Legal & Law Enforcement Committee - Regular Meeting — Agenda Packet

Chippewa County Legal & Law Enforcement Committee Regular Meeting September 28, 2026 Chippewa County Courthouse, Room 302 4:00 PM District 4, Chair Peter Gehring District 5, Vice-Chair Dennis Bachman District 12 Charles Bomar District 18 Daniel Hardy District 19 Chuck Hull Page 1 of 153 Chippewa County Legal & Law Enforcement Committee Regular Meeting September 28, 2026 Chippewa County Courthouse, Room 302 4:00 PM 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Members of the Public Wishing to Be Heard (Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per speaker.) 4. Consent Agenda (Unless separation of an item is requested, all items will be adopted under one motion.) 1. Approve the Agenda 2. Approve the Minutes - July 20th, 2026 4:00 PM 3. Schedule Next Meeting Date - November 16th, 2026 4:00 PM 5. Public Hearing Public Hearing - Chippewa County Natural Hazard Migration Plan 1. Open Public Meeting 2. 2026-2031 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Migration Plan - Jason Moses 3. Public Comment 4. Close Public Hearing 6. Business Items 1. Resolution to Approve an Update of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for Chippewa County - Jason Moses 7. Reports 1. Update on Town of Lafayette Contract - Curt Dutton 2. Update and Explanation on 2025 Wisconsin Act 196 Regarding the Office of County Sheriff - Andy Albarado 3. Chippewa County Dispatch Update - Andy Albarado/Tamee Thom 4. Sheriff's Department Retirements Update - Travis Hakes 8. Agenda Items for Future Consideration 9. Adjourn Page 2 of 153 Chippewa County Legal & Law Enforcement Committee Regular Meeting September 28, 2026 Chippewa County Courthouse, Room 302 4:00 PM Chippewa County shall attempt to provide reasonable special accommodations to the public for access to its public meetings, provided reasonable notice of special need is given. If special accommodations for a meeting are desired, contact the County Clerk’s Office at 715-726- 7980. Members of the Chippewa County Board of Supervisors who are not members of this committee are entitled to attend this meeting. It is possible that the attendance of one or more such nonmember Supervisors may create a quorum of some other county board committee, board or commission. Such a quorum is unintended and the nonmember Supervisors are not meeting for the purpose of exercising the responsibility, authority, power, or duties of any other committee, board or commission. Published: 09/14/2026 Page 3 of 153 Chippewa County Legal & Law Enforcement Committee Regular Meeting July 20, 2026 Chippewa County Courthouse, Room 302 4:00 PM 1. Call to Order The Chair called the meeting to order at 04:02 PM 2. Roll Call Members Present: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Members Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull Others Present: Others present: Andy Albarado, Curt Dutton, James Maki, Wade Newell, Jessicad Hermann, Nathan Liedl, Jason Moses, Shannen Householder, Leah Simington and Jessica McDonald. Recorder: Amanda Richardson 3. Members of the Public Wishing to Be Heard (Comments will be limited to 5 minutes per speaker.) 4. Consent Agenda (Unless separation of an item is requested, all items will be adopted under one motion.) Motion: Approved Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Dennis Bachman Seconder: Daniel Hardy Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull 1. Approve the Agenda 2. Approve the Minutes - May 18, 2026 4:00 PM 3. Schedule Next Meeting Date - September 21st, 2026 4:00 PM 5. Reports 1. Sign Placements in Right-of-Way - Peter Gehring Chair Gehring stated members of the public have been commenting to him about signs, political and/or for services, being placed in the right-of-way that should be removed. Gehring questioned if they were able to be given locations for the Highway Department to remove. Dutton stated that the procedure is once the Sheriffs office is notified of the signs in question, they will contact the County Highway Commissioner and he will have someone in the Highway department go out and check on the placement and remove the sign if needed. 2. Emergency Management Office Introduction - Jason Moses Page 4 of 153 Emergency Management Director, Jason Moses, introduced himself to the committee and gave an overview of the department, its staff and current projects. 6. Business Items 1. Office Introduction / Review Proposed 2027 Register in Probate Budget - Jessica Hermann Motion: Forward Budget to the County Administrator Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Daniel Hardy Seconder: Dennis Bachman Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull Register in Probate, Jessica Hermann, introduced herself to the committee and gave an overview of the department, staff and presented the proposed 2027 Register in Probate Budget. (Copy on file) 2. Office Introduction / Review Proposed 2027 District Attorney Budget - Wade Newell Motion: Forward Budget to the County Administrator Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Dennis Bachman Seconder: Daniel Hardy Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull District Attorney, Wade Newell, introduced himself to the committee and gave an overview of the department, staff and presented the proposed 2027 District Attorneys Budget. (Copy on file) 3. Office Introduction / Review Proposed 2027 Child Support Budget - Shannen Householder Motion: Forward Budget to the County Administrator Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Dennis Bachman Seconder: Daniel Hardy Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull Child Support Director, Shannen Householder, introduced herself to the committee and gave an overview of the department, staff and presented the proposed 2027 Child Support Budget. (Copy on file) 4. Office Introduction / Review Proposed 2027 Circuit Court Budget - Nathan Liedl Motion: Forward Budget to the County Administrator Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Peter Gehring Seconder: Daniel Hardy Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull Clerk of Court, Nathan Liedl, introduced himself to the committee and gave an overview of the department, staff and presented the proposed 2027 Clerk of Court Budget. (Copy on file) Page 5 of 153 5. Office Introduction / Review Proposed 2027 Coroner Budget - Ron Patten Motion: Forward Budget to the County Administrator Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Daniel Hardy Seconder: Peter Gehring Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull Finance Director, Leah Simington, stated on behalf of County Coroner, Ron Patten, that there were very few changes made to the Proposed 2027 Coroner Budget. (Copy on file) 6. Office Introduction / Review Proposed 2027 Sheriff Department Budget - Curt Dutton Motion: Forward Budget to the County Administrator Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Peter Gehring Seconder: Dennis Bachman Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull Chief Deputy, Curt Dutton, introduced himself to the committee and gave an overview of the department, staff and presented the proposed 2027 Sheriff Department Budget (Copy on file) Supervisor Gehring stated he previously requested to see a cost outline for the Fests. He would like to see the hard line numbers at the next meeting. Chief Dutton stated they should have all those numbers for all four festivals by the next meeting date. Supervisor Bachman stated he'd like to know what the policy and procedures are on how they handle and litigate overtime as well as any steps taken to help minimize that overtime. Chief Dutton explained they currently adjust their staff numbers due to the projected attendance of each festival based on previous data, if they have it, as well as adjust hours as needed due to weather or other circumstances allowing them to leave early or stay later. Administrator Albarado noted that they are not always able to staff for what they project and have to bring in other agencies. 7. Agenda Items for Future Consideration Supervisor Gehring reiterated having the cost outline for all four festivals for review at the next meeting. 8. Adjourn Motion: Approved Result: (3 - 0) Mover: Peter Gehring Seconder: Daniel Hardy Ayes: Peter Gehring, Dennis Bachman, Daniel Hardy Nayes: None Absent: Charles Bomar, Chuck Hull Page 6 of 153 Statement of Explanation Resolution to Approve an Update of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for Chippewa County - Jason Moses 1 Passage of this resolution will approve revisions to the Chippewa County Natural Hazard 2 Mitigation Plan. The primary focus of the plan is to evaluate the County’s potential exposure to 3 natural disasters and identify appropriate mitigation strategies. 4 5 There is no fiscal impact associated with approval of the plan by the Chippewa County 6 Board of Supervisors. The update to the plan was prepared as a result of the County’s 7 application for, and award of, Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program funds. These funds 8 are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through Wisconsin 9 Emergency Management (WEM). 10 11 The plan is a federal requirement for participation in FEMA disaster assistance and grants 12 related to infrastructure improvements to enhance resiliency. Hazard mitigation plans are 13 intended to help communities locate areas of risk, assess the magnitude of the threat and 14 develop strategies for reducing the consequences of subsequent natural disasters. Through 15 this process, the County may address issues related to the protection of life, property and 16 critical services, as well as reduce costs associated with disaster relief and rescue efforts. 17 Approval of the plan extends the eligibility of Chippewa County and participating jurisdictions to 18 apply for hazard mitigation project funds through FEMA. A copy of the updated Plan is 19 attached. Page 7 of 153 Resolution No. Resolution to Approve an Update of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for Chippewa County - Jason Moses 20 WHEREAS, natural hazard mitigation planning is the process of developing a set of actions 21 designed to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people, businesses, infrastructure, and 22 property from natural hazards and their effects; and 23 24 WHEREAS, Chippewa County Emergency Management provides emergency management 25 planning, coordination, response, and recovery support to towns, villages and cities in 26 Chippewa County; and 27 28 WHEREAS, through the Chippewa County Local Emergency Preparedness Committee and 29 in cooperation with West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, Chippewa County 30 Emergency Management has updated the Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 31 (the “Plan”) to assess the magnitude of natural hazard risks and develop strategy 32 recommendations for minimizing or preventing these risks; and 33 34 WHEREAS, Chippewa County towns, villages, and cities participated in the planning 35 process through a presentation to the Chippewa County unit of the Wisconsin Towns 36 Association, a town hazard assessment survey, meetings with each participating city and village, 37 web-based surveys, the creation of city, village and public school sub-plans for participants, and 38 other forms of communication; and 39 40 WHEREAS, the planning meetings for the update to the Plan were open to the public, and 41 public comment on the draft Plan was invited through a press release and published public 42 notice in July 2026; and 43 44 WHEREAS, Wisconsin Emergency Management has reviewed and determined that the 45 Plan meets the requirements of the Federal Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 and applicable Code 46 of Federal Regulations, including the updated Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Guidance, effective 47 April 2023; and 48 49 WHEREAS, adoption of the Plan by the County Board will allow Chippewa County to 50 continue its eligibility to apply for federal grant dollars for hazard mitigation projects; 51 52 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chippewa County Board of Supervisors 53 adopts the attached Chippewa County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan 2026-2031 as the official 54 natural hazards mitigation plan for Chippewa County with the intent of implementing the Plan 55 recommendations as funding and resources allow; and 56 57 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the County Board recognizes that participating cities, 58 villages and educational institutions may, at their discretion, modify their respective sub-plans 59 found in the Plan’s appendices without requiring future re-approval of the Plan by the 60 Chippewa County Board. 61 Page 8 of 153 Resolution No. Resolution to Approve an Update of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan for Chippewa County - Jason Moses 62 Forwarded to the County Board by the Legal & Law Enforcement Committee. 63 64 Financial Impact 65 There is no fiscal impact to Chippewa County by passage of this resolution. 66 67 Signatures 68 Approved as to Form: 69 County Administrator Finance Director Corporation Counsel 70 Page 9 of 153 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 2026-2031 Page 10 of 153 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Page 11 of 153 CHIPPEWA COUNTY NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN 2026-2031 PREPARED BY: Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee Chippewa County Emergency Management Chippewa County communities WITH ASSISTANCE BY: West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission ADOPTED MONTH XX, 2026 BY THE CHIPPEWA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Page 12 of 153 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Page 13 of 153 <INSERT FEMA acceptance letter(s) here once approved> Page 14 of 153 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Page 15 of 153 Table of Contents i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 1 A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN............................................................................................ 1 B. PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................................ 1 C. PLAN PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................ 3 SECTION II. CHIPPEWA COUNTY COMMUNITY PROFILE ........................................ 6 A. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION .......................................................................................... 6 B. PHYSICAL SETTING .................................................................................................. 7 C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING ..................................................................................... 7 D. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS ......................................................................................... 10 E. COMMUNITY LIFELINES & EMERGENCY SERVICES .................................................... 12 SECTION III. ASSESSMENT OF HAZARD CONDITIONS ........................................ 14 A. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................ 14 i. Disaster & Emergency Declarations ........................................................... 14 ii. Chippewa County Hazard Overall Risk Assessment & Priorities ................ 16 B. CHANGING WEATHER PATTERNS AND NATURAL HAZARD RISK ................................. 21 C. RISK & VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 28 i. Tornadoes and High Winds ........................................................................ 29 ii. Thunderstorms, Lightning, and Hail ............................................................ 40 iii. Winter Storms and Extreme Cold ............................................................... 45 iv. Extreme Heat .............................................................................................. 54 v. Flooding ...................................................................................................... 59 vi. Drought ....................................................................................................... 79 vii. Wildfire ........................................................................................................ 87 viii. Long-Term Power Loss............................................................................... 98 SECTION IV. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY .......................................... 105 SECTION V. MITIGATION GOALS AND STRATEGIES .......................................... 107 A. MITIGATION GOALS ............................................................................................. 107 B. RECOMMENDED COUNTY-LEVEL MITIGATION ACTIONS ........................................... 108 C. RECOMMENDED COUNTY-LEVEL PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS .................................... 119 D. OTHER PARTICIPANT SUB-PLANS ......................................................................... 119 E. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 120 F. PLAN COORDINATION & INTEGRATION ................................................................... 121 SECTION VI. PLAN ADOPTION AND MAINTENANCE PROCESS ........................ 123 A. PLAN ADOPTION .................................................................................................. 123 B. PLAN MAINTENANCE AND CONTINUED PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ................................ 123 i. Plan Monitoring & Evaluation .................................................................... 123 ii. Special Plan Review ................................................................................. 124 iii. Plan Updates ............................................................................................ 124 iv. Evaluating Plan Effectiveness ................................................................... 125 SECTION VII. ADOPTING RESOLUTIONS ............................................................... 126 Page 16 of 153 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan ii NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN SUPPLEMENT SECTIONS The Plan Supplement is a supporting document that contains additional data and analysis of the hazard threats facing the County, capabilities to mitigate these threats, and other related documentation. For purposes of meeting FEMA mitigation planning requirements, the main Mitigation Plan document and the Plan Supplement, together, constitute Chippewa County’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Note: References to Sections herein (e.g., Section III.C.) are referring to chapters of the main document. References to chapters within the Supplement are identified as Plan Supplement #s (e.g., Plan Supplement 1.C.). SUPPLEMENT 1. COMMUNITY PROFILE A. NATURAL FEATURES AND ENVIRONMENT E. DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC PROFILE E. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS SUPPLEMENT 2. HAZARD ASSESSMENT INFORMATION A. DESCRIPTION OF NATURAL HAZARDS OF NO SIGNIFICANT RISK B. HAZARDS ADDRESSED IN OTHER PLANS i. Communicable Disease C. TORNADOS & HIGH WINDS D. THUNDERSTORMS, LIGHTNING, & HAIL E. WINTER STORMS & EXTREME COLD F. EXTREME HEAT G. FLOODING & DAM FAILURE H. DROUGHT I. WILDFIRE J. LONG-TERM POWER LOSS N. OTHER FACTORS INFLUENCING FUTURE LOSSES SUPPLEMENT 3. MITIGATION CAPABILITIES & STRATEGIES ASSESSMENT A. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE B. PROGRESS ON 2020 MITIGATION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS C. EVALUATING MITIGATION STRATEGY ALTERNATIVES D. RECOMMENDED COUNTY-LEVEL PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS SUPPLEMENT 4. OTHER REFERENCE INFORMATION A. STAKEHOLDER & PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT B. INCORPORATION OF RELATED PLANS, STUDIES, REPORTS, AND DATA D. SUMMARY OF PLAN CHANGES SINCE 2020 MITIGATION PLAN E. POTENTIAL STATE & FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS FOR MITIGATION PROJECTS SUPPLEMENT 5. CITY & VILLAGE SUB-PLANS SUPPLEMENT 6. PUBLIC EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION SUB-PLANS Page 17 of 153 SECTION I. Introduction 1 SECTION I. INTRODUCTION A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN The Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan has been prepared with financial support due to the County’s application for, and award of, Building Resilient Infrastructure & Communities (BRIC) mitigation planning funds (Project #EMC -2023-BR-004-0025). These funds are disbursed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM). Mitigation is a long-term action that minimizes or prevents losses or damage due to a significant risk. The primary purpose of this plan is to evaluate the County’s risks, vulnerabilities, and capabilities related to natural disasters and identif y appropriate mitigation strategies. This plan also includes some discussion of preparedness capabilities and recommendations. Completion and approval of t his plan will continue to make Chippewa County and participating jurisdictions eligible to apply for future FEMA hazard mitigation project funds for a five -year period until the next hazard mitigation plan update. The Chippewa County Emergency Management Director is the primary contact regarding this mitigation plan. B. PLANNING PROCESS To fully meet FEMA mitigation planning requirements, the mitigation planning update for Chippewa County consists of two primary documents: 1. The Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (this document), which covers the most important aspects of the County’s trends, hazard assessment, capabilities, and strategies,. 2. The Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement (or Mitigation Plan Supplement), which contains additional data, analysis, and information related to the plan update, including the sub -plans by participating jurisdictions (i.e., cit ies, villages, public educational institutions) Chippewa County contracted with West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC) to facilitate this update to the County’s hazards mitigation plan previously approved by FEMA in December 2020 and adopted by the County Board in January 2021. This previous plan will be referred to as the 2020 Plan in this update, while the update will be referred to as the 2026 Plan. The Code of Federal Regulations states... “The local mitigation plan is the representation of the jurisdiction’s commitment to reduce risks from natural hazards, serving as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards.” (44 CFR Part 201.6, pp 8851) Page 18 of 153 SECTION I. 2 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Update of the Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan (the “2026 Plan”) meets the planning requirements and guidance provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)1 and the Wisconsin Department of Military Affairs, Wisconsin Emergency Management at the time of the grant award.2 As such, the 2026 Plan meets the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000. The 2026 Plan’s scope is inclusive of all of Chippewa County and is considered a multi -jurisdictional plan under Federal guide lines. This plan encompasses all of the Village of New Auburn and the City of Stanley, even though smaller portions of these municipalities lie outside Chippewa County. This plan excludes those portions of the City of Eau Claire that lie within Chippewa County; the entire City of Eau Claire is included within the Eau Claire County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan . For this 2026 Plan update, public educational institutions with facilities within Chippewa County were also invited to be full participants, which is discussed in Section I.C. To guide the plan’s update, Chippewa County utilized the County’s Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) as a plan update steering committee. The LEPC members are shown in Table 1, though additional persons and, sometimes, alternate members were in attendance for some meetings. In addition to bringing insight into their respective roles, the Committee members also are very knowledgeable of the issues and concerns of the County’s residents, vulnerable populations, community lifelines, industry, and response agencies . The Committee provided input on the planning process, reviewed information and materials, discussed capabilities and related plans, set plan goals, and prioritized hazard risks and mitigation strategies. With the exception of some initial data gathering and discussion with the Steering Committee, activities on the plan update were delayed for the first half of 2025 in order to consider related programmatic and mitigation planning guidance changes from the Federal government. Update of the plan began, in 1 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Local Mitigation Planning Policy Guide. FP 206-21-0002, April 19, 2022. 2 Wisconsin Emergency Management, Resource Guide to All Hazards Mitigation Planning in Wisconsin. April 2003. and WEM Local Mitigation Planning Handbook. February 7, 2023. Table 1. Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Steering Committee (LEPC) Name Representative of: Brian Flynn Chippewa County Board Representative Max Schroeder TTM – Industry Representative John Andersen Chairperson, Media Representative Kyle Hoel Chippewa County Highway Department Brittnay Fortuna Chippewa County Department of Public Health Chip Eckardt Citizen Amateur Radio Representative Nate Martell HazMat/Fire Dept. Representative Rick Bowe Citizen Representative Tamee Thom Chippewa County Communication Center Jerry Clark UW Extension Travis Klukas Mayo Clinic Health Systems Marcy Trubshaw Chippewa County Emergency Management Jason Moses Chippewa County Emergency Management Page 19 of 153 SECTION I. Introduction 3 earnest, in July 2025 following the general stages of plan development shown in Figure 1 at the end of this section. Primary local engagement activities during the planning process are discussed in Section I.C. and I.D. A summary of plan changes since the 2020 Plan is provided in Section IV.D. of the Mitigation Plan Supplement, and includes a brief synopsis of how the Steering Committee considered each section of the plan. With consideration of National Weather Service historical data , recent hazard events, and the scope of the 2020 Plan, Chippewa County felt that that the 2026 Plan should continue to focus on the same natural hazard threats, except: • The risk assessment for wind storms was combined with tornados due to the very similar vulnerabilities and the frequent inability to distinguish between the two event types at the local level (e.g., local debate on whether a passing storm was a tornado vs. straight-line wind). In addition to the Steering Committee meetings, community input during the planning process was gathered through meetings, interviews, surveys, and the review of other pertinent plans as will be discussed later in this section. In May 2026, the full draft plan was released f or public review and submitted to Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM) for pre -review. Copies of a dopting resolutions/letters for all plan participants are included in Section VII. C. PLAN PARTICIPANTS The Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan is a multi-jurisdictional plan and encompasses all incorporated and unincorporated jurisdictions within Chippewa County, except the City of Eau Claire. Full plan participants are th e following local entities that actively participated in the plan update and have adopted or approved the 2026 Plan: County Government Chippewa County Cities & Villages (incorporated municipalities) Village of Boyd Village of Cadott Village of Lake Hallie Village of New Auburn City of Bloomer City of Chippewa Falls City of Cornell City of Stanley Public Educational Institutions Chippewa Falls Area School District Cornell School District Stanley-Boyd Area School District For the 2026 Plan update, all public educational institutions serving Chippewa County were invited to be full participants for the first time, with the above three fully participating. Chippewa Valley Electric Page 20 of 153 SECTION I. 4 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Cooperative is the primary non -profit electric cooperative serving the County and also actively participated, though other electric cooperatives do provide some service within the County. 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. The Committee, supplemented by the stakeholder interviews/meetings listed in Supplement 4.A. was largely responsible for providing the county-level input into the 2026 Plan update. • WCWRPC conducted an interview meeting with each participating village and city on the planning effort, and input was obtained on changes since the 2020 Plan, including hazard issues/trends, vulnerabilities, community lifelines, progress on 2020 strategies, barriers to implementation, updated plan recommendations, and community engagement. Each city and village were then requested to complete a web -based capabilities ass essment survey. This individualized approach allows for unique hazard-related issues or strategies for each community to be identified, while recognizing that each local municipality has the authority to regulate and plan for the development of their community. • It was verified that Chippewa County and all incorporated 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). • An introductory mailing with a project brochure was sent to each public educational institution. This was followed by a web -based mitigation planning presentation on 7/31/25, 8/5/25, and 10/20/25 by WCWRPC for interested schools, including an overview of related mitigation grants and potential grant projects. The educational institutions were then invited to complete a web - based mitigation planning survey that assesses risk and capabilities, then identifies mitigation strategies. • WCWRPC used the city, village, and educational institution input to create draft “sub-plans” for each participant, which are included in Supplements 5 & 6. The draft sub -plans were then distributed to each community for review and input. As discussed in Supplement 4.C., these sub- plans are a new approach to the 2026 Plan update. Adopting resolutions or approving letters for all of the above participating jurisdictions are in Section VII. Page 21 of 153 SECTION I. Introduction 5 Figure 1. Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Planning Process Diagram Plan Initiation scope: local decision to proceed, contract w/ WCWRPC County roles: mandate to proceed, establish Steering Committee RPC roles: facilitate process and pre-planning Cmte roles: initial meeting; discuss process, scope, & new plan reqmts Community Profile scope: data-collection phase (inventory, stats, uses, trends) local roles: assist w/ data collection, including existing plans RPC roles: data collection, analysis, & compilation Cmte roles: review and discuss findings; additional direction if needed 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 Cmte roles: review and confirm key hazards Risk & Vulnerability Assessment scope: identify risks (full history & trends), and vulnerabilities (estimate potential losses to assets) local roles: identify issues, concerns, and “hotspots; capacity assessment RPC roles: data collection, analysis, & facilitation; interview/meetings Cmte roles: review and discuss findings; provide addition insights Mitigation Planning scope: goals, objectives, strategies, & action plan local roles: identify current activities and progress on 2020 Plan RPC roles: facilitation, analysis & guidance on strategies Cmte roles: update goals; review and prioritize strategies other issues: cost-benefits analysis; resource/action plan 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 Cmte roles: discuss related plans & future plan monitoring/updates other issues: re-assess evaluation process Plan Adoption scope: Cmte/local agency review -> public comment period -> Cmte re-consideration if needed ->WEM pre-review -> County & local adoption-> formal WEM & FEMA approval local roles: facilitate public meetings, notifications, & adoption RPC roles: assist with any questions and modifications to plan Cmte roles: consider public comments other issues: special mailings; media Plan Initiation Hazard Identification Community Profiling Plan Coordination & Maintenance Risk & Vulnerability Assessment Mitigation Planning Plan Adoption Page 22 of 153 SECTION II. 6 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION II. COMMUNITY PROFILE – CHIPPEWA COUNTY A. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION Chippewa County is located in west -central Wisconsin (see Figure 2). The County 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 bordered to the north by Barron and Rusk Counties, to east by Taylor and Clark Counties, to the west by Dunn County, and by Eau Claire County to the south. The County is made up of all or parts of 32 minor civil divisions, which includes 2 3 towns, 4 villages, and 5 cities as shown in Figure 2. The City of Chippewa Falls, population 14,731 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. Chippewa County Location & Civil Divisions Page 23 of 153 SECTION II. Community Profile 7 B. PHYSICAL SETTING Section I.A. of the Mitigation Plan Supplement provides an overview of the physical setting, natural features, and environment of Chippewa County. Chippewa County’s landscape is heavily influenced by glaciation. Wetlands, moraines and kettle lakes are scattered along the north and east, while flatter agricultural lands dominate the south and west. As shown on Figure 3, agriculture and deciduous forests now dominate the landscape. The County is largely rural with less than 10% of the land cover considered developed. Surface waters make up 2.9% of the County’s land area; approximately 19,298 acres or 30.15 square miles. Lake Wissota – located in the southern, central part of the County – is the largest waterbody in the County at 4,070 acres. Other water bodies of considerable size include the Holcombe Flowage (1,542 acres), Long Lake (936 acers), and the Cornell Flowage (836 acres). The flowages are created by two of several dams along the Chippewa River that are used for hydro-electric power generation. Wetlands— key for water storage, filtration, and flood mitigation—are widespread and ecologically important. Chippewa County has a humid continental climate with cold winters, warm summers, and no dry season. Average monthly temperatures range from 12°F in January to 70°F in July. Annual averages include 34 inches of precipitation and about 41 inches of snowfall. Like most midwestern communities, the County is vulnerable to range of natural hazards, including flooding. C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC SETTING The following are highlights from Section I.B. of the Mitigation Plan Supplement, which provides data tables and information related to Chippewa County’s demographics and economy. Population & Housing • After seeing at or near double -digit growth for three decades, housing unit growth slowed by 71% between 2010 and 2020. A decrease in growth is consistent with trends throughout the region. • Growth in housing units consistently outpaces population growth. The average population per housing unit decreased from 2.71 in 1980 to 2.31 in 2020. • Despite seeing higher rates of growth than towns, cities are projected to lose population by 2050. The losses are projected to remove all gains seen since 2010 and then some. • Twelve communities are considered economically rural disadvantaged communities. • Collectively, cities have a lower median age (37.8) than villages (42), and villages have a lower median age than towns (45.5). • Single-family detached housing is the most prevalent housing unit throughout the County, comprising roughly 75% of all housing units. The percentages are higher in towns (90%) than in the cities and villages (62%). Page 24 of 153 SECTION II. 8 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 3. Chippewa County Predominant Land Cover • There are 1,294 mobile homes and 104 assisted living and nursing home facilities located within the County. These sites are of heightened concern during extreme weather events due to their vulnerable populations and the medical needs of their residents. • The County (41.7) is slightly older than the State (40.1) and has a lower per capita income ($38,212 to $42,019). Within the County, there are age and income discrepancies between older, more affluent towns and younger, less affluent cities and villages. A s the elderly and economically disadvantaged populations are both groups of concern, these differences present unique challenges and vulnerabilities for each community type. • Between 2020 to 2040, the number of residents ages 65 and over is projected to increase from 19.1% to 25.3% of the total population while all other age groups decrease. Some communities, including the City of Chippewa Falls, believe that the State’s population projections underestimate future growth. Page 25 of 153 SECTION II. Community Profile 9 • For some residents, language and cultural barriers can pose challenges to education and outreach on weather awareness, available shelters, best practices, regulations, etc. The vast majority (96.0%) of Chippewa County’s population speak only English, making communication with non- native speakers difficult. The potential vulnerability to hazardous events increases along with residential development and population growth. The steady increase of both housing and residents over the past 40 years presents a significant concern throughout the mitigation process, as each new unit and resident must be considered when determining vulnerability and projected losses during hazardous events. Economic Overview • The County has low unemployment and strong trade and manufacturing sectors. • Educational attainment is evenly distributed across high school, some college, and degree holders. Degree holders are slightly lower (26%) than the others (34-35%). Only six percent have no high school diploma. • Median net worth and household income is high and well above national averages ($204,032 and $74,365 respectively). • The County has seen a decrease in the number of households under the poverty level and within the ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) households. • The recent closure of HSHS and Prevea hospitals and clinics are not yet realized in data and may have an adverse effect on recent wealth and income gains. • The County has a diverse economy. When looking at sales data, retail trade, wholesale trade, and manufacturing sectors constituted 73% of all sales revenue within the County in 2023. Manufacturing is the County’s largest employment sector with 3,387 jobs (18.9% of all jobs). Government is the second highest employment sector (16.1%). • The Administrative and Support, Professional Services, and Extraction sectors all saw decreases exceeding 25% of their 2014 employment numbers. Despite these losses, the County increased its employment by almost 1,500 jobs, or 9.0%, between 2014 and 2024. • It is important to note that this data does not capture the recent closure of St. Joseph’s Hospital in Chippewa Falls, which resulted in the loss of a community lifeline and hundreds of jobs within the Health Care and Social Assistance sector. Agricultural Overview • As noted previously and shown on Figure 3, cultivated crops and pasture/hay is the most common land cover in Chippewa County. • Between 2017 and 2022, the number of farm s and acres of farmland decreased by nine percent and five percent respectively. As of 2022, the County had 1,286 farms and 338,969 acres of farmland. • Agriculture continues to be an important part of Chippewa County’s economy with the market value of products sold exceeding $306 million in 2022. Page 26 of 153 SECTION II. 10 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • Row crops (grains), milk from cows, and poultry/eggs were the largest ag sales in 2022. The County is the 5th largest producer of poultry and eggs and 3rd largest producer of equids (horses, ponies, mules, etc.) in the State. • In 2019, it was estimated that agriculture supports 4,060 jobs and contributes to over $777 million in positive economic impacts within Chippewa County. • Many of the hazards discussed later in the plan can significantly impact crops and livestock, including tornados, power loss, extreme temperatures, drought, and zoonotic disease. D. DEVELOPMENT TRENDS Disaster events can have many impacts, including damage to buildings and building contents. This sub- section provides insight into the taxable improvements and growth patterns within Chippewa County, which will be important when considering hazard vulnerabilities in Section III.D. According to the Wisconsin Department of Revenue, the aggregated assessed value for Chippewa County was over $8 billion.3 Table 2 summarizes the 2024 Statement of Assessments for the County. The State repealed personal property taxes through 2023 Act 12, effective Jan. 1, 2024. From 2019 to 2024, the County’s total assessed value of improvements grew by over $ 2.265 billion ( 57.5% increase or +11.51% per year). Table 3 further breaks down the 2024 assessed values by primary land uses. The largest percentage of improvement value is residential. Over 44% of the County’s commercial improvement value lies within the City of Chippewa Falls, highlighting its significance to the County’s assessed value. Table 3. Chippewa County Assessed Value by Land Use • 2024 Use Number of Parcels Land Value Number of Parcels Improved Improvement Value Total Residential 28,267 $ 1,252,987,000 25,227 $ 4,836,394,900 $ 6,089,381,900 Commercial 2,534 $ 197,158,500 2,053 $ 933,459,400 $ 1,130,617,900 Manufacturing 181 $ 21,951,900 154 $ 189,311,400 $ 211,263,300 Agricultural 12,552 $ 59,328,500 - $ - $ 59,328,500 Undeveloped 10,042 $ 47,196,200 - $ - $ 47,196,200 Ag Forest 4,565 $ 77,855,300 - $ - $ 77,855,300 Forest Lands 3,866 $ 175,291,300 - $ - $ 175,291,300 Other 1,727 $ 23,534,300 1,728 $ 244,485,600 $ 268,019,900 Totals 63,734 $ 1,855,303,000 29,162 $ 6,203,651,300 $ 8,058,954,300 Source: Wisconsin Department of Revenue. 2024 Line Summary for Final Statement of Assessment. 3 Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Bureau of Equalization. 2023 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. Table 2. Chippewa County 2024 Assessed Total Values (not equalized) Land $ 1,855,303,000 Improvements $ 6,203,651,300 Real Estate $ 8,058,954,300 Personal Prop. $ NA Aggregate $ 8,058,954,300 Page 27 of 153 SECTION II. Community Profile 11 Not included in Table 3 values are tax-exempt properties. Chippewa County has over 65,000 acres of County and State public resource lands, mostly forested and wetlands, which are tax exempt. Governmental properties and schools constitute the largest portion of those existing improvements and structures not included in Tables 2 & 3, though other facilities on tax-exempt lands owned by non-profit institutions (e.g., churches, scouting camps, housing authority structures) are also not included. The land cover map ( Figure 3) showed the generalized development pattern in Chippewa County. Cultivated crops dominate the southern and western portions of the County with urban development occurring within city and village boundaries, and along the shores of Lake Wissota. In 2020, the County had an overall population density of 65.7 persons per square mile, which is significantly less than the State of Wisconsin’s density of 108.8 persons per square mile. Based on State official population projections, the County’s density is projected to increase slightly to 66.00 persons per square mile by 2050. Population growth and development has mostly occurred in the southwest, due in part to the City of Chippewa Falls, Village of Lake Hallie, and Lake Wissota. Between 2019 and 2024, Chippewa County experienced a net increase of 1,661 improved, assessed parcels, or an average increase of 332 parcels per year. Residential parcels received the majority of improvements (1,574), while the “other” property classification saw a decrease over the 5 -year period. Most improved, residential parcels are in towns ( 54.6%), and they account for 84.3% percent of all residential assessed acreage in Chippewa County. Residential development in unincorporated areas is typically at low densities within the County. Most of the improved commercial parcels (52.8%) and manufacturing parcels (68.8%) are located within cities. The per-acre assessed value of commercial land and improvements are roughly six times higher in cities compared to towns and three -and-a-half times higher for manufacturing assessments. This indicates that commercial activity in cities is more intensive, concentrated, and includes commercial uses much larger in scale than towns. In general, most commercial and industrial uses tend to be located within incorporated areas or within highway corridors. Agriculture is the most prevalent land use in Chippewa County. It accounts for 49 percent of the assessed acreage in the County while agricultural forests and forest lands acreage constitute another 25 percent. Land assessed as “undeveloped” makes up 16 percent of the assessed acreage in the County. In total, 90.75 percent of the County’s assessed acreage is agricultural, forested, or otherwise undeveloped. Page 28 of 153 SECTION II. 12 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan E. COMMUNITY LIFELINES & EMERGENCY SERVICES Community lifelines are services and facilities that are fundamental to all aspects of society. FEMA encourages communities to mitigate the potential hazard impacts to community lifelines and give priority to stabilizing community lifelines during initial response. Chippewa County’s principal community lifelines are summarized in Table 4 on the following page. The fifth column identifies the data source(s) for each lifeline: HAZUS FEMA Hazard Program WDPI Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction WCWRPC West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources WDHS Wisconsin Department of Health Services HIFLD Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data WPSC Wisconsin Public Service Commission FCC Federal Communications Commission WISLR Wisconsin Information System for Local Roads During the planning process, it was noted that: • The data for some lifelines is incomplete and some subcomponents have not been locally confirmed or mapped. Table 4 should be considered a starting point that can be built upon and improved for future mitigation plan updates. • At least one county in the region is considering the different lifelines as a way to organize branches within the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). For each hazard of significant risk in Section III.D., a vulnerability assessment table evaluates the potential vulnerabilities (impacts & losses) for each major category of community lifeline in Chippea County. Cities and villages, as part of their sub -plans in Mitigation Plan Supplements 5 & 6 , also frequently identify vulnerabilities, partnerships, or strategies related to these lifelines. Plan Supplement 1.C. includes service area maps for two safety lifelines—Fire Districts and Emergency Medical Service (EMS)/First Responder service areas. The fire departments in particular are important to the wildfire risk assessment and strategies. Also included in P lan Supplement 1.D. is a brief overview of the County’s transportation infrastructure, which is an important lifeline that can be impacted by winter storm/ice, high wind, HazMat spills, and flooding events in particular. Page 29 of 153 SECTION II. Community Profile 13 Table 4. Summary of Chippewa County Community Lifelines Page 30 of 153 SECTION III. 14 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan SECTION III. ASSESSMENT OF HAZARD CONDITIONS In order to more effectively evaluate potential hazard mitigation alternatives and develop feasible strategies to address the risks associated with the identified natural hazards, the County must: • identify the hazards that pose a significant risk to Chippewa County; • profile the extent and severity of past hazard events that have affected the County and the probability of recurrence; and • assess the vulnerability of the community to the threat of future hazard events. A. HAZARD IDENTIFICATION Although Chippewa County could potentially be at risk from a variety of hazards, this plan will attempt to narrow the scope of the hazards that will be addressed to those natural hazards that pose a significant risk. i. Disaster and Emergency Declarations Since 1953, there have been five Presidential Declarations for a Major Disaster for which Chippewa County was included within the declaration: Month & Year Federal Disaster Declarations Summer 1993 Flooding and severe storms in Summer of 1993 resulted in a declaration for 47 Wisconsin counties. Statewide damage exceeded $740 million. Sept 2002 Severe storms, tornados, & flooding. Heavy rainfall and high winds caused widespread damage in the region, including a F3 tornado striking Ladysmith. May-July 2004 Severe storms & flooding from heavy rains when ground was already saturated from Spring melt. Sept 2016 Severe storms, flooding, & mudslide from multiple rounds of thunderstorms with periods of heavy rainfall over two days. April 2020 COVID-19 was declared a nationwide disaster on April 4, 2020. Chippewa County has been impacted by additional storm events for which other nearby counties were included within the Presidential Disaster Declaration, but the documented damages did not meet the minimum thresholds to include Chippewa as a declared county. Page 31 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 15 While the above catastrophic events were of sufficient severity to warrant major Federal assistance, there have been at least 10 additional State or Federal Emergency Declarations involving Chippewa County: Month & Year State or Federal State or Federal Emergency Declarations June 1976 Federal Drought Aug 2003 State Drought July 2005 State Drought Sept 2005 Federal Hurricane Katrina Evacuation July 2006 State Drought Aug 2007 State/USDA Drought/Agricultural Drought Aug 2009 State Drought July 2012 State Drought Mar 2020 State Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 Mar 2020 Federal COVID-19 During an emergency or major disaster declaration, Federal assistance will supplement State and local efforts. A State Emergency Declaration is declared by the Governor and puts into motion State assistance programs. Emergency declarations are typically more limited in scope and without long-term federal assistance. Relying on Federal emergency and disaster declarations as a measure of risk can be misleading. While significant damage occurs during a declared disaster or emergency , the declaration area typically involves multiple counties, and a sizable percentage of the damage can also be limited to a certain area. Further, disaster events do occur that can be deadly and cause severe damage; but the total damage does not rise to the thresholds to qualify for Federal funding. The Winter 2014 Polar Vortex is one such event that caused major damage to water lines for many communities in the region, but this disaster was not declared. Such events can be especially hard on small communities when Federal assistance is not available. To assist in determining what hazards should be evaluated in the plan, National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) information from the National Weather Service (NWS) was used. This data describes past, reported weather events and the resulting deaths, injuries, and damages associated with each of these events. Data for a wide variety of events has been maintained, while some older data is only available for tornado and thunderstorm-related events. During the period from January 1, 1993, through December 31, 2025, there were 442 extreme weather hazard events reported to the National Climatic Data Center for Chippewa County on 285 different dates as will be discussed in the remainder of Section III. These events included: • Two deaths and 27 injuries are in the database, with 10 of the injuries associated with a 1995 thunderstorm with strong winds that struck the festival grounds near Cadott causing flying debris and knocking over a beer tend and several large speaker towers. Page 32 of 153 SECTION III. 16 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • Over $8.8 million in property damage was report ed (unadjusted for inflation). The single, largest damage -causing event during the time period was the 2019 tornado that struck southwestern Chippewa County. • Hail and Thunderstorm Wind/High Winds were the most frequently reported natural hazard events. While being the best, accessible source of historical storm data, the NCDC database is far from complete. For instance, flood data prior to 1997 is not in the database. Further, damages in the NCDC database are frequently under-reported and some damage estimates represent a single event impacting multiple counties. ii. Chippewa County Overall Risk Assessment & Priorities FEMA National Risk Index FEMA utilizes vulnerability analysis , forecasted annual losses, and community resilience factors to produce their National Risk Index (NRI). NRI rankings are available at the state and national level. Some key findings from the NRI data are: • Chippewa County has a relatively lower hazard risk overall in comparison to the rest of the State and Nation. The County ranks in the 67th percentile within the State. • Figure 4 shows the risk index classification for each census tract. The Chippewa Falls area has a higher risk index score due to levels of development and socio-economic vulnerabilities. • Overall, Chippewa County has a Very High community resiliency. • Relative to other counties nationally, Chippewa County had high hazard risk ratings for Strong Wind and Extreme Cold, though cold is no longer part of the current NRI. • Based on the latest NRI data as of May 2026, Expected Annual Losses for the County were the highest for Inland Flooding, followed by Tornado, Strong Wind, then Hail events. Figure 4. National Risk Index Scores for Chippewa County Census Tracts Page 33 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 17 Steering Committee Hazard Assessment & Priorities During the update of the 2026 Mitigation Plan, Steering Committee members discussed natural hazard trends and concerns. This included reviewing the National Risk Index data for Chippewa County, the 2025 Health Vulnerability Assessment results (HVA) completed by the Northwest Wisconsin Healthcare Emergency Readiness Coalition, and the hazards included in the 2020 Plan. Based on this discussion and each member’s personal experiences, each Committee member rated the probability of a natural hazard event occurring and the vulnerability or impacts if such an event should occur. Identification of the hazards for inclusion in this risk and vulnerabilities survey was based on the hazards identified in the Resource Guide to All Hazards Mitigation Planning in Wisconsin prepared by Wisconsin Emergency Management. For each hazard type, each Committee member was asked to assign ratings of 0 to 5 (0-no probability or vulnerability, 1- low, 3-moderate, 5-high) to reflect their opinion of which hazards pose the greatest concerns for Chippewa County. A composite overall average risk rating for each hazard was then calculated by totaling the average risk rating from each respondent and divid ed by the total number of respondents. The compiled results of the updated survey are shown in Table 5. An additional column is included in Table 5 identifying those hazards that the Committee recommended should be addressed as part of the 2026 Plan update and how best to organize those hazards in Section III.D. PROBABILITY VS. VULNERABILITY For purposes of this plan, the following definitions are used: PROBABILITY: Likelihood and frequency of occurrence in the future. VULNERABILITY: If the event occurs, what are the impacts? Page 34 of 153 SECTION III. 18 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Table 5. Chippewa County Hazards Probability & Vulnerabilities Survey Results (Summer 2025) 0 -- none; extremely low 3 – moderate; substantial 1 -- low; minimal 4 -- high; serious 2 – some; of concern 5 -- very high; extreme Page 35 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 19 The National Risk Index in Table 5 compares Chippewa County to rest of the U.S. based on expected annual losses, social vulnerability, and community resilience for each hazard. The 2025 Northwest Wisconsin Healthcare Emergency Readiness Coalition’s Hazard Vulnerability Assessment (NWHERC HVA) is the relative risk and vulnerability for each threat in the region from a public health perspective based on a detailed assessment of various threats based on probability, potential impacts, and current capabilities. As reflected in Table 5, the Steering Committee felt that the scope of the 2026 Plan update should be modified in one primary way when compared to the previous 2020 Plan: • High winds are discussed with tornados due to similar vulnerabilities and impacts. Of the above hazards, only flooding , wildfire, and, to a less extent, long -term power loss, have geographic areas or locations of higher risk, as will be identified later in Section III.D. Hazards Addressed in Other Plans The Steering Committee discussed how best to approach zoonotic and communicable disease in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, and agreed that the 2026 Plan update should refer to and support, but not duplicate or supplant, the Chippewa County Public Health Emergency Preparedness Plan . As such, Communicable Disease is included in the Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.B. Natural Hazards of No Significant Risk Table 5 notes which natural hazards are excluded from the scope of this plan update, largely reflecting their lower probabilities. The reason for excluding certain natural hazards is further discussed in Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.A., though some concerns with flood -related bank erosion are discussed in the Flood assessment later in this section. Page 36 of 153 SECTION III. 20 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Issues & Opportunities With consideration of the existing conditions in the Community Profile and a general knowledge of past hazards and vulnerabilities, early in the plan update process the Plan Update Steering Committee identified the following general issues and opportunitie s regarding hazard threats, mitigation, and emergency management in Chippewa County. These issues and opportunities helped guide community interviews and were considered when exploring mitigation and preparedness strategy alternatives. ISSUE/CHALLENGES • Public health issues • Aging population • Weather Severe Thunderstorm/Tornado Drills • Weather Related Disaster Preparedness • Communications – alterting, especially across various populations • Multi-jurisdictional coordination & MABAS • Countywide training & understanding of ICS/NIMS • Hazardous Materials Transported via Highways or Railroads • Comms Center & Emergency Management Staffing • Backup Comms/EM Location • Small towns may not have enough people or equipment to handle emergencies well • Need more EMT volunteers • Fewer volunteers for many VOADs and decreasing VOAD availability/response in some cases. • Distance to medical facilities/emergency rooms/hospitals • Access to healthcare services OPPORTUNITIES/“THINGS WE CAN DO” • Preparedness campaign – empowering people to be ready in emergencies • Public outreach & education • Promotion of alerting systems to ensure communication • Involve the community in free First Aid Courses • Large-scale training/TTXs • Training on interoperability for high probability threats • Making health and safety plans stronger and helping the community get ready for emergencies. • Establish emergency operations center that is county-owned; not CFFD Station #1 • Identify and create command posts strategically located throughout the county • Identify the typical type of hazardous materials moving through the county on a daily basis • Work with nearby counties to make better plans to prevent damage from disasters Page 37 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 21 B. CHANGING WEATHER PATTERNS & NATURAL HAZARD RISK Projecting future hazard risks and vulnerabilities is subject to the influence of possible large -scale, longer-term changes in weather. How the Region’s Weather Patterns are Changing There is ongoing debate over the existence, causes, severity, and impacts of global climatic changes, such as global warming. According to a previous U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web site: “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 ove r the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.... Rising global temperatures are expected to raise sea level, and change precipitation… 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.” 