CREATING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

CREATING RESILIENCE TO

CLIMATE CHANGE

WITHIN WISCONSIN’S

TRANSPORTATION

NETWORK

Spring 2018

Nathan Abney Professional Project

University of Wisconsin

Department of Planning and Landscape Architecture

Creating Resilience to Climate Change within Wisconsin’s Transportation Network

Page 1

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank those who have supported and helped to create and shape this project. I

would specifically like to thank my advisor, Revel Sims, and my secondary committee member

Brian Ohm. Additional thanks to the WisDOT Department of Planning and Economic

Development, and to my fellow colleagues and family.

This report satisfies the Professional Project competency requirement for the Master’s of

Science degree in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin- Madison


Page 2

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 4

RESILENCY AND RAINFALL ................................................................................ 5

UNDERSTANDING RESILENCY .............................................................................. 5

US CLIMATE RESILENCE TOOLKIT ........................................................................ 6

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 8

METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................... 8

ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 9

DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 13

CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 14

WORKS CITED ...................................................................................................... 15

APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 17

APPENDIX A: 2000 WEATHER DATA ................................................................... 17

APPENDIX B: 2008 WEATHER DATA AND YEARLY RAINFALL ...................... 18

Front Image: Iron County Sheriff’s Department, 2016

Figure 1: STH 169 Near Potatoe River Area, Iron County, WI. July 2016. ....................................... 4

Figure 2: Resilience Framework ............................................................................................................. 5

Figure 3: Change in Annual Average Precipitation from 1950-2006 ................................................ 9

Figure 4: Wisconsin Average Yearly Precepitation 1990-2016 ........................................................ 10

Figure 5: Projected change in the frequency of 2’’ precipitation events: 1980-2055 ..................... 11

Figure 6: June 2000 Extreme Weather and DISASTER DECLARATION events .......................... 12

Figure 7: June 2008 Extreme Weather and DISASTER DECLARATION events .......................... 12


Page 3

EXECUATIVE SUMMARY This report will address increase precipitation concerns by establishing a framework for

planning and recovery in Wisconsin. The report will conduct an evaluation of two out of the

five steps outlined in the US Climate Resilience Toolkit which has been created to discover

climate hazards and develop workable solutions to lower climate-related risks. This report

specifically, will utilize and evaluate; Step Two: Assess Vulnerability and Risks and Step 3:

Investigate Options. The report's methodology will also include data analysis of rainfall

measurements and disaster declaration to determine the effects of climate change. The results

show that southern and western Wisconsin has seen an increase in extreme weather events,

which have resulted in millions of dollars in damage to public infrastructure.


Page 4

INTRODUCTION

Wisconsin has 115,371 miles of public roads, from Interstate freeways to city and village streets

throughout the state (DOT, 2017). Wisconsin’s roadway network connects our state’s

commodities with the global market, serving as an essential link to Wisconsin’s economy.

Freight dependent sectors and industries, such as agriculture, forestry, mining, construction,

and manufacturing, rely on an efficient and effective transportation system to import and

export products on Wisconsin roadways. Furthermore, individuals throughout the state rely

on Wisconsin’s roadway network for tourism and personal travel needs. Together, the

movement of commodities and people support the overall prosperity of Wisconsin’s economy

and quality of life.

Disruptions to the transportation system due to increased rainfall weather events have become

a real concern, threatening Wisconsin’s roadway infrastructure. Areas in southern and

western Wisconsin have seen an increase in extreme rainfall events in the recent decade. In the

last twenty years, rainfall events that required federal and state disaster aid have increased

ten-fold. These events were non-existent in 2000 but have grown at a rapid rate threatening

Wisconsin’s roadway infrastructure.

FIGURE 1: STH 169 NEAR POTATOE RIVER AREA, IRON COUNTY, WI. JULY 2016.

Source: WisDOT


Page 5

How a transportation system responds to an extreme weather event is critical to ensure limited

delay and recovery time. A toolkit developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) was created to serve as a guide for planning and recovery of extreme

weather events. The US Climate Resilience provides scientific tools, information, and

expertise to help people manage their climate-related risks and opportunities, and improve

their resilience to extreme events (US Climate, 2016). This paper will provide an analysis of

steps two and three of the toolkit. A focus on flood and precipitation events in Wisconsin will

provide the context for the evaluation of the US Climate Resilience Toolkit. This paper will

define preventative measures for Wisconsin’s roadway network in response to increased

flooding and extreme precipitation events in alignment with the US Resilience Toolkit.

Currently, the state of Wisconsin has a low priority when it comes to the issue of climate

change. Federal requirements from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provide

guidance for recovery, but these guidelines are nation-wide, not Wisconsin specific. FHWA

also lacks a process to track State DOTs’ efforts to include resilience improvements in their

emergency relief projects. Connections 2030, the state of Wisconsin’s long-range plan, contains

a chapter addressing system-plan environmental evaluation but lacks the framework in

relation to resiliency.

