VERNON AND MONROE COUNTIES - Jackson Parr, who works with the Wisconsin Department of Health Services (DHS), attended meetings of the Monroe County Climate Change Task Force and the Vernon County Flood Mitigation Alliance to deliver results of a ‘flood resilience’ analysis he had performed.
Parr is a Sea Grant flood research fellow at DHS, and he worked with numerous county employees to develop the ‘scorecard,’ and generate recommendations to the counties about how to pursue greater flood resilience.
DHS has pursued the initiative based on the threat that flooding presents to people and property in Wisconsin. Based on the Wisconsin Risk Assessment Flood Tool, one in five road miles in the state are at risk from flooding, one in five critical facilities are at risk, and one in ten residential properties are at risk.
The resilience scorecard is broken down into three modules: environmental, institutional and social. In scoring, ‘100’ is the best score possible.
Environmental
In the ‘Precipitation Patterns’ category, Monroe county received a score of 50, and Vernon County received a score of 42. Parr explained that this reflects that annual precipitation has increased more than 20 percent since 1950, with an increased frequency of severe rain events of 3.60 days per year.
This category relates to the need to enhance and preserve natural habitat with water-storing capacity, and modeling of flow to properly site stormwater storage features.
Parr was one of a team of master’s degree students who participated in a UW-Madison Nelson Institute Water Resources Management Practicum, ‘Flood Resilience in the Coon Creek Watershed.’
In the ‘Slope and Elevation’ category, Monroe County received a score of 53, and Vernon County received a score of 58.
This category relates to siting of new development out of harm’s way, or designing it with hazards in mind, preserving the integrity of sloped areas, and mapping of landslide potential using historic and elevation data.
In the ‘Land Use and Future Development’ category, Monroe County received a score of 58, and Vernon County received a score of XX.
This category relates to mapping of development patterns and future land changes dictated by future development needs. It encourages counties to work with developers to encourage responsible growth, and preserve permeable surfaces and open space.
“In Monroe County, your impervious surfaces score is a little high, which reduces water infiltration and increases runoff,” Parr explained. “This likely relates to Fort McCoy, which produces special conditions.”
Parr also recommended that Monroe County audit their codes and ordinances to be more friendly to green infrastructure. He also suggested that the county require detailed flood data for smaller developments.
Specifically, he recommended that for developments greater than 50 lots or five acres, whichever is less, base flood elevation data should be required for the subdivision and all other proposed development, including manufactured home parks and subdivisions.
He also recommended to Monroe County that they review freeboard requirements in their floodplain ordinance.
In the ‘Soils’ category, Monroe County received a score of 64, and Vernon County received a score of 93.
This category relates to encouraging vegetation to prevent erosion, working with farmers to encourage best management practices, and assessing soils prior to site selection for new development or critical infrastructure.
In the ‘Agricultural Practices’ category, Monroe County received a score of 58, and Vernon County received a score of 67.
This category relates to providing opportunities for farmers to learn about best management practices from municipalities and from each other, monitoring progress and rewarding farmers who adhere to best management practices, and encouraging participation in nutrient management planning.
Institutional
In the ‘Resource Inventory and Mapping’ category, both counties received a score of 55.
This category relates to updating existing floodplain maps, maintaining enforcement of existing floodplain maps, and supplementing existing floodplain maps with other hazard-related maps.
“Since 2000, there have been 102 claims by properties enrolled in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in Vernon County,” Parr said. “You have 23 repetitive loss properties, which is high compared to other counties.”
Both counties were encouraged to increase NFIP participation, and to participate in the ‘Community Rating System,’ which would allow all county residents to receive discounts on their NFIP premiums.
In the ‘Plan Quality and Coordination’ category, both counties received a score of 61.
This category relates to reviewing and updating all community plans to include language about flood resilience.
Parr described the work he has been doing to help counties use the ‘Extreme Event’ game to host tabletop exercises to test your county’s preparedness and response capabilities. He encouraged both counties to consider hosting an exercise in the future.
In the ‘Staff and Technological Capacity’ category, Monroe County received a score of 74, and Vernon County received a score of 95.
This category relates to hiring or training existing staff in floodplain management or emergency management, reaching out to potential regional or national partners, and creation of coalitions and partnerships between staff and residents.
In the ‘Tools’ category, Monroe County received a score of 56, and Vernon County received a score of 59.
This category relates to ‘grey’ infrastructure (built) and ‘green’ infrastructure (natural) to assess the total capacity of the systems to handle the flow of water, and to prioritize projects for flood resilience. It also encourages updating the county’s flood damage prevention ordinance.
In the ‘Implementation and Enforcement’ category, Monroe County received a score of 70, and Vernon County received a score of 67.
This category assesses a county’s ability to determine a clear procedure for assessing flood damage once an event has occurred, and developing long- and short-term goals.
Social
In the ‘Sociodemographic Characteristics’ category, Monroe County received a score of 50, and Vernon County received a score of 67.
This category takes into account the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) social vulnerability index interactive map, and to evaluate where sociodemographical vulnerable populations live within the county.
In the ‘Transportation and Housing’ category, Monroe County received a score of 39, and Vernon County received a score of 65.
Again, counties are urged to review CDC’s social vulnerability index interactive map to assess transportation and housing vulnerability, ensure that all new housing meetings building standards beyond those required by state standards, and analyze roadways to assess limitations on evacuation routes and emergency services.
Parr recommended that Monroe County assess transportation ingress and egress at the one percent and 0.2 percent annual flood chance event level.
In the ‘Health Indicators’ category, Monroe County received a score of 68, and Vernon County received a score of 70.
This category assesses the county’s ability to provide educational flood materials to local public health officials, create an emergency plan for medical facilities and nursing homes before an emergency, and potentially identify new sites for medical facilities closer to identified priority populations.
In the ‘Community Partnerships’ category, Monroe County received a score of 54, and Vernon County received a score of 53.
This category relates to compiling and publicizing a list of community organizations that may provide assistance to their neighbors during and after flood events, create agreements with entities that can function as shelters in an emergency, and create an advisory committee representing priority and underrepresented populations.
In the ‘Education and Outreach’ category, Monroe County received a score of 68, and Vernon County received a score of 91.
This category relates to determining groups to partner with and key messages to promote, creation of a communication plan for use in emergencies, engaging with the public to determine what their concerns are, participating in the National Weather Service’s ‘Storm Ready’ program to guide communications, creation of informational materials for residents, incentivizing homeowners to install green infrastructure or conduct stormwater runoff audits, and assuring that the county’s website is public friendly with clear and obvious links to flood-related resources, maps and plans.