4 Regardless of the debate over the causes of such changes, there is clear evidence that Wisconsin’s weather patterns are 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 , and b y 2100 the summer s will generally resemble that of current -day Arkansas, and the winter will feel much like current -day Iowa. And a University of Maryland model suggests that by 2080, the long -term weather of Chippewa Falls will be similar to that of northern Oklahoma.5 To further document these changes in weather patterns 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 key takeaways from the WICCI 2021 Assessment Report: • Wisconsin’s average daily temperature has become three degrees Fahrenheit warmer since the 1950’s. • The last two decades have been the warmest on record, and the past decade has been the wettest. • Wisconsin has become wetter – average precipitation has increased 17 percent (about 5 inches) since 1950. • Warming is happening fastest in the winter and at night. • Southern Wisconsin has experienced the highest increase in precipitation. 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/impacts.html 5 https://www.umces.edu/futureurbanclimates Page 38 of 153 SECTION III. 22 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • Very extreme precipitation events will increase in the future. • Extreme events are already causing immense impacts across Wisconsin, and the frequency of those events will generally increase. These findings are consistent with data for Chippewa County. Figure 5 below includes maps from the 2021 Assessment Report indicating State longer -term weather trends for Wisconsin with Chippewa County outlined. The data suggests that the County must anticipate increased extreme precipitation events annually, as well as greater severity within individual events. Figure 5. Selected Maps from the 2021 WICCI Report Page 39 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 23 Potential Long-Term Weather Pattern Impacts on Natural Hazard Risk The following summarizes the primary, potential impacts of long-term shifts in weather patterns for those natural hazards of significant risk to Chippewa County. Tornados, Thunderstorms, and High Winds The link between long-term changes in weather and tornadoes, high winds, and thunderstorms is unclear. While extreme storm events are increasing, scientists are uncertain what role such long -term shifts in weather have, if any.6 However, warmer temperatures will increase the number of weeks that Chippewa County experiences severe thunderstorms and tornadoes. And during the 2026 Plan update process, some local officials expressed concern with a perceived increase in the frequency of high wind events over the past decade. The 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. 7 The WICCI report projects that the frequency of extreme rainfall events (2+” within 24 hours) will increase from about 10 per decade for Chippewa County to 12-14 per decade. The report shows that Chippewa County is already experiencing an increase in 100-year rainfall events. Increased precipitation and heavy precipitation events are resulting 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. These increasing heavy rainfall and flooding events are not reflected in current floodplain maps and stormwater management models. For example, most stormwater modeling and design standards for Wisconsin municipalities use the precipitation frequency data from NOAA’s Atlas 14 (based on 1900- 2010 trends) and the older Technical Paper 40 (published in 1961). A 2019 study summarized by the graphic to the right shows that a 100-year rainfall event in based on Atlas 14 was occurring every 83 years by 2017 in the upper Midwest, and the frequency of such events has been increasing significantly since 2010. A separate National Weather Service-funded study from 2019 suggests that today’s 100-year rainfall event will be a 20 -year storm by the late 21 st century. Atlas 15 6 http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/12/01/increasing-tornado-outbreaks-is-climate-change-responsible/ 7 https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/highlights/regions/midwest#statement-16934 Page 40 of 153 SECTION III. 24 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan reflecting more recent trends is not expected to be released before 2027. In the interim, some Wisconsin municipalities are already considering these trends. As an example, Dane County continues to use Atlas 14 data, but in 2021 it updated its erosion control and stormwater management ordinance to require peak rate control based on 200-year storms, instead of 100-year storms. 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 debri s to enter water bodies . This is consistent with the comments of many local officials during the plan update process, who felt that there has been an increase in heavy rainfall events, which have been contributing to localized flash or stormwater flooding. Winter Storms, Ice Storms, and Extreme Cold Per the WICCI report, winter precipitation has increased more than 20% and winter nights have been 6⁰ F warmer in Chippewa County since 1950, and these trends are projected to continue. By 2050, Chippewa County will experience 10% more winter and spring p recipitation and a 5% increase in fall. More precipitation during the winter months increases the potential for heavy snow 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 longer-term weather pattern changes may contribute to an increase in extreme temperature events (both hot and cold). 8 However, the WICCI report suggests that extreme cold reports should decrease in frequency. Such long-term changes in weather 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. During the 2026 Plan update, the Plan Update Steering Committee discussed the potential for increased ice storm events with high winds, which exacerbates the potential for power loss during periods of low temperatures or extreme cold. The need for warming shelters with emergency power received significantly greater attention during this plan update. Extreme Heat The number of extreme heat event days is projected to continue to increase. By 2050, the WICCI report projects that the number of extreme heat days will grow from about 5-10 to 20-25 per year for most of the County. An increase in extreme heat occurrences and higher summer temperatures will have a significant impact on the elderly and others. 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 temperatures and the number of individuals over 65 years old continues to increase, additional attention may be needed to address extreme heat vulnerabilities. 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. During the 2026 Plan update, some service providers expressed concern was expressed over recent increases in extreme heat events and there was increased discussion on the need for designated cooling shelters with emergency power. 8 https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/perfect-storm-extreme-winter-weather-bitter-cold-and-climate-change Page 41 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 25 Drought, Wildfire. and Forest Resilience Projecting the impact of weather pattern changes 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. Weather patterns can also influence wildfire potential and forest health. Human Health According to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services —Climate & Health Program 9, it is also important that we keep in mind the potential impacts of long-term weather changes 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 – wetter, warmer weather 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 of water supplies 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 9 https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/climate/index.htm Page 42 of 153 SECTION III. 26 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan important that local disaster recovery integrate public health principals, including providing mental health support and treatment when needed. Adaptation as a Natural Hazard Mitigation Strategy Weather pattern 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 longer-term patterns. Below are examples of what some other communities are doing to address such trends. and will be considered as Chippewa County and other participating jurisdictions identify and prioritize their mitigation strategy recommendations. Many of these adaptation strategies are not new mitigation tools (e.g., safe rooms, burying power lines, cooling shelters), but with weather changes 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 and explore micro-grid alternatives, specifically at critical facilities (e.g., municipal 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. Utilize updated stormwater modeling that considers the increasing frequency of heavy rainfall events. • Create outreach programs to educate the public on the need for flood insurance. • 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. Complete riparian/stream restoration plans and projects. • Reevaluate all water-related infrastructure (e.g., bridges, levees, dams, culverts, stormwater system) for structural integrity. • Promote solutions that support natural systems and low impact development policies to reduce stormwater runoff and encourage flood/stormwater storage. Incorporate permeable surfaces in new and existing development, including pavement systems and green roofs. Encourage rain barrels, bioswales, and ra in gardens. Install, preserve, and maintain wetlands, natural flood retention areas, and stormwater basins. • Increase focus and effort on eliminating debris from entering the water bodies (e.g., increase street cleaning operations, expand promotion of Rain-To-Rivers programming, provide community lawn waste pickup). Winter Storms, Ice Storms, and Extreme Cold • Research best management practices to deal with the potential increasing frequency of ice storms. • Designate community warming shelters with emergency power. • Implement smart salting/sanding best management practices. Page 43 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 27 Extreme Heat • Create programs to check on and communicate with persons most vulnerable to extreme heat occurrences. • Start a public outreach program to educate the public how to deal with extreme heat • Designate community cooling shelters with emergency power. • 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, which is most apparent in larger urban areas. • Incorporate policy that reduces street pavement widths. Drought, Wildfire, and Water 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 changes in weather. • 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 th at reflect recent trends; and (iii.) by tying water use, management, and related policy to land use and economic growth forecasts. • 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 bio-fuel 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, this plan does not debate the causes of these longer-term weather patterns. 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. It is also important that c ommunities and residents keep informed o f these changes in weather patterns use their best judgment as to the most appropriate action and response. The WICCI webpage www.wicci.wisc.edu(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 , related materials on at their webpage, including a community engagement toolkit: https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/climate/index.htm Page 44 of 153 SECTION III. 28 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan C. RISK AND VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT This section is organized by the hazards that are a significant disaster threat to Chippewa County not primarily addressed in other plans. The assessment for each hazard is generally structured into the following sections, which are consistent with FEMA planning guidance, though there are some differences for the non-natural hazards: Defining the Hazard – Describes the hazard, including related definitions. Hazard Location – Describes the geographic extent or unique boundaries that may be affected by the hazard type. This may include or reference county, state, or other maps illustrating the geographic extent of any hazard areas. For most hazards in Section III.D., there is no geographic area uniquely at risk; most hazard events facing County residents often affect large areas, or are even county-wide, such as a drought, active shooter, cyber-attack, or an ice storm. Hazard Extent (Potential Intensities) – Identifies the range of anticipated intensities that can occur within Chippewa County (e.g., how “bad” can it get). This is often expressed through a relative scale based on the intensity of hazard (e.g., wind speed, hail size) and/or the hazard’s poten tial impacts (e.g., damage to property, potential for injury). A commonly accepted hazard extent or scientific scale is not available for all hazard types. Event History –The organization of this section may differ, but for most natural hazards includes: • National Climatic Data Center Event Summary or other data source(s) depending on the nature and type of hazard. • Significant Chippewa County (and/or Regional) Events – Highlights any significant or notable events that are particularly important for assessing capabilities or exploring mitigation alternatives. Hazard Probability – Discusses and, if possible, estimates the probability of the hazard occurring or reoccurring in the future. FEMA guidelines require that probability must consider the impacts of long-term weather changes. Vulnerability Assessment – Includes a table summarizes the vulnerabilities (potential impacts/losses) for residents and different aspects of the County, including community lifelines. • Potential Loss Estimates – When possible, potential loss estimates are quantified. • Other Factors Influencing Losses – Briefly describes and considers other factors that may influence hazard probability and impacts, such as development trends and weather patterns. Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement 2 (Additional Hazard Assessment Information) includes additional information for each hazard, including an expansion of definitions, supplementary event history and data, and, often, related preparedness information. Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement 5 & 6 (Sub-Plans) include subplans for participating city, village, and public educational institutions. While this section often includes key or commonly shared findings from cities, villages, and schools, the sub -plans include an expanded event history, probability, vulnerability, capability, and mitigation strategies for each. Page 45 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 29 i. TORNADOES & HIGH WINDS Tornadoes are typically linked with severe thunderstorm events. It is sometimes difficult to determine the difference between the impacts of a tornado versus very high winds. This sub-section highlights key tornado-related information and the effects of winds during thunderstorm events. Section II of the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement provides additional details. For tornado and high wind risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities, and school districts, please refer to Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard —Tornadoes & High Winds The National Weather Service definitions of a tornado, funnel cloud, high winds/ thunderstorm winds, and downbursts (straight-line winds): 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. High winds or Thunderstorm Winds – Winds of 58 miles per hour or greater. Downbursts (straight-line winds) – A downburst is a strong, violent downdraft, initiated by rapidly descending rain and/or rain-cooled air beneath a thunderstorm. Hazard Location & Extent Tornadoes and high winds occur throughout the State of Wisconsin and have no defined hazard area within Chippewa County. All Chippewa County jurisdictions are equally at risk of experiencing a tornado or high wind event. The Mitigation Plan Supplement describes how tornado and high wind intensities are measured, most notably the Enhanced Fujita Scale. 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 6). However, this design wind speed map may be outdated. While very rare, Wisconsin has one documented tornado with winds exceeding 250 mph. On July 18, 1996, the F5 Oakfield tornado was estimated to have had winds of 265 mph. Oakfield is located in the eastern part of the State near Fond du Lac; no documented tornado in west central Wisconsin has exceeded 250 mph. adapted from ”Design Wind Speed” map from FEMA’s “Taking Shelter from the Storms: Building a Saferoom in Your House” Figure 6. Design Wind Speed Map of Wisconsin Page 46 of 153 SECTION III. 30 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Event History —Tornadoes & High Winds As detailed in the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement, from 1980 to 2015, Wisconsin experienced 44 significant tornado events, including twelve EF -3, three EF -4, and one EF -5 tornado. Tornados may occur throughout the year, but are most frequent during May-August. Chippewa County has had a moderately high number of tornadoes with 45 reported tornadoes between 1844 and 2024. No areas of the County were identified as being particularly prone to experiencing tornado or high wind events in the past. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Event Summary The table below summarizes tornado and high wind events reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Chippewa County. Tornadoes have been well documented since 1950, allowing for the review of a larger time horizon (7 4 years). Since high winds and thunderstorm winds have only been tracked regularly since 1993, the table below represents a shorter time horizon. All other hazards, other than tornadoes, will only represent data from 1993 to December of 2023. Tornado Event Summary 1/1/1950 - 12/31/2024 Total Events: 35 Number of Events Per Year: 0.32 from 1993-2024 Total Event Days: 27 Number of Event Days Per Year: 0.28 Total Injuries: 93 Total Deaths: 5 (3 deaths and 53 injuries are from the tornado events that stuck the County on June 4, 1958) Total Event Days with Property Damage: 25 Property Damage (from NCDC): $ 39,942,530 (the July 1977 F4 event reported $25 million in damage) Property Damage (adjusted for inflation): $ 234,658,271 Funnel Cloud Reports: 4 reports on 4 event days between 1997 – 2010. Note: Tornadoes were reported less consistently prior to 1993. High/Strong Wind & Thunderstorm Wind Event Summary 1/1/1993 - 12/31/2024 Total Events: 150 Number of Events Per Year: 4.84 Total Event Days: 84 Number of Event Days Per Year: 2.71 Total Injuries: 22 Total Deaths: 0 Total Event Days with Property Damage: 24 Property Damage (from NCDC): $ 4,556,000 Property Damage (adjusted for inflation): $ 8,294,725 Significant Chippewa County Events The following briefly describes significant tornado and high wind events impacting Chippewa County. For insight into additional potential experiences, the Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.C. also includes some key tornado and high wind events for the broader region. 1958 Chippewa Falls/Cadott/Colfax Tornados The 1958 Chippewa Falls tornado was part of a larger tornado outbreak which struck the region over a Page 47 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 31 roughly four-hour period in the late afternoon and early evening of June 4th. This event resulted in almost $3 million in reported damages (adjusted for inflation) as well as 3 deaths and 50 injuries. The tornado touched down about 5.5 miles west-southwest of Chippewa Falls, then traveled northeast striking Irvine Park and the Glen Loch Dam areas of the City. An additional tornado as part of this same 1958 storm touched down in the Cadott area to the east , resulting in three injuries and over $19.1 million in damages, though the tornado did not strike the Village itself. Altogether nearly $40 million in estimated property damage has been reported since 1950 from these two tornados.10 No associated crop damage was reported, but it undoubtedly occurred. This was part of the same storm which produced the devastating F5 Colfax tornado. July 1977 Tornado The July 30, 1977, tornado, that ripped through the Bloomer area was very destructive. 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 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 prope rty damage, including partially demolishing the Bloomer Canning Factory. May 1991 High Winds This storm resulted in over $8.1 million (1991 dollars) in damages throughout the region, with over 63,000 acres of forest destroyed. At a campground near Lake Holcombe, five mobile homes were tipped on their sides; nearby homes and resorts were also damaged. Some areas in the County lost power for up to two weeks. May 1996 High Winds 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. 10 unadjusted for inflation from Stevens Point Daily Journal, 8/1/77, p1 Page 48 of 153 SECTION III. 32 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan September 2019 Tornado 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. July 2020 Tornado & High Winds 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 reachi ng 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. Hazard Probability – Tornadoes & High Winds The Chippewa County Plan Steering Committee rated tornados as the County’s highest natural hazard vulnerability in terms of potential impacts with a moderate risk (probability of occurrenc e). Based on the number of reports since 1993, it is probable that a tornado will continue to touch down and be reported for Chippewa Count y on a single day on ce about every 3-4 years on average , with the potential for multiple tornado reports on some days . High wind events will occur much more frequently, with about 5 events or 2.5-3 event days each year on average. Although the improvement of technology has enabled meteorologists to better identify and predict the conditions that are favorable for severe weather development, there is no precise way to predict the formation, location, and magnitude of a tornado or straight-line wind events. And, there is no predictable Page 49 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 33 pattern that can be used to accurately predict future tornado events. However, the May 2017 Chetek tornado in Barron County suggests that sufficient time is often available for residents to find adequate safe shelter in order to mitigate deaths and injuries. A recent study, published in January 2023, modeled several potential effects of climate change on the frequency, intensity, and location of supercell thunderstorms in the continental United States. It is these supercell thunderstorms that account for near ly all tornados. The models, based on emission scenarios and historical data, indicated that within the Midwest, the evening time would see an increase in supercell storms. While the areas within this plan were not specifically discussed, figures showing c hange from the historical data to the model indicate that the west central Wisconsin area is likely to see some of the largest increases in these severe events, outside the Southern Mississippi River Valley. Vulnerability Assessment—Tornadoes & High Winds The following provides an overview of the primary tornado and high wind vulnerabilities facing Chippewa County and its communities. While all individual plan participants in Chippewa County (i.e., villages, cities, educational institutions, electric cooperatives) are equally at risk of experiencing a tornado event, the potential impacts and vulnerabilities increase with development density, population density, type of development, and value of improvements. Vulnerabilities can also differ based on factors such as socio -economic characteristics and existing mitigation actions (e.g., safe rooms, wind - resistant construction). Overall, persons at mobile home parks, campgrounds/parks, and school facilities were identified as the highest vulnerability by the Plan Update Steering Committee. General Vulnerabilities People • All residents and visitors are at -risk of injury or death from tornado and high wind events, especially those that: (1) are associated with the previously mentioned facilities and (2) lack access to a storm shelter or safe room. • Residents of Mobile Home Parks - Most frequently identified vulnerable population. Most mobile home park residents believed to lack access to safe rooms. Often lower -income and, sometimes, a higher-than-average proportion of seniors. • Residents of Slab-on-Grade Construction • Seniors and residents needing support - Lower-income apartments and facilities/apartments for seniors, including CBRFs and nursing homes, and other group homes. Chippewa County has 6 nursing homes and 95 licensed assisted living facilities concentrated in the urban area. • Apartments with a high proportion of ESL residents. These populations may also be less familiar with the extent of local hazard risks, warning systems, resources, and appropriate actions. • Visitors and staff of parks, campgrounds, festivals, and other large gatherings are also a frequently identified vulnerability since most of these facilities lack safe rooms or storm shelters, and out of town visitors may not have access to an alternative. • As reflected in the community profile, Chippewa County’s population (and development) continues to grow, thus increasing overall exposure to tornados and high winds. • Volunteer management and storm clean -up poses its own challenges. Injuries and deaths during cleanup have occurred in the State. Above-Ground Structures • Most damage reported from past tornado events was to above -ground structures, such as homes, businesses, and institutional buildings. • Damaged buildings may pose additional safety concerns due to structural instability, damage to Page 50 of 153 SECTION III. 34 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan electrical systems, or gas leaks. • Building with large spans (e.g., school gyms, airport hangars, pole barns, gyms, factories) have a higher structural vulnerability. • Nearly all structures are vulnerable to damage. As of 2024, Chippewa County has over $6.2 billion in assessed improvements and personal property , not including tax-exempt buildings, such as city halls, fire stations, churches, and certain utilities. • The 2024 total Value of Improvements by jurisdiction type are as follows. o Towns: $3,525,942,700 o Villages: $782,824,400 o Cities: $1,894,884,200 Above-Ground Utilities • Above-ground power lines, especially in wooded areas, are a frequently identified infrastructure vulnerability. This extends to facilities, services, and oxygen -dependent populations without access to emergency power generators. This vulnerability is furth er explored in the Long-Term Power Outage threat sub-section. The lack of power can become deadly during periods of extreme temperatures. Mobile Homes • Mobile homes, especially those that are unanchored, are the most frequently mentioned vulnerability. • According to the National Weather Service, between 1995 and 2022, there were 1,702 tornado fatalities in the United States. Fifty-three percent (53%) of these fatalities occurred in mobile homes, which constitute less than ten percent of the nation’s housing supply. • The County is estimated to have 1,294 mobile homes in 2023, constituting about 4.4% of the total non-seasonal housing units. • As of January 2026 , Chippewa County had 20 licensed manufactured/mobile home parks , though some of these parks may be used for recreational or seasonal purposes . Most of the parks are located in the cities and villages. • The number of mobile homes as full -time residences and licensed mobile home parks have been slowly decreasing in the County. • It is not known whether many older mobile homes are anchored. Most communities do not require mobile homes to be anchored or tied down unless the mobile homes are newer and fall under more recent State installation codes. • Nearly all mobile home parks do not offer an on-site safe room. Most communities do not require new mobile home parks or slab -on-grade development to construct or designate a safe room, though this may be possible as part of a conditional use permit under zoning or as part of a licensing ordinance. Slab-on-Grade Construction • Residents in slab -on-grade homes and homes with crawlspaces (elevated and susceptible to lift) have a higher vulnerability than homes with basements. • Plan participants noted that a high proportion of the new construction occurring in the County is slab-on-grade in some areas. Campgrounds, Cabins, & Resorts • 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. The Summer 2010 windstorm that struck Cumberland’s municipal campground in nearby Barron County provides an excellent example of this elevated vulnerability. • In most cases, campgrounds or resorts are not required to construct or designate a safe room or develop emergency plans, though this may be possible as part of conditional use permitting in zoned municipalities. • Most public and private campgrounds and resorts do not offer an on-site safe room or have formal emergency plans, though emergency information is typically posted. Block restrooms can offer some protection, but very limited size capacity. County campgrounds lack sirens, though caretakers are equipped with NOAA all hazards radios. Page 51 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 35 • The County owns and operates three campgrounds with no on-site safe room: o Morris-Erickson Campground (Town of Sampson) – 28 camping sites. o Otter Lake Campground (northeast of Stanley) – 22 sites. o Pine Point Campground (west of Holcombe) – 48 sites • 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 fain tly 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. • Chippewa County is also 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. While the fest grounds near Cadott do not have an on- site storm shelter or safe room, an on -site storm shelter built to FEMA standards was constructed at the Northern Wisconsin State Fairgrounds in 2024 with mitigation grant funding. Local Economy • Manufacturing, warehousing, and commercial businesses that are large span structures noted as having a higher vulnerability. • Economic losses can be experienced when a business sustains direct damage from a tornado or high wind event or when supporting infrastructure (e.g., utilities, services) or supply chains are not available for extended periods. • A business closure may be temporary, but could have large impacts on the local economy and related services, while some smaller or struggling businesses may fail. Natural, Historic, & Cultural Resources • All above ground historic or cultural structures are vulnerable to tornado and high wind events. These structures have a high social value to the local community, but no unique vulnerabilities or concerns were identified. • There are no natural areas or environmental characteristics within the County that are uniquely less or more vulnerable to tornadoes or high winds. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • All above ground structures, including government buildings, EOCs, fire halls, and police departments are vulnerable. • Many such facilities lack emergency power generators. Not all communities have continuity plans for these services, though mutual aid for emergency services is relatively strong. Food, Water, Shelter • All above-ground structures are vulnerable. • Grain and milk production are significant contributors to the County’s economy and play a very important role in the food supply chain. Health & Medical • All above-ground structures are vulnerable. • 2 h ospitals have emergency plans and generators , though are significant concern due to their potentially vulnerable population s, emergency response functions, and importance to the community. • Senior care facilities and group homes are frequently mentioned as having a higher vulnerability. Most of these structures serve a vulnerable population and are single-story, slab-on-grade for ADA accessibility. Chippewa County has 6 nursing homes and 95 licensed assisted living facilities. Energy • Above-ground utilities are especially vulnerable in wooded areas due to falling trees or limbs. • See Long-Term Power Outage section. Page 52 of 153 SECTION III. 36 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Communications • Tornados and high winds can destroy above -ground communications infrastructure, including emergency communications towers. • Also see the Capability Assessment in Section IV, which discusses the status of current emergency communications infrastructure and systems. • Figure 7 shows the locations of the 24 community-owned warning sirens for tornado and severe weather warnings. The sub-plans in Supplements 5 & 6 describe the siren status for each city and village participating in this plan update. Transportation • Two communities, Cornell and Eau Claire (portion in Chippewa County), have airports with hangars, structures, and aircraft which can be particularly vulnerable to tornadoes and high winds; it was not confirmed if all aircraft kept on site are tied-down when not in use. Hazardous Materials • All above-ground structures are vulnerable, but no specific concerns noted. Elevated concern (i.e., potential spill/release) compared to many above-ground structures. Educational Institutions • Public primary and secondary schools are most frequently identified as having a high vulnerability due to the presence of school -age children and concentrations of students and staff. Indoor - and outdoor-event visitors also vulnerable. • Often multiple buildings at a single campus. All above -ground structures are vulnerable (serve children and can host large events), especially gyms or theaters if not hardened to withstand high winds. • There are 7 public school districts with school facilities in Chippewa County, in addition to the Chippewa Valley Technical College campus in the City of Chippewa Falls. • Chippewa County also has 13 smaller private schools, typically lacking larger span structures. • The following public educational institutions chose to be full participants in this mitigation plan update and are anticipated to adopt the plan: Chippewa Falls, Cornell, and Stanley-Boyd. A sub- plan for each of is included in Supplement 6. Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • All existing and future populations and development in the County are equally at risk of experiencing a tornado or high wind event. • As reflected in Section II.C. of the Community Profile, the County continues to grow in terms of population and new development, thus increasing overall exposure to tornados and high winds. • A high proportion of recent residential and commercial development is slab -on-grade construction without basements to serve as a safe room. This trend is expected to continue. • While mobile home development has been decreasing, the growing number of campgrounds and resorts with cabins is expected to continue. • The County has a large Plain Community population as discussed in Section II.C. The Amish, with their avoidance of electrical power, lack access to weather forecasts and severe weather warning systems. Other Assets • During the mitigation planning process, participants and stakeholders were asked to identify any planned or anticipated future assets that may be particularly or uniquely vulnerable to tornado or high wind events. No such future assets were identified. Mobile homes, in particular, are vulnerable to tornado and high wind events. Figure 7 on the following page shows the location of active mobile home parks in Chippewa County; not all park locations have been mapped. Many of these parks are located in the incorporated communities and within the range of sirens for weather warnings, but not all. Most are believed to not have convenient, quick access to safe rooms or other storm shelter. Page 53 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 37 Figure 7. Alert Warning Sirens and Licensed Mobile Home Communities Page 54 of 153 SECTION III. 38 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Projected Loss Estimates Table 6 provides tornado and high -wind loss estimates for Chippewa County. The County has experienced some very devastating tornados, though such events have been relatively infrequent. Since 1950, the County has experienced over $234 million in tornado damages when adjusted for inflation (an average of $6,704,622 per event). Using FEMA standards, the 93 injuries and 21 deaths from tornado events between 1950-2024 resulted in an additional $171,684,000 in total tornado losses (an average of $4,905,257 per reported tornado event). High wind losses for the County have been much lower with little or no damages reported for most of the 150 events. No deaths and 22 injuries have been reported for high wind events in Chippewa County between 1993-2024 for an additional $6,336,000 in high wind losses (or $4,760 per reported event). Table 6. Chippewa County Tornado & High Wind Loss Estimates Tornado Loss Estimates Avg. Damage per Tornado (1950-2024) Annual Probability Estimated Future Annual Loss (property & crops) Estimated Future Annual Loss (injury and death) $6,704,522 (35 reported events) 0.32 $2,145,477 $1,569,682 Thunderstorm-Related High Wind Loss Estimates Avg. Damage per Event (1993-2024) Annual Probability Estimated Future Annual Loss (property & crops) Estimated Future Annual Loss (injury and death) $55,298 (150 reported events) 4.84 $267,642 $204,442 Source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (WCWRPC). The methodology used to develop the tornado and high wind loss estimates in the previous table is based on the approach described in the State of Wisconsin THIRA & SPR. 11 The number of reported events, property damage, event probability , and past losses are all based on the NCDC storm event data previously summarized, including inflation for damages. 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. There are some important limitations to the above numbers: • The estimates in Table 6 are only based on those events reported to the NCDC during those time periods. Events and data prior to 1993 were not consistently reported, especially when those events only resulted in minor damages and injuries. And, as previously noted, the damages from many events were greatly under-reported and some significant events not reported at all. • High winds can also occur as part of a tornado event but are often reported as part of the tornado. 11 State of Wisconsin Homeland Security Council THIRA & SPR, updated January 2017. Page 55 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 39 FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Estimated Annual Losses FEMA’s NRI provides an alternative source of estimated annual losses (EALs), which yields significantly higher annual loss totals when compared to the previous estimates: Risk Factor Tornado Strong Wind EAL Rate – Population 1 per 771.21k 1 per 4.25m EAL Rate – Buildings $1 per $9.80k $1 per $23.22k EAL Rate – Agriculture $1 per $50.96k $1 per $7.92k Total EAL $2,795,023 $969,143 Exposure $786.07 billion $786.07 billion Events per year 0.4 2.6 Historic loss ratio Relatively Low Relatively Low Overall Loss Score 77.7 (Relatively Moderate) 82.2 (Relatively Moderate) According to the NRI data, tornadoes have the highest estimated annual losses of any natural hazard event ($2.8 million), followed by strong winds ($969,143), and cold waves ($ 817,616). Compared to the loss estimates on the previous page, the NRI data includes a slightly higher tornado probability (events per year), though lower estimated annual losses . High wind losses, however, were projected significantly higher within the NRI. Other Factors Influencing Future Losses 1. Population Growth & New Development. As noted previously, Chippewa County is continuing to grow, which increases the exposure to tornado and high wind events. 2. Long-Term Changes in Weather . The annual probability of tornado and high wind events will likely increase due to long-term weather patterns , but we are unable to confidently quantify the extent of this increase at this time. While initial studies suggest that changes in weather patterns may result in an increase in tornado and high wind events on a national level, it is not clear how the future probability of such events will change locally. See Section III.B. for additional discussion on the related effects of such changes in weather patterns. 3. Preparedness & Mitigation. Potential losses can be reduced through mitigation actions, such as the warning systems, use of safe rooms, anchoring of mobile homes and personal property, burying of overhead utilities, and public education initiatives. Page 56 of 153 SECTION III. 40 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan ii. THUNDERSTORMS, LIGHTNING, AND HAIL For this plan, thunderstorms include lightning and hail, and are intricately linked with some of the other hazards, such as tornadoes and flooding. Due to the similarities in impacts, thunderstorm high winds are discussed as part of the previous Tornadoes & High Winds 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.). For thunderstorm, lighting, and hail risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities, and educational institutions please refer to Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard – Thunderstorms, Lightning, & Hail 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. Heavy Rain definitions can vary based on factors such as duration, intensity, and location. For purposes of this plan, a heavy rain event is a 100-year event. 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 50,000 F. This rapid heating and subsequent cooling cause 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. An expanded definition is located in Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.D. Hazard Location & Extent There are no geographic boundaries or locations within Chippewa County uniquely affected by or from thunderstorm, heavy rain, lightning, or hail events; all Chippewa County jurisdictions are equally at risk of experiencing these types of severe weather. Heavy rain intensities for 100-year rainfall events for Chippewa County were previously identified in the definitions. The Mitigation Plan Supplement describes how lightning strike and hail intensities are measured. Page 57 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 41 NOAA tracks and reports severe thunderstorms using watches and warnings: Severe Thunderstorm Watch Severe thunderstorms are possible in and near the watch area. Stay informed and be ready to act if a severe thunderstorm warning is issued. The watch area is typically large, covering numerous counties or even states. Severe Thunderstorm Warning Severe weather has been reported by spotters or indicated by radar. Warnings indicate imminent danger to life and property. Take shelter in a substantial building. Get out of mobile homes that can blow over in high winds. Warnings typically encompass a much smaller area (around the size of a city or small county) that may be impacted by a large hail or damaging wind identified by an NWS forecaster on radar or by a trained spotter/law enforcement who is watching the storm. Event History – Thunderstorm, Lightning, & Hail Since 1982, Chippewa County has experienced a low number of reported lightning events (10). In comparison, Chippewa County has been a hotspot for hail events (105). Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.D. includes maps showing the distribution of lightning and hail events statewide since 1982. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Summary The table below provides a summary of the thunderstorm events that have been reported to the National Climatic Data Center for Chippewa County since 1993 . From 1993 to 2024, Chippewa County experienced 268 severe thunderstorm, lightening, and hail events of varying magnitude, for an average of approximately of nine events reported each year. Thunderstorm, Heavy Rain, Lightning, & Hail Event Summary 1/1/1993 - 12/31/2024 Total Events: 268 Number of Events Per Year: 8.65 Total Event Days: 134 Number of Event Days Per Year: 4.32 Total Injuries: 24 Total Deaths: 0 Total Event Days with Property Damage: 28 Property Damage (from NCDC): $ 4,831,000 Property Damage (adjusted for inflation): $ 8,698,969 • 268 events were reported on 134 event days, reflecting that many of the events reported are for the same storm cells recorded for different parts of the County. • The 268 events include (reported damages are 2024 dollars when adjusted for inflation.): o Seven heavy rain events on five event days with no reported damage o 105 hail events on 59 days with $35,652 in reported property damage, no reported crop damage, and no injuries or deaths. o 10 lightning events on 8 different event days with 0 deaths and 2 injuries, and $404,536 in property damage and no reported crop damage. o 146 thunderstorm wind events on 80 event days with $ 7,759,276 in reported property damage, $499,505 in reported crop damage, 22 injuries and no deaths. Page 58 of 153 SECTION III. 42 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Significant Chippewa County Events The Tornado & High Winds section previously highlighted the most significant thunderstorm wind events in recent history. Flooding as a result of heavy rain is discussed in the Flooding section. Ten of the injuries reported in the NCDC database for Chippewa County 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. As reported in the NCDC, a May 1996 thunderstorm also had high winds that caused significant damage throughout the County. 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. Hazard Probability—Thunderstorms, Lightning, & Hail The Plan Steering Committee rated thunderstorms, lightning, and hail events as having a moderate probability of occurrence in Chippewa County and some to moderate vulnerability (impact). The Tornado & High Winds section discusses the probability of high wind events, which were rated by the Plan Steering Committee as having a moderate probability of occurrence and vulnerability. Based on the thunderstorm events since 1993 and the National Risk Index (NRI), it is probable that Chippewa County will experience: • 4.5 to 5 thunderstorm wind events (or about 2 .5 event days) per year with strong winds causing the most damage • 3 to 3.5 hail events per year (on 1.5 to 2 event days), with serious hail damage being relatively rare (1 serious event every 20-30 years). Due to the l imited NCDC data for lightning events, damage or injur ies, a probability estimate for lightning events is not included , though more lightning damage has been reported than hail damage in the database. However, every thunderstorm produces lightning, so the thunderstorm probability above also applies to lightning. The NRI suggests Chippewa County experiences 3 1.6 lightning events per year, making it the most frequent hazard facing the County; it is suspected that multiple reports can be attributed to a single thunderstorm. According to the NOAA, the odds of a person being struck by lightning in a given year are one in 1.2 million and almost 90% of victims live. Based on stakeholder and local official input throughout the region, the NCDC data underestimates the frequency of heavy rain events, so the probability for these events is not estimated here. Instead, it is more important to consider the probability and vulnerability of flooding induced by heavy rain events, which is discussed in Flooding threat section. The Tornadoes & High Winds and Flooding sections note that the probability of thunderstorm and heavy rain events, with accompanying lightning and hail, will likely increase in the future due to long-term weather patterns as discussed in Section III.B. Page 59 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 43 Vulnerability Assessment—Thunderstorms, Lightning, & Hail General Vulnerabilities People • Those attending festivals, fairgrounds, and outdoor recreation events are more vulnerable to experience a lighting vulnerability. On average 25 -30 people die each year from lightning strikes in the United States. Unlike a tornado event, lightning does not cause mass casualties, usually claiming one or two victims at a time. Lightning most often strikes people who engage in outdoor recreational activities or work outside. However, one-third of lighting victims are indoors. • The County has persons without housing who may lack sufficient shelter during lightning and hail events. Above-Ground Structures • Tall structures and towers – lightning usually strikes the tallest thing on the landscape. While Chippewa County does not have any skyscrapers, communication towers, water towers, and above-ground electrical infrastructure are all good lightning targets, including emergency communication towers and sirens. • Buildings, especially siding, windows, and roofs, are vulnerable to hail storms. Campgrounds • Limited shelter in the event of a thunderstorm or hailstorm. Local Economy • Power outages may disrupt or shutdown electronic business transactions / communications. Natural, Historic, & Cultural Resources • Forests – tall trees, especially on hillsides, are good lightning targets. • Lightning strikes can ignite older, wood structures. • Heavy rains and hail may cause damage to older structures and historic sites. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • Many of these facilities do not have storm shelters or emergency power generation. Food, Water, Shelter • Farms - the National Board of Fire Underwriters reports that lighting is the top cause of farm fires. Lighting is also responsible for more than 80 percent of all livestock losses due to accidents and millions of dollars in damage to farm buildings and equ ipment annually. In Wisconsin, insurance records show that one out of every fifty farms are struck by lightning or has a fire that may be caused by lightning each year. • Lightning strikes and related power surges also pose threats to utilities, lift stations, communications equipment, and airport runway lights. • Hail can cause defoliation of crops and result in financial losses for farmers. People and livestock can be injured, thought deaths are rare. Hail damage has been serious in the past and crop damage is often under -reported; it is estimated that only about half of farmers have crop insurance, especially for marginal land and some specialty farms and smaller vegetable growers. • Lightning can trigger wildfires in agricultural areas. See Wildfire section. Health & Medical • Vulnerability to potential loss of power mitigated through availability of on -site generators at hospitals Energy • Lightning strikes can cause power outages. • Hail exceeding 1” in diameter has the potential to damage solar panels / arrays. Communications • Lightning strikes can cause power outages. • Lightning strikes can cause damage to telecommunication equipment. Transportation • Hail can impact travel conditions and shatter windshields, causing accidents or delays. Hazardous Materials • None known. Educational Institutions • Lightning is a concern during outdoor gatherings, such as sporting events and parades. Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • Additional structures will increase the property damage impacts of hail events. • Additional development increases the impact of power outages on the community. • Taller and/or metallic structures are more susceptible to lightning strikes. Other Assets • During the mitigation planning process, participants and stakeholders were asked to identify any Page 60 of 153 SECTION III. 44 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan planned or anticipated future assets that may be particularly or uniquely vulnerable to thunderstorms and hail. No such future assets were identified. Potential Loss Estimates FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Estimated Annual Losses FEMA’s National Risk Index (NRI) suggests that Chippewa County’s losses to lightning and hail are relatively high, and provides the following expected annual losses (EALs) for the county: Risk Factor Lightning Hail EAL Rate – Population 1 per 7.30m 1 per 39.96m EAL Rate – Buildings $1 per $565.65k $1 per $2.88m EAL Rate – Agriculture -- $1 per $8.22k Total EAL $136,274 $55,379 Exposure $785.83 billion $786.07 billion Events per year 31.6 3 Historic loss ratio Relatively Low Very Low Overall Loss Score 63.8 (Relatively Low) 40.4 (Very Low) The above table suggests that Chippewa County is projected to experie nce annual lightning losses 2.5 times greater than hail losses. Based on $ 6.2 billion in 2024 assessed improvements, annual hail damage to Chippewa County’s buildings would be over $ 2,150 each year once tax-exempt structures are included. The NRI data also shows that the risk of injury to Chippewa County’s residents from lightning is much higher than that of hail, and a single lightning death would significantly increase the projected total lightning losses. As discussed in the community profile, 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 thunderstorm, hail, and lightning events. Page 61 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 45 iii. WINTER STORMS AND EXTREME COLD (including blizzards and ice storms) This sub-section highlights key winter storm and extreme cold -related information and the effects of these events. Supplement 2.E. of the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement provides additional details. For winter storm and extreme cold risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities , and educational institutions , please refer to Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard – Winter Storms & Extreme Cold 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. Snow Squall - An intense, short-lived burst of heavy snowfall that leads to quick reduction in visibilities and is often accompanied by gusty winds. This hazard is primarily a transportation- related concern; the combination of quick reductions in visibilities and sudden slick conditions on roadways can lead to high-speed collisions and pile-ups. Extreme Cold - Temperatures lower than historical averages that create a dangerous environment for people, animals, and critical infrastructure or services. Wind Chill - The apparent temperature that describes the combined effect of wind and air temperatures on exposed skin. Hazard Location & Extent There are no geographic boundaries or locations within Chippewa County uniquely affected by winter storms or extreme cold events. These events can occur anywhere in Chippewa County and such events often occur at a regional scale involving most or all Chippewa County communities as well as neighboring counties or even states when they occur. Page 62 of 153 SECTION III. 46 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Winter weather events are significant due to their scope and prolonged effects. Heavy snow, freezing temperatures, and ice can burst pipes, fell power lines, create dangerous travel conditions, and onset frostbite and/or hypothermia. Winter storm events a nd extreme cold can last for days as temperatures remain frigid. These events impact large contiguous areas, which limits the ability to seek emergency response or resources from nearby areas. Figure 8 identifies the potential impacts of varying intensities of winter storm events on an area as they increase in severity. NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) has produced a Regional Snowfall Index (RSI) that is used to rank snowstorm impacts, similar to the EF scale for tornadoes: The RSI includes population and considers societal impacts and allows for the description and comparison of historical snowfall events. As will be later discussed, RSI Category 5 events have occurred in the region. The Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.E. describes how ice accumulation and wind chills are measured. Event History – Winter Storms & Extreme Cold Regional trends on local winter storms and extreme cold events are detailed in Supplement 2.E. of the Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement. These winter-season events are typically regional in nature and are not limited to a localized area or Chippewa County. However, levels of snowfall or ice accumulation 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. Category RSI Value Description 1 1-3 Notable 2 3-6 Significant 3 6-10 Major 4 10-18 Crippling 5 18+ Extreme Figure 8. Winter Storm Impact Scale Page 63 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 47 National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Event Summary The table below summarizes winter weather events reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Chippewa County from 1993 to 2024. Winter Weather Event Summary Total Events: 107 Number of Events Per Year: 3.45 Total Event Days: 107 Number of Event Days Per Year: 3.45 Total Injuries: 0 Total Deaths: 1 Total Event Days with Property Damage: 0 Property Damage (from NCDC): $ 0 Property Damage (adjusted for inflation): $ 0 From 1993-2024, Chippewa County experienced 107 winter storm event days or about 3 -4 event days per year. These events were further characterized by 3 blizzards, 14 heavy snowfall events, 75 winter storm/winter weather events (mix of snow, ice, wind), 6 cold/wind chill events, 6 extreme wind chill or cold, and three ice storm/freezing rain events. Most events occurred between November and April, with a few events in April and October. Significant Chippewa County Events According to the Midwest Regional Climate Center, the annual snowfall for Chippewa County from 1991-2020 has averaged between 42 to 60 inches. Snowfall totals for 2018 -2019 approached, and perhaps exceeded in some areas, 100 inches. Below is a description of some of the worst snow storms in the State of Wisconsin since 2010 to present that potentially included Chippewa County; more historical events are described in the Hazard Mitigation Supplement. • 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 thundersn ow. 