appendix a. adopting resolutions and e c l
TRANSCRIPT
244
APPENDIX A.
ADOPTING RESOLUTIONS AND
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
LETTER
244
(TO BE ADDED FOLLOWING ADOPTIONS)
244
APPENDIX B.
FLOOD ASSESSMENT
METHODOLOGY
244
Clark County Flood Assessment Methodology
Flood Assessment Data Challenges
1. Assessed values for improvements or tax records are linked to the parcel database, but are
not linked to the building footprint data. This allows us to see which buildings may
potentially be located in a 100-year floodplain, but the use and value of each building are
not available.
It is quite common for a single parcel to include multiple buildings, such as in the
example below. And as the example shows, there are instances where not all of the
buildings within a single parcel are within or intersect the floodplain; such instances are
much less common.
2. Accurate building elevation data is not readily available countywide. Characteristics of
improvements (e.g., basements, two-story) on individual properties are also not currently
linked to a geographical information system (G.I.S.). A structure may appear within a
floodplain from a bird’s-eye perspective, but this assessment does not consider
topography at the site.
3. Base flood elevations (BFEs) are not available for many rivers and lakes in the County.
The majority of floodprone areas identified on the FIRM maps were classified as Zone A
or Zone X, with no base flood elevations available.
4. Countywide LIDAR data was not available at the time that FEMA FIRM maps were
updated. As such, the D-FIRMS were created without detailed topographical/contour or
LIDAR data for most areas of Clark County. Accuracy can be a concern. Further, slight
geographic variances in the different GIS data layers can be a further challenge when
100-Year Floodplain
7 buildings on this
parcel, two of which
are within or intersect
the floodplain.
244
overlaid upon one another. However, the LIDAR was useful in helping to identify
improvements for the flood assessment.
5. Estimated building and improvement values are available from tax records. However,
such values are not available for improvements on tax-exempt properties, such as
schools, governmental buildings, and churches. Further, Managed Forest Lands can have
buildings assessed as personal property rather than real estate and we are unable to link or
associated personal property values to specific geographic locations.
Existing Conditions
Clark County has a large amount of river and lake shoreline and associated floodplain. A sizable
number of structures potentially located in the floodplain are secondary or ancillary uses,
including barns, garages, and other out-buildings. In addition, about percent of the parcels with
potential floodplain structures are tax exempt, largely consisting of parks or maintenance
buildings.
The majority of Clark County structures in the floodplains have no history of flooding or
structural and base flood elevation data. With the exception of a few localized hotspots, local
officials have stated that dam controls and other systems help maintain minimal variation in
water levels. In most floodprone areas, topography and land-use controls have combined to
result in no substantial impacts to structures, including those within the floodplains.
Flood Assessment Methodology
It is cost prohibitive to perform the detailed hydraulic modeling and survey work necessary to
make definitive conclusions as part of this planning effort. However, it is critical to remember
that the purpose of this assessment is to identify potential flooding risks to structures during a
100-year flood event for general mitigation planning. The assessment methodology used here is
sufficient to identify those structures that may be most at risk of flood damage and those areas
that may be a priority for flood mitigation activities.
For the assessment of riverine and lake flooding in Clark County, the following methodology
was used:
1. The final D-FIRM G.I.S. Arc Info shapefiles as of July 2010 were used to identify the
100-year floodplain boundaries.
2. Using building footprint G.I.S. data developed by the Clark County G.I.S. Program, those
structures that were within or intersected the 100-year floodplain were identified using
G.I.S. technology. The parcel G.I.S. data included information on municipality, land use,
and 2019 assessed values. No effort was made to distinguish between primary (e.g.,
home, business) and secondary structures (e.g., garage, outbuilding) on a single parcel,
which would have required field confirmation in many cases. A few buildings that were
in the G.I.S. database were removed when it was verified that they had either been torn
down or did not identify as a building on the LIDAR data.
244
3. An estimated value of improvements potentially in the floodplain was identified based on
the 2019 parcel data. However, situations with multiple structures on a single parcel can
be a challenge as noted previously. In such cases, the assessed value of all improvements
for the parcel was used, rather than attempting to further assign values to individual
structures. In many cases, those structures on a parcel that are likely outside the 100-year
floodplain boundary are still close enough to the boundary to potentially be vulnerable to
flooding should a large event occur.
This approach provides a very good picture of which structures may fall within the 100-
year floodplain areas of Clark County, though this is not an indicator of flood depth or
damages during flood events since elevation, flood depth, and assessed value for each
individual structure is not currently value.
4. For comparison, the Clark County HAZUS Risk Assessment distributed by Wisconsin
Emergency Management in February 2009 is summarized in the plan.
5. Utilizing key informant interviews, discussions with local officials, a survey to each
Town Board, and available records (e.g., NFIP flood insurance claims), floodprone areas
and hotspots were identified where infrastructure or improvements may be vulnerable to
riverine or lake flooding.
Taken together, this approach provides an understanding of the overall flooding risks and
vulnerabilities in Clark County, while providing insight into the distribution of potentially
vulnerable structures within the county and the location of past flooding events.
244
APPENDIX C.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEW LIST
Meetings were held with each incorporated city and village during the planning process to assess
their hazard risks/vulnerabilities, discuss current mitigation activities, and identify desired
mitigation strategies. Who attended the meetings on behalf of each city or village was at the
discretion of the individual community. All community meetings were facilitated by the
planning consultant (West Central Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission), with assistance
by the County Emergency Management Director. For unincorporated towns, a presentation was
made at the County Towns Association meeting followed by a hazard survey mailed to each
town.
Most of the above meetings were informal and did not include a quorum of elected officials. As
such, official minutes were typically not maintained or later approved. This was also a cost-
savings measure since keeping official minutes for every meeting is time consuming and this was
a plan update.
244
Clark County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan
Key Stakeholder Interview List
Interviewee Title/Notes Date
Steering Cmte Mtg #1 Initial coordination meeting on process, issues
identification, trends, etc. Sept 19, 2018
Steering Cmte Risk Survey Prioritization of hazards to include in plan
scope Sept-Oct 2018
Steering Cmte Mtg #2 Review risk survey, finalize scope, & review findings from data gathering and interviews.
March 27, 2019
Steering Cmte Mtg #3 Review key findings and update goals August 28, 2019
Steering Cmte Strategy Alternatives Survey
Review, prioritize and modify/amend various mitigation strategy alternatives
Sept-Oct 2019
Steering Cmte Mtg #4 Discussed draft sections and final strategies Nov 6, 2019
Steering Cmte Mtg #5 Discussed draft plan, BRIC, and adoption Sept 22, 2020
Clark County Emergency Services Association Mtg
Discussed planning effort, issues/needs, and distributed survey
April 2, 2019
Clark County ESA Survey Obtain input from Fire Chiefs on needs, access
issues, potential mitigation strategies, etc. April-May 2019
Clark County Forestry & Park Committee
discuss severe storm mitigation and safe rooms, especially for Fairgrounds
April 9, 2019
Sandy Herrick Clark Electric Coop; in-person meeting, data
compilation, and email exchanges April 30, 2019
Benjamin Bella Jackson Electric Coop; email exchange May 13, 2019
Clark County Towns Assoc. Presentation on haz mit and flood mitigation April 2, 2019
Town Surveys Mailed to all 34 towns April-May 2019
Village of Curtiss 3 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 18, 2019
Village of Dorchester 3 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt July 25, 2019
Village of Granton 2 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 7,2019
Village of Withee 5 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 7, 2019
City of Abbotsford 3 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 18, 2019
City of Colby 4 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 7 2019
City of Greenwood 9 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 13, 2019
City of Loyal 4 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt May 7, 2019
City of Neillsville 6 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 18. 2019
City of Owen 5 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 7, 2019
City of Thorp 2 local attendees + County Emgy Mgmt March 18,.2019
County Planning & GIS Derek Weyer & Carrie Morrell interview May 7, 2019
County Highway Dept Brian Duell, Commissioner interview May 7,2019
County Planning & Zoning Brian Duell interview April 9, 2019
County Forestry & Parks interview with 3 staff April 30, 2019
County Land Conservation James Arch, Conservationist, interview April 9, 2019
County Sherriff’s Dept James Hirsch interview + review draft section May 7, 2019
244
Clark County ADRC Mary Sladich, Director, interview April 9, 2019
County Public Health Robert Leischow interview May 7, 2019
County Emergency Mgmt John Ross interview + misc. email follow-up March 7, 2019
Jed Kaurich WDNR Forester survey & brief discussion April 3, 2020
Mark Stevenson WDNR Dam Safety Engineer phone & email Sept 22, 2020
Plan Review All cities, villages, and towns were provided the
draft plan recommendations and other plan information for review and comments
Sept-Oct 2020
244
APPENDIX D.
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL
MEETING NOTICE
244
September 22, 2020
PUBLIC NOTICE
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Clark County Emergency Management is inviting comment and input
from residents, businesses, area organizations, and communities regarding the draft Clark County
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan and any needed projects to reduce or eliminate natural hazard risks to
residents, property, the local economy, and critical services.
Clark County is in the process of updating the County’s hazards mitigation plan, which is a pre-
requisite for certain FEMA grant funding. Hazard mitigation actions are essential to creating a
disaster-resilient community and breaking the disaster cycle of damage, reconstruction, and repeated
damage, thus saving taxpayer dollars. Example mitigation activities include not building in floodprone
areas, constructing community safe rooms for tornados, and burying power lines in areas prone to
outages.
A copy of the draft plan is available for review at the County Emergency Management office at the
Clark County Courthouse or is available for download at http://www.wcwrpc.org/Documents.html.
Questions or comments on the draft plan should be directed to John Ross, Clark County Emergency
Management, no later than October 31, 2020, at 715-743-5100 or [email protected].
_______________________ John Ross
Clark County Emergency Management Director
cc: News Media
County Public Bulletin Board/County Courthouse
244
APPENDIX E.
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT
FOR CRITICAL FACILITIES
244
244
APPENDIX F.
UNIQUE RISKS AND
VULNERABILITIES BY
INCORPORATED COMMUNITY
244
# mobile Winter Storms Riverine Stormwater
Population homes Thunderstorms and or Lake or Flash
(2018 Estimate) (2018) Extreme Cold Flooding Flooding
Village of
Curtiss
Village of
Dorchester
Village of
Withee
City of
Abbotsford
City of Colby
Some breaks at trailers not
uncommon. 8' of frost in 2013
results in about 6 breaks, 70 days
of continually running water, 1 main
never thawed, and significant costs
to community. Several main breaks
in 2018-2019.
110
44
Liftstation hit by
lightning once and
struck well field facilities
3 times in 2014, but
equipment upgraded and
no recent problems.
Some tree damage from
winds.
No unique issues noted.
19
16
9
No unique issues noted.
When 5+" and/or big spring thaw
serious basement flooding is
widespread. Some basement flooding
about once per year; most homeowners
prepared. Some infiltration of
stormwater into wastewater system.
No major water main breaks in
2013; had replaced quite a few lines
and buried 8'-9' deep.
Serious hail damage to
roofs and vehicles in
past. Repetitive
lightening strikes to
control system at water
plant. No mitigation
options identified for
these.
2002 disaster declaration for
tornado and/or high winds;
significant clean-up. Limited
slab-on-grade construction;
some newer duplex and two
mobile home parks.
1-2 water line breaks in a typical
year. Ice build-up on structures
can damage roofs.
No riverine flooding issues noted.
Stormwater flooding of ballfield/park area
between Monroe and Pence Streets
closes nearby street(s) 1-2 times in a
typical year. Flows from the northeast
thru a natural drainageway south;
explore stream restoration/dredging
project through WDNR.
2010 storm resulted in
hail damage to roofs.
Wildfire & Other
Environmental
Hazards
Supplies water to Owen; past water
quantity concerns addressed. Interest
in NOAA radio project, especially for
seniors.
Some low-income housing may not
have basements. Greater ESL/bi-
lingual education and awareness on
emergency notification systems,
disaster risks, appropriate actions, etc.
needed. Some past challenges due to
split counties on agreements, data,
etc.
Unsure if resident aware of storm
shelter availability or if m.h. park
owners let their residents know; low
use. ESL communication challenges
similar to Abbotsford; explore apps and
education. Some concern with
extreme heat and vulnerable
populations.
Tornadoes and High Winds
No river or floodplain, but some
stormwater drainage problems due to
flatness, including water in
basements.
Tornado close by in 2013; some
wind damage in Village. No
public storm shelter, though
most homes have basements.
Multiple senior housing facilities
that are slab-on-grade. Some
interest in a community shelter
in past and church has been
discussed as a potential option.
Highway 13/29 noted as the most
significant concern. Some limited
concerns with fixed facilities and
potentially rail.
No unique issues
noted.
Municipality Other Notes
New fire hall.
Water supply for fire protection is good.
Dry hydrant at pond.
353 13
No incidents to
date. Backing-
up in the cloud.
Off-site backup
for law
enforcement
files needed.
No incidents to
date.
A small area of the City was recently
mapped as 100-year floodplain.
Newer wells within or close to
floodplain.
June 2002 tornado destroyed
feed mill and other area
damage. Fire safety building is
used as a shelter; someone on-
site if a watch is issued.
A water use restriction
ordinance is in place if
needed.
No unique issues
noted.
No unique issues
noted.
Village is flat with slow, natural
drainage. Heavy rains and large, fast
snow melts can overwhelm natural
systems and culverts. Some flooding
along New Street north of Front Street in
past, largely to streets and lawns.
Drainage also an issue in trailer park,
which contributes to sinking and heaving
of services. Ongoing ditch/culvert
maintenance needed and continue to
reassess stormwater management and
retention pond needs as development
occurs, especially near highway.
Heavy snow melt (Spring 2019) and 3-5"
rain has resulted in over-road flooding,
culvert damage, limited basement
flooding about once a decade. Multiple
hotspots along CTH "A", with some of
worst at 4th St; 4th St then drains
south to creek, which can overwhelm
stormwater system capacity. No recent
damage reported to structures; check
valves have limited basement flooding.
No unique issues
noted.
No unique issues
noted.
20-30 trees went down in 2013
tornado and straight-line wind
storm. About 20 slab-on-grade
homes plus some mobile
homes; no mobile home parks.
Park, with some camping, has
used block bathroom if needed,
but limited capacity.
1905 tornado caused extensive
damage. Tornado touchdown to
north in 1970s, but no major
events since. Most homes
have basements, except mobile
home park and a few other
homes. Potential for camping
in future.
No long-term events. Village Hall
lacks generator. Fire Hall has
generators, which would likely serve
as EOC. Backup at wwtp and
portable for utilities.
No major events. Agri equipment
took out power for about 4 hours;
impacted industry. No
redundancy; only one main electric
line to Village. No generator at
Clerk's Office. Has generator at
wwtp and water tower; could be
some utility generator needs.