RESILENCY AND RAINFALL UNDERSTANDING RESILENCY The concept of resiliency is not

defined by a certain area of study

but instead, it’s a broad approach

used in many fields (engineering,

psychology, economics, etc).

Broadly, resiliency can be defined

as the capacity of a community,

infrastructure, business, or

natural environment to prevent,

withstand, respond to, and

recover from a disruption

(Pitilakis, 2016) (Figure 2). In

economics, the term “resilience”

refers to the ability to recover

quickly from a shock (shock

counteraction), to withstand the

FIGURE 2: RESILIENCE FRAMEWORK

Source: Iparametrics Engineering


Page 6

effect of a shock (shock absorption), and to avoid the shock (vulnerability) (Briguglio, n.d.). In

social science, resilience is the capacity of a system that has been exposed to hazards to adapt

by resisting or changing, so that it can reach and maintain an acceptable level of function and

structure to maintain capacity (Li, 2005). The concept of resiliency has also been adapted to

the field of transportation planning by creating conceptual frameworks to define and measure

resilience within the area of transportation. Transportation resilience can be defined in several

ways:

• A system’s ability to maintain its demonstrated level of service or to restore itself to that

level of service in a specified time frame (Heaslip, 2009),

• A characteristic that enables the system to compensate for losses and allows the system to

function even when infrastructure is damaged or destroyed (Pitilakis, 2016)

As a concept, resiliency is based on ecological systems thinking but has recently been utilized

and adapted in the field of disaster response and emergency management. Ecological systems

thinking has been defined as an approach to problem solving, by viewing problems as parts of

an overall system, rather than reacting to specific part, outcomes or events and potentially

contributing to further development of unintended consequences. Ecological systems thinking

is not one thing but a set of habits or practices within a framework that is based on the belief

that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context of relationships

with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation (Environment n.d.). Recently,

the concept has been connected to risk management planning and policy, where risk

management helps systems prepare and plan for adverse events, and resilience management

goes further by integrating the capacity of a system to recover from weather events, and then

adapt to create a stronger system for the future.

Interest in resiliency planning has arisen in response to the increased frequency and severity of

global warming, and the extent of its impact. The cost of infrastructure repair and replacement

is a heavy cost and time burden because of system disruptions, impact on economic activity,

health, and quality of life. The response generated by extreme weather events is to better

understand the interdependencies among these complex systems and incorporate the planning

to withstand these disruptions in the future.

US CLIMATE RESILENCE TOOLKIT Climate change and the various weather-related events create numerous challenges for both

decision makers and the public. The US Climate Resilience Toolkit’s Steps to Resilience is a


Page 7

five-step process to document and identify climate hazards and then develop workable

solutions to lower climate-related risks (US Climate, 2016). The five-step process outlines how

to initiate, plan and implement projects to become more resilient to climate-related extreme

weather events. The five-step process is outlined as followed:

1. Exploring Hazards

2. Assess Vulnerability and Risks

3. Investigate Options

4. Prioritize and Plan

5. Take Action

Although, all steps in the process are important, this report will focus on step two and three

for detailed analysis for the state of Wisconsin. Utilizing this framework will help strengthen

Wisconsin’s transportation network with identifying climate-related risks and opportunities,

and improve the overall resilience to extreme weather events.

Step Two: Assess Vulnerability and Risks

• Determining which assets are exposed to harm

• Vulnerability assessment

• Risk assessment

Conditions that exacerbate hazards and promote damage are called stressors, and they come

from both climate and non-climate conditions. Climate stressors include events such as

consecutive days of rain and heat waves (US Climate, 2016). Determining both climate and

non-climate stressors that could turn into hazards and indicate if the stressor is likely to

increase, remain the same or decrease will aid in determining what assets to prioritize.

Vulnerability assessments can also be conducted to determine assets that are at risk. The two

elements that make up the vulnerability assessment are sensitivity and adaptive capacity.

Sensitivity is the degree to which an asset is susceptible or resistant to impacts from weather or

climate events. Adaptive capacity describes the ability of a system to cope with stress or adjust

to new situations. For example, when a farmer is facing drought, agricultural producers who

grow several types of crops that mature at different times of the year can adapt more easily

than those who grow only one crop (US Climate 2016). Cross analyzing sensitivity and

adaptive capacity will allow for easy identification of assets with high vulnerability. In

general, vulnerability will be high when sensitivity is high and adaptive capacity is low, or the

potential for reaching a tipping point is high due to increased risk.


