the Tilden Mill Pond Dam on Duncan Creek failed, which washed away a fifth-wheel camper and caused considerable damage at the Duncan Creek Campground below
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 127 SECTION III
the dam. Additional damage occurred due to high waters in Spring 2020 and the Wisconsin WDNR is requiring that repairs to the dam be made or the dam removed.
During the planning process, County staff and local officials identified a number of areas in unincorporated Chippewa County which are particularly prone to flooding as shown in Figure 27; flooding concerns of villages and cities will be individually discussed later in this section. Based on municipal and stakeholder input, the flooding concerns in Chippewa County fell into four general categories:
1) Road damage and basement flooding due to stormwater and flash flooding, especially in “low areas” – The most significant flood damage in recent decades has been the result of heavy rain events. Almost all of the “hotspots” identified for the unincorporated towns were associated with over-the-road flooding and potential roadway closures and related damage, rather than damage to buildings and structures. Such flooding events can result in vehicle accidents and deaths, as well as damage to road shoulders, culverts, bridges, etc. Areas of high groundwater with poor drainage are especially prone to stormwater flooding, including along CTH “XX” south of STH 29, southeast of Bloomer, and in the Town of Sampson. Flooding problems in the Village of New Auburn and City of Stanley also fall into this category. The Town of Woodmohr noted the importance of “cleaning out” ditches to maintain adequate stormwater storage. The Town of Cooks Valley noted “limited concerns” regarding the potential breaching of retention ponds at sand mines.
2) Spring flooding, often related to ice damming, on limited sections of the Yellow and Chippewa Rivers – While the rivers and creeks of Chippewa County have historically had spring overbank flooding problems in numerous areas, such riverine flooding has been limited to a handful of locations in recent years. Flooding along the Yellow River has been a problem along CTH “S” and near CTH “K” with ice damming and frozen ground being contributing causes, including impacts to 2-3 homes in the Lake Wissota area. The Highway 64 and CTH “R” intersection area floods every spring and after heavy rains with 1” or more over the road and impacting nearby buildings; it can take up to three weeks for floodwaters to recede with no good alternative route. Some minor flooding of agricultural lands and the parks (e.g., Cadott) are also a common experience. Riverine flooding problems along the Chippewa River have been limited to two locations in recent years. (1) Areas downstream of Cornell and in the Town of Eagle Plain along STH 188 are prone to ice damming and culvert freeze-ups, though no significant damages were identified. (2) A number of NFIP claims have been made for properties downstream of Chippewa Falls on the Chippewa River, and dryland access is an ongoing concern for a number of homes within the Village of Lake Hallie and City of Eau Claire.
128 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Figure 17. Areas Prone to Flooding (Unincorporated Towns Only)
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 129 SECTION III
3) Riverine flooding in the Glen Loch area on Duncan Creek – Located on Chippewa Falls’ north side and within the Town of Eagle Point, this area has also experienced significant riverine flooding from heavy rain events in the past, including damage to structures in September 1986 and June 1990. However, according to NFIP records, mitigation activities to further limit damage may have been undertaking in this area. During meetings, town surveys, and interviews during this planning effort, no specific flooding problems or concerns were identified for this general area.
4) Significant development lies within dam shadows, particular for the Wissota Dam. Except for the Tilden Mill Pond Dam failure in 2019 discussed previously, Chippewa County has experienced no significant damage as a result of dam or levee failures in recent decades. Generally, the smaller, earthen dams are more at-risk of washout or failure due to rains, flooding, or ice damming, though the impacts downstream are typically very minimal. More attention is given to the inspection and maintenance of the larger and higher hazard dams, so they are less susceptible to such natural events. However, there are risks of dam failure through operator error, accident, or acts of terrorism which could potentially impact any dam. For instance, in June 2011, an improvised explosive was found at one hydro- electric dam in the County. Dam-related vulnerabilities are discussed in greater detail later in this section.
It is notable that many of the stormwater flooding problems identified in the 2006 and 2012 mitigation plans have been addressed. For example, significant roadway improvements have been made along STH 125, STH 178, and on CTH “X” near 67th Avenue. And while high groundwater tables and poor drainage often contribute to the flooding “hotspots” in Figure 17, notably absent are concerns with overbank flooding from fluctuating seepage lakes. Flooding on seepage lakes has been a serious problem in some other areas in the region and is very difficult to predict due to the cyclical nature of the groundwater levels and the seriousness of the recent droughts.
National Flood Insurance Program Claims and Repetitive Loss Properties As of August 2020, there were a total of 124 active National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood insurance policies in Chippewa County with an average annual premium and policy fee of $1,174. Almost half of these policies were for properties in the unincorporated towns. Of the incorporated communities, the City of Bloomer and Village of Lake Hallie had the highest number of policies with 20 each. The City of Eau Claire had 13 active policies, followed by Chippewa Falls with 8, Cadott with 3, and Stanley with 1.
130 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
As shown below, the FEMA records of NFIP claims for Chippewa County included 40 claims paid totaling over $278,000. Of these, 15 claims totaling $224,924 ($14,995 average loss) were in the unincorporated towns. Chippewa Falls had 12 claims paid, but much lower total losses.
Community # of Claims Paid (Losses) Total Net Payment Unincorporated Towns 15 $ 224,923.94 Bloomer 6 $ 3,651.96 Cadott 1 $ 3,925.76 Chippewa Falls 12 $ 24,250.60 Cornell 1 $ 282.64 Eau Claire 4 $ 7,396.52 Lake Hallie 1 $ 13,679.75 Stanley 0 $ 0 Total 40 $ 278,111.17
Repetitive loss properties are those properties participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) that have filed two or more claims of $1,000 or more in a 10-year period. This list is regularly compiled by FEMA and made available to the Wisconsin Division of Emergency Management. Chippewa County has two repetitive loss properties; both were single-family homes on Duncan Creek in the Glen Loch area. One property has had six claims, though the total damages have been low. The other repetitive loss property has had two claims with a slightly higher average amount paid per event, but still fairly low. According to NFIP records, the flooding problems at these two locations have been mitigated at some point and may not require further attention.
During this Plan update, some local officials noted the need for more public education on flood insurance. There is significant uncertainty regarding what is covered by flood insurance as well as available alternatives should NFIP not cover sewer back-ups, sump pump failure, and smaller, localized flooding events.
Relative Level of Risk Flooding in Chippewa County will continue to be a significant risk. A smaller overland or stormwater flood event can be expected to occur annually in some areas, with multiple events in a single year not uncommon. Such flash flooding can be expected to primarily result in basement flooding, washing out of road infrastructure, and contributing to soil and bank erosion. Those areas most prone to the typical annual riverine flooding associated with snow melt are well known and potential damages have been largely mitigated.
Based on the past two decades, it is likely that Chippewa County will continue to experience one serious, damage-causing flood event every 1.0 to 1.5 years on average. Some of these events may be localized in nature, only impacting a portion of the County, while multiple events may be experienced in the same year or even month. Flash flooding due to heavy rains will be the most frequent cause of flood damage in the County and can occur any time of the year, but especially in the summer and fall months. Significant overbank and flash flooding caused by heavy snow melt, often in conjunction with rainfall, can be anticipated once or twice a decade, typically in the months of March, April, or May. These events also have the potential cause
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 131 SECTION III
significant damage, but as the 1993 floods showed, the riverine flooding risks are often greater along the smaller rivers which do not have high banks or large flood storage areas.
However, as will be discussed in Section III.D., climate change has the potential to change this flood risks. County conservation staff noted that Chippewa County has recently been experiencing an increase in the intensity and duration of rainfall events as well as heavy snow melts in some years. Heavy rainfall combined with changing land use and agricultural practices, can result in less infiltration of precipitation and more stormwater and floodwater being passed down the watershed.
If the dams within Chippewa County continue to be well maintained, flooding related to dam failure should not occur and is not expected. In fact, most of the smaller, privately owned dams would cause very minimal or no damage downstream if a failure should occur. The larger dams with significant- or high-hazard ratings were built to strict engineering standards, have related emergency plans, and are more closely monitored.
Vulnerability Assessment--Flooding Flooding can be the most destructive of hazards, affecting large areas for long periods of times. Since flooding is tied to topography, a substantial amount of flood damage is the result of basement flooding, though floods can also move or destroy entire structures. Deaths and injury are relatively rare with river and lake flooding, since adequate warning time is usually available, though flash floods or dam failures can be very deadly as they may form very swiftly.
Floods can wash out roads, hindering the flow of traffic, and can cause havoc to water supply and wastewater treatment systems. Debris carried by flooding can result in direct damage to bridges, structures, or property; or this debris can obstruct the flow of water, causing additional flood damage. The resulting moisture build-up in the home (HVAC systems, carpeting, drywall, etc.) can cause additional, long-term health problems with mold and mildew once the floodwaters have retreated. Nearly half of all reported flood damage in Wisconsin in the 1990s was to crops, though obtaining accurate crop damage estimates at the County level is difficult.
Potential Development in 100-Year Floodplains The amount of impervious surfaces along lakes and rivers has grown tremendously in recent decades. However, stricter enforcement of floodplain zoning, shoreland ordinances, and a decrease in available shoreland properties has limited new floodplain development.
Data was not readily available to perform a comprehensive, detailed vulnerability assessment of flooding in Chippewa County. Instead, through the use of D-FIRM maps and G.I.S. parcel data, those principal structures most likely located within a 100-year floodplain were identified. This information is further supplemented through the previously provided flooding “hotspots” map (Figure 17) to guide the development and prioritization of flood-related mitigation strategies. A full description of the flood assessment methodology and related data challenges is included in Appendix B.
132 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Figure 18 on the following page identifies the 100-year floodplains within Chippewa County. Areas of 100-year flood32 were taken from the FEMA Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (D- FIRMs), which became effective March 2010. Figure 18 also shows the location of all principal structures located partially or wholly within the 100-year floodplains of Chippewa County using the methodology discussed in Appendix B. Principal structures are those buildings located on a parcel within which the main use of the parcel takes place. For most parcels, the principal structure will be a home or commercial business, while ancillary structures (e.g., garages, barns, sheds) are not mapped. Table 18, which follows Figure 18, provides a synopsis of those potentially flood prone principal structures by municipality. The assessed use and estimated value of improvements are based on 2019 tax data for those parcels associated with each of the principal structures identified in Figures 27.
In total, an estimated 1,103 principal structures have been identified as potentially being located within the 100-year floodplain in Chippewa County. Of these structures, 91.6 percent are on parcels assessed as non-farm residential use. Only 61 structures (about 5.5%) were assessed as commercial or industrial. An additional 2.8 percent are on parcels assessed as agricultural or other, which includes housing associated with farm operations. The improvements on these 1,103 parcels had a 2019 estimated assessed value of $159,024,900. This analysis does not include public-sector owned or private-sector structures that may be in the floodplain, but are tax exempt (e.g., churches, governmental buildings); flooding risk for critical facilities is discussed later in this section.
About 73 percent of the principal structures potentially located in a 100-year floodplain were located within the unincorporated towns. Further, one-half of all structures in Chippewa County were concentrated in four towns: Lafayette (15.7%), Lake Holcombe (13.5%) Birch Creek (11.2%), and Eagle Point (10.2%). But a comparison of the assessed improvements to number of structures shows that total vulnerability varies by the type of structures at risk. For instance, the City of Chippewa Falls had over $9.8 million in assessed value potentially at risk, though it only had 26 potential floodplain structures, including 12 commercial and one industrial.
PLEASE NOTE: The structures identified on Figure 18 and in Table 18 may not have had flooding problems in the past. To the contrary, the majority of these properties has no history of flooding and may not be vulnerable to flooding in the future. In some cases, due to topography at the building site or construction/grading methods, some of these structures may have also received an approved Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which officially removed the structure or site from the 100-year floodplain. As discussed in Appendix B, for properties with multiple buildings and ancillary structures, the exact use and nature of each structure within the floodplain is not known; and tax assessment data is only available at the parcel level, not for specific structures. And in some cases, an ancillary structure (e.g., barn, shed, boathouse) is located in the floodplain but is not reflected in Figures 18 and 19 or Table 18 since the principal structure on that parcel was located outside the delineated floodplain.
32 Also commonly known as “Zone A or AE” when referring to FEMA FIRM maps.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 133 SECTION III
Figure 18. Chippewa County Floodplains & Potential Floodplain Structures
134 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Table 18. Principal Structures Potentially in 100-Year Floodplain
9,300
780,800
325,800
162,200
483,500
366,100
584,500
381,900
328,600
102,200
146,500
1,751,100
4,453,600
5,398,000
1,628,400
4,594,400
1,194,100
2,479,500
5,942,600
9,852,900
15,588,000
27,283,500
19,800,700
16,581,500
13,043,700
14,931,400
13,737,300
30,445,700
12,024,200
Improv
159,024,900
113,647,800
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
Total Assessed Total
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30,500
36,400
40,600
215,900
307,200
195,000
330,100
146,200
117,600
174,600
331,900
381,900
255,500
4,177,400
4,177,400
1,614,000
value
Other Imp Imp Other
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
2
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
0
3
0
2
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
31
10
# of #
Other Other
Parcels
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
62,300
74,600
136,900
383,000
255,800
3,227,500
3,090,600
2,451,800
Value
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
Industrial Imp Imp Industrial
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
1
# of #
Parcels
Industrial Industrial
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
30,200
71,900
420,800
439,900
596,800
491,500
419,500
929,600
100,400
182,400
182,400
6,137,900
2,637,300
9,883,100
1,433,700
6,666,800
1,782,600
16,203,400
Imp Value Imp
Commercial Commercial
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
7
1
0
0
4
3
2
0
0
3
4
4
0
4
0
0
6
55
29
22
12
# of #
Parcels
Commercial Commercial
-
9,300
450,700
179,600
131,700
308,900
366,100
512,600
328,600
102,200
662,800
146,500
734,300
1,535,200
3,725,600
5,172,800
1,096,300
2,486,300
1,194,100
5,942,600
9,985,800
15,111,700
26,569,100
16,769,200
15,396,400
12,943,300
14,749,000
13,554,900
17,472,000
Value
135,416,600
103,195,600
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
$ $
Residential Imp ResidentialImp
4
3
2
2
5
4
0
2
3
3
9
1
11
22
34
16
17
80
10
46
13
81
742
146
168
100
120
119
109
150
1011
# of #
Parcels
Residential
8
4
3
3
5
5
2
2
3
3
1
13
26
36
21
31
83
10
14
46
26
88
805
149
173
112
123
123
113
175
1103
Buildings
# of Parcels Parcels of #
w/ Principal Principal w/
Municipality
TOTAL
Village Sub-Total:
TOWN OF WOODMOHR OF TOWN
TOWN OF WHEATON OF TOWN
TOWN OF TILDEN OF TOWN
TOWN OF SIGEL OF TOWN
TOWN OF SAMPSON OF TOWN
TOWN OF RUBY OF TOWN
TOWN OF LAKE HOLCOMBE LAKE OF TOWN
TOWN OF LAFAYETTE OF TOWN
TOWN OF GOETZ OF TOWN
TOWN OF ESTELLA OF TOWN
TOWN OF EAGLE POINT EAGLE OF TOWN
TOWN OF DELMAR OF TOWN
TOWN OF COOKS VALLEY COOKSOF TOWN
TOWN OF COLBURN OF TOWN
TOWN OF CLEVELAND OF TOWN
TOWN OF BLOOMER OF TOWN
TOWN OF BIRCH CREEK BIRCH OF TOWN
TOWN OF AUBURN OF TOWN
TOWN OF ARTHUR OF TOWN
TOWN OF ANSONOF TOWN
Towns
Village Sub-Total:
VILLAGE OF LAKE HALLIE LAKE OF VILLAGE
VILLAGE OF CADOTT OF VILLAGE
Villages
City Sub-Total: City
CITY OF STANLEY OF CITY
CITY OF EAU CLAIRE EAU OF CITY
CITY OF CORNELL OF CITY
CITY OF CHIPPEWA FALLS CHIPPEWA OF CITY
CITY OF BLOOMER OF CITY Cities Assessment of Hazard Conditions 135 SECTION III
HAZUS Analysis of Flood Vulnerabilities HAZUS is a natural hazard loss estimation software package which is used in conjunction with geographic information system (GIS) software to simulate potential losses due to flooding, earthquakes, and hurricanes. HAZUS is distributed free-of-charge through FEMA and is becoming the national standard for disaster modeling for these events.
In 2008, Wisconsin Emergency Management prepared flooding analysis reports for each county in the State using the latest HAZUS software (HAZUS-MH) for a 100-year flood scenario. Based on this analysis, the scenario showed that Chippewa County flood damage would be experienced in scattered pockets. Some higher loss areas include the Chippewa River north of Jim Falls and downstream of Duncan Creek, on the Yellow River downstream of Cadott, and on O’Neil Creek, as shown in Figure 19 below.
Figure 19.
HAZUS 100-Year Flood Scenario
136 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Twenty-two census blocks in particular would experience losses exceeding $1 million. An estimated 149 buildings, all residential, would be damaged for total building losses of $61 million and total economic losses of $136.7 million. No industrial, critical facilities, or other structures were damaged under the HAZUS scenario, though 875 households would be displaced and 1,043 people were estimated to need temporary shelter in a public shelter.
While the above scenario does attempt to consider flood depth and topography using the enhanced quick look (EQL) function, the analysis relies heavily on State and Federal data sources, such as census block information. The potential exists to supplement the HAZUS scenario with local data in the future, though this does require expertise and knowledge of the HAZUS-MH software package.
The estimated number of at-risk structures under the HAZUS scenario is significantly lower than the 930 structures estimated in the previous section. The HAZUS methodology utilizes the previous versions of the FEMA floodplain maps and not the newly adopted D-FIRMs used in the previous section. The HAZUS methodology also relies on census block housing averages for building counts, rather than using orthophotography and parcel data to identify individual structures. For rural areas in particular, the census blocks tend to be larger in size, while structures are often concentrated nearer to shoreland areas; losses will not be evenly distributed across a census block.
Projecting Future Flood Vulnerabilities Three primary factors are key to projecting future flood vulnerabilities and would influence the previous structure damage estimations:
1) Changes in Precipitation - As the local events discussion showed, the recent flooding problems in Chippewa County have been primarily due to heavy rainfall events, not spring snow melt. And Section III.D. will show that precipitation, extreme rainfall events, and flooding have been increasing and this trend is expected to continue. The projected increase in heavy rainfall events per decade would likewise increase flooding potential and may result in additional areas being identified as flood hazard areas in the future. No detailed modeling on the full impacts of such climate changes on Chippewa County has been performed.
2) Changes in Flood Storage and Stormwater Management – Overall, the floodplains and wetlands of Chippewa County are well-protected, though some rules have been relaxed in recent years. Encroachment of wetlands and new development often require the creation of new flood storage or stormwater retention areas. Every hardscape that is created (e.g., buildings, roads, parking lots) results in a change in potential stormwater or flood storage. This decrease of flood storage can also be the accumulated loss or disruption of smaller stormwater storage areas, natural infiltration systems, and natural drainage systems. This factor can be mitigated through stormwater management planning and mechanisms such as rain gardens, natural swales, rain barrels, pervious surfaces, soil health best management practices, and the creation and maintenance of flood storage areas. Some public lands and even golf courses can provide opportunities to increase flood storage. An additional factor is if stormwater system design standards will change over time to accommodate the precipitation changes discussed in (1) above.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 137 SECTION III
3) Changes in Land Management and Agricultural Practices - Related to (2) above, Chippewa County has seen many acres of dairy/grazing land replaced with grain crops. Further, County conservation staff also noted that drain tiling has been increasing as well as clearing of some forested areas for cropland. These land use and land cover changes have reduced reducing flood storage and increased runoff. In other words, precipitation can no longer infiltrate the soil or be stored like a natural system would allow. Chippewa County has an active watershed program that is promoting agricultural and other land management best practices to improve water quality and soil health. If successful, such water quality programming also has the potential to reduce stormwater runoff, bank erosion, and flooding.
4) Floodplain Development –New floodplain development is well regulated and rarely allowed. The number of structures in Table 18 and vulnerability to 100-year flood events should not significantly increase over time unless the physical extent of the 100-year floodplain grows. The overall vulnerability of floodplain development is expected to increase as the market value of these structures increases and some older structures are renovated or replaced.
In short, floodplain development vulnerabilities are projected to increase in the future not as much from new development within the floodplain, but rather from increasing precipitation (and runoff), the increasing value of existing structures, and the improvement of existing structures. If no significant floodplain development or redevelopment occurs, the increasing flood vulnerability in Chippewa County will be from overland flooding as a result of additional heavy rainfall events and changes in natural stormwater storage and drainage patterns as new development occurs.
Critical Facilities in Floodplains Section II.D. identifies ten critical facilities that may be located, in whole or part, within the 100- year floodplain. Three EHS planning facilities with hazardous materials may also be located within a floodplain. No flooding history or concerns regarding these facilities necessitating action were identified during the Plan update process. Not surprisingly, numerous roads, bridges, and dams are located in the 100-year floodplains of Chippewa County. Roadways prone to flood damage were discussed previously. The status of the dams in Chippewa County is discussed at the end of this sub-section.
Agricultural Flooding Approximately 42 percent of reported damages from Wisconsin floods between 1993 and 2000 were from crop losses. Flooding can have additional agricultural impacts as well. Since many floodplains are used for forage, the loss of these crops (e.g. alfalfa) may require farmers to supplement feed for livestock. Due to the low value of forage and high insurance costs, most farmers do not have multi-peril crop insurance for forage crops. The remaining forage in flooded areas can be lower in quality, reducing milk production and complicating or reducing pregnancies and births. Feed and water quality problems which result in sick animals also increase veterinary costs. Agricultural flooding impacts can also be long-term and more difficult to quantify. The harvesting of crops in wet areas can compact soils, further reducing crop yields for years to come.