Unsure about assisted living facility.
No agreement with Coop for
emergency fuel.
During 2013 storm, parts of village
lost power for 24 hours. Well 5 and
liftstation have fixed generators;
interest in additional generator(s)
since most facilities without,
especially at Village Hall/Police and
wwtp.
No long-term events. Generator
needed for Village Hall and Shop.
Fixed at water plant and a small
portable for liftstation. No long-term
source of back-up fuel identified.
No unique history of events. 2 of 3
water plants and wwtp have
generators as well as Fire Hall.
None at City Hall. One senior
living facility has generator; others
do not.
Village of
Granton
No 100-year floodplain. Fairly recent
dam improvements resulted in a new
LOW rating. One home potentially in
dam shadow.
No incidents to
date. Cloud
back-up.
No major
incidents.
Additional
protections put
into place in
2013. Off-site
backup.
Long-Term Power Outage
No long-term events. Some
generator needs at critical facilities,
potentially including senior living.
Fire Hall is EOC and lacks a fixed
generator. Fixed available for
wells/water system, wwtp, and
liftstation.
Cyber-
SecurityHazardous Materials
Primary concerns are trucks on highway
and at travel plaza. Some point-source
industry. Additional training needed for
Fire Dept; has some HazMat techs.
Highway transport, anhydrous tanks, and
industry are primary concerns.
Evacuation could be a challenge;
sheltering in place may be needed. Is
there an opportunity to educate the public
on how to avoid risks (e.g., driving into a
plume)? Evaluate security of fixed sites.
Truck traffic on USH 10 only significant
concern noted.
Virus-related
incident
occurred; bank
prevented a
potential
breach.
Experienced a
server crash in
2017. Now off-
site back-up.
No incidents to
date. Back-up
in the cloud.
492
1,800 (1,308
in Clark Co.)
2,283 (1,596
in Clark Co.)
Truck traffic on Highways "X", "T", and 29,
plus railroad are primary concerns. LP
tanks are a fixed concern.
Highways and two fixed facilities present
highest risks. Past tanker truck incident.
Recent release at fixed site has fostered
improved communication based on
lessons learned. Continuing exercises
important.
Many of the past problems with
stormwater fixed, but line sizes
inadequate for the heaviest rains (about
once every 2-5 years). Flooding on
Linden has resulted in cars stalling,
damage to a duplex, and floodwaters up
to the doors of nearby buildings; culvert
size recently increased and being
monitored. Occasional ice damming at
culverts and storm sewer, but remedied
promptly. Some wet basements in
2019.
No unique issues noted.
70 mph wind in June
2018 took down about
nine trees and some
minor roof damage.
A few breaks of water lines not
uncommon. but not unique. Some
freezing concerns at water tower.
Some roof collapses due to snow
loads.
Annual spring flooding at park or after
heavy rains. Also near bottom of
bridge deck and well house, but no
damage to date; water over bridge
about two years ago. In September
2016 flooding, a vehicle was washed
downstream and a man rescued after
spending hours in the flood waters.
no issues noted
210
862 (858 in
Clark Co.)
Tornado impacted 1 mile to
south in 1971, but no recent
tornado events. High winds
damaged a mini-storage facility
about 2009. 28 sites at m.h.
park; about 1/2 full. Many
apartments and newer
residential is slab-on-grade. No
shelter at campground.
No 100-year floodplain. One buyout
of floodprone building in past using
mitigation grant dollars; now part of
park with culvert improvements.
Overall, nothing unique. About 3-4
water main breaks per year.
Drifting on State Highway and Plaza
Drive. Water line breaks at trailer
court; added shut-off valves to limit
damage along with looped, deeper
lines to help mitigate freeze-ups.
Ice damming of culvert caused
some road flooding in 2014. See
stormwater flooding.
244
# mobile Winter Storms Riverine Stormwater
Population homes Thunderstorms and or Lake or Flash
(2018 Estimate) (2018) Extreme Cold Flooding Flooding
Note: The City of Stanley is included in the Chippewa County Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan. The Village of Unity coordinates emergency management with Marathon County.
Other NotesMunicipality Tornadoes and High Winds
Wildfire & Other
Environmental
Hazards
Hazardous Materials
City of
Greenwood
Stormwater improvements on east side
about 1987 alleviated many problems.
Some ponding in drainage area on NW
side; needs ditch cleaning. Past
problems on SW side hopefully
alleviated by 2012 improvements;
periodic ditch maintenance in 2019.
Monitoring.
City of Owen
2,399City of
Neillsville
No unique issues noted.
Some past lighting
strikes to
communications
tower/repeater and at
water facilities.
28
No recent history. Two mobile
home parks, some apartments,
and other slab-on-grade homes
(especially on east side) have
higher risk. Camping at park
with 12 slots.
923
City of Loyal
1,021
1,243
No unique issues
noted.
Some water main breaks w/
damage to streets along S. Harding
St in past; more of an issue with
laterals in older neighborhoods
where not buried as deep.
Replacing mains as streets
replaced. Mitigate by "trickling".
Can be difficult to keep up with
drifting. Some roof damage due to
heavy snow loads in 2019.
River rises in spring, though overflow
has mitigated the worst. 3 NFIP
claims in past. Restrooms at
campground commonly flooded.
Some water over road at bridge
annually. No structure damage since
1997 known. Explore automating
dam gates.
No significant recent events.
20
42
46
Lightning strikes at
wastewater plant about
once every 2-3 years
results in damage
Typically, some water main breaks
when lack of snow cover about once
a decade and "dripping policy" used
to prevent breaks. Winter 2013
included 8-10 main breaks and 15-
20 lateral breaks. "Out of our
control."
No recent history on Black River.
Flooding on O'Neill Creek, especially
in Grand Ave. and 8th St area,
including 6 NFIP claims on 2
properties (both repetitive loss
properties). Last serious flooding of
O'Neill Creek in September 2016.
Goose Creek drainage runs under
buildings; some basement and building
flooding not uncommon and significant
flooding about once a decade. 3" to 5"
of rain in a short period will result in
widespread basement flooding and
"pop" manhole covers, especially along
18th Street and Grand. Not in floodplain,
so can be a surprise to homeowners,
though a few have flood insurance.
Basement flooding does occur
throughout much of the community with
isolated backflow and infiltration issues
for wastewater system.
Quite frequent power
outages. Lightning
strikes to lift station,
water tower, city shop,
and bowling alley; fire at
elderly apts and 1 other
bldg
Aerator added to water tower to
prevent freeze-ups. Shallow mains
result in break in some areas.
Lower mains along West St.
Numerous frozen lines and breaks
in winter of 2013-2014, including 40-
50 laterals, 6 mains. Impacted fire
protection.
American Legion Dam has estimated
high hazard rating due to development
downstream; dam in good repair.
Floodwaters have been close to
topping the bridge downstream in
past. Park and street shoulder
damage in 2016 due to flooding; bank
along pond washed out.
Spring ice-damming at some culverts
not uncommon. Erosion controls in
place. 2004 study addresses significant
past problems; implementing as funding
allows. Stormwater infiltration into wwtp
being addressed as system is improved.
Over-the-road flooding 1-2 times per
year due to heavy rains or snowmelt on
Clark Street; in March 2019 impacted
one business, but no major damage.
No unique issues
noted. Water
conservation ordinance
in place if temporary
bans needed.
No unique history. Two mobile
home parks; limited slab-on-
grade construction. Holland
Cheese may be uniquely
vulnerable.
No unique issues noted.
Until 2013-2014 winter, nothing
unique. Had 20-25 frozen services
and 31 breaks on laterals. WWTP
tank froze when heater went out.
Drifting on Cemetery St. City Hall
and library has had some ice
damming problems related to snow
removal and melting off parking lot.
Some flooding about once every 10
years, but most is overland not
riverine. NFIP claim from sewer back-
up when sump not working.
Flooding at/near City Hall is annual.
Sump pumps adding water into
WWTP; working to prevent and
reduce.
38
No unique issues
noted. Good water
quantity.
No unique issues noted.
Infrequent lightning
strikes at wastewater
treatment facility;
working on a grounding
fix.
2-3 water breaks in a typically
winter, but scattered. In 2013, had
30-50 service freeze-up, 200 ft on
Main frozen, ad sewer freeze-ups.
Stormwater drainage from north of
Coleman St. Some localized flooding.
Ice damming can be a problem along
"D" and "X" if big rain/melt and culverts
frozen. Beavers can also block culverts.
No NFIP claims or recent history.
Sept 2010 was worst in 20+years and
had no serious problems. Some
flooding on Highway is rare.
No unique issues noted. Some flooding
across STH 73 if heavy (4"+) rain in a
short period.
Strong straight-line winds about
1990 and tornado 2 miles to
south in 2006 and 1 mile to
south in 2011. Most homes
have basements. Apartments
and assisted living on northwest
side, not far from the school.
No significant recent events.
Most of mobile homes tied
down. Some newer slab-on-
grade and townhouses w/o safe
rooms, but not located in a
single area to make a shelter
feasible. Limited camping at
park. No shelter demand w/in
City, though industry may have
interest in shelter or hardening
projects.
Sufficient water quality; new well.
Some long dead-end roads in
community could pose challenges for
evacuation or access.
Warming/cooling shelter being
identified; may need generator.
Some stormwater infiltration in
wastewater system. Many residents
and new property owners likely
unaware of Goose Creek and flood
risks since it is now directed by
culverts or underground, but awareness
has been increasing.
Dry hydrant for pond
desired for additional
source of water for fire
protection.
Forested area on west
side of city along river.
Town of Pine Valley
rated by WisDNR as
"community-of-concern"
for wildfire. Water
quantity for fire
protection has generally
been adequate with no
significant restrictions
no water use;
encourages greater
conservation in drought
periods or limited use if
needed.
Long-Term Power Outage
In 2011, heavy rains resulted in street
flooding over bridge at Adams Street
and raised concerns about potential
impacts to WWTP lagoons; no recent
problems.
Flood waters can go around dam on
Mattson St. and flood the park every 2-
3 years due to heavy rains and/or
frozen ground.
City of Thorp 1,612
No incidents to
date. Offsite
back-up.
No incidents to
date. Offsite
back-up.
No long-term event or areas prone.
Fixed and portables available for
water and sewer facilities and
systems. Need fixed or portable at
Maintenance Shop/EOC and at City
Hall/Police. Fire, Clark Electric,
and School has generators. May
need fuel supply agreement.
A few outages lasting 24+ hours;
last about 15 years ago. Have a
generator at fire station, main
liftstation and one for wells, plus
portable. City Hall/EOC/Policy
Dept without; senior housing likely
without.
No history of long-term outages.
Good tree trimming. Most public
works, school, and hospital have
generators. None at City
Hall/Police/EOC or at Fire Hall
(potential EOC). WWTP, well, and
some liftstations have fixed or
hookups for portable. Nursing
care/senior living may have needs.
No long-term outages; some
shorter, weather-related outages.
Generator needed for Fire Hall ,
City Hall/Police/EOC, and
maintenance shop. Additional
potable generators for utilities
needed.
No large-scale, long-term outages.
City Hall/EOC, Fire Dept, wwtp,
and many wells now have fixed
generators; need two more for water
plant and well. Has portable for
most other utilities.
No incidents to
date; cloud-
based back-up.
Phone system
hacked in past.
PC data
backed-up in
cloud.
No incidents to
date. Good
security with
off-site backup.
One local
business was
the target of a
ransomware
cyberattack.
Cyber-
Security
Highway, rail, and industry/tank farm.
Rail use has been increasing.
Highway transport and one industry only
concerns noted.
Concerns with some fixed facilities.
Limited training for responders. Unsure if
adequate clean-up and containment
materials available; WEM survey
underway. Increase hazmat awareness
capacity for non-fire department
responders (e.g., law enforcement, public
works).
Truck traffic on USH 10 & STH 73 largest
concerns. Quarries near wellheads;
maintain communications with quarry
owners and town to protect. Participates
in county-wide training.
Truck traffic on Highway 29, two fixed
industries, and oil pipeline are largest
concerns.
265
The creation of a campground would increase demand
for a storm shelter.
No 100-year floodplain exists in Curtiss
Highway 29 truck traffic, local industry, and Travel Plaza
identified as sources of concern for hazardous
materials spills, as well as ice and drifting during winter.
Village Hall (EOC) lacks a generator.
Stormwater improvements in 2002 addressed past flooding concerns;
drainage system must be maintained. As development occurs near highway,
additional improvements will be required.
Some past flooding in this neighborhood, but largely
limited to streets and lawns.
No public storm shelter available for mobile home park residents
or slab-at-grade foundations.
Stormwater
drainage issues have occurred
in past and heaving has
occurred.
Village Hall/EOC lacks a generator.
Industry, anhydrous tanks, and highway truck
traffic pose some hazardous materials risk.
A growing portion of the Village’s
population is Hispanic with English as a second language.
Weather warning and shelter information should be bi-lingual for this population.
Public education on risks and potential actions (e.g. sheltering, evac procedures,
warning systems) may be needed.
No 100-year floodplain exists in Dorchester.
Stormwater system capacity exceeded during heavy rains
and/or snowmelt along 4th St. down to creek. No recent damage.
Dam was recently rebuilt and its hazard rating downgraded.
No public storm shelter available for campground or for nearby apartments
and industry.
About 28 residences in mobile home
park. No storm shelter.
Some stormwater and basement
flooding concerns with heavy rains.
Area of Cty Hwy A and 4th St.
experiences some of worst flooding.
Spring 2019 flooding due to snowmelt and heavy rain along Center Ave., no major damage.
No structures were identified as having a history of flooding problems. Granton is on the NFIP-sanctioned list since it has not adopted the latest
floodplain zoning model and NFIP floodplain maps.
Park experiences river flooding almost every spring and a major event could
impact the bridge and a well house, but not
damages to date.
Flooding over bridge in Sept. 2016 washed a vehicle downstream
and required a rescue.
2013 and 2018 high wind events took down trees.
Availability of a storm shelter is uncertain. No mobile home
park but scattered manufactured housing and slab-on-grade construction
plus camping at park.
Most facilities lack emergency power generator, including
Village Hall/Police Dept. and WWTP.
265
No 100-year floodplain exists in Withee.
Village Hall (EOC) and Village Shop lack
generators; only one small portable available.
No public storm shelter available for mobile home
park residents. A number of housing facilities are also
slab-on-grade.
Two senior housing facilities are slab-on-grade and have additional risks
and vulnerabilities related to tornado sheltering, power
loss, extended sheltering in place, and evacuation.
Flat topography has contributed to widespread
stormwater and spring melt ponding, as well as
basement flooding.
Railroad and Highway 29 traffic
are the primary hazardous materials
concerns.
A 2002 tornado destroyed the feed mill and caused other
damage. A public storm shelter is available for the City’s 100+ mobile home park residents.