Page 8

Step Three: Investigate Options

• Consider possible solutions for highest risks

• Check how others have responded to similar issues

• Reduction in feasible actions

Though some stakeholders may already have a favored solution in mind for protecting specific

assets, thinking expansively to come up with actions that could reduce the risk for all

stakeholders is critical (US Climate, 2016). Analyzing past events can be an efficient way to

identify potential solutions: working backwards from a negative impact, look for any points in

the process at which an intervention could have improved the outcome (US Climate 2016).

Learning possible strategies and solutions from other entities or past events will provide a

base for resiliency planning. Examining what worked and what didn’t work will allow for

analysis of the process and an opportunity for adaptive restructuring.

METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY The methodology used in this paper was quantitative to examine the increase in extreme

precipitation events in Wisconsin. Looking first at predictions from the Wisconsin State

Climatologist Office, information has been gathered to argue that extreme precipitation events

will continue over the next decade and beyond. Rainfall amounts were collected from the

nearly 200 weather stations throughout Wisconsin to provide the average yearly rainfall. Data

from each station is collected daily and reported to a central server for monitoring. These

stations are positioned throughout the state in an attempt to provide statewide accuracy and

prediction of rainfall measurements (Wisconsin, n.d.). Next, flash flood and flood data

provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been cross-

referenced with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) State Disaster Declaration’s

for the months of June 2000 and June 2008. Disasters were located by searching through

FEMA’s online database for each year researched. Geographic data was contained in each

disaster deceleration file online. The geographic data and disaster type was collected and

entered into a data set. The data was then complied with the NOAA data in G.I.S. for analysis.

Lastly, statewide Wisconsin Annual Average Rainfall Measurements published by the

Wisconsin Climatologist Office from 2000-2016 have been compiled to illustrate the increase of

precipitation in Wisconsin. A discussion will then examine the results of the data and support

the argument to incorporate steps two and three of the US Resilience Toolkit into

transportation planning.


Page 9

Like most studies, there are constraints that limit the findings from the data. The following

constraints have been identified:

1. The precipitation data collected was only for the months of June. This data is only a

sampling of the precipitation records for the year.

2. The Wisconsin average precipitation is a measurement of all participation, not just

rainfall. However, all the events are related (i.e. heavy snowfall in the winter creates

saturated soil in the spring resulting in a heighten risk for flooding) and should be

taken into account for extreme precipitation counts.

ANALYSIS Precipitation is a vital component of how water moves through the Earth’s water cycle,

connecting our land, water, and atmosphere providing a vital connection to our ecosystems

and human society. Even though precipitation is important and a necessity of life, having too

much can be hazardous. Flooding due to extreme precipitation events is a severe hazard in

North America, causing damages of more than $1 billion each year in the United States

recently (Kunkel, 2003). In the summer of 2016, northwestern Wisconsin experienced multiple

rounds of severe storms, causing flash flooding in the region. Eight to twelve inches of rain

fell during an 8-hour period, causing

downed trees and power lines and

damaging hundreds of miles of roads,

the estimated cost was over $25 million

dollars (Governor, 2016).

With increasing awareness of climate

change, extreme precipitation events

are receiving wide attention,

particularly whether variation in their

frequency and intensity can be seen as

evidence of climate change (Lupikasza,

2010). The relationship between

climate change and precipitation

extremes is well explained by

Trenberth (1999, 2011). The

explanation starts from increased

surface heating and surfaces latent FIGURE 3: CHANGE IN ANNUAL AVERAGE PRECIPITATION FROM

1950 T0 2006

Source: Wisconsin State Climatologist Office


Page 10

heating with global warming. Surface and air temperatures will increase, thus raising potential

evaporation. Saturation vapor pressure increases with air temperature according to the

Clausius‐Clapeyron equation, and higher temperatures will lead to higher specific humidity

even if relative humidity remains unchanged. Therefore, it is likely that precipitation occurs

with more water vapor with the higher temperature than with lower temperature, leading to

enhanced precipitation rates. Thanks to enhanced latent heating, storm intensity may increase,

and dry spells between storms can be longer (Lupikasza, 2010). Examining Wisconsin’s

increasing precipitation patterns will allow for the argument that global warming is affecting

our roadway network by increasing precipitation trends and severe events.

According to the Wisconsin State Climatologist Office, the mean annual precipitation is 32.63

inches. The greatest monthly total was 21.74 inches (recorded at Viroqua in August 2007)

which is over half of the yearly average rainfall. Total annual precipitation in Wisconsin

shows widely varying trends across the state in the latter half of the 20th century, even though

it generally increased (Kucharik et al., 2010). From 1950 to 2006, Wisconsin as a whole has

become wetter, with an increase in annual precipitation of 3.1 inches (Wisconsin, n.d.) (Figure

3). This observed increase in annual precipitation has primarily occurred in southern and

western Wisconsin, while northern Wisconsin has experienced some drying. Areas in

northern and western Wisconsin will see the largest increase. Precipitation varies widely from

year to year (Figure 4). Statewide annual precipitation has ranged from a low of 28.02 inches

in 2003 to a high of 39.38 inches in 2016. In Figure 4, the frequency of heavy rain events has

also increased, with the highest number of two-inch rain events occurring during the period of

2010–2016.