Approximately 3,500 acres of non-forest, cropped agricultural lands fall within the 100-year floodplains of Chippewa County. While crop damage due to flooding is occasionally experienced
138 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
in some areas, statistics regarding crop losses in the past or future vulnerability due to flooding is not readily available. These potential losses can vary depending on the type of crops planted, though it is common practice to often use such floodprone areas for hay, forestry, or pasture.
While prolonged flooded conditions are not common, periods of excessive soil wetness can delay spring planting and indirectly hinder yields by shortening the growing season. Standing water following heavy rains or prolonged wet periods is not limited to floodplains. Denitrification and oxygen depletion of crops can severely reduce yields or result in plant death after prolonged water logging. This has been a problem for some producers south of Cadott in the past.
An additional agricultural flood-related threat is associated with non-point pollution, such as manure, nutrient, and pesticide run-off. Heavy rains, flooding, and unexpected snow melt can result in such run-off into surface waters, resulting in high levels of contaminants. Heavy rains and ice damming can also result in the failure of improperly maintained or sited manure storage facilities. And such non-point pollution can create health concerns for swimming and fishing, thus impacting tourism. Issues related to animal waste and nutrient management are primarily monitored and addressed by local farmers and the Chippewa County Land and Water Resources Division with partnership support of the Chippewa County UW-Extension Office and other State and Federal agencies (e.g., DATCP, WDNR, NRCS). However, it is very important to note that many sources of non-point pollution are not agricultural related, such as urban stormwater, road and parking lot run-off, and soil erosion from new development.
In addition, about 13,000 acres of forest lands are located in floodplains, though past impacts of flooding on forest lands in Chippewa County are believed to have been negligible in recent decades. Compared to other agricultural croplands, forested areas are typically less impacted by and more resilient to flooding. The potential flood impacts to these forest lands are considered minimal overall, though river or lake flooding can cause some trees to topple, especially in areas of steep slopes or within the floodway. New plantings, if covered by floodwaters for an extended time, would be most vulnerable.
Overall, riverine or lake flooding of agricultural and forest lands has a relatively low vulnerability and is largely addressed by the individual landowner. Local farmers are very aware of the flood risks and vulnerabilities on their lands and, if needed, most obtain crop insurance to mitigate the impacts of flooding on their farm businesses. In fact, the 2008 Farm Bill now requires insurance in order to be eligible for disaster assistance. Riverine and spring snow-melt flooding of some croplands is an annual event in some locations, and this is anticipated to continue in the future. And an occasional manure storage facility failure can be expected. But with nutrient management practices and care in application, the hazard threats to water quality from agricultural practices can be mitigated.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 139 SECTION III
Agricultural flooding does not require additional mitigation action by Chippewa County or its municipalities within the scope of this Plan at this time. County officials note that prevention is the best way to avoid additional scrutiny and rules which can pose additional hardships to the farmer. Emptying storage facilities on schedule, avoiding spreading prior to rain or heavy snow melt, planting fall cover crops, and following a nutrient management plan are all important steps to preventing manure spills and reducing runoff.
Unique Jurisdictional Risks or Vulnerabilities—Flooding According to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, as of 2001, three Chippewa County communities have significant flooding problems—City of Bloomer, City of Chippewa Falls, and City of Stanley. 33 The other communities with floodplains (i.e., Cadott, Cornell, New Auburn) were identified as having minimal flooding problems, with localized drainage problems noted for the Village of Cadott. Not included in this analysis, however, was the more recently incorporated Village of Lake Hallie; it is likely that Lake Hallie would have been classified as having moderate or significant problems based on past events. The Village of Boyd has no floodplain.
The number and value of structures potentially within the high-hazard floodplain areas of each incorporated community were previously discussed (see Figure 18 and Table 18). The table and maps in Appendix F describe the specific flooding issues and areas of concern unique to each of the cities and villages in the County. For most of these communities, overland stormwater flooding has been of more significant concern in recent years rather than overbank flooding.
The effective date of the current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for NFIP-mapped communities in Chippewa County is 4/16/14. All applicable cities and villages have adopted the revised NFIP maps and are fully participating in the NFIP program, except for the Village of New Auburn. The NFIP status and effective map dates of each community’s initial Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) and initial FIRM are also noted.
Community NFIP Participant initial FHBM initial FIRM Current FIRM Boyd no NFIP-mapped floodplain Cadott yes 12/14/73 3/5/96 4/16/14 Lake Hallie yes none 3/2/10 4/16/14 New Auburn not participating 7/19/74 12/3/09 4/16/14; not adopted Bloomer yes 5/24/74 8/19/91 4/16/14 Chippewa Falls yes none 9/1/77 4/16/14 Cornell yes 12/17/73 9/28/90 4/16/14 Eau Claire (part) yes 9/20/74 6/1/77 4/16/14 Stanley yes 5/3/74 9/18/85 4/16/14
33 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, “The State of the Lower Chippewa River Basin”, Publ-WT-554- 2001, 2001.
140 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Chippewa County Dams—Vulnerability to Dam Failure As of August 2018, Chippewa County had 53 existing dams or levees in the WDNR dam database summarized in Appendix H. Twenty-one existing dams had 20 or fewer acres feet of normal storage. Of the 53 dams in Chippewa County, 32 are classified as small or were unclassified; 21 were classified as large. In nearly all cases, if the smaller dams failed, the runoff and impacts downstream would hardly be noticed.
Of the 21 large dams, four were owned by Xcel Energy, three were owned by other private parties, and the remainder were publicly owned—8 County and one each owned by the communities of Bloomer, Cadott, Chippewa Falls, Lake Hallie, and Stanley. All large dams on navigable waters are required to have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and an Inspection, Operation, and Maintenance (IOM) Plan, along with a dam failure analysis which shows the hydraulic shadow and structures subject to potential flooding should a failure occurs. The EAP should be brief, with a focus on contact information, actions, and alerts (e.g., needed evacuations, road closings). The geographic scope of the analysis should extend downstream until the dam failure shadow converges with the 100-year floodplain. These analyses are used to determine the hazard rating. Floodplain zoning controls can then be put into place for the dam shadow. For dams without an analysis, an estimated hazard rating is given by a WDNR dam safety engineer based on development and zoning controls downstream of the dam.
The dams of Chippewa County are shown in Figure 20, along with their Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources hazard ratings. Dam hazard ratings are assigned by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources based on the potential for loss of life or property damage should the dam fail. The dam hazard ratings are defined by FEMA as follows: Low Hazard Dams assigned the low hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life and low economic and/or environmental losses. Losses are principally limited to the owner’s property. Large low-hazard dams are inspected every ten years by the Wisconsin DNR Dam Safety Engineer, and the spillway must be sized to accommodate a 100-year event. Significant Hazard Dams assigned the significant-hazard potential classification are those dams where failure or mis-operation results in no probable loss of human life but can cause economic loss, environmental damage, disruption of lifeline facilities, or can impact other concerns. Significant-hazard dams are often located in predominantly rural or agricultural areas but could be located in areas with population and significant infrastructure. Large significant-hazard dams must be inspected every five years (5th year private engineer; 10th year WDNR Dam Safety Engineer), and the spillway must be sized to accommodate a 500-year event.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 141 SECTION III
Figure 20. Chippewa County Dams by Hazard Rating
142 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Figure 21. Chippewa County Dam Failure Zones (Dam Shadows)
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 143 SECTION III
High Hazard Dams assigned the high-hazard potential classification are those where failure or mis-operation will probably cause loss of human life. Large high-hazard dams must be inspected every two years (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th years private engineer; 10th year WDNR Dam Safety Engineer), and the spillway must be sized to accommodate a 1,000-year event. Figure 21 shows the dam failure areas (hydraulic shadows) for County’s four high hazard dams.
High-Hazard Dams (4) High hazard dams represent the only high potential loss facilities within Chippewa County. Four dams in Chippewa County have been given HIGH hazard ratings: 1) Wissota/Paint Creek Dam (owned by Xcel Energy) In terms of normal storage feet, this is the largest dam in Chippewa County and the tenth largest dam in the State of Wisconsin, excluding those located on the Mississippi River. It is actively used for power generation and is in good repair. Significant area of Chippewa Falls, Lake Hallie, and Eau Claire lie within the dam’s shadow. For more discussion on this dam, see the discussion on Chippewa River dams provided later in this section. 2) Holcombe Dam (owned by Xcel Energy) No unique concerns regarding this hydro-electric power generating dam were noted. Also see the discussion on Chippewa River dams for more information. 3) Glen Loch Dam (owned by City of Chippewa Falls) No unique concerns or action regarding this dam were noted. The City completed some relatively small improvements at this dam in 2019—drawdown gate repair, buoy line/warning marker installation, and fence installation. 4) Bloomer Mill Dam (owned by City of Bloomer) This dam was rebuilt in 2002. No unique concerns or action regarding this dam were noted.
Significant-Hazard Dams (5) Five dams have a SIGNIFICANT hazard rating: 1) Jim Falls Dam (owned by Xcel Energy) No unique concerns regarding this hydro-electric power generating dam were noted. Also see the discussion on Chippewa River dams for more information. 2) Cornell/Brunet Falls Dam (owned by Xcel Energy) No unique concerns regarding this hydro-electric power generating dam were noted. Also see the discussion on Chippewa River dams for more information. 3) Cornell Lake/Godfrey Dam (privately owned) No unique concerns or action regarding this dam were noted. 4) Star Mill Dam (owned by City of Chippewa Falls) No unique concerns or action regarding this dam were noted. 5) Stanley Mill/Chapman Lake Dam (owned by City of Stanley) This dam was reconstructed in 2010 and was downgraded from a high to a significant hazard.
144 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Chippewa River Dams (High Hazard Dams) The four dams on the Chippewa River owned by Xcel Energy at Holcombe, Cornell, Jim Falls, and, especially, Wissota have the largest vulnerability (potential for damage in the hydraulic shadow) should a dam failure occur. These dams were constructed during the 20th Century. The Lake Wissota Dam, which was originally a hollow “Amberson” design, was filled with concrete around 1991. The Jim Falls Dam was refurbished and expanded in the late 1990s. All four dams are in good repair, with current emergency action plans on file with Chippewa County Emergency Management.
These four dams are managed primarily for electric generation. This is not a new policy and was noted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in the 1970 Upper Mississippi River Comprehensive Basin Study: “Some change in operation of the larger upstream power reservoirs by power companies to recognize flood control needs is another possible solution [to preventing flood damage].”
Chippewa County has expressed in the past a desire to see improved flood control at the Wissota Dam through the installation of a system to allow for a mechanical opening of the flood gates. This is consistent with the 1970 report as well as concerns noted in a 1977 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer study: “Frequently mentioned problems relating to flooding in the area include the influence of flood stages caused by the present method of regulation of the upstream Lake Wissota Dam....The method of operation currently used at the Lake Wissota Dam involves automatic opening of all tainter gates when a certain reservoir pool elevation is reached.”34
All four dams are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) under the Federal Power Act, which is the primary agency responsible for issuing new licenses, monitoring compliance with existing licenses, and conducting dam safety inspections. In 1986, Congress passed the Electric Consumers Protection Act (ECPA) requiring that the FERC consider power and non-power values and interest equally, including flood management.
Dam shadow studies have been completed for the four electric generating dams and are on file with the Chippewa County Emergency Management Office. The County also maintains a Reverse 9-1-1 auto dialer system for contacting residents and landowners within these dam shadows, if needed. And Xcel Energy has installed nine warning sirens with voice capability along the Chippewa River downstream of their dams.
Within Chippewa County, the City of Chippewa Falls has the greatest flooding vulnerability from dam failure at the Lake Wissota Dam, which could potentially flood much of the south half of the downtown. Consider the following scenarios:
34 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Preliminary Feasibility Report Improvement for Water & Related Land Resources— Chippewa River Basin, Wisconsin, March 1977.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 145 SECTION III
A failure at the Lake Holcombe Dam...... would take 4 hours and 15 minutes to peak in Cornell ..... there would be minimal structures vulnerable within Cornell ..... would take 8 hours to peak at Jim Falls ..... water levels at Chippewa Falls would peak at 824.9’ A failure at the Wissota Dam...... and flooding would begin in Chippewa Falls in 10 minutes ..... would take 1 hour and 20 minutes to peak in Chippewa Falls ..... with a “sunny day” failure, water levels at Chippewa Falls would be 841.9’ ..... with an inflow-design flood, water levels at Chippewa Falls would be 850.9’
As a point of reference, the normal Wissota Dam high water mark on the Chippewa River at Chippewa Falls is 816 feet. The 100-year flood water level would peak at 826 feet. Both the April 1967 and September 1941 floods, the last two large floods affecting Chippewa Falls, were below the 100-year flood level at 820.9’ and 823.3’, respectively. Compare these to the worst-case scenario of an inflow-design flood with a failure at the Wissota Dam which would peak at 24 feet above a 100-year food level and 34 feet above the normal high water mark.
Farther north of Chippewa County on the Chippewa River is the Flambeau Hydroelectric Station and Dam located four miles NE of Ladysmith in Rusk County. The vulnerability to Chippewa County would be quite low if a dam break at Flambeau should occur. According to the Flambeau Dam Emergency Action Plan, peak flooding at Lake Holcombe headwaters would take nearly 27 hours and result in an insignificant rise which could impact a few cottages or homes on Lake Holcombe. Below Lake Holcombe Dam, the water depth increase would be less than one foot.
Other Dam Concerns or Notes This Vulnerability to Dam Failure subsection was prepared in consultation with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Dam Safety Engineer assigned to Chippewa County as well as Chippewa County personnel and utilizing information within the WDNR Dam Safety Database.
As discussed previously, the Tilden Mill Pond Dam had a major failure in April 2019 that has caused damage to a campground downstream. The repair or removal of this dam is the greatest immediate dam-related concern in Chippewa County.
146 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Chippewa County owns and maintains fifteen dams on the list in Appendix H, all of which have a low or unrated hazard rating. Eight of these dams are large and have an IOM Plan, but resources are not available for a dam failure analysis and full EAP for each. While the County has an active inspection program for its dams, these structures are aging and improvements should be planned for. Monitoring and future structure repair at Otter Lake Dam was specifically mentioned by the Town of Colburn.
It is important to keep the EAP Plans and IOM Plans up to date for the large dams and the high- and significant-hazard dams. Emergency Action Plans with current contact information should be on-file with County Emergency Management and Dispatch. Topographical information provided through the LiDAR data has allowed for improved mapping of dam shadows. As needed, existing dam shadow maps should be reviewed, and dam shadow areas delineated for large dams. This information can then be integrated into the Reverse 9-1-1 system and municipalities, landowners, and residents informed.
As documented previously, development and population growth in Chippewa County has been generally highest in those towns with significant surface waters. There continues to be development pressure along the shorelines of the County, including above and below dams. Overall, the potential of a damage-producing failure of a high-hazard dam in Chippewa County is considered very low, though the potential for damage and injury is high (and potentially catastrophic) should failure of one of these larger dams occur. Chippewa County and its municipalities continue to work with the WDNR to ensure proper maintenance of the dam facilities in the County and mitigate the potential vulnerabilities should failure occur.
Given the climate change trends discussed in Section III.D., the need for additional monitoring of river levels (e.g., flood gauges) and analysis flood storage is increasing. This could include the use of remote sensing (e.g., real-time satellite imagery) to analyze and monitor “full pool” and storage levels upstream of dams. More advanced analysis includes gaining a better understanding of how land use change and land practices (e.g., development, agriculture, forestry) impact the quantity, peak flows, and quality of runoff and flooding.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 147 SECTION III
vi. Wildfire
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2019 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rated drought as a 38 percent overall risk over a ten-year period given its moderate probability (2), likely low to moderate impacts (1.7), and substantial-to-moderate available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat both internally and externally (1.8). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
Risk Assessment—Wildfire The Hazard A wildfire, in the context of this Plan, is an uncontrollable fire spreading through vegetative fuels, exposing and possibly consuming structures. They 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 arson, campfires, debris burning, or carelessness, or can be caused by natural events such as lightning.
Any wildfire in Wisconsin, no matter what type of vegetation Did you know? it is burning, is legally termed a “forest fire.” A forest fire is
The 1871 Peshtigo Fire defined in Wisconsin State Statues as “an uncontrolled, wild resulted in the greatest or running fire burning in forest, marsh, field, cutover, or other single loss of human life lands.” As such, wildfire and forest fire are often used due to wildfire in interchangeably within this Plan. American history. This document also does not attempt to make great distinctions between the different types of wildfires, though more wildfire data is available for the WDNR Intensive Fire Protection area which has a higher predominance of forest vegetation. It is not uncommon for a large wildfire to include a mix of vegetative types. Grass fires fueled by low- lying vegetation are generally easier to control compared to a wildfire in a forest area, but also will typically spread the most quickly. Grass fires can be the most dangerous in terms of safety due to the highly variable speed, intensity, and direction.
In wooded settings, access is often the biggest challenge. In areas of hardwoods, a wildfire is typically less intense, with the fire being commonly limited to the leaf litter. Wildfires in coniferous forest which climbs into the top of the tree canopy (crown fires) can be the most difficult to control and can produce spotting when large, burning embers are blown to areas outside of the main fire. Regardless of the fuel types, local topography and weather conditions also influence the characteristics of a wildfire.
148 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Regional Trends Wildfires are not uncommon for Wisconsin and can occur at any time of the day and during any month of the year, though the peak fire season in Wisconsin is typically from March through May, and the season length and peak months varies from year to year. Land use, vegetation, amount of combustible materials present, and weather conditions (e.g., wind, low humidity, lack of precipitation) are the chief factors determining the number of fires and acres burned. Forest fires are more likely when vegetation is dry, such as early in the spring or during extended periods with no rain.
The most disastrous forest fire in Wisconsin history occurred on October 8, 1871, when more than 1.2 million acres were burned, and the communities of Peshtigo and Brussels were obliterated. “All hell rode into town on the back of a wind,” one survivor described. In about two hours’ time, a swath of forest ten miles wide and 40 miles long was burned. Though overshadowed by the Great Chicago Fire of the same time period, the Peshtigo fire resulted in 1,152 people killed, 350 missing, and an estimated 3,000 people left homeless. The Peshtigo Fire was the greatest single loss of human life due to wildfire in U.S. history.
During the drought year of 1976, a total of 4,144 forest fires and wildfires occurred in Wisconsin. A year later, the Brockway and Airport Fires burned over 20,000 acres in nearby Jackson County. Likewise, 1988 was one of the driest years on record, with a total of 3,242 fires occurring and 9,740 acres burned.
In April 1980, more than 16,000 acres were burned and over 200 buildings lost in the Ekdall Church and Oak Lake Fires. The Oak Lake Fire originated about 100 miles north of Chippewa Falls in the Minong area. High winds contributed to spot fires over 1.5 miles ahead of the main fire and the smoke was so heavy that streetlights in Rice Lake (Barron County) came on in mid-afternoon. Within four hours’ time, the fire was over six miles long and had a flaming front over three miles wide. Within six hours, the fire had burned eleven miles in length. The fire was officially declared controlled three days later, and a total of 159 structures were lost during the event.
More recently, the May 5, 2005, Cottonville Fire began in northern Adams County and 3,410 acres of grass, pine, and scrub oak burned quickly before the fire was contained eleven hours later. During the fire, over 100 people were evacuated. Nine year-round residences, 21 seasonal homes, and at least 60 outbuildings were completely destroyed. Lack of access (long, narrow driveways) and a lack of defensible spaces around buildings were significant contributing factors to the loss of these structures, offering important lessons to be learned. And in May 2013, the Germann Road Fire consumed 7,499 acres and destroyed 104 structures in Douglas and Bayfield counties.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 149 SECTION III
Local Events Forest fire is not a new threat to Chippewa County. In Eau Claire Weekly Telegram August and September 1894, forest fires burned over September 29, 1898 large portions of northern Wisconsin. Fires destroyed the Village of Bruce in Rusk County and extended southwest, across parts of Chippewa County, to the City of Thorp in Clark County. Large pine tracks owned by Cornell University at Cornell Lake in Chippewa County were destroyed and the settlement of Fisher Meadow in the Town of Estella was wiped out. Several buildings in Cadott were destroyed, but the Village was saved due to the firefighting efforts of residents and area fire fighters. Forest fires also broke out near Chippewa Falls on the south side of the Chippewa River causing some destruction.
In 1898, an “immense sea of flames” burned over 600 square miles of pine lands in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota35. While losses were greatest in nearby Polk and Barron counties, the fires brought destruction and death to the Cornell, Cadott, and Boyd areas.
In 1906, the City of Stanley was partially destroyed by forest fire. A few years later in July 1910, a forest fire fifty miles long and forty miles wide raged near Chippewa Falls resulting in at least three deaths and leaving 300 persons homeless.
As the pine forests were logged and agriculture came to dominate much of Chippewa County, the forest fire risk also changed. The potential for a large forest fire was chiefly limited to forested areas less suitable for agriculture and in the “resort areas” typically associated with recreational surface waters.
Figure 22 page shows the approximate location of the 584 reported wildfires in Chippewa County between 1982 and June 2020 which are identified in the WDNR database. However, caution should be used when interpreting this data. These wildfire reports are mostly limited to events which involved the WDNR and lie within an intensive protection area, which constitutes about 40 percent of the County; wildfires do occur in the remaining cooperative protection areas but are not typically reported. The result of this data when mapped is an appearance that wildfires only occur in the northern and eastern parts of Chippewa County, which is not true.