During the winter of 2013-14 the City experienced very significant
and costly damage to its underground water infrastructure
due to deep frost.
Industry and highway traffic
pose the greatest hazardous
materials risk.
Many past problems with stormwater fixed, but line sizes
inadequate for the heaviest rains (every 2-5 years).
Flooding on Linden St. has resulted in stalled vehicles,
damage to a duplex, and a risk to damage additional structures. Some wet basements in 2019.
A significant portion of the City’s population is Hispanic, with English as a second
language. Weather warming and shelter information should be bi-lingual for this population. This population tends to be
transient, so regular education is needed.
A public storm shelter is
available for the City’s 100+ mobile home
park residents.
Stormwater flooding of
ballfields/park and to the north closes nearby
street 1-2 times each year.
Fire Hall is EOC and lacks a fixed generator.
Coordination of emergency services between Colby and
Abbotsford is important given their proximity to one
another and the Highway 29 intersection. This is complicated by both
communities being partially located in Marathon County.
Highways 29 and 13 traffic pose the
greatest hazardous
materials risk.
An additional shelter may be needed on
east side for the park, ballfields, and slab-on-grade housing.
Mobile home parks, senior housing, and apartments
lack saferooms on NE side.
A significant portion of the City’s population is Hispanic,
with English as a second language. Weather warming
and shelter information should be bi-lingual for this population. This population
tends to be transient, so regular education is needed.
Storm shelter at City Hall not ADA accessible.
An additional storm siren may be
needed as the north side develops.
265
During the winter of 2013-2014, the City experienced
significant and costly damage to its underground water infrastructure due to
deep frost.
Historically there has been flooding along the Black
River as well as Rock Creek at Hwy 73 bridge, but no
significant recent damage.
Dry hydrant desired at an area
pond for additional source of water for fire
protection.
Long, dead-end roads could pose a challenge for emergency vehicles
and evacuations.
Though the City has large areas of floodplain, there
have been no NFIP claims to date and no riverine flooding
concerns were noted.
While a public storm shelter is
available, having an additional
shelter closer to the mobile home park is desirable.
Occasional over road flooding from heavy rain (4”+) along Hwy 73.
Emergency power generation needed for City Shop/EOC and
at City Hall/Police Dept.
City Hall/Police Dept. (EOC) lacks generator.
A number of commercial properties along Bear Creek
have had serious flooding in the past. One NFIP repetitive loss
structure is located within Loyal.
Stormwater improvements in 2012 are hoped to have
remedied flooding problems noted in previous haz mit plan.
Concentration of slab-on-grade including apartments and
assisted living on NW side. Lack of a public saferoom.
Loyal has a history of lightening strikes to buildings
and infrastructure.
Stormwater and recent ditch improvements on northeast
side have remedied past flooding problems in this area.
A storm shelter is available for mobile home park residents.
The City-owned dam is rated high hazard due to
downstream development. Has been some risk of
floodwaters overtopping bridge downstream.
During winter of 2013-14, the City experienced significant
and costly damage to its underground water
infrastructure due to deep frost.
Some stormwater concerns and pooling
occurring on northwest side.
City Hall/Police Dept. and Fire Hall lack generators.
Truck traffic on Highways 10 and 73 pose the largest
hazardous materials concern.
Some wildfire risk on City’s west side.
This area prone to river flooding, including two NFIP repetitive loss
properties. Last serious flooding in this area was Sept. 2016. Recent
mitigation (buyout) projects completed.
Repairs were made to the city-owned dam in 2003.
Industry may be interested in storm shelters or hardening.
During winter of 2013-14, the City experienced significant
and costly damage to its underground water
infrastructure due to deep frost.
Goose Creek (approx. dotted line) mostly runs underground through stormwater systems and under buildings.
Has been flood damage to buildings
along its route in past.
10
City Hall/EOC, City Shop, and Fire Hall lack generators.
Truck traffic, railroads, and local industry present some risk of hazardous materials spills.
Stormwater drains from north into residential area creating flooding
problems. A retention pond with dry hydrant being considered to the north.
Older neighborhoods have had problems with freezing
water mains in past.
Historically has been very serious river flooding within
the City, but greatly improved due to a 1997 overflow
channel on the Popple River.
Recent repairs have been made to the dam, as well as dredging. Some
water over the road at the bridge at times.
City would like to automate the gate.
Localized flooding in past along E. Third St. from
Johnson St. to N. East St.
Ice damming can create flooding on Highways X and D.
No public storm shelter available at two mobile home parks or slab-on-grade structures. Could be included as part of a future public facility or
added at the campground.
Prone to spring flooding, but mostly
park and undeveloped.
265
The City experienced very significant and costly damage to
its underground water infrastructure during the winter of 2013-14 due to deep frosts.
No public storm shelter available for mobile home parks
or slab-on-grade structures.
Highway truck traffic, rail, industrial, and tank farm
noted as primary hazardous materials concerns.
Thorp is continuing to address stormwater concerns, including
drainage from the north approximated by this dashed
line. Floodwaters have approached City Hall at times
and residents sometimes discharge sump pumps into the
wastewater system.
The City’s stormwater management plan
recommends various improvements, such as culvert
replacements and retention areas.
Heavy rains and snowmelt can flood roads and yards 1-2x per year. One business
was impacted by flooding in March 2019.
Limited riverine flooding concerns. In 2011, street
flooding over bridge at Adams St. and floodwaters
approached wastewater facility. Single NFIP claim from sewer backup when
sump pump failed.
244
APPENDIX G.
HAZARD MITIGATION
ACTIVITIES BY INCORPORATED
COMMUNITY
244
Village of Curtiss
Village Hall/former Fire Hall has been used as shelter,
but not a great option. New fire hall not designed as a
shelter. If Village creates a campground, demand for
shelter would increase.
No 100-year floodplain.
Stormwater drainage
improvements completed in 2002.
Ditch/culvert maintenance
ongoing.
Need to update EOP.
Good siren coverage. Had a past
issue with siren malfunctioning;
remedied.
Good overall. Has a Rural Water
mutual aid agreement for sewer
and water utilities.
Village has newer generators. Not certain if
older mobile homes are anchored.
Village of
Dorchester
No formally designated public storm shelter/community
safe room. Fire Hall map be an option. Explore
potential of a safe room or hardening project to provide a
shelter(s), especially for the campground and mobile
home park.
No floodplain; recent dam
improvements lowered
hazard risk.
Addresses stormwater concerns
as needed; no issues noted.
Need to review and update EOP; Committee
is designated. Additional ICS/NIMS for
officials suggested.
2 sirens with good coverage;
police will go "door-to-door" in
campground when needed. Multi-
county communications/dispatch
challenges continuing.
Good overall. No formal public
works mutual aid. No adopted
billing rates for equipment.
ESL challenges on emergency notification and
response systems given the area's significant
Hispanic population.
Village of Granton
Interest in a identifying/establishing a storm shelter or
safe room; execute an agreement if needed. School
and churches may be available. If established, increase
public awareness and, perhaps, drill.
Have not adopted most
recent floodplain maps; been
NFIP sanctioned since
1975.
None noted.EOP needs review and updating. Encourage
ICS for those identified in EOP.
1 siren; good condition. Can use
webpage to communicate to
public.
Good overall. No formal public
works mutual aid agreement.
Partners with adjacent towns if
needed.
Additional education of the public on
emergency notification systems. Promote
Nixle sign-up. Add emergency supplies and
first aid kits to Village vehicles, with basic first
aid training for staff. Consider adoption of
WDOT billing rates for equipment.
Village of Withee
No storm shelter identified. Interest in a safe room
project, potentially at the mobile home park and/or in the
municipal park.
No 100-year floodplain.
Past problems with stormwater
infiltrating into wastewater system
have gotten better; ongoing efforts
to improve.
EOP is reviewed annual. Encourage ICS
training for those in EOP. Evacuation
exercise in 2009 for train derailment.
Siren replaced in 2011; new
control box in 2018.
Good for mutual aid.
"Handshake agreement" with
Owen & Curtiss for public works
support if needed. MABAS.
Has adopted billing rates for equipment.
City of Abbotsford
Explore potential for dispatch to remotely unlock storm
shelter, as well as ADA options. School district may be
interested in a safe room project.
No 100-year floodplain.
Fixed some of the past
stormwater problems with larger
culverts, etc.
Need to update EOP. More volunteers
needed, especially ambulance. 2002 tornado
has increased awareness and preparation,
including drills for mobile home parks as part
of the State annual tornado drill.
Newer siren; additional coverage
may be needed as community
grows. Most significant
emergency communication issue
are gaps in the system and being
addressed at the county level.
MABAS in place and strong
public works cooperation.
EOC @ Police/Fire Hall. Has billing rates for
equipment. Suggest County revisit dispatch
codes. Promote enrollment in Nixle system.
City of Colby
City Hall available as shelter, but not ADA accessible
and some distance from mobile home park. Interest in
remote unlock at City Hall and/or a safe room at the
mobile home park. As the municipal park develops,
could be need for a shelter on-site, especially if camping
is added at some point in future.
older floodplain ordinance
needs updating
handled on a site-by-site basis as
needed or integrate into capital
improvements plan
Need to review and update EOP.
2 sirens. Additional coverage on
north side by high school may be
needed. Need new Public Works
radios.
Good overall, including public
works mutual aid. Consolidated
emergency services with
Abbotsford.
Space at Fire Hall is less of a concern now
that the District has consolidated with Abby.
Important that Clark and Marathon counties
regularly discuss dispatch and emergency
communications systems. Has adopted
equipment billing rates.
Emergency Operations Plan, ICS, &
Training
Communications & Notification
SystemsMutual Aid & Partnerships Other Mitigation Activities
Other Flood Mitigation
ActivitiesAvailability of Safe Rooms or Storm SheltersMunicipality
Overbank Flood
Management
Key Mitigation Activities for Incorporated Areas of Clark County
City of Greenwood
Bank is used as shelter during the day and availability is
advertised through newspaper ads, social media, and
newsletter. Interest in a safe room project at the mobile
home park. Safe room added at ADS with mitigation
grant funding.
no recent activities
address stormwater as needed,
typically in concert with street
improvements
EOP is currently being updated with scenario
planning.
Siren replaced in 2011. Current
law enforcement radios have
incompatibility issues with newer
County system.
Good mutual aid, but haven't
conducted an exercise recently
(about 1999). No billing rates for
equipment established.
Some confusion and misinformation regarding
siren use, which contributes to a "cry wolf"
situation; additional public education needed.
Add second line for water supply; wellfields
across the river and floodplain.
City of Loyal
School or Lutheran church may be available; revisit
arrangements and agreements. Unsure if shelter
agreements are formalized and shelter not advertised;
residents unsure where to go. Accessibility concerns and
not hardened. Better solution is to partner with School to
construct a new safe room. Town & Country has a shelter;
most homes have basements.
floodplain ordinance has
been updated recently
Stormwaters improvements
completed in past have remedied
the most significant flooding
problems. Maintains 5-year capital
improvements plan for projects.
Uncertain if EOP recently updated. Encourage
basic ICS for elected officials.
Additional siren installed in 2011.
Uses digital message board for
general announcements.
Good relationship with other
communities; "handshake" mutual
aid and sharing of equipment
available if needed. No billing
rates for equipment established.
2 large mills, but no ladder trucks.
City of Neillsville
No public storm shelter. School or courthouse are
available is opened, but not advertised for such; explore
potential use, hardening (if needed), and remote unlock.
Fairgrounds also lacks a storm shelter or safe room.
Floodplain ordinance has
been updated recently. Dam
in good condition.
Dam rebuilt in 2003; no related
issues. Recently acquired multiple
floodprone properties with FEMA
mitigation dollars, including 1
repetitive loss structure.
Last updated in June 2015; under review.
Fairgrounds emergency plan needs updating.
2 sirens with good coverage at
industrial park and at City Hall.
Public Works digital radio coverage
gaps. Like Greenwood, some law
enforcement radios experiencing
scan delays and feedback.
Participates in exercises & mutual
aid for emergency services.
"Handshake agreement" for public
works. Have adopted WisDOT
equipment billing rates.
Maintains a capital improvements plan with
stormwater management projects. Explore
agreement with County to allow law
enforcement response beyond City limits.
School has increased security and working with
City Police regarding active threats. More
funding may be needed for related PPE and
tactical EMS; exercise with all partners.
City of Owen
No public safe room. Explore shelter for campground or
potentially as part of a new fire hall in the future. School
district may also be interested in a safe room project.
Floodplain development is
restricted. 1997 overflow
channel project plus culvert
resizing mitigated worse of
historic flooding.
Addressing site-by-site as needed.
Considering retention pond with dry
hydrant on north side.
Need to update EOP. No household debris
management site, like all communities.
Added a siren; good coverage. Cell
used for public works.
In good shape; evacuation
exercises for train derailment held.
"Handshake agreement" for public
works. MABAS.
Consider NOAA radio project for apartments
and mobile home park residents. No formal
role by fire/police in site plan review and platting
processes. No adopted billing rates for
equipment.
City of Thorp
No public storm shelter or safe room. Interest in a
identifying a saferoom at the park on the southside, which
would be near the mobile home park. Potentially explore
for northside park that has camping.
Working to improve accuracy
of floodplain maps.
Continuing implementation of a
stormwater management plan as
needed.
EOP updated in 2018. Continuing to exercise
the plan is important.
2 sirens with good coverage; more
public education on siren needed
(e.g., when is it triggered, what
does it mean, what you should do).
Formal mutual aid for water and
wastewater support, otherwise
"handshake" for public works
mutual aid. Exploring adoption of
WisDOT equipment billing rates.
Maintain a capital improvements plan for
projects.
NOTE: All law enforcement agencies are covered under a Statewide mutual aid agreement. The following fire departments serving the County participate in MABAS Division #152 for mutual aid: Alma Center, Central, Greenwood,
Neillsville, Owen-Withee-Curtiss, Spencer, Thorp, Loyal, and Pittsville as well as Clark County EM, Clark County Sheriffs' Office, and WDNR.
Other Flood Mitigation Activities Other Mitigation ActivitiesEmergency Operations Plan, ICS, & TrainingCommunications & Notification
SystemsMutual Aid & PartnershipsMunicipality
Overbank Flood
Management
Availability of Safe Rooms/Storm Shelters,
Warming/Cooling Shelters, or Other Safe Places
244
APPENDIX H.
CLARK COUNTY DAM INVENTORY
244
Dam Official/Popular Name Size
Estimated
Hazard
Rating
Hazard
Rating
Owner Organization Name
(if no name, likely privately
owned)
Stream/Impoundment Name
Normal
Storage
(acre
feet)
Max.