FIGURE 4: WISCONSIN AVERAGE YEARLY PRECEPITATION 1990-2016

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

35.00

40.00

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n in

In

ch

es

Calendar Year

Average Yearly Precepitation 1990-2016


Page 11

Based on existing rainfall data and

future climatic interpolation the

climatologist office has predicted the

frequency of two-inch or more

precipitation events in Wisconsin.

Typically, heavy precipitation events of

at least two inches occur roughly 12

times per decade (once every 10

months) in southern Wisconsin and 7

times per decade (once every 17

months) in northern Wisconsin. The

projected change in the frequency of 2-

inch (or more) precipitation days is

computed as the difference in the

number of such wet days per year

during 2046-2065 and 1961-2000

(Wisconsin, n.d.) (Figure 5). Results are

based on the time-mean cumulative

distribution function and the frequency of exceeding the 2-inch precipitation threshold, using

the full array of realizations of the small-scale atmospheric state for a given large-scale

circulation pattern (Wisconsin, n.d.).

Floods (blue) and flash flooding (red) events have also increased in Wisconsin. Flood and

flash flood data was collected from NOAA to provide an analysis of increased events. Floods

range from only a few inches to feet of water. NOAA categorizes flooding by a temporary

overflowing of water on normally dry land, usually resulting in damage to individual or

public infrastructure. Flash flooding; similar to flooding is categorized as extremely heavy

rainfall from thunderstorms resulting in flooding of streets, property, fields, rivers, streams

and other natural or manmade infrastructure. The intensity of the rainfall, the location and

distribution of the rainfall, the land use and topography, vegetation types and growth/density,

soil type, and soil water-content all determine just how quickly the flash flooding may occur,

and influence where it may occur (NWS, 2001). Flash flood and flooding events recorded by

NOAA were then crossed referenced with FEMA disaster declarations to illustrate how these

events have intensified over the years as a result of climate change.

FIGURE 5: PROJECTED CHANGE IN THE FREQUENCY OF 2’’ PRECIPITATION

EVENTS: 1980-2055

Source: Wisconsin State Climatologist Office


Page 12

For this analysis, the disaster declarations

were broken into three categories: Public

Assistance (PA) (pink), Individual

Assistance (IA) (purple) and Public and

Private Assistance (PPA) (yellow).

FEMA's PA provides grants to state,

tribal, territorial, and local governments,

and certain types of nonprofits

organizations so that communities can

quickly respond to and recover from

major disasters or emergencies. IA is

provided to individuals and families who

have sustained losses due to disasters.

This grant is provided to individuals

primarily to assist with home repair,

business repair, and other assistance. The

final category for the analysis is PPA; this

category has been established to identify local

governments and counties that have received

both forms of assistance. The declarations were

identified based on the NOAA flooding and

flash flooding event data.

In June of 2000, there were 22 flash flood

events and 10 flooding events that occurred,

but none resulted in any form of disaster to

result in a declaration for assistance; the total in

property damage from these events were just

under 4 million dollars (Figure 6). In June 2008,

not only did flooding and flash flooding events

increase, so did disaster declarations. In June of

FIGURE 6: JUNE 2000 EXTREME WEATHER AND DISASTER

DECLARATION EVENTS

FIGURE 7: JUNE 2008 EXTREME WEATHER AND DISASTER

DECLARATION EVENTS


Page 13

2008, 61 flash flooding and 26 flooding events occurred in southern Wisconsin (Figure 7). The

total cost of property damage increased to a staggering 393 million dollars. Heavy rain and

snow during fall and winter 2007–2008 led to elevated water tables by summer 2008 which

resulted in high water levels and over-saturated soil. The elevated water table, combined with

enhanced summer precipitation, caused flooding to persist for 6 months. In addition, over

June 5–12, 2008, a series of storms caused heavy rain to fall across southern Wisconsin. The

flooding caused immediate evacuations, road closures and extensive damage to public

infrastructure. This event alone caused 30 million dollars worth of damage to Federal

Highways (including ramps and bridges) and an additional 20.5 million in damage to county

and local roads (non federal) (State, 2016).

DISCUSSION

After examining the analysis of the data, there are two overreaching takeaways to discuss.