35 The Daily Gazette. Janesville, WI. Number 148 and 149. 9/4/1894 & 9/5/1894.
150 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Figure 22. Reported Wildfires in Chippewa County – 1982 through June 2020
on
NOTE
See See following page. following
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 151 SECTION III
Fifty percent of the reports occurred in the towns of Sampson (89 reports), Eagle Point (71 reports), Cleveland (65 reports), and Lake Holcombe (65 reports). From 1982 to 2019 an average of 15 wildfire events were reported per year in Chippewa County within the WDNR database. Of the 493 wildfires with size reported during this period, 346 (70%) were less than five acres in size. Only five fires were greater than 20 acres. Ninety-one fire records did not have an associated acreage in the database. The largest fire recorded for the time period was estimated to have burned 54 acres in April 1987 in the Town of Ruby.
As shown in Table 19, from 1982 through 2019, an average of 15 wildfire events and 27 acres burned were reported per year in Chippewa County within the WDNR database. On average, during the same timeframe, the acres burned per event was only 1.7 acres. A positive trend is the decrease in the number of reported wildfire events in recent years. From 2010 through 2019, the number of events decreased to 11.1/year with about 16 total acres burned. WDNR staff at the Cornell Ranger Station confirmed that wildfire events have been decreasing in recent years.
Table 19. Chippewa County Wildfire Events, 1982 through 201936
# of Acres Year Events Burned 1982 3 1.0 1983 15 15.5 1984 9 26.9 1985 11 13.4 1986 5 4.5 1987 33 128.0 1988 29 23.5 1989 26 71.5 1990 18 24.7 1991 12 24.0 1992 26 25.3 1993 15 50.3 1994 29 32.6 1995 23 29.6 1996 6 4.8 1997 13 44.4 1998 12 13.9 1999 23 14.2 2000 21 37.0 2001 5 0.4 2002 11 5.3 2003 37 73.5 2004 1 0.0 2005 8 5.1
36 Through June 2020, four wildfire events had been reported for Chippewa County that are not reflected in Table 19.
152 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
# of Acres Year Events Burned 2006 22 6.0 2007 22 37.4 2008 13 8.4 2009 21 64.8 2010 11 8.0 2011 10 32.1 2012 23 17.3 2013 13 7.0 2014 3 Not available 2015 10 ““ “” 2016 11 ““ “” 2017 8 ““ “” 2018 13 ““ “” 2019 9 ““ “” Totals: 580 850 Source: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 2020
Wildfires were reported in every month, though only six fires were reported for the months of December through February. By far, the largest number of wildfires occurred in the month of April with 269 fires (46 percent of all reported fires). May was the next highest month in terms of wildfire frequency with 25 percent of the reported fires.
Over the last forty years, there has not been a Presidential Disaster Declaration for a wildfire in Chippewa County and research for preparation of this Plan did not discover any recent serious injuries or deaths related to a large wildfire event. There have been no recent “project class” wildfires in Chippewa County with an Incident Command Center and 8+ hour burns. However, we can look south to Eau Claire County to see that such events can be very deadly. On April 24, 1982, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources tractor plow operator Donald Eisberner was killed in the line of duty while plowing a firebreak during the Canoe Landing forest fire in the Eau Claire County Forest.
Risk Factor – Vegetative Fuels Vegetative cover type is directly related to wildfire risk. The degree of flammability for different vegetative covers is in the general following order:
Jack Pine Most Flammable Red Pine Mixed Coniferous Grasslands and Shrub Oak Aspen Mixed Deciduous Least Flammable
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 153 SECTION III
Approximately 35.5 percent (abt. 236,515 acres) of Chippewa County is forested and 12.8 percent (abt. 85,357 acres) is non-agricultural shrub and grasslands. Keep in mind that many forested areas are actively managed for timber production; thus, vegetative characteristics can change from year to year as part of the timber growth and harvesting cycle. The land cover data and does not reflect the recent development and agricultural trends, such as increased cropped land for corn production.
Based on Wiscland land cover data37, deciduous trees (e.g., aspen, oak, maple) are, by far, the predominant forest type. With approximately 89 percent of the forested landscape in predominately deciduous forest, one local person described the County’s northern landscape as the “asbestos forest” due to its resistance to fire. While some significant areas of pine and other coniferous forest exists, the County no longer has the vast expanses of pine forest which were burned in the deadly fires of the late 19th Century. In addition, forest lands in the County have been increasingly fragmented over time, which reduces the chance of a large-scale wildfire event.
Most of the forest lands in the County are privately owned and about 29,000 acres have managed forest law or forest crop law status. There are approximately 31,350 acres of County-owned forest lands and nearly 25,000 acres of State and Federal recreational lands and natural areas. Several towns also have significant forested public lands, such as the Town of Sampson (2,376 acres) and Town of Bloomer (abt. 400 acres). Approximately 41 percent of these public lands are located in the towns of Birch Creek and Sampson. An additional 26.5 percent are located in the towns Cleveland and Ruby. Though public forest lands tend to be more actively managed against wildfire risks, not all of these public lands are forested. Notably, there is a high degree of fragmentation of forest lands within the County which decreases the potential for a project-level wildfire. Yet, this also can mean there is more development occurring within or adjacent to remaining forested areas which increases vulnerabilities and risk of ignition.
As part of this Plan update, all towns were sent a survey requesting the identification of any unique natural hazard and emergency management concerns or needs in their communities. Most towns did not have any specific or unique wildfire-related concerns. The Town of Woodmohr suggested that a number of areas have elevated risks and the Town of Cleveland identified Hoel’s Meadow being a higher risk during dry periods. The Town of Birch Creek commented that wildfires can happen anywhere. During Plan update interviews, Wissota Woods, Lake Wissota State Park, and the Lake Holcombe area were identified as having elevated risks (and vulnerabilities) given the homes, businesses, and recreational activities located within coniferous and mixed forest; these specific areas were identified as a potential candidate for wildfire mitigation activities (e.g., driveway assessments, education on defensible spaces, Firewise campaigns).
Forest health also influences the risk of wildfire ignition and can increase the difficulty of fire suppression. Tree damage from storm events, diseases, insect infestation, and exotic species can weaken plants, making them more susceptible to storm damage, or can kill a forest stand outright. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has rated portions of Chippewa County, especially in the northern third and the Chippewa Falls area, as having medium or high levels of risk for experiencing 25 percent of more tree mortality between 2009 and 2024 due to native and
37 https://dnr.wi.gov/maps/WISCLAND.html
154 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
exotic insects and diseases.38 Wisconsin’s average annual temperature has also been increasing with shorter winters and recent droughts,39 which not only affects forest health, but also increases the wildfire risk.
Notably, there is a high degree of fragmentation of forest lands within much of the County, which decreases the potential for a project-level wildfire. Yet, this also can mean there is more development occurring within or adjacent to remaining forested areas which increases vulnerabilities and risk of ignition.
Forest health also influences the risk of wildfire ignition and can increase the difficulty of fire suppression. Tree damage from storm events, diseases, insect infestation, and exotic species can weaken plants, making them more susceptible to storm damage, or can kill a forest stand outright. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has rated portions of Chippewa County, especially in the northern third and the Chippewa Falls area, as having medium or high levels of risk for experiencing 25 percent of more tree mortality between 2009 and 2024 due to native and exotic insects and diseases.40 Wisconsin’s average annual temperature has also been increasing with shorter winters and recent droughts41, which not only affects forest health, but also increases the wildfire risk.
Forests have a natural life cycle. Humans can interrupt this cycle by introducing new species or diseases, encouraging certain growth patterns, or through timber harvest practices. Characteristics such as dense stands of unmanaged pine plantation or creating large piles of slash can increase wildfire risks. Creating brush piles and allowing for the accumulation of dead plant litter in home ignition zones or along roadways also increases wildfire risks. Forest management practices can increase wildfire risks or help to mitigate the ignition or spread of wildfires.
Risk Factor - Ignition Most wildfire starts are human caused, whether accidental or deliberate. Areas of higher population within wildlands can be expected to have a higher risk of ignition. Of the 580 recorded wildfire events in Table 19, 237 (41%) were caused by debris burning, with brush piles, household trash, and burn barrels being the primary items burned. Miscellaneous causes account for an additional 119 (21%) events, with “other,” structure fire, power lines, and improper ash disposal listed as the specific cause. Equipment-related causes, including non-exhaust sparks (e.g., road grader blade scattering sparks, etc.) cause another 19% of fires. Deliberate or incendiary fires were cited in 10% of fire events, with nearly 2/3 of those a result of fireworks. Smoking and campfires were each the cause of 4% of fires. Lightning accounted for just eight events (1%) of all fires. Illegal campfires/bonfires in the County Forest, often along logging roads, is an ongoing (if not increasing) concern as well as improper ash disposal from campfires, grills, wood stoves, etc.
Local WDNR confirmed that debris burning remains the largest risk of wildfire ignition, especially in late March through early May. Public education and outreach regarding debris burning as well
38 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Statewide Forest Assessment 2010. 39 Ibid. 40 Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Statewide Forest Assessment 2010. 41 Ibid.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 155 SECTION III
as enforcement of any burning restrictions is recommended. A specialized approach may be necessary in outreach efforts to the Amish community.
Review of WDNR Wildfire Risk Assessments In 2008, the WDNR Division of Forestry performed a statewide wildfire risk assessment to identify those communities most at risk. Figure 23 shows the result of this risk assessment for Chippewa County. Three inputs were used to determine the risk as reflected by the three individual maps at the bottom of the figure: • Hazard (Wildfire Fuels) – The hazard encompasses vegetative fuel types based on satellite imagery, historic fire regime data, pre-settlement vegetative data, and moisture index data. • Risk (Potential for Ignition) – The risk is based on past fire occurrence data, population density, and distance from roads and railroads. • Wildland-Urban Interface (Value) – The wildland-urban interface (WUI) reflects housing density and the proximity to flammable vegetation, thus reflecting the potential value of development (and residents) at-risk of destruction by wildfire.
The larger map in Figure 23 is a weighted composite of each of the three factors—hazard (40%), risk (30%), and WUI (30%). After weighting occurred, natural breaks were used in the model to identify the different risk ratings. Wildfire planning and preparedness resources can then be focused on those communities and areas of highest concern.
Within Chippewa County, no municipalities were identified as being “very high” risk overall. Four towns were rated as communities of “high risk” as shown in Table 20. Six additional communities not shown in Table 20 were rated as communities-of-concern: towns of Birch Creek, Bloomer, Colburn, Sampson, and Woodmohr, and the City of Bloomer.
Table 20. Communities-at-Risk (Wildfire) Hazard Risk WUI 2019 est. Municipality (40%) (30%) (30%) Popul. Anson (T) H H M 2,236 Lafayette (T) H H M 6,113 Lake Holcombe (T) M H H 1,040 Wheaton (T) H H L 2,812
The Chippewa County towns with the highest wildfire risks are also some of the fastest growing communities in the County, so the risk of ignition will likely similarly grow. And as the housing discussion early in this document identifies, it is some of these same areas which have significant seasonal housing, with many of these homes transitioning to year-round housing. Some of these landowners are absentee and may not be fully unaware of local burning permit requirements, local warning systems, and the wildfire risks. But as retirees and commuters begin to live year-round in these formerly seasonal homes, wildfire ignition could proportionately increase, especially during the non-summer months when populations have traditionally been lower.
156 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Figure 23. Chippewa County Communities-at-Risk Map (Wildfire)
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 157 SECTION III
The risk areas identified in Figures 31 and 32 are also consistent with the fire landscapes identified by the WDNR in their Wildland Fire Management Program Assessment completed in March 2010. This assessment divided the state into 16 fire landscapes based on vegetation, ecology, soils, development, and forest sizes. The zones were then used to help guide and prioritize resources and mitigation efforts. Chippewa County falls within three fire landscapes: West Central Wisconsin – Drawing a line from the northwest corner of the County to the southeast, the southwestern half of the County largely falls into the West Central Wisconsin fire landscape. This region is characterized by areas of steep terrain and bluffs and sandy soils. Wildfires would generally be expected to remain under 500 acres. Northern Forest - The majority of the northeastern half of the County falls within the Northern Forest fire landscape, which contains large, contiguous forested blocks with low road density that has the potential for fires in excess of 500 acres, though such fires have been very rare. Central Ag and Hardwoods - A small area of the County in the southeastern corner lies within this fire landscape which has a fire risk similar to that of the West Central Wisconsin fire landscape. Forested land in this area is highly fragmented by agricultural land, breaking vast tracts of flammable landscape. Wildfires in this area are likely to remain under 500 acres.
The analysis recommends limited mitigation activities for Chippewa County’s fire landscapes, such as K-3 school fire prevention programming and some structural zone mapping in high hazard areas. The northeast part of the County would benefit from additional public service announcements when the fire danger is elevated. Such actions in Chippewa County (e.g., Smokey Bear visits to schools, Firewise outreach, debris burning education) have been provided through the WDNR Cornell Fire Station in cooperation with local fire departments. While the fire landscape approach is valuable for state- and regional-level resource planning, the communities- at-risk assessment (Figure 23) provides a better understanding of local variations, such as development density and vegetation.
WDNR Fire Protection Areas About 60 percent of Chippewa County has cooperative fire protection, while the remaining 40 percent has intensive fire protection. These are defined as follows: Intensive Fire Protection areas are the most heavily forested and contain the most fire hazards and risks in the State. Limited assignment of skilled personnel, specialized equipment, and facilities provide for an adequate degree of forest fire prevention, detection, and suppression efficiency and effectiveness at a minimum cost. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) equipment is designed to suppress fires that are beyond the capability of the local fire department. The WDNR, by statute, takes whatever action is necessary to suppress the fires. Fire detection is provided by WDNR aircraft (manned fire towers are no longer used), and there is a strong reliance on public reporting of fires. Burning permits are required whenever the ground is not snow-covered.
158 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
The intensive fire protection area in Chippewa County falls under the WDNR Cornell Fire Response Unit headquartered just west of the City of Cornell. This WDNR Ranger Station also takes the local lead in all WDNR wildfire prevention, education, and coordination efforts in the County. To date, no formal community wildfire protection planning efforts have been completed or proposed for Chippewa County, in large part due to the relatively sparse population within most of this protection area. However, there have been periodic bulk mailings on Firewise materials (e.g., creating defensible spaces), wildfire awareness signage installed, public service announcements in local media, and other public awareness outreach, in particular in the Lake Holcombe area. There is also a high level of coordination between WDNR and local fire departments within the Intensive Fire Protection area and local fire departments periodically participate in WDNR-facilitated annual wildfire introduction and “refresher” courses, exercises, and other training on wildland fire fighting and structural protection. There is some discussion of expanding the Intensive Fire Protection area further south (e.g. Wissota Woods) based on the risks previously discussed. Cooperative Forest Fire Protection is aid and counsel from WDNR, upon request, to the town authorities who are legally responsible for forest fire prevention, detection, and suppression activities in territory outside boundaries of established intensive fire control areas. Town chairmen, by virtue of their office, are fire wardens. Costs of forest fire prevention and suppression incurred by a town chairman, acting in his capacity as town fire warden, are paid by the town. Burning permits are issued when the town board deems it necessary.
Local volunteer fire departments play a very important role in fighting wildfires and a countywide fire department mutual aid agreement is in place. Most of the cooperative fire-fighting agreements between Wisconsin DNR and local fire departments have fallen out of date and need updating.
When surveyed, no fire departments noted specific wildfire equipment or dry hydrant needs. Some departments expressed that there was a greater need for more volunteers to serve in or support local departments. Maintaining an adequate emergency response vehicle envelope along driveways and private roads is a critical concern for some departments as well as having sufficient space to turn around at building sites; a number of lake areas were specifically identified as being particularly challenging. WDNR staff affirmed that driveway access challenges for larger vehicles and suggested more public education/awareness efforts may be helpful (e.g., educational banners, driveway assessments). It was mentioned that radio communication for some areas on the eastern side of the County was described as “very poor” and efforts must be made to maintain strong communication with clear directions between emergency responders and Dispatch/9-1-1. Most, if not all, fire departments continue to participate in some level of training or mock event exercises
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 159 SECTION III
with long-term care facilities, public housing, or other such critical facilities in their respective districts.
Relative Level of Risk The wildfire risk is considered low-to-moderate for Chippewa County overall. This is in large part due to most of the forest lands being significantly fragmented and having predominantly deciduous vegetation which will help slow and limit the spread of wildfires. For the unincorporated areas, only the Towns of Cleveland, Woodmohr, and Birch Creek noted the potential of serious wildfire, but no specific areas, actions, or mitigation activities were noted.
In the near term, it can be expected that Chippewa County will continue to experience about fifteen wildfires per year on average within the intensive fire protection area, and perhaps greater if periods of drought occur. The majority of these fires will be small, with a wildfire greater than 20 acres in size occurring about once every six to seven years. Estimates for future wildfire frequency in the remaining 60 percent of the County within cooperative fire protection are not currently available. Vegetation fuel types and the fragmented forest landscape combine to make the fast-spreading, regional fires of the late 1800s very unlikely within Chippewa County for the foreseeable future.
However, a number of factors could significantly contribute an increase in the number and size of wildfires over the long term. Foremost, population increases, development in the wildland-urban interface, and the transition from seasonal to year-round housing has the potential to increase the frequency of wildfires in Chippewa County. Climate changes, insect infestation, and plant disease are additional factors which may also increase wildfire risks.
Vulnerability Assessment—Wildfire Potential Impacts Forest fire can cause significant injury, death, damage to property, and loss of natural resources. As shown in Table 21, those communities rated as “high risk” or “of concern” hade over $1.4 billion in assessed improvements on 10,289 parcels and over $14 million in assessed personal property in 2019 as well as a combined population of about 20,224. The far majority of these improvements were residential.
Among the ten communities most at-risk, the Towns of Colburn, Lafayette, and Wheaton are among the fastest growing in Chippewa County. It is notable that four of the communities, including the two high risk towns of Lafayette and Wheaton, lie outside the intensive fire protection area. This reflects that the fire protection areas are determined based more on large areas of contiguous vegetation types, rather than population and development vulnerabilities which were included as part of the risk input reflected in the Figure 23.
160 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Table 21. Population and Improvements of High Risk Communities (Wildfire) 2019 Assessed Population 2019 Improvements Assessed Municipality % # of Value of Est. Proj. Total Value of Chng. Imp. Personal 2019 2040 Improvements '19-'40 Parcels Property Communities-at-Risk — Intensive Fire Protection Anson* (t) (50%) 2,236 2,460 9.11% 1,085 $167,494,800 $2,091,700 Lake Holcombe (t) 1,040 1,125 7.56% 892 $82,361,700 $908,200 Birch Creek (t) 531 535 0.75% 505 $58,092,500 $215,600 Bloomer* (t) (50%) 1,102 1,215 9.30% 500 $61,653,100 $720,600 Colburn* (t) (90%) 899 1065 15.59% 472 $42,441,400 $241,600 Sampson (t) 952 1,015 6.21% 924 $118,064,400 $301,900 Communities-at-Risk — Cooperative Fire Protection Lafayette (t) 6,113 6,900 11.41% 2,669 $399,602,500 $1,497,100 Wheaton (t) 2,812 3,295 14.66% 1,214 $228,004,400 $3,390,800 Woodmohr (t) 968 1045 7.37% 457 $63,687,600 $643,300 Bloomer (c) 3,571 3,710 3.75% 1,571 $204,678,300 $4,078,600 Totals 20,224 22,365 9.57% 10,289 $1,426,080,700 $14,089,400 Source: Population estimates and projections – WI Dept. of Administration 2019 Assessed Value – WI Dept. of Revenue
For 2008, 9,949,200 oven-dry tons of live timber biomass in Chippewa County, with about 31 percent being a variety of pine, fir, spruce, or hemlock.42 State and Federal harvest timber value per acre in 2009 ranged from $514 to $638 per harvested acre. To provide a rough idea of the value of the County-owned and private productive forest in the County, the 236,000 forested acres would have a timber value of about $150.5 million at $638 per acre. However, timber values vary by forest type, forest age, and market conditions.
Not only are public forest lands an important direct income source for Chippewa County through logging, they are an important recreational resource as well. The loss of related tourism would also reduce revenues for Chippewa County campgrounds, resorts, and other businesses, though no such current study on the extent of potential financial impacts is available. Forest landowners would also incur significant costs associated with salvage and restoration following a large forest fire event.
The Chippewa County Forest is intensively managed to mitigate the potential of large wildfires and a range of other forest-related hazards (e.g., drought, invasive species) through the 15-year County Forest Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Privately owned woodlots are sometimes less intensely managed than adjacent County Forest lands, especially in cases of absentee land ownership.
42 http://dnr.wi.gov/forestry/um/pdf/report/TimberHarvestWisconsin.pdf
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 161 SECTION III
Within non-wooded areas, wildfires in grasslands have the potential to spread more quickly than fires in wooded areas. Homes, agricultural operations, livestock, crops (especially hay and grains), and travelers on roadways are all potentially vulnerable to wildfire depending on proximity to vegetative fuel. Large, contiguous areas of grasslands do exist within the County.
Vulnerable Critical Facilities Any critical facility located in a pine plantation, forested area, or adjacent to grasslands is potentially at risk from wildfire. Within forested areas with Intensive Fire Protection, vulnerable critical facilities are primarily limited to above ground utilities, such as power lines. A number of additional utilities and governmental facilities may be in forested areas, though no specific concerns or vulnerabilities were noted during the Plan update process.
While not technically critical facilities, Chippewa County does have a number of campgrounds, rental cottages, RV parks, and resorts that are located within the at-risk communities and other forested areas of the County. For such facilities, the priority concern is for the visitors as a potential source of fire ignition as well as the ability to quickly notify and evacuate if needed.