Storage
(acre
feet)
Primary Purpose
Poplar River #1/Sportsman Lake Large High High Clark Co. Land Conservation BRICK CREEK/SPORTSMAN LAKE 3,200.0 9,000.0 Recreation
Bear Creek/American Legion Small High City of Loyal BEAR CREEK 0.8 8.0 Other
Clark County 12 Small High Clark Co. Foresty & Parks HAY CREEK 10.0 20.0 Other
Horse Creek Dam #1/Horse Creek Dam North Small High Clark Co. Foresty & Parks HORSE CREEK/HORSE CREEK NORTH 10 17 Fish Pond
Iron Run Small High Clark Co. Foresty & Parks IRON RUN CREEK/IRON RUN FLOWAGE 20.0 40.0
Goeke Small High UN-NAMED TRIB. TO BLACK RIVER 4.2 11.0 Fish Pond
Herington Small High TRIB TO POPPLE RIVER 3.3 5.8 Fish Pond
Mead Large Low High Clark Co. Foresty & Parks SOUTH FORK EAU CLAIRE RIVER/MEAD LAKE 1,534.0 4,000.0 Recreation
Owen Park/City Of Owen Small Significant City of Owen POPLAR RIVER/LAKE 36-16 5.0 15.0 Recreation
Rock/Hay Creek Large Low Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks HAY CREEK/HAY CREEK (ROCK DAM) LAKE 526.0 1,240.0 Recreation
Sherwood Large Low Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks HAY CREEK/SHERWOOD LAKE 380.0 600.0 Recreation
Wedges Creek/Snyder Lake Large Low Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks 69.0 110.0 Recreation
Humbird/Halls Creek Large Low Low Town of Mentor EMERSON LAKE 200.0 127.0 Recreation
Dorchester Large Low Low Village of Dorchester N.FORK POPLAR RIVER/Dorchester Pond 30.0 177.0 Recreation
Web Center Small Low Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks TRIB. TO HORSE CREEK/WEB CENTER FLOWAGE 10.0 20.0
Owen City/Mill Large Low City of Owen BRICK CREEK/OWEN POND 50.0 90.0 Recreation
Clark County 16 Large Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks HAY CREEK 60 110 Irrigation
Clark County 2 Large Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks CREEK 24-5/LAKE 13-2 (SWR) 40.0 90.0 Recreation
Clark County No. 10/Abbot Ranch Flowage Large Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks HAY CREEK,CREEK 14-12/LAKE 22-13 30.0 50.0 Other
Kalepp, Lloyd Large Low Kalepp Fish Farms TR-N.FORK POPLAR RIVER 45.0 99.0 Recreation
Kalepp, Lloyd Large Low Kalepp Fish Farms NORTH FORK POPLAR 70.0 280.0 Recreation
Mech Large Low TR SOUTH FORK EAU CLAIRE 40.0 100.0 Fish Pond
Qualley Large Low ROCK CREEK 87.0 340.0 Recreation
Smith, Kenneth A. Large Low TR-HAY MEADOW CREEK 20.0 70.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Tobola Large Low TR GOGGLE EYE 27.0 51.0 Recreation
American Stores/American Stores Dairy Co Small Low American Stores Dairy Co ONEIL CREEK/LAKE 14 7 1 2 Water Supply
Spruce Lake Small Low Clark Co. Foresty & Parks IRON RUN CREEK/SPRUCE LAKE 28 40 Fish Pond
Opelt Brothers Small Low Opelt Sand & Gravel, LLC TRIB. TO THE BLACK RIVER 5.0 32.0 Fish Pond
Badzinski, Louis Small Low UN-NAME TRIB TO MID. ONEAL CR 2.0 5.0 Fish Pond
Capati Small Low TRIB TO BLACK RIVER 13.4 Fish Pond
City of Neillsville Small City of Neillsville ONEIL CREEK/LAKE 14 8 15.0 25.0 Recreation
Clark County 9 Small Clark Co. Foresty & Parks DITCH NUMBER 14 23.0 28.0 Irrigation
Washwood Flowage Small Clark Co. Foresty & Parks SCHUMANN CREEK/WASHWOOD FLOWAGE 10.0 20.0 Recreation
Barlow, Walter/Mary Krol Small TR-MEADOWS CREEK 1 2 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Bartels, K.F./Greenwood Community Schools Small TR-BLACK RIVER 1.0 2.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Barth, James/Wayne And Janice Kuhl Small TR-SOUTH BR ONEILL CREEK 1.5 4.1 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Bauman, Harry Small TR.-NORWEGIAN CREEK 15.0 35.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Braun, Clayton Small TR-BLACK RIVER 5.0 10.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Hasz, Albert Small NO WATERWAY 7 17 Recreation
Hildebrandt, Tom Small TR CUNNINGHAM CR. Stock or Small Farm Pond
Hiles, William Small UNNAMED 0.0 12.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Horn, Kenneth Small EAST BRANCH WEDGES CREEK 7 17 Other
Howard, Bernadine Small NO WATERWAY 5 10 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Kirn, Roger Small TR WEDGES CR. 2.0 14.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Lindow, Merlin Small NO WATERWAY 4.0 10.0 Other
Misfeldt, Roland Small TR-BLACK RIVER 2.0 11.0 Other
Modes,E.E. Small NO WATERWAY 3 13 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Northside Park/City Of Niellsville Small TR-O'NEIL CREEK 3 9 Recreation
Oelhofen, J. Small TR-SO.FORK-EAU CLAIRE RIVER 1.0 6.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Opelt, Robert Small TR-BLACK RIVER 11.0 24.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Pakiz, Frank Small TR-BLACK RIVER 3.0 13.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Raddeman, Harold Small TR-BLACK RIVER 3 12 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Schaefer, Harold O. Small TR-WEDGES CREEK 8.0 30.0 Recreation
Scheel, Robert W Small UNNAMED 1.0 4.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Schlinsog, Norman Small S. BRANCH O'NEIL Stock or Small Farm Pond
Smith, Loretta Small TR CUNNINGHAM CR. Stock or Small Farm Pond
Sorenson, L.D./Sorenson Dike Small TR-DILL CREEK 2.0 6.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Sorenson, L.D./Sorenson Levee Small TR-DILL CREEK 2.0 4.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Sternitsky, Ernest Small TR-CUNNINGHAM CREEK 2.0 8.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Van Gorden Brothers Small ROCK CREEK 3.0 4.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
York, James Small NO WATERWAY 7.0 35.0 Stock or Small Farm Pond
Ziegler, Louis Small TR-PONY CREEK 8.0 22.0 Other
Zubal, Michael Small NO WATERWAY 5 17 Other
244
APPENDIX I.
HAZARD MITIGATION TOOLBOX
244
MITIGATION TOOLBOX – ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES
A mitigation strategy is an action that will reduce or prevent the impacts of
a hazard event on people, property, critical infrastructure/services, or the
economy over the long-term. The acquisition and demolition of a
frequently flooded home is the quintessential example of mitigation. But to
complicate matters, there is no “bright line” between the different parts of
the emergency management cycle—mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery. For example, having an emergency or continuity plan can also
reduce the impacts of a hazard event. While this plan emphasizes
mitigation, some strategy alternatives included in the plan may also fall
within other parts of the emergency management cycle, but were deemed
important by the County or its communities.
A wide variety of possible mitigation tools exist to address natural hazards.
The most common mitigation strategies fall within six basic categories:
I. Administrative and Regulatory Activities
II. Structural Projects
III. Education and Awareness Strategies
IV. Natural Resources Protection
V. Emergency Response and Recovery Services
VI. Implementation Strategies
This appendix provides an overview of the alternative mitigation activities available to communities and community
members for the typical weather-related natural hazards experienced in west-central Wisconsin, though many of
these activities can also be used to mitigate the impacts of additional types of hazards (e.g., pests & infestation,
forest fire). No such list of activities is complete, and new strategies are evolving as technology, laws, and impacts
change. Many excellent bibliographies of mitigation guides and resource materials exist which provide additional
detail on these alternative strategies. For additional information, three excellent starting points are:
Wisconsin Emergency Management. State of Wisconsin Hazard Mitigation Plan. July 2001.
Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Web Site. <http://www.fema.gov >. In particular, see
“Mitigation Ideas”, FEMA-R5, 9/02.
Schwab, Jim, et.al. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery and Reconstruction.
American Planning Association. Planning Advisory Service Report #483/484. December 1998.
I. ADMINISTRATIVE & REGULATORY ACTIVITIES These types of activities can be implemented by local governments to protect new construction and expanding
development from hazard risks. They fall within the five basic sub-categories listed below, along with the hazard
types they would primarily address.
Key Natural Hazards
Tornado Winter
Storms
Thunder-
storms Flooding
Heat and
Drought Wildfire
Planning Activities * * * ** * ** Land-Use Controls * * * ** * ** Building Codes ** ** ** * * * Special Plans & Studies * * * ** * ** Strategic Partnerships * * * * * **
244
A. Planning Activities Comprehensive and land-use planning can be important hazard mitigation tools, though natural hazard mitigation is
often not a primary goal of such plans. In west-central Wisconsin, flooding and floodplain management typically
receives the greatest attention in local land-use plans. Such plans often indicate areas appropriate for open space
preservation or for low density development. Other planning efforts which may incorporate hazard mitigation
recommendations include:
storm water management plans
growth management plans
policies regarding concurrency of infrastructure and development
capital improvement planning
floodplain management plans
shoreland protection plans
watershed district plans
historic preservation plans
wellhead protection plans
farmland preservation plans
various hazard analyses and emergency response plans
B. Land-Use Controls Land-use controls are used to implement the plans and vision of a community. Of the land-use controls, zoning
regulations are the most common. Zoning identifies appropriate uses for different areas of a municipality and
regulates those uses. Again, within the region, flooding issues receive the most attention among the natural hazards,
with regulations often discouraging development or high-density development within floodplains. A wide-variety of
land-use controls besides zoning are available to assist in mitigating hazards or their impacts, though some can
require technical studies to administer. Some of these include:
overlay zoning for high-hazard or hazard prone areas
bonus or incentive zoning, allowing for the transfer of development credits
performance zoning
floating zones for areas recently impacted by a hazard
density controls/down-zoning
subdivision ordinances
design review standards
cul-de-sac & rights-of-way standards for snow removal and emergency vehicle access
soil conservation and steep slope/hillside ordinances
stormwater ordinance & impervious surface limits
development moratorium or interim zoning to allow additional time to plan
shoreland, floodplain, and wetland zoning, ordinances, or management regulations
regulate fill, possibly performance based
compensatory floodland storage (banking) to offset the effects of fill in flood-prone areas
setback regulations, including vegetation setbacks in wildfire prone areas
freeboard requirements in special flood hazard areas
regulations for solid waste, landfills, and hazardous materials
regulations for agricultural waste and septic systems
C. Building Codes Building codes are one of the most important hazard mitigation tools, and can be used to address all natural hazards.
When properly designed and constructed in an appropriate location, the average structure should rarely be seriously
damaged by most of these natural forces.
244
Building codes can be created and modified to promote mitigation measures such as:
fire-resistant building materials
permanent foundations
anchoring or tie-downs for mobile homes
wind-resistant construction
design standards of roofing systems for snow loads and high winds
overhead sewers or ball-traps for basements to prevent sewer back-up
stormwater gutters
storm-shelters or safe-rooms for large capacity buildings
special containment or monitoring for hazardous materials
include insulation standards to help protect from extreme heat and cold
In addition to the adoption of such codes, methods of administration and enforcement may be modified to promote
compliance. Educational efforts and administrative/technology improvements may also be undertaken to build staff
capacity of code officials to implement such standards or to educate the public or interest groups (e.g., builders,
developers, realtors). The Federal Emergency Management Agency and Institute for Business and Home Safety
have many such standards and recommendations available at their respective websites.1
D. Special Plans and Studies Once a problem or potential problem is identified, additional studies, surveys, or plans may be needed for a special
planning area or for a specific issue. These can vary in both geographic scope and engineering requirements. A
regional watershed or flood management plan may be required to address flooding issues which cross many
different governmental boundaries. A neighborhood or industrial park may require stormwater or hydraulic studies
to address localized flash flooding. A new home near a river may require a survey of elevations for a floodplain
determination. Cost-benefits analysis could be performed before a local government agrees to a new project. Or, a
special analysis of a school can be made to determine safe spots in case of a tornado warning.
II. STRUCTURAL PROJECTS Structural projects are commonly the most expensive mitigation activities to undertake, and often have on-going
maintenance costs. There are two basic types of structural projects—infrastructure improvements and building
modifications.
A. Infrastructure Improvements & Maintenance The largest and most common structural projects are infrastructure improvements typically funded by public
agencies, often with the assistance of federal or state grant funding. In west-central Wisconsin, the majority of these
projects are undertaken to address flooding and stormwater concerns, though there are other improvements and
maintenance efforts which address other natural hazards. The following are example infrastructure improvement
and maintenance efforts:
flood control works (construction, restoration/maintenance, or removal), such as:
- dams, dam gates, and reservoirs
- remote dam sensors and flood gauges
- back-up prevention
- levees, berms, floodwalls, & retaining walls
- revetments & rip-rap
- channel maintenance & dredging
- agricultural dikes & drain tiles
- diversions, surface channels, overflow weirs, tunnels
1 FEMA Website--http://www.fema.gov and IBHS Website--http://www.ibhs.org/
244
- stormwater retention ponds/basins, rain gardens, and low-impact development techniques
engineering, retrofitting, relocation, or new construction of roads, bridges & utilities
alternative routes of access and evacuation
sufficient access/egress for emergency vehicles
wells and wastewater plants relocated or protected, including associated monitoring wells
separation of stormwater and wastewater
assess and improve, as needed, electrical service reliability during winter or storm events
(e.g., encourage back-up power generation, bury power lines, micro-grids/improved redundancy)
evaluate and design water systems and wells to be less vulnerable to drought
road height or hill cuts to prevent flooding or drifting of snow
pruning of trees from power lines or clearing rights-of-way (prevent accidents, better snow removal)
planting of trees to prevent drifting of snow
improved road systems & signage/signalization to reduce accidents, including rail crossings, bridges, etc.
separation of transportation types (pedestrian, bicycle, truck routes)
slope stabilization projects (compacting, vegetation, debris anchoring)
fire breaks, chipping programs, and debris clearing
various monitoring systems (e.g., fire towers, weather stations, communication systems)
B. Modification of Buildings or Structures Typically less expensive are modifications to individual structures and buildings. These changes are commonly
made in response to building codes or other local regulations. Often, these projects are often funded by individual
owners, though governmental agencies or insurance companies may have loan or grant programs available to assist.