First, the yearly average rainfall amount is increasing in the state of Wisconsin at the rate of an

additional 3.1 inches a year. In alignment with this finding, the data also has shown that

Wisconsin has experienced some unusually wet years; 2010 was the second wettest year on

record (39.02 inches), and 2014 was the seventh wettest (37.07 inches) and the highest record

set most recently in 2016. It’s important to note that these findings support the argument for

developing a resilient transportation system. Second, extreme precipitation events (flooding

and flash flooding) have increased in severity, especially in southern and western Wisconsin.

Many of these variables are related, influencing each other and affecting our transportation

infrastructure. For example, years (such as 2008, 2016) with high totals in annual rainfall have

an adverse effect on disaster declarations. This makes sense, the more rain the more

susceptible areas are to flooding which results in infrastructure damage.

With regards to rainfall and resiliency, these findings support the evidence for establishing

resiliency into Wisconsin’s transportation policies and framework base on the US Climate

Toolkit. Wisconsin has done an excellent job in recovery efforts after extreme precipitation

events but lacks policies and procedures to build resiliency. The argument can be made that if

Wisconsin had included resiliency by adapting the climate toolkit in 2008, the cost and

recovery of the event could have decreased. Strengthening the existing infrastructure by

incorporating steps two and three of the toolkit could have identified at-risk infrastructure and

prioritized maintenance efforts to lessen the impact of extreme rainfall. Further research will

hopefully help create further analysis determining which assets are most at risk especially in

areas of southern and western Wisconsin. Continued work would expand upon disaster

declarations and focus on transportation assets that could be at risk during an extreme

precipitation event. The further analysis could also expand on the assets that were effective


Page 14

and the assets that rated poorly during the weather events and the lessons learned. Once the

assets have been identified, developing solutions and feasible actions should be the taken;

strengthen bridges, replacing culverts, repaving roadways, incorporating green resiliency

strategies such as rain gardens and natural elements next to roadways are all examples of what

this could look like. Additional studies could also look at other weather-related events and

their effects on Wisconsin’s transportation network.

CONCLUSION

As previously mentioned, climate change disasters, specifically increased extreme

precipitation events, have become a very relevant concern in Wisconsin and have had a

devastating and costly impact on the transportation network. Addressing such issues founded

in the processes outlined in the US Climate Resilience Toolkit would give Wisconsin an

opportunity to develop a two-pronged approach to build a stronger resilient transportation

network: asset analysis and solution development.

Evidence from the previous analysis of extreme precipitation events during June 2000 and

2008 suggests that annual rainfall levels and precipitation events will continue to increase in

western and southern Wisconsin. These findings heighten the priority for the state of

Wisconsin to take a serious look at climate change and its potential impact on the highway and

roadway infrastructure. By continuing to determine areas threatened by stressors that could

turn into hazards will aid in determining what assets to narrow in on for prevention and

safety. Options must be considered to find possible solutions for those pieces of infrastructure

with the highest risk. Analyzing past events can be an efficient way to identify potential

solutions, while conducting a vulnerability and asset study should also be done to prioritize

state and local funding for infrastructure improvements that contribute to overall

transportation resilience. Collaborating on large regional transportation vulnerabilities,

planning, engineering, and monetary resources across municipalities will enhance resilience

statewide. Enacting preventative resiliency measures in the future will become vital to ensure

Wisconsin’s transportation network will continue to function at a sustainable level during

extreme precipitation events.


Page 15

WORKS CITED

Brigoglio, Lino, Gordon Cordina, Stephanie Bugeja, and Nadia Farrugia. "Economic

Vulnerability and Resilience: Concepts and Measurements." Commonwealth Small States,

2007, 101-09. Accessed March 24, 2018. doi:10.14217/9781848598881-6-en.

DOT, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Transportation Six Year Highway Improvement

Program: 2017-2022. Accessed March 23, 2018.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/overview/default.aspx.

"Environment and Ecology." Systems Thinking. Accessed April 05, 2018. http://environment

ecology.com/general-systems-theory/379-systems-thinking.html#cite_note-0.

"Governors Request for Disaster Declaration." Scott Walker to President Barack Obama.

August 2, 2016. Wisconsin.

Heaslip, K., Louisell, W., Collura, J. “A methodology to evaluate transportation resiliency for

regional network”. 88th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. 2009.

Accessed March 15, 2018

Kucharik, Christopher J., Shawn P. Serbin, Steve Vavrus, Edward J. Hopkins, and Melissa M.

Motew. "Patterns of Climate Change Across Wisconsin From 1950 to 2006." Physical

Geography31, no. 1 (2010): 1-28. Accessed April 1, 2018. doi:10.2747/0272-3646.31.1.1.