Unique Jurisdictional Risks or Vulnerabilities—Wildfire Appendix F summarizes any unique wildfire risks by incorporated municipality. All participating cities and villages currently have adequate well capacity for fire protection, though the City of Stanley has noted that water quantity is of concern due to demands by industry and the correctional institution.
Among the cities and villages, only the City of Chippewa Falls noted any wildfire concerns during the planning effort. Two areas of the City have substantial residential development located within former pine plantation. One area is immediately adjacent to USH 53, which could have an elevated risk of ignition from passing vehicles from sparks or a carelessly discarded cigarette.
162 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
vii. Extreme Heat
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2017 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rated extreme heat as a 56% overall risk over a ten-year period given its moderate probability (2), moderate impacts (2.2), and substantial available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (1.5 internal, 1.5 external). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
Risk Assessment—Extreme Heat The Hazard In contrast to other natural hazard events, the occurrence and impacts of extreme heat are often more difficult to recognize. Extreme heat is the combination of very high temperatures and exceptionally humid conditions. The probability of exceeding 89°F in any given year is high, but temperatures are not the only determinant of the impacts of heat. Other factors include humidity, duration, and timing of the extreme heat event. The National Weather Service issues the following heat-related announcements and advisory warnings in order of severity:
Extreme Heat Outlook Statement — Issued two to seven days in advance of when Heat Advisory or Excessive Heat Warning conditions are anticipated. Issued as a Hazardous Weather Outlook (HWO). Broadcasted on NOAA Weather Radio All Hazards and posted on NWS websites (www.weather.gov).
Heat Advisory — Issued six to 24 hours in advance of any 24-hour period in which daytime heat index (HI) values of 100F or more and/or when air temperatures are expected to be 95F or higher. If four consecutive days of these conditions are expected, then the Excessive Heat Warning will be issued.
Excessive Heat Watch — Issued generally 12 to 48 hours in advance of any 24-hour period in which daytime heat index (HI) values are expected to be 105F or higher and nighttime HI values will be 75F or higher.
Excessive Heat Warning — Issued six to 24 hours in advance of any occurrence of a 48-hour period in which daytime heat index (HI) values are expected to be 105F or higher and nighttime HI values will be 75F or higher.
If such conditions persist for a prolonged period of time, it is called a heat wave. Excessive or extreme heat is typically a slowly evolving phenomenon that can catch many people by surprise. Unlike tornados or thunderstorms that normally develop and occur more quickly and with more
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 163 SECTION III
observable characteristics, a heat wave typically builds slowly over time. Because of this creeping effect, it is important for forecasters and officials to be constantly aware of heat and humidity conditions in order to properly warn and protect citizens.
The combination of high temperatures and high relative humidity makes it difficult for the human body to dissipate heat through the skin and sweat glands. Sweating will not cool the human body unless the water is removed by evaporation. High relative humidity retards evaporation and, thus, inhibits the cooling process. The National Weather Service (NWS) uses the heat index as a measure of the combined effects of high temperatures and high relative humidity, as shown in Table 22.
Table 22. Heat Index Table
Source: National Weather Service
Regional Trends Heat is the number one weather-related killer in the United States and Wisconsin. From 1979 to 1999, excessive heat exposure caused 8,015 deaths in the United States. During this period, more people died from extreme heat than from hurricanes, lightning, tornados, floods, and earthquakes combined.
Although Wisconsin may not be thought of as a high-risk area for deadly heat waves, every year the state experiences a period or series of periods in which the temperature and humidity produce
164 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
a heat index which could be harmful to human health. Many of Wisconsin record- setting temperatures were reported during the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s. The highest-recorded Wisconsin temperature was 114ºF recorded on July 13, 1936, in Wisconsin Dells.
From 1982 to 2015, there were 137 deaths directly attributed to heat in Wisconsin and 102 indirect deaths. A death is considered direct if the medical examiner ruled that heat was the primary cause of death and not just a contributing factor. The following are examples of recent heat wave events affecting Wisconsin: • During the summer of 1995, two heat waves affected most of Wisconsin. Together, they resulted in 154 heat-related deaths and an estimated 300 to 400 heat-related illnesses. This makes the combined 1995 summer heat waves the biggest weather-related killers in Wisconsin for the past 50 years, far exceeding tornado deaths. Nationwide, the heat waves claimed 1,021 lives. • In 1999, heat waves occurred on in multiple weeks of July. Collectively, these heat waves were directly and indirectly responsible for 21 deaths. • Several heat waves from mid-July through early August 2001 claimed 15 fatalities across Wisconsin. Additionally, it is estimated that 300 or more individuals were treated at hospitals for heat-related conditions. • There were an additional 21 heat-related deaths and likely hundreds of related illnesses in July 2012, with heat indices peaking in the 100º to 115º F range, especially in the southern parts of the Wisconsin.
Local Events Extreme heat has no defined hazard area within Chippewa County and most times affects the entire County. A possible exception is the City of Eau Claire-Chippewa Falls urban area, which has the potential to experience a heat island effect. A heat island describes urban areas that are hotter
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 165 SECTION III
than nearby rural areas due to a number of factors, most notably more buildings, pavement and hardscape, and less vegetation. And due to the irregular nature of these events and the lack of defined hazard areas, the assessment of community impacts as a result of extreme temperatures is difficult to quantify.
From 1993 through 2017, Chippewa County experienced eight extreme-heat weather events, according to the NCDC database as shown in Table 23. It is notable that the current database does not include the July 2012 event discussed previously, nor does it include the three 1995 events listed below that were previously identified as including Chippewa County. All events are regional in nature.
Table 23. Chippewa County Extreme Heat Events – 1993-2017 Property Date Type Deaths Injuries Damage 7/23/99 Heat 0 0 0 7/29/99 Heat 0 0 0 7/20/01 Heat 1 0 0 7/31/01 Heat 0 0 0 8/1/01 Heat 0 0 0 8/4/01 Heat 0 0 0 7/31/06 Heat 0 0 0 7/18/11 Excessive Heat 0 0 0 8 events occurring in 4 years 1 0 0 source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), 2019.
Since 1995, Chippewa County has averaged one event every three years, though often multiple events occur in a single year with a large span of years before the next reported event(s). For instance, four of the reports occurred in the summer of 2001; and an additional two occurred in the summer of 1999. In addition, extreme heat events commonly last multiple days. All of the extreme heat events that included Chippewa County were reported in the months of July, or August. The NCDC database identifies one death and no injuries within Chippewa County directly related to extreme or excessive heat, though injuries often go unreported to the database. The single fatality occurred when a man died after fishing on Stanley Lake during warm and humid weather. The man came to shore, collapsed shortly thereafter, and was brought to a hospital in Eau Claire where his body temperature was measured at 108F. Death occurred on the 21st.
More recently, a heat wave struck Wisconsin on July 17-21, 2011, which was the most oppressive heat wave since 1995. During the 4.5 day stretch, maximum heat indices peaked in the 105ºF to 115ºF range over much of the state. Three fatalities in Wisconsin were directly attributed to this event. The heat wave was not as intense in the Chippewa County area compared to some areas of the state. However, this event did increase local awareness of extreme heat risks and vulnerabilities.
Relative Level of Risk Extreme heat was identified as some concern to moderate risk (frequency) with moderate to substantial vulnerability (impact) for Chippewa County by the plan update Steering Committee.
166 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Based on recent trends, it is expected that a summer will include at least one extreme heat event every three years, on average. Some of these summers will include multiple events, with a single event lasting two to three days on average. However, as discussed in the Section III.D. on climate change, average temperatures in the region have been rising. If these trends continue, extreme heat events may also be increasing in frequency and any urban heat island effect could become more pronounced.
Vulnerability Assessment—Extreme Heat Potential Impacts Shown in Table 24 are the potential dangers associated with heat index temperatures. Research findings strongly suggest that heat index values of 90 to 105 make sunstroke, heat cramps, and heat exhaustion possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity. Heat index values of 105 to 130 degrees make sunstroke, heat exhaustion, or heat cramps likely with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.
Table 24. Apparent Temperature Heat Stress Index (Dangers Associated with Heat Index Temperatures) Apparent Temperature Category Associated Dangers (Heat Index - F) Caution 80-90°F Exercise more fatiguing than usual. Extreme Caution 90-105°F Heat cramps, exhaustion possible. Danger 105-130°F Heat exhaustion likely; heatstroke possible. Extreme Danger Greater than 130°F Heatstroke or sunstroke imminent. Source: National Weather Service
Heat cramps are muscle spasms from the result of a large amount of salt and water, and generally cease to be a problem after acclimatization. Heat exhaustion may cause dizziness, weakness, nausea, or fatigue from the depletion of body fluids, and may be accompanied by slightly to moderately elevated body temperatures. Heatstroke is when the body is unable to regulate and prevent a substantial rise in the body’s core temperature. It is usually diagnosed when the body’s temperature exceeds 105º F due to environmental temperatures. Sunstroke is a form of heatstroke brought about by excessive exposure to the sun. Heatstroke or sunstroke are considered medical emergencies and can be fatal.
The risk of heat-related injury or death is highest for individuals who are suffering from chronic illnesses and for those who are not acclimated to these conditions. Seniors with underlying health conditions are especially vulnerable. However, residents on certain medications, isolated individuals who live alone and seldom leave their home, infants and young children, persons with chronic heart or lung problems, overweight people, persons with disabilities, homeless individuals who do not have an air conditioned place to go, and people who work outside are also at greater risk during extreme heat events. Mobile homes, campers, pole buildings, and similar construction, if not air conditioned, can also become dangerous under extreme-heat conditions.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 167 SECTION III
Residents in larger cities and urbanized areas can be more at risk due to the urban heat island effect. This was a factor in the large number of heat-related deaths in Milwaukee County in 1995. Concentrations of buildings can disrupt the cooling and moderating influences of winds. And large areas of concrete and asphalt retain heat. Large numbers of heat sources in urban areas are typically a secondary factor. However, other factors also influence a population’s vulnerability to extreme heat.
The Building Resilience Against Climate Effects (BRACE) program in the Wisconsin Department of Health Services has compiled a heat vulnerability index map for the state based on a combination of risk factors (population density, health factors, demographic and socioeconomic factors, and the natural and built environment). Figure 24 on the following page shows the heat vulnerability index map for Wisconsin. The vulnerability for most of Chippewa County was rated as moderate to low.
Any time the temperature and humidity combine to produce a heat index that could cause health concerns for humans, the National Weather Service will issue various statements on heat conditions. For example, the NWS issues “Heat Advisories” when it expects the daytime heat index to equal or exceed 105 for 3 hours or more and the nighttime heat index equals or exceeds 80 for any 24-hour period. The NWS issues “Excessive Heat Warnings” when it expects the daytime heat index to equal or exceed 115 for 3 hours or more and the nighttime heat index equals or exceeds 80 for any 24-hour period. The NWS may issue an "Excessive Heat Watch" 24 to 48 hours in advance of anticipated heat-wave conditions.
Few options are available for a community to mitigate extreme heat. Cooling shelters can be activated or identified for persons without air conditioning. About 40 such potential heating/cooling shelter locations have been identified in the County, but have not been activated in the past; they would be made available demand and conditions warrant. Instead, most efforts focus on educating the public to the risks, vulnerabilities, and how to prevent heat-related illness. Chippewa County Emergency Management distributes educational information via social media and local media on steps to minimize the impacts of extreme heat. Local media provides additional coverage and educational outreach. In addition, the Chippewa County Aging and Disability Resource Center distributes educational information through its newsletter to the County’s elderly; and its meal delivery personnel help maintain watch over elderly clients who might be more at- risk of succumbing to the impacts of extreme heat.
Beyond educational efforts and activating cooling shelters, mitigation alternatives are limited. A targeted air conditioning program, such as working with local suppliers to offer rebates, could be one alternative, but would be expensive. Some communities with significant urban heat islands have attempted to increase vegetative cover, reduce hardscape, or have consider policies to change the albedo (reflectivity) of pavement, roofs, and other surfaces. The impacts of these policies are often difficult to model and prove. For areas experiencing an increase in extreme heat events, another approach is adaptation which considers the type of vegetation being planted, the reuse of water supplies, scheduling of activities, etc. Section III.D. provides examples of such adaptation and mitigation strategies from other cities.
168 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Figure 24. Wisconsin Heat Vulnerability Index
Extreme heat also has impacts for agriculture. In July 2012, Green Bay-area dairy farmers were reporting up to a 33 percent reduction in milk production due to heat; and it can take months before animals recover.43 Extreme heat can also have long-term livestock reproductive and herd size management issues. Within confined livestock buildings, heat can also result in deaths, especially
43 http://www.wbay.com/story/19037284/2012/07/16/milk-production-takes-a-dip-with-extreme-heat
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 169 SECTION III
should power be lost. In nearby Barron County, some rural fire departments have been called out to provide water misting to help keep turkeys cool during the hottest of temperatures. This is a concern for Chippewa County since the number of poultry farms and confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) has been on the increase, and there is not a specific County guideline for an animal mass casualty event. Extreme heat and drought can also result in the build-up of toxic gases within grain silos to lethal levels or result in fires or explosions.
Vulnerable Critical Facilities Extreme heat events are regional in nature, and all critical facilities would be encompassed within the same event area. An assessment of Chippewa County community assets (critical facilities) and their susceptibility to extreme heat and other hazard events described in Appendix E. The vulnerability of critical facilities to extreme heat generally falls into three categories: 1) Infrastructure—Certain types of infrastructure can be impacted directly or indirectly by extreme heat. Direct impacts can include disruption of biological processes at wastewater treatment facilities, the “softening” or buckling of roadways, increased mechanical failure, water supply shortages (during times of drought), or the sagging of electrical transmission lines. Indirect impacts can include the power brownouts due to spiking demands for electricity. The County Highway Department estimated that serious buckling occurred at about eight locations on county and state highways in 2019. Some areas/roadways are more prone than others (e.g., roads with no underdrain) and it can be expensive to prevent. Rail lines are built with sufficient flexibility to accommodate the stresses related to most extreme heat, though buckling immediately in advance of fast-moving trains can occur. During extreme heat events, train speeds may be reduced, and additional track department patrols may be ordered. 2) Services to Special Populations—Many critical facilities, such as hospitals, long-term care facilities, and schools, provide services to at-risk or special populations. Special attention is needed to mitigate heat-related vulnerabilities to these populations. 3) Hazardous Materials—Certain chemicals, gases, and other hazardous materials can be impacted by extreme heat resulting in a release, fire, or explosion. Care must be used to properly store these materials during extreme heat events.
Unique Jurisdictional Risks or Vulnerabilities—Extreme Heat During meetings with cities and villages, very few concerns regarding extreme heat noted. Communities often noted that libraries were available as one cooling option, if open. The City of Chippewa Falls is willing to make a cooling shelter available if needed based on conditions and demand. Some communities identified nursing homes and other long-term care facilities as potential vulnerabilities if power should be lost during an extreme heat event and back-up power generation not available.
170 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
viii. Drought
Public Health Hazard Vulnerability Assessment The 2019 Northwest Wisconsin Health Care Coalition Public Health HVA rated drought as a 32% overall risk over a ten-year period given its moderate probability (2), low impacts (1.3), and substantial-to-moderate available emergency management capabilities to deal with this threat (1.5 internal, 1.5 external). The assessment used a scale of 1 to 3, with “1” being low probability/impact or having substantial management capabilities and “3” being high probability/impact or having limited/no management capabilities.
Risk Assessment--Drought The Hazard A drought is an extended period of unusually dry weather which may be accompanied by extreme heat (temperatures which are ten or more degrees above the normal high temperature for the period). Drought conditions may vary from below-normal precipitation for a few weeks to a severe lack of normal precipitation for multiple months.
There are two basic types of drought in Wisconsin—agricultural and hydraulic. Agricultural drought is a dry period of sufficient length and intensity that markedly reduces crop yields. Hydraulic drought is a dry period of sufficient length and intensity to affect lake and stream levels and the height of the groundwater table. These two types of drought may, but do not necessarily, occur at the same time. Soil types greatly influence agricultural drought risk. Some sandier, well- drained soils experience drought-like effects almost annually and can experience the lowest yields when a true drought is declared.
Regional and Local Trends Drought is a relatively common phenomenon in Wisconsin and has occurred statewide or nearly statewide in 1895, 1910, 1929-1934, 1939, 1948-1950, 1955-1959, 1963-64, 1976-77, 1987-1989, 2007-2008, and 2012. Drought was particularly harsh in northwest Wisconsin in 2009 and 2012- 2014. The drought of 1929-1934 (the Dust Bowl) was probably the most significant in Wisconsin history, given its duration; some of areas of the State experienced drought effects until the early 1940s.
A Presidential Emergency Declaration was issued for the statewide drought in 1976-1977, during which agricultural losses in the State were estimated at over $624 million and some private wells in the region dried up. Stream-flow measuring stations recorded recurrence intervals from 10 to 30 years. Federal assistance was used to help communities drill new wells and obtain new water supplies.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 171 SECTION III
The North American Drought of 1988 was one of the most severe ever recorded in Wisconsin and much of the Midwest; it was last major drought event in the County. It was characterized not only by below-normal precipitation, but also by persistent dry air and above-normal temperatures. Heatwaves killed an estimated 5,000 people nationwide and contributed to high livestock loss. Stream-flow measuring stations indicated a drought recurrence interval of 75 to 100 years. The effects were most severe in north central and northeastern Wisconsin. The drought occurred early in the growing season and resulted in a 30-60 percent crop loss with state agricultural losses estimated at $1.3 billion. Fifty-two percent of the state’s 81,000 farms were estimated to have had crop losses of 50% or more, with 14% of farms suffering estimated losses of 70% or more (FEMA). State and federal drought assistance programs helped Wisconsin farmers recover a portion of their losses. All Wisconsin counties were designated eligible for this drought assistance. In total, the drought in the central and eastern states between 1987 and 1989 caused an estimated $39 billion in damages (FEMA). Point wells in certain areas of western Wisconsin also dried up during the drought of 1988-1989.
Until 2000, drought conditions had been impacting corn and soybean yields to some degree in the County about once in every five to six years. However, beginning about 2003, northern Wisconsin experienced ongoing drought conditions as shown in Figure 25, with serious impacts to agricultural producers and hydraulic levels of surface and ground waters. As a result, the Governor issued State of Emergency drought declarations, which included Chippewa County, during five of the ten years between 2000 and 2010.
Figure 25. Northwest Wisconsin Palmer Drought Severity Index, Jan 1895-June 2020
Source: Wisconsin State Climatology Office, 2020.
172 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Summer 2010 brought relief from the region’s drought conditions as a new record for the average statewide summer rainfall was established (18.65 inches). In June through September 2010, northwest Wisconsin experienced total monthly rainfall amounts of about two inches or more above the mean in each of these four months. Though the rainfall provided relief for agricultural crops, water levels in many surface waters remained below average and monthly rainfall amounts were still below average for six of the months of the year.
A nearly statewide drought would again impact Chippewa County during the 2012 summer and fall seasons, resulting in reduced crop and alfalfa yields. As feed costs rose, some farmers were forced to sell-off some livestock. There were many reports of wells in Wisconsin running dry, and some well depths had to be increased in order to find water. The drought was generated by a large, warm blocking high pressure in the upper levels of the atmosphere which was centered over the middle of the nation in May and June. Part of this high pressure expanded north into the western Great Lakes region in July, forcing storms to stay mostly north of Wisconsin as the summer progressed. The drought started across the southern third of counties in June and steadily expanded north during July and August. Eventually, the southern two-thirds of the State was in severe (D2) to extreme (D3) drought status. The drought continued into December due to a very dry November.
Since 2013 Wisconsin has been in an unusual to very moist spell, as can be seen in Figure 25. In fact, the Wisconsin State Climatology Office reported that 2019 was the wettest year on record in Wisconsin. While no regional drought has persisted in northwest Wisconsin in the past seven years, localized drought conditions may still have occurred at the county or sub-county level.
Relative Level of Risk The future incidence of drought is highly unpredictable and may also be localized. Sandier, well drained soils may experience drought-like conditions on a nearly annual basis. If weather patterns return to longer-term trends, severe drought conditions can be expected to occur every four to five years on average (1 to 2 drought years per decade). As the drought history showed, a single drought event can span multiple years; and it is these less common, longer-lasting drought events that have the greatest impacts to surface and groundwater levels and quality.
Projecting the influence of climate change on drought risk is difficult. As will be discussed in Section III.D., the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts projects that annual precipitation will continue to increase. However, the greatest increases are expected during the winter months, not the growing season. With projected increases in heavy rain events, less of this precipitation from such events will infiltrate into the soil. The increased precipitation will also likely be offset, in part, by increased evapotranspiration due to the higher projected temperatures and longer growing season. As time goes on, higher temperatures and increased evapotranspiration have the potential to exceed the added recharge from increased precipitation, potentially resulting in lower infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 173 SECTION III
Vulnerability Assessment—Drought The impacts of drought are varied and far-reaching. Droughts may cause a shortage of water for human and industrial consumption, hydroelectric power, recreation, and navigation. Water quality may decline, and the number and severity of wildfires may increase. As land is cleared by wildfire, loss of vegetation can result in flooding, even from average rainfall following drought conditions. Severe droughts may result in the loss of agricultural crops and forest products, undernourished wildlife and livestock, and lower land values.
Potential Impacts on Agriculture Drought can impact parts or all of Chippewa County’s agricultural base. The agricultural overview in Section II.C. discussed the importance of agriculture to Chippewa County’s economy and the potential market value of the crops at risk.