Some typically mentioned modification activities include:
elevate structures above flood elevations
structural retrofits for flood-proofing, such as defined wet areas)
wind-proofing (bracing, storm shutters, shatter-resistant glass, etc.)
sewer back-up protection
construction of flood barriers around structures
security measures and escape routes
identification or construction of a safe room or shelter (especially for public facilities and large
complexes)
electric generator for heating and cooling when normal power supply is not available
wildfire risk assessments, fire-resistant materials, and maintaining defensible spaces
A more costly strategy is the acquisition, demolition, and/or relocation of flood-prone buildings, facilities, or entire
neighborhoods. Typically, such a buy-out program is implemented by the local government, with the assistance of
grant funds, and the resulting open space becomes parkland or an environmental corridor.
244
III. EDUCATION & AWARENESS STRATEGIES Education and awareness efforts aimed at community members, the private sector, and public officials can be some
of those most effective mitigation strategies available. These efforts span all hazard types, even those hazards were
other mitigation options may be limited. Some education and awareness strategies are relatively low cost to
implement, with little or no new funding required.
Key Natural Hazards
Tornado Winter
Storms
Thunder-
storms Flooding
Heat and
Drought Wildfire
Public Education &
Awareness Activities ** ** ** ** ** **
Education and awareness strategies can cover a variety of issues and topics, such as:
hazard risks for the community and potential hazard impacts
warning systems and terminology
hazard insurance to protect belongings
evacuation or location of shelters
appropriate reaction to hazard events
safety supplies or kits
health and safety issues, such West Nile Virus
agricultural educational efforts on drought, winter kill,
and water quality issues
how domestic practices may contribute to hazards
permitting processes, including building and
development regulations for realtors, builders,
engineers, architects
available technical assistance sources
mitigation for business & industry leaders
National Flood Insure Program participation
required real estate disclosure of hazards
formation of technical advisory committees
drills or mock events
modifying your home to be hazard resistant
neighborhood or volunteer programs
assisting with emergency
driver safety programs
household hazardous waste disposal
The implementation and delivery methods for these strategies can also
vary greatly, including:
face-to-face meetings
direct mailings
local media (television, radio, newspaper)
informational flyers and self-help guides
multi-media materials (CD-ROMs)
World Wide Web
identify a hazard information center
FEMA Insurance Program Activities
Communities must adopt & enforce a
floodplain management ordinance to
qualify for the NFIP.
CRS credited activities for rate reduction
encompass a wide variety of mitigation
activities, including:
Public Information Activities
Elevation Certificate
Map Determinations
Outreach Projects
Hazard Disclosure
Flood Protection Library
Flood Protection Assistance
Mapping & Regulatory Activities
Additional Flood Data
Open Space Preservation
Higher Regulatory Standards
Flood Data Maintenance
Stormwater Management
Flood Damage Reduction Activities
Repetitive Loss Projects
Floodplain Management Planning
Acquisition & Relocation
Retrofitting
Drainage System Maintenance
Flood Preparedness Activities
Flood Warning Program
Levee Safety
Dam Safety
244
information booths at events, fairs, etc.
presentations to schools, groups, etc.
pilot projects and demonstrations
Some of these activities may be required by law, such as the public noticing of government meetings or public
participation during comprehensive planning efforts.
IV. NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION Protecting a community’s natural resources yields many positive social, environmental, health, and economic
impacts, of which hazard mitigation is one. These protection strategies include the preservation of open space, the
restoration of natural ecosystems, and the on-going management of a community’s natural resources.
Key Natural Hazards
Tornado Winter
Storms
Thunder-
storms Flooding
Heat and
Drought Wildfire
Open Space Preservation * ** *
Restoration Project * **
Management Practices * * * * * **
A. Open Space and Environmental Corridor Preservation By limiting development in floodprone or hazard-prone areas, certain hazard impacts can be avoided before they
occur. Open space can be maintained in agricultural uses, parks, environmental corridors, and often golf courses.
Open space and environmental corridor preservation can also have other multiple benefits, such as protecting unique
natural or cultural resources, maintaining or improving water quality, preserving productive farmland, and providing
stormwater detention areas. The most common tool to promote open space or to preserve an environmental corridor
is through zoning regulations. However, there are additional tools available to promote open space:
open space/environmental corridor preservation in local or regional planning efforts
property acquisition
transfer or purchase of development rights
purchase options, such as right-of-first refusal or purchase & leaseback arrangements
use of eminent domain for condemnation
private or cooperative land trusts
farmland preservation programs, including use or differential taxation and tax credits
sediment or erosion controls
B. Restoration Projects Similar to open space preservation, the restoration of natural areas can also help mitigate the impacts of flooding and
stormwater. To address severely flood-prone areas with many repetitive loss properties, some communities have
acquired the land and returned it to its natural form. Restorations project with potential positive hazard mitigation
components include:
stream corridor restoration
shoreland, dune and beach restoration
watershed management
prairie restoration
wetland restoration, preservation, & development regulations
wetlands mitigation or “banking”
environmental impact & carrying capacity review & ordinances
244
Often, these restoration projects occur in conjunction with a larger development project under the guidance of
existing local or state regulations. For instance a community may identify an under-developed flood-prone area for
restoration and stormwater detention. As development occurs in other areas of the community, the developers help
share the financial burden of the restoration based on wetland impacts and stormwater created at the developing
locations.
C. Management Practices Community members and government officials utilize numerous natural resources management tools and best
practices which have positive hazard mitigation impacts. Some examples are:
forest and wild fire fuel reduction
farmland preservation planning and soil conservation practices
forest & vegetation management & projects
urban forestry & landscape management
These management practices can impact most natural hazards to varying degrees. For instance, urban forestry and
landscape management can be used to reduce stormwater run-off, improve water quality, reduce the impacts of the
urban heat island effect, and help reduce local air and sound pollution. In rural areas, forest and vegetation
management can help reduce the potential of large forest and wild fires, improve water quality, reduce the drifting of
snow, and can be an important soil conservation tool. Some of these practices may also be incorporated into local
regulations.
V. Emergency Response & Recovery Services Many of the tools & activities listed in this section may more appropriately fit within the scope of a post-disaster
recovery & reconstruction plan, rather than a hazard mitigation plan. However, a prompt and organized response to
a hazard warning or event can lessen the negative impacts associated with the event, and speed up the recovery
process. The majority of these response strategies apply to multiple or all hazards.
Key Natural Hazards
Tornado Winter
Storms
Thunder-
storms Flooding
Heat and
Drought Wildfire
Planning Activities ** ** ** ** ** **
Communication Systems ** ** ** ** * ** Resources ** ** * ** * **
A. Planning Activities Emergency response and operations plans and policies can be comprehensive, specific to a hazard-type, or focus on
addressing a particular impact. Most importantly, plans should be in place which identify roles, responsibilities, and
authority when an event occurs, including any policies regarding emergency legislation. Such planning activities
may include:
- evacuation procedures - security & protection against looting
- animal control - health issues (e.g., vaccinations for tetanus)
- general clearing, clean-up & refuse disposal
- disaster recovery plans - emergency government plans
Additional planning and regulatory efforts may be required after an event occurs, and to help guide the
redevelopment process, such as:
development moratorium or interim zoning
planning solutions for impacted historic buildings & sites
re-occupancy permits
emergency or temporary permitting for repairs
244
emergency demolition
evacuation procedures
post-disaster evaluation & mitigation (lessons learned)
post-disaster reconstruction land-use plans and priorities (opportunities)
B. Communication and Warning Systems Hazard threat recognition & reporting is critical for effective hazard mitigation. Such warning systems may be
electronic (e.g., dam monitors, flood gauges, weather radar, road ice sensors) or require human action (e.g.,
volunteer weather-watchers).
Once a potential or existing hazard is identified, it needs to be communicated effectively to those who may be
impacted and to those who need to respond. Such warning systems may include sirens, television/radio, NOAA
weather radios, automatic dialing systems, voice-activate radio, or public address systems.
If an event should occur, additional effective communication is needed between emergency response services in the
field and the emergency operation center. Additional communication policies for post-disaster response may
address media & public interaction and a point-of-contact with state emergency management officials.
C. Resources (Personnel, Financial, and Equipment) Foremost, personnel need the training to identify a potential hazard, utilities the existing communication systems,
and take appropriate action. A well-prepared community will have adopted emergency response procedures and
plans such as those previously discussed, and emergency personnel will be knowledgeable of these plans. As such,
training is a very important hazard mitigation tool.
The following are some additional resource-related hazard mitigation strategies:
purchase equipment or special vehicles (or related maintenance)
maintenance or improvement to utilities & infrastructure to increase response effectiveness
general clearing, clean-up & refuse disposal
provide relief services for community members, such as:
special arrangements for payment of heating bills during severe winter storms
transportation to heating or cooling centers
emergency housing or shelters
public mortgage lending subsidies
damage assessment & accounting systems
restoration of utility services
business support
other specialists (e.g., environmental, agricultural, hazardous materials)
Related to strategic partnerships, some communities have established various agreements with other municipalities
or the private sector for mutual support if a disaster should occur, in order to expedite the recovery process.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES Implementation strategies are often not direct means of mitigating a hazard, but are important tools for assisting with
the implementation of the various mitigation activities previously discussed. Implementation strategies can apply to
all hazard types, and are equally important for pre-disaster mitigation and post-disaster response and recovery. This
section overviews strategic partnerships and project financing as important implementation tools.
244
A. Strategic Partnerships Strategic partnerships are very important in hazard preparedness, disaster response, and post-disaster recovery. Such
partnerships may be between adjacent governmental entities, the private and public sectors, or even between
community members themselves. These partnerships may involve formal contracts, mutual aid agreements, and
memoranda of understanding, or may be a less formal sharing of information and training. Most common is the
formation of partnerships for the sharing of resources, including technical skills, financial resources, equipment, and
personnel. Some example strategic partnerships are:
partnerships with universities and colleges for training programs or special studies
establishment of public-private ad hoc task forces to address a critical issue
sharing of data & information (e.g., GIS, maps, plans, ordinances, procedures)
identification of community buildings to use a public storm, cooling, and heating shelters
monitoring for potential hazards & related communication
multi-agency training, drills, or mock events
intergovernmental agreements for snow removal, fire, police, or other emergency services
form a cooperative to increase buying power for special insurance
intergovernmental agreements for regulatory oversight, inspections, monitoring, assessment, etc.
agreements to perform comprehensive planning or regional studies
agreement regarding the provision and maintenance of infrastructure, dams, equipment, etc.
agreements covering disaster response and recovery services and resources (e.g., Red Cross)
Many of the existing strategic partnerships for hazard mitigation in the County are identified in Section IV. Current
Mitigation Activities of the plan.
B. Project Financing & Fiscal Mechanisms There are optional means of funding hazard mitigation measures, outside of the standard annual municipal or county
budget cycle. Many communities are beginning to take a longer-term perspective on project financing and adopting
capital improvements plans for all types of infrastructure improvements and heavy equipment purchases. This
approach allows a better perspective of the long-term needs and financial resources a community has available,
enabling the exploration of alternative fiscal mechanisms such as:
identification & procurement of grant funds (revenue)
special assessment districts for special services or benefits (revenues, guide development)
developer exactions, impact fees, development improvement taxes (revenue)
user-fees (revenue)
land dedications/exactions & TDRs (land)
tax incentives--marginal cost pricing & differential assessment (primarily to guide development)
tax increment financing (TIF) for infrastructure improvements (revenue)
land transfer, development, gains taxes (versus speculation & profits for projects, create a land bank, etc.)
tax abatement, low-interest loans, subsidies, etc. (incentives for mitigation or guide development)
loans or tax-exempt bond financing
special redevelopment funds
strategic partnerships with non-profit groups for fund-raising activities (revenues, awareness)
strategic partnerships to pool financial resources, possibly leveraging additional grant or private funds
244
APPENDIX J.
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS OF
ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION
STRATEGIES
Analysis of Strategy Alternatives
High (8.0+)
Med (6.6-7.9)
Low (5.0-6.5)
Exclude (<5.0)
1. Based on landowner and/or community interest, pursue grant funding to make
cost-sharing available for the installation of safe rooms (storm shelters), storm
hardening projects, or remote unlock of existing shelters at mobile home parks,
campgrounds, RV parks, slab-on-grade residential developments, and other areas
and communities where no existing shelter alternatives exist. Explore grant
funding for a safe room at the County Fairground and other County parks.
2015; revised 7.6Local communities and
landowners w/ County Emgy
Mgmt assistance.
Tornado assessment discusses current need and interest; interest in
safe room projects has been growing. Would be contingent on
landowner participation. Coordinate with villages or cities when
opportunities and needs exist. Such a project could be incorporated
into planned municipal buildings, such as a new County Highway
Shop.
2. Consider County certification in the voluntary National Weather Service
StormReady Program to increase the visibility of local preparedness efforts,
weather monitoring and warning systems, and SkyWarn training.new 6.3 County Emergency Mgmt
StormReady is a NWS-recognition program. Must meet certain
preparedness, monitoring, and alerting requirements, which Clark
County may already meet.
3. Implement an educational initiative targeting campgrounds, resorts, RV parks,
and mobile home parks to encourage emergency planning, use of notification
systems, and consideration of potential mitigation grant funding for safe rooms. 2015; revised 7.1
County Emergency Mgmt,
municipality
Educational outreach potentially eligible for FEMA mitigation grant
5% funding. Could include providing a model severe storm
preparedness and action plan.
4. Due to the County's large size, acquire and set-up a second Highway
Department emergency scene trailer, with barricades, signage, etc., to be stationed
in the southern half of the County.new 7.3 Consider equipment for local EMS.
5. Develop a list of area generator and emergency fuel suppliers for critical
facilities and address gaps if needed. If funding opportunities become available,
work with communities to pursue grant dollars for emergency power generators
and/or connections/hook-ups for critical facilities, fuel suppliers, and emergency
operations centers in Clark County. This may include portable generators,
potentially shared between communities or departments, for utilities and
emergency response.
2015; revised 6.5Local communities & critical
facilities w/ Emgy Mgmt
assistance.
Not currently a priority for mitigation grant funding in Wisconsin.
6. Continue to work with local power providers to bury overhead electrical lines in
areas prone to outages due to falling trees/limbs or high winds or for service to
critical facilities. For areas prone to flooding, transformers or other such power
infrastructure may require floodproofing, elevating, relocation, or other flood
mitigation. Encourage periodic power loss tabletop exercises with local and
regional partners.
2015; revised
slightly7.0
Electric cooperative &
municipal utilitiesSee Long-Term Power Outage assessment section.
7. Encourage households with persons having special needs that may be uniquely
at risk during a power outage or disaster (e.g., oxygen, dialysis, seniors living
alone) to develop an emergency contact plan. Encourage these households to sign-
up for the Nixle system and to notify their electric provider to be added to their
emergency contact lists. Encourage them to also notify their local EMS and/or
Fire Department.
new; discussed
in previous
plans8.6
County ADRC, Public
Health, and Emergency
Management.