Łupikasza, Ewa B., Stephanie Hänsel, and Jörg Matschullat. "Regional and Seasonal Variability

of Extreme Precipitation Trends in Southern Poland and Central-eastern Germany 1951

2006." International Journal of Climatology31, no. 15 (2010): 2249-271. Accessed April 1, 2018.

doi:10.1002/joc.2229.

"NWS Flood Safety Home Page." NWS Flood Safety Home Page. January 01, 2001.

Accessed April 01, 2018. http://www.floodsafety.noaa.gov/.

Pitilakis, K., S. Argyroudis, K. Kakderi, and J. Selva. "Systemic Vulnerability and Risk

Assessment of Transportation Systems Under Natural Hazards Towards More Resilient and

Robust Infrastructures." Transportation Research Procedia14 (April 2016): 1335-344. Accessed

March 25, 2018. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.206.

State of Wisconsin Action Plan. Issue brief. Department of Administration, State of Wisconsin.

Madison, WI, 2016.

http://wisconsindot.gov/Pages/projects/6yr-hwy-impr/overview/default.aspx


Page 16

Trenberth, Kevin E. "Atmospheric Moisture Recycling: Role of Advection and Local

Evaporation." Journal of Climate12, no. 5 (1999): 1368-381. Accessed April 1, 2018.

doi:10.1175/1520-0442(1999)0122.0.co;2.

"U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit." About the Climate Resilience Toolkit | U.S. Climate

Resilience Toolkit. June 29, 2016. Accessed March 14, 2018.

https://toolkit.climate.gov/content/about-climate-resilience-toolkit.

Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change Impacts - WICCI : Adaptation Science. Accessed April

04, 2018. http://www.wicci.wisc.edu/publications.php.

https://toolkit.climate.gov/content/about-climate-resilience-toolkit


Page 17

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: 2000 WEATHER DATA

County Location Date Weather Event Property Damage AmountVERNON CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 3,500,000.00$

GRANT CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 1,200,000.00$

RICHLAND CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 400,000.00$

CRAWFORD CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 1,000,000.00$

GREEN CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flood 100,000.00$

DANE CO. MAZOMANIE 6/1/2000 Flood 25,000.00$

IOWA CO. NORTH PORTION 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 583,000.00$

CRAWFORD CO. None Listed 6/1/2000 Flood 40,000.00$

TREMPEALEAU CO. SOUTH PORTION 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 25,000.00$

JACKSON CO. SOUTHWEST PORTION 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 116,000.00$

MARQUETTE CO. BRIGGSVILLE 6/1/2000 Flood 10,000.00$

SAUK CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 9,250,000.00$

COLUMBIA CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 96,800.00$

FOND DU LAC CO. FOND DU LAC 6/1/2000 Flood 3,000.00$

IOWA CO. NORTH PORTION 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 200,000.00$

DODGE CO. RUBICON 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 15,000.00$

FOND DU LAC CO. WAUPUN 6/1/2000 Flood -$

GREEN CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 400,000.00$

DANE CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 6,050,000.00$

ROCK CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 300,000.00$

KENOSHA CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 1,500,000.00$

JEFFERSON CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 150,000.00$

WASHINGTON CO. HARTFORD 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 25,000.00$

MILWAUKEE CO. FOX PT 6/1/2000 Flash Flood 50,000.00$

WOOD CO. None Listed 6/2/2000 Flood -$

DANE CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/12/2000 Flood 30,000.00$

RACINE CO. STURTEVANT 6/12/2000 Flood 5,000.00$

KENOSHA CO. COUNTYWIDE 6/12/2000 Flash Flood 4,100,000.00$

WALWORTH CO. WALWORTH 6/13/2000 Flash Flood 850,000.00$

DANE CO. CENTRAL PORTION 6/13/2000 Flash Flood 1,270,000.00$

IOWA CO. AVOCA 6/13/2000 Flood -$

WALWORTH CO. LAKE GENEVA 6/13/2000 Flash Flood 350,000.00$

TOTAL 31,643,800.00$


Page 18

APPENDIX B: 2008 WEATHER DATA AND YEARLY RAINFALL

County Location Date Weather

Event Property Damage Amount

GRANT WYALUSING 6/5/2008 Flash Flood

$

3,000.00

SAUK BARABOO 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

COLUMBIA PORTAGE 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

MARQUETTE ENDEAVOR 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

8,750,000.00

GREEN LAKE

CO. DALTON 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

COLUMBIA

CO. CAMBRIA 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

DANE CO. SUN PRAIRIE 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

VERNON CO. ONTARIO 6/7/2008 Flood

$

750,000.00

DODGE CO. LEBANON 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,200,000.00

DODGE CO. WATERTOWN 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

6,570,000.00

WAUKESHA

CO. BIG BEND 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

WAUKESHA

CO.