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 ice accumulations. Green Bay recorded a two-day Page 64 of 153 SECTION III. 48 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 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 tha n 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 l ine was still frozen. As will be discussed in the sub -plans in Supplement 5, 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 t he 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 in open country. The Eau Claire airport had three consecutive days (14, 15, & 16) of holding temperatures in the 20s or very low 30 s to break records for the lowest high Page 65 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 49 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 Ar ctic 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 dro pped 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. Seasonal snow accumulation and heavy snowfall events in recent years have made it a challenge for road crews and public works offices to find appropriate places to place snow that have been removed from roadways, parking lots, etc. Hazard Probability – Winter Storm & Extreme Cold The plan update Steering Committee ranked heavy snowstorms and blizzards and extreme cold as being of moderate probability and of some concern should an event occur. The Steering Committee ranked ice storms and sleet as the second highest rated natural hazards facing Chippewa County in te rms of combined risk and vulnerability, second only to tornados. Extreme cold/cold waves followed behind ice storms and sleet. The reoccurrence of winter storm events for Chippewa County is expected to be consistent with recent trends, with three to four severe winter storm events, on average, occurring each year. Snowy, slushy, or icy conditions on roadways from less severe events would be much more frequent. Should Wisconsin’s weather patterns continue to change as discussed previously, 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. As discussed previously, not all locally severe winter weather events are reported to the NCDC, so the above probabilities provide a range for event probability to consider these unreported events. Although the improvement of technology has enabled meteorologists to better identify and predict the conditions that are favorable for winter storm development, there is no precise way to predict the formation, location, and magnitude of future events over the long-term. As will be shown later in this section, the National Risk Index (NRI) reports a significantly higher annualized frequency for some of the above events; it is believed that the primary difference is due to the NCDC data being limited to severe storm events, while the NRI data may be including additional reported events regardless of intensity. Page 66 of 153 SECTION III. 50 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan It was speculated that while extreme cold events may be decreasing in frequency over time, the potential for heavy snow and ice storm events (and related power outages) may increase . The region’s historic snowfall records of the 2022 -2023 winter season, followed by the mild temperatures and low snowfall amounts of November -December 2023, are potential indications that such trends are already occurring. But it was also noted by some plan update participants that weather patterns are at times very erratic making it difficult, if not impossible, to predict future annual probabilities for specific event types. Vulnerability Assessment – Winter Storms & Extreme Cold General Vulnerabilities People • All residents and visitors are at-risk of injury or death from winter storms and extreme cold events, especially those that: (1) are associated with the previously mentioned facilities and (2) lack access to properly insulated and heated homes. • Prolonged exposure to the cold can result in hypothermia, frostbite, or death. • Snow accumulation on roads may cause delays in delivery of medical supplies and / or eliminate access to medical facilities and treatment centers. • Death may occur from over-exertion when clearing or shoveling snow. • The County has persons without housing who are exposed to extreme weather events, which can lead to illness, injury, and death. Compared to more urban counties, such as Dane, Milwaukee, Brown, and Eau Claire, the numbers of chronic homeless in the County i s significantly lower. • Seniors - Prolonged exposure to extreme cold temperatures can result in hypothermia, frostbite, and death. Dangerous travel conditions may limit or prevent access to goods, services, needed treatments (e.g., dialysis), needed medicines, and other medical facilities. Slipping on ice can cause serious injury or death. With a growing number of seniors in the County, this vulnerability will continue to grow. • Lower Income Individuals - Excessive cold spells drive up energy expenses, which could be a financial challenge for low-income households and seniors on fixed incomes. Residents of mobile home parks are often economically disadvantaged; see previous mobile home discussion. • 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 is one of the greatest hazard vulnerabilities facing the County. Above-Ground Utilities & Emergency Communications Infrastructure • Above-ground power lines, especially in wooded areas, were the most frequently identified infrastructure vulnerability due to the potential damage from ice and falling tree limbs, especially during high winds. This vulnerability is further explored in the Long-Term Power Outage threat sub-section. • Ice and heavy snow can damage electric infrastructure and topple trees, which can take down power lines. • Ice and frost can accumulate on, damage, and sever overhead power lines and above ground communications lines and towers. Underground Utilities • Underground utility lines, including water and sanitary sewer lines, can freeze and / or burst. These are especially vulnerable where there are very cold temperatures or inadequate insulting snow cover. Large or Clear Span Structures • Buildings with large spans (e.g., airport hangars, pole barns, gyms, factories) have a higher structural vulnerability during heavy snowfall events. • Roof damage may occur on any roof due to ice damming. However, these events are isolated and typically go unreported, making them difficult to track and quantify. • Most structures in the County were built to standards that considered snow loads and needed Page 67 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 51 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 d eadly. These events are often accompanied by cold temperatures, which can be deadly as the circumstances surrounding the 1996 event demonstrate. Mobile Homes • Mobile homes or temporary structures that may lack adequate insulation or heating systems, making them more vulnerable to extreme cold temperatures. Frozen or burst pipes due to prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures. Potentially leading to water damage or water supply issues. • Section II.C. and the tornado/high winds assessment in Section III.C. i. document the number of mobile homes and distribution of mobile home parks. • The number of mobile homes as full -time residences and licensed mobile home parks have been decreasing. Local Economy • Winter storm events make commercial activity difficult due to travel restrictions. Natural, Historic, & Cultural Resources • None known. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • Facilities lacking emergency power generators are vulnerable to power outages caused from down power lines. • Emergency response resources could be strained, including medical services, fire departments, and law enforcement, due to increased incidents, accidents, and challenges in access and mobility. • Many government buildings, EOCs, fire halls, and police departments lack emergency power generators. Not all communities have continuity plans for these services, though mutual aid for emergency services is relatively strong. Food, Water, Shelter • Resident populations may be vulnerable to exposure / cold temperatures due to power outages. • Sewer system backups can occur during extreme cold events due to freezing. Blockages and overflows in the municipal sewer system can impact homes, businesses and public areas; posing serious health hazards and potentially costly repairs and cleanups. • Outdated or insufficiently buried watermains can freeze and rupture causing water supply issues. Posing health and safety risks to citizens. 2014 Polar Vortex caused some breaks of water lines and laterals in some communities. • Crops and animals are vulnerable to cold temperatures. Fruit crops are particularly vulnerable from early or late freezes. • Unexpected early fall/winter and late spring/summer cold weather events can impact crop yields. Winter crops, such as alfalfa, are vulnerable to winter kill during periods of extreme cold without sufficient snow on the ground to help act as an insulator. In 2002-2003, some counties in the region lost 50 percent or more of the hay crop, which drove up costs for producers requiring supplemental feed purchases for livestock. 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. • Grain and milk production are significant contributors to the County’s economy and play a very important role in the food supply chain. Freezing and winter kill can be especially hard on fruit crops and alfalfa. Health & Medical • Hazardous road conditions can impair the function of these critical facilities if workers are unable to reach their place of work. • Senior care facilities and group homes have a high vulnerability. Most of these structures serve a vulnerable population and would be severely impacted during a power outage and extreme cold event. Some, but not all, have generators and/or fuel agreements. Most are believed to now have emergency plans addressing such circumstances. Page 68 of 153 SECTION III. 52 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • The County’s two hospitals were identified as being a significant concern due to their potentially vulnerable population, emergency response functions, and importance to the community. • Hospitals and larger facilities have emergency plans and generators. Energy • Ice and heavy snow can topple trees and take down power lines and communications infrastructure. See Long-Term Power Outage section. Communications • Ice and heavy snow can topple trees and take down power lines and communications infrastructure. Transportation • Roadways, bridges, and transportation systems may be affected by icy conditions, snow accumulation, or reduced visibility, resulting in hazardous driving conditions, accidents, and restricted mobility. Ice and snow can result in accidents and restrict travel. It is suspected that icy conditions caused a three-vehicle crash with one fatality and one serious injury. • Not only can hazardous roads conditions and closures due to ice, snow pack, and drifting snow cause injuries, but can also disrupt a range of services, hinder emergency responses/law enforcement, require school closures, and temporarily interrupt shipping. • Roads in shaded, wooded areas can be especially icy and hazardous. • Sudden freezing and thawing events can deteriorate roadways. Winter maintenance costs of roadways can be very expensive and burdensome. • Culverts and other stormwater systems can be prone to ice -damming resulting in localized flooding, which is further discussed in the Flooding threat sub-section. • Two communities, Cornell and Eau Claire (portion in Chippewa County) have hangars, structures, and aircraft that can be particularly vulnerable to winter storms. Hazardous Materials • No specific concerns noted. Educational Institutions • During severe winter and extreme cold events, most educational institutions will be cancelled or moved to online due to a decreased amount of mobility. • Typically there are multiple buildings at any single campus. All above -ground structures are vulnerable, especially gyms or theaters. • Public primary and secondary schools are most frequently identified as having a high vulnerability due to the presence of school -age children and concentrations of students and staff. Indoor - and outdoor-event visitors are also vulnerable. • See subplans in Section VII.B. for any unique concerns for participating institutions. Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • As reflected in Section II.C., the County continues to grow in population and new development, thus increasing overall exposure to winter storms. • The number of seniors in the County is increasing, so the vulnerabilities to this population and community lifelines serving this population are expected to increase. Other Assets • During the mitigation planning process, participants and stakeholders were asked to identify any planned or anticipated future assets that may be particularly or uniquely vulnerable to Winter Storm events; no unique concerns were noted. Projected Loss Estimates Overall, there is a 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 cl aim. It is unfeasible to maintain a database accurately detailing the structural condition of all assessed improvements in Chippewa County to determine which structures may be more vulnerable to the impacts of future winter storm events. And no NCDC winter weather damages were reported on which to reliably project future winter weather loss estimates for severe winter storm events without a more intensive study. FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Estimated Annual Losses Page 69 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 53 As a substitute, the National Risk Index provides the following expected annual losses (EALs) for Chippewa County and suggests that winter weather, ice storm, and cold wave events in the County have similar loss exposures: Risk Factor Winter Weather Ice Storm Cold Wave EAL Rate – Population 1 per 8.40m 1 per 1.14m 1 per 1.12m EAL Rate – Buildings $1 per $485.01k $1 per $1.09m $1 per $4.18m EAL Rate – Agriculture $1 per $85.47k -- $1 per $1.95k Total EAL $130,592 $687,075 $817,616 Exposure $786.07 billion $781.74 billion $786.07 billion Events per year 5.9 0.4 1.4 Historic loss ratio Relatively Low Relatively Moderate Very Low Overall Loss Score 73.9 (Relatively Moderate) 92 (Relatively High) 92 (Relatively High) The above loss estimates further suggest that agriculture is the County ’s largest winter -related vulnerability financially, though ice storm events poses a substantia l r isk to residents. Based on Chippewa County’s 2020 population of 66,297 and the above EAL rate, one County resident will be seriously injured by an ice storm event about once every 17 years. The continuing changes in land-use and development patterns can influence the County’s potential for future exposure to winter storms. As discussed in Section II.C., Chippewa County is continuing to grow and develop despite the State projecting a decrease in population within the County in the future. This creates an increasing exposure to the number of residents and properties that could be at risk from future winter storm or extreme cold events. Page 70 of 153 SECTION III. 54 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan vi. EXTREME HEAT This sub-section highlights extreme heat information and the effects of these events. Supplement 2.F. of the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement provides additional details. For extreme heat risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities, and educational institutions, please refer to the subplans in Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard - Extreme Heat 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 each extreme heat event. The Hazard Mitigation Supplement details the National Weather Service heat - related announcements and advisory warnings. Hazard Location & Extent There are no geographic boundaries of locations within Chippewa County uniquely affected by extreme heat events. All Chippewa County jurisdictions are equally at risk of experiencing an extreme heat event. The Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.F. describes how heat events (potential intensities) are measured using the National Weather Service (NWS) heat index. Event History – Extreme Heat Regional trends on local extreme heat events are detailed in the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.F. 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, tor nados, floods, and earthquakes combined. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Event Summary The table below summarizes extreme heat events reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Chippewa County from 1993 to 2024. During this period, Chippewa County experienced eight extreme heat events, though the 1999 and 2001 events could be considered part of a single heat wave lasting multiple days. The July 2011 heat wave that struck Wisconsin increased local awareness of extreme heat risks and vulnerabilities and prompted the inclusion of this assessment subsection in the County’s Hazard Mitigation Plan. During the 4 - to 5-day stretch, maximum heat indices peaked in the 105ºF to 115ºF range over much of the State, though the heat wave was not as intense in Chippewa County compared to some areas of the State. Three fatalities in Wisconsin were directly attributed to this event. Page 71 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 55 Chippewa County Extreme Heat Events – 1993-2024 Date Type Deaths Injuries Property or Crop Damage 7/23/1999 Heat 0 0 No damages reported 7/29/1999 Heat 0 0 7/20/2001 Heat 1 0 7/31/2001 Heat 0 0 8/1/2001 Heat 0 0 8/4/2001 Heat 0 0 7/31/2006 Heat 0 0 7/18/2011 Excessive Heat 0 0 source: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), 2024. As shown in the table, the NCDC database records did not identify any deaths or injuries from excessive heat events within Chippewa County, though deaths and injuries often go unreported to the database. The NCDC data does not reflect recent community and stakeholder perceptions and experiences when it comes to extreme heat events. While still a relatively lower risk compared to the other natural hazards of significant risk, extreme heat was frequently me ntioned as a growing concern during plan update meetings and stakeholder interviews. This is consistent with the National Risk Index estimate of 0.6 extreme heats for Chippewa County per year, which is much more frequent than the NCDC data suggests. Hazard Probability - Extreme Heat The Plan Steering Committee rated extreme heat as some to moderate probability and vulnerability in Chippewa County. During the plan update, social services and health providers were generally more concerned with extreme heat than local officials; the 2025 NWERC Health Vulnerability Assessment identifies extreme heat as the region’s second highest natural hazard from a p ublic health perspective, only behind extreme cold. Based on the NCDC data, FEMA’s National Risk Index, and the weather- pattern changes discussed in Section III.B., it is estimated that Chippewa County (and the greater region) will experience an extreme heat event once every 2 to 3 years on average, with a single event potentially lasting multiple days. However, the frequency of these events is anticipated to increase and this probability estimate should continue to be re-assessed as part of future mitigation plan updates. Vulnerability Assessment - Extreme Heat General Vulnerabilities People • Prolonged exposure to high temperatures can result in dehydration, heat stroke, and death. • Persons without housing may lack access to air conditioning or shelter. • Prolonged periods of high temperatures increase energy consumption/costs placing financial strain on lower-income households. • Seniors, persons on certain medications, pregnant women, children, and outdoor workers are more vulnerable to extreme heat. Page 72 of 153 SECTION III. 56 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • Populations residing in older structures and mobile homes may lack sufficient air conditioning/HVAC systems or insulation. Mobile Homes • Mobile homes can become very hot if there is a lack of sufficient air conditioning. Campgrounds, Cabins, & Resorts • Facilities may lack sufficient cooling stations. Local Economy • No significant impacts identified. 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. Natural, Historic, & Cultural Resources • Long periods of extreme heat can stress vegetation and wildlife. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • Personnel face increased health risks while operating under high temperatures. Food, Water, Shelter • 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. 12 Extreme heat can also have along -term livestock reproductive and herd size management issues. Within confined livestock buildings, health can also result in deaths, especially should power be lost, which has occurred in the region when a generator failed. 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. Health & Medical • Increased demand on services , including emergency responders, during periods of extreme heat due to dehydration, heat stroke, and other related health risks. Energy • Increased demand on services can result in “brown outs” or other power outages. • Most communities lack cooling shelters with emergency power generators. Communications • None known. Transportation • Prolonged exposure to extreme heat can cause buckling in pavement. 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 patrols may be ordered. Hazardous Materials • Certain chemicals, gases, and other hazardous materials can be impacted by extreme heat results in a release, fire, or explosion. Care must be used to properly store these materials during extreme heat events. Educational Institutions • Students participating in sporting events/practice or marching band have an elevated risk of heat - related illnesses. Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • Exposure / impact from extreme heat is consistent throughout the County but will grow as the County’s population increases and with the growing senior population • Additional development will increase demand on energy and water supply during extreme heat events. • Additional development may increase the “heat island” effect if it increases the amount of paved surfacing and removes green space / canopy. Overall, Chippewa County has one of the lowest Heat Vulnerability Index scores in the State according to the Wisconsin Department of Health Services. This score considers population density, health factors, the local environment, and other socio-economic factors. 12 http://www.wbay.com/story/19037284/2012/07/16/milk -production-takes-a-dip-with-extreme-heat Page 73 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 57 Projected Loss Estimates FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Estimated Annual Losses FEMA’s NRI provides a source of estimated annual losses (EALs) for Chippewa County with a heat wave hazard. Risk Factor Heat Wave EAL Rate – Population 1 per 2.58m EAL Rate – Buildings $1 per $63.63m EAL Rate – Agriculture $1 per $29.25k Total EAL $306,054 Exposure $786.07 billion Events per year 0.6 Historic loss ratio Relatively Low Overall Loss Score 74.7 (Relatively Moderate) Out of eleven hazard types for Chippewa County, heat wave is the fifth highest in expected annual losses with a value of $ 306,054, primarily due to the estimated losses to agriculture. Based on Chippewa County’s 2020 population of 66,297 and the above EAL rate, one County resident will be seriously injured by extreme heat about once every 39 years. Page 74 of 153 SECTION III. 58 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Other Factors Influencing Future Losses 1. Population growth and new development. As the population increases and ages, it is only natural that the exposure to extreme heat events will also increase. As previously noted, urban areas can experience an urban heat island effect, which would increase as more development and hardscape (e.g. buildings, concrete sidewalks and parking lots, asphalt roads and driveways) occur. A significant urban heat island effect is not anticipated to occur in Chippewa County. 2. Long-Term Weather Pattern Changes. As noted previously, the probability of extreme heat events is projected to increase. 3. Preparedness & Mitigation. Section III.B. discusses some potential adaptation strategies to mitigate extreme heat. Stakeholders during the plan update also recognized the potential of extreme heat events occurring during a period of power outage, which is discussed further in the Long-Term Power Outage section. 4. Access to Cooling Centers or Emergency Shelters. During the 202 6 Plan update, there was increased interest in identifying cooling centers or emergency shelters with emergency power generators compared to previous mitigation plans. Most communities lack such centers or, in other cases, local officials were unaware if a shelter has been designated. Most of these places lack an emergency generator. This interest and concern was not equally shared among all communities. Page 75 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 59 v. FLOODING (including dam failure, riverine, & overland flooding) This section is organized differently than the previous natural hazard assessments given that the flooding assessment followed by a brief analysis of Chippewa County’s dams. The Plan Supplement 2.G provides additional details. For flooding risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities, and school districts, please refer to the subplans in Plan Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard – Flooding 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) stormwater or overland flooding, (2) lake or riverine flooding, and (3) flooding resulting from dam failure , which is discussed later on in this sub-section. Stormwater Flooding (Overland) and Flash Flooding (Overbank or Overland) - The type of flooding which occurs primarily from surface runoff as a result of intense rainfall is referred to as stormwater flooding or overland 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 runoff from that single home. 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 r ain 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 a week or two, then slowly recedes. Generally, the timing and location of this type of flooding is fairly predictable and allows ample time for evacuation of people and property. Floodplain – Associated with a surface water (overbank flooding), a floodplain is land that has been or may be covered by floodwater during a flood event and includes the floodway and flood fringe areas . Within this plan, the use of the term “floodplain” is referring to the 100 -year floodplain as officially delineated under FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) unless otherwise specified. Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.G explores the flood-related definitions in greater detail. Hazard Location & Extent Overbank and overland flooding occur throughout parts of Chippewa County. Areas within the 1 00- year floodplain are most likely to experience riverine or overbank flooding, while areas prone to overland Page 76 of 153 SECTION III. 60 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan or stormwater flooding are influenced by a variety of factors (e.g., topography, high water table, stormwater system capacity, land use). During the plan update process, communities and stakeholders have expressed increasing concerns with overland, flash flooding, which can occur throughout the County and especially in areas of hilly terrain and/or with higher groundwater tables. The NFIP classifies flooding through the use of recurrence intervals: Table 7. NFIP Flood Recurrence Intervals Flood Recurrence Interval Chance of occurrence during any given year 5-year 20% 10-year 10% 50-year 2% 100-year 1% 500-year .20% The federal standard for floodplain management under the NFIP is the “100-year floodplain.” This area is chosen using historical data such that in any given year there is a 1% chance of a ‘base flood’ (also known as “100-year flood” or “regulatory flood”). A base flood is one that covers or exceeds the 100 - year floodplain. NFIP-designated floodplain areas are shown on maps later within this subsection . The 100 -year floodplain should be considered as Chippewa County’s high flood -hazard risk area s. The 100 -year floodplains are shown as the “A” or “AE” zones on NFIP’s F lood 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 for which insurance should be considered but fall outside the regulated 100 -year floodplain. The remaining unshaded “X” zones on the FIRM maps should be considered the low-risk flood-hazard areas but may still be prone to stormwater or flash flooding. The current Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for Chippewa County were made effective in February 2009, then amended in October 2023, and are available in a digital format (D-FIRMs). The County’s Floodplain Zoning Ordinance has been updated for consistency with the most recent State model and is enforced. Chippewa County National Flood Insurance Program & Flood Mapping Status Initial Flood Hazard Boundary Map: None Date Community First Joined NFIP (Reg-Emer) 6/22/73 Initial Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Identified: 6/22/73 Current Effective FIRM Date: 10/19/23 NFIP Participation Status (and reason if not participating): participating in good standing Floodplain Regulations w/ NFIP standards: adopted & enforced Designated position or committee for floodplain management, floodplain zoning, & NFIP compliance: County Planning & Zoning Administrator Page 77 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 61 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. Utilizing RiskMAP grant funding, WDNR has been working with Chippewa County to update its D - FIRMs with adoption of the new maps anticipated in 2026. However, some key locations still lack regional flood elevations (e.g., no Zone AE for Lake Wissota). All applicable cities and villages have adopted the revised NFIP maps and are fully participating in the NFIP program. 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 10/19/23 New Auburn yes 7/19/74 12/3/09 4/16/14 Bloomer yes 5/24/74 8/19/91 4/16/14 Chippewa Falls yes none 9/1/77 10/19/23 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 While these 100-year floodplains are most likely to experience overbank flooding, it is important to note that the geographic delineation of floodplain areas is estimated based on various data inputs, which may include topography, hydrology, climatology, and historic records, and that flood inundation can occur in areas not mapped as flood hazard areas Additional high-hazard flood areas can exist that are not shown on the FIRMs; other areas prone to flooding are discussed later in this sub-section and in the city/village subplans. New and changing floodplains and flood -prone areas can also occur with changes in land cover, development, and long-term weather patterns. 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. Event History – Flooding Regional flooding trends are detailed in the Hazard Mitigation Supplement, which notes: • Wisconsin has experienced a significant flooding event at least once every decade since 1880. • Flood events tend to cause the most widespread damage of all Wisconsin’s natural hazards. Since 1992, flood damages from major events in Wisconsin have exceeded $2.3 trillion. • There have been very few dam failures resulting in major damage or loss of life in Wisconsin. 