See discussion in LTPO subsection. Could potentially be part of a
mitigation grant-funded initiative. 2015 plan strategy encouraged
local govts and nonprofits to take the lead role and amend ADRC
client intake forms to include more emergency information, the latter
of which has been completed. Coordinate educational materials
with ADRC to ensure accessibility.
2019 Plan Strategy Alternative2015, revised,
or new
Prioritization/Score If recommended, likely
key parties to be
involved.
Other Comments or Barriers to Implementation
Severe Weather Mitigation Strategies (e.g., tornado, high wind, winter storm)
Prioritization considers the following factors:1) Is the strategy TECHNICALLY and ENVIRONMENTALLY feasible and appropriate? Do benefits outweigh costs?
2) Is the strategy LEGALLY and ADMINISTRATIVELY feasible and appropriate? Are resources available?
3) Is the strategy SOCIALLY and POLITICALLY feasible and appropriate? Would there be support for the action?
Note: The following are county-level and multi-community strategy alternatives; each city and village individually evaluated their community-specific strategy recommendations. Most ongoing preparedness and planning activities or
other adopted standard practices in Clark County are not repeated here. The alternative strategies were analyzed based on their potential for loss reduction and feasibility for the mitigation of hazard risks. Some of the following
strategies may be rated differently by the county or communities based on other criteria. As such, a strategy may be excluded or ranked low in this plan, but could be a high priority for the county overall.
High (8.0+)
Med (6.6-7.9)
Low (5.0-6.5)
Exclude (<5.0)
1. Continue to monitor, study, and address riverine flooding, stormwater and flash
flooding, ice damming, road washout problem areas, and bank erosion hotspots in
the County as discussed and identified in the flood assessment of the hazard
mitigation plan. Potential projects include, but are not limited to
creation/expansion of flood/stormwater storage areas, expanded flood storage
through dredging, the installation or re-sizing of culverts, the creation or
improvement of drainageways, bank stabilization, and the protection of natural
drainage and retention areas.
2015; revised 8.2County Planning , Highway,
and Emergency Mgmt;
municipalities
Strategy is generalized to allow flexibility in implementation. If
significant damages incurred, especially to structures, Emergency
Management would become involved and may be eligible for FEMA
mitigation grant funding.
2. As opportunities arise, pursue hazard mitigation grant funding to acquire,
relocate, or floodproof structures and properties with a flood history, most at risk of
flood damage, and/or following a flood event in which significant damage occurs,
if the landowner agrees to participate.
2015 6.2Local Communities with
County Emgy Mgmt support;
possibly Planning & Devlpmt
Flood assessment suggests potential areas that may be targeted for
such mitigation. Flooding threat can change over time. Eligible for
mitigation grant dollars if benefits outweigh costs.
3. Develop and maintain stormwater systems and strive for reliable emergency
access on the 45 miles of dirt/sand County Forest and logging roads which are
prone to washouts, require costly maintenance, and can become impassible
following heavy rain events.
2015 5.2 County Forestry Ongoing.
4. Explore grant funding and/or USGS partnerships to install automated water
monitoring/flood gauges upstream of key floodprone areas and potentially at
County-owned dams. In particular, consider such monitoring for the S. Fork of the
Eau Claire River as well as installation of traffic-control gates across County
Highway "M".
2015 6.0
Various County
Departments, including
Planning and Highway.
Potentially USGS regarding
gauges.
County Highway "M" has a history of flooding downstream of Mead
Lake Dam, which is a traffic hazard. Raising the elevation of the
roadway about flood level would require significant funding support.
As an alternative, install gates across the highway that can be
lowered by law enforcement or Highway personnel when needed.
5. Continue to enforce County and local floodplain regulations to: discourage
future floodplain development and the storage of hazardous materials in
floodplains; require dry land access for new structures; limit development in dam
shadows; and maintain natural flood storage areas.
ongoing policy 8.0County Planning & County
Board; municipalities
General policy statement. May not necessitate a separate strategy,
but core to floodplain management.
6. With the new LiDAR topographic data available, obtain FEMA certification to
use this LiDAR information for elevation data requirements for Letter of Map
Amendments (LOMA) review, thus avoiding more costly and time-consuming
surveying work. Encourage FEMA to eventually update the County's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps using the LiDAR data.
new 7.0 County Planning, FEMA
This is a relatively new Federal rule. The abbreviated LiDAR-
LOMA review process may not work for all locations, but has
significant potential to save time, money, and landowner frustration
in instances where the official 100-year floodplain boundary is in
error.
7. Continue to maintain dams and dam emergency action plans. Strive to
complete G.I.S. mapping of hydraulic shadows for all large and hazard-hazard
dams. Discourage development in the hydraulic shadows (dam failure floodplains)
of dams. Encourage residents and businesses within or near dam shadows to sign-
up for the Nixle emergency notification system.
2015; revised 7.8County Planning and
Emergency Mgmt
Significant progress made since last mitigation plan on mapping of
dam hydraulic shadows/failure areas. This strategy suggests
continuing this effort.
8. Educate and encourage municipalities to consider downstream implications
within sub-watersheds when selecting sizes and installing or replacing culverts.
Advocate for comprehensive, long-term stormwater management solutions, using
engineering analysis when necessary, and through appropriate sizing of ditches,
culverts, and other systems.
2015; revised
slightly6.9
County Planning, Highway,
and Emergency Mgmt;
towns, cities, and villages
Some outreach on this topic during previous educational outreach
effort. Could be expanded into related flood mitigation topics, such
as trends, flood storage, impacts of drain tiling, etc. Could also be
part of a broader all-hazards outreach effort.
9. Monitor and study the need for: (i) further development of standards or adaptive
action to mitigate flooding beyond the official FEMA 100-year floodplain
boundaries, (ii) modifying stormwater management model assumptions, and (iii)
reassessing related infrastructure (e.g., culverts) due to climate trends and
increasing heavy rain events.
new 7.2 County Planning
Concern expressed during process that flood frequency and rainfall
intensities increasing. Additional climate adaptation measures may
be worth exploring.
Other Comments or Barriers to Implementation2019 Plan Strategy Alternative2015, revised,
or new
If recommended, likely
key parties to be
involved.
Flood Mitigation Strategies
Prioritization/Score
High (8.0+)
Med (6.6-7.9)
Low (5.0-6.5)
Exclude (<5.0)
1. In cooperation with local fire departments and WDNR, continue to coordinate
with the Towns of Levis and Foster in the implementation and updates of their
Community Wildfire Protection Plans. Incorporate evacuation strategies into the
CWPPs as needed. Encourage the Towns of Mentor and Dewhurst to consider
similar planning efforts and wildfire mitigation activities.
2015; revised 7.3Towns, WDNR, Fire
Departments, Emgy
Management
CWPPs allow local municipalities and fire departments to access
certain wildfire mitigation grant funding. Assumes general wildfire
and burning permit outreach continuing countywide; could explore
grant dollars to fund subgrants for each fire department for localized
outreach.
2. As needed, pursue grant funding for the installation of dry hydrants or high
capacity wells in rural areas with significant population concentrations,
communities with a high wildfire risk, or other rural areas without timely, reliable
access to water for fire protection. Add the location of these water sources to the
County Emergency Services Atlas.
2015 7.1Some local fire departments continue to express a need for dry
hydrants, such as at Sherwood Lake.
3. In cooperation with Wisconsin DNR and Wisconsin Emergency Management
(and possibly Eau Claire Co., Jackson Co., and the Ho-Chunk Nation) periodically
conduct a large-scale, multi-agency wildfire event training exercise. Develop any
needed incident action plans/procedures and agreements as a result of these
exercises.
2015 7.6
WDNR, Fire Departments,
Ho-Chunk Nation,
Emergency Management
offices
4. Work with Towns and permitting agencies to encourage the adoption of
adequate driveway standards for large emergency vehicles and increase public
awareness of related driveway access, grade, width/clearance, long-dead end roads,
and turn-around issues. Continue to request local fire department input on
proposed site plans, CSMs, and subdivision plats.
2015; revised 7.2County or local zoning
offices, Fire Department,
local municipalities
County and many towns have ordinances, but some issues still exist,
especially near surface waters and in forested areas. Though this is
an "all hazards" concern, it is included here since it grew out of
wildfire planning discussions.
5. Establish county guidelines for emergency number signage which address
situations where multiple properties may share a common driveway or entrance
road, as well as the naming and signing of private roads if serving multiple homes.
Encourage towns to continue to replace older signs with multi-directional signage
perpendicular to the roadway through attrition.
2015; revised 7.6 Though this is an "all hazards" concern, it is included here since it
grew out of wildfire planning discussions.
1. Support the efforts of County Land & Water Conservation staff, NRCS, and
UW-Extension to promote nutrient management, soil health, irrigation well
efficiency improvements, and other best practices that can help reduce flash
flooding, protect groundwater, and make croplands more resilient to drought and
wind erosion.
new 7.2County L&WCD, UW-
Extension, NCRS,
agricultural partners
The Land Conservation Department strongly believes that farm field
runoff needs to be reduced significantly to protect the waters in the
County.
2. Conduct a tabletop exercise related to animal disease and bio-security threats,
including livestock quarantine, evacuation, and animal mass casualty protocols.
Consider amending the County Emergency Operations Plan if needed. 2015; revised 7.0
County L&WCD, Public
Health, Emgy Mgmt,
DATCP, UW-Extension, and
agri partners
The County EOP has a Health & Medical annex that covers animal
disease incidents and related roles.
3. Support the continuation of UW-Extension's spill event field days for producers
and agri-business. Encourage additional winter storage capacity when appropriate.
Promote the WDNR Hotline in case of equipment rollovers, failure of a storage
tank valve, or failure of a wall in a manure storage lagoon.
2015; refocused
on education7.3
County Emgy Mgmt, County
Highway, L&WCD, agri
partners
Include rural fire departments in any spill training/field days.
Actual releases have occurred and provide lessons learned.
Wildfire & Emergency Access Strategy Alternatives
Other Comments or Barriers to Implementation
If recommended, likely
key parties to be
involved.
Agricultural-Related Strategy Alternatives (e.g., Drought, Livestock Pandemic, Spills)
2019 Plan Strategy Alternative2015, revised,
or new
Prioritization/Score
High (8.0+)
Med (6.6-7.9)
Low (5.0-6.5)
Exclude (<5.0)
4. Engage in a local discussion of alternatives to mitigate flooding that is
exacerbated by agricultural practices, such as the increasing use of drain tiling,
land use changes that reduce flood storage capacity, and the use of drag lines in
culverts.
new 7.2
County L&WCD, UW-
Extension, NCRS,
agricultural partners, elected
officials
Tiling and ditching of wetlands has been increasing in the County in
the last several years.
5. Work with WDOT and landowners to explore live plantings as an alternative to
snow fencing or berming in driftprone areas. Continue outreach on the availability
of WDOT Standing Corn payments as an additional alternative. 2015; revised 7.5County Highway, WDOT,
landowners
1. Continue Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness training. Regularly
rotate HazMat exercises and training throughout Clark County with a particular
focus on those chemicals commonly transported by rail or highways or at fixed
facilities and pipelines within the local host community. Include law enforcement,
EMS, railroads, pipeline companies, and schools in such training. Consider having
EHS facilities give presentations on their hazardous materials, facilities, and plans
at Emergency Services Association meetings.
2015; revised 8.8
County Emgy Mgmt,
LEPC, Fire Departments,
railroads, EHS facilities
Certain minimum levels of training are already required.
Schools and CESA 10 may have a role, since some have haz
mat on site as well as evacuation planning. Seek science room
and lab floor plans, diagrams of storage, and regularly updated
inventories of chemicals.
2. Maintain a general inventory of the training, equipment, and general capacity
of response agencies in Clark County for hazardous materials-related events.
Continue to work towards getting all fire department personnel trained to the
operations level and for law enforcement/EMS personnel to be trained to the
awareness level. Consider reaching out to schools regarding haz mat response in
their buildings.
2015 9.1
Fire Departments, Law
Enforcement, EMS, Emgy
Mgmt, WEM
Recognize the role of schools; check status of chemical
hygiene plans.
3. Conduct a Commodity Flow Study to provide a better understanding of the
types of hazardous materials being transported by highway and rail in Clark
County.new 6.4
County Emergency Mgmt,
LEPC
Communities expressed concern that they did not know what
haz mat was "moving through"; this is not difficult to do. A
multi-county study would be most effective.
4. Work with local communities to increase public awareness and support of
available "Clean Sweep" programs and other methods for the proper disposal of
hazardous waste, including residential, business, agricultural, and pharmaceutical
materials. Encourage State legislators to provide additional funding support for
such programming.
2015; revised 7.3
UW-Extension; County
Board; other County
departments
5. Integrate railroad mile posts, key bridges, and grade crossing identification
numbers into the County Emergency Map Book, if such information is provided by
railroads. Explain the importance and use of these additions to emergency services
and dispatch personnel.
2015; revised
slightly5.9
County GIS, Emergency
Management, Emergency
Services Association
Such information is available; NB blue & white signs and the
Federal Railroad Administration database. The Federal RR
Admin data is easy to find, but can be time-consuming to
compile into a usuable format.
6. Continue to encourage partnerships between communities and area fire
departments to establish, support, and maintain a County Type 4 Haz Mat
Response Team and/or explore other alternatives.new 8.0
County Emergency
Services Association
Very challenging due to training requirements and equipment
costs; limited grant resources.
2019 Plan Strategy Alternative2015, revised,
or new
Prioritization/Score If recommended, likely
key parties to be
involved.
Other Comments or Barriers to Implementation
Hazardous Materials Spills Alternatives
High (8.0+)
Med (6.6-
7.9)
Low (5.0-
6.5)
Exclude (<5.0)
1. Conduct workplace security analysis of County and municipal facilities to
explore opportunities to improve the physical security and identify
sheltering/evacuation alternatives for workplace violence. Workplace adaptation
and security hardening measures could include actions such as restricting access,
doorway detectors, emergency buzzers/panic buttons, fish-eye mirrors and cameras,
bolting items down, improved lighting (interior and exterior), bullet-resistant
enclosures, and video surveillance systems. Target such measures to jobs and
locations with the greatest risk of violence.
new 8.2
County, Law
Enforcement,
Municipalities
Governmental-focused active threat preparedness. County
Board has formed a committee to evaluate County facilities.
2. Continue to encourage ALICE or similar active threat education and training for
schools, government buildings, businesses, community organizations, and critical
facilities. Provide businesses, critical facilities, and other meeting places checklists
for workplace violence preparedness and prevention. new 8.5
Sheriff's Department and
Law Enforcement;
Schools & CESA; other
critical facilities
General community-wide education and preparedness
initiative. OSHA, FEMA, and other organizations have a
variety of checklists and guides available, some of which are
customized to certain types of businesses or facilities. Not all
schools and facilities use the same model for active shooter
preparedness (e.g., Run-Hide-Fight vs. ALICE).