WAUKESHA CO

ARPT 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

WAUKESHA

CO. OCONOMOWOC 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

MILWAUKEE

CO. BROWN DEER 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

10,000.00

LA CROSSE

CO. LA CROSSE 6/7/2008 Flood

$

400,000.00

MILWAUKEE

CO.

DOWNTOWN

MILWAUKEE 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

10,000.00

MONROE CO. LEON 6/7/2008 Flood

$

20,000.00

MONROE CO. SPARTA 6/7/2008 Flood

$

200,000.00

MONROE CO. MELVINA 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,350,000.00

JUNEAU CO. ELROY 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

110,000.00

VERNON CO. STODDARD 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

2,250,000.00

SAUK CO. ROCK SPGS 6/7/2008 Flash Flood $


Page 19

10,000.00

CRAWFORD

CO. DE SOTO 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

320,000.00

RICHLAND

CO. CAZENOVIA 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,100,000.00

JUNEAU CO. MAUSTON 6/7/2008 Flood

$

100,000.00

JUNEAU CO. WONEWOC 6/7/2008 Flood

$

150,000.00

VERNON CO. LIBERTY 6/7/2008 Flood

$

800,000.00

VERNON CO. LA FARGE 6/7/2008 Flash Flood

$

500,000.00

CRAWFORD

CO. FERRYVILLE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

20,000.00

GRANT CO. MUSCODA 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

750,000.00

VERNON CO. LA FARGE 6/8/2008 Flood

$

600,000.00

VERNON CO. READSTOWN 6/8/2008 Flood

$

1,000,000.00

VERNON CO. LA FARGE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

750,000.00

RICHLAND

CO. VIOLA 6/8/2008 Flood

$

2,200,000.00

VERNON CO. LA FARGE 6/8/2008 Flood

$

1,200,000.00

CRAWFORD

CO. STAR VLY 6/8/2008 Flood

$

2,100,000.00

VERNON CO. COON VLY 6/8/2008 Flood

$

750,000.00

VERNON CO. HILLSBORO 6/8/2008 Flood

$

800,000.00

RICHLAND

CO. SAND PRAIRIE 6/8/2008 Flood

$

2,400,000.00

VERNON CO. VALLEY 6/8/2008 Flood

$

850,000.00

CRAWFORD

CO. SOLDIERS GROVE 6/8/2008 Flood

$

2,000,000.00

DODGE CO. REESEVILLE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,900,000.00

FOND DU LAC

CO. RIPON 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

4,640,000.00

WASHINGTON

CO. WAYNE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

5,130,000.00

WAUKESHA NORTH PRAIRIE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood $


Page 20

CO. 62,990,000.00

JEFFERSON

CO. LAKE MILLS 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

102,220,000.00

SHEBOYGAN

CO. PLYMOUTH 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

150,000.00

WALWORTH

CO. WHITEWATER 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

150,000.00

Kenosha TWIN LAKES 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,970,000.00


$

3,500,000.00

MILWAUKEE

CO. BROWN DEER 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

77,970,000.00

SAUK CO. LA VALLE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

COLUMBIA

CO. OKEE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

15,660,000.00

DANE CO. ALBION 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

CRAWFORD

CO. DE SOTO 6/8/2008 Flood

$

100,000.00

GREEN CO. BROWNTOWN 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,320,000.00

CRAWFORD

CO. STEUBEN 6/8/2008 Flood

$

2,000,000.00

JUNEAU CO. ELROY 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

275,000.00


$

2,800,000.00

WINNEBAGO

CO. OSHKOSH 6/8/2008 Flood

$

625,000.00

GRANT CO. PATCH GROVE 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,200,000.00

GRANT CO. MUSCODA 6/8/2008 Flood

$

750,000.00

DODGE CO. ALDERLEY 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

462,000.00

VERNON CO.

HILLSBORO

KCKAPOO AR 6/8/2008 Flood

$

900,000.00

DANE CO. MIDDLETON 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

CRAWFORD

CO.

PRAIRIE DU

CHIEN 6/8/2008 Flood

$

275,000.00

RACINE CO. WATERFORD 6/8/2008 Flash Flood

$

2,150,000.00

SAUK CO. LAKE DELTON 6/9/2008 Flash Flood $


Page 21

22,400,000.00

WALWORTH

CO. DELAVAN 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

525,600.00

GRANT CO. CASSVILLE 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

6,500,000.00

IOWA CO. COBB 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

2,830.00

LAFAYETTE

CO. DARLINGTON 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

462,160.00

SAUK CO. BARABOO 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

RICHLAND

CO. SAND PRAIRIE 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

28,000.00

FOND DU LAC

CO. RIPON 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

1,350.00

DANE CO. BELLEVILLE 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

ROCK CO. ORFORDVILLE 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

462,160.00

SHEBOYGAN

CO. WALDO 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

402,300.00

WINNEBAGO

CO. OSHKOSH 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

18,600,000.00

OZAUKEE CO. MEQUON 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

462,160.00

DANE CO. MC FARLAND 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

-

CALUMET CO. ST ANNA 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

480,000.00

DANE CO.