In general, for Wisconsin, droughts have the greatest impact on agriculture. Even small droughts of limited duration can significantly reduce crop growth and yields, while making crops more susceptible to pests and diseases. More substantial events can decimate croplands and result in total loss. Droughts also greatly increase the risk of forest fires and wildfires because of extreme dryness. The loss of vegetation due to drought can result in flooding, even from an average rainfall.
The vulnerability to agricultural drought is high for Chippewa County given that agriculture generates $618 million in economic activity each year. Crop yields can dramatically decrease; and livestock, especially those kept in close quarters, can experience decreased milk production or even death. Since the severity of drought can vary, determining its financial impacts on crop and livestock operations is difficult.
It is very unlikely that any single hazard would endanger all livestock or crops, though large proportions could be at-risk from a prolonged, severe drought or the introduction of a new a pest or disease. With milk production constituting a very large percentage of the total market value yet being concentrated in an increasingly smaller number of farms, threats to this industry are particularly important.
Large-scale impacts to crops or livestock from a natural hazard can also have devastating impacts on the local economy, related industries (e.g., food processing), and related service providers. The state of the agricultural economy is tenuous for the local farmer, and a hazard event may result in farmers making fewer purchases or getting out of the business altogether. Our local, small-town economies are already going through significant transitions with the decreasing number of farms. Additional farm losses would further impact local businesses (e.g., implement dealers, feed stores,
174 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
granaries, food processing, banks, and general goods). To compensate for additional farm losses, the costs for such services may also be increased, or the
Table 25 provides an example of how a statewide drought impacted crop yields by comparing crop production for the 2012-14 drought year against the average production for all other years from 2010 to 2019. During the drought (and related winter kill), soybean yields were 46% lower (20.4 fewer bushels per acre) and grain corn yields were 34% lower (52.3 fewer bushels/acres) in 2013 than the average for 2010-2019, excluding 2012-14.
Table 25. Soybeans & Grain Corn Yields, 2010-2019 Chippewa County Corn (grain) Soybeans Year bushels per acre average 2019 153.8 43.7 2018 146.6 40.8 2017 162.9 42.5 2016 161.9 49.4 2015 144.9 44.9 2014 126.8 35.0 drought 2013 101.9 23.9 years 2012 109.2 33.2 2011 146.1 41.8 2010 162.9 46.7 source: USDA-NASS, Agricultural Statistics Database, www.nass.usda.gov.
According to the Wisconsin Corn Growers Association, the July 2020 average cash price for corn is $2.89 per bushel. A 52-bushel per acre loss on corn would be equivalent to a $150 per acre. At $8.56 per bushel for soybeans as of July 2020, the loss of 20 fewer bushels per acre would be equivalent to a $171 per acre loss. Depending on grain and bean prices, the 2012-14 drought could have resulted in $15-$25 million in lost revenue.44 Yields can vary greatly by location based on soils, topography, and other factors, with corn yields ranging as high as 200 bushels per acre in some areas to less than 100 bushels per acre in others during drought years. The lowest yields are located in the sandier and lighter soils of the County.
During 2012-14, hay yields were also below average, driving up hay prices for livestock operators. Farmers will often supplement feed before allowing a drop in milk production due to drought. Additional feed purchases could also vary based on drought severity and length, but $1,500 of additional feed per mature cow is not unrealistic ($1,500 x 66,600 head of cattle = $99.9 million) resulting in tens of millions spent on supplemental feed by Chippewa County farmers under a typical, single-season drought event. Drought conditions can also result in the build-up of nitrates
44 74,630 acres corn on average from 2010-2019 x 150/acre loss = $11.2 million lost; 47,610 acres of beans x 171/acre loss = $8.1 million lost (total $19.3 million at current prices)
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 175 SECTION III
in feed and silage to levels that are toxic to cattle. In recent years, there have been a small number of cattle deaths in the region due to nitrate toxicity. Extreme heat and drought can also result in the build-up of toxic gases within grain silos to lethal levels or result in fires or explosions.
SOIL HEALTH The majority of local farmers AS A DROUGHT MITIGATION TOOL understands and practices good management to reduce the Soil health best management practices, such vulnerabilities associated with drought as cover crops and reduced tillage, can conditions, but some knowingly take improve soil health and help make cropland chances. Most farmers carry some type more resilient to drought. Healthy soil allows of crop insurance, especially in drought- precipitation to infiltrate, thereby increasing prone areas, and crop insurance use has moisture in the soil and helping to recharge been on the rise. Most farmers also groundwater. participate in Farm Service Agency The conservation of Chippewa County’s programs, which require multi-peril crop farmland soils is important to current and insurance and protect losses at average future generations of farmers. Soils that are county yields. But such insurance is physically and biologically healthy can expensive, and participation will often produce higher crop yields with fewer increase as the price received for the external inputs, which is great for the commodity increases. It is typically not pocketbook. cost-effective to insure low-value crops, such as alfalfa. And for many smaller Healthy soils are also important to the quality specialty growers and community- of groundwater and surface waters. As supported agricultural operations, it is precipitation infiltrates, it naturally filters the extremely cost prohibitive to carry crop water. The soils and nutrients stay in place, insurance. rather than run-off. Healthy soils reduce erosion, flooding, and pollutant/nutrient During the planning process, recent loading to surface waters, while increasing changes in agricultural practices were the recharge of the groundwater. noted by those interviewed as possibly being reasons for concern. Due to higher corn prices during the past decade and larger equipment, more land went into production. Some of the lands returning to production are droughty, sandier soils. In other cases, fence rows and tree lines are being removed, and road rights-of-ways are being encroached upon, which have implications for moisture management and wind erosion as well as roadway safety.
Other Potential Drought Vulnerabilities Drought conditions can stress forest vegetation, making it more vulnerable to certain pests and disease and increasing the risk of wildfire. Drought conditions can also dry up private wells and ponds as well as impact surface and ground water levels. Under such circumstances, shallow wells may need to be replaced at significant cost or a farmer whose livestock relied on a pond in the past may have to install a well and pump to provide water for stock. As surface waters dry up during drought periods, shoreline areas are more vulnerable to erosion, water temperatures can change, and contaminants and nutrients become concentrated, which can further contribute to toxicity, eutrophication, and fish kills.
176 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
High capacity wells have the potential to stress local groundwater supplies, especially during Use of Active Chippewa drought periods. As of July 2020, just under 200 County High Capacity Wells high capacity wells have been permitted in the Industrial & County with an average of 6.7 new wells permitted Commercial 13% annually since 2010. Agricultural irrigation had Agricultural - been increasing in the region, in part due to the 31% Irrigation drought events in the early part of the past decade, Other Agricultural though new well drilling has slowed since 2015. Use The 2019 Groundwater Flow Model for Western Non-Ag Irrigation 5% 45% Chippewa County, Wisconsin provides insights 6% into the County’s groundwater supply and use. Public and Some of the longer-term consequences of a Domestic changing climate are discussed in Section III.D. Source: WDNR, July 2020.
Vulnerable Critical Facilities No critical facilities or infrastructure in Chippewa County are directly vulnerable to drought except for water supplies. Overall, municipal and private wells have excellent water quantity to meet demands.
However, the demand for water increased substantially between 1979 and 2005; more recent estimates not being available. In that time, it is estimated that water use in Chippewa County nearly doubled, from 8.7 million gallons per day (mgd) to 15.4 mgd.45 Industry and agricultural irrigation are identified as the primary reasons for this increase. As noted previously, the second half of this decade has not been characterized by drought but rather by intense rainfall, thus it is not surprising that the average daily withdrawal was lower at 10.3 mgd from 2014-2018. When an extreme drought occurs (e.g., 1976, 1988) or if prolonged droughts increase in frequency, it should be expected that some private wells may need replacing and water demands for irrigation would increase.
Unique Jurisdictional Risks or Vulnerabilities—Drought The Unique Jurisdictional Risk or Vulnerabilities Table in Appendix F notes that participating cities and villages currently have good well capacity for fire protection and did not identify any unique risks or vulnerabilities related to drought. The exception was the City of Stanley, which has had water quantity challenges driven in large part due to high demand by industrial development and the prison. The Village of Lake Hallie noted that their water supply has been strained in the past during times of drought, though well #3 is now installed and well #4 is under construction, which will provide good capacity.
45 USGS and UW-Stevens Point-Wisconsin Center for Land Use Education. http://wi.water.usgs.gov/gwcomp/find/chippewa/index.html
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 177 SECTION III
D. CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATURAL HAZARD RISK While the assessment of natural hazard risk is largely based on past weather events and existing development trends, projecting future risks and vulnerabilities is also subject to the influence of possible large-scale, longer-term climatic changes. This brief section explores how: (i) how the area’s climate is changing; (ii) how climate change may impact the probability and severity of natural hazards in Chippewa County, and (iii) how climate adaptation is a necessary mitigation tool.
How the Region’s Climate is Changing There is ongoing debate over the existence, causes, severity, and impacts of global climatic changes, such as global warming. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: “According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.... Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation and other local climate conditions. Changing regional climate could alter forests, crop yields, and water supplies. It could also affect human health, animals, and many types of ecosystems.... Most of the United States is expected to warm, although sulfates may limit warming in some areas. Scientists currently are unable to determine which parts of the United States will become wetter or drier, but there is likely to be an overall trend toward increased precipitation and evaporation, more intense rainstorms, and drier soils.”46
Regardless of the debate over the causes of climate change, there is clear evidence that Wisconsin’s climate is indeed changing. The 2003 report entitled Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes Region published by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Ecological Society of America projected that by 2030, summers in Wisconsin may resemble those in Illinois overall, in terms of temperature and rainfall. By 2100, the summer climate will generally resemble that of current-day Arkansas, and the winter will feel much like current-day Iowa.
To further document these climate changes and explore their impacts on our State, the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts (WICCI) was formed as a collaborative effort of the University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The following are some of the key climatic trends being experienced in Chippewa County according to the WICCI analysis (www.wicci.wisc.edu): 1. RISING TEMPERATURES. Chippewa County’s average temperatures are rising and are projected to continue to rise. Figure 26 shows that the annual average temperature in Chippewa County has increased between 1.5º F and 4.0º F between 1950 and 2006, with the greatest increases in the Chippewa Falls area. Between 1980 and 2055, annual average temperatures are projected to increase by about 6.5º F in the County. More extreme heat
46 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/impacts.html
178 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
events are also projected. Figure 27 shows that the number of days projected to be 90º F or greater will increase by 14-24 days in Chippewa County between 1980 and 2055. 2. MORE PRECIPITATION. Chippewa County is experiencing more annual precipitation, and is expected to get wetter in the future. Figure 28 shows that the annual average precipitation has increased in Chippewa County over the past fifty years overall. Figure 29 shows that changes in summer precipitation have not been decreasing like many areas to the north. 3. HEAVIER PRECIPITATION EVENTS. As noted during meetings and interviews during this Plan update, heavy precipitation events have been increasing in frequency. In the past, the region experiences heavy precipitation events of two or more inches about ten times per decade (once every year). Figure 30 shows that Chippewa County is projected to experience about 2 to 2.5 additional heavy precipitation events per decade by 2055. However, based on the frequency of heavy rainfall events over the past 5-10 years, this projection may be underestimated. Figure 26. Wisconsin Temperature Change
Figure 27. Change in # of 90+ Degree Days
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 179 SECTION III
Figure 28. Wisconsin Precipitation Change
Figure 29. Wisc. Summer Precipitation Change
Figure 30. Wisc. Heavy Precipitation Change
180 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Potential Climate Change Impacts on Natural Hazard Risk The following summarizes the primary, potential impacts of climate change for those natural hazards of significant risk to Chippewa County.
Tornados, Thunderstorms, and High Winds The link between climate change and tornados, high winds, and thunderstorms is unclear. While extreme storm events are increasing, scientists are uncertain what role climate change has, if any.47 However, warmer temperatures will increase the number of weeks that Chippewa County experiences severe thunderstorms and tornados. Chippewa County needs to be prepared for an increase in tornados, severe thunderstorms, and episodes of high winds that are associated with strong storms.
Flooding From 1958-2012, extreme rainfall events increased 37% in the Midwest.48 Increased precipitation and heavy precipitation events would likely result in more flooding. Extreme rainfall events in particular have the potential to increase overland (stormwater) and flash flooding with severe consequences (e.g., road/culvert/bridge washouts, building damages, bank erosion, habitat destruction) if infrastructure is not able to manage such increased flows. The majority of existing flood mapping is becoming incorrect and, in some cases, unusable, due to the increase in the number of floods and the increase in the severity of floods. An increase in flooding will not only impact the built environment, but it will also impact the natural environment. Riparian areas will be more vulnerable to damage with increases of flooding intensity. In addition, more opportunities will exist for debris to enter water bodies.
Winter Storms, Ice Storms, and Extreme Cold More precipitation during the winter months increases the potential for heavy snows and ice storms and possibly flooding due to a large snow melt. Since winters may be warmer overall, ice storms could be a greater concern. Some scientists suggest that climate change may contribute to an increase in extreme temperature events (both hot and cold).49 Such changes in climate could have some positive natural hazard impacts. For instance, the winter season would be shorter overall with fewer days of sub-freezing temperatures. But other problems may also be exacerbated, such as plant and animal diseases and infestations, Lyme’s disease, air quality changes, change/impact natural habitats, and impacts to water quantity.
Extreme Heat The number of extreme heat event days is projected to continue to increase. An increase in extreme heat occurrences and higher summer temperatures will have a significant impact on the elderly and other vulnerable populations. The majority of deaths and emergency room visits during heat waves are from persons over 65 years old. As Chippewa County continues to experience warmer
47 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/12/01/increasing-tornado-outbreaks-is-climate-change-responsible/ 48 https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/regions/midwest#statement-16934 49 https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/perfect-storm-extreme-winter-weather-bitter-cold-and-climate-change
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 181 SECTION III
temperatures and the number of individuals over 65 years old continues to increase, additional attention may be needed to address extreme heat and vulnerable populations.
High temperatures will result in increased evapotranspiration and longer growing seasons. Over time, these trends have the potential to impact surface and groundwater as well as increase the risks of drought and wildfire. In addition, hotter temperatures and longer extreme heat episodes will increase stress on public infrastructure like road surfaces.
Drought, Wildfire. and Forest Resilience Projecting the impact of climate change on drought and wildfire is complicated. While precipitation is projected to increase, this will be offset by higher evapotranspiration and longer growing seasons. When and how this precipitation occurs is also important. Heavy rainfall events and fast snow melts can result in increased runoff and less soil infiltration, especially if the ground is frozen.
Chippewa County Land & Water Conservation staff noted that the County’s urban and rural forests, overall, are aging and not very species diverse. These traits increase the vulnerability and decrease the resiliency of the forests to wind, snow loads, extreme heat, wildfire, etc. These vulnerabilities can be exacerbated by the impacts of climate change (e.g., increase in plant diseases and invasive insects, water-logged soils increase the potential for wind damage).
Human Health According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services—Climate & Health Program50, it is also important that we keep in mind the potential impacts of climate change on human health as summarized by the graphic to the right and list below: • flooding risks – stress & mental health disorders, flood-related food and waterborne illnesses, injuries, and drowning. • extreme heat risks – increased loss of life, especially among elderly and socially isolated individuals, air quality degradation and increases in pollen resulting in respiratory distress and allergic reactions • drought risks – reduced drinking water, food insecurity, and respiratory distress from dust, pollen, and airborne particulates • winter weather risks – traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths, power loss that place chronically ill patients on medical devices at higher risk • disease vectors – a wetter, warmer climate could be more favorable to mosquito- and tick- borne diseases (e.g., West Nile, Lyme) • surface water risks – see flooding risks, contamination of water supplies, toxic algae blooms • groundwater risks – reduced availability, contamination
50 https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/climate/index.htm
182 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
Everyone reacts differently to a disaster. The stress and losses from any disaster can cause serious mental or emotional distress not only to those living through the event, but also emergency responders and those from other supporting agencies. These individuals may develop or experience exacerbation of existing mental health or substance use problems, including for example, post-traumatic stress disorder. It is important that local disaster recovery integrate public health principals, including providing mental health support and treatment when needed.
Climate Adaptation as a Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy These climatic changes can have serious natural hazard implications. Most of our existing best practices and infrastructure are based on historic events and do not fully accommodate these climatic trends. Below are examples of what some other communities are doing to address climatic trends. Many of these adaptation strategies are not new mitigation tools (e.g., safe rooms, burying power lines, cooling shelters), but with climate change there may be an increasing need to expand the use of these tools and best practices. Some of these strategies may be more applicable to urban areas and not the rural, less developed areas of Chippewa County.
Tornados, Thunderstorms, and High Winds • Construct community safe rooms in developments that do not have basements. • Work with electric utilities to make sure that powerlines do not have the ability to be impacted by fallen trees and branches through selective cutting/trimming, burying power lines. • Make sure that electrical grids are resilient to power loss. • Invest in generators for backup power, specifically at critical facilities (e.g., city buildings/facilities, hospitals, nursing homes).
Flooding • Map areas where flooding is predicted to happen in the future and use those maps for land use decisions. • Create outreach programs to educate the public on the need for flood insurance.
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 183 SECTION III
• Implement land-use policies that prohibit building in areas that are predicted to be susceptible to future flooding, including beyond the current 100-year floodplain. • Acquire property that is in future flood prone areas. • Reevaluate all water-related infrastructure (e.g., bridges, levees, dams, culverts, stormwater system) for structural integrity. • Incorporate permeable surfaces in new and existing development. This includes landscaped areas, parking lots, and green roofs. • Increase focus and effort on eliminating debris from entering the water bodies (e.g., increase street cleaning operations, expand promotion of Rain to Rivers promotion, provide community lawn waste pickup). • Complete riparian/stream restoration plans and projects.
Winter Storms, Ice Storms, and Extreme Cold • Research best management practices to deal with the potential increasing frequency of ice storms. • Implement smart salting/sanding best management practices.
Extreme Heat • Create programs to check on and communicate with vulnerable populations during extreme heat occurrences. • Start a public outreach program to educate the public how to deal with extreme heat • Designate community cooling centers. • Implement smart-grid technologies that allow electric providers to access real-time data during high electric use times. • Incorporate energy conservation techniques (e.g., technology, urban form, landscape, trees) to help reduce energy use. • Implement repaving strategies (e.g., material, color) that reduce heat-related damage to streets. • Shade asphalt and tops of buildings to reduce the urban heat island effect. • Incorporate policy that reduces street pavement widths.
Drought, Wildfire, and Conservation • Implement good forest and soil health best management practices and drought-tolerant plant varieties or types of crops that help offset some impacts from climate change. • Encourage rural and urban water conservation. • Promote integrated water management by planning water use in a manner that: (i.) considers natural systems (e.g., watersheds, the entire water cycle) as well as site-specific vulnerabilities; (ii.) are based on long-term projections of supply and demand that reflect recent trends; and (iii.) by tying water use, management, and related policy to land use and economic growth forecasts.
184 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III
• Incorporate new best management practices for forested areas and developed lots in close proximity to areas that will be susceptible to wildfires in the future. This includes forest management practices to eliminate dead biofuel that adds to the intensity of wildfires, eliminate vegetation that will succumb to invasive insects, and increase wildfire buffer areas for developed areas. • Create a comprehensive tree inventory in urban areas and public forests and parks to identify trees that are vulnerable to invasive insects. Increase awareness of forest and tree best management practices and encourage plantings that are native, diverse, and resilient.
Conclusion Given the ongoing debate in the scientific community, it is not appropriate to debate the causes of climate change within this document. Regardless of the cause, it is important that local officials and residents remain aware that the hazard trends presented in this report will mostly likely change in the future; and, in some cases, the frequency and magnitudes of disaster events will most likely intensify. Many of these changes will increase the chance of loss of life and damage to infrastructure.
Communities and residents should keep informed on climate change research and use their best judgment as to the most appropriate action and response. The WICCI webpage www.wicci.wisc.edu includes suggestions on how communities may prepare for and adapt to such changes. The Wisconsin Department of Health Services has additional materials on the relationship between climate and health at their webpage, including a community engagement toolkit: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/climate/index.htm
Assessment of Hazard Conditions 185 SECTION IV
SECTION IV. CURRENT MITIGATION ACTIVITIES
This section is arranged as a “checklist” of potential mitigation activities with related notes summarizing the current mitigation activities that are being carried out within the County and demonstrating a strong tradition of communication and inter-agency cooperation. Potential mitigation actions may not be completed for a variety of reasons, such as low priority (risk is low), limited resources, or availability of alternative strategies.
The focus of this section is on natural hazards, partnerships, and all hazard mitigation and preparedness activities. Appendix G provides additional insight into recent or current mitigation activities for each of the participating cities and villages in the County, along with some of the related challenges for these communities. Section V discusses those mitigation activities completed for each of the strategy recommendations from the County’s 2012 Mitigation Plan.
Community Planning and Regulatory Activities Mitigation Action Yes Some No Notes 1. Mitigation planning has previously • County has previously adopted FEMA-approved mitigation occurred in the County. x plans 2012 and 2006. 2. County and communities have • Varies by community, primarily limited to floodplain incorporated mitigation strategies into management and emergency services. x their comprehensive plans. • County has included some related flood strategies and limited emergency services as part of its comp. plan. 3. Construction standards mitigate • All municipalities enforce State Uniform Dwelling & natural and other hazard risks. Commercial Building Codes. While these codes include x standards appropriate for Wisconsin climate (e.g., design wind & snow loads), State rules limit ability to include some additional mitigation-related standards. 4. Local zoning and subdivision • Six towns are zoned under County general/comprehensive controls mitigate natural and other zoning. Emergency planning/mitigation can be addressed as hazard risks beyond floodplain zoning. part of conditional use permitting to extent allowed by State (e.g., Are emergency plans or safe law. No safe rooms or emergency plans required for rooms required? Long cul-de-sacs manufactured home parks or campgrounds. Most campgrounds likely lack such plans. avoided? Police or fire consulted during site plan review?) x • County subdivision regulations apply to unincorporated towns. Includes some road design standards. Some towns may have their own subdivision ordinances. • See Appendix G for city and village discussion. • A formal process for consultation of police/fire during plan review not established in most cases. 5. Land information and GIS data is • County GIS and land information coordinated through available to accurately delineate hazard County Land Records and County Emergency risks. Management. x • Countywide GIS data for individual structures (e.g., # stories, value/structure, BFEs) not available for detailed hazard assessment.