3. Encourage the creation of basic active threat response plans and the periodic
drilling/update of these plans for critical facilities, group assemblies, and large
businesses in the County. Conduct periodic active shooter exercises to test
response plans, crowd control, situational awareness, and assess security
hardening. Include all response agencies (law enforcement, fire, EMS, other) as
part of these exercises so that roles and responsibilities are understood.
new 8.5
Sheriff's Department and
Law Enforcement with
critical facilities and large
employers
More intensive focus on planning and exercises for large
assembly places and critical facilities.
4. For large businesses and critical facilities with significant numbers of
employees and clients, encourage the numbering of interior and exterior doors (and
windows if appropriate) and provide copies of floor plans with door numbers to
local emergency responders and County 9-1-1 Emergency Communications.
Designate a secure, web-based storage area for such plans at the County level.
new 8.5School plans should include chemicals and lab supplies; see
HazMat strategy recommendations.
5. Conduct training for County and municipal staff in recognizing behaviors and
warning signs of potential of workplace violence, methods of de-escalation (when
appropriate), and other actions to take (e.g., recordkeeping, when to report to
supervisors, when to contact law enforcement). Consider inviting businesses and
other critical facilities to be part of this training.
new 7.2
Sheriff's Department and
Law Enforcement; other
partners
Focuses on situational awareness and de-escalation as
opposed to response. Could potentially be combined with #2.
1. Update the Clark County Continuity of Government Plan to include an
"umbrella strategy" that ties the individual departmental plans together. Include
emergency operations plans for each County facility/site, including the
Fairgrounds. Encourage other local municipalities to consider some basic
continuity planning efforts for the recovery of critical business functions.
2015; revised 6.8County Emergency Mgmt,
Administration
Ensure 911 communications and EOC is included as part of the
COG Plan update.
2. Review and ensure coordination, clarity, and consistency between the County
Emergency Operations Plan, County Public Health Emergency Preparedness Plan,
and other related plans and protocols. Explore opportunities to integrate
preparedness and mitigation strategies into the Clark County Community Health
Improvement Plan. Recognize resource limitations and challenges (e.g., staff,
infrastructure) as part of such plans.
new 7.3County Emergency
Management & Public
Health
County EOP and PHEPP aligns well and are cross referenced. May
be a lack of "boots-on-the-ground" during a large event due to
staffing limitations.
Other Comments or Barriers to Implementation
Other Planning, Policy, & Coordination Strategy Alternatives
Active Threat Strategy Alternatives
2019 Plan Strategy Alternative2015, revised,
or new
Prioritization/Score If recommended, likely
key parties to be
involved.
High (8.0+)
Med (6.6-
7.9)
Low (5.0-
6.5)
Exclude (<5.0)
3. Continue to involve utility providers, County health and aging services, private-
sector resources, ARES/RACES, and local non-profits (e.g., housing authorities,
long-term care facilities, hospitals) in preparedness and training exercises,
including discussions on their relationship to the incident command system (ICS).
Encourage follow-up on recommendations of after-action reports from exercises.
2015; slightly
revised 7.3
County Emgy Mgmt and
Public Health, utilities,
ARES/RACES, other
partners
Many resources exist, but not all agencies/organizations understand
how they fit in. Available resources change over time as agencies
and services change. Medicare/Medicaid rule changes have
increased planning and exercise demand among providers.
4. Work with the Center of Medicare & Medicaid Services to assess or survey the
preparedness planning, resources, capacity, and exercise needs of facilities in Clark
County that use Medicare or Medicaid. Based on the assessment, develop a brief
plan identifying strategic steps to address any critical needs or support.new 6.1
Potentially related to previous strategy. Medicare/Medicaid rule
changes have increased planning and exercise demand among
providers.
5. County Emergency Management should continue to maintain an up-to-date list
of the status of local Emergency Operations Plans (EOPs) and work with local
communities to practice/drill and update these plans regularly. Encourage local
officials, public works personnel, and key municipal/county staff with a emergency
operations or response role to have a minimum of Incident Command System (ICS)
100, 200, 700, and 800 training, with additional training for any specialized roles,
such as Public Information Officer (PIO). Explore the potential creation of a
countywide public works mutual aid agreement for activation following disaster
events.
2015; revised 8.8County Emgy Mgmt; local
communities; United
Communities
Municipalities are encouraged to incorporate continuity planning,
data backup, debris management, volunteer management/training,
and mutual aid into their plans and to notify the County when plan
changes or updates are completed. Incorporate winter storm
sheltering for travelers, especially for communities along Highway
29. Training courses available online; ongoing challenge as elected
officials and staff change over time, though emergency services
personnel largely covered.
6. Create a task force with critical facilities and utilities to explore opportunities to
raise awareness of cyber security threats, the importance of employee education to
mitigate these threats, and available resources to assist with vulnerability
assessment.
new 6.4 various partners
7. Continue to work towards full participation in the Mutual Aid Box Alarm
System (MABAS) by all Fire Departments in the County. new 7.8 Recommended by a Fire Department in a survey response.
1. For unincorporated towns without siren coverage, but having concentrations of
residents, pursue the installation of storm sirens, subject to town interest.
Coordinate with those communities who are in need of siren replacement or
additional siren coverage.
2015 7.1County Emergency Mgmt,
local municipalities
Not a significant demand expressed during the project, likely due to
a previous siren project.
2. Implement a NOAA all hazard radio project with a particular focus on
distributing radios (or discount vouchers) to mobile home residents, resorts,
campground as, seniors, and/or critical facilities, to include general public
education on alert warning systems and radio use.
2015 6.9County Emergency Mgmt,
local municipalities
Eligible for FEMA grant dollars. Some interest remains, though may
be decreasing a mobile devices have become more popular. Could
be part of a mitigation grant project that includes encouraging sign-
up for mass notification systems and National Weather Service apps.
3. Encourage Clark County residents, businesses, and organizations to enroll their
cell phone numbers for the County's Nixle mass notification system. Educate
residents and critical facilities on the capabilities of Nixle and continue to explore
its capabilities, including a potential vulnerable needs registry and voice capability
for vision impaired. Explore obtaining Federal I-PAWS approval.
new 8.2County Emergency Mgmt;
local municipalities
Nixle implemented since 2015 plan, achieving one of the 2015 plan
strategies. Coordinate educational materials with ADRC to ensure
accessibility.
2015, revised,
or new
Prioritization/Score If recommended, likely
key parties to be
involved.
Other Comments or Barriers to Implementation
Other Communication & Outreach Strategy Alternatives
2019 Plan Strategy Alternative
High (8.0+)
Med (6.6-
7.9)
Low (5.0-
6.5)
Exclude (<5.0)
4. Clark County Emergency Mgmt will continue to provide periodic
presentation(s) to the Towns Association on basic roles/responsibilities of town
officials, emergency operations planning, available resources, hazard event/damage
reporting, burning permits, volunteer management, driveway access for emergency
vehicles, emerging issues, and training opportunities.
2015; revised
slightly8.2
County Emgy Mgmt, Towns
AssociationTowns Association meets quarterly.
5. Continue to work with emergency response partners to improve emergency
communications coverage, interoperability, and mobile equipment. Ensure
adequate channels are available and operations won't become overwhelmed during
a large event.
2015; revised 8.3County Emergency
Communications; emergency
responders; State
While improved, gaps remain due to topography and in some rural
areas. Some equipment incompatibilities also remain.
6. Given the County's relatively low immunization rates, conduct an immunization
outreach initiative, including targeted outreach to groups with lower rates. 6.3
7. Partner with Clark Electric Cooperative on a power outage, downed power line,
and electrical safety educational initiative, including training and presentations for
emergency responders, road crews, schools, etc. Could also include proper
generator use and where to obtain information during an outage.2015; revised 6.5
Clark Electric Cooperative expressed interest in pursuing mitigation
grant funding for such an initiative.
8. Through the media, traveling display, ADRC newsletter, Rural Safety Days, and
other outreach initiatives, continue efforts to educate the public on hazard risks
preparedness best practices, and emergency response challenges. Include topics
such as: (i) flooding risks and flood insurance; (ii) increased messaging when travel
is unsafe; (iii) emergency communications systems and Nixle, (iv) United Way 2-1-
1; and (v) the great need for local volunteers by emergency services agencies.
2015; revised 7.5County Emergency
Management, Public Health,
ADRC
This could potentially be part of a grant-funded educational
initiative. Coordinate educational materials with ADRC to ensure
accessibility. Ensure that Clark County's resource lists and contacts
have been provided to 2-1-1.
9. Implement a bi-lingual disaster preparedness and emergency response outreach
initiative for Clark County's Hispanic population. Include not only general
education, but also materials to foster communication during an event and
relationship building.
8.5This is a Public Health and Social Services initiative. Could also be
part of a larger educational outreach, including the topics in previous
strategy. ESL challenges.
10. Identify County liaisons that will establish and maintain points of contact with
Amish and Mennonite communities. As needed, activate these communications
networks during an emergency or disaster.2015; revised 7.2
Could be part of a larger educational outreach, including the topics
in previous two strategies.
2019 Plan Strategy Alternative2015, revised,
or new
Prioritization/Score If recommended, likely
key parties to be
involved.
Other Comments or Barriers to Implementation
244
APPENDIX K.
POTENTIAL STATE AND
FEDERAL GRANT PROGRAMS
FOR MITIGATION PROJECTS
NOTE: The following are examples of potential grant funding sources, but is older. Some programs and program requirements have changed and new grant sources may now be available. Three key examples are:
• The FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program has been replaced by the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program. This change is discussed immediately following the table of contents at the beginning of this plan update.
• Certain FEMA mitigation grant dollars can now be used to fund flood monitoring and similar gauge systems.
• FEMA now administers a Rehabilitation of High Hazard Potential Dams Grant Program for planning and pre-construction activities toward repair, removal, or rehabilitation. Identifying and addressing high-hazard dams within this mitigation plan is a prerequisite for grant eligibility.
244
Potential Federal and State Grant Programs for Hazard Mitigationadapted and amended from: Wisconsin Emergency Management. Resource Guide to All Hazards Mitigation Planning in Wisconsin . April 2003. p19-20
These programs and requirements are subject to change. Contact these agencies for application materials,
program changes, and additional potential funding sources not identified here.
Federal or State Address and Eligible Federal, State Other Program Grant
# Agency and Grant Telephone Contact Activities and Local Cost Characteristics Application
Program Name Information Share Due Date
Requirements
1 Federal Emergency Management Wisconsin Emergency Flood proofing, acquisition and Federal - 75% Local government must be in After a Presidential
Agency, Hazard Mitigation Grant Management relocation of flood prone State - 12.5% compliance with the National Disaster Declaration
program (HGMP) P.O. Box 7865 properties, elevation of flood prone Local - 12.5% Flood Insurance Program to be
2400 Wright Street properties, wind resistant or eligible. Projects must be cost-
Street, Madison, WI 54707-7865 retrofit, storm water improvements, effective, environmentally sound
education and awareness, All and solve a problem.
Hazards Mitigation Planning efforts
2 Federal Emergency Management Wisconsin Emergency Grants can be used for Federal - 75% Typically,
Agency, Pre-disaster Mitigation Management management costs, information Local - 25% Must have an approved pre-applications
(PDM) Program P.O. Box 7865 dissemination, planning, technical hazard mitigation plan. due abt. July
2400 Wright Street assistance and mitigation projects and application due
Street, Madison, WI 54707-7865 abt. Sept.
3 Federal Emergency Management Wisconsin Emergency Acquisition, relocation, elevation Federal - 75% Typically,
Agency, Flood Mitigation Management and flood-proofing of flood-prone Local - 25% Repetitive loss properties pre-applications
Assistance (FMA) Program P.O. Box 7865 insured properties, flood mitigation given a high priority. Must have due abt. July
2400 Wright Street planning an approved hazard mitigation plan. and application due
Street, Madison, WI 54707-7865 abt. Sept.
4 Federal Emergency Management Wisconsin Emergency Repair of infrastructure damaged Federal - 75% After a Presidential
Agency, Public Assistance (PA) Management during a flood that results in a State - 12.5% Disaster Declaration
program P.O. Box 7865 Presidential Disaster declaration. Local - 12.5%
2400 Wright Street Cost effective mitigation measures
Street, Madison, WI 54707-7865 may be eligible during the repair
of damaged facilities
5 Economic Development United State Department of Improvements and reconstruction Federal - 50%-70% Documenting economic distress, Anytime
Administration, Economic Commerce, Economic of public facilities after a disaster Local - 30%-50% job impact and proposing a
Adjustment Program Development Administration, or industry closing. Research project that is consistent with a
(see CFDA 11.307) 111 North Canal Street, Suite studies designed to facilitate Comprehensive Economic
855, Chicago, IL 60606-7204 economic development. Development Strategy are
312-353-7148 important funding selection criteria
6 Economic Development United State Department of Water and sewer, industrial access Federal - 50%-70% Documenting economic distress, Anytime
Administration, Public Works Commerce, Economic roads, rail spurs, port Local - 30%-50% job impact and proposing a
and Development Facilities Development Administration, improvements, technological project that is consistent with a
(see CFDA 11.300) 111 North Canal Street, Suite and related infrastructure. Comprehensive Economic
855, Chicago, IL 60606-7204 Development Strategy are
312-353-7148 important funding selection criteria
7 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Repair of water, sewer, street, Federal - 75% Available after a state and/or After a Disaster
Commerce, Community Commerce, 201 West curb and gutter, police and fire Local - 25% Presidential Disaster declaration. event
Development Local Grant, Public Washington Avenue, PO Box stations these funds can be used towards
Facilities Emergency Program 7970, Madison, WI 53707-7970 the local match to receive FEMA
608-266-8934 public assistance and HMGP funds
8 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Water, sewer, street, curb and To receive maximum points A community's economic distress Anytime
Commerce, Community Commerce, 201 West gutter, libraries, fire stations and $1.5 of local match to every score influences funding
Development Block Grant, Public Washington Avenue, PO Box community centers $1 of state Community determination. These funds can
Facilities Program 7970, Madison, WI 53707-7970 Development Block Grant be used as a local match to
608-266-8934 receive FEMA Public Assistance
and HMGP funds.