CAMP RANDALL

STADIUM 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

13,540,000.00

GRANT CO. CASSVILLE 6/12/2008 Flood

$

175,000.00

MANITOWOC

CO. MANITOWOC 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

200,000.00

FOND DU LAC

CO. ELDORADO 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

25,000.00

WAUKESHA

CO. WALES 6/12/2008 Flash Flood

$

25,000.00

TOTAL

$

393,451,560.00

YEARLY RAINFALL MEASUREMENTS

Precipitation [inches]: Wisconsin (statewide)

Data Source: National Centers for Environmental Information Jan 1990 - Dec 2016

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ANNUAL

1990 0.94 0.74 2.90 2.71 4.23 6.63 3.14 5.41 3.67 2.81 1.26 1.57 36.01

1991 0.65 0.64 2.89 3.88 4.85 3.66 4.85 2.39 4.75 3.36 5.28 1.28 38.48

1992 0.79 0.82 1.90 3.04 2.05 2.15 4.27 2.87 5.84 1.65 3.79 1.84 31.01

1993 1.42 0.48 1.15 4.32 4.87 7.12 4.95 4.01 3.36 1.61 1.78 0.58 35.65

1994 1.27 1.11 0.76 3.62 1.79 3.67 4.99 3.97 5.23 1.73 2.21 0.53 30.88

1995 0.74 0.34 2.17 2.94 3.64 2.25 3.54 7.24 2.11 4.95 1.97 0.99 32.88

1996 2.64 0.70 1.50 2.42 2.56 6.40 4.27 2.38 2.43 3.61 2.28 1.81 33.00

1997 1.98 0.88 1.87 0.97 3.01 4.11 4.99 4.18 2.90 2.18 0.73 0.63 28.43

1998 1.79 1.59 3.65 2.34 3.42 6.22 1.71 4.21 2.30 2.74 1.77 0.69 32.43

1999 2.13 1.19 0.53 4.12 4.88 4.18 7.59 3.28 2.12 1.28 1.25 0.71 33.26

2000 1.17 1.27 1.36 2.42 4.26 6.68 4.33 3.80 3.78 0.89 2.71 1.51 34.18

2001 1.17 1.65 0.68 4.86 4.91 4.73 2.61 4.48 4.04 2.43 2.26 1.23 35.05

2002 0.50 1.78 2.27 4.21 3.00 5.64 3.63 4.58 4.57 3.93 0.39 0.58 35.08

2003 0.36 0.64 1.85 2.76 4.82 3.35 3.28 1.96 3.15 1.37 3.17 1.31 28.02

2004 0.81 1.66 3.08 2.17 7.54 4.57 3.10 3.05 2.17 3.61 1.65 1.50 34.91

2005 1.66 1.24 1.22 1.60 2.61 3.81 3.08 2.70 3.77 2.92 2.92 1.02 28.55

2006 1.40 0.75 2.09 2.62 4.16 2.22 3.50 4.33 3.19 2.32 1.71 1.78 30.07

2007 0.92 1.11 2.29 2.48 2.62 2.99 3.06 6.94 3.30 4.85 0.31 2.61 33.48

2008 1.32 1.61 1.10 5.19 3.11 6.19 3.97 1.67 2.67 2.12 1.28 2.49 32.72

2009 0.63 1.10 2.17 3.08 2.88 3.29 2.17 4.79 1.15 5.36 0.85 2.29 29.76

2010 0.89 0.57 0.73 2.34 3.15 7.12 7.50 4.64 6.31 2.34 1.71 1.72 39.02

2011 0.91 1.13 2.38 3.71 3.05 4.22 4.61 3.04 3.08 1.51 1.95 1.45 31.04

2012 1.02 1.29 2.00 2.68 4.81 3.34 3.19 2.34 1.50 3.78 1.11 1.74 28.80

2013 1.69 1.63 1.93 4.85 5.37 6.21 2.46 2.77 2.17 3.54 2.33 1.58 36.53

2014 1.13 1.27 1.10 5.04 3.80 6.71 2.51 5.20 3.86 3.07 2.03 1.36 37.08

2015 0.53 0.42 0.73 2.94 4.65 4.44 3.38 4.00 4.39 2.70 3.42 4.28 35.88

2016 0.84 0.82 3.93 2.21 3.06 5.36 5.20 5.21 5.98 2.95 1.84 1.98 39.38

CREATING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

Documents

Transcript of CREATING RESILIENCE TO CLIMATE CHANGE