186 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION IV
6. Improvements or updates to • County has been very proactive in emergency services emergency services mapping were x mapping and Pictometry. Some interest in partnering with identified during the process. WDNR to create an emergency services map book. 7. A Comprehensive Land Use Plan • Administered by the County Land Conservation & Forest has been adopted to maintain healthy Management Department. Currently being updated. x County Forest Lands and mitigate wildfire risks. 8. Driveway regulations or other • Primarily enforced by city, village, or town; most have actions are used to encourage adequate basic standards. County has basic standards for private design and maintenance for access by roads/driveways if under county zoning, for subdivision or emergency vehicles. access to County highways. x • A number of Fire Departments remain concerned with emergency vehicle access on some driveways due to width, height/tree canopy clearance, condition, or grades, especially in hilly, waterfront, and/or wooded areas. 9. Address signage standards have • Chippewa County manages a uniform address signage been adopted for consistency of system. No building permits are issued without first placement, replacement with flag-style securing a site identification number. Flag-style signs are x signs in towns, and standards for required. No specific standards for multiple homes on multiple homes on dead-end private or dead-end roads, except mobile home and recreational vehicle parks. roads/drives. 10. Community wildlife protection • No intensive wildfire mitigation projects other than planning or related wildfire mitigation x ongoing management of public/County forest lands and projects have occurred. limited public education by Fire Depts or WDNR. Other community planning and regulatory activities or notes: • See Appendix G for a summary of city and village mitigation activities. • Planning and regulatory activities related to flood mitigation discussed in the “flood mitigation” table below. • A large variety of Federal, State, and local rules and policies are in place regarding hazardous materials planning, use, and reporting. Additional rules, policies, and plans are in place regarding surface and groundwater quality, manure management, and the land spreading of waste.
Flood Mitigation Mitigation Action Yes Some No Notes 1. Floodplain ordinances have been • Ordinances consistent with State model have been adopted. adopted and communities are NFIP County floodplain ordinance applies to all unincorporated participants in good standing. x towns. • New Auburn is NFIP-sanctioned. See flood assessment in Section III. 2. Development is strongly discouraged • County floodplain ordinance enforced based on State in 100-year floodplains and dam model. Section 208 Sewer Service reviews in Chippewa shadows. x Falls. • All permit applications reviewed to determine whether proposed building sites are reasonably safe from flooding. 3. Stormwater management planning • State rules pertaining to stormwater management and and regulation occurs. construction site erosion controls are in place. • Various stormwater plans and regulations exist at County x and local city/village/town levels. County Land Conservation administers permitting for the Chippewa Falls Urban Area Storm Water Management Plan. • See Appendix G for city and village discussion.
Current Mitigation Activities 187 SECTION IV
4. Stormwater system improvements • In response to past flooding events, significant have been completed. improvements made by County and local communities, especially to culverts and drainage systems along county x highways and local roads. Some of the flooding “hotspots” identified in previous mitigation plans have been addressed as discussed in the flooding assessment of Section III. • See Appendix G for city and village discussion. 5. Flood acquisition, floodproofing, • Many local parks are located in floodplain areas, but no and/or flood elevation projects have x recent flood mitigation projects identified. been implemented. 6. Dams offer flood control, dam • While existing dams offer some flood control, some larger shadows are mapped, and dams are in dams are managed primarily for power generation or good repair. x recreation/wildlife habitat. • See flood assessment in Section III for discussion of dam conditions. 7. Flood monitoring systems are used. • Emgy Mgmt uses gauges at Bruce, WI, area for rough predictions for Chippewa County; no NWS predictions for areas upstream of Eau Claire within the basin. x • Due to increasing frequency of heavy rainfall events, increasing interest in additional flood monitoring and flood storage analysis, including potential installation of flood gauges at key locations. 8. Flood emergency planning has • Emergency action plans for large and high-risk dams on file occurred. at the County Emergency Management and Emergency Communications Center. x • Emergency plans for County dams reviewed regularly and updated as needed. Inundation areas identified with address points and phone numbers if available. 9. Public education regarding flood • Largely limited to plan review and permitting processes for risks and insurance has occurred. new development. Additional public education on NFIP x insurance coverage (and what is not covered) may be valuable. 10. Communities participate in the • Due to relatively low number of floodplain structures, costs NFIP Community Rating System. x outweigh benefits for most communities.
11. Other special flood prevention or • In Spring 2019, the County had about 3,000 sandbags mitigation activities occur. x available for County use and about the same for municipalities. Other flood mitigation activities or notes: • See Appendix G for a summary of city and village mitigation activities related to flooding. • See flood risk and vulnerability assessment in Section III. • County Zoning Administrator serves NFIP Coordinator for Chippewa County. • The Chippewa County Land & Water Resource Management Plan 2019-2023 includes objectives, recommendations, and significant discussion on flood storage, limiting flood peaks, and managing stormwater runoff. The Plan also recommends mitigating and adapting to climate change impacts on extreme weather, flooding, and runoff, including addressing such factors as part of operational plans for emergency response, disaster relief, and County infrastructure.
188 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION IV
Other Physical Mitigation Projects Mitigation Action Yes Some No Notes 1. Community safe rooms have been • See Appendix G for city and village discussion. designated or constructed. x • Not aware of any formally designated safe rooms built to FEMA specifications outside some cities and villages. 2. Power lines have been buried in • Chippewa Electric has buried some lines in wooded areas. some areas prone to outages. x See long-term power outage assessment in Section III. 3. Regular tree trimming near power • Xcel Energy and electric cooperatives do a good job of tree lines occurs. x trimming near power lines. 4. Snow fencing, berming, crop rows, • Some snow fencing and “berming” of snow used by or other efforts are used for drifting in County Highway Department. Low farmer participation in x prone areas. the WDOT program to leave rows of standing corn along drift-prone highways. Exploring live plantings. 5. Special traffic calming, traffic • Some on-ramps to USH 53 have gates. Additional controls, and/or notifications system x barricades needed. have been installed on highways. 6. Emergency power generators have • Improving, but substantial needs still exist. See long-term been obtained for critical facilities. x power outage assessment in Section III. • No formal inventory of all critical facilities. 7. Emergency fuel agreements have • Limited; no formal inventory. See long-term power outage been executed for critical facilities. x assessment in Section III.
8. Convenient access to water supplies • See Appendix G for city and village discussion. x is available for fire protection. • No dry hydrant needs identified. 9. Warming or cooling shelters have • County Emergency Management maintains a list of been designated. x warming and cooling shelters. Other physical mitigation projects or notes: • See Appendix G for a summary of city and village mitigation activities related to the above.
Emergency Operations Planning and Training Mitigation Action Yes Some No Notes 1. The County has an Emergency • County EOP is reviewed and updated annually. Operations Plan (EOP) with annexes • Continuing collaboration between PHEPP and EOP. for various hazard events. There is x strong coordination between the County’s EOP and Public Health Emergency Preparedness Plan. 2. The cities, villages, and towns have • Varies. Most cities and villages have plans, but some updated EOPs or emergency policies. x require updating; many towns lack up-to-date EOPs. • See Appendix G for city and village discussion. 3. The County and municipal EOPs are • Regular training organized by County Emergency regularly exercised. Management, but not all municipalities regularly test their x emergency plans; many have some type of drills. • See Appendix G for city and village discussion. 4. The County EOC has been activated • EOC is exercised as part of annual exercises. Partially or exercised in the last 5 years. x activated during recent flooding and storms. ICS/EOC Interface class conducted in January 2020.
Current Mitigation Activities 189 SECTION IV
5. Individuals identified in EOPs, • Minimum NIMS/ICS standards for non-emergency including elected officials, have a services encouraged in previous County EOP. Additional minimal level of ICS training suggested training required or suggested depending on role. Federal for their roles. minimum standard is ICS 100,200, 700, & 800 for all response and support personnel. x • Varies. Most emergency personnel and responders and many public works staff meet minimum standard. • More training for elected officials suggested by some interviewed. 6. Other stakeholder groups participate • Continued participation by other partners (e.g., County in exercises. Departments, ARES/RACES, hospitals, nonprofits, long- term care facilities, utilities) so they understand their potential roles during a disaster was a 2012 mitigation plan x strategy. • Industrial facilities and hospitals doing a good job of on- site HazMat exercises and related monitoring. More monitoring and training needed for transportation. 7. The County and some municipalities • County has a basic continuity of government plan. have developed continuity of x • Most municipalities do not have a COOP/COG plan, but government plans. most have off-site data back-up, and some have other continuity components. 8. Sheltering, evacuation, and access • Sheltering a component of the County Emergency control planning has occurred. Operations Plan. • State of Wisconsin (WEM) has been piloting a private- x sector credentialing program. • More discussion/exercises may be needed discussion how to evacuate and shelter seniors and others during a large event. 9. Debris management sites have been • Largely limited to woody debris. Uncertain otherwise. designated. x • Municipalities encouraged to begin thinking about as part of mitigation interviews. Sites may be available for vegetation but have not been assessed for other debris. 10. Emergency planning and periodic • Emergency plans and protocols in place for Rock Fest exercises are required for large grounds and Northern Wisconsin State Fairgrounds. 2019 festivals, fairs, and gatherings. x storms “tested” Rock Fest plans; functioned well.
11. Planning for pandemics has • Part of the Public Health Emergency Preparedness Plan. occurred. x See Section III for discussion. 12. Highway and public works • County Highway Department and some municipalities department have adopted billing rates x have adopted rates or State DOT rates. Discussed with for equipment. cities and villages as part of this plan update. 13. Policies and training has been • Basic policies and protocols are part of County Emergency completed for volunteer management. Operations Plan. The EM Director and Admin Assistant x have taken the IS-244a EMI course. WDNR’s Incident Management Team was utilized for volunteer coordination for three days following the Sept. 24th tornado.
190 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION IV
Other emergency operations planning and training activities and notes: • See Appendix G for a discussion of city and village emergency planning and training. • Emergency management and hazard mitigation planning is often a low priority for communities, with the exception of maintaining basic fire, police, fire responder, and ambulance services. Local emergency response plans can quickly fall out of date due to turnover of local government officials and these plans (and associated maps, resident information, etc.) may not be readily available to local officials should a disaster occur. It is also fairly common that hazard mitigation and emergency response issues are not integrated into other local planning and regulatory efforts. Education and outreach to cities, villages, and towns on emergency management issues is an ongoing effort and challenge. • Similarly, the turnover in elected officials necessitates continued, periodic outreach to local officials on resources, public safety agencies, mitigation issues, and recent events. • Local officials noted that trains can sometimes block rail crossings for extended periods that can restrict or slow response vehicles; the railroads are usually good about promptly moving railcars if needed. Not all rail crossing lights maty be functioning. • One town noted that towns and County should continue to help each other; common sense should supersede plans when needed.
Emergency Notification and Communication Systems Mitigation Action Yes Some No Notes 1. Emergency communications in the • Chippewa County 911 Emergency Communications is County is centralized. x countywide dispatch for emergency services and has an enhanced 9-1-1 system. 2. Gaps or weaknesses in emergency • Much improved compared to when narrowbanding was communications and equipment have originally implemented, though some gaps in service exist, been addressed. especially for cell phones and in hilly and rural areas, and x the eastern part of the County (e.g., Otter Lake area). Many public works departments rely on cell phones, but inconsistent in approach. 3. Outdoor storm sirens are used for • Emergency alert sirens in County activated by the County notification of severe weather 911 Communications Center. See tornado assessment in warnings. Any coverage, power, Section III. procedural, or educational concerns? • Some interest in additional coverage in populated areas of unincorporated towns. See Appendix G of city and village x siren and notification discussion. • Ongoing education important. Some of public do not understand warning sirens or expect that the sirens will be heard indoors. Also, could increase education on where to obtain reliable, timely weather information and the NOAA warning system. 4. NOAA All Hazard Radios or other • Due to mobile technologies, decreasing interest in NOAA notification equipment have been x radio distribution project. Encourage CodeRED sign-up as distributed. an alternative. 5. A reverse-911 or similar GIS-based • Chippewa County has a CodeRED mass notification or notification system exists. x auto dialer system with GIS-based notifications.
6. County has Integrated Public Alert • Chippewa County has obtained IPAWS authority for & Warning System (IPAWS) authority emergency alerts, reducing the need for the public to and capability. x participate in auto-dialer mass notification systems.
7. Social media and the Internet is used • Helpful preparedness information available at the County for emergency notification and Emergency Management webpage. x preparedness education. • Sheriff’s Department Facebook page used to share emergency notification and preparedness information.
Current Mitigation Activities 191 SECTION IV
8. An active ARES/RACES group • ARES/RACES has a role in shelter communications and exists in the County. x could be utilized further during communications emergencies. 9. The County has an active Skywarn • Skywarn classes were held at the courthouse this summer. Storm Spotters program. x Members register with NWS and or Eau Claire County. Chippewa County does not register the storm spotters. 10. Railroad bridges, crossings, and/or • Railroad crossing have been mapped and are available to sign posts have been mapped. x dispatch if needed.
Other Educational, Outreach, and Preparedness Activities Mitigation Action Yes Some No Notes 1. Public education occurs are part of • Largest outreach via local newspapers during Tornado & severe weather awareness week and x Severe Weather Awareness Week in April. during other seasons. • Additional press releases during times of elevated risk. 2. Outreach to seniors and special • 2,000 issues of ADRC newsletter (“Bridging Chippewa needs populations occurs. County”) published monthly; provides educational opportunity. When clients join ADRC programs, emergency contact information must be provided that be valuable during a disaster event. x • ADRC’s 5 senior dining locations and about 150 home- delivered meals are an excellent mechanism for outreach and communications as well as combatting social isolation. Meals-on-Wheels primarily limited to cities and villages; additional volunteer drivers needed. 3. Outreach and education to area • Involve some industry and critical facilities in exercises, businesses occurs. x depending on the scenario.
4. Outreach to the agricultural • Local UW-Extension staff, Farm Services Agency, NRCS, community occurs. and County Land Conservation work with area farmers to educate on the mitigation of various hazard threats (e.g. winter kill, drought, manure/chemical storage). Cost x sharing available for spill containment and conservation projects. • See notes at the end of this subsection for Farm Service Agency risk management assistance programs. 5. Staff from FSA, NRCS, County • An Agricultural Education Steering Committee including Land Conservation, and Extension these partners meets quarterly and addresses preparedness, mitigation, and response as needed. meet periodically to discuss mitigation x opportunities, education needs, and damage assessment procedures. 6. Soil health and shoreland best • Increasing emphasis on such techniques and best practices practices are promoted in the County to by County and State staff. Requiring certain changes in x help mitigate flooding impacts. agricultural practices are limited by the availability of cost- sharing funds. 7. Local educational efforts related to • Public education primarily limited to burning permits and forest management and wildfire have fire danger signs, with some additional outreach at State occurred. x Parks. Some informal outreach or contacts in areas of higher wildfire risk. Forest management required by landowners participating in Managed Forest Law program. Other educational, outreach and preparedness activities and notes: • More injuries can occur during storm clean-up, than from the storm itself. Push public messaging following an event.
192 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION IV
• Educating elected officials on roles, responsibilities, and basic ICS is a challenge given turnover. Such education is not on a regular schedule. May be an opportunity to coordinate such with a regular review and, if needed, update of municipal emergency plans. • For agricultural losses, the USDA’s Farmer Services Agency (FSA) offers Multi-Peril Crop Insurance and the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program to assist with crop losses for reasons beyond a farmer’s control. High crop insurance participation is required for certain USDA program eligibility. On the livestock side, FSA has: (i) the Livestock Indemnity Program, which can allow for eligible producers to receive a per head payment on eligible livestock losses due to approved adverse weather events; (ii) the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program, which offers assistance with feed losses and additional feed expenses due to eligible adverse weather events; and (iii) the Livestock Forage Disaster Program, which is available in drought situations, but less commonly used in Wisconsin. Additional information on these and additional less commonly used programs are available at the FSA website.
Mutual Aid and Other Partnerships Mitigation Action Yes Some No Notes 1. Mutual aid between local law • Statewide law enforcement mutual aid is in place. enforcement agencies exists and meet x regularly. 2. Mutual aid between local fire • Countywide MABAS adopted. departments and first responders exist x and meet regularly. 3. Mutual aid between local public • Some agreements in place and often informal (handshake works & highway departments exist x rather than written). No countywide agreements. and meet regularly. • See Appendix G for city and village discussion. 4. Public health partnerships exist. • County and local medical facilities participate in the Western WI Public Health Readiness Consortium. x www.wwphrc.org • Good communication between County Public Health and County Emergency Management. 5. Public-private partnering occurs. • Chippewa County is part of the primary service area for Disaster Ready Chippewa Valley, a 501(c)3 private-public partnerships championing continuity planning, x preparedness, and coordination, but limited Chippewa County participation. • Some businesses are represented on LEPC and participate in exercises. 6. Intergovernmental preparedness and • Good intergovernmental relationships across county lines. mitigation planning occurs across • Regional WEM Office provides multi-county support and county lines. participates on LEPC. x • Mitigation planning and other support also available through West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. 7. VOADS are active in the community • Very good relationships with local VOADs, including and participate in preparedness American Red Cross and Salvation Army. Critical planning and training. x volunteer base if needed. • Red Cross coordinates recovery shelters. 8. Support is provided for area • WITC provides required training for emergency educational institutions for x responders. preparedness planning and training.
Current Mitigation Activities 193 SECTION IV
Other mutual aid and partnership activities and notes: • A MARC, multiple agency resource center, was established at the courthouse for residents following the recent tornado. • Housing authorities, community action programs, and long-term care facilities are other important partners. • New Federal CMS rule is requiring additional emergency preparedness for health care providers receiving Medicare and Medicaid. Some counties within the region have reported that smaller providers (e.g., assisted living, long-term care) have been reaching out to county emergency management or county public health for planning assistance. • It is important that the County and emergency response agencies have input into private-sector and local community emergency plans to ensure that plans do not have unrealistic expectations for public support or assistance that may not be available. • Some local volunteer EMS and Fire Departments expressed growing concerns with the ability to attract volunteers and have a sufficient number of volunteer responders available during daytime work hours. Increasing training requirements are also making it more difficult to attract and retain volunteer responders. Volunteer pool for search and rescue also needed.
194 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION V
SECTION V. PROGRESS ON PREVIOUS MITIGATION PLAN STRATEGIES
This section reviews the progress on each of the high priority strategy recommendations from the Chippewa County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan adopted and approved in 2012. As discussed in the 2012 Plan, the availability of resources and changing priorities affect implementation. For instance, some strategies were contingent on grant funding. The full list of recommended strategies from the 2012 was comprehensive, and there was not an expectation that all strategies would be fully addressed within five years’ time.
The table below also includes a recommendation on how each high priority strategy may be addressed in this Plan update based on the input of the responsible parties identified in the previous plan. Later in this report, these recommendations are further considered and analyzed for feasibility by the Steering Committee.
Recommenda 2012 High Priority Plan Strategy Progress tion for Plan Update Physical Infrastructure Strategies 1. Continue to work with local power providers to bury Keep in plan. Chippewa Electric has electrical lines in areas prone to outages due to buried lines in some falling trees/limbs or high winds. Modify to areas. Interested in highlight mitigation funding for hotspots as additional projects. needed. 2. For areas without siren coverage, pursue the installation of weather warning sirens in unincorporated areas of high residential growth or Demand appears to have with concentrations of seasonal housing or campers, decreased given the Remove from including County campgrounds. Coordinate with popularity of mobile plan update. those cities and villages who are in need of siren devices. replacement or additional siren coverage.
3. Continue to address stormwater and flash flooding Related planning and Keep in plan. hotspots in Chippewa County, including those areas improvements by County Reference of concern identified in the flood assessment. Highway and related flood municipalities are mitigation ongoing. options.
Progress on Previous Mitigation Plan Strategies 195 SECTION V
Recommenda 2012 High Priority Plan Strategy Progress tion for Plan Update
Planning & Policy Strategies 10. Work with owners of high- and significant-hazard dams and large dams to maintain Inspection, Regular inspections and Operations, and Maintenance (IOM) Plans and planning required. Emergency Action Plans (EAPs), and, as needed, Keep in plan. LiDAR project complete or update dam failure/hydraulic analyses to completed. assess dam shadow risks once the new LIDAR topographic data becomes available. 15. As a condition of permitting, operators of major festival grounds should maintain current emergency Discuss as action plans. Periodic meetings between County Meetings and planning strategy Emergency Management, local emergency services, take place for larger alternative and festival operators should be conducted to review festivals. with Steering plans and identify any issues requiring action or Committee mitigation. 16. Continue to support the County's Clean Sweep Remove. Program to help prevent spills or improper disposal. HazMat not Ongoing. included in scope of plan update. 17. Provide model ordinance language to municipalities Explore to require new mobile home parks to construct or Little or no mobile home education & identify per formal agreement a storm shelter for their park development. safe room residents. alternatives. Communications & Coordination Strategies 23. Continue efforts to improve mobile connectivity and Keep a general interoperability for emergency services and to Continuing to improve communicatio increase the wireless capabilities of key County staff emergency services ns strategy in and at outlying County highway shops. Conduct a communications. the plan multi-jurisdictional communications tabletop update. exercise. Prioritize 24. Implement a NOAA All Hazard Radio project with Interest has decreased as education on particular focus on distributing radios (or discount mobile device use emergency vouchers) to mobile home residents, resorts, increases. notification campgrounds, and/or critical facilities. alternatives.