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 . The failure of the Tilden Pond Dam in 2019 Page 78 of 153 SECTION III. 62 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan resulted in damage at a downstream campground; this is the only significant dam failure in the County in recent history. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) Events The table below summarizes flooding events reported by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Chippewa County from 1993 to 2024. Data for flood events is not available prior to 1993. Flood, Flash Flood & Heavy Rain Events Summary (1/1/1993 to 12/31/2024) Total Events: 28 Number of Events Per Year: 0.90 Total Event Days: 22 Number of Event Days Per Year: 0.71 Total Injuries: 0 Total Deaths: 0 Total Event Days with Property Damage: 8 Property Damage (from NCDC): $ 1,147,000 Property Damage (adjusted for inflation): $ 1,559,700 18 of the 19 reported events from 1993 to 2024 were flash flooding events. No injuries or deaths associated with these events were reported. No recent history of dam breaks with significant impacts in Chippewa County were identified during the planning effort. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Policies & Claims To protect landowner confidentiality, detailed NFIP policy and claim information is not available. As of July 31, 2025, there were a total of 92 active National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) flood insurance policies in Chippewa County: Community # of Policies Total Coverage Total Premium + Federal Policy Fee City of Bloomer 13 $2,309,000 $17,423 Village of Cadott 1 $350,000 $1,002 Chippewa County (unincorporated areas) 46 $9,178,000 $53,623 City of Chippewa Falls 5 $1,424,000 $8,545 City of Eau Claire (Chipp Co portion) 9 $1,485,000 $18,418 Village of Lake Hallie 14 $3,154,000 $22,404 City of Stanley 4 $1,543,000 $6,501 Total 92 $19,443,000 $127,916 Though the list changed some, this is the same total number of policies since the 2020 Plan. Continued local enforcement of floodplain zoning and stormwater management regulations, which reduces the number of floodprone structures, may also be influencing NFIP participation. Half of the policies were located in the unincorporated towns. Page 79 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 63 Past NFIP claims were summarized in the 2020 Plan; updated NFIP claims information was not readily available. 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 (RLPs) are those properties participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) for which two or more claims of $1,000 or more in a 10 -year period have been paid. According to Wisconsin Emergency Management in 2024, Chippewa County has no repetitive loss properties. However, the 2020 Plan suggested that Chippewa County had 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 av erage 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, which is why they may no longer be appearing on RLP lists. During the 2020 Plan update in particular, 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, an d smaller, localized flooding events. Significant Chippewa County 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 cr ops, 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 over $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. While Chippewa County has a long history of overbank/riverine flooding, related damages in the last 50 years have been relatively small. With increasing heavy rain events, overland stormwater and flash flooding have been a greater risk since 1990. Page 80 of 153 SECTION III. 64 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Four of the five Federal Major Disaster Declarations that included Chippewa County—Summer 1993, September 2002, Summer 2004, & September 2016 —involved flooding, though high winds were the primary source of damages in the County for some of these events. While some scattered basement flooding has occurred in recent decades, most flood damage in the County has been to roads and culverts. Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.G. details significant flooding events in Chippewa County, which include the following more recent characteristics: • 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. The Supplement includes a list of public flood damages reported by the communities. • 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 Campgrou nd below 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. Increasing heavy rain events and associated flooding has also increased stormwater runoff, river/stream bank erosion, and pollutant- and sediment-loading into surface waters. These trends can be exacerbated in areas where more development is occurring or by changes in land management. Areas Prone to Flooding 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 da m 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. During the mitigation planning process, County staff and local officials identified a number of areas in unincorporated Chippewa County that are particularly prone to flooding as shown in Figure 9. Flooding concerns of cities, villages, and educational facilities are detailed in the subplans. Page 81 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 65 Figure 9. Areas Prone to Flooding (Unincorporated Towns Only) Page 82 of 153 SECTION III. 66 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 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, especially if there has been an early spring thaw and the ground is still partially frozen. 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 vehicl e 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. CTH “OO” in the Town of Hallie, which travels through a wetlands area, has been underwater at times and has washed out. Over-the-road flooding during the spring or after heavy rains has also occurred on CTH “F” south of CTH “N” near the railroad crossing. Some scattered home/basement flooding concerns also in the Towns of Anson, Lafayette, and Sampson. Flooding problems in the Village of New Auburn , City of Chippewa Falls, and City of Stanley also fall into this category ; see their respective sub -plans in Supplement 5. The Town of Woodmohr noted the importance of “cleaning out” ditches to maintain adequate stormwater storage. 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 and c ulvert freeze -ups can potentially occur anywhere in the County and contribute to flooding and washouts, more serious 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 e very 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. The State reconstructed part of this area, but it didn’t remedy the problem. 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 within the Village of Lake Hallie and City of Eau Claire north and west of the Airport and the Sportsmen’s Club area, including concerns with dryland access for a number of homes. Some basement flooding has occurred in the past. 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 Page 83 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 67 and June 1990. However, according to NFIP records, mitigation activities to further limit damage may have been undertak en 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 past mitigation plans have been addressed. For example, significant roadway improvements have been made along STH 125, STH 178, and on CTH “X” near 67 th Avenue. And while high groundwater tables and poor drainage often contribute to the flooding “hotspots” in Figure 9, 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. 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. Over 3,000 acres of cropped (non-forest) agricultural land falls within the 100 -year floodplains of Chippewa County. While crop damage due to flooding has been experienced in some areas, statistics regarding crop losses in the past or future vulnerability due to flooding are not readily available. An exception is the June 1993 flooding for which crop losses were estimated at $570,000, with floodwaters destroying 775 acres of corn, 500 acres of soybeans, 450 of kidney beans, and 200 acres of oats and forage crops. Potential agricultural 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. 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 Page 84 of 153 SECTION III. 68 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan to other agricultural croplands, f orested 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. Hazard Probability – Flooding The Plan Steering Committee rated the probability and vulnerability of both riverine (overbank) flooding and overland (stormwater) flooding as being moderate. Flooding in Chippewa County will continue to be a significant risk for residents, infrastructure, and improvements. 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 pot ential damages have been largely mitigated. Based recent trends, it is likely that Chippewa County will continue to experience a significant, damage-causing flood event every 1.0 to 1.5 years on average, though damage may be localized. Some localized flooding and stormwater ponding with limited impacts can be expected annually or even more frequently after heavy rain events. Some of these events may be localized in nature, only impacting a portion of the County. 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. Based on flood events since 2000, the frequency of these events may be increasing . Riverine overbank flooding and larger flash flooding events (e.g., 1993, 2000, 2016) resulting in serious damage to structures and infrastructure can be anticipated about once every 10 to 15 years, most frequently in the spring months , though flooding during other summer and early fall months due to heavy rainfall may be increasing . 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. Flooding on seepage lakes is very difficult to predict due to the cyclical nature of the groundwater levels and droughts. Flash flooding due to heavy rains will be the most frequent cause of flood damage in the County and can occur at any time of the year. The increasing frequency of heavy rain events, plus warmer, wetter winters, is anticipated to increase the flooding probability over time; this is consistent with longer-term flood event trends. Those areas most prone to the typical annual riverine flooding associated with snow melt are well known a nd potential damages have been largely mitigated. Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.G, along with city and village subplans, addresses localized variance in flood frequency. Page 85 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 69 Vulnerability Assessment – Flooding Note: Except for roads and highways, and occasional infiltration of wastewater systems in some communities, no significant flood history of community lifeline facilities was noted. General Vulnerabilities People • Individuals in flooded areas may drown or be cut off from critical life-saving services. See flood assessment in main text that identifies residential properties potentially located within 100 -year floodplain as well as city/village subplans. Underground Structures/Basements • Prolonged exposure to flood conditions can result in structural defects or other property damage. • No specific concerns noted, but at greater risk of taking on water during flood events. Mobile Homes • Unanchored homes are at risk of being swept away during flood events. • No mobile home parks were identified as being located within a 100-year floodplain. Campgrounds, Cabins, & Resorts • Typically located near a water source, these sites are at an increased risk of being inundated with water during a flood event. • At least one campground is located within 100-year floodplain and a dam shadow. Local Economy • Property damage from flood events may cause business closures. • No specific concerns from riverine flooding noted, though some communities have reported stormwater flooding problems that can impact access or cause damage. Natural, Historic, & Cultural Resources • Resources located along waterways have a higher risk of damage during flood events. • No specific concerns noted. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • Personnel are exposed to life -threatening conditions when serving individuals caught in flooded areas. Food, Water, Shelter • Croplands, livestock, and farm facilities within floodplain or stormwater drainage areas can be lost or damaged due to riverine or overland flooding, though the County’s farmers are generally aware of the floodprone areas and associated risks on their properties and rented lands. Cropland practices, drain tiling, etc., have the potential to exacerbate runoff, resulting in flooding down - gradient. Further, heavy rain events can result in runoff from feedlots and manure storage facilities and impact surface water quality. • Livestock can be lost to flood waters. • After a flood event, it is important that the public understands that private wells may be contaminated and testing is strongly encouraged. Sewer systems can also back -up in flooding resulting in public health concerns. Health & Medical • Flooded roads may limit access to essential medical services. Energy • Hydroelectric dams are exposed to increased pressures during flood events. • Dam failures can be the cause of flood events and may impact additional facilities downstream. See dam analysis at the end of the flood assessment within Section III.C. Communications • None noted. Transportation • The washout of roads, culverts, bridge abutments, etc., have been the primary storm -related damage in recent decades. Traveling on flooded roadways or unexpectedly encountering a wash - out culvert/shoulder poses the highest risk of injury or death. • Travelers in the region (not Chippewa County) have died in recent decades when attempting to cross flooded areas or when encountering an unmarked road washout at night. Hazardous Materials • Flooding in areas with hazardous materials may allow unencapsulated materials to flow downstream or leach into the groundwater. • No specific concerns noted. Educational Institutions • See subplans in Section VII.B. for any specific flooding concerns for participating institutions. Page 86 of 153 SECTION III. 70 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • Shoreland zoning and other restrictions prohibit development in floodways or require flood mitigation activities. • Populations located in low lying areas or near water bodies are more vulnerable than those in higher elevations or outside the floodplain. • Developed areas with large areas of impervious surfaces, heavier soils, and hardscape are more prone to stormwater or flash flooding or the flooding of nearby areas. Such flooding can also infiltrate or overwhelm municipal sanitary or storm sewer systems. Other Assets • During heavy rains, some communities have problems with stormwater entering the wastewater system through manholes, lift stations, or basements. These problems may increase as additional impervious surface is added through development without careful planning or mitigation. • Of the community lifeline facilities listed as mapped in Section III.D., five were identified as potentially being located, in whole or part, within the 100 -year floodplain, not including roads, bridges, and dams: o 1 Assisted Living/Dialysis Facility in Bloomer o Bloomer City Shop/Maintenance Facility o Wastewater Plants in Chippewa Falls, Cadott, and Stanley • No flooding history or unique vulnerabilities were reported for any of these locations. The above flood vulnerabilities do not include the potential losses due to dam failure, which are discussed at the end of the flooding hazard assessment in Section III.C. For most dams, the potential vulnerabilities would be similar to those of the associated 100-year floodplain downstream of the dam. Projected Loss Estimates (Potential Structures in the 100-Year Floodplain) The amount of impervious surfaces near lakes and rivers has grown significantly in recent decades. Generally, stricter enforcement of floodplain zoning, shoreland ordinances, and a decrease in available shoreland properties has limited new floodplain development. Through the use of current D -FIRM maps and G.I.S. parcel data, those principal structures potentially located within a 100 -year floodplain were identified by the Chippewa County GIS staff . When supplemented by the previously discussed flood history and floodprone areas map , this analysis identifies potential floodprone structures t o help guide the development and prioritization of flood mitigation strategies. A full description of the flood assessment methodology and related data challenges is included in Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.G. Figure 10 identifies the 100-year floodplains within Chippewa County along with the location of parcels within or overlapping the floodplains with assessed improvements. Figure 10 is followed by Table 8, which provides a synopsis of those potentially floodprone structures by municipality. The assessed use and estimated value of improvements is based on 2025 tax data for those parcels associated with each of the principal structures identified in Figure 10. In total there are an estimated 1,375 parcels in Chippewa County with improvements potentially located within the 100 -year floodplain. Of these parcels, 91% are residential constituting 87% of the total assessed improvements possibly located in the floodplain. Over 41% of these parcels are located in the City of Bloomer and the Towns of Eagle Point, Lafayette, and Lake Holcombe. There were no properties with assessed industrial improvements identified. The 38 properties with “other” uses are primarily farm-related; tax-exempt parcels are not included in the table. Page 87 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 71 It must be noted that the structures identified in Figure 10 and in Table 8 may not have had flooding problems in the past. To the contrary, the majority of these properties likely have no history of flooding and may not be vulnerable to flooding in the f uture. Data for individual structures is not currently available (e.g., number of stories, existence of basements, individual building values, building elevation), so we are unable to confirm if a specific building is elevated above (or below) the base fl ood elevation, nor can we estimate potential flood damage by individual structure. In some cases, due to topography at the building site or construction methods, the structure may actually be elevated higher than the adjacent 100-year floodplain. And as discussed in the flood analysis methodology in Supplement 2.G., many of these structures are located outside the 100 -year floodplain, even though part of the property intersects the floodplain. Further, as discussed in the Supplement 2.G. 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 full 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 Figure 10 or Table 8 since the principal structure on that parcel was located outside the delineated floodplain. FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Estimated Annual Losses FEMA’s NRI provides the following estimated annual losses (EALs) for Chippewa County. Risk Factor Riverine Flooding EAL Rate – Population 1 per 5.44m EAL Rate – Buildings $1 per $182.06k EAL Rate – Agriculture $1 per $8.39k Total EAL $267,220 Exposure $20.12 billion Events per year 0.8 Historic loss ratio Very Low Overall Loss Score 41.9 (Relatively Low) Based on $6.2 billion in assessed improvements, annual riverine flooding damage to Chippewa County’s buildings alone would be close to $34,054 each year using NRI’s estimated annual losses, not including tax-exempt structures. Page 88 of 153 SECTION III. 72 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 10. Chippewa County Floodplains & Potential Structures in Floodplain Page 89 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 73 Municipality # of Parcels w/ Principal Buildings # of Residential Parcels Residential Imp Value # of Commercial Parcels Commercial Imp Value # of Industrial Parcels # of Other Parcels Other Imp value Total Assessed Improv Cities CITY OF BLOOMER 136 123 20,621,300$ 13 3,249,500$ 0 0 -$ 23,870,800$ CITY OF CHIPPEWA FALLS 90 58 10,264,700$ 32 24,109,200$ 0 0 -$ 34,373,900$ CITY OF CORNELL 1 1 245,300$ 0 -$ 0 0 -$ 245,300$ CITY OF EAU CLAIRE 92 92 16,686,600$ 0 -$ 0 0 -$ 16,686,600$ CITY OF STANLEY 20 17 3,091,900$ 3 1,108,800$ 0 0 -$ 4,200,700$ City Sub-Total: 339 291 50,909,800$ 48 28,467,500$ 0 0 -$ 79,377,300$ Villages VILLAGE OF CADOTT 12 11 1,532,500$ 0 -$ 0 1 91,300$ 1,623,800$ VILLAGE OF LAKE HALLIE 114 110 18,614,400$ 4 340,000$ 0 0 -$ 18,954,400$ Village Sub-Total: 126 121 20,146,900$ 4 340,000$ 0 1 91,300$ 20,578,200$ Towns TOWN OF ANSON 58 57 14,237,300$ 1 30,000$ 0 0 -$ 14,267,300$ TOWN OF ARTHUR 9 9 1,358,200$ 0 -$ 0 0 -$ 1,358,200$ TOWN OF AUBURN 5 3 744,700$ 0 -$ 0 2 294,000$ 1,038,700$ TOWN OF BIRCH CREEK 100 98 16,884,300$ 1 236,700$ 0 1 144,300$ 17,265,300$ TOWN OF BLOOMER 35 26 4,710,800$ 3 985,700$ 0 6 706,700$ 6,403,200$ TOWN OF CLEVELAND 24 20 1,722,400$ 4 722,400$ 0 0 -$ 2,444,800$ TOWN OF COLBURN 16 15 2,195,300$ 0 -$ 0 1 21,100$ 2,216,400$ TOWN OF COOKS VALLEY 1 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 1 206,400$ 206,400$ TOWN OF DELMAR 4 2 301,400$ 1 138,800$ 0 1 11,100$ 451,300$ TOWN OF EAGLE POINT 133 126 38,878,700$ 3 657,700$ 0 4 425,600$ 39,962,000$ TOWN OF EDSON 1 1 108,700$ 0 -$ 0 0 -$ 108,700$ TOWN OF ESTELLA 12 12 1,001,800$ 0 -$ 0 0 -$ 1,001,800$ TOWN OF GOETZ 4 3 1,005,400$ 0 -$ 0 1 342,400$ 1,347,800$ TOWN OF LAFAYETTE 151 147 42,300,400$ 2 1,234,900$ 0 2 491,600$ 44,026,900$ TOWN OF LAKE HOLCOMBE 146 139 28,277,700$ 7 1,192,900$ 0 0 -$ 29,470,600$ TOWN OF RUBY 10 8 614,600$ 0 -$ 0 2 256,800$ 871,400$ TOWN OF SAMPSON 4 2 131,000$ 0 -$ 0 2 518,500$ 649,500$ TOWN OF SIGEL 15 15 1,926,400$ 0 -$ 0 0 -$ 1,926,400$ TOWN OF TILDEN 89 86 25,422,400$ 0 -$ 0 3 169,300$ 25,591,700$ TOWN OF WHEATON 67 54 18,605,500$ 7 3,667,100$ 0 6 348,300$ 22,620,900$ TOWN OF WOODMOHR 26 21 6,949,900$ 0 -$ 0 5 929,900$ 7,879,800$ Village Sub-Total: 910 844 207,376,900$ 29 8,866,200$ 0 37 4,866,000$ 221,109,100$ TOTAL 1375 1256 278,433,600$ 81 37,673,700$ 0 38 4,957,300$ 321,064,600$ Table 8. Principal Structures potentially in 100-Year Floodplain—2025 Note: Does not include values for tax-exempt parcels. Land use is based on State property tax assessment codes. Commercial parcels may include 4+ unit rental residential. Page 90 of 153 SECTION III. 74 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Other Factors Influencing Future Losses Three primary factors are key to projecting future flood vulnerabilities: 1) Changes in Precipitation – The increasing frequency of heavy rainfall events was the most frequently noted flood-related concern during the plan update. Section III.B. previously discussed long-term changes in weather patterns for the region, including more precipitation during the winter months and more frequent heavy rainfall events. The projected 36 percent increase in 2” rainfall events per decade would likewise increase flooding potential and may result in additional areas being considered 100-year floodplains in the future. However, with a projected increase in summer drought conditions, surface water levels would likely be lower overall. No detailed modeling on the full impacts of such longer-term weather pattern changes on Chippewa County surface waters has been performed. 2) Changes in Flood Storage – Overall, the floodplains and wetlands of Chippewa County are well protected. Encroachment of wetlands and new development often require the creation of new flood storage areas. Instead, the loss of flood storage will primarily be the accumulated loss or disruption of smaller stormwater storage areas, natural infiltration systems, and natural drainage systems. Chippewa County is experiencing growth. Every hardscape that is created (e.g., buildings, roads, parking lots), results in a change in potential stormwater or flood storage. This factor can be mitigated through stormwater management planning and mechanisms such as rain gardens, natural swales, rain barrels, pervious surfaces, and the creation and maintenance of flood storage areas. As suggested in Section III.B., stormwater models, standards, and storage/conveyance systems are typically based on older precipitation-frequency data (e.g., Atlas 14, Technical Paper 40) and are not designed to accommodate more recent precipitation trends and storm events. Updated modeling, such as Atlas 15, may also impact NFIP FIRM (floodplain) maps. 3) Floodplain Development – While demand for shoreland living is high, new floodplain development is well regulated and rarely allowed. Very little new floodplain development is occurring, so the number of structures in Table 8 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 an d some older, seasonal structures are renovated as year-round retirement homes. In short, floodplain development vulnerabilities are projected to increase in the future not from new development within the floodplain, but rather from increasing precipitation (and runoff), the increasing market value of existing structures, and the improvement of existing structures. No significant floodplain development is currently planned. Instead, the increasing flood vulnerability in Chippewa County will likely be from overland stormwater flooding as a result of additional heavy rainfall events and changes in natural stormwater storage and drainage patterns as new development occurs. Page 91 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 75 Chippewa County Dam Assessment Defining the Hazard Dam Failure – According to the FEMA Federal Guidelines for Dam Safety, dam failure is defined as: “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 abnormali ty 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).” Hazard Location & Extent As of October 2025, Chippewa County had 49 dams listed in the WDNR dam database. The dams of Chippewa County are shown in Figure 11, along with their Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources hazard ratings. More details on each specific dam can be found in the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.G. Of the 49 dams, 28 were classified as small or were unclassified while 21 were classified as large dams. Of the four high hazard dams, two are owned by Xcel Energy and are used for hydro-electric production; these dams are regulated by FERC. The City of Bloomer’s high-hazard Bloomer Mill Dam is in good repair though requires an update to its spillway analysis. The City of Chippewa Falls’ Glen Loch Dam has had recent improvements and is in good repair. Chippewa County owns and maintains fifteen dams, all of which have a low or unrated hazard rating. Eight of these dams are large and had an Inspection, Operation, and Maintenance (IOM) plan, but resources are not available for a dam failure analysis. While the County has an active inspection program for its dams, these structures are aging and improvement should be planned for. As noted earlier, flooding can also occur as a result of dam failure. Hazard potential and estimated 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. Page 92 of 153 SECTION III. 76 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 11. Chippewa County Dams by Hazard Rating Page 93 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 77 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 (5 th year private engineer; 10 th year WDNR Dam Safety Engineer), and the spillway must be sized to accommodate a 500-year event. 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 (2 nd, 4 th, 6 th, 8 th years private engineer; 10th year WDNR Dam Safety Engineer), and the spillway must be sized to accommodate a 1,000-year event. Event History – Dam Failure There have been very few dam failures in Wisconsin that resulted in major damage or loss of life. And 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, including the failure resulting in very significant damage in Black River Falls as part of the previously discussed 1993 flooding event. And from 2000 to 2023, Wisconsin had 34 recorded dam failures, which is second highest in the United States. Several of these incidents resulted in injuries and serious property damage, but no loss of life. Event Probability – Dam Failure Overall, the potential of dam failure in Chippewa County is considered very low . The Steering Committee rated the probability of a dam failure as low, with a moderate level of vulnerability if a failure should occur. Chippewa County and its municipalities continue to work with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to ensure proper maintenance of the dam facilities in the County and to mitigate the potential vulnerabilities should failure occur. 