Flood Plain Management & Hazard Mitigation Task Force Report, August 2008

The Flood Plain Management and Hazard Mitigation Task Force emphasizes the long-term benefits of mitigation and management to the entire state in preventing or reducing damages from floods and other hazards faced in Iowa. Investments in efforts to manage watershed areas and to mitigate any damages from floods or other disaster events benefit individuals, families, communities, agriculture, business and industry, and certainly public entities and infrastructure. The Task Force encourages the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission to balance the immediate needs for rebuilding to include the beginning of the investments required to effectively mitigate future damage and maintain effective policy in Iowa’s watersheds. The significance of the damage seen in Iowa from the tornadoes, storms, and floods of 2008 include the loss of eighteen Iowans in disaster-related events. This alone should inspire investment in mitigation efforts for all hazards. Much of the damage resulting from the disasters can be tied to floodplain management and hazard mitigation, pointing the way toward enhanced efforts and new initiatives to safeguard lives, property, and communities’ economic health. Even so, it must be recognized that the weather events throughout last winter and spring added impetus to the rains and storms that ultimately resulted in record flooding. Some perspective must be maintained as planning progresses and significant investments in mitigation are considered to meet a specific level of safety and protection from future threats. The Task Force identified a number of issues, and four were agreed-upon as those with the highest priority to be addressed by the Task Force through a set of recommendations.

Supplemental Information to the August 2008 Flood Plain Management & Hazard Mitigation Task Force Report, August 2008

The Flood Plain Management and Hazard Mitigation Task Force emphasizes the long-term benefits of mitigation and management to the entire state in preventing or reducing damages from floods and other hazards faced in Iowa. Investments in efforts to manage watershed areas and to mitigate any damages from floods or other disaster events benefit individuals, families, communities, agriculture, business and industry, and certainly public entities and infrastructure. The Task Force encourages the Rebuild Iowa Advisory Commission to balance the immediate needs for rebuilding to include the beginning of the investments required to effectively mitigate future damage and maintain effective policy in Iowa’s watersheds. The significance of the damage seen in Iowa from the tornadoes, storms, and floods of 2008 include the loss of eighteen Iowans in disaster-related events. This alone should inspire investment in mitigation efforts for all hazards. Much of the damage resulting from the disasters can be tied to floodplain management and hazard mitigation, pointing the way toward enhanced efforts and new initiatives to safeguard lives, property, and communities’ economic health. Even so, it must be recognized that the weather events throughout last winter and spring added impetus to the rains and storms that ultimately resulted in record flooding. Some perspective must be maintained as planning progresses and significant investments in mitigation are considered to meet a specific level of safety and protection from future threats. The Task Force identified a number of issues, and four were agreed-upon as those with the highest priority to be addressed by the Task Force through a set of recommendations. Supplemental Information to the August 2008

Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1984

This research consisted of five laboratory experiments designed to address the following two objectives in an integrated analysis: (1) To discriminate between the symbol Stop Ahead warning sign and a small set of other signs (which included the word-legend Stop Ahead sign); and (2) To analyze sign detection, recognizability, and processing characteristics by drivers. A set of 16 signs was used in each of three experiments. A tachistoscope was used to display each sign image to a respondent for a brief interval in a controlled viewing experiment. The first experiment was designed to test detection of a sign in the driver's visual field; the second experiment was designed to test the driver's ability to recognize a given sign in the visual field; and the third experiment was designed to test the speed and accuracy of a driver's response to each sign as a command to perform a driving action. A fourth experiment tested the meanings drivers associated with an eight-sign subset of the 16 signs used in the first three experiments. A fifth experiment required all persons to select which (if any) signs they considered to be appropriate for use on two scale model county road intersections. The conclusions are that word-legend Stop Ahead signs are more effective driver communication devices than symbol stop-ahead signs; that it is helpful to drivers to have a word plate supplementing the symbol sign if a symbol sign is used; and that the guidance in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices on the placement of advance warning signs should not supplant engineering judgment in providing proper sign communication at an intersection.

Addendum to Perception and Interpretation of Advance Warning Signs on County Roads, HR-256, 1985

This contract extension was granted to analyze data obtained in the original contract period at a level of detail not called for in the original contract nor permitted by the time constraints of the original contract schedule. These further analyses focused on two primary questions: I. What sources of variation can be isolated within the overall pattern of driver recognition errors reported previously for the 16 signs tested in Project HR-256? 2. Were there systematic relations among data on the placement of signs in a simulated signing exercise and data on the respondents' ability to detect the presence of a sign in a visual field or their ability to recognize quickly and correctly a sign shown them or the speed with which these same persons can respond to a sign for a driver decision?