9 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Replacement and improvement State - 75% of replacement Repairs or replacements can Applicant must
Transportation (DOT), Flood Transportation, 4802 Sheboygan costs for major flood damage to a costs and 50% of includes resign to prevent or submit final costs
Damage Aid Avenue, Madison, WI 53707 road or road structure under local improvement costs, reduce future flood damage. If within 2 years
608-267-5254 jurisdiction. To help defray costs of reimbursed by local Federal Disaster Aid is received, following flood
repairing major flood damage to community is ineligible for State damage
any pubic street, alley, or bridge not Federal Disaster Aid.
located on the State Trunk Highway System
10 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Activities that "enhance" the Federal - 80% Can provide scenic vista and runoff Even-numbered
Transportation (DOT), Transportation, 4802 Sheboygan surface transportation Local - 20% areas, parking and landscaping years. Application
Transportation Enhancement Avenue, Madison, WI 53707 infrastructure "above and beyond" along flood-prone riverways. Can forms available in
funds 608-267-5254 basic highway projects, can include: acquire flood-prone areas along January. Must be
landscaping and scenic beautification, roads for green corridors. Food submitted by April.
acquisition of scenic easements, and damage reduction potential is not Funds granted
scenic or historic sites. the primary purpose of the program. competitively.
11 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Assists local governments in response to Varies, depending upon
Commerce, Division of Commerce, 201 West a natural or manmade disaster. whether the community Must give preference to After a
Housing and Community Development Washington Avenue, PO Box Can be used to address damage to is already an entitlement households at or below 80% of disaster event.
CDBG - Emergency Assistance 7970, Madison, WI 53707-7970 housing, public infrastructure, businesses, community for CDBG the county median income.
Program 608-267-3682 community buildings, etc. funding.
This is a selection of more
commonly used grant
programs, but is not 100%
complete.
244
12 Wisconsin Housing and Economic WHEDA
Development Agency 201 W. Washington Ave, Ste. 700 WHEDA has provided grant support contact contact After a
Temporary Housing Grants Madison WI, 53703 to communities in the past following WHEDA for more WHEDA for more disaster event.
608-266-7884 a disaster event for housing needs. information information
800-334-6873
13 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of River organization development, State - 75% maximum
Natural Resources, River Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster education, special river study needs Local - 25% $10,000 maximum grant
Protection Grant Program Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI to help protect rivers, water quality, Local govt's and non-profit 1-May
53707-7921 habitat, etc. organizations may apply.
608-266-7555
14 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Purchase of land or easements, State - 75% maximum $50,000 maximum grant, May 1
Natural Resources, River Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster restoration of in-stream or shoreland Local - 25% adoption of outdoor recreation
Protection Grant Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI habitat plan required
53707-7921
608-266-7555
15 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Water quality studies, land use State - 75% maximum $10,000 maximum per grant, February 1 and
Natural Resources, Lake Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster analysis, ordinance analysis, Local - 25% but can receive up to $50,000 in August 1
Planning Grant Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI planning recommendations total grants
53707-7921
608-266-7555
16 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Projects to protect and improve State - 75% maximum, not to Acquisition of land and easements May 1
Natural Resources, Lake Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster water quality and their ecosystems. exceed $200,000 also eligible
Protection Grant Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI Local - 25%
53707-7921
608-266-7555
17 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Land acquisition and revitalization State - 50% Project must be part of adopted May 1
Natural Resources, Urban Rivers Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster of urban water fronts Local - 50% outdoor recreation plan
Grant Program Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI
53707-7921
608-266-7555
18 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Acquisition and development of State - 50% May 1
Natural Resources, Aids for the Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster public outdoor recreation areas Local - 50%
Acquisition and Development of Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI
Local Parks (ADLP) 53707-7921
608-266-7555
19 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Funding the protection of natural State - 50% Protect land with scenic, May 1
Natural Resources, Acquisition Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster spaces in proximity to urban Local - 50% ecological or natural values in
of Urban Green Space Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI development urban areas from development
53707-7921
608-266-7555
20 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Acquisition and development of Federal - 50% Funding comes from U.S. May 1
Natural Resources, Land and Water Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster outdoor parks and non-commercial Local - 50% Department of Interior, project
Conservation Fund - Federal Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI recreation facilities must be part of an adopted
Program Administered by State DNR 53707-7921 outdoor recreation plan
608-266-7555
21 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Acquisition, flood proofing, wetland- State - 70% Maximum grant cannot exceed 15-Mar
Natural Resources, Municipal Natural Resources, 101 S. Webster floodplain restoration, storm water Local - 30% 20% of funding available. Cities,
Flood Control Project Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI projects, flood insurance studies, and villages, towns, and metropolitan
53707-7921 floodplain mapping. sewer districts are eligible.
608-266-7555
22 Wisconsin Department of Wisconsin Department of Cost sharing in preparation of a Varies depending Land use decisions must be November 1
Administration, Comprehensive Administration community comprehensive plan on community size consistent with comprehensive plan
Planning Program Comprehensive Planning Program as defined under and number of per State Statute. Comp plans
101 E. Wilson Street, 9th Floor State Statute. municipalities participating may also include guidance, projects,
Madison WI, 53703 in the application. and policies regarding hazard
608-267-3369 mitigation.
23 Wisconsin Emergency Management, Wisconsin Emergency Some equipment purchased for
Domestic Preparedness Equipment Management, 2400 Wright terrorism readiness may also have
Grant Program Street, Madison, WI 54707-7865 valuable emergency response use to
608-242-3232 mitigate impacts should an event occur.
24 Wisconsin Department of Natural Develop stormwater management
Resources, Targeted Runoff facilities to control non-point
Management (TRM) Grant Program source pollution , primarily in urban May be able to leverage
or developing areas. with Wisconsin DOT funds.
25 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers regional contact: Detroit District Provide bank protection of highways, Federal - 75% Must meet U.S. Army Corps of
Section 14-Emergency Streambank 477 Michigan Avenue bridges, essential public works, and Local - 25% Engineers economic feasibility
and Shoreline Protection Detroit, Michigan 48226 critical facilities endangered by and other criteria
313-226-6764 flood-caused erosion. Maximum $500,000 per project.
244
26 U.S. Army Corp of Engineers regional contact: Detroit District Federal - 50% Must meet U.S. Army Corps of
Section 22-Water Resources 477 Michigan Avenue Local - 50% Engineers economic feasibility
Planning Grant Detroit, Michigan 48226 and other criteria
313-226-6764
27 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regional contact: Detroit District Provision of specialized services through First $100,000 is federally Must meet U.S. Army Corps of
Section 205-Small Flood 477 Michigan Avenue projects not specifically authorized by funded, with remainder Engineers economic feasibility
Control Projects (CFDA 12.106) Detroit, Michigan 48226 Congress. split 50% Federal/50% Local. and other criteria
313-226-6764 Maximum $7 million per project,
though this may change.
28 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regional contact: Detroit District Provision of specialized services. Federal - 75% Must meet U.S. Army Corps of
Section 208-Clearing Channels for 477 Michigan Avenue Non-federal sponsor must provide all Local - 25% Engineers economic feasibility
Flood Prevention (CFDA 12.108) Detroit, Michigan 48226 lands, easements, and rights-of-way. and other criteria
313-226-6764 Maximum $500,000 per project.
29 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Perform emergency conservation measures Cost-sharing determined Farm operator or landlord/owner following a
Farm Service Agency contact local Farm Service Agency to control wind erosion on farmlands and by County committees , in a disaster area or natural disaster event;
Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) rehabilitate farmlands damaged by natural following USDA guidelines. impacted by drought. eligibility determined
disasters; includes water conservation by county FSA cmte
30 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wisconsin Natural Resources Project grants and technical assistance Varies depending on nature Agricultural related enterprises must
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Service - NW Area to protect and utilize land and water of the project. Federal account for at least 20% of the total
Watershed Protection and 1304 N. Hillcrest resources in small watersheds. Emphasizes funding may be incorporated benefits.
Flood Prevention Altoona, WI 54720 interdisciplinary planning teams. within other State Programs;
715-832-6547 check with WisDNR.
31 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wisconsin Natural Resources Purchase floodplain easements Easement compensation Voluntary program to restore Sign-up
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Service - NW Area as an emergency measure varies by site and location. floodplain functions. period is in
Emergency Watershed Protect - 1304 N. Hillcrest in floodplain areas which are NRCS pays 100% of Easements are permanent. March.
Floodplain Easement Altoona, WI 54720 impaired or have a history of restoration costs. Easement compensation based on
715-832-6547 repetitive flooding offer, rate cap, and area market.
32 U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development Has been used for a wide variety of projects,
Rural Development, Housing & Business & Community Programs including early warning systems, sirens, Varies by community size, Counties and small communities;
Community Facilities Programs 4949 Kirschling Court fire equipment, EMS buildings, shelters, local household incomes, must work with USDA Rural
Stevens Point, WI 54481 radios, etc. Additional USDA programs and funding availability Development officials from beginning
Phone: 715-345-7610 available for larger projects. of the project
33 Wisconsin Department of Natural FFP Grant Manager Equipment, training, prevention For individual fire depts: Fire departments and County varies;
Resources, Forest Fire Protection (FPP) Department of Natural Resources materials, communication equipment, min. $750; max. $10,000 Fire Associations usually
Grant P.O. Box 7921 mapping/rural numbering systems, For County Fire Assoc: May, June or
Madison, WI 53707-7921 ATVs, dry hydrants min. $5,000; max. $25,000 July
(608) 267-0848
34 U.S. Homeland Security Assistance to U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security For Fire Departments and EMS Varies by population Applicants serving less than April
Firefighters Grant Program 800 K Street NW organizations to enhance fire-related served, but 5% - 10% for 500,000 population may or May
Washington DC 20472-3620 capabilities. small communities not receive over $1 mil in funding.
1-866-274-0960
35 U.S. Department of Interior U.S. Dept of Interior Training, personal protective Minimum 10% local Max. award of $20,000 per April
Rural Fire Assistance Outreach check up-to-date application equipment, basic gear, limited match. fiscal year.
materials for contact info. communications equipment, basic tools, Need to serve DOI lands.
and other activities.
36 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security Improve local capabilities to respond to Phase 1 for assessment Local governments can be
Emergency Operations Centers 245 Murray Drive, SW. emergencies and disasters Phase 2 requires a 50% sub-grantees under the State.
(CFDA 97.052) Washington, DC 20528 nonfederal cost share.
202-282-8000
37 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Explore uses of equipment and technologies Funding is discretionary. Local governments are nominated Contact FEMA
Interoperable Communications to increase the interoperability among Max. Federal share is by the State to submit an application. headquarters.
Equipment (CFDA 97.055) fire services, law enforcement, and $6 million. 25% nonfederal
emergency medical services. cost-share.
244
APPENDIX L.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES SINCE
THE 2015 PLAN
244
The 2020 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan was a complete review and update of the
2015 Clark County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, though the overall process and scope were
similar. This section highlights the major changes since the 2015 plan by plan section.
Section I. Introduction (Overall Planning Process)
• The project brochure was updated and distributed to encourage participation.
• Stakeholder interviews and community meetings included review of the 2015 plan
recommendations.
• Town surveys were customized for each town in this plan and incorporated aspects of the
2015 plan to encourage input.
• References were added for the readers noting that the Pre Disaster Mitigation Grant Program
has been replaced by the Building Resilient Infrastructure & Communities Program.
• Steering Committee Analysis & Review: The planning process, which is summarized in
Section I, was the focus of the first plan steering committee meeting, including a review of
the process used during the 2015 plan and recommended changes for the plan update.
Section II. Community Profile
• Demographics and other data were updated, including a discussion of implications.
• An agricultural profile subsection was added.
• G.I.S. data for critical facilities was amended as available.
• Steering Committee Analysis & Review: The highlights of the community profile were
reviewed and discussed during the third plan steering committee meeting. Particular
attention was paid to the analysis of demographic and development trends, and their
implications for mitigation and emergency response.
Section III. Assessment of Hazard Conditions
• Throughout this section, Disaster Declaration information, NCDC statistics, NFIP
participation information, and other data was updated and, for many risks, further
supplemented. This includes integrating data and maps available in the State of Wisconsin
Homeland Security Council THIRA & SPR, which was updated January 2017.
• Issues, risks, needs, and concerns for each of the hazard risks based on meetings and
stakeholder input were integrated into the different sub-sections.
• The Steering Committee re-assessed the risks and vulnerabilities facing Clark County. A full
assessment was limited to natural hazards of significant risk, long term power outages, and
hazardous materials spills, which is the same as the 2015 plan, except agricultural and
invasive species are discussed in the context of the natural hazards.
• A section was added for Hazards of Concern Addressed in Other Plans to briefly address
such additional risks and refer to other plans and efforts instead of being unnecessarily
redundant in this document. This subsection included communicable disease/public health,
active threats, and cyberattack, with a brief discussion on COVID-19.
• The discussion of the potential impacts of climate change on hazard risks and vulnerabilities
was expanded, including potential adaptation and mitigation action.
• Steering Committee Analysis & Review: An overview hazard trends were briefly discussed
by the committee during their first three meetings, including a review of the results of the
hazard survey performed as part of the 2015 plan. Committee members completed a survey
assesses hazard risks and vulnerabilities. The survey results were discussed during
244
committee meetings. The analysis of the key results of the assessment and interview process
were the focus of the steering committee’s second and third meetings.
Section IV. Current Mitigation Activities
• Updated current mitigation activities using a new table-based format.
• Steering Committee Analysis & Review: Current mitigation activities were discussed during
interviews. Related issues and opportunities were discussed by the committee.
Section V. Progress on the 2015 Mitigation Plan Strategies
• During stakeholder interviews, lead parties for each strategy from the 2015 plan were asked
to provide an update on progress, which was integrated into Section V.
• All strategies from the 2015 plan were reviewed for potential inclusion as 2020
recommendations and any suggested modifications.
• Steering Committee Analysis & Review: Progress on key 2015 strategies were discussed by
the steering committee, including some discussion on potential strategy alternatives.
Section VI. Mitigation Goals and Strategies
• The mitigation strategies were updated.
• The feasibility analysis in Appendix J provides the relative priority scores given by the
steering committee for different strategy alternatives. Comments and barriers to
implementation from the steering committee and other stakeholders related to each strategy
were also included.
• City and village (multi-jurisdictional) strategies were identified during meetings with each
community. Draft strategies, along with other key draft sections, were mailed to each city
and village for comment.
• A discussion on safe rooms for fairgrounds was conducted with the County Forestry & Parks
Committee.
• Steering Committee Analysis & Review: Plan goals were reviewed and discussed by the
steering committee. A strategy alternatives survey was distributed to all steering committee
members. The survey results yielded relative priority of the alternatives, barriers to
implementation, and guided the selection of which strategies would be recommended in the
final plan as reflected in Appendix J. The draft plan, with recommended strategies based on
the survey results, was discussed by the steering committee and further reviewed individually
by committee members and stakeholders.
Section VII. Plan Adoption & Maintenance Process
• Plan coordination updated based on new strategy recommendations.
• Steering Committee Analysis & Review: The plan adoption and maintenance process were
discussed and determined by the steering committee.
2015 Plan Review Recommendations
As part of the plan review tool for the 2015 plan, FEMA and WEM had no recommendations for
improving the plan as part of the next update.