Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f --- <br /> <br />Thursday. July 11 <br /> <br />1 :45 p.m.-2:45 p.m. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The Madison County, Virginia Flood of June 1995: <br />An Appalachian Version of the Rapid City <br />and Big Thompson Floods <br /> <br />1. M. Fritsch, George Byran, Ben Cash, Terry Faber, <br />Paul Markowski, Sara Michelson, Michael Pontrelli, 10hn Rozbicki, <br />Perry Shafran, Daniel Thomas, Matt Pearce, and Steve Hoffert <br />Department of Meteorology <br />Penn State University <br /> <br />A ~rological analysis of the Madison County, Virginia fIash flood on 27 June 1995 is <br />presented. The analysis is compared to the conditions that were present during the 9 June 1972 <br />Rapid City and the 31 July 1976 Big Thomp$Oll fIash floods. A brief discussion of how the <br />National Weather Service performed during this event is also presented. <br /> <br />The meteorological analysis reveals that the event occurred in an environment extremely similar <br />to the situations that characterized the Rapid City and Big Thompson floods. Forecasters at the . <br />Virginia National Weather Service Forecast Offices recognized this similarity and issued timely <br />statements and warnings that contributed strongly to minimizing losses. <br /> <br />Nonstructural Hazard Mitigation: <br />An Analysis of Adoption at the Local Level <br /> <br />Pamela R. Pate <br />Department of Geography <br />University of Texas <br /> <br />Considerable variation exists in the number and kind of hazard mitigation measured used by <br />local communities, even those exposed to a similar level of objective risk. In an attempt to <br />explain these differences, a sample of 206 communities in five coastal states was classified using <br />cluster analysis into groups based on the number and kind of nonstructural mitigation measures <br />adopted. This classification was then used to test factors thought by others researchers to be <br />important in determining local adoption of nonstructural mitigation measures. A model of local <br />adoption is presented which focuses on differences in type and extent of hazard, policies <br />available for adoption, and local political realities. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5 <br />