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 occurs. The larger dams with significant - or high -hazard ratings were built to strict engineering standards, have related emergency plans, and are closely monitored. Event Vulnerability – Dam Failure The primary vulnerability from a dam failure is development downstream within the hydraulic shadow of the dam. The level of development within each dam shadow is reflected by the dam’s hazard rating as previously discussed. A dam’s hazard rating can also b e reduced through repairs/improvements, updating dam failure analysis or emergency planning, or enacting dam shadow zoning to discourage development within the failure area. Page 94 of 153 SECTION III. 78 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.G includes brief assessments of the four (4) high-hazard dams and five (5) significant-hazard dams in Chippewa County: During the planning process, no critical concerns were noted for any of the above dams. The Xcel Energy dams are regulated by the Federal government and Xcel is required to meet many safety requirements for licensure by FERC. In the past, Chippewa County has expressed 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, but this has yet to occur. Generally, the most significant conce rn noted by WDNR dam safety staff is that many dam emergency action plans (EAPs) do not fully explore and plan for potential roadway closures and access concerns downstream following a dam failure or unexpected discharge. As discussed previously, the low -hazard Tilden Mill Pond Dam experienced a failure in 2019 that resulted in downstream damage at the Duncan Creek Campground. Addressing this dam’s condition is the highest dam - related priority and removal has been recommended. It is expected that the dam removal plan will be completed in 2026. A G.I.S. analysis of the dam shadows was not completed as part of this mitigation plan. The 2020 Mitigation Plan recommended continuing to evaluate existing development in the shadows and comparing the mapped dam failure areas to the 100-year floodplain boundaries. The County has dam shadows mapped for the following dams, which are regulated through the County floodplain zoning ordinance: 1. Otter Creek/Lake Dam – 1992 2. Chippewa County Flood Storage District - 2014 2. Marshmiller Lake Dam - 2017 The shadows for the Xcel Energy dams are also mapped in GIS, but are not regulated by the County due to their FERC status. For those dam shadows that are digitally mapped by the County, the failure areas do not exceed the 100-year floodplain boundaries in most areas. Additional information regarding dam planning, mitigation, and response can be found in Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.G. Official Name Popular Name Owner Name (if listed) Hazard Rating Size Impoundm ent Size (Acre Ft) Max Storage (Acre Ft) Wissota Paint Creek Xcel Energy High Large 5588 155000 Holcombe Xcel Energy High Large 3890 72000 Bloomer Mill City of Bloomer High Large 98 945 Glen Loch Glen Loch City of Chippewa Falls High Large 45 1000 Jim Falls Xcel Energy Significant Large 1072 22000 Cornell Brunet Falls Xcel Energy Significant Large 836 16000 Stanley Mill City of Stanley Significant Large 34 400 Cornell Lake Godfrey Robilard McFarlane Trust Significant Small 194 350 Star Mill City Of Chippewa Falls City of Chippewa Falls Significant Small 6 30 Page 95 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 79 vi. DROUGHT This sub-section highlights key drought-related information and the effects of these events. Supplement 2.H. of the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement provides additional details. For drought risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities, and school districts, please refer to the subplans in Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard - Drought 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 w eeks 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. Hazard Location & Extent Droughts can occur in all areas throughout Chippewa County, including areas with high and low average precipitation. Figure 12 and the table below show that the soils of Chippewa County have some drought vulnerability, though no soils are severely vulnerable: Drought Rating % of Soils Soil-Drought Characteristics Slightly vulnerable 14.2% typically low-lying areas with near-surface water Somewhat vulnerable 1.1% annual precipitation generally adequate for plant growth) Moderately vulnerable 64.3% some water stress in an average year Drought vulnerable 18.2% drought generally occurs every year Severely vulnerable 0.4% plants must be very drought tolerant even in normal years Not rated 1.8% e.g., lakes, rivers Comparing this map with the Wildfire section maps will yield similarities since drought-prone, sandier soils in the County have more coniferous vegetation and there is less soil moisture for plants during times of drought. Page 96 of 153 SECTION III. 80 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 12. Drought Vulnerable Soils – Chippewa County Figure 13 below shows the drought trends for Chippewa County utilizing the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI). The PDSI utilizes several factors (i.e., temperature, soil moisture, and precipitation) to calculate the magnitude of the drought conditions. More information regarding the index and the related impacts can be found in the Chippewa County Hazard Supplement 2.H. Page 97 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 81 Figure 13. Chippewa County Drought Severity Index (1895-2025) D4 Exceptional Drought Conditions W4 Exceptional Wet Conditions D3 Extreme Drought Conditions W3 Extreme Wet Conditions D2 Severe Drought Conditions W2 Severe Wet Conditions D1 Moderate Drought Conditions W1 Moderate Wet Conditions D0 Abnormally Dry Conditions W0 Abnormally Wet Conditions Event History - Drought Supplement 2.H. of the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement provides details on regional and local drought events, including the drought event from the Summer of 2023. Chippewa County Events The following briefly describes some drought events impacting Chippewa County. • As shown in Figure 13, recorded years of severe drought for Chippewa County have occurred with exceptional drought conditions reported in 1898, 1910, 1934,1957, 1976, 1977, 1988 and others. • Until 2000, drought conditions had been impacting corn and soybean yield to some degree in the County about once in every five to seven years. However, beginning in about 2003, northern Wisconsin experienced ongoing drought conditions, beginning with D3 conditions in late 2003. The Governor issued five State of Emergency drought declarations between 2000 and 2010. While summer 2010 brought significant relief from the region’s drought conditions, a nearly statewide drought would impact Chippewa County during the 2012 summer and fall seasons, resulting in reduced crop and alfalfa yields. Drought conditions would impact much of the County through 2013. Page 98 of 153 SECTION III. 82 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • Since 2013, Wisconsin has been in an unusual to very moist spell. In fact, the Wisconsin State Climatology Office reported that 2019 was the wettest year on record in Wisconsin. • Despite recent statewide trends, localized drought conditions may still have occurred at the county or sub- county level. While Chippewa County was less impacted that some areas of the region, the Summer of 2023 was an unusual period and was a challenging time for crop farmers. The table below shows the State and Federal Drought Emergency Declarations involving Chippewa County for which financial assistance was provided: Crop Year Declaration Type 1976 Federal Drought Area Declaration under the Disaster Relief Act 2003 State Drought Emergency Declaration 2005 State Drought Emergency Declaration 2006 State Drought Emergency Declaration 2007 State/USDA Drought Disaster Declaration 2009 State Drought Emergency Declaration 2012 State Drought Emergency Declaration Hazard Probability - Drought The Plan Steering Committee rated drought probability as being of some (below moderate) concern in Chippewa County, with some vulnerability. Based on the severe drought years since 1970, a severe, countywide or regional drought year can be anticipated once every 5 -7 years on average, with events often occurring in subsequent years. As the previous soil information notes, some areas of the County can be expected to experience an agricultural drought on an annual or near annual basis. As discussed in Section III.B., research from the Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts 13 (WICCI) shows that annual precipitation in Chippewa County has been increasing since 1950, though most of these increases have been occurring during the winter months. Concurrently, Chippewa County’s average annual temperatures have increased by around 4ºF since 1950. WIC CI has projected that Chippewa County’s weather will continue to become much wetter overall, but potentially the same or slightly drier during the summer months, with significantly higher temperatures. As such, the probability and severity of future droughts may increase, but there is insufficient data available at this time to be definitive. 13 Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts website: www.wicci.wisc.edu Page 99 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 83 Vulnerability Assessment - Drought General Vulnerabilities People • A prolonged drought can be especially hard on small farmers that are many times already finding it challenging to make ends meet. Agriculture (Crops) • Drought in Wisconsin has the greatest impact on agriculture and agriculture plays a critical role in the County’s economy, as previously stated in Section II.C. • Since the severity of drought can vary, determining its financial impacts on crop and livestock operations is difficult. • The Drought assessment in Section III.C. vi provides example crop losses. Even in low drought conditions crop yields can dramatically decrease crops and become more susceptible to pests and disease. More substantial events can decimate croplands and result in total loss. • The loss of vegetation due to drought can exacerbate flash flooding, even from an average rainfall. • Many crop farmers have used irrigation for sandy soils to help mitigate drought; see water supply discussion below. Agriculture (Livestock) • Livestock, especially those kept in close quarters, can experience decreased milk production or even death. • Typically, farmers will supplement feed before allowing a drop in milk production due to drought. These additional feed purchases can be devastating, depending on the drought severity and length. • Drought conditions can also result in the build -up of nitrates in feed and silage to levels that are toxic to cattle. • 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. Water Supply • Drought causes water shortages, drying up private wells and ponds, and increasing the demand for irrigation, putting strain on water supplies and raising concerns about future availability. • Ponds previously used by farmers may dry up, causing farmers to drill new wells and pump groundwater for their stock. • High-capacity wells have the potential to impact groundwater and nearby surface waters, especially during drought periods. As of 2024, Wisconsin DNR database identified 245 active high-capacity wells within Chippewa County. • Water use bans during dry periods are still occasionally instituted in some cities and villages with municipal water systems. Ground Water & Surface Water • Drought lowers groundwater and surface water levels, affecting private wells and ponds, impacting habitat and recreational value, and potentially concentrating contaminants and nutrients in surface waters. • Decreased surface water makes shoreline areas more vulnerable to erosion, water temperatures can change, and contaminants and nutrients become concentrated; contributing to toxicity, eutrophication, and fish kills. Forest & Vegetation • Drought stresses forest vegetation, making it more vulnerable to pests and diseases, while increasing the risk of wildfires due to extreme dryness. Further risk is discussed in the Wildfire section. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • Drought conditions increase the likelihood of wildfires; leaving the resources strained for fire suppression and emergency response. • When extreme heat events and drought conditions occur at the same time, rural fire departments assisting farmers to keep livestock cool could increase response time and put additional stress on an already over-taxed water system. • Water scarcity during droughts can impact firefighting capabilities and limit the availability of water for other emergency response activities. Page 100 of 153 SECTION III. 84 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Food, Water, Shelter • Drought can lead to crop failures and reduced agricultural production, resulting in food scarcity, increased food prices, and potential food insecurity. • Water scarcity during droughts can impact drinking water supplies, necessitating conservation measures and alternative sources for safe and sufficient water. Overall, groundwater is generally abundant and this was not identified during the plan update as a significant concern in the County at this time. • Increasing agricultural irrigation as a mitigation action. Health & Medical • Drought-related conditions, such as heatwaves and poor air quality from wildfires, can have adverse health effects on vulnerable populations, including respiratory issues, heat -related illnesses, and exacerbation of chronic conditions. Energy • No related drought concerns within the County noted. Communications • No drought specific concerns noted. Transportation • Drought conditions can lead to soil instability, increasing the risk of road and highway damage. Hazardous Materials • No drought specific concerns noted. Educational Institutions • No drought specific concerns noted. Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • While no specific concerns noted at this time, growth increases the demand on groundwater supplies while development has the potential to impact the infiltration and replenishment of groundwater. The Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement 2.H. details other potential drought vulnerabilities, specifically the potential impact of drought on groundwater and wells, especially in areas where irrigation is more common. Projected Loss Estimates Overview of Potential Agricultural Losses Drought can impact parts or all of Chippewa County’s agricultural base. The agricultural overview in Section II. discussed and quantified 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. 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. Table 9 provides an example of how recent drought years impacted crop yields by comparing crop production for the 20 12-2014 drought years against the average production for 20 10 to 2 019. For example, for the 2013 drought (and possibly related winter kill) year in Chippewa County, soybean Page 101 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 85 yields were up to 34% lower and grain corn yields were up to 46% lower than the averages for the non- drought years between 2000-2019. Table 9. Chippewa County Soybeans & Grain Corn Yields source: USDA-NASS, Agricultural Statistics Database, <http://www.nass.usda.gov>. In 2022, there were 55,264 acres of soybeans and 76,231 acres of grain corn harvested in Chippewa County. Assuming an average of $11.50 per bushel for soybeans, a 20 -bushel loss per acre would be equivalent to a $230 loss per acre or about $12.7 million in total soybean losses. If we assumed an average of $4.00 per bushel for grain corn, a 52-bushel loss per acre would be equivalent to a $208 loss per acre or about $15.9 million in total grain corn losses. Such losses are a significant financial hardship. Yields can vary greatly by location, 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. Du ring 2003, hay yields were also below average, driving up hay prices for livestock operators. Typically, farmers will 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 $1,000 of additional feed per mature cow per month is not unrealistic ($1,000 x 20,608 milk cows = $20.6 million) resulting in many millions in required supplemental feed for ChippewaCounty farmers under a severe, single - season drought event. Drought conditions can also result in the build-up of nitrates 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 als o result in the build -up of toxic gases within grain silos to lethal levels or result in fires or explosions. Extreme heat within large, confined livestock buildings has also been a concern in the past resulting in livestock deaths within the region, though no large -scale, animal mass casualty events due to extreme heat have been reported in Chippewa County. Year Corn (grain) Soybeans 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 2013 101.9 23.9 2012 109.2 33.2 2011 146.1 41.8 2010 162.9 46.7 drought years Page 102 of 153 SECTION III. 86 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan The far majority of local farmers understand and practice good management to reduce the vulnerabilities associated with drought conditions, but some knowingly take chances. M any farmers carry some type of crop insurance, especially in drought -prone areas. Most farmers also participate in Farm Service Agency programs , which require multi - peril crop insurance and protect losses at average County yields. But such insurance is very expensive, and participation will often increase as the price received for the commodity increases. It is typically not cost-effective to insure low -value crops, such as alfalfa. And for many smaller specialty growers and community - supported agricultural operations, it can be cost-prohibitive to carry crop insurance. In all, only about 28% of cropland operations in Wisconsin have crop insurance according to the 2022 Census of Agriculture. Further, the demands on crop insurance are increasing and with increasing risks the current insurance system may not be sustainable. FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Estimated Annual Losses FEMA’s NRI provides a source of estimated annual drought losses (EALs) for Chippewa County: Risk Factor Drought EAL Rate – Population -- EAL Rate – Buildings -- EAL Rate – Agriculture $1 per $10.61m Total EAL $23 Exposure $1.57 million Events per year 0.3 Historic loss ratio Very Low Overall Loss Score 17.6 (Very Low) The NRI table suggests drought impacts in Chippewa County will largely be limited to agricultural crop losses. The data suggests that a drought event is low (.3 events/year). Overall, the NRI rates the County’s drought vulnerability as very low. Page 103 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 87 vii. WILDFIRE This section , as well as additional data within Supplement 2.I. of the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement , relies heavily on analysis tools provided by the Northeast -Midwest State Foresters Alliance and a report generated utilizing these tools on December 2, 2025. The report provides data and maps that identify various factors that contribute to risk, intensity, and impact of wildfires in Chippewa County. While this section summarizes several of the findings within the report, the full report provides additional depth and detail. The tools provided by the Alliance are updated as factors change and the most current data may be valued over this plan, should a conflict arise. Additional information and resources can be found at https://northeastmidwestwildfirerisk.com/. For wildfire risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities , and school districts , please refer to the subplans in Mitigation Plan Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard—Wildfire A wildfire, in the context of this plan, is an uncontrollable , unwanted fire in the natural environment 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, camp fires, prescribed burns, or carelessness, or can be caused by natural events such as lightning. An expanded definition is located in Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.I. Hazard Location According to the National Land Cover Database, described in Section II.B., approximately 30% of Chippewa County is forested and 1% is shrub and grasslands. Just over half of the County is cultivated crops or pasture/hay. The Mitigation Plan Supplement dives more deeply into how these risks vary by vegetative cover and surface fuel types as well as other risk factors. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) identified twelve communities in Chippewa County with an elevated wildfire risk. 14 While four communities have a high risk there are no communities identified as having a very high risk. The list of these communities was generated by a WDNR analysis completed in 2008, which considered the hazard (vegetation type), the risk (wildfire history), and the wildland -urban interface (development within forested areas). This 2008 analysis, summarized by Figure 14, is a bit older, but still provides important insights into how the wildfire risks vary across Chippewa County. 14 https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/ForestFire/communitiesAtRiskWildfire.pdf Page 104 of 153 SECTION III. 88 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 14. Chippewa County Communities at Wildfire Risk (2008) Page 105 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 89 During the planning process, WDNR fire personnel noted that there are pockets of fire-prone areas with sandier soils and coniferous trees in the southern, cooperative fire protection areas, such as near Lake Wissota and in the Town of Wheaton. This is very consistent with Figure 14. Hazard Extent (Potential Intensities) Most of Chippewa County has a low probability of experiencing a large-scale wildfire involving 1,000+ acres that is very difficult to control. As such, about 60 percent of Chippewa County falls within a Cooperative Fire Protection area , while the remaining 40 percent has intensive fire protection. The Mitigation Plan Supplement provides more detail on these classifications. Wildfires are capable of occurring and impacting large areas. Areas with dense pine and oak vegetation are more likely to experience wildfires. In March 2010 the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources – Division of Forestry, completed a Wildland Fire M anagement Program Assessment that included identification of sixteen distinct fire landscapes throughout the State with associated management recommendations.15 The landscapes were determined based on five features: • Vegetation • Ecological Subsections • Soils • Land Parcel Improvements • Forest Patch Size 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. 15 https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/sites/default/files/topic/ForestFire/fireAssessment_wildlandFireMgmtFinalReport.pdf Page 106 of 153 SECTION III. 90 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 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 provides a better understanding of local variations, such as development density and vegetation. Wildfire Hazard Potential – Difficulty to Control The wildfire hazard potential (WHP) dataset represents an index that quantifies the relative potential for wildfire that may be difficult to control. WHP can be used as a measure to help prioritize where fuel treatments may be needed. Figure 15. Chippewa County Wildfire Hazard Potential Page 107 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 91 Key takeaways from Figure 15 include the following: • There is a consistent trend of wildfires becoming more difficult to control when moving from west to east. This trend aligns with the overall land cover and accessibility. • The overall potential for a large wildfire in the County that is difficult to control is low. Only 709 acres in the County are rated 5 with no areas rated 6-8. • Approximately 30% of the County’s lands are rated as having minimal direct wildfire impacts and 16% is rated 1 or 2. 52% of the land area is rated as 3 or 4 for wildfire hazard potential. Event History – Wildfire 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 November; 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 from a winter with little snow cover, followed by a spring and summer with sparse rainfall. Chippewa County Events Forest fire is not a new threat to Chippewa County, though based on limited research, the neighboring counties of Polk, Barron, and Chippewa have a more devastating forest fire history. In August and September 1894, forest fires burned over 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 effort s 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 Minnesota 16. 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 16 shows the approximate location of the 150 reported wildfires in Chippewa County between 2013 and 2023 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 16 The Daily Gazette. Janesville, WI. Number 148 and 149. 9/4/1894 & 9/5/1894. Page 108 of 153 SECTION III. 92 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 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 wildfi res only occur in the northern and eastern parts of Chippewa County, which is not true. Figure 16. Reported Wildfires in Chippewa County – 2013 to 2023 Page 109 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 93 Fifty percent of the reports occurred in the towns of Sampson (17 reports), Colburn (17 reports), Cleveland (19 reports), and Lake Holcombe (22 reports). Of the 150 wildfires reported during this period, 138 (92%) were less than five acres in size. Only one fire was greater than 20 acres. The largest fire recorded for the time period was estimated to have burned 23.5 acres in May 2016 in the Town of Lake Holcombe. Debris burning continues to be the #1 source of wildfire ignition in the County. Equipment and fireworks are other prominent ignition sources in recent years. 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 Natu ral 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. Hazard Probability – Wildfire Several factors must be taken into consideration when assessing the probability of a wildfire. A fire can occur anywhere; if it grows and where it spreads is dependent on wind direction, weather, access to fuel sources, and chance. Understanding the factors that support fire growth will help identify areas of risk and vulnerability. The Plan Steering Committee rated the probability of wildfires as of some concern, much lower when compared to many of the other natural hazards. 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 . In the near term, it can be expected that Chippewa County will continue to experience around 15 wildfires per year on average within the intensive fire protection area , and perhaps greater if drought conditions are in effect. The far majority (over 90%) of these fires will be less than five acres in size. Estimates for wildfires in the remaining portion of the County within cooperative fire protection are not currently available. A number of factors could significantly contribute to 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 great potential to increase the frequency of wildfires in Chippewa County . Long-term weather patterns , insect infestation, and plant disease are additional factors that may also increase wildfire risks. Burn Probability Taking several factors into account, the burn probability is an assessment of the annual probability of a wildfire burning in a specific location. Figure 17 identifies the burn probability throughout Chippewa County. The overall burn probability in the County is low -to-moderate. The highest probability identified is in the “1-in-2,154 to 1-in-1,000” range, and this only includes 1,315 acres within the County. The top 4 ranges are not shown on the map as there are no la nds in the County identified in these categories. About 32% of the County has a negligible burn probability of “0”. Page 110 of 153 SECTION III. 94 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Figure 17. Chippewa County Burn Probability Vulnerability Assessment – Wildfire The Plan Steering Committee rated the vulnerability of Chippewa County to wildfire as a moderate concern. General Vulnerabilities People • All residents and visitors are at-risk of injury or death from wildfire events. • Migrant Populations - May lack community resources / social network to efficiently relocate and rebuild during and after wildfire events. Language barriers can prevent life -saving information / orders / alerts from being efficiently dispersed within the community. Above-Ground Structures • All structures and personal property have varying vulnerabilities to wildfire depending on proximity to woodlands, structure building materials, and whether mitigation actions (e.g., defensible spaces) have been taken. • This section evaluates what areas of the County have higher wildfire risks and vulnerabilities, including the vulnerability to structures and highly valued assets. Over $1.5 billion in assessed improvements are located within communities with an elevated fire risk. Campgrounds • Campgrounds, tourism-related cottages, RV parks, and results are often located in more vulnerable areas. For such facilities, visitors are a potential source of fire ignition (e.g., campfires), may not understand risk factors, and are a vulnerability should a wildfire occur. Page 111 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 95 Lake Properties • Homes and cottages located on or near lakes and rivers often have an elevated vulnerability due to location within a wooded area and have limited access/egress. These properties are frequently identified as a concern by emergency responders due to narrow, winding private roads and driveways, sometimes with steep grade/topographical changes. Local Economy • Wildfires can damage businesses and cause closures or evacuations in nearby areas. • The logging and tourism industries would be affected the most within the local economy, were a wildfire to occur. • Chippewa County Forest is approximately 34,500 acres. The largest blocks are in the northern part of the County. The sale of lumber within the County Forest is an important revenue source for the County. • Recreationally, the County Forest supports many businesses in the County. The loss of related tourism would reduce revenues for Chippewa County campgrounds, parks, and other businesses, though no 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. Natural, Historic, & Cultural Resources • Forested areas, grassland, and agricultural areas are important economic assets and are susceptible to wildfires. • Historic, non-masonry structures are vulnerable to fire. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • Personnel are exposed to hazardous conditions when combating wildfires or assisting residents in wildfire areas. • If a very large wildfire was to occur within the County, fire departments and local EMS could potentially be stretched thin; delayed response times might occur. Food, Water, Shelter • All above -ground structures are vulnerable. However, structures located in pine plantations, forested areas, or adjacent to grasslands are potentially at risk from wildfires. • Livestock could be at risk if a wildfire starts in a grassland area, however the risk is minimal to food sources. • Large scale wildfires can impact water quality, but this scenario is of low concern. • Farms and other croplands are at high risk of wildfire ignition and spread. Health & Medical • Hospitals and other in -patient care facilities may need to be evacuated during wildfire events, but the risk is very low for cities and villages. Energy • Above-ground utilities are vulnerable in wooded areas; see Long-Term Power Outage section. • Ash and debris from wildfires can damage solar panels / arrays. • Natural gas lines and storage facilities are vulnerable to prolonged heat exposure and combustion. Communications • All above-ground structures are vulnerable, but no specific concerns noted. Transportation • Exposure to high amounts of heat from wildfires can damage road infrastructure. • Chemicals, smoke and airborne debris from wildfires create dangerous travel conditions. • Road closures due to wildfires. • Trains are a cause of wildfire ignition. Railway materials (steel beams, wood supports) are susceptible to damage from wildfire. Hazardous Materials • All above-ground structures are vulnerable, but no specific concerns noted. • Combustion of materials can create hazardous materials spills or releases. • Hazardous materials may be flammable and can be spread through wildfire smoke/winds. Educational Institutions • None known. Evacuation planning may be advised for school facilities within or near high fuel or forested areas. Most educational facilities have large, maintained grounds that would protect buildings from being impacted by a wildfire. Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • Developments and populations within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) are at a higher risk of exposure to wildfire events. • Agricultural fields contain high levels of surface fuels that can start or spread wildfires. • As reflected in the community profile, Chippewa County continues to grow in terms of population, thus increasing overall exposure to wildfires. Page 112 of 153 SECTION III. 96 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Populations, farms, property, and infrastructure located within those previously identified communities and areas of higher wildfire risk would be more vulnerable. Wildfires and the resulting burnt landscape can also damage and contaminate the natural environments, which includes polluting sources of drinking water, destroying habitats, exacerbating erosion and runoff to surface waters, and degrading air quality for miles. Large wildfires produce a significant amount of polluted smoke that degrades air quality well beyond the boundaries of the fire, posing health risks. An example of this impact is May 2023 air quality advisory that was issued for Chippewa County as a result of the Canadian wildfires. Wildfire smoke originating from Canada started to move into Wisconsin from the northwest causing reduced air quality. Projected Loss Estimates Forest fire can cause significant injury, death, damage to property, and loss of natural resources. As shown in Table 9, the four communities (Town of Anson, Town of Lafayette, Town of Lake Holcombe, and Town of Wheaton) with “high risk” had over $1.5 billion in assessed improvements on 10,670 improved parcels in 2024 as well as a combined 2020 Census population of about 12,264. Nearly all of these parcels were residential; only 306 parcels were commercial in use and 11 were manufacturing. The official Wisconsin Department of Administration 2024 population projections show that all 2 of the 4 towns are expected to grow over the n ext thirty years; cumulatively the four towns are expected to see an increase in population of 1,274 persons during the thirty-year period. Table 9. Population and Improvements of At-Risk Communities Community Population 2024 Assessed Improvements 2020 Census WI DOA Proj. 2050 % Chng. ‘20-‘50 # of Imp. Parcels # com # ind Total Value of Improvements Town of Anson 2,297 2,512 215 1,165 30 2 $267,018,700 Town of Lafayette 6,197 7,430 1,233 4,458 139 3 $826,281,100 Town of Lake Holcombe 1,011 855 -156 1,961 72 2 $173,479,600 Town of Wheaton 2,759 2,741 -18 3,086 65 4 $249,650,500 Total 12,264 13,538 1,274 10,670 306 11 $1,516,429,900 Some local fire personnel also noted that wildfires in grasslands and fields have the potential to spread more quickly than fires in wooded areas, and may pose an even greater threat in Chippewa. Homes, agricultural operations, livestock, crops (especially hay and grains), and travelers on roadways are all potentially vulnerable, depending on proximity to vegetative fuel. Page 113 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 97 FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Estimated Annual Losses FEMA’s NRI provides a source of estimated annual losses (EALs) for Chippewa County with a wildfire hazard. Risk Factor Wildfire EAL Rate – Population 1 per 100m EAL Rate – Buildings $1 per $877k EAL Rate – Agriculture $1 per $29m Total EAL $27,751 Exposure $103 billion Events per year .002% chance per year Historic loss ratio Relatively High Overall Loss Score 44.7 (Very Low) According to the NRI data, wildfire has the lowest estimated annual loss of all natural hazard events ($27,751) for Chippewa County. Other Factors Influencing Future Losses A wide variety of preparedness and mitigation efforts can reduce wildfire losses. Active forest planning and management can reduce fuel and provide fire lanes for responders. Chippewa County has an active forestry program that implements the County’s 15-Year Comprehensive Forest Land Use Plan in collaboration with Wisconsin DNR and communities. The 2021 -2035 Forest Land Use Plan considers fuel reduction, encourages forest health through proactive measures such as pests, and promotes awareness of wildfire risks. Firewise practices, such as mai ntaining the home ignition zone, fire -resistant building materials, and composting, can target areas most at risk of wildfire. Residents and visitors can all benefit from fire prevention messaging, increased awareness of burning permits, etc. WDNR conducts annual wildland training with fire departments in the intensive fire protection areas and cooperative-area departments are invited to participate, with more intensive mock wildfire exercises every 2 -3 years. County Highway also participates in WDNR training, but their assistance during a wildfire event in Chippewa County has not been needed to date. Page 114 of 153 SECTION III. 98 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan viii. LONG-TERM POWER OUTAGE Long-term power loss in Chippewa County is most likely to be caused by a natural hazard threat (e.g., winter storms, tornadoes), but can also be the result of an accidental technological failure or purposeful act. The following pages provide a special analysis of the long-term power outage threat for the County. This approach allows additional attention to this critical threat, while avoiding undue repetition with the other natural hazard assessments sub-sections (i.e., winter storms, tornadoes & high winds). Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.J. provides additional details. For long-term power outage risks and vulnerabilities specific or unique to the participating villages, cities , and school districts, please refer to the subplans in Plan Supplements 5 & 6. Defining the Hazard – Long-Term Power Outage An electric power outage (also power failure or power loss) is the loss of the electricity supply to a geographic area. 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 500+ customers and/or multiple community lifelines. A power outage can be described as a blackout if power is lost completely or as a brownout is the voltage level is below the normal minimum level specified for the system. There are varying reasons for a power loss or outage such as a power station defect, damage to a power line, or the overloading of the system. “Load shedding” is a common term for a controlled way of rotating available generation capacity between various districts or customers, thus avoiding total wide area blackouts. Three natural hazards pose the biggest, longer-term power loss threat: (1) a large ice storm, possibly in conjunction with heavy/wet snow; (2) the high winds associated with unstable summertime weather patterns; or (3) high winds during a blizzard. A large wildfire may also destroy above ground electric infrastructure. However, it is large ice storms that 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. Hazard Location & Extent Long-term power loss is capable of harming residents and damaging homes and infrastructure throughout Chippewa County. While long -term power loss can occur throughout all of Chippewa County, wooded areas with nearby overhead power lines are more likely to have a higher risk of producing an outage due to ice, winds, tree damage, etc. Power lines for customers near water bodies are often in wooded areas with a higher risk of damage from falling limbs. Electrical power outage events are typically measured and compared by the number of customers affected and the length of the outage. There is no accepted, common scale for evaluating the intensity or severity of a long-term power loss event. 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. Page 115 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 99 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. Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative reported that some areas of higher risk identified in prevision mitigation plans 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 pla ns to continue this policy. To date, the Electric Cooperative has not received FEMA mitigation grant funds for such projects , but has pursued USDA Rural Utility Services financial support. The Cooperative has also been very proactive with tree- trimming to help mitigate power loss from falling branches and has caught-up so that such trimming and bushing is on a regular maintenance schedule. 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 117 th Street (Plummer Road), the Long Lake area southeast of Highway 40, the Hodge/South Shattuck Lakes area along County Highway M, and along 167 th 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 153 rd Street in the Town of Cleveland has a similar landscape. Some lines in this area have been buried in recent years. • In the northern Town of Eagle Point, the 175 th 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 250 th 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 250 th Street (County CC) to its intersection with County Highway M runs through some wooded areas and is an elevated vulnerability. A number substation is planned for this area to help address capacity/load demands. • Forested areas with overhead lines and a large number of dying trees (e.g., Emerald Ash Borer, Oak Wilt) is growing concern. 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 a reas as being uniquely prone to power outages. Due to increasing power demand, the potential for brownouts is also a growing concern. Event History – Long-Term Power Outage There is a threat of having larger long -term power outage events as experienced in Montreal in 1998 where an ice storm hit and left over four million residents without power. T he following are some key Page 116 of 153 SECTION III. 100 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan long-term power outage events affecting Chippewa County as detailed in the Chippewa County Hazard Mitigation Supplement: • July 1991 – A violent straight-line wind event resulted in power loss across parts of Wisconsin. In Chippewa County, some customers were without power for up to two weeks. A similar event occurred in May 1998. • July 2019 – High winds caused widespread outages in Chippewa County leaving some residents without power for up to 48 hours. • December 2021 – Heavy wet snows (12”-18”) were followed 4 days later by an EF2 tornado and additional freezing rain and snowfall. A high -tension power line was blown down as well as some local distribution lines were downed largely due to falling tree branches. Some r esidents lost power for up to 48 hours, though most restored within 24 hours. While the focus of power loss is often on winter weather and 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 loss of power in the region due to a natural hazard event. Chippewa County Electric Providers 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, Cornell Municipal Water & Electric Utility, and the Cadott Light & Water Municipal Utility. While Chippewa County has not recently experienced a long -term power outage event, a look at 2018 power outages in Table 10 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. Table 10. Average Outages by Cause – Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative Outage Cause 2018 5-Year Average % 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 Page 117 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 101 The above table shows that about 19% of unplanned outages were directly caused by storms. The threat of a cyber-attack on the power grid has been increasingly in the news. 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. There has also been increasing incidents of physical attacks on substations in recent years. These man -made threats encourages strong infrastructure redundancy, site security, and communication between power providers and law enforcement as well as the implementation of Smart Grid digital technology. Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative has increased its remote sensors and its substations are 90% served by fiber, which enhances system monitoring, redundancy, and power restoration. 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. Hazard Probability – Long-Term Power Outage The Plan Steering Committee rated the probability of a long-term power outage event as being of some (below moderate) concern for Chippewa County, with a some to moderate vulnerability should an event occur. The burying of power lines, infrastructure hardening, and tree -trimming efforts by electrical providers, have mitigated the probability of a long-term outage event over the past two decades. Since 1990, it is estimated that Chippewa County has only had 1-2 power outage events of 2+ days impacting a substantial number of customers, with most outages being more localized and restored within 24-48 hours. Based on these events and trends, Chippewa County is expected to experience a significant long-term power outage about once every 15-20 years on average. Nearly all of these events would impact a portion of the County and affect less than 15,000 customers, with power restored within 3-6 days. While a widespread, long-term power outage event covering most or all of Chippewa County would be rare, the potential does exist. Past power outage events in Chippewa County have not approached the scale of the 1976 Wisconsin, 1998 Montreal, or 2009 Kentucky outages. As discussed in the Tornadoes & High Winds and Winter Storms sub-sections, the probability of these hazards is likely to increase due to long-term weather patterns . As such, the probability of long -term power outage events is also likely to increase. It is possible that a widespread, long -term loss of power could occur as a result of other causes (e.g., terrorism, cyberattack, loss of a power-generating facility). The probability of these other causes resulting in a long -term event are considered extremely rare and unlikely, but this does not discount the importance of protecting against such instances. Page 118 of 153 SECTION III. 102 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan Vulnerability Assessment – Long-Term Power Outage General Vulnerabilities People • Individuals Reliant on Medical Equipment and Seniors were identified as the greatest potential vulnerability. - Individuals that are oxygen dependent or rely on in -home medical equipment are vulnerable, especially if they lack backup power systems or reserves in medical supplies. Tele-health and in-home medical care options may be limited during the power outage. See additional information below. • Assisted living facilities, nursing homes and memory care facilities, facilities with ventilation equipment for patients, and emergency shelters are also vulnerable during long -term term power outages. • Vulnerabilities may be compounded if the power outage occurs during periods of extreme weather (heat and cold), especially for seniors who are living alone that may lack a support network. Energy Utilities • Power outages can overload the remaining, functioning portions of the power grid. • Damage to electrical infrastructure, specifically above -ground electrical infrastructure, may necessitate substantial repair costs. • Extensive power outages (in terms of area) can stretch resources thin to repair systems and restore power. Structures without Back-up Power Systems • Structures without generators will be unable to operate until power is restored. • Maintenance systems, such as sump pumps and air filtration systems, may fail resulting in additional risks to structures and individuals. • Most commercial facilities have installed backup generators but may still be vulnerable if the duration of the power loss exceeds the capabilities of the generators and fuel supply is limited. Community Lifelines Safety & Security • Criminal activity becomes more difficult to identify and respond to when security systems are inoperable. • Emergency services experience increased demands as vulnerable populations lose access to lifelines (see Disadvantaged and Socially Vulnerable populations in this section). Food, Water, Shelter • Food supplies may diminish during the outage as storage systems fail. • Pumps and wells will not operate without a backup power system. • HVAC systems will not operate without a backup power system, potentially exposing occupants to extreme weather (heat and cold). Health & Medical • Long-Term Care Facilities and Hospitals are especially vulnerable during a long -term power outage. • Most medical facilities have backup power installed. • Clinics and offices may not have backup power, limiting their ability to serve the community. • In-home services may not be able to operate Energy • Failure in one section of the power grid can overload adjacent operational sections, increasing the potential for additional outages. Communications • Internet and land-line telecommunications systems may be inoperable during the outage. Transportation • No specific concerns noted. Hazardous Materials • Monitoring and control systems may be incapacitated, though most facilities with hazardous materials have backup power systems in place. Educational Institutions • Most institutions have backup systems installed, but primarily to ensure life safety. • No specific concerns noted. Vulnerability to Future Assets Population Growth & Development • Chippewa County's population is increasing, thus increasing the vulnerability to power outages. • Additional development increases the demand on energy infrastructure, increasing the potential for "domino-effect" outages as the grid is overextended. Page 119 of 153 SECTION III. Hazard Assessment 103 Seniors and DME-Reliant Populations During the plan update, Chippewa County seniors and persons reliant on electronic medical devices were frequently mentioned as the largest group of concern during long-term power outages. Chippewa County’s population is aging, as documented in Section II.C. Prolonged power outages can be life-threatening to seniors, especially those who live independently in their homes and rely electricity-dependent durable medical and assistive equipment (DME) . Those s eniors living alone in rural areas are especially of special concern. With this aging population, the County has a significant number of assisted living and nursing facilities as documented in Section II.D. According to emPOWER data, Chippewa County has 10,284 Medicaid beneficiaries who have had an administrative claim for one or more types of electricity -dependent DME. Of these, 393 were identified as particularly at -risk because they also rely on certain essential health ca re services. During the plan update process, additional c oordination between agencies was recommended on how oxygen-dependent household lists (emPOWER data) will be accessed and used during an emergency, perhaps including such discusses as part of a tabletop exercise. The Chippewa County Aging and Disability Resource Center (ADRC) provides nutrition and support services to seniors and disabled in the County at three senior dining locations as well as delivering about 1,200 meals per month to resident s through its “meals-on-wheels” program. Meals -on-wheels participants also receive a supply of shelf-stable pack 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. Meals-on-wheels drivers may be the only regular visitor to some homes (3-5 days/week) and these drivers can assist with performing check-ins if needed. 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 monthly newsletter with a circulati on of about 1,500 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. Medicaid Beneficiaries w/ Electricity-Dependent DME Zip Code Beneficiaries At-Risk Beneficiaries 54724 1,998 89 54726 435 16 54727 1,207 66 54729 8,597 377 54732 735 34 54745 833 37 54748 353 12 54757 978 44 54768 1,034 66 total: 10,284 393 Page 120 of 153 SECTION III. 104 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan 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 medica l equipment should a disruption of utility service occur.” Supplement 2.J. includes additional insights into related preparedness and response actions. Projected Loss Estimates for Electric Infrastructure Exposure estimates for all electrical infrastructure in the County is not available. However, in the entire Chippewa Valley Electric Cooperative system, there is approximately 730 total miles of overhead lines, which is about 70 miles less than in 2020 . 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. 2025 replacement costs for lines vary based on physical site conditions, but are approximated as follows: Single Phase – Overhead: $95,000/mile Single Phase – Underground: $105,000/mile Three Phase – Overhead 4/0 ACSR: $185,000/mile Three Phase – Underground 4/0 URD: $2230,500/mile Given these 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. Other Factors Influencing Future Losses As discussed in the tornado/high wind and winter storm sections, weather -related power outages may increase if the County experiences more frequent high wind or ice storm events, but we are unable to confidently quantify the extent of this increase at this time. See Section III.B. for additional discussion on the related effects of such changes in weather patterns. Mitigation Plan Supplement 2.J. explores additional factors influencing losses including key preparedness and mitigation actions by electric utility providers. Page 121 of 153 SECTION IV. Capabilities Assessment 105 SECTION IV. CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT SUMMARY FEMA Resiliency Rating for Chippewa County Overall, FEMA’s National Risk Index (NRI) rates Chippewa County’s community reliance as having a relatively VERY HIGH ability to prepare for anticipated natural hazards, adapt to changing conditions, and withstand and recover rapidly from disruptions when compared to the rest of the U nited States. However, when compared to the rest of Wisconsin, the County’s community resilience is somewhat lower, but still strong (i.e., 89.05 national percentile vs. 63.90 state percentile). This community resilience assessment is based on 49 social, economic, environmental, governance, and housing/infrastructure variables. Overview of Mitigation Actions in Chippewa County FEMA’s planning guidance requires that mitigation plans document each jurisdiction’s existing authorities, policies, programs, and resources and its ability (or lack of ability) to expand on and improve these existing policies and programs as they relate t o the local hazard mitigation. To address this requirement, Supplement 3.A. includes a table of potential mitigation and preparedness activities indicating whether each activity is being carried out in Chippewa County; additional notes are provided for each activity, often including any opportunities to expand upon or improve local actions. Supplement 3.B. reviews progress on high priority and project recommendations from the County’s 2020 Mitigation Plan. The city, village, and educational institution sub -plans in Supplements 5 & 6 identify mitigation actions for other participating jurisdictions. The following are some key mitigation-related accomplishments since the 2020 Mitigation Plan: • FEMA mitigation grant funding was secured to construct a community safe room at the Northern Wisconsin State Fairgrounds for guests/staff and nearby mobile home park residents. • Encouraged through mitigation planning meetings, the Village of New Auburn as addressed their NFIP-sanctioned status and is now a participating community in good standing. This was a long- term concern identified in previous mitigation plans. • RiskMap funding was used tor update the County’s floodplain maps thereby increasing accuracy. • Chippewa County has updated their Comprehensive Plan concurrently with this mitigation plan update, which provided for a high level of coordination between the two documents. There is continued strong coordination between the County’s Public Health Preparedness Plan and the County Emergency Operations Plan. The County has prepared an Integrated Preparedness Plan (IPP) to guide emergency management capacity building and training ; th e preparedness recommendations found in Supplement 3.D. will be considered when updating the IPP. • A County priority is the continued collaboration w ith area emergency responders to address emergency communications challenges , strengthen MABAS, address changing reporting/training requirements, etc. Page 122 of 153 SECTION IV. 106 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan • Stormwater management, water quality, and resource management plans and initiatives continue to be implemented by various partners to promote agricultural and land use practices to increase resiliency from increasing heavy rainfall events and other weather trends. • Chippewa County continues to maintain, support, and actively participate number of committees, partnerships, and work groups that are fostering inter-agency and private-public coordination for greater resiliency. Barriers & Opportunities In addition to the above, barriers to capabilities and mitigation action as well as ways to strengthen, expand upon, or improve the capabilities were discussed during plan update steering committee meetings, community meetings, and stakeholder interviews. The following primary barriers and potential approaches were identified: Barriers • Lack of funding, limited grant availability, and increasing costs. This was the most frequently mentioned barrier, especially for the implementation of larger mitigation projects. • Time for training, planning, and implementing mitigation/preparedness strategies. • Lack of volunteers; volunteer fatigue and burnout. • Some stakeholders are uncertain of storm, heating/cooling, and emergency shelter availability. • Changing threats, such as increasing heavy rainfall events due to long-term weather patterns and increasing sophistication of cyberattacks. • Chippewa County is geographically large, and diverse in its development pattern and socioeconomics. Some households are struggling and public/emergency transportation options are limited outside the urban area. • Rural areas and significant Plain Community require different outreach strategies compared to the urban area. Ways to Strengthen Capabilities • Training, exercises, drills and meetings; bring stakeholders together to share understanding of trends, resources, and lessons learned. • Continue to regularly engage local communities and the public, including educational outreach. • Inventory key resources/needs (e.g., shelters, emergency generators), then share findings with key stakeholders/communities and work collaboratively to fill gaps. • Use the Integrated Preparedness Plan to guide equipment & training needs. • Pursue grant opportunities to supplement limited local funding for the implementation of recommended mitigation projects. Utilize available local resources and partnerships for in-kind cost share contributions when possible. Engage State and Federal elected officials to share threats, barriers, and needs. Page 123 of 153 SECTION V. Mitigation Goals and Strategies 107 SECTION V. MITIGATION GOALS AND STRATEGIES A. MITIGATION GOALS The following mitigation goals apply to all hazards. The mitigation goals are intended to provide direction to achieve the desired outcomes and are to be used as guidelines by which mitigation activities are identified and impact is evaluated. The goals 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 goals from the 20 20 Mitigation Plan. Goal One: Physical and Response Infrastructure Through coordination, cooperation, and capacity building, maintain a strong, safe, physical and emergency response infrastructure17 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. 17 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. Page 124 of 153 SECTION V. 108 Chippewa County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan B. RECOMMENDED COUNTY-LEVEL MITIGATION ACTIONS Mitigation actions reduce or prevent the loss of life and property by lessening the impacts of disasters. These strategies are long -term solutions with preventative benefits to people, property, infrastructure, community lifelines, and/or the economy by reducing vulnerabilities. Mitigation actions can include: • planning & regulations • structure & infrastructure projects • natural systems protection • education & awareness programs • weather adaptation strategies Plan Supplement 3.C. summarizes the process and criteria utilized by the Plan Update Steering Committee to evaluate, select, and prioritize the recommended mitigation strategies. The recommended strategies are organized by hazard type, then further organiz