196 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION V
Recommenda 2012 High Priority Plan Strategy Progress tion for Plan Update City and Village (Multi-Jurisdictional) Strategies 1. NEW AUBURN, STANLEY, OTHERS AS NEEDED – Continue to monitor, plan for, and Discussed in Appendix address critical stormwater and flash flooding G. Status varies by issues as identified in the plan. New Auburn community. Improvements are Keep in plan. and Stanley currently have high priority ongoing as needs and problem areas, though risk areas exist in other resources allow. communities as well and conditions may change over time. (High Priority) 2. CHIPPEWA FALLS – Continue flood warning and mitigation efforts, including the Ongoing. Riverfront Plan Remove a implementation of the Downtown Riverfront in Phase II separate Master Plan and the maintenance of the implementation. strategy. wastewater treatment facility floodwall and Feasibility Study to Combine with other similar infrastructure. (High Priority) address WWTP #1 above. related to continued NFIP compliance completed.
3. BOYD, CADOTT, CHIPPEWA FALLS - Keep in plan, Should funding opportunities arise, acquire perhaps as a additional electric power generators for Some improvement, but countywide emergency use. (Medium-to-High Priority) needs still exist a strategy. discussed in Appendices Explore F & G. sharing of a. generator on a trailer. 4. BLOOMER, BOYD, CHIPPEWA FALLS, STANLEY - Identify storm shelters (or a second storm shelter site) for residents or visitors, execute formal agreements for shelter Discussed in Appendix use, and use local media to educate residents G. Status varies by community. on availability. If a shelter is not readily Keep in plan.
available, pursue grant funding to construct a Update to Increasing interest in reflect current public storm shelter as opportunities allow. In safe room projects, interest. Bloomer, a storm shelter is contemplated for especially as slab-on- the fairgrounds. In Chippewa Falls, shelters grade construction is also are needed for some mobile home parks and increasing in some areas. may not be for general public use. In Stanley, a shelter may be proposed as part of a new Village Hall. (Medium-to-High Priority)
Progress on Previous Mitigation Plan Strategies 197 SECTION V
5. BLOOMER, CHIPPEWA FALLS, CORNELL, LAKE HALLIE - Pursue the Keep in plan installation, relocation, or replacement of and update to emergency sirens as funding opportunities Discussed in Appendix reflect current G. Status varies by interest. allow. Chippewa Falls expressed interest in community. Perhaps adding voice capability to their sirens. combine with Potentially coordinate through a multi- a county-level jurisdictional or countywide project. (Priority strategy. Varies by Community) 6. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS - Update, as needed, and maintain local emergency operating plans and any shelter agreements and continue to participate in mock event exercises Discussed in Appendix G. Status varies by and training sessions when opportunities arise. Keep in plan. community, but some Consider development of continuity of updates needed. operations plans for critical government services, key staff, records management, and long-term power loss. (High Priority) 7. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS - Continue to work with Chippewa County Emergency Management to ensure communications Keep in plan, interoperability, strengthen wireless broadband Ongoing. Has been but as a connectivity for emergency response, and to improving. county-level pursue funding support to replace and upgrade strategy. needed communications equipment. (High Priority) 8. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – If flooding or other emergency occurs, compile General guideline. Was and document all damages and costs with Remove, since shared with cities and pictures, testimony, invoices, etc., for potential an ongoing villages during this plan best practice. future grant funding or reimbursement. (High update. Priority) related to continued NFIP compliance 9. NEW AUBURN – Work with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to address non-compliance issues with the Village’s No change. Limited floodplain with no Keep in plan. National Flood Insurance Program status. development, so has not (High Priority) related to continued NFIP been a priority. compliance
198 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION V
10. BLOOMER, CADOTT, CHIPPEWA FALLS, STANLEY – Continue to monitor and maintain municipal-owned dams and levees. Maintain any necessary emergency Keep in plan plans and warning systems, including an Ongoing. as a general assessment of at-risk areas in the hydraulic strategy. shadow and current contact information. (High Priority) 11. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – Continue to work cooperatively with Chippewa County Discuss more specific Very general guideline or and adjacent municipalities to mitigate hazard alternatives best practice. Ongoing. materials risks and protect surface water and with Steering groundwater resources. (High Priority) Cmte. 12. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS - Incorporate hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness activities into community comprehensive plans, stormwater management plans, capital improvement plans, and land use procedures (e.g., site plan review) as opportunities allow. Educate residents on Varies by community. local risks (e.g., areas prone to flooding, long- General policy; no Keep in plan, term power loss, wildfires in pine plantation). specific initiative or but streamline. Work with public housing providers, long-term action taken. care facilities, and other critical facilities in the preparation of their preparedness plans. (Medium-to-High Priority) related to continued NFIP compliance
13. CHIPPEWA FALLS – Work with County Highway Department, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Chippewa Falls/Eau Claire Combine with Area MPO, and local businesses to discourage #12 above for Ongoing. the transport of hazardous materials through all residential areas when reasonable alternatives communities. exist. (Medium-to-High Priority)
Progress on Previous Mitigation Plan Strategies 199 SECTION VI
SECTION VI. MITIGATION GOALS AND STRATEGIES
A. MITIGATION GOALS The mitigation goals apply to all hazards. The goals provide Chippewa County further direction for determining the future and reflect the needs of the County as identified through the assessment of hazard conditions and community profile. With consideration of these guiding themes, the plan update Steering Committee reviewed and reaffirmed the following 2012 Mitigation Plan goals: Goal One: Physical and Response Infrastructure Through coordination, cooperation, and capacity building, maintain a strong, safe, physical, and emergency response infrastructure51 that reduces the vulnerabilities associated with natural hazard and hazardous materials risks. Goal Two: Planning and Policy Evaluate hazard vulnerabilities and develop appropriate, cost-effective mitigation plans and policies. Encourage innovative and nature-based mitigation solutions when feasible. Goal Three: Communication and Coordination Continue to strengthen the community’s communication infrastructure while encouraging the coordination of hazard mitigation activities among County agencies, municipalities, local residents, critical facilities, and other stakeholders. Goal Four: Education and Outreach Chippewa County residents, businesses and municipalities will be aware of the local hazard risks and the alternatives to mitigate the impacts of these hazards in their homes, businesses, and communities.
The mitigation goals for this Plan update reflect, and are consistent with, the goals and objectives found in the Chippewa County Comprehensive Plan adopted in July 2010, such as the following: • Provide for law enforcement, ambulance, volunteer fire and first responder services to residents, whether by the County or by local units of government. • Avoid the destruction of existing wetlands and maintain the environmental functions that these sites provide by seeking development alternatives that will not impact the wetland site. • Manage storm runoff to limit flood peaks and maintain current stream base-flow conditions and lake elevations. Accelerate the use of best management practices (BMP’s) to increase soil moisture holding capacity, landscape depressional storage, and groundwater infiltration and recharge. • Manage concentrations of contaminants in groundwater aquifers to pursue Preventative Action Limits (PAL), as established in Wis. Admin. Code NR140.
51 Infrastructure not only includes physical systems (e.g., transportation network, utilities, stormwater systems, high- hazard dams), but also includes emergency response services (e.g., fire, law enforcement, medical), and other critical facilities and lifelines.
200 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VI
• Manage concentrations of groundwater contaminants in the zone of influence of municipal water supplies, to within prescribed standards for public and municipal water supplies as defined in NR140.10 and NR140.12. • Coordinate and collaborate with government entities at all levels to ensure effective and efficient government services.
B. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION STRATEGIES A comprehensive range of alternatives was considered when developing strategies to meet the Plan’s vision and goals. The Mitigation Toolbox in Appendix I was used to help identify mitigation options. Evaluating the alternatives and selecting the mitigation strategies for inclusion in this Plan was a multi-step process: #1 Potential mitigation strategies to address the hazard risks and vulnerabilities analyzed in Section III were identified during the key stakeholder interview process, Steering Committee meetings, town surveys, and city and village meetings. This included consideration of the recommended strategies in the County’s 2012 Mitigation Plan. The county-level strategies with the most potential were integrated into Appendix J. Some of the county-level strategy alternatives are multi-jurisdictional in nature and may be implemented in individual communities or countywide. Additional alternatives were considered but were not included in Appendix J because they were deemed unfeasible, of questionable effectiveness, or of very low priority without additional analysis. #2 A survey with alternative county-level strategies in Note: Appendix J was distributed to Steering Committee members. Committee members gave each strategy a The priorities for the priority of “high,” “medium,” “low,” or “exclude” based strategies in Appendix J on costs vs. benefits, political acceptability, technical were made in the context feasibility, etc. Average scores were then determined of this plan and the based on a 10-point scale to provide a relative priority natural hazards facing and exclude the lowest scoring strategies. Members were Chippewa County. also encouraged to provide written comments, such as A low priority should not barriers to implementation, which were incorporated into necessarily be Appendix J. The survey results were analyzed further interpreted as having a during the final Steering Committee meeting, resulting in lesser importance to some additional changes. For those strategies in Chippewa County overall. Appendix J that are recommended for Plan inclusion, key parties to be involved (or take a leadership role) in implementation were identified. #3 The multi-jurisdictional strategy alternatives for cities and villages (not included in Appendix J) reflect the findings from the meetings with each participating community. The initial draft recommended strategies and other key Plan sections were mailed to the cities and villages for review and comment in fall 2019. #4 Additional “fine-tuning” to the recommended strategies and draft Plan were made based on review of the draft Plan by communities, key stakeholders, County departments, and the general public as part of the public comment period and Plan adoption process.
Mitigation Goals and Strategies 201 SECTION VI
C. RECOMMENDED MITIGATION STRATEGIES (ACTION PLAN) Strategies are specific mitigation policies and projects selected based on their feasibility to assist Chippewa County in attaining the Plan goals. It must be remembered that this is a Chippewa County plan, not a plan for the Chippewa County government. While County government may take a lead role in implementation of many of the county-level strategies, this is not always the case. Collaboration and partnerships are essential to a safe, resilient community.
Some strategies may also have a strong emergency preparedness emphasis but have been included for their importance in helping to mitigate the negative impacts of hazard events when they do occur. As mentioned previously, the last section (multi-jurisdictional strategies) identifies those recommended policies and projects for the participating cities and villages.
Appendix J also includes implementation guidance for most county-level strategies including relative priority, key parties likely involved during implementation, and, sometimes, potential barriers. The relative priority (i.e., high, medium, low) is helpful in determining which projects to implement first from a mitigation perspective, but individual programs or communities may rate some of these strategies differently. As explained in Appendix J, the strategies were prioritized based on their importance to hazard mitigation, but some strategies have additional local benefits that may not have been considered. Priorities are also subject to change over time and new priorities may arise. In order to avoid too much emphasis on the prioritization, only the high- priority strategies are denoted as such here. i. Severe Weather Mitigation Strategies 1. Based on landowner and/or community interest, pursue grant funding to make cost-sharing available for the installation of safe rooms (storm shelters), storm hardening projects, or remote unlock of existing shelters at mobile home parks, campgrounds, RV parks, slab-on- grade residential developments, fair/festival grounds (e.g., Northern WI State Fairgrounds, Bloomer), and other areas or communities where no existing shelter alternatives exist. Also, implement an educational initiative targeting such locations to encourage severe weather emergency planning, use of notification systems, and consideration of potential mitigation grant funding for safe rooms. If needed, require emergency planning as a condition of permitting. (Medium-to-High Priority, depending on location) 2. Develop a list of area generator and emergency fuel suppliers for critical facilities and address gaps if needed. If funding opportunities become available, work with communities to pursue grant dollars for emergency power generators and/or connections/hook-ups for critical facilities, fuel suppliers, and emergency operations centers in Chippewa County. This may include portable generators, potentially shared between communities or departments, for utilities and emergency response. 3. Continue to work with local power providers to bury overhead electrical lines in areas prone to outages due to falling trees/limbs, ice, or high winds and/or to ensure reliable, redundant service to critical facilities. For areas prone to flooding, transformers or other such power infrastructure may require floodproofing, elevating, relocation, or other flood mitigation.
202 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VI
4. Encourage households with persons having special needs that may be uniquely at risk during a power outage or disaster (e.g., oxygen, dialysis, seniors lacking transportation) to develop an emergency contact plan. Encourage these households to notify their electric provider to be added to their emergency contact list. (High Priority) 5. Due to the County's large size, acquire and set-up additional Highway Department emergency scene trailers, with barricades, signage, etc., to be stationed at ancillary County Highway Shops. ii. Flood Mitigation Strategies 1. Continue to monitor, study, and address riverine flooding, stormwater and flash flooding, ice damming, road washout problem areas, and bank erosion hotspots in the County as discussed and identified in the flood assessment of this Hazard Mitigation Plan. Potential projects include, but are not limited to: creation/expansion of flood/stormwater storage areas, expanded flood storage through dredging, the installation or re-sizing of culverts, the creation or improvement of drainageways, bank stabilization, and other nature-based solutions, such as the protection of natural flood storage, drainage, and stormwater retention areas. 2. As opportunities arise, pursue hazard mitigation grant funding to acquire, relocate, or flood proof structures and properties with a flood history, most at risk of flood damage, without dryland access, and/or following a flood event in which significant damage occurs, if the landowner agrees to participate. (High Priority) 3. Consider grant funding and/or USGS partnerships to install automated water monitoring/flood gauges upstream of key flood prone area, flood storage areas, or dams. Explore opportunities to utilize satellite imagery and other remote sensing to supplement such monitoring and data gathering. 4. Continue to enforce County and local floodplain regulations to discourage future floodplain development and the storage of hazardous materials in floodplains, require dry land access for new structures, limit development in dam shadows (especially for high hazard dams), and maintain natural flood storage areas. 5. With the LiDAR topographic data available, obtain FEMA certification to use this LiDAR information for elevation data requirements for Letter of Map Amendments (LOMA) review, thus avoiding more costly and time-consuming surveying work. Encourage FEMA to eventually update the County's Flood Insurance Rate Maps using the LiDAR data. 6. Continue working with WDNR and dam owners to ensure adequate emergency planning and maintenance of high hazard dams as well as requiring compliance and any needed repair of privately owned dams. Strive to complete GIS. mapping of hydraulic shadows for all large and high hazard dams. Discourage development in the hydraulic shadows (dam failure floodplains) of dams. 7. Update the emergency action plans for County-owned dams to include dam failure analysis. Budgeting for expected long-term dam improvements should be integrated into the County's capital improvements plan.
Mitigation Goals and Strategies 203 SECTION VI
8. Monitor and study the need for: (i) further development of standards or adaptive action to mitigate flooding beyond the official FEMA 100-year floodplain boundaries, (ii) modifying stormwater management model assumptions, and (iii) reassessing related infrastructure (e.g., culverts) due to climate trends and increasing heavy rain events. 9. Strive to achieve the flood control, flood storage, stormwater management, and water quality objectives of the Chippewa County Land & Water Resources Management Plan 2019-2023 (LWRMP), including the objectives of: a. manage stormwater runoff to limit flood peaks, b. develop and implement a climate change flood control, stream, and wetland buffer initiative to mitigate the impacts of extreme weather events associated with climate change, c. administer a joint stormwater management program with affected municipalities that meets Federal and State permit requirements, and d. develop and implement programs to improve stormwater storage capacity. Support efforts to implement the LWRMP related recommendations that mitigate flood hazards. If resources are available, complete a study identifying key existing and potential flood storage/floodwater retention areas prioritized based on factors such as storage capacity potential, landownership, benefits, and costs. Where appropriate, pursue mitigation grants or other funding resources to acquire, improve, and protect key flood storage areas. iii. Wildfire & Emergency Access Strategies 1. In cooperation with local fire departments and WDNR, share Firewise practices (e.g., defensible spaces, proper burning, driveway assessment) with landowners in areas of higher wildfire risk, such as Wissota Woods and near Lake Holcombe. Reach out to Amish populations to share information on burning rules. (High Priority) 2. In cooperation with WDNR, continue wildfire annual refresher trainings and the wildland introduction course. Occasionally conduct a large-scale, multi-agency wildfire event training exercise. Develop any needed incident action plans/procedures and agreements that result from these exercises. (High Priority) 3. Work with towns and permitting agencies to encourage the adoption of adequate driveway standards for large emergency vehicles and increase public awareness of related driveway access, grade, width/clearance, long-dead end roads, and turn-around issues. Continue to request local fire department input on proposed site plans, CSMs, and subdivision plats. iv. Agriculture-Specific Strategies 1. Support the efforts of County Land & Water Conservation staff, NRCS, and Extension to educate farmers, landowners, and communities on nutrient management, soil health, irrigation well efficiency improvements, and other best practices that can help reduce flash flooding, protect groundwater, and make croplands more resilient to drought and wind erosion. Continue to engage in a local discussion with the agricultural community regarding
204 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VI
the alternatives to mitigate flooding that is exacerbated by agricultural practices, such as the increasing use of drain tiling, land use changes that reduce flood storage capacity, and the use of drag lines in culverts. (High Priority) 2. Conduct an exercise or similar planning related to animal disease and bio-security threats, including livestock quarantine, evacuation, and animal mass casualty protocols. Consider amending the County Emergency Operations Plan if needed. 3. In partnership with Extension, conduct spill event field days for producers and agri-business. Encourage additional winter storage capacity when appropriate. Promote the WDNR hotline in case of equipment rollovers, failure of a storage tank valve, or failure of a wall in a manure storage lagoon. v. Other Planning, Policy, and Coordination Strategies 1. Review and update the Chippewa County Continuity of Government Plan. Encourage other local municipalities to consider some basic continuity planning efforts for the recovery of critical business functions. 2. Work with WDNR to create an Emergency Map Book for emergency responders. Consider integrating railroad mile posts, key bridges, and grade crossing identification numbers, if such information is provided by railroads. 3. Continue to involve utility providers, County health and aging services, private-sector resources, ARES/RACES, and local non-profits (e.g., housing authorities, long-term care facilities, hospitals) in mitigation planning, preparedness efforts, and training exercises for tornados and other threats, including discussions on their relationship to the incident command system (ICS). Explore evacuation resources and protocols. May need to start with smaller groups for planning, before bringing many partners together under a larger exercise scenario. Encourage follow-up on recommendations of after-action reports from exercises. (High Priority) 4. Work with the Center of Medicare & Medicaid Services to assess or survey the preparedness planning, resources, capacity, and exercise needs of facilities in Chippewa County that use Medicare or Medicaid. Based on the assessment, develop a brief plan identifying strategic steps to address any critical needs or support. 5. County Emergency Management should continue to maintain an up-to-date list of the status of local Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) and work with local communities to practice/drill and update these plans regularly. Encourage local officials, public works personnel, and key municipal/County staff with an emergency operations or response role to have a minimum of Incident Command System (ICS) 100, 200, 700, and 800 training, with additional training for any specialized roles, such as Public Information Officer (PIO). Subject to community interest, discuss a potential project to update local building codes to enhance natural hazard mitigation as well as provide related training and capacity building. 6. Given the County's aging population and large number of income-constrained households, support the recruitment of additional volunteers for ADRC's Meals-on-Wheels program. Strive to create Dementia-Friendly Communities that help monitor neighbors during severe
Mitigation Goals and Strategies 205 SECTION VI
weather or other emergency events. Explore options to deliver emergency information in a manner that is accessible for those who have vision or hearing disabilities. 7. Continue to consider natural hazard and wildfire mitigation as part of the 15-year County Forest Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Encourage cities and villages to conduct an urban tree inventory and actively plan and manage trees for health and diversity, including age and species diversity. Promote similar awareness of forest management best practices in rural areas. 8. As discussed in the Chippewa County Land & Water Resource Management Plan 2019- 2023, develop, support, and advance County initiatives that prepare the County to adapt to climate change and factor climate change into County operations for emergency response and disaster relief, County-managed road and dam infrastructure, County Forest management, and stormwater management and flood prevention on private lands. Encourage municipalities to consider adaptation strategies to mitigation natural hazard impacts, such as those discussed in Section III.D. of this Mitigation Plan. 9. Encourage the County and municipalities to integrate hazard mitigation issues and strategies into their comprehensive plans. (High Priority) 10. Continue Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness training. Regularly rotate HazMat exercises and training throughout Chippewa County with a focus on those chemicals commonly transported by rail or highways or at fixed facilities and pipelines within the local host community. Include law enforcement, EMS, railroads, and pipeline companies (including natural gas) in such training. Consider having EHS facilities give presentations on their hazardous materials, facilities, and plans at Emergency Services Association meetings. vi. Other Communication & Outreach Strategies 1. Given the Region's relatively low immunization rates, conduct an immunization outreach initiative, including targeted outreach to groups with lower rates. (High Priority) 2. Chippewa County Emergency Management will continue to provide periodic presentation(s) to the Towns Association and communities on basic roles/responsibilities of elected officials, emergency operations planning, available resources, hazard event/damage reporting, burning permits, volunteer management, driveway access for emergency vehicles, emerging issues, and training opportunities. Increase community/response agency awareness of auto dialer availability and capabilities. 3. Continue to work with emergency response partners to improve emergency communications coverage, interoperability, and mobile equipment. Dispatch should notify Highway Department of any road closures, even if assistance is not needed. (High Priority) 4. Distribute emergency preparedness information and strategies to seniors and vulnerable populations through the ADRC newsletter, the Meals-on-Wheels Program, and at ADRC senior dining locations. (High Priority)
206 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VI
5. Consider County certification in voluntary National Weather Service StormReady Program to increase the visibility of local preparedness efforts, weather monitoring and warning systems, and SkyWarn training. 6. Through the media, social media, ADRC newsletter, National Night Out, and other outreach initiatives, continue efforts to educate the public, including youth, on hazard risks, preparedness best practices, individual responsibility, and emergency response challenges. Include topics such as: (i) flooding risks and what is covered under flood insurance; (ii) sirens and emergency notification options; (iii) Great Rivers 2-1-1; (iv) power-outage and generator use; (v) the great need for local volunteers by emergency services agencies, (vi) winter and distracted driver safety, and (vi) post-event clean-up safety messaging. viii. Other City and Village (Multi-Jurisdictional) Strategies The following recommendations are more specific to the cities and villages (incorporated areas), but often overlap many of the County-level strategy recommendations. Background information that further explains the risks, vulnerabilities, and mitigation activities for each community related to these strategy recommendations can be found in Appendices F & G.
While high priorities are suggested below, implementation of the following strategy recommendations are at the discretion of each individual community and will vary by community. In some cases, Chippewa County Emergency Management may be able to provide guidance or coordinate a multi-jurisdictional project, but the responsibility and decision for putting these strategies into action lies with each community.
Recommended City and Village Projects 1. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – Continue to monitor, plan for, and address critical overland (stormwater) and overbank (riverine/lake) flooding issues as identified in the flood assessment and appendices. Actions may include, but are not limited to: flood acquisition, proofing, elevation, flood storage, dam/levee maintenance, and stormwater system improvements, including backflow prevention at river outlets. Continue to assess the impacts of future land use changes and new development on stormwater runoff, drainage systems, and flood storage, including upstream outside the community; then plan accordingly. Explore a multi-jurisdictional mitigation grant project to educate homeowners and small businesses on actions that can be taken to prevent flood damage (e.g., gutters, sump pumps, grading) and to help keep stormwater out of wastewater systems. CHIPPEWA FALLS – Explore grant funding to automate and/or improve the operational safety of the flood gates at Glen Loch Dam. (Medium-to-High Priority) related to continued NFIP compliance
2. BOYD, OTHER COMMUNITIES – Explore partnership opportunities to purchase and share a Jet Vac for cleaning of stormwater systems.
3. BOYD, CADOTT, CHIPPEWA FALLS, LAKE HALLIE, BLOOMER – Explore mitigation grant funding to construct community safe rooms (storm shelters) for areas of the community without access to shelters, including partnering with schools, manufactured home
Mitigation Goals and Strategies 207 SECTION VI
parks, campgrounds, developers, parks/trails, festival/fairgrounds, etc. If schools or other existing public buildings are proposed for use as shelter, explore remote door unlock, signage, cameras, and storm hardening when feasible. ALL - Shelters should be advertised, appropriately equipped, and have activation/use policies (High Priority)
4. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – Continue to address emergency power generator needs for municipal buildings, emergency operations centers, storm shelters, and other critical facilities and infrastructure as identified in the long-term power outage section. Establish fuel agreements in case of a long-term outage. Work with County Emergency Management and electric providers to educate the public on information sources and what to do (or not do) during an outage, especially following a storm event. (Medium-to-High Priority)
5. CORNELL – Explore electric utility improvements to mitigate the potential of storm-related outages, such as larger conductors, burying of overhead lines, and power line ice prevention.
6. CHIPPEWA FALLS, OTHER COMMUNITIES – Explore the purchase, outfitting, and sharing of a trailer with additional barricades and other traffic/crowd control equipment and signage for use during emergency/disaster events and for safety during parades, civil disturbances, large gatherings, etc.
Recommended City and Village Policies 7. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – Annually review local municipal emergency operating plans (EOPs) and continue to encourage basic Incident Command System training (ICS 100, 200, & 700) for key elected officials and other municipal staff or department heads identified in the EOPs. As needed, develop clear definitions for roles, responsibilities, emergency declarations (e.g., “snow emergency”), contingency plans, etc. Execute related mutual aid and private-public agreements as necessary. (High Priority)
8. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – Continue to partner with Chippewa County Emergency Management, the local fire department, law enforcement, and other partners to regularly exercise the community’s emergency operations plan/EOP (e.g., every 2-3 years), emergency operations center (EOC), and related policies and available shelters. Periodically include a tabletop scenario for a hazardous materials spill (rail, highway, or fixed site) or other large- scale event (e.g., severe weather during a festival/fair), including how a large evacuation would be managed. Incorporate lessons learned into the EOP. Consider involving local utility providers (e.g., natural gas, electric) as part of these exercises. (High Priority)
9. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – If flooding or other emergency occurs, compile and document all damages and costs with pictures, testimony, invoices, etc., for potential future grant funding or reimbursement. (High Priority) related to continued NFIP compliance
10. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS - Incorporate hazard mitigation and emergency preparedness activities into community comprehensive plans, stormwater management plans, capital improvement plans, site plan review, and other policies as opportunities allow. Explore the need to update local building codes to enhance natural hazard mitigation as well
208 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VI
as related training and capacity building. Include local emergency services in site plan reviews and community planning. Ensure that streets and driveways are designed in a manner that allows access by emergency vehicles. Consider the use of official mapping and subdivision standards to avoid the creation of long, dead-end streets. related to continued NFIP compliance
11. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – Work with Chippewa County Emergency Management and local emergency responders to educate the public on severe weather warning systems (e.g. watches vs. warnings, what sirens mean, notification systems). LAKE HALLIE – Explore the potential installation of an emergency warning siren(s). CADOTT – Explore the potential installation of a digital message board than can be used for emergency and safety messaging.
12. ALL INCORPORATED AREAS – If the community has not done so to date, consider adoption of Wisconsin Department of Transportation third-party billing rates for equipment use, or its own equipment rate schedule, by resolution or other administrative policy. Formalize public works mutual aid agreements as deemed necessary.
13. NEW AUBURN – Re-assess and consider actions to address the community’s non- compliance or sanctioned status within the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which limits the ability of landowners to obtain flood insurance and could impact the community’s ability to obtain mitigation grant funding in the future. related to continued NFIP compliance
Relationship to County-Level Mitigation Strategies Many of the County-level strategies in the previous sub-sections are also multi-jurisdictional in nature and can be implemented at the community level or countywide, but are not repeated here. This is particularly true for the majority of the communications, education, and training strategies. The following are examples of key County-wide strategy recommendations that are multi- jurisdictional in nature: • Most or all of the County-level, flood-related mitigation strategies are potentially multi- jurisdictional in nature. • Strategies related to safe rooms, emergency notification systems, related public education, and volunteer management/recruitment can be implemented at the County-level or by the individual community. • If funding opportunities become available, work with communities to pursue grant dollars for emergency power generators for critical facilities and emergency operations centers in Chippewa County. • Work with towns and permitting agencies to encourage the adoption of adequate driveway standards for large emergency vehicles and increase public awareness of related driveway access, grade, width/clearance, long-dead end roads, and turn-around issues. Continue to request local fire department input on proposed site plans, CSMs, and subdivision plats.
Mitigation Goals and Strategies 209 SECTION VI
• Local governments have a potential role in most of the County-level planning and community/outreach mitigation strategies, including developing emergency operations plans and participating in training/exercises. • Encourage local officials, public works personnel, and key municipal/County staff with an emergency operations or response role to have a minimum of Incident Command System (ICS) 100, 200, 700, and 800 training, with additional training for any specialized roles, such as Public Information Officer (PIO). • Continue to work with emergency response partners to improve emergency communications coverage, interoperability, and mobile equipment.
D. IMPLEMENTATION OF PRIORITY PROJECTS As discussed previously, Appendix J included implementation guidance for recommended County-level Plan strategies, including relative priority, key parties, and potential barriers to implementation. This section focuses on high-priority project recommendations; planning, policy, and coordination recommendations are not included here. Projects typically have a focused, action-oriented outcome that is achievable within a certain time period and often require significant resources not available in typical operational budgets.
Implementing Priority Projects The following provides guidance for the implementation of three high-priority projects that are potentially eligible for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program, or Flood Mitigation Grant Program dollars. The PDM Program was recently replaced by the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities Program (BRIC); certain additional strategy recommendations involving workforce or staff training and organizational capacity building may also be eligible for FEMA BRIC funding. A full cost-benefits review should be performed prior to implementation.
Other Guidance Potential Funding Project Logistics and Estimated Sources Costs timeline: Projects typically 1. As opportunities arise, FEMA Mitigation Grant ongoing & approached pursue hazard mitigation grant funding and WDNR varies by individually or by funding to acquire, relocate, or Municipal Flood project; no community. flood proof structures and Control Grants are two firm properties with a flood history, primary grant sources if deadlines; Costs will vary by most at risk of flood damage, a history of flood future flood project. Continue to damage and/or without dryland access, and/or events may integrate into Capital imminent threat to life, following a flood event in increase need Improvement Plans
210 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VI
which significant damage lead party: safety, or critical and work schedules. occurs, if the landowner agrees municipalities services. Be certain to document to participate. and all instances for landowners Most flood-related flooding or flood (Also see City & Village projects are funded damage. locally through normal Strategy #1, which included budgets, stormwater Changes in rainfall overbank and overland utilities, or road aids. frequency and flooding and dams/levees) Otherwise, CDBG, intensity, as well as transportation grants, or new development, other grant funds may have the potential to be available depending increase flooding. on the nature of the project and benefits. 2. Based on landowner and/or timeline: community interest, pursue ongoing & grant funding to make cost- varies by sharing available for the project and installation of safe rooms community (storm shelters), storm lead party: hardening projects, or remote Must be designed to municipalities unlock of existing shelters at FEMA requirements and FEMA Hazard for very high wind mobile home parks, landowners campgrounds, RV parks, slab- Mitigation Grant & Pre- loads; not uncommon on-grade residential Disaster for $175-$235/sq. foot. developments, fair/festival Mitigation/BRIC Grant grounds, and other areas or Programs are two Could potentially communities where no existing primary sources. include hardening of Competitive and cost- existing buildings as shelter alternatives exist. Also, benefits considered, but well as installation of implement an educational provides 75+% of remote/automated door initiative targeting such project costs. unlocking locations to encourage severe mechanisms. weather emergency planning, County or municipality use of notification systems, and must be applicant. See tornado consideration of potential assessment section for mitigation grant funding for additional details and safe rooms. If needed, require discussion. emergency planning as a condition of permitting.
(Also see City & Village Strategy #3) ALL INCORPORATED timeline: Grants for generators This is currently not a AREAS – Continue to address will vary by could include FEMA high priority project emergency power generator community & HMGP and HUD for funding agencies, needs for municipal buildings, funding CDBG. Certain facility unless part of larger availability types may have related building project.
Mitigation Goals and Strategies 211 SECTION VI emergency operations centers, lead party: grant programs. Coordination with storm shelters, and other Municipality USDA-CF may be a electric providers critical facilities and or owner of source depending on recommended; may be infrastructure as identified in critical applicant financial a source of funding the long-term power outage facilities, situation. support and/or unless a Generators are currently competitive purchase section. Establish fuel multi-juris. not an eligible FEMA price. agreements in case of a long- grant mitigation grant project term outage. Work with opportunities in Wisconsin unless part It is recommended that County Emergency arises of a community safe this continue to be a Management and electric room project, though plan strategy in case providers to educate the public some generators have State mitigation grant on information sources and been funded in other priorities change. In what to do (or not do) during an states. the interim, outage, especially following a municipalities and storm event. facilities continue to address this need as resources allow. (Also see County-Level Severe Storm Strategy #2)
E. ADDITIONAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE As discussed previously, Appendix J includes implementation guidance for all recommended Plan strategies, including relative priority, and the key parties likely to be involved. Appendix K includes a synopsis of some commonly used hazard mitigation grant funding sources, with a focus on natural hazards.
Most notably, adoption of this Plan is a prerequisite for FEMA hazard New FEMA Mitigation Grant Program! mitigation grant assistance for eligible In FY 2019, FEMA was appropriated $10 million to projects under the Pre-Disaster implement the Rehabilitation of High Hazard Mitigation/BRIC Grant Program, Flood Potential Dams Grant Program for planning and Mitigation Grant Program, and the pre-construction activities toward repair, removal, or Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. rehabilitation. Identifying and addressing high-hazard dams within this mitigation plan is a prerequisite for Additional information on Federal grant eligibility. grant funding can be found at www.cfda.gov. Some infrastructure improvements may also be funded locally through the establishment of a stormwater utility district or ordinance fee system, tax incremental financing (TIF), general obligation bonds, and developer contributions or exactions. Capital improvements planning can be a valuable tool to assist communities in the planning and prioritizing of major infrastructure investments and identifying the best financing approach.
212 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VI
Additional sources of financial support are also often available following a disaster event, such as U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) loans for the repair or replacement of property. The U.S. Department of Agriculture, through its local Farm Service Agency office, provides disaster assistance for crop losses and livestock emergencies. Grant funding for additional emergency measures, such as the rehabilitation of flood control works, may be available through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Non-natural hazards such as pandemics, school-based terrorism, nuclear accident, and hazardous materials spills typically have their own unique supportive services and funding resources, which are not included in Appendix K. In the event of an impending or recent disaster, municipalities and County Emergency Management offices are encouraged to contact WEM and the agencies identified in Appendix K for potential assistance, since available resources and related requirements frequently change, and this list is not all- inclusive.
The prioritization of the strategies offers guidance in the implementation of this Plan based on available resources and potential to reduce losses. Appendix J also suggests key parties to be involved and other implementation guidance for the County-wide strategies. But with such challenges also come opportunities to form or strengthen strategic partnerships to share and leverage existing resources, which is a primary theme within the Plan goals.
Most policy strategies can utilize existing This Mitigation Plan is a guide. program budgets for implementation, though • Actions should be prioritized based on funding would be required for many of the need, potential of loss reduction, recommended projects. Some of these policy benefits-costs, and availability of strategies may involve the amendment of an resources (e.g., funding, staff). ordinance or the adoption of new procedures. • Actions and priorities may change as Examples and model language for some of these threats and opportunities change. strategies may be available through WCWRPC • Some recommended actions may or the County Planning and Zoning Department. require additional feasibility analysis. Further, due to the involvement of key officials • Individual municipalities may have and County departments during the planning different priorities. process, the strategy recommendations are known to these stakeholders and can be • Partnerships and collaboration are encouraged to leverage resources and integrated into, or coordinated with, other work maximize results. programs and planning efforts.
• It is recognized that not all strategies Like many municipalities, Chippewa County will be completed prior to the next Mitigation Plan update in five years. and its communities are facing fiscal challenges and resources are limited. The recommended strategies will be implemented as resources (e.g., funding, staffing) and other priorities allow. Further, because of such limitations, there is not an expectation that all strategy recommendations will be fully implemented between now and the next update of this Plan.
Mitigation Goals and Strategies 213 SECTION VII
SECTION VII. PLAN ADOPTION & MAINTENANCE PROCESS
A. PLAN COORDINATION Many of the strategy recommendations in Section VI have relationships to other plans and policies for which coordination and consistency is vital. These related plans tend to fall within the following general categories: • Local capital improvements plans and other budget documents. Most notable are infrastructure projects, such as those related to stormwater systems, water supplies, warning sirens, and communications equipment, which may be considered as part of local budgets. • Regulations, agreements, and related procedures (e.g., subdivision ordinances, official mapping, shelter agreements). These strategies are primarily identified in the policy strategies. Amendments can often be performed in concert with other ordinance updates. Some related actions may be accomplished procedurally without an ordinance amendment. • Existing emergency operating or response plans. Many local municipalities need to update their emergency operating plans, and Chippewa County Emergency Management is taking the lead to encourage these updates. Many communities have made efforts since the last Plan to create evacuation plans as well. County Emergency Management and other County offices will also work cooperatively with stakeholders regarding plans, procedures, and grant applications related to the issues identified within this Plan. To date, integrating the strategies and recommendations found in the 2012 Hazard Mitigation Plan into local comprehensive plans has been inconsistent and primarily limited to floodplain management and emergency services in general. Some planning consultants working with local communities may be unfamiliar with the details of hazard mitigation planning, and the State comprehensive planning law includes no specific reference to mitigation or resiliency planning. Further, mitigation planning is on a different schedule than comprehensive planning, with most comprehensive plans likely to be updated no more frequently than once per decade. WCWRPC and Chippewa County Emergency Management will continue to work with the Chippewa County Planning and Zoning Department and local municipalities to encourage coordination and consistency between comprehensive planning and local hazard mitigation plans, and provide instruction on how to incorporate mitigation strategies into their comprehensive plans and other planning mechanisms.
As Sections IV and V showed, the Hazard Mitigation Plan strategies have been integrated into additional local planning mechanisms. Communities and the County Highway Department have made progress on addressing many of the stormwater flooding hotspots identified in previous mitigation plans. As part of its work plan, Chippewa County Emergency Management continues to encourage and assist local jurisdictions in the update of their emergency operating plans; these plans often address mitigation policies or issues. And Sections IV and V showed that some mitigation strategies were integrated into various County and local work plans, ordinances, and
214 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VII
project budgets. Efforts were also made to identify, and integrate where possible, the results of the Public Health Consortium’s Health Vulnerability Assessment (HVA). Though the HVA has a public-health focus, it was able to use historic data from previous mitigation plans; and this Plan update incorporated a brief summary of the HVA results for each of the primary hazards.
Since key County staff were actively involved Continued, active involvement of key County in the development and update of the County staff, local jurisdictions, and other Mitigation Plan, many of the mitigation stakeholders during hazard mitigation strategies are based on staff recommendations plan updates is critical to ensuring and give confidence that a high level of incorporation of mitigation strategies into coordination between these various planning other planning mechanisms. efforts will continue.
B. PLAN MAINTENANCE Since the adoption of the 2012 Plan, reviews of the existing Plan were primarily limited to a periodic internal review by the Emergency Management Director. No special Plan reviews or Plan amendments were needed. i. Plan Monitoring and Annual Plan Reviews The Chippewa County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan will be monitored by the Emergency Management Director, including an annual review of Plan implementation to determine if the Plan has become obsolete, if conditions have changed, or if additional actions are warranted.
Each year, starting in the first quarter of 2021, the Chippewa County Emergency Management Director will complete an annual Mitigation Plan review, unless a Plan update is already in progress. The annual Plan review should consider: 1. Any changing conditions impacting hazard risk or vulnerability. 2. Review of any new mandates, rules, etc., as well as any input from Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM) and the Department of Homeland Security--Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) regarding Plan implementation. 3. Review of the Plan’s recommended strategies, emphasizing completed priority projects and their effectiveness as well as priority projects yet to be completed and funding sources. 4. Coordination of Plan strategies with other County or local planning mechanisms. 5. Potential new projects. 6. Any public or community input received on the Plan and activities.
After this review, the Emergency Management Director may provide a brief report to the Chippewa County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) or other appropriate committee(s) on the progress towards the Plan’s strategies, as well as any suggested critical changes or Plan amendments. These meetings will be subject to the Wisconsin Open Meeting Law and properly noticed to allow for public involvement and comment. After completion of each annual review, the Committee will recommend any revisions or amendments to the Plan, if Plan Adoption and Maintenance 215
SECTION VII
necessary. Any recommended revisions will then be forwarded to the County Board for their consideration and potential action. The Emergency Management Director may also need to follow-up with participating jurisdictions and various County offices during this process. ii. Special Plan Reviews (Post-Disaster or New Project) Within six months following a significant disaster event as determined by the Emergency Management Director, a special post-disaster review will occur, if needed. A municipality or the County may also request a special Plan review for the consideration of a Plan amendment to incorporate a new project which was not included in the original Plan, perhaps due to unforeseen circumstances or an increased hazard risk.
Information regarding the recent disaster or new project will be collected by the Emergency Management Director from local law enforcement personnel, fire department personnel, Chippewa County disaster response personnel, involved municipalities, WDNR, WEM and FEMA personnel, affected citizens, and any other relevant entity. This information will be provided to the LEPC or other appropriate committee for their review.
At a duly called and posted public meeting, the LEPC or designated committee will analyze factors which contributed to any impacts of the hazard risk, the likelihood of the event reoccurring, and any strategy alternatives. The Emergency Management Director will have primary responsibility for establishing special Plan review meeting dates, distributing related materials, and facilitating the meetings. The Emergency Management Director will also advertise these special meetings to affected department heads, citizens, or community groups, so additional input and comment can be received. Special Plan review meetings will be subject to the Wisconsin Open Meeting Law and properly noticed to allow for public involvement and comment. The committee may recommend revising or amending the existing Plan. As appropriate, recommended changes to the Plan will be forwarded to the County Board and the municipal contacts of the participating incorporated municipalities for their action and consideration. iii. Plan Updates Every five years, Chippewa County’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan will be comprehensively reviewed, current data collected, and updated. This Plan update effort should be robust and incorporate opportunities for public involvement to meet all requirements of 44 CFR Part 201.6 and/or any applicable requirements or regulations developed in the interim.
At that time, the Emergency Management Director will re-form or re-designate a Plan update Steering Committee and will include representation on behalf of participating jurisdictions. Steering committee meetings will be subject to the Wisconsin Open Meeting Law and properly noticed to allow for public involvement and comment.
216 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION VII
C. PLAN ADOPTION Each participating municipality, including Chippewa County, considered and adopted this Plan in a duly posted and held public meeting as discussed in Section I.D. Copies of the adopting resolutions are attached (see Appendix A).
Plan Adoption and Maintenance 217